TRV
See on the biblical-era map
Study This Verse
Commentary on Acts 19 verses 1–7
Ephesus was a city of great note in Asia, famous for a temple built there to Diana, which was one of the wonders of the world: thither Paul came to preach the gospel while Apollos was at Corinth (Act 19:1); while he was watering there, Paul was planting here, and grudged not that Apollos entered into his labours and was building upon his foundation, but rejoiced in it, and went on in the new work that was cut out for him at Ephesus with the more cheerfulness and satisfaction, because he knew that such an able minister of the New Testament as Apollos was now at Corinth, carrying on the good work there. Though there were those that made him the head of a party against Paul (Co1 1:12), yet Paul had no jealousy of him, nor any way disliked the affection the people had for him. Paul having gone through the country of Galatia and Phrygia, having passed through the upper coasts, Pontus and Bithynia, that lay north, at length came to Ephesus, where he had left Aquila and Priscilla, and there found them. At his first coming, he met with some disciples there, who professed faith in Christ as the true Messiah, but were as yet in the first and lowest form in the school of Christ, under his usher John the Baptist. They were in number about twelve (Act 19:7); they were much of the standing that Apollos was of when he came to Ephesus (for he knew only the baptism of John, Act 18:25), but they had not opportunity of being acquainted with Aquila and Priscilla, or had not been so long in Ephesus or were not so willing to receive instruction as Apollos was, otherwise they might have had the way of God expounded to them more perfectly, as Apollos had. Observe here,
I. How Paul catechised them. He was told, probably by Aquila and Priscilla, that they were believers, that they did own Christ, and had given up their names to him; now Paul hereupon takes them under examination.
1.They did believe in the Son of God; but Paul enquires whether they had received the Holy Ghost, - whether they believed in the spirit, whose operations on the minds of men, for conviction, conversion, and comfort, were revealed some time after the doctrine of Jesus being the Christ, - whether they had been acquainted with, and had admitted, this revelation? This was not all; extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were conferred upon the apostles and other disciples presently after Christ's ascension, which was frequently repeated upon occasion; had they participated in these gifts? "Have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed? Have you had that seal of the truth of Christ's doctrine in yourselves?" We are not now to expect any such extraordinary gifts as they had then. The canon of the New Testament being long since completed and ratified, we depend upon that as the most sure word of prophecy. But there are graces of the Spirit given to all believers, which are as earnests to them, Co2 1:22; Co2 5:5; Eph 1:13, Eph 1:14. Now it concerns us all who profess the Christian faith seriously to enquire whether we have received the Holy Ghost or not. The Holy Ghost is promised to all believers, to all petitioners (Luk 11:13); but many are deceived in this matter, thinking they have received the Holy Ghost when really they have not. As there are pretenders to the gifts of the Holy Ghost, so there are to his graces and comforts; we should therefore strictly examine ourselves, Have we received the Holy Ghost since we believed? The tree will be known by its fruits. Do we bring forth the fruits of the Spirit? Are we led by the Spirit? Do we walk in the Spirit? Are we under the government of the Spirit?
2.They owned their ignorance in this matter: "Whether there be a Holy Ghost is more than we know. That there is a promise of the Holy Ghost we know from the scriptures of the Old Testament, and that this promise will be fulfilled in its season we doubt not; but so much have we been out of the way of intelligence in this matter that we have not so much as heard whether the Holy Ghost be indeed yet given as a spirit of prophecy." They knew (as Dr. Lightfoot observes) that, according to the tradition of their nation, after the death of Ezra, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, the Holy Ghost departed from Israel, and went up; and they professed that they had never heard of his return. They spoke as if they expected it, and wondered they did not hear of it, and were ready to welcome the notice of it. The gospel light, like that of the morning, shone more and more, gradually; not only clearer and clearer, in the discovery of truths not before heard of, but further and further, in the discovery of them to persons that had not before heard of them.
