Acts 17:16-34 - How Paul challenges us
Acts 18:1 - 19:41 -  Corinth and Ephesus 
Acts. 18:1-18a) - Paul in Corinth
Acts. 18:2-6 -  Paul stays with Aquila and Priscilla    
Acts. 18:7-11 - Paul turns to the Gentiles 
Acts 18:12-18a  - Paul is vindicated by Roman law
Acts 18:18b-28 - Paul in transit
Acts. 18:24-28 - Apollos visits Ephesus
Acts 19:1-41 - Paul in Ephesus
Acts 19:8-10 -  Synagogue and lecture hall

The Areopagus address reveals the comprehensiveness of Paul's message. He proclaimed God in his fullness as Creator, Sustainer, Ruler, Father and Judge. He took in the whole of nature and of history. He passed the whole of time in review, from the creation  to the consummation. He emphasized the greatness of God, not only as the beginning and the end of all things, but as the One to whom we owe our being and to whom we must give account. He argued that human beings already know these things by natural or general revelation, and that their ignorance and idolatry are therefore inexcusable. So he called on them with great solemnity, before it was too late, to repent. 

Now all this is part of the gospel. Or at least it is the indispensable background to the gospel, without which the gospel cannot effectively be preached. Many people are rejecting our gospel today not because they perceive it to be false, but because they perceive it to be trivial. People are looking for an integrated world-view which makes sense of all their experience. We learn from Paul that we cannot preach the gospel of Jesus without the doctrine of God, or the cross without the creation, or salvation without judgment. Today's world needs a bigger gospel, the full gospel of Scripture, what Paul later in Ephesus was to call `the whole purpose of God' (20:27, NEB). 

It is not only the comprehensiveness of Paul's message in Athens which is impressive, however, but also the depth and power of his motivation. Why is it that, in spite of the great needs and opportunities of our day, the church slumbers peacefully on, and that so many Christians are deaf and dumb, deaf to Christ's commission and tongue-tied in testimony? I think the major reason is this: we do not speak as Paul spoke because we do not feel as Paul felt. We have never had the paroxysm of indignation which he had. Divine jealously has not stirred within us. We constantly pray `Hallowed be your Name'. but we do not seem to mean it, or to care that his Name is so widely profaned. 

Why is this? It takes us a stage further back. If we do not speak like Paul, this is because we do not feel like Paul, this is because we do not see like Paul. That was the order: he saw, he felt, he spoke. It all began with his eyes. When Paul walked around Athens, he did not just `notice' the idols. The Greek verb used three times (16, 22, 23) is either *theoreo* or *anatheoreo* and means to `observe' or `consider'. So he looked and looked and thought and thought, until the fires of holy indignation were kindled within him. For he saw men and women, created by God in the image of God, giving to idols the homage which was due to him alone. 

Idols are not limited to primitive societies; there are many sophisticated idols too. An idol is a god-substitute. Any person or thing that occupies the place that God should occupy is an idol. Covetousness is idolatry (Eph. 5:5). Ideologies can be idolatries. So can fame, wealth and power, sex, food, alcohol and other drugs, parents, spouse, children and friends, work, recreation, television and possessions, even church, religion and Christian service. Idols always seem particularly dominant in cities. Jesus wept over the impenitent city of Jerusalem. Paul was deeply pained by the idolatrous city of Athens. Have we ever been provoked by the idolatrous cities of the contemporary world? 

Acts 18:1 - 19:41.  Corinth and Ephesus 

`The rise of urban civilization' wrote Professor Harvey Cox in *The Secular City*, is one of the `hallmarks of our era'. `Urbanization', he continued, `constitutes a massive change in the way men live together', as they have moved from tribe to town to technopolis. The urban experience includes a cluster of things like communications and mobility, the disintegration of traditional religion, impersonality and anonymity, human planning, control and bureaucracy. And in the decayed inner cities of our time we would have to add economic neglect, racial disadvantage, unemployment, poor housing and education, crime, violence, family breakdown, and tensions between police and community.     In 1850 there were only four `world class cities' of more than a million inhabitants; in 1980 there were 225, and by the year 2000 there may be 500. Or consider the so-called `megalopolis' or `megacity' of more than ten million people. In 1950 only London and New York qualified. But by AD 2000 it is calculated that there will be 23 cities of this size, with Mexico City taking the lead at nearly thirty million inhabitants, and Sao Paulo and Tokyo following at nearly twenty-five million. Most of these magacities will be in the Third World; only four will be in Europe and the United States. Already two-fifths of the world's population are city-dwellers; by the end of the century the ratio will be more like one half. 

