Acts 20:5–21:10

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."

Nothing more simple, yet on the journey of such a man and his companions the Spirit of God loves to dwell, and that we should dwell. We wrong His grace when we think the Holy Spirit deals only with extraordinary matters: striking words, strange tongues, miraculous signs, and suffering, which bears still more fruit when it is borne quietly. He is beyond doubt the power for all that is good and worthy of Christ. But think of Christ Himself. He lived far the greater part of His life hidden from men, doing the will of God perfectly. In the same way, the Spirit of God enters into every detail of the life of those who are Christ's.

Luke now tells us of the route. Taking a straight course, they reached Cos that day. On the next they reached Rhodes. On the third they arrived at Patara, the port of Xanthus, the capital of Lycia. At this port, finding a ship bound for Phoenicia, they embarked on it, and went direct to Tyre, leaving Cyprus on the left.

Leaving Miletus they came by a straight course to Cos, then to Rhodes and Patara. Changing ships, they sail to Phoenicia, pass by Cyprus to Syria, landing at Tyre. God put no hindrances in the way on their journey. Indeed, for a man taught of God, as Paul was, the Word of God should have been enough. Smooth circumstances could not change this.

Then, third, we see him in conflict with the hostility of legal Judaism. He met its agents everywhere, and at last he threw himself into its very centre by going to Jerusalem. That is the part of his history we are now considering. How much was of God, and how much was the result of his own steps? This narrative gives us that to weigh. But the hand of God was in it for the good of the assembly, and in guiding His beloved servant for his own good in the end. That is beyond all doubt.

Such is the brief account of the voyage... Nothing could be simpler, yet the Spirit of God loves to dwell on the journey of such a man and his companions, and He means us to dwell on it too. We wrong His grace when we think the Holy Spirit has only to do with extraordinary matters. We think of striking utterances, strange tongues, miraculous signs, and sufferings that bear even more fruit when borne without display. He is indeed the power for all that is good and worthy of Christ. But Christ Himself lived by far the greater part of His life hidden from man's eyes, doing the will of God perfectly. In the same way the Spirit of God enters into all the details of life in those who are Christ's. If anything can give dignity to the ordinary events of each day, this must. But do God's children — do we — believe it? ... Let us link the commonest things with Christ's will and glory.

Phoenice or Phoenicia (Acts 11:19; 15:3; 21:2) is the Canaanite land of Tyre and Sidon. It takes its name from the famous dye, or shellfish, that produced every shade from red to violet, generally called purple.

Taking a straight course, they reached Coos that day. The next day they reached Rhodes. On the third they arrived at Patara, the port of Xanthus, the capital of Lycia. At this port they found a ship bound for Phoenicia, boarded it, and went straight to Tyre, leaving Cyprus on the left. It was about a three days' voyage from Patara.

It is good to notice the providential dealings of the Lord. The same heart stays completely unmoved by the most violent and dangerous storm. That heart should also be thankful for a fair wind and a quiet journey. So it was, and so it is. Circumstances never create faith, though God may use unexpected facts to deal with the conscience. The same simple faith gives thanks to God in rough weather or in smooth. This is not indifference. The known will of God is always good, acceptable and perfect, and confidence in His love keeps the heart up. So His hand would be seen in their finding a ship crossing over to Phoenicia. It seems the ship they first set out in did not go beyond Patara in the direction they wanted. Then they found one bound for Phoenicia: "we went aboard and set sail." So in the outward but gracious ordering of God there was no loss of time.

God put no hindrances in their way on the journey. Indeed, for a man taught of God, as Paul was, the Word of God should have been enough. Smooth circumstances could not change this.

We may be sure, from the apostle's character, ability and learning, that he had an eye for natural beauty and a mind for every piece of history around him. But "one thing I do" was not only his word to others. It was his own life — "to me to live is Christ." The claims of the new creation completely outweighed those of the old.

Nothing could be simpler. Yet the Spirit of God loves to dwell on the journey of such a man and his companions, and so should we. We wrong His grace when we think the Holy Spirit deals only with extraordinary things: striking words, strange tongues, miraculous signs, and sufferings that bear still more fruit when they are borne without any show. He is, without question, the power for all that is good and worthy of Christ. But Christ Himself lived by far the greater part of His life in complete obscurity as far as man could see, perfectly doing the will of God. In the same way, the Spirit of God enters into all the details of life in those who are Christ's.

