Acts 2:39 In Its Context (Part I): An Exegetical Summary of Acts 2:39 and Paedobaptism

By Jamin Hübner

Jamin Hubner, B.A. Theology (Dordt College), MAR (Reformed Theological Seminary, pursuing), Providence Reformed Baptist Church, Black Hills, SD, is founder of RealApologetics.org and the author of several books.

Introduction

Acts 2:39 is one of the most controversial texts in the paedobaptist vs. credobaptist debate. Reformed scholars treat the text as though it supports the necessary grounds for paedobaptism, while Reformed Baptists do not see it as such. In fact, the text may even lend support to the Baptist position.

In general, the paedobaptism assertion is that “the promise” and the phrase “for you and for your children” in Acts 2:39 is primarily referring to the covenant of grace revealed to Abraham and the “you and your seed” in Genesis 17.[1] There may be other secondary meanings in the text, but, as Joel Beeke put it:

Peter uses the term the promise as rhetorical shorthand for the covenant of grace, which embodies the promise of salvation he calls upon his hearers to embrace (see Acts 2:21). This promise is the same as those made to Abraham, to David, to Israel, and even to the Gentiles.[2]

Calvin himself went as far as to say that “This place [Acts 2:39], therefore, doth abundantly refute the manifest error of the Anabaptists, which will not have infants, which are the children of the faithful, to be baptized, as if they were not members of the Church.”[3] As such, Acts 2:39 functions for the paedobaptist as a bridge between the Testaments that re-asserts a basic principle of the Old Covenant: parents stand as the covenant representative of their family, and the children of believing parents are to be included among God’s covenant people.

This essay will demonstrate that a consistent exegesis of Acts 2:39 does not uphold these claims. The meaning of “the promise” and the phrase “for you and for your children” refers not primarily to the Abrahamic covenant or the covenant of grace, but to the specific promise of the Holy Spirit and the “sons and daughters” cited earlier from Joel (Acts 2:17-21). This fact alone has numerous implications that question the legitimacy of paedobaptist interpretation(s) of the verse. Acts 2:39 is undoubtedly related to the covenant of grace revealed to Abraham – just as countless other blessings are part and parcel of this broad gospel “preached beforehand to Abraham” (Gal. 3:8). But when priority is given to the original context and primary meaning of the verse, it becomes clear that Acts 2:39 cannot and should not be equated with the covenant of grace, nor can the specific features of the Abrahamic covenant (e.g. infants receive the sign of the covenant) be forced into the verse and its surrounding context – precisely because Acts 2:39 is describing a New Covenant reality (“And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh,” Acts 2:17). Whatever “covenantal language” that does exist between Acts 2:39 and any part or aspect of the Old Testament must be understood as Peter applies it. The phrase “everyone whom the Lord God shall call” in verse 39 and the whole of verse 41 further establishes that Acts 2:39 provides more support for the credobaptist position (“believer’s baptism”) than the paedobaptist position.

Background To The Text

Acts 2:37-41 comes immediately after the second speech in Acts, the speech of Peter at Pentecost (2:14-36). The Holy Spirit finally comes as it had been specifically promised in both the Old and New Testament Scriptures (Joel 2, Acts 1:4, John 15, etc.) and was particularly manifested by speaking in tongues (2:1-4). Verse 5 continues from there:

Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. And they were amazed and astonished, saying, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans?” (Acts 2:5-7)

Peter then gives a speech in response to these Jews in Jerusalem. It contains three major citations from the Old Testament, each making a specific point.

The first citation in verses 17-21 from Joel 2:28-32 (Joel 3:1-5, LXX) vindicates the immediate fact of Pentecost. The pouring out of the Spirit is promised in the Old Testament prophets. The second citation from Psalm 16:8-11 vindicates the crucified and resurrected Lord. The very suffering and death of Jesus “by the hands of lawless men” was the direct result of “the definite plan and foreknowledge of God” (v. 23). Furthermore, the resurrection demonstrates that Jesus was even greater than “the patriarch David” before Him (v. 29). Verse 33 then summarizes the conclusions from these two Old Testament texts: “Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God [referring to the argument in vv. 22-31 – Psa. 16], and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit [referring to vv. 15-21 – Joel 2], he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing.” Finally, Peter finalizes his speech with Psalm 110 (2:34-35) and concludes in verse 36: “Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God had made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”

A few preliminary remarks are in order. First, Peter’s audience in this entire context is primarily Jewish. Not only does Peter’s speech contain more of the Old Testament than Peter’s own words, but the first assertion following all of the three Old Testament quotations are Peter’s explicit confirmation of his listening audience.[4]

Second, it seems clear that “the promise of the Holy Spirit” in verse 33 refers to the giving of the Holy Spirit that the Jews and Jerusalem are witnessing. The same term “promise” (ἐπαγγελία) is also used in 2:39 in the same sense.[5] Nevertheless, the promise of the Spirit does not come isolated from the fact of general salvation; verse 21 says “everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”

Up to this point (Acts 2:33), Peter has essentially cleared up the primary objections of the Jews that were given in 2:5-13. Pentecost is not as foreign as the Jews had originally thought. But Peter does not stop there. He goes on to make a third and more assertive argument, namely, the argument from Psalm 110 that “God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” Not only was the odd behavior of the church at Pentecost justified, but the accusation of the Jews was thoroughly unjustified—for they had actually killed the Son of God! This was more information than the Jews asked for. They were confronted with the major facts of the Christian gospel (e.g. death, resurrection, deity, and Lordship of Christ).

The event of Pentecost provided a unique opportunity for witnessing. This is clearest in verses 37-38 where Peter commands his audience to repent and be baptized.

Acts 2:37-38

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?” 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.” (Acts 2:37-38, NASB)

Peter is undoubtedly calling the Jews to embrace the gospel and convert to Christianity. But, it is important to note that the specific promise of the Spirit is still on his mind. The command to repent (imperative) is used three times in Acts (e.g. 2:28; 3:19; 8:22), but only here is it immediately followed by the gift of the Spirit. The reason is obvious: Pentecost is the context.

Before moving into verses 37-38 in more detail, it should be mentioned that there has been much debate over the meaning of “for” (εἰς) in the phrase “for the forgiveness of your sins.” It has been used by some to justify a “salvation by baptism” position with εἰς interpreted in a causal sense. This position continues to be refuted,[6] and it is also not an issue that usually divides Reformed (paedobaptist or credobaptist) interpretations of Acts 2:37-41, so a full discussion will not be taken up here. It is sufficient enough for our purposes to simply state that the precondition for receiving forgiveness of sins and receiving the Holy Spirit is repentance. A person “will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” when repentance takes place. Unrepentant individuals do not receive the gift (or “promise,” v. 39) of the Spirit.

