Deeper Commentary
8:1
And Saul approved of his execution-
Paul warned the Romans that those who “have pleasure” in (Gk. ‘to
feel gratified with’) sinful people will be punished just as much as those
who commit the sins (Rom. 1:32). But he uses the very word used here for
his own ‘consenting’ or 'approving' the death of Stephen; standing there
in consent, although not throwing a stone (Acts 8:1; 22:20). He realized
that only by grace had that major sin of his been forgiven; and in that
spirit of humility and self-perception of himself, as a serious sinner
saved by grace alone, did he appeal to his brethren to consider their
ways. ‘Feeling gratified with’ such sins as are in this list is what the
entertainment industry is so full of. We can’t watch, read and listen to
this kind of thing by choice without in some sense being vicariously
involved in it- and this seems to be exactly what Paul has in mind when he
warns that those who feel gratified in those sins shall share in their
judgment. This is a sober warning, relevant, powerful and cutting to our
generation far more than any other. For given the internet and media, we
can so easily feel gratified in others’ sins.
And there arose on that day- Clear evidence that Stephen's
speech was the psychological motivator for the anger now unleashed within
Saul and his companions.
A great persecution against the church which was
in Jerusalem, and except the apostles, they were all scattered throughout
the regions of Judea and Samaria- Luke uses the word
for ‘Diaspora’ to describe how the brethren were “scattered abroad” (Acts
8:1,4; 11:19); he saw this persecution as turning them into the new
Israel. The entire membership of the Jerusalem ecclesia was scattered; the
way we read of them numbering thousands by the time of Acts 21:20 suggests
that to avoid persecution those who remained reconciled themselves with
the temple, becoming a sect of Judaism, presumably with the tithe and
temple tax going to the temple rather than to the ecclesia. These
“thousands” of Acts 21 were probably largely converted since the
persecution that arose after the death of Stephen. The original Jerusalem
ecclesia had gone and preached to the Gentiles (Acts 11:19,20), which
wasn’t what the later Jerusalem ecclesia supported. Indeed, Acts 11:22
goes straight on to record that the Jerusalem ecclesia sent
representatives to find out what was going on. In order to escape further
persecution, the Jerusalem ecclesia threw in their lot with the temple and
orthodox Judaism. Finally Paul wrote to the Jerusalem ecclesia, as
recorded in Hebrews. He sorrows that they fail to see the supremacy of
Christ over Moses, and that despite initially enduring such persecution
and loss of their goods (during the early persecutions), they had lost
their real faith in Christ. The fact they weren’t then being
persecuted indicates they had reconciled with the temple. They needed to
hold on, to keep the joy of faith they once had, rather than become hard
hearted, judgmental, works-centred. But they didn’t listen.
When the Romans began persecuting the early church, only the leaders
were seized, while crowds of obvious Christians went unpunished. This was
perhaps because paganism was utterly dependent on its elite, and most
cults could easily be destroyed from the top. This explains a few Bible
puzzles- why devout men could carry Stephen to burial and yet be unharmed;
why the apostles could remain in Jerusalem [they were seen as unlearned
and ignorant fishermen] whilst the others in the Jerusalem ecclesia had to
flee (e.g. the great company of priests who became obedient to the faith).
And yet Christianity spread yet further. Josephus (Antiquities
18.63-64) expresses surprise that the “tribe of Christians” [indicating
their unity] had not disappeared after the death of their founder, “the
[so-called] Christ”. Unlike other religions, the faith of the followers
was not in the leaders- if the organization and leaders were taken away,
would our church continue? The early church did- and flourished. We must
beware lest our system of elders and organizations doesn’t take away our
individual commitment to preach and personally care for people, and
especially for the brotherhood. First century Christianity was a mass
movement, rooted in a highly committed rank and file; and therefore it had
the advantage of the best of all marketing techniques: person-to-person
influence. This in the end is how we can preach far more effectively than
through mass meetings or organized campaigns [not that I am saying not to
hold these].
8:2
And devout men buried Stephen- A term
only used of the "devout men" living in Jerusalem who were baptized by
Peter and who formed the Jerusalem ecclesia (Acts 2:5; Lk. 2:25). These
men had emigrated to live in Jerusalem in their retirement. To now have to
flee was significant for them. Presumably some of them remained, and it
was of these "devout men" that some bravely identified with Stephen in
order to claim and bury his corpse.
And made great lamentation over him- Luke uses the word about
the lamentation made over the Lord at His death (Lk. 23:27). As
demonstrated throughout the commentary on the end of chapter 7, Stephen's
death was modelled consciously upon the Lord's death. And the mourners
surely recognized that, therefore mourning for Stephen as they did for the
Lord.
8:3- see on Acts 26:10,11.
But Saul treated the church shamefully, entering
into every house- “The church” is paralleled with “every house”
[church]: “Saul laid waste the church, entering into every house”. That’s
a very significant parallel. Those house churches in sum were the church
of Christ in Jerusalem; the ecclesia met in house churches but gathered
together in the temple, the only place big enough to hold them all. The
same thing happened at Rome and Corinth, where there seem to have been
various house churches which met together occasionally for larger
gatherings.
Dragging out men and women
and putting them into prison- Paul was himself dragged to his
death by the crowd (Acts 14:19 s.w.). He was being made to realize what he
had done to others; and this is how the Lord seeks to educate us, not
simply bring about 'measure for measure' in our lives for the sake of it.
8:4 Therefore those who were scattered- Gk. 'the diaspora'.
They were diaspora Jews who had come back from their dispersion to live in
Jerusalem. But now they were again a diaspora, but of the Jerusalem
church.
Went about preaching the word- Acts 11:19 informs us that
these brethren went as far as Phenice and Cyprus preaching the word. Most
of the Jerusalem church were comprised of the 'devout men' from throughout
the Roman world who had come to end their days at Jerusalem, and now had
been baptized into Christ by Peter. It's logical to assume that Saul's
persecution prompted them to return home- and thus the Gospel spread.
8:5 And Philip went down-
This is how any journey from Jerusalem was described. Travellers
went 'up' to Jerusalem and thence 'went down'.
To the city of Samaria and proclaimed to them the
Christ- Defined in :12 as the things about His Name and His
Father's Kingdom. This term 'preached Christ' is clearly parallel to the
statement that they 'evangelized the logos' (:4). The essential
word / logos of God was seen to be the Lord Jesus personally.
This indeed is how John began his preaching of the Gospel, as transcripted
in the gospel of John.
8:6
And the crowds, when they heard and saw the signs
which he did, gave heed- The same word is twice used
about how previously they had 'given heed' to Simon (:10,11). Illiterate
people inevitably follow human teachers, and the record here is therefore
psychologically credible. They had once had Simon as their teacher, but
now they gave their minds and attention to Philip. We note that Lydia
likewise 'gave heed' to the Gospel message, but her heart was opened by
the Lord so that she did this (16:14). That mental desire to open the mind
to the message is therefore ultimately given by the Lord and is part of
His calling of people. The people had given attention to Simon because he
apparently did miracles, but when they saw far more credible miracles done
by Philip, they believed him. This was one reason why the power to perform
miracles was given in the first century- they were necessary to grab the
attention of illiterate people who previously had paid attention to
whoever did the most compelling miracles. This was, after all, the only
criteria for credibility which the illiterate masses had. There was no
written word which could be read to them, for the New Testament was not
written. See on :23. The miracles were therefore a message; for they were
heard as well as seen. The miraculous Spirit gifts and miracles were
clearly a specific thing at a specific time- to back up the preaching of
the Gospel in the first century.
