And the first day of the week, we being assembled to break bread, Paul discoursed to them, about to depart on the morrow. And he prolonged the discourse till midnight.
The scene is Troas, a stopover on Paul's journey. Luke slips in one sentence that has shaped Christian gathering ever since. Believers meet on the first day of the week, and the reason given is to break bread. Why that day, why that purpose, and why does an apostle's preaching come second in the sentence?
(Older translations read "the disciples came together to break bread." The writers quoted below use that wording.)
The choice of day is not casual. One writer compares the first day with the seventh, and says what each one marks.
There was no transfer from the seventh day to the first, and the first day is never called the Sabbath. The Sabbath, not the first day, was the memorial of creation rest. In due time the law imposed it as a most holy commandment, bound up in a special way with God's authority and honour. The resurrection of Christ has brought in a new creation, after He had by Himself purged our sins on the cross. So the first day is the day of clear and triumphant life in Christ, who is our life. On it our hearts go out in worship, communion and service. A rest for the body, shared with the ox and the donkey, does not rise to the blessed associations of Christ risen from the dead. The New Testament does not close without stamping this day as "the Lord's day" (Revelation 1:10). That is not the prophetic "day of the Lord", which will bring ever-increasing and solemn judgments from God on the earth. The Lord's day is a day of heavenly grace. It brings us already into the victory of His resurrection, the pledge of our own resurrection or change at His coming.
Another writer points to what marks the day out, and to what it is not.
The first day of the week is marked out for the Christian, not as law, but as blessing. Christ rose; Christ met His disciples on it, and again the following week. On the first day of the week the disciples met to break bread. On the first day they were to lay aside their profits for the poor saints.
Paul was in a hurry. That makes his week-long stop worth explaining.
Why did Paul stretch out his stay in Troas? He was hurrying, as we know, to reach Jerusalem by the day of Pentecost if he could. He deliberately avoided Ephesus because he did not want to be delayed on his journey. Yet here at Troas he spends no fewer than seven days.
The same writer gives the reason for the week's delay.
Unexpected delays on the voyage meant the travellers landed at Troas just too late to join the usual weekly gathering of the disciples to break bread. To share with them in the customary remembrance of Christ, they had to stay a week for the next one.
Luke does not only say that they met. He says why.
This passage implies that this act was the object of their meeting, though other things might go along with it.
The same verse also settles how often they did it.
The early disciples came together not once a year, nor once a quarter, nor once a month, but on the first day of the week to break bread. It is no new theory, no notion of moderns or ancients, but what God has written in Acts 20:7.
One writer weighs Paul's preaching against the supper, and notes the hour they met.
Even the apostle's teaching, precious as it was, is spoken of as a secondary thing. The remembrance of the Lord's love in dying for us, and all that He has brought us into as risen again, was and is the first thing. If there is a chance to minister the word in a way that gathers up the thoughts and affections of the worshippers to Christ, it is good to take it. But the breaking of bread ought to be the first consideration, and the main object of the assembly. The Lord's Supper on this occasion came after sunset.
Luke names who came, and what they came for.
Then it was "disciples" who came together. That suggests people who had followed the Lord faithfully during the week before. They came "together to break bread." Hymns and thanksgiving must have their place. But they are not the reason we come together. We come to "break bread."
So who may lead it?
The New Testament never says that a man must be ordained to administer the Supper. It is clear that Christians came together on the Lord's Day to break bread.
The long speech had a reason behind it.
He knew that dangers were looming ahead. No doubt that made him all the more anxious to give the disciples everything he could in his parting words. So he continued his speech until midnight.
- Day — The first day is the resurrection day, the mark of a new creation, not a transfer of the Sabbath.
- Purpose — On that day the stated object of the gathering is to break bread, not to hear preaching.
- Frequency — The pattern is weekly, not monthly, quarterly or yearly.
- Priority — Preaching, even an apostle's, is secondary to the remembrance of Christ.
