The Danger of Pulling All-Nighters

On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to leave the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight.  There were many lamps in the upper room where we were gathered together.  And there was a 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."  When he had gone back up and had broken the bread and eaten, he talked with them a long while until daybreak, and then left.  They took away the boy alive, and were greatly comforted. (Acts 20:7-12 NASB)

I've preached before.  I've had people fall asleep while I preached; regularly.  And while I may have wished at the time they would fall from a window (or be pushed, there were times, I'm just being honest) I've never had it happen.  Of course I've never preached on the third floor, or to a room so packed someone had to sit in the window.  So, this experience related by Luke is not one with which I identify easily.  It's not a humorous event, but Luke does relate it in ways humorous in our culture.

Paul prolongs his message until midnight.  I used to get complaints when I ran over 12 noon in a service that technically started at 11 am, and was heavy with worship songs.  If I had 30 minutes to preach I was relieved.  He goes to midnight, and the room is packed.  Not that I'm bitter...still, after thirteen years.  Or jealous of Paul.  This is just one of those places where I see that I was never "him" in ministry.  It may have been a wish from time to time, but the stoning and foot travel was always a deterrent to me.

At midnight, with oil lamps burning, it's hot, stuffy, and an open window becomes a welcome perch, just not when tired.  Paul is fascinating to hear but these guys work for a living daily, so midnight is tough.  Being tired and sitting in the fresh air of the window was not a good combination for Eutychus.  I have fallen (or been pushed - depends on who you ask) out of a second story window and lived to tell the tale (like here).  But I was 18 months old, awake, and wasn't "picked up dead".  As it turns out I missed a concrete slab by some inches, landed on my back, and on the one piece of sod in the new yard.  So it was miraculous, but in different ways from Eutychus.  It was decided that God had a purpose for my life which was so important that I had to live past dumb mistakes (like trying to look straight down out of a window with a screen - don't do it).  I'm still not sure what that is exactly.

Paul "falls on him", which is a funny way to put what someone does to a fallen dead person, but I get the idea.  He then says that his soul is in him, and they all go upstairs to eat.  That's where I think it's funny.  Luke doesn't say that Eutychus joined them, nor that he sat up or was "fine", he just quotes Paul as saying that his "soul is still in him."  I just envision this guy being left on the sidewalk and everyone going back into the house to eat, relieved, but without the fallen guy.  And then having the guy blink a few times, and say, "Hello? Guys? I've fallen and I can't get up!"  I'm sure Luke just left that part out.

The speaking engagement seems to be over, so they now spend the rest of the night eating and talking.  It's the party time after the service.  Still it's after midnight.  I remember trying to pull all-nighters with my friends in high school.  It didn't work so great.  We had this game that always took days of sessions to play.  So we decided to get it done in one night.  The problem was it took brains and awareness to play.  So, eventually, everyone crashed on couches, recliners, and so on.  Then we picked up the next day and kept going.  Even in my "youth" I couldn't pull all-nighters.  But I remember what it was like to be and see my buddies past midnight.  Little sense is made past midnight.  Everything was funny.  We couldn't remember the next day what was so funny, but we remembered laughing so hard we had to pee.  It was like we were on drugs without the drugs.  Senselessness without chemicals can be achieved by sleep deprivation; who knew?

So, the lesson I come away with from this passage is the camaraderie of those in Troas.  To get it, I have to impose my memories of my buddies and I trying to stay up all night on this event in Acts.  By superimposing that memory over top of the events related by Luke, I come away with this warm fuzzy feeling of laughter and silliness.  It sounds interesting, but probably not what it was like.  I doubt everyone was "punchy" after midnight, or being silly from sleep deprivation (which I'm pretty sure takes days, not one night).  I suspect it was such close sharing of their lives that time just slipped away from them.  It was suddenly midnight, then it was suddenly daybreak.  I've had times like that, not for that long, but like that.  They were times that deepened relationships, and times of great happiness.

If you're reading this and remember us having such a time, remember the feelings.  I can't describe them very well, but I remember them with a tinge of jealousy; I want them again or more often.  What if these were common church happenings?  What if this camaraderie were typical of the time spent with other believers?  What if time just got away from us and we just spent the whole Sunday at church?  What if we just decided to keep it going and order in pizza, and that became almost common?  Can you imagine your church and being with the church people that long?  Can you imagine being so packed in a room that it becomes stuffy, but the joy of being there just won't let you leave, can you imagine that?  I can.

