Verse-by-Verse Bible Commentary
Acts 20:7

Clarke's Commentary

Verse Acts 20:7. Upon the first day of the week — What was called κυριακη, the Lord's day, the Christian Sabbath, in which they commemorated the resurrection of our Lord; and which, among all Christians, afterwards took the place of the Jewish Sabbath.

To break bread — To break [Syriac] eucaristia, the eucharist, as the Syriac has it; intimating, by this, that they were accustomed to receive the holy sacrament on each Lord's day. It is likely that, besides this, they received a common meal together. Some think the αγαπη, or love feast, is intended.

Continued his speech until midnight. — At what time he began to preach we cannot tell, but we hear when he concluded. He preached during the whole night, for he did not leave off till the break of the next day, Acts 20:11, though about midnight his discourse was interrupted by the fall of Eutychus. As this was about the time of pentecost, and we may suppose about the beginning of May, as Troas was in about 40 degrees of north latitude, the sun set there at seven P.M. and rose at five A.M., so that the night was about eight hours long; and taking all the interruptions together, and they could not have amounted to more than two hours, and taking no account of the preceding day's work, Paul must have preached a sermon not less than six hours long. But it is likely that a good part of this time was employed in hearing and answering questions; for διελεγετο, and διαλεγομενου, may be thus understood.

Bridgeway Bible Commentary

Return to Macedonia and Troas (20:3-12)

Although Paul was planning to visit Rome, his immediate concern was to go to Jerusalem with the money he had been collecting from the Gentile churches (Romans 15:24-26; Acts 19:21). But just as he was about to set sail, he heard of a Jewish plot to kill him. So he changed his plans and returned through Macedonia (3). In Macedonia, probably at Philippi, Luke rejoined the party (indicated by the renewed use of ‘we’ and ‘us’ in the narrative). They then sailed across to Troas, where they joined the representatives of the Gentile churches who were to go with Paul to Jerusalem (4-6; cf. 1 Corinthians 16:3).

It seems that, by this time, Sunday had become a special day for Christians, when they met for fellowship and worship (7; cf. 1 Corinthians 16:2; Revelation 1:10). During Paul’s final meeting with the Christians in Troas, the all-night discussion was interrupted when a young man fell out of a window to his death; but Paul restored him to life (8-12).

Coffman's Commentaries on the Bible

And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them, intending to depart on the morrow; and prolonged his speech until midnight.

First day of the week when the disciples came together to break bread … This emphatically states the purpose of Christian assemblies on Sundays throughout history, that purpose being for the observance of the Lord's supper. As Lange said, "Luke's language here plainly indicates that this day (Sunday) was precisely one on which assemblies for religious services were customarily held." John Peter Lange, Commentary on Acts (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House), p. 368. Harrison complained that "We are not told when or how the practice of Sunday worship arose in the church"; Everett F. Harrison, Wycliffe Bible Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971), p. 459. but one does not need to seek any later than the day of the resurrection of our Lord for the beginning of it. On successive Sundays, Jesus appeared to the apostles on the day he arose from the grave (John 20:19), Thomas being absent; and again on the following Sunday (Thomas present) (John 20:26) he appeared to them again. There can be little doubt that Sunday services of Christians began with those two appearances of our Lord in their assemblies on successive Sundays.

Pliny's letter to the Emperor Trajan, written in the shadow of the apostolic age (112 A.D.), declared of the Christians that:

It was their habit on a fixed day to assemble before daylight and sing … After this was done, their custom was to depart and meet again to take food, but ordinary and harmless food. Henry Melvill Gwatkin, Selections from Early Writers (Westwood, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company), p. 29.

It is easy in Pliny's report to observe a reference to the Lord's supper; and the significance of "on a fixed day" is therefore of the very greatest magnitude. The Christians, from earliest times, had the habit of meeting for the Lord's supper on "a fixed day," and Acts 20:7 identifies that day as "the first day of the week," Sunday.

To break bread … as Dummelow noted, means "to celebrate the Lord's supper." J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 846. In fact, it would be impossible to understand this as a reference to anything else.

Paul discoursed unto them … Even the address of so distinguished an apostle as Paul took second billing on that occasion, the primary purpose having been to observe the Lord's supper; that is why no ordinary meal can be understood of this "breaking bread."

Continued his speech until midnight … Perhaps it should be noted as Lange said, that "The example of Paul affords no excuse for sermons that are of immoderate length!" John Peter Lange, op. cit., p. 370.

Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible

And upon the first day of the week - Showing thus that this day was then observed by Christians as holy time. Compare 1 Corinthians 16:2; Revelation 1:10.

To break bread - Evidently to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. Compare Acts 2:46. So the Syriac understands it, by translating it, “to break the eucharist”; that is, the eucharistic bread. It is probable that the apostles and early Christians celebrated the Lord’s Supper on every Lord’s day.

And continued his speech until midnight - The discourse of Paul continued until the breaking of day, Acts 20:11. But it was interrupted about midnight by the accident that occurred to Eutychus. The fact that Paul was about to leave them on the next day, probably to see them no more, was the principal reason why his discourse was so long continued. We are not to suppose, however, that it was one continued or set discourse. No small part of the time might have been passed in hearing and answering questions, though Paul was the chief speaker. The case proves that such seasons of extraordinary devotion may, in special circumstances, be proper. Occasions may arise where it will be proper for Christians to spend a much longer time than usual in public worship. It is evident, however, that such seasons do not often occur.

Calvin's Commentary on the Bible

−

7.And in one day. Either doth he mean the first day of the week, which was next after the Sabbath, or else some certain Sabbath. Which latter thing may seem to me more probable; for this cause, because that day was more fit for all assembly, according to custom. But seeing it is no new matter for the Evangelists to put one instead of the first, according to the custom of the Hebrew tongue, ( Matthew 28:1; Luke 24:1; John 20:1) it shall very well agree, that on the morrow after the Sabbath they came together. Furthermore, it were too cold to expound this of any day. For to what end is there mentioned of the Sabbath, save only that he may note the opportunity and choice of the time? Also, it is a likely matter that Paul waited for the Sabbath, that the day before his departure he might the more easily gather all the disciples into one place. And the zeal of them all is worth the noting, in that it was no trouble to Paul to teach until midnight, though he were ready to take his journey, neither were the rest weary of learning. For he had no other cause to continue his speech so long, save only the desire and attentiveness of his auditory. −

To break bread. Though breaking of bread doth sometimes signify among the Hebrews a domestical banquet, yet do I expound the same of the Holy Supper in this place, being moved with two reasons. For seeing we may easily gather by that which followeth that there was no small multitude gathered together there, it is unlikely that there could any supper be prepared in a private house. Again, Luke will afterward declare that Paul took bread not at supper time, but after midnight. Hereunto is added that, that he saith not that he took meat that he might eat, but that he might only taste. Therefore, I think thus, that they had appointed a solemn day for the celebrating of the Holy Supper of the Lord among themselves, which might be commodious for them all. And to the end Paul might remedy after a sort the silence of longer absence, he continueth his speech longer than he did commonly use to do. That which I spake of the great number of men is gathered thence, because there were many lights in the upper chamber, which was not done for any pomp or ostentation, but only for necessity’s sake. For when there is no need, it is ambition and vanity which maketh men bestow cost. Furthermore, it was meet that all the whole place should shine with lights, lest that holy company might be suspected of some wickedness or dishonesty. Add also another conjecture, if the chamber had been empty, those which were present would not have suffered Eutychus to sit upon a window. For it had been filthy licentiousness in despising − ⁽⁴⁰³⁾ the heavenly doctrine to depart aside into a window, seeing there was room enough elsewhere. −

(403) −

“ Spernendae ac respuendae,” in spurning and rejecting.

Smith's Bible Commentary

Last week we left Paul in Ephesus, in the midst of a near riot in town, as Demetrius the silversmith got together his companions in trade and pointed out how the preaching of Paul was about to put them out of business. Because these men made little likenesses of their goddess Diana, and Paul was going around telling everyone they weren't true gods. And so these silversmiths stirred up the city and they were gathered together in the arena crying, "Great is Diana of the Ephesians." Half the people didn't know what was going on. But it was quite an uproar, until finally the town clerk stood up and appeased the crowd telling Demetrius that there are courts of law, if he has any real case against Paul and all to bring it before the courts and let it be settled in a lawful matter. The Roman government was in danger; they were in danger of being called by the Roman government to answer for that uproar of which they really had no good answer. So he had then dismissed that crowd of people that had gathered in that town square.

So chapter 20.

And after the uproar ceased, Paul called unto him the disciples, and embraced them, and departed to Macedonia ( Acts 20:1 ).

Macedonia, of course, was the northern area of Greece. Greece was divided after the death of Alexander the Great into four divisions. You have Greece, Macedonia, and then the Syria and Egypt. So then Paul, rather then causing any further, he'd been in Ephesus for three years, and his heart now is sort of stirring to go back to Jerusalem. But when he goes back to Jerusalem, he desires to take to the church in Jerusalem an offering from the Gentile churches. For the church in Jerusalem had become very poor. And so Paul was seeking to show the brotherhood of Christianity, and really the support of the . . . really he was trying to show the oneness of the body of Christ, where there is neither Jew nor Greek, one member suffers, they all suffer. So in Paul's Corinthian epistle he told them when they gathered together on the first day of the week that each man was to bring an offering as he purposed in his own heart. They should give willingly and not by pressure, for God loved a cheerful giver. So Paul wanted now to go through Macedonia and Greece and collect these offerings that he had asked them to take up for the poor saints in Jerusalem. In order as Paul returned to Jerusalem he could take the offerings for the poor brethren there from the Gentiles.

So he embraced those from Ephesus, and he sailed across again to Macedonia, where, of course, was the church of Philippi and Thessalonica and Berea.

And when he had gone over those parts, and had given them much exhortation, he came into Greece. And he stayed there about three months. And when [he found out that] the Jews were lying wait for him, as he was about to sail into Syria, he purposed to return through Macedonia ( Acts 20:2-3 ).

Now at that time it was the feast of the Passover and Paul was probably wanting to get back to Jerusalem for the feast of the Passover. But thousands of Jews would come for the feast of the Passover from all over. And there would be many chartered type ships coming from Greece, from Athens, from . . . to go to Jerusalem, they would be filled with Jews coming for the feast. And Paul, no doubt, got wind of a plot to throw him overboard from one of these ships filled with Jewish pilgrims that were coming back for their holy days. And so rather than getting on a ship and being thrown overboard in the middle of the night, Paul took the wise course and rather than coming by ship back to Syria to go to Jerusalem, he went up then again through Macedonia and he went by land on up again to Macedonia. And evidently, the churches there realized that there were real threats being made upon Paul's life, and so there were several brethren from the different churches that accompanied Paul, in order, no doubt, to afford him a certain amount of protection.

So there accompanied him to Asia Sopater of Berea; and of the Thessalonians, Aristarchus and Secundus; and Gaius of Derbe ( Acts 20:4 ),

Now that's a different Gaius than the one of Corinth.

and Timotheus of Derbe [and that is the Timothy that we know]; and of Asia, there was Tychicus and Trophimus [whom Paul mentions in some of his epistles as his companions]. And these going before waited for them at Troas ( Acts 20:4-5 ).

So these fellows went ahead across to Asia and waited there at Troas for Paul.

And so we ( Acts 20:6 )

The plural personal pronoun again showing that Luke is a companion of Paul once more.

We sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread ( Acts 20:6 ),

And so that was the feast of the Passover was now over because that was the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

and we came to them in Troas in five days; where we abode with them for seven days ( Acts 20:6 ).

Now the trip from Troas to Macedonia when Paul received his vision; saw the man of Macedonia saying come over and help us, and immediately they got a ship and sailed from Troas to Macedonia, that took them only two days. And so here a trip that had only taken Paul two days in the past, took them five days this time, evidently sailing against the wind and probably under adverse circumstances. And it could be some very rough seas and all. And so they came to Troas where they stayed for seven days.

Now upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the next day; and he continued his speech until midnight ( Acts 20:7 ).

Now I've been accused of being longwinded, but you haven't had to put up with anything like that.

It is interesting for me to note that it records that they had gathered together on the first day of the week to break bread. So often you will hear the Seventh Day Adventist or others such as Herbert W. Armstrong who believe in Sabbath day worship. You will hear them declare that worshipping on Sunday did not begin until Constantine and he was the one who introduced Sunday worship to the church. Not so. There seems to be indications that the Gentile church worshipped on Sunday, almost from the beginning. Here we find the Gentile church gathering together on Sunday, the first day of the week, to break bread. One of the early church fathers, Tertullian, said that in as much as Jesus rose on the first day of the week, they felt that was the only day really in which the church should break bread. I don't go along with Tertullian, but it seems that as early as the time of Tertullian, which was before Constantine, that the first day of the week was already a common practice in the gathering of the church.

Now it could be that there was a dispute over which day of the week you should worship the Lord in the early church because in two of Paul's epistles he makes mention of the fact that it really doesn't matter which day you worship the Lord. As he was writing to the Romans he said, "One man esteems one day, another man esteems another day. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." In other words, it really doesn't matter. Some people esteem one day above another, some esteem another day above another, you know. Whatever, you know, pleases you.

When the church in Jerusalem sent to the Gentile believers concerning their relationship to the law, they mentioned nothing about the observance of the Sabbath day. In Exodus when God gave the Sabbath day law, God said it was a special covenant between Him and Israel. Even as was the right of circumcision a special covenant between God and Israel, but not something that was required of the Gentiles. When Paul was writing to the Colossian church, he said, "Don't let any man judge you in respect to the eating of meat or of Sabbath days, or new moons or holy days, which were all just a shadow of things to come." The real substance is Jesus. Therefore, Paul is saying that the Sabbath day was just a shadow. The Sabbath day was what? It was a day of rest where the people were to rest from there labor. As a shadow of the things to come, the substance being Christ, what is he saying? He is saying what Paul, or what the author of Hebrews said in chapter 4, that Jesus is our rest. So the Sabbath day was only a shadow of Jesus who was coming, who has become the rest for His people. And our rest is in Jesus Christ, and in His finished work. So Paul said one man esteems one day above another, another man esteems every day alike. Well that's me; I esteem every day the Lord's day. And every day to me is, I live unto the Lord no matter if it be a Saturday, a Sunday, Friday or whatever. I live every day unto the Lord, and so I esteem every day alike. Now my wife doesn't appreciate that. Because it goes for birthdays and anniversaries too. She says I do that on hers, but I really want special perks on mine. But uh, that's not so. We went to her favorite place to eat on my birthday.

So they gathered on the first day of the week to break bread. That is to have communion. And communion, it seems, was a very common practice in the early church. That reminder of the broken body of Jesus Christ and of His blood which was shed for our sins. And it was a very common practice in the early church. They did it, it would seem, once a week at least. They did not only though in church, but from house to house. It was a beautiful thing. Christians gathered together, "Let's break bread together, you know." It was just a beautiful thing. Now they also had on a weekly basis what they called the "love feasts" in which they also took communion at the end. The love feast is what we would call today a potluck dinner. Where the church would gather together one day a week for these love feasts and everybody would bring something to add to the common table and they would all eat together and then would conclude it with the communion. This love feast was especially significant for the slaves because it was probably the only good meal they had all week long. But in the church there was neither bond nor free, you know, they were all one in Christ. And so, they had weekly these love feasts and that beautiful fellowship.

Now there is a real value, I think, in eating together. There's just a closeness of communion. I love potlucks. And I love the eating together. You notice how when we go on tour to Israel together, how much closer we seem to get to one another. And I think it's because we eat together all the time. And there is something that just creates a closeness, a bond, eating together.

And so the early church here gathered in Troas, on the first day of the week Paul preached until midnight.

