June 14, 2025 • 13 mins
Why do some scholars insist that eis in Acts 2:38 means “because of”? In this episode, we examine whether that interpretation is driven by the Greek text—or by theological assumptions. We’ll explore key arguments, responses from leading scholars, and why this matters for how we understand baptism and forgiveness.
Read: https://ready4eternity.com/why-some-christians-cant-let-acts-238-mean-what-it-says/
https://x.com/Ready4Eternity https://www.facebook.com/ready4eternity
The presence of any advertisements in connection with this content is determined solely by the hosting platform. I have no control over whether ads appear or not. I appreciate your understanding.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
(Music)
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
(00:23):
2.38 has sparked debate for decades.
Today we'll explore whether theology or
grammar drives how people interpret it.
(Music)
In episode 62 we explored the meaning of
the Greek preposition "eis" used in Acts
(00:46):
2.38 and found that it consistently
points forward to something, never
backward. According to BDAG, the leading
Greek lexicon, "eis" in Acts 2.38 means
"for forgiveness of sins" or "so that
sins might be forgiven." No major Greek
(01:10):
lexicon defines "eis" as meaning
"because" or "points backward." BDAG,
MOUNTS, THAER, and others all agree they
show "eis" means "into, toward, or with a
view to." Always pointing ahead, it
speaks of direction, result, or purpose.
(01:33):
This forward-looking sense is consistent
throughout the New Testament. Yet some
scholars argue that "eis" 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
(01:54):
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. Two of the most cited
defenders of a causal meaning for "eis"
in Acts 2.38 are A.T. Robertson and
(02:14):
Julius Mantee. However, both men let
theological concerns steer their
interpretation rather than follow the
Greek text. Robertson openly admits this.
Concerning "eis," he writes, "One will
decide the use here, according as he
(02:34):
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,
(02:55):
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
(03:17):
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
(03:37):
analysis. Julius Mantey takes a similar
approach. In his book, A Manual 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
(03:58):
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
(04:18):
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, Mantey concedes the natural reading
of eis. He says eis may mean for the
purpose of forgiveness of sins. That
(04:39):
agrees with the normal, forward-looking
use of eis. 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
(05:01):
both cases, doctrinal bias governs
exegesis. Linguistic analysis takes a
back seat. This debate over eis in Acts
2.38 played out in the Journal of
Biblical Literature in the early 1950s.
Julius Mantey defended his causal
(05:21):
interpretation while Dr. Ralph Marcus
responded with a strong rebuttal. Marcus
argued that Mantey's position lacked
grammatical support and relied too
heavily on theology. He showed that
Mantey's reading did not align with the
normal use of eis in Koine Greek. Most
readers would find this exchange between
(05:44):
Mantey and Marcus to be technical and
tedious. Still, it exposed the same issue
we've already seen. Mantey's theology
shaped the reading more than the grammar
did. BDAG cites this debate between Mantey
and Marcus in its tenth definition of
(06:04):
eis. By pointing readers to Marcus
without comment leaves one with the
impression that the BDAG editors are
skeptical of Mantey's view.
Dr. Daniel Wallace, an expert in Biblical
Greek, comments on the debate in his
Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. He notes
(06:25):
that Ralph Marcus gave a detailed
point-by-point rebuttal to Mantey's
argument. Marcus showed that Mantey's
examples from non-Biblical Greek sources
failed to support a causal use of eis.
Wallace concludes that Marcus ably
demonstrated that the linguistic evidence
(06:45):
for a causal eis fell short of proof.
Likewise, in a 1996
message to the B-Greek email list,
Dr. Edward Hobbes criticized what he
called the imaginary causal use of eis,
remarking that it has a short history. He
(07:06):
said that Julius Mantey introduced the
idea in the 1920s only to be repeatedly
refuted by scholars, including Ralph
Marcus. Hobbes emphasized that Marcus had
no theological stake in the debate
because he was a Jewish scholar with no
commitment to any Christian view of
(07:27):
baptism. Marcus's neutrality made his
critique especially compelling. Marcus
dismantled each of Mantey's examples
arguing that Mantey misunderstood the
Greek and pushed mistranslations. Marcus
concluded that if Mantey was right, it was
(07:50):
for non-linguistic reasons. Hobbes'
summary reflects how most
later scholars viewed the debate.
Theology, not grammar, was doing the
heavy lifting in the causal reading. Dr.
Hobbes ends his B-Greek email post by
bluntly calling Mantey's analysis a
(08:13):
fantasy meaning of a Greek preposition.
So why does any of this matter and why
should we care? 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
(08:34):
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 eis means because of, then
(08:55):
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
(09:17):
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 there conclusions
driven by what the text says or by what
(09:38):
they already believe? In the case of Acts
2.38, the best linguistic
evidence points in one direction.
eis looks forward. It does not mean
because. That means we should let the
text speak clearly without forcing the
(10:00):
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 eis
in Acts 2.38. In fact, Mantey acknowledged
(10:20):
this in the first sentence of his 1951
paper. He said, "None of the Greek
lexicons translate eis as causal. The
normal force of eis is forward-looking,
into, toward, or with a view to. This
holds across the New Testament and aligns
(10:41):
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 Mantey made
their conclusions based on what they
believed baptism could or could not mean,
(11:03):
not on how eis 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
(11:23):
context point the same direction.
There is no solid linguistic or
theological basis for reading eis as
because of in Acts 2.38. The natural,
consistent meaning stands. Peter called
his audience to repent and be baptized in
(11:45):
order to receive the
forgiveness of their sins.
