Acts 20

CHAPTER XX

THE THIRD MISSIONARY JOURNEY: FROM EPHESUS TO GREECE AND BACK TO MILETUS

Acts 20:1

1The tumult in the theater caused Paul to put into execution the plans that had for some time been maturing in his mind (19:21), the preliminaries of which had already been carried out (19:22), namely the sending ahead of Timothy and of Erastus, the former all the way to Corinth. When Demetrius staged his tumult, Paul was waiting for Timothy’s return. If Timothy had not yet returned he must have hastened after Paul and soon joined him.

Now after the uproar ceased, Paul, having summoned the disciples and encouraged them, after taking leave went out in order to go into Macedonia.

The accusative with the infinitive is regarded as a substantive (τό) after μετά. We know how the tumult came to cease, and therefore this phrase does not state the motive for Paul’s departure but only the time of it. We must not think of fear, hurry, flight, or anything of that sort. Paul could have remained in Ephesus but not much longer, for his plans called for his departure in a few days. So he summoned the disciples by sending messengers with word about his leaving. The next day they gathered at their usual meeting place at the appointed time, and Paul addressed encouraging words to them.

Then followed the formal farewell (ἀσπασάμενος), and Paul left. It is understood that many escorted him for a considerable distance of his journey, for that was a regular custom. It is worth noting, however, that Luke does not write ἐξελθὼνἐπορεύθη, which would imply that Paul now chose this destination in order to have some place to go, but ἐξῆλθεπορεύεσθαι, the infinitive of purpose, “in order to be going,” i. e., carrying out a purpose and a plan that had been projected long ago.

Acts 20:2

2And having gone through those parts and having encouraged them with many a word, he came to Greece.

These few words cover the long journey overland from Ephesus to Corinth. It was interrupted by frequent stops. When Luke writes εἰςτὴνἘλλάδα he refers to Greece proper; heretofore he wrote “Achaia,” which is the Roman province that included Greece and Thessaly. Before leaving Ephesus, Paul had sent Titus to Corinth as a second messenger who was to go by ship and after completing his mission to return by land and meet Paul in Troas. Although Paul spent much time in the churches that lay between Ephesus and Troas, “encouraging them with many a word,” Titus had not appeared when he reached Troas. This worried Paul, for he feared that matters had gone illy in Corinth; so he hurried on into Macedonia, met Titus, received a most encouraging report from him, wrote Second Corinthians (2 Cor. 2:13; 7:5; 8:1, etc.), sent it ahead, most likely from Philippi, finished visiting the church in Macedonia, “having encouraged them with many a word” as he had done in the case of the rest, and so reached Greece, and in particular Corinth.

Acts 20:3

3And having spent three months, a plot having been laid against him by the Jews when he was about to set sail for Syria, he became of the opinion to return back through Macedonia.

We may take it that Paul left Ephesus in May, 57, reached Corinth at the end of that year, and left there so as to arrive in Philippi before Easter of 58. During the three months which he spent chiefly in Corinth he most likely wrote the letter to the Galatians and certainly the letter to the Romans. Then he planned to sail from Cenchraea, the harbor of Corinth, for Syria just as he had done after his first visit in Corinth which continued for eighteen months. But the Jews formed a plot against him and intended to murder him as he was about to set sail. Learning of it in some way, he changed his plans and went by land through Macedonia, thus coming to spend Easter in Philippi.

The Greek reads, “a plot having become for him,” αὑτῶ is the indirect object; to this pronoun there is attached μέλλοντι, “for him as about to set sail for Syria.” Codex Bezae inserts the remark that the Spirit told Paul to take the route overland, but this is an unnecessary comment, for Paul and his friends knew enough to circumvent the dastardly plot by changing their route as Luke reports they did. On the genitive γνώμης after ἐγένετο see R. 497 and 514: “he became of the opinion”; the infinitive with τοῦ simply modifies the noun as a genitive (R. 1060, 1076): “he became of the opinion of going back,” etc.

Acts 20:4

4Moreover, there were following with him until Asia, Sopater, son of Pyrrhus of Berea; and of Thessalonians, Aristarchus and Secundus; and Gaius, a Derbean, and Timothy; and Asians, Tychicus and Trophimus. These, however, having gone on ahead, were awaiting us at Troas. And we on our part set sail from Philippi after the days of the unleavend bread and came to them to Troas after five days, where we tarried seven days.

These seven men who accompanied Paul were bearers of the great collection Paul had arranged for in all his Gentile congregations during the two years preceding. A year before this he had written regarding it in 1 Cor. 16:1, etc.; then again in 2 Cor. 8 and 9. During the three months spent in Corinth he wrote regarding it in Rom. 15:25, just before he set out to deliver the funds in Jerusalem.

The seven here mentioned began the journey with Paul. The details are uncertain except that we may conclude from 1 Cor. 16:3 that each of the larger congregations elected its bearers of the funds. As the collecting had been done in a systematic way, so the transmission was arranged with an eye to safety, full satisfaction to the givers, and most beneficial effects on both donors and beneficiaries. In 19:21, 22 Paul’s plans include the disposal of these funds. He never thought of handling this money himself; he was too wise for that. In fact, 1 Cor. 16:4 reveals that he had not at that time as yet fully decided whether he himself would accompany the bearers of the money or not.

The phrase that the seven were following along “until Asia” which is omitted in some texts because it was probably puzzling, has received various interpretations. One opinion advanced is that Troas is referred to, but then Luke would have written Troas and not Asia, to which Troas did not belong. Moreover, the entire party, including Luke himself, certainly journeyed all the way to Jerusalem. Hence another opinion advanced is that Asia refers, not to the Roman province by that name, but to Asia in general. But this would be the only instance in Acts where the word has such a general meaning.

The best solution seems to be that “until Asia” marks the preliminary objective. The funds that had been gathered in the province of Asia and in the Galatian congregations would certainly not first be carried to Corinth or even to Troas when it was known that Paul would stop at Miletus in the province of Asia. Seven men, plus Luke, which makes eight, started from Europe; these either took charge of the remaining funds that had been gathered in Asia when they stopped at Miletus, or other bearers of those funds joined them there. So these eight followed along until Asia whence all sailed together for Palestine with all the funds.

One of the company came from Berea, and two came from Thessalonica, Luke from Philippi (v. 6), and thus there were four from the province of Macedonia. Next, one from Derbe, another from Lystra (Timothy, 16:1) are mentioned; these two came from the province of Galatia. Then two, the “Asians,” from the province of Asia. This omits the province of Achaia with its various congregations. Why there were no representatives from Achaia, from Corinth in particular, is a problem. We should rather expect at least two from these localities.

Some authorities state that Paul was himself entrusted with the funds from Achaia; but we cannot agree with this view, see 1 Cor. 16:3. We should much rather think of Timothy who was well known to the Corinthians and to the rest in Achaia. Moreover, we do not think that the funds were carried in coin, even in gold coin. That would have been inadvisable because of the distance traveled and because of the route followed. The amount would have been heavy, too bulky, too much exposed to robbery. It was carried in bills of exchange.

Sopater is the Sosipater, a former Jew, mentioned in Rom. 16:21, one of those whom Luke calls “more noble” (17:11). Aristarchus was mentioned in 19:29, but Secundus appears only here; both came from Thessalonica. The Greek reads “Gaius, a Derbean,” so that the only mention we have of this Gaius is here (see 19:29); we cannot translate “as Derbean also Timothy.” It has already (16:1) been stated that Timothy came from Lystra, hence nothing is added to his name at this point. Trophimus appears again in Jerusalem (21:29), he was an Ephesian and a former Gentile, he is mentioned also in 2 Tim. 4:20. Tychicus is mentioned often; Paul speaks highly of him in Eph. 6:21 and Col. 4:7, he was probably an Ephesian, 2 Tim. 4:12; Tit. 3:12.

