Author: Charlie Garrett

Memorial Hall. State Capital, Texas.

Saturday, 16 July 2022

Then Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest Acts 9:1

Note: You can listen to today’s commentary courtesy of our friends at “Bible in Ten” podcast. (Click Here to listen).

You can also read this commentary, with music, courtesy of our friends at “Discern the Bible” on YouTube. (Click Here to listen), or at Rumble (Click Here to listen).

The previous verse closed out Chapter 8, explaining how Philip was found at Azotus, and how he preached in all the cities until he came to Caesarea. With that noted, the narrative now returns to its focus that also began in Chapter 8. And so, with the intervening verses about the work of the apostles complete, Luke begins Chapter 9 with, “Then Saul.” He was last mentioned at the beginning of Chapter 8, saying –

“Now Saul was consenting to his death.
At that time a great persecution arose against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. ² And devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and made great lamentation over him.
³ As for Saul, he made havoc of the church, entering every house, and dragging off men and women, committing them to prison.” Acts 8:1-3

Saul was bloodthirsty as Chapter 8 began, and nothing has changed in his demeanor with this new chapter, as Luke notes that he was “still breathing threats and murder.”

The Greek word translated as “breathing” is found only here, empneó. It signifies “to inhale.” Ironically, the KJV translated it just the opposite and incorrectly says, “breathing out.” It is the “element from which he drew his breath” (Thayer’s). Also, the Greek word translated as “threats” is singular, not plural. As such, the words should read that he was “still breathing in threat and murder.” The very breath that he inhaled animated him into a ravaging animal “against the disciples of the Lord.”

Paul later acknowledges this conduct during his trial before King Agrippa in Acts 26 –

“Indeed, I myself thought I must do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. ¹⁰ This I also did in Jerusalem, and many of the saints I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them. ¹¹ And I punished them often in every synagogue and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly enraged against them, I persecuted them even to foreign cities.” Acts 26:9-11

As for his statement that he “received authority from the chief priests,” that is next recorded by Luke, saying he “went to the high priest.” The verb is an aorist participle and should read, “having gone to the high priest.” That sets up the continued words of the coming verse. For now, Paul has gone to the high priest with a purpose and intent. All of this is leading to the greatest moment of his life, and one that will affect the lives of billions of people in the millennia to come.

Life application: Understanding the meaning behind the words used in the biblical narrative can really give you a sense of what is actually going on in the mind of the person being described. For example, the word above, empneó, is from en (in) and pneó (to breathe). Think about how different translations change your mind about what is being said –

Breathing out murderous threats (NIV).
Breathing out threats and murder (BLB).
Uttering threats with every breath (NLT).
Breathing threats and murder (BSB).
Breathing threatening and slaughter (ASV).
Full of menace and the fury of murder (Aramaic).
Spewing death threats (ISV).
Whose every breath was a threat of destruction (Weymouth).
Breathing in threat and murder (CG).

Most of these are outwardly directed. You would think that Paul is coming against the people and yelling out to them how he was going to destroy them. Many of them have “threats” in the plural. That gives the sense of repeated threats as if it is going on and on. The NIV (and others) combine the two separate words (threat and murder) into one that describes the other. Each of these will change your perception of what is going on.

However, in understanding the meaning of the base words that form the new word, it being from en (in) and pneó (to breathe), you can then see that even if Paul’s actions are directed toward others, the impulse behind them is something that is first animating him to be that way. This is the root of Paul’s problem. Until that is cured, there can be no change in him. The very breath that animates him is angry and hostile. As this is so, it will then be that way when he breathes out as well.

Don’t be afraid to do word studies. In fact, take time to do so. The richness of the source of words can completely change your perception of what is actually being conveyed. Translators do their best to convey intent, but unless they are willing to do such word studies (a somewhat time-consuming and laborious task), they may not convey to you what is actually going on. And so, take time to do your own studies if a particular passage especially appeals to you. It is well worth the time you put into it.

Lord God, what a wonderful treasure Your word is. It is rich and alive and filled with magnificent insights about the nature of man, the corrective measures for his defects, and how You apply those measures to mold us into Your image. Help us to seek out the riches of Your word all the days of our lives. Amen.

More WWII war heroes. Texas sure had a lot of brave men.

