Acts 8

H. Leo Boles Commentary For Acts 8 DEATH of STEPHENAct_7:54-60 and Acts 8:1-2 Acts 8:1 And Saul was consenting unto his death.—“ Saul” is later the apostle Paul; he was present when Stephen was stoned and held the clothes of those who stoned Stephen. He was not only “ consenting unto his death,” but the Greek shows that he approved of it and that he took pleasure in the death of Stephen. Later he so confessed (Acts 22:20), and encouraged the killing of the first Christian martyr (Romans 1:32). Saul was willing to be known as really participating in the transaction. The first picture that we have of Saul is that he is engaging in the murder of the first Christian martyr. At that time he is described as “ a young man” (Acts 7:58), which may be interpreted as thirty or forty years old; this term and kindred ones were used with greater latitude than we now use them.

In Paul’ s letter to Philemon (verse 9) he calls himself “ the aged” ; this letter was written probably in A.D. 62 to 64. The martyrdom of Stephen is generally placed in A.D. 34 or 35. If Paul was between sixty and seventy years of age when he wrote to Philemon, he was between thirty and forty at the death of Stephen. And there arose on that day a great persecution—This was the first of a number of waves of persecution that swept over the early church. This persecution of Stephen was the first of such violent opposition to the church; the martyrdom of Stephen acted like the first taste of blood to a wild beast. “ They were all scattered abroad” ; the word “ all” is used in a general sense, meaning, in popular language, “ very many.” They were scattered “ throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria.” Samaria was the middle division of Palestine at that time, and was just north of Judea; it lay between Judea on the south and Galilee on the north. “ Except the apostles” ; that is, all were scattered except the apostles who remained with the small remnant of the church in Jerusalem. We are not told why the apostles remained in Jerusalem at this time; they were guided by the Holy Spirit, and God had some purpose in their remaining at Jerusalem. Acts 8:2 And devout men buried Stephen,—“ Devout” comes from the Greek “ eulabeis,” and is used only four times in the New Testament. (Luke 2:25; Acts 2:5 Acts 8:2 Acts 22:12.) “ Devout,” as used in Acts 10:2, comes from the Greek “ eusebes.” It is not known whether these “ devout men” who buried Stephen were Christians; some think that they were Jews who were kindly dis¬posed toward Christianity. However, others think that they were Christians because they “ made great lamentation over him.” “ Lamentation” here comes from “ kopeton,” and means “ to beat the breast.” This is the only place it is used in the New Testa¬ment. This was a distinguished honor paid to Stephen; there were those who deeply lamented his death and willingly bore testi¬mony to his worth.

Acts 8:3-4 3 But Saul laid waste the church,—The first seven chapters of Acts give a history of the origin or beginning of the church and its development in Jerusalem; so far all of the events narrated about the church occurred in the city of Jerusalem. It seems that for the first three to five years the church was confined to Jerusalem, but after the martyrdom of Stephen, the persecuting spirit, which had already so often attempted to silence the apostles, be¬came more decided and even unrelenting. It prevailed to such an extent that the Christians were induced in large numbers to leave the city, and go abroad even beyond their own country. (Acts 11:19.) The persecution which was designed to crush the rising cause of the gospel was overruled by God into an occasion of its rapid advancement. The followers of Christ, wherever they went, made known the gospel, and multitudes were converted to Christ. The history from now on takes us to regions beyond Jerusalem. Saul was a leader in the persecution. He not only persecuted Christians publicly, but visited homes, and “ dragging men and women” out of their homes, “ committed them to prison.” He was empowered, as he himself said (Acts 26:10), by the chief priests to persecute Christians. 4 They therefore that were scattered abroad—It is probable that the events took place in A.D. 37; this was the year in which Tiberius died and Caligula succeeded him. There was a time when there was no Roman governor in Judea, and the Jewish factions reigned supreme. Hence, the opponents of Christianity visited Christian homes and thrust Christian men and women into vile prisons, and then brought them before the elders in the syna¬gogue, who tried to force them to deny Jesus; on their refusal some of them were put to death (Acts 22:4 Acts 26:10), others were beaten (`), and all suffered many outrages (1 Timothy 1:13). They that “ were scattered abroad went about preaching the word.” They traveled far and wide through various regions; they did not confine themselves to the Jewish territory, but some of them went as far as Phoenicia, the island of Cyprus, and Antioch in Syria. (Acts 11:19.) By going beyond the Jewish territory they would be in less danger of being pursued by the hostility of the chief priests, and might hope to enjoy comparative security. It is probable that some went as far as Rome, for Andronicus and Junias were disciples before Paul’ s conversion. (Romans 16:7.) “ Preaching the word” is from the Greek “ euaggelizomenoi ton logon,” and means “ evangelizing” or “ gospelizing” the word. All of those scattered were emergency preachers; they were men stirred to activity by zeal for the Lord.

They visited the country, towns, and villages, and even went into the homes of those who would permit them, and told them about Jesus, the Savior of the world. We see here another illustration of the providential law, which appears to be an irretrievable calamity and it is not only overruled, but designed from the beginning to promote the very cause which it seems to threaten with disaster and defeat.

PHILIP IN SAMARIA Acts 8:5-8 5 And Philip went down to the city of Samaria,—This Phil¬ip was one of the seven selected at Jerusalem to help look after the Grecian widows in the daily ministration. (Acts 6:5.) He was also called later “ Philip the evangelist.” (Acts 21:8.) So this was not Philip the apostle, for the twelve apostles remained at Jerusalem. The apostles are mentioned in Acts 8:14 in distinction from Philip. We do not have Philip the apostle mentioned any more in Acts. “ The city of Samaria” is located in the country of Samaria; so there was a city and a country by the same name. The city of Samaria was built by Omri, king of Israel. (1 Kings 16:24.) It became the capital of the kingdom of the ten tribes, or northern kingdom. It was destroyed several times and rebuilt. Philip “ went down” to this city; Jerusalem was situated on a higher elevation than Samaria.

He “ proclaimed unto them the Christ.” He preached that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God, and the Savior of the world. The Samaritans of half-heathen descent accepted and professed a corrupted Judaism; they looked for the Messiah, who was to rebuild the temple on Mount Gerizim, and restore everywhere the law of Moses. (John 4:25.) This is the first instance cited of the expansion noted in verse 4; proclaim is here translated from “ ekerussen,” which means “ to preach and keep on at it.” It is different from “ euaggelizomenoi” in verse 4, where the good news is spread. To proclaim Christ is to preach the gospel. Samaria had been expressly named by Christ as a region in which his disciples were to bear witness of him. (Acts 1:8.) 6 And the multitudes gave heed with one accord—“ Gave heed” is from “ proseichon,” which means that they kept holding the mind on the things which were spoken by Philip; it carried the meaning of “ spellbound.” The entire multitude “ with one accord” listened attentively to what Philip preached and were astonished at the signs which he did. Great throngs of people crowded around Philip and listened with eager attention; the Holy Spirit aided the preaching of the word with “ signs” or miracles. These miracles were to be the “ signs” that the message which Philip preached was from God; they were such as could leave no doubt in the minds of those who witnessed them. 7-8 For from many of those that had unclean spirits,—The kind of miracles mentioned were such that there could be no doubt that God had wrought them. “ Unclean spirits” were cast out and came out “ with a loud voice” ; this would attract the attention of the multitude to the one who was afflicted. The cry may have been a testimony to the Messiahship of Christ. (Mark 3:11; Luke 4:41.) Then again it may have been just an inarticulate shout of rage; it is to be noticed that demoniac possession is clearly distinguished in this passage from ordinary disease, for “ many that were palsied, and that were lame, were healed.” Under the general name “ palsied,” several infirmities may be in¬cluded ; sometimes it meant apoplexy, which affected the whole body, and sometimes a paralysis of a part of the body. The preaching, and the curing of the disease, caused much joy in that city.

SIMON THE Acts 8:9-13 9 But there was a certain man, Simon—“ Simon” was a com¬mon name among the Jews; it is a contraction from “ Simeon.” There are ten men mentioned in the New Testament by this name. This Simon is known as “ Simon Magus,” or “ Simon the sorcerer.” There were many sorcerers, or those who deceived the people by certain tricks and deceptions. Nothing further is known of this Simon except what is mentioned here. He had used sorcery for some time and had “ amazed the people of Samaria,” and had pretended himself to be “ some great one.” Simon was an impostor, and it is amazing how gullible people are in the presence of such deceivers. He practiced his magic arts and pretended that he could do wonderful things. Simon has become a famous character in the early history of the church in Samaria. His pretended miracles were not discovered by the people; they thought that he was what he claimed to be, “ some great one.” 10 to whom they all gave heed,—It seems that he had been successful in practicing his magic art until he had deceived all the people in that country. They listened to him from the “ least to the greatest,” and all praised him, thinking that the “ power of God which is called Great” was exercised through him. They were led to regard him as having a most intimate connection with the Deity, and as having power to affect seriously the destiny of men. 11 And they gave heed to him,—Tradition has it that Simon went about accompanied by a woman named Helena who was also a “ power of God.” He taught a great first principle, hidden but omnipresent; this principle manifested itself in two different ways — as an active and spiritual principle and as a passive and receptive principle. The first is the good, the latter the evil; the first is the great “ power of God” manifesting itself from the recovery of the other or passive receptive principle. Simon himself was the incarnation of the active principle, which made for salvation; Helena was the incarnation of the passive reception principle. Her life of degradation was a type of the deterioration of the visible universe, and her recovery by Simon was the process of salvation by the great power of God made visible. This dualism, with its simple, almost childish, symbolism, its male and female principles, its opposition of good and evil, was the source out of which Simon constructed his system. Simon had so amazed the people by his pretended supernatural powers that they gave heed to him in whatsoever he did or claimed. 12 But when they believed Philip preaching—When Philip went among these deluded people and preached Jesus as the Mes¬siah and the Savior of the world, and accompanied his preaching with the real “ signs” or miracles, they believed him. Philip’ s mir¬acles were put in direct contrast with the pretended works of Simon; Philip cast out demons, cured the palsied, and healed the crippled so that the people could see what he had done. Many of them were thus healed and knew that there was no deception prac¬ticed by Philip. It is noted that when they believed, “ they were baptized, both men and women.” On Pentecost after they believed Peter’ s preaching, they asked what to do, and they were told that they should repent and be baptized “ unto the remission of your sins.” (Acts 2:38.) Hence, in every instance where people turned to the Lord, or believed the gospel, they were baptized. 13 And Simon also himself believed:—Simon heard Philip and saw what Philip did; he “ believed: and being baptized,” he continued for some time with Philip. There was no difference be¬tween the faith of Simon and that of the other people in Samaria. “ Simon also himself believed” : he believed the same thing that the others believed, and he was baptized as were the others. Jesus had said: “ He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” (Mark 16:16.) Simon “ believed” and was “ baptized” ; hence, he had the remission of his sins, for Jesus had said that the one who believed and was baptized should be saved. “ He continued with Philip,” and saw the “ signs and great miracles wrought” by Philip. “ Continued” is from the Greek “ proskartereo,” and is used in Acts 1:14 Acts 2:42 Acts 2:46, and means originally “ to persist obstinately in.” For some time at least he continued with Philip, hearing his preaching and seeing the miracles that he wrought. He saw the wide contrast in what Philip was doing and what he had pretended to do. He was “ amazed” or astonished at what Philip was able to do; he saw the reality of working miracles by the hand of Philip.

PETER AND JOHN IN SAMARIA Acts 8:14-25 14 Now when the apostles that were at Jerusalem—The apostles were still at Jerusalem, though the church had been scat¬tered. The apostles heard the good news of the success that Philip had in Samaria, and it was thought best to send someone there with apostolic authority to encourage and confer on the believers some extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit; so Peter and John were sent. It must have been an occasion of rejoicing on the part of the apostles when they heard that the Samaritans had received the gospel of Christ. (Matthew 10:5; Acts 1:8.) It should be no¬ticed that the apostles “ sent” Peter and John as their messengers; it will be recalled also that John had at one time sought to call down fire on a Samaritan village. (Luke 9:54.) 15 who, when they were come down,—Peter and John went down to Samaria and prayed for the disciples there; they prayed “ that they might receive the Holy Spirit.” There were special gifts of the Holy Spirit which could be given by the apostles; these gifts would confirm the disciples in the faith. Sometimes they were imparted by the laying on of hands. These gifts are to be dis¬tinguished from the baptism of the Holy Spirit. 16 for as yet it was fallen upon none of them:—“ It was fallen upon” none of them; “ pneuma” is the word for “ spirit” here, and the translation should be “ he,” rather than “ it” ; it is not a cor¬rect form to use “ it” for the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is a member of the Godhead and is a personality, or spiritual being; Jesus frequently referred to him with the personal pronoun and the masculine gender. (John 14:16-17 John 15:26 John 16:13-14.) These Samaritans had only been “ baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus” ; hence, they had received remission of sins, but had not re¬ceived a miraculous measure of the Holy Spirit. 17 Then laid they their hands on them,—The laying on of hands did not occur at Pentecost (Acts 2:4 Acts 2:33) nor in Acts 10:44; these were baptisms of the Holy Spirit, and were administered by the Lord; the Holy Spirit given by the laying on of hands was a measure of the Holy Spirit not so full as‘ the baptism. Some have concluded that the Holy Spirit in its miraculous form could be given only by the apostles; hence, Peter and John had to go to Samaria. We do not know that all who believed in Samaria received this miraculous endowment of the Holy Spirit; neither do we know whether Simon received this measure. Some have concluded that Simon and all the believers in Samaria had hands laid on them and a miraculous measure of the Holy Spirit bestowed upon them, but the evidence is not clear and does not warrant such a conclusion. 18-19 Now when Simon saw that through the laying on—There was something that Simon could see in the bestowal of the gift of the Holy Spirit; he observed a transference of power from the apostles to the believers. Simon wanted the power to bestow gifts upon others; he “ offered them money” for the power to be¬stow miraculous gifts upon others. Simon had been for some time practicing magic arts and deceiving the people; but now he thought that he could obtain with money the power not only to work miracles himself, but to give others the power to work miracles. Simon had not as yet risen above the mercenary spirit. Simon’ s whole attitude is that of a professional trickster or deceiver ; he fancied that he could by money be instructed how to ac¬quire, use, and impart, all in the way of trade, these powers. From this act of Simon’ s comes our word “ simony,” the crime of buying, selling, or bargaining for spiritual functions. 20 But Peter said unto him,—Peter was filled with holy and righteous indignation at Simon’ s proposition; he used language as strong as we find anywhere in Peter’ s teaching or writings; “ thy silver perish with thee” was the condemnation; this expresses his abhorrence of the proposal and shows Simon the imminent danger to which he was exposed with such a condition of heart. Peter also sounded a solemn warning to him of the end that would befall him if he followed such a course. Simon thought that the gift of God could be purchased with money; he is to learn that the bless¬ings of God, and especially the power to bestow miraculous gifts on others, cannot be had with money. 21 Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter:—“ Lot” comes from the Greek “ kleros,” and means “ part” ; it means that Simon should have no “ part” in the matter of bestowing the Holy Spirit on others. “ Part nor lot,” the first denoting any share or portion, and the second one determined or assigned. “ In this mat¬ter” literally means in this word (Luke 1:4; Acts 15:6), and has direct reference to the power of communicating the Holy Spirit. However, some think that it has reference to the preaching of the gospel; hence, they would say that Simon had no part in preaching the gospel; the context seems not to bear out this thought. “ For thy heart is not right before God,” or “ straight” ; Simon’ s heart was not “ right,” or “ straight,” or “ straightforward,” as it ought to be, but was seeking crooked, perverse, and secret ways. (Matthew 3:3; Mark 1:3; 2 Peter 2:15.) 22 Repent therefore of this thy wickedness,—Peter here gives the second law of pardon— the law of forgiveness to the er¬ring Christian. He is commanded to “ repent,” and “ pray” for for¬giveness. Simon as a Christian had made the mistake of thinking that he could purchase the communication of the Holy Spirit to others with his money; hence, Peter tells him to repent “ of this thy wickedness” ; this shows what wickedness he was to repent of; his former sins had been forgiven, and now he is guilty of another sin, and it is this one that he is instructed to repent of and “ pray the Lord” that “ the thought of thy heart shall be forgiven thee.” Again we see that the sin of which he was to repent was “ the thought of thy heart” of thinking that he could purchase that power with his money. “ If perhaps” means that there is some chance of his forgiveness; though his sin was great, yet if he would repent and pray God there is a hope of his being cleansed of it. Some think that Peter had in mind the sin mentioned by Jesus in Matthew 12:31, but Peter does not close the door of hope here. “ If perhaps” means “ if it be possible,” or since it is possible. 23 For I see that thou art in the gall of bitterness—“ Gall,” as used here, is an emblem of exceeding great wickedness; “ gall” is from the Greek “ cholas,” and means to pour out a yellowish green bile or gall; it is used only twice in the New Testament— here and in Matthew 27:34. “ Gall and wormwood” (Deuteronomy 29:18); in Hebrews 12:15 we have a “ root of bitterness,” or a bitter root; “ bond of iniquity” means that he would be in the bondage of sin and under the curse of the sin. The ancients considered that the gall of noxious reptiles was the source of their venom, and Peter warns Simon that unless repentance comes he will become worse and worse until he becomes all venom; Simon is warned that unless he repents a chain or band of iniquity will enslave him. This was a dangerous condition for him to be in. 24 And Simon answered and said,—Simon saw the danger that he was in; evidently he repented and prayed God, and even asked Peter to pray for him, as though his own prayer was not sufficient to obtain forgiveness. Simon is anxious to escape the penalty for his sin, and hopes that Peter can avert it; Peter had by the Holy Spirit diagnosed his case correctly. Simon was a con¬verted man, but was in sin at this point. We are led to believe that Simon surely repented and corrected his life. The inspired record drops the matter here and draws the curtain, so that we see Simon no more. Some claim that Simon was never penitent, and therefore never forgiven; they say that there is no evidence that Simon ever prayed for himself.

However, the fact that he asked Peter to pray for him seems to imply that he was praying for himself. Surely he would not ask Peter to do for him what Peter had commanded him to do for himself. 25 They therefore, when they had testified—Peter and John had been sent down to Samaria to encourage those who had be¬lieved and to bestow such miraculous gifts upon the believers as the Holy Spirit deemed wise to confirm the word of the Samari¬tans. Luke the historian has lingered on the case of Simon, and now, having disposed of that notable case, states that Peter and John preached the word of the Lord to them while there and then returned to Jerusalem. However, they “ preached the gospel to many villages of the Samaritans.” The preaching of the gospel among the Samaritans was not confined to the city where it had begun, but extended to many of the smaller towns through which Peter and John passed on their return to Jerusalem. Peter and John furthered the work of Philip among the Samaritans; Luke closes the record of Philip’ s work in Samaria, and he is next di¬rected to go to the Ethiopian eunuch. OF THE EUNUCH, SAUL, AND Act_8:26 to Acts 12:25 OF THE EUNUCH Acts 8:26-40 26 But an angel of the Lord spake unto Philip,—The historian now turns from the brief record of the work of Peter and John in Samaria to the further work that the Holy Spirit had for Philip. It is not stated how the angel of the Lord spoke unto Phil¬ip, and there is no use in our guessing at it. It is enough to know that the message was conveyed to Philip in language that Philip understood and obeyed. The command was given to Philip in Sa¬maria. He was commanded to “ arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza.” He is not required to go to Jerusalem, but to get upon the road leading from Jerusalem to Gaza. Gaza is one of the oldest places men¬tioned in the Bible; it first occurs in Genesis 10:19, as a frontier town of the Canaanites, and later as the southernmost of the five cities of the Philistines, to whom it really belonged, even after it was formally assigned to Judah. (Joshua 15:47; Judges 1:18.) Palestine was divided into three divisions at this time— Galilee was the extreme northern division, Samaria was the middle division, and Judea the southern division.

Gaza was in Judea. Gaza was about sixty miles southwest from Jerusalem, and had been de¬stroyed in 96 B.C., but was rebuilt, and was a city of importance at this time.

