Bible Groups - Digests of Bible Commentaries

The Acts of the Apostles - Chapter 19

Revised 2014

With 3 quick - probably typical - anecdotes, painted with much local colour, but with apparently scant historical detail available to him, Luke shows the effective birth of Christianity in a new location by conversion, baptism, laying on of hands, outpouring of the Holy Spirit, tongues and prophecy. A “standard foundation account” but related by these scenes to its new location in Ephesus, located centrally between Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. With the by now usual “turf-battles” with (a) synagogue Jews and (b) purveyors of magic. Perhaps an entertaining filler between Paul’s journeys, owing almost everything to Luke. So why has he done it? This is first time these “foundation stories” have been applied so systematically and fully to Paul; Paul’s prophetic powers are described fully; Acts skirts round the foundation of the Church in Ephesus, suggesting it was not by Paul, alluding to the possibility of other churches founded elsewhere. All this both legitimises the Ephesus Church as linked to Jerusalem and the Apostles; and focusses on the powers of Paul and how these lead to the triumph of “the name of the Lord Jesus” and the spread of the “word of the Lord” among Jews and Greeks in Asia. The reason seems to be what happens next: Paul begins to plan to go to Jerusalem and Rome, and Paul’s results in Ephesus is Luke’s final evidence for the success and integrity of Paul’s mission. As we progress through groups of people more and more distant from faith in Jesus (Apollos, disciples, exorcists, silver-smiths), greater attention is given to resolving these differences.
Paul’s announcement of his intention to go to Jerusalem - the city which “kills the prophets” (Lk 13:34) forms prelude to rioting. But very strange that Luke omits important details. Such as why Paul went to Jerusalem (to deliver collection), while using for “those ministering with” Paul the word Paul uses for the collection - was Luke omitting this because it proved embarrassing to Paul, or simply omitting to suit his literary purpose? Similarly Luke’s flawless description of the riot omits so much that we are left to speculate on the actual sequence and motivations of who did what and why - eg was Alexander a Jew seeking to foment the situation against Paul’s followers, or was he a messianist shouted down because seen as a Jew? But Luke’s principal themes shine through: High social level of converts; applauding the proper use of the law, rather than mob assembly; and especially Luke’s concern to show that acceptance of God’s call is accompanied by sharing material possessions, while its rejection is symbolised by love of money and wealth - eg exorcists, silver-smiths.
1 Paul travels - probably over several months - through Galatia and Phrygia to Ephesus, commercial capital of Asia, c. 250,000 people, where he expects to build on his good reception a year earlier (18:20). Emphasis that Apollos was in Corinth - he had been corrected by Aquila & Priscilla, not by Paul. He finds disciples: they are disciples, but apparently of John, not of Christ, so not Christians, but might be fully converted: being a Christian always includes being baptised and receiving the Holy Spirit. They have not received instruction from either Apollos or Aquila & Priscilla.
2 Paul discovers more disciples at similar stage as Apollos, though seeing themselves as followers of Christ, not the Baptist. Natural assumption is that they had received the Spirit, so an indirect question: “When you became believers, did you receive the Holy Spirit?” Strange that they had not even heard of the Spirit, since the Baptist spoke about him (Lk 3:16). Again we are given no indication how this occurred. The question has literary function of making a final distinction between John and Jesus. Their response, incredible to many in the early Church, indicates they are not aware of any connection between the Spirit and baptism. John’s baptism did not confer grace, only prepared the way for it. The distinction seems to be that (Baptism in) the Spirit is conferred by Apostles (the 12 or Paul) - possibly Luke’s way of describing the role of the Church in bestowing the Spirit. Important that Christianity is taught in a systematic way. Unity of belief & practice was problem from very beginning. Apollos understood about Jesus and faith in him before he came from Alexandria to Ephesus, and the Spirit was manifest in his speeches (18:25, cf Stephen 6:10), and he taught accurately, even though he had received only the baptism of John. These disciples appear not to know about Jesus and need for faith in him. John’s heritage still influential at this time, and has value - providing it is understood correctly and leads to faith in Jesus. This may be a blurred memory of a more philosophical version of the gospel brought by Apollos from Alexandria, presumably evangelised by Hellenists from Jerusalem.
