19<\/strong>. And he<\/em> [ they<\/strong> ] came to Ephesus<\/em> ] The oldest authorities have the plural number here. Ephesus was the famous city, capital of Ionia, and afterwards the scene of a large period of St John’s labours. It stood not far from the sea on some hilly ground by a small river which flows into the sea in the district lying between the greater rivers, the Hermus and the Meander. In St Paul’s day it was by far the busiest and most populous city in Proconsular Asia. For a more complete account of its inhabitants and the special worship of Artemis (Diana) for which it was celebrated, a fitting place will be found in the notes on chap. 19.<\/p>\n and left them there<\/em> ] Aquila and Priscilla probably had business connexions with the large city of Ephesus, which caused them to end their journey here. These people though working at their trade appear to have been above the position which would be implied by Dr Farrar’s expression (St Paul i. 573) “his lodging in the squalid<\/em> shop of Aquila and Priscilla.” They travelled about and lived now at Rome, now at Ephesus, and now in Corinth (1Co 16:19<\/span>; Rom 16:3<\/span>; 2Ti 4:19<\/span>), and on their condition when in Ephesus, see above on Act 18:2<\/span>.<\/p>\n entered into the synagogue<\/em> ] He could not give up his own people, though he was constantly exposed to hard usage by them; so he seeks them out again here as soon as he arrives. In Ephesus however his message seems to have been received with less hostility, for those who heard him begged him to stay a longer time. The cosmopolitan character of the Ephesian population may have had something to do with this.<\/p>\n And he came to Ephesus – <\/B>See the notes on Rev 2:1-5<\/span>. This was a celebrated city in Ionia, in Asia Minor, about 40 miles south of Smyrna. It was chiefly famous for the Temple of Diana, usually reckoned one of the seven wonders of the world. Pliny styles this city the ornament of Asia. In the times of the Romans it was the metropolis of the province of Asia. This city is now under the dominion of the Turks, and is almost in a state of ruin. Dr. Chandler, in his Travels in Asia Mirror, says: The inhabitants are a few Greek peasants, living in extreme wretchedness, dependence, and insensibility; the representatives of an illustrious people, and inhabiting the wreck of their greatness; some in the substructions of the glorious edifices which they raised; some beneath the vaults of the stadium, once the crowded scene of their diversions; and some in the sepulchres which received their ashes (Travels, p. 131, Oxford, 1775). The Jews, according to Josephus, were very numerous in Ephesus, and had obtained the privilege of citizenship.<\/P> Left them there – <\/B>That is, Aquila and Priscilla, Act 18:24-26<\/span>.<\/P> Reasoned with the Jews – <\/B>See the notes on Act 17:2<\/span>.<\/P> <\/p>\n Verse 19<\/span>. He came to Ephesus<\/B><\/I>] Where it appears he spent but one Sabbath. It is supposed that Paul left Aquila and Priscilla at this place, and that he went on alone to Jerusalem; for it is certain they were at Ephesus when Apollos arrived there. See Ac 18:24<\/span>; Ac 18:26<\/span>.<\/P> <\/P> EPHESUS was at the time in which St. Paul visited it, one of the most flourishing cities of Asia Minor. It was situated in that part anciently called Ionia<\/I>, but now Natolia<\/I>. It abounded with the most eminent orators, philosophers, c., in the world and was adorned with the most splendid buildings. Here was that famous temple of Diana<\/I>, reputed one of the seven wonders of the world<\/I>. This city is now under the dominion of the Turks, and is in a state of almost entire ruin. The temple of Minerva, which had long served as a Christian church, is now so completely ruined that its site cannot be easily determined; though some ruins of the walls are still standing, with five or six marble columns, forty feet in length, and seven in diameter, all of one piece<\/I>. It still has a good harbour, and is about forty miles from Smyrna. In Chandler’s Travels in Asia Minor, some curious information is given concerning this once eminent city. His account concludes thus: “The Ephesians are now a few Greek peasants, living in extreme wretchedness, dependence, and insensibility: the representative of an illustrious<\/I> people, and inhabiting the wrecks<\/I> of their greatness<\/I>: some beneath the vaults of the Stadium<\/I>, once the crowded scene of their diversions; and some live by the abrupt precipice, in the sepulchres which received the ashes of their ancestors. Such are the present citizens of Ephesus; and such is the condition to which that renowned city has been gradually reduced. Its streets are obscured and overgrown; a herd of goats was driven to it for shelter from the sun at noon; and a noisy flight of crows from the quarries seemed to insult its silence. We<\/I> heard the partridge call in the area of the theatre, and of the<\/I> Stadium<\/I>. The glorious pomp of its heathen worship<\/I> is no longer remembered; and Christianity<\/I>, which was there nursed by apostles<\/I>, and fostered by general councils<\/I>, until it increased to fulness of stature, barely lingers on, in an existence hardly visible.” Travels in Asia Minor<\/I>, p. 130. Reader! This city was once the capital of Asia Minor; and its ruins alone prove that it has existed: and it was one of those seven Churches<\/I> to which a letter was expressly dictated by Jesus Christ himself! Ephesus is properly no more! and the Church of Ephesus is blotted put of the map of Christianity! Be silent and adore.<\/P> <\/p>\n Ephesus; <\/B>the metropolis of the Lesser Asia, where afterwards that famous church was, unto which St. Paul wrote an Epistle, as also St. John wrote another, Rev 2:1<\/span>. <\/P> Left them there; <\/B>that is, Aquila and Priscilla at Ephesus, to confirm the believing Ephesians; whilst Paul <\/P> entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with the Jews; <\/B>out of an extraordinary love for his nation, although he had suffered all those indignities from them, yet he would give them precept upon precept, and line upon line. <\/P> <\/p>\n 19. he came to Ephesus<\/B>thecapital of the Roman province of Asia. (See Introduction<\/span>to Ephesians). It was a sail, right across from the west to the eastside of the gean Sea, of some eight or ten days, with a fair wind. <\/P> left them there<\/B>Aquilaand Priscilla. <\/P> but he himself entered intothe synagogue<\/B>merely taking advantage of the vessel putting inthere. <\/P> and reasoned with theJews<\/B>the tense<\/I> here not being the usual one denotingcontinuous<\/I> action (as in Act 17:2<\/span>;Act 18:4<\/span>), but that expressing atransient act.<\/I> He had been forbidden to preach the word in Asia(Ac 16:6<\/span>), but he would notconsider that as precluding this passing exercise of his ministrywhen Providence brought him to its capital; nor did it follow thatthe prohibition was still in force.<\/P><\/p>\n And he came to Ephesus<\/strong>,…. The metropolis of Asia; according to Pliny c, it had been called by many names; at the time of the Trojan war, Alopes, then Ortygia and Morges, also Smyrna Trachea, Samornion and Prelea, and which he calls the work of the Amazons: some say d it was called Ephesus, because Hercules permitted the Amazons to dwell in it, Ephesus in the Greek language signifying “permission”; Pausanias e denies, that the famous temple in it was built by them, but by Ephesus the son of Caystrus, and says that from him the city had its name; though others say it was built by Androclus, the son of Codrus, king of Athens, in the time of David king of Israel; and that having suffered by the sea, it was rebuilt by Lysimachus king of Thrace, who called it after his wife’s name Arsinoe; but he being dead, it was called by its ancient name Ephesus: it is now a poor village in the hands of the Turks, and with them goes by the name of Aiasalik; though with others it still has the name of Epheso; the Syriac version reads, “they came”; not only Paul, but Aquila and Priscilla; and certain it is that they came with him thither, since it follows,<\/p>\n and left them there<\/strong>; unless this is to be understood of Cenchrea: this clause is not here read in the Syriac version, but is placed at the end of Ac 18:21<\/span>, where it reads much better; as that he should leave them at Ephesus, when he departed from thence, than when he first came thither; unless the sense is, that he left them in some part of the city, whilst he went to the Jewish synagogue; since it follows,<\/p>\n but he himself entered into the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews<\/strong>; concerning Jesus being the Messiah, and the abrogation of the law; and the doctrine of justification by the righteousness of Christ, and not by the deeds of the law: which were the principal things in debate, between him and the Jews: Beza’s ancient copy reads, “and the sabbath following he left them there”.