25『南山神学』45 号（2022 年 3 月）pp. 25-50.

Paul’s Encounter with the Disciples of John the
BaptistAc 19:1-7 as Introduction to the Narrative of Paul’s Third
Mission Journey
Janusz KUCICKI
Introduction
The following study concerns Ac 19:1-7, which is part of the narrative of thethird mission journey of Paul (Ac 18:23-20:38) and begins with the account of
Apollos (Ac 18:23-28). This is the only mention of John’s disciples in Acts, and it
is also noteworthy from the fact that Paul’s encounter with this group occurred
about twenty years after John was executed. An obvious conclusion to be drawn
is the fact that the death of John did not bring an end to his movement which
possibly had a messianic character. The relationship between the messianic
character of Paul’s missions and the messianic character of John the Baptist’s
movement does not seem to be accidental, rather it was purposely included in
the narrative of Acts. The narrative of the third mission journey focuses mostly
on the development of the Christian Movement in Asia Minor, where asignificant progress of mission to the Gentiles is shown together with constantly
growing opposition toward Paul’s activities, as a result of socio-economic factors
in Ephesus. Nevertheless, the narrative ends with accounts strictly limited to a
Christian context (the speech at Miletus; Paul’s visit to Achaia), where it is26
shown that the Christian communities in Ephesus had grown and were selfsustaining. Paul’s speech is of crucial importance (Ac 20:18-35) because of its
teaching addressed to the elders of the communities. It is also the only speech in
the whole narrative that regards a strictly Christian audience. In this context the“conversion” of John the Baptist’s disciples seems to be something more than asimple record of the event. In this study, we will argue that Ac 19:1-7 indicatesthe problem arising from the existence of an alternative messianic movement,that according to Luke’s narrative should also be an object of mission activity
for the followers of Jesus the Resurrected Messiah.
1. The background of the narrative Ac 19:1-7
As is usual in Luke’s method, before he enters the main topic of a particularnarrative he first prepares the necessary background, which serves both as an
introduction to the following, and offers a continuation of the topic that has justbeen presented. In the case of Ac 19:1-7 the preparatory unit concerns the Jewish
teacher Apollos from Alexandra in Egypt, who participated in spreading the
kerygma about Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah in the region of the Aegean Sea.
Luke begins the presentation by giving his name (Apollos) and his hometown(Alexandria), which provides much information regarding his social
background.
The first detail concerns his Jewish roots, even though he was a HellenizedJew, as is seen in his Greek name (Apollos), and that his family were settled in
Alexandria probably for a considerable period of time (Ac 18:24)1. This, he wasa Jew of the Diaspora, with an education in a dual culture that contributed much

1

In the third century BC, the Jewish community in Alexandria is estimated to have been
about 100,000 Jews. E.J. Schnabel, Acts. Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament,
Zondervan: Grand Rapids 2012, 784.

27
to his linguistic and rhetorical skill. Luke says nothing about the details
regarding his Hellenistic education and culture, but only uses the general phraseἀνὴρ λόγιος – eloquent, skilled in speech, learned, educated, skilled in knowledge –that points to his solid education that seems be greatly respected by Luke.
However, concerning his Hebrew education, Luke makes clear that Apollos waswell educated in the Hebrew Scripture (Ac 18:24)2. This would prepare him well
to be a Rabbi in the service of spreading the message of the Scripture and thefaith.
The second detail about Apollos provided by Luke regards his knowledge ofJesus’ messianic movement (Ac 18:25). According to Luke, when Apollos cameto Ephesus, he already not only knew the teaching of Jesus’ messianic movement
but most probably he was also convinced and believed that Jesus of Nazareth is
the Messiah (Ac 18:25). The information of his zeal for spreading the kerygma
about Jesus is amplified by Luke’s description of this teaching as an exact andaccurate proclaiming of Jesus the Messiah3. The only disturbing characteristic of
Apollos in his presentation by Luke lies in the fact that he knows only John’s
Baptism, which was for the forgiveness of sins and for redemption, but he did
not yet know Jesus’ baptism by the Holy Spirit. This automatically raises thequestion about which messianic movement Apollos was following. Considering
his teaching and convictions, Apollos must be recognized as being a follower ofJesus, however, on the question of baptism, there is no other option then to
number Apollos as a follower of John the Baptist, who follows his master in

The city of Alexandria was ranked as the second leading intellectual center in the Roman
Empire, with the greatest library in the ancient world. It was here that Jewish Scribes
translated the Hebrew Scripture to Greek (Septuagint). D.G. Peterson, The Acts of theApostles, Eerdmans: Grand Rapids 2009, 525.
3 It is possible that Apollos, as man “powerful in the writing of the Scripture”, used his
knowledge of the Hebrew Bible to argue for his conviction that Jesus of Nazareth is thetrue Messiah.
2

28
recognizing Jesus as the Messiah4. Considering the whole narrative of Ac 18:2428, which lacks information about Apollos’ receiving baptism with the Holy
Spirit from Priscila and Aquila, we prefer this second option. Namely, Apollos
was a disciple of John the Baptist, who based on his knowledge of the Hebrew
Bible accepted that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah. This conviction he probably
spread among the Jews not only in Alexandra, but similar to Paul, he devoted
his life to spreading it also to Diaspora Jews in many places, including Ephesus
and Achaia (Corinth). This interpretation seems to be attested by Ac 18:28 where
the place of Apollos’ mission activity is given as the Synagogue. This again issimilar to Paul’s modus operandi, but, unlike Paul, there is no indication of an
opposition to his teaching. Lack of any indication of the effects of Apollos’
activity is most probably the result of Luke’s narrative aim, which is focused on
his encounter with Priscila and Aquila in the Synagogue that probably involved
some correction of Apollos’ presentation of Jesus as the Messiah5. What kind of
corrections Priscila and Aquila introduced to Apollos’ understanding of Jesus ofNazareth as the Messiah remains a matter of speculation, and the only aspects
that possibly needed correction in Apollos’ understanding of Jesus as theMessiah may have been the recognition of the consequences related to theappearance of the Messiah, rather than to the manner of Apollos’ argument that
Jesus is the Messiah6. Attention should be given to the phrase ἀκριβέστερον

