Believer’s baptism: Since the days of Jesus Christ, no other doctrine has stirred so much controversy. The doctrine of a believer’s baptism is, to the Baptist, the doctrine of the original New Testament church; it is fundamental to the organization and existence of the local assembly. To take the doctrine of believer’s baptism away would be to strip the name Baptist from a congregation. Yet, “The teachings of the Word of God concerning water baptism that are believed and obeyed by Baptists have caused more suffering and bloodshed for Baptists than any other doctrine that Baptists hold” (Ballew 29). Many have burned at the stake and drowned in the sea in order to remain faithful to this doctrine. The Baptist preacher, Charles Haddon Spurgeon said:
We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the Reformation. We were reformers before Luther or Calvin were born. We never came from the Church of Rome for we were never in it. We have an unbroken line up to the Apostles themselves. We have always existed from the very days of Christ and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten like a river which may travel underground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents. (225)
To this day, there exists an undying commitment to believer’s baptism in the ranks and files of the Baptist church.
Perhaps, the commitment still stands because the opposition also stands. Most all other Christian denominations believe that baptism is essential to salvation, while the Baptists have maintained their stand that baptism is for believers, not sinners. Both sides claim they believe the Bible and practice what the original New Testament church practiced in the days of the apostles. Who is right?
A study of baptism in the Bible, whether begun in Matthew and read forward, or started in Revelation and read backward, will eventually lead to the city of Jerusalem, fifty days after the Jewish Passover; the day of Pentecost. On the day of Pentecost, much happened: the first message is preached, the first conversions, the first additions to the church, and the first baptisms. The days of the church began on that day of Pentecost. Thus, Acts 2, which is the text of Pentecost, becomes the beginning of church doctrine, as well as the battlefield for church doctrine. The apex of Acts 2 is the famous text: “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” (Acts 2.38). From hence come the major doctrinal battles on repentance, baptism, remission, and the Holy Ghost. All claim to believe and practice what the original New Testament church believed and practiced. When they take their doctrine and lay it on top of Acts 2:38, which one matches?
In reality, the Baptist won’t do that. If Acts 2:38 is a battlefield, then the Baptists are no-shows. Consequently, Acts 2:38 has become a banner verse for the Baptists’ opposition. It has become the creed of many other denominations. The Baptist will steer clear from this verse when the topic is salvation, but his opponent will trumpet this verse. What exactly is going on in Acts Chapter 2? How can Baptists portray conversion as they understand it using Acts 2:38? How does a Baptist explain what is happening in Acts 2:38 in light of their doctrine that baptism is not essential to salvation? The Baptist will turn to the church epistles, or turn to their banner verses to establish their doctrine, but will fail to offer a reasonable explanation as to what is going on in Acts 2:38.
Though Baptists have triumphed in their doctrine of faith alone and support it well with the Scriptures, both Old and New Testament, Acts 2:38 remains a nagging defeat in this war of doctrine. It’s a hill Baptists just cannot seem to conquer convincingly. However, the battle is far from being over. In the 1950’s there arose a great debate regarding the doctrines of Jesus’ second coming, the rapture of the church, and the tribulation period. Before this time, there was little said on eschatological doctrines. As history unfolded, more light was shed on the subject, and naturally debate ensued. Amidst this doctrinal debate, Dwight D. Pentecost authoritatively defended the pre-millennial doctrine in his book Things to Come. What made Pentecost’s argument compelling was not the presentation of his interpretation, but his establishment of the method of his interpretation.
Since the interpreter is not handling a book of human origin, but the Word of God, he must be equipped with an accurate method of interpretation or error will be the necessary result of his study. The fact that the Word of God cannot be correctly interpreted apart from a correct method of and sound rules for interpretation gives the study its supreme importance. (Pentecost 3)
A great truth was demonstrated: The method of interpretation used will determine where one stands doctrinally. Dwight Pentecost was specifically referring to interpretation of eschatological topics, for example: rapture, tribulation, and second coming. However, this great truth regarding doctrine holds true for all topics of Bible interpretation, including water baptism and the remission of sins.
Therefore, in order to sort through the confusion surrounding Acts 2:38 as it pertains to the doctrine of baptism, it is necessary to focus attention on method of interpretation. “It should be remembered that no apology is sound, and no doctrine sure, which rests upon uncritical methods, or proceeds upon dogmatical assumptions. Such procedures are not exposition, but imposition” (Terry 69). Unfortunately, the scriptures are not given to us with a critical method prescribed. They do not furnish rules in which passages that are difficult to understand should be explained, but “are left to the candour, the honesty, the wisdom, the experience of those who seek for truth” (Farrar 162). Through history, many methods have emerged and disappeared: Halachic, Hagadic, mystical, pietistic, moral, naturalistic, to name a few. “In distinction from all the above-mentioned methods of interpretation, we may name the Grammatico-Historical as the method which most fully commends itself to the judgment and conscience of Christian scholars” (Terry 70) This method is widely known as the literal method of interpretation, and stands alone at one end of the hermeneutic spectrum. “Its fundamental principle is to gather from the Scriptures themselves the precise meaning which the writers intended to convey” (Terry 70). Literal interpretation is a true methodology, in that it establishes the Scriptures as the authority based on method, rules, technique, and practice. Literal interpretation will reveal to the interpreter an insight into the controversy surrounding Acts 2:38, and render an accurate understanding of the meaning of the text.
Before an examination of typical understandings of Acts 2:38 is pursued, an understanding of the literal method of interpretation must be established. Different students of the Bible define this method in different ways. The literal method of interpretation (also known as the grammatical-historical method) views the Bible as a piece of literature first to obtain meaning before a spiritual meaning is derived. “We must start our interpretation of Holy Scripture from the stance of literal or philological interpretation. […] All secondary meanings of documents depend upon the literal stratum of language” (Ramm 123). Certain literal aspects must be analyzed first in order to obtain a fair and honest understanding of the text. “It [literal interpretation] applies to the sacred books the same principles, the same grammatical process and exercise of common sense and reason, which we apply to other books” (Terry 70). An adherence to this constitutes the need for rules concerning interpretation. These rules may vary slightly from student to student, but there are some basic rules to define the literal method of interpretation. For simplicity’s sake, three basic rules have been isolated.
First, the literal method requires that a passage be interpreted grammatically. In the grammatical sense is included both the meaning and the usage of the words employed in the passage. This must also include a study of the meaning and usage of the language in which the text was originally written. In addition, earnest consideration must be made when determining the meaning of words to the time in history which the text was written. The word choice of the King James translators was based on the common meaning of words during the time that the translators lived. Likewise, the word choice of the authors of the scriptures was based on the common meaning of words during the time scripture was written. This is known as the usus loquendi of the words. “The usus loquendi, is the manner of speaking or writing, which custom, or common usage has sanctioned.” (Hodge 66) Etymology is insufficient to determine the meaning of words. The common, natural meaning and usage at the time it was written will determine a word’s signification. This is primarily why the literal method is known also as the grammatical-historical method; because the significance is determined by what historically the words meant when they were selected. Some scholars will separate the meaning of the words from the usage, or grammar, in defining the literal method. Usage is not necessarily grammar. Grammar is how words are used to create a sentence. Usage is how words are used to convey a meaning. Because of their close relation and dependence on one another, these will be grouped together.
Secondly, the literal method requires that a passage be interpreted contextually. Ordinarily, context relates to the text that immediately precedes or follows the scripture that is in question. However, interpretation based on context affords more than just the words.
It should include all the circumstances attending the speech, the occasion which called it forth, the relation of the speaker to the hearer, the emotional tone, the nature of the general topic of conversation. The fact that all these attendant circumstances in part determine the choice of words by the speaker and even more directly interpret them to the hearer is well known. (Morris 79)
Morris’ list of circumstances is by no means comprehensive in regards to context but it demonstrates well what context is and how it should be considered.
Thirdly, the literal method requires that a passage be interpreted historically. This is not to be confused with the primary meaning of grammatical-historical interpretation. What is meant by this third rule is that the actual historical events surrounding the text should be considered in interpretation (not the historical meaning of words as in the first rule).
The interpreter should, therefore, endeavour to take himself from the present, and to transport himself into the historical position of his author […] Especially should he [the interpreter] have a clear conception of the order of events connected with the whole course of sacred history […] and thence vividly grasp the outlying circumstances. (Terry 129).
History may fall under the category of context because it is a circumstance that influences what is meant or understood from a text. However, the vast amounts of history associated with Israel and the Bible require that it be judged separately and at the same level of importance as grammar and other contextual circumstances.
A knowledge of Biblical Antiquities (including the Sacred and Profane History, Geography, Genealogy, Natural History, Coins, Medals, and other ancient remains, and Philosophy, Learning, and Philosophical Sects, Manners, Customs, and private Life, of the Jews and other nations mentioned in the Bible) is indispensably necessary to the right understanding of the sacred volume.” (Horne 291)
There is a grand amount of information that is necessary to aid transportation of the interpreter into the historical position of the author and the text that is written. Without it, the interpreter is seriously crippled in his understanding.
Other scholars group these rules differently and may even add a few. For example, Dwight Pentecost adds a special consideration for figurative language. Others require that an overall biblical context be considered: Does the interpretation coincide with what the Bible teaches as a whole? The problem with that consideration is that what the Bible teaches as a whole may be subjective, and vary from student to student. For the purpose of examining Acts 2:38 as it pertains to believer’s baptism these three considerations will define the literal method of interpretation: grammatical, contextual, and historical. First consideration is made to the smallest units, the words, when considering the text grammatically. A broader consideration will follow from examining the surrounding words contextually. Finally, the big picture emerges from a look at the historical context of the passage.
