What does Acts 2:38 really say ?

[dan p]

Hi to All . Many problems with Baptism since it and baptize are TRANSLITERATED words , that English does not have a correct equivalent FOR .

1) Here we go ; Is this baptism for Gentiles ?

2) Maybe ONLY for Israel ?

3) Who is Peter speaking to in Acts 2:14 ? Ye men of Judaea !!! Yep , it looks like Jews to me .

4) verse 22 , ye men of Israel , still Jews .

5) From verses 22- 35 is still Israel and a recounting of their history .

6)Then in verse 36 , Peter really hurts them here .

7) The one that you killed is both Lord ( which means KURIOS and means Jehovah ) and Christ ( which means Messiah )

8) They are pricked in their HEARTS , THEY ANSWER BACK , WHAT SHALL WE DO ?

9) Do about what ? We killed Him , and He is DEAD ?

10) What is Peter getting at ? Even Christians TODAY don't know what is getting at !!!!!

11) Peter then tells them HOW !!!

12) REPENT of the murder ,

13) and be baptized everyone of you ( and this will cleanse you of the sin of murder ) and you will receive the GIFT of the Holy Spirit .

14) How can anyone than use something THAT could only be used for Israel ? ISN'T that what Peter accused them of ?

15) Did Peter make the same appeal to the Romans ? NO !!

16) So to me , this baptism was for Israel and for Israel only and IS NOT for the Body of Christ .

 

[duval]

Peter said in Acts 2:39; "For the promise is unto you, and to your children, nd to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."

I think that includes more than just Israel.

 

[Tomlane]

Since water baptism was a ceremonial baptism of repentance for Jewish believers how could it possibly be for believers in this time of the gentiles and the natural branch {Israel} was torn out and the wild olive branch {Gentiles} were grafted in. Also both Jew and Gentile are a new creation in Christ that is neither Jew or Gentile?

Since Christ only baptizes with spirit and fire, again where do people get water out of that?

Even John knew the futility of his baptism when he asked Christ why do you need my baptism when you shall baptize with fire and spirit.

We are told not to have confidence in the flesh so again how can water baptism be honored by God other then it getting you wet?

Why would anyone want water then God says that His baptism is a spiritual operation?

Tomlane

 

[dan p]

Hi duval , in v39 The promise is unto you ( Peter is talking to those Jews that he is adressing ) than Peter says the Jews scattered afar will receive that promise also . You are taking it out of CONTEXT , pure and simple . Israel was a conquered Nation and many of These Jews are mentioned in Acts 2: 4-10 , just how simple is THAT .

 

[Pogo]

dan p and Tomlane -

The scriptures DO tell us that Christ baptizes with fire!

But...WE are not Christ!

As far as I am aware, the only way one person can possibily baptize another, as the scriptures direct, is with WATER.

Also, I would be interested to know your interpretations of the following passage...

Acts 10 KJV
(45) And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
(46) For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
(47) Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
(48) And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

In Christ,

Pogo

 

[duval]

Thanks for your input Pogo.

Dan: when Acts 2:39 said "even as many as the Lord our God shall call" it is not out of context, thats more than the Jew.

Acts 2:5 and 7 shows Peter had a Jewish audience. If we were speaking to a crowd of Germans we would not say "you Chinese" but "you Germans."

Cornelius was a gentile yet was commanded to be baptized in water, Acts 10:48

Jesus said in Mt. 28:19 "---all nations, baptizing them---" That includes the gentile.

In Acts 18:8 many Corinthians ( largely gentiles ) were baptized.

In Acts 16 the jailer, a gentile was baptized with his family.

 

[Vic C.]

Thanks Pogo and Duval.

It's good to look at all which occurred after Acts 10. This is about the time the gospel went from the Jews to the Gentiles. Many believers feel Cornelius was one of, if no the first Gentile to be converted and baptized.

 

[dan p]

Hi dUVAL , I have proven to any reading these post that my context is true and will reponse on Acts 10 on a separate post that it deserves . dan p

 

[Pogo]

dan p -

Hey, dan...you have proven much...but...not what you think you have proven!

