In Acts 8, Philip wanders off down a wilderness road away from Jerusalem. There he meets an Ethiopian eunuch, an important public official under Queen Candace. Here is obviously a man of no small authority and intelligence. What is more, he is devout, having come up to Jerusalem to worship such as he could given his physical condition. Here is a man with the ability and the hunger to know God. Seated in his chariot, we find him catching up on his reading of the prophet Isaiah.
What is not in question is the significance and authority of the scriptures: the eunuch knows already that Bible study is indispensible. His problem is not with the authority of scripture. His problem is with the clarity of scripture.
Philip, overhearing him reading from this book, asked him a great question:
Do you understand what you are reading?
The reply comes:
How can I, unless someone guides me?
And with that, Philip is invited to explain the scripture and its fulfilment in the good news of Jesus.
Now, this text has been used a model for the necessity of authorised interpretation of the scriptures. So Jaroslav Pelikan:
...if sola scripture was not enough for all these devoted readers of OT scripture without th enormative interpretation that was provdied by the apostolic witness, does the written codification that apostolic witness, in turn, in the books of the NT by itself render obsolete the Ethiopian's question, "How can I understand, unless someone instructs me?" Or does the history of the church and of its controversies raise anew the Apostle Philip's question ... It is the consensus of Orthodox and Catholic teaching that the continuing apostolic witness of the church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as tis has been set forth in tradition, liturgy and creed, performs the same function for the iterpretation of the "Scripture" (now consisting of both the Old and New Testament) as it did for the "Scripture" when this consisted of only the OT... (Acts, p.116)
But this misses I think the point of the text itself entirely - which is not that there always needs to be an authorised interpreter of the written word, but rather that the gospel of Christ Jesus provides the hermeneutic key that clarifies the Scriptures. Under Pelikan's construal the problem is only displaced. Note the effect of this encounter: the Ethiopian is converted and gets baptised. This clarity is not a matter of quibbling over a text: this encounter actually results in the spiritual transformation of the reader.
Actually, also: he discovers not the meaning of the text so much as how the text describes Jesus Christ... the focus is shifted from the text to Christ.
15 comments:
It might also help to further define the gospel of Jesus Christ as centering on his death and resurrection.
John 2:22 is very interesting here: it is only in the light of Jesus' resurrection (taken, I presume, as short-hand for death-and-resurrection) that his discples understand his comments about rebuilding the temple in 3 days. The result of this? "Then they believed the Scriptures..."
Yes. And the interpretation is given by Philip, whose only qualification is that he is a mature Christian.
Well, Andrewe, he IS an apostle...
And PK, yes you are right, the clarity of scripture is a spiritual thang fer sure... In fact the Joel prophecy that Peter mentions and preaches on gives the impetus to it - the spirit comes on all manner of people giving them prophetic insight...
The corollory is that there is also a hardening of hearts that occurs. The parable of the soils and seeds is a great illlustration of that.
You could also see the Philip incident as an example of the perfecting work of the Spirit turning the Eunuch's knowledge into saving knowledge. The man's general knowledge of God's promise to act through his servant is by the actions of the Spirit transformed to saving knowledge insofar as the perfection of the servant prophecy is found in the resurrected Messiah. Philip is in effect the mouth piece of the Spirit (as David is described in Ch.1:16) who ensures that the man learns the identity of the servant as God's chosen one - Jesus of Nazareth.
Hmmm MJ, is Phillip and Apostle, or one of the seven deacons chosen to wait on the tables?
I think also we need to look at the obedience of Phillip in hearing God speak to him to go to the desert road, and then once he got there he was told to go up to the chariot and stay near it.
I think there is some of Luke 12:11 coming to bear in this as well, in that Jesus said don't worry about what you will say, for the Spirit will inspire you to speak when needed.
Cyberp: does the language of perfecting actually help? However, the pneumatologically reading IS necessary, because it so much a feature of the text itself.
I too pondered as to which Philip it was. Just assumed it was the Apostle (as does Pelikan). However, I don't think his behaviour is a paradigm for ours - that misses the point of the text which is about the way in which Jesus is the key to the Scriptures, as the Spirit shows us (actually, THAT'S what the spirit is doing here).
Luke 12:11 is of course about being given what to say when you are dragged before rulers etc in a context of persecution...
Michael, do I detect a hint of legalism in your interp of Luke 12:11? ;)
Can we truly only say that the Spirit will inspire us when we are persecuted?
I think there is more to the story here then is being portrayed. Yes Jesus is the central key to the Scriptures, and so is the working of the Spirit central to us making Christ known to the world as well. I see there is a whole working of the Spirit in these passages regarding Philip and Stephen - (who was persecuted and killed because of a vision he had)
I see a bigger picture happening here, Philip hears the Spirit' call to go - and he obeys - not knowing why or what will happen, and he goes out to a desert road, then hears the Spirit speak again to go up to the chariot and stay there. Again he obeys the Holy Spirit and then is able to witness to the Eunuch who became a believer, was baptised and then the Holy Spirit carted Philip off some where else to his next speaking engagement..... bit like what happened to Elija when he was carried away at times.
I would say that whole passage is about Holy Spirit inspired witnessing and our obedience to his leading rather then that Jesus is the key to understanding Scripure.
BTW I whole heartedly agree that Christ is the key to understanding Scripture, I do strenously disagree though that this is what this whole passage is about.
P.S I think Philip is one of the 7 as his story follows on from Stephens stoning and how Stephen was used mightilly by God in witnessing Christ.
Blessings craig b
No, not a whiff of legalism...!
Of course, I would say - yes, obey the Holy Spirit. Question is whether you ought to expect to encounter the HS in the same way as here described. Even one of my charo friends here at Wycliffe doesn't think that Acts is prescriptive of Christian behaviour...
I like your reasoning about the identity of Philip, though I am always puzzled as to why Stephen doesn't do his job, which is to wait on tables! Does it make a difference?
Actually, I now discover: he does think it descriptive! oops. Spoke too soon.
Looks like I need to blog on that soon...
The language of perfection is, I think, helpful to plot the course of change in the understanding of the Eunuch. He is able to read the Scripture and probably understand what the words mean but the significance is totally lost on him. In the Spirit Philip perfects the Eunuch's knowledge as saving knowledge. He now understands the significance of what it is that he is reading. The Spirit makes the differences to the act of reading.
Why not 'conversion'?
'The Spirit makes the difference/s ...' - great stuff.
I have heard that the Eunuch could only hope to be part of the outer courts in being a Godfearer because of his alted state???
Perhaps the message he is hearing is the Gospel is totally inclusive.
Getting back to Stephen, I think the key is that they had to choose men full of the Spirit and Wisdom, and I think Stephen and Phillip were just doing what they had always been doing before chosen to oversee the distribution of the bread.
I also assumed Philip was the deacon given the juxtaposition with Stephen and the deacon list in Acts 6.5.
Sorry to keep putting the boot into Andrew after a simple mistake!
I am sure he is a resiliant fellow
even resilient
Post a Comment