Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 19:5
When they heard [this,] they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
5. And when they heard this ] The A. V. omits the conjunction which stands in the Textus Receptus. What they heard was not the mere statement that Jesus was the Messiah; but all the arguments with which St Paul demonstrated that this was so, and proved that in Him the Scriptures were fulfilled. The conviction need not have been sudden, though its description is brief.
they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus ] They followed the order appointed for admission to the privileges of the Christian covenant. No argument can be drawn from this verse for a repetition of baptism. These disciples had never received such a baptism as Christ ordained. John’s baptism was but a washing symbolical of the repentance which he preached; baptism into the name of Christ is the pledge of a covenant of salvation.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
When they heard this – When they heard what Paul had said respecting the nature of Johns baptism.
They were baptized … – As there is no other instance in the New Testament of any persons having been rebaptized, it has been made a question by some critics whether it was done here; and they have supposed that all this is the narrative of Luke respecting what took place under the ministry of John: to wit, that he told them to believe on Christ Jesus, and then baptized them in his name. But this is a most forced construction; and it is evident that these persons were rebaptized by the direction of Paul. For:
(1) This is the obvious interpretation of the passage – what would strike all persons as correct, unless there were some previous theory to support.
(2) It was not a matter of fact that John baptized in the name of Christ Jesus. His was the baptism of repentance; and there is not the slightest evidence that he ever used the name of Jesus in the form of baptism.
(3) If it be the sense of the passage that John baptized them in the name of Jesus, then this verse is a mere repetition of Acts . Act 19:4; a tautology of which the sacred writers would not be guilty.
(4) It is evident that the persons on whom Paul laid his hands Acts . Act 19:6, and those who were baptized, were the same. But these were the persons who heard Acts . Act 19:5 what was said. The narrative is continuous, all parts of it cohering together as relating to a transaction that occurred at the same time. If the obvious interpretation of the passage be the true one, it follows that the baptism of John was not strictly Christian baptism. It was the baptism of repentance; a baptism designed to prepare the way for the introduction of the kingdom of the Messiah. It will not follow, however, from this that Christian baptism is now ever to be repeated. For this there is no warrant in the New Testament. There is no command to repeat it, as in the case of the Lords Supper; and the nature and design of the ordinance evidently supposes that it is to be performed but once. The disciples of John were rebaptized, not because baptism is designed to be repeated, but because they never had been, in fact, baptized in the manner prescribed by the Lord Jesus.
In the name of the Lord Jesus – See the notes on Act 2:38.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 5. When they heard this, c.] 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.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The disciples, or those that John preached to, (for these Ephesians were not amongst those few that Paul baptized, 1Co 1:14), who when they heard what the Baptist said in the foregoing verse, they were baptized; as in the same terms it is said, Act 2:37,
when they heard what St. Peter had said, they were pricked in their heart, & c., and were baptized. As for Pauls imposing his hands upon them that are said here to be baptized, it might very well be, that the twelve disciples, Act 19:7, might have been baptized by John, and now receive the Holy Ghost in those extraordinary gifts by the laying on of the hands of St. Paul: for to what end should these disciples, who were baptized with St. Johns baptism, be again baptized by Paul? It is true, they had further manifestations of the mystery of the gospel brought unto them; but if men should be baptized for every degree of knowledge or grace which they do acquire, how many baptisms had they need to have, who ought daily to grow in grace and in knowledge! It is evident, that the apostles themselves were only baptized with the baptism of John, for there were none else to baptize them. And baptism being an ordinance for our regeneration and new birth, as we can be born but once in the flesh, we can be but once also born in the Spirit; and no more may Christians be baptized twice, than the Jews could be twice circumcised.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
5-7. When they heard thisnotthe mere words reported in Ac 19:4,but the subject expounded according to the tenor of thosewords.
they were baptizednothowever by Paul himself (1Co 1:14).
