Acts 8

CHAPTER VIII

The Second Quarter The Gospel in Palestine, Chapters 8 to 12

—————

THE GOSPEL IN SAMARIA

The stoning of Stephen ushered in the first general persecution. The church had grown extensively; it was to grow more than ever, but now by being spread abroad. Luke’s figures and further notes about the growth make the estimate of 25, 000 believers in and near Jerusalem at the time of Stephen’s martyrdom seem conservative. The persecution aimed to destroy the infant church; in the providence of God it did the very opposite. It started a great number of new congregations especially in all of Palestine, each becoming a living center from which the gospel radiated into new territory even as Jesus had traced its course by adding after Jerusalem “all Judea and Samaria” (1:8).

Acts 8:1

1Now Saul continued to agree with his taking away. Moreover, there arose on that day a great persecution against the church in Jerusalem; and all were scattered abroad through the regions of Judea and Samaria except the apostles.

It is the strong durative sense of the periphrastic verb form that makes the statement about Saul so important in the present connection. To be sure, he agreed with full approval to Stephen’s “taking away,” the word that has the sinister meaning of murder; but he continued in this agreement, and it is thus that, starting on the very day of Stephen’s martyrdom, a persecution began that Luke rightly calls “great.” For so thoroughly did Saul agree to what was done with Stephen that he moved to do the same thing with the entire church in Jerusalem. In other words, Saul became the prime mover in this persecution. That is why the statement regarding him is put here in connection with the word about the persecution.

The A. V. is right in beginning the new chapter as it does. The casual mention of Saul in 7:58 is only preliminary to this more serious statement which connects Saul with the persecution. He was a man of tremendous energy and sound logic. Stephen’s death should be followed up, the entire Christian movement should be crushed. Saul placed himself forward in making the effort.

Beyond saying that the persecution began that very day and that Stephen was its first victim Luke reports no details. With the historical aorist he states only the effect that the Christians were scattered abroad all over Judea and Samaria. Τὰςχώρας “the regions,” does not mean that they went only into the country districts and avoided the cities. Samaria became especially attractive to the Christians, for they were losing their antipathy toward the Samaritans, and in this country, so close at hand, the Sanhedrin and its minions could exercise no authority. “All” is to be taken in the popular and not the absolute sense. The apostles, however, remained in Jerusalem. In explanation we may note that Jerusalem was still the headquarters for the work among the Jews, and the apostles were to remain here until the Lord should direct them elsewhere. As far as fear was concerned, they had none as they had already demonstrated (4:8, etc.; 5:30, etc.)

Acts 8:2

2Yet devout men buried Stephen and made great lamentation over him. This is added lest a wrong deduction be made from the foregoing. In the first place, the Jews always buried on the day of death, if possible; and in Stephen’s case no delay of any kind was necessary. As soon as the crowd about the dead martyr dispersed, men of the type of Joseph of Arimathaea and Nicodemus took a hand and gave the poor, battered, and bloody body decent burial. Their very act shows them to be “devout” (see 2:5), sincere, and of honest hearts, men who deeply deplored what had been done. Luke’s designation can scarcely refer to Christians against whom adverse measures must have been taken that same day.

So also these men made great mourning over him, κοπετός, the beating of the head and the breast while wailing in Oriental fashion. Luke loves contrasts, so he tells us that, while such men were still to be found in Jerusalem, this other man, Saul, began his bloodthirsty work.

Acts 8:3

3Saul, however, began to lay waste the church, entering in house by house and, haling men and women, was committing them to prison. They, therefore, on being scattered abroad, went on through, proclaiming as good news the Word.

This is the way in which Saul continued to agree to Stephen’s death. The verb indicates the devastation caused by a wild beast, and the imperfect is best regarded as conative. On ἐκκλησία see 5:11. The κατά phrase should be construed with the participle; though the noun is plural and has the article the phrase is distributive as in 22:19 and 26:11 (B.-P. 634). These latter passages refer to different synagogues in which beatings were administered in the different cities and thus cast no light on the proceeding of Saul in Jerusalem where the victims were committed to prison. We are thus not warranted in thinking only of houses in which assemblies were held; these were private homes, the article indicating those in which Christians might be living—these Saul invaded.

Many had to suffer, Luke noting that even women were not spared. The participle “haling them,” dragging them with violence, as well as the main statement, “he kept duly giving them over into prison” (thus literally), show that Saul had been given a force of Levitical police by the Sanhedrin in order to execute his orders of arrest in Jerusalem, and that, therefore, Saul was the chief agent of the Sanhedrin in this persecution. In fact, it seems that but for him such strong measures would not have been taken. This ferreting out where Christians lived and then falling upon them with a force of police made all Christians unsafe in the city and necessarily caused the great exodus in harmony with Jesus’ own orders, Matt. 10:23 (Acts 14:6).

Acts 8:4

4Now a further contrast: Saul ravaging the church, but the dispersed Christians spreading the gospel. Incidentally, we here see how God was turning this persecution to his own great ends. Saul thought he was crushing the Christian movement; in reality, the harder he worked to do so, the more he himself helped to spread that movement. We have οἱμὲνοὗν as in 1:6, and this subject is modified by the participle: “they, therefore, on being scattered.” In whatever territory they passed through “they told as good news the Word,” here this verb has an object as in 5:42. Luke uses εὑαγγελίζομαι in its ordinary sense as in Luke 1:19; 2:10; 3:18; and not in the official sense of “to preach.” These were ordinary Christians; they did not set themselves up as preachers but told people why they had to leave Jerusalem and thus testified to their faith in Christ Jesus. They fulfilled the duty that is to this day incumbent on every Christian.

In 11:19 Luke indicates how far this dispersion reached: to Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch. This does not indicate the use of a separate document; Luke is evidently proceeding in due order by telling us first of what happened in Samaria and then reporting what happened in more distant places.

Acts 8:5

5So we see how Philip came to work in Samaria. Now Philip, having gone down to a city of Samaria, was proclaiming the Christ to them. And the multitudes with one accord were giving heed to the things being declared by Philip while they were hearing and seeing the signs which he was doing. For many of those having unclean spirits—shouting with a great voice, they kept going out; moreover, many having become paralyzed and lame were healed. And there was great joy in that city.

After having stated that all the apostles remained in Jerusalem (v. 1), we understand that Luke refers to the deacon Philip (6:5) and not to the apostle (Philip 1:13). The congregation at Jerusalem was sadly disrupted; the deacons were no longer needed, and Philip was thus free to leave. We have already indicated why Samaria, so close at hand, offered an attractive refuge to the Christians. We must combine Philip’s preaching with his power to work miracles. These gifts of God made him what has been called an evangelist, a missionary preacher. He was thus more than the ordinary Christians who spread the gospel only as a part of their general Christian calling; yet he and his work remained under the authority of the apostles and of the mother congregation in Jerusalem (v. 14) so that he acted with their approval and as their agent. “The Christ” = the Messiah whom the Samaritans, too, expected (John 4:25) although they accepted only the Pentateuch. “The Christ” is the same as “the Word” (v. 4).

