Bible Study 6/4/25

Acts 20:1-16

Acts 20:1 After the uproar had ceased, Paul sent for the disciples, and when he had exhorted them and taken his leave of them, he left to go to Macedonia.

As you all studied last week, Paul seems to have caused quite the uproar in Ephesus. It was a pretty interesting perspective that these people had. They weren’t so much worried about what he was teaching, or about whether or not the gospel message he was proclaiming was true or blasphemous, but their concern seems to have been over losing the comfort of the god that they had created. Their concern was that he was “saying that gods made with hands are no gods at all” and that “not only is there danger that this trade of ours fall into disrepute, but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis be regarded as worthless and that she whom all of Asia and the world worship will even be dethroned from her magnificence.” It seems that their real concern was with the money they were making as a result of this temple, as well as the image of everything the temple represented, which seems like it maybe had a direct impact on their own reputation. So they started riling the people up and causing an uproar, which was ultimately squashed because they really didn’t have much of anything for their argument to stand on. Ephesus was trying, and failing, to become an area hostile toward the gospel. Now we land in chapter 20 where Paul, after teaching the disciples once more, decided that it was time to leave Ephesus at least for a little while and head down to Macedonia. While he almost certainly hoped to return to Ephesus, this would end up being his last visit to the church. Though we don’t know the specific reason for him never returning, it was certainly possible that he just sought to avoid bringing further trouble upon himself and the church as a result of his presence and teaching. So he brought the members of the church together one last time to give them a farewell message, likely similar to what we can read in the rest of chapter 20 (which we will get to in September). Assuming that this journey to Macedonia is the same one that Paul refers to in 2 Corinthians 2, he would have gone north from here up to Troas, a good 100-150 mile journey. It was during this time that the dispute in the church at Corinth had come to a head. Paul had sent Titus there with a letter (which is now lost) in order to effect a reconciliation and prepare the way for his own impending visit, a visit which he was unwilling to make if he was to be confronted by a church that was still at odds with him. Paul apparently hoped to meet Titus there, but when Titus failed to keep the rendezvous Paul was so anxious about the situation that he cross over into Macedonia, hoping to meet him sooner.

Acts 20:2–3 When he had gone through those districts and had given them much exhortation, he came to Greece. And there he spent three months, and when a plot was formed against him by the Jews as he was about to set sail for Syria, he decided to return through Macedonia.

Once Paul had arrived in Macedonia, his anxiety that he was feeling was calmed by the arrival of Titus with good news about what was happening in the church. It is at this time that Paul wrote his next letter to the church in Corinth (2 Corinthians), which he sent back to the church with Titus and two other gospel workers. While all this is happening at this time, we can see clearly in the text that this isn’t Luke’s focus in what he is recording, but rather he simply focuses on reporting Paul’s ministry in Macedonia as he revisits the churches there. Luke also doesn’t note Paul’s work further west of Greece in Illyricum, where Paul claimed to have preached (Romans 15:19), and likely took place during this missionary trip. Paul’s stay at Corinth for three months was probably during the winter months when travel would’ve been difficult. Amongst many other things that he would’ve done during this time, it is during this stay that he wrote his letter to the Romans. He had planned in the spring to head out to Syria, but upon learning about a plot formed against him he decided to change his plans and return back through Macedonia. During this season there would probably be numbers of Jews going to Jerusalem for Passover or for Pentecost, so it would not have been too difficult to seize an opportunity on the boat to attack Paul. Presumably the Jews from Corinth, who had been thwarted in their earlier attack on Paul in chapter 18 were involved in the plot, but Luke hasn’t added any details of the plot or how Paul came to know about it. So to avoid his enemies, Paul took a different route.

Acts 20:4 And he was accompanied by Sopater of Berea, the son of Pyrrhus, and by Aristarchus and Secundus of the Thessalonians, and Gaius of Derbe, and Timothy, and Tychicus and Trophimus of Asia.

