Acts 19:11-20  c) Some power encounters
Acts 19:21-22  d) Paul's future plans
Acts 19:28-41  The riot in the city
Acts.  20:1-21:17  More about Ephesus
Acts 20:2-6  1)  Paul in northern and southern Greece
Acts 20:7-12  A week in Troas

In Corinth Christ encouraged his apostle and endorsed his teaching through a night vision; in Ephesus through signs and wonders by which Christ's power over disease, demon-possession and
magic was demonstrated. *God did extraordinary miracles through Paul (11). Handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him* (`the sweat-rags being used for tying round his head and aprons for  tying round his waist' while he was engaged in tentmaking) *were taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them* (12). Liberal commentators are embarrassed by
these verses and tend to dismiss them as legendary. At least four points may be made on the other side. First, Luke himself was not content to describe these events as mere `miracles', *dynameis*,
demonstrations of divine power; he adds the adjective *tychousas*, which is variously translated `special' (AV), `singular' (NEB), `remarkable' (JB) and `extraordinary' (RSV, NIV). He does not
regard them as typical, even for `miracles'. Secondly, he does not regard them as magic either, for he sets them apart from the magical practices which the Ephesians believers were soon to confess and renounce as evil (18-19). Thirdly, the wisest attitude to the sweat-rag miracles is neither that of the sceptics who declare them spurious, nor that of the mimics, who try to copy them, like those American televangelists who offer to send to the sick handkerchiefs which they have blessed, but rather that of Bible students who remember both that Paul regarded his miracles as his apostolic credentials (e.g. 2 Cor.12:12; Rom. 15:19) and that Jesus himself condescended to the timorous faith of a woman by healing her when she touched the edge of his cloak (Lk.8:43-44). Fourthly, as in the Gospels so in the Acts, demon-possession is distinguished from illness, and therefore exorcism from healing.

The mention of exorcism leads Luke to tell of some Jewish exorcists, who attempted to tap the power they believed to inhere in the name of Jesus, with disastrous consequences: *Some Jews who
went around driving out evil spirits tried to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus over those who were demon-possessed. They would say, `In the name of Jesus, whom Paul preaches, I command you to
come out' (13). Seven sons of Sceva, a Jewish chief priest*, meaning probably that he belonged to the high-priestly family, *were doing this (14). The evil spirit answered, `Jesus I know and I know about Paul, but who are you?' (15). Then the man who had the evil spirit jumped on them and overpowered them all. He gave them such a beating that they ran out of the house naked and bleeding* (16). To be sure, there is power - saving and healing power - in the name of Jesus, as Luke had been at pains to illustrate (e.g. 3:6, 16; 4:10-12). But its efficacy is not mechanical, nor can people use it second-hand. Nonetheless, in spite of this misuse of the Name, the incident had a wholesome effect. *When this became known to the Jews and Greeks living in Ephesus, they were all seized with fear (NEB, `awestruck'), and the name of the Lord Jesus was held in high honour* (17).
The power encounter of Jesus with the kingdom of Satan was not yet overcome. After healing and exorcism came deliverance from occult practices. *Many of those who believed now came and openly confessed their evil deeds (18). A number who practised sorcery brought their scrolls together and burned them publicly. When they calculated the value of the scrolls, the total came to fifty thousand drachmas* (19), the drachma being a silver coin representing about a day's wage. We have already noted that Ephesus was famous for its `Ephesian letters' (*grammata*), which
were `written charms, amulets, and talismans'. That these young believers, instead of realising the monetary value of their magic spells by selling them, were willing to throw them on a bonfire,
was signal evidence of the genuineness of their conversion. Their example also led to more conversions, for *in this way the word of the Lord spread widely and grew in power* (20).

