Acts 8 - Peter Pett's Commentary on the Bible

‘And Saul was consenting to his death.' What a chill this brings on our hearts. He stood there silent and seemingly impassive, but his heart was filled with hate and anger. And as he watched he nodded his approval. This was not passive acknowledgement. It was wholehearted acquiescence. We can even read his thoughts. ‘May such be the end of all these heretics, and I will make it my responsibility to ensure that it is.'

Some may question how this could happen under Roman rule. We do not actually know the circumstances under which the laws of blasphemy could be cited in order to defend the death penalty. Certainly instant death could be demanded on any who encroached on the Temple beyond the allowable limit. It seems very possible therefore that blasphemy was the one crime for which the Sanhedrin could pass the death penalty. But whether it was so or not, Pilate was at this stage in a precarious position and he was in no case to dispute the activities of the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem. He was too busy watching his own back. And they were experienced politicians. They knew how far they could go.

Note.

Perhaps at this stage we may seek to establish what Stephen was not saying. He was not rejecting the Law. Indeed he had continually cited the Law (Genesis/Exodus). All the way through he was upholding the Law against those who had broken it (Acts 7:8; Acts 7:38; Acts 7:53). Nor was he rejecting Israel's worship as such, for he had upheld the Tabernacle in which that worship was originally conducted. Nor was he rejecting the Temple. What he was doing was rejecting the overemphasis on the Temple itself as the centre of God's saving plan, as the focal point of men's thinking, and as something that was indestructible, as though it had somehow come down from God.

His thought was that like all else the Temple was of human origin, and that therefore Temple worship, which was carried on in a building of man's devising, should not focus in on itself but should turn men's eyes upwards beyond the Temple towards that which was not made with hands, to the living God Himself, and towards His Messiah, enthroned in Heaven. Thus men around the world should not be looking towards the Temple, as they tended to do, as though God were trapped in Jerusalem, but should be looking upwards towards God and His Messiah wherever they were. Perhaps he had in mind Jesus' words in the context of John 4:21-24. “The hour comes and now is when the true worshippers will worship the Father in Spirit and in truth.”

So his thought was that now that men no longer had a God-designed Tabernacle which in a sense, at least in concept, had come down from heaven, they should look, not to the Temple, but beyond it to One Who had come down from Heaven Who was even greater than the Tabernacle. One Who had now replaced the Temple as the focal point (John 2:19-21) Thus they should look to a heavenly Tabernacle, to where God was on His throne. And this would involve recognition of the Righteous One Whom He had sent, for He was now on the throne as man's Saviour. Man should now therefore look to God's Tabernacle in Heaven. It was God Who would take this further by destroying the very Temple itself, because even Christians were still wedded to it.

End of note.

EXCURSUS 1.

Are We To See Stephen's Words As Verbally Inspired Scriptural Truth?

These words of Stephen raise an important question that we need to deal with, and that is as to whether Stephen's words were seen by Luke as conveying ‘verbally inspired Scriptural Truth'. To many the question will seem unimportant. They simply class the Scriptures along with other writings. But it is a question that in its general application needs to be carefully thought about for any who believe in the verbal inspiration of Scripture.

We must first of all define what we mean by ‘Scriptural truth'. Paul tells us that ‘all Scripture is God-breathed and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, etc.' and there is a sense in which all Scripture is ‘true'. But in saying this it is clear that we must distinguish between Scriptures where the very words are themselves teaching divine truth, and Scriptures where the words are correctly recorded and are a true record of what was said, but are not themselves to be seen as expressing divine truth.

One book which faces us up with this very question, and is fairly simple to deal with, is the Book of Job. There we have words spoken by Job and his four friends, and it is necessary for us to consider which of their words are Scriptural truth, and which are simply an accurate record of false ideas being put forward by his ‘friends'. The words accurately present what was said, but without necessarily themselves expressing Scriptural truth.

That this is so, comes out clearly at the end of the book, for there God firmly declares that Job's friends  have not spoken of Him what is right  (Job 42:7). That tells us as specifically as anything can that we are not to see their words as conveying Scriptural truth, even though they are in the Scriptures and are to be seen as presenting a true record of what they had said. Thus if we base our doctrine on what they taught we will go sadly astray. This makes it clear that we have to be discerning when we use Scripture. We have to distinguish when the Scriptures are putting forward ‘revealed truth', and when they are telling us what people said without necessarily indicating that it was Scriptural truth.

So next time someone quotes something to you from the Book of Job, first check on who said what. This does not mean that the book of Job itself cannot be classed as ‘inspired Scripture'. What it does mean is that as Scripture what it is claiming to do is to accurately inform us concerning the distorted teaching of these men, while also informing us that their words are not to be seen as presenting us with the truth. It is explaining the false arguments that they used against Job. We cannot therefore accept the words of these men as teaching ‘Scriptural truth'. We may even say that they are actually teaching ‘Scriptural untruths'.

To take an even more definite example, when Satan told Eve that the fruit would be good for her and Adam, his words were certainly Scripture (that is, they are recorded in Scripture as indicating what he said, and can be relied as an accurate representation of what was truly said), but they were equally certainly not conveying Scriptural truth, for they were basically a lie, and shown to be so. So always when considering Scripture we must ask, ‘Who said it?' and ‘Under what circumstances?'

Now when we come to the Acts of the Apostles the same question arises. Take for example the words of Sapphira in Acts 5:8. When she replied, “Yes, for so much.”, was that Scripture? Well, yes, for the words are included in Acts, they are included in the Scriptures. But are they presenting Scriptural truth? The answer is clearly no. She is recorded as telling a lie, and is punished for it.

At the other extreme we have the Apostles. When they stood and spoke authoritatively, speaking by the Holy Spirit, Jesus said of them that they would be led into all truth (John 16:13). Thus we have good grounds for saying that under such circumstances the writers who recorded their words would look on them as ‘Scriptural truth'.

Other speakers may well be seen as coming somewhere in the middle. Their words may be seen as accurately recorded, and even true, without necessarily being seen as ‘verbally inspired Scriptural truth'. In other words they are words which must be judged by normal standards. This is particularly relevant in what we are looking at here, for the question must arise, ‘Are we to see Stephen's words as an inspired record of what Stephen said, without his words necessarily being seen by the writer as carrying the same inspiration as the Apostles? Or are we to see them as on the same level of inspiration as the Apostles, and therefore without error?' The question is not whether he was ‘inspired' in a sense in which great preachers of today might be inspired, or even whether the Holy Spirit was giving him words to speak as a Christian on trial was entitled to receive them, in accordance with Luke 12:12. Both of those would undoubtedly be so. The question is, was his inspiration seen as of the same level as that of the Apostles, and the great Old Testament writing prophets, making what he said completely dependable?

