Question regarding “baptism for the remission of sins” in Acts 2:38

Question

Background information:

The Nicene Creed declares: “We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins.” However, while doing research into this subject, I found this quote from the Lion Book of Christianity regarding Acts 2:38 which said “We acknowledge one baptism unto remission of sins.” (pp 158-169)

My Collins English Dictionary explains that the preposition 'unto' is an archaic word for 'to'.

I have searched various Christianity Stack questions about baptism and the Nicene Creed but can’t find anything to address whether the original wording should be “unto” or “for.”

https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/44565/how-do-credo-baptists-explain-baptism-in-the-nicene-creed

https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/46428/was-the-nicene-creed-of-ad-381-an-update-of-the-nicene-creed-of-ad-325?rq=1

Please be aware that this is NOT a question about credo-baptism or the remission of sins. Neither is this about whether there is a “right” or a “wrong” interpretation. I would like to know if the original wording of the Nicene Creed says “unto remission of sins” or not. There may be an important distinction between saying “for the remission of sins” and “unto remission of sins”.

Interestingly, the KJV uses the expression "for the remission of sins" in Acts 2:38.

I don’t want to restrict this question to any particular denomination but seek scholarly insights from anyone who can shed light on the expression "FOR the remission of sins" and the significance of "UNTO remission of sins". Thank you.

Answer 1

I went straight to Daniel B Wallace's 'Beyond the Basics' Greek grammar, which is where I often end up in difficult situations with Greek. Sadly, on the subject of εἰς, eis (in relation to baptism xxx the forgiveness of sins) he comes to no conclusion - which is very unusual for Daniel B Wallace, it has to be said.

I am not going to copy his full two pages, but it is notable that he spends his entire section, on this particular preposition, discussing the controversy regarding Acts 2:38 :

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. [KJV]

Notably, Young's Literal Translation has 'to' the remission of sins in this place.

The controversy upon which Daniel Wallace focuses is whether εἰς can be viewed as causative. That is to say, Is the forgiveness of sins caused by baptism or is it coincidental to baptism (meaning it coincides with baptism and they co-exist together) or does one follow the other in terms of a progressive process ?

Daniel Wallace lists eight different concepts expressed (he says) by εἰς.

• Spatial ........into, toward
• Temporal........for, throughout
• Purpose.........for, in order to, to
• Result..........so that, with the result that
• Reference.......with respect to
• Advantage.......for
• Disadvantage....against
• In the place of the very versatile preposition εν en

It is notable that in the KJV, where εἰς, eis, appears in the original, the translators have used the following :

against (25) among (16) at (20) for (91) in (131) into (571) that (30) on (57) to (282) toward (32) unto (208) upon (25) and some others . . .

To, toward, unto and into (Daniel Wallace's primary categories) therefore account for almost 1,200 of those occasions and the other translations (Daniel Wallace's secondary categories) about 350.

Those 1,200 occasions, I think, give an indication of what we should generally expect from εἰς, eis, in the majority of contexts.

---

'To' 'toward' or 'unto' agree with Young and agree with the majority translation (of the KJV) in respect of the preposition εἰς, eis.

All of this leads me, personally, to agree with the quote in the question :

“We acknowledge one baptism unto remission of sins.”

Answer 2

The original Greek of the Nicene Creed says, "ὁμολογοῦμεν ἓν βάπτισμα εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν" which means "we confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins." The word εἰς can be translated either way as "unto" or "for," since both in English in this context mean the same thing.

Acts 2:38

Πέτρος δὲ πρὸς αὐτούς Μετανοήσατε, [φησίν] καὶ βαπτισθήτω ἕκαστος ὑμῶν ἐν / ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν, καὶ λήμψεσθε τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος·

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 shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

What is baptism "unto?" The forgiveness of sins. What is baptism "for?" The forgiveness of sins. Two valid translations of the Greek εις. The Latin version also has "Confitemur unum baptismum in remissionem peccatorum" which is absolutely identical in meaning.

