There are eight original language words used in our Bible, each rendered as the English word "repent":

1. NACHAM (Hebrew), meaning "to sigh, to breath strongly, to be sorry for".
2. SHUWB (Hebrew), meaning "to turn back or change one's mind".
3. NOCHAM (Hebrew), meaning "to regret".
4. NICHUM (Hebrew), meaning "to have compassion on, to feel pity for someone or something".
5. METANOEO (Greek), meaning "to change one's mind for the better, to change one's attitude toward (sin)".
6. METAMELOMAI (Greek), meaning "to regret the consequences of an action, but not the cause. Human sorry for poor behavior without intent to undo the wrong".
7. METANOIA (Greek), meaning "to change the attitude toward an action and it's cause. Godly sorrow".
8. AMETAMELETOS (Greek), meaning "a heart of disbelief, unwilling to repent".

The second error that the modern evangelist falls into is the belief that believing and repentance are one in the same. This is far from the truth. When you repent you turn from one situation to turn toward another. Belief n the Godly sense means that that which you turn to is Jesus Christ. You can repent your actions, change your lifestyle, and turn toward the wrong thing in belief. Many people repent their lifestyles and turn to Yoga, Buddha, New Age Philosophies, Spirit Worship, Wicca, Positive Thinking, or Charismatic Emotionalism. None of these (or any one of a thousand other belief systems) will bring a person into a Biblically Saved state. You must repent and believe to be saved, but is important that the second element (believe) be directed toward the right object of faith (Jesus). If not, repentance is ineffective.

When we preach the Gospel we should refrain from making the statement: "You must make Christ the Lord of Your Life". To tell a heathen that he must make Christ the Lord of his life is ludicrous. This man is totally unable to do this for himself. The only thing any person can do is, like a drowning man reaching for a lifesaver, reach out and cling to Christ as Savior. After salvation we work on making Christ Lord of our lives. Before salvation all we can do is reach out in faith, accepting Christ as our only hope.

Jeremiah 17:9  "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"

Psalms 51:5  "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me."

Romans 3:10-18 "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.  They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.  Their throat is an open sepulcher; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:  Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:   Their feet are swift to shed blood:   Destruction and misery are in their ways:   And the way of peace have they not known:   There is no fear of God before their eyes."

Another misleading call to faith is to "make a public profession of your faith". It is certain that each Christian should be willing to publicly confess that he has accepted Christ as Savior. Jesus said:

Luke 9:26  "For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels."

Yet we should be careful when including works within the call to salvation. We are, of our own power, unable to do anything to effect our salvation. Our works prior to salvation are all utterly worthless in God's sight. When we add the work of public profession to the call to salvation we give the impression that our works bring us to salvation. Nothing is farther from the truth. Salvation is a free gift from God, something accepted by faith alone.

The root of salvation is our inward faith. If there is a true inward faith to salvation, then there will be a change in the nature of the new believer. A new believer does not need to confess his salvation before other people in order to be saved, but he should be willing to do so after salvation. Ministers (myself included) often feel that their message was ineffective if people do not come forward or otherwise show some outward sign of change. It makes us feel that we were effective when we have the penitent sinner rise and walk the aisle to the altar. Yet, truth be told, this walk is not a necessary part of salvation. If a person accepts Christ as Savior in a deserted woodland he is still just as saved as if he did so in a church of a thousand. Our salvation does not rest on our actions, but on God's actions when we in faith ask.
 

Much of the misunderstanding of water baptism's place in salvation has been caused by certain passages in the King James version of the Bible. Before I start, let me assure you that what follows is in no way an attack on the King James Version. If you have studied the materials on this site you'll notice that I use the King James version exclusively. I love the KJV, and was saved 23 years ago under it's preaching. Though I am not of the "King James only" camp, I understand their love for this text, for I love it too.

Even so, the King James text has, in many cases, departed from the original language texts. This was not done deliberately by the KJV translators.

(Encyclopaedia Britannica Micropaedia, volume 5, page 819) ".. an English translation of the Bible published in 1611 under the auspices of James I of England. Forty seven scholars worked individually and in groups, utilizing previous English translations and texts in the original languages .."

