And it came to pass, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul, having passed through the upper districts, came to Ephesus, and finding certain disciples,
Paul reaches Ephesus while Apollos is away at Corinth. The first people he meets there are already called disciples — yet his opening question shows something is missing.
The route named here is about land, not sea. Older translations call it "the upper coasts."
By the upper coasts, or country, we should understand an inland route rather than a coast route. The coast was seen as lying on a lower level than the inland country. In line with this, some good authorities read that he came down to Ephesus, for the city stood on the river Cayster, a few miles from its mouth... A centre of trade, the seat of government, and a stronghold of idol worship — all this made it a place of no small importance.
The journey that ends at Ephesus began as a return trip to people he had already won.
He went over Galatia and Phrygia in order, strengthening all the disciples (Acts 18:23)... This time he reversed his route, going through Galatia before Phrygia, shaping his course, it seems, for Ephesus, which he had promised to visit (18:21). He had preached in both these provinces on his earlier journey, and he wanted first to revisit those places of work and to strengthen all the disciples.
Apollos is named in the same verse for a reason. These disciples had been shaped by his teaching.
So these converts matched their teacher Apollos completely. It is quite true that Apollos was later taught the way of God more accurately; but clearly his teaching had shaped the souls of his converts at the start. It is often so even now. The gospel first used in the conversion of souls goes far to set the character of their Christian life. The nature of the start often decides the whole of the believer's course, and so it matters greatly to preach a full gospel.
Paul calls them disciples and never challenges that. What he challenges is where their baptism had left them.
The apostle does not question the reality of their faith... So they were not even on the ground of Christian profession. As the apostle concluded, John's was "the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus." Christian baptism assumes that He is dead and risen, that the work of redemption is finished, and that eternal life and forgiveness of sins are proclaimed in His name. They were believers. The Holy Spirit had worked in their souls, so that the word of God had entered. But they were entirely without even the privileges that faith in the gospel receives at once.
Something in these men prompted the question. One writer suggests it was a lack of rest, not a lack of faith.
They had faith, they looked to His person; but they had not grasped His work for the peace of their souls... It is likely that he saw something which showed his keen eye that these souls were not at rest, not in the liberty of grace. In spirit they were still under the law.
Another writer states plainly what these men still lacked.
The people mentioned in these verses were believers, but they were not Christians. A Christian is a saint who has the Holy Spirit. True, every Christian is a saint, but he is something more; and that something is a very great deal more, for it is the Holy Spirit... They were disciples of John, and all John's disciples believed that Christ would baptize with the Holy Spirit. But they did not know that the promise had been fulfilled.
Commentators differ over how far this scene applies today. Some press Paul's question on the reader:
it shows that a man may be a believer, may be a child of God, may be converted, and yet may not have the Holy Spirit. They were disciples, and the apostle credits their belief, but still asks, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"
Others say the case does not carry over, because the message preached now is different:
This case gives no ground for saying that there are true believers on Christ today who have not received the Spirit at all. Christ is preached now, and not the baptism of John — that is, wherever the gospel is truly preached.
- Road — "the inland country" means a land route, not the coast. Paul came down to Ephesus, a city of trade, government and idol worship.
- Promise — he came by way of Galatia and Phrygia, strengthening earlier converts, and keeping his word to return.
- Start — these men matched their teacher Apollos. The gospel a soul hears first shapes much of what follows.
- Diagnosis — Paul owns their faith but questions their footing. John's baptism looked forward; Christian baptism rests on a Saviour dead and risen.
- Fullness — believers can be real and still be unsettled, short of what the gospel gives. Commentators differ on whether that gap can still happen today.
he said to them, Did ye receive [the] Holy Spirit when ye had believed? And they [said] to him, We did not even hear if [the] Holy Spirit was [come].
Paul arrives at Ephesus and meets about twelve people already called "disciples." He asks them whether they had received the Holy Spirit. Their reply opens two questions. What kind of believers were these? Does the Spirit come after faith?
One writer describes these men as caught between the old order and the new.
Another important fact opens Acts 19. Paul found at Ephesus a dozen disciples who were in a very ambiguous position. They were not exactly Jews, and they were certainly not Christians in the true sense: they were in a transition state between the two. Does this appear startling to you? It is likely to disturb those who are used to thinking, or at least saying, that everyone must be in one of the two states. They hold that a middle position between them is impossible. But that is not the fact. It is always good to face the word of God; and God has written nothing in vain.
Paul's question is not a challenge to their sincerity. The same writer separates the Spirit's work in giving new life from the Spirit given as a seal.
It is important to see what the inspired narrative makes clear here. These souls had been taught only in part. Paul found them at Ephesus after Apollos had gone to Corinth, and the narrative owns them as disciples. The apostle does not question the reality of their faith. He probably noticed a certain legalism in them, which raised the question not whether they were born of the Spirit, but whether they were sealed by Him.
Their reply sounds like total ignorance of God's Spirit. It was not. As followers of John the Baptist they knew what the prophets had said. What they lacked was news, not theology.
