15. More about Ephesus
Luke now describes how Paul left Ephesus (20:1), having spent the best part of three years there during his third missionary expedition, and then travelled from place to place until at last he reached Jerusalem (21:17). It is true that Luke has let us into the secret that Paul was intending to make for Rome after visiting Jerusalem (19:21). Nevertheless, it was Jerusalem which filled his vision at this stage.
In fact, it is hard to resist the conclusion that Luke sees a parallel between Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem, which is prominent in his first volume, and Paul’s journey to Jerusalem, which he describes in his second. Of course the resemblance is far from being exact, and the mission of Jesus was unique; yet the similarities between the two journeys seem too close to be a coincidence. (a) Like Jesus, Paul travelled to Jerusalem with a group of his disciples (20:4ff.). (b) Like Jesus he was opposed by hostile Jews who plotted against his life (20:3, 19). (c) Like Jesus he made or received three successive predictions of his ‘passion’ or sufferings (20:22–23; 21:4, 11), including his being handed over to the Gentiles (21:11). (d) Like Jesus he declared his readiness to lay down his life (20:24; 21:13). (e) Like Jesus he was determined to complete his ministry and not be deflected from it (20:24; 21:13). (f) Like Jesus he expressed his abandonment to the will of God (21:14). Even if some of these details are not to be pressed, Luke surely intends his readers to see Paul as following in his Master’s footsteps when he ‘stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem’.
When the uproar had ended (20:1), and public order had been restored to the city of Ephesus, Paul sent for the disciples to come to him (was he still in hiding?) and, after encouraging them, said goodbye. I imagine that his encouragement took the form of an appeal similar to the one he would later give to their pastors in Miletus (20:17ff.). He will have urged them to remain loyal to Christ in spite of continuing persecution and ‘to live a life worthy of [their] calling’ as God’s new and holy people. Then he set out for Macedonia, intending to catch up with Timothy and Erastus, whom he had sent on ahead of him (19:22). Whether he went by sea or by road, he must have journeyed north, and his first main stop is likely to have been Troas. Here he had expected ‘to preach the gospel of Christ’, and indeed he ‘found that the Lord had opened a door’ for him there. Unfortunately, however, he was unable to make use of this opportunity. For he had also expected to find Titus in Troas, whom he had recently sent on an important fact-finding mission to Corinth. But Titus was not there to meet him, and so, because he ‘had no peace of mind’, instead of staying to evangelize in Troas he ‘went on to Macedonia’. It was later, probably in Philippi, that Paul’s longed-for rendezvous with Titus took place and his anxiety was transformed into joy. The good news Titus brought, along with other information, prompted Paul to write what we call his Second Letter to the Corinthians (which was actually his fourth).
1. Paul in northern and southern Greece (20:2–6)
Paul now travelled through that area (2a). He probably spent several months revisiting the Macedonian churches he had founded on his second missionary journey, namely Philippi, Thessalonica and Berea, and Luke characterized his ministry to them as speaking many words of encouragement to the people. The word is paraklēsis (the noun which is cognate with the verb parakaleō in verse 1), and it has a range of meanings from appeal through encouragement to comfort and consolation. It is a vital ministry in establishing Christian disciples, and the principal means of its exercise is, literally, ‘much word’. Nothing encourages and strengthens the people of God like the Word of God. It is likely also to have been during this period that Paul travelled further west along the Egnatian Way than he had previously gone, reaching even Illyricum on the Adriatic coast north of Macedonia.
After these Macedonian journeys Paul finally arrived in Greece (2b), Hellas being the popular name for Achaia. Here, almost certainly in Corinth, he stayed three months (3a). Much had happened in his relations with the Corinthian church since his first visit which Luke has described. He had written them four letters, and even paid them an interim visit (the so-called ‘painful visit’ of 2 Cor. 2:1, which Luke does not mention). So he will have had much to talk about with the church’s leaders, in the realms of both doctrine and ethics. We also know that he finalized arrangements for the Corinthians’ share in the collection for the Judean churches. In addition, it was during this visit to Corinth that Paul wrote his major manifesto of Christian faith and life, his letter to the Romans. In Romans 15 he explained that he had now ‘from Jerusalem all the way round to Illyricum . . . fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ’ and that in consequence ‘in these regions’ there was ‘no more place’ for him to work. That was why he hoped soon to visit Rome and go on to Spain.
Paul’s three months in Corinth are likely to have been during the winter, while he waited for the spring weather to open up navigation on the high seas. His purpose was to sail for Syria direct, as he had done after his first visit (18:18). As he was about to embark, however, he heard that some Jews had plotted against him. Ramsay imagines the situation: ‘Paul’s intention must have been to take a pilgrim ship carrying Achaian and Asian Jews to the Passover . . . With a shipload of hostile Jews, it would be easy to find opportunity to murder Paul’ and dump his body overboard. So Paul changed his plan at the last moment and decided to go back through Macedonia (3). The Bezan text adds that ‘the Spirit told him’ to do so. Yet it was his own decision; the two are not incompatible.