Both “repent” (μετανοήσατε) and “be baptized” (βαπτισθήτω) are imperatives. However, the former is 2nd person plural (matching the 2nd person plural, “of you”) while the latter is 3rd person singular (matching the singular, “each of you”).[7] So the verse is more precisely rendered, “You all repent and each one of you all (who repent) be baptized.”[8] It is clear that the ones to be baptized are to be the same ones who repent.[9] As I. Howard Marshall summarized: “Repentance and faith are two sides of the same coin. So it is that here repentance is linked with being baptized.”[10]

But Peter could have expressed this general point by simply saying “you all repent and be baptized.” Why the inclusion of “each of you” (ἕκαστος ὑμῶν). The specificity of Peter’s words at this point—that is, his extension from the general “you all” to the more exhaustive “every/each one of you”—is no surprise given the context. The preceding arguments regarding the giving of the Holy Spirit clearly assert the same concept of expansion. God will pour out His Spirit “on all flesh…sons and daughters…young men…old men…even on my male servants and female servants” (vv. 17-18). The following verse expresses the same idea: “The promise is for you [2nd p. pl.] and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone…” (v. 39). Therefore, both the larger context of Peter’s speech and the immediate context of verses 38-39 contain the same idea of expansion and inclusiveness; the filling of the Spirit (and of course, the total salvation it is associated with[11]) is not merely for the Jews or even for their children, but ultimately for all who have faith in Jesus, who is “both Lord and Christ” (v. 36).

But to whom does “each of you” (ἕκαστος ὑμῶν) specifically refer? There is no question that Peter is talking primarily to Jewish men[12] and that this class also makes up the majority of the crowd.[13] But the very inclusion of Peter’s words “each one of you” seems to imply that the ones Peter is addressing are not solely and exhaustively Jewish men.[14] Obviously, Peter wants to avoid confusion lest anyone in his audience think that only some should be baptized instead of “each one of” them. Whether he is referring to Jewish children, Jewish women, foreign servants, or Gentiles of any kind is not entirely clear. But one thing is for certain, whatever group(s) that were listening to Peter are included by these words.

Therefore, if any children of any age were present (and since “children” are then mentioned in v. 39, this seems like an acute possibility), those children are unquestionably told to be baptized via “each one of you” (v. 38), given—as it was shown above—that they “repent.”

Acts 2:39

For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself. (Acts 2:39, ESV)

The adverbial conjunction γάρ (“for”[15]) connects verse 38 to verse 39. Thus, “the promise” in Acts 2:39 is the specific promise of the pouring of the Spirit prophesied by Joel (Acts 2:17-21), which is the same promise of verse 33. As Nehemiah Coxe summarized in 1681, “The promise which he refers to is the one cited earlier of the salvation of all who in the day of the gospel call on the name of the Lord, and the pouring out of his Spirit on all flesh (see verses 17-21).”[16] A variety of today’s scholars concur with this interpretation.[17]

If this is true—that Peter is directly reasserting and concluding (not merely “echoing” or “alluding to”) the “promise” of the Spirit in Joel that he had just quoted—then it logically follows that “for your children” in verse 39 is as equally a reference to “sons and daughters” in that same context (v. 17).[18] The same is true for the phrase, “everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself” in verse 39, which clearly refers back to “everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” in verse 21[19] and/or the rest of Joel 2:32 that was not immediately cited (“among the survivors shall be those whom the Lord calls”).[20]

In short, the entire thrust and substance of Acts 2:39 is virtually identical to that of 2:17-21. Peter has in mind the specific fulfillment of the promise of the Spirit as told by the prophet Joel and the ultimate salvation of God’s called people who call out to Him (that is, those who are repentant). Thus, Acts 2:39 is primarily an assertion about a New Covenant (not Old Covenant) reality: “in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh” (2:17).[21]

It should be obvious that the “your sons and your daughters” and “your old men” and “young men” in Joel 2 are the “you and your children” in Acts 2:39. Joel 2 predicts a time in the future, and that time has come in Acts 2. He wants to make that point clear, which is why he mentions children again in verse 39. It is not as if the promise of the Spirit prophesied in Joel only refers to a certain age or generation of Jewish believers, as if the Spirit would come for a while, and then leave (e.g. the Spirit that came and left Saul and Sampson). Not at all! The Spirit continues to be poured out from that point of Pentecost forward, from generation to generation. And it is not as if the promise of the Spirit is only for leaders since it expands to children and even “male and female servants.” As Wellum remarked:

Under the old covenant, the “tribal” structure of the covenant community meant that the Spirit was uniquely poured out on leaders. But what the prophets anticipate is a crucial change: the coming of the new covenant era would witness a universal distribution of the Spirit (see Joel 2:28-32; Acts 2). God would pour out his Spirit on all flesh, namely, all those within the covenant community. Thus, all those “under the new covenant” enjoyed the promised gift of the eschatological Holy Spirit (see Eph. 1:13-14)…In this age, the Spirit is sent to all believers and thus becomes the precious seal, down-payment, and guarantee of the promised inheritance to the last day. To be “in Christ” is to have the Spirit for, as Paul reminds us, “if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ” (Rom. 8:9).[22]

But more than that is that the promise of the Spirit is “for all who are far off.” This obviously introduces a more popularly disputed phrase. What does it mean? How does this fit with verses 17-21 like the rest of 2:39?

Scholars are divided. Peterson[23], Williamson[24], Keener[25] and others assert that the phrase is referring to the scattered Jewish Diaspora. Carson and Beale assert that it should not be limited to the Jewish race.[26] Calvin[27], Bavinck[28], Thielman[29], Kaiser[30], Polhill[31], Tannehill[32], the ESV Study Bible, etc. assert that the phrase refers to Gentiles. Joel Beeke says it means “afar off from the covenant community and its divine covenant promises.”[33] F. F. Bruce, similar to Darrell Bock’s position[34], believes that it refers to those in “distant lands (and, as appears later in Luke’s narrative, not only to Jews but to Gentiles also).”[35] Marshall agrees: “[it is] a phrase which certainly includes Jews scattered throughout the world and (in Luke’s eyes, whether or not Peter had yet reached this insight) the Gentiles also.”[36] Finally, Ben Witherington has the somewhat unusual interpretation that “it is more likely that in context Peter is referring to future generations, not far-off Gentile peoples or Diaspora Jews who were in fact present and represented in number on that day in Jerusalem.”[37]

The word “far off” or “far away” (μακράν) is used two other times in Acts. The first is in 17:27, which is in the middle of Paul’s speech on Mars hill: “Yet he is actually not far from each one of us.” The second is in 22:21, where Paul is quoting Jesus: “And he said to me, ‘Go, for I will send you far away to the Gentiles.’” Outside Acts, the term is found only seven times, used in similar ways that refer to both a geographical farness (e.g. Luke 7:6, John 21:8), and a spiritual farness (e.g. Mark 12:34, “not far from the kingdom of God”). It is used specifically in referring to the Gentiles four times (Eph. 2:13, 17; Acts 22:21; Luke 15:20).

