Some residual thoughts from Acts 20:1-13

"Hidden" in the story of Paul and company's trip to Troas are a few little issues that are slightly controversial.

1. Was there a church at Troas?
2. Did the disciples take the Lord's Supper?
3. Did Paul raise Eutychus from the dead?

Acts 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight...20:11 When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.

I will discuss the first two together, because they are tied together in the minds of some. For others, this is probably not even a blip on their radar. This text and question is problematic to most Landmarkers, or at least to local-church-only communionists.

For many Baptists, the Lord's Supper is viewed as a church ordinance that should be taken in church capacity. So whether or not there was a church at Troas relates to the Lord's Supper as a church ordinance. For a smaller group of the whole, the Lord's Supper is viewed as a local-church-only church ordinance; that is, only the members of a local church is supposed to take the Lord's Supper together.

Davis Huckabee, in The Ordinances of the Church, puts it this way: "There are several erroneous assumptions about the events of this passage in Acts, viz., (1) That there was ever a church at Troas. (2) That the meal eaten was the Lord’s Supper...(5) That Paul observed the Lord’s Supper with a church of which he was not a member." J. R. Graves, in Intercommunion, Unscriptural and Inconsistent, resolved the issue to his satisfaction by both denying that there was a church at Troas and denying that the Lord's Supper was celebrated by Paul and his companions.

But the language of Acts 20 seems to indicate Eutychus, not a traveling companion (cf. v 4), was a disciple who was listening to Paul's speech, and that there were others there who were comforted by his being alive. The motivation for a drawn-out service on the eve of their departure was very likely that there were disciples in Troas they expected to see no more (cf. v. 25). This is no conclusive, but causes one to wonder whether some expositions are not driven more by assumptions outside the text.

Acts 20:9-10 And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead. And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him...12 And they brought the young man alive, and were not a little comforted.

In A Dictionary of the Bible by W. R. F. Browning, it is written that Eutychus fell from an upstairs window and that "Paul was able to assure the company that he was not fatally injured." Some think the language -- especially of Paul in v. 10 -- indicate that the people just thought he was dead and Paul discovered he was still alive.

I personally see the words "taken up dead" as meaning he was actually dead, and Paul brought him back to life. Some may want to deny miracles and resurrection by saying Eutychus wasn't dead. But others believe in the power of God and are simply trying to understand the words of the Bible. Whether Eutychus was alive or dead, we see that God has the power to either keep alive to raise back to life.

[Note: An interesting take on these two points is found in the writing of Jonathan Teram, who assures us, "Jesus rose from the dead on Sunday and broke bread with his disciples (Luke 24:30). In Troas, Eutychus was raised from the dead, then the disciples broke bread with each other."]

Follow-up of residual thoughts: possibilities at Troas.

Was there a church at Troas? Did they partake the Lord's Supper?

No church?
1.a. There was no church in Troas and the disciples gathered for a "potluck" meal together and worshiped together.
1.b. There was no church in Troas and the disciples gathered for a "potluck" meal together, observed the Lord's Supper and worshiped together.
1.c. There was no church in Troas and the disciples observed the Lord's Supper and worshiped together.

Church?
2.a. There was a church in Troas and the traveling disciples gathered with the church for a "potluck" meal together and worshiped together.
2.b. There was a church in Troas and the traveling disciples gathered with the church for a "potluck" meal together, observed the Lord's Supper and worshiped together.
2.c. There was a church in Troas and the traveling disciples gathered with the church, observed the Lord's Supper and worshiped together.

Prayer quote - Manton

"Every prayer is an acknowledgment of our weakness and dependence. Who would ask that of another which he thinketh to be in his own power?" -- Thomas Manton

Acts 20:1-12, brief thoughts

From Ephesus, Paul went to Macedonia and Achaia/Greece, then over to Asia. Some of the disciples had gone ahead and were already there when he (and at least Luke) arrived five days later. After spending about a week there, they continued on their journey.

"We are laborers together"
Acts 20:4 And there accompanied him into Asia Sopater of Berea; and of the Thessalonians, Aristarchus and Secundus; and Gaius of Derbe, and Timotheus; and of Asia, Tychicus and Trophimus.