And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together. And there sat in the window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep ( Acts 20:8-9 ):

Now it could be that he had carbon monoxide poisoning. If he was sitting there in the window and there were all of these lights there which, of course, were candles burning; and you know the carbon monoxide going from the burnt candles and probably going out the window and sitting there in the window with all that smoke curling out, it could be that he just got deprived of the oxygen level. And he fell into a sleep,

sunk down with sleep, and he fell down from the third loft ( Acts 20:9 ),

Probably, now the windows there, of course, weren't glass windows, they were just openings, open windows; sitting there in the window he fell out the window into the patio below, three stories.

and he was taken up dead. And so Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him ( Acts 20:9-10 ).

So, again, a real miracle as God restored life to Eutychus.

It's interesting Paul fell on him embracing him. There's an interesting story in the Old Testament of the prophet Elisha and the Shunammite woman whose son died. And Elisha actually did a pulmonary resuscitation kind of a thing. He breathed into him and all, and doing it three times, the young boy revived. Now that doesn't take away from the fact that there was a definite miracle of God. And God brought life, because you can, you know, if you take a person who's been dead as long as that kid had been dead, there's no way any resuscitation is gonna bring him back. But the fact that he did that is interesting to me, in as much as we have discovered today, you know, this resuscitation and cardiac arrest and things of that nature. I'm not suggesting that that's what Elisha did to the young man, because this young man had been dead for hours. And God brought him back to life.

Here was Paul falling on him, embracing him, much as Elisha did to the Shunammite woman's son.

So when he was therefore come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, he continued to talk until the break of day ( Acts 20:11 ),

So a slight distraction, and yet, Paul went on talking to them 'til daybreak.

And they brought the young man alive, and they were not a little comforted ( Acts 20:12 ).

Now I am certain that the Lord has allowed at times the miracles of bringing back a person to life. We know that this happened in the ministry of Jesus. We know that it happened with the ministry of Peter when he went and brought back to life through prayer Dorcas. But I am also certain that the miracle of restoring life was never for the person but for the people around who were grieving because they were gone. Here it says, "And they were much comforted." It didn't say that Eutychus was. But the people that were there were comforted by the fact that he was brought back to life. And that miracle that God works in bringing a person back to life is really never for that person's benefit. But for the benefit of those that would be sorrowing. And I say that because if ever the Lord should see fit to take me and I am there reveling in His presence, and suddenly I feel my spirit returning to my body, and when my eyes flicker, and when I open them up and I see you with hands laid upon me praying, "Oh God, restore life to him," the first thing I'm gonna do is bust you in the mouth. We may pray that the Lord restore a person's life for our benefit, but it surely doesn't benefit them. "For to be absent from this body is to be present with the Lord." And so for the sake of the people, God performed this miracle on Eutychus.

"And they were not a little comforted." I mean, they were really comforted. Actually in the Orient, at death they start shrieking. And the women have a particularly shrill shriek at the time of death. And so when Eutychus fell out the window and they rushed down there and saw that he was dead, these Oriental women probably started their shrieking. And that's why Paul went down and said, "Oh hush, hush, hush, he's alright, his life is still in him," and as God restored life to Eutychus.

And so we went before to ship, and we sailed to Assos, and there we intended to take in Paul: because he had decided to go by foot ( Acts 20:13 ).

Now from Troas to Assos is twenty miles by land and thirty miles by sea. You have to go around the cape there. And Paul wanted to walk. You know, I think that walking is one of the greatest ways to meditate. I think it's a tremendous way to sort of collect your thoughts. When you have a decision to make, it's amazing how that in walking you can sort of sift things out. And I think Paul just had a lot of things to sift out in his mind. And so he said, "You guys just go ahead and go in the boat and I'll meet you over at Assos, I'll just walk." And so he walked that twenty miles as they went around by ship and met him then at Assos.

And he met us at Assos ( Acts 20:14 ),

Luke evidently went in the ship,

we took him in, and we came to Mitylene. And we sailed from there, and came the next day over against Chios; and in the next day we arrived at Samos, and we tarried at Trogyllium; and the next day we came to Miletus ( Acts 20:14-15 ).

Which is about thirty miles from Ephesus. And from there they sent messengers up to Ephesus to tell the elders at the church of Ephesus to come down and meet Paul at Miletus because he was in a hurry. He didn't want to go all the way up to Ephesus and back because he desired to get to Jerusalem in time to participate in the feast of Pentecost.

So from Miletus they sent to Ephesus, called the elders of the church. And when they were come to him, he said unto them, You know, that from the first day that I came to Asia, what manner of life I have lived among you at all seasons, serving the Lord with all humility of mind, with many tears, and trials, which befell me by the lying in wait of the Jews ( Acts 20:17-19 ):

Paul said, "You know that how from the very first day when I came into Asia, the way I lived among you. For I have been serving the Lord with all humility of mind." Paul always saw himself as the servant of the Lord. And I think that that is an important mental attitude for everyone who is in the ministry to maintain. I am a servant of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, everything that I do, I must do to the glory of God. I should not be doing anything for the glory of man. For whatever I do, word or deed, do all to the glory of God. Not seeking to be a man pleaser, but seeking to please the Lord, knowing that of the Lord I am going to receive my rewards. And so Paul said, "You know that my attitude the whole while I've been with you is one of a servant of the Lord, serving Him in all humility of mind."

The man who has received a true vision of the Lord is a man who has humility of mind. That man who is proud has not had a true encounter with God. No man can have a true encounter with God and still maintain a prideful position. In seeing God, in really seeing God, I see myself. And I realize how nothing I am. Isaiah said, "In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord high and lifted up, sitting on the throne. And His glory filled the temple. Then said I, woe is me" ( Isaiah 6:1 , Isaiah 6:5 ). Hey, that's always what a man says when he really sees God, "Woe is me!" Peter, when he saw the Lord, said, "Depart from me, Lord! I'm an unclean man" ( Luke 5:8 ). Daniel, as he talked about his vision and all, he said "Then my beauty was turned into corruption" ( Daniel 10:8 ). Seeing God is an important thing. Jesus said, "Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" ( Matthew 5:3 ). But that poverty of spirit always comes to the man who has had a true encounter with a living eternal God. You cannot stand in the consciousness of the true and the living God and still maintain that prideful state. And so, "I've been serving you," Paul said, "with all humility of mind, and with many tears. And in real trials, tribulations, because the Jews were always lying in wait to ambush me."

Paul said,

And how I've kept back nothing that was profitable unto you ( Acts 20:20 ),

Paul gave himself for the people because he was serving the Lord. You see, as a minister of Jesus Christ, He requires that I be the servant of the body. Jesus said that if any of you would be chief, then let him become the servant of all. He's talking about the ministry, talking to His disciples. So my serving the Lord involves my serving you. And Paul talks about his service to the men and the people there in Ephesus.

How I held back nothing that could [benefit you or be of] profit to you, but I have showed you, and taught you publicly, and from house to house ( Acts 20:20 ),

So both in the public gatherings there in the . . . where was it we studied it . . . that place in Ephesus where Paul was teaching . . . come on, someone help me . . . Tyrannus, yes, very good. You get an A. The school of Tyrannus publicly, but then also from house to house. Now notice Paul said, "I was showing you and teaching you." Sometimes the best lessons are object lessons. If our lives don't show it, the teaching becomes meaningless. As a minister, I have to not just proclaim, I must live by it. Showing you, demonstrating by my life, the lifestyle that I lived among you, as well as teaching you. And so that faithful minister.

Testifying both to the Jews, also to the Greeks, repentance towards God, faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ ( Acts 20:21 ).

So Paul was teaching their repentance, the necessity of repentance toward God and faith towards Jesus.

And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that are going to befall me there: except that the Holy Spirit is witnessing in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions are waiting for me ( Acts 20:22-23 ).

"I really don't know what's going to happen to me when I get to Jerusalem. All I know is that I am to be bound and I am to be imprisoned. The spirit is warning me this everywhere I go."

But none of these things disturb me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy ( Acts 20:24 ),

"My chief desire is to finish my course with joy. It doesn't bother me that I have to be imprisoned. It doesn't move me that I'm going to be bound. My chief desire is to just to finish my course." So Paul's great drive to finish that course that God had set before him. He finally wrote to Timothy and he said, "I have fought a good fight, I have finished the course." That was his last epistle just before being beheaded by Nero. "I fought a good fight, I finished the course. Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, our righteousness judge, shall give. Not only to me, but to all those who do love His appearing" ( 2 Timothy 4:7-8 ).

It's just a shame that Paul didn't know the power of positive thinking, and positive confession. He could have escaped an awful lot of things. But, poor fellow, he was beheaded suffering for Jesus' sake. Because he didn't know that it was God's will that no one should suffer. That it's a lack of faith or commitment that anybody would suffer. Poor Paul. I trust you know that my tongue is in my cheek.

I love this. I love commitment. Give me some men who are stouthearted men who will fight for the right they adore. Start me with ten who are stouthearted men and I'll soon give you ten thousand more. I love Paul; he was a stouthearted man. I mean, he was committed to a cause, a cause of Jesus Christ. And hey, nothing was going to detour him or deter him from finishing that course with joy.

So, "Well, it's probably the last time I'll see you, but it doesn't bother me. I know I'm going to be thrown in jail. Beyond that I don't know. But I'm not worried by this. For I do not count my life dear unto myself. What I really desire is just to finish my course with joy,"

and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus ( Acts 20:24 ),

What is the ministry, Paul, you have received of the Lord Jesus?

to testify of the gospel of the grace of God ( Acts 20:24 ).

Testimony of the gospel of the grace of God. What is the gospel of the grace of God? God loves you, no matter how badly you failed. No matter how deeply you have sunk into sin, God loves you. But God hates sin because He loves you. And God knows what a destructive force sin is. And because God loves you so much, He doesn't like to see you being destroyed. And so He hates that which is destroying you. God loves the sinner. God hates the sin. Because He loves the sinner. And He sees what sin is doing. The blighting, damning influences of sin on a person's life. And so God hates the sin, because He loves the sinner. And so God has made provision to free a person from that power of sin, by sending Jesus Christ, His son, who took our sins and died in our place. That by our believing in Him we can be forgiven from whatever sins we may have ever committed. And through faith in Him can receive power over that bondage to corruption. And one day, as we are translated by the spirit into His presence, we will be freed from even the presence of sin. So that is the gospel of the grace of God. Not because I deserve it, not because I merit it, but just because God loves me.

It was necessary that Paul should testify of the gospel of the grace of God, because nature, though it reveals God to man, does not reveal the grace of God to man. There is no gospel of grace in nature. Nature testifies to the God of law; to the God of power; to the God of wisdom; to the God who loves beauty; to the God of orderliness. But there's no testimony in nature to the gospel of the grace of God, and that is why God has called men to bear testimony of the gospel of the grace of God. And this testimony began with Jesus Christ. For the law came by Moses, but grace and truth by Jesus Christ. And so Paul testifying the gospel of grace.

And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more ( Acts 20:25 ).

Now this is what Paul felt. He's talking out of his heart. There are indications from some of the secular historians or early church historians that Paul did get to see those in Ephesus once again. The book of Acts leaves Paul sort of imprisoned in Rome awaiting his trial before Nero. But according to church history, the early church historians, Paul's first appearance before Nero ended in an acquittal by Nero. And that Paul was released for a time, and just what happened during that period we don't know for sure. There are stories that he came back to the church of Ephesus for a time. And also stories that he went to Spain with the Gospel.

Secular history gives us something quite interesting. You remember Jesus told His disciples that, you know, that, "They're going to bring you before the judges and before magistrates and before the kings. And don't take any forethought what you're going to say in the hour that you're there the Holy Spirit will give you the words to say. And it will give you an opportunity to witness." Now Paul took this literally. Every time he was brought before a judge, a magistrate, or a king, Paul took the opportunity to witness. And the higher up the guy was, the heavier Paul laid on the witness. Because Paul, I think, always felt, "Man, if I can convert this guy, wow," you know. And so when he finally got before King Agrippa, I mean, he was really pushing, pushing hard. "Agrippa, do you believe the scriptures? I know you believe the scriptures," you know. And he said, "Wait a minute, wait a minute, back off, Paul. Wait a minute," you know. "Are you trying to convert me?" Paul said, "Oh, how I wish I could." Because I'm sure that Paul, and we'll get to that in a few chapters now, Paul's defenses were fabulous. I mean, Paul really was pressing. Because he, no doubt, thought, "Wow, if Agrippa would just accept Jesus Christ, what an influence this could have." Well, imagine when he got to Nero. I imagine that Paul really pressed the claims of Jesus Christ on Nero like nothing we have ever heard. I'm certain that Paul thought, "Wow, if I could just win Nero to Jesus Christ."

Now, as you follow secular history, you will find that Nero wasn't such a bad guy in his early reign of the Roman Empire. He did some good things. But there came a time in Nero's life where he had almost a total personality change. Where he became a beast. In fact, that's what they called him in those days, "the beast." It was as though he had a total change of personality, like a man who was almost demon possessed. And if you will study the secular history, you will find that this dramatic change came in Nero just about the time that Paul witnessed to him. I believe what happened is that Paul did lay on such a heavy witness to Nero, that it was a now-or-never situation for Nero's salvation. And in turning his back upon the Gospel, I believe he became possessed by an evil spirit. And that is why he became such a beast.

He released Paul on the first trial, but soon called Paul back from Ephesus and beheaded him, as he turned into that beast. So Paul is saying, "I don't think I'm going to see you again." It seems that maybe he did get to see them again.

Wherefore I call you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God ( Acts 20:26-27 ).

Paul felt it very important that he be up front with people as far as the Gospel is concerned. To declare the truth, the whole counsel of God to man so that he would not be accountable for them. "I'm free from the blood of all men because I haven't shunned to tell you everything, the whole counsel of God."

Now take heed therefore unto yourselves, and unto the flock, over which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, that you feed the church of God, which he has purchased with his own blood ( Acts 20:28 ).

And this is the charge and the responsibility that God has placed upon the ministers: to feed the flock of God. But it is so difficult to find pastors today who will really feed the flock of God. We get letters by the hundreds. The other night when I was in Indianapolis, scores of people afterwards said to me, "Would you please start a work here in Indianapolis? We've been praying for five years that God would establish a Calvary Chapel here in Indianapolis. We want a place where we can just go and be fed the Word of God." People are hungry to be fed the Word of God. And so Paul said to these overseers of the church of Ephesus, "Feed the flock of God." Peter in writing his epistle said, "Feed the flock of God which is among you." Jesus said to Peter, "Feed My sheep." I don't know why pastors don't realize that this is the most important function of a pastor is to feed the flock of God. We have those who are seeking to entertain the flock of God. And then God help us, unfortunately we have those who are seeking to fleece the flock of God. But how few are really feeding the flock of God.

Also of your own selves.

For I know this ( Acts 20:29 ),

The reason why to feed them is in that they might become strong. Because wolves are going to come in.

after I depart grievous wolves are going to enter in among you, not sparing the flock ( Acts 20:29 ).

Paul stocked them that would come in. Weird concept and ideas. Men who would try to draw groups after themselves. There's always that. God establishes a work, and then there are always those who try and come in. Even out of your own midst, there will come those who will try to break off a group, to bring them as after themselves. Sad and tragic. Paul when he was writing to the Ephesians said that God has placed in the church, apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastor-teachers, for the perfecting of the saints for the work of the ministry. That's what we're here for. That you might be fed the Word of God, that you might be perfected for the work of the ministry. The building up of the body of Christ. Until we all come into the unity of the faith of the knowledge of the Son of God. Into that complete person. Unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of the image of Christ. That you be no more as babes who are tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine and slight cunning of men who lie in wait to deceive. The greatest burden on the heart of Paul, the greatest grief and sorrow were those men who would come in to prey upon the flock of God. To draw men after themselves. And so Paul said to these Ephesians, "I know that after I depart there are going to be grievous wolves that are going to enter in, not sparing the flock."

