Excursus: Conversion of the Ethiopian

Simon, the Samaritans, and Philip (Acts 8)

Vs. 1 Σαῦλος, the name. Saul, the son of Kish, a Benjaminite, not only used of St. Paul in Acts (see Acts 13:21). St. Paul belongs to the tribe of Benjamin (Rom 11:1; Phil 3:5). But it is a name not confined to Benjaminites. It occurs among the descendents of Levi (1 Chron 6:24) and of a son of Simeon (Gen 46:10; Ex 6:15) and a Canaanite, hence the Saulites (Num 26:13; 1 Chron 4:29). It is even an Edomite name (Gen 36:37; 1 Chron 1:48-49). There has been a conjecture that Saul/Shaul derives from the Hebrew for Sheol. When not referring to the son of Kish it is always spelled Shaul in the A.V. except Gen 36:37. In Antiquities 20.9.4 Josephus mentions one Σαῦλος a member of the royal Herodian house. In Bell. Jud. ii.10.4, ii.20.1 one who gained a certain notoriety in the Jewish War. Mishnah Sand. xi.1 we have one Abba Shaul. Always in St. Luke it is Σαῦλος. St. Luke continues to call him by his Jewish name (though not by the Jewish form of the name) until Acts 13:9.

As for his age, Acts 7:58—νεανίας. Hippocrates in Philo de Munf. Op. 25M says παίδιον ages 1-7, παίς 8-14, μειράκιον 15-21, νεανίσκος to 28, ἀνήρ to 49, πρεσβύτης to 56. Dion Cassius calls Caesar a νεανίσκος when he is about forty. Galen xvii.2 says νεανίσκος = 25-35 while μειράκιον = 18-24. D. Laertius, Pythag. viii.10—παίς = 1-20, νεανίσκος = 21-40, γενικής = 41-60, γέρων = 61-80. Galen ix defines the limit of νεανίσκος as 35. Paul’s sister’s son is called νεανίας—Acts 23:17sq. in the year A.D. 58. This again does not advance our understanding of Paul’s age. But in Philemon vs. 9, Paul calls himself πρεσβύτης in about A.D. 62. But, for example, Basil dies at fifty and he calls himself an ‘old man.’ πρεσβύτης in fact = πρεσβευτής comp. Eph 6:20.

ἦν συνευδοκῶν (stronger than συνευδόκει) expressing permanence. See Baumg. p. 174. There is nothing in the narrative here that suggests he was a member of the Sanhedrin. On the contrary he is only introduced afterwards. In Acts 26:10 ἀναιρουμένων τε αὐτῶν κατήνεγκα ψῆφον might seem to imply this, and though not precise (for this might be meant figuratively here), this seems to be the more probable interpretation. If so νεανίας cannot be taken to mean early youth. He must be at least twenty. Could Saul be a married man? Compare 1 Cor 7:7 and the statement of Clement of Alexandria (in Eusebius H.E. iii.30) rests on a false interpretation of two passages—Phil 4:3 and 1 Cor 9:5. It is not a tradition.

χώρας country or district see Luke 21:21 (comp. John 4:35; James 5:4; Acts 26:11).

τῶν ἀποστόλων See the tradition of Apollonius (in Eusebius H.E. v.18; comp. Clement of Alex. Strom. vi.).

ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ ‘at that time’ i.e. it began on that day. I have found no instance in which the phrase has a final sense, although it is once used in the Gospel of the last day, but this is no parousia reference here.

πάντες not literally.

Vs. 2 συνεκόμισαν—a pregnant expression (comp. Soph. Aj. 1067).

ἄνδρες εὐλαβεῖς i.e. probably Jews not Christians as the circumstances seem to suggest (comp. Luke 2:25; Acts 2:5; 22:12; See Baumg. p. 172). For the opposition—implied in δέ (v. 2) and the second δέ (v. 3) points to this sense.

As for the scene of the martyrdom, on the gate of St. Stephen (comp. Robinson, I p. 321sq.). From an early period in church history unto the 15th century, a gate to the north of the city (probably Damascus gate). From the 15th century on, an east gate leading to the valley of Jehoshephat, in particular the more southern of the east gates of the city. Even the earlier tradition is too late to be of any value (com. C+H I p. 89sq.). On the legend of what happened to Stephen’s body (A.D. 415) see Augustine Op. vii. 2sq. On the tradition that the body was buried by Lucien, priest of Caphar-Gamala. Appearances of Gamaliel to Lucien (and also to a monk), searching the place of the bodies by himself (of Absalom, Nicodemus, Stephen). The bodies found, the name Celiel = Στέφανος. Moved later to Jerusalem. The story was apparently believed by Augustine.

