Tag Archives: baptism

The Baptism of Couches and Tables: A Lexical and Contextual Reexamination of βαπτίζω in Mark 7:4

The Baptism of Couches and Tables: A Lexical and Contextual Reexamination of βαπτίζω in Mark 7:4

Jack Kettler

Abstract

The pericope of Mark 7:1–13, which critiques Pharisaic traditions of ritual purity, employs the verb βαπτίζω in a manner that challenges modern assumptions about its semantic range. Young’s Literal Translation renders Mark 7:4 as follows: “And, coming from the market-place, if they [Pharisees] do not baptize themselves, they do not eat; and many other things there are that they received to hold, baptisms of cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, and couches.” This study interrogates whether βαπτίζω, often rendered “immerse” in contemporary translations, necessitates total submersion in these contexts, particularly with respect to the purification of inanimate objects such as couches. Drawing on classical, Septuagint, and New Testament usages, as well as patristic and confessional sources, it argues that βαπτίζω encompasses a broader spectrum of ablutionary practices, including washing, pouring, and sprinkling. This polysemy not only resolves apparent absurdities in the text but also illuminates the sacrament of baptism as a sign of covenantal union, adaptable to diverse modes without compromising its efficacy.

Introduction

The Gospel of Mark’s depiction of Jewish purity rituals in chapter 7 serves as a fulcrum for Jesus’ polemic against human traditions that encroach upon divine commandments (Mark 7:1–13). Central to this narrative is the verb βαπτίζω, which appears in verse 4 to describe the Pharisees’ ablutions upon returning from the marketplace and their purification of domestic vessels and furniture. A prior lexical analysis has established that βαπτίζω may convey notions of dipping, plunging, dyeing, bathing, wetting, or immersing, depending on context.1 The present inquiry probes a hermeneutical crux: Does the text plausibly envision the total immersion of human subjects or household items, such as couches (κλίναι)? This question bears not only on exegesis but also on ecclesial practice, as it intersects with debates over baptismal modes in Christian theology.

The Lexical Breadth of βαπτίζω

Scholarly consensus, as articulated by James W. Dale in his magnum opus on baptism, underscores the term’s semantic versatility. In Classic Baptism, Dale contends that βαπτίζω does not invariably denote “to dip” (i.e., total submersion and emersion) but rather “to put together so as to remain together,” a meaning untethered to any singular mode.2 Classical Greek attests to its manifold applications: plunging, drowning, steeping, bewildering, tinting, pouring, sprinkling, and dyeing. Dale illustrates this profusion through vignettes of historical figures, such as Agamemnon, Bacchus, and Cupid, each “baptized” in senses divergent in nature or manner. He likens the term’s elusiveness to selecting a spectral hue blindfolded or navigating the Cretan labyrinth, beyond even the ken of Greece’s seven sages.3

This lexical latitude informs Jay E. Adams’s endorsement in the foreword to Dale’s work, wherein he posits water baptism as a “uniting ordinance” that inaugurates believers into the visible church, paralleling Spirit baptism’s union with the invisible church.4 Such a view liberates the rite from modal rigidity, emphasizing covenantal incorporation over performative exactitude.

New Testament Contexts Precluding Immersion

Several New Testament loci militate against construing βαπτίζω as exclusive to immersion. In Luke 11:38, a Pharisee marvels that Jesus “did not first wash [ebaptisthē, literally ‘was baptized’] before the meal.” The subject’s identity, Jesus himself, not merely his hands, renders full immersion implausible as a pre-prandial norm. The surprise aligns instead with ritual handwashing, likely involving affusion, as corroborated by Matthew 15:2 and Mark 7:3–4, and echoed in 2 Kings 3:11 and Luke 7:44.5

Mark 7:4 itself reinforces this: Upon returning from the marketplace, the Pharisees “baptize themselves” (baptisōntai) before eating, alongside “baptisms” (baptismous) of cups, pots, brazen vessels, and couches, total submersion of the self or furniture strains credulity, as Albert Barnes observes in his commentary. The “market” denotes a provisioning locale, and the ablution pertains to hands, not the corpus, often with minimal water.6 Barnes elucidates the “baptism of cups” as ceremonial cleansing of dining vessels, pots for liquids, and brassware, defiled items purified by fire or rinsing, not immersion. Earthenware, if tainted, was shattered. “Tables” here transliterates klinōn, denoting reclining couches (cf. Matthew 23:6), deemed impure by contact with the unclean and thus ritually washed, by sprinkling or other means, not submersion.7

