Day #332

Sermon - Audio
Acts 18:19-19:41 - Reading
Acts 18:19-19:41 - Audio

Daily Insights - Please Comment

Paul visits Ephesus and returns to Antioch. A brief visit to Ephesus, which was to become an important mission centre on Paul’s next journey (19:1–41), ended Paul’s second missionary travels. 18 That Paul had his hair cut off as part of a vow he had taken probably relates to a form of the Nazirite vow (see Nu. 6:1–21), since it is known to have been practised by the early Christians (Acts 21:23–26). It was offered in gratefulness for deliverance from danger (9–10) and specifically involved shaving the head. It was probably Paul’s expression of his gratitude to God in a way that was culturally appropriate for him.

Paul’s Aegean ministry.

19 Typically, upon arriving in Ephesus, Paul went into the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews (despite 18:6). On Paul’s missionary pattern see 13:5 and 46. 20 On this occasion, however, Paul did not spend enough time there to arouse much interest. 21 His promise to come back if it is God’s will is fulfilled in the next chapter. 22 Thus Paul arrived back in Antioch and concluded his second set of missionary visits.

18:23–20:12 The third journey and the decision to go to Jerusalem

18:23–28 Priscilla, Aquila and Apollos. The account of the third journey of Paul begins with a brief aside about Priscilla and Aquila, who had remained in Ephesus when Paul returned to Antioch (19–22). 23 In a way similar to the second voyage, this journey began with a trip through the region of Galatia and Phrygia (not identical to the phrase in 16:6). And, as before, the purpose of the trip at the outset was pastoral rather than evangelistic: Paul was strengthening all the disciples.

24 Alexandria in Egypt was among the most important cities in the Roman Empire. The large Jewish population there had a reputation for scholarly pursuits, producing both the influential Greek translation of the OT called the Septuagint and the great philosopher Philo. Apollos, a learned man with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures, may have seen himself in this tradition. 25 Apollos spoke with great fervour (lit. ‘fervent in spirit’) and taught about Jesus accurately, but although he had been instructed in the way of the Lord, somehow he knew only of the baptism of John. The ‘disciples’ Paul encountered later in Ephesus (19:1–7) similarly had received only the baptism of John. Apollos, however, knew and taught about Jesus, whereas the impression one gets from 19:4–5 is that those disciples had never heard of the fulfilment of John’s hope for the one who would come after him. 26 Like Paul, Apollos seems to have gone first to the synagogues. That Priscilla and Aquila, on hearing Apollos, explained to him the way of God more accurately implies that though his teaching was accurate (25), it was based on incomplete knowledge. 27–28 Letters of recommendation were commonly used at this time to secure acceptance (see, e.g. Rom. 16:1–2). Apollos proved very popular with the Corinthian Christians, both Jews and Gentiles (see 1 Cor. 1:12; 3:4–5, 22; 16:12).

19:1–22 Paul’s ministry in Ephesus. The first episode in Paul’s long stay (almost three years) in Ephesus was an encounter with some followers of John the Baptist. John’s fame had evidently spread far beyond Palestine (on his importance see 1:21–22; 13:16–25; 18:23–28 and Lk. 20:5–7). The term some disciples usually refers to Christians, but since these people had not received the Holy Spirit, it is more likely that they are to be regarded as disciples of John the Baptist, on ‘the Way’ but not very far along. 2 Since the Holy Spirit formed an important part of John’s own teaching, the reply of these men that they had not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit probably means that they had heard a version of John’s message rather than John himself, and the reports that they had heard concentrated on his ethical teaching rather than his role as preparing the way (for an example of his teaching see Lk. 3:7–14). 3 These people had received a baptism of repentance, which was in itself a good thing, but unlike Apollos (18–25), they did not seem to know anything about Jesus. We are not told that Apollos needed to be rebaptized (Priscilla and Aquila certainly would have been able to baptize him, if Ananias could baptize Paul, Acts 9:17–19). The probable difference was that Apollos knew about and trusted in the Messiah (having accurate, if incomplete knowledge about him, 18:25–26) and saw his baptism in connection with that faith, whereas for these disciples, the baptism was merely a pledge of good behaviour. They still needed to be baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.

6 As a sign to all concerned of their acceptance, there came a very public display of the reception of the Holy Spirit (see 8:15–17; 10:44–46), and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. Whether such manifestations should be regarded as typical or normal is not an easy question to answer. Luke certainly does not mention such gifts at all the conversions that he records, but then again, neither does he ever say that ‘such and such a person did not manifest any gifts’. Whatever we may believe about the ‘normal’ conversion, Luke seems to have emphasized mention of these gifts and the reception of the Holy Spirit in his account primarily where he felt that the church or his readers needed to be assured that the group to which the converts belonged were really acceptable to the Lord, e.g. the Samaritans (ch. 8), the Gentiles (ch. 10) and these disciples of John. As mentioned in the Commentary on those other passages, the way that Luke records these events suggests that for him they functioned as much as a sign to the missionaries as to the converts themselves.

8–10 Paul’s usual missionary pattern (see on 13:46) was also followed in Ephesus: to the synagogue first, then to the Gentiles. In Ephesus, he had daily use of the lecture hall of Tyrannus, probably in the hours it was not required for the usual lectures. After three months of meeting in the synagogue, the believers probably would have had their own place for worship, but the lecture hall would have been used, as was the synagogue, for evangelism.

11–12 The next few stories describe the confrontation of the power of the living God with a city that was deeply interested in magic and the occult. It is in this setting that Luke records what he calls extraordinary miracles, and one can readily forgive him the implication that, by comparison, other miracles are ‘ordinary’. That God healed through Paul does not surprise us, that God can heal at a distance does not surprise us, what surprises us is that he used such ‘props’ as handkerchiefs and aprons that Paul touched. But these props were probably employed for the sake of the expectations of the people, rather than being a necessary or effective part of the healing. In the same way, Jesus allowed a woman to be healed by touching cloth that was in contact with his body (Lk. 8:43–48). The incarnation has always been about God limiting himself in dramatic, nearly absurd, ways in order to communicate to a fallen and absurd people. See also 5:12–16 on the healing effect of Peter’s shadow and the note there.

13–16 As if in contrast to the previous story, which could be construed as ‘magic’, Luke presents this attempt by non-Christian Jews to harness the power of God (see also Lk. 11:19, 24–26) through the use of the name of Jesus (see Acts 8:18). Sceva may have been of a high priestly family, but may have used the title chief priest as a form of self-advertisement. Things associated with the ancient ‘exotic’ Jewish religion held a certain appeal to many Gentiles, and Hebrew names and words are found on pagan magical scrolls. The formula in the name of Jesus, whom Paul preaches, may have been an attempt to make clear to the evil spirit just which Jesus they were invoking since the name was a common one among Jews. This particular evil spirit did not, however, need such information; he had heard of both Jesus and Paul, but not of the seven sons of Sceva! And, proving that they had no power over him, he gave them such a beating that they ran. Aside from the comical overtones of the story, there is, for Luke, a crucial point to make here: contrary to common belief at the time (which is perhaps unconsciously reflected even in Christian phrasing about exorcism) it is not the name of Jesus that works in a mechanical way over the powers. The name is not a ‘key’ of some sort. If we are channels of his power, it is not because we know of his name (this the demons know and tremble) but because we know him and, more importantly, are known by him (see also the note on 5:12–16).

17–20 With such events going on at Ephesus, it is little wonder that the people were in awe and the name of the Lord Jesus was held in high honour. The burning of magical scrolls and public confession of sorcerers is the Gentile equivalent of the ‘many priests in Jerusalem’ who believed (6:7). Fifty thousand drachmas was an outrageous total, showing clearly the Ephesians’ fascination with such things. The drachma was a silver coin representing the average wage for a day, thus this total represents over 135 years’ wages.

21–22 The success of the church coupled with Paul’s desire to accompany the gifts of the Gentile churches (see 24:17; 1 Cor. 16:1–4; 2 Cor. 8–9) helped him to begin preparations for a trip to Jerusalem, which he intended to follow with a trip to Rome. The Greek of v 21 has the word ‘spirit’, but it is not clear whether Paul’s own spirit is meant, or the Holy Spirit. In the light of 20:22, however, it is likely that the phrase translated simply Paul decided should really be something like ‘Paul decided in the Spirit’.

19:23–45 The riot in Ephesus. The amount of money involved in the scroll-burning (19) must have in itself caused a stir among the people. Those who depended upon the sale of religious objects for their livelihood would have cause to think through the implications of a successful growing Christian church. If Luke portrays the Jewish leaders as becoming opponents of Christianity for petty reasons like personal jealousy, he also clearly portrays pagan opponents in matching colours. Similar financial reasons behind the treatment of Christians are found in 16:19 and also 24:26, where it is implied that only a bribe stood between Paul and freedom.

23–27 The disturbance arose through the speech of Demetrius. His motivation clearly had financial roots: we receive a good income from this business. Paul must have preached in Ephesus along the anti-idolatry lines found in the Athens speech (see on 17:16–35): he says that man-made gods are no gods at all (see also 1 Cor. 8:4–6). The most effective part of Demetrius’s speech, however, was his tactic of rationalizing and turning what really worried him, the financial threat, into more socially acceptable ‘nobler’ concerns like the pride of the trade, and even civic pride and religious loyalty (which should perhaps have been the first consideration).

28–34 The realism of Luke’s account is striking. Were he merely making up propaganda for Christianity there is no way he would have missed this opportunity for his hero Paul to score an oratorical victory here as in Athens. Instead, Gaius and Aristarchus were seized, and Paul was not permitted to go. The description of some of the officials of the province as friends of Paul is intriguing. From the way Luke wrote, it seems unlikely that these were Christians, but they may have been interested parties, as Sergius Paulus was at first (13:6–8). The description of mob behaviour in v 32 is perfect. Perhaps the Jews pushed forward Alexander … to make a defence (33) in order to distance themselves from the Christians. The pagan crowd may not otherwise have been able to distinguish between these two groups of ‘atheists’, as Jews and Christians, who both denied the existence of the gods, were called.

35–41 Very like Gamaliel in 5:33–40, the city clerk was not ‘on the side of the Christians’, yet in both cases their faith in what they did believe had a calming effect on the opponents. Both argued, in essence, that events would take care of themselves. Where the troublemaker Demetrius had rendered selfish considerations noble, the clerk in his speech showed the crowd that their unnecessary acts were rash and dangerous. He cleverly first addressed and agreed with their civic and religious pride and implied that those who did not accept the undeniable ‘facts’ about Artemis were merely ignorant rather than likely to be dangerous, unless they had specifically robbed temples or blasphemed. (There are cases where temples in the ancient world housed an image, which fell from heaven, or what we today would call a meteorite.) The clerk then cut through the veneer of civic and religious pride and directly addressed Demetrius’s real concern, the financial grievances. He did not deny that this was a legitimate concern but pointed out that the courts are open if he or anyone else wished to press charges. With all the problems addressed, the clerk went on to point out to the crowd that their meeting, which no longer could serve any use, put them (still including and aligning himself with them) in danger of being charged with rioting. His speech was as successful as it was brilliant, and he was thus able to end the incident and dismiss the assembly.