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

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see extensive notes in attached file.  A good start.  Several areas need attention and further research.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1: The scholars suggested are certainly outstanding representatives of scholarship, but mostly from earlier decades. Regarding the Dunn debate: the article does not take the approach of first presenting the existing landscape of research in order to refute it. Rather, it aims to arrive at a coherent conclusion based on the textual foundation (Luke-Acts). Approximately half of the article consists of commentary, which I consider to be well-balanced.

Comment 2: This is certainly a valuable suggestion, but it would go beyond the scope of the article.

Comment 3: a. I addressed this aspect in lines ll. 191–209. b. thank you for the hint. Ezekiel 36:24–29 could have served as a background framework and thus as an intertextual point of reference for this connection between forgiveness of sins, baptism, and reception of the Spirit. However, this would be merely an implicit allusion, as other thematic elements from Ezekiel 36:24–29—such as the new heart, the new spirit, and the theme of purification/impurity—do not play a role in this context in Luke-Acts or are not mentioned. c. The article takes a synchronic-narratological approach and focuses on the Lukan double work. d. The main argument concerning Acts 2:38 is to show that baptism and the reception of the Spirit are related but not directly dependent on one another. This supports the thesis that the reception of the Holy Spirit is not limited to the act of baptism alone, but that the Spirit can also be received apart from baptismal events. d. Had the author of Acts truly intended to present the reception of the Spirit as an immediate effect of baptism, he could easily have formulated it in parallel to εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν. But he does not; instead, he uses a future tense, which sets the reception of the Spirit apart from baptism—though the connection to baptism is not denied. See lines 476–483.

Comment 4: The connection between the laying on of hands and the ability to perform miracles is mediated by the reception of the Spirit, which, according to Acts 8:18, is given through the laying on of the apostles’ hands (διὰ τῆς ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρῶν τῶν ἀποστόλων δίδοται). Unlike others, Simon is not explicitly characterized with the Lukan formula πλήρης or πλησθεὶς πνεύματος ἁγίου, which is typical for Luke. Moreover, the ἐξουσία Simon desires is not related to the ability to work miracles, but rather to the authority to confer the Spirit through the laying on of hands (cf. Acts 8:19). Also in Acts 13, the working of miracles is not directly linked to the act of laying on of hands, but rather to the reception of the Spirit brought about through it. For the first time, Paul is described in Acts 13:9 with the Lukan characteristic formula πλήρης or πλησθεὶς πνεύματος ἁγίου, and only then does he perform his first miracle and deliver his first speech—whereas his earlier missionary efforts had been unsuccessful (for a more in-depth analysis, see Hess 2019).

26: “tinas mathetai (Acts 19:1): I removed the tinas (l. 26) because it could lead to confusion. I had only included it to indicate the unspecified status of these disciples. However, in the context of the sentence, its mention is not necessary, since I address this point further below.

153-154 why is Jesus submitting to John’s baptism?: I address this in ll. 223–234.

303-304: latin root to strengthen and explain the argument

Fire baptism/ pentecost: The fire motif in the Pentecost event is not used as an expression of judgment and divine punishment. I address this in lines ll. 337–349.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article presents a compelling argument for how the author of Acts portrays faith as a crucial difference for distinguishing the reason for a second baptism and gift of the Spirit in Acts 19:1–7 from the further instruction Priscilla and Aquila give to Apollos in Acts 18:24–28.

However, the further points drawn from this, related to some form of separation between baptism, faith, and the reception of the Spirit; a separate order of ministers equipped to impart the Holy Spirit; or of faith constituting the differentiation between John's baptism and Jesus's baptism in Luke-Acts, do not necessarily follow from the arguments the author makes. In the conclusion, it appears that the author has been arguing all along against a view (exemplified in Wilson 2016b @ ln. 472) that he or she did not explicitly articulate as a contrary view until that point. 

It would be clearer and more academically forthright to present a literature review of interpretations of Luke-Acts that draw a clear contrast between John's baptism and Jesus's on the basis of the giving of the Holy Spirit, critique those views on their evidentiary insufficiency, and then articulate the author's thesis as a proposed solution to the interpretive problems of the contravening view.

There are a few presuppositions undergirding the author's approach that also need further theoretical explanation before proceeding: First, the introduction of a "reader" and a process of "reading" and "rereading" in ll. 70–83 seems to assume a reader and a reading event that differs in no perceptible way from present-day reading events, despite developments in reading technology, the availability of texts, and literacy between the present era and the first century CE. This assumed readership does not take into account the possibility that many people likely encountered texts primarily through auditory means, without the opportunity to re-read the text. Does this thesis require a first century reader to be able to read and reread privately in order for it to work? The author never considers this nor argues for or against it. Secondly, the author seems to assume a unified authorship, theology, and narrative agenda to Luke-Acts, but makes no reference to any scholarship that supports such a reading of Luke-Acts as a unified, composite work (e.g. Tannehill), nor to critiques of this theory of the composition of Luke and Acts by, for example, Parsons and Pervo. 

Regarding the relationship between John's baptism and Jesus's baptism with the Holy Spirit, there is no engagement with the literature querying the relationship between the rites of John and Jesus, or the origins of Christian baptism (e.g. Collins 1989; Mills and Moore 2020). Although the author claims to make a narrative argument within Luke-Acts based primarily on plot, there is scant reference to plot in the article (ll. 68, 70, 92 only), and at times the article appears to veer towards making broader historical and normative theological claims that exceed the capacity of the claimed narratological methodology. For example,  in ln. 111 the author states that Apollos's missionary activity is the basis by which one may assume his having come to faith. This not only seems to presuppose a standard of missionary requirements that may not have been in place for an independent preacher; it also neglects the clear textual indication in Acts 18:25 stating that Apollos taught accurately. See also ln. 123 "believing missionary." What of the seven sons of Sceva?

Shoring up these methodological lacunae would increase the persuasiveness of the article. However, a further matter of argumentation and organization might be in order for this essay in order to make the argument and conclusion follow more directly from a critique of previous views. In such a re-organization, I also suggest breaking paragraphs up into much smaller units that establish one evidentiary point per paragraph and follow logically from one another.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Overall the quality of English language usage is sufficient. However the author over-utilizes the passive voice throughout (e.g. ll. 96, 140, 142, 143, 146, 152, 262, 344, 406, 484). Furthermore many of the paragraphs are very long, cover multiple points, and they could be broken up into 3–4 paragraphs at times.

Occasional rhetoric describing findings occurs with a tone of inevitability that overstates how obvious the conclusions of the author's argument would be to the reader. For example, in ln. 406 the author's "must be" might come across better as "It follows that..."

There is a typo in the keywords wherein the author renders Luke-Acts as "Luce-Acts," and there is a further typo on line 521 in the reference to Marguerat as "The Work" rather than the journal's preferred Author-Date format.

Author Response

"In the conclusion, it appears that the author has been arguing all along against a view (exemplified in Wilson 2016b @ ln. 472) that he or she did not explicitly articulate as a contrary view until that point."  I am grateful for this observation. I removed the remark in the conclusion because, given my structural approach, it was indeed potentially misleading. I included the reference to this scholarly opinion in note 10.

Regarding the suggestion that “it would be clearer and more academically forthright to present a literature review”, I had already reflected on this during the writing process. I deliberately chose a targeted integration of secondary literature rather than a thesis-antithesis structure, as I found this approach more effective for the aims of the article. That said, I have now made an effort to respond briefly to this suggestion in notes (see already 2,3,7; additional 7,10) without overburdening the article’s structure, coherence, or length.

“Theoretical explanation before proceeding”: Regarding the methodology, I made some adjustments in the second part based on the review in order to clarify my methodological approach. With my focus on plot and rereading, my main aim was to highlight that a clearer understanding of the pericope in Acts 19:1–5 emerges when the broader preceding context is taken into account—namely, the earlier reference passages related to baptism, the reception of the Spirit, and the laying on of hands.

“regarding the relationship between John´s baptism and Jesus´s baptism: I am very grateful for the reference to Mills and Moore and have incorporated it to the extent that it seemed appropriate. I address the question of rites in lines ll. 425–432, noting that there is not much to be found on this topic in Luke-Acts. I suggest—going beyond the narratological analysis but aiming to explain this gap—that such a rite may already have been known and therefore did not require detailed description.

Concerning the comment on Apollos: I assume that someone only engages in missionary proclamation if they are personally convinced—that is, if they have come to faith. The reference to the later context is legitimate; however, I do not see any points of contact with the preceding pericope in terms of baptism and the reception of the Spirit.

“breaking paragraphs”: I am very grateful for this comment and tried to break paragraphs into smaller units if possible.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic is interesting, but the data on which to base the trajectory of the study is extremely limited and therefore does not provide a substantive study or conclusion.

Author Response

I have incorporated the suggestions from the two more detailed reviews to the extent that they seemed appropriate to me.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I still think the article needs a brief historiography of the major works on baptism and at least an awareness of how the early church fathers interpret Luke's comments.  I've leveled any number of criticisms, and the author has addressed them (if only to say they aren't relevant to the paper). 

I don't agree with the assessment of Luke's presentation regarding the laying on of hands, but the author's approach is a popular one and is at least well-established from the author's point of view.  

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revisions now completed sufficiently address the issues present in the previous manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study probes several important issues: (1) how is baptism portrayed in Luke-Acts as an essential element of transitioning into the fellowship of adherents to either John's or Jesus' committed communities; (2) is there a distinction between the meaning of baptism for John's community and for Jesus' community, and if so, what is the nature of that distinction; (3) what is the relationship between the baptism of Jesus through the church and the coming or empowering of the Holy Spirit? The research is clear and compelling, showing that in the perspective of Luke-Acts, the baptisms of John and Jesus/the church are similar, but point to slightly different outcomes: John's baptism is a personal response of repentance and commitment to the ideals of the God's Kingdom as John presents them, while Jesus'/the church's baptism is a divinely initiated identification of persons as belonging to God and this new Kingdom movement and their incorporation into the membership of that movement. This is why, according to the authors of the study, the coming or obvious presence of the Holy Spirit with Jesus'/the church's baptism is important.