Without this linguistic quibbling, the function of baptism was undisputed in Christianity from the beginning, and in every century viewed as the instrumental cause of justification. Even in Peter's Epistle: "...eight souls were saved through water: which typifies baptism, which now saves you also" (1 Pet. 3:21). It was a much later concept that baptism was in any way optional for justification.

Answer 3

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

Answer 4

This is a helpful study on For Eis: 06f_01_Faith_Alone_and_Eis

06f_01_Faith_Alone_and_Eis
Lesson 1 of 3
I was challenged by someone who objected to me saying that it was in baptism we identified with the death burial and resurrection of Christ and at that point have our sins forgiven because of the blood of Jesus. Also the use of Eis (for or because of) in Acts 2:38 This study was undertaken in response to that challenge and the ensuing discussions.

Lesson 2 & Lesson 3

Answer 5

Preface

There is no need to be cautious in asking this question. For the reason the Nicene (here the Niceano Constanipolitan) creed here uses the wording, ὁμολογοῦμεν "ἓν βάρτισμα εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν" is that it is reflecting what the bible says.

Connecting baptism to forgiveness is found directly in the bible:

• “βάπτισμα μετανοίας εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν.” (Μάρκον 1·4 THGNT-T)
• “βάπτισμα μετανοίας εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν” (Λουκᾶν 3·3 THGNT-T)
• “«38» μετανοήσατε φησὶν καὶ βαπτισθήτω ἕκαστος ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν καὶ λήμψεσθε τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος· «39» ὑμῖν γάρ ἐστιν ἡ ἐπαγγελία καὶ τοῖς τέκνοις ὑμῶν καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς εἰς μακράν, ὅσους ἂν προσκαλέσηται κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν.” (Πράξεις 2·38-39 THGNT-T)

Likewise, the reason the early church fathers include the word, ἓν is because of Paul's words: “εἷς κύριος, μία πίστις, ἓν βάπτισμα,” (Ἐφεσίους 4·5 THGNT-T)

Again, the reason these words are found in the creed is because they are found in the bible. And as such, they are 'fair game' for questions in this SE.

for/into/unto

ⲉⲓⲥ is a fairly flexible preposition. While others include a listing from Wallace, I'm going to factor him out of this discussion since his listing for this word isn't extensive and since his bias (as a professor at DTS) gets in the way of his research. Let's, instead, look at the venerable BDF:

205. Εἰς instead of ἐν in a local sense. In MGr εἰς has absorbed the related preposition ἐν (in conjunction with the disappearance of the dative); in the NT ἐν appears almost twice as frequently as εἰς, but the confusion of the two has begun in that εἰς often appears for ἐν (ἐν for εἰς more rarely, §218). Cf. Hatzid. 210f.; Regard, Prép. 330–49. No NT writer except Mt is entirely free from the replacement of ἐν by εἰς in a local sense, not even Lk in Acts where most of the examples are found (Jn has the fewest); Mk 1:9 ἐβαπτίσθη εἰς τὸν Ἰορδάνην (cf. Homil Clem 11.36.2 εἰς τὰς ... πηγάς; ἐν Mk 1:5, Mt 3:6), Lk 11:7 εἰς τὴν κοίτην εἰσίν (ἐν D), A 8:40 εὑρέθη εἰς Ἄζωτον, Jn 1:18 ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον (ἐκ τοῦ -ου syc) τοῦ πατρός. The Epistles and, still more surprisingly, Rev exhibit a correct differentiation between εἰς and ἐν in the local sense except [p. 111] 1 P 5:12 (postscript in the author’s own hand) τὴν χάριν ... εἰς ἣν ἑοτήκατε (KLP; στῆτε ‘stand fast in it’ found in the other MSS would suit εἰς, but according to the sense is very unlikely). For 1 Jn 5:8 s. infra. Εἰς for ἐν is frequent in Hermas (Humbert 74–6): Vis 1.2.2 ἔχουσα βιβλίον εἰς τὰς χεῖρας, 2.4.3, Sim 1.2 etc.; s. also 2 Clem 8.2 (19.4?), Homil Clem 12.10. This εἰς appears therefore to have been still a provincialism at the time; however, the fact that some authors do not share the confusion is also surprising. Examples from the LXX, Diodor. etc. in Jannaris §1548; Vogeser 26ff.; Johannessohn ii 331f.; Mayser ii 2, 373; Humbert passim; Oepke, TW ii 418f. n.