Acts 19:21-22   d) Paul's future plans

*After all this had happened*, after the synagogue and lecture-hall evangelism and the power encounters, but before the riot in the theatre, *Paul decided to go to Jerusalem*, first *passing through Macedonia and Achaia* (21a). Luke does not add at this stage the reason for this circuitous route, but we know that he was going to pick up the offering which he had been urging the
Christians of Northern and Southern Greece to collect for their poverty-stricken sisters and brothers in Judea (see Acts 24:17; Rom. 15:25ff,; 1 Cor. 16:1-8; 2 Cor.8-9). His eyes were not on Jerusalem, however. `*After I have been there.' he said. `I must visit Rome also'* (21b), and beyond that he was even dreaming of Spain (Rom. 15:24, 28), `the most westerly outpost of Roman civilization in Europe'. His vision had no limits. As Bengel rightly commented, `no Alexander, no Caesar, no other hero, approaches to the large-mindedness of this *little* (a play on his name *Paulos*), "little") Benjamite'. Meanwhile, he *sent two of his helpers, Timothy and Erastus*, ahead of him to Macedonia, presumably in order to make last-minute preparations for the offering *while he stayed in the province of Asia*, indeed in Ephesus itself, *a little longer* (22), because `a great door for
effective work' had opened before him, and many were opposing him (1 Cor. 16:8-9). Both the opportunity and the opposition necessitated his continued presence in Ephesus.

e) The riot in the city (19:23-41)
Luke gives his readers a graphic account of the riot which Demetrius the silversmith instigated and the town clerk skilfully quelled. Perhaps he obtained his information from Aristarchus and/or Gaius, who found themselves caught up in the uproar (29) and later became Paul's and Luke's travelling companions (20:4-6).Haenchen's presuppositions lead him to find in the story `a regular tangle of difficulties'. He elaborates six of them. But Howard Marshall is right to say that Haenchen's case `disappears under scrutiny'. He gives an adequate explanation of each supposed problem. Luke's narrative divides itself naturally into three sections relating to the origin, course and termination of the riot.

First, its origin. It was inevitable that sooner or later the kingly authority of Jesus would challenge Diana's evil sway. Luke declares that the disturbance arose `about the Way' (NEB, `the Christian movement'). At root its cause was neither doctrinal, nor ethical, but economic. Demetrius, whom Ramsay called `probably Master of the guild (sc. of silversmiths) for the year', drew the attention of his and other craftsmen to Paul'ssuccess in convincing people `that man-made gods are no gods at
all' In consequence, the sales of `silver shrines of Artemis' (either miniature models of the temple or statuettes of the goddess) were dwindling and their affluent life-style was threatened. Not that Demetrius played directly on their covetousness, however. He was subtle enough to develop three more respectable motives for concern, namely the dangers that their trade would lose its good name, their temple its prestige, and their goddess her divine majesty (27). Thus `vested interests were disguised as local patriotism - in this case also under the cloakof religious zeal'.

Acts 19:28-41  The riot in the city

Demetrius proved to be a skilled rabble-rouser, for the artisans' response was immediate. `The most impressive ruins in Asia Minor..., Ephesus stands dignified and alone in its death', wrote H.V.Morton. The excavated site is magnificent; it is easy to visualize the riot. According to the Bezan text of verse 28, the infuriated craftsmen went `running into the street' before they started to shout for Diana.
This was probably the Arcadian Way, the main thoroughfare of Ephesus, eleven metres wide, marble-paved and colonnaded, leading from the harbour to the theatre. The theatre itself, still in a
fine state of preservation, nestling at the foot of Mount Pion and nearly 500 feet in diameter, could accommodate at least 25,000 people. Here the crowd dragged Gaius and Aristachus. And here Paul
(over-confident perhaps in the immunity he believed his Roman citizenship would give him) was prevented from coming by the pleas of both the disciples and by some `officials of the province' who
were his friends (31). Luke rightly calls them `Asiarchs'. These were leading citizens, who were prominent members of the  provincial council of Asia, especially its `annual presidents and perhaps ex-presidents', and/or the city's deputies who served on it, and/or `the administrators of the various temples of the imperial cult, who were under the charge of high priests appointed by the provincial council'. Paul was fortunate to have the friendship and advice of some of them. By now confusion
reigned in the theatre. Some people were shouting this or that, but most of them had no idea why they were there. A division was caused when some Jews tried to put forward their spokesman, no
doubt in order to disassociate Jews from Christians, but the crowd, who would not have comprehended the distinction, shouted him down and for two hours resumed their chanting of Diana's name. Indeed, the section begins and ends with the hysterical screams `Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!' (28,34). Haenchen is right to comment that `in final analysis the only thing  heathenism can  do against Paul is to shout itself hoarse'.  Luke now describes how the crowd's frenzy was calmed by `the city clerk' (*grammateus*,35), who was `the elected head of the
city executive' or `the chief administrative assistant, annually elected, of the magistrates; he had a staff of permanent clerks, responsible for the paper work of the city'.