At this point Luke interrupts his account in order to tell us who Paul’s travelling companions were. It is worth noting that Paul hardly ever travelled alone, and that when he was alone, he expressed his longing for human companionship – for example, in Athens and in his final Roman imprisonment. That he favoured teamwork is especially clear during his missionary journeys. On his first he was accompanied by Barnabas and John Mark (until the latter defected), on his second by Silas and later Timothy, then Luke, and now at the end of his third Luke supplies his readers with a list of Paul’s friends. He was accompanied by Sopater [perhaps the same as the Sosipater who in Rom. 16:21 is called one of Paul’s ‘fellow Jews’] son of Pyrrhus from Berea, Aristarchus [19:29; 27:2] and Secundus from Thessalonica, Gaius from Derbe [probably the same as in 19:29, where one reading makes only Aristarchus a Macedonian, not Gaius], Timothy also, and Tychicus and Trophimus from the province of Asia (4). Trophimus came from Ephesus; perhaps Tychicus did also. In most cases Luke supplies these men’s home as well as their name in order both to identify them clearly and also (probably) to indicate how they represented the different regions which were taking part in the collection. Thus, Macedonia was represented by Sopater (Berea), Aristarchus and Secundus (Thessalonica) and perhaps Luke himself (Philippi); Galatia by Gaius (Derbe) and Timothy (Lystra); and Asia by Tychicus and Trophimus (Ephesus). Achaia is missing, but could have been represented by Paul himself, and/or by Titus, who according to Ramsay’s suggestion was a relative of Luke’s. This would mean that Paul’s entourage consisted of at least nine men.
Luke does not actually mention the offering in connection with them, although it must have been in his mind. In our minds, as we reflect on Paul’s associates, should be the threefold witness which they bear. The first is to the growth, unity and ‘catholicity’ of the church. Already Christian leaders from inland and coastal Asia Minor, from both sides of the Aegean, and from the northern and southern halves of Greece, know that they belong to the same church and in consequence cooperate in the same cause. Second, they bear witness to the fruitfulness of Paul’s missionary expeditions, since Derbe and Lystra were evangelized during his first, Berea and Thessalonica during his second, and Ephesus during his third. All nine men must have been the fruits of mission. But they then became the agents of mission. For, third, they give evidence of the missionary-mindedness of the young Christian communities, which already gave up some of their best local leadership to the wider work and witness of Christ’s church.
Reading between the lines of Luke’s compressed narrative, it seems that Paul and his group of associates left Corinth together and reached Philippi together. Perhaps it was here, and not earlier, that Luke joined the party (since the previous ‘we-section’ left him there, 16:12, and the next ‘we-section’ begins now in 20:5). Here too the group apparently split into two. These men, at least seven or eight of them, went on ahead and waited for us at Troas (5). But we [just Paul and Luke?] sailed from Philippi, that is, from its port Neapolis (16:11), only after the Festival of Unleavened Bread. This is unlikely to be a purely chronological note. Nor is Luke clearly saying that, having been foiled in his desire to celebrate the Passover in Jerusalem, Paul celebrated it in Philippi instead. Are we sure that he continued to observe the Jewish feasts, even though for a particular purpose he intended to get to Jerusalem in time for Pentecost (20:16)? I prefer Professor Howard Marshall’s explanation: ‘It is probable that he was celebrating the Christian Passover, i.e. Easter, with the church at Philippi (1 Cor. 5:7f.).’ At all events, it was not until after the festival that they left Philippi, and then it was five days later that they joined the others at Troas. They must have encountered strong headwinds, for their voyage in the opposite direction had taken only two days (16:11). Once in Troas, however, they stayed seven days (6).
2. A week in Troas (20:7–12)
Luke records only one incident during this week in Troas, namely the dramatic sleep, fall, death and resuscitation of a young man called Eutychus. Because it took place in the context of a worship service, however, the story is also instructive in the area of early Christian worship.
a. The death and resuscitation of Eutychus
On the first day of the week we came together to break bread (7a). How we interpret this ‘first day’ depends on whether we think Luke followed the Jewish reckoning of a day (from sunset to sunset) or the Roman (from midnight to midnight). It is because the neb translators opted for the former that they rendered the opening expression ‘on the Saturday night’. And certainly the Bezan text of 19:9 ‘from the fifth hour to the tenth’ (11 am to 4 pm) is a Jewish calculation, with the day beginning at 6 am. But here Luke is following the Roman way of reckoning, since the ‘daylight’ of verse 11 is already ‘the next day’ of verse 7. Professor Bruce is surely right, therefore, that Luke’s reference to ‘the first day of the week’, that is, Sunday, ‘is the earliest unambiguous evidence we have for the Christian practice of gathering together for worship on that day’. Moreover, the purpose of their assembly was ‘to break bread’, which Luke understood as the Lord’s Supper in the context of a fellowship meal, as in the Upper Room in Jerusalem. In addition, Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking [jbp, ‘prolonged his address’] until midnight (7b).
