Acts 2:38

---

Acts 2:38

Hey all, I’m new to Bibleαrc, but I am really loving it. I’ve been studying Acts 2:38 this week, and I have a few questions that you may be able to shed some light on. First, how likely is it that the phrase “in the name of Jesus Christ” modifies both verbs (i.e., repent, be baptized)? Second, in the phrase μετανοήσατε φησὶν καὶ βαπτισθήτω the two verbs are in numerical discord since “repent” is a plural and and the “be baptized” is singular. Some interpreters have observed this and argued that “Be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ” is a parenthetical comment. I’d don’t agree with that because of the adjective and plural pronoun that follows it seems to grammtically mitigate its force as a singular giving both verbs a plural force. However, why is “be baptized” singular? I can’t figure that one out. It seems really abnormal to me. Thanks!

These are some great questions. Thanks for raising them. I’m hoping that some of my answers will be helpful, and I’m hoping that this thread will provide me a chance to learn from you and others as well.

To your first question: “how likely is it that the phrase ‘in the name of Jesus Christ’ modifies both verbs,” I think that it is unlikely for three reasons:

First, the NT most commonly connects being baptized with in/into the name: Matt 28:19; Acts 2:38; 8:12, 16; 10:48; 19:5; 22:16; 1 Cor 1:13, 15. I don’t think repenting into the name ever occurs (other than the possible example you point out here).

Second, the change in person, number, and voice that you note between μετανοήσατε (repent!) and βαπτισθήτω (let each of you be baptized) creates a degree of separation between the two clauses. Thus, I think this separation makes it unlikely that Luke meant a preposition from the second clause to apply to both clauses.

Third, if the original text contained the φησίν (Metzger comments: "A majority of the Committee was impressed by the diversity of early testimony supporting reading (b), but preferred to enclose φησίν within square brackets because of the weight of codex B, which lacks the word.), then I think it is even more unlikely that the preposition modifies both verbs. This variant between the two commands would create even more separation between the two clauses.

Now, to your second question: “why is “be baptized” singular?” I’d offer three potential answers.

First, Luke seems to introduce an intentional ordering in these commands. Peter issues the first command (μετανοήσατε/repent) to all of his hearers. The second command applies only to those who obey the first: “All of you need to repent. Then, if one repents, let that person be baptized.”

Second, I would think that the shift from active to passive voice affects the person and number of the second command.

Third, the change in person, number, and voice along with the pronoun ἔκαστος/each one seems to add some level of emphasis or urgency to the second command. Perhaps Luke highlights the focus in Peter’s speech on Jesus as the Messiah. Peter emphasizes that it is the name of Jesus that saves. This would be consistent with this specific speech and with one of the wider theological emphases in Acts.

Thank you for your reply. It was super helpful. If I may, a few questions…

Clearly, the “in the name of…” is frequently connected with baptism. However, given that the typical Lucan construction is ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ (not ἐπὶ) , and given the presence of other texts which use the phrase distributively (e.g., “And this is how some of you were; but you were washed, but you were made holy, but you were justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” 1 Cor. 6:11), and given that sometimes in Acts the phrase “in the name of Jesus Christ” modifies the command itself (e.g., Acts 3:6; 10:48), do you think its possible?

As for the majority reading, the pronoun occurs early and frequently (p74, א, A, B, C, 81, 181). While shorter readings tend to be preferred, I think the presence of the pronoun is the harder reading since it is likely that scribes dropped the pronoun in order to conform the phrase to how it appears in the gospels (e.g., Matt. 26:28). Further, McIntyre has pointed out that, “In every case in Luke-Acts the articular ‘sins’ also has a personal pronoun in the genitive.” “Baptism and Forgiveness in Acts 2:38,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 56.

Lastly, could you point me to any resource that mentions a verb shifting into the singular form because of the passive mood? I can’t seem to find anything.

Thanks for your reply. I’ll respond to your reply in reverse order:

1. I think that you were right to push back when I suggested that verb’s person and number might shift because a change in voice. As I reread my comments and this passage, I wonder if Luke’s change in person and number has to do with 1) the act of the verb itself, 2) Luke’s theological emphases, and 3) literary style (to heighten the urgency of the command). As I said in earlier comments, Luke seems to be emphasizing the saving name of Jesus and the urgency of personal faith. Another reason for the second person plural in the first command is that Peter is talking to the people who crucified the Messiah. He holds them all culpable for this sin, and he calls them all to repent from this sin. Thoughts?

2. To your second reply: Are we talking about different pronouns here? I was speaking about the ἔκαστος in the second clause. It sounds like you are speaking about the ὑμῶν. The text critical issue I brought up was separate from the pronoun. It had to do with the verb φησίν. Sorry that I was not clear here.

3. I still think it unlikely that the preposition modifies μετανοεω/repent along with βαπτιζω/baptize. The point I was trying to make was that “in the name of…” frequently occurs with baptism and never occurs with μετανοεω. This holds even though ἐν is the normal preposition. I think the strongest argument against the idea has to do with the meaning of μετανοεω and the way the NT authors most commonly use it to command/talk about a turning from sin (Check out Moises Silva’s article in NIDNTTE). In Acts, Luke often uses it as the first command in a two-part action that describes conversion (turning from sin and turning to Jesus): Acts 2:38; 3:19; 8:22; 26:20. Luke seems to use μετανοεω to describe the first part of conversion: repenting of sin/turning from idols. Further, when NT authors describe this action further by using a preposition, the prepositional phrase usually specifies the sin they are turning from: Acts 8:22; 2 Cor 12:21; Rev 2:21, 22; 9:20, 21; 16:11. So, I don’t think it likely that Luke would use the preposition in a distributive sense here.

I’ve really enjoyed this conversation, by the way. You’ve encouraged me to dig deeper and reminded me why I love the Greek NT so much. One thing I’d love to know is: What is at stake in our conversation? Do you think the meaning changes in some way?

1. I agree that the inclusion of the pronominal εκαστος indicates urgency. The best I can tell, the reason why the verb is singular is because he is emphasizing that each person needs to be baptized. However, I’ve been attempting to find another place either in the GNT or LXX which uses a similar construction to shed light on this.

2. Yes, we are talking about different pronouns. My mistake, I misread your previous comments. I was speaking about the second υμων. As for the NIDNTTE, its on my list to purchase when I win the big one. Although, since I don’t play it is unlikely that I’ll get a hold of that set.

I suppose the only thing at stake here is a better understanding of what is meant by baptism in the name of Jesus. If it modifies both verbs (which I concede it is not likely), then there is a question as to what that expression means. I did some more studying on the “in the name of…” construction, and given its frequency in the LXX, I think I understand it now. Many commentators suggest this is an alternate baptismal invocation (cf. Matt. 28:19). I think it is rather a means unto communicating that baptism is an activity we engage in while acknowledging the Lordship, person, and work of Christ.