The question, "What does Peter mean
in Acts 2:38 by ‘be baptized. . . for the remission of sins’?," has
provoked several different answers in Church history. Groups such as the
Church of Christ, the Church of Jesus Christ: Latter Day Saints, and the
United Pentecostal Church, interpret Peter to be saying to his hearers that
they could obtain remission of sins by the means of baptism. If Peter’s
hearers remained un-baptized, then they remained unforgiven by God as well.
This way of interpreting Peter’s statement has led these groups to
promulgate a doctrine of salvation that is more sacerdotal/sacramental than it
is Reformational/Evangelical. The current form of this interpretation holds
that since remission of sins is by baptism, then one cannot be forgiven
without baptism. Thus, Baptism is the instrumental cause of our remission of
sins.
First, it is important to clear up the use
of the terms, "remission" and "forgiveness." An old
argument has been used to attempt to solve the problem of Acts 15:9 and Acts
2:38. It proposes that one is forgiven at the point of faith, but
one’s sins are not remitted until baptism. The error in this teaching
is that, while the English translations give us two words, the original
language – Greek – uses only one. Both remission and forgiveness are the
English translation of the single Greek noun aphesis or verb aphiemi.
Thus, both forgiveness and remission mean the same thing. The root meaning of
these words is to "send away or dismiss." In the New Testament this
word takes a deeper theological meaning. Vine says that this word:
[F]irstly signifies the remission of the punishment due to
sinful conduct, . . . secondly, it involves the complete removal of the
cause of offense; such remission is based upon the vicarious and
propitiatory sacrifice of Christ.. In the O.T. atoning sacrifice and
forgiveness are often associated. [W. E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of New
Testament Words, Revell, 1966, pp. 122,123]
A number of current proponents of the
UPCI teaching have dropped this argument because they have been exposed to
enough education in the Greek New Testament that they now know this argument
is misinformed. At the same time, several important exegetical and theological
implications of their interpretation of Acts 2:38 remain to be challenged.
Without looking at all the exegetical and theological problems we will look at
two. First is the exegetical, and second is the theological.
First, is the exegetical problem of
harmonizing Acts 2:38 with other statements in the New Testament, such as, the
statements of Jesus in Matthew 26:28 and with Acts 13:38-39 and Acts 15:9. In
Matthew’s account of the last supper, Jesus took the cup and offered it to
his disciples saying:
Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the
covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness {aphesin}
of sins.
Logically, if Jesus meant that drinking
the cup was the equivalent of drinking his blood and receiving forgiveness,
then the Roman Catholic Mass is correct. It means that there is literal
forgiveness or remission of sins in the very act of taking the Lord’s
Supper. This same literalistic approach is used in the UPCI interpretation of
Acts 2:38. Students of Oneness Pentecostal history within the UPCI readily
admit that their hermeneutic (principal of interpretation) of Scripture is a
"back to the Bible literalism." Therefore, if Peter says that
Baptism is "for the remission of sin" then that is exactly what it
means. Any other interpretation is considered spurious, equivocation, and an
affront to the text.
Among Restorationist movements, exclusive
Bible literalism like this is common. It is held up as a spiritual banner and
championed as cutting through all the traditions since the Apostolic Church.
All this is defended while these many movements, who fight for this
literalism, are deeply divided by their own particular literalism.
Just as many, and more denominations, movements and
"fellowships" were created as a result of Bible literalism and so-called
"common sense reasoning," than have resulted from all the
theological differences created by the Reformation churches.
Let me be clear: I believe in the verbal
inspiration and the inerrancy of Scripture. The words of the Bible are of
utmost importance. It is because of verbal inspiration that Scripture must be
carefully and skillfully interpreted. It calls for more than a shallow or
wooden literal interpretation of the words which may totally contradict the
actual meaning of the original author. What all Bible believers should strive
for is to know what the Bible means by what it says. The problem is
that some modern interpreters of the Bible assume that the Biblical author's
use of language is the equivalent of their idiomatic use of language. Many
times it is not. Thus, current interpreters "read" their definitions
of words into the words of the Biblical writers. This is a serious problem
which can be fatal.
Another important concern is that
literalism speaks of a lack of a true biblical center from which to interpret
Scripture. The Reformation was founded on the formal principle that the
Scripture interprets itself. But, this meant more than taking the word
literally. Martin Luther advocated that a literal sense of Scripture was not
possible without a theological center. For him, that theological center was
Jesus Christ. It was the Person and Work of Jesus in justifying the sinner
which became the interpreting principle for all of Luther’s study of
Scripture. I believe that a misguided and inconsistent literalism will result
from any theology that fails to place Christ’s justifying work at the center
of Biblical interpretation.