Codex Bezae (Codex D) describes Apollos as one who was already Christian in Alexandria.
H. Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles, Fortress: Philadelphia 1987, 157-158.
Scholars differ in their answer to this question. For J. Munck, Apollos is one of the disciples
of John the Baptist; for E. Schweizer he is a Jewish missionary; for E. Kesemann, he is an
unorthodox Christian from Alexandria. B. Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles. SocioRhetorical Commentary, Eerdmans: Grand Rapids 1998, 564-565.
5 The phrase ἀκριβέστερον αὐτῷ ἐξέθεντο τὴν ὁδὸν [τοῦ θεοῦ] – more accurately
explained him the way of God seems to prove our statement.
6 Ac 18: 24-25 indicates that Apollos’ arguing for Jesus’ messianic dignity is sufficiently
presented.
429αὐτῷ ἐξέθεντο τὴν ὁδὸν [τοῦ θεοῦ] - more accurately explained him the way [ofGod] which seems to suggest that the content of the correction did not refer to“things concerning Jesus” (Ac 18:25) but to the way of God which here probablyrefers to the way in which God wants to save mankind by the words and deedsof Jesus7. There is no clear indication that Apollos received the baptism of theHoly Spirit from the hands of Priscila and Aquila, however, Ac18:26 shows
clearly that they accepted Apollos as the missionary spreading the true teaching
about “things concerning Jesus” as well as about “the way of God”, which is attestedby their letter of recommendation to the communities in Achaia which Apollos
is about to visit. We know much about Apollos’ mission activities in Corinth (Ac19:1; 1Cor 1:12; 3:4-6. 22; 4:6; 16;12) after he left Ephesus (Ac 19:1), but very little
about his mission activity in other places, with the exception to Crete, which heprobably visited, as Tt 3:13 directly suggests, and may have spent some time
there. 8 The general picture of Apollos seems to be that of a very active
missionary in many places, where he contributed greatly to deeper
understanding of Jesus’ death and resurrection for salvation (Ac18:27). He also
contributed much with presenting Jesus’ messianic dignity during debates withJews in the Synagogue, due to his extensive knowledge of the Hebrew Scripture(Ac 18:28). In this very short introduction and schematic account of Apollos,
Luke shows him to be a missionary on the same, or almost the same level as Paul.
Although Luke probably purposely avoided in his narrative mention of theencounter of Paul with Apollos (Ac 19:1), this relationship between Paul andApollos is to some extent shown by Paul in his First Letter to the Corinthians(1Cor 1:12; 3:4-6. 22; 4:6; 16:12)9. The first time Paul mentions Apollos, it is in the
E.J. Schnabel, Acts, 785-786. Witherington III refers the phrase the way of God to “Christianpraxis”. B. Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles, 566.
8 Collins thinks that Tt 3:13 presents Apollos as “Paul’s emissary” to Crete. R.F. Collins, First
Corinthians, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville 1999, 79-81.
9 H. Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles, 158.
7

30
context of the issue regarding the diversity of the Christian communities inCorinth, with both sides claiming a certain equal status, differing only in the
difference of their founders (1Cor 1:12). It shows clearly that Apollos not only
undertook mission activity in Corinth but also that he did it in his own fashion,
with the result that there was one group of believers in Jesus following Apollos’
way of spreading the kerygma. The Western text of the Acts in Ac 18:27 suggeststhat one reason for Apollos’ visit to Corinth was a direct invitation by someCorinthian believers who were impressed by his rhetorical skill 10 . Paul’s
criticism is not addressed to Apollos or exclusively to his group, but to all
divided Christian groups in Corinth (1Cor 3:4). The second time Paul mentions
Apollos (1Cor 3:4-6) he continues to admonish the divisions in Corinth’scommunities, but he gives a positive evaluation of Apollos, which implies thatthey cooperated, and their efforts were complementary. Paul calls himself andApollos servants in the service of the Lord for the purpose of the Corinthian
Christians (1Cor 3:5)11. Noteworthy is Paul’s mention of limitations related tothe service of each of them: Paul seems to be the one who founded thecommunities in Corinth, and Apollos seems to be the one who contributed tothe development of these communities (1Cor 3:6)12. In both cases, however, they
are not just persons who assist the community, but each in his way, contributed
greatly to establishing and developing of the communities13. Nevertheless, infinal the words regarding the problem of the comparative attitude between thecommunities in Corinth, Paul expresses his conviction that all missionaries who
This exposition of Apollos rhetorical skills contrast with Paul’s self-evaluation of his
rhetorical skills in 2 Cor 11;6. J. Lambrecht, Second Corinthians, The Liturgical Press:
Collegeville 1999, 175.
11 A.C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Eerdmans: Grand Rapids 2000, 299.
12 In 1 Cor 3:7 Paul called himself “the planting man” and he calls Apollos “the wateringman”. B. Witherington III, Conflict & Community in Corinth. A Socio-Rhetorical Commentaryon 1 and 2 Corinthians, Eerdmans: Grand Rapids 1995, 132.
13 A.C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 300-301.
10

31
by will of God were working in Corinth, did so for all Christians in Corinth, notfor any particular group (1Cor 3:22). When the Corinthians were saying “I belong
to Paul” or “I belong to Apollos” (1Cor 3:12), Paul says in 1Cor 3:22 “but you belong
to Christ and Christ belong to God”, which is a strong redirection of theirconvictions14. This thought of Paul is more directly presented in 1Cor 4:1 where
he insists that Christian in Corinth should look on Paul, Cephas and Apollos as
Christ’s servants and stewards entrusted with the mysteries of God. 1Cor 4:5
shows clearly that the Corinthians’ attitude goes as far as to judge each of themissionaries, and this attitude is considered by Paul to be unwise (1Cor 4:5-6).
Concerning judgment on the missionaries’ works, Paul looked to the only justjudge the Lord, and in accord with His judgement “then everyone will receive from
God the appropriate commendation” (1Cor 4:5)15. Paul allows that all missionaries
contributed to the Corinth community, and regarding the Lord’s reword there
are no differences between them.
The last reference to Apollos is included by Paul at the end of his letter (1Cor
16:12), where he discusses the case of Timothy who would deliver the letter ofPaul to the Corinthians (1Cor 16:9-12). H also mentions Apollos, calling him‘brother,’ and encourages him (unsuccessfully) to make a trip to Corinth (1Cor
16:12). This information suggests that at the time when Paul was writing
1Corinthians, Apollos was with him in Ephesus. It indirectly proves that therelationship between Paul and Apollos was one of friendship and cooperation.
All references to Apollos in the First Letter to the Corinthians strongly indicate
a positive relationship between Paul and Apollos, which raises a question about
Luke’s reason for avoiding mention of an encounter between Paul and Apollos
in his narrative (Ac 18:23-28). It can be assumed that Luke knew about the

14
15

G.D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Eerdmans: Grand Rapids 1987, 153-154.
R.E. Ciampa, B.S, Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians, Eerdmans: Grand Rapids 2010,173-174.

32
relationship between Paul and Apollos and was also familiar with Apollos’
impressive credentials. His fame among the Corinthians was due to his
rhetorical skills that caught the attention of well-educated Corinthians, both
Jews and Christians16. Luke also was aware of the evaluation of Paul and Apollos(and other missionaries) by the Corinthians, where Apollos, a cultured person,
seems to have been given a more favorable evaluation than Paul, who was lessimpressive in their eyes and was even involved in conflict with some of them17.
Although there was not trace of personal antipathy between Paul and Apollos,
they became the “excuse” justifying probable strong animosities between
several Christian communities divided by their different social status. Luke
could not simply omit the case of Apollos, due to his important contribution to
proclaiming the kerygma (Ac 18:27-28), but he reduced his presentation to ashort, schematic account, that also leaves the impression that Apollos wasconsidered to be inferior due to the lack of Jesus’ baptism18. Probably for thisreason, Luke includes the narrative regarding the assistance of Aquila andPriscila given to Apollos in order to fulfil his understanding of “the way of God”
(Ac 18:26). Luke’s approach in Ac 18:24-28 probably derives from his intention
to present Paul as the man who successfully taught the Gentiles the monotheistic
concept of God, and salvation by faith in Jesus the Messiah19. For this reason,and due to some similar issues found in 1Corinthians and the Letter to Galatians,
P. Gardner, 1 Corinthians. Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, Zondervan: Grand
Rapids 2018, 80.
17 D.E. Garland, 1 Corinthians, Baker Academic: Grand Rapids 2003, 44.
18Considering Luke’s strong theological interest in pneumatology, his apparent
downplaying the role of Apollos may be the caused by his personal theological priorities
rather than by anything based on the real relationship between Paul and Apollos. Cf. J.A.
Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles, Yale University Press: New Haven & London 1998, 639.
19 There is no reason, based on the narrative of Acts and Paul’s account found in 1 Cor, toassume differences in the theological teaching of Paul and Apollos, although thepresentation of the teaching may have differed according to the skills of each of themissionaries.
16

33
Luke in his narrative purposely omits any comparison between Paul and othermissionaries working in the same regions20.
Summing up: the narrative of Ac 18:24-28 concerns Apollos the Alexandrian Jew
who as the disciple of John the Baptist proclaimed the kerygma about Jesus theMessiah in the same places as Paul, namely Corinth and Ephesus, where heestablished his reputation as a skillful preacher, arguing that Jesus of Nazarethis the Messiah. Although Luke says little in Ac 18:24-28 about Apollos, what hesays is almost exclusively positive (except for his baptism). Apollos did
exceptional work in the service of the Lord, contributing greatly to the common
course of Jesus’ messianic movement through his skill, based on his excellent
education and his zeal for Jesus the Messiah. For some reasons Luke decided not
to connect Apollos with Paul in his narrative (even if this relation is included in
the 1Corinthians by Paul himself), however, he gives to Apollos most of thesame credit given by Paul in his presentation of Apollos in 1Corinthians.
2. The narrative of Paul’s encounter with disciples of John the Baptist (Ac 19:17)
The narrative of Ac 19:1-7 is the beginning of Luke’s account of the so-called
third mission journey of Paul (Ac 18:23-20:38), which starts with his coming to
Ephesus (Ac 19:1). The preparatory unit of Ac 18:24-28 introduced the readers
to Apollos the disciple of John Baptist who was proclaiming Jesus of Nazareth
as the Messiah, and who, according to Luke, left Ephesus before Paul came tothe city21. The first detail recorded by Luke concerns Paul’s encounter with some

From this point of view, Paul’s letters make a great contribution to our understanding of
the sometimes laconic and enigmatic narrative provided by Luke in the Acts.
21 Ac 19:1 forms a natural transition of the topic between the narrative of Ac 18:24-28 and thenarrative Ac 19:1-7. E.J. Schnabel, Acts, 787.
20

