The Crisis Point (05/27/26)

“What are we to do?”  This is a response that always greets the effective declaration of the kingdom of God.  Always may be too strong an assertion, but it does seem to be typically the case.  To proclaim that the kingdom of God is near must, if it is heard with belief, lead to a crisis in the one who has not been concerned with the desires of God or His purposes.  Indeed, we most often hear this news of the King while yet in a state of outright rebellion against His rightful rule.  We are by nature, at least by our fallen nature, inclined toward self-rule, and bristle at the thought of any other having say over how we live our lives.  Perhaps it is more the case with the more strong-willed among us.  But even the compliant, I suspect, bristle at their need for compliance, thought they keep it to themselves.

Some may have thought themselves religious.  Many did in that day, certainly.  To present the Gospel to the Jews, especially those gathered in Jerusalem in observance of the rites of their religion, was effectively to say, “You’ve been doing it wrong.”  This is why the Pharisees had such great difficulty accepting Jesus.  His very presence was a declaration of this truth.  His actions made it evident that He had the right of it.  And that simply would not do.  But whatever the details of the matter, the Gospel message brings us to a crisis point.  A decision must be made, whether to acknowledge the Lordship of Christ or whether to claim that right of rule for yourself.

We may not perceive the problem in those terms at the time.  But that really is the crisis.  Who’s in charge here?  Since Eden, Satan has been laboring to convince men that they ought by rights to rule themselves, with the accompanying lie that they are capable of doing so to good end.  That is the siren song of socialism, after all, that if we just arrange the playing field right, men will do good.  But they don’t.  To be a law unto oneself is to develop a wholesale disregard for all others.  It must be, for others who are a law unto themselves will inevitably come to constrain your own pursuits.  Conflict is rendered inevitable, and violence must follow.  In fact, Satan’s greatest trick may well be that in convincing us we are a law unto ourselves, he blinds us to the reality of our enslavement to him.

Comes the Gospel, and those blinders fall off.  We see what has really been the case.  And the Gospel comes, as well, with a firm declaration of personal responsibility.  You can’t appeal to the old, “The devil made me do it,” gambit.  It holds no water.  You cannot expect a pass because you didn’t know.  I cannot help feeling the brunt of the message these we are reading about had just heard repeatedly in a very short period of time.  “You did this!”  You nailed the Messiah, whom you claim to be waiting for, to the cross.  You killed Him!  It wasn’t your leaders.  It wasn’t the Romans.  It wasn’t some unspecified mob.  It was you!  And that is still the prerequisite understanding for receiving the Gospel.  It may not have hit at full force when you were first granted faith.  It may not have hit with full force even to this day, but I think I can say with assurance that if in fact you have heard the Gospel unto salvation, there is this awareness in you, that Christ died for your sins, not just the intellectual concept of sin, not just sins in some general, collective sense, but your sins, those deeds for which you are personally responsible.  And if He died for your sins, then it remains as true of you as for those listening to Peter in the heat of the day that first post-Resurrection Pentecost, that you killed Him.  Your sins nailed Him to the cross, pressed upon His brow the thorny crown, thrilled to see Him broken, humiliated, destroyed.  One more hindrance gone.

But now!  Now you have seen who you are.  You have finally begun to see your sin for what it truly is.  God is gracious, though.  He has not revealed to you the full enormity of your crimes in one crushing moment.  But He keeps showing you those points not yet dealt with.  Even as a Christian of long standing, the process continues.  It may well be that you, like me, find yourself battling the same core sins decade after decade.  And that is no small cause of consternation and concern.  Yet, I expect that you, like me, have found other cases where particular sins have fled the scene almost unnoticed.  And you have likely experienced other cases where seemingly insurmountable sins were conquered in a moment and no longer present the slightest temptation to you.  And yet, the call continues to be, “Be on guard, for your enemy, the devil prowls about seeking whom he may devour” (1Pe 5:8).  The crisis may have passed, but the battle remains.  The battle may be won – indeed, I must insist it is won.  Yet, that does not let us off the hook to stand our ground, firm in faith, battling flesh and the world until such time as our watch in this life is done and we may retire to our heavenly barracks.

Those listening to Peter that day had, most likely, fresh memories of just how strongly they had rebelled against God.  When he spoke of them nailing Jesus to the cross, they could probably recall being in that crowd demanding His crucifixion, perhaps laughing at His predicament as He hung there, or perhaps, like so many, more offended by the charge nailed above His head than by the injustice of His punishment.  When Peter said, “You did this!” they could not deny it.  They knew it.  And now, comes the news that this one you thought removed from being any threat to conscience or liberty is not in fact dead, but is instead revealed to be not merely alive, but alive in power – power sufficient to crush every last enemy!  Oh man, now we’re in it!

This, I think, had to hit especially hard for a people who by and large perceived God as angry, almost spiteful in His jealousy for His people.  What, after all, was Mosaic Law, but a presentation of required actions and dire penalties?  Go back to those covenant ceremonies, whether the giving of the Law, (which I would remind, they had just been celebrating even that very day), or the entry into the Promised Land.  To be sure, there were blessings promised on the one hand.  But those were predicated on compliance.  And a perfect God must, of necessity, demand perfect compliance.  Where that was not forthcoming, there remained the other hand, in which was a promise equally assured; that of punishment and death.  The Exile, as terrible as that must have been to live through, was nothing.  It was barely a down payment on the due punishment assured by that covenant.  And any honest assessment must eventually come to recognize that no man in all of history has ever lived in perfect compliance to that covenant.  Any honest assessment must come to recognize that this was why Abraham was so distraught when brought to enter into such a covenant with God.  There were the sacrifices, split open and laid out, the stream of blood between, and the process of walking out that covenant promise, “Thus may You do to me if I fail to honor the terms of our agreement.”  How could any man with self-awareness take this step?  It was assured self-destruction.  But God.  God walked alone in that agreement, even pressing a deep sleep on Abraham so that he could not have done so even if he was of a mind to comply.  This is not for you, child.  You’re not up to it.  But I AM.

So, too, in the giving of the Law, God upended the normal practice of royal covenant.  The two tablets which Moses brought with him from Mount Sinai were not two separate tables with one listing duties toward God, and one listing duties toward man.  No!  They were two copies of the same terms.  In normal practice, both parties to the agreement would have retained a copy, much as we do when entering into contracts today.  Your signature and that of the other party’s representative are both there on the page.  You have a copy, he has a copy.  Should disagreement arise, we can both refer to the same terms to determine how things should proceed, who is in the right, and what justice requires.

But religious practice had missed the point, and become simply a framework of social signals.  I wanted to write that it was a framework of moral requirements, but even that much had largely been just window dressing.  For many, compliance with the dictates of Pharisaic practice had far less to do with the original goal of seeking to be righteous and far more to do with appearing to be righteous.  It was no longer about avoiding offense against God.  It was primarily about gaining the approval of man.  Yes, there were exceptions.  There are always exceptions.  (Though the logician in me says that if there are always exception, there must be a case to which there are no exceptions.)

Still, the Gospel demands a response.  It demands a response of the unbeliever first come in contact with the message of faith.  It demands a response of the newfound believer into whose heart the Holy Spirit has shed light.  It demands a response of the seasoned believer, lest he become stunted in his growth, too satisfied with present achievement to continue striving toward the goal of true sanctification.  We become comfortable, and when we become comfortable, we need to be discomfited by the reminders of a holy God Who reigns absolutely over all of Creation, and more to the point, over us personally.  We are responsible to Him.  We will give answer to Him.  And that, however long we’ve been walking with Him, ought still to drive us to our knees in prayer.

A response is needed.  For all that salvation is by faith alone and by grace alone, still there is something required of us.  It is not meritorious work, no.  But surely it must be recognized that even a gift held out gratis will be to no purpose if we do not reach out to receive it.  And for those of us who have received the Gospel, have come into possession of a real and living faith in the real and living Christ, this is no less the case.  Every week, if not more often, we gather in accordance with His instruction, to receive from His Word.  We join together to worship and to learn.  We are never too old to learn, nor so well taught that we have nothing more to discover in Him.  However great our learning, He remains infinitely greater.  No matter the degree to which we have meditated and cogitated upon what He reveals to us, yet His ways remain far and away above and beyond us.

For my part, I have come to appreciate that blessing we have of being possessed of such an embarrassment of riches when it comes to the wisdom of our forebears.  We may not, indeed must not, receive these writings as bearing the force of Scripture, but still, we can gratefully acknowledge that greater minds than our own have considered these truths and left us their thoughts.  Agreed with or not, where the author is a Christian in pursuit of Christ, we may yet benefit by their word and their example.  And may the same be said of us in our turn!

And yet, as I observed in the “You Were There” section, how readily we fall to watching the clock, impatiently looking for the end of the sermon even before it has well and truly begun.  It probably doesn’t help, in my case, that I am generally several hours into my day even before I arrive at church, and then, usually engaged in preparing and presenting worship an hour or two before the Word is preached.  But these don’t amount to any viable sort of excuse.  God’s Word is being declared, and declared with prayerful preparation, and shall I not attend to what He has to say to us this day?  If it runs long, what of it?  Am I here for coffee or for grace?  Sometimes, I would have to confess, I am convicted as to the answer I would have to give in all honesty.  What shall I do?