We should consider here, for example, 1 Corinthians 14. There the New Testament prophets were seen as on the whole being ‘inspired' by the Spirit in the church meetings. But Paul quite clearly indicates that their words are not necessarily to be seen as ‘verbally inspired', for their words are rather to be judged by other prophets (1 Corinthians 14:29). So he for one does not see all people who are ‘inspired' by the Holy Spirit as being what we call ‘verbally inspired' and therefore speaking without error. (This is important for any groups which practise spiritual gifts to appreciate). In other words he states that the words of such people cannot necessarily be accepted as absolute truth, but must be tested to discover whether they are true or not. This does not especially denigrate them. It simply makes clear the standard that must be applied to their teaching.

The same thing applies to Stephen. It is not necessarily to denigrate him, or to throw doubt on the truth of his words, to declare that his words were not necessarily ‘verbally inspired Scriptural truth', even though we may judge them as in general Scripturally true because they accord with other Scriptures. For it is vitally important that we do distinguish between what is set up as ‘verbally inspired Scriptural truth' (to be accepted as God's infallible word to man) and what is able to be seen as in accordance with Scriptural truth, while not itself necessarily being technically so.

The truth is that unless we are to lose all ability to make such distinctions we must when studying the Scriptures set up various markers defining when something is ‘verbally inspired Scriptural truth' (the verbally inspired word of truth) as opposed to seeing something as Scripturally true because it accords with Scriptural truth found elsewhere, but not as verbally inspired Scriptural truth. Jesus, for example, does seem to have intended to lay down that kind criteria in His choosing of His Apostles. He does appear to have later declared that they, and they alone, will be the final arbiters of truth (Matthew 16:19; Matthew 18:18; John 14:16-17; John 14:26; John 15:26-27; John 16:13). Thus it seems to me that we have to say that, while in the case of Stephen, and others like him such as Ananias, what he said may be equally as true as what our best teachers say when interpreting Scripture, it must be judged on that basis, and cannot be classed as itself on the level of ‘infallible Scriptural truth'.

We may rightly be impressed by Stephen's words. We may indeed hold them as having been spoken under a large level of inspiration and guidance by the Holy Spirit, even greater possibly than we expect from our own preachers, but we must stop short of calling it ‘infallible Scriptural truth'. If we do not take this position it seems to me that we lose all criterion by which we can judge what is ‘infallible Scriptural truth'. We accept that the words of the Apostles were, when speaking or writing under inspiration, ‘infallible Scriptural truth', because we have as grounds for taking up such a position the authority of Jesus. We accept the Old Testament rightly interpreted as such because we have Jesus' authority for doing so. But we have no such authority for Stephen and others in a parallel situation. If we take up any other position than the one just outlined it then becomes in the end simply a matter of one person's opinion against another. It is we who become the arbiters of inspiration.

When the early church thought in terms of ‘inspired Scripture' their criterion was clear. The Old Testament in its original text was so because it had been vouched for by Jesus Christ Himself (although even then we have to be discerning). The Apostolic writings in their original texts were so because they were written either by Apostles, or by men under the close supervision of Apostles (Mark and Luke). Otherwise the church on the whole rejected other writings as ‘authoritative Scriptural truth', even when they allowed them to be read in church as ‘helpful'.

On this criteria therefore we may truly say that Stephen was inspired by the Spirit, but not that he had such inspiration that the early church (and in this case Luke) saw his words as verbally inspired Scriptural truth. That is not to cast them off. And like any Spirit inspired sermon they may warm our hearts and speak to us through the Spirit. They may still bless us, as any Scriptural sermon or writing may. But that will be because we see them as agreeing with Scriptural truth, not because they are guaranteed as such by the nature of their inspiration.

With this regard it is possibly significant that Luke does not in fact introduce his words with any suggestion that the Holy Spirit was speaking through Stephen in some special revelatory way. Verse 55 may be seen as reflecting back, but the emphasis there is rather on the amazing revelation that he saw. And Acts 6:5; Acts 6:8; Acts 6:10 all certainly reveal him as a man through whom the Spirit was at work. But at the crucial place where Luke could have spoken he was silent. This might suggest to many that while the Holy Spirit certainly stood there with him, it was not in order to give him that special inspiration that we call ‘verbal inspiration'.

On the other hand the speech can only have been given to us in full because its central message was sonsidered important. It is intended to come home to our hearts and make us aware that God's great Deliverer was seen as having come, that the land was no longer important, and that the Temple was being replaced. And by being included in such detail by Luke, and by being based on the word of God, it becomes part of the essential truth that Acts is seeking to convey.

End of Excursus.

The Persecution of the Church Causes The Word To Go Out (8:1-4).

‘And Saul was consenting to his death.'

This verse, already commented on at the end of the last section, is a link between the two sections. It not only concludes the martyrdom of Stephen, but prepares for Acts 8:4. It probably means more than just that he agreed with what happened. He was also giving his official consent and publicly putting himself forward as someone who was ready to do something about it. He was declaring that he was ready to take a positive stand against this new movement.

But who was this Saul? As he stood there disdainfully watching the deserved death of the heretic Stephen he was proud of the fact that he had been ‘circumcised on the eighth day', that he could trace his descent to Benjamin, that both his parents were Jews, that he had influential relatives (Acts 23:16-22 - his nephew moved in circles that meant that he knew of the plot, and chief captains do not listen to just anyone), that he was a dedicated Pharisee, that all held him blameless in keeping the whole Law in accordance with his Pharisaic principles (Philippians 3:5). He was also a man born free, a Roman citizen of Tarsus in Cilicia (Acts 21:39), a city with its own school of philosophy, and was a disciple of Rabban Gamaliel, that righteous and respected teacher of the law. He had the best of educations and had everything going for him. But above all he had a zeal for God which meant that he was already planning to root out more of these vile heretics. He was now a man with a mission. And he clung to all that was the very opposite of all that Stephen stood for. Little did he realise that it was all shortly to come crashing down and that he would soon be a hunted man himself.

‘And there arose on that day a great persecution against the church which was in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered abroad (‘sowed as seed') throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except for the apostles.'

The consequence of Stephen's martyrdom was a clear recognition that these followers of their Messiah had become a menace and were enemies of Judaism. What might have been tolerated elsewhere could not be tolerated in Jerusalem, especially in such numbers. The result was that action was instigated in order to arrest all who followed Stephen's pernicious ideas, and the Christians soon recognised that if they did not seek refuge outside Jerusalem they would all be put in prison. Thus they scattered throughout Judaea and Samaria. The persecution was not organised on a large enough scale to reach out as far as that. It was limited to religious minded Jerusalem. And as they went, they went everywhere preaching the word.

