Apollos and Baptism

There are many mysterious characters mentioned in the Bible we would like to know more about than we do with Apollos, the eloquent evangelist, ranking near the top among such New Testament characters. However, the fact that we know but little about him could be said equally of most of the apostles. What makes Apollos mysterious is what we do know about him.

Here is what we know, Acts 18:24-28 (NAS), "Now a certain Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by birth, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the Scriptures. This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus, being acquainted only with the baptism of John; and he began to speak out boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. And when he wanted to go across to Achaia, the brethren encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him; and when he had arrived, he helped greatly those who had believed through grace; for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, demonstrating by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ."

The first mystery is how could this man have been instructed in the way of the Lord and yet not known about the baptism authored by Jesus, knowing only John's baptism? It is obvious that baptism was the subject he needed to be enlightened on and that it was a part of "the way of God" explained to him.

It is relatively certain Apollos was not in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost when Peter preached, among other things, the baptism not of John but that given by Christ in the Great Commission of Matt. 28:18-19 (see also Acts 2:38). Of this baptism the text tells us he was ignorant for he knew only the baptism of John.

We can also conclude Apollos did not spend time in Jerusalem afterwards for the apostles that remained there, and the church leaders, knew clearly the differences in the two baptisms and he, in close association with them, would have soon learned the difference himself. It is thus highly probable that Apollos had never been in Jerusalem after Jesus' death, if ever.

It can also be safely assumed that he was not possessed of any miraculous spiritual gift that would have conferred this knowledge on him or else he would have known and not needed further instruction from Priscilla and Aquila.

So, one of the big mysteries concerning Apollos is how he failed to come to this knowledge long before meeting up with Priscilla and Aquila. Why did not his earlier instructors in the way of the Lord convey this truth to him? We will never know, for the Bible does not tell us.

Was it important that Apollos know this truth? Many today would say no, not at all, for baptism has nothing to do with salvation, denying what Peter taught in Acts 2:38. Yet, Priscilla and Aquila felt it was a matter so important that they drew Apollos aside to teach him this fundamental doctrine. Being well acquainted with Paul, who had lived with them for a time and with whom they had traveled, they knew the truth and why it was essential that Apollos know it as well. If you are going to be a teacher, you must teach the truth. The salvation of the men and women Apollos would be teaching was at stake. It was a part of "the way of God." (Acts 18:26)

Was Apollos lost because he had not been baptized with the baptism Jesus taught in the Great Commission and through Peter on the day of Pentecost? No, nor was he baptized after learning the truth from Priscilla and Aquila. He had already been baptized with John's baptism, which itself was "for the remission of sins." (Mark 1:4 NKJV) When one's sins are remitted, they are remitted.

Read Heb. 10:2 from several translations. The passage has reference to sin offerings under the Law of Moses, but it also has direct application to the remission of sins under the baptism of John. The writer says, quoting from the original ASV of 1901, "Else would they not have ceased to be offered? because the worshippers, having been once cleansed, would have had no more consciousness of sins." When your sins have been forgiven, they have been forgiven. There is no need for a second baptism, and so Apollos, having been baptized once with John's baptism, did not need to be baptized again.

When the church first began, it already had charter members, those who had believed the preaching of John and of Jesus concerning Jesus and the need for repentance and cleansing of their sins. When they were baptized by John or one of his disciples, they were cleansed, for Jesus himself said that John's baptism was from heaven. Listen to the scriptures.

Jesus speaking, Matt. 21:25 (NAS), "'The baptism of John was from what source, from heaven or from men?' And they began reasoning among themselves, saying, 'If we say, 'From heaven,' He will say to us, 'Then why did you not believe him?'" And then Luke says, (Luke 7:30 NAS), "But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God's purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John."

We also have to remember that Jesus preached and baptized during his lifetime. We can be assured that if John's baptism was for the remission of sins, so was that of Jesus. Do we believe that one who obeyed Jesus while he lived on earth and was baptized by him, whether directly or through his disciples, would need to be baptized again after the day of Pentecost? When your sins have been remitted, they are remitted. Yes, remission at that point in time looked forward to the shedding of Jesus' blood on the cross, which was yet to come, but they were assured of the remission of their sins, having believed and obeyed what they had been taught, including baptism for the forgiveness of those sins.

Neither were the apostles baptized again after receiving John's baptism, nor was there a need for them to do so. Jesus said they were "clean." (John 13:10-11, John 15:3) He says in his prayer to the Father "they have kept thy word" (John 17:6 NAS), "I have been glorified in them" (John 17:10 NAS), "they are not of the world" (John 17:16 NAS), and finally, "not one of them perished but the son of perdition, that the scripture might be fulfilled." (John 17:12 NAS)

Had they been baptized? Look at John 1:35 and compare it with John 1:40. When you do, you will see that Andrew was a disciple of John before becoming acquainted with Christ. His brother, of course, was Peter. James and John were business partners with Peter and Andrew (see Luke 5:10). It is safe to assume that if Andrew was a disciple of John's so were the others. Philip, chosen by Jesus personally, was from the same city as Andrew and Peter (John 1:44). Nathanael was said by Jesus to be "an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!" (John 1:47 NAS)

It is safe to assume that the men Jesus chose were godly men and men who did not shun John's preaching. If they had heard John preach, we know they were not of that camp that Luke says "rejected God's purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John." (Luke 7:30 NAS). Matthew was a tax collector, but even so, if you read Luke 7:29, you will see that tax collectors were baptized by John. If any of the 12 had not been baptized already, having lacked the knowledge and opportunity, we can be certain the preaching of Jesus soon taught them the truth and they were shortly thereafter baptized.

In the very next set of verses after reading about Apollos, beginning in Acts 19:1, we come to an account of twelve men whom Paul finds at Ephesus after Apollos had departed from there and gone to Corinth. These verses have caused much confusion because of what one has just read in the chapter before about Apollos, and has been part of the mystery surrounding the man. Luke says, in Acts 19:1, that Paul found there "some disciples," referring to this group of twelve men.

