(1) Gallio (18:12)

(1) Gallio (18:12)

III. HAULED BEFORE GALLIO’S TRIBUNAL (18:12–13)

Luke’s presentation in 18:12–13 intersects with the extrinsic world of his audience in its mention of Gallio, his tribunal, and the nature of legal conflicts and anti-Jewish prejudices in this period. It also connects with Luke’s apologetic themes of local Jewish hostility and the lack of such hostility in Roman courts.[4680]

(1) Gallio (18:12)

Son of Seneca the Elder (ca. 50 B.C.E.–ca. 40 C.E.), Gallio was born in what is now Cordova, Spain.[4681] When the family moved to Rome, his name was changed to Lucius Junius Gallio as he took the name of his new adoptive father in Rome.[4682] Lucius Annaeus Seneca, his famous brother (ca. 3 B.C.E.–65 C.E.), naturally enough, thought well of him,[4683] and some others also preserve pleasant reports.[4684] Paul and others may well have seen a governor’s procession in public before; slaves would walk in front of any high aristocrat’s procession to announce his titles and keep people out of the entourage’s way.[4685] Achaia was apparently one of the most desirable posts for proconsuls (cf. Pliny Ep. 8.24.2). After Nero executed Gallio’s brother Seneca for complicity in the plot against Nero’s life, Gallio sought Nero’s favor but was publicly denounced; some think that he was forced to commit suicide.[4686]

“Proconsul of Achaia” is the appropriate title.[4687] Paul uses provincial titles more consistently than Luke (cf. the less formal “Greece” in Acts 20:2),[4688] but Luke often uses provincial titles (elsewhere including Achaia, 18:27; 19:21), and in this case he must do so to suit the office described.

(2) The Governor’s Tribunal (18:12)

In 1935, archaeologists discovered the bēma, or tribunal (a speaker’s platform, Latin rostra), in the middle of the south edge of Corinth’s forum; it consisted of an elevated podium covered by a roof upheld by columns.[4689] Here, in addition to judicial activity, the government announced edicts.[4690] Important speeches would be offered from a rostra.[4691] The bēma is dated to 25–50 C.E., suggesting that it was fairly new in Paul’s day.[4692] Certainly, Paul expected Corinthians to be familiar with the image of a bēma (2 Cor 5:10), though such knowledge would have been common throughout the cities of the empire, especially colonies modeled after Rome (Rom 14:10).[4693] Some scholars have plausibly suggested that Gallio would have reserved the bēma for official occasions and would have been hearing cases primarily in an administrative building.[4694] Luke employs the term βῆμα for an official seat (Acts 12:21; 25:6, 17), but we cannot rule out a broad sense (cf. 25:10). The lawcourts were in a basilica at the eastern edge of the forum, but the bēma lay on the southern edge, by a long row of shops.[4695] Given the public beating of 18:17, however, Luke probably envisions the outdoor bēma rather than an indoor version. Romans preferred to do outdoors whatever they could—“trials, political meetings, elections, funerals, plays, buying and selling.”[4696]

The forum itself was massive and accommodated shops, administrative buildings, public baths, and toilets.[4697] (Although first-floor individuals with more means might have running water for a latrine,[4698] poorer individuals were limited to means of disposing of excretion such as chamber pots;[4699] for them, public latrines in Roman cities were less convenient but afforded better sanitation.)[4700] Its statues and temples also openly displayed the city’s religious interests; cities following the Roman model included a temple of Jupiter in their forum (see introduction to the section on Corinth). In a Roman city, the cardo (the north-south main street) and decumanus (east-west main street) normally intersected in the forum.[4701] The road ran north to Lechaeum’s harbor, facing the sea route to Italy; it ran south to Cenchreae’s harbor, facing the route to Asia.[4702]

(3) The Immediate Conflict

Scholars propose various reasons for the unrest behind this scene. We know of food shortages close to 51 C.E., and these often contributed to instability;[4703] other economic tensions common in the urban parts of the empire may have also contributed.[4704] The more immediate situation, however, would provide sufficient explanation even if such other contributing factors were absent. The schism in the Jewish community had, among other things, caused rancor and divided the community’s patrons and resources precisely at a time when it could ill afford the division (after Claudius’s expulsion in 18:2).

If the synagogue members felt that Paul was attracting too much attention that could cause them worse problems with the authorities in Corinth, they may have been all the more eager to bring him to the authorities themselves and thereby dissociate themselves from him (cf. 19:33–34).[4705] If this is the case, however, the new governor turned out to be less interested in Paul than they supposed, and their accusation produced the very backlash they were seeking to prevent.

(4) The Plaintiffs

Synagogues, as resident-alien communities, had some rights to settle internal problems according to their own laws and customs.[4706] Yet they also could bring criminal charges to the proconsul.[4707] Early in Gallio’s administration[4708] was the most strategic moment to bring the charges; he was a new governor and might be more open to them than a long-standing governor.[4709] (The suggestion that the synagogue members may have acted close to the time of the Isthmian Games, which occurred around this time, is possible, though this timing probably would not have been deliberate.)[4710]

Romans did not look for cases to prosecute but depended on delatores, or accusers, to come forward[4711] (for dragging an accused to the court, see comment on Acts 17:5; cf. 16:19; for the term used here, cf. comment on Acts 17:19). Indeed, a governor could not legally try a Roman citizen, which Paul was (see comment on Acts 16:37), unless someone had come forward to prosecute him.[4712] Paul’s opponents would know this limitation and hence that they would have to bring the charges themselves, though the charges they chose turned out to be unfortunate for their case (18:13). One of lower rank could not easily prosecute one of higher rank,[4713] but it would not be difficult for the hostile part of the Jewish community to find some members with status, especially since these members would be speaking for their community. From the standpoint of Luke’s audience, however, these accusers fit the conventional character type (especially popularized in defense speeches) of “malicious accusers”—ironically, just like the anti-Jewish accusers of 16:19–21.[4714]

In Corinth, plaintiffs would explain a normal charge to the magistrate, who could issue a summons for the accused to appear, though the accused did not always heed the summons.[4715] The accusers might have to try to ensure the accused’s arrival in court. A Q parable in Luke’s Gospel illustrates the danger: an opponent might drag someone to the judge, who would hand him over to the officials for imprisonment (Luke 12:58; cf. Matt 5:25).[4716] A court case could also prove an expensive affair; some particularly noteworthy lawyers earned more income than officials in Roman colonies.[4717]

Although this strategy might have worked against Paul politically, in this case it worked against his accusers; this reversal is not out of courtesy to Paul (who is permitted no defense and is himself Jewish) but apparently out of hostility to his accusers (or at least out of hostility to their bringing a baseless case).

(5) Language of the Trial

In what language would the hearing have been conducted? Early Roman Egypt allowed two court systems, one with native law in the Egyptian language and the other in Greek (the latter required judges to keep moving among the Greek-speaking communities); Rome abandoned this bipartite system, however, in the mid-first century C.E.[4718] One would expect the court to deal with Romans in a Latin-speaking colony in Latin, though a highly educated Roman such as Gallio would also know Greek.[4719] Traditionally, Romans who understood Greek nevertheless spoke Latin and expected monolingual Greeks to depend on translation (Val. Max. 2.2.2–3), but such Roman insistence may have faded by the mid-first century C.E.,[4720] especially by the reign of Claudius.[4721] Educated Romans were thoroughly acquainted with Greek culture and language,[4722] though some felt uncomfortable with aspects of that culture.[4723] Like Jerusalem, Rome had absorbed considerable Greek culture while retaining an uneasiness about being overtaken by it, though the cultural boundaries advocated by traditional voices were less rigid than they had been in the past.[4724]

Nevertheless, trials were typically conducted in the common language of the parties present, and when a participant did not know the shared language, the court could provide translation.[4725] In Corinth, translation into both Latin and Greek would presumably be available, perhaps allowing participants their choice (though perhaps Latin-speakers would have an advantage with a Roman judge).[4726] The plaintiffs in this case are likely primarily Greek-speaking, if we may judge by the synagogue inscription (though its date may make this point irrelevant), the language of 1–2 Corinthians, and the first language of the majority of Jews even in Rome (see comment on Acts 18:4). Though Paul is a Roman citizen and provincial Roman citizens often liked to learn Latin as a prestige language, learning it was never a requirement,[4727] and Luke does not avail himself of the opportunity to announce Paul’s use of Latin here.

(6) The Charge (18:13)

The claim that Paul illegally “persuades” people uses strong language; in legal settings the term ἀναπείθω typically connotes deceit or misleading,[4728] and it is appropriate to false prophets or leaders in the LXX (Jer 29:8; 1 Macc 1:11).[4729] The expression “against the law”[4730] is more difficult to decide: does it refer to breaking Jewish law (in which case we must explain why the accusers expect Gallio to be concerned about it) or to breaking Roman law (in which case we must explain why Gallio assumes that the accusers refer to Jewish customs)?[4731]

It is possible that the accusers mean Roman law or, more likely, that they state their accusation ambiguously to imply breach of Roman law (but can avoid perjuring themselves if cross-examined).[4732] In this case they may appeal to Roman suspicion of subversive religious movements. It is also possible that their charge is formulated to appeal to Gentile anti-Judaism rather than to ward it off; Gallio might already suspect Jews of subversion, and they can clear the rest of their community by handing over sectarians who they think undercut the law. If so, however, the consequences of this internal division may have led to their bearing the brunt of their own strategy themselves (Acts 18:17; cf. 19:33–34). If this negative experience of airing a community’s “dirty laundry” before public courts is historical (and the Gallio connection makes it likely), it may have added urgency to Paul’s later warning against Corinthian Christians taking one another to court before unbelievers (1 Cor 6:1–8, esp. 6:6).[4733]

These accusers may, however, instead be arguing that Paul’s teaching contradicts the law of their people and hence they do not want him protected under the umbrella of Judaism’s privileges.[4734] This might even leave him susceptible to expectations that he participate in the imperial cult[4735] (though convincing outsiders that he was a Gentile would not be easy, whatever the status of his uncircumcised converts). Whether Judaism was an official religio licita has been debated,[4736] but Josephus sufficiently attests that precedent recognized Jewish people’s rights to practice their ethnic customs. If Paul’s teachings do not fit within Judaism (i.e., are not ethnic customs), then he will be more susceptible to other complaints (such as a political interpretation of messianism; Acts 17:6–7; compare 18:2 with Suet. Claud. 25.4) that he cannot justify by appeal to his theological convictions.[4737]

IV. GALLIO REJECTS THE CASE (18:14–15)

Here Paul opens his mouth to speak, and other speeches in Acts lead us to expect a Pauline speech here (cf. also, for different reasons, Acts 19:30–31). Instead, Luke surprises a first-time reader, reserving the forensic defense speeches for later. Paul has reason to be anxious; when a trial’s setting was unfairly against the defendant, there was reason to fear (Cic. Balb. 1.1–2), and the local synagogue community’s corporate standing before the court probably would seem superior to Paul’s own. One could not necessarily count on a fair hearing; a governor who was criticized, for example, could sentence the offender to the stocks or even exile (Lucian Dem. 50). In this case, however, the new governor’s attitude toward the local synagogue community counts against them. A speaker might begin by begging the audience to hear him quietly as it has heard his accuser (e.g., Demosth. Eub. 1); in this case, however, Paul will need no defense.

(1) Gallio’s Impatience (18:14)

Gallio’s impatience is, in one sense, understandable. The requests for a provincial governor’s time were legion, and a new governor particularly might be confronted with demands. Initially, most letters sent from a new governor of Asia were written by others and not even evaluated until his freedmen began reading through them to weigh them for equity (Cic. Quint. fratr. 1.2.3.8). The matter became even more serious when dealing with requests for legal attention. Papyri in Roman Egypt reveal that the prefect’s office might be open ten hours a day, and when the prefect came to local municipalities a few days each year, he had to deal with 700 to 750 petitions a day, better than one per minute. Clerks and aides thus undoubtedly processed the less important ones.[4738] Although Corinth was more populous, Gallio would hear cases regularly there rather than only a few days per year. Nevertheless, some conscientious rulers heard cases till nightfall,[4739] although governors in their provincial seat would not be expected to do so. Most governors were short staffed; even soldiers were at a premium, at least in more peaceful provinces.[4740]

For this reason, various courts addressed different kinds of issues. Private suits were normally decided by jury courts, consisting (in colonies such as Corinth) of Roman citizens, preferably those meeting the significant property qualifications.[4741] A local Corinthian official dealt with civic cases, and an aedile dealt with financial ones; the proconsul’s business would be with criminal cases, both in Corinth and the rest of Achaia.[4742] As proconsul, Gallio would be concerned only with public order, not with minor litigation that could be addressed by lower courts.[4743] Criminal law, judged by the governor, covered such crimes as “treason, embezzlement of state property,” election bribery, extortion, “endangering of public security, forgery of wills and coins,” poisoning, murder and other violent criminal actions, incest, and adultery.[4744] Even some of these areas of criminal law might be left to juries.[4745] One could have charged Paul with treason or with disrupting public security by fomenting unrest (Acts 17:6–7), but the Corinthian Jewish community offers a charge that, though corresponding with their honest view of the matter, does not fit criminal law.

As noted above, Jewish communities could bring criminal charges to the proconsul.[4746] But if the charges could not easily fit the Roman definition of criminal charges, the accusers might be seen as frivolously wasting the governor’s time. As Gallio declares, Paul committed neither a technical ἀδίκημα (felony) nor a ῥᾳδιούργημα (“political misdemeanor”) by standards of Romans law.[4747] If the proconsul had political incentive to hear the accusers out, he might do so;[4748] but especially in the wake of Claudius’s recent decree (and even without it), he lacks such incentive.[4749]

Gallio’s impatience, however, probably has roots in anti-Judaism, not merely in the new demands of his work. He shared a prejudice against Jewish superstition with many other Roman aristocrats; even his temperate brother Seneca called the Jewish people a gens sceleratissima.[4750] When convenient, prosecutors could impugn the credibility of prosecution witnesses on account of their ethnicity;[4751] if the expulsion of Jews under Claudius came in 49 C.E. (see comment on Acts 18:2), then Gallio has the recent example of the emperor himself to allow him to vent hostility toward Jews in a Roman colony.[4752] Further, whereas Felix and Festus had to accommodate Jewish concerns in Judea for political reasons, Gallio is under no such pressure.[4753] Anti-Jewish prejudice works against Paul in Philippi (16:20–21) but may, ironically, come to his defense in this case.

Not persuaded concerning Gallio’s anti-Jewish sentiment, Winter contends that Gallio rejects the case on valid procedural grounds.[4754] Gallio’s aversion to flattery was well known;[4755] he was also said to be quite affable.[4756] Here, Winter thinks, Gallio answers politely but indicates that their charges are baseless under Roman law, the only basis on which he would rule.[4757] I would argue that Gallio’s reference to details about the Jewish accusers’ own law (18:15), the context of anti-Judaism in 18:2, and Gallio’s lack of concern in 18:17 (though Winter explains this response differently) reflect anti-Jewish sentiment. But in any case, Winter is right that Gallio has reason to be impatient even solely on the grounds of apparent legal obfuscation before him.

(2) Gallio’s Speech (18:14)

Even this brief speech reveals the rhetorical education expected for one of Gallio’s class,[4758] including the use of repetition of related terms in 18:14 (“wrong or crime”) and 18:15 (“speech and names and your law”); rhetoric appreciated the accumulation of nouns (the use of polysyndeton in the second instance suggesting the tediousness of their complaint). The balanced contrast between two “if” clauses (one in 18:14, the other in 18:15), using the typical μέν . . . δέ construction, also suits the weighty speech of an orator or public figure.

Given the setting and content of Gallio’s brief speech, it could be classified as judicial, though it is hardly a formal “speech” in a rhetorical sense.[4759] In any case, many Romans would have appreciated his no-nonsense approach.[4760] Once, when a second party was about to begin his defense, the mutually agreed-on judge decided the case in the prospective speaker’s favor on the basis of sufficient evidence heard from the plaintiff: “All credit to the judge for not letting time be wasted in a clear case.”[4761] Although a herald might need to shout to quiet the crowd, a governor on his tribunal could speak concisely from his seat without strain on his voice.[4762]

Gallio claims that under some circumstances, but not the present ones,[4763] it would be appropriate to “put up with” their complaint. The term (ἀνεσχόμην) often so translated has a technical sense in some legal contexts of accepting “a complaint for further consideration”[4764] (“entertain” your complaint; cf. NRSV: “accepting the complaint”). That the term elsewhere generally means “withstand” or “endure” (e.g., Luke 9:41; 2 Cor 11:1, 4, 19–20; 2 Macc 9:12; 4 Macc 1:35) may add an appropriate nuance in the present case.

(3) Rejecting the Charge (18:15)

A judge could “decide whether to accept a novel charge or not.”[4765] Before deciding a case, he had to decide whether the charge in fact constituted a crime.[4766] Naturally, judges were expected to follow statutes and custom (Justin. Inst. 4.17, esp. 4.17.intro.); even a governor could be punished if found to have abused judicial power according to his whims.[4767] But in practice there were few limits on Gallio’s power to decide the case or whether to accept it; he held authority to decide according to his judgment.[4768] “I do not wish to judge this matter,” Sherwin-White notes, is “the precise answer of a Roman magistrate refusing to exercise his arbitrium iudicantis within a matter extra ordinem.”[4769] Had he been allowed to speak, Paul might have sought this very solution; one technique in judicial rhetoric was to question whether an opponent’s case ought to be heard in court (Hermog. Issues 42.5–7). Perhaps learning from this occasion, Paul may seek to have his later charges thrown out the same way (see comment on Acts 24:19–21).

Impatience with “speech and names and your law” fits common expectations and was a natural way to dismiss wordy arguments devoid of logic.[4770] The sophists had used hair-splitting arguments based on wordplays rather than logic before Socrates challenged them.[4771] Often ancient intellectuals disputed grammar and the correct use of terms (current vs. archaic terms, etc.).[4772] We read, for example, of the strife of two grammarians in Rome over the vocative case of a word.[4773] Philosophers often contended against useless quibbles over words[4774] or the use of fallacious argument.[4775] Seneca the Younger, Gallio’s brother, complained about students who came to learn to develop their wits rather than their souls, simply studying words;[4776] those more interested in style or arrangement than in content were absorbed with petty things.[4777] Stoic logic, often impatient with empty rhetoric, insisted on following argument (λόγος) and demonstration (ἀπόδειξις) and reason.[4778] Some nonphilosophers also argued that empty talk and rambling was a fault.[4779] The mention of the irrelevant “speech” (λόγου) of Paul’s accusers in this verse contrasts with the more appropriate “matter” (λόγον) of Acts 18:14.[4780]

(4) Refusing Jurisdiction (18:15)

Jewish people, like other large resident-alien communities and, to some extent, voluntary associations, could judge members of their communities by their own laws, provided that these did not conflict with Roman law (and provided that the accused did not opt out of their community’s jurisdiction under duress).[4781] But civil courts would not rule on offenses of Jewish law.[4782] Gallio’s mention of their law (with ὑμᾶς in an emphatic final position) contrasts with the Roman law by which he must judge.[4783]

Telling them to “see to the matter themselves” simply throws Jewish theological issues back to the Jewish community as he refuses to involve civil authority or impose civil penalties. “See (to it) yourselves” (ὄψεσθε αὐτοί) likely reflects the imperative of the Latin expression videre de,[4784] which may have been mentioned in Paul’s report and then remained in Luke’s mind, surfacing in the latter’s account. (Alternatively, Luke, trying to conform a more general summary of Gallio’s pronouncement to direct discourse, added the Latinism to bring it closer to how he would expect Gallio to have said it. Luke was not a native Latin speaker, but years in Philippi might have acclimatized him to some judicial idioms.) The same idiom appears in a similar legal setting in Matt 27:24,[4785] and the same idea in John 18:31.

(5) A Favorable Precedent

Although Gallio as an actor within the narrative was not trying to provide an apologetic for Paul or his movement, that is de facto how his response functions in the larger context of Acts’ apologetic.[4786] As soon as a governor’s verdict was read out, it was recorded in the province’s official proceedings.[4787] Because he was a governor and not a local judge (like Thessalonica’s politarchs, Acts 17:6–8), Gallio’s decision could have far-reaching implications. It would establish a favorable precedent for the Christians,[4788] not binding on future governors but certainly useful for their decisions.[4789] Gallio was a well-known jurist, and although his ruling established law only for Achaia, the ruling could be overturned “only if the prosecuting Jews possessed some special privilege such as Roman citizenship” and appealed to the emperor. In view of their recent expulsion from Rome by the same emperor, such an appeal would likely prove counterproductive. Christians would thus be viewed as Jews in this period (before 64 C.E.)[4790] and hence exempt from expected participation in the imperial cult.[4791] Those who could afford meat but wished to avoid pagan sacrificial meat probably were able to purchase kosher food at the marketplace like other Jews (provided this privilege had not been temporarily revoked).[4792]

Luke reports this vindication (incomplete as it was) as part of a consistent pattern throughout his apologetic history, similar to Josephus’s collection of precedents for Judaism in the empire.[4793] Although faced with political considerations (Luke 23:30, 23), Pilate pronounced Jesus’s innocence (23:4, 14, 22), as did the leader of the Roman execution squad (23:47, probably Lukan redaction).[4794] Luke’s marshaling of such precedents would provide Christians with a sense of security and perhaps evidence they could use to respond against slanders in the public arena. His approach comports well with the respect for Roman government often found in early Christian literature (Rom 13:1–7; 1 Tim 2:2; Titus 3:1; 1 Pet 2:13–14), though intense times sometimes invited a different approach (Rev 13:1–18).

Some scholars doubt Luke’s favorable portrait of good precedents from high Roman officials; where, then, did persecutions come from?[4795] Luke suggests that they came from other sources in this period besides the Roman government. That he breaks off his story before Nero’s persecution allows him to simplify the portrayal in this way (though Roman officials are by no means identical—i.e., they are not flat composite characters). Although a provincial governor’s decree could normally serve as precedent (Pliny Ep. 10.108.1), an imperial decree could make it permanent or could annul it (10.108.1–2). Governors’ precedents (which were not binding on other governors in any case) would be of limited value to Luke if Nero later established new imperial precedent—but they would be all that Luke had. Luke’s apologetic focus makes him selective but not wrong about what he does report. Paul’s Corinthian correspondence reveals that not all churches faced persecution; indeed, some members in Corinth even felt comfortable going to Gentile courts (1 Cor 6:1–8).[4796]

Against the assumption that Luke invents the scene, a historian would not normally knowingly appeal to a fictitious decision of a named official in a city where records still existed, especially if the historian were also an apologist for a movement that could scarce afford its arguments to be discredited. Moreover, Luke relishes the opportunity to provide Paul’s defense speeches, and were he writing pure fiction about the occasion, he could have provided one before Paul’s vindication. (Indeed, it was within Luke’s prerogative even as a historian to provide such a speech if he wished; see the commentary introduction, ch. 8.) That Gallio cuts Paul off before he can speak likely reflects the account as Luke heard it rather than Luke’s imagination.[4797]

Luke might also suggest a development of Paul’s own apologetic strategy through his experiences in Acts. In Philippi, Paul learned the value of appealing to his Roman citizenship; in Corinth, before Gallio, Paul learns the impatience of Roman administrators with intra-Jewish charges. Both of these experiences prepare Paul, and Luke’s audience, for the major strategies involved in Paul’s custody in the final quarter of Acts.

V. ABUSE OF THE PLAINTIFFS (18:16–17)

In the immediate historical context of widespread anti-Jewish feeling (Acts 18:2), Gallio’s own anti-Jewish behavior in 18:16 gives implicit permission to other Gentiles present to vent their anti-Jewish sentiments in 18:17. Although Luke regards such behavior as unjust (cf. 16:20–21), he uses it to show not only the danger that Paul, as a Jew, could have been in (cf. 16:20–21) but also how God protected him (18:9–10) and even reversed the expectations of his Jewish accusers (cf. 19:33–34).

(1) Driving Away the Plaintiffs (18:16)

Had Gallio merely been mildly annoyed and eager to save time, Luke might say that he “sent” Paul’s accusers away. Instead, Gallio “drove” (ἀπήλασεν) them away, which suggests hostility and perhaps force (many commentators even think that he had his lictors force them away).[4798] The language is forceful, but what confirms that Gallio asks brusquely and unjustly, and likely out of anti-Jewish sentiment, is that he flagrantly ignores the beating in 18:17. Winter suggests that “driving away” plaintiffs in a baseless case was precisely the correct protocol.[4799] Even if this view, which does not attribute anti-Jewish prejudice to Gallio, is correct, the crowds could still act out of such prejudice. But Gallio’s deliberate ignoring of the situation in 18:17 seems like prejudice.[4800] Winter suggests that Gallio was not legally expected to deal with patrons and clients in the forum beating Sosthenes unless the latter brought a private case for assault against them.[4801] This interpretation is possible, but Luke’s way of putting the matter sounds less friendly: Gallio “did not care” about these matters and, presumably, should have.[4802]

Angry crowds could sometimes drive a speaker from a platform by shouting and scorn (Aeschines Tim. 84), though particularly shameless speakers might resist this approach (Tim. 34).[4803] The person overseeing an assembly could also order a speaker to depart (Plut. Cic. 16.3); that a governor could order someone driven away, however, goes without saying.

Gallio was an unjust judge (cf. Luke 18:2–6), but Jewish people believed that God could use even unjust governments to fulfill his purposes, and in this context, the Lord fulfilled his promise to Paul (Acts 18:9–10).[4804] Now the governor’s injustice in 18:16 (on the anti-Jewish reading) gives way to the crowd’s injustice in 18:17. If the example of the emperor’s treatment of Jews gave unofficial permission to governors to abuse Jews, even more clearly the governor’s example would have given the crowds present around the bēma freedom to vent their anti-Jewish (or even purely ruffian) sentiments.[4805] That the governor ignores this plainly illegal action confirms that his behavior is anti-Jewish, not merely impatient. That the accusers’ attempt to cause Paul trouble leads instead to their own is the sort of irony that historians and storytellers appreciated recounting (cf., e.g., Dan 6:24); thus, for example, Domitian punished Josephus’s Jewish accusers (Jos. Life 429).

(2) Who Did the Beating?

One could argue that Gallio’s own lictors or aides beat the ruler of the synagogue.[4806] Some first-century Roman governors in the East had Jewish victims publicly beaten (Philo Flacc. 77), even in front of their tribunals (Jos. War 2.308).[4807] But this would be an act of extraordinary corruption (and public hubris) on Gallio’s part, of the sort that did invite action against governors or other officials known to commit them (cf. Cicero’s In Verrem); even Claudius was not so anti-Jewish as to brook such behavior if he knew about it. Moreover, it does not fit what we know of Gallio from other sources.[4808] Gallio’s unconcern and the participation of “all” indicate that this abuse was a crowd action, not the lictors acting on Gallio’s behalf.

It is not impossible that Luke means that the rejected Jewish delegation performed the beating. In this case they might beat their own leader because he had led them into public humiliation;[4809] it was a great embarrassment, for example, to charge someone and then discover the defendant’s innocence in court (Suet. Claud. 16.3). It is also possible that they beat a Jewish Christian ruler of the synagogue (if Sosthenes is another name for Crispus,[4810] though this is less likely than that they beat another individual; see comment on Acts 18:8). In any of these cases, Gallio’s ignoring a public beating within plain sight suggests his disdain for Jews, including the man being beaten. It is even possible that Jews started beating Sosthenes and then Gentile anti-Semites joined them, the “all” referring to both Jew and Gentile;[4811] if the Jews were at all recognizable from the court appearance, however, anti-Semites (as opposed to mere ruffians) might not elect to beat only the person they were beating but might exploit the opportunity to justify beating all the accusers.

Although Luke’s condensed language is not finally clear, it seems more likely that it is the Gentile crowd present (hence the “all”) that beats the leader of the Jewish delegation.[4812] (This is probably the most common opinion among modern commentators;[4813] it was also the suspicion of those responsible for the Western text, who blame Greeks for the beating.)[4814]

(3) Court Settings

How unruly could crowds be in judicial settings?[4815] A writer could use lawcourts as an example of something loud (contrasted with the desert’s silence; Marc. Aur. 7.48). Rhetorical schools offered few interruptions or mockery during practice declamations, but the courts were more difficult (Sen. E. Controv. 9.pref. 3); declamation students were thus unprepared, Seneca the Elder opined, for real courts (9.pref. 4). One must be loud so that the judge can hear over competing noise (9.pref. 5). Shouts from all the people were common in public trials.[4816] Public trials, Maximus of Tyre complains, are conducted just like fights among groups of children (Or. 3.5–6).

The court setting tended to stir the temper (Sen. Y. Dial. 5.9.3). Once, when Catiline sought to make his defense, the crowds were so unruly that he could not do so (Plut. Cic. 16.3). Cicero’s defenders shouted when he spoke against Clodius (Cic. Att. 1.16). Even the Roman senate was sometimes disrupted with proposals angrily shouted down (Cic. Fam. 1.2.2). Pliny the Younger boasts that his hearers in court maintained their composure as long as possible but finally leaped to their feet, stirred by his rhetoric (Ep. 9.23.1). Urban crowds were sometimes unstable.[4817] One who was condemned thus might be assaulted by the bystanders (Suet. Julius 17.2). Public beatings and fights (the men of each side arrayed with their friends) occurred often in ancient urban society,[4818] though this would happen in front of the governor only if he was deemed quite unsympathetic with the victims.

(4) Luke’s Perspective

It seems likeliest, then, that local Gentile observers (perhaps Greeks, as in the Western text; perhaps hooligans) administered the beating—without Gallio’s permission but also without his intervention or concern. If so, this narrative parallels Acts 19:33–34, where Jewish community leaders hostile to Paul’s ministry seek to dissociate themselves from his radical monotheism—and, partly for that very reason, end up being blamed for it. This apparently comic irony[4819] may fit a larger (and tragic rather than comic) pattern in Luke-Acts, one that climaxes in the rejection of the Messiah and his agents and thereby precipitates the destruction of the temple and the Jerusalem establishment in 70 C.E.

Although the inversion of accusers and victims might be somewhat comic irony from a literary perspective, from the standpoint of Paul within the narrative world, this irony could only be tragic (28:19–20; cf. Rom 9:2–3). (Luke, indeed, reaffirms Paul’s own Jewish fidelity immediately in Acts 18:18; see comment there.) Nor does Gallio’s anti-Judaism reflect the author’s perspective; Paul earlier suffered because of anti-Judaism (16:20–21). Sometimes God used minor characters providentially to protect Paul, but these minor characters are not “reliable” characters in all their claims or actions.[4820] For example, the Ephesian official’s assurance that Artemis’s image fell from heaven might sound humorous to Christian hearers of Acts if their own situation vis-à-vis paganism afforded them the luxury of humor about it (19:35–36).[4821]

(5) Sosthenes

Luke’s compression of a larger body of available material sometimes yields obscurity in his texts. The identity of the “all” who beat Sosthenes constitutes the primary obscurity of this text, but Sosthenes’s own identity invites some discussion as well. Sosthenes could be, but is probably not, the same person as Crispus (18:8; see comment there). More likely he was simply a fellow synagogue ruler with Crispus or his replacement.[4822] It is possible that Paul’s Sosthenes in his letter to Corinth (1 Cor 1:1) is the same person as in Acts 18:17.[4823] Against this proposal is the fact that the former is very likely a Pauline Christian whereas the present one at least appears to lead a delegation against Paul.[4824] In favor of it is that this is the name’s only other occurrence in the NT (though, of course, it occurs elsewhere), in both cases associated with Corinth.[4825] If it is the same Sosthenes, there are several possibilities for reconciling the identities of the two:

If they are the same person, Luke’s audience might not have access to 1 Cor 1:1 to know about his conversion; if Luke writes partly for Greece, however, some members of his audience may know of Sosthenes. That the Sosthenes in Paul and the one in Luke are the same person seems more probable than not (though not extremely probable), since the name appears nowhere else in the NT. But at what point Sosthenes becomes a Christ follower we cannot say; in Acts, Paul’s opponents sometimes get themselves in trouble (Acts 19:34),[4830] but opposition can also hurt his fellow ministers (19:29). One possible suggestion that we can consider historically unlikely is the suspicion that Luke, if he has in mind the same Sosthenes, would be so misinformed about Sosthenes’s identity as to make Paul’s ally appear an enemy, as Sosthenes was well known enough to the Corinthians for Paul to coauthor a letter with him to that church (without explanation of his identity).

7. Ministry in Ephesus (18:18–19:41)

Paul’s longest single sojourn in a city after leaving Antioch, and without Roman custody, is his ministry in Ephesus. This narrative opens with Paul’s commencement of ministry in Ephesus before traveling (18:19–21); moves to depicting the incomplete understanding of followers of John the Baptist who have migrated to Ephesus (18:18–19:7); follows this depiction with Paul’s successful and lengthy ministry in Asia (19:8–22); and concludes with the conflict in Ephesus, which Luke cannot evade but can attribute to rabble-rousers (19:23–20:1).

a. Beginning the Work (18:18–19:7)

Historically, Paul experienced considerable success as well as opposition in Ephesus (1 Cor 15:32; 16:8–9; 2 Cor 1:8; cf. Rom 16:5; 1 Cor 16:19), and Luke wants to emphasize Paul’s role there. Paul begins ministry in Ephesus before others do (Acts 18:19–21), and some others who minister, especially followers of John the Baptist, have an incomplete understanding of the era of the Spirit that Jesus inaugurated (18:18–19:7). Although Luke’s sources on Ephesus are much less detailed than his source for Philippi, he recognizes and presents Ephesus as the climax of Paul’s ministry before his Roman detention.[4831]

I. PAUL BEGINS WORK IN EPHESUS AND LEAVES FOR SYRIA (18:18–23)

Acts 18:18–23 offers a geographic transition from Corinth, looking both forward to Ephesus and backward to Judea and Antioch. Luke describes Paul’s travels in detail in “we” sections but far less elsewhere; 18:18–23 and 19:1 are quite sparse in travel details, compared with the more detailed itineraries of 20:5–6, 13–16; 21:1–3, 7, 15.[4832] As Luke organized much of Jesus’s ministry around a journey to Jerusalem (Luke 9–19),[4833] so he provides many of Paul’s journeys in Acts (Acts 13:4–14:28; 15:36–16:12; 17:1, 10, 14–15; 18:1; 18:18–23 with 19:1; 20:1–21:16).[4834]

(1) En Route from Corinth (18:18)

Although Luke does not provide a detailed narrative, Paul’s ministry continues in Corinth for some time after the hearing before Gallio (presumably continuing the sort of work he was doing before, i.e., speaking God’s message, 18:5, 9, 11). Paul also shaves his head for a vow before setting sail with Priscilla and Aquila.

LEAVING CORINTH

Before moving to Paul’s ministry in Ephesus, Luke clarifies and completes (by way of summary) Paul’s ministry in Corinth. Lest Luke’s audience miss the point of Gallio’s judgment in 18:14–16 that Paul’s faith remains Jewish, Luke confirms it in the following verse (18:18), underlining Paul’s continuing fidelity to his Jewish traditions.[4835] It is also possible that 18:18 relates to the preceding context as a vow of thanksgiving for protection before the governor’s tribunal (cf. Pss 50:14; 56:12),[4836] although this point is not explicit and constitutes only one possible reason for the vow.

That Paul “remained many days” (Acts 18:18) is a conventional Lukan way of marking an undefined chronological transition (9:23). Most clearly, it also suggests that Paul’s remaining stay was undisturbed by the sort of events recorded in 18:12–13 (perhaps because of the outcome, 18:17) while he continued to fulfill the Lord’s word (18:9–10) as in 18:11. (That is, he did not have to flee in an ignominious way as in 17:10, 14.) It may also, however, be Luke’s way of reinforcing Paul’s honor after the confrontation in 18:12–13: he is not so ashamed that he would flee because of hardship (14:20; 16:40; cf. 20:1). This point could fit a pattern in Acts. Many scholars think that in 20:16 Paul had another reason not to go to Ephesus that it would not be honorable for Luke to report; in 19:30–31, Paul’s failure to publicly appear is honorable because disciples and others would not allow it (as in 17:10, 14; cf. 9:25, 30). That is, in Acts fear never keeps Paul from dangerous situations; he is ready to risk his life when needed (20:24; cf. 2 Cor 4:11; 7:3; 11:23; Phil 1:20–24).

It is never clear exactly how long Luke means by “many days” (if even he had access to that information; cf. 9:23), but the sea voyage at least indicates that Paul either left before late October (when the seas, for the most part, were closed for travel) or after early March of the following year.[4837] (That this is not “we” material invites less detail regarding timing, as already noted.)

On Paul’s farewell to his fellow Christians,[4838] see the more detailed passage revealing their affection and intimacy in 20:37–38, and comment there; the passing mention here, given Luke’s limited space, may reinforce the importance of the relationships built. That Priscilla and Aquila[4839] accompany Paul (also 18:26) fits the pattern of Paul’s use of coworkers in ministry.[4840]

Paul is sailing for Syria (18:18, 22) but crosses first to Asia (18:19); he would need to leave from Corinth’s eastern port (18:18). Sea voyages were more comfortable and quicker than traveling by land, though they came without furnishings. Ship owners made their primary profit from cargo, and so passengers would bring their own sleeping and cooking gear as well as their own food.[4841]

SHAVING CUSTOMS

Grammatically, the shaving could refer to either Paul or Aquila, but, given Luke’s focus, undoubtedly refers to Paul; as Munck puts it, “Aquila could have had his hair cut all his life without its being recorded in Acts.”[4842] Barbers were available for cutting hair,[4843] but Paul may have done it himself or secured help from one of his associates.[4844] Using water but lacking soap, the less skillful of barbers could make shaving unpleasant.[4845]

Paul’s vow is clearly a vow to the God of Israel, presumably modeled in some way on Nazirite vows in the OT (or vows more generally; see, e.g., Gen 28:20; Num 21:2; Judg 11:30–31; 1 Sam 1:11). Some scholars have, however, cited parallels with Gentile customs.[4846] Greeks would also be familiar with vows and votive offerings.[4847] Male followers of Isis (most often noted of priests) shaved their heads;[4848] Jewish people recognized this as a familiar pagan practice (Ep Jer 31).[4849] At Cenchreae, where there was an Isis sanctuary,[4850] some observers might have thus thought of the shaved Isis worshipers when seeing Paul.[4851] Apuleius was later initiated into the Isis cult near Corinth (Metam. 11); apparently, Cenchreae had a sanctuary “among warehouses on the south dock.”[4852] Isis worship was popular from the fourth century B.C.E. to the fourth century C.E., peaking in the second century C.E.[4853] The cult appealed to women,[4854] though the majority of cultic personnel and even members remained male;[4855] judging from the many portrayals of her with Harpocrates, many may have been interested in Isis’s role as mother.[4856] Although popular elsewhere, the cult faced hostility in Rome till the mid-first century.[4857] Traditional Romans mistrusted the Isis cult,[4858] sometimes portraying it as immoral;[4859] it nevertheless attracted Roman adherents even in Rome.[4860] Banned in the first century B.C.E., it eventually became fully Roman by some point in the second century C.E.[4861] Although Corinth prided itself on its connections with Rome, the Isis cult undoubtedly made headway faster in Corinth. For Isis’s linking with and assimilation to other deities, see comment on Acts 8:10.

An association with Isis, however, is not plausible here and would not have occurred to anyone in the narrative world who was remotely connected with Paul. Jews, including those in Egypt, were naturally less sanguine about Isis than were Gentile observers; the Jewish Sibylline Oracles denounce her and predict her eschatological judgment (Sib. Or. 5.484); she (5.486) and Serapis (5.487–88) would be forgotten, for they are not gods (5.491).

Other Gentile practices could be cited here. People often shaved their heads or cut their hair short for mourning;[4862] Greek mourning required the cutting of at least a lock of hair.[4863] Heads could also be shaved for shame, such as one culture’s alleged shaving of adulteresses.[4864] (Shaved heads themselves were humiliating;[4865] some were embarrassed even by baldness.)[4866] Recently freed slaves in Rome might have shaved heads (Polyb. 30.18.3).[4867] Hygiene might not lead to such shaving, since other methods were used to remove lice infestations.[4868]

Although Luke’s pervasive use of Israel’s Scriptures shows that his ideal audience is biblically informed, it is plausible that some members of his initial real audience would hear of Paul’s practice in light of such Gentile customs. Yet such customs do not comport well with the closest analogies that Luke provides with Gentile figures for Paul—namely, philosophic sages. According to legend, Pythagoras did not cut his hair (and followed some other practices similar to those of biblical Nazirites).[4869] Stoic and Cynic philosophers might refuse to shave their beards.[4870]

THE HISTORICAL-THEOLOGICAL QUESTION

Certainly Luke emphasizes Paul’s personal law-keeping practice more than Paul does in his letters.[4871] This fits his apologetic connection of the Pauline mission with Judaism as an ancient religion rooted in the faith of patriarchs and prophets (and useful in Roman courts, Acts 18:15). Further, by emphasizing Peter’s and James’s support for the Gentile mission (10:28, 47–48; 11:17–18; 15:13–21) and Paul’s solidarity with his Jewish heritage (18:18; 21:26), he is able to challenge the Jewish-Gentile rift with which the church struggled (probably addressed, e.g., in Paul’s own letter to the Roman believers). It was good rhetorical practice to use characters in such a way that they would carry the most weight—for example, a normally cautious elder advocating a hard stand.[4872] Luke thus emphasizes Peter’s role in reaching Gentiles (10:1–11:18) and Paul’s fidelity to Judaism. Because Judaism as a whole valued faithful practice of the law, Paul’s behavior would also provide apologetic value for Jewish observers, as in 16:3.[4873] Reporting Paul’s practice here is useful for Luke: it guards against the notion that Paul compromised personal convictions when accommodating the Jerusalem church’s request in 21:24–26.

Nevertheless, because Luke has a reason to emphasize Paul’s keeping of the law more than does Paul, must we assume that Luke has invented the details? After all, Luke emphasizes not only Paul’s law-keeping practice but also Paul’s personal practice in general (with some exceptions, e.g., 1 Cor 9:1–18) more than does Paul. This tendency to emphasize lifestyle and not just teaching inheres in the nature of historical narrative. Luke is also accused of presenting Paul’s conflicts with synagogues more harshly than does Paul. Is it likelier that Luke invents both the conflict and the congruence for his agendas (yet fails to reconcile them) or that he draws on divergent aspects of a Jewish apostle’s controversial ministry among Gentiles (the tensions of which might be more easily resolved with a larger context)?

Some scholars find Paul’s shaving of his head historically incredible in view of the stand they believe he takes against the law; as Conzelmann declares, “One is not dealing with the historical Paul here at all,” and so one need not be troubled over incompatibility with Paul’s letters.[4874]

This position, however, appears to read an early Lutheran Protestant reaction against sixteenth-century (Christian) legalism back into Paul’s relationship with Judaism; Paul was not against practicing the law (see, e.g., Rom 3:27–31; 7:12–16; 10:6–8 [with its basis in Deut 30:11–14]) but against abusing it as if it were a means to justify oneself before God by one’s own obedience.[4875] Why would Paul change his own cultural expressions of devotion, apart from occasions when he was accommodating Gentiles (1 Cor 9:21) or withstanding those who abused these practices (Gal 2:3)? As Bruce comments, “That Paul’s conversion to Christianity necessitated his giving up all his ancestral customs, including such a voluntary act of private devotion as a Nazirite vow, is a curious idea which should be entertained only on the basis of strong and explicit evidence of a kind that is not forthcoming.”[4876] Just as Gentiles were not to become circumcised, Jews were not to become uncircumcised (1 Cor 7:18–19; Gal 5:6; 6:15), a prescription that for Paul would entail retaining his Jewish identity. Subsequent Gentile readers have naturally focused on only one side of this picture; Paul’s break with Judaism has been overestimated, because scholars have anachronistically read him in light of later Gentile Christian history.[4877]

Further, do letters always reflect all aspects of one’s personal practice, especially when the only parts of them that seem opposed to the law are polemicizing against this abuse of the law?[4878] Hill doubts that there was ever a fully “law-free mission to the Gentiles,” noting that “even Paul expected of his Gentile converts obedience to some (indeed many) Jewish laws.”[4879] Further, Paul explicitly says that he practices the law for cultural identification (1 Cor 9:20; cf. 2 Cor 11:24),[4880] although, in the case of a voluntary vow, it is probably more an expression of personal devotion in the forms of his heritage than a missiological identification.[4881] Paul continued to explicitly affirm his Jewishness and solidarity with his people (Rom 9:3–4; 11:1; 2 Cor 11:22).[4882] Indeed, some who emphasize the Jewishness of Paul’s letters affirm, for example, that “the very Jewish Paul whom Luke portrayed in Acts can be seen also in Romans.”[4883] In the end, many scholars today do see such expressions as compatible with the historical Paul.[4884] See further discussion at Acts 16:3 and comment on Paul and the law at Acts 13:39.

PAUL’S PRACTICE AND BIBLICAL VOWS

Luke would not make up this vow; he does not “even trouble to tell us that Paul carried out the vow, leaving us to infer this.”[4885] But would Luke have understood the details of this vow and explained its nature clearly and accurately in his narrative? That he explained it clearly there is reason to doubt unless he and his audience share some understanding of vows that we lack; but the proposition that he understood and reported it accurately, though disputed, remains possible.

Nazirites grew their hair during the period of their vow (Num 6:5), then shaved at the sanctuary and offered the hair to God (6:18). This means that if Paul followed the rules technically (many in the Diaspora may have chosen to offer their own vows, not technically Nazirite, in ways that would not require this trip), he would not shave until he reached the temple in Jerusalem. Is Luke ignorant of this practice, reporting the shaving in the wrong place?[4886] This is unlikely, since he understands the Jerusalem-related practice later (Acts 21:24).[4887]

Extant Jewish tradition reinforces and develops the biblical picture of what was expected of Nazirites. Nazirites completed their vows and had their heads shaved in Jerusalem.[4888] This practice might also require arriving for sacrifices thirty days before the shaving of their heads.[4889] Later rabbis also assume the continuation of this biblical practice of shaving at the door of the sanctuary.[4890]

It is possible that Paul offers a preliminary cutting before beginning his vow, with the later shaving being implied. Why might he shave his head before a vow? Possibly for practical considerations: if he would not have his hair cut for some time, it made sense to cut his hair before beginning the vow.[4891] Greeks might shave their heads at the beginning of a vow and wear their hair long until the vow’s completion (Hdt. 1.82).[4892] On this reading, there are two possibilities for when Paul could have later shaved his head in Jerusalem. Paul might go to Jerusalem shortly after this vow; this journey to Jerusalem is not explicitly mentioned, but his movements might imply it (see comment on Acts 18:22). If so, he might complete his vow there, shaving his head again.

If Paul does not plan to visit Jerusalem in Acts 18:22, the likelihood of a preliminary haircut might be increased: if his hair will not be shaved for two years (with the vow in 21:23–24), he ought to have it cut before beginning.[4893] His uncut hair would provide a visible symbol to the Jerusalem church of his personal commitment to Jewish piety.[4894] (It would also suit his role as a Christian “philosopher” in 19:9, because many philosophers wore long hair, including those who did not regard hair length as important.)[4895] Yet two years later Paul evidently purifies himself only for a short period of time and not in completion of his own vow (21:23–24); the narrative does not read as if Paul’s own vow is only then being completed, though this is a possible interpretation. Since Luke does not explicitly mention the trip to Jerusalem in 18:22, informed readers who understood Nazirite vows might assume the completion in Acts 21 (but historically it could have come earlier).

Hearers ignorant of Num 6 might assume that Paul shaved his head only once; they would not then envision him ministering for two or three years and finally entering Jerusalem with long hair in Acts 21:15–26. Philosophers, as mentioned, often wore long hair,[4896] as did statues of gods, heroes of old,[4897] and many barbarians.[4898] Those who did understand Num 6 might recognize why Paul needed to be “purified” with the others in 21:24.

Even if Paul shaved before the vow in 18:18, would he have had to wait for a trip to the temple to shave again? Judeans would have believed so, but Diaspora Jews may have offered free vows to God that did not depend on biblical Nazirite categories. After all, vows were widespread in antiquity and in no way limited to the Nazirite format emphasized in Judea. In this case, the shaving of 18:18 could either precede or follow the period of the vow. Thus many German scholars think “of a Nazirite-like private vow,”[4899] though Haenchen reasonably complains that this interpretation “was invented for our passage only.”[4900] Haenchen is right about the evidence, but very little of our Jewish evidence referring to vows (mostly Palestinian) provides the perspective of Mediterranean Diaspora Jews. Certainly not all vows even in Judea were Nazirite vows; one could make all sorts of vows of abstinence.[4901]

A Nazirite vow here, fulfilled two years later in Jerusalem, appears problematic and unlikely. If Paul somehow contracted corpse impurity,[4902] he would need to have his head shaved and begin again (Num 6:9–12); although this interruption technically also requires the involvement of the temple (6:10–12),[4903] such involvement would be impossible in the Diaspora. Biblical law made some procedural exceptions for those who lived far from the temple (Deut 12:21; 14:24), and it is likely that many Diaspora Jews had to extrapolate such exceptions.