This process of urbanization, as a significant new fact of this century, constitutes a great challenge to the Christian church. On the one hand, there is the urgent need for Christian planners and architects, local government politicians, urban specialists, developers and community social workers, who will work for justice, peace, freedom and beauty in the city. On the other, Christians need to move into the cities, and experience the pains and pressures of living there, in order to win city-dwellers for Christ. Commuter Christianity (living in salubrious suburbia and commuting to an urban church) is no substitute for incarnational involvement. 

It seems to have been Paul's deliberate policy to move purposefully from one strategic city-centre to the next. What drew him to the cities was probably that they contained the Jewish synagogues, the larger populations and the influential leaders. So on his first missionary expedition he visited Salamis and Paphos in Cyprus, and Antioch, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe in Galatia; on his second he evangelized Philippi, Thessalonica and Berea in Macedonia, and Athens and Corinth in Achaia; while during the greater part of his third journey he concentrated on Ephesus. Indeed Luke deliberately describes how the gospel spread `by the gradual establishment of radiating centres or sources of influence at certain salient points throughout a large part of the Empire.' 

It is true that some of the towns Paul visited were small and insignificant. This could not be said of Athens, Corinth and Ephesus, however. It has been reckoned that Athens may have been less than 10,000 inhabitants, but that Ephesus had half a million, and that Corinth at its zenith had nearly three-quarters of a million. All three were leading cities of the Roman Empire, situated round the shores of the Aegean Sea, while Corinth and Ephesus were also provincial capitals. They could perhaps be characterized as follows. 

Athens was the *intellectual* centre of the ancient world, as we saw in the last chapter, the city where Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus and Zeno had all expounded their respective philosophies. It was also the birthplace of democracy, and of the three famous universities of antiquity (Alexandra, Tarsus and Athens), Athens was the most distinguished. Although it had now declined from the peak of its brilliance, the brightest students still flocked to it from all parts of the Empire. For the world's younger intelligensia it retained an almost irresistible magnetism. 

Corinth was above all a great commercial centre, a world famous emporium. Situated close to the isthmus which joined mainland Greece to the Peloponnesian peninsula, it commanded the trade routes in all directions, not only north-south by land but also east-west by sea. For before the Corinthian canal was cut for three and a half miles across the isthmus, there was a *diolkos* or slipway along which cargoes and even small vessels could be hauled, thus saving 200 miles of perilous navigation round the southern tip of the peninsula. In consequence, Corinth boasted two ports, Lechaeum on the Corinthian Gulf to the west and Cenchrea on the Saronic Gulf to the east. Thus `through its two harbours Corinth bestrode the isthmus, with one foot planted in each sea', which led Horace to call it *bimaris* or two-sea'd'. So Corinth was a city of seafarers, of marine merchants, and it is hardly surprising that Poseidon, the Greek god of the sea, whom the Romans called Neptune, was worshipped there. F.W.Farrar imagined its markets stocked with cosmopolitan goods - `Arabian balsam, Egyptian papyrus, Phoenician dates, Libyan ivory, Babylonian carpets, Cilician goats'-hair, Lycaonian wool, Phrygian slaves'. Paul must have seen its strategic importance. If trade could radiate from Corinth in all directions so could the gospel. 

Ephesus was also famed for its commerce. Barclay calls it `the market of Asia Minor'. It has political importance as well, as the capital of the Roman province of Asia. But in particular Ephesus was one of the principal *religious* centres of the Graeco-Roman world. The imperial cult flourished there, and at one time the city boasted as many as three temples dedicated to the worship of the Emperor. Above all, Ephesus was famed as `the guardian of the temple of Artemis' (19:35). In classical mythology Artemis (whom the Romans called Diana) was a virgin huntress, but in Ephesus she had somehow become identified with an Asian fertility goddess. Ephesus guarded with immense pride both her grotesque many breasted image (probably in origin a meteorite) and the magnificent temple which housed it. This structure had more than one hundred Ionic pillars, each sixty feet high, and supported a white marble roof. Being four times the size of the Parthenon in Athens, and adorned by many beautiful paintings and sculptures, it was regarded as one of the seven wonders of the world. In addition, under Diana's patronage, superstitions and occult practices of all kinds flourished. And the magic words and formulae, which were sold to the credulous, were known as `Ephesian Letters'. 