Because these men know nothing of the Holy Spirit, Paul begins to question them concerning their baptism. Something has to be wrong if they have been baptized and yet know nothing about the Holy Spirit, even of his existence. Now, why would that necessarily follow? Because the baptism authored by Jesus, the baptism of the Great Commission of Matt. 28:19 is "in (the literal translation is "into"--DS) the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." Furthermore, there is the promise of the gift of the Holy Spirit to those thus baptized (Acts 2:38), which they should have known about.

Now, here is the surprise to those who have just read about Apollos in the prior chapter. Paul takes these twelve men and baptizes them "in (the literal translation is "into"--DS) the name of the Lord Jesus." (Acts 19:5 NAS) Why was it necessary for them to be baptized with the baptism of Jesus, the baptism of the Great Commission, but not Apollos?

Some might say that maybe Apollos was baptized too, but the text does not say so. That might be a possibility but for one thing. The apostles baptized by John were not baptized a second time either. Why not?

The answer has to be timing. There was a time, starting with John the Baptist's initial preaching up until the time of either his imprisonment, death, or the day of Pentecost, when John's baptism was valid and had God's full support behind it. This was a short period of time of maybe a year or two, approximately, when if one was obedient to John's preaching and was baptized, he was saved, having received the remission of sins. Apollos would have been baptized during that time. John’s baptism was for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3).

The twelve men at Ephesus would have been baptized with John's baptism after the day of Pentecost, when the baptism authorized by Jesus, the baptism of the Great Commission (into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit for the remission of sins) became effective. At that time and thereafter, anyone being baptized with John's baptism had a baptism that no longer had any validity it having been completely replaced by the baptism of the Great Commission. John’s baptism looked forward to Christ's death, while that of Jesus looked back.

In closing, I want to leave the reader with some critical thoughts regarding salvation. Luke says these men whom Paul found were disciples (Acts 19:1), and yet were not baptized. Were they saved already anyway? What is a disciple? A disciple is, according to Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, "a learner." Vine further says, "it denotes one who follows one's teaching." It does not necessarily denote one who is saved as is commonly thought (although it often does).

Please note from Jesus' own words about who is to be baptized. "And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, 'All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in (the literal translation is "into"-- DS) the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.'" (Mat 28:18-20 NAS)

Disciples are to be baptized. One must be a person who is learning of Christ and who is willing to follow his teaching to be scripturally baptized. No one who is not a disciple will be baptized, for they have no knowledge and/or desire to do so. One must necessarily be a disciple before one can be saved. How can you be saved without first learning about Jesus and being willing to follow him?

And, the final point. If people were commonly saved in those days by faith alone apart from baptism why did Paul bother to take these twelve men at Ephesus and baptize them?

Here is the clincher-- why did Paul just assume they had been baptized? Remember, he says in Acts 19:3, "Into what then were you baptized?" (NAS) Why assume they had been baptized into anything or anyone if it was not necessary in making Christians, if it was not necessary in obedience to the gospel, if it was not a part of the gospel?

In Acts 19:2, Paul talks of that time "when you believed." Then, in verse 3, immediately following, he says, "into what then were you baptized?" He ties belief and baptism together. If you believed you were baptized is what he is saying. All of the conversion accounts in the book of Acts teach the same thing. The question all men and women must ask themselves is what am I personally going to do about it in my own life. Paul tied belief and baptism together. Do you?

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

The Kingdom of God and the New Birth

Why write an article on the topic of the kingdom of God and the new birth? Because Jesus tied them together in talking to Nicodemus in John 3:3, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (NKJV) Unfortunately, many misunderstand the kingdom of God spoken of in the passage and, as a result, come to erroneous suppositions, suppositions that lead astray. Perhaps the prominent of these is the idea that one can be saved like the thief on the cross. This is a topic that needs to be discussed.

Chronology is essential to a proper understanding of what Jesus is teaching. Jesus is king over his kingdom, but when did Jesus become a king with a kingdom over which to rule? When Jesus was talking to Nicodemus in John 3, was he speaking of what already existed, speaking in the present tense, or was he speaking prophetically?

He was speaking prophetically. Much of the teaching Jesus did while on earth related to the coming kingdom over which he would be king. It was yet in the future, but it had been prophesied from days of old. Daniel spoke of it when he said, in interpreting Nebuchadnezzar's dream, "the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed … and it shall stand forever." (Dan 2:44)

Israel and Judah of the Old Testament were ruled by kings, but both nations ended up in captivity, and the kingdoms were destroyed. The Jewish nation into which Jesus was born, into which he came, had no king. They were ruled by the Romans.

We need to trace the history of the kingdom that was established by Jesus. When the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary to announce the events about to overtake her here is what he said, "And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name JESUS. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end." (Luke 1:31-33 NKJV)

When John the Baptist comes on the scene and begins his ministry, his message is that "the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Matt. 3:2 NKJV) It was at hand, meaning not here yet but getting close. This was the kingdom of God that both Daniel and the angel Gabriel said was to stand forever.

One chapter later, we see Jesus preaching the exact same message, "From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, 'Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.'" (Matt. 4:17 NKJV)

How close was that kingdom? Jesus said in his preaching to an audience in Mark 9:1, "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power." (NAS)

Two points need to be emphasized here regarding this passage. (1) The kingdom still had not yet arrived, but it would be doing so within the lifetime of some of those standing there. (2) When it came, it would arrive "with power." Put another way, you would know it when it happened for there would be power with its coming.

When Jesus spoke those words recorded in Mark 9:1 the kingdom did not yet exist, and if Jesus is to be the king of it, he does not yet have a kingdom. But, one might object, the New Testament speaks of Jesus as being a king before this kingdom of which you speak has arrived. True. But can a person be a king before he sits on the throne and begins to rule? We would, I think, all agree that he could. If it is certain he is to be king, we can call him king, but we do that in anticipation of what we know is coming.