The last time Paul was at sea in these parts, sailing from Patara to Tyre, the wind favoured the direct course. So, as Luke states, they left Cyprus on their left hand (21:3). On the later voyage they met contrary winds. They had to seek the shelter of the island from the force of the wind, if they were to make any way.

No doubt the word "sighted" is a technical term for sailors. But can we imagine that the apostle passed the island without recalling the scene of his early ministry? He would remember his elder brother in the faith, Barnabas, and his younger, John Mark, whom they once had as their helper... Barnabas and Mark had parted from the apostle. Yet the apostle's heart sought them both, and felt a love that rose above all their failings. He proved it to the last, not only by word, but by deed.

Syria and Tyre, where they landed, must have brought deep thoughts to the apostle. Here the Lord Himself had withdrawn during His ministry on earth. From those borders came to Him the woman of Canaan. She drew out from Him not only the answer of mercy she wanted for her daughter, but also that praise of her own faith which will never be forgotten.

The delay of the ship at Tyre was ordered by God, just as much as the finding of a ship at once had been at Patara. The unloading of the cargo gave the apostle and his companions time. The wording is not "to find disciples", as the King James Version has it, but to find "out" the disciples... It seems from this that they were the object of a search, not of a chance discovery.

They were held there a week while the ship was made ready for the next stage of its voyage. Paul and his company used the opportunity and spent it with the Christians of the place. Paul was dear to them all, and to some he was certainly no stranger, for he must have passed through the city once or more in earlier days.

He moves on to Tyre now. You say, What is that? Tyre is man's commercial world. We all have to go there... What is Paul's business in Tyre? What is he looking for? He is looking for disciples. Think of it: you move out to another city, you have to go there on business. But how blessed to be on the lookout for followers of Jesus... The choicest material in this scene are the followers of Christ.

The unloading of the cargo gave the apostle and his companions time. The older English version says they found disciples. But the word is not simply "find"; it is "find out" the disciples. So they were the object of search, not of casual discovery.

At Troas we are told that they stayed seven days, and that on the first day of the week the disciples (or rather, we) came together to break bread, and Paul preached. Here there is no such plain statement. Still, the mention of seven days with the disciples may well raise a question: what was the motive for such a stay? I do not doubt it was the joy of meeting all the saints in each place as chance allowed, and of cheering and strengthening them on their way.

The Holy Spirit through these disciples warned the apostle at once that he should not go to Jerusalem. This, indeed, was very solemn. Suppose these disciples had spoken for themselves. Suppose the text said only that they were anxious about Paul's journey to that city. Then one might say they were merely speaking as men. But the record makes it clear that the Holy Spirit spoke through them.

These disciples had not known Paul before. That makes their message all the more striking: through the Spirit of God they told him not to go to Jerusalem. It is so clear that we can only marvel the apostle paid no attention to it.

Clearly, however, the apostle regarded it rather as a note of danger awaiting him than as personal direction he must obediently follow. His own mind was made up, whatever the danger, whatever the suffering, to go through with it.

There is a real difference between "they said to him by the Spirit" and "the Spirit said." If the Spirit Himself had said it, then going to Jerusalem would have been disobedience in Paul. But it seems to us that it was a warning given by the Spirit that he should not go there. It was much more than saying that afflictions awaited him.

Not a word is said here about any sufferings that would follow the visit. What we read is that "they said by the Spirit that he should not" go there. If this was not prophecy — and we know it could not have been — then it could only be guidance. Notice too how it is confirmed to the apostle by the mouth of at least two witnesses.

There is a veil over his eyes, and it is a very solemn one. It is the veil of an impulse gripping him — that noble and moving love for Israel which he himself has recorded for us in Romans 9:1-4… He was ready to sacrifice himself to any extent. How could God be against what was in fact the fruit of the Spirit of Christ?

These men were outstanding servants, and the Spirit worked in them with great power. Yet nature and old ties, and even true zeal for the Lord's glory, as with Paul, kept them from being ruled by that Holy Guide who lived in them. If they failed, how much more we in these last days of evil, sorrow, and weakness! Solemn truth: to have the Spirit is not always to be spiritual!

He feels compelled to go to Jerusalem. Yet despite this, the providence and grace of God, shown toward him, still lead him — faithful and blessed.