- Proof — Paul, in a hurry to Jerusalem, spent seven days at Troas to be there for it.
And there were many lights in the upper room where we were assembled.
Luke pauses his account of Paul's last night at Troas to note the room and its many lamps. Why record the lights at all, and what does an upstairs room say about the church's worship?
The New Testament never mentions a building put up for worship. This verse is one of the few glimpses of where the first believers met.
What kind of places of worship did they have? Did they have churches, or chapels, or temples? Did they have consecrated bells, or buildings? These are everywhere now, but do we find a trace of them in the New Testament? Not a trace. We find them in an upper room in Acts 20:8. Wherever the saints were gathered together to Christ, there — and only there — was the true church or assembly. Was it not so?
This was not for lack of time or money.
Years after Pentecost we never hear of grand or beautiful buildings, which they certainly had the heart and the means to build, if buildings had been any object at all. The most we hear of is "the upper chamber" to break bread in (Acts 20:7-8), or the school of Tyrannus where the apostle taught, or lectured, every day (Acts 19:9). There is not a trace in the inspired record, not a hint, that the church of God tried to copy or outdo the earthly splendour of the Jewish temple.
Translators have not settled on one English word for what these lamps were.
The Greek word lampas in the plural is translated 'lights' only once, in Acts 20:8; several times 'lamps,' and once 'torches,' in John 18:3. Perhaps torches would suit in every place. The word occurs five times in the parable of the ten virgins (Matthew 25:1-8). In India and other parts of the East people keep torches burning with oil, so the same rendering would suit here.
Believers in the earliest days did not all meet at the same hour.
The Lord's Supper on this occasion was celebrated after sunset. In early times, some places observed it before daylight; others after sunset. But here the disciples were not forced to meet in secret.
The same detail also hints at the size of these gatherings and the homes that held them.
It was not, however, an assembly held in secret or in the dark. There were many lamps to light the upper chamber in which they met. By the place in which they came together we see that the assemblies were not composed of very many persons. The upper room in Jerusalem received, perhaps, one hundred and twenty. It appears from various greetings that they met in private houses — in several of them, most likely, if the number of believers required it. But there was only one assembly.
Older English versions say "they were gathered together." Better texts read "we" — which puts the writer in the room with everyone else.
The gathering together of the saints at Troas (Acts 20:7) was the united action of the assembly in that town. The wording used shows a common and habitual custom of the church of God. Our ordinary version hides this by using the third person instead of the first. But the revised and other critical translations follow a better text and restore the true force of the passage: "when we were gathered together to break bread" (verse 7), and again, "in the upper chamber where we were gathered together" (verse 8).
The number of lamps hints at the size of the room — and, with the crowd, at the heat that overcame one young man.
The room they were in must have been of no small size, for there were many lights in that upper chamber. Yet we can imagine that, between the lights and the company, the heat was great. To one person present, sleep was overpowering. Eutychus, a young man, weighed down by sleep, fell from the third story and was picked up dead — not seemingly dead, but dead.
One writer sees a picture in the room itself.
Many lights are spoken of in the upper room where they were gathered. No doubt the upper room reminds us of heaven, the true home of the Church, with its plentiful light for the teaching of the saints. At least it was not lack of light that induced sleep on the part of Eutychus.
- Place: the New Testament records one meeting place for breaking bread — an upper room in a private house. No temples, no chapels, nothing consecrated.
- Plainness: by this point the believers had both the heart and the means to build something grand, and did not.
- Light: the word behind "lights" is closer to torches, the same word used of the ten virgins' lamps.
- Openness: the lamps show a gathering that had no need to hide — not secret, not in the dark.
- People: the better reading is "where we were gathered." That puts the writer among them, and marks this as the assembly's settled habit, not a one-off.
And a certain youth, by name Eutychus, sitting at the window-opening, overpowered by deep sleep, while Paul discoursed very much at length, having been overpowered by the sleep, fell from the third story down to the bottom, and was taken up dead.
