Where the People in Acts 19 Baptized in Water Again

Ed Walsh

Annotation: This is an email I sent to my Pastor last night after spending some contiguous time with him on Thursday.

Dear Pastor *****

I enjoyed our time together yesterday afternoon. Cheers.

Regarding our discussion of Acts xix:1-half dozen and my contention that the disciples were NOT re-baptized every bit verse five is translated to say:

I am getting clobbered on my have of verse 5. Everyone and I mean everyone, I checked (except Calvin) stated that they were re-baptized, or actually, they were baptized for the first time since their starting time "baptism," maybe by one of John'due south disciples after John was either dead or in prison house, was defective or incomplete somehow.

vs.5 "and they, having heard, were baptized--to the proper noun of the Lord Jesus," YLT
vs.5 "When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." NKJV

I maintain that the discussion 'this' is non in the original. It could simply as well accept been the word 'that' that was added. Or maybe better yet, no inserted word at all making the verse say the following:

Later on Paul stated, in verse four, that John'due south baptism was in essence Christian baptism, those that heard Paul had the following response.
vs. v "When they heard they were baptized in the proper name of the Lord Jesus," etc. ELW (Ed L Walsh
vs. 6 "And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. NKJV

If they were re-baptized, this is the just place I tin think of in the New Testament that even hints that the followers of the Baptist had to be baptized a second time past Christ's disciples. Is this non true?

What do you all think?

timfost

John'south baptism was non NT baptism. Their "rebaptism" was non of the same substance as the first.

Jeri Tanner

Ed, I know that Rev. Matthew Winzer contended for the view you have espoused hither. I don't know who else besides Calvin also espoused it, merely Calvin's have on any issue regarding baptism is i to soberly consider. Didn't this topic come up recently? If not, I must have only been interested in it and went searching through old threads. If you accept the time, possibly yous could find the give-and-take of it where Rev. Winzer proposes this view. It is rather compelling.
He says that "And when they heard this, etc." is a continuation of Paul's narrative, I think. Is that what Calvin says?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ed Walsh

Is that what Calvin says?

Here'due south part of Calvin's take from his commentary on Acts:

5. On hearing this, they were baptized. Because people in those days had the mistaken idea that John's baptism was unlike from Christ'south, there was nothing absurd about people being baptized again if they had but been prepared with John's baptism. Merely the two were pledges and signs of the same adoption and new life that we have in our baptism today; that is why nosotros practise not read of Christ rebaptizing those who came to him from John. Moreover, Christ received baptism in his own flesh, in lodge to associate himself with us by that visible sign (Matthew iii:15); and if John's baptism were different from that of Christ's, we would not have the blessing of a common baptism with the Son of God.

Was information technology right to rebaptize? The introduction of anabaptism relies on this prove. Some people take the word baptized to mean they were newly instructed; simply I practise not hold with them, because the construction is also forced and smacks of evasion. Others deny that they were rebaptized, because they had been wrongly baptized past some rival of John's. But in that location is no substance to this conjecture; indeed, Paul's words imply that they were true disciples of John, and Luke honors them with the proper name of disciples. I do not subscribe to this stance, and nevertheless I do deny that baptism with h2o was repeated, considering Luke's words imply only that they were baptized with the Spirit. It is nil new for the word "baptism" to be used of the souvenir of the Spirit (run across 1:5 and eleven:16). If you understand the baptism here to mean only the external sign, it is surely absurd that information technology was given without any fuller teaching. If, still, you take it metaphorically for teaching, the expression will exist harsher still, and the following judgement about the Holy Spirit coming on them would be inappropriate.

Dachaser

Annotation: This is an email I sent to my Pastor terminal night later on spending some face-to-face time with him on Thursday.
Dear Pastor *****

I enjoyed our time together yesterday afternoon. Thanks.

Regarding our discussion of Acts nineteen:one-6 and my contention that the disciples were Non re-baptized as verse v is translated to say:

I am getting clobbered on my have of verse 5. Anybody and I mean everyone, I checked (except Calvin) stated that they were re-baptized, or actually, they were baptized for the get-go fourth dimension since their start "baptism," perhaps past one of John'southward disciples subsequently John was either dead or in prison house, was defective or incomplete somehow.

vs.5 "and they, having heard, were baptized--to the name of the Lord Jesus," YLT
vs.v "When they heard this, they were baptized in the proper name of the Lord Jesus." NKJV

I maintain that the word 'this' is not in the original. Information technology could just every bit well take been the discussion 'that' that was added. Or maybe better all the same, no inserted word at all making the verse say the following:

After Paul stated, in verse 4, that John's baptism was in essence Christian baptism, those that heard Paul had the following response.
vs. five "When they heard they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus," etc. ELW (Ed L Walsh
vs. 6 "And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. NKJV

If they were re-baptized, this is the only place I tin think of in the New Testament that fifty-fifty hints that the followers of the Baptist had to be baptized a second time by Christ'due south disciples. Is this not true?

What practise you all recollect?

Notation: This is an e-mail I sent to my Pastor last nighttime later spending some face-to-face time with him on Thursday.
Honey Pastor *****

I enjoyed our time together yesterday afternoon. Thanks.

Regarding our word of Acts 19:one-6 and my contention that the disciples were NOT re-baptized every bit poesy 5 is translated to say:

I am getting clobbered on my take of poesy 5. Everyone and I mean everyone, I checked (except Calvin) stated that they were re-baptized, or actually, they were baptized for the first fourth dimension since their offset "baptism," mayhap by one of John'southward disciples afterward John was either expressionless or in prison, was defective or incomplete somehow.

vs.five "and they, having heard, were baptized--to the name of the Lord Jesus," YLT
vs.5 "When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." NKJV

I maintain that the word 'this' is not in the original. Information technology could just as well take been the word 'that' that was added. Or perhaps better yet, no inserted give-and-take at all making the verse say the following:

Afterward Paul stated, in verse 4, that John's baptism was in essence Christian baptism, those that heard Paul had the following response.
vs. 5 "When they heard they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus," etc. ELW (Ed L Walsh
vs. vi "And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. NKJV

If they were re-baptized, this is the merely place I can remember of in the New Testament that even hints that the followers of the Baptist had to be baptized a second fourth dimension past Christ's disciples. Is this not true?

What do you all think?

I think that those disciples of John were instructed past him to fix for the coming Messiah, but did not really know that Jesus had now come up and been the Messiah foretold, and so they were indeed baptized into Jesus, and the Holy Spirit did indeed come up into them at that time, every bit they heard the preparation message, but all the same needed to hear the gospel bulletin,. Reminds me of Apollos needed to be taken aside and given the full bulletin of Jesus that he was trying to peach and defend.

Ed Walsh

John's baptism was non NT baptism. Their "rebaptism" was non of the aforementioned substance equally the first.

It seems that it was, as I said, in essence, the same. Information technology was both a baptism of repentance and 1 of the remission of sin. That'southward why I think John'due south baptized followers did not demand a 2nd baptism.

Luke iii:2b, 3
[T]he word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.
And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;

Q. Practice you call back that all those baptised by John were baptised again when they beleived in Christ in a fuller sence? If so, it seems odd to me that at that place is non a hint of this do anywhere in the New Attestation except for this 1 (I think poorly translated) verse.

Acts 19:4
Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, proverb unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

Sounds to me that John did indeed preach Christ to those who responded to his message. Consider also, that it was John'due south baptism that Jesus submitted to.

Then that you know; I am non 100% sure of the interpretation I lean to in the OP.

iainduguid

Note: This is an e-mail I sent to my Pastor concluding night after spending some contiguous time with him on Th.
Dear Pastor *****

I enjoyed our time together yesterday afternoon. Thanks.

Regarding our discussion of Acts 19:1-6 and my contention that the disciples were Not re-baptized as verse 5 is translated to say:

I am getting clobbered on my have of poetry 5. Anybody and I mean anybody, I checked (except Calvin) stated that they were re-baptized, or actually, they were baptized for the kickoff time since their first "baptism," maybe past ane of John's disciples afterwards John was either dead or in prison house, was lacking or incomplete somehow.

vs.5 "and they, having heard, were baptized--to the proper name of the Lord Jesus," YLT
vs.5 "When they heard this, they were baptized in the proper noun of the Lord Jesus." NKJV

I maintain that the give-and-take 'this' is non in the original. It could but as well accept been the word 'that' that was added. Or maybe meliorate notwithstanding, no inserted word at all making the verse say the following:

After Paul stated, in poesy four, that John's baptism was in essence Christian baptism, those that heard Paul had the post-obit response.
vs. 5 "When they heard they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus," etc. ELW (Ed Fifty Walsh
vs. six "And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. NKJV

If they were re-baptized, this is the only place I can recollect of in the New Attestation that even hints that the followers of the Baptist had to be baptized a second fourth dimension past Christ's disciples. Is this not truthful?

What do you all think?

A betoken of clarification. In your translation, are you suggesting that the content of what they heard was that they had already finer been baptized into the Lord Jesus? If and then, that is extremely hard to justify from the Greek. The construction akousantes de is common in Acts and seems ever to indicate something like "When they heard this, ..." ( see ii:37, 4:24 etc). Where it is followed past the content of what they heard, the Greek indicates this with hoti (ix:38; 16:38). That's why Calvin and all of the English translations render it something like "When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. But maybe I am misunderstanding your point?

Ed Walsh · Sep 30, 2017

That's why Calvin and all of the English translations return it something similar "When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. But maybe I am misunderstanding your point?

Maybe I'one thousand just grabbing at straws here. My "translation," with the smiley face, is more of a theological assumption than an educated Gk translation. I know about no Greek. Cheers for your input.

Same question that I asked in a higher place. Exercise y'all retrieve all those who John baptized had to be baptized over again when they followed Christ?

timfost

It seems that information technology was, as I said, in essence, the same. Information technology was both a baptism of repentance and i of the remission of sin. That's why I think John's baptized followers did not need a 2nd baptism.
Luke 3:2b, three
[T]he word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.
And he came into all the state about Hashemite kingdom of jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;

Q. Do y'all call up that all those baptised by John were baptised again when they beleived in Christ in a fuller sence? If then, information technology seems odd to me that there is not a hint of this exercise anywhere in the New Testament except for this ane (I think poorly translated) poesy.

Acts 19:iv
Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come later him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

Sounds to me that John did indeed preach Christ to those who responded to his message. Consider besides, that it was John's baptism that Jesus submitted to.

So that you know; I am not 100% sure of the interpretation I lean to in the OP.

Your interpretation as well brings in another problem. Since the new covenant wasn't in event at this point, Christ yet nether the old one, John'due south baptism would be a office of the old covenant, not the new.

NT baptism represents the washing abroad of sin through the blood of Christ. John's baptism was more akin to the Nazarite vow.

TylerRay

Poole takes the aforementioned line as Calvin.

Gill has an interesting take on the passage. He understands v5 to be a continuation of Paul's words, and so that it would read (I'm using contemporary conventions for clarity here):

Then said Paul, "John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, proverb unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 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. And all the men were most twelve.

So, co-ordinate to Gill, the baptism in the name of Jesus which is referred to is John's baptism.

Ed Walsh

So, according to Gill, the baptism in the proper noun of Jesus which is referred to is John'due south baptism.

That's at least half of what I am suggesting. Thanks

Ed Walsh

peradventure you could notice the word of it where Rev. Winzer proposes this view. It is rather compelling.

Below are three quotes from Rev. Matthew Winzer in the Thread, The 12 Apostles and Rebaptism
https://goo.gl/D9ESC4

In Acts 19:5 Paul'southward says to the disciples of John that those baptised by John were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Apropos Acts nineteen:5, is there any indication that Paul has ceased speaking and the narrator has resumed his narrative of events? The starting time of verse half-dozen appears to be a more natural way of introducing what occurred subsequently the oral communication of Paul.

Please read Acts 19:v over again, not as the narrator'southward words, but as Paul's words, and it volition be seen that no baptism took identify at that time. I recommend Gill's comments in loc.

TylerRay

Beneath are three quotes from Rev. Matthew Winzer in the Thread, The 12 Apostles and Rebaptism
https://goo.gl/D9ESC4
In Acts 19:5 Paul'southward says to the disciples of John that those baptised past John were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Concerning Acts 19:5, is in that location whatsoever indication that Paul has ceased speaking and the narrator has resumed his narrative of events? The beginning of verse 6 appears to be a more natural way of introducing what occurred after the spoken language of Paul.

Please read Acts nineteen:5 once again, not as the narrator'due south words, only every bit Paul'due south words, and it will be seen that no baptism took place at that fourth dimension. I recommend Gill'south comments in loc.

That is Gill'southward argument exactly.

Dachaser

Your interpretation too brings in another problem. Since the new covenant wasn't in effect at this point, Christ nonetheless under the one-time one, John's baptism would be a part of the old covenant, not the new.
NT baptism represents the washing away of sin through the blood of Christ. John's baptism was more akin to the Nazarite vow.

The water baptism of the NT had to look for the Messiah, Jesus, to actually died and be raised over again and ascended, equally those who were then saved by Him took on that Baptism, then any they had experienced was non the NT rite. I tend to run across them equally receiving the teaching of John as regarding coming messiah and to repent, just that the Apostles gave them the Gospel, and that is when they received Jesus and was saved.

Ed Walsh · Sep 30, 2017

The water baptism of the NT had to wait for the Messiah, Jesus, to actually died and exist raised once again and ascended, every bit those who were then saved past Him took on that Baptism, so any they had experienced was not the NT rite. I tend to run into them every bit receiving the teaching of John as regarding coming messiah and to repent, but that the Apostles gave them the Gospel, and that is when they received Jesus and was saved.

Whatever the difference is between John'due south and NT baptism, to say that John'due south disciples were not saved until later on Pentecost is a little strange. Was King David saved? How virtually Danial and the remainder of the One-time Attestation saints? As we will see below, John'due south gospel and Jesus' gospel were very similar.

What is in mutual in these verses? Well, let me tell you, so you don't miss it. 3 things: baptism, repentance, remission of sins, which equals total salvation.

John's preaching included salvation for all the believed:
Luke 3:3 (KJV)

And he came into all the state about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;

John'southward preaching included faith in the Christ Jesus:
Acts 19:four

So said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, proverb unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come up after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

Peter's first sermon was in the main the same as John'south preaching:
Acts 2:38 (KJV)

So Peter said unto them, Apologize, and be baptized every i of y'all in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,

The terminal words Jesus said to his disciples were that they should preach "repentance and remission of sins" merely every bit John did.
Luke 24:47 (KJV)

And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, offset at Jerusalem.

If the subjects of John'southward baptism were non fully saved when they believed his didactics, information technology would be an unprecedented exception to all the stories of salvation in the whole Bible.

Scott Bushey

I tend to see them as receiving the teaching of John as regarding coming messiah and to apologize, but that the Apostles gave them the Gospel, and that is when they received Jesus and was saved.

Dispensationalism.

The gospel is non a NT phenomenon. Many people in the OT had the gospel and were 'saved', long before Christ and the apostles.

Scott Bushey

Something must be said in relation to a transition fourth dimension and the covenant sign that was already on the mankind of the OT saint.....

Scott Bushey

For example: What if you were an OT laic and a week before Pentecost, you lot circumcised your babe son. Were u now obligated to place another sign on your kid, a week afterwards? If and then, why don't we run into this resigning of any infants or children in the NT writings?

BG

Baptism is a multifaceted word.

Afterthought

For example: What if you were an OT laic and a week earlier Pentecost, yous circumcised your infant son. Were u at present obligated to place some other sign on your child, a week afterwards? If so, why don't we run into this resigning of whatever infants or children in the NT writings?

A thought. The blood of Christ was on them and their children. To save themselves from the untoward generation, they were to repent and be baptized. The hope was to them and to their children. If the children were not baptized, the children would take remained guilty of the murder of Christ. It seems unlikely the parents would take saved themselves while leaving their children guilty of their sin. And then hither is evidence that they were baptized. As for why not seeing any of this later, I don't know. I'g not sure what bearing the silence has one way or the other on whether they were baptized; I suppose for those that had been baptized by John, if that was in fact Christian baptism, they had no need to be baptized again.

Scott Bushey

It seems unlikely the parents would have saved themselves while leaving their children guilty of their sin.

Ramon,
I wholeheartedly agree; because federal headship, one would retrieve the obvious; bit to me, it is strange that we come across no indication of whatsoever mass families being baptized.

Cymro

How about this Ed?
John'southward baptism had all the hallmarks of NT baptism. "Repentance", "conventionalities", and remission of sins."
Information technology has been estimated that John baptised 250,000, but cut that by half, or fifty-fifty a quarter,---that's a lot of rebaptising to do!
Apollos was non rebaptised18: 24-25, neither John'south disciples or crucially Christ himself.
They had knowledge of Holy Ghost through the dove, and John's preaching of the baptism of fire. Only were limited concerning the gifts and display of HS having an imperfect cognition.
They were baptised in the Name of Christ, because------
If you read v5 as a continuation of v4, and exercise and then by putting a comma between the two, then both speak of John's ministry building and not Paul'southward.

Dachaser

Whatever the difference is between John's and NT baptism, to say that John'due south disciples were not saved until later on Pentecost is a picayune strange. Was Rex David saved? How about Danial and the rest of the Old Attestation saints? As we volition see below, John's gospel and Jesus' gospel were very similar.
What is in common in these verses? Well, let me tell you, and so you don't miss information technology. Three things: baptism, repentance, remission of sins, which equals full salvation.

John'due south preaching included salvation for all the believed:
Luke iii:3 (KJV)

And he came into all the country about Hashemite kingdom of jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;

John's preaching included faith in the Christ Jesus:
Acts 19:four

And so said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, proverb unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come later him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

Peter'due south start sermon was in the main the aforementioned as John's preaching:
Acts 2:38 (KJV)

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and exist baptized every ane of yous in the proper name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,

The concluding words Jesus said to his disciples were that they should preach "repentance and remission of sins" just every bit John did.
Luke 24:47 (KJV)

And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, showtime at Jerusalem.

If the subjects of John's baptism were not fully saved when they believed his pedagogy, it would exist an unprecedented exception to all the stories of conservancy in the whole Bible.

I am simply saying that those disciples of John had not heard yet the gospel message,and Jesus had not nevertheless been killed and resurrected, and so that is why the heard, believed, and received and so the Holy Spirit, and that enabled them to go water baptized.

Dachaser

Dispensationalism.
The gospel is non a NT miracle. Many people in the OT had the gospel and were 'saved', long before Christ and the apostles.

No, would rather see this as how Reformed Baptists would tend to see it.

Dachaser

Something must be said in relation to a transition fourth dimension and the covenant sign that was already on the flesh of the OT saint.....

The transition from OT to NT was in the person of Jesus, as John the Baptist was the concluding of the OT prophets.

Dachaser

How about this Ed?
John's baptism had all the hallmarks of NT baptism. "Repentance", "conventionalities", and remission of sins."
It has been estimated that John baptised 250,000, but cut that by one-half, or even a quarter,---that's a lot of rebaptising to practise!
Apollos was not rebaptised18: 24-25, neither John'southward disciples or crucially Christ himself.
They had cognition of Holy Ghost through the dove, and John's preaching of the baptism of fire. Simply were limited concerning the gifts and display of HS having an imperfect noesis.
They were baptised in the Proper name of Christ, because------
If you read v5 every bit a continuation of v4, and do so by putting a comma between the two, so both speak of John'south ministry building and not Paul'due south.

NT Baptism was not inaugurated until the fourth dimension after Jesus ascended though.

Where the People in Acts 19 Baptized in Water Again

Acts 19:1-6 and the Re-Baptism of John'due south Disciples?

Cymro

Puritan Lath Junior

Like threads

0 Response to "Where the People in Acts 19 Baptized in Water Again"

Post a Comment

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel