And he took them the same hour of the night and washed [them] from their stripes; and was baptised, he and all his straightway.
The night ends where it began — in the prison — but the roles are reversed. The man who locked Paul and Silas in the inner cell now kneels over their wounds with water, and this is his first act after believing.
One writer contrasts what the jailer was with what he has become, and weighs what would have been lost had Paul walked out of the open door.
What a marvellous change! The ruthless jailer has become the generous host! "If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come." How clearly we can now see that Paul was right in not being guided by circumstances! How much better and higher to be led by the "eye" of God! What an eternal loss it would have proved to him had he walked out at the open door! How much better to be led out by the very hand that had thrust him in — a hand once the instrument of cruelty and sin, now the instrument of righteousness and love!
One commentator weighs the exact wording. He argues it stresses how awkward the hour was, then follows the jailer's movements — from the cell, to the water, to the room above. (Where older translations say "stripes," the ESV says "wounds.")
The jailer took them "that hour" of the night, however awkward the hour might seem. That is the force of the words, rather than "the same," which the text does not say, though of course that was true as well. But we must give exactly what was written and meant. After washing their stripes he and all his were baptized without delay, it would seem within the prison grounds. Then he brought them "up" into his house, apparently above the prisoners' quarters, saw to their food and comfort, and rejoiced with all his house, having believed in God.
The urgency is itself part of the testimony. A preacher applying the scene notes that the man's confession came before daybreak:
The jailer heard the gospel: "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved." He believed, and he was saved. Clearly he believed with his heart and confessed with his mouth… He did not wait till the morning.
One writer treats the washing as the test of whether the jailer's faith was real.
He is born again by the word of truth, and his whole way of life is changed… A few hours before, he saw nothing more in Paul and Silas to call out affection and sympathy than in the other prisoners. But now he sees everything with new eyes… This was a fine example of the fruit of the Spirit, and it proved that his profession was sincere. His love was not in word and in tongue, but in deed and in truth.
The same verse moves straight from the washing to baptism. One writer explains why that step felt like a privilege and not a duty.
But more than this, he carried out the mind of the Lord: "he was baptized."… He knew that the Lord Jesus Christ had saved him. He knew that he had redemption in Christ through His blood, the forgiveness of sins according to the riches of His grace. So it was not a burden but a sweet privilege to take part in an ordinance where he would feel for himself what it means to be buried with Christ. Faith does not argue; it believes and acts on God's word.
Commentators differ over how much this clause proves. Some take it as a settled pattern of God dealing with a man and those belonging to him:
"And was baptized, he and all his." What an expressive phrase: "HE AND ALL HIS." Here we have our warrant for household baptism. "He and all his" represents, as briefly as could be wished, the divine and gracious principle that runs all through God's dealings with His people.
Others reply that the text never says who was in the house, and that preaching always came first:
Thoughtful men on all sides admit that the households of Scripture decide nothing about this. There may have been no infants… We never hear of Peter or anyone else setting out first of all to baptize. They set out to preach. Then those who received the word were baptized.
- Believing — the jailer heard, believed, and acted; faith did not argue, it simply took God at His word.
- Washing — the first fruit of that faith was love shown in deed, to the very men he had wounded.
- Baptism — he confessed Christ openly and at once, picturing burial with Him.
- Household — his whole house rejoiced in believing God; commentators differ on whether "he and all his" settles who may be baptized.
- Change — the hand once used for cruelty became the instrument of righteousness and love, in a few hours of one night.
And having brought them into his house he laid the table [for them], and rejoiced with all his house, having believed in God.
The man who had bolted Paul and Silas into the inner prison now leads them upstairs into his own home and sets a meal in front of them. Two questions rise out of that night: why does the verse say he believed in God, and how far does "with all his house" reach?
The meal is not mere politeness. It is the first fruit of a converted man, and one writer traces the sequence step by step:
These prisoners had shown what spirit they were of. They sang praises with their feet in the stocks. ... Now we learn how grace worked in him. He showed the fruits of the divine nature. He showed that he was converted. Consideration for them came first. He took them that same hour of the night and washed their stripes... he set food before Paul and Silas, who no doubt needed it... and now, his heart full, he rejoiced greatly with all his house, having believed in God. How well he could now understand those two singing hymns to God at midnight, since he and they shared the same grace and the same joy.
The same reversal is read as proof that the change was real and not a fright that would pass with daylight:
And now everything is changed. The jailer takes the prisoners into his own house — his cruelty is turned into love, sympathy, and hospitality... What an eventful night! What a change in a few hours! And what a joyful morning dawned on that happy house!
Why does the verse name God, when the answer Paul gave named the Lord Jesus Christ? One writer replies:
He was told to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and I read that he believed in God. Why was that? What he had heard led him to see that the blessed Man he had been told about, the Lord Jesus Christ, was really God. The blessed One who became Man to die for his sins and save him was the eternal, blessed Son of God. Accepting that truth and believing it with the simplicity of a little child, he believed in God "with all his house." Note that! Not only he himself, but his whole house was marked out for blessing. Paul had found his man, but he got a good many besides.
(The quotes follow an older translation: "rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.")
In verse 33 the baptism comes first; the rejoicing and the believing come after. Some read that order as proof that baptism came before faith. The grammar answers them:
The record is as plain as possible. The Philippian jailer asked in deep distress what he must do to be saved. He was not told to be baptized first and believe afterwards. He was told, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household" — without one word about baptism. No one doubts that he and all his were baptized that same hour. But the word of God is too wise and holy to hint at any such thing. It gives not the smallest support to the idea that he was baptized before he believed, just because it says later that he rejoiced, believing in God. On the contrary, look at the tenses. His joy stands in the aorist, the simple past. His faith stands in the form that implies a present, continuing result of something already past.
Commentators differ here, and the difference turns on one Greek word. Some hold the joy of faith belonged to every person under that roof:
The Greek phrase for "with all his house" is without doubt adverbial. But that makes no real difference to the sense... So here the jailer rejoiced. He did not rejoice as a representative standing in for his family. They rejoiced too, as truly as he did, in their measure, though his joy as believing in God is the one specified. We are meant to understand the joy of faith in the case of all. A beautiful picture of the reality and activity of God's grace in this world — and this with the whole house of a hardened pagan.
Others read the same word as limiting the statement:
We have to translate it this way, since any other rendering in English is awkward. Even so, "with all his house" is not used here as it is later with Crispus, where it says he "believed with all his house" (Acts 18:8). Here it is an adverb, and there should be a reason for the difference — the effect being to make the joy more simply his own. At least this is certain: although they had spoken the word to all who were in his house, faith is ascribed to him alone.
The joy of that night did not end with it. It turns up again in the letter Paul later sent to this city:
Paul and Silas were in dire circumstances, yet they made the praises of God ring through the prison at Philippi. What results followed, for the blessing of men and the glory of God! A whole household "rejoiced, believing in God." Do we wonder that Paul's later letter to the believers at Philippi is so full of rejoicing?
- Word. Salvation came by a message, not a ritual. He was told to believe, and the grammar keeps faith before baptism.
- God. Told to trust the Lord Jesus Christ, he believed in God — he had grasped who that Man is.
- Table. The washed wounds and the meal are the first fruit of the new nature; love to God's servants is how the change showed.
- House. Commentators differ: does the joy of faith cover everyone under that roof, or does faith belong to the jailer alone?
- Joy. Midnight singing in a prison ended in a whole household rejoicing. The letter to Philippi carried that joy on.