Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and the Disciples of John the Baptist? An

Examination of Acts 19.1-7 as a Polemic Against the Remnant of the

Baptist’s Disciples

________________

A PAPER

PRESENTED AT

PACIFIC NORTHWEST REGIONAL MEETING

OF THE SOCIETY OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY

PORTLAND, OR

_________________

BY

BRIAN LEPORT

MAY 11, 2012

Introduction

In the following paper I will argue that Acts 19.1-7 functions as a polemic against

the remnant of the disciples of John the Baptist.1 It is apparent that there were some

caught betwixt those who remained loyalist to the memory of John and those who

respected John but demanded full allegiance be given to Jesus. It is possible that the

controversy centered upon whether or not those baptized by John should be rebaptized

into the name of Jesus as well. For some the baptism of John was sufficient as long as

these disciples confessed Jesus as the Christ. For others this was unacceptable. If one

believed that Jesus was the Christ then they should be baptized in Jesus’ name. Luke is on

the side of those that expect full integration as signified by baptism in Jesus’ name. Luke

presents the Pauline churches as standing in the apostolic tradition of the Jerusalem

church—the church that first received the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost. Those who do

not follow the Pauline method of conversion not only stand outside the mainstream

church, but they ignore the words of John himself concerning the coming Spirit.

I will aim to support this proposal as follows: First, I will examine the four group

conversion narratives of 2.1-4; 8.14-25; 10.34-48; and 19.1-7 highlighting similarities

and differences between them. Second, I will give close attention to 19.1-7 and its

immediate surrounding context. Also, I will compare the depiction of John in 19.1-7 with

the other times he is mentioned in Acts. Third, I will compare briefly the content of 19.1-

1 It should be emphasized that I am not suggesting that Luke wrote the Book of Acts in hopes that those who considered themselves to be loyal disciples of the Baptist would read it. I agree with C. Kavin Rowe’s insight that, “The readers of Acts were not pagan ‘seekers’ or ‘cultured despisers’ of the gospel but Christians for whom such a story told the life of their communities.” World Turned Upside Down: Reading Acts in the Graeco-Romans Age (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 10. I should add that the readers were not Jews who had not confessed Jesus to be the Christ. If the readers of Acts were Christians as I suspect then 19.1-7 may have the function of edifying those who have already determined that Jesus was superior to John but who had not yet been baptized in Jesus’ name as a means of public confession. It is possible that Luke knew there would be some of those who had divided loyalties between John and Jesus, like Apollos and these disciples, but he didn’t considered them complete outsiders.

7 with passages in the Gospels that contain a similar juxtaposition between John and

Jesus based on the their relationship to the Holy Spirit. This should help us better

understand Luke’s argument. Finally, I will converge these points to present my reason

for reading 19.1-7 as I do.

The Group Conversion Narratives

In the Book of Acts there are four conversion narratives wherein distinct groups

of people appear to be (1) inaugurated/integrated into the church and (2) encounter the

Holy Spirit for the first time. In Acts 2.1-4 we find Jews in Jerusalem on the Day of

Pentecost receiving the Holy Spirit in dramatic fashion as Jesus had prophesied according

to 1.8. In 8.14-25 we find Samaritans who have responded to the preaching of Philip but

who do not received the Spirit (v. 16) until the apostles Peter and John arrived (v. 17).

Unlike 2.1-4 there is no description of supernatural events such as rushing wind, flames

of fire, and speaking in tongues, yet a magician named Simon does seeks to purchase

from the apostles the ability to give the Spirit to people as they had done (v. 19). It seems

the author intends for his readers to understand that something visible and extraordinary

accompanied the arrival of the Spirit. In 10.34-48 the apostle Peter is preaching at the

household of a centurion named Cornelius when the Holy Spirit arrives accompanied by

the people speaking in tongues as verification. Finally, we have some “disciples” in 19.1-

7 who are aware of the baptism of John, but who do not know about the Holy Spirit. This

time it is the apostle Paul who is present. He baptizes them “in the name of the Lord

Jesus Christ” and then the Spirit arrives accompanied by speaking in tongues and

prophecy.

Chart 1: Acts Group Conversion Narratives Juxtaposed

2.1-4 8.14-25 10.34-48 19.1-7Geo-Ethnic Motif?