On the other end of the hermeneutic spectrum is a method of opposite nature; a method in which the authority lies in the mind of the interpreter, not the Scriptures; a method that is void of rules or procedures to exposition. This can be termed as the allegorical method of interpretation (or mystical method). “The mystical method of exegesis, is an unscientific and arbitrary method, reduces the Bible to obscure enigmas, undermines the authority of all interpretation” (Fullerton 75). Having a firm understanding of the literal method of interpretation, the task of defining the method of allegorical interpretation becomes quite simple. Allegorical interpretation can be understood to be any deviation from literal interpretation. ‘Hence the “literal” directly opposes the “allegorical”’ (Ramm 119). Whenever any of the aspects of literal interpretation (grammar, context, history, etc.) are ignored or mishandled, allegorical interpretation is qualified.
Those who hold to the literal method of interpretation do so knowingly; they teach it systematically; and practice it faithfully. The allegorical method, however, is not a systematic method of interpretation that books are written on. Most of those that practice this method at this current point in history do so unknowingly. “According to this method the literal and historical sense of Scripture is completely ignored, and every word and event is made an allegory of some kind either to escape theological difficulties or to maintain certain peculiar religious views” (Fritsch 216). People unknowingly ignore these senses of the scriptures. People’s religious views usually take precedence over the literal aspects (senses) of the Scriptures. Most times, the interpreter has never been trained to recognize them. Naturally, errors will be made, these certain senses will be ignored, and allegorical interpretation will be achieved.
Even those who hold to the literal interpretation method can fall into the follies of allegorical interpretation. If the literal method is not practiced diligently and checked, there will be a tendency to overlook certain aspects of the text. Take a topical sermon for example. “This type of sermon consists of choosing a certain subject, or topic and then searching through all the Scriptures to discover what light can be thrown on the subject under consideration” (Gibbs 225). It is very common to take a scripture out of its context in topical preaching. The moment that a scripture is taken out of its context, and the literal method violated, the interpreter has entered into the realm of allegorical interpretation, and history proves that “The simplest and most precious passages of both the Old and New Testaments became the innocent victims of the most vicious distortions” (Fritsch 216).
With an understanding of these two poles in methodology, literal and allegorical, an examination of the common explanations of Acts 2:38 will reveal that the root of the confusion lies in the method of interpretation. Though the Baptist historically claims a literal method of interpretation, the common method of interpreting Acts 2:38 is far from that. First, the Baptist will assume that baptism is not essential to salvation before examining the text. The following explanation demonstrates the most popular angle of attack by someone under Baptist persuasions. It clearly admits a presupposition in interpretation:
As with any single verse or passage, we discern what it teaches by first filtering it through what we know the Bible teaches on the subject at hand. In the case of baptism and salvation, the Bible is clear that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not by works of any kind, including baptism… So, any interpretation which comes to the conclusion that baptism, or any other act, is necessary for salvation, is a faulty interpretation. (“Does”)
In essence, the writer is instructing to presuppose a meaning before examining any other aspect of the text. Before the grammar is examined, before the context, or before any other sense of the text is to be explored, the interpreter is instructed first check the verse against what he believes the Bible teaches as a whole. Notice the writer prefers the word know. This does not exemplify the literal method, but violates it. The literal method does consider overall biblical context. However, it does not place primary importance on it; rather it should be utilized as a final check. Sound Bible interpretation will explore all aspects of the text to establish overall biblical context; not the opposite, where overall biblical context is used to establish the interpretation. Well known and respected author, Warren Weiersbe, is also guilty of this error. “It is unfortunate that the translation of Acts 2:38 in the King James Version suggests that people must be baptized in order to be saved, because this is not what the Bible teaches” (Wiersbe 410). Wiersbe clearly bases his understanding of Acts 2:38 on what he believes and not what the text says.
The Baptists are not the only ones doing this, however. Many have presupposed that baptism is necessary to obtain everlasting life before interpreting the text. The interpreter will begin with the notion that baptism must be a prerequisite before obtaining everlasting life and completely rule out any other notion before they look at the grammar, context, or any other sense of the scriptures. One very popular method used that illustrates this is a standard topical message on baptism delivered by a Church of Christ minister. He will declare that one must be baptized to be saved and then proceed through the book of Acts, demonstrating that all the baptisms described prove their doctrine.
Just a perusal of the books of the New Testament reveals the role that baptism plays in the conversion of thousands in their response to Jesus as Lord. Luke, in the book of Acts, narrates a significant number of baptisms in the early phases of the Christian church […] Some citations from the book of Acts should shed some light on the attitude of the first century church as to the importance of this Christian institution. (Burdette)
He then will quickly run through the baptisms at Pentecost, the Samarian conversions, the Ethiopian Eunuch, Cornelius’ conversion, Lydia’s conversion, the Philippian jailer, baptisms in Corinth, and the baptism of Apollos and explain how all the baptisms are demonstrative of a sinner being saved. In his mind, he is not seeking to understand the bible, but to prove his doctrine.
Consider for the moment this practice of presupposition as a method. Which method does it qualify? Because the literal method is violated, the allegorical method has been qualified. “It does not draw out the legitimate meaning of an author’s language, but foists into it whatever the whim or fancy an interpreter may desire” (Terry 60). It can be said that allegorical interpretation will also foist out whatever whim or fancy an interpreter may desire. In this case, the whim of believer’s baptism or the fancy of baptismal regeneration is either placed in or taken out.
The errors of presupposition are boundless. The previous examples demonstrate a presupposition not only of doctrine, but also of topic. Before any of the aspects of the text are examined (grammar, context, history) it is also assumed that the topic of the text is the salvation of sinners. When this topic is firstly assumed, then subsequent assumption will be inevitable: the 3,000 Jews involved were sinners in desperate need of salvation and eternal life; they were inquiring as to how to obtain it; and that Peter is answering this inquiry. All these statements may very well be true, but to assume them before the text is examined and put them above what the text plainly says places the interpreter on a road laden with the errors and dangers of allegorical interpretation. “When once the principle of allegory is admitted, when once we start with the rule that whole passages and books of Scripture say one thing when they mean another, the reader is delivered bound hand and foot to the caprice of the interpreter” (Farrar 238).
John R. Rice cannot have stated the obvious truth regarding the 3,000 Jews and their question any better: ‘Notice the question carefully. They did not say, “What must we do to be saved?” or “What shall we do to be saved?” No, that question is asked clearly by the Philippian jailer in Acts 16:31 and there is clearly answered’ (Rice 93). But then in the same breath Rice completely and blatantly disregards what he so beautifully stated:
But these people want to know what to do, not only to be saved but to partake of this marvelous outpouring of the Holy Spirit which has shaken the whole city and made ignorant and unlearned fishermen and other Christians into mighty soul winners. The question involves not only how to be saved, but how to have the power of God. And Peter answers their need distinctly. [emphasis added] (93)
Rice accurately identifies what the question is not but then states the question is what he just said it was not. Notice that Rice also adds to the Jews’ question the desire to be a mighty soul winner like the apostles. Ironically, not one soul had been won for Christ at this point in time. Rice also gives the Jews a yearning for the power of God. The power of God is without a doubt demonstrated in the text, but there is absolutely no indication that the 3,000 Jews have identified it and yearn to have it also. Clearly, the question that was asked at Pentecost has been mishandled in several ways. Wiersbe accomplishes the same error with the actual message that spurred the question:
Peter’s conclusion was both a declaration and an accusation: Jesus is your Messiah, but you crucified Him! […] Peter did not present the cross as a place where the Sinless Substitute died for the world, but where Israel killed her own Messiah! [emphasis added] (Wiersbe 410)
Just as Rice does, Wiersbe states this well, yet contradicts himself immediately: “Peter gave a third explanation […] He explained why it happened: to save sinners” [emphasis added] (410). Wiersbe identifies that Peter’s message had absolutely nothing to do with a world of sinners needing a ‘Sinless Substitute’ yet turns around and adds that Peter did in fact explain why Jesus died – to save sinners. Peter made no such explanation.
The error of presupposition in doctrine by the Baptists and their opponents reveal a common thread: the presupposition of topic. This is evident in the contemporary book Believer’s Baptism by Thomas Schreiner and Shawn Wright: “The question is an abbreviation for ‘What shall we do to be saved?’” (53). The Baptists assume that baptism is not essential to salvation. The opponents assume that baptism is essential to salvation. Regardless of who is right or wrong, both have assumed that salvation is obtained in Acts 2:38. Hence, the breach of method is apparent and the key to understanding this difficult passage is clear. Only a literal method of interpretation will render an accurate understanding of Acts 2:38.
The first rule of the literal method is that the text be interpreted grammatically. Diligent study and consideration should be made to the grammatical aspects of the text in interpretation. When an interpretation is made of a scripture, it must not deviate from what the grammar allows. Those who advocate that Acts 2:38 is a prescriptive passage describing the prerequisites for eternal salvation have their strongest argument in the grammar of the text. Likewise, those who hold that baptism is not a prerequisite for eternal salvation have their most difficult time in the grammar of the text.
Grammatically, most all of the controversy involves the expression “be baptized […] for the remission of sin.” The meaning of the word for is the subject of continual debate. When Acts 2:38 is read, it undeniably has a natural meaning. The implication of the text is that one must be baptized in order to obtain the remission of sins, which contradicts the doctrine of the Baptist and exalts the doctrine of the opponent. Therefore the meaning of the word for, translated from the Greek word eis, will determine what Peter meant. Eis naturally denotes purpose. Not having a preconception of the requirements of salvation or knowledge of other Bible passages, one would defy nature to believe that baptism was not essential to salvation according to the text. Peter would be understood to mean that the purpose of baptism (and repentance) was to obtain remission of sins. One would be justified in that understanding because of the overwhelming number of times eis is correctly, without argument, translated in that fashion. The word eis is found in the New Testament over 1700 times and is often translated: into, unto, to, for. The root meaning of the word is within or in. Consequently, the Baptist will steer clear of this verse when it comes to salvation because of the obvious implications of the verse – that baptism is required for salvation.
