Acts 18:23–19:14

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.

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.

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 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).

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.')

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.

The pioneer work of the evangelist had opened out the work in those parts; now he acts as the pastor and teacher.

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.

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.

In Exodus 4:10 and Acts 18:24, "man of words," "ready of speech."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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 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 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.

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!

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Take another instructive case in Acts 18:24-28. Apollos, though he knew only the baptism of John, diligently gave out what he knew, and learned the way of God more perfectly through a plain Christian man and his wife, Aquila and Priscilla. Instead of getting him ordained, the believers wrote commending him from Ephesus to Achaia as a great preacher and teacher, without any formal act whatsoever.

There is a reference to a letter of commendation in the Scriptures in Acts 18:27. We find that the believers in Ephesus wrote a letter of commendation to those in Achaia, commending their brother Apollos to them.

Letters of commendation should be carried by those who move from one place to another (Rom. 16:1-2; 2 Cor. 3:1). They help strengthen practical fellowship between assemblies. They also give the "doorkeepers" confidence in the principles of reception, when they would otherwise face someone who seems to be a stranger. Fellowship can be enjoyed at once when the bearer of a letter of commendation has ready evidence that they are a true believer.

He refuted the Jews with force in public, showing from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ. His progress was clear to all. Arrogant opposers were put to shame, and he built up the faithful. Apollos could work with a force beyond those who had led him on in private. This is the scriptural way to gain a good standing, and much boldness in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.

It is said of Apollos that he "helped them much which had believed through grace." How? He showed from the Scriptures the glory of Christ! (Acts 18:27-28).

Apollos had a natural gift of eloquence — he was a master of words. By diligent study he had become "mighty in the Scriptures." Yet when he came to Ephesus he was not well informed about God's intervention in Christ... Aquila and Priscilla heard him and at once saw what he lacked. They did the delightful service of showing him hospitality, so that they could teach him more fully what had come about through Christ. So God used these saints, who had no public gift of their own, to launch a very gifted vessel properly on his career of service. From Ephesus he went to Corinth. There he convinced many Jews about Christ, and he also gave the believers great help. How much of the reward of his effective service will go to the credit of Aquila and Priscilla, who can say?

But there was another circle of interest, and he did not neglect it in his zeal to refute his countrymen. There were believers in the Lord Jesus Christ. These he helped much (Acts 18:27). And Paul, writing afterwards to the Corinthians, reminded them of that eloquent and earnest man's ministry, saying, "I planted, Apollos watered" (1 Cor. 3:6)... Apollos was very eloquent, and no doubt a most attractive speaker. Even so, he had never tried, and still did not try, to gather people round himself. Nor did he try to lessen the love and respect the believers at Corinth had for Paul.

The apostles and early workers in the Word dealt in this same way with people who had a written revelation from God and accepted it. Peter's sermons at Jerusalem, Stephen's defence, and Paul's ministry to his own people show it clearly. Apollos too (Acts 18:28) used the weapon of Old Testament Scripture. He powerfully convinced, or refuted, the Jews, showing in public by the Scriptures that the Christ was Jesus. Every one of them turned to the Scriptures, and used the sword of the Spirit with clear and blessed effect.

Here he was a very real help to the disciples. He also spoke with such power that he convinced the Jews of the truth that the Lord Jesus is the Messiah. He used the Old Testament Scriptures to this good end. Paul had planted the church at Corinth in this same chapter; now Apollos waters it (1 Cor. 3:6).

Everyone could see his progress. Arrogant opponents were put to shame, and the faithful were built up through him. For Apollos could work with greater force than those who had taught him in private. This is the way Scripture shows for gaining a good standing, and great boldness in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.

A believer and his wife taught him more fully. They had no more authority to teach than he did. Soon he is found more active and honoured than ever: "he greatly helped those who through grace had believed; for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public" (Acts 18).

By the Scriptures. May that word go home to each of us. Suppose John the Baptist had been in that meeting at Ephesus, listening to Apollos. He might have asked where Apollos first met these things. Think of the joy of this servant. He was once puzzled and a little disappointed, and now he learns that Apollos began his service "knowing only the baptism of John." If an "Apollos" was the result of our service, would it not be worthwhile?

Can one refute so powerfully by means of a pack of myths and writings of impostors?

