S T O T T B I B L E S T U D Y

Acts 20: 7-12 - A week in Troas (cont'd)
Acts 20:13-16. A coastal voyage to Miletus
Acts 20;17-38. Paul's address to the Ephesian elders
Acts 20:17-38. b). The message of Paul's speech
Acts. 20:28-35. His exhortation to the elders
Acts 20:1-21:17. d). Ideals of pastoral ministry.
Acts 20:1-21:17. (iii) The value of the people (the sheep).

Acts 20: 7-12 - A week in Troas (cont'd)

b). Some principles of Christian worship.

What can we learn about Christian worship from that Sunday evening service in Troas many centuries ago? We will be wise to exercise caution in answering this question, for Luke's account is purely descriptive, and is not intended to be prescriptive. We have no liberty, therefore, to be slavish, either in copying what
took place (e.g. assembling in a house, indeed on the third floor, meeting in the evening, using oil lamps for illuminating and listening to an inordinately lengthy sermon) or in omitting what is not mentioned (e.g. prayers, psalms, hymns and Scripture readings). Nevertheless, there seem to be principles of public
worship here, which are endorsed by biblical teaching elsewhere and are applicable to us today. First, the disciples met on the Lord's Day for the Lord's Supper. At least verse 7 sounds like a description of the normal, regular practice of the church in Troas. And the evidence is that the Eucharist, as a thankful celebration of the now risen Saviour's death, very early became the main Sunday service, in the context of an agape, that is, a `love feast' or fellowship meal.

Secondly, in addition to the supper there was a sermon, indeed a very long one, for its first part lasted from sunset to midnight (7), and its second from midnight to sunrise (11). Not that we are to envisage that Paul's preaching as purely monologue, since Luke uses the verb dialegomai twice (7,9), which implies discussion, perhaps in the form of questions and answers. The other word he uses is homileo (11), which JBP renders `a long earnest talk' and NEB `much conversation'. It is clearly more free and open than a formal sermon. But at least the apostle took his teaching responsibility seriously. So should we. `There is no hint that Paul took the incident as a rebuke for long-windedness'. And since we have no living apostles comparable to Paul to instruct us today, we need to listen to the teaching of Christ's apostles as it has come down to us in the New Testament. From the earliest days local churches began to make their own collection of the memoirs and letters of the apostles, and obeyed the repeated apostolic injunction to read them, alongside the law and the prophets, in the public assembly (e.g. Col. 4:16; 1 Thess.5:27; Rev.1:3; 22:18-19).

So it is, thirdly, that word and sacrament are combined in the ministry given to the church at Troas, and the universal church has followed suit ever since. For God speaks to his people through his Word both as it is read and expounded from Scripture and as it is dramatized in the two gospel sacraments, baptism and
the Lord's Supper. Perhaps `word and sacrament' is not the best or most accurate coupling, common though it is. For strictly speaking the sacrament itself is a word, a `visible word' according to Augustine. What builds up the church more than anything else is the ministry of God's word as it comes to us through Scripture and Sacrament (that is the right coupling), audibly and visibly, in declaration and drama.

Acts 20:13-16. A coastal voyage to Miletus

This next brief paragraph in Luke's narrative (only four verses in our English Bibles) is a rather breathless account of Paul's voyage from Troas (where he addressed the local church) to Miletus (where he addressed the pastors of the Ephesian Church), He tells us that Paul was `in a hurry' (16); we get the impression
that Luke was in a hurry too. He mentions four coastal or island ports at which Paul and his companions stopped (Assos, Mitylene, Kios and Samos) after leaving Troas and before arriving at Miletus. The we-section which began at verse 5 continues, so that Luke must be drawing on his own daily log of events. The ship evidently sailed each day and anchored each night. `The reason', Ramsay explained. `lies in the wind.' During the Aegean summer `it generally blows from the north, beginning at a very early hour in the morning'. Then `in the late afternoon it dies away' and `at sunset there is a dead calm'.

