Seven Verses in Acts 19

THE FOLLOWING SEVEN, SHORT, SIMPLE VERSES IN ACTS 19 CAN SPARK BLESSING, AND CLEAR UP SOME COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS

(𝘈𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘏𝘰𝘭𝘺 𝘚𝘱𝘪𝘳𝘪𝘵; 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘣𝘢𝘱𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘮; 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘰𝘯𝘨𝘶𝘦𝘴.)

It begins saying Paul came to Ephesus, and found "𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐬" (verse 1).

They were 'disciples', it says.

As we'll see, they were actually still only disciples of John the Baptist, not yet fully-fledged disciples of the Lord Jesus. But evidently Paul at first assumed they were disciples of Christ - as the next verse shows.

"𝐇𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐲𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐇𝐨𝐥𝐲 𝐆𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐲𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐝?" Paul asked them (verse 2).

"...since ye believed" - believed in Jesus, he meant.

Paul assumed they had believed in Jesus and were disciples of Jesus Christ.

And yet, despite assuming they were Christians, Paul asked them whether they'd received the Holy Ghost.

The fact Paul asked that, shows that Paul thought it was possible for someone to have believed in Jesus - to be a disciple of Jesus - and yet not have received the Holy Ghost.

There are many believers today who have experienced receiving the Holy Spirit. But there are some who still haven't received the Holy Spirit, in the sense that Paul was talking about here.

Some question whether God really wants to give it to them. Others think the experience passed away with the Apostles once the New Testament was written. Still others think there is no experience to be had besides getting born again: it's all one and the same thing, they think.

But in the Book of Acts there were some who received the Holy Ghost the moment they believed - and others who received soon afterwards, either on the same day or some days later.

You can really sense the difference when you come across a believer who has received the Holy Spirit, from a believer who hasn't yet no matter how sincere they may be.

You can also tell the difference when a whole church congregation are generally Spirit-filled, and a church where most people aren't yet.

When I was still just a child, in a Baptist church in Ipswich, there was one particular lady, I could tell there was something different about her, even before I was born again myself. She happened to be Welsh. And she'd been a missionary in Japan. She was different. She had life in her, and I could feel it. It drew me.

Then the first time my parents took us to a Charismatic church in Brisbane, it felt like everyone, and even the place itself was filled. It was amazing.

The difference when a believer has the Spirit, is visible and audible. And that's probably why Paul was prompted to ask these disciples whether they had or hadn't yet received the Holy Ghost. Maybe he was beginning to sense there was something lacking in them.

So they answered, "𝐖𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐬𝐨 𝐦𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐚𝐬 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐛𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐇𝐨𝐥𝐲 𝐆𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐭".

Turns out, these disciples hadn't even heard about the Holy Spirit.

This prompted Paul to ask further, "𝐔𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐲𝐞 𝐛𝐚𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐝?" (verse 3).

The fact that Paul was prompted to query their baptism, once they told him they'd never heard about a Holy Spirit, shows that in Paul's mind, it was ordinary to at least hear about the Holy Spirit at Christian baptisms.

This shows that Jesus' command to the disciples to "𝘎𝘰 𝘺𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴, 𝘣𝘢𝘱𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘍𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘰𝘯, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘏𝘰𝘭𝘺 𝘎𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘵: 𝘛𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘵𝘰 𝘰𝘣𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵𝘴𝘰𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘐 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶 (Matthew 28:19,20) isn't a false formula for baptism that was only inserted into the text later: it was the ordinary practice of the early church to at least mention the Holy Spirit, at baptisms, so Paul thought anyway - not strictly the name of Jesus only.

They answered, "𝐔𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐉𝐨𝐡𝐧'𝐬 𝐛𝐚𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐦."

They were still only disciples of John, not yet of Jesus Christ.

