Mark Bradford's Bible Blog

Philip and the Ethiopian

²⁶Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Go south to the road—the desert road—that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” ²⁷So he started out, and on his way he met an Ethiopian^[d]eunuch, an important official in charge of all the treasury of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians. This man had gone to Jerusalem to worship, ²⁸and on his way home was sitting in his chariot reading the book of Isaiah the prophet.

After the success of Philip’s ministry in Samaria, God had another important job for him. Philip had preached to crowds in Samaria, but now God sent him to witness to one man. According to tradition, this one person turned out to be very important indeed. He was a eunuch from Ethiopia, and as Luke says, an important official in charge of all the treasury of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians. Candace was the dynastic name of the queens of Ethiopia, like Pharaoh was the dynastic name, or title, of the kings of Egypt, and Caesar was the same in Rome. Eunuchs were familiar figures in the royal courts of ancient cultures. They were considered loyal, safe, and disposable. Though they were servants or slaves, many rose to positions of high authority, as this man did. He was a proselyte to Judaism who had traveled 1500 miles from his home in Ethiopia to worship at the temple, even though eunuchs, and anyone who had undergone genital mutilation, were barred from full participation in Israel’s worship (Deut. 23:1). Ironic in a culture that required circumcision!

This eunuch was a man of contradictions. He had wealth and power, but was a slave with no rights. He believed in the God of Israel so much that he traveled 1500 miles to worship at his temple, but was denied full participation because of his physical disability. But after his encounter with Philip and with Jesus, he would experience the freedom and inclusion that he had never known before. As he traveled along the road in his chariot, he read aloud from the Book of Isaiah. It was common to read aloud in ancient cultures, maybe to show that you really could read in a world where most were illiterate. The fact that he had his own scroll of Isaiah shows how rich he was. Books at that time were copied by hand, and very expensive.

²⁹The Spirit told Philip, “Go to that chariot and stay near it.”

³⁰Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.

³¹“How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

³²The eunuch was reading this passage of Scripture:
“He was led like a sheep to the slaughter,
and as a lamb before the shearer is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
³³ In his humiliation he was deprived of justice.
Who can speak of his descendants?
For his life was taken from the earth.”^[e]

³⁴The eunuch asked Philip, “Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?” ³⁵Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.

Twice in this story, God tells Philip to go somewhere, and Philip goes. If we want to be used by God, we have to go where he tells us to go. If you doubt that God’s timing is perfect, consider the passage from Isaiah that the eunuch “happened” to be reading when Philip was within earshot. He might have been reading prophecies against Assyria or Babylon (Isaiah 10, 13), or passages regarding the conquering Davidic Messiah in Isaiah 11, but in God’s providence, he was reading the Suffering Servant passage from Isaiah 53. It presents the perfect picture of how Jesus had suffered and died not long before. This provided the perfect opportunity for Philip to tell him about Jesus.

Philip’s question to the eunuch, “Do you understand what you are reading?”, is exactly the right question. Jews of that time thought that the suffering servant either represented Israel, who had suffered for many years in wars, exile, and persecution, or that he represented Isaiah himself. They didn’t want to think that the suffering servant could represent the Messiah. They wanted to think of the Messiah as as conquering king. That’s why the eunuch asked the question he asked, “who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?” I can just see Philip, in his common clothes, sitting in this fancy chariot next to a rich foreign official in fine robes, starting at the beginning of Isaiah 53 and showing how each sentence referred to the events of the last Passover in Jerusalem, and the suffering and death of Jesus. When God told Philip to go, he went, and he arrived at the exact right time to share the gospel with the one God sent him to. If Philip had delayed or argued with God, this meeting would never have happened, or he would have caught up with the chariot at the wrong time. When God tells you to go somewhere or do something, don’t delay or argue. Just do it.

³⁶As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. Why shouldn’t I be baptized?”^{[f] 38}And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him. ³⁹When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing. ⁴⁰Philip, however, appeared at Azotus and traveled about, preaching the gospel in all the towns until he reached Caesarea.

