But after the tumult had ceased, Paul having called the disciples to [him] and embraced [them], went away to go to Macedonia.
The uproar was not simply crowd trouble that fizzled out. One writer sees Satan behind the riot, and the same hand that once calmed the sea calming this storm too:
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.
Paul does not slip away. He sends for the believers, encourages them, and says goodbye. One commentator sees the sharpest contrast between that time and ours right here — in the care given to converts after they believe:
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.
The same care also went out in writing:
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.
Paul's own letters fill in a journey Acts compresses into one line. He stopped at Troas, found an open door there, and could not stay:
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.
The same writer notes what changed and what did not. The danger outside stopped; the pressure inside did not:
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.
Why is the account here so short? One writer takes up an explanation others have given, and fills in what the visit involved:
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.
Others read the brevity simply as Luke moving the story forward, and stress what Paul left behind and what he still gave:
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.
- Quieted — God stilled the riot, as He once stilled the sea. The same act rescued Paul and closed his work in Ephesus.
- Gathered — before leaving, he sent for the disciples. In those days zeal did more than win converts. It built the saints up in unity, fellowship, and love.
- Written — the same care went on by letter. Paul wrote 1 Corinthians from Ephesus. No writing gives more openness, or more scope to the heart.
- Hidden — Acts says nothing of Troas. His own letters show he left an open door there. Inward distress drove him on as hard as outward danger had.
- Debated — why so short a record? Some have thought the Apostle had turned aside from His given ministry, so the Spirit had nothing to report. Even so, he gave much exhortation and received their gift for the poor saints in Jerusalem.
And having passed through those parts, and having exhorted them with much discourse, he came to Greece.
Luke gives nearly a year of Paul's life a single line. Paul walks back through Macedonia, strengthens the believers there, and arrives in Greece. Behind it lie months of travel, letters we still read today, and deep strain of heart.
"Those regions" and "Greece" are not vague names. They cover towns where Paul had already preached, and he had already written letters to some of them.
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.
Luke's record here is very short. Paul's own letters fill in what he leaves out.
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.
Paul went back to people who already believed. One writer sees in that care the clearest difference between those early days and our own.
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.
The care shown in these visits was not only spoken.
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.
Paul encouraged others while he waited for news from Corinth. His fellow worker Titus carried that news, and Paul's own words show the strain.
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."
Those three months in Greece produced one of the great letters of the New Testament. They also show God overruling a plan Paul had held for years.
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.
- Silence — One sentence covers about nine or ten months. What Luke leaves out, Paul's own letters supply.
- Strengthening — Paul went back to believers he had already won. Building them up is how the body of Christ was built.
- Writing — The visits were not only spoken. The letters of the apostles were now fully at work, with an openness and closeness no other writing allows.
- Suffering — He encouraged others while he had no rest himself. There was conflict outside and fear inside, until God comforted him by sending Titus.
- Sovereignty — Those three months in Greece produced the letter to the Romans. God also kept His servant from reaching Rome except as a prisoner.
And having spent three months [there], a treacherous plot against him having been set on foot by the Jews, as he was going to sail to Syria, [the] resolution was adopted of returning through Macedonia.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
And there accompanied him as far as Asia, Sopater [son] of Pyrrhus, a Berean; and of Thessalonians, Aristarchus and Secundus, and Gaius and Timotheus of Derbe, and of Asia, Tychicus and Trophimus.
A plot against Paul has just changed his travel plans. Why does Scripture record seven men, their home towns, and even a father's name — and what does the list show about how God's work moved forward?
The list belongs to a journey Paul had not originally planned. He meant to sail for Syria, but the danger made him double back overland through Macedonia.
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.
Luke does not lump them together. He names each one with the city or region he came from, and the group then travelled ahead of Paul.
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.
Commentators differ over whose home town Derbe was.
It is not important, but in verse 4 we should read, "Gaius and Timothy of Derbe."