Engage!

And when they had come to him, he said to them, "You yourselves know, from the first day that I set foot in Asia, how I was with you the whole time, serving the Lord with all humility and with tears and with trials which came upon me through the plots of the Jews; how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you publicly and from house to house, solemnly testifying to both Jews and Greeks of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. (Acts 20:18-21 NASB)

I don't know if you have ever met anyone like Paul, but I think I finally have.  I don't know why, but I can become emotionally detached from things that seem to emotionally overwhelm some.  I just returned from Mexico where we saw poverty that was pretty amazing, but up close and personal.  It was, in a sense, in my face.  But it didn't make me weep.  It still wasn't my poverty, it was the poverty of someone else.  I didn't speak the language, so I didn't get to know people, and hear their stories, so I never really "engaged" in the setting.  But here is where I met the person I think has much in common with Paul.

Paul relates that he served the Lord "with all humility and with tears", and that sounds so odd for Paul.  He seems so strong and bold, that tears seem at odds with his character.  Yet he claims that these elders from Ephesus saw this in him.  They saw him declare the whole good news of Jesus, do so house to house, and to both Jews and Greeks.  I have met someone who does this in a very real sense in Mexico.  She doesn't live in Mexico, instead she travels across the border constantly.  She shares the good news of Jesus in impoverished places, to people who have very little except need.

Because work is scarce, food is needed.  Because food is needed, nutrition is poor.  Because work and money are scarce, hopelessness is rampant, skepticism is common, and abuse of self and others is also common.  I saw one "Catholic" Church, and I say that only because it was the largest "church-like" building and compound in the area, so I'm assuming it was a Catholic Church.  I never saw a sign as such.  There are heard that there are other churches in the area, but not enough.  The poverty means that any support for a pastor must come from outside the community.  It's difficult to get a church to remain for long.  The one we visited and at which we worked had been there for at least three years.

The lady who was responsible for getting it started did so through a Bible study for women.  She had started close to the border, in Tecate, but heard that many were coming from a village 20 miles south, so she moved it there.  Then she heard that many women were walking from an even smaller village 3 miles beyond that, so she moved it there.  In each place she left, she left a new church which still operates.  In this place where she works now, this church has been there for three years, and is adding a third building.  So she has been working through hard times to bring the good news of the love of Jesus to people without hope.

As we left, she prayed for us.  As she prayed, she broke down in tears of thankfulness to Jesus for His work through us.  What was so evident was her love for Jesus, even more than her love for the people in Mexico.  It was her love for Jesus which drove her to share Him with those she served across the border.  Sure, she worked until she is now nearly exhausted, but what I noticed was that it was her love for her Master that drove her to do so.  She had come from that poverty in which she served, and others who have that background leave it far behind.  Her Master would not permit her to do so.

It may seem like a semantic difference, but it is an important one.  In her prayer, less was said about the people we served, than was said about the Master we served.  In this way, people who know little beyond the poverty in which they live gain a perspective of heaven.  So these living so differently from us lived with hope and joy I don't.  Focus on them would not transmit the hope and joy, only focus on the Master.  It was clear, it was amazing, it was powerful, and it showed me the error of my focus.  I couldn't see it without the contrast.

So I couldn't really engage emotionally with the setting, but I think I caught the perspective of the people.  I think I understand better the focus off of the stuff of this world, and on my Master.  I think I get that more now than I have, and I think it scares me more now than it has.  It's not a terror, but a sense of unease.  What I want is for that unease to change from hindering my change in focus and into driving me into that change in focus.  I want to be afraid not to focus on my Master.  That may sound obvious or an assumption, but I realize I am moving that way, and am not there yet.  I have met a person who is so far down the path of such focus as to be almost unrecognizable to me.  I see that I, like Paul, like her, can and should focus solely on my Master.

Rest and the Story: Submission When I Don't Know

For it is superfluous for me to write to you about this ministry to the saints; for I know your readiness, of which I boast about you to the Macedonians, namely, that Achaia has been prepared since last year, and your zeal has stirred up most of them. But I have sent the brethren, in order that our boasting about you may not be made empty in this case, so that, as I was saying, you may be prepared; otherwise if any Macedonians come with me and find you unprepared, we—not to speak of you—will be put to shame by this confidence. (2 Corinthians 9:1-4 NASB)

 In Acts 20, Paul again tours Macedonia and Greece, winding up in Corinth.  It happens within 2 verses, and his stay of 3 months is in the third.  It sounds like a whirlwind tour, but there is evidence that it may not have been.  In the letters to the Corinthians, Paul writes of a collection being taken up for the church in Jerusalem, where he happens to be headed.  In 1 Corinthians 16 and 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, Paul writes to them about being ready to send the collection to Jerusalem once he arrives (he's including letters of introduction for the couriers).  But he also indicates that this collection is being taken all over Macedonia as well as Galatia.  So Paul's trek back even makes more sense (his route is never really explained by Luke).

So this collection provides some back-story to the events of this Chapter, and parts of Acts 19 as well.  A few questions immediately come to mind, such as why did Luke leave this collection out of his account?  It's also clear from the letters to Corinth that there were other issues with which the church was struggling.  It's possible that any of them could help flesh out Paul's stay of 3 months in Corinth.  None of them made it into Acts.  Instead detail after detail of where Paul went, how he got there, and so on until he speaks to the elders of Ephesus when they visit him in the port of Miletus.  There Luke spends over half the chapter, just on Paul's good bye to Ephesus.

It's curious to look at the two letters, and then Luke's account in Acts, and wonder about the differences.  It seems clear that there are enough points of correspondence between Acts 19 and 1 Corinthians 16 to make it clear that Paul writes during the events of Chapter 19, perhaps as the silversmith riot is brewing.  The elements in 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 are clearly additional inspiration on the same topic.  This seems to be a big issue for Paul, why not Luke?  I don't know for sure, but I suspect it has to do with an element to Luke's writing that often gets ignored.  Luke has a point, a goal, in writing his account we refer to as Acts.

The problem is that we have framed Acts as a historical record of the church in Jerusalem and Paul's work outside of Palestine.  It is, but this historical record has been written for a purpose.  There is a goal in mind for Luke, partly revealed in how he begins, writing to a person, Theophilus (friend of God).  Here he also says that this account continues the work of Jesus.  So, the purpose here is also tied to the purpose of Luke's account of the life of Jesus.  A lot of that purpose is tied to the word, "taught" or "instructed" in Luke 1:4.  But this word can also mean "inform" or "heard".  If it is the latter, then this friend of God could be one to whom Luke makes an appeal on behalf of Paul.  Considering how Acts ends, this is not outside the realm of possibility.  A "friend of God" may be found in many places among Roman society, and in hoping to either enlist the help of a representative or even a powerful official, these accounts may have been of use in providing "back story" to why Paul was so vilified by the Jews.  It's a possibility, and no where close to a certainty.  It's also very likely that Luke wrote to help a young, possibly influential or remote, believer better understand what he has chosen to believe.  I doubt it due to elements in the way Acts moves, especially in the end, but a very good case can be made that way.

So what's my point?  Sure, Luke had a point, and in reaching for that point left some stuff out.  So what?  I suppose that my real point in this is that I don't always get to know the whole story.  And I need to be okay with that.  I want to know why, about most everything.  I want to know why my company makes what I see as dumb decisions.  I want to know why my government is so convoluted that anything resembling truth is impossible to hear.  I want to know why both sides of every issue seem to so clearly share only what facts help their case.  Who shares all they know so "educated choices" can be made.  Why vilify people, even powerful ones, when there are facts on both sides of an issue that reveal it to be much more complicated than is ever presented?

I will never know why.  I will always be like everyone else, having to dig to disentangle fact and fiction, or facts underlying and beside the fiction.  I will constantly have to think through the smoke and haze I'm being shown to get at whatever substance lies behind it.  But I will also have to be content to with not being able to discover the substance.  Most of the time it is imperceptible, regardless of how much I look.  This is why I get lazy and don't look into much of the political hype on both sides of issues.  I know that I won't always be able to get to the root of things.  I will always be dependent on who is presenting facts, and how they present them.  I hate that.  I simply don't trust people who are telling me whatever because I am being kept from the facts that led whoever to whatever they are saying.  It's a pride issue really.

It's not like I can say to my Master, "Wait, how did you make stars?" before believing that He did and still does.  It's not like I can say to my Master, "show me" before believing.  This problem I face impacts my relationship with my Master directly.  It is a pride issue, and it interferes with my submission to Him.  I don't need to know why.  Even the things I can comprehend I do not need to know.  I haven't earned the right to the information, nor have I done the necessary work to discover the information, nor have I even made a decent argument why I ought to be given the information.  I just want to know, as if I'm somebody to whom my Master answers.  He didn't tell Job, so why should He tell me?  All my Master told Job were the things Job knew, the amazing things that make my Master truly Master of the universe.  Who am I if Job were not one to whom my Master was answerable?