3.Paul enquired how they came to be baptized, if they knew nothing of the Holy Ghost; for, if they were baptized by any of Christ's ministers, they were instructed concerning the Holy Ghost, and were baptized in his name. "Know you not that Jesus being glorified, consequently the Holy Ghost is given? unto what then were you baptized? This is strange and unaccountable. What! baptized, and yet know nothing of the Holy Ghost? Surely your baptism was a nullity, if you know nothing of the Holy Ghost; for it is the receiving of the Holy Ghost that is signified and sealed by that washing of regeneration. Ignorance of the Holy Ghost is as inconsistent with a sincere profession of Christianity as ignorance of Christ is." Applying it to ourselves, it intimates that those are baptized to no purpose, and have received the grace of God therein in vain, that do not receive and submit to the Holy Ghost. It is also an enquiry we should often make, not only to whose honour we were born, but into whose service we were baptized, that we may study to answer the ends both of our birth and of our baptism. Let us often consider unto what we were baptized, that we may live up to our baptism.
4.They own that they were baptized unto John's baptism - eis to Iōannou baptisma that is, as I take it, they were baptized in the name of John, not by John himself (he was far enough from any such thought), but by some weak, well-meaning disciple of his, that ignorantly kept up his name as the head of a party, retaining the spirit and notion of those disciples of his that were jealous of the growth of Christ's interest, and complained to him of it, Joh 3:26. Some one or more of these, that found themselves much edified by John's baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, not thinking that the kingdom of heaven, which he spoke of as at hand, was so very near as it proved, ran away with that notion, rested in what they had, and thought they could not do better than to persuade others to do so too; and so, ignorantly, in a blind zeal for John's doctrine, they baptized here and there one in John's name, or, as it is here expressed, unto John's baptism, looking no further themselves, nor directing those that they baptized any further.
5.Paul explains to them the true intent and meaning of John's baptism, as principally referring to Jesus Christ, and so rectifies the mistake of those who had baptized them into the baptism of John, and had not directed them to look any further, but to rest in that. Those that have been left in ignorance, or led into error, by any infelicities of their education, should not therefore be despised nor rejected by those who are more knowing and orthodox, but should be compassionately instructed, and better taught, as these disciples were by Paul. (1.) He owns that John's baptism was a very good thing, as far as it went: John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance. By this baptism he required people to be sorry for their sins, and to confess them and turn from them; and to bring any to this is a great point gained. But, (2.) He shows them that John's baptism had a further reference, and he never designed that those he baptized should rest there, but told them that they should believe on him who should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus, - that his baptism of repentance was designed only to prepare the way of the Lord, and to dispose them to receive and entertain Christ, whom he left them big with expectations of; nay, whom he directed them to: Behold the Lamb of God. "John was a great and good man; but he was only the harbinger, - Christ is the Prince. His baptism was the porch which you were to pass through, not the house you were to rest in; and therefore it was all wrong for you to be baptized into the baptism of John."
6.When they were thus shown the error they were led into, they thankfully accepted the discovery, and were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, Act 19:5. As for Apollos, of whom it was said (Act 18:25) that he knew the baptism of John - that he rightly understood the meaning of it when he was baptized with it, though he knew that only - yet, when he understood the way of God more perfectly, he was no again baptized, any more than Christ's first disciples that had been baptized with John's baptism and knew it referred to the Messiah at the door (and, with an eye to this, submitted to it), were baptized again. But to these disciples, who received it only with an eye to John and looked no further, as if he were their saviour, it was such a fundamental error as was as fatal to it as it would have been for any to be baptized in the name of Paul (Co1 1:13); and therefore, when they came to understand things better, they desired to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, and were so: not by Paul himself, as we have reason to think, but by some of those who attended him. It does not therefore follow hence that there was not an agreement between John's baptism and Christ's, or that they were not for substance the same; much less does it follow that those who have been once baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (which is the appointed form of Christ's baptism), may be again baptized in the same name; for those that were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus had never been so baptized before.
