A pastor was telling his visiting grandchildren a fascinating bedtime story. They listened to him
breathlessly, but when he was finished one of them took a deep breath and said, “Grandpa, was that
a true story, or were you just preaching?” This attitude could be learned by a child in contemporary
Christianity because preaching has been degraded as being powerless today. Many churches have
played down the preaching ministry and have increased the role of liturgy. The intelligent
unbeliever finds this hard to distinguish from paganism, and so they dismiss the organized church as
irrelevant in our society. It is hard to argue with them, for they are right. If the church does not
have anything to offer but form, it will never change lives. God has ordained that the power of the
church would come through proclamation of truth and not performance of rights.
Right from the first we see that the Word of God was the center of attraction, and it was
through the foolishness of preaching that the church multiplied and spread. Peter at Pentecost
preached a persuasive sermon on how Jesus had fulfilled Old Testament prophecy, and of how He
now reigned on the throne of David as Lord and Christ. The logic and eyewitness testimony of the
120 was more evidence than any Jew could ignore, and so when Peter finished they responded in
great number with belief.
Several weeks earlier Peter wielded a metal sword and succeeded in cutting off a man’s ear, but
now by the Sword of the Spirit he had penetrated thousands of ears and caused them to respond to
God. Here is the power of truth over the power of force. Our primary task is to persuade men by
the power of truth. The situation at Pentecost was unique and the opportunity it presented. We can
see why God planned for the Holy Spirit to come upon them in power just at this time. The cross
was fresh in everyone’s mind. The news of the resurrection would have spread everywhere. Jews
would have many questions as to the meaning of recent history. When Peter explained the meaning
of it all, they were stricken in their conscience. They stood self-condemned as guilty of high treason
against God.
Peter didn’t even give an invitation. There does not appear to be an invitation given anywhere
in the early church. People were so moved by the Holy Spirit that they cried out for conversion.
When men saw the power of God, as did the Philippian jailer, they cried out, “What must I do to be
saved?” So it was at Pentecost, and there was no need for singing 5 stanzas of a hymn as they were
being urged to come. They believed and stood guilty for killing their own Messiah. We cannot
imagine the mixed emotions that must have gone through the crowd that day. They had fear at what
they had done, and yet great joy because of the offer of forgiveness in Christ.
In verse 38 Peter did not say that you cannot do anything, but that it is all by faith. Just by faith
never implies an inactive part played by the justified. Man does need to respond to God in
obedience. Action is essential, and so Peter gives them instructions. First they were to repent. This
means that repentance is an act of the will. It is not just the emotion of feeling sorry. A Sunday
School teacher asked what repent meant, and a little boy said, “Feeling sorry for your sins.” A little
girl responded, “No, its being sorry enough to quit.” She was right, for repentance can never be
fulfilled by an emotion alone. There must be an act of the will by which one turns from course of
action or attitude to another, which they recognize to be God’s will. The action Peter urges them to
take is to be baptized. Some of these may have already been baptized by John the Baptist, but here
it is to be in the name of Jesus Christ. In other words, prove your belief in Jesus as Lord and
Messiah by a public baptism in His name.
In this unique historical situation the repentance and act of baptism was really necessary for the
forgiveness of their sins. They could only be released from the guilt of killing their Messiah by a
commitment of their lives to Him. Baptism was the required method of making that commitment,
and breaking with the Jewish official position which rejected Jesus as Messiah. We can see how the
act of baptism was essential to forgiveness, for to refuse would be to doubt that He was the Messiah.
It would be an unwillingness to identify yourself as His servant. The symbol and the reality were so
close here as to be inseparable. One could not really repent and accept Christ and yet refuse to be
baptized, for baptism was a sign of the sincerity of your faith. It was a definite mark of distinction
between the believing and unbelieving Jews.
Under a similar setting today the same pattern ought to be followed, but usually it is not. On
the mission field people are often instructed for a year or two before they are baptized. We also have
a brief waiting period for training. Is this a departure from the New Testament pattern? Not at all,
for we just do not have the same setting. The Jews that Peter spoke to were devout Jews who
believed the Bible to be the Word of God. They were trained and prepared to live a godly life. They
already loved the Word, and they had an established life of prayer and worship. It was logical and
natural for them to be baptized and accepted as members of the church in the very hour that they
believed in Christ and accepted Him as Lord.
No one can be so blind as to suppose the same thing makes sense when dealing with those who
know nothing of the Word of God, and who have lived in sin and corruption. To baptize them on
the spot just as these devout Jews were would be to forsake reason. If a person comes to me and
reveals he has a mature faith and wants to take a stand for Christ, I do not hesitate to baptize them.