However, some Baptists have wrestled with the grammatical aspects of this verse in order to reconcile it with their doctrine. Some have suggested a causal use of the word eis. If eis denoted cause instead of purpose, then the text suggests that one must be baptized ‘because of’ or ‘with regard to’ the remission of sins. Peter would be telling the Jews to repent and be baptized because their sins are remitted. Hence, the passage would match the Baptists doctrine because that is the prerequisite for someone to be get baptized in the Baptist church. It is known as the causal use of eis and works well with the Baptist doctrine. This may be the most popular understanding of the passage amongst Baptist circles. In order for the Baptist to hold his doctrine, he must above all things reconcile the grammar of the text with his doctrine. There do exist some arguments for this interpretation. However, they do not hold up to honest scrutiny. A look at the proponents of this interpretation reveals some interesting facts. In the past two centuries, there exist only three prominent Baptist scholars that have perpetuated this interpretation: Julius R. Mantey, Archibold T. Robertson, and John A. Broaddus.
The most recent was Julius R. Mantey, who had a curious track record of citing himself as a reliable source. In 1923, He first wrote his assertion that eis meant because of in an article from the Expositor, a biblical literary magazine from London. Four years later, in 1927, he then placed his findings in A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament and cited his own article from the Expositor (“Manual” 104). Years later, in 1951, he wrote an article in the Journal for Biblical Literature that has gained much attention. In this article he states clearly that he is the only scholar he knows that is advocating this interpretation of eis. “None of the Greek lexicons translate eis as causal. And the only Greek grammar that does, as far as we know, is A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament” (“The” 45). Notice once again he refers to his own writing. In this article, he refers to sources outside of the Bible that he asserts demand a causal translation of eis. Interestingly, he disclaims, “We admit at the outset that this type of usage is infrequent and rare” (45).
In response to this, Ralph Marcus, a Jewish linguistic scholar, also wrote an article for the Journal for Biblical Literature, refuting Mantey’s claims “blow-by-blow” showing that Mantey had grossly misunderstood his extra-biblical sources (Wallace 370). “It is quite possible that eis is used causally in these NT passages but the examples of causal eis cited from non-biblical Greek contribute absolutely nothing to making this possibility a probability” (Marcus “On” 129). Mantey rebutted in yet another article; and Marcus ended the conflict with another article in 1952 and emerged victorious. Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, the Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary stated “Marcus ably demonstrated that the linguistic evidence for a causal eiV fell short of proof” (370). It has even been said that Mantey had redacted on his stand of the causal use of eis after reading the seventy-year old article Baptism and Remission by James W. Willmarth, a Baptist scholar. Mantey is quoted saying, “I agree with Wilmarth, however, that in Acts 2:38 eis denotes purpose and not cause” [emphasis added] (Wiggins).
Another scholar that contended for the causal use of eis was the renowned Greek scholar, A. T. Robertson. Most people that hold to the causal use of eis will quote Robertson’s work in Word Pictures in the New Testament from 1930. He is most respected even today for his work in the field of Greek. However, his explanation of Acts 2:38 and case for the causal use of eis lack conviction.
[Regarding the imperatives repent and be baptized] Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought there 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 […] (“Word” 34)
Robertson offers no explanation as to why a change in number and person justifies a break in thought, but takes complete liberty in separating the two verbs and adding a chronological dependence of one upon the other. In light of methodology, if a break in thought is indicated, then how did Robertson acquire knowledge of this change in the thought of Peter who spoke or Luke who wrote? He offers no explanation. The subject of the sentence is unmistakably plural in the Greek, yet Joseph H. Thayer indicates that it is completely normal to add the singular modifier each one (ekastoV) to other plural words. “EkastoV, when it denotes individually, every one of many, is often added appositively to nouns and pronouns and verbs in the plural number” (Thayer 192). An appositive is an element placed next to another in order to modify it. This addition of the singular appositive each one to the plural you necessitates the change to the singular form of be baptized. Therefore, this change to the singular form of be baptized does not indicate a change in thought, but just good Greek grammar. There are other examples of regular Greek combination of plural and singular imperatives in the New Testament (Everett). Robertson must separate the two imperatives in order to maintain the causal use of eis. “Those who contend for the interpretation ‘on account of remission’, will hardly be willing to admit that Peter said ‘repent’ as well as ‘be baptized on account of remission of sins’” (Willmarth 303). If Robertson does not separate the two imperatives, then he would essentially be saying that Peter demanded they repent from sins that they were already forgiven of – an obviously ridiculous statement.
Robertson does make a compelling case for the causal use of eis, though. “It [eis] does not of itself mean into, unto, or to. That is the resultant idea of the accusative case with verbs of motion” (“Grammar” 591). Robertson contends that by itself (a static use), eis can be considered to have a different meaning as in “baptizing them in [eis] the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 28.19). Obviously, this does not imply a command to triple dunk someone into the trinity, but signifies a scope in which baptism is to be done. Robertson believes much liberty can be taken in the static use of eis, even to the complete reversal of meaning from purpose to cause. His only other demonstration in the New Testament besides Acts 2:38 where a static use of eis can be understood to signify cause is: “They repented at (eis) the preaching of Jonas” (Matthew 12.41), “where it is absurd to take eiV as ‘into’ or ‘unto’ or even ‘to’” (“Grammar” 593). Robertson is saying that the interpreter is to understand that the people of Nineveh repented because of the preaching of Jonas. This is somewhat compelling. However, this is not what the text says. If King James translators intended to signify cause they would have used the word because; instead they chose the word at. At signifies location and not cause. It can certainly be understood in the context of the primary meaning of eis: “to lie within” (“Grammar” 591). In English, we may not understand the sense of repenting into preaching; but in Greek, it makes perfect sense. There are many senses in the Greek language that are lost in English translation. Interestingly, the Spanish translation of eis in Matthew 12:41 is ante, meaning “before, in the presence of; in front of; at, with” (Williams 22). No indication of cause is indicated in that language. For example, consider this scenario: In order for a Bible student to own a Bible, it will cost him thirty dollars. Therefore, he is told to pay thirty dollars for (eis) the Bible. Thirty dollars is due before, in the presence of, or in front of that Bible. Granted, you can say that ownership of that Bible would cause him to pay thirty dollars; but it would be more proper to say that the Bible warrants thirty dollars. This will never mean that the Bible is owned or attained before the payment. Perhaps it can be said that the remission of sins warrants baptism, or even go as far as to say that it causes baptism, as Robertson has said; but it does not signify remission of sins is something that has already been attained before baptism and is therefore the cause. Robertson is partially correct in that there is an element of causation signified; however, this is misleading because it does not prove that remission of sins was previously attained. The cause that Robertson has identified is not the attainment of remission of sins, but rather the need for remission of sin.
Robertson claims that the causal use of eis in the New Testament is numerous; but curiously, he cites himself as the authority on this as J.R. Mantey did: “The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koine generally (Robertson, Grammar, p. 592)” (“Word” 35). It should also be noted that the numerous examples to which he refers are not examples of a causal use, but examples of the static use. This is a gross misrepresentation of his own writings.
Robertson studied after Dr. John A. Broaddus, and had such interest and admiration in Dr. Broaddus that he dedicated his 1914 book A Grammar of the Greek New Testament to him and wrote a biography of him, Life and Letter of John A. Broadus, in 1901 which he states:
His personal character, accurate scholarship, original thinking, marvelous preaching, matchless teaching, great wisdom, rare personal influence, breadth of view, high ideals, and earnest piety, mark him as one of the foremost products of American manhood, one of the ripest fruits of modern Christianity. [emphasis added] (“Life” x)
Robertson adopted Broaddus’ teachings on the causal use of eis. These teachings may very well serve as a demonstration of Broaddus’ original thinking and modern Christianity; for before him exists virtually no evidence of this teaching. Broaddus contended for the causal use of eis in an article he wrote in 1867 for the Religious Herald. In 1877, Baptist scholar, James W. Willmarth addresses this teaching:
The radical signification of eiV [eis] is into the space within. It is used to express motion or movement from without, terminating and resting within […] That this is the obvious and natural meaning we think no scholar will question. That the best authorities concur in holding that it actually is the meaning, is also true as far as we have been able to consult them. But there is an explanation of eiV in this passage, current in oral and newspaper polemics, which it is necessary to notice. (298)
It is evident the causal use of eis was new at the time and Broaddus may have been the lead proponent and even possibly the originator.
Like Robertson, Broaddus identifies the common meaning of eis (into, unto, or toward) is a result of it being used in the accusative case in conjunction with verbs of motion. In and of itself (a static use), it does not mean that but simply means to lie within. This definition makes little sense in the static use, therefore an extended meaning must be derived. Broaddus asks, “How, then, are we to decide, in any such use of eis with some noun expressing a figurative state, relations, etc., what is the more precise idea intended to be conveyed?” (Broaddus). Unlike Robertson, Broaddus does offer a three step plan in making such a decision. However an analysis of the plan reveals that it is not a progressive means in which to isolate a meaning, but rather a multiple choice list to define a word. It is evident that Broaddus is not seeking a more precise idea to be conveyed, but another idea to be conveyed. His first rule commands that we decide meaning first, “From the natural relations existing between the person or action in question and the something to which it is thus restricted” (Broaddus). This is well stated; however, observe his application of this principle:
Grant, then, that to understand ‘unto remission,’ as in order to remission, would be following the most common use of the preposition; grant that it gives a perfectly possible sense, […] if such a view would bring us into direct conflict with the general teachings of Scripture on the subject, we must abandon it […] (Broaddus)
Broaddus has no intention of better understanding a meaning or to fine tune a meaning. He opts for total abandonment. The literal method will not abandon the natural, common use of words. Compare Broaddus’s method of total abandonment to the conviction of contemporary Baptist preacher and editor of Sword of the Lord Publishers, Shelton Smith:
Some private preference or personal conjecture that interprets Scripture to suit one’s own bias or otherwise stumbling attempt to find its meaning is forthrightly forbidden! It is incumbent upon us to find out what it actually and truly says. When we see the common, ordinary sense of Scripture, we must seek no other sense. [emphasis added] (226)
Broaddus admits that the common use of the preposition eis makes perfect sense in the passage; but because it conflicts with what he believes the Bible generally teaches, then the common use that makes perfect sense is abandoned. Notice Broaddus’ third rule:
Third, when the subject-matter is theological, we must, of course, look also to the general teachings of Scripture, and ask which of the possible relations between person or action and this noun is in accordance with the general teachings of Scripture on the subject involved. (Broaddus)
He applied his first rule with his eyes focused on the third rule. Broaddus’ theology lies at the heart of his interpretation of eis, not the Scripture itself. The area of general teachings is too subjective a place for a man to stake his very soul.