Word studies alone are not enough to understand the meaning of the phrase.[38] Context is the better guide. And given (a) the tight relationship between Acts 2:39 and the text of Joel 2 cited in Acts 2:17-21 examined above, and (b) how 2:39 is generally a summation or conclusion, it seems fair to assume that Peter is not introducing any new content to his argument. That is, one would expect that this phrase (“and for those who are far off”) would refer back to something after “sons and daughters” (v. 17, corresponding to “children” in v. 39) and before “everyone” (v. 21, corresponding to “everyone” in v. 39) since “for all who are far off” rests between each of those assertions in verse 39 respectively. Indeed, “if Peter cites the whole text [in this case, Joel 2:28-32], then we should reckon with the whole; and since Peter finds use for the first and last parts of the text, then we should expect he finds use for the middle.”[39]

Of course, this does not need to be true. For example, “for all who are far off” could simply be a restatement of “everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord” in verse 21. But that seems somewhat out of place and redundant since Peter immediately says “everyone whom the Lord God calls” in the next phrase of 2:39. “For those who are far off” seems to be asserting something more specific than “everyone.” Another possibility is that Peter could have introduced an entire new idea or category that has no connection with his previous argument from Joel or from anywhere else in his speech. But, given how (a) the gift of the Spirit in verse 38 is the same gift of the Spirit in 2:15-21, which (b) is the same “promise” in 2:39, and (c) the groups in 2:39 (“you,” “your children,” “everyone”)[40] are specifically mentioned – and in the same order – in 2:15-21, this seems a highly improbable conclusion.

Therefore, the phrase “for those who are far off” would logically refer to some category or group given in the citation of Joel 2 since everything else in Acts 2:39 comes from that text as well. As it turns out, the only group between verse 17 and 21 is verse 18 (Joel 2:29): “even on my male and female servants.”[41] One must then ask, what do slaves and servants have in common with “all who are far off”? There could be many things. But if this parallel between Acts 2:18 and 2:39 is legitimate it would probably suggest that Peter has in mind those who are not in the same social class as the Jews (adult and children) that both Peter and Joel were speaking to. This does not answer whether or not what category (e.g. Diaspora Jews, Gentiles, etc.) fits best with “for all who are far off.” Nevertheless, it demonstrates that interpreting the phrase (“for all who…”) within the text of Joel (v. 17-21) – like one would interpret the rest of 2:39 – is helpful (if not essential) in understanding what Peter is trying to communicate when he says “for all who are far off.”

The last part of verse 39 has been cited several times already. But its significance should not be overlooked. Indeed, it is not merely the concluding remark to Acts 2:39, but the key to understanding its meaning: “everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” The sovereign choice of God is the final and ultimate determiner of the person who receives the promise of the Spirit. No category matters, whether age, social status, geographical location, etc. Only God’s elect people will receive the promise which is the Spirit.[42] So, one might paraphrase the text this way: “For the promise is, ultimately, for everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

It should also be noted that while Acts 2:39 says, “For the promise is for…everyone whom the Lord God calls to Himself,” its referent, Acts 2:21 (Joel 2:32a[43]), says “everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” (emphases mine). There are two possible options at this point. First, two different aspects of the same divine event are being described. The calling of Acts 2:39 is the efficacious, elective, sovereign calling of God while Acts 2:21 contains the calling of man out to God (repentance and faith).[44] One is what God does; the other is what man does. The second option is that Peter may be referring to the rest of Joel 2:32 that was not cited: “among the survivors shall be those whom the Lord calls.” If that is the case, then the phrase in 2:39 is obviously referring to the same idea (and not a different aspect) of Joel 2:32 – God is doing the calling. Whatever one may conclude, Acts 2:39 is still directly referring to Joel 2, and the “everyone” is still all of God’s chosen people.

Let us then summarize verse 39 in relation to verses 17-21. The text says, “For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” The “promise” refers to the specific promise of the Spirit (v. 38, v. 33) prophesied in Joel (v. 17-21), which is nothing less than the Spirit Himself.[45] “For you and for your children” harkens back to the “sons and daughters” in verse 17. “And for all who are far off” (possibly) refers to “even on your male and female servants” in verse 18. “Everyone” refers to either the “everyone” in verse 21 (Joel 2:32), or the rest of Joel 2:32 that was not cited (“those whom the Lord calls”).

	Peter’s Argument from Joel 2 (Acts 2:14-21)	Peter’s Summary and Application 1A (Acts 2:38)	Peter’s Summary and Application 1B (Acts 2:39)
Jews and Their Children	“your sons and your daughters” (v. 17; Joel 2:28)	“You all repent and each one of you be baptized and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”	“For the promise is for you and for your children…”
Those Not in Same Class as Immediate Jewish Audience (Gentiles? Diaspora?)	“Even on my male servants and female servants” (v. 18; Joel 2:29)	“…and each one of you be baptized and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”	“and for all who are far off…”
Everyone (“All Flesh)	“Everyone who calls up on the name of the Lord shall be saved” (v. 21; Joel 2:32a)	[“among the survivors shall be those whom the Lord calls.”] (Joel 2:32b)	“…everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

Acts 2:40-41: The Promise Fulfilled

The question now is, what happens? How is this Old Testament promise of Joel fulfilled in the “last days”[46] of the New Testament times? Peter has given his argument (vv. 12-36). The Jews have listened (v. 37). Peter has told the Jews what to do in response (“repent and be baptized,” v. 38)—all on the grounds of “for the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord God calls to himself” (v. 39). How is the response of the audience going to correspond to the prophecy of Joel and to Peter’s assertions in 2:39?

We should be able to answer this question by Acts 2:14-39 alone. If “the promise is for” the Jews, their “children and for all who are far off,” and in fact for “everyone,” it would seem as if absolutely everyone would receive the gift of the Spirit. But it is then that we remember that verse 39 begins with the adverbial conjunction “for” (γάρ), and thus connects with verse 38. Verse 38, as it was demonstrated, asserts that the Holy Spirit is received when a person repents. There is no reason to suggest that the Holy Spirit will be received by/poured out to a person if that person is unrepentant. If that is true, then the pouring out of the Spirit prophesied in Joel and essentially restated in Acts 2 is limited to those who repent and receive the gospel—or, as the next phrase says, to “everyone whom the Lord God will call.” Its probable referent verse (v. 21, “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord”) obviously re-affirms that the people being referred to are repentant.

Therefore, if what has been said above is true, the only people that should be baptized in Acts 2 according to Acts 2 are the repentant people of God – that is, people who hear the gospel and accept it. There is no other option.