With one accord
to the things that were spoken by Philip- There was
evidently a crowd mentality- every person in the crowd had the same
mindset towards Philip's preaching at that moment. Now it seems to me that
we would likely judge such momentary, mass response as mere passing
emotion. But God is more positive- the record which He inspired counts it
to them as real belief, just as the "crowd" who followed the Lord are
credited with faith, even though soon afterwards they were doubting Him.
That indicates to me not only the hopefulness of God for human response to
His grace, but also His willingness to accept people.
8:7
For from many of those that had unclean spirits,
the unclean spirits came out, crying with a loud voice-
The Eastern (Aramaic) text reads: “Many who were mentally afflicted
cried out”. This is because, according to George Lamsa, ““Unclean spirits”
is an Aramaic term used to describe lunatics”. It should be noted that
Lamsa was a native Aramaic speaker with a fine understanding of Aramaic
terms. He grew up in a remote part of Kurdistan which had maintained the
Aramaic language almost unchanged since the time of Jesus. It’s
significant that Lamsa’s extensive writings indicate that he failed to see
in the teachings of Jesus and Paul any support for the popular conception
of the Devil and demons– he insisted that the Semitic and Aramaic terms
used by them have been misunderstood by Western readers and misused in
order to lend support for their conceptions of a personal Devil and
demons. We need to ask who cried with a loud voice. The
'spirits', or the sick person? The person, surely. But the record says the
'spirits' cried. We are intended therefore to read 'spirits' as referring
to the sick persons; just as John's invitation to 'test the spirits' (1
Jn. 4:1) means 'test what these teachers are teaching', rather than asking
us to grab hold of 'spirits' out of the ether and test them.
And many that were paralyzed or lame were healed- This
balances the first part of the verse, which speaks of 'unclean spirits'
departing. The idea seems to be that there was major healing, of both
mental and physical illness. The healing of such persons is described in
the very language used of the Lord's healings of the same categories (Mt.
15:30; 21:14). As Luke begins Acts by saying, He began such work, and His
representatives continued it; as we do in essence to this day.
8:8
And there was much joy in that city-
One gets the impression from the second century writings that the
joy dropped out of Christianity; and yet the joy of the converts, and the
urgent need to retain that first joy of conversion, is a major theme in
the NT (e.g. Acts 8:8; 13:52; 15:3). This strange joy must have been a
major factor in confirming the Gospel as authentic. The very phrase "great
joy" is used about the result of the Lord's resurrection (Mt. 28:8; Lk.
24:52); the miracles being done were enabled by His glorification, and
were in essence His action in the world, performed through His
followers. Whilst we do not possess the miraculous gifts today, He is in
principle operating in the same way today, through we who are in Him.
8:9 But there was a certain man
Simon by name, who previously used sorcery in that city-
Exactly the same phrase is used in introducing Ananias in Acts 5:1. And
the context is identical- after dramatic developments in the Lord's work,
there was human failure from an individual. And so things are to this day
in His work.
And amazed the people of Samaria- The same word used of how
Simon himself was "amazed" (:13). He was made to realize how others had
been made to feel by his false claims; just as Paul was made to
realize and share the feelings of those whom he had persecuted. This is
all part of the Lord's education of those He seeks to save, and He works
like that to this day.
Boasting that he himself was somebody great- Here we see the
difference between the apostolic style of healing, and that of magicians.
He claimed his powers were invested in himself, to the point that he gave
the impression that "This man is the great power of God" (:10 AV). The
apostles repeatedly claimed that what they were doing was not of
themselves, but was the result of the risen Lord working through them. We
too must be careful here; whatever truths we share with others, whatever
we do for others, is all the Lord working through us; it is not of
ourselves. Our aim is to be tools for His working and operation, rather
than building up any personal respect or following for ourselves. And so
much Christian leadership has miserably failed at this point.
8:10
To him they all gave heed, from the least to the
greatest, saying- See on 8:6 Gave heed.
This man has that power of God which is called Great- AV is
better: "This man is the great power of God". See on :9.
8:11 And they gave heed to him- See on 8:6 Gave heed.
Because for a long time he had amazed them with his sorceries-
Illiterate people are inevitably going to be impressed by the miraculous,
and this was why the early preaching of the Gospel was backed up by
visible miracles. But as Robert Roberts put it, there was "an economy of
miracle". The Lord could have done far more than He did by way of
miracles. But in this case in Samaria, all that was necessary was to budge
the psychological stranglehold which Simon magus had over the people.
8:12
But when they believed Philip as he was preaching-
It is helpful to read Luke and Acts following straight on. It is
evident that Luke saw the apostles as continuing the work of preaching
that Jesus personally performed. One of the most evident connections is
the way in which Luke ten times uses the word
euaggelizo to describe the
Lord’s witness; it occurs only one other time in the other Gospels. And
yet Luke uses the word 15 times in Acts to describe the witness of the
apostles. He clearly saw them as continuing the
evangelion of Jesus. As Jesus preached the Gospel of the Kingdom as
He walked around Israel in the late 20s of the first century (Lk. 4:43;
8:1; 9:11; 16:16), so His men continued the very same witness (Acts 8:12;
19:8; 20:25; 28:23,31).
The things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus
Christ- “The kingdom of God’s sake” (Lk. 18:29) is paralleled with
the sake of the Name of Christ by the account in Mt. 19:29. The things of
the Name and the things of the Kingdom were therefore not two different
things, rather were they different ways of referring to the same
realities.
Both men and women were baptized- When the Samaritans believe
the things Philip preached, they were immediately baptized. Baptism is
seen as part and parcel of belief. The Lord’s words that whoever
believes-and-is-baptized shall be saved (Mk. 16:16) are surely being
alluded to; for He too put baptism as part of initial belief in the news
about Him. The impression is clearly given that baptism followed
immediately upon belief and is part of believing. It therefore follows
that once somebody confesses their faith in the Lord, they should
immediately be baptized into Him. Any delay in this is due to an unspoken
perception that de facto baptism is an entry rite into a human
group, and all the club rules of that group must be learnt and adhered to
first. But in the New Testament, baptism was the natural outcome of faith.
“Men and
women” is noted because religion tended to be the preserve of
men; the critics of early Christianity mocked the way that it was so
attractive to women. Yet the call of Christ was no hobby level religion;
it was a radical offer of salvation to humanity, women included.
8:13- see on Acts 2:42.
And Simon also himself believed, and being
baptized, he continued with Philip; and seeing signs and great miracles
done, he was amazed- It was probably clear that
Simon's motivation was less than sincere, but they still baptized him.
Simon appears to have been an onlooker at the baptisms of Acts 8:12, and
“himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with
Philip” (Acts 8:13). Here we see again how belief and baptism were so
closely connected. We see here another fulfilment of the great commission
of Mt. 28:19,20- the basic Gospel was to be preached, people baptized, and
then they were taught further. This seems the sense of how the convert
Simon “continued with Philip”, for to ‘continue with’ someone was an idiom
for being a student of them (Mt. 15:32; Jn. 8:31; Acts 2:42; 14:22; 15:35;
18:11; 19:10; Phil. 1:25; Col. 1:23; 1 Tim. 4:16; 2 Tim. 3:14; 1 Jn.
2:19). In Simon’s case, one gets the feeling that his motives for baptism
were likely almost visibly suspect from the start; he saw the opportunity
for financial gain. But that was no reason to not baptize him. We can
never know the motives of those who seek baptism. Over the course of a few
thousand baptisms I have arrived at the simple conclusion that it’s so
often those who appear to be so well motivated, so brimming with knowledge
and zeal, who don’t stay the course. And it’s those whose motivation would
appear suspect- getting baptized because the boyfriend is baptized and
from an established family of believers, or from the apparent motive of
material benefit- who despite many traumas and difficulties in their
lives, endure to the end. And it is endurance to the end which is of the
essence. Simon’s baptism should surely sink for all time the ‘forbidding
of water’ to people because we doubt their motives. We barely know our own
motives, so how can we pronounce with confidence upon the motives of other
hearts, to the point of denying them baptism? For Amazed see on
:9 Amazed the people of Samaria.
8:14 Now when the apostles that were at Jerusalem- According
to 8:1 the majority of the Jerusalem church had scattered, and only the
apostles remained there. It was therefore quite a sacrifice to send away
Peter and John, who were surely amongst the leadership seeing they had
been in the Lord's inner circle. But this was the importance they attached
to missionary work and strengthening new converts.
Heard that Samaria had received the word of God,
they sent Peter and John to them-
This is the same phrase as used in the parable of the sower, about the
ground which receives the word but then ceases to respond well (Lk. 8:13).
They so believed that parable that they sacrificed Peter and John to go
and try to strengthen those who had responded, lest they fall away. They
knew full well from the parable that those who initially respond are prone
to fall away, and they took proactive initiative in order to try to stop
this happening. Our reading of Scripture must not be left on a mere level
of correctly interpreting it; we are thereby empowered and required to go
out and do things in response.
8:15 Who came down and prayed
for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit- I have argued
on :14 Received the word of God that the motive for the visit was
in order to strengthen the new believers against falling away. What those
converts desperately needed was internal strength against temptation, so
that their receiving the word would result in bringing forth fruit rather
than them becoming one of the types of bad ground in the sower parable.
And this was exactly why the apostles made the effort they did to go there
and pray for them, placing their hands upon them, so that the Holy Spirit
would be given them. There was likely a visible, external evidence of the
receipt of the Spirit, but this is not actually mentioned here. The
receipt of the Holy Spirit is described in :20 as "the gift of God". This
is surely the same gift as referred to in Acts 2- the power of
righteousness, of spiritual help and power. We note that the apostles had
to make effort so that others could receive this gift, and they prayed for
them to receive it. In this we see the power of third party prayer and
efforts for others' spiritual strengthening. There is a power available to
us all which in some cases is dependent upon the freewill efforts of our
fellow brethren. This is the ultimate motivation to travel, worry about
and pray for the spiritual strengthening of our brethren.
8:16 For as yet it had not fallen upon them- The idea of the
Greek word translated 'fallen' is to seize; the language is surely more
relevant to a mental seizure than anything physical. And this, I suggest,
is the essence of the Holy Spirit gift- a mental, psychological invasion
of the willingly opened mind of the believer.
These had only been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus-
This continues the differentiation made in Jn. 3:3-5 between birth of
water, and of the Spirit. Baptism alone will not save us; there must be
spiritual regeneration afterwards. This was taken so seriously that Peter
and John were sent to the new converts to help them towards achieving
this. We must note the danger of perceiving baptism as an end in itself,
the final point reached after mastering a set of doctrine. It is only a
beginning, and the essence is of the Spirit.
8:17 Then they laid their hands on them- We must remember that
very many times, 'laying hands on' is a Hebraism for seizing someone.
Admittedly, the Greek word used for such violent seizure is different to
that used for laying hands on someone for healing or blessing. But the
idea is the same, and it seems that there developed this specific
technical term in the early church for 'laying hands on' in order to
bless. We have just read that the Holy Spirit had not yet fallen upon, or
seized [Gk.] these new converts; and so the apostles 'laid their hands
upon' them so that the Holy Spirit would seize them. Whilst the words are
not the same, the idea clearly is. The laying on of hands was therefore a
visible reflection of the Spirit's seizure of the willing recipient. I
noted on :16 that this language and imagery of 'seizure' is more
appropriate to the Spirit as a mental, psychological force. This, I
suggest, is what is in view, more than the ability to perform miracles.
Such miraculous manifestations were indeed seen, but these were to
demonstrate the power of the mental energy of transformation that had now
been made available to the convert.
And they received the Holy Spirit- They received God's word
(:14), but not the Holy Spirit. The primitive equation of word and spirit
made by some, speaking of the so-called 'spirit-word', is therefore
unrealistic. We read of the Holy Spirit being 'given' by the ascended Lord
(Jn. 7:39), but it appears that this gift was still mediated through the
prayers and efforts of other believers, and the willingness of the
recipient to receive it. For it is apparent that unless Peter and John had
prayed, travelled to Samaria and laid hands on these believers, they would
not have received the Spirit. It would seem that it was outside the scope
of Philip's calling to do this. But lambano, 'receive', can imply
that the converts had to themselves make a conscious decision to receive
it, in the same way as the Spirit will not come into our hearts unless we
are open to it. The Lord's request to the apostles 'Receive the Holy
Spirit' (Jn. 20:22) can be read as a request for their openness, rather
than just stating the obvious, as if to say, 'Well I'm giving you the Holy
Spirit, here you are, receive it'. Rather I suggest the sense is 'Please,
receive it, go on, take what I am offering you'. 2 Cor. 11:4 criticizes
the Corinthians for not receiving the spirit of Jesus but rather "another
spirit", implying that receipt of the Spirit requires freewill decision
making on the part of the recipient. So often, lambano means to
consciously decide to take or receive something; it does not have to mean
that the Spirit just comes upon the recipient in any case. Examples
include Mt. 8:17; 10:38; 12:14; 21:35; 22:15; 26:52; Lk. 20:28.
8:18
Now when Simon saw that through the laying on of
the apostles' hands the Holy Spirit was given, he offered them money,
saying- The gift of the Spirit was surely the same as in Acts
2, which I have reasoned was a gift of internal spirituality. The same
words for 'Spirit' and 'given' are to be found in other passages which
clearly relate it to an internal power working within the human mind: "The
love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit
which is given unto us" (Rom. 5:5). "[He has] sealed us and
given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts" (2
Cor. 1:22). "He would give you, according to the riches of His
glory, that you may be strengthened with power through His Spirit
in the inner man" (Eph. 3:16). "God did not give us a
spirit of fearfulness, but of... a disciplined mind" (2
Tim. 1:7). It's unclear whether or not that gift was accompanied by the
reassurance of physical manifestations in this case. But the essence of it
was just as it is today- the power of internal transformation, which is
what every convert so desperately needs.
8:19 Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay my hands, he
may receive the Holy Spirit- Simon didn't ask for the Holy Spirit
himself, but rather the authority ["power"] to give it to others. He had
been used to being perceived as the power of God (:10), and despite his
new religious milieu as a Christian, he wanted that to continue. This kind
of thing is observable amongst power hungry pastors today, who clearly do
not see personal spirituality as significant, so drunk are they on power.
8:20
But Peter said to him:
May your silver perish with you- The man was identified
with his wealth, as so many are today. See on 5:5 Fell down.
