We’ve been looking at Peter’s message on Pentecost and Lesson 165 ended with Acts 2:35, just short of his conclusion. This is verse 36: “Therefore, let the whole house of Israel acknowledge the fact that God has made this same Jesus Whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” Notice that Peter has been comparing the man Jesus to the man David. Then he makes the distinction; the man Jesus has been made both Lord and Christ. He is not a spirit or an angel, but a man, in complete fulfillment of all the scriptures ever foretold about Him.
The next verse (37) tells us the crowd listening to Peter’s message was “pricked in their heart”. And since we’re going to see similar phrases in the near future, let me explain the difference. In Acts 5:33 the Jewish council was “cut to the heart” (“to the heart” in italics here indicating it is not in the original) when they heard Peter’s defense and in 7:54 the angry mob opposing Stephen is “cut to the heart” at his accusations towards them (outlined in Lesson 171). Here, the King James gets it right. In 2:37 “pricked” is from katanusso, to prick or stun, used here in the Passive voice to indicate strong emotion, in this case a conviction that leads to corrective action (in the last part of the verse they ask, “what can we do?).
However, in the other two verses, “cut” is from diapriomai, to be sawn asunder, here used as a metaphor to illustrate being sawn asunder mentally or torn with vexation, angered. When you read these three verses and note their context, it’s easy to see the difference by the actions of those involved. I only mention this because I noticed some translations unfortunately translate all three as “cut” and can be a little confusing.
Now, it’s important that we spend a little time on verse 38, since it has caused some confusion. “Then Peter answered them, Repent and be baptized each one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” I underlined “for” in this verse, as it is translated from the Greek preposition eis. Translated this way it appears that both repentance and baptism are required for the remission (or forgiveness) of sins. And that is how many have taught it over the years.
The preposition eis can be translated, “to”, “at”, “in”, “into”, “because of” and “for”. The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English has “(with a view) to”. They could have just as easily used “because of”. With this in mind, what Peter said is, “Repent and be baptized because of the forgiveness of sins”. This rightfully removes baptism as a requirement for the forgiveness of sins. This is easily understood by Jesus’ words to Nicodemus (John 3:15-18) and the thief at His crucifixion (Luke 23:39-43). Eternal salvation is the obvious context; but baptism is not mentioned. If you read the Gospel accounts with this in mind, many examples will jump out at you (especially if you have a red letter edition).
The other issue has to do with baptism. In an earlier lesson (162) I said we would see as we go through the book of Acts that water baptism was only a temporary teaching tool used to instruct the apostles regarding the ministry of the Holy Spirit and the time came when they did not practice it. If you noticed the above quote of verse 38, Peter said they should repent, be baptized and receive the Holy Spirit. The time came when they realized believers received the Holy Spirit without baptism. It is quite telling that none of Paul’s letters to the churches he had established deal with instruction to practice water baptism.
However, he does deal with it in his first letter to the church in Corinth. The passage goes from verse 13 to 21 in the 1st chapter. In later lessons we’ll take a brief look at Paul’s letters to the churches, but for now just let me say that those letters were for the purpose of clarification and correction. That the church in Corinth had problems is evident by the fact that Paul found it necessary to write long letters to them twice.
First of all it’s clear that this church was divided into factions based on loyalty to certain personalities (read verses 9-13) and one of the things that divided them was baptism (the clear context of the above-mentioned passage). The Corinthian church was established during Paul’s second missionary journey and he stayed there 18 months. It’s clear from Acts 18:8 that at the beginning of this time in Corinth Paul did baptize.
However, it is just as clear that when he writes his first letter to this church some 6-7 years following his departure, he has a different view of baptism and clearly states it. To me this is an obvious example of the progressive revelation Jesus promises His disciples in John 16:12-13. Over time, based on his experiences and the revelation of the Holy Spirit, Paul became convinced water baptism was unnecessary.
Here are the points he makes: 1. At the time he writes this, Paul is thankful he did not baptize, except the few early examples he cited (verse 14-16), 2. Christ sent him to preach the gospel, not to baptize (verse 17), 3. Those who preach the gospel do not have to baptize (verse 17, John 14:2), 4. The preaching of the cross is God’s power to save, not baptism (verses 17-21, Romans 1:16).
Now I fully realize this may be new to some who read this. So let me just say that historically many church groups have tended to emphasize ritual over reality. So, they insist on practicing the ritual of water baptism, while virtually ignoring the reality of Spirit baptism. This is mainly due to the fact that any time they see the word “baptism” in scripture, they assume water baptism is in view. That is a mistake and something I explain fully in the article “Ritual or Reality”.