Abstract:  In an earlier version of this page, I wrote, that A.T. Robertson was apparently the first to suggest that the Greek phrase in Acts 2:38 should be translated as "because your sins are forgiven" instead of the more usual "for the forgiveness of your sins".  However, I have since been referred to an internet link to a 19th Century article  from Volume IV of Lard's Quarterly which indicates that the American Baptist scholar, Dr. John A. Broaddus proposed a similar (if not identical) view in the mid-1800's.   Based on this article, Dr. Broaddus' view seems to have first publically appeared in The Religious Herald in Greenville, South Carolina in 1867.  The article was responded to by J. W. McGarvey who observed that it was the first time he had encountered such an argument.  Other sources easy to locate on the internet indicate that Dr. Broaddus had been writing articles critical of the Campbell-Stone movement since the 1830's.  If the indicated links become broken, please notify me and I will provide an alternate link.  Likewise, if anyone can discover a presenter of this idea earlier than Dr. Broaddus, please notify me.

Since Dr. Broaddus's view is so similar to Robertson's, but since Robertson and his Word Pictures is perhaps more widely known, the comments below will address Robertson's presentation rather than Broaddus'.  The reader is strongly advised to examine Broaddus' analysis preserved in Lard's Quarterly.  McGarvey's responding critique, which follows Broaddus' explanation, appears fatal, but I have Evangelical person's merely shrugging off what McGarvey wrote.  This reaction is indicative of major hermeneutical ignorance and brainwashing.  It is my hope that the few additional notions I have included below may serve to open the minds of those who yet retain a spirit of honor and integrity.

Being totally hostile to the notion that any action of ours could be "sacramental", i.e. could result in the forgiveness of sins, Roberston went to great lengths to further establish his doctrine.  However, if he had been reading the text in the Peshitta (the Aramaic translation of the Greek New Testament) instead of English, he would not have been able to even suggest such an alternative!  Nor, if he knew what is now known about Hebrew idioms would he have been able to suggest comparing Acts 2:38 with Matt 3:11.  These facts demonstrate that, Greek scholar though he supposedly was, his private theological and soteriological views led him astray.  And through him and his students, many others have unwittingly followed.

Some advice...

Note:  In order to view Greek words clearly on this page, please download and install this TTF Greek font .

About Baptismal Regeneration
Let me say in preface that, considering nearly twenty centuries of historical statements, plus many personal discussions, I have never encountered any writer or speaker who believed, taught, preached or interpreted the scriptures to mean that baptism by itself--apart from prior faith, repentance and confession--brought about or effected the remission of sins, the regeneration of the believer, an entry into Jesus Christ or his body (the Church), or any other blessing.  (I have heard rumors of a rare missionary or two in India who taught such things, but have been unable to personally verify the rumor.)  However, this very thing--this false concept--is exactly what certain Baptists and Evangelicals have, since the 19th Century, accused others of believing and teaching, even calling them a "cult".  This misrepresentation and misleading slander hardly honors the accusers!  (Such an accusation, though on other grounds, was also made by Calvin against the Roman Catholics.)  It is highly significant that the AnteNicene Fathers were not a bit shy of frequently using the word "regeneration" in connection with baptism.  When we seek to remember the content of the faith that was once for all given to the saints we would do well to discover what the early Church actually taught.

Repudiation of the Traditional Interpretation
From about 1867 there has been a divergent interpretation of the Holy Spirit's words spoken through Peter, recorded at Acts 2:38.  That divergent view was, as far as I have been able to determine, first issued by Dr. John A. Broaddus, and then by A.T. Robertson in his Word Pictures of the New Testament in the 1930's.  Robertson was an American Baptist and most of those who have repeated his words and supported his interpretations have been American Baptists, or those instructed by such.  On the other hand, most major Greek grammarians, lexicographers or commentaries have scoffed at and rejected his interpretations.  The divergent view under consideration emphatically denies, and attempts to refute on grammatical grounds, the traditional and orthodox, so-called, "sacramental" interpretation.

Robertson was eventually the instructor of two Baptist students, Dana and Mantey who, about 1950, published a grammar of the Greek New Testament.  The most distinctive item about this grammar is that it fully repeats the second of the two propositions Robertson asserted.  Many others have since written and published articles and books containing the same matter.  Here then are Robertson's  propositions from Vol. 3.^[1].
 