In Acts 19:2, Paul asks whether they had received the Holy Spirit since they believed. They answer that they have not yet heard whether the Holy Spirit has come. They were John's disciples, so they did not doubt that the Holy Spirit exists. Every thoughtful Jew acknowledged the Holy Spirit spoken of by the prophets. But they had not heard whether the Holy Spirit had come in power, as John 7 speaks of it, and as John the Baptist had said: He would baptise with the Holy Spirit.
Here the writers differ, and the difference turns on a single word. Some read Paul's question as proof that receiving the Spirit can follow believing as a distinct step.
The apostle no doubt noticed a certain unease in these "disciples." That led him to ask whether they had received the Holy Spirit since they believed. So there is — certainly there was in the apostle's mind — such a thing as receiving the Spirit after believing.
Others hold that the older wording misleads, and that the verse says the opposite. (The ESV follows this reading: "when you believed.")
The disciples Paul found at Ephesus were disciples of John. The question the apostle asked them has often been made the foundation of wrong teaching about the Holy Spirit. It is claimed that the Holy Spirit must be received in a special way after conversion. The little word "since" in Paul's question must be changed to "when," because it is mistranslated: "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"
Behind the whole exchange lies a fixed order. The Spirit comes to live in people only on the ground of a finished work.
We must not suppose this is a question of miracles, or powers, or tongues, or anything of that kind. These very signs might follow too. The early Christians did work miracles, and they had the gift of tongues. But these were only the outward proof of the Holy Spirit. He had always worked whatever was for God's glory in man, yet He was never given in person to believers until after redemption... But can the Holy Spirit come and dwell in us? Only through redemption, when God has righteously put our sins and iniquities away from before His eye.
What they lacked traces back to a message no one had brought them.
They were truly "disciples," and they had believed as much of the facts about Christ as they had heard. The Holy Spirit is given to those who believe "the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation" (Eph. 1:13). They had not believed it, because they had not heard it, and so they had not received the Spirit. Like Apollos, they had only heard the earliest beginnings of things, connected with John the Baptist...
- Heard — they were not denying that the Spirit exists. They did not know that the promised coming had happened.
- Half-way — real disciples can still stand between two states, short of what faith in the full gospel brings.
- Hindrance — the missing piece was a message never preached to them, not a defect in their sincerity.
- How — commentators differ. Does Paul's question allow a gap after believing, or does it ask about the moment of believing? The wording "since" or "when" decides it.
- Hereafter — God gives the Spirit in person only on the ground of finished redemption. Tongues and prophecy were the outward proof, not the substance.
And he said, To what then were ye baptised? And they said, To the baptism of John.
At Ephesus, Paul first asked these disciples about the Holy Spirit. His second question goes further back: what had their baptism committed them to? Their answer — the baptism of John the Baptist — puts them at a stage God had already moved past, and it explains the rest of the chapter.
Paul does not ask how they were baptized, but to what.
Scripture gives no definite teaching about the way baptism is done. The great point is what those baptised were baptised to: compare Acts 19:3. The idea in the word is "washing," as with the priests of old (Ex. 29:4), rather than "sprinkling," as with the Levites.
Some translations read "into what," others "to what." One writer argues for "unto," and says what that shows about baptism itself.
The Greek preposition means "unto" (or "to") as often as "into." Which one it means depends on the context or on the nature of the case… So in Acts 19:3 it is "unto," as in the Authorised Version, not "into" as in the Revised. Baptism is the symbol of profession. Reality depends on faith; which might, or might not, be true of the baptised.
Their answer names a real work of God, but an unfinished one.
Twelve people had believed, but they had no teaching beyond John's: their baptism matched it. What they looked for was a Christ still to come, and a Holy Spirit whom He would give. John's baptism called for repentance, but it never went outside Judaism… It was a baptism to repentance for man on the earth, not to Christ's death and resurrection.
Are the two baptisms the same? Commentators say no, and they point to this chapter.
Scripture is plain that John's baptism is quite distinct from Christian baptism. Disciples who had been baptized with John's baptism had to be baptized to Christ when they received the full truth of the gospel (Acts 19)… Confessing a Messiah still to come is very different from confessing His death and resurrection, and this is the root of differences which carry weighty consequences.
The difference comes down to timing.
John also baptizes to death, in the baptism of repentance. Death is the wages of sin, and those he baptized confessed their sins as justly deserving death. But John could not yet baptize to Christ's death; for He had not died.
So what did they have, and what were they missing?
They were not therefore even on the ground of Christian profession, for, as the apostle concluded, John's was "a baptism of repentance"… Christian baptism supposes Him to be dead and risen, the work of redemption accomplished, with eternal life and forgiveness of sins proclaimed in His name. They were believers, and the Holy Spirit had worked in their souls so that the word of God had entered. Yet they fell wholly short of the privileges that faith in the gospel enjoys at once.
The same gap shows up in sincere people today.
