Sermon Tone Analysis

“As they were going along the road, they came to some water, and the eunuch said, ‘Look, there is water!

What is to stop me from being baptized?’”

[1], [2]

Baptism is truly the water that divides.

It is an unfortunate fact of ecclesiastical history that the rite has engendered such conflict among the followers of the Prince of Peace.

When the Bible was being translated into the English language, the king commanded that words in common use were not to be translated.

Thus, ecclesiastical words were adopted in the place of words more commonly used in the English tongue.

When King James commanded the Authorised Version, one of his stipulations was “that the old ecclesiastical words were to be kept.”

[3], [4] Because of this royal command we now commonly use the word “church” instead of “congregation.”

Likewise, we use “baptise” rather than “immerse.”

This was in reaction to the usage of such terms by the Puritans.

[5] In fact, as one of the specific demands of the King, the translators had to accept the thirty-nine articles of the English church [6]; these dealt with rites and ceremonies.

Thus, any aspect of the translation that appeared to point out the deviation in practise from what was written was to be rejected.

James was offended by the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible and the Bishop’s Bible, believing them in a couple of instances to be seditious; and he was offended by the growing influence of the Puritans who appeared to be influencing the populace toward a religion that depended less upon the clergy than upon the Bible itself.

The practical consequence, in terms of our study this day, is that multiple lines of thought arose among the professed people of God concerning the initial rite of all who call themselves Christian.

Some worshippers are insistent that the act of baptism was necessary to secure salvation.

Others imagine that baptism plays a part in salvation, though they are unwilling to make the act itself salvific.

Still others imagine that it is the sign and seal of a follower of Christ—a necessary mark for disciples.

Other professing Christians reject the need for baptism all together, insisting that the desire to follow Christ was sufficient to identify one as a Christian.

In the face of such contradictory views, the only sure solution is to appeal to what is written in the Word of God.

The incident that serves as the backdrop for our text is worthy of review.

Here is the account as provided in a newer translation.

“An angel of the Lord spoke to Philip: ‘Get up and go south to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.’ (This is the desert road.)

So he got up and went.

There was an Ethiopian man, a eunuch and high official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of her entire treasury.

He had come to worship in Jerusalem and was sitting in his chariot on his way home, reading the prophet Isaiah aloud.

“The Spirit told Philip, ‘Go and join that chariot.’

“When Philip ran up to it, he heard him reading the prophet Isaiah, and said, ‘Do you understand what you’re reading?’

“‘How can I,’ he said, ‘unless someone guides me?’

So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

Now the Scripture passage he was reading was this:

He was led like a sheep to the slaughter,

and as a lamb is silent before its shearer,

so He does not open His mouth.

In His humiliation justice was denied Him.

Who will describe His generation?

For His life is taken from the earth.

“The eunuch replied to Philip, ‘I ask you, who is the prophet saying this about—himself or another person?’

So Philip proceeded to tell him the good news about Jesus, beginning from that Scripture.

“As they were traveling down the road, they came to some water.

The eunuch said, ‘Look, there’s water!

What would keep me from being baptized?’

[And Philip said, ‘If you believe with all your heart you may.’

And he replied, ‘I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.’] Then he ordered the chariot to stop, and both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.

When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him any longer.

But he went on his way rejoicing” [ACTS 8:26-39 HCSB].

[7]

At this time, those who were saved were not called Christians.

It was sometime after this that believers came to be known as Christians.

Luke writes, in ACTS 11:26, “In Antioch the disciples were first called Christians.”

Nevertheless, there can be no doubt that this Ethiopian official was converted to Jesus Christ.

Moreover, his conversion preceded his baptism.

Focus your attention on VERSE 37. Of course, for many of you attempting to do that, and perhaps for most of you, you noted that there is no VERSE 37.

If the verse does appear in your translation, there is likely a marginal note indicating that the verse is not found in many manuscripts.

Let me make a comment on that point.

