Regarding Apollos, the Bible states:

Acts 18:25 (ESV Strong's) 25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26 He began to speak 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.

However immediately after this episode we read of another set of believers only familiar with John's baptism who were then baptized in the name of Jesus:

Acts 19:3 (ESV Strong's) 3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John's baptism.” 4 And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Should we see these two episodes as complimentary and understand that Apollos was similarly baptized in the name of Jesus? Or should we instead see these as contrasts, and understand that Apollo was not again baptized?

  • Chrysostom's commentary can be found here. – Lucian Sep 27 '20 at 13:49

I believe the question highlights an interesting point : that we should we see (by two different examples) that if someone is baptised (but in a limited way) then it is not essential that they be baptised again, but they could be.

After all, they have made a public profession through baptism which is one of the main features of baptism.

I say this because I was also baptised in a limited way and largely in ignorance, at the age of sixteen (over 50 years ago). But on later being received into a more enlightened congregation, they did not require me to be re-baptised.

However I had previously been 'christened' as an infant (although I remember it because, through circumstances, it was delayed until I was five) but I wanted to be baptised as an adult at the age of sixteen.

This was accepted by a congregation and they were willing to baptise me a second time, but as a converted adult. However, although sincere at the time, I was still very ignorant and I moved quickly from that congregation in my spiritual progress.

So, in the first case, I was 're-baptised' which was a necessary thing to do for doctrinal and fellowship reasons.

But in the second case I was not, for it was not deemed essential to do so.

  • I don't think you can draw such a conclusion from this text without answering whether or not Apollos was baptized again. Your response begs the question. – Austin Feb 27 at 0:06
  • It's in the question, Acts 19:3-5. They were baptized twice. – Austin Feb 28 at 0:09
  • Yes, indeed. But in the case of Apollos we have no information. So your question cannot be answered. Thus my answer is as stated above that if someone is baptised (but in a limited way) then it is not essential that they be baptised again, but they could be. – Nigel J Feb 28 at 0:21
  • Nigel J. Since you responded that you cannot answer the question, it seems contradictory to say, well based on this lack of information we can be sure that it is not essential to be baptized again, especially when we have an example where people were baptized again. Perhaps, the truth is that we are required to do so in some circumstances as we have example in Acts 19. – Austin Apr 15 at 15:38
  • @Austin To be honest with you, I sometimes wish that I had been baptised again. I was too ignorant at the first and had not yet fully understood the gospel. I would not like to be dogmatic about this. Regards. – Nigel J Apr 15 at 15:44

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.