Yes, Jews from Judea and afar.

Yes, Samaritans converted.

Yes, Gentiles in the household of Cornelius.

No.

Apostolic Witness?

Apostles present.

Peter and John.

Peter. Paul.

Arrival of the Spirit?

Yes, including a rushing wind, flames of fire, and speaking in tongues

Implicitly so, since Simon sees powerful effects and seeks to purchase the power of the apostles.

Yes, speaking in tongues and “glorifying God.”

Yes, speaking in tongues and prophecy.

Integration into the Church?

Birth of church (arguably)

Samaritans integrated.

Gentiles integrated.

“Disciples” who had been baptized by John submit to baptism in Jesus’ name.

Of the four conversion narratives mentioned there is one that is not like the others.

In 2.1-4, 8.14-25, and 10.34-48 we have groups that seems to represent the unfolding of

Jesus’ words in 1.8 that the disciples would “receive power” when the Holy Spirit came

upon them so that they could become witnesses unto Jesus “in Jerusalem and in all of

Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” The statement that they would “be my

witnesses” (ἔσεσθέ μου μάρτυρες) obviously has something to do with proclamation,

but it might have something to do with being witnesses of what Christ is doing in the

Spirit as well. This would seem to make some sense of the need for the apostle Peter to be

present at all of the first three group conversion narratives which include Jews,

Samaritans, and Gentiles with the household of Cornelius being the first representative

group of those included in “the end of the earth.”2 In 10.44-48 it is necessary for Peter to

be present so that he knows that the Gentiles have equal standing with the Jews. At least

this is how the author depicts Peter as explaining why he supported full inclusion of the

Gentiles into the church both in 11.11-17 and in front of the council in Jerusalem in 15.8-

9. It is there that Peter claims that God chose him to preach to the Gentiles. Peter’s

account seems to settle the debate regarding Gentile inclusion on the basis of Peter

witnessing in regards to what he saw.

It is a reasonable suggestion that these three narratives are held together by (1)

their fulfillment of 1.8, (2) their description of the charismatic arrival of the Holy Spirit;

(3) their apparent claim that these groups were being inaugurated into the church; and (4)

the apostolic witness of Peter. When we arrive at 19.1-7 the element of group conversion

remains, as does the charismatic arrival of the Spirit, but the author seems to have

departed from the geo-ethnic inauguration motif and he has no need for Peter to be

present as a witness (though Paul seems to function in a similar role).3 What is the

purpose of this pericope? Why the similarities and dissimilarities?

2 These group conversion narratives seem to represent the inauguration of Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles into the church. Of course, it could be pointed out that prior to the conversion of the household of Cornelius in 10.34-48 we find Philip converting a eunuch from Ethiopia in 8.26-40. This would seem to be the first Gentile mentioned, but it is important to note that much like the Samaritans in 8.4-13 this conversion lacks (1) a representative group dynamic; (2) charismatic signs that confirm the arrival of the Spirit; and (3) apostolic witness as embodied by Peter.3 Luke Timothy Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles, Sacra Pagina (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1992), 338, states, “As in the Samaritan mission, the bestowal of the Spirit accompanies the laying on of hands rather than the baptism itself (8:17). As in that story as well, the fact that it is the apostle Paul who is the medium for this bestowal has legitimating function: there erstwhile Johnannine disciples are brought with the apostolic community and authority.”

At this juncture we should note similarities of importance. As with the groupings

of Samaritans and Gentiles so 19.1-7 alludes to those who may have had a complicated

relationship with what the author perceives to be the “orthodox” mainstream church. The

disciples in 19.1-7 may not be defined by their geo-ethnic identity, but they are outsiders

at worst or fringe members at best. This passage shares two other things with 8.14-25 and

10.34-48: (1) full integration by means of apostolic authority and (2) subsequent Spirit

empowerment. Paul’s Christianity is aligned with that of Peter in that Paul has the same

authority to pray for people to receive the Spirit as displayed by Peter when he went to

the Samaritans and household of Cornelius. The Spirit’s arrival is made evident by signs

such as speaking in tongues.

