And Paul, having yet stayed [there] many days, took leave of the brethren and sailed thence to Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila, having shorn his head in Cenchrea, for he had a vow;
Paul's long stay in Corinth ends, and Luke adds one puzzling detail: a shaved head and a vow at the port of Cenchrea. Why would the apostle who preached freedom from the law leave with an old Jewish rite? And was the vow even his?
The case the Jews brought against Paul had collapsed before Gallio, the Roman governor.
It is interesting to note that the apostle did not leave Corinth at once. The failure of the Jews before the governor left him free… He wrote the two letters to the Thessalonians during his stay at Corinth. There was a gap between them, short but enough to show what damage could come upon the saints in a brief time. So those who think it took centuries before error was able to enter are quite mistaken.
Scripture never states what prompted it. One suggestion links the vow to a woman commended later for her care of Paul.
Who this last remark refers to has been much questioned. We believe Luke meant Paul. We know no reason why he should not have made a vow, since we do not know the circumstances in which he made it. Romans 16:1-2 may throw a little light on the matter. Notice how the apostle there writes of Phoebe, a servant of the assembly at Cenchrea… "a helper of many and of myself as well," he says. It may well be that some illness overtook him, and that he owed much to Phoebe's care. In gratitude to God for his recovery, he then made a vow.
Commentators differ. Aquila's name stands nearest, so some read the clause as about him. Others hold that it is Paul.
The ancients do not seem to have doubted that Paul himself is meant. They read the words just before as a parenthesis. Others, in more recent times, have been more willing to attach the vow and the shaved head to Aquila. But the great apostle went a long way in going along with Jewish forms, and in stooping to them, in cases that left the grace of the gospel untouched. What roused a storm of feeling in him, and unanswerable argument, was the effort to force the law on Gentiles who believed.
The other case rests less on grammar than on the nature of a vow.
A vow was a voluntary act between the person and God. No one was required to make one. So not keeping it could give no offence, and not taking it up broke no law. Aquila might have taken it before he became a Christian. He would then let it run to its end, and honour Moses in something that to him as a Christian was a matter of indifference. But Paul taught that we are "dead to the law through the body of Christ" (Romans 7:4). How could that fit with choosing to take up something no one else's conscience required?
What sort of vow was it? There is little to go on.
The New Testament records only two vows. One is the vow at Cenchrea by Paul (or Aquila, as some judge), which is wrapped in mystery. The other is the vow of the four men at Jerusalem. Acts 18:18; Acts 21:23. Both were probably Nazirite vows, since the head was shaved. According to the law the final shaving had to be at the tabernacle or temple. Numbers 6:18.
The timing of the shaving matters.
Paul did not let his hair grow, and that is the opposite of a Nazirite. It was when the vow was over that the head was shorn.
Whoever made the vow, it opens a window on Paul and his own nation.
The opposition of the Jews does not take away his attachment to his nation. It does not take away his faithfulness in preaching the gospel to them first, or his recognition of all that belonged to them in grace before God. He even submits to Jewish ordinances. Perhaps habit had some influence over him which was not of the Spirit. But according to the Spirit he had no thought of denying what the patient grace of God granted to the people… Liberty that stoops to prejudices and habits is not the same thing as being subject to them.
Another writer puts the accent on love rather than on habit.
In his own mind, and as led by the Spirit, we feel sure he was far above and beyond a religion of feasts and vows, but he stooped in grace to the customs of his nation. To the Jew he became a Jew. Their constant opposition to his teaching, and their violent persecution of him, never weakened his affection for his beloved people.
The order of the couple's names is worth noticing.
Priscilla's name comes before her husband's — an unusual thing at that time and in that part of the world. We see the same order in Romans 16:3… We can only conclude that the wife was spiritually more devoted, and the leader in the things of the Lord.
- Freedom. Gallio's refusal to act left Paul free. He stayed on at Corinth, wrote the two Thessalonian letters there, and left when he chose.
- Gratitude. One reading links the vow to Phoebe of Cenchrea, who cared for Paul. The vow may have been thanks for recovery from illness.
- Dispute. Commentators differ over whose head was shaved. The case for Aquila is that a vow is voluntary, and that Paul taught believers are dead to the law.
- Ending. The shaving marks a vow completed, not begun — the opposite of a Nazirite letting his hair grow.
