A Nucleus of Uninstructed Believers
Acts 19:1-7
The travels of Apollos after he left Ephesus took him eventually to Corinth, where he continued his ministry of proving from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ.
Paul was traveling at the same time, pursuing his third missionary journey. If he had any companions, Scripture does not name them. Nor does it say much about the places Paul visited at the beginning. It informs us simply that his chief goal was Ephesus, which he reached by going through "the country of Galatia and Phrygia" (Acts 18:23; literally, "through the Galatian territory and Phrygia"1). In the final leg of his journey he "passed through the upper coasts" (literally, "upper parts"2).
Although the language is sketchy, it suggests a plausible scenario for Paul's travels after leaving Pisidian Antioch, the most westerly site in Asia Minor where he could strengthen disciples who were the fruit of previous missionary journeys. It is probable that from Antioch he walked southwesterly about forty-five miles (72 km.) down the Via Sebaste to the city of Apollonia, then veered right along the road going westward. This he followed about twenty-two miles (35 km.) until he came to Apameia,3 a major commercial center.4 Now before him lay two courses. On his left was a road that led fairly directly to Ephesus, which was due west of Apameia. On his right was a meandering road that carried a traveler northward through high country before turning west and coming to Metropolis, a town on the coast about twenty miles (32 km.) north of Ephesus.5 He chose the road into "upper parts." Then, after laboring all the way to the sea, he was able to turn south and quickly reach his final destination. A good estimate of when he arrived in Ephesus is late 53 or early 54 (see Appendix 1).
If scholars favoring the more northerly reconstruction of Paul's movements are correct, the distance he traversed between Antioch and Ephesus was about 335 miles (539 km.).9 Added to the four hundred miles (644 km.) from Syrian Antioch to Pisidian Antioch,10 this further mileage brought the whole journey across Asia Minor to about 735 miles (1183 km.).
By persevering to the end of a prodigiously exhausting trek, he finally attained his goal, which was one of the leading cities in the Roman Empire. He went to Ephesus to keep a promise. At the conclusion of his last journey, he stopped there briefly and assured the Jews who showed interest in his message that he would return at first opportunity, if God willed. And God was willing. As it turned out, God had a major work for Paul to accomplish in that city, requiring his presence for about three years (Acts 20:31).
When he arrived, he probably went directly to visit his dear friends Aquila and Priscilla. Their later prominence in the Ephesian church (1 Cor. 16:19) suggests that they had remained in Ephesus since going there with Paul when he last visited the city (Acts 18:18–19). Perhaps they were the ones who told him that among local residents was a small band of disciples comprising about twelve men as well as women and children. In context, the term "disciples" must refer to disciples of Jesus. Aquila and Priscilla may have known about them because they also were Jews attending the local synagogue. For the purpose of bringing them into closer fellowship with other believers, Paul's first outreach in the city was to find them and offer spiritual guidance.
Paul suspected, for reasons not stated, that although they were disciples of Jesus, they had not been fully incorporated into the universal body of believers, the church. He therefore asked them whether they had received the Holy Spirit. They responded with some bewilderment. They said, in essence, "Who is the Holy Spirit?" Apparently, Paul had heard that they were baptized, so his next question was to ask what kind of baptism they received. They replied that they received the baptism of John.
Delving Deeper
Notices of the Spirit in the Old Testament
References to the Holy Spirit under the name "Spirit" or "Spirit of the Lord" pervade the Old Testament, even from Genesis 1:2 to Mal. 2:15. For a small sample of texts where He appears, see Psalm 51:11, Isaiah 63:10ff., Ezekiel 2:2; and Zechariah 4:6. The Jews, except perhaps for an enlightened few, regarded the Spirit as another manifestation of the same person they worshiped as Jehovah, but they were hardly unaware of His existence.
Although the Old Testament never refers to "the Holy Spirit" by precisely that name, a Jew would not have responded to Paul’s question by saying that he never heard of Him, for he would have assumed that Paul said "holy Spirit," hardly a strange concept (Ps. 51:11; literally, "spirit your holy").
The response of the twelve disciples in Ephesus suggests that they were not Jews, but gentiles.
The answers Paul heard convinced him that this group of disciples needed to be baptized again. He did not belittle John's baptism or suggest that it was unworthy. But he explained that although it was valid as a testimony of repentance, it was no longer sufficient. John's purpose had merely been to pave the way for the coming of the Messiah, Jesus Christ. It was therefore necessary for the men to be rebaptized, this time giving proper tribute to Jesus by pronouncing the words He required to make the ceremony valid: "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matt. 28:19).
Pondering a Question
How did these disciples differ from Apollos, who was held exempt from rebaptism?
We said in our commentary on Acts 18 that the likely policy of the early church was to accept John's baptism as legitimate only under three conditions: (1) it was performed by John himself, (2) the person who received it gave a clear testimony of saving faith, and (3) the same person had received the Holy Spirit. The baptism of Apollos met all three.
When testing any other prior baptism, the last two conditions still applied, but the first raised a different question. The baptism had to be performed before Pentecost by Jesus' disciples or performed afterward by the church.
On this occasion in Ephesus, Paul evidently knew that the band of about twelve disciples had been baptized since Pentecost. Thus, before further questioning, he must have assumed that they received Christian baptism. Furthermore, having heard that these disciples were believers, he evidently had reason to accept them as true believers in Christ, and he did not challenge their claim. We would be wise to trust Paul’s judgment.11 If they had not believed unto salvation, Paul’s words "since ye believed" would have endangered their souls by making them feel spiritually secure. Luke, in referring to them without further qualification as already "disciples," surely did not mean that they were John's disciples without any tie to Jesus.
Paul, in the belief that they met the first two conditions, went immediately to investigating the third. After his opening question revealed that they were ignorant of the Holy Spirit, he realized that they could not have been saved and baptized as a result of any outreach by the church.
He therefore returned to the first condition and asked, literally, "To what then were you baptized?" In other words, "What kind of baptism did you receive?" They answered, "John’s." Since they had received it after Pentecost, Paul now knew that their prior baptism was unacceptable. What they needed was Christian baptism. Being immersed in the manner Jesus prescribed—by an agent of the church who declares that he is acting on behalf of all three persons of the Trinity—was necessary before God would grant them the Holy Spirit. Why God had withheld the Holy Spirit from them although they were true believers is a question we will turn to next.
Since the men had already made the decision to follow Jesus, they were entirely willing to show their faith by being baptized again. Indeed, all were baptized. Then Paul laid his hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit, whose presence was made manifest by outward signs. As on Pentecost and other occasions recorded in Acts, the believers began to speak in tongues and to prophesy.
Pondering a Question
Why did the Spirit come upon these men only after rebaptism followed by the laying on of Paul’s hands?
The reason was likely the same as it was in the case of the Samaritans years before. God wanted the Samaritans to understand that they were subject to the authority of the apostles. Because of their longstanding antagonism toward the Jews, the danger was that they might start a sect independent from the church in Jerusalem.
Here in Ephesus, there was a similar danger. Scholars have suspected that the movement started by John the Baptist continued long after his death; moreover, that although many of its adherents recognized Jesus as the Messiah, they held themselves aloof from the church under apostolic authority.12 If a John-the-Baptist cult actually existed, one center may have been Ephesus. Another may have been Alexandria, the home of Apollos.
Support for this theory comes not only from Acts 18 and 19, but also from Paul’s epistle to the Ephesians. He exhorted the believers in this city, "There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph. 4:4–5).
If the disciples Paul found in Ephesus had received the Spirit even though they lacked Christian baptism, they might have been satisfied to continue as a distinct sect, cut off from the main church. Yet just to be baptized was not enough in their case. To assure that they would fully submit to apostolic authority, the Spirit did not descend until Paul laid his hands on them.
A Powerful Ministry
Acts 19:8-12
Paul then began an aggressive campaign to evangelize the city. He followed his usual strategy of starting in the synagogue. For three months he declared with Spirit-wrought power and eloquence "the things concerning the kingdom of God." In other words, He argued with great force that Jesus was the King, and that entrance into His Kingdom was impossible except by believing in Him. Others had preceded Paul with much the same message. Apollos had boldly preached Jesus to the same congregation. Perhaps Aquila and Priscilla had also given public voice to their faith. The prior work of Paul's allies had prepared the way for the apostle himself, creating a receptive atmosphere which allowed him to uphold testimony in the Ephesian synagogue for no less than three months, which, so far as we know, was considerably longer than any of his evangelistic forays into synagogues elsewhere. In his approach to Ephesian Jews, he was more commanding than his predecessors, for he kept urging his hearers to the point of decision. His purpose was to win many new believers who, together with the small number already in fellowship with Aquila and Priscilla, might help him establish an organized church wholly cut off from the synagogue.
Getting Practical
Teaching and preaching compared
It has often been pointed out that the basic difference between teaching and preaching is that preaching always builds to an invitation. Both may offer spiritual truth with practical applications, but whereas a teacher allows his hearers to make up their minds whenever and however they choose, a preacher insists on a right decision now.
The distinction is useful, but overdrawn. When done properly, teaching and preaching converge. A good preacher never closes the door to a decision later. Paul in Ephesus continued persuading the congregation a whole three months before he led his followers out of the synagogue. But just as good preaching gives people time to change their minds, so good teaching is not indifferent to the need for a decision now. A good teacher presses his hearers not to procrastinate obedience to God.
Paul's message did not go unopposed. Voices of unbelief forced him to engage in heated debate. Yet he was equal to the challenge. No doubt the pressure of being contradicted helped him to sharpen his arguments and win more supporters. But as the debate drew on, his opponents slipped into a rigidity of mind and hardness of heart that made further debate pointless. Moreover, their words were becoming ugly. They began to bring evil accusations against Paul and "that way," which, as we have said before, was a term that people in the apostolic era often used for the Christian movement. So, the time came when Paul decided to gather followers and conduct them out of the synagogue. The likely aftermath is that all the believers met for fellowship at the house of Aquila and Priscilla and organized themselves as a house church (1 Cor. 16:19), the first in the city, although others would soon emerge as the new faith gained more adherents. About four years later, when Paul was returning to Jerusalem after his third missionary journey, he summoned Ephesian church leaders to join him at Miletus, and in response came a group of "elders" (Acts 20:17–18), the plurality suggesting more, perhaps even many more, than one sending church.
If the site Paul chose for the first church was indeed a private home, he must have decided that it was not an ideal venue for public witness, for he soon negotiated the right to hold daily meetings in another place, probably chosen because visitors could find it more easily and feel more comfortable as they ventured inside. It was the school of Tyrannus. The word σχολη [schole], translated "school," possibly refers to a guild hall, a hall for public debates and orations, or some other kind of nonschool building owned by Tyrannus,13 but the traditional belief that it was primarily an actual school where he served as headmaster or sole teacher is more likely correct.14 Perhaps he opened the facility at little or no cost to Paul because he himself had become a believer, or at least a genuine seeker after truth.15
Delving Deeper
A tyrant in the classroom
Tyrannus means "tyrant."16 Like the English word, the Greek word signifies a wicked despot.17 Therefore, it could not have been a popular birth name, although it has been attested in Ephesus and other places.18 One scholar has suggested that the schoolmaster was given the name Tyrant by his students.19 Yet it is unlikely that Luke would have honored their disrespect by preserving it in his book. On the contrary, to avoid suggesting that the schoolmaster's name was a true description, Luke introduces him as "one Tyrannus"; that is, as "a certain Tyrannus,"20 leaving the impression that his name was a misfortune suffered by others as well. "One", a small delicacy from the table of kindness, is omitted from CT.21 Compared with absence of the word, its presence is much harder to explain as an error.
The school of Tyrannus perfectly suited Paul's ministry if, as is likely, it provided a lecture hall accommodating a large crowd. Since a typical Greek school probably did not hold classes beyond 11 o’clock in the morning,22 Paul had use of the hall throughout the majority of each day. While the school was in session, he no doubt engaged in manual labor, refraining only on Saturdays to please the Jews and on Sundays to set an example for believers. From various sources we know that he still plied his trade of leatherworking (Acts 20:34; 1 Cor. 4:11–12, the latter written from Ephesus). Then in the afternoon, probably on every day of the week, he turned the lecture hall into a school for instruction in the ways of God. One family of ancient manuscripts known as the Western text, perhaps reflecting general knowledge of when a typical school would have been available for Paul's use, adds to verse 9 a note that he taught from 11 AM to 4 PM.23
There in the school of Tyrannus Paul offered daily classes with no scheduled date of completion. Perhaps for two whole years, he spent maybe five hours a day proclaiming Christ.
Pondering a Question
How could Paul find so much to say?
The answer is that he probably used a teaching method similar to the academic exercise traditionally known as disputation, referring to a kind of structured exchange of ideas between a speaker defending a thesis and an audience offering challenges. The word translated "disputing" (v. 9) is dialegomenos.24 Another common translation is "reasoning."25 Either way, the Greek word unmistakably suggests the kind of back-and-forth intended by its English derivative, dialogue.
Perhaps Paul opened each session with a clear statement of the gospel. But rather than fill the remainder of the time with a prepared lecture, he invited his audience to interact with him, and he answered their questions and objections according to the leading of the Spirit.