But if they come out of a background with no knowledge and no experience of living a godly life,
they need instruction before they are baptized. To apply all that happened in the New Testament
today with no regard to the changes in circumstances leads to unreasonable practices. These people
were already committed to the one true God and living in obedience to His revelation. That is just
not the case with many who come to Christ in our day, and so our practice must fit the new situation.
Peter concludes this verse about them receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit. This is what was
lacking to them as devout people of God. By receiving Christ as their Messiah, and by being
baptized in His name, they would enter into the new covenant of God, which was not just external
law, but internal, and written on the heart. There is no greater illustration anywhere in the Bible of
how old Israel became the New Israel. Call it spiritualizing, or whatever you will, here we have
God’s children of the Old Testament becoming His children of the New Testament. To make this
doubly clear let us keep in mind that these devout Jews were already saved people. They were not
hell bound sinners storing up the wrath of God for the day of judgment. They were the cream of the
crop of God’s faithful children gathered on Pentecost in obedience to God, and to worship God.
If you assume that all of these devout Jews were lost people, then you are denying that God
had a plan of salvation for the Old Testament saints. Friends and relatives of these very people had
been dying as devout Jews all through the life of Jesus. Are we to suppose that they all died and
were lost, or are we to suppose that, like all the faithful of the past, they were saved by God’s grace?
I do not doubt for a minute that they were saved. Joseph died before the cross, and we cannot doubt
that he was saved. Many devout Jews may had never heard of the cross and the resurrection, but
they would be saved as God’s children under the Old Testament covenant. The reason I stress this is
so that we might see clearly that these first converts to the church were already God’s people of
Israel. It was the faithful of the old covenant becoming, along with the 120 Christian Jews, the
children of the New Covenant. If anyone can look at this and deny that the church is the New Israel
by calling it spiritualizing, then no amount of evidence would convince them.
If the church is not New Israel, then what did these Jews do by accepting Christ? Since they
were already children of Israel, and they were already God’s covenant people, did they forsake that
distinction, and cease to be Israel? God’s chosen were receiving His final and ultimate revelation to
Israel. They became the rejuvenated Israel with Christ as their Messiah king on the throne of David.
They fulfilled God’s intention for Israel all along, and they became the people through whom He
would bring good news to all the world. The Great Commission was given to Jews, and it was
carried out by the Jews of the early church. This view is rejected by some in order to maintain a
system which separates Jews and Gentiles, and has two distinct goals for them in God’s plan. I see
three thousand children of Israel becoming three thousand Christians, and by receiving the gift of the
Holy Spirit they became the New Israel under the New Covenant.
In verse 39 Peter says the promise was for them and their children. What could be more
obvious? They were God’s people receiving God’s promise. The promise of God to make a New
Covenant with Israel is fulfilled. Peter is addressing Jews and is thinking of Jews, for he has not yet
been persuaded himself that Gentiles are equally included as heirs of this promise. God had to teach
him this, and so we can assume that Peter is here referring to Israel. Peter did not doubt that
Gentiles could be saved, for that was true even in the Old Testament, but he doubted if they could be
saved without first becoming Jews.
In verse 40 we see that Peter’s sermon was not over, but he was already getting a response. He
had much more to say. Here was a layman and a fisherman instructing devout Jews, some of whom
had been far better students of the Word than he had been. We see how the Holy Spirit had given
him enlightenment. Peter is persuading them to come apart from Judaism, which had become
corrupted. The Old Israel was about to collapse, and they are to get out before they go down with it.
In verse 41 we see that those who received were baptized. This implies that some did not, and
they would continue to trust in the Old Covenant. There is much debate over this baptism. Was it
immersion, sprinkling or pouring? Many scholars argue that there was not enough water in
Jerusalem to immerse 3000 people in one day. I just assume they were immersed, but there is no
evidence of it except the meaning of the Greek word. I see no reason to question it, for those who
doubt it have no evidence in their favor either. We do not know how it was done that day. In one
day Peter persuaded more Jews to believe in Jesus as the Messiah than Jesus himself convinced in 3
years of preaching. Jesus said His disciples would do greater things than He did, and here is the
fulfillment of that. The results of Pentecost were amazing, and it had lasting effects for the rest of
history. That was a unique and unrepeatable event of history. We cannot duplicate it, but we do
need the same power of the Holy Spirit to work effectively in our new circumstances to produce the
same Pentecostal results.