- Affection. Whoever took it, the record shows an apostle of grace who never turned from his own people. Stooping to old customs is not the same as being bound by them.
and he arrived at Ephesus, and left them there. But entering himself into the synagogue he reasoned with the Jews.
Paul makes a short stop at Ephesus. He leaves his friends there and goes into the synagogue alone, which raises two questions: why the synagogue first, and why the hurry to move on?
Ephesus was a major city known for idol worship. Paul still found people there who knew the Scriptures.
He stopped at Ephesus, the capital of the province called Asia, and reasoned with some Jews in the synagogue there. The Scriptures — that is, the ones the Jews had at the time, what we call the Old Testament — were clearly known and taught even in that centre of idol worship. Those in that small group already knew God as Creator and Lawgiver, and the Messiah as the hope of Israel.
This was not a one-off. Paul argued the case with Jews in city after city, from his earliest days as a preacher.
Paul was also allowed to speak in the synagogue at Damascus, where he showed the Jews that Jesus was the Son of God (Acts 9:20). Often afterwards he "reasoned" or "disputed" (in Greek, dialegomai) with the Jews in their synagogues (Acts 18:4, 19; Acts 19:8).
Paul carried the gospel to the nations, yet the synagogue is still his first door. One writer links this to the order Paul sets out in Romans.
God gave the apostle Paul a special call to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles. Even so, he never lost sight of the unique place God had given to Israel, His earthly people. So he wrote to the believers in Rome, "I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek" (Romans 1:16). In line with this testimony of God's ways, when Paul arrived at Ephesus, he went into the synagogue himself and reasoned with the Jews.
The friends Paul leaves at Ephesus are Aquila and Priscilla. One writer calls them "two quiet people, but faithful and consecrated to the Lord" (J. N. Darby). Their stay mattered, because a gifted preacher came to Ephesus after Paul had gone.
Apollos was a gifted speaker by nature — he was a master of words. Careful study had made him "mighty in the Scriptures." Yet when he came to Ephesus, he did not know much about what God had done in Christ. He knew only what had happened up to the time when John's baptism introduced Jesus. What he did know, he taught faithfully in the synagogue. Aquila and Priscilla heard him and saw at once what he was missing. They gladly welcomed him into their home, so they could teach him more fully about what had happened through Christ. So God used these believers, who had no public gift of their own, to launch a very gifted man into his life of service.
The Jews at Ephesus wanted to hear more, but Paul would not stay. He promised to come back if God willed it. Commentators differ on how to read this. Some note that he did come back: "we see in the next chapter that God did so will" (F. B. Hole). Others find the episode puzzling.
They welcomed him so warmly that they would gladly have kept him longer, so he could meet their need. But it is strange to find that he is not ready to stay… Whatever the reason, Jerusalem is in his heart, as what follows shows. He says nothing about keeping the feast. He hurries up from Caesarea, greets the believers there, and does not stay. We are not shown what, if anything, came of it. The visit he wanted so much leaves a strange sense of something missing.
So how should a reader treat what looks like a fault in a servant of God? One writer answers with a warning.
Nothing is easier than this. People who are only half aware of their own serious faults are quick to point, with eagerness and self-satisfaction, at anything Paul did that came from his excessive attachment to the ancient people of God — and Paul was a servant of Christ, deeply taught and devoted… Is it not wiser and holier to see instead how the sweetest affections can entangle even the most faithful and spiritual? Then we watch ourselves, so that lesser affections do not drag us into far worse wrongdoing. We are far behind him in self-denial, in tireless work, and in suffering for Christ.
- Arrived. Ephesus was the capital of Asia and full of idol worship. Even there, the Old Testament was known and taught.
- Reasoned. The word means he argued and discussed with them. This was his steady method with Jewish hearers.
- First. He carried the gospel to the nations, yet he goes to the synagogue first — "to the Jew first and also to the Greek."
- Left. Two quiet believers stayed behind. Through them God later launched a gifted preacher into service.
- Returned. He would not stay, but promised to come back if God willed it. The next chapter shows God did. Commentators differ over how to read the short visit.
And when they asked him that he would remain for a longer time [with them] he did not accede,
Paul's second journey is drawing to a close when he stops at Ephesus and speaks in the synagogue there. This time the hearers want more of him, and he still says no. What was pulling him away?
Paul was the apostle sent to the nations, yet the synagogue was still where he began.
