Acts 8 -- 5/2/07 (The Lord's Church)

Wednesday, May 2, 2007

Acts 8:1-40

Sunday evening we took a long at what Stephen said and how Stephen died. The martyrdom of Stephen is very important in the life of the early church. As we begin here in chapter 8, we will see how the persecution which arose after Stephen’s death was mightily used by God. As has well been said, "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church."

1. And Saul was consenting unto his death.

We read in 7:58, "…and the witnesses laid down their clothes [outer garments] at a young man’s feet, whose same was Saul." That in itself shows that Saul was in agreement with their action. Luke empasizes that fact, as his way of introducing the Saul-led persecution of the church that broke out after Stephen’s death.

And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.

What Stephen said stirred up the opponents of Jesus and His followers. And it seems that the way the Sanhedrin treated Stephen was the "okay" for the Jews to step up their opposition against those who named the name of Jesus.

Notice that "they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles." What do we make out of that? Why were the apostles not scattered abroad? On the surface, we would think they were the very ones who would be forced to leave, because they were the leaders of the new movement. Why did they not leave, while many other Christians did?

Let’s remember that the apostles had already endured severe persecution. As we read at the end of chapter 5, they were beaten and commanded not to preach or teach in the name of Jesus. They left that scene rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for His name. After that, what could be done to them?

Also, they were the leaders of the Jerusalem church. I don’t know what Luke uses the word "all" when speaking of those scattered by the persecution, but it seems clear that every Christian did not leave Jerusalem. We continue to see the church in Jerusalem. After they were scattered, we read in the next verse (2) that devout men carried Stephen to his burial. The Lord had placed them there, and they saw no reason to leave.

Also, it may well be that the persecution was directed primarily against the Grecians (that is, the Hellenistic Jews; see notes on 6:1). Remember that Stephen’s Greek name indicates he was of this group. Most likely, those who stayed were primarily Jewish Christians.

2. And devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and made great lamentation over him. 3. As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.

See the contrast between Stephen and Saul. Stephen was carried to his grave by devout men (Jewish Christians), but Saul was still very much alive. He made havock of the church. This word translated "havock" was used of a wild beast tearing a body to pieces. He was a man of great zeal, entering into private homes and caring away both men and women to prison.

As we saw in chapter 7, Stephen saw something of the universality of the gospel. He seemed to understand that it could not be confined to the temple, to Israel, to a single nation. It seems that Saul also had a grasp of that fact. Saul sensed that this new "faith" was not compatible with their traditions. His actions reveal that he believed drastic action was called for.

In Galatians 1, we read Saul’s own account of his great zeal against the Lord’s church. Gal 1:13-14, "For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: 14. And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers."
4. Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word.

Let’s examine this closely. Who was it that went everywhere preaching the Word? It wasn’t the apostles, for they remained in Jerusalem. This "preaching" was done by those who were forced to leave because of the persecution.

Let’s pause long enough to ask, "What does Luke mean by ‘preaching’?" That is a fair question, and it is very easy to answer. Literally, they went everywhere evangelizing the word. Yes, this is the word from which we get our word "evangelize" and "evangelism." The evangel is the good news. These who were scattered went everywhere telling the good news of the message of Jesus Christ. This has nothing of the idea of what we think of as formal "preaching," standing behind a pulpit and before a crowd. It speaks of normal conversation about the Lord Jesus Christ.

We know that this was the Lord’s plan, that the gospel be preached in a wider circle. Luke 24:47, "And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." And, of course, we remember Jesus’ words from Acts 1:8, "But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth." Just go back up to verse 1 here in chapter 8. We see that they were scattered throughout Judaea and Samaria, the very regions in which Jesus said they would be His witnesses. But notice that it was the persecution which drove them to the regions of Judaea and Samaria. That is the very way God chose to spread the good news to these areas.

