Be Ye Doers. . . Of The Word!

Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says." (James 1:22-NIV)

A Reply to a Current Concept
By: Bill Paul

Some are saying a person does not need to understand the purpose of baptism for it to be valid. Bill Paul responds with the accompanying article that was delivered to a group of preachers recently. -- Editor

The controversy over the results of Christian baptism seems to revolve around whether or not those who are baptized MUST UNDERSTAND that when they submit to baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, they will receive the forgiveness of sins (presuming, of course, that they believe Jesus to be Lord and Christ and are repentant).

ANALYSIS OF ACTS 2:14-41

Whatever Peter and the rest of the apostles said on this occasion was intended to be understood ("be this known unto you," 2:14).The language they used was capable of being understood.

Based on their intellect, educational background, maturity level, attentiveness, and possible other factors, some of these hearers no doubt understood what was being spoken better than others.

These people no doubt came to understand the message they heard on that occasion better in the months and years to come as they grew in Christ and received further teaching (in person and from the inspired writings as they became available). All Christians experience this as they "grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (II Peter 3:18).

The question here is, "What could those who responded to the message have reasonably been expected to Understand?" (The ones who didn’t respond may well have not understood or rebelled at it). Consider these elements:

(1) The prophetic portions of Peter’s message would likely have been the most difficult to understand.

(2) But they could have been expected to have some understanding of the phenomenon they had just witnessed as being the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy (2:15-20). (However, if verses 19, 20 refer to the second coming, they likely didn’t fully understand the significance of that portion of Joel’s prophecy any better than we do.)

(3) They understood that "calling on the name of the Lord" (2:21) would somehow bring salvation to them. (They had not yet been told how to do this.)

(4) They understood that Jesus of Nazareth had received God’s approval by the miracles He had performed. ("as ye yourselves know" 2:22).

(5) They understood that Jesus was delivered up, crucified, and raised up from the dead (2:23-24). If any portion of the message was likely not to be easily understood, it was how a person could come back to life.

(6) While the prophetic portion of Psalms which Peter quoted was probably not easily understood, his hearers at least understood that it applied to Jesus and not David (2:25-35).

(7) These people understood that Jesus was "both Lord and Christ" ("therefore know assuredly", 2:36). He was to be their "Master" and "Messiah."

(8) The deep conviction of these people ("they were pricked in their heart", 2:37) and the question they asked ("What shall we do?" 2:37) indicate that they were very attentive and were prepared to listen (and understand what Peter was about to say (2:37).

(9) They understood that they were required to "repent and be baptized". (2:38)

(10) They understood that when they did repent and were baptized, they would receive the forgiveness of their sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (2:38). Granted, they would learn more about these blessings later.

(11) They understood that the promise of forgiveness and the Holy Spirit was not only for them and their descendants but also for "all that are afar off", (2:39). Since the concept of God’s acceptance of Gentiles was not a part of the Jewish understanding, it is very likely that these people did not comprehend what all that "promise" entailed. (See Acts 10).

(12) They understood from the "many other words" of exhortation (2:40) that they had a responsibility to "save yourselves" from their evil generation (2:40).

(13) The language which says that they "received his (Peter’s) word" (2:41) suggests that they understood the message adequately to act on it.

SOME OBSERVATIONS OF THE ABOVE ANALYSIS

(1) It is probably that Peter’s hearers understood the facts, commands, and promises given in his message but not necessarily all the implications of the prophetic portions of it.

(2) Of the positive statements made by Peter, those which would appear to be the most difficult to understand would be concepts of Christ’s resurrection and Lordship. If these are admitted to be more difficult, could the people have understood them, and did they understand them? If yes, then...

(3) Why would the concept of "baptism for the forgiveness of sins" have been too difficult to understand when John the Baptist had been preaching it just a few years before this time (Mark 1:4) and "all the country of Judea" (Mark 1:5) responded to that teaching?

(4) Does the question of whether or not people in New Testament times understood that baptism was "in order to" receive the forgiveness of sins stem from the ambiguity of the text or from an effort today to accommodate the vast number in Christendom who do not believe this (or who vigorously oppose it)!

(5) We should be very careful in adopting the principle that "the hearers of a message did not always understand it". This principle would effectively negate much New Testament teaching, and none of us is prepared to accept all of its ramifications.

(6) Would not a better principle to adopt be that "hearers understood a message given to them unless the context makes it clear that they did not?"

Similar analyses and observations could be made on all the other accounts of conversions in the New Testament.