Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 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.

38. Repent ] This was in accordance with the directions of Jesus before His ascension (Luk 24:47), “that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name.”

be baptized ] Also enjoined by Christ (Mat 28:19), and while there the baptism is “to be in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost,” and here it is only said “in the name of Jesus Christ,” we are not to suppose any change made from the first ordinance, but only that as the Church was to be called Christ’s, so in mentioning the Sacrament for the admission of its members His name was specially made prominent. It was belief in Christ as the Son of God which constituted the ground of admission to the privileges of His Church. This made the whole of St Peter’s creed (Mat 16:16) when Christ pronounced him blessed.

ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost ] This is expressly stated to have been given to some of the converts (see Act 8:17, Act 10:47, &c.), and we cannot doubt that it was largely bestowed on these earlier penitents.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Then Peter said unto them – Peter had been the chief speaker, though others had also addressed them. He now, in the name of all, directed the multitude what to do.

Repent – See the notes on Mat 3:2. Repentance implies sorrow for sin as committed against God, along with a purpose to forsake it. It is not merely a fear of the consequences of sin or of the wrath of God in hell. It is such a view of sin, as evil in itself, as to lead the mind to hate it and forsake it. Laying aside all view of the punishment of sin, the true penitent hates it. Even if sin were the means of procuring him happiness; if it would promote his gratification and be unattended with any future punishment, he would hate it and turn from it. The mere fact that it is evil, and that God hates it, is a sufficient reason why those who are truly penitent hate it and forsake it. False repentance dreads the consequences of sin; true repentance dreads sin itself. These persons whom Peter addressed had been merely alarmed; they were afraid of wrath, and especially of the wrath of the Messiah. They had no true sense of sin as an evil, but were simply afraid of punishment. This alarm Peter did not regard as by any means genuine repentance. Such conviction for sin would soon wear off, unless their repentance became thorough and complete. Hence, he told them to repent, to turn from sin, to exercise sorrow for it as an evil and bitter thing, and to express their sorrow in the proper manner. We may learn here:

(1) That there is no safety in mere conviction for sin: it may soon pass off, and leave the soul as thoughtless as before.

(2) There is no goodness or holiness in mere alarm or conviction. The devils …tremble. A man may fear who yet has a firm purpose to do evil, if he can do it with impunity.

(3) Many are greatly troubled and alarmed who never repent. There is no situation where souls are so easily deceived as here. Alarm is taken for repentance; trembling for godly sorrow; and the fear of wrath is taken to be the true fear of God.

(4) True repentance is the only thing in such a state of mind that can give any relief. An ingenuous confession of sin, a solemn purpose to forsake it, and a true hatred of it, is the only thing that can give the mind composure. Such is the constitution of the mind that nothing else will furnish relief. But the moment we are willing to make an open confession of guilt, the mind is delivered of its burden, and the convicted soul finds peace. Until this is done, and the hold on sin is broken, there can be no peace.

(5) We see here what direction is to be given to a convicted sinner. We are not to direct him to wait; nor to lead him to suppose that he is in a good way; nor to tell him to continue to seek; nor to call him a mourner; nor to take sides with him, as if God were wrong and harsh; nor to advise him to read, and search, and postpone the subject to a future time. We are to direct him to repent; to mourn over his sins, and to forsake them. Religion demands that he should at once surrender himself to God by genuine repentance; by confession that God is right and that he is wrong; and by a firm purpose to live a life of holiness.

Be baptized – See the notes on Mat 3:6, Mat 3:16. The direction which Christ gave to his apostles was that they should baptize all who believed, Mat 28:19; Mar 16:16. The Jews had not been baptized; and a baptism now would be a profession of the religion of Christ, or a declaration made before the world that they embraced Jesus as their Messiah. It was equivalent to saying that they should publicly and professedly embrace Jesus Christ as their Saviour. The gospel requires such a profession, and no one is at liberty to withhold it. A similar declaration is to be made to all who are inquiring the way to life. They are to exercise repentance; and then, without any unnecessary delay, to evince it by partaking of the ordinances of the gospel. If people are unwilling to profess religion, they have none. If they will not, in the proper way, show that they are truly attached to Christ, it is proof that they have no such attachment. Baptism is the application of water, as expressive of the need of purification, and as emblematic of the influences from God that can alone cleanse the soul. It is also a form of dedication to the service of God.

In the name of Jesus Christ – Not eis, into, but epi, upon. The usual form of baptism is into the name of the Father, etc. – eis. Here it does not mean to be baptized by the authority of Jesus Christ, but it means to be baptized for him and his service; to be consecrated in this way, and by this public profession, to him and to his cause. The expression is literally upon the name of Jesus Christ: that is, as the foundation of the baptism, or as that on which its propriety rested or was based. In other words, it is with an acknowledgment of him in that act as being what his name imports the Sinners only Hope, his Redeemer, Lord, Justifier, King (Prof. Hackett, in loco). The name of Jesus Christ means the same as Jesus Christ himself. To be baptized to his name is to be devoted to him. The word name is often thus used. The profession which they were to make amounted to this: a confession of sins; a hearty purpose to turn from them; a reception of Jesus as the Messiah and as a Saviour; and a determination to become his followers and to be devoted to his service. Thus, 1Co 10:2, to be baptized unto Moses means to take him as a leader and guide. It does not follow that, in administering the ordinance of baptism, they used only the name of Jesus Christ. It is much more probable that they used the form prescribed by the Saviour himself Mat 28:19; though, as the special mark of a Christian is that he receives and honors Jesus Christ, this name is used here as implying the whole. The same thing occurs in Act 19:5.

For the remission of sins – Not merely the sin of crucifying the Messiah, but of all sins. There is nothing in baptism itself that can wash away sin. That can be done only by the pardoning mercy of God through the atonement of Christ. But baptism is expressive of a willingness to be pardoned in that way, and is a solemn declaration of our conviction that there is no other way of remission. He who comes to be baptized, comes with a professed conviction that he is a sinner; that there is no other way of mercy but in the gospel, and with a professed willingness to comply with the terms of salvation, and to receive it as it is offered through Jesus Christ.

And ye shall receive … – The gift of the Holy Spirit here does not mean his extraordinary gifts, or the power of working miracles, but it simply means, you shall partake of the influences of the Holy Spirit as far as they may be adapted to your case – as far as may be needful for your comfort, peace, and sanctification. There is no evidence that they were all endowed with the power of working miracles, nor does the connection of the passage require us thus to understand it. Nor does it mean that they had not been awakened by his influences. All true conviction is from him, Joh 16:8-10. But it is also the office of the Spirit to comfort, to enlighten, to give peace, and thus to give evidence that the soul is born again. To this, probably, Peter refers; and this all who are born again and profess faith in Christ possess. There is peace, calmness, joy; there is evidence of piety, and that evidence is the product of the influences of the Spirit. The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, etc., Gal 5:22, Gal 5:24.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Act 2:38

Then Peter said, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Peters direction

In getting the exact meaning of Peters directions to these inquirers, observe–

(1) Repent is literally to perceive afterwards, and hence to change the mind, including ones view of life and truth, and hence ones purpose. Here it means an entire change of opinion respecting Jesus Christ, from regarding Him as an impostor to reverencing Him as both Lord and Christ; but it also includes all that change of inner life and purpose which follows thereon. The Roman Catholic translation, Do penance, making the direction merely the observance of certain legal rites, is equally inconsistent with the original Greek and with the spirit of the entire passage.

(2) Be baptized follows in order the direction to repent. Baptism is not a regenerating ordinance, but a sign and symbol of repentance, and a public confession of Christ.

(3) Each of you, shows that the repentance and baptism must be a personal act. The multitude could not have been baptized under this direction, as some of the converts under Xaviers preaching were baptized in India, by being sprinkled altogether in a multitude, or as some of the northern people were baptized in earlier times, by being made to pass through the river in a great host.

(4) In (upon) the name of Jesus Christ, is upon the name of Jesus Christ as the foundation of the baptism, i.e., with an acknowledgment of Him in that act as being what His name means, the sinners only hope, his Redeemer, Justifier, Lord, and Final Judge. (Lyman Abbott.)

St. Peters prescription

I. The means he prescribes.

1. Repentance; that is the first ingredient in the cure. It is the primitive original grace, even before faith itself, as it serves to justify. All the promises are made only to the penitent.

(1) See the necessity of this spiritual medicine. As when a loving father shall command his sick child to use such a medicine to save his life, should the child refuse it, he sins not only as a disobedient child against his father, but as a desperate creature against his own life. Impeniteney is the damning sin. All sins deserve damnation, but it is impenitency which doth actually cast us. As he that hath eaten poison hath done that which in itself is deadly; but yet there is an antidote that can cure it; now to refuse the antidote is more desperate. Other sins are against our duty; but impenitency is against our recovery. Still the Scripture promises this as a necessary condition for obtaining mercy (Act 5:3).

(2) It is a proper cure for sin this penitential sorrow. To speak truly, sorrow and remorse, it is good for nothing but to destroy sin. God, when He implanted this affection in our souls, intended it only for this purpose, to purge and cure our spiritual maladies

(3) See the efficacy of this prescript, the strength and virtue of this balm of Gilead. It is able to work strange cures, to recover men of desperate maladies. As no sin is so small but it needs repentance, so no sin so great but may be done away by this grace of repentance.

(4) Take notice of the seasonableness of this prescription. They were already deeply cast down with sorrow and anguish, they were pricked at the heart, pierced. One would think some other course were more seasonable. No, no; St. Peter is right, he sees their souls are in perplexity, and yet he calls upon them to repent; they are in sorrow, and yet they must sorrow if they mean to be eased. There is indeed a large difference betwixt that sorrow which they already felt and that penitential sorrow which St. Peter enjoins them. Their former sorrow, it was a legal sorrow, wrought into them by the terrors of Gods law and the sense of their sin; but the sorrow St. Peter commends to them is an evangelical sorrow, a sorrow wrought by the gospel and a gift of Christ.

(5) Their former sorrow and compunction, it was a pang and passion of sorrow that seized them, whether they would or no; but the penitential sorrow that Peter exhorts them to, it is a voluntary, willing sorrow to which they must stir up and provoke themselves.

(a) Look upon it in the original, it is a grace, and that is seated in the will, it serves to enable it and to make it willing.

(b) Look upon it in the exercise, so it is a duty; God requires and expects repentance. Now, God requires our actions. Sufferings are not commanded but inflicted; but duties are, enjoined, and we must willingly perform them.

(c) Look upon it in the use; so it is a condition upon the performance of which God doth covenant with us. A true penitent must provoke himself to sorrow, praying that he may sorrow; grieving that he cannot grieve, never repenting that he hath repented.

(6) The sorrow they felt before, when their hearts were pricked, differs from the sorrow to which St. Peter exhorts them; that was dolor, the pain of the disease; but this he requires of them, it is the smart that comes by the cure and medicine. It is not every stroke of conscience, nor every pang of sorrow, that is true repentance; we may feel all these, and feel them in extremity, and yet the bitter pill of repentance must be taken down for all that. That is the first means, a spiritual purging. Come we–

2. To the second means which St. Peter prescribes them, that is a spiritual bathing; that is the sacrament of baptism.

(1) The sacramental action; they must be baptized. This outward, external, bodily ceremony of washing in water, it is of Divine institution, and so necessary. Let the means be what it will, if Christ sends us to it, it shall be effectual. Purposely Christ uses these bodily means as special conveyances of spiritual grace; even amongst men we see outward evidences and seals are accounted strong assurances. We are not content to have estates passed over to us by bare word; but writings and seals, livery and seisin, are all requisite. Purposely God employs very mean instruments that our faith may only depend upon His power, and that our thankfulness may ascribe it only to His glory. In particular, Christ prescribes this sacrament of baptism, and washing in water, that element fitly resembling those spiritual effects which are wrought in baptism.

(a) Water hath a force of drawing and killing and suffocating any breathing thing. And this quality of water is a fit resemblance of the grace of baptism. A sinner, coming to this sacrament, hath all his sins drowned and abolished.

(b) Water hath a power of quenching; and such a spiritual virtue there is in baptism, it allays the heat of our natural concupiscence, quenches and extinguishes the boilings and inflammations of our sinful lusts.

(c) Water, it is a cleansing element, it washes away filthiness, and so doth baptism; it purges a sinner from all defilements of flesh and spirit (Eph 4:26).

(d) Water hath a fructifying virtue in it; it is a fruitful element, and makes other things fruitful (Gen 1:20). So this sacrament by Divine institution and benediction, it is a fountain of living water, a font and laver of regeneration. See how abundantly these waters brought forth. Three thousand were baptized and renewed in one day. That is the action. Then–

(2) The relation of it, which enlivens the action and makes it effectual, is that it must be done in the name of Jesus Christ. What means that? In His name, that is, by His authority. He alone can institute a sacrament, He alone can make the seal that must confirm His covenant. In His name; that is, be baptized in the faith of Jesus His name, through faith in His name (Act 3:16). A sacrament without faith is a seal to a blank. In the name of Jesus Christ, that is, in the solemn and holy profession of Christ into His religion, into the fellowship and communion of His holy profession. In baptism we take upon us Christs cognisance and livery.

II. The benefits which upon the use of this means he doth assure them.

1. Remission of sins. And this will appear–

(1) A seasonable benefit. Men in their case and perplexity had rather hear of the pardon of their sins, then that all the goods of the world should betide them. This mercy, it is the sinful souls city of refuge. Other means may stupefy and benumb our conscience, and lay it asleep; only this assurance can truly and effectually quiet and comfort it, Thy sins are forgiven thee.

(2) This mercy here promised is a full complete comfort; it is remission of sins in the plural number. As in bodily cures, when Christ cast out one devil, He cast out all; seven devils out of Mary Magdalen; a whole legion of devils, left not one remaining. So when He pardons one sin He forgives all.

(a) Gods love, it is not partial and imperfect, pardoning some and retaining others.

(b) And then repentance, though it be occasioned by some one sin, yet it bewails all, detests all, forsakes all. A good Christian will leave no sin unrepented of.

(c) The grace of baptism doth not only seal up the actual remission of our by-past sins; but it hath a force even for the pardoning of the sins of our whole life. Not that all our sins past, present, and to come are actually all forgiven in baptism, but because in our baptism God seals up that covenant by which He assures us, He will pardon all our sins upon our repentance; and thus the force of baptism reaches to the pardon of future sins.

2. The receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost.

(1) Grace is a gift not inbred in us, not deserved or purchased by us.

(2) We must receive it; we are only passive and receptive of grace. The Spirit is the only agent, we are but receivers of the gift of grace. To pass by these, consider only these two things: the order. Repent and be baptized, and then receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. First, here is cleansing required, and then beautifying. The Holy Ghost abhors uncleanliness, will not come near to a defiled soul. The nature of this gift. The gifts of the Holy Ghost; were of two sorts.

3. Those that are usually called gifts tending to edification of others; as tongues and other ministerial enablements. They were the gifts of this day, but not the only gifts.

4. Others are gifts of personal concernment, for the good of the receivers to further their salvation. And these were promised and bestowed on this day.

(1) The grace of sanctification; that was the gift and benefit of this day.

(2) The grace of obsignations and sealing, that was the work and gift of the Spirit that came this day. This is one great office of the Holy Ghost to ratify and seal up to us the forgiveness of our sins and all the benefits of our redemption (Eph 1:13; Eph 4:30).

(3) The grace of consolation; that is another work and gift of the Spirit, that was also the gift of this day.

(a) In regard of our sanctification, so the Holy Ghost is a gift of grace enabling us.

(b) In respect of our assurance, so He is a seal confirming us.

(c) In respect of comfort and consolation, so He is the kiss of love and peace to rejoice and comfort us. And this assurance that Peter gives them of their receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, it will afford us a threefold meditation.

See here–

1. His earnest desire to have the gift of the Spirit communicated to them.

2. The bounty of God; whom He pardons, those He enriches and stores with grace.

3. Learn here the duty and obligation of a penitent. If God bestows this rich gift on us, that very gift obliges us to use it. We must not be content to have our sins pardoned, but we must set ourselves to perform better obedience. (BP. Brownrigg.)

The gospel

The crowd, convinced of sin and fearful of its consequences, cried out in an agony of remorse and despair, What shall we do? Meaning, of course, what the jailer meant in the full evangelical question. They wanted to know how they should escape the penalty incurred. Very full is this condensed reply of Peters. The whole gospel of mans salvation is included in it. No director of a stricken and bewildered conscience can improve upon it.

I. The nature of salvation.

1. Remission of sins. Sin had run them into danger; continuance in sin would involve them in ruin. The first thing, therefore, was that sin should be remitted. When a disease breaks out it exposes its victims to a possible or probable death. To check its ravages does not mean absolutely health; but there is no averting that fatality until the progress of the disease receives a check. In our case sin exposes us to punishment on account of its guilt; to death because of its power. To forgive the guilt and to counterwork the power is therefore the first requirement. It is not full salvation, but it is necessary to it.

2. The gift of the Holy Ghost. This is the positive side of that which remission is the negative side, and completes the idea of salvation. To receive the Spirit is for the sick soul to be restored to full health; it is to lay ourselves open to His gracious work, which is

(1) Regeneration, the gift of a new nature.

(2) Adoption, translation into the Divine family and acceptance in the Beloved.

(3) The witness to our sonship.

(4) Progressive sanctification.

(5) The earnest of all the glory and the joy of heaven.

II. The means of obtaining salvation.

1. Repentance. Change of mind about sin, self, holiness, and God, with endeavours after a corresponding change in the life and conduct. This will involve a hatred of sin, a true measurement of our own weakness and unworthiness, an endeavour after holiness, a desire after God as the supreme good.

2. Baptism. Here the rite was a symbol–

(1) Of trust in Christ. In the name of Jesus Christ.

(2) Of the purity to which the Christian is pledged.

(3) Of confession of Christ before men.

(4) Of separation from the old life of the world, and consecration to Christ.