That, of course, is precisely what occurs:

And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. (Acts 2:40-41, emphasis mine)

Conclusions Pertaining To The Recipients Of Baptism

Verse 41 is highly significant for the question as to who should be baptized. Peter has brought up several categories and groups of people in 2:17-21 and 2:39, including “children.” But the final precondition that was met before any in Peter’s audience were baptized is the receiving of the word, not social status, Old Covenant status, or the faith of any parent. “Those who received his word and their children were baptized” is not in the text, nor would it fit any concept asserted in Acts 2.47 Baptism in Acts 2, in Acts in general, and in all the New Testament is consistently associated with repentance and faith.[48] Furthermore, as Conner argues, when Peter specifically says “for you and your children” he “does not have specifically Christian parents in mind, but all Jews in general…This rules out any notion of making this promise apply just to Christian parents.”[49] He goes on:

…the promise was made in general to all Israel, but it will only be fulfilled in those whom the Lord chooses to call to himself. These alone will repent, be forgiven, and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.[50]

Indeed, the point of Acts 2:39 is not to re-establish any Old Testament principle, as if to assert that the recipients of the sign of the promise are somehow determined by someone else’s repentance. Rather, in the fulfillment of Joel 2 (“all flesh”), it is to demonstrate that the promise is ultimately for the church—those who call upon the name of the Lord and those who are called by the Lord. In the church, in the New Covenant, the “last days” of Joel 2 and “those days” of Jeremiah 31, the covenant members are “all flesh” – or, more specifically, “everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” God’s repentant and chosen people are baptized and receive the promise of the Spirit; “all who call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” (2:21). Gone are the days of a mixed covenant where the sign was given to unrepentant individuals (e.g. infants) who may or may not actually be called by God to take part in God’s plan of salvation. The New Covenant has come, and due to its genuine newness, the sign and criteria for receiving the sign of the covenant change.[51] The reason why baptism (and not circumcision[52]) is a sign of new life (Col. 2:12), forgiveness and cleansing from sin (Acts 22:16, 1 Pet. 3:21), and being identified with Christ (Rom. 6:3-4; Col. 2:10-14) is precisely because those who are to be baptized have been regenerated (Heb. 8:11), forgiven (Heb. 8:12), and united to Christ. That is, those who are in the New Covenant (believers) are to receive the sign of the New Covenant (baptism).[53] Such was never the case in the Old Covenant – whether with Abraham’s descendants/servants (Gen. 17:23) or in the Mosaic economy – since the sign was given regardless of spiritual status.

Thus, Samuel Waldron summarizes:

In the Old Covenant, covenant status was conferred irrespective of spiritual qualifications. Thus the covenant blessing could and would be lost (Acts 3:25, cf. v. 23; Deut. 5:2-3, 27-29; Jer. 31:31-32). In the New Covenant, the conferring and consequent possession of covenant status assures the bestowal of the required response (Jer. 31:33-34; 32:40; 2 Cor. 3:1-9). Paul is not saying in 2 Corinthians 3:1-9 that the Old Covenant is a covenant of works. He is saying that it did not effectively confer life and righteousness on its beneficiaries. Many who possessed the Old Covenant status did not attain the required response and fell short of the promised blessing. The New Covenant confers the required response on all those brought into it. “They all shall know me” is its tenor. Old Covenant status did not assure life. New Covenant status does (2 Cor. 3:3). Unless we are willing to say that life and righteousness are the assured and inalienable possession of all the children of believers. We cannot say that the New Covenant is made with believers and their physical seed.[54]

In reading that last sentence by Waldron, one recalls Galatians 4.

But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. For it is written, “Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor! For the children of the desolate one will be more than those of the one who has a husband.” Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. But what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.” So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman. (Gal. 4:23-31)

First Peter 1:23 should also be recalled, “You have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God (1 Pet. 1:23).”

Believer’s today – members of the New Covenant – are “children of promise” who are not “born according to the flesh” (Gal. 4:23, 29) or of “perishable seed” (1 Pet. 1:23) but of “imperishable seed” (v. 23), “born through promise” (Gal. 4:23) and “born according to the Spirit” (v. 29). It is a total contradiction to say that those born according to the flesh (e.g. physical children of believers) are always the same children “born through promise” (v. 23) and “born according to the Spirit” (v. 29) and therefore should be baptized, just as it is wrong to say that those born of “perishable seed” are children born of “imperishable seed.” Yet, that is essentially what the paedobaptist is obligated to teach: children of the flesh are children of the promise in the New Covenant; believers’ children are essentially “like Isaac” (4:28). But Scripture teaches the opposite: “if you [not just your parents] are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise” (Gal. 3:29, emphasis mine).

Jewett makes a keen observation regarding Acts 2:39 in this discussion of covenant theology:

Whether we think of Peter’s listeners or of their children or of those far removed from the immediate scene of this first Christian kerygma, the point is that the promise is to all whom God shall call. This fact puts the whole matter on a rather different theological axis from that which is traditionally assumed in the interest of infant baptism. It becomes no more a question of one’s natural birth, as Paedobaptists have often implied; there is nothing in this Scripture passage of “visible church membership” and “external covenant privilege.” Rather, the passage is concerned with the call of God, that inner work of the Spirit…The Paedobaptist ear is so attuned to the Old Testament echo in this text that it is deaf to its New Testament crescendo. It fails to perceive that the promise is no longer circumscribed by birth but by the call of God.[55]

If there were any children in Peter’s audience, they were not baptized unless they “received his word” – that is, embraced the gospel preached by Peter. And this obviously does not apply to children only, but to everyone in each of the categories that Peter has addressed.[56] The same ones who were baptized in verse 41 are the same “everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself” in verse 39.[57] Therefore, unless we are to believe Peter was commanding infants to repent in verse 38, it is clear that he does not have infants in mind when he says “children” in verse 39. The “children,” as it has been demonstrated, fall under the “every one of you” in verse 38, the same “each of you” (ἕκαστος ὑμῶν) that refers to “repent” and “be baptized.” Moreover, as it was also demonstrated, the “children” (v. 39) most likely refer to “sons and daughters” in verse 17:

The prophecy in verse 17 thinks of children who are old enough to prophesy, and that verse 38 speaks of receiving forgiveness and the Spirit; in neither case are infants obviously involved. The point of the phrase is rather to express the unlimited mercy of God which embraces the hearers and subsequent generations of their descendents and in addition all that are far off.[58]

Additionally, Peter does not use the specific word for “infants” (βρέφος) used eight times in New Testament, the vast majority of which are usually translated as “infants” and “babies” as he does elsewhere (e.g. 1 Pet. 2:2). Nor does Peter use the word νὴπιος which usually means “infant” and sometimes “child.” Peter says “children” (τέκνοι), which is used 99 times in the New Testament and is virtually never translated as “infants.” In fact, the term is used by Peter elsewhere (e.g. 1 Pet. 1:14) to mean “class of persons.”[59] This fits precisely with the usage and context of Acts 2:39.

Therefore, it seems wholly unjustified for any interpreter to use Acts 2:39 to make any specific application for infants. But this is exactly what occurs in defenses of infant baptism. For example, John Murray said, “The seals of the covenant pertain to those to whom the covenant itself pertains. But that the covenant pertains to infants is clear from Genesis 17:7 and Acts 2:39.”[60] On the contrary, it is clear that Peter is not speaking of infants in this text. Even if he was, the requirement for both the entrance into the New Covenant and the sign of being in the New Covenant is the same: personal repentance (and faith[61]), not parental repentance and faith.