Throughout history the best scholars, including many Baptists, have uniformly signified that eis denotes purpose and not cause (Boles 47). These few scholars (Mantey, Robertson, and Broaddus) stand practically alone on the causal use of eis. Their steadfastness in Baptist doctrine is admirable, however their motive is questionable. Scholarship, history, and reasonableness are not on their side. There is a definite bias toward Baptist dogma on their part toward the text at hand. In Robertson’s explanation of the text, he clearly admits to an allegorical approach to interpreting it:
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. (Robertson “Word” 35)
So based on a preconceived notion, or Baptist dogma, Robertson will interpret the text accordingly. “This interpretation was doubtless suggested, and is now defended, on purely dogmatic grounds” (Willmarth 304). This defies the laws of the literal method of interpretation.
However, this is not to say that these three scholars are wrong on their views of baptism and remission of sin. “If, therefore, Professor Mantey is right in his interpretation of various NT passages on baptism and repentance and the remission of sins, he is right for reasons that are non-linguistic” (Marcus “Elusive” 44). To state it plainly, if Baptists are correct that baptism is not essential to salvation, it is not proven by a false claim that eis means because of, but rather for other reasons. Understandingly though, it is natural and even beyond consciousness to resort to such an improbable interpretation of Acts 2:38 to defend one’s doctrine. Considering the fact that most all other Christian organizations hold that baptism is essential to salvation, there is a warranted concern in any Baptist that is honest that this verse must be adequately dealt with in light of the Baptist doctrine. To not deal with it would give the opponents a footing with their interpretation. However, the Baptists loses his footing when he relies on dogma instead of sound Bible interpretation. “Shall we never learn that Truth has nothing to fear from a true interpretation of any part of God’s word, and nothing to gain by a false one. The truth will suffer nothing by giving to eis its true signification” (Willmarth 305). The Baptist need not fear the implications of conceding to the obvious meaning of eis. An accurate understanding of the scripture must not be clouded by dogma, preconceived notions, and the fear of being wrong. There is freedom in truth (John 8.32). A great weight is removed from one who chooses honesty (Hebrews 12.1).
Grammatically, another expression in Acts 2:38 that deserves a careful scrutiny is the remission of sins. There is little to no controversy regarding the meaning of this expression; most of the grammatical controversies revolve around eis. The meaning of remission is well understood to be “forgiveness, pardon” (Perschbacher 62). There is no need to dive any deeper because the common meaning is not in question. However, the other half of the expression, of sin, has been grossly overlooked. As we have previously established, most all have assumed that Acts 2:38 deals with the eternal salvation of the individual and that the 3,000 Jewish individuals were in fact lost people in need of salvation. With this assumption, the understanding of the remission of sins has suffered likewise. This is not to suggest there is another meaning other than the common meaning, as Broaddus, Robertson, and Mantey suggested regarding eis. There is no need to change the obvious meaning of the remission of sins, which is unmistakably the forgiveness of sins. But the question arises: What sin? In order for Acts 2:38 to be taken didactically, as is commonly done, for the purpose of obtaining eternal salvation, the expression the remission of sins must specifically denote eternal salvation. It must signify salvation in the sense of deliverance from the absolute, final judgment of God; a permanent transition from death unto life (1 John 3.14). Does the remission of sins possess this meaning in this passage? The answer would depend on the understanding of what sins are in the expression. Modern theology suggests three different, but basic, understandings of sin represented in the scriptures: “1. Sin is a specific type of evil […] 2. Sin is a violation of the law of God […] 3. Sin is a principle or nature as well as an act” (Thiessen 171). To which did Peter refer as he uttered those words on the day of Pentecost? This question cannot be answered by grammatical, etymological, or linguistic aspects of the text. Therefore, it is then necessary to move on from grammar to something else to help understand the meaning of the text.
In the second rule of literal interpretation, an honest look must be taken as to what is happening in and around the verse in question – the context. Literal interpretation recognizes that definitions of words do not solely come from dictionaries and lexicons. “Although the force of particular words can only be derived from etymology, yet too much confidence must not be placed in that frequently uncertain science; because the primary signification of a word is frequently very different from its common meaning” (Horne 213). The text that surrounds the verse in question reveals to the reader facts concerning the verse: events, people, places, speakers, etc… These facts are the context of the passage. Perhaps we can look at the Bible as a baked cake, and a verse in question is but one ingredient. All ingredients must be considered before the cake can truly be tasted. Eating the baking powder by itself can be done; but it would not taste as the baker intended, without the sugar, eggs, icing, and flour all mixed together and baked well for about thirty minutes. The only true understanding of a verse will be an understanding that is obtained while in the scope of the verse’s context. “No explanation must be admitted, but that which suits the context” (Horne 261).
Acts 2:38 is an answer that Peter gives to a question asked of him and is not by any means disconnected from all that is happening in the chapter. Peter’s answer is connected to the question the 3,000 Jews made in verse 37; the question is connected to the accusation Peter makes in verse 36; the accusation is connected to the entire sermon Peter preaches in verses 14-35; and finally, the sermon is connected to the miraculous events that happened in verses 1-13. Acts 2:38 is one link in a chain of events. To remove Acts 2:38 from this chain is to mishandle the Word of God. The question has been asked: What sin? In order to view this question as a link in the chain of events, let the question be rephrased: What exactly is attained by the remission of sins?
Granted, the expression is used nine times throughout the New Testament; and every time, it appears at first glance to carry the meaning of eternal salvation with it, including Acts 2:38. It appears that eternal life is attained in the expression; however, appearances can be deceiving. The context may reveal something more than the common use of the words. This should never be confused with the errors of Broaddus, Robertson, and Mantey. They sought not to clarify the meaning of a word, but to change it. Their search began not at the surrounding text in the Bible, but they began with their personal bias. Although the remission of sins is normally associated with eternal salvation, the text surrounding this expression will determine precisely what is meant. Also, it is important to remember that the contemporary concept of the remission of sins may differ from that of the speaker in the text. Today, the remission of sins is synonymous with being saved or being born again. Back then, they knew nothing of these Christian concepts. To assume they used the expression as it is used today would be to err from contextually understanding the text. Because Acts 2:38 is a link in a chain of events, the interpreter’s understanding of the remission of sins must agree with the context of the passage. What was attained by the remission of sins was a result of a logical progression of events. It must make perfect sense and fit in the chain of events.
Peter was answering the question proposed by the Jews, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” (Acts 2.37) The Jews were reacting to the message Peter preached. Peter was not only the one who answered their question, but he is also the one who provoked them to ask it. Peter obtained an intended reaction – a logical reaction. What is accomplished by the remission of sins was an intended one. Therefore, it is paramount that we seek the context to determine what was intended. If the question is, “What got done?” We must first ask, “What was Peter trying to get done?” In a search for contextual clues to throw light on the subject, going backwards, we land upon Peter’s sermon. With that said, in order for the remission of sins to accomplish eternal life, in order to say that 3,000 Jews were saved, then there must be concrete indications in Peter’s sermon that this is what was intended. “Examine whether the writer continues his discourse, lest we suppose him to make a transition to another argument, when, in fact, he is prosecuting the same topic” (Horne 259). If it is not signified that eternal life is the intended end of Peter’s sermon on Pentecost, then we have changed the topic, changed the meaning of the remission of sins, pulled Acts 2:38 completely out of its context, and have violated the literal method of interpretation.
By exploring the contents of Peter’s sermon homiletically, much can be learned about Acts 2:38. What is the topic that Peter is preaching on? What is the theme that runs through Peter’s sermon? What was Peter’s purpose in preaching? “The supreme goal of the preacher is to gain the attention and win the hearer to an acceptance of, and obedience to, the truth that has been presented” (Gibbs 142). What truth is Peter trying to convey? If a thesis statement were to be identified, it would undoubtedly be “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2.36). All that Peter preaches is said to bring his audience to the acknowledgment of this truth. Peter’s discourse is best represented as a legal discourse: a series of exhibits laid down in order to prove, to convict one of, or to establish one particular point.
Peter begins in verse 14 by answering the accusation from the onlookers that the others and himself were drunk: “For these are not drunken, as ye suppose” (Acts 2:15). He takes them to the prophecy of Joel and declares that what they are seeing, this outpouring of the Holy Ghost, “is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel” (Acts 2:15). Notice that he does not say that it is like or as what is written, but it is what is written by the prophet. This is the beginning of Peter’s sermon. This may possibly be one of the most overlooked, yet rich, aspects not just of the sermon but the entire chapter. This is not just an answer to accusations of drunkenness; this is the introduction to the sermon – a very conclusive distinction. With this introduction, Peter is linking the prophecies uttered some 900 years prior to that present day. Why is this important? Being the introduction, this establishes a framework in which we are to understand the sermon. Peter’s sermon must be understood in light of the book of Joel. Even more restricting, the sermon must be seen in light of Joel’s main theme to which Peter refers: “The great and notable day of the Lord” (Acts 2:20). This is the day or time to which all the prophets wrote. This places us on Jewish ground. The day of the Lord pertains to the nation of Israel, not the church.