The Disciples in 19.1-7

In 19.1-7 we are introduced to “some disciples (τινας μαθητάς).” In Luke-Acts

various uses of μαθητής are usually in reference to the disciples of Jesus (see Chart 2

below). There is some debate over the identity of these disciples. Should we consider

them Christians who reside at the fringe of the movement or a remnant of John’s

disciples?

Chart 2: Disciples in Luke-Acts

Disciples of Christ in Luke: Other Disciples in Luke:5.30; 6.1, 13, 17, 20; 7.11; 8.9, 22; 9.14, 16, 18, 40, 43, 54; 10.23; 11.1 (the first use); 12.1, 22, 26, 27, 33; 16.1; 17.1, 22; 18.15; 19.29, 37, 39; 20.35; 22.11, 39, 45.

5.33 (of John); 6.40 (parabolic reference); 7.18 (of John); 11.1 (of John).

Disciples of Christ in Acts: Other Disciples in Acts:6.1, 2, 7; 9.1, 10, 19; 9.26, 38; 11.26, 29; 13.52, 14.20, 22; 14.28; 15.10; 16.1; 18.23, 27; 19.1 (possibly), 30; 20.1, 30; 21.4, 16.

9.25 (of Paul); 19.1 (of John, possibly).

In 18.24-28 we are introduced to Apollos.4 Apollos is described as having been

“instructed in the way of Lord” (κατηχημένος τὴν ὁδὸν τοῦ κυρίου, v. 25) and he is

proclaiming Jesus. He appears to be a follower of Jesus who doesn’t know all that he

ought about Jesus.5 He submitted to the baptism of John, but Luke depicts this as

insufficient. Luke says that Pricilla and Aquila provided Apollos with further instruction

(v. 26). After he receives this instruction he is given support to go to Achaia, where he is

depicted as “demonstrating by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ (ἐπιδεικνὺς διὰ

τῶν γραφῶν εἶναι τὸν χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν, v. 28).” We do not know what Apollos was

teaching before he met Pricilla and Aquila, but that his association with John is

mentioned and that he is said to proclaim Jesus as the Christ afterward provides

opportunity for intriguing speculation.

In 19.2-3 it is stated that these disciples have submitted to John’s baptism (like

Apollos), but not Jesus’, and they have not received the Spirit. Are they disciples of Jesus

who are partially informed as might be the case with Apollos in 18.24-28 or are they

4 It would seem that this is the same figure named by Paul himself in 1 Corinthians 1.12; 3.4, 5, 6, 22; 4.6 and 16.12. I presume the Apollos named in Titus 3.13 is the same person as well. If so, then 18.24-28 might precede 19.1-7 thematically not because Apollos and these disciples are connected with John only, but also because Apollos seems to have presented an alternative Christianity to what was familiar in the Pauline churches. Paul himself works diligently in 1 Corinthians to argue that he is one is mission with Apollos. Luke may have a similar agenda of unifying those who associated with Apollos to the Pauline churches. This would be a fitting transition into 19.1-7 where Luke seems to be doing something similar as regards those who show some allegiance to Christ, but who retain some sort of commitment to John as well—a dual allegiance found to be unfitting. 5 Most exegetes of this passage seem to depict Apollos as some sort of Christian. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 637, calls him a “Johannine Christian” who needed to be integrated into the “mainstream Christian fold.” James D.G. Dunn, The Acts of the Apostles (Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1996), 248, provides a similar perspective saying that Apollos represents “groups on the fringe of the new Christian movement.” Hans Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), 254, proposes a tiered discipleship of sorts suggesting that “Apollos knew the material of the ‘gospel’ (as far as Luke 24), but not the events from Acts 2 and one.” In other words, Apollos did not know of the Spirit like the disciples in 19.1-7. This is not a perspective Dunn shares. He argued that Apollos “already had the Spirit.” (254)

disciples of John? It may be unwise to present them in such black-and-white terms. It

could be that they are fringe members of the Jesus movement who need to be fully

integrated.6 Joseph A. Fitzmyer states that, “The Lukan intention is clear: to depict the

incorporation of such fringe Christians into the mainstream church, which is under the

guidance of the Holy Spirit.”7 Many seem to agree that these disciples are Christians who

lack full integration into the church.

