Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 8:37
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
37. And Philip said. If thou believest with all thine hearty thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God ] The whole of this verse is omitted in the oldest MSS. It probably found its way into the text of those MSS. where it does exist from the margin. Such a margin would be formulated by those who, when the Church had become more extended, and formal professions of faith were the rule before baptism, felt that there was a want of completeness in the narrative unless some such confession were supposed to have been made. Thus the margin became a kind of exposition, and in the end found acceptance in the text.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
And Philip said … – This was stated by Philip as the proper qualification for making a profession of religion. The terms are:
- 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 Lords 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.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 37. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.] He believed that Jesus, whom Philip preached to him, was THE CHRIST or Messiah, and consequently the Son of God.
This whole verse is omitted by ABCG, several others of the first authority, Erpen’s edit. of the Arabic, the Syriac, the Coptic, Sahidic, AEthiopic, and some of the Slavonic: almost all the critics declare against it as spurious. Griesbach has left it out of the text; and Professor White in his Crisews says, “Hic versus certissime delendus,” this verse, most assuredly, should be blotted out. It is found in E, several others of minor importance, and in the Vulgate and Arabic. In those MSS. where it is extant it exists in a variety of forms, though the sense is the same.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
With all thine heart: a verbal profession is not a sufficient believing, Rom 10:10 though we can discern no other, yet God can, and will not he mocked: Philip, in Gods name, requires a faith with all the heart, and not such as Simon Magus had, who is said to believe, and be baptized, Act 8:13.
I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God; this was the only thing necessary, either then or now, if rightly understood. The eunuch was instructed concerning God out of the law, and was one of them that waited for his salvation; which here he acknowledgeth to be only found in Christ, whom he owns to be the Messiah, who made his soul an offering for sin, Isa 53:10, and did bear our griefs, and carried our sorrows, Isa 53:4, and was wounded for our transgressions, Isa 53:5; for all these things Philip had told him were meant of our Saviour, which he did believe were so to be understood.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
34-38. And the eunuch answered, Ipray thee, c.The respect with which he here addresses Philipwas prompted by his reverence for one whom he perceived to be hissuperior in divine things his own worldly position sinking beforethis.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And Philip said, if thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest,…. Intimating, that if he did not believe, he had no right to that ordinance; though he was a proselyte to the Jewish religion, a serious and devout man, and was employed in a religious way, when Philip came up to him, and was very desirous of being instructed in the knowledge of divine things; and yet notwithstanding all this, he had no right to the ordinance of baptism, unless he had faith in Christ, and made a profession of it; nor would Philip administer it to him without it; from whence it appears, that faith in Christ, and a profession of it, are necessary prerequisites to baptism: and this faith should not be a mere historical and temporary faith, nor a feigned one, but a believing in Christ with the heart unto righteousness; or such a faith by which a soul relinquishes its own righteousness, and looks and goes unto Christ for righteousness, life, and salvation, and rests and relies upon him for them; and it should be a believing in him with the whole heart, which does not design a strong faith, or a full assurance of faith, but an hearty, sincere, and unfeigned one, though it may be but weak, and very imperfect. And that this is necessary to baptism is manifest, because without this it is impossible to please God; nor can submission and obedience to it be acceptable to him: nor indeed can the ordinance be grateful and pleasing to unbelievers; for though it is a command that is not grievous, and a yoke that is easy, yet it is only so to them that believe; nor can any other see to the end of this ordinance, or behold the burial, and resurrection of Christ represented by it, or be baptized into his death, and partake of the benefits of it; and besides, whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God: which though a short, is a very comprehensive summary of the articles of faith respecting the person, offices, and grace of Christ; as that he is a divine person, truly and properly God, the only begotten of the Father, of the same nature with him, and equal to him; that he existed from all eternity, as a divine person with him, and distinct from him; and that he is the Christ, the anointed of God, to be prophet, priest, and King; and is Jesus, the only Saviour of lost sinners, in whom he trusted and depended alone for righteousness, life, and salvation. This whole verse is wanting in the Alexandrian copy, and in five of Beza’s copies, and in the Syriac and Ethiopic versions; but stands in the Vulgate Latin and Arabic versions, and in the Complutensian edition; and, as Beza observes, ought by no means to be expunged, since it contains so clear a confession of faith required of persons to be baptized, which was used in the truly apostolic times.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The best texts omit this verse.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “And Philip said,” (omitted from better (older) manuscripts) “Philip responded to the eunuch’s earnest inquiry,” as one who knew what a proper candidate for baptism was.