The King James Version is not solely a direct Hebrew and Greek translation of the original manuscripts. The roots of the KJV stem all the way back to 1530 AD when the Tyndale translation of the original language Biblical manuscripts was made. The Tyndale translation was a good scholarly work, yet as time passed it was felt that there was a need to revise it's text. In 1535 AD the Cloverdale translation was made, then the Cloverdale translation was again revised in 1537 AD into the Matthew translation, which in turn was revised in 1539 AD into the Great Bible translation. The Great Bible translation was revised and updated between 1557 and 1560 AD into the Geneva Bible translation, which was in turn revised into the Bishop translation of 1568. The King James translators, though they used original language manuscripts in the translation, also used these previous English translations to guide them as they worked. The translators used the Bishop translated text when they felt it was accurate, and translated directly from the original texts when they felt this was warranted. The King James version was the best of eight English language Bibles translated to that date, and "the new version was more faithful to the original languages of the Bible and more scholarly than any of it's predecessors (Britannica, Macropaedia, volume 2 page 891)".
But is it flawless?

Well, no, obviously not. Since 1611 some 5000 original language Biblical manuscripts have been discovered by archeologists making textual criticism of the Scriptures much more accurate. The number of texts the King James translators had to compare for textual accuracy was very small in comparison. So is the King James a good translation? Absolutely! Is it flawless? Absolutely not!

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."

This passage seems to place two requirements on salvation: (1) repent, and (2) be baptized. This misunderstanding is caused by a mistranslation of the word and following the word Repent in the above text. The word rendered and is the Greek EIS, which should be rendered causually in this context. Properly rendered the text would read: Repent, and because of this be baptized.

The following scholars say of this verse:

" .. The metanoesate {repentance} demands the change of ethical disposition as the moral condition of being baptized, which directly and necessarily brings with it faith (Mark 1.15); the Aorist (repentance) denotes the immediate accomplishment (Acts 3.19; 8.22), which is conceived as the work of energetic resolution.. " (Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Acts of the Apostles, pg 66)

" ..the miserable absurdity of rendering metanoesate (repentance) by 'do penance', or understanding it as referring to a course of external rites, is well exposed by this passage - in which the internal change of heart and purpose is insisted on, to be testified by admission into the number of Christ's followers .." (Alford's Greek New Testament)

Matthew 3:11  "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:"

Again, the King James renders EIS (translated here as unto) as purposive instead of causually, which would be the correct translation. The immediate context bears this out, as John the Baptist only baptized people who had previously repented (Matthew 3.6). The baptism was only an outward sign of what previously occurred (salvation). The passage should read:

or

Says Dr Mantley (The Causual Use of EIS In The New Testament, Journal of Biblical Literacy, LXX, part 1, 1951):

"Confirmatory of the necessity of repentance before baptism, and consequently also of a causual translation for EIS in Matthew 3.11 and elsewhere is the expression found four times in the New Testament (Mark 1.4; Luke 3.3; Acts 13.24; 19.4) 'a baptism of repentance', which implies, since we have a genitive of description here, "a baptism symbolic or expressive of repentance .."

"Acts 22:16  And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

This translation seems to give firsthand evidence of Baptismal Regeneration. Yet if we read the Book of Acts we know that Paul was already saved on the Damascus Road (Acts 9.1-17). This in itself points to the fact that this verse is mistranslated.

The mistranslation stems from the Greek compound word EPIKALESAMENOS, an Aorist Participle translated calling on in our Acts text. This cannot be a correct translation for the common action of the Aorist normally signifies antecedent action. The word should have been rendered, having called on the name of the Lord. This corrected translation makes sense as Paul's salvation came long before his invitation to water baptism. Water Baptism is merely an outward testament of an inward change (salvation)

1 Peter 3:21  "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ ."

 .. not an integral key to salvation. A repentant believer accepts water baptism as a testimony to the change he has undergone. But an unrepentant heathen, if baptized, is only a wet unrepentant heathen.

John 3:5  "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Is the New Birth authored by the Holy Spirit and water baptism, or the Holy Spirit alone? If water baptism is a necessary factor in salvation then why did Jesus only mention it once in His talk with Nicodemus? If it is a necessary factor then Jesus would certainly have mentioned it several times to make sure that we understood it's importance. Yet only once?