Apparently, at some point in their conversation, Philip told the eunuch that he must believe in Jesus as the Messiah and be baptized, because as soon as they came to water, the eunuch wanted to be baptized. It was his idea. Philip didn’t have to persuade him. The eunuch had traveled far to worship at a temple that would not fully include him. He was a sincere seeker. Now he had found a faith that would let him all the way in, and he wanted in! According to verses 38 and 39, this baptism was immersion of a more complete kind than I’ve ever seen. They both went under! Try that at your next baptism service, pastors!

As soon as the eunuch was baptized, Philip was “spirited” away. He had done what God sent him to do, and now he was needed elsewhere. The eunuch doesn’t seem fazed by this at all. He just went on his way rejoicing. He went back to Ethiopia, and must have been a great witness there. In fact, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church traces its origins back to this very eunuch. The Ethiopian church is the oldest continuously organized denomination in Christianity, predating the Greek and Roman churches. If the Ethiopian church really does go back to the testimony of this eunuch, then it’s easy to understand why God sent Philip to this one man. When God sends us somewhere, or gives us a job to do, we never know what the eternal consequences will be.

Mark Bible Acts, Ethiopian eunuch, eunuchs, Philip

Simon the Sorcerer

⁹Now for some time a man named Simon had practiced sorcery in the city and amazed all the people of Samaria. He boasted that he was someone great, ¹⁰and all the people, both high and low, gave him their attention and exclaimed, “This man is the divine power known as the Great Power.” ¹¹They followed him because he had amazed them for a long time with his magic. ¹²But when they believed Philip as he preached the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. ¹³Simon himself believed and was baptized. And he followed Philip everywhere, astonished by the great signs and miracles he saw.

This story is a source of theological debates on many subjects such as a second work of grace, apostolic miracles, the laying on of hands, “once saved, always saved,” and others. As much as I enjoy a good theological debate, I think this passage is mainly about pride and the power of God vs the power of the occult. Simon was a sorcerer or magician. We don’t know how much of what he did was real and how much was mere illusion the way “magicians” use illusions today. But there is real power in the occult, and it is the power of Satan. Don’t be fooled. There is no such thing as “white magick.” All spiritual power which does not submit to the lordship of Christ is satanic. Simon had enjoyed fame and admiration for the things he did. Fame and admiration are addicting. Simon had done such impressive things, people not only said he had the power of God, they said he was the power of God. When people say things like that about you, it messes with your head, even if you are saved.

Because of what happens next in this story, many, especially Calvinists, say that Simon’s salvation was not sincere. But the scripture never says that. In verse 13, Luke says that Simon believed and was baptized, the same as the others who were saved by believing in Philip’s message. Then he followed Philip everywhere. The Amplified Bible says in verse 13 that Simon devoted himself constantly to Philip. He became a devoted member of the new Jesus movement in Samaria. In Acts 13:8-11, Luke tells of another sorcerer, Elymas, who opposed the gospel. His fate was far different from Simon’s. If Simon was not truly saved, he would have opposed Philip from the beginning as someone who threatened his spiritual authority in Samaria.

¹⁴When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. ¹⁵When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, ¹⁶because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into^[c] the name of the Lord Jesus. ¹⁷Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

When the apostles learned that Samaritans were believing and being baptized, Peter and John were sent that they might receive the Holy Spirit. This seems to have been another instance of the apostolic laying on of hands, like what Philip had received in 6:5-6. Some say that this laying on of hands conferred miraculous powers, that it was the reason Stephen and Philip had those powers. If that’s true, then this was a way of conferring authority on early church leaders in Samaria. This was something that, apparently, only the apostles could do, and Philip could not. Some who teach this doctrine of the laying on of hands by the apostles in Acts say that because only the apostles could do this, when the last of those who had received the Holy Spirit in this way died, the age of miracles in the church ended. I’m not sure I buy that, but I think it warrants further study.

The other major point of controversy that this passage brings up is that they had not received the Holy Spirit when they believed and were baptized. Since I am an Arminianist/Wesleyan/Nazarene, it’s easy for me to see this in the context of a second work of grace. But Luke doesn’t say whether Peter and John laid hands on everyone who had converted, or just some. If this was the baptism of the Holy Spirit like at Pentecost, it would have included everyone. If it was more of an ordination of leaders, like with the Seven, then it was only some. Since Simon does not appear to have received this anointing, maybe it was the latter.