Here, then, were three major cities of the Graeco-Roman world, all of them in different degrees being centres of learning, trade and religion. Luke plainly understands their significance for the spread of the gospel. Having portrayed the apostle Paul among the philosophers in Athens (17:16ff), he now describes his visits to Corinth (18:1ff) and to Ephesus (18:18ff and 19:1ff). These visits followed a similar pattern, namely the evangelization of Jews, their opposition to the gospel, the apostle's deliberate turn to the Gentiles, and the multiple vindication of his dramatic decision. This is Luke's underlying theme in Chapters 18 and 19. 

First, in both cities Paul began with the serious and sustained attempt to `persuade' his Jewish hearers in the synagogue that Jesus was the Christ (18:4-5; 19:8). 

Secondly, in both cities Paul responded to Jewish rejection of the gospel by leaving the synagogue and turning to Gentile evangelism, using as his base the house of Titius Justus in Corinth and the lecture hall of Tyrannus in Ephesus (18:6-7; 19:9).    

Thirdly, in both cities Paul's bold step was vindicated by many people hearing and believing the gospel (18:8; 19:10).     

Fourthly, in both cities Jesus confirmed his word and encouraged his apostle - in Corinth by a night vision and in Ephesus by extraordinary miracles (18:9-10; 19:11-12).  

Fifthly, in both cities the Roman authorities dismissed the opposition and declared the legitimacy of the gospel - in Corinth through the proconsul Gallio and in Ephesus through the town clerk (18:12ff; 19:35ff).

Acts. 18:1-18a) -  1)  Paul in Corinth    

*After this* (that is, following his Areopagus speech and its aftermath) *Paul left Athens and went to Corinth* (1). It was about this journey (as was noted at the end of the last chapter), in anticipation of his mission in Corinth, that Paul later wrote: `I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling' (1 Cor. 2:2-3. We need to penetrate deeper into the causes of Paul's fear and the reasons for his resolve. What was it about Corinth which occasioned his alarm and necessitated his decision to preach only Christ and his cross? 

It was surely the pride and the immorality of the Corinthian people which intimidated Paul, since the cross comes into direct collision with both. To begin with, the Corinthians were a proud people. Their intellectual arrogance emerge clearly in Paul's correspondence with them. They were also proud of their city, which Julius Caesar had beautifully rebuilt in 46 BC, They boasted of its wealth and culture, of the world-famous Isthmian games which it hosted every other year, and of its political prestige as the capital of provincial Achaia, taking precedence even over Athens. But the cross undermines all human pride. It insists that we sinners have absolutely nothing with which to buy, or indeed contribute to, our salvation. No wonder that not many wise, influential or upper-class Corinthians responded to the gospel. (1 Cor. 1:26ff. 

Secondly, Corinth was associated in everybody's mind with immorality. Behind the city, nearly 2,000 feet above sea level, rose the rocky eminence called the Acrocorinth. On its flat summit stood the temple of Aphrodite or Venus, the goddess of love. A thousand female slaves served her and roamed the city's streets by night as prostitutes. The sexual promiscuity of Corinth was proverbial, so that *korinthiazomai* meant to practise immorality, and *korinthiastes* was a synonym for a harlot. Corinth was `the Vanity Fair of the Roman Empire'. But the gospel of Christ crucified summoned the Corinthians to repentance and holiness, and warned them that the sexual immoral would not inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor. 6:9ff)    

It is in these ways that Christ's cross, in its call for self-humbling and self-denial, is a stumbling block to the proud and the sinful. Hence Paul's `weakness, fear and much trembling' and his necessary decision  in Corinth `to know nothing...except Jesus Christ and him crucified" (1 Cor. 2:2-3)