It may be that many of us emphasize Paul so much that we forget that on most occasions he had traveling companions who labored and ministered with him. Verse 4 names those who went before him into Asia. Paul was an apostle, and fulfilled the ministry God gave him. But let us also remember that all have gifts differing according to the grace that is given to them and the Spirit of God gives to every man as He will. Thus, all to whom this grace is given are "laborers together with God". Therefore we ought not to think of ourselves more highly than we ought to think. Verse 4 reminds us that God calls each to his own calling, and each should fulfill that calling (and labor together with God).

"Not forsaking the assembling"
Act 20:7 begins "...upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together..." Regardless of their travels, the disciples took time to come together, worship together, study together, break bread together. The manner of some may be to forsake assembling. But a church IS an assembly; she should assemble. We do so for the good of ourselves and for one another. Some dictatorial pastors press this upon their members as a burden to bear -- be here every time the doors are open, don't be on vacation on Sunday, don't, don't, don't (and then they schedule their vacations and are gone). But the Lord's people have a desire to see one another, to assemble on the first day of the week and exhort one another, edify one another, teach one another. Verse 7 reminds us to come together.

Jesus baptized not

Eld. Wayne Gregory:

John 4:1-3 reads: "When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,) He left Judaea, and departed again into Galilee."

I am persuaded that the Spirit revealed that Jesus did not personally baptize in water except through his disciples for two reasons:

First, for the glory of Christ: John the Baptist declared: Luke 3:16, 17 “I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable.” It seems reasonable to me that Christ had a superior baptism to give that no other would or could perform. Clearly this event occurred later and is recorded along with its effects for us in the book of Acts 2. It was Christ’s baptism. He was the administrator of it alone; the element, which was used by Christ, was not water, but the Holy Ghost; and the recipient was the living organism of which Christ is Founder and Head – the church, which was the visible evidence of Mt. Zion, God’s dwelling place. This superior baptism with or in the Spirit seems to agree with the statement that Christ was far superior to John who baptized with (in) water. As truly as never a man spoke as Christ, never a man baptized as Christ, and that includes John the Baptist.

Second, for the comfort of His people: It appears to me that this emphasis of Christ not personally baptizing the disciples in water was for the peace and comfort of all who would follow after and teaches that baptism in water was to be and indeed continued to be performed by the disciples under Christ’s headship and direction. Brethren, had Christ baptized any in water, I would consider mine a poor substitute for that. In fact, I would forever be in great doubt whether I was baptized at all or had obeyed Christ’s positive command. Now, because I am taught here that the disciples baptized, not Christ, I can take some comfort that the baptism I have received is acceptable to Him being administered by one authorized by Christ also.

[By Wayne Gregory, in "Two Requests", Predestinarian Forum, February 1, 2010]

Think about it

"Moving from culture-at-large to church culture, a Cowboy Church movement has arisen largely because the standard Southern Baptist church culture has almost nothing Southern about it. The music is Rock, the marketing is Madison Avenue, the platform dress is Abercrombie & Fitch, and the A-V technology is Times Square.

"What's Southern about that?"

The above quote is taken from If Heaven Ain't A Lot Like Dixie? by Bart Barber, which you can read for the larger context. If you're not Southern Baptist, this may not grab you the same way as it will someone who is Southern Baptist. Nevertheless, this is an interesting conjecture about the rise and popularity of the "Cowboy Church". Is part of it because modern churches make themselves over into something that is foreign to their culture? Just wondering.

Confidence

Below is one of many John Newton hymns I've never read before. I find much in it which touches my situation. Especially did I feel "Ere he called me well he knew, What a heart like mine would do" and especially do I love "I have sinned, but thou hast died: This is all I have to plead, This is all the plea I need!"

Confidence.

Yes! since God himself has said it,
On the promise I rely;
His good word demands my credit,
What can unbelief reply?
He is strong and can fulfill,
He is truth and therefore will.

As to all the doubts and questions,
Which my spirit often grieve,
These are Satan's sly suggestions,
And I need no answer give;
He would fain destroy my hope,
But the promise bears it up.

Sure the LORD thus far has brought me
By his watchful tender care;
Sure 'tis he himself has taught me
How to seek his face by prayer:
After so much mercy past,
Will he give me up at last?

True, I've been a foolish creature;
And have sinned against his grace;
But forgiveness is his nature,
Though he justly hides his face:
Ere he called me well he knew,
Isa 48:8
What a heart like mine would do.