II. How Paul conferred the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost upon them, Act 19:6. 1. Paul solemnly prayed to God to give them those gifts, signified by his laying his hands on them, which was a gesture used in blessing by the patriarchs, especially in conveying the great trust of the promise, as Gen 48:14. The Spirit being the great promise of the New Testament, the apostles conveyed it by the imposition of hands: "The Lord bless thee with that blessing, that blessing of blessings," Isa 44:3. 2. God granted the thing he prayed for: The Holy Ghost came upon them in a surprising overpowering manner, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied, as the apostles did and the first Gentile converts, Act 10:44. This was intended to introduce the gospel at Ephesus, and to awaken in the minds of men an expectation of some great things from it; and some think that it was further designed to qualify these twelve men for the work of the ministry, and that these twelve were the elders of Ephesus, to whom Paul committed the care and government of that church. They had the Spirit of prophesy, that they might understand the mysteries of the kingdom of God themselves, and the gift of tongues, that they might preach them to every nation and language. Oh, what a wonderful change was here made on a sudden in these men! those that but just now had not so much as heard that there was any Holy Ghost are now themselves filled with the Holy Ghost; for the Spirit, like the wind, blows where and when he listeth.
Of the existence of the Holy Spirit … we are taught in many passages of Scripture. For instance, David says in the fiftieth psalm, “And take not your Holy Spirit from me,” and in Daniel it is said, “The Holy Spirit, who is in you.” But in the New Testament we have proofs in abundance, as when the Holy Spirit is related to have descended upon Christ, and when the Lord breathed on his apostles after the resurrection and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit,” and the angel said to Mary, “The Holy Spirit shall come upon you,” and Paul teaches us that “no one can say that Jesus is the Lord except in the Holy Spirit,” and in the Acts of the Apostles “through the laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Spirit was given” in baptism. From all of which we learn that the person of the Holy Spirit is of so great authority and dignity that saving baptism is not complete except when performed with the authority of the whole most excellent Trinity, that is, by naming the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Therefore the baptism of John was an exhortation to repentance only, but it did not provide a purification from sins. This, then, is the difference between the baptism of John and that of the faithful: the baptism of the faithful gives the gift of the remission of sins. While baptizing, John said, “I baptize you for the one coming after me, and I ask you to believe in him, because he is the Lamb of God.” Now the one who faithfully baptizes says, “I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” so that you may believe in the consubstantial Trinity. He washes the baptized thoroughly, strips away his previously existing superstition, and re-clothes him with Christ, as he purely proclaims the true faith. Furthermore, it must be noted first that after baptism into Christ, the Holy Spirit descends upon those baptized when the one baptizing lays his hands on them, and second that those baptized with the baptism of John did not possess the Holy Spirit. How then did Apollos, who had only been baptized with John’s baptism, burn with the Spirit? Even if Apollos burned with the Spirit, it is not said that he possessed the Holy Spirit. In fact, he neither was speaking in tongues nor prophesying. Therefore, it is one thing to burn with the Spirit and another to possess the Holy Spirit. Whoever possessed the Holy Spirit had it dwelling within him, and the Spirit itself spoke from within. Many of these things are referred to previously, as when the Spirit spoke to Philip, to Peter, to the apostles and to Paul and his companions, when he ordered them either to speak or not speak the word in certain cities. Whoever burned with the Spirit did this or that through an external illumination and impulse, as one led by the Spirit, just as someone might be led or protected by an angel. Now, do not say to me, “How is it possible for one who does not share in the Spirit to burn with the Spirit?” For it is necessary to establish what is unseen on the basis of what is seen. If the sun and fire, being outside of us, by drawing near to our bodies or also to be at a small distance, as is the case with fire, warm our bodies, what should we say about the divine Spirit that is truly hot and sets our interior person on fire, even if the Spirit does not live within but is without? It is possible, in the way that everything is possible to God, that someone be set on fire, even if the heat is not dwelling within.
"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 about twelve." The gift is twofold: tongues and prophesyings. Hence is shown an important doctrine, that the baptism of John is incomplete. And he does not say, "Baptism" of forgiveness, but, "of repentance." So that it was likely they had the Spirit, but it did not appear until Paul had laid his hands upon them: then they spake with tongues, etc.
Did he baptize after a heretic had baptized? Or, if perhaps you dare to say that the friend of the bridegroom was a heretic and was not in the unity of the church, I wish you would write that also. But, if it is complete madness either to think or to say that, then it is the duty of your prudence to reflect on the reason why the apostle Paul baptized after John. If he baptized after an equal, all of you ought to baptize after yourselves; if after a superior, you ought to baptize after Rogatus; if after an inferior, Rogatus should have baptized after you, because you baptized as a priest. On the other hand, if the baptism that is now given is equally valid to those who receive it in spite of the unequal merit of those who give it, because it is the baptism of Christ, not of those by whom it is administered, I think you now understand that Paul gave to some the baptism of Christ for the reason that they had received the baptism of John but not that of Christ.