Getting Practical
Public dialogue as an evangelistic tool
Many missionaries have used this method with good success. Perhaps the church in America, in the midst of a culture descending into ignorance about basic spiritual truth, should consider reviving it as a technique of evangelism. The danger in its use is that skeptics can easily monopolize the discussion and turn people away. Perhaps Paul avoided this danger partly by freely exercising his own unmatched wit and partly by relying on other believers to speak up in support of the truth.
These talks at the school of Tyrannus became famous throughout the region. Everyone who lived in the province of Asia, incorporating the entire western side of Asia Minor, heard what Paul was teaching. Perhaps many heard because they attended his talks. Then afterward, if they accepted Christ as their Savior, they probably returned home to spread the good news to their neighbors. We may assume that one consequence was the founding during this time of all six churches which, together with Ephesus, were known as the seven churches of Asia (Rev. 1:11).26
One person instrumental in building Asian flocks was Epaphras, a native of Colossae.27 Years later, when Paul was imprisoned in Rome, he described Epaphras as a man who, both in personal evangelism and prayer, had labored mightily to advance the gospel in Colossae, Laodicea, and Hierapolis, all cities of provincial Asia lying in the Lycus Valley east of Ephesus (Col. 1:4–9; 4:12–13).
To enhance the effectiveness of Paul's ministry while he taught daily in the lecture hall, the Lord empowered him to do miracles. In the record of his first two missionary journeys, we read that he healed a lame man in Lystra and cast out a demon in Philippi, but we find no remembrance of healings anywhere else. Yet miracles of healing became the centerpiece of his ministry in Ephesus. Luke refers to them as "special"; literally, "extraordinary."28 It was like a return to the early days of the church in Jerusalem, when people brought the sick from far and wide so that Peter might heal them. The power of healing lay even in Peter's shadow (Acts 5:12–16). Much the same outpouring of the supernatural occurred in Ephesus. Paul healed not only those brought to him, but also many others who merely touched one of his handkerchiefs or aprons. These were items he wore as he practiced his trade.29 A plainer translation of handkerchief would be "sweat rag."30 As he worked, he wrapped one of these about his head, and with an apron he protected his clothing. The power available through faith in the Christ that Paul preached was sufficient not only to heal every manner of physical disease, but also to cast out demons.
Delving Deeper
Evidence of Luke's profession
The word "departed" (v. 12) signals that the writer is a professional physician, for elsewhere in the New Testament it is never used with reference to sickness, although in ancient medical writers it was the standard term for disease termination.31
It would be a mistake, however, to suppose that Paul's ministry went forward with easy victory day after day. On the contrary, the Jews left behind in the synagogue apparently intensified their opposition. When looking back on this period, Paul said, "Serving the Lord with all humility of mind, and with many tears, and temptations, which befell me by the lying in wait of the Jews" (Acts 20:19). What form their opposition took is unclear. His reference to temptations arranged by Jews lying in wait evokes in the reader's mind a picture of people approaching him as he walked the streets and offering sex, shady business deals, or unscrupulous schemes for fighting back against his opponents. Yet besides such attempts to discredit him in the eyes of converts to the way of Jesus, Jewish foes emerging from the shadows may, as their main weapon, have wielded dire threats, tempting Paul to flee from the city.
Exorcists Embarrassed
Acts 19:13-17
There was in Ephesus a group of professional exorcists working in partnership. They were seven Jews, all sons of a certain Sceva whom Luke describes as an archiereos;32 that is, a high priest.33
Delving Deeper
A name lost to history
Many scholars take the position that Luke does not mean to endorse the claim of these seven men that their father was a high priest. He is merely reporting what they said to advertise their services.34 But Luke says plainly that "there were certain [men], seven sons of Sceva a Jew, a high priest."35 The Holy Spirit could easily have led Luke to choose words that would avoid making a false statement.
History remembers no high priest by the name of Sceva during the years when the father of these exorcists may have been alive.36 But available records do not necessarily furnish all the names by which these high priests were known. Sceva is probably the Grecian form of the Latin name Scaeva.37
It was not unusual in the ancient world for a Jew to claim proficiency in the magical arts. The sorcerer in Cyprus that Paul inflicted with blindness was a Jew. Apparently, the gentiles had some vague knowledge of the great feats done by the God of Israel, as recorded in the Old Testament. So, when a Jew claimed the ability to do magic through the power of God, many gentiles were inclined to believe him.
The concept of evil spirits was as commonplace in the Roman world as it has been in all other premodern societies. Outside the stream of Judeo-Christianity, demons are not seen as fallen angels, however. Among the Greeks, they were identified as obscure deities or as disembodied human spirits.38 But the fact of demon possession could not be denied, and relatives and friends of a victim were always in search of a remedy.
The seven sons of Sceva, who were not only Jews but also sons of a high priest, were in an especially good position to market themselves as exorcists. Potential customers might assume that their father had access to lore hidden from others of his race and, further, might even hope that from their father they had learned the correct pronunciation of the divine name we spell Jehovah. At some time in antiquity the Jews stopped speaking this name for fear of violating Leviticus 24:16 ("He that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death"), and since Hebrew words were then written without vowels, the correct pronunciation of the name was eventually forgotten by the nation as a whole. Whether the line of high priests remembered it is uncertain.39 In any case, superstitious minds readily believed that the reason Jehovah’s name was kept a dark secret was that it possessed rare magical power.
Delving Deeper
Shameful use of Jesus' name
In Roman times, many magicians looked upon Jewish names as powerful tools useful in incantations and other occult practices.40 A surviving papyrus written by a practitioner of magic shows that one name they exploited was "Jesus."41
Jesus’ own ability to cast out demons was so well known that both the Tosephta and the Talmud, which preserve the rulings of the Pharisees on how Mosaic law should be interpreted, strongly forbid Jewish exorcists to borrow His name for that purpose.42
Paul's spectacular success in ridding people of demons came to the notice of Sceva's sons and provoked them to imitate his methods. They heard that he cast them out in the name of the Lord Jesus. So, when they were next called to help a victim of demon possession, they solemnly intoned Jesus' name when they ordered the demon to come out. The demon was unimpressed. Determined not to lose his abode in a convenient victim, he challenged their authority to give him commands. By using the victim's voice as if it were his own, he cried out that he knew the name of Jesus and the name of Paul, but who were they? It is evident that the evil spirit was well aware that he was subject to Jesus' apostles. He knew that after rising from the dead, Jesus gave them authority over the demonic world (Mark 16:17). But the demon's obligation to obey a true apostle like Paul did not extend to dabblers in exorcism who used Jesus' name as a magical formula rather than as an expression of faith.
