A Baptist Reflection on Baptism
Part 3 - Peter’s Grammatical Controversy in Acts 2:38 – The Causative “for”

Irby Wallace

August 19, 2025

In my last essay, I established that there was a clear pattern established in the conversion accounts throughout the book of Acts. This pattern was that the Word of God was proclaimed, the Word was believed by the convert, the convert had a repentant heart, and the convert was baptized. That essay was a bird’s eye view approach to scripture to set the standard for how the early church led people to Christ. I believe we should still follow this standard instead of inventing our own methodology. God gave us baptism for various, but modern Baptists have forgotten some of those reasons. In order to recover the biblical case of baptism, we must now focus on the passages surrounding baptism. We will begin where the Church does at Peter’s sermon during Pentecost in Acts 2:38.

Acts 2:38 Controversy

“And Peter said to them, ‘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 conclusion of Peter’s sermon is a matter of great controversy within modern Baptist theology. Peter delivers a hammer of a sermon as he tells the people that they had killed the Messiah by the definite plan of God, but that God had raised Jesus from the dead and made him both “Lord and Christ” (2:36). His words cut them to the heart for they knew they had committed the great act of evil, and they asked the Apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” (2:37). Peter’s response to them was that they should “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” (38). The controversial part of this statement is around whether or not repentance and baptism result in the forgiveness of our sins. For many modern Baptists, this is problematic with their theology and they have developed several “solutions” over the last one hundred years. We will cover one of those solutions in this essay and others in the one to follow.

The Causitive εἰς

The most prevalent way that Baptists handle Acts 2:38 revolves around the meaning of the word “for.” In Greek, the word “for” is “εἰς” (eis) which can be translated as “to, into, toward, so that, for, in order to, at.” This word denotes purpose and has a forward-looking meaning.[1] Therefore, when Peter says to repent and be baptized, the word “for” looks toward their forgiveness of sins as a result of repentance and baptism. In the early 1900s, some Greek scholars began arguing for a different possible meaning of εἰς called the “Causative εἰς.” In this grammatical use the word looks backward toward a cause, thus the word “for,” in this case, means “because of.” Therefore, Acts 2:38 would read, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ because of the forgiveness of your sins.” You can see that this changes the entire meaning of the text. Now the converts would be baptized not in connection to the remission of their sins but because God had already forgiven their sins. They are repenting and being baptized only to show what God has already done within them.

The first mention in history that I have been able to find for this way of reading Acts 2:38 is from 1923 where J.R. Mantey published an article in a magazine called The Expositor (London). This does not mean that there is no one else before 1923 who read Acts 2:38 with a causative meaning of “for,” but I cannot find any evidence that anyone did. If there is no evidence of a causative εἰς before 1923, that means that the entire Christian Church read Acts 2:38 just as our English Bibles translate it for around 1,900 years. That alone does not make the causative εἰς wrong, but it doesn’t build a very compelling case.

Of course, scholars who do not believe baptism has any effectual cause of salvation have latched on to Mantey’s argument for a causative εἰς. One such scholar is the renowned A.T. Robertson. In his book, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Robertson says, “One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not.”[2] He says elsewhere that Acts 2:38 is a passage “where only the context and the tenor of N.T. teaching can determine whether ‘into,’ ‘unto’ or merely ‘in’ or ‘on’ (‘upon’) is the right translation, a task for the interpreter, not for the grammarian.” It is shocking to read such statements from a scholar of Robertson’s caliber. Everyone brings some level of bias to the table when it comes to biblical grammar and interpretation, but the meanings of words are not determined by our beliefs. Applying a causative εἰς to Acts 2:38 seems to be a new interpretation invented in 1923. If someone is going to change the established meaning of a word, they must have surmounting evidence in support of their efforts.

J.R. Mantey and H.E. Dana published A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament in 1928 in which they argue for the causative εἰς. Their support for this translation was given by quoting Mantey’s 1923 article. Below is the full quote from their book:

“When one considers in Ac. 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 εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν may mean for thepurpose 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.