What shall any of us do?  For the one brought to that first, initial crisis point of the Gospel, Peter’s answer is simple enough, at least so far as understanding it goes.  Repent, be baptized, be saved.  For us, these are hopefully goals already achieved, at least as concerns the second and third.  If we have not been saved, in what wise are we Christians at all?  If we have not been baptized, then on what basis can we claim to obey our Lord?  Then, too, if we have not truly repented of our former ways, in what sense can we claim to have been set upon the Way?

These set before us as example heard effectually.  And having heard, they were at that crisis point.  But they didn’t walk away despondent.  They sought answers.  They sought help.  Okay, you’ve shown us our prognosis, now how do we address this?  How can I be healthy again?  The penalty is death!  How am I to pay that and live?  You’ve shown us our problem.  Now show us our answer, please!  We beg of you as brothers, as kinsmen.  And Peter supplied the answer.  And in so doing, he supplied hope.  There is a way.  God has made a way.  Believe, and believing, act.

I will be taking time to look at these three commanded actions which Peter prescribes.  But as a starting point, I must pray for myself, as well as for any who might eventually read these notes of mine, that we would be sensitized to respond.  The Word will come.  But it will avail us nothing if we just let it wash over us and drain away.  No!  We must seek to attend to what God is saying, and allow it to sink in.  We must allow the crisis to be at work in us, that we, too, may hear to good effect, and be changed.  Let us listen, then, with the mindset of seeking what we must do.  And let us emerge from hearing prepared to act upon the answers we receive from our gracious Lord.

God Revealed (05/28/26-05/29/26)

Before I turn to those three commanded actions, I want to divert just a bit.  There are a couple of questions that arise for me in considering what Peter is saying here, and while they don’t necessarily bear strongly on the core message of what he is saying, they do perhaps give further indication as to how he is speaking.  The questions arise in light of verse 39, as he speaks of the promised outpouring of the Holy Spirit.  Bear in mind that he himself had only just experienced this, and those to whom he is speaking had just witnessed the result.  And Peter’s message here, as they face the crisis of realizing their guilt and God’s holiness, is to say, “This promise is for you!”  That in itself is stunningly unexpected.  We might posit a willingness on God’s part to allow us a sheepish return while yet retaining something of a second class membership.  You can come in, but don’t get too close.  Something like that.  But to have this same powerful gift that they have seen in action?  Who could imagine such a thing?

Peter, though, doesn’t leave it there, though the ‘for you’ part is in fact given emphasis.  It goes farther.  It’s for your children, too.  And here, it’s not too hard to follow along, is it?  I mean, a people familiar with the covenant promises made to Abraham and to Noah and to Moses would expect this.  The practice of circumcision was declaration of this.  So, familiar territory.  But still, Peter isn’t finished.  It’s also ‘for all who are far off.’  And now we have to wonder just what he means, and for all that, how much he understands what he means.

As to the meaning, there are at least a few possibilities.  Our propensity, knowing where Acts is going, and knowing our own inclusion in that number, is to take this as an allusion to the future inclusion of the Gentiles.  Well, to be sure, the Apostles had witnessed some things which should have prepared them to expect such an inclusion.  They had watched Jesus minister to folks outside of Israel, outside of the boundaries of the Chosen People, even as He was insisting that His mission was to the Jews exclusively.  For all that, His own commissioning of the Apostles insists on this outward expansion, and as God’s people eventually recognized, this was fully in keeping with the original mandate of the Abrahamic covenant.  He had never been intended to be the father of a nation, but as the father of many nations.  The promise is not just for you, though it is first for you.  It is for all who are far off.  One can see that meaning applying here.  But I still question whether Peter would have seen it, or those listening heard it, in that sense.

Let me consider a second possibility.  Recall the scene.  As the Spirit came upon those in the upper room, they spoke out in many languages, so as to be understood, shall we say comfortably, by those from many places.  “Parthians, Medes, Elamites; Asians, Phrygians, and Pamphylians; Egyptians, Libyans, Cyreneans, and Romans; as well as locals” (Ac 2:9).  This was feast week, and while the majority of those gathered for the occasion were Jews by birth, they were not specifically Judean.  They were of distant lands, and only here for the week.  That is made plain again as Peter begins to address them.  “Men of Judea, and all of you who live in Jerusalem” (Ac 2:14), “listen up!”  “Men of Israel, mark my words” (Ac 2:22).  “Let the house of Israel know that Jesus is Lord and Messiah” (Ac 2:36).  This has been a hometown message.  There’s really no reason for Peter to have the Gentiles on his mind.  But for those listening, there might indeed be some question as to whether this was something special for the local populace alone.  I mean, Jerusalem had held this special significance in the life of God’s people at least since David made it the nation’s capital.  Here is where the Temple was, and no place else.  Every city and town might have its synagogue, but there was only one Temple of God.  And here alone is where every Jew – and proselyte for that matter – was commanded to be present thrice a year, on penalty of being cut off from the people of God.

To such a group, inclusion of, “those far off,” might come as particular comfort in their dismay.  They were just visitors, and in a sense more apt than could be said even of those Galileans they were hearing.  Yes, they were from out of town, too, but still in Israel.  We, on the other hand, shall soon return to distant shores, and does that mean we forego this blessing?  I think, for all their worldliness, there remained a propensity to view God as more a territorial deity than universal.  I think we sometimes fall into the same habit.  Oh yes, we pursue our missionary efforts, but somehow, we still feel that the real Christianity, the deep Christianity, is a thing of the West; no other culture really likely to get it right, or to be quite so blessed by the presence of God.  Just contemplate Britain’s anthem with its sense of self as the New Jerusalem, or America’s sense of being the shining city on the hill, making God known to all the nations.  It’s almost inevitable that as we go out to bear the message elsewhere, we do so with an unwanted sense of superiority.

Now, I must temper that somewhat, I expect.  I cannot speak as a seasoned missionary, but I can speak as one who has been sent out, at least on a couple of occasions now, and I hope it may be that God will see clear to send me again.  But there is something the western missionary must face in meeting the Christians of another culture.  They are not inferior in the least.  In many ways they are far and away our superiors when it comes to truly laying hold of this faith and relying on God.  It may be as simple as the reality that they really have little choice but to rely on God whereas we have all the distractions and supposed aids of material wealth.  But when we go to teach, we often discover that we have gone to learn as well.  We go to minister to brothers, not children.  We go to speak of God with our fellow elders, not as benevolent demigods of some sort.  God knows they have enough of that sort of nonsense from charlatans from their own nations.  They don’t need to suffer the same from us.  But it is a blessing to travel so far and find oneself amidst so hungry and devoted a fellowship.  And it is a greater blessing in many ways to come home and know that you now have brothers and sisters at such distance who pray for and care for you even as you have been praying and caring for them.  It changes things.

All of this to say that while God’s intent may have been to foreshadow the expansion of the Gospel into Gentile territories, in the immediate setting it may very well have been a message of comfort for those who must very soon return to their distant homes.  Distance is no hindrance to the Spirit of the Living God.  National boundaries are as nothing to Him Who establishes the nations.  Denominational differences do not divide God or prevent Him from ministering every bit as fully to those whose views and practices vary from our own.  Yes, they worship loud and wild in Africa.  But they worship in earnest.  Yes, we are rather significantly more reserved in our worship style, more circumspect and ‘respectable’ in our behavior.  One hopes it can still be said of us that we worship in earnest, for all that we are so reserved in our display.  But for all whom God has called to Himself, the fact remains that this promise of the Holy Spirit indwelling is for us, for you.  As later letters to the churches would make evident, that does not mean that every last believer gets to speak in tongues, whether we are discussing that in terms of sudden capacity with foreign languages, or in more ecstatic terms.  That doesn’t mean that every last believer will find themselves practically forced to their feet with some eloquent delivery of previously unheard proclamations from heaven.  By no means!  Yet, all of us have a Bible and the tools readily available to delve into it for deeper understanding.  And all of us can testify to what God has done for us, who He has revealed Himself to be in calling us.  All of us have been made temples of the Holy Spirit who has been shed abroad in our hearts.  That ought to be evident in how we speak, how we live, as much in the things we now do as in the things we do no longer.

So, let me answer my question thusly.  Peter, I suspect, had in mind those soon to return to their homelands far away.  They would not have to miss out on this outpouring.  It was for those back home, as well.  For recall, this gathering was primarily for the men of Israel.  Women and children may well have stayed behind to look after family interests.  They hadn’t missed their chance.  It’s for your children, too!  It’s for those far off in the places you have come from.  But God would seem to have had more in mind, as His perfect sight sees farther.  So, even as Peter continues to think in terms of those who could trace their lines back to Abraham, God is thinking of those whose claim of lineage could only be on the spiritual basis of faith.

Hmm.  Three brief bullet points, and it seems I shall need multiple mornings to pursue them properly.  So, tomorrow, I shall pick up my second question.  For Peter adds yet another clause to his exploration of the limitless promise of this gift of the Spirit.  It goes, he says, to “as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself.”  And again, I have to ask how Peter understood his own words in that.  What did he understand to be the nature and force of God’s choice?  I suppose I should have to add a secondary question as to whether Luke is, in this instance, reading Pauline doctrine back into the foundations.  But this is Scripture, and as such, I must maintain that even if Luke is doing so, it is because God is doing so; because God intended it to be there in the foundations.