Even the Canons of Dort misuse Acts 2:39 in this way:

…the children of believers are holy, not by nature, but in virtue of the covenant of grace, in which they together with the parents are comprehended, godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom it pleases God to call out of this life in their infancy (Gen. 17:7; Acts 2:39; I Cor. 7:14).[62]

Acts 2:39 in no way supports such an assertion. There is no reason to suspect that Peter was speaking of those “in their infancy,” let alone somehow giving “godly parents” assurance that all of their children are God’s elect people. Acts 2:37-41 asserts something much different: the fulfillment of the actual promise (and thus, the giving of the sign) comes through repentance.

This fits with Waldron’s statement about the New Covenant in general. “The New Covenant confers the required response on all those brought into it.” That “response,” of course, is the gift of faith and repentance—everyone in the covenant “shall know [God], from the least of them to the greatest” (Heb. 8:11). And that, again, is why verse 41 says “those who received his word were baptized” and not “those who received his word and their children were baptized.”

But it is also why Peter comes to this same conclusion in his next speech in Acts 3. He asserts that repentance is the fulfillment of the Messiah promised in the Abrahamic covenant.

Approaching Biblical Theology: Acts 2:39 And Acts 3:25

You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant that God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.’ God, having raised up his servant, sent him to you first, to bless you by turning every one of you from your wickedness. (Acts 3:25-26, author’s translation)

God sent Christ to save. How? “To bless you by turning every one of you from your wickedness.” God sent Christ so that His people will repent and thereby “be blessed” (v. 25).[63] The Jews may have had a number of things going through their mind when hearing about Christ and the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promises; a political leader, physical land promises, physical expansion of a people, etc. They may have even believed that being Jewish was enough to secure their salvation. But Peter quotes from Genesis 12:22 (it is conflated, see quote of Peterson below) not to make any of those assertions. He argues that the Abrahamic Covenant and its ultimate fulfillment in Christ points to something more personal: turning away from wickedness. That is why God “raised up his servant” and “sent him to” the Jews first.

[Peter] also claims that they are heirs of ‘The covenant God made with your fathers’, meaning that they are in line to experience the ultimate blessing of the covenant made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (cf. v. 13 note). This last point is so foundational to Peter’s understanding of Scripture and its revelation of God’s purposes that he develops and expands it as the climax of his appeal. In so doing, he conflates the promise of Genesis 12:3 LXX (‘and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you’) with the promise of Genesis 22:18 LXX (‘and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed’). It is clear, however, ‘that they do not have a right to the covenant itself irrespective of their reaction to Jesus.’ (Barrett 1994, 212)[64]

This stress on repentance is nothing new, even in the context of Acts 3. Peter already asserted the centrality of repentance in the context of Old Testament promises in 3:17-19:

And now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers. But what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he thus fulfilled. Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, (Acts 3:17-20)

As it was observed earlier, the continual insistence to repent and turn from sin and embrace Christ against the backdrop of the promises given in the Old Testament, whether from Joel and the Psalms (Acts 2) or Genesis (Acts 3), points to the present reality of the New Covenant where those promises are fulfilled: when “no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest” and when “I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh…everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Acts 2:17, 21). Unlike the Old Covenant, the New Covenant confers the requirements of the covenant to those who are in the covenant – which includes repentance. Since Christ and the pouring out of His Spirit, there is no longer a mixed “covenant community,” there is the church – repentant believers in Christ.

Indeed, as Peterson and Barrett pointed out above, no one has a right to the New Covenant and its promise of the Spirit if the fulfillment of that covenant (the Seed) is rejected. Entering into the covenant requires more than being the carnal seed of Abraham (and obviously more than believing parents). One must personally turn away from sin in order to be united to Christ, who is the fulfillment of the covenant given to Abraham. That is why the next verse (3:26) confirms the primacy of repentance even in the context of being “sons of the prophets and of the covenant that God made with [Abraham].” It says, “God, having raised up his servant, sent him to you first, to bless you by turning every one of you from your wickedness” (3:26).

It is evident, then, Acts 2:39 and 3:25 have much more in common than the fact that they both mention “children”/“offspring.”[65] At the very least, they teach (1) salvific expansion to the Gentiles[66] and (2) the need for repentance and turning towards Christ, both of which are part and parcel of the conferred blessings of the New Covenant (the fulfillment of Old Testament promises).

The Promise Of The Spirit, The Abrahamic Covenant, And Galatians 3:14

Having addressed the contextual similarities and differences, what then, is the theological relationship between the promise of the Spirit and the Abrahamic covenant? Does not Galatians 3:14 assert that the promise of the Spirit is the Abrahamic covenant?

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith. (Gal. 3:13-14, ESV)

The first thing to note is the instrumental means by which the Spirit is received: faith (διά τῆς πίστεως). Whose faith? It refers to the “us” and “we” in the context—Christians (that is, those who exercise saving faith). There simply is no idea in the context that the faith of a parent somehow ensures the fulfillment of the promise of the Spirit for an unrepentant individual (e.g. infant).

In any case, the text maintains both a clear distinction between the “blessing of Abraham” and “the promised Spirit” as well as a tight connection between them. Many argue (e.g. Fung[67], Bruce[68], Schreiner[69]) that 2:13-14 is structured by the main clause (v. 13) supported by the coordinate purpose (ἵνα) clauses (vv. 14a, 14b). This conclusion is mostly drawn from the assumption that Paul may be alluding to Isaiah 44:3 (“For I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will pour my Spirit upon your offspring, and my blessing on your descendants”), where the “Spirit” is the “blessing.” Thus, it is further suggested that Paul is asserting the exact same concept in his letter to the Galatians; the “Spirit” is the “blessing of Abraham.” Verse 14a is talking about the same reality as 14b so that there is no substantive difference between the two.

This interpretation is possible, but not entirely consistent. First of all, possible allusions to the Old Testament are not in and of themselves sufficient to (a) interpret a New Testament text, nor (b) enough to downplay the importance of the immediate context (see “third of all” below). Regarding (a), not only do New Testament authors use Old Testament allusions and concepts to suite their purposes as authors of inspired Scripture, but it is even possible for Paul to quote the Old Testament and apply it in a somewhat different sense than was originally intended by the original author of the Old Testament quotation (e.g. Rom. 9 and applying the concept of national election of Edom and Israel from Mal. 1:2-3 to individuals such as Pharaoh, etc.[70]).

Second of all, two coordinate purpose clauses supporting a main clause as it does here does not automatically erase the theological distinction between the two. If a person said, “The firefighter saved us from the building so that we might live and so that we might see our family again,” the first purpose clause and the second purpose clause are related but do not contain the same concepts; being alive is not the same concept as seeing a family. In the same way, the possibility that Galatians 3:14a is a first purpose clause and 14b is a second, and both are coordinate clauses, does not mean they are communicating one and the same concept.[71] Further exegesis and context must determine what is being said for each.