The sentence μετενόησαν εἰς τὸ κήρυγμα Ἰωνᾶ in Mt. 12:41 and Lk. 12:32 is forceful evidence for a causal use of this preposition. What led to their repentance? Of course, it was Jonah’s preaching. Mt. 3:11 furnishes further evidence: Ἐγὼ μὲν ὑμᾶς βαπτίζω ἐν ὕδατι εἰς μετάνοιαν. Did John baptize that they might repent, or because of repentance? If the former, we have no further Scriptural confirmation of it. If the latter, his practice was confirmed and followed by the apostles, and is in full harmony with Christ’s demand for inward, genuine righteousness. In connection with this verse we have the testimony of a first century writer to the effect that John the Baptist baptized people only after they had repented. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, book 18, chapter 5, section 2: ‘Who (John) was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing (with water) would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away of some sins, but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness.’”[3]

The quote from Matthew 12:41 and Luke 11:32[4] is, “The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.” The “at” in the sentence is what Mantey claims as an example of the causative εἰς. It is true that the men at Ninevah repented because of Jonah’s preaching; however, the verse says that they repented “at” his preaching. As in they repented in reference to it, not that it was caused by Jonah’s preaching. Just because both ideas apply to the interpretation of the text does not change the grammatical usage of εἰς in the sentence.

The preposition εἰς appears in the New Testament 1,764 times in 1,507 verses, according to my Logos search. Out of numerous uses of the word, the only evidence that Mantey provides for a causative εἰς are the two times in Matthew and Luke where English translations render “at” and not “because of.” For Mantey, these two examples open the possibility of εἰς being translated in this manner. If it is a possibility, then there is also a possibility that εἰς could be translated like this in the baptism passages. Thus, he applies the causative εἰς to other baptismal passages. One passage is Matthew 3:11 (ESV), “I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” This would also apply to Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3 (ESV), “John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.”

He provides external evidence from the historian Josephus to strengthen his claim around John’s baptism as Josephus says that John’s baptism was “for that the washing (with water) would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away of some sins, but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness.”[5] While Josephus’ statement may be helpful for understanding how John’s baptism was viewed and probably is not too far from my own understanding of Christian baptism, this reference does not provide adequate support for a causative εἰς. Firstly, Josephus does not say that repentance was not part of their baptism, but that John wanted to see evidence of their repentance in their lives before he would baptize them. Josephus is claiming that John did not practice an ex opere operato baptism[6], but one that was accompanied by faith and repentance. This does not take away from their baptism being for their repentance any more than it does in Acts 2:38.

In Mark 1:5, we are told that they “were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins” (ESV). This looks like a baptism of repentance in a comparable way to what we see in the book of Acts with the conversion accounts as an expression of their repentance. In Luke 3, there were some who came to him to be baptized, yet his response was strong as John commanded them to “bear fruits in keeping with repentance” (Luke 3:8, ESV). Baptism was useless for them if they were not already of a repentant heart, but their baptism was still connected to their repentance. One will notice that Josephus says that John’s baptism was for the “purification of the body.” This would still mean that water baptism had some sort of effect upon the recipient which was tied directly to repentance.

Secondly, we find explanations of baptism in other early Christian sources that would support the historical reading of Acts 2:38. Irenaeus proclaims about John’s baptism,

“For the baptism instituted by the visible Jesus was for the remission of sins, but the redemption brought in by that Christ who descended upon Him, was for perfection; and they allege that the former is animal, but the latter spiritual. And the baptism of John was proclaimed with a view to repentance, but the redemption by Jesus was brought in for the sake of perfection.”[7]

Another stamen found in The Epistle of Barnabas about Christian baptism says,

“But let us inquire if the Lord took care to give a revelation beforehand about the water [of baptism] and the Cross. Concerning the water, Scripture says with regard to Israel that they will not receive the baptism that brings forgiveness of sins, but will build for themselves.”[8]

It may be that these early Christian sources contradict Josephus on what baptism actually brings about, and Mantey seems to believe these other views to be of “early Christian import.” We can see clearly that these early Christian sources saw baptism as something toward the forgiveness of sins, but Josephus saw baptism as a purification of the body. Regardless, even if there is a contradiction in the results of baptism, we can say that in these historically references baptism was directly tied to repentance and brought about forgiveness or cleansing around sins in some manner. Josephus’ statement does not provide definite support of a causal translation in any of the discussed baptismal passages unless forced to do so against other early church witnesses.