After he quotes the prophet Joel, he then establishes the object of scrutiny – Jesus of Nazareth. This is the subject matter. The truth which he seeks to convince these Jews of is about this man, Jesus. Why is this important? The significance of this can be easily overlooked because Jesus is always a subject of scrutiny or theme in modern preaching. What is important to signify is that today’s evangelical preaching centers around the lost man, not Jesus. Evangelism is not based on convincing a person that Jesus of Nazareth is the Jewish Christ (Messiah, Anointed-One, King of the Jews, fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant) Rather, it is based on a person being convinced that he is hopelessly lost and in desperate need of a Savior; his nature is what primarily needs to be revealed. However, on the day of Pentecost, it was Jesus’ nature that was revealed. Jesus was the subject, the object to which the great truth or thesis regarded, not the lost sinner. Consider Peter’s confession about Jesus, “Thou art the Christ” (Matthew 16.16). He did not say, “I am a sinner.” It was Christ’s nature that was revealed to Peter, not Peter’s nature. It is also helpful to remember that Apollos “mightily convinced the Jews […] that Jesus was Christ” (Acts 18.28); and Paul “testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ” (Acts 18:5). This is significantly different from the convicting work of the Holy Ghost through the preaching of the Word of God that brings a sinner to the acknowledgment of his lost condition.
Peter states the known facts surrounding his subject, Jesus of Nazareth. First, He was approved by God by miracles, wonders, and signs. Second, He was taken, crucified, and slain by the men of Israel; and God determined well in advance this would happen. Lastly, God has raised him from the dead. After Peter presents the facts, he makes a most curious statement about Jesus and the pangs of death, “…it was not possible that he should be holden of it.” (Acts 2.24) These facts given and followed with a statement as such brings the audience to a question – why? Why is it not possible that death should hold this man Jesus? This is the antithesis of the sermon. The rest of the sermon Peter presents evidence that would bring his audience from this antithesis to his thesis – from a question to the answer. Everything else in Peter’s sermon is brought forth to make his case: that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ.
His first exhibit of evidence is the writings of David, Psalm 16:8-11. David writes this psalm in first person and the main part of the scripture to which Peter refers is, “Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption” (Acts 2.17). He ends the scripture recitation with the sobering statement that David is dead and his remains can still be found. Two points will Peter make from this. First, David knew that from the fruit of his loins God would raise up the Christ that would sit on his throne. Therefore, he spoke prophetically of a son that would come from his lineage. It is not mentioned in this passage, but it was commonly known that Jesus of Nazareth was in fact a son of David. In His triumphal entry to Jerusalem, children proclaimed “Hosanna to the Son of David” (Matthew 21.9). In addition to this, four other distinct times Jesus is identified by others as the son of David. Secondly, the Holy One would resurrect from the dead. The Holy One was understood by all to be the Messiah, the Christ, and the fulfillment of the Davidic covenant. Hind sight, this is basic Bible knowledge to the Bible student. However back then, interpreting Psalm 16 as a resurrection may have been a foreign concept, for some didn’t believe such a thing as resurrection was even possible (Matthew 22.23). One can easily deduce from the Psalm that the Holy One would not die, but a resurrection used to fulfill that verse may have not been common knowledge. Though this exhibit is commonly known today it may have been considered a great revelation the day is was spoken.
The second exhibit Peter brings forth are the witnesses; he specifies two sets of witnesses. He states that Jesus has been raised up from the dead and was exalted to the right hand of God. To this, he and the disciples are declared to be witnesses. He also calls all those present to be witnesses; for they have witnessed the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy, the outpouring of the Holy Ghost. Identifying these two sets of witnesses brings together these two events, the resurrection and the outpouring, under one umbrella of time. What significance would this outpouring have had if it had not happened “in the last days?” (Acts 2.17). What significance would the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth have if it had not happened after His forerunner had proclaimed, “he that cometh after me is mightier than I […] he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 3:11)? In light of Joel’s prophecy, Peter is demonstrating that all present are witnesses of the great events of the last days – the day of the Lord.
In his final exhibit, Peter turns again to David and reminds the Jews that David has not ascended to heaven as Jesus has done. He then recites more words of David, “The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand” (Acts 2.34). Peter is now showing that he who does ascend is indeed Lord.
In summation, from these three exhibits, three minor truths can be seen: he that resurrects is Christ; he that ascends is Lord; and the prophetic events that have transpired which all have witnessed confirm these truths. Peter puts it all together as he leads them to his thesis, the great truth to which he is trying to gain the attention and win the audience to an acceptance of: “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2.36). Peter’s intention was to indict the Jews listening of the crucifixion of Lord and Christ. They knew they crucified Jesus. That was already an established fact. They just didn’t know that the one they crucified fulfilled the scriptures and was truly the Christ. Peter’s intention was simply and undeniably to persuade them of this truth: Jesus is Christ.
As we approach verse 37 and 38 and hone in on the remission of sins, we must examine, as it was stated previously, if the writer is changing his topic or continuing with the same discourse. Until now, nothing has been mentioned of Jesus’ death being sacrificial, atoning, or substitutionary. Peter has not once named, insinuated, or portrayed Jesus as a Savior, but only as Lord and Christ – the Messiah, King of the Jews. The sins of the world have not been mentioned. The sin nature of man has yet to be addressed. Original sin has not been covered. Hell has not preached and everlasting life has not been presented. In order for the remission of sins to be taken in the sense of deliverance from the absolute, final judgment of God, and a permanent transition from death unto life, surely some of these topics would have been addressed. Does the author now suddenly change his topic from Jesus being the fulfillment of the Davidic covenant to a lesson on how to get saved? The context does not afford such a change. What was attained by the remission of sins was a result of a logical progression of events. It must make perfect sense and fit into the chain of events. As far as the contents of Peter’s sermon are concerned, any other interpretation other than what is indicated by the text must be the result of spiritualization of the text, allegorical interpretation of the text, or ignorance of the text.
If the remission of sins in our text is not everlasting life, not a deliverance from hell fire, or a permanent transition from death unto life, then what is it? The only sin that is mentioned in the entire sermon of Peter is the murder of Jesus of Nazareth. Peter stays on his topic. Not only does he indict them of their sin of rejecting and murdering their king, but he also offers them a path to the remission, or the forgiveness, of that sin. According to the context, the remission of sins that God offered to His people through Peter that day is the forgiveness for the murder of His son, Jesus the Christ. This is also what Jesus asked for as they committed the murder: “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do” (Luke 23.34).
Peter’s sermon is not the only contextual clue to consider however. Who was Peter preaching to? If the remission of sins is to be understood in the sense of deliverance from the absolute, final judgment of God, then the spiritual condition of the audience to which Peter preached must also indicate so. In other words, were these 3,000 people of Pentecost indeed lost people? There is one particular verse in which the writer actually describes the people of Pentecost. “And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven” (Acts 2.5). This verse poses two questions: What is revealed of the spiritual stature of these foreigners and what were they doing there?
In order to properly understand the evidence that this verse brings forth as to the spiritual condition of the people, one must fully appreciate the writer, his ability to write, and his intentions in writing. Luke, the writer of the third gospel, is undoubtedly the author of the book of Acts. There exists virtually no controversy regarding its authenticity.
There are in all sixteen witnesses, distributed all over the Church, who, before the end of the second century, testify either directly or indirectly to the existence and use of Luke in the Church as authoritative Scripture, in addition to the witnesses of the third and fourth centuries. The evidence, therefore, of the canonicity, that is, of the genuineness and authenticity of this Gospel is incontrovertible. (Scroggie 341)
Luke did not write near as many books as Paul did in the New Testament; but as far as the number of words, Luke is the greatest contributor. More importantly though, Luke had the best ability in the usage of words to contribute to the New Testament. Luke is unique in his ability to express himself. His writing was not an informal letter, but a well composed treatise. Luke was very educated and wrote to the educated.
Luke’s command of Greek is seen also in the richness of his vocabulary. The number of words which occur in his two writings and nowhere in N.T. is estimated at 750 […] Some of these are found nowhere in Greek literature […] He may have coined some of them for himself. (Plummer lii)
Luke used his education and creativity to properly account these transpired events. This originality and ability must be recognized while interpreting his writing. One would err to take lightly his word choice in the description of the people of this momentous event of Pentecost. Luke lays forth his intentions in the prologue of his first writing, the Gospel of Luke. In this prologue, Luke states clearly that in the midst of other people trying to write an account of the events that had transpired in the days of Christ, he too would undertake this task. He assured his audience, Theophilus, that his account was most trustworthy and reliable, being that he was an eyewitness of the events to which he wrote. Luke was very confident in his understanding of “all things from the very first” (Luke 1.3). It was with this same intention that Luke followed up his first work, with the second work, the Book of Acts. “Luke’s prologue is meant to cover both parts of his two-volume work” (Marshall 39). Luke possessed a motivation to preserve the accuracy and the order of the all facts that transpired in those days. With Luke’s passion for the facts and his unique ability to use the Greek language, we can trust what can be deduced from his word choice.
Does Luke give the reader any indication as to the spiritual condition of the people of Pentecost in Acts 2:5? Let it be stated that any assessments as to the spiritual health before the day of Pentecost, lost or saved, no matter how compelling, will always be mere speculation, for no one knows the heart of man but God. One thing is certain though: they were Jews. These are Jews that lived during the dispensation of the Law. Many, no doubt, were much older than Jesus and lived even before that day the Word was made flesh and dwelt among them. They participated in the economy of law in that they offered sacrifices and rested upon the atoning power of shed blood that God had promised. They were Jews. They were God’s chosen people. They were the people of the promises of Jehovah God. However, unlike their fathers, they obtained a unique characteristic that no other Jew in history past had the honor of possessing: they were Christians. These were Jews that were added to the church. These facts are undeniable and without controversy. However, were these lost Jews that were added to the church?