So, while I should dig for facts and truth, I should also be content in faith that my Master is always Master over everything, even the unknowable.  Dig, but not in pride.  Dig in submission, seeking the truth my Master has hidden for me to find.  The truth He hides will, in discovering, enlighten my soul and deepen my relationship with my Master.  That's what I should pursue.  Some of that is found in pushing through political haze, some is found in wading through relational haze, and some is found in digging through personal baggage.  But it is mostly found in Scripture.  So, I'll continue to spend most of my time digging there.

Paul Didn't Do It (Or So He Says)

"And now, behold, I know that all of you, among whom I went about preaching the kingdom, will no longer see my face.  Therefore, I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men.  For I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole purpose of God. (Acts 20:25-27 NASB)

"I have coveted no one's silver or gold or clothes.  You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my own needs and to the men who were with me.  In everything I showed you that by working hard in this manner you must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He Himself said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'" (Acts 20:33-35 NASB)

Claiming innocence never really worked for me growing up.  I wasn't an only child, but my younger brother was my closest sibling, and usually whatever one started, we both wound up in.  But when it comes to two guilty parties, it's useless for one to protest, "well he started it!"  Ironically, what I was told was to just ignore him.  Which is great advice as long as while the guy's being ignored, someone intervenes along the way to make him stop.  See, parents, if there's really nothing else to do, the whole "ignoring" thing requires adult intervention to really work, I'm just saying for the sake of those kids out there who tried to say that but without credibility with their parents.

I never thought I'd read Paul saying, "I didn't do it!" and yet here it is.  Of course, context is everything in understanding why he says it, but the greater context still makes it interesting.  First off he begins by defending his service among the Ephesians, right off the bat.  I thought that was interesting, but he's done that in his letters to various churches. 

What really caught my attention, though, was in verse 25 where he claims to be innocent of the blood of all men.  Why would he say that?  Was he even thought of being accused of murder?  Was there a question?  Context tells me what he means, but it makes his claim from odd to extraordinary.  It relates back to his initial defense of his ministry among them.  What he is saying is that he has been so thorough with his preaching that no one can say, "well, Paul never told me that, he denied me salvation!"  Get this, Paul says no one can claim that.  Just let that roll around in your synapses for a bit.  No one?

Just so you know, I can't claim that.  I have never been accused of this sort of thoroughness, nor have I ever claimed such for myself, nor would I.  What would my life be like if I could?  What would be different?  What would I be doing vocationally?  What would my family be like?  I just don't know.  It wouldn't guarantee that I'd be a better person.  It's not the work that indicates that.  I could tell everyone about the good news of Jesus, and still be a jerk.  Still, it's quite a claim, and one to which I wonder about aspiring.

The second "I didn't do it" claim of Paul has to do with money.  He says he has never coveted the silver, gold, or clothes of others.  This would be easier for me to claim.  Probably not for the same reasons though.  Perhaps in my youth I did covet the clothes or money of others.  My younger years were kind of difficult that way because my family went through some financial difficulties.  Anyone who has worn Tough-Skin Jeans knows they have coveted the clothes of others.  But I also learned to value things differently because of those years, so that as an adult I really don't covet.  I still see things I would like, but I don't envy others or want what they have.  It doesn't drive or motivate me like it does for others (although, there is this telescope mount I have my eye on...)

But Paul has a point in saying that he hasn't coveted.  What he is doing is urging the elders to follow his model of serving with his own hands so to be able to give to others.  He didn't covet, he worked for what he needed.  He quotes Jesus as saying, "it is more blessed to give than to receive" although he must have a source for that not used for the Gospels.  I don't doubt Jesus said it; John claims in his Gospel that not everything made it into the accounts of Jesus. 

The point of Paul is that working to give is a much more Christ-like quality than working to get.  And that is definitely a lesson I can take to heart.  It's very different than the environment I work in as a salesperson.  I would be swimming upstream against strong current to hold to such a view.  Yet, I see a way to do it, even in my arena.  Even my manager encourages such a view, and provided a "mental framework" in which to do what they ask yet keep this "service" mindset. Even my Master has made a way for me to follow Him in service through my vocation.  Now that is blessed.  Now to give.