What do we know up to this point in time that can help us determine when the kingdom is to arrive? We know it is a matter of just a very few years and we know that when it comes there is power that will come with it, making it recognizable as having arrived.

The New Testament gives us all the information we need to determine the exact day the kingdom of God became a reality among men. Since it came with power, if we know when the power came, we know when the kingdom arrived. Can we know? Yes.

In Luke 24:49, Jesus told the apostles, "Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high." (NKJV) This was just before his ascension back to heaven.

Luke explains this a little more when he says, "He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, 'which,' He said, 'you have heard from Me; for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.'" (Acts 1:4-5 NKJV)

Now look the two passages over carefully and compare them. The promise of the Father was the baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:4-5), but Luke (Luke 24:49) says the promise is with power. The power comes with the arrival of the Holy Spirit. Remember what Jesus said in Mark 9:1? The kingdom of God was to come with power. When the Holy Spirit fell on the apostles in Acts 2 on the Day of Pentecost, the kingdom of God arrived with power.

Let us take a look at what happened at that time. "When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." (Acts 2:1-4 NKJV)

Note the reaction of the crowd that had gathered. "Then they were all amazed and marveled." (Acts 2:7 NKJV) Now let us go back to Luke's quotation of Jesus in Acts 1:8. Speaking to the apostles, Jesus had said, "You shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you." (NKJV) The kingdom had arrived with power. All recognized power had come down from heaven, from God himself.

What had they seen and heard that day? They had heard the sound that came from heaven "as of a rushing mighty wind" (Acts 2:2 NKJV), which is why they had come to gather together. Whether they had seen the "tongues, as of fire" (Acts 2:3 NKJV) that sat upon the apostles, one cannot say with certainty, but they most assuredly had heard the sound and then witnessed and heard the apostles speaking in tongues that they (the apostles) had never learned. There was little doubt in their mind that a higher power than that which was merely human had arrived.

Was Jesus now on his throne? Did he now have a kingdom over which to rule? He did if the kingdom had arrived with power, which it had. Hear Peter in his sermon that day. He says David knew that God "would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne." (Acts 2:30 NKJV) Remember also the words of the angel Gabriel to Mary when he said of Jesus, "The Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David." (Luke 1:32 NKJV)

Peter then says Jesus has been exalted to the right hand of God, "Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear." (Acts 2:33 NKJV) The reader is reminded of passages just studied here. The kingdom would come with power (Mark 9:1), the promise was of power from on high (Luke 24:49), but that power promised was the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:4-5). The kingdom came with the baptism of the apostles with the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost.

But let us look closer at Peter's statement about Jesus sitting on David's throne. Acts 2:29-31 (read paying special attention), "Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption." (Act 2:29-31 NKJV) The point one needs to get out of this is that for Christ to sit on the throne and thus be king over this kingdom, he first had to be resurrected.

The kingdom over which Jesus now reigns and rules did not exist while Jesus lived on earth. Daniel had a vision of Jesus being crowned as a sitting, ruling king. "I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, Which shall not pass away, And His kingdom the one Which shall not be destroyed." (Dan 7:13-14 NKJV) Jesus received the kingdom upon his arrival in heaven for that is what the text says--"then to Him was given … a kingdom."

The kingdom over which he now rules is "not of this world" (John 18:36 NKJV) but rather a spiritual kingdom which will never be destroyed. Yes, Jesus is now king in his kingdom. Every Christian is a subject of the king of kings--Jesus, the Lord and Savior.

Why has all of this been important beyond just being a history lesson? Why bother writing this? What does this business about the kingdom have to do with salvation and the new birth?

Here is the application. When Jesus spoke with Nicodemus in John 3:3-5, he spoke of a kingdom that was yet to come. Hear the things he said in that passage. "Jesus answered and said to him, 'Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.' Nicodemus said to Him, 'How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?' Jesus answered, 'Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.'" (NKJV) Could Nicodemus become a citizen that day (actually that night) of a kingdom that did not yet exist? Jesus spoke to Nicodemus of that which was yet to come.

What does it mean then to be born of water and the Spirit, which Jesus says is essential to entering the kingdom of God (meaning you cannot be saved without it)? There is no problem in coming to an accurate understanding. Jesus said to Peter in Matt. 16:19, "And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (Matt. 16:19 NKJV)

The kingdom began on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 with Peter preaching. Did he use the keys of the kingdom that day to open the door to the kingdom of God to mankind? Did anyone that day learn how to enter the kingdom? Was anyone that day born of water and the Spirit? Were any saved that day?

What did men do that day when they became convinced Peter had preached the truth (thus faith was developed within them)? What did he, the man with the keys, tell them to do? Did he not say to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins?" (Acts 2:38 NKJV) The Bible says, "Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them." (Acts 2:41 NKJV) They were thus born of water and the Spirit of John 3:5.

It is thus not too hard to learn what a man must do to be born again--listen to the man with the keys—listen to Peter. One is born of the Spirit when the Spirit working through the tool he uses (the word of God--"the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God" Eph. 6:17 - NKJV) leads a man to faith and repentance, and then born of water when he is baptized for the remission of sins. It is but one birth, but has two aspects to it; either part without the other results in an aborted birth.

The man with the keys of the kingdom is belittled by most who call themselves Christians. Ask most denominational preachers to get into the pulpit this coming Sunday and preach just what Peter preached on the day of Pentecost with no additions and no subtractions and you could not get them to do it. They do not preach it because they do not believe there is a single ounce of water in a man's salvation, despite John 3:5, the very words of Jesus. This means they cannot preach what Peter did or what Jesus taught Nicodemus.

We ought to go with the man with the keys rather than with those who wish they had the keys. Yes, Jesus could have saved us without any water in the means to do so, but he chose not to. Have you ever thought that baptism might well be a test of your faith? What are you going to do if you are going to be saved by faith but fail the test, fail to believe?