On the basis of both textual and other evidence we ought to read: “to a (not the) city of Samaria” (compare the same expression in Matt. 10:5). Even the texts that have “the” seem uncertain, for Aleph has the reading “Caesarea” in place of “Samaria,” and B has “Paul” instead of “Philip” in v. 6. Luke never uses the appositional genitive when naming a city so that “the city of Samaria” would be “the city,” the one called “Samaria.” “Samaria” always refers to the country bearing that name. At this time the city which was at one time called “Samaria” had the name “Sebaste.” The usual explanation that we here have an appositional genitive must therefore be dropped. Luke does not name the city. Yet in all probability he has in mind the old city of Shechem, which was later called Neapolis, and at present has the name Nablous, which is located at the foot of Mount Gerizim, the center of the Samaritan worship (“this mountain,” John 4:20, 21), and is to this day maintained by the dwindling remnant of Samaritans.

In 1925 the writer met their high priest, visited their synagogue in Nablous, and inspected their sacred scrolls. To the Samaritans this city was what Jerusalem was to the Jews. Here the magician Simon would most naturally establish himself. Near this city, at Sychar, Jesus had taught with success for two days (John 4:39–42). When coming from Jerusalem, Philip would reach this city first and have every reason to stop and to work here. Compare the data in Zahn, Apostelgeschichte.

The temporary order not to preach in Samaria (Matt. 10:5) had been rescinded by Jesus in Acts 1:8.

We thus see why Luke devotes some space to Philip’s success in Samaria. It is not just a city such as Sebaste that was won for the gospel but the religious center of the entire Samaritan people. After being driven from one religious center, another such center was promptly being won. Saul was not succeeding in stopping the preaching and the spread of the gospel.

Acts 8:6

6The imperfect tenses, starting with v. 5, continue descriptively and picture the remarkable progress until they end in two aorists (v. 7, 8). Supply νοῦν with προσεῖχον. “Multitudes” were giving heed to the things being declared by Philip, which means that they came to faith. The success of the apostles in Jerusalem was being repeated in the Samaritan religious center. Luke’s favorite ἐντῷ with the infinitive in the sense of “while” reports that seeing and hearing the signs (see 2:19) accompanied the preaching the Samaritans heard from Philip. These signs, like all those wrought by Jesus and the apostles, attested and helped to seal the preaching as being truly a message from God. We may compare Philip with Stephen in this respect (6:8) and remember that every miracle was wrought only by a direct communication from God (Christ), see 5:15.

Acts 8:7

7Even many demoniacs were healed. The subject of demon possession is treated in connection with Matt. 4:24; 8:28; Mark 1:23; Luke 4:33. The construction is anacoluthic. It begins with the persons of the afflicted and ends with the demons of these persons as the subject of the verb; and while τὰπνεῦματα which is implied in βοῶντα is a neuter plural, the verb is not made a singular and thus regards the pneumata as persons. Luke implies that demoniacs came to Philip, and that all who came found deliverance. These unclean, vile spirits acted just as did those that were driven out by Jesus: they always shouted with hideous cries when they were compelled to leave their poor victims. The witnessing of these miracles which so clearly testified to the complete victory of Jesus over all the power of hell, rightly impressed the Samaritans.

Luke adds the sad cases of the paralytics who had been lamed on one side of the body by a stroke. These, too, appear frequently in the story of Jesus, every one being a hopeless case to this day as far as medical help is concerned. These, too, were healed, and Luke now reaches his aorists which close the story.

Acts 8:8

8No wonder the joy in that city became “abundant,” πολλή. Jesus had entered it with his gospel to free the souls and with his signs to heal even the bodies.

Acts 8:9

9Philip, however, had more to contend with than the perverted Samaritan religion. Here in the old religious center of the Samaritans Simon was holding sway over the minds and the hearts of the people by means of his occult Oriental black arts. His story is introduced by Luke as an indication of the success of Philip in freeing the people from the hold this charlatan had upon them. This is the main object of Luke’s account. As far as the man himself is concerned, he is of minor importance, for which reason also Luke closes his account regarding him at v. 24.

Now a man, by name Simon, was already in the city practicing magic and astonishing the nation of Samaria, declaring himself to be someone great; to whom all from small to great were giving heed, declaring, This one is the Power of God, the one called Great! Moreover, they were giving heed to him because he had astonished them with his magical arts a long time.

Δέ turns to the new subject, and τίς is only our indefinite article. When Philip came to the city he found that this Simon had been fully established there for some time and was practicing magic (μαγεύων) and filling the people with astonishment.

He is called Simon Magus and plays a great role in the traditions of the second and the third centuries. None of these reports are worthy of much attention although some commentaries give them space. Zahn discusses them at length. The participle μαγεύων has no connection with the Magi who appear in Matt. 2:1. This Simon belonged to a class of charlatans that were rather common at this period, who practiced occult arts in order to impress the people and to gain a following. Much was plain sorcery which was at times combined with a shrewd use of natural laws that were otherwise unknown.

The range of their arts extended from the conjuring of demons, dealing with the dead, influencing the gods, to charms for healing, divination, stargazing, and the like. The more pretentious employed formulae and ideas that were derived from Oriental theosophy and mystic cults, or combined these with Greek ideas. The type of magic employed must be deduced from what Luke himself states. He was certainly successful, for he astonished not only the city but, as Luke says, “the nation of Samaria.” It is this power of the man among the people as a whole that shows us what the gospel really accomplished through Philip’s activity.

Simon must have performed prodigious feats of conjuring, for in v. 11 Luke uses the noun ταῖςμαγείαις. What these feats were is of less importance than the man’s claims and the credence these claims found. He declared “himself to be someone great.” This is more than etwas Besonderes (neuter), B.-D. 301, 1. He purposely kept the designation of himself indefinite and veiled and thus made a deep impression on the imagination of men who love the mysterious. But there is no evidence that he claimed “to impersonate God.” Jerome’s report that Simon said: Ego sum sermo Dei (the Logos), … ego omnipotens, ego omnia Dei, is a late fancy that is contradicted by Luke’s plain words. Simon kept the people guessing. Even Samaritans who had the Decalog in their Pentateuch, would not have suffered the use of these titles if Simon had, indeed, used them.

Acts 8:10

10Simon achieved what he wanted: “All from small to great gave heed to him”; we should say, “both young and old,” or, “both high and low.” What he conveyed by hinting they supplied by their own superstitious imagination and declared him to be no less than “the Power of God, the one called Great.” This is not deification. It would be among pagans who had many gods but not among Samaritans. These thought of a manifestation of God’s power in the person of the man Simon, of that power which is supreme. The positive “great” is used in the absolute sense and replaces the superlative. Note that, when the predicate has the article, subject and predicate are identical and interchangeable, R. 768. Luke does not report that Simon was identified with God himself, and we have no right to put into his words more than he himself implied.

Zahn follows Klostermann in making ἡμεγάλη the transliteration of the Hebrew participle piel of galah: megalleh, and in noting that this Hebrew verb is always translated ἀποκαλύπτειν by the LXX. The people thus esteemed Simon as God’s great instrument for revealing everything, also God himself. Thus they followed the hint stated in John 4:25, where the Samaritan woman told Jesus that the Messiah would tell them all things. But Zahn is the only commentator of note who adopts this ingenious explanation of Klostermann’s. Both men fail to make clear how Luke’s simple Greek adjective could convey the idea to the reader that a Hebrew piel participle is being referred to. Why did Luke not write the corresponding Greek participle ἀποκαλύπτων?

