If you review the first part of Lesson 165, I explain why it is evident Peter’s sermon at Pentecost was guided by the Holy Spirit (the word rhema, used in verse 14). This uneducated fisherman gives an inspired, detailed explanation of the events of that morning to a doubting, if not derisive crowd, accurately quoting the Old Testament and recounting his own experiences with Jesus. The crowd listening to his message is “cut to the heart” with conviction and asks, “Brethren, what can we do?”
And this is Peter’s response, “Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” So, the question has to be asked, why include baptism here? That he was talking about water baptism is evident, since his statement clearly indicates two separate events: being baptized and receiving the Holy Spirit.
Now, let me get just a little technical here to make a point. In Peter’s response above the main verb “repent” is the aorist imperative of metanoeo, a command for simple action some time in the future, in this case, to repent with regret accompanied by a change of heart. Then, the verb translated “be baptized” is in the indirect passive imperative, which means that it does not carry the same force or importance as the direct command, “repent”. The preposition “for” in the phrase “for the remission of sins” is eis, and should be translated “unto” or “because of”. In other words, the grammatical structure here tells us repentance is more important than baptism. And, in reality, repentance is something that involves an individual and God, while baptism is merely a public testimony to others.
Let me see if I can explain this a little further. These Jews were accustomed to outward forms. They followed a distorted system of rules and rituals to attain a righteousness of their own (Romans 10:3). This was what caused Jesus to clash with the religious leaders of His day (read Matthew 23:1-33). And just as those Jews in Matthew 3 had no problem submitting to John’s baptism (as a public testimony), these Jews and foreign proselytes in Jerusalem had no problem with it either.
Now, I mentioned at the beginning of this lesson that the Holy Spirit guided Peter’s message at Pentecost. And, it was by the Holy Spirit that water baptism was included in Peter’s response. Remember, these lessons are intended to show how the disciples came to the point that they realized water baptism was not necessary and did not practice it. So, how did they arrive at that conclusion? At this point it would be helpful to remind you of several things Jesus taught about the revelation of truth over time.
As I explain in the article on the website “New Cloth and New Wine” Jesus said he came to demonstrate perfect obedience to God and demonstrated that in His intimate relationship with the Father. But in contrast to that, the religious Jews were used to only blindly following the demands of their religion. The point He makes in the parable is that the old ways they were familiar with are not compatible with the new that was to come.
Without repeating all the points in the article, He illustrated this by saying you cannot patch old, torn cloth with new (yet unfinished) cloth, lest the existing tear be made worse. The New Covenant that had not been fully revealed was not compatible with the Old that had been damaged by the rules and traditions of men. And, new wine cannot be put in old, dried out and rigid wineskins. New wine (revelation) must be put in reconditioned wineskins that are soft, pliable and able to accommodate the expansion of gases associated with the fermentation process. The coming revelation of the New Covenant must be deposited in reconditioned hearts, willing to expand with that new revelation.
Then there is the issue of what is called progressive revelation. This is John 16:12-13. “I still have many things to tell you, but you’re not able to understand them yet. But when the Spirit of Truth comes, He will guide you into all the truth. Because He will not speak on His own authority, but will tell you what He hears from the Father, and He will declare to you the things that are to come.”
What Jesus says here is clear enough. When the Holy Spirit comes, He will guide them to an understanding of all the truth. That this is a process over time is evident from the word translated “to come”. It is from erchomai, a word that is used to illustrate motion from one thing or place to the next. The Holy Spirit would guide the disciples into truth one principle on top of another, building their understanding of the New Covenant over time.
Paul talks about this very principle in I Corinthians 2:12-13. “Now we have not received the spirit that belongs to the world, but the Holy Spirit Who is from God, so we could know the things that are freely given to us by Him. And we are speaking these truths in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Holy Spirit, combining spiritual truths with spiritual language.” The word translated “combining” (“comparing” in the KJV) is from sugkrino, and literally means, to separate and arrange in order.
Then Paul said this to the believers of his day in Rome. “Do not be fashioned after the superficial customs of this age, but be changed by a new way of thinking, so you can prove what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.” (Romans 12:2) The problem here was that these believers were too heavily influenced by their traditions and rituals. That would have to change.
In other words, the New Covenant would require a new understanding, a new way of thinking. This could not take place over night. This is a radical change. It would require revelation over time. This new understanding is illustrated in the Book of Acts and in the next lesson I’ll explain how.