The Connection Between Baptism and the Reception of the Spirit in Becoming a Christian in Luke-Acts

Abstract

The Traditio Apostolica presents, within the context of Christian baptism, first the water baptism accompanied by a profession of faith, followed by prayer with the laying on of hands. The purpose of this initiation process is the forgiveness of sins, which is more strongly implied in the water rite, and the gift of the Spirit, which is implied in the laying on of hands. This sequence of baptism and laying on of hands, in connection with faith and Spirit reception, is also evident in Acts 19:1–7. Apart from Acts 8:5–25, however, it is the only passage that links baptism with laying on of hands followed by Spirit reception. Moreover, it is the only instance of a rebaptism within the Lukan double work. The focus of this article is not primarily on the question of the historicity of this rite during the New Testament period but on a narratological-intratextual analysis of the relationship between baptism and Spirit reception, that is, to what extent the reader, against the background of the preceding narrative in Luke-Acts, is led to an understanding of this relationship and its significance for becoming a Christian. The article argues that faith plays a decisive role in the Christian initiation process.

1. Introduction

Acts 19:1–7 recounts Paul’s encounter with 12 disciples in Ephesus, who had received John’s baptism. In response to Paul’s question of whether they had received the Holy Spirit when they became believers, they reply: “We have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit”1 (Acts 19:2). These men are referred to as μαθηταί (Acts 19:1), which is normally the common designation for Jesus’ disciples and Christians in Luke-Acts, and even as believers (Acts 19:2: πιστεύσαντες). The reader, therefore, naturally associates the term μαθητής—especially in connection with πιστεύω—with followers of Christ. The term Χριστιανός, however, is not yet a common designation in the Lukan double work and is only used in two instances (Acts 11:26; 26:28) (Shauf 2005, pp. 148–49). The belonging to Christ expressed by this term is instead described with μαθητής and faith in Jesus Christ. This is particularly significant in Acts 19:1–7, where both μαθητής and πιστεύω are employed. However, by verse 3, the reader may begin to consider whether the author intentionally left this designation somewhat ambiguous through the use of the indefinite τινας, particularly since μαθητής is used in the Gospel of Luke to refer also to the disciples of John (Luke 5:33; 7:18; 11:1). When μαθητής refers to the disciples of John, they are explicitly referred to as μαθηταὶ Ἰωάννου.

In Acts 19:1, the author leaves open the question of how this group of men is to be categorized, presumably because they cannot be precisely classified.2 The reader will therefore ask: Apparently, these μαθηταί are not to be identified as μαθηταὶ Ἰωάννου. Is this, then, a Christian group?3 When Paul addresses them in this way, he initially seems to have had the impression that this group consisted of individuals who demonstrated some level of alignment with Christianity. For otherwise, he would not have incorporated the aspect of faith into his question. However, a sense of skepticism also resonates when he asks them whether they have received the Holy Spirit (Haacker 2019, p. 319). The reception of the Holy Spirit seems to function here as a kind of evidence or confirmation of whether these men can truly be designated as μαθηταί in the Christian sense (Zmijewski 1994, p. 683). Their response leads Paul to negate this, as he then addresses the role of John the Baptist and faith in Jesus Christ. However, the subsequent baptism, laying on of hands, and the reception of the Holy Spirit, which is immediately manifested in speaking in tongues, leave no doubt that these men have now become Christians (Shauf 2005, p. 149). This initiation process, narrated in such a condensed manner in Acts 19:1–7, is unique.

2. Methodology and Approach

The connection among baptism, faith, the laying on of hands, and the reception of the Spirit is already familiar from the Traditio Apostolica of the 3rd century AD. This tradition, within the framework of Christian baptism, first mentions water baptism accompanied by a confession of faith, followed by prayer with the laying on of hands. The purpose of this initiation process is the forgiveness of sins, which is more strongly implied in the water rite, and the bestowal of the Spirit, which is more strongly implied in the hand rite. Therefore, the sequence of baptism and the laying on of hands in Acts 19:1–7, in connection with faith and the reception of the Spirit, is highly significant from a liturgical perspective. Apart from Acts 8:5–25, it is the only passage that links baptism with the laying on of hands, followed by the reception of the Spirit. However, this article does not aim to focus on or resolve the complex question of the historicity of this rite, as found in the Traditio Apostolica, during New Testament times. Instead, the study seeks to let the text speak for itself. Building on Acts 19:1–7, this article aims to use a narratological and intratextual analysis to explore the extent to which the implied reader, throughout the narrative, arrives at a deeper understanding of the relationship among baptism, faith, and the reception of the Spirit, and their significance for becoming Christians.4

Acts 19:1–7 marks the final passage in the Lukan double work that explicitly connects baptism and the Holy Spirit, while also addressing the aspects of faith and the laying on of hands.5 The author leaves certain gaps in this pericope, prompting the implied reader to pause and reflect on Luke-Acts from the perspective of Acts 19. Regarding the undefined status of these disciples, additional questions remain unanswered from the perspective of the narrative itself: Why does Paul ask about the reception of the Holy Spirit here for the first time in the course of Acts? What does this have to do with faith? What role does John’s baptism play in relation to baptism in the name of Jesus, and how are the two connected? How is it possible that people familiar with John’s baptism have never heard of the Holy Spirit? Why is the act of laying on of hands necessary in addition to baptism? What, then, is ultimately decisive in becoming a Christian? The implied reader will need to look back and search Luke-Acts for the themes of John’s baptism, the baptism associated with Jesus, the laying on of hands, and the reception of the Spirit. Such an initial retrospective glance will naturally focus on the immediately preceding Apollos episode, as it also addresses John’s baptism and an apparent deficiency associated with it.

3. Comparison of Apollos (18:24–28) and τινας μαθητάς (Acts 19:1–7)

Acts 19:1–7 is the only passage in the Acts of the Apostles that explicitly refers to a rebaptism. This is particularly striking given that the immediately preceding context in Acts 18:24–28 describes Apollos as also knowing only the baptism of John. However, no mention of a rebaptism is made in his case (Mills and Moore 2020, p. 218).6 Due to the numerous gaps in the plot, this does not necessarily mean that he was not baptized again. The fact is that it is not mentioned, whereas in Acts 19:5, it is explicitly stated. Therefore, by the time the reader reaches Acts 19, the question inevitably arises as to why these disciples, unlike Apollos, must be baptized again.7

Looking back at Acts 18:24–28, attention is drawn to the description of Apollos, which—unlike the anonymous 12 men in Acts 19:1–6—is highly detailed. Apollos is introduced as a learned man (Acts 18:24: ἀνὴρ λόγιος), eloquent (Acts 18:26: παρρησιάζεσθαι), and originating from the intellectual center of Alexandria. Although it is stated that he knew only the baptism of John (Acts 18:25: ἐπιστάμενος μόνον τὸ βάπτισμα Ἰωάννου), it is also said that he had been instructed in the way of the Lord (Acts 18:25: κατηχημένος τὴν ὁδὸν τοῦ κυρίου).8 Moreover, he already puts his talents at the service of the Christian community by teaching accurately about Jesus (Acts 18:25: ἐδίδασκεν ἀκριβῶς τὰ περὶ τοῦ Ἰησου [emphasis added]). The additional remark that he speaks ζέων τῷ πνεύματι (Acts 18:25) confirms that he was convinced of and enthusiastic about Christian teaching. Furthermore, this expression may also indicate a state of being filled with the Spirit (Peterson 2009, p. 525; Keener 2014, pp. 2807–8; Zmijewski 1994, p. 676). Luke, however, does not use the common and unambiguous formulation πλήρης πλησθεὶς πνεύματος ἁγίου in this case, thereby allowing both nuances to remain valid.9 Apollos has therefore not only received Christian instruction but has become a missionary preacher, which means he must have already come to faith. Once again, however, the author does not explicitly mention this point, prompting the reader to reflect: in the case of Apollos, the focus is not on a lack of faith but rather on a lack of knowledge. This is indicated not only by his knowledge solely of John’s baptism but also by the fact that he is instructed more accurately (Acts 18:26: ἀκριβέστερον) by Priscilla and Aquila. It should be noted that Apollos not only had come to believe in Christ but was already proclaiming and teaching this faith. This requires more than just basic knowledge about Jesus; thus, a more accurate instruction is particularly necessary due to his teaching and preaching activity, which had already been described as accurate (Keener 2014, p. 2809).

However, the reader may well ask: does basic knowledge not also include knowing more than just John’s baptism? This lack of knowledge seems to affect Apollos’ missionary and preaching activity, but does not call his Christian identity into question. For in Acts 18:25–28, Apollos is portrayed as a believing missionary, making an explicit mention of his faith unnecessary. By contrast, the twofold use of πιστεύω in Acts 19:1–7 brings faith and recognized unbelief into focus. Although Paul refers to these disciples in his initial question as those who have come to faith (Acts 19:2: πιστεύσαντες), the skeptical undertone is unmistakable. The very question of whether they have received the Holy Spirit is unique in Luke–Acts. However, what is utterly perplexing is the fact that these μαθηταί have no knowledge of the Holy Spirit whatsoever. While Apollos also has gaps in his understanding, it is not said of him that he does not know the Holy Spirit, but rather that he knows only the baptism of John. The reader will wonder: Is there a difference here? And if so, is this the reason why Apollos is not associated with a rebaptism, whereas these 12 men not only receive baptism but also the laying on of hands? First, however, it must be clarified how John’s baptism and baptism in the name of Jesus are related, for these 12 men are then baptized εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ (Acts 19:5).

4. Intratextual Connection Between Acts 19:5 and Luke 3:16

In Acts 19:4, Paul recalls the message of John the Baptist and attempts to briefly explain the relationship between John the Baptist and his baptism to Jesus Christ, which is also connected to John’s role as a precursor. This constitutes an intratextual reference to Luke 3:16. In Luke 3:16, John’s baptism is associated with water and, in the preceding context, described as a βάπτισμα μετανοίας εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν (Luke 3:3). Jesus’ baptism is associated in Luke 3:16 with the Holy Spirit and fire, as well as with the greater strength of Jesus (ὁ ἰσχυρότερός μου). Although Jesus is described in Luke 3:16 as ὁ ἰσχυρότερός, this does not imply a competitive relationship in terms of the superiority of baptism in the name of Jesus (Acts 19:5) or baptism with fire and the Holy Spirit (Luke 3:16) compared to John’s baptism. It should be noted that Acts 19 does not mention a baptism in the name of John but only refers to the baptism of John (see Acts 19:3: εἰς τὸ Ἰωάννου βάπτισμα). Rather, the relationship between the two baptisms is clarified: John’s baptism is only a water baptism for the forgiveness of sins, associated with the Baptist’s call to repentance and his role as a precursor (Luke 3:3, 7–14; see also Acts 1:5; 11:16) (Gunkel 2015, p. 30; Zmijewski 1994, p. 684). John the Baptist did not simply call for repentance; rather, his call to repentance and conversion was intended as a preparation for the coming of Jesus (Mills and Moore 2020, p. 214). John distinguishes between a baptism with water, which he himself administers, and a baptism ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί. Although he himself is filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb (Luke 1:15: πνεύματος ἁγίου πλησθήσεται ἔτι ἐκ κοιλίας μητρὸς αὐτοῦ), a statement made only about him, he does not baptize ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί. This may raise the question of whether a distinction is being made between John’s baptism and the new (Christian?) baptism in Luke-Acts.10

If the reader searches for further occurrences of the expression ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί that might aid in understanding, he will not find any. This is the only passage that includes this baptismal formulation with both elements—Holy Spirit and fire. Only in Acts 1:5—and in Acts 11:16 with reference to 1:5—is baptism ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ mentioned. However, when compared directly with Acts 19:5, it becomes apparent that the baptismal act there is not referred to as βάπτισμα ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί, as in Luke 3:16, but rather as βάπτισμα εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ (Peterson 2009, p. 531). This designation appears three times throughout the Acts of the Apostles, with slight variations in prepositions (Acts 2:38: ἐπί; 8:16: εἰς; 10:48: ἐν). The change in the formulation of baptism occurs immediately after the Pentecost event, when in Acts 2:38, Peter calls for baptism ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστου (Keener 2014, p. 2819). Accordingly, this change in designation is introduced at the first reference to baptism after the Pentecost event. However, Luke-Acts provides no explanations for this change, and “provides no dominical warrant for baptism in the name of Jesus” (Pervo 2009, p. 469). The reader will therefore ask: Is there consequently a connection between the baptism ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί and the Pentecost event, especially since both elements are explicitly mentioned there: διαμεριζόμεναι γλῶσσαι ὡσεὶ πυρός (Acts 2:3); ἐπλήσθησαν πάντες πνεύματος ἁγίου (Acts 2:4) (emphasis added)? But why, then, is the fire element omitted in the announcement of this baptism ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ by the Risen One in Acts 1:5?

With a view to Acts 1:5 and 19:5, another small difference becomes apparent. The change in designation is also linked to the question of the baptizer. In Luke 3:16, according to the testimony of John, Jesus is (implicitly) the one who βαπτίσει ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί. However, in Acts 1:5, Jesus himself uses a passive formulation; that is, he does not say, I will baptize you, but rather, “you will be baptized (βαπτισθήσεσθε) in the Holy Spirit”. What stands out, however, is that Jesus himself never baptized, despite the expectation raised in Luke 3:16. At least, Luke-Acts does not report anything about it. However, the Gospel does mention that Jesus undergoes two baptisms: in the immediate context of Luke 3:16 and in Luke 12:50.

5. Jesus’ Water and Fire Baptism (Luke 3:20–21; 12:49–50): An Indication of the Significance of Baptism ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί?

In Luke 3:21–22, the account of Jesus’ baptism follows, in which the Holy Spirit appears in the form of a dove. Consequently, the Holy Spirit, who in Luke 3:16 is linked to Jesus’ baptism, appears immediately here. The declaration that then resounds from heaven, “You are my beloved Son” (Luke 3:22), refers back to the annunciation scene, insofar as Jesus is there described as holy and Son of God (Luke 1:35). Furthermore, it alludes to Jesus’ conception by the Holy Spirit. This fullness of the Spirit differs from that of John the Baptist, who is filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb (Luke 1:15), in that the Holy Spirit not only determines Jesus’ actions but also shapes his entire being (Bovon 1989, p. 65; Gunkel 2015, pp. 67–68). The address as beloved Son functions as a kind of public demonstration of Jesus’ divine sonship and testifies to the continuous presence of the power of the Holy Spirit in the person of Jesus (Hess 2019, p. 155). It is striking that the opening of heaven and the descent of the Holy Spirit immediately preceding this declaration are not directly linked to the baptism by John, as indicated by the passive formulation βαπτισθέντος (S. Wilson 2016, p. 482).11 Rather, the opening of heaven and the Holy Spirit are placed in direct connection with Jesus’ prayerful turning toward God (Luke 3:21–22: προσευχομένου ἀνεῳχθῆναι τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ καταβῆναι τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον). Jesus’ baptism is indeed performed by John, but it is detached from his person and, by means of the passive formulation, stylized as a divine event (Carroll 2012, pp. 96–97).

This is narratively reinforced by the fact that the arrest of John the Baptist is presented prospectively before Jesus’ baptism, signaling that John’s period of preparation has come to an end. John’s baptism is also from heaven (ἐξ οὐρανοῦ), as can be inferred from Luke 20:4. This is intended to express that John did not baptize on his own initiative but acted by divine commission. However, Jesus’ baptism is a divine interaction, which raises the question or suggestion of whether this moment already prepares the transition to the baptism ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί, given that, narratively speaking, it represents the final baptism performed by John the Baptist (Mullins 2010, pp. 158–59). This is supported by Acts 10:37–38, as Peter interprets Jesus’ baptism as an anointing with the Holy Spirit and power by God (Acts 10:38: ἔχρισεν αὐτὸν ὁ θεὸς πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ δυνάμει).12 In addition to the public declaration of Jesus as the Son of God, this marks the starting point of his messianic mission, for which John the Baptist had prepared the way and which will be fulfilled on the cross (Carroll 2012, p. 97; Garland 2011, p. 169).13

However, since nowhere in Luke-Acts is there a report of Jesus engaging in baptism, and the topic of baptism only reemerges after Jesus’ death and resurrection, there must be a connection between Jesus’ baptism, the baptism ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί, and the Easter event. Jesus is aligning himself with the repentant people, as his baptism is mentioned almost incidentally in the context of the other baptisms (Luke 3:21: ἐν τῷ βαπτισθῆναι ἅπαντα τὸν λαὸν καὶ Ἰησοῦ βαπτισθέντος) (Osborne 2018, p. 98). Jesus’ baptism is thus also an expression of his solidarity with sinners, insofar as he himself, as the Son of God, has no need for repentance or forgiveness of sins (Carroll 2012, p. 97; Radl 2003, p. 201; Söding 2023, p. 79). He walks the path with sinners, but beyond that, “he is identifying himself as the solution for sin, the answer to fallen humanity’s need to repent” (Osborne 2018, p. 98). He paves the way for redemption from sins, as his missionary work now begins, culminating in his death on the cross.

If the reader now considers the second reference to a baptism of Jesus in Luke 12:50, it even seems that the baptism ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί, Jesus’ baptism in Luke 3:20–21, and his death are interconnected.14 For in Luke 12:50, Jesus speaks of a baptism that he must undergo in the future. Here, Jesus uses the imagery of baptism to refer to his impending death, while the baptismal metaphor—of immersion and emergence—also implies the resurrection (Söding 2023, p. 341). However, due to the passive use of τελέω, the focus is placed particularly on Jesus’ death.15 In Luke-Acts, the soteriological significance of Jesus’ death, repentance, and the theme of divine forgiveness of sins are particularly emphasized (Garland 2011, p. 162). In the context of his death, forgiveness of sins and repentance are addressed in two ways, as only Luke preserves both Jesus’ plea for forgiveness on the cross (Luke 23:34) and the story of the penitent criminal on the cross (Luke 23:39–43) (B. R. Wilson 2016, p. 128). Jesus’ death is thus linked to forgiveness of sins and repentance, just as it was already in the context of John’s baptism. This creates a narrative arc from Jesus’ baptism, in which he expresses solidarity with sinners and at the same time begins his messianic mission, to its fulfillment on the cross. Another indication of the presumed connection among the baptism ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί, Jesus’ baptism in Luke 3:20–21, and Jesus’ death can be seen in the fire motif. For in Luke 12:49, Jesus declares that he has come to cast fire upon the earth, and in Luke 12:50, he speaks of his impending death using the imagery of baptism. Verses 49 and 50 are structurally parallel: “Jesus refers to fire and baptism and in both cases he refers to his desire to accomplish his task” (Mullins 2010, p. 349).

It is interesting to note that a connection between fire and baptism is already established in Luke 3:16. In Luke 3:17, another statement follows about the one who performs the baptism ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί, namely Jesus. This is an eschatological judgment statement, which builds on John the Baptist’s previous exhortations about the urgency of repentance in light of the approaching judgment, especially since the fire motif already appears in Luke 3:9. The fire motif inevitably evokes the aspects of judgment, purification, and separation (Garland 2011, p. 530; Osborne 2018, p. 96). Through the framing of the baptismal statements with the fire motif and the judgment statement directly following the baptism ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί in v. 17, John the Baptist not only links the baptism of repentance with water, which he administers, but also the coming baptism ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί to God’s eschatological act of judgment (Weller 2022, pp 155–161).16 In Luke 3:17, in the final explicit words of John the Baptist, the fire motif is once again vividly presented in the eschatological imagery of the harvest, emphasizing the destructive consequence of non-repentance. In Luke 12:49, the subsequent context points, on the one hand, to the moment of separation through the decision for repentance (Luke 12:51–53) and, on the other hand, to the urgency of repentance in light of the coming judgment (Luke 12:58–13:1–9).

Jesus is the active agent in both Luke 3:16 (βαπτίσει ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί) and Luke 12:49 (πῦρ ἦλθον βαλεῖν ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν). The latter text is set in parallel with his baptism of death (Luke 12:50), so that in Jesus’ baptism of death, this fire judgment is ultimately fulfilled.17 While John the Baptist’s ministry has a preparatory character, Jesus expresses solidarity with sinners through his baptism, which at the same time marks the starting point of his work of redemption. In contrast, his death, as an act of judgment, is the place of atonement and forgiveness of sins. The two baptisms of Jesus are therefore directly connected. For in the baptism of death mentioned in Luke 12:49–50, Jesus desires to “be ‘immersed’ (the meaning of ‘baptism’) in his destiny, his passion on the cross. Jesus will be overwhelmed with catastrophe (the meaning of the baptism metaphor) when he becomes sin for us and undergoes our judgment on the cross on our behalf” (Osborne 2018, p. 344; see also Söding 2023, pp. 341–42). As Mullins emphasizes, Jesus’ own baptism is thus also “a key to the new type of baptism he was to bring. Whereas the baptism of John was called a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins […] and could be graphically described as an empty hand stretched out of God for forgiveness, the baptism of Jesus, described as baptism in Holy Spirit […], signifies the beginning of a new era, a pivotal point in the economy of salvation, a guarantee of God’s forgiveness of sin, a new and final initiative of God in Jesus. […] The occasion of Jesus’ baptism signals the beginning of the eschatological time which will be marked by the healing work of the Messiah above all in the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Spirit” (Mullins 2010, p. 158).

This sheds new light on the previously raised question regarding the non-mention of the fire motif in Acts 1:5. In the next mention of baptism in Acts 2:38, the fire motif is also absent, while the δωρεά τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος is promised. Additionally, alongside the call for baptism, there is now an explicit call to repentance, so that sins may be forgiven. By contrast, in the announcement of the baptism ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίω καὶ πυρί, this call to repentance is not explicitly stated, particularly since John the Baptist’s forerunner ministry had already issued the call to repentance for the forgiveness of sins, preparing the way for the baptism administered by the ἰσχυρότερός. The fire motif in the context of baptism is thus mentioned only before Jesus’ death, indicating that the baptism with fire serves as an image of God’s eschatological act of judgment, which is fulfilled in Jesus’ atonement. In other words, through his death, Jesus has completed what he began in his water baptism in Luke 3:16: his solidarity with sinners finds its fulfillment in the work of redemption on the cross.18 The baptism with fire, rather, must be understood—in light of Luke 12:49–50—as being directly connected to Jesus’ death and the eschatological act of judgment associated with it, which implies forgiveness of sins and redemption. The separation expressed through the fire motif in the baptismal statements of Luke 3:16 must be interpreted in light of John the Baptist’s call to repentance, as it emphasizes the urgency of decision (decision including a division; see also Latin decidere: de = off/down + caedere = to cut or strike) in view of the inbreaking salvific action of God. Fire is thus not merely a means of punishment but can bring either salvation or judgment, depending on the decision of the individual (Bovon 1996, p. 350). The omission of the fire motif after Jesus’ death and resurrection, along with the addition of the call to repentance and the aspect of forgiveness of sins in the first post-Easter and post-Pentecost baptismal statement in Acts 2:38, is therefore due to the fact that the baptism with fire has already been fulfilled. However, in Acts 1:5, baptism is still described with the passive form (βαπτισθήσεσθε) ἐν πνεύματι. Before this formulation transitions into the designation baptism ἐπὶ (or εἰς/ἐν) τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, the Pentecost event takes place—an event to which Jesus refers in Acts 1:5 (Peterson 2009, p. 108).

6. Jesus’ Spirit-Baptism: Pentecost

Jesus thus refers metaphorically not only to his death as a baptism but also to the Pentecost event. This now clarifies what the second element of the baptism announced by John is intended to express. Jesus baptizes ἐν πυρί, inasmuch as his death constitutes the redeeming act of judgment, along with the atonement and forgiveness of sins that accompany it. Furthermore, after his death, resurrection, and ascension, Jesus baptizes ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ in the Pentecost event. While Jesus’ death is depicted through the fire motif as God’s eschatological act of judgment, the Pentecost event, with the outpouring of the Spirit, is revealed as the fulfillment of God’s end-time promise (Zmijewski 1994, p. 103).19 Although the Pentecost event is referred to as a baptism, it is not presented as a baptismal ritual but rather as a theophany, that is, a divinely initiated event (Eckey 2000, pp. 71–72). By emphasizing the suddenness of the event through the term ἄφνω (Acts 2:2), the divine origin of the occurrence is underscored (Zmijewski 1994, pp. 105–6). Through the accompanying external phenomena of wind and fire, the narrative also alludes to Old Testament epiphany accounts, particularly to the Mosaic tradition (Keener 2012, pp. 801–4; Marguerat 2002, p. 115; Peterson 2009, pp. 131–32; Zmijewski 1994, p. 105).20 As already highlighted, the fire motif used here does not directly refer to the promise of John the Baptist mentioned in Luke 3:16 (Peterson 2009, pp. 132–33). In the context of the Pentecost event, the fire motif serves to underscore the divine origin of the occurrence and, moreover, to highlight the individual nature of the Spirit reception, whereas the wind phenomenon emphasizes the communal aspect. For in the description of the Pentecost event in Acts 2:2–4, it is stated that the Holy Spirit, like a mighty wind, filled the entire house, meaning that the assembled Christians as a whole were encompassed by the work of the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, it is also emphasized that the Holy Spirit fills each individual in their uniqueness, since it is stated that the tongues of fire descended upon each one of them individually (Acts 2:3: ἕνα ἕκαστον αὐτῶν) (Eckey 2000, p. 72; Zmijewski 1994, pp. 107. 118–19). The individual reception of the Spirit thus takes place within the Christian community and simultaneously constitutes the initial moment.

By presenting the Pentecost event as a theophany in the style of the Old Testament, the unique status of the first-time gifting of the Holy Spirit is emphasized, as this event is initiatory and salvifically significant in salvation history (Eckey 2000, pp. 82–83; Gunkel 2015, pp. 140.146). It constitutes the decisive turning point in salvation history, the foundational moment of the Church within the continuum of salvation history—so to speak, the quintessential baptism, in which the gift of the Holy Spirit is bestowed upon the Church as a whole and upon each individual within it (Marguerat 2016, p. 113). The Pentecost event is thus initially presented as a theophany before it becomes clear that this also implies a pneumaphany. Initially, the accompanying phenomena of the Spirit reception are described, before verse 4 reveals to the readers that the Holy Spirit is at work. Furthermore, in verse 2, reference is made to the origin of the Spirit as ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανου. Thus, the Spirit is not only to be identified as a gift from God but also as a gift that comes from Jesus, whom the reader already knows has been taken up εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν (Acts 1:11) (Zmijewski 1994, p. 117). Thus, Pentecost is presented as a divinely initiated act, in which the Holy Spirit, as the promise of the Father, is bestowed through Jesus, founding the Church and guiding and empowering it in its missionary and apostolic activities.

The reader will now be able to draw this conclusion in retrospect, considering the two instructions given by the Risen One in Luke 24:44–49 and Acts 1:4–8. In Luke 24:49, Jesus states that he will send down the promise of the Father (ἐπαγγελία τοῦ πατρός), that is, the Holy Spirit, upon the disciples. Jesus thus functions as the mediator of the Holy Spirit, which explains the passive formulation βαπτισθήσεσθε used in Acts 1:5 as a case of the passivum divinum (see also Acts 2:33). Furthermore, the Spirit is referred to as δύναμις (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:8), which, according to Acts 1:8, empowers for witnessing. The gifts accompanying the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost (Acts 2:6) also indicate that the gift of the Holy Spirit is associated with a mission (Marguerat 2016, p. 115; Schröter 2011, pp. 560–61). Thus, it becomes clear that the Church comes into being through the Holy Spirit as a lasting witness to Jesus Christ, and that the Holy Spirit works in, through, and with the disciples. In Luke 24:47, immediately before the promise of the Holy Spirit as δύναμις ἐξ ὕψους, reference is made to the two key elements of John’s preaching and baptism, which are now entrusted to the disciples, also in the context of baptism: repentance and forgiveness of sins. However, these are not grounded in the disciples but are to be proclaimed ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτου and through the δύναμις of the Holy Spirit. Thus, in this context of the first announcement of the outpouring of the Spirit, the characteristic preaching themes of John the Baptist are linked with the post-Easter proclamation ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτου. This proclamation of repentance and forgiveness of sins is also directly linked to the Easter event through the preceding verse 46, thereby confirming what has been said about Jesus’ baptism with fire, “for without Christ’s atoning sacrifice no repentance or forgiveness could ever be possible“ (Osborne 2018, p. 577; see also Garland 2011, pp. 968–69).

Since the Risen One himself, immediately before his ascension, foretells the Pentecost event, it is likewise placed in relation to the Easter event and, so to speak, presented “as a direct result of Jesus’ redemptive death and resurrection” (Peterson 2009, p. 131). It is thus “a postpaschal reality; it is not the work of the earthly Jesus, but of the risen Christ” (Marguerat 2002, p. 114). It now becomes clear that John the Baptist’s statement about the baptism ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί is correct, insofar as the Easter and Pentecost events can be identified with the baptism of fire and Spirit. After Jesus has fulfilled the baptism of fire and Spirit, there is no further mention of a baptism with fire or Spirit. Instead, immediately after the Pentecost event, baptism ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is introduced. In this context, it is not only associated with the reception of the Spirit but also with the proclamation of repentance and forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38).

7. Baptism in the Name of Jesus: Continuity and Transformation of John’s Water Baptism

The phrase ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι, used in both Acts 2:38 and Luke 24:47, can be understood in two ways. Considering the statement in Luke 24:46–48 regarding the proclamation of repentance and forgiveness of sins ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτου, it becomes clear that the disciples do not act on their own power and authority. Rather, they function as mediators of grace through the power of the Holy Spirit, so that the phrase ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτου implies, on the one hand, “power and authorization for apostolic activity“ (Johnson 1992, p. 57), including baptism, the forgiveness of sins associated with it, and the bestowal of the Holy Spirit, which is also associated with the laying on of hands in Acts 8:17 and 19:6. On the other hand, the reference to the name of Jesus Christ must also take into account the significance of the name itself, that is, the divine redemption through the Messiah, which, in turn, points to the baptism of fire and Spirit. The radically new aspect of baptism in the name of Jesus must be understood in relation to the completed baptism of fire and Spirit by Jesus. The baptism ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ implies the atoning power of Jesus’ death on the cross (baptism of fire) and takes place through the δύναμις of the Holy Spirit received at Pentecost (baptism of the Spirit). Therefore, Peter’s proclamation in Acts 2:38 is “in fulfillment of the prophecy of Jesus that after being empowered, his apostles would proclaim repentance for the forgiveness of sins in his name (Luke 24:47–49)” (Johnson 1992, p. 60).