These conditions are as inexorable to-day as they were then. All that the baptism we have already enjoyed in infancy means is obligatory on every baptized man. Our baptism is vain and our salvation non-existent unless the life we live in the flesh be by the faith of the Son of God; unless our lives are pure, unless our confession of Christ be unmistakable, and unless we are fully consecrated to our Masters service. Conclusion:

1. How simple the conditions on which God grants His greatest boon.

2. How essential that we should comply with them before the gift is withdrawn. (J. W. Burn.)

Repentance

This is a turning from sin to God. When genuine it is a fruit of the Spirit, and secures the further gift of the Spirit. In its widest sense it includes the whole process of conversion. It has been well defined to be a saving grace whereby a sinner, out of a true sense of his sin and apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ, doth with grief and hatred of his sin turn from it unto God with full purpose of, and endeavour after, new obedience.

I. Its means.

1. From a due sense of sin. This includes–

(1) A knowledge of sin.

(2) A conviction of our own sinfulness.

(3) A proper sense of our own guilt and pollution.

The knowledge of sin supposes proper views of the holiness and justice of God, and therefore of the greatness of the evil of sin, and that we are absolutely at Gods mercy.

2. It is with apprehension of Gods mercy in Christ. Repentance is not possible as long as we think we are without hope. For despair excludes repentance. We must apprehend, i.e., believe–

(1) That God is merciful.

(2) That He can consistently exercise His mercy.

(3) That we are, or may be, its objects.

(4) That this is through Christ; because out of Christ conscience and Scripture teach Him to be a consuming fire.

II. The attending circumstances.

1. Grief, i.e., sincere sorrow for having sinned; including–

(1) Remorse.

(2) Self abhorrence.

(3) Self-condemnation.

(4) Shame.

2. Hatred of sin, which includes–

(1) Disapprobation.

(2) Disgust.

III. The act itself.

1. Turning from sin: from its

(1) Approbation.

(2) Indulgence.

(3) Promotion.

2. Turning to God–

(1) As an object of excellence.

(2) As an object of enjoyment.

IV. Its efforts.

1. Purpose. A decision of the will to obey God in all things.

2. Endeavour to do so.

(1) Continued.

(2) Sincere.

(3) Effective. (C. Hodge, D. D.)

Repentance: its nature

It consists in the heart being broken for sin and from sin. (W. Nevins.)

Repentance: its beginning and end

It begins in the humiliation of the heart, and ends in the reformation of the life. (J. M. Mason, D. D.)

Repentance: its double aspect

True repentance looks upon things past with a weeping eye, and upon the future with a watchful eye. (R. South, D. D.)

Repentance, thorough

I pray you dig deep. Christs palace-work and His new dwelling, laid upon hell felt and feared, is most firm; and heaven, grounded and laid upon such a hell, is sure work, and will not wash away with winter storms. (S. Rutherford.)

Repentance, universal

If a ship have three leaks, and two be stopped, the third will sink the ship. If a man has two severe wounds, and cures one, the neglected one will kill him. (J. Spencer.)

Repentance: a change of course

A captain at sea discovers that, by some mistake, the steersman is steering the ship directly for the rocks. How is the danger to be avoided? By scrubbing the decks, or setting the men to the pumps? No! these things are good enough in their own time, but if the ship is to be saved, one thing must be done–her course must be changed. So the captain utters a few quick words, and the ship turns and speeds away from the danger.

Repentance produced by God

You feel that you cannot repent, but cannot Jesus make thee repent by His Spirit? Do you hesitate about that question? See the world a few months ago hard bound with frost, but how daffodil, and crocus, and snowdrop have come up above that once frozen soil, how snow and ice have gone, and the genial sun shines out! God does it readily, with the soft breath of the south wind and the kind sunbeams, and He can do the same in the spiritual world for thee. Relieve He can, and ask Him now to do it, and thou shalt find that the rock of ice shalt thaw, that huge, horrible, devilish iceberg of a heart of thine shall begin to drip with showers of crystal penitence, which God shall accept through His dear Son.

Repentance before joy

As certain fabrics need to be damped before they will take the glowing colours with which they are to be adorned, so our spirits need the bedewing of repentance before they can receive the radiant colouring of delight. The glad news of the gospel can only be printed on wet paper. Have you ever seen clearer shining than that which follows a shower? Then the sun transforms the raindrops into gems, the flowers look up with fresher smiles and faces glittering from their refreshing bath, and the birds from among the dripping branches sing with notes more rapturous, because they have paused awhile. So, when the soul has been saturated with the rain of penitence, the clear shining of forgiving love makes the flowers of gladness blossom all round. The steps by which we ascend to the palace of delight are usually moist with tears. Grief for sin is the porch of the House Beautiful, where the guests are full of the joy of the Lord.

The magnitude of repentance

Repentance is an old-fashioned doctrine, which in these days has been despised; but, if I stand alone, I will bear testimony for it. They say that repentance is nothing at all–that it is merely, according to the Greek, a change of mind. That shows what a little Greek they know. A little of such knowledge is a dangerous thing. A pity that they do not learn more. Repentance is a change of mind; but do you say that it is only a change of mind? That is a pretty big only. A change of mind, a radical change of mind, from the love of sin to the love of holiness, is that a small affair? It is always attended with sorrow and regret for past sin: and, if there is a man here who thinks that he will get to heaven by a dry-eyed faith, he will be mistaken. He that never mourned for sin hath never rejoiced in the Lord. If I can look back upon my past life of sin and say, I have no grief over it, why, then I should do the same again if I had the opportunity: and this shows that my heart is as perverse as ever it was, and I am still unregenerate. Dear Mr. Rowland Hill used to say that faith and repentance were his daily companions as long as he lived, and that, if he had any thought of regret at entering heaven, it would be to think that he might have to part with his dear friend Repentance as he went through the gate. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

A repentance not so earnest as it seems

The gondoliers at Venice, when we were sojourning in that queen of the Adriatic, frequently quarrelled with each other, and used such high words and ferocious gestures that we were afraid murder would come of it; yet they never came to blows, it was only their rough way of disputing. Often and often have we heard men upbraiding themselves for their sins, and crying out against the evil which their follies have wrought them, yet these very people have continued in their transgressions, and have even gone from bad to worse. They barked too much at sin to fall to and destroy it. Their enmity to evil was mere feigning; like the sword-play of the stage, which looks like earnest fight, but no wounds are given or received. Let those who play at repentance remember that they who repent in mimicry shall go to hell in reality. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

Legal and evangelical repentance

There is many a wounded conscience that is wounded like a sheet of ice shivered on the pavement, which yet is stiff and cold. But let the sun shine forth, and the ice is melted, and melted completely; so is it with legal and evangelical repentance.

For the remission of sins.—

Remission by God only

As the prince or ruler only has power to pardon treason in his subjects, so God only has power to forgive sin. As no man can forgive a debt but the creditor to whom the debt is due, so God only can forgive us our debts, whose debtors we are to an incalculable amount.

Remission for the greatest sinners

There was once a man who was a very great sinner, and for his horrible wickedness was put to death in the town of Ayr. This man had been so stupid and brutish a fellow, that all who knew him thought him beyond the reach of all ordinary means of grace; but while the man was in prison the Lord wonderfully wrought on his heart, and in such a measure discovered to him his sinfulness, that, after much serious exercise and sore wrestling, a most kindly work of repentance followed, with great assurance of mercy, insomuch that when he came to the place of execution he could not cease crying out to the people, under the sense of pardon and the comforts of the presence and favour of God, Oh, He is a great forgiver! He is a great forgiver! And he added the following words, Now hath perfect love cast out fear. I know God hath nothing to lay against me, for Jesus Christ hath paid all; and those are free whom the Son makes free. (J. Fleming.)

Remission gives confidence under the accusations of the law

A man was once being tried for a crime, the punishment of which was death. The witnesses came in one by one, and testified to his guilt; but there he stood, quite calm and unmoved. The judge and the jury were quite surprised at his indifference; they could not understand how he could take such a serious matter so calmly. When the jury retired, it did not take them many minutes to decide on the verdict Guilty; and when the judge was passing the sentence of death upon the criminal he told him how surprised he was that he could be so unmoved in the prospect of death. When the judge had finished the man put his hand in his bosom, pulled out a document, and walked out of the dock a free man. Ah, that was how he could be so calm; it was a free pardon from his king, which he had in his pocket all the time. The king had instructed him to allow the trial to proceed, and to produce the pardon only when he was condemned. Now, that is just what will make us joyful in the great day of judgment; we have got a pardon from the Great King, and it is sealed with the blood of His Son. (D. L. Moody.)

And ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.—

The gift of the Holy Ghost

1. Among the various reasonable grounds and ends of observing festival solemnities, the principal are these:

(1) The occasion which they afford to instruct ourselves and others in the mysterious doctrines of our religion.

(2) The engaging us seasonably to practise that great duty to God, the remembering and praising Him for His great favours and mercies.

2. For these purposes chiefly did God Himself appoint the Jewish festivals: e.g., the Passover. In compliance with which design the Christian Church has recommended to her children the observation of her chief festivals, continuing the time and name, though changing or improving the matter and reason of those ancient ones. The effusion of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost corresponded with the time when the Jews were obliged to rejoice before the Lord, for the harvest newly gathered in, and the earths good fruits bestowed on them; and then did God bountifully impart the first-fruits of His Holy Spirit. The benefit, therefore, and blessing, which at this time we are bound to commemorate, is in effect the publication and establishment of the evangelical covenant, the foundation of all our hopes, and claims to happiness; but more immediately and directly–

I. The donation of the Holy Spirit to the Christian Church, and to all its members.

1. Gods gracious design was to reclaim mankind item their ignorance, errors, and sins, and to reconcile them to Himself by the mediation of His Son, whom He sent to instruct them in their duty.

2. To render this successful according to the capacities of human nature, it was requisite to provide convincing arguments to persuade men of the truth of these things; means to excite their attention to them; motives to accept them; and a power also to retain them firm in their belief, and uphold them in the performance of the conditions required.

3. To prevent, therefore, the disappointment of His merciful intentions, God to the ministry of His eternal wisdom adjoined the efficacy of His eternal love and blessed Spirit, the which not only conducted our Divine Saviour into His earthly tabernacle, but did continually reside with Him, and attend Him in the performance of His miraculous works, attesting the truth of His quality, commission, and doctrine, and exciting men to notice these things. Nay, farther, to induce them to comply with these gracious overtures, He faithfully promised that He would impart the same blessed Spirit, as the continual guide and comforter of all who should sincerely embrace them, and conform their lives to His righteous laws.

4. Now although the natural and ordinary manner of this Divine Spirits operation is not by violent and sensible impressions, but rather in way of imperceptible penetration, hardly discovering itself except by its results; and though its proper and principal effects relate to the furthering our performance of the conditions of our salvation; yet more fully to satisfy the doubtful, confound the obstinate, and confirm the faithful, God was pleased, after our Lords ascension, to dispense both to teachers and disciples more liberal and extraordinary communication of that Holy Spirit, attended with wonderful effects.

5. The Christian Church therefore obliges us at this time to commemorate that incomparable gift, then conferred more visibly on the Church, and still really bestowed on every particular member who is duly incorporated into it. It is so bestowed, that is, on each member; for the evangelical covenant extends to every Christian, and a principal ingredient thereof is the collation of this Spirit. This is the teaching of Holy Scripture, the doctrine constantly, and with very general consent delivered down in the Catholic Church.

II. The worth and excellency of this Divine gift. That it is transcendently valuable, we may hence generally collect; that even in our Lords esteem it did not only countervail, but in a manner surmount the benefit of His presence. It is expedient for you that I go away, etc. But to take a more distinct survey of its benefits.

1. We owe to the Holy Spirit our spiritual state and being; our spiritual life, freedom, and honourable condition.

(1) By virtue of this quickening Spirit we are raised from death to an immortal state of life, being quickened together with Christ.

(2) We are enfranchised from intolerable slavery, from the spirit of bondage unto fear, etc.

(3) We are also advanced to an honourable condition, ennobled with illustrious relations, and entitled to glorious privileges: for thence we have access unto the Father, and are no more strangers, but fellow-citizens of the saints, and of the household of God.

2. Neither only relatively and extrinsically is our estate thus bettered, but we ourselves are answerably changed and amended by the same Holy Spirit; being renewed in the spirit of our mind; becoming new creatures, created according to God in righteousness. Such doctrines, as that our happiness consists not in affluence of temporal enjoyments, but in a disposition of mind curbing our appetites and quelling our passions; in conformity of practice to rules distasteful to our sense; in gaining and retaining the love of an Infinite Being; that naked goodness is to be preferred before all the pomp and glory of this world, etc.; such doctrines are indeed hard and harsh to us, absurd to our natural conceits, and abominable to our carnal minds: of our own accord, without Divine attraction, we never should come to Christ. His own disciples struggled against such doctrines, and without the aid of the Spirit would scarcely have admitted many evangelical truths. As for the mighty sages of the world, the wise men according to the flesh, they were far more ready to deride than to admit them. Though some few sparks of Divine knowledge may have been driven out by rational consideration and philosophical study, yet no external instruction, no interior discourse, could remove the mists of ignorance, and awaken the lethargic stupidity of their souls. Thus is the light of spiritual knowledge, together with a temper of mind disposed to receive it, communicated by the Holy Spirit. But farther than this, by the same Divine power is imparted vital heat and vigour, active strength and courage. Though our spirit should be willing, yet our flesh is weak: knowledge therefore and willingness to do good are not alone sufficient.

3. The continued subsistence and preservation of our spiritual being, and active powers, the actual use and exercise of them, all our discreet conduct, all our good practice, rely on the Holy Spirit. It is true of our spiritual no less than of our natural life; if He doth avert His face we are troubled, etc. On all occasions we need His direction, aid, and comfort; for the way of man is not in himself, etc. Vie are vain and fickle in our purposes, slow in our proceedings; apt to faint and stumble in our practice; we need therefore this sure oracle and faithful friend, to guide, encourage, and support us; to guard us in trials; comfort us in afflictions; and impart to us joy unspeakable in believing and well-doing. So many and great are the blessings which He imparts to us.

Conclusion.

1. Let us earnestly invite this Holy Guest unto us, by our prayers unto Him, who hath promised to bestow His Spirit on those which ask it, to impart this living stream to every one which thirsteth after it.

2. Let us willingly receive Him into our hearts, let us treat Him with all kind usage, with all humble observance. Let us not exclude Him by supine neglect, or rude resistance; let us not grieve Him by our perverse and froward behaviour towards Him; let us not tempt Him by our fond presumptions, or base treacheries: let us not quench His heavenly light and heat by our foul lusts and passions: but let us admit gladly His gentle illapses; let us hearken to His faithful suggestions; let us comply with His kindly motions; let us demean ourselves modestly, consistently, and officiously toward Him. (I. Barrow, D. D.)

The gift of the Holy Spirit

I. The Holy Spirit is given to renew and purify the moral feelings. He awakens the conscience to a sense of guilt and danger. He opens the eyes to see the exhalted purity of the moral law, and to feel the justice of its righteous condemnation. He affects the heart with the tidings of a Saviours love, and creates within the soul that godly sorrow which worketh repentance to salvation, needing not to be repented of. The work thus begun in the soul is carried on through the same Divine agency, for the Holy Ghost is the Sanctifier Of all the elect people of God. It is through Him that we die daily unto sin and live unto righteousness, that the old man with his corrupt deeds is put off, and that the new man is put on, which, after God, is created in righteousness and true holiness. Nor are these the only influences which the Holy Spirit exerts on mans moral nature. Our Lord has promised that He shall be present with His people under the endearing character of the Comforter. It is His special work to heal the brokenhearted, to set at liberty them that are bruised, and to comfort all that mourn.

II. The Holy Spirit is given to enlighten and govern the intellectual powers. It should never be forgotten that the Spirit bestowed upon the first disciples was the Spirit of power, and of love, and of a sound mind; and that He is promised to us also for these great ends that we may attain to a right judgment in all things, and have power to accomplish the will of God. It is thus that man is to present himself a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, and is to become a temple of the Holy Ghost, consecrated in all his faculties to the glory of God, and yielding the powers of his mind, the energies of his body, and the affections of his heart, to the service of Him who is the Creator, the Redeemer, and the Preserver of men, and to whom alone all honour, and power, and glory belong. (W. Niven, B. D.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 38. Peter said unto them, Repent] ; Humble yourselves before God, and deeply deplore the sins you have committed; pray earnestly for mercy, and deprecate the displeasure of incensed justice. For a definition of repentance, See Clarke on Mt 3:2.

And be baptized every one of you] Take on you the public profession of the religion of Christ, by being baptized in his name; and thus acknowledge yourselves to be his disciples and servants.

For the remission of sins] , In reference to the remission or removal of sins: baptism pointing out the purifying influences of the Holy Spirit; and it is in reference to that purification that it is administered, and should in consideration never be separated from it. For baptism itself purifies not the conscience; it only points out the grace by which this is to be done.

Ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.] If ye faithfully use the sign, ye shall get the substance. Receive the baptism, in reference to the removal of sins, and ye shall receive the Holy Ghost, by whose agency alone the efficacy of the blood of the covenant is applied, and by whose refining power the heart is purified. It was by being baptized in the name of Christ that men took upon themselves the profession of Christianity; and it was in consequence of this that the disciples of Christ were called CHRISTIANS.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

Repent, which includes amendment of life, Mat 3:8; Luk 3:8. In the name of Jesus Christ; not excluding the name of the Father and the Holy Ghost, in whose name, as well as in the name of the Son, they were to baptize, Mat 28:19; but the name of Jesus is here mentioned, because they had not yet known (but persecuted and slain) him, whom henceforward they must profess; and that they look for pardon and salvation only through him. For the remission of sins; thus Saul, or Paul, is said to wash away his sins by baptism, Act 22:16; and this apostle elsewhere says, that baptism saves us, 1Pe 3:21; which he explains to be, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience, & c. The gift of the Holy Ghost:

1. His internal gifts, confirmation and strengthening in the faith.

2. External gifts, as that of speaking with tongues, which they heard. Both, or either of these, according to their conditions or stations, God would bestow upon them.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

38. RepentThe word denoteschange of mind, and here includes the reception of the Gospelas the proper issue of that revolution of mind which they were thenundergoing.

baptized . . . for theremission of sinsas the visible seal of that remission.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

Then Peter said unto them,…. Being the mouth of the apostles, and being ready to give advice, and speak a word of comfort to their distressed minds:

repent: change your minds, entertain other thoughts, and a different opinion of Jesus of Nazareth, than you have done; consider him, and believe in him, as the true Messiah and Saviour of the world; look upon him, not any more as an impostor, and a blasphemer, but as sent of God, and the only Redeemer of Israel; change your voice and way of speaking of him, and your conduct towards his disciples and followers; a change of mind will produce a change of actions in life and conversation: bring forth fruits meet for repentance; and make an open and hearty profession of repentance for this your sin. And this the apostle said, to distinguish between a legal and an evangelical repentance; the former is expressed in their being pricked to the heart, on which they were not to depend; the latter he was desirous they might have, and show forth; which springs from the love of God, is attended with views, or at least hopes of pardoning grace and mercy, and with faith in Christ Jesus: it lies in a true sight and sense of sin, under the illuminations and convictions of the Spirit of God; in a sorrow for it, after a godly sort, and because it is committed against a God of love, grace, and mercy, and it shows itself in loathing sin, and in shame for it, in an ingenuous acknowledgement of it, and in forsaking it: and this is moreover urged, to show the necessity of it, as to salvation, for such that God would not have perish, he will have come to repentance; so to their admission to the ordinance of baptism, to which repentance is a pre-requisite; and to which the apostle next advises:

and be baptized everyone of you; that repents and believes; that is, in water, in which John administered the ordinance of baptism; in which Christ himself was baptized, and in which the apostles of Christ administered it; in this Philip baptized the eunuch; and in this were the persons baptized that were converted in Cornelius’s house; and it is distinguished from the baptism of the Spirit, or with fire, the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit mentioned in the last clause of this verse; and which ordinance of water baptism was administered by immersion, as the places, Jordan and Aenon, where John performed it, and the instances of it particularly in Christ, and in the eunuch, and the end of it, which is to represent the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, as well as the primary signification of the word, show. And this is to be done,

in the name of Jesus Christ; not to the exclusion of the Father, and of the Spirit, in whose name also this ordinance is to be administered, Mt 28:19 but the name of Jesus Christ is particularly mentioned, because of these Jews, who had before rejected and denied him as the Messiah; but now, upon their repentance and faith, they are to be baptized in his name, by his authority, according to his command; professing their faith in him, devoting themselves to him, and calling on his name. The end for which this was to be submitted to, is,

for the remission of sins; not that forgiveness of sin could be procured either by repentance, or by baptism; for this is only obtained by the blood of Christ; but the apostle advises these awakened, sensible, repenting, and believing souls, to submit to baptism, that by it their faith might be led to Christ, who suffered and died for their sins, who left them buried in his grave, and who rose again for their justification from them; all which is, in a most lively manner, represented in the ordinance of baptism by immersion: the encouragement to it follows,

and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost: not the grace of the Spirit, as a regenerator and sanctifier; for that they had already; and is necessary, as previous to baptism; unless it should mean confirmation of that grace, and stability in it, as it appears from Ac 2:42 they afterwards had; but rather the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, particularly the gift of speaking with tongues, which Christ had received from the Father, and had now shed on his apostles; see Ac 19:5.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Repent ye (). First aorist (ingressive) active imperative. Change your mind and your life. Turn right about and do it now. You crucified this Jesus. Now crown him in your hearts as Lord and Christ. This first.

And be baptized every one of you ( ). Rather, “And let each one of you be baptized.” Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve. The first thing to do is make a radical and complete change of heart and life. Then let each one be baptized after this change has taken place, and the act of baptism be performed “in the name of Jesus Christ” ( ). In accordance with the command of Jesus in Mt 28:19 ( ). No distinction is to be insisted on between and with since and are really the same word in origin. In Ac 10:48 occurs, but to in Acts 8:16; Acts 19:5. The use of means in the name or with the authority of one as (Mt 10:41) as a prophet, in the name of a prophet. In the Acts the full name of the Trinity does not occur in baptism as in Mt 28:19, but this does not show that it was not used. The name of Jesus Christ is the distinctive one in Christian baptism and really involves the Father and the Spirit. See on Mt 28:19 for discussion of this point. “Luke does not give the form of words used in baptism by the Apostles, but merely states the fact that they baptized those who acknowledged Jesus as Messiah or as Lord” (Page).

Unto the remission of your sins ( ). This phrase is the subject of endless controversy as men look at it from the standpoint of sacramental or of evangelical theology. In themselves the words can express aim or purpose for that use of does exist as in 1Co 2:7 (for our glory). But then another usage exists which is just as good Greek as the use of for aim or purpose. It is seen in Mt 10:41 in three examples , , where it cannot be purpose or aim, but rather the basis or ground, on the basis of the name of prophet, righteous man, disciple, because one is, etc. It is seen again in Mt 12:41 about the preaching of Jonah ( ). They repented because of (or at) the preaching of Jonah. The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koine generally (Robertson, Grammar, p. 592). 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.

The gift of the Holy Ghost ( ). The gift consists (Ac 8:17) in the Holy Spirit (genitive of identification).

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Repent. See on Mt 3:2.

In the name [ ] . Lit., upon the name. See on Mt 28:19.

Remission. See on Luk 3:3; Jas 5:15.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “Then Peter said unto them,” (Petros de pros autous) “Then Peter (responded) to them,” to the unsaved Israelite brethren who had asked, “What may we do?” In the light of their guilt, remorse, pricked hearts, and heavy conscience Peter proceeded to tell them two things: 1. First how they could be or become right before an offended God, and 2. Second how they could become right before the world before whom they had murdered their own Redeemer.

2) “Repent,” (metanoesate) “You all repent; The “you all” refers to all who had asked what they might do- -not just to be saved, but also to have a right testimony before the world. The second person plural “you all’ were commanded to repent, Luk 13:3; Luk 13:5; Act 3:19 for repentance brings conversion into life, Act 11:18.

3) “And be baptized every one of you,” (kai baptistheto hekatos humon) “And let each one of you (individually), who has repented, (or been converted unto life) be baptized,” only those who have repented unto God, and placed faith in the crucified one, those who in repentance have been converted unto life are exhorted to be baptized, that they may be identified as followers of the one against whom they once stood as enemies.

4) “In the name of Jesus Christ,”(epi to onomati lesou Christous) “Relying upon the name of Jesus Christ,” by the authority of Jesus Christ, as authorized, approved by Jesus Christ; He authorized and approved for baptism only such as had first become converted, disciples, received forgiveness of sins, and become His children, Mat 28:18-20.

5) “For the remission of sins,” (eis aphesin ton hamartion humon) “With reference to the forgiveness of your sins; The Greek eis means “with reference to” remission of sins for each of you who has repented, it is becoming that each of you be baptized to acknowledge that you have received and desire to follow Jesus Christ whom you crucified.

6) “And ye shall receive,” (kai lempsesthe) “And you all will receive (of your own accord), by virtue of your own choice, the Holy Spirit, 1Jn 4:13; Rom 5:5. The erroneous idea of baptismal regeneration is not alluded to in any manner in this passage. It is by the Holy Spirit one is begotten to eternal life when he repents or believes in Jesus Christ, Joh 6:63; 1Jn 5:1.

7) “The gift of the Holy Ghost.” (ten dorean tou hagion pneumatos) “The gift of the Holy Spirit,” which comes to one in regeneration, in the new birth, to abide in and with Him forever, even as He came on Pentecost to abide with and empower the church forever, Joh 14:16-17; Act 1:8; Act 2:1-4.

NOTES ON Act 2:38

This passage, when taken in contextual setting, has no enigmas, hidden mysteries, or complex meanings. Nor is it necessary for one to be a Greek Scholar or Oriental mystic to set forth its basic meaning.

Under the gospel witnessing of the Holy Ghost Power which had comedown to the church and upon the church, as the Promised comforter, the church had witnessed of Jesus Christ in power in tongues and dialects understood by Jews from three continents and more than fifteen nations.

In this context Peter charged that the Israelites (Jews) with wicked hands had crucified the promised Redeemer who had been resurrected, met with them, then ascended to heaven, awaiting the hour when He would return to judge all men, including them for their wicked deeds. Under the gospel witnessing and judgement preaching of Peter they cried out, “what shall or should we do?” Peter responded by telling them that they should all do two things: 1 ) First, all should, and he imperatively commanded them, “you all repent,” Second person active plural. This was that they might have their sins remitted, be converted, or be granted eternal life, Act 3:19; Act 11:18; Act 17:30-31; 2Co 7:10.

2) Second, to all who repent, were converted, he added, “Let each of you be baptized with reference to remission of your sins,” “each of you” is third person singular and “be baptized” is passive; Then each too would receive the gift or benefit of the gift of the Holy Ghost upon the church forever, Joh 14:16-17.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

38. Peter said Hereby we see that those do never go away empty which ask at the mouth of the Lord, and do offer themselves unto him to be ruled and taught; for that promise must needs be true, Knock, and it shall be opened unto you, (Mat 7:7.) Therefore, whosoever shall be rightly prepared to learn, the Lord will not suffer his godly desire to be in vain; for he is a most faithful master, so that he hath scholars which are apt to be taught and studious. Wherefore, there is no cause why he should fear, lest he suffer us to be destitute of sound counsel, if we be attentive and ready to hear him, and do not refuse to embrace whatsoever he shall teach us. And let us suffer ourselves to be governed by the counsel and authority of those men whom he offereth unto us to teach us, for this ready obedience cometh thence so suddenly in those which addict themselves unto the apostles, because they are persuaded that they are sent of God, to show them the way of salvation.

Repent. There is greater force in the Greek word, for it doth signify the conversion of the mind, that the whole man may be renewed and made another man, which thing must be diligently noted, because this doctrine was miserably corrupted in the time of Popery; for they translated the name of repentance almost unto certain external rites. They babble somewhat, indeed, about the reigned contrition of the heart; but they touch that part very slightly, and they stand principally upon the external exercises of the body, which were little worth; yea, though there were in them no corruption; but they urge nothing else in a manner but reigned trifles, wherewith men are wearied in vain. Wherefore, let us know that this is the true repentance, when a man is renewed in the spirit of his mind, as Paul teacheth, (Rom 12:2.) Neither need we to doubt of this; but that Peter did preach plainly of the force and nature of repentance; but Luke doth only touch the chief points, and doth not reckon up the words of the oration which he made. We must, therefore, know thus much, that Peter did at the first exhort the Jews unto repentance; and that done, he lifted them up with hope of pardon; for he promised them forgiveness of sins, which two things are the two parts of the gospel, as we know full well; and, therefore, when Christ will briefly teach what the doctrine of the gospel doth contain, he saith, that repentance and remission of sins (Luk 24:47) must be preached in his name. Furthermore, because we are reconciled unto God only by the intercession of Christ’s death, neither are our sins otherwise purged, (126) and done away, save only by his blood, therefore, Peter calleth us back unto him by name. He putteth baptism in the fourth place, as the seal whereby the promise of grace is confirmed.

Wherefore, we have in these few words almost the whole sum of Christianity, namely, how a man renouncing himself and taking his farewell of the world, may addict himself wholly to God; secondly, How he may be delivered by free forgiveness of sins, and so adopted into the number of the children of God. And forasmuch as we can obtain none of all these things without Christ, the name of Christ is therewithal set forth unto us, as the only foundation of faith and repentance. And we must also note this, that we do so begin repentance when we are turned unto God, that we must prosecute the same during our life; therefore, this sermon must continually sound in the Church, repent, (Mar 1:15😉 not that those men may begin the same, who will be counted faithful, and have a place already in the Church; but that they may go forward in the same; although many do usurp the name of faithful men, which had never any beginning of repentance. Wherefore, we must observe this order in teaching, that those which do yet live unto the world and the flesh may begin to crucify the old man, that they may rise unto newness of life, and that those who are already entered the course of repentance may continually go forward towards the mark. Furthermore, because the inward conversion of the heart ought to bring forth fruits in the life, repentance cannot be rightly taught unless works be required, not those frivolous works which are only in estimation amongst the Papists, but such as are sound testimonies of innocence and holiness.

Be baptized every one of you. Although in the text and order of the words, baptism doth here go before remission of sins, yet doth it follow it in order, because it is nothing else but a sealing of those good things which we have by Christ that they may be established in our consciences; therefore, after that Peter had intreated of repentance, he calleth the Jews unto the hope of grace and salvation; and, therefore, Luke well afterwards, in Paul’s sermon, joineth faith and repentance together in the same sense, wherein he putteth forgiveness of sins in this place, and that for good considerations; for the hope of salvation consisteth in the free imputation of righteousness; and we are counted just, freely before God, when he forgiveth us our sins. And as I said before, that the doctrine of repentance hath a daily use in the Church so must we think of the forgiveness of sins, that the same is continually offered unto us; and surely it is no less necessary for us during the whole course of our life, than at our first entrance into the Church, so that it should profit us nothing to be once received into favor by God, unless this embassage should have a continual course; be-reconciled unto God, because

“

he which knew no sin was made sin for us, that we might be the righteousness of God in him,” (2Co 5:20.)

Moreover, the Papists do so corrupt this other part of the gospel, that they quite exclude the remission of sins, which was to be obtained by Christ. They confess their sins are freely forgiven in baptism, but they will have them redeemed with satisfactions after baptism; and although they mix the grace of Christ together therewithal, yet because they inwrap the same in men’s merits, they do by this means overthrow the whole doctrine of the gospel; for, first, they take from men’s consciences the certainty of faith; that done, forasmuch as they part the forgiveness of sins between the death of Christ and our satisfactions, they do altogether deprive us of Christ’s benefit. For Christ doth not reconcile us unto God in part, but wholly, neither can we obtain remission of sins by him, unless it be whole and perfect. But the Papists are much deceived therein, who restrain baptism unto the nativity and former life, as if the signification and force thereof did not reach even unto death.

Let us know, therefore, that forgiveness of sins is grounded in Christ alone, and that we must not think upon any other satisfaction (127) save only that which he hath performed by the sacrifice of his death. And for this cause, as we have already said, doth Peter express his name, whereby he doth signify unto us, that none of all these things can be rightly taught, unless Christ be set in the midst, to the end the effect of this doctrine may be sought in him. That needeth no long exposition where he commandeth them to be baptized for the remission of sins; for although God hath once reconciled men unto himself in Christ” by not imputing unto them their sins,” (2Co 5:19,) and doth now imprint in our hearts the faith thereof by his Spirit; yet, notwithstanding, because baptism is the seal whereby he doth confirm unto us this benefit, and so, consequently, the earnest and pledge of our adoption, it is worthily said to be given us for the remission of sins. For because we receive Christ’s gifts by faith, and baptism is a help to confirm and increase our faith, remission of sins, which is an effect of faith, is annexed unto it as unto the inferior mean. Furthermore, we must not fetch the definition of baptism from this place, because Peter doth only touch a part thereof. Our old man is crucified by baptism, as Paul teacheth, that we may rise unto newness of life, (Rom 6:4.) And, again, we put on Christ himself, (1Co 12:0.) and the Scripture teacheth every where, that it is also a sign and token of repentance, (Gal 3:27.) But because Peter doth not intreat in thin place openly of the whole nature of baptism, but speaking of the forgiveness of sins, doth, by the way, declare that the confirmation thereof is in baptism, there doth no inconvenience follow, if ye do omit the other part. (128)

In the name of Christ. Although baptism be no vain figure, but a true and effectual testimony; notwithstanding, lest any man attribute that unto the element of water which is there offered, the name of Christ is plainly expressed, to the end we may know that it shall be a profitable sign for us then, if we seek the force and effect thereof in Christ, and know that we are, therefore, washed in baptism, because the blood of Christ is our washing; and we do also hereby gather, that Christ is, the mark and end whereunto baptism directeth us; wherefore, every one profiteth so much in baptism as he learneth to look unto Christ. But here ariseth a question, Whether it were lawful for Peter to change the form prescribed by Christ? The Papists do think, at least feign so, and thence do they take a color of liberty to change or abrogate the institutions of Christ. They confess that nothing ought to be changed, as touching the substance, but they will have the Church to have liberty to change whatsoever it will in the form. But this argument may easily be answered. For we must first know that Christ did not indite and rehearse unto his apostles magical words for enchanting, as the Papists do dream, but he did, in few words, comprehend the sum of the mystery. Again, I deny that Peter doth speak in this place of the form of baptism; but he doth simply declare that the whole strength (129) of baptism is contained in Christ; although Christ cannot be laid hold on by faith without the Father by whom he was given us, and the Spirit by the which he reneweth and sanctifieth us. The answer consisteth wholly in this, that he intreateth not in this place of the certain form of baptizing, but the faithful are called back unto Christ, in whom alone we have whatsoever baptism doth prefigure unto us; for we are both made clean by his blood, and also we enter into a new life by the benefit of his death and resurrection.

Ye shall receive the gift of the Spirit. Because they were touched with wondering when they saw the apostles suddenly begin to speak with strange tongues, Peter saith that they shall be partakers of the same gift if they will pass over unto Christ. Remission of sins and newness of life were the principal things, and this was, as it were, an addition, that Christ should show forth unto them his power by some visible gift. Neither ought this place to be understood of the grace of sanctification, which is given generally to all the godly. Therefore he promiseth them the gift of the Spirit, whereof they saw a pattern in the diversity of tongues. Therefore this doth not properly appertain unto us. For because Christ meant to set forth the beginning of his kingdom with those miracles, they lasted but for a time; yet because the visible graces which the Lord did distribute to his did shoe, as it were in a glass, that Christ was the giver of the Spirit, therefore, that which Peter saith doth in some respect appertain unto all the whole Church: ye shall receive the gift of the Spirit. For although we do not receive it, that we may speak with tongues, that we may be prophets, that we may cure the sick, that we may work miracles; yet is it given us for a better use, that we may believe with the heart unto righteousness, that our tongues may be framed unto true confession, (Rom 10:10,) that we may pass from death to life, (Joh 5:24) that we, which are poor and empty, may be made rich, that we may withstand Satan and the world stoutly. Therefore, the grace of the Spirit shall always be annexed unto baptism, unless the let be in ourselves.