Leaving Troas, Luke writes, we went on ahead to the ship and sailed for Assos, a port on the Asian mainland about twenty miles south of Troas, *where we were going to take Paul aboard. He had made this arrangement because he was going there on foot* (13), or perhaps simply `by land' (RSV) or `by road' (NEB). Luke shares two facts with us, without explaining them. First, Paul sent his companions on ahead of him. Did he delay his departure from Troas in order first to assure himself that Eutychus was not only alive but well? It is only a guess. Secondly, Paul arranged for his friends to travel to Assos by sea and for himself to go by land. Travel along the coastal road would be quicker than a sea voyage round the cape. But why did he want to be alone? Was it that this was the real beginning of his long journey to Jerusalem?
We know that he was anxious both that he would be rescued from unbelievers in Judea and that his offering would be acceptable to the believers in Jerusalem, for he begged the Christians in Rome to join him in praying for these very things (Rom.15:30ff.). Maybe it was these things which occupied his thoughts and prayers on his lonely walk from Troas to Assos. But again, it is only a guess. When he met us at Assos, the pre-arranged rendezvous, we took him aboard and went on to Mitylene (14), which was the main city of the island of Lesbos, and was situated on its south-east coast. The next day we set sail from there and arrived off Kios (15a), that is, anchored in a mainland port opposite the island of Kios. The day after that we crossed over to Samos, an island west of Ephesus, and `after stopping at Trogyllium' (JB, following the Bezan text), a promontory at the entrance to the gulf, on the following day arrived at Miletus (15b), the mainland harbour at the mouth of the River Meander. Paul had decided to sail past Ephesus, and indeed had now done so in order to reach Miletus, because he wanted to avoid spending time in the province of Asia, a quick visit being in his judgement impossible, for he was in a hurry to reach Jerusalem, if possible, by the day of Pentecost (16).

Acts 20;17-38. Paul's address to the Ephesian elders

From Miletus, Paul sent to Ephesus for the elders of the church (17). As the crow flies, Ephesus was only thirty miles north of Miletus, but the rather circuitous road was longer. It must have taken about three days for a messenger to travel to Ephesus and bring the elders back to Miletus. But in due course
they arrived (18a).

a). Some introductory points
Before we are ready to study the text of Paul's address to the Ephesian elders, several introductory points need to be made. First, this is the only speech in the Acts which is addressed to a Christian audience. All the others are either evangelistic sermons, whether preached to Jewish people (2:14ff.; 3:12ff.; 13:16ff.) or Gentiles (10:34ff.; 14:14ff.; 17:22ff.), or legal defences, whether made before the Sanhedrin in the early days of the church (4:8ff.; 5:29ff.; 7:1ff.) or the five speeches before the Jewish and Roman authorities, which come near the end of the book (22-26).

Secondly, the leaders addressed are all `elders' (17), `pastors' (28a) and `overseers' (28b), and it is evident that these terms denote the same people. `Pastors' is the generic term which describes their role. In our day, in which there is much confusion about the nature and purpose of the pastoral ministry, and much questioning whether the clergy are primarily social workers, psychotherapists, educators, facilitators or administrators, it is important to rehabilitate the noble word `pastors', who are shepherds of Christ's sheep, called to tend, feed and protect them. This pastoral responsibility over the local congregation seems to have been shared by both deacons (although in a supportive role) (1 Tim. 3:8ff.) and those who are called either presbyteroi (elders), a word borrowed from the Jewish synagogue, or episkopoi (overseers), a word borrowed from Greek contexts. These are often - and rightly - referred to as `presbyter-bishops', in order to indicate that during the apostolic period the two titles referred to the same office. In those days there were only `presbyter-bishops and deacons' Phil. 1:1). Those of us who belong to episcopally ordered churches, and believe that a threefold order (bishops, presbyters and deacons)
can be defended and commended from Scripture, do not base our argument on the word episkopoi, but on people like Timothy and Titus who, though not called `bishops', were nevertheless given an oversight and jurisdiction over several churches, with authority to select and ordain their presbyter-bishops and deacons.