In my Savior's intercession
Therefore I will still confide;
LORD accept my free contrition,
I have sinned, but thou hast died:
Rom 8:34
This is all I have to plead,
This is all the plea I need.

John Newton (1725-1807)
Olney Hymns, 1779

Anointing with oil, reprise

Back in 2006, I posted a brief essay on anointing with oil. I entered into a brief discussion of it recently on Adrian Neal’s blog. A preacher brother there set forth some views against symbolic oil and favoring medicinal oil. Rather than making extended posts there, I have brought most of my rebuttal here to my own blog. The following italicized quotes are from two different posts on Brother Neal’s blog (which can be viewed at the above link).

History seems to show that families did not have every-day pediatricians or family doctors. Instead, their pastors acted in a medicinal sense. Historical references show early church bishops as the family "doctor". Not that he was trained in the arts of medicine (if you can call what they did back in that day medicine). But rather that physicians were not common for people that were not rich. The bishop did often assume this roll, since he was called for when someone was sick.

If you have found some references that show early bishops acting as the family doctor, I have no argument with that. Probably some of them were doctors (consider Luke of NT times, and John Clarke of Rhode Island). Perhaps some were not. Such historical occurrences do not govern the interpretation of James 5:14-15. Ultimately it is the Bible, not history, which is inspired, accurate and authoritative. Were doctors common and affordable? Were doctors reliable? Job’s expression in the reply to his friends (13:4 physicians of no value) implies there were also physicians of some value. Statements such as in Jeremiah 8:22 and Matthew 9:12 also imply that the sick finding a physician – and being healed – was not that unusual. And Jesus surely wouldn’t recommend that the sick need physicians if all physicians in that day were quacks. Surely Luke wasn’t, but was rather a beloved one (Colossians 4:14).

Back then, oils were some of, if not the only, medicines they had that actually helped. Similar to a Vicks Vapor rub, different kinds of oils had different effects. Different herbs were crushed and mixed into the different oils. Thus, when someone was sick, they would call for the pastor. He would pray for them, but also anoint them with the oils for healing.
There were different kinds of oils and oil mixtures used for different purposes. Some soothing of skin, some soothing of muscles, some keeping pests out, some for constant inhalation (like Vicks Vapor Rub today).

If the medicinal interpretation of James 5:14-15 is correct, then surely oil is the universal medicine. But again, both history and the Bible show that oil was not the universal medicine, however good it may be. Quacks or no, doctors living in the early New Testament period not only used oils, but even performed surgeries. In an entirely makeshift situation, the Good Samaritan did not use oil alone, but poured oil and wine into the wounds of the man beaten by thieves. As to different kinds of oils, historically I don’t question that different oils and different herbs were used medicinally. That is still true today. But, where, oh where, do we find the different oils and herbs in James 5:14-15? There are no herbs there, and the oil is probably only olive oil, since the Greek word ἐλαίῳ (olive oil) is used.

The pastors carried the oils with them when called. Indeed the sick were healed by the LORD, but it shows that God doesn't disagree with church members relying on Him, and at the same time using soothing medicines. Thus, take a little wine for thy stomach sake, right? If God just wanted people to be anointed with some symbolic oil and wait for healing, then why would He command this of Timothy?

There was and is no argument from me against using medicines. I just don’t believe that medicine is what is in view in James 5:14-15. I do believe the medicinal value of the wine is in view in I Timothy 5:23.

We have no other place in the Bible oil was used for magical healing, or for pastoral prayers.

We find other places where oil was used for anointing; more than where it was used for medicine. One specifically connected to healing is Mark 6:13. And no one has suggested any “magical” healing here – unless you suppose God healing in answer to prayer is “magic”. Does God heal people we pray for, whether or not they use medicine? If not, why do we pray for the sick? Just go to the doctor and be done with it.

This type of interpretation that the oil was NOT medicinal would seem to ALSO take away from the idea that God is the one who heals. As a matter of fact, it would seem to suggest one must have the oil for God to do the healing.

But, in fact, it is only in a medical interpretation that the oil has any effect on healing. In a symbolic interpretation it is only symbolic. It produces no effect. It only answers to simple obedience to a literal reading of the Scripture. This idea which you foist upon my interpretation, I suspect you are not willing to apply to your own. That is, that one must have the oil for God to do the healing. If this logic “must” applies to the text, then you are pierced by the horns of your own dilemma. One must use medicine for God to do the healing. If not, why not?