2) “If thou believest with all thine heart,” (omitted op cit) “If you trust in your heart,” in your whole heart, your earnest and honest affections of soul. Baptism was thus conditioned upon one’s first being a child of God, by faith in Jesus Christ, saved, justified, having a pure heart, the Holy Spirit, and peace with God, Gal 3:26; Eph 2:8-10; Rom 5:11; Rom 6:4-5; Act 15:9; Rom 8:9.
3) “Thou mayest,” (omitted op cit) “You may or are permitted to be baptized,” though the Revised Version omitted this passage, it is not found in the better manuscripts, many editors leave it out; yet the idea is scriptural as illustrated, Act 10:47; Rom 14:1.
4) “And he answered and said,” (omitted op cit) “And he (the eunuch) responded to Philip saying,”
5) “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God,” (omitted op cit) “I earnestly trust that Jesus Christ does exist as the Son of God,” for me. This is how one believes unto righteousness and is saved, Joh 3:18; Joh 4:3; Joh 4:5; Rom 10:8-13; 1Jn 5:1. He was therefore a “made disciple,” the kind Jesus first “made,” second “baptized,” Joh 4:11; and taught His church and apostles to follow His pattern, Mat 28:19-20.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(37) And Philip said. . . .The verse is a striking illustration of the tendency which showed itself at a very early period to improve the text of Scripture with a view to greater edification. It existed in the time of Irenus, who quotes it (3:12), but is wanting in all the best MSS., including the Sinaitic, and many versions. The motive for the interpolation lies on the surface. The abruptness of the unanswered question, and the absence of the confession of faith which was required in the Churchs practice on the baptism of every convert, seemed likely to be stumbling-blocks, and the narrative was completed according to the received type of the prevailing order for baptism. Even with the insertion, the shortness of the confession points to a very early stage of liturgical development, as also does the reference to it in Irenus.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
‘And he commanded the chariot to stand still. And they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptised him.’
Knowing that God had specifically sent him here, and seeing and hearing the man’s response, Philip could see no objection. So the conveyance was brought to a halt, and climbing down they went into the water and Philip baptised the eunuch. Here it is made quite clear that baptism has to be performed by a baptiser. This is never so in Jewish ritual cleansings, demonstrating that this is not a ritual cleansing but a portrayal of the pouring out like rain of the Holy Spirit in rivers bringing life and fruitfulness (see note on Act 22:16).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Act 8:37. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. This passage fully proves that Philip had opened to the eunuch the doctrine of Christ’s Divinity; and indeed if he had not done it, he must have given him a very imperfect account of the gospel. See ch. Act 13:33.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
DISCOURSE: 1761
THE ETHIOPIAN EUNUCHS CONFESSION
Act 8:37. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
CIRCUMSTANCES, apparently casual, are often productive of the most important results. The Ethiopian Eunuch, a proselyte, had been up to Jerusalem to worship; and, on his return homewards, was reading a portion of the 53rd chapter of Isaiah. Philip, who was at that time at Samaria, was ordered by an angel to go southward, towards Gaza. In this journey he saw the Eunuch, sitting in his chariot, and reading: and, being directed by the Holy Spirit to go and join himself to the chariot, he did so; and, at the Eunuchs request, went up and sat with him in his chariot, and explained to him the portion of Scripture which he was reading. The Holy Spirit then accompanied the word with power to the Eunuchs soul: and Philip, on the Eunuchs expressing a wish to enter into the Christian Church by baptism, admitted him to that ordinance, having first heard from him this open confession, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God [Note: ver. 2628.].
Now, at first sight, there appears little that is interesting in this acknowledgment. But we shall find it highly instructive, if we consider it, as we ought,
I.
As a summary of Christian doctrines
Such it has been regarded on all occasions. Nathanael addressed our Lord in terms precisely similar: Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel [Note: Joh 1:49.]. And Peter also, in his own name and that of all the Apostles, said, We believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the Living God [Note: Joh 6:69.]. In these expressions all of them intended to convey a general view of their creed; and not of their speculative opinions merely, but of the most influential convictions of their souls. The avowal in my text was given in answer to that question, Dost thou believe with all thine heart? It must be understood, therefore, as comprehending,
1.