Additional Notes

Mk 1:39 κηρύσσων εἰς τὰς συναγωγάς (ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς EF al.), 2:1 εἰς οἶκόν ἐστιν AC al. (ἐν οἴκῳ SBDL), 10:10 (ἐν AC al.), 13:3 καθημένου εἰς τὸ ὄρος (cf. Herm Sim 5.1.1; Musonius 43.18 Hense καθῆσθαι εἰς Σινώπην; correctly class. καθίζειν εἰς 2 Th 2:4), 13:9 εἰς συναγωγὰς δαρήσεσθε (= Mt 10:17 ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς [D εἰς τὰς σ.] αὐτῶν μαστιγώσουσιν ὑμᾶς), 13:16 ὁ εἰς τὸν ἀγρόν (ἐν Mt 24:18, Lk 17:31).—Lk 4:23 γενόμενα (‘happened’) εἰς τὴν (SB, εἰς DL, ἐν τῇ al.) Καφαρναούμ, 9:61, 21:37? A 2:5 εἰς Ἰερ. κατοικοῦντες (ἐν ScBCDE; like class. H 11:9 παρῴκησεν εἰς γῆν, Mt 2:23, 4:13; cf. Thuc. 2.102.6 κατοικισθεὶς ἐς τοὺς ... τόπους), 2:27 OT (cf. 31) ἐγκαταλείψεις τὴν ψυχήν μου εἰς ἅδην, 39 τοῖς εἰς μακράν (class. τοῖς μακρὰν [scil. ὁδόν] ἀποικοῦσιν), 7:4, 12, 8: (20,) 23 (v.l.), 9:21 (ἐν all witnesses but SA), 11:25 D, 14:25 (ἐν BCD), 17:13 D, 18:21 D, 19:22 (ἐν D), 21:23, 23:11 twice, 25:4, 26:20. The following are also unclass.: Lk 1:44 ἐγένετο ἡ φωνὴ εἰς τὰ ὦτά μου and γενέσθαι εἰς Ἰερ. A 20:16, 21:17, 25:15 (ἐν correctly 13:5). Homil Clem 12.10.2 εἰς Ῥώμην καταλείψας, 25.1 γενομένων ἡμῶν ‘since we had arrived (there)’.—Jn 17:23 ἵνα ὦσιν τετελειωμένοι εἰς (τὸ) ἕν in which εἰς denotes rather the purpose, the result; 1 Jn 5:8 οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν belongs in §145(1). Kilpatrick (by letter): A 4:5 συναχθῆναι ... εἰς (S, ἐν al.) Ἰ. ‘in Jerusalem’; 12:25 εἰς (BSð) Ἰερ. is to be taken with πληρώσαντες τὴν διακονίαν (conjecture of Wescott-Hort; also K. Grobel by letter): ‘after they had delivered the relief offering in Jerusalem’ (Debrunner prefers ‘after they had [brought the relief offering] to Jerusalem and delivered it [there]; cf. R 15:31 ἡ διακονία ἡ εἰς Ἰ. For a discussion of the literary problems involved here, s. Funk, JBL 75 (1956) 130–6; Dupont, NT 1 (1956) 275–303.—The corresponding class. usage is ἔστη εἰς τὸ μέσον Jn 20:19, 26 (Xen., Cyr. 4.1.1); cf. 21:4 (v.l. ἐπί). With ὕπαγε νίψαι εἰς τὴν κολυμβήθραν 9:7 cf. ἵν̓ αὐτὸ λούσῃ εἰς σκάφην Epict. 3.22.71, yet νίψαι appears to be spurious (Lachmann; on A al., cf. 11). 1 P 3:20 εἰς ἣν (κιβωτὸν) ὀλίγοι διεσώθησαν ‘within which a few were saved’; cf. 2 T 4:18 (LXX Gen 19:19).—Εἰς for ἐν is encountered also in the LXX (s. supra), on Egyptian private documents, e.g. PTebt i 38.14 (113 bc) εἰς ὃν ἐνοικεῖ ... οἶκον, BGU ii 385.5 (ii/iii ad) (ε)ἰς Ἀλεξάνδρειαν ἐσσι (= ἐστι? or εἶσι??), 423.7 (ii ad) κινδυνεύσαντος εἰς θάλασσαν, Epigr. Kaibel 134 (Imperial period) εἰς τύνβον κεῖμαι.—Cf. Bauer s.v. 1 d β, 9.

