Investigating Baptism Part 1: The “First” Gospel

This article, the first in a five-part series on baptism, seeks to highlight all the supernatural things God did to ensure the Gentiles (which is most of us) were accepted into the church; and, perhaps more importantly, why did God have to do these miracles? It’s not that the Gentiles weren’t accepted by God, it’s that the Jewish apostles were so used to the Jews being the chosen people of God (it had been that way for 1500 years!) that they hadn’t thought to include the Gentiles. Furthermore, the article seeks to highlight the impact these events can have on how we interpret the book of Acts. As we’ll see, errors can be made when the chronological nature of Acts is not considered.  Specially, one the most important passages on baptism occurs in Acts 2, therefore the mindset of Peter in Acts 2 is very important when interpreting the passage.

The Gentile Miracles

The following are the major miracles and their affects that I refer to as “the Gentile Miracles”:

1. Stoning of Stephen. Were it not for the martyrdom of Stephen, the church may never have scattered.
2. Philip in Samaria bringing the Gospel to Samaritans. Were it not for the church being in Samaria, Paul would have no reason to go to Damascus.
3. Paul is met miraculously on the road where he hears the Gospel directly from Jesus and is later physically healed, by Ananias to whom God had already spoken.
4. Angels appear to Cornelius (a Gentile) and tell him to send men to Joppa.
5. A miraculous dream is given to Peter which he later understands to mean the Gentiles can be clean too (i.e. saved too).
6. Miraculously, Cornelius’ servants arrive when Peter’s dream ends.
7. Peter goes with the men, proclaims the Gospel, and “even on the Gentiles”–before he could even finish–the Spirit was poured out on them just as it had been on the Apostles earlier in Acts 2.

Naturally this isn’t to say that these are the only miracles God did for the Gentiles, but these are the ones that paved a clear path for the eventual acceptance of them.

The Confusion of the Apostles

Why did God have to work supernaturally in order to make sure the Gentiles heard the Gospel and were accepted by the church? Think of the miracles Jesus did: they were to establish that he was the promised Messiah. These “Gentile Miracles” were different: they were for the Apostles, who already believed in the Messiah to understand that the Gentiles could be saved too.

I believe this was because the idea that the Gentiles were unclean was so ingrained into the Jewish society. To be more specific, they believed the only way to relate to God and be included in His people was to commit one’s life to obedience to the Mosaic Law—and then to obey it. Indeed under the Law, Gentiles could convert to Judaism by committing their lives to the Law, being circumcised (if applicable) and being immersed in water (called a mikvah).

Even after Jesus’ resurrection and after the Apostles received the Spirit at Pentecost, they still remained in Jerusalem meeting in the Temple courts and sharing their faith with Jewish people only and believing that they still had to adhere to the Law of Moses (one of the reasons they were at the Temple). What was different? It’s hard to say—perhaps they believed animal or grain sacrifices were no longer necessary because Jesus was the final perfect sacrifice. Because the Bible doesn’t go into detail about their temple practices it’s hard to know for sure. All we know is it was some kind of combination of the Old and New Covenants.

How could this be? Hadn’t they been with the Lord Jesus for over three years? Hadn’t He at least mentioned the Mosaic Law would go away once the New Covenant started? Here are three reasons I believe the Apostles could have been confused about the Gospel as first:

1. Jesus did tell them but they did not understand him. With verses like Mat 15:16 where Jesus says, “are you so dull?” It’s certainly plausible Jesus’ words could have escaped them, especially if His words were in the form of indirect parables.
2. They thought the Law would go on forever. Mat 5:18 says, “For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished”. This could easily be taken to mean the Law would never go away, rather than the intended meaning that Jesus would have to fulfill the Law himself (which is what He meant by “accomplished”).
3. Jesus couldn’t directly teach the New Covenant while the Old Covenant was still in effect. Teaching against the OC as an Israelite was punishable by the whole community of Israelites throwing stones at you until you were dead (Lev 24:13-16, Deut 13:1-5)! It was considered blasphemy since one would have to be God to institute a new covenant or to change the current one. This is why the Jews kept wanting to stone Jesus.

