The Book of Acts was written by Luke, an inspired man of God, for the purpose of accurately recording the growth of the early church.  It is for this reason the reader is exposed to the successes and failures of some to accept the Gospel of Christ and to become part of the Lord’s church. It thus becomes a living “textbook” (Jackson 7), just as relevant today as it was nearly 2000 years ago, “…on how to become a Christian” (Jackson 7).  While not all agree that this is the purpose of the Book of Acts, McGarvey supported this view:

Much the greater part of Acts may be resolved into a detailed history of cases of conversion, and of unsuccessful attempts at the conversion of sinners. If we extract from it all cases of this kind, with the facts and incidents preparatory to each and immediately consequent upon it, we will have exhausted almost the entire contents of the narrative. All other matters are merely incidental. (4)

While Acts is a detailed history of the cases of conversion, it is not an entirely comprehensive record of the growth of the early church, for Luke chose to document that which “…occurred in Palestine, Syria, Asia Minor, Macedonia and Greece and Rome, but omits what happened elsewhere” (Kistemaker 4). Nevertheless what Luke did record is comprehensive and accurate, with details that impress even the most skeptical scholars such as the late Sir William Ramsay whom upon further study concluded, “…that Luke’s history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness” (81).  The reliability of Luke’s account coupled with undoubtedly important subject matter allows readers to know with surety the history of the early church, and provides Christians a pattern to follow as they attempt to fulfill that which they have been commissioned to do, namely, bring lost souls to Christ (Mark 16:16).

As it was noticed above, the Book of Acts in its entirety bears witness to the successes and failures of the early church; but in Acts Chapter 8, Luke’s record is almost entirely positive, if not for a small diversion. It is here that Luke first introduces Saul, who unknowingly, was responsible, at least in part, for the spread of the Gospel through relentless opposition to the Christian movement (Acts 8:1-3).  Opposition had caused Christians to be “…scattered abroad…” (Acts 8:1), but not without their faith, for Luke records that they, “…went every where preaching the word” (Acts 8:4).  It was this very opposition that pushed Philip into the city of Samaria where he preached Christ (Acts 8:5).  This proved to be a fertile work for Philip. The Samaritans were not only receptive to the Gospel which he preached (Acts 8:6), but also to the miracles which he performed (Acts 8:7-8), and both accomplished their purposes of producing obedient faith (Acts 8:12). Among those that obeyed the Gospel was Simon (Acts 8:13), a man entrenched in trickery (Acts 8:9), who even after his baptism was so enthralled with the apostles’ ability to convey the Holy Spirit tried to purchase their power (Acts 8:18-19).  Simon’s attempt incited a strong rebuke from Peter (Acts 8:20-23) and ultimately lead to a request that the apostles pray on his behalf (Acts 8:24). The account given concerning Simon seems to be only a small diversion, though a serious one, from the greater emphasis of the successful expansion of the church into the previously untapped city of Samaria, for the two apostles continued to preach in the villages of Samaria as they returned to Jerusalem (Acts 8:25).

Luke continued to document the success of the Gospel in Acts 8:26-40, but in this instance success was achieved on a more personal level with the conversion of a man from Ethiopia.  Bock offered this insight, “Whereas up to now mass conversion has been in view, our next three scenes contain individual conversions (the eunuch, Saul, Cornelius).  This is the more personal side of evangelism” (338). Because of the personal nature of the conversion of the Ethiopian, these verses become increasing relevant to men today.  It is unlikely that one Christian will ever be afforded the opportunity to relay the Gospel of Christ to thousands of individuals on one occasion, but the opportunity to speak to just one individual about Christ is an opportunity afforded to Christians daily.  For this reason, the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch becomes, as Reese called it, a “pattern conversion” (330) for daily use. Reese continued, “All the conversions follow a certain pattern; and the pattern is very clearly delineated in these following verses, which makes them especially helpful today when we would tell someone what to do to be saved” (330).  Indeed a pattern of conversion has been recorded, which should be followed by Christians and non-Christians alike, that will produce growth in the church today.  The remainder of this study will be dedicated to an exposition of the pattern recorded in history with regard to the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch.  In doing so, we will consider the pattern established in: 1) Philip, who played the role of converter; 2) the Ethiopian, who played the role of the converted; 3) the method of conversion, which ultimately lead to the inclusion of the Ethiopian into the kingdom of heaven.

 

The Pattern of the Converter

Philip is introduced to the reader in Acts Chapter 6 as one of seven men chosen by the congregation, and appointed by the apostles, to “…serve tables” (2). The fact that Philip was chosen proves that Philip was a man “…of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom…” (6:3, 5), making him a perfect candidate to help preach to those outside of Christ. Philip taught by way of example, first, that in order to be an effective teacher of God’s Word one must be a worthy representative of the Gospel of Christ (Phil. 1:27; Eph. 4:1).   Philip is not mentioned again until Luke detailed his work in Samaria (Acts 8:5-25), with the man from Ethiopia (Acts 8:26-39), and his subsequent work in Azotus and cities on the way to Caesarea (Acts 8:40).  The only other instance in which Philip is mentioned is when he provided housing for Paul and his company (Acts 21:8).

In verse 26, the angel of the Lord spoke to Philip saying, “…Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza…” (26b).   Philip, most likely still in Samaria, was instructed to go “south” on a road that connected Jerusalem with Gaza. Some, such as Kistemaker, have noted that the word translated “south” could also be translated “at midday” (311), such is evidenced in Acts 22:6, but context seems to favor the former.  There have been several roads suggested as the possible route in which Philip would have taken from Jerusalem to Gaza, none of which are conclusive, but the text does indicate that it was “a desert.”  For this reason, it is reasonable to conclude, as Roper did, “The one indicated by Luke was probably the road least traveled” (301).  The word translated “desert” has lead some to believe that their surroundings would have been a barren waste, void of any water.  Yet the word is not always translated in this manner as evidenced in Matthew 14:15, 19; Mark 6:35, 39; John 6:10 and “…no such waste has ever existed between Jerusalem and Gaza” (McGarvey 150).  Gaza is one of the most ancient cities mentioned in the Bible and served as a “marker” for the boundary of the Canaanities (Gen. 10:19).  It is grammatically possible that the phrase “which is a desert”, which is most commonly taken to reference “the road”, could refer to Gaza (Bruce 186). Recorded history by Josephus (Antiquities XIII. III; XIV. IV) indicates that there was a city known as “desert Gaza” which included the remains of Gaza after it was destroyed in 93 B.C. and a “new Gaza” was built in a slightly different location in 57 B.C. by order of the Roman general Pompey (Boles 133; Bruce 186; Kistemaker 311). Still, it is preferred to consider the phrase as a modifier of “the road” because, as Kistemaker correctly acknowledged, “The emphasis in the account falls not on cities (Jerusalem and Gaza) but on the Ethiopian official who by reading Scripture becomes a Christian. And Philip meets him along a seldom-traveled road” (311).

Luke continued in verse 27, after the angel of the Lord commanded Philip, “…he arose and went….” (27a). Implied in the text, Philip issued no complaint and showed no hesitation to the command given to him by God through His angel. There could have been several rebuttals issued by Philip; after all, wasn’t he already doing a good work in Samaria? Wasn’t the Gospel which he preached having success?  Wasn’t his preaching effective to the point that many dedicated themselves to the Lord in baptism?  All of these would have been reasonable questions for Philip to ask, and all of them would most certainly have been answered in the affirmative.  With humility, Philip resisted not the command of the Lord and “he arose and went…” (27a). At this point Philip had no indication as to the purpose for which he was to follow a deserted road that lead from Jerusalem to Gaza, yet he had enough faith in God to obey Him.  Philip demonstrated, second, that in order to be an effective teacher of God’s Word one must be willing to obey His Word without hesitation or rebuttal.  The command from God to preach and teach His Word is clearly stated (Mk. 16:15; Mt. 28:19-20), and our obedience to this command is not contingent upon anything, including the perceived success or failure of one’s current endeavors.  If Philip had not seen any success in Samaria and offered rebuttal to God because of discouragement, would he have been justified?  Most certainly not, and neither are we if we spurn the command of God to preach the Word whether in season or out of season (2 Tim. 4:2). Reese expounded, “It would take some faith on the part of Philip to leave the promising field in Samaria and go to a road which did not even pass through any villages in its whole length from Jerusalem to Gaza. But God had spoken, and off he went!” (332). Indeed, faith was needed for Philip to heed the commands of God without hesitation or rebuttal and his faith is soon rewarded by a passerby from Ethiopia.

While Philip traveled the deserted road in faith he had not yet been given any explanation concerning the purpose of his trip.  As a man approached him in a chariot, Philip received further instruction in the form of a command.  This time the Spirit said to Philip, “…Go near, and join thyself to this chariot” (29). Again Philip is instructed by God, but this time God used the Spirit to speak His message rather than an angel.  While there has been considerable debate about the significance of the apparent change in messenger, one point that cannot be overlooked is that it is God that is directing Philip. Roper wrote, “Luke was probably not making a major point in naming an angel as the speaker one time and the Spirit the next.  Luke’s point was that God directed Philip” (301).  God, through the Spirit, tells Philip to “join” himself with the chariot, a term “…that pictures ‘to be glued to.’ Evidently the spirit wants Philip to walk (or run) alongside the chariot, and stay with it” (Reese 334). Imagine for a moment being instructed by God to approach what looked to be a high ranking official, from a foreign land, who was reading audibly as he traveled a deserted road.  Many of us would have had reservations about approaching this man, perhaps to the point that we would not have fulfilled God’s request at all and stood idle as this man passed us by.  Perhaps we would have had these questions, or similar ones, rapidly going through our minds, “If this man wanted to be bothered, why is he travelling on a deserted road? Isn’t it rude to interrupt someone that is reading? Don’t you think he will get angry if I interrupt? If he is a high ranking official what right do I have to approach him?  Even if I told Him the truth, what are the odds a “man of great authority” would listen?”  You see, we often look for excuses to justify our cowardliness and we are usually very successful to find them.  Philip did not allow himself to fall victim to his own insecurities; rather “Philip ran thither to him…” (30a). Philip exhibited, third, that in order to be an effective teacher of God’s Word one must be bold with the Gospel of Christ. Henry wrote, “We should study to do good to those we light in company with upon the road: thus the lips of the righteous may feed many.  We should not be so shy of all strangers as some affect to be.  Of those whom we know nothing else we know this, that they have souls” (84). Every Christian has been commanded by God to teach His Word (Mk. 16:15; Mt. 28:19-20), and the Word is powerful (Heb. 4:12; Rom. 1:16) and lacks nothing (2 Tim. 3:17), therefore it deserves to be taught with boldness (Acts 13:46).

As Philip approached he heard the man reading from the prophet Isaiah and asked him, “…Understandest thou what thou readest?” (30c). Philip did not begin with an introduction or “small talk”, but with a question that upon first glance seems peculiar.  One must admit, this is not the way that one would typically approach a stranger, and it would certainly be deemed inappropriate when religious matters are going to be discussed. Still as McGarvey wrote, it was actually a very appropriate question:

It was, however, an appropriate question, and wisely propounded.  Philip as yet knew not this man; he knew not whether to approach him as a fellow disciple, or as an unbeliever.  He knew that if he was an unbeliever he could not tell the meaning of the well known prediction which he was reading, one of the plainest predictions in all the prophets concerning the sufferings of Christ. (154)

In other words, the text seems to imply, Philip used a question to determine how he was going to effectively teach this individual. As Reese put it, “One of the first things to be done whenever a prospect is met, is to find out where he is on the road to salvation” (335).  Questions can often be used to determine the hearts of men, a technique that Christ practiced (Mt. 16:13-20; etc.), and Philip used here. Thankfully, this man possessed a heart that would be likened to the “good ground” (Mt.13:8, 23) in the Parable of the Soils. He recognized that he needed help to understand the contents of Isaiah 53 and Philip proceeded to teach him, apparently, on a level that he could understand.  Philip established by example, fourth, that in order to be an effective teacher of God’s Word one must be able to gauge the prospect’s level of understanding and then teach at that level.  Too often, teachers of God’s Word, many times unknowingly, spend the majority of a teaching opportunity demonstrating to others how much knowledge they have of the Scripture rather than actually teaching others the Scripture.  An effective teacher is not one that confounds his listeners but enlightens them with simplicity on even the most difficult portions of the Bible.

Upon reading Isaiah 53:7-8 the man asked “…of whom speaketh the prophet this? Of himself, or some other man?” (34b). There would have been several ways to approach this question, but Luke recorded that, “…Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus” (35).  Philip began his teaching in Isaiah 53, which is a prophecy concerning Christ’s sacrificial death, and continued to preach to him concerning Jesus. Isaiah 53:7-8 served as the foundation for Philip to build upon and he continued to preach to his prospect concerning the foundation of the church (1 Cor. 3:11).  Based upon the prospect’s response upon seeing water, it is clear that Philip did not just preach about Jesus but preached “Christ crucified” (1 Cor. 1:23). There are plenty of men that teach about Jesus as a historical figure, but few actually preach Jesus. To preach Jesus means that one not only acknowledges that he existed and made an extraordinary impact on the world as we know it, but also that He is the Son of God and His commands must be obeyed. What exactly Philip preached is not recorded but based on the content of his sermon in Samaria, Roper wrote:

As Philip had preached Jesus to the Samaritans, he had not merely preached about Jesus.  He had also preached on how each individual could benefit from what Jesus did for mankind:  He had preached on the kingdom (church), the name of Jesus Christ, and baptism (8:5, 12).  That Philip’s message to the treasurer contained the same themes is obvious from the official’s response. (307)

The pattern left by Philip proves, fifth, that in order to be an effective teacher of God’s Word one must determine what is important to the prospect, and use it as a foundation to preach Jesus.

After having preached Jesus, his prospect understood the need to be baptized, and Philip “…baptized him” (38c).  Evidently, included in the broad subject of Jesus is the specific topic of God’s plan of salvation. McGarvey commented, “From this we learn that in preaching to him Jesus, Philip had instructed him concerning baptism; that when men preach Jesus as they should, baptism is a part of the sermon” (158).  It would have been easy for Philip to preach around the necessity for his prospect to make some fundamental changes in his life. Changes, that when insisted upon, most certainly would have made evident to his prospect that he was lost. From this we learn, sixth, that in order to be an effective teacher of God’s Word one must be willing to preach the plan of salvation which includes baptism.  There has been a tendency over the years to leave the Lord’s plan of salvation out of our teaching.  Often times, sermons are ended with a generic statement that begins with “If you have a need….”  Which leaves one with the obvious question, a need for what?  If there is a need, and the need is salvation, doesn’t it make sense to explain how to fulfill that need?  There are going to be many times in each of our lives when we are given only one opportunity to offer the Lord’s invitation to someone outside of the body of Christ. We should seize these opportunities and teach them what they must do to be saved (Acts 2:37, 38).

 

The Pattern of the Converted

Having surveyed the account given to us in Acts 8:26-40, focused solely on the pattern demonstrated by Philip the converter let us now consider the pattern left for us by the one converted.

As Philip travelled along the deserted road from Jerusalem to Gaza Luke recorded that he beheld, “…a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure…” (27b). Ethiopia “…was one of the great kingdoms of Africa” (Reese 332), and was to the south of Egypt (Ezek. 29:10).  In the Old Testament Ethiopia is often referred to as Cush (Gen. 2:12), but differs from the present day Ethiopia.  Bock commented:

The region known as Ethiopia in ancient times is probably not the same as today, but was located south of Egypt in ancient Cush, in the central part of modern Sudan, at a location known as Meroe (also known as Nubia; Yamauchi 2006).  It was one thousand miles north to the Mediterranean. (339)

Luke also indicated that this man was a “eunuch,” causing most scholars to believe that he was a “castrated male” for this “…was the common meaning of the word” (Roper 302). Some, such as Henry, believe that he was “…a eunuch, not in body, but in office – lord chamberlain or steward of the household” (84).  This belief is held because, as Roper acknowledged, “…it was such a common practice among the heathen to make eunuchs of men holding positions where they could be tempted, such as being in charge of the harem or the treasury, the word “eunuch” (eujnou=xo$, eunouchos) was sometimes used in the sense of “an official,” whether the man had been emasculated or not” (302).  However, it seems best to conclude that this man was a “castrated male” because Luke further describes the official work of this man, making the term “eunuch” redundant if it is to mean nothing more than “an official” (Gaertner 150).  The eunuch from Ethiopia was in charge of the treasury of Candace the queen.  Candace was not a familial name but a title such as “Caesar” or “Pharaoh.”   Bruce offered this interesting insight on the function of the queen within the Ethiopian dynasty, “The king of Ethiopia was venerated as the child of the sun and regarded as too sacred a personage to discharge the secular functions of royalty; these were performed on his behalf by the queen-mother, who regularly wore the dynastic title Candace” (186).  It becomes clear that the Ethiopian eunuch was indeed a man of “great authority” since he was the treasurer of all the wealth of Ethiopia. As Marshall emphatically stated, “The high position of the official as the royal treasurer is emphasized: this was no insignificant convert!” (162).

The description of the Ethiopian convert is enhanced even further by his actions that are recorded before meeting Philip on the deserted road.  Luke wrote, the treasurer “…had come to Jerusalem for to worship” (27c) and “was returning…” (28a). The eunuch had travelled to Jerusalem, a trek of several hundreds of miles, and was now making his way back to his homeland.  This fact of course causes one to ask, “Why was a eunuch from Ethiopia going to Jerusalem to worship?”  There are differing opinions among scholars, but most believe that this man was a Jew, a proselyte, or a God-fearing Gentile.  It is all together unlikely that the eunuch was a “God-fearer” because Luke later emphasized that Cornelius was the first God fearing Gentile to be converted (Acts 10; 11; 15:7, 14). Whether the eunuch from Ethiopia was a Jew or a proselyte is a question that is not easily answered. There is evidence to suggest that a Jewish colony was present in Ethiopia because Manasseh who formed an alliance with Psammmetichus, king of Egypt, had “…sent off to protect the outposts of his kingdoms. Thus Jews had been in Ethiopia for some centuries…” (Reese 333). Likewise, as evidenced by Joseph and Daniel it was “…not uncommon for Jews born and reared in foreign lands to attain to eminent positions…” (McGarvey 152).  Others believe that the eunuch was most likely a proselyte because he resided in Ethiopia and because the account recorded would have provided “…another bridge between preaching to the Jews and the Gentiles” (Roper 301).  If the eunuch was a proselyte, Luke would have provided a detailed description of the conversion of a proselyte (the Ethiopian) in Acts Chapter 8, a Jew (Saul) in Acts Chapter 9, and a Gentile “God-fearer” (Cornelius) in Acts Chapter 10. Some contend, such as Marshall, that if the treasurer was a physical eunuch, he could not have been a proselyte (161). This conclusion is based on Deuteronomy 23:1, which barred a physical eunuch from entering into the congregation of the Lord.  However, the same would have forbidden a Jew who had become a physical eunuch from entering the congregation.  It is likely, whether the eunuch was a Jew or a proselyte, that he would have been restricted to worshiping in the court of the Gentiles. However, Isaiah 56:3ff. foreshadows of a day in which eunuchs would be accepted into house of the Lord. When that day would come is not clear. Whatever the case, there is a lack of sufficient evidence to be dogmatic on this issue.  The overriding importance of Luke’s description is that the eunuch from Ethiopia had a desire, if not an obsession, to worship his creator.  For one to travel, as the eunuch did, hundreds of miles round trip for the purpose (Lenski 338; Kistemaker 313) of worshipping God demonstrates exemplary desire and commitment.  The eunuch taught by example, first, to be a prospect for the kingdom of heaven one must have a desire to worship God. A desire to worship God must be present before one knows Christ, such as the case here, or it must be created after studying the Word of Truth. If there is no desire to acknowledge that one is a created being, and there is no commitment to give reverence to that Creator, there is, likewise, no hope for that individual. The same desire and commitment must remain, even after one is converted, in order to inherit everlasting life (Heb.10:25-26). Apathy can, and in many cases has, infiltrated the hearts of members of the Lord’s church to the extent that some have deemed worship unimportant, and therefore unnecessary.  If the eunuch was willing to travel such a great distance to satisfy his intense desire to worship God, how much more should members of the Lord’s church, who have access to all of the blessings in Christ (Eph. 1:3), desire to assemble to worship God?

As the eunuch travelled home, having worshipped God, Luke recorded that the eunuch “…read Esaias the prophet” (28b), evidently, aloud, because as Philip approached he “…heard him read…” (30b).The common practice of the day to read the Scripture aloud was not only customary but commanded (Deut. 6:7).  Perhaps, this practice should be followed today, for it is “…a good way to keep the mind fixed on what we read” (McGarvey 153).  There is a considerable amount of dedication for the truth demonstrated by the treasurer who, having already worshipped and was most likely exhausted from travel, was continually reading as he travelled home.  The eunuch established, second, to be a prospect for the kingdom of heaven one must have a desire to read the Scripture. How refreshing it is to read of a high ranking official dedicated to reading the Word of God, as Roper wrote, “if more public servants followed his example, the world would be a better place in which to live” (303). Instead, more often than not, government officials spend most of their time apologizing for their faith, giving a profoundly different meaning to “Christian apologetics.”  There is no other way to produce faith in God than to read for one’s self or to hear from the lips of another the Word of God (Rom. 10:17). Reading the Scripture is not something that is only to be done before one is converted to Christ; rather, a Christian is to continue to grow in the Scripture (Heb. 5:12-14), something that can only be accomplished through reading and studying (1 Tim. 4:13; 2 Tim.2:15). It can become common practice for Christians, if they are not careful, to read from the Holy Writ but once on Sunday allowing their Bibles to collect dust for the remainder of the week.

Philip, having heard the eunuch reading from Isaiah, asked the eunuch if he understood that which he was reading.  In response the eunuch said, “How can I, except some man should guide me?” (31a), and Luke recorded, that “…he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him…” (31b). A question that could have been taken as an insult was answered with a humble admittance.  The word translated “guide” (hodēgeō) means, “to assist someone in acquiring information or knowledge, lead, guide, conduct” (BDAG 690). The eunuch from Ethiopia needed assistance and invited (parakaleō, translated “desired” in KJV) Philip into his chariot to lead him unto the truth.  The portion of Scripture that the treasurer found difficult was Isaiah 53:7-8, from the Septuagint,  where it is written, “…He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth” (32b-33). With perplexity, the eunuch asked Philip, “…of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?” (34b). The interpretation of the 53 Chapter of Isaiah has been a matter of contention among Jews for centuries, for they struggle with the concept of a Messiah who would suffer as a Servant on earth and reign as King over a heavenly kingdom.  For this reason, they “wrest” the Scriptures (2 Pet. 3:16) and refuse to acknowledge that Isaiah 53 is a prophecy concerning Jesus, who in no uncertain words applied the same portion of Scripture to Himself (Lk. 22:37). Space will not allow a detailed application of Isaiah 53:7-8 (for a detailed approach see Jackson 97, 98), but Isaiah makes reference to the willful, sacrificial death of Jesus Christ who was wrongfully put to death by men but vindicated by the Father, who having raised Him from the dead, gave Him a name above every name (Phil. 2:9), a name that is still revered by His spiritual progeny, namely, Christians. Though the Scripture was produced to induce understanding there are portions which are “…hard to be understood…” (2 Pet. 3:16).  Without instruction from well studied Christians one can become overwhelmed by the complexity of the subject matter and draw misguided conclusions. This is not to imply, as the Roman Catholic hierarchy does (Reese 335), that the Scripture cannot be understood unless one has an “infallible” interpreter (no such man exists), for the Scripture was made for all (Acts 17:11; 1 Pet. 2:2; 2 Pet. 1:19; Rev. 1:3).  In this case, the eunuch recognized he needed guidance and desired to be instructed so that he would understand the Scripture correctly.  The treasurer demonstrated by example, third, to be a prospect for the kingdom of heaven one must desire to correctly understand the Scripture.  There are numerous individuals that blind themselves from the truth, refusing any guidance, thinking it better to abide in the comfort of their ignorance than to abide “…in the doctrine of Christ…” (2 Jn. 1:9).  For these, eternal destruction will be their reward (2 Thess. 1:9).

Philip answered the eunuch’s question, perhaps beyond what the eunuch had originally intended, and preached unto him Jesus.  Upon seeing water, the eunuch asked Philip “…what doth hinder me to be baptized?” (36c) 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” (38).  Having heard the truth, the eunuch was eager to obey the truth.  The treasurer’s response is a stark contrast to Felix’s response, who desired to wait for a more “convenient season” (Acts 24:25) to obey the Gospel, a season that probably never came. The great desire that the eunuch showed to obey the Gospel is inspirational; the Word of truth had convicted him and he was unwilling to wait to obey it.  Surely there would have been water in his homeland that was suitable for immersion, but waiting was not an option. Rather upon first sight of water he commanded that his chariot be halted, and Philip baptized him.  As Coffman correctly stated, “There are many today who need to command their own chariot to stand still while they submit to the ordinance of God” (174). From the eunuch’s example it is apparent, fourth, to be a prospect for the kingdom of heaven, one must desire to obey the Scripture. The propensity for mankind to follow the pattern demonstrated by the treasurer but then diverge from that pattern when they must submit to the Will of God is alarming. Obedience to the Word of God is how you become a Christian and how you remain a faithful Christian. There is no other way (Mt. 7:21).

The Pattern of the Conversion

The method which the eunuch followed to become a Christian is the same method found throughout the New Testament. This “common salvation” (Jud. 1:3) is a pattern that must be followed if one desires to become a member of the Lord’s church.

In the account of the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch, Luke recorded that the eunuch “…read Esaias the prophet” (28b).  The importance of building one’s faith in God according to the Gospel is emphasized throughout the Scripture.  Paul wrote, “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10:17).  It is not by coincidence that God did not send His angel to provide instruction directly to the eunuch on what he must do to be saved, for it is evident that God bestowed this duty to men (Rom. 10:14, 15; Acts 22:10, 16;10: 3-6, 9-20, 48) and not to angels. God most certainly could have exercised His will and forced the eunuch to become a Christian, but God did no such thing. Instead, He allowed the eunuch to build his faith by reading the Scripture himself and by hearing a lesson from Philip which originated and resided in the Scripture. The first step toward becoming a Christian is hearing the Word of God.

After hearing a lesson from the mouth of Philip concerning Jesus, and asking what hindered him from being baptized, it is recorded that Philip said,  “…If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest” (37b). Most scholars agree that the entirety of this verse lacks early manuscript support, though as Metzger wrote, “…the tradition of the Ethiopian’s confession of faith in Christ was current as early as the latter part of the second century, for Irenaeus quotes part of it (Against Heresies, III. Xii. 8)” (315).  Whether or not these are the exact words of Philip can be debated. What cannot be debated is that belief in Christ was required for one to become a Christian from the inception of the church (Mk. 16:16; Acts 4:4, 32; 5:14; 8:12).  Therefore, the second step toward becoming a Christian is belief in Christ.

Repentance, though not mentioned in this account, is a necessary step towards one’s salvation.  On the day of Pentecost, when asked, “what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37c) Peter instructed them to “…Repent, and be baptized…” (2:38a).    Jackson wrote, “Normally, repentance, in its fullest sense, conveys the idea of a change of mind accompanied by a reformation of character” (27).  There is a fundamental difference between a worldly sorrow, in which there is “…no requirement to abandon the practice of sin…” (Jackson 27), and godly sorrow which moves one to repentance (2 Cor. 7:10), and combines change of mind with reformation of character.  The third step to becoming a Christian is repentance of past sins.

The eunuch responded to Philip’s requirement of belief with these words, “…I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God” (37b).  As mentioned above, this verse lacks early manuscript support.  Yet there is little question that “the formula pisteuvw … Xristovn was doubtless used by the early church in baptismal ceremonies…” (Metzger 315).  Bruce added, “This addition certainly reflects primitive Christian practice. When a convert was formally admitted to Christian fellowship by baptism, he made a public confession of his new faith, probably in response to a definite question” (190). The New Testament makes apparent that confession is an important doctrine (Mt. 10:32, 33; 16:16; Jn. 9:22; 12:42; 1 Tim. 6:12, 13; Heb. 3:1; 10:23; 1 Jn. 4:2, 15) and a necessary step towards one’s salvation (Rom. 10:9, 10).  Those who are ashamed to confess Christ before men, the same will be denied by Christ before the Father (Mt. 10:32, 33).  The fourth step to becoming a Christian is confessing Christ.

Finally, Luke recorded that after seeing water and confirming he was a candidate for baptism the eunuch, “…commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him” (38).  The word “baptized” comes from the Greek word baptizo, which means “…to immerse, go under, or sink” (Jackson 100). From the beginning, the importance of baptism was expressed by Christ (Mk. 16:16) and the apostles (Acts 2:38).  If Christ and the apostles are described as the foundation of the church, and they are (1 Cor. 3:11; Eph. 2:20), and they taught that baptism was necessary for salvation, and they did (Mk 16:16; Rom. 6:3, 4; etc.), why would one conclude that baptism is unnecessary today?  This is a conclusion not easily explained but will certainly lead to many lost souls (Mk. 16:16).  Still, some insist that baptism is necessary but that it does not necessarily have to be immersion. Marshall commented, “…if the New Testament leaves the precise mode of baptism obscure, perhaps we ought not insist on one particular type of practice” (165). This is a profound argument because “baptize” is a transliteration of the Greek word baptizo and not a definition.  The definition, as mentioned above, means “to immerse.”  If the definition of baptizo is not convincing enough, there is a clear indication of how baptism was administered in the New Testament, all of which imply immersion. Jesus “went straightway out of the water” (Mt. 3:16) after being baptized, John baptized in Aenon “because there was much water there” (Jn. 3:23), and Paul describes “a burial” on two different occasions in reference to baptism (Col. 1:12; Rom. 6:3, 4). Likewise, immersion is implied in our text for “…they went down both into the water…” (38b) and they both subsequently, came “…up out of the water…” (39a). Barnes refused to accept this translation and wrote, “It may be remarked here that the preposition eij$, translated ‘into,’ does not necessarily mean that they went into the water.  Its meaning would be as well expressed by ‘to’ or ‘unto,’ or should say, ‘they went to the water,’ without meaning to determine whether they went into it or not” (150).  Barnes used verses such as John 11:38; Luke 11:49; John 21:4 to prove that eis is sometimes better translated “to” (150). This same tactic is used by Barnes to demonstrate, in his mind, that ek can mean “from” rather than “out of” in our text (151).  Yet, there is little substance to this argument, because it still does not adequately address the definition of baptizo. If God would have given mankind words scrambled on a page one might have to wonder whether eis is better translated as “into” or “to”; but God in His infinite wisdom gave mankind words in sentences.  Words, that when read in their context, can be understood.  For this reason, when one understands that the word “baptize” in our Bibles is a transliteration of the Greek word baptizo which means to “immerse” it necessarily gives to us the correct meaning of eis and ek (see: Hackett 130).  How else would Philip have been able to immerse the Ethiopian eunuch without going “into” the water and subsequently “come out of the water?”  It would have taken a miracle, a miracle that is in no way indicated by our text. You see, baptizo still means to “immerse” even when it is preceded by eis and followed by ek, and therefore eliminates sprinkling or pouring as acceptable modes of baptism. The fifth and final step toward becoming a Christian is baptism for the remission of sins.

Conclusion

Luke, inspired by the Holy Spirit, recorded an account of the conversion of a man from Ethiopia that remains relevant today.  It continues to serve as a pattern for Christians and non-Christians alike.

For the Christian it serves as the answer to the commonly asked question, “How can I become an effective teacher?”  Philip, who plays the role of the converter in this account, provides a pattern toward becoming an effective teacher.  If the pattern demonstrated by Philip is followed by Christians they most certainly will become effective teachers of God’s Word.  The pattern toward becoming an effective teacher as seen in Philip, recorded by Luke, and emphasized by this writer is as follows:  To be an effective teacher of God’s Word one must: 1) be a worthy representative of the Gospel of Christ (Phil 1:27), 2) be willing to obey His Word without hesitation or rebuttal, 3) be bold with the Gospel of Christ, 4) be able gauge the prospect’s level of understanding and then teach at that level, 5) be able to determine what is important to the prospect, and use it as a foundation to preach Jesus, 6) be willing to teach the plan of salvation which includes baptism.

For the non-Christian the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch serves as an answer to the commonly asked question, “What actions demonstrate that I am a prospect for the kingdom of heaven?”  The eunuch answers this question by leaving a pattern, which if followed today, would prepare a non-Christian for their conversion to Christ.  To be a prospect for the kingdom of heaven one must: 1) have a desire to the worship God, 2) have a desire to read the Scripture, 3) have a desire to correctly understand the Scripture, 4) have a desire to obey the Scripture. 

For Christians and non-Christians, the conversion of the man from Ethiopia serves as an answer to the commonly asked question, “What must one do to become a Christian?”  The method of conversion, followed by Philip and the eunuch and taught elsewhere in the Bible, is a pattern, which if followed, will be acceptable to the Lord.  To become a Christian one must: 1)hear the Word of God, 2)believe in Christ, 3)repent of past sins, 4) confess Christ,5) be baptized for the remission of sins. 

 

Behold the Pattern.

 

 

Works Cited:

 

Barnes, Albert. Notes on the New Testament: Acts-Romans. Vol. 10. 1847. Grand             Rapids: Baker, 2005.

(BDAG) Bauer, Walter, F.W. Danker, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A             Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian             Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: U Chicago P, 2000.

 

Bock, Darrell L. Acts. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand             Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.

 

Boles, H. Leo. A Commentary on Acts of the Apostles. Vol. 5. Nashville: Gospel             Advocate, 1989.

 

Bruce, F. F. Commentary on the Book of the Acts: The English Text with Introduction,             Exposition and Notes. The New International Commentary on the New             Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954.

 

Coffman, James Burton. Commentary on Acts. Vol. 5. 1977. Abilene: ACU, 1984.

 

Gaertner, Dennis. The College Press NIV Commentary: Acts. Joplin: College Press,             1993.

 

Hackett, Horatio B. A Commentary on the Original Text of the Acts of the Apostles.             Boston: Jewett, 1852.

 

Jackson, Wayne. The Acts of the Apostles: from Jerusalem to Rome. 2nd ed. Stockton:             Christian Courier, 2005.

 

Kistemaker, Simon J. New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Acts of the             Apostles. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1990.

 

Lenski, R. C. H. The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles. Minneapolis: Augsburg,             1961.

 

Henry, Matthew. Acts to Revelation. Matthew Henry’s Commentary. Hendrickson, 1991.

 

Marshall, I. Howard. The Acts of the Apostles: An Introduction and Commentary. The             Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980.

 

McGarvey, J. W. New Commentary on Acts of Apostles. Vol. 2. Delight: Gospel Light.

 

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. New             York: United Bible Societies, 1971.

 

Ramsay, W. M. The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New             Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1953.

 

Reese, Gareth L. New Testament History: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the             Book of Acts. 1976. Moberly: Scripture Exposition Books, 2002.

 

Roper, David L. Acts 1-14. Truth for Today Commentary. Searcy: Resource, 2001.