Philip would pass west of Jerusalem on his way from Samaria and would intercept the road between Jerusalem and Gaza; this was a journey of from sixty to seventy miles. “ The same is desert.” It has been a matter of much dispute as to whether this means the way was desert or whether the city was deserted; some have contended that the city was deserted at this time; however, others think that Gaza was not deserted until later. This phrase is considered as not being the language of the angel, but is the language of Luke the historian. There were two roads, some think three, from Jerusalem.to Gaza; Philip was told to take the “ desert” road, probably the one by Hebron which went through the desert hills of southern Judea. Any place which was thinly peopled and unfit for cultivation was called “ desert” ; hence, the angel sent Philip to a desert road, in which he was not likely to encounter travelers much less to meet with such an adventure as did there befall him. It is “ desert” in the sense of being uninhab¬ited, and not in the sense of there being no water. 27 And he arose and went:—Philip obeyed promptly the in¬struction received from the angel. Attention is now directed to “ a man of Ethiopia, a eunuch of great authority under Candace, queen of the Ethiopians.” It is not known whether the eunuch was a Jew or a proselyte of the Jewish religion. He was certainly zeal¬ous in going the long distance to Jerusalem to worship. He is in¬troduced to us as “ a man of Ethiopia.” “ Ethiopia” is the general term for that part of Africa now known as Nubia and Abyssinia; this portion of Africa was ruled for a long time by queens. “ Candace” was the general title of their queens, as rulers of Egypt were called “ Pharaoh,” and those of Rome were called “ Caesar.” This eunuch had “ great authority,” as he was “ over all her trea¬sure.” Hence, he was the treasurer of this country, and had been honored with great authority. Eunuchs were often employed by oriental rulers in high stations; they were not allowed to be Jews in the full sense, but only proselytes of the gate. (Deuteronomy 23:1.) This eunuch seems to have held the same office under Candace that Blastus held in the court or family of Herod Agrippa. (Acts 12 :20.) The word “ treasure,” as used here, means royal treasure. The purpose of his visit to Jerusalem is clearly stated; he went there “ to worship” ; this meant that he went to worship according to the law of Moses. 28 and he was returning and sitting in his chariot,—“ Returning” seems to be a favorite Greek verb with Luke. (Acts 1:12 Acts 8:25.) It seemed that he was returning by way of Egypt to his own country; his first stage or journey was from Jerusalem to Gaza. He was riding in his chariot. He was “ sitting in his char¬iot" and “ was reading the prophet Isaiah." “ Was reading" is from the original “ aneginosken," which means that he was reading aloud as Philip “ heard him" reading. This was common among the orientals; some think that he had purchased this roll of Isaiah in Jerusalem and was reading from the Septuagint Version. The Jews when on a journey were accustomed to employ their time in reading their scriptures. One of the commands enjoined by the rabbis upon the Jews was that a Jew, when on a journey without a companion, should study the law. He was reading “ the prophet Isaiah." 29 And the Spirit said unto Philip,—It should be noted that the Holy Spirit spoke to the preacher, not to the one to be con¬verted; Philip is directed to “ go near, and join" himself to the chariot. If the eunuch had been from some eastern country he might have been riding a camel; but chariots were common in Egypt. Here we get the first intimation of Philip’ s journey to this section of the country; he is to interview the man who is riding in this chariot. Philip may have been standing there waiting for fur¬ther direction when the eunuch came along. 30 And Philip ran to him, and heard him reading—Philip obeyed promptly the command given by the Holy Spirit. It should be noted here that there have been cooperating three agen¬cies to bring to the eunuch a knowledge of the gospel— namely, an angel, the Holy Spirit, and Philip the preacher. The angel and the Holy Spirit have not spoken to the man to be converted; they have cooperated in bringing Philip to the eunuch. Philip heard the eunuch reading; hence, the eunuch was reading aloud. Philip may have recognized the scripture that was being read. He asked: “ Understandest thou what thou readest?" It will be noticed fur¬thermore that “ Philip ran" to the eunuch; that is, he hastened to do what the Holy Spirit commanded.

Here was a soul unconverted, and an opportunity is given to convert him. Philip’ s ques¬tion refers to the meaning and application of the words that the eunuch was reading. The eunuch did not know that the very words that he was reading were a prophecy concerning Jesus. It is very likely that he had heard something of Jesus while he was in Jerusalem; surely he would have heard something about Christian¬ity while there. It is always a profitable question to ask when one is reading: “ Understandest thou what thou readest?” Reading is of very little profit if one does not understand what is read. 31 And he said, How can I,—The eunuch felt the need of someone to guide him in understanding what he was reading; his question here seems to imply, “ How can you expect a stranger without aid to understand what puzzles your most learned doctors?” “ Guide me” is the expression which is employed for the guidance given by a teacher to a pupil. Jesus used this expression frequently in reproaching the blind guidance which the scribes and Pharisees were giving to the people who came to them for instruc¬tion. (Matthew 15:14; Luke 6:39.) He uses also the same word for the guidance of the Holy Spirit. (John 16:13.) He then asked Philip to join him and instruct him. He seems to have recognized in Philip one who could guide him; he desired to learn and graciously invited Philip “ to come up and sit with him” in the chariot. This shows that the eunuch was an anxious inquirer of the truth, but bewildered and ready to be taught. 32-33 Now the passage of the scripture—“ The passage” is from the Greek “ perioche,” and means either of the section or the contents of the scripture; the eunuch was reading one particular passage, which we know as Isaiah 53:7-8. This quotation is taken from the Septuagint Version, which varies some from the Hebrew text. This scripture describes the sufferings of an innocent and unresisting person; what perplexed the eunuch was to whom this referred. The declaration means that in his humiliation his right to justice was taken away; and who will be heirs or followers of him since his life was violently taken away? The Messiah patiently submitted, without murmuring to the ignominy and death; he made no complaint, though treated violently and unjustly; he was submissive, like the innocent lamb. Jesus was taken away from prison and from judgment; he was taken away to death by a violent judicial procedure.

Pilate had declared that he found no fault in him. (Luke 23:4; John 18:38 John 19:6.) Jesus could have claimed a verdict of “ not guilty” ; but he let this sentence or judgment pass without claiming protection under it. The question is asked: “ His generation who shall declare? for his life is taken from the earth.” The idea of extinction is conveyed here, but his apostles and disciples were to declare his generation; the apostles were to bear witness of him, and the Holy Spirit was sent to bear witness of him, and he was now ready to do so through Philip to the eunuch. 34 And the eunuch answered Philip,—The point of difficulty in the mind of the eunuch was to whom did this scripture in Isaiah refer. Of whom is the prophet speaking? This question was very interesting, and perhaps more so, because of what the eunuch had heard in Jerusalem. We do not know whether he began obscurely to connect this passage with what he may have heard concerning Jesus; hence, he at once frankly asked Philip the question. He was encouraged to do so by the interest that Philip manifested in him, and by Philip’s accepting the invitation to ride with him. 35 And Philip opened his mouth,—This question gave Philip the opportunity to instruct the eunuch; he had a good text, and an anxious learner. Philip knew, and he was as anxious to teach the eunuch as the eunuch was to learn. He began with this scripture and “ preached unto him Jesus.” “ Preached unto him Jesus” comes from the Greek “ eueggalisato autoi ton Iesoun,” which is the Greek for “ evangelize.” Philip had no doubt about the Messianic meaning of this passage, and he knew that Jesus was the Messiah. Philip “ evangelized unto him Jesus” ; he taught him about Jesus. Philip showed that the language of Isaiah had been fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth, and particularly the manner of his death, and then his resurrection and the ascension. To “ preach” Jesus is to preach his commands.

Philip in preaching Jesus not only preached his death, burial, resurrection, but the commission that he gave to his apostles just before his ascension. Philip preached the terms of remission of sins. 36 And as they went on the way,—They continued to ride along the way, Philip preaching Jesus and the eunuch listening intensively. This’was a most serious and important occasion; the eunuch hears Philip preach the commands of the gospel; and as they went along, “ they came unto a certain water.” It is to be noted that they “ came” to this water. We must suppose that Philip traveled for some time with the eunuch, for it would take some time to teach the eunuch all that he needed to know about Jesus. Much discussion has been had as to where the eunuch was baptized. Luke does not tell us, hence we do not know. We do know that they “ came unto a certain water,” and that there was enough water for Philip and the eunuch to go “ down into the water.” Philip had preached Jesus in such a way that the eunuch learned that he should be baptized. No inspired preacher of the gospel then preached Jesus without preaching the baptism that Jesus commanded; no gospel preacher today can preach Jesus without preaching the command to be baptized. (37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thy heart,)—Verse 37 is left out of the Standard Version, but a footnote is inserted, saying that “ some ancient authorities insert, wholly or in part, verse 37.” It was found in one manuscript in the latter half of the second century, as it was quoted by “ Irenaeus,” who was active from the year A.D. 170 to A.D. 210. It is supposed that this verse was written in the margin and later was transcribed as a part of the original text. Even if the verse be an interpolation, and should be left out, it does not change in any way the thought; nothing is added by retaining the verse so far as doctrine is con¬cerned, and nothing certainly is lost by omitting the verse. However, the early records that contain it show that very early in the history of the church such a question was asked and such an¬swer was given. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still:—Evidently the eunuch had a chariot driver, since he “ commanded the chariot” to stop. When the chariot stopped, “ they both went down into the water” ; it was necessary that they go down into the water in order to do what was commanded to be done. The purpose of their going down into the water was to baptize the eunuch. Philip had preached Jesus to the eunuch and he had learned from such preaching that he was to be baptized; he also had learned or knew that it was necessary to go down into the water to be baptized. Both the baptizer and the one to be baptized went into the water, and Philip baptized the eunuch after they went down into the water. The eunuch must have laid aside his garments and descended into the water and was buried in baptism “ in the name of our Lord Jesus” ; this was the authority for Philip’ s baptizing the eunuch. 39 And when they came up out of the water,—They did not come up from the “ edge of the water,” but up “ out of the water.” (Mark 1:10.) Philip had done what he was directed to do; he had been led to the eunuch who was an unconverted man, and was ready to receive the truth. Philip had preached to him the truth of the gospel; he had heard it, believed it, and had been baptized; now he had the promise of Jesus that “ he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” (Mark 16:16.) Philip was now “ caught away” by “ the Spirit of the Lord.” Some look at this as a miracle; however, Philip was “ caught away” from the eunuch by the Holy Spirit in the way that he was led to the eunuch. The Greek for “ caught away” is “ herpasen,” which sometimes means suddenly and miraculously carried away. Hence, according to the view of some, he was literally snatched away from the presence of the eunuch as was Elijah. (1 Kings 18:12; 2 Kings 2:11; Ezekiel 3:12 Ezekiel 3:14; 2 Corinthians 12:2 2 Corinthians 12:4.) The eunuch saw Philip no more, but went on his way rejoicing in the salvation that he had found in Christ. The next and only other account that we have of the eunuch is not in the Bible but in tradition; Luke draws the curtain here and we see the eunuch no more. 40 But Philip was found at Azotus:—“ Azotus” is the name for the ancient city of the Philistines, “ Ashdod.” It was about thirty miles from Gaza, on the way to Joppa. Philip “ preached the gospel to all the cities, till he came to Caesarea.” Philip did evangelistic service through the country there “ till he came to Caesarea,” where he made his home and headquarters (Acts 21:8) and was known as the “ evangelist.” It will be noted that Philip preached the gospel “ to all the cities” in that section of the country. The route which Philip would naturally take on this journey led through Lydda and Joppa and we may trace the effects of his preaching in the appearance in Acts 9:32 Acts 9:36.

J.W. McGarvey Commentary On Acts 8Acts 8:1-4. The enemies of the disciples had now tried and exhausted all the ordinary methods of opposing the truth. Under the leadership of the Sadducees they had tried, first threatening, then imprisonment, and then stripes. They were about to follow this with the death of the twelve, when the milder counsels of the yet unexasperated Pharisees had prevailed, and resort was had to discussion. But the cause which had prospered under the imprisonment and scourging of its chief advocates bounded forward with astonishing rapidity when the strength of its plea was brought before the people in open discussion.

Its learned opponents were completely discomfited. Foiled in their efforts, the Pharisees were now ready to unite with the Sadducees in a common persecution.

They selected Stephen as the first victim, because he had been their most formidable opponent in the discussion. They had determined to proceed in their bloody purpose with the forms of law; but, in a moment of frenzy, they had broken loose from all restraint, and dispatched their victim with the violence of a mob. Once embarked in this mad career, nothing less than the utter extermination of the Church could satisfy them. Hence the historian proceeds to inform us that, (1) “On that day there arose a great persecution against the Church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered abroad through the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. (2) Yet devout men carried Stephen to burial, and made great lamentation over him. (3) But Saul wasted the Church; entering into the houses, and dragging forth both men and women, he committed them to prison. (4) Nevertheless, they who were scattered abroad went everywhere preaching the word.”The grief of a community at the loss of a good man is more intense when he falls in the performance of some part characteristic of his life. But it is most intense when death, at such a moment, is precipitated by injustice and violence. It is not surprising, therefore, that the burial of Stephen should have been attended with “ great lamentation.” The perilous condition of the congregation— some of whom were being hourly cast into prison, and most of whom were contemplating flight— could but deepen their grief.

The funeral services were soon followed by a general dispersion of the disciples. With much bitterness of heart, they left behind them their native city and their individual homes, to seek refuge among strangers.

But the bitterness of their temporal loss must have been slight, to the truly devoted among them, compared with the disappointment of their brightening hopes concerning the speedy triumph of the gospel. How bitter, too, must have been the disappointment of the twelve, at suddenly finding themselves left alone in the great city, the congregation of many thousand disciples whom they had collected— all scattered and gone! While the thought of the brethren and sisters fleeing for life, and of the many already languishing in prison, they could have but regarded their own lives as in imminent danger. But, supposing that the time for which Jesus had limited their stay in Jerusalem had not yet expired, they courageously stood at their post, regardless of consequences. The present distress and flight of the disciples had resulted, not from the mere fact that they believed in Jesus, but more especially from the zeal and persistency with which they pushed his claims upon the attention of others. Seeing that they had now lost everything, by this course, a worldly prudence would have taught them to be, thenceforward, more quiet and unobtrusive in the propagation of their faith. Even the interests of the cause itself, which had been jeopardized by the boldness with which Stephen had attacked the prevailing iniquity, might have been urged in favor of a change of policy. But this time-serving expediency was reserved for the disgrace of a later age. It never took large possession of the heroic hearts of the early disciples. On the contrary, the scattered disciples “went everywhere preaching the word.” The result was the rapid spread of the gospel into the cities of Judea, and even into Samaria.

Thus, the apparent ruin of the single Church in Jerusalem resulted in the springing up of many Churches throughout the province— proving, for the thousandth time in the world’s history, how impotent is the hand of man when fighting against God. As the blows of the blacksmith’s hammer upon the heated iron scatter the scintillations in every direction, so the effort of wicked Jews to crush the Church of Christ only scattered its light more widely abroad. Acts 8:5. Among the many who now went everywhere preaching the word, the historian chooses to relate here the labors of only one. (5) “Then Philip went down into the city of Samaria and preached Christ to them.” This Philip was one of the seven, and his name stands in the list next to that of Stephen. The reason why Luke selects his labors for this place in the history, is because he was the first to preach the gospel in Samaria. Jesus had commanded them to testify first in Jerusalem; then in Judea; then in Samaria; and then to the uttermost part of the earth. Luke follows them in the regular prosecution of this programme. Acts 8:6-11. When Philip first entered the city of Samaria, the public mind was in a condition most unfavorable to the reception of the gospel. The practice of magical arts was quite common among the Jews and Samaritans of that age; and the masses of the people of all nations were very superstitious in reference to them. At the time now referred to, the people of Samaria were so completely under the influence of a magician, that one less bold than Philip would have had no hope of success in preaching the gospel to them. But he had confidence in the power of the gospel, and commenced his labors with a firm purpose. His success was far beyond what could have been anticipated. (6) “And the multitudes, with one accord, attended to the things spoken by Philip, in hearing and seeing the miracles which he wrought. (7) For unclean spirits, crying with a loud voice, came out of many who had them, and many, paralyzed and lame, were healed. (8) And there was great joy in that city. (9) But a certain man named Simon was in that city before, practicing magic and astonishing the people of Samaria, saying that he himself was some great one: (10) to whom they all gave attention, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God. (11) And they gave attention to him because he had astonished them with magic arts for a long time.” We are here introduced to another case of conversion, with a very brief account of the means and influences by which it was effected. These demand careful consideration. It is in order that the perfect adaptation of the gospel means employed by Philip may the more strikingly appear, that Luke is particular to state the previous mental condition of the people. They had been so much astonished by the magic arts of Simon, that the prevailing conviction was, “ This man is the great power of God.” The dreamy genius of Neander has caught up some vague tradition of the fathers concerning a supposed theosophy involved in this expression; and, by a common sympathy in mysticism, rather than by the force of his reasoning, has transmitted it to many recent commentators. But the sober judgment, content with more natural conclusions, finds in it only the impression which such arts as Simon practiced usually make upon a superstitious multitude. The tricks of his legerdemain they supposed to be exhibitions of divine power. The first work for Philip to do was to prostrate the influence of Simon by undeceiving the people. To accomplish this object, he has recourse to the power of the Holy Spirit. This power, addressed to the eye in the healing of lameness and paralysis, and the casting out of demons; and to the ear, in preaching Christ to them, soon arrested the attention of the multitude. There was a prompt and universal decision in the public mind in favor of the miracles wrought by Philip, and against the pretensions of Simon. What the distinction between these miracles and Simon’s astonishing tricks, which led to so prompt a decision, we are not able to say, because we know not what these tricks were. Suffice it to say, that this single incident should put to silence forever that species of skepticism which resolves all the miracles of Christ and the apostles into occult art and optical illusions; for here are these arts, in their most delusive form, brought into direct conflict with apostolic miracles; and so palpable is the distinction, that it is at once discovered and acknowledged by the whole multitude. Acts 8:12. The unmistakable reality of the miracles wrought by Philip convinced the people that he was attended by the power of God; and that was enough to make them acknowledge the authority of God in what he communicated to them. In order that men may believe the Gospel, it is only necessary that they believe it to be, in reality, the word of God. But the Holy Spirit convinced them that what they heard was the word of God, by attending it with a sensible demonstration of the power of God. That they believed was but the natural result of what they saw and heard. (12) “But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were immersed, both men and women.” Being convinced that they heard the word of God, they believed it because it was the word; and, for the same reason, they yielded to its authority. Their obedience was not the result of any inherent power in the word, apart from its authorship; for if it were believed to be the word of man, it would have no authority and no power.

All the authority and power which are in it, therefore, result from the belief that God is its author. This belief was effected, in the present instance, by the Holy Spirit, through miraculous attestations; hence, the whole change wrought in the parties may be styled the work of the Holy Spirit. The simple facts of the kingdom over which Christ was reigning, thus attested, were set forth before the people, and, upon belief of these, attended by a willingness to comply with their requirements, they were immersed without delay. This was but a faithful execution of the commission, which says, “ He that believeth and is immersed shall be saved.” Acts 8:13. The most signal triumph achieved on this occasion was that over Simon himself. Luke gives it the prominence of a separate statement, in these words: (13) “And Simon himself also believed, and when he was immersed he continued with Philip, and beholding the signs and great miracles which were done, he was astonished.” The commentators nearly all agree that Simon’s faith was not real, but feigned; and that the statement that he believed is made according to the appearance, and not according to the reality. They urge that subsequent developments prove the insincerity of his professions, and compel us to adopt this conclusion. It must be confessed, that at the time Philip might have been deceived by him; but this could not be said of Luke, who wrote subsequent to all the developments in the case. If his object was to describe the events as it appeared to Philip, he might retain, in the first instance, the mistake of Philip; but we would expect, on this supposition, a subsequent correction.

