John Calvin Commentary Acts 19

Luke shows here that the Church of Ephesus was not only confirmed and increased by Paul’s return, but also that a miracle was performed there, because the visible graces of the Spirit were given to certain uninstructed and new disciples. Furthermore, it is not known whether they were inhabitants of the city or strangers; nor does it greatly matter. Undoubtedly, they were Jews, because they had received the baptism of John; also, it is thought that they lived at Ephesus when Paul found them there.

Whether they had received the Holy Ghost. The end of the history shows that Paul does not speak in this place of the Spirit of regeneration, but of the special gifts which God gave to various people at the beginning of the gospel, for the common edification of the Church.

But now upon this interrogation of Paul arises a question: was the Spirit common to all everywhere at that time? For if He was given only to a few, why does Paul join Him with faith, as if they were so linked together that they could not be separated?

Perhaps they were not of the common sort, or perhaps because they were a moderate number (that is, twelve), Paul asks whether they were all without the gifts of the Spirit.

Nevertheless, I think this: that so many Jews were present before the Gentiles, not by chance, but by the counsel of God. They were disciples at that time—that is, among the number of the faithful—who nevertheless confessed their ignorance of the principal glory of the gospel, which was apparent in spiritual gifts, so that through them Paul’s ministry might be adorned and advanced.

For it is unlikely that Apollos left so few disciples at Ephesus, and he could have taught them better, since he had learned the way of the Lord perfectly from Priscilla and Aquila.

Moreover, I do not doubt that the brethren of whom Luke spoke before were different from these. In sum, when Paul sees that these men profess the name of Christ, so that he may have a more certain trial of their faith, he asks them whether they have received the Holy Ghost. For it appears from Paul himself that this was a sign and token of the grace of God to establish the credibility of doctrine: I would know of you whether you received the Holy Ghost by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith (Galatians 3:2).

We do not know whether there is any Holy Ghost. How could it be that men, being Jews, had heard nothing of the Spirit, about which the prophets speak everywhere, and whose commendations and titles are found in the whole Scripture? Surely, from this we gather that Paul neither spoke generally of the Spirit, and that these men, when asked, denied that they knew those visible graces with which God had adorned the kingdom of His Son.

Therefore, they confess that they do not know whether God gives such gifts. Therefore, in the word Spirit there is the figure of metonymy. And this interpretation is confirmed by the fact that if they had altogether denied knowing anything concerning the Spirit of God, Paul would not have passed over such a gross error in silence—indeed, an error altogether monstrous.

When he asks for what purpose or how they were baptized, he also shows that wherever Christ had been soundly and thoroughly preached, the visible graces also appeared, so that such worship might be common to all churches.

Therefore, it is no wonder that Paul is surprised that the faithful are ignorant of such glory of Christ, which God intended to be apparent everywhere at that time. And, as an immediate correction, he tells them that they must not remain in those rudiments they had learned, because it was John’s office to prepare disciples for Christ.

John truly, Paul’s admonition aimed at this end: that these men, being convicted of their ignorance, might desire to go forward. He says that John preached of Christ who was to come. Therefore, he sent out his disciples so that, running in the course, they might go towards Christ who was not yet revealed.

For this reason, so that these men may not flatter themselves and refuse to go forward, he shows that they are still far from the mark. Indeed, the feeling of need compels men to desire what is still lacking.

The substance of it is this, as if Paul had said: Before Christ was glorified, this power of His did not appear in the world; when He ascended into heaven, He intended for His kingdom to flourish in this way.

Therefore, the graces of the Spirit were much less poured out when John was still in the course of his ministry—graces which now declare that Christ sits at the right hand of His Father, because He had not then openly shown Himself to be the Redeemer of the world.

Therefore, know that you must go further forward, because you are far from the mark. So he plainly shows that the faith of the godly, who had been taught by John, ought to have looked to Christ who was to come, lest these men should stand still, having newly entered, without going any further.

And by this we are also taught that the baptism of John was a sign of repentance and remission of sins. Furthermore, our baptism today does not differ at all from it, except that Christ is already revealed, and in His death and resurrection our salvation is made perfect.

Thus, baptism was brought to its effect. This is because repentance flows from that fountain of Christ’s death and resurrection, of which I have spoken. Faith is also directed to that fountain, so that it may seek free righteousness from there.

In summary, Paul plainly shows that John’s baptism was the baptism of regeneration and renewal, just as ours is. And because both purging and newness of life flow from Christ alone, he says that it was grounded in faith in Him.

By these words we are also taught that upon this faith in Him depends all the force of baptism: namely, that by faith in Christ we lay hold of whatever baptism signifies. So far is it from being true that the outward sign detracts from or diminishes the grace of Christ by a single iota.

When they heard these things. Because the people of old had formed an opinion that the baptism of John and of Christ were different, it was not an inappropriate thing for them to be baptized again, who had only been prepared by the baptism of John. But that this diversity was falsely and wickedly believed by them appears from this: it was a pledge and sign of the same adoption, and of the same newness of life, which we have today in our baptism. Therefore, we do not read that Christ baptized again those who came from John to him.