206. Interchange of εἰς and ἐν in a metaphorical sense.

(1) Temporal: Lk 1:20 πληρωθήσονται εἰς τὸν καιρὸν αὐτῶν, but correct with ἐν Mt 21:41, 2 Th 2:6. Instrumental: A 7:53 ἐλάβετε τὸν νόμον εἰς διαταγὰς ἀγγέλων = ἐν διαταγαῖς (cf. Mt 9:34 et al.). Similarly the Hebrew לֵךְ לְשָׁלוֹם is rendered in Mk 5:34 and Lk 7:50, 8:48 by ὕπαγε (πορεύου) εἰς εἰρήνην (so also the LXX, 1 Km 1:17 etc.), and in Ja 2:16 by ὑπάγετε ἐν εἰρήνῃ (as D does in both references in Lk; Judg 18:6 B); the notion behind ἐν was probably the loose associative dative (§198(2)).

(2) The variation is understandable where a Hebrew בְּ is translated, to which the dative would correspond in classical Greek: thus with πιστεύειν, ὀμνύναι, εὐδοκεῖν and especially with the rendering of Hebrew בְּשֵׁם.

(3) ‘To do something to someone’ is expressed by ποιεῖν (ἐργάζεσθαί) τι ἔν τινι, εἴς τινα, τινι (Attic τινα); s. §157(1).

(4) With verbs of preaching, etc. both εἰς and ἐν are permissible also in Attic if the message is directed to several (εἰπεῖν εἰς τὸν δῆμον, ἐν τῷ δήμῳ); so also the NT κηρύσσειν εἰς Mk 13:10 (ἐν D), Lk 24:47, 1 Th 2:9 (ὑμῖν S✱), and ἐν 2 C 1:19, G 2:2, εὐαγγελίζεσθαι εἰς 1 P 1:25, ἐν G 1:16.

Additional Notes

(1) Lk 13:9 κἄν ποιήσῃ καρπὸν εἰς τὸ μέλλον has class. pars., e.g. ἐς ὕστερον Hdt. 5. 74; also class. are A 13:42 εἰς τὸ μεταξὺ σάββατον, 2 C 13:2 εἰς τὸ πάλιν (cf. class. εἰσαῦθις). The temporal use of εἰς elsewhere accords fully with class. usage.