As J.C. Davis concluded in his paper on
this topic, "The whole case for causal
eis in Acts 2.38 and baptism because of
the forgiveness of sins is left without
real foundation either in Greek grammar
or biblical theology."
(12:30):
Keep studying your Bible, growing closer
to God, and getting ready for
eternity. See you next time.
(Music)
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
(00:23):
2.38 has sparked debate for decades.
Today we'll explore whether theology or
grammar drives how people interpret it.
(Music)
In episode 62 we explored the meaning of
the Greek preposition "eis" used in Acts
(00:46):
2.38 and found that it consistently
points forward to something, never
backward. According to BDAG, the leading
Greek lexicon, "eis" in Acts 2.38 means
"for forgiveness of sins" or "so that
sins might be forgiven." No major Greek
(01:10):
lexicon defines "eis" as meaning
"because" or "points backward." BDAG,
MOUNTS, THAER, and others all agree they
show "eis" means "into, toward, or with a
view to." Always pointing ahead, it
speaks of direction, result, or purpose.
(01:33):
This forward-looking sense is consistent
throughout the New Testament. Yet some
scholars argue that "eis" 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
(01:54):
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. Two of the most cited
defenders of a causal meaning for "eis"
in Acts 2.38 are A.T. Robertson and
(02:14):
Julius Mantee. However, both men let
theological concerns steer their
interpretation rather than follow the
Greek text. Robertson openly admits this.
Concerning "eis," he writes, "One will
decide the use here, according as he
(02:34):
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,
(02:55):
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
(03:17):
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
(03:37):
analysis. Julius Mantey takes a similar
approach. In his book, A Manual 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
(03:58):
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
(04:18):
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, Mantey concedes the natural reading
of eis. He says eis may mean for the
purpose of forgiveness of sins. That
(04:39):
agrees with the normal, forward-looking
use of eis. 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
(05:01):
both cases, doctrinal bias governs
exegesis. Linguistic analysis takes a
back seat. This debate over eis in Acts
2.38 played out in the Journal of
Biblical Literature in the early 1950s.
Julius Mantey defended his causal
(05:21):
interpretation while Dr. Ralph Marcus
responded with a strong rebuttal. Marcus
argued that Mantey's position lacked
grammatical support and relied too
heavily on theology. He showed that
Mantey's reading did not align with the
normal use of eis in Koine Greek. Most
readers would find this exchange between
(05:44):
Mantey and Marcus to be technical and
tedious. Still, it exposed the same issue
we've already seen. Mantey's theology
shaped the reading more than the grammar
did. BDAG cites this debate between Mantey
and Marcus in its tenth definition of
(06:04):
eis. By pointing readers to Marcus
without comment leaves one with the
impression that the BDAG editors are
skeptical of Mantey's view.
Dr. Daniel Wallace, an expert in Biblical
Greek, comments on the debate in his
Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. He notes
(06:25):
that Ralph Marcus gave a detailed
point-by-point rebuttal to Mantey's
argument. Marcus showed that Mantey's
examples from non-Biblical Greek sources
failed to support a causal use of eis.
Wallace concludes that Marcus ably
demonstrated that the linguistic evidence
(06:45):
for a causal eis fell short of proof.
Likewise, in a 1996
message to the B-Greek email list,
Dr. Edward Hobbes criticized what he
called the imaginary causal use of eis,
remarking that it has a short history. He
(07:06):
said that Julius Mantey introduced the
idea in the 1920s only to be repeatedly
refuted by scholars, including Ralph
Marcus. Hobbes emphasized that Marcus had
no theological stake in the debate
because he was a Jewish scholar with no
commitment to any Christian view of
(07:27):
baptism. Marcus's neutrality made his
critique especially compelling. Marcus
dismantled each of Mantey's examples
arguing that Mantey misunderstood the
Greek and pushed mistranslations. Marcus
concluded that if Mantey was right, it was
(07:50):
for non-linguistic reasons. Hobbes'
summary reflects how most
later scholars viewed the debate.
Theology, not grammar, was doing the
heavy lifting in the causal reading. Dr.
Hobbes ends his B-Greek email post by
bluntly calling Mantey's analysis a
(08:13):
fantasy meaning of a Greek preposition.
So why does any of this matter and why
should we care? 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
(08:34):
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 eis means because of, then
(08:55):
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
(09:17):
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 there conclusions
driven by what the text says or by what
(09:38):
they already believe? In the case of Acts
2.38, the best linguistic
evidence points in one direction.
eis looks forward. It does not mean
because. That means we should let the
text speak clearly without forcing the
(10:00):
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 eis
in Acts 2.38. In fact, Mantey acknowledged
(10:20):
this in the first sentence of his 1951
paper. He said, "None of the Greek
lexicons translate eis as causal. The
normal force of eis is forward-looking,
into, toward, or with a view to. This
holds across the New Testament and aligns
(10:41):
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 Mantey made
their conclusions based on what they
believed baptism could or could not mean,
(11:03):
not on how eis 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
(11:23):
context point the same direction.
There is no solid linguistic or
theological basis for reading eis as
because of in Acts 2.38. The natural,
consistent meaning stands. Peter called
his audience to repent and be baptized in
(11:45):
order to receive the
forgiveness of their sins.
As J.C. Davis concluded in his paper on
this topic, "The whole case for causal
eis in Acts 2.38 and baptism because of
the forgiveness of sins is left without
real foundation either in Greek grammar
or biblical theology."
(12:30):
Keep studying your Bible, growing closer
to God, and getting ready for
eternity. See you next time.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.