"Perish" translates a Greek word later to be often used by Peter, in the
sense of the destruction of condemnation at judgment day (2 Pet.
2:1,2,3,7,16). When the Lord returns and judges this world, there will
finally be left no silver, no wealth, and no people who identified with
it. Although Peter was telling Simon that he would not at this point be
saved but rather condemned along with his money, he urges him to repent
and pray, knowing that the verdict of condemnation can be changed whilst
we have life (:22). At his denials, Peter had himself experienced that
status of being condemned; he had gone out from the Lord's presence and
wept bitterly, just as the rejected will do at the last day. But he had
repented. And so now he is sharing that experience with others. He would
not, therefore, have said these words with any disinterested shrugging of
the shoulders; he had personally been through this process of condemnation
and salvation out of it. And he dearly wished Simon, his namesake, to do
likewise.
Because you have thought to obtain the gift of God with money-
The Greek can equally carry the sense, as in the AV, that he thought that
God's gift could be purchased with money. In this case, Peter is seeing
right through Simon's game plan. He wanted to have the power to pass on
the gift, because he foresaw that he could then charge money for giving it
to others.
8:21 You have neither part nor share in this matter- "Matter"
is logos, usually translated "word", and used in the context
about the word of the Lord which the Samaritans had responded to
(8:4,14,25). "Part" is often used about a 'part' in an inheritance. Simon
was not in line to share in the promised inheritance, which all true
believers were experiencing and would experience. And neither was he any
elder in this new community; for "share" or "lot" is a reference to the
LXX of Num. 26:55 which speaks of the lot of the priests in service. Simon
had no part in the work of the new priesthood / leadership, nor did he
even have a part in the general inheritance of all believers. The Greek
words for "part... share" are often used together in Deuteronomy (LXX)
concerning how the Levites had no part nor share in the inheritance of
Canaan (Dt. 12:12; 14:27,29; 18:1). They are also used together in Col.
1:12, of partaking in the inheritance of the saints.
Simon had no inheritance in the word of the Kingdom. Another possibility
is that a "part" refers to what is purchased, and "share" or "lot" is what
is distributed freely; as if to say that Simon had no part in the word /
logos / intention of the Gospel, whether by purchasing it or by
being given it freely.
Because your heart is not right before God- Quoting Ps. 78:37
LXX about Israel in the wilderness, whose heart was in Egypt, whatever
appearance they gave of journeying with God. This quotation, along with
the previous allusions in this verse to Simon not having his inheritance
in Canaan, rather suggests that Simon was Jewish. He had a Jewish name,
after all, and was acting like Israel of old. The conversion of Cornelius
in Acts 10 is surely framed as "the conversion of the Gentiles", and it
was this baptism which provoked the debate about the inclusion of the
Gentiles. We can assume therefore that the Lord considered Samaritans as
Jews; and the Samaritans practiced circumcision and considered themselves
to be part of God's covenant people. My point is that these Old Testament
allusions would not have been lost upon Simon, being a Jew.
"Before God" is literally 'in the face / presence of God'. Our
innermost thoughts and subconscious motives, as in Simon's case, his
fantasy of selling Holy Spirit to Christians, are directly before the face
of God Almighty, which face we cannot currently come before in our own
flesh.
8:22 Therefore, repent- Peter had used the same words earlier
in addressing the crowd in Acts 3:19, appealing for them to "repent
therefore and be converted"; in Acts 2:38 Peter had urged repentance in
order to obtain forgiveness. Now he encourages the baptized Simon to
repent and be forgiven. The call to repent and convert is as real both
before and after baptism, for Simon had been baptized. Conversion, as
Peter himself had learnt, is ongoing. This incident is proof enough that
baptism alone will not save us; there is no such thing as 'once saved
always saved'.
Of your wickedness- This is later defined as the thought of
his heart. For the sake of thoughts, a man can be condemned. That is the
message here, and the Lord made it equally clear. In this we see the
supreme importance of being spiritually minded.
And pray to the Lord, that perhaps the thought
of your heart shall be forgiven you- He had not just thought
something, he had offered money in order to be able to pass on the Spirit
gifts (:18,19). But the essence of his sin was a heart matter, what he was
imagining, the likely future he envisaged, of him being given money in
return for giving Spirit gifts. See on :20.
8:23 For I see-Perhaps
Peter perceived the thought of Simon's heart by direct Spirit revelation;
or maybe he himself perceived it. It's likely Peter's own perception was
confirmed by the Spirit.
You are poisoned by bitterness- Simon's problem wasn't simply
a love of money. He wanted the power of the Spirit gifts because of
bitterness- the bitterness of envy (James 3:14). I suggest therefore that
he was envious of the Christian preachers who had replaced him as the ones
to whom people gave attention (see on :6 Gave heed). So his
motivation was envy as well as greed. Bitterness is likened here to a
snakebite- it spreads to influence every part of a person's thinking. We
are surrounded by examples of this. Heb. 12:15 may carry the same idea,
speaking of a root that bears bitterness in one person and thereby defiles
many. Bitterness spreads like venom.
And held captive by iniquity- Literally, in the bonds of
iniquity. The same word is used of how believers are likewise held in the
bonds of peace and righteousness. People are 'bonded' in sin or in
righteousness. We are confirmed one way or the other, and 'held' in those
positions- although it's possible to break out of them.
8:24 And Simon answered and said:
Pray for me to the Lord- Peter had to pray for Simon as
Christ had prayed for him (Acts 8:24 cp. Lk. 22:32). As with his
preaching, Peter’s pastoral work was shot through with an awareness of his
own failure and taste of his Lord’s grace. The lack of energy in our
collective care for each other is surely reflective of a lack of awareness
of our sinfulness, a shallow grasp of grace, and a subsequent lack of
appreciation of the need to lay down our lives for the brethren, as the
Lord did for us. Jesus Himself encouraged Peter to see things this way, in
that He arranged circumstances so that Peter had to pray for Simon as
Christ had prayed for him (Acts 8:24 cp. Lk. 22:32).
There is no record as to whether Peter did pray for Simon. This is one
of those things which is purposefully left hanging in the Biblical record,
in order to exercise us. Can we pray for others to be forgiven? To what
extent can our prayer be a factor in their forgiveness? There is a degree
to which this is indeed a factor (e.g. Mk. 2:5), but to what degree...?
That none of the things which you have spoken come upon me-
Did Peter list various terrible judgments which the record doesn't state?
Or are "the things" a reference to Peter's comment that Simon right then
was "poisoned by bitterness and held captive by iniquity"? I suspect the
latter. Because it is typical of those in that position that they will
refuse to recognize that this is in fact how they are. They see this state
as something which could happen to them, but they aren't there yet. All
sin is addiction, to some extent; and this is the classic mindset of the
addict or alcoholic.
8:25 Therefore, when they had testified and spoken the word of the
Lord- Perhaps this refers specifically to what they testified to
Simon. But it would seem it has a wider reference. "Testified" is a legal
term for a witness in court. Whenever someone hears the word of the Lord,
they are as it were in the dock before Him; and their hearing of His word
is the witness spoken by the preacher. The outcome of their case, in a
sense, depends upon how they have responded to that testimony. The use of
this language is a powerful example of how knowledge of the word brings
responsibility.
