Acts 18:23–21:26

First, though, we see Paul starting out fresh from Antioch. A love that cares for everyone carries him once more over the ground he had covered on his second journey. He takes it up in an orderly way this time, so that he misses none of those who had been brought to Christ back then. In Galatia at least there were many of them, and they were earnest disciples. Of Phrygia we know only that he had visited it throughout. But the sense is that there too there were many. He was caring for them now, rather than starting new assemblies.

At Antioch he now spent "some time," a phrase that shows it was not a very long stay. Then he was off on his third journey, going first to the places where he had worked before, to strengthen the disciples. This work is always badly needed, because so many influences work to weaken disciples.

Luke is the only writer who uses this term, and he uses it often. It properly means in a regular series, one after another, and so sometimes just following, or next, in order… On the whole, I see no sign at all that Luke uses it for time order. The word itself does not carry that meaning, except that time order is one kind of order.

On his first visit to those parts he went to Phrygia before Galatia (16:6). This time he reversed his route, going through Galatia before Phrygia. He seems to have been shaping his course for Ephesus, which he had promised to visit (18:21).

Paul and Barnabas went to Lystra, Iconium and Antioch, confirming the souls of the disciples and urging them to continue in the faith. Judas and Silas, messengers from Jerusalem to Antioch, were prophets, and they encouraged the believers with many words and confirmed them. Paul and Silas later went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches. Acts 14:22; Acts 15:32, 41. Those passages, along with Acts 18:23, where the word is translated 'strengthen,' are all the places where the word ἐπιστηρίζω occurs. (There is no idea of a ceremony here, like what is now called 'Confirmation.')

Again, in 18:23, we read that Paul went through the countries of Galatia and Phrygia in order, strengthening, or confirming (the same word here as elsewhere), all the disciples. All of them needed strengthening, or confirming. The context shows what the historian meant to say. The disciples as a body in each place needed this kind of ministry. The Lord provided it, and people other than apostles could do it.

The pioneer work of the evangelist had opened out the work in those parts; now he acts as the pastor and teacher.

The evangelist has a duty to preach the gospel in the regions beyond, as long as there are regions still to reach. The pastor has a duty to "go again and visit his brothers," as long as there are brothers to visit. The evangelist forms the connection; the pastor keeps it and strengthens it… The two gifts can exist in the same person, as they did in Paul. But either way, each gift has its own sphere and object.

Since this was a second visit, we read of him passing through the country 'in order' — that is, where assemblies existed — and establishing 'all the disciples' who had already received the gospel. This matters a great deal for the letter to the Galatians. He wrote it not long after they were called: "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel" (Gal. 1:6, ESV). People are like that, even where the greatest of the apostles had laid the foundation a little before.

In Exodus 4:10 and Acts 18:24, "man of words," "ready of speech."

There simply comes before us a Jewish workman. He was unformed at first, but he soon had no need to be ashamed. He came from the city that later played a notorious part in corrupting heavenly truth by worldly wisdom. He himself was a man of learning, or of eloquence (the Greek word means both), and he was able in the Scriptures.

If we are to be fruitful in service, we must be instructed in the word of the Lord. Apollos was a Bible student. He searched the Scriptures to find out the truth… That word "diligently" can also be translated "accurately." How vital it is to quote the Scriptures accurately! The Spirit uses the word of God.

Fluency of speech, as a natural gift, may be present or absent without harming the effectiveness of an evangelist considered as a minister of God. Apollos was "eloquent," while Paul was "unskilled in speaking." Human persuasion, natural or carefully crafted, cannot carry out the purposes of God. His appeal is not to the imagination or to the understanding alone, but to the hearts and consciences of sinful men.

After this we find the Lord bringing others into the work, especially Apollos. He was "an eloquent man, and mighty in the Scriptures," yet so ignorant at first that he knew nothing beyond the baptism of John… But if he was in the dark about the Church and the full truth of Christianity, he was a converted man… Apollos had received by the Spirit the early testimony to the Lord, but he did not know the work of Christ.

It does not appear that he had received any appointment, ordination, or approval of any kind, from either the twelve apostles or Paul. But the Lord who is above all had called him, and was working in him and by him. In the case of Apollos we see the power and liberty of the Holy Spirit, without human involvement… Though he burned with zeal and was a powerful speaker, Apollos knew only what John had taught his disciples. The Lord knew this, and provided teachers for him. And though he was both learned and eloquent, he was humble enough to let Aquila and Priscilla teach him.

But what was uppermost in the mind of an Alexandrian Jew, "mighty in the Scriptures," after he became a Christian? To show from "the Scriptures" that Jesus was Christ (Acts 18). There was something running through the inspired writings which others left aside: they testified in one way or another of Jesus.

Here comes before us a Jewish workman who soon had no need to be ashamed, however unformed he was at first... He was not merely a scholar and otherwise competent, but already instructed in the way of the Lord. Born of God, he was in understanding ahead of a God-fearing Jew, but short of the fuller truth that the gospel gives... He was ignorant of all truth beyond "the baptism of John". Nor was he lacking in moral courage or zeal.

There can be no doubt that he was born of God and had made progress in the understanding of the word. He was a believer, though limited in his knowledge... Apollos had been born of God through the testimony of John the Baptist. He must have been a keen student of the word — so much so that he spoke boldly in the synagogue at Ephesus about what he had learned.

This man Apollos, a man who has been taught the way of the Lord, is also a man fervent in spirit. John's testimony converted him, and he was marked by the features of the man who led him to Christ. Fervent in spirit, burning in spirit, like a lamp shining brightly, he stands in that gathering at Ephesus. He speaks "boldly in the synagogue," though as yet he "knew only the baptism of John."

That word "diligently" may also be rendered "accurately." How important it is that we quote the Scriptures accurately! The word of God is what the Spirit uses.

This rises far beyond the promised Messiah, which was the substance of John's teaching, with repentance urged on the souls who received it. Apollos knew no more. He might proclaim its value with great eloquence. He might back its truth with fitting proofs from the Old Testament scriptures. Still he knew no more. Someone may argue that John went further in his preaching. After all, he testified of Jesus as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. But the conclusion is invalid that John knew or taught redemption by His blood... What His death achieved, the power of His resurrection, the glory of His place on high — John did not enter into these. They were not yet revealed to him as things his faith could hold and enjoy.

We may observe how distant and different were the means God used from the formal methods of a divinity school... But God's truth is known by faith, and only faith can be trusted with it for good. Faith like that is so rare in the schools that no one can count on finding it there.

So God used these believers, who had no public gift, to properly launch a very gifted vessel on his career of service. From Ephesus he went to Corinth, and not only did he convince many Jews about Christ, he also greatly helped the believers. How much of the reward of his effective service will go to the credit of Aquila and Priscilla, who can say?

Apollos knew only the teaching of John; but, upright in heart, he publicly confessed and preached what he knew. It was the faith of a soul born again. Aquila and Priscilla then teach him the full facts of the gospel, and the truth of a Christ who died and is now glorified... The energy of the Holy Spirit shows itself in him without any involvement of the apostle or of the twelve apostles. He acts independently — that is, the Spirit acts independently in him.

When Apollos met Aquila and Priscilla, they "took him to themselves, and expounded to him the way of God more perfectly" — or, as it might read, "accurately." It is the same word again. What he had already learned was accurate, accurate as far as it went. But Aquila and Priscilla "unfolded to him the way of God more exactly."

He was a man of learning, or eloquence, and able in the Scriptures. He was not merely a scholar and otherwise competent, but already instructed in the way of the Lord. Born of God, he was ahead of a God-fearing Jew in understanding, but short of the fuller truth which the gospel gives. He did not lack moral courage or zeal, and "he began to speak boldly in the synagogue."

Apollos knew only the teaching of John. But he was upright in heart, and he publicly confessed and preached what he knew. It was the faith of a soul born again. Aquila and Priscilla teach him fully about the facts of the gospel, and about the doctrine of a dead and glorified Christ.

This raised a question of great practical importance. How should we deal with souls who are gifted like this, yet know little of the truth? Grace answers and settles it all by its own power. We should welcome and treasure the newest step beyond the dead level of received tradition. How sad to despise those today who are where we were yesterday!

Though he was both learned and eloquent, he was humble enough to let Aquila and Priscilla teach him. They invited him to their house. There, no doubt in a lowly spirit, they "explained to him the way of God more accurately." How simple! how natural! and how beautiful! All is of the Lord.

When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, they saw at once what he lacked. They gladly gave him hospitality, so that they could teach him more fully about what had happened through Christ. So God used these believers, who had no special public gift, to give a very gifted vessel a proper launch into his career of service... How much of the reward of his effective service will go to the credit of Aquila and Priscilla, who shall say?

We may notice how far God's means were from the formal methods of a divinity school... But only faith can know the truth of God, and only faith can hold it with profit.

I doubt it would have been God's will for a woman to do this alone. But she taught him along with her husband, as they could. I have no doubt that Priscilla knew more than her husband, so it was good that she gave her help.

Note that when it comes to teaching, Aquila's name is put before his wife's... In this case the instruction given to Apollos was in the privacy of their own home, and Aquila took the lead here. Happy it is that Priscilla was his helpmate in this blessed work.

His progress was plain to all. He put arrogant opponents to shame, and the faithful were built up through him. For Apollos could work with a force beyond those who had privately led him on.

Take another instructive case in Acts 18:24-28. Apollos, though he knew only the baptism of John, diligently gave out what he knew, and learned the way of God more perfectly through a plain Christian man and his wife, Aquila and Priscilla. Instead of getting him ordained, the believers wrote commending him from Ephesus to Achaia as a great preacher and teacher, without any formal act whatsoever.

There is a reference to a letter of commendation in the Scriptures in Acts 18:27. We find that the believers in Ephesus wrote a letter of commendation to those in Achaia, commending their brother Apollos to them.

Letters of commendation should be carried by those who move from one place to another (Rom. 16:1-2; 2 Cor. 3:1). They help strengthen practical fellowship between assemblies. They also give the "doorkeepers" confidence in the principles of reception, when they would otherwise face someone who seems to be a stranger. Fellowship can be enjoyed at once when the bearer of a letter of commendation has ready evidence that they are a true believer.

He refuted the Jews with force in public, showing from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ. His progress was clear to all. Arrogant opposers were put to shame, and he built up the faithful. Apollos could work with a force beyond those who had led him on in private. This is the scriptural way to gain a good standing, and much boldness in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.

It is said of Apollos that he "helped them much which had believed through grace." How? He showed from the Scriptures the glory of Christ! (Acts 18:27-28).

Apollos had a natural gift of eloquence — he was a master of words. By diligent study he had become "mighty in the Scriptures." Yet when he came to Ephesus he was not well informed about God's intervention in Christ... Aquila and Priscilla heard him and at once saw what he lacked. They did the delightful service of showing him hospitality, so that they could teach him more fully what had come about through Christ. So God used these saints, who had no public gift of their own, to launch a very gifted vessel properly on his career of service. From Ephesus he went to Corinth. There he convinced many Jews about Christ, and he also gave the believers great help. How much of the reward of his effective service will go to the credit of Aquila and Priscilla, who can say?

But there was another circle of interest, and he did not neglect it in his zeal to refute his countrymen. There were believers in the Lord Jesus Christ. These he helped much (Acts 18:27). And Paul, writing afterwards to the Corinthians, reminded them of that eloquent and earnest man's ministry, saying, "I planted, Apollos watered" (1 Cor. 3:6)... Apollos was very eloquent, and no doubt a most attractive speaker. Even so, he had never tried, and still did not try, to gather people round himself. Nor did he try to lessen the love and respect the believers at Corinth had for Paul.

The apostles and early workers in the Word dealt in this same way with people who had a written revelation from God and accepted it. Peter's sermons at Jerusalem, Stephen's defence, and Paul's ministry to his own people show it clearly. Apollos too (Acts 18:28) used the weapon of Old Testament Scripture. He powerfully convinced, or refuted, the Jews, showing in public by the Scriptures that the Christ was Jesus. Every one of them turned to the Scriptures, and used the sword of the Spirit with clear and blessed effect.

Here he was a very real help to the disciples. He also spoke with such power that he convinced the Jews of the truth that the Lord Jesus is the Messiah. He used the Old Testament Scriptures to this good end. Paul had planted the church at Corinth in this same chapter; now Apollos waters it (1 Cor. 3:6).

Everyone could see his progress. Arrogant opponents were put to shame, and the faithful were built up through him. For Apollos could work with greater force than those who had taught him in private. This is the way Scripture shows for gaining a good standing, and great boldness in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.

A believer and his wife taught him more fully. They had no more authority to teach than he did. Soon he is found more active and honoured than ever: "he greatly helped those who through grace had believed; for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public" (Acts 18).

By the Scriptures. May that word go home to each of us. Suppose John the Baptist had been in that meeting at Ephesus, listening to Apollos. He might have asked where Apollos first met these things. Think of the joy of this servant. He was once puzzled and a little disappointed, and now he learns that Apollos began his service "knowing only the baptism of John." If an "Apollos" was the result of our service, would it not be worthwhile?

Can one refute so powerfully by means of a pack of myths and writings of impostors?

At Corinth he becomes a powerful teacher of the gospel of the Lord among the Jews. In this way he strengthens the faith of the disciples. The energy of the Holy Spirit shows itself in him without any intervention of the apostle or of the twelve. He acts independently; that is, the Spirit acts independently in him.

By the upper coasts, or country, we should understand an inland route rather than a coast route. The coast was seen as lying on a lower level than the inland country. In line with this, some good authorities read that he came down to Ephesus, for the city stood on the river Cayster, a few miles from its mouth... A centre of trade, the seat of government, and a stronghold of idol worship — all this made it a place of no small importance.

He went over Galatia and Phrygia in order, strengthening all the disciples (Acts 18:23)... This time he reversed his route, going through Galatia before Phrygia, shaping his course, it seems, for Ephesus, which he had promised to visit (18:21). He had preached in both these provinces on his earlier journey, and he wanted first to revisit those places of work and to strengthen all the disciples.

So these converts matched their teacher Apollos completely. It is quite true that Apollos was later taught the way of God more accurately; but clearly his teaching had shaped the souls of his converts at the start. It is often so even now. The gospel first used in the conversion of souls goes far to set the character of their Christian life. The nature of the start often decides the whole of the believer's course, and so it matters greatly to preach a full gospel.

The apostle does not question the reality of their faith... So they were not even on the ground of Christian profession. As the apostle concluded, John's was "the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus." Christian baptism assumes that He is dead and risen, that the work of redemption is finished, and that eternal life and forgiveness of sins are proclaimed in His name. They were believers. The Holy Spirit had worked in their souls, so that the word of God had entered. But they were entirely without even the privileges that faith in the gospel receives at once.

They had faith, they looked to His person; but they had not grasped His work for the peace of their souls... It is likely that he saw something which showed his keen eye that these souls were not at rest, not in the liberty of grace. In spirit they were still under the law.

The people mentioned in these verses were believers, but they were not Christians. A Christian is a saint who has the Holy Spirit. True, every Christian is a saint, but he is something more; and that something is a very great deal more, for it is the Holy Spirit... They were disciples of John, and all John's disciples believed that Christ would baptize with the Holy Spirit. But they did not know that the promise had been fulfilled.

it shows that a man may be a believer, may be a child of God, may be converted, and yet may not have the Holy Spirit. They were disciples, and the apostle credits their belief, but still asks, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"

This case gives no ground for saying that there are true believers on Christ today who have not received the Spirit at all. Christ is preached now, and not the baptism of John — that is, wherever the gospel is truly preached.

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

It is important to see what the inspired narrative makes clear here. These souls had been taught only in part. Paul found them at Ephesus after Apollos had gone to Corinth, and the narrative owns them as disciples. The apostle does not question the reality of their faith. He probably noticed a certain legalism in them, which raised the question not whether they were born of the Spirit, but whether they were sealed by Him.

In Acts 19:2, Paul asks whether they had received the Holy Spirit since they believed. They answer that they have not yet heard whether the Holy Spirit has come. They were John's disciples, so they did not doubt that the Holy Spirit exists. Every thoughtful Jew acknowledged the Holy Spirit spoken of by the prophets. But they had not heard whether the Holy Spirit had come in power, as John 7 speaks of it, and as John the Baptist had said: He would baptise with the Holy Spirit.

The apostle no doubt noticed a certain unease in these "disciples." That led him to ask whether they had received the Holy Spirit since they believed. So there is — certainly there was in the apostle's mind — such a thing as receiving the Spirit after believing.

The disciples Paul found at Ephesus were disciples of John. The question the apostle asked them has often been made the foundation of wrong teaching about the Holy Spirit. It is claimed that the Holy Spirit must be received in a special way after conversion. The little word "since" in Paul's question must be changed to "when," because it is mistranslated: "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"

We must not suppose this is a question of miracles, or powers, or tongues, or anything of that kind. These very signs might follow too. The early Christians did work miracles, and they had the gift of tongues. But these were only the outward proof of the Holy Spirit. He had always worked whatever was for God's glory in man, yet He was never given in person to believers until after redemption... But can the Holy Spirit come and dwell in us? Only through redemption, when God has righteously put our sins and iniquities away from before His eye.

They were truly "disciples," and they had believed as much of the facts about Christ as they had heard. The Holy Spirit is given to those who believe "the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation" (Eph. 1:13). They had not believed it, because they had not heard it, and so they had not received the Spirit. Like Apollos, they had only heard the earliest beginnings of things, connected with John the Baptist...

Scripture gives no definite teaching about the way baptism is done. The great point is what those baptised were baptised to: compare Acts 19:3. The idea in the word is "washing," as with the priests of old (Ex. 29:4), rather than "sprinkling," as with the Levites.

The Greek preposition means "unto" (or "to") as often as "into." Which one it means depends on the context or on the nature of the case… So in Acts 19:3 it is "unto," as in the Authorised Version, not "into" as in the Revised. Baptism is the symbol of profession. Reality depends on faith; which might, or might not, be true of the baptised.

Twelve people had believed, but they had no teaching beyond John's: their baptism matched it. What they looked for was a Christ still to come, and a Holy Spirit whom He would give. John's baptism called for repentance, but it never went outside Judaism… It was a baptism to repentance for man on the earth, not to Christ's death and resurrection.

Scripture is plain that John's baptism is quite distinct from Christian baptism. Disciples who had been baptized with John's baptism had to be baptized to Christ when they received the full truth of the gospel (Acts 19)… Confessing a Messiah still to come is very different from confessing His death and resurrection, and this is the root of differences which carry weighty consequences.

John also baptizes to death, in the baptism of repentance. Death is the wages of sin, and those he baptized confessed their sins as justly deserving death. But John could not yet baptize to Christ's death; for He had not died.

They were not therefore even on the ground of Christian profession, for, as the apostle concluded, John's was "a baptism of repentance"… Christian baptism supposes Him to be dead and risen, the work of redemption accomplished, with eternal life and forgiveness of sins proclaimed in His name. They were believers, and the Holy Spirit had worked in their souls so that the word of God had entered. Yet they fell wholly short of the privileges that faith in the gospel enjoys at once.

How many rest on a promise and have no notion that anything has been accomplished! They agree, of course, that the Saviour has come. But of salvation come, and of God's righteousness revealed, they know nothing… "Am I His, or am I not?" is the question that keeps troubling them.

You can see the state of their souls in this: they at once bowed to the new message, and "were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."… Paul then laid his hands upon them, and "the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues, and prophesied."… So these disciples passed off Jewish ground and became Christians. They were no longer in the flesh, but in the Spirit, because the Spirit of God now lived in them.

This case gives no ground for saying that there are true believers on Christ today who have not received the Spirit at all. Christ is what is preached now, not the baptism of John.

This raised a further question: "Into what then were you baptized?" The answer was, "Into John's baptism." So they were not even standing on the ground of Christian profession. As the apostle concluded, John's was "a baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus." Christian baptism assumes that He is dead and risen, that the work of redemption is finished, and that eternal life and forgiveness of sins are proclaimed in His name. They were believers, and the Holy Spirit had worked in their souls so that the word of God had entered; but they fell wholly short even of the privileges that faith in the gospel enjoys at once.

It pointed to the end of the old order and to a new position. It was not the familiar routine that traditionalists would make of it. Scripture is just as plain that it is quite distinct from Christian baptism. Disciples who had been baptized with John's baptism had to be baptized to Christ when they received the full truth of the gospel (Acts 19)... Confessing a coming Messiah is very different from confessing His death and resurrection.

John's baptism was so far from being a symbol of Christ's death that, as far as people received it, Christ would not be put to death at all, but received by faith. So (Acts 19) those who had received it had to be baptized over again.

There can be little question that to be baptized unto Moses means bringing the people into association with Moses, under his authority. In the same way, baptism unto the name of the Lord Jesus brought people onto the ground where His authority was supreme. It brought them into the company of those who owned that authority... Its meaning is the absolute authority of Christ as Lord, and the responsibility of those who are baptized to confess it.

The whole administration of the ways of God is in His hands. All ministry and power is there; God has made all authority and rule subject to Him. So Jews, who were already connected with the name of Jehovah by circumcision, had to own Him whom God had made Lord and Christ. "In the name of Jesus Christ," or "the Lord Jesus," connects baptism, I think, with the power and authority of that name. "Unto the name" would mean confessing His name as Lord, and this must be confessed and owned to the glory of God the Father.