The evidence offered by Mantey is not strong enough to change the way Acts 2:38 has been read throughout history. Greek scholar, Daniel Wallace, responds to a four-essay debate between Mantey and Ralph Marcus published in the Journal of Biblical Literature from 1951-1952. Wallace agrees that Mantey’s evidence is insufficient,

“In sum, although Mantey’s insticts were surely correct that in Luke’s theology baptism was not the cause of salvation, his ingenious solution of a causal εἰς lacks conviction. There are other ways for us to satisfy the tension, but adjusting the grammar to answer a backward-looking ‘Why?’ has no more basis than the notion that ἀντί ever meant mere representation.”[9]

Internal Problems with a Causative εἰς

Alongside the weakness of the external evidence for a causal εἰς reading of Acts 2:38, this manner of translation causes major theological issues, even for Baptists. If their baptism in the text was “because of the forgiveness” of sins, we must also apply that same idea to their repentance because the phrase “forgiveness of your sins” is also connected to the imperative, “Repent.” This would mean that their sins would have already been forgiven apart from their repentance. To protect from what seems to be a contradiction around baptism and the forgiveness of sins, we create an actual contradiction around repentance and the forgiveness of sins in the New Testament.

Not long after Pentecost, we find Peter preaching again where he says, “Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out” (Acts 3:19, ESV). Elsewhere he says, “God exalted him [Jesus] at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins” (Acts 5:31, ESV). Peter tells Simon, the Magician, “Repent, therefore, of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you” (Acts 8:22, ESV). In Paul’s testimony before King Agrippa, Paul describes the forgiveness of sins coming from repentance, “to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of their sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me” (Acts 26:18, ESV). Just from the book of Acts alone, the causative εἰς creates turmoil between the apostles’ teachings. Jesus meant what He said when he warned that unless you “repent, you will likewise perish” (Luke 13:1-5, ESV).

Those who wish to read Acts 2:38 with a causative εἰς must wrestle with the question, “Can our sins be forgiven apart from repentance?” If you say yes to that question as a Southern Baptist, you contradict the Southern Baptist Faith and Message 2000 which says, “Repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace.”[10] It is true that “with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved,”[11] yet faith is always accompanied by repentance. We are justified by belief but we also find forgiveness through repentance. Is Peter asking them to repent because they have already been forgiven or for the purpose of their sins being forgiven? Could it also be that both are happening in a mysterious way? Regardless of how it works out, the clear scriptural witness is that we are justified by faith but also forgiven through repentance.

How then is this repentance to be expressed so that we can receive the forgiveness of our sins? Because repentance “is a genuine turning from sin toward God,”[12] it is more than a prayer of confession. Repentance is a product of the faith we have in Christ Jesus and the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit. When a convert hears the preaching of the Word, the Holy Spirit works upon their hearts. He regenerates them by the preaching of the Word as stated in the Baptist Faith and Message, “Regeneration is a work of God’s grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin.” This changing of the heart is the fulfillment of God’s promises in passages such as Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Ezekiel 36:25-32. The Spirit illuminates the sinner and “enables men to understand truth”[13] because “the natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.”[14] After this work of the Spirit, the convert then “responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.”[15] 

Our repentance is a product of the working of the Spirit and our faith in Christ; thus, they are intrinsically connected in our hearts. Even though the modern Baptist sees the sinner’s prayer as a salvific expression of our repentance, prayers of confession are only a product of a much deeper reality taking place within our hearts where the Holy Spirit is transforming our entire way of thinking.[16] Peter then ties repentance together with baptism because in the water we are going to God with hearts of repentance for the forgiveness of our sins. The water is the place where our repentance must lead. If repentance is tied to the forgiveness of sins, then according to Acts 2:38, so is baptism. We cannot have one without the other. The washing of the water is the tangible part of the conversion process in which the convert receives with a clear conscience the promise that God has forgiven their sins.[17]

If we change the grammar of Acts 2:38, we take away from the very thing Peter commanded them to do. They were asking how they could be spared from killing the Messiah and Peter tells them what they need to do. Peter follows his statement by saying “save yourselves from this crooked generation” (Acts 2:41, ESV). If we assume that their repentance and baptism were a result of their sins being forgiven, then there would be no reason for Peter to tell them to save themselves. How were they to save themselves? They were to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins. This does not mean that their salvation was caused by repentance and baptism, but it is somehow a integral part of the process.