5, 6) As Luke introduced himself in the “we” section 16:10–17, so he does here. He had apparently been left in Philippi in 16:40 and now appears in this city and joins Paul’s company. All we are able to determine is that he had spent the entire interval of about five years in Philippi, working in the congregation and at his profession as a physician.

These seven went directly to Troas and there waited for Luke and Paul. We do not know the reason that Luke and Paul remained behind and took ship “after the days of the unleavened bread.” If they wanted to observe these days, i. e., the Jewish Passover week, they could have done so in Troas as well as in Philippi. The view that Paul at times lived “Jewish” without, of course, compelling others to do so, cannot be introduced here, much less the view that he, whether together with Luke or without him, wanted to keep the Jewish festival in the way that was customary to the Jews of the diaspora. The story of Lydia reveals that there were practically no Jews in Philippi. Why should Paul remain here and separate himself from the other seven if participation in such a celebration was his object? Aristarchus was a former Jew, yet he goes on, and the former Gentile Luke alone remains with Paul.

In 16:11 the voyage from Troas to Neapolis, the harbor of Philippi, took only two days, the vessel going in “a straight course” under favorable winds; the return voyage took five days, for apparently the wind which was blowing in the same direction was most unfavorable. Paul had hastened away from Troas on coming from Ephesus (v. 1; 2 Cor. 2:12, 13). He now makes up for this, and he and his entire party remain there a full week. Luke has thus far said nothing about a congregation in Troas. We shall now hear of one, and 2 Cor. 2:12 shows why Paul was willing to delay here a week.

Acts 20:7

7Now on othe first day of the week, we being gathered together to break bread, Paul kept discoursing with them, being about to leave in the morning, and he was stretching the discourse out until midnight. Moreover, there were lamps sufficient in the upper room where we were gathered together.

We translate “on the first day of the week,” but the phrase is literally “on the first (day) with reference to the Sabbath,” i. e., on Sunday. The Jews had no definite names for the days of the week and hence designated them with reference to their Sabbath. The genitive was used in the Greek, and the plural τῶνσαββάτων means “Sabbath” and not “week” (as R., W. P., explains: “Sabbath to Sabbath”). This neuter plural is like the neuter plural that is used in the names of festivals and is thus idiomatic; so also is the cardinal μία instead of the ordinal πρώτη, which is properly explained by R. 671, etc. Luke refers to Sunday exactly as his dative does in Luke 24:1, and Sunday in our sense of the word, so that “until midnight” follows the daylight of Sunday. John 20:14 is clear on this point: “It being evening on that day, the first day of the week.”

The Jewish day began at sundown, and when Luke writes “Sabbath” and “unleavened” (v. 6) he is using Jewish expressions. But we must note that this company did not assemble after dark, as we do for evening service, but already before dark, hence on Sunday as Jews, too, would say. Moreover, “until midnight” simply follows “on the first day of the week” without saying that it was the midnight of this or of that day. Zahn ingeniously counts back the days Luke mentions and thus finds that the Jewish Easter of this year 58 occurred on a Tuesday, this being the fourteenth of Nisan, but when the astronomers treat the matter they arrive at no unanimity in their calculations as far as dating this Easter according to our calendar is concerned.

It is true that this is the first Christian service, held on a Sunday, that is recorded in Acts; yet little can be proved from it since it was a special service in every way, and Paul and his company left early on Monday morning. It was the last opportunity for him and for them to meet the congregation. We feel that if this had been some other day of the week, such a final service would have been held. If this had been a Sunday morning service, it would be of more help to us in establishing Sunday as the regular day of worship in the apostolic congregation. We, indeed, think that a morning service was held at Troas on this Sunday although no mention of it is made by Luke. We also think that Paul purposely started his journey on Monday.

Much more important regarding Sunday as the day of worship is what Paul wrote to the Corinthians several months before this in 1 Cor. 16:2; for this deals with regular Sunday worship. With this we combine John 20:19, and, as being of great importance, Rev. 1:10. Jewish Christians may for a time have retained the seventh day of the week; but in the Gentile churches, as 1 Cor. 16:2 certainly shows, the first day was the day of public worship. This day was sacred from the time mentioned in John 20:19, as the day of Christ’s resurrection, and at once became more sacred as commemorating also the day of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. The break with the Jewish Sabbath became decisive the moment the converted Jews withdrew from the synagogue; they no longer wanted to be identified with the hostile Jews, and the keeping of Sunday in place of Saturday thus received a strong impetus from the beginning.

But there is no command anywhere in the New Testament obligating believers to observe Sunday. In the old covenant Saturday was fixed by divine law for the Jews. In the new covenant no day is fixed in any manner by any law. The supposition that Christ or his apostles transferred the legal sanction from Saturday to Sunday is without support. To call our Sunday the Christian “Sabbath” is to apply a wrong and misleading name. Sunday as a day of rest and worship for Christians is just about the opposite of the Jewish Sabbath.

The latter was wholly compulsory, the former is altogether voluntary. We keep Sunday because we want and need it for the public worship without which we cannot get along in our Christian life. The Lord wants his Word preached and taught, and that publicly; to do that to the best advantage we must have a set day. The old covenant serves as an example. Thus without any legal constraint whatever, in the most natural and voluntary manner, and in the sensible and wholesome exercise of our New Testament liberty, with the greatest unanimity since the earliest apostolic days, Sunday is our day of public worship. We refuse to attach anything legal to it that may be in conflict with Col. 2:16, or Gal. 5:1.

See The Augustana, article 28, §§ 57–60, C. Tr. 91, etc.

The perfect participle συνηγμένων has its durative force so that we translate “being gathered together.” The purpose of the gathering was “to break bread.” This was evidently not merely to dine together but to dine in the Agape which was followed by the Lord’s Supper in the usual manner of this time (2:42; 1 Cor. 10:16) The absence of the article with “bread” is quite immaterial. To imagine that the Agape was celebrated in the early evening, and the Lord’s Supper after midnight, because of the expression with the article used in v. 11, is fanciful. After the tables had been cleared away, Paul began to discourse and was stretching his discourse out until midnight, two imperfect tenses, that are descriptive and intimate that something is to follow.

Acts 20:8

8Before this follows, we have the parenthetical remark (δέ) about the many lights in the upper room where they were gathered. The remark that it was dark because it was already so far past full moon is inadequate, because lights were needed during any night, moon or no moon. Nor does Luke mention the lamps as a proof that he saw what happened; even if he had not seen it with his own eyes, he could have learned all the facts. Mention of the lamps does not mean that Eutychus had no occasion to go to sleep; or the opposite, that the smoke from the many lamps made the young man drowsy and made him seek the window seat. Luke, of course, proves himself an eyewitness, but he has already stated his presence. The sense of Luke’s statement is that the room was brilliantly lighted and not just dimly with a few lamps; hence those near the young man should certainly have seen him nodding, noted his danger, and have aroused him.

Luke conveys the idea that in spite of the brilliant light nobody noticed the young man. Some speak of a very large assembly, but “upper room,” even when it is crowded, implies only a moderate number of people. The congregation was small, quite so if all present found room for the breaking of bread in this room; ἦμεν with the perfect participle is the periphrastic past perfect.

Acts 20:9

9Now a young man by name Eutychus, sitting at the window, gradually being borne down by sleep while Paul was discoursing, still longer completely borne down by his sleep, fell down from the third story and was taken up dead.

Eutychus = fortunate, the Latin Fortunatus; according to R., W. P., this was common as a name for slaves. His sitting on the window sill was not due to the smoke or the heat from the lamps, for how about the other people? The window sill afforded a seat, somebody took it, and it was this youth. The diminutive θυρίς from θύρα, “little door,” is used for our “window.” 2 Cor. 11:33. The present participle καταφερόμενος describes how he was gradually being borne down by sound sleep; then the aorist participle κατενεχθείς states the fact that he was completely borne down or overcome.

The significance of the tenses is striking, the more so since the three participles used are without connectives. The genitive absolute, “Paul discoursing still longer,” as “still longer” shows, is to be construed with the final participle as showing how the young man became completely unconscious and thus fell out of the window from the third story and was taken up dead.

