In popular circles, it is commonly claimed that instead of being baptized with the goal of obtaining the forgiveness of sins, people are baptized to declare or symbolize that one has already obtained salvation before baptism. The claim is that εἰς, the Greek word translated “for” by many translations in Acts 2:38, means “because of,” as in “Wanted for [because of] murder.” As a criminal is wanted because he already had committed murder beforehand, so these men would be baptized because they already had the remission of sins, it’s argued. Is this reasoning accurate?
Answer
While the English word for can mean “because of” in addition to non-causal meanings, the Greek word εἰς is not so ambiguous. Scholarly consensus is against εἰς meaning “because of.” For example, Thayer's Greek Lexicon says that εις αφεσιν αμαρτιων (the phrase translated “for the remission of sins” by the KJV, NKJV, etc.) means, “to obtain the remission of sins.”[1] In the words of Baptist scholar J. W. Wilmarth, “‘In order to declare’ or ‘symbolize’ would be a monstrous translation of ‘eis.’”[2] Here are a few translations of Acts 2:38:
• “be baptized … unto the remission of your sins” (American Standard Version)
• “be baptized … so that your sins may be forgiven” (New Revised Standard Version)
• “be baptized … to remission of sins” (Young's Literal Translation)
• “be baptized … that you may have your sins forgiven” (Charles B. William's Translation)[3]
• “[be baptized] in order to the forgiveness of sins” (American Baptist Commentary)[3]
• “be immersed … unto remission of your sins” (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary)[3]
More translations could be given. The first three of the above translations are standard, accepted translations, while the latter three are the result of Baptist scholarship, hardly a denomination with bias against an alleged causal sense of εις.
Furthermore, if “for” meant “because of” in Acts 2:38, then Peter would be telling those hearing to repent “because of” the remission of sins as well, which may cause (no pun intended) further issues. That Acts 2:38 says to repent, as well as be baptized, “for the remission of sins” is explained by the American Baptist Commentary (mentioned earlier), which says εις αφεσιν αμαρτιων is “connect[ed] naturally with both the preceding verbs.”[2][3] (The “preceding verbs” are “repent” and “be baptized.”) Also again, the Baptist scholar J. W. Wilmarth agrees, saying “the natural construction connects [‘for the remission of sins’] with both the preceding verbs [‘repent’ and ‘be baptized’]. It enforces the entire exhortation, not one part of it to the exclusion of the other, as Hackett says.” Many more sources could be cited,[2] but such should be sufficient.
Contrary to popular teaching, Acts 2:38 states that one undergoes baptism with the purpose/result being the forgiveness of sins, placing baptism before forgiveness. Therefore, unto is a valid word conveying the idea.
Appendix
This question isn’t academic; there are significant implications regarding the meaning of Acts 2:38. For example, what if you’ve been baptized, but your baptism’s purpose was opposed to the goal of Bible baptism? Would this make your baptism different from the true one, and thus invalid?
In Acts 19, the apostle Paul finds people who were baptized into John’s baptism (v. 3). In the next verse, verse 4, Paul explains that John’s baptism is obsolete: “John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus” (NKJV). Since John’s baptism was different than baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus, their baptism was invalid. “When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:5, NKJV).
What if one's baptism was different than the Lord's baptism? We read that John's baptism was invalid because its design and purpose differed from that of the Lord's baptism. In the same way, it's not unreasonable that a baptism whose design and purpose is to proclaim you were already saved, would, likewise, qualify as a different baptism. After all, the plain understanding of Acts 2:38's baptism is opposed by most denominations, which instead teach the purpose of baptism to be proclaiming you already have been saved. At the very least, it would be risky to stay with a baptism intended to proclaim you were already saved. If you would like to discuss this more, know that I'm more than happy to do so, whether in the comments or another format.
References
[1] http://www.christianresearcher.com/uploads/1/6/2/9/16298120/01greekenglishlexicongrimmthayer.pdf#page=115
[2] https://icotb.org/resources/Warren-BallardDebate.pdf#page=167, pgs. 163–164, 186
[3] http://www.truthmagazine.com/archives/volume6/TM006048.htm