A couple of years ago I was in a meeting with a featured speaker. The first half of the meeting was taken up by our then-executive director, an erudite and extremely pompous lecturer who could sell tapes of his all-staff meeting presentations to insomniacs and made a cool million. The featured speaker, who had been on an airplane all the night before, dozed off, which quite a few of us noticed. Eventually, the ED droned to a halt and the speaker woke with a start. The look of terror in his eyes was quickly erased by our heart-felt giggles. He’s now a program director for the agency!

Sleeping in class or during sermons is a centuries-old problem. A young man named Eutychus experienced sleepiness while listening to Paul preach and it was the death of him. He fell three stories from a window. There’s no need to mourn, because Paul restored his life. While the former ED of the agency I work for had little excuse for droning on and on beyond liking the sound of his own voice, I believe Paul had much more urgent things to convey to the believers in Troas.

“And on the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to depart the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight. And there were many lamps in the upper room where we were gathered together. And there was a certain young man named Eutychus sitting on the window sill, sinking into a deep sleep; and as Paul kept on talking, he was overcome by sleep and fell down from the third floor, and was picked up dead. But Paul went down and fell upon him and after embracing him, he said, “Do not be troubled, for his life is in him.” And when he had gone back up, and had broken the bread and eaten, he talked with them a long while, until daybreak, and so departed. And they took away the boy alive, and were greatly comforted.” Acts 20:7-12

What a strange feeling it must have been to see this city of Troas across the Aegean Sea, coming into view on the horizon. This was where Paul received the “Macedonia call” (16:9-10), after having been denied the opportunity to minister in Bithynia and Asia.  Now, on Paul’s return to this city, there was already an established church. We don’t know who started it or when. Somehow, this city was evangelized, but according to God’s timetable, not man’s. It was Paul’s desire to worship with the saints in Troas, teach them from the Scriptures and the revelation which God had given him; thus, he met with the church when it gathered on the “first day of the week” to “break bread”.

To get it out of the way, I’m going to first look at the miracle of the raising of Eutychus. I’m not going to call it a resurrection. Eutychus, like Lazarus, eventually died as do all living. This is not at all like the resurrection of Jesus and we should acknowledge that at the outset. Still, the unbelieving mind would like to deal with the raising of Eutychus from the dead in the same way they explain the resurrection of Jesus —by insisting that neither died, but that they only swooned, later on to revive. I can imagine some scene in a movie where they suppose Eutychus dead and drag him away, but he revives and is carried back alive, to which his mother cries “Praise God, a miracle!”

Okay, let’s get real! The kid fell three stories and a doctor, Luke, says he was dead. I’m going to guess that, with a physician present, Luke was invited to examine the body and see if there was anything he could do to revive the boy. A three-story fall being a three-story fall, there was nothing to heal. The boy was dead!

The reason why a non-believer would reject this raising from the dead is because they do not believe in miracles. On the other hand, a miracle-accepting Christian might wonder if it was indeed a miracle because so little is made of this event as a miracle. The raising of Eutychus is stated matter-of-factly, without hype or trumpets. We are not told, for example, that Paul prayed for Eutychus to be raised from the dead (as Peter did in Acts 9:36-42). Paul fell across the young man and announced that he was alive, but Luke left the details to our imaginations. After the event, there is no praise gathering for the miracle, even though all were greatly comforted by his raising (verse 12). Everybody returned to the teaching room.

Why is there so little emphasis on this miracle? I think it was because it was not Paul’s priority. Paul raised the boy back to life, but it was not his main interest. Paul was only there for the day. Intent upon teaching the Christians of Troas, Paul returned back upstairs to observe communion and teach more. It’s almost as though he raised the boy to avoid the inevitable delay of teaching that mourning might require.

Many think that Acts is a book of miracles; it is our basis for assuming that God can and will work miracles on a daily basis. Read the Book of Acts carefully, and you find that the book records fewer miracles than we might expect—fewer miracles than actually occurred. I think Luke and Paul were firmly convinced that miracles would come and go, but the Word of God would be eternal. Thus both Paul and Luke dealt briefly with the miracle and dealt emphatically with the teaching. Faith is not based upon what is seen (miracles), but on the Word of God (Hebrews 11). Thus miracles will not sustain our faith, but the Word of God will.