You can hop-scotch, if you want to, all over these forums, from one thread to another, but ignoring the conflicts of the passages which refute your interpretations, will not make them go away.

You are proving that it is a waste of time for others to read your posts.

In Christ,

Pogo

 

[mondar]

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.

Just a few observations on the text. On disadvantage of greek grammar is its lack of punctuation. The early manuscripts had letters and words all run together. There are two possible ways to read verse 38.
1---- For the forgiveness of sins there are two qualifications, repentance and baptism.

2---- The phrase "and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" can have parenthetical punctuation. The thought would then be that that repent for the remission of sin, and be baptized.

The grammar is simply not decisive. I think either reading is grammatically possible. Some others have presented good theological and contextual reasons for their readings, but that is not my point. I am simply talking about the grammar.

 

[dan p]

Hi Mondar , my friend R C Brock has made a word for word translation of Acts- Philemon .

And Peter declared to them , change your mind and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins , and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit .

1) Notice that in Acts 2:38 reads , they were baptized -- in the name Jesus Christ .

2) And in Matt 28 , they are baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit .

3) Why the change ? And if words mean ANYTHING there has to be a reason .

4) One explanation is , that Peter was not wrong in what he did , and the reason why Peter preached as he did was because his words were directed STRICTLY to his Jewish brethren . The 12 did NOT GO to the world and that is why they did not USE the formula of Matt 28:19 .

 

[dan p]

Hi Pogo , why waste my time and everyone else's time, and use scripture to ADDRESS the OP . All that anyone can see , is ZERO from you . If you have any rebuttal , speak your mind, instead of attacking the messenger .

 

[mondar]

Hi Mondar , my friend R C Brock has made a word for word translation of Acts- Philemon .

And Peter declared to them , change your mind and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins , and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit .

The first thing I observe is that either you, or your friend does not understand my previous post. I strongly suspect neither you nor your friend grasp any of the issues of Acts 3:28 that I wrote about. Maybe I did not write clearly, I dont know. Also, I strongly suspect your friend is blowing smoke. I can see evidence of a first year student of greek at best. Maybe even someone without any knowledge of greek at all.

Now I admit I have a lot to relearn about the language, I have forgotten a lot myself, but your friend is no advanced language student, I can see that. The reasons I say that are twofold. First, it is first year students that commonly do not use common lexical definitions to show off. That is exactly what your friend did in the translation. Now the reading is not wrong, but it is not the common lexical definitions for some of the words.

THE ISSUE OF ACTS 2:38
The issue of Acts 2:38 that I brought up had nothing to do with any specific vocabulary word, or any specific parsing of some verb. It had to do with the punctuation. The original MSSs did not have comma's, periods, or any modern punctuation. Now its true that when most modern greek students read from a greek NT, they have punctuation inserted into the text by editors. However, even these punctuation marks placed in our greek NT by editors were not in the originals.

If you look at any internet copy of the early papyri, you will never see punctuation. You might see the line above theta--sigma for the name of God, but there will be no periods, or comma's. That was the issue behind what I previously wrote about and both you and your friend failed to grasp.

Modern professional translators of the NASB, and the NIV, etc. are aware that they must insert punctuation for modern readers to understand the grammar, and so all bibles are interpretive to some degree. Each translation then has interpretative philosophies. A literal translation would not have any punctuation at all. In fact it would not even have spaces between words. No comma's, no periods, not even the accent markings were in the papyri.

TheancienttranslationslookedsomethinglikethisInfactyoucannottellwhereonesentencebeginsandthe
nextsentenceendsexceptbyreadingthecontextSotheninActs2:38wehaveaprobleminhowtoreadthe
punctuationintothetext

Now you can read the above sentences very naturally and your mind automaticly puts punctuation into those sentences. Unfortunately, Acts 2:38 can be punctuated in different ways to produce different understandings.