When the disciples meet the apostle Paul he asks them, “Did you receive the Holy

Spirit when you believed (Εἰ πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἐλάβετε πιστεύσαντες, 19.2)?” It should be

assumed that receiving the Spirit in this text is equated to something tangible, especially

since the author wants to portray this interaction as being like other group conversion

narratives where people receive the Spirit. The disciples in Jerusalem had believed but

they did not have the Spirit until Pentecost. The Samaritan converts believed but they did

not have the Spirit until Peter and John laid hands on them. The household of Cornelius

seems to have included those with some understanding of Jesus, but they were not

complete until they received the Spirit. Now these “Johannine Christians” believe, but

they are incomplete.

That they “believe” in Christ seems likely. According to Darrell L. Bock the use

of πιστεύσαντες indicates they believed in Christ.8 Mikeal C. Parsons affirms this point

6 F.F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990), 406, writes, “On the analogy of Luke’s use elsewhere of μαθητάς without qualifications, these ‘disciples’ were presumably disciples of Jesus; had they been disciples of John, one would have expected this to be made explicit. (cf. Lk. 5:33; 7:18; 11.1).” As we noted above most references to μαθητάς in Luke-Acts are to disciples of Jesus, unless indicated otherwise. Others are not as sure, such as Fitzmyer, 641-642, who writes, “These expressions must be understood as Luke’s way of recording how there were indeed, even after the death and exaltation of Jesus, disciples of John the Baptist.” 7 Fitzmyer, 642.8 Darrell L. Bock, Acts, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 599.

noting that when this word appears in the absolute state in Acts it “…always refers to

Christian believers.”9 It appears that discipleship and belief are almost always associated

with following Jesus in Luke-Acts. This combination should lead us to conclude that

these “disciples” are those of Jesus. Luke is unwilling to deny the authenticity of their

belief showing a form of ecumenism. Likewise, he is unwilling to acknowledge that they

have followed their belief to its logical conclusion, so he places these disciples on the

fringe denying them apostolic legitimization.

Chart 3: Belief (forms of πιστεύω) in Acts

In God, Christ, or the Gospel Other2.44; 4.4; 4.32; 5.14; 8.12*, 13; 9.42; 10.43; 11.17, 21; 13.12, 39, 41 (quoting Hab 1.5), 48; 14.1, 23; 15.5 (from the sect of the Pharisees), 7, 11; 16.31, 34; 17.12, 34; 18.8, 27; 19.2*, 4, 18; 21.20, 25; 22.19; 27.25.

8.12 (technically belief in Philip’s preaching); 9.26 (disciples didn’t believe Paul was a disciple); 19.2 (possible reference to the message of John the Baptist); 24.14 (belief in the Law and Prophets); 26.27 (the prophets).

The question regarding the Spirit is followed by an odd response: “We have not

heard that there is a Holy Spirit (Ἀλλʼ οὐδʼ εἰ πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἔστιν ἠκούσαμεν, v. 2).” Is it

possible that they had never heard of the Spirit if they had followed John, if they had read

the Hebrew Scriptures, and if they have come to believe in Jesus? Fitzmyer proposes that

it is possible stating that, “The Ephesian disciples are Gentiles in background, who are

unaware of what Jerusalem Jewish Christians have experienced or known.” A few

paragraphs prior he writes, “The Ephesian ‘disciples’ not only have not heard about the

outpouring of the Spirit, but even that there was such a thing as the Spirit.”10 Fitzmyer

seeks to take the text at “face value.” It says that these disciples had never heard of the

Holy Spirit, so they must have not heard about the Holy Spirit at all. F.F. Bruce seemed

9 Mikeal C. Parsons, Acts, Paideia (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 264, lists 8.12-13; 15.5; 18.27; 19.18; 21.20, 25 as examples.10 Fitzmyer, 643.

doubtful that they would have never heard of the expression “holy spirit” so he

interpreted this to mean, “…that they had not heard that the Holy Spirit was now

present…”11 John B. Polhill puts it another way writing, “What they would not be aware

of, if they had not heard of Jesus’ death and resurrection and of the event at Pentecost,

was that this proclamation of John had been fulfilled in Christ…They were unaware of

Pentecost.”12

It seems that Bruce, Polhill, and others provide an interpretation that makes better

sense of Paul’s statement in v. 4 that John pointed to the one to come. As Luke narrates

this meeting it is this statement that leads to the disciples submitting to baptism in the

name of Jesus. It is possible that they were unfamiliar with John’s message regarding the

coming one, but the story depicts them as hearing an idea that they found familiar.13 It

was enough to cause them to trust the message of Paul. It would be odd for Luke to

present us with disciples who were baptized by John, expecting a coming one as John

foretold, believing on Jesus, yet who had never heard of the Holy Spirit at all.