Also out of your own midst shall men arise, who will be speaking perverse things [not really teaching the word of God, teaching the concepts of man], who try to draw disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one of you night and day with tears ( Acts 20:30-31 ).

It doesn't make any difference. There are always those foolish little sheep that will go traipsing after any bell. And though Paul warned them three years night and day with tears that, "Hey, get sound in the Word, get founded in the Word." Yet I know that, you know, they're going to, you know, that they're going to rip some of you off.

And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and give you an inheritance among all them that are set apart by God ( Acts 20:32 ).

I commend you to God and the Word of His grace. Oh, it's that which is able to build you up and bring us into that glorious inheritance.

I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel ( Acts 20:33 ).

Oh, God, give us more Pauls.

Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me ( Acts 20:34 ).

"Hey, fellows, you've seen the calluses; I've worked with my own hands. I've took care of myself and those that were with me. I, you know, I earned my living. I didn't covet your silver or gold or apparel. I wasn't here to rip you off or to fleece you. I was here to minister and to feed you." Now he was telling them that because those false prophets are always seeking to fleece the sheep. Always some new gimmick to take a second offering or a third offering. Always the emphasis upon your giving to God rather than what God has given to you. Watch that one who is constantly emphasizing what you ought to be giving to God. The New Testament emphasizes what God has given to you.

I have showed you all things, how that so laboring you ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of our Lord Jesus, who said, It's more blessed to give than to receive ( Acts 20:35 ).

We just completed a conference with the worldwide distributors of Maranatha music. They've come in from all over the world: Africa, Singapore, Philippines, Hong Kong, Europe, distributors of Maranatha music. We had a farewell luncheon with them Friday in which these distributors got up and just sort of expressed themselves concerning the conference that they just had. And they said, "You know, been to a lot of conferences but never one like this. It seems that all the conferences we go to their always trying to get something from us, but when we came here, you've been ministering to us. It's like you're giving and trying to give to us rather than taking from us." And I said, "You have just stumbled on to the philosophy of Calvary Chapel. We exist to minister to people, not to be ministered to by people. That's our basic philosophy. We're here to give, not to receive. And that is why there is never an emphasis upon your giving. The emphasis is always upon what God has given to us. And we are here to give to you in the name of Jesus Christ."

And it is so blessed to be able to go onto the radio all over the United States, not to be ministered to by the people, "Now, friends, please send in your offerings this week. Because if we don't hear from you this week, we're so far behind in our bills and all, we've got to hear from you this week." Never, never, never. We are just there to minister God's Word to the people all over the country; to give. And thus, we send out the literature, we give away thousands upon thousands of tapes every year. Get the word out. We give away music albums. Get the music out, get the word out. People write and say, "Can we duplicate your tapes?" and we say, "Yes!"

I read in Christianity Today, someone wrote a letter into Christianity Today and they told how that they had problems their church was wanting to sing choruses. And so how they found out that they couldn't copy choruses on a little chorus sheet without infringing on the copyrights of those choruses. And so they wanted to print up these chorus sheets for their church and they sent to all of the publishers asking for permission and they all demanded a royalty. Just for these little, you know, mimeograph chorus sheets for the church. He said there was only one publisher who told us just go ahead, use it freely. He said it was Maranatha Music. And I said, "Praise God." "To give," Paul said, you know, "Our Lord told us it's more blessed to give than to receive."

Now, if we take that philosophy, God takes care of us. God takes care of the church. He more than supplies for our needs. But we never have to emphasize that side. God takes care of that side. Jesus said if you seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, all these other things will be added to you. But these poor unfortunate pastors who are striving to attain find themselves trapped. Because if you strive to attain, then you have to strive to maintain what you have attained. And you get in that position of constant pressure, constant striving. "Now what new gimmick can we include in our letter this week, you know to get the people to send more bucks to us, you know." You get in that trap and it seems there's no way out. If we would only learn, Jesus has established the principle, "It's more blessed to give than to receive." And if we give freely, even as we have received freely, God will take care of our needs. As He has proved, I believe that He has chosen to use Calvary Chapel more or less as a example of what God can and will do if we just follow His principles. And all over people look to us and say, "Well, Calvary Chapel is different." Sure it is, a whole different philosophy. We are here to minister rather than to be ministered to. We're here to give rather than to receive. And God takes care of the needs. More than takes care of the needs. He so blesses that we're able to sponsor "The Word for Today" all over the world. He is so good. Ah, when will people learn?

And when he had thus spoken, he kneeled down, and prayed with them all ( Acts 20:36 ).

I can picture on the beach Paul the apostle; the ship is waiting off shore. There's a little dinghy there. And here are the elders of the church of Ephesus and Paul sitting on the beach there with them and he's talking and saying, "Hey, now feed the flock of God. Just take care of them. Because wolves are going to come in, and you know I've warned you with tears." I'm sure that Paul was crying now. And he said, "Watch over them. It's more blessed to give than to receive." And then I can see the circle of men kneeling as they join hands in prayer, not knowing what the future holds.

And they all of them began to weep, and they fell on Paul's neck, and they kissed him. Sorrowing most of all for the words which he spake, that they would probably not see his face again. And they accompanied him unto the ship ( Acts 20:37-38 ).

"

Contending for the Faith

And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread: Here is the first mention of a specified day when Christians meet for the express purpose of observing the Lord’s supper. The language is plain: the disciples assemble upon the "first day of the week to break bread." The Jews have no names for the days of the week; they simply number them counting from their sabbath, which is the seventh day of the week. Thus, the day after the sabbath (the seventh day) is "day one" or the "first day of the week" (Sunday). This practice establishes a divine example, and the logic follows that we also are to keep this pattern and assemble upon the first day of the week for observing the Lord’s supper.

There are numerous questions that have arisen from this verse, some of which are worthy of our consideration:

1.    When does the "first day of the week" become the day of worship rather than the "seventh day" (sabbath) as practiced by the Jews? We are not told how the "first day" becomes the day of worship for Christians, but it is not difficult to ascertain. Jesus is resurrected and appears before his disciples upon the "first day of the week" (John 20:19). On the following Sunday, Jesus again appears to his disciples (John 20:26). The Lord’s church is established upon the first day of the week (see notes on 2:1). Paul affirms it is the custom of the churches to assemble upon Sunday by giving orders to the Corinthian brethren, as he had also given to the Galatians, to "lay by in store" upon the "first day of the week" (1 Corinthians 16:1-2). John refers to this specified day as the "Lord’s day" (Revelation 1:10).

2.    Is Sunday the Christian Sabbath? The quick answer is no, the Lord’s day of the New Testament is not akin to the sabbath of the Old Testament. But perhaps the excellent comments given by Lenski offer a better explanation:

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 (826).

3.    What is the exact chronology of events as they occurred and is the time Jewish time, sundown to sundown (a day being from approximately 6:00 O’clock in the evening until 6:00 O’clock the next evening) or is the time Roman, midnight to midnight (as our modern time, a day being from 12:00 O’clock midnight until 12:00 O’clock midnight the next night)?

Following are the events of this narrative as they occurred:

1.    The disciples "came together" on "the first day of the week" (Sunday) [likely in the afternoon or early evening (verse 7)].

2.    They observe the Lord’s supper. To observe the Lord’s supper seems to have been the primary purpose of the meeting; there is no reason to think otherwise than that they did it immediately (verse 7).

3.    Paul preaches to them "and continues until midnight" (verse 7).

4.    Eutychus falls out of the window and is "taken up dead, " and raised from the dead by Paul (verses 9-10).

5.    Paul and the disciples break bread and eat (share a common meal) (verse 11).

6.    Paul departs at "break of day" on the "morrow" (the next day, Thayer 229-1-1887), which would be Monday (verses 7, 11).

There is no reason to believe the time frame mentioned by Luke is Jewish time. If one insists on the use of Jewish time keeping, the following conclusions will still be true:

7.    If the disciples met on Saturday evening after 6:00 O’clock as some maintain, Paul could not have left on the "morrow" (the next day) as it would still have been the "first day of the week" (Sunday).

8.    If the time keeping is Jewish, the disciples would have met early on Sunday evening and observed the Lord’s supper before 6:00 O’clock because at 6:00 O’clock the day became Monday, the second day of the week.

Paul preached unto them: Even the admonition from the great Apostle Paul takes second place to the "breaking of bread." This is no ordinary meal! This "breaking of bread" is a celebration of the Lord’s supper!

ready to depart on the morrow: It is Paul’s plan to leave on the next day. As noted above, Thayer defines "morrow" as "the next day, " which would have been Monday (229).

and continued his speech until midnight: Paul perhaps realizes this occasion will be the last opportunity to speak to this congregation face to face; therefore, he takes advantage of the time to remove any doubts, solve as many problems as possible, and reassure these young Christians of the realities of serving God.

Dr. Constable's Expository Notes

We do not know if Paul or someone else planted the church in Troas (cf. Acts 16:8-9; 2 Corinthians 2:12-13). This is the first clear reference in Scripture to the early Christians meeting to worship on the first day of the week rather than on the Sabbath, the seventh day (cf. John 20:19; John 20:26; 1 Corinthians 16:2; Revelation 1:10). This day has continued to be the generally preferred one for Christian worship. They selected Sunday because it was the day on which the Lord Jesus Christ arose from the dead. This group of believers met "to break bread" (Gr. klasai arton).

"The breaking of the bread probably denotes a fellowship meal in the course of which the Eucharist was celebrated (cf. Acts 2:42)." [Note: Bruce, Commentary on . . ., p. 408. Cf. Acts 20:11; 1 Corinthians 10:16-17; 11:17-34.]

"In the early Church there were two closely related things. There was what was called the Love Feast. To it all contributed, and it was a real meal. Often it must have been the only real meal that poor slaves got all week. It was a meal when the Christians sat down and ate in loving fellowship and in sharing with each other. During it or at the end of it the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was observed. It may well be that we have lost something of very great value when we lost the happy fellowship and togetherness of the common meal of the Christian fellowship. It marked as nothing else could the real homeliness, the real family spirit of the Church." [Note: Barclay, pp. 162-63.]

"Breaking bread is not merely the occasion for the Eutychus story, as Acts 20:7 might suggest. Because Paul is departing, the community’s breaking of bread becomes a farewell meal, resembling Jesus’ farewell meal with his apostles, when he ’took bread’ and ’broke’ it (Luke 22:19). The echoes of Jesus’ Jerusalem journey and its consequences that begin in Acts 19:21 and continue thereafter may suggest that this resemblance has some importance, even though it is not developed." [Note: Tannehill, 2:250-51.]

Luke did not record when Paul began his address, but the apostle kept speaking all night. Probably some of the Christians present would have been slaves or employees who would have been free to attend a meeting only at night. Luke’s references to time are Roman rather than Jewish. For him days ran from sunrise to sunrise, not from sunset to sunset (cf. Acts 20:7; Acts 20:11).

"I tell congregations very frankly that I’m a long-winded preacher. I’m known as that. I love to teach the Word of God. I have a system of homiletics that I never learned in the seminary. I picked it up myself-in fact, I got it from a cigarette commercial. This is it: It’s not how long you make it but how you make it long. I believe in making it long; my scriptural authority for it is that Paul did it. He spoke until midnight [really until daybreak, Acts 20:11]." [Note: McGee, 4:602.]

Dr. Constable's Expository Notes

Paul’s raising of Eutychus in Troas 20:7-12

"From Acts 20:5 through the end of Acts (Acts 28:31), Luke’s narrative gives considerable attention to ports of call, stopovers, and time spent on Paul’s travels and includes various anecdotes. It contains the kind of details found in a travel journal, and the use of ’we’ in Acts 20:5-15; Acts 21:1-18; and Acts 28:16 shows its eyewitness character." [Note: Longenecker, p. 508.]

"This claim to be an eyewitness was considered vital in Greek historiography, unlike Roman historiography where being an armchair historian was much more acceptable." [Note: Witherington, p. 605.]

Barclay's Daily Study Bible

Chapter 20

SETTING OUT FOR JERUSALEM ( Acts 20:1-6 )

20:1-6 After the disturbance had ceased, Paul sent for the disciples. He spoke words of encouragement to them and bade them farewell and departed to go to Macedonia. When he had gone through those parts and when he had spoken many a word of encouragement to them, he went into Greece. When he had spent three months there, and when he was about to set sail for Syria, a plot was made against him by the Jews. So he made up his mind to make the return journey through Macedonia. As far as Asia there accompanied him Sopatros, the son of Pyrrhus, who belonged to Beroea; and, of the Thessalonians, Aristarchus and Secundus; and Gaius from Derbe and Timothy; and the men from Asia, Tychichus and Trophimus. They went on ahead and waited for us at Troas. After the days of unleavened bread we sailed away from Philippi; and in five days time we came to them at Troas; and there we spent seven days.

We have already seen how Paul had set his heart on making a collection from all his churches for the church of Jerusalem. It was to receive contributions to that fund that he went into Macedonia. Here again we have an instance of how much we do not know and will never know about the story of Paul. Acts 20:2 says that when he had gone through those parts he came to Greece. It must have been on this occasion that he visited Illyricum ( Romans 15:19). These few words summarize what must have been about a whole year of journey and adventure.

Acts 20:3 tells us that when Paul was about to set sail from Greece to Syria a Jewish plot was unmasked and he changed his route to an overland way. Very likely what happened was this. Often from foreign ports Jewish pilgrim ships left for Syria to take pilgrims to the Passover and Paul must have intended to sail on one. On such a ship it would have been the easiest thing in the world for the fanatical Jews to arrange that Paul should disappear overboard and never be heard of again. Paul was a man who always walked with his life in his hands.

In Acts 20:4 we have a list of Paul's companions on his voyage. These men must have been delegated from the various churches charged with the duty of taking their contributions to Jerusalem. They were demonstrating thus early that the Church was a unity and the need of one part was the opportunity of the rest.

In Acts 20:5 the narrative turns from the third to the first person again. This is the sign that once again Luke is there and that we are getting an eye-witness account. Luke tells us that they left Philippi after the days of unleavened bread. The days of unleavened bread began with the day of the Passover and lasted for one week, during which the Jews ate unleavened bread in memory of their deliverance from Egypt. The time of the Passover was the middle of April.

A YOUNG MAN FALLS ASLEEP ( Acts 20:7-12 )

20:7-12 On the first day of the week, when we had gathered together to break bread, Paul, who was about to leave on the next day, spoke to them, and he prolonged his talk until midnight. There were many lamps in the upper room where we were assembled. A young man called Eutychus was sitting by the window. He began to be overcome by a deep sleep. While Paul was talking he was still more overcome by sleep and he fell right down from the third floor and was taken up dead. Paul went down and threw himself on him. He put his arms round him and said, "Stop making a fuss, for his life is still in him." So he went back upstairs and broke bread and ate; and he talked with them a long time until dawn came and so he departed. And they brought in the boy alive and were greatly comforted.

This vivid story is clearly an eye-witness account; and it is one of the first accounts we have of what a Christian service was like.

It talks twice about breaking of bread. In the early Church there were two closely related things. One was what was called the Love Feast. To it all contributed and it was a real meal, often the only proper meal that poor slaves got all week. Here Christians ate in loving fellowship with each other. The other was the Lord's Supper which was observed during or immediately after the Love Feast. It may well be that we have lost something of great value in the happy togetherness of the common meal. It marked as nothing else could the family spirit of the Church.