I suggest observing an internet papyri, or one of the Uncials (Codex). You can see what I am talking about. Just google something like Papyri 75, the broadmere papyri.

So then, if your friend is suggesting that his reading is the only possible way to read the punctuation markings, he is blowing smoke. But then he did not actually even address the issue of the punctuation in his so called translation. In fact he missed the whole issue about which I wrote. As I said before about 1st year students....I notice how he made a big issue of not using the term "repent" (μεÄανοηÃαÄε). That is something a first year student would do. While his reading is not wrong, it is possible to read the verse with different punctuation, and thus differently from the way he suggests. If he is saying that it must be read the way he suggests based upon syntax, or context, that would be a different thing. Then he can produce evidence of why it must be read syntactically in the way he suggests.

Well, enough nonsense for now. Gotta go.

 

[francisdesales]

Since water baptism was a ceremonial baptism of repentance for Jewish believers how could it possibly be for believers in this time of the gentiles and the natural branch {Israel} was torn out and the wild olive branch {Gentiles} were grafted in. Also both Jew and Gentile are a new creation in Christ that is neither Jew or Gentile?

Perhaps you can explain Christ's command to the APOSTLES (not His Holy Spirit) to baptize EVERYONE in the name of the Trinity??? Not just Jews???

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Mat 28:19.

Now, try to sit and think for a second. WHO is baptizing here? The Church, the Apostles. Correct? How do they baptize? How does Christ expect them to baptize? Does Peter HIMSELF send the Holy Spirit??? Does James or John? No. They pour water and GOD sends the Spirit. Christ promises that the Spirit will come when they baptize (dunk, pour water, etc.) on the person.

Again, you are incorrect in your interpretations.

Since Christ only baptizes with spirit and fire, again where do people get water out of that?

Christ didn't say He ONLY baptizes with the spirit and fire. You did. He said something else.

Christ baptizes with water and the Spirit. He said so in John 3:5...

Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.[/quote]

Clearly, two things are required of this rebirth: WATER. SPIRIT. Can Christ have made this any clearer?

Even John knew the futility of his baptism when he asked Christ why do you need my baptism when you shall baptize with fire and spirit.

Again, perhaps you should actually stick to what the Scriptures say, rather than your twisting. John didn't say "why do you need my baptism when you shall baptize with fire and spirit". John recognized that Jesus didn't need a baptism of repentance.

And check this out (which I said eariler, but you conveniently ignored)

And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. John 1:33

Christ is the protype of the believer within the New Covenant. We ALSO descend into the waters, and the Spirit of God comes upon us as well. The gates of heaven also open to us as a result of this work of God. And finally, as adopted sons, the Father can say of us who have been baptized "This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased"...

Christ's baptisms are different from John's NOT because of water, but because the Spirit is present in the former.

We are told not to have confidence in the flesh so again how can water baptism be honored by God other then it getting you wet?

Again, a misappropriation of Scriptures. The "flesh" refers to our worldly nature, satisfying our egos, our desire for money and creaturely comforts. The "flesh" does not refer to created things, since God, on COUNTLESS occasions, comes to us through created mediums. EVERY time God speaks to prophets and Scriptures. EVERY miracle. The Sacraments of the OT and the NT. God manifests His work through created things. This has nothing to do with the "flesh".

Why would anyone want water then God says that His baptism is a spiritual operation?

Water signifies the spiritual operation has taken place. We can't see the spiritual operation, but when the Church baptizes in the name of God, we know that God, based upon His promise, has sent His Spirit upon the newly baptized person.

