Vs.5-10 The refusal to act as a near-kinsman to raise a family to a dead brother was met by two public actions.  First the widow would take off the sandal of the one who refused and then spit in his face. The act of removing sandals reflected either poverty, reproach, or mourning in the Near East.  Isaiah demonstrated this (Isa 20:2,3).  And so, the one who refused to be a near-kinsman would be forever seen as one in a state of poverty, reproach and mourning - a sad state indeed.  Spitting in another's face was an act of contempt.  The Lord Jesus suffered the same treatment (Matt 26:67; Matt 27:30), but the irony here is that He was the redeemer (of Israel).

It should be noted that taking off one's own sandal was a sign of agreement for legal transactions in the Near East (Ruth 4:7 ). Thus, in the case of the near-kinsman who asked Boaz to take over his duty with regard to Ruth, the agreement was made (Ruth 4:8). This action does not conflict with the law of Deuteronomy as the act of redemption was not frustrated but passed to another.  Furthermore, we can see Boaz as a type of Christ in this transaction.  Man is unable to redeem his brother (Psa 49:7).  That duty has been passed on to the only redeemer capable, which is the Lord Jesus (Isa 59:20).

25:4       The instruction about muzzling the ox seems out of place in the list of injunctions about how men should treat men.  However Paul –1Cor 8:9 – teaches us that whilst the law does speak about animals it relates information about how men should behave towards men. So it’s very position in Deuteronomy 25 provides the evidence that Paul adduces from the passage.

25:17-19 The destruction of the Amalekites was something which Saul neglected to do - 1Sam 15 – implying that the either had not read this part of the law or thought that his own ideas were better than God’s.

In the law of Moses the ruling class, Levites, obtained their living through the work they did. In exchange for their services, of ministering to the people through prayer, temple service, teaching, policing, and administration, they received a tenth of the people's income. This was a just law, since they numbered roughly a tenth of the ordinary people. In this provision we can see the parallels with what v4 is telling us and the application Paul makes of it in the New Testament Church (see comments above). Just as an ox, working with his nose near the corn, should not be stopped from eating of it, so a preacher should eat from the gospel he preached. But how can one eat of the Gospel?

In Matthew 10:9-13 Jesus established that the preacher should lodge in the houses of whoever accepted them, and accept their food. This was in fact what Jesus practiced throughout his ministry. So to live from the Gospel was to be provided for by those who heard it. More than this, in 1Tim 5:17-19 Paul tells us that the elders of the Church who "rule" should be given extra honour. How does he come to that conclusion from a little verse about cattle? Surely cattle aren't honourable? I think the answer lies in the substance they were working with. Just as the oxen were able to eat of the grain which was destined for human consumption, and the Levites were able to eat of the offerings destined for God, so a man working with the substance which would bring eternal glory to those who received it, should be able to partake of a little of that glory.

But there is a warning which must be made. There is a difference between eating a little, and gorging ones self. The pharisees are an example of those who took this too far. They were bloated oxen, reclining in the grain with their un-muzzled mouths too full to speak the words they were being paid to speak.

25:5-6  The provision that God makes for the widow who is childless was designed to preserve His allocation of the land.

25:7 An example of this situation is seen in the way in which the ‘near kinsman’ did not want to take Ruth to be his wife - Ruth 4:2-8 – where it seems an idea not provided for in the law of Moses had been developed, that of refusing because of some issue to do with inheritance.

V.3 Forty is a number of completeness , e.g. Noah-flood, forty days and nights (Gen 7:4; 8:6; the number of days the spies were in the Land (Num 13:25); the number of years the Children of Israel were in the wilderness (Num 32:13); Jesus-temptation, forty days of fasting (Matt 4:2). Also, the number of lashes (with a leather whip) was not excessive.  It would not cause damage or enough humiliation that could not be repaired. 

Paul was lashed five times (2Cor 11:24).  Notice that those who administered the lashings only did thirty-nine.  This was either to make sure that they did not exceed forty lashes or to give the impression of leniency.

Contrast the Jewish application of this sort of punishment with other nations.  The Egyptians, Turkish, or Chinese, for example, would beat a person with a stick until he was either rendered lame or dead.  Yahweh was careful to avoid either.

Parables in the law - God hates favouritism

Paul says in 1Cor 9:8-10 that the verse about oxen was written for people, not oxen. So we gain a clue about how to read the law. We are meant, by God, to see a principle in the law about animals, and then apply that principle to people. It's the same principle with parables.

So it is easy to see the lesson in the parable of the ox and the grain (v4), and how it applies to us (1Cor 9:8-10). But how about the differing weights and measures in v13-15? And why does God treat it so seriously (v16) "all who do such things are an abomination to the LORD your God"?

Isn't the answer in the context? In v5-10 we have the law for a man taking his brother's widow to wife. Can you imagine the enmity between the new wife and the man's original wife? Can you imagine as both sets of children grew up, the tendency to treat the one group slightly better than the other? After all, the son of his brothers wife would grow up to take part of his inheritance away (v6). So we can see that God meant us to apply the laws of weights and measures to this situation, thus avoiding favouritism. "You shall not have in your house different weights and measures". God is always most concerned about family life.

25:9 The instruction to ‘spit is his face’ is a sign that the brother is not willing to accept the widow as a wife. So when the opponents of Jesus Matt 26:67 – spat in Jesus face they are, in a strange way behaving as the man who would not take the woman.

These are only two of the echoes of language from the description of the tabernacle.

From this use of tabernacle description we can conclude that the bride has to be a place suitable for the dwelling of God.

Eaten Isaiah 55:1
Wine milk Isaiah 55:1

V.15  Jesus's "legs" were not broken on the cross; on them rests the weight of our salvation.

Could it be that the watchmen who beat the bride (Israel) represented the Romans in AD 70? Or, perhaps, they represent the angels administering punishment, at the judgement, to the rejected of spiritual Israel.

Solomon’s 6th Song is in Song 4:8-ch5:1.  The Bridegroom speaks for most of ch 4, with the bride answering in ch4:16. Then He concludes the passage in Song 5:1.  It’s in this verse that we see Christ inviting His “friendsâ€�, or saints, to drink new wine with Him in the kingdom (as Matt 26:29).
The 7th Song runs from Song 5:2-ch6:1. Where has my Beloved gone? she asks. I opened the door to Him, but He had gone. In Song 5:7she recounts how she was abused by the city watchmen, but then in Song 5:8,9 (and Song 6:1) she talks to her friends and asks for help in finding Him.  She then tells of the beauty of the One she loves.

5:1 The groom has taken his fill of food from his garden. However he wishes to share it so he invites his ‘sister / spouse’ to share in his garden along with his ‘friends’. Another picture of the fellowship Christ wishes to have with his ‘children’

5:12 ‘Rivers of water’ may seem like a poetical way of describing her beloved. However it catches the sentiment of Psa 1:3 where the faithful are seen by rivers of water.

5:12 ‘Rivers of water’ may seem like a poetical way of describing her beloved. However it catches the sentiment of Psa 1:3 where the faithful are seen by rivers of water.

5:1      The ‘garden’ which has ‘milk’ and ‘honey’ is the luscious land of Israel. That was spied by the 12 spies – Num 13:27 – which they and the people rejected. We must take care not to despise that which God is offering us through His son.

5:3 The woman seems to show some reluctance here to go out to the beloved. The ‘coat’ is the same word as ‘covering’ in Genesis 3:21 and the washing is echoed in Eph 5:26. The woman has been washed by the word of God and covered by the sacrifice of Christ but is still reluctant to open to him Christ

was at Ephesus, draws on the language of the sea shore and the elders from Ephesus. Acts 20:23 afflictions 2 Timothy 1:8 Acts 20:24 none of those things ... 2 Timothy 1:7 Acts 20:31 tears 2 Timothy 1:4

v.29 Presenting religious leaders as wolves is seen in the Old Testament. Ezekiel 22:27 Zephaniah 3:3 And is utilised by Jesus Matthew 7:15 10:16 Luke 10:3

In the letter Paul was trying to reinforce the message he had preached when he was with the brethren and sisters in Ephesus.

V.7 Sunday has become the day of meeting to break bread based on this verse.  We have ordered our lives around it and it has become convenient.  However, it is not a divine law and we are free to break bread on as many days or occasions as we wish.

Vs. 22,24,26,27 Show the faith and confidence of Paul.  Although he did not know what was in store for him at Jerusalem, he was prepared to lose his life knowing that he had given a good account of himself.  This is an excellent attitude for us to emulate.

20:1-6 The detail of the travels here indicates that for a tie Paul and his companions went on their sway separate from Luke and his companions.

