The move to Corinth, the next obvious target location, allows Luke to develop his portrayal of Paul’s mission with significant details. (1) He provides, for the first time, details of how Paul sustained himself financially (18.2–3). (2) The regular pattern, of initial preaching to Jews followed by opposition, is met by the second denunciation of Jewish intransigence and announcement that the gospel will thenceforth be taken to the Gentiles (18.4–6). (3) A clearer picture than ever before is provided of the transition from a synagogue-centred ministry to a house church (18.7–8). (4) Corinth is clearly singled out as a centre in which Paul’s mission became established over a lengthy period (18.9–11). (5) The Roman authorities give a judgment favourable to the legal status of the church by ruling that it still belongs within the protected sphere of Judaism (18.12–17).
The rest of the chapter is rather bitty. The main objective was evidently to provide the transition to the next important centre of the Aegean mission — in Ephesus. This is done by relating Paul’s brief visit to Ephesus on the way from Corinth (18.19–20), and the intervening visit of Apollos (18.24–26), who was to become a powerful counterpoise to Paul in the Aegean mission. Any challenge or even threat he may have posed to the Pauline mission (cf. I Cor. 1.12; 3.4–7; 4.6–7) is defused by the report of his fervency in Spirit and fuller instruction by those prominent members of the Pauline team, Priscilla and Aquila, introduced at the beginning of the chapter (18.2). In between, the details of Paul’s vow (18.18), indicating his continuing loyalty to Jewish traditions, and his visit to the church (in Jerusalem) and Antioch (18.22) are inserted briefly to maintain the link between the Aegean mission and both Jewish tradition and the original sending churches.
18.1–17
This half chapter, together with the two letters to the Corinthians, give us the fullest and most detailed record of the establishment of a church and its early history available to us. For Luke it was important that this successful foundation was the result of a happy combination of providential events and divine assurance provided directly. Thus on the one hand, the foundation period was bracketed by two events involving the Roman authorities. The first was the beginning of one of the most fruitful partnerships in all Paul’s career as a missionary, when the expulsion of Jews from Rome provided the occasion for Paul to meet up with Aquila and Priscilla (18.2–3). The second was the favourable ruling of the proconsul Gallio in Corinth itself, which ensured that the manipulation of public sentiment against the missionaries (as in 17.5–7 and 13) could not happen in Corinth (18.12–16). More important, on the other hand, was the vision of the Lord which gave Paul the initial confidence he needed to settle himself in Corinth for a lengthy ministry (18.9–11). That God could thus be seen to be behind and directing Paul’s mission was of first importance for both Paul and Luke.
For the historian it is also important that so much of the detail can be corroborated and located within the wider history of the period. The expulsion of Jews from Rome can be dated to 49, and Gallio’s period of office can be dated likewise with some precision to 51. The mention of the names, Priscilla and Aquila, Titus Justus and Crispus, and also Sosthenes, with detail of status and location, as usual gives some assurance that Luke had good sources to draw on. And although the pattern of synagogue preaching and rejection is so characteristic of Luke, even here there are indications that resistance from local Jews accompanied the foundation of the church in Corinth (I Cor. 1.22–23) and that there was a Jewish dimension to the tensions within the Corinthian church itself (cf. I Cor. 1.12; 8–10; II Cor. 11).
18.1 Corinth was the next obvious city to seek to evangelize. It was the capital of Achaia, and its position as an important business and commercial centre, for both north-south and east-west trade (on the isthmus of Corinth), gave it a particularly strategic prominence. The opportunity to reach out to travellers and those engaged in itinerant business, both Jews and Greeks, would be unsurpassed.
18.2–3 The expulsion of Jews from Rome by Emperor Claudius (most probably in 49) is referred to in a famous passage by the Roman historian, Suetonius: Claudius ‘expelled Jews from Rome because of their constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus’ (Claudius 25.4). The almost universal assumption is that by ‘Chrestus’ Suetonius must mean ‘Christus’, and that he is referring to disturbances within the large Jewish community in Rome occasioned by early preaching about Messiah Jesus by Christian Jews. It is less likely that Claudius expelled the whole Jewish community (reckoned at more than 40,000). So Claudius’ edict was probably directed against those regarded as the main participants and ringleaders in the troubles (though Luke assumes that all Jews were expelled from Italy). In which case we can assume that Aquila and Priscilla were already Christian before they met Paul, and that they had already demonstrated their leadership qualities in the intra-Jewish debates in Rome. This is borne out here by the fact that Luke includes no record of their being converted by Paul. Their arrival in Corinth was ‘recent’; possibly the abruptness of their expulsion meant that they had to give all their attention to business affairs and had not been able to continue ‘agitating’ on behalf of Christ. Even so, their mutual commitment (as well as their mutual trade) would ensure that they and Paul ‘hit it off’ together (Paul’s references below to the couple indicate a particularly warm bond between them).
