Acts 8:26-40 Ethiopian eunuch and Philip question

[Baby Cottontail]

So, I have always understood this passage as showing that The Suffering Servant in Isaiah 52 and 53 is about Jesus, and that when Philip used the passage to share Jesus with the eunuch, he was sharing the gospel message with him.

However, my pastor preached on this Scripture last Sunday. His interpretation seemed to be that Philip used the Suffering Servant as an analogy for the eunuch, and that in Jesus the eunuch no longer needed to be rejected by society, since the eunuch had been mutilated and rejected by society, and that that was the “sharing Jesus” that Philip did. My pastor specifically said that Philip did not talk about “some complicated mathematical atonement theory.”

While it is true that Acts only quotes part of the Suffering Servant passage from Isaiah, I had always assumed that Philip had discussed the whole Suffering Servant passage with Philip, and was teaching him the gospel, which would have included Jesus dying on the cross for our sins. I had always taken the context to imply that, since the Holy Spirit had led Philip there, and the eunuch’s response after talking with Philip is that he wants to be baptized. However, this could be me reading my understanding into the text.

Then again, my pastor seems to be against/not want to talk about any idea of why Jesus died. He seems to avoid the topic altogether, so maybe he is trying to avoid drawing the conclusion that Jesus died on the cross for our sins, and that that is what Philip was sharing with him, because my pastor doesn’t seem to think too highly of theology, and has said believing in an atonement theory is not necessary.

What do you think? Have you heard anyone interpret this passage the way that my pastor does?

 

[Crwth]

Verse 35 of Acts 8 is pretty clear (referencing Isa 53): "Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him."

I think your understanding of the text is spot on. And unfortunately, I think your pastor's is way out in left field somewhere.

 

[Baby Cottontail]

Verse 35 of Acts 8 is pretty clear (referencing Isa 53): "Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him."

I think your understanding of the text is spot on. And unfortunately, I think your pastor's is way out in left field somewhere.

Thanks . ! I appreciate you posting your view, and I find it very reassuring to know that there are others who interpret it like I do.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

He seems to avoid the topic altogether, so maybe he is trying to avoid drawing the conclusion that Jesus died on the cross for our sins, and that that is what Philip was sharing with him, because my pastor doesn’t seem to think too highly of theology, and has said believing in an atonement theory is not necessary.

Maybe he just does not wan to get into exactly how the death of Jesus on the cross relates to our sins. Is it appeasement? Penal substitution? Satisfaction? It can be a divisive subject.

7 Theories of the Atonement Summarized - Stephen D. Morrison

 

[angelsaroundme]

While I think it's reasonable to suggest Jesus had compassion for eunuchs based on Matthew 19:12, it is odd to present the story as not being about salvation at all.

 

[Baby Cottontail]

Maybe he just does not wan to get into exactly how the death of Jesus on the cross relates to our sins. Is it appeasement? Penal substitution? Satisfaction? It can be a divisive subject.

7 Theories of the Atonement Summarized - Stephen D. Morrison

That is likely the case, but avoiding the subject completely is not the answer. No gospel at all is not good.

As I said in another thread, I see zero reason to try to separate these into different theories, when they can be simultaneously true. Separating them out just causes confusion and unnecessary complication. The only reason to try to separate it out into different theories is if you don’t agree with at least one of them.

When groups like Campus Crusade for Christ go out and share the gospel with people, they don’t talk about any specific theory by naming its name and explaining what that theory means. In fact, I have never seen any Christian or Christian group do that. Instead, they just share the gospel. Why can’t my pastor do this?

 

[Baby Cottontail]

While I think it's reasonable to suggest Jesus had compassion for eunuchs based on Matthew 19:12, it is odd to present the story as not being about salvation at all.

I think my pastor’s understanding of the gospel and salvation is different from mine.

I think he believes in a social gospel or even a sort of social relationship gospel. I think he would conclude that the eunuch was still saved, just not in the way that I understand it. I think he would say he was saved from living a life of exclusion, and that he would not be excluded from the church. He seems to believe that if people are in relationship with one another, they can become saved that way? I am still trying to figure out exactly what he believes. He kept on talking about how the eunuch would have felt excluded, and how he could be a person in the church.

