# Ethiopian eunuch: "What prevents me from being baptized?" (Acts 8:36)



## Jack K

That's an interesting way to request baptism, isn't it?

Here's what I'm wondering: Commentators have noted that the eunuch, because he was a eunuch, was barred from entering the inner courts at the Temple where he'd just been visiting. Could it be that this experience has him wondering if he'll also be barred from baptism? Might he be thinking that maybe, _because he's a eunuch_, he's not allowed to fully become a believer, join the church, etc.?

None of the commentators I have access to have considered this. Matthew Henry, for example, merely suggests the eunuch is being humble and mindful that his eagerness to be baptized must be tempered by submission to order and rule. That's a nice point about decency and order, but it falls flat to me. It seems more likely to me that Luke includes this slice of the conversation to show that even the eunuch is not prevented; even he may join Christ and be baptized. So... is this brought up because he's a eunuch, because he's a Gentile, or for some other reason I haven't considered?

Thoughts? Is there anything good you've read on this? I'm teaching on the passage tomorrow.


----------



## Peairtach

It may also point to a lower requirement for baptism (credible profession) rather than the Lord's Supper (accredited profession).

Philip was not even the Philip who was one of the Eleven, and even the Eleven (or Thirteen, with Matthias and Paul), did not appear to be any more infallible than an appropriately careful and prayerful Kirk Session in admitting people to the Visible Church. "Philip" here is Philip the Deacon and Evangelist, rather than Philip the Disciple and Apostle. Yet all that is asked is a simple question.



> And when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James.(Acts 1:13, ESV)





> And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, "It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word." And what they said pleased the whole gathering, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch. (Acts 6:2-5)


----------



## earl40

I see the eunuch saying "I believe what you have told me, so is there anything I should do that would prevent me from being baptized".

The eunich encounter is the one instance that has prevented me from being %100 sure of infant baptism. For here we have the only condition put forth that prevents baptism. Of course now that I am about to join a PCA church I have run into many "obsticles" in preventing my childrem from being baptized. Of course I do not want to start any discussion on baprtism but ony am commenting to your thread Jack.


----------



## Jack K

I should have been more clear...

My question is not "What does this story add to our understanding of who may be baptized?" I realize people like to debate that question. But that has been discussed here many, many times. I'm not looking to settle that doctrinal issue.

My question is... Does the eunuch's wording show that he's concerned he might not be fully accepted into the Christian faith? And might that be because he's a eunuch? Clearly he _was_ accepted. But do you think he was worried he might be rejected, deemed unfit because he's a eunuch?


----------



## Peairtach

Eunuchs were forbidden from being priests. Were they also excluded from the congregation of Israel?

If this man was a Gentile believer and not a full Jew he would only have been allowed into the Court of the Gentiles. There was of course, some doubt and dispute - to say the least - in the early Church about whether non-Jews (uncircumcised) should be fully accepted as Christians, or even whether non-Jews could be saved. He may have been concerned about this, as much as his eunuch-hood.

He's not the first Ethiopian eunuch to be mentioned in Scripture of course (Jer 38:7-12)



> The word of the LORD came to Jeremiah while he was shut up in the court of the guard:
> "Go, and say to Ebed-melech the Ethiopian, 'Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: Behold, I will fulfill my words against this city for harm and not for good, and they shall be accomplished before you on that day. But I will deliver you on that day, declares the LORD, and you shall not be given into the hand of the men of whom you are afraid. For I will surely save you, and you shall not fall by the sword, but you shall have your life as a prize of war, because you have put your trust in me, declares the LORD.'" (Jer 39:15-18, ESV)



Although "the Ethiopian can't change his skin", his sins can be washed away along with those of the Semite, Mongoloid or Caucasian:


> Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil. (Jer 13:23)



Of course, Isaiah 56, which is shortly after the passage he was reading, has encouraging things to say about eunuchs and foreigners.


----------



## Jack K

Peairtach said:


> Eunuchs were forbidden from being priests. Were they also excluded from the congregation of Israel?
> 
> If this man was a Gentile believer and not a full Jew he would only have been allowed into the Court of the Gentiles. There was of course, some doubt and dispute - to say the least - in the early Church about whether non-Jews (uncircumcised) should be fully accepted as Christians, or even whether non-Jews could be saved. He may have been concerned about this, as much as his eunuch-hood.
> 
> He's not the first Ethiopian eunuch to be mentioned in Scripture of course (Jer 38:7-12)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The word of the LORD came to Jeremiah while he was shut up in the court of the guard:
> "Go, and say to Ebed-melech the Ethiopian, 'Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: Behold, I will fulfill my words against this city for harm and not for good, and they shall be accomplished before you on that day. But I will deliver you on that day, declares the LORD, and you shall not be given into the hand of the men of whom you are afraid. For I will surely save you, and you shall not fall by the sword, but you shall have your life as a prize of war, because you have put your trust in me, declares the LORD.'" (Jer 39:15-18, ESV)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although "the Ethiopian can't change his skin", his sins can be washed away along with those of the Semite, Mongoloid or Caucasian:
> 
> 
> 
> Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil. (Jer 13:23)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, Isaiah 56, which is shortly after the passage he was reading, has encouraging things to say about eunuchs and foreigners.
Click to expand...