Marvin R. Vincent’s Word Studies concurs, noting that while classical Greek privileges “immerse” (e.g., Polybius on sunken ships; Josephus on besieged Jerusalem; Plato on inebriation), Septuagint and New Testament usages expand to washing and sprinkling.8 Levitical precedents (Leviticus 11:32, 40; Numbers 8:6–7; Exodus 30:19, 21) employ βαπτίζω for vessel ablutions, priestly sprinklings, and hand/foot washings—practices incompatible with immersion, lest the purifying medium become defiled. Vincent cites the Didache‘s elastic directives: immersion in running water, if possible, otherwise affusion thrice upon the head.9

Practical constraints further obviate immersion. John 2:6 describes six stone waterpots, each holding two or three metrētas (approximately 20–30 gallons), in accordance with Jewish purification norms, insufficient for immersing multiple persons or couches.10

Metaphorical and Old Testament Dimensions

Beyond literal rites, βαπτίζω accommodates metaphor. In Mark 10:38, Jesus queries whether disciples can share his “baptism”, a eucharistic allusion to Gethsemane’s cup and Calvary’s cross, not immersion.11

Old Testament antecedents, as rendered in the Septuagint, exhibit a similar breadth. Exodus 29:4 mandates washing (rāḥaṣ) Aaron and his sons at the tabernacle portal, a consecration plausibly entailing partial ablution, akin to a sponge bath, rather than immersion.12 Isaiah 21:4 LXX deploys baptizō metaphorically (“iniquity baptizes me,” i.e., overwhelms); 2 Kings 5:14 describes Naaman’s Jordan dips; Judith 12:7, Judith’s fountain washing; Sirach 31:25, contagion from corpses.13 Daniel 4:33 LXX renders Nebuchadnezzar’s dew-wetting as “drenched,” evoking sprinkling.14

Levitical typology further links baptism to sprinkling, as seen in Hebrews 9:19, 12:24; Leviticus 14:7; and Numbers 19:18.15 These parallels—water and blood asperged for cleansing—govern New Testament hermeneutics, per Augustine’s canon: “The New is in the Old contained; the Old is by the New explained.”16 Thus, pouring evokes Pentecost’s Spirit outpouring (Acts 2:1–13); sprinkling, Christ’s atoning blood (Hebrews 10:22; 1 Peter 1:2; Ezekiel 36:25).17

A typological crux for immersion advocates arises in 1 Corinthians 10:2, where Israel is described as being “baptized unto Moses in the cloud and sea.” Pharaoh’s host alone submerged; the covenant people were misted (as Nebuchadnezzar) or sprinkled from the cloud, neither immersion.18

Early Christian and Confessional Testimony

The Didache (ca. pre-300 CE), an early catechetical manual, prescribes immersion in running water ideally, but permits affusion in exigency: “If you do not have either [running or still water], pour [ekcheō] water three times on the head.”19 This predates papal innovations, refuting claims of Roman invention for non-immersive modes. Eastern Orthodoxy, while immersion-normative, countenances pouring or sprinkling in extremis, such as hospital confinements.20

The Westminster Confession (1646), Chapter XXVIII, codifies this latitude: “Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person” (citing Hebrews 9:10, 19–22; Acts 2:41; 16:33; Mark 7:4).21 It delineates baptism as a covenant sign sealing regeneration, remission, and ecclesial ingrafting, efficacious irrespective of mode, annexed to faith yet not salvific ex opere operato.

For immersion exclusivists, emergencies pose an ethical bind: bedridden candidates or those tethered to monitors preclude submersion. The Didache offers triage: triple affusion or forehead anointing with asperges.22

Conclusion

Exegetical fidelity to Mark 7:4 demands recognizing βαπτίζω‘s modal pluralism, thereby foreclosing immersion as a prescriptive practice. This aligns with Scripture’s self-interpretation, where the Old Testament shadows illuminate the New Testament realities. Baptism, thus, symbolizes not hydraulic mechanics but pneumatic union, poured Spirit, sprinkled blood, immersed grace. As 2 Timothy 2:15 exhorts, the theologian must “rightly divide the word of truth,” stewarding a rite that unites across exigencies.