Other scholars argue that the cutting was acceptable anywhere, so long as one made sacrifice in Jerusalem, as they often believe that Paul did in Acts 18:22.[4904] One wonders why it would be better to carry hair to Jerusalem in a container than on one’s head, but the narrative affords us no details. Diaspora Jews may have followed this practice for convenience as well as because of the influence of Greek customs, where one could bring an offering of hair.[4905] But that one could make the initial vow (as opposed to the final shaving) anywhere, merely completing it in Jerusalem (according to most sources, for a minimum of one month), is not in dispute.[4906] Further, even the rabbis allowed some deviation: some felt that lifelong Nazirites should cut their hair once a month as in a succession of Nazirite vows (m. Naz. 1:4) or, in a later source, once a year (y. Naz. 1:2, §6).[4907]

In either case, and whether he followed strict Judean practice for Nazirite vows or a more practical voluntary vow based on Diaspora practice, we see Paul’s devotion expressed in a fairly conventional manner (at least from the perspective of Luke’s Diaspora audience).[4908] Consequently, Luke also informs us in advance that Paul’s later act of identification with the Nazirites (Acts 21:23–24) is not simply a ruse to pretend that he allows Jews to keep the law but a fair portrayal of his own Jewish convictions.

CENCHREAE

Why do we find Paul in Cenchreae? If Paul intended to sail from Corinth eastward, Cenchreae was the port to use; Athens had its famous Piraeus and Antioch its Seleucia (13:4), and Corinth had two well-known harbor towns. Cenchreae was Corinth’s eastern port, near Epidaurus (Strabo 8.6.4); it was a village (κώμη) about seventy stadia from Corinth (8.6.22).[4909] Other educated persons in the Mediterranean world knew of Cenchreae as near Corinth[4910] and as being its port.[4911] It was “the most famous town of all the Corinthians, bordering upon the seas called Aegean and Saronica.”[4912]

Paul would have taken the road from Corinth south to Cenchreae; the road north would have led to the harbor town Lechaeum on the Gulf of Corinth, which was larger but for travel to the west.[4913] The isthmus had favorable breezes for sailing.[4914] The port was smaller than but probably comparable to Rome’s busy port: “Arrivals and departures by sea,” Aristides said of Rome, “never cease.”[4915] On the isthmus and trade more generally, see discussion in the introduction to Corinth, at Acts 18:1–17, above.

Corinth’s own territorium within Achaia extended about 340 square kilometers.[4916] A number of people in Roman Corinth’s immediate vicinity (perhaps about 20,000) lived in smaller settlements, of which about forty are known. Of these, many were farms or villas, but five were significant towns; Cenchreae was one of these.[4917] The largest, Tenea, occupied 60 or more hectares, with perhaps 6,600 inhabitants; Cenchreae apparently occupied 40, with perhaps 4,400 inhabitants.[4918] Cenchreae’s harbor was small by comparison with many others: 98,000 square feet versus Caesarea Maritima’s 656,000 square feet and the 328,000 square feet of Corinth’s northwestern harbor, Lechaeum.[4919] But it was widely used by a variety of travelers, including merchants and pilgrims (Dio Chrys. [Favorinus] Or. 37.8).

Cenchreae exhibited the same features of paganism encountered throughout the cities Paul had visited.[4920] Pausanias notes a temple of Artemis containing her aged wooden image, approached on the road to Cenchreae. In the town itself “are a temple and a stone statue of Aphrodite, after it on the mole running into the sea a bronze image of Poseidon, and at the other end of the harbour sanctuaries of Asclepius and of Isis.”[4921] The nearby sanctuary of Asclepius at Epidaurus was particularly famous.[4922] Apuleius later depicts a πλοιαφέσια, or boat festival, at Cenchreae.[4923] The harborside sanctuaries included one for Isis (at the southwest end of the harbor)[4924] and an Aphrodision (at the northeast end).[4925]

Given Corinth’s naval connections, the emphasis on Poseidon at Corinth and its harbors is not surprising.[4926] More coin types relate to Poseidon than to any other deity in Corinth.[4927] In addition to a major temple at Isthmia and a sanctuary at Lechaeum, Poseidon had a temple at Cenchreae.[4928] Aphrodite, of equal importance in Corinth, was also associated with the sea because she was supposed to have emerged from its foam.[4929]

In keeping with the religious openness and despite the religious competition, a significant house congregation emerged at Cenchreae by the time Paul later wrote his letter to the Romans from Corinth. He entrusted the letter to a prominent person in the church named Phoebe, who was a patroness[4930] and some sort of minister[4931] in the church at Cenchreae (Rom 16:1). Apparently some other wealthy members of the community of Corinth lived there.[4932]

(2) Beginning Ministry in Ephesus (18:19–21)

The missionaries’ arrival in Ephesus would be at the famous harbor;[4933] travelers to the interior of Asia often landed there first.[4934] When the engineers under Attalus Philadelphus in the second century B.C.E. narrowed Ephesus’s harbor, silt unexpectedly began to pile up, making the harbor shallower.[4935] Problems with silt persisted over succeeding centuries; because of silt deposits, the city grew farther from the sea,[4936] and eventually (in a later period) Ephesus had to be moved to a location about three kilometers distant.[4937] Still, it was reputed to be Asia’s largest harbor.[4938] At this time, those leaving the harbor could walk on the Arkadiane Road, which led up to it.[4939]

EPHESUS’S STRATEGIC VALUE

Why did Paul and his colleagues target Ephesus? One purpose may have been to provide a geographic link between the churches of South Galatia for which Paul needed to provide some guidance and churches in Macedonia and Achaia.[4940] More important, however, was that this was a strategic city for the gospel, just like Corinth; Paul had apparently even considered targeting it earlier (Acts 16:6). Asia was the empire’s “richest and most populous” province[4941] because of its natural resources, industry, and location on trade routes.[4942] Apart from prosperous Corinth, in the imperial period the Greek mainland became “something of a social and economic backwater,” the most “vibrant area of Greek culture” being “western Asia Minor.”[4943] Although Pergamum was the capital, Ephesus was easily the leading city and included the seat of the proconsul, or governor.[4944]

Ephesus was the greatest emporium (ἐμπόριον, Strabo 12.8.15) in the territory of Asia west of the Taurus Mountains (14.1.24).[4945] Scholars diverge widely in their population estimates for first-century Ephesus as for other cities: 400,000 on the higher end (with few advocates)[4946] and 200,000 to 250,000 on the more common and likely lower end.[4947] The figures are only guesses, based on ancient estimates that could include exaggerations, so still lower figures (below) are also possible. The lower modern estimates based on population density, however, are equally fallible; since we do not know sufficiently the density of the ancient cities (and not always their size, especially beyond their walls), we cannot reliably estimate their population. Archaeological evidence demonstrates that people lived in a more crowded manner than some scholars have estimated.[4948] Ephesus was growing by Paul’s day (under Julio-Claudian emperors) but especially after the end of the first century, and so Paul arrived before its period of greatest growth.[4949] Its population may have been as high as two hundred thousand by 150 C.E. but may have been closer to a hundred thousand in earlier times.[4950] Since all estimates are guesses, our estimates may be tens of thousands off.[4951]

More objectively, most scholars agree in ranking it third or, more often, fourth in population in the empire, after Rome and Alexandria and usually just behind Antioch, and third behind Rome and Alexandria in strategic importance to the empire.[4952] By the middle of the first century, Seneca called it the second largest city of the East (i.e., third in the empire).[4953] Ephesus would be the most strategic mission in which Paul engaged since leaving Antioch, in terms of population centers and the effect on the thought of the eastern empire.

The Romans considered its location strategic.[4954] They based “a college of tabellarii (messengers or couriers)” in Ephesus, making it the center for Roman communications in Asia, the hub of its courier routes.[4955] This was also the center for tax collection in Asia, and the center of an assize district.[4956] The government quarter built there included a “state agora” and a sanctuary, probably for the deified Julius and the goddess Roma (Dio Cass. 51.20.6).[4957] An Augustus temple lay on the far south of the city.[4958]

Ephesus was fairly representative demographically, like most other Greco-Roman cities.[4959] It was a free city rather than a Roman colony, in contrast to some of Paul’s targeted cities, but was the seat of provincial government, hosting the proconsul of Asia, as already mentioned.[4960] The city was originally an Ionian colony and hence traditionally related to Athens.[4961] Paul’s philosophic experience in Athens (Acts 17:18–32) and presumably in Corinth afterward thus would help prepare him for the most effective strategy in Ephesus; such preparation may have also been one providential reason for the delay in his ministry there (16:6). The Ionians were considered “the most distinguished” in their Greek heritage.[4962]

FOREIGNERS IN EPHESUS

Many foreign religions, however, had settled in Ephesus, which was to be expected in any cosmopolitan harbor city. Egyptian cults abounded, with special attention to the Hellenistic syncretistic deity Serapis (I. Eph. 1213, 1230–32).[4963] Some Egyptian presence there is attested as early as the seventh century B.C.E.,[4964] with the worship of Egyptian deities attested from the early third century B.C.E. to the fourth century C.E.[4965] Ephesus included a plethora of competing groups, many of them probably divided by ethnicity; some scholars argue that Greeks, earlier inhabitants, Jews, Lydians, Phrygians, Cretans, and others all would be vying for influence.[4966] The city’s basic civic identity was Greek, though a later writer could complain about how many citizens were taking Roman names; ancestry from Hellenic colonists was not enough, he insisted (Philost. Ep. Apoll. 71).[4967]

It is therefore hardly surprising that we find a Jewish community in Ephesus;[4968] we even read (later) of “synagogue rulers” there (I. Eph. 4.1251).[4969] Jews had lived in Ephesus for a long time and were, if Josephus is accurate, apparently called Ephesians alongside the indigenes (Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.39). Ephesian Jews may have become comfortable with their environment; the families that had long lived there apparently became citizens of Ephesus without compromising their customs (Ant. 12.125–26). In the first century B.C.E., they were granted special rights there by the Roman governor and others (14.221–30; 16.167–68, 172–73), confirmed by Ephesians themselves (14.262–64). That Josephus reports no controversies in his own time (which was full of difficulties for Jewish people in many locations) suggests assimilation and tolerance.[4970] Archaeological evidence suggests that Jews were not very distinctive there but integrated into the broader society.[4971] Jews there, as in Sardis and most of the rest of Asia, were probably able to achieve significant status in local society.[4972] There is no reason to suppose that Paul’s Jewishness would exclude him from status (Acts 19:31) or expose him to the prejudices more dominant in Greece and Macedonia.[4973] Jewishness would constitute a liability only when viewed as insensitive to local traditions (as in 19:26–27, 34).

PAUL’S DEPARTURE IN 18:19

Paul’s departure from his friends Priscilla and Aquila could be construed to mean that he stopped living with them, but it can also announce Paul’s departure from Ephesus that Luke will narrate on a different level in 18:21. On the latter reading, Paul left them in Ephesus, where they continued to offer instruction to individuals in the synagogue there (18:26). That this couple did travel to Ephesus, where they eventually continued to minister with Paul, is indeed confirmed by Paul’s own greetings from them and their Ephesian house church to the Corinthians (1 Cor 16:19; cf. 16:8).[4974]

If, as seems likely, Luke is saying that Paul left them in Ephesus, his continuing ministry in Ephesus at this point (Acts 18:19b–21) functions as a digression or afterthought (like the intrusive mention of Paul’s vow at the end of 18:18). Stating it here enables Luke to avoid reintroducing the couple for farewells (cf. 18:18) at 18:21, since he will continue on with his focus on Paul in 18:22–23.

It has been argued that Paul could not have started the church in so brief a time, though perhaps Priscilla and Aquila did so while he was gone (18:21–23).[4975] Whether Paul started the church depends on how we define “start”: he began preaching there in 18:19–21 and resumed his ministry in the synagogue, gaining a number of disciples, in 19:8–9. In any case, Priscilla and Aquila were coworkers, and neither they nor Paul would have seen their continuing work in his absence as competition; apparently, Paul reckoned as his own even those he had reached at second hand (Col 2:1). At least some believers are meeting in Acts 18:27 (“the siblings”), though they are, it seems, still part of the synagogue (at least Priscilla and Aquila were attending there, 18:26).[4976]

PAUL’S DEPARTURE IN 18:20–21

This is not the only occasion on which Paul avoided spending time in Asia and accepting Ephesian hospitality (see 20:16); pointing out this behavior here may make Paul’s later avoidance seem less suspicious. Luke also notes that crowds had tried to compel Jesus to stay with them (Luke 4:42) but he protested that he must go to other cities to fulfill his calling (4:43).

Whatever Paul’s later troubles in Ephesus (see comment on Acts 20:16), he did not force himself on God’s will there, either at this time (Acts 18:21) or earlier (16:6). Whatever the later controversies, Luke reminds his audience (who may not have known many of the details of the goings-on in Asia) that it was God who equipped Paul’s ministry there. Paul puts God’s will first (16:6–8), here perhaps fulfilling a vow (18:18; cf. 21:24–26).

Ideally, when declining a request even to one of significantly lower status, one was expected to say, “if possible” rather than, “No”; the latter was considered harsh and ungrateful (Cic. Att. 8.4). Paul’s “if possible” here is, however, genuine, as demonstrated when he returns (Acts 19:8). Commentators often note that the phrase “if God wills” was a familiar Greek phrase,[4977] and the examples they have offered could be multiplied.[4978] Its equivalent is common in Latin—for example, in Fronto’s correspondence,[4979] along with equivalent phrases such as “if the gods prove favorable.”[4980] Paul (1 Cor 4:19; 16:7; cf. Rom 1:10) and other Christians (Heb 6:3; Jas 4:15; cf. Acts 21:14; 1 Pet 5:2) used it as well.[4981]

The Western variant in Acts 18:21 provides a plausible reason for Paul’s haste (comparable to, but very possibly based on confusion with, 20:16, where Paul was hastening past Ephesus to be at the Pentecost festival in Jerusalem).[4982] Its information is probably correct, because if Paul intended only to report back to Antioch (as in 14:26; 15:30), Caesarea was far out of his way; but this incongruity in 18:22 could also explain the variant, which may represent a reasonable inference. We know that Paul did observe the festivals, but not always in Jerusalem (20:6). If it was a festival he was trying to reach quickly, some scholars suggest Passover; the seas officially opened March 5–10, but Passover fell on March 22 in 53 C.E. (in early April in 52).[4983] Whether it was possible for him to have left Corinth, stopped for at least one Sabbath synagogue service in Ephesus, and reached Jerusalem all in this short time is uncertain (perhaps failure to do so would explain lack of more detail concerning his agenda in 18:22, or perhaps his Jerusalem trip was not of interest to Luke for other reasons).

(3) Revisiting Judea, Antioch, and Phrygia (18:22–23)

Paul visited Caesarea, probably Jerusalem, and then Antioch and the churches that he had earlier started in southern Asia Minor. (That he nowhere visits Cyprus, where he previously ministered, may be because his former companion Barnabas could be presumed to take care of any converts there.)

DID PAUL VISIT JERUSALEM ON THE JOURNEY IN 18:22?

Most scholars suspect that Paul’s “greeting the church” in 18:22 refers to the church in Jerusalem, not just in Caesarea.[4984] Why would Paul sail two hundred miles out of his way south to Caesarea, only to travel north to Antioch by land afterward, if Antioch was his only destination? Other explanations are possible: winds from the north prevail in the summer; when those winds blow from the northeast, a landing at Antioch’s port would be more difficult than a landing at Caesarea.[4985] Or much less likely (given Antioch’s size), perhaps no immediate passage to Antioch was available.[4986] But if, as some argue, Paul was traveling during the summer (when there would be no festivals in Jerusalem), he would have known about the summer northeasters before booking passage, and his urgency in 18:21 seems at least a bit more difficult to explain, as (other factors being equal) he could have left at a more suitable time.[4987]

Since Paul sailed for “Syria” (18:18), we might suppose that Antioch was his only goal. But this argument is inconclusive. Luke speaks of the province of Syria, which included Judea (Luke 2:2–3) and hence Caesarea as well. Reference to Syria does not therefore resolve the full extent of Paul’s planned destination.[4988] Caesarea (not only Antioch) must be a deliberate destination: a ship would not sail from Ephesus to Caesarea without stops at other ports to gather supplies, yet Luke hurries past them, reporting only Caesarea.[4989] If he reports Caesarea, it may be because it was more significant for Paul’s itinerary than were the other stops.[4990]

Once Paul went to Caesarea and visited friends there, however, it would only make sense to visit Jerusalem before traveling northward, unless he had good reason not to do so. It is also possible that he planned to visit Jerusalem all along (as stated in the Western text of Acts 18:21). As noted above, a trip to Jerusalem would, under normal circumstances, make the “detour” to Caesarea more explicable.

Most important, a trip to Jerusalem also fits the statement that he “went up” to the church (21:12; from Antioch, 15:2; from Caesarea, 11:2; 21:15; 24:11; 25:1, 9) and then “went down” to Antioch.[4991] Luke employs ἀναβαίνω for ascending to heaven or to a rooftop, but elsewhere for going up to the hill country of Judea (Luke 2:4) or up to the temple mount (18:10; Acts 3:1), but by far most often for going up to Jerusalem generally. Certainly, “going down” does not suit a trip from coastal Caesarea to Antioch. Thus many scholars are relatively certain that Luke implies a trip to Jerusalem here,[4992] as the Western text indicates more explicitly (see comment on Acts 18:21).

If Paul traveled to Jerusalem, Luke’s reluctance to explicitly discuss the trip shows that he did not invent it. Some think Luke mistaken in believing the trip occurred, however, noting that Paul’s letters allow for only three trips to Jerusalem (Gal 1:15–2:10).[4993] Yet if the last of these trips is the Jerusalem Council (see introduction, above, to Acts 15), nothing in Galatians, regardless of that letter’s date, limits the number of visits after that point.[4994] Some others think that Paul visited Jerusalem to offer sacrifice for fulfilling his vow in Acts 18:18; this is quite possible but depends on the interpretation of that verse.[4995]

If, however, Paul visited Jerusalem or planned to do so, why does Luke omit this visit when recording other apparently less significant details? Luke probably implies “went up to Jerusalem” in his simpler “went up” (so the NRSV), but he is not as explicit as he could be. It is possible that Paul faced an unwelcome situation in Jerusalem or a warning of it in Caesarea, and this situation would have required too much space for explanation or proved more embarrassing than necessary for Luke’s narrative.[4996] (This might be especially the case if Paul preached again controversially and Luke wishes to emphasize that Paul cannot be accused of stirring up trouble in Jerusalem; cf. 24:5–6, 11–12.) If the trouble is with the elite, Luke may feel that he has foreshadowed the later trouble in Jerusalem sufficiently and will address that trouble more fully only once he reaches the final journey (paralleling Jesus’s final journey in the Gospel). But the elite might not know that Paul had come and, more embarrassing to Luke—and hence less likely to be emphasized—would be trouble with the Jerusalem church. Such early signs of trouble would help explain Paul’s expectation of danger in Jerusalem and concern about his work’s reception with the church there (Rom 15:31; though cf. prophetic revelation in Acts 20:23; 21:11–13). Luke elsewhere may avoid unnecessarily embarrassing (Acts 20:16) or time-consuming (9:23) digressions.[4997] Of course, an alternative explanation could be the opposite one: the journey proved uneventful. Since Paul’s journeys were rarely uneventful in view of his preaching, however, it is somewhat more likely that Luke either lacked detailed knowledge of the events or that they were negative yet too complex for Luke to begin discussing. On “greetings,” see comment on Acts 21:7.

STRENGTHENING CHURCHES IN PHRYGIA (18:22–23)

Paul spent time in Antioch, probably because it was the center of his Gentile mission (13:1–4; 14:26–28; 15:2) and perhaps also, depending on the seasons, because it was now inadvisable to travel by sea or try to cross the Taurus Mountains by land.[4998] If he stayed in Antioch partly for seasonal reasons, however, he probably had timed the arrival so as to be with his friends there and perhaps to meet the church’s new adherents.

Paul returned by land so that he could control his own itinerary, strengthening the churches. Perhaps envisioning the collection (Rom 15:25; 1 Cor 16:1; 2 Cor 8–9) after his visit to Jerusalem (Acts 18:22), he may have wished to prepare churches for it, and the churches in Galatia were among the first to know of it (1 Cor 16:1; cf. Gal 2:10). If he had already written Galatians, he also might now seek to consolidate his position in Galatia.[4999]

Luke returns to his mention of “passing through” regions (Acts 18:23) in 19:1, after the digression about Apollos in Ephesus. Luke’s description here requires Paul (and presumably companions, following normal safety protocol and his usual practice) to pass through the Cilician Gates on toward Ephesus in Asia; this region was passable only during late spring or early summer.[5000] If Paul sailed from Corinth (18:18) shortly after the seas opened officially in March, this may now be the summer of 53 C.E. The journey on foot from Judea (whether Jerusalem or Caesarea) through the Cilician Gates to Ephesus was more than five hundred miles, and Paul might well not arrive before the fall of 53 C.E. The “succession of participles” appears to communicate haste in 18:22–23,[5001] which verses together summarize a vast journey in an unusually terse report.

The phrasing in 18:23 differs from that in 16:6, often leading scholars to conclude that Luke uses “Phrygia” more broadly here. In 16:6 Luke refers to Phrygia-Galatia—that is, Lycaonic and Phrygian Galatia—an area evangelized in Acts 13–14. Here, by contrast, “Galatia” may mean the same province as in 16:6, but “Phrygia” may extend the designation beyond Galatia proper into Asia, toward Ephesus.[5002] After visiting the churches of South Galatia,[5003] Paul could have made his way west in Phrygia through Apamea and the Meander valley toward the coast of Asia.[5004] Paul did not directly evangelize the Phrygian region of the Lycus and Meander valleys (Col 2:1; 4:12–13), but this does not exclude him from having passed through them before they were evangelized. Other scholars argue that he need not have even traveled through those valleys en route to Ephesus; his passage through the “upper country” of Acts 19:1 could fit “the high road leading to the Cestrus Valley.”[5005]

Paul’s mission here is especially aimed at strengthening disciples, as in earlier summaries (14:22–23; 15:32, 41, the other NT uses; for a relevant cognate, see Luke 22:32; in Paul’s letters, Paul wanting to strengthen churches in Rom 1:11; 1 Thess 3:2); he had done so in Phrygia-Galatia in 16:5–6. Luke picks up the language of “passing through” regions (18:23) in 19:1, after recounting the activity of Apollos (whose role prepares for the next story in 19:1–7).[5006]

II. PRISCILLA AND AQUILA HELP APOLLOS (18:24–28)

Apollos is equipped with the Spirit, knowledge of the Scripture, and rhetorical skill, but his understanding is inadequate, depending only on John’s baptism. Paul’s associates Priscilla and Aquila help surmount this deficiency, after which he is more fully prepared.

(1) Introduction

That Paul’s colleagues help Apollos emphasizes the unity of the church and the apostolic priority of Paul’s calling and mission over Apollos’s gifts (see comment on Acts 18:24). From 18:19–20:38 and especially in 18:19–19:41, the geographic focus is on Ephesus. Thus Priscilla and Aquila’s instruction of Apollos in Ephesus and its aftermath (18:24–28) warrant as much space as some of Paul’s long journeys outside Ephesus.[5007] This seems odd to us in light of Paul’s letters because on some sections (esp. Acts 20:1–3) we are exceptionally well informed from Paul’s letters (though about others, such as 18:22–23, we know next to nothing aside from Luke’s terse summary). Whether this geographic focus indicates a source from Ephesus[5008] or simply a common historical method of keeping material coherent,[5009] it does provide unity to the section.

The accounts in 18:24–28 and 19:1–7, however, which Luke skillfully places side by side, also provide some unity to the section.[5010] In both instances we encounter disciples who know John’s baptism but lack Christian baptism, yet the former case (apparently) does not require rebaptism whereas the latter does. Both paragraphs emphasize the inadequacy of John’s baptism, but John’s baptism could lead to faith and, with Christian instruction and empowerment, did so here. This fits the role of John in Luke’s Gospel as well. (Possibly a group of John’s followers continued for some time in Ephesus and elsewhere, but we may gather from Luke that they tended to be open to the Christian message.)[5011]

Why was Apollos not rebaptized as the disciples of 19:1–7 were? Like the others, the only water baptism Apollos knows is John’s, not baptism in Jesus’s name. But he apparently knew about and advocated Jesus (see discussion at Acts 18:25), which is less likely in the case of John’s Ephesian disciples (19:4).[5012] Further, Apollos was “boiling in the Spirit” (18:25), which might also refer to having the Spirit.[5013] Since John’s water baptism merely prefigured Jesus’s baptism in the Spirit, this Spirit baptism was greater and more necessary than the water baptism that symbolized it (8:15–16); though Cornelius was water-baptized after receiving the Spirit, he was not rebaptized. Apollos, on the other hand, had a symbolic water baptism and, in addition, the greater baptism of the Spirit; Cornelius and the Ephesian disciples each lacked one of these components.[5014] Similarly, those among Jesus’s twelve apostles baptized by John probably did not require rebaptism, especially once all of them received the Spirit. (For John’s ministry as a salvation-historical transition point, see Luke 16:16, although its exact sense is debated.)

Some scholars suggest that the narrative puts not only John and his movement in their place but also Apollos, because we know that some (at least in Corinth) preferred Apollos to Paul (1 Cor 1:12; 3:4–7; 4:6).[5015] In Corinth, their followers apparently divided into schools as disciples of rhetoricians or philosophers did.[5016] But they do not seem to have taught competing doctrinal systems (cf. 16:12), and so there is no reason to believe that Apollos and Paul established rival “schools” that outlasted their own deaths. Unless we date Acts before the 70s (as a minority of scholars do) it seems difficult to suppose that rivalry among their followers persisted in Luke’s day. It is still more difficult to suppose that the rivalry spread beyond Corinth. Because Paul and Apollos themselves had a collegial relationship (16:12), the Corinthian problem reflected more a local response than hostility in their own relationship.[5017] It is possible that Luke knows of the earlier conflict and responds to it, but the possibility should not be overemphasized.

Paul’s letters confirm the connection of Apollos with both Ephesus, where he later returned (1 Cor 16:8, 12; cf. Acts 18:24), and Corinth, where he clearly made a positive impression (1 Cor 1:12; 3:4–6, 22; 16:12; cf. Acts 18:27), as here. Although he was later invited to visit Corinth again with Timothy and his colleagues (1 Cor 16:10; cf. Acts 19:22), he was not able to do so as yet (1 Cor 16:12).

Priscilla and Aquila’s instruction of Apollos more fully matches some of Luke’s other reports about the apostolic movement. Although God sovereignly works through believers in Jesus outside the central apostolic movement (as in Acts 18:25–26; cf. Luke 9:49–50), the apostles and their associates apparently desire to connect these movements to the apostolic movement with its continuity of witness and teaching (cf. 8:14; 11:22–23; 18:26–28), and certainly they must have continuity with the experience of the Spirit (8:15–16; 19:2–6).

(2) Apollos from Alexandria (18:24)

Though Luke’s focus is on Paul, Apollos was too important a figure to omit. But Apollos learns from Paul’s colleagues, and Luke again portrays the relative harmony of early Christian leaders.[5018]

APOLLOS’S BACKGROUND

Like Paul and most of his other colleagues, Apollos was Jewish.[5019] Egyptian Jews had many “Apollo”-compounded names (see CPJ 3:170), though this practice was rarer for Jews elsewhere.[5020] Most scholars regard “Apollos” as a familiar, friendly contraction for “Apollonius” or (less likely) “Apollodorus”; since the first governor of Egypt under Alexander was named Apollonius, it had been a common name (Arrian Alex. 3.5).[5021] This explains the reading in the D text (“Apollonius” being the more familiar name generally). The variant “Apelles,” found in many Egyptian manuscripts, is probably not original, but it may have been a preference among stricter Egyptian Christians.[5022]

Virtually all commentators agree that Luke’s picture of Apollos fits a highly cultured person;[5023] many believe that those in Corinth most emphasizing “wisdom” and rhetoric would have gravitated toward him.[5024] Because λόγιος can include being “learned” in a general sense (the classical usage, e.g., Arist. Pol. 1267b), some take the term thus in Acts 18:24;[5025] this learning could include training in Philonic-style biblical exegesis (typically allegorical).[5026] It is chronologically possible that Apollos studied directly under Philo (though given the large number of elite Jewish students at the time, this is not probable) and likely that he knew of him;[5027] that Philo reflects and probably helped shape a wider Alexandrian Jewish ethos is certain.[5028] (The preservation of Philo’s writings is not pure happenstance; his Embassy to Gaius reveals that he was a highly respected member of the local Jewish elite.)[5029] But Philo represents only one strand of Alexandrian Judaism. Whereas Philo tried to relate the Jewish Torah to the larger Greco-Roman world and, normally, to maintain peace with the civic structures, others, such as some of the authors of the Sibylline Oracles, used Greek hexameter to develop the Egyptian and Jewish prophetic tradition, often with apocalyptic-type perspectives about judgment less amenable to cultural dialogue.[5030]

Because Apollos is also described as “mighty in the Scriptures,” some scholars take the expression ἀνὴρ λόγιος here as referring to learnedness in Scripture.[5031] But because the specification of Scripture follows and because the phrase on this interpretation thus seems redundant, Luke probably refers to learnedness more generally or a different kind of learnedness.

APOLLOS AS A SKILLED SPEAKER

More commonly, however, scholars associate λόγιος particularly with its narrower association with “eloquence,” a meaning well attested in this period.[5032] (Although it can mean “learned” more generally, as already noted, ancient commentators tended to prefer “eloquent” here [cf. BDAG].) The phrase ἀνὴρ λόγιος, employed here, often applies to someone proficient in rhetoric.[5033] Given the role of both wisdom and speech in 1 Cor 1–4, where Apollos figures heavily, one need not restrict the term’s use to its rhetorical sense; but given Paul’s focus there on wise speech (cf. 1 Cor 1:17–18; 2:1, 4, 13; 4:19–20), that is probably paramount. That general wisdom at least includes rhetorical proficiency may, for an Alexandrian, be taken for granted (see discussion on Alexandria, below).[5034] If Luke, who belongs to the Pauline circle of churches, knows much about Apollos at all, it is reasonable to suppose that he is aware of the latter’s rhetorical skill.

Some have argued that Alexandrian rhetoric, and hence likely that of Apollos, was “energetic, enthusiastic, playing to the tastes of the masses”;[5035] in this case, it might be Paul’s rhetoric rather than that of Apollos that catered to more sophisticated tastes.[5036] Many Greeks despised “Egyptian” rhetoric, though Alexandrian Greeks sought to distance themselves from “Egypt” altogether (see comment below).[5037] But the matter remains open to debate; certainly, even if Paul’s argumentation was sophisticated, his delivery was not (cf. 1 Cor 2:1–5; 2 Cor 10:10; though the lowering of audience expectations was partly conventional).[5038] Alexandria also hosted notable rhetorical schools (see discussion of Alexandria below).

In either case, impressing the Ionians of Ephesus would probably be easier than impressing their cousins in Athens if later reports of the Ionians’ inferior form of rhetoric may be accepted for this period,[5039] and perhaps either form of rhetoric would have impressed the average crowd in a medium-sized synagogue.

“Powerful in Scriptures”[5040] might mean that Apollos was a powerful orator or lecturer concerning Scripture. Rhetorical teachers spoke of rhetoric as δύναμις, or power, because it could persuade.[5041] Thus Philip spoke with both memory skills and powerfully (δυνατῶς, Aeschines Embassy 48); Aristodemus swayed the multitudes because he was powerful in political speech (Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 7.4.5); a good speaker could be “powerful in tongue” (Sir 21:7). Perhaps most important for understanding this passage, Luke speaks of Jesus and Moses as powerful in speech and deeds (Luke 24:19; Acts 7:22);[5042] Moses, indeed, developed his powerful speech along with an Egyptian education (Acts 7:22).[5043] Apollos did not, unlike Paul, work signs, but he was powerful as a speaker.

ALEXANDRIA’S EDUCATION AND JEWISH COMMUNITY

Some of the Hellenist believers in 6:1–7 may have been Alexandrian immigrants, given the representation of Alexandrians among the believers’ debating partners (6:9) and the geographic proximity of this major city with a large Jewish population. That word of the Jesus movement would have reached Alexandria by now (probably before Paul’s missions to Asia, Macedonia, and Achaia) is likely, even though it is not Luke’s focus.[5044]

Alexandria, close to the mouth of the Nile, was the second city of the empire and the greatest city of the East.[5045] Some have even ranked it almost with Rome (Hdn. 4.3.7, but claiming the same for Antioch).[5046] But far more than other giant cities in the empire, Alexandria was well known for its learning opportunities for those with sufficient resources.[5047] The famous library of Alexandria, though it was possibly no longer standing, had been huge (Strabo 2.1.5).[5048] At least by the second century, Alexandria’s university was more prestigious than the ancient schools of Athens.[5049]

Alexandria’s scholarly prowess must have extended to considerable rhetorical training. A later orator, praising characteristics of various cities, noted that Alexandrians were known for “their grammar, geometry, and philosophy.”[5050] In the first century C.E., Alexandria lacked sufficient rhetorical teachers for all the students who wished to study there, but many students found private tutors and learned at public declamations.[5051] Sophists appear more dominant than philosophers in first-century Alexandria.[5052]

Life in Alexandria seems to have valued emotion and vigor rather than the cooler Roman temperament. One speaker (focusing on areas where he thought that Alexandrians needed improvement) complained that Alexandrians were fun-loving and not very serious (Dio Chrys. Or. 32.1), though others saw them as wise and clever (32.2); they wasted their theater on things not beautiful or honorable (32.4). Beautiful as the city was, it was shamefully overenthusiastic about music and horse racing (32.41–42);[5053] like their Macedonian ancestors, its residents became too rowdy when hearing the lyre (32.65). Their speakers were no less boisterous, leading to rowdy lawcourts and to music’s accompanying everything, including public speaking (32.68).[5054] Some of Dio’s moralism may have been excessive, but Alexandria may have been home to either hotter tempers or a more unstable mix of peoples than some other cities, given the many conflicts reported there,[5055] especially the ethnic conflicts that eventually led to the eradication of local Jewry (see discussion below).

Apollos’s city of origin could have provided him not only a Greek education, if his family had sufficient means, but probably also a passionate desire for respectability by Greek standards, including a commitment to defend his faith’s intellectual integrity (cf. Acts 18:28). Probably at most a fairly small minority of Jewish residents became Alexandrian citizens and learned in the Greek gymnasium (a privilege soon ended altogether; see discussion below), but Apollos could have studied with scholars such as Philo who did have such training. Alexandria’s Greek elite guarded their status jealously; the city was founded by Macedonians, and only descendants of Greeks were considered indigenes and allowed to be citizens. Strabo notes that Alexandrian citizens were of Greek descent but claims that “quick-tempered” Egyptians and mercenaries also lived there (Strabo 17.1.12).[5056] Most strikingly, Alexandrians called their city “ ‘Alexandria near Egypt’ (Alexandria ad Aegyptum), not ‘Alexandria in Egypt,’ because the political fiction held that it was autonomous.”[5057]

This chauvinism reflected but amplified a situation that obtained throughout Roman Egypt. From at least the time of Augustus, Rome privileged the elite “Greek” landowners in Egypt over native “Egyptians.”[5058] Although many Greeks settled in Egyptian villages as “military reservists” during the Hellenistic era, the Romans recognized only the Greeks in the cities, counting the others as Egyptians. The more Greek blood one had, the higher one’s status, even among the despised “Egyptians.”[5059] Tacitus calls Egyptians “the most superstitious of peoples” (Hist. 4.81),[5060] and negative views toward Egyptians are common in the sources.[5061] Perhaps you suppose me to be like some manner of barbarian or an inhuman (ἀνάνθρωπον) Egyptian, one letter protests (P.Oxy. 1681.4–7, third century C.E.). Despite Greek Alexandrians’ ethnocentrism, however, they did adopt elements from the local culture, and cultural influences flowed in both directions.[5062]

A flourishing Hellenistic Jewish literary culture existed in Alexandria, without significant parallel elsewhere.[5063] Jewish residents in Alexandria might be treated better than native Egyptians, but they were still despised by Greek citizens as non-Greek immigrants and hence not genuinely Alexandrian.[5064] Alexandria had a significant Jewish population (Philo estimates a million for Egypt, Flacc. 43),[5065] though their numbers, like those of Alexandria’s population in general, can only be guessed.[5066] (As Barclay notes, Philo had reason to exaggerate the numbers, but they must have been significant given the issues there.)[5067] More objective is the information that two of Alexandria’s five districts were Jewish;[5068] this proportion was enough to make Alexandrian Jews feel a part of the city and enough to threaten Greek insistence that they were not. Evidence reveals many synagogues in Alexandria[5069] as well as elsewhere in Egypt;[5070] papyri attest Jewish inhabitants in Egypt from the fifth century B.C.E. till well into the Roman period.[5071]

Despite the strong Jewish presence, Greek ethnocentrism prevailed politically, affecting Alexandrian Jews’ legal status. Many scholars view the point of contention as politeuma rights for the local Jewish community, but citizenship for their leading citizens was undoubtedly an additional issue.[5072] The ranks of Alexandrian citizenry were mostly closed to Jews; though some had been admitted in an earlier period, this practice ended at some point under Roman rule.[5073] Philo argued that Jews were so much like Greeks that they should be granted full citizenship;[5074] the religious practices were so distinct, however, as to render Philo’s claim utterly implausible to most Greeks. Greek Alexandrians mostly disliked Jewish Alexandrians (e.g., Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.32), leading to many conflicts.[5075] It is possible that relations were better in earlier times, but more positive earlier sources (such as Hecataeus) were reapplied negatively (e.g., in Apion) in more recent times.[5076]

Greek and Jewish conflicts exploded in Alexandria in 38 C.E.[5077] Assuming that Apollos lived in Alexandria or had relatives there fifteen years before he came to Ephesus, which is highly probable, he must have been deeply influenced by the conflict.[5078] In 41 C.E., early in his reign, Claudius tried to establish peace between the Jewish and the Greek communities in Alexandria (P.Lond. 1912 = CPJ 2:36–55, §153).[5079] In view of a veritable war between Greeks and Jews in Alexandria, Claudius threatened severity on either side if the conflict flared again (P.Lond. 1912.73–104, esp. 73–82). Alexandrians were to respect Jewish customs and not dishonor them, for both Augustus and Claudius had accepted their rights (1912.82–88). On the other side, Jews were to stop agitating for citizenship, were never again to send an embassy separate from that of the rest of the city, and were never to force their way into citizen-only games (1912.88–98).

Predictably, each side proved dissatisfied with Claudius’s compromise, viewing it as favoring the other side.[5080] As is customary in interethnic conflicts, each side reported the other’s atrocities, creating a spiral of increasing fear and retribution.[5081] Like everyone else, one papyrus of 41 C.E. warned, you should watch out for the Jews (BGU 1079.23–26). Apollos had been raised in a more optimistic Alexandrian Jewish community, in which members of the elite were integrating into the city; he could not but know, however, the disgrace that had come to his community more recently.

It was just as well for him that he was abroad; matters would gradually grow worse. The Judean-Roman war led to persecution against Alexandrian Jews (Jos. War 2.487–98). But the early second-century conflicts, about two generations after Apollos’s visit to Corinth, would culminate the story of Alexandrian anti-Judaism. Alexandrian Greeks attacked Jews in 113 and 115 C.E.; on both occasions, Jews retaliated, and Romans responded harshly to the Greeks.[5082] In 115–17, Alexandrian Jews revolted, but the ensuing bloodbath virtually annihilated Egyptian Jewry or expelled them, eliminating their further resistance as a community.[5083] The Egyptian priests were particularly anti-Jewish and stirred their people to slaughter Jews in the countryside;[5084] Jews were their rival minority (in terms of political power) competing for attention in Roman Egypt. As always with ethnic conflicts, everyone suffered; a petitioner complains about the Jewish uprising of 116 and its consequences for his property holdings (P.Giss. 41, ca. 120 C.E.). Some earlier centers of Jewish life now had no or just a single Jewish family; significant Jewish communities did not appear again in Egypt until the third century.[5085]

(3) Apollos’s Incomplete Knowledge (18:25)

How did Apollos know the story of Jesus yet not know about Christian baptism? One could argue that Luke means that Apollos predicted the Messiah accurately from the Scriptures and John’s predictions without knowing the Jesus tradition. But this surmise is unlikely: we should then expect Luke to claim that Apollos taught accurately about “the Christ,” not about “Jesus” (cf. Acts 18:28); further, that he already taught “accurately” and his new teachers merely taught him “more accurately” (18:26) argues against this interpretation.

Some scholars might argue that Christian baptism originated significantly later than the Jesus tradition, but for what it is worth, this suggestion contradicts all our explicit extant sources (Matt 28:19; Acts 2:38; John 4:1–2; cf. Mark 16:16). One could argue, without trying to date when John’s baptism gave way to distinctive baptism in Jesus’s name, that Apollos knew much about Jesus but simply remained uninformed about Christian baptism.[5086] Yet explaining “the way of God more accurately” seems to point to something more than merely discussing baptism. If “the Way” includes the Jesus movement (e.g., Acts 19:9; see comment on Acts 9:2) and/or a system of Christian instruction, Apollos apparently knew the basic story of Jesus but not much about the church and its ministry. Unlike what is usually argued for John’s disciples in 19:4, Apollos already believed in Jesus. He seems to have been a follower of the message about Jesus yet not part of, and probably not familiar with, the Jesus movement—that is, the church (cf. Luke 9:49–50).

Knowing only John’s baptism may also mean that he was unaware that the greater Spirit baptism that John announced was now available (cf. John 7:39). (Undoubtedly, Luke assumed him to be aware that John had announced this baptism [see Luke 3:16; cf. also Jesus’s teaching in Acts 1:5; the imperfect, suggesting Jesus’s regular speech, in 11:16].) Perhaps in contrast to the disciples in Acts 19:2–4, however, who still needed to be baptized in the Spirit (19:6), Apollos may have had the Spirit (18:25, if this is the meaning) without the clear articulation of it.[5087]

These pieces of information together may suggest that Apollos had heard about Jesus incompletely from some source or sources yet had little contact with those whose knowledge of the Jesus tradition and Jesus movement were more complete. Some scholars suggest an oral Galilean source,[5088] but while alternative suggestions might be equally speculative, an Alexandrian would be less apt to cross paths with an Aramaic-speaking Galilean peasant or artisan than with more mobile urban folk. Far more likely is that some Cyrenian Jewish Christians went not only north, where Luke has occasion to mention them (11:19–20), but also toward Cyrene, passing through Alexandria en route.[5089] If they stayed only briefly or if Apollos learned of their message secondhand, his knowledge would necessarily be incomplete. An educated guess such as this is not necessarily strongly probable, but it seems more probable than specific alternative suggestions. Probably much of the word about Jesus, expanding rapidly by word of mouth, was less standardized on details in the early period.[5090]

Some think that this passage emphasizes Apollos’s deficiency lest readers credit Apollos, rather than Paul, who briefly preceded him, with founding the Ephesian church.[5091] Yet the rivalry among their followers that is attested in 1 Corinthians was probably less significant by Luke’s day,[5092] and Apollos appears less deficient than others whom Paul later meets in Ephesus (Acts 19:1–7).[5093] Further, Paul’s letters are clear both that the two preachers functioned as colleagues (1 Cor 16:12) despite the rivalry among their followers (1:12; 3:4; 4:6) and that Apollos is not the Corinthians’ “father” (4:15) despite his usefulness in Achaia; that is, Paul had already founded the church (Acts 18:1–11).

The contrast is apparently one of incomplete knowledge versus quite inadequate knowledge and experience; Apollos needed the message “more accurately” (18:26) but already knew “accurately” what he knew (18:25). Those who relate Apollos’s deficiency to the perceived unorthodox character of Alexandrian Christianity build from a far shakier foundation; for example, one scholar contends that of fourteen Christian texts from there apparently predating 200 C.E., only one appears to be “Gnostic.”[5094] That Luke’s primary protagonist is Paul and that Luke compares him favorably to others is true, but more detailed speculations about Apollos’s rival role in the Ephesian church exceed available evidence.

Scholars usually argue that Apollos was not rebaptized, because he already had “the Spirit.”[5095] The primary basis for this claim is the use of “boiling in spirit” in 18:25.[5096] The phrase at first glance seems more naturally understood as simply idiomatic for human enthusiasm,[5097] but early Christian usage probably supports instead stirring by God’s Spirit.[5098] The phrase must have carried more of a standard sense for its first audience than today; that ζέω appears in only one other NT text and there is again conjoined with “the Spirit” (Rom 12:11) suggests that it belonged to early Christian idiom. This connection does not, however, settle what either text means: does the idiom refer to a person’s own “fervent spirit” or that of the Lord? In Romans, an idiomatic use for a human disposition is entirely possible (cf. 11:8),[5099] but “the Spirit” in that letter usually refers to God’s Spirit (e.g., 2:29; 7:6; 8:16, 23, 26–27), sometimes linked with dispositions or other abstract nouns (8:2, 15).[5100]

In Acts 18:25, Luke’s context supports a reference to the Spirit of God. The context speaks of God’s Spirit (19:2, 6), and this may be the sense of some other obscure references to “the Spirit” nearby. Paul is “bound by the Spirit” (20:22) because the Holy Spirit testifies that he will be bound (20:23; cf. 21:11). “Purposed in the Spirit” (19:21) would also explain why Paul resists others who seem certain that they have heard from the Spirit and why they ultimately give in (21:4, 11, 13–14). Moreover, Luke focuses on the Holy Spirit in his two-volume work, not the human spirit (though occasionally he can speak of the latter; e.g., Luke 1:41; Acts 17:16).[5101] Finally, the concern for those lacking the Spirit (Acts 8:15–16; 19:2) does not surface in Apollos’s case.[5102] Thus, as noted, many scholars conclude that Apollos, unlike the disciples Paul met in Ephesus, was not rebaptized, because he already had the Spirit.

(4) Paul’s Colleagues Instruct Apollos (18:26)

Luke often notes that a person “began” to speak (e.g., Luke 3:8; 4:21; 5:21; 7:15, 24, 49; 11:29, 53; 12:1; 13:26; 14:18; 19:37; 20:9; 22:23; 23:2, 30; Acts 2:4; 11:4, 15; 18:26); although such a phrase sometimes can be idiomatic,[5103] it serves Luke’s point well here: Apollos began to speak well, but Priscilla and Aquila took him aside so that he could understand and speak better. On “bold” speech, compare, for example, Acts 19:8; see comment on Acts 4:13.

Paul’s letters confirm that Priscilla and Aquila settled in Ephesus (1 Cor 16:19) and were still there leading a house church (16:19) at the height of Paul’s ministry in Ephesus (16:8–9; Acts 19), probably sometime in the year before Acts 20:3. The term προσλαμβάνω can indicate that they “took Apollos aside” (with BDAG), but the term also applies to welcoming someone into one’s circle or home (for the sense between the two, cf. Acts 28:2). Given Apollos’s apparently substantive transformation and ancient hospitality conventions (on which see the excursus at Acts 16:15), the couple probably did not simply take him aside for a few moments in public but welcomed him into their home for food and discussion. Ancients recognized that those already schooled in one view are often least teachable for another,[5104] but apparently Apollos recognized that he had limited information about Jesus and was eager to receive more from trustworthy Christians.

“Precise” knowledge was considered important,[5105] including for Luke (Luke 1:3). That Priscilla and Aquila teach Apollos “more accurately” probably represents “an elative comparative,” not implying that they corrected his misinformation (he already taught “accurately” in Acts 18:25) but that they increased his base of knowledge.[5106] Apollos is eager to learn from those who have fuller knowledge of the Way, presumably through their Pauline connection.

Name sequence can be important, especially when it diverges from the anticipated ancient norm of naming the husband first (see fuller discussion at Acts 18:3). Luke normally mentions first the dominant member of a pair;[5107] the mention of Priscilla’s name first suggests “her primary role as Apollos’ tutor.”[5108] Some scholars suggest that they did this at home, which is possible, but all that is clear from what Luke says is that they did not confront him publicly in the synagogue.[5109] Private reproof was always considered more honorable than public confrontation, especially among Jewish people.[5110] Some complain that Luke plays her down—for instance, because he does not use “ministry” to describe her work as he does Paul’s work—but this argument is fallacious. Luke sometimes employs διακονία, “ministry,” for preaching ministry (Acts 20:24; 21:19), for Judas’s apostolate (1:17, 25), and most often for service to the poor (6:1, 4; 11:29; 12:25); he also uses it once for a matron feeding guests (Luke 10:40; cf. the cognate verb in 4:39; 10:40; 12:37; 17:8; 22:27; Acts 6:2). This is not Luke’s favorite term for church leadership, and the description of her activity counts for more than the particular terms employed.

Priscilla’s teaching role here[5111] is noteworthy from a social-historical standpoint as well as because of modern interests. That an ancient reader might find something unusual here is suggested by the Western text, which displays a fairly consistent “antifeminist” tendency; in this context, it omits Priscilla in Acts 18:3, 18, 21 and places Aquila’s name before hers in this verse, ensuring that its readers will assume his leadership.[5112] Others noted her teaching role here more favorably.[5113] (Priscilla is not originally from Ephesus, and probably nothing specific to Ephesus informs the background here.)[5114]

We know that Luke favors women prophesying (Acts 2:17–18; 21:9; Luke 2:36–38), but ancient society was far more often favorable to women prophesying (since inspiration was considered something that could not be restrained) than to their teaching.[5115] Paul’s letters recognize women praying and prophesying publicly under inspiration, even as his letters accommodate social expectations more in other areas, such as asking questions (which men typically asked in lecture settings).[5116] Yet the language for teaching here is the same as used elsewhere in Acts for ministry, and the preceding context of the synagogue also suggests that we should take the term seriously.[5117]

That Priscilla is engaged in teaching here suggests that she was well educated,[5118] at least in the matters under discussion, including the Scriptures. Women as disciples of teachers were rare or unheard of in most philosophic and rhetorical schools of antiquity; in the philosophic schools where we find them (such as Epicureans and Pythagoreans), they remained a minority.[5119] As teachers they were far rarer than this still.[5120]

Although unusual and noteworthy, Priscilla’s teaching here is not so radical as to offend the conservative sensitivities of all adherents of Ionian culture or traditional Judean culture. (Jewish communities varied in their openness to women’s roles in various cities of the empire, but with Ephesus being heavily influenced by its Ionian origins, the Jewish community there might be fairly conservative.)[5121] Priscilla teaches privately, even if she takes the lead, and the public/private dichotomy was the primary cultural objection to women teaching publicly.[5122] See fuller discussion in the commentary introduction.[5123]

Even in public, exceptions could be respected in the case of exceptional women, provided the conventional societal order was normally maintained.[5124] Paul’s letters praise women spreading the gospel (Rom 16:1–7; Phil 4:2–3) even as his letters also follow social conventions of the day in restricting some speech (1 Cor 14:34–35).[5125] Even though his setting is private, Apollos’s willingness to learn from her[5126] alongside her husband might imply that, for him, Priscilla was such an exceptional woman. She was noteworthy enough to merit the later praise of John Chrysostom for both her artisan work and her preaching.[5127]

(5) Apollos’s Corinthian Ministry (18:27–28)

Given Apollos’s eloquence as a speaker, which would make him welcome in many circles, he could prove a great asset to the church in Corinth, which already had to face some local conflict with the competing synagogue and the departure of the founding apostle on whom they had likely depended for apologetic answers. Receiving instruction was an important ability, but one who could then hand it on accurately while improving its rhetorical expression would be considered especially gifted (Philost. Vit. soph. 2.29.621). To urge someone on in a task (προτρέπω) was characteristic of the sort of discourse that came to be characterized as protreptic (προτρεπτικός, Isoc. Demon. 3–4).[5128] Priscilla, Aquila, and the other believers (“the siblings”) provided letters of recommendation, as most commentators note here.[5129] Paul writes letters of recommendation to churches or individuals (Rom 16:1–2; 2 Cor 8:16–24; Philemon; 3 John 5–8, 12) and later protests that he should not need them in Corinth (2 Cor 3:1–3). Although he contrasts himself with those who need letters of recommendation in Corinth (3:1), it is unlikely that he is still contrasting himself with Apollos; others who came after Apollos would also have carried letters of recommendation (on the pervasiveness of such letters, see comment on Acts 9:2).[5130]

Whereas the synagogue in Ephesus remained open to reports and discussion about Jesus (Acts 18:19; unlike later, 19:9), those who remained in the Corinthian synagogue were far less open at this point (18:6) and were probably even hostile to the most effective Christian preachers (18:12–13). Apollos’s skill in Scripture (18:24) would make him quite effective in Corinth. That Apollos refuted members of the synagogue publicly (18:28) perhaps means in discussion at their synagogue (especially given that, presumably, a house church remained next door), since synagogue settings may have included more dialogue about Scripture rather than (as in a later period) a single rabbi exercising a pastoral role and offering sermons.[5131] This would explain Apollos’s use of Scripture. Like Paul and other speakers, he might speak at dinner parties hosted by the elite;[5132] some of these might be among undecided elements in the Jewish community or simply among Gentiles who knew that the local synagogue was unhappy with the Christian sect that had separated from them. But even though δημόσιος might be contrasted simply with “privately” as in a house setting (20:20), Luke can use it for much more public settings (5:18; 16:37), so Apollos might have spoken in some even more public venues.[5133]

From Luke’s perspective, Apollos simply developed further Paul’s ministry in Corinth (cf. 1 Cor 3:6). Apollos refuted Paul’s Jewish opponents (Acts 18:13). He also carried further the sorts of argument that Paul used first (18:4–5) and that Apollos learned from Paul’s colleagues (18:26), who may have been trained by Paul; his ministry of refutation also echoes Paul’s (9:22, though not with close verbal similarities). Yet Apollos does not seem as involved with signs and wonders (despite probably having the Spirit in 18:24; thus he is only “powerful in speech” in 18:24, in contrast to “powerful in speech and deed,” as in Luke 24:19; cf. Luke 4:36; Acts 7:22). If John was Jesus’s forerunner, Apollos was in some respects Paul’s successor or follower, but Luke retains focus on his primary protagonist.[5134]

Defending the Christian message with the Scriptures was a crucial mission (Luke 24:44–45; Acts 7:52), one in which Luke himself engages by demonstrating that the story of Jesus’s movement belonged to Israel’s history.[5135] Because Apollos was from Alexandria and presumably studied there, some scholars suspect that he was skilled in allegorical exegesis, like Alexandrian Greeks and Philo.[5136] This is possible; though we do not know whether Apollos’s advanced training was in exegesis or in rhetoric, he probably experienced at least some influence from dominant exegetical methods in his originating synagogue community, and Philo shows that allegorical exegesis was one of the significant options there (cf. also Let. Aris. 128–71). (Much of the later Christian exegesis in Alexandria continued that tradition.) Paul’s writings reveal that Apollos did in fact come to Corinth after him, furthering his work (1 Cor 3:6), though Paul was the church’s founder (4:15).

Apollos’s Alexandrian background would not have counted against him in Corinth, which was increasingly open even to Egyptian cults (see introduction, above, to Acts 18; comment on Acts 18:18); Alexandria, by contrast, was a highly respected “Greek” city (see comment on Acts 18:24). Corinth was cosmopolitan and even had administrators at various times who also served at different times in Alexandria or Egypt.[5137] People probably moved between Ephesus and Corinth, across the Aegean, even more freely.[5138]

III. PAUL HELPS TWELVE OF JOHN’S DISCIPLES (19:1–7)

Paul here helps some deficient disciples receive the Spirit. For Luke, the Spirit is absolutely necessary to carry out God’s mission (Acts 1:4). The relationship between 19:1–7 and the unit that immediately precedes it appears vital for interpretation, but its nature is difficult and much debated. The identity of the disciples is also in question; I take them to be probably John’s disciples, but others have offered a reasonable case for them as Jesus’s disciples. This debate further compounds the passage’s difficulties.

(1) John’s Disciples and Apollos

As noted above (at Acts 18:25–26, with fuller discussion), the paragraphs about Apollos and the twelve Ephesian disciples are connected. In 19:1–7, Paul instructs some others who know only John’s baptism, as Priscilla and Aquila instructed Apollos, who also had only John’s baptism (18:24–28); these disciples have only the outward symbol that points to Jesus’s greater Spirit baptism, but through Paul they receive the promised Spirit, just as John taught (Luke 3:16).

In both paragraphs, Paul or his coworkers bring John’s disciples into a fuller experience of the gospel and/or the Spirit in Ephesus.[5139] In both cases, John’s disciples are inadequately instructed and have experienced only John’s baptism. Apollos, however, seems to have more complete knowledge than these disciples (Acts 18:25); many commentators think that he also had been baptized in the Spirit (“burning in Spirit,” 18:25), in contrast to these disciples.[5140] The other possibility is that having only John’s baptism meant that both Apollos and these disciples lacked the greater baptism that John announced. Certainly the contrast between John’s baptism and Jesus’s greater baptism in the Spirit is important to Luke (1:5; apparently implied as regularly said in 11:16). But it seems more likely that Apollos had this Spirit baptism, in contrast to disciples who need it here (19:2, 6), and that reception of the Spirit marks a key difference between them. He does not need a new rite to impart to him the Spirit that he already has.[5141]

In either case, no mention is made of Apollos’s rebaptism, in contrast to that of these disciples. Although it is possible that Luke simply does not mention it or that Aquila and Priscilla erred by failing to administer it, it appears much more likely that Apollos’s experience was already more complete than that of these disciples, whether because of his knowledge of Jesus or because he had the experience of the Spirit (18:25) without being able to articulate it as what John had promised, or both.

It is possible that a movement of John’s followers remained in Ephesus for some time after this occasion and that Luke reflects this historical reality (depicting a period more than two decades after the Baptist’s death) as the Fourth Gospel does later.[5142] Disciples could prove very zealous for promoting their own teachers, which often led to strife with disciples of other teachers;[5143] this probably happened between Jesus’s and John’s disciples at times (cf. John 3:26). That this is Luke’s primary reason for preserving the story, however, seems less likely,[5144] since Ephesus is probably not his primary audience.[5145]

Still, Luke has paralleled Jesus with John and has emphasized his superiority to John (though the latter remains a positive figure) as early as his infancy narratives (cf. Luke 1:80; 2:40, 52), where Mary also appears superior to Zechariah (1:29–38 with 1:12–20).[5146] Whether because of continuing competition from the Baptist’s followers or simply to highlight Jesus’s greatness, Luke underlines Jesus’s superiority to his forerunner.

That “twelve” receive the Spirit probably recalls Jesus’s original twelve apostles in Jerusalem,[5147] demonstrating that the work of the Spirit continues in one location after another. Such parallelism provides Luke a relatively clear way to emphasize, without departing from his narrative genre, that the Spirit’s activity in Acts is a model and expectation for the church, not simply a record of past events. Paul noticed (Acts 19:2) and corrected (19:4–6) Spirit deficiency when he found it, and Luke expects this deficiency to require correction wherever it is encountered (8:15–16). (Probably for Luke, this could involve baptized, genuine Christians as well as those not properly initiated into the faith. In 8:14–17, in probable contrast to 19:1, the disciples were probably already Christians; see comment there.)

In the context of Luke-Acts as a whole, recalling John’s ministry (Luke 3:3–20) might also recall the ministry of Jesus, which followed it (3:21–22; Paul’s ministry in Acts 19:10–12 exhibits renewed power). Luke does not, however, draw this connection clearly.

(2) John’s Preparatory Baptism (19:1–4)

These disciples have received John’s baptism but not the greater baptism in the Spirit that it prefigured.

PAUL’S ROUTE TO EPHESUS (19:1)

The geographic summary in Acts 19:1 either briefly recapitulates 18:23[5148] or picks up where it left off. Paul had been traversing mountainous Phrygia (18:23). Traveling from, for example, Perga, one could move northwest through much hill country (nearly 100 km. north-northwest to Cormasa, then nearly 100 km. northwest to Laodicea, and finally ca. 150 km. west-northwest to Ephesus), or one could move from, for example, Pisidian Antioch along a more traveled route (ca. 150 km. west-southwest to near Laodicea, then ca. 150 km. west-northwest to Ephesus).[5149]

Two proposals regarding Paul’s route are most common. Paul could have traveled the standard route to Ephesus through the Lycus and Meander valleys (though he did not stop to establish the later church in Colossae, Col 1:7; 2:1).[5150] Alternatively, he “may have taken a higher road farther north, leaving the main road at Apamea”;[5151] this would be a more direct route through the hills,[5152] the “upper country” here probably being “the high road leading to the Cestrus Valley.”[5153] Given Paul’s encounter with Gallio in Acts 18:12–17 and his travels in 18:18–23, some scholars estimate that Paul could have arrived in Ephesus no earlier than the fall of 53 C.E. and possibly as late as the spring of 54.[5154]

Apollos is in Corinth by the time Paul returns to Ephesus. Luke never recounts Paul and Apollos’s meeting (though historically they finally did at some point, 1 Cor 16:12), but this omission may occur simply because such a meeting is not Luke’s concern. His focus on Paul allows Silas to drop from sight after Acts 18:5 (whether or not he left Corinth immediately) and Priscilla and Aquila to do so after 18:26, though they did not drop from the epistolary Paul’s own sight after this point (Rom 16:3; 1 Cor 16:12, 19; 2 Cor 1:19; cf. 2 Tim 4:19; Titus 3:13).

WHOSE DISCIPLES? (19:1)

Scholars divide in their opinions concerning the identity of the “disciples” here. Were they already followers of Jesus or not? Some argue that they were Christians, former disciples of John never rebaptized,[5155] perhaps originating in the same less-informed circles as Apollos.[5156] Most would agree at least that these disciples, even if Christians, were incomplete in their faith.[5157] Although many scholars argue that they were not Christians at all[5158] (and I am inclined to venture that they are probably correct), the matter warrants more investigation than is often assumed.[5159]

Without further identification, “disciples” in Luke-Acts elsewhere means Jesus’s disciples, whether those during his earthly ministry (e.g., Luke 9:16, 18; 10:23; 16:1; 17:22; 18:15; 19:29, 37; 20:45; 22:39, 45) or those converted after his resurrection (Acts 6:1–2, 7; 9:19, 26, 38; 11:26, 29; 13:52; 14:20, 22, 28; 15:10; 18:23, 27; 19:9, 30; 20:1, 30; 21:4, 16).[5160] This factor would clearly weigh in favor of the disciples’ being here Jesus’s disciples. In 19:1, the expression is not precisely “the disciples” but “certain [τινας] disciples,” yet phrases such as “a certain one of his disciples” or “a certain disciple” refer elsewhere only to followers of Jesus in both the Gospel (Luke 11:1) and Acts (Acts 9:10, 36; 16:1).[5161] (Though cf. one who did not follow them, in Luke 9:49–50; Mark 9:38–40.)

This argument is not absolute, however; many others had disciples, including the Pharisees (Luke 5:33) and Paul (Acts 9:25), and where context makes clear, “disciple” does apply to John’s disciples (e.g., Luke 5:33; 7:18; 11:1). It seems as if these are John’s disciples here, because they know only John’s baptism (Acts 19:3).[5162] It is much harder to conceive how followers of Jesus could be unaware of the Pentecost event—which preceded their spread—than how informed followers of John could. Still, if Luke means John’s disciples, he could have made this much clearer at the outset.

Further, some arguments for their not being part of the Jesus movement are weak, and even some of the stronger ones are not absolutely compelling. They had received only John’s baptism, but the same was true of Apollos, who nevertheless had been preaching about Jesus (18:25). (Then again, Luke recounts their rebaptism but not that of Apollos.) Most scholars deem that the strongest argument for their not yet being believers is that they have not yet received the Spirit (19:6), but we saw earlier that in Luke’s use of the expression, it was possible for genuine believers to still need the Spirit in some sense (8:15–16).[5163]

On the other side, Paul initially takes for granted that they are believers (19:2),[5164] yet he also must recognize that something is amiss to prompt him to ask whether they have received the Spirit. An analogy with Apollos could argue for a person who believes in Christ without specifically Christian baptism. Yet Apollos was not rebaptized, as these disciples are, and whereas he is preaching about “Jesus” (18:25), Paul (after he learns of their Spirit deficiency in 19:2–3) must be specific that Jesus is the one in whom John invited faith (19:4, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν εἰς τὸν Ἰησοῦν).

A decision is not easy, nor is consensus soon likely. Nevertheless, in the final analysis, what I believe probably tips the scales against their being believers in Jesus is their lack of knowledge that the Spirit has come (19:2); even a minimal association with any part of the Jesus movement should have revealed that the Spirit had in fact been poured out (cf., e.g., 2:17–18; Rom 8:9; Titus 3:5–6; Jude 19; 1 John 3:24). That Paul finds it necessary to explain that Jesus has fulfilled John’s promise of the Spirit-baptizer (19:4) implies that they lacked even basic knowledge of Jesus—that is, they knew less than Apollos (18:25).[5165] Part of the problem in the debate as to whether they were Christians may be what we mean by “Christians,” a problem that Luke may not be addressing in this passage.[5166] Like Apollos but even more so, they belonged to the transitional stage of John the Baptist (Luke 16:16).[5167] Such disciples, already exercising faith in what they know, appear to respond readily when confronted with the more complete gospel (cf. John 1:47–49).

LACKING THE SPIRIT (19:2)

Paul’s question here is striking, especially given the lack of preparation for it in Luke’s terse summary in Acts 19:1. Why does Paul ask these disciples if they have received the Spirit? It is possible that he normally asks the question of disciples, but nothing else in Acts leads us to expect this to be the case. Is something deficient in their behavior or, perhaps more likely, in their prayers? For the earliest Christians, as Caird points out (in relation to this passage), “the Spirit made his presence known unmistakably by the gift of revitalizing power.”[5168] In that case, Paul might be assuming (until their answer later in the verse) that they are Christian disciples like the Samaritan believers who have not yet received the Spirit (8:16).

Perhaps more likely, if they identify themselves only as disciples of John, Paul may ask the question not to obtain information but to provide the opportunity to proclaim John’s promised Spirit-baptizer. This could be likelier than that Paul has been wrongly assuming that they are Christian disciples, if they have not identified themselves as such;[5169] apart from mentioning Jesus directly, most of what the Baptist’s disciples might say would be common intellectual property with Judaism. They could identify themselves as John’s disciples by baptizing fellow Jews or by speaking about the Baptist explicitly, a matter that alone might well bring them into contact with other transplanted Judeans such as Paul.

Some scholars have argued that Paul here expects the gift of the Spirit after conversion, on the basis of the aorist participle πιστεύσαντες, “having believed.”[5170] But while an aorist participle often expresses temporal precedence (hence, “after you believed”), exceptions are abundant, including in Acts (10:33; 27:3; most relevant here, 1:8).[5171] This is not a grammatical rule, and one should not read a temporal relationship into the aorist participle especially when it reflects “action . . . identical with that of an aorist finite verb,” as many will argue is likely here.[5172] The grammatical argument cannot be ruled out simply by appeal to the NT “association of the Spirit with conversion,”[5173] since Luke (as opposed to Paul) sometimes does narrate reception of the Spirit after conversion (8:14–17; see comment there). Nevertheless, many argue that 2:38 may reveal the typical or the norm even for Luke,[5174] so that he would hardly word Paul’s question in such a way (just as Paul would have hardly uttered it in such a way) as to expect Spirit reception to generally follow conversion rather than occur coincidentally with it. The context of Lukan theology must take precedence over grammatical ambiguity. This being the case, the phrase presumably retains its typical Pauline (Rom 8:15; 1 Cor 2:12; 2 Cor 11:4; Gal 3:2, 14) sense here, which is also compatible with much Lukan use in terms of chronology (Acts 1:8; 2:38; 10:47; but cf. 8:15, 19).[5175] Even if this argument is of limited force, an argument to the contrary based on grammar alone cannot carry much weight, given the ambiguity of the grammatical evidence.

Some count Luke’s report of their ignorance of the Spirit as historical evidence against Luke’s (and Q’s) claim that John announced a greater one who would baptize in the Spirit.[5176] Yet this is a rather selective use of evidence (accepting the reliability of a comment in Acts that can then be used to dispute an earlier claim in Q). More to the point, Luke would hardly have found a claim that he thought intended in this manner amenable for inclusion in his work (cf. Luke 3:16). Their ignorance of the Spirit no more counts against John’s having spoken of the Spirit than against contemporary Judaism’s having spoken of the Spirit; that, too, cannot have been unknown to them.

How could John’s disciples not know about the Holy Spirit? Virtually all of ancient Judaism known to us spoke about the Holy Spirit,[5177] from Qumran texts (usually God’s Spirit,[5178] sometimes more ambiguously)[5179] to other sources,[5180] most commonly the rabbis;[5181] the question was whether the Spirit was active in the same manner as in the OT.[5182] It was therefore impossible for John’s disciples to be unaware that there was a Holy Spirit. For Luke, John himself was full of the Spirit (Luke 1:15); his announcement involved the Spirit’s eschatological fullness (cf. Acts 1:4–5; 2:17–18; 11:16; Luke 3:16), as Mark and Q also recognized (Mark 1:8; Matt 3:11).[5183] Perhaps these disciples would not know this particular saying of John, but Luke probably expects us to assume that they know what Luke summarizes as John’s message (Luke 3:7–17, esp. 3:16).

Most likely, they question not whether there is a Holy Spirit, or even whether the Spirit will be poured out in the future, but whether this has already begun to occur.[5184] As commentators often note, John employs similar language in John 7:39: the Spirit was “not yet,” though clearly the Spirit was already active in Jesus (14:17). Thus most manuscripts here have the present ἔστιν (perhaps suggesting a question about the Spirit’s present availability), and the Western text of Acts reflects this interpretation more explicitly with λαμβάνουσιν (although it does appear to be only an interpretation, not the original reading).

JOHN’S BAPTISM (19:3–4)

That they do not know that the Spirit has come (Acts 19:2) immediately informs Paul, if he has not surmised it already, that they have not followed John’s testimony to its completion (Luke 3:16) and are not yet Christians (or at least not part of the formal Christian movement). The earliest Christians were eager for new believers to receive the endowment of the Spirit for evangelism (Acts 8:15), and so, if they had not heard of the Spirit’s coming, they had not been discipled in that movement. At least from Luke’s vantage point and—presumably—historically, baptism in the name of the risen Lord began at Pentecost and would be known in the same circles that knew the Pentecost experience.[5185] Baptism in the Spirit at least ideally accompanied it (1:4–5; 2:38–39), so their defective experience and knowledge of the Spirit has alerted Paul to their incomplete knowledge of Christ.

Thus Paul asks the obvious question in 19:3.[5186] If his point, as suggested above, is to clarify their deficiency so that he can propose John’s prescribed solution, he is successful. (Otherwise, if he generally asks for the purpose of discovering their status, he succeeds in that task as well.) “John’s baptism” is a phrase that Luke does not need to explain for his audience (Luke 7:29–30; 20:4; Acts 1:22; 18:25; cf. Acts 1:5; 11:16); it was already available in the widely read Gospel on which he most depended (Mark 11:30).

Paul emphasizes in Acts 19:4 that John’s baptism of repentance prefigured the baptism of repentance in Jesus’s name (2:38; see comment there). The baptism of repentance that these disciples of John have received might be viewed as efficacious beforehand, pending Jesus’s coming, but now they must respond to the new era in salvific history. Believing in Jesus (19:4) entails being baptized specifically in his name (19:5; cf. 8:12; 18:8), though, as suggested above, Spirit baptism would take precedence over water baptism.[5187] John’s baptism especially prefigured the greater baptism in the Spirit (Luke 3:16; Acts 1:5; 11:16)—a refrain in Acts repeated, albeit by implication, here. Even Christian water baptism is meant to secure the greater baptism in the Spirit (Acts 2:38–39; see the a fortiori argument in 10:47).

Paul seems to assume here a lack of the most basic knowledge of Jesus’s story; he recounts John’s call to repentance (which they must know) and connects it with faith in Jesus. (The call to faith in Jesus is worded from the vantage point of Luke and Paul looking backward but is a natural inference in view of Luke 3:15–16; 7:18–22.)[5188] They probably knew that John announced a coming one;[5189] they did not know that it was Jesus, and Paul’s wording here might be taken as if he did not think they had even heard of Jesus.

How could John’s disciples not know about Jesus (cf. Acts 26:26)? Presumably Luke expects us to assume their knowledge of what he summarizes as John’s key message (Luke 3:16–17; see comment on Acts 19:2), but they need not have connected the promised Spirit-baptizer with Jesus and may have heard nothing of Jesus. If they heard nothing of Jesus, there are three most likely options: (1) they were Diaspora Jews who learned of John while on a pilgrimage to Judea; (2) they were Judeans who had emigrated with limited knowledge (not having still been with John during the time depicted in Luke 7:17–23); or (3) they were initiates to John’s sect who were exposed to John’s message outside Judea by others who knew John’s call to repentance but did not know about (or at least tell them about) Jesus and the fulfillment of the outpoured Spirit. (On the third option, the informants may have fit among the first two options, may have regarded this aspect of John’s preaching as inconsequential, or perhaps personally rejected Jesus as the fulfillment of John’s message. Probably the present followers of John had not known much about Jesus or rejected John’s preaching about Jesus, given their apparently ready acceptance here.)

(3) Baptized in Water and the Spirit (19:5–7)

Those who received only John’s baptism and have not believed in Jesus (or at least have not received the Spirit) are rebaptized in Jesus’s name, and then they receive the Spirit. John’s baptism was good, but it was only preparatory to baptism in Jesus’s name and the greater baptism in the Spirit (Acts 1:4–5; 2:38).

REBAPTIZED IN JESUS’S NAME (19:5)

The first apostles (“the Twelve”) may not have been rebaptized after John’s baptism,[5190] but in their case, Spirit baptism probably sufficed if added to some sort of water baptism.[5191] This is presumably also the case with Apollos, as was suggested above. Cornelius, who received Spirit baptism yet lacked any preparatory water baptism (and who, in any case, needed an external rite of some sort to validate him for the Jerusalem church), was baptized afterward (10:48). If there is any standard rule in Acts (and it is possible that there is not), a previous water baptism is accepted if accompanied by Spirit baptism; if not, rebaptism was appropriate as an invitation for the Spirit’s coming, as here. But this practice would apply only to John’s baptism; the Samaritans, who believed and were baptized in Jesus’s name, did not need to be rebaptized in water when they received the Spirit (8:12–17).

How long after their understanding of Paul’s message the baptism of these followers of John occurred depends partly on where Paul might have baptized them. Even Luke’s terse wording here seems to allow little room for the sort of extended catechism practiced by the later church; the only time interval we must certainly allow for is the time it would take them to locate a suitable place for baptism.

The Selinus River flowed past the Artemisium in Ephesus (Strabo 8.7.5; Pliny E. N.H. 5.31.115), but public baths would have afforded a quicker and simpler location for the baptism.[5192] The fountain near the Augustus temple on the city’s south may be from the first or second century C.E., but the baths of the state agora, only about a hundred meters from the south wall, are from the first century.[5193] Caius Sextilius Pollio built some fountains between 4 and 14 C.E., supplied by an aqueduct bringing water more than three miles from the Marnas River.[5194] The Callippia, a spring, also lay inside the city (Pliny E. N.H. 5.31.115).

Although baptism in public baths might not be the norm, it is conceivable; in Apul. Metam. 11.23, “the priests of Isis at Cenchreae made use of ‘the nearest bath’ ” for an initiatory ablution.[5195] (On the pervasiveness of public baths in major cities, see the excursus at Acts 18:8.) We cannot, of course, be sure whether the baptism was immediate or would have been delayed while they were looking for water (or whether perhaps even the conversation occurred near water). Yet baptism alone does not instantaneously confer the Spirit here (see comment on Acts 19:6).

THE SPIRIT AND SIGNS (19:6)

Although in Acts Luke occasionally notes an individual’s reception of the Spirit (suggesting, though not narrating, Paul’s in Acts 9:17; cf. 4:8; 13:9), his narrative focuses on groups receiving the Spirit. Traditional Christian theology has naturally focused on individual reception of the Spirit, in connection with other theological—especially soteriological—issues often treated individually in the Pauline corpus. Luke’s focus on corporate reception, however, in some respects might have more in common with some subsequent corporate experiences;[5196] this observation requires more attention than it can be given here.[5197]

Of the diverse corporate outpourings of the Spirit in Acts (2:4, which is foundational;[5198] 4:31; 8:15–17; 10:44–45; here; and possibly briefly in 13:52),[5199] this one might involve the smallest group (since Pentecost involved more than just the Twelve, though the number here evokes that scene). Paul’s laying on of hands offers the closest parallel (in terms of mode of reception) to the Samaritan reception of the Spirit through Peter and John, just as the outpouring on Cornelius’s household parallels the way the Spirit was poured out at Pentecost (see 10:47; esp. 11:15–17).

Luke’s narrative reads as if there is “no significant ‘delay’” between their baptism (Acts 19:5) and their reception of the Spirit (19:6).[5200] But while it is clear that Luke envisions a theological connection between baptism in water (undertaken by converts) and baptism in the Spirit (given by the risen Lord; Luke 3:16; Acts 1:5; esp. 2:38), the connection is not always temporal in the sense of being simultaneous (Acts 8:14–17; 10:44–48; see discussion on those passages). The immediate connection for receiving the Spirit here is not baptism per se but the laying on of hands (19:6), which could also follow baptism (8:12, 17; cf. 13:3) or precede it (9:17–18).[5201] (For the Spirit coming “on” persons, see comment on Acts 10:44.)

This is the third time in Acts that believers’ reception of the Spirit is explicitly marked by speaking in tongues (2:4; 10:45–46).[5202] Tongues speaking is important as a sign of crosslinguistic empowerment by the Spirit, and in view of Luke’s theme (1:8), this is the most natural phenomenon for him to emphasize,[5203] especially when it accompanied or immediately followed Spirit reception. Nevertheless, Luke reports such phenomena to assure us that these disciples received the Spirit (especially the dimension of cross-cultural empowerment), and probably not to imply that tongues necessarily must accompany Spirit reception in every individual instance.[5204] To argue the latter would require a much more complete record, because Luke at times does not specify the evidence (8:18), and he links it with other phenomena in both this passage and 10:46.[5205]

Apparently, the epistolary Paul does not believe that all Christians pray in tongues (1 Cor 12:30),[5206] though he seems to believe that it would be ideal for them to pray this way privately (14:5; cf. Num 11:29).[5207] For Paul the gift is less significant in public than gifts useful for public edification unless it is accompanied by interpretation, which can render it edifying to the assembly (1 Cor 14:4–5). Paul uses the gift in private devotion (14:18; cf. 14:15) and does not want it forbidden in the assembly (14:39). But he highlights its value and continuing use in private prayer whereas Luke emphasizes its initial occurrence alongside reception of the Spirit to emphasize especially the reality of the Spirit experience and its character (cross-cultural empowerment).[5208]

Some scholars think that Luke’s community lacked continuing experience of tongues speaking and that this allowed him to glorify the gift beyond its usage in 1 Corinthians.[5209] But while Luke may present the most positive side of the phenomenon, Paul himself appreciated and utilized the gift (1 Cor 14:18), and there is no reason to doubt that Luke expected this gift, like the Spirit empowerment it often accompanies in Acts, to continue in his own day.[5210]

Although Luke mentions tongues speaking on this occasion in Ephesus, he omits it in the church in Corinth,[5211] where we know from Paul’s accounts that it happened (1 Cor 12–14). Since it is unlikely a mere coincidence that both Paul (14:18) and many of the Corinthian Christians experienced the gift, it may have reflected Pauline influence there,[5212] though Luke indicates that tongues speaking was not limited to Paul’s circle (Acts 2:4; 10:46). Luke does not need to report this phenomenon or any other phenomenon every time it occurred; he does not mention even baptism in all his conversion reports. But he needed to mention tongues with Paul’s ministry at least once to balance the parallelism with Peter in 10:44–48 and the risen Lord Jesus in 2:4, 33.[5213]

Prophesying, which occurs here, reveals the same empowerment of the Spirit as tongues speaking; both are Spirit-inspired speech (2:17–18).[5214] Although tongues speaking is probably identified with praise in 10:46, it is clearly distinguished from prophecy here, as indicated by the emphatically double connection τε . . . καί.[5215] It is possible that some persons experienced tongues while others experienced prophecy,[5216] though the grammar allows the possibility that all did both (the ambiguity reminds us of the more general point of such descriptions; e.g., 1 Sam 10:5–6, 10; 19:20).

TWELVE DISCIPLES (19:7)

Most scholars doubt that Luke finds significance in the number twelve here; his estimate of “about twelve” is thought to count against it.[5217] The opposite conclusion, however, seems more likely (though cf. Luke 8:42). If Luke lacked the exact number, he could have said “about ten” (cf. his estimate “eight or ten days” in Acts 25:6);[5218] that he mentions specifically that the number was “about twelve” is significant. It could evoke the twelve tribes (perhaps as a transition to synagogue ministry in 19:8),[5219] but it is far more likely that he evokes Jesus’s twelve apostles[5220] (who in turn evoked Israel’s tribes, Luke 22:30). Luke again stresses the continuity between the church’s biblical heritage and the flourishing Gentile mission. Luke’s emphasis is not merely distant foundational history but history as a sort of archetype or model for the continuing mission.

b. All Asia Hears the Message (19:8–22)

In Acts 19:8–20, Paul’s ministry shifts from one sort of intellectual venue, a synagogue, to a more cosmopolitan one, with an even greater ministry of signs than before (19:8–12). Some attempted to imitate his method without his power, but the exposure of such imitations as ineffective contrasts magic with a more powerful gospel, bringing stronger commitment to the gospel.

As a model for missions, Luke’s portrayal of Paul’s intellectual appeal alongside his charismatic signs presents a balance that probably reached a range of groups of people.[5221] Western missions (and Christian ministry and education in general) have often focused on the intellectual to the exclusion of the charismatic, and some church circles (perhaps increasingly frequently today) have focused on the latter to the exclusion of the former. If today’s practices are any indication, Paul’s combination of the two would be quite remarkable, but today’s dichotomy may be influenced by the dominance of antisupernaturalism in Western thought.[5222]

↑ Back to top