Acts Of the Apostles Chapter 8 Antique Commentary Notes

John Gill
Act 8:1 And Saul was consenting unto his death,…. This clause, in the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, Arabic and Ethiopic versions, stands at the close of the preceding chapter, and which seems to be its proper place; and so it does in the Alexandrian copy: that Saul consented to the death of Stephen, and approved of that barbarous action, is evident from his taking care of the clothes of the witnesses that stoned him; but the word here used signifies not a bare consent only, but a consent with pleasure and delight; he was well pleased with it, it rejoiced his very heart; he joined with others in it, with the utmost pleasure and satisfaction; this, and what is before said concerning his having the clothes of the witnesses laid at his feet, as well as what follows, about his persecuting the saints, are, the rather mentioned, because this violent persecutor was afterwards converted, and became an eminent preacher of the Gospel; and these accounts serve to set off and illustrate the grace of God, which was abundant towards him.

And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem: it began “on that day”, as the words may be rendered, on which Stephen was stoned. As soon as they had put him to death, these bloodthirsty wretches were the more greedy after the blood of others; and being now in great numbers, and filled with rage and fury, fell upon the members of the church wherever they met them, and killed them; for that more, besides Stephen, were put to death, seems plain from Act_26:10 and, according to some accounts, though they cannot be depended on, two thousand persons suffered at this time: and if this was the case, it might be called a great persecution:

and they were all scattered abroad; not all the members of the church, nor perhaps any of the private ones; for we afterwards read of devout then that carried Stephen to his grave; and of the church being made havoc of by Saul; and of men and women being haled out of their houses, and committed to prison by him; but all the preachers of the word, except the apostles; for they that were scattered, went about preaching the word, Act_8:4 They seem to be the seventy disciples, and other ministers of the word, on whom the Holy Ghost fell at the day of Pentecost, or was since bestowed; among who were Philip, who went to Samaria; and Ananias, who was at Damascus; and others that went as far as Phenice, Cyprus, and Antioch: and particularly they are said to be dispersed

throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria; where their ministry was so greatly blessed, to the conversion of souls, that there were quickly many churches planted and formed in these parts, as appears from Act_9:31 so that this persecution was for the furtherance and spread of the Gospel: that upon this dispersion any of them came into France and England, or into any other parts of Europe, is not probable; since the particular places they went to are mentioned; and since they preached to Jew only: and this scattering by reason of the persecution, was of all the preachers,

except the apostles; the twelve apostles, who stayed at Jerusalem to take care of the church; to encourage the members of it to suffer cheerfully for the sake of Christ and his Gospel; and to animate them to abide by him: and this was not only an instance of courage and constancy in them, and of the divine protection and preservation of them, in the midst of their enemies; but also of the timidity of their adversaries, who might be afraid to meddle with them; remembering what miraculous works were performed by them, and how they had been delivered out of prison, and especially the case of Ananias and Sapphira, who were struck dead by Peter. Beza’s ancient copy adds, “who remained in Jerusalem”.

Adam Clarke
Act 8:1
Saul was consenting unto his death – So inveterate was the hatred that this man bore to Christ and his followers that he delighted in their destruction. So blind was his heart with superstitious zeal that he thought he did God service by offering him the blood of a fellow creature, whose creed he supposed to be erroneous. The word συνευδοκων signifies gladly consenting, being pleased with his murderous work! How dangerous is a party spirit; and how destructive may zeal even for the true worship of God prove, if not inspired and regulated by the spirit of Christ!
It has already been remarked that this clause belongs to the conclusion of the preceding chapter; so it stands in the Vulgate, and so it should stand in every version.
There was a great persecution – The Jews could not bear the doctrine of Christ’s resurrection; for this point being proved demonstrated his innocence and their enormous guilt in his crucifixion; as therefore the apostles continued to insist strongly on the resurrection of Christ, the persecution against them became hot and general.
They were all scattered abroad – except the apostles – Their Lord had commanded them, when persecuted in one city, to flee to another: this they did, but, wherever they went, they proclaimed the same doctrines, though at the risk and hazard of their lives. It is evident, therefore, that they did not flee from persecution, or the death it threatened; but merely in obedience to their Lord’s command. Had they fled through the fear of death, they would have taken care not to provoke persecution to follow them, by continuing to proclaim the same truths that provoked it in the first instance.
That the apostles were not also exiled is a very remarkable fact: they continued in Jerusalem, to found and organize the infant Church; and it is marvellous that the hand of persecution was not permitted to touch them. Why this should be we cannot tell; but so it pleased the great Head of the Church. Bp. Pearce justly suspects those accounts, in Eusebius and others, that state that the apostles went very shortly after Christ’s ascension into different countries, preaching and founding Churches. He thinks this is inconsistent with the various intimations we have of the continuance of the apostles in Jerusalem; and refers particularly to the following texts: Act_8:1, Act_8:14, Act_8:25; Act_9:26, Act_9:27; Act_11:1, Act_11:2; Act_12:1-4; Act_15:2, Act_15:4, Act_15:6, Act_15:22, Act_15:23; Act_21:17, Act_21:18; Gal_1:17-19; Gal_2:1, Gal_2:9. The Church at Jerusalem was the first Christian Church; and consequently, the boast of the Church of Rome is vain and unfounded. From this time a new era of the Church arose. Hitherto the apostles and disciples confined their labors among their countrymen in Jerusalem. Now persecution drove the latter into different parts of Judea, and through Samaria; and those who had received the doctrine of Christ at the pentecost, who had come up to Jerusalem from different countries to be present at the feast, would naturally return, especially at the commencement of the persecution, to their respective countries, and proclaim to their countrymen the Gospel of the grace of God. To effect this grand purpose, the Spirit was poured out at the day of pentecost; that the multitudes from different quarters, partaking of the word of life, might carry it back to the different nations among whom they had their residence. One of the fathers has well observed, that “these holy fugitives were like so many lamps, lighted by the fire of the Holy Spirit, spreading every where the sacred flame by which they themselves had been illuminated.”

John Gill
Act 8:2 And devout men carried Stephen to his burial,…. These men were not Jewish proselytes, but members of the Christian church; who were eminent for their religion and piety, and who had courage enough, amidst this persecution, to show a respect to the dead body of this holy martyr; which they took from under the stones, washed it, and wound it up in linen clothes, and put it into a coffin, or on a bier: they did everything preparatory to the funeral, which, is chiefly designed by the word here used, rather than the carrying of him out to his grave; though this also they did, and buried him: and to bear a corpse and follow it to the grave, and bury it, were with the Jews (x) reckoned among acts of kindness, mercy, and piety, and which would not fail of a reward; they have a saying (y), that

“he that mourns, they shall mourn for him; and he that buries, they shalt bury him and he that lifts up (his voice in weeping lamentation), they shall lift up for him; he that accompanies (a dead corpse), they shall accompany him; he that “carries”, they shall carry him;”

as these devout men did, who would not suffer Stephen to be buried in the common burying place of malefactors, but interred him elsewhere, in a more decent manner: but whether they had leave from the sanhedrim so to do, or whether they did this of themselves, is not certain; if the latter, which seems most likely, it is an instance of great boldness and resolution, and especially at this time; for

“they did not bury one that was stoned in the sepulchres of his fathers, but there were two burying places appointed by the sanhedrim, one for those that are stoned and burnt, and another for those that are slain with the sword and strangled (z).”

So that, they acted contrary to the Jewish canon, as they also did in what follows:

and made great lamentation over him; though they did not sorrow as those without hope, yet they did not put on a stoical apathy; but as men sensible of the loss the church of Christ had sustained, by the death of a person so eminent for his gifts and grace, they mourned over him in a becoming manner: in this they went contrary to the Jewish rule, which forbids lamentation for those that died as malefactors, and runs thus (a).

“they do not mourn, but they grieve; for grief is only in the heart;”

their reason for this was, as the commentators say (b), because they thought that

“their disgrace was an atonement for their sin:”

but these devout men knew that Stephen needed no such atonement, and that his sins were atoned for another way: otherwise the Jews looked upon mourning for the dead to be to the honour of him; hence they say (c), that mourning

“is the glory of the dead–whoever is backward to the mourning of a wise man shall not prolong his days; and whoever is sluggish in mourning for a good man, ought to be buried alive; and whoever causes tears to descend for a good man, lo, his reward is reserved for him with the holy blessed God.”

(x) Maimon. & Bartenora in Misn. Peah, c. 1. sect. 1. (y) T. Bab. Cetubot, fol. 72. 1. & Moed Katon, fol. 28. 2. (z) Misn. Sanhedrin, c. 6. sect. 5. (a) Misn. Sanhedrin, sect. 6. (b) Jarchi & Bartenora in ib. (c) Maimon. Hilch. Ebel, c. 12. sect. 1, 2.

Adam Clarke
Act 8:2
Devout men carried Stephen to his burial – The Greek word, συνεκομισαν, signifies not only to carry, or rather to gather up, but also to do every thing necessary for the interment of the dead. Among the Jews, and indeed among most nations of the earth, it was esteemed a work of piety, charity, and mercy, to bury the dead. The Jews did not bury those who were condemned by the Sanhedrin in the burying place of the fathers, as they would not bury the guilty with the innocent; and they had a separate place for those who were stoned, and for those that were burnt. According to the Tract Sanh. fol. 45, 46, the stone wherewith any one was stoned, the post on which he was hanged, the sword by which he was beheaded, and the cord by which he was strangled, were buried in the same place with the bodies of the executed persons. As these persons died under the curse of the law, the instruments by which they were put to death were considered as unclean and accursed, and therefore buried with their bodies. Among the ancients, whatever was grateful or useful to a person in life was ordinarily buried with him; thus the sword, spear, shield, etc., of the soldier were put in the same grave; the faithful dog of the hunter, etc., etc. And on this principle the wife of a Brahman burns with the body of her deceased husband.
Made great lamentation over him – This was never done over any condemned by the Sanhedrin – they only bemoaned such privately; this great lamentation over Stephen, if the same custom then prevailed as afterwards, is a proof that Stephen was not condemned by the Sanhedrin; he probably fell a sacrifice to the fury of the bigoted incensed mob, the Sanhedrin not interfering to prevent the illegal execution.

A.T. Robertson
Act 8:3
Laid waste (elumaineto). Imperfect middle of lumainomai, old verb (from lumē, injury), to dishonour, defile, devastate, ruin. Only here in the N.T. Like the laying waste of a vineyard by a wild boar (Psa_79:13). Picturesque description of the havoc carried on by Saul now the leader in the persecution. He is victor over Stephen now who had probably worsted him in debate in the Cilician synagogue in Jerusalem.
Into every house (kata tous oikous). But Luke terms it “the church” (tēn ekklēsian). Plainly not just an “assembly,” but an organized body that was still “the church” when scattered in their own homes, “an unassembled assembly” according to the etymology. Words do not remain by the etymology, but travel on with usage.
Haling (surōn). Literally, dragging forcibly (=hauling). Present active participle of surō, old verb.
Men and women (andras kai gunaikas). A new feature of the persecution that includes the women. They met it bravely as through all the ages since (cf. Act_9:2; Act_22:4). This fact will be a bitter memory for Paul always.
Committed (paredidou). Imperfect active of paradidōmi, old verb, kept on handing them over to prison.