(2) For πιστεύειν (εἰς, ἐν, ἐπί, dat.) s. §187(6); also for πεποιθέναι and ἐλπίζειν. Corresponding πίστις: ἡ ἐν Χρ. and ἡ εἰς Χρ. besides obj. gen. Θαρρῶ ἐν ‘have confidence in’ 2 C 7:16, but εἰς 10:1 = θρασύς εἰμι, ‘towards you’. Ὀμνύναι Mt 5:35 with ἐν and εἰς side by side (class. acc., §149). Εὐδοκεῖν ‘be well pleased’ often with ἐν; with εἰς Mt 12:18 OT (only ὃν S✱B, ἐν ᾧ D), 2 P 1:17. Διστάζειν εἰς τὸν θεόν Herm Man 9.5 = οὐ πιστεύειν.—Τῷ σῷ ὀνόματι (instr. dat.) is good Greek Mt 7:22 (12:21, s. §187(6)), Mk 9:38 AX al. (otherwise ἐν), Ja 5:10 AKL (otherwise ἐν); cf. τῷ τῆς πόλεως ὀνόματι in an inscrip. from Asia Minor of 37 ad (Deissmann, NBS 26 [BS 198]). Εἰς τὸ ὄνομά τινος ‘on somebody’s account’ is generally vulgar Hell. (Deissmann, LO4 97f. [LAE 121f.]; Rossberg 33, Mayser ii 2, 415), but in the NT, if at all in this sense, only εἰς ὄνομα προφήτου etc. Mt 10:41f., εἰς τὸ ἐμὸν [p. 112] ὄνομα 18:20, (28:19,) with which the Hebraism ἐν ὀνόματι κυρίου Mt 21:9 has fused (LXX always ἐν ὀν. for בְּשֵׁם Psichari 202f.; Corssen, WkP 1919, 167f.). Once ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι μου Mt 18:5. With βαπτίζειν, εἰς τὸ ὄν. (A 8:16, 19:8) may be used as well as ἐν τῷ ὀν. (10:48; 2:38 ἐν or ἐπί). On the whole subject cf. also Witkowski, Bericht 74f.; Bietenhard, TW s.v. ὄνομα.

(3) Ποιεῖν (τὸ) ἔλεος μετά (Hebr. עִם) τινος Lk 1:72, 10:37 (§227(3)) besides ποιεῖν ἐλεημοσύνας εἰς A 24:17. To express the destination or use (‘for’) εἰς is good class. (δαπανᾶν εἰς), thus e.g. Mk 8:19, 20 and λογεία, διακονία εἰς τοὺς ἁγίους 1 C 16:1, 2 C 8:4 etc.

(4) Mk 14:9 ὅπου ἐὰν κηρυχθῇ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον εἰς ὅλον τὸν κόσμον, λαληθήσεται . . . could be a case of εἰς for ἐν.

207. Other usages of εἰς. For εἰς in place of a predicate nominative s. §145, in place of a predicate accusative §157(5). But in G 3:14 ἵνα εἰς τὰ ἔθνη ἡ εὐλογία τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ γένηται the simple case would be the dative (§189) or, more in accordance with classical usage, the genitive (yet rather ‘in order that . . . might come among the Gentiles’); cf. A 24:17, R 8:18, Herm Sim 8.3.2 and ἐγγίζειν εἰς instead of τινί §193(2). In MGr εἰς is the periphrasis for the missing dative. With γίνεσθαι εἰς cf. ἐλήλυθεν εἴς τινα ‘to come to somebody (as a possession)’ in two papyri (Mayser ii 2, 406).

(1) Εἰς is also used for ἐπί and πρός: Jn 4:5 ἔρχεται εἰς πόλιν ‘come to’, not ‘into’, Mt 12:41 μετενόησαν εἰς τὸ κήρυγμα Ἰωνᾶ (cf. Hdt. 3.52 πρὸς τοῦτο τὸ κήρυγμα ‘at[; because of’, s. Bauer s.v. 6a]). Causal εἰς: J. R. Mantey, JBL 70 (1951) 45–8, 309–12; R. Marcus, op. cit. 129f.; 71 (1952) 43f.