Water does not save a man, but obeying Jesus does. Naaman, the leper (2 Kings 5), was not cleansed by the water of the Jordan River from his leprosy, but until he had faith enough to go do as he was directed and dip seven times he was not cleansed and never would have been. Could God have cleansed him from the leprosy some other way? Sure, had he chosen to do so. The power was not inherent in the water but in believing God enough to do what God said to do. And just so it is with baptism today. When God said to do it, that leaves one who wants to be saved without a choice.

Certainly, there were people saved who had their sins remitted, without baptism, while Jesus personally walked the earth, but that was also before the kingdom of God was established. Remember mentioning the importance of chronology? And, yes, God can save a person anyway he desires—he is God. However, he has told us in John 3 how we are saved in the age in which we live. Do we believe him? Are we going to teach others living today that water doesn’t matter despite what Jesus taught us in John 3:3-5? Not me. Faith means believing what Jesus taught.

One final comment. Jesus was really the one who did the preaching on the day of Pentecost. Hear Jesus speaking in John 16:13-14, "However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you." (John 16:13-14 NKJV) The Spirit did not speak on his own authority on the Day of Pentecost, speaking through Peter, but took what was Jesus' and declared it to them. One cannot reject Peter's sermon that day without rejecting Jesus. 

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

Was Cornelius Saved Before Baptism

I have written a series of articles on the subject of obeying the gospel in the first century based on the history given in the book of Acts. This is another dealing with the same subject. Why do so? Because there is absolutely no possibility that Holy Spirit inspired men, some apostles, could have gotten the gospel message wrong.

The case of Cornelius is somewhat unique in the respect that he appears to have been a very godly man even prior to his conversion. In Acts 10:2, the Bible says of him that he was "a devout man, and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people, and prayed to God continually." (NAS) Of course, there were others like him in that regard – Saul of Tarsus and the Ethiopian eunuch come to mind. A man may be devout and yet ill-informed, in religious error.

As for Cornelius, if there was ever a man so good as to be saved on his own merits we suppose Cornelius would have been that man. And yet God's angel instructs him to send for Peter. Why? Might it not be that even a good man like Cornelius needed the gospel? If a man can be saved without the gospel why bother to preach it to him, why did Jesus die on the cross, why the great commission? You can read 2 Thess. 1:8-9 to see what will happen to those who do not obey the gospel. It is a serious matter to not obey the gospel. Cornelius needed the gospel. He was a man in need of salvation from his sins for no man is so perfect as to have never sinned.

Peter, in reporting what had happened at Cornelius' house, once he arrives back in Jerusalem, throws more light on why Cornelius, by the angel's direction, had been instructed to send for him. The angel had told Cornelius that "he (a reference to Peter - DS) shall speak words to you by which you will be saved." (Acts 11:14 NAS) So, there were words Cornelius needed to hear to be saved? What were those words?  

Were they not the same words Peter had preached on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2? Were they not the same words spoken by Philip in Samaria and before the Ethiopian eunuch? Were they not the same words spoken to Saul by Ananias? Is there more than one gospel that will save? Is it this gospel in one place, another gospel in another location? The gospel is the gospel. It does not differ day by day, from city to city, or from person to person.

It has already been shown in previous articles, as taken in chronological order, that in every instance the preaching by the apostles and inspired men of the first century immediately led to baptism by those who accepted the preaching. Baptism was a part of the message. Is it any different this time with Cornelius? No!

Hear Peter, "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized" (Acts 10:47 NAS) then "he ordered them to be baptized." (Acts 10:48 NAS) What is another word for "ordered?" If you check other translations you will see the word "commanded" rather than "ordered." But why command baptism?

The answer is because you cannot obey the gospel and thus cannot be saved, not in the first century and not now, without being baptized "for the remission of sins." (Acts 2:38 NAS) What Peter preached in one locality he preached everywhere. Was Peter an apostle? Did he know what he was talking about? How about Philip? How about Ananias? Remember that Cornelius was to be saved by the words Peter would speak to him (Acts 11:14) and that word ended with the command to be baptized.

Cornelius and his companions had the Holy Spirit descend upon them prior to their baptism leading many to think they were saved at that point. Not so. Why not? 

Because Cornelius was to be saved by the message he received from Peter (Acts 11:14) and not by a miraculous manifestation from heaven. Peter had not gotten a good start on delivering that message when the Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius for he says in Acts 11:15 "as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them." (NAS) It was necessary for Peter to complete that message which included baptism.

But let us look at it from another point of view. What if Cornelius had told Peter, "No thanks, I have been saved by faith and grace. I believe in Jesus. I think I will just pass on baptism." Would he have been saved? Many preach today that he would have been for the gospel they preach has no water in it unlike Peter's gospel. 

He would not have been saved by grace and faith for the simple reason that he would have lacked faith in the message Peter preached. He would not have believed the Holy Spirit by which Peter spoke for Peter by the Holy Spirit commanded baptism. It would have been as if he said, “I know you were to speak words by which I might be saved but I do not believe this word.”

I would also remind the reader of what he already knows if he will think about it. The fact the Holy Spirit is upon one does not mean he is God-approved as he is in his present state. If so Caiaphas, the high priest and one of the ringleaders in bringing about the crucifixion of Jesus, was a saved man. Read about his prophesying in John 11:49-51. Add to that the fact that even inspired men could and did sin, even Peter. (Gal. 2:11-12)  

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

 

Why Men Today Cannot Be Saved Like The Thief On The Cross

I once had an individual ask the question that if baptism is essential for the forgiveness of sins, Acts 2:38, then why did Jesus not tell the rich young ruler who came to him inquiring, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” (Luke 18:18 NKJV) My inquirer asked the wrong question. Why? Because when Jesus was talking to the rich young ruler he was not talking to you and me. He was speaking directly to a specific individual at a specific time in history.