3 Like Apollos, these believers are portrayed as unfinished, needing the messianic (anointing, saving?) baptism in the Spirit.
4 5th time in Acts that John Baptist’s role as precursor of Jesus clarified. The need for this repetition, plus fact that John Baptist apparently had disciples as far as Alexandria and Ephesus 20 years after Jesus’ death supports view that John Baptist was important religious figure in his own right - mentioned by Josephus and John (3:23-30). In Lk John Baptist does not say people should “believe” in the one coming after him, nor that this one is Jesus (Lk 7:19) - these conclusions come from perspective of faith.
5 John Baptist’s ritual of repentance is taken over as a ritual of initiation into messianic community, often adding that this was for the forgiveness of sins (not needed here, since Paul has already said this was purpose of John’s baptism in v.4. Although our Trinitarian formula appears not to have used, we should not see this as significant - the doctrine of the Trinity was not developed in formal terms for some time.
6 As in Samaria, baptism of the Spirit is accomplished by laying on of hands, rather than by baptism (Cf 8:14-17). As also in Samaria, Paul action here both legitimates Paul as an Apostle with the power to do this, and legitimates those disciples of John receiving the Spirit as now members of the apostolic community and hence under its authority. As with Cornelius’ household (10:46) speaking in tongues gives physical evidence of their spiritual transformation; it also helps place Paul in apostolic succession with Peter.
7 Luke uses “about 12" to symbolise a realisation of “Israel” (Cf 1:15-2:13). In all the episodes in Acts, the order of events may vary, but all components seem to be needed for full, Christian initiation: repentance, faith, water-baptism, Spirit-filling. And the coming of the Spirit is always accompanied by signs - as we should expect it to be now. The Holy Spirit must be real to us, not just a form of words. While Apollos is in Corinth strengthening Paul’s converts, Paul follows up disciples who - like Apollos - had become only partial Christians through the work of others.
8 Despite saying he will turn to the Gentiles, Paul again attends the synagogue, spending some time attempting to convert the Jews. He continues to be patient - are we? As before in synagogues, Paul argues for the kingdom of God, in continuity with Jesus (Lk 4:43, 9:2) - a constant theme throughout Luke-Acts. For Paul this referred to the Messiah’s reign from heaven: Jews saw it more as an earthly, nationalistic, reign.
9 Does “Tyrannus” indicate a fearsome reputation? “Hardening” signifies stubborn resistance in face of God’s visitation (Exod 4:21, 7:3, 8:19, 13:15, Deut 2:30, 10:16, Ps 94:8, Isa 63:17, Jer 7:26, 17:23, 19:15, Rom 2:5, 9:18, Heb 3:8,13, 4:7). In Luke’s understanding hardness of heart is not attributed to the Jews during time of Jesus’ ministry (it is by Matt, 19:8, and by Mk 10:5), but it is applied by Stephen (7:51) and here. The public reviling (cf 18:6) before the congregation forces Paul to remove himself, since there is no longer an atmosphere for civil discourse/study. He separates himself and his disciples, using formal language used elsewhere to indicate formal separation of peoples (also cf Lk 6:22). But he has had some success and takes Jewish converts with him to form a new community, which includes both Jews and Gentiles. Previously only Gentiles (13:45-47, 18:4-7), so thre is no denigration of Jews here, as before. Removal to pagan centre of study emphasises separation from Jews here, which may heve led to the problems in Jerusalem: Paul is now taking Jews from the Jewish community, hence charges in Jerusalem: “Jews from Asia” (21:L27-29, 24:19), Trophinus of Ephesus”, teaches apostasy” (21:21). “Lecture hall” ie place where discussions and discourses took place - originally the word used (scole) meant leisure, and hence leisure activities, above all, for Greeks, discussions.
10 Luke makes it clear Paul is now preaching - for the first time - to a mixed community of Jews & Gentiles, moreover this is happening “all” over Asia. And Demetrius confirms this success (19:26). Ephesus is the climax of Paul’s work in Asia, with new Christian communities of both Jews & Gentiles all over Asia - by time Rev was written, end of 1st century there were 6-9 churches in the area inland from Ephesus. In all Paul stayed about 3 years in Ephesus (19:8, 19:10, 19:21ff), AD 53-55. Seems to have written Gal, Phil, Phlm, 1 Cor while here, and seems to have visited Corinth. Possible a change in missionary style: a steady base, rather than the previous frenetic moving on after a few weeks in each place. Successful - both Jews and Greeks all through Asia heard the word. Begin to see Christianity as a movement separate from Judaism.
11 Luke characterises Paul’s mission in Ephesus as prophetic by the “extraordinary” miracles that occurred - “extraordinary” used only rarely by Luke: about Peter (Acts 2:22) and Jesus (Lk 10:13, 19:37). Hence it is also “visitation by God” (cf 2:22, 4:33, 6:8, 8:13, 10:38)
12 Physical transmission of power (Cf 5:14-16), again accompanied by expulsion of spirits. Paul does not need to lift a finger to be the power behind healing miracles, using his clothes (“handkerchief” is polite word for “sweatband”), while the exorcists are overcome and sent away naked. Effects of clothes similar to touching Jesus’ cloak and being under Peter’s shadow (5:15). This passivity crudely emphasises that it is God’s work, Paul is merely an instrument.
13 Wandering exorcists try to use Jesus’ name in their activities - implicitly confirming its superiority over their own powers (cf 8:19, 16:17). Thought they could add this “Jesus power” to their repertoire. Gospel does give power, but it’s not magic: magic seeks power without submitting to God and acknowledging that the power comes from him.
14 Meaning, import unclear. Relevance of “7" unclear. No other info about Sceva, which may simply personalise its meaning as “untrustworthy”.
15 The spirit refuses indicating (a) faith in name of Jesus is not simply a supernatural technique to be used by anyone; (b) the extraordinary power over demons is connected to the apostles. Use of Jesus’ name is only effective if the user has faith in Him. The demon recognises Jesus and so is able to use Jesus’ power to overthrow the exorcists. So Luke shows us the difference between Paul’s healing - in which faith is essential - and magic.
16 The word for “leaped upon” is not used elsewhere by Luke, but appears 3 times in OT for the leaping of the Spirit of the Lord (1 Sam 10:6, 11:6, 16:13). Nice irony! Confusion between “7 sons” and “both” who are overwhelmed - not the most carefully crafted of Luke’s stories! Paul is not present for this miracle: passive miracles like this ephasises it is God’s work.
17 Widely known (Cf 1:19, 4:16, 9:42). Mirrors v.10 above. Prepares for 26:26: “not done in a corner”. Luke has brought together all the typical responses to a miracle story: spread of the news; awe or fear; glory/praise of God.
18 Many converts confessed their participation in magical practices. Fear comes to many, as it did after Peter’s Pentecost speech (2:43) and Annanias (5:5).
19 As with previous 2 encounters (8:4-25; 13:4-12) between the Gospel and magic, the Gospel prevails dramatically, showing God’s power. Books of magic and spells were - voluntarily - burned publicly - a normal way of controlling the spread of unwanted ideas (cf Jer 36:20-27, 1 Macc 1:56). Whatever the face value - about a day’s wage - of the coins, it was obviously a small fortune. But mentioning money warns us trouble is brewing. Do we get rid of books, etc that are contrary to our faith? What are the dangers of seeming to believe in occult/magical practices? Do we really believe in the power of Jesus’ name, or do we treat it casually?