Acts. 18:2-6   Paul stays with Aquila and Priscilla    

*There in Corinth, he met a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all Jews to leave Rome* (2a). This married couple, whom Paul later called his `fellow-workers in Christ Jesus', who had `risked their lives for him' (Rom. 16:3-4), exemplified an extraordinary degree of mobility. Born in Pontus on the southern shore of the Black Sea, Aquila had migrated to Italy. We are not told why, nor whether this move was before or after his marriage to Priscilla. It was together, however, that they left Rome for Corinth, and on account of an imperial edict. Suetonius referred to this in his *Life of Claudius* (25:4): `as the Jews were making constant disturbances  at the instigation of Chrestus (*impulsore Chresto*), he banished them from Rome'. The people he expelled he called `Jews', but `Chrestus' seems to mean Christ (the pronunciation of `Christus' and `Chrestus' will have been similar), in which case the Jews were Christians and the disturbances in the Jewish community had been caused by the gospel. Presumably, then, Aquila and Priscilla were already believers before they reached Corinth. They later undertook a further move, this time from Corinth to Ephesus in the company of Paul, and the church, or a portion of it, met in their house (18:18, 19, 26).    

Paul now *went to see them (2b), and because he was a tentmaker as they were, he stayed and worked with them* (3). They shared the same trade as well as the same faith. What was it? Virtually all English versions translate *skenopoios* `tentmaker', since *skene* or *skenos* is a tent. Some commentators prefer `leather worker' or `saddler', however, `since the tents of antiquity were usually made of leather'. Another possibility is `cloth worker', and it is at least plausible (though not proven) that Paul wove a coarse fabric from the thick goats' hair of his native Cilicia. Called in Latin *cilicium*, it was used for curtains, rugs and clothing as well as tents. What is certain is that he worked with his hands. Indeed, Rabbis were required to learn a trade, and urged all young men to do the same. True Paul also insisted several times on the right of Christian teachers to be supported by their pupils (e.g. Gal.6:6; 1 Cor.9:4ff.). But he himself voluntary renounced this right, partly so as not to be a `burden' to the churches (1 Thess.2:9; 2 Thess. 3:8; 2 Cor.12;13) and partly to undercut the accusation of ulterior motives by preaching the gospel free of charge (1 Cor.9:15ff.; 2 Cor. 11;7ff.). `Tentmaking ministries' have rightly become popular in our day. The expression describes cross-cultural messengers of the gospel, who support themselves by their own professional or business expertise., while at the same time being involved in mission. Dr. J.Christy Wilson has written about it in his book *Today's Tentmakers*. The principle of self-support is the same, and the desire not to be a burden on churches, but the main motive is different, namely that this may be the only way for Christians to enter those countries which do not grant visas to self-styled `missionaries'.    

While Paul worked at his trade on every weekday, every *Sabbath he reasoned in the synagogue, trying to persuade* (an imperfect tense expressing his persistence) *Jews and Greeks*, the latter being `God-fearers' who attended synagogue worship (4). *When Silas and Timothy came from Macedonia*, however, after staying in Berea (17:14) and visiting Thessalonica (1 Thess.3;2), they brought with them not only the good news of the Thessalonians faith and love (1 Thess. 3:6), but also a gift (cf. Phil.4:14ff; and 2 Cor. 11:8-9). As a result Paul was able to give up his tentmaking. Instead, he now *devoted himself exclusively to preaching, testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ* (5), or (RSV, cf. NEB) `that the Christ was Jesus'. Either way, it was the identity of the historical Jesus and the expected Christ which mattered. But this Jewish mission met with stubborn resistance, which led Paul to repeat the drastic step he had taken in Pisidian Antioch (13:46, 51) and to turn to the Gentiles. This time he expressed his decision in a dramatic gesture and statement *But, when the Jews opposed Paul and became abusive, he shook out his clothes in protest* (so that `not a speck of dust from the synagogue might adhere to' them) *and said to them*, echoing Ezekiel (see Ezk.33:1ff), `*Your blood be upon your heads! I am clear of my responsibility. From now on I will go to the Gentiles'* (6).