Friday, 15 July 2022

But Philip was found at Azotus. And passing through, he preached in all the cities till he came to Caesarea. Acts 8:40

Note: You can listen to today’s commentary courtesy of our friends at “Bible in Ten” podcast. (Click Here to listen).

You can also read this commentary, with music, courtesy of our friends at “Discern the Bible” on YouTube. (Click Here to listen), or at Rumble (Click Here to listen).

In the previous verse, Philip was caught away from the eunuch and the eunuch went on his way rejoicing. With that noted, Luke continues with, “But Philip was found at Azotus.” This was a distance of about thirty miles, and nothing is said of him anywhere else. He was on the desert road to Gaza, and then he was found at Azotus.

Without any doubt, Luke is trying to convey a sequence of events in a manner that demonstrates something out of the ordinary. If he meant that Philip traveled to Azotus, he would have plainly said that, just as he did four times in this chapter alone while –

———————————

Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria and preached Christ to them. (8:5)

Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, ¹⁵ who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. (8:14, 15)

So when they had testified and preached the word of the Lord, they returned to Jerusalem, preaching the gospel in many villages of the Samaritans. (8:25)

Now an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip, saying, “Arise and go toward the south along the road which goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” This is desert. ²⁷ So he arose and went. (8:26, 27)

———————————

As for Azotus, it is known in the Old Testament as Ashdod. That comes from the verb shadad which signifies dealing violently with, despoiling, devastating, and so on. As such, it means something like “Ravager.” It was a city of the Philistines in Old Testament times. It is a coastal town, and a part of modern Israel today. It is Israel’s sixth-largest city, and it is about 20 miles south of Tel Aviv.

After being found in Azotus, Luke continues the narrative, saying, “And passing through.”

Again, Luke’s narrative gives details about Philip’s travels that he did not give in the previous words. Luke has written clearly and precisely concerning the movements of Philip with the exception of the words about his miraculous transportation from Gaza to Azotus

To attempt to dismiss the miraculous intent of the account then diminishes the precision of Luke’s other words that carefully document the movement of Philip and others elsewhere. In other words, it makes Luke look like a less careful chronicler of events than he truly is. The lack of wording here is not a failing of his recording of what happened. Rather, it is a remarkable choice of wording to show exactly what did happen. With that in mind, Luke returns to the carefully worded accounting of Philip’s continued evangelization, saying, “he preached in all the cities.”

The verb here is imperfect. It reads, “he was preaching in all the cities.” Philip didn’t just pass by small cities. Nor did he withhold preaching in some. Rather, as he went, he was actively preaching. It is the same careful attention given to describe the movement of Peter and John in verse 8:25 (noted above). Also, it is the same word already used four times in Acts 8, euaggelizó. Philip, Peter, and John had all been evangelizing as they traveled from one major city to another. As for Philip, this continued “till he came to Caesarea.”

Luke’s care concerning the details is minute, and yet, they were specifically left out in Philip’s travel from the area of Gaza to Azotus. In other words, the main city of Ashkelon lies between Gaza and Azotus (Ashdod). Along that way are small, populated areas that could be described as “cities.” But Luke never mentions them. The language is purposefully blank to indicate a miraculous transport from one location to another.

Philip was taken from the area of Gaza, purposefully taken over the entire area of a major city with smaller surrounding cities, and was deposited in Azotus.

Life application: Of the movement of Philip from Gaza to Azotus, Albert Barnes says, “It does not mean here that there was any miracle in the case, but that Philip, after leaving the eunuch, came to or was in Azotus.” Charles Ellicott and others likewise try to justify Philip’s travel as having been in a state of ecstasy and not knowing what he was doing as he traveled all the way from Gaza to Azotus. Or they give some other similar explanation.

However, doesn’t that insert much more into the narrative than would have been overlooked by Luke? Stated differently, and as was noted above, it actually diminishes the careful attention that Luke always provides. If Philip was in a state of ecstasy, Luke would have said so. If he omitted that, it would then demonstrate a failing on his part to not say so.

The reason for dealing so minutely with what occurred is because if you give careful study to the doctrine of the rapture, you will eventually be told that “the church never taught the doctrine of the rapture until the 1800s.” There are several problems with this. First, it doesn’t matter when a point of biblical doctrine is introduced. If it is true, it is true.