A simple affiance in Christ
[This, of necessity, is comprehended in it: for to what end would it be, to acknowledge Christ as the Messiah, if we do not rely upon him in that capacity? The devils could say of him, We know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God; but they had no hope in him, nor could they derive any benefit from him. True faith brings us to Christ for salvation; causes us to renounce every other hope; and engages us to rely on him as our All in all ]
2.
An unreserved devotion to him
[If we believe in Christ as having redeemed us by his blood, we must also of necessity surrender up ourselves to him as his peculiar people. Has he offered himself a sacrifice for us; we must offer up ourselves as living sacrifices to him [Note: Rom 12:1.]. To call him Lord, Lord, without doing his holy will, would only delude us to our ruin. If we believe that he has bought us with a price, we must glorify him with our body and our spirit, which are his [Note: 1Co 6:20.].]
But this confession must also be considered by us,
II.
As a qualification for Christian privileges
In this precise view it was uttered by the Eunuch. He applied for Christian baptism: and this question was put to him as a test, Dost thou believe with all thine heart? If so, thou mayest. Now this is, to all, a necessary qualification,
1.
For baptism
[Children cannot, in their own persons return an answer to this question; and therefore the question is put to their sponsors; who have no right to appear as sponsors, unless they can answer it from their hearts, as the Eunuch did. And they bind themselves to contributa, as much as in them lies, to the instilling of these principles into the minds of the children whom they thus present to the Lord. And the children themselves, when they come to an age capable of comprehending the engagements thus made for them, are bound to take them upon themselves; and, when confirmed by the bishop, they do actually take them upon themselves; professing, each for himself, his belief in Christ; and devoting himself entirely to the service of his Lord. And in this view, the ordinance of confirmation, as administered in the Established Church, is of the utmost importance to be well improved by ministers, for the benefit of their flocks; and by young people, for the everlasting benefit of their own souls.]
2.
For the Lords Supper
[To come to the Lords table, as many do, at the three great festivals of the Church, and to neglect it all the year besides, is to shew at once, that they enter not into the true spirit of that ordinance. And to attend it as a test for the holding of a public office, is an horrible abuse of it: which, we thank God, is now abolished. But, for judging of ourselves, whether we be in a state fit to attend upon that divine ordinance, we cannot conceive a better test than this, which Philip here administered. In corning to the table of the Lord, we profess to feed upon the body of Christ which was broken for us and the blood of Christ which was shed for the remission of our sins; and to dedicate ourselves to him afresh, as his devoted servants. If we do not this in reality, we only deceive our own souls. Here, however, it may be useful to mark what the proper medium is, in the application of this test to persons as a qualification for attending upon the table of the Lord. The Church of England, in her practice at least, is too lax; whilst those who dissent from her are too rigid. That minute inquiry, into what is called the experience of individuals, and persons sitting in judgment upon it, goes far beyond what is authorized by Scripture. The Apostle says, Let a man examine himself, (not stand up to be examined by others and so let him come [Note: 1Co 11:28.]. The true medium is that which Philip observed: and if the Eunuch had answered falsely, as Simon Magus unhappily did [Note: ver. 20, 21.], the blame must have rested on himself alone. But I cannot too earnestly exhort every one of you to put the question to himself with deep sincerity; and never to approach the table of the Lord but under a sense of your entire dependence upon Christ, both for mercy to pardon, and for grace to help you in the time of need.]
In fact, this view of Christ is never duly appreciated, unless it be regarded,
III.