Paul was carrying a gift to Jerusalem. Commentators link this travelling party with that collection.
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.
Paul would not handle such money alone. The churches themselves chose the men who carried it.
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.
The verse shows a whole company of servants moving with Paul rather than settled in one town.
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.
They were free men. Yet Paul sent them where he could not go himself.
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.
The very next verse changes pronoun, and the change tells us something about the man holding the pen.
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.
Aristarchus appears again years later, on a voyage where Paul travelled as a prisoner.
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.
These weeks on the road left their mark on Gaius.
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.
- Plot — a plot sent Paul back through Macedonia; the list of companions is the fruit of a route he did not choose.
- Company — seven men from Berea, Thessalonica, Derbe and Asia went with him. Each is named with his home town.
- Gift — they are linked with the collection for the poor believers in Jerusalem. The churches chose the carriers, keeping the money honest before men as well as before the Lord.
- Freedom — no one tied them to a single town. Some worked with Paul; others, like Apollos, worked on their own.
- Endurance — Aristarchus later shared Paul's shame and danger. Gaius still walked in the truth years later. A travel list becomes a record of lasting faithfulness.
These going before waited for us in Troas;
Seven named men go on ahead to Troas, and the writer of Acts rejoins the story with one word: "us." Why did the party split? Why Troas? And why does Luke never name himself?
The previous verse named these seven. One writer sees in them how the work spread — through many travelling servants, not one leader.
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.
One commentator reads their scattered origins as evidence of what the gospel does:
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 seven were not only travelling companions. One account explains their errand and Paul's roundabout route:
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.
With the word "us," the narrator puts himself into the scene without announcing himself.
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.
Commentators differ. One takes it that Paul went ahead with the seven, and that Luke stayed on at Philippi for the feast days:
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.
Kelly reads it the other way. He will not guess further, and he is sharp about one popular theory:
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.
This "us" is the only trace Luke leaves of himself anywhere in two long books.
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."
And it is not a small role he is covering over:
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.
The delay was not empty time. Believers already gathered at Troas:
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.
- Sent. Seven men from four areas travelled with Paul, tied to no one place, while elders led at home.
- Trusted. They are thought to be carrying the collections made in the places they came from.
- Waiting. Troas already had an assembly, so the delay became a Lord's day and a whole week among believers.
- Rejoining. The word "us" puts the writer back with the party; commentators differ over who waited at Philippi for the feast days.
- Hidden. Luke names everyone but himself — the model of a servant who fills a large place and leaves no trace of self in the record.
but we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and we came to them to Troas in five days, where we spent seven days.
This travel note gives a date, a route and a stop: a Jewish feast sets the season, the crossing takes five days instead of two, and the company stays at Troas for a week. Why does Luke bother to count the days, and why would Paul — racing to reach Jerusalem — spend a whole week in one port?
The small word "we" shows that the writer of Acts is travelling with Paul again. The "them" he joins at Troas are the companions who sailed ahead.
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."
The phrase fixes the time of year. One commentator reads the longer stay at Philippi as care for fellow believers.
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).
They had made this same crossing far faster once before. Something went against them at sea.
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.
A slow voyage need not be a waste. One writer hears God's kindness in it:
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.
Seven days sit oddly beside Paul's hurry.
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.
The delay at sea cost them one meeting. The week was the price of catching the next.
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.
The seven days also show which day the early disciples gathered, and why.
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 same length of stay turns up later in the journey. One commentator reads that repeat as a clue.
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.
Commentators differ here. Some say Paul "possibly" stayed for that reason. Others read the breaking of bread as the plain motive of the story.
- Count the days. Luke dates the trip by the feast, counts five days at sea, and marks seven on shore. Each number carries weight.
- Days given to others. The stay at Philippi over the days of unleavened bread shows care for the consciences of Jewish believers. Luke, a Gentile, had no stake in the feast himself.
- Days lost at sea. A crossing once made in two days took five. Contrary winds held the ship back — and a forced delay can be the Lord's rest for His servants.