20 “prevail” - same word in Greek as used for “overpower” in v.16. The gospel is now spreading globally to Jews and Gentiles alike (mentioned for first time). Words about large growth signals that Christianity now has another large centre, Ephesus, alongside Jerusalem and Antioch. No hint here of turning from the Jews - the successful climax to Paul’s work is a growing Church in this important centre, which is made up of both Jews and Gentiles, and is Paul’s new base. Power is what ir’s all about. (Where does power lie in our societies today?) All this has been achieved by the power of the Lord: this inclusion from 19:10, repeating the same phrase earlier (6:7, 12:24) brings a sense of closure to Paul’s mission in Asia. Paul may have appreciated God’s power even more strongly after the episode (2 Cor 1:8-9) when he felt crushed almost to point of despair.
21 Paul’s work in Asia is now finished, he is free to take up another task. First indication of Paul’s ultimate plan to go to Rome, Greece and Jerusalem. Not “Holy Spirit”, so unclear whether Luke means Paul decided within himself or under guidance of Holy Spirit. No indication by Luke of Paul’s motive for going to Jerusalem. Paul himself says he was taking a collection to Jerusalem (1 Cor 16:1-4, 2 Cor 8-9, Rom 15:25-32). “See Rome” is what Paul himself says (Rom 15:24, 32)
22 Erastus is not mentioned elsewhere in Acts. He was treasurer of Corinth (Rom 16:23; also 2 Tim 4:10).
23 A neat linking verse. This “no little” disturbance (or “confusion”, same word as for “babel”, Gen 11:9) was actually rather large! At Pentecost the people were “confused” by being able to understand the apostles (2:6). Climax to Paul’s work in Asia: Christianity confronts Artemis, greatest pagan god in Asia. Again “the Way” as a designation for the messianic movement. Not just one among several possible ways, but “the Way” of life given to us by God, to lead to salvation.
24 Temple of Artemis (Roman Diana) at Ephesus, centre of Artemis cult, was one of 7 wonders of the world, 3 x size of Parthenon. Artemis, virgin hunter, goddess of moon and wild nature, worshipped at Ephesus as mother goddess and goddess of fertility. One of the most widely worshipped female deities in Hellenistic world. Luke gives very specific local colour. Echoing v 23, no little “business” - or “profit”, the Greek means both.
25 “Wealth” - or “prosperity”. After the burning of all those magic books, the gospel clearly represents a real danger of loss of business. Later in the century a Roman governor in Asia complained that pagan temple attendance had gone down because of Christianity. The artisans guild decides on action.
26 Although dismissive of “this Paul”, Demetrius confirms Paul’s great success through all Asia, and - in passing - restates Paul’s teaching that idols are not gods - he’s got it right! (16:18-21, 17:24). Although Jews have same belief. Today also there are clashes between religion, culture & economy, they cannot be kept in separate compartments. Christians are often left alone until they threaten someone’s profits - eg landowners in S. America.
27 They fear losing their profitable trade, and add a potential danger to the tourist trade to bolster their case. Demetrius’ arguments: (a) loss of trade; (b) Artemis’ temple into disrepute; (c) Artemis into disrepute. Links personal loss to threat to culture. Luke may also be getting at the Jerusalem Temple. Honesty should apply in all that a Christian does - including his work. Does this cause problems? How might we help Christians who suffer materially for their honesty at work? What are the false gods today? What effects do they have on our neighbours - and on us?
28 Seems to be anti-Jews rather than vs Christians. Support for Artemis “whom the whole world worships” (19:27). An emotional reaction is a common feature of Hellenist writings.
29 A substantial theatre holding 25,000 in Ephesus, and spontaneous assemblies feature in Hellenist literature. This scene is also very similar to a riot against the Jews, described by Josephus and set in Antioch. Both Gaius, baptised by Paul in Corinth (1 Cor 1:14) and Aristarchus appear elsewhere in Paul’s missions (Rom 16:23, Col 4:10, Phlm 24, Acts 20:4, 27:2). This riot occurs in a temple, occasioned by the “great extent” of the gospel, which is a threat to the established religion, foreshadowing the riot in the Jerusalem Temple (21:30).
30 Naturally Paul sees an opportunity to make more converts, but his companions and new friends are more realistic! Anyway no rebuttal is needed - allegations are true, Demetrius has got it right! No explanation for Paul’s companions being hauled off to the theatre, nor for Paul himself being removed from the action - especially strange as Paul himself refers to the dangers to him in Ephesus (2 Cor 1:8-9).
31 Asiarchs (correct term used by Luke): well attested (eg Strabo), possible magistrates, but unclear status and role; appear wealthy, influential, possibly political representatives of a league of cities in Asia. Again Luke shows good knowledge of local political/social structures, and also shows that Paul had won converts from upper classes - he has friends in high places.
32 A good, well observed, example of unorganised crowd behaviour. Most of the crowd don’t know why they are there, shouting different things. Only in vv 32, 39 & 41 is “ecclesia” used for a non-church assembly - contrasts confused riot with orderly growth of the church. Ephesus had right for an assembly of all the people to make decisions - but only in an emergency for a serious threat to the city - which this is not, as the Town Clerk says (vv 37-40).
33 The confused syntax of this verse reflects the confused actions it describes! Alexander, of whom nothing else is known, seems to be pushed forward to address the crowd, though why the Jews should put him forward is unclear. Are the Jews seeking to distance themselves from Paul, or is he a sympathiser attempting to speak on Paul’s behalf? Whether Alexander is a messianic or non-messianic Jew, to the Ephesians both Jews and Christian are against idols and so threaten their livelihood. Mirrors complex relationships between Christians and Jews.
34 Recognised as a Jew, Alexander is not allowed to speak - a familiar problem when a crowd gets out of control! Crowd is against both Jews & Christians. Presumably the crowd could not distinguish messianic from non-messianic Jews, so casual anti-semitism is experienced by Christian Jews as well. How do we treat people we disagree with - do we listen and perhaps learn from their way of looking at things?
35 Again Luke shows his accurate knowledge of local political structure: the word “grammateus” is used elsewhere by Luke for the Scribes who accompanied the Pharisees; in Ephesus the “grammateus” was part of the city bureaucracy, a keeper of records, convenor of the assembly, etc. Hence also mediator with the Roman authorities - cf Speaker of a parliament. Rome granted title “Guardian of the Temple” to cities that provided a temple for importamt temples or shrines. Coins showed that Ephesus was temple keeper of Artemis and of the imperial cult. “Fell from the sky” suggests a meteorite, resembling the human form of a goddess, giving the cult special significance as “sent by Zeus”.
36 “Do nothing rash” - good words to calm a crowd. The tourist/pilgrim trade is far more likely to be damaged by rumours of civil unrest than by the Christians.
37 Points to the absence of specific criminal charges - like Gallo in Corinth (18:14). Ephesians had reason to be specially sensitive to attempted damage to the temple, since an historical attempt to burn down the temple to Artemis.
38 Reminders of proper legal procedures, rather than mob action. A fine line is needed between sufficiently stirring up people against injustice, etc, and challenging vested interests, while remaining innocent of actual breaking secular laws. If preaching the gospel has no impact on ordinary life, is the preaching robust enough? Yet we must not be offensive, either personally or socially.
39 Or they can seek to raise the matter at a regular - ie legal - assembly, not at this illegal assembly.
40Town Clerk sums up clearly: “There is no cause for which we shall be able to give a reason for this demo.” In danger not just of rioting, but the Greek words for “rioting” and “commotion/disturbance” have overtones of forming a party for revolt or sedition. Very dangerous in an empire chronically suspicious of any unregulated assembly (Pliny). Demetrius had given credence to the gospel: town clerk gives it none - considers it is of no importance.
41 Again the Roman authorities behave correctly.