3rd Missionary Trip - Lorin

of this Christian meeting at night to indicate that no questionable activities took place, as would have been suspected
generally. One objective of the meeting was κλάσαι ἄρτον, to break bread. 204 See Acts 2:42 and 1 Cor.
10:16 where the breaking of bread is an expression referring to observing the Lord’s Supper.
The larger objective for the meeting was for the Christians in Troas to get to listen to Paul, perhaps for
the last time: ὁ Παῦλος διελέγετο αὐτοῖς μέλλων ἐξιέναι τῇ ἐπαύριον, Paul was dialoguing with them, since he was
going to leave the next day. Interestingly Luke uses the same verb here, διαλέγομαι, as he does when Paul interacts
with outsiders, especially Jews in the synagogues: Acts 17:2, 17; 18:4, 19; 19:8, 9; 24:12, 25. Whether the
verbal exchange is friendly (to discuss) or hostile (to argue) depends entirely on the setting and the two sets of
individuals; the same Greek verb covers the full range of ideas. One important point here is that this was not a
monologue, but a dialogue. Those present interacted with Paul in asking questions, expressing opinions etc.
If the meeting began around sundown on Sunday evening, Paul did not tire very easily since Luke adds
to his depiction: παρέτεινέν τε τὸν λόγον μέχρι μεσονυκτίου. Literally, he states that Paul stretched out his word
until midnight. That would amount to four to six hours of discussion! Lighting in this rather large upstairs room
was not the best either, and so the large oil burning lamps (λαμπάδες ἱκαναὶ) hanging around the walls gave off
considerable smoke and fumes: ἦσαν δὲ λαμπάδες ἱκαναὶ ἐν τῷ ὑπερῴῳ οὗ ἦμεν συνηγμένοι.
Sitting on one of the window sills (ἐπὶ τῆς θυρίδος) probably for the fresh air was a young man 205 whom
Luke calls Εὔτυχος, Eutychus. When Paul kept on talking well past midnight, Eutychus became very sleepy and
dozed off while sitting in the window sill: καταφερόμενος ὕπνῳ βαθεῖ διαλεγομένου τοῦ Παύλου ἐπὶ πλεῖον.
As Eutychus fell into deep sleep (κατενεχθεὶς ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕπνου), he unfortunately fell out the third story window
(ἔπεσεν ἀπὸ τοῦ τριστέγου κάτω), and it took his life (καὶ ἤρθη νεκρός). 206
Quite shockingly this interrupted the meeting so that Paul went down to the street to check on the young
man: καταβὰς δὲ ὁ Παῦλος ἐπέπεσεν αὐτῷ καὶ συμπεριλαβὼν εἶπεν· μὴ θορυβεῖσθε, ἡ γὰρ ψυχὴ αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ
ἐστιν, But Paul went down, and bending over him took him in his arms, and said, “Do not be alarmed, for his life is in him.”
Note here the miracle nature of Luke’s depiction with strong emphasis on physical contact of Paul with Eutychus.
Through that touch life in the boy became apparent and the young man lived. 207
204 “The theological significance of the replacement of the Sabbath by the ‘Lord’s Day’ is discussed by Barth (CD 3:1:228;
2:458f. 4:53) and by Calvin, Institutes (Institutes 2:8:33f.)—not convincingly. Luke’s reference to the first day of the week is made in
passing, as a natural explanation of the fact that the Christians were taking supper together. It does not appear that he is pressing the
observance of the day as something that he wishes to commend to his readers; rather he assumes that they will fully understand what is
going on. Commentators are apt to add the assumption that Luke understood the contents of Christian worship in the terms in which it
was later practised. Bengel (467): Itaque credibile est, fractione panis hic denotari convivium discipulorum cum eucharistia conjunctum;
Pesch (2:193): The ‘urchristliche Gottesdienst … findet am Sonntag statt, in einem Privathaus, mit Wortgottesdienst und eucharistischem
Mahl’. These are relatively cautious statements.” [C. K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles,
International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2004), 951-52.]
205The term νεανία in ancient Greek referred to a male either in his teen years or through his twenties. Eutychus was not a preteen
youngster by Luke’s terminology.
206For the sake of clarity, τριστέγου refers to the level that would be labeled differently between Europe and North America.
In North America it would be called the ‘third’ floor, but in Europe the ‘second floor.’ Why? Not because of anything connected to
the Greek of the biblical text. Rather, entirely due to the different ways of calculating floor levels in multi-story buildings. In North
American the ground floor is level one, but in Europe it is the ground level. Floor one is the first floor above ground level in this way of
calculating. The τρίστεγον was “the third story of a building, the third story, the second above ground level (Gen 6:16 Sym.—Neut.
of τρίστεγος = ‘of three stories’ [Dionys. Hal. 3, 68; Jos., Bell. 5, 220; pap]) Ac 20:9.” [William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker and Walter
Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 2000), 1016.]
207 “Dibelius (Studies, 17–18) maintained that ‘the mood of the story is as secular as possible; this is seen in the rationalized
description of the miracle.’ This Dibelius finds in the Lucan description of Paul, in which one cannot be certain ‘whether Paul is seen
as a worker of miracles or a doctor: ‘his life is still in him.’ ’ Thus, it is a secular anecdote that circulated about Paul, which Luke has
incorporated into his story. Yet when reading the Lucan story and Dibelius’s analysis of it, one wonders whether it is the same story. The
interpretation that Dibelius began is carried even further by Haenchen (Acts, 586). Clearly, one can subject the Lucan miracle story to
such farfetched analysis and so miss the whole point of it. Luke has found in the Pauline tradition an account of a miracle that the apostle
is said to have performed. He dutifully passes it on in an effort to extol Paul as a preacher, as one who celebrates the breaking of bread,
and as one who assists an unfortunate human being with the power that he has as a miracle worker. Luke does not tell us that this power
is God given; he presumes that the Christian reader will understand whence Paul has such power to resuscitate a youth who is “dead.”
Even Haenchen had to admit that the Christian reader would recognize ‘the association with Elijah and Elisha, and hence the miracle.’
It is thus a miracle story that enhances the character of the hero of this part of Acts. Luke recounts this episode not merely as a miracle
story of the gospel tradition, but as a significant event in the ministry of Paul related to the breaking of bread.” [Joseph A. Fitzmyer, vol.
31, The Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation With Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale
Page 453