Interpreting Acts

If you’re familiar with Acts, you’ll know that even after all the miracles God did, all the Apostles were still not on board with the Gentiles as late as Acts 15–approximately 20 years after Jesus’ death. And if you read the letter James wrote to the Gentiles it’s clear to see the Jewish-Christian leadership in Jerusalem was still unclear about what Gentiles needed to do to be saved!

Let this sink in! It is something one really has to take into account when reading the book of Acts as it is a chronological account. Many theologians and regular Christians alike read Acts in a piecemeal fashion, picking out verses individually to support or create some belief. This is a very dangerous method of interpretation for any book in the Bible since it does not take into account the full context of each verse.

As discussed above, the Jewish leadership in Jerusalem thought they themselves needed to continue to follow the Law, and therefore, logically, Gentiles would also have to follow the Law in order to become Christians. This would mean the Gentiles would have to first convert to Judaism and then they could become Christians. This sounds admitted odd to our modern ears, but this is how they saw it early on in what I’m calling “the first Gospel”. This represents a huge misunderstanding of the real Gospel, which is the subject of the whole book of Hebrews. The writer of Hebrews warns the Jews it could even cause them to leave God altogether as the sacrificial system was rendered useless after Jesus’ death on the cross (see Hebrews 10:18 and 10:26-27). Indeed this misunderstanding of the Gospel may never have been corrected were it not for God’s miraculous works through Peter and His handpicking of Paul with his prior Jewish convictions and strength through the Holy Spirit.

Let’s apply the principles discussed so far and look at Acts 2:38 to help solidify how the chronological nature of Acts greatly affects it meaning. The verse reads, “Peter replied, “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.” At face value, it seems Peter is giving a succinct procedure for how one should become a Christian. Keep in mind that at this point in time, the Apostles didn’t even know that Gentiles could be saved and believed that the Law of Moses still had to be followed. Why then should this verse be interpreted by modern-day Gentiles as the procedure for people to be saved?

What does it mean to repent in the first place? Does it mean to stop all sinning and get control of yourself? Doesn’t it seem at all backwards that one would need to stop all the their sinful ways before receiving forgiveness and being saved? Most would agree that stopping all sin is impossible, so they soften this to “those major sins that one is aware of” or “those sins that God puts on your heart”. They may soften it further saying “one must change their mind that they will stop sinning”, which is closer to the meaning of the Greek word here. Any of these interpretations are extremely subjective, and we’re talking about one’s very salvation so we can’t get it wrong. And how long would one have to do this before they could get baptized and be saved: a day, a week, a month? Clearly whatever it is, 3000 people were baptized that day so it couldn’t be any sizable length of time.

The fact is Peter wasn’t using the word “repent” to refer to our modern concept of what it means to sin; instead he was referring to the Jewish meaning. The Jewish meaning is the same as what John the Baptist did, calling Jews to recommit their lives to following the Law.

What about the baptism part? Remember that John the Baptist called people to repent and then he baptized them. Isn’t it interesting that Peter commands the same thing? I plan on devoting the next article specifically to this subject, but suffice it to say that there was a notion of baptism in the Jewish culture (i.e. Christians did not invent it) and there was one form of it which they used to recommit themselves to the Law.

Conclusion

In conclusion, what I’m calling the “First Gospel” was not the final Gospel. Instead it matured as God worked miracles to reveal the real the complete Gospel. As Jer 31:34 prophesies, this new Gospel was nothing like the Old Covenant. Rather than mankind relating to God through the knowledge of good and evil contained within the Law—a task they could never do—the New Covenant restores us close to our condition in the Garden. It was here, before the Fall, Adam and Eve related to God personally through the Holy Spirit that He breathed into them. I could have just as easily called this the “Gospel of Jerusalem”, since it primarily stayed in Jerusalem while Paul started the Gentile churches. Occasionally Jerusalem would send representatives to the Gentile churches to tell them they needed to follow the Law, but Paul fought this vehemently to keep it from happening (see Gal 1).

At its heart, the First Gospel was salvation through Christ’s death and resurrection and the restoration of the Holy Spirit mixed with continued adherence to the Mosaic Law.