The city clerk was evidently a man of high intelligence and of great skill in crowd control. He made four points. First, the whole world knows that Ephesus is the guardian of Artemis' temple and image. Since this is undeniable, no-one is going to deny it, and the cult of Artemis is in no danger (35-36). Secondly, `these men' (Gaius and Aristarchus) are guilty of neither sacrilege (robbing the temple) nor blasphemy (reviling the goddess). They are innocent (37). Thirdly, Demetrius and his colleagues are familiar with statutory legal procedures. If they have a private grievance, they should bring their case to the proconsular assizes. If, on the other hand, their case is more serious and more public, they should refer it to `a legal assembly', the correct technical term for the regular (three times a month) official meetings of the *demos* or city council (38-39). As Dr. Sherwin-White comments, Luke `is very well informed about the finer points of municipal institutions at Ephesus in the first and
second centuries AD'. Fourthly, the citizens of Ephesus are themselves in danger of being charged with civil disorder. If this were to happen, they would not be able to justify themselves. Each
of these arguments was cogent; the four together were decisive.  When the town clerk `dismissed the assembly', they went home in a very chastened mood.

Luke's purpose in recounting this incident was clearly apologetic or political. He wanted to show that Rome had no case against Christianity in general or Paul in particular. In Corinth the proconsul Gallio had refused even to hear the Jew's charge. In Ephesus the town clerk implied that the opposition was purely emotional and that the Christians, being innocent, had nothing to fear from duly constituted legal process. Thus the impartiality of Gallio, and friendship of Asiarchs and the cool reasonableness of the city clerk combined to give the gospel freedom to continue on its victorious course. 

Paul's strategy for urban evangelism..

In spite of the obvious cultural differences between first-century cities in the Roman Empire and the great urban complexes of today, there are also similarities. We may learn from Paul in Corinth and Ephesus important lessons about the where, the how and the when of urban evangelism.

a) The secular places he chose.
It is true that in both Corinth and Ephesus he began in the Jewish synagogue; that was his custom. But when the Jews rejected the gospel, he withdrew from the synagogue and moved to a neutral
building instead. In Corinth he chose a private house, the home of Titius Justus, while in Ephesus he rented the lecture hall of Tyrannus. And easily the greater part of his evangelistic ministry in both cities was spent in these secular situations. In our day we still have to evangelize the religious. The
equivalent to the synagogue in our culture is the church. It is here that the Scriptures are read, prayer is offered, and `God-fearers' congregate, people on the fringe who are attracted but not committed. The gospel must be proclaimed to them. But we must not limit our evangelism to the religious and neglect the irreligious. If religious people can be reached in religious buildings, secular people have to be reached in secular buildings.  Perhaps the equivalent to Paul's use of the house of Titius Justus is home evangelism, and the equivalent to his use of the hall of Tyrannus is lecture evangelism. People will come to a home, to listen to an informal talk and engage in free discussion, who would never darken the door of a church, and there is an important place for apologetic and/or explanatory Christian lectures in thelocal college or university or in some other neutral, public
place.

b). The reasoned presentation he made.
Luke uses several verbs to describe Paul's evangelistic preaching. But two of them stand out in these chapters. Each occurs four times, almost equally divided between his ministry in Corinth and Ephesus. They are the verbs to `reason' or `argue' (*dialegomai*) and to `persuade' (*peitho*). In Corinth `every Sabbath he *reasoned* in the synagogue, trying to *persuade* Jews and Greeks' (18:4). In consequence, the Jews complained to Gallio that `this man is *persuading the people...*' (18:13). In Ephesus Paul spoke boldly in the synagogue for three months, `*arguing persuaively* [literally, "arguing and persuading"] about the kingdom of God' (19:8), and then after withdrawing from the synagogue he `had discussions daily' [RSV, `*argued* daily'] in the hall of Tyrannus (19:9). Thus both in the religious context of the synagogue and in the secular context of the lecture hall, Paul combined argument and persuasion. As a result Demetrius was able to  complain that `this fellow Paul has *convinced* [RSV, "persuaded"]...large numbers of people...' (19:26). Martin Hengel conjectures plausibly that Paul's letters (especially Romans and parts of 1 and 2 Corinthians) `contain brief summaries of lectures and...the much reduced quintessence of what Paul taught' during those years in Tyrannus' lecture theatre.