Luke was himself present on this occasion (‘we came together’, 7, and ‘where we were meeting’, 8), so that he was able to supply several eyewitness details which help us to visualize the scene. First, it was an evening service or meeting, for if Paul’s address ended at midnight, it can hardly have begun at midday! No, it probably began at about sunset, the congregation assembling for worship at the conclusion of their day’s work. Next, the meeting was being held in a private house, upstairs (8), indeed on the third floor (9). Third, there were many lamps in the upstairs room where we were meeting (8), so that the atmosphere became stuffy and oily, even for Eutychus who was seated in a window (9a; neb, ‘was sitting on the window-ledge’), which, being unglazed, gave him some fresh air to breathe. Fourth, although Eutychus is called ‘a young man’ (neanias) in verse 9, in verse 12 he is only a ‘boy’ (neb, jb) or ‘lad’ (rsv), pais normally covering the years from 8 to 14. Fifth, Luke does not intend us to attach any blame to the boy for falling asleep during the apostle’s sermon. For the impression is that he had a protracted struggle with his sleepiness. To begin with, he was gradually sinking into a deep sleep, or better ‘grew drowsy’; it was only as Paul talked on and on that he fell sound asleep (neb, jbp, he was ‘completely overcome by sleep’) and the accident happened: he fell to the ground from the third storey and was picked up dead (9b). Luke declares that he was dead; as a doctor he could vouch for it.
We can imagine the confusion which then took over, as everybody tried to run downstairs. Paul at once suspended his sermon and himself went down. Then, surely following the precedent established by Elijah with the son of the widow at Zarephath and by Elisha with the son of the Shunammite woman, he threw himself on the young man and put his arms round him, and said, ‘Don’t be alarmed . . . He’s alive!’ (10). This was not a statement that he was still alive in spite of his disastrous fall, but that as a result of Paul embracing him he had come alive again. Then he [Paul] went upstairs again and broke bread and ate, sharing in both the Lord’s Supper and the fellowship supper, which had evidently not been served previously. Paul also resumed his sermon and after talking until daylight, he left (11). Meanwhile, the people [relatives and friends, we assume] took the young man home alive and were greatly comforted (12).
b. Some principles of Christian worship
What can we learn about Christian worship from that Sunday evening service in Troas many centuries ago? We will be wise to exercise due caution in answering this question, for Luke’s account is purely descriptive, and is not intended to be prescriptive. We have no liberty, therefore, to be slavish, either in copying what took place (e.g. assembling in a house, indeed on the third floor, meeting in the evening, using oil lamps for illumination and listening to an inordinately lengthy sermon) or in omitting what is not mentioned (e.g. prayers, psalms, hymns and Scripture readings). Nevertheless, there seem to be principles of public worship here which are endorsed by biblical teaching elsewhere and are applicable to us today.
First, the disciples met on the Lord’s Day for the Lord’s Supper. At least verse 7 sounds like a description of the normal, regular practice of the church in Troas. And the evidence is that the Eucharist, as a thankful celebration of the now-risen Saviour’s death, very early became the main Sunday service, in the context of an agapē, that is, a ‘love feast’ or fellowship meal.
Second, in addition to the supper there was a sermon, indeed a very long one, for its first part lasted from sunset to midnight (7), and its second, from midnight to sunrise (11). Not that we are to think of Paul’s preaching as purely monologue, since Luke uses the verb dialegomai twice (7, 9), which implies discussion, perhaps in the form of questions and answers. The other word he uses is homileō (11), which jbp renders ‘a long earnest talk’ and neb ‘much conversation’. It was clearly more free and open than a formal sermon. But at least the apostle took his teaching responsibility seriously. So should we. ‘There is no hint that Paul took the incident as a rebuke for long-windedness.’ And since we have no living apostles comparable to Paul to instruct us today, we need to listen to the teaching of Christ’s apostles as it has come down to us in the New Testament. From the earliest days local churches began to make their own collection of the memoirs and letters of the apostles, and obeyed the repeated apostolic instruction to read them, alongside the Law and the Prophets, in the public assembly.
So it is, third, that word and sacrament were combined in the ministry given to the church at Troas, and the universal church has followed suit ever since. For God speaks to his people through his word both as it is read and expounded from Scripture and as it is dramatized in the two gospel sacraments, baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Perhaps ‘word and sacrament’ is not the best or most accurate coupling, common though it is. For strictly speaking the sacrament itself is a word, a ‘visible word’ according to Augustine. What builds up the church more than anything else is the ministry of God’s word as it comes to us through Scripture and sacrament (that is the right coupling), audibly and visibly, in declaration and drama.