Getting Practical
When use of Jesus' name succeeds
The Lord promised that if we ask anything in His name, He will grant the request (John 16:23). Also, His name is a tower of defense. "The righteous runneth into it, and is safe" (Prov. 18:10). Jesus' name is indeed powerful, both for gaining wonderful answers to prayer and for fending off the attacks of Satan. But no one is entitled to claim its power unless he already has a relationship with Jesus. A lost sinner cannot force God to help him just by pronouncing a word, though it be a word so imbued with majesty and might as Jesus' name. He must first believe in Jesus and become His disciple.
The New Testament consistently equates believing in Jesus with believing in His name (John 1:12; Acts 2:21; Rom. 10:13; 1 Cor. 1:2; etc.). To believe in His name means to believe that He is what His full name declares: He is the Lord Jesus Christ. Not only is He Jesus; He is also the Lord (that is, He is God), and He is the Christ, which means "Anointed One" (that is, He is the One anointed to be our Savior). The seven sons of Sceva could not use Jesus' name to accomplish anything because they did not believe in the Lord and Savior who bears the name Jesus.
Yet many lost people state that God did help them at a time of crisis. They may feel that the healing or deliverance came because they prayed, or even because they prayed in Jesus' name. No doubt they are correct. No doubt God did answer their prayers, although He was not obliged to do so. He helped them simply as a demonstration of His mercy toward lost sinners. His purpose was to make Himself real and to show Himself good so that they would desire to know Him better. Yet they dare not assume that He helped them because He found no fault in them. He helped them not because they are good, but because He is good. God expects them to respond to His goodness by placing their faith in Jesus for salvation.
After the sons of Sceva hurled the name of Jesus at the evil spirit, he showed his contempt for these self-proclaimed exorcists by attacking them. The possessed man had so fully lost control of his own body that the demon lodging inside was able to use it as a weapon. With this living instrument of hate, the demon leaped upon the seven brothers and assaulted them with such violence that they could not resist. In fear and pain they fled from the house, their clothes torn away and their flesh covered with wounds.
There must have been witnesses to the altercation, because news of what happened quickly spread through the whole city and beyond. Both Jews and Greeks heard that an evil spirit testified to the authority of Jesus and of His minister Paul, and the effect was to put the fear of God into their hearts. The name of Jesus rose still higher in public esteem.
Pondering a Question
How did the demoniac acquire supernatural strength?
Many accounts of demon possession agree that when a demon or demons take control of a human body, they can so concentrate its energies as to produce more force than the victim himself could produce through an act of his own will. A notable example is the man who was possessed by a legion of devils (Mark 5:2-4). Attempts to restrain him were useless because he could break away from any chains or fetters. Similar stories come from missionaries who have encountered demon possession in their travels through pagan lands.43 We can only guess the explanation. Spirits with long centuries of practice in entering and controlling physical bodies apparently know how to multiply muscular power. A strong clue to the secret may lie in our common experience of becoming stronger just by focused determination. Perhaps demons use the same technique; that is, they employ strength of mind to enhance strength of body.
Pondering a Question
Why in Ephesus did God use Paul’s clothing to heal people, and why did He build the church through the testimony of a demon?
The reason is that Ephesus was a cesspool of the occult. In mercy, God showed people in bondage to magic that His magic, as it were, was stronger than Satan’s.
Delving Still Deeper
A garbled version of events
CT and TR agree that all seven sons of Sceva adjured the demon to come out of his victim (vv. 14–15). Then CT says that in response, the demon overcame "both" (v. 16).44 But he attacked and humiliated no less than seven men. TR retains internal consistency by saying that the demon overcame "them."45
In recognition that Luke would hardly be so careless as to number the exorcists as both two and seven, some scholars have exercised themselves at great length to show that "both" can, in some sources or time periods or contexts, mean more than two.46 But if Luke truly considered it an appropriate word for a concept constantly needing to be expressed—the concept of three or more persons—why do we find only one instance of its use in his writings? And why does he place it in the same sentence where, for two other expressions of this concept, he employs conventional words?
Conceding that "both" may be the meaning of the word in dispute, Bruce suggests that although the demon "leaped on" and "prevailed against" all seven, he "overcame" only two.47 Such a reconstruction of events is not only implausible, but also unfair to the writer, for it assumes that he was content with awkward and self-contradictory language.
In their zeal to defend CT, these scholars are wasting energy and career on a lost cause. CT is demonstrably full of corruptions such as we find here in Acts 19:16.48
Powers of Darkness in Retreat
Acts 19:18-20
Ancient Ephesus was known by reputation as a center of magical arts. Highly prized throughout the ancient world were copies of the "Ephesian letters," six words engraved on the statue of Diana in her temple at Ephesus.49 These, reputed to have extraordinary magical power, were widely circulated after they had either been transcribed onto scrolls or individually wrought in some fashion so that they might be carried in bags.50
Yet the darkness of sorcery could not withstand the light of gospel witness. The turning point was the debacle suffered by Sceva's sons when they tried to exorcise the demon. The testimony that he gave to the superior authority of Jesus and Paul had the unintended effect of greatly weakening Satan’s hold on the city. It convinced many involved in sorcery and magic that they were on the wrong side. Realizing that they must forsake alliances with the powers of darkness and join the people of God, they declared themselves to be believers in Christ. No doubt with Paul's encouragement, they made public confession of their sins. The phrase, "shewed their deeds," can be translated, "revealed their spells."51 It was generally assumed that spells were effective only if kept secret.52 Therefore, when these practitioners of the occult made their spells public, they were not only renouncing their use but also, by destroying the tools of their former trade, making it difficult or impossible ever to resume it.
They also brought all their books and burned them. These books contained the spells that they had just revealed—spells designed to unleash magical power for the purpose of gaining the magician's desires. The value of what was committed to the flames was tremendous, amounting to fifty thousand pieces of silver. Many scholars assume that the pieces were Greek coins known as drachmae,53 but more likely they were Roman denarii, which are mentioned far more often in inscriptions unearthed by archaeologists at the site of ancient Ephesus.54
Pondering a Question
What was their value in modern currency?
A denarius was the daily wage of a farm laborer in Jewish society (Matt. 20:2, where "penny" is denarius55). The same pay was standard also for a farm laborer in ancient Rome, but a skilled worker there drew somewhat higher pay. A carpenter or cabinet maker earned two denarii for each day's work plus maintenance. Likewise the daily income for an elementary teacher was two denarii, but for a teacher of advanced subjects such as rhetoric it was eight to ten. A lawyer who pleaded a case in court received about forty denarii for his whole effort.56
It is therefore evident that the books and other materials cast into the fire at Ephesus were worth a fortune. We cannot state the exact value in modern currency, because it is difficult to compare buying power in two societies so radically different. But a very rough equivalent of fifty thousand denarii might be half a million dollars.
