|
In Acts 2:38, Peter says, "Repent, and be baptized
every one of you…for the remission of sins." To the unbiased
reader, the meaning is clear: repenting and being baptized is necessary
for the remission of sins. However, there are those in the religious
world who do not like baptism. Thus, they try all kinds of ways
to explain away the clear meaning of Acts 2:38. A prime example
of this is found in the eBible computer program (Thomas Nelson Publishers
2004). After giving James Strong's definition for the Greek preposition
eis (gÆH), the word translated "for" in Acts 2:38
(KJV), it says,
Additional Information…."For" (as used in Acts
2:38 "for the forgiveness…") could have two meanings.
If you saw a poster saying "Jesse James wanted for robbery,"
"for" could mean Jesse is wanted so he can commit a
robbery, or is wanted because he has committed a robbery. The
later sense is the correct one. So too in this passage, the word
"for" signifies an action in the past. Otherwise, it
would violate the entire tenor of the NT teaching on salvation
by grace and not by works.
Three Classic Errors
The above statement reflects three glaring, classic
errors. First, there is the classic "comparing apples with
oranges." The Greek word eis (gÆH) is what is under consideration,
NOT the English word "for." Yes, it may be true that our
English word "for" can be used in two senses as per the
"Jessie James" illustration, but such is not the case
with the Greek word eis (gÆH). Strong correctly defines the
word, "into, unto, to, towards, for, among." If the Greek
word eis (gÆH) meant "because of," then why do none
of the major translations have "because of the remission of
sins" in Acts 2:38? Even the liberal NIV translates it "for
the forgiveness of your sins"!
Second, there is a classic example of "begging
the question" (i.e. circular reasoning). After explaining the
Jesse James poster, notice the statement in the quote, "The
later sense [that eis (gÆH) means 'because of'] is the correct
one." What proof did he offer? Even if eis (gÆH) could
have the two meanings described (which I deny), what proof did the
author give that it means "because of" rather than "for
the purpose of"?
Third, there is the classic misunderstanding of the
relationship between grace and works. Note the last sentence in
the quote, "Otherwise, it would violate the entire tenor of
the NT teaching on salvation by grace and not by works." "Grace"
and "works" are not mutually exclusive. The fact that
we are "saved by grace" does not rule out the fact that
we have a response to make toward God. Paul says, "For by grace
are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the
gift of God: 9Not of works, lest any man should boast" (Eph.
2:8-9). "Grace" is God's part; "faith" is our
part. Interestingly, Paul goes on to say that we are God's "WORKmanship,
created in Christ Jesus unto good WORKS, which God hath before ordained
that we should walk in them [i.e. good WORKS]" (Eph. 2:10,
emphasis mine). The works that are excluded are the works of the
Law of Moses (Gal. 3:10-12), the works of human boasting (Eph. 2:9),
and the works of human righteousness (Tit. 3:5). However, there
are works that are included for salvation (Jas. 2:14-26; Phil. 2:12).
In fact, Jesus said that believing in Him is a "work"
(Jn. 6:28-29)!
The True Meaning of "For" Is Certain
The irrefutable proof that "for the remission
of sins" in Acts 2:38 means "toward," or "for
the purpose of," and not "because of," is clearly
seen when compared with other expressions which, for all practical
purposes, are identical with the expression under consideration
in Acts 2:38. The following verses all use the Greek preposition
eis (gÆH) with the same Greek words translated "for the
remission of sins."
Luke and Mark say that John the Baptist preached the
baptism of repentance "for the remission of sins" (Lk.
3:3; Mk. 1:4). Did John preach because they already had forgiveness
of sin? If so, then he was preparing the way for Jesus in vain!
When Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper, He said,
"For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for
many for the remission of sins" (Mt. 26:28). Jesus instituted
the Lord's Supper on the night He was betrayed (1 Cor. 11:23). Did
Jesus shed His blood because we already had forgiveness of sins?
If so, then Jesus died in vain!
Paul said that God sent Jesus as the "propitiation"
(means by which sin is removed) to declare God's righteousness "for
the remission of sins" that were committed under the Old Testament
(Rom. 3:25). Was Jesus the "propitiation" because the
people who sinned under the Old Testament already had the forgiveness
of sins (cf. Heb. 9:15)? If so, Jesus died in vain!
Not even the most biased person would say that "for
the remission of sins" in the verses above (Mt. 26:28; Mk.
1:4; Lk. 3:3; Rom. 3:25) means "because of." Why then
would they think that "for the remission of sins" in Acts
2:38 means "because of"? Could it be that they do not
want to accept the plain Biblical meaning of Acts 2:38?
©Brian Kenyon
|
