Repentance and Salvation. Acts 2:24-38

The men of Israel ask the interpretive question: Acts 2:12 ^NASB "And they all continued in amazement and great perplexity, saying to one another, 'What does this mean?'" That is what Peter is answering. We can't get lost in the details so that we forget that that is the question he is answering. The hidden question that is there is, what does it mean for us? What is the significance of all of this? And the first thing to remember is that Peter quotes from Joel 2:30, 31, and that is the bulk of the quote in Acts 2:17-21. He is quoting the context so that he can comment on just one thing at the very beginning and he is making an analogy. When he cites from Joel he is really saying, this is like what the prophet Joel said. It is a comparison. Just as Joel predicted that the Holy Spirit would come and these phenomenon would accompany that event at the time of the kingdom, this is similar to that but it is not the same thing.

Then he begins to explain it in verse 22. He begins by focusing on Jesus, on His humanity because that is an important aspect. The humanity of Jesus is the fulfillment of those Old Testament promises that as a man He would die and be raised from the dead. If we focused on deity we couldn't focus on the resurrection. "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know—this {Man,} delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put {Him} to death. But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power." The focal point here is the resurrection as the ultimate acceptance of God of Jesus and the validation of the resurrection. Peter is saying that it is impossible that the Messiah could have been kept in the grave. He is going to support that by going to a quote in the Old Testament.

Here is Peter's explanation. Acts 2:25 ^NASB "For David says of Him, 'I SAW THE LORD ALWAYS IN MY PRESENCE; FOR HE IS AT MY RIGHT HAND, SO THAT I WILL NOT BE SHAKEN. [26] THEREFORE MY HEART WAS GLAD AND MY TONGUE EXULTED; MOREOVER MY FLESH ALSO WILL LIVE IN HOPE; [27] BECAUSE YOU WILL NOT ABANDON MY SOUL TO HADES, NOR ALLOW YOUR HOLY ONE TO UNDERGO DECAY. [28] YOU HAVE MADE KNOWN TO ME THE WAYS OF LIFE; YOU WILL MAKE ME FULL OF GLADNESS WITH YOUR PRESENCE.'"

Remember what Peter did with the Joel passage? He quotes all of those verses but he only talks about a couple of things within the verses. The writer of Hebrews does the same thing when he quotes the whole section in Jeremiah 30:31-33 regarding the new covenant, and all he emphasizes is that because it says it is a new covenant that indicates that the old covenant would be temporary. He doesn't deal with anything else in the passage. So this was a typical way at the time of citing Scripture in support of what you were doing. The real focus here is on Psalm 16 verses 9 and 10, the joy. The real question that comes up is, is David who writes the Psalm talking about something in his experience that foreshadows or is a type of something that the Messiah would experience? Or is David consciously aware of the fact that he is writing predictive prophecy?

Some say David is talking about himself. That has sadly become a majority position by too many evangelicals today on Old Testament prophecy. In fact, one of the trends that has been going on for the last fifty years is that more and more scholars are saying that there is no actual predictive messianic prophecy in the Old Testament. But David clearly understood (2 Samuel 23:1-3) that he was writing about the Messiah. Then when we add Peter's divinely inspired comment here he makes it very clear that David understood this: "For David says of Him…" So David, according to Peter, did not think that he was writing about his own experience. But the focus is on Psalm 16:9, 10, specifically verse 10: "For You will not abandon my soul to Sheol; Nor will You allow Your Holy One to undergo decay." That phrase, "abandon my soul to Sheol," is never applied to David or to an Old Testament saint, it is a unique term. The Greek word, as well as the Hebrew word, for corruption/decay relates to physical decomposition of the body. Sheol is the place where the dead went in the Old Testament. This is made clear in Luke 16:19-25, which is still under the age of Israel.

Jesus, after the crucifixion, goes to Sheol and makes proclamation to the spirits that are there (2 Peter 2:4). He proclaims the fact that because of His death on the cross their condemnation, their eternal penalty, is secured. And the salvation for the Old Testament saints is also secured. He proclaims the truth to them and then takes captivity captive. He takes the Old Testament saints that are in Paradise to heaven. According to 2 Corinthians 12:4 Paul goes to Paradise; it is in heaven and no longer in Sheol. Jesus empties out the compartment of Abraham's bosom and moves Paradise to heaven so that all that is left is torments. So Hades or Sheol since the cross refers to where the unbelievers go. It is not the same a Hell, that is a different word which usually refers to Gehenna. Traditionally we have understood Gehenna to refer to the Valley of Hinnom which is to the south and a little to the south-west of Jerusalem. It was said to be the place of burning because this was where the trash was burned. But people were living right along those slopes and just wouldn't want all that smoke. If we study carefully what was going on in Kings it was in that area that they set up idols to Moloch where they sacrificed their infants; and that is really the source of the fiery Gehenna. There is no evidence archaeologically that there was ever a trash dump there. 

Acts 2:29 ^NASB "Brethren, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day." That means that David couldn't have been talking about himself, because the Psalm clearly states that God would not allow His holy one to go through decomposition. But David clearly decomposed and because of that he could not have been writing about himself.