Third of all (see (b) above), the immediate context may actually stand against the two clauses being coordinate.[72] It is obvious that Galatians 3:13-14 should be interpreted in the context of what has been said immediately before it. And two things are clear from these earlier portions: (1) Christ “supplies the Spirit to you” (v. 5) and (2) the “blessing of Abraham” is “that God would justify the Gentiles by faith” (v. 8). Some scholars conclude from this that “in Paul’s thinking the blessing of justification is almost synonymous (it is certainly contemporaneous) with the reception of the Spirit.”[73] But it is more probable that Paul is describing two different concepts and connecting those clauses together. That is, the second purpose clause is attached to the first, perhaps “expressing the moral dependence on the one on the other,”[74] or simply identifying the connection between the promised Spirit and “the blessing of Abraham” without collapsing the distinction between the two. After all, none of the Abrahamic promises in Genesis mention (at least, explicitly) the promise of the Spirit. Paul’s audience knows that. It probably would have confused the Galatians if Paul was asserting in such a short space that the promise of the Spirit simply is the Abrahamic covenant and that we are not to understand them as being two distinct concepts.

Therefore, whether the clauses are coordinate or not, the “promised Spirit” cannot be simply equated with “the blessing of Abraham,” at least in Galatians 3. They are two related but different realities, not merely different words to describe the same reality.[75] The promised Spirit is one of the many blessings that comes from and with Christ (v. 5) and His work (vv. 6-14), both of which (Christ and His work) are the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant.[76] Thus, the Abrahamic Covenant contains in the sense described by Paul—because of the nature of Christ’s work and the inseparability of the Spirit during/after the work of justification—the promise of the Spirit. When the Gentiles have faith and are justified, they receive the Spirit.

In that sense, can we say that the promise of the Spirit is part and parcel of the blessings in the Abrahamic Covenant? To go beyond this by rashly equating the two and making no distinctions between them risks committing the horrible practice of eisegesis—reading into a text something that is not there, instead of reading out of it the texts’ original meaning.

Conclusions To Acts 2:39 And Introduction To Case Studies

Yet, this is precisely what happens with paedobaptist interpretations of Acts 2:39: the promise of the Spirit is equated whole-sale, usually with no distinction, with the Abrahamic covenant of Genesis 17 and/or the covenant of grace. And since it is assumed that circumcision is (always) the sign and seal of the covenant of grace, the specific participants of circumcision (e.g. infants) are directly associated with whatever is being asserted in Acts 2:39. There is, then, little need to distinguish the promise of the Spirit in Acts 2 from the Abrahamic Covenant or covenant of grace – let alone see what Peter was originally referring to (e.g. Joel 2) to interpret Acts 2:39. As a result, the Abrahamic Covenant and its features such as the recipients of circumcision are imported entirely into Acts 2:39 without any consideration as to (1) what promise is being talked about in Acts 2:39, (2) what the fulfillment of that promise looks like in the New Covenant, (3) what argument is being made in Acts 2 and how that argument is not altogether the same as Acts 3, and so on and so forth. In short, “The Paedobaptist ear is so attuned to the Old Testament echo in this text that it is deaf to its New Testament crescendo.”[77] The attitude is “promise of the Spirit, Abrahamic covenant, covenant of grace, it is all the same thing,” and “children, Seed, same idea” when it comes to interpreting Acts 2:39.

It would be no different if a person said, “justification, regeneration, same thing.” The two are obviously related and in some ways dependent on each other due to the marvelous and radical nature of human salvation. But it would be wrong to suggest that because of that relationship between the two, the distinct features of justification and regeneration can be exchanged whenever the concepts are mentioned, echoed, or alluded to in the Bible. Worse, is forcing the same words (or different words, in this case[78]) to mean the same thing because of such “allusions” and “echoes” with no regard to the actual context.

Indeed, the fact that “promise” and “children” occur in Acts 2:39 and “covenant” and “children” occur in Genesis 12-22 does not automatically mean that the point of Acts 2:39 is to re-establish a principle of the Old Testament.[79] An interpreter’s interest in hearing Old Testament overtones should not overthrow exegesis of the actual text. To put it differently, while no exegetical theology can be isolated from biblical theology, biblical theology should not simply trump exegetical theology since biblical theology itself depends upon the prior work of exegetical theology.

For example, if the paedobaptist hermeneutics of Acts 2:39 (that will be explored in the next part of this work) were applied consistently, then Peter could not possibly have been describing the New Covenant reality of the church when saying in 1 Peter 2:9 “you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.” But Peter certainly was talking about the church.[80] The same is true for “Israel” in Galatians 6:16 and “the circumcision” in Philippians 3:3, where Paul uses the most explicit Old Testament language to assert something inherent to the New Covenant, not to re-affirm an Old Covenant reality.[81]

Therefore, even if Peter was using “Old Testament language” or “covenantal language” in Acts 2:39 by saying “you and your children,” context still determines what Peter meant. And as it has been observed, context does not suggest Peter meant the same (or even a similar) thing as Genesis 17. At the least, he was repeating what was being said in Joel 2 (Acts 2:17-21) and, perhaps for the sake of his Jewish audience, describing the New Covenant realities of the church (Acts 2:21, 2:39b, etc.) in more “Old Covenant language.” Whatever he meant must first be interpreted by the immediate context (e.g. Acts 2:38 and 41) and surrounding context (the rest of Acts 2) before demanding that the verse fit a presupposed biblical-theological category.

The next part of this study will document such cases of when biblical theological concepts overturn (instead of enlighten) a consistent exegesis of Acts 2:39 in paedobaptist interpretations.

