Baptism and the New Covenant

If 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 is allowed as a concise description of the gospel, then Acts 2:38,39 can be described as a concise description of the New Covenant that results, or springs forth, from that gospel. This is why Jesus could call the fruit of the vine in the Lord's Supper the New Covenant in his blood, Luke 22:20.

The gospel PAID FOR the New Covenant, 1 Peter 1:18-21. The precious blood of Christ, as Peter said. And Hebrews 13:20 refers to it as an eternal covenant. That means it will never end nor be replaced by another. It is the last and only hope for a fallen mankind.

The apostles became ministers of the New Covenant, 2 Corinthians 3:6, the very one Jesus became the guarantee of, Hebrews 7:22, the High Priest of, Hebrews 8, and mediator of, Hebrews 8:15, also mentioned in Jeremiah 31:32-34. In fact, all of Hebrews 8 and 10:16-18 make reference to the New Covenant as it relates to Jesus and us and appeals to Jeremiah 31:32-34 numerous times as proof. This is the Covenant Paul spoke of in Galatians 3 that was first promised to Abraham 430 years before the Law.

This New Covenant, first announced in some detail to Abraham, is thoroughly discussed and explained by Paul in Galatians 3:6-29. Thus our belief in God's promises to Abraham is why we're considered as children of the promise, Abraham's descendants, Galatians 3:26-29, Romans 9:8.

In Galatians 3:8 Paul quotes from three Genesis passages referencing his seed, Genesis 12:7, 13:15, 24:7, These are basic restatements of that New Covenant God was going to make in the future in which we live.

The question becomes, if seed there means Christ, then how are we who are many included in the Abrahamic promise where seed is mentioned? The answer is in Galatians 3:27-29, where Paul says if we are Christ's then we are Abraham's and heirs according to the promise.

That goes back to the other promises to Abraham about all nations being blessed, Genesis 12:3, 18:18, 22:18. It's all connected with the New Covenant.

Interestingly, whenever the Old Testament speaks of the New Covenant it only speaks of God's part in it, God's promises associated with it. Man's part is never mentioned, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have a role of some sort to play in it. It's just that his role isn't the focus just yet.

Some claim Jesus is the New Covenant. But Hebrews 9:15 says Jesus is the mediator of the New Covenant, not the New Covenant itself, which is a contract of sorts between God and mankind, just as the Old Covenant was a contract between God and Israel. I can't stress enough how important Hebrews chapters 7-10 is in regard to this. Jesus is the guarantee, Hebrews 7:22, and the mediator of, Hebrews 9:15, the New Covenant. So to say that he is the covenant Himself shows a basic misunderstanding of what a covenant, including this one, actually is.

This covenant is like all previous covenants in that it is a kind of contract between God and us, except in this one God did all the work. All we have to do is accept it his way. The main difference between a covenant and a contract is a covenant is based on love, whereas a contract depends on legalities to work. Thus a covenant involves an emotional desire to make it work, not just a contractual obligation.

It can even be characterized as a pledge, a vow, or a deal, or an agreement. Often a marriage is referred to as a covenant, and often involves vows by both parties to each other.

Not all covenants required agreement between parties, however. God's vow to not destroy the earth by water again was a covenant he made with mankind on his own, without any input from us needed.

But most do form an agreement. But whenever the Old Testament mentions the New Covenant it only mentions what God's obligation to it will be, not man's, if he so chooses to enter into it with God and if he has an obligation relative to it. That part of the equation will be mentioned later in the New Testament.

God made several covenants in the Old Testament, including with Adam and Noah, as well as a few with Abraham, including the covenant of circumcision. But when we speak of the Old Covenant we're really talking about the one involving Israel and the Law of Moses, even though that's not the first and oldest covenant. That's all. Thus the Hebrew writer is correct in contrasting that covenant with the New one.

That Old Covenant, first brought up with the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20 and finally renewed with the descendants of those who came out of Egypt in Deuteronomy 29, was basically laid out in Deuteronomy 30:15:16, “See, today I have set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. For I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in his ways, and keep his commands, decrees, and laws; then you will live and increase, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess.”

