Acts 18

CHAPTER XVIII

THE SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY: CORINTH

Acts 18:1

1After these things, having withdrawn from Athens, he went to Corinth.

The passive of χωρίζειν is used in the middle sense: Paul withdrew from Athens of his own accord; compare 1:4. No persecution drove Paul out of this place. The plural “after these things” refers to all that transpired in Athens. Compare 17:34, where Luke implies that a congregation was organized. The view that Paul took a new and a risky step in Athens by preaching in philosophic form, saw his mistake because of the small result attained, and then left for Corinth cannot be maintained. The proposed premise does not warrant the conclusion. A man who starts in a wrong way does not flee to a new place in order there to start in a right way but remains and starts over again and retrieves his mistake. It is unwarranted to assume anything else in regard to Paul.

It is also unwarranted to think that Paul did not even baptize his converts in Athens but abandoned them. Likewise, that no congregation was organized, and that Paul’s effort was abortive. 1 Cor. 2:1–5 implies the very opposite. Paul continued to preach Christ in all simplicity. He had done so in Athens and continued to do so in the more difficult city of Corinth. As far as the two cities are concerned, the work in Athens was the easier of the two. “After these things” means after the success achieved in Athens, after he had planted a congregation in this city. He withdrew of his own accord because the planting was completed; if more had been needed, Paul would have remained until this, too, had been done, for the matter of leaving lay in his own hands. In other cities he had to leave when he would have remained a while; not so here.

Corinth, once the capital of the Achaean league, was destroyed by Mummius in B. C. 146 and was left in ruins for a century until Julius Caesar rebuilt it in B. C. 46 and made it a colonia. In Paul’s time it was the capital of the Roman province of Achaia, the chief commercial city of Greece, prosperous and luxuriant, only fifty miles from Athens. Back of it towered Acrocorinthus, 1, 800 feet high. Situated on the isthmus, it had two harbors, Cenchraea near to it on the Aegean side, and Lechaeum on the opposite side of the isthmus, across which goods were transferred and small ships hauled. A canal now cuts through the isthmus.

It was this situation that made Corinth great, so that it commanded the great trade route between Asia and Rome. This accounts for the mixed population, for ships from all ports docked in its harbors. In Athens, Paul met the Greek mythological gods, to Corinth flocked many men of varied religions, nationalities, languages. It was not accidental that many in the Corinthian congregation spoke with tongues. Corinth had several temples that were devoted to Egyptian deities, which fact is explained by its extensive trade with Alexandria. It was natural for the Alexandrian Apollos to work in Corinth (19:1).

Paul wrote his letter to the Romans from Corinth, and the list of Latin names at the end of this letter marks Corinth as being a prominent colony. Although it was a wealthy city, we must not forget that wealth implied many slaves and many poor people below the wealthy stratum. The congregation founded by Paul was drawn chiefly from these two classes of people.

Corinth did not boast of a single outstanding philosopher; its pride was trade and the arts. Corinthian brass was famous, and Corinthian capitals and pillars are still used in architecture. Yet the Greek spirit was strong because Corinth was situated in Greece. We should go wrong in thinking of philosophers, yet speculative ideas were to be found everywhere, just as today many claim γνῶσις (they call it “science”) who are anything but scientific or philosophic. The pride of this attitude was characteristic just as it is today.

Corinth was a wicked city even as larger cities of the empire went at this period. The very term “Corinthian” came to mean a profligate. Κορινθιάζομαι, “to Corinthianize,” meant to practice whoredom; Κορινθιαστής = a whoremonger; Κορινθίακόρη (girl) = a courtesan. In the old city the worship of Venus boasted of 1, 000 female slaves who were free to strangers. Venus worship marked also the restored city although we have no account of the number of the prostitutes connected with the new temple. Money was freely spent in Corinth. Paul’s description of pagan vice, Rom. 1:18–32, was written in Corinth.

One of the great attractions were the Isthmian games, the custody of which was restored to the new city. Greeks and Romans flocked to the contest, and the mob came in crowds, but the effect was degrading.

Acts 18:2

2And having found a Jew by name Aquila, a Pontic by race, having lately come from Italy, and Priscilla, his wife, because Claudius had ordered all the Jews to withdraw from Rome, he went in to them and, because he was of the same trade, he continued to remain with them and to work, for they were tentmakers by trade.

Luke records all this because Paul remained in Corinth about eighteen months and his reader should know how he supported himself, and because of the importance of the couple with whom Paul became associated here in Corinth. We shall meet Aquila and his wife in Ephesus and in Rome. “A Pontic by race” means that he was born in the Roman province of Pontus on the borders of the Black Sea. Incidentally, it is worth noting how this man and his wife moved freely from place to place: Pontus, Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, Rome again, etc.

The emperor Claudius reigned 41–54. He was very friendly to the Jews and accorded them various privileges. In 49 Agrippa was still in the company of the emperor, which places the date of the order after that year. Paul came to Corinth in the fall of 51 and left in the spring of 53 (Zahn, Apostelgeschichte, 656, in an extended discussion of the dates). About 20, 000 Jews lived in Rome. They were first warned against tumultuous actions, finally the decree of expulsion from Rome was issued.

The historian Suetonius writes: Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultantes Roma expulit. Although they were not driven out of Italy but only out of Rome, Aquila and Priscilla went as far as Corinth. It is usually thought that “Chrestus” = “Christus,” and this view is based on Tacitus who, indeed, writes “Christus” but has Chrestianos as a name for Christians. Suetonius, however, speaks of an agitator in Rome, and “Chrestus” is a common name which has nothing to do with “Christ.” The assumption must be given up that the clashes referred to by Suetonius occurred between hostile Jews and Christians in Rome concerning Jesus. In 28:17–29 all the leading Jews of Rome readily come to Paul, and after a long day’s conference with him many of them were being persuaded by the apostle. This is inconceivable if some years prior to this the lines had been drawn between the Jews and the Christians in Rome so that tumults and the expulsion of the Jews from the city had resulted.

See the discussion of 28:17, etc.

After the death of Claudius the Jews returned to Rome. Paul converted more than one half of them as Luke informs us in 28:17–31. To this great body of converted Jews in Rome the Epistle to the Hebrews is addressed after the death of Paul, and everything points to Apollos as the writer of this epistle. See my introduction to Hebrews.

Aquila and Priscilla had established themselves in Corinth in company with many others who were affected by the decree of expulsion. Among the first converts at the time of Pentecost had been Jews from Pontus (2:9), but these had settled in Jerusalem. Aquila and Priscilla had very likely heard about Jesus while they were in Rome. Although Luke does not record their conversion through Paul, it is unwarranted to assume that they had become converts already in Rome. Paul naturally made his abode with a Jew because he always began work in the synagogue. Although they at first associated with one another for business reasons, Paul’s employers soon became the most devoted Christians and the closest friends of the apostle.