34
disciples of John the Baptist, which seems to be the second stage of developing
the theme relating to the relationship between Jesus’ messianic movement andthe messianic movement of John the Baptist (a theme that is also present in thefour Gospels). In Ac 18:23-28 this concerns the individual (Apollos) who is adisciple of John the Baptist believing that Jesus is the Messiah; in Ac 19:1-7 therelation concerns a group of about twelve disciples of John who know only thebaptism of John. On the question of baptism, there is no difference between
Apollos and these twelve disciples, but that is the only similarity between them,since Apollos, unlike the twelve disciples, was believing and proclaiming that
Jesus is the Messiah. A question naturally arises about the identity of the twelve
disciples22. The three main options are: they are disciples of John the Baptist;
they are converts of Apollos; they are disciples of Jesus. Luke’s use of theenigmatic expression τινας µαθητὰς – certain disciples, some disciples – seems tofavor the first possibility, even though sometimes expressions similar to certain
disciples refer to Jesus’ disciples (Lk 11:1; Ac 9:10), and on the other hand, theexpression disciples may refer to the disciples of John (Lk 5:33; 7:18; 11:1)23. The
possibility that the twelve disciples are converts of Apollos is the less probable,
although is it accepted by some scholars24.
The last possibility, that the twelve disciples were disciples of Jesus, seems to
be excluded, but concerning this issue some nuances must be considered. First,
Paul’s question (Ac 19:2) indicates that they are believers, which here means thatthey have accepted Jesus as the Messiah. Luke’s presentation of the issue,
however, seems to lessen the status of these disciples of Jesus since they had not

For an account of scholarly discussion concerning the identity of the twelve disciples, see:
C.S. Keener, Acts. An Exegetical Commentary Vol. 3, Baker Academic: Grand Rapids 2014,
2813-2817.
23 The theological argument for this option will be presented in the analysis of Ac 19:4-5.
24 J.D.G. Dunn, Christianity in the Making, Volume 2. Beginning from Jerusalem, Eerdmans:
Grand Rapids 2009, 760.
22

35
progressed in their understanding of a characteristic for Jesus’ messianic
movement in the teaching concerning the Holy Spirit and his role in fulfillingthe eschatological times. In an indirect way it seems to indicate that the twelve
disciples found by Paul in Ephesus were disciples of John the Baptist who
believed in Jesus as the Messiah, but in different manner and probably for areason different from the real disciples of Jesus. Their belief is closely similar tothat of Apollos (Ac 18:25; Ac 19:2), but a fundamental difference lies in the zeal
for service to the Lord that is mentioned in the narrative about Apollos (Ac 18:2628) but is missing in the narrative concerning the twelve. Furthermore, thenarrative regarding Apollos being corrected by Priscila and Aquila about “theway of God” shows him to be a man fully trusted to contribute to the mission in
Corinth (Ac 18:26), and the encounter of the twelve disciples with Paul points totheir full acknowledging of the eschatological times (Ac 19:4-7). Luke shows
clearly that the twelve disciples who believed in Jesus in John’s way, became
disciples of Jesus after they were baptized by Paul (Ac 19:5)25. The sequence inthe narrative of the process of baptizing the twelve (first true teaching – Ac 19:4,
then baptism – Ac 19:5, then receiving the Holy Spirit – Ac 19:6) is striking, andit may function in Luke’ narrative as a kind of “proper instruction forincorporation into Jesus’ messianic movement”.
In Ac 19:2-3 Luke presents three characteristics of these disciples: first is theirfaith in Jesus as the Messiah; the second is their lack of Jesus’ baptism; the third
is their lack of a concept of the role of the Holy Spirit (Ac 19:2). Their confession
about knowing only the baptism of John (Ac 19:3) was probably sufficient for25

Luke in case of Jesus and John’s infant narrative (Lk 1-2) from the beginning precisely
makes distinction in dignity between both of them. Probably similarly in the narrative
regarding Apollos and the twelve disciples, he also makes a radical distinction between
John’s baptism (for forgiveness of sins and repentance) and Jesus’ baptism (receiving theHoly Spirit as the sing of the eschatological times). L.T. Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles,
The Liturgical Press: Collegeville 1992, 337.

36Paul to recognize that they were disciples of John the Baptist – perhaps a groupthat accepted John’s teaching about Jesus as the Messiah, but without its
eschatological outcome (the gift of the Holy Spirit)26. This is a direct reason forPaul’s treatment of the twelve disciples who need to be properly educated in“the things concerning Jesus”. It begins with Paul’s explanation of the meaningand purpose of John’s baptism (Ac 19:4), which according to Paul has two goals:
first there is the preparatory character of his baptism by water that initiates theprocess of repentance and includes forgiveness of sins. The return of the nation
to God was essential for the realization of God’s plan of salvation, in which Jesus
of Nazareth was indicated by John as the Messiah (Ac 19:4). This was the second
goal of John’s ministry, namely, to prepare the way for the Messiah, but after
God’s plan was fulfilled by Jesus, John’s baptism by water is no longer
necessary27. Because Luke’s narrative concerning Paul’s teaching is presented ina short and schematic manner (as is usual in cases where there are additional
topics of his narrative), it gives the impression of being a close sequence of
events, but the process of educating the twelve by Paul probably took longer
than the narrative suggests28. Luke is interested in the outcome of Paul’s effort,
which is incorporation of the twelve disciples of John into the Christiancommunity in Ephesus by their baptism in the name of Jesus29. This makes them
to become disciples of Jesus and at the same time they are no longer disciples ofJohn the Baptist. Ac 19:5 is probably the most important passage in Acts that
attests that the disciples of John were the subject of Jesus’ followers mission
activities, gradually incorporating them into the Christian movement, andprobably resulted in the final disappearance of John’s messianic movement.
E.J. Schnabel, Acts, 789.
F.F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Eerdmans: Grand Rapids 1988, 364.
28 C.S Keener, Acts. An Exegetical Commentary Vol. 3, 2822.
29 H. Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles, 159.
26
27

