Cutting Off the Eunuch (Acts 8:26-40)

Name the queen that the Ethiopian eunuch served. Candace (Acts 8:27)

Philip establishes a wildly successful ministry in Samaria (Acts 8:4-8). Incredibly, later in the very same chapter, an angel of the Lord abruptly instructs him to leave the thriving Samaritan mission and relocate south to a desert road descending from Jerusalem to Gaza (Acts 8:26). (Contrary to popular belief, God can call a minister to a less prominent position.) Philip accepts his assignment and while en route encounters a man by the side of the road. (Acts 8:27).

So he got up and went; and there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure; and he had come to Jerusalem to worship, (Acts 8:27 NASB)

In context, the account reads like a non sequitur as it does not flow from the story that precedes it nor does it advance the subsequent narrative. Its subject, the Ethiopian eunuch, will play no role in the remainder of the book.

James M. Scott (b. 1955) situates:

As it stands, Acts 8:26-40 is isolated in the narrative of Acts and not immediately connected with anything that precedes or follows it. Having finished the story of Peter and John among the Samaritans (Acts 8:14-25), Luke abruptly begins the account of the Ethiopian eunuch with the angel of the Lord instructing Philip to go from Jerusalem to Gaza (Acts 8:26), and he also ends it abruptly with Philip being caught up by the Spirit and taken to other regions (Acts 8:39-40). Therefore, the text gives the impression of being a separate section in the narrative structure of Acts. (David W.J. Gill [b. 1946] and Conrad Gempf [b. 1955], “Luke’s Geographical Horizon”, The Book of Acts in Its Graeco-Roman Setting, 533)

Gerd Lüdemann (b. 1946) speculates:

The story circulated independently because it played no role in the rest of Acts. (Lüdemann, The Acts Of The Apostles: What Really Happened In The Earliest Days Of The Church, 122)

Connected or not, the providential encounter results in the New Testament’s first example of one-on-one evangelism.

Acts accents the introduction of its newest character. Beverly Roberts Gaventa (b. 1948) observes:

The word “behold” (idou; NRSV: Now), as often in biblical narrative, commands attention for what follows (e.g. Acts 1:10, 5:9, 7:56). Precisely here Luke introduces a dramatic figure he identifies as “an Ethiopian male, a eunuch, treasurer of the Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was over all her treasury” (author’s translation). (Gaventa, Acts (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries), 141)

More translations omit the antiquated particle “behold” (CEV, ESV, HCSB, MSG, NASB, NIV, NLT, NRSV) than retain it (ASV, KJV, NKJV, RSV).

The man is depicted at length with five descriptors. He is: 1. a man, 2. an Ethiopian, 3. a eunuch, 4. employed as a court official; 5. a worshiper.

The traveler is identified as an “Ethiopian”(ASV, CEV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, MSG, NASB, NIV, KJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV). While this moniker refers to a well-established country, David Tuesday Adamo (b. 1949) suggests that the word is best translated by the broader “African” (Adamo, Africa and Africans in the New Testament, 89–91).

The biblical Ethiopia does not correspond to modern-day Ethiopia but rather is located in what is today Sudan. F.F. Bruce (1910-1990) identifies:

Αἰθίοψ...The kingdom of Ethiopia, south of Aswan, had existed since the eighth century B.C. Its two chief cities were Meroe and Napata. In the conversion of this Ethiopian Luke or some of his readers may have seen a fulfillment of the promises of Psalm 68:31; Zephaniah 3:10 (see Eusebius [263-339] Historia Ecclesiastica 2.1.13). Since Homer [800-701 BCE]’s time the Ethiopians (Odyssey 1.23)...were regarded as living on the edge of the world (cf. Acts 1:8). (Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary, 225)

Jews had a long history with Ethiopia, known as Cush in the Old Testament (Genesis 2:13; Psalm 68:31; Jeremiah 38:7). Charles H. Talbert (b. 1934) canvasses:

The biblical tradition gives a certain picture of the place. Ethiopia was a remote and distant land (Ezekiel 29:10; Esther 1:1, 8:9), renowned for its wealth (Job 28:19, Isaiah 45:14) and its military prowess (II Kings 19:9; II Chronicles 14:9-13; Isaiah 37:9; Jeremiah 46:9). The Ethiopians were a dark complexioned people (Jeremiah 13:23; cf. Herodotus [484-425 BCE] 3.20; Philostratus [170-247], Life of Apollonius 6:1), one of the wicked nations of the world (Isaiah 20:3-5, 43:3; Ezekiel 30:1-9; Nahum 3:9; Zephaniah 2:11-12), who were to be among those foreigners who would be converted and acknowledge the true God of Israel (Psalm 68:31-32; Zephaniah 3:9-10). The curiosity of the educated classes of the Mediterranean world in Ethiopia was aroused by two Roman expeditions into the region, one military in 23 BC, and one scientific in AD 62 (Dio Cassius [155-235] 54.5; Pliny [23-79], Natural History 6.35; Seneca [4 BCE-65 CE], Natural Questions 6.8.3). The stereotyped image of Ethiopia and its people from antiquity is reflected in Heliodorus’s romance An Ethiopian Story. (Talbert, Reading Acts: A Literary and Theological Commentary, 75)

As has been alluded, the reference to an Ethiopian likely piqued the curiosity of the original readers. J. Bradley Chance (b. 1954) apprises:

The civilization of Cush lasted until c. AD 350. The culture was a source of fascination to the ancients. Pliny the Elder [23-79] (Naturalis Historia VI.186-92) speaks of reports that certain regions of Ethiopia produced human monstrosities: people without noses, upper lips, or tongues. Some tribes were said to follow a dog as their king. Awareness of these popular stereotypes of Ethiopians makes God’s directing of Philip to invite an Ethiopian into the fold of God’s people especially provocative. The gospel really is for all types of people! (Chance, Acts (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary), 136)

Beverly Roberts Gaventa (b. 1948) supports:

The description importantly plays on well-established interest in Ethiopians. Homer [800-701 BCE] speaks of the “far-off Ethiopians...the farthermost of men” (Odyssey 1.22-23), and Herodotus [484-425 BCE] describes them as the tallest and most handsome of all the peoples (3.20). Strabo [64 BCE-24 CE] remarks that Ethiopians come from the extremities of the inhabited world (Geography 17.2.1; see also Diodorus Siculus [90 BCE-30 BCE] 3.1-37; Pliny [23-79], Natural History 6.35; Dio Cassius [155-235] 54.5.4). Old Testament and patristic texts also portray Ethiopia as the border of the known world (e.g., Esther 1:1, 8:9; Ezekiel 29:10; Zephaniah 3:10; see Frank M. Snowden, Jr. [1911-2007], 1970, 1983)...He [the Ethiopian eunuch] comes from Meroe, a kingdom established and powerful since before the time of Alexander the Great [356-323 BCE]...Recent events would have placed Meroe in the spotlight since Augustus [63 BCE-14 CE]’s general Gaius Petronius [b. 75 BCE] had led a military campaign against the Candace’s army when Ethiopians pushed into Elephantine. Scientific expeditions into Meroe were conducted under Nero [37-68] around 62 CE, and he had also planned, though never executed, a military campaign against Meroe (Dio Cassius 54.5.4; Strabo [64 BCE-24 CE], Geography 17.1.54; Pliny [23-79, Natural History 6.35; Erich Dinkler [1909-1981] 1975, 91). (Gaventa, Acts (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries), 141-42)

In witnessing to an Ethiopian, Philip expands the gospel into new regions.

The Ethiopian also stretches the gospel’s racial boundaries. Ethiopians were phenotypically black and the ancient reader would have assumed that the eunuch was ebony. In fact, the name “Ethiopia” derives from a compound meaning “burnt face”. Some church fathers even made the appalling allegation that he was made white when he was baptized (Ephrem the Syrian [306-373], Hymn III “The Pearl, Seven Hymns on the Faith,”); Jerome [347-420], “The Letters of St Jerome: Letter 69, to Oceanus”).

Mikeal C. Parsons (b. 1957) notes:

In antiquity, skin color was an Ethiopian’s most distinctive feature (Homer [800-701 BCE], Odyssey. 19.244-248; Herodotus [484-425 BCE], Historiae 2.29-32, 3.17-24, 4.183, 197; and Seneca [4 BCE-65 CE], Naturales quaestiones 4A.218). What is the ethnographic significance of the Ethiopian’s conversion?...The allusion...may not have been altogether positive; it certainly was not in the physiognomic handbooks. About Ethiopians, pseudo-Aristotle says, “Those who are too swarthy are cowardly; this applies to Egyptians and Ethiopians” (Physiognomia 812a12-13). If this negative view of Ethiopia/Ethiopians is in the cultural repertoire of Luke’s audience, Luke encourages the setting aside of those prejudices. (Parsons, Acts (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament), 119)

Analysis of the Ethiopian eunuch in relation to race has escalated in recent times. F. Scott Spencer (b. 1956) surveys:

Recently African-American scholars have called attention to this man’s identity as a black-skinned, African official (Cain Hope Felder [b. 1943], pp. 182-86; Clarice J. Martin [b. 1952] pp. 791-94; Abraham Smith [b. 1957]). In marked contrast to the tragic oppression and vilification of black Africans in modern Western history, Ethiopians in particular were idealized in ancient classical writings as people of great piety and beauty. Homer [800-701 BCE] spoke of ‘blameless Ethiopians’ (Iliad 1.423-34); Herodotus [484-425 BCE] extolled the ‘burnt-skinned’ Ethiopians as the tallest and most handsome of all humankind (History 3.20); and Diodorus of Sicily [90-30 BCE] commented that ‘it is generally held that the sacrifices practiced among the Ethiopians are those which are most pleasing to heaven’ (3.3.1). (Spencer, Acts (Readings: A New Biblical Commentary), 91)

Eric D. Barreto (b. 1980) examines:

Clarice J. Martin [b. 1952] outlines three basic approaches to the eunuch’s race. “Uncertainty” is the first interpretive strategy. Unsure and perhaps even uncomfortable with questions of ethnicity, some scholars argue for the eunuch’s ethnic ambiguity and, more important, question, whether his ethnicity has any function in the narrative. In the end, “uncertainty” resembles neglect. A second kind of effort acknowledges the eunuch’s ethnic provenance “but usually with only a cursory discussion of Nubia, and rarely with any explicit identification of Nubians (or ‘Ethiopians’...as they were called in the Common Era) as black-skinned people.” Finally, the third overarching approach fully and explicitly acknowledges the eunuch’s ethnic identity and the various corresponding – especially physical – marks of Ethiopian ethnicity...Martin’s own approach falls within the third category, and she ultimately concludes “that the story of a black African Gentile from what would be perceived as a ‘distant nation’ to the south of the empire is consistent with the Lucan emphasis on ‘universalism,’ a recurrent motif in both Luke and Acts, and one that is well known.” Thus, the presence of a black person within the narrative of Acts is one way in which Luke indicted the universal reach of the gospel. No matter how exotic, there is no land or person that cannot come to know the goodness of God. (Barreto, Ethnic Negotiations: The Function of Race and Ethnicity in Acts 16, 9-10)

Rodney S. Sadler, Jr. (b. 1967) pronounces:

That he was converted indicates that black Africans were never excluded from full participation in the promises of Christianity because of their supposed “racial” designation. (Brian K. Blount [b. 1956], “The Place and Role of Africa and African Imagery in the Bible”, True to Our Native Land: An African American New Testament Commentary, 28)

Gay L. Byron (b. 1961) echoes:

The Ethiopian eunuch was used by Luke to indicate that salvation could extend even to Ethiopians and Blacks. (Byron, Symbolic Blackness and Ethnic Difference in Early Christian Literature, 105)

While the Ethiopian’s race is only implied, careful attention is paid to the eunuch’s social status. He is in the employ of Candace, queen of Ethiopia. Candace (ASV, CEV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, MSG, NASB, NKJV, NRSV) or Canda’ce (RSV) or Kandake (NIV, NLT) is a hereditary dynastic title (Pliny the Elder [23-79], Naturalis Historia 6.186; Pseudo-Callisthenes, Life of Alexander of Macedon 3.18). This is the only occurrence of this name in the Bible. Kandakē is a more accurate rendering of the name than the modern sounding Candace.

The Kandakē was the ruler of the country. Eusebius (263-339) mentions that Ethiopia was still governed by a woman in his era (Historia Ecclesiastica 2.1.13). F.F. Bruce (1910-1990) explores:

Κανδάχης Βασιλίσσης...Candace was a hereditary title of the Ethiopian queen mothers, who reigned in Meroe. An inscription from Pselchis (Dekkeh) in Nubia (13 B.C.) calls an earlier Candace τὴν χυρίαν Βασιλίσσαν (Gustav Adolf Deissmann [1866-1937], Light from the Ancient East, p. 352). The queen mother was the effective head of government; the king her son was regarded as a divine personage, the child of the sun-god. So Bion of Soli, Aethiopica 1. (Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary, 226)

C.K. Barrett (1917-2011) deliberates:

Luke seems to have taken Candace as a personal name; in fact it appears to transliterate the title that appears in Ethiopic inscriptions as k(e)ut(e)ky, and to be reduplicated by Βασίλισσα. (Barrett, Acts: Volume 1: 1-14 (International Critical Commentary), 425)

Jo Ann H. Seely (b. 1958) denotes:

According to Bion of Soli (Aethiopica 1, ca. 2nd century B.C.E.), the Candace was the head of the government in the Nubian kingdom of Meroe (located in modern Sudan). The title Candace is also attested in several classical sources (cf. Strabo [64 BCE-24 CE] Geographica 17.154; Dio Cassius [155-235] Historia Romana 54.5.4-5; Naturalis Historia 6.35.186; Pseudo-Callistus 3.18). (David Noel Freedman [1922-2008], Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, 215)

Mal Couch (1938-2013) relates:

The name means “Queen or Ruler of Children.” Candace is not a proper name. It is a title once assumed by the dynasty of the royal family of the Ethiopians, much as pharaoh was the title of the Egyptian king and caesar was the title of Roman emperors...George Reisner [1867-1942] has identified pyramid tombs of the Candaces of Ethiopia constructed from c. 300 B.C. to A.D. 300. (Mal Couch, A Bible Handbook to the Acts of the Apostles, 268)

William J. Larkin, Jr. (b. 1945) identifies:

Candace, queen of the Ethiopians (better “Queen Mother, ruling monarch of the Ethiopians,” since candace is a title, not a proper name), cared for the duties of state. The king was regarded as a god, “child of the sun,” to sacred to engage in administration. The candace in this instance was Amanitare (A.D. 25-41; David W. Wead [b. 1936] 1982:197; Piers T. Crocker 1986:67). (Larkin, Acts (IVP New Testament Commentary Series), 132-33)

The Ethiopian eunuch is a foreign dignitary. He is described as a dynástēs, translated variously as one with “great authority” (ASV, KJV, NKJV, NLT), a “court official” (ESV, NASB, NRSV),“minister” (MSG, RSV), “chief treasurer” (CEV), “high official” (HCSB) or “important official” (NIV).

C.K. Barrett (1917-2011) details:

As a δυνάστης he was a leading man, a man of power, in his own country. The word has in itself no precise meaning, and translates a number of Hebrew words in the Old Testament. He had power as an agent. (Barrett, Acts: Volume 1: 1-14 (International Critical Commentary), 425)

Luke Timothy Johnson (b. 1943) adds:

It was not uncommon for castrated males to hold positions of importance in oriental courts (see Herodotus [484-425 BCE], Persian Wars 8:105; Philostratus [170-247], Life of Apollonius of Tyana 1:33-36). Indeed, in the Septuagint Jeremiah 41:19, the Hebrew term for eunuch is translated as dynastēs, the term here translated as “official.” (Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles (Sacra Pagina), 155)

More specifically, the chamberlain’s function is defined as supervising the nation’s treasury. He is the minister of finance.

The Greek word for treasury is similar to the destination of the road where the eunuch is found. Gerhard A. Krodel (1926-2005) professes:

On the road to Gaza the official in charge of the queen’s treasure (Greek, gaza) will receive new treasures, the good news of Jesus, understanding the Scriptures, Baptism, and joy. (Krodel, Acts (Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament), 168)

F.F. Bruce (1910-1990) clarifies:

γάζης...“treasure,” “treasury,” [is] a loanword from Persian (not related to the place name Gaza). Cf. Plutarch [45-120], Demetrius 25.5. (Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary, 226)

In his homeland, the eunuch is clearly well respected. His possessing a scroll (Acts 8:28) is likely an indication of his wealth. Given his standing, many imagine the eunuch as an older man. He is unquestionably a person of influence.

The Ethiopian is most famously characterized as a “eunuch” (ASV, CEV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, MSG, NASB, NIV, KJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV). Luke-Acts frequently notes the physical condition of those entering its text (Luke 5:12, 9:39, 13:11; Acts 3:2, 7, 28:8).

In today’s world, eunuchs are seldom discussed. They are no longer prevalent and not an especially pleasant topic. Darrell L. Bock (b. 1953) defines:

Eunuchs were castrated men who often served as keepers of harems (BAGD 323 § 1; BDAG 409; in the New Testament they appear only in this scene and in Matthew 19:12; Philostratus [170-247], Life of Apollonius of Tyana. 1.33-36; Jeremiah 48:16 LXX; Esther 2:14). They often served as treasurers (John B. Pohill [b. 1939] 1992: 223). His condition would not allow him full participation in Jewish worship (Deuteronomy 23:1; also 1 QSa 2.5-6). In the eschaton, eunuchs will be restored to full worship (Isaiah 56:3b-5). (Bock, Acts (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 341)

Barbara K. Lundblad (b. 1944) relays:

Luke presupposes that readers have a particular knowledge of eunuchs. I am indebted to New Testament scholar Cottrel Rick Carson [b. 1960] for his in-depth-study of eunuchs. His reading of primary sources on eunuches ranges widely among classical Greek and Latin texts, as well as the Septuagint. Two kinds of eunuchs are described in classical texts: those castrated from birth and those castrated after reaching physical manhood. Both ended up alienated from their birth families, making loyalty to the monarch a matter of life and death. Eunuchs were involved in three primary tasks: 1) personal domestic service, often tutoring royal children; 2) the military—what could be better, they could never covet hereditary power; and 3) positions in the bureaucracy. (Lundblad, Marking Time: Preaching Biblical Stories in Present Tense, 52)

In biblical times it was not uncommon for boys to be sold for the purpose of being made into eunuchs. Derek W.H. Thomas (b. 1953) discusses:

In some countries a commoner might elect to become a eunuch (and therefore be surgically altered) in order to serve in the royal palace. The reason was that eunuchs ensured sexual fidelity. Sometimes there is the suggestion that such alteration enhanced single-hearted loyalty. Such men traded the hope of family for wealth, security, and a status among the elite. However, eunuchs could never attain the status of royalty and were always servants, even if wealthy ones. (Thomas, Acts (Reformed Expository Commentary), 238)

The papal choir employed eunuchs or “castrati” as recent as the 19th century.

Being a eunuch would have engendered certain perceptions. The text itself alludes to the fact that the eunuch would have been humiliated without the prospect of descendants (Acts 8:33).

Charles H. Talbert (b. 1934) portrays:

Eunuchs in antiquity were viewed in two different ways. On the one hand they were regarded positively. Herodotus [484-425 BCE] 8.105 says that among barbarians eunuchs were especially prized as servants because of their trustworthiness. Heliodorus [third century CE], An Ethiopian Story, connects eunuchs with Ethiopian royalty. On the other hand, there was also a negative view of eunuchs among some in antiquity. Lucian [second century CE], The Eunuch 6, tells a tale of a eunuch who applies for a chair of philosophy at Athens. His chief competitor says such people ought to be excluded not only from philosophy but also from temples and holy-water bowls and all places of public assembly. The Jewish Scriptures were hostile to such people (Leviticus 21:20, 22:24: an emasculated man is physically blemished and in a permanent state of ritual impurity; Deuteronomy 23:1: they are not to be admitted to the assembly of the Lord). This attitude was continued in postbiblical Judaism (Philo [20 BCE-50 CE], Special Laws 1.324-25, 3.41-42: they belong to the unworthy barred from entering the sacred congregation; Josephus [37-100], Antiquities 4.8.40 §§ 290-91: total separation from eunuchs is enjoined; Midrash Megillah 2:7; 1 QSa excludes those with physical defects from the assembly of God; 1 QM 7.3-6 also excludes the maimed). (Talbert, Reading Acts: A Literary and Theological Commentary, 75)

Mikeal C. Parsons (b. 1957) investigates:

Eunuchs in antiquity “belonged to the most despised and derided group of men” (F. Scott Spencer [b. 1956] 1992a, 156). This claim would certainly find support in the writings of Polemo [d. 270 BCE], who notes that “eunuchs are an evil people, and in them is greed and an assembly of various (evil) qualities” (Physiognomonica. 1.162F). This attitude was prevalent among Greek-speaking Jews of the first century as well (Josephus [37-100] Antiquities 4.290-291)...Why were eunuchs thus demonized and ostracized in antiquity? In part, the answer lies in their ambiguous sexual identity. Lucian of Samosata [second century CE] argued that a eunuch “was an ambiguous sort of creature like a crow, which cannot be reckoned either with doves or with ravens...neither man nor woman but something composite, hybrid and monstruous, alien to human nature” (Eunuch. 6-11; cf. Josephus [37-100], Antiquities. 4.291; cf. Philo [20 BCE-50 CE], De specialibus legibus. 1.324-325). In a culture in which honor was gender-based, to be sexually ambiguous was to blur clear-cut gender roles and expectations and thus to bring shame upon oneself and one’s community (see Spencer 1992a, 157)...Further, eunuchs, by belonging neither to the cultural expectations of male nor female, had violated purity codes. This was especially true in Judaism, which prohibited the physically defective, like eunuchs, from entering the temple and interacting with the larger social body. (Parsons, Acts (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament), 120)

Though the eunuch’s bureaucratic position was often possessed by a castrated male, some have posited that in Greek writings “eunuch” may have been a governmental title and as such the holder may not necessarily be emasculated.

Mikeal C. Parsons (b. 1957) analyzes:

There is some evidence that the word functioned simply as an official title. Genesis 39:1 reports that “Joseph was brought down to Egypt; and Potiphar an officer (Septuagint, εὐνουχός) of Pharaoh.” Since Potiphar was married, “eunuch” here probably refers to his standing in Pharaoh’s court. Some early Christian writings developed the notion of eunuch as a reference to those who remain celibate. Athenagorus [133-190] wrote in A Plea for Christians: “If to remain a virgin and abstain from sexual intercourse (εὐνουχία) brings us closer to God...” (33.3; cf. Clement of Alexandria [150-215], Stromata 3.1; Matthew 19:12). Nonetheless the overwhelming majority of instances of “eunuch” from the classical period to late antiquity refer to one who was sexually mutilated (see Philostratus [170-247], Vita Apollonii 6.42; Lucian [second century CE], Saturnalia, 12) or, much more rarely, born with a congenital defect (see Aristotle [384-322 BCE], De generatione animalium 2.7.25). (Parsons, Body and Character in Luke and Acts: The Subversion of Physiognomy in Early Christianity, 133)

Sean D. Burke (b. 1972) charts:

The first Christian interpreters to suggest that “eunuch” could function as a title of rank applied to persons who were not castrated were Theodore (c. 602-690), archbishop of Canterbury, and Hadrian (died 710), abbot of a monastery in Canterbury, although they noted that among the Persians and the Romans, all eunuchs were castrated. Later, based on his understanding of the three categories of eunuchs in Matthew 19:12, Nicholas of Lyra [1270-1349] argued that eunuchus in Acts 8:27 should not be understood with regard to genitals (membrorum genitalium) but rather with regard to chastity (casitate). In a reading that has profoundly influenced the rest of the history of interpretation, especially among Protestants, John Calvin [1509-1564] claimed that, because the terms man and eunuch are both used of this character, the latter must be a title, and he argued that the practice among ancient Near Eastern rulers of setting castrated males over important affairs resulted in the indiscriminate use of the title eunuch even for those who were actually men (that is, not castrated). In light of Nicholas of Lyra’s understanding of the eunuch as a model of chastity, it may be significant that Calvin’s interpretation, which reduced the term eunuch to a title, was produced in a context in which he and other reformers were challenging the enforced celibacy of clergy and the glorification of the voluntary celibacy of those in religious orders. (Burke, Queering the Ethiopian Eunuch: Strategies of Ambiguity in Acts, 10-11)

William J. Larkin, Jr. (b. 1945) evaluates:

Eunuch in ancient times could mean a castrated male (Leviticus 21:20; Deuteronomy 23:1); a castrated male who served in high government office, particularly under a woman ruler or in duties involving women (such as oversight of a harem) or in a treasury (Plutarch [45-120], Vitae Parallelae: Demetrius 25:5); or any male high government official (Jeremiah 34:19). It is difficult to determine which use Luke is making here. I. Howard Marshall [b. 1934] (1980:162) says that the piling on of phrases, dynastēs immediately following eunouchos, renders the former redundant if it does not indicate the physical condition (compare Ernst Haenchen [1894-1975] 1971: 310). (Larkin, Acts (IVP New Testament Commentary Series), 132-33)

Darrell L. Bock (b. 1953) determines:

Jacob Jervell [b. 1925] (1998: 270-71) questions whether this man in a high office should be seen as literally a eunuch. He suggests that the Ethiopian is one who by his position functions as a celibate and this symbolically a “eunuch.” In this case, however, there would be no need to call him a eunuch, as Acts 8:27 does. So a literal eunuch is likely in view (Gerd Petzke [b. 1940], EDNT 2:81). (Bock, Acts (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 341)

A literal reading of the text is most natural and less redundant. Further, the story highlights the expansion of the gospel, and including a eunuch breaks further boundaries. The Ethiopian eunuch is most likely a eunuch.

In spite of the other biographical details provided, when he is referred to elsewhere in the text, he will be known as “the eunuch”. He is not referred to as the court official or the Ethiopian. He is the eunuch. This designation defines him.

Keith H. Reeves (b. 1957) inspects:

The operative term that Luke uses to refer to this man is the word for eunuch. Luke uses the term fives times (Acts 8:27, 34, 36, 38, 39). In the Septuagint the term (used thirty-eight times overall) often refers to a high official (as in the case of Potiphar, Genesis 39:1), but it is equally used to refer to a castrated male, typically related to work in the harem. The only other occurrences of the term in the New Testament are three times in Matthew 19:12, where it clearly refers to a castrated male...The term here denotes a castrated male rather than merely an official, because he has already been adequately identified as a minister. Were “eunuch” simply understood as minister, it would be redundant. Indeed, the repetition of the term for eunuch emphasize’s the man’s physical defect. This is his dominant trait in the narrative. (Robert L. Gallagher [b. 1949] and Paul Hertig [b. 1955], “The Ethiopian Eunuch: A Key Transition from Hellenist to Gentile Mission”, Mission in Acts: Ancient Narratives in Contemporary Context, 117)

The eunuch is not referred to by name, but is rather identified by his “deformity” or “impairment.” This is no different than the non-personal identities levied upon contemporary people who do not conform to societal norms. Academicians who refer to the eunuch otherwise in an effort to give him dignity the text does not afford mitigate the impact of his eventual inclusion in the Christian community.

In spite of the numerous details Acts provides, the eunuch’s religious standing remains murky. Philip discovers the eunuch contemplating a scroll (Acts 8:32-33), specifically Isaiah 53:7-8, on a road leading away from Jerusalem (Acts 8:28). Presumably the eunuch has gone on a pilgrimage to worship.

Richard N. Longenecker (b. 1930) confesses:

It is difficult to determine from the text itself how Luke wanted his readers to understand the Ethiopian eunuch’s relation to Judaism. Furthermore, it is uncertain how first-century Judaism would have viewed a eunuch coming to worship at Jerusalem. (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952] and David E. Garland [b. 1947], Acts (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary), 158)

S.G. Wilson (b. 1942) expounds:

Luke...intentionally leaves the man’s religious status obscure: he could not call him a proselyte, because his source said he was a Gentile; and he could not call him a Gentile without anticipating the theme of Acts 10-11. Also, in this way Luke could give the impression that the Church’s mission had taken a step beyond the Jews and Samaritans, but not quite to the Gentiles, with all the problems which that involves. It may well be that Ernst Haenchen [1894-1975] and Hans Conzelmann [1915-1989] are right in thinking that the original version made it clear that the eunuch was a Gentile. But it is unlikely that Luke knew this and deliberately covered it up, for it would have been a simple enough matter to position this narrative at a later point, after chapters 10-11, as he has done with Acts 11:19f. It is more likely that Luke did not realize that the eunuch was a Gentile, maybe because the tradition he received did not make this clear. If the eunuch was a Gentile, then this narrative affords yet one more example of the way in which Luke’s idealistic picture of the extension of the Church’s mission is betrayed by stories which he himself relates. For Luke the narrative has significance as the story of the conversion of a semi-Jew, a conversion in which God is the main actor. (Wilson, The Gentiles and the Gentile Mission in Luke-Acts (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series), 172)

As Wilson alludes, there has been discussion as to whether the eunuch should be deemed a Gentile. If so he is a God-fearer, a Gentile sympathetic to the Jewish religion. If he qualifies, the eunuch is perhaps the first Gentile convert. And this might prove problematic.

Ernst Hanechen (1894-1975) asserts:

Luke cannot and did not say that the eunuch was a gentile; otherwise Philip would have forestalled Peter, the legitimate founder of the Gentile mission! [Acts 10:1-48] (Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary, 314)

Some have suggested that the eunuch be considered a proselyte within Jewish religious milieu though Acts recognizes full proselytes (Acts 6:5).

Michael A. Salmeier (b. 1969) researches:

Ernst Haenchen [1894-1975], Acts, 314; Luke Timothy Johnson [b. 1943], Acts 150; Rudolf Pesch [1936-2011], Apostelgeschichte, I, 287-95; Gerhard Schneider [1926-2004], Apostelgeschichte, I, 498) indicate to varying degrees the possibility that the man was either Jewish or a proselyte. C.K. Barrett [1917-2011] (Acts, 420, 424-26) argues that neither conclusion is possible given that Luke’s characterization that he is Ethiopian and a eunuch. (Salmeier, Restoring the Kingdom: The Role of God as the Ordainer of Times and Seasons in the Acts of the Apostles, 119)

Loveday Alexander characterizes:

On the mental map of the ancient Mediterranean world, Ethiopia is part of the ‘ends of the earth’ (Acts 1:8). But in religious terms, the Ethiopian is a figure of the borderlands, halfway between Jew and Gentile, either a God-fearer or (more likely) a full convert to Judaism. (Alexander, Acts (Daily Bible Commentary: A Guide for Reflection and Prayer), 74)

Regardless of his technical status, the eunuch is an outsider. Fred B. Craddock (b. 1928) describes him as someone who would have been made “to stand outside the church looking in”. Eunuchs were indeed excluded from Jewish worship.

Luke Timothy Johnson (b. 1943) informs:

It is best to consider the Ethiopian as one of the marginal among the people of Israel. He is so because, despite his wealth and exalted social position (in charge of the royal treasury), he is a eunuch. According to Deuteronomy 23:1, a condition of sexual mutilation precluded full participation in the life of the people, and this restriction was certainly practiced by the covenanters at Qumran as well...By indicating that the eunuch had “come to Jerusalem to worship and was returning home” (Acts 8:27-28), Luke portrays him as a righteous man who affirmed the covenant of God with Israel — a fact confirmed by his sedulous reading of the prophet Isaiah as he rode in his chariot (Acts 8:28). (Johnson, Prophetic Jesus, Prophetic Church: The Challenge of Luke-Acts to Contemporary Christians, 152)

Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) contends:

From the point of view of Judaism, this put this man permanently on the fringes of the religion in which he was showing great interest. Deuteronomy 23:1 was regularly interpreted to mean that eunuchs were to be excluded from God’s assembly, though Isaiah 56:3-5 held out promise of fuller participation in biblical religion in the future as a full member of Gods people. In view of the focus on the Servant Songs in this very passage, it may be that Luke wishes us to see this story as a whole being about the fulfillment of that promise in Isaiah 56. The point would be that nothing hindered the eunuch from being a full-fledged follower of the one in whom Isaiah’s promises were being fulfilled in the present, even though he could not be a full-fledged Jew. (Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles : A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 296)

The eunuch is one who has been “cut off” from the worshiping community (pun intended) leaving him to wonder if there is any god for him. His experience in Jerusalem has evidently left him unsatisfied as evidenced by his directionality.

F. Scott Spencer (b. 1956) highlights:

Significantly, the direction of his transforming trek through the desert is the reverse of the Israelites’ wilderness course: he is heading away from Judaism’s holy land back to his native African country (Acts 8:27-28). More specifically, he is returning from a worship pilgrimage to Jerusalem. The results of this visit are not detailed, but the thrust of the eunuch’s questions to Philip suggest a prior experience in the Jewish capital of receiving inadequate assistance in understanding the Jewish scriptures (‘How can I, unless someone guides me?’ Acts 8:31) and of being denied full access into the fellowship of God’s people (‘What is to prevent me from being baptized?’, Acts 8:36). (Spencer, Acts (Readings: A New Biblical Commentary), 91)

In Jesus, as interpreted through the lense of Isaiah 53, the eunuch found a savior to whom he could relate. They were both mutilated for someone else’s benefit. Both were humiliated in the midst of their mutilation. Both had given up a potential family to serve. The eunuch could not have been reading a more appropriate text. He responds by confessing Jesus as the “Son of God” and requests baptism (Acts 8:36-37). Philip consents (Acts 8:38).

David Seccombe assesses:

He is an Ethiopian...but has been to Jerusalem to worship, so is presumably a proselyte. However, his emasculate condition would have barred him from sharing fully in the worship of the temple. He stands next to the Samaritans in Acts representing the circumcised worshipper of Israel’s God who is nonetheless not fully acceptable. At the sight of water the eunuch asks the critical question, ‘What prevents me being baptised?’ [Acts 8:36] Luke employs such rhetorical questions to stir his readers to agreement with the divinely led expansion of the boundaries of the people of God. Had the eunuch asked what prevented him entering the temple, he would have been reminded of his physical imperfection. Nothing hinders his full inclusion amongst the people of Jesus and he goes on his way rejoicing. (I. Howard Marshall [b. 1934] and David Peterson (b. 1944), “The New People of God”, Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts, 360)

David Schnasa Jacobsen (b. 1961) and Günter Wasserberg (b. 1953) reflect:

This Ethiopian eunuch is the first boundary dispute. In spite of his status as a castrated man, which would make it impossible for him to become a Jewish proselyte, he behaves like a God-fearing Gentile: he prays and worships in the temple, in the section reserved for non-Jews (Acts 8:27). This God-fearing habit suffices for him to be baptized and to become a believer in Christ. (Jacobsen and Wasserberg, Preaching Luke–Acts, 115)

The Ethiopian eunuch continues to influence disputed boundaries. Given the eunuch’s rejection on the basis of his sexual orientation, many have seen an equivalency to the contemporary homosexual. Some have even speculated that the eunuch is a “natural” eunuch, i.e. a homosexual.

Some interpreters have viewed the eunuch’s inclusion as marking a paradigm shift in the Bible’s view of homosexuals. Philip is directed by the Holy Spirit to someone who is ostracized by the Old Testament regulations regarding sexuality and proceeds to include him in the Christian community on the basis of his profession in Christ. The argument is bolstered by its proximity to God’s similar updating of levitical dietary laws (Acts 10:9-16).

John J. McNeill (b. 1925) acknowledges:

Nowhere is this new attitude concerning human sexuality more evident than in the account of the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 8:26-39). (McNeill, The Church and the Homosexual, Fourth Edition, 63)

Jack Rogers (b. 1934) implores:

The repeated and direct involvement of the Holy Spirit, the significant reference to the liberating prophecies of Isaiah, and the fact that the first Gentile convert to Christianity is from a sexual minority and a different race, ethnicity and nationality together form a clarion call for the inclusiveness, radical grace, and Christian welcome to all who show faith. (Rogers, Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality: Explode the Myths, Heal the Church, 135)

The parallel between the eunuch and the homosexual is not universally accepted. Detractors note that the eunuch’s inclusion was prophesied (Isaiah 56:1-8) and that the prophecy was ratified by Jesus (Matthew 19:12). The same claim cannot be made of homosexuals.

Ronald J. Allen (b. 1949) cautions:

Preachers sometimes take the Ethiopian eunuch as a poster child for exclusion and inclusion. Preachers are wont to say Judaism excluded the eunuch whereas the church welcomed the eunuch. The sermon calls the church to include people today...in situations similar to that of the eunuch. Unfortunately, this approach oversimplifies attitudes towards eunuchs in ancient Judaism while buttressing anti-Jewish sentiments. A preacher needs to respect the fullness of Judaism’s concern around eunuchs and help the church recognize its own ambiguity and even faithlessness with respect to persons represented by the eunuch. (Allen, Acts of the Apostles (Fortress Biblical Preaching Commentaries), 78)

It cannot be argued that the Ethiopian eunuch represents an exotic convert and may correlate to Acts’ internal outline, Jesus’ admonition to spread the gospel “to the remotest part of the earth” (Acts 1:8 NASB), a phrase lifted from Isaiah 49:6.

Clinton E. Arnold (b. 1958) connects:

Before his ascension, Jesus said that the disciples would be witnesses to “the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8). The conversion of the Ethiopian marks an enormous stride toward fulfillment of this goal. To Greeks and Romans, Ethiopia was at the ends of the earth. In describing Poseidon’s trip to the Ethiopians, Homer [800-701 BCE] said that they lived “at the world’s end.” Herodotus [484-425 BCE] claimed that Ethiopia “stretches farthest of the inhabited lands in the direction of the sun’s decline.”...The conversion of the Ethiopian also represents the inaugural step of the gospel going out to the Gentiles. In many ways, this is a more radical step forward than the conversion of Cornelius and his household [Acts 10:1-48]. Not only is the Ethiopian a Gentile, but he is from a distant land and in some ways an outcast with respect to Judaism since, as a eunuch, he is regarded as in a constant state of ritual impurity. (Arnold, Acts (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary), 68)

Richard I. Pervo (b. 1942) extols:

Not only does Ethiopia stand for “the ends of the earth”—note that a triumphant psalm summons God to conquer the nations: “Let bronze be brought from Egypt; let Ethiopia hasten to stretch out its hands to God” (Psalm 68:31)—but the eunuch carries symbolic weight. He is a great catch, both as a marginal figure (inasmuch as actual eunuchs were theoretically excluded from the people of God) and as a member of the ruling class. And his acceptance would fulfill his promise of Isaiah 56:3-7. To top all this off, Philip has converted a person of high social status. This is the kind of acquisition about which people will brag. (Pervo, Dating Acts: Between the Evangelists and the Apologists, 34)

The Ethiopian breaks new ground as a man representing a new race, region and sexual classification is welcomed into the kingdom of God. The eunuch is emblematic of all who have had their vitality stripped and been forced to conform to another’s system. As such, his question reverberates through the centuries, “What prevents me from being baptized?” (Acts 8:36 NASB)

How is the reader supposed to view the eunuch? Who do you refer to by an identifier rather than their name? What associations do you have with eunuchs? Why does Philip, who is credited with miracles (Acts 8:6-7), not “restore” the eunuch? Why was this passage, which presumably features a prominent black believer, not more prevalent in pulpits during the Civil Rights movement? Who today is like the Ethiopian eunuch socially, religiously? How is the ancient eunuch different and similar to the modern homosexual? Is this comparison fair? How are you similar to the eunuch? If you were described using only five facts, what would they be? What does this story teach about personal evangelism? What barriers, if any, did you overcome to join your church? Who today is cut off from the worshiping community? Should anyone be excluded from Christian fellowship?

The Ethiopian eunuch’s story is open ended (Acts 8:26-40). After his baptism, the eunuch “went on his way rejoicing.” (Acts 8:39 NASB) and is effectively written out of the text leaving the reader to about his fate and “the rest of the story”.

Loveday Alexander remarks:

Luke resists the temptation to take his primary narrative into these unexplored regions, though the episode of the Ethiopian eunuch allows the reader to feel that the narrative has touched the exotic at one remove (much as Chariton is able to bring a southern dimension into his tale through the secondary narrative of the Egyptian king). (Alexander, Acts in its Ancient Literary Context, 79-80)

Leaving a character’s fate undetermined is not uncommon in Acts. Clare K. Rothschild (b. 1964) archives:

Even with its uncommonly frequent recourse to summaries, Acts’ narrative leaves much open-ended. The fates of Matthias (Acts 1:23, 26), of the eunuch on his return to Ethiopia (Acts 8:39), or of Cornelius (Acts 10:48), for example. (Luke-Acts and the Rhetoric of History, 235)

Church tradition has filled in some of the gaps. The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo tradition refers to the eunuch as Bachos while the Eastern Orthodox faith knows him as Simeon the Black (the same name appears in Acts 13:1), an Ethiopian Jew.

It is said that the eunuch became a missionary in his native Ethiopia. Irenaeus of Lyons (130-202) relays:

This man was also sent into the regions of Ethiopia, to preach what he had himself believed, that there was one God preached by the prophets, but that the Son of this [God] had already made [His] appearance in human nature (secundum hominem), and had been led as a sheep to the slaughter; and all the other statements which the prophets made regarding Him. (Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, 3.12.8)

History confirms that Christianity entered Ethiopia at an early date. It would appear that the Ethiopian used his clout to share the inclusive gospel that enveloped him.

Who do you know with influence? With whom do you have influence? How do you use it? Have you ever introduced anyone to Christ?

He drew a circle that shut me out —
Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout.
But Love and I had the wit to win:
We drew a circle that took him in!
Edwin Markham (1852-1940), “Outwitted”, The Shoes of Happiness: And Other Poems (1913)

Voice Recognition: (I Samuel 3:1-14)

Whose voice did young Samuel think he heard when God called him three times? Eli’s (I Samuel 3:4-8)

The third chapter of First Samuel describes a time of limited prophetic activity (not unlike our own) when “word from the Lord was rare” and “visions were infrequent” (I Samuel 3:1 NASB). The priest Eli and his young protégé Samuel are lying down at the Shiloh temple (I Samuel 3:2), the former resting by the ark of the covenant (I Samuel 3:3). After three verses establishing a highly ordinary setting, the pace picks up when God initiates action.

The Lord called Samuel; and he said, “Here I am.” Then he ran to Eli and said, “Here I am, for you called me.” But he said, “I did not call, lie down again.” So he went and lay down. (I Samuel 3:4-5 NASB)

When called, Samuel excitedly runs to answer the priest (I Samuel 3:5). His youthful enthusiasm is misdirected as he mistakenly interprets the voice’s origin. Fortunately, God’s call is deliberate and persistent. Undeterred, the Lord awakens Samuel four times (I Samuel 3:4, 6, 8, 10). In a comedic scene, three times the confused young man awakens Eli. After the third attempt, the seasoned priest recognizes that God is calling Samuel and instructs his pupil to respond in kind (I Samuel 3:8-9). The fourth time is the charm as Samuel receives the revelatory word (I Samuel 3:10-14). As such, Samuel first hears the voice of God while literally lying down on the job (I Samuel 3:4).

The setting is significant, symbolic of the nation’s theological predicament. Richard D. Phillips (b. 1960) observes:

The setting for Samuel’s calling is provocatively stated: “The lamp of God had not yet gone out” (I Samuel 3:3). This indicates that it was in the early hours before dawn that God called to Samuel, since the lamps were kept lit until morning. But this was also symbolically true: the lamp of God’s presence in Israel was dim but not completely out. In such a setting, the voice of the Lord was once more heard within his house. (Phillips, 1 Samuel (Reformed Expository Commentary), 65)

The light is scarce but it is not yet extinguished. The voice in the darkness mirrors the hope for renewal embodied in Samuel.

Kevin J. Mellish (b. 1968) adds:

The location where Eli and Samuel slept at the time of the theophany is also symbolic. Eli was in his own room and separated from the ark. Samuel was lying down in the temple...where the ark of God was (I Samuel 3:3). Based on this description, Samuel must have slept in the inner sanctuary where the ark resided. It is noteworthy that Samuel, the prophet/priest designate, remained near the presence of God, which was symbolized by the ark of the covenant. Eli, the soon to be deposed priest, slept at a distance from it. The imagery is fitting considering that Yahweh’s presence no longer abided with Eli as it was with Samuel, This is also the first, albeit brief, reference to the ark in Samuel. (Mellish, 1 & 2 Samuel: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition (New Beacon Bible Commentary), 61)

Some have posed that Samuel’s position indicates that he is seeking just such a divine encounter. V. Philips Long (b. 1951) explains:

That Samuel is described as “lying down in the temple of the LORD, where the ark of God was” (I Samuel 3:3), has led some to speculate that he may have been engaging in a well-attested ancient Near Eastern practice called “incubation.” Incubation involves spending a night in the temple precinct in the hope of receiving a divine or oracular dream. The practice is attested among the Egyptians, with manuals of dream interpretation being used as early as the New Kingdom period, among the Hittites of Anatolia, and in Canaan during the biblical period...Extrabiblical examples of such theophanies, or auditory message dreams as they are sometimes called, come from Egypt (Thutmose IV, fifteenth century), Ugarit (in both the Kirta Epic and ‘Aqhatu Legend), Hatti (Hattušiliš, thirteenth century), and Babylonia (Nabonidus, sixth century). (John H. Walton [b. 1952], Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary), 282-83)

Ralph W. Klein (b. 1936) counters:

We are not told why Samuel slept by the ark. The view that he was participating in some kind of incubation ritual seems contradicted by his repeated suspicion that Eli—and not God—was calling him. (Klein, 1 Samuel (Word Biblical Commentary), 32)

Instead, Samuel is likely taking his turn in fulfilling priestly duties. Robert D. Bergen (b. 1954) assumes:

While Samuel was fulfilling the Torah obligations to tend the lamp of God (cf. Leviticus 24:3; Numbers 18:23), the Lord called the youth and delivered a message of judgment to him. In a form paralleling Abraham, Jacob, and Moses’ obedient responses to divine calls (Genesis 22:1, 11, 31:11; Exodus 3:4), Samuel responded, “Here I am” (I Samuel 3:4). Because he did not initially know the Lord, however, Samuel at first went to Eli for further instructions (I Samuel 3:5-6, 8)...It is...probable that the writer included this note to demonstrate Samuel’s diligence in fulfilling Torah mandates. As a son of Aaron, Eli was required “to keep the lamps burning before the LORD from evening till morning” (Exodus 27:21; cf. Leviticus 24:3; also Numbers 18:23). However, since Eli apparently was too old for active service before Yahweh as a priest (cf. Numbers 8:23-26), the Levite Samuel was permitted to act as his surrogate in this matter (cf. Numbers 18:23). (Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel (New American Commentary), 86)

God calls Samuel while he is already on duty. Though Samuel does not know who is calling, he responds promptly and politely. Josephus (37-100) records that Samuel is only twelve years old at the time (Antiquities of the Jews 5.10.4).

It is clear that Samuel perceives the voice audibly, originating outside of himself. T.M. Luhrmann (b. 1959) determines:

The striking phenomenonological detail is that Samuel looked for the source of the voice. When someone gives you that detail—they heard a voice and then looked to see who was speaking—it is good evidence that they heard the voice with their ears. (Luhrmann, When God Talks Back: Understanding the American Evangelical Relationship with God, 344)

Samuel’s call marks a rare instance of a human hearing the audible call of God. Steven J. Andrews (b. 1954) and Robert D. Bergen (b. 1954) characterize Samuel’s experience:

Being so physically close to the Lord’s throne, Samuel was bound to meet him. All of chapters 1 and 2 has led up to this point. God was going to do something wonderful with this young man who was dedicated by his parents to minister before the Lord...Here was the moment of contact. Here was God’s call. It was personal and face-to-face. It was private when no one else was around. It came in God’s house in the early morning. Samuel answered...but he didn’t know who called him. He heard, but he wasn’t listening...God is certainly persistent. The verb call occurs eleven times in I Samuel 3:4-10. Anyone who has ever experienced a call from God can tell you that sometimes it is relentless. God does not give up. (Andrews and Bergen, I & II Samuel (Holman Old Testament Commentary), 32-33)

Samuel incorrectly assumes that the voice he hears is Eli’s. To explain this error, the text offers a narrative aside to remind the reader that Samuel has yet to hear the voice of God; Samuel is not yet the legendary prophet (I Samuel 3:7). One can hardly blame Samuel for his failure to recognize the voice. God has not spoken to him previously and Eli’s is the most likely voice. In this secluded setting, who else would be calling him?

Mary J. Evans (b. 1949) muses:

The story continues with the young Samuel asleep in the area where the ark of God was kept, a fact that shows how fully he had been integrated into priestly service. He hears a voice and immediately goes to Eli—maybe it was a regular occurrence for the almost blind Eli to need help. Samuel’s willingness to get up three times in the night, apparently without complaint, to attend to the ailing old man speaks well for the character of the young priest and draws attention to his worthiness to receive the prophetic word. (Evans, 1 and 2 Samuel (New International Biblical Commentary), 28)

Samuel’s mistake is also natural as the voice of God is often filtered through human beings. Kenneth Chafin (1926-2001) acknowledges:

How easy it still is not to be able to discern God’s voice from other voices. It would be so much easier if all of God’s messages to us came with a clearly printed label: “From God.” But, as my colleague, Frank Tupper [b. 1941], says, “God speaks to us through familiar voices.” While there is a tendency to think of the more dramatic revelations of God as normative, most people experience God’s guidance in quite ordinary ways: through experiences good and bad, while reading the Scripture, through the counsel of another, or out of a growing interest. (Chafin, 1, 2 Samuel (Mastering the Old Testament), 46)

Eugene H. Peterson (b. 1932) adds:

Learning to discern the difference between human words and God’s word is basic to his prophetic and priestly life: Samuel listens. Listening is an act of personal attentiveness that develops into answering. The emphatic “Let anyone with ears listen!” with which Jesus concluded his parables (Matthew 13:9, 43) is repeated in the Spirit’s urgent messages to the churches in the Revelation (Revelation 2:7, 11, 17, 29, 3:6, 13, 22)...Samuel answers, which is to say, he prays...Samuel’s very existence is a result of prayer, the prayer of his praying mother, Hannah. The story of his call in the temple, introducing his prophetic vocation, shows him learning how to pray for himself, that is, listen to God’s personal word to him and then respond. (Peterson, First and Second Samuel (Westminster Bible Companion), 38-39)

Ironically, Eli the priest is seldom depicted speaking for God. Yet here it is Eli, not Samuel, who correctly discerns the voice of God. Eli is finally doing his job: presenting a worldview with God at its center.

Alister E. McGrath (b. 1959) writes:

On the first three occasions, Samuel assumes that the natural sound he has heard has a natural referent, and behaves accordingly...The turning point of the narrative takes place when Eli offers an alternative interpretive framework. Confronted with the evident failure of the most obvious schema, Samuel is invited to consider an alternative explanation of his experience (I Samuel 3:9). Eli can here be seen as a representative of the tradition of Israel, which offers an alternative way of interpreting nature – in this case, as a gateway to the transcendent. God is made known through the natural order. (McGrath, The Open Secret: A New Vision for Natural Theology, 176)

It might have even been presumptuous for Samuel to assume that God is calling him. Jack M. Sasson (b. 1941) elucidates:

It is not a lack of intelligence that prevents Samuel from understanding what Eli does comprehend but rather a profound psychological block. Is it possible that God is calling him rather than Eli the priest? Conversely, Eli apprehends what Samuel fails to see, not because of superior intelligence or experience, but because he lacks the inhibitions generated by self-interest. Nothing deters him from assuming that God might turn to the young servant and pass over the old priest! In this way, Eli’s humility compensates for Samuel’s. (John Kaltner[b. 1954] and Louis Stulman [b. 1953], Inspired Speech: Prophecy in the Ancient Near East Essays in Honor of Herbert B. Huffmon [b. 1933], 179)

God speaks to Samuel in such a way that causes Eli to fulfill his primary duty as priest: directing his congregant to God. In some small way, Eli redeems himself. In a sad irony, God’s message to Samuel is confirmation of the fall of Eli’s household (I Samuel 3:11-14). Tragically, Eli’s most effective act as priest occurs while mediating his displacement.

Dallas Willard (b. 1935) praises:

How wonderful that Eli recognized what was happening to young Samuel and could tell him what to do to begin his lifelong conversational walk with God! Otherwise, it might have been years before Samuel would have found his way by himself. We must not mistakenly assume that if God speaks to someone, he or she automatically knows what is happening and who is taking. If Samuel did not know, surely many others also would not. (Willard, Hearing God, Updated and Expanded: Developing a Conversational Relationship with God, 143-44)

In this case, as in many, effectively hearing God is an act of collaboration. For God’s voice to be heard, the lad needs to be open to it, but he also needs guidance from an elder.

Though the passage illuminates the struggle that clergy experience in discerning their calling, discerning the voice of God and distinguishing it from one’s own is a universal challenge that plagues clergy and laymen alike. Hearing God’s voice is often difficult. But it does not mean that God is not speaking.

Eugene H. Peterson (b. 1932) asserts:

God speaks to Samuel. That God speaks is the basic reality of biblical faith. The fundamental conviction of our faith is not so much that God is, as that God speaks. The biblical revelation begins with God creating by word, speaking the cosmos into being (Genesis 1:1-31). It concludes with Jesus, the Word of God, speaking in invitation, “Come...” (Revelation 22:17). All the pages in between are packed with sentences that God speaks—in creation and invitation, in judgment and salvation, in healing and guidance, in oracle and admonition, in rebuke and comfort. The conspicuous feature in all this speaking is that God speaks in personal address. God does not speak grand general truths, huge billboard declarations of truth and morals; the Lord’s speaking is to persons, named persons: Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Paul. And Samuel. Personal address, not philosophical discourse or moral commentary or theological reflection, is God’s primary form of speech. Whenever we let the language of religious abstraction or moral principles (and we do it often) crowd the personal address, we betray the word of God. (Peterson, First and Second Samuel (Westminster Bible Companion), 38)

Though God speaks, hearing is not often easy. Even Samuel, who literally lives in the temple, struggles to do so. Samuel’s experience demonstrates that a person can even be in the precarious position of encountering God without knowing it.

Norman J. Cohen (b. 1943) cautions:

Samuel reminds all of us how difficult it is to truly hear, see, and meet the other in our lives. When we finally do experience a moment of recognition and engagement, we sometimes are so overwhelmed that we cannot find the right words to express what we are thinking and feeling. As we are overcome with emotion, both elation and fear at the same time, words may seem impossible. (Cohen, “The Difficulty of Discerning the Call”, Hineini in Our Lives: Learning to Respond to Others Though 14 Biblical Texts & Personal Stories, 81)

Like all prophets, Samuel’s first prophetic act is to listen. His experience demonstrates that disambiguating the voice of God is a learned skill. This provides both a challenge and hope for us all as we echo Samuel’s words: “Speak, for your servant is listening (I Samuel 3:10 NASB).”

Why does God not make his identity more obvious when dealing with Samuel? When have you been called by an unfamiliar voice? If God called you, how would you know? Have you ever audibly heard God? In your mind, whose voice is most like God’s? What would have happened to Samuel had Eli failed to direct him? When has God spoken to you through a “familiar voice”? In what ways has God spoken to you? How have you been changed by the voice of God?

God speaking to Samuel forever changes his and his nation’s history. James E. Smith (b. 1939) notes:

One night (literally, “it came to pass on that day”) suggests that the day was special, a milestone in Samuel’s rise to leadership, and consequently in redemptive history. (Smith, 1 & 2 Samuel (The College Press NIV Commentary), 74)

The third chapter of First Samuel relays a coming of age story as Samuel is moving from “lad” to prophet. Samuel does not become a renowned prophet over night.

Richard L. Schultz (b. 1952) clarifies:

Hearing God’s call did not suddenly move Samuel from childhood to adulthood; following this encounter he still had to “grow up” (I Samuel 3:19). This text emphasizes God’s judgment on blatant sin in the family of Eli, Israel’s religious leader. It also portrays God’s careful preparation of Samuel for significant spiritual and political leadership as one who was open to hearing God’s voice and obeying. (Schultz, Out of Context: How to Avoid Misinterpreting the Bible, 86)

Samuel’s experience invites a discussion of calling. John Goldingay (b. 1942) projects:

Speaking with students often suggests to me that we think of ministry as something that enables us to find fulfillment, as it makes it possible for us to give expression to the gifts God has given us. Discernment thus begins as our seeking to perceive what our gifts are and how we may express them. There’s none of this way of thinking in the Old Testament or the New Testament. Samuel is not called because this will be the way he finds fulfillment...Given that the connotations of the word “call” have changed, we might do better to use the word “summons” rather than “call” to describe what happens to Samuel or Paul. Samuel gets the idea when he recognizes in the middle of the night that his boss has summoned him to do something, so he reports for duty; he just doesn’t realize which boss it is...There is nothing wrong with people using their gifts to serve God...It just has nothing to do with calling. (Goldingay, 1 & 2 Samuel for Everyone, 31)

As the message Samuel receives concerns Eli, many note that I Samuel 3:1-21 is not technically a call narrative. Anthony F. Campbell (b. 1934) advances:

The initiative is...given to Eli, and the focus of interest moves to his reaction. The story comes to rest with his acceptance...It is important to recognize that this is not a prophetic call narrative; there is no call. It may serve in place of a call narrative, since after this first experience of God’s word Samuel continues as a trustworthy prophet of the Lord. For all that, it is not a call narrative. (Campbell, 1 Samuel (The Forms of the Old Testament Literature), 57)

In contrast, Ronald F. Youngblood (b. 1931) offers:

The literary genre of I Samuel 3 has usually been considered a prophetic-call narrative in the grand tradition of Exodus 3 (Moses), Isaiah 6, Jeremiah 1, and the like. Recently, however, on the basis of ancient Near Eastern parallels, Robert Gnuse [b. 1947], in The Dream Theophany of Samuel: Its Structure in Relation to Ancient Near Eastern Dreams and Its Theological Significance has theorized that I Samuel 3 is best analyzed as an auditory message dream theophany. Although he sometimes tilts the evidence in his direction...his arguments are impressive...Of course, the genre could turn out to be a blend of both types (a not uncommon feature of Old Testament literature)—prophetic-call narrative plus auditory message dream theophany. But the advantage of Gnuse’s analysis is that it deals adequately with the fact that the Lord speaks to Samuel at night—a matter not handled convincingly by the theory that I Samuel 3 is a prophetic-call narrative and nothing more. (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952] and David E. Garland [b. 1947], 1 Samuel-2 Kings (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary), 65)

Some argue that as Samuel is awake as the story unfolds, the story cannot accurately be labeled a dream theophany. What cannot be argued is that this story marks a new era for Samuel and Israel. Samuel becomes an agent of change in both the nation’s religion (as a prophet) and politics (as the anointer the kings). His authorization to do so is significant.

Robert Alter (b. 1935) remarks:

The idea of revelation...is paramount to the story of Samuel, whose authority will derive neither from cultic function, like the priests before him, nor from military power, like the judges before him and the kings after him, but from prophetic experience, from an immediate, morally directive call from God. (Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 109)

Walter Brueggemann (b. 1933) expounds:

The narrative takes great care to show that Samuel’s credibility does not rest on any conventional political confirmation. Rather, Samuel is presented as having an authorization rooted in nothing other than the freedom and promise of God. Samuel’s freshly authorized voice in Israel’s public life stands over against all conventional modes of power and brusquely displaces them. Surely the old Israelites—and the storytellers—are political realists. They understand how political-priestly power works, how it is secured, maintained, and exercised. They want to assert, at the same time, a holy governance that matters in concrete life, a holy governance that is not bounded by accustomed power, by ordained authority, by conventional leadership. There is a chance for newness. (Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 27)

Samuel is authorized to lead, but more importantly Samuel becomes Samuel through the process. His purpose is completely changed as he finds his identity in connection to God.

Francesca Aran Murphy (b. 1960) analyzes:

In order to become a moral individual, a person, Samuel must be called out of the familial collective and enter a direct relationship to God. God does not, here, just call an individual to effect a change in Israel’s culture: he creates an individual so to do...Only when the Lord calls with a single voice and reveals his unity, and only when the recipients of this revelation absorb communication of “Who he is,” can they become unified individuals, persons who act on history and cocreate it. (Murphy, 1 Samuel (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 29)

Merold Westphal (b. 1940) informs:

It takes little imagination to hear the resonances of Emmanuel Levinas [1906-1995]’s me voici, whose origins in any case are biblical, in Samuel’s “Here am I.” While this speech act is an expression of Samuel’s freedom, there is more heteronomy than autonomy in it. He does not originate the conversation but is called, called forth, even called into being by a voice not his own. The meaning of the situation in which he finds himself is not determined by his horizons of expectation, which are simultaneously surprised and shattered. Nor is it just his situation that is changed; his very identity is changed, as he becomes no longer merely Hannah’s son or Eli’s helper, but the one who stands coram deo, in God’s presence, by a call that is at once invitation and command. Everything begins with “you called me.” Prayer is the beginning of responsibility because it begins as response...He identifies himself as the servant before his Lord...Actually, when he responds in accord with Eli’s instruction, he does not name the speaker, but simply says, “Speak, for your servant is listening.”...The heavy lifting is done by Samuel’s self-identification as the servant of the speaker, whose divinity he now recognizes. He calls himself ebbe, a bond-servant. (Bruce Ellis Benson [b. 1960] and Norman Wirzba [b. 1964], “Prayer as the Posture of the Decentered Self”, The Phenomenology of Prayer (Perspectives in Continental Philosophy), 17)

Samuel’s awakening is intended to awaken us to our calling as well. Though we may not be called to be prophets or national leaders, our true identity is to be found as servants of God.

Who are today’s change agents? What have you been authorized to do? What has God called you to do? Have you found your identity in God?

“Not only do we not know God except through Jesus Christ, but also we do not know ourselves except through Jesus Christ.” - Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pensées, p. 7

Lazarus’ Four Missing Days (John 11:17)

Whom did Jesus raise from the dead after he had been dead for four days? Lazarus.

Not counting his own resurrection, Jesus raises three people from the dead: Jairus’ daughter (Matthew 9:18–26; Mark 5:21-43; Luke 8:40–56), the widow of Nain’s son (Luke 7:11-17) and Lazarus (John 11:1-45). The latter is typically the most remembered. Lazarus is the only person raised who is named and his story represents the climactic sign of Jesus’ ministry in John’s gospel. In addition, unlike the other resurrection accounts, Lazarus has been buried and gone for a significant period of time — four days to be exact (John 11:17, 39).

So when Jesus came, He found that he had already been in the tomb four days. (John 11:17 NASB)

To heighten the sense of drama, John includes that Lazarus’ ever pragmatic sister, Martha, tries to dissuade Jesus from entering the tomb based upon the macabre reality of her brother’s stench after four days (John 11:39)!

That Lazarus’ resurrection in John is more stirring than the comparable stories in the Synoptic gospels is not surprising and historical critics have long read the story with skepticism. Alan J. Torrance (b. 1956) appraises:

The Lazarus story constitutes the most spectacular — if not stupendous — of the miracle accounts in the four Gospels. Presented as a piece of historical reporting, the story has a counterintuitive ring to it. Unparalleled in significant respects by any of the Synoptic miracle accounts and certainly uncorroborated by them, what reads as a carefully crafted story of the reanimation of a decaying corpse takes some believing. It...comes from a writer who appears to exaggerate miracle accounts. His blind man is not just blind but blind from birth [John 9:1], his lame man is not just lame but lame for thirty-seven years [John 5:5]. Lazarus is not just dead but seriously dead! John Cleese [b. 1939]’s famous parrot sketch comes to mind: “Dead for four days? How dead can you get!” (Richard Bauckham [b. 1946] and Carl Mosser [b. 1972], “The Lazarus Narrative, Theological History, and Historical Probability”, The Gospel of John and Christian Theology, 247)

Craig L. Blomberg (b. 1955) counters:

What makes the reanimation of Lazarus...notable is the length of time he has been dead (at least four days – John 11:17, 39; his body presumably would have begun to decay!). Of course, if one comes to these texts already convinced that resurrections are under no circumstances possible, no amount of evidence will persuade one of historicity...Others find themselves unable to believe that the Synoptics would have omitted such a story if it actually happened. (Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel: Issues & Commentary, 165)

Ironically, the evangelist’s intent in denoting the four days is to leave no doubts that Lazarus has indeed died. In fact, timing is emphasized throughout John’s account of Lazarus (John 11:1-45). Thomas L. Brodie (b. 1940) notes:

The Lazarus story makes several references to time—two days (John 11:6), twelve hours (John11:9), four days (John 11:39), that year (John 11:49, 51), that day (John 11:53)—and together they reinforce the idea of God’s plan having its due time and of the need for being ready to meet him. (Brodie, The Gospel According to John: A Literary and Theological Commentary, 389)

Four days is not a common biblical time span (Judges 11:40; I Samuel 27:7; John 11:17, 39; Acts 10:30) but here it is significant. Many have presumed that the story reflects a commonly held Jewish belief that a person’s spirit remains near her body for three days after death only to depart when putrefaction becomes evident. The spirit is then obligated to depart to Sheol, the place of the dead.

In Israel’s climate, burial was not delayed as evidenced by the account of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:6, 10). Charles H. Talbert (b. 1934) comments:

Burial was on the day of death. It was followed by a week of mourning. In popular Jewish belief the human spirit hovered near the body for three days, then departed as the color of the corpse began to change. Normally death would be irrevocable and all hope abandoned for one buried four days (Ecclesiastes Rabbah 12:6; Leviticus Rabbah 18:1). The problem is acute (cf. John 5:5: paralyzed for thirty-eight years; John 9:1: blind from birth). (Talbert, Reading John: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Fourth Gospel and the Johannine Epistles, 177)

Gary M. Burge (b. 1952) adds:

This note is significant. There was a well-known Jewish belief (attested from about A.D. 200) that the soul of a dead person remained in the vicinity of the body “hoping to reenter it” for three days, but once decomposition set in, the soul departed. Similarly, the Mishnah says that in judicial cases deceased persons can only be identified for up to three days (Yebamot 16:3). John wants us to know clearly that Lazarus is truly dead and that the miracle of Jesus cannot be construed as a resuscitation. (Craig A. Evans [b. 1952], Bible Knowledge Background Commentary: John, Hebrews-Revelation (Bible Knowledge Series), 105)

Though many scholars assume that the evangelist presupposes the belief that the spirit hovers for three days, some, notably Marie-Joseph Lagrange (1855-1938 , p. 307), doubt just how common this common knowledge was at the time of Jesus as it is not attested until two centuries later.

It can be certain that in referencing the four day period, the evangelist is underscoring that Lazarus is irreversibly dead. He is neither found buried alive nor resuscitated.

In the classic 1987 fantasy film The Princess Bride, Westley (Cary Elwes, b. 1962) the swashbuckling protagonist, is presumed dead but when taken to Miracle Max (Billy Crystal.b. 1948) it is revealed that he is “only mostly dead”. Max explains, “It just so happens that your friend here is only mostly dead. There’s a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive. With all dead, well, with all dead there’s usually only one thing you can do...Go through his clothes and look for loose change.” The four days is to be seen as a definitive postmortem that differentiates between comatose and dead. Lazarus is all dead.

Practically speaking, four days means that for all intents and purposes, Jesus is too late. What is needed is not reanimation but rather resurrection. To produce Lazarus, Jesus must achieve the impossible and as such raising Lazarus is Jesus’s most difficult and astonishing sign. And this is exactly the point that John is attempting to make: Jesus has authority over death.

What state of decay would a body be in after four days? Do you think Lazarus experienced any decomposition (that was restored by Jesus)? What do you think of the belief that the spirit remains with the body for a period of time after death? Which cultures still hold similar beliefs? Does Jesus delay his visit to insure that Lazarus will be definitely deceased when he arrives (John 11:6)? Would it have been any less a miracle had Jesus raised Lazarus after only one day? Have you ever felt that God was slow to act only to later view the delay as perfect timing? Where is Lazarus’ spirit during the four days he is in the tomb and what does he experience?

Lazarus is one of the few people to defy the natural order by dying twice (Hebrews 9:27). Since it is stressed that Lazarus experienced death normally, it has led to speculation as to whether he experienced a normal afterlife — where was Lazarus’ spirit during the four days his body was entombed? From John’s perspective, Lazarus did not enter heaven (John 3:13). Another theory was popularized in the 1984 contemporary Christian song “Lazarus Come Forth”; Carman (b. 1956) sings, “When he died he went to where/The saints of God did stay/In the holding place/They lived beyond the tomb.”

Many have seen Lazarus’ raising as unfair. If Lazarus were in a better place, such as Abraham’s bosom (Luke 16:22-23), it appears cruel for Jesus to recall him into the natural world only to die again. If Lazarus is relegated to a place like a holding place, purgatory or even hell, it would seem equally unfair that he be rescinded.

Based upon Jesus’ character, it can be assumed that Jesus would not harm anyone, much less, Lazarus whom the text specifically notes that he loved (John 11:5). Wherever Lazarus was, he was safe. As all of the locales for Lazarus’ spirit to rest prove problematic, perhaps Lazarus went nowhere. It is quite possible that Lazarus experiences nothing (Ecclesiastes 9:5-6). Jesus uses the euphemism of sleep to describe Lazarus’ condition and that may be exactly his experience (John 11:11, 13).

Problems only arise if the interpreter tries to conform eternity into the box of human time. Eternal time and space need not be synchronized with human experience.

Thomas G. Long (b. 1946) explains:

Most of this mischief and confusion about the place of the dead was stirred up not only by Platonic dualism but by biblical literalism and, perhaps most of all, by the perfectly understandable attempt to work all of this out using only the metrics of linear, historical clock time, with its fixed notions of before and after, now and then. But when we speak in a Christian sense about death and resurrection, we are working not in clock time alone, but in at least two time frames: ordinary historical time and eschatological time (or perhaps more accurately, the eternal transcends time)...These two perspectives come together in John 11 in the conversation between Jesus and Martha, the sister of Jesus’ friend Lazarus. In that way of the author of John—superimposing two kinds of time, ordinary and eternal, layering the candlestick and the faces in the same text—we are shown Martha, who is in clock time, historical time, and we are shown Jesus, who is eternal, not constrained by time...From Martha’s perspective, they have run out of time...But then eternity speaks into temporality: “Your brother will rise again.” [John 11:23] (Long, Accompany Them with Singing: The Christian Funeral, 51-53)

Tellingly, the Bible is silent on the matter of Lazarus’ whereabouts. His response is not documented and we hear nothing of the phenomenons that people with near death experiences typically recount. Had he experienced something relevant, his testimony would have been recorded. Scripture is silent on the matter for a reason.

The text does open the discussion of where we will go when we die and on that subject, the Bible speaks (e.g., John 14:2).

Where was Lazarus between the dreaming and the coming true of his resurrection? Why is Lazarus resurrected? How do you think Lazarus felt about his resurrection? Why do you think there is no record of Lazarus’ experience from his perspective? Did Lazarus have a choice in the matter; could he have refused to leave the tomb? Where do you think your spirit will go after you die? Are you assured of your salvation?

“Humans live in time but... [God] destines them to eternity. He therefore, I believe, wants them to attend chiefly to two things, to eternity itself, and to that point of time, which they call the Present. For the Present is the point at which time touches eternity.” - C.S. Lewis (1898-1963), The Screwtape Letters, p. 75

Sceva’s Seven Shyster Sons (Acts 19:14)

How many sons of Sceva were overcome by the man with the evil spirit? Seven (Acts 19:14)

While ministering in Ephesus, God performs miracles through Paul (Acts 19:11-12). Some itinerant Jewish exorcists attempt to replicate the apostle’s success by casting out evil spirits (Acts 19:13-17). Seven sons of a Jewish man named Sceva think that they have mastered an incantation and appeal to “Jesus whom Paul preaches (Acts 19:13 NASB).” They have bitten off more than can chew as the afflicted man questions their authority, famously responding:

And the evil spirit answered and said to them, “I recognize Jesus, and I know about Paul, but who are you?” (Acts 19:15 NASB)

The man then proceeds to leave the would be exorcists battered and naked with their physical condition mirroring their spiritual reality (Acts 19:16). The seven sons of Sceva represent the most explicit case of spiritual counterfeiting in the New Testament (Acts 19:14-17).

Sceva is described as “high priest” (archiereus) though he is likely as much a high priest as his sons are exorcists. I. Howard Marshall (b. 1934) explains:

No person of that name ever was the Jewish high priest. Either Sceva was simply a member of a high-priestly family, or he assumed the title for professional purposes in order to impress and delude the public, since a high priest (or his sons) would have close contact with the supernatural; we may compare the way in which modern quacks take such titles as ‘Doctor’ or ‘Professor’. (Marshall, Acts (The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), 311)

Luke Timothy Johnson (b. 1943) deduces:

We know nothing about any Scaeva, and it is difficult to assess the characterization of him as a “chief priest.” There are two historical possibilities: a) Scaeva was part of a priestly family–he certainly was not one of the Jerusalem priests we know about from other sources; b) he advertised himself as such, the way Mark Twain [1835-1910]’s charlatan in Huckleberry Finn advertised himself as the “Lost Dauphin.” But it is also possible that: a) the Latin name Scaeva could bear some of its etymological weight of “untrustworthy,’ and that b) Luke had no historical information to deal with here at all. (Johnson, Acts of the Apostles (Sacra Pagina), 340)

Some have wanted to legitimize Sceva’s status because the narrative itself gives no indication that his position is fabricated. While Sceva was certainly not the high priest, the term might be broader than typically thought as it is used in the plural in Luke-Acts (Luke 9:22, 19:47, 20:1, 19). It may better be thought of as “chief priest” (Acts 4:23). Ernst Haenchen (1894-1975) claims that the author believed Sceva to be authentic, rationalizing that the story would only be included if the author presumed Paul had triumphed over a legitimate priest (Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary, 565).

Joseph A. Fitzmyer (b. 1920) adds another theory, speculating that Sceva was a Jew who defected to a pagan Roman cult (Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles (The Anchor Yale Bible), 650).

F.F. Bruce (1910-1990) concludes that the most likely scenario is that the sons of Sceva are con men perpetuating a fraud:

It is possible that Sceva actually belonged to a Jewish chief-priestly family, but more probably “Jewish chief priest” (or even “Jewish high priest”) was his self-designation, set out on a placard: Luke might have placed the words between quotation marks had they been invented in his day. The Jewish high priest was the one man who was authorized to pronounce the otherwise ineffable name; this he did once a year, in the course of service prescribed for the day of atonement. Such a person would therefore enjoy high prestige among magicians. It was not the ineffable name, however, but the name of Jesus that Sceva’s sons employed in their imitate Paul’s exorcizing ministry. But when they tried to use it, like an unfamiliar weapon wrongly handled it exploded in their hands. (Bruce, The Book of Acts (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 368)

Given their falsely citing Jesus’ name in the story, this interpretation fits the context. When a sin, such as duplicity, is present in one realm of a person’s life, it tends to leak over to others.

Whatever else they may be, French L. Arrington (b. 1931) concludes that the sons of Sceva are misinformed:

Sceva may have been a member of a high-priestly family, or he may have been a renegade Jew who had assumed the title to impress others and deceive the public. The exorcists themselves could have falsely claimed to be the sons of the high priest. Evidently, they do not know much about the life and the ministry of Jesus. These unbelieving brothers are simple magicians, and they fail to recognize that the name of Jesus is powerful only when it is pronounced by His authority and with faith in Him. (Arrington, The Spirit-Anointed Church: A Study on the Acts of the Apostles, 303)

As Jews in Ephesus, the sons of Sceva are far from home both geographically and spiritually. It is possible that they are a religious order and not literal brothers. Presumably, the exorcism industry was substantial enough in Ephesus to support these practitioners. Their competitors were offering something they were not and the sons of Sceva opted to enter the Jesus market.

Acts is likely implying that the sons of Sceva are modeling Paul who had presumably invoked the name of Jesus. David G. Peterson (b. 1944) conjectures:

Paul’s apparent success at healing and exorcism prompted imitation...These itinerant Jewish exorcists, who were fascinated by Paul’s power and influence, recognised that his secret was the name of Jesus. But theirs was a fraudulent activity, since they were not Christians and used the name of Jesus like a magic formula. Although they sought to emulate Paul...they were unsuccessful. The implication is that the name of Jesus was effective to deliver and to heal only when used by those who genuinely called upon Jesus as Lord. These pretenders did not have the appropriate moral or spiritual integrity with which to engage the powers of evil. Luke further emphasizes the incongruity of the situation by revealing that seven sons of Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, were doing this. (Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 538)

The fact that they claimed connection to the high priest may demonstrate their interest in names. William J. Larkin, Jr. (b. 1945) explains:

Since the high priest was the only one permitted to utter the “unpronounceable name of God” and enter his presence in the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement, it makes sense that these brothers would use that title as part of their “hype” (m. Yoma 3:8, 5:1, 6:2)...The sons’ syncretistic appropriation follows the time honored practice of piling name upon powerful name so as to create incantations strong enough to require spirits to do one’s bidding. One such conjuration goes “I conjure you by the god of the Hebrews/Jesus, JABA IAĒ ABRAŌTH AIA THŌTH ELE ELŌ...” (Hans Dieter Betz [b. 1931] 1986:96). The name of Jesus, whom Paul preaches is these men’s newest and most potent “power name” (compare Ephesians 1:21). (Larkin, Acts (IVP New Testament Commentary Series), 277)

Ephesus proves a hotbed of supernatural activity (Acts 19:1-41), so much so that the abnormal appears normal there. The supernatural aspects of this text (Acts 19:11-20) has proven difficult for some and many commentaries ignore the episode entirely. Kenneth O. Gangel (1935-2009) laments:

In this most difficult of chapters in Acts, readers find themselves with a “John the Baptist Cult,” healing through sweat towels, and now the bizarre account of the seven sons of Sceva. No less a conservative scholar than Sir William M. Ramsay [1851-1939] chokes right at this point. (Gangel, Acts (Holman New Testament Commentary), 324)

The fact that the sons of Sceva are performing a cultic incantation is seen in the use of the Greek term horkizo (Acts 19:13), translated as “adjure” (ASV, ESV, KJV, NASB, NRSV, RSV), “command” (HCSB, MSG, NIV, NLT) and “exorcize” (NKJV) (Acts 19:13). Eric Sorensen (b. 1961) relays:

An important term in later magical texts, ὁρκίζω [horkizo] refers to the swearing of an oath, or putting one under the obligation to say or to do something. It appears, however, only once in the New Testament, in the sons of Sceva episode. When ὁρκίζω receives the intensifying prefix ἐξ we arrive at the basis for our own familiar terminology for “exorcism.” It is a compound, however, that also very nearly eludes the New Testament, with one occurrence of a substantive form (ἐξορκίστής), also found in the story of the sons of Sceva, and a single occurrence of the verbal form which appears in a non-exorcist context. The verbal form, “to exorcize” (ἐξορκίζειν) only begins to gain currency with reference to the removal of evil spirits during the second and third centuries of the Common Era, when exorcismus also entered as a loan word into the Latin language through the influence of Christian writers. Its use in this context in ecclesiological writings from the second century of the Common Era onwards led to its eventual adoption also into English, where it conveys the sense of casting out demons from its earliest occurrences. (Sorenson, Possession and Exorcism in the New Testament and Early Christianity, 132)

The sons of Sceva are actually correct in identifying the name of Jesus as critical to Paul’s methodology but they wrongly assume that the name can be used haphazardly. C. Peter Wagner (b. 1930) comments:

The central issue here is the name of the Lord Jesus...As all who minister deliverance on a regular basis know, the use of the name of Jesus is crucial. Jesus said, “If you ask anything in My name, I will do it” (John 14:14). He also said that among the signs that follow believers, “In My name they will cast out demons” (Mark 16:17)... The only authority we have to cast out demons does not reside inside of us naturally; it is delegated to us by Jesus. This is similar to the authority a United States ambassador would have in a foreign country. Ambassadors do not go to other countries in their own names; they go in the name of the president of the United States. And only those whom the president so designates can use his name effectively. If I went to the Japanese Foreign Ministry, for example, and announced that I have come in the name of the president of the United States, they would laugh at me...This is exactly what happened to the seven sons of Sceva. The name of Jesus is no magic formula...Jesus had not authorized the seven sons of Sceva to use His name and, therefore, the power was absent...Because they used the Lord’s name in vain, the seven sons opened themselves to a ferocious spiritual backlash that they would not soon forget. (Wagner, The Book of Acts: A Commentary, 438-39)

The sons of Sceva arrogate the authority of the name of Jesus. If one is not in communion with the owner of the name, she is not in a position to use it. Graham H. Twelftree (b. 1950) notes:

Through repeating the word ’Ιουδαιος (“Jew,” Acts 19:13, 14; cf. Acts 19:17), Luke draws attention to the sons of Sceva being Jews. This is not to be taken in any anti-Semitic sense, for all his major characters are Jews, but in the sense of not being Christians. In particular, in light of what he has just narrated about Paul, Luke is probably condemning these peripatetics in that they are not God or Spirit empowered. Luke describes Paul as letting God work directly through him (Acts 19:11), but the sons of Sceva are said to rely on a thirdhand source of power-authority...Thus Luke draws attention to the importance of the “spirit” identity of the exorcist. Unlike Jesus and Paul of Luke’s narrative, the sons of Sceva are not known in the spirit realm. Therefore, even though, by implication, the spirit would obey Jesus and Paul, their authority is obviated by the intrusion of an unqualified exorcist. (Twelftree, In the Name of Jesus: Exorcism Among Early Christians, 150)

Paul produces miracles; the sons of Sceva perform magic. The difference is the authorized use of the name of Jesus. Spiritual liberation comes not from incantations but rather God’s spirit. Without this power source, we are left to battle with our own insufficient strength. As such, Bob Larson (b. 1944) views the story of the sons of Sceva as a cautionary tale:

Be careful not to presumptuously engage in spiritual warfare. If you do, the protection of God’s guidance might be excluded, as it was with the seven sons of Sceva (Acts 19:14-16). These arrogant exorcists tried to cast out demons without the apostle Paul’s knowledge and authority. They didn’t know Christ and acted in self-confidence. Demons attacked them and physically over powered and disgraced them. (Larson, Larson’s Book of Spiritual Warfare), 26)

Bruce B. Barton (b. 1943) reminds that in matters of the spirit, using mere formula is ineffective:

The seven sons of Sceva thought they could manipulate God for selfish ends. If they just had the incantations right, the techniques down, and the process perfected—so they thought—they could “use” God for their own purposes. They failed to realize, however, that Christ’s power cannot be accessed by reciting his name like a magic charm. God works his power only through those he chooses and only at times he determines. Beware of thinking that you can control God by your clever prayers or by precisely following man-made schemes. God is free to do as he likes. (Barton, Acts (Life Application Bible Commentary), 330)

How important are the right words in prayer? Have you ever thought if you found just the right phrase or prayer posture that God would respond as you desired? Conversely, have you ever known someone who said all of the right words but had no substance behind them? Have you ever known someone who tried to play themselves off as something they were not? Why are the sons of Sceva engaging in this activity? Are the sons of Sceva successful?

The sons of Sceva were presumably effective on some levels (Acts 19:13). J. Bradley Chance (b. 1954) realizes:

In some sense, the sons of Sceva do succeed in casting the unclean spirit out of its original victim. The man in need of cleansing is rescued—the narrator does not leave this demon-possessed man, with whom readers are likely to show sympathy, without deliverance. Yet the evil spirit is not conquered—it has found some new hapless victims, persons with whom the reader, however, is presumably not to be sympathetic. The victim is released while the villainous characters get what they deserve. (Chance, Acts (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary), 347)

Ajith Fernando (b. 1948) analyzes:

As Ed Murphy [b. 1921] points out, this was a case of evil spirits battling each other—that is, the evil spirit in the possessed person battled the demonized exorcists [ The Handbook of Spiritual Warfare, 349]. How can we harmonize this fact with Christ’s statement that Satan will not be divided against Satan [Matthew 12:25-28; Mark 3:23-26]? Demons can expel and attack other demons to enhance the control of demons over people. Such demon-to-demon attacks only increase Satan’s hold over people. (Fernando, Acts (The NIV Application Commentary), 468)

The text’s real issue is the incomparable power of the name of Jesus and ostensibly the believer’s access to it. N.T. Wright (b. 1948) reminds:

The point is of course that Ephesus...was a centre of power: magic power, political power, religious power. And Paul’s ministry demonstrated that the power of the name of the Lord Jesus was stronger than all of them...Luke tells this splendid little tale of the exorcists who thought they could just add the name of Jesus to their repertoire of magic charms, only to discover that the demon they were addressing on this occasion respected Jesus (and Paul as well, as it turned out) but had no respect for them. Here is a vital principle, which Luke has emphasized already in chapters 8 and 13: the gospel does indeed provide power, but it is not ‘magic’. Magic attempts...to gain that power without paying the price of humble submission to the God whose power it is. But to reject the power, as some (alas) do, because you are afraid of magic, is to throw out the teapot with the old teabags. (Acts for Everyone, Part 2 (New Testament for Everyone), 117-119)

How do you read the supernatural passages of the Bible? Do you believe that there is power in the name Jesus? Are you known in the spiritual realm? Do you wish to be?

“The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don’t have any.” - Alice Walker (b. 1944)