(126) “ Expiantur,” expiated.

(127) “ Expiatione,” expiation.

(128) “ Nihil absurdi est si partem alteram praetereat,” there is no absurdity, there is nothing strange, in his omitting the other part.

(129) “ Virtutem,” virtue or efficacy.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(38) Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ.The work of the Apostles is, in one sense, a continuation, in another a development, of that of the Baptist. There is the same indispensable condition of repentancei.e. a change of heart and willthe same outward rite as the symbol of purification, the same promise of forgiveness which that change involves. But the baptism is now, as it had not been before, in the name of Jesus Christ, and it is connected more directly with the gift of the Holy Spirit. The question presents itself, Why is the baptism here, and elsewhere in the Acts (Act. 10:48; Act. 19:5), in the name of Jesus Christ, while in Mat. 28:19, the Apostles are commanded to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? Various explanations have been given. It has been said that baptism in the Name of any one of the Persons of the Trinity, involves the Name of the other Two. It has even been assumed that St. Luke meant the fuller formula when he used the shorter one. But a more satisfactory solution is, perhaps, found in seeing in the words of Mat. 28:19 (see Note there) the formula for the baptism of those who, as Gentiles. had been without God in the world, not knowing the Father; while for converts from Judaism, or those who had before been proselytes to Judaism, it was enough that there should be the distinctive profession of their faith in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, added on to their previous belief in the Father and the Holy Spirit. In proportion as the main work of the Church of Christ lay among the Gentiles, it was natural that the fuller form should become dominant, and finally be used exclusively. It is interesting here, also, to compare the speech of St. Peter with the stress laid on baptism in his Epistle (1Pe. 3:21).

Ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.The word for gift (drea) is generic, and differs from the more specific gift (charisma) of 1Co. 12:4; 1Co. 12:9; 1Co. 12:28. The Apostle does not necessarily promise startling and marvellous powers, but in some way they should all feel that a new Spirit was working in them, and that that Spirit was from God.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

38. Repent Literally, change your minds, namely, from your guilty hostility to Christ to a full faith in his name. In its full Christian sense repentance includes a perfect and saving faith in Christ.

Repent, and be baptized By repentance they renounce their hostility to the crucified One, and all the sins that slew him; by baptism they are accepted into the body of his friends; and by the gift of the Holy Ghost they become truly one with the sanctified hundred and twenty, (Act 2:1,) and are empowered to do mighty wonders in behalf of Christ the exalted Lord.

For the remission of sins Baptism is the external act and manifestation of an internal justifying faith already existing. As the outward act and manifestation of the conditional faith, baptism is mentioned before that remission which follows the internal faith, although the instant divine act of remission has actually preceded the baptism. Internal faith precedes the divine act of remission; while the external baptismal act of faith is the organic condition to the normal state of remission. Hence only the justified person is rightly baptized. The infant is baptized as a virtual, and the adult as an actual believer. From all this it would follow that a wilful neglect of baptism, where no impossibility exists, endangers the permanence of the remission, and so of the salvation. To the question whether a justified, unbaptized person may rightfully commune at the Lord’s Supper, we should reply that it is the wrong order; nevertheless, the wrong consists not in the communing, but in the omission of a previous baptism. Baptism externally brings us into the Church; communion testifies that we are in the Church.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘And Peter said to them, “Repent you, and be baptised every one of you on the name of Jesus Christ to the remission of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

Peter summarises what they must do. They are to ‘repent’, to have a change of heart and mind about the Lord Jesus Christ, and about their sin, and turn to Him. They are to be baptised ‘on (epi) the name of Jesus Christ’ unto the forgiveness of sins. Then they will receive this same gift of the Holy Spirit as the disciples now had, the gift of the coming age.

Peter’s first words recall the preaching of John the Baptiser, which Peter had heard so often. In John’s case it was ‘the baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins’ (Mar 1:4; Luk 3:3), it was ‘unto repentance’ (Mat 3:11). The central thought then was the repentance of which the baptism was the symbol and expression, and repentance signifies a change of heart and mind and will.

In order to understand this we need to be more aware of what this repentance was. It was not primarily repentance from individual sins, however important that might be, it was repentance from a wrong attitude towards God, from a failure to give God His due, from a refusal to recognise Him in their lives, from disobedience to His will. It was thus a change of heart and mind about God, and a turning to a new obedience towards God. It was a recognition of a past failure to respond to Him truly, and a resultant determination not to fail in that way from now on. That did, of course, involve a recognition of sin and a turning from sins, and it did require that those sins be forgiven, but the prime problem was not that they had sinned, but that they had sinned  against God. Such a repentance only occurs when men become aware of God and see themselves in His eyes. Then their eye does not become fixed on the sins, it becomes fixed on the One to Whom the person is turning. Although this will in the end result in a deep awareness of sinfulness, for some immediately, for others gradually.

When Isaiah repented it was because of his new awareness of God. He saw God and his mind was changed about God, and he thus became aware that all was not right, and that he was sinful. He had a change of heart and mind because God had broken in on him. So his awareness of sin resulted from His new recognition of God, and his repentance lay in the fact that from now on he would approach God and His requirements in a totally different way. Awareness of God and response to that awareness was the essence of it.

It had been a requirement of John’s preaching that men submit to his baptism in water precisely for this reason. The baptism symbolised the coming ‘drenching of the Spirit’ (Isa 44:1-5), and his followers were baptised because by it they were renewing their dedication to God, and indicating their longing and desire to participate in that ‘drenching’. They were baptised in order to indicate that they had turned back to God ready for His blessing. It was in order to demonstrate true ‘repentance towards God’, so that they might receive the forgiveness of sins, with the hope of participating in the new age of the Spirit.

It was the later church subsequent to the New Testament which turned baptism into a cleansing from sin and aligned it with Jewish ritual washings. But John says nothing of that. His concentration was on the coming drenching of the Spirit which would produce a fruitful harvest, and the majority of his illustrations are along that line.

This turning to God did necessarily result in a desire to walk rightly before God, and as a result to behave in such a way as to please Him, for that would be necessary for all who would partake in the blessing of, the coming age, but the baptism signified the power that would bring it about.

How much more then was such a baptism necessary as an outward symbol and sign, and as an expression of repentance and desire to enter the new age, for those who would turn to Christ and receive the fulfilment of that ‘drenching’ in the Holy Spirit.

In Act 3:19 repentance is central, and baptism is not mentioned, but what follows immediately pictures the new age. There is no mention of baptism there because the reality is described and not the shadow. The ‘seasons of refreshing’ were what John’s baptism had pointed forward to. But the lack of mention of baptism does not mean that there it was not called for by the Apostles, but simply that it was recognised that it was repentance and receiving the blessing of the new age that was central, not the rite that symbolised it. Baptism would then result because it pointed to the blessing of the new age. It suggests that neither Peter nor Luke (nor Paul – 1Co 1:17) put the same emphasis on baptism as many have since. Baptism was important as the outward expression, repentance and the forgiveness of sins and the times of refreshing were the reality.

His call to them to be baptised echoes Jesus words in Mat 28:18-20, confirming that Luke knew of those words. Peter had baptised men and women in the early days of Jesus’ ministry with a baptism parallel to that of John (Joh 4:1-2), because he was still a disciple of John. We are nowhere told whether such baptisms continued during the ministry of Jesus, but if they had ceased, as they probably had, Peter now knew that they were to begin again because the Lord had so commanded. They were to be the means by which, now that the King was no longer present, new converts were to express the fact that they were receiving the Holy Spirit and becoming ‘Holy Spirit men’ and ‘Christ-men’, indwelt by God’s Spirit. By such baptism they would be openly marked off as belonging to Him and as having opened themselves to the Holy Spirit.

‘Baptised  on  the name of Jesus Christ’ may signify ‘on the basis of’. There is an advance in the significance of Baptism. They are not only being baptised in order to enter the community of the Spirit but on the basis of what Jesus Christ has done for them, calling on His name for those benefits to be applied to them. Here we can contrast ‘in (en) the name of Jesus Christ’ (Act 10:48) and ‘into (eis) the name of the Lord Jesus’ (Act 8:16; Act 19:5). Note how when it is baptism ‘into the name’, as in Mat 28:19, it is into the name of ‘the Lord’ Jesus. ‘The Lord’ (LXX for Yahweh) is the name into which both demand that men be baptised. But here in Acts there is no standard formula.

So having truly repented, and having changed their minds with regard to the Lord Jesus Christ, and having turned from sin, they were to demonstrate their commitment to Him by the baptism which would mark them off as belonging to the new Israel, and then they could be sure that they would receive ‘the gift of the Holy Spirit’, which the water baptism symbolised. The Holy Spirit would be poured out on them as He had been on the disciples. ‘The gift’ refers back to the giving in Act 2:1-4. The gift has been given and now they share in it (compare Act 5:32). In Act 8:20 it is described as ‘the gift of God’.

This reminds us that baptism was never intended to be separated from the moment of conversion, and in the early days it was not. Once it was it could never quite be the baptism mentioned in the New Testament. For once believers began to be baptised as other than responders to the proclamation of the word it rather looked back to what had been. It ceased to be the moment of receiving the Holy Spirit. It was performed on those who had already received the Spirit (as with Cornelius – Act 10:44-48).

Unfortunately the main significance of baptism has been misinterpreted in the church. In the New Testament the emphasis on its significance is always the expectancy of receiving of new life and of the Holy Spirit. John’s baptism pictured the pouring out of the Holy Spirit like rain as promised by the prophets so that his message was all about the resulting fruitfulness and the harvest that would result. Paul continues the idea and sees it as dying and rising again in newness of life, as the seed did in order to become fruitful (Joh 12:24). It was the later church that came to see it as washing from sin and then built up all kinds of superstitious beliefs around it so that even leading Bishops put off baptism until they were nearing death. That was the opposite of the purpose of baptism which was to indicate that those baptised were immediately entering into the new community, the new body of Christ, ‘baptised in the Spirit into one body — which is Christ’ (1Co 12:12-13). As we shall see when we come to Act 22:16 (the only verse that remotely comes near to possibly teaching ‘washing’ when related to baptism) the picture of baptism as washing was not what Ananias meant at all. Nowhere does the New Testament see baptism as washing from sin. It is regeneration and the blood of Christ that wash from sin, not baptism (Tit 3:5; Rev 7:14; 1Co 6:11).

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Act 2:38. Repent, and be baptized They are not only called on here to repent, but a submission also to the ordinance of baptism is required of them; for though on their repenting and believing, they were, according to the tenor of the gospel covenant, entitled to the remission of their sins; yet as Christ had, for wise reasons, appointed this solemn rite, as a token of their taking up the Christian profession in a public manner, there could have been no sufficient evidence of the truth of their repentance and faith, if this precept of Christ had not been obeyed. Vitringa has taken a great deal of pains to shew, that the phrase here translated in the name of Jesus Christ, signifies not only “being numbered among those who are called by his name,” but “professing to devote themselves to the glory of it.” The miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost were various, as appears from the first epistle to the Corinthians; and were variouslydispensed. If all the persons whom the apostle addresses, received this gift of the Holy Ghost, to one might be imparted the gift of prophesy, to another wisdom, to another the power of working miracles; those who were intended for the propagation of the gospel being endued with the extraordinary gifts; and those who were not separated tothat office receiving only the ordinary ones; but all of them possessing such as were sufficient to manifest their faith, to enable them, if faithful, to persevere in it, to illustrate the gospel dispensation, and to set it in a conspicuous light.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Act 2:38 . What a definite and complete answer and promise of salvation! The demands the change of ethical disposition as the moral condition of being baptized, which directly and necessarily brings with it faith (Mar 1:15 ); the aorist denotes the immediate accomplishment (comp. Act 3:19 , Act 8:22 ), which is conceived as the work of energetic resolution. So the apostles began to accomplish it, Luk 24:47 .

] on the ground of the name , so that the name “ Jesus Messiah ” as the contents of your faith and confession, is that on which the becoming baptized rests. . is only here used with ; but comp. the analogous expressions, Luk 21:8 ; Luk 24:47 ; Act 5:28 ; Act 5:40 ; Mat 24:5 , al.

denotes the object of the baptism, which is the remission of the guilt contracted in the state before . Comp. Act 22:16 ; 1Co 6:11 .

.] consecutivum . After reconciliation, sanctification; both are experienced in baptism.

] this is the itself. Heb 6:4 ; Act 10:45 ; Act 11:17 .

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

VII

THE THEORY OF BAPTISMAL REGENERATION

Act 2:38 .

We now come to an important subject growing out of Act 2:38 to which I devote two whole chapters because (1) the two opposing theories of interpretation to this and other passages, supposed to be kindred, have divided the Christian world since the second century, resulting in modern times in the formation of the distinct domination, the “Campbellites,” and (2) the consequences are that one of these two theories has changed the plan of salvation, necessitated a new system of theology, introduced new ordinances, changed the subjects of church membership, prepared the way for a new church polity, and for a union of church and state. That being the case, and as that battle has been going on from the second century till this day, it justifies these two whole chapters being devoted to the subject.

The first theory mentioned above, is expressed in the following propositions: (1) The plan of salvation by grace has ever been, is now, and will ever be, just one plan in its essential requirements of man. (2) These requirements are all spiritual. (3) They are the new birth, repentance toward God, and faith toward (in) the Messiah. (4) The great model of the faith which brings salvation is the faith of Abraham, prior to his subjection to any external ordinance. (5) Salvation before ordinances. (6) Blood before the laver. That is the first theory.

The opposite theory is: (1) Salvation by ordinances. (2) Baptismal regeneration. (3) Baptismal remission (4) Baptism, like repentance and faith, a condition of the new birth, salvation and remission of sins.

The entire New Testament usage of the verb, baptize, and its noun when followed by the preposition, eis , with the accusative for its object must be considered, in order to correctly interpret Act 2:38 . The New Testament usage of the verb, baptize and its noun, when followed by the preposition, eis, with the accusative as its object, is more important than classic usage. When you write down all such New Testament passages, in their order, and look at them carefully, each in its context, then we must render that preposition, eis , by an English word or phrase that will meet the requirements of every context. When you write down sentences in the New Testament from Matthew to Revelation, that have the verb, baptizo , or its noun) followed by the preposition, eis , and that followed by the accusative for its object, look at those in their respective groups, then stop and rub out that preposition, eis , in every case, and substitute its meaning in an English word or phrase, you must see that it would give a rendering in English that would fit everything. The meaning of a word when substituted for that word, will make sense. That is a fine text which takes the entire New Testament usage. Take an English-Greek Concordance it will save much trouble and make out a list of passages, commencing with Mat 3:11 : “I baptize you in water unto repentance.” The verb, baptize, is there, the preposition, eis, and metanoian in the accusative, which is the object of the preposition. Go thus through the whole New Testament and note every passage. Each passage, however, must have baptize), or its noun, followed by the preposition, eis, with the accusative as the object.

As we go through the New Testament in this manner we find a circle of scriptures used to support the theory that water baptism, like repentance and faith, is a term, or condition, of salvation. Here are those passages on which the people rely who hold that baptism is in order to remission of sins: The passages in which the verb, baptize, or its noun, is employed, followed by the preposition, eis, with the accusative as it object; they select only three. They select as their first group the following:

1.Act 2:38 ; Rom 6:1-4 ; Gal 3:27 . They take the passages only of “baptized eis ” with the accusative. One of them is, “baptized eis remission of sins”; another is, “baptized eis Christ”; and the other, “baptized eis his death.” These passages form their first group. The grammatical construction is the same in every case, and they say, “You Baptists have no plan of induction.” If we ask them how they get into the remission of sins, they say, “We are baptized into it.” If we ask, “How do you get into Christ?” they answer, “We are baptized into Christ.” If we ask, “How do you get into the death of Christ?” they say, “We are baptized into the death of Christ.” They also say, “We know how to get in, but you have no method of induction.” When I come to these passages I will tell you what to say to them. One scripture will answer: “By faith we enter into this grace wherein we stand.” That is our method of induction.

2. Their second group is that which connects baptism with the washing away of sin, without the preposition, eis . “And now why tarriest thou? arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins” (Act 22:16 ). This is the only passage in this group.

3. The third group consists of those passages which connect baptism with salvation, Mar 16:16 : “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved,” and 1Pe 3:21 : “Baptism doth also now save us.”

4. The fourth group is that which seems to connect baptism with regeneration, consisting of, “Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (Joh 3:5 ). “Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for it; that he might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the washing of water with the word” (Eph 5:25 ). “According to his mercy he hath saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit” (Tit 3:5 ).

When you can correctly interpret these four groups of scriptures you have the heart and the body, the center and the circumference, the substance and the shadow of it all. This is the second theory, and it thus makes salvation to come through ritualism through ordinances.

The real substance of this contention is this: (1) It is a salvation by ritual. (2) It is a sacerdotal salvation, since it requires the presence, the office and performance of another party, the administrator of the ordinances, and thereby securing our salvation, making you responsible) when your salvation is dependent upon somebody else, and on what somebody else does. That is what we call “sacerdotal” sacer, & Latin word for priest a priestly salvation.

(3) This requires competent authority to pronounce on the fitness of the “sacer” (priest) or administrator, and thus makes it an endless question with any man as to whether he is saved until he can prove that the one that baptized him is a qualified administrator, and thereby contradicting the statement of Paul, that God made salvation by faith, i.e., Is may repent and believe by myself, just thinking about the Bible, or reasoning about it.