Vs. 4 Οἱ μὲν οὖν The work of Stephen is taken up by Philip: 1) preacher to the Samaritans; 2) preacher to the barbarian proselyte.

Excursus: Simon Magus

We shall see presently, that there is very good reason for subscribing to that view of early Church writers which represented Simon Magus as the father of Gnosticism. If this be the case, we shall be at no loss to understand the position, which this account of the Apostles’ collision with Simon Magus occupies, in the narrative of St. Luke. We have just been reading the account of the conflict of the church with Judaism (as represented by the Sanhedrin, the spiritual leaders of the Jews), and we now are directed to its conflict with Gnosticism in the person of Simon Magus. These two forms of error, Judaism and Gnosticism, being the Scylla and Charybdis of the Christian Church, the two precipices between which her paths lay, and between which it still lies, for Judaism and Gnosticism are constantly recurring under different names but with the same characteristics in the main—the one a heartless formalism tied down to ritual observances, a religion material and unspiritual, the other a spirit of lawless and unbridled speculation not infrequently accompanied by moral depravity, the natural deduction of its unjustifiable premises.

Thus then this part of the narrative, the contact of the Apostles with Simon Magus, is not only important in itself, but also as representing the struggles which accosts the church from time to time. And thus it is, as we have seen to be the case, with most if not all the circumstances hitherto narrated in Acts—that we have here another representative fact.

Simon Magus was a native of Ghita in Samaria. We have this on the authority of Justin Martyr, his fellow countryman. Josephus mentions one Simon who was an accomplice of the procurator, Felix, and aided him in his suit with Druscilla, by his sorceries (see Neander, Pfl. I, p. 108). Josephus however says that Simon is a Cyprian. In this he is probably in error, confusing Ghita with Citium (see Alford). The account of Justin Martyr is more trustworthy as coming from a fellow countryman, and as being more precise (giving the exact place of his birth).

The story of his worship at Rome is founded on an error of Justin Martyr, the discovery of the famous stone with the inscription in the exact spot described by Justin Martyr Apol. I 69D [or Chapter 26] is sufficient proof of this—(ἀνδριὰς ἀνεγήγερται ἐν τῷ τίβερι ποταμαῷ μεταζὺ τῶν δυὸ γεφυρῶν). ‘There was a Samaritan, Simon, a native of the village called Gitto, who in the reign of Claudius Caesar, and in your royal city of Rome, did mighty acts of magic, by virtue of the art of the devils operating in him. He was considered a god, and as a god was honoured by you with a statue, which statue was erected on the river Tiber, between the two bridges, and bore this inscription, in the language of Rome—Simoni Deo Sancto, To Simon the holy God. And almost all the Samaritans, and a few even of other nations, worship him, and acknowledge him as the first god.’

Though in itself the fact is not improbable, when we consider the elasticity of Roman mythology and remember the story that Tiberius offered a place in the Pantheon for a statue of Christ, it becomes improbable. It is remarkable as well that whereas Irenaeus and others repeated Justin’s story uncritically, Hippolytus who certainly had the treatise of Irenaeus before him, when writing about Simon, passes over the story in silence. He was Bishop of Pontus and resided in Rome in the very neighborhood and therefore had the means of knowing the falsehood of the story (see Bunsen, Hippolytus second edition, vol. I, p. 354).

There seems to have been great religious activity among the Samaritans at this time. They were susceptible in their impressions and easily imposed upon by the sorceries of pretended magicians and by the fancies of Oriental mysticism. Their name had become a byword among the Jews—‘you are a Samaritan and have a demon’ i.e. dealers in magical arts and witchcraft and evidences of demonical possession (see Thes. i. p. 89). They, at the same time, were looking forward to the coming of the Messiah, which they expected under the name of ‘the Restorer.’ This indiscriminating superstition will easily account for the relation in which they are exhibited in the narrative both to Simon and to the Apostles. No less than three early founders of heretical sects in the first century are Samaritans—Doscitheus, Simon, and Menander (Simon’s disciple—on him see Justin Apol. I 69E, 91b). Christianity seems to have faired no better in Samaria than in Judea (see Justin I 99B [or Chapter 56]—‘demons put forward other men, the Samaritans Simon and Menander, who did many mighty works by magic, and deceived many, and still keep them deceived. For even among yourselves, as we said before, Simon was in the royal city Rome in the reign of Claudius Cæsar, and so greatly astonished the sacred senate and people of the Romans, that he was considered a god, and honoured, like the others whom you honour as gods, with a statue’).

While Simonism which had more in it to satisfy their tastes for the marvelous and their love of mysticism, flowing through there luxuriantly (nearly the whole nation was Simonians—see the quote above), Origen says that in his own day, he might be overstating the case in reckoning them at 30. Probably the superstition had nearly died in the rest of the world, but it is probable that in the land of its birth, it still prevailed to an extent, about which Origen was not aware.

It is difficult to ascertain the exact doctrines taught by Simon Magus. A book called ‘the Great Announcement’ was the Bible of the Simonians and was reputed to have been written by Simon himself. It is referred to by name, and large extracts of it are given in Hippolytus and it was apparently in the hands of Irenaeus. This book was probably written at the close of the first century, by a disciple of Simon (probably Menander) and would stand in the same relationship to its teachings as the writings of Plato to that of Socrates. In the broad lines then, we may recognize the doctrines inculcated by Simon himself, and in fact it agrees with the allusions in the Acts. Simon seems to have held all the characteristic opinions of Gnosticism, for 1) he maintained the doctrine of emanations and their incarnation, 2) he was a dualist (if we may judge from the opinions associated with him), i.e. he held that the creator of the world, the Demiurge, was inferior to God, the absolute Being, and 3) he seems (unless he is maligned by orthodox writers) to have turned his own mystical doctrines to account in justifying his own sensuality and impurity. This was an excess which characterized the more degraded form of Gnosticism.

Οὗτός ἐστιν ἡ δύναμις τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡ καλουμένη μεγάλη (Acts 8:10). There is no doubt that δύναμις here means an emanation. ἡ μεγάλη δύναμις is frequently used in ‘the Great Announcement’ for the primary emanation (not an ‘angel’ as De Wette and Alford are disposed to take it). There is no necessity of supposing any immediate connection with the Alexandrian logos doctrine, for this doctrine was held in other forms by Oriental mystics. But even such a connection with Alexandria is not out of the question. We have no need to presume any knowledge behind and in Samaritan hearers or anything more than a susceptibility for such mystical speculations. Simon himself may have learned it from the Alexandrian school and imported it into Samaria. And the language in the Acts seems to show that the doctrine was new to his hearers. At least so I conclude from the word ἡ καλουμένη. It would seem that Simon had been harassing them, and explaining what was meant by this ‘greatest emanation’—the emanation and how it came to be embodied in him. The people catch up the notion and as newly instructed they style it ‘the power which is called Great.’ If it had been a familiar notion to them they would not have used the word ἡ καλουμένη.

Was Simon a Christian in any sense of the term? Consider the judgment of Irenaeus, l.c. xxiii. no.1 [Book I, Chapter 33]—‘This man, then, was glorified by many as if he were a god; and he taught that it was himself who appeared among the Jews as the Son, but descended in Samaria as the Father while he came to other nations in the character of the Holy Spirit. He represented himself, in a word, as being the loftiest of all powers, that is, the Being who is the Father over all, and he allowed himself to be called by whatsoever title men were pleased to address him.’

But Hippolytus (vi.19, p. 66) seems to refer this to someone else—εἰς ἐπανόρθωσιν ἐληδυθεναι αὐτόν (who? For there is no antecedent) ἔφη (σε ὁ Σιμων) μεταμορφούμενον καί ἐξομοιδουμενος . . . We cannot refer αὐτόν to the same person. As for ἔφη, this would require αὐτός. Yet there is no antecedent given. Ireneaus (or his editor) attributes it to Simon himself. Bunsen suppresses the use of αὐτόν in Hippolytus and refers to Christ, but there is nothing in the Greek text to lead us to this conclusion. Ought we to read ἑαυτόν in Hippolytus or does αὐτόν refer to ‘God’ or ‘the Logos’? At all events, Bunsen appears to be wrong in saying that it does not refer at all to Simon himself. The words in Irenaeus are explicit and point this explanation . . . i.e. that ἡ μεγάλη δύναμις which was now incarnate in him (i.e. Simon) was the same that had assumed a bodily form in Jesus who seemed to have suffered in Judaea. This ἡ μεγάλη δύναμις manifested itself in Jesus in Judaea as the Son, it was now manifesting itself in a higher form (such was his blasphemy) in Simon himself in Samaria as the Father and among other nations as the Holy Spirit.

This conclusion is both in accord with the Gnostic doctrine of successive incarnations of the same δύναμις and also agrees with Simon’s (or Simonism’s) teaching in regard to Helen, assuming her to be the same as Helen of Troy etc. If this be true we can understand how on the one hand Simon should be regarded as the father of Gnostic Christian heretics, and on the other hand Origen should say (see Alford) λανθάνει τὸν κέλσον etc. If this heresy was grafted on to Christianity, we can account more easily for its spread in Samaria.

This highest emanation, which Simon identified with himself, is called (μεγάλη ἀπόφασις), ἡ ἀπέραντος δύναμις. ἡ ρίζα τῶν ὃλαν, τὸπυες. ὁ ἑστώς, στάς, στησομενος . . . phrases using either δύναμις or μεγάλη, from which is said to proceed six other emanations in three pairs—ἐν δὶ τουτοις ἃπασιν ἐμμέμικτας καὶ κἐκραται, ὡς ἕφην, ἡ μεγάλη δύναμις ἡ ἀπέραντος, ὁ ἑστώς. And he turned the Mosaic cosmology to account in support of his views.

Vs. 5 εἰς πόλιν τῆς Σαμαρείας ‘to a city of Samaria’ probably Shechem—but Alford’s note is grammatically as bad as it can be. For in the first place in the parallel passage John 4:5 πόλιν τῆς Σαμαρείας, evidently means ‘a city,’ as the addition λεγομένην Συχὰρ should (if it has been that city which is called it would have been τὴν π.τ.Σ. τὴν λεγ. Ζ). Secondly, in 2 Pet 2:6 the names of the cities are given and therefore the definite article is unnecessary. Thirdly, though εἰς πόλιν by itself might mean to ‘town’ viewing the metropolis as the ‘town’ or ‘city’ par excellence, εἰς πόλιν τῆς Σ. certainly cannot mean to the (chief) town of Samaria. Fouthly instead of ἐν τῇ πὸλει ἐκείνῃ we should have had some other phrase.

vs. 9 τὸ ἔθνος not τὸν λαόν

Vs. 10 ἡ καλουμένη μεγάλη These words are certainly part of the original text. It is strange that they should have been ignored by Neander, Bunsen, Schaff and others, as they certainly aid in explaining the pretensions of something.

Vs. 13 ἐπίστευσεν in a low sense—His belief is evidenced by his offering money for the gift of the Spirit.

Vs. 17 See Baumg. Vol. i.p. 190 sqq. who seems to take the correct view of this circumstance.

Vs. 18—‘Simony’ misapplied in common usage.

Vs. 23 ὄντα εἰς χ.

χολὴν πικρίας καὶ σύνδεσμον ἀδικίας. χολὴν πικρίας—bitter gall. cf. Deut 29:10; Heb 12:15. Referring chiefly to his influence on others (cf. Heb l.c.).

σύνδεσμον ἀδικίας—LXX. lviii.8 referring to his own spiritual state.

Vs. 25 Ἐυαγγελίζειν and εὐαγγελίζεσθαι are very frequent in St. Luke’s Gospel and the Acts. There is one instance only in the other Evangelists—Mt 11:51. These verbs occur frequently in St. Paul.

εὐηγγ. governs an accusative, either of the tidings themselves or of the recipients of them.

κώμας villages, see Alford.

Vs. 26 The narrative leads us to suppose that St. Philip did not return to Jerusalem with the Apostles. We left him in the neighborhood of Sychar, and the mention of ἀπὸ Ἰερουσαλήμ would be unnecessary if Philip were at Jerusalem.

ἐπὶ τὴν ὁδὸν—αὕτη—i.e. ‘the road’—not contrasting it with any other road to Gaza. The words are clear so far, but with other roads which he might have taken.

Vs. 32 ἡ δὲ περιοχὴ ‘the passage’ called in Hebrew פרשׁיות. On the sections of the Old Testament see Davidson, Bible Comm. I p. 56. Isaiah 53:7-8—cited almost verbatim from the LXX, as indeed we might have expected the Ethiopian to read it out of this version. In vs. 7 the Hebrew and Greek agree, in vs. 8, some difference. For Ἐν τῇ ταπεινώσει ἡ κρίσις αὐτοῦ ἤρθη the Hebrew has words which in the E.V. are translated ‘he was taken from prison and from judgment’ but in the margin ‘he was taken away by distress and judgment, but’ and this is rendered by Bishop Jowett ‘by an opportune judgment.’ The LXX seems to mean (so Meyer) ‘His trial ended abruptly in his humiliation.’

ἤχθη—he was done away with. Either the reading of the LXX translators was different or they have mistranslated.

Vs. 33 τὴν γενεὰν αὐτοῦ τίς διηγήσεται—γενεὰν, Hebrew דּוֹרוֹ (fr. דּוֹר) ‘to move in a circle.’ Bishop Jowett’s translation ‘his manner of living’ makes admirable sense, but the Hebrew דּוֹר seems scarcely to bear that meaning (did Rab. Loewe so interpret it?), and still less can γενεάν take that translation. Nor does the interpretation which Meyer and Alford adopt—‘the wickedness of his contemporaries’ seem at all natural, requiring as it does, so much to be supplied. May it not be ‘yet who shall declare (what tongue can tell of) the character of his times (the wonders of messiah’s days),’ so that the words would be parenthetical? What a contrast to the humiliation he underwent. [ἡ γενεὰ is otherwise interpreted of His eternal sonship.] In this case ὃτι will attach the sentence following to ἡ κρίσις αὐτοῦ ἤρθη.

There are three ways at least from Jerusalem to Gaza. 1) That of the itineraries: Ceperaria, Eleutheropolis, Ascalon, Gaza—This seems to have been the ordinary ‘post-road’; 2) Going South, on the main Southern road as far as Hebron and then branching off; 3) That of Robinson. We might be disposed to think that the road in question was that of the itineraries, as it is described as ἡ ὁδὸς ἡ καταβαίνουσα ἀπὸ Ἰερουσαλὴμ εἰς Γάζαν. But:

(1) The other road seems to be more direct, though not so good a road—and the road of the itineraries deserves rather to be called ἡ ὁδὸς ἡ καταβαίνουσα εἰς Ασκαλαν—as Ascalon was the point at which their road touched the coast and to which therefore it would probably be said καταβαίνειν.

(2) The words κατὰ μεσημβρίαν seem to imply that Philip was to continue his direction southward from Jerusalem whereas the road of the itineraries branches off nearly due west (See Baumg. i. l.c.).

(3) Philip is directed to take the road because it is infrequented (αὕτη ἐστὶν ἔρημος). The road of the itineraries being the main thoroughfare to the coast must have had considerable traffic on it—observe the words too: not ἔρημος γὰρ ἐστὶ, but αὕτη ἐστὶν ἔρημος.

Tradition points out a pool on the road between Jerusalem to Hebron, as the scene of the Eunuch’s baptism. To this it may be objected: First, that this is not strictly speaking on the road leading from Jerusalem to Gaza; second, that this part of the road (being a thoroughfare) was very much frequented. In any case, we must place the scene of the baptism between Hebron and Gaza.

Figure 2. Lightfoot’s map of the journey to Gaza and the possible routes

Excursus: Conversion of the Ethiopian

Vs. 34 The word εὐνοῦχος by etymology signifies ‘chamberlain,’ and though it is sometimes used generally to signify ‘an officer of the court,’ yet it most frequently implies a physical defect, and as this chamberlain was in the court of Candace, we may suppose that this is the case here. He was evidently a member of a congregation. His knowledge of the Scripture proves this. Besides, the object of his errand to Jerusalem implies it. He would then be a proselyte of the covenant, admitted by circumcision. The Mosaic law however excludes eunuchs from the congregation (Deut 23:1). But from Isaiah 56:3 and from the position of Ebedmelech in the court of Zedekiah (Jer 39:15-17), it would seem that this prohibition had been relaxed. Still the admission of such a person was only a sufferance. The prohibition still stood on the statute-book.

We are therefore to consider the baptism of the Ethiopian Chamberlain as an annulling of all physical disabilities, as that of Cornelius is of all national distinctions. And then Isaiah 56:3, which had a partial fulfillment in the relaxation of the prohibitions, is fully accomplished in Messiah’s kingdom.

Observe here, that the case of the Ethiopian, and that of Cornelius are placed in juxtaposition in the prophecy (v. 3)—the Son of the stranger and the Eunuch. We may observe also that the native land of this convert is that same district of upper Egypt (Merve), which is called in the Old Testament Sheba—so that prophecies such as Ps 72:15 receive this accomplishment by this event (see Baumg.).

If we suppose with Meyer and Alford that the Ethiopian was a proselyte of the gate like Cornelius, then we are at a loss to understand the prominence given to the narrative of Cornelius’ conversion—and the vision of St. Peter is emptied of its meaning. Evidently the baptism of Cornelius was the first fruits of its kind.

Vs. 37 To be omitted.

↑ Back to top