AJBI Vol. XLVI (2021), 39–54

From the Baptism of John to the Baptism
into the Name of Jesus Christ (Acts 18:24–19:7):
Unification of Baptism in Earliest Christianity*

Manabu TSUJI
Hiroshima University
tsujim@hiroshima-u.ac.jp

1. Earliest Christianity and the Baptism of John
1.1. Acts 18:24–28
Acts 18:24–28 presents an episode about Apollos, who is known for his missionary activity in Corinth (1Cor 1:12; 3:4–9, 22; 16:12). According to 1 Corinthians, he came to Corinth somewhat later than Paul (cf. 3:6) and, independentlyof the latter (cf. 16:12),1 worked there as a missionary so successfully that somechurch-members said, “I belong to Apollos” (1:12).
In Acts 18:24–28, Luke provides more information about him, although ina peculiar manner: Apollos, a native of Alexandria, “had been instructed in the*This paper goes back to a lecture delivered in Japanese at the 57th General Meetingof the West-Japan Society for the New Testament Studies in Kyoto, June 2016. The
English version was read in the SNTS Seminar “Mission and Expansion of Earliest
Christianity” held in Montreal, August 2016.

1

W. Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, 1. Teilband: 1 Kor 1,1–6,11, EKK VII/1(Zürich: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1991), 143: “Er (sc. Apollos)
gehörte nicht zum engeren Kreis der Mitarbeiter des Paulus, sondern war eher ein
unabhängiger Wandermissionar.”
39

Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute XLVI 2021

Way of the Lord, …though he knew only the baptism of John” (v. 25, NRSV
same as below). It might appear strange that a Christian missionary knew of noother baptism than that of John the Baptist, but Luke’s description of him mustreflect a historical fact that was supposedly handed down as an Ephesian church
tradition. The following observations support this view:(1) In Acts, the word “way” (ὁδός) is used for “Christianity” in the modern
sense (9:2; 18:26; 19:9; 22:4, 22). The “Lord” here refers to Jesus, as the context
clarifies (v. 28). This description of Apollos shows that earliest Christianity was,regardless of its contents, already known in Alexandria in the fifth decade of thefirst century.2(2) Apollos’ Christian identity can also be inferred from another descriptionof him as “ardent in spirit” (ζέων τῷ πνεύματι, v. 25). This expression refers
not only to his “vibrant” attitude when speaking,3 but also, as suggested by thesame phrase in Rom 12:11, to his condition of being filled with the spirit when
speaking.4 Because Apollos was teaching “the things concerning Jesus,” which
2

R. I. Pervo, Acts: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MI: Fortress, 2009), 459
n. 9, argues against the existence of Christians in Alexandria at that time, “for Apollos
could have learned about Jesus elsewhere.” He gives Aquila as example, who is from
Pontus, but had been living in Rome before coming to Corinth (Acts 18:2), and regards
the Alexandrian background of Apollos as deriving from Ephesian local tradition. But
there is no need to deny the interpretation of Apollos as coming from the Alexandrian
church, regardless of whether this description belongs to Ephesian local tradition.

3

So e.g., F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 31990),
351; Pervo, Acts, 459.

4

So S. Arai, Shito-Gyôden [Acts of the Apostles], vol. 3 (Tokyo: Shinkyô-Shuppansha,2016), 8; M. Dibelius, Die urchristliche Überlieferung von Johannes dem Täufer, FRLANT 15 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1911), 95; J. Zmjewski, Die Apostelgeschichte, RNT (Regensburg: Pustet, 1994), 676; K. Lake and H. J. Cadbury, The
Acts of the Apostles, The Beginnings of Christianity, ed. F. J. Foakes Jackson and K.
Lake, Part I, vol. IV: English Translation and Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Book House, 1979), 233; Ben Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio40

