In the previous article, we explored the meaning of the Greek preposition eis in Acts 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, so that sins might be forgiven.”1 No major Greek lexicon defines eis as meaning “because” or pointing backward. BDAG, Mounce, Thayer, Louw-Nida, and Strong’s all agree. They show eis means into, toward, or with a view to—always pointing ahead. It speaks of direction, result, or purpose. 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 article, we will examine those claims. In a subsequent post, we’ll evaluate the New Testament passages often used to support that view.
Attempted defenses of causal eis in Acts 2:38
Two of the most cited defenders of a causal meaning for eis in Acts 2:38 are A.T. Robertson and Julius Mantey. However, both men let theological concerns steer their interpretation rather than follow the Greek text.
A.T. Robertson
Robertson openly admits this. Concerning eis, he writes:
“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.”2
That statement reveals everything. Robertson’s interpretation flows not from grammar but from his belief that baptism cannot be essential to forgiveness. He 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 does not say that. His conclusion flows from his interpretation, not linguistic analysis.
Julius Mantey
Julius Mantey takes a similar approach. In A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, he writes:
“When one considers in Ac. 2:38 repentance as self-renunciation and baptism as a public expression of self-surrender and self-dedication to Christ, which significance it certainly had in the first century, the expression εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν 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 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.”3 (emphasis in original)
At first, Mantey concedes the natural reading: eis “may mean for the purpose of forgiveness of sins.” That 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 both cases, doctrinal bias governs exegesis. Linguistic analysis takes a back seat.
Causal eis argument demolished
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 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 it highly 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 in its tenth definition of eis. By pointing readers to Marcus without comment leaves one with the impression that the BDAG editors are skeptical of Mantey’s view.
Refutation by Dr. Daniel Wallace
Dr. Daniel Wallace comments on the debate in his Greek Grammar beyond the Basics. He notes 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 for a causal eis fell short of proof.”4
Refutation by Dr. Edward Hobbs
Likewise, in a 1996 message to the B‑Greek email list, Dr. Edward Hobbs criticized what he called the “imaginary ‘causal use of EIS’” remarking that it has a short history.5 He noted that Julius Mantey introduced the idea in the 1920s, only to be repeatedly refuted by scholars including Ralph Marcus. Hobbs emphasized that Marcus had no theological stake in the debate, as he was a Jewish scholar with no commitment to any Christian view of baptism. His 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 for “non-linguistic” reasons.6
Hobbs’s summary reflects how most later scholars viewed the debate: theology, not grammar, was doing the heavy lifting in the causal reading. Dr. Hobbs ends his B‑Greek post by bluntly calling Mantey’s analysis a “fantasy-meaning of a Greek preposition.”
Why this matters
At first glance, debates over Greek prepositions may seem irrelevant. But this one matters because it affects how we understand what Peter said on the day of Pentecost. Was baptism something believers did because they were already forgiven, or in order to receive forgiveness?
This is not just a grammar question; it shapes how we respond to the gospel. If eis means “because of,” then 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 matter. The Holy Spirit inspired the New Testament in Greek, and that language carries meaning we must not distort. A few scholars may disagree, but we should ask: are their conclusions driven by what the text says, or by what 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 it to fit our theology.
Grammar vs. creed
We’ve seen that no standard Greek lexicon supports a causal meaning for eis in Acts 2:38. In fact, Mantey acknowledged this in the first sentence of his 1951 paper: “None of the Greek lexicons translate eis as causal.”7 The normal force of eis is forward-looking: into, toward, or with a view to. This holds across the New Testament and aligns with Peter’s words.
Scholars who argue for a causal reading do so not because of grammar, but because their creed compels them. A.T. Robertson and Julius Mantey made their conclusions based on what they believed baptism could or could not mean, not on how eis actually functions in Greek. Later scholars like Ralph Marcus, Daniel Wallace, and Edward Hobbs 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 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 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.”8
References
- BDAG, s.v. “εἰς,” 290.
- Robertson, Archibald Thomas. Word Pictures in the New Testament: The Acts of the Apostles. Vol. 3. 6 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1980. 35-36.
- H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Macmillan Company, 1957), 104.
- Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Zondervan, 1996. 370.
- https://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html4/2000-03/36019.html.
- Marcus, Ralph. “The Elusive Causal ‘Eis,’” Journal of Biblical Literature, 71, no. 1 (March, 1952): 44.
- Mantey, J. R. “The Causal Use of Eis in the New Testament.” Journal of Biblical Literature 70, no. 1 (March, 1951): 45.
- Davis, J C. “Another Look at the Relationship Between Baptism and Forgiveness of Sins in Acts 2:38.” Restoration Quarterly 24, no. 2 (1981): 88.