Noah had to build a boat for God to be his God. Abraham had to be willing to kill his only son. Before that he had to be circumcised. Before that he had to be willing to get up and go to a land he had never been just because God said so. The Jews had to keep the Law of Moses.

All we have to do is repent and be baptized, believing the gospel and that God keeps his promises. Contrasting the Old Law with the New Law, or Christ's law (1 Corinthians 9:21) is merely a play on words since the New Law isn't really a Law at all when referring to that body of teachings known as the apostles' doctrine, and even less so when referring to either the facts of the gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-9) or the New Covenant, (Acts 2:38,39). And it is here that man's obligation to it is first clearly stated. God's promises are contingent upon man believing that God keeps his promises and responds accordingly as prescribed in Acts 2:38, that is, he repents and is baptized. Verse 39 says God's promises are for all mankind for all time.

The keeping of the Law of Moses was Israel's obligation to the Old Covenant in which God's part was his promise to be their God and Israel his people. Covenant is a contract based more on love than legalities even though obligations still are involved.

Paving the way for the New Covenant was Jesus and the cross. Thus God's promises to forgive our sins was accomplished on the cross leaving our only obligation being to accept that by faith via baptism. How anyone could object by calling that a work is beyond me. Shallow doesn't even begin to describe that point of view.

The New Testament, or, more correctly, the New Covenant scriptures, is about all those things surrounding both the gospel and the resulting new covenant, as well as the family of believers who accepted the terms of that new covenant and all they were subsequently taught, commonly referred to as the apostles' doctrine. That's why the New Testament should and does begin with Matthew 1 instead of Acts 2, as some incorrectly contend. Luke 16:16 “The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it.” This also makes the “birthday of the church” somewhat before Acts 2, which is fine.

Some confuse the command to be baptized with the baptism of the Holy Spirit. But the command of baptism given to man cannot possibly be dictating the immersion into the Holy Spirit of God. Only God can do that event. Man can only be obedient to the command of baptism in water, by faith believing that God keeps his promises. Unless otherwise specified, baptism always means water baptism.

Baptism is not part of the gospel. It is part of the New Covenant. The gospel makes the New Covenant possible. Water baptism in faith is God's way for us to accept the New Covenant offered, pure and simple.

So it is certainly correct to equate obeying the gospel with being baptized believing that God keeps his promises. Acts 2:38,39 is God's way for us to enter into that New Covenant relationship with him. But that's the beginning, not the end, of one's spiritual life. It's being born again, John 3:4, Romans 6:3-7, to walk in newness of life. The rest of the New Covenant scriptures help guide us in that new life.

Why did Peter connect baptism to the New Covenant in the first place? Where did he get that idea? Did he just make it up?

Actually, it appears he got the idea from Jesus himself in Mark 16:16. I know there are many that dispute the validity of that verse, but then there it is again in the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19.

So, far from Peter just blurting words, the idea comes from Jesus, who was, after all, God in the flesh. When you add all the other texts that speak of baptism such as Galatians 3:27, Romans 6:1-7 and 1 Peter 3:21, it becomes abundantly clear how important a role baptism plays in the New Covenant.

Since Paul later writes, twice, that he and the original apostles all taught the same thing, 1 Corinthians 15:9-11, Galatians 2:6-10, it is reasonable to believe that what any of them taught they all taught. For instance, the universal truths in Romans or Hebrews were true long before either book was written.

Thus it is a mistake to pit Peter against Paul, or Paul against James. Any apparent conflict is due to our misunderstanding. That's all.

Ephesians 1:7: In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace...Acts 2:38 Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of sins...Thus we contact the blood of Jesus in baptism. Just another example of the agreement between Peter and Paul.

In a nutshell, then, it is clear that baptism in faith is the doorway into the New Covenant. Any arguments about works, whose work, etc., are all man made and irrelevant. Simple obedience is not in itself a work. And water baptism is not something you do, it is something you submit to. It is done to you, not by you.

Baptism, by the way, unless otherwise specified in the bible, is always water baptism. That's the default definition. Only twice is Spirit baptism, or baptism of the Holy Spirit mentioned, in Acts 2 and 10. That baptism was never commanded for everyone, nor is it anything you can control. Both times it occurred it was unexpected.