If this were in one of Peter’s epistles I might put it down to his having read some of Paul’s writings and taken it to heart.  There are other aspects to his epistles that make it evident that this did indeed come to pass.  But I also think this particular point would already be quite evident to him.  He had but to compare his situation with that of Judas.  Both, after all, had betrayed Jesus, if in different fashion.  Both had known regret for their deeds.  One might even go so far as to say both had repented of their deeds.  But God called one to Himself, and that repentance brought Peter back to Jesus in humble response to His evident love and forgiveness.  And now, here he was, recipient of this most incredible gift and suddenly imbued with such strength of speech!  Judas, on the other hand, was dead by his own hand and become a byword for traitorous companions through the ages.  What made the difference?  It wasn’t the men.  It wasn’t lack of remorse.  It wasn’t desire to know forgiveness.  All experience that.  But one God called, and one God did not.  His choice was the only possible explanation that would fit the outcome.

As with his declaration that this promise was for ‘all who are far off,’ I don’t know as he recognized the scope of what he was declaring in that moment.  He spoke as the Spirit gave utterance, and sometimes, often I should suppose, that leaves one speaking things beyond their own understanding.  Just as they had been speaking in languages not known to themselves, now Peter was preaching truths not fully understood on his own part.  He would come to understand, but that’s later in our chronicle here.

In this, Peter was in much the same position as those listening to him.  Like them, he had been raised on the Scriptures.  He knew them, and supposed himself to know the God revealed in them.  How could one grow up a Jew in the midst of Israel and not know God?  This is a people who nailed bits of scripture to their doorposts, knit them on the sleeves of their clothing, tied them around their fingers.  Anything to keep the word of God before one’s eyes and on one’s mind.  They had learned the rites and practices.  They knew the Law they had been celebrating this day, and even thought themselves observant of its dictates.  It had taken Jesus no small effort to open people’s eyes to the reality of their sin.  “I’m a good man,” is a hard wall to break through with this message of needed forgiveness.  It had taken Peter’s chisel of, “You nailed Him to that cross,” to make it clear to those listening to him.  And it took this marvel of the Spirit poured out, with news of that promised wonder yet being available to them as they listened to move them to begin shaking their prior understanding off and coming to know God as He truly is.

Peter had been there.  So many preconceived notions had needed to be stripped away in order that he could truly perceive that One he had seen on the mountain, revealed in glory.  Even then, as his response made clear, he didn’t get it.  He saw only another great man, perhaps on par with Moses and Elijah, and worthy to be honored as they were.  But God, speaking from heaven, with Moses and Elijah removed from the scene, made it evident that no, He is more than their equal.  He is their Lord, God’s Son, God Incarnate.  And even with that, I don’t think Peter truly grasped it.  I doubt any of them did until they found Him resurrected from the grave and standing in their midst.  Even then, the full comprehension of His deity had perhaps not penetrated.  But with His ascension into heaven, lifted up in their sight upon clouds which bore Him way to take up His throne, now perhaps they began to realize the reality of the situation.  They had been walking with God!  They had been eating and drinking with God.  They had been arguing with God.  They had been taught by God.  And now?  Now they had been empowered by God and given their assignment.  And what could one do but get after it!

Did Peter fully understand even what was being revealed in this sermon of his?  Perhaps not yet.  But he would.  Did those listening fully understand?  Unlikely.  But they understood enough to respond, and they understood well enough to respond positively.  Shocked to the core and lost, they cried out, “What shall we do?”  God, in His mercy, gave answer through Peter.  Three things, and only one fully of your own doing.  Number one, repent.  Change the course of your life.  Number two, be baptized.  They would understand the significance of this as washing away the sins of a former life.  They would also understand, I suspect, the significance of confessing the Lordship of Christ and themselves His subjects.  Number three, be saved.  And this last, well, they could hardly save themselves, could they?  Were that a potential, it would be perverse indeed for God to send His Son to die.  But they could be saved, yet even with God doing the saving, there remains that need to lay hold of the thin hope held out to them.  Knowledge of salvation is to no avail if you will not receive it.

Oh, they had as yet so very much to learn, so many misconceptions to shed.  And we come to Christ in the same condition, each one of us.  Some of us, having now been long in the church, may find ourselves with new misconceptions in need of being shed.  Perhaps some is too small a word.  I do find that the longer I pursue these times of study with my Lord, the more firmly I hold to certain positions.  But I must recall that I have firmly held to other positions in past years only to find God crashing through and pointing out the error.  You thought this?  But no, My child!  Read with better understanding and you must surely see that is not how I AM, not how this works at all!  Repent of that understanding and lay hold of Truth.

Spiritual pride would give one to suppose that now, having corrected such erroneous views, one had arrived at such understanding as needed no further adjusting.  And in reaching such a conclusion one must realize they have never been further from the truth.  We do not arrive at perfect understanding.  Not in this life.  It is as improbable, impossible really, as expecting to achieve full and henceforth perfect adherence to God’s perfect Law.  His perfect Truth, like His perfect Law, is beyond our imperfect capacities.  His ways remain far and away above and beyond our own however much we may progress in our sanctification.  There is always more.  The goal lies ever ahead until that day when He calls us home, that day when we shall see Him as He truly is, having been made fully like Him, apart, of course, from His deity.

Oh!  Such a glorious day that shall be, and how the heart longs for it.  Yet, truth must confess that even with that longing, there is with us a certain nostalgic attachment to this home we have always known and loved.  Oh, we see its faults as we never used to.  We find plenty of which to complain, and sorrow to see the darkness all around us.  Yet, we see the beauty.  We know the joy of living this life.  And there is great joy in it, as there should be, for this life, too, is of His doing and as such, gives evidence of His beauty and goodness.  Yet we know that this is but a foretaste at best, that their lies ahead an eternity fully freed from the presence or even the suggestion of sin.  And for those of us whom He has called to Himself, who have come to perceive the gravity of sin and to rue our continued susceptibility to its enticements, that future beckons with such sweetness as produces in us a growing intensity of longing.  How long, O Lord?  How long?  The parting may be bittersweet, but the bitter will be forgotten in a moment when we see His wondrous face.

Even so, Lord, come soon.  But so long as You tarry, let us be about the duties You have given us to pursue, that You may be pleased in us and glorified in this place.

Repentance (05/30/26-05/31/26)

The first and immediate response Peter has to this question of what to do is, “Repent.”  It has become a common caricature of the Gospel preacher, or at least the one gripped by religious fervor.  Cartoons will show him walking the city streets with sign in hand reading, “Repent, for the end is near.”  Modern sensibilities decry the fire and brimstone preaching of old which would lay out the case against sinners and speak long on God’s just and inevitable vengeance against sin.  But why did they preach as they did?  Because one will hardly repent of offense against a god who seems distant and powerless.  If God is not just, then repentance has no purpose.  For all that, if there is no least hope of reprieve, there is still no point in repenting.  If judgment is already certain, and my crimes so great, well!  I’m done for, then, aren’t I?  What’s the point in changing now?  No.  Repentance only makes sense if there is yet some potential for mercy.

Then, too, to be commanded to repent will only be of use if we understand what repentance is, and more importantly perhaps, what it is not.  Repentance is not regret for being caught, nor is it discomfort with the consequences of our actions.  Those may accompany repentance, but in themselves they do not fit the definition.  I can regret the consequences of my actions and still go right back to doing them.  I may rue the effect of a relatively idle lifestyle on my body as I age, and yet find no inclination to pursue more exercise.  I may recognize that my diet is doing my health no favors, and yet refuse to alter course.  I may recognize that pride has a deep hold in me and yet do nothing about it beyond apologizing to God.  And even in apologizing to God, I may well be thinking, “I’m sorry, but You made me like this.”  There’s no repentance.  At most, there is recognition of pain to come.

True repentance consists in real change.  We’re not talking perfection.  Perfection is not in us, not even with the indwelling Holy Spirit assisting.  As Jesus observed of His closest companions, “the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Mt 26:41).  It is thus that we require the accompanying admonishment to keep watchful and praying, lest we enter into temptation.  Watchful prayer is a preventative.  Do you notice that?  It’s not, at least in this application, a capacity for resistance, strength to stand in the midst of temptation unyielding.  No.  The flesh is weak.  Far better we be held away from temptation, lest the flesh yield to it yet again, even as the spirit cries out in dismay.  “Oh, wretched man that I am!” (Ro 7:24).  If you have not felt that cry in your own heart, I must wonder if you have really come to know your true condition yet.  It’s well and good to know oneself saved, and if we are in fact among those many whom God has called to Himself, we ought to know it.  But to suppose you now stand in sinless perfection?  I should think it unimaginable did I not know that so many have managed to imagine themselves to be in just such a condition.  But how?  Is it not the height of spiritual pride to suppose we have become such as no longer stand in need of forgiveness?  Can we really think that we have outgrown the need for a Savior?  And if we could, I am again back at the core problem; that were this possible, then Jesus need not have died, and God is perverse for having caused Him to do so.  I come to a point of finding God in need of repentance, and that ought surely to serve as warning that my views have strayed far from truth.