Luke takes the liberty of adding a small phrase in Acts 2:5 to describe these Jews that were dwelling in Jerusalem – devout men. The word devout, translated from a derivation of the Greek word eulabhV (yoo-lab-ace`), may offer much insight into the spiritual character of this crowd. This word eulabhV is defined as meaning, “taking hold of well, i.e., warily; hence, cautious, circumspect; full of reverence towards God, devout, pious, religious” (Perschbaucher 180). Though the definition alone is compelling, the usage must be seriously considered, as was previously covered. This word and other derivations are only used seven other times in the New Testament: four times as an adjective, as in this verse; twice as a verb; and twice as a noun. A brief analysis is advantageous.
As an adjective, the other three times it is used, it consistently described people of utmost spiritual stature: Ananias (the saint who ministered to Paul), Simeon (the old man at Jesus’ circumcision), and the Jews that buried Stephen. Of Ananias and Simeon, no one doubts the fear of God in their lives. They are people that knew God. Ananias was a chosen disciple God used to lay hands upon Paul that he might receive his sight and be filled with the Holy Ghost (Acts 22.12). Simeon was also described as being just. So close to God was he that the Holy Ghost was upon him and revealed to him that he would not die until he had seen the Lord’s Christ (Luke 2.25). There is no doubt the word devout was used in these cases to describe people of the greatest spiritual stature. Regarding the Jews that buried Stephen, one can look at history to ascertain more of these men. When John the Baptist was decapitated, it was his disciples that buried him. When Ananias and Sapphira lied to the Holy Ghost, it was the disciples that buried them. Based on historical persecutions and pressures associated with identifying with the disciples of Christ, it is most likely that the men who buried Stephen were also disciples, and devout disciples at that (Acts 8.2). Interestingly, Luke is the only one in the New Testament to use this word as an adjective, a word to describe somebody. Luke used this word with much respect. It would be an honor and a great prize to be deemed eulabhV by Luke. He never used this word to describe a mere outward form of piousness, but of those with a holy reverence and fear of God. It is highly unlikely that he used eulabhV differently in Acts 2:5. “It means devout, and may be applied to an adherent of any religion, being especially appropriate to describe the best of the Jewish worshippers” (Berry 124).
The other four times that eulabhV is used is also very compelling. As a verb, it carries with it a sense of urgency. Concerning Noah and the building of the ark in Hebrews, it is literally translated moved with fear (Hebrews 11.7). It seems to denote an action wrought with full persuasion of the consequences if left undone. Luke uses this word to describe the actions of the captain in Jerusalem that rescued Paul from being pulled to pieces by the Pharisees and Sadducees (Acts 23:10). It doesn’t necessarily signify a spiritual degree as a verb, but definitely shows a fear so felt that it results in action. As a noun, it is literally translated godly fear; something that Paul states one must have as the only way to serve God acceptably (Hebrews 12.28). And lastly, as Paul recalled the suffering of Christ in the garden of Gethsemane as he prayed, he said that God heard His prayer because He had this – godly fear (Hebrews 5.7). There are other Greek words that are used to describe the religious, the pious, or the God-fearing, but none so consistently like this word eulabhV. If the Jews in Acts 2:5 which Luke names devout are lost sinners, then that instance would be the only time in the entire word of God that it is used to describe such that are not what the word implies. It is inconceivable that this would be the case.
The question also arises as to what those particular Jews were doing in Jerusalem? The unstudied response would no doubt be that they were there for the feast of Pentecost. Contrarily, that is not what the Bible explicitly says. It does not specifically state the reason why these Jews from every nation were dwelling in Jerusalem. However, some of the greatest commentators on the Bible do not believe the feast of Pentecost as the reason. “It was the nation’s universal opinion, that that very time wherein Christ did appear was the time wherein they expected the coming of Messiah, being so taught by the prophecy of Daniel. […] Hence that conflux of Jews from all nations to Jerusalem” (Lightfoot 194). These Jews from all around the known world were not looking to partake of the feast of Pentecost, but rather the kingdom of God. This throws a whole different light on these men. If their presence was just for the feast, then they are viewed as the Pharisees: pious, religious, and just going through the motions. If their presence was for the kingdom of God though, then it would be more appropriate to view them as Simeon, “waiting for the consolation of Israel” (Luke 2:25).
We may enquire what brought all those Jews and proselytes together to Jerusalem at this time: not to make a transient visit thither to the feast of Pentecost, for they are said to dwell there. They took lodgings there, because there was at this time a general expectation of the appearing of the Messiah; for Daniel’s weeks had just now expired, the scepter had departed from Judah, and it was then generally thought that the kingdom of God would immediately appear, Luke 19:11. This brought those who were most zealous and devout to Jerusalem, to sojourn there, that they might have an early share in the kingdom of the Messiah and the blessings of that kingdom. (Henry)
Ironically, A. T. Robertson, the Greek scholar that vehemently fought for the premise that lost Jews were baptized that day because they were saved had unknowingly made a connection to the key that would have unlocked Acts 2:38. He states that these Jews in Acts 2:5 are devout: “Reverent […] like Simeon waiting for the consolation of Israel or hoping to die and be buried in the Holy City” (Robertson 23). There’s no one scholar that knows everything there is to know of the word of God. All can stand to learn a thing or two about the holy scriptures. When the history of Bible interpretation is studied, what is revealed is a history of aberrations. The church fathers of the first, second, and third century had not a complete Bible, much less complete doctrine. If one turns to history in hopes of finding sound method and application of Bible interpretation, much disappointment will be found. It must be remembered the word of the Lord can never be surmounted by the words of even the greatest Bible scholars. “We cannot elevate them into idols, or accept their utterances as oracles; but we look to them with love and reverence, as to our older brothers in the great family of God” (Farrar 242). Even John Gill, known as the greatest Baptist commentator, makes the same distinction, understood it well, but may have never made the connection to Acts 2:38. His description of these devout Jews leaves no room to allow them to be lost in Acts 2:5:
Men of religion and piety, of faith and holiness; and as the Syriac version renders it, “who feared God”; for in these worst times, among the wicked generation of men, there were some who had the fear of God before their eyes, and on their hearts; and these were collected from different quarters, to be witnesses of this amazing dispensation: for they came. (Gill)
It seems that several have identified the nature of these 3,000 Jews of Pentecost, yet fail to carry these observations over into Acts 2:38. The men of faith and holiness, distinct from a wicked generation, mysteriously between verse five and thirty-eight become the wicked generation, which have no faith in God, and know not the holiness of God. They had wicked hands, the scripture states plainly. But does the Bible truly indicate they had a wicked heart? Luke says they were Jews, devout men. Paul says, “As touching the election, they are beloved for the father’ sakes” (Romans 11.28).
There are numerous contextual clues that deserve a fair opportunity to speak on the matter. Only Peter’s sermon, and Peter’s audience have been briefly examined. What remains of the literal method of interpretation is to examine the verse in the light of history. As the people of Pentecost were examined, a very significant historical fact surfaced. The possible reason for their lodging in Jerusalem demands that we consider carefully the history of the Jew.
These Jews were very unique in that they lived and worshipped God on both sides of Calvary. This is has been well acknowledged. However, their uniqueness narrows further when we consider the prophetic history of the Jews. These special people lived also during a very distinct time in Israel’s prophetic history – the sixty-ninth week of Daniel’s seventy weeks of judgment. There was a great anticipation in Israel at this time in history. By the prophet Daniel, God had decreed seventy weeks (seven year units) of judgment on Israel; a total of 490 years. This seventy week period was to start at the commandment to rebuild the city of Jerusalem (Daniel 9.25). This historically happened when Nehemiah was granted permission to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem by Artaxerxes, king of the Persian Empire, in the twentieth year of his reign, approximately 444 BC. Daniel’s prophecy states that sixty-nine of the seventy weeks will be accomplished before the appearing of the Messiah, a total of 483 years. Using the Jewish lunar calendar with 360 day years, this places the appearance of the Messiah at 33 AD. Of course, this is the year that most all historians agree Jesus was crucified. The people of Israel back then were able to do the math as we are today. Therefore, there was great anticipation that the Messiah was supposed to soon appear during the time of Jesus ministry.
John the Baptist’s ministry was not a surprise to the Jews. The appearing of the Messiah, the son of David, the King of the Jews, was not a foreign concept, but a greatly anticipated event. There is much evidence for this in the scriptures. The wise men from the east were searching for the King of the Jews (Matthew 2.2). Herod’s slaying of the children of Bethlehem shows his knowledge of the coming Messiah (Matthew 2.16). The Samaritan at the well said, “I know that Mesias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come […]” (John 4.25). When Andrew met Jesus, he told Peter, “We have found the Messias” (John 1.41). After Phillip met Jesus, he told Nathanael, “We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth” (John 1.45). It is almost as if there was an atmosphere in which all knew the Messiah was present among them. They were searching for him and awaiting his revelation.
The coming of the Messiah was a Jewish event, to fulfill Jewish prophecy. The term Messiah is understood to mean the anointed one, the Christ, the King of the Jews. He may very well have been considered a Savior, but not in the sense that we understand that today. Daniel’s seventy weeks were weeks of judgment, 490 years of oppression and domination by other nations. The Messiah, in their minds, was a king that would deliverer them once and for all from the judgment of these domineering nations. This is why their hopes were dashed to pieces and they asked Jesus no more questions after He plainly told them, “Render therefore unto Caesar that which are Caesar’s” (Matthew 22.21). Even after His resurrection, there still seems to be a specific understanding on the disciples’ part as to the purpose of the Messiah’s ministry in that they asked Jesus, “Wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1.6). It is important to understand that this is never corrected by Jesus or any other character in the Bible. Israel’s perception of the role of the Messiah was accurate and in line with how the prophets had portrayed the Messiah. It was the kingdom of God which they sought. It was the prophecies of the kingdom that prevailed in their thoughts and governed their words and actions.
