The watchmen of Israel were certainly a bunch of dumb dogs. That's a damningly descriptive passage, isn't?
For Sincere Inquisitors ONLY: MAD Explained
- Thread starter chickenman
- Start date
That's a pretty interesting take that I hadn't considered. So in other words, the authority that he gave Peter in Matt. 16 and the 12 collectively in Matt. 18 was made effective with Jesus "breathing" on them. Is that what you're saying, volt? That would make sense for it to happen then.
Tico
New member
Hey, J.
I was sort of waiting to see more input on the idea of the requirement of the apostles' presence in order for one to receive the Spirit under the kingdom program. But I guess with your and JohnW's posts, it made it pretty clear.
So let's move on. I've got some questions about the eunuch...
God calls Philip for a special mission to go south and catch up with the Ethiopian eunuch. Long story short, the eunuch is returning to Ethiopia after having worshipped in Jerusalem. Philip teaches him about Christ from the very passage he's pondering, and the eunuch believes and is baptized. Philip is then caught away by the Spirit.
Questions:
I've got thoughts
- Why does God call Philip on this special mission? What's so important about that event that warrants that action from God?
- Was the eunuch a circumcised (no jokes about eunuchs, please :chuckle
proselyte, or just a God-fearing Gentile?
- Do you think the Ethiopian going to Jerusalem has anything to do with prophecy?
- Did the eunuch receive the gift of the Spirit?
Thanks,
Randy
I would think that if the Eunuch was reading in chapter 53, he might very well have ended up in chapter 56 too...
My guess is that he had entered into the covenant through Israel.
That's pretty interesting. I don't think it would have ever occurred to me to notice that. Yeah, I agree that the Holy Spirit was careful with the words and their order. So you might be on to something. Thanks for pointing that out to us, giving me something else to think about.
Here's what I've been working through with the eunuch. Tell me if you think this has any merit...
It starts with me asking: Why in the world did God send Philip maybe 50 miles away to teach this one guy and then, suddenly, as soon as the eunuch is baptized, the Holy Spirit whisks Philip away? There's got to be something pretty significant about the story for the Holy Spirit to point it out.
Is. 56 and II Chr. 6:32-33 (Solomon's prayer) show us that Gentiles certainly were part of God's future plans...that if they kept His laws they would be accepted in His house of prayer (more to this, but just a quick summary). And we're also told in Gen. 12:1-3 (as STP has pointed out many times) that those who blessed the "great nation" (Israel...Abraham's descendants) would themselves be blessed (like the centurion in Luke 7:2-5, whom Jesus responded to because he loved the nation and built them a synagogue).
Could it be that this Ethiopian eunuch came to Jerusalem to worship and to bless the nation in some way, and God, therefore, sent Philip on a special mission to bless him in return?
According to the timeline as I understand it, Jesus (if things would have progressed as planned) would have begun his own personal judgments against the wicked very soon (recall that He stands in judgment at the end of Acts 7). So the time of Acts 8 would fit in the time that the judgments might have been expected to begin.
Isaiah 11 shows a prophecy about the "rod out of the stem of Jesse" that would come and judge the poor and the meek (sounds similar to Jesus' Matt. 5 sermon on the mount), and He would also judge and slay the wicked. This is obviously a foretelling of Jesus coming as Judge and then King, as His reign is described in terms of His judgments and also the peace that He will bring in the kingdom ("wolf also shall dwell with the lamb", etc.). And then the passage (beginning in verse 10) begins describing how He will stand as an ensign to the people and how He will set up an ensign for the nations and gather the dispersed of Israel and Judah.
The following chapters describe judgments against Assyria, Babylon, Moab, etc. in those days. And then we get to chapter 18, which talks about Ethiopia. Verse 7 says:
"In that time (when the Lord sets up an ensign to the nations; Is. 18:3, cf. Is. 11:12) shall the present be brought unto the LORD of hosts of a people scattered and peeled, and from a people terrible from their beginning hitherto; a nation meted out and trodden under foot, whose land the rivers have spoiled, to the place of the name of the LORD of hosts, the mount Zion."
When the time came for Jesus to be born, wise men from the East had correctly discerned the times, according to what they had read in prophecy, and journeyed to Bethlehem to see. Could it be that perhaps some wise men in Ethiopia had discerned the times, according to prophecy, and sent a messenger (the very man who had great authority in Candace's kingdom, having charge over her treasury) to Jerusalem to take a "present" to the Lord (fulfilling Is. 18)? So the Ethiopian eunuch goes to Jerusalem to worship and deliver the gift to the Lord of hosts at mount Zion. He returns after worshipping, perplexed as he studies Isaiah because things were not as expected. And he doesn't understand what he desires to understand (Is. 53). So God sends Philip on a special mission to bless this man who had journeyed to Jerusalem to bless the nation with his gift.
Of course, this is a lot of speculation, because the scripture only tells us what it tells us. But this idea fits with prophecy, it fits with Gen. 12:1-3, it helps address the question of "Why did God send Philip on this special mission?". And it shows that per prophecy, even though the promise of the Seed of David was to the children of Israel, including the dispersion, Gentiles who blessed the nation would still be honored by God.
What do you think? Does this have any merit at all?
Thanks,
Randy
Could be that simple, Tico. But what about that would make it significant enough for God to send Philip on a special mission to him, and then whisk him away suddenly, back up near where he started? That's what strikes me as odd. Other Gentiles entered into covenant with God through Israel. And this would be an odd time to showcase an event like that.
I'm probably overthinking it. But the timing of it, combined with Is. 18 is really intriguing to me.
Thanks, bud.
Randy
It sure is considering they were greedy dogs,
intoxicated and lazy, the best were like the wost
their iniquities have separated them from God
Yes, I am all too aware of it, as when I was young and open as a flower in search of the light, this idea was sent to me, the Ethiopian lived as servants in Egypt, and even today the best Egyptologists explain around it. And so were the Israelites, in the tents of Egypt and God freed them and made them a people who became a nation.
Now in the flower of my youth, my ears were poisoned by the idea that the Ethiopian was the black man and they were made by God to be a race of slaves. Even though they were freed, Jim Crow was correct as they were destined to be servants.
Now I became mature and searched my way to the realization that this is about the people of Israel defining themselves. God is speaking about Israel, not about the things I learned. Yet the Biblical Ham remains like a truth that I refuse or cannot understand.
Zeke
Well-known member
Pam Baldwin
New member
:thumb: Nice job of how to approach Scripture.
The part you underlined, Zeke, is learned from Philippians and Colossians, both post-Acts writings.
Cm. Thats an interesting perspective on the ethiopian eunuch. Was the eunuch trying to assuage the prophecied wrath of God by going to jerusalem to bless israel. Another thought- When the temple veil was rent in 2, didnt that allow prayer without the use of the temple? Why did the disciples go up daily to the temple then?
Zeke
Well-known member
So your saying the hope of being seated far above the heavenlies was revealed post Acts, and not within the Acts period?
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Eph 2
5: Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved; )
6: And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
Paul (saved during Acts) is with us (saved post Acts), brother Zeke!
:rapture:
Zeke
Well-known member
Ill bug out, and refrain. :shut: on this thread. :wave:
Last edited:
Hi, voltaire.
If the idea I've been toying with (regarding the Ethiopian) is close to being right, then him going to Jerusalem doesn't have anything to do with trying to assuage God's wrath. It would just be a timing thing, where he was sent based on a discerning of the times, when he (or the one who sent him) was expecting the Lord to come soon and was therefore bringing the everlasting King a gift (per Is. 18).
As an aside: I think I have to revise my earlier statement and say that the guy was a Hebrew, and not a Gentile. In spite of Acts 11:19, I saw Philip's journey as being a special commission (which it was) and therefore being an exception to the "no one but Jews" thing in Acts 11:19. But I don't think I can justify that. So since Philip was one who had fled for refuge from the persecution, and those who fled preached to no one but Jews, then I gotta view that Ethiopian as someone like Joseph in Egypt and let the text demand that he be a Jew.
Regarding your question about the veil and the temple...
The saints certainly worshipped/prayed in homes after that, so that suggests that you're right. And they went daily to the temple to teach, per Acts 5:42.
Last edited:
No. It was clearly revealed in a post-Acts writing. But being baptized into Christ (which makes it a reality that "Christ is our life" and that "you were raised with Christ" who is "sitting at the right hand of God" ) is not a post-Acts revelation. That's found in I Corinthians and Romans et al.
I understand. Might be best to keep it in the other thread you started. I'll go check it out (saw it but haven't followed it too well).
Thanks, bud.
Randy
So the way I see it, through Acts 8, things still seem to be on track according to God's prophetic program for Israel. The Spirit is poured out according prophecy, confirmed by Peter, the disciples are living communally to help one another and be free from burden (of possessions) as they approach the end, persecutions are building.
Then we get to Acts 9. Saul is on his way to Damascus to continue his efforts against the Way. And he is stopped in his tracks by Jesus Himself and converted to a man who follows Jesus.
Saul appears to be be converted differently than others before him. I know this is a narrative that doesn't spell out every detail, but we have to rely on what's given us. When we do that, I see a man who is converted by believing in the risen Jesus. Those before him are converted after hearing the gospel of the kingdom, believing in the risen Messiah, and being baptized.
Does anyone disagree? Where you you see Saul's conversion: Acts 9:6? Acts 9:18? Or where?
A really important question I think one has to ask when reading Acts 9 is this: If the chosen Twelve were called to eventually go "to the end of the earth" (Acts 1:8), then why would God call out Paul here to bear His name "before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel"? It seems that 12 men (and perhaps other disciples under them) would be FAR more effective in reaching more people in the world than just 1 man (and his travelling companions). The very fact that God called out and commissioned Saul here seems to point to something new and unexpected going on.
As an aside: anyone thought of why Acts 9:7 is the opposite of Acts 22:9?
Thanks,
Randy
Then we get to Acts 9. Saul is on his way to Damascus to continue his efforts against the Way. And he is stopped in his tracks by Jesus Himself and converted to a man who follows Jesus.
Saul appears to be be converted differently than others before him. I know this is a narrative that doesn't spell out every detail, but we have to rely on what's given us. When we do that, I see a man who is converted by believing in the risen Jesus. Those before him are converted after hearing the gospel of the kingdom, believing in the risen Messiah, and being baptized.
Does anyone disagree? Where you you see Saul's conversion: Acts 9:6? Acts 9:18? Or where?
A really important question I think one has to ask when reading Acts 9 is this: If the chosen Twelve were called to eventually go "to the end of the earth" (Acts 1:8), then why would God call out Paul here to bear His name "before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel"? It seems that 12 men (and perhaps other disciples under them) would be FAR more effective in reaching more people in the world than just 1 man (and his travelling companions). The very fact that God called out and commissioned Saul here seems to point to something new and unexpected going on.
As an aside: anyone thought of why Acts 9:7 is the opposite of Acts 22:9?
Thanks,
Randy
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Perhaps the men with Saul heard Saul's voice, but did not hear the voice of the Lord...
So you're suggesting that the light engulfed him and they couldn't see him (or anyone), and they heard Saul talking but not the Lord? Hadn't thought of that. Maybe so. Better than anything I've got, for sure.