The problem is, again, a mistranslated word. The word translated and in the context of of water and of the Spirit is the Greek conjunction KAI. When used as a connective conjunction it is translated "and", as we see above. But if translated ascensively it would best be rendered "even". The difference:

The meaning of the text changes drastically when properly translated. Jesus was water as a symbolic reference to describe the Holy Spirit. This is not the first time the Bible uses a common earth element to describe the Spirit (and His ministry), for we can also read:

Matthew 3:11  "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and (ascensive KAI = even) with fire:"

Luke 3:16  "John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and (ascensive KAI = even) with fire:"

John described the ministry of the Holy Spirit, equating it with fire. If KAI is not rendered ascensively then the verses make no sense, for no believer is baptized with literal fire at the point of salvation. In the same way the ascensive KAI parallels the Holy Spirit (and His ministry) to water. The verse does not teach water baptism as a necessary element for salvation.

1 Corinthians 15:29  "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?"

The translation of the Holy Scriptures has contributed to a lot of confusion within the Christian faith. Some denominations and Catholicism faith believe that this verse supports water baptism of a dead body in order that the recently departed soul can enter Heaven. Mormonism also supports this strange custom, based on this verse.

Imagine baptizing a dead body, believing that the departed soul will roam the nether world until this rite is satisfied! The Bible amply teaches that the soul immediately, on departing the body, is either face to face with God in Heaven or in Hell. There is no such thing as wandering between the two waiting for water baptism.

Again, this verse is mistranslated by one little word. The Greek HUPER, translated
baptized for the dead, should have been translated causually. If properly translated it would read:

"Else what shall they do which are baptized because of the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized because of the dead?"

Close relatives of dying Christians were, on seeing the demeanor of those about to depart (no fear, only joy at the idea that they would shortly see Jesus), becoming Christians themselves and submitting to water baptism. J. Vernon McGee tells a story that illustrates what Paul was talking about.
 

Years ago, a man with a large family lay dying. His children had been called
from the four corners of this country. All of them were Christians except the
youngest boy. As they all gathered around the bedside, the father tried again
to bring the youngest boy to Christ – but he would not come. The others had
received Christ and were living creditable Christian lives in other
communities.

Finally the father began with the oldest, and as he came by, he shook hands
with him and said to him, “I'll see you soon.” And he shook hands with the
next one, a daughter, and said to her, “I'll see you tomorrow.” Finally at the
end of the line the youngest boy came to him. The father looked at him for a
moment and tears came into his eyes as he said, “Son, good-bye.”

The boy asked, “Dad why do you say good-bye to me?” He replied, “Son I'll never see you again. If you continue to reject Jesus Christ as you've been rejecting Him, you are spiritually dead, a separation from God.”

The boy broke down, knelt at his father's bedside, and received Christ as his
Saviour.

This boy was baptized because of the dead, because of the demeanor of his dying father. This is all that Paul was saying: Many were coming to Christ when they saw their loved ones depart this life in joy.

Mark 16:16  "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

The verse alone, as translated, gives an indication that it is mistranslated. In the first part of the verse it seems to be saying that belief PLUS water baptism leads to salvation, and in the second part of the verse ONLY unbelief leads to damnation. If water baptism (or the lack of it) was a necessary element in salvation then the last part of the verse should have read "he that believeth not and is not baptized shall be damned".

The whole problem of poor uniformity in this verse is solved when we look at the Greek EIS, translated believeth and is baptized. EIS should have been translated causually, which would correctly read as:

"He that believeth and because of this is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

Salvation is a work entirely of God, needing none of our efforts to make it secure.
The self righteous like to add to God's program, in pride putting it out of the reach of the common man. Yet God's Plan of Salvation, unlike our misconceptions, is pure. A free gift of Eternal Life to whosoever will accept it. Have You?
.

Return to the Systematic Theology Table of Contents Continue to Part 2 Of This Study

.
Please feel free to E-mail me your questions, comments, and any difficulties you experienced accessing this study at DIDASKALOS Ministries

Return to the beginning of this study!

Return to DIDASKALOS MAIN MENU