So Paul filled them in:

"𝐉𝐨𝐡𝐧 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐥𝐲 𝐛𝐚𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐝 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐚𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐦 𝐨𝐟 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞, 𝐬𝐚𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞, 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐞 𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐦 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐚𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐡𝐢𝐦, 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬, 𝐨𝐧 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐉𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐬" (verse 4).

Paul told them the gospel more completely. John's intention, he explained, was that his disciples should go on to believe on Christ Jesus.

"𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐛𝐚𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝 𝐉𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐬" (verse 5).

"When they heard this..." That means, they believed. You can't believe without hearing. They believed first, then got baptised. Believing came first before Christian baptism.

So, now they were baptised Christians, but still there was something more.

"𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐏𝐚𝐮𝐥 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐝 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐮𝐩𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐇𝐨𝐥𝐲 𝐆𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦; 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐬𝐩𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐞𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐞𝐝" (verse 6).

They'd believed, and been baptised - become disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ - but they still hadn't received the Holy Spirit.

So Paul laid hands on them, and the Holy Spirit came upon them.

Receving the Holy Spirit is distinct from believing, and from baptism - and the promise is for all whom the Lord calls. That includes you and me.

Throughout the Book of Acts there are incidences where believers got baptised first, and later received the Holy Spirit; and there is an instance when believers received the Holy Spirit when they heard and believed, and got baptised next - but believing always came first.

That shows that baptising someone before he’s capable of believing wasn't the way.

But the fact God gave some the Holy Spirit before they'd been baptised, also shows God accepts people who mightn't have been baptised yet.

But getting baptised is important too. Even Jesus got baptised.

Jesus said, "...𝘵𝘩𝘶𝘴 𝘪𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩 𝘶𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘶𝘭𝘧𝘪𝘭 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘦𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴" (Matthew 3:15).

Notice, it doesn't say they were baptised in the name of Jesus only - they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus, it says.

You meet people sometimes who insist that the only right formula for baptism is in the name of Jesus only.

I met someone once who insisted on it. He was going around telling believers they needed to be re-baptised.

So I pointed out to him that here in Acts 19, and elsewhere in Acts, it says they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus, or in the name of Jesus Christ - it doesn't say in the name of Jesus only. Off the top of my head I can't think of a single incident in the Book of Acts where it says anyone was baptised in the name of Jesus only. That brother hasn't answered my calls since.

One time while I was visiting a church in Papua New Guinea, the pastor told me that some years beforehand some Australian preachers had visited the church and taught that if they'd been baptised using any formula besides the name of Jesus only, their baptism was illegitimate and they needed to be baptised again properly. It split the congregation.

Part left, and continued meeting under a tree. While those who embraced the new doctrine, continued to use the building.

Then there was a dispute over which group owned the building. For eight long years, while they were waiting for a ruling or a resolution, the building sat unused. Dogs wandered through the church. The grass outside was overgrown.

By the time I visited the church, they'd only been back in the building a few months. Those who hadn't been touched by the Holy Spirit got filled, young and old alike. Over six weeks all received a refreshing. Then we all repainted the building. The ladies put up nice material decorations, and flowers. And a brother fitted electric lights. It was a time of restoration in more ways than one.

The message of Acts is that Jesus is Lord and Christ; and it was normal, so Paul thought, that the Holy Spirit would at least be mentioned at baptism. It's not worth destroying other brothers' consciences, or splitting a church and shutting a building down, over a formula that wasn't necessarily stated here at Ephesus and elsewhere in Acts.

I said to the pastor, if someone's conscience requires it, perhaps say, "I baptise you in the name of Jesus, in the name of the Lord Jesus, in the name of Jesus Christ, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost". That covers it all!

But really, it's the meaning that baptism has in our hearts that counts, not so much a formula.

"...𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘰𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘎𝘰𝘥" Peter said (I Peter 3:21).

They spoke with tongues, and prophesied, it says.

"𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐰𝐞𝐥𝐯𝐞" (verse 7).