True repentance consists in not merely regret, but such regret as produces in us a true change of heart.  The word itself has in view not just a course correction, but an about face.  It’s recognition that you have been going the wrong way, and the only proper reaction is to turn about and go back the right way.  Conscience is, if you will, your moral GPS giving notice that you missed a turn somewhere.  If you’re like me, you’ve not doubt had your GPS noisily insisting that you need to turn around and go back.  Now, with mere navigation of the streets, it may well be that while you still have the same destination in mind, you desire a more scenic route, such that you can safely disregard those noises.  You may know of a bypass or some such that will avoid some unpleasantness ahead, or simply not be in a rush.  But when your moral GPS is crying out for a course change, don’t ignore it!  Conscience, in the believer, is the voice of the Spirit, the warning of your Tutor, your Advocate, advising you.

It might be best to recognize that in all of life you are effectively on trial.  Your entire life is forming the testimony which the court will hear – in detail.  As such, you are well advised to heed the advice of your Lawyer, the Holy Spirit.  When He calls for you to cease and desist, do so!  When He urges you to bite your tongue, be silent!  And when He instructs you to speak thus, to do such and such, speak!  Act!  He has been sent to your aid, and on what sane basis shall you disregard His advice?  Who, after all, knows the Judge better than He?  When He says stop, turn around, get out of here, it is in your best interest to do precisely that.

When He starts advertising to your thoughts just how off course your thoughts have strayed, know that it is time to think differently.  If there is to be a change of heart, then change your mind.  And if you have changed your mind, it is inevitable, is it not, that there will come as well a change of course?  The Amplified Version, for all that I may often find its style more annoying than helpful, is in fact helpful on this point, giving a sound and insightful explanation of repentance.  “Change your views and purpose to accept the will of God in your inner selves instead of rejecting it.”  Sin, after all, is at root a rejection of God’s will.  We may not think of it as such, but such it is.  Sin is the willful child insisting on having his way, whatever Father may say about it.  And that will not do.  You would not tolerate it as a parent, at least not as a wise parent.  Why would you expect your Father to tolerate it in you?

Then, of course, we must come back to the acknowledgement that He is not only our Father, but our Lord.  Or, if you prefer to contemplate the Person of Jesus, He is not merely our Husband, our boon companion and Friend, He is Lord.  There is, as I have reflected upon recently, cause to retain a close connection between our recognition of Him as Savior and our recognition of Him as Lord.  The one office has rescued us from our criminal pursuits.  The other has full right of command over us, and the power to enforce compliance and punish noncompliance.  He is Lord!  His is the unopposable power of ultimate, full and final Authority.  What, then, has He commanded and you have not done?  What has He forbidden and yet you did?  The list, I suspect, is far longer than you wish to recite.  I know that is the case with me.  And yet, I know I am His.  I know this true change of heart.  But still, I know my weakness, or my stubbornness, which amounts to the same thing.

What, then, has changed?  I do accept the will of God.  I do desire to desire His desires.  I want so much to be a pleasing and compliant son to my Father in heaven.  I rejoice to find myself doing that to which He has called me, and I accede with as much good grace as I am able to muster in His supply when He calls me to step back.

I probably refer things back to these few mission trips to Africa enough to annoy any readership I might have (the which I rather doubt I do), but it so often serves the purpose.  I can compare and contrast my sense of direction last year, when the call to go was so strong as to override even concerns over harmonious relationships in my own household.  I knew myself called to go, and must therefore go, whatever might seek to prevent me.  This year, I feel equally comfortable that I have heard His instruction in refraining.  I’d love to go back.  There are people I love to be with there.  And the feeling of ministering in God’s purpose on such an occasion does not find ready parallel here on home turf.  For one, it is a rare occasion when I have any to teach apart from myself.  But far more, I think, it is the immersion in mission.  For those few weeks, there really is very little that is not missional and focused.  And that being the case, you experience the power of God working in and through you in ways that simply don’t seem to happen at home.  Perhaps it’s just that we surround ourselves with so many distractions.  Perhaps it’s that the myriad necessities of life cannot be set aside for more than those few weeks.  But no, it’s more than that.  It’s immersive.  And it’s immersion in something so far over your head, so far beyond your ability, that you have no choice but to fall upon God to work through you, which is in large part, to get yourself out of your own way, in order that He might work.

Let me tread a bit carefully here.  I do not suppose myself capable of preventing God working.  But I do recognize that my words and actions can either bend to His purpose or be bent by His purpose.  I can render the pursuit of His purpose in some way more difficult.  I don’t suppose myself capable of requiring Him to change course or devise alternatives.  He knows and already accounted for my failures.  But I think of those who render the Gospel that much harder to hear by adding all manner of alarmist talk, bold declarations of claimed knowledge to those whose actual knowledge of the salient facts must surely leave them now skeptical of any further claim one might make, and it pains me, for I see that the ears of those listening have now been blocked that much more from hearing the Gospel.  But then, I must pause to consider to what degree my own words and actions achieve the same end.

We tend to focus on whether we are boldly declaring the Gospel, pushing our invitation to receive this gift of forgiveness from a loving God.  And to be sure, we ought to be about doing so, given that this is our assignment.  Yet, if we are not considering whether it is the Gospel alone we are proclaiming, whenever and however we may be doing so, or whether we have cluttered the message with all manner of counterproductive noise, we may be doing more harm than good.  Adding conspiracy theories, or hyper-spiritual imaginations to the simple Gospel of Truth does not in fact add, but rather, subtracts, and impedes (to such degree as it is possible) the work of God.  Now, being a firm proponent of God’s Providential arrangement of all the events of life, I would have to accept that such impeding of the Gospel must be in accord with His purpose, and yet I should prefer not to be the instrument of such impediment.  Far better that I should be faithful to proclaim His Gospel truly and simply, both by word and by example, and allow Him to so act upon the listener as He pleases, than that I should, by my noisome additions make it needful for Him to work that much harder to allow the Truth to cut through.

If that doesn’t work, consider the one to whom you are seeking to witness.  How have you served this one if, by your adding to God’s Word, or by your negative example, you have caused that one to wander in the wilderness so much longer?  If your presentation of Christianity has made Christianity that much less palatable, not because of its inherent purity but because of your corrupted presentation, how many have rejected the message for a longer period because of your efforts?  I think back to those I used to encounter on the streets of Boston when I was there so many years ago.  I’m sure they thought themselves pursuing God’s purpose as they sought to engage passers-by with their questionnaire, in hopes of getting them to think about God.  But honestly, at least from where I was as one passing by, they were about as welcome as a vagrant asking for coin.  They were an unwelcome annoyance, a delay.  They were nobody I knew, and as such, had no particular ground from which to address me.  Could I point to that and suggest that they, by their efforts, caused me to wander longer in darkness?  No, probably not.  But I’m not certain of that.

I could as readily point to those who brought eastern practices into the church in which I grew up.  Or, the example of those older attendees who would sleep through the service, somehow knowing to stand and sing or recite at the appropriate points; or those who would sit under the ministry, such as it was, and then, as soon as they were out the door, go back to backstabbing and infighting.  If this is Christianity, I’ll do without it, thanks.  But such reflections must lead back to considering my own example, and recognition that I am likely just as poor an advertisement for faith to those who know me best.  If that is so, and I have little doubt that it is, I can but pray that God will yet use me to His good purpose, and more, that He will so work upon me that I am less of a hindrance to His good purpose.

Lord, You have been driving me towards this point all morning, and as such, best I heed my own advice – Your advice to me – and seek that I might truly change, or be changed by You.  I know how much of what I have been writing is exposition on my own sins, my own failings.  And I know there is much to which I have yet blinded myself.  But let me at least try and deal with what lies exposed.  Yes, I can see that spiritual pride remains a serious issue in me, perhaps grows more so with time.  I am too ready to simply assume the correctness of my views and doctrine because I have done the time here in these morning exercises.  But I have plentiful need for correction.  I pray, then, that You would find me correctable, and bring about the correction in me.  Help me to hear others with understanding and charity, rather than judgment and pridefulness.  Help me to receive course correction by whatever means You choose to deliver it.  Let me not judge the message by the messenger.  And then, too, let not my example and character be a cause for others to reject the message You would speak through me.  And I pray that You would speak through me.  There really is no good reason that I can minister as I have in Africa when there, but cannot do so here.  You are the same God, and I the same servant.  That’s not the problem.  It’s me.  Why should I be unwilling to speak with conviction and confident reliance upon You here, when I am so ready to do so there?  Lord, I need You.  This flesh is indeed weak, and I’m not as confident as I should wish that the spirit is willing.  But I am confident in You.  I know by Your word that I shall stand because You are able to make me stand.  Make me stand, then, Lord.  And make me speak, that I may boldly proclaim Your glorious majesty to those who have need of hearing.  Use me as You will, and let it be that I acknowledge You as Lord not merely in thought and word, but in deed as well.

I want to point out a bit of wordplay in this whole discourse of Peter’s, though I don’t know as it was particularly intentional on his part.  He had observed that the whole business of Jesus’ crucifixion, including their individual parts in it, had come about ‘by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God’ (Ac 2:23), and we saw that foreknowledge, as the word plainly implies, is knowledge beforehand.  This is something that must be seen to apply to God alone.  He may choose to reveal what He foreknows, and thus we come to that aspect of prophecy.  But the knowing itself, given that the event has not transpired, is something only He could possibly know.  Here, as we look at the matter of repentance, I see that the term used is literally indicating ‘after knowledge,’ with thanks to Zhodiates for pointing this out.  This is the very opposite.  It’s the realization of what one has actually done or been doing.

