The other day, Meredith posted this comment on the post about Mark 1:1-8 in which Mark is talking about John the Baptist:

Would you comment on the passages of scripture here and in Acts 2:38, and the many that don’t have the phrase “for the remission of sin.” There is a huge divide in some denominations over baptism.

Thank you Meredith, even though my first reaction was not to get into the quagmire again, I’ve thought it over, and that is a very reasonable request, and it is also an interesting point. There has certainly been a lot of heated exchanges over the years on this point, including some impassioned comments on this blog. Before I get on with the subject, please be advised that I don’t debate any more, yes, I’m a recovering debater, so you shouldn’t tempt me if you don’t like my answer, OK group?

Excellent, so here I go:

The verse in question from Mark is 1:4…

And so John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

Also referenced by Meredith was Acts 2:38…

Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

The “divide” is really over whether baptism is an “essential” for salvation, which is to say that it is required in order for a person to be saved by the blood of Christ. A great many, primarily within the Evangelical community would say that baptism is a response rather than an essential, that we respond to our having been saved with baptism as a testimony of our faith… and in some cases, that it is how you join our church congregation as a “Member.” If you want to know what I think, I would direct you to a previous post: Why I don’t debate any more.

To keep the word count reasonable, I think I’ll refine my comments here to just a few verses and focus on the phrase “for the forgiveness of sins.” If you are actually in a formal debate on the subject, you will sooner or later debate the meaning of the word “for”; it is crucial. The one side will say that “for” means “into” and the other side will assert that it means “because”.  Here’s the key: if you leave the discussion to English, you can’t resolve the question of the meaning of “for”. Amazing, isn’t it? Yet, in English, “for” can have either meaning. Consider these examples:

“I want to go home, for I am tired.”  This sentence clearly uses “for” to mean “because”. Now try this one: “I want to sit down, for I must rest my feet.” Here “for” means “into” or “in order to”. It’s really hard to rest your feet while standing up!

If you believe that baptism happens as a response to salvation and is a testimony, but is not essential for salvation, then you will assert “for” means “because”. No power in heaven or on earth is going to change your mind.  If you see it the other way, then “for” means “into” and the same applies… unless you consider the original Greek!

In both of the verses above, the Greek word that is translated “for” is eis. (G1519) It means into,  unto,  to, towards, for, among. This is the same word used in Acts 2:38. You might also take a look at Matt. 26:28…

This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Look! In this verse, there are two fors! “For the forgiveness of sins” is our pal eis again, and it’s looking very much like eis is  “into”, unless Jesus shed His blood because sins had already been forgiven… oh and the Greek definition supports this… but what about the first “for”? The first one, “for many” is peri (G4012) which means about, concerning, on account of, because of, around, near.  So we could paraphrase the verse this way: “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured because of many, into forgiveness of sins.”

Dear reader, Greek has more than one word for our English word “for” just like it has multiple words for other English words, and maybe that’s one of the reasons that the New Testament was originally written in Greek…

Now dear reader, I am more than experienced enough to know that this isn’t going to change your mind if you want “for” to mean “because” in Acts 2:38 and anywhere else you need it to mean that; this is one reason I don’t debate any more. For the record, I’m not even trying to change your mind, I’m simply addressing a n honest and fair question, and what you decide to do with the answer is up to you: Take it or leave it… and I’ll see you next time!