Acts 19

      19:1-7.  There are two schools of thought as to what happened here.  The most natural reading would suggest that Paul re-baptized these twelve men.   If so, it is the only mention of re-baptism in the NT.

     There are others who believe, as do I, that it is the baptism of the Holy Spirit that is intended, and that as is often the case in the Bible, a summarizing statement will precede an account of what happened.  Therefore, when Paul laid his hands on them, and the Holy Spirit came upon them with visible gifts (6), this is spoken of as a baptism (5), and that Paul did not re-baptize them with water.  This is thus understood to be the same Holy Spirit baptism that happened at Pentecost, and at Acts 8:14-17 (see notes there), when those whom Philip had baptized with water did not receive the Holy Spirit until Peter and John laid their hands on them.  This visible empowering by the Holy Spirit is often spoken of as a baptism, even by John the Baptist (Mt.3:11).  (See also Jesus’ words, Acts 1:5; 11:16.)  John did not baptize people into himself, but into faith in the one who came after him, Jesus (4).  John’s water baptism was the same water baptism as Jesus’ apostles.  It was a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (Luke 3:3).

     Like Apollos (18:24-25), these men were disciples, and believers in Christ, but had not heard of the outpouring of the Spirit (1-2).  According to this view then, neither Apollos nor these men were re-baptized, but these men received visible manifestations of the baptism of the Holy Spirit when Paul laid his hands on them (6).

     For a full defense of this position, see John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4:15:7,8,18.  Zwingli interpreted Acts 19:5 to mean that Paul instructed them more fully (as Priscilla and Aquila had instructed Apollos).  But Calvin understood it to be “the baptism of the Holy Spirit, that is, the visible graces of the Spirit given through the laying on of hands.”

     The problem these reformers saw was that if ignorance had to be corrected by re-baptisms, even the apostles would have needed to be re-baptized after John’s baptism, and many times after that.  As to the reformers themselves, Calvin says, “Now among us, what rivers would suffice to repeat as many immersions as the instances of ignorance that are daily corrected in us through the Lord’s mercy?” (ibid). 

     William Gouge, Hebrews Commentary at Heb.4:2, takes the same position.  “For John preached the same doctrine that Christ and his apostles did, and with the same baptism confirming it.  Christ himself was baptized with John’s baptism.”

     It is ludicrous to suppose that Jesus had his disciples re-baptizing everyone John had baptized.  Especially since Acts 19:4 makes the point that John had baptized them into Christ!

     Gouge supports his argument with the idea that the quotation marks (absent in the Greek) at the end of v.4 should be placed at the end of v.5, making “the people” the antecedent of the pronoun “they”.  Thus v.5 would mean, “And when they [the people John was speaking to] heard this [that they were to believe in Jesus], they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”  (Cf. John 1:29-33).

     19:8-20.  When the gospel is properly preached, it always brings the fear of the Lord (17), and drives out superstition.

     19:25-28.  Artemis could not defend herself (27), and these men knew it.  But there was more to Artemis than just her magnificence.  Much more.  Given what was at stake (25), there were a lot of people ready to get all excited for Artemis.

     Christ does not need us to riot in his defense.  Men must never defend God against unbelief out of fear God will be lost.  We must proclaim him so that men will not be lost.

     19:29-41.  Here, the worldly Roman government fulfills the God ordained function of all governments.  They are to use the sword, or the threat of it, to keep order in a confused and disorderly world (Ro.13:1-7).