Albert Barnes
Act 8:3
Saul made havoc of the Church – The word ελυμαινετο, from λυμαινω, to destroy, devastate, ravage, signifies the act of ferocious animals, such as bears, wolves, and the like, in seeking and devouring their prey. This shows with what persevering rancour this man pursued the harmless Christians; and thus we see in him what bigotry and false zeal are capable of performing.
Entering into every house – For, however it might be to others, a Christian man’s house was not his castle.
Haling men and women – Neither sparing age nor sex in the professors of Christianity. The word συρων signifies dragging them before the magistrates, or dragging them to justice.
Committed them to prison – For, as the Romans alone had the power of life and death, the Sanhedrin, by whom Saul was employed, Act_26:10, could do no more than arrest and imprison, in order to inflict any punishment short of death. It is true, St. Paul himself says that some of them were put to death, see Act_26:10; but this was either done by Roman authority, or by what was called the judgment of zeal, i.e. when the mob took the execution of the laws into their own hands, and massacred those whom they pretended to be blasphemers of God: for these sanctified their murderous outrage under the specious name of zeal for God’s glory, and quoted the ensample of Phineas as a precedent. Such persons as these formed a sect among the Jews; and are known in ecclesiastical history by the appellation of Zealots or Sicarii.

A.T. Robertson
Act 8:4
They therefore (hoi men oun). Demonstrative hoi as often (Act_1:6, etc.) though it will make sense as the article with the participle diasparentes. The general statement is made here by men and a particular instance (de) follows in Act_8:5. The inferential particle (oun) points back to Act_8:3, the persecution by young Saul and the Pharisees. Jesus had commanded the disciples not to depart from Jerusalem till they received the Promise of the Father (Act_1:4), but they had remained long after that and were not carrying the gospel to the other peoples (Act_1:8). Now they were pushed out by Saul and began as a result to carry out the Great Commission for world conquest, that is those “scattered abroad” (diasparentes, second aorist passive participle of diaspeirō). This verb means disperse, to sow in separate or scattered places (dia) and so to drive people hither and thither. Old and very common verb, especially in the lxx, but in the N.T. only in Act_8:1, Act_8:4; Act_11:19.
Went about (diēlthon). Constative second aorist active of dierchomai, to go through (from place to place, dia). Old and common verb, frequent for missionary journeys in the Acts (Act_5:40; Act_8:40; Act_9:32; Act_11:19; Act_13:6).
Preaching the word (euaggelizomenoi ton logon). Evangelizing or gospelizing the word (the truth about Christ). In Act_11:19 Luke explains more fully the extent of the labours of these new preachers of the gospel. They were emergency preachers, not ordained clergymen, but men stirred to activity by the zeal of Saul against them. The blood of the martyrs (Stephen) was already becoming the seed of the church. “The violent dispersion of these earnest disciples resulted in a rapid diffusion of the gospel” (Alvah Hovey).

Albert Barnes
Act 8:4
Went everywhere – That is, they traveled through the various regions where they were scattered. In all places to which they came, they preached the Word.
Preaching the word – Greek: “evangelizing,” or announcing the good news of the message of mercy, or the Word of God. This is not the usual word which is rendered “preach,” but it means simply announcing the good news of salvation. There is no evidence, nor is there any probability, that all these persons were “ordained” to preach. They were manifestly common Christians who were scattered by the persecution; and the meaning is, that they communicated to their fellow-men in conversation wherever they met them, and probably in the synagogues, where all Jews had a right to speak, the glad tidings that the Messiah had come. It is not said that they set themselves up for public teachers, or that they administered baptism, or that they founded churches, but they proclaimed everywhere the news that a Saviour had come. Their hearts were full of it. Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks; and they made the truth known to “all” whom they met. We may learn from this:
(1) That persecution tends to promote the very thing which it would destroy.
(2) That one of the best means to make Christians active and zealous is to persecute them.
(3) That it is right for all Christians to make known the truths of the gospel. When the heart is full the lips will speak, and there is no more impropriety in their speaking of redemption than of anything else.
(4) It should be the great object of all Christians to make the Saviour known “everywhere.” By their lives, their conversation, and their pious exhortations and entreaties, they should beseech dying sinners to be reconciled to God. And especially should this be done when they “are traveling.” Christians when away from home seem almost to imagine that they lay aside the obligations of religion. But the example of Christ and his early disciples has taught us that this is the very time to attempt to do good.

Albert Barnes
Act 8:5
Then Philip – One of the seven deacons, Act_6:5. He is afterward called the “evangelist,” Act_21:8.
The city of Samaria – This does not mean a city whose “name” was Samaria, for no such city at that time existed. Samaria was a “region,” Mat_2:22. The ancient city Samaria, the capital of that region, had been destroyed by Hyrcanus, so completely as to leave no vestige of it remaining; and he “took away,” says Josephus, “the very marks that there had ever been such a city there” (Antiq., book 13, chapter 10, section 3). Herod the Great afterward built a city on this site, and called it “Sebaste”; that is, “Augusta,” in honor of the Emperor Augustus (Josephus, Antiq., book 15, chapter 8, section 5). Perhaps this city is intended, as being the principal city of Samaria; or possibly “Sychar,” another city where the gospel had been before preached by the Saviour himself, John 4.
And preached Christ – Preached that the Messiah had come, and made known his doctrines. The same truths had been before stated in Samaria by the Saviour himself John 4; and this was doubtless one of the reasons why they so gladly now received the Word of God. The field had been prepared by the Lord Jesus. He had said that it was white for the harvest Joh_4:35, and into that field Philip now entered, and was signally blessed. His coming was attended with a remarkable “revival of religion.” The word translated “preach” here is not what is used in the previous verse. This denotes to “proclaim as a crier,” and is commonly employed to denote the preaching of the gospel, so called, Mar_5:20; Mar_7:36; Luk_8:39; Mat_24:14; Act_10:42; Rom_10:15; 1Co_9:27; 1Co_15:12; 2Ti_4:2. It has been argued that because “Philip” is said thus to have preached to the Samaritans, that “therefore” all “deacons” have a right to preach, or that they are, under the New Testament economy, an “order” of ministers. But this is by no means clear. For:
(1) It is not evident, nor can it be shown, that the “other” deacons Act_6:1-15 ever preached. There is no record of their doing so; and the narrative would lead us to suppose that they did not.
(2) They were “appointed” for a very different purpose Act_6:1-5; and it is fair to suppose that, as “deacons,” they confined themselves to the design of their appointment.
(3) It is not said that “Philip” preached in virtue of his being a “deacon.” From anything in “this” place, it would seem that he preached as the other Christians did – wherever he was.
(4) But “elsewhere” an express distinction is made between Philip and the others. A new appellation is given him, and he is expressly called the “evangelist,” Act_21:8. From this, it seems that he preached, not “because” he was a “deacon,” but because he had received a special “appointment” to this business as an evangelist.
(5) This same office, or rank of Christian teachers, is expressly recognized elsewhere, Eph_4:11. All these considerations show that there is “not” in the sacred Scriptures an order of ministers appointed to preach “as deacons.”

Adam Clarke
Act 8:5
Then Philip – One of the seven deacons, Act_6:5, called afterwards, Philip the Evangelist, Act_21:8.
The city of Samaria – At this time there was no city of Samaria existing: according to Josephus, Ant. lib. xiii. cap. 10, sect. 3, Hyrcanus had so utterly demolished it as to leave no vestige of it remaining. Herod the Great did afterwards build a city on the same spot of ground; but he called it ΣεβαϚη i.e. Augusta, in compliment to the Emperor Augustus, as Josephus tells us, Ant. lib. xv. cap. 8, sect. 5; War, lib. i. cap. 2. sect. 7; and by this name of Sebasté, or Augusta, that city, if meant here, would in all probability have been called, in the same manner as the town called Strato’s Tower, (which Herod built on the sea coasts, and to which he gave the name of Caesarea, in compliment to Augustus Caesar), is always called Caesarea, wherever it is mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles. Bp. Pearce.
As Sychem was the very heart and seat of the Samaritan religion, and Mount Gerizim the cathedral church of that sect, it is more likely that it should be intended than any other. See Lightfoot. As the Samaritans received the same law with the Jews, as they also expected the Messiah, as Christ had preached to and converted many of that people, Joh_4:39-42, it was very reasonable that the earliest offers of salvation should be made to them, before any attempt was made to evangelize the Gentiles. The Samaritans, indeed, formed the connecting link between the Jews and the Gentiles; for they were a mongrel people, made up of both sorts, and holding both Jewish and Pagan rites. See the account of them on Mat_10:5 (note).

Adam Clarke
Act 8:7
For unclean spirits, crying with loud voice, came out of many that were possessed – Hence it is evident that these unclean spirits were not a species of diseases; as they are here distinguished from the paralytic and the lame. There is nothing more certain than that the New Testament writers mean real diabolic possessions by the terms unclean spirits, devils, etc., which they use. It is absolute trifling to deny it. If we, in our superior sagacity can show that they were mistaken, that is quite a different matter!

Albert Barnes
Act 8:8
And there was great joy – This joy arose:
(1) From the fact that so many persons, before sick and afflicted, were restored to health.
(2) From the conversion of individuals to Christ.
(3) From the mutual joy of “families” and “friends” that their friends were converted. The tendency of a revival of religion is thus to produce great joy.

A.T. Robertson
Act 8:9
Simon (Simōn). One of the common names (Josephus, Ant. XX. 7, 2) and a number of messianic pretenders had this name. A large number of traditions in the second and third centuries gathered round this man and Baur actually proposed that the Simon of the Clementine Homilies is really the apostle Paul though Paul triumphed over the powers of magic repeatedly (Act_13:6-12; Act_19:11-19), “a perfect absurdity” (Spitta, Apostelgeschichte, p. 149). One of the legends is that this Simon Magus of Acts is the father of heresy and went to Rome and was worshipped as a god (so Justin Martyr). But a stone found in the Tiber a.d. 1574 has an inscription to Semoni Sanco Deo Fidio Sacrum which is (Page) clearly to Hercules, Sancus being a Sabine name for Hercules. This Simon in Samaria is simply one of the many magicians of the time before the later gnosticism had gained a foothold. “In his person Christianity was for the first time confronted with superstition and religious imposture, of which the ancient world was at this period full” (Furneaux).
Which beforetime used sorcery (proupērchen mageuōn). An ancient idiom (periphrastic), the present active participle mageuōn with the imperfect active verb from prouparchō, the idiom only here and Luk_23:12 in the N.T. Literally “Simon was existing previously practising magic.” This old verb mageuō is from magos (a magus, seer, prophet, false prophet, sorcerer) and occurs here alone in the N.T.
Amazed (existanōn). Present active participle of the verb existan, later form of existēmi, to throw out of position, displace, upset, astonish, chiefly in the Gospels in the N.T. Same construction as mageuōn.
Some great one (tina megan). Predicate accusative of general reference (infinitive in indirect discourse). It is amazing how gullible people are in the presence of a manifest impostor like Simon. The Magi were the priestly order in the Median and Persian empires and were supposed to have been founded by Zoroaster. The word magoi (magi) has a good sense in Mat_2:1, but here and in Act_13:6 it has the bad sense like our “magic.”