I remind you of Jesus’ words in Matt. 9:37-38, "Then saith he unto his disciples, The harvest truly is plenteous, but the labourers are few; 38. Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth labourers into his harvest." As I remind you often, that word translated "send forth" literally means "to cast out." It is the word that was often used to describe the "casting out" of demons. I’m not sure when these early believers would have decided to go to the other regions of Judaea, much less to Samaria, but God knew how to get them there. He used persecution. In doing so, He used the very plans of His enemy Saul to bring about His purposes, just as He had used Pharaoh and many others in times past.

5. Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them. 6. And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did. 7. For unclean spirits, crying with loud voice, came out of many that were possessed with them: and many taken with palsies, and that were lame, were healed. 8. And there was great joy in that city.

And who was this man Philip? Is it Philip, the apostle, or Philip, who was one of the seven appointed in chapter 6? Yes, he was one of the seven appointed to oversee the ministry to the widows in the Jerusalem church. We know this can’t be the apostle, because all of the apostles remained in Jerusalem. Isn’t that a simple statement in verse 5? "Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them." It is simply stated, but it was a rather radical thing that Philip did. Why was that so? Because the Samaritans were hated by the Jews. Why? Because they were halfbreeds. After the Assyrians conquered the northern kingdom of Israel in about 722 B.C., they deported some of the Israelites and they brought in people from other places. They soon intermarried. In the eyes of the Jews, the Samaritans had violated God’s law against marrying those from the pagan nations around them. We see this deep-seated barrier between the Jews and the Samaritans in the conversation between Jesus and the Samaritan woman in John 4.

With some understanding of this deep hatred, we might ask this question: "So why would Philip go and preach Christ to people in Samaria?" [By the way, Samaria was both the name of the province and also the name of its chief city, which had been the capital of the northern kingdom. It is not clear that this is the city called Samaria to which Philip went. It may have simply been one of the cities of Samaria.] Actually, the bigger question would be this: "Why would any of the believers share the good news with the Samaritans?" Remember that they were scattered abroad throughout Judaea and Samaria (vs. 1), and they shared the good news wherever they went. So Philip was just one of the believers who shared the gospel in Samaria. Perhaps Philip had meditated on the words Jesus spoke to the apostles about being His witnesses in all Judaea and in Samaria.

The account of verse 7 is reminiscent of the ministry of Peter and the apostles (Acts 5:12,15) and the ministry of Jesus Himself. Through Philip people were healed of serious physical maladies and evil spirits were cast out. As was the case with Jesus and the apostles, these great miracles were signs which confirmed the truth of his message. The word translated "miracles" is also translated "signs." [In the KJV, "miracle" 22 times, but "sign" 51 times].

There was great joy in the city. Why wouldn’t there be? There was joy over the tremendous healings and because of the hope that came with the good news of Jesus. Notice that the people both heard the message and saw the miracles which Philip did.

9. But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one: 10. To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God. 11. And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries.

There was a dark background to the recent history of this city. A man named Simon had "bewitched the people of Samaria." Simon astonished the people by his use of sorcery (magic). Luke gives us insight into the motives of this man, telling us that he claimed to be someone great. Regardless of the exact nature of his "sorcery," the motive behind it was self-promotion. And he was very effective in his efforts, for the people considered him to be the "great power of God." Because he had developed such a reputation, he exercised much control over the people of the city.

12. But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Despite the influence of Simon, these people believed Philip’s message and were baptized. I take this to mean that there was no hesitation on their part. The fact that they were baptized says that they wanted to identify with Jesus Christ, regardless of what Simon would think about it. Baptism was not a light thing.

13. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.

Simon himself also believed. After being baptized, he continued close beside Philip. Notice the words "and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done." Let me point out a verse that has words similar to these. John 2:23, "Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did." Keep that in mind.
14. Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:

Why? In the early years of the church, it would seem that the apostles considered it their responsibility to supervise the spread of the gospel, wherever that might be. This does not mean that the apostles were opposed to the spread of the gospel into Samaria, as we will see. However, they had heard Jesus Himself say "Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not" (Matt. 10:5).

Do you remember another incident that involved John and Samaria? When Jesus and His apostles were on their way to Jerusalem for the final time, they entered a village of the Samaritans. But these Samaritans refused to receive Jesus. So James and John, the two whom Jesus had nicknamed "the Sons of Thunder," said to Jesus: "Do you want us to call down fire from heaven to destroy them, even as Elijah did?" (Luke 9:52-55). I wonder if John still remembered Jesus’ response? Luke 9:55-56, "But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. 56. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village." Praise God that John no longer wanted to destroy the Samaritans.

15. Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: 16. (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) 17. Then laid they their hands on them,
and they received the Holy Ghost.

These verses have caused much debate down through the centuries. A number of interpretations have been set forth. Some have understood this to mean that while they had received the Holy Spirit Himself, they had not received His fullness. In other words, they had received the Spirit, but not power for service. Others take it to mean that though they had received the Spirit Himself, they had not received His supernatural gifts that confirm His presence.
However, the text states quite clearly that Peter and John prayed that they might receive the Holy Spirit. I have to believe that though they had believed and been baptized, they had not received the Holy Spirit. I understand this to be the meaning of the words, "For as yet He was fallen upon none of them."

What we must understand is that this was highly unusual. This is the only time in the entire New Testament when people believed and were baptized, and yet did not receive the Holy Spirit. We could point to many New Testament passages which demonstrate that believers have received the Holy Spirit. Let’s read a few…
Rom 5:5… "And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us."
Rom 8:9… "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."
1 Cor 6:19… "What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?"
Eph 1:13… "In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,"

So now the question becomes, "Why not?" Why didn’t they receive the Spirit, as Peter has promised in 2:38? "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." We must try to put ourselves back into that situation. In the first place, preaching the gospel to the Samaritans was radical in itself. This is the reason Peter and John were sent down there. Could it be true that the gospel was available even to the despised Samaritans? In the beginning of the proclamation of the gospel, the believers had no idea that such people would be able to become full-fledged disciples of Jesus. So we see that this was a very crucial event. What would Peter and John report back to the apostles? Was this genuine? Had these Samaritans truly been converted?

When Peter and John came down to Samaria, what did they find? We are not told the details, only that they prayed for them and they received the Spirit. Perhaps their thinking went something like this: "It certainly appears that these Samaritans have put their trust in Jesus Christ. They have been willing to submit to baptism, which was no small thing. But they haven’t received the Spirit?" Peter and John, along with Philip, must have wondered why they had not. These two apostles did not have some handbook to tell them what to do in such situations. These were uncharted waters. They had never been this way before. We assume that they sought the Lord’s direction, and then they prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit.

Another burning question is this: "How did Peter and John know that these Samaritans had not received the Spirit?" We might respond by saying, "They didn’t speak in tongues." After all, when the Spirit came upon the 120 on the Day of Pentecost, they spoke in tongues. Of course, we also have the privilege they didn’t have; we can look ahead to chapter 10. There "the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word, and they of the circumcision were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost, For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God…" (Acts 10:44-46). In this case, Peter and the others knew the Holy Spirit had come upon them because they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. But here in Samaria, it is not recorded that they spoke in tongues. Therefore, can we assume that Peter and John (along with Philip) knew they hadn’t received the Spirit, because they had not spoken in tongues?

While this may be a reasonable explanation, there are problems with this interpretation. In the first place, there is absolutely no mention of speaking in tongues between Acts 2:11, when the 120 spoke in tongues on the Day of Pentecost, and Acts 10:46, which we just read. In other words, when the 3,000 were saved at Pentecost, there is no record that they spoke in tongues. When many more believed in 4:4, there is no record of tongues. Even more importantly, even here in chapter 8, it is not recorded that they spoke in tongues. If the lack of tongues was evidence that they had not received the Spirit, then surely they would have spoken in tongues when they did receive the Spirit, but there is no record of it. It seems that if they had spoken in tongues after receiving the Spirit, there would have been some mention of it, especially in light of the fact that this was such an unusual experience.