Proposition #1 answered.
Purely on grammatical grounds, Robertson's assertions are clearly fabricated for ulterior reasons not related to the text itself.  He fails--as do those who parrot him^[2].--to mention the fact that the "you" immediately following the command given to "each one" to "be baptized" is plural ("...each one of YOU).  Grammatically, it makes perfect sense to have the person and number shift from 2nd plural to 3rd singular and back again, because the subject "each one" (ekastov) is itself 3rd person singular.  Peter is simply addressing the crowd as a whole, then each individual within the crowd as parts of the whole.  This is nothing special and is quite common in normal English usage as well, especially in making public speeches before large audiences.  To claim that the shift in person and number indicates the introduction of a parenthetical idea is to set a translational  precedent which is unnecessary in the Greek and hardly, if ever, to be found in the various translations of the Greek into numerous languages.  More will be said about this below.  More seriously, Robertson's proposition completely ignores (or destroys) the normal, conjunctive use of  kai.  Even in English, "and" joins two ideas; it seldom separates them!  Robertson confirms this in his comment on Matt 3:11 where he quotes McNeile, "Spirit and fire are coupled [joined] with one preposition, as a double baptism."  Similarly, one must ask, why do Robertson and his followers seek to rearrange the word order (syntax) only of passages that involve baptism?  (e.g. Matt 26:28)

Robertson's Proposition #2.
Because our remission of sins and salvation is based solely on our faith in what God's grace accomplished by Christ's shed blood, then it is wrong to think that the act of being baptized has any effect or result attached to it at all.  Therefore, it makes better sense to translate the phrase in Acts 2:38 as "be baptized because your sins are forgiven."  [underlined emphases supplied]

Proposition #2 answered.
     It is clear from Robertson's phrasing that he has formed a conclusion before he examined the grammar, and then formed his grammatical explanation to agree with his soteriology.  In other words, he has practiced isogesis instead of exegesis. This is nothing very new, since many famous writers and preachers have done the same, especially since the days of  Jerome and Augustine.  Robertson's repudiation of over 1800 years of Church exposition is really based on a perceived conflict between Faith and Reason, between Spirit and Matter and between Grace and Obedience.  It is further based on Augustine's and Calvin's theology and soteriology which stated that Man can have NO part at all in his salvation; that God has to do EVERYthing.  It's too bad (for them) that the scriptures--not to mention ALL the Fathers before the 4th Century and quite a few afterward--wrote the opposite.
     Robertson wrote that, how one understands the Holy Spirit's words in Acts 2:38 depends on whether you "look at it from the standpoint of sacramental or of evangelical theology".  Partly, this is true, but it should not be so.  How one understands it should be based on the consistent teaching of the Church from the beginning (once given) until now.  To abandon traditional doctrine (e.g. a sacramental view of baptism or of the Eucharist) because it disagrees with our understanding, is to commit the opposite mistake of the Roman church.  By "sacramental" Robertson means the ancient idea that a particular action can result in bringing peace between an angry god and whomever the god is angry at.  Thus, the throwing of a young virgin female into the mouth of a threatening volcano was thought to ward off an eruption.  Likewise, the shedding of a particular animal's blood was believed capable of inducing God to forgive the offending person who made the sacrifice. (And, even Evangelicals and Baptists teach that by "confessing with the mouth the Lord Jesus" one will be saved.  Rom 10:9 - actually, a baptismal passage!)   By associating this idea with the view termed sacramental, Robertson also distinguishes it from that of Evangelical theology.  Robertson understands "evangelical" to apply to a view which is basically Augustinian and Calvinistic.  No action of Man can pertain to his salvation, even when that action is commanded by God and is promised by God to result in one or more blessings when the believer obeys.  Thus, evangelicals believe and teach that some other explanation must be found and given than has been given for more than 1800 years.  Some "new" truth must be "recovered" and established to be the genuine doctrine "once and for all given to the saints".  Unfortunately for them, that "new" truth is unable to rationally explain away all the Fathers' consistent and unified statements about baptism.  Nor can they point to a single instance in the writings of the early Church where their "new" truth was expressed or believed.  It simply isn't there to be found, let alone remembered!  Ironically, both Augustine and Calvin, whom Evangelicals turn to so often as definitive, held a sacramental view of baptism!