M. TSUJI: From the Baptism of John to the Baptism into the Name of Jesus Christ(Acts 18:24–19:7)

are doubtlessly related to Christianity (cf. a similar phrase about Paul in 28:31),
it is highly probable that this is God’s “Spirit,” which was given to him as a
Christian.5 We have no reason to ascribe this phrase to the Lucan composition.6
The greatest issue for interpreters is the fact that Apollos, although he isevidently Christian, was said to know only the baptism of John (v. 25). Quite
a number of commentators ascribe this to the redactional composition of theauthor Luke, who tries to “degrade” Apollos from independent missionary to arank-and-file member of Pauline Christianity.7 However, it is highly questionable
that Luke (or somebody preceding him in the Ephesian church) had to devise thisstrange fiction of an illegitimately baptized Christian missionary for that purpose. He could have been content with the description that Priscilla and Aquila

Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 1998), 565;
C. K. Barrett, The Acts of the Apostles, vol. 2, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998),
888.
5

G. Lüdemann, Das frühe Christentum nach der Traditionen der Apostelgeschichte:
Ein Kommentar (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987), 216, sees Apollos as“christlicher Pneumatiker.”

6

Pace J. Roloff, Die Apostelgeschichte, NTD 5 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 18=21988), 279, who mentions that this expression “mag ursprünglich nur Umschreibung seiner glühenden Beredsamkeit und ekstatischen Art gewesen sein, dieerst Lukas im Sinne einer Begabung mit dem heiligen Geist gedeutet hat.” Roloff’sinterpretation is inevitable as far as he regards Apollos as Jewish missionary (“Sobleibt als wahrscheinlichste Lösung die, daß Apollos ein jüdischer Missionar war, dermöglicherweise in Beziehung zur Täuferbewegung stand” [ibid.]).

7

E. Käsemann, “Die Johannesjünger in Ephesus,” in idem, Exegetische Versuche und
Besinnungen, vol. 1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964, 158–168), 164;
E. Haenchen, Die Apostelgeschichte, KEK 3 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
13=41961), 491; H. Conzelmann, Die Apostelgeschichte, HNT 7 (Tübingen: Mohr,21972), 118; A. Weiser, Die Apostelgeschichte, Bd. 2, ÖTBK 5/2 (Gütersloh: Mohn,

1985), 507; Zmijewski, Apostelgeschichte, 673; J. Jervell, Die Apostelgeschichte,
KEK 3 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 17=11998), 470 etc.
41Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute XLVI 2021

“took him aside and explained the Way of God to him more accurately”8 (v. 26).
This mention of Apollos evidently derives from tradition and reflects a historicalfact.9If Apollos was baptized only through the baptism of John and yet was not
re-baptized into the name of Jesus, we cannot help but suppose that the “baptismof John” was regarded as a valid Christian baptism. In that case, this expression(Mark 11:30 par.; Luke 7:29; Acts 1:22; 10:37) denotes not a personal relationship to the Baptizer, in contrast to that to Jesus, but rather a “Johannine baptism,”namely, the understanding of baptism that derives from John the Baptist. This
must have been regarded as the baptism of repentance that leads to the forgiveness of sins, which was founded by John (cf. Mark 1:4//Luke 3:3; Acts 13:24;
19:4).
However, it is noteworthy that it is called the “baptism of John”: in otherwords, that this ritual was recognized as inheritance from John the Baptist.
The mention that Priscilla and Aquila explained the Way of God to Apollos“more accurately” (ἀκριβέστερον, v. 26) corresponds to the preceding descriptionof Apollos “accurately” (ἀκριβῶς) teaching the things concerning Jesus (v. 25).
It should therefore be regarded as a Lucan redaction meant to degrade Apollos toan immature missionary.10 As a matter of fact, Apollos could not have improved
8

The adverb “more accurately” (ἀκριβέστερον) is undoubtedly Lucan addition to the
tradition in order to make an impression that Priscilla und Aquila (= Pauline Christians) know better about the “Way of God” than Apollos (= non-Pauline) does.

9

W. Thiessen, Christen in Ephesus, TANZ 12 (Tübingen/Basel: Francke, 1995), 47, ascribes this mention of Apollos to a Lucan note, because this paragraph must have beena tradition held by the adherents of Apollos, who cannot have suggested a theologicaldefect of Apollos. However, it is also possible to assume that this tradition has been
formed from the viewpoint of Pauline Christians, who were probably not sympathetic
to Apollos and his theology.