No such correction, however, is given; neither is there any evidence that Luke intended to represent the case as it appeared to Philip. On the contrary, he speaks from his own stand-point, and had all the facts before him which we have before us.

His statement, therefore, should control our judgment, and he says, not that Simon feigned belief, but that he believed. We conclude, then, that he did, in the true and proper sense of the word, believe.Some commentators, disposed to admit the statement that Simon believed, still deny the sufficiency of his faith, and urge that it was deficient in its object. But the historian makes no distinction between what Simon believed, and what was believed by the Samaritans. They “ believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ;” and Luke adds, without qualification, that “ Simon himself also believed.” He believed, then, what Philip preached; be believed the gospel. This conclusion is based upon statements too positive and unambiguous to be set aside because of any difficulty in reconciling them with facts subsequently developed. Acts 8:14-17. Before recording the sequel of Simon’s case, Luke introduces an incident, which, on account of its singularity in New Testament history, demands very careful consideration. (14) “Now when the apostles, who were in Jerusalem, heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John; (15) who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit. (16) For as yet he had fallen upon none of them, only they were immersed into the name of the Lord Jesus. (17) Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.” It would be useless to incumber these pages with the many unsatisfactory explanations of this procedure with which commentaries abound. We will be content with a simple effort to learn what it teaches, by a careful consideration of the facts. We notice, then, first, That the Samaritans had believed the gospel, and been immersed. They were, then, according to the commission, and according to Peter’s answer on Pentecost, pardoned, and in possession of that “ gift of the Holy Spirit,” which was promised on condition of repentance and immersion. Second, After they had been in possession of this gift, for a period sufficient for the news to reach Jerusalem, the whole body of the apostles united in sending to them Peter and John. Third, Previous to the arrival of Peter and John, none of them had received the miraculous gift of the Spirit.

Fourth, Upon the imposition of hands by the two apostles, accompanied with prayers, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, conferring miraculous gifts. From these facts we may draw several conclusions. 1st.

Whatever other objects may have been contemplated in the mission of the two apostles, such as confirming the faith of the disciples, and assisting Philip in his labors, it is quite certain that the chief object was the impartation of the Holy Spirit. What they did when they arrived in Samaria was certainly the object for which they went. But the chief thing which they did was to confer the Holy Spirit; hence, this was the chief object of their visit. If, however, Philip could have conferred this gift, the mission, so far as the chief object of it is concerned, would have been useless. This affords strong evidence that the miraculous gift of the Spirit was bestowed by no human hands except those of the apostles. That such was the conclusion of Simon, who was an interested witness of this proceeding, is evident from the proposition he made to Peter, to purchase from him this power.

If all who had the Spirit could impart it to others, he need only to have sought the gift himself, knowing that this would include the power to impart it. But his offer to buy this power, and that from an apostle, shows that the apostles alone possessed the power of imparting the Spirit.

This conclusion is confirmed by the fact that in the only other instance of the kind recorded in Acts, that of the twelve disciples in Ephesus, the same gift was bestowed by the hands of an apostle. The case of Timothy is no exception, as has been supposed, to this conclusion; for, although Paul states that the gift which was in him was given him through prophesy and “ the laying on of the hands of the eldership;” yet he exhorts him, in the second epistle, “ Stir up the gift of God, which is in thee, by the putting on of my hands.” These two statements can be reconciled either by supposing that Paul refers to the gift of office in the former, and the gift of the Spirit in the latter; or, that the eldership united with Paul in laying on hands, while it was the apostolic part of the service which imparted the Spirit, the eldership participating, because at the same time he was ordained to the work of an evangelist. 2d. From the fact that these disciples enjoyed pardon and membership in the Church before receiving the miraculous gift, it is evident that this gift was not necessary to the enjoyment of either of these blessings. Yet, strange to say, the mystic power of an ultra spiritualism has thrown these plain facts into the utmost confusion in the minds of some great men. Witness the following from Neander, in reference to the condition of the Samaritans previous to the visit of Peter and John. “ They had not yet attained the consciousness of a vital communion with the Christ whom Philip preached, nor yet to the consciousness of a personal divine life. The indwelling of the Spirit was as yet something foreign to them, known only by the wonderful operation which they saw taking place around them.” This assertion is evidently in direct conflict with the commission, and with the promise of Peter, that those who would repent and be immersed should receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Paul also teaches that the indwelling of the Spirit is characteristic of all who are Christ’s; and certainly all are Christ’s who have been immersed into the name of Christ, as had been these Samaritans. 3d. The statement that “ as yet he had fallen on none of them, only they were immersed into the name of the Lord Jesus,” thrown in parenthetically in explanation of the mission of Peter and John, necessarily implies that there was no such connection between immersion into Christ and the miraculous gift of the Spirit, as that the latter might be inferred from the former. This gift, then, was not common to the disciples, but was enjoyed only by those to whom it was specifically imparted. Seeing that this extraordinary gift of the Spirit was not necessary to the conversion and pardon of these parties, nor to the indwelling of the Spirit, it is proper to inquire for what purpose it was bestowed. We have already observed, in commenting on Acts 1:8, that the design of bestowing it upon the apostles was to endow them, intellectually, with power to establish the kingdom, and to furnish miraculous attestation of their mission. In general, miracles were designed to indicate the divine sanction of the procedure with which they were connected; but when the miracle assumed a mental form, it was designed to qualify the party for some mental labor. The young Church in Samaria had hitherto been guided by the infallible teaching of Philip, and more recently, by that of Peter and John. But these brethren must, in executing their high commission, soon depart to other fields of labor. If, in doing so, they should leave the Church in the condition in which Peter and John found it, there would be no means left them of increasing their knowledge of the new institution, and none but their uncertain memories of retaining with accuracy what they had already learned.

To supply this defect, chiefly, and secondarily, to leave among them the means of convincing unbelievers, the gift of inspiration was bestowed— not upon all the disciples, for this is not necessarily implied in the text, but upon a sufficient number of chosen individuals. For further information upon the design of such gifts, I refer the reader to the twelfth and fourteenth chapters of First Corinthians. A complete discussion of the subject would belong to a commentary on that epistle, rather than to one on Acts. Suffice it here to add, that these gifts, served as a temporary provision, until the facts, doctrine, commandments, and promises of the new covenant were committed to writing by inspired men, when the prophesies, tongues, and miraculous knowledge of individual teachers gave place to the written record. Acts 8:18-19. In the above remarks upon the incident before us, we have assumed that the gift imparted was miraculous. This assumption is justified by the fact that it was a matter of observation by those who were not recipients of it, as is evident from the next statement of the text. (18) “And when Simon saw, that through the laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Spirit was given, he offered them money, (19) saying, Give me also this authority, that on whomsoever I lay hands he may receive the Holy Spirit.” The form of this proposition shows that the Holy Spirit did not come upon these persons directly from heaven, as upon the apostles on the day of Pentecost, but that it was imparted through imposition of hands. This marks the difference between the immersion in the Holy Spirit, to which the event on Pentecost belongs, and the impartation of the Holy Spirit, to which we refer the present case. The latter was effected through human agency; the former without it. In order to account for the impious proposition of Simon, we must remember his former mode of life, and consider the mental habits which must have been cultivated. Having been accustomed to the performance of astonishing tricks as a means of making money, and to the increase of his stock in trade by purchasing the secret of every new trick which he met with among his brother magicians, he had acquired the habit of looking upon every thing of an astonishing character with reference to the money which might be in it. When, now he saw that by imposition of the apostles’ hands the miraculous power of the Spirit was imparted, and remembered that there were many even among the disciples, who had not yet received the coveted gift, he at once perceived that the power to impart it could be made a source of great profit. His overruling avarice, mingled with intense fondness for popular influence, prompted him to seek this power. The blinding influence of these passions prevented him from seeing the impropriety either of offering to buy it, or of intending to sell it; for certainly, if he had realized the light in which his proposition should be regarded, he would not have ventured to make it. Acts 8:20-23. Nothing could be more abhorrent to the feelings of an apostle than such a proposition. It was well calculated to arouse the impulsive spirit of Peter, and his response is marked by his characteristic vehemence. (20) “But Peter said to him, Your silver go with you to perdition, because you have thought to purchase the gift of God with money. (21) You have no part nor lot in this matter, for your heart is not right in the sight of God. (22) Repent, therefore, of this your wickedness, and pray God, if, perhaps, the purpose of your heart may be forgiven you. (23) For I perceive that you are in the gall of bitterness, and the bond of iniquity.” This description of Simon’s spiritual condition shows clearly that he was not, at that time, in a state of mind acceptable to God. “ The gall of bitterness” is a forcible expression of the wretchedness of his condition; and “ the bond of iniquity,” of the dominion which sin exercised over him. His heart was not right in the sight of God, and he was in the way to perdition. The declaration that he had “ no part nor lot in this matter” depends, for its interpretation, upon the meaning of the expression “ this matter.” Whether it refers to the gospel, or to the impartation of the Spirit, is not altogether certain. In either case, the declaration is true; for it is certain that he had no part in the impartation of the Spirit; and equally certain that he was then under the condemnation of God. Whether we are to suppose that Simon’s destitute and miserable condition was the result of having forfeited the favor of God by falling into sin after his immersion, or that his confession and immersion had been insincere, so that he had never been pardoned, is not to be determined, as many suppose, by the grossness of his present conception concerning the Holy Spirit. The question resolves itself into this: whether the discovery that a man is under the control of some wicked passion soon after his immersion is proof that he had not been a proper subject for immersion. If conversion involves so complete a renovation, that old mental habits are entirely eradicated, never to exert their influence again, then Simon was not a genuine convert. But if, as both Scripture and experience teach, the turning of a sinner to God is simply the triumph of conscience and the better feelings over the passions, while the latter still exist in a latent state, ready to spring into activity on the approach of temptation, we must admit that Simon may have been a penitent believer at the time of his immersion. That he was a believer is asserted by Luke; but whether he was to such a degree penitent as to receive pardon when he was immersed, is not certainly determined by the text. For aught that is affirmed of him, he may either have been influence by sinister motives in confessing his faith, or have been truly penitent at the time, and afterward, under the spur of temptation which the splendid gifts bestowed by Peter were the occasion of, have yielded to the sudden impulse of his ruling passion. Whichever of these hypotheses we adopt, the case affords no objection to the immediate immersion of all who confess faith in Christ, and indicate a desire to obey him, no evidence of their insincerity being apparent. The inspired example of Philip is an authoritative guide for us, and if it appear that he occasionally immersed an unprepared subject, modern evangelists can not be censured for following his example, though they should occasionally meet with the same misfortune. The supposition that Philip and Peter both, by the power of discerning spirits, knew from the beginning that Simon’s heart was not right, but, for wise reasons, withheld the announcement until his wickedness was developed before the people is entirely gratuitous. The gift of “ discerning spirit,” mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12:10, was the power of testing the claims of those who professed to be inspired. There is no evidence that it was ever used by the apostles or others to detect the concealed thoughts and emotions of the soul. The detection of Ananias and Sapphira is not a case in point, for it was effected not by discerning their thoughts, but by a direct revelation to Peter that the story which they told was a lie. Acts 8:24. The conclusion of the conversation between Peter and Simon leaves us in doubt as to the final fate of the latter. Peter had exhorted him to repent, and pray to God for pardon. (24) “Then Simon answered and said, Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me.” This response indicates very clearly that the scathing speech of Peter had a good effect. It doubtless awoke Simon to a clearer perception of his own character, filled him with more becoming awe of the Holy Spirit, and aroused some fear of the terrible consequences of his sin. As the curtain of history here falls upon him, he disappears in a more promising state of feeling, but without leaving us fully assured that he recovered from the dominion of his unholy passions. Many things are said of his subsequent career, in ancient and modern commentaries, but nothing that is sufficiently authenticated to deserve our serious attention. Acts 8:25. In connection with the prime object of their visit to Samaria, Peter and John also furthered the efforts of Philip in preaching and teaching. This we learn from an incidental remark in connection with the statement of their departure for Jerusalem. (25) “Now they, having testified and spoken the word of the Lord, returned into Jerusalem and preached the gospel in many villages of the Samaritans.” This labor in the Samaritan villages was performed on their journey toward Jerusalem, which may have been somewhat circuitous, according to the situation of the villages which they desired to visit. Thus these primitive preachers of the gospel made all the stations of their journeys through the country successive points for disseminating the truth. Acts 8:26. When the congregation in Samaria had been supplied with spiritual gifts, and sufficiently instructed to justify leaving them to their own resources for edification, Philip was called away to other fields of labor. We are now introduced to another of those minutely detailed cases of conversion which are recorded for the purpose of instruction in reference to the means of turning men to God, and inducing them into the kingdom. The purpose of bringing him to a knowledge of salvation was formed in the divine mind, and specific means of accomplishing it put into operation, ere the man himself was aware of it. The narrative traces the steps by which this purpose of God was accomplished, and enables us to know, when God determines upon the conversion of an individual, how he proceeds to effect it. The first step taken in the case was to send an angel from heaven. But where does the angel make his appearance? To the man for whose benefit he came? So it must be, if he is to hold any direct communication with him. But, strange to say, while the man was south of Jerusalem, traveling toward Gaza, the angel descends into Samaria, to the north of Jerusalem, and appears to Philip. (26) “And an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip, saying, Arise and go toward the south, into the road which goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza. This is a desert.” This is all that the angel has to say; and now his part of the work, which was simply to start the evangelist in the direction of the person to be converted, is accomplished. He retires from the scene. The statement “ this is a desert” is correctly supposed, by the best commentators, to be no part of the angel’s speech to Philip, but to have been added by Luke to note the singularity of a preacher being thus peremptorily sent away from a populous country into a desert. The term desert is not here to be understood in its stricter sense of a barren waste, but in its more general acceptation, of a place thinly inhabited. Such an interpretation is required by the geography of the country, and by the fact that water was found for the immersion of the eunuch. The only road from Jerusalem to Gaza, which passed through a level district suitable for wheeled vehicles, was that by Bethlehem to Hebron, and thence across a plain to Gaza. According to Dr. Hackett, this is “ the desert” of Luke 1:80, in which John the Immerser grew up.

Dr. S. T. Barclay, who traversed this entire route in May, 1853, says that he traveled, after leaving “ the immediate vicinity of Hebron, over one of the very best roads (with slight exceptions) and one of the most fertile countries that I ever beheld.” Acts 8:27-28. Philip promptly obeyed the command of the angel, and was soon in close proximity to the intended convert, though, as yet, he knew nothing of him. (27) “He arose and went; and behold a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who had charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem to worship, (28) was returning, and sitting in his chariot, was reading the Prophet Isaiah.“ Acts 8:29. Just as Philip entered the road to which he had been directed by the angel, and saw the chariot before him, the Holy Spirit began to work for the conversion of the treasurer. And where does he begin his work? In the heart of the sinner, by direct communication? No. Like the angel, he begins with the preacher. (29) “Then the Spirit said to Philip, Go near, and join yourself to this chariot.” This was a miraculous communication from the Spirit, such as frequently directed the labors of inspired men. The object of it was the same as that of the angel’s visit, to bring the preacher and the subject for conversion face to face. Acts 8:30. The purpose of the angel’s visit and the Spirit’s miraculous communication was now accomplished. (30) “Then Philip ran to him, and heard him reading the Prophet Isaiah, and said, Do you understand what you are reading?” Considering the relative position of the parties, one an humble footman, and the other a chief officer of a powerful kingdom, sitting in his chariot, this question appears rather an abrupt and inappropriate introduction to the conversation. But it was, in reality, the most natural and appropriate question that Philip could ask. Hearing the man reading aloud, in what we call the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah, that touching description of the sufferings of Christ, he knew that it was unintelligible to him if he was not acquainted with the gospel; whereas, if he had learned the story of the cross, he could not fail to understand it. The question, “ Do you understand what you are reading?” was, then, the very question to determine where he stood, and how to approach him. Acts 8:31-35. The man’s response was definite and satisfactory. (31) “And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. (32) Now the place of the Scripture which he was reading was this: He was led as a sheep to slaughter, and as a lamb silent before his shearer, so he opens not his mouth. (33) In his humiliation, his condemnation was extorted, and who shall fully describe his generation? For his life is violently taken from the earth. (34) And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray you, of whom does the prophet speak this? Of himself, or of some other man? (35) Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at the same Scripture, preached to him Jesus.” We have now before us all the influences and agencies employed in this man’s conversion, and may restate them, as follows: He was reading a remarkable prophesy concerning Christ, and had paused upon it, with the inquiry, Of whom is this written? He could recollect nothing in the history of the prophet himself, or of any other man, to which it would apply. He was, therefore, unable to understand it; and if he learned to pray as David did, the prompt impulse of his heart was, “ Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.” In this frame of mind he was best prepared for the influences which God, who knows the secrets of all hearts, was preparing for him. If his eyes can be made to penetrate the darkness of that prophesy, and his heart to feel the power of the truth which lies there hid from his gaze, all will be well. But there is no human being being present to teach him, nor does any friend of Jesus know even of his existence. What, then, will be done?

God employs his Spirit to open the eyes and touch the hearts of men; will he not, then, immediately distill a heavenly influence upon man’s soul, to enlighten him and save him? He does not do it. And if not in this case, where no human agent is at hand, who shall say that he does in any other? The word of God is silent in reference to any such abstract influence, and he who assumes its existence gets behind the curtain of revelation. But God employs angels in ministering to those who shall be heirs of salvation. In the absence of human agency, will not some angel be dispatched to the aid of this waiting subject for salvation? An angel is truly sent; but his mission is, to start a man in the direction of the chariot. When the man gets within sight of the chariot, the Holy Spirit begins to work; but he works by first bringing the man to the side of the chariot, and next, through his lips, speaking to the man in the chariot. Thus we see, that, though an angel from heaven has appeared, and the Holy Spirit has operated miraculously for the conversion of the sinner, there is still an insuperable necessity for the co-operation of a man, Unless that man does his part of the work, all that has been done by both the angel and the Spirit will prove unavailing. Not the slightest influence from either of the heavenly messengers reaches the sinner’s mind or heart, until the preacher begins to speak, and then it reaches him through the words which are spoken.The further process is easily traced.

As Philip opens up item after item of the prophesy, and shows its fulfillment in Jesus, the eyes of the eunuch begin to penetrate the Scripture, until, at last, he sees a flood of heavenly light where all was darkness before. His eyes are opened, and he sees the wondrous glory of the suffering Savior beaming from the inspired page which lies before him. This is effected, not by an abstract influence of the Spirit, enabling him to understand what was before obscure, but by the aid of a fellow-man providentially sent to him for the purpose. The treasurer may have heard of Jesus, in Jerusalem; but, if so, he heard of him through those with whom he had been up to worship, the bitter enemies of the cross; and knew him only as an impostor who had been deservedly crucified, though now worshiped by a few deluded Jews as their Messiah. But now, with a prophesy before him which he had tried in vain to find fulfilled in the history of any other man, but which finds its complement in the life and death of Jesus; and informed, by a man whose astonishing knowledge of the word of God is a guarantee of his honesty, that Jesus is risen from the dead, his honest heart interposes no wicked obstacles to his faith, and he believes. The demonstration strikes him with the greater force, because it is so unexpected. The Jews could not explain that prophesy, for they could not find its facts in the life of any of their great heroes; and though the reference to the Messiah was so palpable as to at once suggest itself to every reader, they would not apply it to him, because their conception of his earthly glory conflicted with the humiliation and suffering described by the prophet. Until now, this very difficulty had been puzzling the mind of the treasurer. But he now sees the prophesy fulfilled; and while the demonstration compels him to believe, the true conception of a bleeding Messiah touches his heart. And this is effected by the Holy Spirit in Philip, through the words which Philip spoke. Acts 8:36. “And as they went along the road, they came to certain water. And the eunuch said, What hinders me to be immersed?” The appearance of the water to which they had come suggested this question, but it could not have been done so unless the eunuch had been taught something concerning immersion as a religious ordinance. But he had enjoyed no opportunity for instruction on this subject, except through the teaching of Philip. Had Philip, then, preached him a sermon on immersion? No. Luke says Philip “ preached to him Jesus.” How, then, had he, while hearing Jesus preached, obtained instruction in reference to immersion?