Bibliography

Adams, Jay E. Foreword to Classic Baptism, by James W. Dale. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1989.

Augustine. Quaestiones in Heptateuchum. In Patrologia Latina, edited by J.-P. Migne, vol. 34. Paris, 1844–1864.

Barnes, Albert. Notes on the Bible. Vol. 1. London: Blackie & Son, 1870.

Dale, James W. Classic Baptism: An Inquiry into the Meaning of the Word Baptizo as Determined by Classical Greek Writers. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1867. Reprint, Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1989.

———. Judaic Baptism: An Inquiry into the Meaning of the Word Baptizo as Determined by Jewish and Patristic Writers. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1868.

———. Johannic Baptism: An Inquiry into the Meaning of the Word Baptizo as Determined by the Usage of the Holy Scriptures. Middletown, NY: G. Nelson, 1874.

———. Christic and Patristic Baptism: An Inquiry into the Meaning of the Word Baptizo as Determined by the Usage of the Holy Scriptures and Patristic Writings. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1874.

The Didache: Or, The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Translated by J. B. Lightfoot. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1891.

Reymond, Robert L. A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998.

Vincent, Marvin R. Word Studies in the New Testament. Vol. 1. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1887.

Westminster Confession of Faith. London: Assembly at Westminster, 1646.

End Notes

1 On the semantic range of βαπτίζω, see prior analysis in the author’s series on New Testament ablutions.

2 James W. Dale, Classic Baptism (1867; reprint, Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1989), 126.

3 Ibid., 353–54.

4 Jay E. Adams, foreword to Classic Baptism, vi.

5 Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 923–35.

6 Albert Barnes, Notes on the Bible, vol. 1 (London: Blackie & Son, 1870), 577.

7 Ibid.

8 Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, vol. 1 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1887), 199.

9 The Didache: Or, The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, trans. J. B. Lightfoot (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1891), chap. 7.

10 John 2:6 (KJV).

11 Mark 10:38 (KJV).

12 Exodus 29:4 (KJV); cf. Hebrew *rāḥaṣ*.

13 Isaiah 21:4; 2 Kings 5:15; Judith 12:7; Sirach 31:25 (LXX).

14 Daniel 4:33 (LXX).

15 Hebrews 9:19; 12:24; Leviticus 14:7; Numbers 19:18.

16 Augustine, Quaestiones in Heptateuchum 2.73 (PL 34).

17 Hebrews 10:22; 1 Peter 1:2; Ezekiel 36:25 (KJV).

18 1 Corinthians 10:2 (KJV); cf. Daniel 4:33.

19 Didache 7.1–3.

20 Eastern Orthodox praxis, as documented in liturgical rubrics for klinikē (bedside) baptism.

21 Westminster Confession of Faith (London, 1646), chap. XXVIII.3.

22 Didache 7.3.

Declaration

“For transparency, I note that I used Grok, an AI tool developed by xAI, and Grammarly AI for editorial assistance in drafting, organizing, and refining the manuscript’s clarity and grammar, as indicated in the article’s attribution. All theological arguments, exegesis, and interpretations are my own, and I take full responsibility for the content.” –  Jack Kettler

Mr. Kettler, an author who has published works in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum, is an active member of the RPCNA in Westminster, CO, with 21 books defending the Reformed Faith available on Amazon.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Does 1 Peter 3:21 teach that baptism saves?

Does 1 Peter 3:21 teach that baptism saves?                                                   By Jack Kettler

“The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” (1 Peter 3:21)

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.” (Ephesians 2:8)

Does Peter contradict Paul? Are believers saved by baptism or grace?

No, Peter does not contradict Paul. Both passages address different aspects of salvation.

In 1 Peter 3:21, Peter emphasizes the role of baptism as a symbol of salvation. He says that the act of baptism itself does not save us, but it is a sign or symbol of the salvation that comes through faith in Jesus Christ. The “answer of a good conscience toward God” refers to the faith and repentance that are necessary for salvation.