Albert Barnes
Act 8:9
But there was a certain man called Simon – The fathers have written much respecting this man, and have given strange accounts of him; but nothing more is certainly known of him than is stated in this place. Rosenmuller and Kuinoel suppose him to have been a Simon mentioned by Josephus (Antiq., book 20, chapter 7, section 2), who was born in Cyprus. He was a magician, and was employed by Felix to persuade Drusilla to forsake her husband Azizus, and to marry Felix. But it is not very probable that this was the same person. (See the note in Whiston’s Josephus.) Simon Magus was probably a “Jew” or a “Samaritan,” who had addicted himself to the arts of magic, and who was much celebrated for it. He had studied philosophy in Alexandria in Egypt (Mosheim, vol. i., pp. 113, 114, Murdock’s translation), and then lived in Samaria. After he was cut off from the hope of adding to his other powers the power of working miracles, the “fathers” say that he fell into many errors, and became the founder of the sect of the Simonians. They accused him of affirming that he came down as the “Father” in respect to the Samaritans, the “Son” in respect to the Jews, and the “Holy Spirit” in respect to the Gentiles. He did not acknowledge Christ to be the Son of God, but a rival, and pretended himself to be Christ. He rejected the Law of Moses. Many other things are affirmed of him which rest on doubtful authority. He seems to have become an enemy to Christianity, though he was willing “then” to avail himself of some of its doctrines in order to advance his own interests. The account that he came to a tragical death in Rome; that he was honored as a deity by the Roman senate; and that a statue was erected to his memory in the isle of Tiber, is now generally rejected. His end is not known. (See Calmet, art. “Simon Magus,” and Mosheim, vol. i., p. 114, note.)
Beforetime – The practice of magic, or sorcery, was common at that time, and in all the ancient nations.
Used sorcery – Greek: μαγεύων mageuōn. Exercising the arts of the “Magi,” or “magicians”; hence, the name Simon “Magus.” See the notes on Mat_2:1. The ancient “Magi” had their rise in Persia, and were at first addicted to the study of philosophy, astronomy, medicine, etc. This name came afterward to signify those who made use of the knowledge of these arts for the purpose of imposing on mankind – astrologers, soothsayers, necromancers, fortune-tellers, etc. Such persons pretended to predict future events by the positions of the stars, and to cure diseases by incantations, etc. See Isa_2:6. See also Dan_1:20; Dan_2:2. It was expressly forbidden the Jews to consult such persons on pain of death, Lev_19:31; Lev_20:6. In these arts Simon had been eminently successful.
And bewitched – This is an unhappy translation. The Greek means merely that he “astonished” or amazed the people, or “confounded” their judgment. The idea of “bewitching” them is not in the original.
Giving out … – “Saying”; that is, boasting. It was in this way, partly, that he so confounded them. Jugglers generally impose on people just in proportion to the “extravagance” and folly of their pretensions. The same remark may be made of “quack doctors,” and of all persons who attempt to delude and impose on people.

Adam Clarke
Act 8:9
A certain man called Simon – In ancient ecclesiastical writers, we have the strangest account of this man; they say that he pretended to be the Father, who gave the law to Moses; that he came in the reign of Tiberius in the person of the Son; that he descended on the apostles on the day of pentecost, in flames of fire, in quality of the Holy Spirit; that he was the Messiah, the Paraclete, and Jupiter; that the woman who accompanied him, called Helena, was Minerva, or the first intelligence; with many other extravagancies which probably never had an existence. All that we know to be certain on this subject is, that he used sorcery, that he bewitched the people, and that he gave out himself to be some great one.
This might be sufficient, were not men prone to be wise above what is written.
Our word sorcerer, from the French sorcier, which, from the Latin sors, a lot, signifies the using of lots to draw presages concerning the future; a custom that prevailed in all countries, and was practised with a great variety of forms. On the word lot see the note, Lev_16:8, Lev_16:9; and Jos_14:2.
The Greek word, μαγευων, signifies practising the rites or science of the Magi, or Mughan, the worshippers of fire among the Persians; the same as Majoos, and Majooseean, from which we have our word magician. See the note on Mat_2:1.
And bewitched the people of Samaria – εξιϚων, Astonishing, amazing, or confounding the judgment of the people, from εξιϚημι, to remove out of a place or state, to be transported beyond one’s self, to be out of one’s wits; a word that expresses precisely the same effect which the tricks or legerdemain of a juggler produce in the minds of the common people who behold his feats. It is very likely that Simon was a man of this cast, for the east has always abounded in persons of this sort. The Persian, Arabian, Hindoo, and Chinese jugglers are notorious to the present day; and even while I write this, (July, 1813), three Indian jugglers, lately arrived, are astonishing the people of London; and if such persons can now interest and amaze the people of a city so cultivated and enlightened, what might not such do among the grosser people of Sychem or Sebaste, eighteen hundred years ago?
That himself was some great one – That the feats which he performed sufficiently proved that he possessed a most powerful supernatural agency, and could do whatsoever he pleased.

John Gill
Act 8:12 But when they believed Philip,…. Though they had been carried away so long with this deceiver, and had been so much attached unto him, and held in admiration of him; yet when Philip came and preached Christ unto them, such was the power that attended his ministry, and such the efficacy of divine grace that was exerted, that they not only gave heed unto him, but believed what he said:

preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God; concerning the kingdom of the Messiah, the Gospel dispensation, the doctrines and ordinances of the Gospel; and concerning the kingdom of grace, which is spiritual and internal, and which lies not in external things, as meat and drink, but in righteousness, peace, and joy; and concerning the kingdom of glory, the meetness for it, which lies in regenerating grace, and the right unto it, which is the righteousness of Christ:

and the name of Jesus Christ; concerning the person of Christ, as the Son of God: and the offices of Christ, as prophet, priest, and King; and the virtue of his blood, righteousness, and sacrifice, for pardon, justification, and atonement: the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions read this clause, “in the name of Jesus Christ”: and connect it with the following words,

they were baptized, both men and women: that is, when, they heard Philip preach the Gospel, and believed in Christ, the sum and substance of it, and made a profession of faith, they were of each sex, both men and women, baptized by immersion, in the name of Jesus Christ.

Albert Barnes
Act 8:13
Then Simon himself believed also – That is, he believed that Jesus had performed miracles, and was raised from the dead, etc. All this he could believe in entire consistency with his own notions of the power of magic; and all that the connection requires us to suppose is that he believed this Jesus had the power of working miracles; and as he purposed to turn this to his own account, he was willing to profess himself to be his follower. It might have injured his popularity, moreover, if he had taken a stand in opposition when so many were professing to become Christians. People often profess religion because, if they do not, they fear that they will lose their influence, and be left with the ungodly. That Simon was not a real Christian is apparent from the whole narrative, Act_8:18, Act_8:21-23.
And when he was baptized – He was admitted to a “profession” of religion in the same way as others. Philip did not pretend to know the heart; and Simon was admitted because he “professed” his belief. This is all the evidence that ministers of the gospel can now have, and it is no wonder that they, as well Philip, are often deceived. The reasons which influenced Simon to make a profession of religion seem to have been these:
(1) An impression that Christianity was “true.” He seems to have been convinced of this by the miracles of Philip.
(2) The fact that many others were becoming Christians; and “he” went in with the multitude. This is often the case in revivals of religion.
(3) He was willing to make use of Christianity to advance his own power, influence, and popularity – a thing which multitudes of men of the same mind with Simon Magus have been willing since to do.
He continued … – It was customary and natural for the disciples to remain with their teachers. See Act_2:42.
And wondered – This is the same word that is translated “bewitched” in Act_8:9, Act_8:11. It means that he was amazed that Philip could “really” perform so much greater miracles than “he” had even pretended to. Hypocrites will sometimes be greatly attentive to the external duties of religion, and will be greatly surprised at what is done by God for the salvation of sinners.
Miracles and signs – Greek: signs and great powers, or great miracles. That is, so much greater than he pretended to be able to perform.

A.T. Robertson
Act 8:13
And Simon also himself believed (Ho de Simōn kai autos episteusen). Note the same verb in the aorist tense episteusen. What did he believe? Evidently that Jesus was this “power of God” not himself (Simon). He saw that the miracles wrought by Philip in the name of Christ were genuine while he knew that his own were frauds. He wanted this power that Philip had to add to his own pretensions. “He was probably half victim of self-delusion, half conscious impostor” (Furneaux). He was determined to get this new “power,” but had no sense of personal need of Jesus as Saviour for his sins. So he submitted to baptism (baptistheis, first aorist passive participle of baptizō), clear proof that baptism does not convey salvation.
He continued with Philip (ēn proskarterōn tōi Philippōi). Periphrastic imperfect of the verb proskartereō (See Act_2:46). He stuck to Philip (dative case) to find out the secret of his power.
Beholding (theōrōn). Watching the signs and miracles (powers, dunameis that threw his “power” in the shade) as they were wrought (ginomenas, present middle participle of ginomai). The more he watched the more the wonder grew (existato). He had “amazed” (Act_8:9) the people by his tricks and he was himself more “amazed” than they by Philip’s deeds.

A.T. Robertson
Act 8:14
That Samaria had received (hoti dedektai hē Samaria). The district here, not the city as in Act_8:5. Perfect middle indicative of dechomai retained in indirect discourse. It was a major event for the apostles for now the gospel was going into Samaria as Jesus had predicted (Act_1:8). Though the Samaritans were nominally Jews, they were not held so by the people. The sending of Peter and John was no reflection on Philip, but was an appropriate mission since “many Christian Jews would be scandalized by the admission of Samaritans” (Furneaux). If Peter and John sanctioned it, the situation would be improved. John had once wanted to call down fire from heaven on a Samaritan village (Luk_9:54).

Albert Barnes
Act 8:14
They sent – That is, the apostles “deputed” two of their number. This shows conclusively that there was no “chief” or ruler among them. They acted as being equal in authority. The reason why they sent Peter and John was probably that there would be a demand for more labor than Philip could render; a church was to be founded, and it was important that persons of experience and wisdom should be present to organize it, and to build it up. The “harvest” had occurred in Samaria, of which the Saviour spoke Joh_4:35, and it was proper that they should enter into it. In times of revival there is often more to be done than can be done by the regular servant of a people, and it is proper that he should be aided from abroad.
Peter – This shows that “Peter” had no such authority and primacy as the Roman Catholics claim for him. He exercised no authority in “sending” others, but was himself “sent.” He was appointed by their united voice, instead of claiming the power himself of directing “them.”
And John – Peter was ardent, hold, zealous, rash; John was mild, gentle, tender, persuasive. There was wisdom in uniting them in this work, as the talents of both were needed; and the excellencies in the character of the one would compensate for the defects of the other. It is observable that the apostles sent “two” together, as the Saviour had himself done. See the notes on Mar_6:7.

Albert Barnes
Act 8:15
Were come down – To Samaria. Jerusalem was generally represented as “up,” or “higher” than the rest of the land, Mat_20:18; Joh_7:8.
Prayed for them – They sought at the hand of God the extraordinary communications of the Holy Spirit. They did not even pretend to have the power of doing it without the aid of God.
That they might receive the Holy Ghost – The main question here is, what was meant by the Holy Spirit? In Act_8:20, it is called “the gift of God.” The following remarks may make this plain:
(1) It was not that gift of the Holy Spirit by which “the soul is converted,” for they had this when they believed, Act_8:6. Everywhere the conversion of the sinner is traced to his influence. Compare Joh_1:13.
(2) It was not the ordinary influences of the Spirit by which “the soul is sanctified”; for sanctification is a progressive work, and this was sudden.
(3) It was something that was discernible by “external effects”; for Simon saw Act_8:18 that this was done by the laying on of hands.
(4) The phrase “the gift of the Holy Spirit,” and “the descent of the Holy Spirit,” signified not merely his “ordinary” influences in converting sinners, but those “extraordinary” influences that attended the first preaching of the gospel – the power of speaking with new tongues Acts 2, the power of working miracles, etc., Act_19:6.
(5) This is further clear from the fact that Simon wished to “purchase” this power, evidently to keep up his influence among the people, and to retain his ascendency as a juggler and sorcerer. But surely Simon would not wish to “purchase” the converting and sanctifying influences of the Holy Spirit; it was the power of working miracles. These things made it clear that by the gift of the Holy Spirit here is meant the power of speaking with new tongues (compare 1 Cor. 14) and the power of working miracles. And it is further clear that “this” passage should not be adduced in favor of “the rite of confirmation” in the Christian church. For, besides the fact that there are now no “apostles,” the thing spoken of here is entirely different from the rite of confirmation. “This” was to confer the extraordinary power of working miracles; “that” is for a different purpose.
If it be asked “why” this power was conferred on the early Christians, it may be replied that it was to furnish striking proof of the truth of the Christian religion; to impress the people, and thus to win them to embrace the gospel. The early church was thus armed with the power of the Holy Spirit; and this extraordinary attestation of God to his message was one cause of the rapid propagation and permanent establishment of the gospel.