Paul responds to their answer regarding the Spirit by inquiring into their baptism.

They answer that they were baptized, “Into the baptism of John (Εἰς τὸ Ἰωάννου

βάπτισμα, v. 3).” In Acts the baptism of John is a baptism of water (1.5; 11.15-16). This

is juxtaposed with the baptism of Spirit. Paul presents John’s baptism as subpar calling it

11 Bruce, 406.12 John B. Polhill, Acts, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), 399.13 John is remembered as proclaiming the coming one, not himself. Joan E. Taylor, The Immerser: John the Baptist within Second Temple Judaism (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997), 143-144, observes, “It is clear that John predicted that a figure would come after hom who was by far his superior...this prediction is found in both the Marcan and Q traditions (Mark 1:7-8; Matt. 3:11-12; Luke 3:16-17) and also in Acts (1:5; 11:16; 13:23-25; 19:4) and John 1:26-27, 33.” That some people still identified with John does seem to cause some confusion though. If John was clear that he was not proclaiming himself but another why do the Evangelists seem so apologetic on this matter?

a “baptism of repentance (βάπτισμα μετανοίας, v. 4).” This seems to be his way of

saying that while John’s baptism turned people away from their sins it didn’t bring them

to the place that John foresaw when he spoke of the coming Christ. He informs these

disciples that John desired for people to believe in the coming one, Jesus. This results in

the disciples submitting to baptism in the name of Jesus before receiving the Spirit, which

is accompanied with tongues and prophecy like the household of Cornelius (vv. 5-6).

On two occasions between 18.24 and 19.7 the baptism of John is mentioned as

inferior to that of Jesus. We are asking in this paper why the author includes these stories.

We assume he is writing to Christians (or a Christian named Theophilus), so it is not an

attempt at proselytization, at least not directly.14 What we have learned regarding the

identity of these disciples as disciples and there description as being people who have

believed may be helpful. If these disciples are identified with Jesus, and they believe in

Jesus, then they seem to represent people who are on the fringe, but not complete

outsiders. It is possible that readers of Acts included Christians who had not committed to

Christian baptism. It may be that there were some who were part of the church who felt

that some sort of verbal commitment to Christ in combination with the baptism of John

was enough to make them members of the community. C.K. Barrett put it this way:

“You could not treat the disciples of that John who had baptized Jesus (and probably some of his first followers too) as if they were the enemy; yet they were not in any full sense Christians. If they decided to become Christians, what was to be done with them….Some would say: These men have received all the baptism that Jesus himself had; if they now accept him as Lord what else is needed? Others would say: The distinctive thing in Christianity is that one is admitted to it by a baptism in the name of Jesus that conveys the gifts of the Spirit; this is the only way into the church, and disciples of John must receive it as anyone else would.”15

14 See fn. 1.15 C.K. Barrett, “Apollos and the Twelve Disciples of Ephesis.” The New Testament Age. Ed. W.C. Weinrich (Mercer: Mercer University Press, 1984), 1:37.

Luke takes his stand on the side of those advocating baptism in Jesus’ name

followed by the verifying work of the Spirit. While the baptism of John was significant

for its time it had become outdated. If someone wanted to defend the legitimacy of John’s

baptism then they had to show that John’s baptism was powerful enough to welcome the

Spirit. As 19.1-7 argues implicitly John’s baptism is insufficient. When one submits to

Jesus through baptism one pledges allegiance to the one who gives the Spirit—Jesus—

and this is why these disciples received the Spirit as they did. Their pre-baptism state was

good, and Luke did not doubt the authenticity of their belief or even their identity as

disciples, but if one wanted to receive the empowerment of the Spirit a closer allegiance

to Jesus was essential.