All this happened at night. That is probably because it was only at night, when the day's work was done, that slaves could come to the Christian fellowship. That also explains the case of Eutychus. It was dark. In the low upper room it was hot. The many lamps made the air oppressive. Eutychus, no doubt, had done a hard day's work before ever he came and his body was tired. He was sitting by a window to get the cool night air. The windows were not made of glass. They were either lattice or solid wood and opened like doors, coming right down almost to the floor and projecting over the courtyard below. The tired Eutychus, overpowered by the stuffy atmosphere, succumbed to sleep and fell to the courtyard below. We must not take it that Paul spoke on and on; there would be talk and discussion. When the crowd poured down the outside stair and found the lad lying senseless below, they began to scream in an uncontrolled eastern way; but Paul told them to stop the fuss, for the life was still in the lad. From the next verses we learn that Paul did not go with the main company; no doubt he stayed behind to make sure that Eutychus was completely recovered from his fall.

There's something very lovely about this simple picture. The impression is that of a family meeting together rather than of a modern church service. Is it possible that we have gained in dignity in our Church services at the expense of family atmosphere?

STAGES ON THE WAY ( Acts 20:13-16 )

20:13-16 But we went to the ship and set sail for Assos, for there we intended to take Paul on board for he had arranged things in this way, since he himself intended to do that stage on foot. When we met him at Assos we took him on board and went to Mitylene. On the next day we sailed away from there and arrived opposite Chios. On the second day we crossed over to Samos and on the next day we came to Miletus.. for Paul had decided to sail past Ephesus so as not to have to spend time in Asia. For he was in a hurry to be, if it were possible for him, in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost.

Because Luke was with Paul we can follow the journey almost day by day and stage by stage. From Troas, Assos was 20 miles by road whereas it was 30 miles by sea; and the sea journey involved the rounding of Cape Lectum against the strong prevailing north-easterly winds. Paul had ample time to make the journey on foot and be picked up at Assos. It may be that he wanted the time alone in order to nerve his spirit for the days ahead. Mitylene was on the island of Lesbos, Chios was on Samos and Miletus was 28 miles south of Ephesus at the mouth of the Maeander River.

We have seen how Paul would have liked to have been in Jerusalem for the Passover and how the plot of the Jews hindered that. Pentecost came seven weeks later and he was eager to be there for that great feast. Although Paul had broken away from the Jews, the ancestral feasts were still dear to him. He was the apostle to the Gentiles and his own people might hate him; but in his heart there was nothing but love for them.

A SAD FAREWELL ( Acts 20:17-38 )

20:17-38 From Miletus, Paul sent to Ephesus and summoned the elders of the church. When they were with him he said to them, "You yourselves know how, from the first day I came into Asia, I spent all the time, during which I was with you, serving the Lord with all humility and with tears and amidst the trials that happened to me because of the machinations of the Jews. You know how I kept back nothing that was to your profit, how I did not fail to announce my tidings to you and to teach you both publicly and from house to house, testifying to both Jews and Greeks repentance towards God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. And now, look you, I go bound in the Spirit to Jerusalem, although I do not know what will happen to me there, except that from city to city the Holy Spirit testifies to me that bonds and afflictions await me. But I reckon my life worth nothing and I do not count it precious to myself, so be it that I may finish my course and complete the task I received from the Lord Jesus--the task of bearing witness of the good news of God. And now, look you, I know that all of you, amongst whom I went about preaching the Kingdom, will see my face no more. Therefore I affirm to you this day that I am clean from the blood of all men; for I kept back nothing in my proclaiming to you of the whole will of God. Take heed for yourselves and take heed for all the flock in which the Spirit of God has appointed you overseers, so that you may be shepherds to the Church of God which he has rescued through the blood of his own One. I know that after I have gone away fierce wolves will enter in to you and will not spare the flock; and from your own number there will arise men who will speak perverse things to draw the disciples away after them. Therefore be watchful and remember that for three years, day and night, I never stopped instructing each one of you with tears. And now I hand you over to God and to the word of His grace which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance amongst all those who have been sanctified. I coveted no man's silver or gold or raiment. You yourselves know that these very hands served my own needs and the needs of those who were with me. Always I showed you that working like this a man must help those who are in trouble and that you must remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that it was he who said, 'It is happier rather to give than to get.'"

It is not possible to make a neat analysis of a farewell speech so charged with emotion as this. But certain notes sound out.

First of all Paul makes certain claims for himself. (i) He had spoken fearlessly. He had told them all God's will and pandered neither to the fear nor the favour of men (ii) He had lived independently. His own hands had supplied his needs; and his work had been not only for his own sake but for the sake of others who were less fortunate than himself. (iii) He had faced the future gallantly. He was the captive of the Holy Spirit; and in that confidence he was able to brave everything the future might hold.

Paul also urges certain claims upon his friends. (i) He reminded them of their duty. They were overseers of the flock of God. That was not a duty they had chosen but a duty for which they had been chosen. The servants of the Good Shepherd must also be shepherds of the sheep. (ii) He reminded them of their danger. The infection of the world is never far away. Where truth is, falsehood ever attacks. There was a constant warfare ahead to keep the faith intact and the Church pure.

Through all this scene runs the dominant feeling of an affection as deep as the heart itself. That feeling should be in every church; for when love dies in any church the work of Christ cannot do other than wither.

-Barclay's Daily Study Bible (NT)

Gann's Commentary on the Bible

Acts 20:7

first day of the week -- Sunday, the day the church gathered for worship, because it was the day of Christ’s resurrection. Cf. Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2, Mark 16:9; Luke 24:1; John 20:1, John 20:19; 1 Corinthians 16:2.

The writings of the early church Fathers confirm that the church continued to meet on Sunday after the close of the NT period. Scripture does not require Christians to observe the Saturday Sabbath: 1) the Sabbath was the sign of the Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 31:16-17; Nehemiah 9:14; Ezekiel 20:12), whereas Christians are under the New Covenant (2 Cor. 3; Heb. 8); 2) there is no NT command to keep the Sabbath; 3) the first command to keep the Sabbath was not until the time of Moses (Exodus 20:8); 4) the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) did not order Gentile believers to keep the Sabbath; 5) Paul never cautioned Christians about breaking the Sabbath; and 6) the NT explicitly teaches that Sabbath keeping was not a requirement (see notes on Romans 14:5; Galatians 4:10-11; Colossians 2:16-17). - MSB

break bread -- LORD’S SUPPER - Matthew 26:26-28, 1 Corinthians 11:23-29,

"Upon first day of the week" - Acts 20:7,

Note: This is the same wording used for the weekly contribution- 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 and for the Sabbath- Exodus 20:8.

Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible

And upon the first day of the week,.... Or Lord's day, Revelation 1:10 and which Justin Martyr calls Sunday; on which day, he says i, all, both in city and country, met in one place for religious worship; and on this day, it appears from hence, and from other places, that the apostles and primitive churches did meet together for religious exercises; see John 20:19 and so they did at Troas at this time, as follows:

when the disciples came together to break bread; not to eat a common meal, or to make a feast, or grand entertainment for the apostle and his company, before they departed; but, as the Syriac version renders it, "to break the eucharist", by which the Lord's supper was called in the primitive times; or as the Arabic version, "to distribute the body of Christ", which is symbolically and emblematically held forth in the bread at the Lord's table. Now on the first day of the week, the disciples, or the members of the church at Troas, met together on this occasion, and the apostle, and those that were with him, assembled with them for the same purpose; the Alexandrian copy, the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions read, "when we were come together"; Paul and his company, together with the church at Troas; for it is plain from hence that there was a church in this place, not only by disciples being here, but by the administration of the Lord's supper to them; and so there was in after ages. Who was the first pastor or bishop of this church, is not certain; perhaps Carpus, of whom mention is made in 2 Timothy 4:13 though he is said to be bishop of other places;

2 Timothy 4:13- :. In the "second" century, in the times of Ignatius, there were brethren at Troas, from whence he wrote his epistles to the churches at Smyrna, and Philadelphia, and who are saluted in them by the brethren at Troas k: in the third century, several martyrs suffered here, as Andreas, Paulus, Nicomachus, and Dionysia a virgin: in the "fifth" century, Pionius, bishop of Troas, was present at Constantinople at the condemnation of Eutyches, and afterwards he was in the council at Chalcedon; and even in the "eighth" century mention is made of Eustathius, bishop of Troas, in the Nicene council l.

Paul preached unto them; to the disciples that were gathered together, either before, or after, or at the time of breaking of bread; for this ordinance was not administered without some instructions about the nature, use, and design of it.

Ready to depart on the morrow; this seems to be mentioned as a reason for what follows,

continued his speech until midnight: since he was about to take his leave of them, and not knowing when he should see them again, or whether ever any more, he delivered a long discourse to them; which not only shows that he was full of matter, but that his affection for these saints, and his desire of doing them good, were very great, by imparting as much spiritual light and knowledge as he could unto them; and also his great zeal for the glory of God, and the interest of Christ, though he was to set forth on a journey the next morning.

i Apolog. 2. p. 98. k Ignatii Epist. p. 9. 46. Ed. Voss. l Magdeburg. Hist. Eccles. cent. 3. c. 3. p. 11. cent. 5. c. 10. p. 603. cent. 8. c. 2. p. 4.

Henry's Complete Commentary on the Bible

      7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.   8 And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together.   9 And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead.   10 And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him.   11 When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.   12 And they brought the young man alive, and were not a little comforted.

      We have here an account of what passed at Troas the last of the seven days that Paul staid there.

      I. There was a solemn religious assembly of the Christians that were there, according to their constant custom, and the custom of all the churches. 1. The disciples came together,Acts 20:7; Acts 20:7. Though they read, and meditated, and prayed, and sung psalms, apart, and thereby kept up their communion with God, yet that was not enough; they must come together to worship God in concert, and so keep up their communion with one another, by mutual countenance and assistance, and testify their spiritual communion with all good Christians. There ought to be stated times for the disciples of Christ to come together; though they cannot all come together in one place, yet as many as can. 2. They came together upon the first day of the week, which they called the Lord's day (Revelation 1:10), the Christian sabbath, celebrated to the honour of Christ and the Holy Spirit, in remembrance of the resurrection of Christ, and the pouring out of the Spirit, both on the first day of the week. This is here said to be the day when the disciples came together, that is, when it was their practice to come together in all the churches. Note, The first day of the week is to be religiously observed by all the disciples of Christ; and it is a sign between Christ and them, for by this it is known that they are his disciples; and it is to be observed in solemn assemblies, which are, as it were, the courts held in the name of our Lord Jesus, and to his honour, by his ministers, the stewards of his courts, to which all that hold from and under him owe suit and service, and at which they are to make their appearance, as tenants at their Lord's courts, and the first day of the week is appointed to be the court-day. 3. They were gathered together in an upper chamber (Acts 20:8; Acts 20:8); they had no temple nor synagogue to meet in, no capacious stately chapel, but met in a private house, in a garret. As they were few, and did not need, so they were poor, and could not build, a large meeting-place; yet they came together, in that despicable inconvenient place. It will be no excuse for our absenting ourselves from religious assemblies that the place of them is not so decent nor so commodious as we would have it to be. 4. They came together to break bread, that is, to celebrate the ordinance of the Lord's supper, that one instituted sign of breaking the bread being put for all the rest. The bread which we break is the communion of the body of Christ,1 Corinthians 10:16. In the breaking of the bread, not only the breaking of Christ's body for us, to be a sacrifice for our sins, is commemorated, but the breaking of Christ's body to us, to be food and a feast for our souls, is signified. In the primitive times it was the custom of many churches to receive the Lord's supper every Lord's day, celebrating the memorial of Christ's death in the former, with that of his resurrection in the latter; and both in concert, in a solemn assembly, to testify their joint concurrence in the same faith and worship.

      II. In this assembly Paul gave them a sermon, a long sermon, a farewell sermon, Acts 20:7; Acts 20:7. 1. He gave them a sermon: he preached to them. Though they were disciples already, yet it was very necessary they should have the word of God preached to them, in order to their increase in knowledge and grace. Observe, The preaching of the gospel ought to accompany the sacraments. Moses read the book of the covenant in the audience of the people, and then sprinkled the blood of the covenant, which the Lord had made with them concerning all these words,Exodus 24:7; Exodus 24:8. What does the seal signify without a writing? 2. It was a farewell sermon, he being ready to depart on the morrow. When he was gone, they might have the same gospel preached, but not as he preached it; and therefore they must make the best use of him that they could while they had him. Farewell sermons are usually in a particular manner affecting both to the preacher and to the hearers. 3. It was a very long sermon: He continued his speech until midnight; for he had a great deal to say, and knew not that ever he should have another opportunity of preaching to them. After they had received the Lord's supper, he preached to them the duties they had thereby engaged themselves to, and the comforts they were interested in, and in this he was very large and full and particular. There may be occasion for ministers to preach, not only in season, but out of season. We know some that would have reproached Paul for this as a long-winded preacher, that tired his hearers; but they were willing to hear: he saw them so, and therefore continued his speech. He continued it till midnight; perhaps they met in the evening for privacy, or in conformity to the example of the disciples who came together on the first Christian sabbath in the evening. It is probable he had preached to them in the morning, and yet thus lengthened out his evening sermon even till midnight; we wish we had the heads of this long sermon, but we may suppose it was for substance the same with his epistles. The meeting being continued till midnight, there were candles set up, many lights (Acts 20:8; Acts 20:8), that the hearers might turn to the scriptures Paul quoted, and see whether these things were so; and that this might prevent the reproach of their enemies, who said they met in the night for works of darkness.

      III. A young man in the congregation, that slept at sermon, was killed by a fall out of the window, but raised to life again; his name signifies one that had good fortune--Eutychus, bene fortunatus; and he answered his name. Observe,

      1. The infirmity with which he was overtaken. It is probable his parents brought him, though but a boy, to the assembly, out of a desire to have him well instructed in the things of God by such a preacher as Paul. Parents should bring their children to hear sermons as soon as they can hear with understanding (Nehemiah 8:2), even the little ones,Deuteronomy 29:11. Now this youth was to be blamed, (1.) That he presumptuously sat in the window, unglazed perhaps, and so exposed himself; whereas, if he could have been content to sit on the floor, he had been safe. Boys that love to climb, or otherwise endanger themselves, to the grief of their parents, consider not how much it is also an offence to God. (2.) That he slept, nay, he fell into a deep sleep when Paul was preaching, which was a sign he did not duly attend to the things that Paul spoke of, though they were weighty things. The particular notice taken of his sleeping makes us willing to hope none of the rest slept, though it was sleeping time and after supper; but this youth fell fast asleep, he was carried away with it (so the word is), which intimates that he strove against it, but was overpowered by it, and at last sunk down with sleep.

      2. The calamity with which he was seized herein: He fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead. Some think that the hand of Satan was in it, by the divine permission, and that he designed it for a disturbance to this assembly and a reproach to Paul and it. Others think that God designed it for a warning to all people to take heed of sleeping when they are hearing the word preached; and certainly we are to make this use of it. We must look upon it as an evil thing, as a bad sign of our low esteem of the word of God, and a great hindrance to our profiting by it. We must be afraid of it, do what we can to prevent our being sleepy, not compose ourselves to sleep, but get our hearts affected with the word we hear to such a degree as may drive sleep far enough. Let us watch and pray, that we enter not into this temptation, and by it into worse. Let the punishment of Eutychus strike an awe upon us, and show us how jealous God is in the matters of his worship; Be not deceived, God is not mocked. See how severely God visited an iniquity that seemed little, and but in a youth, and say, Who is able to stand before this holy Lord God? Apply to this story that lamentation (Jeremiah 9:20; Jeremiah 9:21), Hear the word of the Lord, for death is come up into our windows, to cut off the children from without and the young men from the streets.