‘Except for the Apostles.' The Apostles remained in Jerusalem. It was certainly brave of them, but they had probably decided that for the sake of those in the infant church in Jerusalem who could not flee they must be there to give them support. And there were also those in prison who had to be attended to. Jesus Himself had taught them the importance of visiting those in prison (Matthew 25:36; Matthew 25:39-40). The flourishing church had needed them. The sorely wounded church needed them more.

However, it may well be that as recognised figures who had themselves for years caused no trouble as they went about Jerusalem, they were not in quite the same danger as the Hellenistic Christians. They had after all not drawn down on themselves the wrath of the Hellenistic Jewish synagogues. Yet unquestionably some of the backlash would fall on them, for they could hardly avoid some of the blame resulting from the behaviour of men whom they had appointed to responsible positions in the church. On the other hand the authorities would probably think twice before they actually attacked these twelve men who were so popular among the people because they continually healed and cast out evil spirits. Indeed it is significant that no attempt seems to have been made at this stage to arrest the Apostles themselves.

The Continuing Ministry of Peter (9:32-11:18).

In preparing for the Gentile ministry of Paul, a preparation which has included what we have just considered concerning his conversion and ministry to Jews, Luke goes back to considering Peter's ministry. Along with the other Apostles he is continuing the oversight of the church and here, at least to some extent, following in the steps of Philip along the Judaean coast. In Acts 3:1 onwards he had brought the Good News to the ‘lame' and now he does a similar thing again to the paralytic (Acts 9:32-35). Luke does not want us to think that Peter has faded out of the picture, nor that the work of God does not go on apace. This is then followed by a raising from the dead of a believer (Acts 9:36-43). Does this raising of the dead to some extent parallel the life-giving coming of the ‘breath' of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 coming on all believers? Jesus had paralleled the resurrection with the raising of the dead in the story of Lazarus. And Luke then finalises this series of Peter's activity with the description of the opening of the Good News to Gentiles, which will result in the spread of the word to ‘the uttermost parts of the earth' (Acts 10:1 to Acts 11:18 - paralleling Acts 1:8?). Note also the build up of ideas. A paralysed man healed, the dead brought to life, the Good News goes to the Gentiles. The advancement in idea is clear.

This sequence also to some extent parallels that in Luke's Gospel where the healing of the paralytic (Luke 5:18-26), is followed by the raising of the widow of Nain's son (Luke 7:11-17) and of Jairus' daughter (Luke 8:41-46), between which is the healing of the centurion's son and Jesus' express admiration for the centurion's faith (Luke 7:1-10), although here in Acts the story of the centurion's faith necessarily follows the raising of the dead in order to stress its importance and lead in to what follows.

While at the same time we might see this as Peter's taking an interest in and following up Philip's ministry to the cities along the coastline (Acts 8:40), we should note that that is not Luke's specific intent for he stresses that Peter is going ‘throughout all parts'.

‘And devout men buried Stephen, and made great lamentation over him.'

Meanwhile some very brave and devout men obtained the body of Stephen for burial. For ‘devout men' compare Acts 2:5. They may have been supporters of Stephen, or of those pious Jews who like Joseph of Arimathea sought to disassociate themselves from the acts of their fellow Jews on such occasions (compare Luke 23:50-53), on a similar basis to that of the Jewish women who saw it as their duty to provide wine to executed criminals (Mark 15:23). To make great lamentation over a recognised heretic who had been stoned for blasphemy required great bravery. Public mourning for such was probably even at this time forbidden (as it certainly was later). Thus in ‘coming together to bury' him they were taking both their reputations and their lives in their hands. But Luke wants us to recognise that Stephen was honoured in his death, and was deeply mourned. For these mourners, whether they knew it or not, were acting on behalf of the whole church. His body was not tossed onto the burning rubbish heap outside Jerusalem in the valley of Hinnom. It was given decent burial. And the man it represented was deeply mourned.

‘But Saul laid waste the church, entering into every house, and, dragging men and women, committed them to prison.'

There is a deliberate contrast here. While ‘devout men' were burying the fiery Stephen, Saul, the equally fiery disciple of Gamaliel, was determined to bury the whole church. Not one to wait around he had followed up his actions at the stoning by seeking authority from the High Priest to act against the new church (Acts 26:10; compare Acts 9:2 which confirms that he also later obtained the sanction of the High Priest to go to Damascus). Then taking with him a band of men, possibly temple police, he began to enter the houses of the new people of God and drag men and women to prison. He also arranged for many of them to be examined and beaten in synagogues (Acts 22:19) and sought to get them to blaspheme, possibly by cleverly making the simpler Christians say things which they did not understand, but which were seen as blasphemy, or possibly by making them renounce Christ (Acts 26:11). It appears that at this stage a number were put to death for blasphemy (Acts 26:10). He was a man driven by an awareness that,, with all that he was, it was not good enough for God. He had not done enough to deserve His favour. He must do more.

‘Laid waste, treated shamefully.' A strong word used of savaging by wild beasts. He was behaving like a wild beast himself. Here was religious zeal in its most twisted form. And yet it was the same zeal that would shortly make him the church's champion. His behaviour may well have denoted the wrestlings of his own conscience. Men often fight their own doubts by trying violently to prove to themselves that they are right.

‘They therefore who were scattered abroad, went about preaching the word.'

The violence and inexorability of the persecution resulted in the scattering abroad of the church. But what seemed to be a setback became an opportunity. God had decided that it was now time for the church to expand. All over Judaea appeared men proclaiming the Kingly Rule of God (Acts 8:12) and the new Messiah (Acts 8:5) and His teaching.

‘Preaching the word.' Literally ‘proclaiming the good news of the word'.

The Ministry of Philip in Samaria.

One such was Philip who now proclaimed Christ in Samaria where he was well received. As a refugee from persecution in Jerusalem he would be especially welcomed. At this time the Samaritans looked fairly equably on Jews as long as they were not connected with Jerusalem.

The Samaritans were as a whole despised by the Jews as ‘half breed' Jews, but they too believed in the Law of Moses, having their own version of the Pentateuch, and in general observed the laws of cleanliness. They also awaited a ‘Coming One', the Taheb, the deliverer, an idea based on Deuteronomy 18:15. Thus they were seen as a kind of half-Jew. While the Pharisees and Sadducees would not want to have dealings with them, they were not seen as total outcasts like the Gentiles, and feelings between Jews and Samaritans rose and fell like a barometer. The impression we have is that at the time of Jesus' ministry there was a level of tolerance, at least from the Samaritan point of view, as long as the Jew was not involved with Jerusalem (Luke 9:52-53; Luke 10:33; Luke 17:11; Luke 17:16; John 4). Thus a man who was fleeing from persecution in Jerusalem would be doubly welcome.

