First, it appears that the word “
And” in Acts 19:6 may be archaic here from the Old 1600's English.
For example: The word “
And” starts off the sentence in both Genesis 2:5, and Genesis 2:7. Yet, they each are describing a new narrative in detail from the previous chapter.
Like in Genesis 2:7, it starts off talking about the formation of man out of the ground (when there was no man to till the ground). However, this is not a secondary Adam or a second man being created (because the first man died off) but it is still referring to the first man created back in Genesis 1:26-27.
Genesis 2:7 is merely describing the details of Genesis 1:26-27.
We see something similar between Acts 19:5 and Acts 19:6.
Acts 19:5 is like Genesis 1:26-27 giving us the over all event, while Acts 19:6 is the details of that event (like Genesis 2:5-25 is the details of Genesis 1:26-27).
Second, the same Greek word “
τέ” (
Strong's G5037) for the English word “
and” can be translated as the word “
for” (As we see in Romans 7:7).
In fact, if you were to read through the King James Bible and replace the English word “and” for the English word "for” in certain cases, you would see that they can be interchangeable at times (Meaning you can use one or the other) (For example: Compare Ephesians 2:6 between the NLT and KJB).
So this is how I would interpret Acts of the Apostles 19:5-6
[
5] “When they heard
this [Paul's explanation of the gospel in Acts 19:4], they were
[immediately] baptized in the
name [person, authority, or power] of the Lord Jesus. [
6]
And [For] when Paul had laid
his hands upon them
[to mediate the Spirit], the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.” (Acts of the Apostles 19:5-6).
Again, the English word “
And” beginning in Acts 19:6 is not an issue here because we see the word “And” used to describe a new narrative on the man from Genesis 1 being created in more detail in Genesis 2:5-25. The word “And” in Genesis 2:7 does not suggest two Adams anymore than the word “And” must suggest that there are two baptisms between Acts 19:5, and Acts 19:6.
For I am sure you can read Acts 19:5-6 with no contradiction if both verses referred to a water baptism. Meaning, Acts 19:5 would be the overall description of water baptism, and Acts 19:6 would be the details of the water baptism event with Paul laying his hands on them in being water baptized.
[
5] “When they heard
this, they were baptized
[water baptized] in the name of the Lord Jesus. [
6] And when Paul had laid
his hands upon them
[so as to water baptize them], the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.” (Acts of the Apostles 19:5-6) (Water baptism interpretation).
So if the passage can be read in this way with no contradiction, then both Acts 19:5, and Acts 19:6 could just as equally be referring both to Spirit baptism, as well.
[
5] “When they heard
this, they were baptized
[into the Spirit] in the name of the Lord Jesus. [
6] And when Paul had laid
his hands upon them
[so as to baptize them into the Spirit], the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.” (Acts of the Apostles 19:5-6) (Spirit baptism interpretation).
So as we can see, there is no contradiction here. The passage could be read both ways, but the question is… “Which interpretation is the correct one?”
I take the Spirit baptism interpretation because of the testimony of the rest of Scripture stacks in favor for Spirit baptism being the New Covenant baptism (that eventually replaced John’s water baptism that was Christianized in the infancy of the early church).