      3. The miraculous mercy shown him in his recovery to life again,Acts 20:10; Acts 20:10. It gave a present distraction to the assembly, and an interruption to Paul's preaching; but it proved an occasion of that which was a great confirmation to his preaching, and helped to set it home and make it effectual. (1.) Paul fell on the dead body, and embraced it, thereby expressing a great compassion to, and an affectionate concern for, this young man, so far was he from saying, "He was well enough served for minding so little what I said!" Such tender spirits as Paul had are much affected with sad accidents of this kind, and are far from judging and censuring those that fall under them, as if those on whom the tower of Siloam fell were sinners above all that dwelt at Jerusalem; I tell you, nay. But this was not all; his falling on him and embracing him were in imitation of Elijah (1 Kings 17:21), and Elisha (2 Kings 4:34), in order to the raising of him to life again; not that this could as a means contribute any thing to it, but as a sign it represented the descent of that divine power upon the dead body, for the putting of life into it again, which at the same time he inwardly, earnestly, and in faith prayed for. (2.) He assured them that he had returned to life, and it would appear presently. Various speculations, we may suppose, this ill accident had occasioned in the congregation, but Paul puts an end to them all: "Trouble not yourselves, be not in any disorder about it, let it not put you into any hurry, for his life is in him; he is not dead, but sleepeth: lay him awhile upon a bed, and he will come to himself, for he is now alive." Thus, when Christ raised Lazarus, he said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. (3.) He returned to his work immediately after this interruption (Acts 20:11; Acts 20:11): He came up again to the meeting, they broke bread together in a love-feast, which usually attended the eucharist, in token of their communion with each other, and for the confirmation of friendship among them; and they talked a long while, even till break of day. Paul did not now go on in a continued discourse, as before, but he and his friends fell into a free conversation, the subject of which, no doubt, was good, and to the use of edifying. Christian conference is an excellent means of promoting holiness, comfort, and Christian love. They knew not when they should have Paul's company again, and therefore made the best use they could of it when they had it, and reckoned a night's sleep well lost for that purpose. (4.) Before they parted they brought the young man alive into the congregation, every one congratulating him upon his return to life from the dead, and they were not a little comforted,Acts 20:12; Acts 20:12. It was matter of great rejoicing among them, not only to the relations of the young man, but to the whole society, as it not only prevented the reproach that would otherwise have been cast upon them, but contributed very much to the credit of the gospel.

Kelly Commentary on Books of the Bible

We now enter on the missionary journeys, as they are called, of the apostle Paul. The work, under the Spirit, opens to the glory of the Lord. Not merely are Gentiles met in grace and brought into the house of God: He had already wrought in their souls individually this we have seen before, in Peter's mission to Cornelius and his household; but grace goes out henceforth in quest not of Jews only but of Gentiles, as the special sphere which was assigned to Paul by God, and this also in co-operation with the other apostles; for thus they had agreed.

But there are preliminary circumstances of no little interest and moment, which the Spirit of God has been pleased to give us before the record of these journeys. I have read at the beginning, of chapter 13 the principal scene of this kind. Saul of Tarsus had already been called, but here we have a formal act of separation. This is the true description of it in scripture. It was in no way what men call "ordination." This he takes particular pains to deny in explicit terms. It was not only that man was in no sense the source of ministry; for this would be, no doubt, disavowed by the godly everywhere; but he employs the strongest words in showing that it was not by men as the channel. As there are cases where man is the channel of conveying both a gift and authority, we can see how artfulness or ignorance can readily enough embroil the entire subject, and thus prepare the way for the building up of the clerical system. There is no ground for it in scripture. Ministry there is, and as a distinct though connected thing, an official charge: both are beyond question. These two things are clearly recognized by the Holy Ghost. Here we have nothing of official charge. So far as the apostle Paul had both a gift and a charge, and he had both (and the apostleship differs from the gift of a prophet as well as the rest in this, that it is not a gift only but a charge), all had been settled between the Lord and His servant. But now it pleased God at this particular epoch to call forth Barnabas, who was a kind of transition link between the twelve, with Jerusalem for their centre and the circumcision for their sphere, and the free and unfettered service of Paul among the Gentiles. It pleased Him to separate these two chosen vessels of His grace for the work to which He was calling them.

Let us look for a moment at the state of things at Antioch before we pass on. "And there were in the church" (or assembly) "that was at Antioch [certain]* prophets and teachers." What is commonly called a stated ministry was there. All should give full weight to facts which if denied or overlooked would only weaken the testimony which God has given.

* The best uncials, cursives, and ancient versions, omit τινὲς , "certain."

It is the continual effort of those who oppose the truth of the church, and who deny the present ruined condition of it, to insinuate against such as have learnt from God to act on His own word, that they set aside ministry, and more particularly what they call "stated ministry." They do nothing of the kind. They deny an exclusive or one-man ministry. They deny that abuse of ministry which would shut out of its own circle the operation of all gifts but one, which is jealous of every other save by its own will or leave, which has no sufficient confidence in the Lord's call or in the power of the Holy Ghost given for profit, which consequently makes a duty of both narrowness and self-importance through a total misunderstanding of scripture and the power and grace of God. Not for a moment do I deny that all who are in any definite measure taught of God as to His will in the service of Christ must disavow clericalism in every shape and degree as a principle essentially and irreconcilably opposed to the action of the Holy Ghost in the church.

But it is important to affirm that none understand the action of the Spirit who expose themselves and the truth (which is still more serious) to the deserved stigma of denying the real abiding-place of ministry. This is not in anywise the question. All Christians who have light from God on these matters acknowledge ministry to be a divine and permanent institution. It is therefore of very great importance to have scriptural views of its source, functions, and limits. The truth of scripture, if summed up as to its character, amounts to this that ministry is the exercise of a spiritual gift. This I believe to be a true definition of it. The minds of most Christians are encumbered with the notion of a particular local charge. Such a charge is altogether distinct from ministry: it is only confusion to suppose that they are the same thing, or inseparable. Ministry in itself has nothing to do with a local charge. The same person, of course, may have both: this might or might not be.

A man, for instance, as we find in the case of Philip and others might have a local charge at Jerusalem, and there we saw the church choosing, because it was that kind of office which had to do with the distribution of the church's bounty. This is the principle of it. What the church gives the church has a voice in. But the Lord gave Philip a spiritual gift, and there the church bows and accepts, instead of choosing. In point of fact the particular gift that Philip received from the Lord was not one that properly finds its exercise within the assembly, but rather without: he was an evangelist. But this establishes what I have been asserting; that is, that you may have a person without a charge who has a very special gift, and this for public ministry.

The elders or bishops, of whom we shall hear more by-and-by, had a still more important charge. It was the office of oversight, or of a bishop, that was found in every fully-constituted assembly where there could be time for the development of that which was requisite in order to it. But whether there were charges or none, whether the due appointment was or was not, the Lord did not fail to give gifts for the carrying on of His own work. Now those persons who possessed gifts exercised them, as they were bound to do; for here was no question of appointment, and indeed their exercise had nothing, whatever to do with the leave, permission, or authority of any, but solely flowed from the Lord's own gift. This was properly ministry in the word. But there never was such an idea broached, still less acted on, as the exclusive ministry which in modern times has been set up, as if it were the only right thing in theory or practice. In point of fact it is thoroughly wrong, not only not defensible by the word of God, but flagrantly opposed to it.

Here, for example, we have the picture of an assembly drawn by the Spirit. It is the more instructive, because it cannot be pretended that here, as in the church at Jerusalem, there were elements which savoured of the anterior or Jewish state of things. It was among the Gentiles. It was where Saul himself laboured; but then there were other servants of the Lord beside Saul, as Barnabas, and Simeon, and Lucius, and Manaen. Nor are these mentioned as if they were the only persons who there exercised the gifts of prophecy and teaching: no doubt they were the more important men. "As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul" (for he is still called Saul, which was his Hebrew name) "for the work whereunto I have called them." It was the Lord that called them.

But there is more than this: the Holy Ghost can also set apart among the servants to a peculiar service. This is emphatically brought in when it was a question of Barnabas and Saul. Not, of course, but that the Holy Ghost had to do with the action of a Peter, or a John, or of any others that have come before us in the previous accounts of this book; but it is expressly said here and not without an admirable reason, and of the deepest interest to us, because God is here preparing the road and instructing His servants as to His ways, more particularly in the church among the Gentiles. Hence, the Holy Ghost comes into a very decided and defined prominence here: "Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them." The Holy Ghost is in the church; He is personally acting, and not merely as giving power, but in distinct and special call. It is, no doubt, subordinate to the glory of the Lord Jesus, but, nevertheless, as a divine person must who does not abnegate His own sovereignty, so it is said "as he will."

"And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away." This was not to confer authority, which would set one scripture against another. Galatians 1:1 denies such an inference. We shall find, before we have done with the history, what the character of this action was, and wherefore hands were laid upon them: the end of Acts 14:1-28 explains it to us. It is said there (verse 26) that they sailed to Antioch (which was the starting-point), from whence "they had been recommended to the grace of God for the work which they fulfilled." Such, then, was the object and meaning of the hands laid on Barnabas and Saul. It was not the presumptuous thought that men, who were really inferior to themselves spiritually, could confer upon the apostles what they did not themselves possess to the same extent; it was but a fraternal recommendation to the grace of God, which is always sweet and desirable in the practical service of the Lord. "So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost:" nothing can be more distinct than the place that the Spirit of God has assigned Him, nothing more emphatic than the manner in which the inspired writer draws attention to the fact in these commencing verses. All now depends upon His power: He is on earth, the directing power of all that is carried on. That power does not belong to the church, which has indeed responsibility in the last resort in the judgment of evil, but otherwise never can meddle with ministry except to the dishonour of the Lord, its own hurt, and the hindrance of ministry. On the the other hand, ministry never can meddle with what properly belongs to the church. They are two distinct spheres. The same person, of course, may be a minister while he has his place as a member in the body of Christ. But as he is not permitted to use his ministry to override the church in any respect, but rather to subserve its right action, helping it on as far as may be in his power by the Holy Ghost, so on the other hand the church can in nowise rightly control that ministry which flows not from the church, but directly from the Lord.

The present state in nowise alters or modifies the principle: on the contrary, it is an immense comfort that as ministry never did flow from the church, so the present broken state of the church cannot overthrow the place and responsibility of those who minister in the word. The fact is they are quite distinct, although co-ordinate, spheres of blessing.

Barnabas and Saul go forth, then, to Cyprus, the native place of Barnabas; and coming there they preach the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews. There is great care, and so much the more because Saul was apostle of the Gentiles, to go to the Jews; and it is lovely to see the ways of God in this respect. Above all others Luke, as we know, brings out the Lord Jesus Christ Himself in His grace towards the Gentiles. Nevertheless there is no gospel so eminently Jewish as Luke's in its commencement, not even Matthew's. We have no such scene in the gospel of Matthew, and still less in Mark's or John's, no such scene of the temple both of the exterior and interior. We have no such account of the godly Jewish remnant. We have no such care in showing the obedience of Joseph and Mary to the requisitions of the law as in the first two chapters of the gospel of Luke. The fact is, that what is shown first in the gospel, then in the Acts, is "to the Jew first and also to the Gentile." And so we find in the service of these blessed men who now go forth.

They had, by the way, also, we are told, John to their minister. We must not make an ecclesiastical institution out of this. No doubt the expression might to ignorant minds convey some such notion. Nor do I pretend to say what might have been the motives of those who translated it so as to give such a colour to the passage. Manifestly, however, the thing were absurd; because it would be, not a ministry to others, but to Paul and Barnabas. Clearly therefore Mark's service lay here, I suppose, in searching out proper lodgings, and getting people to hear the apostles preach, and that kind of care which a young man would be expected to bestow on those whom he was privileged to accompany and attend in the work of the Lord.

On this occasion they met with the deputy of the island, Sergius Paulus, who was besieged by the efforts of a certain sorcerer that sought to exercise and retain influence over the mind of the great man. But the time was come for falsehood to fall before the truth. When he therefore attempted to turn his old arts against the gospel, and those that were the instruments of bringing it to the island, God asserted His own mighty power. For when Elymas withstood Barnabas and Saul, Saul, "who also is called Paul" (the Spirit of God taking this opportunity of bringing forward his Gentile name in a mission that was to be pre-eminently among the Gentiles, although beginning with the Jew according to the ways of God), being then filled with the Holy Ghost, sets his eyes on the evil worker, gives him his true character, searches him through and through, and, more than this, pronounced a sentence, a judicial sentence, from the Lord, which was at once accomplished. As we are told, "Immediately there fell upon him a mist and a darkness, and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand." It was the sad sign of his guilty race, the Jews, who, by their opposition to the gospel of the grace of God, and more particularly among the Gentiles, are now doomed to the same blindness after a spiritual sort. "Then the deputy, when he saw what was done, believed, being astonished at the doctrine of the Lord." Beautiful contrast with Simon Magus! What astonished Simon Magus was the power displayed; what astonished the deputy was the truth. The admiration of Power is natural to man, and particularly to fallen man. He, conscious of his weakness, covets the power that he would like to wield, having still the consciousness of the place to which he was called, but from which he has fallen; for God put every creature under him, and although through sin he is fallen from his estate, he has in nowise abandoned his pretensions, and he would fain have the power that would enable him not to hold up only, but to reverse if possible the sad consequences of the fall. Delight in the truth, a heart for that which God reveals, flows only from the Holy Ghost; and this was the happy portion of the deputy. He believed, and believed after a very different sort, with a divinely exercised conscience by the power of the Spirit,. instead of a merely intellectual credit receiving upon evidence that which approved itself to the judgment of his mind.

Next we read of Paul and his company, for from this moment he takes the chief place, and others are designated because of their companionship with him. Was this place in anywise contrary to the will of the Lord? Was it not thoroughly according to it? We all know that there is sometimes a little jealousy of any such spiritual influence. I cannot but think, however, that the feeling is owing more to the natural independence of the mind, than the simplicity that delights in the working of the Holy Ghost and the sanctioned expression of God's holy word. I say, then, that Paul and his company "loosed from Paphos, and came to Perga in Pamphylia: and John, departing from them (for he was not at all in faith up to the level of the work at any rate of Paul), returned to Jerusalem," his natural home.

The others proceed on their way to Antioch in Pisidia, and there they are found on the sabbath-day in the synagogue. "And after the reading of the law and the prophets, the ruler of the synagogue sent unto them, saying, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on." What a painful contrast with that which is found in Christendom! Even among the poor Jews, spite of all the coldness and narrowness of their system, there was then a greater openness of heart, and a simplicity to receive whatever could be communicated than one sees where there ought to be the rivers of living water, where there should reign the cherished desire among all that belong to the Lord, that the best help at all cost be rendered to every saint of God, as well as to every poor perishing sinner. However, here among these Jews, the rulers were anxious to get all the help possible from others for the understanding of the word of God, and for its just application. Although they knew nothing whatever of Paul and Barnabas (except, of course, that they were Jews, or looked like them), they called on them forthwith to address all. "And Paul beckoning. with his hand said, Men of Israel, and ye that fear God."

There were proselytes as well as children of Jacob. Many Gentiles had renounced idolatry in all the great cities where Jews were found at this time. Undoubtedly, so far, Judaism had prepared the way for the Lord among the nations of the earth, in whose midst Jews were scattered. Disgust had grown up in the Gentile mind. The abominations of Paganism had risen up to a fearful height. At this very time there were not a few who though Gentiles were not idolaters (and you must bear this in mind), and really did fear God.

To all these Paul addresses himself: "The God of this people of Israel chose our fathers, and exalted the people when they dwelt as strangers in the land of Egypt, and with an high arm brought he them out of it." The history is pursued until he comes to David, as the object, of course, was to bring in the Son of David; for the apostle, led of the Lord, speaks with that considerate skill which love does not fail to use, formed under the Spirit of God. Thus having brought in the Messiah, we are shown how He had been announced by the Baptist. There was no collusion about it. John had first preached, before His coming, the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel. As he fulfilled his course, he acknowledged that he was not the Messiah. Thus God gave an admirable witness of the Messiah that was just at hand. It was no question of a great man, or great deeds, but of God's accomplishing His purpose. Had a particle of ambition influenced John, he, with an immense following among the people, might readily have set up to be the Messiah himself. The truth was, that he was not the Bridegroom but His friend, and the fear of God shut out these base desires, and he felt it his joy and his duty to do the will of God, and be the witness of Him that was coming.