We should not identify this Simon with the one mentioned by Josephus in Ant. 20, 7, 2, whom Felix used to seduce Drusilla away from her husband Azizus, king of Emesa. Luke does not make him a spurious Messiah, a rival of Jesus. He is only a notable representative of the superstitious religious imposters, of whom the world was full at this time. He is to be put into the same class with Elymas (Acts 13) and the famous charlatan Apollonius of Tyana, who flourished in the same century. The Satanic influence of these imposters is evident.

Acts 8:11

11What made the case so difficult for Philip’s work was the fact that by means of his arts Simon had held the people “a long time” (dative of time when an action takes place; this construction is restricted to words like day, night, year, etc.). The perfect infinitive agrees with this dative. Philip found the man’s hold on the people deep and strong. But we already know that Philip broke this hold; even Simon gave way to Philip.

Acts 8:12

12Now, when they came to believe Philip proclaiming the good news concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, both men and women.

We see to what the “giving heed” mentioned in v. 6 led: men and women “came to believe,” an ingressive aorist (not a constative, as R., W. P. states), hence it is followed by the imperfect. Πιστεύω with the dative means to believe the person and what he says. So here these Samaritans accepted all that Philip was proclaiming as good news “concerning the kingdom of God (see 1:3) and the name (see 2:21, 38; 3:6) of Jesus Christ (see 2:38).” They came to believe the good news concerning God’s rule and reign of grace, pardon, and salvation as this was revealed (ὄνομα) in the person named Jesus and in his office as Christ. Luke gives us a brief summary of Philip’s gospel preaching; it centered in the kingdom and in the Name. It does so to this day. The Name is the great door that admits into the kingdom.

And thus Luke states that “they were being baptized, both men and women,” the imperfect stating that this occurred continually as they came to faith. We see that Luke makes the account of what happened here in Samaria somewhat of a parallel to what had happened in Jerusalem. At the time of the first ingress of believers, cf. 2:40, their being baptized is recorded; the same is done here at the time of the first influx of Samaritans. Here, too, no hint regarding the mode of baptism employed is offered. Immersion, however, is out of the question, no place that would be suitable for using this mode is found at Nablous. Yet “they were being baptized” without the least difficulty.

Jesus had sown the seed at Sychar in Samaria, Philip was reaping the great harvest (John 4:37, 38). Simon’s hold on the people was entirely broken.

Acts 8:13

13Moreover, Simon himself also came to believe and, on having been baptized, continued to hold to Philip; and beholding that signs and works of power kept occurring, he was amazed.

He who had amazed others by his magical arts and claims was now himself kept in a state of amazement (imperfect tense) by what he kept seeing (present participle), the miracles that kept occurring (again a present participle, here in the construction after a verb of seeing). Luke does not use the usual expression “signs and wonders” but writes “signs and power works” as emphasizing what Simon saw in the miracles: their significance and their power. On the basis of what is related later it is usually assumed that Simon’s faith was only a sham, but Luke uses the same verb and the same tense with reference to him as he does with reference to the people; he even adds that Simon remained in close attachment to Philip. The man did believe. The fact that he later went wrong, and that his young faith was perverted and lost, is something that followed. All that Luke intimates regarding this outcome is the fact that Simon was too much captivated by the miracles he saw. The probability is that he came to regard them as being in the same class with his own magical arts but far superior to what he had been able to produce.

It is unwarranted to claim that in the case of Simon’s baptism we have “clear proof that baptism does not convey salvation.” The Baptist taught and practiced the baptism of repentance and remission of sins. The 3, 000 were told to be baptized “for the remission of sins.” Paul’s sins were washed away by his being baptized (22:16). Baptism is “the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit” (Tit. 3:5). Baptism is what it is irrespective of its recipient. A gold piece that is treated as being worthless is no less a gold piece. The only deduction that can be legitimately made on the assumption that Simon had only a sham faith at the time of his baptism is that baptism does not work mechanically, as an opus operatum, which means that the saving grace it conveys must be apprehended by the heart. The fact that a man does not appropriate something is not a proof that there was nothing to appropriate.

Acts 8:14

14It must have been some time after Philip had begun his work and not until his success attained the proportions recorded by Luke that the apostles came to Samaria. Now, when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the Word of God, they commissioned to them Peter and John who, having come down, prayed regarding them that they might receive the Holy Spirit; for as yet he had not fallen on anyone of them, and they had been baptized only in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they began to lay their hands on them, and they began to receive the Holy Spirit.

Since the congregation at Jerusalem had been scattered far and wide, the good news that came from Samaria must have brought joy to the apostles who had remained in the city (v. 1). We see nothing hierarchical in their action of sending two of their number to Nablous to Philip to review this new increase of believers.

It is not hyperbole when Luke writes “that Samaria has received the Word” (the tense of the direct discourse being retained), for this does not mean “all Samaria” but Samaritans as distinct from Jews; note 1:8. The Word was advancing from Jewish into Samaritan territory—a most significant progress. Since the return from Babylonia a gulf had existed between these two peoples and, lo, it was now being bridged by the Word of Christ. And this was being done, not by an apostle, but by one of the former deacons. That certainly concerned the apostles, and they sent the two most important individuals of their number to Philip. The idea to be conveyed is that all the believers constitute one body whether they were formerly Jews or formerly Samaritans. This oneness is expressed by the mission of Peter and of John.

Acts 8:15

15Their mere visit to Nablous would, however, have meant too little; that would have made manifest no more than outward oneness between the old and the new wing of the church. On their arrival Peter and John, therefore, prayed for the Samaritan believers in order (ὅπως, purpose) that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For it is this Spirit who makes the church one. When he dwells in all believers through the Word and faith, they are all made one spiritual body with Christ as the head and with his apostles as his chief ministrants of the Word.

Acts 8:16

16The reason for their prayer is explained by the γάρ clause: the Spirit had not yet fallen upon any of the Samaritan believers (periphrastic pluperfect). The very expression indicates that the charismatic gift of the Spirit is being referred to, which comes in a miraculous way and is apparent to all who might be present. “Had fallen” recalls what had happened at the time of Pentecost. The Samaritan believers had not yet been distinguished by this sign of the Spirit’s presence; it had been delayed until this time.

“They had been baptized only,” etc. The periphrastic pluperfect with ὑπῆρχον instead of ἧσαν, R. 1121, is used, but this by no means intends to say that at this time these Samaritans had received no more than baptism from the Holy Spirit or, as some would say, baptism as a mere symbol so that through the apostles they were now to receive the Spirit himself. They had been baptized as believers, they had received Word and sacrament and all that Word and sacrament bestow, the Holy Spirit in their hearts, and thus regeneration, conversion, justification, the power of a new life, in a word, salvation. They had received the supreme gifts of the Spirit “only,” but these are invisible. Baptism was the one gift that was also an outward mark of their having the Spirit.