John the Baptist in the Book of Acts

In the Acts 1.5 we find Jesus taking possession of words otherwise attributed to

John saying that John was the one who baptized with water, “…but you will be baptized

with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” Of course, the Day of Pentecost is

mentioned soon thereafter. The Spirit arrives as Jesus had said. The author obviously

intends for readers to connect Jesus’ words to the arrival of the Spirit identifying Jesus as

the Spirit-Giver.16

In 11.15-17 as Peter relays his testimony regarding the conversion of the Gentiles

he makes reference to this statement. It is apparent the author wants to connect the giving

of the Spirit to Jesus as a way of showing Jesus’ superiority over John; something that

16 Robert L. Webb, John the Baptizer and Prophet: A Socio-historical Study (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2006), 67-68, writes, “This is clearly a reference to the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost, but, by being contrasted with John’s baptism with water, Pentecost is being interpreted as the fulfillment of John’s proclamation of an expected figure who will baptize with holy spirit and fire (Lk. 3.16-17). In Luke’s schema the promise of the Spirit, followed by Jesus’ ascension, followed by Pentecost is a strong apologetic for Jesus as the Spirit-Giver. It exalts John as a true prophet while preventing any suggestion that he is a competitor to Jesus for adherents to his message.

John himself is portrayed as affirming. If Jesus gave the Spirit to the Jews in Jerusalem

then Jesus must be the one who gave it to the Gentiles in Cornelius’ home. Jesus is the

one who is welcoming Gentiles into the people of God.

Elsewhere in Acts we find John’s baptism being described as the beginning of

Jesus’ ministry (and therefore a transition period?) in 10.37. In 13.24-25 John’s baptism is

seen as having significance before Jesus’ coming, but John moved aside when Jesus

arrived. As we move to 19.1-7 the juxtaposition between John and Jesus is emphasized.

When the disciples were baptized under John they did a good thing, but it wasn’t enough

to bring them the Spirit. When they submitted to baptism in Jesus’ name they received the

Spirit confirmed by charismatic signs.

Luke is consistent. John is great, but not as great as Jesus. John’s role was

temporary. Anyone who disagrees must be ignoring all that has transpired. This message

is similar to the one we find in the Gospels.

John the Baptist in the Gospels

The Book of Acts isn’t alone in speaking highly of John the Baptist while being

quick to explain the superiority of Jesus. This is evidenced in various degrees in the

Gospels as well. An important juxtaposition seems to be between John as baptizer of

water and Jesus as baptizer of S/spirit. In Mark we find John saying, “I baptize you with

water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit (ἐγὼ ἐβάπτισα ὑμᾶς ὕδατι, αὐτὸς δὲ

βαπτίσει ὑμᾶς ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ, 1.8).” In Matthew John explains further that his

baptism in water is “for repentance (εἰς μετάνοιαν, 3.11).” After demoting himself he

states that Jesus will baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire (βαπτίσει ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ

⸂καὶ πυρί). Luke gives John a stronger Pneumatological identity by describing him as

being filled with the Spirit before birth (1.15), yet John will later limit his baptism to

water and emphasize Jesus’ baptism of the Spirit (3.16). In John we find the same

concept: John baptizes with water according to 1.26 and Jesus baptizes with Spirit

according to 1.33.

Why did the Evangelists use this argument? It may be that the language of water

and Spirit baptism is grounded in actual discourses given by John, but that is a secondary

point. The Evangelists felt like it contributed to their depiction of Jesus. As we move

from the composition of Mark to that of Matthew and Luke we find that the depiction of

John’s relationship to Jesus is fairly consistent with some intensifying of the differences

(e.g. the baptism of Jesus). The most depreciating picture of John comes from the Gospel

of John. The Johannine Prologue weaves elevated language regarding the Word with

numerous statements that John isn’t the coming one. What made John worth mentioning

in the midst of a pericope where Jesus is called the Word of God, who is equal with God,

though whom God made all things, who was the light of the world, who “became flesh”

to “tabernacle” among people, who shares the glory of the Father, who has seen God and

makes God know (1.1-18)? It seems like the Evangelist has stacked the deck in Jesus’

favor while saying that John “was not the light (v. 8),” “not the Christ (v. 20),” not Elijah

or The Prophet (v. 21).