They were centred around Shechem, and ‘the city of Samaria' may be Shechem itself. The chief city of the area was Sebaste, but that was mainly of foreign population. While it is not certain where the Samaritans came from they may well have been made up of a population which resulted partly from the Israelites left in the north after the northern exile, who separated themselves off in order to keep their religion pure, although possibly intermingling with foreigners by marriage, although their exact source is not known. They had at one stage erected their own Temple on Mount Gerizim, but that was destroyed by John Hyrcanus in 2nd century BC, something for which they never forgave Jerusalem. Their feelings about this were indeed so intense that when Herod offered to rebuild their Temple they refused as soon as they learned that he would also be rebuilding the Jerusalem Temple. This brings out their intense hatred of Jerusalem. We learn from the Gospels that once they had learned that Jesus was bound for Jerusalem they had refused to receive Him (Luke 9:52-53), while at a time when He was leaving Jerusalem they welcomed Him gladly (John 4).

However, unknown to Philip these Samaritans held in awe one Simon, who proclaimed himself the Great One, who had continually impressed them with his magic and sorceries. And he held them in his thrall. But now a greater than Simon was to be introduced to them.

‘And Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and proclaimed to them the Christ.'

‘He proclaimed to them the Christ.' The spread of the Good News went further than Judaea, it reached into Samaria. Such an action would have Jesus' seal of approval on it as all knew (John 4). While Jews might avoid the Samaritans, Jesus had made quite clear that they should be welcomed under the Kingly Rule of God. So Philip boldly went among them proclaiming that the Messiah had come, and calling on them to respond to Him, thus fulfilling the command in Acts 1:8.

‘The city of Samaria.' It is not quite certain what city this involves. It was almost certainly not Sebaste, the very Romanised capital city of the region filled with foreigners. It might have been Sychar which Jesus had evangelised (John 4) with the article pointing to the city known from Christian tradition, or it may have been Shechem, where the Samaritans were centred, or it may be just be a vague description indicating that he preached in Samaritan cities.

‘And the multitudes gave heed with one accord to the things which were spoken by Philip, when they heard, and saw the signs which he did. For from many of those who had unclean spirits, they came out, crying with a loud voice, and many who were palsied, and who were lame, were healed.'

His message was supported with signs and wonders beyond anything that they had seen before. Unclean spirits were cast out, and paralysed and lame people were healed. This went beyond anything that Simon could do. Thus they took notice also of Philip's message, and responded to it.

‘And there was much joy in that city.'

Joy was one of the fruits of the new message (Acts 2:28; Acts 13:52; Acts 15:3; Acts 20:24 compare Galatians 5:22). The Holy Spirit was already at work.

‘But there was a certain man, Simon by name, who before that time in the city used sorcery, and amazed the people of Samaria, giving out that he himself was some great one, to whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, “This man is that power of God which is called Great.” And they gave heed to him, because that of long time he had amazed them with his sorceries.'

Living among them was a man named Simon who had wooed them with sorcery, and had claimed to be a god-like figure. His powers were such that he had mesmerised the people into following him and calling him ‘the Great One, the Power of God'. In Judaism God was sometimes called ‘the Great One'. But he had clearly been unable to do anything like Philip did. Note that it is repeated twice that he ‘amazed' the people and that they ‘gave heed' to him. His grip was strong. But it was not sufficient to prevent them from turning to the Messiah Whom Philip proclaimed. For here they recognised was a greater power.

‘That power of God which is called Great.' The description may suggest that Luke is quoting his source without fully comprehending what the religious significance of the title was.

Later church history would speak a great deal about a Simon Magus who was a great heretic and was supposed to have founded a Gnostic sect, but there is no certainty that it was this Simon. Simon Magus' name first occurs in the writings of Justin Martyr, who was himself a Samaritan. But Justin does not make any identification with Acts. His name then occurs in Irenaeus, Hippolytus, the Acts of Peter with Simon, and other fictional works. He may well have been a totally different Simon whose life history became intermingled with this ones, for the Simon here in Acts does seem to be portrayed as becoming a genuine, if somewhat mixed up, believer.

‘But when they believed Philip preaching good tidings concerning the kingly rule of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptised, both men and women.'

Philip proclaimed the Kingly Rule of God and the name of Jesus Messiah, and the Samaritans, both men and women, heard and believed, with the result that they were baptised, declaring by this the desire to participate in the new age of the Spirit. But significantly they are portrayed as not ‘receiving the Spirit'. They are in a similar position to those whom John baptised (compare Acts 19:1-6). God is deliberately ensuring that these Samaritans recognise that they are to be seen as one with the ‘Apostolic church', and, until they are, withholds the new power of the Holy Spirit. They experience the same activity of the Holy Spirit as the disciples of John did (Matthew 21:31-32), but not the full experience of Pentecost. Had this not been the case they might well have seen no need for Apostles from the hated Jerusalem, even if they too were semi-refugees.

‘And Simon also himself believed, and being baptised, he continued with Philip, and beholding signs and great miracles wrought, he was amazed.'

‘Also himself believed.' Simon also believed and was baptised. If there had been any hint when Luke wrote this that his conversion was not genuine, Luke would surely have worded it differently. We must not find ourselves too persuaded by myths and legends just because they are ‘interesting'.

And just as the lame man in the Temple ‘laid hold' of the Apostles, so Simon ‘continued with' Philip. And he beheld the signs and great miracles that Philip wrought, and he was amazed. There is a deliberate comparison here with Acts 8:9-11, which stresses how superior Philip was to Simon. The amazer was amazed.

‘Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit, for as yet he was fallen on none of them, only they had been baptised into the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.'

News of the great work which was taking place in Samaria reached Jerusalem and the Apostles immediately despatched Peter and John in order to confirm the work. It was clear that the Apostles kept closely in touch with all that was happening among the scattered Christians, and sought to oversee it by sending different pairs of Apostles to any place where a work began to gain momentum. They were rightly concerned that the church remain as a unity. But the purpose in their going was to act as a strengthener to Philip, and to confirm the oneness of the people of God, not to replace him. They found Philip a little perplexed. There could be no doubt that these people had believed with all their hearts, but in spite of the fact that they had also been baptised, the signs of the presence of the Holy Spirit were lacking.