David was a prophet, though he didn't serve in the office of prophet. Acts 2:30 ^NASB "And so, because he was a prophet and knew that GOD HAD SWORN TO HIM WITH AN OATH TO SEAT {one} OF HIS DESCENDANTS ON HIS THRONE." When did this oath occur? Psalm 132:1 ^NASB "Remember, O LORD, on David's behalf…" that his heir would sit on his throne. Psalm 132:1 is a summary of the Davidic covenant, specifically 2 Samuel 7:12 ^NASB "When your days are complete and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your descendant after you, who will come forth from you, and I will establish his kingdom." It is interesting that the rabbis who translated the word "raise up" from the Hebrew into the Greek of the Septuagint used the Greek verb anasteso [a)nasthsw] which is the classical Greek form of the verb anistemi [a)nisthmi], related to anastasis [a)nastasij], the noun for resurrection in the New Testament. This is not to say this proves the resurrection but it clearly implies the resurrection. Clearly God is making this covenant, a legal and binding covenant, with David and in that covenant He is establishing the oath that He will fulfill it and his descendant would sit on the throne forever. 

Acts 2:31 ^NASB "he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that HE WAS NEITHER ABANDONED TO HADES, NOR DID His flesh SUFFER DECAY." The words "looked ahead" is translated from proorizo [proorizw] which means here to see ahead of time, so again it is talking about foresight. It is not talking about Calvinistic predestination or some sort of fatalism. So Psalm 16:8-11 is clearly predicting the resurrection of the Messiah. Conclusion: [32] "This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses." This word "witnesses" is an extremely important word in the book of Acts. Cf. Acts 1:8. Then when Peter and the other apostles decide to select a replacement for Judas one of the requirements was that he had been with Jesus from the beginning and was a witness of His resurrection. So there is clear understanding that their role is to function as legal eyewitnesses of the resurrection. And during this time in Jerusalem, and later on in Judea and Samaria, they keep talking about the resurrection but they are talking to people who were there. If there had been some subterfuge, if Jesus hadn't died, if He had been somehow spirited away and they were just making this up, this would have easily been discovered. They were talking to people who were eyewitnesses of everything there and clearly understood that what they were talking about was what had actually happened. In Acts 3:15 in his next sermon Peter says ^NASB "…the Prince of life, {the one} whom God raised from the dead, {a fact} to which we are witnesses." Acts 5:32 ^NASB "And we are witnesses of these things; and {so is} the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him." Acts 10:39 ^NASB "We are witnesses of all the things He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They also put Him to death by hanging Him on a cross… [41] not to all the people, but to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God, {that is,} to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead." Acts 13:31 ^NASB "and for many days He appeared to those who came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, the very ones who are now His witnesses to the people." So again and again and again there is this idea that there is an objective legal witness to the resurrection. Acts 22:15 ^NASB "For you will be a witness for Him to all men of what you have seen and heard." Acts 26:16 ^NASB "…for this purpose I have appeared to you, to appoint you a minister and a witness not only to the things which you have seen, but also to the things in which I will appear to you." 

Acts 2:33 ^NASB "Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear." Now Peter is shifting. He has been talking about the resurrection, but the resurrection didn't just stop everything. God's plan goes forward and so the Messiah was to be elevated to a position at the right hand of God the Father. That, again, is established by an Old Testament principle. He is making a transition from Psalm 16 to Psalm 110:1 ^NASB "The LORD says to my Lord: 'Sit at My right hand Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.'" Jesus is now exalted to the right hand of the Father and Peter goes to Psalm 110 to demonstrate this, that this was what was predicted for the Messiah. The word in Acts 2:33 that is translated "poured forth" is the Greek word ekcheo [e)kxew] and it is just a generic word for something being given. That is what this describes, it is not a word that talks about the indwelling specifically or the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the filling of the Holy Spirit; it is just a general word that now the Holy Spirit is being given to believers in a way that never had happened previously in history. Jesus had to be exalted to the right hand of God before this could happen.

But David did not ascend into heaven. Acts 2:34 ^NASB "For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says: 'THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, 'SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND.'" In the Hebrew text the first "LORD" uses the sacred tetragrammaton, the four letters that are used to present the formal, personal name of God. The second "LORD" is Adonai. So who is in authority over David? Within the Mosaic structure there is no one higher than David the king, so this would also refer to deity and therefore we have two divine personages here and one says to the other, "Sit at My right hand." This is a position of privilege and responsibility—Acts 2:35 ^NASB "UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET." Within the plan of God the Lord Jesus Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father as the Son of Man until He is given the kingdom. That is not given, according to Daniel chapter seven, until just before Jesus descends to the earth to establish His kingdom upon the earth. All David is asserting here is that He is taking Psalm 16 and saying that this shows the Messiah was supposed to be resurrected from the dead. Psalm 110 shows that He is going to go to heaven where He will be seated at the right hand of the Father. When we put this together we learn that He has to be glorified and exalted at the right hand of the Father before He can distribute the Holy Spirit.