(4) Now this other thing: the theory is that, like repentance and faith, it is a term of salvation, but this is unlike repentance and faith, in that they are personal, and this other is not personal; it is still more unlike repentance and faith in this, that the scriptures expressly say, “Except you repent, you shall perish,” and, “He that believeth not is condemned.” Nowhere in the Bible do we find an expression of that kind about baptism.

The greatest modern advocate of their theory is Alexander Campbell, and a short history of his contention is this: He came over from Scotland and settled in Virginia. He had a certain quasi connection with a Baptist church. Anyhow, he was present at Baptist associations, and named his first paper The Christian Baptist . But he says, “When I began my debate on the act of baptism with McCall, who was a Presbyterian, while studying for that debate I found out that baptism, unless it was intended to secure the remission of sins, was as empty as a blasted nut.”

That was the germ of the idea in his mind, according to his own statement, hence Mr. Campbell, from that time on, began to publish things that the Baptists did not believe, and soon he brought out a new paper, which he called the Milllennial Harbinger . In other words, he considered himself to be the harbinger, the forerunner, the “John the Baptist” of the millennium; and that it was this new theory of his that was bringing about the millennium. In that Millennial Harbinger was an “Extra” on the remission of sins. It was a little too long to go into his little paper. In this Extra, which was the first general and formal announcement of his proposition, he took the position of baptismal regeneration, baptismal remission, or baptismal salvation that wherever you find “purifying” or “sanctifying” it means baptism. In other words, he made it mean the whole thing.

When he brought out that extra the “fur began to fly.” All over the land the Baptists rose up and said, “This man does not belong to us,” and their leaders began to reply to his extra, among whom were the celebrated Andrew Broadus, the elder J. B. Jeter, both of Virginia; also Carr, pastor of one of the great Richmond churches. Whereupon everybody knew there would be a war at the next meeting of that association. The association met and a committee was appointed to consider the state of the churches. That committee, of which Carr was chairman, found that the churches were being wrecked by a new doctrine, set forth in the extra of the Millennial Harbinger. So the committee recommended that the churches withdraw fellowship from the preachers who advocated that doctrine, and from the members who accepted it. The churches acted instantly, all over Virginia. And since they drew that line of cleavage, Campbellism has no longer hurt the Baptists. This heresy passed into Kentucky. There it divided the associations and the churches. Wherever it went a fire arose. Where there are two horses going in opposite directions, no man had better try to ride both at the same time. Where two are not agreed they ought not to try to walk together. Then Mr. Campbell organized his own denomination. In the meantime, he held debates with quite a number of people on the subject.

His two great lines of argument were as follows: He relied most upon the grammatical construction, i.e., Metanoesate, kai baptistheto hekastos human en to onomati lesou Christou eis aphesin ton hamartion humon, kai lempsesthe ten dorean tou hagiou pneumatos. He said that the grammatical construction placed aphesin hamartion , remission of sins, as the object to be secured by the baptistheto , and be attempted to prove his points by the citation of many scholars who admitted his grammatical constructions. His second argument was that from the second century down to the present time, great multitudes of Christians had held to that, and the majority of those who claimed to be Christians, which would include all the Romanists, all the Greek Catholic churches, and a number of others. Those are the main lines of his argument.

A kindred theory, similarly based, which he combated to the very last, stands or falls with the theory, viz.: the proposition that the Lord’s Supper at the hands of the priest, after it has been converted into the very body and blood of Christ, is essential to salvation. The advocates of this theory would say, on grammatical construction, Jesus said, “This [holding up the bread, after they had blessed it] is my body broken for you,” and then [holding up the cup]: “This cup is my blood, shed for the remission of sins,” and then they would quote a passage in another part of John: “Except a man eat this flesh and drink this blood he has no life in him.” So they made much of grammatical construction, and also of historical argument. They made out a stronger case for their part of the theory than Campbell did for his) and on precisely the same line of argument. I have always contended that the Campbellites must abandon their theory, or accept this one as here stated.

If it is true that there is no -way to get into Christ except through baptism, then there is no way to get Christ into us except through the Lord’s Supper.

The induction must be both ways: “I in you and you in me.” There is no shadow of a doubt that the two are like two pillars which support an arch. The arch is one, and the pillars are the two supporters of the arch.

The antecedent arguments opposing both Campbell’s theory and the kindred Romanist theory, similarly based, are as follows:

(1) The plan of salvation from the book of Genesis to Revelation is one plan. Whatever has been essential as a requirement is always essential, just as much so in the Old Testament as in the New Testament, and yet baptism and the Lord’s Supper were not parts of the Old Testament. And all must admit that some Old Testament people were saved. If so, according to their theory, they were saved by compliance with terms that we do not have to observe, and we are saved by compliance with terms that they did not have to observe; therefore, the plan was changed in the essential terms of salvation.

(2) But the model case of Abraham, the model case of salvation by faith as in Abraham) utterly nullifies any change in the plan: “Abraham believed Jehovah, and it was imputed to him for righteousness,” or justification, and Paul says, “This was written not for Abraham’s sake alone, but for our sake.” When we believe in Christ it is imputed unto us for righteousness, and we must follow in the steps of our father, Abraham, showing that the plan of salvation was the same.

(3) Another antecedent, argument is the testimony of the prophets. Peter said to Cornelius, “To him [that is, to Jesus] bear all the prophets witness, that through his name every one that believeth on him shall receive remission of sins.” Here is remission of sins conditioned upon faith, and all the prophets bore witness to the fact that a man who believed on him received the remission of sins, and there was no baptism at the time that the prophets bore that testimony.

(4) Act 16:30 is the only place in the Bible where the express question is put, “What must I do to be saved?” and the express answer is, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.”

(5) In many instances in the life of Christ he said to men and women, “Thy faith hath saved thee,” and that where there was no baptism at all.

(6) A certain passage in Hebrews goes to the heart of the matter. Talking about the ritual of the Old Testament it says, “It was not possible that the blood of bullocks and of goats could take away sin.” Why?

Because there was no intrinsic merit in the blood of bulls and goats. Apply that principle: It is not possible that baptism in water shall take away sin. There is no intrinsic merit in it.

“The blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanseth us from all sin.” The Old Testament ritual did not do it, and the New Testament ritual does not do it.

(7) If we make some external act to be performed by another party essential to our salvation, then the promise of salvation can never be made sure to us, and yet the scriptures teach that God made salvation by faith that it might be made sure.

That penitent thief, for instance, was up there dying, hanging on his cross. Suppose baptism is an essential condition to salvation; he is lost, for he could not come down. But Jesus looked at him who had complied with no ritual, and said, “To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise.”

I discuss this subject at length because I want to solemnly impress upon the mind the way these two theories fight, have been fighting, and will continue to fight until the end of the world.

(8) I will assume a perpendicular line as upon a blackboard. Write on one side of it, “Lovers of God,” and on the other side, “Haters of God.” On one side are believers; on the other side, unbelievers. Now, from which of these two sides will you take the subjects for baptism people who love God, and believe in Jesus Christ, or haters of God and unbelievers? A follower of Campbell will say, “Take lovers of God and believers in Jesus Christ.” Then I say, “Whosoever loveth is born of God,” and “we are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus,” and “He that believeth has been born of God.” They may wrestle with that perpendicular line as much as they please they can never break it.

(9) Paul says, “I thank God I baptized none of you; God sent me not to baptize but to preach the gospel.”

If baptism were one of the terms of salvation, Paul was thanking God that he had refused to perform one of the things essential to salvation.

Does he not make a distinction there between the essence of the gospel that saves, and baptism? No man can deny it if he carefully studies the passage.

(10) The repeated declarations in the Bible, e.g., take this one: “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life,” and “he that believeth shall not come into condemnation, but hath everlasting life.” So the scriptures might be multiplied, but Is must stop here.

We have for the next chapter the interpretation of the four groups of scriptures which are very necessary to the under-standing of the things that oppose one of these theories, as follows: The first group, Act 2:38 ; Rom 6:1-4 ; Gal 3:27 ; the second group (just one), Act 22:16 ; the third group, Mar 16:16 ; 1Pe 3:21 ; the fourth group, Joh 3:5 ; Eph 5:26 ; Tit 3:5 .

Is have now led up to the exegesis of these four groups. Is want to settle some things while Is am on this. Is would go to the end of the earth to oppose any man who says that he is necessary to my salvation by making any rite or ceremony a term of salvation.

Is would never go and look for the remissions of sins in a pool of water.

QUESTIONS 1. What justifies two whole chapters devoted to Act 2:38 ?

2. What the propositions of the first theory?

3. What the propositions of the second theory?

4. What particular usage must be considered, that we may correctly interpret Act 2:38 ?

5. What the method pursued in the investigation of this truth?

6. What the first group of New Testament scriptures used to support the theory that water baptism, like repentance and faith, is a term, or condition of salvation, and what the distinguishing characteristic of this group?

7. From these scriptures, what their method of induction, and what the opposite theory of induction?

8. What the second group, and its distinguishing characteristic?

9. What the third group, and its characteristic?

10. What the fourth group, and its characteristic?

11. What the real substance of this contention?

12. What the meaning of “sacerdotal”?

13. Who the great modern advocate of this theory, and what is a short history of the contention?

14. What were his two lines of argument?

15. What kindred theory, similarly based, which he combated to the very last, stands or falls with this theory?

16. What antecedent argument opposes Campbell’s theory, and the kindred Romanist theory, based on the unity of the plan of salvation?

17. What one based on the model case of Abraham?

18. What one based on the testimony of the prophets?

19. What one based on the plain question and answer?

20. What one based on the teaching of Christ?

21. What one based on a passage in Hebrews?

22. What one based upon the promise of a sure salvation to them that believe?

23. What one based on the illustration of the dividing line?

24. What one based on Paul’s statement that he did not baptize certain people?

25. What one based on the repeated declaration in the Bible?

VIII

THE THEORY OF BAPTISMAL REGENERATION (Concluded)

Act 2:38 .

The last chapter was devoted to the great principles which interpret Act 2:38 , and I would have you bear in mind everything that was said in that chapter. The object of the present discussion is to give a brief exegesis of the circle of scriptures cited. I showed that four classes of scriptures were generally cited in favor of the Campbellite position, i.e., that Act 2:38 should be interpreted to mean that baptism is “in order to” remission of sins; that these cases are where the verb, baptize, or its noun, is followed by the preposition, eis , and the accusative case, of which the most notable is Act 2:38 . There we have the verb, baptistheto, let him be baptized, and the preposition, eis, with the accusative case, aphesin hamartion, the remission of sins.

Words in all languages may have, and do have: (1) the common, ordinary meaning; (2) a frequent meaning, different from the ordinary; (3) a rare meaning, different from both the others. Just so this Greek preposition, eis , in the New Testament with the accusative case, commonly means, in order to; frequently it means with reference to, or in token of, or concerning and it rarely means because of.

There are three principles of interpretation which enable us to safely determine when to depart from the ordinary meaning and render this word according to the frequenter rare meaning. These principles are (1) the bearing of the local context; (2) the bearing of the general context (by general context I mean the trend of the whole Bible teaching, or what is called the “canon,” or rule of faith); (3) the nature or congruity of things. You do not need any more than those three principles when you come to study that Greek preposition in the New Testament to enable you to know whether to give in its ordinary, its frequent or its rare meaning.

I will illustrate these principles in reverse order:

(1) The ritualistic Jews, holding to the letter of the law of sacrifices and strict grammatical construction, insisted that their compliance with the law of appointed sacrifices did secure to them the actual remission of sins, and hence there was no necessity for a new covenant, with a nobler Sacrifice. But Paul, in the letter to the Hebrews, shows that it was impossible for the blood of bullocks and goats to really take away sin. They had not the intrinsic merit. It was incongruous, contrary to the nature of things, that the blood of a soulless brute should expiate the sins of a man. Just so when the Romanist quotes Christ’s words: “This cup of the covenant which is poured out for many unto the remission of sins” claims a literal, ordinary meaning for the word, eis , according to strict grammatical construction, we reply: It is impossible for grape juice to take away sins.

(2) To illustrate the power of the general context in determining the meaning of a word in a specific case, we say, scripture must interpret scripture. The trend of the Bible must govern a literal, grammatical construction of a single passage. The passage must harmonize with clear, abundant passages elsewhere. If the book teaches in a thousand passages that only the blood of Christ, apprehended by faith, can take away sin, we are not warranted in attributing to an external rite the same power, merely on the ground or literal, grammatical construction in a few passages. These few detached passages concerning external rites must be interpreted in harmony with the spiritual trend of the entire revelation. That is an unquestioned principle of interpretation.

(3) To illustrate the power of the local context in determining the meaning of the Greek preposition, eis (here we have the preposition with the accusative case after it), we now cite most pertinent New Testament examples: Mat 12:41 : “They repented eis the preaching of Jonah.” Because eis ordinarily means in order to, must we so render it here? It is a fact, according to chapter 3 of Jonah, and did our Lord so mean it? If so, they failed in the object of their repentance, because Jonah never preached to them after they repented not a word. The only preaching he did preceded the repentance, and was the cause of the repentance. Therefore, Dr. Broadus teaches in his Commentary on Matthew that eis here must have its rare meaning because of. They repented because of, eis , the preaching of Jonah. But they say we must make the ordinary meaning the meaning in every case.

(4) We will now consider a frequent meaning of eis, also determined by local context, in the following still more pertinent passage, for in it we have the verb, baptize, as well as the preposition, eis (Mat 3:11 ): “I indeed baptize you in water eis repentance.” All the context shows that John required repentance, and even its fruits, as a condition precedent to baptism. It would be foolish to render it, “I baptize you in order to repentance.” Here the preposition has not its ordinary meaning, in order to, nor its rare meaning, because of, but its frequent meaning, with reference to a repentance that they had exercised. “Is baptize you with reference to that exercising of it,” is what John means. Or, as Tyndale, in his version (it was a very fine version for his time) says, “I baptize you in token of repentance.” That makes fine sense.

Mat 3:11 has a bearing on Act 2:38 . It is the first New Testament use of the verb, baptizo , followed by the preposition, eis, with the accusative case, and is the key passage for unlocking the meaning of Act 2:38 . They stand or fall together, so exact is the parallel. That they do stand or fall together is evident from their exact parallelism. A further evidence that they stand or fall together is found in the fact that both Mark and Luke tie them together: Mar 1:4 : “John preached the baptism of repentance” eis aphesis hamartion ; Luk 3:3 : “He came preaching the baptism of repentance” eis aphesin hamartion . Here are two gospels, then, that tie those passages together. And right after them is used Act 2:38 : “Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ” eis phesin hamartion . If we then translate Mat 3:11 , “I baptize you with reference to repentance,” and “John indeed baptized with the baptism of repentance with reference to the remission of sins,” why not here go right on and say, “Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ with reference to the remission of sins?” Remember that in every case we render the preposition in all these conjoined cases (Mat 3:11 ; Mar 1:4 ; Luk 3:3 ; Act 2:38 ) by “unto” in the frequent sense of with reference to. Now that will fit the local context, and it will fit the general context.

To find another instance of eis is nearer to Act 2:38 we have only to glance back to Act 2:25 , another unmistakable instance of eis in the sense of concerning, and not in order to. Note that it is in the same speech: “For David saith eis (concerning] him,” speaking of Christ. What is to hinder us, then, from taking Act 2:25 , where the eis means concerning, or with reference to, and putting that meaning of it in Act 2:38 ?

The classics abound with this sense of the preposition, eis. Dr. Broadus quotes three: (1) From Aristophanes: “To jeer at a man eis his rags,” i. e., with reference to his rags. Now we would not jeer at a man in order to his rags. (2) From Xenophon: “To reproach eis friendship.” We do not reproach a man because of his friendship, and certainly not in order to his friendship. (3) From Plato: “To differ from one eis virtue.” We do not differ from a man in order to virtue.

We may apply the ad hominern argument to our Campbellite brethren. They evade the many cases of remission through faith and without baptism, in the life of our Lord, by saying, “The law of pardon was not given till Pentecost.” How, then, do they dispose of Mar 1:4 and Luk 3:3 , paralleling remission under the preaching of John the Baptist with the preaching of Peter at Pentecost in Act 2:38 ? John baptized eis aphesin hamartion , exactly paralleling what Peter did in Act 2:38 . Then, briefly, the meaning of eis in Act 2:38 is this: Repent ye plural, and a strong imperative “and let every one of you who has repented be baptized” a mild imperative “in the name of Jesus Christ eis aphesin hamartion” with reference to remission of sins.

I am willing to risk my scholarship on that. One thing I am sure of is that however much a man may rely on the technical, grammatical construction, his common sense is constantly pushing him off that platform when it leaves him to the idea that he cannot obtain remission of sins from God unless he submits to an external rite. All the world revolts at that, and so does the teaching of the Bible.

The second group of scriptures is where baptism is connected with the washing away of sins, without the preposition, eis , in it. There is only one passage of that kind (Act 22:16 ): “Arise [Ananias said to Paul], and be baptized, and wash away thy sins.” The points here are: (1) Paul is commanded to wash away his sins; (2) to wash them away in being baptized. Two simple questions will unveil the meaning: (a) Can a man himself really wash away his sins? (b) Can water on the outside really wash away sins on the inside? The two are answered by the scripture: “God alone can forgive sins,” and when we come to the real remission it must come from God. Again: “The blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanseth us from all sin.” Therefore, it is evident that when Paul was commanded to wash away his sins Paul himself, not God, was commanded to wash them away that it is not a real washing away of sins that is meant, because that contradicts the other scripture, that God alone can take away sin. And when it says that he was commanded to wash away his sins in baptism, it is evident that it is not a real cleansing from sin that is contemplated, for the scriptures so abundantly teach that the blood of Jesus Christ alone really cleanses from sin. Then what does it mean? That Paul in baptism might symbolically wash away his sins. What God himself accomplished through the sacrifice of his Son, Paul might show forth in a symbolic cleansing, just as what Christ’s blood accomplishes in the remission of sins, the wine of the Lord’s Supper may symbolically accomplish. As there must first be a substance to cast a shadow, so the symbolic cleansing is just like taking the Lord’s Supper, if we are not really saved.