¹⁸When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money ¹⁹and said, “Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.”

²⁰Peter answered: “May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! ²¹You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God. ²²Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord. Perhaps he will forgive you for having such a thought in your heart. ²³For I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin.”

²⁴Then Simon answered, “Pray to the Lord for me so that nothing you have said may happen to me.”

Simon was a new Christian, and though I believe he was sincere, he had some basic misunderstandings of the gospel. He saw that when Peter and John laid hands on someone, they received the Holy Spirit. As someone who had been admired for having spiritual powers, this appealed to his pride. He wanted that power for himself. Though some say that this sin proves Simon was not really saved in the first place, I think it just shows that even after we are saved, we can still be tempted, and we still battle with our sinful nature, as Paul describes in Romans 7:14-25. This is simply an example of sin in the life of a believer. Peter’s response, though harsh, is speaking the truth in love. The literal meaning of Peter’s statement in verse 20, “”May your money perish with you,” in the Greek, literally means, “To hell with you and your money.”

Many take what Peter says in verse 21 to mean that Simon was not really saved. But this assertion denies the fact that the sinful nature remains in us, even after we are saved, and that it’s possible for believers to sin and be restored. The Bible clearly teaches both of these principles, and there are many examples of them in scripture. Just because Simon sinned here doesn’t mean he was never saved. He had no part or share in this ministry. Which ministry? Not the Church of Jesus Christ, the apostolic laying on of hands. Peter said Simon’s heart was not right before God, and he was full of bitterness and captive to sin. One commentary I read today says that the tense in verse 23 is actually future tense, that Peter was warning Simon that he would become full of bitterness and captive to sin if he did not repent. Even if the NIV is correct about the tense, I think Simon was being drawn back into his old life by his sinful nature and his many years of practicing the occult. The occult has a powerful hold on anyone who practices it, and even after someone who lives that sort of life is saved, they can easily be drawn back into it the way a former addict can be drawn back into their old habits. Just as powerful is the appeal of pride, which affects all of us, and from which all sin springs. Simon had been called the Great Power, and had given that up to accept Jesus. It’s easy to see how witnessing what Peter and John did might give him the idea that he could get some of that status back in this new faith. If you don’t think pride affects believers, I’d like to know what churches you’ve attended.

Peter’s response to Simon is the rebuking of a believer, not a condemnation of an enemy of Christ, the way Paul condemned Elymas in 13:8-11. He tells Simon to repent and pray rather than to believe and be baptized, as was required for new converts. Simon’s response was not all it should have been. He didn’t humble himself before the apostles and repent then and there, he just wanted to avoid the consequences of his sin, which makes many doubt his sincerity. But we all want to avoid the consequences of our sin, don’t we? We don’t know if Simon ever repented or not. But we do know the formula for a believer who sins and wants to be restored. Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord.

²⁵When they had testified and proclaimed the word of the Lord, Peter and John returned to Jerusalem, preaching the gospel in many Samaritan villages.

When the persecution of the church began after the stoning of Stephen, the apostles stayed in Jerusalem while the church scattered. But after having been to Samaria and seen what God was doing there, Peter and John took their time getting back to Jerusalem and preached the gospel in many Samaritan villages. I wonder if they went to the village that John had wanted to call down fire from heaven on in Luke 9:51-56. Before the resurrection and Pentecost, John was a believer in Jesus, but full of pride and erroneous ideas about what the gospel was all about, much like Simon here. But after he received the Holy Spirit, his only concern was proclaiming the word of the Lord to all people, including Samaritans. That’s the change that the Holy Spirit can bring about in our lives if we will submit to him completely.

Mark Bible Acts, laying on of hands, occult, Philip, Simon the sorcerer

Philip in Samaria

⁴Those who had been scattered preached the word wherever they went. ⁵Philip went down to a city in Samaria and proclaimed the Christ^[a]there.

After the stoning of Stephen, the church scattered into Judea and Samaria, in accordance with Jesus’ command to them in 1:8:

But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.