John Calvin’s teachings, which are held to by the same people that say the rapture is a new doctrine, didn’t come about until John Calvin started teaching them, a couple hundred years before the time of Darby. And so, to claim that Calvin is right, and Darby is wrong based on the time of the introduction of the particular doctrine is a fallacy known as “Chronological Snobbery,” or simply a chronological fallacy. But more, John Calvin’s doctrine, in many ways, is entirely incorrect.

Secondly, it is not true that the rapture was first taught in the 1800s. In fact, it is explicitly taught in 1 Corinthians 15 and 1 Thessalonians 4 by the apostle Paul. It is referred to elsewhere in the New Testament, and it is typologically hinted at in the Old Testament.

Luke’s carefully detailed account of Philip’s harpazó (his being caught away) is not a blundering account of omission. Rather, it is a purposeful account of omission. It is given to show us that God can remove a person in a moment from one place to another for His own purposes. There is a time when He will do this with all of His true believers in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye.

Take time to blink your eyes as fast as you can for a second. If you just did that, you blinked three to five times in one second. The blink of an eye occurs in about 1 tenth of a second which is 100 milliseconds.

Get ready. When Jesus calls His people home, it will happen so fast that we won’t know it has happened until it is over. Jesus is coming. Be ready.

Heavenly Father, it is true that some believers deny that there will be a rapture. But Your word tells us that their denial is wrong. Won’t they be surprised on that day! And won’t we all be elated when we realize what happened! May that day be soon. Amen.

More WWII war heros. State Capitol, Texas.

Thursday, 14 July 2022

Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing. Acts 8:39

Note: You can listen to today’s commentary courtesy of our friends at “Bible in Ten” podcast. (Click Here to listen).

You can also read this commentary, with music, courtesy of our friends at “Discern the Bible” on YouTube. (Click Here to listen), or at Rumble (Click Here to listen).

The last verse saw Philip and the eunuch going down into the water where Philip baptized the eunuch. With that remembered, it next says, “Now when they came up out of the water.”

Though the act of full immersion baptism is debated based on the words of the last verse, the thought of coming up “out of the water” gives a good indication of being in the water, not “by” the water or having a jar of water in the hand. If they were in the water, it seems likely that the intent is to fully immerse. But, as previously stated, the Greek word transliterated as “baptize” signifies full immersion. Despite this, the baptism was conducted and then they came up out of the water. At this time, it says that “the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away.”

Here, the word harpazó is used. It signifies to seize, snatch, catch away, and so on. It is a forceful action of removal. Some, in an attempt to eliminate the supernatural element, will say that this was a strong urge that was so irresistible, Philip had to depart immediately. If this was the case, other words sufficient to the situation would be more appropriate. An example of this is found in Acts 18 –

“When Silas and Timothy had come from Macedonia, Paul was compelled by the Spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus is the Christ.”

Philip was not merely compelled. Rather, he was snatched away by an external force, meaning the Spirit. As incredible as this sounds, it is not without precedent. It happened in the Old Testament, such as in the taking away of Enoch in Genesis 5, and which is explained in Hebrews 11:5. Elijah was also taken bodily to heaven in a chariot of fire and a whirlwind in 2 Kings 2:11. Ezekiel was taken in the spirit to another location in Ezekiel 3, but that could simply be a vision and not a physical transportation.

In the New Testament, the word harpazó is used fourteen times. Each time it is used with a clear reference to a physical removal, even if it is stopping such a physical removal (such as in John 10:28). It is used of Paul being caught up to the third heaven in 2 Corinthians 12:2 & 4. Admittedly, Paul says there, “whether in the body I do not know, or whether out of the body I do not know.” Even if it was out of the body, there was a removal from one place to another that was not accomplished by the one being transported. If it was in the body (of which he was not sure), then a physical transport would have taken place.

The word is also used in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 when speaking of the saints being “caught up” together with the dead in Christ at the rapture. Due to the sudden and external nature of the words in these other instances, it seems unlikely the Spirit would inspire Luke to use this word unless Philip was abruptly and miraculously transported. A sudden urge to leave might cause Philip to get up and say, “Great baptism, now I simply must go,” but it would leave the eunuch thinking Philip was a bit odd. Rather, the purpose was certainly to confirm to the eunuch, and to those with him, that God had accepted the rite of baptism and demonstrated that fact with the sudden and remarkable catching away of Philip. With this certainly being the case, it next says, “so that the eunuch saw him no more.”