3. A coastal voyage to Miletus (20:13–16)
This next brief paragraph in Luke’s narrative (only four verses in our English Bibles) is a rather breathless account of Paul’s voyage from Troas (where he addressed the local church) to Miletus (where he addressed the pastors of the Ephesian church). He tells us that Paul was ‘in a hurry’ (16); we get the impression that Luke was in a hurry too. He mentions four coastal or island ports at which Paul and his companions stopped (Assos, Mitylene, Chios and Samos) after leaving Troas and before arriving at Miletus. The we-section which began at verse 5 continues, so that Luke must be drawing on his own daily log of events. The ship evidently sailed each day and anchored each night. ‘The reason’, Ramsay explained, ‘lies in the wind.’ During the Aegean summer ‘it generally blows from the north, beginning at a very early hour in the morning’. Then ‘in the late afternoon it dies away’ and ‘at sunset there is a dead calm’.
Leaving Troas, Luke writes, we went on ahead to the ship and sailed for Assos, a port on the Asian mainland about 20 miles south of Troas, where we were going to take Paul aboard. He had made this arrangement because he was going there on foot (13), or perhaps simply ‘by land’ (rsv) or ‘by road’ (neb). Luke shares two facts with us, without explaining them. First, Paul sent his companions on ahead of him. Did he delay his departure from Troas in order first to assure himself that Eutychus was not only alive but well? It is only a guess. Second, Paul arranged for his friends to travel to Assos by sea and for himself to go by land. Travel along the coastal road would be quicker than a sea voyage round the cape. But why did he want to be alone? Was it that this was the real beginning of his long journey to Jerusalem? We know that he was anxious both that he would be rescued from unbelievers in Judea and that his offering would be acceptable to the believers in Jerusalem, for he begged the Christians in Rome to join him in praying for these very things. Maybe it was these things which occupied his thoughts and prayers on his lonely walk from Troas to Assos. But again, it is only a guess.
When he met us at Assos, the prearranged rendezvous, we took him aboard and went on to Mitylene (14), which was the main city of the island of Lesbos and was situated on its south-east coast. The next day we set sail from there and arrived off Chios (15a), that is, anchored in a mainland port opposite the island of Chios. The day after that we crossed over to Samos, an island west of Ephesus, and ‘after stopping at Trogyllium’ (jb, following the Bezan text), a promontory at the entrance to the gulf, on the following day arrived at Miletus (15b), the mainland harbour at the mouth of the River Meander. Paul had decided to sail past Ephesus, and indeed had now done so in order to reach Miletus, because he wanted to avoid spending time in the province of Asia, a quick visit being in his judgment impossible, for he was in a hurry to reach Jerusalem, if possible, by the day of Pentecost (16).
4. Paul’s address to the Ephesian elders (20:17–38)
From Miletus, Paul sent to Ephesus for the elders of the church (17). As the crow flies, Ephesus was only 30 miles north of Miletus, but the rather circuitous road was longer. It must have taken about three days for a messenger to travel to Ephesus and bring the elders back to Miletus. But in due course they arrived (18a).
a. Some introductory points
Before we are ready to study the text of Paul’s address to the Ephesian elders, several introductory points need to be made. First, this is the only speech in Acts which is addressed to a Christian audience. All the others are either evangelistic sermons, whether preached to Jewish people (2:14ff.; 3:12ff.; 13:16ff.) or Gentiles (10:34ff.; 14:14ff.; 17:22ff.), or legal defences, whether made before the Sanhedrin in the early days of the church (4:8ff.; 5:29ff.; 7:1ff.) or the five speeches before the Jewish and Roman authorities which come near the end of the book (22–26).
Second, the leaders addressed are called ‘elders’ (17), ‘overseers’ (28a) and ‘shepherds’ (28b), and it is evident that these terms denote the same people. ‘Pastors’ is the generic term which describes their role. In our day, in which there is much confusion about the nature and purpose of the pastoral ministry, and much questioning whether clergy are primarily social workers, psychotherapists, educators, facilitators or administrators, it is important to rehabilitate the noble word ‘pastors’, who are shepherds of Christ’s sheep, called to tend, feed and protect them. This pastoral responsibility over the local congregation seems to have been shared by both deacons (though in a supportive role) and those who are called either presbyteroi (elders), a word borrowed from the Jewish synagogue, or episkopoi (overseers), a word borrowed from Greek contexts. These are often – and rightly – referred to as ‘presbyter-bishops’, in order to indicate that during the apostolic period the two titles referred to the same office. In those days there were only ‘presbyter-bishops and deacons’. Those of us who belong to episcopally ordered churches and believe that a threefold order (bishops, presbyters and deacons) can be defended and commended from Scripture do not base our argument on the word episkopoi, but on people like Timothy and Titus who, though not called ‘bishops’, were nevertheless given an oversight and jurisdiction over several churches, with authority to select and ordain their presbyter-bishops and deacons.