Thirdly, the church at Ephesus clearly had a team of presbyter-bishops (presbyteroi in verse 17 and episkopoi in verse 28 are both in the plural). Similarly Paul appointed `elders' in every Galatian church (14:23), as we have seen, and later instructed Titus to do the same in Crete (Tit. 1:5). There is no biblical warrant either for the one-man-band (a single pastor playing all the instruments in the orchestra himself) or for a hierarchical or pyramid structure in the local church (a single pastor perched at the apex of the pyramid). It is not even clear that each of the elders was in charge of an individual house-church. It is better to think of them as a team, some perhaps with the oversight of house-churches, but others with
specialist ministries according to their gifts, and all sharing the pastoral care of Christ's flock. We need today to recover this concept of a pastoral team in the church.

Fourthly, Luke himself was present and heard this speech (see the `we' in 21:1). Perhaps William Neil is correct in suggesting that `Luke may have made notes at the time'. Certainly the address has an authentic Pauline flavour. What has struck many students is the correspondence, in both vocabulary and content, between the speech and Paul's letters. Themes in his letters which he touches on in his speech are the grace of God (24,32), the kingdom of God (25), the purpose (boule) of God (27), the
redeeming blood of Christ (28), repentance and faith (21), the church of God and its edification (28,32), the inevitability of suffering (23-24), the danger of false teachers (29-30), the need for vigilance (28,31), running the race (24) and our final inheritance (32).

Acts 20:17-38. b). The message of Paul's speech.

It may be helpful to divide Paul's speech into three portions, relating to the past, the future and the present.

(i) His ministry in Ephesus (20:18b-21)
You know how I lived, he says (18b). Again, You know (20), although this is a resumptive clause in the English text, which is not in the Greek. Yet again later `you yourselves know' (34). This repeated emphasis on their knowledge of him is reminiscent of 1 Thessalonians 2, where he wrote `You know,
brothers (1)..., as you know (2)..., You know (5)..., Surely you remember (9)..., You are witnesses (10)..., For you know (11)...'. A vicious smear campaign has been launched against Paul in Thessalonica. Because he had had to be smuggled out of the city by night and had not returned, his critics accused him of
insincerity. Something similar seems to have happened in Ephesus during the year or so since he had left the city. So he needed to defend the sincerity of his motives and, as in Thessalonica so in Ephesus, he did it by reminding them of his visit. They knew how he had lived during the whole time he was with them from beginning to end. He appealed to their memory, especially of four aspects of his ministry - his humility (meaning perhaps his humiliations), his tears, his testings on account of `the machinations of the Jews' (19, NEB), and his faithful preaching- teaching ministry, in public and in private, in which he concentrated on the need for both Jews and Gentiles to repent and to believe in the Lord Jesus.

(ii) His future sufferings. (20:22-27).
In this section Luke replaces the `you know...you know...' of the previous paragraph with `I know (23)..., I know (25)..., I know (29)'. For he turns from the past which they knew to the future which the Holy Spirit was teaching him and which he now shared with them. The same Holy Spirit who warns him in every town
(perhaps through prophets) of prison and hardships (23), nevertheless compels him to keep travelling to Jerusalem (22). For his overriding concern is not at all costs to survive, but rather that he may finish the race and complete his Christ-given task of bearing witness to the good news of God's grace (24). And Paul
knows something else. His prophetic eyes peer beyond Jerusalem and his sufferings there to the mission visits to Rome and to Spain of which he is still dreaming (Acts 19:21; Rom.15:23-29). It must be for this reason that he knows that none of them will see him again (25). This fact adds a poignant finality to the occasion. He makes a solemn declaration that, as a watchman like Ezekiel (Ezk.33:1ff.), he is innocent of everybody's blood (26). His conscience is clear. He has not shrunk from proclaiming to them God's whole purpose of salvation (27). Consequently, he cannot be held responsible if any of them might perish.