When the Apostles heard this they prayed that the believing Samaritans might receive the Holy Spirit. Then they laid their hands on them and the result was that they did receive the Holy Spirit. The laying on of hands is always for the purpose of identification. Here the two Apostles were identifying these people with themselves in the church of God, and with the Jerusalem church, and simultaneously acknowledging Philip's ministry. This laying on of hands was uniquely important here for it established the oneness between the new Samaritan church and the church in Jerusalem. Compare Acts 13:3 where the laying on of hands was in order to identify Barnabas and Paul as representatives of the church.

Here the result of the laying on of hands was identification, and as prepared vessels, once the identification had take place, the Holy Spirit was received. But we should not see the Holy Spirit as communicated by the laying on of hands (that was Simon's error). While the Holy Spirit came because of their identification with the church at Jerusalem He did not come from the Apostles, he came from the Baptiser in the Holy Spirit. As we learn of Timothy, his gift came ‘by prophesy and the laying on of the hands of the elders' (1 Timothy 4:14). It was not just a case of the elders deciding to lay their hands on him. And shortly Cornelius and his colleagues will receive the Spirit without laying on of hands, as the disciples had at Pentecost.

‘Baptised into the Name of the LORD Jesus.' This is Luke's equivalent of Matthew 28:19-20. We have to remember in both cases that ‘the Name' in the Old Testament was YHWH, which in the Greek Old Testament was translated as ‘the LORD'. Thus the Name into which believers are to be baptised in both Matthew and Luke is that of ‘the LORD', which is why in both cases the baptism is ‘into (eis) the Name'. And although that Name is here defined as ‘the LORD, that is Jesus', while in Matthew 28:19 it is ‘the Name (i.e. ‘the LORD' - YHWH) which is the Name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit', it is in both cases the same name (the LORD - YHWH).

Here, however, because Luke wants us to recognise that ‘the LORD' can be equated with Jesus, he only connects Jesus with the Name (just as in Philippians 2:9-11 Paul tells us that Jesus has the Name which is above every name, the Name of ‘the LORD', of ‘Yahweh'). Matthew stresses the equation of the Name (LORD -YHWH) with Father, Son and Holy Spirit. But we should take note that this is not just baptism into the name of Jesus, it is baptism into the NAME.

Note on Baptism into the Name.

We should perhaps here list each of the references to baptism as they relate to ‘the Name'.

· In Acts 28:19 converts are to be baptised ‘into (eis) the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit'.

· In Acts 8:16; Acts 19:5 people were baptised ‘into the Name of the LORD Jesus.'

· In Acts 2:38 people are to be baptised ‘on (epi) the Name of Jesus Messiah unto forgiveness of our sins.'

· In Acts 10:48 they are to be baptised ‘in (en) the Name of Jesus Messiah'.

· In Acts 22:16 Paul is told, ‘arising be baptised and wash away your sins, calling on the Name of the LORD.'

It will be noted that there is a certain consistency here. When eis is used baptism is either into the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (which must mean the NAME of YHWH, ‘the LORD') or is into ‘the Name of the LORD Jesus'. Thus in all three cases emphasis is on ‘the LORD (YHWH)'.

When baptism is related to the Name of Jesus Messiah it is either ‘on' or ‘in', and in the case of the former the baptism is ‘into the remission of sins'. But we should here note that the Name of Jesus is said in Philippians 2:9-11 to be the name above every name, the name of LORD (YHWH). So even in these cases baptism is ‘in the LORD'.

End of Note.

At this point something happened which Simon ‘saw'. But there are only very minimal grounds for saying that this was the speaking in tongues. That had occurred only once, and then on an unusual occasion (Acts 2:5-11). There was no mention of tongues when the Apostles received the Holy Spirit in John 20:22. Nor has there been mention of tongues since Pentecost. Nor were any of the Samaritans likely to have needed the evidence of ‘other tongues'. They all spoke Aramaic. Thus what Simon saw may have been a new abounding joy (Acts 13:52), expressions of tumultuous praise, and spiritual prophesying (Acts 19:6). What Simon saw was the burgeoning of their new faith which found expression in exalted praise and worship beyond the norm, gifts which would ensure the maintenance of the church once Philip had left them.

Note.

This interesting passage destroys all attempts to tie God's activity in with man's ordinances. The Holy Spirit came neither on their being baptised, nor on their first believing. Nor is He said to have been manifested in tongues. What then does it reveal? It reveals that God gives the Holy Spirit as He wills. This is not referring to being born of the Spirit, which comes as a result of believing, but seemingly rather refers to the special indwelling of the Holy Spirit by which we become part of His body, and of His Temple, the new special gift at Pentecost. At Pentecost it had come on those already born of the Spirit, and even on those who had ‘received the Holy Spirit' in the Upper Room. And this, like that, was an unusual circumstance. It was at a time when the unity of the church as one had to be maintained. God did not want a fellowship of Samaritan believers which was not in fellowship with the fellowship of Jerusalem believers. (As we have seen the Samaritans hated Jerusalem. But now that they had learned that the church in Jerusalem were almost as hated in Jerusalem as they were, it was a different matter). Thus he ensured that the Samaritans recognised that their blessing only came once they were in fellowship with the church in Jerusalem.

End of note.

‘Now when Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Spirit was given, he offered them money, saying, “Give me also this power, that on whoever I lay my hands, he may receive the Holy Spirit.” '

Simon had possibly gained great wealth by training up disciples and enabling them to practise what he practised, and he had probably himself also bought information on how to perform sorcery from other practitioners. (Many wonder workers travelled around the Roman world practising their arts, amazing people by their tricks, and in some cases genuinely believing that they had some supernatural power, and it was no doubt standard practise to charge for expertise). Thus when he saw that the Apostles were able to give the Holy Spirit simply by the laying on of hands, a gift which manifested itself in the exalting of men's hearts to God, he naturally assumed that their ability could be bought and paid for. Here were wonder workers on a large scale. He therefore probably offered them a great deal of money. To his mind this was something worth having. He would not think that he was acting against God. Did he not want the gift so that he could serve God? But where he failed was in not recognising that God came under no man's control. He had to be delivered from his mind set. He had to learn that what God gave was free for all who would rightly believe, and not within man's control.

In the idolatrous world priesthoods could be bought and sold, along with the supposed influences that they exerted on the gods. And it is salutary to think that had he approached a much later church they would gladly have given him what they thought was this gift in return for money and submission to them. Like Simon the later church would try to control God's activity and make it subject to their will. But in what happened to Simon here all future ‘sacerdotal priesthood' is condemned. That had failed miserably in the Old Testament era. Now God gave freely and with no strings attached, in cooperation with those who were truly devoted to Him, because of the sacrifice offered once for all in Jesus Christ.