The only lessons in the account of the rich young ruler that could be made applicable to us today are (1) a man may be very religious but lost and (2) the danger of having a hidden idol in one's heart and putting that ahead of God.

Your salvation and mine do not depend on what Jesus did or did not tell a man living under the Law of Moses sometime before Jesus’ death on the cross. Our salvation depends on what Jesus says directly to you and me today under his law, the law of Christ, which began to be preached among men beginning on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2. We live under God’s new covenant, not his old.

Jesus, in speaking to his disciples after the resurrection, said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high." (Luke 24:46-49 ESV)

Luke tells us they were ordered to not depart from Jerusalem, "He ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, 'you heard from me; for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.'" (Act 1:4-5 ESV)

In Acts 2 we see the arrival of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:1-4) clothing the apostles with power from on high. Peter's sermon that day and in that chapter fulfilled Jesus' earlier proclamation found in Luke 24 "that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem." (Luke 24:46-47 ESV)

This gives us a beginning point of both the time and place of the gospel message God has for us today. Those desiring to be saved the way the thief on the cross was saved (by faith without baptism) go back too far, past Jerusalem, past the beginning, back to the Law of Moses, and in doing so end up with another gospel if their goal is to be saved that way today. The only way to have the Jerusalem gospel is to preach what Peter did that day beginning in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost. Since hardly anyone is willing to do that today their gospel is another gospel.

A person who seeks to be saved in a way some individual may have been saved while Christ lived and walked upon the earth is rejecting the Jerusalem gospel--"repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem." That individual's gospel does not originate in Jerusalem and is thus not the gospel of Christ.

A big part of the problem that causes people to misunderstand God's plan of salvation for man is a failure to discern what we call the dispensations. There are 3 as follows: (1) the Patriarchal, (2) the Mosaical, and (3) the Christian. I will deal with the last two as they are relevant to this discussion.

Jesus lived and died under the Mosaical law. Jesus was in the fullness of time "born of a woman, born under the Law." (Gal. 4:4 NAS) When we say Jesus lived a sinless life what law did he keep perfectly? The Law of Moses. In what was the second to last utterance Jesus made on the cross he said, "It is finished!" (John 19:30 NAS) What was finished? What was finished was the fulfillment of the law and the Prophets (which included, of course, his sacrifice on the cross as prophesied, his mission on earth to make himself a sacrifice for the sins of man).

Hear Jesus in Matt. 5:17-18, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished." (ESV) When Jesus drew his last breath on the cross the Law and the Prophets were fulfilled, either that or Jesus failed in his mission “to fulfill them.”

The law of Christ became binding on men as the old law was fulfilled and passed away. The old Law of Moses was nailed to the cross. (Col. 2:14) The Christian dispensation of time when men came to live under the law of Christ began when Jesus died. "For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives." (Heb 9:16-17 NKJV)

Jesus "has become a surety of a better covenant." (Heb. 7:22 NKJV) "In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one (the Law of Moses--DS) obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." (Heb 8:13 NKJV) "For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law." (Heb 7:12 NKJV)

Many take the thief on the cross as an example for all men regarding salvation (Luke 23:39-43) and say look at him. All he needed was faith. Was Jesus talking to you (or me) or was he talking to the thief on the cross beside him that day approximately 2,000 years ago? Did the thief live under the Christian dispensation or the Mosaical? Had the gospel that was to be preached beginning at Jerusalem yet been preached? Will you disregard the Jerusalem gospel? You will have to if you attempt to be saved as the thief on the cross was.

If Jesus forgave sins in the gospel accounts before his death in a way different from that which sins are forgiven today what has that to do with me? I live under the New Covenant.  So do you.

Speaking to the apostles Jesus said, "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you." (John 14:26 NAS) Did Jesus lie? Did the Holy Spirit fail to do this with Peter on the day of Pentecost? If you ever wanted to know when Jesus taught baptism for the remission of sins then Acts 2:38 is one of your answers. Peter spoke by the Holy Spirit but the Spirit spoke the words of Jesus.

Speaking to the apostles before his death Jesus said, "I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He shall glorify Me; for He shall take of Mine, and shall disclose it to you." (John 16:12-14 NAS)

Today we have the completed revelation that Jesus has made to man. The law Jesus has for you and me has now been fully revealed to us. For us today to go back and say it was not always done this way is foolishness. What is that supposed to prove even if it is true which, by the way, I do not deny? What if the thief on the cross did not have to do what you or I do for salvation? What does that have to do with either you or me?

If we expect to be saved like the thief on the cross that is about the equivalent of giving Jesus a slap across the face. It is saying I don't care about your new covenant. You save me like you saved him. Instead of you obeying Jesus you would have him taking orders from you and obeying you. It does not work that way.

We are bound to live under and obey whatever law is in effect while we live, not when someone else lived. Our job is not to question God but to do as he has told us. No matter what someone else has done or not done in years gone by for salvation you have the gospel of Christ now, the new covenant, the law of Christ. You are bound to it, to believe and obey it, as am I.

I add a footnote here in closing for clarification. The thief on the cross was not saved because he lived under the Law of Moses or kept it in any fashion. He was saved because the Lord extended him grace. In our day the Lord’s grace is extended to us in the gospel. To reject the gospel is to reject God’s grace.  

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

 

Preaching Jesus Means Preaching Baptism

The text for this article is taken from Acts 8:26-39, the account of the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch.  He seems to have been a proselyte to the Jewish religion for he had been to Jerusalem to worship when Philip, at the behest of the Holy Spirit, met him on his trip back to his homeland on the road to Gaza and proclaimed Jesus to him.

"And Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture (Isa. 53:7-8– DS) he preached Jesus to him.  And as they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, ‘Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?’" (Acts 8:35-36 NAS)

This shows us that when Jesus was preached baptism was preached as a part of preaching Jesus to an alien sinner.  When the preaching was received (Acts 2:41) or believed (Acts 8:12) it resulted in people being baptized.  The case of the Ethiopian eunuch was no exception.