Acts 18:3

3Paul lived and lodged with them during his entire stay in Corinth. Aquila took him into his employ. Both were tentmakers, σκηνοποιοί; they made portable tents out of leather or cloth woven out of goat’s hair. There is no reason to think that they manufactured the cloth or prepared the hides. The ancients thought that this Greek word meant shoemakers, or saddlemakers, or leatherworkers in general. Paul earned his own living while he preached the gospel. He did it by his own choice. He discusses the matter at length in 1 Cor. 9:1–15, and brings out the truth that he, too, had the fullest right to marry a wife and to expect the support of the church. The two imperfect tenses indicate an indefinite stay and occupation.

Acts 18:4

4And he began to discuss in the synagogue every Sabbath and tried to persuade both Jews and Greeks.

Luke does not need to add that these Greeks were proselytes of the gate; he has done that often enough in previous cases. It is sufficient to know that these Jews and these Greeks were together in the synagogue. We thus have a picture of the first weeks spent in Corinth: Paul working during the week and engaging in discussions in the synagogue on the Sabbath. Every Jewish boy was taught a trade in order to make him independent. Rabbi Juda said, “He that teacheth not his son a trade teacheth him to be a thief.” And the Talmud: “What is commanded of a father toward his son? To circumcise him, to teach him the law, to teach him a trade.” Nothing is said about success as a result of these discussions.

The first imperfect is inchoative: “he began to discuss”; the second is conative: “he tried to persuade” (R. 885). Paul was laying the foundation; he delayed pressing the issue to a final decision.

Acts 18:5

5But when both Silas and Timothy came down from Macedonia, Paul began to hold himself to the Word, continuing to testify earnestly to the Jews that Jesus is the Christ.

In 17:15 we have discussed the missions on which Timothy and Silas were sent from Athens to Thessalonica and to Philippi. They now returned to Paul in Corinth, probably at the same time, or Timothy came first from Thessalonica with his good news (I Thess. 3:6), and Silas came from Philippi soon after this. In regard to the gifts that Philippi sent to Paul we have remarked already in 17:14. They had already reached him and should not be introduced here in Corinth in order to explain how Paul was able to stop working at his trade for a while. The arrival of his two helpers made Paul press for a decision. “He began to hold himself to the Word” (“spirit” in the A. V. is incorrect), inchoative imperfect of the direct middle (R. 808, also W.

P., not passive as our versions translate). He began to devote all his time to the Word, applying himself especially to testifying earnestly to the Jews that Jesus is the Messiah. His earnings during the past few weeks enabled him to do this. The Jews were Paul’s special concern; and the issue was whether they would accept Jesus as “the Christ,” the Messiah.

Acts 18:6

6But they arraying themselves in opposition and blaspheming, having shaken out his garments, he said to them: Your blood upon your own head! Clean I on my part! From now on I go to the Gentiles! And on departing thence he went to the house of one by name Titus Justus, a worshipper of God, whose house was adjoining the synagogue.

This was the result attained with regard to the Jews. They ranged themselves in battle array (so literally) and flung railing and blasphemy at Paul and at the idea that Jesus should be the Christ. Paul could follow no other course than to withdraw. The manner in which he does this shows his deep emotion. The act of shaking the garments is symbolic in the same way as shaking off the dust of the feet, with this difference that the one takes place indoors while the other is performed on the street. Both are often misunderstood.

Ramsay, for instance, writes, “undoubtedly a very exasperating gesture,” others, “a sign of contempt,” etc. The act denotes that the dust is left behind and not taken along and thus remains as a witness that the gospel messengers had come and duly delivered their message but had not been received in faith. That dust would testify to the Judge, and none of the guilty would be able to deny its testimony. See 13:51.

This act accompanies Paul’s words. These are not a curse or an imprecation but a disclaimer of guilt on Paul’s part. Since they reject Jesus as the Christ, damnation must follow. Whose is the fault? It is that of these Jews alone. To speak of blood coming upon one’s head is to say that the guilt for shedding someone’s blood rests upon the murderer and cries to God for punishment.

Here the blood of these Jews who are destroying themselves rests upon their own heads, they are like men committing spiritual suicide. Compare Matt. 23:35, and especially Matt. 27:24, 25. “Clean I on my part!” emphatic ἐγώ, means clean of the blood of these Jews; Paul has left nothing undone to save them. And since because of their violent state he can do no more he repeats what he and Barnabas did in Pisidian Antioch (13:46), he goes to the Gentiles. So the great turning point was reached in Corinth.

Acts 18:7

7Forthwith Paul and, of course, Silas and Timothy with him retired from the synagogue and went next door to it to the house of Titus Justus, whom Luke designates as a proselyte of the gate (see 13:43). His house must have been spacious enough to provide ample opportunity for carrying on Paul’s work among the Gentiles. The fact that it happened to adjoin the synagogue could not be helped even if this circumstance angred the Jews; σύν—ὅμος, joint, ὅρος, boundary = having joint boundary, adjoining. Titus must have been a Roman citizen, one of the coloni, a man of prominence. The Titii were a famous family of potters in Corinth, and the name of this family dates back to 133 B. C, and many of its members were prominent in military and in civil positions.

This Titus may have taken the added name Justus on becoming a proselyte of the gate. He should not be confused with the Titus who became one of Paul’s assistants. Moreover, his name is frequently spelled Titius.

Acts 18:8

8Crispus, however, the synagogue ruler, believed the Lord with his whole house; and many of the Corinthians, hearing, kept believing and being baptized.

Titus Justus was a most prominent proselyte of the synagogue, and Crispus was even one of its rulers. When the division came, the synagogue lost both, which was a great victory for Paul. The idea that this synagogue had only one archisynagogos, whether he was sole ruler or the head of its group of rulers, must be given up in view of the plural used in 13:15. Crispus was one of several rulers. His entire family went with him. What this implies has been discussed in connection with Lydia in 16:15 and the jailor in 16:33, 34 also in regard to the baptism of children. Paul baptized Crispus with his own hand, 1 Cor. 1:14. Yet we should be hasty in concluding from the few persons that Paul himself baptized in Corinth that he considered this a minor matter; Matt. 28:19 corrects that opinion.

The “many of the Corinthians” were pagan Greeks who had not been connected with the synagogue. Paul’s letters to the Corinthians show that the congregation had comparatively few Jews in its membership. 1 Cor. 1:12 names a party that called itself after Cephas, and this was probably made up of former Jews. The two imperfects plus the present participle describe a continuous influx of new members, all of whom were converts from heathenism. Most of these, too, must have been whole families, a fact which must not be overlooked when the baptism of children in the apostolic congregations is discussed. The Codex Bezae again rewrites in the way of a commentary, but its comments are not an improvement on Luke’s text.

Acts 18:9

9All this implied that Paul might consider that the time had come to move on to some new field, for the congregation in Corinth was fully established. Another consideration would influence Paul: the rumblings among the hostile Jews, whose viciousness Paul knew so well from past experience in other fields. He was the focus of this implacable hatred. Since the congregation was well established, Paul might think it wise to move on before the Jews started a move against his person. But the Lord himself detained him in Corinth.

Now the Lord said to Paul at night through a vision: Stop being afraid but go on speaking and be not silent, because I myself am with thee, and no one shall set on thee to ill-treat thee, because I have much people in this city. And he sat a year and six months, teaching among them the Word of God.