Adam Clarke
Act 8:15
When they were come down – The very same mode of speaking, in reference to Jerusalem formerly, obtains now in reference to London. The metropolis in both cases is considered as the centre; and all parts, in every direction, no matter how distant, or how situated, are represented as below the metropolis. Hence we so frequently hear of persons going up to Jerusalem: and going down from the same. So in London the people speak of going down to the country; and, in the country, of going up to London. It is necessary to make this remark, lest any person should be led away with the notion that Jerusalem was situated on the highest ground in Palestine. It is a mode of speech which is used to designate a royal or imperial city.
Prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost – It seems evident from this case, that even the most holy deacons, though full of the Holy Ghost themselves, could not confer this heavenly gift on others. This was the prerogative of the apostles, and they were only instruments; but they were those alone by which the Lord chose to work. They prayed and laid their hands on the disciples, and God sent down the gift; so, the blessing came from God by the apostles, and not from the apostles to the people. But for what purpose was the Holy Spirit thus given? Certainly not for the sanctification of the souls of the people: this they had on believing in Christ Jesus; and this the apostles never dispensed. It was the miraculous gifts of the Spirit which were thus communicated: the speaking with different tongues, and those extraordinary qualifications which were necessary for the successful preaching of the Gospel; and doubtless many, if not all, of those on whom the apostles laid their hands, were employed more or less in the public work of the Church.

John Gill
Act 8:17 Then laid they their hands on them,…. The Ethiopic version adds, “who had been baptized”; but not upon all of them, men and women, only on some they were directed unto by the Spirit of God; whom he had designed, and now would qualify for the work of the ministry, that so this new church, might be supplied with proper officers, pastors, and teachers, to feed them with knowledge and with understanding, and who might not only have ministerial gifts to qualify them for preaching the Gospel, but extraordinary ones, which would serve for the confirmation of it; and for this purpose the apostles, “both” of them, as the Arabic version reads, laid their hands on them: for it will not seem probable, that they laid their hands upon the women, on such an account; and it will hardly be received, that they should lay their hands on Simon Magus, otherwise he would have received the Holy Ghost too; so that it seems a plain case, that imposition of hands was not used to them all:

and they received the Holy Ghost; that is, they received the gifts of the Holy Ghost; so that they could prophesy and speak with tongues, and heal diseases, and do other wonderful works: and since now these effects have ceased, the rite and ceremony which was peculiar to the apostles as such, it should seem should cease likewise.

Albert Barnes
Act 8:18
Simon saw … – That is, he witnessed the extraordinary effects, the power of speaking in a miraculous manner, etc. See the notes on Act_8:15.
He offered them money – He had had a remarkable influence over the Samaritans, and he saw that the possession of this power would perpetuate and increase his influence. People commonly employ the tricks of legerdemain for the purpose of making money, and it seems probable that such had been the design of Simon. He saw that if he could communicate to “others” this power; if he could confer on “them” the talent of speaking other languages, it might be turned to vast account, and he sought, therefore, to purchase it of the apostles. From this act of Simon we have derived our word “simony,” to denote the buying and selling of ecclesiastical preferment, or church offices, where religion is supported by the state. This act of Simon shows conclusively that he was influenced by improper motives in becoming connected with the church.

John Gill
Act 8:19 Saying, give me also this power,…. He does not ask them to lay their hands on him, that he might receive the Holy Ghost, and have these gifts to exercise himself, but that he might have the power of conferring them on others:

that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost; in which he discovered his ambition and avarice: his ambition, that he might be above Philip; who though he had these gifts, yet had not a power to lay on hands, and thereby convey them unto others; he perceived that this was purely apostolical; and indeed, what he requested was more than what the apostles could do; for though upon their prayers, and through the imposition of their hands, the gifts of the Spirit were bestowed upon men; yet they never could, nor did give a power to others, to do as they did; and his avarice prompted him to this, that he might make gain of it; not by doing miracles himself, but by conveying a power to others to do them.

Albert Barnes
Act 8:20
Thy money perish with thee – This is expressive of the horror and indignation of Peter at the base offer of Simon. It is not to be understood as an imprecation on Simon. The main idea is the apostle’s contempt for the “money,” as if he regarded it as of no value. “Let your money go to destruction. We abhor your impious offer. We can freely see “any” amount of money destroyed before we will be tempted to sell the gift of the Holy Spirit. But there was here also an expression of his belief that “Simon” also would perish. It was a declaration that he was hastening to ruin, and as if this was certain, Peter says, let your money perish “too.”
The gift of God – That which he has “given,” or conferred as a favor. The idea was absurd that what God himself gave as a sovereign could be purchased. It was “impious” to think of attempting to buy with worthless gold what was of so inestimable value. The “gift of God” here means the extraordinary influences of the Holy Spirit, Act_10:45; Act_11:17. How can we pay a “price” to God? All that “we” can give, the silver, and the gold, and the cattle on a thousand hills, belong to him already. We have “nothing” which we can present for his favors. And yet there are many who seek to “purchase” the favor of God. Some do it by alms and prayers; some by penance and fasting; some by attempting to make their own hearts better, and by self-righteousness; and some by penitence and tears. All these will not “purchase” his favor. Salvation, like every other blessing, will be “his gift”; and if ever received, we must be willing to accept it on his own terms; at his own time; in his own way. We are without merit; and if saved, it will be by the sovereign grace of God.

Albert Barnes
Act 8:21
Neither part – You have no “portion” of the grace of God; that is, you are destitute of it altogether. This word commonly denotes the “part” of an inheritance which falls to one when it is divided.
Nor lot – This word means properly a portion which “falls” to one when an estate, or when spoil in war is divided into portions, according to the number of those who are to be partakers, and the part of each one is determined by “lot.” The two words denote “emphatically” that he was in no sense a partaker of the favor of God.
In this matter – Greek: in this “word”; that is, thing. That which is referred to here is the religion of Christ. Simon was not a Christian. It is remarkable that Peter judged him so soon, and when he had seen but “one” act of his. But it was an act which satisfied him that he was a stranger to religion. One act may sometimes bring out the “whole character”; it may evince the “governing” motives; it may show traits of character utterly “inconsistent” with true religion; and then it is as certain a criterion as any long series of acts.
Thy heart – Your “affections,” or “governing motives”; your principle of conduct. Comp, 2Ki_10:15. You love gold and popularity, and not the gospel for what it is. There is no evidence here that Peter saw this in a miraculous manner, or by any supernatural influence. It was apparent and plain that Simon was not influenced by the pure, disinterested motives of the gospel, but by the love of power and of the world.
In the sight of God – That is, God sees or judges that your heart is not sincere and pure. No external profession is acceptable without the heart. Reader, is your heart right with God? Are your motives pure; and does “God” see there the exercise of holy, sincere, and benevolent affections toward him? God “knows” the motives; and with unerring certainty he will judge, and with unerring justice he will fix our doom according to the affections of the heart.

Albert Barnes
Act 8:22
Repent, therefore – Here we may remark:
(1) That Simon was at this time an unconverted sinner.
(2) That the command was given to him “as such.”
(3) That he was required to “do the thing”; not to wait or seek merely, but actually to repent.
(4) That this was to be the “first step” in his conversion. He was not even directed to “pray” first, but his first indispensable work was to “repent”; that is, to exercise proper sorrow for this sin, and to “abandon” his plan or principle of action.
And this shows:
(1) That all sinners are to be exhorted to “repent,” as their first work. They are not to be told to “wait,” and “read,” and “pray,” in the expectation that repentance will be “given” them. With such helps as they can obtain, they are to “do the thing.”
(2) Prayer will not be acceptable or heard unless the sinner comes “repenting”; that is, unless he regrets his sin, and “desires” to forsake it. Then, and then only, will he be heard. When he comes “loving” his sins, and resolving still to practice them, God will not hear him. When he comes “desirous” of forsaking them, grieved that he is guilty, and “feeling” his need of help, God will hear his prayer. See Isa_1:15; Mic_3:4; Pro_1:28; Psa_66:18.
And pray God – Having a “desire” to forsake the sin, and to be pardoned, “then” pray to God to forgive. It would be absurd to ask forgiveness until a man felt his need of it. This shows that a sinner “ought” to pray, and “how” he ought to do it. It should be with a desire and purpose to forsake sin, and in that state of mind God will hear the prayer. Compare Dan_4:27.
If perhaps – There was no certainty that God would forgive him; nor is there any evidence either that Simon prayed, or that he was forgiven. This direction of Peter presents “another” important principle in regard to the conduct of sinners. They are to be directed to repent; not because they have the “promise” of forgiveness, and not because they “hope” to be forgiven, but because sin “is a great evil,” and because it is “right” and “proper” that they should repent, whether they are forgiven or not. That is to be left to the sovereign mercy of God. they are to repent of sin, and then they are to feel, not that they have any claim on God, but that they are dependent upon Him, and must be saved or lost at His will. They are not to suppose that their tears will purchase forgiveness, but that they lie at the footstool of mercy, and that there is hope – not certainty – that God will forgive.
The thought … – Your “purpose,” or “wish.” “Thoughts” may be, therefore, evil, and need forgiveness. It is not open sin only that needs to be pardoned; it is the secret purpose of the soul.

Albert Barnes
Act 8:23
For I perceive – That is, by the act which he had done. His offer had shown a state of mind that was wholly inconsistent with true religion. One single sin “may” as certainly show that there is no true piety as many acts of iniquity. It may be so decided, so malignant, so utterly inconsistent with just views as at once to determine what the character is. The sin of Simon was of this character. Peter here does not appear to have claimed the power of judging the “heart”; but he judged, as all other people would, by the act.
In the gall – This word denotes properly “bile,” or “that bitter, yellowish-green fluid that is secreted in the liver.” Hence, it means anything very bitter; and also any bad passion of the mind, as anger, malice, etc. We speak of “bitterness” of mind, etc.
Of bitterness – This is a Hebraism; the usual mode of expressing the “superlative,” and means “excessive bitterness.” The phrase is used respecting idolatry Deu_29:18, “Lest there should be among you a root that beareth gall and wormwood.” A similar expression occurs in Heb_12:15, “Lest any root of bitterness springing up, trouble you.” “Sin” is thus represented as a “bitter” or poisonous thing; a tiring not only “unpleasant” in its consequences, but ruinous in its character, as a poisonous plant would be in the midst of other plants, Jer_2:19, “It is an evil and bitter thing that thou hast forsaken the Lord thy God”; Jer_4:18; Rom_3:14, “Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness”; Eph_4:31. The meaning here is, that the heart of Simon was full of dreadful, malignant sin.
Bond of iniquity – Or, that thou art “bound by” iniquity. That is, that it has the rule over you, and “binds” you as a captive. Sin is often thus represented as “bondage” and “captivity,” Psa_116:16; Pro_5:22, “He shall be holden with the cords of his sins”; Rom_7:23-24. These expressions prove conclusively that Simon was a stranger to religion.

Albert Barnes
Act 8:24
Pray ye … – Here remark:
(1) That Simon was directed to pray for himself Act_8:22, but he had no disposition to do it, but was willing to ask others to do it for him. Sinners will often ask others to pray for them, when they are too proud, or too much in love with sin, to pray for themselves.
(2) The main thing that Peter wished to impress on him was a sense of his sin. Simon did not regard this, but looked only to the punishment. He was terrified and alarmed; he sought to avoid future “punishment,” but he had no alarm about his “sins.” So it is often with sinners. So it was with Pharaoh Exo_8:28, Exo_8:32, and with Jeroboam 1Ki_13:6. Sinners often quiet their own consciences by asking ministers and Christian friends to pray for them, while “they” still purpose to persevere in iniquity. If people expect to be saved, they must pray “for themselves”; and pray not chiefly to be freed from “punishment,” but from the “sin which deserves hell.” This is all that we hear of Simon in the New Testament; and the probability is, that, like many other sinners, he did not pray for himself, but continued to live in the gall of bitterness, and died in the bond of iniquity. The testimony of antiquity is decided on that point. See the notes on Act_8:9.