Thus Paul announces the Messiah himself. "Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent." Next he brings boldly forward the awful position in which the Jews had put themselves. "They that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him." Along with spiritual blindness there was as usual the grossest want of common righteousness. "And though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain. And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre." God was against them, and as for the man whom they had crucified, He "raised him from the dead: and he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people. And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus."

It is not warrantable to say "raised up Jesus again." You may read it either "raised up Jesus," or "raised Jesus again;" but you cannot give both. The word cannot at the same time include both, though it may in certain cases, according to the context, mean either. The proper rendering here is "raised up Jesus." This is the meaning required by the facts. It refers to Jesus given to the Jews as the Messiah according to the prophets. It is also the commonest thing possible for the word to apply to resurrection. But then in itself it takes in a much wider range than simply resurrection. The word "raised up" requires " from the dead " to make it definitely mean resurrection. But this is not the case here, till we come to verse 34. I therefore believe that resurrection is not meant in the earlier text at all, but raising up Jesus as the Messiah, as it is also written in the second Psalm: "Thou art my Son: this day have I begotten thee." This is confirmed, and I think proved by the next verse, where we have the additional statement. "And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead." Thus we have two distinct steps: verse 33 affirms that God had fulfilled the promise in raising up the Messiah in the earth for His people; verse 34 adds that, besides this, He raised Him up from the dead. This is important, because it serves as a key to the true application of the second Psalm, which is often, and I believe mistakenly, applied to the resurrection. The reference is to the Messiah, without raising the question of actual bodily resurrection, which is first introduced distinctly inPsalms 16:1-11; Psalms 16:1-11, though implied in Psalms 8:1-9. So, in the Apostle's discourse, the resurrection from the dead is founded not upon the second Psalm, but on a well known passage in the prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 55:3), and also in the sixteenth Psalm already referred to.

But here the apostle (instead of pointing out that God had made the rejected Jesus to be Lord and Christ, which was Peter's doctrine, and, of course, perfectly true) uses it according to his own blessed line of truth, and urges on their souls, that "through this man is preached unto, you the forgiveness of sins; and by him" (not the Jew alone, but) "all that believe are justified from all things from which they could not be justified by the law of Moses." Thus early, vigorously, and plainly did the apostle proclaim this great truth no doubt for all among the Jews who bowed to it, but stated also in terms that should embrace a Gentile believer even as an Israelite. The law of Moses could justify from nothing. "All that believe are justified from all things," The whole is wound up by a solemn warning to such as despise the word of the Lord, and this founded on or rather cited from more than one of their own prophets. (Compare Isaiah 29:1-24 and Habakkuk 1:1-17)

"And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath. Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God. And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God." This stirred up the Jews: it was a new element, and kindled their jealousy at once. We have had the irritation and the murderous opposition of the Jews in Jerusalem. We can understand that they disliked what they considered a new religion, which claimed to come with the highest sanction of the God of Israel, more particularly as it made them feel to the very quick their own sins, their present and past resistance of the Holy Ghost, as well as their recent slaughter of their Messiah. But a new feature comes out here which the Spirit of God lets us see henceforth in all the journeys and labours of the apostle Paul; that is, the hatred which the unbelieving Jews felt at the preaching of the truth to the Gentiles. "When the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy." The scene now lay outside among the nations whom they despised, If the gospel were a lie, why feel so acutely? It was not love or respect for Gentiles. But Satan stirred up, not now simply their religious pride but their envy, and, filled with it, they "spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming."

The law had never wrought such a change among men. It might correct the grossness of idolatry and condemn its folly, thereby some here and there might fear God; but it never did win hearts after such a sort. Thus the evil of their own hearts was brought out among the Jews, and the more in proportion as the might of the grace of God proved itself in attracting souls to the Lord. "Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you." How wondrous and how beautiful the ways of divine love! "But seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life" how solemn to judge oneself unworthy of everlasting life, as every unbeliever does! "lo, we turn to the Gentiles."

This was spiritual wisdom; but was it simply instinct? It was not. There may have been those that turned to the Gentiles from no deeper or more defined reason, as we saw last night. There were those who perceived that the gospel was too great a boon to be confined to the ancient people of God, that it was adapted to the universal need of men, and that it became God's grace to let it forth to the Gentiles; and they acted on their conviction, and the Lord was with them, and many believed. But it was not spiritual instinct here: it was a still holier and lowlier thing, yet higher and more blessed. It was intelligent obedience, where it might not be supposed that one could find a sufficiently clear direction. But the eye of love can discern; it is ever on the alert to obey from the heart.

"For so," says he, "hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles." What had this to do with Paul and Barnabas? Everything. Beyond controversy Christ is directly in view of the prophet, and perhaps some would be disposed to shut up the words only to Christ; but not so the Holy Spirit, who therefore extends its bearing to Paul and Barnabas. Did not Paul afterwards write "to me to live is Christ"? Christ was all to them. Christian faith appropriates to itself what was said to Him. What a place is this! what a power in His name! No doubt it was heretofore a hidden mystery that man should be so associated with a Christ rejected by (and so separated from) the ancient people of God. But what said He to the man despised and set at naught by them? This was the very time when the Messiah, lost to Israel, becomes, in a new and intimate way, the centre for God to associate fully in grace with Him. Thus what belongs to Him belongs to them, and what God says about Him is direction for them. "I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth."

There was no rashness or presumption, but the soundest wisdom in this. Was it only for the Apostles? Is there no principle in this of all importance for us, my brethren? Does it not prove distinctly that it is not merely where we get a literal command that we may and ought to discern a call to obedience? The apostles, as men of faith, were bold about it: "For so hath the Lord commanded us." Yet, I suppose, not two souls besides in the whole earth would have seen a command to them. Unbelief would have asked proof, and have been ill-satisfied; but faith, as evermore, is happy and makes happy. "And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. And the name of the Lord was published throughout all the region." But the Jews were not to give up their envy. The greater the blessing, the more their hearts were vexed with it. "The Jews stirred up the devout and honourable women." They were more open, doubtless, to their efforts; and so were "the chief men of the city." As faith looks to God and the truth, unbelief flies to influence of one kind or another, of females on the one side, and of great men on the other. Thus they raised persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them out of their coasts. "But they shook off the dust of their feet against them, and came unto Iconium. And the disciples were filled with joy, and with the Holy Ghost." As the enemy makes good the occasion of evil, so God turns the wickedness of the adversary to the blessing of His own.

The apostles pass thence into another place; they are, as ever, unwearied in their love. There is, perhaps, no feature more noticeable and instructive than the fact, that nothing turns away the heart of Paul from the poor Jews. He loved them with an unrequited affection; he loved them spite of all their hatred and their envy. Into the synagogue he went again here (as in each new place that he visits), and so spake, "that a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed. But the unbelieving Jews". (they were generally just the same to Paul in one place as in another) "stirred up the Gentiles, and made their minds evil affected against the brethren. Long time therefore abode they speaking boldly in the Lord, which gave testimony unto the word of his grace, and granted signs and wonders to be done by their hands. But the multitude of the city was divided: and part held with the Jews, and part with the apostles. And when there was an assault made both of the Gentiles, and also of the Jews with their rulers, to use them despitefully, and to stone them, they were ware of it, and fled." They thus bowed to the storm. Nothing at all of what men call heroism marked the apostles; there was what is very much better the simplicity of grace: patience is the true wisdom, but God only can give it.

They go accordingly elsewhere, and there preach the gospel. At Lystra, which they visited, the case came before them of a man crippled in his feet, "impotent in his feet," who had never walked. Paul, perceiving that he had faith to be healed, beholds him steadfastly, and bids him stand upright on his feet. The Lord at once answering to the call, the man leaped and walked. "And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men." Accordingly they called Barnabas (who, it is evident, had the more imposing presence) Jupiter; and Paul, because he was the more eloquent of the two, they designated Mercury. "Then the priest of Jupiter", for the city was famous for its devotedness to the so-called father of gods and men, "brought oxen and garlands into the gates and would have done sacrifice." "Which when the apostles,* Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out, and saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? we also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein."

* So the Spirit of God calls them both; and it is an important point to observe; it is not restricted to the twelve. Here we find the Holy Ghost acted in this manner. We have apostleship entirely apart from the twelve tribes of Israel. And not merely is Paul apostle, but Barnabas was recognized also.

What is notable, I think, especially for all those engaged in the work of the Lord, is the variety in the character of the apostolic addresses. There was no such stiffness as we are apt to find in our day in the preaching of the gospel. Oh, what monotony! what sameness of routine, no matter who may be addressed! We find in scripture people dealt with as they were, and there is that kind of appeal to the conscience which was adapted to their peculiar state. The discourse in the synagogue was founded on the Jewish scriptures; here to these men of Lycaonia there is no allusion to the Old Testament whatever, but a plain reference to what all see and know the heavens above them, and the seasons that God was pleased from of old to assign round about them, and that continual supply of the fruits of His natural bounty of which the most callous can scarce be insensible. Thus we see there was the ministration of suited truth, as far as it went, of what God is, and what is worthy of Him, opening the way for the glad tidings of His grace. How different from the vileness of a Jupiter or of a Mercury, a god devoted to corruption and self-will, and another god devoted to stealing! Was this the best religion and morality of the heathen, making gods just like themselves? Such certainly is not the true God. Who can deny all to be vanity even in the minds of the most civilized and refined of the Gentiles? The true God, although He had suffered all nations to walk in their own ways in times past, nevertheless did not "leave himself without witness in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness." This was no more than an introduction for that which the apostle had to say; it was the truth so far rebuking the folly of idolatry. It was in no way the good news of eternal life and remission of sins in Christ; but it was that which either vindicated God, or at least set aside what was undeniable and before all eyes the debasing depravity of their false gods and pagan religion.

"And there came thither certain Jews from Antioch and Iconium, who persuaded the people, and, having stoned Paul, drew him out of the city, supposing he had been dead." "And having stoned Paul" how like his Master! How sudden the change! About to be worshipped as a god, and the next thing after it to be stoned and left for dead! Alas! here also the Jews instigated the Gentiles. "Howbeit, as the disciples stood round about him, he rose up and came into the city: and the next day he departed with Barnabas to Derbe." Such is the victory that overcomes the world; such the power and perseverance of faith. They go on undaunted, yea, confirming the souls of the disciples in various places, "exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God." Impossible for the world to overthrow those who bear the worst it can do, give God thanks, and wait for His kingdom.

But here take note of another part of their service the confirmation of the souls of those who had already believed. It is not simply bringing souls in, and then leaving them to other people; the apostles would stablish them in the faith as they were taught. But this was not all. "When they had ordained them." Let me take the liberty of saying that "ordained" is a very misleading term, which conveys an ecclesiastical idea without any warrant whatever. Not that "ordained" is an interpolation here as in the first chapter of Acts, but certainly the meaning given is fictitious. The true force of the phrase is simply this, "they chose them elders." In more ways than one it is important; because, as a simple choice takes away "ordination," and with it that mysterious ritual which the greater bodies like, so on the other hand the apostles' choosing for them elders takes away all that gives self-importance to the little churches. For it is neither the smaller bodies choosing for themselves, nor an imposing authority vested in their great rivals, but a choice exercised by apostles; that is, they chose for the disciples "elders in every church."

I am well aware that persons of respectability have not been wanting who have tried to make out that the Greek word means that the apostles chose them by taking the sense of the assembly. But this is mere etymological trifling. There is not the slightest warrant for it in the usage of scripture. It is not requisite for a man to be a scholar in order to reject the thought as false. Thus the word " them " refutes it for any intelligent reader of the English Bible. It is not merely that apostles chose. If it be said that the people must have chosen for them to ordain, the answer is, that the people did not choose at all. This is proved by the simple declaration that the apostles chose for the disciples. Such is the way to fill up the sentence "They chose them elders."* To make out the meaning of what Presbyterians or Congregationalists have contended for, it should have been said that they chose by them, or some phrase meaning that they chose by the votes of the assembly. Here there is no ground whatever for such a sense, but on the contrary that the apostles chose elders for the rest. "They chose them elders in every church, and prayed with fasting, commending them to the Lord, on whom they believed."

* It is scarcely necessary to refute at length the notion of the fathers, and of some moderns like Bishop Bilson (Perpetual Government of Christ's Church, p. 13, Eden's edition, Oxford, 1842), that χειροτονήσαντες here means ordaining by imposition of hands. That the word was so used in later times by ecclesiastical writers is true; that this is its meaning in scripture is palpable error. It is to confound χειροτονία with χειροθεσία (or its equivalent, ἡ ἐπιθεσις τῶν χειρῶν ). On the other hand the idea that χειρονονήσαντες means that the apostles conceded to the disciples the power of selecting by vote, whilst they reserved to themselves the right of approval and institution, is still harsher and' in short unexampled in all Greek writings profane or sacred, ancient or medieval. In the earlier Greek authors who write of their public affairs, the word often occurs in the sense of choosing by suffrage (as opposed to lots); later on it meant appointment irrespective of votes. But it is never used, so far as I know, to express that some appointed on the ground of election by others. And I am glad to say not merely that a candid Presbyterian like Prof. G. Campbell treats Beza's version (per suffragia creassent) with the utmost severity as "a more interpolation for the make of answering a particular purpose," but that the Presbyterian divines of 1645 in the "Jus Divinum" point out the flagrant inconsistency of such an interpretation with the express language of the text. None but Paul and Barnabas chose (whatever the manner); and they chose for the disciples, not by their votes, which would be incompatible with their own choice. Compare Acts 10:41, 2 Corinthians 8:19. In the former case God chose beforehand the witnesses, but others gave no votes; in the latter the churches chose brethren to be their confidential messengers, but they never thought of collecting the suffrages of other people. Scriptural usage in every instance is simply choice.

It is vain to deny or parry the importance of this decision of scripture on the subject of presbyters. Not infrequently there is an attack made on those who really desire to follow the word of God, by men who ask, "Where are your elders? You profess to follow scripture faithfully: how is it that you have not elders?" To such I would answer, "When you provide apostles to choose elders for us, we shall be exceedingly obliged for both." How can we have elders appointed according to scripture unless we have apostles or their delegates? Where are the men now who stand in the same position before God and the assembly as Paul and Barnabas? You must either have apostles, or at the very least apostolic men such as Timothy and Titus; for it is quite evident that merely to call people elders does not make them such. Nothing would be easier than to bestow the title of elders within a sect, or for the law of the land to sanction it. Any of us could set ourselves up, and do the work in name, no doubt; but whether there would be any value in the assumption, or whether it would not be really great sin, presumption, and folly, I must leave to the consciences of all to judge.

Thus we know with divine certainty that the elders were chosen for the disciples by the apostles in every church. Such is the doctrine of scripture, and the fact as here described. It is evident therefore, that unless there be duly qualified persons whom the Lord has authorised for the purpose, and in virtue of their most singular relation to the assembly, unless there be such persons as apostles, or persons representing apostles in this particular, there is no authority for such appointment: it is mere imitation. And in questions of authority it must be evident that imitation is just as foolish as where it is a question of power. You cannot imitate the energy of the Spirit except by sin, neither can you arrogate the authority of the Lord without rebellion against Him. Notwithstanding, I do not doubt that this is often done with comparatively good let us conceive the best intentions on the part of many, but with very great rashness and inattention to the word of God. Hence those are really wrong, not to say inexcusable, who assume to do the work that apostles or their delegates alone could do, not such as content themselves with doing their own duty, and refuse a delicate and authoritative task to which they are not called of the Lord.