10 The verb “explain” (ἐκτίθημι) is also a Lucan word (cf. Acts 11:4; 28:23. In 7:21 it isused in different meaning. These are the only usages in NT). Witherington, Acts, 567
42M. TSUJI: From the Baptism of John to the Baptism into the Name of Jesus Christ(Acts 18:24–19:7)

his “insufficient” understanding of baptism with the help of Priscilla and Aquila.
This is evident from the fact that he, unlike the “disciples” in Ephesus (19:5), is
not re-baptized with a “correct” baptism and that he continued to be active as
an independent missionary, separately from Paul, as 1 Corinthians shows (1Cor
1:12–13; 3:4–9; 16:12). Apollos must have learned something from Priscilla and
Aquila, who worked together with Paul (Acts 18:2–3), but this never led him tomodify his own understanding of Christianity and join the Pauline group.11 They
evidently did not force Apollos to change his understanding of baptism, probably
because they could also accept the baptism of John, although they themselves
understood the baptism in a different, more likely Jesus-centered way, as v. 28(“he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, showing by the scriptures that theMessiah is Jesus”) implies.
Therefore, Apollos is to be considered a Christian missionary, who taught
the baptism of repentance that originated from John the Baptist. Priscilla and
Aquila did not reject this, but explained to him their understanding of baptism,
which was supposedly more strongly connected to Jesus Christ.
1.2. Acts 19:1–7
Another example of Christians that only knew the baptism of John appears
in 19:1–7, just after the paragraph about Apollos. The introduction “while Apollos was in Corinth, Paul … came to Ephesus” indicates that this episode shouldn. 20 and C. S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Academic, 2014), 2809, take this “more” as elative comparative, “not implyingthat they corrected his misinformation (he already taught “accurately” in Acts 18:25)
but that they increased his base of knowledge” (Keener, ibid.).
11 The disagreement between Paul’s and Apollo’s factions seems to have been causedby their different understandings of baptism, as 1Cor 1:13–17 suggests. So, also K.
Berger, Theologiegeschichte des Urchristentums, UTB (Tübingen/Basel: Francke,
1994), 114.
43

Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute XLVI 2021

be read in connection with the preceding scene, which is also situated in Ephesus(18:24–28). But it is not clear whether Apollos and the “disciples” mentioned
here have a historical relation to each other, because this introducing verse belongs to the Lucan redaction.12
Paul came to Ephesus and met some “disciples” there (v. 1). But they knew
neither the Holy Spirit nor the baptism into the name of the Lord Jesus (vv. 2–3).
Scholars’ opinions are divided on the problem of whether these disciples are to
be regarded as disciples of John13 or as Christians.14
There are good arguments for the latter view. First, the unmodified expression “disciple” in Acts means Christian (cf. 18:23, 27).15 Second, Paul’s question

12 The introducing phrase ἐγένετο [δὲ] ἐν τῷ is a typical Lucan phrase: Luke 1:8; 3:21;
5:1, 12; 7:11; 8:1, 40; 9:18, 51; 10:38; 11:1; 14:1; 17:11; 18:35. Cf. Thiessen, Christen,71; J. Jeremias, Die Sprache des Lukasevangeliums, KEK Sonderband (Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980), 25–26.
13 On the history of research, see Thiessen, Christen, 61–70. Scholars supporting thisview are e.g., E. Schweizer, Art. πνεῦμα κτλ., ThWNT VI (1959, 330–453), 411;
Lüdemann, Das frühe Christentum, 218–219; Roloff, Apostelgeschichte, 281–282;
R. Pesch, Die Apostelgeschichte, vol. 2, EKK V/2 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener,1986), 165; C. K. Barrett, “Apollos and the Twelve Disciples in Ephesus,” in The
New Testament Age (FS B. Reicke), ed. W. C. Weinrich, vol. 1 (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1984, 29–39), 36–38; Keener, Acts, 2816–2817. K. Backhaus,Die „Jüngerkreise“ des Täufers Johannes, PaThSt 19 (Paderborn et al.: Ferdinand
Schöningh, 1991), 209, takes them not as disciples of John in a narrower sense, but as
the “people” of Israel who were audience of John and baptized by him (cf. Acts 13:24).
14 E.g., Arai, Shito-Gyôden, vol. 3, 16–17; Dibelius, Die urchristliche Überlieferung,esp. 88–95; K. Aland, “Zur Vorgeschichte der christlichen Taufe,” in idem, Neutestamentliche Entwürfe, TB 63 (München: Kaiser, 1979, 183–197), 193; Lake and Cadbury, Acts, 237–238.
15 Pace M. Tellbe, Christ-Believers in Ephesus, WUNT 242 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,2009), 78 n. 87; Lüdemann, Das frühe Christentum, 217–218, and Witherington, Acts,
570–571, who both consider them disciples of John. The lack of definite article cannot
be a counterargument here.
44