37
The last stage of Paul’s education of the twelve disciples of John concerns their
reception of the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands by Paul (Ac 19:6).
This information contains some important details that put more light on the real
meaning of this passage. The first concerns Paul by whom the twelve received
the Holy Spirit, thus exercising the same function as Peter and John, namely
laying on of hands on those who came to the faith (Ac 8:17) 30 . The second
concerns two results of the event mentioned in Luke’s narrative. The first refers
to their speaking in unlearned languages (speaking in tongues), that isreminiscent of the Pentecost event (Ac 2:2) and indicates the immediate effect ofreceiving the Holy Spirit 31 . The second result of the event refers to theirprophetic ability, which is also a gift of the Holy Spirit, but unlike the gift of
speaking in tongues, it did not occur simultaneously with or immediately after
the laying on of hands. The grammar of Ac 19:6 allows the meaning that all
twelve disciples received both gifts, speaking in tongues and prophecy, but it
also does not exclude the possibility that some of them received the gift of
speaking in tongues, while others received the gift of prophecy32. The gift ofprophecy was probably used by the twelve in their later service to thecommunity into which they were incorporated. Considering the fact that Luke
follows Paul’s theological perspective, and the fact that Paul in 1 Cor 12-14,
valued more the gift of prophecy (which he considered to be a gift intended tobuild the community) than the gift of speaking in tongues (which he considered
to be gift intended to build up the spirit of the individual). Their reception of the

J.D.G. Dunn, The Acts of the Apostles, Eerdmans: Grand Rapids 1996, 256.
This is the third account in Acts concerning “speaking in tongues” (Ac 2:4; Ac 10:45-46).
However, it is the first time when the gift of speaking in tongues relates to the gift ofprophesy. C.S Keener, Acts. An Exegetical Commentary Vol. 3, 2822.
32 C.S Keener, Acts. An Exegetical Commentary Vol. 3, 2821-2824
30
31

38
gift of prophecy may indicate that they became valued members of thecommunity in Ephesus33.
Summing up: the narrative of Ac 19:1-7 concerns the encounter of Paul with
twelve disciples of John Baptist in Ephesus. These disciples show that they
believe in Jesus as the Messiah, but in a way that that was insufficient in Luke’s
evaluation, since they did not know about the role of the Holy Spirit. This
becomes the direct reason for Paul’s three actions undertaken in their regard.
First he taught them about the real purpose of John’s baptism, which had onlya preparatory function (Ac 19:4), in order to receive the true baptism by the Holy
Spirit (Jesus’ baptism). After this process of re-education, Paul baptized them by
the Jesus’ baptism, by which they became the disciples of Jesus. As disciples ofJesus, they received the gift of the Holy Spirit in a manner similar to the Apostles
and others who believed in Jesus the Messiah. Ac 19:1-7 is a narrative regarding
the incorporation of the members of John messianic movement into Jesus’
messianic movement, and this latter has already developed into what will
become the Christian Church.
3. The Purpose of Ac 19:1-7
The narrative concerning the third mission journey of Paul (Ac 18:23-20:38)
starts with information that Paul is undertaking another mission journey (Ac18:23), but at once the narrative is interrupted by a preparatory unit (Ac 18:2428) concerning the mission activity of an Alexandrian Jew named Apollos before
Paul came to Ephesus. Apollos was a disciple of John the Baptist, believing in
Jesus as the Messiah to whom he gave testimony in many Synagogues visited
33

There is a possible similarity with the prophets of the community in Syrian Antioch (Ac13:1-3).

39
by him during his mission journeys (Ac 18:25-26). Although he knew all “things
concerning Jesus”, which means here that he was able to successfully argue andconvince Diaspora Jews that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah (Ac18:27-28),
however, his knowledge about “the way of God” was not sufficient in the eyes ofPaul’s co-workers Priscilla and Aquila, who are presented by Luke as mentors
for Apollos on his way to fully understand God’s plan of salvation. Thisencounter of Apollos with Priscilla and Aquila made of him a trustworthy
disciple of Jesus who is accepted by Jesus’ believers and by the leaders of thecommunities (Ac 18:26-28). It makes the account of Ac 18:24-28 to contain themessage that the disciples of John believing in Jesus as the Messiah cannot be
automatically counted as Jesus’ disciples because of the absence of someessential teachings about Jesus in John’s teaching regarding the One who will
come after him, which Luke refers to as the thing concerning “the way of God”
and most probably it regards the eschatological application of words and deedsof Jesus.
After this short episode concerning Apollos’ activities in Ephesus, Luke
returns to the main theme of the narrative concerning the third mission journeythat focuses on his mission in Ephesus (Ac 19:1-40). Luke’s narrative of Paul’s
mission activities in Ephesus contains several events, starting with Paul’s
encounter with the twelve disciples of John the Baptist (Ac 19:1-7), followed bya short and very schematic account of Paul’s mission work in the city (Ac 19:812), the impact of which is shown in the narrative concerning the outcome ofPaul’s mission work, namely the decreasing influence of magicians in the city
(Ac 19:13-20), and concludes with the narrative regarding the growing
opposition to Paul’s influence in Ephesus (Ac 19:21-40). From the structure of
the narrative of Ac 19:1-40 it becomes clear that it consists of two major units;
the first refers to the relationship between the disciples of John the Baptist andthe disciples of Jesus’ believers (Ac 18:24-19:7), and the second unit is focused

40
on the outcome of Paul’s mission in Ephesus (Ac 19:8-40). Luke’s narrative
concept of the three mission journeys has a developing character that begins
with the first mission journey almost exclusively focused on the Diaspora Jews,
and continues with the second mission journey that mostly concerns the mission
to Gentiles, and ends in the third mission journey, where the most elaborated
narrative regards existing Christian communities, it possible to suspect that theinclusion in the narrative of the third mission journey the unit referring torelationship between the disciples of John the Baptist and the disciples of Jesus’
believers, is not accidental. Luke seems to limit himself to what is indispensable
in his account of this relationship, but the purpose of the account becomesenigmatic. He was dealing with a situation that was in fact a major problem forthe early Christian Church, namely the existence of individuals and groups withfragmentary knowledge about Jesus as the Messiah. Some derived theirknowledge from sources different from Jesus’ messianic movement itself,
resulting in variation in the kerygma about Jesus the Messiah. Luke could notomit this issue in his narrative, since this problem is widely elaborated in all
Gospels, including the Gospel of Luke. This was the problem of the relationshipbetween the messianic movement of John and messianic movement of Jesus34. It
seems that this issue was real problem for Luke, which does not necessarilymean that it was also such for Paul if we consider his presentation of therelationship between himself and Apollos in 1Corintians. However, if the Corpus
Lucanum was written twenty years or more after 1Corinthians, Luke may refer
not merely to conditions during Paul’s ministry, but he may also indicate aproblem that affected his times, namely the period after the destruction of the
Temple35. Probably Luke’s main concern in this narrative reflects the theological
Here we refer to the public evaluation of John’s activities rather than to state of things inlight of God’s plan.
35 We refer here to possible disturbance within the early Christian Church about theological34