Having heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. A question is frequently discussed, whether those who, perhaps due to ignorance, were baptized by some who were not themselves baptized, yet were of the right faith, ought to be baptized again; which matter, I think, is explained in this chapter. For what difference does it make whether someone is baptized before the beginning of Christ's baptism or now without its succession, since even John himself, whom he baptized in faith and in the name of Christ, though it was to come, had baptized, said they should be baptized again, saying: "I baptize you with water; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit" (Matt. III)? For if now, such people could be remedied sufficiently by participation in the body and blood of Christ alone, as some assert, it might have sufficed then too; nor would it have been necessary for those whom John baptized with water to be baptized by Christ's disciples, but merely to be confirmed by sharing in the blood.
Continue studying Acts 19:5 across the web’s major study libraries — every link below opens this exact verse, chapter, or book on the destination site.
Read & Compare
BibleGatewayThis verse in more than 200 translations and 70 languages.
Bible.comThe YouVersion reader — hundreds of translations, reading plans, and highlights.
ESV.orgCrossway's official English Standard Version reader.
NET BibleThe NET translation with 60,000+ translators' notes on every rendering decision.
STEP BibleTyndale House's free study tool — original text, vocabulary, and scholarly resources.
BibliaLogos Bible Software's free web reader.
USCCBThe New American Bible (Revised Edition) with the U.S. bishops' study notes.
Commentaries
BibleHub CommentariesDozens of classic commentaries on this verse, gathered on one page.
StudyLightMore than 100 commentary sets — the largest collection on the web.
BibleRefPlain-English commentary on what this verse means, verse by verse.
Enduring WordDavid Guzik's free commentary on this chapter, widely used by Bible teachers.
Bible Study ToolsVerse commentary alongside Greek and Hebrew study aids.
Original Language & Research
- BibleHub InterlinearThe verse word by word — original language, transliteration, and English.
- BibleHub LexiconEvery word's original-language definition and Strong's entry.
Blue Letter BibleDeep-study tools — Strong's numbers, concordance, and word studies.
CNTR CollationThe earliest Greek manuscripts of this verse, collated letter by letter.
Sermons, Hymns & Audio
TrulyRandomVerse is not affiliated with these sites and doesn’t control their content. They’re linked because they’re genuinely useful.
SUMMARY
Acts 19:5 records a pivotal moment in Ephesus where certain disciples, who had previously only received John's baptism, were re-baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus after hearing Paul's teaching. This event underscores the transformative power of a complete understanding of Christ's identity and work, marking their full identification with Him and the new covenant inaugurated through His life, death, and resurrection. It highlights the distinction between a preparatory baptism and the definitive Christian baptism that signifies allegiance to Jesus as Lord.
CONTEXT
EXPOSITION AND ANALYSIS
Key Word Analysis
Verse Breakdown
Literary Devices
The passage employs Narrative Progression, showing a clear sequence of events: Paul's questioning, his explanation, the disciples' hearing, and their subsequent baptism. This progression highlights the dynamic nature of early Christian evangelism and discipleship. Symbolism is central, as baptism itself is a powerful symbol of spiritual transformation, death to an old way of life, and resurrection to new life in Christ. The phrase "in the name of the Lord Jesus" carries deep Theological Significance, emphasizing the authority and person of Jesus as the focal point of Christian faith and practice. There is also an implicit Contrast between the preparatory nature of John's baptism and the definitive, Christ-centered nature of Christian baptism, underscoring the completeness found in Jesus.