There is only one answer to this question. It is, that to preach Jesus, after the apostolic method, involves full instruction upon the subject of immersion. The prejudice, therefore, which exists at the present day against frequent introduction of this subject in discourses addressed to sinners, is altogether unscriptural; and those only preach Jesus correctly who give to it the same prominence which belongs to it in apostolic discourses. It was a part of Peter’s sermon on Pentecost, of Philip’s preaching to the Samaritans, and of his present discourse to the Ethiopian; and we will yet see, in the course of this commentary, that it always occupied a place in the preaching of inspired men on such occasions. Indeed, it would be impossible to preach Jesus fully without it. For the beginning of the gospel, historically, according to Mark, is the immersion of John, to which Jesus submitted, and near the conclusion of it is the commission given in the last words of Jesus on earth, commanding every believer to be immersed.

Thus he who preaches Jesus has immersion in the beginning and in the end of his sermon. Acts 8:37. By almost universal consent of recent critics, the whole of this verse is excluded from the original text, and should be from all versions. For the reasons on which this decision is based, we refer the reader to “ Bloomfield’s Commentary” on the passage, “ Tregelles’ History of the Printed Text,” and other critical works. This verse has been used chiefly for the purpose of determining the confession which was made originally by candidates for immersion. The fact that this is an interpolation must modify the argument on this subject, but does not invalidate it. The fact that such a confession as is here put in the mouth of the eunuch was uniformly required by the apostles, is evident from other passages of Scripture. It is quite certain that it was confessed by Timothy. Paul says to him: “ Fight the good fight of faith; lay hold on eternal life, into which you were called, and did confess the good confession before many witnesses.” This confession was made at the beginning of his religious career; for it is connected with his call to eternal life. It is the same confession which is attributed to the eunuch; for Paul immediately adds: “ I charge thee before God, who gives life to all things, and Jesus Christ, who bore testimony under Pontius Pilate, to the good confession,” etc.

Now, what is here called “ the good confession” is certainly the confession that he was the Christ, made before the Sanhedrim, under Pontius Pilate. But this is identified, by the terms employed, with the confession which Timothy had made, which is also “ the good confession.” Timothy, then, made the confession that Jesus is the Christ, the same attributed to the eunuch. Moreover, this confession was so conspicuous, at the time of Paul’s writing, that it was known as the confession, and so highly esteemed as to be styled the good confession. That Timothy was not alone in making this confession is evident from the following statement of Paul: “ The word is nigh thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart; that is, the word of faith which we preach, That if thou wilt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thy heart that God has raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” From this it appears that one item in “ the word of faith” which the apostles preached, was the confession of the Lord Jesus with the mouth. Paul assumes that this word was in the mouths and hearts of the brethren in Rome, whom he had never seen, and with whose conversion he had nothing, personally, to do. This assumption can be justified only on the ground that it belonged to “ the word of faith” everywhere preached. He argued, from the universal practice of the apostles, to a particular conclusion in reference to their converts in Rome. We have, therefore, both his premises and his conclusion, to sustain us in deciding that this confession was universal in the primitive Church, as a part of the apostolic ritual. We here have use for the interpolated verse now under consideration. The fact that it is interpolated does not prove that the eunuch did not make the confession. On the contrary, when rightly considered, it establishes the presumption that the passage, as it now reads, is a faithful account of the event. The interpolation is easily accounted for. The text read: “ The eunuch said, See, here is water; what hinders me to be immersed? And he commanded the chariot to stand still, and they went down both into the water.” Now, the object of the interpolator was to fill up what appeared to be a historic blank, so that Philip should not appear to have led the man into the water too abruptly.

In doing so, he, of course, inserted what he supposed to be the apostolic custom; and the fact that he inserted this confession shows that he believed that the apostles required candidates for immersion to make the confession. Furthermore, the interpolator would naturally be guided by the prevailing custom of his own day, so that his amendment might be received by his cotemporaries. In whatever age, therefore, the interpolation was made, it indicates both the custom of that age and the opinion then prevalent as to the apostolic custom. Whether these considerations have any force or not, depends upon the proximity of the age in question to the apostolic period. But this interpolation was known to Irenζus, a.d. 170, and this proves that the confession which the Scriptures show to have been universal in the days of the apostles was perpetuated into the latter part of the second century. Both the custom of confessing Christ, and the formula employed, originated in the most natural way, and without any positive precept. Jesus appeared in Galilee and Judea, proclaiming himself the Christ and the Son of God. As men became convinced of his claims, they would say, “I believe that he is the Christ.” Others would say, “I believe that he is a prophet, but I deny that he is the Christ.” Thus the confession or denial of this proposition was the first mark of distinction between believers and unbelievers. The Pharisees, therefore, “ agreed that if any man did confess that he was the Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.” The confession was, then, all that was necessary to identify one as a disciple of Jesus. Hence, with special reference to this state of things, Jesus said, “ He that confesses me before men, him will I confess before my Father in heaven; but he that denies me before men, him will I deny before my Father in heaven.” After the commission was given, enjoining the immersion of all believers, the confession was still perpetuated, and immersion naturally took position immediately after it. A confession thus necessarily originating from the grand issue that Jesus presented to the world, and involving the earliest distinction between his friends and his foes, could not fail to have an important position in the formation of those friends into a great organization. The Church of Christ, like every other useful organization, is created and sustained by the obligations of some truth. This truth may be properly styled the foundation of the organization, because it is that from which it springs, and without which it could not exist. The truth declared in the confession, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, is beyond controversy, the foundation of the Church of Christ, and is so declared by Jesus himself. Without it no Church of Christ could possibly exist. It had to exist as a truth, and be demonstrated to men as such, before the Church would begin to be.

The truth itself, however, and the confession of it, are two things entirely distinct. The former is the foundation; the latter, a means of building on it. There is no way to build an organization of men and women on a truth, except by a mutual confession of it, and an agreement to live together according to its obligations. When individuals, believing that Jesus is the Christ, mutually confess it, and agree to unite in the observance of its obligations, the immediate and necessary result is a Church. In this way the confession became an organic element in the ecclesiastical constitution. Inasmuch as some have conceived that Jesus in person is the foundation of the Church, it may be well to observe here that there is no way in which an organization can be built on a person, except by believing something in reference to him. It is not the fact that there is such a person as Jesus, but that that person is the Christ which gave existence to the Church. Inasmuch as members of the Church are built upon the true foundation, in part, by a mutual confession of its truth, the confession, formally made, is both an acknowledgment of the obligations which the truth imposes, and a pledge to all the duties of a member in the Church. It is true, that the confession, like immersion, and eating bread and wine, may occur amid the careless scenes of a wicked life, without any religious import. But this is only to say that the specific acts which God calls upon us to perform in religious ordinances may be performed by wicked men without religious intent. And this, again, is only to say, that, in adapting his institutions to us, instead of inventing new and unheard-of performances, he has lifted up certain actions and words already familiar, into association with religious truth and obligation. This arrangement is a proof of his wisdom; for by it the mind is averted from the mere physical act, which might otherwise have usurped too much consideration, and is compelled to associate the value of the deed with the thoughts which surround it. Such is pre-eminently the case with the confession, which, though a very simple declaration of faith, is a formal assumption of all the obligations of a Christian life. The kingdom of Christ is not limited to earth, but was designed to bind together, in one harmonious whole, God, angels, and men. God himself was the first to present himself for this great union. Over the bank of the Jordan he made the same confession which is required of us, and thereby not only bore testimony to the fact that Jesus was his Son, but, also, voluntarily placed himself before the universe in the attitude which the incipient mediatorship required him to occupy. By this formal confession he pledged himself to accept the mediation of Christ, just as we, by the same confession, pledge ourselves to accept the blessings which that mediation procures for us. If God had never confessed Jesus, in this or some equivalent manner, we would have no direct assurance from him that he was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. Like men on earth, the angels in heaven passed into the privileges of the kingdom of God, by making this same confession. When Jesus ascended up on high, the Father said to him, “ Sit on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.” Then he “ sat down at the right hand of the throne of God,” and God said, “ Let all the angels of God worship him.” Then were fulfilled the words of Paul, “ God hath highly exalted him, and given him a name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things on earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” The angels all confessed the good confession, receiving Jesus as their Lord, and rendering thus their first act of worship to the Son of Mary. The one identical confession, therefore, has brought together, in one harmonious whole, God, angels, and men; the latter being pledged by it to eternal worship, and the former pledged forever to accept their grateful homage through Christ. That this confession was the only one required of candidates for immersion by the apostles, is universally admitted by those who are competent to judge. It is likewise admitted that they regarded it as a sufficient confession. This fact alone should teach men to be satisfied with it now. He, indeed, who is guided by the Bible alone, can not require of men any other confession than such as he finds authorized by Bible precedents. Neither is it possible that he who implicitly follows the apostolic precedent can be misled, unless the apostles, the Holy Spirit, the New Testament, can mislead them. Fidelity to the word of God, therefore, binds us to this confession alone, and, in clinging to it, we have every assurance which inspiration can give that we are right. Departure from apostolic precedent is never justifiable, except when the precedent itself was the result of circumstances peculiar to the apostolic age. The primitive practice of washing the feet of brethren who came into the house from the highway, was an accidental, and not a necessary result of the law of hospitality. Growing out of the peculiar habit of wearing sandals, it ceased to be a matter of duty as soon as the circumstances which gave rise to it disappeared. If a similar change of circumstances has taken place in reference to the confession, rendering it insufficient for our times, then we are no longer bound by the precedent. That such is the case is affirmed by many of our cotemporaries, and we must extend these remarks sufficiently to consider the reasons offered in support of this opinion. It is often argued that, in the days of the apostles, the moment men became convinced that Jesus was the Christ they were ready to submit to his service; but now, every Church is surrounded with men and women who are convinced of this fact, but still persist in wickedness; hence some more effectual test should now be applied. This argument is based upon a false assumption in reference to results of primitive preaching; for we read of many rulers of synagogues who believed in Jesus, but would not confess him for hear of the Pharisees; of Joseph of Arimathea, who, though a disciples kept it secret; of Felix, who trembled under the preaching of Paul, but said, Go thy way for the present; and of Agrippa, who was almost, though not altogether, persuaded to be a Christian. If these men in high stations were deterred by fear, or by worldly lusts, from making the confession, how much more the common people, who had much more to fear! Witness the parents of the blind man who had been healed by Jesus, who gave evasive answers in the synagogue for this very reason. There is no evidence that men were more prompt to yield to their convictions then than they are now. Sometimes it is argued, quite inconsistently with the above, that the danger of being known as a Christian in those days rendered the simple confession a sufficient test of a man’s devotion; but now, when Christianity is popular, it is entirely insufficient. It must be granted, that sometimes it was dangerous to property and life to become a Christian, yet it was true then, as it is now, that many insincere persons found their way into the Churches. Jude complains that “ ungodly men, turning the favor of God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ,” had “ crept in unawares.” Paul echoes the same sentiment in reference to “ false brethren, unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage.” There are those “ who went out from us because they were not of us,” and there was Demas, who forsook Paul in the hour of danger, “ having loved this present world.” And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell of Simon the sorcerer, of Alexander the coppersmith, of Phygellus and Hermogenes, of Hymeneus and Alexander whom Paul delivered over to Satan that they might learn not to blaspheme, and of many others who proved insincere in their confession, or false to its obligations. Surely, if a test of sincerity which could let into the fold such wolves as these was sufficient for the inspired apostles, we may be content with the same, unless we affect a wisdom and a zeal superior to theirs. But the most popular argument against the present sufficiency of the good confession is this: that the immense multiplicity of doctrinal errors now prevalent requires a severer test of soundness in the faith than was used by the apostles before these errors had an existence. Unfortunately, however, its historic assumption is as baseless as that of the two we have just considered. For not only were the Churches surrounded with most pernicious errors in doctrine, but were sickened by the poison of those errors within their own bosoms. Pharisees in Jerusalem crept in to spy out the liberty of the new covenant, and bring the brethren back into bondage to the law; and there were Sadducees in the Church at Corinth who denied the resurrection. There were philosophers, such as “ Hymeneus and Philetus, who concerning the faith have erred, saying that the resurrection is already past, and overthrow the faith of some,” and there were transcendentalists, who denied that “ Jesus Christ had come in the flesh,” having speculated his bodily existence into the essence of moonshine, or something equally unreal. James had to warn some against being deceived into worship of the heavenly bodies, by assuring them that “ every good gift comes down from the Father of lights,” and not from the lights themselves; while Paul fights many a hard battle against brethren who were disposed to openly countenance fornication, incest, and the sacrificial banquets of heathen worship.

Under the pressure of all this influx of falsehood and iniquity, why did not these inspired men see their mistake, and, discarding the simple confession, draw up a masterly catechism, which would shut out every error, and guard the purity of the Church? How sad the reflection, that men so ingenious in other respects, were so stupid in this! And how fortunate for us, that the wiser heads of Rome, Geneva, Augsburg, and Westminster have supplied this deficiency in the work of the apostles! We have thus far argued upon the broadest assumption in reference to the inefficiency of the good confession in guarding the purity of the Church. We might retort upon the advocates of creeds and catechisms, by showing that these devices can not be, and have not been, any more efficient; but we prefer to show the real exclusiveness of the good confession. It is certainly exclusive enough to keep out the pagan, the Jew, the Mohammedan, the atheist, and the infidel; for none of these can honestly make the confession. It will exclude the Unitarian and the Universalist; for while they are willing to confess that Jesus is the Christ, in the next breath they deny him, by contradicting some of his most emphatic declarations. It will also exclude the wicked and impenitent; for it is offered only to penitent believers. If this is not considered sufficient, we may advance still further, and say that it will exclude the Roman Catholic, who persists in having other intercessors in heaven, besides “ the high priest of our confession.“ It will exclude the devotee of the mourning bench, who waits for an operation of the Spirit before he comes to Christ.

It will exclude the pedobaptist, who is satisfied with his sprinkling; for it requires an immediate immersion. None of these characters can scripturally make the good confession without some specific change in views or in character. Lest the tune of the objector should now be changed, and he should cry, “ Your confession is too exclusive,” we add, that it receives all whom the apostles would receive, and excludes all whom they would exclude. Acts 8:38-39. When Philip ascertained that the eunuch believed in the Lord Jesus, and desired to obey him, there was no delay, but his desire to be immersed was immediately gratified. (38) “And he commanded the chariot to stand still, and they went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he immersed him. (39) And when they were come 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.” This is one of the passages which the conflict of contending parties has rendered familiar to every reader of the New Testament. The questions in controversy are: First, Whether Philip and the eunuch went into the water, or only to it; Second, Whether the facts in the case afford any evidence that the eunuch was immersed. The determination of the first question depends upon the exact force of the antithetical expression, katebesan eis to udor, and anebesan ek tou udatos. If the latter means, “ they went up out of the water,” then the former necessarily means, “ they went down into the water;” and vice versa. There are two methods of inquiry, therefore, by which to determine whether they went into the water: First, The direct method, which depends upon the meaning of the words supposed to declare this fact; Second, The indirect method, which determines whether they went into the water, by determining whether they went out of it. In dealing with this question, Dr. Moses Stuart, one of the most learned and candid of the disputants on the pedobaptist side, does great injustice to his own reputation. He says: “ That eis, with the verb katabaino, often means going down to a place, is quite certain; e. g., ‘Jesus went down to Capernaum;’ ‘Jacob went down to Egypt;’ ‘They went down to Attalia;’ ‘They went down to Troas;’ ‘He went down to Antioch;’ ‘Going down to Cζsarea.’” How strange it is that the learned author did not perceive that in every one of these examples the meaning is necessarily into! If he had paused to ask himself whether Jesus went into Capernaum, and Jacob into Egypt, and so of the others, or merely went to the boundary line of those places, he would have spared his reputation by erasing this paragraph. He would also have saved himself the utterance of another unfortunate sentence on the same page: “ I find but one passage in the New Testament where it seems to mean into when used with katabaino. This is in Romans 10:7, Who shall go down, eis abusson, into the abyss?” Besides the examples mentioned above, he must have searched with very little industry not to have discovered the following: “ Let him that is on the housetop not go down into, katabato eis, the house.” “ Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also first descended into, katebe eis, the lower parts of the earth?” “ This man went down into, katebe eis, his house, justified rather than the other.” “ A certain man was going down, katabainen, from Jerusalem into, eis, Jericho.” “ The road that goes down, katabainousan, from Jerusalem into, eis, Gaza.” These are all the instances in the New Testament in which these two words occur together; and the reader can but see, that in every single instance the controverted expression means to go down into. By our first method of inquiry, therefore, it is settled that Philip and the eunuch went down into the water.It is not logically necessary to pursue this discussion any further; but, let it might be imagined that the conclusion we have already reached should be modified by the force of the other member of the antithesis, we must give some attention to the meaning of anebesan ek tou udatos. And here I must take exception to another sweeping declaration of Dr. Stuart’s. He says: “anabaino is never employed in the sense of emerging from a liquid substance. The preposition ek, here, would agree with this idea— although it, by no means, of necessity implies it; but anabaino forbids us to thus construe it.” Why is this apparently broad assertion so cautiously limited to the single case of “ emerging from a liquid substance?” Is it possible that Dr.

Stuart knew that the expression meant to go up out of, but, thinking that it did not occur in any other passage in connection with a liquid, framed his proposition to suit such an accident? It is humiliating in the extreme to see so great a mind descend to such special pleading on so grave a subject.

If anabaiein ek means to go up out of, nothing but the most determined obduracy can preclude the admission that it means the same when referring to liquids as to other substances. Now, it is a fact, and it must have been known to Dr. Stuart, if he examined into the ground of his own statements, that, in every single occurrence of these two words in connection, in the New Testament, they men to go up out of. Moreover, in one of these occurrences they are “ employed in the sense of emerging from a liquid substance. In Revelation 13:1, John says: “ I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast, ek tes thalasses anabainon, rising up out of the sea.” Notwithstanding this broad assertion of Dr. Stuart’s, therefore, the expression in question does, without a single exception, invariably mean to go up out of.

Philip and the eunuch, then, went up out of the water; hence, they must first have gone down into it. By both methods of inquiry, the conclusion is established. The most astonishing display of partisan blindness on this passage is yet to be noticed. It is an argument employed by Moses Stuart, in which he is followed by Dr. Alexander. He says: “ If katebesan eis to udor is meant to designate the action of plunging, or being immersed into the water, as a part of the rite of baptism, then was Philip baptized as well as the eunuch: for the sacred writer says they both went into the water. Here, then, must have been a rebaptism of Philip; and, what is at least singular, he must have baptized himself as well as the eunuch.” This argument proceeds upon the assumption that immersionists regard the act of going down into water as the act of immersion, than which there could not be a grosser perversion of their meaning. When a strong mind descends to arguments so weak and childish as this, we have the clearest evidence that the cause in which it is employed is felt to be weak and untenable. We must now address ourselves to the inquiry, whether this passage affords any evidence in favor of immersion. This much-controverted question may be discussed either as a philological question, or as a question of fact. In the former method, the controversy turns upon the meaning of the Greek word baptizo. In the latter, upon the action performed by the apostles when they baptized men. Questions of fact are much more tangible than those in philology, especially when the philological inquiry runs into a foreign language. We prefer, therefore, to discuss this question as a simple matter of fact; and this method is the more appropriate in this work, which treats of acts performed by apostles.

It can be most easily determined what act was performed when men were baptized, without any discussion as to the meaning of the word baptizo.If the passage before us contains any evidence that the eunuch was immersed, outside of the meaning of the word, it must be circumstantial evidence, and not direct testimony. In ordinary jurisprudence, the former is often more conclusive than the latter; for living witnesses may be bribed, or voluntarily bear false testimony; but facts, however grossly they may be misinterpreted, can never give real utterance to falsehood.