While in Acts there are certainly occasions where speaking in tongues was clear evidence of the coming of the Spirit (Acts 2:4,11; 10:46; 19:6), are there other evidences that a person has received the Holy Spirit? Notice in verse 13 that Simon had been awed by the miracles and signs done by Philip. He recognized that this miraculous power was beyond anything he had ever seen. Could it be that some of the new believers manifested such miraculous power, after the Holy Spirit came upon them? Perhaps some of those who received the Spirit were also healed of some disease. Or had there been time to detect that there was no fruit of the Spirit when Peter and John came to Samaria (Gal. 5:22-23). Or could it be that the new believers themselves sensed that there was still something lacking?

I must confess that I don’t know how Peter and John knew these Samaritans hadn’t received the Spirit and how they later knew they had received the Spirit, but they knew. Luke does not tell us that they thought maybe the Holy Spirit hadn’t fallen on them; he tells us in a straightforward manner than the Holy Spirit had not fallen upon them. Peter and John were sure of this, because they proceeded to pray for that very thing. And when the Spirit did fall upon them, we aren’t told how they knew. Even Simon knew, as we will see. We might conclude that they spoke in tongues, but it simply isn’t recorded. That is possible. The fact that Simon the magician recognized the coming of the Holy Spirit upon them may indicate that there was some outward manifestation, for we don’t expect such a man to recognize anything but the outward.

Another question regards the laying on of hands. Peter and John not only prayed for them, but they also laid their hands on them. Why? Does this mean that the laying on of hands is necessary for the receiving of the Spirit? Apparently not, because there was no laying on of hands in the house of Cornelius, nor was there any such thing on the Day of Pentecost.

Remember that the apostles laid hands on the seven who were chosen (Acts 6:6). As was the case there, this was likely a way of identifying with them and giving them assurance. The laying on of hands was a tangible thing that the Samaritans could see with their eyes. The Lord Himself sent the Spirit, but He did it in association with the laying on of hands and the prayers of Peter and John.

Now we come back to the question: Why did they not receive the Spirit when they believed? In order to deal with that question, remember that Acts is all about the spread of the gospel. Acts 1:8 is key. "But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth." For the Jewish Christians, Jerusalem and Judaea were no problem; Samaria and the uttermost part of the earth were a different story. After all, the Jews were looking for their Messiah. But could the Messiah be for all peoples?

Put those questions together with the fact that these Samaritans received the message of Jesus. Could it be true? How could the Lord convince them, Philip, and the apostles, that they were as much a part of the family of God as the Jewish Christians? He might do it by withholding the Spirit until the representatives of the apostles could see firsthand that they had indeed received the Spirit. When Peter and John were convinced that these also had received the Spirit, what could they say? It is obvious that they did indeed accept the conversion of the Samaritans as genuine, because on their way back to Jerusalem they "preached the gospel in many villages of the Samaritans" (Acts 8:25). Some have referred to this incident as "a Samaritan Pentecost," for it was on this occasion that the gospel was officially extended to the Samaritans, as Jesus had promised in Acts 1:8.

18. And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, 19. Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. 20. But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. 21. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. 22. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. 23. For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity. 24. Then answered Simon, and said, Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me.

Now Luke brings us back to Simon, the sorcerer, the magician. We read in verse 13 than Simon believed and was baptized. After observing the coming of the Spirit which was associated with the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he tried to buy this power from them. He wanted to be able to do what they had just done. Peter would have none of that, and said, "Because you thought God’s gift could be purchased with money, may your money perish with you." Peter went on to tell Simon he had no part in the matter, that his heart was not right with God. And what should Simon do? Peter tells him to repent of his wickedness. The last we hear of Simon is this final request: "Pray to the Lord for me, so that none of these things you have spoken will come upon me."