It was Paul's last night in Troas, and his farewell sermon ran past midnight. A young man in the window lost his fight with sleep and fell three floors, leaving two questions: was he really dead, and what does sleeping through the Word cost?
One writer sets the physical scene: the lamps, the crowd, the heat. Then he presses the exact words the text uses about the young man.
He knew that dangers were waiting ahead. So he was all the more anxious to give the disciples everything he could in his parting words. So he continued his speech until midnight. The room they were in must have been large, since there were many lights in that upper room. Yet we can imagine that the lamps and the crowd made the heat great. For one man there, sleep was overpowering. For Eutychus, a young man, weighed down by sleep, fell from the third story. He was taken up — not as if dead, but dead. Life was gone. But Paul could restore him to life. He did.
Commentators differ. One writer reads Paul's words over the body as proof that soul and body had not yet parted.
Human weakness is such that all this affected a certain Eutychus. Sleep overcame him while Paul preached at length. He was sitting by the window, and he fell from the third floor. He was picked up dead. Paul breaks off his sermon, goes down, and throws himself on him. He declares that life is still in him. Soul and body had not yet parted. The fall had stunned him, and if the power of God had not stepped in, death would have taken hold of him. Life had not yet gone out of the body. By the Spirit, Paul so works on it that the functions of life are restored. In the case of the child brought back to life by the prophet Elijah, the soul had already left the body, and returned to it.
The writers differ over whether life had fully left him. Neither doubts that the young man lived again.
One writer reads the whole scene as a picture of the church.
In this young man (whose name means "prosperous") we are no doubt meant to see a picture of the Church. It would reach a prosperous state and grow weary of Paul's ministry. When circumstances are hard and demanding, we are usually more awake to the truth. Prosperity on earth tends to make us self-satisfied. It leaves us insensitive to our need of the full truth of the Word of God, especially the heavenly truth that Paul teaches. Then we easily fall from our high position and suffer drastic results.
He got his life back. He did not get the sermon back.
Through the tender mercy of God he recovered his life, but the part of Paul's ministry he lost while sleeping he never recovered. And who knows whether the last part was not the best on that memorable night and very special occasion?
Sleep costs more than a sermon. A sleeping believer is an easy target:
The saint's sleeping time is Satan's tempting time; every fly dares to creep on a sleeping lion. Samson asleep, and Delilah cuts his hair. Saul asleep, and the spear is taken from his very side without his knowing. Eutychus asleep, nods, and falls from the third floor, and is taken up for dead. A Christian asleep may soon lose his spiritual strength… He may fall from a great height of profession down into scandalous practices. Others may then question whether there is any life of grace in him.
The story does not end with the fall, because someone followed him to the bottom.
At Troas, it seems, there was no lack of gift, but conditions of failure and death came in. Eutychus "sank down" with sleep and then "fell down". But Paul "went down". In this he shows the features of the Man Christ Jesus, seen so wonderfully in the second chapter of Philippians.
- Sank down — Heat, a crowd, a late hour and a long sermon. The room was full of lamps; what gave way was human weakness.
- Fell down — From the third-floor window, and taken up dead. Writers differ over whether his soul had left the body. Neither doubts that he lived again.
- Went down — Paul broke off his sermon and went down to the young man, showing the features of Christ seen in Philippians 2.
- Lifted up — Paul gave him back alive. But the part of the sermon he slept through was gone for good.
- Stay awake — His name means "prosperous," and prosperity is what dulls us to the Word. The saint's sleeping time is Satan's tempting time.
But Paul descending fell upon him, and enfolding [him] [in his arms], said, Be not troubled, for his life is in him.
Paul preached at Troas until midnight. A young man named Eutychus fell asleep in a window seat, dropped to the ground, and the others took him up dead. Paul went down, held him, and told the frightened crowd that "his life is in him." What had happened to Eutychus, and what did those words mean?
