Acts 18:1–28

18:1–17 Corinth. When we think of centers of early Christian activity, Jerusalem and Antioch immediately come to mind. In the story of Acts, however, three other cities serve as key points through which Luke traces the fulfillment of Christ’s command “to the end of the earth” (1:8): Corinth (introduced here in ch. 18), Ephesus (ch. 19), and Rome (ch. 28). Paul stays in Corinth a year and a half (18:11), placing it second only to Ephesus in terms of consecutive time Paul spends freely in any one place (19:8, 10). The amount of time Paul spends in Corinth helps us to understand the depth of his knowledge of the Corinthians and some of the issues he addresses in 1 and 2 Corinthians.

Five elements, including some that appear for the first time, are connected to Paul’s ministry in Corinth.¹ For the first time, Luke shares that Paul makes money as a tentmaker (Acts 18:3). In our day Paul would be labeled bivocational, describing one who pursues another calling alongside pastoral ministry in order to make a living. Second, Paul maintains the pattern of preaching first to Jews before moving to Gentiles. The third aspect is a new wrinkle that comes as a result of continued rejection in the synagogues and by the Jews generally, namely, the rise of house-church meetings (v. 7). Another development is the extended period of time Paul stays in one place. Finally, in the Corinth narrative Luke indicates that Christians at this time are still considered by the secular authorities to be part of Judaism and therefore still under a certain protection (v. 15). Roman authorities do not make a distinction between Jews and Christians but see the controversies over the place of the law and the person of Jesus as in-house disputes.

In Corinth Paul meets Aquila and Priscilla, who have come to Corinth because of Emperor Claudius’s decision to drive the Jews from Rome in AD 49 (an event documented in extrabiblical sources as well). Luke does not describe the conversion of Aquila and Priscilla, and thus it is likely that they were converted before “recently” (v. 2) leaving Rome. As previously mentioned, at this time there is no distinguishing between Jews and Christians from a Roman perspective—the couple was expelled from Rome with the other Jews.

Soon the proconsul Gallio will hear the case against Paul and conclude it is a Jewish dispute (vv. 15–17). Later the tribune Claudius Lysias (23:29) and the governor Festus (25:19) will come to similar conclusions. The distinction between Judaism and Christianity, as evident as it will become in subsequent generations, is not yet fully understood outside the church in the first century. In Acts we see a trajectory of division, beginning with the separation from the temple, then from Jerusalem to Antioch and later Corinth, Ephesus, and Rome, and then from the synagogues to house churches. Measured against history, the division happens nearly overnight, but in the life of those in the narrative it takes some time. As the church moves outward from Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and into the world, the difference becomes more evident. What might at the time seem like minor squabbles over laws and traditions are in fact the distinction between believing in or rejecting the Messiah promised to the Jews.

Following his typical pattern, Paul spends time in the synagogue seeking to convince, on the basis of Scripture, both Jews and God-fearing Greeks to believe in Jesus as the Messiah (18:4). This is followed by a shift to what become the typical meeting places for the early church: house churches (v. 7). As usual in Luke’s story, persecution leads to the change in setting. The increase in Gentile believers also accounts for the movement to house churches. Paul has withstood persecution and attacks on his preaching in virtually every place. Here in Corinth, however, the rejection is such that he not only declares, as he did in Pisidian Antioch (13:46), his turn to the Gentiles but also symbolically condemns their unbelief by shaking out his clothes and declaring, “Your blood be on your own heads!” (18:6). This is Paul’s way of stating that he has done his job and has been faithful to bring the gospel, but they are responsible for their unbelief and will be judged for it. The same gospel message that saves also condemns those who hear and refuse to believe (cf. 2 Cor. 2:16).

What may seem like a setback immediately bears fruit as Paul moves to the house of Titius Justus. Crispus (the synagogue leader), his household, and many others believe and receive baptism (Acts 18:8). As is usually the case, belief and baptism go hand in hand. Luke notes that Crispus’s “entire household” is baptized. Paul recalls this baptism in 1 Corinthians 1:14. The term “household” refers to both his immediate family and the servants living under Crispus’s care. In light of the Cornelius narrative, “entire household” could imply only those who believed and received the Spirit (Acts 10:44–48). Subsequent household baptisms of Lydia’s (16:15) and the Philippian jailer’s (16:33) do not mention the reception of the Spirit, although they seem to follow the pattern at Cornelius’s house. With Lydia, Luke says the Lord “opened her heart to pay attention,” and after that she and her household were baptized (16:14). There both belief and receiving the Spirit are reasonably implied, at least for Lydia. Paul emphasizes the necessity of belief for baptism when speaking to the jailer (16:31), but the Spirit is not mentioned even though he was surely present. So here with Crispus, the reader of Acts can assume both faith and the Spirit at conversion. Whether the baptism includes infants who by nature cannot yet believe is ambiguous from the term “household.”

Paul’s extended stay in Corinth, in spite of the rough reception and general unrest on account of the gospel, is based on a certain word he receives from the Lord, appearing to him in a vision: “Do not be afraid, but go on speaking and do not be silent, for I am with you, and no one will attack you to harm you, for I have many in this city who are my people” (18:9–10). Paul is not given a special divine vision regarding who will believe but is encouraged to persevere in Corinth because the Lord’s “people” are there. Divine providence in election is not revealed in terms of mechanics or specifics—both known only to God—but is revealed to us in the Bible as something that lies with God completely and as something we may confidently believe. There is no hint of fatalism, much less a decreased motivation for preaching and evangelism. From what the Lord tells Paul, he may stay and preach with confidence.

We also see that the necessary means of salvation are not separated from the divine grounds of salvation. God’s sovereignty in salvation is realized through the spoken word of the gospel. People are appointed, but they must believe (13:46). Whether God could bring saving knowledge of Jesus in some other way, or whether someone could be saved on a remote island with no chance of hearing the gospel, are not questions the Bible poses or even suggests that we explore. Our knowledge of God’s election is limited to knowing that the Bible teaches God’s sovereignty in salvation and that we have evidence of it only when people believe. This knowledge is not for speculation but for confidence to preach the gospel to all people in all circumstances.

Paul’s eighteen months in Corinth end in another uproar. The Jews there bring him to the proconsul, Gallio, on charges that he has taught worship of God that is “contrary to the law” (18:13). The irony is that such a charge reveals that they understand neither Paul nor their own law. In this instance, Paul does not even speak. Gallio could not care less about the case and tells them to settle their own issues themselves. Once again, Luke shows the providential protection extended to Paul through Gentiles. More importantly Gallio’s response—to drive the Jews out of court (v. 16)—confirms the Lord’s promise to keep Paul safe.

Out of what appears to be pure spite, the Jews grab Sosthenes, the synagogue ruler, and beat him (v. 17). The implication is that Sosthenes, who presumably took over as synagogue ruler after Crispus became a believer, has also become a believer.² The Jews beat Sosthenes somewhere within sight of the tribunal—the seat from which Gallio would judge the cases brought before him—but Gallio “paid no attention to any of this” (v. 17). Rome is not yet an open opponent to the gospel, but neither is it a particular defender of the first Christians. When Roman officials in Acts defend Christians such as Paul, they are protecting the laws and customs of the Roman Empire. Although the Jews were opponents of the early church, the believers suffer just as much, and soon far more, at the hands of Gentiles (see 1 Thess. 2:14).

18:18–23 Returning to Antioch. This section brings Paul’s second missionary journey to a close by quickly tracing his trip from Corinth to Antioch and just as quickly narrating the beginning of his third journey. Priscilla and Aquila depart with Paul—it is clear that Paul usually has a team with him on his missionary travels, and Priscilla and Aquila’s important role in the narrative comes shortly. Luke also records that Paul is “under a vow,” presumably a purification vow, although he does not state why (v. 18). All we can conclude is that Paul took the vow because he chose to do so and that it did not compromise his view of the old covenant and its law. As Paul makes clear in his epistles, believers can do (or not do) or keep (or not keep) whatever they want according to their consciences, as long as they realize that the doing (or not doing) does not make them special in the eyes of God (cf. Gal. 6:15).

Perhaps Paul took the vow for personal reasons—it is possible he did so as an act of becoming a Jew for the sake of Jews and being “all things to all people” (1 Cor. 9:20–23). It is conceivable he did so in anticipation of his upcoming trip to Jerusalem, which is likely implied in Acts 18:22; there Luke says that after landing in Caesarea Paul “went up and greeted the church,” which almost certainly refers to the church in Jerusalem. Although there is no way to know exactly why Paul took this vow, we should conclude that, whatever the reason, the vow was not inconsistent with either the Jerusalem council’s decision (ch. 15) or Paul’s teaching.

Paul’s declaration to turn to the Gentiles (18:6) once again does not imply never again entering a synagogue. When he arrives in Ephesus for a short visit that foreshadows chapter 19, he goes straight to a synagogue to “[reason] with the Jews” (18:19). Paul and his gospel enjoy some degree of acceptance, and he likely makes converts in Ephesus, judging from the request for him to stay and also from his promise, if God wills, to return (vv. 20–21). These verses point forward to the third missionary journey, in which Ephesus will be the longest stop on that trip around the Mediterranean world. These verses also speak to the dynamic nature of how Paul fulfills his calling. Sometimes he is led directly by the Spirit or through a vision, and other times Luke simply shows Paul making a decision to stay or leave a place without mention of further deliberation or special revelation.

Luke moves quickly to Paul’s return to Caesarea and back to Antioch. In between those cities Paul “went up and greeted the church” (v. 22). Most commentators believe this to be the church in Jerusalem, although some question why Luke does not mention that city by name even though he does so elsewhere. There is no reason to suggest that the city goes unnamed because of increasing tension between Gentile and Jewish believers or because Luke is purposely diminishing the status of Jerusalem. Because of the central place and importance of the city in Acts, Luke does not have to mention it by name here.

Just as quickly as Paul returns to Antioch, he again sets out and, as before, returns to areas of previous ministry, namely, Galatia and Phrygia. Luke likely mentions these places because they are part of the region that the Spirit kept Paul from visiting on his second journey (16:6). But now Paul is able to return, further teaching and encouraging the churches.

18:24–28 Apollos in Ephesus. The narrative moves to Ephesus, as Luke introduces one of the more remarkable characters of the NT. Apollos is from Alexandria, one of the leading intellectual cities in the world at the time, and he is noted as an “eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures” (v. 24). We know from 1 Corinthians that Apollos becomes one of the more important and effective ministers of the gospel (1 Cor. 1:12; 3:5; 4:6), and Luke makes Apollos’s gifts and abilities evident as well. But how can a powerful teacher who teaches “accurately the things concerning Jesus” only know about the baptism of John the Baptist (Acts 18:25)? This points to the transitional nature of this time and the dawning of a new era in Acts. Unlike the disciples of John the Baptist whom Paul meets in chapter 19 (cf. comment on 19:1–10), Apollos has been taught about Jesus, knows him as the Messiah, and could show this identity based on Scripture, but his knowledge does not include Christian baptism.

It is not at all difficult to imagine that the whole message did not reach Apollos in Alexandria; there were likely a multitude of people with incomplete knowledge of “the Way” who nevertheless believed in Jesus as the Messiah. Conclusions about Apollos, however, cannot be based on events behind Luke’s narrative, regardless of how likely they seem or whether they are based on commonsense observations. Luke does not fill in all the gaps, and we are left with yet another character in the first generation of the church whose background is incomplete.

Unlike the disciples of John in chapter 19 or the Samaritans in chapter 8, Luke does not say that Apollos lacks the Spirit but implies that he is a believer.³ At the same time, as seen throughout Acts, belief, baptism, and the Spirit are connected, and Luke explicitly says that Apollos knows only John’s baptism. He knows Jesus “accurately,” yet things are explained to him “more accurately” (18:26). Readers can and should assume from the narrative of Acts that Apollos is baptized after he hears of Christian baptism from Priscilla and Aquila, but Luke does not mention the giving of the Spirit. The story of Apollos describes unique circumstances that do not match up exactly with any of the other characters introduced in Acts. His story is not a pattern but a special case in a narrative filled with unique characters and events. Apollos, like the believers north of Jerusalem in the early chapters of Acts, points to a larger trajectory of the spread of the gospel to the ends of the earth. The spread of the message was not then, nor is it now, neat and clean and theologically precise at every point. That is why Luke is always underscoring the ongoing business of teaching and training in the church.

Luke’s main concern is to show that whatever is lacking in Apollos is filled up through the teaching of Priscilla and Aquila. The ordering of their names here, as in verse 18, with Priscilla first (unlike verse 2, where Aquila is first) should neither alarm complementarians nor encourage egalitarians. Why does Luke change the order? No one knows. The point is that the couple, fresh from a year and a half with Paul in Corinth and knowledgeable in the faith, hear Apollos and take him aside and fill him in on the whole story. Luke does include Priscilla in the teaching of Apollos, and he does not distinguish anything beyond that. He does say “they took him aside” (v. 26), implying that the teaching is not public and thus not contrary to what Paul will later write to Timothy regarding women not teaching men in a church setting (1 Tim. 2:12). At the same time, there is nothing in this text to support the idea that Priscilla communicates only through her husband and does not address Apollos directly, or merely sits there in reverent silence. In any case, Apollos, carrying a letter of endorsement, goes to Achaia (the region of Corinth) and both teaches believers and refutes the Jews from Scripture. With that the story returns to Paul, who is meanwhile making his way back to Ephesus.