Third, the church of Ephesus clearly had a team of presbyter-bishops (presbyteroi in verse 17 and episkopoi in verse 28 are both in the plural). Similarly Paul appointed ‘elders’ in every Galatian church (14:23), as we have seen, and later instructed Titus to do the same in Crete. There is no biblical warrant either for the one-man band (a single pastor playing all the instruments of the orchestra) or for a hierarchical or pyramidal structure in the local church (a single pastor perched at the apex of the pyramid). It is not even clear that each of the elders was in charge of an individual house church. It is better to think of them as a team, some perhaps with the oversight of house churches, but others with specialist ministries according to their gifts, and all sharing the pastoral care of Christ’s flock. We need today to embrace this concept of a pastoral team in the church.
Fourth, Luke himself was present and heard this speech (see the ‘we’ in 21:1). Perhaps William Neil is correct in suggesting that ‘Luke may have made notes at the time’. Certainly the address has an authentically Pauline flavour. What has struck many students are the connections, in both vocabulary and content, between the speech and Paul’s letters. Themes in his letters which he touches on in his speech are the grace of God (24, 32), the kingdom of God (25), the purpose (boulē) of God (27), the redeeming blood of Christ (28), repentance and faith (21), the church of God and its building up (28, 32), the inevitability of suffering (23–24), the danger of false teachers (29–30), the need for vigilance (28, 31), running the race (24) and our final inheritance (32).
b. The message of Paul’s speech (20:18b–35)
It may be helpful to divide Paul’s speech into three portions, relating to the past, the future and the present.
i. His ministry in Ephesus (20:18b–21)
You know how I lived, he says (18b). Again, you know (20), although this is a resumptive clause in the English text, which is not in the Greek; and again later, ‘you yourselves know’ (34). This repeated emphasis on their knowledge of him reminds us of 1 Thessalonians 2, where he wrote, ‘You know, brothers and sisters . . . as you know . . . You know . . . Surely you remember . . . You are witnesses . . . For you know . . .’. A vicious smear campaign had been launched against Paul in Thessalonica. Because he had had to be smuggled out of the city by night and had not returned, his critics accused him of insincerity. Something similar seems to have happened in Ephesus during the year or so since he had left the city. So he needed to defend the sincerity of his motives and, as in Thessalonica so in Ephesus, he did it by reminding them of his visit. They knew how he had lived during the whole time he was with them, from beginning to end. He appealed to their memory, especially of four aspects of his ministry: his humility (meaning perhaps his humiliations), his tears, his testings on account of ‘the machinations of the Jews’ (19, neb), and his faithful preaching–teaching ministry, in public and in private, in which he concentrated on the need for both Jews and Gentiles to repent and to believe in the Lord Jesus.
ii. His future sufferings (20:22–27)
In this section Luke replaces the ‘you know . . . you know’ of the previous paragraph with I . . . know (23), I know (25), I know (29). For Paul turns from the past which they knew to the future which the Holy Spirit was teaching him and which he now shared with them. The same Holy Spirit who warns him in every town (perhaps through prophets) of prison and hardships (23) nevertheless compels him to keep travelling to Jerusalem (22). For his overriding concern is not to survive at all costs, but rather that he may finish the race and complete his Christ-given task of bearing witness to the good news of God’s grace (24). And Paul knows something else. His prophetic eyes peer beyond Jerusalem and his sufferings there to the mission visits to Rome and to Spain of which he is still dreaming. It must be for this reason that he knows that none of them will see him again (25). This fact adds a poignant finality to the occasion. He makes a solemn declaration that, as a watchman like Ezekiel, he is innocent of everybody’s blood (26). His conscience is clear. He has not hesitated to proclaim to them God’s whole purpose of salvation (27). Consequently, he cannot be held responsible should any of them perish.
iii. His exhortation to the elders (20:28–35)
Having looked back to his ministry in Ephesus (which they know) and on to his coming sufferings and separation from them (which he knows), Paul now gives them his final charge. The past and the future will together shape their present ministry. In essence, his appeal is for vigilance: Keep watch (28); Be on your guard! (31).
We note that the Ephesian pastors must first keep watch over themselves, and only then over the flock over which the Holy Spirit has made them responsible. For they cannot care adequately for others if they neglect the care and culture of their own souls. They are to be shepherds of God’s church, poimainō meaning in general to ‘tend’ a flock and in particular ‘to lead a flock to pasture, and so to feed it’. This is the first duty of shepherds. ‘Should not shepherds take care of the flock?’ Moreover, pastors will be all the more careful in their ministry if they remember that their flock is the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. The startling concept of God having and shedding blood, although spoken of by the Church Fathers Ignatius and Tertullian, seems to have led some scribes to write ‘the church of the Lord’, meaning the Lord Jesus. But this expression occurs nowhere in the New Testament, whereas ‘the church of God’ is a regular expression in Paul’s writing. It should therefore be retained. Then the rest of the sentence should be translated ‘which he bought with the blood of his Own’ (rsv margin, neb margin). This sense of idios (‘own’), writes F. F. Bruce, ‘is well attested by the papyri, where it is “used thus as a term of endearment to near relations”’.