Circumstantial evidence is that derived from facts which transpired in such connection with the main fact assumed as to indicate its existence or character. There are two conditions necessary to its conclusiveness: First, That the facts which constitute the circumstances be fully authenticated; Second, That they shall be such as can not be accounted for without the admission of the main fact at issue. The first condition is always satisfied in scriptural inquiries, because the facts are asserted by infallible witnesses. Every thing depends, therefore, upon compliance with the second condition. This compliance may be so various in degree, as to admit of every possible degree of conclusiveness, from the slightest presumption up to absolute certainty. When the circumstances are as easily accounted for without the fact assumed as with it, they afford no evidence at all.

When they can be better accounted for with the fact than without it, the evidence is probable. When they can not possibly be accounted for without the fact, and are fully accounted for by the fact, the evidence is irresistible. When the facts constituting the circumstances are actions performed by men, this introduces an additional element into the argument. In this case, if the agent is a rational man, he must be supposed to act for a reason, and his actions, as circumstances, may be regarded with reference to the reasons for which they were performed. We further observe, that the question, What act was performed by the apostles under the name of baptism? has not reference to an indefinite number of actions, but is confined, by the nature of the controversy, to two. It was either immersion or affusion; the latter term embracing both the specific acts of sprinkling and pouring. This is admitted by all parties; for, although some contend that either act will serve the purpose of a valid baptism, no one, at the present day, contends that the apostles practiced both. Those who contend for affusion deny that the apostles or John the harbinger practiced immersion; while those who contend for immersion deny that they practiced affusion.

It is as if A and B were brought into court for trial in reference to the murder of C. It is admitted by both the parties, and known to the counsel, the jurors, the judge, the sheriff, and the spectators, that the murder was committed by one of these two parties. Now, whatever evidence might be presented to exculpate A, would have precisely the same tendency to the conviction of B. And if the demonstration of A’s innocence were complete, the jury would render a verdict against B, though not a witness had testified directly to his guilt. Just so in the present case. Whatever evidence can be fund against the affusion of the eunuch and others, is good to the same extent in favor of their immersion, and vice versa.The circumstances by which this question is to be decided are divided into two distinct classes, which we may style, respectively, circumstances of fact, and circumstances of allusion.

We will consider them in the order in which they are here named. There are some circumstances of fact which afford no evidence upon this question whatever. For instance, three thousand persons were baptized in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, in one afternoon. Now, if it were impossible for the agents employed to immerse so many in so short a time, or if sufficient water for that purpose could not have been found in Jerusalem, the two circumstances of place and time would furnish evidence against immersion. But as the facts on which this evidence would depend did not exist, no such evidence is here found. All the circumstances involved in the transaction can be accounted for by the supposition of either affusion or immersion; hence they furnish no evidence in favor of either as against the other. In like manner, the command of Ananias to Saul, to “Arise and be baptized,” though it supplies the fact that previous to being baptized he must arise from his prostrate or recumbent position, furnishes no evidence bearing upon our question, because it is consistent with either immersion or affusion. If it were proved that C was murdered with a club, this in itself would be no evidence again A, or in favor of B, seeing that either of them could have used a club. But there are other circumstances of fact which afford unmistakable evidence upon this question. The agent about to perform the act in dispute selected for the purpose a river, as the Jordan, or a place where there was “much water,” as in “Ζnon near to Salim.” When the parties about to perform the act were in an ordinary dwelling, they went out of doors for the purpose, though it were the hour of midnight, as in the case of the Philippian jailer. When they came down to the water selected, both the administrator and the subject went down into it, as in the case of the eunuch, and the baptism was performed while they were in it. These are all unquestionable facts, for they are declared in unambiguous terms by infallible witnesses. They are also actions performed by rational men, and, therefore, each of them must have been performed for some reason. Moreover, the reason for each was furnished by the nature of the main act, for the purpose of accomplishing which each of these subordinate actions was performed.

But the supposition of affusion furnishes no conceivable reason for any one of these actions. It can not, therefore, be the main act in question. Again: If the main act could have been as well and as conveniently performed without these subordinate actions as with them, then all these agents acted without a reason. But certain affusion, even of the multitudes baptized by John, could have been performed as conveniently to himself and the people, at some well or fountain centrally located, as at the Jordan, or in Ζnon. Paul could have sprinkled the jailer as conveniently in the house at midnight, as out of doors; and Philip could have sprinkled or poured water on the eunuch as well at the brink of the water, as by going down into it. Each of these subordinate actions, therefore, was an irrational one, if affusion was the main act performed. But, still further, there are good and valid reasons against such a line of action as we are considering, such as have sufficed, in every age and country, and among all ranks of society, to cause those who perform affusion to pursue a course the reverse of this in every particular. To save time and labor, and to avoid personal discomfort, instead of going to rivers and places of much water, they administer the rite at home or at church. Instead of going out of doors at night, if they happen to be out of doors at night, they prefer to go into the house. And, instead of going down into the water, they dip into it merely the tips of their fingers, or, avoiding all contact with the water themselves, they pour it from a vessel upon the subject. To suppose, in the face of all these reasons, which are controlling with rational men, that the apostles performed the various actions which we know they did, for the purpose of affusion, is to suppose them to act not only irrationally, but contrary to all the reasons which govern rational men. But they were rational men; therefore, he who reasons thus concerning them is convicted, beyond question, of drawing an irrational conclusion. So far as the circumstances of fact are concerned, we might logically rest the case here; for, having sustained the negative proposition that affusion was not the act in question, we have no alternative but to conclude that it was immersion. But the same circumstantial evidence which brings us to so solid a conclusion by this indirect method, serves the purpose equally well when applied to the direct proof of immersion. The supposition of immersion furnishes the desired reason for each one of the subordinate actions we have been considering. It accounts for the selection of a river or a place of much water; for leaving the house at midnight, and for going down into the water. It is the only supposition which can account for them; and, therefore, their existence demands the existence of immersion. We must either deny these facts, which would be infidelity; deny that the apostles acted rationally, which would be the height of folly and impiety; or admit that immersion, and not affusion, was the apostolic practice. The circumstances of allusion are equally conclusive with those already considered. Their force may be stated thus: When parties who are certainly acquainted with the facts in dispute let drop incidental remarks indicative of the nature of the facts, such remarks afford evidence, by indicating the knowledge possessed by the speaker. If, in the case of trial for murder above supposed, it were known that D was cognizant of all the facts, any incidental statement of his, inconsistent with the supposition that he knew A to be the murderer, would afford circumstantial evidence in favor of A, and against B. Now, Jesus and the apostles were cognizant of all the facts in reference to baptism, and they have made certain allusions to it, which, so far as the nature of the act is concerned, are incidental, but which indicate what they knew the act to be. If, upon a collation of these allusions, we find them inconsistent with the knowledge, on their part, that baptism was affusion, but just such as imply the knowledge that it was immersion, the evidence from this source will be conclusive. Of the many allusions at hand, we will select, for our present purpose, only a few, the bearing of which appears least liable to dispute. First, in the words of our Savior, “ Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God.” That the expression, “ born of water,” is an allusion to baptism, is admitted by all standard commentators and critics known to the writer, and is disputed by none but those who are incapable of being candid upon this subject. The term is used metaphorically, and, therefore, indicates some connection with water, which is analogous to a birth. But there is no conceivable analogy between a birth and an application of water by affusion; hence it is impossible that Jesus could have known the act alluded to to be affusion. The expression forces the mind to something like a birth, which can be found only in the act of drawing the body out of water, which takes place in immersion. This, alone, could have suggested the metaphor to the mind of Jesus, and to this our minds intuitively run when we hear the words pronounced. It is intuitively certain, therefore, that Jesus alluded to immersion, and not to sprinkling. The next allusion to which we invite attention is that in which Jesus calls the unspeakable sufferings which were to terminate his life, “ The baptism with which I am to be baptized.“ Here the term baptism is used metaphorically for his sufferings, which could not be unless there is, in literal baptism, something analogous to the overwhelming agonies of Gethsemane and Calvary. The soul revolts at the supposition that a mere sprinkling, or pouring of water on the face, could have supplied this analogy, and intuitively demands something like the sweep of water over the sinking body, which is witnessed in immersion. Immersion supplies the analogy, and it must be the meaning of the term baptism, if there is any meaning in the Savior’s mournful words. One allusion from the Apostle Paul, and one from Peter, will suffice for our present purpose. Paul exhorts the brethren to draw near to God, “ having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.” Here is an allusion to the sprinkled blood of Christ, as cleansing the heart from an evil conscience, and to baptism as a washing of the body. But this language is inconsistent with the idea of sprinkling or pouring a little water on the face, which could, by no propriety of speech, be styled a washing of the body. Nothing but immersion will meet the demands of the expression, for the words describe what takes in immersion, and in no other ordinance of the New Testament. Peter’s allusion is quite similar to this. He says: “ Baptism doth also now save us, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the seeking of a good conscience toward God.” Now Peter could not have supplied the words, “ Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh,” unless there was something in baptism which might possibly be mistaken for this.

But it would be impossible for any one to so mistake sprinkling, while immersion might be readily mistaken for a cleansing of the flesh. Peter, then, knew that immersion, and not affusion, was baptism, and so indicates by this language. We now have before us, from Jesus and Paul and Peter, who certainly knew what baptism was, unmistakable allusions to it, which could not have been made if they knew it to be affusion, and which force us to the conclusion that they knew it to be immersion. It is difficult to conceive how circumstantial evidence could be more conclusive. We might add to our list of circumstances of allusion the statement of Paul in Romans 6:4, and Colossians 2:12, that in baptism we are buried and raised again. But I regard this as direct testimony to what is done in baptism, and not a mere allusion to it. If any man were to try to frame a statement of what takes place in the act of immersion, he could not do so in more unambiguous terms than to say, “ We are buried and raised again.” If he were to say, “ We are immersed,” it would not be so specific a description of the act, nor so little liable to dispute as to its real meaning. The last clause of the passage under consideration demands some notice ere we introduce another section of the text. It is said that “ when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away; and the eunuch saw him no more, for he went on his way rejoicing.” No doubt the influence of the Spirit by which Philip was caught away was the same as that which had at first joined him to the chariot. It was that monition of the Spirit by which the movements of inspired men were frequently directed. We will notice frequent instances of the kind in the course of this work. When Philip was caught away to other labors, the eunuch “ went on his way rejoicing.” So universally does joy pervade the hearts of those whose sins are forgiven, that many sectaries of modern times have mistaken it for the evidence of pardon. The fallacy which they commit is to assume, without authority, that a real pardon from God is the only cause which can induce this feeling. Now, we know that joy must spring up in the heart, under the belief that pardon has been dispensed, however mistaken that belief may be. The convict awaiting execution would be just as happy if deceived by a counterfeit pardon, as if it were genuine. So with the penitent sinner. When his soul has been racked, for hours and days together, by the torture of an awakened conscience, it is likely, by the reaction of its own powers, or through exhaustion of the nervous system, to become calm.

Now, if he has been taught that the supervening of this calm is an indication of pardon, immediately upon the consciousness of its presence there will spring up that joy which he alone feels who believes his sins are pardoned. Such individuals, however, generally have serious doubts, at times, whether they did not mistake the natural for the supernatural, and they seldom obtain more than a hope that their sins were forgiven. The rejoicing of the eunuch was based upon far different and more solid ground. Taught by Philip, according to the commission, and according to the preaching of Peter, who had been Philip’s own teacher, that the penitent believer was to be immersed for the remission of sins; realizing in his own consciousness, that he was a penitent believer; and having been immersed, his conviction that his sins were pardoned was as solid as his confidence in the word of God and in his own consciousness. In neither of these could he well be mistaken, and, therefore, his joy was not alloyed by any harassing doubts. We now part company with this noble man, whose ready faith and prompt obedience give evidence of such a character that we would love to travel with him further; but here the curtain of authentic history drops upon him, and we see him no longer. Happily, the echoes that come back to us, as he passes on, are notes of joy, and we may hope to meet him at the point where all our journeys meet, and rejoice with him forever. Acts 8:40. The historian brings the present section of his narrative to a close by a brief notice of the subsequent labors of Philip. (40) “But Philip was found at Azotus; and, passing along, he preached the gospel in all the cities till he came to Cζsarea.” The town of Azotus, the Ashdod of the Old Testament, was westward of the route the eunuch was pursuing, on the shore of the Mediterranean. Philip’s further tour extended northward, along the sea-shore, to Cζsarea. We are not yet prepared to bid him a final adieu; but will meet him again, after the shifting scenes of many years, to say farewell amid many tears.

“ACTS OF THE "

Chapter Eight IN THIS CHAPTER

1. To note the spread of the gospel into Judea and Samaria, as foretold by Jesus (cf. Acts 1:8)

2. To review the conversions of the Samaritans and the Ethiopian eunuch

3. To examine the apostolic ministry of imparting the Spirit through the laying on of hands

SUMMARY Following the martyrdom of Stephen, the church in Jerusalem was severely persecuted. Prominent in leading the persecution was young Saul, going so far as to enter homes and dragging men and women off to prison (1-3).

This led to the dispersion of the church throughout Judea and Samaria, though the apostles remained in Jerusalem. Those who were scattered went everywhere preaching the Word, including Philip (one of the seven men selected to help needy widows, cf. Acts 6:5). Preaching Christ and performing miracles, many Samaritans believed and were baptized, including a sorcerer named Simon. When the apostles heard that the Samaritans had received the Word, they sent Peter and John to impart the Spirit through the laying on of hands. When Simon tried to buy the ability to impart spiritual gifts, Peter strongly rebuked him and told him to repent and pray for forgiveness. Peter and John eventually made their way back to Jerusalem, preaching the gospel in many villages of the Samaritans (Acts 8:5-25).

Philip was then told by an angel to go along the road between Jerusalem and Gaza where he saw a man reading in his chariot, who happened to be a eunuch and treasurer of Queen Candace of Ethiopia. Told by the Spirit to overtake the chariot, Philip heard him reading from the prophet Isaiah. Invited to explain the passage in Isaiah (cf. Isaiah 53:7-8), Philip proceeded to preach Jesus to him. When they came to some water, the eunuch requested to be baptized and Philip did so upon hearing his confession of faith. When they came up out of the water, the Spirit caught Philip away and the eunuch resumed his journey with great joy. Philip was later found at Azotus, and continued to preach in the cities until he came to Caesarea (Acts 8:26-40).

OUTLINE I. OF STEPHEN’S DEATH (Acts 8:1-4) A. THE CHURCH (Acts 8:1-3)1. Saul consents to Stephen’s death 2. A great persecution arose against the church in Jerusalem a. Christians scattered throughout Judea and Samaria b. Except the apostles 3. Stephen buried and lamented by devout men 4. Saul makes havoc of the church, imprisoning men and women

B. THE (Acts 8:4)1. Those scattered abroad went everywhere 2. Preaching the word

II. OF THE (Acts 8:5-25) A. PHILIP AT SAMARIA (Acts 8:5-13)1. Preaches Christ to them 2. Multitudes give heed to the word, seeing the miracles he did a. Casting out unclean spirits b. Healing the paralyzed and lame c. Creating great joy in the city 3. Background on Simon the sorcerer a. Previously practiced sorcery, astonishing the people, claiming to be great b. To whom people gave heed, calling him “the great power of God” 4. Many Samaritans converted a. Believed Philip preaching concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus b. Were baptized, both men and women 5. Simon also believes and is baptized a. Continued with Philip b. Amazed with the signs and miracles that were done

B. PETER AND JOHN AT SAMARIA (Acts 8:14-25)1. Peter and John sent to Samaria a. By the apostles at Jerusalem b. Who heard the Samaritans received the word of God 2. Peter and John impart the Holy Spirit a. Praying for the Samaritans, for they had only been baptized in the name of Jesus b. Laying hands on them, whereby they received the Holy Spirit 3. Simon tries to buy the gift of imparting the Spirit a. He saw that it was imparted by the laying on of the apostles’ hands b. He offered Peter and John money for the same gift c. Peter strongly rebukes Simon

1. For thinking the gift of God could be purchased with money
2. He had no part in this matter, for his heart was not right in the sight of God d. Peter counsels Simon
3. To repent and pray for forgiveness
4. For he is poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity
5. Simon pleads with Peter to pray for him

4. Peter and John return to Jerusalem a. After testifying and preaching the word of the Lord b. After preaching the gospel in many of the villages of the Samaritans

III. OF THE EUNUCH (Acts 8:26-40) A. PHILIP SENT TO THE EUNUCH (Acts 8:26-29)1. An angel of the Lord tells Philip to go south toward Gaza 2. In a desert area he sees a man in a chariot a. A man of great authority

1. A eunuch from Ethiopia
2. In charge of the treasury of Candace, queen of Ethiopia b. A religious man
3. Had traveled to Jerusalem to worship
4. Reading from Isaiah on his return home

3. The Spirit tells Philip to overtake the chariot

B. PHILIP JESUS TO THE EUNUCH (Acts 8:30-40)1. Philip approaches the eunuch a. Hears him reading from Isaiah - Isaiah 53:7-8b. Asks him if he understands what he is reading c. The eunuch desires help in understanding the subject of the passage 2. Philip preaches to the Eunuch a. Beginning with that scripture, He preached Jesus to him b. Coming to some water, the eunuch requests baptism c. Baptism requires faith in Jesus, which the eunuch confesses d. Both go into the water, and Philip baptizes the eunuch 3. Following the baptism a. The Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away so the eunuch saw him no more b. The eunuch went on his way rejoicing c. Philip was later found at Azotus, and preached in all the cities till he came to Caesarea

REVIEW FOR THE CHAPTER

1. What are the main points of this chapter?- Aftermath of Stephen’s death (Acts 8:1-4)

• Conversion of the Samaritans (Acts 8:5-25)
• Conversion of the Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8:26-40)

2. Who consented to Stephen’s death? (Acts 8:1)- Saul

3. What happened at that time? What was the result? (Acts 8:1)- A great persecution against the church

• The church was scattered throughout Judea and Samaria, except the apostles

4. What was Saul doing? (Acts 8:3)- Making havoc of the church, dragging men and women off to prison

5. What did those who were scattered do? (Acts 8:4)- They went everywhere preaching the word

6. Who went to Samaria and preached Christ to them? (Acts 8:5)- Philip (cf. Acts 6:5)

7. How did the multitudes respond? Why? (6)- They heeded the things spoken by Philip

• Because of the miracles he did

8. What kind of miracles did Philip perform? (Acts 8:7)- Casting out unclean spirits, healing the paralyzed and lame

9. Who had the Samaritans previously heeded? (Acts 8:9-11)- Simon the sorcerer

10. What things did Philip preach that the Samaritans believed? (Acts 8:12)- The kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ

11. How did the Samaritans respond to Philip’s preaching? (Acts 8:12)- With faith and baptism

12. Who else believed and was baptized? (Acts 8:13)- Simon the sorcerer

13. Who was sent to Samaria by the apostles? Why? (Acts 8:14-16)- Peter and John; that the Samaritans might receive the Holy Spirit

14. How was the Holy Spirit imparted to the Samaritans? (Acts 8:17-18)- By the laying on of the apostles’ hands

15. What did Simon try to do? (Acts 8:18-19)- Purchase the ability to impart the Spirit by the laying on of hands

16. Why did Peter refuse and then rebuke Simon for his offer? (Acts 8:20-23)- Thinking that the gift of God could be purchased with money

• His heart was not right; he was poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity

17. What did Peter tell Simon to do in order to be forgiven? What did Simon ask? (Acts 8:22)- To repent and pray; for Peter to pray for him

18. As Peter and John returned to Jerusalem, what did they do? (Acts 8:25)- Preached the gospel in many of the villages of the Samaritans

19. Where was Philip told to go next? Who told him? (Acts 8:26)- To go south along the road from Jerusalem to Gaza; an angel of the Lord

20. Who did Philip see? What was the man doing? (Acts 8:27-28)- An Ethiopian eunuch, the treasurer of Queen Candace

• Returning from Jerusalem where he gone to worship, sitting in his chariot and reading from Isaiah 21) Who told Philip to overtake the chariot? (Acts 8:29)- The Spirit

22. When Philip heard him reading, what did he ask? How did the eunuch respond? (Acts 8:30-31)- “Do you understand what you are reading?”