In the desert, one can see a long way in the distance. If Philip had suddenly departed, no matter how fast his feet could run or his mount could gallop, it would be a good long span before he could not be seen any longer. If that is how Philip departed, Luke would surely have said something like, “And so Philip departed in haste, leaving the eunuch behind.” The words shout out for a sudden, miraculous, and immediate removal of Philip from the spot. With that, and speaking of the eunuch, it says, “and he went on his way rejoicing.”

It is a mistranslation. Rather, it says, “for he was going his way rejoicing.” There is a reason (for) and the verb is imperfect (he was going). In 2 Kings, when Elijah was taken to heaven, it says –

“Now when the sons of the prophets who were from Jericho saw him, they said, ‘The spirit of Elijah rests on Elisha.’ And they came to meet him, and bowed to the ground before him. ¹⁶ Then they said to him, ‘Look now, there are fifty strong men with your servants. Please let them go and search for your master, lest perhaps the Spirit of the Lord has taken him up and cast him upon some mountain or into some valley.’
And he said, ‘You shall not send anyone.’
¹⁷ But when they urged him till he was ashamed, he said, ‘Send them!’ Therefore they sent fifty men, and they searched for three days but did not find him. ¹⁸ And when they came back to him, for he had stayed in Jericho, he said to them, ‘Did I not say to you, ‘Do not go’?’” 2 Kings 2:15-18

Luke is providing a contrast to this account. The prophets from Jericho wanted to find Elijah, not wanting to entertain the thought that they would never see him again. The eunuch in Acts didn’t do this. He did not send any of those with him to look for Philip. He did not travel back up the road to Jerusalem. Rather, he knew that Philip had been caught away, and he was content with that, even to the point of rejoicing. He had received a visual confirmation that his faith was confirmed as saving faith and that his act of obedience in being baptized according to the Lord’s word was acceptable.

Life application: The Ethiopian eunuch had very limited interaction with Philip, but it was long enough for him to make a reasoned decision about what he had heard. He accepted the message, he believed, and he was obedient to the command of the Lord in receiving baptism. In the end, he went away rejoicing.

But someone had to tell him about Jesus and share the gospel with him. The Lord sent Philip. There are people in your area, your family, your work environment, and your general sphere of life that need to hear about Jesus. Are you hoping the Lord will send someone to tell them about Jesus? He has. He has sent you. The only question is, “Are you going to be obedient to the commission you have been given?”

Don’t wait for the Lord to do the miraculous and send someone along to tell these people. He already performed the greatest miracle in your life when He saved you. It’s time for you to respond in kind and share what you know!

Lord God, thank You for the salvation that I have been given through faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ. Now, give me the strong desire, will, and ability to tell others the same message I have heard. Help me to be the next link in getting this word out to others. To Your glory, I pray. Amen.

Vietnam war heroes. Texas Capitol.

Wednesday, 13 July 2022

So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. Acts 8:38

Note: You can listen to today’s commentary courtesy of our friends at “Bible in Ten” podcast. (Click Here to listen).

You can also read this commentary, with music, courtesy of our friends at “Discern the Bible” on YouTube. (Click Here to listen), or at Rumble (Click Here to listen).

The previous verse conveyed the proclamation by the eunuch that he believed the gospel. As such, he was saved (Ephesians 1:13, 14, etc.). With that noted, it next says, “So he commanded the chariot to stand still.”

It is certainly the eunuch who gave the command. Without any intervening words, it is obvious that he was unwilling to wait another minute to comply with the command of the Lord that is to accompany acceptance of the gospel –

“‘Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, ²⁰ teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.’ Amen.” Matthew 28:19, 20

The notable point to consider is that nothing is said in the account of Philip’s talk with the eunuch concerning baptism. And yet, the eunuch is the one who is said (verse 8:36) to have broached the subject. Baptism would have been wholly unknown to him as a rite of faith in Christ Jesus, and yet he both asked about it and then commanded the chariot to stand still the moment that he had professed his faith in the Lord.

In other words, and what must be the case, is that Philip – as a part of his evangelization – specifically discussed the matter of baptism. They may have talked about a thousand other things as well, but this account mentions none of them, including the Lord’s Supper, right living, holiness, Jesus’ genealogy, or innumerable other points of doctrine concerning life in Christ.

But in his zeal to be obedient to the Lord in whom he professed faith, he initiates the subject in this account. As such, Luke records, “And both Philip and the eunuch went down.”