Why would the eunuch request baptism if Philip had not taught him it?  Furthermore, why would he request it unless he felt some urgency about it, unless he felt there was a need?

Philip taught the eunuch baptism because as Peter said on the Day of Pentecost baptism is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38).  Without the remission of one’s sins a person cannot be saved.  

When Philip preached in the city of Samaria the Bible says he preached "the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 8:12 NAS) with the result being that men and women "were being baptized" (Acts 8:12 NAS).  Here in Acts 8:35-36, he has an audience of only one man and in a different location but we still see him preaching with the same result - baptism.  This time it is just said that "he preached Jesus to him." 

In the book of Acts up to this chapter we have had two Holy Spirit inspired men preaching - first Peter and now Philip.  In each case, baptism was a part of what was preached.  They preached it because the Holy Spirit by which they spoke required it.  Either that or they just spoke whatever they wanted.  Which do you believe?

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

Catholicism’s Denial of The Holy Spirit’s Teaching

If the teaching of the Holy Spirit in the pages of the New Testament is truth then whatever denies that truth is false, is false teaching and error.  The thesis of this article is that the Roman Catholic Church has rejected the Holy Spirit’s teaching that there was an all-sufficiency of doctrine given in the first century sufficient to save the souls of humanity across all time to come.

I am sure the Catholic Church would deny this but how can they?  Reason says that if everything needed to save mankind's souls was given in the first century there is no reason or need for additional doctrines in the centuries following.  Yet the Catholic Church has piled new doctrine upon new doctrine seemingly without end down through the ages until our own time, and on and on it goes.

The Catholic Church has no set doctrine.  The best that can be said is that it is set for a time. But, time flies by and new doctrine is added.  What once was is history, is past, and the new replaces the old.  The old Catholic Church is revised with each newly added teaching and thus becomes the newest edition of the church.  In doing so it differs from the old and is therefore not the old.

One can go online and do a search and readily find when various doctrines came to be added to the Catholic Church.  Do not think for a moment that the Catholic Church of the 21st century is the same as the one in earlier centuries; it has been and continues to be a transforming institution compounding doctrines.  God does not change (Malachi 3:6), the Catholic Church does.  This continual addition of new teachings flies in the face of the teaching of scripture.

 

Jude says as clearly as language can make it that “the faith...was once for all delivered to the saints.” (Jude 3 NKJV)  When?  Then!  Then in the first century.  Everything needed for salvation from the hand of God was delivered to mankind “then.”  The faith Jude speaks of is that body of doctrine given through Christ and his apostles and prophets in the first century, in Jude’s lifetime.  It was once for all delivered meaning it was complete then and there.  There was nothing to be added to it.  That means that the Catholic Church has nothing to offer to mankind today that is of value as far as salvation goes.  That was all provided for in the first century.  We also must remember Jude wrote by inspiration.  The book of Jude is the Holy Spirit’s writing.

But, Jude is not alone.  Peter says, “His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness.” (2 Peter 1:3 NKJV)  When?  Then!  If so what does Catholicism’s additional doctrines added down through the ages profit us?  Does “all things” mean all things?  Again, we have the Holy Spirit writing through human agency, through the inspired apostle Peter.  If “all” means all then we need no more than what was available in the first century and available to us in scripture.

James says in the first century the implanted word was able to save their souls (James 1:21), in that time.  Are we to believe it is not able to do so in our time?  What weakened it?  They had the implanted word available in James' time.  There was no need to wait for the development of Catholic doctrine.  James’ words were the Spirit’s words.

Paul speaking to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20 commended them “to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified.” (Acts 20:32 NKJV)  When?  Then!  They did not need additional doctrines for salvation handed down centuries later.

Writing by inspiration Paul says, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for … that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim. 3:16-17 NKJV)  He wrote that in the first century.  Paul said “scripture” made a man complete, not scripture plus church tradition.  Here again, you have the element of time.  You could become complete in the first century.  There was no need to wait for generations to come until you could get the full deposit of Catholic Church doctrine which is impossible anyway for there is no end to its additions.  

Paul told Timothy that “the Holy Scriptures...are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” (2 Tim. 3:15 NKJV)  Not so if a man must believe any of the added Catholic doctrines down through the ages.  Paul said by inspiration “the Holy Scriptures,” not scripture plus tradition.

Were the people on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 saved when they obeyed Peter’s preaching?  Not if you must believe any of the added Catholic doctrines for salvation. You can say the same thing about all the others who believed and obeyed the gospel recorded in the book of Acts.

How is it that under Catholicism a man or woman can be saved at one time and yet at a later time another individual must believe additional doctrine to achieve the same end? If that is the case then does not that make multiple gospels versus just one?  I use the term gospel in the sense of the body of faith one must believe for salvation.

The Bible teaches there is “one faith” (Eph. 4:5), one body of truth to be believed. Which one is it in Roman Catholicism?  Is it the truth of 800 A.D., 1300 A.D., 1900 A.D., or 2025 A.D.?  Or, set your own dates.  You will readily see things have changed and who can believe we have seen the end of it?

The Bible teaches that the gospel of Christ is the power of God to salvation (Rom. 1:16), that was taught in the first century, but that was before Catholic tradition kicked in during the later centuries.  Did not Paul, the writer of that Roman passage, foresee that later Catholic tradition when translated into doctrine was essential?

In the book of Acts much is written about “the word” of God being preached, heard, believed, and obeyed.  Here is a question for all who have an open mind.  Did that word include any of the Marian dogmas Catholics teach today?  Even one word?  Did it include teaching on Peter being the rock the church was being built upon?  Did it include teaching on the rosary, indulgences, transubstantiation, and the list could go on and on?  An honest person knows the answer.