Moreover, Christ received baptism in his own flesh, so that he might unite himself with us by that visible sign (Matthew 3:15). But if that prevailing diversity is admitted, this unique benefit will fall away and perish: that baptism is common to the Son of God and to us, or that we all have one baptism with him.

But this opinion needs no long refutation, because in order for them to persuade that these two baptisms are different, they must first show how the one differs from the other. However, a most excellent similarity is evident in both, as well as the agreement and conformity of their parts, which causes us to confess that it is all one baptism.

Now the question is whether it was lawful to repeat it; and fanatical men in our own age, relying on this testimony, attempted to introduce rebaptism. Some interpret baptism as new institution or instruction, an opinion I do not share, because, as their interpretation is too strained, so it smacks of an evasion.

Others deny that baptism was repeated, arguing that they were improperly baptized by some foolish enemy of John. But because their conjecture has no plausibility—indeed, the words of Paul rather imply that they were true and genuine disciples of John, and Luke honorably calls them disciples of Christ—I do not agree with this opinion. And yet I deny that the baptism of water was repeated, because the words of Luke imply nothing else, except that they were baptized with the Spirit.

First, it is not a new thing for the name of baptism to be applied to the gifts of the Spirit, as we saw in the first and eleventh chapters (Acts 1:5 and Acts 11:6), where Luke said that when Christ promised his apostles to send the Spirit visibly, he called it baptism.

Also, 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 specifically mentioned in this passage, and that they are given with baptism. And where it follows immediately that when he had laid his hands on them, the Spirit came, I take this to be added as an interpretation. For it is a way of speaking often used in Scripture: first to state something briefly, and afterwards to make it clearer.

Therefore, what was somewhat obscure due to brevity, Luke expresses better and explains more fully, saying that the Spirit was given to them by the laying on of hands. If anyone objects that when baptism stands for the gifts of the Spirit, it is not used simply, but has something added to it,

I answer that Luke’s meaning appears sufficiently from the text; and again, that Luke alludes to the baptism of which he spoke. And surely, if you understand it as the external sign, it would be an absurd thing for it to have been given to them without using any better teaching. But if you take it metaphorically as instruction, the language would still be awkward, and the narrative would not fit with the Holy Spirit coming down on them after they were taught.

Furthermore, while I acknowledge that this laying on of hands was a sacrament, I also say that those who continually imitated it fell into error through ignorance. For since everyone agrees on this—that it was a grace meant to last only for a time, which was shown by that sign—it is a perverse and ridiculous thing to retain the sign when the reality it signified has been taken away.

There is another aspect of baptism and the Lord's Supper, in which the Lord testifies that those gifts are made available to us, which the Church will enjoy even until the end of the world. Therefore, we must diligently and wisely distinguish perpetual sacraments from those that last only for a time, lest vain and frivolous appearances have a place among the sacraments.

While the people of ancient times used the laying on of hands to confirm the profession of faith in those who were adults, I do not disapprove of it, provided that no one thinks that the grace of the Spirit is attached to such a ceremony, as Jerome argued against the Luciferians.

But the Papists are worthy of no pardon, who, not being content with the ancient rite, dared to thrust in a corrupt and filthy anointing, so that it might be not only a confirmation of baptism, but also a more worthy sacrament. By this they imagine that the faithful are made perfect who were previously only half perfect—by which those are armed for battle who previously only had their sins forgiven them. For they have not been afraid to spew out these horrible blasphemies.

Going into the synagogue. From this we gather that Paul began with the company of the godly, who had already given their names to Christ; and secondly, that he came into the synagogue so that he might gather into one body of the Church the rest of the Jews who did not yet know Christ, or at least who had not yet received him.

And Luke says that Paul behaved boldly, so that we may know that his being heard for three months was not due to his craftily concealing the doctrine of the gospel, or his insinuating himself by some obscure and devious methods. Luke also further points to a sign of this boldness, showing that Paul disputed and persuaded concerning the kingdom of God.

And we know that this term often signifies the restoration that was promised to the fathers, and was to be fulfilled by the coming of Christ. For since without Christ there is a dire and confused dispersion and ruin of all things, the prophets, not in vain, attributed to the Messiah who was to come that he would establish the kingdom of God in the world.

And now, because this kingdom brings us back from falling and backsliding to the obedience of God, and makes us sons from being enemies, it consists—

1. In the free forgiveness of sins, by which God reconciles us to himself and adopts us as his people;
2. In newness of life, by which he fashions us and makes us like his own image.

Luke says that Paul disputed and persuaded, meaning that Paul disputed in such a way that he proved with sound reasons what he alleged. Once that was done, he used the goads of godly exhortations, by which he urged his hearers forward. For no profound disputations will make us obedient to God, unless we are moved by godly admonitions.