‘But Peter said to him, “Your silver perish with you, because you have thought to obtain the gift of God with money. You have neither part nor lot in this matter, for your heart is not right before God.”

Peter replied in his usual forthright manner. The man who had had to declare, ‘silver and gold have I none' (Acts 3:6) now revealed it for what it was. What Simon had done put him in danger of perishing, and his silver along with him. He was revealing himself as being totally earthly minded with no understanding of the things of the Spirit, and as thinking that he could barter and control the things of God. This revealed a heart that was not right in God's eyes.

‘Your silver perish with you.' Literally ‘may your silver be for destruction along with you.' Similar curse formulae have been found among pagan magical papyri. It was clearly a recognised form of curse. However, Peter does not intend it as a definite curse but as a warning, and a reminder that the imperishable cannot be purchased with the perishable. If he does not repent the curse will stand.

‘You have neither part nor lot in this matter, for your heart is not right before God.' (For the phraseology compare Deuteronomy 12:12). Peter is stressing that no one can have any part or lot in spiritual things unless their hearts are right in the sight of God. Without that all attempts to convey spiritual gifts or enjoy spiritual gifts would be in vain. The spiritual is only available to spiritual men (compare 1 Corinthians 2:9-16).

“Repent therefore of this your wickedness, and pray the Lord, if perhaps the thought of your heart shall be forgiven you. For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity.”

He therefore calls on him to have a full and genuine change of heart and mind on the matter, and to pray to God for forgiveness for the thought of his heart. But forgiveness would only be his if he truly had a change of heart, sufficient to satisfy God. No glib repentance would be acceptable.

‘I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity.' ‘The gall of bitterness.' This has in mind Deuteronomy 29:18 where the man who in reality has a root in himself which bears gall and bitter wormwood, blesses himself in his heart because he thinks that he can have peace even though he walks in the imagination of his own heart. He deceives himself into thinking that God will overlook his rebelliousness. This was precisely what Simon was doing. ‘The bond of iniquity.' Compare ‘loose the bonds of wickedness ‘ in Isaiah 58:6. Simon too must loose the bond of wickedness by genuine repentance.

(We note here that Peter does not suggest that he has the power to forgive sins, but rather the opposite. If he is to be forgiven God must forgive him).

‘And Simon answered and said, “You pray for me to the Lord, that none of the things which you have spoken come on me.” '

Simon then pleads with Peter to pray that none of these things come on him. He probably did not know the context of Peter's quotations but recognised that they spelt awful calamity. Nothing is further said about the incident. This leaving an incident in mid-air is typical of the Bible elsewhere. When Scripture leaves something in the air like this it usually signifies that what was spoken of followed. Thus we have the right here to assume that Peter did pray for him, and that he was forgiven. He was after all new in the faith and had needed his thinking sorting out, and deliverance from what had previously gripped him. And his request for their assistance in prayer was understandable in the light of Peter' strong language. He wanted Peter to remove the ‘curse' he had put on him. And we may assume that as Luke remains silent on the matter he intends us to see that that is what happened.

Looking back at the New Testament we forget that many new converts had no background in the things of God. While the ministry was to Jews or even to Samaritans they had the background of the Law to call on, but Gentiles and men like Simon had no background in the word of God. Their thinking was fashioned by the pagan world around them. Thus when they were converted their first faltering steps would often reveal them to be at fault. Simon was no exception. The point therefore here is that he learned a valuable lesson which would hopefully completely alter his way of thinking, and was also a salutary lesson for all who would read Luke's words.

‘They therefore, when they had testified and spoken the word of the Lord, returned to Jerusalem, and preached the gospel to many villages of the Samaritans.'

Then once Peter and John, impressed by the work among Samaritans, had further ministered to them and to Samaritans in other villages, they returned to Jerusalem, being satisfied that all was being done rightly. Meanwhile they also themselves took the opportunity to proclaim the Good News to many Samaritan villages. They approved of Philip's ministry and desired to extend it. In view of the fact that they had been with Jesus at Sychar (John 4) they could hardly do any other.

And thus was healed by the message of Christ the first great division known to the Apostles, the division between Jew and Samaritan. Here was an outward declaration of the success of the ministry of reconciliation. Jews from Jerusalem and Samaritans from Samaria were seen as having fellowship as one. It could never have happened without Christ. But there is a subsidiary question. Could it ever have happened unless there had been persecution in Jerusalem? God knew precisely what He was doing.

‘But an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip, saying, “Arise, and go toward the south to the way which goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza. The same is desert.'

The ‘angel of the Lord' tells Philip that he must rise and go south towards ancient Gaza, a city slightly inland which, in contrast with new port of Gaza, was mainly in ruins. It was on the road from Jerusalem to Egypt. And on the way which led there, in a place where the land tended to be deserted, he would learn what he must do. The description ‘the bit which is desert' probably indicated a well know place on that road at the time. That the man was to be found there indicated pictorially the thirst that possessed his soul. Or it may mean that the old Gaza was like a desert, ‘Gaza the deserted' (in contrast with ‘maritime Gaza'). Either way there is the hint that the man's soul was needing ‘water' and that his salvation would come from the wilderness, as had the living oracles and Tabernacle of old (Acts 7:38; Acts 7:44-49).

‘An angel of the Lord.' In the Old Testament ‘the angel of the Lord' appears throughout, from Genesis to Zechariah, as representing God Himself in a kind of extended self. The description often indicates the actual appearance of Him in discernible form, but is regularly used of God making a communication with a specific person. Here it may simply be indicating that Philip was so conscious of a presence with him that he thought in such terms, something which went beyond his usual experience of the Holy Spirit.

The Ministry of Philip To The Ethiopian Eunuch (8:26-39).

Meanwhile God was now satisfied that the Samaritan church was sufficiently equipped to carry on and He calls Philip elsewhere to where there is a lonely searching soul. It was to a man, and a very important one, who had been visiting Jerusalem but was still unsatisfied. He held a high position under the queen of ‘Ethiopia' (Nubia), and was at the minimum a God-fearer, a man who respected the Jewish Law and, without being ready to be circumcised (possibly prevented in his case by the fact that he was a eunuch), worshipped in the local synagogue along with the Jews. He may even have been a proselyte or a true-born Nubian Jew. If he was a God-fearer this would be the first known overt example of a Gentile coming to Christ, an indication by God of what was to come.

This is not just to be seen as an interesting account of an unusual conversion. It is an integral part of the depiction of the spreading of the Good News as a result of the persecution. It is made clear that, through Philip, God, having worked through him to the north of Jerusalem among Samaritans, now purposed through him to wing the Good News to North Africa, to the south of Jerusalem (‘to Samaria and to the uttermost part of the earth' - Acts 1:8).

