The Mysterious Eloquent Evangelist

There are a lot of mysterious characters mentioned in the Bible we would like to know a lot more about than we do. Apollos, the eloquent evangelist, ranks right up there near the top among such New Testament characters. However, the fact that we know but little about him could be said equally of most of the apostles. The thing that makes Apollos mysterious is what we do know about him.

Here is what we know, Acts 18:24-28 (NAS), "Now a certain Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by birth, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the Scriptures. This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus, being acquainted only with the baptism of John; and he began to speak out boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. And when he wanted to go across to Achaia, the brethren encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him; and when he had arrived, he helped greatly those who had believed through grace; for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, demonstrating by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ."

The first great mystery is how could this man have been instructed in the way of the Lord and yet not known about the baptism authored by Jesus and knowing only John's baptism? It is obvious that baptism was the subject he needed to be enlightened on and that it was a part of "the way of God."

It is certain Apollos was not in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost when Peter preached, among other things, the baptism not of John but that given by Christ in the Great Commission of Matt. 28:18-19 (see also Acts 2:38). Of this baptism the text tells us he was ignorant for he knew only the baptism of John.

We can also conclude Apollos did not spend time in Jerusalem afterwards for the apostles that remained there and the church leaders there knew clearly the differences in the two baptisms and he in close association with them would have soon learned the difference himself.

It can also be safely assumed that he was not possessed of any miraculous spiritual gift that would have conferred this knowledge to him or else he would have known and not needed further instruction from Priscilla and Aquila.

So, one of the big mysteries concerning Apollos is how he failed to come to this knowledge long before meeting up with Priscilla and Aquila. Why did not his earlier instructors in the way of the Lord convey this truth to him? We will never know for the Bible does not tell us.

Was it important that Apollos know this truth? Many today would say no, not at all, for baptism has nothing to do with salvation denying what Peter taught in Acts 2:38. Yet, Priscilla and Aquila felt it was a matter so important that they drew Apollos aside to teach him this fundamental truth. As travelers with Paul they knew the truth and why it was essential that Apollos know it as well. If you are going to be a teacher it is essential you teach the truth meaning you first have to know it. The salvation of the men and women Apollos would be teaching and speaking to was at stake. It was a part of "the way of God." (Acts 18:26)

Was Apollos lost because he had not been baptized with the baptism Jesus taught in the Great Commission and through Peter on the day of Pentecost? No, nor was he baptized after learning the truth from Priscilla and Aquila.. He had already been baptized with John's baptism which itself was "for the remission of sins." (Mark 1:4 NKJV) When one's sins are remitted they are remitted.

Read Heb. 10:2 from several translations. The passage has reference to sin offerings under the Law of Moses but it also has direct application to the remission of sins under the baptism of John. The writer says, quoting from the original ASV of 1901, "Else would they not have ceased to be offered? because the worshippers, having been once cleansed, would have had no more consciousness of sins." When your sins have been forgiven they have been forgiven. There is no need for a second baptism and so Apollos having been baptized once with John's baptism did not need to be baptized again.

When the church first began it already had charter members, those who had believed the preaching of John and of Jesus concerning Jesus and the need for repentance and cleansing of their sins. When they were baptized by John or one of his disciples they were cleansed for Jesus himself said that John's baptism was from heaven. Listen to the scriptures.

Jesus speaking, Matt. 21:25 (NAS), "'The baptism of John was from what source, from heaven or from men?' And they began reasoning among themselves, saying, 'If we say, 'From heaven,' He will say to us, 'Then why did you not believe him?'" And then Luke says, (Luke 7:30 NAS), "But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God's purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John."

We also have to remember that Jesus preached and baptized during his lifetime. We can be assured that if John's baptism was for the remission of sins so was that of Jesus. Do we believe that one who obeyed Jesus while he lived on earth and was baptized by him, whether directly or through his disciples, would need to be baptized again after the day of Pentecost? When your sins have been remitted they are remitted. Yes, remission looked forward to the shedding of Jesus' blood on the cross which was yet to come but they were assured of the remission of their sins having believed and obeyed what they had been taught which included baptism for the forgiveness of those sins.