- Days redeemed on shore. Paul landed too late for one gathering to break bread. He waited a week for the next, though he had just avoided Ephesus to save time.
- Days that set a habit. Seven-day stops keep recurring. They point to the first day of the week as the set time when disciples came together to break bread.
And the first day of the week, we being assembled to break bread, Paul discoursed to them, about to depart on the morrow. And he prolonged the discourse till midnight.
The scene is Troas, a stopover on Paul's journey. Luke slips in one sentence that has shaped Christian gathering ever since. Believers meet on the first day of the week, and the reason given is to break bread. Why that day, why that purpose, and why does an apostle's preaching come second in the sentence?
(Older translations read "the disciples came together to break bread." The writers quoted below use that wording.)
The choice of day is not casual. One writer compares the first day with the seventh, and says what each one marks.
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.
Another writer points to what marks the day out, and to what it is not.
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.
Paul was in a hurry. That makes his week-long stop worth explaining.
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.
The same writer gives the reason for the week's delay.
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.
Luke does not only say that they met. He says why.
This passage implies that this act was the object of their meeting, though other things might go along with it.
The same verse also settles how often they did 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.
One writer weighs Paul's preaching against the supper, and notes the hour they met.
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.
Luke names who came, and what they came for.
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."
So who may lead it?
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.
The long speech had a reason behind it.
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.
- Day — The first day is the resurrection day, the mark of a new creation, not a transfer of the Sabbath.
- Purpose — On that day the stated object of the gathering is to break bread, not to hear preaching.
- Frequency — The pattern is weekly, not monthly, quarterly or yearly.
- Priority — Preaching, even an apostle's, is secondary to the remembrance of Christ.
- Proof — Paul, in a hurry to Jerusalem, spent seven days at Troas to be there for it.
And there were many lights in the upper room where we were assembled.
Luke pauses his account of Paul's last night at Troas to note the room and its many lamps. Why record the lights at all, and what does an upstairs room say about the church's worship?
The New Testament never mentions a building put up for worship. This verse is one of the few glimpses of where the first believers met.
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?
This was not for lack of time or money.
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.
Translators have not settled on one English word for what these lamps were.
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.
Believers in the earliest days did not all meet at the same hour.
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.
The same detail also hints at the size of these gatherings and the homes that held them.
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.
Older English versions say "they were gathered together." Better texts read "we" — which puts the writer in the room with everyone else.
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 number of lamps hints at the size of the room — and, with the crowd, at the heat that overcame one young man.
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.
One writer sees a picture in the room itself.
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.
- Place: the New Testament records one meeting place for breaking bread — an upper room in a private house. No temples, no chapels, nothing consecrated.
- Plainness: by this point the believers had both the heart and the means to build something grand, and did not.
- Light: the word behind "lights" is closer to torches, the same word used of the ten virgins' lamps.
- Openness: the lamps show a gathering that had no need to hide — not secret, not in the dark.
- People: the better reading is "where we were gathered." That puts the writer among them, and marks this as the assembly's settled habit, not a one-off.
And a certain youth, by name Eutychus, sitting at the window-opening, overpowered by deep sleep, while Paul discoursed very much at length, having been overpowered by the sleep, fell from the third story down to the bottom, and was taken up dead.
It was Paul's last night in Troas, and his farewell sermon ran past midnight. A young man in the window lost his fight with sleep and fell three floors, leaving two questions: was he really dead, and what does sleeping through the Word cost?
One writer sets the physical scene: the lamps, the crowd, the heat. Then he presses the exact words the text uses about the young man.
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.
Commentators differ. One writer reads Paul's words over the body as proof that soul and body had not yet parted.
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.
The writers differ over whether life had fully left him. Neither doubts that the young man lived again.
One writer reads the whole scene as a picture of the church.
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.
He got his life back. He did not get the sermon back.
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?
Sleep costs more than a sermon. A sleeping believer is an easy target:
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.