Acts. 20:28-35. His exhortation to the elders

Having looked back to his ministry in Ephesus (which they know) and on his coming sufferings and separation from them (which he knows), Paul now gives them his final charge. The past and the
future will together shape their present ministry. In essence, his appeal is for vigilance: `Keep watch!' (28)...'Be on your guard!' (31).

We note that the Ephesian pastors must first keep watch over themselves, and only then over the flock over which the Holy Spirit had made them responsible. For they cannot care adequately for others if they neglect the care and culture of their own souls. They are to `be shepherds' of God's church, poimaino
meaning in general to `tend' a flock and in particular `to lead a flock to pasture, and so to feed it'. This is the first duty of shepherds. `Should not the shepherds take care of the flock?' (Ezk.34:2). Moreover pastors will the more diligent in their ministry if they remember that their flock is the church of God,
which he bought with his own blood. The startling concept of God having and shedding blood, although the church fathers Ignatius and Tertullian spoke of it, seems to have led some scribes to write `the church of the Lord', meaning the Lord Jesus. But this expression occurs nowhere in the new Testament, whereas `the church of God' is a regular Pauline expression. It should therefore be retained. Then the rest of the sentence should be translated `which he bought with the blood of his Own' (RSV margin, NEB margin; cf. Rom.8:32). This sense of *idios* (`own'), writes F.F.Bruce, `is well attested by the papyri, where it is
"used thus as a term of endearment to near relations"'. The second need for watchfulness is the wolves, that is, the false teachers who, Paul knows, will after his departure enter and devastate Christ's flock (29). Some of them will arise even from within the church. By distorting the truth, they will induce people to forsake it and follow them instead (30). So the Ephesian pastors must be on their guard, as Paul had constantly warned them while he was with them (31). We have only to read both Letters to Timothy and the letter to Ephesus in Revelation 2:1ff. to know that what Paul predicted came to pass. Perhaps it would not have done if the pastors had been more vigilant.

After exhorting the Ephesian elders to be watchful both over the sheep and against the wolves, the apostle proceeds to commend them to God and his word of grace (32). Then suddenly, as if to enforce his appeal and commendation, he reminds them again of the example he has set them. Like Samuel in his farewell charge (1 Sam. 12 :1ff.), Paul declares that he has coveted nobody's money or clothing (33). Instead he has supported himself and his companions. One can imagine his gesture as he refers to `these hands of mine' (34). And by his hard manual work he has exemplified the truth of an otherwise unknown saying of Jesus, `It is more blessed to give than to receive' (35).

c). The farewell (20:36-38)
When he had said this, he knelt down with all of them and prayed. They all wept as they embraced him and kissed him. What grieved them most was his statement that they would never see his face again. Then they accompanied him to the ship.

Acts 20:1-21:17. d). Ideals of pastoral ministry

In developing the pastoral metaphor, it is noteworthy that Paul described his own teaching ministry (as their `shepherds'), warned them of false teachers ('wolves') and affirmed the value of their church members (God's `sheep').

(i) The example of the apostle (the shepherd).
Several times he reminded the elders of his example. There had been a degree of thoroughness about it, which left his conscience clear. First, he had been thorough in his teaching. He had taught them about God's grace and kingdom (24-25) and the necessity of repentance and faith (21). He had not shrunk from
declaring to them either what was profitable to them (20) or God's whole salvation plan (27). Secondly, he had been thorough in his coverage. He was as concerned to reach the whole population of Ephesus as he was to teach the whole purpose of God. He wanted to teach everything to everybody! So he had a ministry to both Jews and Gentiles, both residents and visitors. Thirdly, he was thorough in his methods. He taught both publicly (in the synagogue and lecture hall) and privately (in homes), and he continued both day and night (20, 31). He was absolutely indefatigable. In modern terms, Paul's threefold thoroughness was a fine example of `evangelism in depth'. He shared all possible truth with all possible people in all possible ways. He taught the whole gospel to the whole city with his whole strength. His pastoral example must have been an unfailing inspiration to the Ephesian pastors.