They returned to Jerusalem, and preached the gospel to many
villages of the Samaritans- Presumably, in Samaritan villages
surrounding Jerusalem. The parable of the good Samaritan suggests that
there were Samaritans in the Jerusalem area. They had found such good
response in the city of Samaria itself (:5) that they followed the Lord's
leading, in realizing that all Samaritans were good ground for the Gospel.
It's rather like preaching to Latvians in the UK after having a great
response to the preaching of the word in Latvia. We are intended to use
our initiative to follow where the Lord leads. Acts 10 presents the
conversion of Cornelius as the first Gentile convert. The ethnicity of the
Samaritans was a moot question; they were seen as half Jews. The Lord had
spoken of the Samaritan leper He healed as a "stranger" or Gentile (Lk.
17:11,18; note it is Luke again who records this). The disciples should
have grasped immediately from the great commission that they were to take
the Gospel to the Gentiles; but they didn't. The Lord therefore led them
gently to that conclusion, by giving them great response amongst the
half-Jewish Samaritans. We too are led to the right conclusions and
directions in our lives- if we correctly respond, stage by stage, to how
the Lord patiently teaches us by the encounters and experiences He gives
us in life.
8:26 But an angel of the Lord
spoke to Philip, saying: Arise and go toward the south-
A literal Angel? Or perhaps a messenger sent to Philip, to whom he
faithfully responded.
To the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza- This
appears to echo the parable of the good Samaritan, which had been
programmatic for the decision to preach to and accept Samaritans as
recorded in the previous verses. For Gaza, see on :27
Treasure.
The same is desert- There is a theme in the New Testament that
major response to preaching is often unexpected. The disciples were told
to cast the net on the other side, when they were convinced there would be
no response. Philip was told to go onto a road, probably in the heat of
the day- when nobody was travelling. His willingness to go, to do at least
something, resulted in an amazing response. This is exactly why predicting
response to preaching is well-nigh impossible. It’s why the geographical
spread of the Gospel is so hard to explain when it is humanly analysed.
8:27 And he arose and went- In response to the command 'Arise
and go' (:26). Luke so often uses this phrase. As Joseph and Mary arose
and went immediately in response to a command, so did Philip. Immediacy of
response was important to Luke; and he notes it in other terms in
describing the immediacy of response to the Gospel and acceptance of
baptism. Our flesh always seeks to delay our response, in the hope we may
not have to fully make it in the end; whereas those whose hearts really
perceive our call will respond immediately.
And a man- Gk. 'behold, a man'. We are invited to be with
Philip, noticing the man from afar; and thereby sense his wonder at how
faith had been rewarded. He had gone into the desert at midday in response
to the Lord's strange request; and now, he saw why.
From Ethiopia- The disciples were being progressively opened
up towards accepting that the Gospel must go to the Gentiles. They had
been given great response amongst the Samaritans, who were at best
half-Jews. And now a proselyte from Ethiopia was baptized. All this was
leading up to the conversion of the totally Gentile Cornelius in Acts 10,
which is presented as the opening of the door to the Gentiles. Of course,
the disciples ought to have understood from the Lord's own teaching that
the Gospel was now for all nations. But He worked with them in their
slowness to understand that, accepting and gently working with their
limited vision and cultural and historical resistances; just as we should
with others, and exactly as the Lord does with us. Response from the
leaders of Ethiopia was a feature of the Messianic Kingdom (Ps. 68:31; Is.
45:14; Zeph. 3:10). Although that Kingdom was not established in a literal
sense upon the earth, it was being made clear to the disciples that the
essence of it, with the lame walking and the blind seeing, was already
with them. The same 'now but not yet' is seen in the Lord's work today
just as clearly.
"Ethiopia" is often mentioned in the OT as being on the far edge of the world, and converts to Yahweh would come even from there (Ps. 68:31,32; Is. 45:14; Zeph. 3:9,10). We note from :26 that the road to this man came down from Jerusalem. Although he was not given a good reception by God's representatives in that city, it was from Jerusalem that the Gospel was to go out to the farthest parts of the known world. These considerations lead us to think that he was indeed a Gentile and not a Jew. The apparent opening of the doors to the Gentiles in Acts 10 with Cornelius was only making more public a situation that already existed sub rosa- the door was already open to the Gentiles and Philip had been taught this in Acts 8, as Peter was in Acts 10. The Gospel's path was made clear in Acts 1:8- from Jerusalem to Samaria and "to the ends of the earth". Acts 8 tells us of the Gospel going from Jerusalem to Samaria, and now, to an Ethiopian- seen to be at the "ends of the earth". Philip is whisked away to Azotus and from there preaches to the towns along the coastal plain up to Caesarea. This included Gaza and Ashdod, former Philistine towns still largely populated by Gentiles. Peter is led to preach in this same area in Acts 9, preaching in Lydda an Joppa before coming to Caesaria. Indeed his work there may have been visiting the existing believers there whom Philip had converted. So we see the Lord's hand teaching both Philip and Peter in separate ways, gently leading them to understand the calling to include the Gentiles. We see the Lord working likewise today, to teach the same things to parallel believers.
A eunuch of great authority under Candace, queen of the Ethiopians-
The spiritually perceptive amongst the disciples would have reflected that
Jeremiah's faithful friend Ebedmelech was an Ethiopian (Jer. 38:7-12); and
his name meant 'Servant of the king'. Here was another servant of the king
/ queen of Ethiopia. If Ebedmelech could have a place amongst the Old
Testament faithful, why not Ethiopians of Philip's day? Again we see how
the Lord was gently but quickly leading His people towards acceptance of
the Gentiles. Those who refused that leadership and continual
psychological nudging were refusing the movement of the Spirit in their
lives by resisting the obvious conclusion: Gentiles could be accepted in
the family of God just as well as Jews.
Dt. 23:1 was clear that whoever had crushed testicles or was castrated "shall not enter the assembly of Yahweh". The Ethiopian was cut off from Yahweh's people, apparently. But that didn't stop him coming to the Lord. Some Rabbis understood Lev. 21:20; 22:24 to mean that a castrated man was permanently unclean. Josephus wrote: "Shun eunuchs and flee all dealings with them... expel them" (Antiquities, 4.290,291). As a eunuch, he could not be circumcised, and so was seen as outside the realm of covenant relationship with God- under the old covenant. He desperately wanted a new covenant, and this is what he found in the Lord Jesus. The Ethiopian likely heard all these arguments on his visit to Jerusalem. And therefore was the more intrigued to read of the Lord's condition and situation in Isaiah 53, and felt the more identity with He who had likewise been rejected by the Jerusalem religious leaders. Isaiah 56 had foretold that the eunuchs would be welcomed into the new temple on Zion; clearly the views of Judaism were askance with that. Hence the Ethiopian was baptized on the road that led away from Jerusalem.
The parts of Isaiah 53 that he focuses upon are those which
speak of the Lord's humiliation on the cross, and the lack of justice. He
quotes from the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew text, suggesting he had
purchased the Greek version as he wasn't fluent in Hebrew. He doesn't
quote the whole section, just some verses which struck him as relevant to
himself. We too focus on various aspects of the Lord's sufferings as
pertinent to our own experience. He saw the lamb being led to slaughter as
a picture of a humbled animal, now willing to accept whatever was done to
it, be it shearing or death. He had been humiliated- racially, as a man,
as a person. And he was struck by how the Lord's humiliation was the basis
of His exaltation- note :33 Gk. "His life was taken up [exalted] from the
earth". This may well be a reference to His resurrection and ascension
rather than to His death. No wonder the Ehtiopian so eagerly wanted
immersion baptism, which speaks of this. This fits with Luke's great
theme, shown by how he records Mary's words, that the high are brought
down, and the humble lifted up (Lk. 1:52). But the Ethiopian was a high
one in his own circles. But he was willing to be brought down along with
the Lord Jesus, and thus be lifted up.