The Lord himself spoke to Paul in a vision by night. We must compare 22:18; 16:9; 27:23, and also the other instances when the Lord or his Spirit directed Paul where not to go. They show the immediate divine guidance in the spread of the gospel. It is never our work but always the Lord’s even though we are now left to depend only on his providential guidance which opens doors here and closes them elsewhere.

The present imperative in negative commands often means to stop an action already begun (R. 851, etc.). It does so here. Paul had begun to fear lest, by staying too long, he might precipitate an attack upon himself that would do damage to the young and growing congregation. Even after he had left Thessalonica, the congregation in that city had to suffer because of the onset that had been made by the Jews (17:5, etc.). Paul had worried about the Thessalonians and had sent Timothy to find out how matters stood (1 Thess. 3:1–6). He learned what they had suffered but also that they had remained firm.

Paul was fearing similar trouble in Corinth, which he might obviate by leaving in time. The Lord told him to dismiss all such fears. Nor was he to try to avoid trouble by quietly working on. No, he is to go on speaking (durative, present imperative) and is not to become silent (the aorist subjunctive in a negative command, punctiliar, ingressive, “fall silent”). The idea, of course, is that of relative silence. He is to work quietly so that the vicious Jews would hear little of his work and not be stirred to violence.

This was not an order to cast prudence to the winds. This virtue is always in place. It was the preamble to the Lord’s assurance that he himself (emphatic ἐγώ) was with Paul to protect him in his work so that no ill would come to the congregation through anything that his free and open work might bring about.

Acts 18:10

10“I myself am with thee” vividly recalls Matt. 28:20. Do not ask: “Did Paul not know this promise?” He did, but it meant much to him in his present situation to have it repeated. So we to this day must seek out the Lord’s promises in order to assure ourselves of them anew in difficult situations where we need their strengthening power more than at other times.

Paul had been set upon repeatedly. In Philippi Silas had been caught with him, but Paul was the real object of hatred. So the Lord here assures him that in Corinth, despite his boldness of utterance, no one shall set upon him and succeed in ill-treating him (aorist infinitive, effective). We certainly know that this promise was not made on Paul’s account as though it was to dispel fears concerning his own person. The Lord states a different reason: the many people he had in this city, “because much people is to me,” the common Greek idiom. The Lord speaks by virtue of his omniscience exactly as he does in John 10:16: “Other sheep I have.” R., W.

P., thinks that the Lord refers to the elect, namely as having been made such by an absolute eternal decree. But God foreordained those whom he foreknew (Rom. 8:29) and excluded no man from his election and eternal salvation by an absolute decree concerning him (1 Tim. 2:4; compare v. 6: 13:46)

Acts 18:11

11Ἐκάθισε harmonizes with διδάσκων; Paul sat, engaged in teaching. The year and six months comprise his entire stay in the city of Corinth. For immediately after his arrival Paul sat in Corinth and taught. The preceding clause speaks of all the people the Lord had “in this city” and not only in regard to those who were converted after this vision. Hence we cannot count this year and six months by beginning with the vision, so that his entire stay would approach two years as some reckon; nor can we count the eighteen months from the arrival of Silas and Timothy. The reason for inserting the time of Paul’s entire stay at this point is the Lord’s order to Paul not to leave immediately after the congregation was fully established.

We have no means of estimating how long Paul had been in Corinth when the vision came that told him to remain still longer. Some time after this vision the affair before Gallio occurred; even then Paul remained on (v. 18).

In 2 Cor. 1:1, Paul speaks of all the saints in Achaia, and in Rom. 16:1 we read of a church in Cenchraea, the seaport of Corinth. How it came about that the gospel was spread so far we see in 2 Cor. 1:19. While Paul “sat” at work in Corinth itself, Silas (Silvanus) and Timothy were active beyond the confines of the city. It has also been assumed that Paul left the home of Aquila and Priscilla (v. 2) and took up his residence with Titus Justus when the break with the synagogue came (v. 7). But μεταβάς does not imply a change of residence but only a transfer of teaching from the synagogue to this convert’s house. Jesus had explicitly said, “Go not from house to house,” Luke 10:5–7; Matt. 10:11, “there abide until ye go thence.” Paul stopped his work, cf., v. 5, but certainly not for the rest of his long stay in Corinth (1 Cor. 9:15).

As he earned his own living in Thessalonica (2 Thess. 3:8–11), so he did in Corinth in Aquila’s shop. When he left Corinth, Aquila and Priscilla went along with him (v. 18), so close was their mutual attachment. It is untenable to assume that Paul left their home a few weeks after coming to Corinth and then lived the following months with a wealthy Gentile Christian. Would Paul treat his dearest friends in this manner (Rom. 16:3, 4)?

Acts 18:12

12Now when Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, with one accord the Jews rose up against Paul and brought him to the tribunal, saying, This fellow over-persuades men to worship God contrary to the law.

Lucius Junius Gallio bore this name after his adoption by the Roman rhetor Lucius Junius Gallio, a friend of his father’s. His original name was Lucius Annaeus Novatus; he was born about 3 B. C., in Corduba, Spain, the son of a lawyer, Lucius Annaeus Seneca. His younger brother, who had the same name as the father, was the Stoic philosopher, poet, educator of Nero, and statesman, generally known as Seneca, who characterized his older brother: Nemo enim mortalium uni tam dulcis quam hic omnibus (No one of mortals is so pleasant to one person as he is to all). A third brother was M. Annaeus Mela (or Melas). All three were of a weak physical constitution, and all three were compelled to commit suicide by Nero.

Luke is the only writer who calls Gallio a proconsul although Seneca mentions the fact that he was taken with fever in Achaia. The province of Achaia underwent various shifts in government, being now imperial, then senatorial; but Luke has been amply vindicated when he speaks of it as being senatorial at this time, as being governed by a proconsul. In 1909 a whitish grey limestone inscription from the Hagias Elias quarries near Delphi was found which immortalized a letter from the emperor Claudius to the citizens of Delphi, which contains not only the name of Gallio, “Lucius Junius Gallio, my friend and proconsul of Achaia,” but also most valuable dates: the 12th tribunician year of Claudius, for the 26th time acclaimed Imperator. This places us between January 25 and August 1 of the year 52. Zahn corrects Deissmann in regard to the beginning of Gallio’s proconsulship. This office was held for only a year and seldom for two.

Imperial orders made the time for leaving Rome April 1, and then April 15. Gallio must have arrived in Corinth before May 1 of the year 52. Deissmann mistakenly assumes his arrival in midsummer and hence dates it about July of the year 51, which would shift all dependent estimates of dates by a year. Many have followed Deissmann, also R. in his books; but the time of year when proconsuls had to leave Rome should clear up this matter.

The absolute date thus secured, May 1, 52 to May 1, 53 for Gallio’s proconsulship, affects all dates stated in Acts back to 13:4, and thus shortens by a year the previously accepted calculations for the period covered in 13:1–3. Paul came to Corinth in the fall of 51; the episode before Gallio, who came to Corinth about six months later, must be dated after May, 52. Paul’s entire stay covered eighteen months; he thus left Corinth in the spring of 53. This calculation obviates placing any of the journeys into the winter, a point not to be overlooked. The seven lines of the inscription are damaged in some places, but experts are agreed on all omitted letters; the disagreement is due to other points.

The Jews tried the same tactics they had used in Philippi (16:19). The tactics employed by those in Thessalonica were worse (17:5). “They rose up with one accord,” formed a crowd (this compound verb occurs only here), seized Paul, and brought him to the βῆμα of the proconsul. This word means step, orator’s platform, and then a platform or raised dais for the seat of the judge. Gallio was new in office; the Jews had attempted nothing during the time of office of the previous proconsul but they seem to think that because of their numbers and their vociferation they can move the new governor to punish and to banish Paul. So Paul faces a Roman proconsul for the second time but under totally different circumstances from the first time (13:7).

Acts 18:13

13The accusation lodged against Paul is not identical with that made in Philippi (16:20, etc.) or with that made in Thessalonica (17:6, 7). No political crime is charged against him. The Jewish religion was regarded as a religio licita, it could be freely practiced and had the privilege of making converts, although not among Roman citizens. The charge against Paul was not that he practiced a religio illicita but that he contravened Roman law by the way in which he practiced the Jewish religion, namely by persuading them to worship God in a way which they as orthodox Jews had to repudiate. They, of course, do not explain that this was done by preaching that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, a claim which they utterly rejected. Their point is that by deviating from the regular Jewish way of worshipping God, which was sanctioned by Roman law, Paul transgressed that law and its sanction, was acting παρὰτὸννόμον.

The charge against Paul is often misunderstood, and it is stated that Gallio’s reply did not fit the charge. Then it is assumed that by further questioning Gallio discovered that it was a contention only about Jewish religious questions. But this idea reflects on Luke by assuming that he did not adequately report the charge. Luke reports entirely to the point. Gallio’s reply fits the charge as recorded by Luke.

Acts 18:14

14But when Paul was about to open his mouth, Gallio said to the Jews: If it were some injury or criminal wickedness, O Jews, according to reason I would have put up with you; but if they are questions concerning doctrine and names and law peculiar to you, you will see to them yourselves. A judge of these matters I on my part am determined not to be!

Roman law brought accuser and accused face to face before the judge. After the charge had been made, the accused had the right to offer his defense. It was thus that Paul looked for the signal from Gallio which would permit him to reply to the indictment. Paul was prepared to open his mouth. But Gallio promptly rejected the entire charge. The Jews had no case in court. They were ordered out of court. Their whole effort was a great nuisance to the Roman proconsul who had other things that properly belonged to his jurisdiction to take up his time and his attention.

Note how μέν and δέ (v. 15) balance the two conditional statements. In v. 14 we have a mixed condition: εἰ with the imperfect (protasis, present unreality): “if this were a proper legal case—but it is not”; and the aorist with ἄν (apodosis, past unreality): “I would have entertained it in my court, i. e., when you brought it—but I have not done so.” Gallio also indicates what are proper legal cases: a charge involving ἀδίκηματι, some injury inflicted on the complainant, or ῥᾳδιούργημαπονηρόν (τι understood), some wicked rascality, some slick villany that has been perpetrated in a criminal way. Gallio teaches these Jews a lesson on the functions of a Roman judge. Then “according to reason,” i. e., in whatever way reason would apply to the case—and, of course, only in that way—would he have tolerated them. Gallio means that even then it would have been an infliction on him, a case which he would not have enjoyed handling. This Roman proconsul wants these Jews to understand that he knows what sort of people the Jews are. Claudius had to drive them out of Rome (v. 2); Gallio had just come from Rome; and here in Corinth this whole crowd of Jews (“with one accord,” v. 12) was invading his court immediately after he had assumed his office and trying to start trouble when everything else was to occupy his attention.

Acts 18:15

15The condition of unreality intimates Gallio’s conviction that the Jews were bringing no legitimate legal case before him. He follows this with a condition of reality: εἰ with the indicative (protasis), any tense in the apodosis. “If, however, they are—and I am convinced that they are—nothing but disputes concerning doctrine (λόγου) and names and law peculiar to you (τοῦκαθʼ ὑμᾶς, which is stronger than a mere genitive), see to them yourselves.” The future is volitive and almost equal to an imperative (R. 874): “you will see to them”—they are your business and not mine. Since he had come from Rome, Gallio knew all about these agitations of the Jews (see v. 12) and indicates this by the three terms he uses, λόγος as a designation for Jewish doctrine, ὀνόματα for the contention about Jewish authorities, and νόμοςτοῦκαθʼ ὑμᾶς for the Jewish Torah and its contents. These were at the bottom of the tumults that arose in Rome, on account of which the emperor had to expel the Jews. Gallio is determined to have no repetition of this in Corinth. That is why he makes short work of these Jews at the very beginning.

Note that κριτὴςἐγώ are abutted, which increases the emphasis and is a construction that we cannot duplicate in English: “a judge—I—of these things”—no! With this statement the proconsul throws the case out of court with all the dignity and disdain of a high Roman official. He wants these Jews to understand right here and now that he will have no more of this sort of thing.

Some have misunderstood Gallio’s action and his temper on this occasion. They overlook v. 2; they are puzzled as to how Gallio could act with such understanding as v. 15 evidences, and think that Luke omitted some questions which Gallio put to the Jews; then they picture Gallio as the noble Roman who knows where to draw the line between church and state, the Roman who wisely follows Rome’s policy of leaving the religions of its subject peoples alone. Gallio is credited with fine statesmanship, noble tolerance, exceptional justice, and great strength of character. But we have a different conception of this scene. Gallio knew what these Jews were after; he used good sense in squelching them forthwith and rather thoroughly; he intended to have no bother and disturbance from that source during his term of office—that is the whole story. A little more must be added.

Acts 18:16

16And he drove them from his tribunal. But having laid hold on Sosthenes, the synagogue ruler, they all began to beat him before the tribunal. And Gallio was concerned about none of these things.

When Gallio threw the case of these Jews out of court, they should have left the tribunal promptly. Let us remember that the proconsul of a great Roman province was equal to the governor of one of our states, in fact, was like a governor plus the supreme court of his state. Why did Gallio drive those Jews from his tribunal (βῆμα, as in v. 12)? Because they remained after their case had been thrown out. Gallio had to throw them out. He ordered his lictors to take their rods and to clear the place. A judge of far lower standing would have done the same.

Acts 18:17

17Sosthenes was, no doubt, their spokesman. The idea that this synagogue had but one ἀρχισυνάγωγος is answered by the plural used in 13:15. Nor do we think that Sosthenes was elected in place of Crispus (v. 8). The synagogue always had several rulers, especially one that was as large as this synagogue in Corinth. Sosthenes was the spokesman because of his ability to serve in this capacity, he would have been the spokesman even if Crispus had remained a member of the synagogue.

Now what does it mean that “having laid hold on him, all began to beat him”? Simply this, that he persisted, and that all the lictors began to strike him with their rods, the imperfect implying that they did not need to do this very long.