How many rest on a promise and have no notion that anything has been accomplished! They agree, of course, that the Saviour has come. But of salvation come, and of God's righteousness revealed, they know nothing… "Am I His, or am I not?" is the question that keeps troubling them.
They did not stay where their baptism had left them.
You can see the state of their souls in this: they at once bowed to the new message, and "were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."… Paul then laid his hands upon them, and "the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues, and prophesied."… So these disciples passed off Jewish ground and became Christians. They were no longer in the flesh, but in the Spirit, because the Spirit of God now lived in them.
One writer warns against using this case to argue about believers today.
This case gives no ground for saying that there are true believers on Christ today who have not received the Spirit at all. Christ is what is preached now, not the baptism of John.
- The question: Paul asks not how they were baptized but to what. The object of baptism is the great point, and baptism is the symbol of profession.
- The answer: "John's baptism" placed them at repentance and a Christ still to come, not at His death and resurrection.
- The gap: they were real believers, yet not even on Christian ground. John could not baptize to a death that had not yet happened.
- The gospel: Christian baptism supposes Christ dead and risen. They bowed to that at once and were baptized in His name.
- The gift: the Spirit came on them, and they passed off Jewish ground onto Christian ground. Christ, not John, is what is preached now.
And Paul said, John indeed baptised [with] the baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on him that was coming after him, that is, on Jesus.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
And when they heard that, they were baptised to the name of the Lord Jesus.
At Ephesus, Paul told a group of men that John the Baptist had pointed them forward to Jesus. They responded at once. The verse raises two questions. Why did men who were already baptized need baptizing again? And what does baptism "in the name of the Lord Jesus" commit a person to?
These men had believed, but their baptism showed how far short they stood. One writer draws the line:
This raised a further question: "Into what then were you baptized?" The answer was, "Into John's baptism." So they were not even standing on the ground of Christian profession. As the apostle concluded, John's was "a baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus." Christian baptism assumes that He is dead and risen, that the work of redemption is finished, and that eternal life and forgiveness of sins are proclaimed in His name. They were believers, and the Holy Spirit had worked in their souls so that the word of God had entered; but they fell wholly short even of the privileges that faith in the gospel enjoys at once.
Commentators describe them differently. Kelly counts them as believers who lacked Christian privilege. Another writer says they did not yet know the Lord Jesus.
The second baptism proves the two were not the same thing:
It pointed to the end of the old order and to a new position. It was not the familiar routine that traditionalists would make of it. Scripture is just as plain that it is quite distinct from Christian baptism. Disciples who had been baptized with John's baptism had to be baptized to Christ when they received the full truth of the gospel (Acts 19)... Confessing a coming Messiah is very different from confessing His death and resurrection.
John's baptism looked for a Messiah to be welcomed, not killed:
John's baptism was so far from being a symbol of Christ's death that, as far as people received it, Christ would not be put to death at all, but received by faith. So (Acts 19) those who had received it had to be baptized over again.
One writer reads the phrase as baptism "unto the name." He explains it by comparing how Israel was baptized to Moses:
There can be little question that to be baptized unto Moses means bringing the people into association with Moses, under his authority. In the same way, baptism unto the name of the Lord Jesus brought people onto the ground where His authority was supreme. It brought them into the company of those who owned that authority... Its meaning is the absolute authority of Christ as Lord, and the responsibility of those who are baptized to confess it.
That authority reaches everything. It is why Jews, who already carried God's name through circumcision, still had to own Jesus as Lord:
The whole administration of the ways of God is in His hands. All ministry and power is there; God has made all authority and rule subject to Him. So Jews, who were already connected with the name of Jehovah by circumcision, had to own Him whom God had made Lord and Christ. "In the name of Jesus Christ," or "the Lord Jesus," connects baptism, I think, with the power and authority of that name. "Unto the name" would mean confessing His name as Lord, and this must be confessed and owned to the glory of God the Father.
The verse opens with hearing. Paul's word came first, and the men answered it:
Not knowing the Lord Jesus, they were ignorant of the Pentecostal gift of the Holy Spirit. The men believed the word of Paul, and showed the sincerity of their confession in that they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Some read this passage as a pattern for believers now. Commentators resist that. What was missing here was John's message, not something missing in the gospel:
There is no ground in this case for saying that there are true believers on Christ today who have not received the Spirit at all; for it is Christ who is preached now, and not the baptism of John; that is, where the gospel is really preached.
- Heard — Paul preached Jesus as the One John pointed to. The men believed his word, and their baptism proved the hearing was real.
- Short — confessing a coming Messiah left them outside Christian ground. Christian baptism confesses a Christ already dead and risen, with forgiveness proclaimed in His name.
- Repeated — their second baptism settles it. John's baptism and Christian baptism are two different things, not one practice under two names.
- Unto — baptism unto the name puts a person under the supreme authority of Christ as Lord. That confession carries real responsibility.
- Today — the gap here was John's message, not the gospel. Where Christ is preached, no believer is left without the Spirit.
And Paul having laid [his] hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.