in the name of the LordJesusinto the whole fulness of the new economy, as now openedup to their believing minds.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
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 Ac 19:4 then what he did, Ac 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”.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The name of the Lord Jesus ( ). Apollos was not rebaptized. The twelve apostles were not rebaptized. Jesus received no other baptism than that of John. The point here is simply that these twelve men were grossly ignorant of the meaning of John’s baptism as regards repentance, the Messiahship of Jesus, the Holy Spirit. Hence Paul had them baptized, not so much again, as really baptized this time, in the name or on the authority of the Lord Jesus as he had himself commanded (Mt 28:19) and as was the universal apostolic custom. Proper understanding of “Jesus” involved all the rest including the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Luke does not give a formula, but simply explains that now these men had a proper object of faith (Jesus) and were now really baptized.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) “When they heard this,” (akousantes de) “Then hearing,” or when they heard; note, the “this” is not in the original language – They were baptized “when they heard,” heard John, who preached repentance, faith, and the Holy Ghost, Mat 3:1-12. Protestants have added the word “this” to make them re-baptized by Paul, that John’s baptism was not scriptural, belonged to another age.
2) “They were baptized,” (ebaptisthesan) “They were baptized,” immersed, dipped, buried, or submerged; When they heard, or gave heed to John the Baptist’s message, by repentance and faith, they were then baptized, by John the Baptist, not baptized or re-baptized by Paul, as inferred by the adding of “this” in the Episcopal King James version.
3) “In the name of the Lord Jesus.” (eis to onoma tou kuriou lesou) “Into (with reference to) the name of the Lord Jesus,” identified in baptism with the authority of Jesus Christ, the things he was to represent or did represent, in worship and service. John preached Him that should come after him, that is the Christ – the one way of salvation that all true prophets preached, and then baptized such as professed to receive Him by faith, by heaven’s command and orders, Act 10:43; Joh 1:32-34. John the Baptist preached in the name of Jesus, Him that should come after him, as surely as Peter, James, John, and Paul did, Joh 1:6-7; Joh 1:11-12; Joh 1:19-31; Act 4:12.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
−
5. When they heard these things. Because the men of old had conceived an opinion that the baptism of John and of Christ were diverse, it was no inconvenient − (356) thing for them to be baptized again, who were only prepared with the baptism of John. But that that diversity was falsely and wickedly by them believed, it appeareth by this, in that it was a pledge and token of the same adoption, and of the same newness of life, which we have at this day in our baptism; and, therefore, we do not read that Christ did baptize those again who came from John unto him. Moreover, Christ received baptism in his own flesh, that he might couple himself with us by that visible sign, ( Mat 3:15) but if that reigned diversity be admitted, this singular benefit shall fall away and perish, that baptism is common to the Son of God and to us, or that we have all one baptism with him. But this opinion needeth no long refutation, because to the end they may persuade that these two baptisms be diverse, they must needs show first wherein the one differeth from the other; but a most excellent likelihood answereth on both parts, and also the agreement and conformity of the parts, − (357) which causeth us to confess that it is all one baptism. −
Now the question is, whether it were lawful to repeat the same; and furious men in this our age; trusting to this testimony, went about to bring in baptizing again. − (358) Some take baptism for new institution or instruction, of whose mind I am not, because, as their exposition is too much racked, so it smelleth of a starting-hole − (359). −
Other some deny that baptism was repeated; because they were baptized amiss by some foolish enemy − (360) of John. But because their conjecture hath no color; yea, the words of Paul do rather import that they were the true and natural disciples of John, and Luke doth honorably call them disciples of Christ; I do not subscribe to this opinion, and yet deny that the baptism of water was repeated, because the words of Luke import no other thing, save only that they were baptized with the Spirit. First, it is no new thing for the name of baptism to be translated unto the gifts of the Spirit, as we saw in the first and in the eleventh chapters, ( Act 1:5, and Act 11:6) where Luke said, that when Christ promised to his apostles to send the Spirit visible, he called it baptism. −
Also, that when the Spirit came down upon Cornelius, Peter remembered the words of the Lord, “Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.” Again, we see that those visible gifts are spoken of by name in this place, and that the same are given with baptism. And whereas it followeth immediately, that when he had laid his hands upon them, the Spirit came, I take it to be added by way of interpretation; for it is a kind of speaking much used in the Scripture, first to set down a thing briefly, and afterwards to make it more plain. Therefore, that which by reason of brevity was somewhat obscure, doth Luke better express and lay more open, saying, that by laying on of hands the Spirit was given them. If any man object, that when baptism is put for the gifts of the Spirit, it is not taken simply, but having somewhat added to it. I answer, that Luke’s meaning doth sufficiently appear by the text; and again, that Luke doth allude unto the baptism whereof he spake. And surely if you understand it of the external sign, it shall be an absurd thing that it was given them without using any better doctrine. But and if you take it metaphorically for institution, the speech shall be as yet harsh; and the narration should not agree, that after they were taught the Holy Ghost came down upon them. −