You have likely experienced something of this after knowledge.  There are those things which having said, you immediately recognize that you ought not to have done so.  There are actions undertaken, as it were, in a flash which, even if there are no immediate repercussions, you just know after the fact that you really ought not to have done.  Perhaps it needs somebody asking you what you were thinking.  Perhaps it doesn’t even need that.  The awareness is instant.  Oof.  How could I?  But you did.  Of course, there are other sins that have been so habitual that even knowing the wrong of it, we go back to doing the very thing.  Ignorance of the reality doesn’t even enter into it.  Of course, ignorance of the reality was never going to serve as a viable excuse anyway.  It doesn’t carry any weight in matters of civil law.  It certainly won’t be to any purpose in matters of divine law.

But this after knowledge, this dawning awareness of the real sinfulness of sin, coming as it does by the Holy Spirit working within to bring awareness, as well as an ability and willingness to see it clearly, must be accompanied by a very real change of heart.  Seeing the real nature and impact of what we have been doing, and seeing God in His holiness, how can it not?  How can we willingly continue on that course when once we have seen the fiery pit which is its inevitable terminus?  And even if we do not see that pit, seeing God’s love for us, how can we continue to be willing to disregard His love and knowingly, intentionally pursue such deeds as offend Him to the core?

You hear that in the response of those who have listened to Peter.  They were ‘pierced to the heart.’  That’s the Spirit bringing clarity to them.  Yeah.  This is what you have done.  This is who you are.  But it is done, at least for ‘as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself,’ not in condemnation but in pursuit of rescue.  Yeah.  Now you see it, don’t you?  Seeing the heinous nature of your actions, you want nothing to do with them.  You want to change course, because that was awful.  That was the sort of thing about which, seeing clearly, you can only say, “How could I?”  Where now your thoughts of, “I’m a good man”?  You rather obviously, even to your own lying heart, are not.  And this, they are driven to, “What shall we do?”  It’s another form of, “How can I ever make this right?”

You know, follow any sort of plot line with a romantic interest involved, and you are likely to see this scenario play out.  It’s a favorite plot point for the dramatist.  There is some unintended offense, so wrong as to risk breaking the relationship beyond repair, and the one in the wrong, realizing their error, becomes desperate to find some path to restoration.  There was a show I was watching yesterday which played out this theme repeatedly.  It seems to be a very common device in British drama particularly, but that’s perhaps because British drama is about the only stuff I am likely to watch at this stage.  Let me just say this is not some moral judgment on the state of American entertainment.  Britain, if anything, is further down the slope of making sin look fashionable than us.  But these plot points reveal the remnants of a core Christian perception.  It reveals a niggling recollection of God even in those who would, at least in their imaginations, deny Him to His face.

But this plot point is the point of repentance.  I see who I have been, and I loathe him.  I see how I have hurt you and I cannot live with myself.  I am powerless to change the past, but I long very much to make sure it doesn’t repeat.  I don’t want to see our love destroyed by my stupidity.  How can I prove that to you?  How can I ever gain your forgiveness?  More, how can I regain your trust, your love?  And it goes beyond that painful discussion and confession.  It continues from that point, moving into concerted effort and action undertaken on this new course.

This drives me to my final point on this first commanded action.  A true change of heart is involved, and being a true change of heart, it cannot but result in a real change of course.  Repentance, when it is real, must act.  It’s not a case of merit, seeking to balance out the karmic load or any such nonsense.  It is the only possible means of giving real witness that there has been a real change.  Anything less leaves you in that place of the son who, called upon by his father to go work the fields, said, “I will,” but did not.  That is, if anything, repentance in the wrong direction.  Really, it’s just a lie, a sin in itself.  To claim sorrow for sin, but then, at the very next opportunity, go right back to it, is to put the lie to that claimed sorrow.  It’s not sorrow for sin.  It’s sorrow for getting caught.  Not the same.

So, a few things to recognize from this.  First, as Paul observed in his testimony before Agrippa, repentance calls for works.  There, we hear him say, “I declared this first to those in Damascus, but also in Jerusalem, Judea, and even to the Gentiles, so that they all might repent and turn to God, doing works in keeping with repentance” (Ac 26:20).  What did he declare?  The Gospel, of course, and the need to turn from darkness to light now that they are enabled to do so (Ac 26:18), as Jesus had commanded him to proclaim.  But see it.  Repentance is necessarily followed by ‘works in keeping with repentance.’  Where there is real repentance, it will be evident in real change, real change shown in real works along a new line.

There is a second thing to recognize, and that is that, while this command is given in the Aorist Tense, which would normally indicate a more punctiliar sort of action, repentance is not some one-time event in the life of the Christian.  We cannot suppose that having repented once in that moment when God made Himself clearly known to us, and along with that, gave us to know the possibility present in His offer of forgiveness, we are set for life.  No!  Sin continues to afflict us.  Take Peter as an example.  We know of his great sin in denying Jesus there in the courtyard as He was being tried before Annas.  We know, too, his repentance, and have that beautiful scene of forgiveness and restoration at the end of John’s gospel (Jn 21:15-18).  And we see here a Peter transformed, at least in part.  He’s still recognizably Peter, but there’s a difference.  Yet, we can move forward to that point when the Gentiles are coming in, and Antioch’s church has become, shall we say, more cosmopolitan.  Peter, of all men, should have known the rightness of this, and did.  Yet, when others came from Jerusalem, whose readiness to accept the Gentiles as fellow heirs was not yet there, Peter backed away from fellowship with said Gentiles.  It was a bending to the opinions of man rather than the opinions of God, and Paul, we know, found it needful to confront Peter on that matter, not in condemnation, but in furtherance of his repenting of this behavior.

There is the lesson for us.  Continued sin calls for continued repentance.  John would later write words that are so greatly comforting to the believer.  “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1Jn 1:9).  I have to check myself anymore when I recall this verse, for there is a sung form of it I know from years past, which insistently inserts a clause:  “If we confess our sins and turn away from them.”  On the one hand, it smacks of inserting works righteousness where it has no business being.  On the other, it conveys a truth.  Repentance, to go back to Pauls’ point, will result in ‘doing works in keeping with repentance.’  If it does not, I dare say we must question the validity of that repentance.  It’s not that you owe us any proof.  If we stand or fall, it is before our Master and Judge, not before one another.  And yet, those charged with the leadership of Christ’s flock in the present must assess and weigh the evidence so as to exhort and admonish appropriately.  And we, for our own peace of mind, need to see our own repentance take action, else we will find ourselves doubting God’s willingness to forgive.  How can He be willing to forgive if I am so unwilling to change?  The base point is that we need such evidence ourselves, for our own peace of mind and our own confident faith in Christ.  Repent, therefore, even having been saved, that you may continue to know the assurance of His forgiveness.  His forgiveness is assured to His own regardless.  The only condition is confession, and even that, I suspect is less a hard and fast requirement than we tend to think.  We confess Him as Lord.  We trust Him with our lives.  And even our ability to do that much, we are reminded, is by grace alone, lest we think we have cause to boast.  No.  It’s all Him start to finish.  And yet, where His work is ongoing, His works shall be evident.  Repent, therefore, and be the saved child of God which He has made you to be.

Baptism (06/01/26-06/03/26)

We come to the second response commanded by Peter:  Be baptized.  Now, there is a great deal to be considered on this subject, and I can hardly hope to do justice to it in this setting, nor do I intend to launch into a full exploration of the subject and all the attendant questions and details that are connected to it.  But it does deserve our attention, given its clear connection to Christian life.  We need but recognize its foundations, and the establishing of the practice first by the Jews, then by the application of it by John the Baptist, and finally, of course, the continued exercise of said practice by Jesus in His ministry.

Before I jump in, though, I want to point out thing.  This command, as well as that which follows regarding being saved, is given to us in the passive voice.  The passive voice places the source of the action outside of the one addressed.  In simple terms, the subject receives the action rather than performing it.  Yet here we are dealing not with the fact statements of the indicative mood, but with the force of the imperative.  You must do this.  It is required of you.  And yet, you cannot actually do this, can you?  You cannot baptize yourself.  That, after all, would be a middle voice action anyway.  You certainly can’t save yourself.  Neither can you force the matter by your own power and will.  You can but accede, perhaps we could allow a seeking willingness.  So, the command to be baptized is, in the end, a call to undertake to pursue whatever is required in order that another will baptize you.

In light of this, we find that baptism soon came to mark not the initial coming to faith, but a degree of understanding achieved, such that full entrance into the covenant community could be acknowledged.  We think more of baptism as the acknowledgement by the one being baptized that Jesus is Lord, that he or she has died to sin and now lives to Christ.  But there is a reverse acknowledgement as well; the church acknowledging that this one is now brother and sister to ourselves.  I am rather beginning at the end of such explorations as I intended to pursue in this section, but so be it.  We can fill in the picture later.  But this much must be recognized, that baptism is indeed a covenant marker.  The Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, which I shall hereafter refer to simply as the EDBT, insists on this same conclusion.  The author writes, “Christian baptism thus preserves the covenantal basis of biblical thought: God first offers in grace, human beings then respond in gratitude, deserving nothing.”