• “How can I, unless someone guides me?”

23. Where in Isaiah was the eunuch reading? (Acts 8:32-33)- Isaiah 53:7-8

24. What did the eunuch want to know? (Acts 8:34)- Was Isaiah writing of himself, or some other man

25. Beginning from that passage, what did Philip preach? (Acts 8:35)- Jesus

26. When they came to water, what did the eunuch ask? How did Philip respond? (Acts 8:36-37)- “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?”

• “If you believe with all your heart, you may.”

27. How did Philip baptize the eunuch? (Acts 8:38-39)- They both went down into the water, Philip baptized him, they both came up out of the water

28. What happened when they came up out of the water? What did the eunuch do? (Acts 8:39)- The Spirit caught Philip away, so the eunuch saw him no more

• He went on his way rejoicing

29. Where was Philip found? What did he then do? (Acts 8:40)- Azotus; preached in all the cities until he came to Caesarea

Verse 1 A second major division of Acts begins with Acts 8:5; but the first four verses continue to focus upon the church in Jerusalem. The conversion of the Samaritans by Philip is given (Acts 8:5-25), and also the conversion of the Ethiopian (Acts 8:26-40). And Saul was consenting unto his death. And there arose on that day a great persecution against the church which was in Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles. (Acts 8:1) This sentence actually belongs to the narrative in the preceding chapter. One is almost shocked at the casual way in which so important a person as Saul of Tarsus is here introduced; but the placement of this announcement in close connection with the martyrdom of Stephen almost demands that the relation between that martyrdom and the conversion of Saul should be observed. As J.S. Howson said: We cannot dissociate the martyrdom of Stephen from the conversion of Paul. The spectacle of so much constancy, so much faith, so much love, could not be lost. It is hardly too much to say with Augustine that “the church owes Paul to the prayer of Stephen."[1]The same writer also called attention to the gloom which surrounded the infant church at that time, and to the “brightness which invests the scene of the martyr’s last moments.” The first apostle who died was a traitor; and the first Christians whose deaths are recorded were liars and hypocrites. The kingdom of the Son of man was founded in darkness and gloom; but a heavenly light reappeared with the martyrdom of Stephen.[2]On that day a great persecution … does not mean that all of the persecutions occurred on that day, but that upon that day was initiated a policy of extermination directed against the new faith. God, in this, was overruling the evil which men perpetrated, in order to accomplish the extension of the gospel beyond the boundaries of Jerusalem. The first murderous persecution against the church was launched by the Sanhedrin, both the Sadducees and the Pharisees supporting the campaign to drown the infant church in blood. Except the apostles … Barnes observed that: For them to have fled would have exposed them, as leaders and founders of the new religion, to the charge of timidity and weakness. They remained; and a merciful Providence watched over them and defended them from harm.[3]In time, of course, the apostles would also leave Jerusalem; but for the moment they considered it their duty to remain. [1] J. S. Howson, Life and Epistles of St. Paul (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers, 1966), p. 62. [2] Ibid., p. 63. [3] Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1953), Vol. Acts, p. 137. Verse 2 And devout men buried Stephen, and made great lamentation over him.Devout men buried Stephen … Johnson expressed the view that these men were “not disciples, but pious Jews, deeply impressed by the gospel, but not yet brought to conversion”; but, despite the fact that many commentators have taken the same position, we simply cannot concur in such a view. The allegation that true Christians would not have made the lamentations mentioned in the next verse, or that Luke would have called the men who buried Stephen “brethren” if they had been Christians, is not sustained by the record. Why would Luke not have called the noble Christians who braved the wrath of the Sanhedrin to bury the first martyr, “devout”? The very word means “earnestly religious”; and there is nothing to forbid the word’s application to Christians. Furthermore, the loud lamentation that accompanied the burial may not be construed as sorrowing “without hope.” Strong agreement is felt with Orin Root who said, “The brethren honored their first martyr, although in so doing they made themselves targets of the continuing persecution."[4]It is true, of course, that the term “devout” is used only four times in the New Testament;[5] and this, more than anything else, has supported the opinion that these were not “brethren.” However, the Jewish law required that: One who had been stoned for blasphemy would have had no funeral honors, and would have been buried with the burial of an ass (Jeremiah 22:19).[6]No lamentation or other sign of mourning was permitted on behalf of one who suffered execution, the Jewish rule on this being derived from God’s command that Aaron should not mourn for Nadab and Abihu (Leviticus 10:6). Thus, the understanding of the devout men who buried Stephen as friendly Jews, not Christians, imposes a burden upon our credulity, not only in the matter of such Jews being willing to contradict the Sanhedrin’s views on such matters, but also in the supposition that the Christians, through fear, or from whatever motives, would not have been active in burying their champion and their brother. We confess, as Boles said, that “We do not know whether or not they were Christians”;[7] but the guess preferred here is that they were! [4] Orin Root, Acts (Cincinnati, Ohio: Standard Publishing Company, 1966), p. 55. [5] H. Leo Boles, Commentary on the Acts (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1953), p. 122. [6] E. H. Plumptre, Ellicott’s Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1959), p. 47. [7] H. Leo Boles, op. cit., p. 122. Verse 3 But Saul laid waste the church, entering into every house, and dragging men and women committed them to prison.The New Testament record of Saul’s persecution of the church leaves no doubt of the savagery and brutality with which it was carried forward. There was no consideration of age, sex, or other circumstances. The youth, ability, and energetic zeal of the leading persecutor, revealed here as Saul, testify to the bitterness and fury with which the Sanhedrin sought to exterminate Christianity. God be praised that they were not merely defeated in this; but, writing long afterward, the beloved Paul said, “Their loss is the riches of the Gentiles?” (Romans 11:12), the word “loss” in that passage actually carrying the meaning of “their defeat.” Satan has his own “providences,” no less than the righteous, and the evil one certainly took advantage of a circumstance that arose in the Roman government at the time of this persecution. About the year A.D. 37, there was no Roman governor in Jerusalem for a time; and, as Boles said: The Jewish factions reigned supreme … the opponents of Christianity thrust men and women into vile prisons, and brought them before elders in the synagogues, who tried to force them to deny Jesus; upon their refusal, some of them were put to death, others beaten; and all suffered many outrages (Acts 22:14 Acts 26:10-11, etc.).[8]ENDNOTE: [8] Ibid., p. 123. Verse 4 They therefore that were scattered abroad went about preaching the word.As Joseph Benson noted: The great majority of the dispersed Christians held no office in the church; yet they preached wherever they came, and this spread of the gospel without the Holy City, this planting the church in the regions beyond, was effected not by the apostles but by an entirely voluntary and unofficial agency.[9]II. THE CHURCH IN JUDEA AND SAMARIA (Acts 8:5 to Acts 11:18) With Acts 8:5, a new era in the church began. The tide of evangelism burst forth from the Jewish capital, bringing the good news of salvation in Christ to Judaea and Samaria. Samaria was especially stressed by Luke, as he was a Gentile; and the Samaritans were particularly despised by the Jews. Therefore, by this, he would show how the gospel was intended for all peoples, even the Samaritans. The evangelist who successfully preached Christ in Samaria was one of the Seven, called Philip the evangelist. It is with his exploits that this chapter is principally concerned. ENDNOTE: [9] Joseph Benson, One Volume New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1972), in loco. Verse 5 And Philip went down to the city of Samaria and proclaimed unto them the Christ.The city of Samaria … was long considered by scholars as ambiguous, some declaring that it had reference to Sychar, as in John 4:5, and others thinking it referred to the city of Samaria, that is, the capital of the province. McGarvey said: The definite article is now admitted to be a part of the Greek text, and this settles the question (as proved by the Sinaitic manuscript which has the definite article). It was the old capital … enlarged and embellished by Herod the Great.[10]Concerning what it means to preach Christ, see under Acts 8:12. The people of Samaria were regarded by the Jews with contempt, their mixed racial and religious characteristics being the cause of this. (See my Commentary on John, p. 113.) In fact, the Jew looked upon all Gentiles in the same way; but, as Howson noted, “His hostility to the Samaritan was probably the greater, in proportion as he was the nearer."[11] It was in keeping with this same greater reaction to what is near, as compared to what is distant, that Sir Walter Scott wrote: “A wildcat in a chamber is more to be dreaded than a lion in a distant desert!"[12][10] J. W. McGarvey, New Commentary on Acts (Cincinnati, Ohio: Standard Publishing Company, 1892), p. 138. [11] J. S. Howson, op. cit., p. 65. [12] Sir Walter Scott, The Talisman (New York: American Book Company, 1899), p. 299. Verse 6 And the multitudes gave heed with one accord unto the things that were spoken by Philip, when they heard, and saw the signs which he did.The great Samaritan capital was overwhelmed with the message, certified to them as authentic by the miracles wrought by Philip. Thus, another of the Seven is revealed to have had the power of miracles, confirming the deduction already made that the laying on of the apostles’ hands had conferred this gift at the time of their appointment. SAMARIAThis city was built by Omri as a new capital of the ten northern tribes of Israel on a hill 300 feet high seven miles northwest of Shechem, commanding the trade routes through the Esdraelon plain.[13] This impressive butte afforded strong protection against assault, having steep sides and a permanent water supply within the fortifications. This city figured prominently in certain dramatic incidents in the Old Testament. It was here that the lepers reported the flight of the Assyrian army (2 Kings 7); Ahab was buried in Samaria, as were a number of other Israelite kings. The city fell to Sargon II whose massive deportation of the inhabitants terminated the northern kingdom of Israel (722 B.C.). Extensive excavations of the site were made in 1908-1910 by Harvard University archaeologists, and also in 1931-1935 by Harvard, Hebrew and British scientists. These findings revealed the city as one of great wealth, fragments of Ahab’s ivory-paneled house and many other signs of extravagance being uncovered (1 Kings 22:39). Alexander the Great conquered Samaria in 331 B.C.; Pompey and others began to rebuild it about 110 B.C.; but it was Herod the Great who restored, rebuilt, decorated, fortified and embellished the city, naming it Sebaste (Augusta) in honor of his emperor, an event still perpetuated in its modern name of Sebastiyeh. There are many references to Samaria in the Old Testament, the prophets of which considered it a center of idolatry (Isaiah 8:4 Isaiah 9:9; Jeremiah 23:13; Ezekiel 23:4; Hosea 7:1; and Micah 1:6). ENDNOTE: [13] New Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers, 1962), p. 1130. Verse 7 For from many of those that had unclean spirits, they came out, crying with a loud voice: and many that were palsied, and that were lame, were healed. And there was much joy in that city.Luke, a distinguished physician and scientist, here made a separation between physical maladies like palsy and lameness, and the conditions attributed to unclean spirits, the same being proof enough that the wisest men of that age recognized the phenomenon of demon possession. This subject was reviewed repeatedly in the four gospels, and it would be profitless to repeat them here. For those interested in pursuing the subject further, reference is made to my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 8:16 Matthew 8:29 and my Commentary on Mark,Mark 1:24; Mark 5:2. Much joy in that city … During the ministry of Christ the Lord commanded that his representatives should not go into any city of the Samaritans (Matthew 10:5-6); and, although Jesus himself had given a strong indication of his ultimate purpose of including Samaritans in the gospel by his two days’ residence in Sychar (John 4:40), it was the event recorded here that signaled the full fruition of that holy purpose. It was appropriate that “much joy” should have marked the occasion. What a blessed reunion of peoples long estranged was this; and it was a reunion that could have been accomplished in no other way except by the gospel of Christ. It is also true, as Walker observed, that: It is the only thing that can reconcile hostile groups now; all other treaties, compromises and “gentlemen’s agreements” will last only until it is advantageous for one of the parties to break the compact.[14]In this event was a frontal assault upon the “middle wall of partition” (Ephesians 2:14) between Jews and Gentiles. One of the Seven entered Samaria with the power of miracles and the message of redemption in Christ. ENDNOTE: [14] W. R. Walker, Studies in Acts (Joplin, Missouri: College Press), p. 58. Verse 9 But there was a certain man, Simon by name, who beforetime in the city used sorcery, and amazed the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one.Josephus mentions no less than twenty different Simons in his history,[15] making this one of the commonest names of antiquity, and imposing an intolerable burden upon any who would identify this Simon with any of those. It is logical to reject all fanciful traditions about the man mentioned here and to view the information given by Luke as the total of all that is really known concerning him. A full understanding of the triumph of the gospel in Samaria would be impossible without a knowledge of the people’s widespread following of such a deceiver as Simon, hence Luke’s mention of this condition. Also, it may have been Luke’s intent to show the gospel’s triumph over one who even practiced the black arts. ENDNOTE: [15] Josephus, Flavius, Antiquities and Wars of the Jews (translated by William Whiston (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston), p. 1052. Verse 10 To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is that power of God which is called Great.Nothing is any more pitiful than the delusions which blind whole cities and populations of mankind. Simon was an unqualified fraud; but, until the coming of the gospel, his evil influence dominated the whole city, “from the least to the greatest.” Nor does modern man have any right to despise the Samaritans for their gullibility, because there are many examples in our own times and cities of charlatans and deceivers receiving the adulation of their duped followers. It is only the word of God that “makes wise the simple,” “opens the eyes of the blind,” and provides a “lamp unto our feet.” In direct proportion, therefore, as men are ignorant of the word of God, they become the prey of deceivers. Verse 11 And they gave heed to him, because that of a long time he had amazed them with his sorceries.The influence of Simon was fortified and entrenched by years of successful operation; and his acceptance of the gospel, related a moment later, was all the more phenomenal in view of this; and with such a well established base of influence, it would appear incredible on the face of it that he would have given it up without a struggle unless his motives had been good. Certainly Elymas (Acts 13:8) opposed the gospel; and it seems mandatory to believe that Simon would have done the same thing unless he had truly believed. Verse 12 But when they believed Philip preaching good tidings concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.Preaching the good tidings concerning the kingdom and the name of Jesus Christ …; Acts 8:5 related that Philip preached “the Christ” unto them; and the message of the kingdom and the name of Christ, mentioned here, was the same as preaching Christ, mentioned there. That this message of Christ and his kingdom included the commandment that men should believe, repent and be baptized is implicit in the fact of the Samaritans having done exactly that when they believed Philip’s preaching. Moreover, such a thing as baptism (which is the ordinance gateway into the church Jesus established), as mentioned in the good news of “the kingdom,” has the utility of identifying the church of Jesus Christ and the kingdom of God as one and the same institution. This is a fact so clearly taught in the New Testament that one can only be astounded at its denial by some scholars. For example, Ladd said: The church is not the kingdom … It is impossible to substitute “church” for “kingdom” in Acts 8:12, etc. … None of the sayings in the gospels equates Jesus’ disciples with the kingdom … etc.[16]Amazingly, Ladd proceeded, immediately following the last sentence cited above, to mention a number of references which do exactly what he denied, namely; equate the Lord’s disciples with the kingdom and his church with the kingdom. We shall notice some examples of this. Matthew 16:18-19. Jesus said, “I will build my church … and I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” Here our Lord used “church” and “kingdom” interchangeably, that is synonymously. Both conservative and radical scholars alike have throughout ages viewed this as proof that the church and kingdom of God are one institution. As Vos declared, “It is plainly excluded that the house should mean one thing in the first sentence and another in the second,"[17] thus declaring the church and the kingdom the same. Even Gilmour said, “The church has been the kingdom of God within the historical process."[18] Ladd circumvented the true meaning of this analogy by the simple assertion that “metaphorical language possesses such fluidity” (as to allow diverse meanings of “church” and “kingdom”)[19] in this passage, to which it is replied that no such “fluidity” appears in this passage. To agree with Ladd would be to suppose that Jesus built one institution upon the rock and gave the apostles “the keys” of another institution. That would really be some fluidity! Matthew 13:41-43. The parable of the tares was explained by Jesus in such a manner as to make it clear that the church and the kingdom are one; for it is there declared that “the angels shall gather out of his kingdom … them that do iniquity.” Trench flatly declared that: It must be evident to everyone not warped by a previous dogmatic interest, that the parable is, as the Lord announces, concerning the kingdom of heaven, or the church.[20]In an effort to escape the power of this, Ladd stated that “The gathering of evil out of the kingdom looks forward, not backward”;[21] but clearly, the question of “when” the Lord will purge the evil out of his church has no bearing on the fact that the kingdom and the church are fully equated in the marvelous parables of the kingdom in Matthew 13, which parables are also, unequivocally, the parables of the church as well. In a number of other passages cited by Ladd, their obvious meaning is set aside by a mere arbitrary denial of their obvious meaning, as in the instance above. We have devoted a little more than usual consideration to his arguments, because his is one of the latest scholarly efforts to come to our attention in which a serious effort is made to set aside the view of the kingdom and the church of Jesus Christ being identical. For a dissertation on this subject, please see my Commentary on Hebrews, Hebrews 12:29. The field is the world … as used in Matthew 13:18 was cited by Ladd as a basis for setting aside the church-kingdom identity; but the meaning of “world” there is “the worldwide church.” There is no way the parable can be explained adequately without taking this into account. See my Commentary on Matthew,Matthew 13:37. Preaching Christ and his church is identical with preaching Christ and his kingdom. Note the following: WHAT IT MEANS TO PREACH CHRISTI. To preach Christ means to preach the Old Testament, because the Old Testament is a testimony of Christ, the Messianic hope of the Hebrews. Of the Old Testament Scriptures, Jesus said, “These … bear witness of me” (John 5:29). The 333 prophecies of the Old Testament are all fulfilled in Christ (Luke 24:44); its glorious history was “written for our admonition” (1 Corinthians 10:11); and when the noted Bible commentator, Dr. Adam Clarke, chose a topic sentence for his life’s work, it was a New Testament text focused on the Old Testament (Romans 15:4). The apostolic preachers, notably Paul, customarily taught from the Old Testament (Acts 17:34). II. To preach Christ means to preach the New Testament. The good news of salvation for mankind is found only in the word of Christ “through the apostles” (1 Peter 3:2); and, since the word of the apostles is available only in the New Testament, one cannot preach Christ without preaching the New Testament. To preach Christ is to preach the New Testament which is the word of the apostles who “heard him”! This, of course, eliminates the doctrines of men. If one wishes to receive the doctrines of men, he may do so from their books; but the true doctrine of Christ through the apostles is found in their book the New Testament. III. To preach Christ is to preach all of the great facts, promises and commandments of the gospel. A. A bare catalogue of the facts of the gospel is overwhelming: God entered our earthlife as a man, in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, fulfilling the great prophecies of the Old Testament; he wrought the greatest wonders ever seen on earth, even raising the dead again and again; he was despised and rejected; he died on the cross according to the Scriptures in order to procure eternal life for men; he rose the third day, ascended to the right hand of God, established his church, sent the Holy Spirit, is reigning until all enemies are destroyed; and finally, he will raise to life again all who ever lived on earth, preside over the final judgment and appoint all men their destiny. B. The great promises of the gospel are the richest treasure belonging to men. Jesus will forgive men’s sins if they will believe in him and obey the gospel, bless them providentially in this life, make all things work together for their good, give his Holy Spirit to them that obey him, raise them up from the grave at the last day, and provide for them an eternal inheritance among the saints in light, giving them an abundant entrance into the everlasting kingdom. He will succor them in temptation, comfort them in sorrow, illuminate them in darkness, strengthen them in tribulation, love them always, and save their souls forever! How glorious are the promises of the gospel. To preach Christ is to preach those promises. C. To preach Christ is to preach the commandments of the gospel; and, in this area, men have often misunderstood. Commands of Christ are sometimes written off as “mere legalisms”; and the grace and love of Christ are made the excuse for diminishing the force of his commandments; but this is an incredible folly (Hebrews 2:2-3). “Whosoever shall break one of the least of these commandments” (Matthew 5 Matthew 19) shall be called least in God’s kingdom. Not even faith can void the law of God (Romans 3:31). IV. To preach Christ is to preach his church and kingdom. This blessed institution is called the bride of Christ, the vineyard of the Lord, the pillar and ground of the truth, the general assembly and church of the Firstborn, the family of God, the body of Christ, the kingdom of heaven, the kingdom of God, the kingdom of the Son of his love, and the church of Jesus Christ. V. To preach Christ is to preach the plan of salvation, that is, faith, repentance and baptism for alien sinners, and the reception of the Holy Spirit and the continuation in the apostles’ doctrine, in the breaking of bread and of prayers, on the part of the baptized. Two instances of this preaching are evident in the chapter before us (Acts 8:5-12 Acts 8:35-36). VI. Preaching Christ means preaching the obligations imposed by the holy faith in him. It is impossible to preach Christ without preaching the Christian virtues, church membership, church attendance, generosity, self-denial, and that community of love and interest which binds men together in Christ Jesus. Shame be upon those popular evangelists who preach Christ without spelling out the obligations imposed upon them who believe. Morality, integrity, faithfulness in every area of life, identity of the believer with God’s church on earth, and the wholehearted, unselfish support of all that the Lord taught - such things are not optional, but mandatory. No matter what men may “say,” it is evil for one to be like the persons condemned by Paul as professors of holy religion who “by their works” deny the Lord (Titus 1:16). The brief resume of what Philip taught the Samaritans by no means implies that he omitted to teach “all” and “whatsoever” Jesus commanded. Baptized, both men and women … Again, in this, the New Testament bears witness of the fact that only accountable persons were received into the body of Christ, such a passage as this forbidding any notion that infants became Christians. [16] George Eldon Ladd, Jesus and the Kingdom (Waco, Texas: Word Books, Publisher, 1964), p. 259. [17] Gerhardus Vos, The Teaching of Jesus Concerning the Kingdom of God and the Church (New York: American Tract Society, 1903), p. 150. [18] S. McLean Gilmour, The Interpreter’s Bible (New York: Abingdon Press, 1951), Vol. 8p. 33. [19] Gordon Eldon Ladd, op. cit., p. 260. [20] Richard C. Trench, Notes on the Parables of Our Lord (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell, 1953), p. 93. [21] George Eldon Ladd, op. cit., p. 259. Verse 13 And Simon also himself believed; and being baptized, he continued with Philip; and beholding signs and great miracles wrought, he was amazed.There is absolutely nothing in this passage to suggest that Simon’s “believing” was any different from that of others who became Christians, or that his “baptism” came about from impure motives. On the contrary, we have already seen that his conduct was utterly unlike that of Elymas (Acts 13:8), thus making it clear that he proved his sincerity by accepting Philip’s preaching, an act that repudiated his sorceries, destroyed his long sustained influence over the city, and identified him absolutely with forces clearly opposed to all he had been and done in the past. This was no small thing that Simon did. The thesis that Simon merely joined a movement with a design of procuring the powers manifested by Philip is refuted by the fact that such an intention would have been defeated by what he did. Those who allege such a proposition make a fool out of Simon; and, whatever he was, he was no fool. On this basis, therefore, we reject such notions as the following: (Simon) believed in the genuineness of Philip’s miracles, but did not believe in God with a spiritual and saving faith.[22]Simon himself also believed, but it was not a sincere belief in Jesus Christ.[23]It would be true to say that he had the “fides informis,” faith not preceded by repentance and not perfected by love.[24]Such views, of course, are merely human opinion. It should be remembered that this narrative was written, not from the standpoint of Philip, but from that of Luke; and it is simply incredible that if Simon’s faith and baptism had not been fully sufficient, Luke would have said so here. Luke was inspired; and, when it is considered that inspiration says that Simon “believed and was baptized,” there is no way to set aside his conversion as inadequate or hypocritical. Inspiration also says that “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16); and the statement here proves that Simon was truly saved. The theological device of postulating different kinds of faith, such as true faith, and “fides informis,” etc., has no scriptural basis. As DeWelt said: There is as much reason to discount the conversion of the rest of the Samaritans as that of Simon, for their acceptance is described in the same words as that of Simon. Indeed, Simon is said to have “continued with Philip."[25][22] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 829. [23] John William Russell, Compact Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1964), p. 301. [24] E. H. Plumptre, op. cit., p. 49. [25] Don DeWelt, Acts Made Actual (Joplin, Missouri: College Press, 1958), p. 108. Verse 14 Now when the apostles that were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John.The purpose of this apostolic mission to Samaria was evidently to qualify certain men for leadership through the laying on of the apostles’ hands and the accompanying endowment of them with miraculous powers. Significantly, Peter does not appear in this passage as any kind of pope or authority sending others to do his bidding, but as himself “sent” by others. Verse 15 Who when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit: for as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they had been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. Then laid they their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Spirit.That they might receive the Holy Spirit … has reference to receiving the Holy Spirit in miraculous measure, because, having been baptized, they had already received the gift ordinary of the Holy Spirit as Peter promised on Pentecost (Acts 2:38). Fallen upon none of them … means that none of them had received such miraculous powers as had been conferred upon the Twelve on Pentecost. As Don DeWelt noted, “Luke used the term `fallen upon’ to describe the reception of the special powers."[26]Then laid they their hands upon them … The special power of the Holy Spirit in view in this passage was conveyed only through the laying on of the hands of the apostles. Plumptre was correct in seeing the gift here as: Distinct from the new birth of water and the Spirit (John 3:5) which was given through baptism. The apostles looked on the Samaritans as qualified for the higher gift as well for admission into the kingdom; and it was given to them, and not to Philip … to be the channels of communicating it.[27]Significantly, although Philip himself possessed this higher gift of ability to perform mighty signs, the whole narrative at this place makes it clear that Philip did not have the ability to communicate this gift to others. Therefore, this was a plenary, not a self-perpetuating ability. Only the apostles could convey it; and when the last man died upon whom the apostles had laid hands, the age of miracles expired by limitation. This commentator has no patience with the rejection of conclusions of this kind because “they are merely deductions.” As a matter of fact all faith and holy religion are matters of “deduction,” the great deduction being that the apostles delivered the truth to mankind. It is simply unbelievable that if Philip could have conveyed such a gift, Simon would not have tried to buy it of him, rather than of the apostles. Benson was evidently correct in his deduction that not all of the Samaritans received miraculous powers. He said: Not that all who had been baptized in Samaria might receive miraculous gifts; for it was never so in any church, not even in Jerusalem; but that some might receive … for the confirmation of the gospel, and especially such as were designed for office in the church, or to be eminently active members of it.[28]As Bruce noted, “The context leaves us in no doubt that their reception of the Holy Spirit was attended by external manifestations."[29] If this had not been the case, Simon would not have been able to “see” that through the laying on of the apostles’ hands the gift was given, as declared in Acts 8:18. Bruce also distinguished this special gift from that which all Christians have, saying, “It seems to be assumed in the New Testament that those who believe and are baptized have also the Spirit of God."[30] Since there is no way for any person to “see” that this gift ordinary is received, the distinction between the two gifts is a certainty. Moreover, as McGarvey observed: “If Philip could have conferred this gift, the mission (of the apostles) would have been useless so far as its chief purpose was concerned."[31][26] Ibid., p. 109. [27] E. H. Plumptre, op. cit., p. 50. [28] Joseph Benson, One Volume Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1972), in loco. [29] F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers, 1950) p. 181. [30] Ibid., p. 182. [31] J. W. McGarvey, op. cit., p. 142. Verse 18 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 whomsoever I lay my hands, he may receive the Holy Spirit.See under preceding verse. Through the laying on of the apostles’ hands … In focus here is one of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity (Hebrews 6:2). It has nothing to do with ordaining church leaders, nor any reference to such a ceremony as confirmation; but it is basic to the understanding of such facts as: (1) the cessation of apostolic miracles, (2) the termination of inspiration among evangelists and teachers, (3) the impossibility of any such thing as an apostolic succession, and (4) the necessity of concluding the canon of the New Testament. For a full discussion of all this, see under “Laying on of Hands” in my Commentary on Hebrews, Hebrews 6:2. Regarding Simon’s sinful proposal here, Harrison said that “It appears that Simon was really converted, but that the habits of the old life had not been broken."[32]And when he saw … The time indicated by this clause was not prior to or concurrent with Simon’s conversion, but afterward. The supposition that Simon became a Christian hypocritically with the intent of adding to his own powers such abilities as Philip had demonstrated is refuted by this text. It was at some indefinite, and perhaps even considerable, time after his conversion that Simon was tempted and fell into the sin mentioned here. ENDNOTE: [32] Everett F. Harrison, Wycliffe Bible Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971), p. 412. Verse 20 But Peter said unto him, Thy silver perish with thee, because thou hast thought to obtain the gift of God with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right before God.Thy heart is not right … The difference between what Peter said in this passage and what men affirm he meant is astounding. Benson, for example, interpreted Peter’s meaning here thus: His offering money for a spiritual gift is incontestable evidence that he was yet under the power of a worldly and carnal spirit and that he was yet a mere natural man, who received not the things of the Spirit of God.[33]There is, of course, an ocean of difference between saying that a man’s heart is not right (present tense), and the declaration that it had never been right. That is precisely the difference between what the word of God says of Simon, and what men say concerning him. Beware of believing men rather than believing the Lord. ENDNOTE: [33] Joseph Benson, op. cit., in loco. Verse 22 Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray the Lord, if perhaps the thought of thy heart shall be forgiven thee. For I see that thou art in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity. And Simon answered and said, Pray ye for me to the Lord, that none of the things which you have spoken come upon me.Repent … and pray … In this instance, the apostle Peter, using the keys of the kingdom of God promised him by the Saviour (Matthew 16:19), opened the way for a backslider to return to God. If Simon had not been a backslider from the faith, but had been an alien hypocrite pretending a faith and submitting to a baptism which were worthless, Peter would never have commanded him to repent and pray, these very commandments standing here as an apostolic confirmation of the fact that Simon was in possession of a covenant relationship with God through Jesus Christ, despite the fact of his sin. The door here opened for Simon’s return is the same that must be entered by all Christians who, when overtaken by some sin, seek to return to the Lord. This thy wickedness … The sin for which Simon required forgiveness was not that of impure motivation of his baptism, nor of any insufficiency of faith in his conversion, but the specific wrong of thinking to buy the gift of God with money. Therefore, the apostle did not command Simon to repent of his sins (plural), but to repent of the specific sin in evidence, “this thy wickedness.” If this had not been the case, Peter’s command to Simon would have been different. Thou art in the gall of bitterness … bond of iniquity … This is the sentence which many commentators abuse with reckless abandon, thus: Simon at this time was an unconverted sinner.[34] He was STILL attached to the bitter “gallroot” of superstition and magic; he was STILL held fast in the bond of iniquity.[35]He showed that he never had his heart truly humbled.[36] He remained STILL “in the gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity."[37]First of all, these opinions cited above violate every known law of exegesis by their attribution of Simon’s present condition (expressed in the present tense in English Revised Version) to the whole of the period of his association with the Christians. Secondly, they ignore the fact that Peter’s words regarding “the gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity” are not even applicable to Simon’s condition at that moment. As a glance at the English Revised Version margin will reveal, what Peter really said was that “Thou WILT BECOME a gallroot of bitterness and a bond of iniquity,” thus expressing not a present condition at all, but a danger of future reprobacy. Thus, not even the present tense is in this warning of Peter; and it is absolutely unscholarly and unconscionable to make Peter’s warning of a future condition that would result from Simon’s sin, if unrepented of, to be the basis of the outrageous claims that Simon had never known the Lord. We might inquire, why is it that learned men have so frequently betrayed their sacred trust by thus handling deceitfully God’s word? Two reasons appear as the logical explanation of this blindness, which is not necessarily the result of dishonesty or insincerity, but which, as to a certain extent is true of all men, derives from their prior acceptance of unscriptural and antiscriptural doctrines. The warped and irresponsible handling of this passage derives from two prior misconceptions by religious scholars, as follows: (1) There is the erroneous belief that the way for an alien sinner to be saved is to “repent and pray,” whereas the true way is for those who believe to “repent and be baptized.” Thus the false theological notion that the plan of salvation for alien sinners is repentance and prayer leads to the erroneous conclusion here that Peter’s command of Simon to repent and pray means that Simon was still an alien sinner. (2) There is the bias of Calvinism to the effect that no true Christian can apostatize from the faith. Since it is so clearly a fact that this Christian, Simon, actually did apostatize, the Calvinists are extended to prove that Simon had never been a Christian. Many who are not Calvinists, of course, have fallen into the error of accepting Calvinistic explanations of this episode. However, understandable as the reasons for perverting the word of God may be, it is nevertheless a definite perversion to read “thou wilt become” as “thou hast always been.” There can be no justification for such a thing. Pray ye for me to the Lord, etc. …. Some read this as Simon’s failure to pray himself; but this is not necessary. One who sincerely prays for forgiveness naturally desires that others also should join in his supplications. Nothing in the text denies that this is what is indicated here. We conclude the examination of this episode with the words of McGarvey: Peter does not say to him as an alarmed man of the world, “Repent and be baptized”; but as to a sinning disciple, “Repent and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart shall be forgiven thee."[38][34] Albert Barnes, op. cit., p. 142. [35] F. F. Bruce, op. cit., p. 184. [36] Thomas Scott, The Henry-Scott Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1960), p. 461. [37] E. H. Plumptre, op. cit., p. 49. [38] J. W. McGarvey, op. cit., p. 148. Verse 25 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.Testified … refers to the witness of the apostles to the effect that Jesus Christ was risen from the dead, and including all of the things which Christ commanded that men should do, together with the warnings and promises of the gospel. Although there is a sense in which Christians may be said to “testify,” their testimony must ever be a reiteration of the original apostolic testimony. No Christian’s “experience” with God has any value as testimony, except in a very limited frame of reference. Verse 26 But an angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza: the same is desert. And he arose and went: and behold a man of Ethiopia, a eunuch of great authority under Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was over all her treasure, who had come to Jerusalem to worship.THE OF THE An angel of the Lord … One of the seven services performed by angels of heaven for the benefit of them that shall inherit eternal life is that of aiding providentially in bringing sinners under the influence of the gospel. For discussion of all these, see my Commentary on Hebrews, Hebrews 1:14. Go toward the south, etc. … The angel’s message to Philip set the evangelist on the road several hours in anticipation of the eunuch’s departure from Jerusalem, being so timed that contact with him would be made. Of course, the eunuch knew nothing of this providence; and, similarly, it may be that many a man’s contact with the gospel today is the result of providences unknown to himself. Which is desert … As used here, this has no reference to a waterless desert, but to a region without population. For more on this, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 14:13. The area traversed by the road Philip and the eunuch traveled “has never been anything but a fertile plain called the plain of Philistia,"[39] having many pools and a number of streams of water. A eunuch of great authority … Eunuchs were forbidden the enjoyment of full religious privileges by the Jews; and one evident reason for Luke’s inclusion of this episode is to show that the opposite was true in Christianity. (See Deuteronomy 23:1.) Candace … This was the dynastic name of the queens of Ethiopia, just as Pharaoh was the dynastic name, or title, of the kings of Egypt. The kingdom was that of Meroe. The fact of the eunuch’s traveling some fifteen hundred miles to worship indicates that he was a devout worshiper of God. As he came along in his chariot, reading from a roll of the prophecy of Isaiah, someone has said that he was like a man at sunrise, tilting his manuscript in such a manner as to catch the first rays of the rising sun of Christianity. ENDNOTE: [39] Don DeWelt, op. cit., p. 112. Verse 28 And he was returning and sitting in his chariot, and was reading the prophet Isaiah.The focus of the word of God upon this incident is an amazing commentary on what is important and what is not. For example, we cannot say what kind of chariot this was, or what kind of animals drew it, nor what part of the road marked the encounter described here; we cannot tell the color of this Ethiopian’s skin, nor his age, nor the circumstance of his having been made a eunuch, and not even the name of the queen whom he served! None of these things was important; but we do know the exact lines from Isaiah’s prophecy which challenged his thoughtful examination. These are given in Acts 8:32. Verse 29 And the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. And Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some one shall guide me? And he besought Philip to come up and sit with him.And the Spirit said … How did the Spirit speak to Philip? It might have been through the angel who had previously appeared to him, or it could have been that one of God’s prophets gave him the message.