The story does not end with the fall, because someone followed him to the bottom.
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.
- Sank down — Heat, a crowd, a late hour and a long sermon. The room was full of lamps; what gave way was human weakness.
- Fell down — From the third-floor window, and taken up dead. Writers differ over whether his soul had left the body. Neither doubts that he lived again.
- Went down — Paul broke off his sermon and went down to the young man, showing the features of Christ seen in Philippians 2.
- Lifted up — Paul gave him back alive. But the part of the sermon he slept through was gone for good.
- Stay awake — His name means "prosperous," and prosperity is what dulls us to the Word. The saint's sleeping time is Satan's tempting time.
But Paul descending fell upon him, and enfolding [him] [in his arms], said, Be not troubled, for his life is in him.
Paul preached at Troas until midnight. A young man named Eutychus fell asleep in a window seat, dropped to the ground, and the others took him up dead. Paul went down, held him, and told the frightened crowd that "his life is in him." What had happened to Eutychus, and what did those words mean?
Luke, a doctor, wrote this account. One commentator presses that fact against every reading that softens the fall into a fainting spell.
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.
Writers do not agree on whether Paul's words describe a soul recalled or a soul still present. One reads the sentence as spoken after the miracle had already been done, so that only God's power was holding the soul in place:
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.
Another takes the words at face value: soul and body had not yet parted. He then contrasts this with the child the prophet Elijah raised:
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.
The word rendered "life" here is the word for "soul." That is why a body without it is a body people mourn over.
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.
The verbs in the story move in one direction. Eutychus sank down, then fell down — and the apostle followed him down.
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.
Paul acted as other servants of God had acted in the presence of death. They prayed first, and did not command in their own strength.
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.
A death in the room could have ended the meeting.
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.
One writer draws a warning from the sleeper. Mercy gave his life back. It did not give back the hours he slept through.
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?
- Fall. Luke, a physician, records a real death — not a faint, and not a body only thought to be dead.
- Descent. Paul went down after the one who had gone down, taking the place of dependence, not of command.
- Life. The word for "life" here is the word for "soul." God's power alone held soul and body together.
- Difference. Commentators differ: had the soul left and returned, or never left? Both agree that only divine power kept the young man alive.
- Comfort. The interruption ended in strength, not panic. The meeting stayed and listened till daybreak — but the hours Eutychus slept through were gone for good.
And having gone up, and having broken the bread, and eaten, and having long spoken until daybreak, so he went away.
The night at Troas ends with one line that readers have argued over ever since. Was the bread Paul broke the Lord's Supper, picked up again after the young man's fall, or a meal a tired man ate before a long journey?
The verse describes one man acting, not a company sharing. Kelly builds his reading on that, and on the particular word Luke uses for eating:
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.
Elsewhere Scripture ties the Supper to the whole gathering, never to one man:
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.
Commentators differ. Stuart reads the bread as the Supper itself, shared once the young man was alive again:
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.
Whatever the bread was, the accident did not break up the meeting:
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.
Paul spoke past midnight and on till sunrise. Kelly sees liberty in that, not a fixed rule:
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.
Since an apostle breaks the bread here, some have argued that only an appointed minister may do it. Darby answers:
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.
Grant reads the whole night as a picture of the church's present season:
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.
- Bread — Kelly reads the broken loaf as Paul's own refreshment before his journey. Scripture presents it as one man's act, not the assembly's.
- Difference — Commentators differ. Stuart takes it as the Lord's Supper itself, shared with joy once Eutychus was alive again.
- Unbroken — The fall interrupted the meeting but did not end it. Paul went back up and carried on.
- Liberty — They gathered to remember the Lord. The teaching before and after shows freedom in special circumstances, not a rigid rule.
- Daybreak — Paul spoke till dawn, then left. Bread, fellowship and teaching carry the church through the night until morning comes.
And they brought [away] the boy alive, and were no little comforted.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.