Still other marks were to be granted them, seals and signs that they were true members of the spiritual body that is created by the Spirit. These were the charismata of the Spirit, those gifts which the Spirit distributes freely in the church (1 Cor. 12:7–13). In these earliest days of the church’s history he distributed them miraculously, most wonderfully at Pentecost in the speaking with tongues, after that in a less wonderful way here at Nablous; then in 10:44–48 (11:15), in 19:6, and in the congregation at Corinth.

Acts 8:17

17So this manifestation of the Spirit was now bestowed upon the Samaritan believers. As was the case in 19:7, this was done through the laying on of hands; see 6:6 for this symbolic rite. On Pentecost, in the case of Cornelius, and in Corinth, the Spirit did not make use of such a rite. Here and in 19:7 its purpose is apparent: the Spirit uses the chosen apostles of Jesus in order to unite all his believers into one spiritual body and to make this apparent. Not two or more churches were to be established: one that was Jewish, another that was Samaritan, others that were Gentile; no, only one, in which all believers were to be on the same level. In order to get the full import of this fact we must project ourselves backward into those days when Jew, Samaritan, Greek Gentile, barbarian Gentile were as widely separated from each other as the poles. The Spirit had his mighty reason for waiting until the arrival of the apostles before bestowing his charisma in Samaria.

In order to avoid wrong deductions, let us note that none of the 3, 000 new believers at the time of Pentecost received the gift of tongues but only the 120 whom Jesus himself had long ago brought to faith; in 10:44–48 the new believers received this gift. After Pentecost, as the church grew by leaps and bounds, speaking with tongues did not occur, but at a far later time this gift reappeared in the congregation in Corinth. It was exactly as Paul states in 1 Cor. 12:11.

No charismatic gift was bestowed in connection with the baptism administered by the apostles—remember Pentecost; the baptism of Philip lacked nothing which the apostles had to add. The Spirit’s manifestations at the time of Pentecost, here in Samaria, and then in Caesarea had their own special purpose, and this by no means concerned just those who received gifts miraculously but extended far beyond them. As to far more necessary and valuable charismata that were bestowed unobtrusively, note Stephen (6:10) and note Paul’s estimate and advice (1 Cor. 14:1). Only by strange processes of reasoning could the older view arise that in the coming of Peter and of John to the Samaritans lies support for the rite of confirmation as a sacrament of the church (Cyprian, Epistle 73).

Acts 8:18

18Now, when Simon saw that through the laying on of the hands of the apostles the Holy Spirit was being given, he offered them money, saying, Give also to me this power, that on whom I lay the hands he may receive the Holy Spirit.

When Peter and John came to Nablous, a gathering of all the believers was probably held, and the apostles laid hands on some of them, and these began to speak with tongues. It was this that Simon saw and that made him desire to possess the same ability he thought the apostles had. When it is said that those speaking with tongues were transported into “ecstasy,” this is without the support of any passage dealing with this gift. It is likewise exaggeration to suppose that every believer had hands laid on him, and that all spoke with tongues. This view misunderstands the purpose of this manifestation. What was done in the case of some counted for all; this was not a matter that pertained to individuals but to this entire body of Samaritan believers and to all others who might yet come to faith.

This manifestation happened once, and that was all. Its significance as a sign for all believing Samaritans was thus established and needed no repetition.

Acts 8:19

19Simon was still bound by his ideas about magical acts and thus rated what he saw the apostles doing as something of the same order but grander than anything he himself had been able to do. He had paid out money to learn his feats of conjury and so made bold to offer money to Peter and to John in order that they might teach him how to perform this new and astonishing feat. When estimating the import of this offer the fact is often overlooked that Philip had already been working many signs even on demoniacs and paralytics, and that Simon, nevertheless, had made no attempt to acquire this power. This makes his present offer appear like a relapse into his old life and ways. He believed and was baptized (v. 13) but now fell back into his love for occult arts. The worst feature about this relapse was the fact that he regarded the Holy Spirit as being merely some sort of mysterious effect that could be brought about by one who understood the secret art.

Any derogation of the Holy Spirit is dangerous in the extreme as we see in the case of Ananias and Sapphira (5:3, 9). Simon’s offer of money eventually coined the term “simony” as a designation for the purchase of church offices and the revenues connected with them.

Acts 8:20

20Was Simon planning to return to his old life by adding this new art to his old ones? He was certainly severely reprimanded by Peter. But Peter said to him: Thy silver be with thee in perdition because thou didst suppose to acquire the gift of God through money! There is not for thee part or lot in this matter; for thy heart is not straight before God. Repent, therefore, of this thy baseness and beg the Lord if, perhaps, the project of thy heart will be remitted for thee. For I see that thou art in gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity.

The optative of wish εἴη is construed with static εἰς and = “May thou and thy silver be in perdition!” This is an imprecatory wish. This wish is really a judgment and one that is fully justified, since any man who has the idea that money may purchase the powers of the Spirit is on the verge of committing blasphemy against the Spirit and should, therefore, be damned. Ἀπώλεια, “destruction,” is regarded as annihilation by those who wish to abolish hell from the Scriptures, whereas its Biblical meaning is the complete ruin of the sinner in the loss of salvation and life and in the doom of eternal death. “Thy silver with thee,” the means of the sin together with the sinner. The use to which we put our money stamps our character upon it.

This judgment of imprecation is at once substantiated, ὅτι, “because.” This former conjurer imagined that he could acquire the gift of God through money. Peter says nothing about the insult Simon offered him by the proffer of money in such a deal; he at once points out the worst feature the insult offered to God by imagining that his gift was like a conjurer’s trick that could be bought with money. “The gift” is really generic, for anything that constitutes such a gift is referred to. Here the Holy Spirit is himself the gift; for only one filled with the Spirit would be used by him to convey such spiritual gifts by the laying on of the apostles’ hands. Peter is opening the eyes of Simon to the damnableness of his proposition.

We should note that Simon’s story is told so fully because it is a parallel to that of Ananias and Sapphira. Both stand out in the first church as glaring examples of the frightful attempt by means of money to obtain what can be obtained only by God’s grace. So men still think they can buy honor in God’s kingdom, yea, salvation itself, by means of money contributions to some church cause, whether they acknowledge their secret intent or not.

Acts 8:21

21“There is not part or lot for thee” = thou hast neither part not lot, the two terms emphasizing the same idea, namely that Simon has completely excluded himself from any participation “in this matter.” This meaning of λόγος, the matter under discussion, is well established. But we must not narrow its sense in this statement to the transmission of the Spirit by the bestowal of a spiritual gift. “This matter” includes everything connected with the Spirit and his gifts. Simon was unfit to receive even the gift that so many Samaritans were freely receiving. We must note that he had not knelt down with them to have hands laid on his head so that he, like others, might speak with tongues. He had only stood by and conceived his vicious project of purchase. It was thus that he completely excluded himself from all contact with the Spirit.