(2) With numbers εἰς is distributive = ‘-fold’: Mk 4:8 εἰς τριάκοντα etc. (v.l. ἕν; W τὸ ἔν [likewise 20 three times] or ἐν; s. §§248(3), 220(2)).

(3) Εἰς τέλος ‘fully’; εἰς κενόν ‘in vain’ Paul (classical διὰ κενῆς).

Additional Notes

(1) Unclass. Lk 15:22 δότε δακτύλιον εἰς τὴν χεῖρα, class. for which is περί; s. Plato, Rep. 2.359e. Likewise Lk 15:22 ὑποδήματα εἰς τοὺς πόδας (dat. Hom., Od. 15.369); Ljungvik 32. Acc. to Jeremias, ThZ 5 (1949) 230 an Aramaism. Εἰς of the recipients of a message (Semitism): Mk 14:9 (for which Mt 26:13 has ἐν), Lk 24:47, 1 Th 2:9, A 17:15 D = Aram לְ. (cf. Black, Aramaic Approach 71 on Lk 4:43 D); Jeremias, ZNW 44 (1952/3) 100. Εἰς for ‘to, toward’: Jn 11:31, 38 ὑπάγει (ἔρχεται) εἰς (D 38 ἐπὶ) τὸ μνημεῖον, 20:3 (6 and 8 εἰς ‘into’); accordingly the v.l. of DHP Mk 3:7 ἀνεχώρησεν εἰς (instead of πρὸς) τὴν θάλασσαν is acceptable, likewise in 2:13 Tdf. ἐξῆλθεν εἰς τὴν θ. with S✱ instead of παρά, 7:31 with SBDW al; cf. εἰς τὸν ποταμόν ‘to the river’ and the like in the LXX, Polyb. etc. (Kallenberg, RhM 66 [1911] 473ff.) and as early as Hdt. 4.200 ἀπίκατο εἰς τὴν πόλιν (which they afterwards besieged).

(2) MGr τἄφερε στὰ τριάντα acc. to Psichari 184; otherwise ἐπὶ διηκόσια, τριηκόσια ‘up to . . .’ Hdt. 1. 193. Barale, Didaskaleion 2 (1913) 436ff. (PTebt i 39.33 [114 bc], 49.11 [113 bc] βλάβος εἰς ‘to derogate in value from . . .’).

(3) Εἰς τέλος 1 Th 2:16 ‘in full’, Lk 18:5 ἵνα μὴ εἰς τέλος ἐρχομένη ὑπωπιάζῃ με ‘in order that she may not gradually (pres. ὑπωπιάζῃ!) wear me out completely by her continued coming (pres.!)’ (cf. Klostermann, Hdb. in loc.; Oepke, TW ii 424.35f. ‘finally’), Jn 13:1 εἰς τέλος ἠγάπησεν αὐτούς ‘he gave them the perfect love-token’ (Pernot, Études 207), LXX several times, Barn, Herm; εἰς τέλος τουτέστι παντελῶς Diodorus Tars, on Ps 51:7 (MPG 33, 1589b). Cf. Debrunner, Gnomon 4 (1928) 444, Bauer s.v. εἰς 3. Pap. ‘ultimately’ and ‘fully, completely’; Preisigke s.v. τέλος 4, Mayser ii 2, 419, 570. Εἰς τέλος = יֶתֶר (עַל) ‘remainder, exceedingly’.—Εἰς κενόν Diodor. and Hell. elsewhere, also LXX (with Is 65:23 οὐ κοπιάσουσιν εἰς κ. cf. 1 Th 3:5 μήπως ... εἰς κ. γένηται ὁ κόπος ἡμῶν; the Prophets have εἰς κενόν, Job and Ps prefer διὰ κενῆς; side by side in Lev: διὰ κ. 26:16, εἰς κ. 26:20); Bauer s.v. κενός 2aβ. Following εἰς κ. the old equivalent μάτην (also Mt 15:9, Mk 7:7, Herm Sim 5.4.2) is then expanded to εἰς μάτην Herm Sim 5.4.2, 6.1.3, 9.4.8, 13.2 (LXX Ps 62:10, 126:1a, b, 2, Lucian, Trag. 28.241).