God called the apostle Paul in a special way to preach the gospel to the Gentiles. Yet he never lost sight of the distinct place God had given to Israel, His earthly people. So when he wrote to the saints in Rome, he said, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek" (Romans 1:16). Paul acted in line with this testimony of God's ways. When he arrived at Ephesus, "he himself went into the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews" (Acts 18:19). The result of this first visit is that the Jews ask to hear more of Paul's ministry. Other concerns weighed on the apostle's heart, so he is not free to say yes. But he promises to come back again, if the Lord will.
The interest was real, and Paul still moved on. One writer finds that hard to explain.
Here he found such a response that they would gladly have delayed his departure. They wanted him to minister to their need. But it is indeed strange to find that he is not ready to stay. Why? … Jerusalem is in his heart, as we see from what follows. In any case the account here is brief, even hurried. One cannot see what is really accomplished.
Was this refusal God's leading or Paul's own preference? The record itself does not say.
No results of this are mentioned. Paul wanted to be in Jerusalem for a coming feast, so he left despite the invitation to stay. He promised to return if God so willed. The account does not say whether God was leading him to go to Jerusalem at this time.
How a reader handles a flaw in a great servant tests the reader's own heart.
Such statements as these test the heart of the readers. If vain or proud, irreverent or self-righteous, they will probably fall into the trap of thinking, and even speaking, disrespectfully of the great apostle. This damages their own souls and injures others. Nothing is easier than this. People barely aware of their own grave faults will eagerly and smugly point out acts of Paul that sprang from his excessive attachment to the ancient people of God. And Paul was a servant of Christ so deeply taught and devoted… Is it not wiser and holier to see how the sweetest affections may entangle even the most faithful and spiritual, and to watch ourselves?
Paul put his return under God's will, not his own. Those words should govern every plan we make.
Now this will certainly involve giving up our own will, our own plans, our own management altogether. We must follow the cloud; we must wait always — wait only on God. We cannot say, "We shall go here or there, do this or that, tomorrow or next week." Every move we make must come under the regulating power of one commanding sentence — one we often write and speak far too lightly — "If the Lord will."
Paul did not stay, but he did not leave the city empty.
When he moved on, Paul had his two friends with him, and when he felt unable to remain at Ephesus, he left them there… During their eighteen months with the Lord's servant they had clearly learned much of the truth. When Apollos came to Ephesus, "Priscilla and Aquila… took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately." Apollos was an eloquent and fervent Jew of Alexandria, mighty in the Scriptures. He spoke boldly in the synagogue about the things of the Lord as far as he knew them. But the Lord used two devoted and unassuming saints at Ephesus to open up to him truth he had never learned before.
The refusal was not the end of Ephesus for Paul.
The record a little later tells us that he did soon return to Ephesus, for one of the most blessed services even of his wonderful life.
- Door — The Ephesian synagogue asked for more teaching, an unusually warm response to a ministry that kept going "to the Jew first and also to the Greek."
- Refusal — Paul said no, with Jerusalem on his heart. One writer calls this "strange." The record never says God was leading him.
- Restraint — When a great servant's motives look mixed, scorn injures your own soul. Watching yourself profits it.
- Rule — His parting promise put the return under God's will. That sentence should regulate every plan we make.
- Return — He left Priscilla and Aquila behind, and they explained the way of God to Apollos more accurately. Paul himself came back for some of the richest service of his life.
but bade them farewell, saying, [I must by all means keep the coming feast at Jerusalem]; I will return to you again, if God will and he sailed away from Ephesus.
Paul's stay in Ephesus was short: the Jews there asked him to remain, he said no, and he left them a promise instead. Why walk away from an open door, and what does "if God wills" mean for the plans we make?
What Paul left as a condition, God answered as a fact.
With this long stay in Corinth Paul's second journey drew to its end. He left for Jerusalem and Antioch by way of Ephesus, where his stay was only short. He promised to return, "if God wills." That God did will it, we see in the next chapter.
Older Bibles include a line about keeping the coming feast at Jerusalem. Many modern ones leave it out. The evidence is split both ways.
It is well known that the clause within the brackets is not in the manuscripts of the highest character, though plenty of good authority supports it… The truth is that both may be true. Verse 21, if genuine, states what he meant to do in Jerusalem, though we are not told that he did it. Verse 22 lets us know that his heart had other objects before him than the purpose he had mentioned to the Jews of Ephesus. And the history that follows tells us that he did soon return to Ephesus for one of the most blessed services even of his wonderful life.
Paul had shaved his head for a vow, and now he gave a Jewish festival as his reason for leaving. Luke records it so that we can see what still held him.
We see how far he was still bound to Jewish customs. He takes a vow and shaves his head in Cenchrea. He feels obliged in his heart to keep the feast at Jerusalem, and he gives this to the Jews at Ephesus as his reason for not staying in their city at that time. He is a true Jew, and acts like one. The Spirit records these facts so that we may understand the bonds which still held the spirit of the apostle. The state of a soul about its religious habits is one thing; the energy of the Spirit of God in declaring the truth is another.
Paul's own letters make the step more surprising still.
The second thing we notice is that Paul should have shaved his head and taken a vow upon himself. Soon afterwards he told the Ephesian believers that he must push on to Jerusalem to keep the coming feast. Put the two together, and it is, to say the least, unexpected from the writer of the letter to the Galatians.
What we do with a servant's fault tests us more than it tests him.
If vain or proud, irreverent or self-righteous, they will probably fall into the trap of thinking and even speaking disrespectfully about the great apostle. That damages their own souls and injures others… It is easy also to forget where they got the means of judging him in this matter: his own inspired writings, more than all other sources put together… Is it not a wiser and a holier conclusion to see how the sweetest kind of affections may entangle even the most faithful and spiritual?
The condition Paul attached costs something.
Now this will certainly involve the surrender of our own will, our own plans, our own management altogether. We must follow the cloud. We must wait always — wait only upon God. We cannot say, "We shall go here or there, do this or that, tomorrow, or next week." One commanding sentence must govern all our movements — one we too often write and speak lightly — "If the Lord wills."
Leaving the phrase out is not neutral.
When we speak of the future, it is a healthy habit always to add, "if the Lord wills and we live." This is pleasing in His sight. It is a testimony of our submission to Him and our dependence on Him. Otherwise it is the boasting, self-glorying of the self-secure world, which boasts and plans without thinking of God and His will.
God had steered this whole journey, not Paul's own wisdom.
Guided by God again, the apostles remained, and met with great success. Human wisdom, it was plain, had no place in all this. So how necessary is God's direction and the Holy Spirit's oversight! Even an apostle could be mistaken about the field of work he should take up.
- Condition — Paul made his return depend on God's will, not his own timetable.
- Cost — It is not a polite phrase. It means giving up our own will, plans and management.
- Contrast — Saying it shows submission and dependence. Leaving it out is the boast of a world that plans without God.
- Caution — Old ties still pulled at Paul. A servant's fault should humble us, not turn us into his judges.
- Confirmation — Even an apostle could mistake his field of work. Yet God did will Paul's return: he came back to Ephesus for one of the most blessed services of his life.
And landing at Caesarea, and having gone up and saluted the assembly, he went down to Antioch.
One short sentence covers hundreds of miles. Paul lands on the coast, greets a church, and leaves for Antioch. Two questions follow. Where did Paul go up to, and why does Luke tell us so little about the visit?
This travel note closes one stage of Paul's work and opens the next:
Landing at Caesarea he went up and greeted the Church, and then went down to Antioch, five hundred miles away. He spent some time in his familiar quarters at Antioch. Then he started on his third missionary journey.
Luke never says where Paul "went up" to. Commentators agree it must be Jerusalem. But the text does not give his reason. One writer separates what Luke records from what readers assume:
"Going up" was certainly to Jerusalem. But it need not have been to keep a Jewish feast, unless the text said so plainly. The only thing recorded as a fact is his greeting the church... verse 22 lets us know that his heart had other aims in view than the purpose he had mentioned to the Jews of Ephesus.
What Paul does in Jerusalem is one thing only: he greets the believers there. He does not stay. One writer points out the ground he is now standing on:
Leaving Priscilla and Aquila, two quiet people, but faithful and devoted to the Lord, he goes on towards Jerusalem. There he greets the assembly. Then he sets out for Antioch, the starting-point of the gospel for the Gentiles, and the city the Holy Spirit had sent him out from. At Jerusalem he merely greets the assembly, for here we are on Christian, not Jewish, ground.
Paul had told the Jews at Ephesus why he was going up. Yet Luke records nothing of what happened when he arrived. One writer leaves that silence alone:
The sacred historian gives us no information about what happened in Jerusalem on this occasion. He only tells us that when Paul had gone up and greeted the church, he went down to Antioch. But his intense desire to pay this visit may assure us of its great importance... we need not seek to remove the veil which the Holy Spirit has drawn over this visit.
Commentators differ on how to read the gap. Another writer links the short stop to what happens to Paul later:
Instead of any word about keeping the feast, he runs up from Caesarea and greets the assembly. We have to work out which assembly he means — perhaps for him at that moment there was hardly an assembly anywhere else. Yet he does not stay. We do not see what, if anything, was done. The visit he wanted so much feels strangely unsatisfying. It may well be that he cannot stay there, as we realise from what happens later. He goes down to Antioch, the place the Spirit first called him to go out from. So his second missionary journey is over.
Antioch matters because of what began there. One writer shows what this return ties together, and where the story goes next:
Paul goes down from Jerusalem to Antioch, visiting all the assemblies he had first formed. In this way he binds his work together — Antioch and Jerusalem. So far as we know, Paul's visit to Antioch was his last... The gospel moves further and further towards the West. The inspired part of the apostle's life story, after a short stretch of deep interest in Judea, centres at last in Rome.
Verses like this show Paul still attached to his own people. That can tempt a reader to look down on him. One writer turns the passage back on the person studying it:
Statements like these test the heart of the readers... For nothing is easier. Some people are only shallowly aware of their own grave faults. They point out, with eagerness and self-satisfaction, acts of Paul that sprang from his excessive attachment to the ancient people of God. And this is a servant of Christ so deeply taught and devoted... Is it not wiser and holier to draw this conclusion: that affections of the sweetest kind may entangle even the most faithful and spiritual? Then we watch ourselves, so that we do not slip through lower affections into far worse wrongdoing.
- Landed. Paul comes ashore at Caesarea and goes down to Antioch, five hundred miles away, before starting his third journey.
- Greeted. The one recorded act at Jerusalem is a greeting to the church. There is no feast, no stay, and no stated reason for going up.
- Veiled. Luke says nothing about what happened in the city. Commentators differ. One leaves untouched the veil the Holy Spirit drew over it. Another finds the visit strangely empty.
- Sent. He goes down to Antioch, the place the Holy Spirit first sent him out from. That closes the second journey and binds the whole work together.
- Tested. Paul's lasting pull toward his own nation should humble the reader, not arm him with criticism.
And having stayed [there] some time, he went forth, passing in order through the country of Galatia and Phrygia, establishing all the disciples.
Luke covers this stage of Paul's travels in one sentence: after some time in Antioch, Paul sets out again through Galatia and Phrygia. No new cities, no riots, no miracles — so why is this quiet return trip in the record at all?
The journey opens with care for people Paul had already won, not with new ground. One writer sees the motive behind the route:
First, though, we see Paul starting out fresh from Antioch. A love that cares for everyone carries him once more over the ground he had covered on his second journey. He takes it up in an orderly way this time, so that he misses none of those who had been brought to Christ back then. In Galatia at least there were many of them, and they were earnest disciples. Of Phrygia we know only that he had visited it throughout. But the sense is that there too there were many. He was caring for them now, rather than starting new assemblies.
The stay in Antioch was short:
At Antioch he now spent "some time," a phrase that shows it was not a very long stay. Then he was off on his third journey, going first to the places where he had worked before, to strengthen the disciples. This work is always badly needed, because so many influences work to weaken disciples.
The phrase translated "in order" belongs to Luke alone:
Luke is the only writer who uses this term, and he uses it often. It properly means in a regular series, one after another, and so sometimes just following, or next, in order… On the whole, I see no sign at all that Luke uses it for time order. The word itself does not carry that meaning, except that time order is one kind of order.
On the ground, that meant taking the two districts in reverse of his earlier route:
On his first visit to those parts he went to Phrygia before Galatia (16:6). This time he reversed his route, going through Galatia before Phrygia. He seems to have been shaping his course for Ephesus, which he had promised to visit (18:21).
This verb appears only a few times in the New Testament, and it points to no ceremony:
Paul and Barnabas went to Lystra, Iconium and Antioch, confirming the souls of the disciples and urging them to continue in the faith. Judas and Silas, messengers from Jerusalem to Antioch, were prophets, and they encouraged the believers with many words and confirmed them. Paul and Silas later went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches. Acts 14:22; Acts 15:32, 41. Those passages, along with Acts 18:23, where the word is translated 'strengthen,' are all the places where the word ἐπιστηρίζω occurs. (There is no idea of a ceremony here, like what is now called 'Confirmation.')
Two details matter here: who received this help, and who could give it:
Again, in 18:23, we read that Paul went through the countries of Galatia and Phrygia in order, strengthening, or confirming (the same word here as elsewhere), all the disciples. All of them needed strengthening, or confirming. The context shows what the historian meant to say. The disciples as a body in each place needed this kind of ministry. The Lord provided it, and people other than apostles could do it.
Paul is doing here a different job from the one that first brought him to these places:
The pioneer work of the evangelist had opened out the work in those parts; now he acts as the pastor and teacher.
That return visit is offered as a pattern, not merely a record:
The evangelist has a duty to preach the gospel in the regions beyond, as long as there are regions still to reach. The pastor has a duty to "go again and visit his brothers," as long as there are brothers to visit. The evangelist forms the connection; the pastor keeps it and strengthens it… The two gifts can exist in the same person, as they did in Paul. But either way, each gift has its own sphere and object.
The timing of what came next is sobering:
Since this was a second visit, we read of him passing through the country 'in order' — that is, where assemblies existed — and establishing 'all the disciples' who had already received the gospel. This matters a great deal for the letter to the Galatians. He wrote it not long after they were called: "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel" (Gal. 1:6, ESV). People are like that, even where the greatest of the apostles had laid the foundation a little before.
- Love goes back. The third journey begins by retracing the second. Paul would not leave earlier converts unvisited.
- Love goes in order. "In order" means one place after another, in a regular series, so Paul skipped no one.
- Love strengthens. The word means confirming and establishing believers. It is not a ceremony. The same verb marks this work elsewhere in Acts.
- Love reaches all. Not some but all the disciples needed it, and apostles were not the only ones able to give it.
- Love is still needed. Soon after they were called, the Galatians turned to a different gospel. Starting a work and steadying it are two different jobs.
But a certain Jew, Apollos by name, an Alexandrian by race, an eloquent man, who was mighty in the scriptures, arrived at Ephesus.
A stranger arrives at Ephesus: a Jew from Alexandria with a gift for speech and a deep grasp of the Scriptures. That raises the question the rest of the passage answers — can a man be this able and still miss something essential?
Where the ESV says "competent in the Scriptures," other translations read "mighty in the Scriptures" — the wording the writers below use. The first word, "eloquent," points to fluency:
In Exodus 4:10 and Acts 18:24, "man of words," "ready of speech."
The word carries two senses at once. His home city later became known for a very different use of learning:
There simply comes before us a Jewish workman. He was unformed at first, but he soon had no need to be ashamed. He came from the city that later played a notorious part in corrupting heavenly truth by worldly wisdom. He himself was a man of learning, or of eloquence (the Greek word means both), and he was able in the Scriptures.
Knowing the Scriptures was work, not talent. Older translations say in the next verse that he "taught diligently," and one writer draws the lesson:
If we are to be fruitful in service, we must be instructed in the word of the Lord. Apollos was a Bible student. He searched the Scriptures to find out the truth… That word "diligently" can also be translated "accurately." How vital it is to quote the Scriptures accurately! The Spirit uses the word of God.
The verse praises a natural talent. One writer sets Paul beside Apollos to show what talent can and cannot do:
Fluency of speech, as a natural gift, may be present or absent without harming the effectiveness of an evangelist considered as a minister of God. Apollos was "eloquent," while Paul was "unskilled in speaking." Human persuasion, natural or carefully crafted, cannot carry out the purposes of God. His appeal is not to the imagination or to the understanding alone, but to the hearts and consciences of sinful men.
The next verse limits what he knew to the baptism of John. Writers are careful to say this was ignorance, not unbelief:
After this we find the Lord bringing others into the work, especially Apollos. He was "an eloquent man, and mighty in the Scriptures," yet so ignorant at first that he knew nothing beyond the baptism of John… But if he was in the dark about the Church and the full truth of Christianity, he was a converted man… Apollos had received by the Spirit the early testimony to the Lord, but he did not know the work of Christ.
No one appointed him to the work. Notice what he did when a couple offered to fill in what he lacked:
It does not appear that he had received any appointment, ordination, or approval of any kind, from either the twelve apostles or Paul. But the Lord who is above all had called him, and was working in him and by him. In the case of Apollos we see the power and liberty of the Holy Spirit, without human involvement… Though he burned with zeal and was a powerful speaker, Apollos knew only what John had taught his disciples. The Lord knew this, and provided teachers for him. And though he was both learned and eloquent, he was humble enough to let Aquila and Priscilla teach him.
All that Scripture knowledge had one target:
But what was uppermost in the mind of an Alexandrian Jew, "mighty in the Scriptures," after he became a Christian? To show from "the Scriptures" that Jesus was Christ (Acts 18). There was something running through the inspired writings which others left aside: they testified in one way or another of Jesus.
- Words. "Eloquent" means ready of speech, and the same word can mean learned. Apollos had both.
- Might. His strength in the Scriptures came from searching them and teaching them accurately.
- Limit. Skill in speech is not the same as knowing the truth. He was a converted man, yet knew nothing beyond the baptism of John.
- Humility. Learned and eloquent, he still let Aquila and Priscilla teach him — and the Lord, not any human appointment, had called him.
- Aim. All of it served one use: showing from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ.
He was instructed in the way of the Lord, and being fervent in his spirit, he spoke and taught exactly the things concerning Jesus, knowing only the baptism of John.
Apollos speaks about Jesus in the synagogue at Ephesus with heat and accuracy. Yet what he knows stops at John the Baptist. So how much did he really know, and what does God do with a man whose zeal runs ahead of his light?
One writer walks through the verse: real gifts, real faith, and one thing missing.
Here comes before us a Jewish workman who soon had no need to be ashamed, however unformed he was at first... He was not merely a scholar and otherwise competent, but already instructed in the way of the Lord. Born of God, he was in understanding ahead of a God-fearing Jew, but short of the fuller truth that the gospel gives... He was ignorant of all truth beyond "the baptism of John". Nor was he lacking in moral courage or zeal.
The verse says he was "instructed in the way of the Lord." Was he already a saved man? One writer has no doubt.
There can be no doubt that he was born of God and had made progress in the understanding of the word. He was a believer, though limited in his knowledge... Apollos had been born of God through the testimony of John the Baptist. He must have been a keen student of the word — so much so that he spoke boldly in the synagogue at Ephesus about what he had learned.
Fervent means burning. The man who led him to Christ left his mark on him.
This man Apollos, a man who has been taught the way of the Lord, is also a man fervent in spirit. John's testimony converted him, and he was marked by the features of the man who led him to Christ. Fervent in spirit, burning in spirit, like a lamp shining brightly, he stands in that gathering at Ephesus. He speaks "boldly in the synagogue," though as yet he "knew only the baptism of John."
Some older Bibles say "diligently" here. One writer draws out what the word means.
That word "diligently" may also be rendered "accurately." How important it is that we quote the Scriptures accurately! The word of God is what the Spirit uses.
The limit was not sincerity or skill. It was subject matter — and it was a limit John himself shared.
This rises far beyond the promised Messiah, which was the substance of John's teaching, with repentance urged on the souls who received it. Apollos knew no more. He might proclaim its value with great eloquence. He might back its truth with fitting proofs from the Old Testament scriptures. Still he knew no more. Someone may argue that John went further in his preaching. After all, he testified of Jesus as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. But the conclusion is invalid that John knew or taught redemption by His blood... What His death achieved, the power of His resurrection, the glory of His place on high — John did not enter into these. They were not yet revealed to him as things his faith could hold and enjoy.
The teaching Apollos still needed did not come from a school.
We may observe how distant and different were the means God used from the formal methods of a divinity school... But God's truth is known by faith, and only faith can be trusted with it for good. Faith like that is so rare in the schools that no one can count on finding it there.
The people God used had no public gift of their own.
So God used these believers, who had no public gift, to properly launch a very gifted vessel on his career of service. From Ephesus he went to Corinth, and not only did he convince many Jews about Christ, he also greatly helped the believers. How much of the reward of his effective service will go to the credit of Aquila and Priscilla, who can say?
No apostle sent Apollos out. One writer says who was at work in him.
Apollos knew only the teaching of John; but, upright in heart, he publicly confessed and preached what he knew. It was the faith of a soul born again. Aquila and Priscilla then teach him the full facts of the gospel, and the truth of a Christ who died and is now glorified... The energy of the Holy Spirit shows itself in him without any involvement of the apostle or of the twelve apostles. He acts independently — that is, the Spirit acts independently in him.
- Instructed — Apollos was already born of God and taught in the way of the Lord. He starts as a believer, not a seeker.
- Fervent — his spirit burned. He carried the stamp of John, the man who led him to Christ, and he spoke boldly in the synagogue.
- Accurately — what he taught was true as far as it went, because he handled Scripture with care.
- Limited — "only the baptism of John" meant a promised Messiah and a call to repent. It left out redemption by blood, resurrection power, and Christ's glory on high.
- Enlarged — no school supplied what was missing. Two believers with no public gift launched a man who went on to help many at Corinth.
And *he* began to speak boldly in the synagogue. And Aquila and Priscilla, having heard him, took him to [them] and unfolded to him the way of God more exactly.
A gifted preacher is teaching in the synagogue at Ephesus. Two working believers in the audience hear what he still does not know, and what they do next shows how God teaches a man willing to learn.
Apollos was not corrected for error. The key word settles that — the ESV has "more accurately" where older translations read "more perfectly."
When Apollos met Aquila and Priscilla, they "took him to themselves, and expounded to him the way of God more perfectly" — or, as it might read, "accurately." It is the same word again. What he had already learned was accurate, accurate as far as it went. But Aquila and Priscilla "unfolded to him the way of God more exactly."
He lacked neither learning nor courage. What he lacked was the fuller truth.
He was a man of learning, or eloquence, and able in the Scriptures. He was not merely a scholar and otherwise competent, but already instructed in the way of the Lord. Born of God, he was ahead of a God-fearing Jew in understanding, but short of the fuller truth which the gospel gives. He did not lack moral courage or zeal, and "he began to speak boldly in the synagogue."
Apollos preached honestly up to the limit of what he had been taught. The couple carried him past that limit — to a Christ who died and is now in glory.
Apollos knew only the teaching of John. But he was upright in heart, and he publicly confessed and preached what he knew. It was the faith of a soul born again. Aquila and Priscilla teach him fully about the facts of the gospel, and about the doctrine of a dead and glorified Christ.
It is easy to look down on a believer who knows less than we do.
This raised a question of great practical importance. How should we deal with souls who are gifted like this, yet know little of the truth? Grace answers and settles it all by its own power. We should welcome and treasure the newest step beyond the dead level of received tradition. How sad to despise those today who are where we were yesterday!
Apollos, for his part, could have refused help from two tentmakers.
Though he was both learned and eloquent, he was humble enough to let Aquila and Priscilla teach him. They invited him to their house. There, no doubt in a lowly spirit, they "explained to him the way of God more accurately." How simple! how natural! and how beautiful! All is of the Lord.
Two people with no public platform gave a great preacher his start.
When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, they saw at once what he lacked. They gladly gave him hospitality, so that they could teach him more fully about what had happened through Christ. So God used these believers, who had no special public gift, to give a very gifted vessel a proper launch into his career of service... How much of the reward of his effective service will go to the credit of Aquila and Priscilla, who shall say?
The setting itself is part of the lesson.
We may notice how far God's means were from the formal methods of a divinity school... But only faith can know the truth of God, and only faith can hold it with profit.
Commentators differ on Priscilla's part. One sees her as the better taught of the two, yet helping only alongside her husband.
I doubt it would have been God's will for a woman to do this alone. But she taught him along with her husband, as they could. I have no doubt that Priscilla knew more than her husband, so it was good that she gave her help.
Another writer follows a text that names Aquila first here, and points to the private setting.
Note that when it comes to teaching, Aquila's name is put before his wife's... In this case the instruction given to Apollos was in the privacy of their own home, and Aquila took the lead here. Happy it is that Priscilla was his helpmate in this blessed work.
The man they taught went on to work with more public power than his teachers had.
His progress was plain to all. He put arrogant opponents to shame, and the faithful were built up through him. For Apollos could work with a force beyond those who had privately led him on.
- Accurate, not wrong. What Apollos already taught was true as far as it went; grace supplied the rest instead of dismissing him.
- The missing piece. John's baptism had not carried him to the death and present glory of Christ. The couple supplied it.
- The private room. They used hospitality, not a platform or a school. They invited him home and explained the truth there.
- The humble hearer. Learned and eloquent, he still let two ordinary workers teach him — the reason the help worked.
- The wider reach. Two unknown believers launched a preacher who then helped many. Some of the credit for his work goes to them.