As a title to all Christian blessings
[Nothing but faith in Christ is necessary for salvation. (Of course, I speak not of it as a speculative assent, but as an operative and influential principle, such as we have represented it under our first head.) So it was declared to be by St. Paul, and by our Lord Jesus Christ himself [Note: Gal 5:6. Joh 3:14-16; Joh 3:18; Joh 3:36.]. Such it was declared to be in the commission given by him to his Apostles [Note: Mar 16:16.]. Such it was proclaimed to be in the answer given to the inquiring Jailer, Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shall be saved [Note: Act 16:31.]. By this are we made children of the Living God [Note: Joh 1:12. Gal 3:26.]. By this we obtain peace to our own souls [Note: Rom 5:1.]. By this are we sanctified from the power of sin [Note: Act 15:9.]. And by this are we made partakers of the kingdom of heaven [Note: Rev 1:5.]. Without this operative faith, nothing under heaven will prevail for any mans salvation. Not Paul himself, in his unconverted state, could have been saved without it [Note: 1Co 3:11.]. On the other hand, no man, whatever he may have been or done, can perish, not even Manasseh himself, if he come to God with a simple faith in the Lord Jesus: for we are assured, that the blood of Jesus Christ will cleanse from all sin [Note: 1Jn 1:7.], and that all who believe in him shall be justified from all things [Note: Act 13:39.].]
Now, then, permit me to inquire, brethren,
1.
What is the state of your souls in relation to this all-important matter?
[Can you, in the very way that the Eunuch did, declare, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God? I ask not, Whether you approve of that as an article of your creed? but whether it forms the one ground of all your hopes, the one source of all your happiness? Dear brethren, be not satisfied with repeating it in your creed; but get it fixed as a rooted and influential principle in your hearts You must acquire it, even as the Eunuch did, by a diligent study of the Holy Scriptures, and by the teaching of the Spirit of God ]
2.
What effect does it produce on your hearts and lives?
[You see what effects this faith produced on the Eunuch, how he desired baptism, and devoted himself to the Lord, without ever once considering what effect this conduct might have on his earthly prospects. Like Moses, he esteemed the reproach of Christ greater riches than all the treasures of Ethiopia, and greater honour than all that Candace could confer upon him. And to him it became a source of the sublimest joy, such as he had never experienced in all his life before: He went on his way rejoicing [Note: ver. 39.]. Let me then ask, whether your faith operate in this way on you? It should so operate: it will so operate, if it be genuine. O that all of you might go to your respective homes this day, in the very spirit in which the Eunuch prosecuted his journey! God brought Philip to him for this end. And who can tell, hut that God has brought us also together for the same blessed end at this time? Dear brethren, rest not till your faith fill you with the same heavenly joy; nor ever cease to wrestle with God in prayer, till he make you like monuments of his grace on earth, and like heirs of his glory in a better word.]
Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Ver. 37. Is the Son of God ] Both by eternal generation, Pro 8:22-30 , and by hypostatical union, Mat 3:17 .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Most texts omit this verse. The Revised Version puts it in the margin.
with = out of. Greek. ek.
Son. Greek. huios. App-108. See also App-98.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Act 8:37. , if thou believest with all thine heart) Supply from the previous interrogation, then nothing hinders thy being baptized. Some have supplied , thou shalt be saved, or , thou mayest. Lest the reader should wonder at the fewness of the witnesses for the shorter reading, let him remember the observations which I have made in my Apparatus concerning the multitude of MSS. which are without this verse. The same is the case with the reply given by the Eunuch, to which again many have added the name , which is so frequent everywhere. It is not found in the MS. cod. Berolinensis in the Latin, and others.[57]-, the whole of) which was more than Simon had done: Act 8:13 [He believed, but not with his whole heart], Philip, though deceived by the magician Simon, does not however hesitate to baptize the believing Eunuch. [He acts cautiously: but not more distrustfully than was proper.-V. g.]
[57] No part of this 37th verse is found either in critical texts or in the first printed edition, viz. the Conrplutensian. Erasmus, though admitting that he found it in no Greek MS., but only in the margin of one MS., has coolly inserted it; and so it has been perpetuated, on the ground of a gratuitous assumption, arbitror omissum librariorum incuri. Ee, however, with some variations, Cyprian 318, Iren. 196, and Vulg. Amiatinus (alone: the other MSS. of Vulg. omit it), support it. But the weightiest authorities, ABC, Amiat. MS. of Vulg, corrected, Memph. Theb. and Syr. omit the verse.-E. and T.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
And
The best authorities omit Act 8:37.
