Expositor's Bible Commentary Commentary Acts 2:38

"And Peter [said] unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." — Acts 2:38 (ASV)

Peter’s answer to the people’s anguished cry presents interpreters with a set of complex theological problems that are often looked upon only as grist for differing theological mills. But Peter’s words came to his hearers as the best news they had ever heard—far better, indeed, than they could have hoped for. So today these words remain the best of good news and should be read as the proclamation of that news and not as just a set of theological problems.

Peter calls on his hearers to “repent” (GK 3566). This word implies a complete change of heart, beginning with the confession of sin. With this he couples the call to “be baptized,” thus linking both repentance and baptism with the forgiveness of sins. So far this sounds familiar, for John the Baptist had proclaimed a “baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Mark 1:4); and Jesus made repentance central in his preaching (cf. Matthew 4:17; Mark 1:15) and baptized (cf. Jn 3:22, 26; 4:1–2). Judaism also had repentance at the core of its message and emphasized baptism (at least for proselytes). But while there is much that appears traditional in Peter’s exhortation, there is also much that is new and distinctive—particularly in three ways.

In the first place, Peter calls on “every one” of his audience to repent and be baptized. Jews thought corporately and generally viewed the rite of baptism as appropriate only for proselytes (though some sects within Judaism baptized Jews). But like John the Baptist and probably Jesus, Peter calls for an individual response on the part of his hearers. So he set aside family and corporate relationships as having any final saving significance and stressed the response of the individual person—not, however, denying the necessity and value of corporate relationships, but placing them in a “new covenant” perspective.

Second, Peter identifies the repentance and baptism he is speaking of as being specifically Christian in that it is done “in the name of Jesus Christ.” What that means, it seems, is that a person in repenting and being baptized calls upon the name of Jesus (cf. 22:16) and thereby avows his or her intention to be committed to and identified with Jesus.

A third feature in Peter’s preaching at this point is the relation of the gift of the Holy Spirit to repentance and baptism. “The gift of the Holy Spirit” is another way of describing what the disciples had experienced in “the coming of the Holy Spirit,” which Jesus called “the baptism of the Holy Spirit” (cf. 1:4–5, 8). We must distinguish between “the gift” (GK 1562) of the Holy Spirit and what Paul called “the gifts” (GK 5922; 1 Corinthians 12:1; 1 Corinthians 14:1) of that selfsame Spirit. “The gift” is the Spirit himself given to minister the saving benefits of Christ’s redemption to the believer, while “the gifts” are those spiritual abilities the Spirit gives variously to believers “for the common good” and sovereignly, “just as he determines” (1 Corinthians 12:7, 11).

Peter’s promise of the “gift of the Holy Spirit” is a logical outcome of repentance and baptism. This primary gift includes a variety of spiritual gifts for the advancement of the Gospel and the welfare of God’s people. But first of all, it has to do with what God’s Spirit does for every Christian in applying and working out the benefits of Christ’s redemptive work.

In trying to deal with the various elements in this passage, some interpreters have stressed the command to be baptized so as to link the forgiveness of sins exclusively with baptism. But it runs contrary to all biblical religion to assume that outward rites have any value apart from true repentance and an inward change. The Jewish mind, indeed, could not divorce inward spirituality from its outward expression. Wherever the Gospel was proclaimed in a Jewish milieu, the rite of baptism was taken for granted as being inevitably involved (cf. 2:41; 8:12, 36–38; 9:18; 10:47–48; 18:8; 19:5; 1 Peter 3:18–21). But Peter’s sermon in Solomon’s Colonnade (cf. 3:12–26) stresses only repentance and turning to God “so that your sins may be wiped out” (v.19) and makes no mention of baptism. This shows that for Luke at least, and probably also for Peter, while baptism with water was the expected symbol for conversion, it was not an indispensable criterion for salvation.