Adam Clarke
Act 8:24
Pray ye to the Lord for me – The words of Peter certainly made a deep impression on Simon’s mind; and he must have had a high opinion of the apostle’s sanctity and influence with God, when he thus commended himself to their prayers. And we may hope well of his repentance and salvation, if the reading of the Codex Bezae, and the margin of the later Syriac may be relied on: Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none (τουτων των κακων) Of All Those Evils which ye have spoken (μοι) To Me, may come upon me: (ὁς πολλα κλαιων ου διελιμπανεν) Who Wept Greatly, and Did Not Cease. That is, he was an incessant penitent. However favourably this or any other MS. may speak of Simon, he is generally supposed to have “grown worse and worse, opposing the apostles and the Christian doctrine, and deceiving many cities and provinces by magical operations; till being at Rome, in the reign of the Emperor Claudius, he boasted that he could fly, and when exhibiting before the emperor and the senate, St. Peter and St. Paul being present, who knew that his flying was occasioned by magic, prayed to God that the people might be undeceived, and that his power might fail; in consequence of which he came tumbling down, and died soon after of his bruises.” This account comes in a most questionable shape, and has no evidence which can challenge our assent. To me, it and the rest of the things spoken of Simon the sorcerer appear utterly unworthy of credit. Calmet makes a general collection of what is to be found in Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian; Eusebius, Theodoret, Augustine, and others, on the subject of Simon Magus; and to him, if the reader think it worth the pains, he may refer. The substance of these accounts is given above, and in the note on Act_8:9; and to say the least of them they are all very dubious. The tale of his having an altar erected to him at Rome, with the inscription, Simoni sancto deo, “To the holy god Simon,” has been founded on an utter mistake, and has been long ago sufficiently confuted. See the inscriptions in Gruter, vol. i. p. 96, inscript. No. 5, 6, 7.

Albert Barnes
Act 8:25
In many villages … – They went at first directly to the “city” of Samaria. On their return to Jerusalem they travelled more at leisure, and preached in the villages also – a good example for the ministers of the gospel, and for all Christians, when traveling from place to place. The reason why they returned to Jerusalem, and made that their permanent abode, might have been, that it was important to bear witness to the resurrection of Christ in the very city where he had been crucified, and where his resurrection had occurred. If the doctrine was established “there,” it would be more easy to establish it elsewhere.

Act 8:26 And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip,…. To inquire who this angel was, whether Michael or Gabriel, or the tutelar angel of Ethiopia, or of the eunuch, or of Philip, is too curious; it was one of the ministering spirits sent forth by Christ, to serve a gracious purpose of his, and for the good of one of the heirs of salvation:

saying, arise; at once, make haste and speed, and quick dispatch; the phrase denotes readiness, alacrity, and expedition:

and go toward the south; the southern point from the city of Samaria, where Philip now was; or to the south of Jerusalem: the parts of Gaza, Lydda, Jamnia, Joppa, &c. were called the “south”: hence often mention is made of such a Rabbi and such a Rabbi, that he was דרומא, “of the south” (k); so R. Joshua, who was of Lydda, is said to be of the south (l). The Ethiopic version renders it at “noon time”, and so the Arabic of De Dieu; as if it respected not the place whither he was to go, but the time when he was to go; and that it might be about the middle of the day, the following narrative seems to confirm:

unto the way which goes down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert: this place is sometimes called Azzah, and sometimes Gaza, which is owing to the different pronunciation of the first letter of it; it was first inhabited by the Avim, or Hivites, who being destroyed by the Caphtorim, they dwelt in their stead, Deu_2:23. It fell to the lot of the tribe of Judah, but could not be held by it, because of the giants which remained in it; and was, as Jerom says (m), a famous city of Palestine in his day; and was formerly the border of the Canaanites towards Egypt; and the way to Egypt lay through it, in which the eunuch was travelling: the way from Jerusalem to this place lay through Bethlehem, as the above ancient writer observes, on Jer_31:15 where he says

“some of the Jews interpret this place thus; that Jerusalem being taken by Vespasian, through this way (Bethlehem and Ephratah, of which he is speaking) to Gaza and Alexandria, a vast number of captives were led to Rome.”

And as the same writer elsewhere says (n), Bethlehem was six miles from Aella (or Jerusalem) to the south, in the way which leads to Hebron; and it is commonly believed that the way to Gaza was through Hebron, and is the way in which they go to it now; and to a hill near this place Samson, carried the gates of Gaza, Jdg_16:1 And this also was to the south of Jerusalem, and two and twenty miles from it (o): and it is also said by the same author (p), that there is a village called Bethzur, and in his time Bethhoron, in the way from Jerusalem to Hebron, about twenty miles from the former, at which there was a fountain, where it was reported the eunuch was baptized by Philip. There was it seems another way from Jerusalem to Gaza, through Diospolis, or Eleutheropolis, and so to Ascalon, and from thence to Gaza (q): and this was the road the eunuch went, if their conjecture is right, that he was baptized in the river Eleutherus; but which way he went is not certain, nor where he was baptized. The situation of Gaza was, according to Arrianus (r), as follows:

“Gaza is distant from the sea at least twenty furlongs (two miles and a half), and the access unto it is sandy and deep, and the sea near the city is all muddy. Gaza was a great city, and was built on high ground, and encompassed with a strong wall: it was the last of those cities inhabited, as you go from Phoenicia into Egypt, επι τη αρχη της ερημου “at the beginning of the desert”.”

Which last words seem to furnish out a reason why it is here called Gaza, “which is desert”; because it was situated where the desert began: though this clause is differently understood; some apply it to Gaza; as if the sense was “Gaza the desert”, to distinguish old Gaza which was destroyed by Alexander the great, and as Strabo says (s), “remained desert”, from new Gaza, built at some distance from it: Jerom has (t) this distinction of old and new Gaza; there is scarce any appearance, he says, of the foundations of the ancient city; and that which is now seen is built in another place; and an unknown Greek writer makes express mention of new Gaza, which is the city itself; and speaks of another Gaza at some distance, which he calls Gaza, η ερημος, “the desert” (u): but the haven, which was seven furlongs distant from Gaza, was not called new Gaza till Julian’s time: it was first called Majuma, and afterwards Constantia, by Constantine; either from his son Constantius, or his sister Constantia, it having embraced the Christian religion (w): wherefore, as Beza observes, no regard could be had to this distinction in the times of Luke; and though it was besieged by Alexander and taken, yet it did not become a desolate place; it had its walls, gates, and fortifications afterwards; and was after this taken by Ptolomy, and then by Alexander Janneeus; it was repaired by Gabinius, and given to Herod by Augustus (x): so that it could not be said to be desert, in the times of Philip and the eunuch, with respect to its inhabitants and fortifications: it seems rather therefore to be so called, for the above reason, because situated at the beginning of the desert; and the whole space between the parts of Egypt next the Nile, and Palestina, is called “the desert”, both by Arrianus (y) and Josephus (z): others apply this epithet to the way, and read it as do the Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions, “to the way of the desert which goes from Jerusalem”; meaning the wilderness, which lay in the way from Jerusalem to Gaza. This place was distant from Jerusalem about seventy five miles; for from Jerusalem to Ascalon was, as Josephus (a) says, five hundred and twenty furlongs, which make sixty five miles; and from Ascalon to Gaza were ten miles, as our countryman Mr. Sandes Says (b); though according to the Itinerary of Antoninus (c), the distance was sixteen miles. The Talmudists make mention of this place, they represent it as a very pleasant place to dwell in; they say (d), Gaza is ניויה יפה, “a beautiful habitation”; they speak of three famous markets, and one of them was the market of Gaza (e); and very near to this city there was a beast market (f); and to which may be added, though it may not serve to strengthen the reason of its name being called Gaza the desert, there was a place on the border of the city, which was named חורבתא סגירתא, “the desert of the leper” (g): there were also brooks about the parts of Gaza and Azotus (h); in one of which, if the eunuch was near Gaza, to which he was going, he might be baptized; since it is uncertain whereabout Philip met him, and where the place of water was, in which the ordinance of baptism was administered to him. This city is now called Gazera, or Gazara, and is inhabited by Greeks, Turks, and Arabians.

(k) T. Hieros. Succa, fol. 53. 4. (l) Ib. Challa, fol. 57. 2. (m) De locis Hebraicis, fol. 91. K. (n) Ib. fol. 89. E. (o) Ib. fol. 87. E. (p) Fol. 89. G. (q) Vid. Reland. Palestina Illustrata, l. 2. p. 407. & l. 3. p. 646, 659. (r) De Expeditione Alexandri, l. 2. (s) Geograph. l. 16. (t) De locis Hebraicis, fol. 91. K. (u) Apud Reland. ib. l. 2. p. 509. (w) Euseb. de Vita Constantin. l. 4. c. 38. Sozomen. Hist. l. 5. c. 3. (x) Joseph. Antiqu. l. 13. c. 13. sect. 3. & 14. 5. &. 15. 7. (y) Ut supra. (De Expeditione Alexandri, l. 2.) (z) De Bello Jud. l. 7. c. 5. sect. 3. (a) Ib. l. 3. c. 2. sect. 1. (b) Travels, p. 151. (c) Apud Reland. ib. l. 2. p. 419. (d) T. Hieros. Sheviith, fol. 37. 3. (e) Ib. Avoda Zara, fol. 39. 4. (f) T. Bab. Avoda Zara, fol. 11. 2. (g) T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 71. 1. (h) Aristeas de 70 Interpret. p. 41.