They got down from the chariot and went to whatever source of water was there. Nothing is said of those who are with him. It is possible that Philip baptized one or more of the eunuch’s cohorts, but the attention is on him. If others heard and believed, their faith and baptism are simply overlooked. He stands as the focus of the narrative.

Next, it says they went “into the water.” Much discussion has been made concerning these words as if they prove full immersion was the standard practice. But the Greek word can mean either “to” or “into.” There is no point in speculating on this. The word transliterated as “baptize” speaks for itself. It means to submerge. To do anything else defeats the imagery of Christ. Further, baptism always follows faith in the Bible.

• Hear the gospel
• Believe the gospel
• Be submerged in water as a mark of the faith that has been expressed

As such, Luke says, “and he baptized him.” Though the account is descriptive, it is in compliance with the word of the Lord, and it fits the repeated pattern in Acts where every person who comes to be a believer in Christ is seen to receive baptism.

As for the eunuch, his faith in Christ becomes a part of a greater pattern that goes back to the early Genesis account. In the record of the sons of Noah, they are named in the order of Shem, Ham, and Japheth. This is repeated five times in Genesis and then in 1 Chronicles. These three sons represent all of humanity today.

Shem, though not the eldest, is mentioned first, and those of his line are the first to receive baptism (Acts 2). The next son, Ham, is now represented by this Ethiopian eunuch. The final son, Japheth, will be represented in this pattern in Acts 10. Thus, the order of the sons of Genesis is followed exactingly in Acts in relation to faith, and then baptism, of these people groups.

Life application: A few questions to understand proper doctrine:

1. When were the instructions for the Lord’s supper given? The answer is in Luke 22 (see also Matthew 26 and Mark 14), prior to (but in anticipation of) Christ’s cross and the introduction of the New Covenant. They are quoted by Paul in 1 Corinthians, exactingly following the instructions first given by Jesus.
2. When are the instructions for baptism given? The answer is in Matthew 28, after Christ completed His work, and after the introduction of the New Covenant.
3. Are all believers, Jew and Gentile, a part of the New Covenant or not? Yes. If someone answers “No” to this, then he has no part in Christ (See 1 Corinthians 11 and 2 Corinthians 3:6).

As all true believers are a part of the one and only New Covenant, and as Jesus ties the rite of baptism into the proper practice set forth for believers (just as the Lord’s Supper is), it is the height of hypocrisy for someone to accept the Lord’s Supper and yet not accept baptism – both in doctrine and in practice. It shows a poor understanding of doctrine, a streak of disobedience to the word of the Lord, and an attitude of arrogance that cannot be considered acceptable within the faith.

For proper doctrine, follow the three points noted in the main body of the commentary above. Anything else is disobedience to the word of the Lord.

Lord God, help us to think clearly concerning what Your word is saying. Help us to properly divide what is being said. And help us not get caught up in false teachings that improperly handle this sacred treasure You have given us. May we be found as acceptable vessels, ready for Your use at all times. Amen.

War heroes – Korean War and Vietnam. Texas Capitol.

Tuesday, 12 July 2022

Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.”
And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” Acts 8:37

Note: You can listen to today’s commentary courtesy of our friends at “Bible in Ten” podcast. (Click Here to listen)

You can also read this commentary, with music, courtesy of our friends at “Discern the Bible” on YouTube. (Click Here to listen), or at Rumble (Click Here to listen).

The previous words revealed the eunuch’s desire to be baptized, asking, “What hinders me from being baptized?” With that, the words of verse 8:37 are given. This verse, however, is not found in many Bibles. The usual reason given by scholars and translators is that it is “not found in the best texts.” That is a subjective analysis, assuming that one text is better than the other, usually because of age – “If it is older, it is better.”

The inclusion of this verse doesn’t harm any other theology presented in the Bible, but more, it is to be remembered that Acts is a descriptive account of what occurred. Set doctrine is to be based upon what is stated in the epistles. Philip is simply saying what he believes the circumstances demand based upon a short meeting with this person. As such, in response to the eunuch’s question, Luke records, “Then Philip said.”

Philip is an evangelist. What he has done and continues to do is recorded in the epistles, but he is not an apostle, as such his words must be taken in light of the prescriptive epistles. Luke just records what he says as any accurate historian should. With that noted, Philip’s words are, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.”

