Acts 19:1-6 and Rebaptism

Rev. Ronald Hanko

Rev. Hanko is a minister in the Protestant Reformed Churches in America and has authored a number of books, including (among others) the following: Doctrine According to Godliness: A Primer on Reformed Doctrine (2004), The Coming of Zion’s Redeemer: Commentary on Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi (2015). He was also the joint author of Saved by Grace: A Study of the Five Points of Calvinism (1995) and its accompanying study guide (all of which can be purchased at http://www.cprc.co.uk and http://www.rfpa.org).

*          *          *          *          *          *

[Previous section: “Baptism into Christ”]

The Baptist practice of rebaptizing those who have not been immersed, or who have been baptized as infants, rests mainly on the conviction that sprinkling and paedobaptism are not baptism at all.  We have shown the fallacy of the Baptist convictions regarding sprinkling, but need to look at the passage that Baptists use to support their practice of rebaptizing: Acts 19:1-6.

       

The passage reads:

              

And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, he said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?  And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.  And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized?  And they said, Unto John’s baptism.  Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.  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.

Baptists understand the Word of God here to be saying that Paul rebaptized certain persons who had been baptized by John, though they are reluctant to say that Paul did this because he thought John’s baptism was illegitimate.  After rebaptizing these people who had been baptized by John, but had not heard of the Holy Spirit, he also laid hands on them so that they received the Spirit and spoke in tongues.

       

This is a misreading of the passage.  The Baptist reading makes most of verse 4 a quotation of Paul’s words to these disciples, and then makes verse 5 a reference to what Paul did after he finished speaking.  In other words, the Baptists read verses 4 and 5 thus (notice the quotation marks):

4. Then said Paul, [“]John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.[”]

5. When they [i.e., they, the disciples to whom Paul is speaking—RH] heard this, they [i.e., these same disciples to whom Paul is speaking—RH] were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

According to the Baptist interpretation, “they,” in verse 5, refers to those to whom Paul was speaking, and it is they whom Paul baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus—they having been previously baptized by John.  Reading the passage that way, it does indeed teach rebaptism, but also suggests that John’s baptism was not really Christian baptism at all.

The passage should be read in the following way (again notice the quotation marks):

Then said Paul, [“]John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.  When they [i.e., the people who came to John’s baptism—RH] heard this, they [i.e., the same people who came to John’s baptism—RH] were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.[”]

“They,” then, refers to the people whom John baptized, and verse 5 refers not to Paul’s rebaptizing of certain persons in Ephesus, but to John’s baptism of certain people at the Jordan.  It also identifies John’s baptism, then, as Christian baptism, not as something that needed to be re-administered.

      

The proper reading of the passage, therefore, makes verse 5 part of the quotation of what Paul said to these Ephesian disciples, and not a description of his “rebaptizing” them.  Indeed, if that is the proper way to the read the verse, then verse 5 is saying that John baptized them—the only time they were baptized—and did so in the name of the Lord Jesus, identifying John’s baptism with every other New Testament baptism.

       

Grammatically, this is the way to read the verse, since it is verse 6 that mentions Paul once again and continues the story of what he said and did with the word “and.”  There is, therefore, no ground to be found for rebaptism in these verses, nor in any other passage of Scripture.

      

Rebaptism is, in fact, a denial of the great biblical truth that we can only be saved once.  No one who believes in the sovereignty of God in salvation, in the saving power of Jesus, in the efficacy of the Holy Spirit’s work, and in the perseverance of saints, ought to rebaptize, since baptism is a picture of salvation and ought, for that reason only, to be administered once.  One of the Reformed creeds states this:

Therefore we believe, that every man, who is earnestly studious of obtaining life eternal, ought to be but once baptized with this only baptism, without ever repeating the same: since we cannot be born twice (Belgic Confession of Faith, Art. 34).

              

This appears to be the emphasis in the Westminster Confession of Faith in XXVIII, 7, where it proves the statement, “The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person,” with a reference to Titus 3:5:

              

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.

The Westminster apparently uses this verse as proof, because it speaks of baptism as the “washing of regeneration” and assumes that just as regeneration can only happen once, so baptism (which pictures it) can only be administered once to any person.

      

We will examine this matter of the connection between “once saved always saved,” that is, between sovereign grace and water baptism in another connection.  But it is important here as part of our answer to those who are willing to practice rebaptism, believing that the only legitimate mode of baptism is baptism by immersion.  Believing that baptism is a picture of regeneration and that regeneration can only happen once, no Reformed person ought to rebaptize anyone.

      

Let us note, however, in closing this section, that the usual interpretation of Acts 19:1-6 leads inevitably to the conclusion that John’s baptism was not Christian baptism, and that all John’s disciples needed to be rebaptized in order to become Christians.  This would have included Jesus and some of the twelve disciples as well.  Yet not a hint of such rebaptism is suggested anywhere in Scripture.

      

What is more, if John’s baptism was not Christian baptism, then John’s baptizing is of no value as far as determining the mode and subjects of baptism, nor is Christ’s baptism the same as ours.  That leaves us with only a few other references to baptism in the New Testament.  The Baptist, therefore, with his interpretation of Acts 19 puts himself in a dilemma.

[Next section: “Other Passages”]