One might argue the book of Acts only records examples of initial gospel obedience, evangelizing.  I respond, Paul spent 3 years in Ephesus, as an example, did he never preach Christian doctrine during that entire time?  Several of the books he wrote were written to places he had evangelized – Corinth, Ephesus, Galatia, Colossae, Philippi, and Thessalonica.  Did Paul preach Catholic doctrine in those locations?  Be honest with yourself.

Paul, by inspiration, wrote Second Thessalonians in which he wrote of a future “falling away” (2 Thess. 2:3), other translations use the words “rebellion” or “apostasy.”  The Roman Catholic Church claims to be the one true church.  If so when is it going to fall away or has it already?  If it has or if it will can it be said it is the true church?  One must think long and hard about that.  If I as an individual fall away from a marriage, a team, a business, or an institution of any kind I was involved in then I am no longer a part of it. If the church becomes apostate it is no longer the church. It becomes something entirely different which is exactly where the Roman Catholic Church is today.  Do not claim to be what you once were if you are no longer what you once were.

I believe the Roman Catholic Church grew out of the original church of the New Testament.  That one church in its apostasy evolved into the Catholic Church.  Paul taught that the original church would fall away (2 Thess. 2:3).  If it is not what it once was then it is not the church of the New Testament, not any longer, not in its fallen state.

The Roman Catholic Church of today is no longer similar to the church one reads about on the pages of scripture; it is not that church.  As a result of its innovations, it is as much separate from true Christianity as Islam, Buddhism, or any other non-related religion.  The Catholic Church readily admits scripture is not enough for them.  They have their tradition and it trumps scripture when push comes to shove.  What was good enough for people in the first century is not good enough for them.  They will have more and more but one must always remember that whether having more of a thing is good or bad depends on what that thing is.  More of self-will and less of God’s will is not good.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

  

Cornelius' Conversion and Holy Spirit Baptism

The idea is in vogue in some quarters that Cornelius was saved when the Holy Spirit fell upon him (Acts 10:44) without any further action on his part.  One of the verses used to support this idea is 1 John 4:13, "By this we know that we abide in Him, and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit." (NKJV)  So, it is said, that settles it. 

Go take a look at that verse and read it in context.  Verse 12 just before it reads, "If we love one another, God abides in us, and His love has been perfected in us." (NKJV)  Two verses down I read this, "Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God." (1 John 4:15 NKJV)  In a broader context, but still in the book of 1 John, it is said if we keep his word we abide in him and he in us. (1 John 2:5, 1 John 3:24)  Thus we have a series of items being listed by which we can measure whether or not we are in a faithful relationship with God.  John is writing to fellow Christians thus he uses the word “we.” 

In the passage, 1 John 4:13, John is not talking about initial obedience to God, gospel obedience.  It is speaking to those who are already Christians as are the other verses in context round about it. 

There can be no obedience to what is cast upon you, the Holy Spirit.  Cornelius and his household obeyed nothing when they miraculously received the Holy Spirit.  They were passive in that. 

Receiving the Holy Spirit is not equivalent to obeying the gospel.  If receiving the Holy Spirit is equivalent to obeying the gospel for salvation then there is nothing to obey.  Why say that?  Only Jesus could baptize one with the Holy Spirit.  The Holy Spirit is a gift, a gift from God.  The individual is passive in the matter.  The giving of the gift is up to God, not to the individual.  Had Cornelius obeyed the gospel?  No! 

Paul said, concerning the matter of salvation in Rom. 6:17-18, "But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you ­obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness." (NKJV)  There is then something to obey, not something to just passively receive.  The gospel must be obeyed. 

The Bible says when Jesus returns he will be “taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (2 Thess. 1:8 NKJV)  So, we see again the gospel is something to be obeyed. 

What is the nature of that obedience?  The answer is to be found in the command of Peter to Cornelius and those gathered with him, "And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." (Acts 10:48 NKJV)  

Let the reader note that obedience from the heart spoken of above (Rom. 6:17) necessarily implies faith or else how can it be from the heart, thus the obedience being spoken of is in addition to faith and it is something they must do for themselves--not God do for them or to them. 

I do not know of a case in the Bible where it is said or implied that the Holy Spirit was ever said to be given to a man for the purpose of saving him.  Do you?  Yes, a person has the Spirit if he is saved but is that the reason it was given to him--to save him?  That is what needs to be shown. 

There is an interesting passage in 1 Cor. 14:22 about the very thing Cornelius received.  It reads as follows:  "Therefore tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophesying is not for unbelievers but for those who believe." (1 Cor. 14:22 NKJV)  This has an application to the case of Cornelius.  Remember the evidence that Cornelius and those with him received the Holy Spirit was their speaking in tongues. 

Without convincing the Jews that God was willing and desirous of saving the Gentiles, as well as themselves, the gospel never would have been preached to the Gentiles.  The Jews were so biased against the Gentiles it was going to take something special and unusual to convince them that God had any interest in Gentiles.  Ten years had gone by since Jesus' ascension back into heaven and yet there had been no preaching to the Gentiles.  The Jews up to this point in time did not believe God had an interest in the salvation of Gentiles. 

It took a miracle to convince the Jewish Christians otherwise.  "And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also." (Acts 10:45 NKJV)  This was the event that convinced the Jews that it was not only okay but the will of God that the Gentiles also have access to eternal life through the gospel.  "When they (the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem--DS) heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, 'Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life.' " (Acts 11:18 NKJV)  Tongues served for a sign to the Jewish Christians with regards to the Gentile Cornelius and thus to all Gentiles concerning God's will for them. 