This vocabulary shows that Paul's presentation of the gospel was serious, well reasoned and persuasive. Because he believed the gospel to be true, he was not afraid to engage the minds of his
hearers. He did not simply proclaim his message in a `take it or leave it' fashion; instead, he marshalled arguments to support and demonstrate his case. He was seeking to convince in order to
convert, and in fact, as Luke makes plain, many were `persuaded'. Luke indicated, moreover, that this was Paul's method even in Corinth. What he renounced in Corinth (see 1 Cor.1 and 2) was the
wisdom of the world, not the wisdom of God, and the rhetoric of the Greeks, not the use of arguments. Arguments of course are no substitute for the work of the Holy Spirit. But then trust in the Holy Spirit is no substitute for arguments either. We must never set them over against each other as alternatives., No, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth, and he brings people to faith in Jesus not in spite of the evidence, but because of the evidence, when he opens their minds to attend to it.

c). The extended periods he stayed
Luke is careful to give us the details. In Corinth Paul began by preaching in the synagogue every sabbath, presumably for several weeks or months, and then moved to the house of Titius Justus and `stayed for a year and a half, teaching... the word of God' (18:11). Next, he `stayed on in Corinth for some time' (18:18), so that probably he was in the city for about two years altogether. In Ephesus he began with three months in the synagogue and then lectured for two years in Tyrannus' lecture hall (19:8, 10). Since later he also `stayed in the province of Asia a little longer' (19:22), it is understandable that he could later refer to his ministry in Ephesus as having lasted `for three
years' (20:31). Thus he spent two years in Corinth and three years in Ephesus, and in both cases his teaching was comprehensive and thorough.

His use of the lecture Hall of Tyrannus was specially remarkable. The accepted text says that he lectured there daily for two years, but the Bezan text adds that he did it `from thefifth hour to the tenth' (19:9, RSV margin), that is, from 11 o'clock in the morning to 4 o'clock in the afternoon. Dr, Bruce Metzger thinks that this addition `may represent an accurate piece of information, preserved in oral tradition before being incorporated into the text of certain manuscripts'. According to
Ramsay, `public life in the Ionian cities ended regularly at the fifth hour', that is, at 11 a.m., having begun at sunrise and continued during the cool of the morning. But at 11 the city stopped work, not for `elevenses', but for an elongated siesta! According to Lake and Cadbury, `at 1 p.m. there were probably more people sound asleep than at 1 a.m.' But Paul did not sleep in the daytime. Until 11 a.m. he would work at his tentmaking and Tyrannus would give his lectures. At 11, however, Tyrannus would go to rest, `the lecture room would be disengaged', and Paul would exchange leather-work for lecture-work, continuing for five hours, and stopping only at 4 p.m. when work was resumed in the city. Assuming that the apostle kept one day in seven for worship and rest, he will have given a daily five-hour lecture six days a week for two years, which makes 3,120 hours of gospel argument! It is not surprising that Luke continues: `all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord' (19:10). For all the roads in Asia converged on Ephesus, and all the inhabitants of Asia visited Ephesus from time to time, to buy or sell, visit a relative, frequent the baths, attend the games in the stadium, watch a drama in the theatre, or worship the goddess. And while they were in Ephesus, they heard of this Christian lecturer named Paul, who was both speaking and answering questions for five hours in the middle of the day. Evidently many dropped in, listened and were converted, They then returned to their towns and villages as born-again believers. Thus the gospel must have spread to the Lycus valley and to its chief towns Colosse, Laodicea and Hierapolis, which Epaphras had visited but Paul had not (Col.1:7; 2:1; 4:12-13), and perhaps to the remaining five of the seven churches of Revelation 2 and 3, namely, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis and Philadelphia. This is a fine strategy for the great university and capital cities of the world. If the gospel is reasonably, systematically and thoroughly unfolded in the city centre, visitors will hear it, embrace it and take it back with them to their homes.

When we contrast much contemporary evangelism with Paul's, its shallowness is immediately shown up. Our evangelism tends to be too ecclesiastical (inviting people to church), whereas Paulalso took the gospel out into the secular world; too emotional (appeals for decisions without an adequate basis of understanding), whereas Paul taught, reasoned and tried to persuade; and too superficial (making brief encounters and expecting quick results), whereas Paul stayed in Corinth and Ephesus for five years, faithfully sowing gospel seed and in due time reaping a harvest.