The value of the books sacrificed in the flames establishes that the converts from the occult were many in number, and that for the sake of renouncing their past they accepted a very painful loss.
Getting Practical
True repentance
In the behavior of the new converts at Ephesus, we see an illustration of true repentance. They had been practicing magic and consorting with evil spirits. Their minds had fallen under the deep influence of Satan. Yet God delivered them so completely from bondage that they were not only sorry for their sins, but also willing to forsake them, and to forsake them so utterly as to make a clean break with the past. By burning their occult books and paraphernalia, they cut off every easy avenue of return to a wicked life.
They serve as a model for all new converts. Once saved, they must restructure their lives to eliminate roads back to old sins. They must remove temptations to be false to their new Master, Christ. The steps they must take include
- sweeping their house clean of filthy reading and viewing,
- turning away from any old companions who might lure them from the right path, and
- staying away from old haunts where they practiced sin.
Luke then marks these dramatic developments as an illustration of how mightily the word of God grew and prevailed.
Looking Ahead
Acts 19:21-22
To reconstruct events on the basis of Luke's survey of Paul's first and second missionary journeys leaves us with a mystery, for in Second Corinthians, written not long after Paul left Ephesus, he promises another visit to Corinth and counts it as his third (2 Cor. 12:14; 13:1). Yet the Book of Acts tells of only one visit preceding the letter. When did the second occur? The probable answer is that during his many months of conducting daily classes in the school of Tyrannus, Paul made a quick trip back to the Grecian capital in an effort to settle certain matters of dispute.57
Perhaps in late 55, the approximate date when Paul began his third year of ministry in Ephesus, he sensed that his work in the city was nearing completion. As he looked ahead, he resolved to revisit Macedonia and Greece. No doubt he wished to strengthen and encourage the churches he founded during his previous missionary journey. It appears that he did not plan to see the Ephesians again, for he plotted a future course that would take him elsewhere, eventually to places far away from any former scenes of his labor. After going to Macedonia and Greece, he meant to go back to Jerusalem, then on to Rome. In his epistle to the Romans, he informs his readers that after coming to their city and ministering to them, he would continue on a westward track until he reached Spain (Rom. 15:24). He was ambitious to carry the gospel to the uttermost parts.
From what source did he obtain this vision of his future ministry? The phrase, "purposed in the spirit" is like several others in the Book of Acts (Acts 18:25; 20:22; 21:4). On the surface, it is ambiguous, with possible reference either to a person’s own spirit or the Holy Spirit. But since in one case, Acts 21:4, the spirit intended is undeniably the Holy Spirit, and since in every case the reading "Holy Spirit" fits the context, we will assume that it was the Holy Spirit who guided Paul’s meditation on what God wanted him to accomplish. From the Lord Himself, Paul derived his itinerary for evangelism in coming years.
But as it turned out, Paul never finished his tour of Achaia and Macedonia. We will argue later that circumstances—specifically, the necessity of overseeing the delivery of substantial funds that had been collected for relief of the poor in Jerusalem—forced his return to the Jewish capital sooner than he expected. He intended afterward to revisit Greece and Macedonia, but, so far as we know, he never got there.
Also so far as we know, he never got to Spain. Later, we will show why his plans to reach the western edge of the empire did not materialize. Rome was his final destination. It was there that he met his death in the early 60s, during the reign of Nero.
To prepare the way for his return to Macedonia and Greece after departing from Ephesus, Paul sent as his forerunners both Timothy and Erastus. Evidently, Timothy had been in Ephesus assisting Paul. This is the first appearance of Erastus in the history of Paul's labors, but he will appear again (Rom. 16:23; 2 Tim. 4:20).
After dispatching his two assistants, Paul did not set out himself, but stayed in Ephesus "for a season." "Season" is chronos, the most general Greek word for a period of time. We therefore cannot derive from this term any measure of how long he remained in the city.
Rioting Pagans
Acts 19:23-34
Paul spent more time in Ephesus than in any other city where he founded a church. Altogether he ministered there three years, reckoning inclusively (Acts 20:31). But finally, probably early in his last year, he decided that the church in Ephesus was stable enough for him to move on.
As he was preparing to leave, a great conflict suddenly exploded. So many Greeks had been won to Christ that the local culture and economy began to feel profound effects. The city was the site of a great temple to Diana (known as Diana to the Romans, as Artemis to the Greeks). In Roman mythology, Diana was a virgin goddess identified with the moon, but the Diana worshiped in Ephesus was really the same deity that had been the mother goddess of Asia Minor since time immemorial.58 Her magnificent temple, within a short walk to the northeast from the city wall, was one of the seven man-made structures that ancients called the Seven Wonders of the World.59 Some observers rated it best of the seven.60 Even by modern standards it was a large edifice, with dimensions of about four hundred feet by two hundred feet (61 m. x 122 m.), making it slightly bigger than a soccer field for international matches.61 It was in fact the largest building in the Roman Empire north of the Mediterranean Sea.62 Interspersed throughout the ground floor and holding up the roof were 127 columns, each fifty-eight feet (18 m.) tall.63 The magnificence of the structure attracted a steady flow of visitors from remote corners of the empire as well as from surrounding regions,64 so that in Paul’s day, the worship of Diana was a major economic base of Ephesian life.
In earlier days, when the harbor adjoining the city was one of the best on the western coastline, Ephesus was a center of trade moving back and forth between inland Asia Minor and all points west.65 But deforestation and agriculture in the hinterland had been conducted without any measures to prevent catastrophic soil erosion into the Cayster River that passed north of the city and emptied into the sea. Over time, the coastline moved outward,66 and the harbor, even after relocation further west, could be maintained only as an offshoot of the river.67 Silting was always a threat to the harbor itself, putting it in danger of becoming so choked with sediment that it could no longer receive ships. Occasional efforts to clean it amounted to a losing battle.68 Today, after nearly two thousand more years of silting that has continued largely unchecked, the ruins of Ephesus sit about five miles (8 km.) away from the sea, separated from it by swampland.69
How much trade was passing through the city in Paul's day is uncertain. Yet because the city enjoyed imperial favor, it was not dependent on trade for its economic well-being. Beginning with Augustus, the emperors financed extensive building projects in the city and spared it from heavy taxation.70 Also, as we said, the Temple of Diana was a lucrative tourist attraction. Overall, the city enjoyed a high level of prosperity.