Notes

1. Joseph Nally even found Acts 2:39 as supporting a connection between baptism and circumcision. He says, “The clear link is seen in Acts 2:39, where Peter gives the reason for this action: “the promise is to you and to your children, and all who are far off” (cf. “and thy seed after thee in their generations”; Gen. 17). The Apostle Peter consciously uses the same formula (because it is an everlasting covenant) as the LORD himself used when he instituted the sign of circumcision in Genesis 17. The Jews listening understood this precisely. Thus, as they understood circumcision was for Abraham and his seed, they understood that baptism was for those that believe and their seed. Thus, it seems clear that Peter and his audience understood there to be link between circumcision and Baptism.” Joseph R Nally. “A Brief Critique of Fred Malone’s “The Baptism of Disciples Alone”.” Reformed Perspectives Magazine. 7:49 (2005).
2. Joel R. Beeke and Ray B. Lanning. “Unto You, and to Your Children” in The Covenantal Case for Infant Baptism, ed. Gregg Strawbridge (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2003), 49. J. V. Fesko recently asserted essentially the same: “To what promise does Peter refer? The promise is undoubtedly weighted on the whole of redemptive history: the protoevangelium (Gen. 3:15); God’s promise to Abraham (Gen. 12:1-3; 15; 17:1-14); and his promise to David (1 Sam. 7:14).” J. V. Fesko. Word, Water, and Spirit: A Reformed Perspective on Baptism (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2010), 357.
3. John Calvin, Commentary on Acts. Christian Classics Ethereal Library. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom36.html (Accessed February 29, 2012).
4. Quote of Joel 2 in Acts 2:17-21 followed by “Men of Israel, hear these words” (2:22). Quote of Psalm 16 in Acts 2:25-28 followed by “Brothers, I may say to you” (2:29). Quote of Psalm 110 in Acts 2:34-35 followed by “Let all the House of Israel therefore know” (2:36).
5. The next occurrence of the word does not come until Acts 7:17 (where Stephen explicitly refers to the Abrahamic promise).
6. The most concise treatments of this issue can be found in the NET Bible footnotes on this text, and in the PCNT and BECNT commentaries on Acts.
7. David Williams seems to have missed the plurality of μετανοήσατε (“you all repent”) when he said in his exegetical discussion that both terms are singular: “The call to repentance and baptism – the individual’s response to God’s grace – is in the singular.” David J. Williams. Acts, NIBC (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1990), 54.
8. The ESV renders it, “repent and be baptized every one of you.”
9. If that was not true, “repent” would not have the same case and number as “of you” (ὑμῶν).
10. I. Howard Marshall. Acts, TNTC (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2008), 81.
11. See Acts 2:21.
12. See vv. 14, 22, 29.
13. See. v. 5. It should be noted that the association with maleness to Peter’s audience is particularly strong throughout the whole chapter: “Jerusalem Jews, devout men” (v. 5); “Men of Judea” (v. 14); “Men of Israel” (v. 22); “Brothers” (v. 29). The pattern shifts at v. 36 where there is expansion: “Let all the house of Israel therefore know…” (emphasis mine).
14. Of course, it is possible that there are sub-groups within the Jewish men Paul is speaking to. But the context simply does not give any indication that this is the case. Verses 17-21 and v. 39, however, explicitly identify various groups. This fact will be discussed below.
15. James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament), electronic ed. (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997).
16. Nehemiah Coxe. “A Discourse of the Covenants That God Made With Men Before the Law” in Covenant Theology: From Adam to Christ, ed. James M. Renihan (Palmdale, CA: Reformed Baptist Academic Press, 2005), 115.
17. For example: “The ‘promise’ is, of course, the promise of the gift of the Spirit (cf. 2:33) made by Joel.” D. A. Carson and G. K. Beale. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 543; “ ‘The promise’ is most obviously the promise of the Spirit about which Jesus spoke during his earthly ministry (cf. Lk. 24:49; Acts 1:4).” James Peterson. The Acts of the Apostles, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 156; “The promise’s scope is what Peter notes next. The promise certainly alludes back to the Spirit (vv. 33, 38) and possibly forgiveness as well (v. 38).” Darrell Bock. Acts, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 145. Whether or not such a promise is enveloped in a larger scheme of the unfolding promises given to Abraham will be taken up in the next portion below (Acts 2:39 and Biblical Theology).
18. See G. R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), 342.
19. “With these words Peter rounds off the quote from Joel 2:32 with which his discourse had begun.” Marshall, Acts, 82.
20. “The idea of the Lord calling echoes, to a degree, what was not cited from Joel 2:32b (3.5b LXX), and so the Joel passage is still present in the backdrop.” Bock, Acts, 145.
21. Additionally, combined with the general gospel call of repentance and the consequent forgiveness of sins in vv. 37-38, v. 39 partly functions as representing the more specific fruit of conversion. Just as the same kind of repentance in the book of Acts “leads to life” (11:18), blots out sins (3:19), and results in “performing deeds” (26:20), so too, does repentance lead to receiving “the promise” and “gift of the Spirit.”
22. Stephen J. Wellum, “Baptism and the Relationship between the Covenants” in Believer’s Baptism, Shawn Wright and Thomas Schreiner, eds. (Nashville: B&H, 2006), 133.
23. Peterson, Acts, 156.
24. Williamson, Acts, 56.
25. Craig S. Keener. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993), 330.
26. Carson and Beale, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, 543.
27. John Calvin. Commentary on Acts, vol. 1. Calvin even goes as far as to say that “For those which refer it unto those Jews which were exiled afar off, (and driven) into far countries, they are greatly deceived.”
28. Herman Bavinck. Reformed Dogmatics: Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 529.
29. Frank Thielman. Theology of the New Testament: A Canonical and Synthetic Approach (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 147, 705.
30. Walter C. Kaiser Jr. “My Heart is Stirred by a Noble Theme” in Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 149.
31. John Polhill. Acts, NAC 26 (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 117.
32. Tannehill, R. C. The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts A Literary Interpretation (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990) 2-27, 134.
33. Joel R. Beeke and Ray B. Lanning. “Unto You, and to Your Children” in The Covenantal Case for Infant Baptism, ed. Gregg Strawbridge (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2003), 49-69.
34. “The language “far off”…echoes Isa. 57:19 and, in Peter’s mind, possibly alludes to responding Diaspora Jews and God-fearers, since, until the vision in Acts 10, he does not think of Gentiles who are unconnected to Israel’s God…In the development of Luke, however, the expression looks to anyone who responds, which would eventually include Gentiles.” Bock, Acts, 145.
35. F. F. Bruce. The Book of Acts, NICNT . Revised ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 71.
36. Marshall, Acts, 82.
37. Ben Witherington. Troubled Waters: The Real New Testament Theology of Baptism (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2007), 56-57.
38. Although, it is legitimate to say – given the statistical information provided above – that the term (μακράν) is used twice as often in referring to Gentiles than in referring to spatial/geographical locations in the New Testament.
39. C. Godwin Sathianathan. “Redemptive Expansion Through the Testaments: Joel 2:28-32 as Sinaitic Program.” (Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, 2009), 17.
40. The “you” in Acts 2:39 are obviously the same “sons and daughters” in Joel 2: they are the Jewish descendants of the original hearers of Joel’s prophecy.
41. It should be noted that Peter (as told by Luke) does not follow the LXX reading (Joel 3:2).
42. Notice the genitive of apposition in 2:33 (ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ πνεύματος) and 2:38 (δωρεὰν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος). It is not the usual “ownership” idea as if to say “the Spirit’s promise” or “the Spirit’s gift.” Rather, as the NET Bible textual footnotes remark, “the promise consists of the Holy Spirit” in 2:33, and the gift consists of the Spirit in 2:38. This is important to remember since, as the next part of this article will show, an argument in Beeke and Lanning’s essay on Acts 2:39 in The Covenantal Case for Infant Baptism completely ignores this fact, and renders it invalid.
43. Paedobaptists usually acknowledge this connection. For example, Fesko says, “Peter concludes by saying, ‘as many as the Lord our God will call,’ which comes from Joel 2:32 and stresses God’s gracious initiative in the proclamation of salvation and its universal scope.” Fesko, Word, Water, and Spirit, 358.