Acts.  20:1-21:17  More about Ephesus

Luke now narrates how Paul left Ephesus (20:1), having spent the best part of three years there during his third missionary expedition, and then travelled from place to place until at last he reached Jerusalem (21:17). True, Luke has let us into the secret that Paul was intending after visiting  Jerusalem to make for Rome (19:21). Nevertheless, it was Jerusalem which filled his vision at this stage.

In fact, it is hard to resist the conclusion that Luke sees a parallel between Jesus' journey to Jerusalem, which is prominent in his first volume, and Paul's journey to Jerusalem, which he describes in his second. Of course the resemblance is far from being exact, and the mission of Jesus was unique; yet the correspondence between the two journeys seems too close to be coincidence. (i) Like Jesus, Paul travelled to Jerusalem with a group of his disciples (20:4ff.; cf.Lk.10:38). (ii) Like Jesus he was opposed by hostile Jews who plotted against his life (20:3, 19; cf.Lk.6:7, 11; 11:53-54; 22:1-2). (iii) Like Jesus he made or  received three successive predictions of his `passion' or
sufferings (20:22-23; 21:4, 11; cf.Lk.9:22,44; 18:31-32) including his being handed over to the Gentiles (21:11; cf.Lk.18:32). (iv) Like Jesus he declared his readiness to lay down his life (20:24;
21:13; cf. Lk.12:50; 22:19; 23:46) (v) Like Jesus he was determined to complete his ministry and not be deflected from it (20:24; 21:13; cf. Lk.9:51). (vi) Like Jesus he expressed his abandonment to the will of God (21:14; cf. Lk. 22:42). Even if  some of these details are not to be pressed, Luke surely intends his readers to envisage Paul as following in his Master's footsteps when he `steadfastly sat his face to go to Jerusalem' (Lk.9:51, AV).

*When the uproar had ended* (1), and public order had been restored to the city of Ephesus, *Paul sent for the disciples* to come to him (was he still in hiding?) *and, after encouraging them, he said good-bye*. I image that his encouragement took the form of an exhortation similar to the one he would later give to their pastors in Miletus (20:17ff). He will have urged them to remain loyal to Christ in spite of continuing persecution and `to live a life worthy of [their] calling' as God's new and holy people (Eph. 4:1ff). Then he *set out for Macedonia*, intending to catch up with Timothy and Erastus, whom he had sent on ahead of him (19:22). Whether he went by sea or road, he must have
journeyed north, and his first main stop is likely to have been Troas. Here he had expected `to preach the gospel of Christ', and indeed he `found that the Lord had opened a door' for him there (2
Cor. 2:12). Unfortunately, however, he was unable to exploit this opportunity. For he had also expected to find Titus in Troas, whom he had recently sent on an important fact-finding mission to
Corinth. But Titus was not there to meet him, and so, because he `had no peace of mind', instead of staying to evangelize Troas, he `went on to Macedonia' (2 Cor. 2:13). It was later probably in
Philippi that Paul's longed-for rendez-vous with Titus took place and his anxiety was transformed into joy (2 Cor. 7:5-16). The good news Titus brought, along with other information, prompted Paul to
write what we call his second letter to the Corinthians (which was actually his fourth.).

Acts 20:2-6.  1). Paul in northern and southern Greece

Paul now *travelled through that area* (2a), He probably spent several months revisiting the Macedonian churches he hadfounded on his second missionary journey, namely Philippi, Thessalonica and Berea, and Luke characterized his ministry to them as *speaking many words of encouragement to the people*. The word is *paraklesis* (the noun which is cognate with the verb *parakaleo* in verse 1), and it has a range of meanings fromappeal and entreaty through exhortation and  encouragement to comfort and consolation. It is a  vital ministry in establishing Christian disciples, and the principal means of its exercise is, literally, `much word'. Nothing encourages and strengthens the people of God like the word of God. It is likely also to have beenduring this period that Paul travelled further west along the Egnatian Way than he had previously gone, reaching even Illyricum
on the Adriatic coast north of Macedonia (Rom. 15:19).