As in any modern city dependent on tourism, many people made a living by selling goods and services to visitors. Food, lodgings, and souvenirs were naturally the main items of business, but also the Temple served as a sort of international bank, where the wealthy deposited their money.71 Especially profitable was the sale of silver shrines to worshipers of the goddess. The term "shrines" suggests something large and imposing, but it actually refers to small handwrought objects showing Diana and her lions standing in a niche of the temple.72 For many years, the manufacture of such shrines had employed a large number of silversmiths.
But after Christianity, which Luke calls "that way," came to Ephesus and the surrounding region, so many devotees of Diana switched their allegiance to Christ that attendance at the temple fell off sharply. The decline in the cult of Diana was shriveling up interest in the shrines that the silversmiths produced, and the income derived from their sale was drying up. As a result, these silversmiths, feeling the pain in losing so much money, decided to take action to preserve their livelihoods. One of them, a certain Demetrius, called together his fellow craftsmen and made a rousing speech protesting Paul's influence. Much of what Christians believed must have been common knowledge, for he correctly saw linkage between Paul and the spreading idea that any god depicted by an image made with men’s hands is no god at all. The result of this revolutionary thinking, said Demetrius, was that many people had turned away from paying homage to Diana. Now the prestige that Ephesus enjoyed as the center of Diana’s veneration was slipping away, and the silversmiths’ ability to earn a living was in jeopardy. He finished by accusing the Hebrew preacher of diminishing the glory that rightly belonged to the goddess and her temple.
Getting Practical
Mistaking self-interest for truth
Notice that all the arguments made by Demetrius were strictly pragmatic. He never once addressed the question as to whether Paul's doctrines were true. As he harangued the silversmiths to win their support for action against Paul, he appealed only to their pocketbooks and their pride, not to their minds. Here we see illustrated the great danger in mistaking self-interest for truth. What we think will bring us money or glory or pleasure, or even what we imagine is happiness, may be nothing but a delusion. In lashing out to defend their jobs, the silversmiths sided against truth and incurred the wrath of the real God.
Pragmatism usually rests on the cynical assumption that there is no God to reckon with, so we might as well live for self. We see signs of such cynicism in Demetrius's speech. In effect, he conceded that what Paul was saying about the pagan gods might be true, for he offered no proof that Diana was real. At the same time, he dismissed the God of Paul as unworthy of his notice. He was so full of self-interest and self-assurance that he did not deign even to look at all the evidence in favor of Paul’s religion. Throughout Demetrius's speech we find only one concern—to protect his own place in the world.
Exactly the same kind of cynicism still drives people to hell. How many never give the gospel fair consideration because they merely assume it is not true? Many indeed. They allow their eternal destiny to be decided by a hunch, by a personal guess, by their feelings. They choose the path that the gospel marks as the path to hell because they cannot see the end of the path and the path pleases them. With all their great wisdom acquired during a tiny span of life in a tiny corner of the universe, they are sure that they will never fall under the judgment of God. Sure as sure can be. Dead wrong too.
The men listening to Demetrius became more and more excited as he spoke. His concluding appeal to protect their craft and defend the honor of their goddess worked on their emotions with great effect, leaving them wildly enraged against Paul. They cried out, "Great is Diana of the Ephesians." They crossed the line from being rational individuals to being an irrational mob in blind submission to their leader.
They hurried away to do mischief. By voicing anger to everyone they met, they stirred up "confusion"—that is, tumult72—throughout the city. Soon, loud voices everywhere were fanning the flames of riot. The mob and their growing crowd of followers ran to and fro, seeking a target for their wrath. The person they especially wanted to find was Paul, but the best they could do was to catch two of his companions, Gaius and Aristarchus, both from Macedonia. Luke identifies them as men who had traveled with Paul in the past. Several individuals by the name of Gaius appear in the records of Paul's ministry: one was from Derbe in Asia Minor (Acts 20:4), another from Corinth (1 Cor. 1:14; Rom. 16:23). But of this Gaius in Ephesus there is no other mention in the New Testament. Aristarchus, however, is an important figure who worked for a long time beside Paul and eventually became his fellow prisoner (Acts 27:2; Col. 4:10; Phlm. 24).
After apprehending Gaius and Aristarchus, the mob rushed them toward the large amphitheater lying at the end of the Arcadian Way, the main boulevard that came from the harbor on the west and ran eastward through the main center of urban life.74 From the ruins still in existence, archaeologists estimate that the theater held as many as 24,000 people.75 The surge of a noisy mob into the theater served as a magnet drawing a general influx of curious observers from all quarters of the city.
Ephesus, like other Greek cities, was ruled by a demos, an assembly of all citizens, and the theater was where it convened.76 The silversmiths took their prisoners into the theater probably in pursuit of two deliberate goals; first, to attract enough people to qualify as a session of the demos and, second, to persuade the demos to condemn Paul's two helpers as well as Paul. Yet the crowd inside the theater could not initiate a formal session or secure a legal judgment without participation by city officials.77 Mob leaders knew that if they succeeded in amassing people in the theater, city officials would be forced to come as well, but they probably had good reason to doubt that members of the political elite would support their rage against the Christian movement. So it is unclear how they expected to achieve their second goal—a verdict against Paul. Perhaps they thought that by putting on display an appearance of strong backing by the whole pagan community, they could coerce city officials into doing their will.78
News of the commotion somehow reached Paul. Far from provoking him to flee for his own safety, it aroused in him a great anxiety for the men taken captive, and he hurried to help them. In the company of other believers, he arrived at the theater and heard all the noise. He wanted to enter and speak to the crowd, obviously in the hope that his words would have a calming effect and rescue his friends inside from peril of their lives. Here is another proof of Paul's courage. But he stayed outside because his friends there held him back.
Among those inside the theater were "certain of the chief of Asia." In the Greek, "of the chief of Asia" is a single word best translated "Asiarchs,"79 a reference to members of a league of men chosen from chief families in the province of Asia. The league’s founding purpose was to uphold Roman interests. Although the exact role of these Asiarchs in governing the city and province is a matter of some dispute, there is no doubt that they wielded strong political influence.80 Luke informs us that some in this high echelon of provincial society counted themselves as Paul’s friends. Whether they had become followers of Jesus is left an unanswered question. Perhaps they were merely men of nobility who felt more kinship with a man of Paul’s learning and bearing than with the superstitious mob. Yet if they were his friends, they could not have been far from Christ.
When these Asiarchs heard that Paul was preparing to come into the assembly, they sent him a message begging him to remain outside for his own safety. No doubt they were also worried that his presence might provoke a complete breakdown of law and order. Paul, out of respect for authority and wise counsel, complied with their request.
Meanwhile, the scene inside was becoming more chaotic. But in the growing din of shouting voices, it was impossible to discover any coherent explanation for all the excitement. Luke comments wryly that most of the gathered thousands did not actually know why they were there.