The Philip mentioned here is not Philip the apostle, but the Philip who is named in 6:5. He was one of the Seven along with Stephen, the men who were charged with making sure that the needs of the widows and orphans in the church were met. We know this because Luke says in 8:1 that the apostles stayed in Jerusalem, and because when the apostles learned that Samaritans were believing and being baptized later in this chapter, Peter and John were sent to help them receive the Holy Spirit. The authority of the Twelve was needed for that, and apparently this Philip did not possess that authority.

Two things strike me about this right off the bat. First, though the church also scattered throughout Judea, Luke, as a Gentile, chose to tell us about what happened in Samaria. Jews of that time despised Samaritans, and the feeling was mutual. Devout Jews would walk a long way around to avoid even walking through a Samaritan area. The division between Jew and Samaritan went back to the divided kingdoms of Israel and Judah. When the Northern kingdom of Israel was taken into captivity by the Assyrians in 722 B.C., they intermarried with their conquerors, so Jews considered them “half-breeds.” Although the divided kingdom and their captivity stemmed from pagan religious practices, in Jesus’ time, Samaritans were strict monotheists, and though they didn’t practice mainstream Judaism, they did worship Yahweh. They only regarded the first five books of the Old Testament, the Pentateuch, as true scripture, and they insisted that the true temple for Israel’s worship was on Mt. Gerazim, rather than Mt. Zion in Jerusalem. They looked for the Messiah, but they expected him to rule from Mt. Gerazim, not from Jerusalem. (If you’re interested in learning more about the Samaritans, I recommend Bible-History.com’s pages on it.)

Though Jews of that time despised and avoided Samaritans, Jesus had shown his attitude toward them in his healing of the ten lepers (Luke 17:11-19, blog), his parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37, blog), and in his encounter with the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4:1-26, blog). He had also shown compassion toward a Samaritan village that rejected him when James and John wanted to call down fire from heaven on them (Luke 9:51-56, blog), and he had made sure to specifically include Samaria in his command to be his witnesses. I don’t know if Philip went to Samaria because he drew the short straw, or if he volunteered, but there must have been many among the early believers who were reluctant to go there. That leads me to the other thing that strikes me about this. Philip was one of those who were charged with meeting people’s material needs in the church. Like Stephen, he had shown a willingness to be assigned to what some might consider an unglamorous ministry. So God used his willingness to do whatever the church needed him to do to use him in a very public way. He was willing to be a servant to others, and God exalted him.

⁶When the crowds heard Philip and saw the miraculous signs he did, they all paid close attention to what he said. ⁷With shrieks, evil^[b] spirits came out of many, and many paralytics and cripples were healed. ⁸So there was great joy in that city.

The work that Jesus had done in the passages mentioned above had planted the seeds that Philip was able to harvest here. Jesus had shown his disciples what their attitude toward Samaritans should be, and Philip followed his example. Sometimes God stretches us by putting us in the position of ministering to people we may not like. If we will let him get us past our prejudices, he can use us the way he used Philip. We may not perform miracles, but we can be a source of great joy to people who need Jesus if we will go to them and proclaim Christ like Philip did.

Mark Bible Acts, Philip, Samaritans

The Choosing of the Seven

¹In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Grecian Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food.

This account tells us of the first examples of lay leadership in the early church. Jews residing in Jerusalem at that time were divided into 2 groups, Grecian Jews and Hebraic Jews, or Hebrews and Hellenists. Hebrews spoke Aramaic, embraced Jewish culture and customs, and tended to be from Judea. Hellenists spoke Greek, embraced Greek culture and customs, and were more likely to be from the larger Roman empire. They were all Jews living in Jerusalem, but came from different cultures and had different traditions. The two groups distrusted one another. David Guzik, in his commentary, says, “Hebrews tended to regard Hellenists as unspiritual compromisers with Greek culture, and Hellenists regarded Hebrews as holier-than-thou traditionalists.” It seems this distrust had extended itself into the early church. Even after we become believers, unfortunately, we often bring our own prejudices into the church with us. This was the first case of division in the early church, but as in the case of Ananias and Sapphira, God made sure that the church came through it without damage.