Luke, a doctor, wrote this account. One commentator presses that fact against every reading that softens the fall into a fainting spell.
Eutychus was sitting on the window seat. Deep sleep came over him as Paul spoke at great length, and he fell from the third storey to the bottom, and they took him up dead. We must admit that the inspired physician who wrote this account was a most competent witness. It is not just that he appeared dead, or that they took him up for dead, as some have said. He was really dead. But Paul went down and fell upon him, as the prophet of old famously did, and clasping him said, "Do not be alarmed, for his life (soul) is in him." In these words the apostle had no desire to make light of the power of God which had worked in this miracle.
Writers do not agree on whether Paul's words describe a soul recalled or a soul still present. One reads the sentence as spoken after the miracle had already been done, so that only God's power was holding the soul in place:
It may help to compare Luke 8:49-56, where "the spirit" of the Jewish girl had departed. But the Lord's words were enough; and "her spirit returned." Here it was not so. "His soul is in him," said the apostle — though divine power alone could keep it there, or prevent the break-up that was about to follow.
Another takes the words at face value: soul and body had not yet parted. He then contrasts this with the child the prophet Elijah raised:
The separation had not yet taken place. The fall had stunned him, and if the power of God had not stepped in, death would have taken him in its grip. Life, however, had not yet gone out of the body; and by the Spirit, Paul so works on it that the functions of life are restored. The bonds between soul and body are re-established. In the case of the child restored to life by Elijah (1 Kings 17:21-22) the soul had already left the body, and returned to it.
The word rendered "life" here is the word for "soul." That is why a body without it is a body people mourn over.
Paul said, "His soul is in him," to tell them not to be troubled about the young man whose body they took up (Acts 20:10). This only shows that the usual trouble and mourning at death happen because the soul and spirit have left the body.
The verbs in the story move in one direction. Eutychus sank down, then fell down — and the apostle followed him down.
If we turn to Acts 20 we see what took place at Troas when Paul was there. Apparently there was no lack of gift, but conditions of failure and death came in. Eutychus "sunk down" with sleep and then "fell down." But Paul "went down." In this he showed the features of the Man Christ Jesus, so wonderfully seen in the second chapter of Philippians.
Paul acted as other servants of God had acted in the presence of death. They prayed first, and did not command in their own strength.
Peter did not dare to say to the body of the dead disciple, "Tabitha, arise," until he had knelt down and prayed. Nor did Paul, when he fell on the dead Eutychus and held him in his arms.
A death in the room could have ended the meeting.
The power of God was so displayed through Paul that this episode did not break up the meeting or distract everyone from Paul's message. Instead their hearts were comforted and strengthened, so that they settled down and listened till daybreak... The story is marked by the absence of anything ceremonial and official, but it pulsates with power. In popular Christianity today the ceremonial holds the field and the power is absent.
One writer draws a warning from the sleeper. Mercy gave his life back. It did not give back the hours he slept through.
Through the tender mercy of God he recovered his life, but the part of Paul's ministry which he lost while he was sleeping he never recovered. And who knows whether the last part was the best on that memorable night and very special occasion?
- Fall. Luke, a physician, records a real death — not a faint, and not a body only thought to be dead.
- Descent. Paul went down after the one who had gone down, taking the place of dependence, not of command.
- Life. The word for "life" here is the word for "soul." God's power alone held soul and body together.
- Difference. Commentators differ: had the soul left and returned, or never left? Both agree that only divine power kept the young man alive.
- Comfort. The interruption ended in strength, not panic. The meeting stayed and listened till daybreak — but the hours Eutychus slept through were gone for good.
And having gone up, and having broken the bread, and eaten, and having long spoken until daybreak, so he went away.
The night at Troas ends with one line that readers have argued over ever since. Was the bread Paul broke the Lord's Supper, picked up again after the young man's fall, or a meal a tired man ate before a long journey?