Getting Practical
Mature vs. childish emotion
Here is another place in Acts where Luke cannot refrain from a touch of humor. He obviously wants us to see this mob as a picture of human nature once it gives free reign to unthinking emotion. Under the control of passion, a person quickly becomes ridiculous.
For example, what could be more ridiculous than a temper tantrum? Yet such tantrums are not restricted to children. A man who rages at his wife for spending money or for burning his supper is having a tantrum. A woman who rages at her husband for coming home late or for lying on the sofa is having a tantrum. A tantrum reduces an adult to the level of a naughty child and makes it hard for others to respect him. Yet a man may take pride in his ability to blow up and make others tremble. He thinks it shows how manly he is. In fact, it shows how childish he is.
It does not follow that strong emotion is bad. Indeed, strong emotion is the mark of a mature personality. The conditions of modern life have produced a generation less inclined than their ancestors to show strong emotion, but if they do show it, they are less inclined to refrain from excess. We read in biographies of Abraham Lincoln that he often wept. But if a modern President was prone to weep, the American people would judge him unstable and unfit to lead.
Our highest example of a mature personality is, of course, Christ, who expressed every form of strong emotion. Yet He always kept it under control.
- He could be sorrowful, yet without despair. He wept at the tomb of Lazarus, but immediately moved from sorrow to joy when He raised His friend from the dead (John 11:34-45).
- He could be angry, yet without any blind rage. On more than one occasion, He drove the merchants and money changers out of the Temple (John 2:13-22; Mark 11:15-18). In so doing, He displayed wrath and committed violence. He overturned their tables and drove out their animals with a whip. But He hurt no one, and when He was done, He calmly taught the people.
- He was capable of great love, yet without depriving anyone of freedom to make his own choices. He loved the rich young ruler, for example, but He did not compel him to become a disciple (Mark 10:17-22). On the contrary, He laid down a hard demand that the young man refused to accept.
- He was capable of dread, yet without panic or cowardice. When contemplating the cross as He prayed in the Garden, He sweat drops of blood, but then with complete composure He went to meet Judas and the soldiers with him (Luke 22:39-48).
Getting Practical
Emotion in prayer
If the Lord Himself did not refrain from emotion, there is no reason we should not express emotion as we talk to Him. The emotion should not be of a childish kind, but of a kind that is measured and mature. Our worship needs joy and enthusiasm (Psa. 100:1-2). Our prayers need to be fervent (Jas. 5:16). Our turning from sin needs to be accompanied by real sorrow, perhaps with tears (2 Cor. 7:10). Not everyone cries—some who have lived long in this imperfect world have few tears left—but crying is appropriate.
Finally, the Jews found a certain Alexander and put him forward to speak. Nowhere else in this account is there any mention of Alexander, so we are not sure who he was or what his intentions were in speaking. Yet in Second Timothy, written to Timothy apparently when he was in Ephesus, Paul refers to a certain Alexander the coppersmith who did him much harm (2 Tim. 4:14). It is therefore likely that the Alexander who appears in Luke's account was not a believer, but a Jew hostile to Paul. The reason he tried to speak is perhaps revealed by what happened next. When he motioned with his hand to gain silence and attention, the mob perceived that he was a Jew and responded with ugly antisemitism,81 showing their contempt for his religion by letting loose a fanatical scream of praise for the great goddess Diana. For two whole hours the mighty uproar continued unabated. The mob clearly saw Jews and Christians as equal threats to their idolatry. Perhaps Alexander had come forward because fellow Jews, sensing the anti-Semitic mood in the theater, called upon him to instruct the crowd that all Jews were not followers of Paul.82
A Calming Influence at Last
Acts 19:35-41
Responsibility for bringing the crowd under control fell to the town clerk, a local citizen who presided over meetings of the demos. He was the main liaison between the city and higher Roman authority, and in the eyes of the Romans he bore primary responsibility for maintaining order.83 They would have held him accountable for an assembly of the people that came to a decision altering public policy or imposing penalties on individuals but that failed to qualify as a legal proceeding. The present meeting was illegal both because it was full of disorder and because it was outside the schedule, which permitted only three meetings per month.84 The town clerk was therefore very keen on stopping the commotion and sending the people home.
Delving Still Deeper
A disputed detail
Jerome Murphy-O’Connor takes a low view of Luke’s trustworthiness as a historian. He says that Luke is probably introducing a gross anachronism when he has the townclerk describe Ephesus as "worshipper [literally, ‘warden’85] of the great goddess Diana." This title for the city did not come into general use until about thirty years after Paul’s visit.86
But O’Connor throws aside strong probability. In fact, the title in question, "warden," was already well known. Citizens with the actual duty of maintaining the goddess’s temple had for hundreds of years been known as wardens.87 The title passes to the city itself on a provincial coin dating from AD 65–66.88 Such acknowledgement that the city is properly called warden doubtless reflects a popular usage established many years earlier.89
Somehow he managed to make the mob give up their chanting. Then he made a carefully reasoned speech designed to defuse their anger. He started off by arguing that all their thunderous praise of Diana was unnecessary, because no one doubted that the Ephesians loved their goddess. They loved not only her, he said, but also "the image which fell down from Jupiter."
Pondering a Question
What was this image?
The showpiece at the Temple of Diana was an image of the goddess that, in the view of pagan superstition, had been crafted in heaven and then delivered to the earth as a love gift from Jupiter.90 We infer that it first appeared to men as a shining projectile falling from the sky. Since it was reported to be rather more grotesque in its proportions than a realistic sculpture of a woman,91 we may be fairly sure that it was a meteorite.92 In pagan societies, meteorites have often become objects of veneration.
Continuing, the town clerk counseled the people that since their loyalty to Diana was beyond question, they had nothing to prove. They did not need to commit rash violence against fellow citizens of a different religious persuasion. The companions of Paul brought for trial had, according to the town clerk, done nothing to hinder or defame the cult of Diana. They had neither committed sacrilege against her temple ("church robbers" should be translated "temple robbers," meaning those who had treated it with sacrilege93) nor blasphemed the goddess herself. So, in the view of the town clerk, there was no justification for all the excitement that nearly led to civil mayhem. He said that if the silversmiths felt they had a legitimate complaint against anyone, they should follow due process by taking recourse either to "the law" (literally, "courts"94) or to "deputies" (literally, "proconsuls"95). He was speaking of the right channels for personal lawsuits. Ephesus was one of the cities in Asia where an assize court was periodically convened under the governor's presidency.96
Since the province of Asia had only one "proconsul" (a title reserved for a provincial governor),97 some critics have charged Luke with inaccuracy here. But the town clerk was merely voicing a general principle. He meant that the whole system of courts and proconsuls was normally the proper avenue for seeking redress of a grievance.98
The clerk added that for other questions, likely referring to broader questions affecting the whole community, the best way to resolve them might be a regularly scheduled meeting of the demos.99 But he warned them that the present gathering risked Roman wrath. Implicit in what he said was the threat that if the frenzy continued, Rome might take away some of the privileges the city enjoyed, perhaps even the exercise of self-government by an assembly of all citizens.100
Delving Deeper
Reflections of political fact
Rather than falling into error, Luke’s account displays many striking points of accuracy.
- At the time of the disturbance in Ephesus, the governor of Asia bore the title "proconsul."101
- Within the same province there were indeed many Asiarchs, whereas in each neighboring province there was only one man bearing a comparable title, such as Lyciarch in Lycia or Bithyniarch in Bithynia.102
- The governing body of Ephesus was an assembly of local citizens called the ekklesia tou demou103 or simply the demos ("people"104 in vv. 30, 33) or the ekklesia ("assembly"105 in vv. 32, 39, 41).106
- Its meeting place was the theater.107
- Presiding over them was an official known as a grammateus ("townclerk"108 in v. 35).109 He was an elected official.
No doubt the town clerk was highly respected, and no doubt he spoke with great authority, for when he then dismissed the crowd, no one protested. The crowd dispersed and left the Christians alone.
Pondering a Question
In defense of the Christians, the town clerk said that they did not belittle Diana. But was this true? Did not Paul preach clearly that his God was the only true God?
We have no record of any sermon that Paul preached in Ephesus, but since he gave public lectures every day for two years, it is indubitable that he had often expressed his view that there is only one God. The gospel was certainly not friendly to the gods of paganism. But we need not suppose that the town clerk spoke the exact truth. He was, after all, a politician seeking to save himself and the city from serious trouble. He would not have been the first politician who bent truth to end a crisis. Notice that what he said about the Christians was very different from what Demetrius said when he agitated against Paul. He said that Paul did belittle Diana (v. 26). Demetrius's slant on Paul's teaching was likely closer to the truth. The town clerk was merely manipulating the mob in an effort to keep it under control.
First Corinthians
With the end of the riot started by Demetrius, Paul was able to refocus on plans for future ministry. He had to decide how best to proceed both in evangelizing new places and in strengthening churches already established. One pressing need was to settle the storms that seemed to be always brewing in Corinth. His immediate response was to pen or, more likely, dictate the epistle now known as First Corinthians.
That he wrote this epistle during his Ephesian years has always been the consensus of scholars, given the internal evidence allowing no other conclusion, such as his remark, "I will tarry at Ephesus until Pentecost" (1 Cor. 16:8). Yet few modern commentators have placed it, as we do, during the fairly short period after public outrage against Paul and before his departure from the city. We can say in our defense that no other date seems permitted by a comment we find toward the close of the epistle. Paul says that during his stay in Ephesus he had "fought with beasts" (1 Cor. 15:32). Luke's record of Paul's years in that city contains no hint of violent opposition until near the end, when the silversmiths attacked him with a mass riot that would have surely led to his death except for the strong hand of God coming to his defense. Referring to this ordeal as a struggle with beasts is an apt metaphor.110 The climax came in a huge theater shaking with menacing voices, exactly the kind of setting where many condemned under the perverse system of Roman justice were killed by lions and other wild beasts.
Delving Deeper
Proofs of figurative meaning
For several reasons, we can be sure that Paul was not speaking of an actual encounter with ravenous wild animals.111
- As a Roman citizen, he was exempt from any shameful public execution, such as being devoured by beasts before a mob in an arena.112
- There is virtually no possibility that he could have survived such an encounter.113
In Second Corinthians, written from Macedonia a few months after he sent First Corinthians, Paul tells of a dreadful experience in Asia that sounds like another memory of his struggle with beasts in Ephesus: "We were pressed out of measure, above strength, insomuch that we despaired even of life: But we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God which raiseth the dead: Who delivered us from so great a death" (2 Cor. 1:8–10).
First Corinthians was not actually the first letter that he sent to Corinth while he was in Ephesus. An earlier one has been lost (1 Cor. 5:9–10). We may be sure that the Lord has not preserved it because, like his letter to the Laodiceans which has also not survived (Col. 4:16), it was not divinely inspired. We have no certain knowledge of its contents except that it enjoined separation from professing Christians whose lives do not match their testimony. In reply, the Corinthian believers sent Paul a letter requesting advice on other issues troubling the church (1 Cor. 7:1). As is often the case, the most urgent and difficult concerned marriage; such as whether marriage is the best option, whether divorce is ever permissible, etc. But Paul also received a wide range of other questions. In his response, the topics he had to address included meat sacrificed to idols, the support of Christian workers, celebration of the Lord’s Supper, the place of women in worship, and spiritual gifts.
First Corinthians is not only Paul’s answer to a letter, however. It is also his reaction to news he heard when Chloe’s household came from Corinth to Ephesus (1 Cor. 1:11). From this source he learned of sharp divisions within the church, to the extent that members were pulling away from each other and perhaps even forming groups based on loyalty to different preachers of the gospel (1 Cor. 1:12).
But sad to say, Paul’s first epistle to Corinth could not resolve all the problems in the church there. Anticipating that it would need further outside help, he planned to send Timothy as his representative (1 Cor. 4:17; 16:10–11). Later, many lingering problems required him to write yet another epistle, known as Second Corinthians.
Delving Deeper
Naming the couriers
The couriers who brought the questions from Corinth were evidently Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus (1 Cor. 16:17). According to tradition, they, together with Timothy, formed the party that carried back Paul’s reply.114 Timothy is numbered among them apparently on the strength of Paul's comment in the epistle that Timothy may soon visit the church (1 Cor. 16:10), but he seems to be raising a possibility still future when they read his words. The evidence actually points to Titus as leader of the party, for when Paul met him later in Macedonia, he was returning from delivering to the Corinthian church a letter full of stern admonitions (2 Cor. 7:5–16, especially vv. 5–9).115
One instruction conveyed by this letter now called First Corinthians was to move forward in collecting money for the poor of Judea (1 Cor. 16:1–3). Yet we need not assume that the Corinthians had never previously heard these instructions. It seems that they were first communicated through Titus about a year prior to Second Corinthians (2 Cor. 8:1–17, especially vv. 6, 10). Another purpose of that much earlier visit by Titus may have been to deliver the epistle which has not been preserved.
Delving Deeper
Arguments for the northerly route
The northerly route, endorsed (at least tentatively) by many scholars,6 is supported by numerous considerations.