Hermeneutics,  New Testament

Does Baptism Save You? Looking at Acts 2:38

There are a few texts that seem to indicate that baptism saves an individual. In order to work through the apparent contradiction in Scripture, many will cross reference other texts to explain away the passage. Last time I pointed out that it doesn’t make sense to read one passage upon another. It can be helpful to cross reference, but the key to understanding Scripture is identifying authorial intent.

The key to proper biblical interpretation involves knowing the author, the audience, the purpose of the passage, and the context. Knowing this information keeps us from injecting our own meaning or purpose into the text. It also helps us derive our theology from what the text means rather than conforming the text to our own theology.

photo of baptism of Jesus

Coming off of last post, I thought it would be helpful to use Acts 2:38 as a test case for a proper contextual interpretation. What follows is a brief response to our imaginary friend from the previous post who uses Acts 2:38 to support baptismal regeneration.

First, we need to look at the grammar of the passage in question. The Greek might give us a little bit of help here because the imperatives are different. The imperative to “repent” is directed to “you” (plural) and “be baptized” is individualized (“each”). It reads this way:

Peter said to them, “Repent [second person masculine plural, μετανοήσατε], and each of you be baptized [third person masculine singular, βαπτισθήτω] in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

The difference in imperatives likely indicates a distinction between repentance and baptism. In other words, he is not simply saying “Repent and be baptized…,” but saying “Repent, and let each of you be baptized….”

In addition to these grammatical considerations, there is another cultural element we must understand to help make sense of this passage (as well as other baptism passages). In our culture we tend to differentiate baptism from salvation. I was saved at an early age, and was baptized about three years after. Some people get saved and are baptized even later than three years.

This was not the case in the New Testament. When the Apostles called people to repent and follow Christ, baptism was an integral part of that decision to follow Christ (cf. Acts 8:35-36). Baptism signified the union with Christ in death, burial, and resurrection (Rom 6:1-4). For the early church, baptism was intrinsically linked to repentance. I think it could actually be said that, to the early Christians, baptism was essentially a synecdoche (one part standing for the whole) of the whole salvation experience.

The cultural evidence for this can probably best be illustrated from another of Peter’s works. In 1 Peter 3:21 we read, “Baptism now saves you.” What is Peter saying? Is he talking about spiritual or water baptism? I think that is the wrong question. Unlike our culture, the first century reader likely would not have differentiated spirit or water baptism. Biblically, the symbol is linked with the reality. Baptism does save us because we are joined to Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. Without being unified in that one baptism there is no salvation (cf. Eph 4:5).

The early church taught clearly that baptism was essential if you come to Christ. The reason is not because the washing of the body does anything significant (cf. 1 Pet 3:21). Rather, baptism is the physical symbol which is intrinsically linked to the theology of Christ’s vicarious death and resurrection. Additionally, being baptized was a significant step which showed you were identifying with Christ and His church. This was often met with serious repercussions. For example, if someone got baptized they would likely be viewed with contempt by their family (whether Jew or Gentile) and possibly ostracized.

Unfortunately, we have lost sight of the significance of baptism in the church at large. We have differentiated salvation and baptism so much that baptism has become a secondary issue in many circles. For the early church, baptism was so important that it was intrinsically linked to salvation. It was the primary display of repentance and it inherently symbolized one’s union with Christ.

Returning to Acts 2:38, if we understand the cultural mindset concerning baptism, we can now better understand Peter linking Baptism to his discussion of repentance. We do more damage than good by simply saying, “This can’t mean salvation.” We need to ask, why is Peter saying this? What Luke is doing (by recording Peter’s speech) is stressing the fact that baptism is an essential part of one’s response to Christ. Joining oneself to Christ is essential to salvation. For Peter’s audience, rejecting baptism was rejecting Christ, accepting baptism was submitting to Christ.

photo credit: Waiting For The Word via photopin cc

This post originally appeared on April 17, 2014.

Peter serves at Shepherd's Theological Seminary in Cary, NC as the professor of Old Testament and Biblical Languages. He loves studying the Bible and helping others understand it. He also runs the Bible Sojourner podcast.


  • Noah Kelley

    Interesting post, Peter. Have you read Robert H. Stein’s article “Baptism and Becoming a
    Christian in the New Testament”? He talks in that article about the
    close connection between baptism and conversion as well. I feel the tension between the assumptions of the New Testament that baptism and conversion happen at the same time, and can thus be spoken of interchangeably, and the need in our own historical context (a “christianized/post-christian” culture) to look for credible evidence of conversion. Do you have any thoughts on that?

    • Peter Goeman

      I have read Stein’s article and I think he makes a lot of good points. If I understand your question correctly, you are asking how should we think about baptism in light of the fact that so many (in our cultures) make nominal commitments to Christ? Would it be better to wait and see evidence of true salvation first?

      First, I think that in Christian families with young children this issue is a little different because young children tend to embrace whatever their parents tell them to. So in that case, it may be best to wait until the child can made a choice about whether or not he is going to embrace Christ for himself. I have seen churches practice this by only allowing baptism for people 13 yrs or older (whether or not this is the exact time one makes that sort of decision is debatable). But, it is important to understand that 1st century believers were first generational, so there is some flexibility in working with children I think.

      Second, I think for everyone else, they should be instructed on the implications of baptism and why its an important part of their conversion to Christ. It is similar to the need to tell people that coming to Christ is essentially dying to self. Part of dying to self is uniting with Christ and submitting one’s life to Him. If they are unwilling to take the step of baptism, perhaps they genuinely are not committed to Christ.

      Do you have any thoughts on that, Noah?

      • Noah Kelley

        Thanks for your thoughts, Peter. I agree that extra care ought to be taken with children, though I am not sure I would make a hard and fast rule about the age (not that I hear you saying that either). I think instruction in the importance of baptism is good too. A lot of these discussions tend to revolve around two issues that I see as problematic. The first is when our evangelism is shallow enough that we end up baptizing people who have not been truly converted (as in the case when children are baptized without wrestling through the claims of the gospel for themselves). The second is in absolutely separating the ordinance (or sacrament) from the thing it signifies. I have been wondering lately if that approach doesn’t dichotomize a person by encouraging them to disconnect what is going on in the heart from what they do with the body. I am just thinking a little bit these days about how to best think and talk about baptism (and the Lord’s Supper) in a way that neither claims saving power to them, nor disconnects them from our actual spiritual experience. Thanks for blogging on the topic! I have found it very edifying.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *