It can hardly be supposed that the twelve disciples in Ephesus here brought before us had enjoyed the teaching of Apollos, still less the help of Aquila and Priscilla, who unfolded to him the way of God more exactly. They must have been in this case led on, as they were by the apostle afterward. For it was pure ignorance which hindered their advance in truth, and not either obstinacy or the absurd and winked error imputed by some to them, which appeared later in the East, and left traces to a recent epoch, as Neander states in the first volume of his Church History. John's baptism in scripture went with his call to repent, as we have just seen, and that they should believe on the coming Messiah, i.e., Jesus. In no way was it the blasphemy of accepting John as Messiah. They knew of promise, not of accomplishment: but that was to stop short of the gospel. They are now given to receive the full truth and blessing. Paul preached to them Jesus. What is there not through Him and in Him?
“And when they heard this, they were baptized unto the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them; and they spake with tongues and prophesied; and they were in all about twelve men” (ver. 5-7).
But here it is well to understand what is taught; for some have inferred from the inspired historian that the original formulary had lapsed, and that the apostles here and elsewhere in the Acts are represented as baptizing only to the name of the Lord Jesus. This is a serious position. It professes to stand on the letter of scripture, which cannot be broken; yet is it one which demands and deserves the fullest consideration, for it really annuls scripture. It has been entertained, and even acted on, by not a few whose principle it is to abhor any view or practice winch puts a slight on the immediate authority of our Lord. Yet no one denies that He clearly laid down for that institution baptizing to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
So it is laid down in the earliest of the Gospels, where the great commission is given to the eleven. They were told to go forth and disciple all the nations, the Jews having already been made the object of their testimony in chapter 10. But now, Messiah being not only rejected but risen, and themselves associated with Him, the circle is enlarged consequently on His death and resurrection; and it is no longer a question of the rights of Jehovah, the one true God and Governor of Israel, but of God fully revealed, not only in the person, but by the work, of the Lord Jesus; and those disciples His servants are to baptize unto the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Here in Matthew was the fitting place to make that Name known; for in this Gospel, more than any other, we have the consequences of the rejection of the Messiah, and the new witness substituted for the old, all authority being given to Him in heaven and on earth. From this point of view the rejecting and rebellious Jews are left with their house, and, we may add, their city, desolate, till grace works repentance in their hearts another day. Meanwhile, in virtue of the accomplished work of the crucified Christ now risen from the dead, grace sends out a message of sovereign mercy to all the Gentiles. It is not the Son of David filling the throne of Israel, nor is it the Son of Man with His dominion and glory and kingdom given Him, that all people, nations, and languages should serve Him—His dominion an everlasting one which shall not pass away, and His kingdom that which shall not be destroyed. These are glories of the new age when He is displayed from heaven in power and presence on His return. Here it is the Trinity revealed and testimony to be rendered before that day, when they were to teach (not the law nor the prophets, but) all things whatsoever Jesus enjoined on them; “and lo! I am with you all the days until the completion of the age,” an age not completed till even the last week of Daniel's seventy is fulfilled. This may not be and is not the revelation of the mystery reserved for the Holy Spirit through the apostle of the Gentiles; but it is in contrast not only with the law of Moses, but with the promises given to the fathers and the seal attached to them. And Paul could say, as the twelve could not, that Christ sent him not to baptize but to preach the gospel, Yet did he in his place as a confessor submit to that institution of the Lord, as he also baptized from time to time those who confessed Him, as the inspired history abundantly testifies.
But nothing would be less like scripture than to rehearse the formula every time a record of baptism was made in it. The fact was stated, and the mode of statement is as invariably formed in scripture according to the character and design of the book wherein it occurs. Now it lies on the face of the Acts that the Holy Spirit is throughout bearing testimony, to Jesus as the Lord. Baptism therefore when predicated of any in its course is so described. This exactly accords with the record, and is as it should be, if the book be really stamped with that design, as it evidently is to any intelligent eyes. Besides, it is in the highest degree probable, that those who administered baptism in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, as bound by the injunction of the Lord, would also add the Lord's name as confessed by the baptized. So it is some way habitually done at this day by those who follow in their steps. Certainly the Book of Acts has Christian baptism mentioned as “on,” “in,” and “to” the name of the Lord in strict harmony with its own character. But this in no way warrants the inference that the twelve, or Paul, or any other, dispensed with the divinely given formulary. The form of the history is due to that design equally divine which controls this book like every other in the Bible.
Another circumstance may be noticed; that these Ephesian disciples received the Holy Spirit through the imposition of Paul's hands, as the Samaritans did through the hands of Peter and John. It was a signal mark of God's honoring the apostles. As the work in Samaria was due to the free action of the Spirit in Philip, it was the more necessary to bind all together, lest there should have been with God's sanction a church in Samaria independent of that in Jerusalem. The unity of the Spirit was safeguarded by giving the new converts the seal of the Spirit only in answer to the prayers and by the hands of two chief apostles from among the twelve. What simpler proof that, as the Spirit is one, so is the church, however locally severed? So it is now. The Ephesian disciples, baptized to Jesus on hearing the gospel, had Paul's hands laid on them in order to receive the Holy Spirit. It was one body everywhere; and Paul's authority; as set of God first in the church, is attested like that of Peter and John before him.
It is in vain to argue that the Holy Spirit here conferred means only spiritual powers. These powers indeed were included in the divine gift, as the close of ver. 6 intimates. But speaking with tongues, or even prophesying, was not all that the reception of the Spirit conveyed, nor yet the best part of the blessing. It is. the Spirit Himself who is given, as well as gifts for sign or for edification, which are both particularly indicated here. Even Bp. Middleton, according to his own too narrow and defective principle, would have been compelled to own the Holy Spirit here personally given. And this it is which is never withdrawn, and indeed makes the Christian and the church to be such. There is neither the one nor the other if there be no gift, no sealing, of the Spirit any longer.
Nor is it true that this depends on an apostle, or an imaginary apostolic succession, which is wholly unknown to scripture and excluded by it. For the intervention of apostles, as in Acts 8 and 19, was exceptional, however right and wise on each occasion. The large and typical instances were when He was given, first to Jewish believers at Pentecost, and afterward to Gentile believers at Cornelius' house; at neither of which times does scripture speak of the apostles laying on hands. He was given directly on their faith of the gospel, a fact made absolutely certain and clear beyond controversy in the case of the Gentiles; which of course is especially of interest and importance to us who are not of Israel. Such a fact is decisive for one who believes in the wisdom and goodness of God, not only in so doing then, but of recording it for the comfort of souls ever afterward; lest they, ignorant of the direct gift to Jewish and Gentile believers, as a warrant for the like expectation afterward, might fall into the error, either of despair because the apostolic order existed not, or of presumption in dreaming of a fresh apostolic choir as necessary for the supply of that gift, or for any other kindred function. The Catholic systems indeed suppose a sort of perpetual apostolicity, and thus solve the difficulty by an error no less portentous; Protestantism believes not in the abiding presence of the other Paraclete so as to make good the promise of the Father forever; while Irvingism boasts of a new apostolate (well nigh gone) to effectuate an order proved to be mistaken. But the truth is as blessed in its permanence and freedom, as these errors are pernicious.