Acts. 18:7-11. Paul turns to the Gentiles 

Luke's next statement, that *then Paul left the synagogue and went next door to the house of Titius Justus, a worshipper of God* (7), is more than a geographical note. It means rather that the scene of his evangelistic labours changed from public synagogue to private house, and that so the people being evangelized changed from Jews to Gentiles. We know that the house belonged to one Titius Justus, and that he was a god-fearer, but it is pure speculation that his other name was Gaius, and indeed the Gaius mentioned in Romans 16:23 and 1 Corinthians 1:14. It is surprising that the first convert of the Gentile mission was *Crispus, the synagogue ruler*, who was in charge of the services, and that *his entire household believed in the Lord* (8a), but following him *many of the Corinthians*, presumably Gentiles, *who heard him (Paul) believed and were baptised* (8b).    

Paul's audacious decision to move from the synagogue to home, from Jewish to Gentile evangelism, was quickly vindicated by God not only through the conversion and baptism of many (8), but also through a vision of Jesus (9-10) and through the attitude of the Roman authorities (12ff.). *One night the Lord spoke to Paul in a vision* (9a). `The Lord', according to Luke's consistent usage, means `the Lord Jesus' (see verse 8 `believed in the Lord'). Yet `the message is couched in the language used by God himself in the Old Testament when addressing his servants'. Both the prohibition `Do not be afraid' and the promise `I am with you' were regularly addressed by Yahweh to his people. Now Jesus said the same things to Paul: `*Do not be afraid; keep on speaking, do not be silent (9b). *for I am with you, and no-one is going to attack and harm you, because I have many people in this city*' (10). He was to continue witnessing, fortified by the presence and protection of Christ, and by the assurance that Christ had in Corinth `many people' (*laos*, the Old Testament word for Israel, now extended to include Gentiles). The expression is reminiscent of the Good Shepherd's statement that he had `other sheep...not of this sheep pen' (Israel), i.e. Gentiles (Jn.10:16). They had not yet believed in him, but they would do so, because already according to his purpose they belonged to him. This conviction is the greatest of all encouragements to the evangelist. Strengthened by it, *Paul stayed for a year and a half* in Corinth, *teaching them the word of God* (11). For the word of God is the divinely appointed means by which people come to put their trust in Christ and so identify themselves as his.

Acts 18:12-18a.  - Paul is vindicated by Roman law

At some point during these eighteen months Jewish opposition to the gospel, which had earlier led Paul to turn to the Gentiles (6), erupted again: *The Jews made a united attack on Paul and
brought him into court* (12b), or `before the tribunal' (RSV, JB),  the *bema*, which was `a large, raised platform that stood in the *agora*... in front of the residence of the proconsul and served
as a forum where he tried cases'. It was in keeping with Christ's promise that no-one would harm Paul (10) that the Jews took him to court *while Gallio was proconsul of Achaia* (12a, almost
certainly AD 51-52), for Gallio proved to a friend of justice and truth. He was the younger brother of Seneca, the Stoic philosopher and tutor of the youthful Nero, and Seneca spoke appreciatively of
his brother's tolerant kindness. Incidentally, Luke was correct to call Gallio `proconsul', since `Achaia was at this time a "senatorial" province of the Empire, and therefore governed by a proconsul - as opposed to an "imperial" province, which was governed by a legate'. The province's status had changed only in AD44.

Of what offence did the Jews accuse Paul? `*This man', they charged, `is persuading the people to worship God in ways contrary to the law*' (13). But which law was he supposed to be contravening? Gallio understood them to be referring to what he called `your own law' (15), but they knew as well as he that debates about the Jewish law were beyond his jurisdiction. So they must have been trying to make out that Paul's teaching was against Roman law, because it was not an authentic expression of Judaism. Judaism was a *religio licita*, an authorized religion. But Paul's teaching was `something new and un-Jewish...; it was, they urged, a *religio illicita*, which accordingly ought to be banned by
Roman law'.  The proconsul gave the accused no opportunity to reply to this charge, for he refused to hear it himself. *Just as Paul was about to speak, Gallio said to the Jews, `If you Jews were making a complaint about some misdemeanour or serious crime [that is, an obvious offence against Roman law], it would be reasonable for me to listen to you (14). But since it involves questions [NEB,
"bickering"] about words and names and your own law - settle the matter yourselves. I will not be a judge of such things'* (15).  Having made his decision not to hear the Jews' case, Gallio *had them ejected from the court* (16). An unpleasant  example of mob rule followed. Although it is not certain who is meant by *they all* in verse 17, it seems to be the crowd of Gentile onlookers who, `in an outbreak of the anti-Semitism always near the surface in the Graeco-Roman world', now *turned on Sosthenes*, who had evidently succeeded Crispus as *the synagogue ruler, and beat him in front of the court* (17a). Luke's addition that *Gallio showed no concern whatever* (17b) does not mean that he was indifferent to justice, but that he considered it judicious to turn a blind eye to this act of violence.

