Atti 19:5 Commento

We left Paul in his circuit visiting the churches (Act 18:23), but we have not forgotten, nor has he, the promise he made to his friends at Ephesus, to return to them, and make some stay there; now this chapter shows us his performance of that promise, his coming to Ephesus, and his continuance there two years; we are here told, I. How he laboured there in the word and doctrine, how he taught some weak believers that had gone no further than John's baptism (Act 19:1-7), how he taught three months in the synagogue of the Jews (Act 19:8), and, when he was driven thence, how he taught the Gentiles a long time in a public school (Act 19:9, Act 19:10), and how he confirmed his doctrine by miracles (Act 19:11, Act 19:12). II. What was the fruit of his labour, particularly among the conjurors, the worst of sinners: some were confounded, that did but make use of his name (Act 19:13-17), but others were converted, that received and embraced his doctrine (Act 19:18-20). III. What projects he had of further usefulness (Act 19:21, Act 19:22), and what trouble at length he met with at Ephesus from the silversmiths, which forced him thence to pursue the measures he had laid; how a mob was raised by Demetrius to cry up Diana (Act 19:23-34), and how it was suppressed and dispersed by the town-clerk (Act 19:35-41).

And it came to pass that while Apollos was at Corinth,.... Whither he came after the Apostle Paul, and where he watered what the apostle had planted, and where he became very famous and eminent; insomuch that he was set up, though not with his will, at the head of a party, in opposition to the chief of the apostles, Peter and Paul; see Co1 1:12. Paul having passed through the upper coasts; that is, of Phrygia, Galatia, Pontus, Bithynia, Lydia, Lycaonia, and Paphlagonia; came to Ephesus; into Ionia, of which Ephesus was the chief city, and lay near the sea; wherefore the other countries are called the upper coasts; hither he came, according to his promise in Act 28:21 And finding certain disciples; such as believed in Christ, made a profession of him, and had been baptized in his name, for such were commonly called disciples: these do not seem to be persons, who were either converted by Paul, when he was at Ephesus before, or by Apollos, who had been there since, and was gone; but rather some who came hither from other parts, since the apostle was at this place; though indeed his stay at Ephesus before was so short, that they might be here, and he not hear of them, or meet with them.

When they heard this,.... That is, the people to whom John preached, his hearers; when they heard of the Messiah, and that Jesus was he, and that it became them to believe in him: they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus; not the disciples that Paul found at Ephesus, but the hearers of John; for these are the words of the Apostle Paul, giving an account of John's baptism, and of the success of his ministry, showing, that his baptism was administered in the name of the Lord Jesus; and not the words of Luke the Evangelist, recording what followed upon his account of John's baptism; for then he would have made mention of the apostle's name, as he does in the next verse; and have said, when they heard this account, they were baptized by Paul in the name of the Lord Jesus: the historian reports two things, first what Paul said, which lies in Act 19:4 then what he did, Act 19:6 where he repeats his name, as was necessary; as that he laid his hands upon them, which was all that was needful to their receiving the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, having been already baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus: which sense is the more confirmed by the particles and which answer to one another in verses 4 and 5, and show the words to be a continuation of the apostle's speech, and not the words of the historian, which begin in the next verse. Beza's ancient copy adds, "for the remission of sins".

Of the existence of the Holy Spirit … we are taught in many passages of Scripture. For instance, David says in the fiftieth psalm, “And take not your Holy Spirit from me,” and in Daniel it is said, “The Holy Spirit, who is in you.” But in the New Testament we have proofs in abundance, as when the Holy Spirit is related to have descended upon Christ, and when the Lord breathed on his apostles after the resurrection and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit,” and the angel said to Mary, “The Holy Spirit shall come upon you,” and Paul teaches us that “no one can say that Jesus is the Lord except in the Holy Spirit,” and in the Acts of the Apostles “through the laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Spirit was given” in baptism. From all of which we learn that the person of the Holy Spirit is of so great authority and dignity that saving baptism is not complete except when performed with the authority of the whole most excellent Trinity, that is, by naming the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Therefore the baptism of John was an exhortation to repentance only, but it did not provide a purification from sins. This, then, is the difference between the baptism of John and that of the faithful: the baptism of the faithful gives the gift of the remission of sins. While baptizing, John said, “I baptize you for the one coming after me, and I ask you to believe in him, because he is the Lamb of God.” Now the one who faithfully baptizes says, “I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” so that you may believe in the consubstantial Trinity. He washes the baptized thoroughly, strips away his previously existing superstition, and re-clothes him with Christ, as he purely proclaims the true faith. Furthermore, it must be noted first that after baptism into Christ, the Holy Spirit descends upon those baptized when the one baptizing lays his hands on them, and second that those baptized with the baptism of John did not possess the Holy Spirit. How then did Apollos, who had only been baptized with John’s baptism, burn with the Spirit? Even if Apollos burned with the Spirit, it is not said that he possessed the Holy Spirit. In fact, he neither was speaking in tongues nor prophesying. Therefore, it is one thing to burn with the Spirit and another to possess the Holy Spirit. Whoever possessed the Holy Spirit had it dwelling within him, and the Spirit itself spoke from within. Many of these things are referred to previously, as when the Spirit spoke to Philip, to Peter, to the apostles and to Paul and his companions, when he ordered them either to speak or not speak the word in certain cities. Whoever burned with the Spirit did this or that through an external illumination and impulse, as one led by the Spirit, just as someone might be led or protected by an angel. Now, do not say to me, “How is it possible for one who does not share in the Spirit to burn with the Spirit?” For it is necessary to establish what is unseen on the basis of what is seen. If the sun and fire, being outside of us, by drawing near to our bodies or also to be at a small distance, as is the case with fire, warm our bodies, what should we say about the divine Spirit that is truly hot and sets our interior person on fire, even if the Spirit does not live within but is without? It is possible, in the way that everything is possible to God, that someone be set on fire, even if the heat is not dwelling within.