This obvious sense is questioned because of πάντες, and the question is raised, “Who were they?” Some answer, “The Jews” cf., R., W. P. Sosthenes is said to have bungled his job as a spokesman so that the Jews themselves avenged themselves on him by giving him a beating before the very tribunal. The Codex Bezae is referred to which states that these “all” were a group of Greeks who became incensed at Sosthenes. But these Greeks would have manhandled more than merely one Jew. And what about the statement that “none of these things was a care to Gallio”? Let us at once say that he certainly would have minded it if the Jews had beaten their own spokesman, or if any Greek bystanders had done so.

Some commentators praise Gallio for strength of character in driving the Jews from his tribunal (see v. 16) and then fault him as being a weak character for allowing Sosthenes to be beaten before his tribunal, be it by the Jews or by the Greeks. These views cancel each other, and neither is correct. No proconsul would have tolerated such a thing, nor was such a beating a matter for the police court and not for a proconsul’s court. No supreme judge would disregard a lesser crime that is committed in his own court. All is clear when πάντες is referred to the proconsul’s own lictors. An obstreperous synagogue ruler would soon have them all around him, striking him, and he would retire with speed.

Gallio certainly would not interfere. But “none of these things” refers to far more, namely to the whole affair, of which the hurried departure of Sosthenes was but a small part. The proconsul held himself superior to this whole affair, and so concerned himself no more about the entire matter.

Other suppositions are added. Sosthenes bungled his task because he was already half a Christian, and therefore the Jews beat him, and this helped to make him completely a Christian (R., W. P.). This view is based on 1 Cor. 1:1, where a Sosthenes is mentioned. The fact is overlooked that Paul calls this Sosthenes “a brother” and not “your brother” and in no way connects him with the Corinthians to whom he is writing. The name Sosthenes was one that was frequently found. And 1 Cor. 1:1 itself answers the assumption that the two were identical.

END OF THE SECOND AND BEGINNING OF THE THIRD MISSIONARY JOURNEY

Acts 18:18

18The second missionary journey did not extend beyond Corinth. Paul left a well-established church in this city. The experience the Jews had with Gallio seems to have satisfied the Jews, for in Paul’s letters to Corinth he mentions no persecutions of any kind.

Now Paul, after having remained for many days with the brethren, having taken his leave, started to sail out for Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila, having shorn his head at Cenchraea; for he had a vow.

After the action of the proconsul Gallio, Paul had no reason to leave Corinth in a hurry. So he remained for a considerable number of days. We have indicated already in connection with v. 11 that the entire stay in Corinth comprised eighteen months, yet some add also these “days” to the eighteen months. Until the very end of his stay Paul was active in gathering new converts. The dative τοῖςἀδελφοῖς is to be construed with προσμείνας and not as our versions translate it.

Paul finally bade farewell and set out for Syria. The inchoative imperfect ἐξέπλει, “started out to sail,” is in place because the final destination, Syria, was not reached by means of one voyage. We can fix the date rather exactly, due to the inscription discussed in v. 12. It was after March 10, 53. That was the time of the year when shipping was resumed (not already on March 5, as some suppose). We thus see why Paul had to wait until this time.

Aquila and Priscilla went with him but only as far as Ephesus. One likes to read between the lines at this point. Did this couple move to Ephesus in order that, after the apostle returned to Ephesus from Syria, he might again live with them and work in their shop? And was it Paul’s aim already when he left Corinth to continue his missionary work in Ephesus? These may have been his plans. They would then answer the supposition that, while he was in Corinth, Paul at any time left the home of Aquila and Priscilla in order to live with Titus Justus (see v. 7).

At this point a question is raised. Who had made this vow and what about it? One answer given is, Paul. Why? Because the story concerns Paul and not Aquila; because the other participles refer to Paul, hence κειράμενος (aorist middle, causative: “having caused to be shorn”) must also refer to him; because the clause with γάρ must modify the main verb and this refers to Paul. Explanations: 1) Paul voluntarily assumed the vow; 2) he had been placed under it since his birth (Gal. 1:15) as a chosen vessel (Acts 9:15). The shearing of the head began the vow; the shearing marked its completion. Paul had to go to Jerusalem to complete it and did go there, this being the reason he could not stay at Ephesus; Paul did not go to Jerusalem on this journey.

The other answer given is, Aquila. On the basis of the grammar this must be the answer. If the participle were to refer to Paul, why is it placed so that the nominative “Aquila” comes immediately before the participle, and, most significant of all, why is Aquila named after his wife? The latter point cannot be answered by pointing to v. 26; Rom. 16:3; 2 Tim. 4:19, because every time the wife is mentioned before her husband a reason for doing so exists. In v. 26 it is because Priscilla was more capable of instructing Apollos than her husband. Ever after that Paul ranks her as the first of the two.

In character, ability, and devotion she so evidently excelled her husband that her name had to precede his. Here in v. 18 we also have a reason for reversing the names. It cannot be an implied distinction for Priscilla; for what would this be? Only one reason appears, the necessity of getting the nominative “Aquila” next to the nominative participle. That is why Luke did not write σύν with two datives: “with Aquila and Priscilla.”

But we confess that no explanation can be given regarding the vow itself and what part shaving the head played in the vow. Num. 16:1, 2 offers no help whatever even when it is thought that Paul was bound by the vow. The supposition that Aquila made the vow when he and his wife left Rome and that cutting his hair marked its completion is only a supposition. So also is the view that vows were assumed before making a dangerous journey, and that Aquila (or Paul) had his hair cut in the seaport Cenchraea immediately before embarking. The objection to this view is the imperfect εἶχε—he had already made the vow. It is also stated that the entire matter is irrelevant when it is referred to Aquila, and that it must refer to Paul because only then would it be of sufficient importance for a record, since it showed that he often voluntarily lived “Jewish” even to the extent of assuming a Jewish vow.

But despite all his brevity Luke often adds incidental statements also regarding minor characters. They are not at all intended to bring out some important truth; they do, however, convey to the reader the fact that Luke was informed even in regard to minor details and thus deserves his reader’s fullest confidence.

Acts 18:19

19And they arrived at Ephesus, and them he left here. He, however, having gone into the synagogue, reasoned with the Jews. Yet when they requested him to remain a longer time, he did not assent but, after taking leave and saying, I will return again to you, God willing, he put to sea from Ephesus.

On this occasion Luke departs from his usual custom and does not mention the seaport, namely Panormus. Ephesus, situated on the Cayster River, the capital of the Roman province of Asia, was the most important city in all Asia Minor. The temple of Artemis Diana which had been erected in this city was one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. It was built of the purest marble, was 425 feet long and 220 wide, had 127 columns, each 60 feet high and supporting the roof. It was destroyed by the Goths in 262.

Paul founded the local congregation. Although he had been prevented from going to Ephesus in 16:6, the city was now open to him. Paul spent almost three years of his missionary activity here; Timothy became superintendent of the churches in the entire territory as Paul’s representative with headquarters in Ephesus; John spent his last years in this city and wrote his Gospel and his Epistles here. The third Ecumenical Council met here in 431 and defined the doctrine of the church against Nestorius.

The fact that Paul left Aquila and Priscilla here is noted because of what follows in v. 24, etc. Αὑτός is contrasted with κἀκείνους but not as saying that Paul went to the synagogue, and that Aquila and Priscilla did not do so. The contrast lies in the fact that these two were left to stay in Ephesus while Paul remained only long enough to pay one visit to the synagogue. Of course, all three went to the synagogue together. Was it a Sabbath? Quite likely though not certainly. The aorist passive διελέχθη (from the deponent διαλέγομαι) is without passive force, and the aorist states only the fact that Paul discoursed with the Jews and told them about the gospel of Jesus, the Messiah.

Acts 18:20

20The impression Paul made was altogether favorable, for he was at once requested to stay in Ephesus for a longer time. But he did not nod his head (so literally; this word is found only here in the New Testament), did not assent.

Acts 18:21

21Luke reports only the facts that Paul bade everybody farewell, promised to return, and then put to sea (see the verb in 13:13) and left Ephesus. The Codex Bezae again inserts a commentary that Paul explained that he had to attend the festival in Jerusalem (the A. V. accepts this reading). We, too, accept it, but not as a part of Luke’s text but as comment that offers an apparently correct explanation as to why Paul hurried on from Ephesus. This comment, however, does not answer the question as to why Paul wanted to go to Jerusalem. Those who think that he and not Aquila had made the vow assign as the reason that he intended to complete the vow in Jerusalem according to Num. 16:1–12 by bringing the sacrifices prescribed by the law.

The reason, we think, was far more important and vital. Paul wanted to keep the Gentile churches in contact with the mother congregation at Jerusalem. More than this, he wanted to see the conditions obtaining in Jerusalem; and soon we see him arranging a great collection in all his Gentile congregations for the relief of the brethren at Jerusalem. Since he sailed from Cenchraea about March 10, the festival Paul hoped to attend in Jerusalem was the Passover. Whether he managed to get there in time no one knows. “God willing” (1 Cor. 4:19; 16:7; James 4:15) is certainly not a mere phrase in the mouth of the apostle, nor should it ever be in ours whose goings and comings are equally subject to God’s will.

Acts 18:22

22And having come down to Caesarea, after having gone up and having greeted the church, he went down to Antioch. And having spent some time, he went out, in succession going through the Galatian and Phrygian region, making firm all the disciples.

When one starts a voyage one goes up (“is brought up,” nautical), and when one ends a voyage one comes down; these are the Greek nautical terms. So our versions very properly translate, “when he had landed.” And now we have a controversy as to whether Paul, after landing in Caesarea, went up and greeted the church of Caesarea only or that of Jerusalem also and then went down to Antioch. We submit the following. ΚατελθὼνεἰςΚαισάρειαν means complete arrival in Caesarea and not merely arrival in the harbor; just as the corresponding expression ἀνήχθηἀπὸτῆςἘφέσου means departure from Ephesus and not merely from the water of its harbor. Ἀναβάς does not mean walking up from the water’s edge to the higher ground of Caesarea (and so greeting the church there) but again corresponds with κατέβη, going down. Participle and main verb are plain when they are understood as referring to going up to Jerusalem and coming down from there to Antioch. When Zahn scores this view as being wrong, he lays stress only on ἀναβάς and contends that the mere participle never means going up to Jerusalem, and that the unmodified ἡἐκκλησία is never used with reference to the church at Jerusalem; he does not say a word about κατέβη, and how one could say he “went down” from the coast town of Caesarea to Antioch which is up some distance from the sea; nor does he say one word about the correspondence of “having gone up” with “he came down” although he insists that Paul went to Antioch by land.

Furthermore, why did Paul go to Caesarea at all if he did not intend to go to Jerusalem? There was nothing in the church at Caesarea that attracted him, the attraction was entirely in Jerusalem. He should have taken passage from Ephesus to Seleucia, the harbor of Antioch, and saved the long, hard journey overland from Caesarea to Antioch. Sailing facilities to Seleucia were just as frequent as those to Caesarea. Again, after once getting to Caesarea, it was only a short journey to Jerusalem, and to turn his back on the great church there, with which Paul intended to maintain close connection in the interest of unity, would be an inexplicable act.

But why did Luke not add “to Jerusalem”? Because he did not think that his reader would misunderstand the going up and the coming down. Jerusalem was always up, in leaving it one always came down; and this “up” and this “down” were in large part ethical and not merely physical. For all Jews and all Christians Jerusalem, by virtue of this fact, always had been and still was high up and great. Nothing of sufficient importance for a record transpired on this brief visit; it is unlikely that Paul found even one apostle in Jerusalem. Some make an issue of the fact that in his letter to the Galatians Paul does not mention this visit (his fourth) nor that indicated in 11:30 and 12:25 (his second). There is no issue of any kind, for in Galatians, Paul is writing of those visits to Jerusalem which he made when he conferred with one or another of the apostles.

Acts 18:23

23Paul finally returned to Antioch, the congregation from which he had set out on both of his great missionary tours. He had been gone about two years, from the early spring of 51 until April of 53 (for the dating see v. 12, which is exact for this reckoning). He could not immediately tear himself away, so he remained for some time; we think it was several weeks. How much he had to relate, and how much there was to be related to him! The old bonds were strongly reknit. Paul always strengthened the sacred ties. From him many might learn this process and the spirit of unity (not unionism) which completely filled him. The deplorable practice that this or that church does as it pleases without due consideration of the other churches in the fellowship had not yet arisen.

And now the third missionary journey begins. It begins as did the second: Paul revisits the congregations founded on his first missionary journey in “the Galatian and Phrygian region.” In 16:6 we have discussed this territory. In that passage we must regard the one article in the expression τὴνΦρυγίανκαὶΓαλατικἠνχώραν as denoting one region which was designated as both Phrygian and Galatian, namely Phrygian Galatia, that part of the Roman province Galatia which was at one time included in the ethnographic territory called Phrygian. The effort to find two regions in this expression, one Phrygian (or taking this as a noun: Phrygia) and the other Galatian, has brought on the confusion we mention in our comments on chapter 16. This is also the case here where Luke reverses the adjectives. Since it was Phrygian and Galatian at the same time, it may with equal propriety be called Galatian and Phrygian.

The noun χώραν may be placed after both adjectives as is done in 16:6, or between them as is done here; it could also be placed immediately after the article. Greek usage allows any one of these three constructions without a change in sense. Instead of noticing this rather obvious fact, some interpreters divide this expression so that two territories are found in it, and Φρυγίαν is made a noun, or χώραν is supplied and thus read twice. The grammar is ignored, namely that one article (and in both passages we have only one) combines into a unit whatever follows that article.

On this journey Paul traveled alone, and on this third visit he again confirmed the disciples. And the expression “the disciples” refers to the churches or congregations, for every church was composed of disciples. He viewed the progress that had been made, and his one aim was to make them as firm and solid as possible in the faith they had received. His third visit must have been even more delightful to his heart than the first. In view of the letter he was soon to write to these very churches (Galatians) let us note that no defection from the gospel was evident to Paul on this visit.

Acts 18:24

24Now a Jew, Apollos by name, an Alexandrian by race, an eloquent man, arrived in Ephesus, being mighty in the Scriptures.