What took place at Tyre was much like the scene at Miletus. It is clear that Paul soon found his way to the heart of the disciples. He had been only one week there, and had not known the Christians before, yet he had gained their affections.

Here is another beautiful mark of divine affection. In the early days Christian life had a family character as well as a social one. This ought to be of great value to us now, if we are wise. In this cold world the saints are in special danger of growing cold, if they keep away from fleshly excitement and worldly amusement.

The week ended and the ship was ready to sail. The whole company of the Christians, women and children included, brought them on their way outside the city. Away from the busy crowd, in the quiet of the countryside, and under the open sky, they held a prayer meeting. At Miletus, Paul prayed with the elders at parting. Now Luke writes "we prayed." Several no doubt took part. They knelt on the shore and commended the apostle and those with him to the care and keeping of their common Lord and Saviour.

We ought to kneel down when we can; it expresses reverence and bowing low. The blessed Master "knelt down and prayed" (Luke 22:41). His apostle did the same, as we read in Acts 20:36: "And when he had said these things, he knelt down and prayed with them all."

Here we see another farewell scene. These brothers at Tyre go with their visitors to the ship, wives and children too, and take leave of them with prayer. A shadow of what is coming seems to fall on these little groups of believers. It is lit up by the steady tenderness of a love that carries in it the certainty of eternity.

Clearly, however, the apostle took it as a warning of the danger waiting for him, not as personal direction he was bound to obey. He had made up his own mind to go through with it, whatever the danger, whatever the suffering. So the Master had done, in matchless perfection, for His infinite work, at all cost.

Now Paul was in the custody of the centurion Julius. From the ship he may have seen the city and harbour of Tyre, and that spot on the shore. There all the Christians, men, women and children, had knelt in prayer with him and his company before they boarded again for Ptolemais.

The week ended, the ship ready to sail, the whole company of the Christians, the women and children included, went with them out of the city. Away from the crowds, in the quiet of the countryside and under the open sky, they held a prayer meeting. At Miletus, Paul prayed with the elders on parting. Now Luke writes "we prayed." No doubt several took part. They knelt on the shore and committed the apostle and his companions to the care and keeping of their common Lord and Saviour.

The disciples needed his instruction and guidance. They were to know that he had authority. But they could worship just as well when the apostle was away as when he was there. He might have led their worship, or he might have followed others in it. His office, so to speak, disappeared when they stood together as worshippers before the Great High Priest. He might have prayed with the disciples (as Acts 20:36), or they with him (as Acts 21:5). It is most important to see the difference clearly. All who are born again stand alike as priests to God; ministries, on the other hand, differ.

The Acts of the Apostles hardly ever mentions children, though it says so much about men and saints and servants of God. But we do hear of them where it is clearly fitting. Here they are brought forward. Not as a superstitious church soon did, among other things, to receive a portion from the Lord's table… But we do see them in the love that filled everyone, and in the desire to gain the blessing of having an apostle among them right up to the last moment. The children were there as a mark of respectful love to the one who was leaving. They were also put where they could receive whatever blessing the Lord might be pleased to give them.

It is another beautiful mark of divine affection — the family as well as social character of Christians in early days. We should value it highly now, if we are wise. In this cold world the saints easily grow cold, if they are kept from fleshly excitement and worldly frivolity.

A shadow of what is coming seems to fall on these little companies of believers. It is lit up by the steady tenderness of a love that carries in it the assurance of eternity.

Clearly the apostle took it as a sign of the danger waiting for him, not as a personal order he had to obey. He had made up his mind to go through with it, whatever the danger, whatever the suffering; as the Master had done in matchless perfection for His infinite work, at all cost.

Nothing could be simpler, yet the Spirit of God loves to dwell on the journey of such a man and his companions, and loves us to dwell on it too. We wrong His grace when we think the Holy Spirit has to do only with extraordinary matters… He is certainly the power for all that is good and worthy of Christ. But think of Christ Himself. He lived by far the greater part of His life unnoticed by people, doing the will of God perfectly. In the same way, the Spirit of God enters into every detail of life in those who are Christ's.

A seaport on the Mediterranean, about 30 miles south of Tyre. It fell to Asher's share, but Asher failed to take it. The Old Testament mentions it only in Judges 1:31. During the era of the Ptolemies one of them captured it and called it PTOLEMAIS… The Crusaders later besieged and took it, and called it ACRE.

