Ch. 18 From Corinth to Antioch to Ephesus

Paul in Corinth (18:1-17)

Paul quickly moved on from Athens to the city of Corinth, more important at this time than Athens from both a commercial and political viewpoint. It was the capital of the new province of Achaia, created in 44 BC by Julius Caesar. Its location, on the narrow isthmus joining the Peloponnesus to the mainland of Greece, made it the ideal crossroads for East-West maritime travel, and hence a busy hub of international character. Merchants and sailors from all over the Mediterranean came here. And this meant that, if Paul could make converts among these travelers, they would take the gospel with them wherever they traveled. It was like blowing a dried dandelion and watching the seeds disperse with the wind!

“The points of convergence between Paul's Corinthian correspondence and the brief account in Acts 18 are more than sufficient to show that Luke knows what he is talking about, but the paucity of material probably means that he had not read that correspondence. Both sources mention Priscilla and Aquila, Paul's earning his Iiving by practicing a trade, the conversion and baptism of Crispus (Acts 18:18; 1 Cor. 1:14), Timothy's involvement in the ministry there (Acts 18:5; 1 Cor. 4:17; 16:10-11), and possibly the reference to Sosthenes (Acts 18:17; 1 Cor. 1:1)” (Witherington, History 269).

It is here that Luke first introduces us to the Jewish couple Aquila and Priscilla. They had lived in Rome, but had been forced to leave following the disturbances there associated with “one Chrestus”, probably the Roman historian Suetonius’ misunderstanding of the Greek title “Christus” of the Jewish Messiah.

2-3 Aquila and Priscilla were believers in Jesus and also shared Paul’s craft of tent-making. Therefore they made ideal partners, both in trade and in evangelism. We also hear from Paul himself that they eventually “risked their necks" for him (Rom. 16:4). Wayne Meeks has this to say in summary about them:

“Both have good Roman names, but in Rome that was quite common for Jews, Greek- as well as Latin-speaking, especially for women. We may summarize their known indicators of status as follows: Wealth: relatively high. They have been able to move from place to place, and in three cities to establish a sizable household; they have acted as patrons for Paul and for Christian congregations. Occupation: low, but not at the bottom. They are artisans, but independent, and by ancient standards they operate on a fairly large scale. Extraction: middling to low. They are eastern provincials and Jews besides, but assimilated to Greco-Roman culture. One thing more: the fact that Prisca's name is mentioned before her husband's once by Paul and two out of three times in Acts suggests that she has higher status than her husband” (First Urban Christians, 59).

“Their common trade is "tentmaking," or better "leatherworking." Most tents in that day were constructed of leather, but the meaning of sk[h]enopoios was extended (as was the case with the English "saddler") to refer to an artisan who produced a variety of leather articles. While Jewish rabbis were bivocational so that they would not have to charge for their teaching (m. 'Abot 2:2), other traveling teachers in the Hellenistic world received remuneration for their lectures. In Greco-Roman culture the manual labor of the artisan class was despised” (IVP Acts Commentary).

So there were social consequences to practicing his trade, as Witherington also notes:

“Paul's practicing of a trade was strategic in that it gave him a venue in the marketplace to reach people and it let him be independent from the entangling alliances involved in the patronage system, but it came with a cost, namely, that upper-class Romans would have seen him as a person of lesser status” (History 270).

As we have seen, Paul did not engage in his trade in every city he visited. If his converts could afford to support him, or if his converts in cities he had visited earlier (such as Philippi) sent funds to him, he availed himself of the chance to have more free time for evangelism. When such support was unavailable, he worked to support himself. This was not easy work. In his letters to the Corinthian church Paul later referred often to how he exhausted himself during this period (1Cor 4:12; 9:6; 15:10; 2Cor 11:27).

4 His first missionary target, as usual, was the local synagogue. The synagogue in Corinth, like those at cities he had visited earlier, was attended not only by Jews, but by interested Greeks.

5 When Silas and Timothy arrived from Macedonia, where Paul had left them, “Paul began to occupy himself totally with preaching the word” (so the New American Bible [Roman Catholic] correctly renders the Greek imperfect tense of συνείχετο as ingressive).

The coming of Silas and Timothy to Corinth altered the situation for Paul. They brought good news about the Christians at Thessalonica (cf. 1Th 3:6) and a gift of money from the congregation at Philippi (cf. 2Co 11:9; Phil 4:14-15). The news from Thessalonica was better than Paul dared expect, and it greatly comforted and encouraged him (cf. 1Th 3:7-10)—though it also told of a slanderous campaign started against him outside the congregation (1Th 2:3-6) and of some perplexity within it concerning the return of Christ (1Th 4:13-5:11). The money from Philippi was especially welcome at this time, for Paul was now able to devote himself “exclusively to preaching” (NIV Comm.).

Initial preaching in the synagogue resulted in fierce opposition, but the flash point was reached when Paul set up church next door to the synagogue in the home of Titius Justus, and the synagogue leader (archisynagogos), Crispus (the name [meaning ‘curly’] is Latin, but is used elsewhere by Jews [cf. TJ Yebhamoth 2. 3; 12. 2; Lightfoot, HHT in 1 Cor. 1:14]), became one of the converts! So important was Crispus to the little community, that he was one of very few that Paul himself baptized (1Cor 1:14). The Greek inscription of Theodotos, a ‘ruler of the synagogue’ (archisynagogos), found in Jerusalem verifies the accuracy and appropriateness of Luke’s term here.

Among the Corinthian Christians whose names are given to us in the New Testament

“Gaius (1 Cor. 1:14; Rom. 16:23 ) has a good Roman praenomen, … but in addition he has a house ample enough not only to put up Paul, but also to accommodate all the Christian groups in Corinth meeting together (Rom. 16:23). [For the Corinthian 'house churches' see this link] He is evidently a man of some wealth. The same is true of Crispus, whose office as archisynagogos shows that he not only has high prestige in the Jewish community but is also probably well to do. It is noteworthy that these two are singled out by Paul as people whom he personally baptized at the beginning of Christianity in Corinth (1 Cor. 1:14 )” (Meeks, The First Urban Christians, 57).

The fact that both Gaius and Crispus have good Latin names suggests that their families may have been among the first Roman colonists in Corinth.

As a result of Paul’s ministry there were enough believers to require several “house churches”, and when it became necessary for them to meet all together only the very large home of a wealthy believer could hold them:

“Gaius is mentioned in Romans 16:23 as 'host to me and to the whole church'. The adjective 'whole' would be unnecessary if Corinthian Christians always met as a single group. There must have been subgroups: namely, house-churches on a smaller scale. An extra large house was necessary in order to accommodate the entire community. Gaius, in consequence, must have been wealthier than the average believer” (Murphy-O'Connor, Paul, 85).

From Paul’s pastoral concerns mentioned in 1 Corinthians, it is clear that the financial and social differences among the Corinthian believers sometimes created tensions, as when wealthy believers flaunted their wealth by the food they brought to the agape feasts, while poorer members had nothing to eat (1Cor 11:20-22).

9-11 Discouragement is the arch-enemy of Christian service, especially of missionary work, which often must be conducted where other Christians are few and opponents of the gospel many. Luke introduces the story of Paul’s vision of Jesus rather abruptly in vv. 9-10, without clear indication of why Paul especially needed it. It could have been because of the Jewish opposition just mentioned (v. 6). But it is also possible that he feared pagan harassment. The words of Jesus promise that “no one will lay a hand on you to harm you, for there are many in this city who are my people.” The wording of the last phrase could suggest that Paul did not yet know how many believers may have already resided in the city when he arrived. Certainly, Aquila and Priscilla were two such. If Luke is not giving his account in chronological order, this vision may have occurred before Paul met that couple. Luke may have introduced the story of the vision to lead into his story of Paul’s trial before Gallio.

11 Luke makes a point of giving us the duration of Paul’s stay in Corinth. A year and six months is a fairly long time, which Luke again stresses in v. 18, certainly longer than he had stayed in other cities along his route. Why does Luke give us this information? Perhaps because he wishes us to know that Corinth will become an important center for Pauline Christianity, and because he wants to contrast Paul’s reception there with those in Philippi and Thessalonica. Since the mention of the trial before Gallio gives us one of the few fixed chronological points in the life of Paul, this stay in Corinth can be dated from the fall of AD 50 to the spring of 52.

12-17 Paul dragged before Gallio. Although Paul’s lengthy stay shows that he was not promptly expelled, as he had been in Philippi and Thessalonica, this was not because he was unopposed. In these verses Luke records what was undoubtedly the principal event in the opposition.

“Gallio was the son of Marcus Annaeus Seneca, the distinguished Spanish rhetorician (50 B.C.-A.D. 40). He was born in Cordova at the beginning of the Christian Era and named Marcus Annaeus Novatus. On coming to Rome with his father during the reign of Claudius (A.D. 41–54), he was adopted by the Roman rhetorician Lucius Junius Gallio, and thereafter bore the name of his adoptive father. He was renowned for his personal charm. An inscription at Delphi mentions Gallio as being proconsul of Achaia during the period of Claudius’s twenty-sixth acclamation as imperator—that is, during the first seven months of A.D. 52. Proconsuls entered office in the senatorial provinces on July 1, and therefore Gallio became proconsul of Achaia on July 1, 51, but only for a brief period of time” (NIV Comm.).

Luke stresses that the Jewish attack on Paul was “united” (Greek ὁμοθυμαδὸν). In v. 6 he indicated by the Greek verb ἀντιτασσομένων (“opposed”) an “organized front of resistance” (Johnson, Acts 323). By this time word of Paul’s earlier ministries and successes had reached the Jewish synagogues of Corinth and showed them the necessity of united and vigorous opposition. And the evidence of his early success in Corinth itself was obvious to them.

As Gallio’s presence in the city at this time suggested to them a way to utilize the Romans’ own system of public order to discourage Paul and his converts.

The nature of the charge brought against him (v. 13) was that he was promoting a religion not officially approved by Roman law. Judaism was officially recognized as a religio licita ("permitted [or authorized] religion"), but since the Jewish leaders avow that he is “persuading people to worship God in ways that are contrary to the law”, this means that he is not entitled to protection under the rubric of Judaism. What the Jewish leaders did not count on, however, was Gallio’s response: that Paul’s relationship to Judaism itself was thus a matter for debate within Judaism (“since it is a matter of questions about words and names and your own law, see to it yourselves; I do not wish to be a judge of these matters.” v. 15). Paul could in his own defense claim that the message of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah was indeed part of Judaism and thus protected as religio licita. Paul seems to have gone to considerable lengths in the months and years ahead to give evidence of his continuing adherence to Jewish customs: in Cenchrea near Corinth he shaved his head in connection with a vow (Acts 18:18; see also Acts 21:22-24). This not only contributed to his protection under Roman law as a promulgator of a religio licita (Judaism), but would help to deflect criticism from him once he returned to Jerusalem and was assailed by Jewish opponents there. but Paul’s adherence to the religion of his ancestors was not just a ploy to help protect himself while evangelizing: his letters show that he was thoroughly convinced that what he was preaching was the true religion of Abraham and Moses, fulfilled in the Messiah Jesus.

It is sometimes unfairly claimed that Luke’s book was designed to curry favor with the Roman government by whitewashing the Roman authorities, both in respect to the crucifixion of Jesus and the treatment of the Christian missionaries. But v. 17 shows how baseless such a claim is: Gallio is hardly shown in a flattering light here, as he watches indifferently the Jewish mob beat up the new Christian Sosthenes!

The Gallio episode is the last vignette Luke gives us of Paul’s first visit to Corinth. The comment in v. 18 that Paul stayed in Corinth “for a considerable time” (NRSV; lit. “many days” [ἡμέρας ἱκανὰς]) covers the entire time of the visit, not just the period after the Gallio incident. More incidents from that period could surely be reconstructed from the study of retrospective remarks in Paul’s two letters to the Corinthian believers, but that is not our purpose in this study. Luke has now finished his remarks about Paul’s first visit and the founding of the church there.

Paul returns via Ephesus to Antioch, and begins 3rd Trip into Asia Minor (18:18-23)

Eventually Paul left them to return to his “sending church” in Antioch. Luke refers to this destination simply as “Syria”. His companions as far as the first stop at Ephesus were his partners in evangelism, Priscilla and Aquila. By his brief mention in v. 18 that Paul had his hair cut “because he had a vow” (see Jewish law relating to vows see the Jewish Encyclopedia), Luke intends his readers to understand that Paul continued to live according to the religious customs of his native people wherever those customs did not contradict the new revelation of truth that had come with Jesus. The charges of Paul’s opponents that he had departed from the faith of Abraham and Moses and was guilty of leading Jews to apostatize from the ancestral faith are thus shown to be baseless. When a Jew took a nazirite vow (see Num 6), he began a period during which among other constraints on his behavior he did not cut his hair. At the end of the period of the vow he cut the hair and performed a sacrifice at the Jerusalem temple. Since Paul had to travel to Jerusalem to perform the sacrifice forming part of his obligation, he could (and perhaps normally would) have cut his hair there. The fact that instead he had it cut while still in Greece (Cenchreae was only 7 miles from Corinth) shows that this was part of what he wished the believers and Jewish opponents in Greece to witness: that he was still living like a faithful Jew, albeit a Messianic one.

Luke’s point is further strengthened by the fact that, upon arriving in Ephesus, Paul immediately visited the local synagogue and discussed with the Jews there the messiahship of Jesus (v. 19). That he was well received by the Jews in Ephesus is emphasized by their inviting him to stay on and continue his teaching (v. 20-21), and by Paul’s answer that he sincerely hoped to return to them and continue the discussion “if God wills” (v. 21). You recall that earlier in his Second Missionary Journey Paul and his team had set out westward from Iconium to enter the Roman province of Asia of which Ephesus was the chief city, but the Holy Spirit prevented them (Acts 16:6); so that they turned northward and ended up in Troas from where they crossed to Philippi (Acts 16:7-10). Paul apparently knew that eventually God would allow him to visit Ephesus, and now he was given a foretaste, which whetted his appetite for a return in his Third Journey.

Sometimes God leads us into unexpected opportunities to discuss the gospel with strangers. And often we cannot be sure that we will see them again. Paul sets us a good example here: be outgoing, gracious and kind, explain everything as well as you can in the limited time, and then express your desire to continue the discussion later, whether in person, by mail, by e-mail or by phone. Such casual acquaintances are not to be thrown away like a used donut wrapper at the airport counter. God has given you a new friend and a potential Christian brother or sister.

Luke’s narrative now becomes little more than an itinerary with very few details of what occurred at each stop. Landing at Caesarea (the port city of Jerusalem), he traveled first to Jerusalem “and greeted the church”. As we just remarked, greeting the Jerusalem church was only part of the reason for Paul’s visit to that city: he also made his sacrifice to conclude the period of his vow, and quite possibly arrived in time to celebrate the Passover.

“While the name ‘Jerusalem’ does not appear in the text, it is certainly implied by the expressions ‘went up’ and ‘went down,’ and also by the absolute use of the term ‘the church.’ At Jerusalem, then, he met with the mother church. In addition, he undoubtedly entered into a thirty-day program of purification for his Nazirite vow, after which he presented his shorn hair to God in thanksgiving and offered sacrifices” (NIV Comm.).

“Though the time is short, perhaps he is still intent on getting to Jerusalem by Passover. The sea lanes opened on March 10, and in A.D. 52 Passover was in early April (Bruce 1988:356). Or he is hurrying there to complete his vow” (IVP Acts Comm.).

Though Jerusalem was his spiritual goal in this trip, Antioch is his missionary goal, since it is there that his home base is. In Antioch he would report all that had been accomplished and prepare for his next trip. Luke gives the impression that he did not stay long in Antioch (ποιήσας χρόνον τινὰ), perhaps from the summer of AD 52 through the spring of 53.

When he did set out again, his first task was the “strengthening” (ἐπιστηρίζων) of the new converts to Christianity in the areas he had visited in the first and second missionary journeys (Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, Derbe). The verb translated “strengthen” is used in the OT of the physical support of a building by its pillars and of the financial and emotional support which one can provide to another. Luke has used this verb before (Acts 14:22; 15:32,41) to describe Paul’s activities, which he further describes as: “encouraging [new believers] to remain true to the faith, saying: ‘We must go through many hardships to enter the kingdom of God,’” (Acts 14:22). What Paul did to “strengthen” the disciples was to teach them that it was anticipated that they would experience persecution: that Jesus himself had predicted it. But that such persecution would only increase their reward in heaven (Matt 5:10-12,44; 10:23; 13:21; 15:22; 24:9; Luke 21:12; Jn 15:20). And he reinforced this teaching by his own example: they saw how much Paul suffered for the sake of the gospel and never lost hope. Is this not how we “strengthen” one another in the faith as well? It should be!

We should be guided by this stated objective in interpreting the geographical names used by Luke. “Phrygia” cannot therefore mean the region to the far north in Asia Minor which Paul had not previously visited nor planted churches there. Rather it means the area to the south, where ethnic Phrygians lived.

The Beginnings of the Church in Ephesus (18:24-28)

This paragraph sets the background for Paul’s arrival in Ephesus. It introduces to us a fascinating man. He is usually given the name “Apollos”, but textual variants in the Greek manuscripts give us his full name “Apollonius” (see the town named “Apollonia” mentioned in Acts 17:1). Doubtless, Apollos was an abbreviated form of this name. He is described as a Jew from Alexandria (v. 24). He combined natural gifts of eloquence with a profound understanding of the Old Testament, and he was enthusiastic in proclaiming such truth as he knew (vv. 24–25). The conspicuous gap in his knowledge concerned the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the consequent rite of Christian baptism. This was made good by the patient instruction of Priscilla and Aquila (v. 26). From Ephesus Apollos went on to Corinth, where he showed himself to be an expert at Christian apologetics in dealing with the Jews (vv. 27–28). At Corinth there sprang up factions in the names of Paul, Apollos, Cephas and Christ himself (1 Cor. 1:12). Paul seeks to show that this was not due to himself or Apollos, who were both working together under the hand of God (1 Cor. 3:4–6). All belonged to the Corinthians, including himself and Apollos (1 Cor. 3:21–23), and there could be no cause for party spirit (1 Cor. 4:6). The factions were probably due to the preference of some for the polished eloquence of Apollos. His desire to lessen the controversy may be the reason for his not returning to Corinth despite Paul’s request (1 Cor. 16:12). He is last mentioned in Tit. 3:13 as making some sort of journey.

Luke Johnson points out that the way in which Luke introduces Apollos, while in no way unflattering, clearly indicates that he is not an apostle. It is not in what is said about him, but what is not said about him that shows this. He is described as eloquent and knowledgeable in the scriptures, instructed in “the Way of the Lord” (the Western Text D adds “in his native land [i.e., Alexandria Egypt]”). Luke describes him as “fervent in spirit” (ζέων τῷ πνεύματι v. 25 ESV; “with ardent spirit” NAB, “with burning enthusiasm” NRSV, “with great fervor” NIV), but not “filled/full of the Holy Spirit”, as Peter, Stephen and Paul are described. The Western text variant says he was "instructed" in his native land, but — even if that variant is historically reliable— not necessarily converted in his native land. Acts 19 tells us that the believers Paul found in Ephesus after Apollos left only knew “the baptism of John (the Baptist)”, i.e., a baptism of repentance. If Apollos had been converted while on a Jewish pilgrimage to Jerusalem, perhaps by followers of the Baptist, then he too might have had only the message and theology of John the Baptist before Priscilla and Aquila taught him the full story.

If he had undergone the baptism of John, and he taught accurately about Jesus, it is possible that he knew more about the earthly ministry and teachings of Jesus—humanly speaking—than Paul did. But this did not make him a better guide to the new Christians, only a complementary one: God used him at that particular time to fill a need that neither Paul nor Priscilla nor Aquila were in a position to fill.

Just what then did Aquila and Priscilla explain to him about the “Way of God” “more accurately” (v. 26)? And what difference, if any, is there between the “Way of the Lord” (v. 25) and the “Way of God” (v. 26)? If we may assume for the moment that Apollos came to Ephesus, having only experienced the baptism and teaching of the Baptist, what he taught as “the way of the Lord” could have been the same themes that John the Baptist himself taught: “In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the Desert of Judea and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.” This is he who was spoken of through the prophet Isaiah: “A voice of one calling in the desert, ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight paths for him.’”” (Matthew 3:1-3; cf. also Lk 3:4). The "way of the Lord" that John the Baptist "prepared" by his preaching was repentance and reform of life.

What Aquila and Priscilla explained to Apollos more accurately was what v. 26 (in most modern translations) gives as “the way of God”. The Greek manuscripts of Acts show three possible readings in v. 26: “the way of the Lord”, “the way of God” and simply “the way”. Of these, the third has slightly better manuscript evidence. It is likely that an author like Luke would use the shorter form “the way” after the longer “the way of the Lord” as a kind of abbreviation, whereas the abrupt change from “way of the Lord” to “way of God” has no clear reason. Apollos taught the “way of the Lord” accurately, but he needed to be taught “the way” (i.e., that same way) more accurately. John the Baptist’s teaching was correct, but incomplete. It needed the full doctrines of Jesus' death for our sins, resurrection, and the coming of the Holy Spirit.

Since the time of Luther, Apollos has often been suggested as the possible author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, which shows the same characteristics of Hellenistic Alexandrian Judaism as Luke describes in Apollos.. This is possible, if he used the allegorical exegesis of his native Alexandria, but it is by no means proved.

From Ephesus Apollos went on to Corinth, taking with him letters of recommendation to the Corinthian church from the Ephesian church. In Corinth he showed himself to be an expert at Christian apologetics in dealing with the Jews, showing from fulfilled prophecy that the Messiah promised in the Old Testament was Jesus of Nazareth (Acts 18:27–28).

At Corinth there sprang up factions in the names of Paul, Apollos, Cephas and Christ himself (1 Cor. 1:12). Paul seeks to show that this was not due to himself or Apollos, who were both working together under the hand of God (1 Cor. 3:4–6). The factions were probably due to the preference of some for the polished eloquence of Apollos. His desire to lessen the controversy may be the reason for his not returning to Corinth despite Paul’s request (1 Cor. 16:12). He is last mentioned in Tit. 3:13 as making some sort of journey.