Who was over all her treasure- "Treasure" translates a
non-Greek word, gaza. It occurs nowhere else in the New
Testament. It's a strange word choice, at first blush. Likewise when we
encounter the same word as a proper noun in :26 to describe the road from
Jerusalem to Gaza, we wonder why that description is given. For the
Ethiopian was travelling from Jerusalem to Ethiopia, and defining the road
as the part that lead to Gaza begs the question as to why that point along
the journey is emphasized. The connection is clearly intentional. The man
was burdened with the responsibility of managing great wealth, and he was
now beginning his journey home, full of those thoughts one has on coming
to the end of a vacation and realizing that it's now back to work. He was
going back to his wealth, to his gaza, which he had been placed
over. The idea of being placed over wealth is to be found in the Lord's
parable of Mt. 25:21,23, where the same words are used as here; we are
placed over the Lord's wealth. I think the allusion is teaching us that
all the cares of this world regarding our employment and the management of
wealth, be it great or small, is utterly eclipsed by our conversion to the
Lord and the responsibilities we now have in His service. For we
are servants of the King, the King of the cosmos, and are put in charge
over His amazing wealth, which we are to manage for Him.
Had come to Jerusalem to worship- He was a proselyte, but as a
eunuch and effectively a Gentile, would have been unable to enter the
temple for "worship". His worship would therefore have been in his heart
and outside the temple. He was a prime candidate for the Gospel, just as
all God loving but excluded persons are.
8:28 And he was returning, and sitting in his chariot- A
similar word to 'converting'. He had only just begun his journey back to
Ethiopia; he had not yet reached even Gaza. He would have been full of
thought and sadness as to how his physical condition and ethnicity
disallowed his full worship. And likely he had felt keenly the proud
superiority of the Jewish religious leaders, which left him feeling
humiliated. But this being brought down by the rejection of others was all
part of his 'converting' to the Lord in spirit and truth. And the Lord
above saw his feelings and felt for him, just as He does with all such
folk to this day.
Was reading the prophet Isaiah- Perhaps he had bought a copy
of the scroll. Such scrolls were hard to come by, especially for a Gentile
eunuch, and were very expensive. Perhaps he had just bought it on his
visit. And he knew Hebrew. His desire to draw close to God was very
serious. And God notices likewise today all who truly love and seek to
understand His word.
8:29 And the Spirit said to Philip- A reference to the Lord
Jesus, "the Lord the Spirit" of 2 Cor. 3:18? Or the Spirit as an Angel? Or
an internal prompting? I would opt for an Angel, perhaps the Comforter
Angel, which effectively was the Holy Spirit in the early church. See on
8:39 The Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip.
Go near and join this chariot- The language of 'joining' is
another prompt towards fellowshipping with Gentiles; the same term has
been used for how believers 'joined themselves to' other believers (Acts
5:13; 9:26; 17:34). It became a lesson for Peter, who uses the term for
how it was not seen as lawful for a Jew to 'keep company' or 'join himself
to' Gentiles (Acts 10:28). Peter learnt from Philip's experience. For
'chariot' is put here for the entire entourage, who would have been
Gentiles. Such a prominent man would not have travelled alone. His
commanding the chariot to stop in :38 surely means he asked those driving
the horses to stop. "Go near" translates the same word used by Peter in
explaining that a Jew could not 'come unto' non-Jews (Acts 10:28). Philip
was being led to the same experience as Peter by an Angel or "the Spirit"
telling him to 'come unto' non-Jews. Philip's experience would have been
an example to Peter. We see how the Lord works in a parallel way in
different lives, and we are to take lessons and inspiration from this. It
is this feature of His working which is the basis for true Christian
fellowship; our meetings together are not therefore to be to chatter about
the state of the nation and lament the weather, but rather to share our
experiences of the Lord's hand, so that we might take encouragement from
the fact that He is at work according to a similar pattern in other lives.
For man is not alone, even amongst our fellows there are parallel lives
from which we are to take warning and encouragement. Her breast cancer,
your broken leg, their bereavement... we perceive as the workings of the
same Lord towards similar ends.
8:30 And Philip ran to him
and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said-
Sensing the Lord was leading him, Philip was eager to respond. Running is
a Hebraism for response to God's word (Hab. 2:2; Dan. 12:4). We too need
to sense where we are being led and enthusiastically respond in order to
be led further.
Do you understand what you read?- Our Bible reading can be so
easily performed on a merely surface level, skimming over words without
letting their real import be felt at all. Fred Barling truly observed:
“Through long familiarity we have come to read [the Bible] with a phlegm
and impassivity which are in sharp contrast to the amazement felt by those
who came into actual contact with Jesus, and by those who first read these
accounts”. Philip realized this when he quizzed the eunuch, with a play on
words in the Greek: "Do you understand what you read?" . ginoskeis ha
anaginoskeis? 'Do you really understand, experientially, what you are
understanding by reading?'.
8:31
And he said: How can I- This
suggests, in the Greek, that "I am not able". And God recognized this, by
sending Philip to explain. It would seem from this that it isn't possible,
or is very unusual, for a person to understand the Gospel purely through
their own Bible reading. The implication is that an existing believer is
required to explain it, to embody the theory in practice. This reflects
how God (who can teach or save anyone as He wishes, how He wishes) prefers
to work through the mechanism of the body of Christ, the church, in order
to do this. It is His intention that the message of Christ be spread by
those who model Christ. We can wrongly assume that Bible study alone is
required to reveal the Gospel to a person. It can do, but marooned on a
desert island with only a Bible we would be unlikely to find Christ-
unless someone revealed Him to us.
"How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and
how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall
they hear without a preacher?" (Rom. 10:14). This clearly states that (as
a general rule) it is impossible to believe in Christ without a preacher.
The Ethiopian eunuch was the classic case of this. It is perfectly
possible that Rom. 10:4 alludes to this, implying that this man's case was
typical [and notice the connections between Acts 8:37 and Rom. 10:9].
Likewise the Lord Jesus spoke of "them also which shall believe on me
through their (the preachers') word" (Jn. 17:20)- not
through their unguided Bible reading. If all we had been given was a
Bible, most of us would simply not be where we are today, spiritually. If
I had started reading from Genesis, I don't think I'd have got much beyond
Leviticus before giving up on the Bible. Yet there are some who have made
it through, from Genesis to Revelation. And their testimony is even more
emphatic: "Without doubt I needed someone to guide me, I was just crying
out for all the pieces to be put into place" , in the words of one such
recent convert.
Unless someone guides me- The LXX frequently uses this word
for the Divine guidance of Israel in the desert. And here was the eunuch
also in a desert, but wondering where the guidance would come from. He had
God's word in the form of part of the Bible; but putting a Bible in a
man's hand is not always enough. There is some other element required, and
God in His wisdom has set things up like that so that our guidance is not
a result of unaided intellectual effort, and requires fellowship with
other believers at some level.
And he begged Philip- Another similarity with Peter's
experiences, for we go on to read how Peter was 'begged' (s.w.) to go to
Joppa and heal the half Gentile Dorcas (Acts 9:38).