As the Ethiopian high official travelled he was reading the book of Isaiah. To possess such a document demonstrated both how devout, and how wealthy and influential he was. And his heart was taken up with the description of the Servant of God that he found described there (Isaiah 53), a description which he found very puzzling, so that he looked to God for help. But there was no one who could explain it to him. Until from the desert a man came, almost like an angel from Heaven. Luke undoubtedly wishes us to see here that the Temple and all the glory of Jerusalem had been able to accomplish nothing, while light and truth came to him from the wilderness, just as Stephen had said (Acts 7:38; Acts 7:44-49). And as he went back to Nubia his thoughts were now not on the Temple at Jerusalem, but on the Messiah to Whom he had been introduced in the wilderness.

‘And he arose and went, and behold, a man of Ethiopia, a high official (or ‘eunuch') of great authority under Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was over all her treasure, who had come to Jerusalem to worship, was returning and sitting in his chariot, and was reading the prophet Isaiah.'

Obediently Philip arose and went. And there in the place described he found a large and richly laden caravan travelling along the road, with, included within it, a splendid chariot or covered ox wagon, carrying someone who was clearly of great importance. He was to learn that the man came from Nubia, where he had overall control of the ‘Ethiopian' treasury on behalf of the queen. He was her Minister of Finance. And he had visited Jerusalem in order to worship there.

Many such God-fearers sought at some time to make the trip to Jerusalem where they could be at the very heart of the religion that they respected and adhered to. To many it would be the trip of a lifetime, and they would remember their first glorious view of the Temple, the richly garbed High Priest, and the high emotional and religious atmosphere for ever. But it had probably not fulfilled all his expectations. Being the influential person he was he would probably have had personal contact with the hierarchy and may well have been shocked by their worldliness and political ambitions, having dreamed of meeting men of deep spirituality. He had had such hopes. He might well have been disillusioned. Thus as he left there he had in his heart a yearning for something more, and hungry of soul he was reading the Scriptures. Little did he realise that soon there would approach him a refugee fleeing from the High Priest, but who was the representative of the Angel of the Lord, and he would get to the root of his dilemma.

‘A high official/eunuch of great authority.' Many men of high position were eunuchs, for it made them safe to be among the women of the court, and not a threat to the throne by producing children. And this man was of high position indeed. But if he was a eunuch it could only make him feel inferior in his relationship to the God of Judaism, for eunuchs were seen as restricted in their approach to God (Deuteronomy 23:1 as interpreted in 1st century AD). It may, however, be that the term here simply means ‘high court official', as it often does.

‘Candace, queen of the Ethiopians.' Or more probably of those in the region of Upper Nubia. ‘Candace' would be her throne name. Nubian women rulers bearing this title during the Hellenistic period are well attested in ancient literature. She ruled on behalf of her son who as the child of the sun god was considered too ‘holy' to be involved in mundane affairs. Her real name may have been Amanitare

‘And the Spirit said to Philip, “Go near, and join yourself to this chariot.” '

It was quite normal for solitary travellers to join themselves up with a travelling caravan for safety reasons, and so Philip's approach would neither be resented nor suspected. Others would be walking with the caravan. But Philip knew that God had sent him here for a purpose, and sensing the prompting of the Spirit, he recognised that he had to approach The Man himself. Thus he attached himself to his conveyance and ran alongside.

‘And Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” '

The man was following the usual practise of reading aloud. And when Philip gathered that he was reading a well known passage in the prophet Isaiah he asked him whether he understood what he was reading. This was clearly intended to give the impression that he could help. Such a high personage would not expect some stranger to come up just for a chat.

‘And he said, “How can I, except some one will guide me?” And he begged Philip to come up and sit with him.'

When the man saw that he was a Jew, and assumed from what he had said that he was also a teacher in the Scriptures who was offering assistance, he expressed his own helplessness and his need for a guide. And he begged Philip to join him in his chariot and explain it to him.

‘Now the passage of the Scripture which he was reading was this, “He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; And as a lamb before his shearer is dumb, So he opens not his mouth. In his humiliation his judgment was taken away. His generation who shall declare? For his life is taken from the earth.” '

The passage he was reading came from Isaiah 53 LXX, the main chapter about the Suffering Servant. To seek, as some have done, to rid this quotation of its sacrificial significance is frankly incredible. A lamb led to the slaughter in the context of Isaiah 53 would for any Christian be a sacrificial lamb (compare John 1:29; 1 Corinthians 5:7). And all lambs led to the slaughter within the vicinity of Jerusalem had to be offered on the altar. Besides these were simply the verses that Philip heard him reading. Prior to Philip's approach he would have read the previous verses. It is so extremely unlikely as to be impossible that in the context Philip would only expound on the verses he had heard him read, and avoid mentioning the verses he had previously read.

In context the picture expressed here is of One spoken of as being led like a sacrificial lamb to His death, having been wrongly judged, but silent like a sheep before his shearers in the face of his humiliation, with the result that His life was taken from the earth. And in the context this both refers back to His sufferings on behalf of ‘us' (Isaiah 53:4-5) and His having laid on Him the iniquity of us all (Isaiah 53:6), and forward to His being made a guilt offering for sin (Isaiah 53:10). Scholars and the Ethiopian official may have had difficulty with these verses but we doubt whether either Philip or Luke had (see Luke 22:37).

‘And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, “I pray you, of whom is the prophet saying this? Of himself, or of some other?” '

The eunuch was neither the first nor the last to be puzzled by these verses. But he was astute enough to recognise that the words were about some individual. But who? That was what he wanted to know. Was it the prophet himself, or was it speaking of someone else?

‘And Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture, preached to him Jesus.'

Then Philip took the chapter he had been reading and applied it to Jesus, and his explanation on this chapter is stated to have been only the ‘beginning'. We do not know how long his explanation went on for, but he had plenty of time in which to tell him of the birth, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus, and to draw attention to how it fulfilled the Scriptures, and to mention some of the teaching of Jesus contained in the tradition of the church, including such words as Mark 10:45, ‘the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many' (compare Acts 20:28), applying it all to Isaiah 53 and other Old Testament Scriptures. The man was on a long and wearisome journey and Philip, having been sent here by God, had all the time in the world.

Much has been made by some of a suggestion that Luke fails in general to draw attention to the atoning significance of the cross. But this is in fact not a strictly accurate assessment of his writings, for there are certainly a number of occasions when he demonstrates that the atonement underwrites what he says. Some of these are as follows:

1) Coming to the end of his Gospel he cites, ‘This is my body which is given for you' and speaks about ‘the new covenant in His blood' (Luke 22:19-20), the latter a reference with clear sacrificial and atoning significance (see Exodus 24:8; Zechariah 9:11). He would know that any ancient Israelite sacrifice, even a covenant sacrifice, included an atoning element. So Jesus had clearly there offering Himself as an atonement.