This is why it is paramount that the importance of Peter quoting the prophet Joel at the beginning of his sermon be recognized. This gives a historical framework in which to examine what is happening at Pentecost. The driving theme of the prophet Joel is that of the day of the Lord. “Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in my holy mountain, let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day of the LORD cometh, for it is nigh at hand” (Joel 2.1). There is much debate as to when the church began, Pentecost being one of the principal locations of controversy. What is grossly overlooked is that God is not just beginning something new, but putting an end to the old. “When I begin, I will also make an end” (1 Samuel 3.12). The beginnings of the church in Pentecost are so over emphasized, that the endings of the law and the nation of Israel are forgotten. God is finishing, for the time being, His dealings with the nation of Israel during Pentecost as much as He is beginning His dealings with the Gentiles; perhaps even more so for the Gentiles are not formally allowed entrance to the church by the Jews until well into the book of Acts. Pentecost must be interpreted in light of God’s timetable for the Jews. This is the end of Daniel’s sixty-ninth week as well as the beginning of the seventieth week. This is not to say that Joel’s prophecy is completely fulfilled, because the days of wonders, signs, blood, fire, smoke, and darkness have yet to come to pass; but His Spirit was poured out in those days and they did prophesy, as Peter pointed out. Perhaps, this is partially fulfilled as Jesus partially fulfilled prophesy: “To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God” (Isaiah 61.2) Jesus stated plainly in the gospel of Luke that the first part of that verse was fulfilled in His life: “This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears” (Luke 4.21). Because Jesus stopped and closed the book in the middle of the prophecy, God has made a distinction between the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God. The day of vengeance of our God is yet to be seen. This may very well be the case in Joel. His spirit was poured out upon His servants and handmaids in the day of Pentecost, but the great and terrible day of the LORD is yet to come.
An important distinction to make is that this prophecy is a promise to the Jew, and a promise for His servants and handmaids. This is a very different picture than that of the indwelling of the Holy Ghost when a sinner gets saved. There is a misconception when Peter refers to the Holy Ghost and says, “For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off” (Acts 2.39). The presupposition that Peter is dealing with lost people causes the Bible interpreter to recall topics as the indwelling and the sealing of the Spirit as they read this passage; and it is most certainly referring to these. However, considering all that has been mentioned thus far, it would behoove the interpreter to keep this promise in the right perspective in that it is a promise to the nation of Israel, the promise of the outpouring of His Spirit. This is the promise that was given by Jesus not only during His ministry and after His resurrection; but God had given Israel the promise almost 900 years prior by the prophet Joel. This is the promise that John the Baptist also spoke of when he proclaimed, “He that cometh after me is mightier than I […] he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 3.11). John was a Jewish prophet, sent to the people of Israel, the “children of promise” (Romans 9.8). The promises of God were made distinctly to the Jews, yet fulfilled at the beginning of the church age. Today, people of all nations can partake of this gift of the Holy Ghost, but the promise was originally to the Jews. This is not a foreign concept from the Bible, for hell was made for the devil and his angels, but all may partake if they so choose.
Another aspect to consider is that of the remnant. Paul tells forth the words of Isaiah in his letter to the Romans, “Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved” (Romans 9.27). Then, Paul declares himself to be part of that remnant when he says, “Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham” (Romans 11.1). Throughout the book of the prophet Isaiah, God promises that He will always preserve a remnant of Israel, especially through troubled times. Paul shows clearly that this was so in his time, even at the end of the dispensation of the law: “Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace” (Romans 11.5). Paul was fully persuaded that he was indeed part of that remnant. Much like God preserved Noah, his wife, his sons, and their wives through the flood to a new era of God’s workings, God has preserved a remnant through Calvary. There was unmistakably Old Testament saints living before, during, and after the time of Christ’s ministry: Mary and Joseph, Simeon and Anna, Elizabeth and Zacharias, to name a few. How could those young men have recognized the Messiah, followed Him, and become His apostles unless they had been reared by godly mothers and fathers? What about the multitudes that Jesus healed; the blind He made see; the lame He made walk; or the lepers He cleansed? What about the faithful centurion or Joseph of Arimethea that gave his tomb for Jesus? What did God do with all the Old Testament saints that lived through Jesus’ ministry? Were they all to die under the law? Or is it possible that God would add them unto the church? Were the supposed 120 people in the upper room the only Old Testament saints and everybody else lost and bound for hell?
Another distinction to make in light of Israel’s history and prophecy is Peter’s sermon. It has already been demonstrated that Peter’s main theme was the Davidic Covenant and that his intention was simply to persuade them that Jesus of Nazareth is truly the Christ. Upon their acceptance of this, repentance, and baptism, they were told they would receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Joel’s prophecy, that Peter quoted, spoke of this gift. Interestingly, there is more to the prophecy that Peter did not quote in the text. The verse preceding what Peter quoted reads as follows: “And ye shall know that I am in the midst of Israel, and that I am the LORD your God, and none else: and my people shall never be ashamed” (Joel 2.27). This is precisely what happened that day when the 3,000 were pricked in the heart. They were made to know. “Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my father which is in heaven” (Matthew 16.17). This is the truth that God through Peter was trying to convey: That Jesus is the Lord their God, and was in the midst of Israel. The prophecy also makes clear that my people shall never be ashamed. When this prophecy was uttered in the days of Joel and considered in the days of Pentecost, my people is undoubtedly the nation of Israel, not the church.
The people of Pentecost were not concerned with the Gentiles and the church. They were concerned about the nation of Israel, its Messiah, their actions against Him, and the consequences of it. Consider also the parable which Jesus prophetically spoke of the householder that planted his vineyard. The householder sent servants and they were stoned and killed. He sent another servant and they did likewise. Finally, he sent his son. “I will send my beloved son: it may be that they will reverence him when they see him” (Luke 20.13). Of course, the husbandmen slew the son. Jesus then put the end of this parable into the hands of His audience when He asked, “When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?” (Matthew 21.40). In Matthew’s account, the Jews actually answered the question and said, “He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen” (Matthew 21.41). On that day of Pentecost, the 3,000 Jews that were pricked in the heart were hardly concerned about the other husbandmen, but their worries rested upon those wicked men that by every right deserved to be destroyed. Hence the question, “What shall we do?” A man at the point of certain death cares little about his estate; and in some cases, will offer it in exchange for his next breath. This parable demonstrates that the Jews understood the mind of God. They understood well how God deals with His people. When it was revealed to them that Jesus was the Christ, they knew immediately the ramifications of this truth just as they had known the answer to Jesus’ question. Also, the parable reveals that the rejection and crucifixion of the beloved son, was ultimately a matter of the kingdom. Jesus said, “The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof” (Matthew 21.43).
It was the kingdom of God for which the nation of Israel had yearned and anticipated in the latter days of the 490 years of oppression under other kingdoms. It was confirmed in that both Jesus and John the Baptist heralded, “The kingdom of God is at hand!” It was the kingdom of God the nation of Israel sought; it was the kingdom that was offered; and in crucifying their Messiah, it was the kingdom of God that was rejected. This truth may be at the heart of most of the misconception surrounding Acts 2:38. Jesus, without question, came to seek and to save those which were lost. He came to give His life a ransom for this world. Yet, it is quickly forgotten there is more to His first coming than ushering in the age of the church. “Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minster of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers” (Romans 15.8). Jesus came to fulfill the Davidic covenant and all the promises that had been made to the people of God. This is often overlooked. Consequently, there is a tendency to want to group everything that transpires in the New Testament with the church when it truthfully has little to do with the church, yet everything to do with the nation of Israel. The issues of eternal salvation are superimposed upon events that do not deal with these subjects. This is the case in the crucifixion of Christ. There is a tendency to want to view those who rejected and crucified Christ as lost sinners in this day and age that reject Christ as Savior. It is very beneficial to understand that this is not the case. The Jews rejected Jesus as the King of the Jews, the Messiah, not a sacrificial substitute. They did not reject the Lamb of God. They rejected the King of the Jews; and in doing so, they made him the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world. They did not reject the sacrifice; they performed it.
Not one of the rulers said: “I will not believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved;” but they did say: We will not have this man to reign over us. To thrust the present issues of salvation into this and similar Jewish situation, is to confuse two distinct dispensations. It obliterates the great lines of prophecy, and robs the Gospel of its distinctiveness and power. We are not saved because we acclaim Jesus to be King, or because we bow to His authority. We are saved now by believing on a Savior. (Chafer)
This is a subtle distinction, but a true one nonetheless. Paul demonstrates this clearly when he says, “Through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles” [emphasis added] (Romans 11.11). God used the stumbling of the nation of Israel to bring salvation to the rest of the world. They were not rejecting salvation, for it had not yet been brought. They were not rejecting a sacrifice for their sins. A sacrifice is not what was offered, but a king! “Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee” (Matthew 21.5). God placed Jesus before the nation of Israel and through Pontius Pilate said, “Behold your king!” (John 19.14). He asked them clearly, “Shall I crucify your King?” (John 19.15). This distinction must be carried into Pentecost.
However, the tendency is to view Pentecost in light of church doctrine, rather than Jewish history. The scriptures are twisted and mishandled when preachers attempt to mold Pentecost into a modern day evangelical church service when it is not. Literal interpretation suggests that the interpreter be transported into the historical time period of the scripture; not transport the scripture into the time period of the interpreter. During this momentous event of Pentecost, their frame of mind and things they said were not based on the New Testament. They came from the prophets and from the law. Moses and the prophets knew nothing of this dispensation of grace. They knew not that there would be a 2,000 year span, at least, between Daniel’s sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks of judgment. They did not know how God’s plan would ultimately unfold; and neither did the disciples. Much of church doctrine we know today was not revealed until the times of Paul and influx of the Gentiles to the church. It would be wise to consider these historical aspects while trying to understand the text.