The complaint that the Hellenists had seems to be valid. Food was already being distributed to widows, but apparently in an unorganized way. The Hebrews were probably in the majority, and unorganized volunteers would naturally make sure that widows they knew personally got taken care of first. Luke had already pointed out that “they gave to anyone as he had need” (2:45), and that “There were no needy persons among them.” (4:34) Their hearts were in the right place, but without organization some may have fallen through the cracks. It’s possible that the Grecian Jews’ complaint was about a perceived slight rather than an actual one. But when someone, especially in the body of believers, believes that they have been wronged, it does no good for the person accused of the slight to try to prove their innocence. It really doesn’t matter if the slight was intended. What matters is how the aggrieved party feels. If the insult is real to them, then it’s real. Harmony in the church is more important than proving you’re right.

²So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. ³Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them ⁴and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.”

The apostles knew that it would be impossible for them to do what Jesus had called them to do and also administrate the food program to the widows and orphans. Many pastors, out of sheer necessity, especially in small churches, are forced to do many duties which should be done by volunteers in the church. This only reduces the amount of time that they can devote to study, prayer, sermon preparation, and ministry. I’ve often heard that the church is like a football game. There are thousands in the stands in desperate need of exercise and 22 on the field in desperate need of rest. If you think all the church needs from you is your attendance and money, think again. Giving of your time and talents to the church is part of your stewardship.

The method used to choose the seven “deacons”, as some call them, is interesting to me. They were nominated by the church body, and “ordained” for this duty by the apostles. They didn’t volunteer. In my church, when a ministry like this is set up, people are asked to pray about whether God is leading them to participate in the ministry, and to volunteer if they feel led to. In this case it seems assumed that those nominated would agree to serve. I have been nominated several times for election to my church’s board, but have refused to have my name on the ballot each time, because board meetings tend to conflict with music rehearsal times, and I feel called to music ministry, and have no interest in church government. But none of these men said “I don’t feel called to this ministry”, or “I’m not gifted in that area.” They looked on what some might have considered a menial duty as an important ministry, which it was. It was the church being the church. Caring for widows and orphans was high on Jesus’ priority list, no less important than preaching the gospel. After all, how did Jesus say that people would know we are his disciples? By seeing how we love one another (John 13:35).

The criteria they used for choosing the Seven, as they came to be known (Acts 21:8), was exactly right, and it’s the same criteria we should use for lay leadership today. They nominated those who were known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. This was a practical ministry, and they needed those who were both spiritual and practical. That can be a hard combination to find! Have you ever met someone who is, as the saying goes, “so spiritual that they’re no earthly good?” A ministry like this needs those who are good with organization and detail, in addition to being people of God.

⁵This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism. ⁶They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them.

Everyone agreed that this was the right course of action. The apostles needed to devote themselves to preaching and prayer, and at the same time, others needed to make sure that the needs of the needy among them were met. Of those named here, Stephen is the most famous, being the first Christian martyr. His story immediately follows this one. Philip also plays a significant role in the coming chapters. His evangelism in Samaria results in the episode with Simon the sorcerer (8:4-25, blog), and he is the one who witnesses to the Ethiopian eunuch (8:26-40, blog). He became known as Philip the Evangelist (Acts 21:8). Of the others, not much is known. Those who give of themselves in ministries like this may never become “celebrities” in the church, but as Jesus said, “whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Mark 10:43-45)

Many point out the fact that all of the names listed are Greek names, indicating that all of the Seven were Hellenists. This is seen by some as an attempt to mollify the Hellenists in the church by choosing leadership from their own number. That may be, but it’s also possible that all of the names are in Greek simply because Luke wrote the Book of Acts in Greek. It was written to a largely Gentile readership, so it’s natural that Luke would give the Greek versions of their names. We don’t know for sure how many of the Seven were Hebrews and how many were Hellenists.

⁷So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.

As they obeyed God and devoted themselves to ministry, the word of God spread. A church full of people who are willing to serve others will always grow. The church in Jerusalem got past this possible source of division and went on to greater victories. Luke says that even “a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.” This may well have been the final straw for the temple leadership that led to the persecution that followed. It was one thing for this new sect to appeal to the common folk, but when priests started converting to faith in Jesus, that could not be tolerated.

Mark Bible Acts, early church, laying on of hands, Philip, Stephen