article54

§49 Priscilla, Aquila, and Apollos (Acts 18:18–28)

The end of the “second” and the start of the “third missionary journey” are narrated here with almost breathless haste, as though Luke were anxious to have Paul start on his work at Ephesus. The brevity of the narrative leaves us guessing at a number of points as to where and why he went, but for the most part we can plot his course with reasonable confidence and make good sense of all that he did. Because of the broad similarity between this journey and that in 20:3–21:26—the common elements being a journey from Corinth to Jerusalem via Ephesus and Paul’s taking a vow—it has been proposed that this section is simply a Lukan construction based on the other and intended to keep Paul in touch with Jerusalem and in receipt of that church’s blessing, with the further motive of attributing to Paul a larger share in the establishment of the church in Ephesus. But if these verses were really written with those objectives in mind, surely Luke would have made a better fist of them than this. They give no result of Paul’s preaching in Ephesus, and they only hint at his going up to Jerusalem. On the other hand, there is no reason why he should not have made this journey at this time, and good reasons can be given for why he did.

18:18 / During Paul’s eighteen months or more at Corinth, we may suppose that the church in Cenchrea (the eastern harbor) was also established (Rom. 16:1), and perhaps other churches, for in 2 Corinthians 1:1 we read of “the saints throughout Achaia.” But the day came when Paul felt that he must draw his work here to a close and return, if only briefly, to Syria (it is not certain whether this term is used here to include Judea or whether it simply indicates his final destination, with no reference to his visit to Judea). Before he left, Paul cut his hair in fulfillment of a vow that he had made, perhaps early in his stay at Corinth when he had been depressed and afraid (v. 9). These vows, based on the Nazirite vow of Numbers 6:1–21, appear to have been a common feature of Jewish piety (cf. 23:21–26; m. Nazir). Their conclusion was marked by the shaving of one’s head and the offering of sacrifice in the temple. Both acts were normally done in Jerusalem, but if the devotee was far from the city, he seems to have been allowed to trim his hair and to bring the trimmings to Jerusalem to be offered with the rest of his hair when his head was shaved (cf. Josephus, War, 2.309–314). This appears to have been what Paul did at Cenchrea, no doubt in a spirit of thanksgiving for all that God had done with him in Corinth. Luke’s mention of this trivial matter may have been intended to show how unwarranted were the Jewish and even Jewish-Christian attacks upon Paul for his supposed antipathy to their traditions (see further the disc. on 21:23f.).

Paul took ship at Cenchrea, whose harbor had been rebuilt shortly after 44 B.C. Lucius Apuleius (second century A.D.) describes it as “the most famous town of all the Corinthians, bordering upon the seas called Aegean and Saronic. There is a great and mighty haven,” he said, “frequented with ships of many and sundry nations” (Metamorphoses 10.35). He exaggerated. The harbor was nowhere near the size of Lecheum’s (the western port of Corinth). Nevertheless, it must have been a sizable town in Paul’s day. Priscilla and Aquila went with him. Presumably, Silas and Timothy stayed behind to superintend the work that Paul was leaving (see disc. on v. 23).

18:19–21 / The ship’s first port of call was Ephesus. Here an impressive sight would have unfolded before the travelers’ eyes as they entered the wide mouth of the Cayster on which Ephesus was built. In ancient times ships could come right up to the city, which lay between the sea and Mount Coressus (in time the harbor silted up, and the ruins of Ephesus now lie in a swampy plain some four or five miles from the sea). From the harbor the main thoroughfare led to the heart of the city, and from this road Paul and his companions must have had their first introduction to the metropolis of the province of Asia. During this brief visit Paul went into the synagogue where he reasoned with the Jews (v. 19; see disc. on 9:20 and 17:2). The prohibition on his preaching in Asia was now apparently lifted (16:6), as indicated by his warm reception (v. 20). The Ephesian Jews must have already heard much about “the Way” and no doubt would like to have heard more. But Paul would not stay, promising instead that if God willed he would return (cf. 21:14; James 4:15). Considering their eagerness, there must have been some pressing reason for his not remaining in Ephesus and making the most of this opportunity. He had his vow to complete, of course, but he may also have wished to be in Jerusalem for one of the festivals, perhaps the Passover (cf. 20:16), for which he would have to hurry since it came early in the traveling season (see disc. on 27:9 and 28:11). But over and above these things, if he had indeed begun to glimpse a wider prospect for his missionary enterprise (see disc. on v. 17), he may have wished to see Antioch again, for that church could no longer be an effective center for his work, and to take his leave of them. Meanwhile, Priscilla and Aquila remained in Ephesus, so that by the time Paul returned a church had already been formed. They had not yet separated from the synagogue, but were an identifiable group within it, in touch with their brothers in Corinth (vv. 26f.) and probably holding additional meetings of their own in Aquila and Priscilla’s home (cf. 2:42; 1 Cor. 16:19, and for house churches, see disc. on 14:27 and notes).

18:22 / While these developments were taking place in Ephesus, Paul went on to Caesarea and, presumably, to Jerusalem, where he greeted the church (cf. 21:18). The uncertainty about his precise movements lies in the fact that the Greek text does not name Jerusalem, but unless we make the assumption that this was his destination, we are left with Paul “going up” (from the harbor?) to the church in Caesarea and “going down” from that city to Antioch. In neither case is the verb appropriate if that sense was intended, whereas the idiom was frequently “to go up to Jerusalem” (cf. 11:2; 15:2; 25:1, 9) and “down” when leaving (cf. 24:1; 25:6, 7). We take it, then, that this was Luke’s meaning. The impression given is that Paul’s stay in Jerusalem was a short one (perhaps a week, to complete his vow), but it would have been long enough to observe the economic plight of the church and to determine to do something about it (see disc. on 19:21). Thence he returned to Syrian Antioch.

18:23 / Here he made a stay of an indefinite period, perhaps until the following spring (A.D. 53?), after which he took to the road again on his “third missionary journey.” Retracing his earlier steps (see disc. on 15:40f.), he passed through the region of Galatia and Phrygia, that is, the region of southern Galatia, which lay more or less in a direct line with Ephesus (see disc. on 16:6). The verb “to go through” may mean that he preached as he went (see disc. on 8:4), thus strengthening all the disciples. In this way he would have visited the cities of his former journeys: Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch. From here, the main road would have taken him through Colossae and Laodicea in the Lycus Valley to the Maeander and along the river to the coast. But he appears not to have gone that way (cf. Col. 2:1), but by another, shorter route through the valley of the Cayster. As far as we know, he had no companion for the journey to Ephesus, but he probably hoped to rendezvous with Timothy, who is next heard of in that city (1 Cor. 4:17; 16:10f.).

18:24 / While Paul was making the journey described in the previous verses, Apollos arrived at Ephesus. He was a sufficiently important figure in the early church to warrant this notice of his coming to the metropolis. It serves also to show something of what was going on there before Paul’s return. By that time, Apollos had gone, but later Paul and Apollos were together in Ephesus, and it is clear from a number of references in Paul’s own writings that he regarded Apollos as a friend and a valued colleague (1 Cor. 3:5–9; 16:12; Titus 3:13). Apollos was a Jew, a native of Alexandria, and endowed with considerable gifts consistent with his city of origin (see note on 6:9). He was a learned man, where the Greek can mean “learned” or “eloquent,” and in this case probably both—he had a learning that he effectively communicated. More specifically, he had a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. This was the basis of his preaching in both Ephesus and Corinth.

18:25 / Apollos was already a Christian of sorts when he arrived at Ephesus and, to the extent that he understood it, was a great enthusiast for the faith. An expression is used that means literally “to boil in the spirit,” that is, his own human spirit, and so perhaps “to bubble over with enthusiasm.” This led him to speak and to teach (imperfects, indicating his habit) all that he knew about Jesus, though what he knew turned out to be incomplete. He had been instructed in the Way of the Lord (this implies that there was some kind of gospel preaching in Egypt by about A.D. 50). However, he knew only the baptism of John. What, then, was lacking that he had not received Christian baptism and that Priscilla and Aquila should find it necessary to explain “to him the way of God more adequately” (v. 26)? If the “disciples” of 19:1–7 are any guide, then we must suppose that he did not yet know of the Pentecostal event—the gift of the Spirit in token that the age of salvation had come (see notes on 2:17ff.)—and the significance that it gave to baptism. For unlike John’s, which merely anticipated the age of salvation, Christian baptism belonged to the new age, marking (among other things) the believer’s entry into the gift of the Spirit (see notes on 2:2ff. and disc. on 2:38; 19:4). Apollos may have accepted that Jesus was the Messiah without knowing the full extent of his messianic achievement. One wonders whether he even knew of the resurrection of Jesus.

18:26 / Whatever his deficiencies, Apollos at least had the courage of his convictions. He first came to Aquila and Priscilla’s notice when he spoke boldly (about Jesus) in the synagogue at Ephesus. Afterwards they took him home and made good what was lacking in his instruction. The way of God that they explained to him is a convenient summary of the theme that runs through all the early speeches of Acts, namely, that God “had foretold through all the prophets” the things concerning the Messiah (3:18, 21; etc.) and that those things have now been fulfilled in the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus and in the gift of the Spirit. Luke does not say whether Apollos received Christian baptism (but cf. 19:5). If he did, it was probably at the hands of his instructors.

18:27–28 / Later Apollos transferred to Achaia—these references seem always to indicate Corinth (cf. 19:1). The believers in Ephesus (see disc. on vv. 19–21) encouraged the move (or the Greek could mean that they encouraged the Corinthians to receive him) and wrote accordingly to the church in Achaia (v. 27). The idea of his going may have come from Priscilla and Aquila, thinking that Apollos’ training and learning would attract the attention of a Corinthian audience. Certainly he proved to be a great help to those who by grace had believed (v. 27). Or perhaps it was that he was able to help “by his (gift of) grace,” that is, by the knowledge and eloquence given to him by God. Either meaning is possible from the Greek. At all events, the Corinthians found in him a champion who was able to match the Jews in public debate in the synagogue (v. 28). The verb means that he “argued them down,” not necessarily convincing them, but, by bringing them to the test of Scripture, at least showing that their objections to Jesus as the Messiah were unwarranted. And not only was Apollos a help to believers, he was also used to bring some pagans into the fold (1 Cor. 3:5).

These verses give the impression that the church in Corinth had been under some pressure from the Jews since Paul’s departure and that it was by his grasp of the Scriptures especially that Apollos was best able to help. But it was not long before he was back in Ephesus, and we find him in 1 Corinthians 16:12 refusing Paul’s pressing request that he should revisit Corinth. The reason is not hard to find. In Corinth the people had begun to compare him with Paul, often to Paul’s disadvantage. Apollos’ eloquence and Alexandrian culture may have seemed superior to the simplicity of Paul’s preaching. Partisan feeling was aroused, and the two men who only wanted to be fellow workers (1 Cor. 3:3–10) were represented as rivals (1 Cor. 1:12f.; 3:4, 22; 4:6). Evidently this was as painful for Apollos as it was for Paul.