After these Macedonian journeys Paul *finally arrived in Greece* (2b), *Hellas* being the popular name for Achaia. Here, almost certainly in Corinth, *he stayed three months* (3a). Much had happened in his  relations with the Corinthian church since his first visit which Luke has described. He had written them four letters, and even paid them an interim visit (the so-called `painful visit' of 2 Cor, 2:1, which Luke does not mention). So he will have had much to talk about with the church's leaders, in the realms of both doctrine and ethics. We also know that he finalized arrangements for the Corinthians' share of the collection for the Judean churches. (1 Cor. 16:1-4; cf. Acts 24:17). In addition, it was during this visit to Corinth that Paul wrote his major manifesto of Christian faith and life, his letter to the Romans.  In Romans 15 he explained that he had now `from Jerusalem all the
way around to Illyricum...fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ' and that in consequence `in these regions' there was `no more place' for him to work. That was why he hoped soon to visit Rome
and go on to Spain. (Rom. 15:17-33; see verses 19, 23,24 and 28). Paul's three months in Corinth are likely to have been during the winter, while he waited for the spring weather to open up navigation on the high seas. His purpose was *to sail for Syria* direct, as he had done after his first visit (18:18). As he was about to embark, however, he heard that *the Jews had made a plot against him*. Ramsay imagines the situation: `Paul's intention must have been to take a pilgrim ship carrying Achaian and Asian Jews to the Passover.... With a shipload of hostile Jews, it would be easy to find opportunity to murder Paul' and dump his body overboard. So Paul changed his plan at the last moment and *decided to go back through Macedonia* (3). The Bezan text adds that `the Spirit told him' to do so. Yet it was his own  decision; the two are not incompatible.


At this point Luke interrupts his narrative in order to tell us who Paul's travelling companions were. It is noteworthy that Paul hardly ever travelled alone, and that when he was alone, he expressed his longing for human companionship, for example in Athens (Acts 17:15-16; cf. 1Thess. 3:1,5) and in his final Roman imprisonment (2 Tim.4:9,21). That he favoured team work is specially clear during his missionary journeys. On his first he was accompanied by Barnabas and John Mark (until the latter
defected), on his second by Silas and later Timothy, then Luke, and now at the end of his third Luke supplies his readers with a list of Paul's friends. *He was accompanied by Sopater* (perhaps
the same as the *Sosipater* who in Romans 16:21 is called one of Paul's `relatives') *son of Pyrrhus from Berea, Aristarchus (19:29; 27:2) and Secundus from Thessalonica, Gaius from Derbe*
(probably the same as in 19:29, where one reading makes only Aristachus a Macedonian, not Gaius), *Timothy also, and  Tychicus and Trophimus from the province of Asia*. Trophimus came from
Ephesus (Acts 21:29; cf. 2 Tim. 4:20); perhaps Tychicus did also.  (see Eph.6:21-22; Col.4:7-8; 2 Tim.4:12; Tit. 3:12). In most cases Luke supplies these men's home as well as their name in order bothto identify them clearly and also (probably) to indicate how they represented the different regions which were taking part in the collection. Thus, Macedonia was represented by Sopater (Berea), Aristachus and Secundus (Thessalonica) and perhaps Luke himself (Philippi); Galatia by Gaius (Derbe) and Timothy (Lystra); and Asia by Tychicus and Trophimus (Ephesus). Achaia is missing, but could have been represented by Paul himself, and/or by Titus (2 Cor. 8:16-24), who according to Ramsay's conjecture was a relative of Luke's. This would mean that Paul's entourage consisted of at least nine men.

Luke does not actually mention the offering in connection with them, although it must have been in his mind. In our minds, as we reflect on Paul's associates, should be the threefold witness which they bear. The first is to the growth, unity and even (one might say) `catholicity' of the church. Already
Christian leaders from inland and coastal Asia Minor, from both sides of the Aegean, and from the northern and southern halves of Greece, know that they belong to the same church and in 
consequence co-operate in the same cause. Secondly, they bear witness to the fruitfulness of Paul's missionary expeditions, since Derbe and Lystra were evangelized during his first, Berea and Thessalonica during his second and Ephesus during his third.  All nine men must have been the fruits of mission. But they then became the agents of mission. For, thirdly, they gave evidence of
the missionary-mindedness of the young Christian communities, which already gave up some of their best local leadership to the wider work and witness of Christ's church.

