Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM (20:1–21:16)

A phase of Paul’s public ministry closed after Ephesus, which was its climax. Acts 20:1–21:16 is not only a geographic transition from Ephesus to Jerusalem[1] but the transition from his accepted public ministry to his captivity (his “passion,” so to speak). Far from the transition being unimportant, Luke highlights elements of this transition,[2] especially during its later eyewitness “we” portion.

The voyage includes a miracle (20:7–12); a summary of Paul’s central message to a church he had guided (20:18–35); and scenes of great affection for Paul (20:36–21:14). Luke uses the scenes of affection to reveal more about Paul’s ēthos, or character (through the way that characters within the narrative world who knew him had perceived him), than Luke’s audience could otherwise infer merely from Luke’s fast-paced narrative.

By narrating even Paul’s extended stays in 20:1–21:16 only briefly (esp. 20:3), Luke creates another continuous journey account, interrupted only by a major speech (20:18–35). Hellenistic narratives employed such devices to organize their material, and they appear elsewhere in Luke-Acts (cf. Luke 9–19; Acts 13–14; 15:36–18:1; 18:18–19:1).[3] Gaventa suggests episodes alternating between Paul’s travels and “discrete dramatic events” in Acts 20:1–21:17:[4]

The first travel sequence, 20:1–16, is a chronological transition, kept as brief as possible, to return Paul to the church in Ephesus, which he leaves in 20:1. (The speech in 20:18–35 does not take place in Ephesus, but it is addressed to the leaders of the church there [20:16–17].) Luke retains the story of Eutychus in this compressed travel sequence, however, because the raising parallels miracles of Jesus and Peter (Luke 7:11–17; Acts 9:36–42). Luke may also report this event in part because this is a point where Luke can add his own eyewitness testimony (he was present at the meeting, Acts 20:7). It is possible (though I think less than clear) that Luke preserves this story in the midst of a section surrounded by the Ephesian church to suggest that the God who could raise Eutychus would also preserve the church in Ephesus despite its problems.

Luke reports travel details more minutely at some points than others, but he does so most commonly in “we” narratives, especially when he is covering ground already traveled by Paul earlier in the book.[5] Although Paul’s letters reveal that even here Luke summarizes and simplifies, the travel notes do reflect early material.[6] As one early twentieth-century scholar remarked, “The narrative portion of the twentieth chapter of Acts is full and correct enough for a guide-book.”[7] Ancients seem to have appreciated fresh travel details more than most modern Western readers would;[8] descriptions of where ships went appear also in novels (e.g., Char. Chaer. 1.11, though the modes and timing appear less careful).[9] Likewise, in one of his letters, Cicero spends the first paragraph summarizing his recent travels, including the number of days spent in various locations (Att. 5.12).

This is one of the few parts of Paul’s life where his letters provide a secure sequence, and the sequence here and in following chapters fits Paul’s letters precisely, where there is overlap. Neither source includes every detail found in the other (if they did, we would need to suspect dependence),[10] but they confirm each other on the points where they overlap. I provide on pages 2948–49 a much fuller comparison than at Acts 19:21.[11]

1. Macedonia, Achaia, and Macedonia (20:1–5)

Paul contemplated this phase of his activity in Acts 19:21, but Luke hurries over it quickly, eager to reach that verse’s primary goals of Judea and Rome. Because Paul’s travels here revisit major ministry locations from his second mission, Luke in a sense uses this compressed historical information to briefly re-encapsulate that mission, thereby reminding the audience that Paul now leaves his successful Diaspora mission to return to Jerusalem.

Paul’s Letters

Acts

Paul taught the “Galatians” about the collection (1 Cor 16:1)

*

Paul strengthens “the disciples” throughout Galatia and Phrygia (18:23)

Paul’s ministry in Ephesus (1 Cor 16:8)

Paul’s ministry in Ephesus (19:1–20)

Many events while Paul is in Ephesus (1 Cor 16:8)

a. Visitors: members of Chloe’s household (1 Cor 1:11); Stephanas, Fortunatus, Achaicus with a gift (16:17); someone (probably Stephanas’s group) with a letter (7:1)

b. Writes 1 Corinthians

c. Probably his second, painful visit to Corinth (briefly alluded to in 2 Cor 2:1; 12:14; 13:2)†

Paul’s stay in Ephesus lasts more than two years (19:8, 10; 20:31)

The summaries are too brief (esp. 19:10), with a few examples added that are germane to Luke’s points about the gospel spreading (19:10–20) and persecution (19:23–20:1); he has addressed the Corinthian church’s inner life too little for us to expect comment on the Corinthian correspondence from Ephesus

Apollos is known to the Corinthians as a strong preacher and is with Paul in Ephesus (1 Cor 16:12)

Apollos earlier left Ephesus for Corinth, where he preached for a period of time (18:24–28)

Paul plans to visit

a. Macedonia (1 Cor 16:5)‡

b. Then Achaia (16:5–6; cf. 4:18–21)

c. Judea (Rom 15:25; 2 Cor 1:16)

d. And finally Rome (Rom 1:11–13; 15:23–25; cf. 2 Cor 10:16)

Paul plans to visit

a. Macedonia

b. Achaia

c. Judea

d. Rome (in that sequence; 19:21)

§

While in Ephesus, Paul sends Timothy and a companion into Macedonia (19:21); Timothy is next mentioned leaving Corinth (or just possibly Macedonia) with Paul (20:3–4)

The situation in Corinth

a. At one point, Paul considers sailing to Corinth before Macedonia (2 Cor 1:15–16),‖ but the plans do not materialize (1:17), partly because of conflict with the Corinthian church (2:1–3)

b. At some point, rival Jewish-Christian missionaries (2:17; 4:2) with letters of recommendation (3:1) and self-commendations (10:12–18; 11:18) enter Corinth, exacerbating the tension with Paul (11:4, 12–15, 19–23)

c. Paul sends Titus to Corinth with a sorrowful letter (2:13)

In a section already compressed, Luke omits conflicts with the Corinthian church, which would not serve his purpose

Paul visits Troas (2 Cor 2:12)

Implied as a normal part of the journey through Macedonia, the simplest route between Asia and Greece (16:11; 20:5–6)

Events in Macedonia

a. Anxious about the Corinthians’ response, not having heard from Titus, Paul leaves Troas for Macedonia (2 Cor 2:13; 7:5; cf. 1 Cor 16:5)

b. Offerings in Macedonia (2 Cor 8:1–5; 9:2)

c. Probably a visit to Illyricum (Rom 15:19),# though some scholars place this closer to Acts 17:10 (less likely)**

d. Titus, returning from Corinth, meets Paul in Macedonia with good news that the Corinthians have disciplined the offender (2 Cor 7:6–7, 13)

e. Paul writes 2 Corinthians and sends it with Titus, in preparation for the collection to be ready when he arrives (8:6, 16–19, 22–23; 9:3–5; cf. 1 Cor 16:2); he expresses confidence in Corinthians (2 Cor 8:24; 9:2)

Paul visits Macedonia (20:1–2)

Again Luke omits details of the conflict with the Corinthians (which provide little narrative action, do not advance Luke’s apologetic point, and may have been forgotten or remembered only painfully by Luke’s audience, who may be Greeks and Macedonians, after Paul’s death)

Despite his delay (2 Cor 1:16–17; 2:1), Paul plans to visit Corinth (13:1) with traveling companions from other cities (9:4)

Paul visits Achaia (20:2–3), and soon afterward we see him with traveling companions from various cities (20:4)

Paul finishes his collection in Macedonia and Achaia (Rom 15:26) and writes Romans from Corinth, sending it by a church leader from Cenchreae (16:1)

††

Paul in Achaia for three months (20:2–3)

After leaving Macedonia and Achaia (Rom 15:26), Paul presumably carries through his plan to visit Jerusalem (15:25)

Paul in Jerusalem (21:17)

Paul is aware that Jerusalem might prove dangerous (Rom 15:31); his next letters are from Roman captivity (least disputed, Philippians; Philemon)

Paul is arrested in Jerusalem and detained by the Romans (22:24–23:30)

Paul apparently ends up in Rome, though not necessarily by the means he planned (Phil 4:22; cf. Rom 15:23–24)

Paul uses his Roman citizenship to have his case transferred to Rome (25:10–12)

*

He writes as if the Corinthian Christians knew of this journey.

†

Riesner,

Early Period

, 299, appears to think of Paul’s second letter as a surrogate visit. Given Luke’s summary of “two years” in a verse in Acts 19:10 (though adding afterward an anecdote), however, we should not count Luke’s silence against an interim journey noted only in 2 Corinthians. The visit may have been brief but at least long enough to justify the voyage, which by itself may have taken more than two weeks each way (see Cic.

Att.

5.12–13); no ship could make it in a night (Aeschylus

Ag

. 279–81).

‡

For a planned Macedonian visit, cf. also Phil 2:24; but unless this was written during an Ephesian imprisonment (which I doubt; cf. the likeliest sense of 4:22), it involves later plans (as also 1 Tim 1:3).

§

These may represent two comings of Timothy (based on the aorist indicative in 1 Cor 4:17 and the aorist subjunctive in 16:10); but if Paul writes from his own chronological standpoint (Timothy’s future arrival but past sending), Timothy might be part of the party bearing the letter (perhaps with others in 16:17–18). Paul plans to send Timothy to Macedonia in Phil 2:19, but unless he writes from an Ephesian imprisonment (I think that Phil 4:22 points more easily to a Roman one; even a Caesarean provenance is more likely for Philippians than an Ephesian one), this is later.

‖

This was probably discussed either in his letter of reproof (2 Cor 2:4; 7:8), in which case the coming may have been a threat (cf. 1 Cor 4:18–21; 2 Cor 13:2) and was delayed so that Paul would not have to carry it out (2 Cor 2:1–4), or in an earlier letter, in which case the letter of reproof (2:4) temporarily substituted for his presence. Although some defend the identification of 2 Cor 10–13 with this “tearful letter” (e.g., Watson, “Painful Letter”; Talbert,

Corinthians

, xix), most doubt it (Thrall,

2 Corinthians

, 13–18; Bruce,

Corinthians

, 167–68; Sumney,

Opponents

, 126; Scott,

Corinthians

, 6; Amador, “Revisiting,” 95–98; Kreitzer,

Corinthians

, 23–25; Best,

Corinthians

, 2–3).

#

Unless the grammar there reads “as far as Illyricum,” treating Macedonia as a symbolic whole (see, e.g., Dunn,

Romans

, 864).

**

That section of Acts details Paul’s movements fairly specifically whereas omissions of detail are far more to be expected in Acts 20:1–3; see comment on Acts 17:10.

††

A Corinthian provenance for Romans is also likely because he has finished the collection (Rom 15:25–26; Riesner,

Early Period

, 233–34) and because of the status and perhaps high proportion of Roman names among his colleagues (Rom 16:22–23; cf. 1 Cor 1:14); though these arguments might also fit Philippi, Acts (if it is not circular to admit its evidence here) suggests a much briefer stay in Philippi (Acts 20:3, 6); cf. also the discussion of Erastus (Rom 16:23) at Acts 19:22. The connection with Cenchreae in Rom 16:1 is most important; the ending of Romans is generally accepted today as part of the original letter (Hunter,

Romans

, 128–29; Lönnermark, “Frågan”; Donfried, “Note on Romans 16”; Stowers,

Diatribe

, 183; idem,

Letter Writing

, 155; Drane, “Romans,” 223; esp. Gamble,

Textual History

;

pace

, earlier, e.g., Manson, “Letter”; Richards, “Chronological Relationship,” 30; McDonald, “Romans XVI”). Most accept this provenance for Romans (e.g., Bruce,

Commentary

, 405; Hemer,

Acts in History

, 188; Barrett,

Acts

, 947).

Paul’s own letters detail his plans and movements in this period much more fully than does Luke (see the table above, on 20:1–21:16, and comment below). This suggests that Luke does not depend on Paul’s letters for his account;[12] it also reminds us that Luke is summarizing most periods of Paul’s life, not providing a blow-by-blow account. Where he provides more detail, it is because he is able to provide dramatic scenes or material useful for his themes, not because this is the only point at which details were later remembered.

a. Ephesian Interest (20:1)

Paul left Ephesus soon after the riot (20:1). Many scholars think that dangers forced Paul to leave Ephesus;[13] although Luke attributes Paul’s departure to other factors (19:21), it is clear from his own account that Ephesus would prove less hospitable to the missionary (cf. 19:30–31). In any case, Luke emphasizes that, despite the troubles in Ephesus, Paul meets with the disciples before leaving, as elsewhere in the face of conflict (14:20; 16:40). This meeting reinforces his portrait of Paul’s courage and loyalty to the young churches. Part of Paul’s farewell here is the farewell “greetings” (note the use of ἀσπασάμενος); on greetings, see comment on Acts 21:7.