41
issues, with the author strongly indicating that those who came to faith in Jesus
the Messiah through the tradition of John Baptist must accept the official
theology of the early Christian Church, which in Luke’s particular case means
Pauline theology36. C.R. Holladay goes as far as to state that Luke looks on John’s
disciples as rivals, who must be imbued with the early Christian convictions(theology), with particular emphasis on their baptism in the name of Jesus37. It
is possible that after AD 70 the Christian communities made an effort toincorporate John’s disciples and possibly all those who accepted Jesus as theMessiah into the early Christian Church rather than allow them to return to
Rabbinic Judaism38.
Luke in his presentation of the issue of relationship between Jesus’ messianic
movement and John Baptist’s messianic movement in the Acts focusedparticularly on the last stage of this relationship, which concerns the gradualincorporation of the members of John’s movement into the early Christian
Church whose roots went back to Jesus’ messianic movement. Contrary, theauthors of the four Gospel reflect the stage when both movements were actively
involved in spreading their teachings among Palestinian Jews.
Summing up: the main purpose of the narrative Ac 19:1-7 is to present Luke’s
conviction that believers in Jesus as the Messiah must be properly baptized in
the name of Jesus, and after that they may be incorporated into the Church. Luke

issues deriving from the differing background and traditions of the Christian believers. In
Luke’s perspective they should be suppressed and incorporated into the mainstream
teaching based on the true Gospel message.
36 C.R. Holladay, Acts, Westminster John Knox Press: Louisville 2016, 35-369.
37 C.R. Holladay, Acts, 367.
38 Here we assume that John’s messianic movement, even after the death of John, continued
as an independent movement that in first-century Judaism may be situated between
Pharisaic Judaism (before AD 70), including also Rabbinic Judaism (after AD 70), and Jesus’
messianic movement.

42
attributes this conviction exclusively to Paul, giving it as a kind of instruction in
the process of incorporation (teaching; baptism; laying on hands). In Ac 19:1-7
Luke leaves no room for the continuation of the John’s messianic movement
after the fulfilment of God’s plan by Jesus the Messiah, the founder of the newmessianic movement.
4. A brief account of the relationship between John’s messianic movement andJesus’ messianic movement in the Synoptic Gospels.
All the Gospels contain narratives regarding the relationship between John
the Baptist’s movement and Jesus’ messianic movement. Although most of theaccounts regarding the relationship are common to the four Gospels, thepresentation in each of the Gospels differs significantly. In the case of the Gospelof John the relationship between these two movements is presented in aradically different perspective from that of the Synoptic Gospels which arealmost identical, though they consider the relationship in different narrative
contexts. The following is a brief summary of the presentation of the issue in the
Synoptic Gospel39.
4.1 The Gospel of Mathew
The Gospel of Matthew includes seven accounts regarding the relationshipbetween the messianic movements of John and Jesus: Mt 3:1-12; 3:13-17; 9:14-17;
14:1-12; 16:13-20; 17:1-9; 21:23-27. In his presentation of this relationship
Matthew seems to be more focused on John’s attitude toward Jesus, rather than39

The reason for narrowing the comparative material to the Synoptic Gospels is that theaccount of Ac 18:24-9:7 regarding the relationship is similar to the Synoptic Gospels, but
not to the Gospel of John.

43
vice versa. Matthew presents John as an esteemed figure within Jewish society.
Although he ranks John as a prophet with a specific mission in the coming
eschatological times, he does not make any reference to him as possibly being
the Messiah40. In Matthew’s Gospel John is not only the one who prepares theway for the Messiah but is also the first to recognize and accept Jesus ofNazareth as the promised Messiah. The most important element is Matthew’s
presentation of John as being subordinated to Jesus’ will, even if his expectationsquite often contrast with Jesus’ attitude as the Messiah. The relationshipbetween John as the leader of the messianic movement according to Jewish
expectation, and Jesus as the de facto leader of the messianic movement, shows
the relationship between these two similar movements. John who recognizedJesus as the promised Messiah, to some extent was doubted by Jesus and his
movement due to his attitude toward the Law and the Jewish tradition.
Concerning Jesus’ attitude toward John and his movement, Jesus recognized
the importance of John in the fulfilment of God’s plan of salvation, and on that
account praised him highly. At the same time, Jesus shows the limit of Johns’
activities. They are recognized as the necessary preparation, but no more.
According to Matthew, Jesus considers John the Baptist and his movement to beinferior to His movement due to the difference in the level of realization of God’splan. That means that Jesus recognized John’s movement as a necessary stage inthe preparation for the appearance of the Messiah, but at the same time his
movement was time-limited, and it ended when Jesus fulfilled God’s plan.
According to Matthew, these two movements are similar in having a common
purpose in contributing to the realization of God’s plan of salvation but differ inthe way the purpose would be achieved. This makes it impossible that they
achieve their common purpose in the same fashion. Despite this fact, the two

40

This contrasts with the expectation of some of the people.

