Bible Groups - Acts - navigation>
The Acts of the Apostles - Chapter 18
Revised 2014
- 1 Corinth had been destroyed by the Romans in 146BC, but refounded in 44BC as a Roman colony and in 27BC became capital of Achaia; very Roman. A lot of literary and archaeological evidence: bustling trading/commercial city, about 250,000 people, transient population, reputation for sexual immorality, variety of religious cults, including a Synagogue, temples to Apollo and Aphrodite, & shrine to Isis. Added interest that Paul wrote 1Thess, the earliest NT document we have, from Corinth, and wrote several letters to Corinth, so we know more about this church. Paul may have been despondent (see 1 Cor 2:3-4) when he arrived in Corinth, after the Athenians who were only interested in what he had to say because it was something new to talk about.
- 2 Aquila and Priscilla his wife (called Priscilla - “little Prisca” - in Acts, but Prisca in Paul’s letters) always mentioned together, frequently mentioned by Paul as his co-workers, and joined with him either as senders (1 Cor 16:19) or recipients ( 2 Tim 4:19; Rom 16:3) of his letters. Edict by Claudius 49AD a key to dating Paul's travels. Edict said by Suetonius caused by Jews rioting caused by preaching about Jesus in Rome. Aquila and Priscilla assumed to be Christian before coming to Corinth, since no conversion mentioned. They are able to go back Rome after Claudius dies AD 54 and his edict rescinded. There they are Paul’s co-workers before Paul gets there (Rom 16:3), after visiting Ephesus (Acts 18:26).
- 3 An informal working partnership between Aquila and Paul for "by craft they were tentmakers - which included a range of leatherworking, as well as tents for military and industrial use. Fleece of goats in Tarsus area used for “cilician” cloth for tents, etc. Paul attached importance to his working with his hands (1 Thess 2:9; 2 Thess 3:6-8; 1 Cor 4:12; 9:6), an ideal for teachers of wisdom. No split between spiritual life and work - perhaps opportunities to show Christian example. Perhaps because of this strong friendship and good working relationship Paul stayed about 18 months in Corinth. May also be because much bigger city, less affected by internal Jewish squabbles; also many Jews here did come to believe; and he wasn’t thrown out, perhaps because the synagogue ruler becomes a believer. (Also vision here to say stay, much work for you to do here 18:10: God tends to give guidance when you actually need it!).
- 4 Scholarly debate in a house of study. An early manuscript, Codex D, says that Paul "was inserting the name of the Lord Jesus". This seems likely to be by reading the name Jesus into places in the Torah where the title Kyrios is used. This would be provocative, and possibly reflects actual practice.
- 5 Silas here ranked before Timothy. "occupied with" or "began to devote himself to" has the sense of changing from a split occupation to a single one - ie less time in tentmaking. "The word" ie preaching. Implies Paul now freer to preach full time with the arrival of Silas and Timothy bringing money from Macedonia to support his work (2 Cor 11:8-9, Phil 4:14ff).
- 6 "Opposed" suggests organised resistance. "Reviled" or "spoke harshly" could also be translated "blasphemed", since they are contradicting what Luke believes to be true about God. "Shakes the dust" - cf Lk 10:11; Acts 13:51. "Your blood" makes the Jews responsible for the split (2 Sam 1:16; 1 Kgs 2:33; 3:1). Paul takes his mission to Jews seriously, worried that they will lose their main chance to respond to good news about their Messiah. Paul's 2nd declaration (Cf 13:46) that he will preach to the Gentiles, but his work among Jews continues. Luke continues his narrative tension: the mission to the Gentiles is legitimated, bur God remains faithful to his people.
- 7 Paul now bases his preaching on the house of a God-fearer. No evidence to connect Titius with Titus. Instead of leaving a town after Jewish opposition, as usual, Paul remains for about 18 months, and even stays next door to the synogogue, or is it opposite across the street? Clearly very “in your face”.
- 8 "The official" - singular - implies a single ruler of the synagogue, but Sosthenes is described similarly in v.17, so it may have been a collegial leadership. Crispus was baptised by Paul (1 Cor 1:14), but Luke does not mention Stephen, Paul's first convert in Corinth (1Cor 1:16; 16:15). The Greek is unclear whether the others were converted as a result of "hearing Paul" or hearing about the conversion of Crispus. The diverse House of God now includes a synagogue ruler, as well as a Roman centurion, a female purple-merchant, and a prison warden.
- 9 "The Lord" ie Jesus. Why Paul is fearful (see also 1 Cor 2:3) is not known or explained - of God’s overwhelming presence (Cf Lk 1:30). This direct commission signifies further expansion of the mission to bring in many people as “my people” (laos).
- 10 Noone will "attack so as to harm you" - the Lord will protect you, as he does - Paul is attacked (18:12-17) but not harmed. "Many people" (laos = people of God) who are my people - cf 15:14. The Lord’s people are being gathered in this Gentile city (cf Ezek 11:20, 14:11, 36:28, 37:23, Baruch 2:35, Jer 7:23, etc). There is only one covenant, one people (in Paul’s view).
- 11 A reminder of the long periods Paul stayed with communities he had founded teaching them - longer than the time in travelling.
- 12 Reference to Gallio critical to knowing when Paul was in Corinth. An inscription at Delphi (issued by Claudius) locates Gallio, brother of Seneca, as proconsul of Achaia in 51-52 AD, and therefore in its principal city, Corinth. Paul appears to have Corinth shortly after this: hence he was in Corinth from late 49 or early 50 to middle or end of 51. The bema is a raised platform (bench) used for public and judicial pronouncements - one is still visible in Corinth.
- 13 Luke (delberately?) ambiguous - which law? Probably Jewish Law as Gallio unlikely to be deceived. A much milder accusation of seducing belief than in earlier chapters: specifically against the (Jewish) Law (as Gallio appreciates), rather than fomenting social unrest. The wealth of evidence supporting the historicity of these chapters seems almost to overwhelm Luke's theological shaping: almost material is included because it happened, rather than to suit Luke's purpose. Everything about this charge before Gallio seems accurate, yet there is no other evidence for it, and Paul makes no mention of it. Luke may have included the story to clarify the relationship between Christianity and the Roman authorities: the latter would not treat Christianity as a subversive cult but as a disputed option within one of the approved religions. Jews were allowed by Rome not to pray to Caesar, providing they prayed for him. Non-Christian Jews could be concerned that Christians suggesting “another king” might affect their status under Rome, especially as Christians still saw themselves as a sect of Jews who accepted Jesus as Lord. But who is the intended audience for this? Luke's point seems to be that the power of God is at work in human lives: Jews and Christians may be attacked, salvation comes only from God.
- 14 Gallio also distinguishes between deliberate crime and thoughtless wrongdoing, such as fraud; the sentence structure implies that this is not the case here. Gallio’s judgement shows how Luke thinks Rome ought to deal with these internal religious disputes, in contrast to the way feuding Jews - including Priscilla and Aquila - were expelled from Rome by Claudius.
- 15 Or "disputes about their own superstition" (25:19). Gallio distinguishes between actions, which might be right for him to judge, and disputes over speech, which - it is implied - the Jews have jurisdiction over. In describing the charge as “questions about words and names” Gallio says perhaps more than he realises: the dispute is about the legitimacy of Paul’s teaching about the Word of God and proclaiming the name of Jesus. An important decision by Gallio: Christians continue to share the permitted status of Jews, at least in Achaia, giving a breathing space for development. [But changed by AD 110: Pliny governor of Bithynia writes to Emperor Trajan assuming that professing Christianity is serious offence.]
- 16 The verb has physical overtones- "drive away" - it is a brusque dismissal!
- 17 Paul comes to no harm, but all else is vague! Who are "they all" who seized and beat Sosthenes? Again Luke ambiguous, so much so that copyists added Greeks or Jews. Hardly indicates the “united” front of v.12! If Jews of the synagogue, angry at their leader's failure, Gallio might have some crime committed in front of him to deal with! If Greeks, Gallio might ignore it as normal anti-semitism. Gallio’s indifference emphasises his view of the charges. He is not going to be manipulated into punishing Paul just to keep the peace! He is not interested in Jews being attacked, whether Paul or Sosthenes. His rational and just decision would be noted by other Roman rulers - and by Jews thinking of accusing Christians elsewhere. Has Sosthenes replaced Crispus after the latter's conversion? Or was Sosthenes also a convert (see 1 Cor 1:1)?
- 18 Paul takes Priscilla and Aquila with him, but presumably leaves Silas and Timothy in Corinth to nurture the new church. Cenchrae is virtually a suburb of Corinth, about 7 miles east, facing the Aegean. Phoebe, a patron of Paul, was a deacon of the church there. The verb implies that Paul cut his own hair. Unclear why Paul cut his hair. Assuming a Nazirite vow (Num 6:1-21) of abstention, which was symbolised by letting the hair grow, the hair was normally cut at the end of the period vowed, although some regulations in the Mishnah seem to imply cutting one's hair every 30 days if the vow is for life. James suggests Paul cuts his hair in Jerusalem (21:24), which could be the end of the vow. But why now? Two vows? If cutting his hair at the beginning of a vow because expect a long time before it ends in Jerusalem, a better translation might be "he was making a vow". Again, as in the Gallio story, it is not obvious why Luke includes this sudden journey. But the Nazirite vow does appear to do two things: it re-asserts Paul's remaining commitment to Judaism, after separating himself from the Jews of Corinth; and his "going up" to Jerusalem asserts Paul's continuing fidelity to the original apostolic community. Now planning to go to Jerusalem, perhaps feels he needs to clarify he is still a Jews [I have become all things to all people (1 Cor 9:20-22)]. Reason may have been so obvious at the time that Luke no need to explain. This adds to the picture in Acts of the Gentile Church remaining in contact with Jerusalem and its authority, and that Paul did not abandon the Jewish ethos, as alleged in 21:20-24. Deacon Phoebe in church at Cenchrae took Paul’s letter to Rome (Rom 16:1).
- 19 Ephesus was capital of Asia and big commercial and religious centre. Paul separates amicably from Aquila and Priscilla, who remained in Ephesus (1 Cor 16:19). Paul will not be present for the incident with Apollo, 18:24-28, although he (later) stayed in Ephesus about 3 years (19:8, 19:10, 19:21), writing Gal, Phil, Phlm and 1 Cor from there - a change in missionary style to a more settled base.
- 21 The Western text adds that Paul "needs to make the approaching feast in Jerusalem" (Cf 20:16). Are we sufficiently aware of God’s will for us?
- 22 "Went up", "went down" indicates Paul made a loyalty/unity visit to the Jerusalem Church - “to Jerusalem” is not in the Greek, but inserted in some translations. But Antioch remains his home church, having sponsored his mission.
- 23 After perhaps about a year, Paul starts a systematic pastoral visitation through the first mission towns "in succession". AD 53-54. The story glides into Paul’s 3rd journey.
- 24 The focus moves away from Paul. Despite the impression that some Corinthians saw Apollos as a rival to Paul (1 Cor 1:12), Paul sees him as a coworker (1 Cor 3:4-6, 22; 4:6; 16:12). Alexandria was the centre of Hellenistic Jewish literature. Apollos was eloquent/learned - the word means both. Were Paul's defensive allusions to "speech and wisdom" (1 Cor 1:17; 2:1-4) and his own "weakness in speech" in contrast to that of Apollos? Again, why did Luke include this episode? His source presumably differs from that for much of Acts - perhaps Aquila? Or did Apollos have a wider importance? Apollos is portrayed as a secondary character, like Aquila and Priscilla, but also like them of Jewish origin, who disputes with Jews in the synagogue, again making the point that the Pauline mission was not exclusively towards the Gentiles, but that the effort to win "a people for his name" among the Jews continued.
- 25 Western text adds "in his homeland" which implies that Apollos became a follower of Jesus, though not baptised, in Alexandria, the only indication of Christianity reaching that city. "Burning enthusiasm" or "ardent in spirit" - could mean either a passionate spirit or fervent in the Holy Spirit. Either way, Luke avoids using "full of the Holy Spirit", as for other prophets. Apollos preaches about Jesus accurately, but Luke distinguishes between John's baptism as a preparation for baptism in the Holy Spirit connected with Jesus. (19:3-5 develops this theme). Or perhaps Apollos knew nothing about baptism in name of Jesus being used after Pentecost as initiation into full Christian fellowship. Luke describes initiation into full membership variously: sometimes Spirit first, sometimes water first. How could Apollos’ situation arise - perhaps evangelisation by some who met Jesus but left Palestine before his death? Do we sometimes passionately expound without checking whether our knowledge of the subject is full?
- 26 Priscilla mentioned first - more even handed. They explained "The Way" to him - "of God" is unnecessary addition and strictly not right - it is the "messianic way" they are explaining, not the "way of God" in general. They do not contradict Apollos, only seek to make his knowledge "more accurate" - he is not re-baptised. Moreover they do this quietly in private. Nice to have a woman correcting this scholar from the great city of Alexandria! Some have suggested this episode would be better located in the Syria-Palestine area, where Jewish baptismal sects continued into 3rd C. Cf 8:14-25. Perhaps Luke locates it in Ephesus because of this city’s importance, both to Rome (4th largest city) and to Paul’s mission. The episode serves Luke by (a) showing that Paul wins over Jewish sectarians; (b) continuity between Pauline mission and results of missionary activity by Jerusalem Church.
- 27 Western text provides motivation for Apollos to go to Achaia: Corinthians residing in Ephesus heard Apollos and begged him to come to Corinth, and the Ephesians encouraged him to do so. Paul's letter pre-supposes Apollos came to Corinth after Paul (1 Cor 1-4).
- 28 Implies a total rout of the opposition, which - and in public - would be particularly shameful. Apollos uses Scriptures effectively, just as Paul does (17:2-3, 9:22).