Baptism, an Exploration: Part 8 (Lydia, Crispus, Apollos, the Ephesians, and Some Conclusions)

Lydia and Crispus

(Act 16:13-15 ESV) 13 And on the Sabbath day we went outside the gate to the riverside, where we supposed there was a place of prayer, and we sat down and spoke to the women who had come together. 14 One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. 15 And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us.

(Act 18:8 ESV) 8 Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.

Here is the first references to baptism in Acts without an explicit reference to the Spirit — but by now, Luke has shown the relationship of water baptism to the Spirit. Now we see the normative flow: faith followed by baptism. It’s to be understood that the Spirit is received at this time.

Apollos and the Ephesians

(Act 19:1-7 ESV) And it happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the inland country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. 2 And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” 4 And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying. 7 There were about twelve men in all.

Paul’s first question is: “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” This is the test of a valid conversion. And Paul assumes that they’ll know that they’ve received the Spirit — either through teaching or experience — but they’ll know. When we question the validity of a baptism, we don’t ask what Paul asked, and therefore we must not have the same theology as Paul. That’s a problem.

When Paul learned that they’d not even heard about the Spirit, then Paul knew they’d not received orthodox Christian instruction — such as Peter preached at Pentecost. The receipt of the Spirit is a critical component of the Kingdom. Thus, Paul suspected they’d not been baptized into the name of Jesus — and so he asked.

They said they were baptized with John’s baptism — for repentance (for the remission of sins! Mark 1:4; Luke 1:77). This is insufficient — even though for the remission of sins — because, as Paul explains –

“John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.”

Evidently, Paul believed they didn’t have faith in Jesus — as he uses the teaching of John to explain the necessity for this faith. Paul didn’t respond to the baptism problem by preaching a better baptism. He pointed out that John pointed his disciples toward faith in Jesus.

Now, while this much seems clear enough from the dialog Luke reports, Luke refers to the Ephesians as “disciples.” The term is used as a near synonym for “Christian” up to this point in Acts, but as they hadn’t received the Spirit and even evidently lacked faith in Jesus, it’s problemmatic. Rom 8:9-11 is explicit that you are lost if you don’t have the Spirit. John the Baptist taught the same.

Luke uses “disciples” to refer to followers of John the Baptist (Luke 5:33) as well as to Jesus’ followers. It seems likely that these 12 were followers of John the Baptist, expecting the Messiah, but not knowing Jesus of Nazareth to be the Messiah prophesied by John. You see, the teaching Luke records is Paul’s insistence on the right faith — not the right baptism. They were re-baptized, but that was in response to their coming to faith.

Why did Paul re-baptize them? Because they’d not received the Spirit and because they had lacked faith in Jesus (believing rather in a Messiah not yet revealed). And when they came to a saving faith, they responded by being baptized and so received the Spirit — which is the normal course.

Apollos

Now, a fascinating contrast is found in the immediately preceding verses –

(Act 18:24-28 ESV) 24 Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures. 25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him and explained to him the way of God more accurately. 27 And when he wished to cross to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him. When he arrived, he greatly helped those who through grace had believed, 28 for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, showing by the Scriptures that the Christ was Jesus.

Notice that Apollos had faith in Jesus but only knew John’s baptism. The result is that Priscilla and Aquila “took him and explained to him the way of God more accurately.” But there’s no re-baptism — unlike Eph 19. It’s possible that he was baptized and Luke didn’t bother to record the fact, but Acts is filled with conversion stories that end with baptism and the receipt of the Spirit. Why not this time?

Well, because Apollos had faith and gave clear evidence that he had the Spirit. He just needed to be better taught regarding baptism so that his converts would be properly instructed.

Now, some would question my conclusion that Apollos already had the Spirit, but Luke says so. You see “fervent in spirit” (18:25) is really “fervent in the spirit,” which is really “fervent in the Spirit.” What the translators translate as “spirit” is ?? ???????? — “the Spirit.” “To” or ?? is the definite article (“the”).

