Someone shared this with me and I was curious of your thoughts on it.
" Daniel B. Wallace disagrees with you. The preposition εἰς can mean many different things and be used numerous ways, including –
A spatial use, a temporal use, a use of purpose, a use of result, a use of reference, a use of advantage or disadvantage, or it can be used in place of the preposition "en". I’d be happy to elaborate on how these uses can be translated, but let me just say that "in order to," or "with a view to" are far from the only possible translations of this preposition.
Now, there are a couple of ways of handling the use of εἰς in this passage. It is possible, with the shift from the 2nd personal plural form with "repent", to the 3rd person singular for "be baptized", then back to the 2nd person plural form with "for the forgiveness of sins" would indicate that that "repent" is what the use of εἰς refers to, showing that only repenting is being commanded here for the forgiveness of sin. This is a sound grammatical understanding, but it is a bit clunky and awkward, so there must be something more to it.
Wallace suggests that the inclusion of baptism in the midst of this command suggests that the Jewish audience would have understood the symbolism of baptism to be a public declaration on their part, and an acknowledgment on the apostle’s part, of their new found faith. They would have already been Spirit-baptized at the point of their repentance and faith (as Acts 1:5 makes clear), and the water baptism would have been the natural expression of that new faith (as Acts 10 points out – the new believers’ faith is demonstrated through the Holy Spirit, and the natural first good work produced by that faith is a submission to the command of baptism)."
My response is that this is hogwash. I have heard these arguments before. This is clearly the work of someone desparate to avoid the dead obvious implications of the passage. Do not be bamboozled by the scholarly sounding mumbo jumbo. If you look carefully, it is very obvious that the author is reading a presupposition into the text. Note he says "they would have already been Spirit-baptized?" When? Where does he see this in the passage? It is not in the passage. It is also not in the Bible. At least he admits that his interpretation is "clunky." His only response is to resort to his pre-conceived assumption, which is circular reasoning if I have ever seen it. My response is that this kind of thing should make you all the more confident that the conclusion I think you already take from the passage is all the more confirmed by the gymnastics required by a person who would rather die than face the obvious. The Greek word eis means for, in order to or into. Acts 2:38 commands that we be baptized for (eis) the forgiveness of sins. I was in Greece where the entrances to the highways are called eisodus. Fortuntatly for the safety of people in that country, the residents know an entrance from an exit (exodus).