To come up and sit with him- The wealthy, powerful man was
'sitting' in his chariot, at the centre of his entourage (:28 s.w.). We
notice the new equality between the two men; Philip climbed up to him, and
they sat together. This is the effect which the Gospel has upon people.
8:32
Now the passage of the Scripture which he was
reading was this: He was led- This changes the
quotation from Is. 53 to say that Christ was led (this isn't in the Hebrew
text). The impression given of His passivity is another indication that He
was giving His life of His own volition, it wasn't being taken from Him.
There is great emphasis on the Lord being led (Mt. 26:57; 27:2,31; Mk.
15:16; Jn. 18:13,28; 19:16). The eunuch felt he too was being led; Luke
uses the word to speak of the convert to Christ being led to the inn by
the good Samaritan (Lk. 10:34), and it is used of Peter being first led to
Christ (Jn. 1:42), of the sheep being led to the Lord's fold (Jn. 10:16),
of sinners being led to repentance (Rom. 2:4) and the many sons being led
to glory (Heb. 2:10). So the eunuch saw striking similarities between
himself and all that was written of the Messianic figure in Isaiah. We
could say that he saw in the Christ his representative. But he needed to
make some conscious act of identification with him, which is why the
appeal for baptism into Him was so natural and was exactly what he needed
to hear.
As a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb- Having been so
recently in Jerusalem for worship, these images were fresh in the eunuch's
mind. Those animals were representative of some greater reality- and now
he was figuring that that person whom they represented was also in turn
representative of himself.
Before his shearer is dumb, so he did not open his mouth- One
simple reason the Lord was silent before His accusers was because He was
utterly scared in the face of death. His silence wasn't merely because of
an iron willed biting of the tongue; it was also a result of the same
humanity which sweated great drops in Gethsemane as He begged not to die.
The sheep-Messiah was "dumb", literally, without a voice. Just as the
eunuch was in Judaism. He too had been unable to "open his mouth" in the
worship formalities because he was excluded from the temple on account of
his physical condition and ethnicity.
8:33 In his humiliation- The majority of references to
humility in Scripture refer to humbling oneself; humility, hard
as it is to define, is something consciously done, as an act of the will.
Yet the Father confirms us in our efforts. The Lord humbled Himself to
die on the cross (Phil. 2), and yet the cross humbled Him (Acts
8:33). I suggest the eunuch felt humbled by his visit to Jerusalem; but
the word can also mean 'depressed'. He was depressed at the seeming
impossibility of drawing close to God within the strictures of Judaism.
Justice was denied him- The eunuch’s exclusion from the temple
for reasons beyond his control seemed unjust. So he was both depressed and
also frustrated at the injustice. And now he was reading of another
depressed man who was also denied justice.
Who can declare his generation?- The eunuch was likewise
without children and impotent. What attracted him to this Messiah figure
was the similarity he was between this saviour figure and himself. He too
was humiliated / depressed, just as this saviour was. This is the
compelling attraction of the representative nature of the Lord's
sacrifice, that He as a man with our nature and experience gave Himself as
the sacrifice which we can identify with. No wonder, then, that the
conversation with Philip moved to baptism, and the eunuch wanted to make
that necessary identification with the Lord Jesus in that way.
For his life is taken away from the earth- Perhaps the
depression / humiliation of the eunuch was to such a degree that he felt
suicidal, or at least, he despaired at the purpose of his life if he were
to remain excluded from God. And now he was reading of another man whose
life was taken away. In passing, the Lord makes the point that His life
was not taken away from Him (Jn. 10:18- same words used), but rather He
gave it of His own will. We see here how God is not a literalist when it
comes to the use of words and ideas. The critic would cry
'Contradiction!'. But it's nothing of the sort. Instead we see here a
truth stated- that His life was taken away. But the Lord saw deeper than
that, and explained that His wilful giving of His life was to such an
extent that in effect, the taking away of His life was not a taking away
of life from Him. For He freely gave His life of His own volition.
8:34
And the eunuch said to Philip:
I beg you, of whom does the prophet speak?- This urgency
to understand whom the prophet spoke of was a reflection of the man's need
to identify himself with that man. This is why baptism, as that act of
identification, flowed on so naturally.
Of himself, or of somebody else?- The Greek translated "or" is
very wide in meaning. The sense could equally be 'Of himself as much as
about somebody else?', or 'Of himself and also somebody else?', or 'Of
himself but also of somebody else?'. I have tried to demonstrate that all
aspects of Messiah read by the eunuch were relevant to himself. So I would
argue that the 'somebody else' he had in view was himself. His reasoning
was not that the prophet was perhaps talking about himself but he was
additionally a type of Messiah. That would be to read into these words the
kind of thing we are accustomed to seeing in the Old Testament.
The eunuch was a eunuch and was feeling strong connection with this figure
he was reading about. So strong, that he asked whether he was correct in
feeling that this prophecy was about the Messianic prophet figure and also
about himself. We could wish for no clearer statement of the
representative nature of the Lord's being and sacrifice.
8:35 And Philip opened his
mouth- This surely must connect with the usage of the same phrase
in :32 about the Lord Jesus, who in His time of death "did not open his
mouth". It was as if Philip was manifesting the Lord Jesus; the eunuch had
been reading of a figure like him who died, whereas now Philip represents
that figure as alive. The desire for baptism at Philip's hands into that
dead and resurrected figure was therefore quite natural.
And beginning from this Scripture- As He ‘began’ in the
prophets and expounded “in all the scriptures the things concerning
himself” (Lk. 24:27), so those in Him “began at this
Scripture, and preached... Jesus”.
Preached Jesus to him- Our early brethren preached a person,
even a personality cult- based around the man Christ Jesus. They preached
a Christ-centred Gospel, to the extent that the preaching of the entire
Gospel is sometimes summarised as “preaching Christ” (Acts 8:35; 5:42;
28:31). They preached a Man, a more than man, who has loved us more than
we loved Him, and more than we ever can love Him. In this there is an
imperative for response. It’s not the same as demanding obedience merely
for the sake of a good time to come.
8:36
And as they went along the road, they came upon
some water; and the eunuch said: Look, water!- The preaching of
"Jesus" involved the message about baptism. There was more content in
'preaching Jesus' than literally just saying 'believe in Jesus'. Or it
could be argued that the message he had read of the death and resurrection
of the human Lord Jesus, whose experiences were representative of his own,
naturally led to a desire to identify with Him. And perhaps the eunuch had
seen Jews being baptized into Jesus during his stay in Jerusalem; and
perhaps the brethren had refused to baptize him because he was a Gentile.
The initiative in requesting baptism was clearly from the candidate;
infant sprinkling is therefore no way Christian baptism. The act of
baptism is therefore a response to the message of the Lord's death and
resurrection. For baptism by its nature is designed as an identification
with those things, rather than a sign of assent to a theology we have
heard and accepted. This is what the great commission envisaged- preaching
the message of Christ's death and resurrection, baptizing people into
that, and then subsequently teaching them "all things that I have
commanded you".