M. TSUJI: From the Baptism of John to the Baptism into the Name of Jesus Christ(Acts 18:24–19:7)

in v. 2 whether these disciples received the Holy Spirit when they became believers presupposes their “Christian” faith, regardless of its content.16
However, their answer to Paul appears contradictory to their Christian identity, namely, that they “have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit” (v. 2) andwere baptized “into John’s baptism” (v. 3). How can their answer be explained?
The fact that they have never heard of a Holy Spirit cannot be historicallycorrect and therefore should be ascribed to an exaggeration by Luke in an attempt to impress the incompleteness of John’s baptism, because, if it was Apollos who led them to John’s baptism, they must have been aware that he was filledwith the Spirit, as 18:25 denotes. In any case, it would be very hard to imagine
that they knew nothing about John’s word on the “baptism with the Holy Spirit
and fire” (Matt 3:12//Luke 3:16).17 Therefore, together with Paul’s very abrupt
question (v. 2) to prepare for the descent of the Holy Spirit in v. 6, this statement is to be regarded as a Lucan composition. If this conversation is based on
tradition, the answer of the Ephesian disciples originally meant that they had notheard of a reception of the Holy Spirit at the baptism, as the Western text reads(λαμβάνουσίν τινες intead of ἔστιν; 𝔓38.41 D* syhmg).
“John’s baptism” can be understood in the same way as it is presented in
18:25, namely, as the baptism that derives from John the Baptist. Like Apollos, the Ephesian disciples were Christian believers (cf. v. 2) who were baptizedthrough the baptism of repentance and forgiveness of sins that was initiated byJohn. Therefore, this baptism did not contradict their Christian identity.
The second question of Paul, into what they were baptized, evidently presupposes an answer like “into the name of Jesus.” However, the disciples responded to him: “into John’s baptism.” This strange answer probably reflects a
16 Pervo, Acts, 468 with n. 45 correctly notes: “Had the author intended to identify these
persons as followers of the Baptizer, he could have done so” (cf. Luke 5:33; 7:18).
17 So Arai, Shito-Gyôden, vol. 3, 18; Weiser, Apostelgeschichte, 516; Zmijeski, Apostelgeschichte, 681.
45

Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute XLVI 2021

historical fact: they were not baptized “into (the name of) John,” i.e., they wereneither believers nor adherents of John. They simply experienced the baptism
that originated from John, namely, a baptism of repentance of sins in preparationof the eschatological judgment of God. But this baptism was not connected withthe reception of the Holy Spirit.
However, for Paul (as well as Luke), this is an insufficient baptism, because
in his view the baptism should be given “into the name of (Lord) Jesus Christ,”
the ultimate being whose arrival John had announced. Here we can see a “reinterpretation” of baptism, in other words, its “de-Johannization” and “Christianization” (Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3; cf. also 1Cor 1:15; 6:11).
Both these Ephesian disciples and Apollos were baptized with John’s baptism, but while the former were re-baptized “into the name of Lord Jesus” (19:5),
the latter was not.18 This difference is often ascribed to Apollos’ possession of theSpirit (18:25), which the Ephesian disciples evidently lacked.19 This would only
be correct if the conversation between Paul and the Ephesian disciples concerning the Holy Spirit was based on fact, as opposed to our observation (see above).
In either case, we can also take the differences in person into account: while Paul
could not accept other baptisms apart from those “into the name of Lord Jesus”(19:5), Priscilla and Aquila were not so exclusive.20 In any case, this episode il18 Luke does not explicitly say who baptized them. The context suggests that it wasPaul, but according to his own comment in 1Cor 1:14–17 he baptized nobody, with afew exceptions. Thus Thiessen, Christen in Ephesus, 86, doubts the historicity of thisverse. However, not Paul himself, but somebody else could have baptized them before
Paul laid his hands on them for the descent of the Holy Spirit.
19 E.g. F. Avemarie, Die Tauferzählungen der Apostelgeschichte, WUNT 139 (Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 79–81: “Die Jünger empfangen deshalb eine zweite Taufe, weil
sie sowohl des den Apollos auszeichnenden missionarischen Charismas mangeln als
auch im Unterschied zu den samaritanischen Christen nur die Johannestaufe empfangen haben” (81, italics in original).
20 Avemarie, Tauferzählungen, 81, refers to this as one of the possibilities. The differ46

M. TSUJI: From the Baptism of John to the Baptism into the Name of Jesus Christ(Acts 18:24–19:7)

lustrates that a process of alternation from “John’s baptism” to the baptism “into(the name of) Jesus” was already in progress in earliest Christianity.

2. The Process of “de-Johannization” of baptism
2.1. John’s influence on earliest Christianity
As discussed above, the two episodes in Acts 18:24–19:7 indicate that the“baptism of repentance” that derived from John the Baptist was not only given
during his lifetime, but also in earliest Christianity, after the deaths of John andJesus (on the connection of repentance and baptism, cf. also Acts 11:18). Apollos
inherited this baptism of John, as did the “disciples” in Ephesus, although it is
not certain whether they belonged to the same group.
The baptism of repentance and forgiveness of sins was most likely the original type of baptism in earliest Christianity (cf. Acts 2:38).21 As John 1:35–42
denotes, the first disciples of Jesus formerly belonged to John; they must havebeen baptized by him.22 Undoubtedly, they maintained this ritual of repentanceence between Paul and Priscilla/Aquila is regarded as the definitive factor also by M.
Wolter, “Apollos und die ephesinischen Johannesjünger (Act 18,24–19,7)”, ZNW 78(1987, 49–73), 55–62. But Wolter ascribes this difference to the Lucan conception ofsalvation-historical continuity linked with the apostolic tradition, according to which
only Paul could baptize (67).
21 Acts 2:38 is, together with Peter’s Speech (2:14–36), usually attributed to Lucan composition (e.g., Haenchen, Apostelgeschichte, 151; Lüdemann, Das frühe Christentum,
52; Roloff, Apostelgeschichte, 61). However, that the imperative “repent, and be baptized […] so that your sins may be forgiven” corresponds to the message of John about
the “baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3) supports
the view that a “primitive rock” […] appears through” (“Urgestein ... durchscheint;”
Aland, “Vorgeschichte”, 196. So also Thiessen, Christen, 78).
22 John 1:40 refers to Andrew and another disciple of John, but also Peter (1:41) was
probably a former disciple of John. Supposedly, in the followers of Jesus there were47

Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute XLVI 2021

and forgiveness of sins not only during the lifetime of Jesus (John 4:2), but also
after his death, when they had become disciples of Jesus. Thus the baptism became a “Christian” ritual, although Jesus himself was not positive towards it (cf.
John 4:2). The disciples of Jesus would not have done this if John and his teaching had not been important for their religious identity, even after they began tofollow Jesus.
Based on this, we may assume that John the Baptist had a much bigger
influence on earliest Christians than is usually supposed. He was the very person that advocated repentance and forgiveness of sins, which was essential forearly Christian soteriology (cf. Matt 11:20–24 par.;23 12:41 par.; Acts 2:38). Not
only baptism, but also fasting (Mark 2:18 par.; Acts 13:2; 14:23) and prayer(Luke 5:33; 11:1; Acts 1:14; 13:3) derive from John and his disciples.24 John’s
undeniable influence on earliest Christianity can be clearly recognized from thefact that all four canonical Gospels refer to his appearance as preceding Jesus.
Among these, Luke’s description is worthy of mention: he introduces an infancy
narrative of John and combines it with that of Jesus (Luke 1:5–80).25 Obviously,
John the Baptist was such an important person for the earliest Christians that they
could not ignore him. However, they thought it necessary to restrict his influence in order to develop their religious movement on the basis of the death andresurrection of Jesus. This process can be called “de-Johannization” of earliest
Christianity.
other former adherents of John.
23 R. Bultmann, Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition, FRLANT NF 12 (Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 51961), 118, is correct in seeing that Matt 11:21–24 par. wasformed by earliest Christian community whose sermon in Capernaum ended in failure.
Bultmann supposes that also Matt 12:41 par. derives from the earliest Christianity(ibid.).
24 So Dibelius, Die urchristliche Überlieferung, 87, 96.
25 Here we leave undecided, whether this combination of two infancy narratives is Lucanor pre-Lucan.
48

M. TSUJI: From the Baptism of John to the Baptism into the Name of Jesus Christ(Acts 18:24–19:7)

But why was it necessary? Based on the descriptions of John in the Gospels (Mark 1:3 par.; 2:18–22 par.; Matt 11:2–19 par.; Luke 1:5–80; John 1:1–28;
3:22–30; 4:1–3) it has been often assumed that a group of John’s disciples continued to be active after their master’s death and competed with earliest Christianity.26 However, this assumption is far from assured because neither this group’s
existence nor its rivalry with earliest Christianity are supported by textual evidence from the early Christian writings, not to mention the New Testament; they
have only been assumed based on the above-mentioned references in the Gospels.27 The references to John and his disciples could also be, and in my viewshould be, assigned to the “Christian” tradition that reflects John’s influence on
the first Christians, and their struggle to reduce it in order to establish their faithin Jesus Christ.
2.2. “De-Johannization” of baptism
Undoubtedly, the baptism of repentance and forgiveness of sins was one ofJohn’s greatest influences on earliest Christianity. Therefore, the first Christians
had to separate this ritual from its originator (i.e., de-Johannization) and give it a
new meaning, linked to their faith in Jesus Christ (i.e., Christianization).
They attempted this by applying John’s prophecy to Jesus: John prophesized
26 E.g. J. Ernst, Johannes der Täufer. Interpretation – Geschichte – Wirkungsgeschichte,
BZNW 53 (Berlin/ New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1989), 352–363, who assumes thatthe disciples of John and those of Jesus had brotherhood in the beginning, but soonalienated each other. On the history of research, cf. Backhaus, Jüngerkreise, 2–10.
27 Backhaus, Jüngerkreise, 368: “Die Jüngergemeinschaft tritt auch nach dem Tod ihres
Meisters noch in Erscheinung, löst sich aber wohl noch in der „ersten Generation“
auf, indem sich ihre Glieder entweder der Synagoge oder der Kirche oder dem „heterodoxen“ mouvement bapstiste anschließen.” From this “narrower circle” of John’s
disciples Backhaus tries to distinguish the “wider circle” of repentance-movement in
Palestine which John brought into being.
49

Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute XLVI 2021

that “one who is more powerful than I” would come after him and “baptize youwith the Holy Spirit and fire” (Matt 3:11//Luke 3:16). With this expression, hemust have meant God himself or his heavenly representative (cf. Dan 7:13–14;
1Enoch 37–71; 2Esdr 13), but the earliest Christians tried to identify this “one”
as Jesus and make him the heavenly one that was superior to the Baptist.
This process was carried out by connecting Jesus and baptism more closely.
First, the baptism of Jesus by John, which implies John’s superiority and therefore must have been a stumbling block for the faith in Jesus, was modified torepresent God’s approval of Jesus as his son by giving him the Spirit (Mark
1:9–11 par.).28
The baptism of Jesus, accompanied by the descent of the Spirit, probably
played a paradigmatic role in earliest Christianity. This “baptism-legend”29 wasalmost certainly formed in the Jerusalem Church.30 It has the function to givea new “Christian” significance to baptism: one is baptized and given the Holy
Spirit in the same way as Jesus himself was. A. Yarbro Collins is right in thinking that “the reference to baptism in the Holy Spirit in v. 8 (sc. of Mark 1) would
have called to mind the ritual of initiation into the community of the followers ofJesus (1Cor 6:11; Acts 2:38).”31
Thus, Jesus Christ was identified as the one who received the Holy Spirit
28 The modification is more intensified in Matthew and Luke: The former tries to emphasize the superiority of Jesus by adding a word of John “I need to be baptized byyou, and do you come to me?” (Matt 3:14). Luke was intentionally vague as to who
baptized Jesus (Luke 3:21). These redactional changes prove how much the earliest
Christians were troubled by this historical fact.
29 Bultmann, Geschichte, 267.
30 Pace Bultmann, Geschichte, 267–268, who argues for its non-Palestinian origin. The
absolute usage of τὸ πνεῦμα for the Spirit of God can be found, contrary to Bultmann’sassertion, in the Jewish literature: Cf. LXX Num 11:25–26; Ps 50:12; 1 Chr 12:19.
31 A. Yarbro Collins, Mark: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress,
2007), 147.
50

M. TSUJI: From the Baptism of John to the Baptism into the Name of Jesus Christ(Acts 18:24–19:7)

through baptism and who gives “baptism with the Holy Spirit and fire.”
The episode of Pentecost, the first descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Jerusalem Church (Acts 2:1–13), is evidently related to this baptism with the Holy
Spirit and fire. Jesus’ remark in Acts 1:5 (“John baptized with water, but you will
be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now”), which Luke in fact
borrowed from John’s words (Matt 3:11//Luke 3:16), undoubtedly prepares that
episode,32 and the description of the Holy Spirit as “tongues like fire” (Acts 2:3)
is related to John’s prophecy.33
Although the episode of Pentecost should be ascribed to the Lucan composition in its present form,34 in essence it probably derives from an oral traditionof the Jerusalem Church, where it must have been told as fulfillment of John’sprophecy. All those in the Jerusalem Church (v. 1) were thus “baptized with theHoly Spirit” (1:5). In this way, the Jerusalem Church came to characterize the
new “Christian” baptism by the Holy Spirit. This could be called the “branding”
of baptism: only baptism accompanied by the reception of the Holy Spirit could
be authentically Christian, because this was the baptism that Jesus himself had
once received and now gave to his followers. The Jerusalem Church seemingly
strived to spread this new definition of baptism among the Christian circles outside of Palestine, as can be inferred from the episodes in Acts 2:38; 8:14–24;
9:17–18; 10:44–48; and 19:1–7 (cf. also Eph 1:13; Tit 3:5).
2.3. Baptism “into the name of Jesus”
Originating as a ritual of repentance and forgiveness of sins, as introduced
by John the Baptist, the baptism is now “de-Johannized” and was “Christian32 Lüdemann, Das frühe Christentum, 31–32.
33 So also C. K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, vol. 1, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 114.
34 On Lucan wording in 2:1–4, see Lüdemann, Das frühe Christentum, 44.
51

Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute XLVI 2021

ized” by relating it to the reception of the Holy Spirit. This baptism was understood as going into a communion with Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit, andwas described as the baptism “into (the name of) Jesus.”
This process seemingly began during a relatively early stage of the Jerusalem Church, because not only Paul (cf. 1Cor 1:13: ἢ εἰς τὸ ὄνομα Παύλουἐβαπτίσθητε;) but also Philip, one of the Hellenists (Acts 6:5), appears to have
known about it (Acts 8:16). However, the exact meaning of this phrase seems
to be open to interpretation. This is strongly suggested by the unstable use of
prepositions: Luke uses βαπτίζειν with ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι (Acts 2:38)35, εἰς τὸ ὄνομα(Acts 8:16; 19:5),36 and ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι (Acts 10:48), apparently without differentiating them from each other. If, as C. K. Barrett notes, “we should probably
be right in thinking that for Luke the preposition was relatively unimportant,”37
we may infer that, even for Luke, who wrote his two-volume work in the latter
half of the first century A.D., it was not yet clear how the name of Jesus Christ
functioned in the ritual of baptism. As Barrett continues, “what mattered was
the name”;38 namely, the name of Jesus Christ was called at the baptism (Acts
22:16; cf. also Rom 10:9–13; Jas 2:7). This might have implied the communionwith Jesus Christ in some way, but what this communion exactly meant is left
undefined.39
35 The form βαπτίζειν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι, which appears only here, can be ascribed to Luke’s
own wording; cf. Acts 4:17, 18; 5:28, 40. The reading ἐν (B D 945 1739 1891 Irlat Did)
is secondary.
36 This form seems to be most known: Mt 28:19; Did 7:1; 9:5; Herm vis 3.7.3; cf. further
1Cor 1:13, 15; Gal 3:27.
37 Barrett, Acts, 154.
38 Ibid.
39 Paul interprets this as “clothing oneself with Christ” (Gal 3:27), or as being “buried
with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by
the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life” (Rom 6:4). These
are, however, Paul’s own explanation for the “baptism into Jesus Christ”, which was52

M. TSUJI: From the Baptism of John to the Baptism into the Name of Jesus Christ(Acts 18:24–19:7)

In this way, the baptism was connected to Jesus Christ and thus “Christianized.” However, the examples of Apollos and the Ephesian disciples reveal that
there were also believers that stood outside this “Christianization.” The episodein Acts 19:1–7, which tells about a “re-baptism” into the name of Christ Jesus,
strongly suggests that Paul and the Jerusalem Church intended a unification andstandardization of baptism “into the name of Jesus Christ,”40 although its meaning was still open for interpretation.

3. Closing Remarks
The episodes of Apollos and the Ephesian disciples elucidate the practice of“John’s baptism,” i.e., the baptism of repentance and forgiveness of sins, which
derives from John the Baptist. This is the original type of baptism in earliest
Christianity, whose leading figures were former followers of John.
John’s baptism survived in earliest Christianity although Jesus himself evidently did not inherit it from him. This fact indicates how great John’s influence
was on earliest Christianity and the first Christians could not ignore it; rather,
they tried to minimize it by degrading him to a herald of Jesus to construct theirfaith in Jesus as Christ. In this process, the baptism was also “de-Johannized”
and instead interpreted as a baptism given by Jesus Christ, who “will baptize
neither something like an official view nor widely shared in early Christianity.
40 Cf. Did 9:5: “let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist except those who have been baptized into the name of the Lord (οἱ βαπτισθέντες εἰς ὄνομα κυρίου).” This instruction
suggests that the baptism “into the name of the Lord” could function as criterion of
the “orthodox” Christianity. This writing, written in the name of the Twelve Apostles,
obviously intends to distinguish and guard the “orthodox” Christianity, which is represented by the Twelve in the Jerusalem Church, from other forms of beliefs; cf. 11:1–2:“if anyone should come and teach you all these things that have just been mentioned
above, welcome him. But if the teacher himself goes astray and teaches a different
teaching that undermines all this, do not listen to him.”
53

Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute XLVI 2021

you with the Holy Spirit and fire” (Matt 3:11 par.). Thus, this new “Christian”
baptism was characterized as imparting the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 2:38; 8:16–17;
10:15–18; 19:1–7), which introduced the baptized one into a communion with
Jesus Christ. However, the exact meaning of this communion still seems open
to interpretation.
There were still followers of Jesus, however, who belonged to the Johannine
baptism and who did not share this “Christian” baptism, as the episodes in Acts
18:24–19:7 illustrate. Therefore, the Jerusalem Church and Paul tried to unify
this ritual into the baptism “into (the name of) Jesus Christ.”54