There must have been some confusion over John’s role in the story. Who was

John? How did he relate to Jesus? We don’t know what was being said about John in the

late first century, but we do have stories in the Gospels indicating that John was

impressive enough of a figure that some thought he might be raised from the dead (see

Matthew 14.2; Mark 6.14; Luke 9.7). There must have been some motivation for John

1.1-18 to include mention of the Baptist while listing several things that he was not,

including Messiah.

Obviously Jesus’ identity as the Spirit-Giver is the trump card for the Evangelists.

John’s baptism didn’t bring this Spirit and John didn’t claim that it would. John claimed

the coming one would bring the Spirit and the Evangelists say that John said that one was

Jesus. Luke believed that the Spirit did come upon those who confessed Jesus as the

Christ. He repeats the tradition to his readers that John expected this very thing.

The Function of Acts 19.1-7

It is this very motif that appears in Acts 19.1-7. The other narratives depicting the

conversion of groups aim to argue for the inclusion of Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles

into the people of God based on their allegiance to Jesus the Spirit-Giver. In these stories

Luke shows that the Spirit’s arrival signifies that God has welcomed non-Jews into the

covenant. In 19.1-7 Luke’s desire is to “catholicize” the movement. Luke can’t envision a

Christianity that doesn’t follow the pattern of the Pauline churches as he has interpreted it

—baptism in the name of Jesus and some display of the Spirit’s infilling. That some

would call themselves Christians without submitting to Christian baptism is considered

insufficient in Luke’s eyes. He does not deny that they are disciples and believers. Rather,

he supposes that true disciples and believers will do what is appropriate by submitting to

Christian baptism as Paul required in this section.

In summary the function of 19.1-7 (in conjunction with 18.24-28) is to argue

against the idea that John’s baptism was sufficient or that one could remain loyal to John

in any true sense without full commitment to Jesus. John said that Jesus would be the

Spirit-Giver. This prophecy was fulfilled according to Luke. Jesus’ followers received the

Spirit as John said, so how can a faithful disciple refuse Christian baptism? By depicting

these disciples as receiving the Spirit after baptism Luke argues in essence that this is the

only way to align with John’s message.

Also, 19.1-7 depicts Paul in the same role as Peter. Paul maintains the apostolic

tradition. He represents mainstream orthodoxy. He is the one who carried out the decision

of the Council of Jerusalem. If someone wants to be a part of the Jesus movement they

must submit to conversion, as it has become custom in the Pauline churches. Again, the

baptism of John was good, but baptism unto Jesus is what marks one as a Christian.

Conclusion

I have presented my reading of Acts 19.1-7 as a polemic against the remnant of

those who remain loyal to the person of John the Baptist in some form. I believe the

primary audience of Acts consists of people who are already Christians, or those whom

Luke considers to be at the margins. By juxtaposing the four group conversion narratives

I aimed to show that the similarities and dissimilarities are important, informing us that

the mention of disciples who had been baptized by John seems to indicate Luke’s desire

for their full integration into the church. Luke wants them to submit to baptism in Jesus’

name and to realize that the Spirit-Giver is Jesus, therefore John’s subservient role is

complete, but also outdated. This makes sense of 19.1-7, especially as it follows the story

about Apollos in 18.24-28.

Bibliography

Barrett, C.K. “Apollos and the Twelve Disciples of Ephesis.” The New Testament Age. V 1. Ed. W.C. Weinrich. Mercer: Mercer University Press, 1984.

Bock, Darrell L. Acts. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007

Bruce, F.F. The Acts of the Apostles: Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary, 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990.

Conzelmann, Hans. Acts of the Apostles. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987.

Dunn, James D.G. The Acts of the Apostles. Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1996.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1997

Johnson, Luke T. The Acts of the Apostles. Sacra Pagina. Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1992.

Parsons Mikeal C. Acts. Paideia. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008.

Polhill, John B. Acts. The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992.

Rowe, C. Kavin. World Turned Upside Down: Reading Acts in the Graeco-Romans Age. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Taylor, Joan E. The Immerser: John the Baptist within Second Temple Judaism. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997.

Webb, Robert L. John the Baptizer and Prophet: A Socio-historical Study. Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2006.