And all the men were about twelve.
And all the men were about twelve - and, from the mode of expression used, probably all men.
Remarks:
(1) The episode about Apollos from Alexandria, and the account of the twelve disciples whom Paul found at Ephesus-both apparently at the same imperfect stage of Christian knowledge denoted by "the Baptism of John" - bear such internal marks of truth as not only to speak for themselves, but to a large degree to inspire confidence in the whole strain of the History in which they lie embosomed. Observe the particulars of Apollos' Christian history up to the time when Aquila and Priscilla took him aside; their perception of the imperfect ground on which he stood, and their confidence that, though occupying a position inferior to his, they could impart to him what he knew not, but would dearly value; the humility and teachableness with which he drank in what they opened up to him, and the readiness with which he set out for a sphere more suited to his special gifts, of which Aquila and Priscilla would doubtless give him full particulars; in a word, the Ephesian letter of recommendation to the Achaian brethren, and the success with which he laboured in Corinth (the capital of Achaia): these are incidents which form one consistent and uncommon whole; which, whether we look at them as a unity or in their component parts, were not in the least likely to occur either to a pure fabricator or a willful distorter of history.
Much of the same thing may be said of the account of the twelve Joannean disciples. Paley (in his 'Horae Paulinae,' Acts 3:1-26, No. 5:) compares this account of Apollos in the Acts with what is said of him in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, as one of the many 'Undesigned Coincidences' between the Acts and the Epistles, confirming the authenticity of both. What he dwells on is the evidence which the Epistle incidentally furnishes, that Apollos must have been at Corinth after Paul's departure from it, and before that Epistle was written; which Paley shows to be just what we gather from the historical statements of the Acts. On this his reasoning is quite conclusive. But something may perhaps be added to it, not less interesting. From the Epistle we gather that the spirit of party had gotten into the Corinthian church, its members crying up their favourite teachers to the disparagement of the rest.
Paul was the favourite of one class, Apollos the oracle of another, while a third took to Cephas (or Peter). Now, we know so much of the peculiarities of Paul and Peter that we can easily understand what should attract some to the one and some to the other; whereas, but for this one historical notice of Apollos we should have known nothing of him at all. Here, however, we find the very characteristics which were fitted to attract a considerable party at Corinth, who would dislike, or at least not take to the method of Paul. We know that the Corinthians had all the Greek love of wisdom-a wisdom, however, which, for the most part, sacrificed the substance to the form. This wisdom the apostle studiously eschewed-calling it "the wisdom of words" - and this "lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect." Now, there can be no doubt that Apollos' teaching would wear the aspect of that very "wisdom of words" which Paul repudiated.
For being "a Jew of Alexandria," and "an eloquent man," he would be familiar, not only with the school of his great countryman, Philo, who taught and wrote there, but with the rhetoric of the other schools of Alexandria. That he came to Alexandria a disciple of Philo, or of any Alexandrian school, there is not the least reason to believe. On the contrary, he was of the Baptist's school, whose lowliness and Christian standing, so far as it went, were the reverse of what he would learn either from the Platonic Philo, or the Pagan rhetoricians; and being "mighty in the Scriptures," his teaching would likely be of a Biblical character, on which his "fervour of spirit" would kindle: in short, he would be a thoroughly believing man, whose gifts were consecrated to the illustration and enforcement of divine truth, so far as he knew it. Then, again, the humility and teachableness with which he sat at the feet of Aquila and Priscilla, who certainly were Paul's scholars, the enlargement of his views which followed on this, and the zeal with which he went to Corinth to give forth what he had learnt-all go to show that his teaching at Corinth could not have differed from that of Paul in the substance and scope of it, nor in anything whatever except in method; nor even in this, in any such sense as to affect the saving efficacy of it.
Indeed, we have Paul's own testimony that Apollos only "watered" what he himself had "planted." Nevertheless-allowing his Alexandrian culture to have been sanctified to the utmost, and laid at the feet of Jesus-we can hardly doubt that it would shine through his teaching, nor hesitate to believe that, on the apostle's own principle of "becoming all things to all men, that by any means he might gain some," he would feel himself justified, if not called upon, to deal with those wisdom-loving Greeks as one who knew and could wield to saving purposes their own weapon. And if so, then here was a field for one-sided admiration of Apollos, to the disparagement of Paul. It is needless to prosecute this subject further. Enough that we have shown how well the historical account of Apollos in the Acts and the allusions to his influence at Corinth agree together.
(2) The question, Why were the twelve disciples who had been previously baptized with the baptism of John, after being instructed by Paul, baptized again into the name of the Lord Jesus? has given rise to considerable difference of opinion. The Anabaptists of the Reformation-period and the Church of Rome agreed in regarding the Joannean and the Christian baptisms as essentially different, while the Protestants generally held them essentially the same. But since there is a sense in which both may be held to be right-the substance of what John taught being beyond doubt identical with Christianity, while in respect of development they certainly differed widely-we must be governed entirely by the practice of Christ Himself and of the apostolic church. What, then, was that? First, there is no evidence to show that our Lord caused those disciples of John who came over to Him to be re-baptized; and from John 4:1-2, we naturally conclude that they were not.