Why not? Because either way is an anemic look at only one incident in the whole of Scripture. The whole Scripture gives the full look at the subject of God healing. I would sum it up roughly by saying God does not object to the use of medicine (cf. Luke 5:31), but that it is sinful to rely on doctors to the exclusion of faith in God (cf. II Chronicles 16:12).

An interesting observation of the medicinal interpretation of James 5:14-15 is this: Of all those who assert this interpretation, I have not yet seen even one obey it. I do not know of a single Baptist who has asked pastors and come rub oil and herbs on them while they pray for them. Oh, you say, I don’t really believe it means that. Do tell.

[Note: some uses of oil that I find in the Bible – offering, fuel for light, anointing, food/cooking, ointment, gift or payment/barter, product to sell, purification, perfume, moisturizer, medicine. The most references seem to be anointing; there is a lot concerning light, offerings and food – and the symbolic representation of wealth, God’s pleasure on His people – but not that much about medicinal use, it would seem to me.]

Acts 19:21--20:1

Ephesus was an important city in Asia Minor, a center of the goddess Diana. Paul spent nearly three years there (cf. 19:8,10; Acts 20:31). The church in Ephesus was prominent among those seven to whom the apostle John wrote. According to John Gill, the temple of Diana at Ephesus "was about seven furlongs distant from the city, and was 425 feet long, and 220 feet broad, and had in it 127 pillars, 60 feet high." It is one of the seven wonders of the ancient world.

"Other sheep have I" Acts 19:21-22
19:21 After these things were ended, Paul purposed in the spirit, when he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem, saying, After I have been there, I must also see Rome...

Follow the Lord. Paul was following the Lord in Ephesus, but he was determined to follow wherever he led. Too often the conservative Christian falls into the ease of believing all of the work God is doing right where he is. There is an old bromide that caricatures the sectarian Christian's prayer: "God bless me, my wife, my son, his wife, us four no more. Amen." Even if God has established us in the place where we are, let us never sing the refrain of Elijah, “I, even only I, remain a prophet of the Lord.” Hear God thunder, “Other sheep have I. I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal.

"For the love of money" 19:23-27
19:25 Sirs, ye know that by this craft we have our wealth.

“Follow the money” is an oft-stated expression. By following the money we often find the root cause of the thing that befuddles us. Demetrius had a keen mind. Though Paul had not directly taken on Diana (cf. v. 37), but rather preached Jesus. But Demetrius understood that a people who did not believe in gods made with hands would not need craftsmen who made gods with their hands. There was a sure economic downsizing coming to the silversmiths if this new religion caught a foothold in Asia Minor. Though Demetrius also appealed to their religion and their pride (cf. v. 27), the foundation of the objection was money. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

"Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil" 19:28-34
19:29 And the whole city was filled with confusion...32 and the more part knew not wherefore they were come together.

Follow the crowd. Get on the bandwagon. From religion to politics to mobs to fads, folks get caught up in what the crowd is doing. The shout “Great is Diana of the Ephesians” became a horrendous din in which most participated but few understood. For two hours this went on, though “the more part knew not wherefore they were come together.”

"He by his wisdom delivered the city" 19:35-41
19:35 And when the townclerk had appeased the people...41 And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the assembly.

Follow good sense. Nothing in the text indicates that the townclerk was a Christian. But he was a man of prudence and common sense. He got an audience and reasoned with them. He championed the stability of Diana in Ephesus; he questioned the wisdom of rash action; he the deportment of the Christians; he recommended legal if there was a legitimate cause; and he warned the people of the trouble they could be bringing on themselves. Through his actions the mob was dispersed.

"The Lord knoweth how to deliver" 20:1
20:1 And after the uproar was ceased, Paul called unto him the disciples, and embraced them, and departed for to go into Macedonia.

Follow the Lord. We know all things work together for good to them that love the Lord. Many and varied are the ways the Lord delivers his people. Some through the fire, some through the flood. When God delivered Paul in Philippi (16:25-26), it was the earthquake He wielded. When God delivered Paul in Ephesus, it was an official of the city of Ephesus who did God’s bidding. When God finally delivered Paul in Rome (II Tim 4:6,18), it was the hand of death by which he became absent from the body and present with the Lord. Who delivered us from so great a death, and doth deliver: in whom we trust that he will yet deliver us. Amen.