Corinth
By: Underground Network
Tags: Christianity, Bible

Corinth

Acts 18:1–23

Overview

The narrative as we have it in 18:1–17 is structured around three significant pronouncements: by Paul (verse 6), by the Lord (verses 9–10), and by Gallio (verses 14–15). In this sort of volatile atmosphere where danger loomed for Paul, the experience recorded in w 9–10 is not surprising. Paul has a vision of reassurance, intending to steel Paul to stay the course until the work is finished in Corinth, in spite of the opposition and persecution he may face. We may perhaps coordinate verse 9 with 1 Corinthians 2:3, which reveals the human face of Paul It suggests an apostle who was somewhat shell-shocked from the strong opposition he had faced from both his fellow Jews and some Gentiles in various places on this missionary trip, doubtless including Philippi, Thessalonica, and Berea. Paul had entered into his task at Corinth with some fear and trepidation, but had taken it up nevertheless. This vision strengthens Paul and prompts the correct decision, as will also be the case on other occasions in the apostle’s career.(Witherington)

Places

Image from bibleplaces.com

Corinth- “Corinth,” the largest city in Greece at this time, was the capital of the Roman province of Achaia and a Roman colony. The Romans razed Corinth in 146 B.C., but it was rebuilt a century later in 46 B.C. Its site lay about 50 miles southwest of Athens at a very strategic location. Land traffic from northern Achaia to its southern peninsula, the Peloponnesus, crossed a land bridge very near Corinth. Stevedores hauled smaller ships traveling from one of Corinth’s port towns, Lechaeum on the west or Cenchrea on the east, to the other, overland on wooden rollers. They handled the cargoes of larger ships the same way. The distance between the ports was three and a half miles. Sea captains preferred this inconvenience because they did not want to sail 200 miles around dangerous Cape Malea at the southern tip of the Peloponnesus. Consequently Corinth constantly buzzed with commercial activity, and it possessed all the vices that have typically haunted cosmopolitan ports.

Corinth was about 20 times as large as Athens at this time, with a population of over 200,000 inhabitants. The city was infamous for its immorality, that issued from two sources: its numerous transients and its temple to Aphrodite. Aphrodite was the Greek goddess of love, and here devotees promoted immorality in the name of religion. Her temple, which boasted 1,000 religious prostitutes, stood on the Acrocorinth, a 1,857-foot flat-topped mountain just outside the city. It is easy to understand why sexual problems plagued the Corinthian church (1 Cor. 5; et al.).

“Beginning with the fifth century B.C., the verb ‘to Corinthianize’ (korinthiazesthai) meant to be sexually immoral, a reputation that continued to be well-deserved in Paul’s day.” (Constable and Longenecker)

People

Priscilla and Aquila- “Priscilla” had another name, Prisca (Rom. 16:3; 1 Cor. 16:19; 2 Tim. 4:19), the latter being more formal. Luke normally used the colloquial, diminutive form of names (e.g., Silas, Sopatros, Priscilla, Apollos), but Paul preferred their formal names in his writings (e.g., Silvanus, Sosipatros, Prisca, Epaphroditus). Nevertheless he sometimes used the more popular form of a name (e.g., Apollos, Epaphras). Priscilla’s name frequently appears before her husband’s — “Aquila” — in the New Testament (e.g., 18:18–19, 26; Rom. 16:3; 2 Tim. 4:19). This may indicate that she came from a higher social class than Aquila, or that others regarded her as superior to him in some respect. Here, however, Luke mentioned Aquila first. (Constable)

Titius Justus- “Titus the son of Justus” was a Gentile, but a religious man, such an one as Cornelius, whose house joined hard to the synagogue. Had this man been a Jew, his house might very well have been taken for the house which was (tonkh tybl Kwmo) , “near to the synagogue”, in which travelers were entertained, and ate, and drank, and lodged, and that he was the person appointed to take care of them, and so a very suitable house for Paul, a stranger, to take up his lodging in. (Gill)

Gallio- Gallio was a remarkable Roman citizen from Spain. His brother, the Stoic philosopher Seneca, who was Nero’s tutor, referred to him as having an unusually pleasant disposition.

“No mortal is so pleasant to any person as Gallio is to everyone.”

“Even those who love my brother Gallio to the utmost of their power do not love him enough.”

A “proconsul” was the governor of a Roman province, and his legal decisions set precedent for the other proconsuls throughout the empire. Consequently Gallio’s decision in Paul’s case affected the treatment that Christians would receive throughout the Roman world. This was the first time that Paul (or any other apostle, as far as we know) stood trial before a Roman provincial governor. (Constable, Barclay and Longenecker)

Cripsus- Crispus became a Christian, as did his whole household. To be “* synagogue ruler” means that Crispus is a person of status and wealth, responsible for the synagogue services. It was a notable accomplishment to convert a ruler of a synagogue, and 1 Corinthians 1:14–16 confirms his baptism. This verse in addition suggests that once Crispus converted many other Corinthians followed (Witherington and Keener).

Image from bibleplaces.com

Background

It is fair to say that Corinth and Ephesus were the two most important cities visited by Paul in the course of his missionary work, and he stayed in each for a considerable period in order to establish churches which would then evangelize the surrounding areas. We may learn something significant about Luke’s approach to his source material from this narrative. His coverage of Paul’s stay in Corinth is briefer than his coverage of Paul’s time in either Philippi or Athens, even though he tells us that Paul’s stay in Corinth was much longer. (Witherington)

Key Ideas

Tentmakers- σχνηνοποιοι in its most basic term means tentmakers, either for the soldiers, and which were made of sack cloth of hair, or of leather, and of the skins of various animals, sewed together; hence the phrase, “sub pellibus”, “under the skins”, is used for ‘to lie in tents’ : or those tents they made, were canopies made of linen, and other things, which were erected in the summer season to shade and screen from the heat of the sun. Others take them for a sort of tapestry, or hangings, which they made for theatres, palaces, and stately rooms; and according to the Syriac version, they were horses’ trappings which they made. Perhaps they were of the same occupation with Menedemus the philosopher, who was (skhnorrafov) , “a sewer of tents” (Gill)

Vow- Luke does not explain either the timing or purpose of this action, and though there were pagan rituals involving the dedication of hair which had remain uncut for the duration of a vow,་ it is most unlikely that this is alluded to here. In all likelihood we are to think of this as Paul fulfilling a Nazaritic vow which he had earlier made. Though some have suggested that Paul cut off his hair to begin a vow, the evidence as it stands suggests that the hair cutting was to transpire at the end of the period of the vow. Strictly speaking, such a vow had to be fulfilled at Jerusalem, where the hair would be presented as a burnt offering and a sacrifice would be offered as well. Jews tended to make vows to thank God for past blessings or as petitions for future ones. Probably we should relate the vow here to Paul’s thankfulness for being kept from harm in Corinth, and perhaps we should think of Paul taking the vow to remain unshorn in response to the vision he had. Haenchen argues that the historical Paul would not have undertaken such a vow because it violated his notions of grace.” This might be the case if Paul had undertaken a vow in order to obtain certain blessings from God, but the evidence suggests that the vow was an act of response, in gratitude for the safety God had guaranteed Paul during his time in Corinth (Witherington).

Possible Discussion Points

Paul brings the good news of the Gospel to the Jews first knowing that they are probably going to reject him. What would it look like for you to take risks in ministry that you know are probably going to fail? What is the benefit?

Paul’s reassurance from God allowed him to face a difficult trial brazenly. Do you trust God with your safety? Is there something you feel is risky that you have held back from God?

Noteworthy

Paul’s reaction to the response of the Jews in verse 6 was to perform a gesture familiar to Jews — he shook out his clothes, a symbolic way of indicating he would have no more to do with them. Perhaps he saw it as following the instructions of Jesus, but the gesture here is a little different (shaking out of clothes rather than shaking of dust from one’s feet), and this may be because Paul does not perform this gesture as he is leaving town, unlike what we find in Acts 13:51 and in Jesus’ instructions in Luke 9:5.

It is possible that the Jews deliberately made the charge ambiguous, hoping that Gallio would think Paul had offended against Roman religion. It may also be the case that they were suggesting that Paul was preaching a new religion that was illicit, not a form of Judaism, and thus upsetting the Jewish community whom Claudius had said had a right to be allowed to practice their own religious customs in peace. In either of the latter two cases, they could hope Gallio would intervene to preserve order by punishing or expelling Paul. Neither of these wished-for outcomes happened. To Gallio, the accusations of these Jews seemed to involve matters of religious controversy that entailed no violation of Roman law. He was responsible to judge criminal cases, not theological disputations. Consequently he refused to hear the case, and ordered the Jews to settle it themselves. The AV translation, “Gallio cared for none of these things,” is misleading. It implies that Gallio had no interest in spiritual matters. That may have been true, but it is not what the text means. In point of fact he was absolutely impartial, and refused to involve himself in a dispute over which he had no jurisdiction. He refused to mix church and state matters. (Witherington and Constable).