More rightly, the words read, “If you believe out of [or from] all your heart, it is permitted.” The word translated as “may” is generally translated as “lawful.” It is that which is permitted based on the surrounding circumstances. For example, for one under the law, that person would use this word to indicate something acceptable to the law, hence “lawful.”

Philip has set a standard for the eunuch to ensure that he fully grasps the gospel that has been presented. He is letting the eunuch know that an outward display doesn’t save, but rather a change in the heart is what speaks out to God. This is reflective of what Paul says later in Romans 10 –

“But what does it say? ‘The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart’ (that is, the word of faith which we preach): ⁹ that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. ¹⁰ For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” Romans 10:8-10

Philip’s point of saying “out of all your heart” is certainly with the understanding that nobody really half-heartedly believes anything. A person may not fully understand a matter, but what he does understand is either accepted or rejected. The “heart” in Scripture does not speak of the emotions as we use it today. Rather, it is the seat of reason and understanding. The conditional statement has been set forth by Philip based on what he has said to the eunuch. With that, Luke records, “And he answered and said, ‘I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.’”

Several points can be gleaned from his answer. The first is that he connects the term “Christ” to Jesus. The eunuch either knew that Israel anticipated a Messiah or Philip explained what that meant. The eunuch has affixed that title to the name, accepting that He is the One to have fulfilled that role.

Next, as the passage from Isaiah spoke of His suffering and death, something then explained by Philip, it is clear that the eunuch also heard of and accepted the resurrection of Jesus, because he says that Jesus Christ is (present tense) the Son of God. He has obviously accepted the premise of the resurrection.

Thirdly, in saying that He is the Son of God, it is an affirmation that God is His Father. The logical conclusion is that Philip explained this to him and told him of the incarnation. Jesus is not simply an “adopted” son of God, but the Son of God, begotten of the Father. Otherwise, there would be no need to state this. In his proclamation, he is thus acknowledging the deity of Christ and, therefore, His sinless perfection.

It is this that is expected of those who hear the message. He has believed and his confession has been made.

The Pulpit Commentary states, “Irenaeus, in the third book against Heresies, Acts 12:8, distinctly quotes a portion of this verse. … and Cyprian, in his third book of Testimonies, 43, quotes the other part of the verse. In proof of the thesis that “whoever believes may be immediately baptized.”

Irenaeus was born in 130AD. Cyprian was born in the early 3^rd century and died in 258AD. As these two men included portions of this verse in their writings, if the verse is spurious, it was added at a very early date. The obvious reason why someone would claim that it was inserted later is that without verse 37, there appears to be a sudden jump in action from Acts 8:36 to Acts 8:38 –

Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?”
³⁸ So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.

Without verse 8:37, someone may suppose that Philip didn’t cross every t and dot every i. But Acts is not given for that purpose. It is given to tell us what occurred, to whom they occurred, and where things took place. We are not supposed to get our precise theology from the book. Rather, we are to take a global view of the book of Acts in order to understand what occurred and why. Whether original or spurious, the inclusion harms no other doctrine, and its exclusion leaves nothing out that would leave a void in our understanding of right doctrine.

Life application: What Peter says in Acts 2 is not something that applies to all people at all times. He was speaking to the people of Israel during a certain time and at a certain event. His words cannot be applied to Gentile believers who are not of Israel, except as a descriptive account of what occurred.

The account of the Ethiopian eunuch is something that is historically recorded as having occurred. It was at the leading of the Holy Spirit, it was conducted by an evangelist who had sufficient information to properly witness to another person about Jesus, and it shows (in the coming verse) that this person was baptized into the faith.

Nothing is prescribed here for us. We do not have to evangelize people in the desert. We do not have to ride with people in a chariot in order to tell them about Jesus. We do not have to start with Isaiah 53 when we talk about the Lord. And so on. As these things are true, there must be another reason for the inclusion of this account.

That reason will be looked at in the next verse. Other than that, it is a historical record of a person physically unacceptable to be included in the assembly of the Jews under the Law of Moses, but who is fully acceptable to be included in the body of believers who are saved by Jesus Christ.

Heavenly Father, help us to be willing to talk to any and to all who come into our paths about Jesus. There is none too far from Your saving grace, and there is every reason why we should open our mouths and speak forth the beautiful message of the gospel. Help us to be faithful in this, O God. Amen.