(ii) The rise of false teachers (the wolves).
In the ancient Near East wolves were the chief enemy of sheep. Hunting now singly now in packs, they were a constant threat. Sheep were defenceless against them. Shepherds could not afford to relax their vigilance. Nor can Christian pastors. Jesus himself warned of false prophets; `wolves in sheep's clothing' he called them (Mt.7:15).

So the shepherds of Christ's flock have a double duty: to feed the sheep (by teaching the truth) and to protect them from wolves (by warning of error). As Paul put it to Titus, elders must hold firm the sure word according to apostolic teaching, so that they would be able both `to give instruction in sound doctrine and
also to confute those who contradict it' (Tit.1:9, RSV). This emphasis is unpopular today. We are frequently told always to be positive in our teaching, and never negative. But those who say this have either not read the New Testament or, having read it, they disagree with it. For the Lord Jesus and his apostles refuted error themselves and urges us to do the same. One wonders if it is the neglect of this obligation which is the major cause of today's theological confusion. If, when false teaching arises,
Christian leaders sit idly by and do nothing, or turn tail and flee, they will earn the terrible epithet `hirelings' who care nothing for Christ's flock (Jn. 10:12ff.). Then too it will be said of believers, as it was of Israel, that `they were scattered, because there was no shepherd, and ...they became food for all
the wild animals (Ezk. 34:5).

Acts 20:1-21:17. (iii) The value of the people (the sheep)

Implicit in verse 28 is the truth that the pastoral oversight of the church belongs ultimately to God himself. Indeed, each of the three persons of the Trinity has a share in this oversight. To begin with, the church is `God's church'. Next, whether we read that he redeemed it `with his own blood' or `with the blood of his own', it is plain that the purchase price was the blood of Christ. And over this church, which belongs to God and has been bought by Christ, the Holy Spirit appoints overseers. So the oversight is his too, or he could not delegate it to others. This splendid Trinitarian affirmation, that the pastoral oversight of the church belongs to God (father, Son and Holy Spirit), should have a profound effect on pastors. It should humble us to remember that the church is not ours, but God's. And it should inspire us to faithfulness. For sheep are not at all the clean and cuddly creatures they may appear. In fact they are dirty, subject to unpleasant pests, and regularly need to be dipped in strong chemicals to rid them of lice, ticks and worms. They are also unintelligent, wayward and obstinate. I hesitate to apply the metaphor too closely and characterize the people of God as dirty, lousy and stupid! But some people are a great trial to their pastors (and *vice versa*). And their pastors will persevere in caring for them only if they remember how valuable they are in
God's sight. They are the flock of God the Father, purchased by the precious blood of God the Son, and supervised by overseers appointed by God the Holy Spirit. if the three persons of the Trinity are thus committed to the welfare of the people, should we not be also? Richard Baxter's great book *The reformed Pastor* (1656) is really an exposition of Acts 20:28. He wrote:

Oh then, let us hear these arguments of Christ, whenever we feel ourselves grow dull and careless: `Did I die for them, and wilt not thou look after them? Were they worth my blood and are not worth thy labour? Did I come down from heaven to earth, to seek and to save that which was lost; and wilt thou not go the
next door or street or village to seek them? How small is thy labour and condescension as to mine? I debased myself to this, but it is thy honour to be so employed. Have I done and suffered so much for their salvation; and was I willing to make thee a co-worker with me, and wilt thou refuse that little that lieth upon thy hands?'