Luke, who all but omits the collection (24:17),[14] has little reason to emphasize a trip to Macedonia and Achaia (20:1–2) whose focal point was the collection (Rom 15:26; 1 Cor 16:1–5; cf. 2 Cor 8–9);[15] he covers a span of several months in two verses (Acts 20:2–3). Luke is eager to return to the aftermath of the Ephesus account—namely, a sermon for which he was present (20:15, 17–35) and that he shapes to prefigure Paul’s ultimate witness in Rome.

b. Ministry in Macedonia (20:1–2a)

Although Luke treats the ministry in Macedonia cursorily (apart from Paul’s “much speech,” λόγῳ πολλῷ), we can supplement our knowledge of the historical events of this period. Paul’s correspondence in what we call 2 Corinthians provides many details of his stay in Macedonia as well as the ongoing discussion he had there with Corinth via letters and messengers.[16]

Apparently, after leaving Ephesus, Paul went north to Troas (2 Cor 2:12–13) and evangelized. Paul had been promising the Corinthians that he would visit them (1 Cor 4:19, 21; 16:5–7),[17] and he briefly even considered starting the collection in Achaia, visiting them before and after Macedonia (2 Cor 1:15–16). He was delayed, however, out of concern for how they would receive him and how he would be forced to deal with them (1:17; 1:23–2:1).[18] (Circumstances could alter travel plans [Rom 1:13].)

The conflict over the Corinthians’ behavior grew so heated that Paul apparently feared that he would be compelled to carry out the discipline he had threatened (1 Cor 4:18–21; 2 Cor 13:2),[19] which he did not wish to do (2 Cor 2:1; 13:10).[20] Thus he sent a firm letter by Titus in lieu of his presence (2:4; 7:8), unwilling to come until the congregation was reconciled to him (1:23).[21] When Titus did not meet him as arranged, Paul feared that something had gone wrong, and (despite his flourishing ministry in Troas) he anxiously pressed ahead into Macedonia to meet him more quickly (2:12–13).

Once in Macedonia, following the path of churches planted there, Paul finally found Titus (7:5–7), possibly in Thessalonica (if Paul could now enter there safely) but much more likely in Philippi. The Corinthians had responded well to his letter (7:9–11) and received Titus hospitably (7:13, 15). The letter had not silenced all opposition,[22] but the church had at least repented and made amends on the discipline matter at hand (2:5–11); yet Paul wanted to make sure that they were fully prepared for the collection (9:3–5). Whether our present 2 Corinthians is a unity[23] affects how we reconstruct the influence of Paul’s rival teachers there, but it appears likely that he is confident of defeating these “false apostles” before he resumes his plans for his third journey. Paul then sent Titus on ahead of him with 2 Corinthians (or part of it) and some companions to supervise the collection (8:16–24).[24]

Before sending Titus back, Paul already could see that the Macedonian collection would be very successful (8:1–5), though he apparently had some concern about the Corinthians, who ought to have more to contribute than the Macedonians (9:2–4). Hence he sent Titus and others ahead (8:6, 16–19, 22) to make sure it was ready before he brought others with him (9:5; cf. 8:23). Paul’s time in Macedonia (probably after Titus left for Corinth again) is the simplest time in Paul’s career to fit in his trip to Illyricum (Rom 15:19; cf. Titus 3:12);[25] we would expect Luke to have mentioned it in the detailed travel narrative of Acts 17:1–10 but not in the enormously condensed summary of 20:2–3. If Paul did travel west to the Adriatic at this time, perhaps in anticipation of his later voyage to Rome (cf. Acts 19:21; Rom 1:10, 13; 15:23), “the first ten words” of Acts 20:2 might hint at the ministry “of as much as a year.”[26] It is not clear that Paul spent a long enough time in Illyricum to account for so long a period, but we must expect more than the three months in Achaia that Luke specifies (20:3a), and one cannot doubt that Luke has compressed his account. (Luke naturally mentions Macedonia and Greece specifically because they fit his earlier discussion of Corinth without requiring any digression to explain unfamiliar territory.) Paul would have traveled on the Via Egnatia, a road that he had earlier left in Thessalonica (17:1, 10).

c. Ministry in Achaia (20:2b–3)

Finally Paul returned to Corinth in person (2 Cor 12:19–13:2; 13:10), now for his third visit (12:13; 13:1).[27] Paul’s three-month stay in Achaia was probably during winter (cf. 1 Cor 16:6), starting as early as November or as late as December;[28] consonant with this probability, it was followed shortly by the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Acts 20:6). Winter was a difficult time to be traveling by land and especially by sea (see comment on Acts 27:9), and it was simplest for Paul to make this his season with the Corinthians if other factors (e.g., their hospitality) accommodated such plans. (He had originally hoped to winter with them earlier [1 Cor 16:6] but had been forced to change his plans [2 Cor 1:16].)

This may have been winter of 56–57 (or a nearby year); by this time Aquila and Priscilla have returned to Rome (Rom 16:3), Claudius having died in 54 (see comment on Acts 18:2).[29] Luke normally uses the provincial title “Achaia” (Acts 18:12, 27; 19:21; seven times in Paul) but here (and only here) prefers the ordinary, historic term “Greece” (Ἑλλάς),[30] which in popular usage could represent Achaia (BDAG).

Paul had a number of issues to resolve in Corinth, perhaps including some difficult confrontations if matters were not yet in order (2 Cor 12:20–21; 13:2). If rival apostles remained there, claiming widespread ministries (cf. 10:12–16; 11:5, 13), the international team that accompanied Paul (cf. Acts 20:4) may have helped to set matters in context (cf. the appeal to other churches’ practice in 1 Cor 7:17; 11:16; 14:33).[31]

Paul already had the Macedonian part of the collection with him, and he planned to sail directly to Jerusalem. Although his plan to reach Macedonia by way of Achaia (2 Cor 1:16) had been discarded in favor of the original plan to reach Achaia by way of Macedonia (1 Cor 16:5–6), he still planned to leave from Achaia for Judea (2 Cor 1:16; cf. 1 Cor 16:6). We know, however, that he was aware of opposition in Judea and was concerned both about the church’s reception of the gift and about more dangerous enemies there (Rom 15:31, written from Corinth).[32] That Paul anticipates trouble in Judea is probably more than a guess (cf. also comment on Acts 18:22), and some suspicion may have come from transplanted Judean opposition in Corinth as well as from warnings from Christian travelers who had been to Judea.[33]

Assuming that Paul wintered in Corinth, as is likely, his plan to sail for Syria here (cf. Acts 21:3) would have probably placed him in Jerusalem in time for Passover (rescheduled because of his trip through Macedonia; 20:6, 16).[34] Given the timing, probably a number of the passengers traveling from Corinth’s port town Cenchreae would be Achaian Jews, undoubtedly including some whose hostility he had incurred earlier (18:6, 12).[35] Once he was aboard a ship crossing the Aegean,[36] means of escape from enemies on the same ship would prove difficult, and a murder designed to appear accidental might even evade notice and prosecution.[37] Thus the voyage would provide a far greater opportunity to kill Paul than his stay in busy Corinth, surrounded by others, some of them people of influence (cf. Rom 16:23).[38]

Plots (cf. 20:19) and conspiracies were common in this period, extending even into the imperial household.[39] If an individual heard that his adversaries were plotting against him, fleeing was not dishonorable.[40] Even Stoic sages were concerned for their safety, though they might note that this concern merely reflected part of the larger picture of what was best for the most people.[41] That Paul is repeatedly warned of plots in time to escape them (also 9:24; 23:16) suggests divine protection. This protection parallels the case of Jesus in the Gospel until the passion narrative (cf. Luke 4:29–30; 13:31).

The entire group here could have sailed to Troas and waited for the narrator and anyone with him to join them after the Philippian church finished celebrating the feast. But the text says that they journeyed (by land) through Macedonia, a journey of perhaps two weeks.[42] Paul, at least, returned through Macedonia, and he could easily be included in Luke’s “we” in Acts 20:5–6. The narrator, then, had presumably stayed behind in Philippi, probably because he had for some time now been connected with that church (cf. 16:10–17).[43]

d. Paul’s Colleagues (20:4)

Some scholars suggest that Luke mentions Paul’s associates by name because they assisted him in the collection and such responsibilities required known and approved character.[44] Certainly, Paul recruited traveling companions partly to provide credibility for the offering (2 Cor 8:20–21), but this is probably not why Luke mentions them. Historically, Paul’s traveling companions participated in the collection, but because Luke mentions the collection only briefly (in 24:17), “the collection agents of the individual communities become mere companions.”[45]

Although not all teachers took companions on their travels, it was common for them to do so.[46] Both Paul’s letters and Acts make it clear that in Paul’s circle not only he but also a number of associates were engaged in ministry of the word.[47] But it was also far safer to travel in groups, especially if one carried large amounts of money. Many pilgrims to Jerusalem traveled in groups (Jos. War 2.232, 515; Ant. 18.122; Philo Spec. Laws 1.69), and caravans guarding the temple tax traveled there from Babylonia (Jos. Ant. 17.313).[48]

Paul’s traveling companions are arranged by twos, except the first one (since there are an odd number of them), which recalls Jesus’s sending out his disciples in pairs (Luke 10:1). In this case Paul has not twelve named companions here (cf. 6:13) but (for those attentive enough to count) seven, the next number used for ministers (Acts 6:5; 21:8). This arrangement is somewhat artificial, since it excludes Luke and probably others (20:5), but it suits Luke’s arrangement, perhaps implicitly comparing the Pauline circle with the circle around the Jerusalem apostles in 6:5.[49] Still, Luke nowhere makes the number explicit (and perhaps could not because of those members excluded from it).

Besides Luke himself, the number excludes Titus,[50] though some think that he had gone on to mission work elsewhere.[51] That he remains anonymous because he is Luke’s literal brother, as some have suggested (cf. 2 Cor 8:18),[52] seems at best a possible but unlikely guess; why Acts omits Titus’s name, whereas he appears roughly ten times in Paul’s undisputed letters 2 Corinthians and Galatians, is a question difficult to answer.[53] Perhaps he appears here under a different name, such as Gaius (see comment below). If Titus somehow became persona non grata among churches after Paul’s death (cf. Demas in 2 Tim 4:10), one would have expected the epistle that bears his name to be suppressed as easily as mention of him in Acts, but perhaps he offended only certain individuals (e.g., Luke) or circles (e.g., Luke’s audience). Such explanations seem barely plausible, but the definitive answer is likely lost to us.

Presumably, Sopater of Beroea[54] is (in the longer form of the name) Sosipater, mentioned by Paul when he wrote Romans from Corinth (Rom 16:21).[55] Paul there lists greetings from his coworkers, mentioning Timothy, Lucius (possibly but not necessarily our Luke; the “we” resumes only in Acts 20:5), and Jason and Sosipater (who appear paired), his “relatives.” If “relatives” means fellow Jews and if Jason is the one reported in 17:5, Jason and Sosipater were both Jewish Christians from Macedonia.[56]

“Secundus” appears prominently as a name in Thessalonica,[57] though we should not, of course, assume that we have attestation of the same Secundus; it was a common Latin name,[58] including in Jewish inscriptions in various languages.[59] It is one of the most common names in Thessalonica, and more than 80 percent of its occurrences there that can be ascertained refer to Roman citizens.[60] Secundus was thus likely a person with some status, insofar as we may venture an educated guess.[61] Aristarchus and one Gaius, also from Thessalonica, had worked with Paul in Ephesus (19:29), and Aristarchus traveled with Paul to Rome (27:2). Paul himself (or on some views, Pauline tradition) calls Aristarchus his “fellow captive,” either literally (namely, because they were transported as prisoners together)[62] or, more likely, figuratively, as one who traveled with Paul and hence shared his captivity (Col 4:10). Another captivity letter also attests that Aristarchus, along with Luke, remained with Paul during his (probably Roman) detention (Phlm 24).