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
If: Act 8:12, Act 8:13, Act 8:21, Act 2:38, Act 2:39, Mat 28:19, Mar 16:16, Rom 10:10
he answered: 1Pe 3:21
I believe: Act 9:20, Mat 16:16, Joh 6:68, Joh 6:69, Joh 9:35-38, Joh 11:27, Joh 20:31, 1Co 12:3, 1Jo 4:15, 1Jo 5:1, 1Jo 5:5, 1Jo 5:10-13
Reciprocal: 1Ki 8:48 – And so return Psa 2:7 – Thou Psa 86:12 – with all Jer 29:13 – with Eze 44:5 – the entering Mat 14:33 – Of Mar 5:7 – Son Mar 8:29 – Thou Mar 9:7 – This Luk 1:35 – the Son of God Luk 9:20 – The Joh 3:15 – whosoever Act 16:31 – Believe Rom 1:3 – his Son Rom 10:9 – and shalt 2Co 1:19 – the Son Gal 2:20 – the Son Rev 2:18 – the Son
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
7
Act 8:37. There was just one item in his duty still undone that had to precede baptism, which was the good confession. (See Rom 10:9-10.) Philip told the eunuch that if he believed with all his heart thou mayest. The last two words are from EXESTI, which Thayer defines, “it is lawful.” Robinson defines it, “It is lawful, it is right, it is permitted, one may.” Philip meant it would be scriptural for him to baptize the eunuch if he was a believer in Jesus. The contrary would necessarily be true, that it would be unscriptural to baptize a person who is not a believer. That would make it unscriptural to baptize infants since they cannot believe. The confession of the eunuch was his own as far as the wording was concerned, for no one told him just how it was to be made. In 1Ti 6:13 Paul says that Jesus made a good confession before Pilate, yet his words were merely “thou sayest” in answer, to the governor’s question (Mat 27:11.) This shows that no formal kind of confession should be considered necessary. The form the eunuch used is all right, and so is any other that means that one believes Jesus to be the Son of God.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Act 8:37. This verse is one of the very few important doctrinal passages of the New Testament which the studies of late years on the subject of textual criticism have affected. The devout student of the word of God fearlessly accepts the con-elusions which result from a careful examination of the varied evidence upon which the genuineness of each passage of the New Testament rests. The result of such study has been, that scholars have agreed to reject as undoubtedly spurious, here and there, a famous doctrinal text, such as I St. Joh 5:7, to mark as at least doubtful such a passage as Act 8:37. The words here are found in Irenus, Act 3:12 (second century); they are cited by this father without the least misgiving. The celebrated Codex E (Landianus) of the Acts (sixth century) contains them, but they appear in no other of the Uncial MSS. of the Acts; they are found in the Philoxenian Syriac certainly, and in the Vulgate, etc. The Latin fathers, Cyprian, Jerome, and Augustine, were all acquainted with it. It was known and certainly well received in the Western or Latin Church, from the second century downwards, and afterwards made some way among the later Greek Codices and writers (see Scrivener, New Testament Criticism, pp. 387-443, 444). Meyer suggests that the words may have been taken, in the first instance, from some very early Baptismal Liturgy, and thence copied by some scribe into a manuscript of the Acts. Of recent commentators, Wordsworth declines to expunge them, and Bornemann includes them in brackets; but the majority exclude them altogether from the text.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
37. By almost universal consent of recent critics, the whole of this verse is excluded from the original text, and should be from all versions. For the reasons on which this decision is based, we refer the reader to “Bloomfield’s Commentary” on the passage, “Tregelles’ History of the Printed Text,” and other critical works.
This verse has been used chiefly for the purpose of determining the confession which was made originally by candidates for immersion. The fact that this is an interpolation must modify the argument on this subject, but does not invalidate it. The fact that such a confession as is here put in the mouth of the eunuch was uniformly required by the apostles, is evident from other passages of Scripture. It is quite certain that it was confessed by Timothy. Paul says to him: “Fight the good fight of faith; lay hold on eternal life, into which you were called, and did confess the good confession before many witnesses.” This confession was made at the beginning of his religious career; for it is connected with his call to eternal life. It is the same confession which is attributed to the eunuch; for Paul immediately adds: “I charge thee before God, who gives life to all things, and Jesus Christ, who bore testimony under Pontius Pilate, to the good confession,” etc. Now, what is here called “the good confession” is certainly the confession that he was the Christ, made before the Sanhedrim, under Pontius Pilate. But this is identified, by the terms employed, with the confession which Timothy had made, which is also “the good confession.” Timothy, then, made the confession that Jesus is the Christ, the same attributed to the eunuch. Moreover, this confession was so conspicuous, at the time of Paul’s writing, that it was known as the confession, and so highly esteemed as to be styled the good confession.