At Corinth he becomes a powerful teacher of the gospel of the Lord among the Jews. In this way he strengthens the faith of the disciples. The energy of the Holy Spirit shows itself in him without any intervention of the apostle or of the twelve. He acts independently; that is, the Spirit acts independently in him.

By the upper coasts, or country, we should understand an inland route rather than a coast route. The coast was seen as lying on a lower level than the inland country. In line with this, some good authorities read that he came down to Ephesus, for the city stood on the river Cayster, a few miles from its mouth... A centre of trade, the seat of government, and a stronghold of idol worship — all this made it a place of no small importance.

He went over Galatia and Phrygia in order, strengthening all the disciples (Acts 18:23)... This time he reversed his route, going through Galatia before Phrygia, shaping his course, it seems, for Ephesus, which he had promised to visit (18:21). He had preached in both these provinces on his earlier journey, and he wanted first to revisit those places of work and to strengthen all the disciples.

So these converts matched their teacher Apollos completely. It is quite true that Apollos was later taught the way of God more accurately; but clearly his teaching had shaped the souls of his converts at the start. It is often so even now. The gospel first used in the conversion of souls goes far to set the character of their Christian life. The nature of the start often decides the whole of the believer's course, and so it matters greatly to preach a full gospel.

The apostle does not question the reality of their faith... So they were not even on the ground of Christian profession. As the apostle concluded, John's was "the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus." Christian baptism assumes that He is dead and risen, that the work of redemption is finished, and that eternal life and forgiveness of sins are proclaimed in His name. They were believers. The Holy Spirit had worked in their souls, so that the word of God had entered. But they were entirely without even the privileges that faith in the gospel receives at once.

They had faith, they looked to His person; but they had not grasped His work for the peace of their souls... It is likely that he saw something which showed his keen eye that these souls were not at rest, not in the liberty of grace. In spirit they were still under the law.

The people mentioned in these verses were believers, but they were not Christians. A Christian is a saint who has the Holy Spirit. True, every Christian is a saint, but he is something more; and that something is a very great deal more, for it is the Holy Spirit... They were disciples of John, and all John's disciples believed that Christ would baptize with the Holy Spirit. But they did not know that the promise had been fulfilled.

it shows that a man may be a believer, may be a child of God, may be converted, and yet may not have the Holy Spirit. They were disciples, and the apostle credits their belief, but still asks, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"

This case gives no ground for saying that there are true believers on Christ today who have not received the Spirit at all. Christ is preached now, and not the baptism of John — that is, wherever the gospel is truly preached.

Another important fact opens Acts 19. Paul found at Ephesus a dozen disciples who were in a very ambiguous position. They were not exactly Jews, and they were certainly not Christians in the true sense: they were in a transition state between the two. Does this appear startling to you? It is likely to disturb those who are used to thinking, or at least saying, that everyone must be in one of the two states. They hold that a middle position between them is impossible. But that is not the fact. It is always good to face the word of God; and God has written nothing in vain.

It is important to see what the inspired narrative makes clear here. These souls had been taught only in part. Paul found them at Ephesus after Apollos had gone to Corinth, and the narrative owns them as disciples. The apostle does not question the reality of their faith. He probably noticed a certain legalism in them, which raised the question not whether they were born of the Spirit, but whether they were sealed by Him.

In Acts 19:2, Paul asks whether they had received the Holy Spirit since they believed. They answer that they have not yet heard whether the Holy Spirit has come. They were John's disciples, so they did not doubt that the Holy Spirit exists. Every thoughtful Jew acknowledged the Holy Spirit spoken of by the prophets. But they had not heard whether the Holy Spirit had come in power, as John 7 speaks of it, and as John the Baptist had said: He would baptise with the Holy Spirit.

The apostle no doubt noticed a certain unease in these "disciples." That led him to ask whether they had received the Holy Spirit since they believed. So there is — certainly there was in the apostle's mind — such a thing as receiving the Spirit after believing.

The disciples Paul found at Ephesus were disciples of John. The question the apostle asked them has often been made the foundation of wrong teaching about the Holy Spirit. It is claimed that the Holy Spirit must be received in a special way after conversion. The little word "since" in Paul's question must be changed to "when," because it is mistranslated: "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"

We must not suppose this is a question of miracles, or powers, or tongues, or anything of that kind. These very signs might follow too. The early Christians did work miracles, and they had the gift of tongues. But these were only the outward proof of the Holy Spirit. He had always worked whatever was for God's glory in man, yet He was never given in person to believers until after redemption... But can the Holy Spirit come and dwell in us? Only through redemption, when God has righteously put our sins and iniquities away from before His eye.

They were truly "disciples," and they had believed as much of the facts about Christ as they had heard. The Holy Spirit is given to those who believe "the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation" (Eph. 1:13). They had not believed it, because they had not heard it, and so they had not received the Spirit. Like Apollos, they had only heard the earliest beginnings of things, connected with John the Baptist...

Scripture gives no definite teaching about the way baptism is done. The great point is what those baptised were baptised to: compare Acts 19:3. The idea in the word is "washing," as with the priests of old (Ex. 29:4), rather than "sprinkling," as with the Levites.

The Greek preposition means "unto" (or "to") as often as "into." Which one it means depends on the context or on the nature of the case… So in Acts 19:3 it is "unto," as in the Authorised Version, not "into" as in the Revised. Baptism is the symbol of profession. Reality depends on faith; which might, or might not, be true of the baptised.

Twelve people had believed, but they had no teaching beyond John's: their baptism matched it. What they looked for was a Christ still to come, and a Holy Spirit whom He would give. John's baptism called for repentance, but it never went outside Judaism… It was a baptism to repentance for man on the earth, not to Christ's death and resurrection.

Scripture is plain that John's baptism is quite distinct from Christian baptism. Disciples who had been baptized with John's baptism had to be baptized to Christ when they received the full truth of the gospel (Acts 19)… Confessing a Messiah still to come is very different from confessing His death and resurrection, and this is the root of differences which carry weighty consequences.

John also baptizes to death, in the baptism of repentance. Death is the wages of sin, and those he baptized confessed their sins as justly deserving death. But John could not yet baptize to Christ's death; for He had not died.

They were not therefore even on the ground of Christian profession, for, as the apostle concluded, John's was "a baptism of repentance"… Christian baptism supposes Him to be dead and risen, the work of redemption accomplished, with eternal life and forgiveness of sins proclaimed in His name. They were believers, and the Holy Spirit had worked in their souls so that the word of God had entered. Yet they fell wholly short of the privileges that faith in the gospel enjoys at once.

How many rest on a promise and have no notion that anything has been accomplished! They agree, of course, that the Saviour has come. But of salvation come, and of God's righteousness revealed, they know nothing… "Am I His, or am I not?" is the question that keeps troubling them.

You can see the state of their souls in this: they at once bowed to the new message, and "were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."… Paul then laid his hands upon them, and "the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues, and prophesied."… So these disciples passed off Jewish ground and became Christians. They were no longer in the flesh, but in the Spirit, because the Spirit of God now lived in them.

This case gives no ground for saying that there are true believers on Christ today who have not received the Spirit at all. Christ is what is preached now, not the baptism of John.

This raised a further question: "Into what then were you baptized?" The answer was, "Into John's baptism." So they were not even standing on the ground of Christian profession. As the apostle concluded, John's was "a baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus." Christian baptism assumes that He is dead and risen, that the work of redemption is finished, and that eternal life and forgiveness of sins are proclaimed in His name. They were believers, and the Holy Spirit had worked in their souls so that the word of God had entered; but they fell wholly short even of the privileges that faith in the gospel enjoys at once.

It pointed to the end of the old order and to a new position. It was not the familiar routine that traditionalists would make of it. Scripture is just as plain that it is quite distinct from Christian baptism. Disciples who had been baptized with John's baptism had to be baptized to Christ when they received the full truth of the gospel (Acts 19)... Confessing a coming Messiah is very different from confessing His death and resurrection.

John's baptism was so far from being a symbol of Christ's death that, as far as people received it, Christ would not be put to death at all, but received by faith. So (Acts 19) those who had received it had to be baptized over again.

There can be little question that to be baptized unto Moses means bringing the people into association with Moses, under his authority. In the same way, baptism unto the name of the Lord Jesus brought people onto the ground where His authority was supreme. It brought them into the company of those who owned that authority... Its meaning is the absolute authority of Christ as Lord, and the responsibility of those who are baptized to confess it.

The whole administration of the ways of God is in His hands. All ministry and power is there; God has made all authority and rule subject to Him. So Jews, who were already connected with the name of Jehovah by circumcision, had to own Him whom God had made Lord and Christ. "In the name of Jesus Christ," or "the Lord Jesus," connects baptism, I think, with the power and authority of that name. "Unto the name" would mean confessing His name as Lord, and this must be confessed and owned to the glory of God the Father.

Not knowing the Lord Jesus, they were ignorant of the Pentecostal gift of the Holy Spirit. The men believed the word of Paul, and showed the sincerity of their confession in that they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

There is no ground in this case for saying that there are true believers on Christ today who have not received the Spirit at all; for it is Christ who is preached now, and not the baptism of John; that is, where the gospel is really preached.

It was pure ignorance that held back their advance in truth — not stubbornness, and not the absurd and wicked error some have charged them with... In Scripture, John's baptism went with his call to repent, as we have just seen. It also went with the call to believe on the coming Messiah, that is, Jesus. It was in no way the blasphemy of accepting John as Messiah. They knew of promise, not of accomplishment: but that was to stop short of the gospel. They are now given to receive the full truth and blessing. Paul preached to them Jesus. What is there for souls which is not through Him and in Him?

The Holy Spirit, however, would not come upon them while they believed only in a Christ who was still to come. Then they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus. They believed that He had come, that He was delivered for their offences and raised again for their justification, and that He was now glorified at the right hand of God. So He fell upon them, just as He had at the beginning upon those of their own people who believed in the same way.

John had announced that the baptism of the Holy Spirit would be the result of Christ's intervention. Yet these twelve men did not know whether there was yet any Holy Spirit. That was plain proof that they had not come into the house of God in which He dwelt.

There were about twelve men here. The number of women is not mentioned, because the stress falls on the public side of things. This reminds us that whenever we read of the public giving of the Spirit, it was always to many people, never to an individual. Also, there was always an apostle present. The work had to go on in unity with the other assemblies: no assembly was to act on its own.

Here now are Jews outside their own land. The Old Testament had never indicated that Jews would be blessed anywhere but in the land of promise. Could these then be publicly received as Christians by the gift of the Spirit? God gives the answer plainly when Paul baptizes them and lays his hands on them as an indication of fellowship. This is the fourth occasion of a public bestowing of the Spirit of God with such signs as speaking with tongues. Each of these occasions involves a different class of people: first Jews at Jerusalem (ch. 2), then Samaritans (ch. 8), then Gentiles (ch. 10), and in this case Jews outside their own land.

There is no ground in this case for saying that there are true believers on Christ today who have not received the Spirit at all. The preaching now is Christ, not the baptism of John — that is, wherever the gospel is truly preached.

At Ephesus the apostle brings the little nucleus of disciples into full Christian truth and privilege (Acts 19). He carried on the work for more than two years, first in the synagogue, then in the school of Tyrannus. So not the capital only but the province also heard: everyone living in Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks. And that word, with special powers worked by God through the hands of Paul, grew mightily and prevailed.

For three months he patiently preaches Christ in the synagogue and reasons with the Jews, sure of God's strength and of the truth. He gives first place, as the field of testimony, to the people who had been God's instrument: "To the Jews first." It is no longer said, "Salvation is of the Jews," but it is still preached to them first.

For three months he spoke boldly in the narrow setting of the synagogue. He argued and urged on them "the kingdom of God" (v. 8). Of all subjects it was the one best suited to searching Jews, who knew the law and the prophets. The godly, as we hear of Joseph of Arimathea, were looking for the kingdom of God (Luke 23:50-51). This involved his opening to them the sufferings of Christ and the glories after these. He never thought of belittling that kingdom, still less of denying it, because Christians now have higher possessions and richer grace in the great mystery about Christ and about the assembly (Eph. 5:32).

The kingdom of God is the realm where the authority of God rules. This kingdom had to be set up even before the gospel of the grace of God was announced, which came after the death and resurrection of the Lord. Paul preached both (Acts 20:24-25). There are not two gospels. The kingdom speaks of the authority of God set over His subjects. The grace of God is vital too, for authority and grace complete one another.

Everywhere he preached the kingdom among the disciples. This clearly touches the present. No doubt he spoke of the kingdom God will set up in public view, when he spoke of things to come. But he also kept it before them that in receiving Christ as Lord they had already come under the authority of God. And he showed them what it meant, in daily life, to be subject to God's holy will.

He was a teacher, and no ordinary one. He could take on both Jews and Greeks in discussion (Acts 19:8-10), and no one had yet beaten him in fair argument… In his ministry of the Word, Paul, as usual, brought the truth to his own people first, in the synagogue. There he spoke boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God. The earlier work of Apollos must have given the Jews there some preparation, though the Apostle surely widened the teaching. He reasoned and persuaded with a fullness that Apollos likely did not have.

At the end of that time he saw that his work there was finished. The remnant chosen by grace now stood out, and the rest were hardened. So he made the break complete. He left the synagogue and took the disciples with him, to continue his service in the school of Tyrannus — just as at Corinth he had left the synagogue for the house of Justus. This made it quite plain that God was not establishing a fresh group of enlightened believers among the Jews. He was establishing a new thing altogether, taking in both Jews and Gentiles.

The reader will find the unusual expression "the way" in Acts 9:2; 19:9, 23. We have translated it word for word from the Greek. We have no doubt it was a nickname given to Christianity, just as the world has always invented one for true godliness.

At that time, being a Christian meant more than believing on the Lord Jesus and enjoying peace with God — blessed though these things are. It was a way of life, and not in some parts of life only but in every part. The walk of the believers, alone and together, was so distinctive that people could see it as a particular "way."

The truth preached in the synagogue had now brought out plainly those who received the love of it so that they might be saved. It brought out no less plainly those whose hard rejection of it led them to speak evil of the Way in front of the crowd. Staying longer could have served no good purpose. It would have led to bitter quarrelling and abuse from the opponents. To withdraw from them at this point was clearly of God. The synagogue was no longer a fitting place. A room large enough was owed, not only to the disciples, but to the testimony. So the apostle carried on his daily teaching in the school of a man who, as far as we can judge, taught rhetoric or philosophy.

This led the apostle to the decisive step of leaving them and separating the disciples. A new era began. Until now the converts from among the Jews seem to have kept their place in the synagogue. But now the time had come when believers in Christ must stand apart from His enemies, and must be gathered together as the assembly. God had borne with His ancient people with much patience. Paul loved his own countrymen deeply, and he had gone in and out among them. He kept hoping against hope that their hearts would open to receive his message.

For three months he reasoned with the Jews in the synagogue, persuading them of the gospel. At the end of that time he saw that his work there was finished. The remnant according to the election of grace was now clear, and the rest were hardened. So he made the break complete. He left the synagogue and took the disciples with him, to continue his service in the school of Tyrannus. At Corinth he had done the same, leaving the synagogue for the house of Justus. This made one thing quite plain. What God was establishing was not a fresh group of enlightened believers among the Jews. It was something entirely new, taking in both Jews and Gentiles.

The name is Greek, and nothing is said about Tyrannus being a disciple, so the Christians may have rented the "school," just as halls are rented today.

So the place of testimony was of no importance: all the value, virtue, truth, grace, and glory we boast in is in the One preached.

The opposition in the synagogue really helped the work forward. Gentiles would no doubt come to the school more readily than to the synagogue. And Jews, if they wanted to learn, could just as easily listen to one of their own nation teaching there. This went on for about two years, so that, as the historian tells us, "all the residents of Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks" (Acts 19:10).

"God was doing extraordinary miracles ('no ordinary miracles') by the hands of Paul." Compare this with the account of the Spirit's extraordinary energy flowing out through Peter and the other apostles in Acts 5. Note that there, as in Ephesus, the same phrase appears — "by the hands of the apostles." Whoever the servant, he was only the instrument or channel of the divine power.

What characterizes the whole account of Ephesus as we have it here is the uniqueness of power shown. It is at the very seat of the enemy's power. You see this in the notorious idolatry there — the worship of Artemis or Diana, in her image that fell down from heaven — and in the demon-possessions, sorcery and magic that filled the place. For this very reason God had to put His power forth in a decisive way.

The power of God is now shown in an extraordinary way in connection with Paul, the minister of this new and heavenly grace. Napkins (or sweat-cloths) and aprons from his skin — both signs of a toil that sin has made necessary — not only healed disease but drove demons out of those who had them. So has love's labour worked through Him who came under the penalty of sin to heal spiritual disease and destroy the power of Satan.