All three names of these Macedonians are well attested in Thessalonica, including in combinations among politarchs from the early empire (Sosipater son of L. P. Secundus; Aristarchus son of Aristarchus).[63] Paul seemed apprehensive about bringing Macedonians with him to Corinth if the Corinthians were unprepared (2 Cor 9:4), in contrast to the earlier expectation that they would be ready (1 Cor 16:2; 2 Cor 9:2).[64] Thus he sent some on ahead to make sure that the Corinthians were prepared (2 Cor 9:5); presumably Titus has informed Paul that the Corinthians are prepared before he brings these Macedonians. In the end, Corinth, like Macedonia, did participate in the collection for the Christian community in Jerusalem (Rom 15:26).[65]

“Gaius” was a common name applying to multiple individuals in the early church; since this Gaius is not from Corinth (Rom 16:23; 1 Cor 1:14), probably not from Macedonia (Acts 19:29),[66] and probably not the elder mentioned in 3 John 1 at the end of the first century, we probably lack other information concerning him. Perhaps Gaius appears under a Greek name in Paul’s letters (Luke preferring a more prestigious Roman form), or “Gaius” may be part of Titus’s name if he was a Roman citizen (as well as a Greek, Gal 2:3).[67] That Timothy, from the same region as this Gaius (Acts 16:1), was with Paul in Corinth shortly before the journey to Jerusalem is clear in Paul’s letters (Rom 16:21), but Luke does not report his company on the final voyage recorded in Acts (Acts 27:2). Whether Luke simply omits him (because he fades from the picture like Aquila or Silas) or Timothy joined Paul later, Timothy apparently was with Paul during his Roman detention (Phil 1:1; 2:19; Col 1:1).[68] Though circumcised earlier (Acts 16:3), Timothy, who is of mixed ethnic heritage, fits comfortably in a list of representatives from Diaspora churches that are themselves mixed.[69]

Tychicus and Trophimus represented the church in Asia.[70] Since Paul organized the collection from this area (1 Cor 16:19), this church’s contributions may have been easiest to organize. Luke omits Tychicus, like Timothy, on Paul’s voyage to Rome (Acts 27:2), yet like Timothy, he shows up at Paul’s side in (probably) Rome in early sources (Eph 6:21; Col 4:7).[71] The name means something like “Lucky”[72] but is attested as a (likely) Jewish name (CIJ 1:315, §415); that it occurs in close proximity to “Eutychus” (which name means something similar; see comment on Acts 20:9) is surely coincidental. Trophimus is from Ephesus (Acts 21:29), and the name was especially popular in the first century C.E.[73] His name might appear last because of the role he will fill in 21:29, which highlights his Ephesian background.

e. Geographic Diversity (20:4)

Representatives from each of the churches were to carry the offering to Jerusalem (1 Cor 16:3).[74] Luke lists these representatives by province: Sopater of Beroea is linked with Aristarchus and Secundus of Thessalonica, also in Macedonia; Gaius of Derbe and Timothy, from the same area (most likely Lystra, 16:1–2), were from Phrygia (what Paul’s letters call Galatia); Tychicus and Trophimus were from Asia. On the historical level (though not emphasized as directly by Luke), the geographic diversity of the group supports the idea that Paul wanted to emphasize the unity of the church of the Diaspora with Jerusalem (Rom 15:26–27). Here was an offering from the nations to God’s people in Jerusalem, which Paul or some other Jewish believers could view as fulfilling part of the prophetic eschatological schema (e.g., Isa 60:5, 11).

Although churches seem to have been governed at a strictly local level[75] (when Paul or comparable authoritative leaders were not present), they inherited a transnational sense of unity from Diaspora Judaism.[76] The church did not yet have the more formal networks that began emerging with the rise of bishops in the second century. Given the difficulties and uncertainties of transportation and local personalities, coordinating local churches from various regions was no mean organizational feat.

Conspicuously missing from this list, however, are representatives from the prominent church of Achaia, though we know that Paul specifically asked the church there to provide some (1 Cor 16:3).[77] The “messengers of the churches” mentioned in 2 Cor 8:23 are probably the representatives of the collection from other areas already participating. If the Jerusalem collection “failed” in such a way that Luke chose not to record it, it is doubtful that it was because the Jerusalem church refused the gift (in Mediterranean antiquity, to refuse such a gift would not express mere disagreement but constitute a declaration of enmity).[78] Rather, the failure might be that the Corinthian church was inadequately prepared, embarrassing both itself and Paul.[79] This would be a faux pas of which Achaian Christians would desire no reminder, which would not have commended Luke’s volume among them.[80]

This proposal seems, however, unlikely. First, Paul sent Titus on ahead to make sure that the offering was ready (2 Cor 9:5), and other issues seem to have been the basis for his warnings of conflict when he would come (12:20–21; 13:2). Second, Paul stayed in Corinth after his arrival for at least parts of three months (Acts 20:3), more than enough time to complete the offering, even if (in a worst-case scenario) only a few Corinthians still supported him and contributed. At least Stephanas had been committed to organizing the collection (1 Cor 16:15).[81] Third, Paul expressly tells the Romans, when he is writing from Corinth, that Achaia participated in the collection (Rom 15:26). (It is possible that the listing of Macedonia first implies that its offering was greater[82] or perhaps simply that it was ready earlier.) Fourth, we should not assume that areas without named delegates failed to contribute; Luke’s description of the Macedonian delegation names no one from Philippi—though on my hypothesis of authorship and provenance, this is probably because Luke himself represented that church, having long ministered there. (Certainly the first-person narrator of the “we” narrative appears to have joined the group there, in any case.) Finally, even if Luke names all the delegates (instead of reducing the number, as already suggested as a possibility, to seven), it is possible that providing travel delegates for the long journey away from home was more problematic for the church than providing the offering, and so prosperous Achaia allowed others to represent it. Some scholars think that Paul himself represented Achaia;[83] other possibilities are that Timothy (whom the Corinthians knew well; 2 Cor 1:1, 19) represented both Achaia and Galatia or that Titus, whom Luke also omits but who was directly involved in preparing the offering, represented Achaia (7:13–14; 8:6).

f. Luke’s Group in Macedonia (20:5)

Although “we” may invite reader participation,[84] it is very likely an indication that the narrator, whom this commentary argues is also the author, was present here (see full discussion at Acts 16:10), given the normal use of “we” in historical works.[85] (Certainly we do not read first-person pronouns in most other historical works in the ingenious manner sometimes found in commentaries on Acts.)

The “we” suddenly appears, distinct from a larger group that left Corinth; it appears in Macedonia, before reaching Troas. Since the “we” left off in Philippi (Acts 16:16), it is reasonable to assume that it picks up again here because the narrator remained there,[86] at least for most of the intervening time. Luke elsewhere leaves off a character in one location and picks him up at the same location later (8:40; 21:8). In this case, it appears likely that Luke became (historically, though not for Luke’s narrative) Philippi’s representative in the collection.[87] This may have been a late decision based on Paul’s change of course; Macedonia’s contribution was complete (cf. 20:3), and Luke could have planned to stay on in Philippi until he learned that Paul was passing through Macedonia en route to Jerusalem.[88] The less likely alternative is that Luke, who avoids naming himself in the narrative, was in Corinth for at least part of the time Paul was there (cf. Lucius in Rom 16:21)[89] and that he traveled to Philippi with Paul after the rest of the group (or Luke returned to Philippi, where he was laboring, ahead of the group).

Troas was the point of crossing on the other side of the Hellespont, in “Asia” (see comment on Acts 16:8); Paul had apparently planted a church there on his way into Macedonia (2 Cor 2:12), and so his companions would find rich ministry there.[90] Travel between Neapolis (Philippi’s port) and Alexandria Troas was a conventional route of east-west travel in antiquity.[91]

We cannot be certain why the groups traveled separately, since Luke does not tell us. One guess is that they divided in case hostile pursuers remained (cf. Acts 20:3; Gen 33:1–2); another is that Paul wanted to spend more time in Macedonia.[92] Paul certainly wanted to spend the Feast of Unleavened Bread with fellow Christians, though whether he preferred to spend its days in Philippi rather than Troas or simply did not want to spend some of them in transit to Troas is an open question.

2. Resuscitation in Troas (20:6–12)

Although many of the details of Luke’s travel narrative toward Jerusalem concern the names of ports and the number of days spent traveling—material inviting summary at most—Troas provided a dramatic episode lending itself to more thorough telling. Here Paul prays for a youth apparently killed in a fall, and the youth recovers; Luke uses language familiar from biblical narratives about Elijah and Elisha, as well as from his own telling of Jesus’s resuscitations of young persons, to unite Paul firmly with other major figures of salvation history.

Luke clearly demarcates the account of Eutychus’s raising from the larger travel narrative; for example, Acts 20:7 and 20:11 both emphasize breaking bread, Paul’s long message, and his plan to depart after speaking.[93] Although the larger section represents a geographic transition from Paul’s summarized Diaspora mission back to Jerusalem, Luke digresses from the general geographic frame to narrate specific events in Troas (20:7–12), Miletus (20:17–38), and Caesarea (21:8–14).

Since Paul warns in 20:22–25 that trouble awaits him and he will not return to Ephesus, and since 21:13 emphasizes his determination to confront the predicted suffering in Jerusalem, the account of Eutychus’s raising may provide some theological context. Paul’s ministry brings life, and even in the face of death and separation, death will not be the final word.[94] This connection between Eutychus’s raising and the theme of hope is reinforced by Luke’s explicit repetition of language from his Gospel’s passion and resurrection narrative, some of which is superfluous to what would be strictly necessary to narrate the account: the first day of the week (Luke 24:1, Luke’s only other identification of that day), the upper room (22:12; Acts 1:13), and breaking bread (Luke 22:19; 24:30–35).[95]

a. Philippi to Troas (20:6)

Luke’s record of this phase of the journey incidentally reveals interesting information, such as Jesus’s followers reckoning time by (and apparently celebrating) biblical festivals; Luke’s group traveling with Paul from Philippi; and apparently seasonal weather patterns.

I. OBSERVING FESTIVALS

That Paul, Luke, and others remained in Philippi for the days of the Unleavened Bread[96] instead of crossing to Troas immediately to rejoin their companions (Acts 20:5–6) suggests that they continued to observe Jewish festivals.[97] That such festivals remained quite familiar to at least Jewish Christians in the late first century (as attested in John’s Gospel)[98] suggests that Christians preserved many of these customs longer than Gentile Christendom of many later centuries has often assumed.[99] Indeed, Eusebius reports a mid-second-century tradition in Asia Minor that claimed that the apostle John held Easter on 14 Nisan (Passover), whether or not it fell on a Sunday (in contrast to other churches).[100]

It is unlikely that either Luke or Paul preserved such designations (cf. also 12:3–4; 27:9) as merely chronological markers; although Paul did not require Gentile Christians to keep festivals (Rom 14:5–6; Gal 4:9–10), he did assume their knowledge of them (1 Cor 16:8), presupposing some theological instruction about them (5:7–8).

Luke’s detail here belongs to a series of chronological details in this “we” narrative, but it may also perform another narrative function. When the Feast of Unleavened Bread was near (Luke 22:1), Jerusalem’s elite plotted Jesus’s death (22:2); Peter was also arrested during the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Acts 12:3–4). Paul celebrates the feast shortly after escaping a plot (20:3) and before heading into captivity (20:22–23). Jesus held his Last Supper with his disciples at this feast (Luke 22:7, 14–23) in an upper room (22:12); Peter also bade farewell to Jerusalem after his escape at the end of this feast (Acts 12:17). Shortly after the feast here, Paul breaks bread with believers in an upper room (20:7–8). The resonances might increase hearers’ anticipation for what is to come.

II. A CHRONOLOGY OF THE JOURNEY

Counting backward from the probably Sunday night gathering at Troas in 20:7 (subtracting the days in 20:6), some scholars argue for Passover on a Thursday.[101] The only year in the period 52–60 C.E. in which Passover likely fell on a Thursday was 57 C.E., when it fell on April 7 (and the Feast of Unleavened Bread, April 7–14). This chronology assumes a departure immediately after the festival (likely in view of Paul’s haste, 20:16) but fits a common reconstruction for Paul’s final years.[102] (We do need to allow for a half day’s journey from Philippi proper to its port, Neapolis [modern Kavalla],[103] but Luke might include this in his five-day figure.) Nevertheless, other chronological schemes are possible, especially if we need not infer the Passover on a Thursday; those who believe that Festus became governor in 56 would need to place Paul’s visit in 55 (see comment on Acts 24:27); a date before 55, however, conflicts with too much of the other data to represent the most probable option (unless an early accession of Festus were to force it on us).