What, then, is the right thing? All that we can say is, that God has not been pleased, in the present broken state of the church, to provide all that is desirable and requisite for perpetuating everything in due order. Is this ever His way when things are morally ruined? Does He make provision to continue what dishonoured Him? So far from contrariety in this to the analogy of His dealings, it seems to me quite according to them. There was no such state of things in Israel in the days of the returned captives, as in the days of the Exodus, but Nehemiah was just as truly raised up of God for the return from Babylon, as Moses was for the march out of Egypt. Still the two conditions were quite different, and the mere doing by Nehemiah what Moses did would have been ignorance of his own proper place. Such imitation would have possessed no power, and would have secured no blessing.

It is a precisely similar course that becomes us now. Our wisdom is to use what God has given us, not to pretend to the same authority as Barnabas and Paul had. Let us follow their faith. God has continued everything, not that is needful only, but far over and above it for the blessing, if not for the pristine power and order, of the church of God. There is not the slightest cause but want of faith, and consequent failure in obedience, that hinders the children of God from being blessed overflowingly even in this evil day. At the same time God has so ordered it, that no boast is more vain than that of possessing all the outward apparatus of the church of God. In fact, the louder the vaunt, the less real is the claim to ornaments of which God stripped His guilty people. None can show a display of order and charge so settled and regular, as to bear a comparison with the state of the church as it was founded and governed by the apostles.*

*"But it is a characteristic of the Church system" (says Mr. Litton in his "Church of Christ," p. 636, speaking of sacramentalists) "to be most peremptory and exclusive in its decisions where Scripture supplies the slenderest foundation for them."

Far from thinking that it is not good and wise, I admire the ways of the Lord even in this deprivation of ground for boasting. I believe that all on His part is thoroughly as it should be, and really best for us as we are. Nor is it that we should not feel the want of the godly order as of old; but I need not say that if we feel the want of elders, the value of apostles was incomparably greater. Apostles were far more important than elders, and very much more the means of blessing to the church of God. But the right appointment of elders necessarily lapses with the departure of the apostles from the earth. It is not so with gifts, nor therefore with ministry; for all this is essentially independent of the presence of the apostles, and bound up with the living action of Christ the head of the church, who carries out His will by the Holy Ghost here below.

Now we enter upon another and an important chapter in its way, that is to say, the efforts of the Judaisers, who were now beginning (not to hinder the apostle's work merely, but) to spoil the doctrine which he preached. This is the particular point we may see in Acts 15:1-41. Accordingly the source of this trouble lay not among unbelieving Jews, but among such as professed the name of the Lord Jesus. "Certain men which came down from Judea, saying, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When, therefore, Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem." Jerusalem, alas! was now the fountain of the evil: it was from the assembly in Jerusalem that this pest emanated. Satan's effort was to pollute the doctrine of the grace of God, who allowed that the authority and the power too of Paul and Barnabas should be entirely ineffectual to stop the evil. This was turned to good account, because it was far more important to stem the tidal in Jerusalem, and to have the sentence of the apostles, elders, and all thoroughly against these evil doers, than simply the censure of Paul and Barnabas. It could not but be that Paul and Barnabas should oppose those that set aside their doctrines; but the question for the Judaisers was, What about the twelve? Thus, the carrying of the question to Jerusalem was a most suitable and wise act. It may not be that Paul and Barnabas at all designed it as such I do not suppose they did: no doubt they endeavoured to put it down among the Gentiles, but they could not do so. The consequence was that perforce the question was reserved for Jerusalem, where Paul and Barnabas go up for what Paul knew involved the truth of the gospel. "And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles; and they caused great joy unto all the brethren." Thus, you see, going upon this painful controversy, their hearts were filled with the grace of God. It was not the question they were full of, but His grace.

"And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things which God had done with them." There again is uttered what filled their hearts with joy, an important thing. For I am sure that often, where there is any duty of a painful kind, and where the heart of any servant of the Lord, no matter how rightly, gets filled with it, this very earnest pressure becomes really a hindrance. Because such is man, that, if you become thus over-occupied with it, others will infallibly put it down to some wrong object on your part; whereas on the contrary, others do not so oppose where you trust the Lord simply, only dealing with the matter when it is your duty to deal with it and passing on. Meanwhile, your heart goes out to that which is according to His own grace; and there is so much the more power, when you must speak on that which is a matter of pain.

It was thus according to the grace and wisdom given to these beloved servants of the Lord. When the question came before them, "there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed." This is a new feature, it will be observed; that is, it is not merely the envious unbelieving Jews, but the working of legalism in the believing Jews. This is the serious evil that now begins to show itself. They insist "that it was needful to be circumcised, and to command them to keep the law of Moses." In fact they thought that Christians would be all the better for being good Jews. This was their object and their doctrine, if such it can be called. "And the apostles and elders came together to consider of this matter. And when there had been much disputing," etc.

All this leads us into the interior of those days, and proves that the idea of everything being settled just by a word is only imagination; it never was so, not even when the whole apostolic college were there. We find the liveliest discussions among them. "And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men [and] brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; and put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith." Peter we hear on this occasion preaching Paul's doctrine, just as we saw that Paul might among the Jews preach somewhat like Peter: God it put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ" not "they shall be saved," nor " they shall be saved even as we." This is probably what we might have said, but it is not what Peter said. "We believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, we Jews shall be saved even as they [the uncircumcised Gentiles]."

How sweet is the grace of God, and what an unexpected blow to the pretensions of the Pharisees that believed! And this too from Peter! If Paul had said it, there would have been less to wonder at. The apostle of the Gentiles (so they were prone to think) would naturally speak up for the Gentiles, but how about Peter? what induced the great apostle of the circumcision so to speak? and this in the presence of the twelve in Jerusalem itself? How was it that without the plan of man, and contrary no doubt to the desires of the wisest, the failure of Paul and Barnabas to settle the matter, conciliatory and gracious as they were, only turned to the glory of the Lord? It was the evident hand of God to the more magnificent vindication of His grace.

"Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying (for he now takes the place of proposing or giving a judgment), "Men [and] brethren, hearken unto me: Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: so that the residue of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord who doeth these things known from eternity."

Thus we see that in James's mind what Peter and Paul and Barnabas had pressed was according to the declarations of the prophets, not in conflict but agreement with them. He does not say more than this; he does not mean that such was their fulfilment; nor is any special application set before us. They teach that the Lord's name should be called on the Gentiles, not when they become Jews. That they should be blessed and recognized, therefore, was in accordance with prophecy. There were Gentiles as such owned of God, without becoming practical Jews by being circumcised, Gentiles upon whom the name of the Lord was called.

This was the argument or proof from Amos; and it was conclusive. "Wherefore my sentence is (or, I judge), that we trouble not them which from among the Gentiles are turning to God: but that we write to them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from the thing strangled, and from blood." This, in the latter part of it, is simply the precepts of Noah, the injunctions that were laid down before the call of Abram, and, again, that which was evidently due to God Himself in regard to the human corruption that accompanies idolatry; so that things were then left in a manner alike simple and wise. There could be no right-minded Gentiles who would not acknowledge the propriety and necessity of that which the. decree insists on.

"Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, having chosen to send men from among them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren."

It will be observed, by the way, that there were leading men among the brethren. Some seem jealous of this; others of hostile mind talk as if it contradicts brotherhood; but according to scripture, as in the nature of things, it is manifestly right. It is only crotchety people who have made a mistake. There must not be any allowance of jealousy where God speaks so plainly. This would be indeed to quarrel with the mercies of God among us. The letter was written, if I may so say, under the seal of the Spirit of God, from "the apostles, and elders, and* brethren," to the brethren of the Gentiles in Antioch, and Syria, and Cilicia. On its contents I need not enlarge: they are familiar to all.

*There is very grave authority (, A, B, C, D, etc.) for dropping καὶ , "and," and so throwing together οἱ πρ . ἀδ . "the elder brethren" (in the sense, however, of "the elders").

"Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren ( i.e., at Antioch) with many words, and confirmed ( i.e., strengthened) them. And after they had tarried there a space, they were let go in peace from the brethren unto those that sent them." (I give more exactly than in the common text.)

It was important to have the presence of men who were themselves competent witnesses of what had been debated and decided at Jerusalem. This was far more than being the mere and cold bearers of a letter. They knew the motives of the adversaries; they were familiar with the spiritual interests at stake, beside knowing the feeling of the apostles, and of the church at large. These men accordingly accompanied Paul and Barnabas. But this led also, in the wisdom of God, to an important point in the journeyings of the great apostle; for Paul and Barnabas, it is said, "continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also." (What largeness and love! How different from the days when an exclusive title protects unfit or haughty men, and money difficulties hamper both teachers and taught!) "And some days after Paul said to Barnabas" (the younger takes the lead), "Let us go again and visit the brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do."

Paul loved the church; he was not only a great preacher of the gospel, but he was deeply interested in the state of the brethren, and he valued their edification. Barnabas proposed to take with them John, who was also called Mark; Paul, however, would not agree to it. "But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work. And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other." The Spirit of God takes good care to record this; it was needful that it should be noted. It should act as a warning; and, on the other hand, it would also prepare the minds of the children of God for the fact, that even the most blessed men may have their difficulties and differences. We must not be too much cast down if we meet with anything of the kind. I do not make this remark in any wise to make light of such disagreements, but alas! we know that these things do arise.

But there is more for our instruction "Paul chose Silas." This is a weighty practical consideration. There are persons, I am aware, who think that in the work of the Lord all must be left absolutely without thought of one's own or concert to the Lord Himself. Now I do not find this in the word of God. I do believe in simple-hearted subjection to the Lord. Assuredly faith in the action of the Holy Ghost is of all importance, both in the church, and also in the service of Christ. Yet there is not liberty alone but a duty of conferring together on the part of those who labour. There may be spiritual wisdom in what is often called "arrangement." So far from regarding it as an infringement of scripture, or of what is due to the Holy Ghost, I believe there are cases in which not to do so would be independence, and a total mistake as to the ways of the Lord. It is quite true that Paul would not have an improper person forced on him in the work. He had come to the conclusion that, though Mark might be a servant of the Lord and of course have his own right sphere, he was not exactly the labourer that was suited for the mission to which the Lord was calling himself. Consequently his mind was made up not to take Mark with him. Barnabas, on the contrary, would have Mark with them, and at length so strongly urged this as to make it the necessary condition of his own association with the apostle. The consequence was that the apostle preferred even to forego the presence of his beloved friend and brother and fellow-servant, Barnabas, rather than have an unsuitable person forced upon him.

1 have little doubt that the brethren in general judged, and this spiritually, that Paul was in the right and Barnabas therefore wrong. For the apostle chose Silas and departed, as we are told, "recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God," without a word about the brethren recommending Barnabas and John. Not that one would in the least doubt that Barnabas continued to be blessed of God. And as for John (Mark), we are expressly informed of his ability in the ministry at a later day. The apostle takes particular pains to show his respect and love for Barnabas after this in an inspired epistle (1 Corinthians 9:1-27); and what is yet more to the purpose, he makes the most honourable mention of Mark in more than one of his later epistles. (Colossians 4:1-18 and 2 Timothy 4:1-22) How good of the Lord thus to let us see the triumph of His grace in the end! And what a joy to the loving heart of the apostle to record it!

At the same time the entire history furnishes a most important principle in the practical service of the Lord. We ought not to be in anywise bound by an esprit de corps; where His testimony is concerned, we must be prepared to break with flesh and blood to say to a father and mother, I have not seen them, neither to acknowledge one's brethren, nor to know one's own children. Nor must we think overmuch about the trial; for beyond a doubt many will be grieved by that measure of faithfulness to the Lord which condemns themselves. This we must bear as a part of the burden of His work. On the other hand, need it be said that nothing is more uncomely than a rudely personal and slashing habit with others in carrying out the will of the Lord? There is in it neither grace, nor righteousness, nor wisdom, but self and self-deception; for it looks like zeal this fire of Jehu. At the same time there is such a thing as looking to God to have an exercised judgment, as to your associates no less than your work. The Lord alone can give the single eye with self-judgment which enables us in the Spirit to discern aright whom we ought to decline, and whom to choose, if companions offer or should be sought in the work.

In Acts 16:1-40 we enter on some fresh points of interest. We have before us the first appearance of Timothy, who was afterwards to figure so much in the history of Paul and the service of the Lord. Here too we find a principle of no small moment for our guidance, and the more so as Paul did that for which, one can conceive, a great many might judge him. It is wonderful how apt people are, and especially those who do not know much, to judge such as know far better than themselves. There is nothing so easy as to form a judgment, but whether there be adequate grounds and a sound conclusion are other questions. Here the apostle is said to have taken Timothy (whose mother was a Jewess and his father a Greek, himself a disciple of good report among the brethren) to go forth with him. But, singular to say, Paul circumcises him. What consternation this must have made amongst the brethren, especially the Gentiles! It was just after the battle of Gentile independence of circumcision had been fought and won. They surely must have thought that Paul was losing his wits himself to circumcise Timothy! Not even a Jew would have gone so far. Could it be that the apostle of the uncircumcision had at length succumbed to the adversary? or that he was swayed by his early prejudices so as to forget all his own past testimony to the cross and death and resurrection of Christ?

Now I do not hesitate to say, that so far from Paul being under legal prepossession in this act, on the contrary he never did anything in his course that showed him to be more completely above it. To circumcise Timothy was precisely what the law would not have done. It is well known that, if there was a mingled marriage (i. e., between a Jew and a Gentile), the law would have nothing to say to the offspring. Legally the Jewish father could not own his own children born of a Gentile mother, or vice versa. (See Ezra 10:1-44) Now Timothy being the fruit of such a marriage, there could be no claim, even if there was license, to circumcise him; and (just because there was no such claim, he being on the one side sprung of a Greek, though his mother was a Jewess, because it could not be commanded) Paul condescends out of grace to those who were on a lower ground, and stops their mouths most effectually. Grace knows how and when to bend, no less than to be as unflinching as a rock; but this is precisely what even believers in general are least able to understand. Righteousness (that is, consistency with our relationship) is not all. God is gracious, and so may we be by His grace, and thus feel how such as are really on a true and real ground of grace, and in a position according to the word of God, can have the truest sympathy with those who, though of God, are on a totally different ground, doing and saying what must astonish others possessed of little grace. Is not this a thing to be weighed? We may find, there is little doubt, the importance of it before we have got through our little career. It is a question that often comes up in various forms; but I believe there is only one means of solving it. While the heart thoroughly holds fast the truth of God, let us seek at the same time to understand the workings of that truth according to the grace of God.

This was the secret of the apostle's action here, but it did not hinder in the least his use of the decision arrived at in the recent council at Jerusalem. For "as they went through the cities, they delivered to them to keep the decrees that were ordained of the apostles and elders that were at Jerusalem. And so were the churches established in the faith, and increased in number daily."

Then we find another important fact. Paul was stopped in his Asiatic journeyings, as we are told here, and "forbidden by the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia." So completely is the Spirit of God regarded as the directing person in the church. "After they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia: but the Spirit of Jesus (for such should be the text) suffered them not. And they passing by Mysia came down to Troas. And a vision appeared to Paul in the night; there stood a man of Macedonia, and prayed him, saying, Come over into Macedonia, and help us." In various ways, therefore, divine guidance was never wanting.

Accordingly they come to the first spot in Europe that was blessed with the preaching of the great apostle of the Gentiles. They came to Philippi, "which is the first* city of that part of Macedonia, a colony: and we were abiding in the city itself certain days."

* Philippi was not the "chief" city of Macedonia, but Thessalonica; and as Wieseler has shown, even if the subdivisions had been known then of Macedonia Prima, Sec. etc., Amphipolis (not Philippi) was the chief city of that part or district. The literal and correct translation therefore is "first," geographically speaking. Eckhel (iv. p. 477, ss.) copies the coin, COL. AVG. IVL. PHILIP. It was therefore probably a colony founded by C. J. Caesar, and afterwards increased by Augustus.