There are a few things to observe in that statement.  First, observe the passive role of the baptizee.  There is no meritorious aspect to this.  It is but gratitude for grace received, so far as all that goes.  There is, in the act of baptism, a clear acknowledgement, though it is rarely stated outright, that we have gained something we by no means deserved, nor ever could.  But let us focus on that matter of covenant for just a moment.  This is where we find a significant divide in theological conceptions of baptism.  In many denominations, the covenantal aspect has led to a close association of baptism with circumcision, and so, there is a fierce commitment to baptizing the newborn, sealing them, as it were, as belonging to the covenant community, as circumcision on the eighth day sealed the Jewish child to the covenant life of Israel.  But we see clearly in Scripture that such a seal by no means guaranteed true membership in that community, nor was it irrevocable.  No, the foreskin could not be reattached, but the potential for exclusion from that covenant remained.  We could also observe that the female child could hardly be included in being thus sealed as a covenant member, yet she would be just as surely included as her brother.  And to be painfully clear, female circumcision was nowhere at any time prescribed.

In Baptist practice, what is pursued is more a believer’s baptism.  This does not deny the covenantal aspect in the least, but it does render the act to be one undertaken with at least some minimal level of understanding and acquiescence.  Face it.  An eight day old child, however willful he may be, could hardly make willing choice to undergo circumcision.  It is doubtful that thought processes are sufficiently developed in so few days that he could in any meaningful way recognize his need for God, or even that God is a concept, let alone a reality.  Everything is new and wondrous.  Matters of sin and salvation can hardly be expected to find themselves considered yet. 

That, of course, raises the question of what happens to the child miscarried or aborted.  Is all hope of salvation cut off because they never reached some age of maturity?  Or, are all such children given a free pass to heaven?  I doubt that the answer is absolute in either direction.  We are all of us sinners from birth, conceived in sin, as David declared (Ps 51:5).  Being all of us descendants of Adam in the flesh, it is inevitable.  That is not to say we suffer for the sins of our forebears, but only that we are born sinners.  And marked, as we are, by sin even in our conception, there can be no automatic declaration of holiness on the basis of failing to reach maturity, or even to reach delivery.  At the same time, I cannot conclude that all such cases are therefore condemned to damnation because they have not the facilities to confess with their mouth that Jesus is Lord.  To suppose such a thing is to limit God to what is humanly possible, and God cannot be thus limited.  Were He limited to the humanly possible, we should all of us remain condemned to certain damnation.  But God is able.  There is not a one conceived who, if He calls, He will not also render capable of answer.  The voice that confesses may be a voice only He can hear, and yet, He is able.  If it needs bringing a depth of understanding we could not conceive of so young and undeveloped a child possessing, how is that an impediment to the Creator of Life?

Okay, so if this is a covenant marker, but cannot itself ensure covenant fidelity, what is the point of it?  Now we start to press into the symbolic nature of the act.  Obviously, to be baptized is not to literally die to sin.  Would that it were!  But that would be to die period, and be rid of this body of flesh.  To truly die to sin, for us, necessitates the removal of this body and its susceptibilities.  But that is not the way.  Jesus says, “I leave you in the world.”  I am obviously paraphrasing rather heavily, but the point is sound.  We are not saved to be sequestered.  We are saved to serve.  And that begins to turn my attention on the question of just what it is that baptism consists in.  Consider, for starters, the improbability of finding a place to physically baptize the thousands we are told came to faith this day.  You are in downtown Jerusalem.  You are as yet cautious, given the vehement opposition of the temple authorities.  Rome might not care too much were you to undertake some mass baptism party down at the Pool of Siloam or some such.  But the temple authorities would no doubt be on you before you got through the first few hundred.  That to say, it is rather unlikely that those listening underwent immediate physical baptism, whether by submersion or sprinkling.  (And that’s a debate I have no intention of pursuing here.)

The fundamental underlying principle of baptism is that of public identification with the one into whose name you are baptized.  It’s a public confession of need, and a public declaration of fealty.  Note the command:  Be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.  The preposition here is epi, and it is in the dative case, which in this case, has distinct impact on the meaning.  Were we dealing with location, it would indicate the place of action, perhaps including the idea of moving into said place.  Here, however, it seems apt to take the metaphorical sense, given that we are dealing with symbolic action.  As such, we are looking at the ground of action, the basis upon which our condition rests.  It is a declaration of that which sustains and upholds.  It gets deeper.  Thayer observes that “To do anything upon the name of Christ, his name being introduced, [is] appeal being made to his authority and command.”

So what is baptism?  That is a multifaceted subject!  If we go back to its roots in Jewish practice, baptism represented a washing away of the sins of the Gentiles.  It was an act reserved for the proselyte, preparing this unwashed heathen for at least partial and polite inclusion into the covenant life of Israel.  Never would this one be accounted clean enough to approach past the court of the Gentiles, but at least he might now be tolerated on temple grounds.  It is observed that this understanding rendered John the Baptist’s call for Jews themselves to be baptized shocking, and rather offensive.  How dare he?  And yet, where the Spirit of God was active, the necessity of it became clear to those who heard, and willing submission followed.  This extended even to Jesus, though He stood in no need of cleansing.  It was commanded – an acknowledgement that John spoke with the full authority of the prophet – and therefore, He must obey.

Then, as He began His own ministry, He continued the practice of calling upon those who were repenting to be baptized, to wash away their sinful past and emerge to a new way of life.  Yet still it was a baptism not into His name, but into a new state, if you will.  It was acknowledging, finally, that for all one may have been going through the motions of religion, sin remained, and remained unaddressed.  It was dawning recognition that what God required of them had not been met, no, nor ever could.

Now, in Apostolic practice, the picture has changed somewhat.  And let us be clear that it has changed solely on the basis of Jesus’ own command to them.  “Go.  Make disciples, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” (Mt 28:19).  For what it’s worth, the preposition in this case is eis, into.  It marks a change, an entering into a new condition.  But what has changed?  What is it we rest upon?  Go back to what had been said.  He has been made Lord and Savior (Ac 2:36).  What does that mean?  That He is Lord, He is Adonai, speaks to His authority.  Again, we can go back to the great commission.  “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.”  Now, He is God, and as such, all authority has ever been His, but here, He speaks as man, and as man, such authority has never before been possessed, nor could it be by any since.  For He IS Lord, now alive in the flesh forevermore – though it be flesh of a rather different sort, now fit for eternity.

So, here, I believe we must first and foremost recognize that this is a call to make public declaration of His Lordship over your life personally.  It is a declared willingness both to live and to die for Him, as Zhodiates indicates.  It is a glad willingness to be identified with this Jesus, to submit to His rightful command, and to be loyal to Him come what may.  It is, as well, an open acknowledgement of our sinful estate, though that may not in fact be part of the profession made in that moment.  That submersion in the waters of baptism is in itself a profession that cleansing was necessary.  Yes!  I choose to be washed in the Word, that my sins may indeed be washed away.  Yes!  I have died to my former life, and commit myself henceforth to walk in the Way.

In these heady days of new experiences, there wasn’t much of training to precede the profession.  I would fully expect that many among those baptized that day might prove false in the long term.  We’re still in the place of emotional response, rather than considered decision.  But as with the newborn, nothing prevents God working effectually even in the emotional response, should He so choose.  After all, we are not looking at meritorious action, but acknowledgement.  At base, and in effective practice, baptism is an acknowledgement of what has already transpired.  The NLT does a good job of bringing this aspect out in their translation, “be baptized […] to show that you have received forgiveness for your sins.”  The Apologetics Study Bible adds the note that, “baptism is an indication of belonging to Christ, not a condition for it.”  And that should caution us, particularly when we seek to understand Peter’s application of baptism when he writes that “Baptism now saves you” (1Pe 3:21).  The act itself is by no means salvific.  Should there arise a case where one has confessed Christ’s lordship and one’s own dependence upon Him for salvation, and yet, perhaps for lack of opportunity, there has been no physical act of baptism, I cannot believe that such a one would be excluded from the heavenly community on that basis.  If physical baptism was an absolute mandate, then indeed we must conclude that any child that failed to reach his or her eighth day is in fact necessarily lost.  But then we would also have cause to become far more certain of our means of baptism.  Are they also mandated, such that a baptism done the wrong way leaves its recipient in peril?

To be sure, obedience to the commanded act of being baptized is important, and to do all things in accordance with God’s prescribed manner is important as well.  Yet, it is not the act in itself which is critical, certainly not the manner or location of its observance.  As with all symbolic acts, the act itself is of little significance except that which is symbolized be true.  And here, what is symbolized is a full and glad acknowledgement of Jesus both as God’s appointed Messiah – the only one we’ll get, and as God’s anointed King, King of all kings and Lord of all lords.  It is the bold, dare I say proud declaration that Jesus is my Lord.  And in that, we arrive at that Apostolic habit of identifying themselves as His bondservants.  This is not, I must note, a declaration of some sad state of bondage, but rather, an honorable position taken up gladly.  I am a servant of my King.  That is not a matter of destitution.  It is a matter of duty.  He is my Lord, and I have set myself at His service.  I acknowledge Him as the full and final authority in all matters.  Should He command, I shall obey.  Should He desire, I shall seek to satisfy that desire.  Should He forbid, I shall abstain.  My wants, my preferences, are set aside in submission to His.