Why was Paul so strongly compelled to teach these saints? Somehow, he knew time was short and he would maybe never pass this way again. Note that Luke didn’t record what was taught. If it was so important, why did Luke neglect to record it?

Remember that Luke was demonstrating the advance of the gospel from Jerusalem to Rome. Things like the collection from the Gentile saints didn’t serve Luke’s overall purpose, so he didn’t record them. If Paul was intent on teaching the saints at Troas, Luke had no problem in passing by the content. By the time Luke wrote this section of Acts, Paul had written many epistles and Luke may not have felt he needed to repeat their content here. Luke could omit Paul’s teaching in Troas because it was already in print and available to his readers.

“But we, going ahead to the ship, set sail for Assos, intending from there to take Paul on board; for thus he had arranged it, intending himself to go by land. And when he met us at Assos, we took him on board and came to Mitylene. And sailing from there, we arrived the following day opposite Chios; and the next day we crossed over to Samos; and the day following we came to Miletus. For Paul had decided to sail past Ephesus in order that he might not have to spend time in Asia; for he was hurrying to be in Jerusalem, if possible, on the day of Pentecost.” Acts 20:13-16

Paul left Troas, still intent on reaching Jerusalem before Pentecost. For some unstated reason, Paul went on by land, while the others stayed on board ship. The ship Paul sailed on put in at various ports along its ways to Caesarea and it passed by Ephesus. When it made port in Miletus (about 30 miles from Ephesus), it laid over for one week, so Paul arranged to meet with the Ephesian elders. It is clear that Paul sensed this would be his last meeting with the elders, so I will deal with that message in a separate lesson.

The events of chapter 20 cover an indefinite, but fairly extensive, period of time, and span a broad geographical area, from Ephesus in Asia, across the Aegean Sea to Macedonia, Achaia, Greece, then (back) to Macedonia, and (back) across the Aegean Sea to Asia. Many important events occur during the time period encompassed in this chapter; Luke (contrary to some modern historical writers) was very brief in his description. I’m sure there are folks who would like to know all the details, but Luke didn’t share them, though some are found in Paul’s letters. Thus, we know that Luke was deliberately selective in what he included in Chapter 20, emphasizing what pointed to his message and to the intended reader, Theophilus (let us remember that Acts may well have been a court-brief intended to sway Theophilus into helping Paul escape execution).

I am, however, going to focus on Paul’s roundabout journey to Jerusalem because I think there is an important lesson there. One does not usually travel from Ephesus to Jerusalem by way of Greece.

“And after the uproar had ceased, Paul sent for the disciples and when he had exhorted them and taken his leave of them, he departed to go to Macedonia. And when he had gone through those districts and had given them much exhortation, he came to Greece. And there he spent three months, and when a plot was formed against him by the Jews as he was about to set sail for Syria, he determined to return through Macedonia. And he was accompanied by Sopater of Berea, the son of Pyrrhus; and by Aristarchus and Secundus of the Thessalonians; and Gaius of Derbe, and Timothy; and Tychicus and Trophimus of Asia. But these had gone on ahead and were waiting for us at Troas. 6 And we sailed from Philippi after the days of Unleavened Bread, and came to them at Troas within five days; and there we stayed seven days.” Acts 20:1-6

Paul had plans as to what he intended to do. We know from Acts 19:21-22 that Paul intended to visit Jerusalem, then Rome, and that Paul sent Timothy and Erastus on ahead into Macedonia. We also read of Paul’s plans as he outlined them in his first letter to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 16:1-9).

Writing from Ephesus to the Corinthians, Paul spoke of the great opportunities and opposition there. He intended to remain in Ephesus until after Pentecost, then to travel to Macedonia and on to Corinth, where he intended to winter. Paul’s schedule changed, however; the uprising at Ephesus forced him to move up his departure date.

Luke’s account of Paul’s ministry from the time he left Ephesus until he reached Troas is incredibly brief. His focus at this point was to bring Theophilus to the point of Paul’s arrest in Jerusalem and he would not be distracted by the many interesting aspects of Paul’s journeys or ministry because they did not contribute to his argument.  Clearly, taking up the collection, which Paul had promised Peter and James he would do, was important to Paul. He traveled quite out of his way to do it.  Yet, we must note that Luke didn’t even mention the collection, though he names the men who accompanied Paul to Jerusalem, who were representatives of the churches which had given money. Why was Luke silent on this?