44. See Alan Conner. Covenant Children Today: Physical or Spiritual? (Owensboro, KY: Reformed Baptist Academic Press, 2007), 76.
45. See note above regarding “of the Spirit” being a genitive of apposition.
46. These words (ἐν ταῖς ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις) are Peter’s insertion into Joel.
47. Fesko asserts the opposite in his discussion of Acts 2:39: “The inclusion of infants had been a practice of the covenant community for nearly 2,000 years…For there to have been a change in this covenantal practice without so much as a syllable of explanation would not have gone over well with first century Jews” (Word, Water, and Spirit, 358). Fesko is correct that it would not have gone over well – if the Jews were assuming that baptism was no different in purpose and participants than Old Covenant circumcision. But is there really adequate indication that they thought of one replacing the other? Furthermore, Fesko is assuming the non-newness of the New Covenant. Does not Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8, at the very least, assert a change in the “covenant community”? If not, what are we to make of the argument for the newness of the New Covenant by the author of Hebrews? If so, would it not be expected to see a change in the sign of a covenant if the substance of the convent itself changed?
48. See chapters 1-3 in Believer’s Baptism, Wright and Schreiner, eds.
49. Conner, Covenant Children Today, 75.
50. Ibid., 76.
51. See John Owen’s exposition of Hebrews 8 in Covenant Theology: From Adam to Christ (Palmdale, CA: Reformed Baptist Academic Press, 2005), as well as both segments in James White’s series, “The Newness of the New Covenant” in the Reformed Baptist Theological Review (July 2004 and January 2005). White’s series is particularly helpful as it deals with the best of contemporary paedobaptist material, such as Richard Pratt, Jeff Neil, and Gregg Strawbridge’s exegetical works on Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8.
52. J. V. Fesko disagrees and argues that circumcision signifies the same realities and has the same purpose as New Covenant baptism. See Fesko, Word, Water, and Spirit, 342-344, and compare with the opposite view of Wellum, “Relationship Between the Covenants,” 157-158.
53. This is not to mention receiving the Lord’s Table, the second ordinance of New Covenant members.
54. Sam Waldron. 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith: A Modern Exposition (New York: Evangelical Press, 2005), 120.
55. Paul Jewett. Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace: An Appraisal of the Argument that as Infants were Once Circumcised, So They Should Now Be Baptized (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 120-122.
56. “The indication is that they are such as can repent and be baptized for the remission of sins and the reception of the Holy Ghost, according to v. 38.” Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament, 342.
57. “The promise in Acts 2:39 need not mean that children are to be baptized; the promise may mean no more than that the gospel is a blessing not only for the present generation but to their descendants as well – not only to people in Jerusalem but also to those of distant lands – and is analogous to “your sons and daughters” in 2:17. The “children” are limited by the following phrase, “every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.”George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 387.
58. Marshall, Acts, 81-82.
59. See James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains : Greek (New Testament), electronic ed. (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997).
60. John Murray, “Covenant Theology” in Collected Writings of John Murray (Edinburgh/Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1982), 4:239-40.
61. This particular aspect of conversion has not been fully addressed in this essay because it is beyond its scope. For an argument that the New Testament teaches that baptism comes after repentance and faith, see chapters 1-3 in Schreiner and Wright’s Believer’s Baptism.
62. Article 17 of “The First Head of Doctrine,” cited in Louis Berkof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 638.
63. The dual-aspect of Peter’s theology in both of his speeches should be noted. Just as in Peter’s speech in Acts 2, there is the divine perspective and the human perspective to the act of faith and repentance. In Acts 2, there is first the calling humans make out to God (2:21) and then the sovereign calling of God (2:39). Likewise, in Acts 3, there is first the human turning away from sin (3:19) and then God himself turning His people away from their wickedness (v. 26).
64. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, 184.
65. Briefly stated, the similarities (in no particular order) of context between Peter’s speech in Acts 2 and his speech in Acts 3 include (1) the same speaker (Peter), (2) a Jewish audience, (3) an intention to see Jews become Christians. The similarities of the speeches include (1) summary of the events of Christ (trial, crucifixion, resurrection) and affirmation of Christ’s deity, (2) call to repentance of promise of atonement/forgiveness. The differences in context include (1) immediate context of the speech (post-Pentecost vs. post-healing of a lame man at the Beautiful Gate) and therefore, (2) the expectation and concerns of the audience. The differences in the speeches include, (1) Acts 3 contains no reference to the Holy Spirit, or “promise,” (3) all of the citations from Acts 3 come from the Pentateuch, while none of the citations from Acts 2 come from the Pentateuch. In short, the speech of Acts 2 comes after Pentecost and is a response to the Jewish concern regarding that event. Acts 3 comes after the healing of a lame man and is a response to the Jewish concern regarding that event. Thus, Acts 2 begins pneumatological and ends Christological and soteriological (pointing towards repentance in 2:38), while Acts 3 begins Christological and ends Christological and soteriological (also, pointing towards repentance in 3:26).
66. “God…sent [Christ] to you first,” (Acts 3:26, emphasis mine). Obviously, this implies a sending of Christ to non-Jews second (hence, Paul says things such as, “I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek” (Rom. 1:16, emphasis mine). Marshall says, “In view of the next verse (‘to you first’), it is likely that the word ‘families’ is meant to refer to both Jews and Gentiles, although the reference to the Gentiles is at this stage a quiet hint” (Marshall, Acts, 96). In other words, the idea of expansion (from Jews to Gentiles) is (possibly) asserted in Acts 3 just as it is in Acts 2 (if “for all who are far off” is referring to Gentiles).
67. Ronald Fung, Epistle to the Galatians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988).
68. F. F. Bruce, Epistle to the Galatians, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 167.
69. Thomas Schreiner. Galatians, ZECNT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 219.
70. See Carson and Beale’s work in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament for dozens of examples of this phenomenon.
71. Fung asserts something similar, although not the same. He says that the first clause “makes a statement from the perspective of salvation history” while the “second clause expresses the same truth in terms of individual spiritual experience.” Fung, Galatians, 151.
72. See Hans Deiter Betz. Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches of Galatia (Augsburg: Fortress Publishers, 1979), 152.
73. Fung, Galatians, 152.
74. J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians (London: MacMillan, 1865), 133-134.
75. See the thorough study of Chee-Chiew Lee, “The Blessing of Abraham and the Promise of the Spirit: The Influence of the Prophets on Paul in Galatians 3:1-14,” PhD diss. (Wheaton, IL: Wheaton College Graduate School, 2010).
76. Sanders says something similar: “Verse 14 summarizes the preceding argument in chiastic fashion, the first hina clause…reiterating the positive point of 3:8 (the blessing of Abraham for the Gentiles), the second, the positive assertion of 3:1-5 (the Spirit is received through faith).” E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Augsburg: Fortress Publishers, 1983), 22.
77. Jewett, Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace, 122.
78. Neither “children” (τέκνοις) nor “promise” (ἐπαγγελία) is used anywhere in Gen. 3-22 (LXX), with the exception of “son” in Gen. 17:16 and 22:7-8.
79. In fact, if one wanted to import additional “children of the promise” theology into Acts 2:39, Peter’s remarks in 1 Pet. 1:23 and Paul’s teaching in Gal. 4 (discussed above) would be more than appropriate.
80. See Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, 641; Carson and Beale, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, 1016; Walton, Matthew, Chavalas, The Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament, 281; Carson and Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 647; Grudem, Systematic Theology, 863; etc.
81. See Heb. 8:6-13 and Rom. 9:24-26 for more OT language being applied to the church.