The accumulation of details in this section resembles Luke’s detailed account of Jesus’s journey to Jerusalem in the Gospel; this is, however, at least partly because Luke was traveling with Paul again and hence had access to more details (see comment on Acts 16:10). The contrast with the scarcity of detail covering a period of at least several months in 20:1–3 is stark.[104] The voyage from Troas to Philippi’s port in 16:11 took only two days, but that was good sailing (three or four was average);[105] the return voyage here took five in the winds of spring.[106]

Because Paul could not take the ship that would have reached Jerusalem for Passover (see comment on Acts 20:3), he needed to rush so that he could reach it by the next major festival seven weeks later, Pentecost (20:16).[107] When Paul could not be in Jerusalem, he liked to at least spend festivals in a location with other believers, whether Pentecost (as very recently in 1 Cor 16:8) or the Feast of Unleavened Bread, as here. In view of Luke’s apologetic for Paul suggested in the commentary introduction,[108] Luke may need to show that Paul’s fateful trip to Jerusalem had pious causes, and that he was not there to provoke a disturbance (cf. Acts 24:11–12, 17).[109] This interest does not require us to doubt Luke’s chronological notice; given references within Paul’s own letters, it is clear that early Christians were familiar with the timing of festivals, and it seems quite plausible that many early Christians continued to observe these festivals.[110]

Could Paul have reached Jerusalem in time for Pentecost? The time of the journey may be calculated roughly as follows:[111]

As Colin Hemer points out, this list accounts for a total of thirty specified days; the rest of the days until Pentecost would be taken up by the stay in Miletus, a probably brief voyage by the places in 21:1–3 (including a likely brief transition between ships in Patara [21:1] and a minimum of three days from there to Tyre), a longer (and perhaps considerable) stay in Caesarea, and some time in Jerusalem before the festival.[115] Luke’s narrative provides a fairly complete account of the passage of days on this journey,

but it falls into two markedly different parts. The first section gives the impression of travelers impatient at delay, frustrated by the unexpectedly slow passage to Troas, counting the days, and making exceptional arrangements for Paul to prolong slightly his strategic work there (20:13). It was early in the season and the timing of the voyage was uncertain. They yet had to make transshipment at Patara without further critical delay. But when they reach Tyre, the pace relaxes. The focus changes to what awaits Paul if he ventures to Jerusalem.[116]

Hurried at the beginning, anxious not to miss yet another festival, they could relax more toward the end of their journey. Under optimum wind conditions, which would normally prevail in this season (northerly winds hastening their southward voyage), they might make a voyage in as little as twelve to fourteen days.[117] Yet Paul cannot assume optimum conditions; reaching Jerusalem is an urgent mission, and so from the start he must include time for unexpected delays and any hospitality obligations.[118] Voyagers could not predict weather conditions, the filling of cargo holds, or “omens” noted by sailors, which determined ships’ sailing schedules; such unpredictability required haste toward the voyage’s beginning to ensure sufficient time to reach Jerusalem by the festival.[119]

III. THE CHRONOLOGICAL GOAL

Why was reaching the city urgent? Undoubtedly, in addition to any personal religious desire on Paul’s part to reach Jerusalem in time for a festival (cf. 20:16),[120] he was thinking strategically. Whether Passover (cf. 20:3) or Pentecost, he would be able to communicate his point on a larger scale to the Jerusalem church when it was swelled by émigrés or pilgrims who had returned for a festival (see comment on Acts 2:1).[121] The Diaspora crowds and festal focus may have also made Jerusalem seem safer for Paul and his Gentile delegates during a festival (though cf. 21:27).

If he missed Pentecost, however, he would not be able to await any other major festival, since Pentecost concluded the major spring festivals. In his letters Paul could provide symbolic connections with festivals (1 Cor 5:7). In the case of Pentecost, he could link the Diaspora churches’ gift with the ingathering of the firstfruits. We know that Paul historically made abundant use of the firstfruits image (e.g., 2 Thess 2:13), especially in this period in his ministry, whether for the first believers in a location (Rom 16:5; 1 Cor 16:15) or for the more universal aspects of salvation history (Rom 8:23; 11:16; 1 Cor 15:20, 23).[122]

If Paul sought to reach Jerusalem by Pentecost (Acts 20:16), he would not have slowed down to spend time in Caesarea unless he had either missed the feast (unlikely, given his itinerary above) or unexpectedly found that he had plenty of time to reach Jerusalem before it, having included in his plans extra days for trouble or delays (more likely). Paul’s dependence on Felix’s knowledge that he came to “worship” less than two weeks earlier (24:11) probably implies that Paul was at the feast, the date of which Felix would have known.

If Paul did reach Jerusalem for Pentecost, Luke may imply a connection (perhaps by way of contrasting responses) between his speech in Acts 22 and that of Peter in Acts 2.[123] It seems somewhat odd that Luke, who notes the haste to reach the city, does not mention Paul’s participation in the festival, but this might be to allow rather than to disallow the implied narrative connection; probably the riot technically occurs after the festival rather than during it (cf. 21:27; 24:11). By not specifying the date of the riot (which is not Pentecost), he can leave an implied connection because Paul was in Jerusalem for that festival not long before (20:16), as if Paul, like Peter, will have a “Pentecost speech.”

IV. TROAS AND ITS PEOPLE

For discussion of Alexandria Troas itself, see comment on Acts 16:8. We do not know Paul’s host in Troas, but it may have been Carpus, who, the tradition seems to imply, served as his host on some occasion (2 Tim 4:13).[124] The church there was probably not culturally homogenous. Although Alexandria Troas was a Roman colony, its people were not all romanized. Rome had forcibly amalgamated various peoples there, and the city’s status as a major port would have brought merchants, sailors, and immigrants.[125] The cultural focus of Troas’s “native population” probably remained “the Smintheum at Chryse,” fifteen miles south of the city, as it had been for centuries.[126] The Greek and Latin inscriptions here diverge sharply in their interests, revealing a significant cultural divide.[127] As a Greek-speaking Roman citizen, Paul may have sought to target both, as in Corinth, though the congregation would be (again as in Corinth and Philippi) mostly Greek-speaking, and Greek would be its common language.

b. Breaking Bread on the First Day (20:7)

Because Paul had been back with the church in Troas only briefly[128] and had to leave the next day, he needed to equip the church with much information and hence spoke throughout the night. Luke’s note that the church was meeting on the first day could indicate a regular practice, or it could point to a practice that was unusual; in any case, Paul met with the believers at length then because he would leave soon afterward.

I. THE MEETING

Breaking bread appears often in contexts of fellowship in Luke-Acts, whether around Jesus as teacher (Luke 9:16), in the passion narrative (22:19; 24:30, 35), in the early Jerusalem church (Acts 2:42, 46), or in Paul’s ministry (27:35). Paul was “reasoning” (διελέγετο), probably interactively, with them, although the debate connotations that Luke likely often attaches to the verb make less sense in this context (see comment on Acts 18:4). In the tradition of good orators (e.g., Cicero and later Pliny), Paul was also able to speak at great length (28:23); Luke undoubtedly means that Paul’s message had great substance, not that he was simply long-winded (cf., on the preference for conciseness and brevity, the comment on Acts 24:4).[129]

Paul continues speaking at midnight. Midnight was normally a time for sleeping, but a dramatic situation could demand attention then (Luke 11:5), and Paul elsewhere expresses his devotion to God then (Acts 16:25). That Paul continues until morning shows that he wants to share as much knowledge as possible with the probably young believers in Troas (cf. 2 Cor 2:12), since he plans to leave the next day.[130] (It might also constitute an example of the sort of event for which Paul spent “sleepless nights” [6:5; 11:27], although these may have also had many other causes.)

Long-winded speakers were common; Cicero and others complained when restricted to two-hour speeches in the first century B.C.E.[131] Pliny the Younger boasted that his seven-hour oration was well received (Ep. 4.16.2). One speaker, Albucius, was known to speak at times for many hours (perhaps nine) on end, supporting even his arguments with other arguments. In every speech, “it was his wish to say not what ought to be said but what is capable of being said.”[132] Since legal settings imposed limits on time, he preferred speaking in other venues.[133] Although speaking all night might be difficult in a structured message, a “talk” (λαλιά) kept the sequence random, and this is probably closer to Luke’s idea here than a conventional oration.[134] Especially in the intimate setting of a single upper room, lively interaction (which occurred even in public speeches)[135] would allow for digressions, tangents, and fresh questions raised by those present.

Those modern popular pundits who have assumed that the passage criticizes Paul for preaching too long fail to reflect on either the ancient background (in which such lengthy speaking was sometimes viewed as praiseworthy and sleeping students as negligent) or the literary context—Paul keeps preaching for the rest of the night after Eutychus’s fall. Luke’s interest in this incident is partly apologetic, vindicating Paul’s wisdom during his fateful journey to Jerusalem. His interest is thus in God working through Paul to raise Eutychus, not in a negative depiction of Paul’s common sense. Those who criticize Paul as long-winded thus likely take a perspective antithetical to that of Luke.

II. THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK

Some writers make much of the day of the week mentioned for the meeting, the “earliest narrative account of a Sunday meeting.”[136] Paul may meet at this time, however, because he follows his frequent practice of meeting in a synagogue on the Sabbath (the day preceding the first day), and because he was planning to leave on the following day (the motive explicit, in fact, in 20:7).

Christians by the early second century were meeting on a fixed day (Pliny Ep. 10.96.7), very likely on Sunday.[137] This day was not chosen by coincidence, nor was it chosen initially to supplant the Sabbath day it followed. “Sunday,” Justin claims in the mid-second century C.E., “is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God . . . made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead.”[138] If continuing Jewish history after Moses added new festivals such as Purim and Hanukkah,[139] it might seem reasonable for Christians living on the edge of the future age to set aside a special day to commemorate the resurrection.[140]

Such possibilities do not grant license to those who would read later traditions about a “Christian Sabbath” into Luke’s era. Meetings on any day had the potential to cause problems with authorities, though probably only if outsiders brought these meetings to the authorities’ attention. Concerned to prevent seditious organizing, Rome prohibited associations from meeting more than once a month,[141] but Romans may have often ignored the rule.[142] In any case, Christians would be exempt from this prohibition as long as they were viewed as Jews, who met in their synagogues on the Sabbath. It is possible that one of the practical reasons for the earliest Sunday meetings was to avoid conflict with Sabbath observance in locations where Christians remained part of the synagogue.

It is, indeed, quite unlikely that Luke would have viewed the timing of the Sabbath as changed, since he employs the term about thirty times, always for the traditional Sabbath. Many of these occurrences relate to synagogue activity;[143] but Jesus may presuppose the goodness of the Sabbath in Luke 13:16, and his followers observe it in 23:54.[144] Jesus challenges not the timing of the Sabbath but restrictions against benevolent activity then (6:5, 9; 13:15–16; 14:3–5); his followers continue to describe the day as the “Sabbath” (Acts 13:27; 15:21). Luke himself uses the Sabbath in designating time (Luke 24:1; and here, Acts 20:7) and (at least in a narrative regarding the early Jerusalem church) distance (the distance an observant Jew was permitted to walk on the Sabbath, Acts 1:12). The limitation of the distance measurement to the early Jerusalem church (other measures proving more useful in the Diaspora) would be compatible with the impression, easily gained from Pauline literature, that this emphasis diminished in the Diaspora church, probably in part because of the large number of Gentile converts who lacked the possibility of taking off work for a day each week.[145] These references to the Sabbath nevertheless make clear that the traditional Sabbath day was not supplanted by a new day so designated; even if we were to argue from complete earliest Christian silence to support the latter, it would render the many explicit references to the former utterly confusing.

The idea that the Sabbath was changed to Sunday is not attested in our earliest sources (the NT documents),[146] though it appears not long afterward[147] and eventually became dominant in the churches of the empire and those they influenced.[148] Some scholars think that Constantine made Sunday an official holy day to satisfy two constituencies already using it—namely, Christians and Mithraists.[149] (It is not likely that Mithraic use directly influenced Christian use, however,[150] since Mithraism became widespread only in subsequent centuries[151] and Christians were meeting on Sunday before this.) Yet among the earliest Jewish Christians, the Sabbath remained on the last day of the week,[152] and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, more isolated from the influence of the Roman Empire’s form of Christianity, ultimately developed a long history of honoring the Sabbath (the seventh day; often alongside the Lord’s Day, the first day).[153] A meeting day should not be equated with the Sabbath, regardless of which day the believers here were meeting.

For that matter, the earliest evidence emphasizes frequent meeting (Acts 2:46; Heb 10:25) much more than it emphasizes the particular day (though the emphasis on the first day in the Gospels probably does imply a special commemoration of that day). Outside this passage, the clearest reference to Christian activity on the first day (1 Cor 16:1) can be construed as a private activity rather than a gathering.[154] The widespread second-century tradition originated somewhere, and it is plausible that it could have roots in some location in this period, but it is tenuous to read it into this passage without stronger exegetical warrant.

Luke does have literary reason to connect the meeting with Jesus’s resurrection on the “first day” (Luke 24:1; cf. Mark 16:2; Matt 28:1; John 20:1, 19), but he provides no indication that this was a regular meeting day (he notes that Paul is preparing to leave the next day) or probably even that the entire meeting took place then. In Pliny the Younger’s account, the meetings took place on a set day but before dawn (Ep. 10.96.7), which does not easily fit the meeting here (unless we should think that Pliny’s Christians’ meeting before dawn started the preceding evening; but nocturnal meetings were more suspect and would have drawn more comment from Pliny than morning ones). In fact the likelihood is that this passage does not include a Sunday morning gathering at all.

III. SUNDAY MORNING OR EVENING?

Did the meeting in our passage take place on a Sunday morning? Scholars are divided on the basis of two options.[155] The first is a meeting starting at sunset on Saturday (ca. 6:00 p.m. in April) and hence concluding Sunday morning; this view allows for the Christians to gather immediately after the Sabbath.[156] But no rule (unless a strict observance of Sabbath journey limits; cf. comment on Acts 1:12) would have prevented them from meeting for worship and teaching before sundown on the Sabbath, which would have been easier (for the Jewish Christians at least) than gathering on a workday.

The other (and likelier) view is that Luke refers to a meeting that begins Sunday evening and ends on Monday at dawn.[157] Since Luke uses the Jewish calendar (e.g., Acts 20:6, 16; most analogously to the wording here, Luke 24:1), he obviously means Sunday rather than the first day of the Roman week, Saturday (which would hardly be called τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων, in any case). But does Luke calculate from sundown to sundown, also according to the Jewish method?[158] This would place the “Sunday” on our Saturday evening through Sunday morning (the first view, above). It is clear, however, that Luke uses the typical non-Jewish method of reckoning days from dawn to dawn (Acts 3:1; 4:3–5; 10:3, 23; 23:12, 31–32); and so he would presumably begin counting the “first day” at dawn, and the following evening (and night) would belong to that same day. Thus the evening on which they met is our Sunday evening, and they dispersed at dawn on Monday morning, before people would go to work (as they also had on Sunday morning).

If one did use the Jewish method of calculation, one might not end up with Sunday morning anyway, depending on whether the meeting started before or after nightfall (which Luke does not specify). If the meeting began around nightfall, on Jewish reckoning of a day from dusk to dusk, the entire night occurred on “the first day.” But if it began on the first day before nightfall (i.e., on Sunday afternoon), then most of the meeting technically took place on the second day (starting our Sunday evening but running to Monday morning). By the likelier Roman reckoning of dawn to dawn, however, it remained on the first day (Sunday afternoon till Monday dawn).

Thus the meeting was probably not a Sunday morning meeting in honor of the resurrection. Rather, it was just what Luke suggests: a meeting with Paul, who planned to leave the next morning (20:7).[159] The text thus says nothing about Sunday worship (or the lack of it). The earliest Jerusalem believers were meeting with each other daily,[160] but in the younger, smaller, and more spread-out churches of the Diaspora, this was no longer feasible.[161] Given Sunday’s special status as the day on which Jesus arose and possibly also the wish to avoid conflicting with synagogue services in some regions, it eventually became a meeting day. This may have already happened by Paul’s day (though 1 Cor 16:2 need not compel this interpretation) and Luke’s, but if so, it is not reported in this passage.

c. Lamps in the Upper Room (20:8)

Luke paints elements of the setting necessary for the story (such as an upper room) and other vivid details suitable to his “we” narrative (such as the mention of lamps).

I. THE UPPER ROOM

Given the frequency of multistory buildings in the Roman Empire, an upper room is not surprising, but it is also useful for Luke’s narrative connections. The upper room recalls gatherings around the leadership of Jesus (Luke 22:12) and Peter (Acts 1:13; for a raising, 9:37–38), fitting the parallelism between major figures in Luke-Acts.[162] Perhaps, however, this narrative’s own events require mention of the upper room even more than does the parallelism: Eutychus falls far enough to cause serious injury (20:9).

It is unclear how we should envision the architecture. An upper room on the side of the building farther from the street might provide more privacy (especially if nearby buildings lacked as many stories), but it is also possible that it would have neighbors who hear the noise (no louder, perhaps, than the clatter of pack animals and other nocturnal transport in the streets).[163] Perhaps this is the oblong hallway, lined with windows, found in many buildings’ upper stories, though this suggestion, too, can be only a reasonable guess.[164] This upper-story room seems larger than those typical of urban tenements,[165] though the room is likely crowded, in any case, contributing to Eutychus’s placing himself in the window.

II. LAMPS

Although Luke may well mention the lamps to underline a point (or image, such as a night meeting) that he expected to be fairly clear, modern interpretations of what this point might be differ widely. Some suggest a symbolic use of light,[166] but while Luke borrows this OT symbolism in discourse material (Luke 1:78–79; 2:32; 11:34–35; Acts 13:47; 26:18, 23), he never clearly uses it in narrative.[167] Some have suggested that the lamps held a ritual significance understood by Luke’s audience, as in later Christianity, but we lack evidence supporting this practice in an early period.[168] Others suggest that the lights were for celebration,[169] as in Jewish celebrations[170] (where light could also have, as suggested above, a symbolic function).[171]

The term λαμπάς (see BDAG) can mean either “torch,” on the one hand (e.g., Zech 12:6), or “lamp” or “lantern,” on the other (e.g., Jdt 10:22; Rev 4:5). Usually a torch[172] (often λαμπάς, as here) was for outdoor use, with Greeks preferring branches or bundles of twigs and with Italians preferring tallow or beeswax on metal candleholders.[173] People also used lanterns, which consisted of lamps or candles inside glass.[174] Most lamps were small enough to hold in the hand, were made of clay or bronze, and had an external wick extending into the olive oil.[175] When no available flame was nearby, people could use “sulphur matches or a flint-and-steel apparatus” to light them, but their light was “dull and murky” and they emitted a strong smell, so much so that works written during the night could retain the odor.[176]

Many commentators suggest that the smell of oil, its heaviness in the air, the heat, and perhaps the hypnotic dance of flickering light from the oil lamps contributed to Eutychus’s sleepiness.[177] But if Eutychus was in the window, was he not exposed to the smell of oil less than most of his colleagues were?[178] Would Luke expect his audience to infer that the flickering light helped put Eutychus to sleep?[179] Luke may mention the lamps because their heat helped make the window (Acts 20:9) a more attractive seat. Although the heat is a very plausible factor and could be Luke’s point, a possible argument against this approach is that if Luke’s interest here was in heat we might expect mention of other, more prominent factors in creating heat. Some suggest that Luke mentions the lamps to show that Eutychus fell asleep despite the best precautions;[180] this use of lamps seems more obvious than the reverse assumption and may well be correct, though still less than certain without an explanation. Perhaps the lamps even took up floor space (making the window an attractive seat), but they are probably small, and Luke omits other evidence that we would need to argue for this conclusion.

Lamps would always be employed in night meetings, and so Luke probably reinforces graphically the memory of an all-night meeting (20:8–9, 11). The point might be as simple as that there was sufficient light for the otherwise dark night meeting.[181] (Perhaps this claim might counter claims or potential claims that Christians acted subversively, in the dark,[182] but it might be simply a vivid recollection or counter suspicions of negligence.) It is also possible, however, that Luke’s emphasis might be on the number rather than the lamps’ presence. Though Luke may specify “many” lamps to reinforce whatever his other point was in mentioning lamps to begin with, the comment probably emphasizes the size of the room and, more important, the number of people present. It might also show that the people were eager for Paul’s teaching this night; most homes would not have “many lamps,” but the people were prepared for his long nocturnal teaching.

d. A Deadly Fall (20:9)

“Eutychus” means something like “Good Luck” (cf. “Tychichus,” 20:4),[183] ironic here (in view of Paul being present) but probably not deliberate. This was the ninth commonest Greek name in Rome’s inscriptions (337 times), dominant especially close to the first century.[184]

I. SITTING IN A WINDOW

Presumably Eutychus sits in the window because the upper room is crowded with many or most of Paul’s converts from Troas. Further, even after sundown in April, tightly packed bodies might become warm in an upper room (the lamps contributing further, 20:8), but he would likely stay cool in the night air in the window.

In summer heat, people sometimes sat in larger windows, the thick walls offering “window-seats” of sufficient size.[185] Thick walls made for thick window “sills,” as can be attested from the designs of numerous recovered or reconstructed homes.[186] Certainly Eutychus was not supported by modern wallboard (which could have buckled even if he were awake);[187] although walls grew weaker as they climbed higher in most insulae, often these multistory tenements used kiln-fired brick.[188] Later rabbis claimed that Hillel (a sage before Paul’s era) was poor but so eager to learn that he sat in a window to hear the sages despite being covered with snow (b. Yoma 35b, bar.).[189]

Romans sometimes used window glass;[190] glassmaking was an ancient art, though not in regard to windows.[191] Although glass windows were occasionally used in first-century Italy, they were not popular in this period and were at best very rare in the East.[192] Given the rareness of glass for windows, most windows were simple openings in walls, closed by wooden shutters.[193] Windows in the East had long used shutter boards, which could be inserted and removed as necessary.[194] Thus windows could be closed or opened (2 Kgs 13:17),[195] and texts that report women peering through (or perhaps seen inside) windows sometimes mention lattices.[196] Often people covered their windows with simple cloth or skins,[197] but these were susceptible to rain; folding wooden shutters were more helpful for inclement weather, but these kept out the light.[198] (Pliny the Younger, however, was happy to shut out even the light.)[199] Either Eutychus’s window lacked shutters, or he removed them to sit there; curtains could be pulled back, but they would not hold his weight, in any case.

II. SIZE AND LOCATION OF WINDOWS

Windows came in various sizes.[200] Most Middle Eastern homes probably had small rectangular windows to admit some light.[201] Certainly, palatial windows (Jer 22:14; Joel 2:9) were large enough to fall through (2 Kgs 9:30–33; perhaps 1:2). We also read, however, of people climbing through the window of a house on a wall (Josh 2:15) and another house (1 Sam 19:12).[202] Farther north in the Mediterranean world, we find some fairly small windows in some multistory buildings.[203] Most homes lacked much light; most windows were small, and windows of any size had to be obstructed during inclement weather.[204] The wealthy sometimes had larger bay windows, especially on the ground floor.[205] More relevant here is that insulae also sometimes had large windows.[206] As noted in the discussion of insulae below, the long, shared room was often well lit.[207]

Windows on the ground floor were usually higher on the wall to deter potential intruders and the unduly inquisitive;[208] this may be illustrated by abundant examples.[209] They also appear on upper floors, with less concern, naturally, for intruders. Thus, for example, in one third-century B.C.E. Eastern location (Delos), first-floor windows are high on the wall whereas the sizes and shapes of second-floor windows varied considerably.[210] Elsewhere, too, the placement of windows varied from one floor to another.[211]

Some windows were quite large yet low enough to sit on without climbing into them.[212] In one example, a second-level window in an atrium is a little narrower than the door but takes up most of the height of the second-level bricks.[213] In another, more relevant example from a fairly common form of Italian insula, the window is thick enough to sit on and wide enough to accommodate a person; starting fairly low on the second-story wall, it extends quite high on that wall.[214] Another window, this one on a first floor, might aid our imagination as well; it was easily thick enough and wide enough for sitting, probably requiring at most a little hop to get into it; one could prop one’s back against one side of the window and prop a foot against the other with one’s knee raised and bent.[215]

III. MULTISTORY BUILDINGS

The “third floor” (τρίστεγον) underlines the seriousness of Eutychus’s fall.[216] We cannot be certain of the building’s architecture; for example, in one novel a wealthy villa in Asia Minor includes a second story.[217] Most people, however, lived in less wealthy settings.[218] In the most populous cities,[219] multistory buildings were often insulae, or tenements (see comment at Acts 18:3). Some reasonably suggest that Eutychus falls from a window in one of these insulae, or multistory tenements.[220]

Poor people in much of the empire lived in small homes, but those in the cities were often crowded into multistory apartment buildings.[221] Such buildings could, like any other domestic space, be employed for religious purposes or even converted into temples.[222] Wealthier households could host meetings on the lowest floors of such buildings, but those less endowed would rent higher dwellings.[223]

Contrary to the view that multistory buildings characterized only Rome and the Latin West,[224] Strabo (16.2.23) says that houses in Tyre (much of it an island with limited space) have even more stories than those in Rome.[225] Alexandria, Carthage, and Syria all provide evidence of multistory buildings;[226] pre-Roman, classical Greek Miletus developed according to insula units rather than streets.[227] Surviving evidence of multistory buildings in first-century Asia Minor suggests that they may have been better than the insulae of Rome and Ostia,[228] some even including water piped to every floor.[229] We have evidence of an appreciation for high buildings in Roman Troas and even in earlier Hellenistic sites in its vicinity.[230] Nevertheless, some similarities undoubtedly existed with Western Mediterranean models. At least with regard to the conventional Roman model, as a rule, the greater a person’s resources, the closer he or she lived to the ground floor; the poorer a person, the higher his or her apartment.[231]

The structure of insulae varied. In one excavated insula, people reached the second floor by a balcony across the front; on the third floor, light also reached the small sitting rooms from this side.[232] Privacy was next to impossible on upper floors of such a building; sleeping cubicles were small, and other space would have to be shared with other dwellers.[233] The building in Troas was presumably not designed precisely like this (otherwise Eutychus would have hit the balcony; moreover, the windowed front rooms were small in such structures for such a meeting). It may give us a sense, however, of community life in such an insula, in which one’s faith (and house church meetings) were inevitably shared with one’s neighbors, who might well find the meetings the most interesting event in the building.

