December 30th, 2024
115. The Baptism of John and Acts 19:4-5
I have a question regarding the comma placement in Acts 19:4-5. In your footnote to Acts 19:5, you write: "The translation treats this verse as a continuation of Paul's words. With this understanding, Paul did not baptize these disciples. However, if the quotation marks are placed at the end of verse 4, Paul did baptize them. The quotation marks are not a part of the original text, so either is textually possible."
A New Testament teacher claims that it is impossible to understand the text this way. He argues that the Textus Receptus, which, for example, Martin Chemnitz used, can be understood as the EHV suggests because there is a μὲν in verse 4, which is not present in the modern, more accurate critical editions of the text. Personally, I do not see that there is any difference with or without this μὲν.
My question is as follows: Can the EHV's translation be defended (where the comma is placed after Acts 19:5 instead of after Acts 19:4) even if the μὲν is not present in verse 4?
Many translations and study Bibles do not even mention the issue. The reason we do is that the translators of the EHV were aware that this is an issue discussed in Lutheran dogmatics under the locus of baptism in the subsection, the baptism of John.
There are a lot of questions here which we have a limited amount of data to address. The apostles were baptized by John, and they baptized people with John’s baptism. Was John’s baptism in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit? Were such people baptized also with the baptism mentioned in Matthew 28? We do not know. We also do not know if the people in Acts 19 were baptized with the genuine baptism of John or if they were baptized by misguided disciples of John, long after his ministry was ended. (The long time lapse since the death of John and the geographic distance of Ephesus from Israel make the second option seem more likely.)
Professor Wilbert Gawrisch was the editor of the dogmatics notes that were in use at Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary during the 1990s, so he was very aware of the place of this issue in Lutheran dogmatics. Pasted below is a review of the issue by him in Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly (reviewing W. Franzmann's Bible History Commentary):
The incident recorded in Acts 19:1–7 concerning the twelve men Paul found at Ephesus who said they had been baptized with John’s baptism is, admittedly, as Pastor Franzmann says, “rather complex and difficult to understand” (p 1380). He speaks of these men as “not genuine followers of John, because they did not even know about the existence of the Holy Spirit.” Paul then instructed them, he says, and baptized them in the name of the Lord Jesus. According to the NIV translation of verse 2, these men said, “We have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit” [εἰ πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἔστιν]. While this translation is a possibility, it should be noted that in John 7:39 there is a similar use of the verb εἰμί: “Up to that time the Spirit had not been given [οὕπω γὰρ ἠν πνεῦμα] since Jesus had not yet been glorified.”
Martin Chemnitz reviews the various interpretations of this account in his Examination of the Council of Trent (translation by Fred Kramer [St. Louis: Concordia, 1978], Part II, pp 133–136). More satisfying than Pastor Franzmann’s is Hoenecke’s explanation of the incident (Adolf Hoenecke, Ev.-Luth. Dogmatik, [Milwaukee: Northwestern, 1909], IV, pp 82f): Verse 5 is a continuation of Paul’s words: “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He [John] told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus. On hearing this, they [the people to whom John preached] were baptized in the name of Jesus.” The quotation marks are placed at the end of verse 5, not verse 4 as in the NIV. Hoenecke argues: If Paul actually baptized these twelve disciples in the name of Jesus:
Paul would have been saying that the baptism of John was not a baptism in the name of Jesus, a contradiction of what the evangelists and Christ himself say about it (Jn 3:5);
Paul would in fact be contradicting himself, since he testifies that “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance”;
the account ends in nonsense since Luke calls the twelve men “disciples” (v. 1) and Paul testifies that they are believers (v. 2) and that the baptism of John which they received was a washing of repentance and regeneration (v. 4)—so they were baptized in the name of Jesus!
(Wilbert R. Gawrisch, “Bible History Commentary, New Testament,” ed. Wilbert R. Gawrisch, Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly 87 (1990): 301)
Here’s a paste of Chemnitz’s discussion.