Neither were the apostles baptized again after receiving John's baptism nor was there a need for them to do so. Jesus said they were "clean." (John 13:10-11, John 15:3) He says in his prayer to the Father "they have kept thy word" (John 17:6 NAS), "I have been glorified in them" (John 17:10 NAS), "they are not of the world" (John 17:16 NAS), and finally, "not one of them perished but the son of perdition, that the scripture might be fulfilled." (John 17:12 NAS)

Had they been baptized? Look at John 1:35 and compare it with John 1:40. When you do so you will see that Andrew was a disciple of John before becoming acquainted with Christ. His brother, of course, was Peter. James and John were business partners with Peter and Andrew (see Luke 5:10). It is safe to assume that if Andrew was a disciple of John's so were the others. Philip, chosen by Jesus personally was from the same city as Andrew and Peter (John 1:44). Nathanael was said by Jesus to be "an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!" (John 1:47 NAS)

It is safe to assume that the men Jesus chose were godly men and men who did not shun John's preaching. If they had heard John preach we know they were not of that camp that Luke says "rejected God's purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John." (Luke 7:30 NAS). Matthew was a tax collector but even so if you read Luke 7:29 you will see that tax gathers were baptized by John. If any of the 12 had not been baptized already, having lacked the knowledge and opportunity, we can be certain the preaching of Jesus soon taught them the truth and they were shortly thereafter baptized.

In the very next set of verses after reading about Apollos we come to an account of twelve men whom Paul finds at Ephesus after Apollos had departed and gone to Corinth. These verses have caused much confusion because of what one has just read in the chapter before about Apollos and has been part of the mystery surrounding the man. Luke says, in Acts 19:1 that Paul found there "some disciples" referring to this group of twelve men.

Because these men know nothing of the Holy Spirit Paul begins to question them concerning their baptism. Something has to be wrong if they have been baptized and yet know nothing about the Holy Spirit, even of his existence. Now why would that necessarily follow? Because the baptism authored by Jesus, the baptism of the Great Commission of Matt. 28:19 is "in (the literal translation is "into"-DS) the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." Furthermore, there is the promise of the gift of the Holy Spirit to those thus baptized (Acts 2:38) which they should have known about.

Now here is the surprise to those who have just read about Apollos in the prior chapter. Paul takes these twelve men and baptizes them "in (the literal translation is "into"-DS) the name of the Lord Jesus." (Acts 19:5 NAS) Why was it necessary for them to be baptized with the baptism of Jesus, of the Great Commission, but not Apollos?

Some might say that maybe Apollos was baptized too but the text does not say so. That might be a possibility but for one thing. The apostles baptized by John were not baptized a second time either. Why not?

The answer has to be timing. There was a time starting with John the Baptist's initial preaching up until the time of either his imprisonment, death, or the day of Pentecost when John's baptism was valid and had God's full support behind it. This was a short period of time of maybe a year or a year and a half approximately when if one was obedient to John's preaching and was baptized he was saved having received the remission of sins. Apollos would have been baptized during that time.

The twelve men at Ephesus would have been baptized with John's baptism after the day of Pentecost when the baptism authored by Jesus, the baptism of the Great Commission, (into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit for the remission of sins) became effective. At that time and thereafter anyone being baptized with John's baptism had a baptism that no longer had any validity to it having been completely replaced by the baptism of the Great Commission. The one baptism looked forward to Christ's death while the other looked back.

In closing I want to leave the reader with some critical thoughts with regards to salvation. Luke says these men whom Paul found were disciples (Acts 19:1) and yet were not baptized? Were they saved already anyway? What is a disciple? A disciple is, according to Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, "a learner." Vine further says, "it denotes one who follows one's teaching." It does not necessarily denote one who is saved as is commonly thought (although it often does).

Please note from Jesus' own words about who is to be baptized. "And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, 'All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in (the literal translation is "into" - DS) the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.'" (Mat 28:18-20 NAS)

Disciples are to be baptized. One must be a person who is learning of Christ and who is willing to follow his teaching in order to be scripturally baptized. No one who is not a disciple (dictionary definition) will be baptized for they have no knowledge and/or desire to do so. One must necessarily be a disciple before he can be saved. How can you be saved without first learning of Jesus and being willing to follow him?

And, the final point. If people were commonly saved in those days by faith alone apart from baptism why did Paul bother to take these men and baptize them?

Here is the clincher - why did Paul just assume they had been baptized? He says in Acts 19:3, "Into what then were you baptized?" (NAS) Why assume they had been baptized into anything or anyone if it was not necessary in making Christians, if it was not necessary in obedience to the gospel, if it was not a part of the gospel?

In Acts 19:2 Paul talks of that time "when you believed." Then in verse 3 immediately following he says, "into what then were you baptized?" He ties belief and baptism together. If you believed you were baptized is what he is saying. All of the conversion accounts in the book of Acts teach the same thing. The question all men and women must ask themselves is what am I personally going to do about it in my own life.