The second need for watchfulness is the wolves, that is, the false teachers, who, Paul knows, will enter and devastate Christ’s flock after his departure (29). Some of them will arise even from within the church. By distorting the truth, they will induce people to forsake it and follow them instead (30). So the Ephesian pastors must be on their guard, as Paul had constantly warned them while he was with them (31). We have only to read both letters to Timothy and the letter to Ephesus in Revelation 2:1ff. to know that what Paul predicted came to pass. Perhaps it would not have done if the pastors had been more vigilant.
After exhorting the Ephesian elders to be watchful both over the sheep and against the wolves, the apostle proceeds to commend them to God and to the word of his grace (32). Then suddenly, as if to enforce his appeal and commendation, he reminds them again of the example he has set them. Like Samuel in his farewell charge, Paul declares that he has coveted nobody’s money or clothing (33). Instead, he has supported himself and his companions. We can imagine his gesture as he refers to these hands of mine (34). And by his hard manual work he has demonstrated the truth of an otherwise unknown saying of Jesus, It is more blessed to give than to receive (35).
c. The farewell (20:36–38)
No comment needs to be made on this passage:
When Paul had finished speaking, he knelt down with all of them and prayed. They all wept as they embraced him and kissed him. What grieved them most was his statement that they would never see his face again. Then they accompanied him to the ship.
d. Ideals of pastoral ministry
In developing the pastoral metaphor, it is worth noting that Paul described his own teaching ministry (as their ‘shepherd’), warned them of false teachers (‘wolves’) and affirmed the value of their church members (God’s ‘sheep’).
i. The example of the apostle (the shepherd)
Several times he reminded the elders of his example. There had been a degree of thoroughness about it, which left his conscience clear. First, he had been thorough in his teaching. He had taught them about God’s grace and kingdom (24–25) and the necessity of repentance and faith (21). He had not held back from declaring to them either what was helpful to them (20) or God’s whole salvation plan (27). Second, he had been thorough in his coverage. He was as concerned to reach the whole population of Ephesus as he was to teach the whole purpose of God. He wanted to teach everything to everybody! So he had a ministry to both Jews and Gentiles, both residents and visitors. Third, he was thorough in his methods. He taught both publicly (in synagogue and lecture hall) and privately (in homes), and he continued both day and night (20, 31). He was absolutely indefatigable. In modern terms, Paul’s threefold thoroughness was a fine example of ‘evangelism in depth’. He shared all possible truth with all possible people in all possible ways. He taught the whole gospel to the whole city with his whole strength. His pastoral example must have been an unfailing inspiration to the Ephesian pastors.
ii. The rise of false teachers (the wolves)
In the Ancient Near East wolves were the chief enemy of sheep. Hunting either singly or in packs, they were a constant threat. Sheep were defenceless against them. Shepherds could not afford to relax their vigilance. Nor can Christian pastors. Jesus himself warned of false prophets; ‘wolves in sheep’s clothing’ he called them.
So the shepherds of Christ’s flock have a double duty: to feed the sheep (by teaching the truth) and to protect them from wolves (by warning of error). As Paul put it to Titus, elders must hold firm the sure word according to apostolic teaching, so that they might be able both to ‘give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it’. This emphasis is unpopular today. We are frequently told always to be positive in our teaching, and never negative. But those who say this have either not read the New Testament or, having read it, disagree with it. For the Lord Jesus and his apostles refuted error themselves and urged us to do the same. We wonder if it is the neglect of this obligation which is a major cause of today’s theological confusion. If, when false teaching arises, Christian leaders sit idly by and do nothing, or turn and flee, they will earn the terrible label ‘hired hands’ who care nothing for Christ’s flock. Then too it will be said of believers, as it was of Israel, that ‘they were scattered because there was no shepherd, and . . . they became food for all the wild animals’.
iii. The value of the people (the sheep)
Verse 28 clearly implies that the pastoral oversight of the church belongs ultimately to God himself. Indeed, each of the three persons of the Trinity has a share in this oversight. To begin with, the church is ‘God’s church’. Next, whether we read that he redeemed it ‘with his own blood’ or ‘with the blood of his Own’, it is plain that the purchase price was the blood of Christ. And over this church, which belongs to God and has been bought by Christ, the Holy Spirit appoints overseers. So the oversight is his too, or he could not delegate it to others. This splendid trinitarian affirmation, that the pastoral oversight of the church belongs to God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), should have a profound effect on pastors. It should humble us to remember that the church is not ours, but God’s. And it should inspire us to faithfulness. For sheep are not at all the clean and cuddly creatures they may appear. In fact, they are dirty, are subject to unpleasant pests, and regularly need to be dipped in strong chemicals to rid them of lice, ticks and worms. They are also unintelligent, wayward and obstinate. I hesitate to apply the metaphor too closely and characterize the people of God as dirty, lousy or stupid! But some people are a great trial to their pastors (and vice versa). And their pastors will persevere in caring for them only if they remember how valuable they are in God’s sight. They are the flock of God the Father, purchased by the precious blood of God the Son, and supervised by overseers appointed by God the Holy Spirit. If the three persons of the Trinity are thus committed to the welfare of the people, should we not be also?