Both sides of the New Covenant are concisely presented in Acts 2:38,39. The promises from Jeremiah 31:32-34 are clear and the requirements are few, next to nothing, because the gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-8) paid for it.

The gift of the Holy Spirit is, then the seal, guaranteeing our salvation, 2 Corinthians 1:21,22, Ephesians 1:13,14; 4:30. We receive it the same way and at the same time as the forgiveness of sins, by faithful obedience, Acts 2:38, believing that God keeps his promises.

Obeying the gospel is a euphemism meaning entering into the New Covenant since they are so closely connected. The only scriptural way I know of accomplishing that is in Acts 2:38.

Since "gospel" means good news, perhaps we ought to consider what else is good news besides just the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Because if that didn't actually accomplish anything then it would only be good news for Jesus, by virtue of his coming back to life. It wouldn't be good news for us at all.

The reality is that the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus was a means to an end. They had a purpose, a reason for happening. They accomplished something. There is a sense in which that purpose, that reason, is the rest of the story, so to speak, the complete "good news," for us, anyway.

And that reason, or purpose, was totally unexpected by those who were pricked in their hearts in Acts 2:37. Far from being “good news,” what they had just heard terrified them. Their question in v37 was rhetorical. They thought there was no hope for them due to their role in killing the Son of God.

I am convinced that what Peter said to them in verse 38 was the best news they had ever heard in their entire lives! When the 3000 heard there was actually an escape out of their predicament, not one of them quibbled about works or synecdoches or anything else. They simply jumped at the chance to be redeemed.

So we can think of the gospel in two closely related ways, as both the death, burial, and resurrection, which are facts to be believed, and the New Covenant, Acts 2:38,39, which is also good news to be obeyed, 1 Peter 4:17, Romans 6:17, 22:16, 2 Thessalonians 1:8. Colossians 2:12, Galatians 3:27. The second couldn't have happened without the first, and the first was the very reason for the second. We can think of them as two sides of the same coin. One could even say that the indwelling Holy Spirit is proof of God's gracious offer accepted.

We know what Jews thought about baptism. Proselytes were baptized into the Jewish faith, as a sort of ceremonial cleansing, and that thought along with renewal or re-dedication was behind John the Baptist's baptism a well. So when Peter came preaching baptism it brought images of a new order even more radical than John the Baptist's, which was a fitting conclusion to Peter's sermon, even if totally unexpected. Once stated, though, they apparently saw that it made perfect sense, especially with the significance Peter gave it. He did, after all, have the keys to the kingdom.

The Ethiopian Eunuch, in Acts 8, as a proselyte Jew, had already been baptized, and so knew what the ritual was and meant as far as Judaism was concerned. He had already complied with that. To ask to be baptized again by Philip strongly implies a new and different baptism into a new and different covenant, the same one Peter had preached on the day of Pentecost.

Baptism was part of the process by which nonJews (pagans) entered into the Old Covenant, obligating them to keep the Law of Moses. Christian baptism is part of the process by which nonChristians enter into the New Covenant.

Trying to learn how the original hearers/readers understood a communication is always the best idea. Only then can proper application, if any, be made to us today.

It seems pretty clear to me that the 3000 understood baptism to be for the remission of sins. But then, they didn't have 2000 years of scholarly sophistry to confound the obvious, so I think modern believers probably ought to be cut some slack.

That is why I believe that virtually every believer believes he has obeyed Acts 2:38 according to his understanding, if not mine, for neither he nor anyone else, myself included, can do anything else.

I would just hope that everyone's understanding is fluid and subject to correction and improvement.

Some try to point out that Jesus said in Matthew 6:14,15 that forgiving others is a condition of being forgiven. But that's comparing apples to oranges. Of course forgiving others is crucial. So are lots of other things. But unlike many of those other things, baptism is among only a handful of things that comprise the doorway into the New Covenant, if you will.

In conclusion, there is no verse where the forgiveness of sins, the "law" (gospel facts) written on our hearts, and the gift of the Holy Spirit by which we are sealed for redemption, 3 key components of the New Covenant, come together any clearer than in Acts 2:38. In fact every passage about baptism refers to some benefit relative to the New Covenant.