A few commentators have set Peter’s words in v.38 in opposition to those of John the Baptist in Mk 1:8 and those of Jesus in Ac 1:5, where the baptism of the Holy Spirit is distinguished from John’s baptism and appears to supersede it. But neither the Baptist’s prophecy nor Jesus’ promise necessarily implies that the baptism of the Spirit would set aside water baptism. Certainly the early church did not take it that way. They continued to practice water baptism as the external symbol by which those who believed the Gospel, repented of their sins, and acknowledged Jesus as their Lord publicly bore witness to their new life, which had been received through the baptism of the Holy Spirit. In line, then, with the Baptist’s prophecy and Jesus’ promise, baptism with the Holy Spirit is distinguished from baptism with water. But baptism with the Holy Spirit did not replace baptism with water; rather, the latter was given a richer significance because of the saving work of Christ and the coming of the Spirit.

Again, some have observed that there is no mention in this passage, either in the report of Peter’s preaching (vv.38–40) or in the summary of the people’s response (v.41), of any speaking in tongues, as at Pentecost, or of laying on of hands, as in Samaria (8:17). From this various implications have been drawn. In a Jewish context, however, it would not have been surprising if both occurred; in fact, one is probably justified in being surprised had they not occurred. Nevertheless, that they are not mentioned implies (as with the omission of baptism in 3:19) that speaking in tongues and laying on of hands were not considered prerequisites for receiving the Spirit.

A more difficult problem arises when we try to correlate Peter’s words here with the accounts of the Spirit’s baptism in 8:15–17 (at Samaria), 10:44–46 (in the house of Cornelius), and 19:6 (at Ephesus). In v.38 the baptism of the Spirit is the logical outcome of repentance and water baptism; but in 8:15–17; 10:44– 46; and 19:6 it appears to be temporally separated from conversion and water baptism—either following them (as at Samaria and Ephesus) or preceding them (as with Cornelius). Catholic sacramentalists take this as a biblical basis for separating baptism and confirmation; and Charismatics of various kinds see it as justification for a doctrine of the baptism of the Spirit as a second work of grace after conversion. But lest too much be made of this difference theologically, we ought first to attempt to understand the historical situation of vv.37–41 and to explain matters more circumstantially. Assuming for the moment that Luke shared Paul’s view of the indissoluble connection between conversion, water baptism, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit (cf. Romans 8:9; 1 Corinthians 6:11), the following question may be asked: What if the Pentecost experience, particularly in regard to the sequence and temporal relations of conversion, water baptism, and Holy Spirit baptism, had been fully present in each of these latter three instances?

Take the Samaritans (8:4–8, 14–17), for example, who were converted through the instrumentality of Philip, one of the Hellenists expelled from Jerusalem at the time of Stephen’s martyrdom. Samaritans had always been considered second-class citizens of Palestine by the Jerusalem Jews who kept them at arm’s length. What if it had been the apostles residing at Jerusalem who had been the missioners to Samaria? Probably they would have been rebuffed, just as they were earlier when the Samaritans associated them with the city of Jerusalem (cf. Lk 9:51-56). But God providentially used Philip to bring them the Gospel—Philip, who had also (though for different reasons) been rebuffed at Jerusalem. The Samaritans received him and believed his message. But what if the Spirit had come upon them at their baptism by Philip? Undoubtedly what feelings some of the Christians at Jerusalem had against Philip and the Hellenists would have rubbed off on the Samaritan believers and they would have been doubly under suspicion.

But God providentially withheld the gift of the Holy Spirit till Peter and John laid their hands on the Samaritans—Peter and John, two leading Jerusalem apostles who at that time would have been accepted by the new converts of Samaria. So in this first advance of the Gospel outside Jerusalem, God worked in ways conducive both to the reception of the Good News in Samaria and to the acceptance of these new converts at Jerusalem— ways that promoted both the outreach of the Gospel and the unity of the church.

Or take the conversion of Cornelius (10:34–48). What if, in Peter’s ministry to this Gentile, the order of events Peter had set down after his sermon at Pentecost had occurred (2:38–39), namely, repentance, baptism, forgiveness of sins, reception of the gift of the Holy Spirit? Some at Jerusalem might have accused Peter of manipulating the occasion for his own ends (as his lengthy defense before the Jerusalem congregation in 11:1–18 takes pains to deny). But God in his providence gave the gift of his Spirit, coupled with such signs as would convince both Peter and his possible critics at Jerusalem, even before Cornelius’s baptism, so that all would attribute his conversion entirely to God rather than let their prejudices make Cornelius a second-class Christian. (Regarding 19:1–4, see comments on that passage.)