Do you see Simon as a true believer? In light of what we have just read, obviously not. In the first place, while we have been told that the Samaritans believers received the Holy Spirit, it doesn’t seem that Simon received the Spirit. Rather, he is one observing from the outside. Peter confirms that when he says, "You have neither part nor lot in this matter; for your heart is not right in the sight of God." Even his final request is really a plea of defiance. Rather than repent, as Peter has urged him to do, he prefers to go on as he is, begging Peter to pray that none of those things he has spoken about will come upon him.

Simon was still practicing self-promotion. What power he would have with the people, if were able to confer the Holy Spirit on people by simply laying his hands on them! Simon was a businessman, not a child of God. Even today we have in the English language the word "simony," which my dictionary defines as "the buying or selling of a church office."

But we read in verse 13 that he believed. How can that be? Again, I remind you of John 2:23, "Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did." Don’t we find the very same thing here? Read verse 13 again, "Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done." Now go back to John 2, and look at Jesus’ response to those who "believed in his name." John 2:24-25, "But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, 25. And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man." Surely Jesus would have said the same thing concerning Simon, which he does essentially say through His servant Peter.

Let us beware of this truth. Not everyone who professes belief in Christ is a true believer. If that was true even in the language of the New Testament, how much more in our corrupt religious society! Concerning the people of John 2 and Simon here in Acts 8, they believed because they saw the miracles. In other words, they "believed" Jesus for what they thought they could get out of them. Every one of them may not have been conscious of that fact, but that was the bottom line. Jesus will not give Himself to those who try to use Him in this fashion. This is what is wrong with much of what is called "Christian" in 21st century America. The professing church is serving Jesus for what it can get out of Him. And everyone of us is vulnerable to the same thing. God forbid any one of us should think he is above such a thing. "Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall" (I Cor. 10:12).

25. And they, when they had testified and preached the word of the Lord, returned to Jerusalem, and preached the gospel in many villages of the Samaritans.

We have already mentioned this as evidence that Peter and John did indeed understand that the experience of the Samaritans was genuine. Yes, the gospel had come to Samaria in the power of the Holy Spirit.

26. And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert. 27. And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship, 28. Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet. 29. Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. 30. And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? 31. And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. 32. The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: 33. In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. 34. And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? 35. Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

An angel of the Lord spoke to Philip. We aren’t given the details (Was it in a vision? etc.), but the command was crystal clear. Gaza was a Phoenician city in the desert about 60 miles southwest of Jerusalem. Some of you will recognize the name from Old Testament times, when Gaza was one of the Philistine cities, the home of the worship of the false god Dagon (see Judges 16:21-31).
And when Philip received this divine direction, "he arose and went." Notice again the simplicity of his obedience. God wanted him to go, so he went.

God had a purpose for his journey and it centered around the man we often refer to as "the Ethiopian eunuch." Our English word "eunuch" is a transliteration of the Greek word (eunouchos) and the definition of the English dictionary is quite accurate: "a castrated man placed in charge of a harem or employed as a chamberlain in a palace." This man was a high-ranking man of some importance in the royal Ethiopian court.

Specifically, we are told that he had "great authority under Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure." Ethiopian kings of that time were thought of as a type of god and were too sacred to discharge the secular duties of an earthly ruler. The mother of the king was given authority to run the affairs of the country, and this queen-mother was commonly given the title "Candace."

This Ethiopian man had been to Jerusalem to worship. It is debated whether or not he was a Jewish proselyte. Many would argue that he could not be a convert to Judaism, because of the words of Deut. 23:1, "He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD." Let people debate such a fine point, but let us rejoice in what this man would become (more about this later).