Furthermore, as I confess that this laying on of hands was a sacrament, so I say that those fell through ignorance who did continually imitate the same. For seeing that all men agree in this, that it was a grace which was to last only for a time, which was showed by that sign, it is a perverse and ridiculous thing to retain the sign since the truth is taken away. There is another respect of baptism and the supper, wherein the Lord doth testify that those gifts are laid open for us, which the Church shall enjoy even until the end of the world. Wherefore we must diligently and wisely distinguish perpetual sacraments from those which last only for a time, lest vain and frivolous visures [semblances] have a place among the sacraments. Whereas the men of old time did use laying on of hands, that they might confirm the profession of faith in those who were grown up, − (361) I do not mislike it; so that no man think that the grace of the Spirit is annexed to such a ceremony, as doth Jerome against the Luciferians. −
But the Papists are worthy of no pardon, who being not content with the ancient rite, durst thrust in rotten and filthy anointing, that it might be not only a confirmation of baptism, but also a more worthy sacrament, whereby they imagine that the faithful are made perfect who were before only half perfect, — whereby those are armed against the battle, who before had their sins only forgiven them. For they have not been afraid to spew out these horrible blasphemies.
(356) −
“
Absurdum,” absurd.
(357) −
“−
Atqui utrumque respondet optima similitudo et partiurn omnium symmetria et conformitas .” but there is perfect resemblance, and a complete symmetry and conformity of all the parts.
(358) −
“
Anabaptismum invebere,” to introduce Anabaptism.
(359) −
“
Effugium sapit,” savours of evasion.
(360) −
“
AEmulatore,” rival,
(361) −
“
In adultis,” in adults.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(5) They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.On the use of this formula in connection with the baptism of Jewish converts, see Notes on Act. 2:38; Mat. 28:19.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
5. Were baptized We have here an unquestionable proof of a rebaptism; namely, of a once baptized disciple of John now baptized into the faith of Jesus.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And when they heard this, they were baptised into the name of the Lord Jesus.’
When they heard this their hearts responded to the message. The fact that they believed is assumed, for that is what Paul had directed them to do (Act 19:4). And on believing they were baptised into the name of the LORD Jesus. Note that the baptism was into the name of Jesus as ‘the LORD’. Baptism ‘into the Name’ is always in the Name of the LORD, a title which signifies the God of Israel (Mat 28:19).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Act 19:5. When they heard this, &c. I think it evident, beyond all dispute, that the baptism of John and of Christ were in their own nature quite different; and that it is plain in fact, that when persons in general were converted to Christianity, they were baptized of course without inquiring whether they had, or had not, received the baptism of John; which we know vast numbers did, (Mat 3:5-6.) who probably afterwards received Christian baptism. (Comp. Act 2:38-41; Act 4:4; Act 6:7.) This is evident also from the words of St. Peter to those thousands that heard him, Be ye baptized every one you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost: for since he spake to the men of Jerusalem in general and of Judaea, Act 2:14 and since Jerusalem and all Judaea were baptized of John, says St. Matthew, Mat 3:6 all, or at least many of those to whom he spake, must already have been baptized with the baptism of John; and yet he makes it necessary for them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Whence two things are perfectly evident, and consequent from each other: 1. That St. Peter exhorts those who had been baptized with John’s baptism, to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ: 2. That therefore they who were baptized with John’s baptism, were not baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus; which is also most evident in the words of St. Paul here. We may add, 3. As our Saviour never said openly and expressly to the Jews in general that he was the Christ, so he charges his apostles to tell no man that he was so, till his resurrection: but to what end should he do this, if both the Baptist and his disciples had before baptized all into this faith that he was the Christ, and so had published this faith to all Judaea? Only here note, that this is no ground for re-baptizing any now, by reason of the great difference between the baptism of John, and the baptism in the name of Jesus after his resurrection.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Act 19:5 . . . .] on the name of the Lord Jesus , which they were to confess , namely, as that of the Messiah. Comp. on Mat 28:19 .