All of this is there in the baptismal confession.  I declare gladly to all who will hear me, that I am become the possession of my Master, Jesus of Nazareth, God’s Son and Messiah.  He and He only is my Lord.  And if He is my Lord, then sin can no longer be master of me.  If He is my Lord, I can no longer be master of me.  To this end, Wuest’s translation is effective in what it communicates.  “Be baptized upon the ground of your confession of belief in the sum total of all that Jesus Christ is in His glorious Person.”  There is, to be sure, a degree of self-interest in pursuing this confession.  It’s there in Peter’s instruction, as well as in other baptismal scenes put before our eyes.  To be baptized is to be purposeful.  It is ‘for the forgiveness of sins.’  We hear that echoed in Acts 22:16 – “Why delay?  Arise and be baptized!  Wash away your sins, calling on His name.” 

We need that.  The cleansing aspect of the rite should not be lost on us.  But as Jesus taught His disciples at the Last Supper, it’s not a matter of repetition as needed.  Having been baptized, you remain baptized.  The efficacy of that act, as I have said, depends on the validity of the confession it represents.  If Jesus is truly Lord in your heart and your thought, then yes, it is done.  You have marked your obedience to His command in obeying in this act, even as He marked His obedience to the Father by His own baptism.  But He didn’t keep getting baptized.  Of course, He had no need to do so, did He?  He did not need that first baptism, for there was no sin from which He needed to be cleansed.  But He needed to signify His obedience in all things, and so, it was fitting that He do this thing.  Yet, Peter, his feet washed by his humble Lord, once informed of the necessity of this deed, cried out to be washed entire.  And how did Jesus respond?  “You have been washed.  You have no need of a repeat, only the feet” (Jn 13:6-10).  Baptism, done from a heart truly devoted, is once for all, even as salvation is once for all.  It is finished.  It remains only to wash the feet.  And that points us back to the more repeat as necessary matter of repentance.  You are clean.  Yes, you have sinned again.  So repent again.  Receive forgiveness again.  That forgiveness has already been sealed to you, and you have been sealed to Him.  Just wash your feet.

We have, then, two significant aspects to the act of baptism.  There is the matter of separating from whatever might exclude us from God’s presence, the washing away of sin’s pollution, and the putting to death of sinful desires.  We have died with Him in order that we might live to Him.  That is the formula played out in baptism.  To be submerged is to be buried, as He was buried.  Dead men do not sin.  They cannot, for all sensation has fled the body, and enticements can have no further hold.  And that is how we are called to view ourselves as long as earthly life continues.  Yet this flesh, though put to death in baptism, remains present and active, and enticements still come to harass us.  But their hold is broken.  Compliance to the demands of the flesh no longer comes as blind obedience, nor as compelled acceptance.  We can resist.  We can choose to refuse.  We can opt to remove ourselves from temptation, and we can, if fleeing is not an option, stand firm in faith.  Why?  Because God is able to make us stand.  He provides us with the way of escape.  He promises us that such tests as may come our way are not in fact beyond our capacity to win through.  We have a choice.  There is the dark reality of free will.  We are free to choose, and as such, we are indeed responsible for our choices.  If anything, we ought to recognize ourselves as more fully responsible given our greater awareness of Him who called us.  We have called Him Lord.  The crime is therefore that much greater when we act so as to deny His lordship.

And that is the other aspect.  He is Lord.  I have signed myself into His service, and exclusively so.  In all situations, regardless of consequence, I must serve.  And that necessity cannot leave me morose and resentful in my pursuit of serving.  No!  I serve the King!  I rejoice that He finds me suitable to the task, and grants me to have purpose in His kingdom.  Let us be about it!  This is what you have done in the act of baptism.  I trust it was done with full awareness of the fact, and if it was not, let me assure you, that does not require that you undergo some remedial baptism.  It does, however, compel you to gain a more complete understanding of what it means to call Him Lord, and then, a greater determination to live accordingly.

The NET adds a footnote on this point, writing, “Baptism in Messiah Jesus' name shows how much authority he possesses.”  The EDBT echoes the point.  To be baptized into His name – His name being His office, His titles, His inherent character as Messiah, as Lord, as Son of God – is to acknowledge His authority.  It is emblematic of ‘passing into His ownership,’ as one of the redeemed.  And it is a public recognition of His Lordship, a decisive commitment to, “all the privileges and obligations of Christian life.”  I emphasize the and.  You cannot enjoy the one without committing to the other.

I would add this summation of baptism, gleaned from the EDBT as well.  I do not put it in quotes because it is my paraphrasing of the points made.  Water, Word, and Spirit combine to cleanse the sinner, producing a total change of attitude and relationship.  It signifies being buried with Christ and raised once more to life through faith.  It is a grave in which the pre-Christian self is buried once for all, a taking up of one’s cross in keeping with Jesus’ commandment.  I will add these thoughts.  It is not the act so much that is central, but the public declaration of fealty to Jesus.  I am His – His subject and His property.  I have died to self and died to sin, and now commit myself to live as He desires and requires.  What was is no longer.  What is now is new, changed once for all.

Before I leave the matter of baptism, I want to touch once more on the matter of proclaiming the Lordship of Jesus.  We know that in later years, as Christianity spread through the Roman Empire, this became a serious issue, for Caesar would insist that he be acknowledged as lord, and with no other besides.  But the Christian recognized that Jesus’ claim was total and exclusive.  If we have called Him Lord, there can be no other assigned that title.  To the emperor, this was treason, a danger to the empire.  To the early Christian, it would have been just as treasonous to declare any man lord.  We would do well to regain that singular focus of honor upon our Lord Jesus.  We hear much ado about Christian nationalism, and the propensity for believers in our day to make patriotism a matter of faith.  While I don’t suppose for a moment that Christianity requires a denouncing of one’s national identity, and it certainly has never advocated disregard for civil authorities, there is a caution for us in this.  If He is Lord – and He is – we can offer like regard to no other.  No man living or dead can compare.  We may have our national heroes, and we probably should.  But they are not to be deified.  We may have particular favorites among the living, but we must still accept that they are human and will fail us.  If their example or their command runs counter to that of Christ, our duty and allegiance is clear.  We must follow Christ.  But in the general case, as Scripture teaches, to follow Christ is to honor and obey governing authorities as governing by His decision, as authorized by Him.

Now, then, coming back to Peter’s sermon, there is a connectivity of thought here that I would not wish to sever by my propensity for studying in small chunks.  We observe in verse 39 that it is the Lord our God who calls us to Himself.  Observe, then, that here, the title Lord, echoing Adonai, is connected with God, echoing either Yahweh, or Elohim.  I would venture the latter, else Peter’s Jewish sensibilities would likely have precluded him speaking the name at all.  Now, go back to verse 36.  “Let all Israel know for certain that God, Elohim, has made Him, Jesus, both Lord, Adonai, and Christ, Messiah.”  Pardon all the formatting and interjecting of Hebraic equivalents.  What we need to see is the connection that has just been made.  Yes, there is distinction of Person between God and Christ.  And where distinction is necessary to be understood, we recognize that these refer to Father and Son distinctly.  But now we have this Jesus – whom you crucified – pronounced the Lord our God.  They may be distinct in purpose, but they are united in deity.  Behold, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord He is One (Dt 6:4).  Here, Moses speaks of Yahweh Elohim, with Lord standing in translation of the covenant name of God.  Yahweh is, then, His proper name, and Elohim more His title.  And of course, Elohim is a plural noun, though the exact implications of that in Hebrew may not intend to indicate a literal plurality.  I see, for example, that it can be a matter of declaring eminence or respect, which would certainly apply to God in His unity.  But let us accept a simple plurality implied, for we do find occasions wherein God takes counsel with Himself, “Let us…” 

And of course, Christian doctrine has long since settled upon the Trinitarian aspect of the Godhead, as we see it displayed throughout the Scriptures.  We can go back to the baptism of Jesus, where we find the Father speaking, the Spirit descending, and the Son obeying.  We can find it here in Peter’s sermon, where “The Lord said to my Lord”, where Father makes Son Adonai, and most fully, where the Father exalts the son, who ascends to the Father, who then pours out the Spirit.  In sum, while Peter never comes to the point of declaring bluntly that Jesus is in fact God, all that he has said serves to establish the point, and his dual connection of Lord with Christ and God confirms it.

This being the case, it affirms to us that the act of baptism, as practiced by the Apostles subsequent to Jesus’ ascension, consists primarily in fulfilling the previous command Peter had made.  “Let all Israel know.”  And remember, that particular call to know includes in its scope a glad acknowledgement.  So, “Let all Israel gladly acknowledge her Lord and Christ.”  Here is that glad acknowledgement declared in the act of baptism.  Yes, it retains the connection to repentance – repent and then be baptized.  Be baptized for the forgiveness of sins.  But that has more to do with the result than the content.  The content remains a glad declaration that this Jesus, though I contributed to His death, is in fact my Lord, my Savior, and I willingly bow myself before Him, and render my service to Him however He may see fit to use me.