That Timothy was not alone in making this confession is evident from the following statement of Paul: “The word is nigh thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart; that is, the word of faith which we preach, That if thou wilt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thy heart that God has raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” From this it appears that one item in “the word of faith” which the apostles preached, was the confession of the Lord Jesus with the mouth. Paul assumes that this word was in the mouths and hearts of the brethren in Rome, whom he had never seen, and with whose conversion he had nothing, personally, to do. This assumption can be justified only on the ground that it belonged to “the word of faith” everywhere preached. He argued, from the universal practice of the apostles, to a particular conclusion in reference to their converts in Rome. We have, therefore, both his premises and his conclusion, to sustain us in deciding that this confession was universal in the primitive Church, as a part of the apostolic ritual.
We here have use for the interpolated verse now under consideration. The fact that it is interpolated does not prove that the eunuch did not make the confession. On the contrary, when rightly considered, it establishes the presumption that the passage, as it now reads, is a faithful account of the event. The interpolation is easily accounted for. The text read: “The eunuch said, See, here is water; what hinders me to be immersed? And he commanded the chariot to stand still, and they went down both into the water.” Now, the object of the interpolator was to fill up what appeared to be a historic blank, so that Philip should not appear to have led the man into the water too abruptly. In doing so, he, of course, inserted what he supposed to be the apostolic custom; and the fact that he inserted this confession shows that he believed that the apostles required candidates for immersion to make the confession. Furthermore, the interpolator would naturally be guided by the prevailing custom of his own day, so that his amendment might be received by his cotemporaries. In whatever age, therefore, the interpolation was made, it indicates both the custom of that age and the opinion then prevalent as to the apostolic custom. Whether these considerations have any force or not, depends upon the proximity of the age in question to the apostolic period. But this interpolation was known to Irenus, a.d. 170, and this proves that the confession which the Scriptures show to have been universal in the days of the apostles was perpetuated into the latter part of the second century.
Both the custom of confessing Christ, and the formula employed, originated in the most natural way, and without any positive precept. Jesus appeared in Galilee and Judea, proclaiming himself the Christ and the Son of God. As men became convinced of his claims, they would say, “I believe that he is the Christ.” Others would say, “I believe that he is a prophet, but I deny that he is the Christ.” Thus the confession or denial of this proposition was the first mark of distinction between believers and unbelievers. The Pharisees, therefore, “agreed that if any man did confess that he was the Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.” The confession was, then, all that was necessary to identify one as a disciple of Jesus. Hence, with special reference to this state of things, Jesus said, “He that confesses me before men, him will I confess before my Father in heaven; but he that denies me before men, him will I deny before my Father in heaven.” After the commission was given, enjoining the immersion of all believers, the confession was still perpetuated, and immersion naturally took position immediately after it.
A confession thus necessarily originating from the grand issue that Jesus presented to the world, and involving the earliest distinction between his friends and his foes, could not fail to have an important position in the formation of those friends into a great organization. The Church of Christ, like every other useful organization, is created and sustained by the obligations of some truth. This truth may be properly styled the foundation of the organization, because it is that from which it springs, and without which it could not exist. The truth declared in the confession, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, is beyond controversy, the foundation of the Church of Christ, and is so declared by Jesus himself. Without it no Church of Christ could possibly exist. It had to exist as a truth, and be demonstrated to men as such, before the Church would begin to be. The truth itself, however, and the confession of it, are two things entirely distinct. The former is the foundation; the latter, a means of building on it. There is no way to build an organization of men and women on a truth, except by a mutual confession of it, and an agreement to live together according to its obligations. When individuals, believing that Jesus is the Christ, mutually confess it, and agree to unite in the observance of its obligations, the immediate and necessary result is a Church. In this way the confession became an organic element in the ecclesiastical constitution.
Inasmuch as some have conceived that Jesus in person is the foundation of the Church, it may be well to observe here that there is no way in which an organization can be built on a person, except by believing something in reference to him. It is not the fact that there is such a person as Jesus, but that that person is the Christ which gave existence to the Church.
