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)

Philip Teleports? (Acts 8:39-40)

How did Philip get from the desert to Azotus? The Spirit of the Lord caught him up (Acts 8:39)

At the conclusion of the famous encounter between Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26-40), Acts adds a summary statement (Acts 8:39-40). It is noted that after Philip accomplishes his mission, he is “snatched” and lands in the seacoast town of Azotus (Acts 8:39 NASB). The text reads almost if the missionary is teleported.

When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away; and the eunuch no longer saw him, but went on his way rejoicing. But Philip found himself at Azotus, and as he passed through he kept preaching the gospel to all the cities until he came to Caesarea. (Acts 8:39-40 NASB)

There is an intentional contrast between the two characters as the eunuch leaves by his own volition whereas Philip is led by the Spirit. The natural and supernatural are placed next to one another and in doing so the Spirit moves them in opposite directions. Just as there had been direct divine involvement in their meeting (Acts 8:26, 29), so there too in their separation (Acts 8:39-40).

Nothing is said of Philip’s ministry in Azotus. Acts begins the next chapter with Saul/Paul and the book and follows him, not Philip (Acts 9:1). The significance is not Philip’s ministry in Azotus as this is the only New Testament reference to the former Philistine stronghold. The importance is in getting Philip to Azotus.

Philip is subject to a sudden disappearance. The language is indicative of a supernatural exit. The Greek harpazo implies a sudden forceful action with no resistance. This verb suggests that Philip is taken by force and is rendered variously “caught” (ASV, KJV, NKJV, RSV), “snatched” (NASB, NLT, NRSV), “took” (CEV, MSG, NIV) and “carried” (ESV, HCSB). He next finds himself in Azotus (Acts 8:40). The passive “was found” (heurethē) is properly translated as reflective. Though some have interpreted that Philip merely had a strong inner compulsion to go to Azotus, the text implies a supernatural exit.

This form of transport is unique as it the only such occurrence in the New Testament though the use of the verb is not without precedent. Darrell L. Bock (b. 1953) analyzes:

The Spirit takes Philip away. The verb here for being caught up ἁρπάζω (harpazō), appears twice in Acts (in Acts 23:10 Paul is taken away from a scene to protect him) and twelve other times in the New Testament (Matthew 11:12, 12:29, 13:19; John 6:15, 10:11-13, 27-29 [2x]; II Corinthians 12:2-4 [2x; Paul caught up into the third heaven]; I Thessalonians 4:15-17 [saints being caught up in the air]; Jude 1:22-23; Revelation 12:5). His instant removal makes clearer still that God is at work. It recalls Jesus’ removal in Luke 24:31. Like Elisha, Philip is directed in ministry (I Kings 18:12, 46; II Kings 2:16 [a similar taking up]; similarly 11:24). (Bock, Acts (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 345-46)

The Western text has a longer reading which adds that an angel did the snatching. I. Howard Marshall (b. 1934) notes:

This is an abrupt ending to the story, and it is eased by a longer form of the text which reads: ‘And when they came up out of the water, the Holy Spirit fell upon the eunuch, but the angel of the Lord caught up Philip...’ Since in the Greek sentence the word for ‘Holy’ comes after ‘Spirit’, it can easily be seen that the whole of the italicized phrase might have dropped out of the text by accident. If so, the longer form of the text could have been the original wording, in which case the story would have related explicitly how the gift of the Spirit followed upon the eunuch’s baptism. Although the MS evidence for the longer text is weak, it could be original. The phrase ‘Spirit of the Lord’, however is found in Acts 5:9 and Luke 4:18, and the picture of the Spirit (rather than an angel) transporting a person is found in I Kings 18:12; II Kings 2:16; Ezekiel 3:14; et al. In any case, the fact that the eunuch went on his homeward journey rejoicing allows us to infer that he has received the Spirit. (Marshall, Acts (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), 165-66)

This addition might remove inconsistency from the text but makes no difference in understanding what happened to Philip.

Though unique in the New Testament, teleportation is not unprecedented in antiquity. Charles H. Talbert (b. 1934) documents:

This type of supernatural transference of a person from one place to another is mentioned elsewhere in antiquity (I Kings 18:12; II Kings 2:16; Bel and the Dragon 36; Fragment Targum on Pentateuch, Genesis 28:10: “as soon as our father Jacob lifted up his feet from Beersheeba to go to Haran, the earth shrank before him and he found himself in Haran”; Philostratus, Life of Apollomius of Tyana 8.10; Gospel of the Hebrews [so Origen, On Jeremiah 15:4, and Jerome, On Micah 7:6)]). (Talbert, Reading Acts: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, 80)

Like Elijah, Philip is moved by God to his next point of ministry (I Kings 18:12, 46; II Kings 2:16). God transplants Philip back to where he was headed before getting his orders to meet the eunuch as Philip was in the north, called south and transported back north. Azotus is 20 miles up the coast, the next major town north of Gaza (Acts 8:26). Philip is working his way up the coast. In being snatched, Philip makes up for lost time. When he is next seen twenty years later “the evangelist” has continued this trajectory, residing in Caesarea (Acts 21:8).

What literary figures have the ability to teleport? What instances can you think of where someone has disappeared without a trace? Do you believe Acts describes a miracle or simply a strong inner compulsion? Does God still relocate people in miraculous ways? Why is Philip snatched, for his own benefit or the eunuch’s?

Time does not seem to be a pressing issue in Azotus so it can be inferred that it is not out of practicality that Philip is snatched. There are, however, several advantages to this methodology:

• This exit prevents the eunuch from developing any personal attachment to Philip.
• It is a sign that confirms that the eunuch has indeed encountered the supernatural.
• It assures that Philip does not reinterpret his mission and rechart his course. His mission is the same both before and after the encounter; the eunuch is merely a diversion. Philip is not called to open the door to the Gentiles. That will be Paul’s assignment.
• Most importantly, the emphasis is on Spirit as the one doing the work, an important theme in the book of Acts. The Holy Spirit is far more active than Philip in the account. The episode begins as it ends, with divinely encountered outreach and power. The Spirit leads him to the encounter and takes him away.

Richard Bauckham (b. 1946) comments:

The story of Philip’s transportation, which is unique for Luke and indeed unique in the New Testament, points to the stormy return of the prophetic Spirit and the way in which there were ecstatic experiences of it in the primitive community and among the hellenists, for whom the miraculous ‘divine guidance’ of the mission was also connected with the eschatological gift of the Spirit (cf. Acts 13:2ff; Galatians 2:1; Acts 16:6, 19:19, etc.). We might ask whether the original pre-Lukan story of the transportation of Philip to Azotus might not be meant to express a divine legitimation of the preaching of the missionaries from the ‘hellenist’ circle in a semi-Gentile city...Luke has allowed the theme of the transportation to stand as an archaic relic—which no longer accorded with his time—but left out the story which went with it. (Bauckham, The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting, 53)

F. Scott Spencer (b.1956) summarizes:

Philip’s boundary-breaking mission in Acts 8 is appropriately capped off by his sudden, miraculous removal from the scene, after baptizing the eunuch, and relocation at Azotus, from where he continues his evangelistic tour up the coast to Caesarea. The Spirit blows where it wills, sweeping the gospel across standard zones of times, space, and society. (Spencer, Acts, 94)

Do you think the Ethiopian missed Philip after he left abruptly? Have you ever arrived at a place without knowing how you got there? Have you ever felt compelled to go somewhere? Is the Holy Spirit guiding your path?

“I like teleporting better - less windy.” - Ando Masahashi (James Kyson, b. 1975) after running with Daphne Millbrook (Brea Grant, b. 1981), on “Heroes” (2006-2010), “Our Father”, December 8, 2008

Andrew’s Contribution (John 6:8-9)

Which disciple brought the little boy with his lunch to Jesus? Andrew (John 6:8)

The feeding of the 5,000 is the only miracle recorded in all four canonical gospels (Matthew 14:15-21; Mark 6:31-44; Luke 9:10-17; John 6:5-14). John, the final gospel written, offers a more intimate telling, including several details not mentioned in the Synoptic gospels’ relatively vague accounts (John 6:5-14). John records Philip calculating the cost of feeding the multitude (John 6:7) and adds that it was Andrew who interjects himself into the conversation to draw attention to an unnamed boy’s meager provisions (John 6:8-9).

One of His disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, said to Him, “There is a lad here who has five barley loaves and two fish, but what are these for so many people?” (John 6:8-9 NASB)

That the disciples individual personalties are drawn out by the fourth evangelist is not surprising as John is the only gospel to particularize their roles. John gives speaking parts to individuals whereas the Synoptics speak more often of the collective “disciples”.

D. Moody Smith (b. 1931) observes:

Some disciples (other than Peter) who are named play a larger role in John than in the Synoptics. This is particularly true of Thomas (John 11:16, 14:5, 20:24-28, 21:2), but also of Philip (John 1:43-48, 6:5, 7, 12:21-22, 14:8-9) and Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother (John 1:40, 41, 6:8, 12:22). (Smith, The Fourth Gospel in Four Dimensions: Judaism and Jesus, the Gospels and Scripture, 88)

The narrator unnecessarily reintroduces Andrew as a disciple and as Simon Peter’s brother (John 1:35-42). John repeats the information to emphasize the question and its source. John Painter (b. 1935) coments, “Andrew, who is again introduced as the brother of Simon Peter (John 6:8 and see John 1:40) to remind the reader of the initial quest of Andrew, shows a glimmer of comprehension (R. Alan Culpepper [b. 1946], Critical Readings of John 6 (Biblical Interpretation, 22), 62).”

Andrew’s and Philip’s responses accent the inadequacy of the supplies and the disciples’ inability to respond to such a severe situation. This increases the magnitude of feeding the multitude. Robert Kysar (b. 1934) notes, “Both Philip and Andrew offer statements of the extent of the human need. The little boy...and his tiny lunch pose dramatic contrast with the abundance of food produced by Jesus’ act (Kysar, John (Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament), 91).”

Evidently, a young boy was the only person known to the disciples wise enough to bring food to the desert. But he came prepared to feed himself, not an army. John accents the sparsity of the lad’s provisions. Kenneth O. Gangel (1935-2009) registers:

Andrew...found a boy carrying a lunch consisting of barley loaves and fish. Like Philip, Andrew had no idea what use that pittance would be. John’s record offers so many interesting observations, not the least of which is that the two fish Andrew found were definitely small. The word apsarion is used only by John, and it emphasizes the insignificance of these tiny sardines. (Gangel, John (Holman New Testament Commentary, 118-119)

Thomas L. Brodie (b. 1940) adds, “His five loaves are of barley—poor quality apparently. And the two fish are described as opsaria—another double diminutive.(Brodie, The Gospel According to John: A Literary and Theological Commentary, 262),”

Gary M. Burge (b. 1952) sees significance in the paucity:

Andrew...locates a young boy (paidarion) who can possibly help. This boy is carrying five barley loaves and two salted fish. Only John mentions that the bread is barley, which is a signal of the poverty of this crowd. Barley was considered the bread of the poor and this lad has five pieces of it—much like five round loaves of today’s pita bread. Luke 11:5 implies that three such pieces might make a meal for one person. These details are important because in II Kings 4:42-44 is another Old Testament miracle, where Elisha feeds a hundred men with twenty barley loaves and is assisted by a paidarion or young servant. As with the twelve baskets left after Jesus’ miracle, Elisha had baskets of food left over. (Burge, John (The NIV Application Commentary), 144)

The situation is so bleak that the disciples are reduced to commandeering a child’s lunch, an act we associate with school bullies. And even so, obtaining this donation amounts to asking for loose change to help reduce the national deficit.

Just how Andrew became acquainted with the boy or how he convinced him to part with his lunch is not stated. Leon Morris (1914-2006) speculates:

It is possible that his knowledge of the lad came as the result of a reconnaissance with a view to finding out what food resources could be mustered, for he definitely relates the boy’s supply (evidently provisions for his own personal use) to the needs of the multitude. Or the boy may have offered his food to Jesus. (Morris, The Gospel According to John (The New International Commentary on the New Testament), 304)

Others have surmised that Andrew must have been a people person to have even acknowledged the lad. J. Ellsworth Kalas (b. 1928) boasts:

It was like Andrew, of course, to notice the small boy...Andrew was the kind of person a little boy could approach. While the other disciples were busy with bigger things, Andrew was chatting with a boy, patting him on the head, asking him where he had caught the fish—or did his mother buy them at market? A scruffy lad of no special promise, but Andrew—the brotherly type—visits with him and somewhat ridiculously thinks that his lunchbox will interest the Master. (Kalas, The Thirteen Apostles, 14)

Ancient commentator Theodore of Mopsuestia (350-428) suggests that Andrew is merely trying to clear his name, showing that he has no plans of hoarding the little food to which he has access:

Andrew said this so that they might not think he was hiding the food for his own use. Indeed, Andrew was right in observing that those five loaves were nearly nothing for that great crowd. And he had no other food. (Commentary on the Gospel of John (Ancient Christian Texts), 61)

Many have seen Andrew’s bringing the lad to Jesus’ attention as indicative of the disciple’s personality. He is presented three times in John’s gospel and each time he is depicted as bringing someone to Jesus (John 1:40-42, 6:8-9, 12:20-22).

William Barclay (1907-1978) deduces:

Andrew is characteristically the man who was always introducing others to Jesus...It was Andrew’s great joy to bring others to Jesus. He stands out as the man whose one desire was to share the glory. He is the man with the missionary heart...Andrew is our great example in that he could not keep Jesus to himself. (Barclay, The Gospel of John, Volume 1, 105)

Greg Laurie (b. 1952) exclaims:

How we need more Andrews today! Every time we read of him in Scripture, he’s bringing someone to Jesus...If we had more Andrews, we would have more Simon Peters–one person bringing another to Jesus. So simple. So effective. So neglected. (Laurie, Breakfast with Jesus, 261)

Do you consider supernatural solutions to your problems? Do you take note of children? Why does Andrew bring the lad to Jesus? Who have you brought to Jesus? Who could you? Do we have an obligation to follow Andrew’s example? Is Andrew’s interjection an act of faith or doubt?

There is a natural comparison between Andrew and Philip. Both were from Bethsaida (John 1:44) which may account for why they appear together three times in John’s gospel (John 1:40-44, 6:5-9, 12:21-22). Philip calculates the demand (John 6:7) while Andrew evaluates the supply (John 6:9). Andrew works part to whole; Philip whole to part. Neither factor Jesus heavily in their analysis.

Herman N. Ridderbos (1909-2007) notes:

He [Philip] gets support from Andrew (with whom he is also linked in John 12:21ff; 1:44), who, without bothering himself about imagined amounts of money, limits himself to the actual supply of bread on hand: five loaves, and two (dried) fish. But what could one do with that, given so many mouths? (Ridderbos, The Gospel According to John: A Theological Commentary, 211)

Andrew, like, Philip, responds in natural terms which naturally leads to despondency. Gerald L. Borchert (b. 1932) critiques:

Andrew, the helper, tried to solve the problem in another way. He began immediately to search for picnic resources in that barren place, but his search also ended in failure, according to his thinking. All he found was a boy in the crowd who had a lunch with barley loaves (the bread of the poor) and two small fish (emphasis on small, John 6:9). Andrew’s answer was also hopelessness. (Borchert, John 1-11 (New American Commentary), 253)

Despite being with Jesus from the beginning, Andrew and Philip have not yet developed a theology of abundance. They do not consider that Jesus could solve their predicament. Francis J. Moloney (b.1940) assesses:

Andrew joins Philip in pointing to the paucity of their supplies: a lad is at hand with five barley loaves and two fish (John 6:8-9). Andrew and Philip have been with Jesus from the first days of the Gospel (John 1:43), but they have not learned from their master’s attempt to draw them beyond the limitations of their expectations (John 1:35-51), in this case the need for a large sum of money to buy quantities of bread. (Moloney, The Gospel of John (Sacra Pagina), 197)

Though they respond similarly, Andrew leaves looking better than Philip, at least making Jesus an offer. Merrill C. Tenney (1904-1985) explains:

The barest sketch of Philip and Andrew was given, yet it revealed the temper and faith of the men...Philip was a statistical pessimist...Andrew was an ingenious optimist. Philip’s information was given in answer to a question; Andrew’s was volunteered. Philip produced figures to show what could not be done; Andrew brought food, hoping that something might be done. His faith was wavering, for he added to his offer, “but what are these among so many?” (John 6:9)—but he had faith. Though rather quiet he must have had winning ways. Any man who can persuade a small boy to relinquish his lunch possesses a forceful character. (Tenney, John: Gospel of Belief, 113)

In some ways, Philip serves as a foil to Andrew. R. Alan Culpepper (b. 1946) observes, “As in John 1 an 12, Andrew is Philip’s companion and comes off better than Philip (Culpepper, The Gospel and Letters of John (Interpreting Biblical Texts Series), 156).”

Andrew does show some initiative. In Mark’s gospel, Jesus puts out an APB for resources to feed his audience (Mark 6:38), but in John’s account, Andrew need not be asked. Andrew T. Lincoln (b. 1944) notes:

Whereas in Mark Jesus tells the disciples to find out how much food there is, here Andrew, also operating on the merely human level, locates a boy, a further addition to the Synoptic version, who has the five loaves and two fish and then draws the obvious despairing conclusion. (Lincoln, The Gospel According To Saint John (Black’s New Testament Commentary), 212)

Both faith and doubt are seen in Andrew’s response. Faith is seen in his initial statement and he would have come off marvelously well had he quit when he was ahead. But he apologetically adds, “but what are these for so many people?” (John 6:9 NASB). This lament reveals Andrew’s doubt.

Anne Graham Lotz (b. 1948) speculates that in the midst of Andrew’s doubts, his faith involuntarily bubbles to the surface:

Almost as soon as Philip came to the conclusion that it was humanly impossible to feed the crowd gathered on the hillside...Andrew...spoke up...(John 6:8-9). While Andrew seemed to agree with Philip about the impossibility of feeding so many, his approach to the need was more positive. Without even realizing it, his faith had found the key to the storehouse of God’s ample supply. When he offered Jesus a few loaves and fish, he was offering Jesus everything he had!...What do you have? Do you have a little bit of time? A little bit of love? A little bit of money? A little bit of faith? Don’t concentrate on what you lack, concentrate on what you have. Then give all of it to Jesus for His use. (Lotz, Just Give Me Jesus, 120)

Frederick Dale Bruner (b. 1932) concurs:

Andrew, by contrast, sees just a little hope and shows just a little faith by coming forward with a little boy and his little provisions...fora little while! And just a little faith is all that Jesus apparently, from all the Gospel reports, ever at first expects from anyone, and so it is all he ever minimally seeks from his always still-very-human disciples. (Bruner, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 362)

Stephen Farris (b. 1951) instructs that though he demonstrates faith, Andrew need not be sainted for his performance in the desert:

Don’t make Andrew a hero of faith. He offers the fish and the loaves, but almost in the same breath he takes them back verbally, “But what are they among so many people?”...He doesn’t have very much faith. But not very much faith is not the same as no faith at all...He has the faith the size of a mustard seed. He has five loaves and two fish worth of faith. He has faith the size of a small boy’s lunch. That amount of faith, Jesus says, is able to move the mountain they’re sitting on. It may even be enough to feed five thousand. (David Fleer [b. 1953] and Dave Bland [b. 1953], “The Andrew Option”, Preaching John’s Gospel: The World It Imagines, 23)

Andrew contributes very little to the feeding of the 5.000 and what he offers, he gets from a small boy. He is only a middle man. Andrew brings Jesus much less than is needed. As do we. And like Andrew, though our offerings are not much, they can be significantly multiplied in the hands of Jesus.

N.T. Wright (b. 1948) reminds:

Philip doesn’t know what to do. Andrew doesn’t either, but he brings the boy and his bread and fish to Jesus’ attention. The point is obvious, but we perhaps need to be reminded of it: so often we ourselves have no idea what to do, but the starting point is always to bring what is there to the attention of Jesus. You can never tell what he’s going to do with it – though part of Christian faith is the expectation that he will do something we hadn’t thought of, something new and creative. (Wright, John for Everyone: Chapters 1-10, 73)

What do their responses to the food shortage say of Philip and Andrew? What is Andrew’s contribution? If Andrew had not brought the boy, how would Jesus have fed the multitude? What can you bring to Jesus’ table?

“How lovely to think that no one need wait a moment, we can start now, start slowly changing the world! How lovely that everyone, great and small, can make their contribution toward introducing justice straightaway... And you can always, always give something, even if it is only kindness!” - Anne Frank (1929-1945)

Seeking Advice or an Accomplice? (John 12)

To whom did the Greeks say, “Sir, we wish to see Jesus”? Philip (John 12:21)

Shortly before his crucifixion in Jerusalem, a contingent of Greeks sought an audience with Jesus (John 12:20-22). They enquired of Philip, one of the first disciples (John 1:43-44) and member of his entourage (John 12:21). In turn, Philip relayed their request to Andrew who led the party to Jesus (John 12:22). This narrative aside, though exceedingly short, marks the first time Greeks interacted with Jesus. Interestingly, John does not record the outcome of this encounter. The account is more concerned with illuminating the scope of Jesus’ ministry and perhaps addresses doubts of Jesus’ willingness to engage Gentiles (Matthew 10:5-6, 15:22-24).

Bruce J. Malina (b. 1933) and Richard L. Rohrbaugh (b. 1936) concluded that the disciples were merely following standard operating procedure: “Note the chain of access here, really a brokerage chain, from Philip to Andrew to Jesus, indicates the status of those core followers who stand between Jesus and the public (Social Science Commentary on the Gospel of John, 212).”

Others have speculated that the Greeks chose Philip because he was a disciple with a Greek name. His hometown of Bethsaida (John 1:44, 12:21) also had a significant Gentile population. Of all the disciples, Philip was mostly likely to grant their request. Coincidentally, Andrew was the only other disciple with a Greek name.

Philip seemingly did not know what to do so he consulted his peer, Andrew.

What do you do when you don’t know what to do? Who do you go to for advice? How do you select your advisors?

Khalil Gibran (1883-1931) wrote, “Most people who ask for advice from others have already resolved to act as it pleases them.” As such many people choose an advisor whom they know will deliver advice that corroborates their direction. Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) claimed that to choose an advisor is to already have decided.

Andrew never prevented anyone from seeing Jesus. In fact, each time Andrew is seen by himself, he is leading another to Christ (John 1:41, 6:8, 12:21). As Andrew first led his brother Simon Peter to Jesus (John 1:41) and later introduced the Greeks to Christ (John 12:22), it has been said that Andrew was both the first home and foreign missionary. It is doubtful that Andrew would have rejected someone’s petition to encounter Jesus.

Do you think Philip picked Andrew out of convenience (he happened to be there) or because he already knew what Andrew would do? When you choose advisors, do you pick those whose advice you can already surmise?

“The best way to give advice to your children is to find out what they want and then advise them to do it.” - Harry S. Truman (1884-1972)

Prophetesses: Then. And Now?

Which women in the New Testament were prophetesses? Anna (Luke 2:36); 4 daughters of Philip (Acts 21:9)

The Bible makes no distinction between the prophetic ministry of men and women. Eleven Biblical women are deemed to be prophetesses: Miriam (Exodus 15:20), Deborah (Judges 4:4), Huldah (2 Kings 22:14; II Chronicles 34:22), Noadiah (Nehemiah 6:14), Isaiah’s unnamed wife (Isaiah 8:3), Anna (Luke 2:36-38) and the four daughters of Philip (Acts 21:9). Of the five New Testament prophetesses, all appear in Luke-Acts and only one is named, Anna (Luke 2:36).

Little is said of Anna. She was a devout 84-year old widow who spent her time in the temple (Luke 3:36). She was there when the infant Jesus was brought to be circumcised, praised God and thereafter spoke about the Lord “to all those who were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem (Luke 2:38, NASB).”

Less is said of Philip’s daughters than Anna. Only their existence as virgins and prophetesses is acknowledged (Acts 21:9). Technically speaking, they are not deemed prophetesses. Though the NASB uses the word “prophetess” in relation to them, most translations accurately say that they prophesied (ASV, CEV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, MSG, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV). The fact that these women prophesied does not require the conclusion that they were deemed prophetesses. Other women might be said to have prophesied, such as Mary (Luke 1:48) and Elizabeth (Luke 2:41-45), but were not considered prophetesses.

The stories of the five New Testament prophetesses cover a total of only four verses (Luke 2:36-38; Acts 21:9) and in none of them does the prophetess do anything particularly noteworthy. Nor are any direct quotes attributed them.

What does it mean to be a prophetess? What do you think caused these women to be seen as prophetesses?

The role of prophetess is not clearly defined and the New Testament does not teach of an office of prophetess. It is clear that women did and were intended to prophesy in the New Testament era. Peter pronounces at Pentecost that women would prophesy (Acts 2:18) and Paul teaches that women who prayed or prophesied ought do so with their heads covered (I Corinthians 11:5).

Though many definitions abound as to what it means to be a prophet, one commonality is that prophecy requires revelation from God. Before one can speak for God, God must first speak to them. Since these women prophesied, the implication is that God spoke to these New Testament women.

If God speaks to women, should God also not speak through women? When has a woman voiced the words of God to you? Have you ever encountered a prophetess?