Notice verse 29, "Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot." Here again we have the clear direction of the Lord in Philip’s life. This time it was the Spirit speaking to him, rather than an angel of the Lord. I’m not sure the difference has any importance. The important thing is that the Lord was speaking, Philip heard, and he immediately obeyed. Philip didn’t just go; he ran to the chariot!

This Ethiopian man had a copy of the scroll of Isaiah. This would have been very unusual for a common man, but not for a man who had the treasury of Ethiopia at his command. He was reading aloud from the scroll. This was a common practice in that day. When Philip heard him reading and recognized the passage from Isaiah, he asked the man, "Do you understand what you are reading?" The Ethiopian openly acknowledged that he did not understand and needed someone to guide him. Since Philip spoke as if he had some understanding, he invited Philip to come sit beside him in the chariot and be his guide.

Then Luke tells us exactly what the Ethiopian was reading from Isaiah. It was from Is. 53:7-8, "…He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. 8. He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living…" The Ethiopian paused and asked this question of Philip: "Of whom is the prophet speaking – of himself, or of another?"
Now I ask you, "Was this an opportunity for Philip?" What better passage could Philip have selected? And what better question could this man have asked? No wonder we read these words in the following verse (35), "Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus."
We aren’t going to spend time looking at Isaiah 53, as we went through it in depth not too long ago (see message entitled "Beholding God’s Righteous Servant," August 20, 2006). For us it is clear that Isaiah was speaking of Jesus. However, it wasn’t clear to people before Jesus came. There is no evidence that the Suffering Servant passage of Isaiah 53 was ever linked to the Branch of Isaiah 11 or the Son of Man in Daniel 7:13 (both of which were recognized as Messianic passages) before Jesus came and died on the cross. It was clear after Jesus came and fulfilled its prophecies, but it was hidden until He had done so.

36. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37. And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

Obviously, this is a very brief account. Philip must have told him something about responding to the message of Jesus. Perhaps he told him essentially what Peter told the crowd on the day of Pentecost. Acts 2:38, "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." The Ethiopian eunuch was eager to respond, saying, "What hinders me from being baptized?"

Most translations other than the King James will omit verse 37. If you are interested in the why’s and wherefore’s, talk to me later. Whether the eunuch spoke the words of verse 37 or not, the meaning is still the same. Obviously, Philip had confidence that he understood the good news and was willing to follow the Lord Jesus with all his heart.

39. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing. 40. But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached in all the cities, till he came to Caesarea.

Here we hear echoes of the accounts of Elijah. The Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip and the eunuch saw him no more. Notice that he went on his way rejoicing. Who went on his way rejoicing? The Ethiopian man. His joy was not dependent upon Philip; it was dependent upon the Lord who had been revealed to him. Listen to Is. 56:3-5…
Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree. 4. For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; 5. Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.

We don’t know if this man was a Jewish proselyte, but we do know that he became a brother in Christ.

Conclusion

In looking at this chapter, let me point out a couple of things. We might look at this account of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch and say, "Wow! If I had the kind of opportunity Philip had, I could be an effective witness for Christ too. But the truth is I haven’t run across anyone lately who was reading Isaiah 53, or John 4, or any other portion of the Bible. No one has asked my any questions about specific portions of the Bible, much less portions that obviously pointed to Jesus."

Let’s think about that for a moment. If we haven’t been given such opportunities, we might ask, "Why not?" We could come to the conclusion that our calling isn’t the same as was Philip’s, and there would certainly be some truth in that. After all, in Acts 21:8 this same man is referred to as "Philip the evangelist." It would not be totally out of line to say that he had a special gifting for sharing the good news.

On the other hand, he may have been called "Philip the evangelist" simply because he was out evangelizing. Just look at this chapter. The man who talked to the Ethiopian was the same man who went to Samaria and proclaimed the good news. That was a radical step. The apostles hadn’t made any trips down to Samaria to evangelize the people there. Nor had they sent anyone to share the good news with these despised people. Nevertheless, Philip did so.