These disciples of John thus received (whether from Paul himself, or from a subordinate assistant, the text leaves undetermined; but see for the latter view 1Co 1:17 ; comp. Act 10:48 ) Christian baptism, for it had appeared that they had not yet received it. The Anabaptists have from the first wrongly appealed to this passage; for it simply represents the non-sufficiency of John’s baptism , in point of fact, for Christianity, and that purely in respect of the twelve persons, but does not exhibit the insufficiency of the Christian baptism of infants . Many, moreover, of the orthodox (comp. Beza, Calixtus, Calovius, Suicer, Glass, Buddeus, Wolf, and several of the older commentators), in a controversial interest, both against the Roman Catholic doctrine of the distinction between the Johannean and the Christian baptism ( Trident . Sess. vii. Song of Son 1 ), and also against the Anabaptists, have wrongly attached Act 19:5 to the address of the apostle: “but after they had heard it they were baptized (by John), etc.” But against this it may be urged, that John did not baptize in the name of Jesus, and that , Act 19:5 , stands in no logical connection at all with , Act 19:4 . On the other hand, Calvin and others have maintained, against the Anabaptists, that Act 19:5 is meant not of the baptism of water, but of the baptism of the Spirit , which Act 19:6 only more precisely explains; but this shift is just another, quite as utterly unexegetical, error of dogmatic presupposition. We may add, that it may not be inferred from our passage that the disciples of John who passed over to Christianity were uniformly rebaptized; for, in the case of the apostles who passed over from John to Jesus, this certainly did not take place (Joh 4:2 ); and even as regards Apollos, the common opinion that he was baptized by Aquila is purely arbitrary, as in Act 18:26 his instruction in Christianity, and not his baptism, is narrated. Indeed, in the whole of the N.T., except this passage, there is no example of the rebaptism of a disciple of John. Hence the baptism of the disciples of John who passed over to Christianity was not considered as absolutely necessary; but it did or did not take place according as in the different cases, and in proportion to the differences of individuals, the desire of the persons concerned and the opinion of the teachers on the matter determined . With those twelve, for example, Paul regarded it as conducive to his object and requisite that they should be baptized, in order to raise them to the elevation of Christian spiritual life; and therefore they were baptized (evidently according to their own wish and inclination, as is implied in .), whilst Apollos , on the other hand, could dispense with rebaptism, seeing that he with his fervid spirit, following the references of John to Christ and the instruction of his teachers, penetrated without any new baptismal consecration into the pneumatic element of life. If, however, among the three thousand who were baptized at Pentecost (Act 2:38 ; Act 2:41 ) there were some of John’s disciples, which is probable, it was their desire to be baptized, and apostolic wisdom could not leave this unfulfilled. Accordingly, the opinion of Ziegler ( theol. Abh . II. p. 162), that those twelve were rebaptized, because they had been baptized by some disciple of John not unto the , but unto John himself, and thus had not received the true Johannean baptism, is to be rejected. They did not, in fact, answer, in Act 19:3 , !
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
5 When they heard this , they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Ver. 5. They were baptized ] That is, say some, they were re-baptized, because baptized before in a wrong name. Therefore Paul first catechiseth them, Act 19:4 . Others say that it was rather their renewing to their baptism than their baptism to them; and not that they took any other than that of John, but that they now began to entertain and apply it to the right intent. (Mr Lightfoot, Harm.)
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
5. ] Two singular perversions of this verse have occurred: (1) the Anabaptists use it to authorize the repetition of Christian baptism, whereas it is not Christian baptism which was repeated, seeing that John’s baptism was not such , but only the baptism which they now for the first time received; and (2) Beza, Calixtus, Calov., Suicer, Glass., Buddeus, Wolf, and al., wishing to wrest this weapon out of the hands of the Anabaptists, oddly enough suppose this verse to belong still to Paul’s discourse, and to mean, ‘ and the people when they heard him (John), were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus .’ This obviously is contrary to fact, historically: and would leave our present narrative in a singular state: for Paul, having treated their baptism as insufficient , would thus proceed on it to impose his hands, as if it were sufficient .
. . . ] Two questions arise here: (1) Was it the ordinary practice to rebaptize those who had been baptized either by John or by the disciples (Joh 4:1 f.) before baptism became, by the effusion of the Holy Spirit , ? This we cannot definitely answer. That it was sometimes done, this incident shews: but in all probability, in the cases of the majority of the original disciples, the greater baptism by the Holy Ghost and fire on the day of Pentecost superseded the outward form or sign. The Apostles themselves received only this baptism (besides probably that of John): and most likely the same was the case with the original believers. But of the three thousand who were added on the day of Pentecost, very many must have been already baptized by John; and all were rebaptized without enquiry . (2) What conclusion can we deduce from this verse respecting the use or otherwise of baptism in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost , in the apostolic period? The only answer must be, that at that early time we have no indication of set formul in the administration of either sacrament. Such formul arose of necessity, when precision in formal statement of doctrine became an absolute necessity in the church: and the materials for them were found ready in the word of God, who has graciously provided for all necessities of His church in all time. But, in matter of fact , such a baptism as this was a baptism into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. As Jews, these men were already servants of the living God and by putting on the Son, they received in a new and more gracious sense the Father also. And in the sequel of their baptism, the imposition of hands, they sensibly became recipients of God the Holy Ghost. Where such manifestations were present, the form of words might be wanting; but with us, who have them not, it is necessary and imperative. Dean Howson regards (i. 517; ii. 13) St. Paul’s question in our Act 19:3 as indicative that the name of the Holy Ghost was used in the baptismal formula. But the inference seems to me insecure.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Act 19:5 . : neither grammatical nor in accordance with fact can these words be regarded (as by Beza and others) as part of St. Paul’s words, as if they meant, “and the people when they heard him,” i.e. , John.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
in = into. Greek. eis. App-104.
the name. See note on Act 2:38. This verse continues Paul’s statement of John’s action. See the Structure.
Jesus. App-98.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
5.] Two singular perversions of this verse have occurred: (1) the Anabaptists use it to authorize the repetition of Christian baptism, whereas it is not Christian baptism which was repeated, seeing that Johns baptism was not such, but only the baptism which they now for the first time received; and (2) Beza, Calixtus, Calov., Suicer, Glass., Buddeus, Wolf, and al., wishing to wrest this weapon out of the hands of the Anabaptists, oddly enough suppose this verse to belong still to Pauls discourse, and to mean, and the people when they heard him (John), were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. This obviously is contrary to fact, historically: and would leave our present narrative in a singular state: for Paul, having treated their baptism as insufficient, would thus proceed on it to impose his hands, as if it were sufficient.
. . . ] Two questions arise here: (1) Was it the ordinary practice to rebaptize those who had been baptized either by John or by the disciples (Joh 4:1 f.) before baptism became, by the effusion of the Holy Spirit, ? This we cannot definitely answer. That it was sometimes done, this incident shews: but in all probability, in the cases of the majority of the original disciples, the greater baptism by the Holy Ghost and fire on the day of Pentecost superseded the outward form or sign. The Apostles themselves received only this baptism (besides probably that of John): and most likely the same was the case with the original believers. But of the three thousand who were added on the day of Pentecost, very many must have been already baptized by John; and all were rebaptized without enquiry. (2) What conclusion can we deduce from this verse respecting the use or otherwise of baptism in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, in the apostolic period? The only answer must be, that at that early time we have no indication of set formul in the administration of either sacrament. Such formul arose of necessity, when precision in formal statement of doctrine became an absolute necessity in the church: and the materials for them were found ready in the word of God, who has graciously provided for all necessities of His church in all time. But, in matter of fact, such a baptism as this was a baptism into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. As Jews, these men were already servants of the living God-and by putting on the Son, they received in a new and more gracious sense the Father also. And in the sequel of their baptism, the imposition of hands, they sensibly became recipients of God the Holy Ghost. Where such manifestations were present, the form of words might be wanting; but with us, who have them not, it is necessary and imperative. Dean Howson regards (i. 517; ii. 13) St. Pauls question in our Act 19:3 as indicative that the name of the Holy Ghost was used in the baptismal formula. But the inference seems to me insecure.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Act 19:5. , having heard) Luke mentions how the disciples at Ephesus obeyed Paul, receiving baptism in (into) the name of the Lord Jesus. For they had not known that they were bound by the baptism of repentance to faith in Jesus Christ: just as was the case with those who had slain Jesus, all of whom, therefore, Peter wished to be baptized in the name of Jesus, ch. Act 2:38, although very many of them had not been previously baptized by John: Mat 3:5-6. Apollos, on the other hand, who had received the baptism of John, accompanied with full instruction concerning Jesus Christ, was not re-baptized: ch. Act 18:25. Nor were the apostles re-baptized. For in reality the baptism which is mentioned in Matthew 3, 28 was one: otherwise there would not have been the beginning of the Gospel in John (Mar 1:1-3), and the Lords Supper, in Matthew 26, would be older than baptism, Matthew 28. Nor in this verse is he speaking of the people baptized by John; for it was not until his last days that John pointed to Jesus: ch. Act 13:25. Wherefore it cannot be said that he baptized them into the name of the Lord Jesus; unless you say that John baptized the people twice, first to repentance, then afterwards into the name of the Lord Jesus. Justus Jonas writes, They were re-baptized, who had been baptized with the baptism of John, for this reason, because John was not the author of righteousness, or the giver of the Spirit, but only preached the Spirit, and grace, which was about to be conferred, a little afterwards, through Christ, who alone is the cause (source) and author of righteousness.-, were baptized) Paul laid his hands on them; he left the act of baptism to others.-[ , of the Lord Jesus) In this way John at last utterly gave place to the Lord Jesus.-V. g.]
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
they: Act 2:38, Act 8:12, Act 8:16, Rom 6:3, Rom 6:4, 1Co 1:13-15, 1Co 10:2
Reciprocal: Mat 3:6 – were Luk 3:16 – I indeed Act 19:2 – Have ye
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
5
Act 19:5. These were rebaptized and it was into the name of Christ. No person but John could use his baptism, but the ones whom he baptized never had to be baptized again, for they were then prepared for the service of Christ.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Act 19:5. And when they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. The willingness on the part of these followers of John the Baptist to be baptized anew in the name of the Lord Jesus, tells us that they had committed no error in doctrine, no mistake in looking upon their master John as Messiah; they confessed by submitting to the Christian rite that the baptism of John was simply provisional and preparatory. And so these passed in Ephesus, as doubtless did many another disciple of the great Forerunner in other lands, from the imperfect to the perfect Christianity, giving up nothing of their former belief, only adding to it the higher doctrines, especially those relating to the results worked by the death and resurrection of the Messiah and the later outpouring of the Holy Spirit. This verse has been the subject of much controversy among the early Protestant divines, whoto oppose the Anabaptists and out of hatred to Rome, a very positive doctrine having been laid down by the Council of Trent on the question of the difference between the baptism of John and that of Christhaw attempted to give it a very unnatural meaning. They understand it thus: When theynamely, the hearers of Johnheard this testimony of his concerning Christ, they were baptized by John in the name of Jesus, thus denying their re-baptism by Paul. But now that the Anabaptist danger is a thing of the past, now that decrees of the Council of Trent, if they embody an obvious truth, as is the case here, can quietly be accepted by Protestant as well as Romanist, the plain meaning of the text is generally received, and all expositors now agree that these disciples of John were re-baptized with the Christian baptism. That this had taken place before is almost certain, for on the day of Pentecost we read (Act 2:41) how three thousand of the hearers of Peter and his companions were baptized. It is probable that among this multitude some, perhaps many, had already received the baptism of John.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
See notes on verse 1
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
5. And hearing, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Here you see baptism repeated in the case of these Ephesian converts. Water baptism is a Jewish institution, constant and exceedingly prevalent since the days of Moses, symbolizing the work of the Spirit, as the bloody sacrifices the work of Christ. A Jew had to be baptized with water every time he contracted ceremonial defilement before he was allowed to enter the tabernacle and enjoy its service. Doubtless many a Jew was baptized a thousand times in his life, these expurgatory catharisms being frequent as the bloody sacrifices. These Ephesian converts, Apollos and Paul were all Jews, accustomed from time immemorial to baptize freely and repeatedly pursuant to the Levitical ritual. Apollos had initiated them into the Johanic dispensation by water baptism, thinking it was still in vogue. Paul is preaching in the dispensation of the Holy Ghost, who is given by the ascended and glorified Messiah, whom it is pertinent that all publicly confess by baptism in His name.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
When these disciples of John heard that the Messiah had come, they believed in Jesus and submitted to water baptism in His name. This is the only explicit reference to re-baptism in the New Testament.