Acts 8 - Philip in Samaria and with the Ethiopian Eunuch

1-3 The Burial of Stephen and the Persecution of Christians

1 The murder of Stephen set off a period of open persecution of the followers of Jesus in Jerusalem. What had proceeded cautiously before out of fear of a public sympathy for the Christians now came out in the open. The fact that it was limited to Jerusalem is indicated that those fleeing only needed to go as far as surrounding countryside. The fact that the apostles did not flee does not in my view mean that the persecution was directed only against Hellenists. Luke says it was against “the church in Jerusalem”.

2 This did not prevent a decent and reverent burial of Stephen.

3 Apparently Saul (Paul) took an active role in this persecution, although the mention of only him may be due to Luke’s special interest in him. The details of his activity are given in Acts 9:1-2; 22:4-5 and elsewhere.

4-40 “Philip on the Fringes of Judaism” (Witherington, 279)

The coupling of the Samaritan mission with the Ethiopian eunuch may be only chronological and in part to allow a geographical flow to the story: Samaria, vicinity of Gaza, then to Peter in Lydda and Joppa. Witherington thinks that it may be in order to bring together two groups on the fringes of Judaism: Samaritans and eunuch proselytes (or “God-fearers”?). Samaritans were totally excluded from the Jerusalem temple; eunuchs had to content themselves with worshiping in the Court of the Gentiles. This chapter does not, therefore, record the beginning of an evangelization of the Gentiles (so correctly With. 280).

Luke gathered this information while he and Paul stayed with Philip in Caesarea (Acts 21:8-10—the "we" in v. 8 shows Luke was with Paul at this time)..

5-8 The Ministry and Message of Philip in Samaria.

Some have detected in both Stephen’s OT quotes in ch. 7 and Philip’s allusions to the same, as well as in the narrative style of ch. 8, that both men, though we call them “Hellenists” with regard to their preferred language, were actually of Samaritan background. This is only a theory at this point. But if it were so, perhaps Philip merely was “going home” for his first act of evangelization.

According to the text Philip announced publicly the arrival of the Messiah, which (together with the story of Jesus’ conversation with the Samaritan woman in John 4:25-29) shows that the Samaritans knew the concept and like the Jews were awaiting him. But while the official Jewish messianic concept involved a second David (the "son of David" who would rule, according to the promise in 2 Sam 7, and therefore Philip spoke to them of the "kingdom of God"), the Samaritan concept was of a second and therefore "returning" Moses, a great prophet (see again the words of the Samaritan woman in John 4:25-29).

Philip's spoken arguments were supported by miraculous “signs”, just as the earlier recorded preaching of Peter was. Although he was a Greek-speaker (“Hellenist” is a misleading term, as it suggests a difference in theology for which there is no real evidence), Philip is therefore not portrayed as in any way differing from the apostles in his message or method.

The “signs” included both healings and exorcisms. We are not told if according to Samaritan messianic traditions the Messiah’s advent was to be accompanied by such “signs”, but it would make sense if it were. For The Samaritans called the Messiah the Taheb “the returning one”, probably alluding to their belief that he would be Moses returning (cf. Deut. 18:9-22). Moses himself was authenticated to his people by "signs" God gave him to perform. And repeatedly during his career, both when confronting the pharaoh and in convincing a rebellious people in the Desert Wanderings, Moses produced miraculous "signs". John 4 records Jesus ministering to Samaritans who believed in him not only because of the testimony of a woman whose past life was miraculously known to Jesus, but because they themselves heard and watched him.

8-11 Prior to Philip’s arrival a man named Simon dominated the religious interest and veneration of the Samaritans. No specific examples are given here of his feats that impressed the Samaritans, but we are told that his popularity was nation-wide (τὸ ἔθνος) and that by virtue of his magic he claimed to be “someone great” (or “a certain Great One”) or “the Power of God, the one called Great””. Spencer (Portrait of Philip) claims that “Power” was the Samaritan circumlocution for the divine name Yahweh. If that is what was meant here, Simon claimed to be the One God, manifest in human form. But this is at present very uncertain.

13 What is clear is that Simon made no attempt to dispute Phillip’s message, but on the contrary was himself baptized as a believer. Is it intentional that Luke does not say that he “believed”? And is Luke hinting at this when later in the chapter he records that the Ethiopian eunuch asks what hinders him from being baptized? In fact, Simon assiduously associated himself with Philip like a true disciple (NIV “followed Philip everywhere”, cf. the use of the verb in Acts 1:14; 2:42,46; 6:4; 8:13), observing his every word and action. In Acts 10:7 the verb describes the behavior of the personal attendants of Cornelius. Simon waited on Philip as a servant does his master. How remarkable that he blended in with other true disciples, perhaps earning a reputation as the most devoted, while his heart was still not right with God!

14-25 Peter and John Confirm the Samaritan Church.