Here we read of Lydia's heart opened, and of her household. The action of the Spirit as to the family seems to have obtained remarkably among Gentiles; among the Jews, as far as I know, we do not hear of it. We have found already districts among the Jews, as also among the Samaritans, which were powerfully impressed (to say the least) by the gospel; but among the Gentiles families seem particularly visited by divine grace as recorded by the Spirit. Take for example Cornelius the jailor, Stephanas: indeed you find it over and over gain. This is exceedingly encouraging especially to us.

But grace never acts in power without stirring up the enemy, and in ways calculated most to oppose and undermine. His tactics in Europe differed from those in Asia at least in this the first place where the gospel was preached. The earliest case of any one or thing which the word of God names is, as a rule, remarkably characteristic. Applying this to what is in hand, we find that Satan's peculiar method in Europe was not so much by overt opposition but rather by affecting patronage. The maiden with the spirit of divination did not take the method of decrying the servants of the Lord but of applauding them. As it is said here, "she followed Paul and us (for Luke was now with the apostle) with the cry, These men are the servants of the Most High God, which show unto us the way of salvation." This she did many days, for at first the apostle avoided action to give no importance by any assaults of an open kind on the evil spirit. But after no notice was taken for some days, he being grieved at her boldness turns and says to the spirit, "I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her." This roused the whole city.

The masters were troubled because the source of their gains was gone; and the magistrates disliked anything that produced an uproar. The result was that the multitude rose up together, the praetors rent off their clothes, and the apostle and his companion were beaten and cast into prison, with a charge to the jailor to keep them safely. There the Lord wrought marvellously. At midnight, while others slept, Paul and Silas in praying were singing the praises of God, who soon answered them. "Suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken: and immediately all the doors were opened." The consequence of the truth afterwards presented was in God's grace the conversion of the jailor. It is not now the time to dwell on the details, beautiful as the scene is, and attractive to the heart as it may well be. The praetors were soon forced to acknowledge the wrong they had done in beating Romans uncondemned, contrary to the law of which they were the administrators. Thus the world was rebuked, the brethren comforted, and Paul and his companions departed to other fields of suffering and service.

The next chapter (Acts 17:1-34) sketches for us the first entrance of the gospel into Thessalonica. It may be noted how remarkably the kingdom was preached there. But those of Berea earned for themselves a still more honourable character, being distinguished not so much by the prophetic style of teaching addressed to them, as by their own earnest and simple-hearted research into the word of God.

Finally, the apostle is at Athens, and there he makes one of the most characteristic appeals preserved to us in this striking book, but an appeal by no means to the credit of human refinement and intellect. For there is no place where the apostle condescends more to the elementary forms of truth, than in that city of art, poetry, and high mental activity. His text is taken, we may say, from the well-known inscription on the altar, "To the unknown God." He would let them know what, in the midst of their boasted knowledge, they themselves confessed they knew not. His discourse was pregnant with suited truth, for he points out the one true God, who made the world and all things therein a truth that philosophy never, acknowledged, and now denies, and would disprove if it were possible.

"God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth" another truth that unbelief disowns that God is not only the maker but the Lord, the master and disposer, of all "He dwelleth not in temples made with hands." Thus the apostle finds himself at issue with both the Gentiles and the Jews. "Neither is worshipped (served) with men's hands, as though he needed anything," contrary to all religion of nature, wherever and whatever it may be. "Seeing he giveth" (such is His character) "to all men life and breath and all things; and hath made of one blood:" here again he is at issue with man's ideas, especially with those of Hellenic polytheism, for the unity of the human race is a truth that goes with that of the true God. It was seen among men that various races had each their own national god, and thus naturally the falsehood of many gods was bound up with and fostered the kindred pretension of many independent races of men. This was a darling idea of the pagan world. They held themselves to have sprung from the earth in some singularly foolish manner, at the same time maintaining that each was independent of the other. On the other hand, the truth which divine revelation discloses is that which man's mind never did discover, but, when propounded, at once brings conviction along with it. Is it not humbling that the most simple truth about the simplest fact should be entirely beyond the ken of the proudest intellects unaided by the Bible? One would think that man ought to know his own origin. It is just what he does not know. He must know God first, and when he does all else becomes plain. "He hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on the face of the earth."

Again, "He hath determined the times before-appointed" (everything is under His guidance and government); "and the bounds of their habitation; that they should seek God, if haply they might feel after him, and find him (" God," it should be here, according to the best authorities: "The Lord" is not in keeping with the teaching in this place. He shows them that God is the Lord, but this is another matter), "though he be not far from every one of us: for in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets," etc. Thus he turns the acknowledgment of their own poets against themselves, or rather against their idolatry. Strange to say that the poets, however fanciful, are wiser than the philosophers. How often they stumble in their dreams on things beyond that which they themselves would have otherwise imagined! Thus some of the poets among them (Cleanthes and Aratus) had said, "For we are also His offspring." "Forasmuch, then, as. we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead (the Divine) is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device." How clearly was shown the folly of their boasted reason! What can be simpler or more conclusive? Since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that God can be made by our hands. This is in effect what their practice amounted to. Gods of silver and gold were the offspring of men's art and imagination.

"And the times of this ignorance" (what a way to treat the boasting men of Athens!) "God winked at; but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent." Manifestly there is a thrust at conscience. This is the reason why he insists here on God's call to repent. It is no use to talk of science, literature, politics, religion. Old or new speculations in philosophy are alike vain. God is now enjoining on all everywhere to repent. Thus he puts the sage down with the savage, because God is brought in as the judge of all. It is evident that divine truth must be aggressive; it cannot but deal with every conscience that hears it throughout the world. The law might thunder its claims on a particular people; but the truth deals with everybody as he is before God. The ground of the appeal too is most serious: "Because he hath appointed a day in the which he will judge the world." Solemn prospect! This he urges home on them, and in a manner peculiar but suitable to the moral condition of Athens.

God is about to judge the habitable earth ( οἰκουμένην ) in righteousness. He does not here speak of judging the dead. It is the sudden intervention of the man who, raised from the dead, is going to deal with this habitable earth. Such is the unquestionable meaning of the text. The "world" here means the scene dwelt in by man. It is in no way a question of the great-white-throne judgment. Certainly all that he put before them was admirably calculated to arouse them from their mythic dreams to the light of truth, without gratifying their love of the speculative. "He will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance to all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead."

The allusion to the resurrection became at once the signal for unseemly jest. "And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter. So Paul departed from among them." There was but little fruit even for the apostle and from this wonderful discourse. Some, however, did cleave to him, and believed: "among the which was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them."

Acts 18:1-28. But in the grossly voluptuous state of Corinth the gospel, strange to say, was to take a great and effectual hold on a certain part of the population. Not so at Athens: few were the souls, and comparatively feeble the work there. But in Corinth, proverbially the most corrupt of Grecian cities, how unexpected yet how good the ways of the Lord! He had much people in that city. It was an immense comfort, both in his labours there and afterwards, when the work seemed spoiled. He could still believe, and spite of all look for the recovery of those that had been turned aside. The Lord is ever kind and true; and so Paul went on with good courage, however tried and humbled on their account.

Here take note of another remarkable fact. The apostle does what is proscribed by all ecclesiastical canons, as far as I know, everywhere: that is to say, he works with his hands at the simple occupation of tent-making "And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks. And when Silas and Timotheus were come" he takes this as the occasion for testifying to the Jews fully being "pressed" (not exactly in the spirit, as it is said in the common text, but) "in regard of the word," he testifies that Jesus was the Christ. "And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment," with the warning, "Your blood be upon your own head; I am clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles."

Accordingly the work goes on among the Gentiles, though the Lord was not without witness among the Jews. And this leads to a vast deal of feeling and clamour: "and all the Greeks took Sosthenes, the chief ruler of the synagogue, and beat him before the judgment seat." Here the ruler was not only unwilling to entertain the question, but supercilious, and indifferent to the general disorder.

Just at the same time another remarkable feature appears here. In Cenchrea Paul shaves his head according to a vow. It is plain that, whatever might be the strength of divine grace, there was a certain concession to his old religious habits, even in the greatest of apostles, and the most blessed instrument of New Testament inspiration.

However this may be, the end of the chapter gives another remarkable witness of grace. Apollos is brought before us, taught by Aquila and Priscilla, who "took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly." I doubt whether it would have been according to the will of God for a woman to have done so alone; but she, along with her husband, instructed him as they could. Now Priscilla, as I cannot doubt, knew more than her husband; it was therefore desirable that she should contribute her help. Still the Lord's ways are invariably wise; and it is very evident that it was in conjunction with her husband, not independently of him, that this grave task was carried on.

Another important fact opens Acts 19:1-41. Paul found at Ephesus a dozen disciples, who were in a very ambiguous position; for they were not exactly Jews, and they were certainly not in the true sense Christians: they were in a transition state between the two. Does this appear to you at all startling? It is likely that it may disturb those who are in the habit of thinking, or at least saying, that all persons must be in one of the two states that it is impossible to be in a middle position between them. But this is not the fact. It is always well to face the word of God; and God has written nothing in vain.

I say, then, that these men were recognized at Ephesus as believers, but it is very evident that they were not resting on the work of the Lord Jesus. They had faith, they looked to His person; but they had not intelligently laid hold of His work for the peace of their souls. So when Paul comes there and finds these disciples, he says, "Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?" Not the slightest doubt is started about their believing, but he does raise a very serious question about another thing: "Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?" Why he asked this it is not for us to say for certain. It is likely that he saw something that indicated to his penetrating eye souls not at rest and in the liberty of grace. In spirit they were still under the law. It is the state described in the latter part of Romans 7:1-25. Of course I use this description with reference to Romans 7:1-25 by anticipation, because that Epistle was not yet written. But people were in that state before it was written as well as since; and the object of the epistle was to deliver them out of it.

Paul then enquired, "Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost." It is not that they did not know the existence of the Spirit of God. Such is not at all the meaning of the text. All Jews had heard in the scripture of the Holy Ghost; and more particularly John's disciples were well instructed in the fact, not only of His existence, but that the Holy Ghost was about to be sent down on believers, or rather that they were going to be baptized with the Holy Ghost. This is what is referred to. Had that baptism taken place? They were not aware of it; they had not yet received the great blessing. Thus it is seen, they were believers, though they had not received the baptism of the Holy Ghost. Such is the account that scripture gives of their state.

It is well to note this, because we may find persons now in a state somewhat analogous. There are many souls who are not at all in liberty, not having yet received the Spirit of adoption. Yet are they persons that we can truly accept as born of God; they detest sin; they love holiness; they really adore the Lord Jesus, having no doubt at all as to His glory, and that He is the Saviour. For all this they are not able to what they call "apply" the truth to their own case and settled relationship. They cannot always appropriate the blessing. They are not at ease and at liberty in their souls. We must not put such people down as unbelievers, on the one hand; neither must we rest, on the other hand, as though they had received everything. Those are two errors to which many are prone. Scripture allows neither, perfectly providing for every case. What the apostle did was this: he was far from questioning the reality of their faith, but he showed that it was not yet exercised on the full object of faith. They had not, yet entered into the just results of redemption. Accordingly he enquires how this came to pass to what they had been baptized. They say, To John's baptism. This explains all. John's baptism was only transitional. It was of God, but it was simply in prospect of the blessing, not in possession of it. Such too was the state of these men. The apostle then puts before them the truth. "They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came upon them; and they spake with tongues."

This is highly important to be understood, though (I need not say) still more to be believed. We have the apostle in an exceptional way laying his hands on disciples in this condition, just as Peter and John laid their hands on the Samaritan believers who thereby received the Holy Ghost. Thus God takes particular pains to show that the apostle Paul had the same sign and voucher of his apostleship as attached to Peter and John before. We are not, however, to suppose that a man cannot receive the Holy Ghost except by such an act: this would be a false impression and a misuse of scripture. As I have said elsewhere, and sought to explain long ago, the two general cases of the gift of the Holy Ghost are entirely irrespective of any such act; the special cases, where hands were imposed, owed their existence to peculiar circumstances that do not call for detailed remarks at this late hour.

Then we hear of the mighty spread of the work, not only the power with which God clothed the apostle, but also that which rebuked the superstitious use of the name of Jesus by those who without faith pretended to it. The chapter ends with the tumult at Ephesus.

In Acts 20:1-38 we learn the definitive usage, which the Spirit sanctions and records for us, of the Lord's day, or the first day of the week, as the fitting time, for the breaking of bread. So we find it among the Gentiles in Acts 20:7. I am aware that there are those who seem to think there is no liberty to break bread on any other day. I cannot but differ from such a conclusion. There appears to me full liberty to break bread any day provided that some adequate or just reason call for it: Acts 2:1-47 is, to my mind, conclusive authority for this. At the same time, while there is liberty to break bread, wherever there arises a sufficient ground for it in the judgment of the spiritual on any day of the week, it is obligatory, if we may use such a term on such a theme, on all saints walking with the Lord to break bread on the Lord's day, remembering always that the obligation flows from the grace of Christ, and is perfectly consistent with the most thorough sense of liberty before the Lord. In short, then, the regularly sanctioned day for breaking bread among the Gentiles is the first day of the week (not of the month, or quarter, or year); but under special circumstances the early disciples used to break bread every day. This appears to be the true answer to questions raised on this point.

Finally, in the same chapter (without entering into particulars at present), we may note the meeting of the elders* with Paul, and the important truth that they are not thrown upon any successors to the apostle, nor does he speak of any successors in their own office, but "commends them to God and to the word of his grace." This is the more worthy of attention because he warns them of grievous wolves without, and perverse men from within. Thus there was every reason for speaking of succession, if it really possessed the place which tradition gives it, both to apostles on the one hand, and to elders on the other; but there is a marked absence of any such provision. Not only is it not pointed to, but a wholly different comfort is administered.

* It may be observed here that those whom the inspired historian calls "the elders of the church" ( i.e., in Ephesus) the apostle designates overseers, or bishops ( ἐπισκόπους ). They are not in scripture two orders of spiritual rulers but one office. It is not merely that the bishops were styled presbyters (the higher dignity including the lower), but the presbyters Paul calls bishops, which could only be because they are both descriptive of the same men and office. This is supposed also in Philippians 1:1, 1 Timothy 3:1-16, Titus 1:5; Titus 1:7, 1 Peter 5:1-2. On the other hand presbyters never appointed to that office, though an apostle associated them with himself in laying hands on Timothy when he conferred on him a χάρισμα . But scripture never calls Timothy a presbyter or bishop, but an evangelist, though he was also employed of the Lord in a highly responsible place at Ephesus, and seems to have exercised a quasi-apostolic charge over the presbyters as well as the saints in general there.

I am sorry to add an instructive sample of the blinding influence of ecclesiastical tradition over a pious mind at an early day. It is a citation from Ireneaus' famous work against heresy (III. xiv. 2), or rather the Latin version which alone represents him here: "In Mileto enim convocatis episcopis et presbyteris, qui erant ab Epheso et a reliquis proximis civitatibus, quoniam ipse festinaret," etc. Undeniably there is a double misstatement here:

(1) the bishops and presbyters must be regarded as at least contrary to fact;

(2) they were expressly of the church in Ephesus, not from other neighbouring cities. We cannot wonder that later writers of less integrity and singleness of eye than the martyr bishop of Lyons went farther and without scruple in the effort to justify the growing departure from the normal state of the church, its doctrines, ministry, and discipline, as laid down in God's word. I could not but consider the note of Massuet, the Benedictine editor, a disgrace to a Christian scholar, or even to an honest man, if one did not bear in mind that the eyes of such persons are useless spiritually when they read the Fathers.