44
movements and their leaders were in constant dialog in order to understandeach other.
Summing up: Matthew presents the relationship between Jesus and John andtheir movements as one of cooperation, where each movement has its part inmaking possible the realization of God’s plan. Despite significant differences in
the attitude of each movement, they were in constant dialog, even though there
were instances of doubt and confusion, as well as recognition and respect foreach another.
4.2 The Gospel of MarkThe Gospel of Mark includes seven accounts about the relationship between
the messianic movements of John and Jesus: Mk 1:4-8; Mk 1:9-11; Mk 1:14-15;
Mk 2:18-22; Mk 6:14-29; Mk 8:27-30; Mk 11:27-33. The first three accounts (theproclamation of John the Baptist - Mk 1:4-8; the baptism of Jesus - Mk 1:9-11; theproclamation of the gospel by Jesus - Mk 1:14-15) introduce the two persons
involved in the relationship (Mk 1:4-8; Mk 1:14-15), where the main aim ofMark’s narrative is to present the most important event involving both of themin Jesus’ baptism (Mk 1:9-11). This account is in fact the only one that includes a
direct encounter between John and Jesus, but even this account is narrated byMark in a very brief and schematic manner, which suggests that the author
attempts to say as little as possible about this event by reducing it to the simple
statement (It was the time that Jesus came form Nazareth in Galilee and was baptizedin the Jordan by John). It allows us to conclude that Mark separated Jesus’
messianic movement from that of John’s messianic movement in order tosuggest to his readers which of the two is the true movement.

45
The other three accounts (a discussion on fasting -Mk 2:18-22; Herod’s
testimony about Jesus- Mk 6:14-29; Peter’s confession - Mk 8:27-30), contain
opinions about Jesus and his movement. Mk 2:18-22 is general in its approachsince unspecified people give the opinion. The second opinion (Mk 6:14-29) is
given by Herod Antipas, one of few reminders of the dynasty of Herod the Great,
which makes him in Mark’s narrative to be the leader of the nation, even though
he was not so in fact. The third opinion is given by Peter, one of the twelve
disciples of Jesus, who is the first to directly express his faith in Jesus as the true
Messiah. In this way, Mark shows that the people did not understand Jesus’
movement and his activity, and that Herod Antipas confused Jesus with John,but only his disciples – here in the person of Peter as head of Twelve – recognized
who Jesus really was.
The last account (Mk 11:27-33) regarding the relation between Jesus and Johnand their movements is narrated by Mark in a way that aims at showing the illwill of the social and religious leaders of Jews who rejected both John and Jesus
because of their prejudice. According to Mark, the authorities of the Temple
rejected that John’s activity was rooted in God’s will and based on God’s
authority. The authorities also failed to accept Jesus’ activity as being arealization of God’s plan. Despite the fact that the activity of John and Jesus werepart of God’s plan, they differed in the level of their purpose and differed greatly
in their realization. Contrary to Matthew and Luke, however, Mark avoids in his
narrative any comparison between the two movements in order to underline theauthorities’ conservative attitude towards any change in the socio-religious
status quo in Judea during the Roman period.
Summing up: concerning Mark’s presentation of the relationship between
these two movements we can say that he attempted to separate them byminimalizing the narrative regarding their direct encounter. At the same time,Mark’ narrative regarding the relationship leads throughout to the final

46
conclusion (Mk11:27-33) that indicates the rejection of both leaders and their
movements by the official socio-religious authorities41.
4.3 The Gospel of LukeAs one of the Synoptic Gospels the Gospel of Luke contains considerable
amount of material that is similar or identical with the Gospel of Mark and theGospel of Matthew, however, Luke is also that author of the Acts of the Apostles,
which is of crucial importance for this study due to the fact that the narrative
regarding the relationship between Jesus and John and their movements does
not concern only the time of Jesus and John’s activity, but it concerns also thetime after their activities came to the end, and their disciples continue their
movements. There is another distinguishing feature between Luke’s Gospel andother the Synoptic Gospel, and it refers to the narrative that can be foundexclusively in the Luke’s Gospel. Among the accounts regarding the relationshipbetween John and Jesus and their movements, Luke’s narrative contains sevenaccounts regarding the relationship that are similar to or identical with that in
the Gospel of Mark or the Gospel of Matthew (the introduction of John and his
ministry - Lk 3:1-20; the baptism of Jesus - Lk 3:21-22; the controversy about
fasting - Lk 5:33-39; John’s doubts - Lk 7:18-35; Herod evaluation of Jesus - Lk
Mark exposed in a progressive way the narrative regarding the relationship between
Jesus and John and their movements. The first set of accounts (Mk 1:4-8; Mk 1:9-11; Mk
1:14-15) has an introductive character and they provide initial information about John andJesus and they relationship. The second set of accounts (Mk 2:18-22; Mk 6:14-29; Mk 8:2730) focused entirely on evaluation of Jesus by society, namely by people, Herod Antipas,
and Peter, where the evaluations expose that only the disciples of Jesus (Peter) recognized
the true dignity of Jesus as the Messiah. The last account (Mk 11:27-33) contains narrative
regarding Jesus’ arguing with the Sanhedrin, in order to points that His authority andJohn’s authority comes from God, but it is not recognized by the Temple authorities.
Despite the same source of the authority, the merit of the authority differs greatly. John
possesses the authority of a prophet, and Jesus possesses the authority of the Messiah.
41

47
9:7-9; Peter’s confession - Lk 9:18-21; the question about authority - Lk 20:1-8),
but three accounts are only found in Luke: the infancy period of John and Jesus- Lk 1:1-2:52; the Lord’s prayer - Lk 11:1-4; Jesus’ evaluation of the time of John
- Lk 16:14-18).
From the beginning of his Gospel, Luke makes clear the difference in the
dignity of John and the dignity of Jesus (Lk 1:1-2:52) in order to shape the basic
statement of his Gospel, that John is the prophet chosen by God, but Jesus is theMessiah sent by God to the nation. This clearly indicates that Luke’s
presentation of the relationship between Jesus and John has a strongly
theological approach that is presented in the socio-culture context of Judea. The
purpose of this approach is to indicate that John and Jesus are parts of God’splan of salvation, and consequently there is a strong connection between the lifeof John and the life of Jesus in Luke’s Gospel. The account concerning theinfancy of John and Jesus shows the synchronism in the narrative approach of
the author (the conception of John and Jesus are both by the will of God; theirnames are decided by God; the purpose for each of them is determined by God)42

. Although Luke’s narrative strongly connects John with Jesus, it also presents

differences between their dignity and the purpose of their lives. John is born tothe family of the Temple priest, and by the will of God he will grow to become
the prophet who will prepare the Jews for appearance of the Messiah. Jesus wasconceived by the power of the Holy Spirt to an unmarried young woman, andhe will grow to the status of being the nation’s Savior43.

D.S. Dapaah, The Relationship between John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth, Oxford:
University Press of America 2005, 40.
43 W. Wink rightly points to the fact that Luke uses the reference to Elijah (Lk 1:17) for acomparative reason. Accordingly, Luke in his narrative omitted the concept of theeschatological return of the prophet Elijah, which is present in the Gospel of Matthew and
the Gospel of Mark. W. Wink, John the Baptist in the Gospel Tradition, West Broadway: Wipf
and Stock Publishers2 2000, 42-43.
42

48
After the presentation of the infancy narrative, Luke in the second section
introduces John’s activity in Judea (Lk 3:1-20) that is followed by an account ofJesus’ baptism, which marks the beginning of his mission activities (Lk 3:21-22).
Concerning John’s activity Luke gives an extensive account – the socio-politicalbackground; according to the Scriptures; the response of the nation to John’scall; a summary of John’s teaching; John’s testimony concerning Jesus – in a waythat shows his prophetic dignity, and his elimination of the idea that he himself
might be the Messiah. Concerning Jesus, Luke limits the narrative to a brief andschematic account with little focus on the baptism itself and the stress placed on
the revelation that took place.
The third section contains only one event, namely the discussion about fasting(Lk 5:33-39) which occurred between the Scribes, the Pharisees, and Jesus. Thisis the only account in Luke’ Gospel that contains criticism of Jesus and his
movement because of their neglecting the nation’s customs44.
The fourth section (Lk 7:18-35; Lk 9:7-9; Lk 9:18-21) is indirectly connectedwith the third, and it contains three different evaluations of Jesus by John the
Baptist, Herod Antipas, and Peter. Of special importance for this study is theaccount concerning John’s doubts (Lk 7:18-35), which presents his criticalevaluation of Jesus’ mission that did not meet John’s expectation about the true
Messiah. Although John’s doubts were allayed adequately by Jesus, the accountshows the difference in the realization of God’s plan by Jesus and his movement
and by John and his disciples. John, who was the first to recognize Jesus’
Messianic dignity and prepared the nation for His appearance, could not accept
the new way in which Jesus realized the same plan of God. It shows that between
the messianic movements of Jesus and John there were several differences that

44

Matthew and Mark present further grounds for criticism directed at Jesus.

49
prevented them from seeing that they were both engaged in realizing the same
Divine plan.
The fifth section (Lk 11:1-4; Lk 16:14-18; Lk 20:1-8) concerns Jesus’s testimony
about John, in which he recognized John as the prophet whose activities
contributed to the common goal, however, they still linked to the old religious
way of Pharisaic Judaism, and consequently are evaluated by Jesus as being
inferior in comparison to Jesus’ messianic movement. After fulfilling his task
John Baptist’s time has ended, and his way can no longer contribute to fulfilling
God’s plan45. However, both John and Jesus and their movements were rejectedby the mainstream religious authorities in Judaism.
Summing up: Luke presents highly theological interpretation of therelationship between John and Jesus, the leaders of two messianic movements.
Form the beginning of his narrative he makes a clear distinction between John
the Baptist who is the prophet, and his movement that has a preparatory
purpose, and Jesus the Messiah whose movement is the fulfilment of God’s planof salvation.
Conclusion: The Synoptic Gospels’ presentation of the relationship between
John and Jesus and the account of Ac 19:1-7
The topic of relationship between John and Jesus and their movements is
included in all three Synoptic Gospels (and also in the Gospel of John) as well as
in the Acts of the Apostles written by the author of the Gospel of Luke.
Considering that all these writings came from a later period and are not justexact accounts of the events, their narratives are for the most part similar, but

45This may explain Paul’s attempt to convert the disciples of John in Ephesus (Ac 19:1-7).

50each has differences due to the purpose of each author. The differences in theaccounts referring to the relationship between John and Jesus show that eachauthor treated the same topic in his own way, but the diversity in the exposition
does not necessarily reduce the merit of the overall presentation of the topic. All
accounts in the Synoptic Gospels show that John is the prophet and Jesus is theMessiah, consequently John’s movement had a preparatory character, and Jesus’
movement was one of fulfilment. Thus, there were two similar messianic
movements that emerged at the same time, and both leaders of the movements
found supporters who were ready to claim the title of Messiah for them46. All
the Synoptic Gospels responded to this problem, but in separate ways. The
Gospel of Mark separates the two movements, reducing the narrative
concerning the relationship to necessary minimum (Mk 1:9-11) in order to focus
on developing the arguments that Jesus is the Son of God, and He is the Messiah.
The Gospel of Matthew shows the relationship in a sequential and cooperative
way, where John’s movement has a preparatory character and is necessary forthe appearance of Jesus and His movement that have a fulfilling character. Bothmovements are essential for the realization of God’s plan. The Gospel of Lukeshows the relation in way similar to that found in the Gospel of Matthew, with
one critical difference in showing the inferiority of John’s preparatory
movement in comparison with Jesus’ messianic movement. This attitude ofLuke in presenting the relationship continues in the second volume of Luke’s
writing (the Acts of the Apostles) the narrative concerning the conversion of theJohn’s disciples in Ephesus (Ac 19:1-7) were the author shows the necessity forthe incorporation of John’s disciples into the Christian movement, which is thefulfilment of the promises made by God to the nation.

46

Jesus earned the claim to be Messiah during his activity in Galilee, and he accepted it. Johnwas seen by the authorities of the Temple and the people of Judea as having sufficientqualifications for the title of Messiah, but he refused to accept it.