<\/p>\n c Nat. Hist. l. 5. c. 29. d Heraclides de politiis, p. 456. e Achaica sive, l. 7. p. 399.<\/p>\n Came <\/B> (<\/SPAN><\/span>). Came down, as usual in speaking of coming to land (16:1<\/span>).<\/P> To Ephesus <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). This great city on the Cayster, the capital of the Province of Asia, the home of the worship of Diana (Artemis) with a wonderful temple, Paul at last had reached, though forbidden to come on the way out on this tour (16:6<\/span>). Here Paul will spend three years after his return from Jerusalem.<\/P> He left them there <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). That is, Priscilla and Aquila he left (second aorist active indicative) here (<\/SPAN><\/span>). But Luke mentions the departure by way of anticipation before he actually went away (verse 21<\/span>).<\/P> But he himself <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Paul again the leading person in the narrative. On this occasion he may have gone alone into the synagogue.<\/P> He reasoned <\/B> (<\/SPAN><\/span>). Luke’s favourite word for Paul’s synagogue discourses (Acts 17:2<\/span>; Acts 17:17<\/span>; Acts 18:4<\/span> which see) as also Acts 19:8<\/span>; Acts 19:9<\/span>. <\/P> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) “And he came to Ephesus,”<\/strong> (katentesan de eis Epheson) “Then they came down into Ephesus,” in Asia Minor, where he later spent more than two years disputing (debating, first in the Jewish Synagogue, then teaching the Word of God, conducting a Bible Institute program in the private school of Tyrannus, Act 19:8-10<\/span>.<\/p>\n 2) “And left them there: <\/strong> (kakeinous katelipon autou) “And those (Aquila and Priscilla) he left there,” to work with the church brethren in Ephesus, while he returned to Antioch of Syria, his home base church to give account of his mission stewardship for them.<\/p>\n 3) “But he himself entered into the synagogue,”<\/strong> (autos de eiselthon eis ton aunagogen) “Then he himself entering into the synagogue (as his custom was),” in every community he visited that had a synagogue for Jewish worship and study, Act 18:4<\/span>; Act 17:2-3<\/span>.<\/p>\n 4) “And reasoned with the Jews,”<\/strong> (dieleksato tois loudaiois) “Lectured to the Jews,” who met there to worship and search the scriptures, Joh 5:39<\/span>; Act 13:5<\/span>; Act 13:13-16<\/span>; Act 13:42<\/span>; Act 14:12<\/span>; Act 13:38-45<\/span>; Act 17:1-3<\/span>.<\/p>\n (19) He came to Ephesus, and left them there.<\/strong>The better MSS. give, They came to Ephesus. What follows seems to imply that he no longer continued to work with them, as at Corinth, but leaving them to establish themselves in their craft, began, under the pressure of his eagerness to reach Jerusalem, an independent course of teaching in the synagogues.<\/p>\n The first mention of Ephesus calls for a short account of its history. It had been one of the early Greek colonies on the western coast of Asia Minor. It fell under the power of Alyattes, King of Lydia, and his successor, Croesus. It had from the first been celebrated for the worship of Artemis (see Note on Act. 19:14<\/span>); and her Temple, with its sacred image, and stately courts, and its hundreds of priests and priestesses of various grades, was visited by pilgrims of all nations. It was one of the cities in which East and West came into close contact with each other, and the religion of Greece assumed there a more Oriental character, and was fruitful in magic, and mysteries, and charms. The Jewish population was sufficiently numerous to have a synagogue, and St. Paul, as usual, appeared in it as a teacher.<\/p>\n 19<\/strong>. <\/strong> Came to Ephesus<\/strong> Between Corinth and Ephesus the sea route was a perpetual scene of navigation. It took usually from twelve to fifteen days, about the time of a modern steamboat trip across the Atlantic. Ephesus, the commercial capital of proconsular Asia, we shall fully notice at Act 19:1<\/span>.<\/p>\n ‘And they came to Ephesus, and he left them there, but he himself entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with the Jews.’<\/p>\n On arrival in Ephesus Paul clearly said his ‘goodbyes’ to Priscilla and Aquila. ‘He left them there’ suggests that he did not expect to meet up with them again in Ephesus because he expected to embark at once. It would seem, however, that discovering that he could not embark as soon as he had expected he had to take up short term lodgings in Ephesus by the harbour, in order to wait for a suitable berth. This would be why he was unexpectedly able to go to the synagogue to reason with the Jews (we may presumably read in, ‘on the Sabbath day’). We say unexpectedly because had he been expecting it presumably he would have asked Priscilla and Aquila to accompany him.<\/p>\n This first act of evangelising in Ephesus is probably intended to stress that prior to the soon to be explained ministry of Apollos, there had been there an Apostolic witness. Thus the initial action in establishing the church at Ephesus had been Paul’s. He could therefore be seen as the founder of the church.<\/p>\n Act 18:19-22<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>And he came to Ephesus,<\/em><\/strong><\/strong> For the short time that the apostle now continued at Ephesus, which seems to have been but one sabbath-day, he went into the synagogue, and discoursed with the Jews, and with such Gentiles as usually attended the synagogue service, concerning the Christian doctrine; but when they desired him to stay longer with them, he refused, and took his leave of them, telling them, Act 18:21<\/span> that he must by all means go up to Jerusalem, upon the account of his being under the Nazarite’s vow; for it was a maxim, that if any one had vowed the Nazarite’s vow out of the land of Judea, he was bound to go into the land, and there fulfil his vow. The apostle added, that he chose to be at Jerusalem time enough to keep the approaching festival in that city; and this not from any apprehension that he was obliged in conscience to celebrate the Jewish feasts, but for the reason above given, and because he desired to seize that opportunity of meeting a great number of his countrymen at Jerusalem, to whom he might preach the gospel, or whom, if already converted, he might farther instruct, or might remove the prejudices which were groundlesslyimbibed against himself. Departing therefore from Ephesus, he sailed to Caesarea, from whence he went up to pay his respects to the Christian church at Jerusalem; <\/em>which, as it was the mother-church, or the first of all the Christian churches, was, by way of eminence, called the church. <\/em>When he had seen the Christians at Jerusalem, affectionately saluted them, and made his offering as a Nazarite in the temple, he left theplace, and went down to Antioch in Syria, and there ended his second apostolic journey. Concerning Ephesus, <\/em>see the note on Act 18:1<\/span> of the next chapter. <\/p>\n Act 18:19-20<\/span> . ] he left them there<\/em> , separated himself from them, so that he without them ( , he<\/em> on his part) went to the synagogue, there discoursed with the Jews (Act 18:4<\/span> ; Act 17:2<\/span> ; Act 17:17<\/span> ), and then, without longer stay, pursued his journey. The shift, to which Schneckenburger has recourse, that properly belongs to . , is impossible; and that of de Wette, that Luke has written . . in anticipation, “in order, as it were, to get rid of these secondary figures,” is arbitrarily harsh.<\/p>\n We may remark, that within this short abode of the apostle at Ephesus occurred the first foundation of a church there, with which the visit to the synagogue and discussion with the Jews are appropriately in keeping as the commencement of his operations. So much the less, therefore, is an earlier presence there and foundation of the church to be assumed. [86]<\/p>\n . .] for a longer time<\/em> . It was to take place only at a later period, chap. 19.<\/p>\n [86] As Mrker ( Stellung d. Pastoralbriefe<\/em> , 1861, p. 4 f.) places the same between Act 9:30<\/span> and Act 11:25<\/span> .<\/p>\n 19 And he came to Ephesus, and left them there: but he himself entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with the Jews. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Ver. 19. And reasoned with the Jews<\/strong> ] Whose salvation he dearly desired, Rom 9:3<\/span> , and therefore never gave them over, though he had small thanks for his labour. His love to them was like the ivy, which if it cleaves to a stone or an old wall, will rather die than forsake it. <\/p>\n 19. <\/strong> <\/strong> ] Ephesus was the ancient capital of Ionia (Ptol. v. 2. 8), and at this time, of the Roman proconsular province of Asia, on the Caster, near the coast, between Symrna and Miletus. It was famed for its commerce, but even more for its magnificent temple of Artemis (see ch. Act 19:24<\/span> ; Act 19:27<\/span> , and notes). See a full account of its situation and history, secular and Christian, in the Prolegg. to Eph. ii. 2 6; and an interesting description, with plan, in Mr. Lewin’s Life and Epistles of St. Paul, i. 344 ff.<\/p>\n <\/strong> ] Perhaps this may be said proleptically, referring to his journey to Palestine (De Wette): but on account of the which follows, I should rather understand it to mean that the Jewish synagogue was (as sometimes the case, see Winer, Realw., ‘Synagogen’) outside the town<\/em> , and that Priscilla and Aquila were left in the town<\/em> .<\/p>\n <\/strong> , aor., referring to one, and a transient occasion: , imperf., Act 18:4<\/span> , of his long stay, and continual discourses in the Corinthian synagogue.<\/p>\n Act 18:19<\/span> . , see critical note. : a voyage of two or three days with unfavourable wind. Cicero mentions two occasions when the voyage from Ephesus to Athens took two weeks, Ad Attic.<\/em> , vi., 8, 9; iii., 9, but in both instances extraordinary delays were the cause of the lengthy voyage; on Ephesus see Act 19:1<\/span> . . : Ephesus, famous for its commerce, where they might carry on their trade, although it is perhaps somewhat hazardous to regard the city as the centre of the particular trade in which they were engaged. Lewin quotes two passages in support of this, but they both refer to one event, the presentation of a tent by the Ephesians to Alcibiades, “Ephesus” B.D. 2 . : this does not mean that Paul for his part (in contradiction to Aquila and Priscilla) went into the synagogue; such an interpretation seems unnatural. Others explain that Aquila and Priscilla were left in the town, and that the synagogue was outside<\/em> the town (so Alford), but this does not seem satisfactory as a full explanation, especially after Act 16:13<\/span> . It seems most probable that St. Luke uses the words in an anticipatory way, and passes on to the doings of the chief figure, Paul. In spite of all that he had suffered at the hands of his countrymen, St. Paul Is still an Israelite, yearning for the hope of Israel, and desirous that others should participate in his hope, see critical note on [325] and Wendt (1899), note, p. 305. : aorist, not imperfect as in Act 18:4<\/span> ; “delivered a discourse to the Jews,” so Ramsay, in contrast to the continued stay at Corinth marked by the imper ect; so Alford.<\/p>\n [325] R(omana), in Blass, a first rough copy of St. Luke.<\/p>\n he. The texts read “they”. <\/p>\n came. Greek. katantao. See note on Act 16:1. <\/p>\n 19. ] Ephesus was the ancient capital of Ionia (Ptol. v. 2. 8), and at this time, of the Roman proconsular province of Asia,-on the Caster, near the coast, between Symrna and Miletus. It was famed for its commerce, but even more for its magnificent temple of Artemis (see ch. Act 19:24; Act 19:27, and notes). See a full account of its situation and history, secular and Christian, in the Prolegg. to Eph. ii. 2-6; and an interesting description, with plan, in Mr. Lewins Life and Epistles of St. Paul, i. 344 ff.<\/p>\n ] Perhaps this may be said proleptically, referring to his journey to Palestine (De Wette): but on account of the which follows, I should rather understand it to mean that the Jewish synagogue was (as sometimes the case, see Winer, Realw., Synagogen) outside the town, and that Priscilla and Aquila were left in the town.<\/p>\n , aor., referring to one, and a transient occasion: , imperf., Act 18:4, of his long stay, and continual discourses in the Corinthian synagogue.<\/p>\n Act 18:19-22<\/p>\n PAUL RETURNS TO ANTIOCH IN SYRIA<\/p>\n Act 18:19-22<\/p>\n 19 And they came to Ephesus,-Ephesus was nearly due east from Cenchreae across the Aegean Sea; it could have been reached in two or three days under favorable sailing. Ephesus was the capital of the province of Asia; it was situated on the western shore of Asia Minor. Paul left Aquila and Priscilla at Ephesus. Before leaving Ephesus Paul entered into the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews. Reasoned seems to be Lukes favorite word for Pauls discourses in the synagogue. (Act 17:2 Act 17:17 Act 18:4 Act 19:8-9.)<\/p>\n 20-21 And when they asked him to abide-Frequently Paul has been run out of the synagogue by the Jews, but this is one time that he was asked to abide a longer time, but he did not think it necessary to do so. He gave as his reason for not remaining, I will return again unto you if God will, and set sail from Ephesus on his journey to Antioch. Paul was encouraged enough to make promise to return to them, if the Lord will. (Jas 4:13-15.) If the Lord will was a common expression among the early Christians. (Rom 1:10 Rom 15:32; 1Co 4:19 1Co 16:7; Heb 6:3.) Paul did return and Luke hastens to record the facts and results. (Act 19:1.) It would require about a month to sail from Ephesus to Caesarea. In chapters 20 and 21 it is a seven weeks voyage; however, sojourns were made on the way.<\/p>\n 22 And when he had landed at Caesarea,-Caesarea was on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea; it was on the western border of the land of Canaan or Palestine. It was the Roman capital of Judea. Paul went from Caesarea up to Jerusalem and there saluted the church, and then went down to Antioch. Geographically speaking, this was correct; the location of Jerusalem was much higher in elevation than Antioch in Syria. Paul saluted the church; this shows that the church at Jerusalem was still considered the mother church at the time Luke wrote. This was Pauls fourth visit to the church in Jerusalem after his conversion. When he came to Antioch, his second missionary journey was terminated. It had occupied about three years; during this time he had traveled through large districts of Asia Minor, visited the European cities of Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, Athens, and Corinth; he had returned by way of Ephesus and the sea to Caesarea, Jerusalem, and to Antioch. The Jews had violently resisted him in nearly every place except Athens and Ephesus; however, churches were organized not only in Galatia, but also in Philippi, Thessalonica, and Corinth; perhaps churches were established in other places.<\/p>\n Ephesus: Act 18:24, Act 19:1, Act 19:17, Act 19:26, Act 20:16, 1Co 16:8, Eph 1:1, 1Ti 1:3, 2Ti 1:18, 2Ti 4:12, Rev 1:11, Rev 2:1 <\/p>\n but: Act 18:4, Act 17:2, Act 17:3 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Act 9:29 – disputed Act 19:8 – disputing Act 20:18 – from Act 25:19 – certain Rom 15:19 – so that<\/p>\n 9<\/p>\n Act 18:19. When Paul and his companions, Aquila and Priscilla, arrived at Ephesus, he separated from them and went into a synagogue as he was accustomed to do to preach.<\/p>\n St. Paul returns to Antioch by way of Ephesus and Jerusalem, and there closes his Second Missionary JourneyHe then starts on his Third Missionary Enterprise, 19-23.<\/p>\n Act 18:19. And he came to Ephesus, and left them there. For a note on Ephesus, see Act 18:1 of the next chapter, where a lengthened sojourn of the apostle in that city is related. Them, that is, Aquila and Priscilla, who had removed to Ephesus with a view of carrying on there their tentmaking trade. In the Syriac Version we read at the beginning of Act 18:21, And he left Aquila and Priscilla at Ephesus, and he himself sailed and came to Csarea. The voyage from Corinth to Ephesus under favourable circumstances was then accomplished in two or three days, though Cicero relates how he once, and on another occasion his brother Quintus, occupied two weeks in sailing from Ephesus to Athens; but unusual delays in both of these cases retarded the voyages.<\/p>\n But he himself entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with the Jews. These words were evidently inserted in the narrative by the writer of the Acts to make it clear that Pauls purpose at Ephesus was to carry out no business plans with his old friends and associates, Priscilla and her husband. They came to Ephesus together; they remained behind when he left; and even while there, the apostle took no part in the old work of the tentmaking, but, as his custom was, preached and taught Pauls association with Aquila and other workers was always only a temporary one, taken up and laid down when the necessity which had occasioned his working with his own bands had passed. His life shows the dignity of all labour, still Pauls real work was something very different to that of an ordinary handicraftsman.<\/p>\n Paul’s Return to Antioch<\/p>\n Paul spent a short time preaching in the synagogue in Ephesus. He promised to return if it was God’s will, left Priscilla and Aquila and sailed on to Caesarea. The apostle made a quick trip to Jerusalem and then went to Antioch. After some time, the apostle went on to strengthen the churches in Galatia and Phrygia ( Act 18:19-23 ).<\/p>\n Act 18:19-23. And he came to Ephesus The ship in which they sailed probably having occasion to touch there. And he entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with the Jews Upon whom his discourse made such an impression, that they desired him to tarry longer with them However, as his vow made it necessary that he should offer the appointed sacrifice in Jerusalem at the ensuing feast, which, according to the general opinion, was the passover, he consented not, but bade them farewell Promising, however, if God permitted, to return again to them; and the rather, because there seemed to be a probability of preaching the gospel there with success, both to the Jews and Gentiles. And when After a safe voyage; he had landed at Cesarea In such good time as to be able to keep the feast in Jerusalem, according to his resolution; and had gone up and saluted the church there, and completed his vow, knowing that there was no need of his labours in that city, where there were so many apostles and chief brethren, he did not stay long there; but, after keeping the feast, went down to Antioch In Syria, where formerly he and Barnabas had laboured so successfully in the work of the ministry. And after he had spent some time there He set out upon another journey: for his concern for the salvation of lost mankind, and the enlargement of the kingdom of Christ, would not suffer him to rest when he could do any thing to promote these important ends; and went over the country of Galatia and Phrygia Spending, it is supposed, about four years in these parts, including the time he stayed at Ephesus; since it is here said he went over all those countries; in order It is probable he did so for the purpose of visiting every church, and receiving those contributions which, in his former journey, he requested them to make for the saints in Judea. See 1Co 16:1.<\/p>\n 19-22. Embarking at Cenchrea, which was the eastern port of Corinth, on a voyage for Syria, the frequent commercial intercourse between Corinth and Ephesus very naturally caused the vessel to touch at the latter city, which was the destination of Priscilla and Aquila. (19) “And he went to Ephesus, and left them there. He himself went into the synagogue and discoursed to the Jews. (20) They requested him to remain longer with them, but he did not consent, (21) but bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep the coming feast in Jerusalem; but I will return to you, God willing. (22) And he set sail for Ephesus; and having gone down to Csarea, he went up and saluted the Church, and went down to Antioch.” The context plainly implies that the Church which he “went up and saluted” was that in Jerusalem, and not, as some have supposed, that in Csarea; for it had just been said that he must reach Jerusalem, and the statement that he “went up,” especially as it occurs after reaching Csarea, implies that he went up where he had intended to go. The final termination of his journey, however, was not Jerusalem, but Antioch, whence he had started with Silas on his missionary tour. The two missionaries had gone through Syria and Cilicia; had revisited Derbe, Lystra, and Iconium; and had taken a circuit through Phrygia, Galatia, and Mysia, to Troas on the Archipelago. Thence they had sailed into Europe, and had made known the gospel throughout Macedonia and Achaia, planting Churches in the principal cities. Setting sail on their return, Paul had left an appointment in Ephesus, where he had formerly been forbidden by the Spirit to preach the Word; had revisited Jerusalem, and was now at the end of his circuit once more to gladden the hearts of the brethren who had “commended him to the favor of God,” by rehearsing all that God had done with him, and that he had opened still wider “the door of faith to the Gentiles.” Whether Silas had returned with him we are not informed. What changes had taken place in Antioch during his absence is equally unknown. The historian has his eye upon stirring events just ahead in Ephesus, and hastens all the movements of the narrative to bring us back to that city. <\/p>\n 19. The Jewish synagogue was outside the city, as frequently.<\/p>\n Verse 19 <\/p>\n Ephesus; is; a large and wealthy city, on the western coast of Asia Minor.<\/p>\n Ephesus was the capital and chief commercial center of the province of Asia. [Note: See Cole, pp. 25-30.] <\/span> At this time it boasted a population of between 200,000 and 250,000 and was the largest city of Asia Minor. [Note: Witherington, p. 563.] <\/span> It stood near the coast of the Aegean Sea. Priscilla and Aquila remained in Ephesus, but Paul moved on to Syria after he had done some evangelism in the synagogue. The openness of the Jews to Paul’s preaching there encouraged him to return. Paul’s reference to God’s will (Act 18:21) reminds us again that he subordinated his plans to the Lord’s leading in his life. The phrase translated "if God wills" was well known among Jews and Gentiles in Paul’s day. Both groups used it but with different gods in view. [Note: Ibid., p. 558.] <\/span><\/p>\n Chapter 14<\/p>\n THE EPHESIAN CHURCH AND ITS FOUNDATION.<\/p>\n Act 18:19-21; Act 18:24-26; Act 19:1<\/p>\n EPHESUS has been from very ancient times a distinguished city. It was famous in the religious history of Asia Minor in times long prior to the Christian Era. It was celebrated at the time of the Roman Empire as the chief seat of the worship of Diana and of the magical practices associated with that worship; and Ephesus became more celebrated still in Christian times as the city where one of the great cumenical Councils was held which served to determine the expression of the Churchs faith in her Divine Lord and Master. It must then be of great interest to the Christian student to note the first beginnings of such a vast transformation as that whereby a chief seat of pagan idolatry was turned into a special stronghold of Christian orthodoxy. Let us then devote this chapter to tracing the upgrowth of the Ephesian Church, and to noting the lessons the modern Church may derive therefrom.<\/p>\n St. Paul terminated his work in Corinth some time about the middle or towards the close of the year 53 A.D. In the early summer of that year Gallio came as proconsul to Achaia, and the Jewish riot was raised. After a due interval, to show that he was not driven out by Jewish machinations, St. Paul determined to return once more to Jerusalem and Antioch, which he had left some four years at least before. He went down therefore to Cenchreae, the port of departure for passengers going from Corinth to Ephesus, Asia Minor, and Syria. A Christian Church had been established there by the exertions of St. Paul or some of his Corinthian disciples. As soon as an early Christian was turned from sin to righteousness, from the adoration of idols to the worship of the true God, he began to try and do something for Him whose love and grace he had experienced. It was no wonder that the Church then spread rapidly when all its individual members were instinct with life, and every one considered himself personally responsible to labour diligently for God. The Church of Cenchreae was elaborately organised. It had not only its deacons, it had also its deaconesses, one of whom, Phoebe, was specially kind and useful to St. Paul upon his visits to that busy seaport, and is by him commended to the help and care of the Roman Church. {Rom 16:1-2}<\/p>\n From Cenchreae St. Paul, Aquila, and Priscilla sailed for Ephesus, where, as we have already hinted, it is most likely the latter pair had some special business avocations which led them to stay at that city. They may have been large manufacturers of tents, and have had a branch establishment at Ephesus, which was then a great mercantile emporium for that part of Asia Minor.