David Anguish
A recent review of the subject of baptism brought to mind the difficulty of letting the Word speak without the imposition of previously formed views.
Most of us are familiar with the teaching of Acts 2:38. We probably also know that many do not believe that text teaches that baptism is necessary for receiving forgiveness. One who argued thus was A. T. Robertson, whose Greek grammar - all 1,454 pages of it - remains a standard over six decades after its publication and whose multi-volume commentary on the Greek text, Word Pictures of the New Testament, is a fixture in many studies.
Comments from the latter work prompted this musing. Relative to the phrase "for the forgiveness of your sins" in Acts 2:38, Robertson said, "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" (Word Pictures, III: 35-36).
Before analyzing his comments, notice that Acts 2:38 is not the only New Testament text which uses the phrase "for the forgiveness of sins" (eis aphesin hamarti_n). It also appears in Matthew 26:28, where it refers to the purpose for the shedding of Jesus' blood; Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3, where it is part of John's message; and Luke 24:47, where it is connected with the repentance to be preached throughout the world. It took a concordance study to find this, however. Although Robertson admits that the preposition eis does at times refer to aim or purpose, he cites none of the four passages where its use parallels Acts 2:38.
This omission is more significant in light of his comment on Matthew 26:28 ("for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins"): "[Jesus] had the definite conception of his death on the cross as the basis of forgiveness of sin. The purpose of the shedding of his blood of the New Covenant was precisely to remove (forgive) sins" (Word Pictures, I: 210).
Why endorse eis as purposeful in Matthew 26, but not in Acts 2? Look again at his assessment of Acts 2:38 and notice that Robertson says that "one will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not" and that his view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential. . ." Based on that assumption, he concludes: So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them . . . on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received." It is evident that Robertson's prior belief about what the text had to mean influenced what he thought it must have meant.
Though I do not believe Robertson got it right on Acts 2, I will impugn neither his sincerity nor the generally excellent body of scholarly work he compiled. But as I look at his treatment of this passage, I am reminded how easy it is to allow things we have heard or come to believe to create blind spots when studying Scripture. Certainly, we should not devalue all previous study or conclude that we can never know any truth. But we should learn to approach our study with humility and be willing to examine our views and those which challenge them with an attitude which at least entertains the possibility that there could be something else for us to learn. If we confirm our previous understanding, we will have made our faith more secure. If we discover something we need to change because it brings us closer to the truth, God's Word will have done what it is supposed to do.