At this point in the narrative Luke insets a list of the people who formed Paul’s traveling companions on his journey, likely including them as firsthand witnesses to the success of Paul’s mission who would back up his report to the church in Jerusalem, where many Christians were still suspicious of what he was doing. It is also likely that these individuals were persons appointed by the different churches to take their shares of the collection to Jerusalem, though there are issues with that view because of who is in the company and from where there are no representatives. As usual, if someone is mentioned by name, then they would’ve been known by the early church even if they do not have significant meaning to us today. First we have Sopater from Berea. Likely this is a shorter name for a man named Sosipater, who is mentioned in Romans 16:21 as a kinsman of Paul and a fellow worker in the gospel. Next we have two Thessalonians, Aristarchus and Secundus. Aristarchus has already been mentioned in 19:29 and is recorded as accompanying Paul on the first stage of his journey from Jerusalem to Rome in chapter 27. We don’t know anything more about Secundus. We’ve seen Gaius pop up a few times at this point. He came from Derbe in Galatia, along with Timothy who we also know well. There were also two people from Asia (probably Ephesus); Tychicus was later associated with Paul’s letters to Asia Minor (mentioned in Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Timothy and Titus), and Trophimus was involved in the trouble that led to Paul’s arrest in Jerusalem, recorded in chapter 21 of Acts and in 2 Timothy. Since there is no mention of a representative from Philippi, it is hard to say for certain that these were church members bringing gifts to Jerusalem, though it is still possible that such a person was just not mentioned. There is also no representative from Corinth mentioned, though in 1 Corinthians 16 Paul says that he was coming with letters and gifts, so it is likely that Paul took up the task of representing the church in Corinth himself. Also interesting, there is no mention of Titus in this group with Paul, so he was probably engaged in ministry elsewhere.

Acts 20:5–6 But these had gone on ahead and were waiting for us at Troas. We sailed from Philippi after the days of Unleavened Bread, and came to them at Troas within five days; and there we stayed seven days.

Though we aren’t given the reason for it, Luke records that Paul’s companions went ahead of him in Troas. Maybe you caught it, maybe you didn’t, but the narrative switches again to a first-person account rather than a third-person account, informing the reader that Luke had rejoined the group at this point. While everyone else went ahead to Troas, Luke stayed with Paul. Luke says that those who went ahead “were waiting for us” and that “we sailed from Philippi”. There may have been others with them, but we at least know that Luke and Paul were together for this portion of the journey. The last time we saw Luke write the account in first person was also in Philippi, so it is possible that the language is picking back up in Philippi because Luke remained there, though it is also possible that Luke met up with Paul at the beginning of this trip. Paul and the others waited until after the feast of Unleavened Bread before their departure. It is probable that he was celebrating the Christian Passover, aka Easter, with the church at Philippi, which is recorded in 1 Corinthians 5:7, rather than that this is merely a Jewish time-note. The journey from Neapolis, the port for Philippi, to Troas took longer than the jouney in the reverse direction, likely owing to adverse wind conditions. Once they arrived at Troas, they spent a week there, which Luke breaks down a bit in the following verses.

Acts 20:7–8 On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to leave the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight. There were many lamps in the upper room where we were gathered together.

So the disciples gathered together on the first day of the week to break bread and to have a final opportunity to listen to Paul’s teaching. The breaking of bread is the term used especially in Acts for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, and this passage is of particular interest in providing the first allusion to the Christian custom of meeting on the first day of the week for the purpose. Based on the way that Jewish time worked, this would mean that the Christians would’ve gathered together on Saturday evening, so Paul would’ve left to continue his journey on Sunday morning. If this were according to the Roman method of the start of a new day beginning at dawn rather than at sunset, then the Christians would’ve met Sunday evening (the first day of the Jewish week), or Saturday evening, the first day of the Roman week. Since elsewhere Luke records a day beginning from dawn, he appears to follow the Roman method of time-reckoning combined with the Jewish calendar, meaning these Christians would’ve met together on Sunday evening and Paul would’ve departed on Monday. While to us Paul preaching until midnight seems like a pretty long message, it was, and still is, actually quite common in some countries, especially in the third world, for services to last for several hours with fairly long sermons. Should we test it out some Sunday? Knowing this, the story that follows these verses makes a little more sense. All the elements were there - a lengthy evening with a lengthy sermon is a room lit by many oil lamps, which both kept the room warm while also likely emitting an odor that could put someone to sleep. And that’s exactly what happened next.

Acts 20:9–10 And there was a young man named Eutychus sitting on the window sill, sinking into a deep sleep; and as Paul kept on talking, he was overcome by sleep and fell down from the third floor and was picked up dead. But Paul went down and fell upon him, and after embracing him, he said, “Do not be troubled, for his life is in him.”