The verse describes one man acting, not a company sharing. Kelly builds his reading on that, and on the particular word Luke uses for eating:
Some have supposed that when Paul had gone up and broken the loaf and eaten, it was the interrupted celebration of the Lord's Supper. This appears to me opposed to what the context suggests. Scripture describes it, not as fellowship, but only as the personal act of the apostle. No doubt it was "the loaf" of the Lord's Supper. But the apostle took that loaf here for his own refreshment. He had spoken so long, and in such trying circumstances, and he was about to go out on his journey. The word used for his eating is rightly translated "eaten", or literally "tasted". We can understand, then, why the Lord avoids such a word when He calls on His disciples to "take, eat" at the institution of His supper. Again, the apostle's "conversing" with them a long while, till daybreak, much better suits a meal than the assembly.
Elsewhere Scripture ties the Supper to the whole gathering, never to one man:
In verse 11, after the incident with Eutychus, Paul returned to the upper chamber, broke the bread, ate, and conversed till break of day. This does not sound like the Lord's Supper, which is always referred to as the action of the whole assembly. Compare verse 7, "when we were gathered together to break bread"; and 1 Cor. 10:16, "The bread that we break." But in verse 11 it is Paul who breaks the bread, as he does in Acts 27:35, after the fourteen days' fast on board ship. Here the apostle eats of the loaf to satisfy his hunger, before the long journey he was to start at dawn. So eating in this case is not sharing in the feast of remembrance, but taking a meal. "Conversing" is the fitting word for that, and it differs from the more formal discourse that had gone before.
Commentators differ. Stuart reads the bread as the Supper itself, shared once the young man was alive again:
The apostle assured them that Eutychus was alive again. Joy must have filled the whole company at hearing that. And surely with full hearts they all took part in the Lord's Supper which followed.
Whatever the bread was, the accident did not break up the meeting:
The fall and death of Eutychus interrupted, but did not dissolve that meeting. This we learn from verse 11. The breaking of bread expresses the unity of the whole assembly, and it was that which gathered the saints at Troas — not to hear Paul speak. He did speak, and speak twice. That gives divine warrant for ministry both before and after the Lord's Supper, if the Spirit of God leads a servant this way, when the assembly is gathered together to break bread.
Paul spoke past midnight and on till sunrise. Kelly sees liberty in that, not a fixed rule:
The prime call was to remember the Lord in the breaking of bread. Yet the apostle did not break divine order here. He not only "discoursed" (not "preached"). Since he was leaving the next day, he also drew the discourse out till midnight. The principle is, "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom" (2 Cor. 3:17). The Lord's Supper has its own deep solemnity and thanksgiving. Even that does not shut out a long discourse in special circumstances.
Since an apostle breaks the bread here, some have argued that only an appointed minister may do it. Darby answers:
For an apostle to break the bread, when he was present (Acts 20:11), was a very natural thing, and it seems to me very suitable. But I do not see that this proves that the ministry alone had the right to do so.
Grant reads the whole night as a picture of the church's present season:
After his revival the breaking of bread took place as well as eating, then continued ministry until the break of day. In these last days God has given some reviving of the truth of the assembly. For our present comfort He provides the breaking of bread and fellowship, as well as enough ministry until the break of day — the coming of the Lord.
- Bread — Kelly reads the broken loaf as Paul's own refreshment before his journey. Scripture presents it as one man's act, not the assembly's.
- Difference — Commentators differ. Stuart takes it as the Lord's Supper itself, shared with joy once Eutychus was alive again.
- Unbroken — The fall interrupted the meeting but did not end it. Paul went back up and carried on.
- Liberty — They gathered to remember the Lord. The teaching before and after shows freedom in special circumstances, not a rigid rule.
- Daybreak — Paul spoke till dawn, then left. Bread, fellowship and teaching carry the church through the night until morning comes.
And they brought [away] the boy alive, and were no little comforted.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.