V. 14 shows the official nature of Peter and John’s visit. They were “sent” by the church in Jerusalem: it was an official action. Why? Any religious development in Samaria would have been suspect to pious Jews and Jewish Christians. Samaritans had a reputation, whether just or not, for heterodoxy. It was not that the Jerusalem church doubted Philip’s orthodoxy, but that they wished to have another set of eyes to examine the geniuneness of the conversions, and if they proved genuine to put the ofificial stamp of approval of the Jerusalem body on this branch of the Jesus movement, so that no future doubts would cloud their testimony. Eventually the Church Father Justin Martyr came out of the Samaritan church. Incidentally, this also shows that a “church” still existed in Jerusalem—not just the apostles—during the persecution.

The form in which the news reached Jerusalem is interesting: not “there are new believers who are Samaritans”, but “Samaria has received the word of God”. When they arrived, they found that the believers had been baptized in the name of Jesus the Messiah, but they wanted a sign that the process was genuine, and they had nothing like what had happened in Jerusalem to give that proof. So they prayed that if these were really believers, God would demonstrate that fact by having the spirit “fall upon them” in the same way that He had on the new church at Pentecost (the same Greek verb “fell upon” in Acts 11:15 describes what had happened in Jerusalem at Pentecost). This was also what happened, when later the door of faith was opened to Gentiles in the home of Cornelius (Acts 10:44; 11:15). The verb used here is not used in the OT to describe miraculous endument by the Spirit of God, but it has a similar force. The NT verb is used elsewhere of violent attacks by either humans or by psychological forces (fear, terror, etc.). It is clear that what happened in Samaria was not simply the reception of the Spirit, but being possessed by Him who used the possessed believers to speak and work through, just as in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost. The human actions of the apostles which brought this divine response were: prayer and the laying on of the apostles’ hands. The statement in v. 15 that this had not happened prior to the prayer and laying on of hands by Peter and John (and Philip?) is intended to show that Peter was here using the “keys” Jesus promised him (Mat 16:19) to open the door of faith to Jews (Pentecost), Samaritans (here) and Gentiles (Cornelius). On all three occasions the Spirit displayed in power that the conversion and entrance into the kingdom of God was genuine and approved by God.

That the “giving of the Spirit” means here the display of miraculous powers (perhaps “tongues”) is clear in that Simon could “see” that it had happened and furthermore that it was a phenomenon that he would think would impress people if he could do it (v. 18-19).

20-24 Peter’s words of reproof did not carry a lethal punishment such as they did to Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:3-5, 9-10. They were, however, very strong. Simon’s heart was “not right (lit. straight) in God’s eyes” (v. 21). The expression "straight of heart" (usually rendered "upright in heart") is quite common in the book of Psalms to describe persons who make no pretense but sincerely believe and follow God (LXX in 2Kings 10:15; Psa 7:11; 10:2; 18:9; 31:11; 35:11; 36:14; 63:11; 72:1; 77:37; 93:15; 96:11; 110:1; 124:4). It is used only here in the NT, which assures us that this was not Luke’s invention, but faithfully records the words of Peter who could have expected to speak with the Semitic idioms of the OT. Not only was his heart not right in God’s sight, but he would face hell itself if he did not repent (v. 20 “may your silver go to Hell with you”, see J.B. Phillips translation here).

26-40 The Ethiopian eunuch.

The eunuch acts as a foil to Simon. Simon was not rich or powerful, but would do anything to become so. The eunuch already had as high a position as his blood lineage would allow him and was quite possibly (as a physical eunuch) physically “disadvantaged”. As head of the Ethiopian treasury he had access to funds and the levers of political power. Yet none of this really mattered to him: what mattered was his relationship to the true God.

He was returning home from a pilgrimage to Jerusalem to worship in the Court of the Gentiles, which was a far into the temple as he would be allowed. While sitting in his coach (“chariot” is not the best rendering of a horse-drawn vehicle with a comfortable seat for a long overland journey!), he was reading aloud to himself from the prophet Isaiah. Luke tells us that the passage he happened to be reading was from Isaiah 53. Providentially, since it is precisely that chapter of Isaiah which the early Christians saw as the most sensational prophecy fulfilled in Jesus’ death. Urged by the spirit to run alongside the coach, Philip calls to the man asking him if he understands what he is reading. The replay shows elegant Greek (it uses the optative mode δυναίμην Acts 8:31, which was no longer current in colloquial Greek), which reveals how educated this man was. Invited to join him in the coach and guide him, Philip climbs up and gives him the story of Jesus and the gospel. The eunuch eagerly receives the gospel, believes and requests baptism. If there were no other Christians yet in Ethiopia, it would have been impossible for him to be baptized later, since Christian baptism cannot be self-administered. The eunuch therefore became the “firstfruits” of Africa, the first Christian in Ethiopia, and went home to spread the good news.

Philip, meanwhile, continued his circuit through Azotus (OT Ashdod) and ending up in Lydda and Caesarea. Years later he acted as host to Paul in Caesarea, and told Luke, Paul’s companion this whole story (Acts 21:8-10).

Joy is the result of both the mission in Samaria and the witness to the Ethiopian.