Adam Clarke
Act 8:27
A man of Ethiopia – Ανηρ Αιθιοψ should be translated an Ethiopian, for the reasons given on Act_7:2.
An eunuch – See this word interpreted, on Mat_19:12 (note). The term eunuch was given to persons in authority at court, to whom its literal meaning did not apply. Potiphar was probably an eunuch only as to his office; for he was a married man. See Gen_37:36; Gen_39:1. And it is likely that this Ethiopian was of the same sort.
Of great authority – ΔυναϚης, A perfect lord chamberlain of the royal household; or, rather, her treasurer, for it is here said, he had charge of all her treasure, ην επι πασης της γαζης αυτης. The apparent Greek word Γαζα, Gaza, is generally allowed to be Persian, from the authority of Servius, who, in his comment on Aen. lib. i. ver. 118: -
Apparent rari nantes in gurgite vasto,
Arma virum, tabulaeque, et Troia Gaza per undas.
“And here and there above the waves are seen
Arms, pictures, precious goods, and floating men.”
Dryden.
The words of Servius are: “Gaza Persicus sermo est, et significat divitias; unde Gaza urbs in Palaestina dicitur, quod in ea Cambyses rex Persarum cum Aegyptiis bellum inferret divitias suas condidit.” Gaza is a Persian word, and signifies Riches: hence Gaza, a city in Palestine, was so called because Cambyses, king of Persia, laid up his treasures in it, when he waged war with the Egyptians. The nearest Persian word of this signification which I find is gunj, or ganz, and gunja, which signify a magazine, store, hoard, or hidden treasure. The Arabic kluzaneh, comes as near as the Persian, with the same meaning. Hence makhzen, called magazen by the Spaniards, and magazine by the English; a word which signifies a collection of stores or treasures, or the place where they are laid up. It is scarcely necessary to remark that this name is given also to certain monthly publications, which are, or profess to be, a store of treasures, or repository of precious, or valuable things.
But who was Candace? It is granted that she is not found in the common lists of Ethiopic sovereigns with which we have been favored. But neither the Abyssinians nor the Jews admitted women in their genealogies. I shall not enter into this controversy, but shall content myself with quoting the words of Mr. Bruce. “It is known,” says he, “from credible writers engaged in no controversy, that this Candace reigned upon the Nile in Atbara, near Egypt. Her capital also, was taken in the time of Augustus, a few years before the conversion of the slave by Philip; and we shall have occasion often to mention her successors and her kingdom, as existing in the reign of the Abyssinian kings, long after the Mohammedan conquest: they existed when I passed through Atbara, and do undoubtedly exist there to this day.” – Bruce’s Travels, vol. ii. p. 431.
It does not appear, as some have imagined, that the Abyssinians were converted to the Christian faith by this eunuch, nor by any of the apostles; as there is strong historic evidence that they continued Jews and Pagans for more than three hundred years after the Christian era. Their conversion is with great probability attributed to Frumentius, sent to Abyssinia for that purpose by Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, about a.d. 330. See Bruce as above.
The Ethiopians mentioned here are those who inhabited the isle or peninsula of Meroe, above and southward of Egypt. It is the district which Mr. Bruce calls Atbara, and which he proves formerly bore the name of Meroe. This place, according to Diodorus Siculus, had its name from Meroe, daughter of Cambyses, king of Persia, who died there in the expedition which her father undertook against the Ethiopians. Strabo mentions a queen in this very district named Candace: his words are remarkable. Speaking of an insurrection of the Ethiopians against the Romans he says: Τουτων δ’ ησαν και οἱ βασιλισσης Ϛρατηγοι της Κανδακης, ἡ καθ’ ἡμας ηρξε των Αιθιοπων, ανδρικη τις γυνη, πεπηρωενη τον οφθαλμον, “Among these were the officers of Queen Candace, who in our days reigned over the Ethiopians. She was a masculine woman, and blind of one eye.” Though this could not have been the Candace mentioned in the text, it being a little before the Christian era, yet it establishes the fact that a queen of this name did reign in this place; and we learn from others that it was a common name to the queens of Ethiopia. Pliny, giving an account of the report made by Nero’s messengers, who were sent to examine this country, says, Aedificia oppidi (Meroes) pauca: regnare faeminam Candacen; quod nomen multis jam annis ad reginas transiit. Hist. Nat. lib. vi. cap. 29, ad fin. They reported that “the edifices of the city were few: that a woman reigned there of the name of Candace; which name had passed to their queens, successively, for many years.” To one of those queens the eunuch in the text belonged; and the above is sufficient authority to prove that queens of this name reigned over this part of Ethiopia.
Had come to Jerusalem for to worship – Which is a proof that he was a worshipper of the God of Israel; but how came he acquainted with the Jewish religion? Let us, for a little, examine this question. In 1Ki_10:1, etc., we have the account of the visit paid to Solomon by the queen of Sheba, the person to whom our Lord refers, Mat_12:42, and Luk_11:31. It has been long credited by the Abyssinians that this queen, who by some is called Balkis, by others Maqueda, was not only instructed by Solomon in the Jewish religion, but also established it in her own empire on her return; that she had a son by Solomon named Menilek, who succeeded her in the kingdom; and, from that time till the present, they have preserved the Jewish religion. Mr. Bruce throws some light upon this subject: the substance of what he says is the following: “There can be no doubt of the expedition of the queen of Sheba; as Pagan, Moor, Arab, Abyssinian, and all the countries round, vouch for it, nearly in the terms of Scripture. Our Savior calls her queen of the south; and she is called, in 1Ki_10:1, etc., 2Ch_9:1, etc., queen of Sheba or Saba; for Saba, Azab, and Azaba, all signify the south: and she is said to have come from the uttermost parts of the earth. In our Saviour’s time the boundaries of the known land, southward, were Raptam or Prassum; which were the uttermost parts of the known earth, and were with great propriety so styled by our Lord. The gold, myrrh, cassia, and frankincense, which she brought with her, are all products of that country. The annals of the Abyssinians state that she was a pagan when she left Saba or Azab, to visit Solomon; and that she was there converted and had a son by Solomon, who succeeded her in the kingdom, as stated above. All the inhabitants of this country, whether Jews or Christians, believe this; and, farther, that the 45th Psalm was a prophecy of her journey to Jerusalem; that she was accompanied by a daughter of Hiram from Tyre; and that the latter part of the Psalm is a prophecy of her having a son by Solomon, and of his ruling over the Gentiles.” Travels, vol. ii. page 395, etc. All this being granted, and especially the Scripture fact of the queen of Sheba’s visit, and the great probability, supported by uninterrupted tradition, that she established the Jewish religion in her dominions on her return, we may at once see that the eunuch in question was a descendant of those Jews; or that he was a proselyte in his own country to the Jewish faith, and was now come up at the great feast to worship God at Jerusalem. Mr. Bruce may be right; but some think that Saba, in Arabia Felix, is meant: see the note on Mat_12:42.

Albert Barnes
Act 8:28
And, sitting in his chariot – His carriage; his vehicle. The form of the carriage is not known. In some instances the carriages of the ancients were placed on wheels; in others were borne on poles, in the form of a “litter” or palanquin, by men, mules, or horses. See Calmet’s “Chariot” article.
Reading Esaias … – Isaiah. Reading doubtless the translation of Isaiah called the Septuagint. This translation was made in Egypt for the special use of the Jews in Alexandria and throughout Egypt, and was what was commonly used. “Why” he was reading the Scriptures, and especially this prophet, is not certainly known. It is morally certain, however, that he was in Judea at the time of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus; that he had heard much of him; that this would be a subject of discussion; and it was natural for him, in returning, to look at the prophecies respecting the Messiah, either to meditate on them as a suitable subject of inquiry and thought, or to examine the claims of Jesus of Nazareth to this office. The prophecy in Isa_53:1-12; was so striking, and coincided so clearly with the character of Jesus, that it was natural for a candid mind to examine whether “he” might not be the person intended by the prophet. On this narrative we may remark:
(1) It is a proper and profitable employment, upon returning from “worship,” to examine the Sacred Scriptures.
(2) It is well to be in the habit of reading the Scriptures when we are on a journey. It may serve to keep the heart from worldly objects, and secure the affections for God.
(3) It is well at all times to read the Bible. It is one of the means of grace. And it is when we are searching his will that we obtain light and comfort. The sinner should examine with a candid mind the sacred volume. It may be the means of conducting him in the true path of salvation.
(4) God often gives us light in regard to the meaning of the Bible in unexpected modes. How little did this eunuch expect to be enlightened in the manner in which he actually was. Yet God, who intended to instruct and save him, sent the living teacher (Philip), and opened to him the Scriptures, and led him to the Saviour.

Albert Barnes
Act 8:30
And Philip ran … – Indicating his haste and his desire to obey the suggestions of the Spirit. A thousand difficulties might have been started in the mind of Philip if he had reflected a little. The eunuch was a stranger; he had the appearance of a man of rank; he was engaged in reading; he might be indisposed to be interrupted or to converse, etc. But Philip obeyed without any hesitation the instructions of the Spirit, and “ran” to him. It is well to follow the first suggestions of the Spirit; to yield to the clear indications of duty, and to perform it at once. Especially in a deed of benevolence, and in conversing with others on the subject of religion, our first thoughts are commonly the safest and the best. If we do not follow them, the calculations of avarice, or fear, or of worldly prudence are very apt to come in. We become alarmed; we are afraid of the rich and the great; we suppose that our conversation and admonitions will be unacceptable. We may learn from this case:
(1) To do our duty at once, without hesitation or debate.
(2) We shall often be disappointed in regard to subjects of this kind. We shall find candid, humble, Christian conversation far more acceptable to strangers, to the rich, and to the great, than we commonly suppose. If, as in this case, they are “alone”; if we approach them kindly; if we do not rudely and harshly address them, we shall find most people willing to talk on the subject of religion. I have conversed with some hundreds of persons on the subject of religion, and do not now recollect but two instances in which I was rudely treated, and in which it was not easy to gain a respectful and kind attention to Christian conversation.
And heard him read – He was reading “loud” – sometimes the best way of impressing truth on the mind in our private reading the Scriptures.
And said … – This question, there might have been reason to fear, would not be kindly received. But the eunuch’s mind was in such a state that he took no offence from such an inquiry, though made by a footman and a stranger. He doubtless recognized him as a brother Jew. It is an important question to ask ourselves when we read the Sacred Scriptures.

Adam Clarke
Act 8:30
Heard him read the Prophet Esaias – The eunuch, it seems, was reading aloud, and apparently in Greek, for that was the common language in Egypt; and, indeed, almost in every place it was understood. And it appears that it was the Greek version of the Septuagint that he was reading, as the quotation below is from that version.

John Gill
Act 8:31 And he said, how can I, except some man should guide me?…. Which shows that he was of an excellent spirit and temper; since instead of answering in a haughty and disdainful manner, as great men are too apt to do; and instead of charging Philip with, impertinence and insolence, in interrupting him whilst reading, and putting such a question to him, he expresses himself with great and uncommon modesty; with a sense and confession of his ignorance and incapacity and of the necessity and usefulness of the instructions of men, appointed of God to open and explain the Scriptures: and though he wanted such a guide, and could have been glad of one, yet he was willing to use all diligence himself in reading, that he, might, if possible, come at some knowledge of the truth; which was very commendable in him; and no doubt but the spirit he was in was much owing to his reading the word, and to the Spirit of God disposing his mind in this manner:

and he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him; which is an instance of his great humanity and courteousness, and of his meekness and condescension, as well as of his vehement thirst after the knowledge of the Scriptures; he concluding, or at least hoping by Philip’s question, and by the air and look of the man, that he was one that might be useful to him this way.

Adam Clarke

Acts 8:31
How can I, except some man should guide me? – This is no proof that “the Scriptures cannot be understood without an authorized interpreter,” as some of the papistical writers assert. How could the eunuch know any thing of the Gospel dispensation, to which this scripture referred? That dispensation had not yet been proclaimed to him; he knew nothing about Jesus. But where that dispensation has been published, where the four Gospels and the apostolic epistles are at hand, every thing relative to the salvation of the soul may be clearly apprehended by any simple, upright person. There are difficulties, it is true, in different parts of the sacred writings, which neither the pope nor his conclave can solve; and several which even the more enlightened Protestant cannot remove; but these difficulties do not refer to matters in which the salvation of the soul is immediately concerned: they refer to such as are common to every ancient author in the universe. These difficulties, being understood, add to the beauty, elegance, and justness of the language, thoughts, and turns of expression; and these, only the few who are capable of understanding are able to relish. As to all the rest, all that relates to faith and practice, all in which the present and eternal interest of the soul is concerned, “the wayfaring man, though a fool, (quite illiterate), shall not err therein.”
That he would come up, and sit with him – So earnestly desirous was he to receive instruction relative to those things which concerned the welfare of his soul.

John Gill
Act 8:32 The place of the Scripture which he read was this,…. Or the paragraph or section of Scripture; that part of it in which he was reading was Isa_53:7 which shows, that by this time the Scriptures were divided into sections, chapters, and verses; whereas the Jews say the whole law at first was but one verse (t).

He was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and like a lamb dumb before the shearer. The metaphors of sheep and lamb express the innocence, meekness, and patience of Christ in his sufferings and death; and his being like these when led to the slaughter, and dumb before the shearer, show his willingness to suffer and die for his people, and to become a sacrifice for their sins. The allusion is to the sheep led either by the butcher to the slaughter house, or by the priest to the altar, and to the lamb of a year old being silent while it is shearing; and both denote the voluntariness of Christ in his sufferings, the stripping him of his good name, credit, and reputation among men, and of all worldly substance, though Lord of all, and even of the common blessings of nature, as of meat, drink, and raiment, and the light of the sun; and particularly the stripping him of his clothes, when his raiment was parted, and lots cast on his vesture, is very aptly signified by the shearing of the lamb, all which he took very patiently; and his being led forth to be crucified, when he was offered up as a sacrifice on the cross, very fitly answers to the sheep being led to the slaughter, without showing any reluctance. It was a custom with the Heathens to offer no creature in sacrifice, that struggled as it was led, or made an opposition, or showed any reluctance: it is remarkable, that there was nothing of this kind to be observed in Christ, who gave himself an offering, and a sacrifice; the reasons of which were, because of the great love he bore to his people: and because of the good and advantage that would come to them thereby: he was content to be poor, that they might be rich; to be made sin, that they might be made righteousness; to become a curse, that the blessings of the covenant might come upon them; to be stripped of all things, that they might enjoy all: and because no other sacrifice could atone for their sins; and because it was his Father’s will, which always involves his own.