Luke’s purpose in writing Acts was to record the advance of the gospel from Jerusalem to Rome. The offering which Paul took from the Gentile church did not play a major role in that advance. The money was not for “missions”, but for the poor. It was important to Paul, but not important to the advance of the gospel. Strange as it may seem to our modern ears, money was not essential to the gospel in the 1^st Century. The gospel spread from Jerusalem to Rome, from an almost entirely Jewish church to a predominately Gentile one, on a shoe-string budget. Paul’s missionary journeys don’t seem to have cost Jerusalem a red cent. In fact, the Gentile churches sent them money.

In our modern day, we think money is essential to conduct ministry and that is often our primary excuse for not doing more missions – money is limited. Jesus asked His disciples to follow Him without asking for their money. He didn’t tell them to save up their money so they would have the means to minister in the future. Instead, He instructed them to sell their possessions and give the proceeds to the poor – not to the television budget or the public relations fund. When the beggar asked Peter and John for coin, they didn’t write him a check. They said they didn’t have silver or gold, but what they had was immensely more valuable – healing and salvation.

Ministry can be achieved without money and what is achieved is not proportionate to the amount spent. No, all ministry cannot be done without money and I am not saying that all ministry should be carried on without money. I am only noting that much ministry can be done without much money. Asia Minor was reached with the gospel, in a period of three years, without radio, television, and print media. Spirit-filled Christians shared their faith and proclaimed the gospel in the power of God. Ministry is not proportionate with money; it is proportionate with the sovereign working of the Holy Spirit in and through men. That is the central message of Acts.

Of course ministry costs money. Jesus’ ministry cost money (Luke 8:1-3). Jesus taught that while money is merely temporal and passing, it can be used in such a way as to produce eternal results and eternal blessings (Luke 16:1-13). Jesus had a great deal to say about money, but He did not teach about money only to pass the plate at the conclusion of His message. Money can be used in such a way as to perform ministry in the lives of others, and to the glory of God, just as Paul taught (2 Corinthians 8:10-12).  The Bible consistently teaches us that if we have money, we should seek to use it in ministry to others, and if we do not have money, we should minister anyway, for God’s working is not dependent upon money.

It is a secular, humanistic, mindset which equates ministry with money. This is the same humanistic mindset which equates effectiveness with status (position), influence, education, and intelligence. We often pursue and cater to the rich because we think that God’s work needs their money. Similarly we pursue and cater to the learned, educated, and “wise” because we think that the advancement of the gospel is directly proportionate to the wisdom and “clout” of the proclaimer. This is a denial of the Word of God, which teaches that God has chosen the weak and foolish things of this world to confound the wisdom and the strength of the wise (1 Corinthians 1-3). When God’s work is accomplished by what unbelievers consider effective means, men tend to take credit. When God’s work is done through weakness, it is God Who is given the glory (1 Corinthians 1:26-31; l 3:18-23).

I am not opposed to Christian churches having a lot of money, but far too often, the money churches receive is spent not on ministry, but on buildings (or worse, rent!), sound systems, bands, and promotional campaigns. Yes, that brings the interested in the door, but what about the people who cannot afford to eat, let alone the bus fare to travel across town to attend that beautiful Protestant cathedral? What about those who cannot afford the TV to view that well-designed commercial? When a church has money, I’d rather see it spent on feeding the poor, clothing the naked, finding housing for the homeless, providing support for pregnant teens, helping addicts get off their drugs of choice, providing a van to transport people to service, than on a kicking sound system and a media campaign. Will fewer well-dressed people with nice cars visit the church? Maybe, but I would submit that they can find their own way to church if they are desirous to come.

The Christian churches of the 21^st Century need to stop emulating the world and start taking a look at how the greatest growth period for the Christian church was conducted. Maybe then we’ll stop shifting membership from one Christian church to another and start once more reaching out to unbelievers and actually growing the universal church instead of our individual congregations to the detriment of other individual congregations. That is, after all, what we were commissioned to do by Jesus. Paul understood this.

Why don’t we?