We can see the result of this
inconsistency in the text we are studying. This literalism is not applied
equally to all the texts of the Bible. There are portions of Scripture where
these groups refuse to use the literal approach that they champion. Instead,
they attempt to "theologize" the text, because the literal approach
does not harmonize with their particular traditional interpretations. A
perfect example of this is found in John 6:53-56 "Whoever eats my flesh
and drinks my blood has eternal life . . ." A consistent, back to the
Bible literalist, would agree with Rome. That is, if the text says that the cup
is Jesus’ blood, then it has to be his blood. We can have eternal life by
drinking Christ’s blood. "That’s what it says, and that’s what it
means," the literalist would say. The dilemma in taking a literalistic
approach is that it finds itself missing Jesus’ meaning and alternatively,
perfectly harmonizing with Roman sacerdotalism in the Mass. Rome interprets
this literally and therefore calls for the use of the Mass for the forgiveness
of sins. However, the UPCI and others, reject the Mass and the interpretation
of Rome specifically, by failing to take this text "literally." And
rightly so! They come to a different position from Rome by interpreting the
text as to its meaning (symbolic of Jesus’ blood), rather than purely by
its words (literal blood).
Staying with Matthew 26:28, we hear Jesus
say that his blood "is poured out for many for the forgiveness of
sins." Clearly, Jesus wants his disciples to make a theological
connection between his coming death on the Cross and their forgiveness of
sins. This would associate the remission of sins with the blood of Jesus. I
believe Jesus is saying that the cup represents or symbolizes his blood. It
means that when they take the cup in the future, it is to remind them
of the literal blood of Christ shed for their forgiveness. The forgiveness
comes by faith in the blood and not by drinking the literal blood of Jesus in
the Lord's Supper. I acknowledge that this is what the UPCI interprets Jesus to mean
in their view of the Lord’s Supper. But, this interpretation betrays an
exegetical, as well as a theological, inconsistency. They do not use the same
principle for Matthew 26:28 as they do for Acts 2:38. They take the former as
symbolic and the later as literal. In the first passage, they use a more
Reformational approach to avoid promoting the Mass. But, in the second
passage, they use a sacramental approach and affirm the Roman Catholic
position on baptism.
The fact is, one has only two choices: 1)
The Lord’s Supper and Baptism are literally for the remission of sins and
therefore the means of remission (ex opere operato) - the
position of Rome and some Lutherans); 2) They are both symbolic and illustrate
the higher reality of the blood of Christ shed for our sins, which we
appropriate by faith (fides qua creditur) - the position of most
Reformation/Evangelical churches). Any other position would involve a purely
capricious, ambiguous and ultimately, self-serving interpretation of all of
Scripture.
Now we come to the theological problem.
If we follow the logic of the first (sacerdotal) approach we find ourselves in
direct conflict with the central teaching of Scripture, as we see in Hebrews.
The Old Testament connection between the sacrifices commanded by the Law and
remission of sins was challenged and supplanted by Christ in His work on the
Cross. Even though sacrifices were demanded by God for the sins of the people,
these sacrifices were not capable of effecting remission of sins:
The law . . . can never, by the same sacrifices repeated
endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. If
it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers
would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty
for their sins. But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, because
it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
[Hebrews 10:1-4]
The writer of Hebrews
says that the Law of Moses is inferior to the work of Jesus Christ, because
the sacrificial system it provided was not sufficient to atone for our sins.
Only Jesus’ offering of himself as an atoning sacrifice was acceptable to
God. Paul makes this point in Romans 3:25,26:
God presented him as a sacrifice of
atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his
justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed
beforehand unpunished – he did it to demonstrate his justice at the
present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have
faith in Jesus.
Hebrews identifies that the
weakness of the sacrifices was their temporary effect. That they had to be
offered again and again, every year, was proof that the previous years
sacrifices were imperfect. The writer concludes two things about those
sacrifices: 1) The Mosaic sacrifices were merely a reminder to the people of
their sinfulness; 2) It is impossible for the blood of animals to take away
human sin. Only the superior sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross is sufficient to
take away human sin:
First he said, ‘Sacrifices and
offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were
you pleased with them’ (although the law required them to be made).
Day after day every priest stands and
performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same
sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered
for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God.
Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, because
by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says: "This
is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will
put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds."
Then he adds: "Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no
more." And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any
sacrifice for sin. (Hebrews 10:11-18 NIV)
Jesus' sacrificial death on the
Cross atones for our sins. Through the blood of Jesus our sins are forgiven,
remitted, or washed away. The full panoply of redemption is ours through faith
in the work of the Cross of Jesus: We are pardoned, justified, cleansed,
reconciled, blessed, sealed, adopted, and raised to new life.