<\/p>\n An incidental remark of the sacred writer “having shorn his head in Cenchreae, for he had a vow,” has raised a controverted question. Some refer this expression to Aquila, and I think with much the greater probability. It was customary with the Jews at that time when in any special danger to take a temporary Nazarite vow, binding themselves to abstain from wine and from cutting their hair till a certain definite period had elapsed. Then when the fixed date had arrived, the hair was cut off and preserved till it could be burned in the fire of a sacrifice offered up at Jerusalem upon the individuals next visit to the Holy City. The grammatical order of the words naturally refer to Aquila as the maker of this vow; but I cannot agree in one reason urged for this latter theory. Some have argued that it was impossible for Paul to have made this vow; that it would, in fact, have been a return to the bondage of Judaism, which would have been utterly inconsistent on his part. People who argue thus do not understand St. Pauls position with respect to Jewish rites as being things utterly unimportant, and, as such, things which a wise born Jew would do well to observe in order to please his countrymen. If St. Paul made a vow at Corinth it would have been simply an illustration of his own. principle, “To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order that I might gain the Jews.” But further, I must say that the taking of a vow, though derived from Judaism, need not have necessarily appeared to St. Paul and the men of his time a purely Jewish ceremony. Vows, in fact, naturally passed over from Judaism to Christianity. Vows, indeed, of this peculiar character, and with this peculiar external sign of long hair, are no longer customary amongst Christians; but surely special vows cannot be said to have gone out of fashion, when we consider the wide spread of the teetotal movement, with its vows identical in one important element with that of the Nazarites! But viewing the matter from a still wider standpoint, people, when contending thus, forget what a large part the tradition of ancient customs must have played in the life, manners, and customs of St. Paul. All his early life he was a strict Pharisaic Jew, and down to the end of life his early training must have largely modified his habits. To take but one instance, pork was the common and favourite food of the Romans at this period. Now I am sure that St. Paul would have vigorously resisted all attempts to prevent the Gentile Christians eating bacon or ham; but I should not be in the least surprised if St. Paul, trained in Pharisaic habits, never once touched a food he had been taught to abhor from his earliest youth. Life is a continuous thing, and the memories of the past are very powerful. We can to this day trace among ourselves many customs and traditions dating back to the times antecedent to the Reformation, and much farther. The fires still lighted on St. Johns Eve throughout Ireland, and once customary in Scotland, are survivals of the times of Druidical paganism in these islands. The ceremonies and social customs of Shrove Tuesday and Hallow Een are survivals of the rude mirth of our pre-Reformation forefathers, on the nights before a celebrated fast, Ash Wednesday, in one case, before a celebrated feast, All Saints Day, in the other. Or perhaps I may take another instance more closely analogous still which every reader can verify for himself. The use of the Church of England has to this day a curious instance of the power of tradition as opposed to written law. There is a general rubric placed in the Book of Common Prayer before the first Lords Prayer. It runs as follows: “Then the minister shall kneel and say the Lords Prayer with an audible voice; the people also kneeling and repeating it with him, both here, and wheresoever else it is used in Divine Service.” This rubric plainly prescribes that clergy and people shall always say the Lords Prayer conjointly. And yet, let my readers go into any church of the Anglican Communion on Sunday next, I care not what the tone of its theological thought, and observe the first Lords Prayer used at the beginning of the Communion Service. They will find that this general rubric is universally neglected, and the celebrating priest says the opening Lords Prayer by himself with no voice of the people raised to accompany him. Now whence comes this universal fact? It is simply an illustration of the strength of tradition. It is a survival of the practice before the Reformation handed down by tradition to the present time, and overriding a positive and written law. In the days before the Reformation, as in the Roman Catholic Church of the present day, the opening Dominical or Lords Prayer in the Mass was said by the priest alone. When the service was translated into English the old custom still prevailed, and has lasted to the present day. This was only human nature, which abhors unnecessary changes, and is intensely conservative of every practice which is linked with the fond memories of the past. This human nature was found strong in St. Paul, as in other men, and it would have argued no moral or spiritual weakness, no desire to play fast and loose with gospel liberties, had he, instead of Aquila, resorted to the old Jewish practice and bound himself by a vow in connection with some special blessing which he had received, or some special danger he had incurred. When we are studying the Acts we must never forget that Judaism gave the tone and form, the whole outer framework to Christianity, even as England gave the outward shape and form to the constitutions of the United States and her own numberless colonies throughout the world. St. Paul did not invent a brand-new religion, as some people think; he changed as little as possible, so that his own practice and worship must have been to mere pagan eyes exactly the same as that of the Jews, as indeed we might conclude beforehand from the fact that the Roman authorities seem to have viewed the Christians as a mere Jewish sect down to the close of the second century.<\/p>\n I. Let us now take a rapid survey of the extensive journey which our book disposes of in very concise fashion. St. Paul and his companions, Aquila and Priscilla, Timothy and Silas, sailed from Cenchreae to Ephesus, which city up to this seems to have been untouched by Christian influences. St. Paul, in the earlier portion of his second tour, had been prohibited by the Holy Spirit from preaching in Ephesus, or in any portion of the provinces of Asia or Bithynia. Important as the human eye of St. Paul may have viewed them, still the Divine Guide of the Church saw that neither Asia nor Bithynia, with all their magnificent cities, their accumulated wealth, and their political position, were half so important as the cities and provinces of Europe, viewed from the standpoint of the worlds conversion. But now the gospel has secured a substantial foothold in Europe, has taken a firm grasp of that imperial race which then ruled the world, and so the Apostle is permitted to visit Ephesus for the first time. He seems to have then paid a mere passing visit to it, lasting perhaps while the ship discharged the portion of her cargo destined for Ephesus. But St. Paul never allowed time to hang heavy on his hands for want of employment. He left Aquila and Priscilla engaged in their mercantile transactions, and, entering himself into the principal synagogue, proceeded to expound his views. These do not seem to have then aroused any opposition; nay, the Jews even went so far as to desire him to tarry longer and open out his doctrines at greater length. We may conclude from this that St. Paul did not remain during this first visit much beyond one Sabbath day. If he had bestowed a second Sabbath day upon the Ephesian synagogue, his ideas and doctrines would have been made so clear and manifest that the Jews would not have required much further exposition in order to see their drift. St. Paul, after promising a second visit to them, left his old friends and associates, Aquila and his wife, with whom he had lived for nearly two years, at Ephesus, and pushed on to Casarea, a town which he must have already well known, and with which he was subsequently destined to make a long and unpleasant acquaintanceship, arriving at Jerusalem in time probably for the Feast of Tabernacles, which was celebrated on September 16, A.D. 53. Concerning the details of that visit we know nothing. Four years at least must have elapsed since he had seen James and the other venerated heads of the Mother Church. We can imagine then how joyously he would have told them, how eagerly they would have heard the glad story of the wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles through the power of Jesus Christ. After a short sojourn at Jerusalem St. Paul turned back to Caesarea, and thence went on to Antioch, the original seat of the Gentile mission for the propagation of the faith. After refreshing himself with the kindly offices of fraternal intercourse and conversation at this great Christian centre, where broad liberal sentiment and wide