All of this ought rightly to have been in mind when we were baptized.  I wonder, though, how many are rightly and fully prepared for that understanding in current practice.  I am told that as the church grew, it took the matter seriously.  The one who would be baptized was first catechized, instructed in the faith he would proclaim.  Presumably, that included instruction as to the significance of the profession they would make, with all that it symbolized, all that it declared, and all that it swore with covenantal force.  That said, it remains but a symbolic act.  It is the reality of life and heart which matter far more.  If it should be the case that you were baptized without fullness of understanding, I don’t suppose that calls for reapplication.  If understanding has come late, well, praise God that understanding has come.  And understanding having come, let us resolve to live henceforth in keeping with that understanding.  He is Lord.  He is my Lord, and to the degree this weak flesh is capable of such devotion, I grant Him full right of command over me.  And to the degree this weak flesh is incapable, I pray He shall so will and work in me that I shall yet give willing obedience in spite of it.

Salvation (06/04/26)

I am come to the third commanded action of this message, “Be saved.”  The ESV translates this as “Save yourselves,” but much though I value their care in translating, this cannot be done, nor is it commanded.  The instruction is passive.  At the most, we can suggest acquiescence to this action, but even then, it seems to me, we should expect to find the middle voice, rather than the passive, giving the sense, “Allow yourselves to be saved.”  But that’s not what we have.  We have, “Be saved.”

To be sure, this connects us back to the previous instruction to repent and be baptized.  But I think we shall also find it connects quite tightly with the stated result of being baptized.  Yes, there is forgiveness of sins, which, while it has the prerequisite action of repentance, as 1John 1:9 informs us, it also requires that preceding glad acknowledgement of Jesus as Lord and Savior.  He is Messiah, and I am His.  More personally, You, Lord, are Messiah, and I am Yours.  It cannot be said truly without repentance, but repentance can be of no true avail without His reign accepted and the reality of His deity recognized.  Then comes forgiveness of sins.

But it doesn’t stop there.  To know our sins forgiven is a wonderful thing, a great relief.  Yet, it does nothing to equip us against future failure.  What Peter turns to next does do so.  “You shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, as promised.”  This is not a guarantee of gaining capacity to perform supernatural feats to impress others.  Nothing in this promises even so much as to gain capacity to speak in another language.  It may be nothing flashy at all.  You may never know a miracle apart from the receiving of salvation, and if that is the sole miracle you encounter, is it not already enough and more?  You who were dead have been brought to life!  You who were hopeless have been handed hope beyond hoping.  Even that capacity to truly repent we must recognize as being the supernatural involvement of God Himself in our lives.  We can no more repent of our own strength than we can comply with the perfect Law by our own strength.  It’s all God’s doing start to finish, and that is miracle indeed, for He assuredly has no cause to do so.

That point is established in the identification of the this reception of the Holy Spirit as a gift – a free gift.  It is an absolutely gratuitous act on God’s part.  Zhodiates notes that the term we have here, dorean, is everywhere in the New Testament a reference to spiritual gifts.  They are freely given.  They are not subject to our demand.  We cannot insist upon them.  We cannot become possessive about them, seeking to make them more what we would deem a right.  Somehow we have perverted our sense even of that term.  We learn of a right and think to make it a demand.  If I have the right to the pursuit of happiness, then I should be able to demand being happy.  But that was never the case, and misses the language.  Such tendencies are in us, sadly, and again we can put that down to our sinful nature.  We hear what we want to hear, perceive what we choose to perceive.  But by the Holy Spirit freely given, it is just possible that we may begin to hear more clearly, to perceive with clear eyes, and to believe solely what is True.  That, in large part, is why we who have believed are called to become students of the Word of God, able to rightly divide, to both know and apply the Truth that He has declared; that He is.

The gift of the Spirit is not subject to negotiation.  You cannot wheedle your way into receiving it.  It is given solely because God, in His loving purpose, decides He wants to do so.  And that decision, we might note, was made long ago, even before the beginning moment of Creation.  He knew you then.  He knows you now.  He also sees who you will be when this transformative work is done.  He chose you, but it was not in response to your careful walk of righteousness.  I suspect most, if not all, if they review their lives with clarity, must recognize that this walk of righteousness did not even begin until we had received this gift of the Holy Spirit.

I spend some time on the gift because I deem it to be intrinsically connected to this last command to be saved.  Receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit is in fact the enabling moment in which we are saved.  Apart from Him it is not happening.  I know it is popular, particularly in more Pentecostal branches of the faith, to posit that there are Christians and then there are Spirit-filled Christians.  But in plain point of fact, there cannot be any such division.  If there are Christians, they are Spirit-filled.  If they are not Spirit-filled, they are not Christians.  They may use the term, even identify with it, but it must be a false confession.  At the same time, to posit this dual-class Christianity is to profess a doctrine which has no foundation in Scripture.  You shall receive, who are saved.  You shall be saved, who receive.  There is no division here, and no possibility of division.

 I could speculate, I suppose, that there may be a period between experiencing salvation, and recognizing the presence of the Spirit.  But that is a matter of learning and growth.  Lack of awareness does not indicate lack of presence.  I dare say, though Peter phrases this such that the gift of the Spirit seems to depend on prior repentance and baptism, that in fact the gift of the Spirit comes first.  Apart from His presence and His work already begun in us, we would not seek to repent.  Apart from His working the renewing change in us, we would not be bothered to obey even the command to be baptized, nor could we confess Jesus as Lord in any meaningful way.

Hear the formula that Paul puts forth in Romans 10:9.  If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is the Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved.  You shall be.  But it needs confession and belief, and indeed, that confession requires preceding belief or it’s just so many empty words, isn’t it?  Perhaps not empty, but lacking that glad acceptance which is needed.  After all, James reminds us that even demons believe that God is one (Jas 2:19).  Yet, they can hardly be said to confess Jesus as their Lord.  By no means!  They stand firmly opposed to His Lordship, even if they must acknowledge the reality of the situation.  Yes, yes, He is King, but we refuse Him our fealty.  Many a claimant to Christianity stands in that same condition, professing Jesus by their mouths, but denying Him by their lives.

I suppose it’s just possible one could believe that He has indeed been raised from death and still deny Him.  But there is an implication in that clause, that belief recognizes the import of His being raised from death.  It is the marker of our justification, as he wrote earlier in that book.  “He was delivered up to death because of our transgressions.  He was raised from death because of our justification” (Ro 4:25), or we might say, to mark our justification.  His resurrection was the acceptance of His sacrifice.  His ascension, as we have seen, has sealed to Him the throne upon which He is eternally enthroned as King of kings and Lord of lords.

John notes this connection as well, when he observes that Jesus spoke of the Spirit whom those who believed in Him were to receive (Jn 7:39).  Again, note that there is no potentiality about this receiving.  If one, then the other.  If a believer, then the Spirit is received.  It had not yet transpired at that point, “because Jesus was not yet glorified.”  But He having been glorified, salvation has been made available, indeed, inevitable, to all who will believe and put their full faith and trust in Him and Him alone.  The promise is not just for the little group gathered there that day to witness the event.  It is for “all who are far off,” as well.  There is an extent to that statement which I don’t think even Peter himself recognized at the time, nor would he for some time yet.  But the point is made.  None are categorically excluded from salvation.  There is no population group, no division of mankind, at which you can point and say, “Nope, not them.” 

That is by no means a promise of universal salvation from which no individual shall be excluded.  That sounds nice, I suppose.  It has a certain utopian pleasantness to it.  But it would require dismissing rather large portions of Scripture to uphold such a view.  To my thinking, if it turned out that in the end every last individual gets saved after all, then it leaves God with far more to explain than if one accepts the biblical doctrine that all is by His choice, and nothing by merit.  I mean, if everybody’s going to get saved anyway, what point was there in the flood, or in Sodom and Gomorrah?  On what basis the destruction of Jerusalem, the horrors of war, or any other great tragedy of life?  The whole business of being becomes cruel farce, and He who orchestrated such a thing would rightly be deemed a fiend of the worst order.  But that is not the case.  The fact that none can be categorically excluded by no means requires that we suppose every individual case is thereby necessarily included.  Those whom God has chosen shall indeed be delivered from the penalties of judgment.  It is quite clear, however, that many, even the vast majority, shall undergo the full penalties of judgment.  It may not sit comfortably with us, yet it must be seen to be true.  Were it not, there is simply no reason to continue bothering with God or Scripture.  If the final outcome is the same regardless, then on what basis shall we have any regard at all as to how we live?  It matters not in the least.

But the reality is not along those lines.  Whom He calls, He redeems.  Whom He redeems, He saves.  Whom He saves, He justifies.  And all on the sole basis of His predetermined desire.  Nothing of merit, all of grace.  Nothing by demand, all by the free gift.  Nothing of which to boast, everything for which to express eternal gratitude.  All to His glory, then, and let us hold nothing back for ourselves.

Repent, be baptized, be saved.  There is the necessary action.  You will receive the Holy Spirit.  There is the means.  God chose.  There is the cause.  Praise God for His choice.  Serve God by your choice, knowing that even in that, you are fully dependent on His will and His work in you that you might will and work in Him.