This whole episode at the house of Cornelius of being baptized in the Holy Spirit had nothing to do with gospel obedience or conversion.  Let us say the Holy Spirit had not fallen upon Cornelius that day.  Do you think Cornelius would have been disobedient to, and an unbeliever of, the things Peter was teaching him?  Do you think Peter would have left Cornelius as an unsaved man?  You know better.  With or without the baptism of the Holy Spirit Cornelius was going to obey the gospel that day and be saved.  Remember his conversion began with an appearance of an angel in a vision telling him to send for Peter and in doing so he would be told “words by which you and all your household will be saved.” (Acts 11:14 NKJV)  It was the message believed and obeyed that saved them, not the miracle that happened to them. 

One needs to be careful lest he take the exception to the rule and make it the general rule.  We do not do that in life and we should not do it in Bible study.  We do not say that the Lord appeared to Saul on the road to Damascus therefore unless the Lord appears to you personally you cannot be converted.  There was a reason Jesus appeared to Saul and that reason is not applicable to either you or me.  We understand this.  We need to understand the same principle as it relates to the conversion of Cornelius and his household.  It was a one-time event for a special purpose. 

It is the gospel that saves people “for it is the power of God to salvation.” (Rom. 1:16 NKJV)  It must be believed and obeyed. 

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

More on Peter’s Second Gospel Sermon – Acts 3

Some time ago, I wrote an article entitled, “Peter’s Second Gospel Sermon – Acts 3.”  I would refer the reader to that article first before reading this one.  It can be found on this site.  I thought I would do a follow-up on that one to cover the subject as thoroughly as possible.

The thrust of that prior article was that what Peter preached on the Day of Pentecost that a person must do to have his/her sins forgiven (Acts 2:38) is the same thing he preached in his second sermon (Acts 3:19).

Here are the two passages side by side.

Acts 2:38	Acts 3:19
Repent	Repent
Be Baptized	Be Converted (NKJV) Return (NAS)
For The Remission of Sins	Sins Blotted Out

One can easily see the parallels.  However, Peter in his second sermon in Acts 3 said, depending on your translation, “be converted” (NKJV), “return” (NAS), “turn back” (CSB), “turn again” (ESV) rather than “be baptized” as in Acts 2:38.  How does one account for this given the fact there is but one gospel, one way of salvation from sin?  One must also remember Peter was speaking not from himself but through the Holy Spirit in both instances.

The answer lies in this – the Acts 3:19 account uses a general term that tells the one who hears what must be done but does not tell how to do it.  The how to do it is to be baptized but the listener is not told that.  Why not?  If the sinner was told he must be baptized in Acts 2 for the remission of his/her sins, is the same preacher, in the same city, at nearly the same time, inspired by the same Holy Spirit going to tell a different group there is another way?

This was preaching that was interrupted, the preacher was taken into custody “as they spoke.” (Acts 4:1 NKJV)  There was to be no opportunity for baptism on that occasion.  The preaching began somewhat late in the day for it was around the hour of prayer which was 3 o’clock in the afternoon (Acts 3:1) when the lame man was healed by Peter.  The preaching began after a crowd gathered as a result of that.  We are also told after Peter and John were taken into custody and jailed they were held over until the next day for it was already evening (Acts 4:3).

This was not a long preaching event nor was there an opportunity for baptizing then and there.  This sermon made believers, about 5,000 (Acts 4:4).  Certainly, Peter and John could not have baptized 5,000 men alone.  They could have gotten help but that would have taken time and they were alone at the temple.

(Commentators are uncertain whether the number 5,000 in Acts 4 represents 5,000 new believers or is the total number of believers from the Day of Pentecost up through this day in the aggregate.  For our purposes, it does not matter, in either case it would still leave Peter and John with more to baptize than they could baptize alone.  If you take the 3,000 converts from the Day of Pentecost from the 5,000 here that would still leave the two of them with 1,000 each to baptize.  We will proceed as though the 5,000 were new disciples.)

Does this mean the 5,000 believers were not baptized?  Not at all.  It only means not on that evening by Peter and John.  We already have 3,000 baptized brethren in Jerusalem from the Day of Pentecost sermon and the twelve apostles plus others for “the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved” (Acts 2:47) and who can say how many of them there were.

It was not going to be hard for the 5,000 to find out what was involved in being converted or turning back to the Lord.  The apostles had become well known in Jerusalem due to the miracles that had been done.  “Fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles.” (Acts 2:43 NKJV)  Peter had the opportunity to preach in Acts 3 because he had just worked a miracle.  This day was not going to be the last opportunity for these believers to consult Peter or the other apostles or converts.  Where would you find them?  Generally, near the temple.  They would not be hard to find.

And, add to that fact, it is likely some or many of these 5,000 had already heard of what had happened and been taught and done on the Day of Pentecost.  Perhaps some had even been present and while not converted that day had impressions made on their hearts and minds going back to that time.  If so they likely knew baptism was a requirement for turning back to the Lord and likely knew where they could go to accomplish that.  When we want something done in our day we know where to go to get it done or how to find out how to get it done.  They would have been no different.

No doubt they were anxious to have their sins forgiven for Peter had earlier in his speech convicted them of their guilt in having Christ crucified (see Acts 3:13-15).  Peter also tells them, “Every soul who will not hear that Prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.”(Acts 3:23 NKJV)  This is motivating speech.  A man must get right with God.  When a man is motivated enough he will seek out the ways and means of salvation.

If one believes the preaching of the apostles was inspired then one is saying the Holy Spirit was the one speaking, speaking through the apostles.  The Holy Spirit is God.  I think it probable, simply speculation here on my part and to be taken as such, that the reason Peter was not more specific on baptism in Acts 3:19 was because the Holy Spirit knew what the circumstances of that occasion were – no opportunity for immediate baptism.

One must always remember Jesus in the Great Commission demanded that disciples be baptized.  “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” (Matt. 28:19 NKJV)  Peter would surely have done this in Acts 3 had he had the time and opportunity.  Peter was not an anti-Christ.  We can be confident the 5,000 were baptized in the days that followed.  Peter was not preaching a different gospel or a different way of salvation on that day in Acts 3 versus what he had preached on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2.

 [To download this article or print it out click here.]