     Robertson generated yet another false trail when he sought to establish his grammatical explanations by appeal to other scriptures with similar constructions, and by boldly assuring the reader that there are a multitude of such other instances both in and outside the Bible.  Both he and his followers appeal principally to Matt 12:41 where the citizens repented at the preaching of Jonah.  Supposedly, this means they repented because of  Jonah's preaching.  But Robertson's argument is based on a translation!!!  There is no evidence that the Greeks interpreted  eiv-plus-a-noun in an explanatory or causal way.  And, in spite of his claim that there are many other examples to support his view, he only lists one other verse--Matt 10:41 (though his followers frequently add Matt 3:11).  Contrasted with Robertson's two examples in (English) scripture (to which he hoped to add Acts 2:38), there are hundreds of examples expressing purpose or result--without even needing to consider writings outside the Bible.  To be fair, Robertson acknowledges this other possible interpretation, but does so in such a way as to suggest that it is very much in the minority.  But, eiv generally has the meaning of "movement into".  Thus, we find it frequently used in connection with someone "entering" a city or a house.  Therefore, it would be quite normal to translate the phrase of 12:41 as:  "they repented into Jonah's preaching" or more smoothly:  "they turned into Jonah's preaching" which is similar to when we say: "we turned into the main road."  Acts 2:38 could just as easily be translated as:  "be immersed...into the remission of sins".  True, in English we reason that if Jonah hadn't first preached, the Ninehvites would not have repented, leading us  to a causal relationship, but Matthew's grammar, and the use of eiv, is not explaining what prior event caused the Ninehvites to repent, but is describing to what they turned.  Likewise, the Holy Spirit through Peter is not explaining to what prior event (water) baptism testifies, but is describing to what the people were to be immersed.
     Robertson's appeal to Matt 10:41 is also bogus, though he himself may not have realized this.  The phrase "receive...in the name of..."  is a direct rendering of a Hebrew idiom. The idiom, as used in Hebrew documents, cannot be interpreted as Robertson attempts: "receive...because of the fact that one is..." (a prophet, a disciple, etc.).  Apparently, Robertson did not study Hebrew and Rabbinical texts to the same extent as Greek New Testament texts.  What excuse can his followers proffer?

Note:   The Anglican confession that baptism is "an outward sign of an [already existing] inward grace" is a formulation due primarily to Calvin in order to justify infant baptism and to support his Augustinian view of how God saves us.

Other Parallel Scriptures and Theological Consequences
To very briefly demonstrate Robertson's bias, and to consider the consequences of using Robertson's method, let us consider the following passages where the exact same phrase as in Acts 2:38 is to be found.  The Westcott and Hort Greek text shall be used since it is generally accepted by most evangelicals.  However, in these verses there is hardly any variation with other prepared texts.

In all four instances below, the phrase eiv afesin amartiwn  ("to" or "towards" or "into the forgiveness of sins") occurs.

* Mk 1:4; Lk 3:3  - baptisma metanoiav eiv afesin amartiwn
In Mk 1 & Lk 3 we are presented with John's baptism (a noun) "of repentance" (GCF).  Following Robertson then, John's baptism of repentance was because of their sins already being forgiven.  Odd that John doesn't seem to think that to be the case at Luke 3:7!

* Lk 24:47  - metanoian eiv afesin amartiwn
In Lk 24, we again find the same phrase.  This is a favorite verse of American Baptists who follow Robertson's lead.  In most English translations, it is common to find an "and" joining repentance AND forgiveness, but in the WH text it is missing.  However, following Robertson, the meaning becomes, "the good message of repentance because of  the forgiveness of sins shall be proclaimed."  (What???!  Faith or Belief is not needed?  Only repentance?)  Notice however, that Jesus states that this message (which does not include mention of baptism in Jesus' version) will be proclaimed beginning at Jerusalem.  It is certainly important to look at the contents of the message that actually began the proclamation at Jerusalem!  It can of course be found in Acts 2:38ff. - metanohsatekai baptisyhtw (ekastov umwn en tw onomati ihsou cristou) eiv afesin twn amartiwn umwn

* Mt 26:28  - ekcunnomenon eiv afesin amartiwn
Now we come to the third and most fatal example (for Broaddus, Robertson, and their followers).  Instead of baptism or repentance being singled out as the "means of" (=>Sacramental) or the "witness to" (=>Evangelical) the forgiveness of sins, we find Jesus specifying the "pouring out" of his life's blood.  Consistently following Robertson's method, this then becomes, "...my blood...poured out because of the forgiveness of sins.  In other words, before Jesus shed his blood on Calvary, the sins "of many" were already forgiven!  His blood being poured out (passive voice, just like "be baptized") was to testify to that fact.  Surely this undermines the whole history of New Testament and Christian teaching on salvation!  It also rather demeans Jesus' sacrifice!  Obviously, it is not too strange to understand why Robertson and his followers refrain from applying their method to this passage.  But if Jesus' blood was "poured out for (the purpose of) the forgiveness of sins"  then by the same identical wording and grammar, believers should "be baptized...for (the purpose of) the forgiveness of" their sins.

