37] Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?”
38] Then Peter said to the , “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39] For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”
These verses record the response of the crowd to Peter’s impassioned explanation of what had happened earlier with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, as well as his declaration that the One whom they had crucified was not a criminal, but was in fact their Messiah.
These verses are among some of the most well-known verses in Scripture. But do they really teach what is so commonly said of them?
For example, I’ve heard a preacher tell his audience, “Repent, every one of you, and be baptized for the remission of sins.” I was in a Bible study at a home and a young woman was baptized in the pool in the backyard. When the ceremony was over, the teacher said that the young woman’s sins were at the bottom of that pool. I’m afraid I didn’t appreciate the moment because my first thought was, “Boy, I don’t want to go into that water!” It’s not really funny.
In the first place, this is not a general command for all audiences and all time. Peter never repeated it in his preaching. In fact, in his next recorded preaching, he told his audience, “Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out,” Acts 3:19. In that lengthy record, there isn’t one reference to baptism. And Paul one time said, “I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,… For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, 1 Corinthians 1:14, 17. This seems a strange statement if baptism is essential to salvation.
The question asked by these men is not, “What must we do (to be saved)?” but, “In regard to our guilt with regard to the crucifixion of Christ, what is to be done?” It is a question in a specific historical context. Messiah had been rejected by the nation, as represented by the high priest and other officials who had orchestrated His arrest and death. Peter is saying that these men must reject the counsel of the nation and receive this One as their Lord and Christ.
As far as baptism goes, it is indeed important. After all, it was commanded by our Lord, Matthew 28:19. But Peter himself fixes its place regarding salvation once and for all, in Acts 10 and the account of the conversion of Cornelius the centurion. Baptism is to be the believer’s “profession of faith,” not going forward or raising the hand or any of the many other things men have dreamed up.
Without getting into all of Acts 10, we read in v. 44, While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. Peter never got to “finish”. He never got to give an altar call or an invitation. He never got to ask if they would like to “accept Jesus,” the things we think necessary in our time. But that they were saved was beyond doubt, for they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God, v. 46a.
Then Peter answered, “Can any forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” vs. 46b-47 (emphasis added).
Unless we are to believe that lost people can receive the Holy Spirit, it seems to me that this verse forever puts to rest the idea that people must be baptized in order to be saved.
The other teaching that is used from these verses is found in v. 39, where Peter said, “For the promise is to you and to your children….” Thus, we are told that just as children were included in the blessings of the Old Covenant – the Mosaic law and circumcision – so they are included in the blessing of the New Covenant – and infant baptism.
This view doesn’t recognize the differences in those two covenants. Without going into great deal – we covered this in our series on infant baptism – the Mosaic Covenant, or the Law, was national and corporate. The individual Israelite did indeed have a responsibility to obey Moses, but he had a “relationship” with God simply because he was a member of the nation. Circumcision was the sign of that relationship, but had nothing whatever to do with the man’s spiritual condition. Under the New Covenant, the relationship is individual and personal. It has nothing to do with which “nation” you belong to, your heritage or your parents, and everything to do with your spiritual condition. It was to one who probably had everything the Old Covenant had to offer, if we can put it like that, to whom our Lord said, “You must be born again.”
Beyond that, v. 39 itself has information about this: “For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as our Lord shall call.” If we are to baptize our infants on the basis of this verse, then what are we to do with those who are “afar off.” Are we to baptize them, as well?
You see the difficulty. It seems to me from Ephesians 2:11-13, that Peter is including both Jews – “you and your children” – and Gentiles – those who are “afar off” – in the provision and possibility of “the promise.” The early church, which was composed of Jews, had a hard time accepting the “availability” of the Gospel message. After all, Israel had been the only nation God had chosen for Himself. If one came to God, he had to do it through Israel. It had been like this for centuries. “Gentiles” were cursed and Israel had gotten into trouble more than once for being friendly with them. It was a radical and unheard-idea for a Jew of that time that Gentiles could be blessed as “Gentiles”.
Besides, Peter himself continues with a qualification in this verse – “even as many as the Lord will call.” In other words, those who have been saved. They and they alone are the Scriptural and proper candidates for baptism.