So opened he not his mouth: in defence of himself, when such false things were laid to his charge, and which he could have so easily refuted, and yet answered to nothing, to the astonishment of his judge; the reason was, because he had the sins of his people on him, for which he was willing to suffer; and therefore declined self-vindication, lest he should hinder the judicial process against him; nor did he open his mouth against his enemies by way of threatening or complaint, when they spat on him, blindfolded, and buffeted him, and bid him prophesy who smote him; and when the chief priests, Scribes, the common people, and thieves mocked at him, and reviled him on the cross, he opened not his lips unto them, nor against them, only for them, saying, Father, forgive them; nor did he open his mouth against the justice of God, as bearing hard upon him; neither did he complain of the strictness of its demands, abating him nothing; nor of the severity and weight of its strokes, not sparing him at all; nor did he say one word against his people, whose sins brought all his sorrows and sufferings on him, but made intercession for the transgressors, whose sins he bore.

(t) Eliae Levit. praefat. 3. ad Sepher Hammasoreth.

Albert Barnes
Acts 8:33
In his humiliation – This varies from the Hebrew, but is copied exactly from the Septuagint, showing that he was reading the Septuagint. The Hebrew text is: “He was taken from prison and from judgment.” The word rendered “prison” denotes any kind of “detention,” or even “oppression.” It does not mean, as with us, to be confined “in” a prison or jail, but may mean “custody,” and be applied to the detention or custody of the Saviour when his hands were bound, and he was led to be tried. See the notes on Mat_27:2. It is not known why the Septuagint thus translated the expression “he was taken from prison,” etc., by “in his humiliation,” etc. The word “from prison” may mean, as has been remarked, however, from “oppression,” and this does not differ materially from “humiliation”; and in this sense the Septuagint understood it. The “meaning” of the expression in the Septuagint and the Acts is clear. It denotes that in his state of oppression and calamity; when he was destitute of protectors and friends; when at the lowest state of humiliation, and therefore most the object of pity, “in addition to that,” justice was denied him; his judgment – a just sentence – was taken away, or withheld, and he was delivered to be put to death. His deep humiliation and friendless state was “followed” by an unjust and cruel condemnation, when no one would stand forth to plead his cause. Every circumstance thus goes to deepen the view of his sufferings.
His judgment – Justice, a just sentence, was denied him, and he was cruelly condemned.
And who shall declare his generation? – The word “generation” used here properly denotes “posterity”; then “an age” of mankind, comprehending about 30 years, as we speak of this and the next generation; then it denotes “the men” of a particular age or time. Very various interpretations have been given of this expression. Lowth translates it, “His manner of life who would declare?” referring, as he supposes, to the fact that when a prisoner was condemned and led to execution, it was customary for a proclamation to be made by a crier in these words, “Whoever knows anything about his innocence, let him come and declare it.” This passage is taken from the Gemara of Babylon (Kennicott, as quoted by Lowth). The same Gemara of Babylon on this passage adds, “that before the death of Jesus, this proclamation was made 40 days; but no defense could be found” – a manifest falsehood, and a story strikingly illustrative of the character of the Jewish writings.
The Gemara was written some time after Christ, perhaps not far from the year 180 (Lardner), and is a collection of commentaries on the traditional laws of the Jews. That this custom existed is very probable; but it is certain that no such thing was done on the trial of the Saviour. The Chaldee paraphrase translates the passage in Isaiah, “He shall collect our captivity from infirmities and vengeance; and who can declare what wonderful things shall be done for us in his days?” Others have referred this question to his Deity, or his divine “generation”; intimating that no one could explain the mystery of his eternal generation. But the word in the Scriptures has no such signification; and such a sense would not suit the connection (see Calvin in loco.) Others have referred it to “his own spiritual posterity,” his disciples, his family; “the number of his friends and followers who could enumerate?” (Calvin, Beza, etc.) Another sense which the word has is to denote the “people” of any particular age or time (Mat_11:16; Mat_23:36; Luk_16:8, etc.); and it has been supposed that the question here means, “Who can describe the character and wickedness of the generation when he shall live – the enormous crime of that age, in putting him to death?” On this passage, see the notes on Isa_53:8. Perhaps, after all that has been written on this passage, the simple idea is, “Who shall stand up for him, declaring who he is? Who will appear for him? Who will vindicate him?” meaning that all would forsake him, and that there would be none to “declare really who he was.”
For his life … – The Hebrew is, “For he was cut off from the land of the living”; that is he was put to death. The expression used in the Acts was taken from the Septuagint, and means substantially the same as the Hebrew.

John Gill

Act 8:34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said,…. After he had read the passage out, and Philip had put the question to him, whether he understood it; and after he had taken him up into his chariot to sit with him, and instruct him:

I pray thee, of whom speakest the prophet this? being desirous of knowing who was the subject of this famous prophecy: which to know was very useful and edifying, and was not a matter of mere indifference and speculation, but of great moment and concern. A like way of speaking, in order to know the sense of a passage, is used by the Jews (w): thus upon reading Pro_31:2, it is asked,

“of whom does Solomon say this Scripture? he does not say it but of his father David.”

Does he speak

of himself or of some other man? which is very properly and pertinently put; since there might be some appearance of its application to Isaiah, who suffered under Manasseh; and it might be applied to different persons, as it has been since by the Jews; as to Josiah, Jeremiah in particular, and to the people of Israel in general, though very wrongly: Josiah could never be intended, as one of their noted commentators (x) expounds the paragraph; since it was not the sins of the people that were the cause of his death, but his own, and his vanity in meddling with what he had nothing to do with, and had no real call unto; nor can it be said of him that he did no violence, or that he bore the sins of others, and died for them, and made his soul an offering for sin; nor were his days prolonged; nor did the pleasure of the Lord prosper in his hand: nor is the passage applicable to Jeremiah, as another of their writers (y) would have it; he was not free from sin; nor was he wounded for the sins of his people; nor did he undergo his sufferings with patience; nor had he a large number of disciples; nor was he extolled and exalted, as this person is said to be: much less, as others (z) say, is the whole body of the people of Israel in captivity intended; since one single individual as spoken of throughout the whole; and is manifestly distinguished from the people of Israel, whose sins and sorrows he was to bear, and for whose transgressions he was to be stricken and wounded. In all which they go contrary to their Targum (a), Talmud (b), and other ancient writings (c), which interpret many things in this section or paragraph of the Messiah (d): however, as it might be differently understood, or difficult to be understood, the eunuch very appropriately puts this question.

(w) T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 10. 1. (x) Abarbinel in Isa. liii. (y) Sandiah Gaon in Aben Ezra in ib. (z) Jarchi, Aben Ezra, & Kimchi in ib. (a) In Isa. lii. 13. and liii. 10. (b) T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 98. 2. (c) Zohar in Exod. fol. 85. 2. Midrash Ruth, fol. 33. 2. (d) See my Book of the Prophecies of the Messiah, p. 161. &c.

John Gill

Act 8:36 And as they went on their way,…. In the road from Jerusalem to Gaza; Philip preaching, and the eunuch hearing, and conversing in a religious and spiritual way together; and Beza says in one exemplar it is added, “conferring one with another”; about the person and office of Christ, the doctrines of the Gospel, and the ordinances of it; as appears by what follows, both by the eunuch’s request to be admitted to baptism, and his confession of faith:

they came unto a certain water; which some say was at Bethhoron, in the tribe of Judah or Benjamin; and others think it was the river Eleutherus; the former is more likely; concerning which Jerom (f) gives this account:

“Bethzur in the tribe of Judah, or Benjamin, and now called Bethhoron, is a village as we go from Aella (or Jerusalem) to Hebron, twenty miles from it; near which is a fountain, springing up at the bottom of a mountain, and is swallowed up in the same ground in which it is produced; and the Acts of the Apostles relate, that the eunuch of queen Candace was baptized here by Philip.”

This place was about two miles from Hebron; since that, according to the same writer (g), was twenty two miles from Jerusalem. Borchardus (h) seems to place it further off from Hebron:

“from Hebron are three “leucas”, or six miles, northward, declining a little to the west, to Nehel Escol, that is, “the brook of the cluster”, from whence the spies carried the cluster of grapes; to the left of this valley, for the space of a mile, or half a leuca, runs a river, in which Philip baptized the, eunuch of queen Candace, not far from Sicelech.”

And, according to Jerom (i), Escol lay in the way from Bethzur to Hebron.

Albert Barnes
Act 8:37
And Philip said … – This was stated by Philip as the proper qualification for making a profession of religion. The terms are:
(1) “Faith,” that is, a reception of Jesus as a Saviour; yielding the mind to the proper influences of the truths of redemption. See the notes on Mar_16:16.
(2) There is required not merely the assent of the understanding, but a surrender of the “heart, the will, the affections,” to the truth of the gospel. As these were the proper qualifications then, so they are now. Nothing less is required; and nothing but this can constitute a proper qualification for the Lord’s Supper.
I believe … – This profession is more than a professed belief that Jesus was “the Messiah.” The name “Christ” implies that. “I believe that Jesus the Messiah is the Son of God.” He professed his belief that he was the “Son of God” – showing either that he had before supposed that the Messiah “would be” the Son of God, or that Philip had instructed him on that point. It was natural for Philip, in discoursing on the humiliation and poverty of Jesus, to add also that he sustained a higher rank of being than a man, and was the Son of God. What precise ideas the eunuch attached to this expression cannot be now determined. This verse is missing in a very large number of manuscripts (Mill), and has been rejected by many of the ablest critics. It is also omitted in the Syriac and Ethiopic versions. It is not easy to conceive why it has been omitted in almost all the Greek mss. unless it is spurious. If it was not in the original copy of the Acts , it was probably inserted by some early transcriber, and was deemed so important to the connection, to show that the eunuch was not admitted hastily to baptism, that it was afterward retained. It contains, however, an important truth, elsewhere abundantly taught in the Scriptures, that “faith” is necessary to a proper profession of religion.

 

John Gill
Acts 8:38
And the eunuch said, see here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptized? This question shows, that he had some knowledge of the ordinance of baptism, which he had received from the ministry and conversation of Philip; and that he had some desire after it, as regenerate persons have, after divine things, after Christ, his word, and ordinances; and that he was willing to take the first opportunity of submitting to it, but was jealous lest he should not be qualified for it; and therefore modestly proposes the affair to Philip, and desires to be examined and judged by him: and it also suggests, that there are some things which might be a just bar to this ordinance, as want of grace, and a disorderly life and conversation, which were the hindrances to the Pharisees and Sadducees, who came to John’s baptism; and these are sufficient ones, even though persons may be born in a Christian land, and of believing parents, and have had a good education; yea, though they may have much notional light and speculative knowledge: but where the good work of grace is begun, and when a soul is spiritually enlightened, and has evangelical repentance for sin, and true faith in Christ, and sincere love to him, nothing should hinder: not any thing on his side; not a sense of his own unworthiness, which will never be otherwise, but rather increase; nor the corruptions of his heart and nature, which will always remain, as long as he is in the body; nor fears of falling away, since there cannot be more danger after baptism than before, and Christ is the same who is always able to keep from it; nor the reproaches of the world, which should be esteemed above riches; and more especially, since to be ashamed of Christ, his word, or ordinances, is highly resented by him; nor the opposition of relations and friends, who, though they are to be regarded and listened to in civil matters, yet should have no sway in religious ones to move from the cause of Christ; nor any difficulty in the ordinance itself, since it is but water baptism, and not a bloody one, such as Christ was baptized with, and some of his followers have been called unto: nor should anything hinder on the side of the administrator, when the above is the case; as not being circumcised, but Gentiles, as in the times of the apostles, Act_10:47 so not the former life and conversation of the person, though it has been ever so wicked, as the instances of the crucifiers of Christ, of the jailor, of Saul the persecutor, and many of the Corinthians, show; nor the weakness of grace; the day of small things is not to be despised, nor a bruised reed to be broken, or smoking flax to be quenched: agreeably to this the Ethiopic version renders it, “who doth hinder”, &c.