So baptism is unmeaning without a prior and real remission of sin. Being really saved, we may picture symbolically that salvation in a memorial. Otherwise it would be like Bunker Hill Monument without a previous battle to commemorate.

Peter expressly declares that baptism does not put away the filth of the flesh, using the term “filth” in the sense of spiritual defilement (not dirt on the body), and using the word “flesh” in its common meaning of the carnal nature (not the physical man). I think Peter in that little parenthesis, “not the putting away of the filth of the flesh,” was inspired of God to put in a precaution against attributing to baptism real cleansing of the defilement of sin. He foresaw the coming of the Campbellites, and put in a word against them.

The third group of scriptures is apparently connected with regeneration: (a) “Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (Joh 3:5 ). (b) “According to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit” (Tit 3:5 ). (c) “Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for it; that he might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the washing of water with the word” (Eph 5:25 ).

These three passages constitute the third group of scriptures. For a full explanation of Joh 3:5 , see author’s first volume of sermons, page 181, on, The Human Side of Regeneration . The following is a quotation from it: He must be “born of water and Spirit.” There is just one birth, “born of water and Spirit”; and it means exactly what “born again” means; and it means exactly what “born of the Spirit” means; and it means exactly what “born of God” means; just that and no more. Then, if it means just that, why put it in this form: “born of water and Spirit”? I will tell you why. In the new birth there are at least two distinct ideas: (1) cleansing; (2) renewing. If you took only the idea of cleansing and left out the renewing, cleansing would not do any good. The sow that is washed returns to her wallowing in the mire because she is a sow. If you do not change her nature, then you do no good to cleanse her, but if you change the nature and do not cleanse, then you have left purity imprisoned in filth. So there are two ideas always, at least two, in the new birth: (1) cleansing; (2) renewing.

For explanation of Tit 3:5 see the same volume, page 183: “For we ourselves also were sometime foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; that being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.” Notice how overwhelmingly conclusive and how comprehensive is this scripture: (1) We were every way evil and lost till the love of God to man appeared in our Saviour. (2) It appeared not by our works of righteousness. And baptism is a work of righteousness (Mat 3:15 ). (3) But it appeared in the shedding on us abundantly the Holy Spirit, through Jesus Christ. This is the new birth. (4) But this new birth consists of two things: (a) The washing of regeneration, i.e., the cleansing from sin secured by the Spirit’s application of Christ’s blood, in other words, “born of water.” (b) The renewing of the Holy Spirit i.e., the giving of a new heart, which is “born of Spirit.”

From the same work, page 187, is also taken this extract on Eph 5:25 : “Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he alight sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,” Therefore “born of water,” which means the “washing of regeneration,” which means “the sprinkling of our hearts from an evil conscience,” which brings justification, which is apprehended by faith, must be such a “washing of water” as comes “by the word,” because faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God, and, therefore, the sanitizer of babes who finds literal water-baptism in Ezekiel’s “Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you,” exchange the blood of Jesus, and an essential part of the “new birth” for water, and very little of that. And the immersionist who finds literal water-baptism in John’s “born of water,” makes the same exchange, only getting a little more of the water. But even this compensation is lost in a birth for a burial. His more water has drowned him.

The fourth group of scriptures consists of two: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned” (Mar 16:16 ), and “which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ; who is on the right hand of God, having gone into heaven; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him” (1Pe 3:21-22 ).

The first thing I have to say on Mar 16:16 is that it is very doubtful whether it is a part of the word of God. Certainly if you were in the Vatican library in Rome, and they were to hand you the old Vatican manuscript of the New Testament and you were to read Mark’s Gospel you would not find in it the last twelve verses of Mar 16 . And if you had before you the Sinaitic manuscript, discovered by Tischendorf, and which is supposed to be the oldest manuscript, you would find that this last paragraph of twelve verses is not in it. On that account I never preach from any part of those twelve verses. I never preach from a passage where it is really questionable as to whether or not it is a part of God’s Word, and especially would I not attempt to build up a doctrine on it.

And there is only this one passage in the whole Bible upon which you can plausibly build a baptismal salvation argument (Mar 16:16 ).

It is very easy to answer all those other passages; it is not go easy to answer this one. But let us suppose that it really belongs to God’s Word. “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned.” I would construe it just exactly as I construe the passage, “He that endureth unto the end shall be saved.” “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved”; that is true. He that endures to the end and is baptized shall be saved; that is true also. But when the negative is stated, it does not say, “He that believeth not and is not baptized shall not be saved, or shall be condemned.” When you put it negatively it has no reference to baptism. It does not say, “He that is not baptized shall not be saved.” It does not make any difference how many things one may put in believe, be baptized, keep the law, go to church with salvation, it does not affect salvation. If the first one was to secure salvation, it will be true if you put all of them in. That will not take away from the truth. He that believeth hath everlasting life; he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. Some would make it read: “He that believeth and is baptized and goes to church every Sunday, etc., etc. etc., hath everlasting life.” You can put in as many as you please and they all follow from the first one. But to put it negatively, you could not say, “He that does not go to church every Sunday will be lost.” And in negation it does not say, “He that believeth not and is not baptized” it stops at the believer. This is the explanation of this passage, assuming it to be a part of the Bible.

Is once had a controversy with a Methodist brother on falling from grace. I was stating the fact that if you have your name in the Lamb’s book of life God will in no wise blot it out that it stuck. He said, “I can disprove that.” I said, “Where is the passage?” He said, “Over there where Jesus is talking about those who have their names in the Lamb’s book of life (Rev 3:5 ).” I said, “That does not say what he will do; it says that he will not blot the name out.” So when you come to prove a thing you must not rely upon an implication. You must bring up a clear-cut statement of God’s Word. If that text had said, “He that believeth not and is not baptized shall be condemned,” I would not know what to do with it. Bear these in mind then: (1) It is a very doubtful text. (2) Saving faith is faith that is fruitful (fruit-bearing). (3) It does not mean that baptism is a condition of entrance into a saved state, by what follows “He that believeth not shall be condemned,” like “except ye repent, ye shall perish.”

On 1Pe 3:21 I make this point on the picture of baptism: “Baptism doth now save us.” Baptism doth now save us in a figure; baptism doth now save us through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. That is the figure, but baptism does not put away the impurity of the carnal nature does not put away the filth of the flesh. These are the four points: (1) Baptism saves us in a figure. (2) That figure is the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. (3) Paul says, “You have been planted in the likeness of his death, so ye shall be in the likeness of his resurrection.” Wherever you see a baptism you see a burial and a resurrection. This is not a real salvation, but a pictorial one a figure of salvation, and baptism does save us that way, and nobody will deny it. (4) The injury of a good conscience toward God. And the force of this last is: (a) The conscience is bad before it is cleansed, (b) How made good? Heb 9:14 : “By the blood of Christ.” (c) The place of a good conscience 1Ti 1:5 explains.

This, my last general remark, is on the evil consequences of this doctrine. In the history of the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, baptismal salvation, or baptismal remission, the consequences have been fearfully evil. By its fruits ye shall know it. What has been its fruit in history?

(1) The first fruit was that as soon as Christians, after the apostles, reached a conclusion from these scriptures that I have been expounding that sins were really remitted in baptism, and that baptism is never to be repeated, they instantly began to postpone baptism, so as to include, when they were baptized, just as many of their sins as possible. From the time of Augustine and Tertullian it was very manifest. Tertullian said, “Why hurry baptism? All the sins you commit up to that time are washed away. Then put it off as long as possible.” That is consequence number one.

(2) If baptism means the absolution, or remission of sins, “Why not,” said the mother, “baptize my baby?” And just as sure as the sun shines in the heavens this doctrine of baptismal remission forced “infant baptism.” There never would have been any but for that. And the testimony of history is as clear as a sunbeam as to the relation between these two things that infant baptism is the product of the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. That is the second fruit a fruit that is not good, either.

(3) “Since I may baptize my baby, in order to save it, why not sprinkle it? Why need I dip the little fellow? Why not simplify the ordinance, and just sprinkle a few drops of water on it?” And it is certain that that is the doctrine which changed the act of baptism from immersion to sprinkling. It is certainly true. Dr. Burleson was once telling a Campbellite friend of ours, Dr. Carrington of Austin we both thought a great deal of him that if there were no infant baptism in the world today, that which he (the Campbellite friend) was preaching would bring it about. “Oh, no,” he said, “that could not do it.” Yet it happened with this very Brother Carrington that he was sent for by a family, and the mother said, “Brother Carrington, my preacher is gone; you are a preacher, not of my faith, it is true, but you are a preacher, and here’s my baby about to die; I believe it is lost if it is not baptized, and I ask you to baptize the baby” and Dr. Carrington, the Campbellite preacher, sprinkled that baby I That is a fact of Texas history. I do not like that fruit.

(4) The next fruit is sacerdotal salvation a salvation at the hand of a priest, or some other human being. That is not good, either.

Another fruit is that if you baptize all the babies, and keep up baptizing all the babies, then you banish believer’s baptism out of the world.

There would be none at all. You go to a country where this “sacramental” ordinance by baptism has prevailed, and where it has necessitated infant baptism, and where it has necessitated this change in the form of baptism, there is no one in the whole nation to be found, since being administered to infants as they come into the world, not a man could be found who could pass to maturity to be baptized on a profession of his faith, and he is taught to believe that it is all right. They say, “We cannot repeat the baptism.” So if these false teachings are accredited there is utterly no use for these scriptures: “Believe and be baptized; repent and be baptized; they that believed his word were baptized, etc.”

(5) The next fruit is this: If there is no salvation without baptism, suppose I had a brother, a cousin, or an aunt who died, and was not saved, then I would say, “Why not let us have a baptism for the dead?” And it brought that in just as certain as there is anything in the world; for those who died without having been baptized, and hence, according to that doctrine, were not saved, and therefore there arose a baptism from the dead.

Take again this fact: It reverses the gospel. Instead of repent, believe and be baptized, they put it: Believe, repent and be baptized.

(7) And it certainly also brings a union of church and state, as sure as the world stands. This is the fruit of the doctrine in history.

QUESTIONS 1. Give a brief statement, in review, of the discussion of Act 2:38 thus far.

2. What three meanings may a word in any language have?

3. Apply this principle to the Greek preposition, eis.

4. What three principles of interpretation enable us to safely determine when to depart from the ordinary meaning and to render this word according to the frequent or rare meaning?

5. Illustrate the principle of “the nature or congruity of things.”

6. Illustrate the principle of “the bearing of the general context.”

7. Illustrate the principle of “the bearing of the local context.”

8. What the bearing of Mat 3:11 on Act 2:38 ?

9. What further evidence that they stand or fall together?

10. What other instance of eis nearer to Act 2:38 ?

11. What the classic usage of eis ? Give examples.

12. What argument may be applied to the Campbellites? Explain fully.

13. Then, briefly, what is the meaning of Act 2:38 ?

14. What constitutes the second group of scriptures, and what the explanation?

15. In the light of this explain 1Pe 3:21 .

16. What the third group of scriptures?

17. Explain Joh 3:5 .

18. Explain Tit 3:5 .

19. Explain Eph 5:25 .

20. What the fourth group of scriptures?

21. Explain Mar 16:16 .

22. What the picture of baptism in 1Pe 3:21 , and what the points contained therein?

23. What are the evil consequences of the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration?

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

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.

Ver. 38. Peter said unto them, Repent ] . Hence then they had not yet repented, for all they were pricked at heart. Nay, Peter prescribes it for a remedy, which taxeth their folly that take the disease for the remedy, and are overly forward to minister comfort or ever men have sorrowed after God, and to a transmentation. The English are not sick soon enough, saith one, and they are well again too soon. It is true of their minds, as well as of their bodies, Currat ergo poenitentia, ne praecurrat sententia; and let our fasts be according to an old canon, which defines their continuance usque dum stellae in, caelo appareant, till stars be seen in the sky. It is not for men to scarf up their wounds till they are thoroughly searched, not to get out of the furnace of mortification till their hearts melt, as Josiah’s did, and fall asunder in their bosoms, like drops of water. Penitence and pain are words of one derivation, and very near of kin. Never was any wound cured without sensible pain: never any sin healed without soaking sorrow. Let none dream of a delicacy in the ways of God; nor hope for sound comfort, till they have thoroughly repented. The Hebrews, as they express sin and punishment by the same word, so do they repentance and comfort, .

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

38. ] , not, as in Mat 3:2 ; Mat 4:17 , . The aorist denotes speed , a definite, sudden act: the present, a habit, more gradual, as that first moral and legal change would necessarily be. The word imports change of mind ; here, change from thinking Jesus an impostor, and scorning Him as one crucified, to being baptized in His name, and looking to Him for remission of sins, and the gift of the Spirit.

The miserable absurdity of rendering ., or ‘pnitentiam agite,’ 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. See Calvin’s note.

] Here, on the day of Pentecost, we have the first mention and administration of CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Before, there had been the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, by John, Luk 3:3 ; but now we have the important addition . , on the Name i.e. on the confession of that which the Name implies, and into the benefits and blessings which the Name implies. The Apostles and first believers were not thus baptized , because, ch. Act 1:5 , they had received the BAPTISM BY THE HOLY GHOST, the thing signified , which superseded that by water, the outward and visible sign .

The result of the baptism to which he here exhorts them, preceded by repentance and accompanied by faith in the forgiveness of sins in Christ, would be, the receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit .

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Act 2:38 . : “Non satis est Christocredere, sed oportet et Christianum profiteri, Rom 10:10 , quod Christus per baptismum fieri voluit,” Grotius. John’s baptism had been a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, but the work of St. Peter and of his fellow-Apostles was no mere continuation of that of the Baptist, cf. Act 19:4-5 . Their baptism was to be ( ) . . St. Peter’s address had been directed to the proof that Jesus was the Christ, and it was only natural that the acknowledgment of the cogency of that proof should form the ground of admission to the Christian Church: the ground of the admission to baptism was the recognition of Jesus as the Christ. The reading (see especially Weiss, Apostelgeschichte , pp. 35, 36) brings this out more clearly than . It is much better to explain thus than to say that baptism in the name of one of the Persons of the Trinity involves the names of the other Persons also, or to suppose with Bengel (so Plumptre) that the formula in Mat 28:19 was used for Gentiles, whilst for Jews or Proselytes who already acknowledged a Father and a Holy Spirit baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus sufficed; or to conjecture with Neander that Mat 28:19 was not at first considered as a formula to be adhered to rigidly in baptism, but that the rite was performed with reference to Christ’s name alone. This difficulty, of which so much has been made, does not appear to have pressed upon the early Church, for it is remarkable that the passage in the Didache 1 , vii., 3, which is rightly cited to prove the early existence of the Invocation of the Holy Trinity in baptism, is closely followed by another in which we read (ix. 5) , , i.e. , Christ, as the immediate context shows. , “unto” R.V., signifying the aim. It has been objected that St. Peter lays no stress upon the death of Christ in this connection, but rather upon His Resurrection. But we cannot doubt that St. Peter who had emphasised the fact of the crucifixion would have remembered his Master’s solemn declaration a few hours before His death, Mat 26:28 . Even if the words in this Gospel are rejected, the fact remains that St. Peter would have connected the thought of the forgiveness of sins, a prerogative which, as every Jew was eager to maintain, belonged to God and to God alone, with the (new) covenant which Christ had ratified by His death. Harnack admits that however difficult it may be to explain precisely the words of Jesus to the disciples at the Last Supper, yet one thing is certain, that He connected the forgiveness of sins with His death, Dogmengeschichte , i., pp. 55 and 59, see also “Covenant,” Hastings, B.D., p. 512. : the R.V. has this addition, so too the Vulgate (Wycl. and Rheims). As each individual was to be baptised, so each, if truly penitent, would receive the forgiveness of his sins. , not as in 1Co 12:4 ; 1Co 12:9 ; 1Co 12:28 , for the Holy Ghost, the gift, was a personal and abiding possession, but the were for a time answering to special needs, and enjoyed by those to whom God distributed them. The word is used specially of the gift of the Holy Ghost by St. Luke four times in Act 8:20 ; Act 10:45 ; Act 11:17 , but by no other Evangelist ( cf. , however, Luk 11:13 ), cf. Heb 6:4 (Joh 4:10 ).

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

Repent. App-111.

be baptized . . . in. App-115. For the formula of baptism, see App-185.

name. Note the frequent use of “the name” in the Acts. Compare Act 3:6, Act 3:16; Act 4:10, Act 4:12, Act 4:17, Act 4:18, Act 4:30, &c. See also Gen 12:8. Exo 3:13-15; Exo 23:21.

Jesus Christ. i.e. Jesus as Messiah. App-98.

for. Greek. eis. App-104.

remission = forgiveness. Greek. aphesis. Compare App-174.

sins. App-128.

gift = free gift. Greek. dorea. See note on Joh 4:10. Always used of divine gifts. The word doron is always used of man’s gifts, except in Eph 2:8.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

38.] , not, as in Mat 3:2; Mat 4:17, . The aorist denotes speed, a definite, sudden act: the present, a habit, more gradual, as that first moral and legal change would necessarily be. The word imports change of mind; here, change from thinking Jesus an impostor, and scorning Him as one crucified, to being baptized in His name, and looking to Him for remission of sins, and the gift of the Spirit.

The miserable absurdity of rendering ., or pnitentiam agite, 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 Christs followers. See Calvins note.

] Here, on the day of Pentecost, we have the first mention and administration of CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Before, there had been the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, by John, Luk 3:3; but now we have the important addition . ,-on the Name-i.e. on the confession of that which the Name implies, and into the benefits and blessings which the Name implies. The Apostles and first believers were not thus baptized, because, ch. Act 1:5, they had received the BAPTISM BY THE HOLY GHOST, the thing signified, which superseded that by water, the outward and visible sign.