THEOLOGICAL AND THEMATIC CONNECTIONS
Acts 19:5 profoundly illustrates the theological significance of Christian baptism as an act of identification with the Lord Jesus Christ. It is not merely a ritualistic washing but a public declaration of allegiance to Jesus as Lord and Savior. Being baptized "in the name of the Lord Jesus" signifies that the believer is brought into union with Christ, participating symbolically in His death, burial, and resurrection. This act marks a transition from an incomplete understanding or preparatory faith to a full embrace of the new covenant realities found in Christ. It underscores the unique authority of Jesus and His centrality in the Christian faith, distinguishing Christian initiation from all other forms of religious practice. This passage reinforces that true baptism is rooted in a clear understanding of who Jesus is and a personal commitment to His lordship.
REFLECTION AND APPLICATION
Acts 19:5 serves as a powerful reminder for believers today regarding the foundational importance of understanding and embracing the full implications of Jesus' lordship. Just as these Ephesian disciples moved from an incomplete understanding to a complete identification with Christ, so too are we called to continually deepen our knowledge of Him and live in full submission to His authority. Our baptism, whether as infants or professing believers, is meant to be a tangible symbol of our union with Christ, a public declaration that we have died to our old selves and been raised to new life in Him. This verse challenges us to examine the sincerity of our faith and the depth of our commitment, ensuring that our Christian practices are rooted in a genuine, informed, and transformative relationship with the Lord Jesus. It calls us to live out the implications of being "in His name"—to bear His character, live under His authority, and proclaim His message to the world.
Questions for Reflection
FAQ
Why were these disciples re-baptized, and does this imply that John's baptism was insufficient?
Answer: These disciples were not "re-baptized" in the sense that their previous experience was invalid or sinful, but rather their baptism was completed in light of the full revelation of Jesus Christ. John's baptism was a baptism of repentance, preparing people for the coming Messiah and urging them to believe in the one who was to come after him (as clarified by Paul in Acts 19:4). It was a valid and necessary step in God's redemptive plan, but it was preparatory. Once the Messiah, Jesus, had come, died, risen, and ascended, and the Holy Spirit had been poured out, Christian baptism took on a new, definitive meaning. It became an act of identification with Christ's death, burial, and resurrection, and a public declaration of faith in Him as Lord. The disciples in Ephesus, upon hearing the full gospel message from Paul, recognized the deeper truth and the necessity of aligning themselves fully with Christ through Christian baptism, which also brought with it the reception of the Holy Spirit (as seen in Acts 19:6).
Is baptism "in the name of the Lord Jesus" (as seen here and elsewhere in Acts) different from the Trinitarian formula in Matthew 28:19 ("in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit")?
Answer: No, they are not contradictory, but rather complementary expressions of the same theological reality. The phrase "in the name of the Lord Jesus" primarily emphasizes the authority under which the baptism is performed and the person into whom the believer is being initiated. It signifies that the baptism is done by Christ's command, for His glory, and brings the believer into union with Him. The Trinitarian formula in Matthew 28:19 provides the comprehensive divine identity of the Godhead (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) into whose fellowship and service believers are brought. Since Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, baptism in Jesus' name implicitly acknowledges the entire Godhead, as it is through Christ's work that we are reconciled to the Father and receive the Spirit. The early church's practice in Acts, often summarized as "in the name of the Lord Jesus," likely served as a concise way to distinguish Christian baptism from other forms of washing, highlighting its unique connection to the saving work of Christ. Both expressions ultimately point to the same foundational truth: Christian baptism is an act of initiation into the Triune God, made possible and authoritative through the Lord Jesus Christ.
CHRIST-CENTERED FULFILLMENT
Acts 19:5 profoundly points to the centrality of Jesus Christ as the ultimate fulfillment of all preparatory measures and the singular object of saving faith. The disciples' re-baptism "in the name of the Lord Jesus" signifies that Jesus is the one in whom all promises find their "Yes" and "Amen" (2 Corinthians 1:20). John's baptism, while divinely ordained, was incomplete without the full revelation of Christ. It was Jesus who truly inaugurated the new covenant through His death, burial, and resurrection, making possible the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. To be baptized "in His name" means to be identified with His finished work on the cross, to participate in His death to sin and His resurrection to new life (Romans 6:3-4). It is through Jesus that believers are reconciled to God, receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38), and are adopted into God's family. This passage beautifully illustrates that all true spiritual progression and initiation culminate in a vibrant, transformative relationship with the Lord Jesus, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life (John 14:6).