Gallio's refusal to take seriously the Jewish case against Paul or to adjudicate was immensely important for the future of the gospel. In effect, he passed a favourable verdict on the Christian faith and thus established a significant precedent. The gospel could not now be charged with illegality, for its freedom as a *religio licita* had been secured as the imperial policy.  Luke's concluding comment is logical: *Paul stayed on in Corinth for some time* (18a), not now because of his vision of Jesus, but because of the judicial decision of Gallio. Jesus would keep his promise to protect him; the chief means of his protection would be Roman law.

Acts 18:18b-28 - Paul in transit

Luke now follows Paul from Corinth to Ephesus, Caesarea, Jerusalem, Antioch and back through Galatia to Ephesus again. His narrative is very condensed, either because his information was
limited (he was himself still in Philippi) or because his purpose was to get Paul from Achaia to Asia (where he had previously been forbidden by the Spirit to preach, 16:6), from his two years in
Corinth to his three years in Ephesus, without dwelling on his intervening months of travel.

a). Paul visits Ephesus, Jerusalem and Antioch (18:18-23).  Some time after Gallio's refusal to take cognizance of the Jewish charge against the apostle, Paul *left the brothers and sailed for Syria* (18a), presumably intending to report back to the church of Syrian Antioch which had sent him out (13:1ff; 14:26ff.; 15:35ff.), and was *accompanied by Priscilla and Aquila*, who may well have financed his trip. Luke now adds the interesting detail that *before he sailed, he had his hair cut off
at Cenchrea*, Corinth's eastern port, *because of a vow he had taken* (18b). Commentators have been perplexed regarding who made this vow, what it was, when it was taken and why. As for the
person concerned, although the grammar permits it to be Aquila,  the context requires that it was Paul. The reference to his hair makes it almost certain that it was a Nazirite vow (Nu.6:1ff.), which involved abstinence from drinking wine and from cutting one's hair for a period, at the end of which the hair was first cut and then burned, along with other sacrifices, as a symbol of self-offering to God. If the vow was completed away from Jerusalem, the hair could still be brought there to be burned. Such vows were made `either in thankfulness for past blessings (such as Paul's safekeeping in Corinth) or as part of a petition for future blessings (such as safekeeping on Paul's impending
journey)'. Once Paul had been liberated from the attempt to be justified by the law, his conscience was free to take part in practices which, being ceremonial or cultural, belonged to the `matters indifferent', perhaps on this occasion in order to conciliate the Jewish Christian leaders he was going to see in Jerusalem (cf. 21:23ff., relating to his subsequent visit).  *They arrived in Ephesus, where Paul left Priscilla and Aquila. He himself went into the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews* (19). His mission was so much more acceptable  to the Jews in Ephesus than in Corinth (did this have anything to do with his shaven head?) that they wanted him to stay. But *when they asked him to spend more time with them he declined* (20), adding  (according to the western text), `I must at all costs keep the coming festival in Jerusalem', which Ramsay declared `may be confidentlyunderstood as the Passover'. Whatever the reason for Paul's haste, *as he left, he promised to return, saying: `I will come back if it is God' will.' Then he set sail from Epheses* (21).

*When he landed at Caesarea*, Palestine's chief port, *he went up and greeted the church and then went down to Antioch* (22). The church which he greeted on disembarkation was almost certainly not that of Caesarea, but of Jerusalem, about sixty-five miles inland, for `the terms "going up" and "going down" are used so frequently of the journey to and from Jerusalem as to establish this usage'.
*After spending some time in Antioch*, probably from the early summer of AD 52 to the early spring of 53, and having doubtless given its church a full account of his second missionary expedition, *Paul set out from there* on what proved to be his third and last. He will have gone first in a northerly direction, then west through the Cilician Gates, over the Taurus range, *and travelled from place to place throughout the region of Galatia and  Phrygia, strengthening all the disciples* (23). This must mean that he revisited the churches of Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe, which he had established during his first missionary journey (chapters 13 and 14) and consolidated during his second (16:6).


Acts. 18:24-28. Apollos visits Ephesus

*Meanwhile*, during the year or so which must have elapsed since Paul left Corinth, *A Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus* (24a). Luke goes on to tell us three interesting facts about him. First, *he was a learned man* (though `logios' could mean `eloquent', as in RSV, NEB) *with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures* (24b). Alexandria had a large Jewish population at that time. It was here that the LXX had been produced some 200 years before Christ, and here that the great scholar Philo, Jesus' contemporary , lived and worked, struggling by allegorical interpretation of the Old Testament to reconcile Hebrew religion with Greek philosophy. Did Apollos himself interpret the Old Testament allegorically? Perhaps Luther was right  in being the first person to propose Apollos as the author of the Letter to the Hebrews. Secondly, *he had been instructed in
the way of the Lord* (i.e. the Lord Jesus). He also spoke with great fervour (`fervent in spirit', as in Rom. 12:11, probably meaning `spiritual ferment'), thus matching erudition with enthusiasm. In addition, he *taught about Jesus accurately*. He was therefore, although Jewish, a Christian teacher (25a). Thirdly, however, *he knew only the baptism of John* (25b), whom Luke knew to have been the Messiah's forerunner (Lk.3:1ff) and to have belonged to the law and the prophets, not the kingdom (Lk.16:16). Since Apllos can hardly have known John's baptism without also knowing his teaching, he must have been familiar with John's witness to Jesus as the Messiah. But how much more did he know? At all events, when *he began to speak boldly in the synagogue, and "Priscilla and Aquilla heard him* they recognized that his understanding was defective, invited him to their home, and *explained to him the way of God more adequately* (26), literally, `more accurately' (RSV), the comparative of the adverb *akribos* used in the previous verse.


It is not possible to be sure which Christian truths Apollos knew when he taught `accurately' and which were explained to him `more accurately'. On the one hand, Luke could hardly have
described him as `instructed in the way of the Lord' if at that stage he was still completely ignorant of the death and resurrection of Jesus. On the other hand, if his knowledge was largely limited to John's baptism and teaching, his grasp of these events may have been minimal, and he will also have needed to hear about Jesus' commission, exaltation and gift of the Spirit. Such truths as
these Priscilla and Aquilla taught him. Their ministry was timely and discreet. As Professor Bruce remarks, `how much better it is to give such private help to a preacher whose ministry is defective than to correct or denounce him publicly!'.

Next, *when Apollos wanted  to go Achaia the brothers encouraged him*, for he was better equipped now for a wider ministry, *and wrote to the disciples there to welcome him. On arriving, he was a great help to those who by grace had believed* (27). *For he vigorously refuted the Jews in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ* (28).  Indeed, in 1 Corinthians 1 - 4 Paul himself wrote appreciatively of Apollos' ministry in Corinth and generously acknowledged him as
a fellow-worker in God's field. `I planted the seed,' he wrote: `Apollos watered it, but God made it grow' (1 Cor. 3:6).

Acts 19:1-41  Paul in Ephesus

*While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior* (or `made his way overland', JB) *and arrived at Ephesus* (1), keeping his promise to return if God willed it (18:21). It was, therefore, during Paul's year of absence from Ephesus that Apollos came, ministered and left again.

a). Paul and John the Baptist's followers (19:1b-7) On arrival at Ephesus Paul *found some disciples*. At least that is what they claimed to be. In reality, however, they were disciples of John the Baptist, and were decidedly less well informed than Apollos had been. Luke records the dialogue which developed between them (2-4) and its sequel (5-7).

Paul's first question:   Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?
Their answer: No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit
Paul's second question: Then what baptism did you receive?
Their answer:  John's baptism.
Paul's comment: John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is Jesus.

On hearing this, they were baptised into the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. There were about
twelve men in all.

This incident has become a proof text in some pentecostal and charismatic circles, especially when the inaccurate and unwarranted AV translation of verse 2 is followed, namely, `Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?' From this it is  sometimes argued that Christian initiation is in two stages, beginning with faith and conversion, and followed later by receiving the Holy Spirit. But those twelve `disciples' cannot possibly be regarded as providing a norm for a two-stage initiation. On the contrary, as Michael Green has written, it is `crystal clear that those disciples were in no sense Christians', having not yet believed in Jesus, whereas through the ministry of Paul they came to believe and were then baptized with water and the Spirit more or less simultaneously.

When Paul first met them, he assumed  that they were believers, but noticed that they gave no evidence in their bearing or behaviour of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. So he asked them his two leading questions, whether they had received the Spirit when they believed, and into what they had been baptized. His first question linked the Spirit with faith, and his second with baptism. That is, his questions expressed his assumptions that those who have believed have received the Spirit (cf. 
Gal.3:2), and that those who have been baptized have received the Spirit, for he cannot separate the sign (water) from the thing signified (the Spirit). He took it for granted that baptized believers receive the Spirit, as Peter also taught (2:38-39). Both his questions imply that to have believed and been baptized and not to have received the Spirit constitutes an extraordinary anomaly.

Consider now the answers which Paul received to his questions. In answer to his first, they said that they had `not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit'. This cannot mean that they have never heard of the Spirit at all, for he is referred to many times in the Old Testament, and John the Baptist spoke of the Messiah as baptizing people with the Spirit. It must rather mean that, although they had heard John's prophecy, they had not heard whether it had been fulfilled. They were ignorant of Pentecost. In answer to Paul's second question, they explained that they had received John's baptism, not Christian baptism. In a word, they were still living in the Old Testament which culminated in John
the Baptist. They understood neither that the new age  had been ushered in by Jesus, nor that those who believe in him and are baptized into him receive the distinctive blessing of the new age, the indwelling Spirit.

Once they came to understand this through Paul's instruction, they put their trust in Jesus of whose coming their teacher John the Baptist had spoken. They were then baptized into Christ, Paul laid his hands on them (giving his apostolic imprimatur to what was happening, as Peter and John had done in Samaria), the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. In other words they experienced a mini-Pentecost. Better, Pentecost caught up on them. Better still,
they were caught up into it, as its promised blessings became theirs.

The norm of Christian experience, then, is a cluster of four things: repentance, faith in Jesus, water baptism and the gift of the Spirit. Though the perceived order may vary a little, the four belong together and are universal in Christian initiation. The laying-on of apostolic hands, however, together with tongue-speaking and prophesying, were special to Ephesus, as to Samaria, in order to demonstrate visibly and publicly that particular groups were incorporated into Christ by the Spirit; the New Testament does not universalize them. There are no Samaritans or disciples of John the Baptist left in the world today.

Acts 19:8-10. b). Synagogue and lecture hall

The pattern of Paul's evangelistic ministry in Ephesus was similar to that in Corinth. First, *Paul entered the synagogue*, where he was already known (18:19), *and spoke boldly there for
three months, arguing persuasively (RSV, `arguing and pleading')about the kingdom of God* (8). To argue from the Old Testament Scriptures about the kingdom is the same as to argue that Jesus is the Christ, since it is Jesus the Christ who inaugurated the kingdom (cf. 28:31). *But*, as in Corinth so in
Ephesus, the Jewish people rejected the good news: *Some of them became obstinate; they refused to believe and publicly maligned the Way*, as Christian discipleship is again called (cf. Acts 9:2;
19:23; 22:4; 24:14, 22), since `Christianity was for the disciples the way of all ways...in which to walk'. As a direct result of this stubborn opposition in the synagogue, *Paul left them*. He also *took the disciples with him and had discussions (dialegomenos; RSV, `argued') daily in the lecture hall of
Tyrannus* (9). In fact this new outreach to the Gentiles in the form of dialogue evangelism *went on for two years, so that all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord* (10). It is a bit tantalising that Luke tells us nothing about Tyrannus. One assumes that he was a philosopher or educator of some kind, who lectured during the cool hours of the morning, but was prepared to rent his school room or lecture hall (schole) to the Christian evangelist during the heat of the day. Since *tyrannos* means a despot or tyrant, `one wonders idly if this was the name his parents gave him or the name his pupils gave him!' What is clear is that Paul's daily Christian lecturing for two years led to the evangelization of the whole province.