What is stopping me
from being baptized?- The Greek word is
generally used in the context of forbidding people, Gentiles especially,
from coming to Christ. Peter uses it in reasoning that baptismal water
could not be forbidden for the Gentile Cornelius (Acts 10:47; 11:17). The
Ethiopian may well have come up to the temple, searching for the God of
Israel, and was now returning depressed at his rejection by Judaism. But
now he finds acceptance in Christ. He is described as "a man from
Ethiopia" (:27), and not a diaspora Jew. Luke has written of diaspora Jews
in chapter 2, so it's rather surprising he doesn't mention the fact if the
man indeed was one. However, the fact he was reading Hebrew could suggest
he was a Jew, or at least, a very serious proselyte; and the conversion of
Cornelius later, in Acts 10, is certainly set up as if it was the opening
of the door to the Gentiles. But all the same, eunuchs weren't allowed
into the temple; so even if this man was a Jew, he was an excluded one.
The fact he was a senior minister in a gentile Government would also
suggest he was not that devoted to Judaism externally, although in his
heart he was, and had made the pilgrimage to Jerusalem and learnt to read
Hebrew.
8:37 And Philip said: If you
believe with all your heart- Philip is putting the question back
to the candidate. It was not for him to judge the state of the man's
heart; only the eunuch knew his own heart. The decision regarding
readiness for baptism was therefore left with the candidate and not the
baptizer. There is no example in the apostolic preaching of candidates
being turned down by the preachers. We notice that the question as to
whether the eunuch believed "with all [his] heart" was answered by the
eunuch with no reference to his heart; rather simply, "I believe". He knew
he believed, but rarely is faith 100%. And the eunuch had the humility to
recognize that, and Philip accepted that. Belief is frequently stated to
be in the heart, and the passages in the later New Testament which state
that may well be alluding back to the eunuch as a model convert to be
emulated by us all. Belief, therefore, was not mere attendance at the
temple nor simply external acceptance of religion. It was deeply personal,
in the heart which only the believer knows. This may sound obvious to us,
but it was a radical concept amongst the religions of the day and also
within Judaism.
You may- The Greek exesti occurs 32 times and is 28
times translated "lawful" in the context of arguments about the Mosaic
law. Surely the eunuch had encountered the objection so many times whilst
in Jerusalem: It is not lawful for you to come into the temple, or even,
perhaps, to be baptized. Now Philip is being led to understand that the
spirit of the Law did indeed encompass a personal like the eunuch, despite
his physical condition and ethnicity. For if Philip simply meant 'Sure,
you can...', other words would more comfortably have been chosen.
And he answered and said: I believe-
The impression is given by the record that he really couldn’t put
the Scriptures together at all; his first comment to Philip was that he
couldn’t understand the Scriptures because he had no teacher (Acts 8:31).
The way Philip opens his mouth “and preached unto him Jesus” (Acts 8:35)
suggests the man had no prior understanding of “Jesus”. Philip’s message
obviously included baptism, because the Ethiopian on his initiative asked
to be baptized when he noticed some water on their journey. Philip did not
refuse him, but said that he could do so if he believed with all his heart
(Acts 8:37). The fact Philip requested the man to ask himself
that question would imply that Philip did not know the state of the man’s
heart. He didn’t say “Yes, Mr. Ethiopian, I can read your heart and I see
you believe, so, yes, you can”. The Ethiopian’s confession that “I believe
that Jesus Christ is the Son of God” (Acts 8:37) is clearly presented as
sufficient for the man to be baptized. One excuse for not following the
example of baptisms found in Acts is to argue that no extensive interview
or theological teaching was necessary because the apostles knew the hearts
of men by the Holy Spirit gifts. That of course is an argument from
silence. Nowhere is that explicitly stated in the context of baptism. But
the example of the Ethiopian rather suggests that Philip did not know the
man’s heart, rather did he leave the man to decide the state of his own
heart.
That Jesus Christ is the Son of God- It would be hard to argue
that anything much more is required to make a baptism valid. Belief in
Jesus as God's Son becomes the quintessential statement of faith in Jn.
9:35; 20:31 and 1 Jn. 5:5. If acceptance of a detailed package of theology
was essential for the validity of baptism, then surely the New Testament
would be specific in giving examples of this. But the evidence is quite
the opposite.
8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stop- See on :29 Go
near and join this chariot.
And they both went down into the water- This along with the
description of them coming "up out of the water" (:39) is sure evidence
that baptism was by immersion. And it has been well observed that nobody
crosses a desert without water bottles. They surely had some water, which
would have sufficed if baptism were by sprinkling.
Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him- It is stressed
twice that both of them went into the water. We see here the unity between
preacher and convert, which we also noted on :31 Sit with him.
8:39
And when they came up out of the water, the
Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip- This would suggest
that "the Spirit of the Lord" was not an internal prompting but the Spirit
working through an Angel. The 'snatchings away' recorded in the Bible
often imply the involvement of an Angel. The Alexandrian MS renders: "The
Holy Spirit fell upon the eunuch, but an angel of the Lord snatched away
Philip". This would parallel the Angel's work with that of the Holy
Spirit. The Spirit was equally active in work in both their lives. "Caught
away" would have recalled how Ezekiel was snatched away from Jerusalem to
Gentile Babylon (Ez. 3:14); and the Apocryphal story of the transportation
of Habakkuk, who was supposedly like Ezekiel taken up by the hair of his
head, and carried from Judea to Babylon. Again the suggestion is that
Philip now went to preach to Gentiles.
And the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his
way rejoicing- The temple centred Judaism of the time would
have found it hard to get their head around how a person could go off and
have a relationship with God with no access to holy space and without the
further presence of their rabbi / teacher. It's likewise difficult for
those who perceive the body of Christ to be limited by a particular church
or attendance within a denomination. The idea that a person can be
baptized and live in isolation with their Lord is hard for them to accept.
There is fairly strongly documented evidence that there was a Christian
movement in Ethiopia from the first century, so we can conclude that the
eunuch preached there on his return.
8:40 But Philip was found-
Elsewhere I have suggested that it's helpful to imagine the Biblical
records as being filmed by some Divine cameraman who changes perspective
and at times zooms in and zooms out, and changes angle. In this record we
have seen Philip looking at the chariot, focusing upon the eunuch, running
to the chariot entourage and joining himself to it, then climbing up into
it and sitting with the eunuch. Now the word "found" suggests an almost
aerial perspective, looking down upon Palestine and 'finding' Philip in
Ashdod / Azotus.
At Azotus- Ashdod. It is given its Gentile name because the
suggestion is that after the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch, Philip began
preaching to Gentiles. He preached along the coastal strip from Ashdod to
Caesarea, an area well known for the many Gentiles living there. Both he
and Peter were led to the same conclusions by different routes. This
impression is confirmed by the way that Cornelius was at Caesarea (Acts
10:1), and his conversion is presented as the opening of the doors to the
Gentiles. Both Philip and Peter ended up open minded to Gentiles in
Caesarea by different routes. We so often find this- believers are led to
the same changed positions and the same truths by different paths but by
the same Lord.
And passing through that area, he preached the
gospel to all the towns, until he came to Caesarea -
Luke describes the Lord and His followers as ‘passing through’ and
teaching as He went (Lk. 2:15; 4:30; 5:15; 8:22; 9:6; 11:24; 17:11;
19:1,4); and employs the same word to describe the preaching of the
apostles in Acts (8:4,40; 9:32,38; 10:38; 11:19,22; 12:10; 13:6,14; 14:24;
15:3,41; 16:6; 17:23; 18:23,27; 19:1,21; 20:2,25). See on Acts 1:1. His
witness becomes that of all those in Him. We are Him to this world.
Previous
