Baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus

Baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus

Acts 19:1-7

I was approached by an 82 year old man at an assisted living home one time regarding his baptism. He said he was baptized when he was younger, but he was questioning his motives and didn’t really remember everything leading up to that. I took the time to explain from the Scriptures about baptism, and after he demonstrated his understanding of the subject he wanted to be baptized into Christ.

We are introduced to a group of people in Acts 19:1-7 who had been previously baptized with John’s baptism. In last week’s lesson we established that John’s baptism was of repentance for remission of sins (Lk. 3:3) but it was not valid to be applied after the establishment of the church. When Paul comes to Ephesus he finds out some information from them which leads him to see that they needed to be reimmersed. I want us to look at this account and draw some inferences at the end of this lesson which can be applied for us today regarding baptism.

These disciples had received an invalid baptism

Paul questions these disciples about their baptism by asking them if they had received the Holy Spirit (2). This leads us to ask whether this is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit or the miraculous measure of the Holy Spirit. Burt Coffman believes this is the indwelling of the Spirit, while J.W. McGarvey and Jimmy Allen believe it is the miraculous measure of the Spirit. Wayne Jackson says he believes it cannot be decided from the evidence in the text. It seems as though it might be a similar issue which may be disagreed upon among brethren such as whether the Spirit indwells only through the Word or a personal indwelling. I am not for certain which it is in this case, but since Paul imparts the miraculous measure of the Spirit on them at the end of this passage, that may be the one in context.

With that being said, was Paul asking that question because he knew about their baptism being invalid by way of Priscilla and Aquila, or did he ask this because he was ready to impart the miraculous measure of the Spirit? Paul definitely imparted spiritual gifts to Christians (Rom. 1:11; 2 Tim. 1:6), and it could be the motive for asking that question about the reception of the Spirit. These disciples had not heard of the Holy Spirit, which led Paul to ask what baptism they received (2-3). John’s baptism is what they had submitted to, and we have just studied about Apollos who was teaching that baptism in Ephesus. It seems logical to me that Apollos had either baptized these disciples or had taught them; either way we know it wouldn’t have been Priscilla and Aquila, as they knew the truth of matter since they explained to Apollos “...the way of God more accurately” (Acts 18:26).

Paul made sure their baptism was valid

Based on the information that Paul gathered from this encounter, he took the time to explain how the baptism of John was not the same as the baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus (4). With this being revealed to the twelve, they submitted to the scriptural act of obedience which was preached by Paul by being “baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (5).

That forces us to ask what the differences were in the accounts of Apollos in Acts 18 and the twelve in Acts 19: why was Apollos not shown as being reimmersed but the twelve were? It seems as though Apollos would have been the equivalent to the disciples of Christ and all the other people, including the 120 on the day of Pentecost, who had formerly been recipients of John’s baptism. J.W. McGarvey points out the 120 were not baptized the day the church was established because Acts 2:41 says these 3,000 souls were added unto them, as translated in the KJV (152). The baptism of John, which was also what the disciples of Christ were administering prior to the kingdom, was valid to be applied until the day of Pentecost. Once that day came, someone could not receive that baptism and have it be valid. That seems to account for the differences between Apollos and the twelve. Paul made sure their baptism was valid by baptizing them in the name of the Lord Jesus. Once he had done this, Paul bestowed upon them the miraculous measure of the Holy Spirit by giving them the gifts of tongues and of prophecy (6).

Practical inferences for us today

Even though we don’t have the exact scenario as played out in Acts 18 & 19, I believe there some practical inferences for us today regarding baptism.

There is only one valid baptism.

Paul points this out in Eph. 4:5. This baptism is immersion in water, as evidenced by the definition “to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)” (http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/baptizo.html). Though there are disagreements among even members of the church about what must be understood about baptism, the baptism of the new covenant is one that comes from a belief and confession that Christ is the Son of God (Acts 8:37), experiencing godly sorrow (2 Cor. 7:9-10; Acts 2:37), repenting from sins (Acts 2:38) and gives us the results of being added to the number of the saved (Acts 2:47), receiving remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38).

There are times when people are baptized wrong.

Technically this is not a true statement because if you were baptized incorrectly, you weren’t really baptized; you got wet. What are some ways that people are “baptized” incorrectly? Some are baptized for entrance into a denomination; some are baptized who believe they are already saved, and they are simply doing this as a response to “salvation”; some are baptized for the dead; some are baptized as a result of people in a denomination voting to allow them to do so; some receive methods of baptism which the Bible would not authorize, such as sprinkling, pouring, infant baptism, etc.

If someone is scripturally baptized, then they are scripturally a Christian.

I saw where a denominational preacher was challenging people to answer why we would not accept somebody’s baptism if it was not by a church of Christ preacher in a church of Christ baptistery. First of all, I don’t label myself as a church of Christ preacher. We can get too hung up on labeling ourselves in such a manner, thereby denominating ourselves like everybody else in the denominational world. That being said, I am a member of the church of Christ, in the sense that is the body that He is the Savior of, which He purchased with His own blood. That’s the reason our church sign bears the name North View Church of Christ; it belongs to Him.

Second of all, there may be times when someone comes out of a denomination to the church of Christ who has received a scriptural baptism. These accounts may be few and far between, because most of the time in denominations there is unscriptural teaching on baptism such as was mentioned a few moments ago. I knew of a group of elders one time who met with a man about his baptism having come out of a denominational background. He and the elders studied together on the matter, and based on that he told them that he obeyed the gospel as laid out in Scripture. If he was going to be “rebaptized” it would only be to suit them and not God. Therefore, he was not reimmersed. I believe this case is rare, and that is one of the things that our elders will study with people about who come out of denominational backgrounds. Though the case with Apollos is in the context of the baptism of John, the principle does apply in the sense of considering whether or not people need to be reimmersed.

If there is any doubt as to the validity of your baptism, please make it right. 

The disciples at Ephesus didn’t argue with Paul; they submitted to his teaching on the matter. Whether someone was too young, didn’t have a complete understanding, or whether they thought it was for the wrong reasons, you too can make sure you are validly baptized into Christ.