Aquila and Priscilla probably ran a substantial business (in tentmaking, or more generally, leather-working) and were well to do. They moved around freely; they are located in turn at Corinth (here), Ephesus (18.26) and Rome (Rom. 16.3). And their houses were large enough to host the local churches (I Cor. 16.19; Rom. 16.5). They could therefore take Paul on and provide him with a living wage. Luke says nothing more at this point, but I Cor. 9.15–18 and II Cor. 11.7–9 indicate that Paul saw it as a point of principle not to be dependent on his converts for his livelihood. ‘Working with one’s hands’ was quite acceptable in rabbinic circles, but would generally be regarded as beneath the dignity of the well-to-do; in the formal sense Paul became a client of his employers. Consequently we have to assume that Paul spent each week working at his trade, and that he was not free to range around looking for people to argue with. On the other hand, a tentmaking stall in or close to the market (archaeology has revealed such small shops in Corinth) would give plenty of opportunity to engage with passers-by and customers. Paul probably witnessed to his faith at and by means of his work.
18.4 On the sabbath, however, he focussed his energies on the synagogue (we have archaeological evidence of such a synagogue). Despite the tiredness which such physical labour must have caused (cf. I Cor. 4.11–12; II Cor. 11.27) he did not take the day off, but continued to use the synagogue as the obvious place and platform for his preaching of the word (13.14; 14.1; 17.1–3, 10). Here too Luke takes it for granted that there were Greek proselytes and/or Godfearers who attended the Corinthian synagogue on the sabbath (see on 10.2).
18.5 But when Silas and Timothy arrived from Macedonia Paul began to devote himself (more fully) to preaching. Probably they brought funds from the Macedonian churches (cf. II Cor. 11.8–9; Phil. 4.15). But possibly also the larger team allowed a better balance between work and ministry. As in 17.3 the thrust of Paul’s argument was that the Christ/Messiah (of Jewish hope and expectation) was none other than Jesus (so also 18.28). The involvement of Silas and Timothy in the early days of the Corinthian church is attested also by Paul (I Cor. 4.17; 16.10–11; II Cor. 1.19; I Thess. 1.1 — written from Corinth).
18.6 For the second time the opposition of the bulk of the Jewish community leads to a frustrated denunciation: they were rejecting a message to which Gentiles were responding positively and with joy; the obvious corollary was that the Christian message should be taken more directly to the Gentiles. The account uses language similar to that in 13.45, but the denunciation is stronger than in 13.46, and fiercer even than the final denunciation in 28.25–28. The other two denunciations provide a scriptural rationalization (13.47; 28.26–27). But here an allusion to Ezek. 33.3–5 is judged sufficient (cf. Acts 20.26–27). There is a clear implication of culpable guilt, now not so much for Jewish complicity in the death of Jesus (the usual earlier ground for calling for Jewish repentance; see on 2.23), but for failure to accept Jesus as the hoped-for Messiah.
Whether this was simply an outburst of frustrated concern on Paul’s part (cf. 13.51) or a Lukan motif (or both), it once again is not final. Paul continues his strategy of going first to the synagogue (18.19; 19.8) and in engaging first with his fellow Jews where possible (28.17, 23). There is no final breach between the Pauline churches and the synagogues of the Jews, but a sustained obligation to recognize the Jewish character of the gospel of Messiah Jesus and his own people’s first claim upon it (see further on 28.23–31).
18.7–8 Despite the opposition of the bulk of the Jewish community, there were those among the listeners who were convinced and believed. Titius Justus, possibly referred to again in Col. 4.11, is named first. For, although a Godfearer (his name suggests that he was a Roman citizen), his house is mentioned, presumably because it provided the base for the new congregation to meet. The dynamics are those of a schism in the synagogue community (similarly 19.9 — a familiar tale often repeated then and thereafter in religious groupings), but the implication that the new church met next door to the parent body gives the report a peculiar piquancy.
More important was the conviction of Crispus, the chief man or president of the synagogue, regarding Messiah Jesus as Lord (‘trusted the Lord’ is sufficient indication that a life-determining decision was made). To win such a prominent Jew was a confirmation that other Jews as well as Paul saw the new teaching as wholly consistent with and a fuller/further expression of their ancestral religion. This is the fourth household to be recorded as committing themselves to the new sect (cf. 10.48; 16.15, 33), and again it is not clear whether a family is in view or simply the household slaves and retainers (see on 16.32–34). Paul remembered the occasion well having personally baptized Crispus (I Cor. 1.14).
The many other Corinthians who heard (Paul or about Crispus), believed and were baptized presumably refer primarily to the rest of the synagogue community (Jews and Godfearers) who joined the breakaway group, but could include those attracted to the gatherings in the house of Titius Justus. Luke evidently did not share either Paul’s knowledge or his opinion that the household of Stephanas were his first converts in Achaia (I Cor. 16.15). He also missed the opportunity to report the conversion of another local notable, Gaius (I Cor. 1.14; Rom. 16.23).
18.9–10 ‘The Lord’ here is presumably Christ (cf. 18.8). The vision came in the night (a dream?). Once again a vision was to play a decisive role in shaping a policy and determining a course of action (cf. 9.10; 10.3; 11.5; 16.9–10). On this occasion it is the assurance that the Lord would be with him to protect him and to add many to his newly founded church which is decisive in causing Paul to settle for a long period in Corinth. It was this token of heavenly approval which caused Paul to make Corinth the first headquarters of what was now a mission independent both of Antioch and of the local synagogue. The language used (‘a great people’) echoes 15.14 and may well indicate a scriptural template for the report (Josh. 1.9; Isa. 41.10; 43.5; Jer. 1.8, 19; also Matt. 28.20). But Paul does recall a considerable degree of trepidation in his early preaching in Corinth (I Cor. 2.3) and an abundance of visionary experiences over the years (II Cor. 12.7). He also thought of the believing Gentiles as one with God’s people (Rom. 9.25–26; 15.10; II Cor. 6.16). So Luke’s picture is entirely consistent with Paul’s own recollections and subsequent reflections.
18.11 is in effect another of Luke’s summaries (see on 13.49), but gives a more precise indication of the span of time than usual.
18.12–13 Although we know the dates of Gallio’s proconsulship fairly accurately (an inscription dates it at 51), it is not clear at what stage during Paul’s time in Corinth or during Gallio’s time as proconsul the events now described took place. The pattern of Jewish opposition takes a significant turn here. It is ‘the Jews’ once again who take the lead — that is, obviously, the bulk of the Jewish community following the defection(?) of some of their leading members, or the leaders who succeeded Crispus. But on this occasion, instead of trying to manipulate either the city’s elite (13.50; 14.5) or the mob (14.19; 17.5, 13), they take their case directly to the highest court in the region. The charge is also significantly different — not of fomenting civil and political unrest (17.6–7; cf. 16.20–21), but of ‘persuading people to worship God contrary to the law’. The last phrase is probably ambiguous. On the one hand, it would be intended to trigger Roman suspicion of new sects and various rulings in the past which had been made to prevent such sects making inroads into the traditional and civic cults (with consequent disturbance of civic functions and good order). On the other, it would express the synagogue’s real complaint: that Jews and Godfearers affiliated with the synagogue were being encouraged to worship without regard to the (Jewish) law (that is, its distinctively Jewish features).
18.14–15 The peremptory ruling which followed (there was no need even for Paul to respond), addressed to all the participants as ‘Jews’, was of supreme importance for the young Christian church. In the first place, it refuted the suggestion that the believers in Messiah Jesus were in breach of any Roman law, whether in their worship or in their evangelism. In the second place, it affirmed that the disputes between the young church and the synagogue were internal to the Jewish community, issues to be determined within their own jurisdiction (cf. the Jewish jurisdiction implicit in II Cor. 11.24). The consequences of such a ruling and precedent from such a prominent Roman authority would have been immense. (1) On the legal and political front, the young churches would be freed at a stroke from the threat of criminal actions against them. They could shelter under the legal protection afforded to synagogues — a vitally important immunity in an empire constantly fearful of combinations and associations which might foster unrest against the state. (2) On the social and theological side it was equally important that the new groups of disciples should be recognized as part of diaspora Judaism. Nascent Christianity was not yet seen as something distinct from its parent religion; the young churches were still recognized to be both continuous and of a piece with the network of Jewish synagogues scattered round most of the Mediterranean world.
18.16–17 With this ruling the case was brusquely dismissed (‘he drove them away from the rostrum’). Why ‘all’ should then seize and beat Sosthenes, the ruler of the synagogue, is hardly self-evident. If ‘all’ denote the Jewish plaintiffs, we presumably have to envisage that they had cause for complaint against Sosthenes: had he also joined the disciples of Messiah Jesus (cf. I Cor. 1.1), a second president of the synagogue (in succession?), or was he more accommodating to the new sect (‘the Jews’ were not so united after all)? Alternatively, if the ‘all’ are the market layabouts, is this a case where the Jewish community was not so highly regarded within the city (cf. 19.34; but contrast 13.50; 14.2, 19; 17.5, 13), so that the adverse ruling gave opportunity to express antagonism against an ethnic minority group? Either way, Gallio left the Jewish community to its own affairs and to stew in their own juice. The ruling and its beneficial effects for the young church were left unchanged. The promise to Paul in particular of protection while in Corinth (18.10) did not fail.
Preparing the ground for the next phase
18.18–23
Almost as an echo of Gallio’s ruling in Corinth — deliberate on Luke’s part, no doubt, but possibly also on Paul’s — the immediately following record is of the firm decision to return to the East, Paul’s Nazirite vow, a positive response from the synagogue in Ephesus, and the visit to the churches in Jerusalem and Antioch (18.18–22). Gallio’s judgment was correct. This is indeed an intra-Jewish movement. Its chief exponent demonstrates concern for continuity with and maintenance of Jewish traditions. And he is well received both by the synagogue in one of the chief centres of diaspora Judaism (Ephesus) and by the mother churches of the Christian mission whose bridge-building loyalty to Jewish distinctives had already been well documented (Ch. 15).
18.18 Another of Luke’s vague time references leaves room for various sub-missions in the region (the church at Cenchreae, the eastern seaport of Corinth, was to have the redoubtable Phoebe as its patron — Rom. 16.1–2). Also for the letter-writing which became a substantial feature of Paul’s Aegean mission (Thessalonians and Galatians were probably written during the time in Corinth). Of this Luke says nothing. Nor is it clear whether the ‘many days’ are part of the eighteen months of 18.11 or in addition to it.
‘Syria’ (as in 20.3) could simply refer to the eastern Mediterranean seaboard (Palestine being treated as a subprovince of Syria at that time), and therefore would be inclusive of a visit to either Jerusalem or Antioch or both. But in Acts it would more naturally be taken to refer to Syria proper (15.23, 41; 21.3), and with the visit to Jerusalem passed over without the city itself being named (18.22), the implication is that Paul wished primarily to visit Antioch, the church which first formally commissioned him (13.3).
The vow was probably analogous to the Nazirite vow described in Num. 6.1–21. In which case the vow was not to cut his hair during a specified period, so that what is described in conjunction with it here would be Paul’s final haircut before the vow took effect. Since such a vow could only be completed at the central sanctuary (offering up the previously unshorn hair — Num. 6.18) the implication of Acts 21.23–24 is probably that the vow was maintained until Paul’s final visit to Jerusalem. The action tends to support the suggestion that Paul intended his visit to Syria to be one of reconciliation. He made a vow which demonstrated his willingness to follow the Torah in matters of personal spiritual discipline in order to demonstrate his ‘good faith’ to the Torah conservatives in Antioch (and Jerusalem) and to heal any continuing rift with them. The report as such is not confirmed by Paul in his letters (there was no occasion for him to do so), but it is wholly consistent with his own pastoral strategy laid down in I Cor. 9.20, and should not be dismissed as merely a Lukan fabrication.
18.19–21 Ephesus was the capital of Asia and a very important religious and commercial centre, with a large Jewish population. Paul’s trip across the Aegean presumably coincided with a business trip of Priscilla and Aquila (see on 18.2); the naming of Priscilla before Aquila both here and in verse 26 presumably indicates that Priscilla was the more dominant personality. Although en route to the East, Paul follows his usual custom of meeting with his own people at the synagogue (17.2) and, inevitably, becoming involved in discussion regarding his good news. Here, notably, the pattern does not (yet) repeat: the message is received with interest; it is ‘the Jews’ with whom he had debated who ask him to stay longer. In Paul’s mind, however, the visit probably had the nature of a reconnoitre: the mission being now so well established in Corinth it was time to consider setting up base in another major centre. So he takes ship on his way with a promise to return, God willing — a typical Pauline qualification (Rom. 1.10; 15.32; I Cor. 4.19; 16.7).
18.22–23 It was possible to sail direct to Caesarea, or at least without calling at the northern Syrian ports. So even if Paul had wanted to go only to Antioch, availability of passage or adverse winds may have left him no option other than to go to Caesarea. And once there, a trip to Jerusalem would have been unavoidable. Despite his awareness of Paul’s unpopularity in Jerusalem (9.29; 21.21, 27–36), Luke passes over the visit in almost embarrassed silence — ‘having gone up and greeted the church (Jerusalem itself is not mentioned), he went down to Antioch’. Mention of the visit to Antioch is almost as brief: beyond the fact that Paul ‘spent some time there’ nothing more is said. Luke was presumably content thus to reaffirm the impression that the threads linking Paul’s mission to the mother churches of Syria remained unbroken. Nothing more need be said. The minimalist reports, however, intrigue historians, who tend either to dispute whether the visits took place or to build them up into something more significant. But Luke clearly thought them of little importance (a brief interlude in the Aegean mission). This may be simply because for Paul they were intended as visits of reconciliation for the earlier breach (see Introduction to 15.30–41); whereas for Luke, since he had passed over that breach in silence, there was nothing else of substance that he could report.
A decision to return to his main focus of mission in the Aegean by land would be understandable as it allowed further visits to the churches of the earlier mission from Antioch (13.14–14.23; 15.41–16.5), ensuring their solidarity with the developing Pauline mission. Paul had probably written to the Galatians by now and the visit would consolidate his position among them and allow him to set in hand what became one of his principal preoccupations in the latter phase of the Aegean mission — the collection for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem (Rom. 15.25; I Cor. 16.1; II Cor. 8–9). This may have been sparked by such a visit to Jerusalem, which had made Paul aware of the poverty of the church there. And the churches of Galatia are mentioned as among the first to be given instructions about it (I Cor. 16.1). Of all this and the long days of travel covered in these verses Luke says nothing, content to summarize the purpose of the land journey by one of his standard phrases (14.22; 15.32, 41). For the reasons noted above (Introduction to chs 16–20 [pp.212f.]) this should not be described as the beginning of a ‘third missionary journey’.
Integrating Apollos
18.24–28
The interlude in Paul’s Aegean mission allows Luke to insert the story of Apollos, whose function is twofold. First, Apollos, together with the ‘disciples’ in the following episode (19.1–7), could represent all the groups on the fringes of the new Christian movement. There would no doubt be many such who had heard (or heard about) the preaching of John the Baptist, or incomplete reports of Jesus’ ministry, or a garbled account of the early Christian preaching, and who had made some commitment on its basis. In the early years of a movement like Christianity, defining characteristics and boundaries are always less distinct than hindsight cares to admit. It was precisely one of the major functions and achievements of Paul and Luke to fill out the Christian identity, its characteristics and boundaries.
Secondly, Apollos in particular became a prominent figure within the Aegean mission, as Luke knew well (18.26–28). We know also from I Corinthians that he became a focus for some dissatisfaction and disaffection regarding Paul (I Cor. 1.12; 3.4–7; 4.6), a kind of George Whitefield to Paul’s John Wesley, as we might say. In other words, in his case there was a real danger of an off-centre or out of focus kind of Christianity developing round Apollos, particularly as he had rhetorical skills which Paul evidently lacked (cf. Acts 18.24, 28; I Cor. 1–4; II Cor. 10.10). It was important, therefore for Luke to be able to tell the story of how Apollos, for all his fervency in Spirit and accurate knowledge about Jesus, still had to be and was instructed more accurately in the way of God (18.25–26). The Christianity established in the Aegean region was the Christianity of the Aegean mission, the Christianity of Paul and his team. That Paul did regard Apollos as a fellow worker subsequently is confirmed by I Cor. 16.12, with Priscilla and Aquila also close at hand (I Cor. 16.19). The account here was probably derived ultimately from Priscilla and Aquila or from Apollos himself.
18.24 With Barnabas, Apollos is one of the most intriguing figures in earliest Christian history, the several brief references to whom only serve to stir curiosity still further. Not least in the fascination he exerts is the fact that he is the one man who provides a clear link between earliest Christianity and Alexandria, the second greatest city in the Roman Empire, a major centre of learning and of Jewish settlement and the source of most of the diaspora Jewish literature which we still possess (including the Greek translation of the scriptures, the LXX, several of the writings preserved in the Apocrypha and the extensive expository writings of the Jewish philosopher Philo, Paul’s older contemporary). The following description of Apollos gives some credibility to the suggestion that the beginnings of Christianity in Alexandria were not entirely ‘orthodox’ (to use the later term).
This background in turn makes all the more intriguing the description that Apollos was ‘an eloquent or learned man, well-versed in or powerful in (his exposition of) the scriptures’. There is an open invitation here to imagine one who expounded the scriptures in the manner of the Wisdom of Solomon or of a Philo or other Jewish apologists. Since these writings provide examples of how diaspora Judaism confronted wider Hellenistic religion and philosophy, both exemplary for and alternative to Christian apologetic, we can well understand how it is that Apollos appears in the New Testament as a somewhat ambivalent figure, and how some could attribute the authorship of Hebrews to him.
18.25–26 The impression that Apollos was a figure somewhat on the edge of mainline developments is confirmed by the description here. He had been ‘instructed (catechized) in the way of the Lord’; he was ‘aglow with the Spirit’; ‘he spoke and taught accurately the traditions about Jesus’ (cf. 28.31). But he had been baptized only with ‘the baptism of John’; his instruction in ‘the way of the Lord’ indicates further influence from Baptist traditions (cf. Luke 3.4); and his knowledge of the way was not wholly accurate. The implication is that his knowledge of Jesus came from reports of Jesus’ ministry prior to his death and resurrection (the ‘Galilean gospel’), perhaps even from the period of overlap with the ministry of John the Baptist (John 3.26): he had responded to the challenge made by Jesus himself, and had responded in the way the first disciples had done — by undergoing the baptism which the Baptist had instituted. Whatever the uncertainty, Luke’s description confirms that for him John’s baptism marked the beginning, but only the beginning of the gospel (cf. 1.22; 10.37; 13.24–25).
There must have been many such as Apollos — men and women who had heard and responded to early or incomplete or distorted accounts of Jesus and the gospel. The question would then be: whether they should be regarded as already full disciples, or how should their deficiency be rectified? In this and the next episode Luke gives his answer. In the case of Apollos it was important that his teaching of Jesus tradition was accurate, that he had received the baptism associated with John the Baptist, and that he spoke boldly in the synagogue (cf. 9.27–28; 13.46; 14.3; 19.8). But the decisive consideration was probably that he was ‘aglow with the Spirit’ (cf. Rom. 12.11). In consequence, all that he needed was some further instruction. Unlike the ‘disciples’ in the following episode he apparently did not need to be baptized in the name of Jesus: John’s baptism complemented by the gift of the Spirit was sufficient — as in the case of the first disciples themselves (1.5). In contrast, it was precisely because they had no inkling of the Spirit that the twelve dealt with next by Paul had to go through the whole initiation procedure (19.2–6). In both cases it was the presence or absence of the Spirit which was decisive; the assessment of Priscilla and Aquila on the issue was as Paul’s. For Luke here again it is the coming of the Spirit which is the central and most crucial factor in conversion-initiation and in Christian identity.
18.27–28 To be noted is the implication that there was already a church established in Ephesus (‘the brothers’) — quite possibly by Priscilla and Aquila themselves, following up Paul’s sole visit to the synagogue (18.19). Also to be noted is the fact that Priscilla and Aquila continued to attend the synagogue, where they first heard Apollos (verse 26). Most likely the ‘brothers’ at this stage were simply a group within the synagogue, who probably met during the week in the home of Priscilla and Aquila (Priscilla as the main leader). But they were sufficiently conscious of their identity as disciples of Jesus to communicate with the more established church in Corinth, where a breach with the synagogue had already occurred. Such letters of commendation evidently became a common practice as believers travelled from place to place (cf. Rom. 16.1; Col. 4.7–17; cf. II Cor. 3.1) and a major means of cementing the scattered churches into a single identity.
Apollos’ connection with the Corinthian church is strongly confirmed by Paul in I Cor. 1–4, where his ministry in succession to Paul and the power and effectiveness of his speaking are also clearly implied. The way he helped the believers there, Luke tells us, was by vigorously refuting the Jews in Corinth on the central issue that the Messiah was Jesus (as in 17.3 and 18.5). Here we may note again that, although the Corinthian church had already established itself separately from the synagogue, there was still substantial discussion about Jesus and the messianic prophecies between them, though it took place ‘in the open, publicly’. Gallio had been right: this was still a Jewish sect and an intra-Jewish argument.