The result of the baptism to which he here exhorts them, preceded by repentance and accompanied by faith in the forgiveness of sins in Christ, would be, the receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Act 2:38. ) repent, viz. towards GOD. Thus in this verse there is contained by implication the Holy Trinity [comp. ch. Act 3:19-20, where the same truth is implied].-, let each of you be baptized) He speaks as of a thing already known to all: for both John and Christ [by His disciples] had administered baptism.- [22] in name of Jesus) See note on Mat 28:19. [The confession of the Holy Trinity and their offices was the preliminary of baptism. The creeds are but an expansion of this baptismal confession. The Jews, as being already in covenant with God (the Father) by circumcision, were to be baptized in the name ( ) of Christ, and to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit: the Gentiles, as being wholly aliens from God, were, according to Mat 28:19, to be baptized into the name ( ) of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.]-, of sins) viz. of that sin which you committed in having crucified Christ (for it was on account of that sin especially that they were suffering such distress of conscience), and of all your other sins. ) ye shall receive) alike as we. We are a living proof to you of the fact.

[22] The fuller reading, , is preferred in the margin of Ed. 2, which is followed hy the Vers. Germ.-E. B.

Iren. omits ; but the other oldest authorities have it: and DEde Vulg. Amiat. Cypr. and Lucifer prefix , which ABC and Rec. Text omit.-E. and T.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

remission (See Scofield “Mat 26:28”).

sins Sin. (See Scofield “Rom 3:23”).

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

Repent: Act 3:19, Act 17:30, Act 20:21, Act 26:20, Mat 3:2, Mat 3:8, Mat 3:9, Mat 4:17, Mat 21:28-32, Luk 15:1-32, Luk 24:47

be: Act 8:36-38, Act 16:15, Act 16:31-34, Act 22:16, Tit 3:5, 1Pe 3:21

in: Act 8:12, Act 8:16, Act 10:48, Act 19:4, Act 19:5, Mat 28:19, Rom 6:3, 1Co 1:13-17

and ye: Act 2:16-18, Act 8:15-17, Act 10:44, Act 10:45, Isa 32:15, Isa 44:3, Isa 44:4, Isa 59:21, Eze 36:25-27, Eze 39:29, Joe 2:28, Joe 2:29, Zec 12:10

Reciprocal: Lev 23:27 – afflict Psa 51:13 – Then Psa 68:18 – rebellious Isa 21:12 – if Hos 12:6 – turn Zec 10:9 – live Mat 3:6 – were Mat 7:13 – at Mat 9:13 – but Mar 1:5 – confessing Mar 1:17 – fishers Mar 6:12 – preached Mar 16:16 – is Luk 1:77 – the Luk 5:32 – General Luk 6:42 – cast Luk 13:3 – except Luk 14:17 – his Joh 3:5 – born Joh 7:39 – this spake Joh 20:22 – Receive Joh 20:23 – General Act 1:13 – Peter Act 2:33 – he Act 2:41 – were baptized Act 5:32 – whom Act 8:20 – the gift Act 8:22 – Repent Act 8:37 – If Act 9:18 – and was Act 10:36 – word Act 13:38 – that Act 19:2 – Have ye Act 26:18 – that they Gal 3:2 – Received Gal 3:14 – might Gal 3:27 – as many Eph 1:7 – the forgiveness Col 1:14 – the 2Ti 2:25 – repentance Heb 6:1 – repentance Heb 6:2 – the doctrine

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

REPENTANCE

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.

Act 2:38

In examining this subject we must first clearly understand what we mean by repentance.

I. Respecting its nature.To repent is an altogether different thing from doing penance. Nor is repentance to be confounded with remorse. Repentance is the tender-hearted sorrow for the sin itself.

II. Its necessity.

(a) Our Lord plainly teaches its necessity.

(b) Repentance is essentially connected with forgiveness of sin. We are never told in Holy Scripture that God forgives the unrepentant. If a man is content with his sins, vexed perhaps at the consequences, but quite unhumbled for the sin; if he neither sorrows for it, nor acknowledges it, nor humbles himself before God for it, and is simply troubled because it has disgraced him, how can he expect forgiveness from God?

III. In what way is repentance to be found?It is the same with repentance as it is with faith, or hope, or holiness, or obedience, or purity. It is the action of man, yet the gift of God. There is in it a union of the Divine and human element. In repentance there is perfectly clearly the action of man; and accordingly man is called on as a free agent to repent. On the other hand, it is described as being as distinctly a gift of God, as if man had nothing whatever to do with it. It is a gift for which we ought to thank God as much as for pardon, or new birth, or holiness, or any other of the multiplied blessings which He in His mercy has bestowed on us in Christ Jesus.

IV. What, then, is our practical conclusion?Two things seem perfectly clear.

(a) First, we are not to wait till we are aware of having received some supernatural gift or supernatural impression, and then begin to repent as the consequence of such a gift; but we are to begin to act exactly as we are on the command which bids us repent.

(b) But it also teaches us that we must not expect by any will of our own to soften the heart of stone.

Canon Edward Hoare.

Illustration

We cannot control the Spirit of God. He works when He wills, how He wills, and where He wills. The Spirit of God, when He convinces a man of sin, wakes up sins long forgotten, and makes him feel their burning sting. Just as when a man is drowning, they say his whole life flashes before him like a panorama. Pictures of all he has done from childhood float before his minds eye.

Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary

8

This verse has two distinct parts; command and promise. The command would have to be obeyed at once in order to obtain the desired result, while the promise would be carried out according to the Lord’s own plan, to be observed as we consider the conditions connected therewith. Repent means to turn from a sinful course and choose a righteous one. Be baptized means to be buried in water, the details of which will be discussed at Act 8:38.

For is from EIS, which means In order to, or into, the remission of sins. The gift of the Holy Ghost (or Spirit) was the promise, and it meant that the Holy Ghost was to be given, not that it was to give something to anyone, for it is in no place spoken of as a giver. Besides, in Act 10:44-45, the terms “Holy Ghost” and “the gift of the Holy Ghost” are used in the same sense, proving that the promise that Peter meant in this verse was the Holy Ghost was to be given. The inevitable question that comes up, is what was this gift or when was it to be given? This verse does not answer that question, hence we must look elsewhere for the answer. Act 19:2 shows that men did not receive this Holy Ghost simultaneously with repentance and baptism, else Paul would not have asked the question he did, for he thought he was talking to people who had been baptized with “Christian baptism.” The information we are seeking may be found in Act 8:14-17. The people of Samaria had been baptized just as Peter commanded, yet they had not received the Holy Ghost until the apostles came and laid hands on them. Hence the conclusion is unavoidable, that when Peter made the promise in Act 2:38, he meant that if they would repent and be baptized, they would be entitled to the gift of the Holy Ghost whenever an apostle laid hands on them.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Act 2:38. Be baptized. The rite of baptism was well known to the Jews: they used to baptize proselytes and their children.

In the name of Jesus Christ. Their belief in Jesus was the ground on which they were to be baptized (Meyer). Here only do we find the expression to be baptized in the name (); in all other places it is into the name ( ), chap, Act 8:16; Mat 28:19, etc.; and in the name (), chap. Act 10:48. It has been suggested (by De Wette and also Hackett) that the usual formula into () has been avoided here for the sake of euphony, as ; occurs in the next clause ( ), for the remission.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Observe, 1. St. Peter exhorts them to repentance. But did they not repent already? were they not now pricked at their hearts? and will the apostle add grief to grief, and pain to smart? Know, that the apostle advises them to join to their legal sorrow, evangelical repentance, such as is attended and accompanied with owning Christ to be the true Messias, with believing in him with desire and hope of pardon from him.

Where, by the way, observe, That St. Peter prescribes a dose of the same physic for them, which he had very lately taken himself with good success, when upon his hearty sorrow he obtained pardon for denying his Lord and Master, He went out and wept bitterly. Mat 26:75 No sermons are so sovereign and so successful as those which proceed from the minister’s personal and comfortable experience. St. Peter presses upon his auditors the doctrine of repentance, which he himself had practiced.

Observe, 2. Upon their repentance, their owning of, and believing in Christ, he directs them to be baptized in his name, and then they should be capable of the gifts of the Holy Ghost; even of those miraculous gifts which they no saw and admired in the apostles.

Learn hence, That baptism is a solemn ordinance and sacred institution of Jesus Christ, which is not to be administered to any out of the Christian church, till they profess repentance and faith in Christ, and sincere obedience to him, Repent, and be baptized every one of you.

Observe, 3. The argument which the apostle uses with them, by way of encouragement, to persuade them to repent and be baptized: for, says he, The promise is unto you and to your children: To you, Jews of the seed of Abraham, and to your seed, as shall be called by the preaching of the gospel to profess faith in Christ, and subjection to him. Where, by the promise, is meant the gracious covenant of God, whereby he offers pardon and peace to such as will accept them.

Now this acceptance is twofold;

1. Cordial; which intitles a person to all the benefits of the covenant, temporal, spiritual, and eternal.

And, 2. Professionally only; whcih intitles a person and his seed to church privileges only.

Hence learn, That when God takes believing parents into covenant with himself, he takes also their children or seed into covenant with himself likewise. And if so, then the seal of the covenant, which is baptism, ought to be applied to them. It is evident, that under the Old Testament, children were in covenant with God, as well as their parents.

And do we anywhere find that ever they were cast out under the gospel?

The apostle doth not say, The promise was unto you and to your seed; but still it; for otherwise children would be in a worse condition under the gospel of Christ, than they were under the law of Moses; but surely the privileges of the gospel are not straiter and narrower than those of the law.

Observe, lastly, How St. Peter closes all with an exhortation to his auditors, to save themselves from that untoward generation; that is, from the Scribes and Pharisees, that sour sort of men, who desperately and maliciously opposed Christ and his gospel, and by their authority and example, kept people from embracing the only way of salvation revealed by Jesus Christ.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

The Keys to the Kingdom

In Mat 16:19 , Jesus promised Peter, “And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” On the cross, Jesus asked his Father to forgive those who crucified him in ignorance. Both these passages find the beginning of their fulfillment in Act 2:38 . The Holy Spirit, through Peter, had already identified those in the assembled multitude as those who had used lawless hands to crucify God’s Son. When they asked what they must do to be saved, Peter told them to, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

Repenting involves a change of will, or mind ( Mat 21:28-32 ). Baptism is a dipping, plunging, immersing or overwhelming. Today, we would say baptism is a burial ( Col 2:12 ). Both repentance and baptism were to be done in the name of Jesus. Bales says, “Of course, Peter was not telling them in Act 2:38 what he would say when he baptized them, but rather what they were to do in being baptized, i.e. they were to be baptized resting on His name, submitting to His authority, depending on Him as Savior and Lord.”

The purpose of repentance and baptism under the authority of Jesus was to receive the promised result of the remission of sins. Luke recorded Peter’s words using the Greek tense which set forth what he said as an urgent command. His urgency stemmed from the fact that such actions were required for them to receive the salvation they had sought. In 1Pe 3:21 , the apostle explained that baptism is the means of one’s calling on God to cleanse him based upon the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.

The Gift of the Holy Spirit

A further benefit of submitting to Christ’s authority in repentance and baptism is the reception of the gift of the Holy Spirit. Peter explained that the promise of the gift was available to the Jews, their children and the Gentiles, or those who were afar off. Of course, the promise is only for those who the Lord calls. However, the only limitation on God’s call stems from man’s willingness, or lack thereof, to respond to God’s call since it clearly extends to all who will work righteousness ( Act 10:34-35 ). The Spirit is ready to give life to any who will submit to God and then make that individual’s body his temple ( Rom 8:9-11 ; 1Co 6:19-20 ).

Peter pleaded with his listeners to save themselves from the wicked generation in which they lived. Those who obediently received the words of Peter were receiving the words of Christ, since the Lord said, “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who receives whomever I send receives Me; and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me” ( Joh 13:20 ; Luk 10:16 ). Because they received the Lord’s words, about three thousand were added together in the kingdom ( Act 2:38-41 ).

Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books

38. This is the first time, under the reign of Jesus Christ, that this most important of all questions was ever propounded; and the first time, of course, that it was every answered. Whatever may have been the true answer under any previous dispensation, or on any previous day in the world’s history, the answer given by Peter on this day of Pentecost, in which the reign of Christ on earth began, is the true and infallible answer for all the subjects of his authority in all subsequent time. It deserves our most profound attention; for it announces the conditions of pardon for all men who may be found in the same state of mind with these inquiries. It is expressed as follows: (38) “Then Peter said to them, Repent and be immersed, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

That the offer of pardon, made to the world through Jesus Christ, is conditional, is denied only by the fatalist. We will not argue this point, expect as it is involved in the inquiry as to what the conditions of pardon are. When we ascertain the prescribed conditions of pardon, both questions will be settled in settling one.

Pardon is the chief want of the human soul, in its most favorable earthly circumstances. The rebel against God’s government, though he lay down his arms and becomes a loyal subject, can have no hope of happiness without pardon for the past; while the pardoned penitent, humbly struggling in the service of God, knows himself still guilty of shortcomings, by which he must fail of the final reward, unless pardoned again and again. The question as to what are the conditions of pardon, therefore, necessarily divides itself into two; one having reference to the hitherto-unpardoned sinner, the other to the saint who may have fallen into sin. It is the former class who propounded the question to Peter, and it is to them alone that the answer under consideration was given. We will confine ourselves, in our present remarks, to this branch of the subject, and discuss it only in the light of the passage before us.

If we regard the question of the multitude, What shall we do? as simply a question of duty under their peculiar circumstances, without special reference to final results, we learn from the answer that there were two things for them to do-Repent, and be immersed. If Peter had stopped with these two words, his answer would have been satisfactory, in this view of the subject, and it would have been the conclusion of the world, that the duty of a sinner, “pierced to the heart” by a sense of guilt, is to repent and be immersed.

But if we regard their question as having definite reference to the salvation of which Peter had already spoken, (verse 21 ,) and their meaning, What shall we do to be saved? then the answer is equally definite: it teaches that what a sinner thus affected is to do to be saved, is to repent and be immersed.

From these two observations, the reader perceives, that so far as the conditions of salvation from past sins are concerned, the duty of the sinner is most definitely taught by the first two words of the answer, taken in connection with their question, without entering upon the controversy concerning the remainder of the answer. If it had been Peter’s design merely to give an answer in concise terms, without explanation, no doubt he would have confined it to these two words, for they contain the only commands which he gives.

But he saw fit to accompany the two commands with suitable explanations. He qualifies the command to be immersed by the clause, “in the name of Jesus Christ,” to show that it is under his authority that they were to be immersed, and not merely under that of the Father, whose authority alone was recognized in John’s immersion. That we are right in referring to this limiting clause, “in the name of Jesus Christ,” to the command to be immersed, and not to the command repent, is evident from the fact that it would be incongruous to say, “Repent in the name of Jesus Christ.”

Peter further explains the two commands, by stating their specific design; by which term we mean the specific blessing which was to be expected as the consequence of obedience. It is “for the remission of sins.” To convince an unbiased mind that this clause depends upon both the preceding commands, and express their design, it would only be necessary to repeat the words, “Repent and be immersed in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” But, inasmuch as it has suited the purpose of some controversialists to dispute this proposition, we here give the opinions of two recent representative commentators, who can not be suspected of undue bias in its favor.

Dr. Alexander (Presbyterian) says, “The whole phrase, to (or toward) remission of sins, describes this as the end to which the multitude had reference, and which, therefore, must be contemplated in the answer.” Again: “The beneficial end to which all this led was the remission of sins.”

Dr. Hackett (Baptist) expresses himself still more satisfactorily: “eis aphesin hamartion, in order to the forgiveness of sins, (Matt 26:28 Luke 3:3 ,) we connect, naturally, with the both the preceding verbs. This clause states the motive or object which should induce them to repent and be baptized. It enforces the entire exhortation, not one part of it to the exclusion of the other.”

The connection contended for can not be made more apparent by argument; it needs only that attention be called to it, in order to be perceived by every unbiased mind. It is possible that some doubt might arise in reference to the connection of the clause with the term repent, but one would imagine that its connection with the command be immersed could not be doubted, but for the fact that it has been disputed. Indeed, some controversialists have felt so great necessity for denying the last-named connection, as to assume that the clause, “for the remission of sins” depends largely upon the term repent, and that the connection of thought is this: “Repent for the remission of sins, and be immersed in the name of Jesus Christ.” It is a sufficient refutation of this assumption to remark, that, if Peter had intended to say this, he would most certainly have done so; but he has said something entirely different; and this shows that he meant something entirely different. If men are permitted, after this style, to entirely reconstruct the sentences of inspired apostles, then there is no statement in the Word of God which may not be perverted. We dismiss this baseless assumption with the remark, that it has not been dignified by the indorsement of any writer of respectable attainments, known to the author, and it would not be noticed here, but for the frequency of its appearance in the pulpit, in the columns of denominational newspapers, and on the pages of partisan tracts.

The dependence of the clause, “for the remission of sins,” upon both the verbs repent and be immersed, being established, it would seem undeniable that remission of sins is the blessing in order to the enjoyment of which they were commanded to repent and be immersed. This is universally admitted so far as the term repent is concerned, but by many denied in reference to the command be immersed; hence the proposition that immersion is for the remission of sins is rejected by the Protestant sects in general. Assuming that remission of sins precedes immersion, and that, so far as adults are concerned, the only proper subjects for this ordinance are those whose sins are already pardoned, it is urged that for in this clause means “on account of” or “because of.” Hence, Peter is understood to command, “Repent and be immersed on account of remission of sins already enjoyed.” But this interpretation is subject to two insuperable objections. 1st. To command men to repent and be immersed because their sins were already remitted, is to require them not only to be immersed on this account, but to repent because they were already pardoned. There is no possibility of extricating the interpretation from this absurdity. 2d. It contradicts an obvious fact of the case. It makes Peter command the inquirers to be immersed because their sins were already remitted, whereas it is an indisputable fact that their sins were not yet remitted. On the contrary, they were still pierced to the heart with a sense of guilt, and by the question they propounded were seeking how they might obtain the very pardon which this interpretation assumes that they already enjoyed. Certainly no sane man would assume a position involving such absurdity, and so contradictory to an obvious fact, were he not driven to it by the inexorable demands of a theory which could not be otherwise sustained.