They arrived at a port called Accho in days gone by, now St. Jean d'Acre. It was only for one day, but how gladly they spent it with the brethren! For there were believers at Ptolemais, apparently already known.

Paul's party take ship once more, following the Syrian shore to Ptolemais, which we now call Acre. Again they find disciples there. Few towns were now without them, no doubt.

The apostle had so many hindrances in the way. We can understand how he might feel the comfort of these repeated stays — seven days in one place, seven days in another, as we have seen. They clearly show the desire of his heart for fellowship, and for strengthening their souls. This is what we find in this blessed man's course. In our small measure it surely ought to be so with us.

In apostolic times, Christians generally knew one another by the name "brethren"… "we came to Ptolemais, and saluted the brethren and abode with them one day" — Acts 21:7… "All the brethren greet you" — 1 Cor. 16:20.

Reaching Ptolemais, they stayed one day with the brethren. Then they moved on by land to Caesarea. Under the roof of Philip the Evangelist they found rest, hospitality and surely a most hearty welcome. Here they stayed many days — a rest for Paul after all the tiring travel of the voyage, and a little time of quiet before facing the storm at Jerusalem.

He was a spiritual man, in close touch with God and dependent on Him. Even so, he was not above thanking God and taking courage from the love and fellowship of saints, whose spiritual stature may have been much below his own. It is striking to see this, and very encouraging for us. Let us be very careful not to despise, or even underestimate, the value of the fellowship of saints.

They reached Ptolemais and stayed one day with the believers. Then they went on by land to Caesarea. Under the roof of Philip the Evangelist they found rest, hospitality, and surely a most hearty welcome. Here they stayed many days — a rest for Paul after the tiring voyage, and a little time of quiet before facing the storm at Jerusalem.

As for Philip, the supernatural way he was taken to Azotus did not disturb him. He travelled north to Caesarea, preaching in the cities as he went. This chapter mentions preaching seven times. In five of those the word used is one we have carried over into our own language as "evangelize." In three of the five it is Philip who evangelizes. So it is no surprise that he is soon called "Philip the evangelist" (Acts 21:8).

The service of a deacon might seem a very small matter, but nothing in God's service is really small. Paul writes that such service, done faithfully, is the way to higher and larger things. The later history of two men named in Acts 6:5 shows this clearly. Stephen advanced to become the first Christian martyr; Philip to become a greatly used preacher of the Gospel, the only man called an evangelist in Scripture (see Acts 21:8). Every true servant of God has begun with small and humble things. So let none of us despise and shirk them, as we are naturally inclined to do.

By office Philip was one "of the seven" (Acts 6:5), but his gift was that of an evangelist, and that is what he is called (Acts 21:8). His office lapsed when all who made up the assembly in Jerusalem were scattered. Acts 8 then shows him actively using his gift as an "evangelist," with striking blessing both to a whole city and to an individual. Acts never shows Philip travelling with an apostle... Philip went on his free way under the Lord's direction, evangelizing "all the cities" till he came to Caesarea. The world is in principle the evangelist's province. Travelling or staying is a question of his subjection to the Lord.

He no longer had anything to do with tables, but with a risen Christ in glory, and he had the privilege of using a gift the Lord had given him, ministering to the Samaritans what he had learned of Christ. From that service he received from God the title "Philip the evangelist."

How good to see the great apostle of the Gentiles staying with dear simple Philip the evangelist. That is how the Lord's various gifts were mixed together in daily life in that day. The great apostle and the earnest evangelist were together. They were not rivals but co-workers, as the Lord arranged, and they got on well together.

The words of the inspired writer are full and distinct. From their precision one might think it impossible that any intelligent mind could fail to see the person meant. Yet even the man often called the father of church history misunderstood the verse. He confused Philip the evangelist with Philip the apostle. It becomes a duty to notice the error, and to press its importance as a warning to those who talk up the authority of ancient writers. For Acts tells us here that the Philip with whom the apostle's party stayed was not only the evangelist. He was one of the seven — one of the seven men the apostles appointed for the service of tables in the days of first love, soon after Pentecost.