This answers the objection that is based on too narrow a view and makes “this matter” refer only to the laying on of hands for bestowing the gift of tongues. Those who see that this view is too narrow and that it does not fit the context offer an unsatisfactory remedy by letting λόγος mean “this Word and gospel of Christ” by appealing to the use of “Word” in v. 14 and 25, and also to the context, that Simon’s heart is not straight before God. Yet the context does not deal with the gospel Word, its preaching (v. 25) and its reception when preached (v. 14). All is clear and the context fully satisfied when “this logos” is taken to refer to this entire matter of receiving anything from, or transmitting anything as an agent of, the Holy Spirit.

From that Simon completely excluded himself in that his heart was no longer “straight,” sincere, honest, true, in God’s sight. “Heart” is always the center of the personality with all that characterizes it in mind and in will. It is thus that God always looks at our hearts and sees our inmost character. We are unable to judge the heart, and there is no worse vice in the church than what the Germans call Herzensrichterei, presuming to judge other men’s hearts. Peter was not doing that, for Simon himself had fully revealed the crookedness of his heart, and Peter was judging him on the basis of that revelation.

So we may judge men on the basis of their clear and undeniable actions. Often a pretense of doing no more than that is made when evil motives are attributed to fellow men in attempts to injure them. Then our own hearts are no longer “straight before God.” Then we pretend to see a splinter (“mote” is incorrect) in our fellow man’s eye the while we carry a beam or plank in our own eye. In the case of Ananias and Sapphira, Peter acted under special revelation from the Spirit, which makes that case entirely exceptional.

Acts 8:22

22Simon is shown how he appears in God’s eyes. At the same time he is told what to do in order to be restored. He is to repent from this baseness; see this verb in 2:38, and not that it is here used in its narrower sense: true contrition and sorrow of the heart for sin. It is thus construed with the sin from which Simon is to repent and turn, and he is told to seek remission for that sin. Peter rightly calls it “this baseness,” κακία, which is not the same as “wickedness” (our versions), the word for that is πονηρία. While the two terms are synonymous, the former is milder, it is the German Schlechtigkeit, the opposite of ἀρετή or excellence (C.-K. 558), while the latter is active, vicious wickedness. The idea expressed is that of loss as in good-for-nothingness, here with reference to a spiritual condition that has become spoiled, bad, depraved.

This contriteness is to be combined with the humble, begging prayer for the divine remission of the sin and guilt involved in his ἐπίνοια, the thing that has come upon his mind, his frightful “project.” Peter’s two aorist imperatives are intended to make Simon see the urgency of Peter’s commands. By using δέομαι Peter bids Simon throw himself at the Lord’s feet as a beggar; and the εἰ with the indicative expresses expectation (B.-D. 375) which is in this case lessened by the addition of ἄρα: “if, perchance, he will,” etc. The implication of this conditional form is not regarding the Lord’s willingness to remit but in regard to Simon’s contrition and begging as being necessary for enabling the Lord to extend remission. Unless Simon’s heart changes, he himself will prevent the Lord’s remission. Therefore, too, Peter says, “the project of thy heart,” for the seat of this sin is in Simon’s heart, and the Lord will see his very heart, and no outward contrite begging will deceive him. In “shall be remitted,” literally, “shall be sent away,” we have the Biblical term for freeing the sinner from his sin and his guilt; see the explanation of the noun ἄφεσις in 2:38.

Acts 8:23

23The γάρ explains to Simon how serious is his condition. His “project” betrays the terrible condition existing in his heart. Peter sees Simon “in gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity,” for that is what his project reveals concerning himself. His entire person is concerned; the construction ὁρῶσεὄντα is classical, and εἰς is static, “in,” not “into,” R. 593. Both genitives are appositional: gall that is bitterness, and bondage that is iniquity, the absence of the articles stressing the force of the nouns themselves. On “bitterness” compare Heb. 12:15.

The entire expression describes Simon’s spiritual state. Bitterness, however, does not refer to “bitter enmity” on Simon’s part, not to embitterment and “bitter anger” against the apostles or the Lord. The latter idea has influenced the interpretation of the next verse. As in Heb. 12:15 the “root of bitterness” means a root out of which bitter fruit grows, fruit which the Lord abominates, so here “gall of bitterness” is that fruit. The Lord will not taste it and must cast it away. The next expression is more literal and helps to explain the former: Simon’s iniquity is a bond that firmly holds him, wrapped, as it is, all about him.

Acts 8:24

24But, answering, Simon said, Do you yourselves beg in my behalf of the Lord that nothing may come upon me of the things you have mentioned!

A few texts add the statement that he continued weeping greatly: ὃςπολλὰκλαίωνοὑδιελίμπανεν. Is there anything wrong about this answer? Yet, just about everything about it has been found wrong. Why? Because of the later tradition which presents Simon as the father of heresies, the founder of the first heretical sect, a man who deified himself. Instead of interpreting Luke’s words as they stand, they are interpreted in conformity with this tradition, and the matter settled in advance: Simon could not have repented, he did not repent, and all that Luke states is made to conform to this view.

What is wrong in his asking for apostolic intercession? If some other sinner had done the same, the commentators would praise him; but Simon is accused of merely referring Peter’s command back to him: You apostles go and beg of the Lord if there is begging to do! This is not fair to Simon. Simon asks for the apostlic intercession in his behalf as one who first of all earnestly prays for himself.

Then his desire to escape the things about which the apostles have warned him is regarded proof positive that Simon did not repent and desired only to escape the apostles’ threats. No account is taken of the fact that Simon had just recently been brought to faith; in fact, although in v. 13 Luke writes, “he himself came to believe,” this plain assertion is interpreted to mean that he only pretended to believe. It is not to the credit of some exegetes that they allow later tradition not only to modify but to reverse the words of the inspired text.

As to fear, shall we forget the warning Jesus himself gave about being cast into hell, Matt. 5:22, 29, 30; 10:28; 18:9? If it was wrong for Simon to fear as he did, was it right for Peter to threaten him as he did? Luke, moreover, leaves Simon at this point as he is pleading for the apostolic intercession. Could he do that if he intended his readers to understand that Simon failed to repent? He could not! Luke’s words permit only one interpretation, namely that Simon did repent, that Peter’s strong words were not in vain.

Yet Luke’s leaving Simon with this petition on his lips has been thought to imply that Simon continued in his evil ways, and that the only reason Luke does not say as much is that he intended to write a third book in which he intended to tell us more about Simon and his wicked heresies. It is certain that Luke intends to say that Simon repented. The next verse corroborates this fact. If this is the same Simon who afterward introduced the first heresies, Luke intimates it in no way. All that Zahn, for instance, reports of the later tradition, as he himself admits, is invention, much of it based on Simon’s magical arts. It seems as though his former practice of magic is the basis for the traditional connection of his name with those old heresies and fictions. And Luke is not responsible for these views.

Acts 8:25

25They, therefore, after testifying and uttering the Word of the Lord, began to return to Jerusalem and were proclaiming the good news to many villages of the Samaritans.

In regard to Luke’s favorite “they, therefore,” see 1:6. We should note that both aorist participles fit the idea that the Word was altogether that of the Lord, and that the apostles merely uttered it as being his. With this they supported all that Philip had done and did all they could to strengthen the faith of the Samaritan believers. Then, as the imperfect states, they began their return to Jerusalem, left the whole work in Philip’s hands, and thus acknowledged his competence. It was still their place to be in Jerusalem. But they proceeded slowly and evidently traveled about here and there and thus “evangelized many villages of the Samaritans” (the verb is here used with the accusative of the persons). Peter and John thus helped materially in winning Samaria for the gospel.