Regards

 

[kingdavid]

Hi duval , in v39 The promise is unto you ( Peter is talking to those Jews that he is adressing ) than Peter says the Jews scattered afar will receive that promise also . You are taking it out of CONTEXT , pure and simple . Israel was a conquered Nation and many of These Jews are mentioned in Acts 2: 4-10 , just how simple is THAT .

that is correct!

the other guy doesn't realize that peter's ministry was mainly to the jews not the gentiles but that doesn't mean that what peter said was not pertinent for the gentiles as well as jews. peter had the keys to the kingdom and this scripture was the keys to unlock the gate/door to the kingdom for all believers, jew and gentile

 

[randy2844]

As to the question of whether water baptism, as described in Acts 2:38 was for Jews only, I think the Lord answered this by ensuring that the book of Acts documented the fact that the three main groups of people--the Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles, all received the very same Gospel--which always included water baptism administered while invoking the Name of Jesus:

36Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
37Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? 38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. (Acts 2:36-38)

14Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: 15Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: 16(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) 17Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. (Acts 8:14-17)

44While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 46For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 47Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 48And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. (Acts 10:44-48)

By the way, even some disciples of John the baptist were re-baptized in the name of Jesus:

1And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, 2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. 3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism. 4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. (Acts 19:1-6)

 

[dentonz]

Since water baptism was a ceremonial baptism of repentance for Jewish believers how could it possibly be for believers in this time of the gentiles and the natural branch {Israel} was torn out and the wild olive branch {Gentiles} were grafted in. Also both Jew and Gentile are a new creation in Christ that is neither Jew or Gentile?

Since Christ only baptizes with spirit and fire, again where do people get water out of that?

Even John knew the futility of his baptism when he asked Christ why do you need my baptism when you shall baptize with fire and spirit.

We are told not to have confidence in the flesh so again how can water baptism be honored by God other then it getting you wet?

Why would anyone want water then God says that His baptism is a spiritual operation?

Tomlane

Why would we even try to interpret this passage of scripture without taking in context all of scripture? For instance, we can see very clearly in Acts chapter 8 when Philip comes upon the Ethiopian eunich exactly what the early church believed about baptism. In Acts 8:30-33 we find out that the Ethiopian is reading from Isaiah 53. Then Philip explains to him that this is about Jesus and his crucifixion. There is nothing in Isaiah 53 that speaks anything about baptism in water. However, this was so important to Philip that somewhere in his explanation of Christ he explains about baptism. Because we clearly see in Acts 8:36 that the Ethiopian says "see [here is]
water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?" In 8:38 it says "...they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunich; and he baptized him."

 

[kingdavid]

Since water baptism was a ceremonial baptism of repentance for Jewish believers how could it possibly be for believers in this time of the gentiles and the natural branch {Israel} was torn out and the wild olive branch {Gentiles} were grafted in. Also both Jew and Gentile are a new creation in Christ that is neither Jew or Gentile?

Since Christ only baptizes with spirit and fire, again where do people get water out of that?

Even John knew the futility of his baptism when he asked Christ why do you need my baptism when you shall baptize with fire and spirit.

We are told not to have confidence in the flesh so again how can water baptism be honored by God other then it getting you wet?

Why would anyone want water then God says that His baptism is a spiritual operation?

Tomlane

Why would we even try to interpret this passage of scripture without taking in context all of scripture? For instance, we can see very clearly in Acts chapter 8 when Philip comes upon the Ethiopian eunich exactly what the early church believed about baptism. In Acts 8:30-33 we find out that the Ethiopian is reading from Isaiah 53. Then Philip explains to him that this is about Jesus and his crucifixion. There is nothing in Isaiah 53 that speaks anything about baptism in water. However, this was so important to Philip that somewhere in his explanation of Christ he explains about baptism. Because we clearly see in Acts 8:36 that the Ethiopian says "see [here is]
water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?" In 8:38 it says "...they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunich; and he baptized him."

i thought i would add an interesting note that phillip was a deacon and not a minister in case some might try and say that you have to be a minister in order to baptize someone. that is not true according to scripture

 

[francisdesales]

i thought i would add an interesting note that phillip was a deacon and not a minister in case some might try and say that you have to be a minister in order to baptize someone. that is not true according to scripture

I agree that one does not have to be a minister to baptize. However, Philip WAS a minister, ordained as one of the deacons by the Apostles earlier. A deacon is an ordained minister, as the Apostles laid hands upon them and prayed over them, given a specific function in the Church with particular responsibilities and powers.

Regards