However it was, there is no evidence that this was merely an impression, a feeling, or any other kind of merely subjective thing. Intelligible words were spoken, a definite message communicated to Philip, and received and acted upon by him without delay. Before Acts was completed, Luke would relate circumstances which shed a great deal of light upon this question. See under Acts 20:23 Acts 21:10. As it was there, so it must have been here. Heard him reading … The eunuch was reading aloud from the roll of the prophecy. Every man has a certain responsibility for his own salvation; but the man who fully exercises that responsibility does not in so doing receive that salvation by his own efforts alone. The providence of God, the ministry of others, and above and beyond all, the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ are all in it. Nevertheless, if a man should refuse or neglect to meet his own responsibilities in the matter, it is not likely that he shall be saved. Notice the part played by this Ethiopian officer in the circumstances leading to his salvation: He was a devout and faithful worshiper of God, living up to all the light he had. He made a journey of fifteen hundred miles to worship in the city where God had commanded men to worship. He either took with him on the journey, or procured at Jerusalem, a copy of the prophecy of Isaiah. He was reading aloud from the word of God at the time of his encounter with Philip. He confessed to a stranger that he could not understand what he was reading and that he needed guidance in his study. He invited a preacher of the gospel to sit with him in his chariot. He asked a question concerning a passage of God’s word that he could not understand. (See under Acts 8:39 for more on this.) There are countless men today who have never done any of the things mentioned above; and, when it is considered that this Ethiopian did everything mentioned here, there can be no wonder that God acted providentially to bring him to a knowledge of his full duty and to open for him the door of eternal life. The bare facts of this episode shout the message to every lost soul on earth that one should be mightily exercised in pursuing a saving knowledge of the truth. Verse 32 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 openeth not his mouth: In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: His generation who shall declare? For his life is taken from the earth.As a sheep … as a lamb … This passage, of course, is Isaiah 53:7 f, one of the great Suffering Servant passages of Isaiah. Christ was the “lamb slain from the foundation of the world,” “the lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world.” Jesus meekly submitted to the outrages perpetrated against himself, offering no more resistance than a lamb, either sheared or slaughtered. The appropriateness of this simile is seen in the contrast between goats and sheep. A goat, for example, slaughtered in the traditional manner, responds with blood-chilling cries that may be heard a mile away; but a sheep submits to the butcher’s knife without a whimper. In his humiliation … judgment taken away … The verdict of Jesus’ Roman judges was one of innocence; but the Saviour’s meekness and humiliation had no effect against the mob demanding his crucifixion; therefore, Pilate took away his judgment of innocence and ordered his crucifixion. His generation who shall declare …? Bruce translated this line as “Who can describe his generation?"[40] Who indeed could describe that wicked generation which slew the Son of God? What a crescendo of shame was reached by that evil company who resisted every word of the Saviour, who mocked him, hated him, denied the signs he performed before their very eyes, suborned witness to swear lies at his trials, rejected the verdict of innocence announced by the governor, and through political blackmail, mob violence, and personal intimidation of the governor demanded and received his crucifixion? Who could describe the moral idiocy of a generation that taunted the helpless victim even while on the cross, that gloated in his death, and that, when he was risen from the dead, bribed the witnesses of it with gold to deny that it had indeed occurred? Who indeed CAN declare that generation? Jesus himself proclaimed his identification with the Suffering Servant of Isaiah, “A Servant … who would give his life a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). John the Baptist extolled him as “the lamb of God,” conspicuously identified with the Servant in Isaiah. As Bruce said: There is no evidence that between the time of Isaiah and the time of Christ anyone had identified the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 with the Davidic Messiah of Isaiah 11, or with the “one like unto the Son of man (Daniel 7:15); but Jesus identified them and fulfills them.[41]“How is it written of the Son of man, that he should suffer many things and be set at naught?” (Mark 9:12). “How indeed, unless the Son of man be also the Servant of the Lord?"[42]Before leaving this, it should be noted that another understanding of “His generation who shall declare?” is represented in the words of Plumptre: Who shall declare the number of those who share his life, and are, as it were sprung from him? - Who can count his faithful disciples?[43]Neither of these views is denied by the text; and it may well be that both are in it. [40] F. F. Bruce, op. cit., p. 188. [41] Ibid. [42] Ibid. [43] E. H. Plumptre, op. cit., p. 53. Verse 34 And the eunuch answered Philip; and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other? And Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this scripture, preached unto him Jesus.The apostolic preachers all laid heavy emphasis upon the Old Testament prophecies concerning Jesus Christ; and no better place for a beginning could be imagined than the famous 53chapter of Isaiah, so rich with prefigurations of the life of our Lord. Wherever the sermons of those apostolic preachers began, the message was always the same, namely, that men should believe on the Lord Jesus with all their heart, repent of their transgressions, and be baptized into Christ. That this is exactly what Philip preached here, as he did also to the Samaritans, will be evident in the next verses. Verse 36 And as they went on their way, they came to a certain water; and the eunuch saith, Behold, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.The request for baptism on the part of the eunuch was the immediate and direct result of Philip’s preaching unto him Jesus; and in this is manifest the fact that preaching Jesus means preaching baptism for the remission of sins. There are some in our generation who fancy that they are preaching Jesus, but whose hearers never request baptism; and in that is manifest the fact that such preachers are not preaching Jesus at all. See “What It Means To Preach Christ” under Acts 8:12. The last two sentences in this passage are Acts 8:37 in the KJV; but, despite the fact of this verse having been left out of the English Revised Version upon what appears to be sufficient textual grounds, it has been included here because it is true, being valuable as commentary, whether or not it belongs in the sacred text. It was the custom from the very earliest Christian times for converts to confess their faith upon the occasion of their baptism, a fact referred to by Paul in Ephesians 5:26 (Goodspeed translation). This writer has never read of any commentator who denied the truth expressed in Acts 8:37. Verse 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. 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.Under Acts 8:31, it was noted that the eunuch did no less than seven things in the discharge of his duty to be concerned about his own salvation; and here it is clear that he did three additional things. He requested baptism, commanded the chariot to stand still, and submitted to baptism. There are many today who need to command their own chariot to stand still while they submit to the ordinance of God. Down into the water … up out of the water … No man could frame a sentence in any language that would show any more conclusively than does this one that the baptism here administered was by immersion. The type of comment that can deny immersion here is fraudulent. Went on his way rejoicing … Throughout the book of Acts, Luke brings into view the “joy” and the “rejoicing” of those who obeyed the gospel. Significantly, the rejoicing came after the baptism here, as it does elsewhere. One grand purpose of this book is to reveal how men become Christians; and, taken collectively, the various conversions in Acts reveal one plan of salvation and one alone. Invariably, those who were saved: They heard the word of God. They believed what was preached. They believed on the Lord Jesus Christ. They repented of their sins. They confessed the Saviour. They were immersed, that is, baptized into Christ. They received forgiveness of their sins. They received the gift ordinary of the Holy Spirit. They rejoiced in salvation. There is no other way for any man to be saved. Verse 40 But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached the gospel to all the cities until he came to Caesarea.Azotus … was the ancient Philistine city of Ashdod; and Philip preached there and in all the cities of the Mediterranean coast until he came to Caesarea Palestina where he established a residence. We shall meet with Philip again in Acts 21:8.