Reading between the lines of Luke's compressed narrative, it seems that Paul and his group of associates left Corinth together and reached Philippi together. Perhaps it was here, and not
earlier, that Luke joined the party (since the previous `we-section' left him there, 16:12, and the next `we-section' begins now in 20:5). Here too the group apparently split into two.  *These men*, at least seven or eight of them, *went on ahead and waited for us at Troas (5). But  we* (just Paul and Luke?) *sailed from Philippi*, that is, from its port Neapolis (16:11), only *after the feast of Unleavened Bread*. This is unlikely to be a purely chronological note. Nor is Luke clearly saying that, having been foiled in his desire to celebrate the Passover in Jerusalem, Paul celebrated it in Philippi instead. Are we sure that he continued to observe the Jewish feasts, even though for a particular purpose he intended to get to Jerusalem in time for Pentecost. (20:16)? I prefer Professor Howard Marshall's explanation: `It is probable that he was celebrating the Christian Passover. i.e. Easter, with the church at Philippi (1 Cor.5:7f.). At all events, it was not until after the festival that they left Philippi, and then it was five days later that they joined the others at Troas. They must have encountered strong head winds, for their voyage in the opposite direction had taken only two days (16:11). Once in Troas, however, they *stayed seven days* (6).


Acts 20:7-12  A week in Troas

Luke records only one incident during this week in Troas, namely the dramatic sleep, fall, death and resuscitation of a young man called Eutychus. Because it took place in the context of a worship service, however, the story is also instructive in the area of early Christian worship.

a). The death and resuscitation of Eutychus.
*On the first day of the week we came together to break bread* (7a). How we interpret this `first day' depends on whether we think Luke followed the Jewish reckoning of a day (from sunset to sunset) or the Roman (from midnight to midnight). It is because  the NEB translators opted for the former that they rendered the opening expression `on the Saturday night'. And certainly the
Bezan text of 19:9 `from the fifth hour to the tenth' (11 a.m. to 4 p.m.) is a Jewish calculation, with the day beginning at 6 a.m. But here Luke is following the Roman way of reckoning, since the
`daylight' of verse 11 is already `the next day' of verse 7.  Professor Bruce is surely right, therefore, that Luke's reference to `the first day of the week', i.e. Sunday, `is the earliest unambiguous evidence we have for the Christian practice of gathering together for worship on that day'. Moreover, the purpose of their assembly was `to break bread', which Luke understood as the Lord's Supper in the context of a fellowship meal, as in the  upper room in Jerusalem (Lk. 22:20; 24:30-35; Acts 2:42). In addition, *Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking* (JBP, `prolonged his address') *until midnight* (7b).

Luke was himself present on this occasion (`we came together',7, and `where we were meeting', 8), so that he was able
to supply several eyewitness details which help us to visualize the scene. First, it was an evening service or meeting, for if Paul's address ended at midnight, it can hardly have begun at midday! No, it probably began at about sunset, the congregation assembling for worship at the conclusion of their day's work. Next, the meeting was being held in a private house, upstairs (8), indeed on the third floor (9). Thirdly, there were many lamps in the upstairs room where we were meeting (8), so that the atmosphere became stuffy and oily, even for Eutychus who was seated in a window (9a; NEB, `was sitting on the window ledge'), which, being unglazed, gave him some fresh air to breathe.
Fourthly, although Eutychus is called `a young man' (neanias) in verse 9, in verse 12 he is only a `boy' (NEB, JB) or `lad' (RSV), pais normally covering the years from 8 to 14. Fifthly, Luke
does not intend us to attach any blame to the boy for falling asleep during the apostle's sermon. For the impression is that he had a protracted struggle with his sleepiness. To begin with, he was gradually sinking into a deep sleep, or better `grew drowsy'; it was only as  Paul talked on and on that he fell sound asleep (NEB, JPB, he was `completely overcome by sleep') and the accident happened: *he fell to the ground from the third story and was picked up dead* (9b). The NEB `picked up for dead', hinting that he might not really have been dead, is definitely wrong. Luke declares that he was dead; as a doctor he could vouch for it.

One can imagine the confusion that then took over, as everybody tried to run downstairs. Paul at once suspended his sermon and himself went down. Then, surely following the precedent established by Elijah with the son of the widow of Zarephath (1Ki.17:19ff), and by Elisha with the son of the Shunammite woman (2 Ki.4:32-33), he threw himself on the young man and put his arms around him, and said, `Don't be  alarmed... He's alive! (10). This is not a statement that he was still alive in spite of his disastrous fall, but that as a result of Paul embracing him he had come alive again. Then he (Paul) went upstairs again and broke bread and ate, sharing in both the Lord's Supper and the fellowship supper, which had evidently not been served previously. Paul also resumed his sermon and *after talking until daylight, he left* (11). Meanwhile, the people (relatives and friends, one may assume) took the young man home alive and were greatly comforted (12).