This did not happen only when the apostle was present or when he spoke. What had touched him still worked for the sick who could not come to him. The faith that carried handkerchiefs or aprons from him to them had its reward: the diseases left them, and evil spirits (a distinct class) went out.

These works attested the kind power of God in man and for man. Later that power will triumph in the kingdom, where all things will be put into the hands of the glorified Son of Man... They were testimonies to His defeat of the devil in man's favour, powers of the world to come — though of course only samples of what will then be universal. Neither the church nor any individual saint has had ground to boast about this through the long centuries since.

He certainly was a vessel to carry the knowledge of grace, and just as surely a vessel that displayed divine power... Ephesus had never seen such miracles before, and nowhere else were greater ones done. The Lord's words, "Greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father" (John 14:12), had abundant fulfilment through Paul as well as Peter.

This is so unusual that it is the only case of its kind recorded in Scripture. Many people were healed before this by simply touching the edge of the Lord Jesus' garment. Certain would-be healers have tried to imitate this, but this is not faith.

Gifts of healing showed that the gospel of God was not words only, wonderful as they were, but active love to men. Handkerchiefs from Paul's body healed the sick in Ephesus, as a witness alongside the word that all Asia heard. Yet Paul left Trophimus, himself an Ephesian, sick at Miletus — and that was while he was begging Timothy to come to him... such gifts pointed outward, to the world.

At this time in Ephesus God backed His Word by working special miracles through Paul. People brought napkins and aprons that had touched him to the sick, and that contact alone healed them. Some also had evil spirits driven out. This is so unusual that it is the only case of this kind recorded in Scripture. Many were healed before this by only touching the hem of the garment of the Lord Jesus (Matthew 14:36). Certain would-be healers have attempted to imitate this, but this is not faith.

"God was doing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul." It is worth comparing this with the account of the extraordinary energy of the Spirit flowing out through Peter and the other apostles in Acts 5 (verses 12, 16). There, as in Ephesus, we find the same phrase — "by the hands of the apostles" — showing that, whoever the servant, he was only the instrument or channel of the divine power.

God now shows His power in an extraordinary way through Paul, the minister of this new and heavenly grace. Napkins (or sweat-cloths) and aprons from his skin not only healed disease but drove demons out of the people who had them. Both cloths are signs of the toil that sin has made necessary. So has love's labour worked through Him who came under the penalty of sin to heal spiritual disease and destroy the power of Satan.

God attested the apostle in a special and generous way. All who were willing to see could see that God owned Paul as a servant of the God of heaven. He certainly was a vessel to carry the knowledge of grace; he was just as surely a vessel that displayed divine power... Ephesus had never seen such miracles, and nowhere else had they been greater. The Lord's words, "Greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father" (John 14:12), had abundant fulfilment through Paul as well as Peter.

In this way God attested His kind, beneficial power in man and for man. In time to come it will triumph in the kingdom, where God will put all things into the hands of the glorified Son of Man... Meanwhile the Spirit is here on earth to bear witness of Him and of the victory He achieved in righteousness over Satan. This is the principle behind those early displays of divine energy in man. They were testimonies to His defeat of the devil in man's favour. They were powers of the world to come — only samples, of course, of what will then be everywhere.

God did not forget bodies: gifts of healing showed that the gospel of God was not words only, blessed as they were, but active love to men. So handkerchiefs from Paul's body healed the sick Ephesians (Acts 19:12), a witness alongside the word which all Asia heard. Yet Paul left Trophimus, himself an Ephesian, sick at Miletus (2 Timothy 4:20) — and that while he was begging Timothy to come to him. Some in the Church were healed, as Dorcas was; but the aspect of such gifts was toward the world.

The servant never chose when to use this gift or gifts like it. God showed them only at the fitting time, and they could only work effectively by His immediate will. Power is His, and always in His hands.

These displays of miraculous power brought the question of exorcisms to the front. The marked effect of Paul's miracles led to attempts to rival and equal them in casting out demons. Among the heathen there were those who claimed to drive out demons; among the Jews there were some who really did it... At Ephesus, it seems, there were such people. Luke calls them wandering Jews. Among them were sons of a Jew named Sceva, who did this work. No doubt they used old, well-known formulas thought suitable for the purpose. But now people saw something else. Paul used none of the prescribed charms. He drove out demons simply in the name of the Lord Jesus. This was something quite new at Ephesus.

