History of the Interpretation of Acts 19:4-5

[rlvaughn]

In the Trail of Blood thread, there is some discussion of John’s baptism and Christian baptism (as in, whether the same or different). This post spins off from that.

Several years ago, I read in John Gill’s commentary concerning John’s baptism in Acts 19:4-5. He introduced this idea of what is being said (1697-1771; Particular Baptist):

Verse 4
Then said Paul,.... In reply to their answer, understanding them that they were baptized by John, he takes it up, and gives an account of John’s baptism: showing how agreeable it was, and that it was the same baptism with the baptism of Christ, being administered in his name:
John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance; which required repentance antecedent to it, and was a fruit and effect, and so an evidence of it:
saying unto the people; the people of the Jews, the common people, the multitude that attended on his ministry:
that they should believe on him, which should come after him, that is, on Jesus Christ; so that he preached faith in Christ, as well as repentance towards God; and made the one as well as the other a necessary prerequisite unto baptism; which shows, that his baptism and Christian baptism are the same.

Verse 5
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 Acts 19:4 then what he did, Acts 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 μεν and δε, 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”.

In other words, he believed that those referred to being baptized in verse 5 are not the 12 in Ephesus, but the people who heard John. IOW, no “rebaptism” occurred in Acts 19:1-7. I considered this novel idea unique to Gill – I had never heard it before. I simply dismissed it as odd. More recently I have read a few others who made this claim.

Francis Turretin (1623-1687; Reformed):

Acts 19:4-5 does not prove that the Ephesian disciples, who had John’s baptism, were rebaptized by Paul. For the words “when they heard they were baptized” (akousantes de ebaptisthēsan, v. 5) are not the words of Luke narrating what followed Paul’s discourse to them, but rather a confirmation of the Pauline oration to those Ephesians, by which he teaches that those who had received baptism from John, had been baptized in the name of Christ and so had no need of a new baptism.

Wilhelmus à Brakel (1635-1711; Dutch Second Reformation):

This misunderstanding is a result of separating the words of verse 4 from those in verse 5, and by acknowledging the words of verse 4 to be the words of Paul, but deeming the words in verse 5 to be those of Luke, the writer of this history—as if he were recounting what followed upon the instruction of Paul. This, however, would have to be proven. These words integrate very well when one conjoins verses 4 and 5, and considers them to be the words of the apostle Paul. He instructed the disciples in verse 4 about the manner in which John baptized and taught, and thereupon declared that all who heard it were obedient and believed John’s preaching, were baptized by him.

My question is not to debate the accuracy of these claims (though I am sure some of you will do so; feel free). My curiosity is whether there is any history of this interpretation or if this is just someone’s odd claim that a couple of other people followed.

Have any of you heard this interpretation? Are you aware of it in church history before Francis Turretin? Are you aware of it espoused more recently that John Gill?

Thanks!

 

[canadyjd]

This is an interesting topic I’m anxious to hear from some of the biblical scholars here.

I have always believed John’s baptism is not Christian baptism based on those passages. In fact, I think this is what I was taught in seminary.

peace to you

 

[rlvaughn]

My first thought for historical material was John Chrysostom (circa AD 347-407), knowing he has homilies on Acts. I am not sure I understand what he is talking about part of the time, but it seems clear to me that he is saying Paul baptized the 12 at Ephesus, therefore not agreeing with Turretin, à Brakel, and Gill.

John Calvin's commentary on Acts, on the other hand, does seem to say what the other three are saying, or similar:

Other some deny that baptism was repeated; because they were baptized amiss by some foolish enemy 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.