(F. Blass, A. Debrunner, and Robert W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Accordance electronic ed. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1961), 110-112.)

One can read through the words and quickly realize that ⲉⲓⲥ can serve many purposes:

• purpose/intended result
• temporal
• a replacement for ⲉⲛ ('in')
• Predicate nominative

Hermeneutical Choices (Translation Choices)

When we realize that ⲉⲓⲥ is a very flexible word, we quickly realize that very often what drives the meaning (and thus translation) of the word in a bible translation, commentary or even a sermon is a front-shifting of theological conclusions.

Some conclude that baptism is an "outward sign of inner renewal." As such it is a pointer and just a sign with no power in and of itself.

Others hold onto the long-standing practice of taking ⲉⲓⲥ as a "telic" ⲉⲓⲥ. That is, the purpose of baptism is to convey/deliver/give the forgiveness of sins. This is the common and prevalent understanding of the phrase in the context of the Nicene Creed. The idea that one would be baptized just as a way of professing his/her faith was unknown to the ancients. For them there was one baptism. And in that baptism water was connected to all the power and promises of God's word for (i.e. delivering) the forgiveness of sins. The idea that a person would be baptized just as an 'outward expression of inner faith' is a fairly modern notion. Consider the words of the theologians in the early church:

• THE CROSS AS SOURCE OF BAPTISM. CHRYSOSTOM: Having made mention of the gift of baptism, he proceeds to the source11 of it, that is, the cross. . . . These two things, more than anything else, declare his unspeakable love: that he both suffered for his enemies and, having died for his enemies, he freely gave them by baptism the entire forgiveness of all of their sins. HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 27.1.12. (Joel C. Elowsky, eds. John 1–10. vol. 4a of Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. ICCS/Accordance electronic ed. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 122-123.)
• MYSTERY OF BAPTISM NOT LIMITED TO FORGIVENESS. THEODORET OF CYR: If the only meaning of baptism were remission of sins, why would we baptize newborn children who have not yet tasted of sin? But the mystery of baptism is not limited to this. It is a promise of greater and more perfect gifts. In it are the promises of future delights. (Joel C. Elowsky, eds. John 1–10. vol. 4a of Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. ICCS/Accordance electronic ed. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 114.)
• CHILDREN AND BAPTISM. AUGUSTINE: “But why,” they ask, “does a baptized believer, whose sin has already been forgiven, beget a child who is still burdened with the first person’s sin?” Because he begets him from the flesh, not from the spirit. “What is born of the flesh is flesh.” “And if the outer self,” says the apostle, “is decaying, yet the inner self is being renewed from day to day.”44 It is not from what is being renewed in you that you beget a child. You beget a child from what is decaying in you. You, in order not to die forever, were born and reborn. This child is already born, not yet reborn. If you are alive as a result of being reborn, allow it too to be reborn and live. . . . Why oppose this? Why try to smash the ancient rule of faith with new objections? After all, what is this that you are saying: “Little children don’t have even original sin in the least degree”? What does this that you say amount to, but that they should not come to Jesus? But Jesus cries out to you, “Let the little children come to me.”45 SERMON 174.9.46. (Joel C. Elowsky, eds. John 1–10. vol. 4a of Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. ICCS/Accordance electronic ed. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 114.)
• WHY IS WATER INCLUDED IN BAPTISM? CHRYSOSTOM: That the need of water [in baptism] is absolute and indispensable, you may learn in this way. On one occasion, when the Spirit had flown down before the water was applied, the apostle did not stand idle at this point, but, as though the water were necessary and not superfluous, observe what he says, “Can any one forbid water so that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?”30 Why then is water needed? . . . In baptism, the pledges of our covenant with God are fulfilled: burial and death, resurrection and life. And these all take place at once. For by the immersion of our heads in the water, the old person disappears and is buried as it were in a tomb below and wholly sunk forever. Then as we raise them again, the new person rises in his place. As easy as it is for us to dip and to lift our heads again, that is how easy it is for God to bury the old person and to show forth the new. And this is done three times so that you may learn that the power of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit fulfills all this. HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 25.2.31 (Joel C. Elowsky, eds. John 1–10. vol. 4a of Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. ICCS/Accordance electronic ed. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 113.)
• THE MEANING OF BAPTISM. CYPRIAN: Peter showed and vindicated the unity of the church by commanding and warning that we can be saved only through the baptism of the one church. Just as in that baptism of the world by which the ancient iniquity was purged, the one who was not in the ark could not be saved through water, so now anyone who has not been baptized in the church cannot be saved, for the church has been founded in the unity of the Lord, as the sacrament of the one ark. LETTERS 74.11.17 (Gerald Bray, eds. James, 1–2 Peter, 1–3 John, Jude. vol. 11 of Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. ICCS/Accordance electronic ed. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 109.)

