Observation: We really, really need to remember when we read the Book of Acts--or any New Testament book, for that matter--that it is written in a First century Jewish context. Jesus was Jewish. So were his disciples, the scribes, pharisees and chief priests. Not all Jesus' fellow Jews understood or accepted his ministry. Not all accepted that he had been raised from the dead, or that he was the long-awaited Messiah. The arguments got heated. But for the first generation or so, this was a heated argument within one family: the family of Israel. We all know how ugly family fights can get. So as we hear about Apollos, who is also Jewish, powerfully refuting "the Jews" in public, we need to step back and make sure we understand the context. Not to do so might put us in danger of continuing a long, tragic history of Christian anti-Judaism and antisemitism. Both go against the very core of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
You can probably guess from that introduction how uncomfortable this text (and others like it) makes me. Apollos, a natural leader and communicator, uses his scriptural knowledge and gift for rhetoric to make "the case for Christ" to his fellow Jews. When Priscilla and Aquila hear him, they teach him some more about Jesus, loading him up with more ammo to do theological battle with anyone who would dare suggest Jesus is not the Messiah.
Application: In our current context, communication is instant, anonymous and usually devoid of much accountability. You can say just about anything to anyone without having to look in their eye and acknowledge they are a human being, made in God's image. Arguments get heated quickly, and even if they get started with the best of intentions, it's alarming how fast they devolve into blanket denunciation and name-calling. Nobody convinces anyone of anything, except what they already believed--and, based on their recent experience, that those who disagree are a bunch of ignorant jerks.
It makes me wonder: if Jesus had died and been raised in the last ten years or so, how would his apostles engage online? How would Mary Magdalene have made it "Facebook Official" that she had seen the Lord? What would Paul's Twitter account look like? What Facebook groups would Peter be part of? And how might Apollos have engaged in online debate about his core belief that Jesus is the Messiah?
It's hard to say, honestly. That first generation of apostles was a pretty tough bunch. They pulled no punches, and they spoke with a tremendous passion and urgency that both attracted many and repelled many others. My guess is for better or for worse, you'd know for sure pretty quick whether you were on Apollos' "friends" list.
I don't think Christians should shy away from debate. I think, like Apollos, we can get to know scripture, learn from others and accept correction wherever we can, and speak up to challenge false notions about who Jesus is and what he does.
But the hard truth is, even in Apollos' case, the mission he accomplished in all this debate was to "help those...who had become believers." He wasn't there to argue his detractors into submission. He was there to show support for his fellow believers, and let them know they aren't alone. There's a place for that, I think, as long as we are still treating the "other team" with love and respect.
Prayer: God, give us brave hearts. Make us outspoken in sharing your grace and love with the world. Amen.