64: Why Some Christians Can’t Let Acts 2:38 Mean What It Says

Welcome to the Ready for Eternity podcast, a podcast and blog dedicated to inquisitive Bible students exploring Biblical truths that might not be fully explored in typical sermons or Bible studies. My name is Eddie Lawrence.

Acts 2 .38 has sparked debate for decades. Today, we'll explore whether theology or grammar drives how people interpret it. In episode 62, we explored the meaning of the Greek preposition ais, used in Acts 2 .38, and found that it consistently points forward to something, never backward.

According to BDAG, the leading Greek lexicon, ais in Acts 2 .38 means for forgiveness of sins or so that sins might be forgiven. No major Greek lexicon defines ais as meaning because or points backward.

BDAG, Mounts, Thayer, and others all agree. They show ais means into, toward, or with a view to, always pointing ahead. It speaks of direction, result, or purpose. This forward-looking sense is consistent throughout the New Testament.

Yet, some scholars argue that ais can be causal, meaning because of, suggesting that baptism in Acts 2 .38 happened because forgiveness had already taken place. In this episode, we'll examine those claims, and in a follow-up episode, we'll evaluate a few of the New Testament passages that are said to support that view.

How Robertson and Manti Read Baptism Through Theology

Two of the most cited defenders of a causal meaning for ais in Acts 2 .38 are A .T. Robertson and Julius Manti. However, both men let theological concerns steer their interpretation rather than follow the Greek text.

Robertson openly admits this. Concerning ais, he writes,.

One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or anyone in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission.

So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned, repented, and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received.

That statement reveals everything. Robertson's interpretation flows not from grammar, but from his belief that baptism cannot be essential to forgiveness. He works backward from his theological assumption about baptism to make the verse conform to that belief.

He says Peter urged baptism because forgiveness had already occurred, though the verse doesn't say that. His conclusion flows from his interpretation, not linguistic analysis. Julius Manti takes a similar approach.

In his book Immanuel Grammar of the Greek New Testament, he writes,.

When one considers in Acts 2 .38 repentance as self-renunciation and baptism as a public expression of self-surrender and self-dedication to Christ, which significance it certainly had in the first century, the expression, For the forgiveness of your sins, may mean for the purpose of the remission of sins.

But if one stresses baptism, without its early Christian import, as a ceremonial means of salvation, he does violence to Christianity as a whole, for one of its striking distinctions from Judaism and paganism is that it is a religion of salvation by faith while all others teach salvation by works.

At first, Manti concedes the natural reading of ICE. He says ICE may mean for the purpose of forgiveness of sins. That agrees with the normal, forward-looking use of ICE. But then he walks it back. He says that to take baptism as a means of salvation does violence to Christianity as.

A whole.

The language suggests fear of doctrinal implications rather than dispassionate linguistic analysis. In both cases, doctrinal bias governs exegesis. Linguistic analysis takes a back seat. This debate over ICE in Acts 2 .38 played out in the Journal of Biblical Literature in the early 1950s.

Julius Manti defended his causal interpretation while Dr. Ralph Marcus responded with a strong rebuttal. Marcus argued that Manti's position lacked grammatical support and relied too heavily on theology.

He showed that Manti's reading did not align with the normal use of ICE in Koine Greek. Most readers would find this exchange between Manti and Marcus to be technical and tedious. Still, it exposed the same issue we've already seen.

Manti's theology shaped the reading more than the grammar did. BDAG cites this debate between Manti and Marcus in its 10th definition of ICE. By pointing readers to Marcus without comment leaves one with the impression that the BDAG editors are skeptical of Manti's view.

Dr. Daniel Wallace, an expert in Biblical Greek, comments on the debate in his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. He notes that Ralph Marcus gave a detailed point-by-point rebuttal to Manti's argument.

Marcus showed that Manti's examples from non-Biblical Greek sources failed to support a causal use of ICE. Wallace concludes that Marcus ably demonstrated that the linguistic evidence for a causal ICE fell short of proof.

Likewise, in a 1996 message to the BeGreek email list, Dr. Edward Hobbs criticized what he called the imaginary causal use of ICE, remarking that it has a short history. He said that Julius Manti introduced the idea in the 1920s, only to be repeatedly refuted by scholars, including Ralph Marcus.

Hobbs emphasized that Marcus had no theological stake in the debate because he was a Jewish scholar with no commitment to any Christian view of baptism. Marcus's neutrality made his critique especially compelling.

Marcus dismantled each of Manti's examples, arguing that Manti misunderstood the Greek and pushed mistranslations. Marcus concluded that if Manti was right, it was for non-linguistic reasons. Hobbs' summary reflects how most later scholars viewed the debate.

Theology, not grammar, was doing the heavy lifting in the causal reading. Dr. Hobbs ends his BeGreek email post by bluntly calling Manti's analysis a fantasy meaning of a Greek preposition. So why does any of this matter and why should we care?

Why Acts 2:38 Matters for Baptism and Forgiveness

At first glance, debates over Greek prepositions don't seem very relevant, but this one matters because it affects how we understand what Peter said on the day of Pentecost. Was baptism something believers did BECAUSE they were already saved?

Or in order to receive salvation? This isn't just a grammar question, it shapes how we respond to the gospel. If ais means because of, then baptism follows forgiveness. If it means for or unto, then the text links baptism to receiving forgiveness.

That distinction influences how we teach, how we obey, and how we invite others to follow Jesus. Bible readers should care because words matter. The Holy Spirit inspired the New Testament in the Greek language, and that language carries meaning we mustn't distort.

A few scholars may disagree, but we should ask, are their conclusions driven by what the text says or by what they already believe? In the case of Acts 2 .38, the best linguistic evidence points in one direction.

Ais looks forward. It does not mean because. That means we should let the text speak clearly without forcing the text to fit our theology. What we really have here is a case of grammar versus creed. We've seen that no standard Greek lexicon supports a causal meaning for ais in Acts 2 .38.

In fact, Manti acknowledged this in the first sentence of his 1951 paper. He said none of the Greek lexicons translate ais as causal. The normal force of ais is forward-looking, into, toward, or with a view to.

This holds across the New Testament and aligns with Peter's words. Scholars who argue for a causal reading do so not because of grammar, but because their denominational creed compels them. A .T. Robertson and Julius Manti made their conclusions based on what they believed baptism could or could not mean, not on how ais actually functions in Greek.

Later scholars like Ralph Marcus, Daniel Wallace, and Edward Hobbes exposed those flaws, showing that the linguistic evidence simply doesn't support a causal interpretation. In the end, both the grammar and the broader theological context point the same direction.

There is no solid linguistic or theological basis for reading ais as because of in Acts 238. The natural, consistent meaning stands. Peter called his audience to repent and be baptized in order to receive the forgiveness of their sins.

As J .C. Davis concluded in his paper on this topic, the whole case for causal ais in Acts 238 and baptism because of the forgiveness of sins is left without real foundation either in Greek grammar or Biblical theology.

Closing and Listener Sign-Off

Thanks for listening to the podcast. We hope this episode has deepened your understanding of Scripture. If you found this content valuable, please share it with your friends. For more Biblical studies, visit our website at ReadyForEternity .com.

That's the word ready, the number four, and the word eternity. ReadyForEternity .com. Be sure and leave a comment on the Ready for Eternity Facebook page or reach out on Twitter. That's all for now.

Keep studying your Bible, growing closer to God, and getting ready for eternity. See you next time.