Right. So if, in my teaching, I suggest all this might be why he asked "What prevents me from being baptized?" rather than simply "Will you baptize me now?"... do you think I'm off base or on to something?


----------



## Peairtach

I couldn't really answer that, Jack.

I always took


> See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?


to mean, "There is no reason why I shouldn't get baptised", and not out of having done a scholarly study of the passage.

But you may be onto something.


----------



## Jack K

Peairtach said:


> I always took
> 
> 
> 
> See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
> 
> 
> 
> to mean, "There is no reason why I shouldn't get baptised".
Click to expand...


Yeah, that's how I've taken in the past, too. Still wondering.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Personally,
I think the answer to the question is in the text. 

The Ethiopian eunuch was reading from the Isaian scroll, specifically from the Servant songs, and was at Is.53 when Philip caught up to him. He taught him of Christ from there. There's no reason to think that he only keyed in on one or two verses, but used the context of the scroll, "*beginning *with this Scripture," Act.8:35.

So, what do we have just a few verses beyond this place?


> Thus says the LORD: "Keep justice, and do righteousness, for soon my salvation will come, and my deliverance be revealed. Blessed is the man who does this, and the son of man who holds it fast, who keeps the Sabbath, not profaning it, and keeps his hand from doing any evil." *Let not the foreigner* who has joined himself to the LORD say, "The LORD will surely separate me from his people"; and *let not the eunuch say*, "Behold, I am a dry tree." For thus says the LORD: "*To the eunuchs who* keep my Sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and *hold fast my covenant*, I will give in my house and within my walls a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off. "And the foreigners who join themselves to the LORD, to minister to him, to love the name of the LORD, and to be his servants, everyone who keeps the Sabbath and does not profane it, and holds fast my covenant--these I will bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer; their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples." The Lord GOD, who gathers the outcasts of Israel, declares, "I will gather yet others to him besides those already gathered."


Is.56:1-8


That, it seems to me, along with 52:13-15, are all of one piece that make the Ethiopian's question most suitable to the text preached.


----------



## Jack K

Contra_Mundum said:


> Personally,
> I think the answer to the question is in the text.
> 
> The Ethiopian eunuch was reading from the Isaian scroll, specifically from the Servant songs, and was at Is.53 when Philip caught up to him. He taught him of Christ from there. There's no reason to think that he only keyed in on one or two verses, but used the context of the scroll, "*beginning *with this Scripture," Act.8:35.
> 
> So, what do we have just a few verses beyond this place?
> 
> 
> 
> Thus says the LORD: "Keep justice, and do righteousness, for soon my salvation will come, and my deliverance be revealed. Blessed is the man who does this, and the son of man who holds it fast, who keeps the Sabbath, not profaning it, and keeps his hand from doing any evil." *Let not the foreigner* who has joined himself to the LORD say, "The LORD will surely separate me from his people"; and *let not the eunuch say*, "Behold, I am a dry tree." For thus says the LORD: "*To the eunuchs who* keep my Sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and *hold fast my covenant*, I will give in my house and within my walls a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off. "And the foreigners who join themselves to the LORD, to minister to him, to love the name of the LORD, and to be his servants, everyone who keeps the Sabbath and does not profane it, and holds fast my covenant--these I will bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer; their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples." The Lord GOD, who gathers the outcasts of Israel, declares, "I will gather yet others to him besides those already gathered."
> 
> 
> 
> Is.56:1-8
> 
> 
> That, it seems to me, along with 52:13-15, are all of one piece that make the Ethiopian's question most suitable to the text preached.
Click to expand...


I agree there's a good possibility the discussion included Isaiah 56. So then, are you saying this suggests the Ethiopian brings up the issue of being "hindered" because now he's learned from Isaiah 56—and he realizes that the old hinderances he experienced as a Gentile eunuch are now gone?

This makes sense to me but, like I said, I hadn't heard it from anyone else and wanted a second opinion.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I completely think that, Jack. It is a totally text-driven, exegetical conclusion. It is only in part a conclusion to be drawn from the text of Acts. The Acts passage forces the interpreter to grapple with the text under consideration (Isaiah) by the figures present IN the passage. We have a "double-duty" of comprehension. 8:35 even tells us that Is.53 itself is only the starting point for Philip.

And when you bring the whole OT, Mosaic-legislation context to bear on the situation (a foreigner and a eunuch in one) there before you lies Is.56, in all its messianic glory, reaching out and touching that man reading the passage--as if it had been written just for him.


----------



## Jack K

Thanks. That's largely how I ended up teaching it (the fourth-grader version of that, anyway). It was good to get feedback, everyone.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Sorry I'm late on this - I heard Tim Keller in one of his sermons unpack it just as Bruce has.


----------