Students of the Bible perhaps allow themselves to be misled when they see terms like saved, received, remission, and pricked in the heart. These are New Testament ‘buzz-words’ that are used in past and modern preaching; but during the time which these words were uttered, what was historically happening and what the speakers and authors understood dictates the true signification of these terms. For example, one can easily notice part of Joel’s prophecy that Peter quoted, “Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Acts 2.21). This same expression is used by Paul in his letter to the Romans and is also one of the most popular verses used to demonstrate how to obtain eternal salvation. However, without regard to the historical setting, one would easily conclude, “See, this passage is about how to get saved!” When the interpreter places himself into the immediate and historical context, the text can be seen in its true light. Saved refers to a deliverance from the great and notable day of the Lord; or as Peter later states, saved from this untoward generation: a time or event in Jewish history, not eternal damnation. The same problem can be seen with received, which also appears later in the text: “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized” (Acts 2:41). Today, “receiving Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior” is so familiar a term, people mistakenly equate the 3,000 Jews receiving Peter’s word with them receiving Jesus as Savior. This is not the same thing. The identical situation arises with pricked in the heart. Today, this expression is used to signify that the Holy Ghost is convicting someone of their lost condition and need of a Savior. Yet, considering all that’s been discussed thus far, there is no indication of that signification whatsoever in Acts 2. One may attempt to argue that the Holy Ghost was indeed dealing with them; but even if that could be proved, it is clear that God was not dealing with them regarding a spiritually lost condition as far as the text is concerned.
There are many truths of the Bible that are simple to understand, but there are some that are not. Even with the aid of the Holy Ghost who guides us in all truth, we are still commanded, “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2.15). There is a need for methodology in Bible interpretation to serve as a means of checks and balances, to correct error, to eliminate prejudice and bias, place the authority on the Bible itself, and to help us understand difficult passages as Acts 2:38. Once grammar, context, and history have been thoroughly considered, the interpreter is free to make an analysis as to the meaning of the text based on the findings, and determine what bearing this has on the relationship between baptism and salvation.
First, we can establish what is not happening in this verse. This verse has entirely nothing to do with eternal salvation. There is absolutely nothing in the grammar, context, or history to support that eternal salvation is the topic of the text. Peter is not dealing with lost people. Despite the fact that Peter does mention the death and resurrection of Christ, Peter’s message does not qualify as a gospel message delivered with the intention to save lost sinners. Consequently, these Jews are not asking how to be saved or born again. Neither is Peter directing them as to how to be saved. Therefore, this verse should never be used didactically to instruct one on how to be saved. There may be compelling arguments that attest to the saving ability of baptism; but as far as this Acts 2:38 is concerned, baptism can never save a sinner.
Secondly, what can be said as to what is happening in this verse? This verse mainly covers the topic of Jesus being Christ, the Messiah, the king that would fulfill the Davidic Covenant. The grammar, context, and history support this. Peter is dealing with Jews, God’s chosen people: more specifically, devout Jews that were anticipating the coming of the Messiah. Peter’s intention was to indict the Jews that they had crucified their Christ when they crucified Jesus of Nazareth. After they realized their sin, they asked Peter what they were to do about it. Peter answers, “Repent, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” Peter also assures them that in doing so, they would also receive the promise of the Holy Ghost as the disciples had, and as God had promised 900 years ago. What bearing does this have on the role of water baptism with the attainment of eternal salvation? Acts 2:38 clearly demonstrates that baptism is for God’s people, not lost people.
Does this allow the 3,000 Jews to be viewed as already saved? Perhaps, like their father Abraham, it would be the most appropriate to describe them as justified by faith or simply label them Old Testament saints. To say they are saved would be to superimpose New Testament church doctrine on Old Testament people. Therefore, Luke makes perfect sense when he says, “There were added unto them about three thousand souls” (Acts 2.41). He does not say they were saved as he said of others later in verse 47. They were merely added to the church. God was taking His Old Testament saints and transitioning them into the church, converting them to New Testament saints.
Perhaps the greatest objection to this conclusion would be the fallacy that God’s people could not have performed this manner or sin and that God would not forgive such a sin. Is it possible that people that supposedly knew God, trusted and believed in God, would miss so terribly the coming of their Messiah? Isaiah the prophet said all we like sheep have gone astray. John the apostle said that he came unto His own and His own received him not. Even Jesus had told the disciples, the ones that walked with him, talked with him, and even said He was the Christ, “All ye shall be offended because of me this night” [emphasis added] (Mark 14.27). Extraordinary as it is that God’s own people would reject him and crucify him, it could not have happened any other way. Even more amazing is the grace of God that would extend the hand of pardon to those that rejected and nailed him to the cross. “O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?” (Romans 11.33-34).
Works Cited
Ballew, Stinnett. These Truths We Hold, Baptist Distinctives. N.p.: n.p., n.d. 29.
Broaddus, John A. “The Prepositions Used with Baptize.” The Religious Herald. (15 August 1867): n.p.
Berry, George R. Greek to English Interlinear New Testament King James Version. Nashville: World Publishing, Inc., 1981. 124.
Boles, H. Leo. A Commentary on Acts of the Apostles. Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1976. 47.
Burdette, Dallas. “Baptism in the Great Commission, Part 1 of 3.” Freedom In Christ. 2 May 2009. <http://www.freedominchrist.net>
Chafer, Lewis S. “The Crowns of the Lord Jesus Christ.” Wholesome Words. 24 April 2009. <http://www.wholesomewords.org/etexts/chafer/crowns.html>
“Does Acts 2:38 teach that baptism is necessary for salvation?” Got Questions Ministries. 18 March 2009. <http://gotquestions.org/baptism-Acts-2-38.html>
Everett, Jim R. “Written Debate on Baptism.” Cedar Park Church of Christ. 20 March 2009 <http://www.cedarparkchurchofchrist.org/debate/debate3.htm>
Farrar, Frederic W. History of Interpretation . London: Macmillan and Co., 1886. 162, 238. 242.
Fritsch, Charles T. “Biblical Typology.” Bibliotheca Sacra 104 (1947): 216.
Fullerton, Kemper. Prophecy and Authority, A Study in the History of the Doctrine and Interpreation of Scripture. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1919. 75.
Gibbs, Alfred P. The Preacher and His Preaching. Kansas City: Walterick Publishers, 2002. 142, 225.
Gill, John. “Commentary on Acts 2:38”. The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible. 24 April 2009. <http://www.studylight.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=ac&chapter=002& verse=005>.
Henry, Matthew. “Complete Commentary on Acts 2”. Matthew Henry Complete Commentary
on the Whole Bible. 24 April 2009. <http://www.studylight.org/com/mhc-com/view.cgi?book= ac&chapter=002>.
Hodge, Charles. A Collection of Traacts in Biblical Literature. Princeton: Princeton Press, 1825. 66.
Horne, Thomas H. An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures. London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1877. 213, 259, 261, 291.
Lightfoot, John. Hebrew and Talmudical Exercitations, Vol. III. Oxford: University Press, 1859. 194.
Mantey, Julius R. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. Toronto: The Macmillan Company, 1957. 104.
—. “The Causal Use of EIS in the New Testament.” Journal of Biblical Literature 70 (1951): 45-48
Marcus, Ralph. “The Elusive Causal Eis.” Journal of Biblical Literature 71 (1952): 43-44.
Marshall, I. Howard. The Gospel of Luke (The New International Greek Testament Commentary). Grand Rapids, Michigan: WM. B. Eerdmans Pulishing Company, 1978. 39.
Morris, Edward P. On Principles and Methods in Latin Syntax. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1902. 79.
Pentecost, J. Dwight. Things to Come, A Study in Bible Eschatology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1964. 3.
Perschbaucher, Wesley J. The New Analytical Greek Lexicon of the New Testament. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1990. 62, 180.
Plummer, Alfred. The International Critical Commentary: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the The Gospel According to St. Luke. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1903. lii.
Ramm, Bernard. Protestant Biblical Interpretation, A Textbook of Hermeneutics, Third Revised Edition. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1970. 119, 123.
Rice, John R. Filled With the Spirit, A Verse-by-Verse Commentary on Acts of the Apostles. Murfreesboro: Sword of the Lord Publishers, 1963. 93.
Robertson, Archibold T., A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. New York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1914. 591, 593.
—. Life and Letters of John Albert Broadus. Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1901. x.
—. Word Pictures in the New Testament, Volume III, The Acts of the Apostles. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1930. 23, 34, 35.
Schreiner, Thomas R. & Wright, Shawn D., Believer’s Baptism, Sign of the New Covenant in Christ. Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2006. 53.
Scroggie, William G. A Guide to the Gospels, A Comprehensive Analysis of the Four Gospels. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1995. 341.
Smith, Shelton, “The Book We Call the Bible.” Great Preaching on the Bible. Murfreesboro: Sword of the Lord Publishers, 2004. 226.
Spurgeon, Charles. “Public Meeting of Our London Baptist Brethren.” Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Volume 7. London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1861. 225.
Terry, Milton S. Biblical Hermeneutics, A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New Testaments. New York: Hunt & Eaton, 1890. 60, 69, 70, 129.
Thayer, Joseph H. Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2007. 192.
The Holy Bible, King James Version. e-Sword, 2008.
Theissen, Henry, C. Lectures in Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979. 171.
Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. 370.
Weirsbe, Warren W. The Bible Exposition Commentary. Colorado Springs: Cook Communications Ministries, 2001. 410.
Wiggins, Stephen. “Dr. Carroll Osburn On Baptism.” Firm Foundation. 24 April 2009. <http:// www.bible-infonet.org/ff/articles/agents/110_11_10.htm>
Williams, Edwin B. The Bantam New College Spanish English Dictionary. New York: Bantam Books, 1991. 22.
Wilmarth, James W. “Baptism and Remission.” The Baptist Quarterly, Volume XI. Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1877. 303, 304, 305.