In Ephesians 2:8, Paul emphasizes the role of grace in salvation. He says that salvation is a gift from God and cannot be earned by our own works. Faith is the means by which we receive this gift of salvation.

Both passages emphasize different aspects of the same truth: salvation is a gift from God, received by faith in Jesus Christ, and symbolized by baptism.

An Introduction:

Reformed theologians typically interpret 1 Peter 3:21 to mean that baptism is a sign and seal of salvation rather than a requirement for salvation. This interpretation is based on several key points:

1.      The context of 1 Peter 3:20-21: The passage refers to the salvation of Noah and his family in the ark during the flood. The ark is seen as a type or figure of baptism, and the water of the flood is a type of the water of baptism. Just as the ark saved Noah and his family, this is how baptism saves believers. However, the Reformed view emphasizes that it is not the physical act of baptism that saves, but the faith in Christ symbolized by baptism.

2.      The phrase “not the putting away of the filth of the flesh” indicates that the physical act of baptism itself does not remove sin or save. Rather, it is the “answer of a good conscience toward God” that saves through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

3.      The emphasis on faith: Reformed theologians often point out that the New Testament consistently emphasizes faith, not baptism, as the means of salvation. For example, Ephesians 2:8-9 states, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.”

4.      The analogy with the Lord’s Supper: Reformed theologians often draw an analogy between baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Just as the bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper symbolize Christ’s body and blood but do not actually become them, this is how the water of baptism symbolizes the washing away of sin but does not actually accomplish this.

Here is a logical representation of the passage:

1.      The example of Noah’s preservation in the flood is a figure (type) of our baptism.

2.      Our baptism does not save us by the physical act of washing away the filth of the flesh.

3.      Our baptism saves us by providing an appeal to God with a good conscience.

4.      This appeal to God with a good conscience is made possible by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

5.      The resurrection of Jesus Christ, which demonstrates his power and authority, is the means by which he defends and preserves us today.

In logical form:

∀x (x is saved by baptism ↔ x appeals to God with a good conscience)

∀x (x appeals to God with a good conscience ↔ x is preserved by the resurrection of Jesus Christ)

In summary:

Reformed theologians believe that 1 Peter 3:21 teaches baptism as a sign and seal of salvation but not a requirement for salvation. The passage compares the salvation of Noah and his family in the flood to the salvation of believers through baptism. It emphasizes that baptism, like the flood, is a type or figure of salvation, but the faith and repentance symbolized by baptism will save believers, not the physical act of washing. The passage also highlights the role of grace in salvation, stating that it is a gift from God that cannot be earned by our own works.

The above study was Groked and perfected with Grammarly AI.

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)

Mr. Kettler is a respected author who has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church members. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Does Acts 2:38 teach that baptism saves?

Does Acts 2:38 teach that baptism saves?                                                           by Jack Kettler

“Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38)

Acts 2:38 does not teach that baptism is necessary for salvation:

Acts 2:38 in the King James Version (KJV) reads: “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

In this passage, Reformed theologians argue that the Greek grammar does not support the interpretation that baptism is necessary for salvation. The key phrase in question is “for the remission of sins” (Greek: εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν).

The Greek preposition “εἰς” (eis) is often translated as “for” or “unto,” but it can also carry the meaning of “because of,” “on the basis of,” or “on account of.” Reformed theologians argue that the latter interpretation is more consistent with the overall context of Scripture. They believe that the phrase “εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν” should be understood as “on the basis of the remission of sins,” indicating that baptism is a response to the forgiveness of sins rather than a prerequisite for it.

Additional reasons why the interpretation that this passage does not teach that baptism is required for salvation:

The passage is teaching with a view to receiving forgiveness of sins rather than making baptism itself the requirement for forgiveness. In other passages, Scripture clearly teaches that salvation is by grace through faith in Christ alone, not by works such as baptism (Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 3:28, Galatians 2:16).

There are examples in Scripture of people being forgiven and receiving the Holy Spirit before being baptized, such as Cornelius (Acts 10:44-48).

The immediate context of Acts 2:38 is Peter’s call for repentance (v. 38), which is consistently taught as the prerequisite for salvation (e.g., Mark 1:15, Luke 24:47, Acts 3:19).