Luke says “dead” and not “as dead.” We have every reason to suppose that as a physician Luke hurried down with the others and examined the youth himself and found that life was extinct. The youth was not hastily and mistakenly pronounced dead. The view that “dead” does not mean that his soul had left the body is untenable, for that is exactly what “dead” means. Equally untenable is the idea that, when death sets in, the soul still hovers near the body. This is the old superstition that is back of so many superstitious practices connected with dying and with funerals. One practice was to move everything in the house and in the barns in order to make the place look strange, so that the soul would not linger to haunt the place.

Even the cattle were changed about in the stalls, the beehives moved, etc. Some people still stop all the clocks in the house, turn pictures and mirrors to the wall, or at least throw a sheet over the latter. This explains the Irish wake and its remnant today of sitting up with the dead body. The soul, still present, must be amused, and the greater the hilarity, the better. After the funeral everybody returns to the house for a feast, the soul also returning; in some places a vacant chair was placed at the table, a towel was thrown over its back, and the feast was prolonged. We have remnants of these superstitious practices today although people no longer know just why they do such peculiar things.

This is the real basis for the idea that at death the soul hovers near the body for a time. Some commentators have introduced that idea here. Ahaziah fell out of a window without killing himself, 2 Kings 1:2.

Acts 20:10

10Before Paul could run down, the young man had been taken up and, as we may suppose, carried into the house. Were any of his bones broken? Luke is reticent, keeping only to the main facts. And Paul, having gone down, fell upon him and, after having embraced him, said, Stop making noise! For his soul is in him.

The commentators are divided in their views. Some think the young man was dead, others that he was not dead. But Luke writes “dead”: “was taken up νεκρός,” and tells us briefly how this “dead” man was restored to life. Luke even says that Paul proceeded much as Elijah (1 Kings 17:21) and Elisha (2 Kings 4:34) did in connection with two plain cases of actual death.

Note the clearness of Luke’s verb forms, all are aorists. Paul ran down and “fell on” the young man. The verb is finite and not a participle. A participle might express action that is simultaneous with εἶπε, so that Paul spoke as he fell on the young man, said that his soul was in him as an explanation as to why he fell on him. But this idea is excluded by the finite verb. This makes fully clear the participle “having embraced” him, for it repeats and amplifies the finite verb “fell on him.” The point of Luke’s verb forms is that after these actions Paul spoke as he did. The young man, taken up dead, has his soul in him, i. e., is alive after Paul fell on him and embraced him. Luke says no more—it is enough. Paul brought the dead man’s soul back as Elijah and Elisha had done.

Negative commands in the present imperative often mean to stop an action already begun. So here the people had already begun their loud lament for the dead, and Paul tells them to stop it (R. 851, etc.). The verb is the same as that used in Matt. 9:23 with reference to the same noise of lament for the dead; Mark 5:38, 39 has both the noun and the verb. Paul’s action is illy explained by saying that, in order not to have the grief over this fatal accident mar his departure, he made use of the charismatic gift bestowed on him and brought the youth back to life. These gifts do not operate at will and for personal reasons. Paul did what Peter had done in the case of Dorcas. Both prayed to know the Lord’s will in the case, and not until Paul had embraced the dead man did he know the Lord’s will, in other words, not until he spoke as he did.

Acts 20:11

11And having gone up and broken the bread and tasted food and having conversed a long while until dawn, he thus went out. And they brought the lad living and were in not a little comforted.

Once more we disagree with some commentators, those who think that the Agape and the Lord’s Supper were observed after the miracle, after midnight, and base this view on the article in the expression “having broken the bread.” We submit, first of all, that in v. 7 Luke states, “we being assembled in order to break bread.” This was the purpose of the meeting. The meeting was held early in the evening, at the usual time for the δεῖπνον. Everybody brought food, and it would be strange, indeed, if by his discourse which continued for some five hours Paul had delayed the very purpose for which all had assembled. No, the bread was broken, let us say, about seven o’clock. This action was not hurried. After the meal was over, Paul began his discourse, the length of which Luke accounts for by saying that the apostle was to leave in the morning.

We now add that after the miracle Luke speaks only about Paul and not about the company (“we” in v. 7). He breaks the bread—some of that originally brought —and Luke adds a second participle by way of explanation: he tastes food. Why this singular if all are referred to? And why this second participle if the Lord’s Supper is referred to or is included as the chief thing? The answer that Paul acted as the host is not an answer. Why should it be said of any host that he “tasted food”?

Luke would be writing rather strangely if he had in mind that all waited until so late a time for the Sacrament and that all now took food for the first time.

But somebody might object that Paul could not have eaten alone. True. The answer is that Luke has indicated the presence of Paul’s assistants only in the lone pronoun ἡμῶν, “we,” in v. 7, and has centered attention on Paul in relating the events of this night. So he now says that Paul ate and that Paul went out—his eight helpers are certainly included. They were all to embark with Paul, and so they ate with him. Immediately after midnight, so early?

Why stress so? Paul did not hurry. The excitement caused by the miracle did not at once die down. Please allow some of that excitement for Paul himself. He ate in due time and then spent the time until dawn, still quite a space of time (ἐφʼ ἱκανόν), in conversation—Luke purposely changes from “to discourse” which he has used in both v. 7 and 9. One may even guess what the conversation was about—the miracle which all had witnessed was in the minds of all.

Acts 20:12

12“They brought the lad” is indefinite as to the subject and refers to those present. The view that he had been slowly recovering overlooks the fact that miracles do not operate in that way. When the Lord works a miracle he does so with completeness. The Codex Bezae introduces a curious substitution: “while they were taking farewell, he (Paul) brought the young man in living.” This has received an even more curious interpretation: the young man kept hold of Paul’s hand when going downstairs, and he and Paul were the ones most comforted, Paul especially needing this comfort. The story, however, is much simpler. At the end of v. 11 Paul left, and that means that he left the young man and all.

The Christians of Troas, of course, also left and thus brought the lad “alive” or “living,” the emphasis being on this participle. They had carried him in “dead,” now they brought him living and that is what filled them with so much comfort and cheer, literally, “not moderately,” a litotes for “exceedingly.”

Acts 20:13

13Now we on our part, having gone in advance to the boat, set sail for Assos, intending there to pick up Paul; for so he had arranged, intending himself to go on foot. And when he met us at Assos, having picked him up, we went to Mitylene. And having sailed thence, we arrived on the following day opposite Chios; and on the next day we touched at Samos; and on the coming day we came to Miletus.

Ramsay’s explanation of this coastwise voyage with its regular stops helps to explain also the start. Sometime after midnight the wind sets in from the north and blows regularly until late in the afternoon. So Paul’s eight companions went to the boat in advance, i. e., in advance of the start Paul himself made; they had to be aboard by the time the wind rose and the boat weighed anchor. Paul had given directions to them to pick him up (ἀναλαμβάνειν) at Assos, beyond which point the boat did not attempt to go on the first day but lay over for the night. The Assian stone near the city was supposed to have flesh-consuming properties; hence the stone coffins were called sarcophagi, “flesh consumers.” Paul intended to go afoot, the distance being twenty miles on a good Roman road. Some take πεζεύειν to mean “to go by land” in the sense of to ride (Blass, quoted by M.-M.); Zahn cites one lone example, a man riding in a litter, going by the feet of others.

The classics use the word with reference to going by land instead of by water, but then it is always afoot and only so by land. We shall have to regard Paul as using his pedes apostolorum. The vessel had to pass around Cape Lectum and thus traveled a greater distance. It was beautiful spring weather, Monday, April 25 (Ramsay), which is nearly if not exactly correct (see v. 7 regarding the calendar). Paul, too, had plenty of time.

A number of reasons are presented as to why he chose to walk, and that after being awake the whole night before; we just do not know why he chose to do this.

Acts 20:14

14He was duly picked up at Assos, and the boat finished its day’s run at Mitylene, a beautiful city on the island of Lesbos. In 1925 the writer passed through these same waters, coming from Constantinople and the Hellespont, past the site of ancient Troy, past Mitylene, landing at devastated Smyrna, passing Chios, Samos, Cos, landing also at Rhodes, passing Paphos at the tip of the island of Cyprus, landing at Lanarka, then arriving at Beiruth. The voyage was filled with memories of Paul. The imperfect συνέβαλλεν is an unexplained tense. Two texts have the aorist συνέβαλεν, the form one expects, but this in no way helps to explain the imperfect that is found in all the other texts. R., W. P., suggests the inchoative sense: “began to meet us,” but this is too odd to be satisfactory.

Acts 20:15

15The vessel stopped for the night at Mitylene. The next day’s run, Tuesday’s, took the party opposite the island of Chios. Here they again lay for the night, waiting for the early morning wind. The third day’s run took them to the island of Samos. Here the Codex Bezae adds the comment that they “remained” (the night) in Trogyllium. The strait between this small place and the island of Chios is only a mile wide, and the vessel may, indeed, have anchored at Trogyllium although Luke himself does not say so.

Miletus was not far away, yet the vessel did not attempt to reach this harbor where it expected to lie over for several days. Ramsay’s explanation is best: the wind died down during the late afternoon and did not rise again until between midnight and dawn. Others attribute the stops during the night to the dark of the moon. Early on Thursday Miletus was reached. It has been thought that Paul and his party chartered the boat, but this is rather improbable.

Acts 20:16

16It is based on the following. For Paul had judged to sail past Ephesus in order that he might not have to spend time in Asia; for he was hastening if it might be possible for him to be at Jerusalem for the day of Pentecost.

The past perfect κεκρίκει (here without an augment) does not mean that Paul gave the captain of the boat orders where to make a landing, and hence that Paul and his party had chartered the boat. Paul had judged it best when he planned his journey in Troas to sail past Ephesus by embarking in a vessel that would not stop at Ephesus but would dock for some days at Miletus, there discharging its cargo and reloading. Paul’s purpose was (ὅπωςμή with the subjunctive) not to spend time in Asia. And the reason (γάρ) for this purpose was his desire to get to Jerusalem for Pentecost. He certainly got there even with some days to spare. But he could not have done so if he had taken a boat that stopped at Ephesus.

He would have been detained not only in Ephesus but, as Luke says, in Asia, referring to the province with its many important congregations. The clamor for him to stay for a while, to go here and there, would have been too great.

We must not forget that the men who were with him had the funds for the relief work in Jerusalem, and Paul wanted to be with them when this money was delivered. He had spent a long time in having these funds collected. He had higher purposes than merely relief; his object was the unity of all the churches, a welding together of the Gentile congregations he had founded with the original Jewish congregations in the motherland, especially with Jerusalem. So he felt that he must accompany the committee sent by his Gentile churches. He had left Philippi immediately after the Jewish Easter, had spent a week at Troas, had left there on April 25, and had now arrived at Miletus on April 28. The rest of the journey would be as follows: from Miletus May 1, Rhodes May 2, Patara May 3, Myra May 4, Tyre probably May 7, seven days at Tyre, Ptolemais May 13, Caesarea May 14, giving him time until May 28 to reach Jerusalem.

One may freely allow a few more days. These dates are relatively correct for the time between the Jewish Easter and Pentecost even if these festivals did not in the year 58 occur on the dates assigned by Ramsay, for the interval between the two festivals was always fifty days. But a delay at Ephesus would have upset this itinerary as far as spending Pentecost in Jerusalem was concerned. The accusative “for the day of Pentecost” is correct; for Paul did not want to arrive “at Pentecost” (dative) but to be in Jerusalem for the entire day, i. e., arriving a few days in advance.

So “he was hastening,” the imperfect tense to indicate hastening all along. “If it might be possible,” the condition of potentiality, εἰ with the optative, refers only to unforeseen contingencies on a voyage such as this; Paul himself would have said, “God willing,” as he did for instance in 18:21. The effort to put more into this conditional clause, especially the conclusion that Paul did not reach Jerusalem as planned, is without warrant.

Acts 20:17

17Now having sent from Miletus to Ephesus, he summoned the elders of the church. And when they came to him, he said, etc.

There is no need to inquire as to the messengers nor as to the route they took. Paul had two “Asians” in his party (v. 4); they would be the men to be sent. And they started at once, on the morning the boat docked in Miletus. The distance to Ephesus was about thirty miles. With haste already implied (v. 16), the elders could reach Paul by the end of the next day.

Acts 20:18

18We see that they came promptly. After the pathetic leavetaking the elders conducted Paul to the boat (v. 38). The boat would leave before dawn. We thus take it that the address to the elders was made somewhere in Miletus and either in the evening or late in the afternoon. The news that Paul, their beloved apostle, was only thirty miles away and waiting for them must have filled the Ephesian elders with joy and eagerness to reach him. Traveling on such an errand, a distance of thirty miles would offer no difficulty at all even if it was made entirely afoot.

In those days men walked. They may have been weary when they arrived, but the sight of their great friend and teacher dispelled all fatigue. So small a group: a few elders, Paul, his eight companions—yet an immortal meeting! The great theater in Miletus where the crowds gathered, which is now in ruins, is forgotten like the nameless crowds that gathered there; but the words this one man Paul spoke to a handful of men somewhere in this harbor city still throb with life and power as when they were uttered that day. Here are immortal truths; here throbs a heart moved with those truths to a tenderness and a love which they alone could beget. Paul’s address to the Ephesian elders is a shining page even in the New Testament.

You yourselves know, from the first day that I stepped into Asia, how I was with you the entire time, serving the Lord with all humble-mindedness and tears and trials that befell me in connection with the plots of the Jews; how nothing of the things profitable did I shrink from proclaiming to you and from teaching you in public and from house to house, testifying both to Jews and Greeks the repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.

Paul reviews briefly his life and his work in Ephesus. It was what he had wanted it to be. He is not passing judgment on himself and disregarding the saying that Eingenlob stinkt, but appealing to the judgment of the Ephesian elders, men tried and true, who were chosen elders for this very reason: “You yourselves (ὑμεῖς, emphatic) know,” etc. Paul’s work was entirely open and known, subject to the judgment of friend and of foe alike. Paul knew what these elders thought concerning his work. So begin and carry forward your work, whatever the Lord allots to you, that, when it is finished, you, too, can submit it fearlessly to men tried and true and be assured of what their judgment will be.

To be sure, it is only the judgment of men and not yet that of God. Paul himself points to the difference in 1 Cor. 4:1–4. He knew that men often bestow both praise and blame in biased fashion, blaming him who does not agree with them, praising him who does, whether they themselves are right or wrong. By what they say of another they thus merely try to justify themselves (Luke 10:29; 16:15). For this reason Paul appeals to the facts regarding himself, facts which stand on their own feet even if men should deny them or pass adverse judgment upon them. And he includes all of them, “from the first day that I stepped into Asia,” ἀπό is repeated with the relative: “from the first day on from which,” etc. “How I was with you the entire time,” extending to three years, indicates a time that was long enough to permit Paul to become thoroughly known.

Acts 20:19

19Paul singles out the vital features by mentioning his serving the Lord in ways that were not open to question, secondly (v 20, 21), his teaching the Word in ways that again were not open to question. By δουλεύων he declares that he had ever shown himself a δοῦλος or “slave” of the Lord, one who submitted his own will completely to his divine Lord and took all orders and directions from him alone Now follow three weighty modifiers that are bound together by one preposition: “with humble-mindedness and tears and trials,” etc. These three marked his “slaving for the Lord.” Note well, “all, i. e., complete humble-mindedness,” the true inner feeling of one who is in truth a slave of the Lord. It always marked Paul’s character and was manifested in many different ways that were apparent to men. He had no trace of pride in himself, he laid his very life at his Master’s feet The very greatness of this high apostle lay in his lowly-mindedness. He was an example for all lesser men.

One is surprised to hear about “tears,” yea, to find “tears” repeated in v 31; compare also 2 Cor. 2:4; Phil. 3:18. He then mentions trials that came to him from the Jews. At least some of those tears must have been caused by Paul’s sad, sad experiences with these men of his own race. We catch only a glimpse of the activity of the Jews in Ephesus in Luke’s record (19:33); but it is enough to show us that here, too, they were enemies of Paul. How deeply he felt for his own people, and what price he was ready to pay for their conversion, his own letter, written only a few weeks before in Corinth, Rom. 9:1–3, reveals. Did others also press tears from the eyes of Paul?

Now he was not a feminine type of man in any sense of the word; the more significant are these tears, yea, and noteworthy the fact that he does not shrink from speaking about them. We shall have to make a new mental picture of this man Paul, one that we have perhaps never visioned before. Not for injuries that he received did he ever shed tears. These he bore without a quiver of the lip. These tears accompany his working as a slave for the Lord. They were pressed out by a heart that was wrenched with pain when he saw men obdurately rejecting the Lord. That is why these tears probably seem so strange to us—our own callous hearts have not drawn us so completely to the Lord that, as he wept over the obduracy of Jerusalem (Luke 19:41), we, too, might shed tears when we behold similar sights, tears such as those of Paul.

He speaks of trials that were due to plots of the Jews. We know that such plots were made elsewhere; they have run through Luke’s record of Paul’s life since the apostle’s experience at Damascus. It is only natural to find that Ephesus was no exception. Luke perhaps omitted them in his account of the work at Ephesus because they would be mentioned here in his record of Paul’s address which Luke himself heard.

Acts 20:20

20Ὡς parallels the πῶς occurring in v. 18. First, the Lord in Paul’s work; secondly, the Lord’s Word, Paul’s work of teaching. His one motive and sole purpose was not to conceal or to hold back a single thing of all that was profitable to his hearers. He never tried to save himself or to seek the slightest advantage for himself. It is so easy just to keep still on some points; one may even hide his real motive from himself when doing so and persuade himself that he is following the promptings of wisdom. “I did not shrink,” Paul says, and that is the correct word. For we naturally shrink when we anticipate hurt or loss as the result of what we ought to teach and preach.

The infinitive with τοῦ is the ablative after a verb of hindering, denying, etc., and the negative μή is retained although it is not necessary, R. 1094. Note the two infinitives: “from proclaiming and from teaching,” both are effective aorists, the one referring to announcements, the other to instructions, both “in public and from house to house,” Paul using every opportunity.

Acts 20:21

21And now the modal present participle states that all this announcing and this teaching were ever done by way of “testifying both to Jews and Greeks,” etc. Paul’s own soul and person were put into all his announcing and his teaching. The participle has the effective διά. With his whole soul Paul believed and lived what he propounded to others. It welled up out of his own heart like a living stream. He did not have to put his heart into it; it came out of his heart. This is one secret of Paul’s power as missionary, preacher, and teacher. We can tell about it, but that helps very little. The fire of divine truth must catch in the heart, then the flames will glow in testimony and will set other hearts afire. It is like Paul’s tears—unknown language to all who do not know it from experience.

Jews and Greeks—Paul made no difference but kept this order (1:8) here as always. The entire gospel is centered in “the repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.” Let no man violate what Paul here says by persuading himself that this repentance and this faith signify two brief doctrines, all else in the Bible being immaterial, non-fundamental, or whatever word may be chosen. Repentance includes all of the law, and faith all of the gospel, and these two comprise the Scriptures. On repentance see 2:38 where the verb is used. And πιστις is the heart’s trust and confidence in “our Lord Jesus Christ.” the very name being an epitome of the gospel, see 1:6, 1:21; 2:22, 36. But note that Luke uses only one article with the two nouns: τὴνμετάνοιανκαὶπὶστιν He thereby indicates that repentance and faith constitute a unit idea in Paul’s mind.

Either noun involves the other; either might be used alone in the present connection. The use of both after one article is more effective, strong, and clear.

Acts 20:22

22From the past which has thus been summarized Paul turns to the present and the future. And now, Io, I on my part, as bound in the spirit, am going to Jerusalem, not knowing the things in it that shall meet me save that the Holy Spirit is testifying to me from city to city, saying that fetters and afflictions are awaiting me. But I deem the life of no account as dear to me in order to finish my course and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.

“And now” marks the turn to the present, and “lo” points to what is indeed remarkable—he who has been so faithful to the Lord and to his Word has fetters and afflictions awaiting him as his reward! As the elders know, he is now on his way to Jerusalem, but he goes as one who “has been and thus is now bound (this is the force of the perfect participle) in the spirit” (locative dative to indicate where the binding holds Paul, namely in his own spirit). An inward constraint urges Paul to go on. The fact that this does not refer merely to the decision of his own will, one that he could alter at any time, should be evident; the passive participle points to a higher agent that holds Paul bound to go to Jerusalem, an agent to whom Paul was wholly submissive in the direction of his life. He confesses that he does not know what things shall meet him in Jerusalem, εἰδώς, the second perfect participle is always used as a present. In τὰσυναντήσοντα we have one of the few future participles which is futuristic and not volitive.

Acts 20:23

23Πλήν with a ὅτι clause following is best taken as a preposition, the clause as the object (B.-D. 449, 1), and not as an adverb (R. 646). One thing Paul does know, namely that the Holy Spirit is testifying to him in city after city (κατά is distributive) that fetters (imprisonment) and afflictions (pressure from all sides) are awaiting him. We must note the implication that, by thus forewarning Paul, the Holy Spirit is really binding him to go to Jerusalem, telling him of the divine will that he endure these things. In his previous record Luke has said nothing about these communications to Paul; he will mention one notable instance a little later, the prophecy of Agabus in Caesarea (21:10–14). For the present Luke lets Paul’s own words on this subject suffice. We are to know at least this much, that Paul knew the nature of what he was going to meet.

Acts 20:24

24Instead of being deterred, he went bravely on with one mighty purpose dominating him. We see this brave spirit in the words: “But I deem the life of no account as dear to me.” The readings vary but not enough to make us doubtful. The middle ποιοῦμαι is used in the sense of “deem,” “hold” (Liddell and Scott), much as we, too, use “make” in expressions such as this: “He makes (deems, considers) it an honor or a calamity.” Οὑδενὸςλόγου is the genitive of price; and τιμίαν is the necessary limiting predicate adjective (scarcely an apposition, R., W. P.). Paul does consider his life of account but not of account as far as it is dear to him himself. He is willing, to die at any time for the Lord’s name (21:13; Phil. 1:20, 21). The emphasis is on οὑδενὸςλόγου and on τιμίανἐμαυτῷ: “Of not one word’s value do I consider my life as far as its being dear just to myself is concerned.” He would not utter even one word to save his life in order that he might have it.

The purpose for which we do a thing is often our reason for doing it; philosophers call this “the final cause.” Such is the purpose here, which is expressed by ὡς with the subjunctive. In regard to the reading ὡς, this is almost solidly assured (ὥστε is only a conjecture to match the infinitive); but it is a question whether to read the aorist subjunctive (a possible future indicative) τελειῶσαι, or the aorist infinitive τελειῶσαι (see R. 987). The former reading would be the last lone example in the New Testament of ὡς as a final particle: “in order that I may finish my course and the ministry,” etc.; the latter would be the adverb: “as finishing,” etc. Paul is governed by one purpose only, in which his life is not even a pawn; it is the finishing of his apostolic course, meaning the διακονία or ministry which he received from the Lord Jesus. The Lord gave this work of serving to him, and Paul wants to finish it in whatever way the Lord has planned for him. Here is the place to recall that so many of Paul’s movements were directly guided by the Lord, for instance, not to go to Asia or to Bithynia (16:6, 7), to continue in Corinth (18:9–11), etc.

With an appositional infinitive Paul further describes his office: “to testify the gospel of the grace of God.” He is always a master in describing his office. He repeats the testifying which he had mentioned in v. 21 and thereby shows what importance he attached to this significant term. “The gospel” is the good news, and its contents is “the grace of God,” the divine favor extended through the atoning merits of Christ to the guilty, damned sinner to free him forever from this guilt and to receive him as God’s child. Not a single word used here should be discounted and reduced in substance or in extent. Some call their preaching “gospel” when it does not comply with Paul’s description in whole or in part; Paul settles his account with them in Gal. 1:6, 7.

Acts 20:25

25The seriousness of what lay before Paul is made fully evident at this point. And now, lo, I for my part know that not again shall you see my face, you all among whom I went through heralding the kingdom.

The first words parallel v. 22. Once more we have a surprise—Paul does not expect that these Ephesian elders will ever see his face again! The idea is not that he expects to die in Jerusalem itself—he dos not know where it will be but is convinced that it will be. This conviction runs through Paul’s entire address and gives it such an affecting tone. A spiritual father is taking a last leave from his spiritual children.

The emphatic ἐγώ, “I for my part know,” helps to indicate that Paul is expressing only his own conviction. Without receiving a warning from the Spirit, he had repeatedly been in mortal danger; now he had had a warning concerning “fetters and afflictions” and thus he thought his course was coming to its end. As a matter of fact, he was imprisoned for four long years. Then he was freed, revisited Corinth, Troas, Miletus (2 Tim. 4:13, 20), even Ephesus itself (1 Tim. 1:3, compared with 4:13). Nothing is gained by denying that he paid a visit to the latter place, for Paul says, “you all among whom I went through heralding the kingdom,” and refers to Ephesus and to many other places he “went through.” The Ephesian elders were only representatives of all these places. So these people saw the apostle’s face again—he did not die as soon as he had expected.

It is, of course, not necessary to assume that Paul spoke this address by inspiration (rather revelation); for, beyond question, the apostles were not always inspired (did not have a revelation on every point.) Yet this word of Paul’s regarding himself is really no proof that on this occasion he spoke without inspiration, it only shows that he had no revelation regarding the time of his death. He differentiates most clearly between what the Holy Spirit actually testified to him (v. 23) and what he himself felt he knew in addition to that testimony. Why should the Spirit not permit him to say that? “Heralding the kingdom” (see 1:3) was Paul’s great διακονία, proclaiming the blessed rule “of the grace of God.”

Acts 20:26

26For this reason I let testify for myself to you on this day that I am clean from the blood of all. For I did not shrink from proclaiming to you all the counsel of God.

Διότι, “because,” and διό, “therefore,” are not always closely differentiated; here the former is used much like the latter. But the middle μαρτύρομαι is most exact; Paul is not testifying (which would be μαρτυρέω) but is letting a great fact that no one can contradict and question testify for him. It is the fact “that I am clean from the blood of all” (compare 18:6) according to Ezek. 3:18–21, which see; ἀπό is ablative in sense and not a Hebraism (R. 576). “Blood” is a pregnant, metonymical term for the guilt involved in bringing about death, here eternal death. On the great judgment day none of the lost from this territory shall be able to point to Paul and say that his is the guilt. Whoever may be guilty, Paul is pure from this terrible stain. The apostle wants this fact to testify to these elders ἐντῇσήμερονἡμέρᾳ, literally, “on the today day,” this day of parting, which Paul expects to be final and which these elders will not soon forget.

Acts 20:27

27It is one thing to disclaim such bloodguilt; it is quite another to be able to back up that disclaimer as Paul was able to do. “For” proves that the testimony Paul cites is most certainly true. “I did not shrink from proclaiming to you” repeats v. 20 (which see, also as to μή with the infinitive). Here we again have the implication that, if Paul had considered men only or selfish personal advantages, he might, indeed, have kept back this or that part of his teaching, for it often ran counter to Jewish bigotry and heathen prejudice, and it often offended Christian ignorance and narrowness. But Paul ever bore in mind the accounting he would have to render to his Lord at the last day. So he proclaimed “all the counsel of God,” the entire will of God, every doctrine and every truth of God, omitting, altering, toning down nothing. He had no peculiar personal views, he followed no peculiar policy. He especially did not omit what was difficult and hard to set forth, unpalatable and obnoxious to human reason, out of harmony with the spirit of the times.

He was neither reactionary nor progressive; for “the whole counsel of God” is changeless. He put justification by faith into the center because God put it there, but he treated a large number of other points as well, each in its place. Now he is ready for his final accounting. Heb. 13:17: “As they that must give account.”

Here there is presented the full responsibility of everyone who undertakes to herald the kingdom. No man on earth can lessen it, least of all you yourself. Here let a man examine himself How many preachers have blood on their conscience? Paul purposely used this bloody word Be not ready to absolve yourself too quickly Make sure! Correlate these expressions: “the things profitable” (v. 19)—“the repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ” (v. 21)—“the gospel of the grace of God” (v. 24)—“the kingdom” (v. 25)—“all the counsel of God” (v. 27) Each casts light on the others.

Acts 20:28

28Not until after Paul has dealt fully with himself does he deal with others. Only what he has done does he ask others also to do Be taking heed to your own selves and to all the flock in which the Holy Spirit set you as overseers, to shepherd the church of God which he purchased for himself through his own blood.

Προσέχω with and without τὸννοῦν, “to hold the mind toward something,” is our “to take heed”, and the present imperative is used to express constant heeding. He who is to take heed of others must first take heed to himself Be clean yourself before you try to cleanse others. Be taught yourself before you try to teach others. Be light yourself before you try to give light to others. Be near to God yourself before you attempt to bring others near. So Paul did, so he bade these elders do, and that pertains to you.

Paul uses the beautiful figure of “the flock” which Jesus himself used in John 10:11, etc.; Luke 12:32. It harks back to the Old Testament. But we must get the full force of the figure as it is contained in the relation of the shepherd to his own flock. We see it in David who fought a lion and a bear at the risk of his own life in order to save only one sheep of the flock. Jesus has intensified and even glorified this figure. He is “the good Shepherd,” John 10:11; “the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls,” I Pet. 2:25; “the great Shepherd of the sheep,” Heb. 13:20. See how he reinstates Peter in John 21:15, etc.

The church is a body, a united flock, and not a large number of individual sheep—a great fact for Christians as well as for pastors. Sheep are not dogs, and we must think of dogs in the Oriental sense, ownerless, scavengers, etc. Sheep as a flock are precious, follow the shepherd, depend on him; it is a crime to be a hireling, to abuse the confidence of the flock; it is the devil’s work to scatter the flock. All this and more lies in the word ποίμνιον, diminutive from ποίμνη, but only in form, not in sense. “All” the flock—Paul binds every sheep upon the hearts of these elders. “All”—not merely the pastor’s friends, a faction he has allowed to form that clings to him, the well-to-do, neglecting the poor and the unassuming. The true shepherd knows no dividing line, no factions, loves every sheep, especially the weak and the needy. The lambs as well as the sheep—how often these are neglected! If your heart is not big enough to embrace “all the flock,” it is not big enough to shepherd any of the flock.

Paul brings out the sacred obligation and trust connected with the pastorate: “in which the Holy Spirit did set you as overseers.” We have nothing to add to what we said in connection with 11:30 in regard to “elders” and their other title “overseers,” both of which are used for what we now call “pastors,” the former stressing the honor, the latter the type of work. The title “bishops” as distinct from “pastors” is a later use of the term “overseer”; they oversee a diocese of many congregations and their pastors. It is the Holy Spirit who sets or places overseers in the flock. The entire church is under his guidance; and in every true call, ordination, and installation we see the work of the Holy Spirit. It is a vast comfort to every true pastor that the Holy Spirit placed him in the flock he serves. But how about hypocrites in the pastorate, humanly manipulated calls? The devil’s work in the church in this and in other directions must be purged out, but its presence here and there in no way alters the Spirit’s true work.

In the Greek ποίμνιον and ποιμαίνειν are cognate, the infinitive is the object of “take heed” “To shepherd” is broad and includes the entire work of the pastor: leading, feeding, guarding, etc In John 21:15, 17 Jesus used also βόσκειν, “to pasture” or to feed, which refers especially to teaching, this being the chief feature of the task. Neither Paul nor Jesus know of a flock that leads and manages itself and has a shepherd only to feed it. These inventions plague the church today

There is a difference of opinion regarding the reading, “the church of God, which he purchased for himself through his own blood.” Some think the reading should be, “the church of the Lord.” Here are the decisive points. Almost invariably Paul uses the expression “the church of God,” in fact, this or an equivalent genitive occurs twenty times and never “the church of the Lord”; “of Christ” is found only two or three times. In other cases the common usage is preferred to an exceptional usage; here the reverse is advocated. We are told that because elsewhere “the church of God” appears, therefore Luke’s “the church of the Lord” was changed by scribes also to read “of God.” Both readings have good textual support. But if we ask how it came about that there are two readings (plus a few minor variants), the answer is obvious; Luke wrote “of God,” and scribes thought they must change this because then it would be stated that God’s blood bought the church. The issue is not at all in regard to “the church of God” but in regard to the relative clause which has the phrase “through his own blood.” Some critics feel that the idea of God’s blood should be eliminated from the text.

Some claim that Jesus never called himself God, also that Paul never called Jesus God, hence “God” must be deleted here. Both claims are unwarranted. In regard to Paul see at least Rom. 1:4; 9:5; Col. 2:9; Tit. 2:13; also Col. 1:15–20; Phil. 2:5–11. All Paul’s utterances rest on the deity of Jesus, and this is evident in many passages. When those who accept the deity of Jesus shrink from the use of the expression “the blood of God,” they are often moved by an unnecessary timidity.

The person of Jesus may be designated by any name, human, divine, merely personal, or official, and then anything may be predicated of him, either of one or of the other nature or of both. This the New Testament does with at times startling effect. The fact that God purchased for himself the church through his own blood is only of a piece with expressions like: “You killed the Author (Prince) of life” (3:15); “they crucified the Lord of glory” (1 Cor. 2:8). Jesus is strikingly named according to his deity, yet being killed, being crucified, having blood is predicated of him. We refuse to divide the Savior by saying in Nestorian fashion that human things can be ascribed to him only as to his human nature, divine things only as to his divine nature. The New Testament calls him by any name regardless of what it predicates of him, just so his person is referred to. And no serious student will adopt Zwingli’s evasive expedient that all these glorious Scripture statements are “merely verbal,” just words that are not to be taken seriously.

And let us not forget the great reality here expressed so clearly: we are purchased by means of God’s blood. Διά expresses means; this blood was the price; as being God’s blood its value is infinite and could and did effect the purchase. This is the whole “blood theology” which so many deny. More—here we have the the true value of the church, which every pastor should keep in mind. This church entrusted to his care cost God’s blood. Will God be indifferent as to how the church for which he paid such a price is treated? And this passage does not imply a limited atonement, for in II Pet. 2:1 it is said even of those that deny the Lord and go to swift destruction that “the Lord bought them.” The church, the sheep, the believers are often mentioned as those who were bought, etc., for the rather obvious reason that among all whom the Lord bought they are the ones, and they alone, who really become his own.

Acts 20:29

29Paul’s first admonition is general and is based on the mightiest reason. The apostles always used such tremendous reasons as a basis for their admonitions. Now the apostle points to the coming danger. He expected a severe trial for himself; he sees also what is in store for his fellow laborers. I for my part know that there shall come after my departure grievous wolves to you, not sparing the flock. And from yourselves there shall rise up men uttering perverted things to draw away the disciples after them. Wherefore keep watching, remembering that for a space of three years, night and day, I did not cease with tears to put in mind each one.

Paul sees the wolves coming. He is neither a pessimist nor an optimist; he has sharp eyes and reads aright the signs of the times. He also knows men. Ἐγὼοἷδα is used exactly as it was in v. 25. He had no special revelation on this matter regarding Ephesus; yet he did have the warning words of Jesus, Matt. 7:15, about ravening (rending) wolves. Paul uses βαρύς, “heavy,” hard to endure, and explains by adding, “not sparing the flock” (John 10:12). A few years later Paul wrote, 1 Tim. 4:1, etc.

Pointedly he says, “after my departure,” ἀφιξις has its later meaning. Zahn marshals his learning against this later meaning and contends that this word means, “after my arrival,” i. e., in heaven; but B.-P. contradicts him by a reference to three plain examples. When Paul’s apostolic authority is no longer exerted, these wolves in sheep’s clothing will invade the church. Of whom was the apostle thinking? First of all, of the Judaizers as his letter which was not long before this time written to the Galatians makes rather certain. But he does not attempt to specify, errorists of other types will also appear.

In his later letters he deals with various kinds of them. Not a little debate has centered about these “wolves” mentioned in Matt. 7:15 and here in Paul’s address. The point debated is whether errorists are to be included. This has been denied, and we were told that wolves are men who deny Christianity in toto. But these men are not really dangerous; even a simple Christian recognizes them for what they are. And what about the sheep’s clothing?

Now the fact is, every false doctrine rends and tears to the degree that it is false. It is most destructive when it parades as the true teaching of Christ or of his apostles. One fang or false doctrine may cause faith to bleed to death.

Acts 20:30

30When Paul speaks of men arising in the church itself who speak twisted, distorted, perverted things, διεστραμμένα (perfect participle from διαστρέφω, “having been and thus still being perverted”), let us not think that these are not wolves. Paul merely drops the figure. Men that bring in destructive doctrine from other churches are bad enough, but still worse are men that arise in one’s own church and teach such doctrines, and the worst are false preachers and pastors. This is not an anticlimax but a climax. The name used for the perverters in v. 30 cannot be milder than that employed with reference to those in v. 29. The wolves spare not the flock, they destroy souls; but these others actually divide the church by drawing poor, deluded disciples after them. They cause great schisms and sects.

What a long procession of these two classes of foes the church has had to suffer during the past ages and especially also in the present age, and the end is not yet! Matt. 24:24, 25. It is a God’s wonder that the church exists at all at this date. Paul’s two verses are the epitome of one side of her history. But the gospel is still intact, and there is still a host of those that preserve that gospel intact.

Acts 20:31

31In the face of the danger thus described, what is the course these Ephesian elders, as well as all shepherds of the church everywhere, must pursue? “Keep watching!” The only deduction they can make (διό) is to keep wide awake, to note and to meet even the first appearance of danger. Paul is, indeed, leaving them, but see what he leaves them: the memory of his example! That memory is still kept alive in the churches to this day. Although he has been dead for a long time, Paul’s example still speaks. What he did we can do today. A τριετία is a space of three years, the accusative expresses the extent of time, as do the words “night and day.” We are certain that Paul worked in Ephesus for almost three years (19:8, 10, 22 see 19:10). The point is that these elders had had Paul’s example before their very eyes for so long a time.

Not once during all this time did Paul slacken his efforts: “night and day I did not cease with tears putting in mind each one.” He labored even during the night. The night is put first because watching precedes and not because Paul was still thinking about wolves, for they prowl by day as well as by night. R., W. P., is a little strong when he renders νουθετέω, “to put sense into one.” The verb means only “to put in mind.” Paul constantly reminded and did that for “each one,” thus by individual and personal work, which takes a good deal of time. He kept his eye on every single sheep.

Acts 20:32

32The address is perfectly proportioned. The admonition is made brief, it is the more effective for that reason. And now I commend you to God and to the Word of his grace, the one able to build up and to give the inheritance among all those that have been sanctified.

This is the final “now,” τανῦν, adverbial accusative: “as to the things now.” Paul is parting. Paul is able to do but one more thing, and he now does that: he commends these elders to God, etc. He uses the very word “I commend” which Jesus used when he placed his spirit into his Father’s hands. To commend to God is to place into his care and keeping.

By adding, “and to the Word of his grace,” etc., (compare “the gospel of the grace of God” in v. 24) Paul states what he expects God to do for these elders. God and the Word of his grace always go together; God lets his grace flow out through that Word. With the attributive participle Paul describes the power of this Word. We construe τῷδυναμένῳ with τῷλόγῳ, but there is little difference in force when it is construed with τῷΘεῷ. The Word (gospel) is the power of God, Rom. 1:16. It is able to do two things: 1) to build us up spiritually in this life, and 2) to give us the inheritance in the life to come.

When we call this building up “edification” we do so only in the New Testament sense of that word. Edification is by no means only the arousing of pleasant religious sensations but an increase, an unfolding of the whole spiritual life, including more and better knowledge, but especially centering the will and the character more deeply in Christ and in his Word. Men who are thus built up are proof against wolves and errors.

The heavenly inheritance is a gift of the Word of grace. In fact, that Word is the divine testament in which we believers are named as the heirs to whom this inheritance is to be conveyed. Only God’s sons are his heirs. How could his enemies hope to be such? Luke has used ἅγιοι, “saints,” in 9:13 and later; now he uses the substantivized perfect participle in practically the same sense. “The holy ones” are “the ones that have been made and thus now are holy,” set apart as belonging to God through Christ by the Holy Spirit’s work. Cf.

Luther, the explanation of the Third Article of the Creed. Both Greek terms are used in the wider sense; we are holy and hallowed by having all our sins removed in justification and by having in us a new life that ever strives to perform holy works. “Among those sanctified” refers to the saints that are already in heaven. To join them is our hope in Christ.

Acts 20:33

33Heavenly-mindedness does away with earthly-mindedness. It is the thought of the heavenly inheritance awaiting us as saints that leads Paul to speak of the manner in which he has lived during these years he has spent in Ephesus. Silver or gold or robing of no one did I covet. Yourselves realize that for my needs and for those who are with me these hands rendered service. Regarding all things I gave example to you that it is necessary thus by laboring to attend to the weak and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus that he himself said, Blessed it is rather to be giving than to be taking.

“Robing,” garments, was an item in Oriental wealth and is thus listed with silver and gold. The three nouns are genitives after a verb of emotion, R. 508. Even to covet is sin. Paul knew why he placed among the qualifications for the ministry “no lover of money,” 1 Tim. 3:4; Tit. 1:7. Self-seekers disgrace the holy office; clerical speculators disgrace it still more; bidders for “fat” calls and all who commercialize their office are an abomination to the Lord.

Acts 20:34

34While Paul himself wrote 1 Cor. 9:14 and what precedes, it is he who tells us in the following verses why he forewent this right. He speaks to the Ephesian elders only of the fact that he did so and not of his special reason. That someone had slandered him in regard to the great collection, that he had such slander in mind here, and that 2 Cor. 13:7, etc., is evidence to that effect, is an unwarranted supposition.

“These hands” he must have held out, which were marked with traces of his tentmaking labors in Aquila’s shop. He earned his own living and more than that. Some of his money was used for his assistants, “for those who are with me.” Why? Because he used them so hard, often sending them on long journeys. While he was residing in Ephesus he covered the entire province of Asia by their aid. Most of his earnings were probably used for this purpose. He invested them in the gospel; ὑπηρετέω = to serve as an underling, Paul served as Aquila’s workman, Aquila was his employer. Even today few appreciate what Paul did in this respect.

Acts 20:35

35Πάντα is the adverbial accusative and is by the context limited to the subject in hand. The verb ὑποδεικιτμι means “to show somebody a thing by holding it under his eyes,” thus “to give an example.” There is no pronoun “you” in the ὅτι clause, and it is best to take the clause in a general sense, the accusative κοπιῶντας modifying the accusative subject (understood) of the infinitive ἀντιλαμβάνεσθαι, sich annehmen: “that it is necessary thus by laboring to attend to the weak,” etc. Who are “the weak,” genitive after the verb “to take hold of”? It is best not to take the word in a figurative sense: the spiritually weak who might think that the missionary worked only for money. “The weak” are those who become needy through sickness; the word often means “the sick.” Paul does not say outright that he contributed to charity, but he most likely did just as Jesus himself did (John 13:29). Δεῖ may express any kind of necessity, here it expresses a moral necessity.

By thus working to have money to aid the destitute, an obligation resting on all, Paul wants all to be remembering (present infinitive) the words of the Lord Jesus (all of them that bear on this subject, plural), in particular that he said (now quoting one of them): “Blessed it is rather to be giving than to be taking” (two present infinitives to express repeated action). A few Agrapha have come down to us, words of Jesus that are not recorded in the four Gospels. This one is so like Jesus and is especially precious. It is a beatitude. The implication is that it is also blessed to take; Paul himself is an excellent example in the way in which he took the gifts sent him by the Philippians (Phil. 4:10–17). But the greater blessedness lies in the right kind of giving.

Note the giving that runs through Matt. 25:35–40. God is the most blessed Giver, John 3:16; Acts 14:17. Jesus likewise. His whole ministry was giving, and in death he gave his life for us. The glory of the whole gospel is the fact that it is nothing but GIVING. Paul enjoyed this blessedness to the full, “as poor, yet making many rich,” 2 Cor. 6:10.

With a word from Jesus’ own lips Paul closed his address.

Acts 20:36

36And having said these things, after bending his knees, he prayed with them all. Moreover, there occurred considerable weeping on the part of all. And having fallen on the neck of Paul, they went on kissing him fervently, pained most at the word he had spoken that they were not again to behold his face. And they started to send him forward to the boat.

After having spoken to the elders, Paul now speaks to the Lord. The Greek idiom is “to place the knees,” meaning to kneel. The common posture in prayer was to stand and to lift the eyes to heaven; Jesus regularly prayed in this position. Standing in one’s presence is to honor that person. Kneeling in prayer expresses deep feeling such as grief, utter helplessness, etc. In Gethsemane Jesus knelt, being sorrowful unto death, but this was exceptional in his case.

The attitude should express what is in the heart. Kneeling in the case of too many prayers makes this attitude too common so that it loses its specific significance. Reserve kneeling for confession of sin, for the day of humiliation, the hour of stress, calamity, etc. Paul and his little gathering naturally knelt in this tense, sad hour of parting. It was most affecting and the right way to part.

Acts 20:37

37Luke states that they could not restrain their feelings, there was much sobbing. The imperfect κατεφίλουν expresses the lingering of the parting and not only that each man kissed Paul while embracing him, but also that each one could hardly let him go. Here is fully manifested the deep affection Paul inspired. As his enemies hated him with burning intensity, so his friends loved him with glowing fervor.

Acts 20:38

38The elders were so overcome because of Paul’s word that this was the final parting. “Sorrowing” is too weak a translation; the participle means “pained,” “deeply distressed”; and μέλλουσι brings out the thought that now, in a few moments, they would behold him no more, “behold,” not merely “see”; their eyes would not again rest upon him. The final imperfect is really dramatic; in the midst of their accompanying Paul to the boat Luke lets the curtain fall. When Luke wrote his account years afterward he lived this affecting scene over again. He recalled his own wet eyes. Paul is outstanding in the whole scene, his assistants are wholly in the background. It was always thus.

Even the rabid Jews always centered only on Paul and disregarded his helpers. He towered above them all. He Still towers in the same way. In the New Testament record and in the tradition of the early church only the beloved John is like him in this respect. Because both were so uncompromising in maintaining the doctrines of the gospel they inspired the deepest love in all who knew them best. This presents a tremendous fact on which we cannot ponder enough.

R A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. 4th edition.

C. Tr Concordia Triglotta, Libri symbolici Ecclesiae Lutheranae. German-Latin-English. St. Louis, Mo. Concordia Publishing House.

M.-M The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and other non-Literary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.

B.-D Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner.

B.-P Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschen Handwoerterbuch, etc.