Indeed, had those who first followed Jesus from among the Baptist's disciples required to be re-baptized, the Saviour must have performed the ceremony Himself, and such a thing could not fail to be recorded; whereas the reverse is intimated in the passage just quoted. Next, though it is said that all who entered the Church on the day of Pentecost, to the number of three thousand, were baptized, it is evident from the whole narrative that these were all new converts, and did not include any of the hundred and twenty who issued forth from the upper room filled with the Holy Spirit, nor any who had been disciples of Christ before. Lastly, while all the baptisms of which we read in the sequel of the New Testament are of fresh converts and their households, with the exception of these twelve disciples whom Paul instructed at Ephesus, the remarkable and somewhat perplexing fact is that Apollos, though at precisely the same stage of Christian development with these re-baptized disciples, was not re-baptized (so far as we read; and the details in his case are so minutely given, that this fact would certainly not have been passed over if it had taken place).
From all the facts the conclusion appears irresistible, that those who had been baptized with the baptism of John were not held to need any further water-baptism on their becoming followers of Christ, either during His own stay on earth, or after the Pentecostal effusion of the Spirit; in other words, that their first initiation by baptism into Christ-all rudimental though it was-was regarded as carrying their total subjection to Him, and participation of all that He had to bestow. And if it still be asked, In what light, then, are we to regard the single case of re-baptization recorded of these twelve disciples? The answer may perhaps be found by comparing their case with that of Apollos. They both "knew only the baptism of John." But in all likelihood the twelve disciples had newly arrived at Ephesus when Paul "found" them, and had come from one of those many quarters where knots of half-instructed disciples were in the habit of meeting together for religious exercises.
Among these they had been baptized, and evidently were sincere believers, as far as their light went. But Paul, finding their knowledge of Christian truth very imperfect, instructed them fully in the way of the Lord; and their views and feelings having now undergone a great change, they would probably regard themselves as new converts, and be as desirous of being "baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus" as Paul could be that they should. Of all this we cannot be certain, but something like it seems extremely probable on reading the narrative; whereas the natural impression on reading what is said of Apollos is just the reverse. He comes to Ephesus already "instructed in the way of the Lord, fervent in the spirit, and mighty in the Scriptures," though yet only on the Joannean platform; and what Priscilla and Aquila did for him seems to have been simply to impart to him those facts of the new economy with which he was unacquainted. And just as those disciples who passed from the rank of the Baptist to those of Christ needed and received no new baptism, so this already distinguished Christian teacher, having merely received a riper view of those great evangelical truths which he already believed and taught, neither needed nor received re-baptism.
(3) The most accomplished theologian may learn from the humblest private Christian what is of more value than all his learning. The pity is, that as there are few such who would, like Apollos, sit at the feet of a Priscilla and Aquila, so there are not many who, like that couple, would venture to put any such to the test. Nevertheless, humility and teachableness are the unfailing characteristics of sanctified learning; and those Christian teachers who are prepared to learn from anyone, are pretty sure to be rewarded with what their books have failed to teach them, from some who have studied in a higher school. And if so, then private Christians, male and female, conscious of the possession of truth to which their teachers have not attained, have a duty to discharge to them from which they do not well entirely to shrink. 'It is instructive (says Lechler) that a man so important and influential in the apostolic age as Apollos, should have been indebted to a plain married couple for his special preparation for the ministry, and for his introduction into positive Christian truth.
These were the persons who first took notice of him and his promising gifts, but who also perceived what was defective in him; these were they who initiated him-certainly more highly gifted and more learned than themselves-more thoroughly in the Christian truth; these were they who assisted his coming to Corinth, and did their best to place the right man in the right place. Here, accordingly, simple laity-and especially a woman of a pious disposition and of solid Christian knowledge-have performed what, according to our ideas, is the business of theological institutions and ecclesiastical boards-a proof of the universal priesthood of the apostolic times.' Of course, there is a self-conceit which may easily crop out in such, the discouragement of which, on the part of teachers, they will interpret into unteachable pride. "But wisdom is justified of her children." The teachable will be humble, and the modest will not presume, while faith and love will overpower the infirmities of both in the common salvation and the one living Head.
(4) Every natural gift and acquirement, when laid at the feet of Jesus and sanctified to His service, is to be used to the uttermost, instead of being suppressed. As Aquila and Priscilla, from their long residence at Corinth, must have known the love there cherished for Greek wisdom, from which the Christians would not be quite weaned, there can hardly be a doubt that they perceived in Apollos the very gifts which were fitted to attract and edify that church; and that Paul having "planted" the truth there, on the principle of eschewing that wisdom which the Corinthians were apt to idolize, Apollos might now "water" it even more effectually than the apostle himself, by showing them that the same truth admitted of diversified illustration, and presenting to them in his own teaching an 'eloquence' akin to what they had been wont to idolize, yet wholly consecrated to the service of Christ. Be this as it may, as Aquila and Priscilla seem to have been the principal Christians as yet at Ephesus, no doubt the suggestion that Apollos should go to Corinth originated with them; the letter of the brethren 'exhorting the disciples' of that church 'to receive him,' must have been prompted, if not dictated, by them; and, availing himself of the information which they would give him as to the state of Corinth, he seems to have found immediate entrance, and in overpowering the Jews in argument, and so 'helping much the believing,' there can be no doubt that his special gifts went to rich account. It will be the wisdom of the Church, then, to develop every natural gift, and avail itself of every natural acquirement in its teachers, turning all into the channel of Christ's service.
After three months' labour in the synagogue, finding himself resisted and the work retarded by the unbelieving, he withdraws, as at Corinth, with the converts to the lecture-room of Tyrannus, which for two years became a center of evangelization for all Proconsular Asia, and the scene of glorious Gospel triumphs (19:8-20)