We discover then, that Robertson's secret to determine how the grammar of a particular passage is to be translated is based not on established grammatical principles, or even on the teaching "once and for all given" but on one's prior notions of what the text ought to say.

The Final Proof:
 

Peshitta  (Jacobite and Nestorian)			Greek  (Westcott & Hort)
	Said to them Simon You repent and dip (plunge, bathe, wash) each one of you in name  of the Lord  Yeshua (Jesus) for the forgiveness  of the sin  in order that you might     receive the gift  of the spirit the holy			So Peter  [said] to them You repent and you be baptized each one of you in the name of Jesus Christ into forgiveness of the sins of you (your) and you shall receive the gift of the holy spirit
Latin  (Vulgate) Petrus vero ad illos paenitentiam inquit agite et baptizetur unusquisque vestrum in  nomine Iesu Christi in remissionem peccatorum vestrorum et accipietis donum Sancti Spiritus Peter truly to them, Repent (do penance) he said, Go and be baptized each one of you, in  name of Jesus Christ, for forgiveness of sins of you (your), and you will receive gift of Holy Spirit.

The Peshitta text shown above represents the two best manuscripts and shows a translation of Acts 2:38 into Aramaic.  The various Peshitta manuscripts we have date from between the 3rd to the 7th Centuries a.d.  This is long enough after the founding of the Church so that major doctrinal disturbances would have been resolved, especially on such a basic "milk" teaching like baptism.  The same is true for the 4th Century Vulgate translation.  But both versions are early enough that we can be fairly confident they accurately represent a knowledge of the Greek language.  Although Latin gradually replaced Greek for official purposes, Greek continued to be the common language for quite some time.  It is far more likely that the scholars of the 3rd Century and later understood Greek grammar much more clearly than the linguists of the 19th and 20th Centuries.

Therefore, it is ultimately significant (and fatal for Robertson's analysis) to find that the Vulgate clearly renders the text according to traditional standards:  eiv indicates purpose and result (or goal).  Not only is this sufficient in itself to settle the matter, but the Peshitta goes further, nailing the coffin lid shut.  The Aramaic grammatical form used by the Peshitta translators is absolutely emphatic that being baptized is for (the purpose of obtaining) the forgiveness of sins.  The prefix used in the Aramaic cannot be translated in any other way!

_________________
¹ Robertson's own words:
"And be baptized every one of you" (kai baptisyhtw ekastov umwn). 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 tw onomati Ihsou Cristou). In accordance with the command of Jesus in Matthew 28:19 (eiv to onoma). No distinction is to be insisted on between eiv to onoma and en tw onomati with baptizw since eiv and en are really the same word in origin.  In Acts 10:48 en tw onomati Ihsou Cristou occurs, but eiv to onoma in Acts 8:16; Acts 19:5.  The use of onoma means in the name or with the authority of one as eiv onoma prophtou (Matthew 10:41) as a prophet, in the name of a prophet.  In the Acts the full name of the Trinity does not occur in baptism as in Matthew 28:19, but this does not show that it was not used.  The name of Jesus Christ is the distinctive one in Christian baptism and really involves the Father and the Spirit.  See on "Mt 28:19" for discussion of this point. "Luke does not give the form of words used in baptism by the Apostles, but merely states the fact that they baptized those who acknowledged Jesus as Messiah or as Lord" (Page).

"Unto the remission of your sins" (eis afesin twn amartiwn umwn). This phrase is the subject of endless controversy as men look at it from the standpoint of sacramental or of evangelical theology.  In themselves the words can express aim or purpose for that use of eiv does exist, as in 1 Corinthians 2:7 eiv doxan hmwn  [for our glory]. But then another usage exists which is just as good Greek as the use of eiv for aim or purpose.  It is seen in Matthew 10:41 in three examples eiv onoma profhtou, dikaiou, mayhtou where it cannot be purpose or aim, but rather the basis or ground, on the basis of the name of prophet, righteous man, disciple, because one is, etc. It is seen again in Matthew 12:41 about the preaching of Jonah (eivto khrugma Iwna). They repented because of (or at) the preaching of Jonah. The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koine‚ generally (Robertson, Grammar, p. 592). 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 any one 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. The gift of the Holy Ghost (thn dwrean tou agiou pneumatov). [Back]

² A Typical Example:
A paricular website (http://answers.org/wwwboard2/2265.html) relates the following excerpt: