After a period of ministry in Samaria, Philip is lead by the Spirit to a road heading from Jerusalem to Gaza, where he encounters an Eunuch from Ethiopia.
That this man was in Jerusalem and is reading a scroll of Isaiah indicates that he is a Jew, despite the fact that he is living in Ethiopia. Some (older) commentaries argue that the Ethiopian was a Gentile. Since there is no church that develops from his conversion, there is not a problem integrating him into Israel as a convert to “Jewish Christianity.” Most important, the conversion of Saul in the next chapter heralds the beginning of Gentile mission.
But as Darrell Bock points out, Luke makes Cornelius significant as the first Gentile convert, albeit as a God-Fearer (Acts, 338). As with the Samaritans, we are geographically moving outward from Jerusalem, but also culturally. If the Samaritans are the fringe of Judaism, so too would be a Gentile convert from Ethiopia, a land that was considered to be the very “ends of the earth” (Witherington, Acts, 290, citing Herodotus, Hist 3.25.114, Strabo, Geog. 1.1.6).
The fact he is reading from Isaiah is an indication that the man is at least a Jewish convert. A scroll of Isaiah would have been a costly book and quite large. Either this is a purchase for his synagogue, or he is reading and extract from a larger scroll. In addition, he is reading aloud, often associated with memorization of the text (m.Aboth 6.5). The scroll could be in Hebrew or Greek, the text as cited in Acts follows the LXX, but the sense is the same in the Hebrew. If he were reading a section of Isaiah in Hebrew, then this is confirmation that the Ethiopian was a Jew (although the language of the scroll does not matter).
He is described as a Eunuch and in charge of the treasury of Candace, queen of Ethiopia. Ethiopia is not the same as the modern country, but biblical “Cush,” south of Egypt, in the central Sudan. It is a five month journey from Jerusalem to Cush through inhospitable desert. Presumably he was either in Jerusalem from Passover, stayed through Pentecost and is only now returning home to Ethiopia. He is traveling south to the coast. Gaza is the last place to stop for water before the road turns south for the Egyptian desert (Bock, Acts, 341).
The Eunuch is reading from Isaiah 53, the great servant song. The identity of the servant was an open question in the first century, but few would have identified the servant as the Messiah. Philip uses the ambiguity of the text as an opportunity to explain that Jesus of Nazareth is the suffering servant.
When Philip approaches the Ethiopian, he asks if he understands the text. The Ethiopian states humbly that he cannot understand unless he has a guide – the purpose Philip has been brought to the place. The question the man concerns the subject of Isaiah 53. Jews in the Second Temple period would have that the passage described either Isaiah or some other person (like a new Elijah); if the messiah was in view, it was not a suffering messiah at all.
Philip “begins with that very passage” to explain the gospel with the Ethiopian. Philip identifies Jesus as the innocent sufferer of Isaiah 53, making it clear that the new age described in Isaiah 56 has begun – that even Eunuchs may enter into complete fellowship with God in worship.
4 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 10, 2013 at 12:24 pm
Bill Heroman
This is a great account of the standard view, Philip, and it’s all very glorious, but I happen to think it misses the central point of Luke’s telling, which is in line with Luke’s larger narrative around this passage, which is that controversy was brewing about whether uncircumcised peoples could receive the Holy Spirit.
The eunuch was, by definition, not circumcised. And Philip does not provide him with the Holy Spirit. The way I read this, Luke is making an oblique indictment of the apostles’ teaching up to that point.
This, also, comes right after Philip tried to deny HS in Samaria, but Peter and John arrived. Presumbaly, Peter & John knew that Samaritans were circumcised children of Abraham, whereas Philip had not known. In both cases, however, Luke shows Philip as one who had been ignorant of what Peter learned at Cornelius’ house.
As one of Luke’s ostensible sources from Caesarea, Philip evidently repented, and so the fact that Philip related these details to Luke further stresses that these details cannot be a coincidence.
Sorry to go on so long, but I’d love to get your response, while on topic. Have you come across this line of thinking before? And do you see any problems with my reading? (I realize it’s a whole other angle, but I’m not sure whether my reading in any way contradicts your account. (?))
February 10, 2013 at 1:54 pm
Phillip J. Long
I cannot say that I have read anything quite like this. If I am understanding you correctly, you would consider Philip not simply evangelizing to people on the fringe of what it means to be Jewish, but to people who would be considered “unable” to receive salvation (Samaritans and the Eunuch) because of their status as outside of God’s people by definition.
Two things that immediately come to mind: In Luke 9:51-56, the Samaritans oppose Jesus and James and John want to call fire down from heaven on them. This would indicate to me that James and John (at least) thought Samaritans were like the Israelites of the OT and they wanted to function as an eschatological Elijah and render judgment. While it is possible that John “learned his lesson’ (and Jesus does rebuke him), there is a strong anti-Samaritan feeling among the 12, perhaps they did not consider them as “children of Abraham.”
Second, it is at least possible that the Eunuch was one in name only, the word being a title by this time in history. It is also possible that a person could be a member of Israel even if he was mutilated, but he was prohibited from worshiping at the Temple. But then again, I think that the fact he was reading from a scroll which promised that Eunuchs could worship in the coming kingdom may indicate that he was in fact a “real” enunuch.
I like this, actually, and think that my presentation here is not far from your suggestion. Again, if I read you right, then Philip was “doing something wrong” which later needed repentance? (” Philip evidently repented”). We have interacted on this sort of thing before, I do think that there were bigger divisions within that early form of Christianity that are under the surface in Luke/Acts.
February 11, 2013 at 11:08 pm
scottspooner64
Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch has always been a story that has interested me, because of my African routes. An early church in Africa has been unearthed in modern day Ethiopia, and there are many old churches that are a testament to that fact. Whether or not the Ethiopian eunuch started a movement in Cush that spread to the nearby outlying lands is a question I would love to have answered! The story makes much more sense if the Ethiopian is a Jewish convert, and would explain that he understood Philips explanation. If he had no prior knowledge of the Old Testament, I think that Phillip would have had to explain more broadly and extensively than he does in Acts 8. I also found it interesting that the suggestion for baptism comes from the Ethiopian and not from Phillip. The Ethiopian is eager! Another interesting part of the story of Phillip is his disappearance in verse 39, is there any implication in the original text of what that means?
February 12, 2013 at 12:47 am
Bill Heroman
I see Philip passionately reaching out to the uncircumcised (Samaritans, the eunuch) but not yet being able to see beyond the teaching of Peter (& the 12). Philip wanted to share as much of the Gospel as he thought they could hear, but Philip had bought into Peter’s teaching [pre-Cornelius] that *Holy* Spirit could not *touch* an uncircumcised gentile.
Note: when I say the Samaritans were “children of Abraham”, I mean they were biologically descended, and cultural cousins to Jews (ie, practicing circumcision). My suggestion is that Philip saw their ostracism and assumed they were uncircumcised; but Peter knew better. The fact that Peter & John had not themselves initiated the Samaritan mission suggests that Peter was being gracious here; perhaps not thrilled about it, but once they’d believed there was nothing in Peter’s theology that allowed him to deny them HS.