Richard Baxter’s great book The Reformed Pastor (1656) is really an exposition of Acts 20:28. He wrote:
Oh then, let us hear these arguments of Christ, whenever we feel ourselves grow dull and careless: ‘Did I die for them, and wilt not thou look after them? Were they worth my blood and are they not worth thy labour? Did I come down from heaven to earth, to seek and to save that which was lost; and wilt thou not go to the next door or street or village to seek them? How small is thy labour and condescension as to mine? I debased myself to this, but it is thy honour to be so employed. Have I done and suffered so much for their salvation; and was I willing to make thee a co-worker with me, and wilt thou refuse that little that lieth upon thy hands?’
5. On to Jerusalem (21:1–17)
Saying goodbye to the Ephesian elders had been an emotional scene, especially because they and Paul believed that they would never see one another again. Paul’s party had had to tear themselves away from them. And now began the final leg of the journey to Jerusalem, for which again Luke obviously drew on his diary. He mentions three or four stops (Kos, Rhodes, Patara and perhaps Myra), followed by three landings (Tyre, Ptolemais and Caesarea).
a. From Miletus to Tyre (21:1–6)
After we had torn ourselves away from them, we [Luke again unostentatiously draws attention to his presence] put out to sea and sailed straight to Kos (1a), a small island due south of Miletus. The next day we went to Rhodes, a larger island to the south-east, whose city of the same name was situated at its north-easterly tip, and from there to Patara (1b), due east of Rhodes, the Bezan text adding ‘and Myra’, a bit further east still. Both Patara and Myra are near to the southernmost promontory of the mainland of Asia Minor. Because ‘the harbour of Myra seems to have been the great port into the direct cross-sea traffic to the coasts of Syria and Egypt’, wrote William Ramsay, ‘it may . . . be safely assumed that Myra was visited by Paul’s ship’. Here we found a ship crossing over to Phoenicia, on the Palestinian coast, so that they transferred themselves to it, went on board and set sail (2). Their route now took them south-east into the middle of the Eastern Mediterranean. It was a 400-mile voyage from Myra to Tyre. After sighting Cyprus and passing to the south of it, we sailed on to Syria.
We landed at Tyre, where our ship was to unload its cargo (3). At the same time their search for Christians in the town was successful. Finding the disciples there, they stayed with them seven days, either because the unloading (and perhaps reloading) took that long, or because their ship stopped there and they were waiting for another one. During this week the disciples through the Spirit . . . urged Paul not to go on to Jerusalem (4). When it was time to leave, we left and continued on our way (5a). I will return later to the apparently contradictory signals which were coming from the Holy Spirit about Paul’s journey to Jerusalem. All of them, including wives and children, accompanied us out of the city, and there on the beach we knelt to pray (5). It must have been another emotional parting. After saying goodbye to each other, we went aboard the ship, and they returned home (6).
b. From Tyre to Jerusalem (21:7–17)
We continued our voyage from Tyre and landed at Ptolemais, called Acre since the Middle Ages, about 25 miles south of Tyre. Here we greeted the brothers and sisters and stayed with them for a day (7). Leaving the next day, we reached Caesarea, a magnificent city built by Herod the Great to serve as the port for Jerusalem, and stayed at the house of Philip the evangelist [so called to distinguish him from Philip the apostle], one of the Seven (8). It was here at Caesarea that Philip had settled about twenty years previously (8:40). Since then his family had grown up: he had four unmarried daughters who prophesied (9). Luke does not tell us exactly how long Paul and his party stayed in Caesarea, but they will have had much to talk about with Philip and his daughters. Perhaps it was now that Philip revealed the facts about himself and Stephen, which Luke later incorporated into Acts 6 – 8. During their stay, another prophecy of great interest was given.
