Ask the Professor, Dr. Jack Cottrell

About Acts 2:38

QUESTION #1: I have seen the view that Acts 2:38 does not connect forgiveness of sins with baptism, but only with repentance. The argument was based on the difference between the forms of the imperatives. Can you explain this? Is there any validity to the argument?

ANSWER: I have seen this argument several times. It is an example of how a blind commitment to the Zwinglian “faith only” doctrine can lead to a completely irrational distortion of New Testament texts that relate baptism to salvation. In this case the argument attempts to separate baptism from forgiveness through a blatantly faulty analysis of the Greek forms in this verse.

The first time I saw this argument was in a little booklet by Cal Beisner titled “Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation.” Here he gives this interlinear translation of the Greek:

Metanoesate kai baptistheto hekastos humon You (plural) repent and be baptized each one of you e p i t o o n o m a t i I e s o u C h r i s t o u i n t h e n a m e o f J e s u s C h r i s t eis aphesin ton hamartion humon. for (the) remission (of the) sins of you (plural).

The argument begins with Beisner noting that the verb “repent” is plural, and that the word “your” (humon, “of you”) in “for the remission of your sins” is also plural. (Beisner inserts “plural” at these points.) But, he says, the verb “be baptized” is singular: “Let each one [hekastos] be baptized.” Beisner concludes, “This makes it clear that ‘remission of your (plural) sins’ is the result of ‘you (plural) repenting,’ not of “each one (singular) being baptized.’”

John MacArthur agrees that this is a proper interpretation. “Support for that interpretation comes from the fact that ‘repent’ and ‘your’ are plural, while ‘be baptized’ is singular, thus setting it off from the rest of the sentence [as parenthetical]. If that interpretation is correct, the verse would read ‘Repent (and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ) for the forgiveness of your sins.’ Forgiveness is thus connected with repentance, not baptism.” (This is from a letter from MacArthur shared with me by Don Wallace, spring 2001.)

I am amazed that this argument is taken seriously by intelligent people, who seem to deliberately ignore the fact that the singular verb “be baptized” is emphatically pluralized by the words that immediately follow: hekastos humon, “each one OF YOU” (plural). True, the verb “be baptized” is grammatically singular because its immediate subject is “each one” (hekastos), but the addition of the plural “of you” (humon) clearly shows that the application of this verb is intended to be plural. It is the exact same plural word (humon) used in the phrase “remission of your (plural) sins.” Beisner, of course, chooses not to insert his explanatory “(plural)” after the first humon, because this would just call attention to the weakness of this argument. (See John 7:53 for a similar combination of a plural verb with a singular hekastos.) The only reason for ignoring the obvious is a blind commitment to the “faith only” paradigm.

Ask the Professor, Dr. Jack Cottrell
Dr. Cottrell is a professor of Theology at Cincinnati Bible Seminary and has served there since 1967.
Restoration Herald; April 2013

Ask the Professor, Dr. Jack Cottrell

See also “Answering a false interpretation of Acts 2:38: https://jackcottrell.com/answering-a-false-interpretation-of-acts-238/

QUESTION #2: Someone told me that the NIV translation of Acts 2:38 clearly shows a connection between baptism and the forgiveness of sins, but my copy does not seem to do that. What’s the deal here?

ANSWER: In the original version of the NIV (1973), Acts 2:38a was translated thus: “Peter replied, ‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ so that [eis] your sins may be forgiven.’” Here the Greek word eis is given its natural meaning, “so that, in order that, for the purpose of.” This does indeed connect baptism with the forgiveness of sins.

However, in the next edition of the NIV (1978) this was changed to the following: “Peter replied, ‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for [eis] the forgiveness of your sins.’” Here eis is translated with the more neutral word, “for.” This has caused me two-fold wonder. I have wondered (been amazed, marveled) that the original translators had the courage to do it right to begin with! Then I have often wondered (in the sense of “I wish I knew”) how many calls and letters the translators and publisher received from the “faith only” folks complaining about the original version and demanding a change.

David Willis tells the story of his meeting the NIV editor Kenneth Barker and asking him about this change. Dr. Barker conceded that the original language clearly indicates a causative relationship between baptism and remission of sins, but they changed the wording in the verse (in subsequent editions) because, “my theology won’t allow that interpretation.” To which Willis replied: “I always thought the Bible was supposed to determine one’s theology, rather than one’s theology determining the Bible.” (I am not sure whether this was spoken directly to Barker or was just a later reflection. In any case, I do not have a rejoinder from Barker.)

Willis offers this reflection upon the episode: “It was pretty funny because Barker knew the late Lewis Foster [CCU professor and one of the NIV translators] and spoke well of him. He also asked if I was from the church of Christ! It was pretty funny because I was still wet behind the ears and yet this scholar conceded openly as to why they changed Acts 2:38 in the NIV revision. I love to point this out and still keep a copy around of the first NIV

Ask the Professor, Dr. Jack Cottrell
Dr. Cottrell is a professor of Theology at Cincinnati Bible Seminary and has served there since 1967.
Restoration Herald; April 2013

See also “Acts 2:38 in the NIV; https://jackcottrell.com/acts-238-in-the-niv/