Another Scripture that does not fit?

I recently was reading about Apollos and the part I have emboldened stood out:

Now there came to Ephesus a Jew named Apollos from Alexandria. He was an eloquent man, well-versed in the scriptures. He had been instructed in the Way of the Lord, and he spoke with burning enthusiasm and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him they took him aside and explained the Way of God to him more accurately. And when he wished to cross over to Achaia, the brothers and sisters encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him. On his arrival he greatly helped those who through grace had become believers, for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, showing by the scriptures that the Messiah is Jesus (Acts 18:24-28).

The phrase ‘with burning enthusiasm’ is translated differently in other versions and it seems the reason is that we have a phrase that only comes twice in the New Testament. The other occasion is when Paul writes to the believers in Rome to ‘be ardent in spirit’. In this phrase in Romans it is assumed that the reference is to the Holy Spirit, something beyond ‘enthusiasm’. Translating the same phrase when related to Apollos – as per NRSV above – ‘enthusiasm’ is somehow I think a little attempt to get round things theologically – it cannot be ‘Spirit’ as capitalised so it is reduced to something related to human emotion (with burning enthusiasm, rather than ‘burning of the Spirit’). I don’t think that is justifiable as to reduce pneuma (spirit) in that way is not typical of Luke (I can’t think of any such occurrence) and further it says that Apollos spoke boldly in the synagogue, a verb that Luke associates with the Spirit’s anointing. So why the title concerning a Scripture that does not fit? Because Apollos, at this stage, is in a strange situation:

  • well versed in Scripture
  • instructed in the way of the Lord
  • teaching accurately about Jesus
  • but only knowing the baptism of John
  • needing to be instructed more accurately in the way of the Lord.

Yet he has the Spirit (Priscilla and Aquila do not pray for him to receive the Spirit but they instruct him more fully) and he does not have the Spirit simply in some ‘theological’ dimension but with the clear evidence (spoke boldly, speech being one of the marks in Luke of ‘receiving’ the Spirit) of being anointed. He does not fit the pattern of those to whom the Spirit is promised. It is for this reason the passage does not fit.

Just annoying to us who tie this Scripture with that and then have everything water-tight.

And it raises a much bigger question… are there other anomalies?

3 thoughts on “Another Scripture that does not fit?

  1. Well…the answer might be in the question once again…

    “He does not fit the pattern …”

    Pattern recognition is probably a lot more deeply embedded in our psyche than we are aware of…seeing a snake on the path instead of a stick helps keep the species moving forward, but always seeing snakes on the path does not…hence the need to identify helpful patterns…sticks that move might be a clue.

    But in this case it feels a bit like the translators are moving the stick and not the wind…so they helpfully tell us “not a snake”…but in the act of telling us that they break the fourth wall so to speak and reveal that it wasn’t the wind (pneuma) that moved the stick…leaving us to wonder about the actual path we are on and what else might be moving without the wind.

  2. So many times when the Lord knows I’m veering off towards a distraction, that could so quickly end up in a dangerous ditch, I find “the Voice behind me” referred me back for a reality check to the child-like faith of Mark Twain’s famous quote – “It ain’t those parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me, it’s the parts I can.” We can so easily get into Pharisee/Greek-thinking mode, choking on a camel and not only straining out the gnats, but getting into the all-consuming task of deciding which of the 1700 known species our particular gnat is! And Heaven-forbid if it happens to be one of the possibly 20,000 species not yet described! I love the acronym KISS – keep it simple stupid! It fits me so often!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Perspectives