Defending Water Baptism

[Michael V. Frazier]

This post is a response to the entry for Acts 2:38 in The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, Revised and Expanded, edited by Jerome H. Smith (Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1992, pp. 1234-1235). 

Smith writes,

The English text does not adequately convey the grammar of this verse.  When the grammar is understood, the verse no longer can be used to support any view of baptismal regeneration or baptismal remission of sin.  The phrase "every one of you" is mistakenly understood to be the subject of the verbs "repent" and "be baptized," with the phrase "for the remission of sins" modifying this alleged compound predicate.  There are three clauses in this verse: (1) Ye: understood subject, second person, plural number. repent: verb, aorist tense, active voice, imperative mood, second person, plural number.  (2) every one of you: subject, third person, plural number. be baptized: verb, aorist tense, passive voice, imperative mood, third person, singular number. for the remission of sins: modifying phrase, expressing the ground or basis of the baptism commanded (if understood of ritual water baptism), or the result (if understood of real baptism) of the baptism received. (3) ye: subject, second person, plural number. shall receive: verb, future tense, indicative mood, passive voice, second person, plural number. the gift of the Holy Ghost: direct object of the verb.  Note particularly in the above analysis that the first and third clauses agree with each other in that both are in the second person and plural number for their subject and verb.  The second clause does not agree in person and number of its subject and verb with the preceding or following clause.  This makes it impossible to make "every one of you," which is third person singular, the subject of both "repent" (second person plural) and "be baptized" (third person singular), for subjects and verbs must agree in person and number.  A. T. Robertson observes that this change in person and number "marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve" (Word Pictures, vol. 3, p. 34). Peter thus commanded all in his audience to repent.  Upon repentance, each individual was then to be baptized on the basis that the specific individual's sin had been remitted upon their placing faith upon the name of Jesus Christ.  Since the first and third clauses agree in person and number, the thought is that reception of the Holy Spirit is the consequence of faith upon the name of Christ, not ritual water baptism.

1) First Clause: Ye repent
ye: subject, second person, plural number.
repent: verb, aorist tense, active voice, imperative mood, second person, plural number.

2) Second Clause: every one of you be baptized for the remission of sins
> everyone on of you: subject, third person, singular number.
be baptized: verb, aorist tense, passive voice, imperative mood, third person, singular number.
for the remission of sins: modifying phrase

3) Third Clause: ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost
ye: subject, second person, plural number.
shall receive: verb, future tense, indicative mood, passive voice, second person, plural number.
the gift of the Holy Ghost: direct object of the verb.

Smith's argument is almost identical to E. Calvin Beisner's which I've already dealt with in another response.  Because the subject and verb in the first and third clauses agree with each other (second person, plural), then it can be said that receiving "the gift of the Holy Ghost" follows repentance.  But the second clause's subject/verb agreement is different (third person, singular); thus, "be baptized" cannot be tied in with repentance or receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost.

While the grammar structures that are presented by Smith are valid, the conclusion is forced because of his starting presuppositions.  This is eisegesis of the worst kind, reading into Scripture what is one already believes.  Smith (like Beisner) believes from the onset that baptism is unnecessary in the plan of salvation, so any way the Scripture reads, Smith will automatically interpret it based upon that predetermined belief.  Unless one is willing to lay aside personal prejudices and read the text exegetically, there is no escape from this finality.  What one believes will ultimately influence how one interprets Scripture.

Smith appeals to Robertson's Word Pictures to substantiate his conclusion, but Robertson's actual statement reads: "And be baptized every one of you (kai baptisthētō hekastos hūmōn). Rather, 'And let each one of you be baptized.' Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve. The first thing to do is make a radical and complete change of heart and life. Then let each one be baptized after this change has taken place, and the act of baptism be performed 'in the name of Jesus Christ' (en tōi onomati Iēsou Christou). In accordance with the command of Jesus in Mat_28:19 (eis to onoma)."  When Robertson's full statement is in view, it is easy to see Smith's forced interpretation.

Robertson indicates that the change from second person, plural to third person, singular signifies the importance that each individual must personally "be baptized after this [radical and complete change of heart and life] has taken place."  A literal translation of Acts 2:38 would be: "Repent [ye all] and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye [all] shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."  This is exactly what New Testament, Apostolic believers preach.

Smith, like Beisner, also fails to note the imperative mood in both the first and second clauses' verbs: metanoēsate and baptisthētō. While the former may be second person, plural and the latter third person, singular, they are both in the imperative mood.  The imperative mood is the same as in English.  It expresses a command to perform an action by the order and authority of the one giving the command.  Peter did not say, "Repent and I suggest each of you get baptized."  Neither did he say, "Repent, and it's a good idea for each of you to be baptized."  Peter commanded them both to "repent" and to "be baptized," which doesn't leave room for negotiating.

Lastly, Smith attempts to insinuate that the baptism referenced in Acts 2:38 is "real baptism," i.e., not baptism in water, but baptism in the Spirit. In the same article, Smith writes,

The traditional understanding of this command is that it [baptism] refers to ritual water baptism.  An alternative view is that this is a reference to real baptism by the Holy Spirit.  The correctness of the alternative view is established by the fact that (1) water is not mentioned in the context. (2) The baptism is not "into water" but, literally, upon the name of Jesus Christ. (3) Believing upon Jesus Christ is the ground upon which remission of sins is received. (4) Ritual water baptism is never in Scripture said to secure for us the remission of sins, only real baptism possesses such efficacy. (5) This real baptism takes the penitent sinner out of a state of guilt and places him into (eis) a new state of remission.  This placement is permanent, and can hardly be symbolized by a momentary dipping in water, for the relationship established is permanent (Col 2:12n). (6) Only real baptism by the Holy Spirit can produce the change in condition always marked by the term "baptize" (1 C 10:2n) when the subject is spiritual baptism (p. 1235).

Peter differentiates between being baptized and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit; therefore, it is illogical to think that he was saying, "Repent and be baptized in the Holy Ghost every one of you . . . and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."  The redundancy is absurd.  Since baptism is differentiated from the Holy Spirit, water baptism is the only possibility.  As water baptism is correctly understood from the context, the message of Acts 2:38 is the exact pattern that Peter followed at the house of Cornelius: "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord" (Acts 10:46-47).   Using Scripture to interpret Scripture, we can easily see how invalid Smith's arguments truly are. 

Smith wants to use 1 Corinthian 10:2 to illustrate that spiritual baptism is in view.  This also is forced.  Not everything in the life of the Christian can be spiritualized.  Nevertheless, the Bible does speak of two baptisms, water and the spirit, but also declares that there is "one baptism" (Eph. 4:5).  The only logical conclusion is that the Scripture views both water and Spirit baptism as two elements comprising one effectual whole.  This seems to be the message that Jesus portrays to Nicodemus: "Except a man be born again . . . born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (John 3:3,5).  When water and Spirit baptism are understood together, the other points Smith makes are also easily rebutted.