This actually says the opposite. These in Acts 19:1-7 were true OT believers that missed the whole thing. They didn't hear the Gospel. They didn't know that Jesus was the Messiah. Their understanding stopped at the OT with John the Baptist before Jesus arrived in His incarnation. Paul asked one question and understood immediately what the circumstances were. These were already given to the Son by the Father and were predestined to believe the Gospel because they were already declared righteous by promise in their OT faith. Paul shared the Gospel. These Sheep heard and believed, and then they received the Holy Spirit. The sign had to follow this conversion just as they followed the others because they were OT believers receiving the Promise of the Father.
There is a transition that is taking place and these signs are unique to that transition. Unless you're a true OT believer who still has not heard the Gospel and believed (like in Acts 19, or Lydia, Cornelius, etc.), or you're an true OT believer who heard the Gospel and believed before the cross, and are still waiting for the promise of the Father (like at Pentecost), there is no need to wait for the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, now, you receive it the moment that you first believe. There is no need for the signs, for that which they pointed to are here and established. The transition is over.
Let us look at Acts 19:1-3
2 and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?” “John’s baptism,” they replied.
Paul asks the question: “Did you receive the Holy Spirit…”. When you go through Paul’s letters he make the distinction between Christians and non-Christians (Jews or Gentiles) to be the indwelling Holy Spirit, so this would be his question. Also, the indwelling Holy Spirit comes with, “when you first believed” with no transition period.
Paul than asked a rhetorical question, “Then what baptism did you receive?” Which Paul would realize the only baptism they could receive was John’s water baptism, so he has an introduction to talk briefly about John. Paul is also so a relationship between baptism and the Holy Spirit, but this does not mean Paul is referencing the baptism of the holy Spirit.
Paul also says Acts 19:4… “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people
to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” So, these 12 had heard about the Messiah (Jesus) to come later from John and were not in need of a lengthy gospel message.
Acts 19: 5 “On hearing this, they were
baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” That is the same description used in Acts 8: 16 because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been
baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Being “Baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” does not mean you received “Holy Spirit baptism”.
The next verse is not a continuation of the baptism using the Greek grammar, no scholar makes the laying on of hands the baptism, they are two separate acts the same as we see in Acts 8: 17 “Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.” Exact same scenario.
The indwelling is the Baptism with the Holy Spirit.
That is not what we are seeing in both Acts 8 and Acts 19.
There were reasons for these signs. "Languages" was a sign of judgment of Israel. And the miracle of it was a sign that this was in fact from God, in one way undoing the confusion of languages (supernaturally) that went all the way back to the Tower of Babel, thus paving the way for the Church to now evangelize the world. Only God could undo what He did at Babel. Thus proving that what they were experiencing was from Him. And those miracles showed that the Promise of the Father, the Holy Spirit was being given. The same miracles happened for the Samaritan, the Gentiles, and the Jews, so there was no misunderstanding that "Salvation had come to the Gentiles also". The Promise of the Father has been given to both Jew and Gentile.
The problem of different languages still exist today, so if we are still being baptized with the Holy Spirit, why do we not have the miraculous ability to speak different languages?
Why do people baptized with the Holy Spirit not have miraculous powers to obviously raise people from the dead, heal, drink poison, and so on.
I think we're on the same page here.
Answer my ending question: “Was Jesus physically water baptized as an example for us?”
These are two separate things. Sometimes in Scripture one directly follows the other, but they are still separate. In Scripture, and now, a new believer who just began to trust in Christ Jesus may get water baptized right after he came to faith. But one does not initiate the other. Faith initiates the Spirit baptism, then water baptism is a public testimony symbolically of an inward reality that has already taken place.
So, we are to water Baptize new believers for some reason?
Believe and be saved, that's the Gospel message. Water baptism comes after that fact. Some people who cannot see the Spiritual truth, place the powered in the types (water) and not the spiritual truth that the types point to. They say water baptism saves. This is wrong. Then they say, water baptism initiates the Spirit baptism. This is wrong also. Faith initiates the Spirit baptism. We enter into this grace by faith (Romans 5:1-2). There are some who try to make us believe that water baptism saves us and only to protect and advance a hierarchy to keep people subservient to it.
Dave
I have no problem with the idea: “Water baptism comes after that fact”, since God does the saving. In my first post I gave lots of good reasons to be water baptized and know how it has helped me and others.