Reaching Ptolemais, they stayed one day with the brothers. Then they moved on by land to Caesarea. In the home of Philip the evangelist they found rest, hospitality, and surely a most hearty welcome. Here they stayed many days — a rest for Paul after all the strain of the voyage, and a little quiet time before facing the storm at Jerusalem. We have no account of what happened during their stay. Luke mentions only that Philip had four daughters who prophesied — gifted women who, in their proper sphere, helped on the work of God.

Though nothing more is said of Philip's work, he was still called "the evangelist," and he had four daughters who prophesied, a lovely commendation. Of course this does not imply at all that they were public speakers, since prophesying can certainly happen in private. This is a valuable gift for sisters to cultivate.

A popular idea is that a prophet foretells future events. But that is only part of his work, and in some cases it may be missing altogether. The mark of New Testament prophesying is speaking "to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation" (1 Cor. 14:3).

The fact stated in verse nine deserves full attention. Philip had four unmarried daughters, and we are told that they prophesied. That is, they had the highest form of gift for acting on souls from God. Such prophesying was yet more than teaching or preaching.

As unmarried women, they were still living in their father's house, and they prophesied. There is no reason why a woman should not have this or most other gifts as much as a man. I do not say the same kind of gift always. Surely God is wise and gives suited gifts whether to men or women... Certainly He did clothe these four daughters of Philip with a very special spiritual power. They had one of the highest characters of spiritual gift — they prophesied. And if God gave them this power, it was certainly not to be hidden away but used: the only question is how.

The case of Philip's daughters who prophesied is often brought forward as proof that it is right for a woman to preach. But this scripture does not say, nor does it even hint, that these women exercised their gift in public. They evidently spoke their prophecies in the privacy of their father's house.

The four daughters of Philip prophesied but did not teach (Acts 21:9). Note that the Lord did not use them to warn Paul, even though there seem to have been no men present who could have done this in their place. Instead, He specifically arranged for a prophet from Jerusalem, Agabus, to travel to Caesarea and deliver this prophecy (Acts 21:10-11).

One cannot say that this account of Philip's daughters stands in no immediate connection with the events related here. Why should we make our own ability to see such things the measure of what is really in them?... The Church is losing its great apostle. Is it not fitting that God should show us how fully the gift of the Spirit is still upon it, even in its weakest members? that the Lord's care for it neither fails nor is cut short; and that it need neither fail nor fear because of this?

A prophet who came from Jerusalem to Antioch, and foretold a famine "over all the world," which happened in the days of Claudius Caesar (Acts 11:28). He also foretold that Paul would be bound at Jerusalem and delivered to the Gentiles, which also came to pass (Acts 21:10). In the first passage it says that Agabus "signified by the Spirit" that there would be a great famine. In the second he said, "Thus says the Holy Spirit." This plainly shows that the prophetic spirit in man was under the immediate guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Prophecy is in a special way characteristic of Christianity. It does not pass down a line of succession. It springs out of close fellowship with God — the opening up of His mind, so as to bring souls into His presence. Prediction was never more than a fairly small and changing part of it. Yet prediction is just what we find in Agabus, on the only two occasions when he appears in the history. He is a prophet of sorrow both times, though of sorrow that God overrules for good.

Notice that Paul had much time on this journey to consider whether he actually ought to go to Jerusalem. Agabus bound his own hands and feet with Paul's belt, and prophesied that the Jews would bind its owner in the same way and hand him over to the Gentiles. This is just what happened to the Lord Jesus, and no doubt Paul thought of this — not in a way that would turn him from going, but the opposite. He would apparently not seek to avoid being treated in the same way as his Lord.

Here then came another warning. It was the last and by far the strongest. Did Agabus really speak by the Spirit? The exact fulfilment of what he acted out gives the answer. The whole company, both his fellow travellers and the believers in Caesarea, began to beg him not to go up to Jerusalem.

Note that the disciples at Tyre told Paul by the Spirit that he should not go to Jerusalem. Once Paul had reached Caesarea, Agabus does not forbid his going to Jerusalem. Did he take it for granted that he was determined to go there? He warned him by the Spirit what awaited him — persecution, and being handed over to the Gentiles.

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 Paul was continually warned. His friends beg him not to go up. He will not be persuaded. They hold their peace, hardly satisfied, and say, "Let the will of the Lord be done." And I have no doubt it was His will. But it served purposes that Paul did not know through the understanding the Holy Spirit gave. He only felt pressed in spirit to go, and ready to suffer everything for the Lord.