That’s a classic misunderstanding of the Greek preposition
“εἰς” (eis) in
Acts 2:38 — a key verse often debated in baptismal-regeneration discussions. Blue155 is arguing that “for” (
eis aphesin hamartiōn)
cannot mean “because of,” but that’s not linguistically accurate. Actually, the Greek preposition
“εἰς” (eis) is flexible — it can mean
“for,” “into,” “unto,” or even
“because of” depending on context. It’s used that way in several passages:
- Matthew 12:41 — “They repented at (eis) the preaching of Jonah,” meaning because of his preaching, not in order to obtain it.
- Romans 10:10 — “With the heart man believeth unto (eis) righteousness,” showing a result or evidence of what already exists, not the cause of it.
In
Acts 2:38, the structure links
repentance and
remission of sins, while
baptism follows as the outward sign of that inward reality. Peter’s message matches the same order seen throughout Acts — faith first, forgiveness next, baptism afterward (Acts 10:43–48; Ephesians 1:13).
So “εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν” can legitimately be rendered “because of the remission of sins” — not
to obtain it. The grammar allows it; the broader context confirms it.
Grace and peace.
The claim that “εἰς (eis)” means “because of” is linguistically and contextually false in Acts 2:38. Greek scholars overwhelmingly agree that “because of” is not the meaning in Acts 2:38.
Even lexicons cited by those who hold this view (like Thayer, BDAG, or Robertson) never list “because of” as a normal rendering of eis in relation to remission, forgiveness, or salvation. Why? Because eis normally points forward, not backward — it means into, toward, resulting in, or for the purpose of. In Acts 2:38, the phrase εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν means unto the remission of sins — looking forward to the goal or result of repentance and baptism.
Matthew 12:41 does not prove “because of.” “They repented at (eis) the preaching of Jonah.”
This is not “because of,” but rather “in response to” or “on the basis of” — it points to the object that produced the response, not the reason it already happened.
Even if we granted “because of” in that verse (which is debatable), that would be a rare idiomatic use — and it cannot override the consistent forward-pointing use of eis in passages about salvation.
Romans 10:10 actually confirms the forward sense. “With the heart man believes unto (eis) righteousness.”
That doesn’t mean because of righteousness. It clearly means resulting in righteousness. Belief precedes and leads to righteousness. It shows eis looking forward to a result, not backward to a cause.
The conjunction “and” (kai) in Acts 2:38 grammatically links repentance and baptism together before remission.
Peter said: “Repent and be baptized every one of you for (eis) the remission of sins.”
If “for” means “because of,” then they would have had remission of sins before repentance too, since repentance and baptism share the same for.
That’s impossible. No one receives forgiveness before repentance (cf. Luke 13:3; Acts 3:19).
Therefore, eis cannot mean “because of.”
Peter’s later statement in Acts 3:19 clarifies the same concept.
“Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.” That is the same idea as Acts 2:38 — repentance and conversion/baptism in order that sins may be forgiven. The purpose is forward — so that sins will be removed, not because they already were.
The order in Acts 10:43–48 does not change the meaning of Acts 2:38. Acts 10 describes a unique transitional event — the first Gentile conversion — in which God gave the Spirit before baptism to convince the Jews that the Gentiles could be saved by the gospel of Christ (Acts 10:45–47). Peter commanded them to be baptized (v.48), because baptism is the divinely ordained response of obedience to receive remission (cf. Acts 22:16). You can’t use an exceptional case to redefine the normative teaching given in Acts 2.
Ephesians 1:13 doesn’t separate baptism from salvation. That verse shows the order of hearing, believing, and being sealed with the Spirit. But Acts 19:1–5 shows what that faith involved — when Paul found believers who had not yet received the Spirit, he asked, “Into (eis) what were you baptized?” Their baptism mattered. They were then baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus — and then received the Spirit. So even that example harmonizes with Acts 2:38, not contradicts it.
Consistent NT usage of “for the remission of sins” confirms the forward purpose.
The exact same phrase eis aphesin hamartiōn occurs in Matthew 26:28:
“This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for (eis) the remission of sins.” Was Jesus’ blood shed because sins were already forgiven? Of course not. It was shed so that sins might be forgiven. That’s the same construction as Acts 2:38 — and it must mean the same thing.
To translate eis in Acts 2:38 as “because of” is: grammatically inconsistent with normal Greek usage, contextually impossible because of repentance’s connection, doctrinally contradictory to every passage on forgiveness, and hermeneutically dishonest, because it imposes an agenda to avoid baptism’s stated role.