Regarding its relationship to John’s baptism, the connection between baptism ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ and repentance for the forgiveness of sins demonstrates that baptism in the name of Jesus does not abolish John’s baptism but rather continues and brings it to fulfillment. Although baptism in the name of Jesus represents something radically new, it nevertheless incorporates elements of John’s baptism of repentance and water baptism. In Acts, Christian baptism is explicitly associated with the water rite, as is evident from the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch by Philip (Acts 8:35–38). While the reception of the Spirit is not mentioned in this account, the act of baptism is described (Schröter 2011, p. 573). It can be assumed that the rite of baptism was already a common and well-known practice, as Luke does not provide detailed descriptions of the rite of baptism itself (Haacker 2019, p. 169; Zmijewski 1994, p. 366). In the context of the conversion and baptism of Cornelius and his household, water is also mentioned (Acts 10:47). Moreover, as previously stated, baptism in the name of Jesus implies repentance and the forgiveness of sins associated with it. In Acts 2:38, repentance is described as something that precedes the act of baptism, while forgiveness of sins is presented as its goal or immediate effect (Acts 2:38: εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν [emphasis added]). The forgiveness of sins proclaimed by John is now “a present possibility because of the Messiah’s death, resurrection, and ascension” (Peterson 2009, p. 155). The Greek term for repentance, μετάνοια (Luke 3:3.8; 24:47; 19:4)/μετανοέω (Acts 2:38), is associated both with the preaching of John the Baptist and with baptism ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. This is a preferential term in Luke’s writings, used in an ambivalent manner. Luke employs μετάνοια/μετανοέω not only in the sense of a religious-ethical repentance but also incorporates the intellectual dimension implied by pagan-Greek usage, in the sense of a change of mind or reconsideration.21 This is particularly made clear in Luke 16:30–31 by the parallel use of the verb πείθω in v. 31, corresponding to μετανοέω in v. 30 (Hess 2019, pp. 345–46). Furthermore, in Acts 17:30–31, the repentance (μετανοεῖν) demanded in v. 30 is interpreted in v. 31 through the likewise ambivalently used πίστις22 as faith in the resurrection of Jesus. On the surface, the resurrection is qualified as πίστις in the sense of proof for Jesus’ election as judge of the world, and from this, the urgency of repentance (μετάνοια) is derived. However, in the background, πίστις also suggests that the event of the resurrection places faith itself under obligation (Hess 2019, pp. 349–51; Peterson 2009, p. 154).

Against the background of this connection between μετάνοια/μετανοέω and the aspect of faith, Acts 19:4 now takes on a new dimension. For Paul also refers in Acts 19:4 to John’s baptism as a βάπτισμα μετανοίας and emphasizes John’s teaching that one should believe (πιστεύσωσιν) in the one who comes after him. However, an explicit call to believe in Jesus is not mentioned in Acts 2:38 and Luke 3:1–20; instead, the focus is on repentance, and in Luke 3:7–14, also on ethical instructions. However, it is indicated in Luke 3:18 that John proclaimed the gospel through these and other words (εὐηγγελίζετο). While in the Gospel this εὐαγγελίζειν does not yet directly refer to the person of Jesus, Acts increasingly speaks of the gospel of Jesus Christ (Acts 5:42: εὐαγγελιζόμενοι τὸν χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν, see also Acts 8:35; 11:20; 13:32; 17:18). The εὐαγγελίζειν used in Luke 3:18, in light of its usage in Acts, is implicitly related to Jesus Christ and thus also implicitly calls for faith in him. It can therefore be assumed that the call to μετάνοια expressed in Acts 2:38 also implies the aspect of faith. Thus, the specification of the baptism to be received through the formula ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ highlights what is distinctive about Christian baptism: faith in Jesus Christ, that is, the belief that the baptism ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί promised by John the Baptist has been fulfilled in Jesus’ redemptive act on the cross and in the sending of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

8. Conclusions: The Relationship Between Baptism and the Reception of the Spirit in Luke-Acts

It has become clear that baptism in the name of Jesus is associated more closely with the aspect of faith than with the reception of the Spirit. Although baptism and the reception of the Spirit are related in Luke-Acts, the reception of the Spirit is not limited to the baptismal event. Moreover, in Acts 19:1–7, the reception of the Spirit is not mediated directly through the act of baptism but is instead connected with the laying on of hands as a gesture of imparting the Spirit (Eckey 2000, p. 433; Keener 2014, p. 2822). Baptism and the reception of the Spirit are indeed brought into relation with one another, but they are not directly linked. The same is evident in Acts 2:38, insofar as the gift of the Holy Spirit is announced as a promise using a future tense formulation (Eckey 2000, p. 90), unlike the forgiveness of sins, which is presented as an immediate effect. The essential difference from John’s baptism thus does not consist in the reception of the Holy Spirit. Rather, the specifically Christian aspect of baptism in the name of Jesus consists in faith in the fulfillment of John the Baptist’s promise in the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. Acts 22:16 confirms that this name formula implies “that the person being baptized actually called upon Jesus as Lord and Christ, as a way of confessing faith in him” (Peterson 2009, p. 155). In the context of his account of the Damascus experience, Paul quotes Ananias, who calls him to baptism and the accompanying washing away of sins (ἀπόλουσαι τὰς ἁμαρτίας σου), and in so doing, links the invocation of the name of Jesus (ἐπικαλεσάμενος τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ) with the act of baptism.

It now becomes clearer that Paul, in Acts 19:4, likewise establishes a direct connection between faith and baptism in the name of Jesus, in that he summarizes John’s teaching as a call to faith in Jesus. This clarification also sheds light on the deficiency of these disciples of John mentioned in Acts 19. If they had received John’s baptism, it is to be assumed that they were familiar with the Baptist’s message, but they neither understood that Jesus was the one to whom it referred, nor that the baptism with the Holy Spirit and fire had already become a reality (Keener 2014, p. 2820). This confirms that these disciples lacked both knowledge of the faith and faith in Jesus because, unlike Apollos, they had not been instructed in the fulfillment of the Baptist’s message in Jesus Christ. This also clarifies the question of their ignorance concerning the Holy Spirit. For with their lack of knowledge about the Holy Spirit, the issue is not a theoretical understanding of the Spirit. John himself announced the coming of the Spirit for the end times (Matt 3:11; Luke 3:16). For John and his disciples, however, the Spirit was not—as it was for the disciples of Jesus—a present reality, in the sense that John’s baptism was associated with the reception of the Holy Spirit. However, since they immediately allow themselves to be baptized in response to what they have heard, it can be assumed that faith was awakened in them.