So, a more likely interpretation is that Peter was calling the people to repent (turn from sin to Christ in faith) and then be baptized as a public identification with Christ and His forgiveness, rather than saying baptism itself is what grants forgiveness. Baptism is an important step of obedience, but Scripture seems to present it as a subsequent act that symbolizes the inward reality of salvation by faith, not as the means of achieving it.

Furthermore, Reformed theologians point to other passages in Scripture that emphasize salvation by grace through faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9; Romans 3:28). They argue that baptism is an outward sign of an inward reality, a public declaration of one’s faith in Christ and the forgiveness of sins, rather than a means of obtaining salvation.

1.      If baptism is required for salvation, as some interpretations of Acts 2:38 suggest, salvation depends on the individual’s specific action or work.

2.      The doctrine of salvation by grace through faith alone, as taught in Ephesians 2:8-9 and Romans 3:28, emphasizes that salvation is a gift of God’s grace and not earned by works.

3.      If salvation depends on baptism, it contradicts the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith alone, as it introduces a requirement for salvation based on an individual’s work.

4.      Therefore, if Acts 2:38 teaches that baptism is required for salvation, it teaches a works-based salvation, which is inconsistent with the broader biblical teaching on salvation by grace through faith alone.

One classical commentary that refutes the idea that Acts 2:38 teaches that baptism is required for salvation is John Calvin’s commentary on Acts 2:38. Calvin, a prominent figure in the Protestant Reformation, argues that the phrase “for the remission of sins” should be understood as “because of the remission of sins.”

Calvin writes:

“Be baptized every one of you. Although in the text and order of the words, baptism doth here go before remission of sins, yet doth it follow it in order, because it is nothing else but a sealing of those good things which we have by Christ that they may be established in our consciences; therefore, after that Peter had intreated of repentance, he calleth the Jews unto the hope of grace and salvation; and, therefore, Luke well afterwards, in Paul’s sermon, joineth faith and repentance together in the same sense, wherein he putteth forgiveness of sins in this place, and that for good considerations; for the hope of salvation consisteth in the free imputation of righteousness; and we are counted just, freely before God, when he forgiveth us our sins. And as I said before, that the doctrine of repentance hath a daily use in the Church so must we think of the forgiveness of sins, that the same is continually offered unto us; and surely it is no less necessary for us during the whole course of our life, than at our first entrance into the Church, so that it should profit us nothing to be once received into favor by God, unless this embassage should have a continual course; be-reconciled unto God, because

“he which knew no sin was made sin for us, that we might be the righteousness of God in him,” (2 Corinthians 5:20.)

Moreover, the Papists do so corrupt this other part of the gospel, that they quite exclude the remission of sins, which was to be obtained by Christ. They confess their sins are freely forgiven in baptism, but they will have them redeemed with satisfactions after baptism; and although they mix the grace of Christ together therewithal, yet because they inwrap the same in men’s merits, they do by this means overthrow the whole doctrine of the gospel; for, first, they take from men’s consciences the certainty of faith; that done, forasmuch as they part the forgiveness of sins between the death of Christ and our satisfactions, they do altogether deprive us of Christ’s benefit. For Christ doth not reconcile us unto God in part, but wholly, neither can we obtain remission of sins by him, unless it be whole and perfect. But the Papists are much deceived therein, who restrain baptism unto the nativity and former life, as if the signification and force thereof did not reach even unto death.

Let us know, therefore, that forgiveness of sins is grounded in Christ alone, and that we must not think upon any other satisfaction [127] save only that which he hath performed by the sacrifice of his death. And for this cause, as we have already said, doth Peter express his name, whereby he doth signify unto us, that none of all these things can be rightly taught, unless Christ be set in the midst, to the end the effect of this doctrine may be sought in him. That needeth no long exposition where he commandeth them to be baptized for the remission of sins; for although God hath once reconciled men unto himself in Christ” by not imputing unto them their sins,” (2 Corinthians 5:19,) and doth now imprint in our hearts the faith thereof by his Spirit; yet, notwithstanding, because baptism is the seal whereby he doth confirm unto us this benefit, and so, consequently, the earnest and pledge of our adoption, it is worthily said to be given us for the remission of sins. For because we receive Christ’s gifts by faith, and baptism is a help to confirm and increase our faith, remission of sins, which is an effect of faith, is annexed unto it as unto the inferior mean. Furthermore, we must not fetch the definition of baptism from this place, because Peter doth only touch a part thereof. Our old man is crucified by baptism, as Paul teacheth, that we may rise unto newness of life, (Romans 6:4, 6.) And, again, we put on Christ himself, (1 Corinthians 12.) and the Scripture teacheth every where, that it is also a sign and token of repentance, (Galatians 3:27.) But because Peter doth not intreat in thin place openly of the whole nature of baptism, but speaking of the forgiveness of sins, doth, by the way, declare that the confirmation thereof is in baptism, there doth no inconvenience follow, if ye do omit the other part. [128]

In the name of Christ. Although baptism be no vain figure, but a true and effectual testimony; notwithstanding, lest any man attribute that unto the element of water which is there offered, the name of Christ is plainly expressed, to the end we may know that it shall be a profitable sign for us then, if we seek the force and effect thereof in Christ, and know that we are, therefore, washed in baptism, because the blood of Christ is our washing; and we do also hereby gather, that Christ is, the mark and end whereunto baptism directeth us; wherefore, every one profiteth so much in baptism as he learneth to look unto Christ. But here ariseth a question, Whether it were lawful for Peter to change the form prescribed by Christ? The Papists do think, at least feign so, and thence do they take a color of liberty to change or abrogate the institutions of Christ. They confess that nothing ought to be changed, as touching the substance, but they will have the Church to have liberty to change whatsoever it will in the form. But this argument may easily be answered. For we must first know that Christ did not indite and rehearse unto his apostles magical words for enchanting, as the Papists do dream, but he did, in few words, comprehend the sum of the mystery. Again, I deny that Peter doth speak in this place of the form of baptism; but he doth simply declare that the whole strength [129] of baptism is contained in Christ; although Christ cannot be laid hold on by faith without the Father by whom he was given us, and the Spirit by the which he reneweth and sanctifieth us. The answer consisteth wholly in this, that he intreateth not in this place of the certain form of baptizing, but the faithful are called back unto Christ, in whom alone we have whatsoever baptism doth prefigure unto us; for we are both made clean by his blood, and also we enter into a new life by the benefit of his death and resurrection.

Ye shall receive the gift of the Spirit. Because they were touched with wondering when they saw the apostles suddenly begin to speak with strange tongues, Peter saith that they shall be partakers of the same gift if they will pass over unto Christ. Remission of sins and newness of life were the principal things, and this was, as it were, an addition, that Christ should show forth unto them his power by some visible gift. Neither ought this place to be understood of the grace of sanctification, which is given generally to all the godly. Therefore he promiseth them the gift of the Spirit, whereof they saw a pattern in the diversity of tongues. Therefore this doth not properly appertain unto us. For because Christ meant to set forth the beginning of his kingdom with those miracles, they lasted but for a time; yet because the visible graces which the Lord did distribute to his did shoe, as it were in a glass, that Christ was the giver of the Spirit, therefore, that which Peter saith doth in some respect appertain unto all the whole Church: ye shall receive the gift of the Spirit. For although we do not receive it, that we may speak with tongues, that we may be prophets, that we may cure the sick, that we may work miracles; yet is it given us for a better use, that we may believe with the heart unto righteousness, that our tongues may be framed unto true confession, (Romans 10:10,) that we may pass from death to life, (John 5:24) that we, which are poor and empty, may be made rich, that we may withstand Satan and the world stoutly. Therefore, the grace of the Spirit shall always be annexed unto baptism, unless the let be in ourselves.” (1)

Calvin explains that baptism is an outward sign of an inward reality, a public declaration of one’s faith in Christ and the forgiveness of sins, rather than a means of obtaining salvation. This interpretation is consistent with the broader Reformed understanding of salvation by grace through faith alone.

In summary, Reformed theology interprets Acts 2:38 in light of the broader biblical teaching on salvation, arguing that the Greek grammar supports the understanding that baptism is a response to the remission of sins rather than a prerequisite for it.

The above study was Groked and perfected with Grammarly AI.

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)

Notes:

1.      John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, Acts, Volume 18, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House Reprinted 1979), pp. 116-121.

Mr. Kettler is a respected author who has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church members. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized