Questions about Acts 19:1-7

[Lyssah]

I was reading through Acts and I came upon Acts 19. A few questions about this.

First, Paul asks the disciples which 'baptism' did they receive. They say 'John's baptism.' What does this mean?

Second, Why were they baptized in the name of Jesus, and not 'The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit' as told in Matthew? I'll say that I've noticed references in my Bible from Matthew 28:19 to Acts 19:5 and Acts 8:16, but why mention just Jesus?

Third, what's up with the speaking in tongues? Why did this happen to them and not to others after they were baptized?

Thoughts?

Thank you in advance for your information on this.

 

[AHJE]

I was reading through Acts and I came upon Acts 19. A few questions about this.

First, Paul asks the disciples which 'baptism' did they receive. They say 'John's baptism.' What does this mean?

Second, Why were they baptized in the name of Jesus, and not 'The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit' as told in Matthew? I'll say that I've noticed references in my Bible from Matthew 28:19 to Acts 19:5 and Acts 8:16, but why mention just Jesus?

Third, what's up with the speaking in tongues? Why did this happen to them and not to others after they were baptized?

Thoughts?

Thank you in advance for your information on this.

Dear Lyssah,

Your question is a good one.

First, there were followers of St. John the Baptist who had not yet received the Baptism of Christ. And one of the ways that this Sacramental Baptism of Christ was distinguished from that of John's was to call it Baptism in the name of Jesus.

But the Early Church Fathers show clearly that Trinitarian Baptism was observed as Jesus said.

The Laying on of hands often accompanied Holy Baptism in the Early Church and was in itself a Sacrament, which today is called Holy Confirmation (strengthening) which is the seal of the Fullness of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Pentecost, the Sacred Anointing etc. By it we become mature Christians ready for spiritual combat or battle and to boldly bear witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

It is an awesome Sacrament. It is also made referrence to in Heb 6:2.

God bless you.

_________________________________________________________

The Roman Catholic Church is not a denomination.

Blessed are those who hear the voice of the Good Shepherd.

"And how shall they preach unless they be sent, ..."? (see Rom. 10:15)

 

[hedrick]

Right. The implications were that these people were followers of John the baptist, at least to the extent of having attended one of his revival meetings and come forward for baptism.

The point of the passage is that Christian baptism is something separate, so they still needed to get that.

Be careful about trying to answer questions that the Bible passage wasn't intended to answer. The distinction was between the baptism of John and baptism into Jesus. It's very unlikely that Luke, in this passage or others, intended either to comment on the debate between trinitarian and Jesus-only baptism, or that he was quoting the actual words used for the baptism.

From the very beginning baptism was assumed to confer the Holy Spirit. There are of course all the questions about how closely sacrament is connected to reality. Surely someone who isn't baptized may still have received the Holy Spirit, and some who are baptized may not. Yet baptism as at the very least a sign and seal of someone coming into God's people, and the presence of the Holy Spirit is part of that.

Speaking in tongues made it obvious that the person actually had received the Spirit. Again, don't try to answer questions that the author wasn't thinking of. That doesn't mean that the presence of the Holy Spirit will always be shown by tongues. Paul, at least, is clear that that's only one of the gifts, and not the most important.

 

[Lyssah]

Right. The implications were that these people were followers of John the baptist, at least to the extent of having attended one of his revival meetings and come forward for baptism.

The point of the passage is that Christian baptism is something separate, so they still needed to get that.

Be careful about trying to answer questions that the Bible passage wasn't intended to answer. The distinction was between the baptism of John and baptism into Jesus. It's very unlikely that Luke, in this passage or others, intended either to comment on the debate between trinitarian and Jesus-only baptism, or that he was quoting the actual words used for the baptism.

From the very beginning baptism was assumed to confer the Holy Spirit. There are of course all the questions about how closely sacrament is connected to reality. Surely someone who isn't baptized may still have received the Holy Spirit, and some who are baptized may not. Yet baptism as at the very least a sign and seal of someone coming into God's people, and the presence of the Holy Spirit is part of that.

Speaking in tongues made it obvious that the person actually had received the Spirit. Again, don't try to answer questions that the author wasn't thinking of. That doesn't mean that the presence of the Holy Spirit will always be shown by tongues. Paul, at least, is clear that that's only one of the gifts, and not the most important.

Very very good points, my friend, Thank you for your thoughts. I like how you mentioned that Luke was writing it as it happened, and what his intentions were.