Christian culture, free from any narrow prejudices, must have infused a tone into society far more agreeable to St. Paul than the unprogressive Judaising views which flourished in Jerusalem, St. Paul then determined to set off upon his third great tour, which must have begun, at the earliest, some time in the spring of A.D. 54, as soon as the snows of winter had passed away and the passes through the Taurus Range into the central regions of Asia Minor had been opened. We know nothing more concerning the extended journey he took on this occasion. He seems to have avoided towns like Lystra and Derbe, and to have directed his march straight to Galatia, where he had sufficient work to engage all his thought. We have no mention of the names of the particular Churches where he laboured. Ancyra, as it was then called, Angora as it is now named, in all probability demanded St. Pauls attention. If he visited it, he looked as the traveller does still upon the temple dedicated to the deity of Augustus and of Rome, the ruins of which have attracted the notice of every modern antiquary. Glad, however, as we should have been to gratify our curiosity by details like these, we are obliged to content ourselves with the information which St. Luke gives us, that St. Paul “went through the region of Galatia and Phrygia, in order, stablishing all the disciples,” leaving us a speaking example of the energising power, the invigorating effects, of a visitation such as St. Paul now conducted, sustaining the weak, arousing the careless, restraining the rash, guiding the whole body of the Church with the counsels of sanctified wisdom and heavenly prudence. Then, after his Phrygian and Galatian work was finished, St. Paul betook himself to a field which he long since desired to occupy, and determined to fulfil the promise made a year previously at least to his Jewish friends of the Ephesian Synagogue.<\/p>\n II. Now we come to the foundation of the Ephesian Church some time in the latter part of the year 54 A.D. Here it may strike some reader as an extraordinary thing that more than twenty years after the Crucifixion Ephesus was as yet totally untouched by the gospel; so that the tidings of salvation were quite a novel sound in the great Asiatic capital. People sometimes think of the primitive Church as if, after the Day of Pentecost, every individual Christian rushed off to preach in the most distant parts of the world, and that the whole earth was evangelised straight off. They forget the teaching of Christ about the gospel leaven, and leaven never works all on a heap as it were; it is slow, regular, progressive in its operations. The tradition, too, that the apostles did not leave Jerusalem till twelve years after His ascension ought to be a sufficient corrective of this false notion; and though this tradition may not have any considerable historical basis, yet it shows that the primitive Church did not cherish the very modern idea that enormous and immediate successes followed upon the preaching of the gospel after Pentecost, and that the conversion of vast populations at once occurred. The case was exactly contrary. For many a long year nothing at all was done towards the conversion of the Gentile world, and then for many another long year the preaching of the gospel among the Gentiles entirely depended upon St. Paul alone. He was the one evangelist of the Gentiles, and therefore it is no wonder he should. have said in 1Co 1:7, “Christ sent me not to baptise, but to preach the gospel.” He was the one man fitted to deal with the prejudices, the ignorance, the sensuality, the grossness with which the Gentile world was overspread, and therefore no other work, no matter how important, was to be allowed to interfere with that one task which he alone could perform. This seems to me the explanation of the question which might otherwise cause some difficulty, how was it that the Ephesians, Jews and Gentiles alike, inhabiting this distinguished city, were still in such dire ignorance of the gospel message twenty years after the Ascension? Now let us come to the story of the circumstances amid which Ephesian Christianity took its rise. St. Paul, as we have already said, paid a passing visit to Ephesus just a year before when going up to Jerusalem, when he seems to have made a considerable impression in the synagogue. He left behind him Aquila and Priscilla, who, with their household, formed a small Christian congregation, meeting doubtless for the celebration of the Lords Supper in their own house while yet frequenting the stated worship of the synagogue. This we conclude from the following circumstance, which is expressly mentioned in Act 18:26. Apollos, a Jew, born in Alexandria, and a learned man, as was natural coming from that great centre of Greek and Oriental culture, came to Ephesus. He had been baptised by some of Johns disciples, either at Alexandria or in Palestine. It may very possibly have been at Alexandria. St. Johns doctrines and followers may have spread to Alexandria by that time, as we are expressly informed they had been diffused as far as Ephesus. {Act 19:1-4} Apollos, when he came to Ephesus, entered, like St. Paul, into the synagogue, and “spake and taught carefully the things concerning Jesus, knowing only the baptism of John.” He knew about Jesus Christ, but with an imperfect knowledge such merely as John himself possessed. This man began to speak boldly in the synagogue on the topic of the Messiah whom John had preached. Aquila and Priscilla were present in the synagogue, heard the disputant, recognised his earnestness and his defects, and then, having taken him, expounded to him the way of God more fully, initiating him into the full mysteries of the faith by baptism into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. This incident has an important bearing upon the foundation and development of the Ephesian Church, but it bears more directly still upon the point on which we have been dwelling. Apollos disputed in the synagogues where Aquila and Priscilla heard him, so that they must have been regular worshippers there, notwithstanding their Christian profession and their close intercourse with St. Paul for more than eighteen months. After a little time further, Apollos desired to pass over to Greece. The little Christian Church which met at Aquilas house told him of the wonders they had seen and heard in Achaia and of the flourishing state of the Church in Corinth. They gave him letters commendatory to that Church, whither Apollos passed over, and rendered such valuable help that his name a year or two later became one of the watchwords of Corinthian party strife. The way was now prepared for St. Pauls great mission to Ephesus, exceeding in length any mission he had hitherto conducted, surpassing in its duration of three years the time spent even at Corinth itself. His own brief visit of the year before, the visit and work of the Alexandrian Jew, the quiet conversations, the holy lives, the sanctified examples of Aquila and Priscilla, these had done the preliminary work. They had roused expectation, provoked discussion, developed thought. Everything was ready for the great masterful teacher to step upon the ground and complete the work which he had already so auspiciously begun.<\/p>\n I do not propose to discuss the roads by which St. Paul may have travelled through the province of Asia on this eventful visit, nor to discuss the architectural features, or the geographical position of the city of Ephesus. These things I shall leave to the writers who have treated of St. Pauls life. I now confine myself to the notices inserted by St. Luke concerning the Apostles Ephesian work, and about it I note that upon his arrival St. Paul came in contact with a small congregation of the disciples of John the Baptist, who had hitherto escaped the notice of the small Church existing at Ephesus. This need not excite our wonder. We are apt to think that because Christianity is now such a dominant element in our own intellectual and religious atmosphere it must always have been the same. Ephesus, too, was then an immense city, with a large population of Jews, who may have had many synagogues. These few disciples of John the Baptist may have worshipped in a synagogue which never heard of the brief visit of a Cilician Jew, a teacher named Saul of Tarsus, much less of the quiet efforts of Aquila and Priscilla, the tentmakers, lately come from Corinth. St. Paul, on his second visit, soon came in contact with these men. He at once asked them a question which tested their position and attainments in the Divine life, and sheds for us a vivid light upon apostolic doctrine and practice. “Did ye receive the Holy Ghost when ye believed?” is plainly an inquiry whether they had enjoyed the blessing connected with the solemn imposition of hands, from which has been derived the rite of confirmation, as I showed in the previous Part. The disciples soon revealed the imperfect character of their religion by their reply: “Nay, we did not so much as hear whether the Holy Ghost was,” words which led St. Paul to demand what in that case was the nature of their baptism. “Into what then were ye baptised?” and they said, “Into Johns baptism.”