We observe, further, in reference to this interpretation, that even if we admit the propriety of supplanting the preposition for by the phrase on account of, the substitute will not answer the purpose for which it is employed. The meaning of this phrase varies, according as its object is past or future. “On account of” some past event may mean because it has taken place; but on account of an event yet in the future, would, in the same connection, mean in order that it might take place. The same is true of the equivalent phrase, “because of.” If, then, the parties addressed by Peter were already pardoned, “on account of the remission of sins” would mean, because their sins had been remitted. But as this is an indisputable fact that the parties addressed were yet unpardoned, what they are commanded to do on account of remission of sins must mean, in order that their sins may be remitted. Such a rendering, therefore, would not even render the obvious meaning of the passage less perspicuous than it already is.

It will be found that any other substitute for the preposition for, designed to force upon the passage a meaning different from that which it obviously bears, will as signally fail to suit the purpose of its author. If, with Dr. Alexander, we render, Repent and be immersed “to (or toward) remission of sins,” we still have remission both beyond repentance and immersion, and depending upon them as preparatory conditions. Indeed, this rendering would leave it uncertain whether repentance and immersion would bring them to remission of sins, or only toward it, leaving an indefinite space yet to pass before obtaining it.

If, with others still-for every effort that ingenuity could suggest has been made to find another meaning for this passage-we render it, Repent and be immersed unto or into remission of sins, the attempt is fruitless; for remission of sins is still the blessing unto which or into which repentance and immersion are to lead the inquirers.

Sometimes the advocates of these various renderings, when disheartened by the failure of their attempts at argument and criticism, resort to raillery, and assert that the whole doctrine of immersion for the remission of sins depends upon the one little word for in the command, “be immersed for the remission of sins.” If this were true, it would be no humiliation; for a doctrine based upon a word of God, however small, has an eternal and immutable foundation. But it is not true. On the contrary, you may draw a pencil-mark over the whole clause, “for the remission of sins,” erasing it, with all the remainder of Peter’s answer, and still the meaning will remain unchanged. The connection would then read thus: “Brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said to them, Repent, and be immersed every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus.” Remembering now that these parties were pierced to the heart with a sense of guilt, and that their question means, What shall we do to be saved from out sins? the answer must be understood as the answer to that question. But the answer is, Repent and be immersed; therefore, to repent and to be immersed are the two things which they must do in order to be saved from their sins.

The reader now perceives, that, in this first announcement to sinners of the terms of pardon, so guardedly has Peter expressed himself, and so skillfully has Luke interwoven with his words the historic facts, that whatever rendering men have forced upon the leading term, the meaning of the whole remains unchanged; and even when you strike this term and its dependent words out of the text, that same meaning still stares you in the face. The fact is suggestive of more than human wisdom. It reminds us that Peter spoke, and Luke wrote, as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. That infinite wisdom which was dictating a record for all time to come is displayed here, providing for future controversies which no human being could anticipate. Like the sun in the heavens, which may be temporarily obscured by clouds, but will still break forth again, and shine upon all but those who hide from his beams, the light of truth which God has suspended in this passage may be dimmed for a moment by the mists of partisan criticism, but to those who are willing to see it, it will still send out its beams, and guide the trembling sinner unerringly to pardon and peace.

If there were any real ground for doubt as to the proper translation and real meaning of the words eis aphesin hamartion, for the remission of sins, when connected with the term immersion, a candid inquirer would resort to its usage when disconnected from this term, and seek thus to determine its exact import. It happens to occur only once in connection suitable to this purpose, but no number of occurrences could more definitely fix its meaning. When instituting the supper, Jesus says, “This is my blood of the new covenant, shed for many for the remission of sins,” eis aphesin hamartion. It is impossible to doubt that the clause here means in order to the remission of sins. In this case it expresses the object for which something is to be done; in the passage we are discussing, it expresses the object for which something is commanded to be done: the grammatical and logical construction is the same in both cases, and, therefore, the meaning is the same. Men are to repent and be immersed in order to the attainment of the same blessing for which the blood of Jesus was shed. The propitiation through his blood was in order to the offer of pardon, while repentance and immersion are enjoined by Peter upon his hearers, in order to the attainment of pardon.

The careful reader will have observed that in stating the conditions of remission of sins to the multitude, Peter says nothing about the necessity of faith. This omission is not sufficiently accounted for by the fact that faith is implied in the command to repent and be immersed; for the parties now addressed were listening to the terms for the first time, and might fail to perceive this implication. But the fact is, that they did already believe, and it was a result of their faith, that they were pierced to the heart, and made to cry out, What shall we do? This Peter perceived, and therefore it would have been but little less than mockery to command them to believe. It will be observed, throughout the course of apostolic preaching, that they never commanded men to do what they had already done, but took them as they found them, and enjoined upon them only that which they yet lacked of complete obedience. In the case before us, Peter was not laying down a complete formula for the conditions of pardon; but was simply informing the parties before him what they must do in order to the remission of their sins. Being believers already, they must add to their faith repentance and immersion.

Before dismissing this topic, we must remark that the doctrine of immersion for the remission of sins does not assume that immersion is the only condition of remission, but simply that, it is one among three conditions, and the last of the three. Administered previous to faith and repentance, as in the case of infants, it is not only absolutely worthless, but intensely sinful.

The exact meaning of the term repent will be considered below, under iii. 19.

After commanding the inquirers to repent and be immersed for the remission of sins, Peter adds the promise, “and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” The gift of the Holy Spirit should not be confounded with the Holy Spirit’s gifts, nor with the fruits of the Spirit. The fruits of the Holy Spirit are religious traits of character, and they result from the gift of the Holy Spirit. The latter expression means, the Holy Spirit as a gift. It is analogous to the expression, “promise of the Holy Spirit” in verse 33 , above, where Peter says, “having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has shed forth this which you now see and hear.” The gifts of the Holy Spirit were various miraculous powers, intellectual and physical. These were conferred only upon a few individuals, while the gift of the Spirit is promised to all who repent and are immersed.

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

PLAN OF SALVATION

38. Peter interjects uproariously amid the heterogeneous clamor like ten thousand ocean billows breaking against the rock-bound shore.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

2:38 {8} 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.

(8) Repentance and remission of sins in Christ are two principles of the Gospel and therefore of our salvation: and they are obtained by the promises apprehended by faith, and are ratified by us in baptism; and with our salvation comes the power of the Holy Spirit (Ed.).

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

Peter told them what to do. They needed to repent. Repentance involves a change of mind and heart first and secondarily a change of conduct. The Greek word translated repentance (metanoia) literally means a change of outlook (from meta and noeo meaning to reconsider). The Jews had formerly regarded Jesus as less than Messiah and had rejected him. Now they needed to accept Him and embrace Him. John the Baptist and Jesus had previously called for repentance in their audiences (Mat 3:2; Mat 4:17; et al.), and the apostles continued this emphasis, as Luke reported in Acts (Act 3:19; Act 5:31; Act 8:22; Act 10:43; Act 11:18; Act 13:24; Act 17:30; Act 19:4; Act 20:21; Act 26:18; Act 26:20).

"The context of repentance which brings eternal life, and that which Peter preached on the day of Pentecost, is a change of mind about Jesus Christ. Whereas the people who heard him on that day formerly thought of Him as mere man, they were asked to accept Him as Lord (Deity) and Christ (promised Messiah). To do this would bring salvation." [Note: Charles C. Ryrie, Balancing the Christian Life, p. 176.]

When people speak of repentance they may mean one of two different things. We use this English word in the sense of a conduct change (turning away from sinful practices). We also use it in the sense of a conceptual change (turning away from false ideas previously held). These two meanings also appear in Scripture. This has led to some confusion concerning what a person must do to obtain salvation.

"The Greek verb [metanoeo, translated "to repent"] means ’to change one’s mind,’ but in its Lucan usage it comes very close to the Hebrew verb for repent which literally means ’to turn or turn around’ (sub). . . . A change of perspective, involving the total person’s point of view, is called for by this term. In fact, John called for the Israelites to bring forth fruit worthy of repentance ([Luke] Act 3:8). This passage is significant for it separates repentance from what it produces, and also expresses a link between repentance and fruit. One leads to the other.

"In summary, Luke saw repentance as a change of perspective that transforms a person’s thinking and approach to life." [Note: Bock, "A Theology . . .," pp. 129-30, 132.]

If a person just thinks of repentance as turning from sinful practices, repentance becomes a good work that a person does. This kind of repentance is not necessary for salvation for two reasons. First, this is not how the gospel preachers in the New Testament used the word, as one can see from the meaning of the Greek word metanoia (defined above). Second, other Scriptures make it clear that good works, including turning from sin, have no part in justification (e.g., Eph 2:8-9). God does not save us because of what we do for Him but because of what He has done for us in Christ. [Note: See Joseph C. Dillow’s excellent discussion of the true and false definitions of repentance in The Reign of the Servant Kings, pp. 30-36. See also Kent, pp. 33-34.]

Repentance by definition is not an act separate from trusting Christ. It is part of the process of believing. A few scholars believe repentence plays no part in salvation but that repentence is a condition for harmonious fellowship with God. [Note: E.g., Zane C. Hodges, Absolutely Free, pp. 145-6.] This is a minority view, however.

When a person trusts Christ, he or she abandons his or her false notions about the Savior and embraces the truth. The truth is that Jesus Christ is God’s provision for our eternal salvation. When we rest our confidence in Him and the sufficiency of His cross work for us, God gives us eternal life. This is not just giving mental assent to facts that are true. Saving faith does that but also places confidence in Christ rather than in self for salvation. [Note: See Thomas L. Constable, "The Gospel Message," in Walvoord: A Tribute, p. 207.]

". . . it needs ever to be insisted on that the faith that justifies is not a mere intellectual process-not simply crediting certain historical facts or doctrinal statements; but it is a faith that springs from a divinely wrought conviction of sin which produces a repentance that is sincere and genuine." [Note: Harry A. Ironside, Except Ye Repent, pp. 9-10.]

Peter called for individual repentance ("each of you," Gr. second person plural). The Jews thought corporately about their responsibilities as God’s chosen people, but Peter confronted them with their individual responsibility to believe in Jesus.

The New Testament uses the word baptism in two ways: Spirit baptism and water baptism. This raises the question of which type Peter was calling for here. In Act 2:38 "baptism" is probably water baptism, as most commentators point out. A few of them believe that Peter was referring to Spirit baptism in the sense of becoming identified with Christ.

"The baptism of the Spirit which it was our Lord’s prerogative to bestow was, strictly speaking, something that took place once for all on the day of Pentecost when He poured forth ’the promise of the Father’ on His disciples and thus constituted them the new people of God; baptism in water continued to be the external sign by which individuals who believed the gospel message, repented of their sins, and acknowledged Jesus as Lord, were publicly incorporated into the Spirit-baptized fellowship of the new people of God." [Note: Bruce, Commentary on . . ., pp. 76-77.]

This verse is a major proof text for those who believe that water baptism is essential for salvation. [Note: See Aubrey M. Malphurs, "A Theological Critique of the Churches of Christ Doctrine of Soteriology" (Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1981).] Many people refer to this viewpoint as sacramental theology as contrasted with evangelical theology. It encounters its greatest problem with passages that make the forgiveness of sin, and salvation in general, dependent on nothing but trust in Christ (e.g., Act 16:31; Act 10:43; Act 13:38-39; Act 26:18; Luk 24:47; Joh 3:16; Joh 3:36; Rom 4:1-17; Rom 11:6; Gal 3:8-9; Eph 2:8-9). [Note: See Charles C. Ryrie, So Great Salvation; Hodges, Absolutely Free! and Robert N. Wilkin, "Repentence and Salvation," Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 1:1 (Autumn 1988):11-20, and 2:1 (Spring 1989):13-26.] Peter later promised forgiveness of sins on the basis of faith alone (Act 5:31; Act 10:43; Act 13:38; Act 26:18).

". . . Christian [water] baptism was an expression of faith and commitment to Jesus as Lord." [Note: Marshall, The Acts . . ., p.81.]

What is the relationship of repentance, water baptism, forgiveness, and the gift of the Spirit that this verse brings together? At least three explanations are possible if we rule out the idea that water baptism results in the forgiveness of sins. [Note: Lanny T. Tanton, "The Gospel and Water Baptism: A Study of Acts 2:38," Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 3:1 (Spring 1990):27-52, discussed six interpretations of this passage.]

1.    One acceptable option is to take the Greek preposition translated "for" (eis) as "because of" or "on the basis of." This is not the usual meaning of the word. The usual meaning is "for" designating aim or purpose. However it clearly means "because of" in some passages (e.g., Mat 3:11; Mat 12:41; Mar 1:4). This explanation links forgiveness with baptizing. We could paraphrase this view as follows. "Repent and you will receive the gift of the Spirit. Be baptized because your sins are forgiven." [Note: Advocates of this view include Ryrie, The Acts . . ., p. 24; W. A. Criswell, Acts, p. 96; H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, pp. 103-4; Kenneth S. Wuest, Word Studies in the Greek New Testament, 3:76-77; Robertson, 3:35-36; and Wiersbe, 1:410.]

2.    Other interpreters emphasize the correspondence between the number (singular and plural) of the verbs and pronouns in the two parts of the sentence. "Repent" is plural as is "your," and "be baptized" and "you" (in "each of you") are singular.

Repent (second person plural)

    be baptized (third person singular)

    each (third person singular) of you

for the forgiveness of your (second person plural) sins

According to this view Peter was saying, "You [all] repent for [the purpose of] the forgiveness of your sins, and you [all] will receive the Spirit." Then he added parenthetically, "And each of you [singular] be baptized [as a testimony to your faith]." This explanation links forgiveness with repentance. [Note: See Toussaint, "Acts," p. 359; Ned B. Stonehouse, "The Gift of the Holy Spirit," Westminster Theological Journal 13 (1949-51):1-15; Frank Stagg, The Book of Acts, p. 63; Bob L. Ross, Acts 2:38 and Baptismal Regeneration, pp. 45-49; Malphurs, pp. 167-69; and Luther B. McIntyre Jr., "Baptism and Forgiveness in Acts 2:38," Bibliotheca Sacra 153:609 (January-March 1996):53-62.] This seems to me to be the best explanation.

"Repentance demands the witness of baptism; forgiveness is followed by the gift of the Holy Spirit [i.e., Spirit baptism]." [Note: Blaiklock, p. 60.]

3.    A third, less popular, view is that God withheld Spirit baptism from Palestinian converts to Christianity when the church was in its infancy. He did so until they had entered into communion with God by obeying His command to undergo baptism in water (Act 2:38; Act 22:16). Their Christian experience unfolded in this sequence of events: regeneration, water baptism, forgiveness of sins, fellowship with God, Spirit baptism. These Palestinian converts were individuals who had exposure to but had rejected the ministries of both John the Baptist and Jesus. One advocate of this view felt that it accounts best for the instances of Spirit baptism in Act 2:38; Act 8:12-17; Act 19:1-7; and Act 22:16. He took these occurrences as non-normative Christian experience unique in the early years of Christianity. Act 10:43-48 reflects normative Christian experience where regeneration, forgiveness, and Spirit baptism take place simultaneously with water baptism following. By the time Paul wrote Romans this later sequence had become normative (Rom 8:9; cf. 1Co 12:13). [Note: Rackham, p. 30; and Zane C. Hodges, The Gospel Under Seige, pp. 101-4.]

Baptism in water was common in both Judaism and early Christianity. The Jews baptized themselves for ceremonial cleansing. Gentile converts to Judaism commonly baptized themselves in water publicly as a testimony to their conversion. The apostles evidently took for granted that the person who trusted in Christ would then submit to baptism in water.

". . . the idea of an unbaptized Christian is simply not entertained in [the] NT." [Note: Bruce, Commentary on . . ., p. 77. See also Longenecker, p. 284.]

"Since baptism signifies association with the message, group, or person involved in authorizing it [cf. 1Co 10:1-2], baptism in the name of Jesus Christ meant for these people a severing of their ties with Judaism and an association with the messages of Jesus and His people. Baptism was the line of demarcation. Even today for a Jew it is not his profession of Christianity nor his attendance at Christian services nor his acceptance of the New Testament, but his submission to water baptism that definitely and finally excludes him from the Jewish community and marks him off as a Christian." [Note: Ryrie, The Acts . . ., pp. 23-24. See also Longenecker, p. 286.]

Was Peter violating the Lord Jesus’ instructions when the apostle told his hearers to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ alone? Jesus had commanded His disciples to baptize "in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" (Mat 28:19). I do not think so. When Jesus gave the Great Commission, He had in view the discipling of the nations: everyone. When evangelizing non-Christians, it was necessary to have them identify with the triune God of Christianity through water baptism. Peter’s audience on the day of Pentecost, however, was Jewish. They needed to identify with the true God too, but identification with Jesus Christ is what Peter stressed since baptism in the name of Jesus would have been a particular problem for Jews. It meant acknowledging Jesus as their God. Jews already accepted the fatherhood of God and the idea that God is a Spirit.

The gift of the Holy Spirit was baptism with the Spirit. The Spirit is the gift. Peter connected reception of the Spirit with repentance. The Holy Spirit immediately baptized those who repented (Act 11:15). Their Spirit baptism was not a later "second blessing."

Notice that Peter said nothing in this verse about acknowledging Jesus as Lord in the sense of surrendering completely to His lordship to receive eternal life. Those who contend that submission to the lordship of Christ is essential for salvation must admit that Peter did not make that a requirement here. This would have been the perfect opportunity for him to do so. Peter did not mention submission to the lordship of Christ because he did not believe it was essential for salvation. Admittedly he referred to Jesus as Lord in Act 2:36, but as I have explained, the context argues for "Lord" meaning God rather than master there. Further discussion of the "lordship salvation" view will follow in these notes.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)