After we had been there a number of days, a prophet named Agabus [presumably the one who featured in 11:27ff.] came down from Judea (10). Coming over to us, he copied the miming practice of some of the Old Testament prophets, like Ahijah tearing Jeroboam’s cloak into twelve pieces, Isaiah going stripped and barefoot for three years and Ezekiel laying siege to a drawing of Jerusalem. He took Paul’s belt and tied his own hands and feet with it. This was not a short leather belt: ‘to bind himself hand and foot with such a girdle would have been an acrobatic performance’. It must rather have been a long piece of cloth which was worn as a girdle. Then Agabus said: The Holy Spirit says, ‘In this way the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem will bind the owner of this belt and will hand him over to the Gentiles’ (11). This was the second prophecy which seems incompatible with what the Spirit originally said to Paul; I will address this problem at the end of this chapter. When we heard this [Agabus’s prophecy], Luke continues, we and the people there [he specifically includes himself] pleaded with Paul not to go up to Jerusalem (12). This time the apostle was outspoken in rejecting their pleas. Then Paul answered, ‘Why are you weeping and breaking my heart [neb, ‘trying to weaken my resolution’]? I am ready not only to be bound, but also to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus’ (13). His words are almost identical with Peter’s: ‘Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.’ The difference was that in the event Peter had faltered and failed (though in the end he suffered and died for Christ), whereas Paul was true to his word. When he would not be dissuaded, we gave up and said [not in feeble resignation but as a positive prayer], ‘The Lord’s will be done’ (14).
After this we started on our way, meaning either ‘we packed our baggage’ (neb) or ‘equipped horses’, up to Jerusalem (15). Since the distance between Caesarea and Jerusalem was 65 miles, the journey would take two days, as the Bezan text says, and horses would be necessary. Some of the disciples from Caesarea accompanied us and brought us to the home of Mnason, which was in Jerusalem and where we were to stay. He was a man from Cyprus and one of the early disciples (16), that is, probably ‘a foundation-member of the Jerusalem church’. When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers and sisters received us warmly (17).
c. The guidance of the Spirit
So at last, after many weeks of travel and suspense, and in spite of dire warnings, Paul arrived at his destination. But was he right to brush aside his friends who implored him to abandon his plan? What about those messages of the Holy Spirit through prophets? Are we to blame Paul for his stubbornness or admire him for his unshakeable resolve?
At first sight the promptings of the Spirit appear to have been in direct conflict with each other. In Miletus Paul told the Ephesian elders that he was going to Jerusalem ‘compelled by the Spirit’, in spite of the ‘prison and hardships’ of which the same Spirit warned him (20:22–23). In Tyre, however, it was ‘through the Spirit’ that certain disciples urged him (the imperfect elegon implies ‘again and again’, jbp) not to go on to Jerusalem (21:4), while in Caesarea Agabus began his prophecy with the formula ‘the Holy Spirit says’ (21:11). But Paul ignored both messages. Refusing to be dissuaded (21:14), he continued on his way (21:5).
How can we resolve this problem? Certainly not by concluding that the Spirit contradicted himself, telling Paul to go in chapter 20 and going back on his instruction in chapter 21. Luke has too high a doctrine of the Holy Spirit to portray him as changing his mind. Even if 20:22 should be understood as referring rather to the compulsion of his own spirit than of the Holy Spirit, Paul still appears to go against the voice of the Holy Spirit in chapter 21.
I think we should begin by affirming that Luke believed Paul to be right in going to Jerusalem. He probably attributes to the Holy Spirit both the decision of 19:21 and the compulsion of 20:22, since both of them were (en) tō pneumati, ‘in the Spirit’. In addition, we have already suggested that Luke sees Paul’s journey to Jerusalem as the disciple following in his Master’s footsteps. What then are we to make of 21:4 and 11? Some have argued that the references to the Spirit here simply mean that the speakers were claiming inspiration, without necessarily being inspired. But then we would have to interpret other references to the Spirit in the same ambiguous way. The better solution is to draw a distinction between a prediction and a prohibition. Certainly Agabus only predicted that Paul would be bound and handed over to the Gentiles (21:11); the pleadings with Paul which followed are not attributed to the Spirit and may have been the fallible (indeed mistaken) human deduction from the Spirit’s prophecy. For if Paul had followed his friends’ pleas, then Agabus’s prophecy would not have been fulfilled! It is more difficult to understand 21:4 in this way, since the ‘urging’ itself is said to be ‘through the Spirit’. But perhaps Luke’s statement is a condensed way of saying that the warning was divine while the urging was human. After all, the Spirit’s word to Paul combined the compulsion to go with a warning of the consequences (20:22–23).
So Luke surely intends us to admire Paul for his courage and perseverance. Like Jesus before him, he set his face steadfastly to go to Jerusalem, and (like Jesus again) the divine predictions of suffering did not deter him.
What strengthened Paul in his journey was the Christian fellowship which he and his travel companions experienced in every port. In Tyre they found disciples and stayed with them seven days (21:4). In Ptolemais they greeted their sisters and brothers and stayed with them one day (7). In Caesarea they were accommodated in the home of Philip the evangelist and stayed with him ‘a number of days’ (8, 10). The disciples from Caesarea then personally escorted Paul and his party to Jerusalem, where they were to stay with the early Cypriot convert Mnason (16), and on arrival in Jerusalem the sisters and brothers ‘received [them] warmly’ (17). It would be an exaggeration to call this Paul’s ‘triumphal entry’ into Jerusalem. But at least his warm reception strengthened him to bear the crowd’s shouts a few days later: ‘Get rid of him!’ (36).