<\/p>\n Now the simple explanation of the disciples ignorance was that they had been baptised with Johns baptism, which had no reference to or mention of the Holy Ghost. St. Paul, understanding them to be baptised disciples, could not understand their ignorance of the personal existence and present power of the Holy Ghost, till he learned from them the nature of their baptism, and then his surprise ceased. But then we must observe that the question of the Apostle astonished at their defective state – “Into what then were ye baptised?” – implies that, if baptised with Christian baptism, they would have known of the existence of the Holy Ghost, and therefore further implies that the baptismal formula into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, was of universal application among Christians; for surely if this formula were not universally used by the Church, many Christians might be in exactly the same position as these disciples of John, and never have heard of the Holy Ghost! St. Paul, having expounded the difference between the inchoate, imperfect, beginning knowledge, of the Baptist, and the richer, fuller teaching of Jesus Christ, then handed them over for further preparation to his assistants, by whom, after due fasting and prayer, they were baptised, and at once presented to the Apostle for the imposition of hands; when the Holy Ghost was vouchsafed in present effects, “they spake with tongues and prophesied,” as if to sanction in a special manner the decided action taken by the Apostle on this occasion.<\/p>\n The details concerning this affair, given to us by the sacred writer, are most important. They set forth at greater length and with larger fulness the methods ordinarily used by the Apostle than on other similar occasions. The Philippian jailor was converted and baptised, but we read nothing of the imposition of hands. Dionysius and Damaris, Aquila and Priscilla, and many others at Athens and Corinth were converted, but there is no mention of either baptism or any other holy rite. It might have been very possible to argue that the silence of the writer implied utter contempt of the sacraments of the gospel and the rite of confirmation on these occasions, were it not that we have this detailed account of the manner in which St. Paul dealt with half-instructed, unbaptised, and unconfirmed disciples of Christ Jesus. They were instructed, baptised, and confirmed, and thus introduced into the fulness of blessing required by the discipline of the Lord, as ministered by His faithful servant. If this were the routine observed with those who had been taught “carefully the things of Jesus, knowing only the baptism of John,” how much more would it have been the case of those rescued out of the pollutions of paganism and called into the kingdom of light!<\/p>\n III. After this favourable beginning, and seeing the borders of the infant Church extended by the union of these twelve disciples, St. Paul, after his usual fashion, flung himself into work amongst the Jews of Ephesus upon whom he had previously made a favourable impression. He was well received for a time. He continued for three months “reasoning and persuading as to the things concerning the kingdom of God.” But, as it was elsewhere, so was it at Ephesus, the offence of the Cross told in the long run upon the worshippers of the synagogue. The original Christian Church was Jewish. Aquila and Priscilla, Apollos and Timothy, and the disciples of John the Baptist would have excited no resentment in the minds of the Jews; but when St. Paul began to open out the hope which lay for Gentiles as well as for Jews in the gospel which he preached, then the objections of the synagogue were multiplied, riots and disturbances became, as elsewhere, matters of daily occurrence, and the opposition became at last so bitter that as at Corinth, so here again at Ephesus, the Apostle was obliged to separate his own followers, and gather them into the school of one Tyrannus, a teacher of philosophy or rhetoric, whom perhaps he had converted, where the blasphemous denunciations against the Divine Way which he taught could no longer be heard. In this school or lecture-hall St. Paul continued labouring for more than two years, bestowing upon the city of Ephesus a longer period of continuous labour than he ever vouchsafed to any place else. We have St. Pauls own statement as to his method of life at this period in the address he subsequently delivered to the elders of Ephesus. The Apostle pursued at Ephesus the same course which he adopted at Corinth, in one important direction at least. He supported himself and his immediate companions, Timothy and Sosthenes, by his own labour, and that we may presume for precisely the same reason at Ephesus as at Corinth. He desired to cut off all occasion of accusation against himself. Ephesus was a city devoted to commerce and to magic. It was full of impostors too, many of them Jewish, who made gain out of the names of angels and magical formulae derived from the pretended wisdom of Solomon handed down to them by secret succession, or derived by them from contact with the lands of the far distant East. St. Paul determined, therefore, that he would give no opportunity of charging him with trading upon the credulity of his followers, or working with an eye to covetous or dishonest gains. “I coveted no mans silver or gold or apparel. Ye yourselves know that these hands ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me,” is the description he gave of the manner in which he discharged his apostolic office in Ephesus, when addressing the elders of that city. We can thus trace St. Paul labouring at his trade as a tentmaker for nearly a period of five years, combining the time spent at Ephesus with that spent at Corinth. Notwithstanding, however, the attention and energy which this exercise of his trade demanded, he found time for enormous evangelistic and pastoral work. In fact, we find St. Paul nowhere else so much occupied with pastoral work as at Ephesus. Elsewhere we see the devoted evangelist, rushing in with the pioneers, breaking down all hindrances, heading the stormers to whom were committed the fiercest struggle, the most deadly conflict, and then at once moving into fresh conflicts, leaving the spoils of victory and the calmer work of peaceful pastoral labours to others. But here in Ephesus we see St. Pauls marvellous power of adaptation. He is at one hour a clever artisan, capable of gaining support sufficient for others as well as for himself; then he is the skilful controversialist “reasoning daily in the school of one Tyrannus”; and then he is the indefatigable pastor of souls “teaching publicly, and from house to house,” and “ceasing not to admonish every one night and day with tears.”<\/p>\n But this was not all, or nearly all, the burden the apostle carried. He had to be perpetually on the alert against Jewish plots. We hear nothing directly of Jewish attempts on his life or liberty during the period of just three years which he spent on this prolonged visit. We might be sure, however, from our previous experience of the synagogues, that he must have run no small danger in this direction; but then when we turn to the same address we hear something of them. He is recalling to the minds of the Ephesian elders the circumstances of his life in their community from the beginning, and he therefore appeals thus: “Ye yourselves know from the first day that I set foot in Asia, after what manner I was with you all the time, serving the Lord with all lowliness of mind, and with tears, and with trials which befell me with plots of the Jews.” Ephesus again was a great field wherein he personally worked; it was also a great centre for missionary operations which he superintended. It was the capital of the province of Asia, the richest and most important of all the Roman provinces, teeming with resources, abounding in highly civilised and populous cities, connected with one another by an elaborate network of admirably constructed roads. Ephesus was cut out by nature and by art alike as a missionary centre whence the gospel should radiate out into all the surrounding districts. And so it did. “All they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks,” is the testimony of