Peter's conclusion then comes in the next verse. Acts 2:36 ^NASB "Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ—this Jesus whom you crucified." Who is he talking to here? It is a Jewish audience, there are no Gentiles here. He is still offering the kingdom to Israel. By "both Lord and Christ" is not meant what Lordship salvation people mean, or the people who say at that point Jesus is given deity; it is a phrase that indicates the exaltation of Jesus to His position of glory—actually His return to glory—at the right hand of God the Father. So he nails his conclusion, which is that Jesus is the Messiah. It is very clear that he nails his conclusion because his audience suddenly responds.

Acts 2:37 ^NASB "Now when they heard {this,} they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, 'Brethren, what shall we do?'" They realized in their conscience that they had made a horrible mistake and had crucified the Messiah. This was their second question. The first one was what does this mean? Peter has just told them that what all of this means is that they crucified Jesus. He went into the grave, was buried, but He rose from the dead, and He is the Messiah who is now exalted to the right hand of the Father; and as part of His exaltation He has been given authority over the church and has sent the Holy Spirit. Now the second question: If this is true, what do we do? They know it is true. Peter's answer is what confuses a lot of people. 

Acts 2:38 ^NASB "Peter {said} to them, 'Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'" We will find some Christians, notably Church of Christ and some others, who will say this verse teaches that you can't be saved unless you are baptized. But that is not what Peter is saying here. First of all we have to understand that he is talking to a Jewish audience in a particular context. Secondly, we have to understand the grammar because the grammar really changes what we understand here.

First of all he says "Repent." This is the Greek verb metanoeo [metanoew] which means to change your mind or to turn. It is an aorist active imperative, which means this is the highest priority, and it is a second person plural—you all. So he is saying, "Y'all repent." Then he says, "…and every one of you be baptized." That is an aorist passive imperative, third person singular. So first of all he is talking to "you all," and then in the next line he is talking to the individual. That is very important. The second phrase is really a parenthetical statement. He says, "You all repent and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins, and you all [plural] shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

What was John the Baptist's message when he came? "Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." And that was a present active imperative, which doesn't put the priority as high as an aorist imperative does. It is still an imperative but it emphasizes that this should be a standard operating procedure in the life of people. Where did John get his message? From Deuteronomy 30:2. But this is his command. What went along with that? In Matthew 3:11 we see that the sign that someone had repented was that John baptized them with water. ^NASB "As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance…" So the message of John the Baptist and of Jesus' disciples at the beginning is the same message that Peter is giving here in Acts 2:38. He is still saying, "Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand, and you need to get baptized." And now it is in the name of Jesus; you need to be identified with Jesus. The reason he is emphasizing repent isn't because repent is something you need to be justified, because John never uses that word in the whole Gospel of John, it is because for Jews they are told that after their period of rebellion and the cursing and judgments upon them that God described in Deuteronomy 29 God then gives them hope in Deuteronomy 30:1-3 and says, ^NASB "So it shall be when all of these things have come upon you, the blessing and the curse which I have set before you, and you call {them} to mind in all nations where the LORD your God has banished you, and you return [shub] to the LORD your God and obey Him with all your heart and soul according to all that I command you today, you and your sons, then the LORD your God will restore you from captivity, and have compassion on you, and will gather you again from all the peoples where the LORD your God has scattered you." So all that Peter is saying when he says "Repent" in Acts 2:38 is the same thing Jesus' disciples meant and that Jesus meant and Moses told them about back in Deuteronomy 30. It is that if you want to get out from under divine discipline as a nation so that everybody is brought back to the land then you have to turn back to God. And the sign that you have done that and recognized that is that you will be baptized.

Then we have this phrase "forgiveness of sins." For those who think that Peter is saying you have to repent to get justified and go to heaven, Peter would be a really confused hypocrite if that were true because just a few chapters later when he is talking to Cornelius and the Gentiles he says, Acts 10:43 ^NASB "Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins." Believe and repent are not the same thing; they are not synonyms. Peter is clearly saying here in 10:43 that the issue is to believe in Him for the forgiveness of sins.

In Acts 2:38 Peter is saying: "You all repent and let every one of you [singular] be baptized in the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins, and you all [plural] shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Peter is addressing the men of Israel and saying that as a nation you all need to repent for the remission of y'alls sins, and y'all shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (He is tying that to the new covenant) and let every one of you who do this be baptized in the name of Jesus. When we get into this and we look at it in terms of what the Greek says in the phrase translated "be baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins," the "for" translates the Greek preposition eis [e)ij]. It can mean, but usually doesn't, on account of or because of. Some people try to solve this by saying that they are being baptized because they have already received the remission of sins. But if we take this within the context of what John said and what Jesus' disciples said in terms of repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand, it doesn't have the idea so much of repent because you've already been forgiven of sins, but it is unto—direction, like what John the Baptist was saying: You are being baptized unto forgiveness. That is a new state, a state of forgiveness of sin. The plurals here are still talking about corporate Israel and receiving the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in relation to the new covenant.