Aquila and Priscilla had remained in Ephesus. Paul had gone on and had not as yet returned. During this interval Apollos arrived. He probably came from Alexandria. By saying that he was “a Jew” Luke designates his extraction which was Jewish and not Gentile. He was not Jewish as opposed to Christian. “An Alexandrian by race,” τῷγένει, adds the detail that he was a native-born Alexandrian, had been reared in the great Egyptian city that had been founded by Alexander the Great and named after him.

Two of this city’s five sections were inhabited by Jews. It had a great university and a library and was the main seat of Jewish-Hellenistic learning. The Jewish-Alexandrine philosophy was developed here; its chief exponent, Philo, was still living. Here the LXX had been translated, a work that was of more influence than any other translation of the Old Testament. The inspired New Testament writers quoted from it. Although they regarded Jerusalem as the great center of their religion, the Alexandrine Jews had their own temple at Leontopolis.

The A. V. version correctly translates λόγιος, “eloquent” as distinguished from the R. V.’s “learned.” Apollos was gifted and well-trained dialectically. He had, no doubt, been educated in the famous university of his city. Last and most important of all and added without a connective and by means of a participle, he is described as “being mighty in the Scriptures.” The rest of his education had been made subservient to the Scriptures and to the power to use them effectively. What follows shows that Luke does not have in mind rabbinical ability in the Old Testament, for Apollos used the Bible to preach Jesus Christ as he had learned to know him.

Apollos was not a man who merely echoed the learning of his day, who merely swallowed all that he was taught and let it puff him up with intellectual pride, who disdained everything that did not bear the stamp of the schools. A flood of light falls into the very heart of Apollos when Luke writes, “being mighty in the Scriptures.” That is exactly where thousands of highly titled university graduates are pitifully weak. They are perhaps mighty against the Scriptures with their learning but not mighty in the Scriptures, filled with the spiritual power that has its source in the saving truth of Holy Writ.

It was providential that this valuable man came to Ephesus just at this time. The teachers he needed to complete his education had also been providentially brought to Ephesus just at this time. Paul was not there and would not get there for some time. Not even a congregation was found there. Only a humble tentmaker and his equally unpretentious wife were there to take Apollos in hand. But would this eloquent, able university graduate condescend to go to school to a tentmaker, a common artisan, and to his wife who had never attended a university?

We shall see. The best university training Apollos ever received was given him in this tentmaker’s shop, and the best professor Apollos ever had was this tentmaker’s wife, Priscilla. And among the greatest services these two ever rendered the Lord was what they did for Apollos. In the whole story of Acts there is no picture that is more ideal than this of Apollos and Aquila and his wife.

Acts 18:25

25This one had been informed as to the Way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus although knowing only the baptism of John. This one also began to speak with boldness in the synagogue, and having heard him, Priscilla and Aquila took him to them and more accurately set forth to him the Way of God.

In the effective Greek fashion οὗτος brings to a focus all that has been said about Apollos and then adds more. By means of the periphrastic past perfect passive “had been informed” we are told that in addition to all his other education Apollos also knew about “the Way of the Lord.” Passives of verbs that have two objects still take the one as here (R. 816). Κατηχέω (source of our “catechize,” “catechism,” “catechetics”) is used here as it is in Luke 1:4 and in a few other places in the New Testament without conveying an idea of formal instruction; this idea of formally instructing in the elements of the faith by using also the question method was added later (C.-K. 481).

Not in the Alexandrian schools but from some disciple of the Baptist Apollos had learned something about “the Way of the Lord,” i. e., the Christian doctrine. The Hebrew derek, “way,” one that is laid out and traveled, is used extensively in the Old Testament in a religious and an ethical sense; in Ps. 1:6 it is used in both the good and the evil sense. The Jews later called the entire Christian doctrine and practice derek hanotsarim, “the Way of the Christians.” So “Way” means doctrine, faith, confession, life, all combined. “Lord” must here mean Jesus, for Apollos taught “the things concerning Jesus.” What Apollos thus knew was correct enough as far as it went; the trouble was that it did not go far enough.

Apollos had eagerly accepted this teaching concerning Jesus from the disciples of the Baptist. We shall meet another case of this kind in 19:1, etc., but much less information will be furnished us in regard to that case. It seems that after his death some of the disciples of the Baptist had scattered and had spread some of his teaching here and there without fully knowing about the death and the resurrection of Jesus and what these implied.

And now we learn something about the spirit of Apollos, namely, that he was “fervent in spirit” (dative of relation), ζέω meaning “to boil,” “to seethe.” What he had discovered did not appeal to him only intellectually, it captivated his very spirit; he glowed with holy enthusiasm and zeal. He spoke and taught all along (imperfect tenses) what he had learned, τὰπερὶτοῦἸησοῦ, a neat idiom, “the things concerning Jesus” as far as he knew them. He could not keep still about them, he had to impart them also to others; he spoke them to men privately as occasion offered, and he taught them in public, in meetings in the synagogues wherever he happened to be.

This Apollos did ἀκριβῶς, “accurately,” the same adverb Luke used in Luke 1:3 in regard to himself. He did not let his zeal carry him away. He became no “enthusiast” in the sense of a fanatic; he avoided the speculations into which the Alexandrian Jews such as Philo might have carried him by mixing error with truth in a philosophic fashion. He kept to exactness. Why some authorities think that Apollos had obtained much from Philo is difficult to understand when Luke excludes this idea with the adverb “accurately.” So also “the things concerning Jesus” means the actual facts about Jesus. They included what the Gospels record for us of the Baptist’s testimony, which was by no means inconsiderable; they may have included some things from the early work of Jesus himself, which those of the Baptist’s disciples who did not attach themselves to Jesus heard toward the end of the Baptist’s career and afterward.

Luke marks this limitation in the equipment of Apollos by adding, “knowing only the baptism of John.” By “the baptism of John” the whole teaching and work of the Baptist are referred to. The idea is not that he knew nothing about Christian baptism but that his knowledge did not extend to the completion of the work of Jesus. This, of course, included also the command to baptize all nations and the events that transpired at the time of Pentecost and later. A misleading contrast is introduced by regarding John’s baptism as a mere water baptism over against the baptism of Jesus, either this itself (Matt. 28:19) or the so-called Spirit baptism at the time of Pentecost and what some today call “the baptism of the Spirit,” an imaginary sudden seizure by the Spirit without means which produces total sanctification. On this subject compare 1:6. To know only John’s baptism was not to know about the crucifixion, the resurrection, the ascension, Pentecost, etc., not to know of the Lord’s Supper, the first church at Jerusalem, the mission of the apostles, etc.

Nothing is said about the baptism of Apollos. But we are safe in the conclusion that, if he had been baptized with John’s baptism, and if this baptism had not been deemed sufficient, Luke would have touched upon that point, especially in view of what he writes in 19:1, etc. So the facts must be that Apollos had received the baptism of John, and that this was all he needed, exactly as all of the Twelve had received no other baptism than that of John. The case of the persons mentioned in 19:1, etc., is entirely different.