Not knowing the Lord Jesus, they were ignorant of the Pentecostal gift of the Holy Spirit. The men believed the word of Paul, and showed the sincerity of their confession in that they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

There is no ground in this case for saying that there are true believers on Christ today who have not received the Spirit at all; for it is Christ who is preached now, and not the baptism of John; that is, where the gospel is really preached.

It was pure ignorance that held back their advance in truth — not stubbornness, and not the absurd and wicked error some have charged them with... In Scripture, John's baptism went with his call to repent, as we have just seen. It also went with the call to believe on the coming Messiah, that is, Jesus. It was in no way the blasphemy of accepting John as Messiah. They knew of promise, not of accomplishment: but that was to stop short of the gospel. They are now given to receive the full truth and blessing. Paul preached to them Jesus. What is there for souls which is not through Him and in Him?

The Holy Spirit, however, would not come upon them while they believed only in a Christ who was still to come. Then they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus. They believed that He had come, that He was delivered for their offences and raised again for their justification, and that He was now glorified at the right hand of God. So He fell upon them, just as He had at the beginning upon those of their own people who believed in the same way.

John had announced that the baptism of the Holy Spirit would be the result of Christ's intervention. Yet these twelve men did not know whether there was yet any Holy Spirit. That was plain proof that they had not come into the house of God in which He dwelt.

There were about twelve men here. The number of women is not mentioned, because the stress falls on the public side of things. This reminds us that whenever we read of the public giving of the Spirit, it was always to many people, never to an individual. Also, there was always an apostle present. The work had to go on in unity with the other assemblies: no assembly was to act on its own.

Here now are Jews outside their own land. The Old Testament had never indicated that Jews would be blessed anywhere but in the land of promise. Could these then be publicly received as Christians by the gift of the Spirit? God gives the answer plainly when Paul baptizes them and lays his hands on them as an indication of fellowship. This is the fourth occasion of a public bestowing of the Spirit of God with such signs as speaking with tongues. Each of these occasions involves a different class of people: first Jews at Jerusalem (ch. 2), then Samaritans (ch. 8), then Gentiles (ch. 10), and in this case Jews outside their own land.

There is no ground in this case for saying that there are true believers on Christ today who have not received the Spirit at all. The preaching now is Christ, not the baptism of John — that is, wherever the gospel is truly preached.

At Ephesus the apostle brings the little nucleus of disciples into full Christian truth and privilege (Acts 19). He carried on the work for more than two years, first in the synagogue, then in the school of Tyrannus. So not the capital only but the province also heard: everyone living in Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks. And that word, with special powers worked by God through the hands of Paul, grew mightily and prevailed.

For three months he patiently preaches Christ in the synagogue and reasons with the Jews, sure of God's strength and of the truth. He gives first place, as the field of testimony, to the people who had been God's instrument: "To the Jews first." It is no longer said, "Salvation is of the Jews," but it is still preached to them first.

For three months he spoke boldly in the narrow setting of the synagogue. He argued and urged on them "the kingdom of God" (v. 8). Of all subjects it was the one best suited to searching Jews, who knew the law and the prophets. The godly, as we hear of Joseph of Arimathea, were looking for the kingdom of God (Luke 23:50-51). This involved his opening to them the sufferings of Christ and the glories after these. He never thought of belittling that kingdom, still less of denying it, because Christians now have higher possessions and richer grace in the great mystery about Christ and about the assembly (Eph. 5:32).

The kingdom of God is the realm where the authority of God rules. This kingdom had to be set up even before the gospel of the grace of God was announced, which came after the death and resurrection of the Lord. Paul preached both (Acts 20:24-25). There are not two gospels. The kingdom speaks of the authority of God set over His subjects. The grace of God is vital too, for authority and grace complete one another.

Everywhere he preached the kingdom among the disciples. This clearly touches the present. No doubt he spoke of the kingdom God will set up in public view, when he spoke of things to come. But he also kept it before them that in receiving Christ as Lord they had already come under the authority of God. And he showed them what it meant, in daily life, to be subject to God's holy will.

He was a teacher, and no ordinary one. He could take on both Jews and Greeks in discussion (Acts 19:8-10), and no one had yet beaten him in fair argument… In his ministry of the Word, Paul, as usual, brought the truth to his own people first, in the synagogue. There he spoke boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God. The earlier work of Apollos must have given the Jews there some preparation, though the Apostle surely widened the teaching. He reasoned and persuaded with a fullness that Apollos likely did not have.

At the end of that time he saw that his work there was finished. The remnant chosen by grace now stood out, and the rest were hardened. So he made the break complete. He left the synagogue and took the disciples with him, to continue his service in the school of Tyrannus — just as at Corinth he had left the synagogue for the house of Justus. This made it quite plain that God was not establishing a fresh group of enlightened believers among the Jews. He was establishing a new thing altogether, taking in both Jews and Gentiles.

The reader will find the unusual expression "the way" in Acts 9:2; 19:9, 23. We have translated it word for word from the Greek. We have no doubt it was a nickname given to Christianity, just as the world has always invented one for true godliness.

At that time, being a Christian meant more than believing on the Lord Jesus and enjoying peace with God — blessed though these things are. It was a way of life, and not in some parts of life only but in every part. The walk of the believers, alone and together, was so distinctive that people could see it as a particular "way."

The truth preached in the synagogue had now brought out plainly those who received the love of it so that they might be saved. It brought out no less plainly those whose hard rejection of it led them to speak evil of the Way in front of the crowd. Staying longer could have served no good purpose. It would have led to bitter quarrelling and abuse from the opponents. To withdraw from them at this point was clearly of God. The synagogue was no longer a fitting place. A room large enough was owed, not only to the disciples, but to the testimony. So the apostle carried on his daily teaching in the school of a man who, as far as we can judge, taught rhetoric or philosophy.

This led the apostle to the decisive step of leaving them and separating the disciples. A new era began. Until now the converts from among the Jews seem to have kept their place in the synagogue. But now the time had come when believers in Christ must stand apart from His enemies, and must be gathered together as the assembly. God had borne with His ancient people with much patience. Paul loved his own countrymen deeply, and he had gone in and out among them. He kept hoping against hope that their hearts would open to receive his message.

For three months he reasoned with the Jews in the synagogue, persuading them of the gospel. At the end of that time he saw that his work there was finished. The remnant according to the election of grace was now clear, and the rest were hardened. So he made the break complete. He left the synagogue and took the disciples with him, to continue his service in the school of Tyrannus. At Corinth he had done the same, leaving the synagogue for the house of Justus. This made one thing quite plain. What God was establishing was not a fresh group of enlightened believers among the Jews. It was something entirely new, taking in both Jews and Gentiles.

The name is Greek, and nothing is said about Tyrannus being a disciple, so the Christians may have rented the "school," just as halls are rented today.

So the place of testimony was of no importance: all the value, virtue, truth, grace, and glory we boast in is in the One preached.

The opposition in the synagogue really helped the work forward. Gentiles would no doubt come to the school more readily than to the synagogue. And Jews, if they wanted to learn, could just as easily listen to one of their own nation teaching there. This went on for about two years, so that, as the historian tells us, "all the residents of Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks" (Acts 19:10).

"God was doing extraordinary miracles ('no ordinary miracles') by the hands of Paul." Compare this with the account of the Spirit's extraordinary energy flowing out through Peter and the other apostles in Acts 5. Note that there, as in Ephesus, the same phrase appears — "by the hands of the apostles." Whoever the servant, he was only the instrument or channel of the divine power.

What characterizes the whole account of Ephesus as we have it here is the uniqueness of power shown. It is at the very seat of the enemy's power. You see this in the notorious idolatry there — the worship of Artemis or Diana, in her image that fell down from heaven — and in the demon-possessions, sorcery and magic that filled the place. For this very reason God had to put His power forth in a decisive way.

The power of God is now shown in an extraordinary way in connection with Paul, the minister of this new and heavenly grace. Napkins (or sweat-cloths) and aprons from his skin — both signs of a toil that sin has made necessary — not only healed disease but drove demons out of those who had them. So has love's labour worked through Him who came under the penalty of sin to heal spiritual disease and destroy the power of Satan.

This did not happen only when the apostle was present or when he spoke. What had touched him still worked for the sick who could not come to him. The faith that carried handkerchiefs or aprons from him to them had its reward: the diseases left them, and evil spirits (a distinct class) went out.

These works attested the kind power of God in man and for man. Later that power will triumph in the kingdom, where all things will be put into the hands of the glorified Son of Man... They were testimonies to His defeat of the devil in man's favour, powers of the world to come — though of course only samples of what will then be universal. Neither the church nor any individual saint has had ground to boast about this through the long centuries since.

He certainly was a vessel to carry the knowledge of grace, and just as surely a vessel that displayed divine power... Ephesus had never seen such miracles before, and nowhere else were greater ones done. The Lord's words, "Greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father" (John 14:12), had abundant fulfilment through Paul as well as Peter.

This is so unusual that it is the only case of its kind recorded in Scripture. Many people were healed before this by simply touching the edge of the Lord Jesus' garment. Certain would-be healers have tried to imitate this, but this is not faith.

Gifts of healing showed that the gospel of God was not words only, wonderful as they were, but active love to men. Handkerchiefs from Paul's body healed the sick in Ephesus, as a witness alongside the word that all Asia heard. Yet Paul left Trophimus, himself an Ephesian, sick at Miletus — and that was while he was begging Timothy to come to him... such gifts pointed outward, to the world.

At this time in Ephesus God backed His Word by working special miracles through Paul. People brought napkins and aprons that had touched him to the sick, and that contact alone healed them. Some also had evil spirits driven out. This is so unusual that it is the only case of this kind recorded in Scripture. Many were healed before this by only touching the hem of the garment of the Lord Jesus (Matthew 14:36). Certain would-be healers have attempted to imitate this, but this is not faith.

"God was doing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul." It is worth comparing this with the account of the extraordinary energy of the Spirit flowing out through Peter and the other apostles in Acts 5 (verses 12, 16). There, as in Ephesus, we find the same phrase — "by the hands of the apostles" — showing that, whoever the servant, he was only the instrument or channel of the divine power.

God now shows His power in an extraordinary way through Paul, the minister of this new and heavenly grace. Napkins (or sweat-cloths) and aprons from his skin not only healed disease but drove demons out of the people who had them. Both cloths are signs of the toil that sin has made necessary. So has love's labour worked through Him who came under the penalty of sin to heal spiritual disease and destroy the power of Satan.

God attested the apostle in a special and generous way. All who were willing to see could see that God owned Paul as a servant of the God of heaven. He certainly was a vessel to carry the knowledge of grace; he was just as surely a vessel that displayed divine power... Ephesus had never seen such miracles, and nowhere else had they been greater. The Lord's words, "Greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father" (John 14:12), had abundant fulfilment through Paul as well as Peter.

In this way God attested His kind, beneficial power in man and for man. In time to come it will triumph in the kingdom, where God will put all things into the hands of the glorified Son of Man... Meanwhile the Spirit is here on earth to bear witness of Him and of the victory He achieved in righteousness over Satan. This is the principle behind those early displays of divine energy in man. They were testimonies to His defeat of the devil in man's favour. They were powers of the world to come — only samples, of course, of what will then be everywhere.

God did not forget bodies: gifts of healing showed that the gospel of God was not words only, blessed as they were, but active love to men. So handkerchiefs from Paul's body healed the sick Ephesians (Acts 19:12), a witness alongside the word which all Asia heard. Yet Paul left Trophimus, himself an Ephesian, sick at Miletus (2 Timothy 4:20) — and that while he was begging Timothy to come to him. Some in the Church were healed, as Dorcas was; but the aspect of such gifts was toward the world.

The servant never chose when to use this gift or gifts like it. God showed them only at the fitting time, and they could only work effectively by His immediate will. Power is His, and always in His hands.

These displays of miraculous power brought the question of exorcisms to the front. The marked effect of Paul's miracles led to attempts to rival and equal them in casting out demons. Among the heathen there were those who claimed to drive out demons; among the Jews there were some who really did it... At Ephesus, it seems, there were such people. Luke calls them wandering Jews. Among them were sons of a Jew named Sceva, who did this work. No doubt they used old, well-known formulas thought suitable for the purpose. But now people saw something else. Paul used none of the prescribed charms. He drove out demons simply in the name of the Lord Jesus. This was something quite new at Ephesus.

A term not used as an insult in Scripture, but meaning a "wanderer"... In Acts 19:13 the Revised Version has "strolling."

When God works, the enemy is watchful. He tries to spoil what God is doing. Yet his interference often ends in his own confusion. The magicians of Egypt tried to copy the divine power Moses displayed. They failed to create life, and that exposed them. Here the Jewish exorcists "undertook to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus over those who had evil spirits." They had no living link with Jesus, and could only speak of Him as "Jesus whom Paul preaches."

The seven sons of Sceva thought that they too might cast out demons by using the name of the Lord Jesus. But they did not know Him. He was not really Lord to them, and so they could only speak of Him as "Jesus whom Paul preaches," leaving out His title as Lord.

Anyone who would use it with effect, however, needed two things. These men had neither. The one was genuine saving faith in Christ; the other a true confession of His Lordship. No one can use that name in conflict with demons unless he is a real believer and confessor of the Lord Jesus Christ. Now the language of these men betrayed where they were and what they were... And the very way they spoke of Him, simply as Jesus, with no title of honour, showed plainly that they did not own Him as Lord.

These exorcists were used to charms and spells that anyone who knew them could use with effect. So they supposed that Paul was introducing a new charm, and that others could use it too. For the name of the Lord Jesus, when Paul used it, had a power that plainly no demon had resisted.

Here the Lord showed His displeasure at those who did not own Him, yet tried to use the apostle's action in His name as a charm — a formula they assumed divine power must follow... They called the name of the Lord over people, and it was all in vain. Their daring to command "by Jesus whom Paul preaches" only brought out three things more clearly: the Lord's defence of His servant, their own powerlessness, and the reality of the enemy's power.

There were seven of them, and they used the name of Jesus as the apostle had done. Even so, the demons exposed their deceit, and they had to flee in confusion (Acts 19:13-16). Could preachers today fall into the same error as these "vagabond Jews"? They may think that simply retelling the facts of the gospel, eloquently or not, is enough to save the soul. The failure of such men will be a striking parallel to that of the exorcists.

At Ephesus, it seems, there were such people — wandering Jews, as Luke describes them. Among them were sons of one Sceva, a Jew, who did this. No doubt they used some old and recognised formulas thought suitable for that purpose. But now people saw Paul cast out demons in the name of the Lord Jesus alone, without any of the prescribed charms. This was something quite new at Ephesus. Everyone had to admit that the name worked. These exorcists were used to charms that anyone who knew them could use with effect. So they supposed that Paul was bringing in a new charm, one that others could turn to as well.

Here the Lord showed His displeasure at these men. They did not own Him, yet they tried to use the apostle's action in His name as a charm — as if divine power had to follow it. Seven took part in a general way, two (it seems) directly, and the blow fell on those two. Their position too, as sons of a Jewish chief priest, drew all the more attention to so solemn a defeat.

But anyone who used that name with effect needed two things. These men had neither. One was genuine saving faith in Christ; the other, a true confession of His Lordship... "Jesus whom Paul proclaims." True, Paul did preach the Lord Jesus, for he believed on Him. But there is not a word here of any acknowledgment on their part that they also believed on the Lord Jesus Christ. And the way they spoke of Him showed that they did not own Him as Lord. They said only "Jesus," with no title of honour.

A Jew at Ephesus, a chief of the priests, whose seven sons sought by the name of Jesus to cast out a demon. The demon admitted that he knew Jesus and Paul, but demanded, "Who are you?" He then attacked them through the man he held, and they fled away naked and wounded. Here Satan showed his power as the "strong man." The One stronger than he would not let these men use His power.

Could preachers today fall into the same error as these wandering Jews? They may think that a mere retelling of the facts of the gospel, polished or not, is enough to save the soul. The failure of such will be a striking parallel to that of the exorcists.

The intrusion of the sons of Sceva brought about their own defeat. But the Lord turned it to His own glory, for the matter "became known to all the residents of Ephesus, both Jews and Greeks. And fear fell upon them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was extolled." Many who believed unburdened their hearts by confessing their deeds and the name of the Lord. This stronghold of Satan must have been shaken to its foundations when "a number of those who had practiced magic arts brought their books together and burned them in the sight of all." Such was the triumph of the gospel: "So the word of the Lord continued to increase and prevail mightily."

When God works, the enemy is watchful, and tries to spoil what God is doing, yet his interference often ends in his own confusion. The magicians of Egypt tried to imitate the divine power displayed by Moses, only to be exposed when they failed to create life. Here, the Jewish exorcists tried to use the name of the Lord Jesus over people who had evil spirits. They had no living link with Jesus, and could only speak of Him as "Jesus whom Paul preaches."

The demon spoke, refusing to do what they demanded. His words must have struck all who heard them: "Jesus I know, and Paul I know (or, am acquainted with), but you, who are you?" The demon knew Jesus, he said. By his language he meant to distinguish between the Lord and His servant Paul. The second verb translated "I know" in the older English version is different from the first in the original. So that name was not a charm which just anyone could use.

Two conditions were needed for anyone to use it with effect. Both were lacking in these men. One was genuine saving faith in Christ; the other, a true confession of His Lordship. No one can use that name against demons unless he really believes in the Lord Jesus Christ and confesses Him... "I adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preaches," was their word to the evil spirits. "Whom Paul preaches." True, Paul did preach the Lord Jesus, for he believed on Him. But there is not a word here that they also believed on the Lord Jesus Christ. And the very way they spoke of Him, simply as Jesus, without giving Him a title of honour, clearly showed that they did not own Him as Lord.

The demon at once showed that he did not know them, and he was not deceived by their second-hand use of the name of Jesus.

Here the Lord showed how He resented those who tried to use the apostle's action in His name as a charm, without owning Him. They acted as if divine power had to attach itself to that name... Their daring to command the spirits "by Jesus whom Paul preaches" only showed three things more plainly: He stood by His servant, they themselves were helpless, and the enemy's power was real. For the wicked spirit declared at once that he was acquainted with Paul and knew his Master. He spoke with withering contempt for the hollow profanity of those who abused His name. He also gave the most practical proof of it. The evil power could trample them down and shame them, instead of handing a victory to such unholy lips.

A real faith is in view here — certainty of knowledge and conviction — the kind the devils have about the oneness of God. They do not doubt it; but there is no link at all between their heart and God through a new nature — far from it.

The moral impression of this defeat was great on everyone outside in Ephesus. And it was not only that fear fell on them all; the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified. It was not simply that God and the enemy were brought before men's consciences; there was a testimony to the Deliverer also.

In Acts 19:16 it is "both of them" — not the seven, but two of them. "Both" is easily turned into "all," but not the other way round.

Here the Lord showed His anger against men who did not own Him, yet tried to use the apostle's action in His name as a charm that God's power was bound to follow. Seven were involved in a general way; two, it seems, were involved directly, and the blow fell on them. They were sons of a Jewish chief priest, and that drew all the more attention to so solemn a defeat.

But two things were needed before anyone could use that name with effect, and these men had neither. The first was real saving faith in Christ. The second was a true confession of His Lordship. No one can use that name against demons unless he truly believes in the Lord Jesus Christ and confesses Him... And the way they spoke of Him — simply as Jesus, with no title of honour — showed plainly that they did not own Him as Lord.

Notice that the apostle used the name of One he knew, and whose lordship he never doubted. The exorcists were only imitators. They said, "We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul proclaims" — One they knew nothing about for themselves.

Notice how the evil spirit makes himself one with the man he controls. In His grace the Spirit of God works in the same close way: He lives in believers and makes them vessels to magnify the name of Jesus. He is the One who does all that is good, yet it is all mixed with their own minds and affections, so that the whole is put down to them... It was the man's own act, though he could never have done it except by that terrible power.

The demons were also strong, as we see from the way they handled the people they controlled, and from one of them overcoming seven men and making them flee out of the house naked and wounded.

Here Satan showed his power as the 'strong man.' But the One stronger than he would not let these men use His power.

This plot was defeated. Satan's agents were put to shame by the very evil spirit they were trying to drive out. The result was to advance the gospel in three ways. First, the news of what had happened to the sons of Sceva spread through the city; fear fell on both Jews and Greeks, and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified. Next, those who believed were so moved that they cut themselves off completely from their old magical practices, and some brought their costly books of magic and burned them in front of everyone. Last, we are told, "the word of the Lord continued to increase and prevail mightily."

Is it not possible for preachers today to fall into the same error as these wandering Jews? They may think that simply telling the facts of the gospel, in fine words or plain ones, is enough to save the soul. Anyone who does will fail as strikingly as the exorcists did.

The intrusion of the sons of Sceva not only brought about their own defeat, but the Lord turned it to His own glory... Many who believed opened their hearts and confessed their deeds and the name of the Lord. This stronghold of Satan must have been shaken to its foundations when many who had practised magic arts brought their books together and burned them in front of everyone. Such was the triumph of the gospel.

Was that name, then, just a charm, only more powerful than other charms in use in the province of Asia?... Two conditions, however, were required for anyone to use it with effect. Both of them were lacking in these men. The one was genuine saving faith in Christ; the other a true confession of His Lordship... The very way they spoke of Him, simply as Jesus, without giving Him a title of honour, clearly showed that they did not own Him as Lord.

Is it not possible for preachers today to fall into the same error as these wandering Jews? They may think that simply reciting the facts of the gospel, whether eloquent or plain, is enough to save the soul. Such preachers will fail, in a striking parallel to the exorcists.