This poor kid. The way this is written, we can know that this young man is somewhere in the range of 8-14 years old. So it’s not an old man snoring during the sermon, but a young kid that fell prey to all the elements around him. It was a crowded room, probably super warm, and a several hour long service. He probably should’ve found a better spot to sit besides in an open window, but my thought is maybe he moved over there to try and get some fresh air to help him wake up or cool off. Or that was just the seat he had from the start. Though the text says he fell from the third floor, this would’ve actually been the second story above ground, like your normal two-story house with a basement. Rough estimate would put this fall at around 10-12 feet. It is actually fairly surprising that such a fall would kill the young man. According to the internet, the place with all the answers, falls of around 45 feet have a 50/50 chance of being fatal. With that information, even if this kid was on the roof of the house (15-20 feet up), the chances of the fall being fatal would be fairly slim. Perhaps he fell just right, because he was found and picked up dead. And let’s be clear - Luke, the physician, would not have said this boy was dead if he wasn’t actually dead. So he isn’t creating drama for the sake of the story, but communicating clearly that a miracle took place here - the boy was dead and the power of Christ through Paul would bring him back to life.

Acts 20:11–13 When he had gone back up and had broken the bread and eaten, he talked with them a long while until daybreak, and then left. They took away the boy alive, and were greatly comforted. But we, going ahead to the ship, set sail for Assos, intending from there to take Paul on board; for so he had arranged it, intending himself to go by land.

After the interruption to the meeting, Paul broke bread and ate. The description doesn’t make it clear whether it here refers to the Lord’s Supper or to a meal, but I would gather the latter, especially since it seems that the service had ended and transitioned to a time of fellowship for the believers gathered there. However, one commentator finds it odd that those gathered would wait until midnight to eat the meal, so there are some that think it is a reference to the Lord’s Supper and not an actual meal. Could really go either way, but regardless, it is safe to say that most gathered would’ve been quite hungry by the time the service ended. The story of Eutychus seems almost like an afterthought as Luke tells the story, noting nothing more than that he was alive and the people were comforted. Perhaps he was still unconscious at this point in the story, as nothing really implies that he had woken up just yet even though he was alive. This missing detail in the story has led some to believe that the boy never actually died, but rather the miracle is that a fall that should’ve killed him did not. I go back to the way Luke wrote the account, and if Luke said that the boy was dead then I am going to choose to believe that he was dead and then brought back to life and is here sleeping, not that he was prevented from dying when he should have and only appeared dead. Now that this interesting evening had concluded, it was time to continue on the journey. Luke and his companions went by ship to Assos, about 20 miles away, while Paul chose to go instead by land. The sea journey was longer than the direct distance by land and could be stormy. No reason is given here why Paul should have chosen to go it alone, and though it would not have been his purpose in recording this, it is quite impressive that Paul would opt such a long walk after a long night in which he got no sleep.

Acts 20:14–16 And when he met us at Assos, we took him on board and came to Mitylene. Sailing from there, we arrived the following day opposite Chios; and the next day we crossed over to Samos; and the day following we came to Miletus. For Paul had decided to sail past Ephesus so that he would not have to spend time in Asia; for he was hurrying to be in Jerusalem, if possible, on the day of Pentecost.

The travelers met up with one another at Assos. Paul joined the ship and it proceeded some 44 miles further south to Mitylene, the chief town on the island of Lesbos. The next day they came opposite the island of Chios, which lies at the end of a long peninsula which juts out between Smyrna on the north and Ephesus on the south. Keeping out to sea, they bypassed Ephesus and came to Samos, an island off the coast to the south of Ephesus. Then on the next day they came to Miletus, which was about 30 miles south of Ephesus. Luke explains Paul’s decision to bypass Ephesus as due to his desire to go to Jerusalem in time for Pentecost. There was not a lot of time between the feast of unleavened bread, spent at Troas, and the Pentecost for the journey, although it was perfectly possible to accomplish it within the time. Paul probably feared that if he stopped at Ephesus he would be unable to get away again in a hurry; he had therefore chosen a ship which went by a faster route. Of course, there is also the possibility that Paul was concerned of causing further disturbances if he reappeared in Ephesus, which is why he had left at the beginning of this chapter.

NEXT BIBLE STUDY - Rest of chapter 20 on September 10.