The consistent conclusion of the Christian Church was that there was one baptism. And that baptism was water connected to the power and promises of God's word.

Caveat

Might doesn't always make right. It might be tempting to recognize that since, throughout the long ages of the church, the common conclusion is that purpose (ⲉⲓⲥ) of baptism is the forgiveness of sins that conclusion must be right. But there are other doctrines that Church Fathers held to which are hard to support from the bible (e.g. exalting Mary as queen of the heavens, or co-redemptrix). However, it's much easier to make the case that the common and consistent conclusion of there being one baptism (water & word) for (i.e. the purpose of it) the forgiveness of sins is much easier to support than the elevation of Mary beyond what scripture can bear.

Conclusion (?)

Due to the innate flexibility of the preposition, ⲉⲓⲥ, the word by itself cannot bear the weight of much of the meaning that is often placed on it. It's just too flexible on its own. As a result there is the necessity of drawing in the rest of the biblical context.

But there's the crux/rub/conundrum/problem. As soon as one draws in a larger context here in Hermeneutics SE, one is accused of having an agenda (usually by someone who clearly has an agenda of their own).

As a result, the phrase, "FOR" the forgiveness of sins, has been (and will be) one of the most hotly contested phrases in the New Testament.

Note that this does not answer the question in the way you might have wanted. You wanted an "either/or" answer. I gave you this as an answer:

• ⲉⲓⲥ is extremely flexible
• Context (often with bias and agenda) is needed then to understand the word properly.

And just so that we're clear, I'm not saying in this context that bias/agenda is necessarily bad. I'm just saying that it's unavoidable.

Answer 6

John's water baptism was unto repentance:

I indeed baptize you with water unto (eis) repentance - Matthew 3:11a

and yet the Pharisees and Sadducees were refused water baptism until they first brought forth fruit in keeping with (or axiomatic of) repentance:

Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance - Matthew 3:8

If John's Baptism was truly "unto" repentance then he could have baptized the Pharisees and thereby conveyed repentance unto them.

Therefore, it is incorrect to insist that eis must always indicate some form of instrumentality. Here, in Matthew 3, it is a baptism following the fact of repentance and Acts 2:38 can easily be understood in the same fashion; baptism following the fact of remission of sin.

Answer 7

I do think that all of scripture should be considered here. If one excuse for baptism being necessary is because Jesus was baptised, then Jesus was baptised by John's baptism unto repentance. Someone touch on this and I think it cannot be dismissed. I also see that baptism in the Bible doesn't always mean water baptism. For forgiveness of sins. But rather ceremonial purposes. There are also many verses that I feel refere to baptism that saves as meaning baptism into the Holy Spirit. John mentioned that Jesus would baptize in Spirit and fire.