News of these things soon reached both Jews and Greeks who lived at Ephesus. It awakened a serious fear of God, as they recognised the holiness of the name of the Lord Jesus. It made believers realise that faith in Christ was no light matter. Ephesus was a famous centre of magic arts, and this no doubt had attracted the sons of Sceva.

In Acts 19:17 the name of the Lord was magnified in Ephesus: it was shown to be great and mighty. And Christ may still be magnified today, in the body of the humblest and weakest believer, for His strength is made perfect in weakness. Christ may be magnified with praise, prayer, and witness to Himself... Yes, Christ may be magnified even in our daily work in the house, or shop, or office, or the care of the children.

The moral impression of this defeat was great on all outside in Ephesus. It was not only that fear fell on them all, but the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified. This did not simply set God and the enemy before men's consciences. There was a testimony to the Deliverer as well.

It was the word of the Lord that grew so powerfully and prevailed... How precious to see more than the fear of His name overawing Jews and Greeks! Those who believed were so eager for His glory that they told out their own shame and worst degradation now that they were converted. They took vengeance on everything they owned, however costly, that carried the mark of the enemy's power and schemes.

It also works on the conscience of the believers. They come and confess their deeds. They bring the books of their magic arts, for which Ephesus was famous, and burn them in front of everyone. The books were worth fifty thousand pieces of silver. When God reveals Himself in power, the heart opens before Him. It honestly confesses everything the conscience knows, and does so openly for His glory. This is a special effect of the showing of His power. A person no longer thinks of himself or of his shame, but is overcome by the presence of God.

They must have revealed things that astonished many in the crowd who knew nothing of these arts. Paul had nothing to hide or to confess. But those now converted saw what their past ways had been. Light shone on them, and confession followed on their part; for clearly the magical arts they had used were not of God. A new life received made them real and true, and they had to give up the past. It did not fit, to say the least, with what was now true.

How precious to see the fear of His name overawing Jews and Greeks! And more than that: those who believed were so eager for His glory that they told out their own shame and worst degradation now that they had turned to Christ. They took vengeance on everything they owned, however costly, that carried the breath of the enemy's power and tricks!

These events made believers realise that faith in Christ was no light matter. Ephesus was a renowned centre of magic arts, which no doubt attracted the sons of Sceva. But believers now confess their unholy involvement with these things. Many bring their books and burn them in public. The books had cost fifty thousand pieces of silver. They were right to take that loss instead of selling the books to others.

If the occasion arises, we can speak to others about our sins — but only once we have laid everything clearly before God. The Christian converts at Ephesus brought their books of magic. By the power of the Holy Spirit they confessed all their actions. If the love of God is poured out in our hearts, we feel more shame for our sins before God than before other people.

There is confession here, but no "sharing." They were troubled sinners who came to Paul and his companions, confessing their deeds. They would do it once, and rightly so, but there is no hint of a system of "sharing."

Sorcerers in Acts used magical arts (called "curious arts" in Acts 19:19) and bewitched the people. Revelation uses another word for sorcery, pharmakeia. It refers to drugs, "to stupefy with drugs," and then to any system of sorcery by spells. Sorcery ranks among the worst of sins.

Quite a few brought their books, which recorded the spells and charms, and burned them in public. It was a complete burning — the effect of the word of God working in their consciences.

God's power also works on the conscience of the believers. They come and confess their deeds. They bring the books of their magic arts, for which Ephesus was famous, and burn them in front of everyone — books worth fifty thousand pieces of silver. When God reveals Himself in power, the heart opens before Him. It honestly confesses all that the conscience knows, and does so openly, for His glory. Man thinks no longer of himself, or of his shame. The presence of God overwhelms him.

Ephesus was a famous centre of magic arts... But now believers confess their unholy links with these things. Many bring their books and burn them in public. The books had cost fifty thousand pieces of silver, but they were right to take that loss instead of selling the books to others. Such was the precious power of the Word of God.

They gave the best proof of the disgust they now felt at their meddling with the wicked one... Living facts brought home the power of the word, and conscience responded at once.

They were genuine, and so gave proof of their sincerity, for the sacrifice they made was no small one. Money was worth far more then than it is now, so their financial sacrifice was greater than the same sums would be for us.

From one point of view this was a big sacrifice. From another it was not a sacrifice at all. It was a blessing to be rid of these books of "curious arts," which held things contrary to God and to His mind... The loss of fifty thousand pieces of silver — the gain of the riches of God's grace. That was something worthwhile! There was ample recompense for what they had given up. How sad it is when we are reluctant to give up what is wrong in the sight of God. Yet to turn away from what is wrong is the pathway to spiritual blessing.

This stronghold of Satan must have been shaken to its foundations when many who used magic arts burned their books in front of everyone. Such was the triumph of the gospel: the Word of God grew mightily and prevailed. The outcry of Demetrius and his companions only showed Satan's rage at the plundering of his goods.

Many others moved away from this dreadful evil. They burned the books that dealt with these things in public, despite what they were worth. The Word of God grew and prevailed, and this Satanic evil grew less and suffered defeat. It is a sad thought for us that in our day people pay less attention to the Word than they once did, while spiritist practices are on the increase.

It was the word of the Lord that grew mightily and prevailed. Not merely a company of saints, but the word of the Lord — that word which He has magnified above all His name. It is now the holiest answer on earth to Christ in heaven.

So it says "the word of God increased" (Acts 6:7). The connection is "and the number of the disciples multiplied." In the same way, "the word of God grew and multiplied" (Acts 12:24). So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed (Acts 19:20). I never heard of these passages being a difficulty to anyone. These passages mark the mighty effect of His word made known in preaching. The effects produced are identified with their source.

So in Ephesus the word of the Lord grew and prevailed "with might," to use Luke's striking phrase. Every testimony had been at full tide there. There was the clear power and presence of the Spirit, shown by tongues and prophecies. There was bold preaching of the kingdom of God for months in the synagogue. There was freer daily discussion in the school of Tyrannus for two years, and in that time the disciples took up their own separate position. So not only the people of Ephesus but, broadly speaking, everyone living in the province of Asia, Jews and Greeks alike, heard the word of the Lord.

A new life received made them real and true. They had to give up the past as inconsistent, to say the least, with what was true. Many brought their books, which held the spells and charms, and burned them in public. It was the effect of the word of God working in their consciences.

The books had cost fifty thousand pieces of silver. They were right to accept that loss instead of selling the books to others. Such was the precious power of the Word of God.

Paul himself stayed in Ephesus. Yet from there the Word went through all Asia Minor (Acts 19:10), no doubt carried by others. Colosse and Laodicea were not far away, yet the believers there had never seen Paul's face (Col. 1:2).

At Ephesus, the capital of Asia, the gospel won some of its greatest triumphs through Paul's preaching. There "mightily grew the Word of God, and prevailed" (Acts 19:20). And there too, as a result, the devil made one of his fiercest attacks as a roaring lion. He hitched his chariot, as he so often does, to the greed of men. Demetrius the silversmith and his friends were his ready tools. The fierce riot in the Ephesian theatre, murderous in spirit, was the result.

Whatever these dark arts and devilish energies may be, the god of this age does his widest and most destructive work by methods that seem quite ordinary. He fits his deceptions to the passions and desires of the flesh… Most people perish, not in the terrible displays that appear here and there or now and then, but under the calm surface of what is respected. But the word of the Lord accomplishes the gracious purpose of Him who sends it out. It does so widely too, in the conversion and blessing of souls, if no longer with the might of apostolic days.

It is not correct to interpret "in the spirit" here of the Holy Spirit. It means only that the apostle planned it "in his spirit" — a phrase he often uses, in this Book and elsewhere. He longed once more to go to Jerusalem after passing through the two Roman provinces of Greece. He felt that his work at Ephesus had ended for now, and that after visiting Jerusalem he must see Rome also.

People often ask how we should understand Paul's purposing in the spirit to go again to Jerusalem. Did he purpose in the Spirit of God, after long prayer, to go up to Jerusalem? Did the Holy Spirit guide him to carry the gifts from Achaia and Macedonia to the poor believers in the city of his fathers? It could not have been the Spirit of God who prompted him to go once more to Jerusalem. During the journey the Holy Spirit warned him many times not to go.

This verse marks an important change. It brings us to the last stage of Paul's recorded acts in this history. Rome is the goal which looms up before him. "I must also see Rome." And he did see Rome — but not in the way he had planned in his spirit. He came as the prisoner of the Lord.

But behind his burning desire to go up to Jerusalem stood the mighty constraint of love for his own beloved people. How he did love them and how his heart, filled with the love of God, yearned over them! This holy love and courage shaped his answer. His fellow believers had once more begged him by the Spirit not to go up to Jerusalem, and he said, "What are you doing, weeping and breaking my heart? For I am ready not only to be imprisoned but even to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus."

Why not go to Rome in the energy of the Spirit, now that his work in Greece was finished? ... But why should Paul put rebellious Jerusalem between his desire to preach and his work? The affection was good, and the service good — for a deacon, or a messenger of the churches. But this was Paul, who had the whole west open before him for the gospel!

While at Ephesus Paul had "purposed in the spirit saying, I must also see Rome"; and, what is more important still, it was the Lord's purpose for him — "so must you also bear witness at Rome."

It was Paul's purpose to visit Rome after going to Jerusalem, and God gave effect to it, for it was God's purpose. But how different was the way under His hand from the apostle's expectation! He must go a prisoner to Rome.

He also knows how to overrule any mistakes His servants make. He closes one line of service before them and opens another, which in the end may prove even more important. It was Paul's imprisonment that led him to write those inspired letters, which have built up the church for nineteen centuries.

It is not right to take 'in the spirit' here as meaning the Holy Spirit. It means no more than that the apostle purposed it 'in his own spirit'. He uses this phrase often, not only in this book but elsewhere. He longed once more to go to Jerusalem after passing through the two Roman provinces of Greece. He felt that his work at Ephesus was done for now.

Timothy and Erastus served as deacons (Acts 19:22). As for the seven men chosen in Acts 6:5, there is no hint that they were "deacons" in any sense other than the sense in which all the servants of Christ are. Once we remember that "deacon" and "servant" translate the same word, we see at once how mistaken it is to call these seven men "the first deacons." Say "the first servants" instead, and the error is obvious.

There have been godly treasurers, such as the one who served Queen Candace. We should not look down on him or on Erastus, because Scripture says, "in whatever condition each was called, there let him remain with God" (1 Cor. 7:24). If this is the same Erastus who is described in Acts 19:22 as serving Paul, and who stayed at Corinth (2 Tim. 4:20), we can thank God for such a saint.

We also see how he directed the service of others with apostolic authority, and did so at great cost to himself. At this very time he sent two of those who served him into Macedonia: not Erastus only, but Timothy, the fellow-worker nearest to his heart, his beloved child, while he himself stayed for a while in Asia.

Yet he put off going to Macedonia and Achaia, clearly because he feared what he might find at Corinth (2 Cor. 1:15-23). He did send Timothy and Erastus ahead of him (1 Cor. 4:17), most likely hoping that their ministry would help correct wrong practices there before he came himself.

Even an apostle used no force in directing the work of his fellow-workers. They were servants of the Lord. No one would have urged this more earnestly than Paul, and no one would have drawn back more than he did from setting up an authority that gives orders between the Lord and His servants.

While Paul was staying at Ephesus, he sent Timothy ahead into Macedonia (Acts 19:22). That probably explains why Timothy's name is missing from the opening of the first letter. By the time Paul wrote the second letter, both he and Timothy were in Macedonia, so Timothy's name appears there.

The reader will find the rather unusual expression "the way" in Acts 9:2; 19:9, 23. We have translated it word for word from the Greek. We have no doubt it was a nickname given to Christianity, just as the world has always invented one for true godliness.

Saul asked the high priest for permission to arrest the Christians in Damascus. He knew it was enough for the written order to call them men and women of "the way". At that time, being a Christian was not just believing on the Lord Jesus and enjoying peace with God, blessed as those things are. It was a way of life, and not only in some areas but in every part of life. What is more, the believers lived so distinctly, alone and together, that people could see their life as a particular "way". In fact it differed completely from the ways of the world and from the way of every other religion. So everyone knew it as "the way".

The enemy is now left free. The powerful effect of the word of God spurs him on, and he raises a great tumult against Paul and the gospel (v. 23). But it is useless to fight against God. His fury spends itself in shouts and cries. Yet when God allows it, opposition shows its true character. The devil works on people's passions, their selfish interests, their base motives. These rise up against the love, the grace and the salvation God sends to ruined men. Thank God, it was too late! His grace was freeing the slaves of a demonic superstition, the worship of false gods. That is what stirred up all this tumult. We have seen that God kept the enemy in check until the work was finished.

The argument aimed at the pocket carried more weight, we may be quite sure, than any real reverence for Diana.

Still, religious motives, such as they were, cast a halo here over something that was really selfish and sordid. No device of the enemy is more common or more lasting. In this world Satan ties degrading, destructive superstition to what people care about now: their interests and their honour. So it is no wonder. Most people flare up fastest at a testimony to the truth that threatens their religion and their property. It is the same today, in principle, as it was then at Ephesus.

A man who does not know God will fight harder for his wealth and his religion than for anything else. And no one could deny the rest. Far beyond Ephesus, and even beyond Asia, Paul had persuaded many people and turned them away from their many gods and many lords. There was no doubt about what he meant. Things made with hands are not gods. For us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist (1 Cor. 8:6).

We start with Asia in 2 Corinthians 1, where Paul refers to the great riot recorded in Acts 19. His preaching at Ephesus was so clearly in demonstration of the Spirit and of power that it overthrew satanic practices. The devil became furious and stirred up his servants. In 2 Corinthians 11:23 Paul speaks of being "often near death," and this was one of those occasions. God came in and delivered him, but the whole affair brought home "the sentence of death" in his own experience. He realised that he was a dead man, and all trust in himself was gone.

Small copies of pagan temples, at Ephesus or elsewhere. The word is ναός (naos), often translated "temple." Acts 19:24.

The trade of Demetrius was to make small silver models of the goddess's shrine. People set them up in houses, kept them as reminders, and carried them on journeys. But the coming of Christianity was bound to hurt the sale of these models. So Demetrius stirred up the pagan workmen to raise a public cry for Diana and against the Christians.

The large number of converts now in Asia, of whom Epaenetus was the firstfruits (Rom. 16:5), was bound to reduce the demand for silver shrines of Diana. It was this manufacture which proved so profitable to Demetrius and his companions. So the drop in his trade gave him a complaint his fellow-craftsmen could easily understand.

The success of the Gospel had endangered the trade of the silversmiths. It was easy for them to try to revive it under cover of zeal for the reputation of their goddess Diana. Was her greatness to be despised and her magnificence destroyed? Here was excellent camouflage for their real concern about their own money-making prospects!

In this world Satan works to weave degrading, destructive superstition into people's daily interests and honour. So it is no wonder that most people catch fire when the truth threatens their religion and their property. It is the same today, in principle, as it was then at Ephesus.

A certain man, Demetrius, earned large sums from making little silver shrines to Diana. He earned so much because this Diana was famous in the whole pagan world, and her temple was one of the seven wonders of the world (v. 27). Driven by the desire for gain, he gathers the craftsmen to oppose the truth that was destroying all their trade (vv. 25, 26). That truth showed that gods made with hands are no gods. How deep is the gloom into which man throws himself when he is without God, and by his very need of a God!

Man, ignorant of God, will fight for nothing harder than for his wealth and his religion.

Many who believed opened their hearts in confession of their deeds and of the Name of the Lord. This stronghold of Satan must have been shaken to its foundations when "a number of those who had practiced magic arts brought their books together and burned them in the sight of all." Such was the triumph of the Gospel: "So the word of the Lord continued to increase and prevail mightily." The outcry of Demetrius and his fellows only showed Satan's rage at being robbed of his goods.

The trade of Demetrius was to make small models in silver of the shrine of the goddess. These were set up in houses, kept as memorials, and carried about on journeys. But the coming of Christianity was bound to cut the sale of these models. So Demetrius stirred up the pagan craftsmen to raise a public cry for Diana and against the Christians.

A certain man, Demetrius, made large sums from the manufacture of little silver shrines to Diana. This Diana was celebrated in the whole pagan world, and her temple was one of the seven wonders of the world (v. 27). Moved by the desire for gain, he gathers the craftsmen to oppose the truth which was destroying all their trade (v. 25, 26) — the truth which showed that gods made with hands were no gods. See how deep the darkness man throws himself into — without God, and by his very need of a God!

Satan succeeds in working on the greed of Demetrius, a silversmith. He suggests to him that Paul's teaching was robbing him of customers for his silver idol shrines. Demetrius calls together other silversmiths and impresses on them the need to protect their financial interests. This is his first concern, though he adds that Paul's teaching was also endangering the magnificence of their great goddess Diana. He knew well that this latter accusation would likely have more weight with the people.

The success of the Gospel had endangered the trade of the silversmiths. So it was easy to try to revive their trade under cover of zeal for the reputation of their goddess Diana. Here was excellent camouflage for their real concern about their own money-making prospects!

In this world Satan works to weave degrading and destructive superstition into the present interests and honour of mankind. So it is no wonder that most men are quickly enraged by the testimony of the truth. It threatens to undermine both their religion and their worldly property. It is the same today, in principle, as then at Ephesus.

Man, not knowing God, will fight for nothing harder than for his wealth and his religion. And no one could deny it. Far beyond Ephesus, and beyond Asia too, Paul had persuaded many people and turned them away from their many gods and many lords.

In Ephesus, that stronghold of idolatry, the truth won its way. It did so in full sight of the temple of the so-called goddess Diana, whom all Asia and the Roman world worshipped. Worshippers were drawn away from her worship, and interest in her was clearly declining. Christians were found throughout the province of Asia, and assemblies had sprung up... The gospel was indeed triumphing, and Demetrius and his fellows could not but admit it.

People deserted the pagan temples, neglected the worship of the gods, and seldom bought animals for sacrifice. This naturally raised a popular cry against Christianity, such as we had at Ephesus... People whose living depended on the worship of the pagan gods brought many serious complaints against the Christians before the governors.

But this would raise a great outcry, and the unwanted officials might say, as Demetrius of old said to his fellows, "Men, you know that from this business we have our wealth."

There was no doubt that he really did mean that those are no gods which are made with hands. He meant that to us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. We ought not to think, therefore, that the divine being is like gold, or silver, or stone, shaped by the art and imagination of man. And that one God now commands all people everywhere to repent. He has fixed a day on which He is going to judge the world in righteousness, by the Man whom He has appointed. He has given proof of this to all by raising Him from the dead.

This term in the New Testament does not refer to the part of the earth now called Asia. It does not include the whole of Asia Minor either. It applies only to the western part of Asia Minor... The province, with Ephesus as its capital, included Caria, Lydia, and Mysia.

In Ephesus, that stronghold of idolatry, the truth won its way in sight of the temple of the so-called goddess Diana. All Asia and the Roman world worshipped her. Worshippers were drawn away from her cult, and interest in her was in noticeable decline... The gospel was indeed triumphing, and Demetrius and his fellows could not help admitting it.

Their rage against Paul was not because he had said that they are no gods which are made with hands. Many of their own wise men had said the same. It was because he had persuaded and turned away a great crowd, not only of Ephesus, but of almost all Asia, so that their means of livelihood is threatened.

The success of the gospel had endangered the trade of the silversmiths. It was not hard to try to revive their trade under cover of zeal for their goddess Diana. Was her greatness to be despised and her magnificence destroyed? Here was excellent camouflage for their real concern about their own money-making prospects!

In this world Satan works to tie degrading and destructive superstition to people's present interests and honour. Given that, it is no wonder that most people are so easily inflamed. Nothing stirs them like a testimony to the truth that threatens to undermine their religion and their worldly property. It is the same today, in principle, as it was then at Ephesus.

What an absurd thing to deny what all Asia and the world worship!... So saying there are no gods made with hands can come to count as heresy. And the town clerk can shame a crowd out of taking it seriously.

The desire for gain drove him. He gathered the craftsmen to oppose the truth that was destroying all their trade — the truth which showed that gods made with hands were no gods. How deep the gloom into which man, without God, and by his very need of a God, throws himself!

Satan could not stand by and see one of his great strongholds attacked and weakened by the power of the Spirit of God. So he works on the greed of Demetrius, a silversmith. He suggests to him that Paul's teaching was robbing him of customers for his idolatrous silver shrines. Demetrius then calls together other silversmiths. He presses on them the need to protect their money. This is his first concern, though he adds that Paul's teaching was also endangering the magnificence of their great goddess Diana. He knew well that this second accusation was likely to carry more weight with the people.

Religious motives, poor as they were, even here cast a holy glow over something selfish and sordid. No device of the enemy is more common or more lasting. In this world Satan weaves degrading and destructive superstition into people's daily interests and honour. So it is no wonder that most people flare up fastest at a testimony to the truth that threatens to undermine their religion and their property. It is the same today, in principle, as it was then at Ephesus.

Demetrius made large sums from manufacturing little silver shrines to Diana. Driven by the desire for gain, he gathers the craftsmen to oppose the truth that was destroying all their trade (vv. 25, 26). That truth showed that gods made with hands are no gods. How deep is the gloom into which man throws himself when he is without God, and by his very need of a God!

Sebomai occurs ten times in the Greek New Testament. Six times it appears as worship: Matthew 15:9; Mark 7:7; Acts 16:14; 18:7, 13; 19:27. Three times it appears as devout, and once as religious. So we can see that the basic meaning of sebomai is "I worship." But note, the worship may be right or wrong, true or false. Matthew 15:9 reads: "in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men." And Acts 19:27 speaks of the worship of the idol, Diana of the Ephesians. Both of these are wrong worship.

Ephesus… was the main seat and centre of heathen idolatry. It was the stronghold of Satan's power, and from it idolatry spread all over the known world (Acts 19). Strangers eagerly bought the small silver shrines of the goddess Diana and set them up as household gods in their distant homes. The wealth of Asia adorned and beautified her huge temple, and people counted it one of the seven wonders of the world.

How the truth had triumphed! In Ephesus, that stronghold of idolatry, the truth won its way. It did so in full sight of the temple of the so-called goddess Diana, whom all Asia and the Roman world worshipped. Her followers were leaving her cult, and interest in her was clearly declining. Christians now lived throughout the province of Asia, and assemblies had sprung up… The gospel was indeed triumphing, and Demetrius and his companions could not help admitting it.

The temple of Diana? How little we know of it today! Crumbled, and gone forever; all its glory and all its licentiousness gone. But the temple we belong to still exists today, and God is worshipped, and will be worshipped, eternally.

Diana is the Latin name of one of the main goddesses of the Greeks and Romans. The Greek name is Artemis. People said that an image of her had fallen from heaven, or had been made of wood or ebony that fell from the clouds. All Asia worshipped it. Her temple was at Ephesus, built of the finest marble... Ephesus was an educated city in every other way, but in religion it was in the dark. Its people were so worked up that they could shout for two hours, "Great is Diana of the Ephesians."

Satan worked through people's greed. The success of the gospel had put the silversmiths' trade in danger, so it was easy for them to try to revive it under the cover of zeal for the reputation of their goddess Diana. Would people now despise her greatness and destroy her splendour? It was an excellent disguise for their real worry — their own income!

People who do not know God will fight for nothing more fiercely than for their wealth and their religion... There was no doubt about what Paul meant. Gods made with hands are not gods. For us there is one God, the Father, from Whom are all things and for Whom we exist, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through Whom are all things and through Whom we exist (1 Cor. 8:6). So we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man... But grace knows how to make the wrath of man praise God, and also how to hold back the rest of that wrath.

Not only were their profits at stake. The importance of their goddess and of their city was in danger too. They do not say, "Great is Diana," but "Great is Diana of the Ephesians." Knowing the true God makes us feel our own nothingness, and it judges the state of the heart. But a false religion forms an alliance with the passions of the heart. Worshippers are great in proportion to their religion and to what they worship. If the Diana of the Ephesians was great, then the Ephesians themselves were important in proportion to her importance. To look down on Diana was to take away from the greatness of her followers.

In people who claim to know God, fits of rage are usually outbursts of false zeal. Man's anger never works the righteousness of God; it always resists it. The men of Nazareth were full of the anger of rebuked self-righteousness when they rose up to kill the Lord, and failed (Luke 4:28-30). In Gentile and in Jew we see the same cause producing the same effects.

Their cry of "Great is Diana of the Ephesians!" was a spark that set the whole city on fire, because Satan had been at work preparing the fuel. Then came the frightening riot that Paul refers to in his second letter to the Corinthians. He and his friends "were so utterly burdened beyond our strength that we despaired of life itself" (2 Cor. 1:8). The excited Ephesians were ready to pass the sentence of death on Paul... God did deliver him "from such a deadly peril," but the danger was clearly so great that Paul compares his rescue to a resurrection from the dead.

Satan works in this world to weave degrading and destructive superstition into people's present interests and honour. Since that is so, it is no wonder that the testimony of the truth quickly inflames most people. That testimony threatens to undermine both their religion and their property. In principle it is the same today as it was then at Ephesus.

In the dark arts Satan approaches men with all the cunning of the serpent. Beaten there on this occasion, he turned to action in which he showed himself as the roaring lion. He worked through the greed of men. The success of the gospel had endangered the trade of the silversmiths. It was not hard to try to revive it under cover of zeal for the reputation of their goddess Diana. Would people despise her greatness and destroy her splendour? Here was excellent camouflage for their real concern about their own money-making prospects!

A crowd picks up a popular cry easily, and that is what happened here. All could shout out "Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!" But why were they shouting this? What was it all about? Most of that huge crowd could not tell. They had dragged Gaius and Aristarchus, Paul's companions, along in their headlong rush to the theatre. Yet they plainly did not know what to do with them. No one touched either man: not a hair of their heads was hurt.

A place built for plays and other public entertainments, and for meetings of the people. At the uproar at Ephesus they rushed into the theatre (Acts 19:29, 31). The word is theatron, and it is translated 'spectacle' in 1 Cor. 4:9; angels and men gazed at the apostles.

During the stirring scenes at Ephesus, when the truth was overthrowing the business of Demetrius, the crowd seized Gaius as a well-known companion of Paul. Acts 19:29 calls him a Macedonian. He seems to have been a Macedonian living at Corinth, as Lydia was a woman of Thyatira living at Philippi.

We cannot say for certain whether the Gaius of John's third letter is one of the others we read about who bear that name. The Gaius of Acts 19:29 was a man of Macedonia. The Gaius of Acts 20:4 was "of Derbe," a city in Asia Minor. The Gaius of 1 Corinthians 1:14 was a Corinthian.

Aristarchus was a fellow-prisoner with the Apostle at the time of writing. He had been a companion in Paul's travels (Acts 19:29); a fellow-sufferer in the shipwreck (Acts 27:2); a fellow-worker in service (Philemon 24); and at last he is a fellow-prisoner in the Apostle's chains.

Their cry of "Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!" was a spark that set the whole city alight. Satan had been at work making the material that would burn. Then came the alarming riot. Paul refers to it in his second letter to the Corinthians, when he and his friends "were so utterly burdened beyond our strength that we despaired of life itself" (2 Cor. 1:8). The excited Ephesians were ready to pass the sentence of death on Paul. But as he goes on to tell us, "we felt that we had received the sentence of death. But that was to make us rely not on ourselves but on God who raises the dead" (2 Cor. 1:9).

A popular cry starts easily and spreads, as it did in this case. Everyone could shout "Great is Diana of the Ephesians!" But why were they shouting it? What was it all about? Most of that huge crowd could not have said.

The reason for their rage against Paul was not that he said gods made with hands are no gods. Many of their own wise men had said the same. It was that he had persuaded and turned away a great crowd, not only in Ephesus but in almost all Asia. Their means of living was now under threat.

Man, who does not know God, will fight for nothing more fiercely than for his wealth and his religion.

Paul, with the courage that always marked him, was about to go in there to the people, but the disciples held him back.

They had dragged Gaius and Aristarchus, Paul's companions, along with them to the theatre, and they clearly did not know what to do with them. No one touched either of them: not a hair of their heads was hurt. Had Paul appeared it might have been very different.

The believers restrain Paul and keep him from going there, where his zeal would have carried him. God watches over His servant; there was nothing for him to do there.

They little knew that the Judge was at the door, or how thin the thread was that held the sword of justice. Suppose Paul had gone into the theatre, and the blind rage of disappointed greed had killed him. People's souls would then have been cut off from that blessed truth of God. He was revealing that truth through Paul, so that they might have fellowship with Himself.

Whatever his own courage or feeling, Paul did not look down on the friends who warned him, despite their position. Scripture shows that he gave way to the protest of his fellow believers. He knew, on the right occasion, how to use heaven's power on earth for the Lord's glory. He wrote with divine authority for the saints here below until Christ comes. Yet he could graciously bend to others, as well as stand alone where that was of God. Only the Holy Spirit can give discernment at the moment, when the eye is fixed on Christ alone.

The truest spiritual desire cannot take the place of the guidance of God... Not that spiritual zeal itself is evil — it is not; but if we lean on it, we will find it misleads us, and we will reap the results.

The word is Ἀσιαρχῶν, "chiefs of Asia." They were officers chosen annually by the cities in the Roman province of Asia. They had charge of the public games and religious festivals. Some of the Asiarchs were friends of Paul. They begged him not to put himself in danger in the theatre, since no one could always control a riotous mob.

These were elected officials, who, at their own expense, furnished festivals in honour of the gods.

Still, as we have seen, God was at work behind the scenes through wiser men of high standing among them. The Asiarchs, whose chief or chiefs lived at Ephesus, had the easiest means and the best position in the state. Their very office would make you expect them to resent any dishonour done to their religion more than anyone. But kindness, if not conscience, made them give Paul wise advice: he should not risk himself in the theatre. God used them to shelter His servant. Here zeal and courage would have done no good, and might have put him in danger.

They had dragged Gaius and Aristarchus, Paul's companions, with them in their headlong rush to the theatre. Once there, it was obvious they did not know what to do with them. No one touched either of them: not a hair of their heads was hurt. Had Paul appeared it might have been very different.

Paul declared faithfully that gods made by hands are not gods at all. Yet these men were his friends. That shows he was not offensive in the way he opposed such idolatry.

It is worth noting what he could say about Paul and his companions: they are "neither temple-plunderers, nor speak injuriously of your goddess" (New Translation). That shows they had carefully avoided anything that might have given offence. Their work was the positive preaching of the Gospel, not the negative work of exposing the follies of idolatry.

It is very interesting to see the moral effect of Paul's teaching and life on certain of the chief officers of Asia. Scripture sets them apart from the disciples, yet says plainly that they were his friends. What is more, scripture shows that Paul did not despise these friends, despite their position. Whatever his own courage or feeling, he gave way to the protest of his brothers in the faith. At the right moment he knew how to wield on earth the power of heaven for the Lord's glory. He wrote with divine authority for the saints here below until Christ comes. Yet he could bend graciously to others, and he could also stand alone when that was of God. Only the Holy Spirit can give the discernment at the moment, where the eye is single to Christ.

The brothers restrain Paul, and keep him from going there, where his zeal would have led him. God watches over His servant; there was nothing for him to do there.

Israel was a great assembly or congregation, as nobody can dispute. But that proves nothing about whether it was what God's assembly is now, according to the word. It is "Ecclesia," an assembly, in Acts 7, and the word, being simply an assembled multitude, says just no more than that. Acts 19 uses the identical word when it says that the town clerk "dismissed the assembly." Put "the church" there, and what nice sense you will have!

"Assembly" in this verse is exactly the same word the Spirit of God uses for "the assembly, the body of Christ" (Ephesians 1:22-23). It simply means a company of people elected out of the community to represent the city. The Spirit of God takes up that word and gives it a dignified meaning, a glorified meaning. It names ones called out of this world's system. They are to be for God intelligently, to represent God, and to function for God.

A popular cry is easily raised and taken up, as it was in this case. All could shout out "Great is Diana of the Ephesians!" But why were they shouting this? What was it all about? The greater part of that vast crowd could not tell. They had carried Gaius and Aristarchus, Paul's companions, with them in their headlong rush to the theatre. Yet plainly they did not know what to do with them. No one touched either of them: not a hair of their heads was hurt.

This outbreak shows us the power of the prince of this world. Worldly interests back him, and they love to shelter under the cover of religion. Men must have a religion; yet how thin a coat of it will do for the crowd, while the crowd in turn will do for the religion... In fact the cry that unites the mob is "Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!" Yet when they come together, it is hard to turn that cry into anything that makes sense.

It was fitting that we should have a living picture of a half-religious riot among the Gentiles themselves. And we have it in the largest theatre whose ruins survive to this day. The Gentiles were certainly a little more senseless than the Jews, though their convictions were nowhere near as deep... Whatever the selfish motives underneath, they voiced their anger for the great Artemis, the goddess the Ephesians boasted about. Yet, as we have seen, God worked providentially through wiser men of high station among them... God used them to shelter His servant, where zeal and courage would have been useless, and might have exposed him to danger.

Since that time, men's protest demonstrations have often produced the same senseless confusion.

It is the "People's Party" in politics and in religion. It is the "People's Church." And people tell us confidently, "The voice of the people is the voice of God." God does not tell us so. He tells us the opposite. And where is His voice heard in all the noise and confusion caused "by the voice of the people"? Today it is one thing, and tomorrow something else... All around is confusion, as at Ephesus.

In this book we have already had the Holy Spirit's account of religious excitement among the Jews... It was fitting that we should also see a living picture of a half-religious riot among the heathen themselves. It happened in the largest theatre whose remains still survive today. The Gentiles were certainly a little more senseless than the Jews, though their convictions were nowhere near as deep.

The Jews clearly began to fear that the persecution might turn against them, since most of the people did not know why they had come together. So they put forward a man named Alexander, probably to shift the blame from themselves onto the Christians. But the moment the heathen found out he was a Jew, their fury grew.

It is well to avoid the mistake of confusing the apostle's act here with what he did in the synagogue of Antioch in Pisidia, or what Alexander did in the tumultuous assembly at Ephesus. This was "beckoning with the hand", quite different in character and aim from stretching it out, here too with a chain.

It was useless, then, for Alexander to beckon with his hand in the desire to make a defence to the people. It was enough that they saw he was a Jew, and therefore hostile to their idolatry. There was one voice from all, for about two hours, as they cried out, "Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!" What a true picture of a world governed by prejudice and feeling in what matters most — for this life, and for the life to come! God, the true God, is not in their thoughts, which are therefore open to any and every delusion.

Once again the poor Jews prove themselves without light. Walking in darkness in their own errors, they put forward one of their countrymen to defend the doctrine of the one God. But this only stirred up the fury of the people even more... Without God no one can oppose the devil or uphold the truth. The truth of the one God had no power without faith and truth in the heart, and neither did the name of Jesus, linked with Paul who announced Him.

The Apostle then refers to "Alexander the coppersmith." Whether he is the same man mentioned in Acts 19:33 we cannot now tell. Here he carries the unenviable reputation of an uncompromising opponent of the truth, and of the Apostle in particular.

From the account in Acts we can see how God used one person and then another to work the deliverance. He used certain of the chiefs of Asia; Alexander, who drew attention away from Paul; and the town clerk with his diplomatic talk. Most of the wild demonstrators had no idea exactly why they were demonstrating.

Kind feeling, if not conscience, made these men of high station give Paul the wise advice not to venture into the theatre. God used them to shelter His servant, where zeal and courage would have been useless, and might have exposed him to danger.

Diana is the Latin name of one of the main goddesses of the Greeks and Romans; the Greek name is Artemis. People said an image of her had fallen from heaven. All Asia worshipped it. Her temple was at Ephesus, built of choice marble... Ephesus was an enlightened city in other ways, but it was dark when it came to religion. The excited people could shout for two hours, "Great is Diana of the Ephesians."

There was one voice from all, for about two hours, as they cried out, "Great is Artemis of the Ephesians." What a true picture of a world ruled by prejudice and feeling in the thing that matters most — not only for this life, but also for the life to come! God, the true God, is not in their thoughts, and so their thoughts lie open to any and every delusion.

A popular cry is easily started and taken up, as it was here. Everyone could shout out "Great is Diana of the Ephesians!" But why were they shouting this? What was it all about? Most of that huge crowd could not tell.

They do not say, "Great is Diana," but "Great is Diana of the Ephesians." Knowing the true God makes us feel our own nothingness, and it judges the state of the heart. A false religion, by contrast, joins hands with the passions of the heart. Worshippers are great in the measure of their religion, and of what they worship... To look down on Diana was to take away from the greatness of her followers.

The story of this outbreak shows us the power of the prince of this world, held up by worldly interests that love to hide under the cover of religion. Men must have a religion; yet how thin a coat of it is enough for the crowd, while the crowd in turn is enough for the religion.

Here again we find the Jews putting Alexander forward. However clever the plan, it did them no good. It only inflamed the crowd all the more. The idol-worshippers instinctively resented a defender like this. Could anyone honestly think that the Jews had more respect for their great goddess than the Christians had?

Without God no one can stand against the devil or hold up the truth. Neither the truth of the one God, nor the name of Jesus joined with the name of Paul who preached Him, had any power without faith and truth in the heart.

God worked through wiser men of high standing among them... Kind feeling, if not conscience, made them give Paul the wise advice not to risk himself in the theatre. God used them to shelter His servant, where zeal and courage would have done no good, and might have put him in danger.

Until the Lord comes, this conflict must go on. Miracles have ceased, but the care of His servants never grows weaker in the heart of Jesus. He works as truly as ever, and God's government orders everything for the good of His work. He may allow Satan's rage to break out, but He never forgets His own.

The town clerk, or recorder, now comes on the scene. In that age and country he was a far more important man than such an officer is in most places, as we learn from ancient inscriptions and other evidence. He worshipped idols like the rest. But their pointless frenzy shocked his common sense. His speech states in plain, sharp terms their own folly and wrong — not their wrong towards God, but towards other men, and above all in the eyes of their Roman governors.

He appealed to what everyone knew: Ephesus worshipped Diana and the image they claimed had fallen down from Jupiter. The image was clearly a man-made thing. It stood for the powers of nature that give birth and feed, and that is why it had many breasts. But men given to idols will accept any superstitious lie.

Diana is the Latin name of one of the chief goddesses of the Greeks and Romans. The Greek name is Artemis. People said an image of her had fallen from heaven, or that someone had made it from wood or ebony that fell from the clouds. All Asia worshipped it. Her temple stood at Ephesus, built of choice marble… Ephesus was in other ways an enlightened city, yet it was dark in religion: the excited people could shout for two hours, "Great is Diana of the Ephesians."

"Since no one can deny these things, you ought to be quiet and do nothing rash. For you have brought these men here, and they are neither temple-robbers nor blasphemers of our goddess…" The little word "for", which our version and perhaps every other leaves out, hints without saying it outright: Why all this fuss?… All the old Protestant English versions give the completely false rendering "robbers of churches".

How foolish they looked! Neither Gaius nor Aristarchus had attacked their goddess. Neither they, nor any Christians, had committed the sacrilege of robbing the temple. So the right thing for them all was to be quiet and do nothing rash. If Demetrius had a grievance, the law courts and the Roman governors were there; he should take it to them, not to the excited crowd filling the theatre. So they should all break up quietly, or the city's leaders would have to answer for the uproar.

What a true picture of the world! It is ruled by prejudice and feeling in the very things that matter most — not only for this life, but for the life to come. God, the true God, is not in their thoughts, so their thoughts lie open to every delusion.

It was good for everyone that the town clerk was a man of great tact and skill. He flattered the crowd, calmed them, soothed them, and sent the assembly home. But faith sees more: God was using the persuasive speech of an idol-worshipping official to protect His servant and His many children there.

The apostle was writing to Gentiles. They had once been "worshippers of the great goddess, Diana," and of the image which they imagined had fallen "down from Jupiter." Poor idol-worshippers they were then. These Gentiles are the "you" of that solemn statement, and he himself with other Hebrews are the "we."

The town clerk, or recorder, now comes on the scene. He was a much more important person in that time and country than in most others, as we learn from ancient inscriptions and other sources. He was a pagan like the rest. But his common sense was shocked by their pointless excesses. His speech sets out in plain, sharp terms their own folly and wrong — not as to God, but as among men, and especially before their Roman governors.

This is how man is deceived. He assumes as beyond question what is merely a delusion of the enemy. Intelligence is no protection against the lie of Satan; nothing protects but the truth brought home by the Spirit of God. For this man, otherwise sensible, the great Artemis and the stone that fell from the sky were things that could not be denied. On that assumption he insists that calmness is the only fitting state of mind for his fellow worshippers.

He calls for calmness and for holding back from any rash action. He tells them that the men they had seized (Gaius and Aristarchus) were neither temple plunderers nor blasphemers of their goddess. He knew that these men were not agitators, but that Demetrius was causing the agitation. So he tells them this: if Demetrius and the other craftsmen want to bring a civil charge against anyone, the courts were fully available, and lawyers too... For, as he says, the Roman authorities would likely ask hard questions about such an uproar. And they could give them no satisfactory answer.

The town clerk was able to say of Paul and his companions that they are "neither temple-plunderers, nor speak injuriously of your goddess" (New Translation). This shows that they had carefully avoided all that might have given offence. They went in for the positive preaching of the gospel rather than the negative work of exposing the follies of idolatry.

The history of this outbreak shows us the power of the prince of this world, supported by the worldly interests that love to shelter under the cover of religion. Men must have a religion; yet how thin a coat of it will do for the crowd, while the crowd in turn will do for the religion. What an absurd thing, to deny what all Asia and the world worship! ...So it can become heresy to say that things made by human hands are not gods. And the town clerk can shame a crowd out of taking it seriously.

Fortunately for all parties, the town clerk was a man of great tact and admirable policy. He flattered, calmed, soothed, and dismissed the assembly. But to faith it was God using the persuasive eloquence of a pagan official to protect His servant and His many children there.

Fortunately for everyone involved, the town clerk was a man of great tact and admirable skill. He flattered the crowd, calmed them, soothed them, and sent the assembly home. But to faith it was God using the persuasive speech of a pagan official to protect His servant and His many children there.

All the old Protestant English Versions have the absurdly false rendering "robbers of churches". Bad habit runs that deep, and not only among ordinary people.

How foolish they looked! Neither Gaius nor Aristarchus had attacked their goddess. Neither they, nor any Christians, had committed sacrilege by robbing the temple. So the right course for them all was to keep quiet and do nothing rash.

Note how he could say of Paul and his companions that they are "neither sacrilegious nor blasphemers of our goddess". This shows they had taken care to avoid anything that might cause offence. They gave themselves to the positive preaching of the Gospel, not to the negative work of exposing how foolish idol-worship is.

This is how man is deceived. He takes as beyond question what is only a delusion of the enemy. No amount of intelligence protects a man against the lie of Satan; nothing does but the truth brought home by the Spirit of God. For this man, sensible in other things, the great Artemis and the stone that fell from the sky were facts no one could deny.

This outbreak shows us the power of the prince of this world, propped up by worldly interests that love to shelter under the cover of religion. Men must have a religion; yet how thin a coat of it is enough for the crowd, while the crowd in turn is enough for the religion. What an absurd thing to deny what all Asia and the world worship! Really, men believe in men... So it can end up being heresy to say that things made with hands are no gods; and a town clerk can shame a crowd out of taking it seriously.

He knew that these men were not the troublemakers. Demetrius was the one stirring things up. So he tells them that if Demetrius and the other craftsmen want to bring a civil charge against anyone, the courts are open and there are lawyers too. As he says, the Roman authorities would likely question them closely about the reason for such an uproar, and they could give no satisfactory answer. It was the Lord's mercy that the matter ended in this way.

The town clerk of Ephesus tried, and with success, to calm the excited crowd in the theatre of the city. That city took pride in being the temple-keeper of Artemis the Great. "If Demetrius," he said, "and the craftsmen with him have a matter against any man, the law is open" (rather, the law courts are being held), "and there are deputies (or proconsuls): let them bring charges against one another."

So he tells them this. If Demetrius and the other craftsmen want to bring a civil charge against anyone, the courts were open and lawyers available. Other matters — political ones, for instance — would need a properly arranged assembly under proper government. For, as he says, the Roman authorities would likely question closely the reason for such an uproar, and they could give them no satisfactory answer.

He is more exact as well. He puts before Demetrius and the craftsmen with him that their procedure was irregular and dangerous for everyone. A charge must come at a proper time and place, and before the right judge. Only there could a case reach a lawful result.

This is how man is deceived. He takes as beyond question what is only a delusion of the enemy. No amount of intelligence protects him from the lie of Satan. Nothing does that but the truth brought home by the Spirit of God. For this man, otherwise sensible, the great Artemis and the stone that fell from the sky were things that could not be denied.

Notice what he could say of Paul and his companions. They are "neither temple-robbers, nor do they speak against your goddess," which shows that they had carefully avoided all that might have given offence. They went in for the positive preaching of the gospel , not the negative work of exposing the follies of idolatry.

Fortunately for all parties, the town clerk was a man of great tact and admirable policy. He flattered, calmed, soothed, and dismissed the assembly. But to faith it was God using the persuasive eloquence of a pagan official to protect His servant and His many children there.

He then dismisses the disorderly and irregular assembly, which had done nothing but show what man is under the power of Satan and moved by his own selfishness.

He is also more exact. He puts it to Demetrius and the craftsmen with him that their way of proceeding was irregular and dangerous for everyone. A charge must be brought at the proper time and place, and before the right judge. Only there could there be a lawful result. Any other question must be settled in the lawful assembly — and this gathering was not that.

It simply means an assembly, and the context decides what kind of assembly it is. For example, the same word is used three times of the riotous crowd at Ephesus, which Demetrius the silversmith and his fellow tradesmen brought together (Acts 19:32, 39, 41). In each of those places it is translated assembly.

The word by which the Church is named is itself an example — and hardly a more striking one could be found — of how a word is gradually raised in meaning. We have ekklesia in three distinct stages: the pagan, the Jewish, and the Christian. As to the first, ekklesia was the lawful assembly in a free Greek city of all those who held the right of citizenship, called to handle public affairs. The last part of the word says that they were summoned. The first part says that they were summoned out of the whole population — a select portion of it, which left out the common crowd, foreigners, and those who had lost their civic rights. Both the calling and the calling out are worth remembering when the word is taken up into its higher Christian sense, for much of its fitness for that greater use lies in them.

The town clerk calms the people. He lets them understand that the authorities would most likely step in because of the riot, and that the men (Gaius and Aristarchus) had done nothing against the law. He then dismisses the disorderly and irregular assembly. It had done nothing but show what man is under the power of Satan and moved by his own selfishness.

The story of this riot shows us the power of the prince of this world, propped up by the worldly interests that love to hide under the cover of religion. Men must have a religion. Yet how thin a coat of it is enough for the crowd — and the crowd, in turn, is enough for the religion.

It was fortunate for everyone that the town clerk was a man of great tact and skill. He flattered the crowd, calmed it, soothed it, and dismissed the assembly. But to faith it was God using the persuasive speech of a pagan official to protect His servant and His many children there.

It is worth noting that he could say of Paul and his companions that they are "neither temple-plunderers, nor speak injuriously of your goddess" (Acts 19:37, older translation). That shows they had been careful to avoid anything that might have caused offence. They gave themselves to the positive preaching of the Gospel, not to the negative work of exposing the follies of idolatry.

He is more precise. He points out to Demetrius and the craftsmen with him that their action was irregular and dangerous for everyone. They must bring a charge at the proper time and place, and before the right judge. Only there could there be a lawful result. Any other question belongs in the lawful assembly, and this was not one. More than that — "we are in danger". Not only they, but "we", might face a charge of rioting over this day's business. There was no reason they could point to that would account for this gathering. The Romans, as everyone knows, were deeply suspicious of such disorderly gatherings. They often punished them with bloodshed beyond measure. Since his speech closed with such a pointed hint, he had no trouble in dismissing the assembly.

The assembly dispersed. It had done nothing but shout. It had achieved nothing except to cover itself with ridicule. Its folly was exposed. Its senseless act was rebuked. The town clerk was wise. Demetrius and his fellows had fooled the people. Many a thoughtful person probably saw it the next day, when he reviewed the whole matter calmly.

The history of this outbreak shows us the power of the prince of this world. Worldly interests hold him up, and they love to shelter under the cover of religion. Men must have a religion. Yet how thin a coat of it is enough for the crowd, while the crowd in turn is enough for the religion… In fact the cry that unites the mob is "Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!" But when they come together, it is hard to turn this into anything they can put into words. … until the town clerk brings it to an end. He wonders at what was never in question. He pleads for men who are neither sacrilegious nor blasphemers. And behind it stands the hint of Rome's harsh way of putting down a riot.

Fortunately for all concerned, the town clerk was a man of great tact and admirable judgment. He flattered, calmed, soothed, and dismissed the assembly. But to faith it was God using the persuasive eloquence of a heathen official to protect His servant and His many children there.

The word does cover the riotous meeting at Ephesus that the town clerk dismissed (Acts 19:41). But it also means "called out ones". Archbishop Trench says: "The name we give the Church is itself an example of how a word is gradually ennobled — you could hardly find a more striking one… In a free Greek city, ekklesia was the lawful assembly of all those who held the right of citizenship, for the conduct of public affairs. The second half of the word says they were summoned. The first says they were summoned out of the whole population, a select portion of it — not the general public, not strangers, and not those who had lost their civic rights. Both the calling and the calling out are worth remembering when we take the word up into a higher Christian sense."

Any other question had to be settled in the lawful assembly, which this gathering was not. More than that, "we are in danger" — not just they, but "we". They could be accused of riot for what happened that day, and they had no reason to give that would account for this gathering. The Romans, as everyone knows, were deeply suspicious of such disorderly gatherings, and often punished them with unlimited bloodshed. His speech closed with such a pointed hint that he then had no difficulty in dismissing the assembly.

Israel is called "Ecclesia," an assembly, in Acts 7, and the word, being simply an assembled multitude, says just no more than that. The same word appears in Acts 19, where the town clerk "dismissed the assembly." Put "the church" there, and see what nice sense you get!

The "assembly in the wilderness" was of Israel; while the assembly of Acts 19:41 was an Ephesian mob. The Church of God is, moreover, called the "House of God," "Bride of Christ," "The Lamb's wife," and so on, applying to it, and to nothing else.

This is how man is deceived. He treats as beyond question what is only a delusion of the enemy. No intelligence protects against Satan's lie; nothing does but the truth brought home by the Spirit of God. For this man, otherwise sensible, the great Artemis and the stone that fell from the sky were things that could not be denied.

The history of this outbreak shows us the power of the prince of this world supported by the worldly interests that love to shelter under the cover of religion. Men must have a religion; yet how thin a coat of it will do for the crowd, while the crowd in turn will do for the religion.

For two whole hours the people shouted, "Great is Diana of the Ephesians." Fortunately for everyone, the town clerk was a man of great tact and admirable policy. He flattered, calmed, soothed, and dismissed the assembly. But to faith it was God using the persuasive eloquence of a pagan official to protect His servant and His many children there.

God used these men of high position to shelter His servant, where zeal and courage would have been useless, and might have exposed him to danger.

The assembly broke up. It had done nothing but shout. It had achieved nothing except to cover itself with ridicule. Its folly was exposed. Its senseless act was rebuked. The town clerk was wise.

The enemy, left free and stirred up by the powerful effect of the word of God, raises a great tumult against Paul and the gospel. But it is useless to fight against God. His fury spends itself in shouts and cries… Thank God, it was too late! We have seen that until the work was finished, the enemy was held in check.

Satan was defeated. Then, after a pause — in which we read of Paul's "purpose in the spirit" to visit Jerusalem and Rome — he stirred up a public riot against the new teaching through Demetrius the silversmith. But He who had once stilled the storm on the lake of Galilee quieted these angry waves too. He rescued His servants and His people from the danger. The apostle's work, however, in Ephesus was now ended.

In this passage, as in many others of Scripture, we see living proof of the ties that joined believers together. They worked so well in apostolic times, keeping the saints in unity, fellowship, and love. There was no lack of missionary zeal. But besides that, the Spirit of God worked much in the exhortation and encouragement of the saints. This is how the body of Christ was built up. It is in this care that we see the clearest contrast between modern times and the earliest days. If converts are guarded from turning aside, that is generally the most that is now attempted.

A new and distinctive form of Christian teaching was now in full use: the letters the apostles wrote. No form of writing allows greater openness and closeness. None gives such scope to the affections of the heart. It was from Ephesus that the apostle wrote the First Letter to the Corinthians.

From these verses we gather that Paul made a short stay at Troas on his way to Macedonia. But he was anxious to meet Titus and hear news of the Corinthian saints. So he left for Macedonia, despite the open door for service there. Once in Macedonia he was still in great distress and trouble. Yet there Titus did appear, and Paul was comforted. So after the trouble in Ephesus, more trouble followed at Troas and in Macedonia. Acts, however, says nothing about this whole side of things.

He moved into an outward calm, but found himself plunged into conflict of an inward sort... From the outward dangers of Ephesus he had plunged into inward distress of spirit. It left him unfit for service in the gospel there. This inward distress was as decisive in its effects as the outward. The one sent him off in haste from Ephesus; the other in haste from Troas.

The record before us is very brief. Some have thought the reason is that the Apostle had turned aside from His given ministry, so the Holy Spirit had nothing to report. We believe that this is correct... Paul's parting at Ephesus is the first farewell scene on this memorable journey. He must have visited Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea and perhaps other cities. Besides giving them much exhortation, he received their fellowship for the poor saints in Jerusalem.

Finally Paul follows Timothy and Erastus to Macedonia, leaving a field of labour that had been most fruitful. How long he spent in Philippi, Thessalonica and Berea we are not told, but he gave them much exhortation.

We are not told how long he spent in Philippi, Thessalonica and Berea, but he gave them much encouragement. This of course took place well after his second letter to the Thessalonians. Luke was clearly there too, and joined Paul's party when he left. We are not told which places he may have visited in Greece (or Achaia): we know only of an assembly at Corinth. This visit also came after his second letter to the Corinthians.

The historian is very brief in his record of what Paul did at this time. He packs all his information into these words: "He said farewell and departed for Macedonia. When he had gone through those regions and had given them much encouragement, he came to Greece. There he spent three months." Most take these few words to cover a period of nine or ten months. Happily, the apostle's letters supply what is missing. The letters written on this journey give us many historical details. Better still, they give us from his own pen a living picture of the deep and painful struggles of mind and heart he was going through at the time.

This passage, like many others in Scripture, shows us the joints and ligaments that held the saints together so well in the days of the apostles, keeping them in unity, fellowship, and love. There was no lack of missionary zeal. But the Spirit of God also worked much in the exhortation and encouragement of the saints. This is how the body of Christ was built up. Here is where we see the clearest contrast between our own times and those earliest days. Keeping converts from turning aside is usually the most that anyone attempts now. Zeal usually goes out towards the conversion of sinners... Growth in the truth is rare, and almost unknown even among the teachers, let alone the converts.

In these early days we see the opposite: the greatest care and zeal in going back to visit those who had already been brought to God and gathered to the name of Jesus. And it was not only by spoken teaching. A new and distinctive kind of Christian teaching, which took shape in the letters of the apostles, was now fully at work. No form of writing allows greater openness and closeness; none gives such room for the affections of the heart.

At last the long-awaited Titus arrived in Macedonia, probably at Philippi. Now Paul's mind is at rest and his heart is comforted. Titus brings him better news from Corinth than he had expected to hear... "For even when we came into Macedonia, our bodies had no rest, but we were afflicted at every turn — fighting without and fear within. But God, who comforts the downcast, comforted us by the coming of Titus."

It was during the three months spent there that he wrote the Epistle to the Romans. He had long wanted to visit Rome in person, but so far he could not. Urgent duties kept him elsewhere, and God purposed that His servant should enter Rome only as a prisoner. This is not how even the apostle would have arranged things, and still less the saints. It is good, however, to learn and accept God's profound wisdom in all these dealings of His.

Yet complete good sense marks Paul's action. The Jews plotted against him as he was about to sail to Syria. He avoided it by deciding to return through Macedonia instead of straight from Achaia. The Jews had enormous influence in that great trading centre, Corinth. Humanly speaking, he could easily have met injury or death as a passenger on one of the many ships of that day.

He returned by land to Philippi, with his companions Sopater of Berea, the son of Pyrrhus, as Luke most likely wrote... They separated on the road, though where is not stated. His companions went ahead to Troas to wait for him, while Paul stayed a little at Philippi with Luke.

It is not important, but in verse 4 we should read, "Gaius and Timothy of Derbe."

His mind was set on going to Rome. But first he had this mission of charity on his heart... "For Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to make some contribution for the poor among the saints at Jerusalem." (Romans 15:26) The names listed in Acts 20:4 are thought to be believers carrying the collections made in the different places named.

In 2 Corinthians 8:18-19 we see the same thing. The churches chose a brother to travel with Paul and Titus. This kept things honest not only before the Lord but also before men. That is what the phrase "messengers of churches" means. The churches that sent help to the poor believers elsewhere chose these men. The apostle would not take charge of the collection otherwise.

Here we find no fewer than seven companions in service, who were in no way limited to one fixed local area. The elders laboured and took the lead in their own places. Many others besides the apostles moved about with perfect liberty. They sought the blessing of the faithful and the spread of the gospel.

It is worth noticing how the gospel Paul preached stirred these hearts. All were free. Some, such as Apollos, laboured on their own. The others were companions of the great central figure... Paul kept them busy and sent them to carry on and complete the work in places he would himself have visited, if he had not been obliged to go elsewhere.

In verse 5 we learn of another devoted personal companion: Luke, who wrote this very book by inspiration. "These went on ahead and were waiting for us at Troas." This honoured man quietly hints that he too was with the apostle at this time and at Philippi.

Luke is with the apostle on his voyage, and Aristarchus also. He has appeared before us from time to time in this book as the companion of the apostle. See Acts 19:29; Acts 20:4; and he is named afterwards in Colossians 4:10; Philemon 24. Neither appears to have been a prisoner at this time. Both became sharers with the one who was so treated. Love led them to join him in the face of shame and danger.

He was with him at the breaking of bread at Troas. He heard the all-night talk there, and the warnings and instructions given to others afterwards. Gaius knew the apostle's teaching, conduct, purpose, pleadings, tears, hopes and fears. He held fast to the truth. He was still walking in it long afterwards, when John wrote to him.

It was not just that the apostle laboured in all directions. Here we find no fewer than seven companions in service, who were in no way tied to one fixed local sphere. The elders laboured and took the lead locally. Many others besides the apostles moved about with perfect liberty. They sought the blessing of the faithful and the spread of the gospel. Among these labourers we can see at least two classes. A few attached themselves as much as possible to Paul's company, and we have a sample of them before us. But others, like Apollos, worked in a more independent way. They spent less time with him, though they had his entire love and confidence.

Seven names of those accompanying him are listed in this case, from four different areas. This is a lovely testimony to the unity the Gospel of Christ brings about among people of different backgrounds and cultures.

The list of names in Acts 20:4 — Sopater, Aristarchus, Secundus, Gaius, Tychicus, and Trophimus — are thought to be brothers carrying the collections made at the different places named. Instead of sailing straight to Syria, he goes round by Macedonia, because of the Jews who were lying in wait for him. At Troas he spent a Lord's day, and even a whole week, to see the brothers.

In verse 5 we learn of another deeply attached personal companion, Luke, the inspired writer of this very Book. "These went on ahead and were waiting for us at Troas." This honoured man quietly shows that he too was with the apostle at this time and at Philippi. It will be remembered that it was in these regions that Luke had first become the companion of Paul.

These seven and Paul left Philippi before Luke and whoever was with him. No doubt Luke, who had already spent some time at Philippi, wanted a longer visit there, taking in "the days of unleavened bread," that is, the week following the Passover.

Why the party did not move together, why the others went before, and Paul and Luke waited till after the feast, we can only guess. But we see the special association of Luke with the apostle, and we utterly reject the empty explanation Wieseler suggests, that Luke travelled with him as his physician.

The Gospel of Luke and its sequel, the Acts of the Apostles, are unique in this. They are books of important historical events, and the writer took part in many of them. Yet he never once mentions himself as having done or witnessed anything at all. He does not even mention his own name or existence. The only way he lets us hear of his presence is where he sometimes changes the pronoun from "they" to "we."

Through it all he certainly filled no unimportant place — more so, one would say, than others who are named. Yet he keeps to the reserve that marks him all along the way. There is no trace of self-consciousness about him; and how beautiful this is in the inspired historian of such a book as this! What an example for us! Sadly, we are so quick to give all our own doings at least their due value.

Leaving Philippi, in five days they come to Troas, and there stay seven days. Everywhere assemblies had been formed… We do not know how the gathering at Troas began; but there was one, and we are allowed to look into it a little — not at its discipline or gifts, as in Corinthians, but at its ordinary walk.

Verse 4 gives us the names of his travelling companions on this journey back. They went ahead across the sea and waited for him at Troas. In verse 5 Luke again uses the pronoun "us," which shows that at this point he again made one of the party. Paul, Luke and others had a five-day voyage. It brought them again to Troas, where not long before "a door was opened … in the Lord."

No doubt Luke, who had spent time at Philippi before (after Acts 16:40), wanted a longer visit there. That visit took in "the days of unleavened bread," that is, the week after the Passover. As a Gentile, Luke would himself attach little importance to this. But his care for the consciences of his Jewish brothers and sisters is beautifully clear (See Romans 14:1-6).

The voyage from Philippi took five days. That was probably longer than anyone expected the ship to take. We know that when they crossed into Europe on an earlier trip, they made the journey between the same towns in two days only. Two days stretched into five proves almost beyond doubt that contrary winds, or something like them, badly held the ship back this time.

Was the Lord saying to His servants, "Come away by yourselves … and rest a while"? For the Lord tenderly cares for His servants, and knows when we have need of rest; and a sea voyage may be a great rest.

Why did Paul stretch out his stay in Troas, when we know he was hurrying to be at Jerusalem by the day of Pentecost (Acts 20:16)? He avoided Ephesus on purpose, because he would not let anything delay him on the way. Yet here at Troas he spends no less than seven days.

Unexpected delays on the voyage brought the travellers to Troas just too late for the usual weekly gathering of the disciples to break bread. So to share with them in the customary remembrance of Christ, they had to stay a week for the next one.

In Acts 20 Paul and his company are at Troas, where he stayed seven days. He may have stayed to spend the first day of the week with the brothers and sisters there, so that they might break bread together. If that is so, the first day of the week, or Lord's day, was above all the day set apart for the Lord's supper. One thing is clear, even from this Scripture: the apostles and the early disciples had the habit of coming together on the first day of the week for the express purpose of breaking bread. Not for preaching, though Paul did preach, but specially to remember the Lord in His own appointed way.

The apostle goes on his way, finds disciples, and stays among them at Tyre for "seven days," as we are told. This seems to have been a common length of stay, and we can easily see why. One great reason, I do not doubt, was to enjoy the fellowship of the saints together. It was to spend with the Christians in a new place that day which has the strongest possible claim on a heart that is true to Jesus — the first day of the week.

There was no transfer from the seventh day to the first, and the first day is never called the Sabbath. The Sabbath, not the first day, was the memorial of creation rest. In due time the law imposed it as a most holy commandment, bound up in a special way with God's authority and honour. The resurrection of Christ has brought in a new creation, after He had by Himself purged our sins on the cross. So the first day is the day of clear and triumphant life in Christ, who is our life. On it our hearts go out in worship, communion and service. A rest for the body, shared with the ox and the donkey, does not rise to the blessed associations of Christ risen from the dead. The New Testament does not close without stamping this day as "the Lord's day" (Revelation 1:10). That is not the prophetic "day of the Lord", which will bring ever-increasing and solemn judgments from God on the earth. The Lord's day is a day of heavenly grace. It brings us already into the victory of His resurrection, the pledge of our own resurrection or change at His coming.

The first day of the week is marked out for the Christian, not as law, but as blessing. Christ rose; Christ met His disciples on it, and again the following week. On the first day of the week the disciples met to break bread. On the first day they were to lay aside their profits for the poor saints.

Why did Paul stretch out his stay in Troas? He was hurrying, as we know, to reach Jerusalem by the day of Pentecost if he could. He deliberately avoided Ephesus because he did not want to be delayed on his journey. Yet here at Troas he spends no fewer than seven days.

Unexpected delays on the voyage meant the travellers landed at Troas just too late to join the usual weekly gathering of the disciples to break bread. To share with them in the customary remembrance of Christ, they had to stay a week for the next one.

This passage implies that this act was the object of their meeting, though other things might go along with it.

The early disciples came together not once a year, nor once a quarter, nor once a month, but on the first day of the week to break bread. It is no new theory, no notion of moderns or ancients, but what God has written in Acts 20:7.

Even the apostle's teaching, precious as it was, is spoken of as a secondary thing. The remembrance of the Lord's love in dying for us, and all that He has brought us into as risen again, was and is the first thing. If there is a chance to minister the word in a way that gathers up the thoughts and affections of the worshippers to Christ, it is good to take it. But the breaking of bread ought to be the first consideration, and the main object of the assembly. The Lord's Supper on this occasion came after sunset.

Then it was "disciples" who came together. That suggests people who had followed the Lord faithfully during the week before. They came "together to break bread." Hymns and thanksgiving must have their place. But they are not the reason we come together. We come to "break bread."

The New Testament never says that a man must be ordained to administer the Supper. It is clear that Christians came together on the Lord's Day to break bread.

He knew that dangers were looming ahead. No doubt that made him all the more anxious to give the disciples everything he could in his parting words. So he continued his speech until midnight.

What kind of places of worship did they have? Did they have churches, or chapels, or temples? Did they have consecrated bells, or buildings? These are everywhere now, but do we find a trace of them in the New Testament? Not a trace. We find them in an upper room in Acts 20:8. Wherever the saints were gathered together to Christ, there — and only there — was the true church or assembly. Was it not so?

Years after Pentecost we never hear of grand or beautiful buildings, which they certainly had the heart and the means to build, if buildings had been any object at all. The most we hear of is "the upper chamber" to break bread in (Acts 20:7-8), or the school of Tyrannus where the apostle taught, or lectured, every day (Acts 19:9). There is not a trace in the inspired record, not a hint, that the church of God tried to copy or outdo the earthly splendour of the Jewish temple.

The Greek word lampas in the plural is translated 'lights' only once, in Acts 20:8; several times 'lamps,' and once 'torches,' in John 18:3. Perhaps torches would suit in every place. The word occurs five times in the parable of the ten virgins (Matthew 25:1-8). In India and other parts of the East people keep torches burning with oil, so the same rendering would suit here.

The Lord's Supper on this occasion was celebrated after sunset. In early times, some places observed it before daylight; others after sunset. But here the disciples were not forced to meet in secret.

It was not, however, an assembly held in secret or in the dark. There were many lamps to light the upper chamber in which they met. By the place in which they came together we see that the assemblies were not composed of very many persons. The upper room in Jerusalem received, perhaps, one hundred and twenty. It appears from various greetings that they met in private houses — in several of them, most likely, if the number of believers required it. But there was only one assembly.

The gathering together of the saints at Troas (Acts 20:7) was the united action of the assembly in that town. The wording used shows a common and habitual custom of the church of God. Our ordinary version hides this by using the third person instead of the first. But the revised and other critical translations follow a better text and restore the true force of the passage: "when we were gathered together to break bread" (verse 7), and again, "in the upper chamber where we were gathered together" (verse 8).

The room they were in must have been of no small size, for there were many lights in that upper chamber. Yet we can imagine that, between the lights and the company, the heat was great. To one person present, sleep was overpowering. Eutychus, a young man, weighed down by sleep, fell from the third story and was picked up dead — not seemingly dead, but dead.

Many lights are spoken of in the upper room where they were gathered. No doubt the upper room reminds us of heaven, the true home of the Church, with its plentiful light for the teaching of the saints. At least it was not lack of light that induced sleep on the part of Eutychus.

He knew that dangers were waiting ahead. So he was all the more anxious to give the disciples everything he could in his parting words. So he continued his speech until midnight. The room they were in must have been large, since there were many lights in that upper room. Yet we can imagine that the lamps and the crowd made the heat great. For one man there, sleep was overpowering. For Eutychus, a young man, weighed down by sleep, fell from the third story. He was taken up — not as if dead, but dead. Life was gone. But Paul could restore him to life. He did.

Human weakness is such that all this affected a certain Eutychus. Sleep overcame him while Paul preached at length. He was sitting by the window, and he fell from the third floor. He was picked up dead. Paul breaks off his sermon, goes down, and throws himself on him. He declares that life is still in him. Soul and body had not yet parted. The fall had stunned him, and if the power of God had not stepped in, death would have taken hold of him. Life had not yet gone out of the body. By the Spirit, Paul so works on it that the functions of life are restored. In the case of the child brought back to life by the prophet Elijah, the soul had already left the body, and returned to it.

In this young man (whose name means "prosperous") we are no doubt meant to see a picture of the Church. It would reach a prosperous state and grow weary of Paul's ministry. When circumstances are hard and demanding, we are usually more awake to the truth. Prosperity on earth tends to make us self-satisfied. It leaves us insensitive to our need of the full truth of the Word of God, especially the heavenly truth that Paul teaches. Then we easily fall from our high position and suffer drastic results.

Through the tender mercy of God he recovered his life, but the part of Paul's ministry he lost while sleeping he never recovered. And who knows whether the last part was not the best on that memorable night and very special occasion?

The saint's sleeping time is Satan's tempting time; every fly dares to creep on a sleeping lion. Samson asleep, and Delilah cuts his hair. Saul asleep, and the spear is taken from his very side without his knowing. Eutychus asleep, nods, and falls from the third floor, and is taken up for dead. A Christian asleep may soon lose his spiritual strength… He may fall from a great height of profession down into scandalous practices. Others may then question whether there is any life of grace in him.

At Troas, it seems, there was no lack of gift, but conditions of failure and death came in. Eutychus "sank down" with sleep and then "fell down". But Paul "went down". In this he shows the features of the Man Christ Jesus, seen so wonderfully in the second chapter of Philippians.

Eutychus was sitting on the window seat. Deep sleep came over him as Paul spoke at great length, and he fell from the third storey to the bottom, and they took him up dead. We must admit that the inspired physician who wrote this account was a most competent witness. It is not just that he appeared dead, or that they took him up for dead, as some have said. He was really dead. But Paul went down and fell upon him, as the prophet of old famously did, and clasping him said, "Do not be alarmed, for his life (soul) is in him." In these words the apostle had no desire to make light of the power of God which had worked in this miracle.

It may help to compare Luke 8:49-56, where "the spirit" of the Jewish girl had departed. But the Lord's words were enough; and "her spirit returned." Here it was not so. "His soul is in him," said the apostle — though divine power alone could keep it there, or prevent the break-up that was about to follow.

The separation had not yet taken place. The fall had stunned him, and if the power of God had not stepped in, death would have taken him in its grip. Life, however, had not yet gone out of the body; and by the Spirit, Paul so works on it that the functions of life are restored. The bonds between soul and body are re-established. In the case of the child restored to life by Elijah (1 Kings 17:21-22) the soul had already left the body, and returned to it.

Paul said, "His soul is in him," to tell them not to be troubled about the young man whose body they took up (Acts 20:10). This only shows that the usual trouble and mourning at death happen because the soul and spirit have left the body.

If we turn to Acts 20 we see what took place at Troas when Paul was there. Apparently there was no lack of gift, but conditions of failure and death came in. Eutychus "sunk down" with sleep and then "fell down." But Paul "went down." In this he showed the features of the Man Christ Jesus, so wonderfully seen in the second chapter of Philippians.

Peter did not dare to say to the body of the dead disciple, "Tabitha, arise," until he had knelt down and prayed. Nor did Paul, when he fell on the dead Eutychus and held him in his arms.

The power of God was so displayed through Paul that this episode did not break up the meeting or distract everyone from Paul's message. Instead their hearts were comforted and strengthened, so that they settled down and listened till daybreak... The story is marked by the absence of anything ceremonial and official, but it pulsates with power. In popular Christianity today the ceremonial holds the field and the power is absent.

Through the tender mercy of God he recovered his life, but the part of Paul's ministry which he lost while he was sleeping he never recovered. And who knows whether the last part was the best on that memorable night and very special occasion?

Some have supposed that when Paul had gone up and broken the loaf and eaten, it was the interrupted celebration of the Lord's Supper. This appears to me opposed to what the context suggests. Scripture describes it, not as fellowship, but only as the personal act of the apostle. No doubt it was "the loaf" of the Lord's Supper. But the apostle took that loaf here for his own refreshment. He had spoken so long, and in such trying circumstances, and he was about to go out on his journey. The word used for his eating is rightly translated "eaten", or literally "tasted". We can understand, then, why the Lord avoids such a word when He calls on His disciples to "take, eat" at the institution of His supper. Again, the apostle's "conversing" with them a long while, till daybreak, much better suits a meal than the assembly.

In verse 11, after the incident with Eutychus, Paul returned to the upper chamber, broke the bread, ate, and conversed till break of day. This does not sound like the Lord's Supper, which is always referred to as the action of the whole assembly. Compare verse 7, "when we were gathered together to break bread"; and 1 Cor. 10:16, "The bread that we break." But in verse 11 it is Paul who breaks the bread, as he does in Acts 27:35, after the fourteen days' fast on board ship. Here the apostle eats of the loaf to satisfy his hunger, before the long journey he was to start at dawn. So eating in this case is not sharing in the feast of remembrance, but taking a meal. "Conversing" is the fitting word for that, and it differs from the more formal discourse that had gone before.

The apostle assured them that Eutychus was alive again. Joy must have filled the whole company at hearing that. And surely with full hearts they all took part in the Lord's Supper which followed.

The fall and death of Eutychus interrupted, but did not dissolve that meeting. This we learn from verse 11. The breaking of bread expresses the unity of the whole assembly, and it was that which gathered the saints at Troas — not to hear Paul speak. He did speak, and speak twice. That gives divine warrant for ministry both before and after the Lord's Supper, if the Spirit of God leads a servant this way, when the assembly is gathered together to break bread.

The prime call was to remember the Lord in the breaking of bread. Yet the apostle did not break divine order here. He not only "discoursed" (not "preached"). Since he was leaving the next day, he also drew the discourse out till midnight. The principle is, "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom" (2 Cor. 3:17). The Lord's Supper has its own deep solemnity and thanksgiving. Even that does not shut out a long discourse in special circumstances.

For an apostle to break the bread, when he was present (Acts 20:11), was a very natural thing, and it seems to me very suitable. But I do not see that this proves that the ministry alone had the right to do so.

After his revival the breaking of bread took place as well as eating, then continued ministry until the break of day. In these last days God has given some reviving of the truth of the assembly. For our present comfort He provides the breaking of bread and fellowship, as well as enough ministry until the break of day — the coming of the Lord.

At this point, beyond any question, we see that Paul had arranged to be apart from his beloved companions, who went on board ship. He did so even though it meant a more tiring journey for himself by land.

Paul chose to go alone from Troas to Assos. All through the history we see that he arranged the willing services of his companions, by the power the Spirit gave him over them. This was not, of course, as their master — yet it was more complete than if he had been.

A seaport in Mysia, in the west of Asia Minor, on the north shore of the Gulf of Adramyttium, twenty miles from Troas. A glance at a map will show that Paul, by walking from Troas to Assos, could be there as soon as the ship.

There is a time for fellowship with others, and there is a time also for being alone. Perhaps no believer has ever enjoyed heart fellowship with his brothers as the apostle did, yet he realised that this was a season to be alone... His habitual godliness would lead him now and then to look for such a chance to unburden his spirit, and to renew in a marked and full way his sense of dependence on the grace of Christ. These secret dealings with the Lord were needed all the more, because the work demanded energy and prominence in front of people.

Paul once walked from Troas to Assos — about twenty-five miles — alone, sending his companions round by sea. He had his own reasons for avoiding conversation just then. With Elijah and Elisha it was different.

He was going to Jerusalem — a place of so many memories, and perhaps of his most real conflict. What was waiting for him there? What lay beyond it? Would it affect the rest of his course? Would it change those plans of future service that reached as far as the furthest bounds of the west? No doubt he had plenty to occupy him with the thoughts that crowded in over those twenty-five miles or so to Assos.

It seems that his reason for this is explained in his address to the Ephesian elders soon after... Paul was clearly deeply concerned in heart about all he had to say to them. His own long walk alone gave time for thoughtful consideration of these things.

Why he did this has led to many guesses. But since nothing more than guesswork can be offered to the reader, and guesswork based on no known fact, it is better to leave all that alone.

When the first day of the week came, the disciples broke bread together. The apostle was so unwilling to lose another moment that he set off at daybreak on foot for Assos. He did this even though he had spent the whole night in the company of the saints. It is clear, then, that Paul stayed the seven days to be present at the gathering of the church in Troas.

Seaport in Mysia, in the west of Asia Minor, on the north shore of the Gulf of Adramyttium, 20 miles from Troas. Acts 20:13-14. A glance at a map will show that Paul, in walking from Troas to Assos, could be there as soon as the ship.

There is a time for being with others, and there is a time also for being alone. The apostle enjoyed fellowship of heart with his brothers as perhaps no other believer ever did. Yet he realised that it was now a season to be alone. We can hardly doubt that this was a common thing for someone so busy in public work as Paul. His habitual devotion would lead him now and then to seek such an opportunity. There he could unburden his spirit. There he could renew, in a marked and full way, his sense of dependence on the grace of Christ. These private dealings with the Lord were all the more necessary. The demands of the work called for energy and a prominent place in front of people.

At this moment solitude likely suited him better than company. That was true even of men as close to him in spirit as his companions were then. The future of that Church, so dear to him as the Church of Christ, was, as we know from what follows, on his heart. Of all people on earth, he was the one who carried this burden (2 Cor. 11:28-29)… He was going to Jerusalem, a place of so many memories, and perhaps of his most real conflict. What was waiting for him there? What lay beyond this?… No doubt he had enough to occupy him. Thoughts crowded in over those twenty-five miles or so to Assos.

All went by sea to Assos, except Paul, who travelled there overland, a distance of about nineteen miles. Why he did this has led to many guesses. But no one can offer the reader more than guesswork here, and guesswork founded on no known fact. So it is better to leave all that alone. At Assos he rejoined his companions, when they sailed for Mitylene.

Paul chose to go alone from Troas to Assos. All through the history we see him arranging the willing services of his companions. He did this by the power the Spirit gave him over them. He was not their master, of course, yet he directed them more completely than if he had been. He is, under Christ, the centre of the system in which he works, the centre of energy. Christ alone can by right be the centre of salvation and of faith. It was only as filled with the Spirit of God that Paul was the centre even of that energy.

There is no spiritual reason to dwell on the associations that Assos or Mitylene, Chios or Samos, Trogyllium or Miletus might suggest. They come before us here only as the changing points of the apostolic journey. Historical questions would distract us from that, interesting as each of them is.

"And [having stayed at Trogyllium] the day after we came to Miletus. For Paul had determined to sail past Ephesus, so that he might not have to spend time in Asia." … "By" is unclear, as it might mean by that way. "Past" means without stopping there.

There is no spiritual reason to dwell on the associations that Assos or Mitylene, Chios or Samos, Trogyllium or Miletus might suggest. They come before us simply as the changing points of the apostle's journey. If we filled our minds with historical questions, they would divert us from it — interesting as each of them is.

Paul's heart was filled with what was of the deepest importance for the saints in Ephesus. Even so, he came near them at Miletus, rather than at the capital of Asia… He was so known and loved and loving that a visit to Ephesus would have meant a stay of some length among them. He therefore made Miletus his place of brief stay, so that nothing should hinder his desire to be at Jerusalem for the day of Pentecost.

It is clear that the apostle's mind was full of the circumstances he was in — the apparent end of his career. This thought probably influenced him when he went alone on foot to Assos. It was also the cause of his long speech at Troas.

The most important stage of this journey is Miletus, though the sacred historian carefully notes the different places they pass or call at… But as the ship was to be held at Miletus for some time, he sends for the elders of the church at Ephesus to meet him. The distance between the two places is said to be about thirty miles, so the journey there and back would take two or three days. Still, they had enough time for their meeting before the ship sailed. So the Lord thinks of His servants and makes everything work together for their good and His own glory.

He did not himself go to Ephesus, for he was anxious to get to Jerusalem by the time of the feast of Pentecost, when many would be present. He clearly felt he could make some useful impression on the Jews. But God had given him no assurance of such results. His love for his own nation evidently influenced him greatly, rather than the leading of God.

I believe that the hand of God was in this journey of Paul's. In His sovereign wisdom He willed that His servant should undertake it, and also have blessing in it. But the means used to lead him into it, according to that sovereign wisdom, was the apostle's human affection for his own people, his own flesh and blood. He was not led into it by the Holy Spirit acting on the part of Christ in the assembly… Paul's affection was good in itself, but as a spring of action it did not rise to the height of the work of the Spirit.

"By" in the Authorized Version is ambiguous, since it could mean by that route. "Past" means without stopping there.

He had a strong affection for the many believers at Ephesus, and many ties with them. Had he gone to the city itself, he could not have left them without a long delay. So he chose to sail past Ephesus, so that he would not defeat the purpose of his journey to Palestine. He made Miletus a brief stopping place instead, so that nothing should hinder his desire to be at Jerusalem for the day of Pentecost.

It is striking that the apostle waited, because he was in a great hurry to reach Jerusalem by the day of Pentecost, and his time was precious. His time was so short that he could not visit the important assembly at Ephesus. Instead he sent for the elders to meet him at Miletus (Acts 20:16). Still, Paul stayed in Troas seven days for the breaking of bread.

He deliberately avoided Ephesus because he would not be delayed on his journey. Yet here at Troas he spends no less than seven days... Are we not bound to gather from these facts, that some important consideration was of sufficient weight with the apostle to cause him to stay so long in Troas?

He did not himself go to Ephesus, because he was anxious to get to Jerusalem by the time of the feast of Pentecost, when many would be present. He seems to have felt that he could have some good effect on the Jews, though God had given him no assurance of such results. What moved him so strongly seems to have been love for his own nation, not the leading of God.

Paul, being filled with the Spirit, gives directions for the journey... He arranges not to go to Ephesus, though that was a central place, because he had set his heart on being at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. But since the ship would stay some time at Miletus, he sends for the elders of the church at Ephesus to meet him... So the Lord thinks of His servants and makes everything work together for their good and His own glory.

But he could not leave Ephesus aside with no token of his lasting love, and the stay at Miletus gives him the opportunity he wanted. Ephesus was only thirty miles away, with a good road between; so he "called the elders of the church to come to him," for his last tender greeting.

He had a strong affection for the many saints at Ephesus, and many ties with them. If he had gone into the city itself, he could not have left again without a long delay. So he chose to sail past Ephesus, rather than frustrate the purpose of his journey to Palestine.

They came at once, even though the journey was thirty-six miles. But which of them would not have been glad to take that trouble when the apostle asked for them? … It is the only speech of the apostle on this third journey that has come down to us. … We can see why it was worth keeping. It shows us the spirit in which Paul worked, and the different lines of teaching he handled.

This does not fit the usual habits and thoughts of men — not to say their selfishness. So from ancient times the idea slipped in that he meant the elders of all the churches round about. But we must not tamper with the word of God like that for a moment. The apostle sent to Ephesus and called to himself the elders of the church there, not of the churches around. There may have been many meeting-places in Ephesus. But Scripture never speaks of the assemblies in a city, always of the assembly, or church, in it.

Paul called for the elders of the church at Ephesus, Acts 20:17, and in Acts 20:28 he called them "overseers." … These two passages prove something. Today, in the Christian world, one bishop usually takes charge of a large district, with what men call lower clergy under him. It was not so then. Each city had more than one bishop or overseer, and at that time there was only one assembly in a city.

He did not call all the saints over, only the elders, who had the care of the saints. He had warnings to speak to them about the days that were coming, warnings that would do them much good. So, while these words are for all the saints, those who have the interest of Christ's saints at heart should heed them most of all.

It is evident that in sending for them he had on his heart not only those elders, but all the Christians of the place, and even of the whole province. … When he speaks to them of "you all," he does not mean the elders only.

Elders were appointed to give godly care in the undivided local assembly — to shepherd the flock. Any attempt to appoint them now would not only lack the necessary apostolic authority; it would also ignore the divided state of the church. … The elders were no security for the church. The apostle warned that from among them men would rise up, speaking perverse things. So he commended them, not to some church authority or council, but "to God and to the word of his grace" — a resource that all Christians still have. Happily, there are servants of God today who care for the saints … and who devote themselves to the work of the ministry without any apostolic appointment, as the household of Stephanas did.

From Miletus he sent to Ephesus to summon the elders of the assembly there to meet him. They came at once, though it meant a journey of thirty-six miles for them... It is the only address of Paul's from this third journey that has come down to us... We are familiar with it, and we can see why it was right to preserve it. It shows us the spirit in which Paul worked, and the different lines of teaching he handled.

It is certain that neighbouring towns or churches are completely ignored here. Only the elders of Ephesus were summoned, and only they are addressed... Notice that the apostle summoned the elders with authority, and that they responded to his call without question.

epistamai means, first of all, to know something with the knowledge that comes from being near it... it is therefore the knowledge gained by experience — like that of an expert.

Here the apostle does not hold back from reminding them of his own service among them. This was a habit of his, as we see clearly in the First Epistle to the Thessalonians and elsewhere. Only burning zeal and a good conscience before God account for it. Nothing could be further from his character than liking to speak of himself... They knew very little of what the glory of Christ demands, of what the walk and service and devotedness of a Christian should be... They needed not only teaching, but — what is so much more powerful along with it — a living example to form and fashion the ways of Christ in them.

Paul could speak to them with apostolic authority, but he bases his instructions on what he had been among them at all seasons... In Acts 20:18 he speaks of his manner of life, and in Acts 20:19 of his service to the Lord. In Acts 20:20 he speaks of his service to the saints, and in Acts 20:21 of his testimony to all men. Is this order not especially important in days of wholesale departure from the truth? Nothing can be right if the manner of life is inconsistent with the word ministered; everything takes its character from this.

The work of every servant is under the eye of God. It is also, to some extent, under the eyes of those among whom he works. He is happy when, as in this case, he can remind the saints of its character with a good conscience.

Our teaching and our appeals have no more value than our lives give them. Of the scribes and Pharisees of our Lord's day He had to say, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice"... How deeply solemn! The teaching was good, but the teachers did not match the teaching. Happy is the man — Samuel, Paul, or anyone else — who can honestly point those who know him best to his manner of life from first to last, as his service draws to a close.

In Acts 20:18 he speaks of his manner of life. In verse 19 he speaks of his service to the Lord. In verse 20 it is his service to the saints, and in verse 21 his testimony to all men. Is this order not of special importance in days of wholesale departure from the truth? Nothing can be right if the way a man lives contradicts the word he preaches. Everything takes its character from this. Then all true service must have the Lord Himself in view. It is from Him and to Him. He must be the source, the motive, and the object of all done in His Name... So that God's order was, first the Lord, then the saints, then the world.

Then he says, "Serving the Lord" — not, strictly speaking, serving the saints. The Lord was before him, not the service of humanity. If we serve according to this pattern, we keep the Lord as the sole Object of our service. And we serve "with all humility" — humility of mind, not of behaviour. A man may be only a hypocrite, humble on the outside but not in mind.

It is not learning or success in ministry which he puts before them, but serving the Lord with all lowliness of mind. How often that service puffs up the novice! What dangers surround even the most experienced! Lowliness of mind is of all moment in it, and the Lord helps by the very difficulties and griefs which accompany it.

The Lord Himself was a Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. He wept over hardhearted sinners, and wept with broken-hearted saints. Paul, following in His steps, was a man of tears. He watered his service with tears, for he speaks of "serving the Lord with all lowliness and with many tears." Moreover, he wept over the saints as he foresaw the failure and sorrows that would overtake the Church after his death.

A pattern ministry does not mean one that leads from success to success in a continual round of triumph. Because our own circumstances are easy, we must not imagine that Christian service is a triumphal procession of large meetings and eager crowds... He had all kinds of testings and trials, and those very testings proved what he was made of spiritually. If you hear that someone is serving and running into endless difficulties, you need not always shake your head and say he is no good. He may be good in extraordinary measure.

Paul was not ashamed to speak of his tears, any more than of the trials which came upon him through the plots of the Jews. They were the constant opponents of the gospel, filled with special bitterness against Paul.

So he served not only humbly but with "all humility of mind"; and not only with tears but with "many" of them. He served with a tender heart and one from which the curse of pride, which ruins so many, was wholly absent. He went out weeping as he scattered the precious seed, and he will come again rejoicing, bringing his golden sheaves. What a pattern servant! And why should we not follow his example?

Further, he could say that they knew how he kept back nothing that was profitable. This needs faith, and without faith, faithfulness will fail. The apostle was completely above the fear of man. He withheld nothing that was for their good. He announced it to them and taught them publicly and in their houses, testifying to both Jews and Greeks about repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.

The apostle knew very well that what he received he had to pass on; he was a steward "of the mysteries of God" (1 Cor. 4:1). He later wrote to this very assembly a letter that unfolds the highest truth, and that subject was no doubt part of his spoken teaching. So he counted it, no less than the other parts of revelation, profitable to his hearers. The fact is, under the Spirit's guidance, it is impossible to turn to any part of revealed truth that is not profitable. "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable," the same writer says in another letter (2 Tim. 3:16). There is need to emphasise that word all. No doubt there are chapters in God's word — as well as doctrines — of special importance, but the point to keep in mind is that all are necessary. We would think a face sadly deformed if any feature were missing. Giving the other features extra prominence would not make up for it; and so not only should every truth find a place, but its right place, and that in proper proportion.

He kept back no ministry that was profitable, which means that he did keep back what was unprofitable. That is a further example to follow honestly. From house to house and publicly, to the few or the many, he had the good and the profit of all at heart.

He was not content with showing; he explained and enforced what he had shown. A teacher may fully understand a mathematical problem and be able to work it out on the blackboard. Passing that knowledge on to his pupils is another thing. Now this is what the apostle, the "teacher of the Gentiles," sought to do... To this end the apostle, not content with public ministry, went from house to house. He no doubt found on his visits that much he had said in his public address had not been grasped. Are we not often surprised, when we question our hearers, to find how little they have retained?

We only teach effectively if our own lives match what we say. The apostle Paul illustrated this well. He referred to it twice when speaking to the elders of Ephesus: "I have showed you, and have taught you," and again, "I have showed you all things" (Acts 20:20, 35). He illustrated in his life what he taught with his mouth. This is the effective way of teaching, in Paul's day or in ours.

The teacher unfolds truth; the pastor applies it. The teacher enlightens the understanding; the pastor looks to the state of the heart. The teacher supplies the spiritual food; the pastor sees what use is made of it. The teacher's work is mostly public; the pastor's work is mostly private. When the two are joined in one person, the teaching gift gives the pastor immense moral power. The pastoral element gives the teacher a tender affection.

A man may perhaps give us a short address on the Lord's day, or a lecture on a weekday; but where is the "house to house" side of the question? Where is the close, earnest, diligent looking after individual souls day by day? Very often the public teaching shoots completely over the head; it is the house to house teaching that is sure to come home to the heart. How often something said in public is entirely misunderstood and misapplied, until the loving pastoral visit during the week supplies the true meaning and the right application.

I think the visiting part quite as important, if not the most important part of the work: it is said, "publicly, and from house to house."... The clock strikes the hours, and that serves the passers-by. But the works inside make the good clock, and make the striking and the hands right. I think it should be your main work; indeed, I do not believe anyone can minister well without it. The springs of love, and the use and application of doctrine, are fed there; minds are understood. Otherwise we are apt to get essays, theories or thoughts... I dread much public testimony, and altogether so, if there is no private work.

The Jew would strongly resent that message. He would say it was obvious that the Greek should be told to repent, but to come and tell them, the people of God, to repent was very objectionable. But Paul calmly and plainly told the truth of God in both directions.

It is not a mere change of mind on certain points (this would confuse it with faith); for the Lord preached, "Repent and believe in the gospel" (Mark 1:15). It is not simply a conviction of having done wrong; for when the crowd were cut to the heart, Peter urged them to repentance (Acts 2:38). It is not sorrow for sin, for "godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret" (2 Cor. 7:10)… But it is a change of mind, a judgment of self, of one's ways and sins, shown by a changed life. It is God's gift; the risen and ascended Christ gives it (Acts 5:31)… It gives God His right place in the conscience of His creature, so it is "toward God."

It is against God we have sinned, and it is He who has passed judgment on our sins. So when we are convicted of our guilt, it is to Him we turn with confession and self-judgment. In this state our one need is to learn the way of salvation, just as the jailer, conscience-stricken, ran to Paul and Silas and cried, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" They answered by presenting Christ… But they used the full title — the Lord Jesus Christ. That shows they preached a full gospel: the gospel about His person, His death and resurrection, and His present exaltation as Lord at the right hand of God.

Repentance and faith are inseparable where there is reality… As there is no genuine repentance without faith, so there is no faith of God's elect without repentance. Repentance toward God is the soul judging itself and confessing its ways as in His sight. Faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ is the soul receiving the good news God sends concerning His Son.

But people badly abuse that sentence (Acts 20:21), putting repentance before faith. If it means faith in the full efficacy of Christ's work, then of course it can and will come after repentance. Repentance cannot go before faith. When a man brings a testimony, it produces no effect unless people believe it.

The low views which make repentance a human work as a preface to faith are no less objectionable than the so-called high views which merge everything in faith, making repentance no more than a change of mind. Neither legalism nor antinomianism is of God, but the grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ.

Peter repented when he said, in the presence of the Lord, "I am a sinful man." The tax collector repented when he said, "God, be merciful to me, a sinner!" The prodigal repented when he said in the presence of the father, "I have sinned against heaven and before you." The thief repented when he said, "We are receiving the due reward of our deeds." There may be different measures of repentance, just as there are different measures of faith… but wherever there is a work of God in the soul, these two things will be found.

Some of the older writers take the phrase to mean that Paul went "led captive by the Spirit." But the usual sense of the words, and the way the following verses say "the Holy Spirit" instead, both point to his own spirit. Paul was not free in his spirit for any other direction than Jerusalem, whatever it might cost.

Paul (Acts 20:22) was not, I believe, bound "in the Spirit," but in spirit, his own. It was the overruling hand of God upon him, not the actual guidance of the Spirit of God. God so ordered it for His own divine purposes. Morally, Paul was not going for testimony; he was going with the collections for the saints.

Behind his burning desire to go up to Jerusalem stood the mighty constraint of love for his own beloved people. His heart, filled with the love of God, yearned over them. He expresses this love so fully in his letter to the Romans. "I am speaking the truth in Christ — I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit — that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh" (Romans 9:1-3).

He is going to Jerusalem, bound in spirit. Surely this is not the Holy Spirit, since the word he uses could not apply to Him. Nor does it speak of the sweet and happy constraint of love, though love is in it — deep and constraining love. But along with that love there is certainly a foreboding which casts a shadow over him. The word "bound" reminds us of a sacrifice tied for the altar. Yet if that were all, and he felt the Lord was leading him this way, his spirit would be brighter. Contrast his words to the Philippians. There he writes: "Even if I am to be poured out as a drink offering upon the sacrificial offering of your faith, I am glad and rejoice with you all" (Philippians 2:17).

The apostle had no lack of warning. He said so himself to the elders from Ephesus: the Holy Spirit testified to him in every city that chains and afflictions were waiting for him. Yet he clearly treated this as a note of the danger ahead, not as personal direction he had to obey. His mind was made up. Whatever the danger, whatever the suffering, he would go through with it.

But none of these things could move him from his purpose. His devotedness itself is precious, though we may question if it was rightly directed on this occasion.

Still, God was in it all. During these very bonds Paul wrote the letters which give us — as we are glad to know — the fullest and brightest light of Christ and on heavenly things ever given for the lasting instruction and comfort of the saints of God.

When he speaks of going "bound in the spirit" to Jerusalem, it is his own spirit he is speaking of, not the Spirit of God. His love for Israel was so deep and so real that it urged him forward. He went despite warnings from the Holy Spirit "in every city" that going there would end in imprisonment and suffering. Notice that he fully believes that it was the Holy Spirit who was giving these warnings.

Normal usage, and the separate naming of "the Holy Spirit" in the verses that follow, point to his own spirit... Paul was not free in his spirit to go in any direction but Jerusalem, whatever it might cost.

He did not know the exact shape of what was coming. Still, he lets them know that he went in with open eyes to the weight of trouble ahead. That trouble paused only for a short time, and then it all ended in a martyr's death. He knew as well that, whatever the end might be, chains and hardships came first. To a heart that loved the church, what could be more serious for the testimony of the Lord and for the saints? Yet God was in it all. During these very chains Paul wrote the letters that give the fullest and brightest light on Christ and on heavenly things ever given. And we are glad to know it: that light was given for the lasting teaching and comfort of God's saints.

Certainly the apostle did not lack warning, as he said himself to the elders from Ephesus... But he clearly took it as a note of the danger waiting for him, not as a personal order he had to obey. He had made up his own mind to go through with it, whatever the danger and whatever the suffering. The Master had done the same, in a perfection no one can match, for His infinite work, at any cost.

The Holy Spirit does not usually warn of danger. He leads in the path of the Lord, and if persecution comes, He gives strength to endure it. Here the warnings came to Paul again and again. His friends beg him not to go up. Nothing changes his mind. They fall silent, far from satisfied, and say, "The will of the Lord be done." I do not doubt that it was His will. But it was His will in order to work out purposes Paul did not know through the understanding the Holy Spirit gives. He only felt pressed in spirit to go, and ready to suffer all things for the Lord.

He had gone where God had warned him not to go. And if this is true of him, what shall we say of ourselves? Do not allow your lips to say strong things about the apostle Paul; but let your own conscience, and let mine, take heed to our own ways, and above all beware of this — that we are not found slighting one word that comes to us from the Holy Spirit. Let us weigh and treasure every expression of God's mind.

"Now," he has to add, "the Holy Spirit testifies to me in every city that imprisonment and afflictions await me." There was more trouble for the pattern servant, but he says, "None of these things move me." He was a man of extraordinary steadiness and faith... Here was a man devoted to death for the name and the service of the Lord.

It is his farewell. His work, as far as being present among them, was ended. The best and oldest manuscripts and versions, apart from the Vulgate and others, read simply "the kingdom." Others add "of God," which is meant even if not expressed; others "of Jesus," and "of the Lord Jesus."

Solemn departure, the end of the apostle's public work. He speaks of it as a finished work. He announces that from now on, because he is gone, evil would prevail in the outward assembly of God on the earth. But he assures the faithful that God and the word of His grace would be enough to build them up and give them an inheritance among those who are sanctified.

Though Paul emphasised the gospel of the grace of God, he insisted just as much on the authority of the Lord Jesus. That authority belongs to the kingdom of God. And that kingdom has an important present aspect that we cannot ignore. Now he tells the Ephesian elders that he knows they will not see his face again. That fact gives more solemn weight to his message for them.

Here we have another and distinct topic, one that modern preaching easily overlooks — "the kingdom." Anyone who examines the Acts of the Apostles will find how large a place it holds in the preaching, not of Peter only but of Paul. We may be sure it filled the preaching of all the other servants of the Lord in those early days. It is a grave blank where the kingdom is left out as it is now. Unfaithful preachers today rob the saints of the future as God has planned it. And the gospel of God's grace suffers by it too.

Neither, as I believe. It is that coming intervention of God to change the heavens and the earth. The Lord will start and establish it when He comes in visible power and glory, to the joy of all the earth, of Israel and all the nations… Neither the gospel nor the church wiped out the apostle's value for this grand truth. That truth has faded from the testimony of many who were once zealous.

This clearly has a present bearing. When he spoke of the things to come, no doubt he spoke of the kingdom that will one day be set up for all to see. But he also kept before them that in receiving Christ as Lord they had already come under the authority of God. He showed them what it meant in practice to be subject to God's holy will.

If we are to learn the truth of God, we must first receive the gospel of the grace of God (Acts 20:24). Grace having met our deep need, our souls are then helped on by the preaching of the kingdom of God (Acts 20:25). We learn that God has marked out our course down here under the authority of His dear Son. As we live in subjection to the Lord Jesus, righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit mark all our ways.

"Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all. For I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God" (verses 26, 27). The apostle could in this way solemnly attest his faithfulness to the trust the Lord had given him. (Compare Ezekiel 3:18-20). At least twice (verses 20, 27) he plainly disowns such holding back. Some who bear the Christian name have not been ashamed to claim it as a virtue. They say they learned it from Him whose death tore the veil. And He puts all His true followers in the light of life, the light that makes everything visible.

So he could say he was "innocent of the blood of all." He was like the faithful watchman of Ezekiel 33:4. That watchman's duty was to warn when the enemy or the sword was coming, but he himself was clear if no one heeded his warning. A solemn thought! The watchman would expose himself to harsh criticism, ridicule, contempt, and danger. But, the apostle adds, "I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God."

Along with this, having told them they would see his face no more, he called them in as his witnesses that he was innocent of the blood of all, for he had not shrunk from declaring to them the whole counsel of God. As a watchman, as well as a servant, he had been faithful to God and to their souls.

First of all, in verse 20, he says, "I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable." The apostle thought of his hearers and of their profit... It was to this very assembly that he later wrote a letter unfolding the highest truth. Its subject was surely part of his spoken teaching too. So the apostle counted it no less profitable to his hearers than any other part of revelation. The fact is, under the Spirit's guidance it is impossible to turn to any part of revealed truth that is not profitable. "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable," the same writer says in another letter (2 Timothy 3:16). There is need to emphasise that word all. No doubt there are chapters in God's word — and doctrines — of special importance, but the point to keep in mind is that all are necessary. A face with any feature missing we would think sadly deformed.

He says in effect, "You have all this blessing. The gospel has brought you into this favoured place of nearness and relationship. God's authority is settled in your hearts. You are under His rule. You obey His word. But remember that everything God has done, He has done with certain great counsels or purposes in mind." He has made those purposes known to us. They have not yet come to fruition. They are not yet carried out as they will be in the ages to come. But He has shown them to us now, so that we may live our whole lives on earth in the light of what God purposed before the foundation of the world.

This theme of his ministry — the whole counsel of God — was the one that stirred up such furious opposition from many of his Jewish hearers. In the end it led to his imprisonment. So he says, "I did not shrink from declaring." If only he had avoided this part of his ministry, he might have had a far more peaceful time in his service and escaped many troubles. For God's counsel involved bringing in the Gentiles, according to the truth of the church. He knew this, yet he did not flinch.

He could say, in front of people who knew his ministry well: "I am innocent of the blood of all; for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God" (Acts 20:26-27). He was no one-sided preacher. He delighted to tell people of the love of God, but with all due seriousness he also warned them of the wrath of God.

It is a mistake to think that "all the counsel of God" means no more than God's plan for saving men, unfolded in the gospel. "The gospel" is indeed the preaching of salvation in a dead and risen Saviour. "The kingdom," whether in its moral form or in its full display, has its own distinct force in God's reign, as we have seen. "All the counsel of God" rises still higher. It takes in His purpose to its utmost extent.

It is of the greatest importance to see this. There is the counsel of God's will for believers, as well as the grace of God that brings salvation for all men. We usually know His saving grace better than the counsels of His heart. The saving grace of God meets our condition as sinners, and we must of course begin with what meets our need. But the counsels of God reveal what God has purposed to bring about for the satisfaction of His own heart.

First, in dealing with souls, conscience work has to go forward. So he begins with repentance and faith. Either one without the other might drive a soul to despair. God does not want that, so an object — the Lord Jesus Christ — is set before them. With that, the gospel of the grace of God comes in season… Then, alongside the gospel, he preached the kingdom… After these great subjects comes, last in order, the whole counsel of God. This teaching suits only Christians.

Why should he have shrunk from it? We might have thought Paul would have felt nothing but delight in explaining such wonderful truths. But it was exactly this that brought on him the anger of the orthodox Jew. Why did trouble follow him everywhere? Because he did not shrink from declaring the whole counsel of God. This lifts the Christian into heavenly blessings far beyond anything made known to the Jewish people.

So the apostle could declare, in all seriousness, that he had been faithful to the trust the Lord gave him (compare Ezekiel 3:18-20). Twice at least (verses 20 and 27) he plainly disowns such holding back. Some who bear the Christian name are not ashamed to call that reserve a virtue learned from Christ. But His death tore the veil, and He puts all His true followers in the light of life — the light that makes everything visible.

Suppose these letters had brought fresh doctrinal revelations. They were written after the deaths of Paul, Peter, James and others of the apostles and prophets. That would have proved that God had not given, in their day, all the truth needed for building up the body. In that case Paul could not have declared all the counsel of God (Acts 20:27)… These letters in fact confirm what both Peter and Paul said. They call those they address to be faithful to the truth already received, and to expect nothing more.

He has made those purposes known to us. They are not yet carried out as they will be in the ages to come. But He has made them known to us, so that we may live our whole life on earth in the light of what God purposed before the foundation of the world.

The Greek word episkopos is once translated "overseer," in Acts 20:28. This use proves that the "elders" and the "bishops" were the same. Paul called for the elders of the church at Ephesus, Acts 20:17, and called them "overseers." … Each city had more than one bishop or overseer, and at that time there was only one assembly in a city.

"Take heed therefore" — does that mean, be diligent in your work? No, it means "to yourselves." As he later wrote to Timothy, it is, first of all, "Take heed to yourself." This is the first responsibility. Neglecting it has left so many servants powerless, and has caused so many shipwrecks.

There might be, and in general were, several overseers. But the duty of the overseer is to take heed "to all the flock" where he lives. This matters all the more, because it humbles the spirit while it enlarges the heart… It works against the self-importance of "my people," and against the rivalry when one thinks of another and "his people." … Yet the elders had to do with all the flock where they lived, not elsewhere. Eldership was a local charge.

No one could claim to be an elder unless he was properly appointed. This is admitted, and even pressed. Scripture is plain that no one could appoint except the apostles, or someone an apostle expressly commissioned for the task. … But once appointed, they could be described, as here, as men whom the Holy Spirit set as bishops or overseers. His sanction went with the apostle's choice.

It is only God the Holy Spirit who can make and appoint overseers over His flock and He still does so today.

It is God's flock, not yours; and you are not to lord it over as if it were your own property. If it were your heritage, you would have certain rights. But the truth is that anyone who stands in the position of an elder carries a heavy responsibility. … When this is truly weighed, it makes a wonderful change in the mind, tone, and temper — a change both in those who tend the flock, and in those who are cared for.

This puts not the least cloud over the truth that He who shed His blood for us was God. If the Saviour here was not God, His purchase would have only a creature's value. It would be nowhere near enough to win the assembly for God, as it was and as it is. Being a divine person, His gaining it to Himself by blood is infinitely and eternally effective.

How blessed to realize that every member of this great company has been "purchased" at such a cost! God Himself places infinite value on each one.

Then he speaks as a prophet. He knows for certain that after he leaves this life, fierce wolves — heartless unbelievers — will get in among the flock and do great damage.

He did not say, "You are going to have a big revival, everybody is going to be converted, and everybody is going to join the church." He said, "after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock."

Feed the church of God! ... Why do wolves come among the flock? They come to kill, to scatter, and to destroy — to damage the flock as much as possible.

They are very destructive among the sheep, worrying and destroying more than they can eat. This makes the wolf a fit emblem of the wicked, who molest the sheep and lambs of God's flock, and even creep in among them.

The wolf comes to the flock in sheep's clothing. He makes a fair profession, and it deceives the saints. So the Apostle Paul can warn us that after his departure wolves would come in among the saints, "not sparing the flock" (Matt. 7:15; Acts 20:29). The wolf cannot snatch the sheep out of the hand of the Shepherd, but he can seize and scatter the sheep.

Other commentators tell us that fierce wolves are not persecutors, but false friends — real enemies who come in among those who bear the name of the Lord and do not spare the flock. But those commentators are wrong to identify the fierce wolves with the men described in verse 30: "from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things." These are clearly two different classes of evil men. The first are more violent, the second more subtle. The first seek their own pleasure and gain. The second do the deadlier work of speaking twisted things to draw the disciples away after them. To use the flock for selfish ends is wicked; to put self and error in the place of Christ is worse still, though it looks more respectable.

In Paul's address to the Ephesian elders, sorrow at his own departure was mixed with a sadder warning of evil that would soon come to the church of God... And it began so soon, and spread so fast, that in his second letter to Timothy he writes of it as a well-known fact: "You are aware that all who are in Asia turned away from me."

The fierce wolves and the selfish, erring leaders are still with us, and we need to be on our guard against them. Paul points to the great safeguard against these evils: "I commend you to God, and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up." God is more than a match for anything the enemy may bring against us. Depending on Him with constant watchfulness will keep us safe. But we need to be strengthened and built up by the word of His grace. If we rely on the word of men, we will be led astray. If we feed on the Word of God's grace, we will be able to resist every attack of the enemy.

However great our failure may have been, and though fierce wolves may have come in among the Lord's people, not sparing the flock (Acts 20:29), yet at last all His sheep will come home. Not one will be lost, and not one missing on that great day.

These would not "enter in" like the grievous wolves; they were already within the church. The wolf scatters. These men would seek to gather, but not around Christ. They wanted to gather followers around themselves. In doing so they would draw them away from simple loyalty to Christ.

The Darby translation gives, "speaking perverted things." There is an element of truth in it, but a clever twist perverts it. That again and again has taken place in the history of the church. This has happened even with men who may be elders. If self comes in, along with a desire to be first, there is a tendency to teach something very new with a little twist. Soon he becomes the leader of a kind of party in the church of God.

They would not directly deny the truths of Scripture. They would pervert them by giving them their own meaning. It was a different meaning from the one the apostles had taught the saints. This would throw their followers back on them, so that they would look to their leaders for teaching instead of to the word of God.

The very elders were to become a danger and an evil to themselves and to the disciples. Not they only, but they above all. Out of them the clergy (not gifted men) soon emerged, unknown while the apostles lived. Had the word of Christ dwelt in the saints richly, such a change could not have happened. People looked to man, and the word of God's grace became more slighted, forgotten, and powerless.

The evil here is the reverse of what the Apostle speaks of in Acts 20:30. There he warned the Ephesian elders that trouble would come from leaders. Here he says it comes from disciples… One evil leads to the other. It begins with Christians forming parties around leaders. It ends with those leaders teaching perverse things. This principle showed itself at Corinth, and it has been at work through the whole history of the church with the same sad results.

These men may well be true believers, but they give a twist to their teaching, and that twist perverts the truth… They attract people to themselves instead of leading them to Christ. In these words Paul sketched the future of what we know as Christendom.

Perhaps this is why Scripture gives no instruction about continuing the office of elder in an official way beyond the apostle's lifetime… In the case of men speaking perverted things, an official appointment would only give approval to what is wrong.

He does not speak of the teaching of the church as a reliable guide. He does not hint at "neutrality" about the perverse things spoken. The word is to test everything. It is to be the unfailing guide of the sheep when those who ought to lead the flock go astray themselves.

A teacher who comes from God will always point his hearers to Christ. He will rest them on God's unerring word as the sure resting place for the soul. When someone speaks the truth, true believers will receive it "with all eagerness," like the Bereans. But they will also search the Scriptures to confirm what they have heard (Acts 17:11). The faithful teacher will always want his hearers to test what he has said by the authoritative words of Holy Scripture.

So he presses two things on their consciences — "watch and remember." We must be alert to recognize danger when it raises its head, so that we can deal with it properly. We must also not forget the truth we have learned in the past, by which to meet such things. In this case Paul had spent three years instructing and warning the saints. Today we have no less help in his writings, which are as urgent as his tears were.

What then were these elders to do in view of the evil days? They were to copy Paul's example. For three years he had never stopped warning every one, night and day, with tears. So they were to labour with all earnestness to walk in his steps. Such a ministry might not be acceptable. The people of God, like Israel of old, prefer those who prophesy "smooth things." But faithfulness to his Lord alone must govern the path of the true servant. His Lord's approval must be enough to encourage him.

"I did not cease night or day to admonish every one with tears," he says. Plainly he did this one by one. What a watchful pastor he was! He not only fed the flock, but warned them of the dangers that threatened them. There would be little use in feeding sheep if wolves ate them the next moment. The apostle warned the saints at Ephesus of what was coming in. Now we are in the middle of it, so the need to warn is greater still. Note the apostle's words: "did not cease," "night or day," "with tears."

For over a thousand days, all counted — surely counted in heaven too — he admonishes each one, with tears. No favouritism, but genuinely deep feeling that each believer should be held by and in the truth.

"Therefore be alert," says the apostle to the elders, "remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish every one with tears." Necessity drew this little glimpse out of the apostle's heart. It lets us see his complete devotion. It was not business, nor even the spread of truth, still less the prevailing of his own opinions for good. It was one who loved Christ, and pressed this devotion to Him and to His own above all on those who took the lead. Tireless, tender, watchful care filled his heart. He cared with the deepest feeling, always and at any cost. He would have us feel the same, as well as those he addressed that day. Who is able for these things? The ability is in and from God.

They were to watch and be on their guard against the adversaries, remembering how Paul himself had warned them with deep feeling for three years. Is it not a fact that this ministry of warning has almost lapsed through disuse?

He was no weakling nor a sentimental girl, whose tears come easily and dry as easily. He was a strong man, and his tears were manly. They revealed the depth of his sympathies. Have we ever shed one tear over perishing souls? Do we really care for the straying sheep, or grieve over the fierce wolves that get in among the flock, doing deadly damage?

He does not commend them to any group of men. Not to apostles or their successors. Not to general councils and their decrees. Not to church fathers and their traditions. Not to teachers and their dogmas. None of these would be any help against the "fierce wolves" that were about to come in among them, or against the "twisted things" that some of their own number would say. Nothing but God Himself and the word of His grace could stand in an evil day, or keep a soul standing.

He did not commend them to the other apostles. He could not commend them to the elders either, for he was speaking to elders, and men who would cause trouble were going to come from among them. God, and God alone, is the resource of His people.

In the same way, Paul commends the believers at Ephesus to God, and to the word of His grace, which was able to build them up. Why did he do this? He knew that after he left, fierce wolves would come in among them and not spare the flock. So he commended them to the word of God's grace, and not to apostles who would follow him.

He commends them not to one only, but to both. Without God before the heart, the word becomes dry and lifeless, and we grow discouraged and impatient. Without the word to direct our life, we are in danger from the will and wisdom of man, or from his folly.

When the word leads you out in prayer to God, you have neither the word without prayer, nor prayer without the word. Both of those habits are very dangerous. One leads to rationalism, the other to fanaticism.

In the past He spoke through Moses, as recorded in the Old Testament. That was the word of His demand on men. Now He has spoken in Christ, as recorded in the New Testament, and that is the word of His grace.

Bold thinking and beautiful language are all worthless if the truth is not there. And the truth is never so sure, so strong and so holy as in His own word, which is truth. This searches the conscience. This strengthens the heart. This feeds faith, and it makes the blessed hope full and strong in the love which is the strength of all that is good.

In Acts 20:32, should it read "which is able", or "Who is able", to build you up? Comparison with 2 Timothy 3:15 strengthens the first reading.

This is our only real protection. It is also the vital means of building up believers, and of giving an inheritance among all those who are sanctified — that is, set apart to God from everything that is against His Word and will.

The inheritance is ours by faith in Christ (see Acts 26:18), but the word of His grace gives it to us in present power.

It was able to build them up and give them an inheritance among the sanctified; it is still able to give the soul today a portion as large as ever. We have no limit except the one we make for ourselves. Why make it?

So he warns them of coming dangers — dangers from without and dangers from within. Fierce wolves would come in and not spare the flock. And from among themselves men would rise up, speaking twisted things to draw away disciples after them. Had Paul sought to gather round himself? They well knew that he had not. He had not received material support from them.

The old nature covets silver, gold, and clothing. All of these feed the cravings of the body and of the mind. Love serves others. Love with faith alone glorifies God. It is good when those who teach these things are living examples of all they urge on others.

But you say, The servants of the Lord must be supported. Certainly. Look at this dear man of God, and see how he was supported. To everyone who would have given to him, he could say, I do not want your support… He supported himself by making tents, and I guarantee they were the best tents on the market. He would not give any man a chance of saying, Paul was paid for it, or, I have made Paul rich… Paul would not take a penny from the Corinthians. Yet he laid down the rule that the servant should be supported. He laid it down for others and flung it up for himself.

The true servant of Christ does not work for money or to make a living. He works out of love to the Lord and to precious souls. He seeks their blessing, not their possessions. He trusts the Lord for his own needs and his family's. And he thankfully takes whatever he receives as coming from the Lord whom he serves.

Our own service may be very small, yet the things that marked him should mark us. Here are some of them. "Humility of mind." "Many tears" — a sign of deep exercise of heart. "None of these things move me" — a steady soul. "I coveted no one's silver or gold or apparel" — the strictest possible righteousness before the world. "I have shown you all things" — practising what he preached.

He had stayed close to the law of Moses. It says, "You shall take no bribe, for a bribe blinds the clear-sighted and subverts the cause of those who are in the right" (Ex. 23:8). He well knew the blinding power of presents, even when they are not given directly to corrupt the court. He knew how easily a gift from someone in the case can sway a judge, however small the gift, and almost without the judge noticing it.

Now he can honestly appeal to the fact of his own character and conduct among them. He had not coveted the property of anyone, a marked contrast to many popular religious leaders today. They all knew that he had worked to support himself and others who were with him even though he had a right to refrain from secular employment (1 Cor. 9:11-14).

It is striking that (as far as I can recall) Philippi is the only one of the many assemblies Paul founded that we read of sharing with him in his daily needs. Instead, he points the elders of Ephesus to his own hands. And it is no light matter to provide for the needs of a group as large as those sometimes with Paul. Can you not see the apostle stretch out those work-worn hands, hard and calloused with tent-making, as he speaks of "these hands"?

What he did was to work with his own hands by night as well as by day, so that, being self-supporting, he might not be any charge on them. He refers to this again in his second letter. From Acts 20:34 we learn an astonishing fact. He met his own needs this way, and the needs of those who were with him too. Elsewhere he speaks of "night and day praying exceedingly," and we know how abundant his labours in the gospel were.

At the same time he fully recognised our Lord's maxim, "the labourer is worthy of his hire." (See 1 Cor. 9; Phil. 4; Gal. 6:6.) Why then, it may be asked, did the apostle not take more advantage of it? On the one hand, this devoted servant would not claim his rights, for fear people would misunderstand him. And some of his converts had only just been rescued from the deepest darkness. He felt they needed an object lesson in him — how to earn an honest living. ... On the other hand, we must not forget that there were times when he did receive, and he fully recognised that to be the divine order.

The old man covets silver, and gold, and clothing. All these serve the desires of the body as well as of the mind. Love serves others. Love with faith alone glorifies God. It is well when those who teach these things are living examples of everything they press on others. How few can say truthfully and consistently with the apostle, "I coveted no man's silver, or gold, or clothing."

The apostle had pushed forward alone and without means into a region of abundant ease and refinement, and of loose morals to match. There he worked with his own hands for the needs of others as well as his own, as he always did. In this he truly represented the Master who came not to be served but to serve. ... He was not the man to urge on others what he shrank from himself. Nor did he hesitate to commend such a path of gracious self-denial to those whose work it is to feed or tend the flock of God.

Paul rescued for us one saying of our Lord that stands outside the Gospel records — and Luke himself wrote it down. His word "remember" shows that the saying was already in circulation before he quoted it.

It was, no doubt, a sentence known and loved by these early Christians. Perhaps it had become something like a proverb in their minds.

In 1 Corinthians 9 the blessed apostle establishes his right to be supported beyond all question. Then he gives it up completely. "But I have made no use of any of these rights." He worked with his hands. Night and day he laboured through hardship, so as not to be a burden to anyone... Was he not entitled to support? Certainly he was. It ought to have been the joy of the church of God to supply his every need. But he never pressed his claim; rather, he surrendered it.

He had done this so that they might learn the blessed privilege of working in the same way to support the weak, remembering the words of the Lord Jesus. A touching reminder! It teaches so plainly that unless we are in the power of grace, we cannot truly be servants of Him who "came not to be served but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many."

The old nature covets silver, and gold, and clothing. All these serve the desires of the body as well as of the mind. Love serves others. Love with faith alone glorifies God. And it is well when those who teach these things are living examples of everything they urge on others.

We are led to feel that His giving is spontaneous. He gives because He delights to give. Is it not from His own Son that we have the words, "It is more blessed to give than to receive"? Would such words come from the natural heart of man? Like a leech, its cry is "Give! give!" To receive much is the height of blessedness to the natural man. God says, No, "it is more blessed to give"; and He makes Himself the supreme Giver.

We learn the free and hearty giving of Himself — Himself! True, He left the glory, and He refused every earthly dignity, place and honour. But He did more than give things up. He accepted the hatred and scorn of man, and He bore the judgment of God against sin — He gave Himself! He found, in all the sorrow and anguish of His path, the supreme blessedness of being a giver!

They are the words of Christ, and His life here below is the most blessed comment upon them.

The Word of God provides an antidote so that we do not fall into the habit of doing nothing but saving. It is to give to others out of the material means the Lord has entrusted to us... Those who give find this principle always holds true in practice. It is much happier for us to give something than to receive a gift.

And lastly, having spoken to men, he turns to God: he knelt down and prayed with them all. So the curtain drops on the scene, for the record of his active missionary work closes here. It ends as it began. "Behold, he is praying." (See Acts 9:11.)

In all this he had to remember that he was only a servant, and that he was passing off the scene. He could not continue. So we find him commending these Ephesian elders "to God and to the word of His grace." The most faithful, the most tireless servant must go, but God and His word remain.

Notice, he prayed with, not for, them all. A lovely picture of dependence on God, and so a fine evidence of beginners who dug deep! Those who know how to kneel before God in complete dependence on Him, and who search His word every day — they are the ones who dig deep. They give proof of building on the rock. And no one advances in the things of God who fails in these two spiritual exercises.

Kneeling in prayer is a physical act. It shows a recognition of the supremacy and greatness of the eternal God. Have you ever felt compelled to bow the knee? I do not mean forced by power, but moved because you feel it is the right thing to do... And we have good examples. Best of all is the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, as we see Him kneeling in the garden of Gethsemane... Paul (Acts 20:36), Solomon (2 Chron. 6:13), Ezra (Ezra 9:5) and many others bowed their knees in the presence of God or of Christ.

We find the apostle Paul kneeling with the elders of Ephesus (Acts 20:36). Kneeling is in every way a fitting posture. But when people call it "an imperative duty," we regard that as an unwarranted assumption... let them kneel, or sit, or stand, as they feel led; but let them not try to force their attitudes as an imperative rule on other people.

The disciples needed his instruction and guidance, and were to know that he had authority. But they were able to worship just as well when the apostle was away as when he was present. He might have led their worship, or he might have followed others in it. His office was lost, so to speak, when they stood together as worshippers before the Great High Priest. He might have prayed with the disciples (as in Acts 20:36), or they with him (as in Acts 21:5). It is very important to distinguish clearly between the standing all believers share as priests to God, and the different kinds of ministry.

Yet the account is not complete without the parting scene. It proves that faith in what is unseen does not hinder the love that comes from God, but produces it, in this world of sorrow and selfishness... Such was the bearing of the greatest of apostles... How far short are any of us! As truth and love faded, hierarchy in every form built itself a throne. It stood as far from the mind of Christ as earth is from heaven. But let us beware that our own love does not grow cold while wickedness abounds.

The account is not complete without the parting scene. It proves that faith in the unseen does not hinder the love which is of God, but imparts it, in this world of sorrow and selfishness… But let us beware that our love does not grow cold while lawlessness abounds.

His words to men over, he went to his knees in prayer with them all, amid their tears. It must have been a moving scene. The word used for "kissed" means to kiss ardently. It is the word used for the kisses the father gave his returning son in Luke 15.

Now he knelt down and prayed with the elders. His heart went out for them. Their feelings went out towards him. They kissed him, weeping bitterly and falling on his neck, distressed that they would see him no more.

Their deepest sorrow, however, was not the coming danger that threatened the flock of God. It was that he had told them they would not see his face again on earth. Too often we think more of the Lord's servant than we do of his message.

Yet perhaps we detect a weakness here. They sorrowed most of all because they could not hope to see him again. Might they not have sorrowed even more that wolves would ravage God's fair church, and that men who twist the truth would damage it?

You remember they all wept bitterly, and fell on Paul's neck and kissed him. But now Paul was a prisoner in a Roman dungeon. They were ashamed of him, and it was dangerous to be known as one of his friends. So all in Asia forsook him, and that included those elders at Ephesus. This does not mean they turned away from Christ. Later the apostle John writes a letter to the assembly at Ephesus with much good to say of them. But they were a fallen assembly, outwardly so fair, because they had left their first love (Revelation 2:4). I think that fall began when they turned away from Paul.

God has caused the address they received to be recorded in His word. So we may be sure they kept it in their hearts as well. And from the later state of the assembly at Ephesus, as seen in Paul's letter, we may perhaps conclude that it shaped their lives and governed their conduct in shepherding the flock and caring for the church of God.

Across a distance of eighteen centuries, those words still come with undimmed freshness and power to the hearts and consciences of God's flock and its pastors and teachers. The same Spirit who gave them to the apostle, and has recorded them for us, carries them there — despite all the storms in the church and the winds of doctrine that have raged and blown since then.

Yet the account is not complete without the parting scene. It proves that faith in the unseen does not hinder the love that is of God. Faith imparts that love, in this world of sorrow and selfishness. Such was the bearing of the greatest of apostles. … But let us beware that our love does not grow cold while wickedness abounds.

The word used for "kissed" means to kiss warmly. It is the same word used for the kisses the father gave his returning son in Luke 15. It must have been a moving scene.

Let me ask further: is there not an expression of humanity in this closing scene? We could not get it in the similar scene between the Lord and His apostles. … This is precious to the heart. We long to have more of it, and to see more of it. We are narrow and cold. The heart has little capacity to let itself out in this way.

Their deepest sorrow, however, was not for the coming danger that threatened the flock of God. It was because he had told them they would not see his face again on earth. Too often we think more of the Lord's servant than we do of his message.

"I commend you to God and to the word of His grace." That will do. Let me turn to Him. There is no one else fit to be trusted. There is no one else needed. He is enough for the darkest and hardest day that has ever come, or that is yet to come. He was enough for Paul, He was enough for those elders of Ephesus, He is enough for reader and writer.

With such holy emotions in their hearts they went with the apostle to the ship, and there they parted for ever. But God has put the address they received into His word. So we may be sure they kept it in their hearts too.

But now Paul was a prisoner in a Roman dungeon. They were ashamed of him, and it was dangerous to be his friend. So everyone in Asia deserted him, and that included those elders at Ephesus. This does not mean they turned away from Christ… but they were a fallen assembly, however fine they looked from outside, for they had left their first love. I think that fall began when they turned away from Paul.

"And when we had parted from them." Some soften that verb, "parted," but its natural meaning implies a wrench. Christian affection is a real thing on earth. Yet in the whole account, no one turns aside to look at anything of natural interest! "We came by a straight course to Cos, and the next day to Rhodes." The apostle's character, his ability and his learning make us sure of one thing. He had an eye for natural beauty and a mind for every piece of history he passed. "But one thing I do" was not only his word to others; it was his own life — "to me to live is Christ."