This verse, found in numerous texts and quoted by many of the ancient ecclesiastical writers, reads, “And Philip said, ‘If you believe with all your heart, you may.”

And he replied, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.’”

There is little doubt that the verse was not included in the original text.

However, what is easily neglected is that the verse reveals the general understanding of Christians living near the time of the writing of this book.

Though Luke probably did not write these words, it was generally accepted that those who were to be baptised would openly profess faith in the Son of God.

Moreover, they would do this themselves, and not via a proxy.

In other words, it would be expected that only those who openly confessed Jesus as Master, being of mature mind, would be received as candidates for baptism.

Of necessity, this excluded infants and those seeking to be baptised in order to become Christians.

This is the pattern observed throughout the Book of Acts.

For instance, on the Day of Pentecost, “Those who received [Peter’s] word were baptised” [ACTS 2:41].

Those who did not receive that word, whether incapable of receiving the word because of immaturity or whether refusing to receive the word, would not be admitted for baptism.

Only those receiving the word were to be baptised.

Earlier, in the chapter wherein is found our text, we read of Philip’s ministry in Samaria.

Note in particular ACTS 8:12: “When they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptised, both men and women.”

It was “when they believed Philip” that “they were baptised.”

There is a point that is significant, though it is easily overlooked.

Those baptised are stated to have been “both men and women.”

What is significant in light of the contention of some who wish to argue for household baptism and especially for the baptism of infants, that Doctor Luke does not say, “men, women and children”; he is careful to designate that those of mature age were the ones who believed, and because they believed they were baptised.

With this information, I ask you to focus again on the text.

Philip told the eunuch the “Good News about Jesus.”

Apparently, the man did believe, because he saw water and requested baptism.

This brings up the issue of why he would request baptism if there is no baptism in the passage from which Philip preached.

The man had been in Jerusalem, and it would have been difficult not to have been aware of the turmoil arising from the growth of Christians in the city.

Doctor Luke has written, “The Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved” [ACTS 2:47 NKJV].

[8]

After Ananias and Sapphira were judged for lying to the Holy Spirit, the Apostles were honoured in the eyes of the people, and again we read of the working of God’s Spirit, “More than ever believers were added to the Lord, multitudes of both men and women” [ACTS 5:14].

Some estimates of the size of the congregation in Jerusalem at the time Saul of Tarsus began his pogrom against the believers to have been so many as one hundred thousand believers.

Certainly, there were no less than twenty thousand believers.

Such a large group of believers would have assuredly drawn the attention of the authorities, and even those who were worshippers of the gate, as was this Ethiopian, could not help but be aware of these events.

It is quite possible, therefore, that the eunuch had witnessed some of the baptisms that had taken place in the city during his time there.

It was only shortly before the time of the account before us that the assembly in Jerusalem was scattered.

The mad boar named Saul of Tarsus wreaked havoc on God’s people.

This is God’s assessment of what Saul has done.

On the day that Stephen was martyred, “there arose … a great persecution against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles.

Devout men buried Stephen and made great lamentation over him.

But Saul was ravaging the church, and entering house after house, he dragged off men and women and committed them to prison” [ACTS 8:1b-3].

This means that the Ethiopian man had been in Jerusalem when these events were taking place.

Moreover, because he was a worshipper of the gate, he must surely have been aware of the things that were happening.

Perhaps he had even witnessed baptism, hearing the questions that were asked of those who openly confessed the Master.

It is the most natural thing in the world to want to identify with Him Whom we worship.

We come to Him in faith.

He delivers us from condemnation.

We are freed of guilt.

We want to embrace Him openly as Master.

I quote ROMANS 10:9, 10 when pointing people to life in the Son of God.

One portion of that passage is sometimes overlooked; I want to point out that neglected portion at this time.

“The Scripture says, ‘Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame’” [ROMANS 10:11].

The thrust of the Word is that those who believe in the Son of God will not be disappointed.