# Rebaptism and the Word “this” in Acts 19:5



## Ed Walsh (Sep 12, 2015)

Note: This post is rated "G" and is suitable for all baptismal persuasions. 

This question arose upon reading the Fisher Catechism questions below:
Westminster Shorter Catechism - QUESTION 94. What is baptism?
Fisher’s Catechism sub-questions 6 and 9. (Particularly question 9)

Q. 6. Was there any difference between the baptism of John, and the baptism dispensed by the apostles after Christ’s ascension?
A. There was no essential difference between them; for both of them had the same visible sign, and the same blessings signified by it. The difference was only circumstantial, in respect of time, and the objects of administration.

Q. 9. Did not Paul rebaptise some disciples at Ephesus who had been before baptised by John?
A. No; he only declares, that they who had heard John preach the doctrine of repentance and faith in Christ, were by John baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus, and so needed not to be rebaptised by any other.

Fisher claims, in the Answer above, that the 12± Ephesian disciples were NOT rebaptized as Acts 19:5 “seems” to state: (And I think Calvin agrees)

Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

In the KJV the word “_this_” is italicized. I think indicating that there is no Greek word in the original text, but that the word “_this_” was added by the translators.

A partial paraphrase of verse 4 through 6 agreeing with Fisher:

4 Paul said that John’s baptism was unto repentance and included faith in Christ Jesus.
5 When they heard that the disciples were already baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus,
6 Paul laid his hands on them and they were baptized by the Holy Spirit and gave evidence by speaking in tongues and prophesying.

Questions:
1. Do you think Fisher is right, and almost everybody else is wrong, that these Ephesian Christians were not rebaptized?

2. If they were rebaptized, do you think that ALL the people John baptized (including the Apostles) were also rebaptized?

Note: There is no evidence (that I could think of) that the Apostles or anyone else was ever rebaptized.

Unless I am mistaken Calvin agrees with Fisher:

On verse 4 Calvin says John’s baptism and ours are the same thing: 
“And even by this also are we taught that the baptism of John was a token of repentance and remission of sins and that our baptism at this day doth not differ any thing from it, save only that Christ is already revealed, and in his death and resurrection our salvation is made perfect:”

On verse 5 Calvin seems to say that they were rebaptized again but that they were very wrong. Later he seems to deny that they were rebaptized with water at all. (Sometimes I have trouble with Calvin’s wording)

“When they heard these things. Because the men of old had conceived an opinion that the baptism of John and of Christ were diverse, it was no inconvenient [absurd] thing for them to be baptized again, who were only prepared with the baptism of John. But that that diversity was falsely and wickedly by them believed, it appeareth by this, in that it was a pledge and token of the same adoption, and of the same newness of life, which we have at this day in our baptism; and, therefore, we do not read that Christ did baptize those again who came from John unto him. Moreover, Christ received baptism in his own flesh, that he might couple himself with us by that visible sign, (Matthew 3:15) but if that reigned diversity be admitted, this singular benefit shall fall away and perish, that baptism is common to the Son of God and to us, or that we have all one baptism with him. But this opinion needeth no long refutation, because to the end they may persuade that these two baptisms be diverse, they must needs show first wherein the one differeth from the other; but a most excellent likelihood answereth on both parts, and also the agreement and conformity of the parts, [357] which causeth us to confess that it is all one baptism.”
[357] Atqui utrumque respondet optima similitudo et partiurn omnium symmetria et conformitas.

Calvin continues and seems to deny that baptism with water was repeated (see bold text):

“Other some deny that baptism was repeated; because they were baptized amiss by some foolish enemy [rival] of John. But because their conjecture hath no color; yea, the words of Paul do rather import that they were the true and natural disciples of John, and Luke doth honorably call them disciples of Christ; I do not subscribe to this opinion, *and yet deny that the baptism of water was repeated, because the words of Luke import no other thing, save only that they were baptized with the Spirit.* First, it is no new thing for the name of baptism to be translated unto the gifts of the Spirit, as we saw in the first and in the eleventh chapters, (Acts 1:5, and Acts 11:6) where Luke said, that when Christ promised to his apostles to send the Spirit visible, he called it baptism.”


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 12, 2015)

In the first section of Calvin, he is criticizing as pernicious the view, even held by honorable ancient church-fathers, that the baptisms of John and Christ were "diverse" or different. Calvin denies that these JB-disciples were rebaptized.

I believe both baptisms (John's and Christian) are the same in essence. I agree with the _significance_ of Calvin's and Fisher's argument, and the reasons for it; which have for ages been standard Reformed interpretation, even if not so widely subscribed today. If all the postulates are true, then the reasoning is sound, and these few in Ephesus were not baptized over again. The Baptist view is largely unaffected by the question; since for them all Christian baptism follows profession of faith in Christ. I don't know how they might reason concerning the Apostles' own baptisms; but they had been with Christ uninterruptedly since the baptism of John.

I myself have a quirky view respecting those postulates. But I get to the same place: which affirms the unity of John's and Christian baptism, a baptism that unites Christ and his people, Old and New Testament. What Calvin insists upon at base, respecting the importance of the singularity of the sign of baptism, must in any case be affirmed and established.

In one sense, it matters little if those whom John baptized were or were not baptized again on Pentecost Day, or subsequently as the gospel was proclaimed throughout the Jewish territories; which places had been so strongly impacted by his ministry. Peter doesn't proclaim that those who were baptized by John should form a line over here, and those not baptized by John form a line over there. The call to repent and be baptized seems equally urgent and indiscriminate to any and all present. I have a hard time imagining folks there responding, "...but I've already been baptized by John a few years back. I'm fine."

But it could be the case that after Pentecost, a more definite criteria was recognized, and later baptisms were understood as being required especially for those untouched by the previous rite. In which case, if the Spirit fell on the Ephesians who had John's baptism alone, no other conclusion can be made other than the baptisms (John's and Christian) were one and the same, since the Spirit agreed with the sign given under John's name.

I happen to think Paul had these Ephesians baptized with water in the Triune Name, ala Mt.28:19. So, I agree with Calvin regarding the theology of baptism; but diverge respecting the propriety of water in Act.19:5.


----------