Inasmuch as members of the Church are built upon the true foundation, in part, by a mutual confession of its truth, the confession, formally made, is both an acknowledgment of the obligations which the truth imposes, and a pledge to all the duties of a member in the Church. It is true, that the confession, like immersion, and eating bread and wine, may occur amid the careless scenes of a wicked life, without any religious import. But this is only to say that the specific acts which God calls upon us to perform in religious ordinances may be performed by wicked men without religious intent. And this, again, is only to say, that, in adapting his institutions to us, instead of inventing new and unheard-of performances, he has lifted up certain actions and words already familiar, into association with religious truth and obligation. This arrangement is a proof of his wisdom; for by it the mind is averted from the mere physical act, which might otherwise have usurped too much consideration, and is compelled to associate the value of the deed with the thoughts which surround it. Such is pre-eminently the case with the confession, which, though a very simple declaration of faith, is a formal assumption of all the obligations of a Christian life.
The kingdom of Christ is not limited to earth, but was designed to bind together, in one harmonious whole, God, angels, and men. God himself was the first to present himself for this great union. Over the bank of the Jordan he made the same confession which is required of us, and thereby not only bore testimony to the fact that Jesus was his Son, but, also, voluntarily placed himself before the universe in the attitude which the incipient mediatorship required him to occupy. By this formal confession he pledged himself to accept the mediation of Christ, just as we, by the same confession, pledge ourselves to accept the blessings which that mediation procures for us. If God had never confessed Jesus, in this or some equivalent manner, we would have no direct assurance from him that he was in Christ reconciling the world to himself.
Like men on earth, the angels in heaven passed into the privileges of the kingdom of God, by making this same confession. When Jesus ascended up on high, the Father said to him, “Sit on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.” Then he “sat down at the right hand of the throne of God,” and God said, “Let all the angels of God worship him.” Then were fulfilled the words of Paul, “God hath highly exalted him, and given him a name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things on earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” The angels all confessed the good confession, receiving Jesus as their Lord, and rendering thus their first act of worship to the Son of Mary. The one identical confession, therefore, has brought together, in one harmonious whole, God, angels, and men; the latter being pledged by it to eternal worship, and the former pledged forever to accept their grateful homage through Christ.
That this confession was the only one required of candidates for immersion by the apostles, is universally admitted by those who are competent to judge. It is likewise admitted that they regarded it as a sufficient confession. This fact alone should teach men to be satisfied with it now. He, indeed, who is guided by the Bible alone, can not require of men any other confession than such as he finds authorized by Bible precedents. Neither is it possible that he who implicitly follows the apostolic precedent can be misled, unless the apostles, the Holy Spirit, the New Testament, can mislead them. Fidelity to the word of God, therefore, binds us to this confession alone, and, in clinging to it, we have every assurance which inspiration can give that we are right.
Departure from apostolic precedent is never justifiable, except when the precedent itself was the result of circumstances peculiar to the apostolic age. The primitive practice of washing the feet of brethren who came into the house from the highway, was an accidental, and not a necessary result of the law of hospitality. Growing out of the peculiar habit of wearing sandals, it ceased to be a matter of duty as soon as the circumstances which gave rise to it disappeared. If a similar change of circumstances has taken place in reference to the confession, rendering it insufficient for our times, then we are no longer bound by the precedent. That such is the case is affirmed by many of our cotemporaries, and we must extend these remarks sufficiently to consider the reasons offered in support of this opinion.
It is often argued that, in the days of the apostles, the moment men became convinced that Jesus was the Christ they were ready to submit to his service; but now, every Church is surrounded with men and women who are convinced of this fact, but still persist in wickedness; hence some more effectual test should now be applied. This argument is based upon a false assumption in reference to results of primitive preaching; for we read of many rulers of synagogues who believed in Jesus, but would not confess him for hear of the Pharisees; of Joseph of Arimathea, who, though a disciples kept it secret; of Felix, who trembled under the preaching of Paul, but said, Go thy way for the present; and of Agrippa, who was almost, though not altogether, persuaded to be a Christian. If these men in high stations were deterred by fear, or by worldly lusts, from making the confession, how much more the common people, who had much more to fear! Witness the parents of the blind man who had been healed by Jesus, who gave evasive answers in the synagogue for this very reason. There is no evidence that men were more prompt to yield to their convictions then than they are now.