It is necessary here for me to speak to one last internal argument around the causative εἰς. Some would argue that even the English word “for” can mean “because of.” The times where “for” means “because of” in English are not common at all. The way “for” is used in Acts 2:38 is not one of those times. There is no English-speaking person in the year 2025 who would read Acts 2:38 in English and come away thinking with the understanding that “for” means “because of” without someone else telling them. If you disagree, then go and preach the Gospel to a lost person, but when they ask what they are to do, quote only Acts 2:38 to them the way it is written in English without your commentary. No Baptist evangelist would ever do that. Why? They know that the convert would then assume that their sins are forgiven through repentance and baptism. This is why Andy Woods says that he is “very disappointed in many of our English translations which don’t bring this up.”[18] This is not a minor point. The causative εἰς changes the meaning of the text to such a degree that we must question our English translations. Either modern Baptist theology has a major problem, or the validity of every English translation in history is up for question.

Changing the meaning of scripture is a dangerous game. Even if the causative εἰς is a possibility, it should not be so easily adopted as it has been by Southern Baptists. I know I am standing against one hundred years of Southern Baptist beliefs around this verse, which is laughable compared to the other 1,900 years of church history. As a Southern Baptists, to even claim what I have in this essay is borderline heresy and would be enough to keep me out of most Southern Baptist pulpits. My conscience binds me because the evidence for a causative εἰς in Acts 2:38 is that insufficient. Contrary to what Robertson says, my view of this passage is not dependent on my beliefs around baptism for I have always been a Southern Baptist who did not believe in any saving efficacy around the ordinances. Scripture has changed my doctrine of baptism. We do not automatically become Roman Catholics if we openly admit what Peter clearly says in his sermon. As Dr. Wallace said, there are other ways of working this out that are faithful to entire witness of the New Testament teachings around faith, justification, repentance, baptism, and the forgiveness of sins. Hopefully Mantey’s brave and bold attempt to overcome his theological dilemma will fade into history and be forgotten and we Baptists will discover more of what God has given in his blessed ordinances.

[1] William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 288.

[2] Robertson, Archibald Thomas, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library), 814.

[3] Mantey, J.R., “Unusual Meanings for Prepositions in the Greek New Testament,” Expositor (June 1923), quoted in H.E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1928), 104.

[4] Mantey’s quote references “Luke 12:32,” but this is an error for the author’s intended verse is Luke 11:32.

[5] Dana and Mantey, Manual Grammar, 104.

[6] Ex opere operatum is Latin for “by the work worked.” This is a term used within the Roman Catholic Church to describe how grace is given in baptism. It means that the grace is given when the sign of baptism is performed in a valid manner by a valid priest because the sacrament itself gives grace.

[7] Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies,”The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 345.

[8] Francis X. Glimm, “The Letter of Barnabas,”The Apostolic Fathers, trans. Francis X. Glimm, Joseph M.-F. Marique, and Gerald G. Walsh, vol. 1, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1947), 208.

[9] Wallace, Daniel B., Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 371.

[10] Baptist Faith and Message (BFM) 2000: Article IV., Southern Baptist Convention, accessed August 18,2025, https://bfm.sbc.net/.

[11] Romans 10:9, ESV.

[12] BFM Article IV.

[13] BFM Article II C.

[14] 1 Corinthians 2:14, ESV.

[15] BFM Article IV.

[16] See Romans 12:1-2.

[17] See 1 Peter 3:21. We will explore this passage more in a future essay.

[18] Andy Woods, “Saved by Baptism? (Acts 2:38”), Oct. 1, 2019, YouTube video, 7:00, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNil9nnZdW4.