A term not used as an insult in Scripture, but meaning a "wanderer"... In Acts 19:13 the Revised Version has "strolling."

When God works, the enemy is watchful. He tries to spoil what God is doing. Yet his interference often ends in his own confusion. The magicians of Egypt tried to copy the divine power Moses displayed. They failed to create life, and that exposed them. Here the Jewish exorcists "undertook to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus over those who had evil spirits." They had no living link with Jesus, and could only speak of Him as "Jesus whom Paul preaches."

The seven sons of Sceva thought that they too might cast out demons by using the name of the Lord Jesus. But they did not know Him. He was not really Lord to them, and so they could only speak of Him as "Jesus whom Paul preaches," leaving out His title as Lord.

Anyone who would use it with effect, however, needed two things. These men had neither. The one was genuine saving faith in Christ; the other a true confession of His Lordship. No one can use that name in conflict with demons unless he is a real believer and confessor of the Lord Jesus Christ. Now the language of these men betrayed where they were and what they were... And the very way they spoke of Him, simply as Jesus, with no title of honour, showed plainly that they did not own Him as Lord.

These exorcists were used to charms and spells that anyone who knew them could use with effect. So they supposed that Paul was introducing a new charm, and that others could use it too. For the name of the Lord Jesus, when Paul used it, had a power that plainly no demon had resisted.

Here the Lord showed His displeasure at those who did not own Him, yet tried to use the apostle's action in His name as a charm — a formula they assumed divine power must follow... They called the name of the Lord over people, and it was all in vain. Their daring to command "by Jesus whom Paul preaches" only brought out three things more clearly: the Lord's defence of His servant, their own powerlessness, and the reality of the enemy's power.

There were seven of them, and they used the name of Jesus as the apostle had done. Even so, the demons exposed their deceit, and they had to flee in confusion (Acts 19:13-16). Could preachers today fall into the same error as these "vagabond Jews"? They may think that simply retelling the facts of the gospel, eloquently or not, is enough to save the soul. The failure of such men will be a striking parallel to that of the exorcists.

At Ephesus, it seems, there were such people — wandering Jews, as Luke describes them. Among them were sons of one Sceva, a Jew, who did this. No doubt they used some old and recognised formulas thought suitable for that purpose. But now people saw Paul cast out demons in the name of the Lord Jesus alone, without any of the prescribed charms. This was something quite new at Ephesus. Everyone had to admit that the name worked. These exorcists were used to charms that anyone who knew them could use with effect. So they supposed that Paul was bringing in a new charm, one that others could turn to as well.

Here the Lord showed His displeasure at these men. They did not own Him, yet they tried to use the apostle's action in His name as a charm — as if divine power had to follow it. Seven took part in a general way, two (it seems) directly, and the blow fell on those two. Their position too, as sons of a Jewish chief priest, drew all the more attention to so solemn a defeat.

But anyone who used that name with effect needed two things. These men had neither. One was genuine saving faith in Christ; the other, a true confession of His Lordship... "Jesus whom Paul proclaims." True, Paul did preach the Lord Jesus, for he believed on Him. But there is not a word here of any acknowledgment on their part that they also believed on the Lord Jesus Christ. And the way they spoke of Him showed that they did not own Him as Lord. They said only "Jesus," with no title of honour.

A Jew at Ephesus, a chief of the priests, whose seven sons sought by the name of Jesus to cast out a demon. The demon admitted that he knew Jesus and Paul, but demanded, "Who are you?" He then attacked them through the man he held, and they fled away naked and wounded. Here Satan showed his power as the "strong man." The One stronger than he would not let these men use His power.

Could preachers today fall into the same error as these wandering Jews? They may think that a mere retelling of the facts of the gospel, polished or not, is enough to save the soul. The failure of such will be a striking parallel to that of the exorcists.

The intrusion of the sons of Sceva brought about their own defeat. But the Lord turned it to His own glory, for the matter "became known to all the residents of Ephesus, both Jews and Greeks. And fear fell upon them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was extolled." Many who believed unburdened their hearts by confessing their deeds and the name of the Lord. This stronghold of Satan must have been shaken to its foundations when "a number of those who had practiced magic arts brought their books together and burned them in the sight of all." Such was the triumph of the gospel: "So the word of the Lord continued to increase and prevail mightily."