Questions by E.M. Zerr For Acts Chapter 81. Who is antecedent of “ his” in first verse ? 2. In what way did Saul give his consent? 3. What calamity happened at this time? 4. How did it affect the disciples? 5. What was done with Stephen’ s body? 6. Relate Saul’ s activities at this time. 7. What did the ones scattered do? 8. Who was Philip? 9. Where did he go and why? 10. By what was his preaching confirmed? 11. What prediction did this fulfill? 12. State the reception his preaching received. 13. What certain man is now introduced ? 14. State his occupation. 15. Describe the extent of his influence. 16. What power was ascribed to him ? 17. But what influence now supplanted this ? 18. What rank or age of people was baptized ? 19. When were they baptized? 20. What man was baptized with the rest ? 21. Had he become a believer ? 22. Was his sincerity questioned? 23. With whom did he continue to associate? 24. State how the wonders of Philip affected him. 25. What news was heard by the apostles at Jerusalem ? 26. Upon that what did they do ? 27. Why did they send these men down? 28. Had the Samaritans already received salvation ? 29. Why had they not received the Holy Ghost ? 30. What ceremony was performed by the apostles ? 31. Tell what observation Simon made. 32. What proposition did he make? 33. Why was his money to perish with him ? 34. What is meant by “this matter” in 21st verse? 35. How about Simon’s heart? 36. State the law of pardon delivered him by Peter. 37. Explain this in light of 2: 38. 38. Harmonize verse 23 with verse 13. 39. Where did the apostles then go? 40. On their way what did they do ? 41. Who spoke to Philip? 42. Where was he to go? 43. What kind of country was it ? 44. Does that have to be the dry sand? 45. Who was also making a journey? 46. Where had he been and why? 47. What was he doing as he rode ? 48. Locate the scripture he was reading. 49. Did the angel further instruct Philip? 50. What was he told to do? 51. Repeat the question he asked the eunuch. 52. And the answer. 53. Of whom was the eunuch reading? 54. What facts in his life were being predicted ? 55. Repeat the question the eunuch asked Philip. 56. And the answer. 57. What word indicates a fixed body of water? 58. State the question the eunuch asked. 59. Also give the answer. 60. Repeat the confession. 61. Why should the chariot come to a stop? 62. Who went down into the water? 63. What act would require this? 64. In what way did Philip disappear? 65. What were his activities?

Acts 8:1

1 Act 8:1. Consenting is from , which Thayer defines at this place, “To approve together,” and Robinson gives virtually the same definition. Paul verifies the definition in his statement in chapter 22:20. At this time is rendered “on that day” by the Englishman’s Greek New Testament. Like a ravenous beast that. gets a taste of blood, these murderers became infuriated by the case of Stephen and started a general persecution of the church in Jerusalem. The disciples were scattered on account of the danger to their lives. A Christian has the right to save his life when he can do so without compromising any truth. I do not know why the apostles did not have to flee.

Acts 8:2

2Act 8:2. The original for lamentation is defined by Thayer, “lamentation with beating of the breast,” and Robinson defines it in the same way. It was a formal demonstration of grief that such a righteous man should die as he did.

Acts 8:3

3Act 8:3. The church as an established organization cannot be overthrown, for it was destined to “stand for ever” (Daniel 2:44). But it can be hindered in its work, and its individual members can be persecuted and even put to death in certain instances. That is what Saul did, for havoc means to “treat shamefully or with injury.” It states he was entering into every house, which shows he was not attacking the church as an assembled unit. Haling is defined “to draw, drag,” and denotes that disciples were used roughly while being taken to prison.

Acts 8:4

4Acts 8:4. Therefore indicates a conclusion is to be drawn from facts stated or understood. Saul was persecuting the disciples so cruelly that they fled from the community and went into various territories. Preaching the word was not a part of the conclusion from therefore, but was added for our information to show that the disciples were not weakening in their love for the word. Their being scattered is the only part that is offered as a conclusion after the word therefore. The motive in preserving their lives was that they might be able still to defend the faith in other places. Chapter 11:1.9 names some of the places where they went preaching.

Acts 8:5

5Acts 8:5. Cornelius is commonly referred to as the first Gentile convert to the Gospel, which is correct. This verse says that Philip (one of the seven deacons) preached to the people of Samaria. All people who were not full blooded Jews were regarded as Gentiles, hence some confusion might arise here. But the explanation is in the fact that the Samaritans were distinguished from the Gentiles proper because they were a mixed race, part Jew and part Gentile, both in their blood and in their religion. The history of their origin is in 2 Kings 17, volume 2 of the Old. Testament Commentary.

Acts 8:6

6Acts 8:6. With one accord denotes that no dissension arose among the people over the preaching of Philip. He was able to perform these miracles by the laying on of the apostles’ hands in chapter 6, verse 6.

Acts 8:7

7Acts 8:27. There is no history available that tells us whether this eunuch was a Jew or Gentile. If he was a Jew born in Ethiopia, he would be an Ethiopian by nation. The question that is sometimes raised is how it can be said that Cornelius was the first Gentile convert, if this eunuch was an Ethiopian by race. That need cause no confusion, for there were proselytes to the Jewish religion all through the years, and such persons were regarded as Jews. That is why this man had gone to Jerusalem to worship, for that was the headquarters of the Jewish system. It also explains why he was reading the book of Isaiah. (For notes on the proselytes, see Matthew 23:15.)

Acts 8:8

8Acts 8:8. This joy was natural, for doubtless the afflictions had been suffered for many years. Both the afflicted and their friends would rejoice over the miraculous relief.

Acts 8:9

9Acts 8:9. Used sorcery is from MAGEUO which Thayer defines, “To be a magician; to practice magical arts.” In past ages, God suffered Satan to exert supernatural power through the agency of men (Exodus 7:11-12 Exodus 7:22 Exodus 8:18-19). Because of the real existence of such works, it was possible for men to impose on the credulity of the people and thus pass for such supernaturally-endowed performers even though they were frauds. Whether Simon was the former or the latter kind of actor we are not informed.

Acts 8:10

0Acts 8:10. Any such demonstrations that would seem to be divine would have a profound effect on the people, and cause them to think the performer was a man of God.

Acts 8:11

1Act 8:11. Bewitched is from which means, “to amaze, astonish, throw into wonderment,” hence it refers to some effect Simon had on the mind and not the body.

Acts 8:12

2Act 8:12. When they believed . . . they were baptized. It will be seen that the inspired writer takes it for granted when a man believes the Gospel he will also obey it. (See the comments at chapter 2:41.) Men and women. We never read in the scriptures that infants or young children were baptized; it is always men or women.

Acts 8:13

3Act 8:13. Simon himself believed. This is the statement of Luke and therefore must be taken as the truth, and not merely that Simon pretended to believe. And when ‘he was baptized. (See the comments on the preceding verse about this form of expression.) Continued is from , and Thayer defines it at this place, “To adhere to one, to be his adherent; to be devoted or constant to one.” We have no reason to think that Simon was not genuinely interested in the work of Philip. The record says that Simon continued with Philip because he saw the miracles that were performed, and John 20:30-31 expressly says that the signs and wonders were performed to produce belief.

Acts 8:14-15

5Acts 8:14-15. Philip preached the word of God and even performed miracles in proof of his authority. But he could not confer the Holy Ghost on his converts in the measure necessary to enable them to work miracles; none by apostles could do that.. And since converts in those days were promised such a gift (chapter 2:38), the apostles went down to Samaria to confer it.

Acts 8:16

6Acts 8:16. These people had obeyed the Gospel but had not received the Holy Ghost, which shows that the gift was not bestowed simultaneously with baptism.

Acts 8:17

7Acts 8:17. This gift was not to make them Christians or bring them forgiveness of sins; their obedience to the Gospel did that for them.

Acts 8:18

8Acts 8:18. The inspired Luke says that Simon saw a certain fact, not that he only thought he saw it. Hence this verse is insipred authority for saying it was through -laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given. He offered them money. This was what constituted the sin of Simon (see next verse). It does not indicate that Simon’s primary obedience was not sincere. (See the comments on verse 13.) Disciples who have been in the church for years are known to commit sin, so it is not to be doubted that a .babe scarcely out of his spiritual swaddling clothes might backslide also.

Acts 8:19

9Acts 8:19. Simon was not asking merely for the power to perform ran acles; he might have received that sooner or later as the others di& But he wanted the power that was possessed by the apostles, so he could lay hands on others and give them ability to perform miracles. The sight of the performance of the apostles seemed to arouse his former interest in that which was marvelous, so that he yielded to the temptation and offered to buy that which cannot be valued in “dollars and cents.”

Acts 8:20

0Acts 8:20. Money perish with thee is a declaration of solemn truth, not in the sense of a special denunciation. We know that money is destined to pass away some day, and so also will evil men if they do not repent. Money perish . . . because, etc. This was an evil thought and constituted the sin of Simon.

Acts 8:21

1Act 8:21. Part means a share of something that is “assigned” to one, and lot denotes something won or “obtained by lot.” There is not a great deal of difference I between the two words in question, but the use of them together makes a statement that is more emphatic, and rules out both measures of the Holy Ghost. That which the apostles only could possess would not have been given Simon even if he had not been corrupt in heart. But that condition prevented him from receiving even the measure that other disciples were promised to receive.

Acts 8:22

2Act 8:22. The original word for wickedness often means some very bad bodily conduct, but Simon had not done anything of that kind. One word in Thayer’s definition is “depravity,” and that would apply in this case. Nothing but a depraved mind would think the Holy Ghost could be bought with money. Hence Peter told him to repent of the thought of Ms heart. Perhaps ordinarily denotes a doubt, which would not be a proper sense to attach to the word when thinking of the mercy of God.

The original carries the idea of an earnest frame of mind on the part of Simon as if he should say, “Lord, I beseech thee,” etc. Repent and pray is the law of pardon for a disciple when he has sinned. Chapter 2:38 gives the law for one who has never been a child of God, and that is to “repent and be baptized.” An alien sinner would not avail himself anything to repent and pray, neither would It avail anything for an erring disciple to repent and be baptized, because baptism is to be performed only once.

Acts 8:23

3Act 8:23. Gall and bitterness are virtually the same in thought, and are used together for the sake of emphasis. It denotes a state of mind that is poisoned with depravity. Iniquity is defined in the lexicon, “unrighteousness of heart.” The heart of Simon was bound up in a state of depravity, indicated by the sordid estimate that he placed on the value of the Holy Ghost

Acts 8:24

4Acts 8:24. Simon wished Peter to pray that he be released from the guilt of these things, meaning the state of corruption in his mind and the judgment of God that such a condition of mind would deserve. The scripture does not tell us anything about the conduct of Simon after this, and secular history is uncertain about the subject.

Acts 8:25

5Acts 8:25. They means Peter and John who returned to Jerusalem, but preached in many of the Samaritan villages on their way.

Acts 8:26

6Acts 8:26. The New Testament was not completed and the apostolic period was still with the world. In that situation God used various means to get his will to men. It should be carefully noted that he never did tell a sinner directly what to do to be saved. But until the plan of salvation was put on record where everyone could read it, the Lord used miraculous means to contact the sinner. In the present instance an angel (in what form he appeared we are not told) appeared to Philip who had just done his wonderful work in Samaria.

The only thing the angel did was to ,tell Philip where to go. God knew where the preacher would meet the man to whom the Gospel message was to be delivered. Desert is from EREMOS which means an “uninhabited wilderness,” and has reference to the physical condition of the land.

Acts 8:28

8Acts 8:28. Chariots were made for two purposes: war, and transportation in times of peace. The eunuch was riding in one of the latter.

Acts 8:29

9Acts 8:29. The angel was used to direct Philip into the general location of the eunuch, and after arriving there, the Spirit gave him specific instrutions about joining the chariot. But it should be noted in each case that the eunuch never learned anything about his duty until he got it from the preacher. (See Romans 10:14.)

Acts 8:30

0Acts 8:30. Philip was evidently traveling on foot, for after reaching the chariot (and entering it) he journeyed on with the eunuch. The speed of the chariot also was slow enough that Philip was able to overhear what tie eunuch was reading, and also to enter into conversation with him.

Acts 8:31

1Act 8:31. In answer to Philip’s question, the eunuch said he could not understand what he was reading without a guide. This should not surprise us, for he was reading in one of the prophetic books, and we are told that even the prophets themselves did not know “what it was all about” when they were inspired to do their writing. (See Matthew 13:17; 1 Peter 1:10-12). The attitude of Philip indicated his willingness to explain the scripture, and the eunuch asked him to sit with him in the chariot.

Acts 8:32-33

3Act 8:32-33. This scripture is in Isaiah 53:7-8; it is in the past tense as to grammatical form, but that is a common thing in the prophetic writings. It pictures the unresisting attitude of Jesus when he was sentenced and executed upon the cross. Judgment was taken away means Jesus was treated with injustice. Declare is defined, “to set forth, recount, relate in full,” and generation means one’s descent. The question is asked in the sense of asserting that no one can declare the family descent of Jesus. The reason is given in the words, his life is taken from the earth. Jesus died without having produced any fleshly offspring, because his only purpose in this world was to leave behind him a spiritual family. (See Ephesians 3:15.)

Acts 8:34

4Acts 8:34. See the comments on verse 31 for the eunuch’s question.

Acts 8:35

5Acts 8:35. Opened his mouth. No sinner was ever induced to accept salvation by miraculous means, but it was always by the use of words. (See chapter 11:14.) Began at the same scripture denotes he explained the passage to be referring to Jesus. But after that start of his speech, the context indicates that he taught the eunuch the acts of faith that Jesus requires of sinners in order to receive forgiveness of sins.

Acts 8:36

6Acts 8:36. The Old Testament says nothing about baptism, hence the eunuch could have learned about it only from Philip. This proves beyond any question that to preach Jesus means to tell of His requirements, including baptism in water. Certain is from TIS which Thayer defines, “a certain, a certain one.” Water is from HUDOR, and the definitions of Thayer and Robinson agree, but the latter is fuller at this passage which is, “A stream, river.” Hence a certain water means a permanent body of water, and one large enough for two men to enter. (See verses 38, 39.) The only material element necessary for baptism being present, the eunuch wished to know if he might be baptized.

Acts 8:37

7Acts 8:37. There was just one item in his duty still undone that had to precede baptism, which was the good confession. (See Romans 10:9-10.) Philip told the eunuch that if he believed with all his heart thou mayest. The last two words are from EXESTI, which Thayer defines, “it is lawful.” Robinson defines it, “It is lawful, it is right, it is permitted, one may.” Philip meant it would be scriptural for him to baptize the eunuch if he was a believer in Jesus. The contrary would necessarily be true, that it would be unscriptural to baptize a person who is not a believer. That would make it unscriptural to baptize infants since they cannot believe. The confession of the eunuch was his own as far as the wording was concerned, for no one told him just how it was to be made.

In 1 Timothy 6:13 Paul says that Jesus made a good confession before Pilate, yet his words were merely “thou sayest” in answer, to the governor’s question (Matthew 27:11.) This shows that no formal kind of confession should be considered necessary. The form the eunuch used is all right, and so is any other that means that one believes Jesus to be the Son of God.

Acts 8:38

8Acts 8:38. A chariot is an inanimate object and cannot receive an intelligent order. Hence Philip addressed his command to the driver, for had he been doing his own driving he would not have commanded the chariot either. All of this proves that at least three persons were present at this baptism. The remark and question of the eunuch, also the answer of Philip and the eunuch’s confession all took place after they came in sight of the “certain water,” and they were still in sight of it when the command was given for the chariot to stop. This is another proof that the water was of some considerable size.

Into is from is and is properly translated in the King James version. They both had to go down into the water for the act of baptism. The word baptize is from BAPTIZO, and Thayer defines it, “To dip repeatedly, to immerge, submerge.” Robinson defines it, “To dip in, to sink, to immerse.” Groves defines it, “To dip, immerse, plunge.” Greenfield’s definition is, “To immerse, immerge, submerge, sink.” In its noun form, Donne-gan defines it, “An object immersed, submerged, soaked.”

Acts 8:39

9Acts 8:39. Come up out of the water gives emphasis to the comments in the preceding verse on the necessity of going down into the water. Into and out of are opposite terms, and agree with the necessary movements in performing baptism. However, the purpose for the statement is to inform the reader that no supernatural act was done until the baptismal service was concluded. Philip had to make his way into this territory in whatever manner was available, but now that the object of his journey was accomplished, the Spirit of the Lord used some means of snatching him away suddenly out of the eunuch’s sight; but he went on his way rejoicing in his new relation to the Lord.

Acts 8:40

0Acts 8:40. Azotus was a town north of Gaza, the place to which Philip was told by the angel to go. Going on in his northward journey, he preached in all the cities to which he came until he reached his destination which was Caesarea on the coast.