THE ETHIOPIAN EUNUCH

Acts 8:26

26Only one man is concerned in this account, but his conversion is of the utmost importance for the early history of the church, hence the space devoted to him by Luke and the place assigned to this account, being introduced between the conversions in Samaria and the conversion of the apostle to the Gentiles. The unnamed Ethiopian eunuch is the first Gentile converted to the Christian faith. He was, indeed, not a pagan but a proselyte of the gate and thus, however, still regarded as a Gentile by all Jews. It is by the Lord’s own direction that the gospel is thus beginning to reach out into the great Gentile world; and it is the evangelist Philip who is distinguished as the man who, besides opening up Samaria to the gospel, brought in also the first Gentile convert. Through him the gospel first entered Africa, and that not in lower Egypt among the many Jews in Alexandria, etc., but in the more distant interior land of the Ethiopians who were a type of Negroes.

Now an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip, saying, Arise and be going toward the south on the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza; this is desert. And having arisen, he went.

It is decidedly noteworthy that the Lord employed the service of angels for bringing the first Gentiles into his kingdom, here the Ethiopian eunuch, and in chapter 10 Cornelius, the centurion of the Italian cohort. We have no details about the appearance of the angel to Philip; only the great fact that this heavenly messenger gave directions to Philip, who promptly obeyed them, is recorded. “Arise” simply means that Philip is to make ready for his long journey; compare 5:17. “Be going” is the durative present imperative to indicate an act that will take some time. When the persecution broke out in Jerusalem, Philip had gone north to the Samaritans; he is not to continue in that direction but is to return to Jerusalem and from there to go “toward noon,” i. e., southward, in an altogether unexpected direction. The Lord does not call one of his apostles in Jerusalem. He chooses his own instrument for the task he himself maps out. Philip is to take the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza, the old Philistine city on the coast. The data regarding this city need not occupy us as it is mentioned only to designate the road that Philip is to take.

The remark, “this is desert,” refers to the road. While the feminine demonstrative might refer to Gaza, a remark about its condition would be irrelevant since Philip was not to go to Gaza, nor was the city ἔρημος at this time. The angel designates which one of the roads Philip is to take: not the one that leads through the more populous sections of the country but the one that leads through the rather uninhabited parts. We are unable to determine which road this was. Any road would pass through uninhabited territory after leaving the hills; and we do not know how far toward Gaza Philip had to go. The claim that this clause is not a part of the angel’s directions but only a remark made by Luke, leaves Philip to conjecture which road to take and has Luke write as though there was only one road and that one desert.

The fact that Philip is thus shown just where to go is plain, but we cannot see the force of the objection which denies that the eunuch chose this road, chose it because it permitted him to be more undisturbed in his study of the Scripture roll he had recently acquired. On this road Philip, too, encountered no interruption in dealing with the eunuch.

But why did the Lord not send the angel to instruct and to baptize the eunuch and leave Philip in his successful work in Samaria? We have an answer to this question. The Lord bestowed the office of the ministry upon men and not upon angels, and we find that the Lord in every case makes use of the men he has called and honors their office and their work accordingly. So Philip is off on his long journey afoot; the time and the effort spent in winning the eunuch are not too great.

Acts 8:27

27And lo, a man, an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a lord under Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was over all her treasure, who had come to Jerusalem in order to worship; and he was returning and sitting on his chariot and was engaged in reading the prophet Isaiah.

Luke may well utter an exclamation at the thought of the man Philip found travelling on this lonesome road. He merely reproduces the astonishment that Philip himself must have felt. Luke immediately records all the details although some of them Philip did not learn until a little later when he conversed with the man. He was an Ethiopian, a black man! Αἰθίοψ, from αἴθω, “to burn,” and ὤψ, “countenance,” points to race and nationality and not merely to residence. Thus the idea of his being a Jew who had risen to great power in Ethiopia is at once excluded. In fact, the entire narrative points to the fact that this man was a Gentile.

Philip’s first glance at the man put him face to face with the question of receiving Gentiles into the church. The apostles had not as yet encountered the question: “On what terms and in what manner are Gentiles to be received?” Yet in this case Philip was relieved of hesitation or difficulty. The Lord had sent him through the word of an angel and was even now directing him.

This man was a eunuch, which must be taken in the literal and not in the official sense, since his official position is described in the following. We learn only the fact and not how he became a eunuch. Yet he was a δυνάστης, a man of authority and power, “a lord.” We translate the Greek genitive “of Candace” with the idea “under” this queen of the Ethiopians. This intermediate title is explained by the relative clause which states that this man was the royal treasurer, γάζα being a Persian word for “treasure” which is used in both the Greek and the Latin (γαζοφυλάκιον, “treasury,” a place where the treasure is kept, Mark 12:41 and elsewhere).

In Ethiopia the royal descent was by way of the mother. The queen mother transmitted the inheritance to her son but herself exercised the rule, and though the son was regarded as king and given divine honors, he was confined to the palace while his mother reigned. In the year 25–21 B. C. a one-eyed Candace fought the Romans and saved her kingdom by a favorable peace.

“Candace” is only a title like Pharaoh, Sultan, Czar, etc. The history of missions has made this title famous. In 1853 Pastor Louis Harms, of Hermannsburg in Hannover, Germany, a small inland town, had a vessel built with funds he collected, and sent the first missionaries he had prepared to their destination in Africa. He called the vessel The Candace. This missionary enterprise was highly successful and stands out as one of the great monuments of faith in the history of modern mission endeavor.

The kingdom of the Ethiopians was not Abyssinia, the old kingdom of Aksum (Axum), but a domain whose boundaries shifted at times. It began at Assuan on the Nile and extended beyond Chartum and since the eighth century B. C. was known as “Ethiopia” to the ancients. It was inhabited, not by Semitic, but by hamitic, Negro-like tribes. This powerful kingdom had two great royal cities: Meroë on the island in the Nile by the same name, and one farther down on the river Napata.

When Luke adds that the eunuch had come to Jerusalem to worship (future participle, denoting purpose, R. 1128) he informs us that this Gentile was a proselyte of the gate. In 2:10 we read about proselytes of righteousness; these had become completely Jewish and had really been absorbed into Judaism and had lost their character as Gentiles. No eunuch could be-more than a proselyte of the gate, since because of his mutilation he was debarred from entering the inner Temple courts (Deut. 23:1). Yet read the great and special promises of the Lord to godly eunuchs as recorded in Isa. 56:4, 5. These second-class proselytes, who were exceedingly numerous in the Jewish diaspora, did not submit to circumcision and were bound only to the so-called Noachian commandments (Gen. 9:4–6) against idolatry, blasphemy, disobedience to magistrates, murder, fornication or incest, robbery or theft, and eating of blood. They were quite generally open to the gospel and received it with great readiness; in the New Testament they are designated as σεβόμενοι or φοβούμενοιτὸνΘεόν.

Recently discovered papyri, dating from the fourth and the fifth centuries B. C., mention a Jewish military colony that was at first under Pharaonic, then under Persian, later under Ptolomaic, and finally under Roman jurisdiction. It was located at Syene and the island Elephantine which were close to the boundary of Ethiopia. By way of business and financial contacts the treasurer of the queen could easily come into contact with these and perhaps also with other Jews.

The sincerity and the devotion of this proselyte are evident when we note that he undertook a journey of some 200 miles that was difficult at best and not without danger in order to visit Jerusalem and the Temple although he was debarred from entering beyond the court of the Gentiles. He is after a fashion the counterpart to the Queen of Sheba who came from southern Arabia on a similar long journey. Tradition reports his name as Indich or Judich.

Acts 8:28

28Verse 27 is minus a verb and is to be regarded as an exclamation—such a man is awaiting Philip! On his return homeward after his visit in the holy city he is riding in his chariot with his driver, absorbed in reading a newly acquired parchment roll of the prophet Isaiah. The imperfect tenses picture him as Philip saw him. He might have chosen a more interesting road homeward. It is fair to conclude that he chose this lonely road in order to read the roll which he had recently acquired and was now eager to study and to absorb. It was surely the Lord’s providence that had placed Isaiah, the evangelist of the Old Testament, into this devoted proselyte’s hand and had led him to turn to the very choicest part of the book of this prophet at the time of Philip’s approach.

God had prepared this pupil for his new teacher. He was reading aloud, perhaps with some difficulty, for the ancient manuscripts did not write the words separately, had no punctuation, no breathings, and no accents. His copy must have been made from the Greek LXX, and Philip conversed with him in Greek, the language everywhere current.

Acts 8:29

29Now the Spirit said to Philip, Go to him and attach thyself to this chariot. And having run to him, Philip heard him reading Isaiah, the prophet, and said, Dost thou understand what thou art reading? And he said, How, then, could I unless one shall guide me? And he besought Philip to come up and sit with him.

The Spirit never has difficulty in communicating with a person so that the latter knows from whom the communication comes. All ifs and buts are removed for Philip in regard to the important personage who is evidently a Negro, riding in his stately chariot. To Philip the Spirit speaks and not to the eunuch when the way of salvation was to be expounded to the latter. “Therefore we ought and must constantly maintain this point, that God does not wish to deal with us otherwise than through the spoken Word and the Sacraments.” C. Tr. 497, 10. In the preaching of the gospel God adheres to the means and to the office he himself has given us; dreams, visions, voices, and the like he may use for other purposes but not for this one. We may translate the aorist passive imperative, “be joined,” or as a middle, “join thyself.”

Acts 8:30

30The chariot seems to have been moving slowly ahead of Philip so that by hastening his steps he soon came to walk beside it. It is rather farfetched when R., W. P., says that “probably Philip jumped on the running board on the chariot.” Walking thus, without intruding, Philip heard the man reading from Isaiah and, perhaps as the man paused and looked up, Philip asked the question whether he understood what he was reading. The ἇρα is a word of interrogation, γε is strengthening and lends a touch of doubt.

Acts 8:31

31The eunuch not only acknowledges his inability but states that he needs a guide. The sentence is a mixed condition: in the apodosis it has the optative with ἄν (potentiality): “How then could I”; in the protasis ἐάν (= εἰ) with the future indicative (reality): “unless one shall guide me,” and γάρ is added like the German denn (B.-D. 452, 1) so that the force is: “No, for how could I,” etc. And promptly the eunuch beseeches Philip (the verb is strong) that “having come up (into the chariot), he sit with him,” to guide and to instruct him. All three aorists, verb, participle, infinitive, imply that the request was granted (B.-D. 328); a verb in the imperfect would imply that something else followed.

Acts 8:32

32Now the section of the Scripture he was reading was this:

As a sheep to the slaughter he was led;

And as a lamb before the one shearing him is dumb

So he opens not his mouth.

In the humiliation his judgment was taken away.

His generation who shall recount?

Because taken from the earth is his life.

The passage that caused the eunuch difficulty was Isa. 53:7, 8, which Luke records for his reader from the LXX. The chief variation from the Hebrew is in the fourth and in the last lines:

“He was taken from prison and from judgment; …

For he was cut off out of the land of the living.” A glance at the text shows that even these are but variations in form and not in thought. Both Delitzsch and Aug. Pieper (Jesaias II), each in his own way, vary from the translations found in our Old Testament according as they read the Hebrew and construe the last line. These intricacies need not detain us; for the eunuch had no difficulty in reading the words and the sentences in his LXX copy of Isaiah, his difficulty was vastly greater, namely what the prophet really meant by this entire section.

For ourselves we note cursorily that Isaiah is depicting the great ʿEbed Yahweh, τὸνπαῖδατοῦΘεοῦἸησοῦν, “the Servant of God, Jesus,” (Acts 3:13, 26; 4:27, 30) in his suffering and his death. Patiently, silently, without resisting, the great Servant of Jehovah, “was led as a sheep to the slaughter.” Pieper: “Maltreated was he; but he—he bowed himself.” His silent submission is emphasized: “And as a lamb,” etc. Delitzsch and Pieper translate the Hebrew in the same way.

Acts 8:33

33“In his humiliation his judgment was taken away,” the judgment executed upon him as our substitute. He rendered full satisfaction and atonement; all claims were satisfied. Delitzsch translates the line as it is found in our Old Testament (see above); but Pieper lets the Hebrew preposition min mean, not what it usually does, “from” but “by means of.” He does this for internal reasons, but his reason is by no means satisfactory. The rendering of the LXX which the eunuch had is thus substantially correct.

There is disagreement in regard to the next line: “His generation who shall recount?” In both Isaiah and here in Acts the sense is that the suffering and dying Servant of Jehovah shall have a vast progeny, a generation (the word is used in an ethical sense, as a designation of those who become his own by faith), dor, γενεά, that no one can number. Delitzsch: “And among his cotemporaries who considered: Torn away was he out of the land of the living”; Pieper: “And as to his generation—who mourned, that he was torn,” etc. Those internal reasons again obtrude themselves: the idea that Isaiah could not speak of Christ’s deliverance and the fruit of his death so early, namely ahead of a narration of his death. Why could he not? Especially since he is writing poetry? The moment we remember this, the matter is cleared up.

The Hebrew verb is siach, German sinnen (Delitzsch, bedenken; not Pieper’s beklagen), LXX διηγέομαι. And in the Hebrew as well as in the Greek the accusative “his generation” is the object of this verb. Why must we read it adverbially, “as to his generation” (Pieper), or “among his cotemporaries” (Delitzsch)? The same is true in regard to the next line. Why must ki be “that,” recitative or otherwise? Why not leave it “because”?

And so we are in the clear. This dor or generation is not the contemporary Jewish nation. Why let it deal so prominently with what it failed to consider or lament? The prophet says: “His generation who considered?” and then states why the question is asked: “Because taken from the earth was his life.” Taken from the earth, how could he have a generation? Yet behold, what a vast generation is his, all these believers in all the ages! And the LXX is about correct: “Who shall declare, recount, set out in detail his generation?”

Acts 8:34

34Wonderful these words of the prophet! So and yet a mystery! And answering, the eunuch said to Philip, I beg thee, concerning whom does the prophet say this? concerning himself or concerning someone else?

The Greek “answering” is often used in a wider sense with regard to any statement that meets a situation. The eunuch had, indeed, struck the heart of the matter. Who was this wonderful person of whom the prophet was speaking? Could it be the prophet Isaiah himself? Was he not an ʾebed of Jehovah, might he be this “Servant”? The difficulty the eunuch had was this, that the prophet did not seem to meet the requirements of this passage and yet he could think of no other person to whom they might be properly applied. To be sure, the eunuch had not heard the modern Jewish answer that the Jews themselves are this wonderful “Servant of Jehovah,” their nation that has suffered so much is the Messiah!

We are unable to say how much the eunuch had heard about Jesus while he was in Jerusalem; yet his prompt acceptance of Philip’s interpretation would indicate that he had learned much of the story of Jesus and needed only to have the prophecies of the Old Testament properly connected with what he had heard in order to bring him to the Christian faith. This, too, explains the readiness with which Philip proceeded to baptize him.

Acts 8:35

35And Philip, having opened his mouth and having begun at this Scripture, proclaimed as good news to him Jesus.

The circumstantial phrase about opening his mouth intends to mark the importance of Philip’s words. He began with this prophecy of Isaiah, referred to other prophecies much as Jesus once did (Luke 24:27, 45), and so preached the whole blessed gospel of salvation in Jesus’ name. “What flowed from the preacher’s lips concerning the Word of life, how he preached of the Crucified One in words ever more fiery and enthusiastic, and what transpired in the soul of the hearer, how his heart burned within him, how the scales fell from his eyes, how light upon light illumined him, how, perhaps, tear upon tear rolled down his cheek, all this the record does not describe, words cannot reproduce it properly. Enough, there must have been another upon the chariot, the Holy Spirit, who opened the mouth of Philip and the heart of the treasurer; and the result was that this apt pupil of the gospel could exclaim:

‘Now I have found the firm foundation,

Where evermore my anchor grounds!’

Oh, that this might be the result of all our preaching and hearing, Bible reading and explanation, meditation and praying, the knowledge and ever-firmer conviction: Jesus is the Messiah as the prophet promised, as this sinful world needs him!” Gerok.

Acts 8:36

36Now as they were going along the road they came to some water. And the eunuch says: Lo, water! What hinders me to be baptized? And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down to the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

No trace of a stream or a lake is found in this region, nor of a record of such water. The problem is not where to find enough water for immersion but where to find water at all. Robinson suggests the Wady-el-Hasy between Eleutheropolis and Gaza, not far from the old sites of Lachish and Eglom. The difficulty in regard to the water is not removed by supposing that Philip did not go from Samaria to Jerusalem and from there take a road toward Gaza but took some road directly from Samaria. This contradicts v. 26, which binds Philip to some road that led from Jerusalem to Gaza. Philip must have expounded baptism to the eunuch.

It is thus that he exclaims, “Lo, water!” with a happy ring in his voice. When asks about a hindrance to his being baptized he intends to indicate that he knows of none but leaves it to the fuller knowledge of his teacher as to whether his supposition is correct.

Acts 8:37

37The textual evidence for this verse (see A. V.) is too slight to admit it into the text. It states what may well have transpired. The objection is textual only, and remarks such as that the words sound like some pedantic preacher asking his convert for a final, formal confession are unwarranted. A confession of Jesus as the Christ was always a prerequisite for baptism.

Acts 8:38

38Philip consents. The eunuch orders his driver to halt the chariot, and Philip and the eunuch go down to the water, and the baptism takes place. The subject is made certain: “both Philip and the eunuch,” because the eunuch had ordered his driver to halt the chariot, and this man was not concerned in the matter of the baptism. Καὶἐβάπτισεναὑτόν includes the entire baptismal act: “and he did baptize him,” all that preceded and that followed was not a part of this sacramental act. The reader is referred to the discussion on baptism in 2:38, 41.

Eusebius reports about a small pool that was formed by a spring near the road, Robinson speaks of a small temporary stream. Neither here nor elsewhere do we read that a robe or garment was laid aside before baptism. We are left to suppose that the two men went to this water, and that the baptismal act was an application of water by pouring or by sprinkling. Those who make the words “they both went down εἰς, into, the water” a part of the baptismal act in order to obtain immersion by means of εἰςτὸἵδωρ, “into the water,” prove too much: Philip went down under the water as well as the eunuch. This is true also in regard to the following words.

Acts 8:39

39But when they came up from the water, the Lord’s Spirit snatched Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, for he proceeded to go his way rejoicing. Philip, however, was found at Azotus; and, passing through, he proclaimed the good news to all the cities until he came to Caesarea.

We may translate, “they went down into the water” (v. 38), and now, “they came up out of the water,” and may with R., W. P. even emphasize: “Not from the edge of the water, but up out of the water”! The difficulty lies in ἀμφότεροι, “both,” Luke even adding: “both Philip and the eunuch.” To be sure, εἰς and ἐκ are correlatives: as far as the one takes “into,” so far the other takes “out of.” But these prepositions apply to “both Philip and the eunuch.” Take your choice: to the water, from the water; or stepping into and again stepping out of the water; or down under the water and again up from under the water. Total immersion if you prefer, but for both. Not we but Luke combined them.

If Philip was merely induced to say good-by and to tear himself away, Luke chose a strange way in which to tell us this. ΠνεῦμαΚυρίου is an unusual expression, yet it conveys the idea that both the Spirit and the Lord (Jesus) removed Philip and did it suddenly and miraculously. All at once he was gone, “and the eunuch saw him no more.” 1 Kings 18:12; 2 Kings 2:16. Nor is γάρ strange. It explains that the eunuch simply went on his way “rejoicing” and did not try to find Philip by changing his journey and seeking until he located him.

Here this eunuch passes from our view. He had much, he would desire more. In his position and with his means he could secure all else. We have all almost without effort, yet do we always appreciate it and rejoice? Tradition makes the eunuch an evangelist in Ethiopia who soon baptized the queen, etc. We know only that Christian missionaries reached the Ethiopians 300 years later.

Acts 8:40

40In one instant Philip was walking beside the eunuch, in the next he was found in Azotus (Asdod), many miles away. To be sure, “he was found” means that people found him there; but this also means that the place where he was found just before this was on the road with the eunuch. “He was found” does not mean that Philip walked away from the eunuch and wandered about until he turned up at Azotus. Luke does not intend to carry on the story of Philip which he evidently knows in all its interesting details. So he states summarily that Philip evangelized the coast towns beginning with Azotus and terminating at Caesarea where he then made his home. We take it that he worked in Ekron, Rama, Joppa, and elsewhere in the plain of Sharon. We have ἕως used as a preposition, the genitive of the infinitive as its object.

B.-P Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschen Handwoerterbuch, etc.

B.-D Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner.

R A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. 4th edition.

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.

C. Tr Concordia Triglotta, Libri symbolici Ecclesiae Lutheranae. German-Latin-English. St. Louis, Mo. Concordia Publishing House.