One common insula pattern may provide suggestions for how the meeting was conducted. In many insulae in Ostia, many windows illumined a long, central room with a sitting room at either or both ends. On the back of the long room are multiple cubicles for sleeping.[234] Perhaps with some cooperation from other interested tenants (unconcerned with their night’s sleep or immune to loud noise), Paul and his followers made use of some of this longer, central room with windows (the cubicles being too small to gather in).[235] Of course, homes might offer more privacy and might be preferred for meetings;[236] further archaeological discussion about Roman Troas may best clarify the kinds of structures in view here.

IV. EUTYCHUS’S SLEEP

Luke is not criticizing Paul for the length of his sermon;[237] Paul goes on for the rest of the night after Eutychus is restored (Acts 20:11). Paul was planning to leave the next day (20:7) and hence had to cram into this single session everything he might have said over a long period. He had been there roughly a week (20:6), but perhaps this gathering to break bread was the first opportunity to address all the believers in Troas; in any case, it was his last opportunity to address them, and undoubtedly much had transpired since his previous visit (2 Cor 2:12). He had a pastor’s heart toward them even though he could spend only a week there.

Luke is emphatic about the depth of Eutychus’s sleep, perhaps to underline the danger he allowed himself to fall into.[238] It seems questionable that the oil or the flickering of lamps (Acts 20:8) put Eutychus to sleep; that their heat would have put him to sleep is even unlikelier.[239] His position might be one factor; some of those reclining at Greek banquets might lean back, as if ready to fall asleep.[240] But while digesting a meal (20:7) could make one sleepy,[241] either the meal mentioned as a purpose for the meeting in 20:7 (κλάσαι ἄρτον) had not yet occurred (20:11) or, if the attendees ate twice, the meal already held was much earlier;[242] this incident apparently occurs no earlier than midnight. The simplest explanation seems to be the one that Luke provides: it was late.

Eutychus was also young (νεανίας), and some scholars suggest that this factor might have contributed to his inattentiveness;[243] but we cannot be certain that it would have done so.[244] Luke might mention his age (if παῖδα in 20:12 qualifies the term here to mean “boy” instead of simply indicating a young servant)[245] because death before reaching manhood was considered particularly tragic.[246] But scholars point out that “youth” probably specifies him in his twenties, and that he may have simply been the “child” of someone present. Whether Eutychus was the only one who dozed is another question, but he was apparently the only one who risked falling into the street by sitting in a window.[247]

If the street was a fairly prominent one, it may have been paved or even had a sidewalk;[248] otherwise it could be even a rugged alleyway with dirt and stones. More often windows of significant size, both in the East and West, faced onto an inner courtyard, so we cannot be certain about what he landed on. In any case, the fall was a hard one.[249] Because there would be no streetlights,[250] those who came out to examine Eutychus would have to carry lamps with them. Although a handful of people returning from late-night parties,[251] perhaps a few night watchmen,[252] and certainly wheeled traffic (especially in a mercantile city such as Troas) could be in the larger streets, the street could easily be barren at this time.

Though Luke’s interest is in recounting the miracle, not in negligence on Eutychus’s part,[253] an ancient audience might well view the adolescent’s sleep with some negative nuances.[254] Given his age and the time of night, few would evaluate him harshly, but falling into a “deep sleep” in a meeting could still be viewed as negligence.[255] It seems that students sometimes responded to orthodox philosophic pedagogy by falling asleep (Fronto Eloq. 4.3, expressing his disdain toward philosophers!).[256] (Paul is, however, probably using dialogical style, not simply lecturing; Luke usually employs διαλέγομαι [Acts 20:7, 9] for public disagreements or disputes [cf., e.g., 18:4, 19; 19:8–9; 24:12].)

The penalty for falling asleep in an assembly of the Qumran community was expulsion from the assembly for thirty days and a reduction in food for ten.[257] Rabbis were more prone to arouse drowsy audiences with merely striking statements,[258] but a particularly hot-tempered Greek sophist might strike the student physically to awaken him.[259] By falling asleep, guards or others sometimes caused themselves grave trouble;[260] figurative alertness becomes an issue a few paragraphs later (20:28, 31).

Episodes in which someone falls from a height and dies appear in other sources,[261] and some readers would think of the prototypical literary incident of Elpenor’s fall in Homer’s Odyssey[262] (which ended less positively than in this passage).[263] (One might also think of the slaughter of Rhesus and others as they slept in front of the earlier Troas,[264] but the shared location is probably coincidence, since the slaughter of sleeping enemies is a literary motif.)[265]

In the whole Lukan context, however, Luke’s audience will be aware of positive characters who mean well but sleep during times of prayer (Luke 9:28, 32; 22:45–46).[266] Eutychus’s sleep, like that of the disciples at Gethsemane, may therefore provide a concrete illustration for the impending warnings to remain vigilant (Acts 20:31; cf. Luke 12:37–39; 21:36). It may provide a model opposite Paul’s own (Acts 16:25).[267]

e. Paul Resuscitates Eutychus (20:10)

Against those who think that Luke does not claim a resuscitation here, it makes little sense for Luke to record Paul’s intervention here if he believed that it was not a miracle but only a medical insight.[268] Claiming that the youth’s life remained in him (20:10) does not tell Luke’s ideal audience that Eutychus had not really died; rather, it evokes the resuscitation scene in Luke 8:52. Modern Westerners’ standard for clinical evidence may be much more rigorous and our definition of death perhaps narrower than Luke’s, but we should not for that reason miss the literary connections between this narrative and other resuscitation accounts in Luke-Acts (and their ancient Israelite prototype).[269]

Like Jesus (Luke 7:14–15; 8:54–55) and Peter (Acts 9:40), Paul raises the dead. The boy fell from an upper room (20:8), which was where Peter, Elijah, and Elisha raised the dead (1 Kgs 17:19, 23; 2 Kgs 4:10–11, 21, 32–33; Acts 9:37).[270] That Paul fell on[271] and embraced[272] the boy fits the model of Elijah and Elisha (1 Kgs 17:21; 2 Kgs 4:34–35).[273] The parallels suggest that Luke expects his reader to understand that Paul is the agent of a resuscitation here.[274] In contrast to the narratives about Elijah and Elisha raising boys, however, Paul does not demand privacy and does not emulate the related actions of these prophets, which could have smacked too much of magic for Luke’s audience to be acceptable, given his antimagical apologetic (see comment on Acts 8:9–11). Paul’s announcement that the boy is alive matches Jesus’s announcement about Jairus’s daughter in Luke 8:52, though this time the hearers are believers who accept the claim (cf. 1 Kgs 17:23; 2 Kgs 4:36). Words of assurance are common in miracle stories.[275]

Luke does not report a dramatic recovery (such as sitting up, as in Luke 7:15; 8:55; Acts 9:40), merely that the boy did leave alive as Paul had said (Acts 20:12).[276] It seems that Luke was an eyewitness on this occasion (20:7), but despite his lack of the sudden drama found in some of his accounts developed from other sources, everyone appears satisfied (20:12).[277] Luke is not simply pretending skepticism to add credibility to the account, as some of his contemporaries did;[278] his narrative has already irrevocably committed him to the validity of miracle claims. Most resuscitations in ancient novels are merely the raising of those apparently dead,[279] but while Luke seems more restrained than usual here, he declares unequivocally that the boy was picked up “dead” (20:9) and was afterward clearly alive (20:12), indicating his view of what happened.[280] Early Christians clearly did believe that some people were raised from death; indeed, the early apologist Quadratus claimed in Hadrian’s day that some people (perhaps especially young people such as Jairus’s daughter) that Jesus raised had survived into Quadratus’s own lifetime.[281]

Those gathered at the meeting would no doubt be impressed. As in most other ancient cities, the residents of Troas were deeply concerned about both natural and supernatural means of health and healing.[282] Hot springs, widely used for health in antiquity,[283] are less than a mile southeast of Troas.[284] But local traditions aside, it is doubtful that residents of any ancient city would have been unimpressed.

f. Finishing the Message (20:11–12)

Most people began dinner a few hours before dark. Some banquets ran late into the night or even all night long. Usually, however, people hurried home before it grew too late, “since the streets in most towns,” notes one historian, “were not safe. Those out at night risked being mugged by robbers or beaten up by a police patrol.”[285] Cities lacked streetlights; further, even the 350 night police patrolling Rome mainly protected wealthy people’s property.[286] Though most work stopped at night,[287] some diligent people did work at night,[288] such as Demosthenes preparing his speeches late at night by lamplight (Plut. Demosth. 8.4; 12.5–6). More relevant is that under strenuous circumstances, Israel might pray all night (Jdt 6:21), an idea that Luke appreciated (Luke 6:12; cf. 2:37; 22:45–46; Acts 16:25).

Those who were intimate and had not seen each other for a long period of time might stay up and talk through the night (e.g., Jub. 31:24).[289] That most of the audience stayed throughout the night is probably less because the streets might be dangerous and more a sign of loyalty to Paul. Ancients would see this as a sign of the audience’s eagerness,[290] which would praise Paul as disciples’ loyalty to teachers normally did.[291]

That Luke has recounted the miracle (Acts 20:10, 12) fits his narrative emphasis (he will provide a discourse later, 20:18–35). But that Paul continues to teach through the night shows that the theological focus of Luke’s protagonist is on the message rather than primarily on the signs that confirm it (elsewhere in Acts, cf. 4:29–30; 14:3).[292]

Breaking bread after dark fits the Last Supper (1 Cor 11:23; Luke 22:53; Matt 26:31, 34; John 13:30) and here the church’s custom, attested half a century later, of meeting before sunrise (Pliny Ep. 10.96).[293] But the double mention of breaking bread (Acts 20:7, 11) is emphatic and may suggest a farewell meal as in Luke 22:19,[294] which might recall another comparison: Eutychus, like the disciples at Gethsemane, fell asleep just after a farewell dinner (Luke 22:45). Luke calls the lad παῖδα here, perhaps reinforcing the comparison with Luke 8:54. The “not measured” (οὐ μετρίως) comfort of Paul’s hearers in Acts 20:12 is litotes (see, e.g., note on Acts 19:24) for considerable comfort.