The same construction is found in –

(Act 6:10 ESV) Acts 6:10 But they could not withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking.

(Act 7:51 ESV) ESV Acts 7:51 “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you.

(Act 15:28 ESV) For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements:

(Act 16:18 ESV) Acts 16:18 And this she kept doing for many days. Paul, having become greatly annoyed, turned and said to the spirit, “I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.” And it came out that very hour.

(Act 19:21 ESV) Acts 19:21 Now after these events Paul resolved in the Spirit to pass through Macedonia and Achaia and go to Jerusalem, saying, “After I have been there, I must also see Rome.”

(Act 20:22 ESV) Acts 20:22 And now, behold, I am going to Jerusalem, constrained by the Spirit, not knowing what will happen to me there,

Everywhere those two words appear together in Acts, they refer either to “the Spirit” or else to an evil spirit — not to the person’s heart or attitude. Therefore, the natural reading is that Apollos had the Spirit — despite an imperfect baptism. And, of course, the text is clear that he had faith.

If that’s not right, then why wasn’t he re-baptized? If he was re-baptized, why did Luke omit it — given that Luke just told us that he’d only received John’s baptism and that Luke routinely records the baptisms of converts?

Therefore, here we have an imperfect baptism and a man who was nonetheless saved because he had faith. In chapter 19, we have an imperfect baptism and an inadequate faith. Where the faith was adequate and the baptism inadequate, there was no rebaptism. Where both were inadequate, rebaptism was necessary.

Summary, So Far

So we’ve covered the baptism verses in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts, and we’ve learned a lot. Let me try my hand as some tentative conclusions —

* The Synoptic Gospels use the baptism of John the Baptist as a type of Christian baptism. They offer virtually no explicit teaching on Christian baptism, but John’s baptism is presented as sui generis (of the same kind) with Christian baptism. Indeed, in the Synoptics, we learn more about baptism from the lips of John the Baptist and from his baptism of Jesus than from Jesus himself, who says little more regarding baptism than we read in the Great Commission.

* Both John’s and Christian baptism were for repentance into the forgiveness of sins.

* Both are about entering the Kingdom. The use of the Jordan River symbolizes passage from the desert wanderings into the Promised Land and the beginning of Israel’s mission of conquest. In Jesus’ baptism we see the beginning of his ministry. Therefore, baptism is pictured as the beginning of our participation in the church’s Kingdom work.

* Although Jesus baptized early in his ministry, according to John, the Synoptics make no mention of this fact. Indeed, other than John’s baptism and the Great Commission, we find virtually nothing about baptism in the Synoptic Gospels (whereas Acts speaks frequently of baptism). It’s not absent, but it’s far from being the central message of the Synoptic Gospels.

* In fact, so far as the Synoptic Gospels are concerned, baptism with the Spirit is far more emphasized than baptism with water. Indeed, the Messiah is said to baptize with the Spirit in contrast to John’s baptism with water. This doesn’t deny that the Messiah would use water, but clearly draws the emphasis away from water and toward the Spirit.

* In Jesus’ baptism by John, we see baptism as the moment when God declares that we are his beloved son, well pleasing to God, and the Spirit descends on the person baptized.

* In the Synoptics and in Acts, the authors emphasize especially the association of baptism with receipt of the Spirit. Indeed, the key distinction between John’s baptism and Christian baptism is the receipt of the Spirit. Both are on account of repentance and both are into the forgiveness of sins.

* Despite (or perhaps because of) the close association of Christian baptism with the Spirit, there are notable exceptions where the Spirit and baptism do not occur at once. These exceptions drive the gospel out of Judea and into the world.

* The account of Apollos demonstrates that it was possible to receive the Spirit without baptism in cases other than the major transitions of the Kingdom at Pentecost, Samaria, and Cornelius.

* Acts tells the story of the Spirit driving the spread of the gospel. Baptism of converts is routinely described, as is their receipt of the Spirit. The normative practice is for the Spirit to be received with water baptism (often with the laying on of hands immediately following and as part of the same rite).