"When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied." The gift is twofold: tongues and prophesyings. Hence is shown an important doctrine, that the baptism of John is incomplete. And he does not say, "Baptism" of forgiveness, but, "of repentance." So that it was likely they had the Spirit, but it did not appear until Paul had laid his hands upon them: then they spake with tongues, etc.

Did he baptize after a heretic had baptized? Or, if perhaps you dare to say that the friend of the bridegroom was a heretic and was not in the unity of the church, I wish you would write that also. But, if it is complete madness either to think or to say that, then it is the duty of your prudence to reflect on the reason why the apostle Paul baptized after John. If he baptized after an equal, all of you ought to baptize after yourselves; if after a superior, you ought to baptize after Rogatus; if after an inferior, Rogatus should have baptized after you, because you baptized as a priest. On the other hand, if the baptism that is now given is equally valid to those who receive it in spite of the unequal merit of those who give it, because it is the baptism of Christ, not of those by whom it is administered, I think you now understand that Paul gave to some the baptism of Christ for the reason that they had received the baptism of John but not that of Christ.

Then, having been baptized into the name of the Lord, he says that by the laying on of Paul's hands they immediately receive the Spirit. But this he did not see; for it is invisible. Yet grace gave some perceptible proof of that operation. And one spoke in the Persian tongue, another in the Roman, another in the Indian, another in some other such language; he uttered speech. And this was revealed to those outside, that the Spirit was in the one who uttered, God showing that this is of the highest authority. [AMMONIUS]

Having heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. A question is frequently discussed, whether those who, perhaps due to ignorance, were baptized by some who were not themselves baptized, yet were of the right faith, ought to be baptized again; which matter, I think, is explained in this chapter. For what difference does it make whether someone is baptized before the beginning of Christ's baptism or now without its succession, since even John himself, whom he baptized in faith and in the name of Christ, though it was to come, had baptized, said they should be baptized again, saying: "I baptize you with water; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit" (Matt. III)? For if now, such people could be remedied sufficiently by participation in the body and blood of Christ alone, as some assert, it might have sufficed then too; nor would it have been necessary for those whom John baptized with water to be baptized by Christ's disciples, but merely to be confirmed by sharing in the blood.

Paul, coming to Ephesus, finds certain disciples who had not received the gift of the Holy Ghost, knowing only the baptism of John, but receive it through the imposition of his hands, Act 19:1-7. He preaches for three months in the synagogues, Act 19:8. Many being hardened, he leaves the synagogues, and teaches daily in the school of Tyrannus for two years, Act 19:9, Act 19:10. He works many miracles, Act 19:11, Act 19:12. Account of the vagabond exorcist Jews, and the seven sons of Sceva, Act 19:13-17. Many are converted, and burn their magical books, Act 19:18-20. Paul purposes to pass through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem, and afterwards to Rome; but, having sent Timotheus and Erastus to Macedonia, continues a little longer in Asia, Act 19:21, Act 19:22. Demetrius, a silversmith of Ephesus, raises an uproar against Paul, which, after some tumultuous proceedings, is appeased by the town clerk, vv. 23-41.

When they heard this, etc. - As there is no evidence in the New Testament of persons being rebaptized, unless this be one, many criticisms have been hazarded to prove that these persons were not rebaptized. I see no need of this. To be a Christian, a man must be baptized in the Christian faith: these persons had not been baptized into that faith, and therefore were not Christians: they felt this, and were immediately baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. This is a plain case; but let one instance be produced of a person being rebaptized, who had before been baptized in the name of the holy Trinity, or even in the name of Jesus alone. In my view, it is an awful thing to iterate baptism when it had been before essentially performed: by "essentially performed," I mean, administered by sprinkling, washing, or plunging, by or in water, in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit, being invoked at the time. Whoever has had this has the essence of baptism, as far as that can be conferred by man; and it matters not at what period of his life he has had it; it is a substantial baptism, and by it the person has been fully consecrated to the holy and blessed Trinity; and there should not be an iteration of this consecration on any account whatever. It is totally contrary to the canon law; it is contrary to the decisions of the best divines; it is contrary to the practice of the purest ages of the Church of God; it is contrary to the New Testament, and tends to bring this sacred ordinance into disrepute.

SIGNAL SUCCESS OF PAUL AT EPHESUS. (Acts 19:1-41) while Apollos was at Corinth--where his ministry was so powerful that a formidable party in the Church of that city gloried in his type of preaching in preference to Paul's (Co1 1:12; Co1 3:4), no doubt from the marked infusion of Greek philosophic culture which distinguished it, and which the apostle studiously avoided (Co1 2:1-5). Paul having passed through the upper coasts--"parts," the interior of Asia Minor, which, with reference to the seacoast, was elevated. came to Ephesus--thus fulfilling his promise (Act 18:21). finding certain disciples--in the same stage of Christian knowledge as Apollos at first, newly arrived, probably, and having had no communication as yet with the church at Ephesus.

When they heard this--not the mere words reported in Act 19:4, but the subject expounded according to the tenor of those words. they were baptized--not however by Paul himself (Co1 1:14). in the name of the Lord Jesus--into the whole fulness of the new economy, as now opened up to their believing minds.