3. Further Travel, Avoiding Ephesus (20:13–16)

Although the itinerary may not much interest modern readers unfamiliar with the locations, it would have interested educated readers in antiquity.[295] The latter often appreciated “travel literature” (an interest spanning both novelistic and factually oriented genres).[296] Well-to-do ancients sailed to Egypt and other exotic locations for sightseeing tours,[297] and many works assumed educated audiences that would find their vast repertoire of geographic references (along with allusions to Greek history and legend associated with them) intelligible and interesting.[298] Culture and history were associated with the various locations, and so “this ‘name-dropping’ itinerary would have been of interest to a Roman audience,” as Larkin points out.[299] Luke’s itinerary is also accurate, as we would expect in a prose historical work.[300]

a. Assos (20:13)

Assos was considered quite close to Adramyttium, near Mount Ida (Strabo 13.1.2) and thus in the general region of Troas (13.1.51). The town was elevated far above its artificial harbor and was known to be strongly fortified (13.1.57).[301] It had the best harbor, perhaps the only significant one, between Troas and Adramyttium and would be strategic in relation to the island of Lesbos, which lay to its south.

By some estimates, Assos was about twenty miles south-southwest of Alexandria Troas,[302] and so on this estimate (questioned below), Paul could have made the journey on foot in a day or perhaps traveled more quickly by animal. Scholars dispute why he traveled by land while his companions went by boat.[303] Perhaps there was someone on the route whom he had met earlier (cf. Acts 16:8; 2 Cor 2:12) and wished to visit; or he had learned that someone from Troas had moved to a smaller settlement along the way (though this was not the usual trend); or perhaps he sacrificed to save a small amount of fare.[304] (If the churches’ delegates were carrying the collection, as one may surmise from Paul’s letters and perhaps from Acts 24:17, they would need to stay together and, preferably, travel by the most efficient means.)

A common but unlikely suggestion is that he took the land route because it would be quicker. Granted, land journeys could be faster for some short stretches than sea voyages.[305] Strabo, writing of the Ionian coast farther south (which included Miletus, 20:17), noted that an overland journey was considerably shorter than the coastal voyage because of gulfs and peninsulas.[306] In this case the coast jutted westward south of Troas before turning east toward Assos; a coastal voyage from Troas to Assos would have traversed about one and a half times the distance covered by a more direct land route.[307] Many scholars thus argue that, in some ways, the land journey was simpler; a ship had to follow a coastline exposed to the northeast wind and round Cape Lectum; after Assos, however, both Lesbos and the mainland would protect the ship from the stormy northeasters that reportedly blew five of every seven days.[308] As a coasting vessel putting in at various small ports along the way (though skipping the busy port of Ephesus, 20:14–17), it would not be moving rapidly.[309]

The land route, however, probably would not have really saved Paul time. Although a direct route from Troas to Assos might be just twenty miles, the major Roman road was not in fact direct. It followed the coast, and parts of the road remain “visible west of Assos.” The journey thus might be thirty-eight miles (61 km.).[310] If Paul expected it to save time, perhaps it was because of some unexpectedly unseasonable winds; but thirty-eight miles was still no short journey by land.

Perhaps Paul, exhausted from his ministry the night before (20:11), took an animal;[311] a horse may have been able to bring him to Assos on the direct land route (even along the coast) faster than a ship would have reached there.[312] Conversely, one or more companions might have felt too ill or exhausted to make the overland journey, or perhaps his comrades needed to procure supplies or to remain aboard the ship to secure their place for the voyage beyond Assos, if the same ship was continuing south, as 20:14 may suggest. That Paul “met” or “joined” them there (20:14) also probably suggests that they arrived before him.[313] Perhaps Paul simply preferred to walk and pray with less distraction than there would be aboard a crowded ship. Whatever Paul’s reasons, Luke is probably happy in his narrative to honor the commitment and dedication of Paul, a characteristic that also surfaces in Paul’s letters; despite an all-night meeting, he is ready to press forward with his mission.

Assos was a well-fortified town with an artificial harbor and dominated the coastal road.[314] By 600 B.C.E., it was the Troad’s most significant city,[315] although Alexandria Troas later readily surpassed it. Various philosophers had lived or been born in Assos.[316] Some of the most educated members of Theophilus’s circle may have known of contributions Assos had made to classical Greek philosophy.[317] For example, Cleanthes (who succeeded Zeno as head of the Stoic school) was from there, Aristotle studied there, and one of his students was from there (Strabo 13.1.57).

The temple of Athena in Assos may have been six centuries old by Paul’s day.[318] The city also hosted the imperial cult.[319] The city’s agora had a council chamber and a bēma on its east. The south stoa’s top floor adjoined the agora on the north and revealed the sea on its south, so that those residing there could walk along the sea.[320] A particular kind of gem (sard) was found around Assos (Pliny E. N.H. 37.31.105).[321]

b. Mitylene (20:14)

The voyage to Mitylene, farther south on the island of Lesbos and slightly north of Pergamum across the strait (and somewhat overland) in Asia Minor, should have been milder than the lengthy voyage around the land jutting out between Troas and Assos.[322] The difference would have been understood in other ways as well; Greek islands had an identity distinct from the Greek mainland.[323]

Mitylene[324] was the largest city of Lesbos and had everything it needed (Strabo 13.2.2).[325] Among those benefits, Mitylene had two useable harbors. “The southern can be closed and holds only fifty triremes, but the northern is large and deep, and is sheltered by a mole. Off both lies a small island, which contains a part of the city that is settled there.”[326] Approaching from the north, Paul’s ship undoubtedly harbored in the deeper, northern harbor.[327] The city also had considerable contact with Asia Minor.[328]

Founded much earlier by Aeolians, Mitylene had produced famous men, but perhaps most notably, it produced Sappho, considered the greatest woman poet (13.2.3).[329] Mitylene celebrated its Roman connections (though sacked in 79 B.C.E., it was freed by Pompey), and excavations confirm its prosperity in Roman times.[330] Romans often traveled there, attracted by both climate and cultural factors;[331] some settled there for the same reasons.[332] Both Mitylene and Samos (Acts 20:15) had temples for Roma and Augustus.[333]

c. Chios (20:15)

The itinerary indicates only day travel. The narrow channels and many small islands off the coast may have made night travel dangerous, and the summer winds are said to blow on the Aegean here only during the day, rendering night progress difficult.[334]

Chios was a large island—by modern measurements, 325 square miles (842 sq. km.).[335] The island’s mountainous north is not productive, with most habitation around its eastern bay.[336] Strabo estimated a 900-stadia voyage around it on the coast. He also noted the city’s good port and “a naval station” for 80 ships; Phanae had a good harbor, and both Notium and Laïus had good shores for anchoring ships. Not surprisingly, the island once had its own fleet (Strabo 14.1.35). Chios was about 12 miles from old Smyrna and 4.5 miles (7 km.) from the coast of Asia Minor.[337] Pliny the Elder estimates Chios as 94 Roman miles from Samos and 65 from Mitylene;[338] these ancient estimates are high but do reveal an approximate sense of the relations among the locations.

A mixed group, led by Ionians, colonized Chios from an early period (14.1.3), as Ionians also settled Ephesus (cf. Acts 18:19) and Miletus. The island had long been known for its wealth (Thucyd. 8.24.4; 8.40.1).[339] In 86 B.C.E., residents of Chios included some loyalists to Rome during the conflict with Mithridates, leading to its people’s enslavement by Mithridates (Appian Hist. rom. 12.7.46–47).[340] Rome recognized it as a “free” state (on this designation, see comment on Acts 19:40) until Vespasian’s time, after Paul’s death.[341] Devastated by an earthquake in the early first century, Chios was helped by funds from Rome.[342] Like the island of Cos, which Paul and his companions would reach soon afterward (Acts 21:1), Chios was especially known for its exceptional wine (Strabo 14.1.15; 14.2.19).[343] (Greeks associated fine wines especially with such islands as Cos, Chios, and Rhodes,[344] and so such wines constituted one possible cargo addition if Paul’s ships took on additional cargo at such ports.) Also like Samos, it was a “free island” (Pliny E. N.H. 5.38.136).

The island was the home of some famous people of learning, including a sophist, a poet, a historian (Strabo 14.1.35), and allegedly Homer (10.4.19; 14.1.35).[345] Like Rome and Massilia, Chios possessed many wooden images of the goddess Athena seated (13.1.41). Most notable were the Poseidium and the temple of Apollo with its palm grove (14.1.35). Herod had bestowed benefactions on Chios (Jos. Ant. 16.18–19, 26). Someone entering Chios’s harbor might easily find a ship outbound toward Rhodes (Acts 21:1),[346] though it does not appear that Paul’s ship put into port in Chios.[347]

d. Samos (20:15)

By the time Paul and his companions reached[348] Samos,[349] the ship was beginning to pass Ephesus (20:16);[350] Paul must have known that it would take this route when he and his colleagues boarded it.[351] (Accidentally sailing past Ephesus would have created a delay had he backtracked, but 20:16 notes that he had “decided” to “sail past” it.) One standing on the island could see Mount Mycale on the mainland; the mountain was higher than Samos, and a strait of only seven stadia separated them (Strabo 14.1.12; cf. 14.1.14). Strabo reckoned the voyage around the island as six hundred stadia (14.1.15).[352] Samos the city (on the island of that name) faced south, as did its harbor, which had a naval station (14.1.14).[353] Samos had perhaps the earliest harbor construction that can be firmly dated, in the late sixth century B.C.E. (Hdt. 3.60); a breakwater protected the shore where it had been exposed.[354]

That Paul’s vessel, next to stop at Miletus farther south, put into port here seems reasonable.[355] The most literate or traveled members of Theophilus’s circle would know that the vessel would soon after reach Cos and Rhodes (Acts 21:1). Ancient geographers counted Samos as near Chios (and Cos and Lesbos), among the islands off the coast of “Caria, Ionia, and Aeolis up to the Troad” (Strabo 2.5.21). Rhodes was near Chios (Polyb. 16.7.4–16.8.5), and they were closely connected historically and had acted together (5.24.11; 5.28.1; 5.100.9).[356] Pliny the Elder estimated Samos at a hundred Roman miles from Cos and ninety-four from Chios (N.H. 2.112.245).[357] Rome attached Samos to the province of Asia in 129 B.C.E., and buildings and population growth attested in the archaeological record suggest that the island generally prospered in the Roman period.[358]

Samos was a “free island”[359] but was also the one island in the area that (in contrast to Chios, Lesbos, Cos, and, on the mainland, Ephesus) did not produce good wine. Nevertheless, it was otherwise well endowed (Strabo 14.1.15).[360] There were many famous Samians (14.1.16–18), including, according to tradition, one of the Seven Sages,[361] one of Alexander’s generals,[362] and Pythagoras,[363] who allegedly drew many learners there.[364]

Like most of the rest of the Hellenistic world, Samos worshiped Greek deities. Legend had it that Samos was founded by the guidance of the gods (Iambl. V.P. 2.3–4). Aphrodite (Plut. Gk. Q. 54, Mor. 303C) and Hera (Tac. Ann. 4.14) were among the members of the pantheon known to be worshiped there. The temple of Poseidon had many statues but was open to the sky, with no roof (Strabo 14.1.14).[365] As one would expect on an island with good harbors, foreign cults such as Isis and Serapis were well represented (as also at Cos and Rhodes).[366] At some point the city began hosting the imperial cult.[367] Perhaps most important, an Ionian declares that Samos was sacred to Hera; those who stopped there overnight might well offer sacrifice before leaving (Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.11). Dio Chrysostom lists Samos’s temple of Hera among other famous temples of antiquity, such as the Parthenon and the temple of the Ephesian Artemis (Or. 40.8).[368] Some Jews lived there before Paul’s day (1 Macc 15:23),[369] and many other Diaspora Jews knew of it along with other well-known locations.[370]

e. Miletus (20:15)

Miletus[371] was about thirty miles (50 km.) south of Ephesus (cf. Acts 20:17) in a straight line, a considerable distance especially for a longer sea voyage that would need to round the promontory at Trogyllium opposite Samos. Miletus had four harbors, “one of which is large enough for a fleet” (Strabo 14.1.6 [LCL, 6:205]).[372] These harbors lay “near the mouth of the Meander River on the Latmic Bay.”[373] Miletus was larger than the cities in whose ports the vessel had recently stopped; already in the second century B.C.E., Miletus had an estimated population of about a hundred thousand.[374] Besides this, the area around Miletus may have included five hundred settlements (although this includes all periods, not just the Roman period).[375]

Cities with significant harbors prospered not only from trade but from fees for their use and from customs duties.[376] Miletus’s harbor remained active in late antiquity, though requiring constant work to prevent silting.[377] In Strabo’s time, Miletus and Ephesus were the most renowned cities of Asia (14.1.4).