V.28 The ecclesia at Ephesus received a final warning from Jesus recorded in Rev 2:1-7. It is recorded that they had left their first love, and were warned that, unless they returned to their former beliefs, their candlestick would be removed out of its place. That their light stand no longer exists is proof of the truth of Paul's prophesy concerning the growth of apostasy. It was inevitable. The Truth died out in Ephesus and was replaced by Roman Catholicism. It is now given over to the faith of Islam.

TIPS FOR PREACHING
 
Paul stayed in Ephesus for some time while he established and strengthened the church that was there. But it is only here in Acts 20 that we learn more of his preaching methods and message during his time in Ephesus. He said, "You know how I lived the whole time I was with you, from the first day I came into the province of Asia. I served the Lord with great humility and tears, although I was severely tested by the plots of the Jews. You know that I have not hesitated to preach anything that would be helpful to you but have taught you publicly and from house to house. I have declared both to Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus." (Acts 20:18-21)
 
1. Let's take note of a few things that will be beneficial to us as we spread the word of God.
2. We must live our lives consistently with our teaching - practice what we preach.
3. Be humble, loving and compassionate, even under severe testing.
4. Get on with it. Don't hesitate.
5. If there is any way to be helpful or encouraging, do it or say it.
6. Teach publicly so that the word can spread rapidly.
7. Teach from house to house so that with individual attention each seeker has opportunity to grow.

Allow our preaching to go past the boundaries of race, gender and any other barriers, because all need repentance and faith in our Lord Jesus.
Paul's preaching was effective. Let us follow his example.

It seems sad that the comment in Acts 20:38 which made the Ephesians most sad, was the fact that they wouldn’t see Paul again. If they had taken more heed to his message about them not remaining firm in the Truth (Acts 20:29,30), they might have escaped the rebuke from Jesus in Rev 2:1-7.

20:7 The seeming casual mention of breaking bread on the first day of the week gives an insight into what must have been common practice amongst the early brethren.

20:7    It would appear that the departure the next day was the trigger for the evening of fellowship. How often do we use an early start, or future arrangement, as an excuse for not going to the meeting or spending time with our brethren and sisters?

Vs.29,30 We look back through history and can see the development of false doctrines. The great false system of worship which we see in Christendom today grew out of the errors that Paul warns about here.  

Those who wish to serve God must do so in spirit and in truth (John 4:23).  In order to do that, they must search the scriptures to determine what is truth and what is error, like the faithful of Thessalonica (Acts 17:11).  If they do search the scriptures, those who wish to serve the Lord will soon see that Christendom is false.  Yahweh appeals to those who would be His to disassociate themselves from this false system of worship (Rev 18:4).  This false system will be destroyed when Jesus returns to earth (Rev 17:5; 18:2).

20:17-35 In laying out his position with respect to the brethren at |Ephesus in such a personal way maybe Paul is already aware f problems there to do with his status and that of Timothy and so he warns them, giving the evidence that he is qualified to comment s he does.

ENCOURAGEMENT

It was because of Paul that a huge riot had started in Ephesus. If they could have had him, the rioters would have killed Paul. This must have shaken him because there had been riots in the not too distant past that had left Paul almost dead. In this case Paul's friends would not let him go anywhere near where the trouble was.

If I had been Paul, I would have been realitively unnerved by this series of events and it would have taken quite some encouragement to get me back on track again. But not Paul. "When the upraor had ended, Paul sent for the disciples and after encouraging them, said good-by and set out for Macedonia." (Acts 20:1) It should have been the other way around! It should have read, "The disciples sent for Paul, and after encouraging him, they said good-by and sent him on his way to Macedonia." But no, Paul sent for them and encouraged them!

There is a positive lesson in this. We may not always get the encouragement we think we might need, but we are always in a position to be able to encourage others. So let's follow Pauls example and no matter what circumstances we find ourselves in, be a strength of encouargement to everyone around us.

In v16 we read that Paul wanted to get to Jerusalem for Pentecost. We would assume this was a feast set up to comemmorate the Holy Spirit descending in the Apostles in Acts 2:1-5. But looking carefully in Acts 2 we see that Pentecost was being observed before this incident happened. In other words, Pentecost was an old feast, not a new one.

Q: But where does the day of Pentecost come from? Acts 2:1 is the first ever mention of it, and it can't be found mentioned anywhere in the old testament.

A: Looking in the concordance you can see Pentecost means "fiftieth". In Leviticus 23:16 the Jews were to count fifty days after leaving Egypt (the Passover) and then take a day off work to make offerings to God.

So this was a Jewish day which now had special significance for the followers of Christ too. The question now remains: Why did Paul especially need to be in Jerusalem for this day?