St. Luke with respect to the wondrous progress of the gospel, not in Ephesus alone, but also throughout all the province, a statement which we find corroborated a little lower down in the same nineteenth chapter by the independent testimony of Demetrius the silversmith, who, when he was endeavouring to stir up his fellow-craftsmen to active exertions in defence of their endangered trade, says, “Ye see and hear that not alone at Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia, this Paul hath persuaded and turned away much people.” St. Pauls disciples laboured, too, in the other cities of Asia, as Epaphras, for instance, in Colossae. And St. Paul himself, we may be certain, bestowed the Lifts and blessings of his apostolic office by visiting these local Churches, as far as he could consistently with the pressing character of his engagements in Ephesus. But even the superintendence of vast missions throughout the province of Asia did not exhaust the prodigious labours of St. Paul. He perpetually bore about in his bosom anxious thoughts for the welfare, trials, and sorrows of the numerous Churches he had established in Europe and Asia alike. He was constant in prayers for them, mentioning the individual members by name, and he was unwearied in keeping up communications with them, either by verbal messages or by written epistles, one specimen of which remains in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, written to them from Ephesus, and showing us the minute care, the comprehensive interest, the intense sympathy which dwelt within his breast with regard to his distant converts all the while that the work at Ephesus, controversial, evangelistic, and pastoral, to say nothing at all of his tent making, was making the most tremendous demands on body and soul alike, and apparently absorbing all his attention. It is only when we thus realise bit by bit what the weak, delicate, emaciated Apostle must have been doing, that we are able to grasp the full meaning of his own words to the Corinthians: “Besides those things that are without, there is that which presseth upon me daily, anxiety for all the Churches.”<\/p>\n This lengthened period of intense activity of mind and body terminated in an incident which illustrates the peculiar character of St. Pauls Ephesian ministry. Ephesus was a town where the spiritual and moral atmosphere simply reeked with the fumes, ideas, and practices of Oriental paganism, of which the magical incantations formed the predominant feature. Magic prevailed all over the pagan world at this time. In Rome, however, magical practices were always more or less under the ban of public opinion, though at times resorted to by those whose office called upon them to suppress illegal actions. A couple of years before the very time at which we have arrived, workers in magic, among whom were included astrologers, or mathematicians, as the Roman law called them, were banished from Rome simultaneously with the Jews, who always enjoyed an unenviable notoriety for such occult practices. In Asia Minor and the East they flourished at this time under the patronage of religion, and continued to flourish in all the great cities down to Christian times. Christianity itself could not wholly banish magic, which retained its hold upon the half-converted Christians who flocked into the Church in crowds during the second half of the fourth century; and we learn from St. Chrysostom himself, that when a young man he had a narrow escape for his life owing to the continuance of magical practices in Antioch, more than three hundred years after St. Paul. It is no wonder that when Dianas worship reigned supreme at Ephesus magical practices should also flourish there. If, however, there existed a special development of the power of evil at Ephesus, God also bestowed a special manifestation of Divine power in the person and ministry of St. Paul, as St. Luke expressly declares: “God wrought special miracles by the hand of Paul, insomuch that unto the sick were carried away from his body handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits departed from them.” This passage has often been found a stumbling-block by many persons. They have thought that it has a certain legendary air about it, as they in turn think there is a certain air of legend about the similar passage in Act 5:12-16, which makes much the same statement about St. Peter. When writing about this latter passage (Chap. XII above), I offered some suggestions which lessen, if they do not quite take away, the difficulty; to these I shall now only refer my readers. But I think we can see a local reason for the peculiar development or manifestation of miraculous power through St. Paul. The devils seat was just then specially at Ephesus, so far as the great province of Asia was concerned. The powers of evil had concentrated all their force and all their wealth of external grandeur, intellectual cleverness, and spiritual trickery in order to lead men captive; and there God, in order that He might secure a more striking victory for truth upon this magnificent stage, armed His faithful servant with an extraordinary development of the good powers of the world to come, enabling him to work special wonders in the sight of the heathen. Can we not read an echo of the fearful struggle just then waged in the metropolis of Asia in words addressed some years later to the members of the same Church, “For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places”? We make a great mistake when we think of the Apostles as working miracles when and as they liked. At times their evangelistic work seems to have been conducted without any extraordinary manifestations, and then at other times, when the power of Satan was specially put forth, God displayed His special strength, enabling His servants to work wonders and signs in His name. It was much the same as in the Old Testament. The Old Testament miracles will be found to cluster themselves round the deliverance of Israel out of Egypt, and its Reformation at the hand of Elijah. So, too, the recorded miracles of the Apostles will be found to gather round St. Peters earlier work in Jerusalem, where Satan strove to counter-work Gods designs in one way, and St. Pauls ministry in Ephesus, where Satan strove to counter-work them in another way. One incident at Ephesus attracted special attention. There was a priestly family, consisting of seven sons, belonging to the Jews at Ephesus. Their father had occupied high position among the various courses which in turn served the Temple, even as Zacharias, the father of the Baptist, did. These men observed the power with which St. Paul dealt with human spirits disordered by the powers of evil, using for that purpose the sacred name of Jesus. They undertook to use the same sacred invocation; but it proved, like the censers of Korah, Dathan and Abiram, a strange fire kindled against their own souls. The man possessed by the evil spirit recognised not their presumptuous efforts, but attacked them, and did them serious bodily injury. This circumstance spread the fame of the man of God wider and wider. The power of magic and of the demons fell before him, even as the image of Dagon fell before the Ark. Many of the nominal believers in Christianity had still retained their magical practices as of yore, even as nominal Christians retained them in the days of St. Chrysostom. The reality of St. Pauls power, demonstrated by the awful example of Scevas sons, smote them in their inmost conscience. They came, confessed their deeds, brought their magical books together, and gave the greatest proof of their honest convictions; for they burned them in the sight of all, and counting the price thereof found it fifty thousand pieces of silver, or more than two thousand pounds of our money. “So mightily grew the word of the Lord and prevailed” in the very chosen seat of the Ephesian Diana. <\/p>\n And he came to Ephesus, and left them there: but he himself entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with the Jews. 19. And he [ they ] came to Ephesus ] The oldest authorities have the plural number here. Ephesus was the famous city, capital of Ionia, and afterwards the scene of a large period … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 18:19”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-27535","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27535","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=27535"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27535\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27535"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27535"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27535"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"