|
Soon after the departure of Peter and John from the
Samaritan city, Philip was
given another evangelistic commission.
He was told to `Go south.'
The person who gave him this
instruction is called *an
angel of the Lord*, although in later
stages of the story. it is
`the Spirit' who directed him to the
Ethiopian (29) and the
`Spirit of the Lord' who then took him away
again (39). Philip was sent
to (and along) *the desert road that
goes down* about sixty miles
*from Jerusalem to Gaza*, which was
the most southerly of the
five Philistine cities, and near the
Mediterranean coast. Whether
the Gaza in question was `old Gaza' which has been destroyed in
93 BC. or `new Gaza' which had been built further south some
thirty-five years later, we are not told.
In either case, the road was
well used, for it continued past Gaza to Egypt and so to the
African continent.
a)
Philip meets the
Ethiopian (8:27-29)
The `Ethiopia' of those days corresponded to what we call `the Upper Nile', reaching
approximately from Aswan to Khartoum.
The man from that region to
whom Luke introduces us was not only a
*eunuch* (as were most
courtiers of that period) but *an important official in charge of all the
treasure of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians* (27). `Candace'
is known to have been not a personal name but a dynastic title for
the Queen Mother who performed
certain functions on behalf
of the king. The Ethiopian official to
whom Philip was sent was her
treasurer or chancellor of the
exchequer, presumably a black
African. But he *had gone to
Jerusalem to worship*, a
pilgrim at one of the annual festivals,
and now *on his way home was
sitting in his chariot reading* the
scroll of *Isaiah the
prophet* (28). This may mean that he was
actually Jewish, either by
birth or by conversion, for the Jewish
dispersion had penetrated at
least into Egypt and probably beyond,
and perhaps by now the
promise to eunuchs of Isaiah 56:3-4 had
superseded the ban of
Deuteronomy 23:1. It seems unlikely that he
was a Gentile, since Luke
does not present him as the first
Gentile convert; that
distinction he reserves for Cornelius. He
regards the Ethiopian's
conversion rather as another example of
the loosening of bonds with
Jerusalem (foreseen by Stephen in his
speech) and of the liberation
of the word of God to be the gospel
for the world. It is
especially significant that this African, who
*had gone to Jerusalem* to
worship, was now leaving it and would
not return there. The story
ends with Luke's statement that `he
went on his way rejoicing'
(39), distanced from Jerusalem although
accompanied by Christ.
b)
Philip shares the good
news with the Ethiopian (8:30-35)
Told to `*go to that chariot and stay near it*' (29),
*Philip ran* alongside it,
close enough to hear *the man reading
Isaiah the prophet* (because
everybody read aloud in those days), and close enough to shout to
him the question, `*Do you understand
what you are reading?*' (30).
Replying that he could not
understand *unless someone
explains it* to him, *he invited Philip
to come up and sit with him*
in his carriage (31). Calvin contrasts the Ethiopian's modesty, in that he
`acknowledges his ignorance
freely and frankly', with a person who
is swollen-headed with
confidence in his own abilities'. He goes
on: `That is also why the
reading of Scripture bears fruit with
such a few people today,
because scarcely one in a hundred is to
be found who gladly submits
himself to teaching.' The fact is that
God has given us two gifts,
first the Scriptures and secondly
teachers to open up, explain,
expound and apply the Scriptures, It
is wonderful to note God's
providence in the Ethiopian's life,
first enabling him to obtain
a copy of the Isaiah scroll and then
sending Philip to teach him
out of it. As Professor Howard
Marshall writes, `The way in
which the story is told bears some
structural resemblance to
another story in which a Stranger joined
two travellers and opened up
the Scriptures to them, took part in
a sacramental act, and then
disappeared from view (Lk.24:13-35).'
So we are to picture the Ethiopian with the scroll of Isaiah
53 spread out on his lap, and
with Philip now sitting beside him,
as the carriage jolted its
way further south. The verses Luke
quotes (Is.53:7-8) speak of a
human sufferer who is *led like a sheep to the slaughter* and
like *a lamb before the shearer* is
silent. He experiences deep
*humiliation*, is *deprived of
justice*, and is killed
(32-33). The Ethiopian asks who *the
prophet is talking about,
himself or someone else*? (34). In
reply, beginning *with that
very passage of Scripture*, Philip *told him the good news about
Jesus* (35). Now there is no
evidence that anyone in
first-century Judaism was expecting a
sufferer rather than a
triumphant Messiah. No, it was Jesus who applied Isaiah 53 to himself,
and understood his death in the
light of it. (eg. Mk. 10:45;
14:24ff; Lk. 22:37). It was,
therefore, from him that the
early Christians learned to read
Isaiah 53 in this way. So
well prepared by the Holy Spirit was the
Ethiopian's heart that it
seems he believe immediately, and went
on to ask for baptism.
Chrysostom contrasts the conversion of the Ethiopian with
that of Saul of Tarsus,
recorded in Acts 9. `Verily', he says,
`one has reason to admire
this eunuch.' For, unlike Saul, he had
no supernatural vision of
Christ. Yet he believed, `so great a
thing is the careful reading
of the Scriptures!'