The fact that 12 people had spoken with tongues and prophesied shows that Paul's advice to the church at Corinth that "𝘐𝘧 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘬 𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘵𝘰𝘯𝘨𝘶𝘦, 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘣𝘦 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘸𝘰, 𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘣𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘴𝘦; 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘵" (I Corinthians 14:27) didn't at all mean that we can't also have moments in a meeting when everyone speaks with tongues. Otherwise even Acts chapter 2 should never happened, when it says "𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘭 [𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 120 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦] 𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘏𝘰𝘭𝘺 𝘎𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘵, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘬 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘰𝘯𝘨𝘶𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘱𝘪𝘳𝘪𝘵 𝘨𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘶𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦" (Acts 2:4).

Can you imagine Peter standing up on the day of Pentecost, and telling 117 or 118 of those gathered in the upper room that they shouldn't speak with tongues because the allowable limit is two or three people?

Or Paul telling 9 or 10 of those new believers at Ephesus that they shouldn't speak with tongues, because two or three of them had already done so? Or that they should be quiet about it, do it later when they're by themself.

No, it's totally Scriptural for everyone in a gathering to speak with tongues when the Spirit falls.

What Paul was addressing at Corinth was a different scenario. Individuals were evidently standing up, holding the floor, demanding the whole congregation's undivided attention, while they addressed them in an unknown tongue - without caring that the audience weren't benefiting. Even unbelievers would know that's not sensible.

Whereas when the Spirit falls on a congregation and all speak with tongues, no-one is being obtrusive. No individual is addressing the congregation per se.

"𝘍𝘰𝘳 𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘵𝘩 𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘵𝘰𝘯𝘨𝘶𝘦 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘵𝘩 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘦𝘯, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘎𝘰𝘥: 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘯𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘵𝘩 𝘩𝘪𝘮; 𝘩𝘰𝘸𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘱𝘪𝘳𝘪𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘵𝘩 𝘮𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴" (I Corinthians 14:2).

Peter said they were 'declaring the wonderful works of God', and 'magnifying God'.

In those instances an individual wasn't speaking to the audience. They were all speaking to God in tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.

When unbelievers hear that, they don't normally think it lacks common considerateness. On the contrary, on the day of Pentecost, it was the very sign that resulted in 3,000 of them getting saved.

I've never met an unbeliever yet who wasn't intrigued by the experience of speaking in tongues, even when the Spirit falls on a whole congregation. All the people I've ever met who were upset about it, is church attendees who mistook Paul to mean something in Corinthians which would contradict his own experience at Ephesus.

Addressing a congregation in tongues, is one function of the gift of tongues. And we'd all agree: two or three lecturing in unknown tongues is plenty before letting someone interpret for the audience. Or the speaker can pray that he might interpret for the congregation himself, Paul said. And that's a blessing to a church.

But tongues also has a function besides addressing a congregation. You can pray in tongues, praise in tongues, give thanks, bless, and sing in tongues, and just talk to God in tongues privately, Paul also said.

And a whole congregation can do so in unison when the Spirit falls upon them. The Book of Acts has a number of examples of that happening.

Each of those are entirely Scriptural expressions and functions of the gift of tongues.

All of that is illustrated in these seven verses in Acts 19 alone.

Where are you up to in your walk with the Lord?

"𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮, 𝘙𝘦𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘵...

...𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘣𝘢𝘱𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘥 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘑𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘴 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘴...

...𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘪𝘧𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘏𝘰𝘭𝘺 𝘎𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘵.

𝘍𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘯, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘧𝘢𝘳 𝘰𝘧𝘧, 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘓𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘎𝘰𝘥 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭" (Acts 2:38,39).

"𝘏𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘺𝘦 𝘢𝘴𝘬𝘦𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘮𝘺 𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘦: 𝘢𝘴𝘬, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘪𝘷𝘦, 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘫𝘰𝘺 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘣𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘭𝘭" (John 16:24).