And he commanded the chariot to stand still,…. That is, the eunuch ordered his chariot driver to stop; for to him it better agrees to give this order than to Philip; though otherwise the words are so placed, that it would be difficult to say who gave the command.

And they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him: upon which Calvin has this note;

“hence we see what was the manner of baptizing with the ancients, for they plunged the whole body into water.”

And indeed, other mode had been practised then, as sprinkling or pouring of water, there would have been no necessity of their going out of the chariot, and much less of their going down into the water; and as for change of apparel, it cannot be reasonably thought that so great a man should take so long a journey without it. In like manner the Jewish ablutions and purifications, which were performed by immersion, and therefore called baptisms, Heb_9:10 are spoken of in the same sort of language as here: so a profluvious person, and a woman that had lain in, were obliged שירדה לטבול, “to go down and dip” (k).

“It is a tradition of the Rabbins (l), that he that sees any nocturnal pollution on the day of atonement, יורד וטובל, “goes down and dips himself”.–And so all that are obliged to dipping, dip according to their custom on the day of atonement; the profluvious person, man or woman, the leprous person, man or woman, the husband of a menstruous woman, and one defiled with the dead, dip according to their custom on the day of atonement.”

(k) T. Bab. Nidda, fol. 42. 1. & 43. 1. (l) T. Bab. Yoma, fol. 88. 1.

Albert Barnes
Act 8:38
And they went down both into the water – This passage has been made the subject of much discussion on the subject of baptism. It has been adduced in proof of the necessity of immersion. It is not proposed to enter into that subject here (see the Editors’ Notes at Mat_3:6, Mat_3:16). It may be remarked here that the preposition εἰς eis, translated “into,” does not of necessity mean that they went “into” the water. Its meaning would be as well expressed by “to” or “unto,” or as we should say, “they went “to” the water,” without meaning to determine whether they went “into” it or not. Out of “twenty-six” significations which Schleusner has given the word, this is one, and one which frequently occurs: Joh_11:38, “Jesus, therefore, groaning in himself, cometh to εἰς eis the grave” – assuredly not “into” the grave; Luk_11:49, “I send them prophets,” Greek, “I send to εἰς eis them prophets” – “to” them, not “into” them, compare Rom_2:4, 1Co_14:36; Mat_12:41, “They repented at εἰς eis the preaching of Jonas” – not into his preaching; Joh_4:5, “Then cometh he “to” εἰς eis a city of Samaria,” that is, “near to it,” for the context shows that he had not yet entered “into” it, compare Act_7:6, Act_7:8; Joh_21:4, “Jesus stood “on” εἰς eis the shore,” that is, not “in,” but “near” the shore. These passages show:
(1) That the word does not necessarily mean that they entered “into” the water. But,
(2) If it did, it does not necessarily follow that the eunuch was immersed. There might be various ways of baptizing, even after they were “in” the water, besides immersing. Sprinkling or pouring might be performed there as well as elsewhere. The most solemn act of baptism that I ever saw performed was, when I was a boy, in the river on the banks of which I was born, where the minister and the candidate went both of them “into” the Myer, and, when near to the middle of the river, the candidate kneeled down in the water, and the minister with a bowl “poured” water on his head. Yet if the fact had been stated, in reference to this case, that “they went both down “into” the water, and came up out of the water,” and it had been hence inferred that the man was “immersed,” it would have been wholly a false inference. No such immersion occurred, and there is, from the narrative here, no more evidence that it occurred in the case of the eunuch. See βαπτίζω baptizō.
(3) It is incumbent on those who maintain that “immersion” is the only valid mode of baptism to prove that this passage cannot possibly mean anything else, and that there was no other mode practiced by the apostles.
(4) It would still be incumbent to show that if this were the common and even the only mode then, in a warm climate, that it is indispensable that this mode should be practiced everywhere else. No such positive command can be adduced. And it follows, therefore, that it cannot be proved that immersion is the only lawful mode of baptism. See the Editors’ Notes at Mat_3:6, Mat_3:16.

Albert Barnes
Act 8:39
Out of the water – ἐκ ek. This preposition stands opposed to εἰς eis, “into”; and as that may mean to, so this may mean From; if that means into, this means here out of.
The Spirit of the Lord – See Act_8:29. The Spirit had suggested to Philip to go to meet the eunuch, and the same Spirit, now that he had fulfilled the design of his going there, directed his departure.
Caught away – This phrase has been usually understood of a forcible or miraculous removal of Philip to some other place. Some have even supposed that he was borne through the air by an angel (see even Doddridge). To such foolish interpretations have many expositors been led. The meaning is, clearly, that the Spirit, who had directed Philip to go near the eunuch, now removed him in a similar manner. That this is the meaning is clear:
(1) Because it accounts for all that occurred. It is not wise to suppose the existence of a miracle except where the effect cannot otherwise be accounted for, and except where there is a plain statement that there was a miracle.
(2) The word “caught away” ἥρπασεν hērpasen does not imply that there was a miracle. The word properly means “to seize and bear away anything violently, without the consent of the owner,” as robbers and plunderers do. Then it signifies to remove anything in a forcible manner; to make use of strength or power to remove it, Act_23:10; Mat_13:19; Joh_10:28; 2Co_12:2, 2Co_12:4, etc. In no case does it ever denote that a miracle is performed. And all that can be signified here is, that the Spirit strongly admonished Philip to go to some other place; that he so forcibly or vividly suggested the duty to his mind as to tear him away, as it were, from the society of the eunuch. He had been deeply interested in the case. He would have found pleasure in continuing the journey with him. But the strong convictions of duty urged by the Holy Spirit impelled him, as it were, to break off this new and interesting acquaintanceship, and to go to some other place. The purpose for which he was sent, to instruct and baptize the eunuch, was accomplished, and now he was called to some other field of labor. A similar instance of interpretation has been considered in the notes on Mat_4:5.
And he went on his way rejoicing – His mind was enlightened on a perplexing passage of Scripture. He was satisfied respecting the Messiah. He was baptized; and he experienced what all feel who embrace the Saviour and are baptized – joy. It was joy resulting from the fact that he was reconciled to God; and a joy the natural effect of having done his duty promptly in making a profession of religion. If we wish happiness if we would avoid clouds and gloom, we should do our duty at once. If we delay until tomorrow what we ought to do today, we may expect to be troubled with melancholy thoughts. If we find peace, it will be in doing promptly just what God requires at our hands. This is the last that we hear of this man. Some have supposed that he carried the gospel to Ethiopia, and preached it there. But there is strong evidence to believe that the gospel was not preached there successfully until about the year 330 a.d., when it was introduced by Frumentius, sent to Abyssinia for that purpose by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria. From this narrative we may learn:
(1) That God often prepares the mind to receive the truth.
(2) That this takes place sometimes with the great and the noble, as well as the poor and obscure.
(3) That we should study the Scriptures. This is the way in which God usually directs the mind in the truths of religion.
(4) That they who read the Bible with candor and care may expect that God will, in some mode, guide them into the truth. It will often be in a way which they least expect; but they need not be afraid of being left to darkness or error.
(5) That we should be ready at all times to speak to sinners. God often prepares their minds, as he did that of the eunuch, to receive the truth.
(6) That we should not be afraid of the great, he rich, or of strangers. God often prepares their minds to receive the truth; and we may find a man willing to hear of the Saviour where we least expected it.
(7) That we should do our duty in this respect, as Philip did, promptly. We should not delay or hesitate, but should at once do that which we believe to be in accordance with the will of God. See Psa_119:60.

Albert Banres
Act 8:40
But Philip was found – That is, he came to Azotus, or he was not heard of until he reached Azotus. The word is often used in this sense. See 1Ch_29:17, margin; 2Ch_29:29, margin; Gen_2:20; see also Luk_17:18; Rom_7:10. In all these places the word is used in the sense of to be, or to be present. It does not mean here that there was any miracle in the case, but that Philip, after leaving the eunuch, came to or was in Azotus.
Azotus – This is the Greek name of the city which by the Hebrews was called Ashdod. It was one of the cities which were not taken by Joshua, and which remained in the possession of the Philistines. It was to this place that the ark of God was sent when it was taken by the Philistines from the Israelites; and here Dagon was cast down before it, 1Sa_5:2-3. Uzziah, King of Judah, broke down its wall, and built cities or watch-towers around it, 2Ch_26:6. It was a place of great strength and consequence. It was distant about thirty miles from Gaza. It was situated on the coast of the Mediterranean, and had a seaport, which has now entirely disappeared. The sea is now some two miles distant, and the intervening space is a desert of moving sand, which has reached the outskirts of the town (Land and the Book, Dr. Thomson, vol. ii, p. 320). Prof. Hackett (Illustrations of Scripture, pp. 142, 143) says of this place: “A little village called Esdud perpetuates the ancient name. Ashdod was one of the chief cities of the Philistines, but is now utterly forsaken. The prophet’s sentence has been executed upon it to the letter: ‘I will cut off the inhabitant from Ashdod’ Amo_1:8. The only marks of antiquity which I could discover were a high mound, where the old city stood, covered now with fragments of pottery; two or three cellars or cisterns that seemed to have been recently laid open; two marble columns, one prostrate in the court of a neighboring khan, and the other made into a drinking-trough; several broken pieces of columns or tablets, mostly built into a sakieh, or watering machine; and a few traces of masonry near the Jaffa road, which may have belonged to the city walls. These last are so concealed as to be found only with special pains.”
He preached in all the cities – Joppa, Lydda, Askelon, Arimarthea, etc., lying along the coast of the Mediterranean.
Cesarea – This city was formerly called Strato’s Tower. It is situated on the coast of the Mediterranean, at the mouth of a small river, and has a fine harbor. It is 36 miles south of Acre, and about 62 miles northwest of Jerusalem, and about the same distance northeast of Azotus. The city is supposed by some to be the Hazor mentioned in Jos_11:1. It was rebuilt by Herod the Great, and named Caesarea in honor of Augustus Caesar. The city was dedicated to him, and was called Sebaste, the Greek word for Augustus. It was adorned with most splendid houses; and the Temple of Caesar was erected by Herod over against the mouth of the haven, in which was placed the statue of the Roman emperor. It became the seat of the Roman governor while Judea was a Roman province, Act_23:33; Act_25:6, Act_25:13. Philip afterward resided at this place. See Act_21:8-9. Caesarea at present is inhabited only by jackals and beasts of prey. “Perhaps,” says Dr. Clarke, “there has not been in the history of the world an example of any city that in so short a space of time rose to such an extraordinary height of splendor as did this of Caesarea, or that exhibits a more awful contrast to its former magnificence by the present desolate appearance of its ruins. Not a single inhabitant remains. Of its gorgeous palaces and temples, enriched with the choicest works of art, scarcely a trace can be discerned. Within the space of 10 years after laying the foundation, from an obscure fortress, it became the most flourishing and celebrated city of all Syria.” Now it is in utter desolation. See Robinson’s Calmet, “Caesarea.”