Acts 8:36-39a
c). Philip baptises the Ethiopian
*As they travelled along the road they came to some water*, presumably in a wayside wadi,
and the Ethiopian said: `*Look,here is water. Why shouldn't I be
baptised?*' (36). The following verse
(37), found in the text of AV
and NIV margin, is a Western addition, not found in the
earlier manuscripts: `Philip said, "If you believe with all your
heart, you may." The eunuch answered "Ibelieve that Jesus Christ is
the Son of God."' The two sentences seem to have belonged to an
early baptismal liturgy. They were
probably inserted into the
text by a scribe who felt certain that
Philip, before baptizing the
Ethiopian, would have made sure that
he had believed in his heart,
in contrast to Simon Magus, whose
heart was `not right before
God' (21). At all events, the
Ethiopian *gave orders to
stop the chariot. Then both Philip and
the eunuch went down into the
water, and Philip baptised him*
(38). The water was a visible
sign of the washing away of his sins
and of his baptism with the
Spirit. Incidentally. the words `went
down into the water', as J.A.
Alexander comments, `can prove
nothing as to the its extent
or depth'. Total immersion *may* be
implied, but in that case the
baptizer and the baptised will have
been submerged together,
since the same statement is made of them
both. So the expression may
rather mean, as the earliest paintings and baptisteries suggest,
that they went down into the water up to
their waist, and that Philip
then poured water over the Ethiopian.
Several MSS add that `the
Holy Spirit fell on the eunuch', and
some scholars accept these
words as original. But it seems more
likely that they were added
specially `to make explicit that
baptism of the Ethiopian was
followed by the gift of the Holy
Spirit'.
d) Philip is parted from the
Ethiopian (8:39b-40)
Luke implies that immediately after *they came up out of the
water, the Spirit of the Lord
suddenly took Philip away* (39)...and he *appeared at Azotus*,
that is Ashdod (40a). Some understand
this trip as `a supersonic
ride', undertaken `with miraculous
velocity', and, to be sure,
the Greek verb for `took away'
(*harpazo*) normally means to
`snatch' (NEB) or `seize', as at the
rapture (1 Thess.4:17). But I
think Campbell Morgan was right: `It
is not at all necessary that
this should be accounted a miracle. I
am never anxious to read
miracles in, where they are not; any more
than I am anxious to rule out
miracles, where they are in'. At any
rate, *the eunuch did not see
him (Philip) again, but went on his
way rejoicing* (39b), without
the evangelist but with the evangel,
without human aid but with
the divine Spirit who not only gave him
joy but also, according to
Irenaeus, gave him courage and power in
his own country `to preach
what he had himself believed'. Philip
also went on evangelizing,
working his way north along the coast,*preaching the gospel in all
the towns until he reached Caesarea*
40b), where, later if not
already, he made his home (21:8).
Acts
8:1:40. Some lessons about evangelism.
Luke has brought together for us two examples of Philip's evangelistic
labours, and it is instructive to compare and contrast them. The
similarities are plain. In both instances the same pioneer spirit was
shown by Philip, who won the first Samaritans and the first African to
Christ. To both audiences the same message was proclaimed, namely the
good news of Jesus Christ (12,35), for there is only one gospel. In both
situations the same response was given, for the hearers believed and
were baptized (12, 36-38). And in both cases the same results recorded,
namely joy (8, 39). The differences are striking too. I am not now
thinking of how the Spirit was received, or of the apostolic delegation
to Samaria which had no parallel in the conversion of the Ethiopian. I
am thinking rather of the people evangelized and of the methods
employed.
Take the people evangelized. The people with whom Philip shared the good
news were different in race, rank and religion. The
Samaritans were of mixed race, half-Jewish and half-Gentile, and
Asiatic, while the Ethiopian was a black African, though probably a Jew
by birth or a proselyte. As for rank, the Samaritans were presumably
ordinary citizens, whereas the Ethiopian was a distinguished public
servant in the employment of the Crown. That brings us to religion. The
Samaritans revered Moses but rejected the prophets. Recently they had
come under the spell of Simon the sorcerer and his occult powers. They
had `paid attention' to him (10) before they `paid attention' to Philip
(6). The Ethiopian, on the other hand had a strong attachment to
Judaism, perhaps as a convert, and this led him both to go on a
pilgrimage to Jerusalem and to read one of the many prophets the
Samaritans rejected. So the Samaritans were unstable and credulous,
while the Ethiopian was a thoughtful seeker after the truth. Yet despite
their differences in racial origin, social class and predisposing
religious condition, Philip presented them both with the same good news
of Jesus.
Consider next the methods Philip employed. His mission to the Samaritans
was an early example of `mass evangelism', for `the crowds' heard his
message, saw his signs, paid attention to him, believed and were
baptized (6, 12). Philip's conversation with the Ethiopian, however, was
a conspicuous example of `personal evangelism', for here was one man
sitting alongside another man, and talking to him out of the Scriptures,
privately and patiently, about Jesus. It is also noteworthy that the
same evangelist was adaptable enough to use both methods, namely public
proclamation and private testimony. But, although he could alter his
method, he did not alter his basic message. It is this combination of
change (in relation to context and method) and changelessness (in
relation to the gospel itself), together with the ability to discern
between them, which is one of Philip's abiding legacies to the church.
Next: Acts 9: 1-31 - The conversion of Saul
|
