"Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord," - Acts 3:19
Many advocates of the position that immersion in water in the name of Jesus is not necessary for salvation often point to verses that talk about salvation or forgiveness of sins but do not specifically mention baptism. Acts 3:19 is one such text.
It is important to note that there are several Bible passages that, while they don't actually use the word baptism/immersion, clearly refer to it. They often use terms like washed/bathed, or make reference to water and cleansing.
One of the professors at Central Christian College had this to say about our text in question:
"The second argument claims that other Scripture passages, such as Acts 3:19 and Luke 24:47, make repentance, not baptism, the sole condition of forgiveness. This claim ignores two important facts: one, that the New Testament writers often condensed their historical accounts (including direct address), omitting repetitious details that either would have been understood by their readers, or were not essential to telling the story, and two, that the statements of New Testament writers and speakers sometimes implied details not specifically stated in the text."
In F. F. Bruce's commentary on The Book of Acts, he says this about Acts 2:38, making reference to 3:19 as well:
"It would indeed be a mistake to link the words "for the forgiveness of sins" with the command "be baptized" to the exclusion of the prior command to repent. It is against the whole genius of biblical religion to suppose that the outward rite could have any value except insofar as it was accompanied by the work of grace within. In a similar passage in the next chapter (3:19) the blotting out of people's sins is a direct consequence of their repenting and turning to God; nothing is said about baptism, although it is no doubt implied (the idea of an unbaptized believer does not seem to be entertained in the New Testament). So here the reception of the Spirit is conditional not on baptism in itself but on baptism in Jesus' name as the expression of repentance".
So, both of those authors see baptism implied in Acts 3:19. Let's look at why that is.
In today's study, we will examine how Acts 3:19, instead of being proof that baptism is not necessary for forgiveness of sins, actually is a parallel passage to Acts 2:38 and thus confirms its necessity. We will begin by reviewing what others have written about the passage showing that I am (obviously) not the first to make the connection between the two passages. Afterwards, I will write conclusions that I have drawn based on my study of this passage and its context.
In 1867, W. K. Pendleton writing in volume 38 of the Millennial Harbinger in an article entitled "Baptism and Forgiveness" states the following about the connection between the two verses:
"The parallel between these passages is indeed very close. In Acts 2:38 we have repent; here, we have repent; there, we have to be baptized-- an act of turning, symbolical of the death of the old life and the beginning of the new, --here, we have turn or turn yourselves, for this is the true force of epistrepsate, which is also the beginning of that change of conduct which is the outward manifestation of the new life; there, again we this done with a view to the remission of sins; --and here, with a view to the blotting out of sins--which...is an 'allusion to the water of baptism'."
Another author on an internet blog entitled "Bible Truths", makes the same point about the two passages but gives further evidence from the entire sections comparing Acts 2 and Acts 3.
Let's examine this idea that the "wiping away/blotting out of sins" is an allusion to the water of baptism. So, first of all, the word that is used here "exaleiphó,"which is used in another baptismal context in Colossians 2:11-14,
" in whom you were also circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in the stripping off of the body of the sins of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ, having been buried together with him in the immersion, in which you were also raised up together with him through the faith in the working of God, who raised him up from the dead. And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, he made you alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses; having wiped-away the handwriting in the decrees that were against us, which were adverse to us. He has also taken it out of the midst of us, having nailed it to the cross; " (MLV)
In this verse Paul is talking about how their baptism/immersion coupled with their faith is what raised them with Christ, taking them from death to life, in order to have their trespasses/sins forgiven and having "wiped-away" or "blotted out" the handwriting that was against them. What did that term mean to Peter's listeners and Paul's readers of that day? In his book, A Theology of Luke and Acts, Darrell L. Bock says this about the word translated as "blotted out/wiped-away":
"The expression used in Acts 3:19 is "to blot out" sin. This is another way to describe obtaining forgiveness (see also Col 2:14-15...). The term "blot out" means "wipe away, erase, obliterate." It was used of washing papyri to remove letters written in ink. In ancient times ink did not soak into the paper but remained on the surface, so removing writing was simply scraping the surface. This became the metaphor..."
There's even a term for this type of paper, "palimpsest". However, professor Bock only scratched the surface (pun intended) of the full meaning of this word. In the previously mentioned article by W. K. Pendleton, he writes:
"Besides the parallel I have already drawn, look at the special significance of the word "blotted out." Now what did this word mean to a Jew--to Peter and to Paul? For he too uses it in Col. 2:14. We shall learn by turning to its origin in Numbers 5:23. There it is said of the curses which were commanded against the adulterous woman, "The Priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall "blot them out with bitter waters" This precept of the law furnished the original meaning of this expression "blotting out." It was to wash out a writing against one with water. The custom was to write with an ink, that water would wash out. This was the quality of their writing fluid, and hence when they wished to cancel any writing they blotted it out with water. This ceremony gave rise to the expression which Peter uses in this passage, and no doubt under the suggestions which its origin furnished. It is worthy of notice that Peter uses the same Greek word, eksaleíphō which the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) version uses in the passage in Numbers quoted above, in reference to the blotting out with bitter waters."
So, when Peter told his listeners "that your sins may be blotted out", the expression itself really meant "that your sins may be blotted out/wiped away with water", which would lead any reasonable person to see the allusion to the waters of baptism. When we look at the bookends of the entire calls to repentance and the end of the narratives the parallel goes further:
"Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit...Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day."
"Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord...But many who heard the message believed; so the number of men who believed grew to about five thousand."
Both sermons are preached after something miraculous (Holy Spirit being poured out in Acts 2, lame man being healed in Acts 3), and both end with a note about how many people were converted. But the similarity doesn't end there. The Greek word for "refreshing" that Peter uses in Acts 3:19 is a case of what I believe to be supreme wit on the part of the Holy Spirit when he inspired Peter to make that word choice. Looking at the parallel between "you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" and "that times of refeshing may come from the presence of the Lord", we find the following:
The word is anapsuxis and it means "breathe easily again", essentially "to take a deep breath", "a recovery of breath" --> which is exactly what one does after being dipped under the water. You hold your breath, get immersed and come up and take a deep breath.
The term was used in Greek for a couple of things: it could mean to refresh by blowing cool air onto someone/something (generally a wound), or getting a refreshing breeze. When one understands that the word in Hebrew (Ruach) AND Greek(Pneuma) for Spirit is the same as wind/breeze, the metaphor is enhanced. It conjures the idea of when God blew his Spirit into Adam to give him life, and also when Jesus told the disciples to receive the Spirit and he breathed on them in John 20:21-23.
Secondly, the word was used for "ships that were dragged ashore out of the water for drying and repair" This makes total sense in a baptismal context when we understand how much the word for "baptize" was used of ships that sank. If a ship was damaged and started to sink, it could be dragged ashore to dry out and be repaired/refreshed. So, it is just like us, we are baptized/immersed like a ship and then we come out of the water to dry, the Holy Spirit repairs/has repaired us, which leads to salvation and times of refreshing indeed.
So, while it takes a bit of in-depth study and searching, it can be reasonably concluded that Peter didn't suddenly change his gospel message and the requirements for the forgiveness of sins between the first sermon in Acts 2 and the second one in Acts 3, but rather that Acts 2:38 and Acts 3:19 are indeed parallels.
Be strong in the grace,
Fenton