Luke provides no details about Miletus, but by his time, it is possible that there was a church there (cf. 2 Tim 4:20), which could host the Ephesian elders (Acts 20:17). Certainly his ideal audience would know of its prominence and history. It was reportedly founded by Cretans (Strabo 12.8.5; 14.1.6); Minoan and later Mycenaean archaeological strata support this claim.[378] It allegedly established as many as ninety colonies around the Black and Mediterranean seas from the ninth through the sixth centuries B.C.E.[379] It was later under Ionian, Persian, and Dorian rule but is especially linked with the Ionian cities.[380] Whereas most cities of western Asia Minor had gone over to Alexander voluntarily, he had to take Halicarnassus and Miletus by storm (Plut. Alex. 17.1); this liberated Miletus from Persian control. Some renowned early intellectuals there, preceding the era of Socrates, include Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes.[381]

Miletus had three agoras, and at about thirty-six thousand square meters, the agora in the southern part of the city may be the largest yet discovered in the range of Greek culture. It contained thirty-nine pairs of shops on the eastern stoa and nineteen on the southern.[382] Although smaller than the theater in Ephesus (see comment on Acts 19:29), Miletus’s Roman theater was one of Asia’s largest, seating more than fifteen thousand.[383]

Miletus may have acquired a reputation for obscene love stories, from the phrase “Milesian tales,” but while most major port cities hosted some promiscuity, this phrase developed from a single novel.[384] A later sage allegedly criticized Miletus for lacking true men and leaders (Philost. Ep. Apoll. 33) and for speaking against the gods when an earthquake struck Miletus (Ep. Apoll. 68). None of these features likely inform Luke’s scene here.

Miletus hosted renowned sanctuaries. The temple of Athena there dated to the seventh century B.C.E.[385] Ceres (Demeter) had allegedly judged soldiers who sought to plunder her temple in Miletus (Val. Max. 1.1.ext. 5). Persians burned not only Miletus’s Poseidium but also Apollo’s oracle there, yet the city later built the world’s largest temple with a village settlement inside the sacred grounds and a sacred grove inside and outside.[386] This sanctuary contained very costly art and was not far from the city proper by sea or by land (Strabo 14.1.5).[387] Like Delians, Milesians invoked especially Apollo Ulius, Apollo as deity of healing (14.1.6).[388] The Delphinium, sanctuary of Apollo Delphinius, lay in the southeast corner of the Lion Harbor and by the Hellenistic era measured 165 by 200 feet (50 by 60 m.).[389] Like other prominent Asian cities, Miletus hosted the imperial cult.[390]

The city had a significant Jewish community (Jos. Ant. 14.244–46). One second- or third-century C.E. inscription from the city theater noted seating accommodation for local Jews;[391] that it was in the fifth row reveals the status that Jews held in Miletus by that time.[392] Sources suggest that Paul or his companions eventually were engaged in ministry there (2 Tim 4:20), perhaps building on the work of predecessors who carried the gospel there during Paul’s time in Ephesus (Acts 19:10).

f. Avoiding Ephesus (20:16)

That Paul would take a ship that bypassed the less efficient port of Ephesus to save time makes sense;[393] but that he then waited in Miletus for messengers to reach Ephesus and gather elders there[394] and then for the elders to come from Ephesus (perhaps five days or more)[395] seems only to add to his delay. The messengers and elders would probably not sail from Ephesus, risking delays at ports awaiting ships; quicker at this distance was probably a land journey between Ephesus and Priene and a ferry between Priene and Miletus over the Gulf of Latmus. This shortest route would have been seventy-two kilometers, hence requiring at least four days for the messengers to reach Ephesus and (assuming the elders could simply drop everything they were doing and come) return.[396]

Indeed, Paul could have met with them more quickly in Samos (20:15) if they could have sailed there[397] (though funds for so many to sail would not demonstrate thrift). How does Paul save time by this means, and is it the real (or at least primary) reason that he avoided Ephesus? The problem does suggest that Luke (who was present on the voyage, 20:15) accurately records Paul’s voyage to Miletus, skipping Ephesus; Luke would not “voluntarily concoct the sort of problem we see here.”[398] But what were Paul’s motivations?

In some decisions, several factors may be at work, yet a writer may choose to focus on the factors that fit his or her aim. One factor that is emphasized by many scholars and that seems likely despite Luke’s omission of it is that Paul was no longer welcome (or perhaps safe) in Ephesus.[399] Certainly even Luke acknowledges that Paul still had many enemies there (21:27; 24:18–19). As Conzelmann puts it, “It is clear that Paul could no longer enter Ephesus, but Luke cannot say this.”[400] Luke focuses on the riot; but Paul faced opposition in Ephesus before this riot (1 Cor 16:9), and Luke himself is aware of it (recalling it even in this context, Acts 20:19). Writing an apologetic history with generally positive relations between Paul and important officials, Luke omits mention of post-riot backlash against Paul in Ephesus; yet it is intrinsically likely that some backlash occurred.

This backlash could include banishment or legal warnings that would amount to the same,[401] but it could as easily take the form of requests from his patrons not to appear there publicly (see comment on Acts 19:31). It might have been as simple as a conclusion by Paul, as the movement’s most visible leader, that it was indiscreet to bring the church trouble by appearing little less than a year after the riot.[402] Whatever the case, Luke sometimes reports Paul’s remaining for a time after troubles (14:20; 16:40; 18:18) to reinforce his honor; if Paul had a reason to avoid Ephesus that some of Theophilus’s circle might regard as less than honorable, it is not to Luke’s advantage to report it (cf. the omission of the cause for expulsion in 18:2).

Inability to return openly, whether due to banishment, a hostile situation, or benefactors’ requests, would explain Paul’s avoidance of Ephesus. Similarly, when Dio Chrysostom was banished from his homeland and his friends wanted to see him, going directly to the border seemed dishonorable, as if he was too broken by his exile to stay away (Or. 19.1); thus he went to Cyzicus, about fifty miles away, to allow his friends to visit with him during his stop there (19.2).

g. Paul’s Haste as a Factor (20:16)

Luke’s omission of one important factor need not, however, mean that he falsified the factor that he does report (and so it does not relieve commentators of the need to explain it). A number of commentators who suspect that Paul would have faced trouble in Ephesus also concur that he was genuinely hurrying to reach Jerusalem by Pentecost and that this urgency influenced his travel plans.[403] As argued in more detail in the comment on Acts 20:6, the entire itinerary reveals that the early part of the voyage was undertaken in some haste, and Paul had important reasons to be in Jerusalem by Pentecost, where he could offer the “firstfruits” of his ministry to the Gentiles.[404] Further, unpredictable factors required haste toward the voyage’s beginning to ensure a safe cushion of sufficient time to reach Jerusalem by the festival.[405]

If we grant Paul’s haste, does it really fit as a factor in Paul’s meeting Ephesians outside Ephesus? There are several considerations that support the plausibility of Luke’s explanation, though (as noted above) his explanation is probably not the only reason for the detour. These considerations include various factors in the nature of the voyage and the ancient demands of hospitality. The first consideration is the nature of the voyage: Paul depended on the ship’s own itinerary, and there were notable problems with access to Ephesus. Part of Paul’s plan may have depended on the itinerary of the one vessel that he could count on (perhaps for the price he could offer for his companions’ fares). Often a ship would not go as far as passengers needed, would skip a harbor they sought, or would stay in one place too long; often this required transshipping to a more convenient vessel, as eventually occurs in Acts 21:2.[406]

Ephesus was not on the direct route between Chios and Miletus if the ship planned to stop in Samos[407] (though, as a variant in 20:15 suggests, some did stop in Trogyllium); crossing the Gulf of Ephesus would take some time, and it would be against prevailing winds if one went to Samos first. Most ships that headed for Ephesus—they would have had cargo destined primarily for that large center—would not have needed to stop in Samos. If this vessel was headed for Miletus with its cargo (the other stops being merely or primarily along the way), it would not have needed to spend time in the congested harbor of another big city, Ephesus.

Ships without direct business in Ephesus also had good reason not to stop there merely for a temporary harbor in this period. Ephesus had the “largest harbour in Asia Minor,”[408] but it was not always the most convenient. Silting caused problems for ships in Ephesus’s harbor in the late 50s C.E.; the harbor was finally dredged in 62 (Tac. Ann. 16.23), probably because of local pressure.[409] Running aground in a poor harbor was not worth the risk; Horsley notes that the vessel’s supervisor might have even made this decision to avoid Ephesus after taking on passengers in Troas, a decision that the passengers could not affect.[410] It is perhaps more likely that Paul knew this in advance (cf. the wording of Acts 20:16), and it is possible that he calculated it as part of his plan. If Paul knew that the ship planned to spend several days in Miletus, he may have even sent a message ahead from Troas so that the Ephesian elders would be ready to come once messengers informed them that he had reached Miletus. But these are merely plausible reconstructions, none of which is absolutely compelling by itself.

Miletus was a bigger city than the other stops the ship had made, and the captain might have planned to remain in Miletus for several days.[411] During this time the crew would unload cargo (a process that could take many days, depending on the size of the ship’s hold) and perhaps wait for the optimum amount of cargo before leaving. Since a ship bound for Ephesus from Troas might equally have stayed there several days, Paul might not lose much time by calling the Ephesian elders to meet him in Miletus. Undoubtedly many ships left Troas on the day that Paul’s companions sailed, but Paul would have probably known their expected itineraries[412] and perhaps would have secured guaranteed passage for his group on the coasting voyage even as far as Patara, where the group had to find a different ship heading south to Phoenicia (Acts 21:1). (Alternatively, this is a secondary plan formulated en route to Miletus after the ship unexpectedly skipped the harbor of Ephesus,[413] perhaps for reasons such as noted above; or because of an unexpected delay in Miletus.) Luke’s mention of “the ship” in 20:38 probably implies (at least for the narrative world) that after his speech Paul reboarded the same ship on which he had arrived in Miletus. (Depending on the size of ship, unloading cargo dockside might take twelve days.)[414]

Finally and probably more decisively, the demands of giving and receiving hospitality may have been a compelling factor to avoid Ephesus proper.[415] Even given the above considerations of travel, Paul could have arranged to reach Ephesus had he wanted to, provided he would not be detained long once there.[416] But being detained long once there may have been precisely the problem. In some cultures, competing demands for hospitality provide embarrassments: individuals will be offended if one does not stay with them while in town;[417] social obligations require planning for a stay of sufficient duration to satisfy all the acquaintances who feel they have claim on one.[418]

It was considered an honor to entertain a noble friend as a guest,[419] and a sorrow if the friend had to be housed elsewhere instead (Eurip. Alc. 1039–41). One might even express in jealous tones such desires for someone to visit, to emphasize the sincerity of the invitation, or otherwise urge haste, to show affection; for example, Cicero urges Valerius to come straight to see him, not to visit Apulia on the way (Fam. 1.10.1).[420] Sometimes partly playfully and sometimes not (cf. 2 Cor 1:17), writers complain that someone with whom they are on intimate terms did not personally stop to see them.[421] This lapse requires an apology or a defense or at least an explanation.[422] Escaping persistent offers of hospitality might require exceptional determination.[423]

The demands of hospitality were widely known, to Luke and to everyone else. One might urge a traveler to stay because it was now night (Luke 24:29),[424] but if the traveler was particularly dear, one might continue insisting, to prolong the stay as long as possible (Judg 19:4–9).[425] Thus the crowds wanted Jesus to stay with them though his mission demanded otherwise (Luke 4:42–43). The citizens of a city might lay their honor on the line by expressing an invitation for a governor’s visit in such a way that his failure to visit would appear to dishonor them (Men. Rhet. 2.14, 424.3–430.8). This was a particularly emphatic way of seeking to honor the governor, and unless he deliberately wished to snub them, he normally would not refuse.[426]

In contrast to Troas, which Paul visited for one week (Acts 20:6), Paul could face more-demanding obligations in Ephesus. He had lived in Ephesus for nearly three years (20:31; cf. 19:8, 10), and his ministry was strongly interpersonal and from house to house (20:20, 31); his friends in Ephesus would surely expect more than a week’s stay if he were in town. Paul’s letters also suggest that he would take care not to leave anyone out if possible (cf. 1 Cor 1:14, 16; esp. Rom 16:3–15). He sometimes expresses the desire to stay for some time, not merely in passing (1 Cor 16:7; Phlm 22; cf. Rom 15:24). He also recognizes that churches will count it a privilege to “send him” on his way—that is, to offer hospitality and provide for his travel beyond them (1 Cor 16:6, 11; Rom 15:24; cf. Rom 15:28); this was a recognized social responsibility and would be their desire as much as his own.[427]

↑ Back to top