Sometimes it is argued, quite inconsistently with the above, that the danger of being known as a Christian in those days rendered the simple confession a sufficient test of a man’s devotion; but now, when Christianity is popular, it is entirely insufficient. It must be granted, that sometimes it was dangerous to property and life to become a Christian, yet it was true then, as it is now, that many insincere persons found their way into the Churches. Jude complains that “ungodly men, turning the favor of God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ,” had “crept in unawares.” Paul echoes the same sentiment in reference to “false brethren, unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage.” There are those “who went out from us because they were not of us,” and there was Demas, who forsook Paul in the hour of danger, “having loved this present world.” And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell of Simon the sorcerer, of Alexander the coppersmith, of Phygellus and Hermogenes, of Hymeneus and Alexander whom Paul delivered over to Satan that they might learn not to blaspheme, and of many others who proved insincere in their confession, or false to its obligations. Surely, if a test of sincerity which could let into the fold such wolves as these was sufficient for the inspired apostles, we may be content with the same, unless we affect a wisdom and a zeal superior to theirs.
But the most popular argument against the present sufficiency of the good confession is this: that the immense multiplicity of doctrinal errors now prevalent requires a severer test of soundness in the faith than was used by the apostles before these errors had an existence. Unfortunately, however, its historic assumption is as baseless as that of the two we have just considered. For not only were the Churches surrounded with most pernicious errors in doctrine, but were sickened by the poison of those errors within their own bosoms. Pharisees in Jerusalem crept in to spy out the liberty of the new covenant, and bring the brethren back into bondage to the law; and there were Sadducees in the Church at Corinth who denied the resurrection. There were philosophers, such as “Hymeneus and Philetus, who concerning the faith have erred, saying that the resurrection is already past, and overthrow the faith of some,” and there were transcendentalists, who denied that “Jesus Christ had come in the flesh,” having speculated his bodily existence into the essence of moonshine, or something equally unreal. James had to warn some against being deceived into worship of the heavenly bodies, by assuring them that “every good gift comes down from the Father of lights,” and not from the lights themselves; while Paul fights many a hard battle against brethren who were disposed to openly countenance fornication, incest, and the sacrificial banquets of heathen worship. Under the pressure of all this influx of falsehood and iniquity, why did not these inspired men see their mistake, and, discarding the simple confession, draw up a masterly catechism, which would shut out every error, and guard the purity of the Church? How sad the reflection, that men so ingenious in other respects, were so stupid in this! And how fortunate for us, that the wiser heads of Rome, Geneva, Augsburg, and Westminster have supplied this deficiency in the work of the apostles!
We have thus far argued upon the broadest assumption in reference to the inefficiency of the good confession in guarding the purity of the Church. We might retort upon the advocates of creeds and catechisms, by showing that these devices can not be, and have not been, any more efficient; but we prefer to show the real exclusiveness of the good confession. It is certainly exclusive enough to keep out the pagan, the Jew, the Mohammedan, the atheist, and the infidel; for none of these can honestly make the confession. It will exclude the Unitarian and the Universalist; for while they are willing to confess that Jesus is the Christ, in the next breath they deny him, by contradicting some of his most emphatic declarations. It will also exclude the wicked and impenitent; for it is offered only to penitent believers. If this is not considered sufficient, we may advance still further, and say that it will exclude the Roman Catholic, who persists in having other intercessors in heaven, besides “the high priest of our confession.” It will exclude the devotee of the mourning bench, who waits for an operation of the Spirit before he comes to Christ. It will exclude the pedobaptist, who is satisfied with his sprinkling; for it requires an immediate immersion. None of these characters can scripturally make the good confession without some specific change in views or in character. Lest the tune of the objector should now be changed, and he should cry, “Your confession is too exclusive,” we add, that it receives all whom the apostles would receive, and excludes all whom they would exclude.
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
8:37 {13} And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, {n} I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
(13) Profession of faith is required of those being baptized, and therefore it is evident that we are not first ingrafted into Christ when we are baptized, but are already ingrafted, and then are baptized. (Ed.)
(n) The sum of the confession which is necessary for baptism.