Acts 18:26

26This then, a second οὗτος which includes all that had thus far been said of him, was the man who began to speak in the Ephesian synagogue with full freedom, holding nothing back. Aquila and Priscilla must have been surprised when they heard him. But they at once noted his serious limitations. When Luke writes that they “took him to them” (indirect middle voice), we must note all that is involved. Moreover, Luke now places Priscilla’s name before her husband’s. In v. 18 the reason for this placement is only grammatical; here it means much more just as it does twice in Paul’s letters (Rom. 16:3; 2 Tim. 4:19, where Paul even uses Prisca instead of the diminutive Priscilla).

We conclude that Priscilla was the moving spirit, that she was by nature more gifted and able than her husband, also spiritually fully developed due to her having had Paul in her home for eighteen months while residing in Corinth. Aquila seems to have been a gentle, quiet soul, who was genuine in this unobtrusive way. It seems that the couple was childless.

The beauty of Priscilla’s character lies in the fact that she never thrust herself forward, never asserted herself, or made her superiority felt. She was loyally true to Paul’s teaching that the husband is the head of the wife. Aquila had found a pearl among women. Priscilla is the direct opposite of Sapphira. The one stimulated her husband to all that was good, the other helped her husband on to his destruction. Priscilla is the example our women need so much today when so many thrust themselves beyond their proper sphere and often do not know where to stop.

It was a delicate undertaking to take Apollos to themselves and to set forth to him more accurately the Way of God. Who were these humble people to teach a university graduate, this orator schooled in the Scriptures? But they managed it perfectly with all tact. The two aorists imply that. Equal credit belongs to Apollos. He accepted the invitation of Priscilla and Aquila.

He must have been a man of deep spirituality not to let his superior education, ability, and standing assert themselves and prevent him from going to school to such lowly teachers. He is an example for all the high and mighty men of education today and for the green beginners for whom a little learning is already a dangerous thing. They scorn the old faith, look down even upon godly parents who cling to it and on the church that keeps the sacred fire burning. Apollos shall judge them at that day!

Luke surely wants his reader to understand that Priscilla was the main teacher. The ancients, too, knew about a number of most superior and talented women. Priscilla was not like these. She had no more education than her husband. Her great treasure was the gospel, and her ability was that she could impart it with all lucidity and force. She helped to teach Apollos in all propriety. Since this was private teaching, it in no way conflicted with the apostolic principle that women are to remain silent in the church. Humble people though she and her husband were, they were not abashed before Apollos.

On tries to picture the three sitting together and going into the great gospel story. Apollos must have asked many questions, Paul’s name must have been mentioned often. Little had Priscilla and Aquila thought, when they had learned from Paul in Corinth to what use they would have to put their instruction. Apollos eagerly absorbed all they could teach him. Suppose you, wife and husband, had been in their place, how would you have acquitted yourselves? We here see how in the apostolic age so many churches started in places to which no apostle came.

The Christians themselves were the missionaries. So well did the apostle ground them in the faith that they themselves were ready always to give an answer to every man that asked them a reason of the hope that was in them, with meekness and fear (1 Pet. 3:15).

Acts 18:27

27Now he desiring to go through to Achaia, the brethren having urged him forward, wrote to the disciples duly to receive him: who, having come, contributed much on his part to those who had believed through grace. For strenuously he kept confuting the Jews to a finish in public, showing by the Scriptures Jesus to be the Christ.

How did Apollos come to think of extending his travels to Achaia, and who were these brethren who urged him forward? Here the Codex Bezae adds to Luke’s account. It states that some Corinthians were temporarily in Ephesus and, on hearing Apollos, began to beseech him to go with them to their home city. After he had consented, we are told, “the Ephesians” wrote “to the disciples in Corinth” to receive the man. To be sure, Paul does speak of Apollos’ being in Corinth (1 Cor. 1:12). So this Codex refers the whole story to Corinth.

But had Aquila and Priscilla not recently come from Greece, and had they not told Apollos the whole story about Paul’s work there while he lived in their home, and that he had left Silas and Timothy behind? Nor does Apollos deserve special credit for farsightedness in thinking of Achaia and thus farther than Corinth; for we have already seen that Paul extended his work beyond Corinth through Silas and Timothy, and did not Aquila and Priscilla tell Apollos all about that also?

The statement that the transient Corinthians invited Apollos to return with them makes an unpleasant impression. Paul had left Silas and Timothy to continue the work in Corinth, but these Corinthians promptly fell in love with Apollos and induced him to go along with them because they regarded him as a better man than these two assistants of Paul. Yet when Aquila and Priscilla heard Apollos they at once recognized his deficiency. The observation that after having been taught more accurately, Apollos preferred not to continue to speak in the Ephesian synagogue but to go elsewhere, seems far nearer probability than the story which the Codex Bezae inserts. And Luke writes that he went to “Achaia” and not to “Corinth.” Apollos was not the type of man who would desire to supplant Paul’s assistants in Corinth; he hoped to find work at their side in the spacious province of Achaia. The fact that he worked also in Corinth, as we gather from Paul’s letter, was a later development.

We incidentally read about “the brethren” in Ephesus. So there were a few others besides Aquila and his wife who joined in recommending Apollos to the disciples in Achaia. Just who these brethren were makes little difference. The word of Aquila and Priscilla, who had given Paul a home for so long a time, would go far. This is the first instance of a Christian letter of recommendation. A close study of the apostolic period reveals the frequent use of such letters; Paul, too, wrote some of them. All of them have been lost. In ἀποδέξασθαι the preposition ἀπό adds the idea of “duly” receiving, i. e., as befits the recommendation given.

The Greek relative often has demonstrative force: “he was the one who.” Apollos more than lived up to his recommendation. When he reached Achaia, it was his occupation (durative, imperfect) to contribute on his part (note this force of the middle) a great deal to those who had believed (and were thus still believing, perfect participle.) Our versions construe: “had believed through grace.” But Luke is scarcely characterizing these believers; he is describing the work of Apollos. His success was not due to his eloquence and his learning but to divine grace, the grace with which he had made contact in the home of Aquila and Priscilla. This is something every preacher ought to put into the notebook of his heart, whether he be a man of learning and eloquence who needs to trust not in himself, or a man of humble gifts who needs to know that grace alone gives true success.

Acts 18:28

28Apollos was not equipped to advance the faith of those who believed; his contribution was of a negative kind as Luke also feels constrained to explain (γάρ) lest his reader obtain a wrong impression. He strenuously kept confuting the Jews to a finish (κατά in the compound verb) in public (the dative of the feminine form of the adjective δημόσιος used as an adverb). And this took place in the Jewish synagogues and not in the Christian congregations. Jewish opponents would not appear in the congregations, nor attempt a controversy there. Nor did this occur in Corinth, for the hostile Jewish synagogue in this place had long before this time been closed to every Christian speaker. It took place, as Luke has said, in Achaia, in new territory, in new synagogues, and the believers who were thus helped were those found in these synagogues.

How Apollos accomplished this complete confuting is stated: “showing by the Scriptures Jesus to be the Christ.” This harks back to v. 24, to the learning Apollos had obtained in Alexandria when he studied the Old Testament. He now used all of it in proving most conclusively that Jesus was the Messiah, and in overwhelming all his Jewish opponents. With this brief account Luke concludes his story about Apollos except to say in 19:1 that he was in Corinth where he, no doubt, made his headquarters.

R A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. 4th edition.

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.