11 The other passage which was appealed to very often by the Donatists in this dispute, with which also they caused Augustine much trouble, is the story in Acts 19:1–7. This story appears to relate that certain believing disciples, who confessed that they had been baptized with John’s baptism, were commanded by Paul to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. But neither does this passage prove with certainty, clearly and necessarily, that it was necessary for all who had been lawfully baptized with the baptism of John to be again baptized with water by the disciples of Christ; much less does it prove that the baptism of John was without the remission of sins in believers. For from dark, ambiguous, and disputed passages nothing can be proved.
However, this passage is explained in various ways by the interpreters. Some, in order to refute the Anabaptists more readily, contend that those 12 were not baptized twice with water, first by John and afterward by Paul, but that they were baptized with water only once. And among these some take the word “baptism” in the earlier part of the statement not for the application of water but for the institution and doctrine, as the whole ministry of John is called his baptism in Acts 18:25: “Apollos knew and taught only the baptism of John,” so that the meaning of, “Into what were you baptized?” is, “With what doctrine were you instructed and initiated?” And these think that these 12 had indeed been instructed in the teaching of John but had not been baptized with his baptism, but that they were afterwards baptized for the first time in the name of Jesus.
Others take the word “baptism” in the earlier part of the story in its proper sense, but in the second part they take it metaphorically for those wonderful and outstanding gifts of the Spirit which Christ designates with the word “baptism” when He says (Acts 1:5): “You shall be baptized with the Spirit.” And their understanding is that these had been baptized with the baptism of John but were not baptized with water by Paul, but that the particle kai (and), as often elsewhere so also here, is explanatory. They were baptized in the name of Jesus, that is, when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Spirit came upon them.
But both these explanations have something forced about them, and neither preserves entirely the simplicity and clarity of the text. Therefore some, considering the little Greek word men to which the Greek particle de in the following clause corresponds, do not take the clause “On hearing this they were baptized in the name of Jesus” to be words of the historian Luke concerning those 12 but as the uninterrupted context of the speech of Paul, in this sense: John indeed baptized with the baptism of repentance by faith in the Christ to come, and those who heard (namely, this teaching of the Baptist concerning faith in Christ) were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus; that is, it was the same thing as if they had been baptized by the apostles. The Greek context readily bears and permits this explanation. An explanation that is also akin to this is found in the Glossa which is called Interlinear, although it takes those words as words of Luke the historian, namely: “When those 12 heard that there was no difference between the ministry of John and of the apostles, except that John had baptized into Him as coming, of whom the apostles testified that He had come, they at once accepted it; they were not rebaptized, but when they had heard this declaration, the baptism of John was for them baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus. For John baptized in such a way that he commanded men to believe in Christ Jesus. Therefore those whom John baptized were baptized in His name.” That gloss, the entire statement of which is taken from Ambrose, De Spiritu Sancto, Bk. 1, ch. 3, I have quoted above. He is, however, arguing about the true and lawful baptism of John, not about those 12 of whom he thought that they had received a spurious baptism under John’s name. This explanation agrees beautifully with that which is written toward the end of ch. 18 concerning Apollos, whom, because he knew only John’s baptism, they indeed instructed more accurately in the way of the Lord; but we do not read that they baptized him again with water, but having instructed him more fully they commended him to the disciples that he should be received as a Christian. This statement of the Glossa is very simple and fitting, and Lombard also argues that those who did not place their hope in that ceremony of John but believed in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were not afterward again baptized with water by the disciples of Christ. But to the possible objection that without the Holy Spirit there is neither the grace of God nor the forgiveness of sins, and that although those 12 are said to have been baptized with the baptism of John yet they first received the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands, the answer is not difficult. For Luke himself explains that he understands by the term “Spirit” the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, as the term is understood in John 7:39. Or, if it is taken literally, it will follow that not even by the baptism of Christ was the Holy Spirit given. For it is reported that they received the Spirit after the baptism of Christ, when Paul laid his hands on them.
There are, however, those to whom the text of the story seems to convey this meaning entirely, that those 12 had first been baptized with the baptism of John and that they were afterward baptized by Paul in the name of Jesus. Ambrose, indeed, so explains this passage, Ad Galatas, ch. 3. For he thinks that those 12 had not been washed, but polluted by a counterfeit baptism under the name of John, and that therefore Paul commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Trinity. He argues the same way in De Spiritu Sancto, Bk. 1, ch. 3. And to this interpretation this could be fitted, that they do not simply confess that they had been baptized with the baptism of John but “into the baptism of John.” For what this phrase means is quickly explained, where they are said to be baptized “into the name of Jesus.” For this is the same as what Paul says in Rom. 6:3: “All of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death.” And in 1 Cor. 1:13, 15: “You were not baptized into the name of Paul.” Also it seems to follow from their confession and from the answer of Paul that they had been baptized in such a way that they neither knew the Holy Spirit nor believed in Christ, but appear to have placed their hope in that ceremony of John, so that it was a certain false zeal, yes, a manifest corruption and adulteration of the baptism of John. And so the two accounts will not hang together badly. Apollos, who had been baptized with the true and genuine baptism of John, was not again washed with water but was more fully instructed. But those 12 because they were no more baptized than those who had been washed with the baptism of the Pharisees (Mark 7:4), were not rebaptized but were truly baptized for the first time by Paul. This understanding also Lombard embraces and follows.
Augustine, however, thinks that those 12 had been baptized with the true baptism of John and that nevertheless they were afterward also baptized by Paul. For he thinks that John’s baptism is one thing and Christ’s another, so that anyone who had the baptism of John needed afterward also to receive the baptism of Christ. And yet he defended this his understanding against rebaptism. For anabaptism is a repetition of one and the same baptism. This understanding seems to be favored by the fact that Luke gives them the testimony that they were disciples, that is, Christians, as they were then called. And Paul ascribes faith to them when he says that they believed. For this reason also some among more recent writers think it is not unfitting if one takes the passage to mean that those 12 were first baptized with John’s baptism and that they were afterward baptized by Paul in the name of the Lord Christ. For as John preached, so he also baptized into the Christ who was to come (Acts 19:4). The apostles, however, taught Christ as manifested, and joined to this teaching they had a sign—the baptism of Christ. As therefore it was necessary for the disciples of John to accept the preaching of the apostles concerning the Christ who had been manifested, so if they are said to have received the sign connected with this apostolic doctrine, this is not unfitting and there is no rebaptism; nor is the previous baptism, that of John, condemned, as the Anabaptists do. And what the text says, namely, that they were baptized in the name of the Lord Christ, this is the same as if it said: “In the name of the manifested Christ.” For God made the crucified Jesus both Christ and Lord.(Acts 2:36).
Conclusion
I have reviewed these varying interpretations of the story in Acts 19:1–7 in order that I might show that there is no sufficient cause why he who embraces one meaning should at once condemn with the anathema those who think otherwise, and that I might wrest from the papalists this weapon in which they have great confidence. For no matter how this story is understood, one cannot draw from it a sure, clear, and necessary conclusion that there was in the baptism of John no efficacy and that the believers received neither grace nor the remission of sins from it. For by the same reasoning it would follow either that those who had been circumcised should not have been baptized or that circumcision had no efficacy in believers.
(Martin Chemnitz and Fred Kramer, Examination of the Council of Trent, electronic ed., vol. 2 (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999), 133–136.)
Chemnitz makes it clear why a discussion of this issue was necessary and why it had been discussed throughout the ages. (This discussion does not arise from the position of quotation marks, but from what the text says, and from the misuse of the text to support false teachings about baptism.) The issue of importance to the Lutheran dogmaticians was “Was John’s baptism a genuine baptism that gave forgiveness of sins?” All agreed the answer was yes.
Chemnitz also is clear that Acts 19 was an exegetical question in which there was no unanimity. Today it is a question only of historical interest, because we do not face the question “does someone baptized by John need to be baptized again?”
Here is the section from a recent edition of the WLS dogmatics notes. This is why the EHV deals with the issue.
VII. The baptism of John was essentially the same as Christian baptism.
VII.1. The baptism of John and Christian baptism have many points in common.
VII.1.a. Both baptisms were instituted by God.
Luke 3:2-3
2during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John, the son of Zechariah, in the wilderness. 3He went into the whole region around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
Matthew 21:24-26
24Jesus answered them, “I will also ask you one question. If you answer it, I will tell you by what authority I do these things. 25The baptism of John, where was it from? From heaven or from men?”They discussed it among themselves, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will say to us, ‘Then why did you not believe him?’ 26But if we say, ‘From men,’ we are afraid of the crowd, since they all regard John as a prophet.”
Matthew 28:19
VII.1.b In both baptisms water is applied in a ceremonial way.
Matthew 3:6,11
6They were baptized by him in the Jordan River as they confessed their sins.11I baptize you with water for repentance. But the one who comes after me is mightier than I. I am not worthy to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
John 1:26
26“I baptize with water,” John answered. “Among you stands one you do not know.
John 3:23
23John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was plenty of water there. People kept coming and were being baptized,
Acts 8:36,38
VII.1.c. Both baptisms promise and give spiritual blessings.
VII.1.c.1. They both give the forgiveness of sins.
Mark 1:4
4John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
Luke 3:3
3He went into the whole region around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
VII.1.c.2. They both produce regeneration.
John 3:5
5Jesus answered, “Amen, Amen, I tell you: Unless someone is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God!
Luke 3:8
8Therefore produce fruits in keeping with repentance! Do not even think of saying to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ because I tell you that God is able to raise up children for Abraham from these stones.
VII.1.c.3. They both focus on the saving work of Christ and the union with God brought about through him.
Matthew 3:11
11I baptize you with water for repentance. But the one who comes after me is mightier than I. I am not worthy to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
John 1:7, 26-27, 29-31,34
7He came as an eyewitness to testify about the light so that everyone would believe through him.The Lamb of God29The next day, John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look! The Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30This is the one I was talking about when I said, ‘The one coming after me outranks me because he existed before me.’ 31I myself did not know who he was, but I came baptizing with water so that he would be revealed to Israel.”34I saw this myself and have testified that this is the Son of God.”
Acts 19:4
VII.2. There were differences between John’s baptism and Christian baptism.
VII.2.a. During the time of John’s baptism Christ’s work was still future.
VII.2.b. We cannot ascertain the baptismal formula used by John and do not know if he baptized “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
VII.3. John's work and his baptism were of a transient nature.
VII.3.a. John’s mission was to prepare God's people for the proper reception of the long-expected Messiah.
Luke 1:76
76And you, child, will be called a prophet of the Most High,because you will go before the Lord to prepare his ways,
John 3:27-30
27John answered, “A man cannot receive a single thing, unless it has been given to him from heaven. 28You yourselves are witnesses that I said, ‘I am not the Christ, but I have been sent ahead of him.’ 29The one who has the bride is the bridegroom. But the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and listens for him, is overjoyed when he hears the bridegroom's voice. So this joy of mine is now complete. 30He must increase, but I must decrease.”
VII.3.b. The work of Jesus before the culmination of his suffering and death was of a similar nature.
Matthew 3:2 and 4:17
[John was saying] “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.” 17 From that time on Jesus began to preach, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.”
John 3:22-23
Jesus and John the Baptist22After this, Jesus and his disciples went into the Judean countryside where he spent some time with them and was baptizing.23John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was plenty of water there. People kept coming and were being baptized,
John 4:1-3
VII.3.c. Therefore the question concerning the nature of John's baptism is only of theoretical importance today.
VII.3.c.1. At one time there were situations that called for a practical dealing with the question. We cannot envision that happening anymore.
Acts 19:1-6
Paul Goes to Ephesus191While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul traveled through the interior districts and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you became believers?”“No,” they answered, “we have not even heard that the Holy Spirit was given.”3Paul asked, “What were you baptized into then?”They replied, “Into John's baptism.”4Paul said, “John baptized with a baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.[] 5When they heard this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.”[]6When Paul laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began to speak in other languages and to prophesy.
Compare Acts 18:24-26
Acts 18:24-26
Apollos24A Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man and well versed in the Scriptures. 25He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. He spoke with burning zeal and taught the facts about Jesus[] accurately, although he knew only the baptism of John. 26He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him home and explained to him the way of God more accurately.
VII.3.c.2. Without Bible support, the Roman Catholic Church denies the essential sameness of both baptisms.
Council of Trent, Sess. VII, Can. 1: If anyone says that the baptism of John had the same power as the baptism of Christ, let him be damned.
See also the previous discussion of this issue in FAQ 65 on our website.