Nevertheless, in this case, rebaptism is deemed necessary, whereas it remains unmentioned in the case of Apollos. Moreover, this baptism is accompanied by the laying on of hands, a practice that appears again only in Acts 8:5–25, where Acts 8:15 additionally establishes a connection between prayer and the laying on of hands (Fitzmyer 1998, p. 406; Haacker 2019, p. 163). Acts 8:5–25 further shows a parallel to Acts 19:1–7 in that baptism and the reception of the Spirit are likewise distinguished as two separate acts. In addition, as in Ephesus (Acts 19:1–7) and in the context of Peter’s Pentecost sermon, baptism is preceded by the proclamation of Christ (Acts 8:12). However, it is subsequently reported that Peter and John were sent there to pray for the reception of the Spirit on behalf of those who had been baptized because the Spirit had not yet come upon any of them. Only after the laying on of hands by Peter and John do these baptized individuals also receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:15–17). Philip does indeed administer a distinctly Christian baptism, insofar as they are baptized in the name of Jesus (Acts 8:16: εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ).

However, the mediating of the Spirit does not appear to be entrusted to him. Philip belongs to the group of Hellenists to whom the διακονεῖν τραπέζαις (Acts 6:2) was entrusted through the laying on of hands in Acts 6:6. This group possesses a distinct profile in relation to the apostles, as is confirmed in this scene depicting Philip’s activity in Samaria. On the one hand, these Hellenists are described as men πλήρεις πνεύματος καὶ σοφίας (Acts 6:3). However, they are not involved in the event of the transmission of the Spirit, which is tied to the apostles (Schröter 2011, p. 569; Reichardt 2014, p. 34). This is connected—with reference to Acts 6:4 (ἡ προσευχή καὶ ἡ διακονία τοῦ λόγου)—to preceding prayer. However, the issue is not primarily the correction of a dogmatic, legal, or ritual deficiency. In this context, Marguerat emphasizes that the gift of God is mediated “through the mother church in Jerusalem” (Marguerat 2016, p. 124) and that Peter and John assume a mediating role. This also implies that the act of laying on of hands is a task given by God to certain Christians. This is reinforced by the subsequent scene involving Simon the Magician, who requests the transmission of this authority for himself, thereby overlooking the divine origin of the gift.

Notably, in both Acts 8:5–25 and Acts 19:1–7, the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon those who had been baptized, and in both cases, the laying on of hands is employed for the mediation of the Spirit. But a glance at chapter 10 makes it clear that the reception of the Spirit is neither intrinsically linked to baptism itself nor bound to the laying on of hands. In the account of the conversion and baptism of the Gentile Cornelius and his household, the unbaptized are already filled with the Holy Spirit following Peter’s preaching (Acts 10:44–48). The Cornelius episode represents, after the Pentecost event, another significant step in the formation and expansion of the Church in the Acts of the Apostles, as Gentiles are now also incorporated into the community of Christians through baptism (Marguerat 2016, p. 117). God himself has paved the way for this, as the Holy Spirit interrupts the speech—it is stated: “while Peter was still speaking these words” (Acts 10:44)—and takes control of the event. The reception of the Spirit occurs prior to baptism and, in this context, can be related to the faithful hearing of Peter’s words (Eckey 2000, p. 246; Fitzmyer 1998, p. 467; Reichardt 2014, p. 37; Schröter 2011, pp. 570–71). The reception of the Spirit in Acts 10:47–48 is viewed as a kind of official divine confirmation of the Christian faith of these Gentiles. For Peter then has them baptized ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, which—as has been shown—implies a baptism grounded in faith in Jesus Christ. From this, it may be inferred that the laying on of hands after baptism in Acts 8:17 and 19:6 for the impartation of the Spirit serves as the divinely entrusted apostolic confirmation of these men’s Christian faith.

It is significant that in both events crucial to the formation of the Church—Pentecost and the Cornelius episode—baptism and the Holy Spirit are mentioned, especially since the Pentecost event in Acts 1:5 is also described as a baptismal event. Taking into account Acts 2:38, 8:5–25, and Acts 19:1–7, it becomes clear that the expansion of the Church, and thus also initiation, is closely connected with baptism and the gift of the Spirit, and it is furthermore intimately tied to faith in Jesus Christ. Acts 19:1–6 contains the last mention of a baptism in the Acts of the Apostles. This can be seen as further evidence that the baptismal narratives in Acts belong to the context of the Church’s expansion and thus to the process of initiation (Schröter 2011, pp. 558–60). Baptism and the reception of the Spirit are thus two events that play a central role in the constitution of the Church and in the process of initiation. While they can occur together, they nonetheless retain their distinctiveness. Setting aside the exceptional case in Acts 1:4–8, already in Acts 2:38, the reception of the Spirit is presented as a distinct act that follows baptism, which is associated with the forgiveness of sins. In Acts 8:15–17 and 19:5–6, the impartation of the Spirit is associated with the laying on of hands and is thus also differentiated from the act of baptism itself. Luke is therefore familiar with the early Christian rite of the laying on of hands, which he can associate with the reception of the Spirit, though it is not necessarily tied to it (Acts 6:6; 9:17). While baptism constitutes a decisive factor for incorporation into the Christian community and is linked with the gift of the Spirit, the Spirit’s bestowal remains a distinct act. Furthermore, the reception of the Spirit is not limited to the reception of baptism.