Here is my point. Do you think the opportunity he received on the road to Gaza had anything to do with the fact that Philip was eager to share the good news and went out of his way to do so? In other words, do you think it more likely that the Lord will present such opportunities to a person who is looking for them than to the person who is skeptical about whether he will ever be able to share Christ? Is such an opportunity more likely to come to the one who is absorbed with the activities of life? Or, to the one who is continually asking the Lord for the privilege of sharing Him with others?

The other thing I want us to notice is how Philip was directed by the Lord. Perhaps the key to Philip’s witness was that he was directed by the Lord. We have seen this direction from the angel of the Lord and the Spirit of the Lord. Again, we might say, "Well, if the Lord would speak so directly to me, then I too would be an effective witness." Let’s do a little study of Philip’s movements in this chapter.

8:5… "Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them."
In verse 6, we also learn that he did miracles.
8:26…"And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth
down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert." (And he arose and went)
8:29… "Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot." (And Philip ran…)
8:35… "Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus."
8:38… "And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the
eunuch; and he baptized him."
8:39… "And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw
him no more…"
8:40… "…He preached in all the cities, till he came to Caesarea."

We have seven initiatives here. Three times we are specifically told that the Lord spoke to Philip (either through the angel of the Lord or the Spirit); four times there is no mention of the Lord speaking to Philip. Let me point out the four that are the most directly connected to speaking the good news on behalf of Christ and making disciples on His behalf. I believe they would be…
… Philip went down to Samaria and preached Christ to them.
… Philip opened his mouth and began at the same scripture, and preached Jesus to him.
… Philip baptized him.
… Philip preached in all the cities, till he came to Caesarea.
Who could argue with that? of course, the other three iniatives were also important…
… Philip rose and went on the road to Gaza.
… Philip ran and joined himself to the chariot.
… Philip was taken away by the Spirit of the Lord.

Are you beginning to see my point. Of the four initiatives that were the most evangelistic, there is no mention of direct guidance from the Lord. There is no record that the Lord told Philip to go to Samaria and preach Christ. There is no record that the Lord told Philip to open his mouth and preach Jesus from Isaiah 53. There is no record that the Lord told Philip to baptize that man. There is no record that the Lord told Philip to preach in the cities after he left Samaria. Am I saying that Philip was acting on his own and was not in the will of God? Absolutely not. I am simply saying that Philip knew the will of the Lord and went about doing it. The Lord didn’t have to directly tell him again to preach in Samaria or anywhere else, to open his mouth and preach Jesus, or to baptize.

So why was there any necessity for him to be directed by the angel of the Lord or the Spirit of the Lord? Consider the three times he was spoken to directly in this chapter. Isn’t it interesting that in two of the three times the Lord basically told Philip to stop evangelizing in the place where he was. The terminology of our day would say that Philip was in the midst of a great revival in Samaria. But the angel of the Lord told him to leave that fruitful field and go down to a lonely desert road in the middle of nowhere. And then when Philip had shared Christ with the Ethiopian and baptized him, immediately the Spirit of the Lord took him away.

The other direct voice of the Spirit was to tell Philip to go near and join himself to the chariot. Perhaps Philip needed that encouragement. After coming from that wonderful experience in Samaria, perhaps the Lord needed to remind him that his witness to one man was just as important as his witness to an entire city.

Our temptation is to look at Philip and put him in some class different from ourselves. "Yes, he was an evangelist, but I’m not." Let’s go back and look at the structure of this section of scripture. Let’s read again Acts 8:4-5, "Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word. 5. Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them." Do you see it? Philip is one example of those who were scattered abroad and went everywhere preaching the word. He wasn’t the only one doing it; he was just one of them many.

Make no mistake about it, making Jesus known was a part of the life of the early church. If that were removed, the church would not be recognizable. Has the character of the Lord’s church changed over the centuries? Not at all. May God open our eyes to see it. May He fill us with His Spirit, that we might fear Him and as one man go into the world proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ.