When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Parallel Translations
-
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
-
When they hearde that they were baptised in the name of the lorde Iesu.
-
And when they heard it, they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Iesus.
Examined in Scripture Analysis
Contradictions (1)
Questions where the Bible appears to say two different things, with the passages on each side set together.
Cross-references (7)
Passages linked to Acts 19:5 in the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, ordered by reader-vote popularity; verse text shown in World English Bible.
- Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching good news concerning God’s Kingdom and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
- Acts 8:16 for as yet he had fallen on none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of Christ Jesus.
- Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
- Romans 6:3-4 Or don’t you know that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life.
- 1 Corinthians 10:2 and were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
- Acts 10:48 He commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay some days.
- 1 Corinthians 1:13-15 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized into the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you, except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one should say that I had baptized you into my own name.
Cross-references from openbible.info (CC BY 4.0)
Explain this verse (17 sources)
Historical commentary, presented as a primary source — not an endorsement.
Private notes
Saved on this device only — never synced or sent anywhere.
John Calvin 1540 · Public Domain 5. When they heard these things. Because the men…
5. 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 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, which causeth us to confess that it is all one baptism.
Now the question is, whether it were lawful to repeat the same; and furious men in this our age; trusting to this testimony, went about to bring in baptizing again. Some take baptism for new institution or instruction, of whose mind I am not, because, as their exposition is too much racked, so it smelleth of a starting-hole .
Read full note →
Other some deny that baptism was repeated; because they were baptized amiss by some foolish enemy 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.
Also, that when the Spirit came down upon Cornelius, Peter remembered the words of the Lord, “Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.” Again, we see that those visible gifts are spoken of by name in this place, and that the same are given with baptism. And whereas it followeth immediately, that when he had laid his hands upon them, the Spirit came, I take it to be added by way of interpretation; for it is a kind of speaking much used in the Scripture, first to set down a thing briefly, and afterwards to make it more plain. Therefore, that which by reason of brevity was somewhat obscure, doth Luke better express and lay more open, saying, that by laying on of hands the Spirit was given them. If any man object, that when baptism is put for the gifts of the Spirit, it is not taken simply, but having somewhat added to it. I answer, that Luke’s meaning doth sufficiently appear by the text; and again, that Luke doth allude unto the baptism whereof he spake. And surely if you understand it of the external sign, it shall be an absurd thing that it was given them without using any better doctrine. But and if you take it metaphorically for institution, the speech shall be as yet harsh; and the narration should not agree, that after they were taught the Holy Ghost came down upon them.
Furthermore, as I confess that this laying on of hands was a sacrament, so I say that those fell through ignorance who did continually imitate the same. For seeing that all men agree in this, that it was a grace which was to last only for a time, which was showed by that sign, it is a perverse and ridiculous thing to retain the sign since the truth is taken away. There is another respect of baptism and the supper, wherein the Lord doth testify that those gifts are laid open for us, which the Church shall enjoy even until the end of the world. Wherefore we must diligently and wisely distinguish perpetual sacraments from those which last only for a time, lest vain and frivolous visures [semblances] have a place among the sacraments. Whereas the men of old time did use laying on of hands, that they might confirm the profession of faith in those who were grown up, I do not mislike it; so that no man think that the grace of the Spirit is annexed to such a ceremony, as doth Jerome against the Luciferians.
But the Papists are worthy of no pardon, who being not content with the ancient rite, durst thrust in rotten and filthy anointing, that it might be not only a confirmation of baptism, but also a more worthy sacrament, whereby they imagine that the faithful are made perfect who were before only half perfect, — whereby those are armed against the battle, who before had their sins only forgiven them. For they have not been afraid to spew out these horrible blasphemies.
John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in…
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Ver. 5. They were baptized] That is, say some, they were re-baptized, because baptized before in a wrong name. Therefore Paul first catechiseth them, Act 19:4. Others say that it was rather their renewing to their baptism than their baptism to them; and not that they took any other than that of John, but that they now began to entertain and apply it to the right intent. (Mr Lightfoot, Harm.)
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain The disciples, or those that John preached to, (for…
The disciples, or those that John preached to, (for these Ephesians were not amongst those few that Paul baptized, 1Co 1:14), who when they heard what the Baptist said in the foregoing verse, they were baptized; as in the same terms it is said, Act 2:37,
when they heard what St. Peter had said, they were pricked in their heart, & c., and were baptized. As for Paul’s imposing his hands upon them that are said here to be baptized, it might very well be, that the twelve disciples, Act 19:7, might have been baptized by John, and now receive the Holy Ghost in those extraordinary gifts by the laying on of the hands of St. Paul: for to what end should these disciples, who were baptized with St. John’s baptism, be again baptized by Paul? It is true, they had further manifestations of the mystery of the gospel brought unto them; but if men should be baptized for every degree of knowledge or grace which they do acquire, how many baptisms had they need to have, who ought daily to grow in grace and in knowledge! It is evident, that the apostles themselves were only baptized with the baptism of John, for there were none else to baptize them. And baptism being an ordinance for our regeneration and new birth, as we can be born but once in the flesh, we can be but once also born in the Spirit; and no more may Christians be baptized twice, than the Jews could be twice circumcised.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain When they heard this,.... That is, the people to…
When they heard this,.... That is, the people to whom John preached, his hearers; when they heard of the Messiah, and that Jesus was he, and that it became them to believe in him:
they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus; not the disciples that Paul found at Ephesus, but the hearers of John; for these are the words of the Apostle Paul, giving an account of John's baptism, and of the success of his ministry, showing, that his baptism was administered in the name of the Lord Jesus; and not the words of Luke the Evangelist, recording what followed upon his account of John's baptism; for then he would have made mention of the apostle's name, as he does in the next verse; and have said, when they heard this account, they were baptized by Paul in the name of the Lord Jesus: the historian reports two things, first what Paul said, which lies in Act 19:4 then what he did, Act 19:6 where he repeats his name, as was necessary; as that he laid his hands upon them, which was all that was needful to their receiving the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, having been already baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus: which sense is the more confirmed by the particles and which answer to one another in verses 4 and 5, and show the words to be a continuation of the apostle's speech, and not the words of the historian, which begin in the next verse. Beza's ancient copy adds, "for the remission of sins".
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain And hearing this, they were baptized - By some…
And hearing this, they were baptized - By some other. Paul only laid his hands upon them. They were baptized - They were baptized twice; but not with the same baptism. John did not administer that baptism which Christ afterward commanded, that is, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain Verse 5. When they heard this, c.] As there…
Verse 5. When they heard this, c.] As there is no evidence in the New Testament of persons being rebaptized, unless this be one, many criticisms have been hazarded to prove that these persons were not rebaptized. I see no need of this. To be a Christian, a man must be baptized in the Christian faith: these persons had not been baptized into that faith, and therefore were not Christians: they felt this, and were immediately baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. This is a plain case but let one instance be produced of a person being rebaptized, who had before been baptized in the name of the holy Trinity, or even in the name of Jesus alone. In my view, it is an awful thing to iterate baptism when it had been before essentially performed: by "essentially performed," I mean, administered by sprinkling, washing, or plunging, by or in water, in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit, being invoked at the time. Whoever has had this has the essence of baptism, as far as that can be conferred by man; and it matters not at what period of his life he has had it; it is a substantial baptism, and by it the person has been fully consecrated to the holy and blessed Trinity; and there should not be an iteration of this consecration on any account whatever. It is totally contrary to the canon law; it is contrary to the decisions of the best divines; it is contrary to the practice of the purest ages of the Church of God; it is contrary to the New Testament, and tends to bring this sacred ordinance into disrepute.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain When they heard this - When they heard what…
When they heard this - When they heard what Paul had said respecting the nature of John’s baptism.
They were baptized ... - As there is no other instance in the New Testament of any persons having been rebaptized, it has been made a question by some critics whether it was done here; and they have supposed that all this is the narrative of Luke respecting what took place under the ministry of John: to wit, that he told them to believe on Christ Jesus, and then baptized them in his name. But this is a most forced construction; and it is evident that these persons were rebaptized by the direction of Paul. For:
Read full note →
(1) This is the obvious interpretation of the passage - what would strike all persons as correct, unless there were some previous theory to support.
(2) It was not a matter of fact that John baptized in the name of Christ Jesus. His was the baptism of repentance; and there is not the slightest evidence that he ever used the name of Jesus in the form of baptism.
(3) If it be the sense of the passage that John baptized them in the name of Jesus, then this verse is a mere repetition of Acts . Act 19:4; a tautology of which the sacred writers would not be guilty.
(4) It is evident that the persons on whom Paul laid his hands Acts . Act 19:6, and those who were baptized, were the same. But these were the persons who heard Acts . Act 19:5 what was said. The narrative is continuous, all parts of it cohering together as relating to a transaction that occurred at the same time. If the obvious interpretation of the passage be the true one, it follows that the baptism of John was not strictly Christian baptism. It was the baptism of repentance; a baptism designed to prepare the way for the introduction of the kingdom of the Messiah. It will not follow, however, from this that Christian baptism is now ever to be repeated. For this there is no warrant in the New Testament. There is no command to repeat it, as in the case of the Lord’s Supper; and the nature and design of the ordinance evidently supposes that it is to be performed but once. The disciples of John were rebaptized, not because baptism is designed to be repeated, but because they never had been, in fact, baptized in the manner prescribed by the Lord Jesus.
In the name of the Lord Jesus - See the notes on Act 2:38.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain Baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, so…
Baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, so called to distinguish it from the baptism of John; and that of Christ was given in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, according to the command of Christ himself. [Matthew xxviii. 19.] (Witham)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain When they heard this--not the mere words reported in…
When they heard this--not the mere words reported in Act 19:4, but the subject expounded according to the tenor of those words.
they were baptized--not however by Paul himself (Co1 1:14).
Read full note →
in the name of the Lord Jesus--into the whole fulness of the new economy, as now opened up to their believing minds.
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain 5. Were baptized—We have here an unquestionable proof of…
5. Were baptized—We have here an unquestionable proof of a rebaptism; namely, of a once baptized disciple of John now baptized into the faith of Jesus.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain 5. And when they heard this] The A. V.…
5. And when they heard this] The A. V. omits the conjunction which stands in the Textus Receptus. What they heard was not the mere statement that Jesus was the Messiah; but all the arguments with which St Paul demonstrated that this was so, and proved that in Him the Scriptures were fulfilled. The conviction need not have been sudden, though its description is brief.
they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus] They followed the order appointed for admission to the privileges of the Christian covenant. No argument can be drawn from this verse for a repetition of baptism. These disciples had never received such a baptism as Christ ordained. John’s baptism was but a washing symbolical of the repentance which he preached; baptism into the name of Christ is the pledge of a covenant of salvation.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain (5) They were baptized in the name of the…
(5) They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.—On the use of this formula in connection with the baptism of Jewish converts, see Notes on Act_2:38; Mat_28:19.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain And when for when, A.V.; into for in, A.V.…
And when for when, A.V.; into for in, A.V. Into the Name of the Lord Jesus. (see Act_8:16) So too (mati) Act_10:48 of Cornelius and his company, "He commanded them to be baptized in the Name (ejn tw ojno) of Jesus Christ" (R.V.). The formula of baptism, as commanded by the Lord Jesus himself, was, "In or, "into" the Name (aijv to unoma) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost". (Mat_28:20) But the candidate always first made a profession of his faith in Jesus Christ, as in the A.V. of Act_8:37; and the effect of baptism was an incorporation into Christ so as to partake of his death unto sin and his life unto righteousness. It was, therefore, a true and compendious description of baptism, to speak of it as a baptism in (or into) the Name of Jesus Christ. (See the Baptismal Service in the Book of Common Prayer.) There does not seem to be any difference of meaning between ejn tw ojnomati and eijv to onoma.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
B. W. Johnson 1891 · Public Domain 5. When they heard this. Paul's explanation of the…
5. When they heard this. Paul's explanation of the difference between Christ's and John's baptism, to which we have only an allusion. The example of these men shows that if a baptism is imperfect, from an ignorance of Christ's will, it is not wrong to correct the defect by a more perfect obedience.
B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.
William B. Godbey 1900 · Public Domain 5. “And hearing, they were baptized in the name…
5. “And hearing, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” Here you see baptism repeated in the case of these Ephesian converts. Water baptism is a Jewish institution, constant and exceedingly prevalent since the days of Moses, symbolizing the work of the Spirit, as the bloody sacrifices the work of Christ. A Jew had to be baptized with water every time he contracted ceremonial defilement before he was allowed to enter the tabernacle and enjoy its service. Doubtless many a Jew was baptized a thousand times in his life, these expurgatory catharisms being frequent as the bloody sacrifices. These Ephesian converts, Apollos and Paul were all Jews, accustomed from time immemorial to baptize freely and repeatedly pursuant to the Levitical ritual. Apollos had initiated them into the Johanic dispensation by water baptism, thinking it was still in vogue. Paul is preaching in the dispensation of the Holy Ghost, who is given by the ascended and glorified Messiah, whom it is pertinent that all publicly confess by baptism in His name.
William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. W. McGarvey 1914 · Public Domain See notes on verse 1
See notes on verse 1
J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 Connecting Statement:
Connecting Statement:
Paul continues staying in Ephesus.
Read full note →
When the people
Here "people" refers to the disciples in Ephesus who were talking with Paul. (See: Acts 19:1)
they were baptized
This can be stated in active form. AT: "they received baptism" (See: Active or Passive)
in the name of the Lord Jesus
Here "name" refers to Jesus' power and authority. AT: "as believers in the Lord Jesus" (See: Metonymy)
laid his hands on them
"placed his hands on them." He probably placed his hands on their shoulders or heads. AT: "placed his hands on their heads as he prayed"
they spoke in other languages and prophesied
Unlike in Acts 2:3-4, there are no details of who understood their messages.
In all they were about twelve men
This tells how many men were baptized. (See: Background Information)
twelve men
"12 men" (See: Numbers)
translationWords
baptize
name
lord
Jesus
Paul
Holy Spirit
prophet
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.