The jailer lovingly took them (to another location), and, out
of deep contrition for his earlier rough treatment, washed off the
dried blood from the cruel beatings. Then he and his entire
household were immersed immediately. If a few drops of water
are sufficient for "baptism," why was not the rite
performed in the jail? Was there no water at all there?
Lenski surrenders some integrity when he says: "The
quantity of water present is wholly immaterial"
(683).
Too, if baptism is merely an optional matter, why not
postpone the act until a more convenient time, instead of
performing the immersions in the dead of night? Chrysostom
(c. A.D. 347-407) commented upon this episode: "He [the
jailer] washed and was washed; he washed them from their stripes,
and was himself washed from his sins" (Homilies on Acts
36). The great scholar of Constantinople knew nothing of
the modern notion that baptism is unrelated to salvation.
The jailer then brought the brethren "up into his
house" (he may have lived above the prison). He
provided them with food (likely they had not eaten for a
while). He and his whole family "rejoiced
greatly" (again evidence of mental maturity), "having
believed in God." The verb is a perfect tense form,
i.e., they had come to a state of belief which still was with
them. Observe that the "rejoicing" came after
baptism, not before. It is very important to notice that the
participle, "having believed in God," encompassed the
immersion. Can it ever be said, in the ultimate sense of the
language, that one has "believed," if he has refused to
do what the Lord has commanded? Belief is a comprehensive
term...."