2) In Luke 22:37 he specifically cites the words of Isaiah 53:12, ‘he was reckoned among the transgressors' as referred by Jesus to Himself, and the atoning significance of this idea in the context of Isaiah could hardly be overlooked. Jesus was not just saying that He would be hung between two thieves, He was indicating the depths of what He was to face on behalf of others.

3) In Luke 24:46-47 he informs us that Jesus pointed out that ‘the Messiah should suffer, and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all the nations' (Luke 24:46-47). Here the ideas of His death and resurrection are connected with the possibility of forgiveness being available.

So his whole Gospel is given atoning significance by these references (we would not really expect the body of the Gospel to contain much in the way of atoning references because it was only during and after the death of Jesus that such a significance was fully understandable).

4) In Luke 23-24 he describes in full detail the events leading up to Jesus' death and burial, an emphasis which can only confirm that he sees Jesus death as very significant, and when seen in the light of 1) to 3) above, atoning.

5) In Acts itself he writes in Acts 20:28 of the church of God as having been ‘purchased with His own blood'. Here he goes right to the heart of redemption, paralleling Mark 10:45.

6) While he might not have seen the presentation of the doctrine of the atonement as his main purpose, except generally in his emphasis on the cross to which he devotes two Chapter s in Luke, in Acts he certainly proclaims that it is through the death and resurrection of Jesus that men find life (Acts 2:23-24; Acts 2:33; Acts 2:38)

7) In Acts 13:29-30 with 37-39 he declares that the death and resurrection of Christ are the means of men's justification apart from the Law, and this in preaching which offered eternal life (Acts 13:46).

8) In Acts 15:10-11 he emphasises that salvation is by the grace of God and not through circumcision and legalism (Acts 15:10-11).

Furthermore in many other places the connection with atonement is simply assumed. Thus we can confidently say that while Luke does not put a great stress on the atonement, for that was not his purpose, he does make clear that it lies behind all he says. He tends to let his sources speak for him, but indicates that he is not shy of the atonement put in its baldest terms (Acts 20:28).

Luke thus undoubtedly would recognise that Philip not only proclaimed Jesus as the Messiah, but did so in the context of atonement. That is the reason for mentioning Isaiah 53 at all. He was introducing Jesus as the Man of Sorrows and Saviour of the world.

‘And as they went on the way, they came to a certain water, and the eunuch says, “Look, here is water. What hinders me from being baptised?'

The eunuch accepts Philip's explanation, given by the power of the Spirit, as convincing and seeing an abundant spring of water with its surrounding pond he asks why, in that case, he might not baptised. Philip's explanation would have included reference to baptism.

A later copier, seized with the idea of the need at baptism for a confession of faith, or possibly finding a marginal note to that effect which he felt must be a part of the text, adds here, ‘and Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart you may”, and he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God”.' (Compare Acts 9:20; 1 John 4:15; 1 John 5:5). The words are undoubtedly an addition but the intent is right. Philip would hardly have baptised the eunuch without being convinced of the genuineness of his faith.

‘And he commanded the chariot to stand still. And they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptised him.'

Knowing that God had specifically sent him here, and seeing and hearing the man's response, Philip could see no objection. So the conveyance was brought to a halt, and climbing down they went into the water and Philip baptised the eunuch. Here it is made quite clear that baptism has to be performed by a baptiser. This is never so in Jewish ritual cleansings, demonstrating that this is not a ritual cleansing but a portrayal of the pouring out like rain of the Holy Spirit in rivers bringing life and fruitfulness (see note on Acts 22:16).

‘And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, and the eunuch saw him no more, for he went on his way rejoicing.'

The baptism completed it is made clear here that Philip was seen as having fully accomplished his mission. He was ‘snatched away' by the Spirit. This need not mean on the instant of leaving the water, but certainly soon afterwards. The verb is used in the New Testament to signify ‘take by force', ‘snatch away', sometimes ‘take up' (into heaven) It certainly forcibly indicates that Philip's work was complete. He was no longer needed. The eunuch must now be left in God's hands. Many therefore read it as a miraculous removal. But it need not necessarily signify a miracle, and thus others see it as signifying a forcible impression of the Spirit that made him go on his way immediately. But either way a life had been transformed and the eunuch went on his way rejoicing. Note again the connection of the work of the Spirit with rejoicing. Here was the evidence of the genuineness of his experience.

‘When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip.' This may well be intended deliberately to imply that the Spirit was first present with them in the water. The suggestion may be that the Spirit had come on them both in the water, and that once they reached dry land the Spirit then constrained Philip to be immediately on his way, his task completed, (or it may even possibly mean ‘snatched him away' as He had once with Ezekiel), while He sent the eunuch on his way rejoicing. That the snatching away follows the pattern of Ezekiel might be seen as supported by the unusual phrase ‘Spirit of the Lord' with its Old Testament connotations, rather than ‘Holy Spirit'. (One ancient manuscript, A, reads, ‘the Holy Spirit fell on the eunuch, but the angel of the Lord caught away Philip', but that is probably rather an interpretation. It does, however, demonstrate how the passage was early interpreted).

‘Went on his way rejoicing.' Rejoicing is constantly an evidence of the work of the Spirit and this was intended to demonstrate that the Ethiopian Minister of Finance was truly converted and full of the Spirit. He had, of course, a solid background of knowing God's Law, he had his copy of Isaiah, and may well also have had more Old Testament scrolls, and he had been given a thorough grounding in how those applied to Jesus the Messiah. And equally importantly he had the Holy Spirit with him, and would almost certainly find in Nubia other believers who had been converted on trips to Jerusalem. We are undoubtedly intended to gather that he would go back to his synagogue and his people with the new message, and the word would spread in Nubia.

The Ministry of Philip in Judaea (8:40).

‘But Philip was found at Azotus, and passing through he preached the gospel to all the cities, till he came to Caesarea.'

Philip now moved on to the third phase of his ministry. He had established the work of God among the Samaritans, he had converted a man who would evangelise Nubia, now he moved back into Judaea and evangelised among the Jews, preaching the Gospel ‘to all the cities' from Azotus (formerly Ashdod) along the coast to Caesarea. These cities would include Jamnia, Joppa, and Apollonia. On arrival at Caesarea he probably made his base there, for that was where he was later found as an evangelist (Acts 21:8). It was of mixed Jewish and Gentile population and the seat of Roman government, and presented great opportunities for evangelism.