 

[angelsaroundme]

I think my pastor’s understanding of the gospel and salvation is different from mine.

I think he believes in a social gospel or even a sort of social relationship gospel. I think he would conclude that the eunuch was still saved, just not in the way that I understand it. I think he would say he was saved from living a life of exclusion, and that he would not be excluded from the church. He seems to believe that if people are in relationship with one another, they can become saved that way? I am still trying to figure out exactly what he believes. He kept on talking about how the eunuch would have felt excluded, and how he could be a person in the church.

The phrase social gospel came to mind when you described his teaching. I've never been to a church like that but I've heard they are becoming popular, churches that emphasize tolerance over anything specifically spiritual. Have you been at this church for a while?

 

[Andrewn]

However, my pastor preached on this Scripture last Sunday. His interpretation seemed to be that Philip used the Suffering Servant as an analogy for the eunuch, and that in Jesus the eunuch no longer needed to be rejected by society, since the eunuch had been mutilated and rejected by society, and that that was the “sharing Jesus” that Philip did.

It's time to be looking for a different church.

 

[Baby Cottontail]

The phrase social gospel came to mind when you described his teaching. I've never been to a church like that but I've heard they are becoming popular, churches that emphasize tolerance over anything specifically spiritual. Have you been at this church for a while?

This is the church that I grew up in, that I have always attended (except while away at college and graduate school). The pastor has been at the church a couple of years, but we did not meet in person for over a year. Instead, we had online services, and I am still trying to piece together what this pastor believes.

Each pastor the church has had has been different, and each one has believed/taught/emphasized different things. All pastors have different strengths and weaknesses. As my faith and understanding has grown over the years, I have become aware of these differences more and more.

Yes, I think that the social gospel is heavily popular in many mainline churches today. Each pastor is different, and each congregation is different. Some are into the social gospel almost exclusively, and some are in it a little bit, and some are not. I think it is accurate to say that my pastor emphasizes it almost exclusively, at least so far.

However, it would be incorrect to say he doesn’t emphasize spiritual. He doesn’t emphasize what I consider to be Christian spiritual things. However, he is also heavily into spiritual formation/contemplative spirituality, and does not seem to mind if the spirituality comes from non biblical sources. He is a spiritual director.

 

[Baby Cottontail]

It's time to be looking for a different church.

I have been considering that, which is the main reason I came back to the forums here. I was really struggling with the Good Friday and Easter sermon he gave, as well as the contemplative spirituality that seems to be coming from the denomination as a whole. Then, this sermon from this past Sunday again caused me to post here.

However, as a member of my church, I feel it is a critical time for my congregation. The whole denomination may split in August of next year, depending on what happens at General Conference. Pastors come and go, and the pastor might decide to go one way in the split, and the congregation might decide to go another way. As of now, I feel like I have an input of the future direction of the congregation.

I will definitely be watching what the pastor preaches, and what is going on in the church, and denomination. I can always complain to staff/pastor parish if he gets too unbiblical. At this rate, I am still watching him, figuring out what he is teaching the church.

Our congregation has also just written a new mission statement, and all current programs and ministries will be evaluated according to that, and new ones might be created. I will also watch this process. If anything unChristian is proposed and gets approved, I will contest it.

Basically there is a lot happening right now that God could still use me for to help guide the church towards Christ.

 

[Crwth]

It's time to be looking for a different church.

...and I'd counsel running, not walking.

 

[angelsaroundme]

This is the church that I grew up in, that I have always attended (except while away at college and graduate school). The pastor has been at the church a couple of years, but we did not meet in person for over a year. Instead, we had online services, and I am still trying to piece together what this pastor believes.

Each pastor the church has had has been different, and each one has believed/taught/emphasized different things. All pastors have different strengths and weaknesses. As my faith and understanding has grown over the years, I have become aware of these differences more and more.

Yes, I think that the social gospel is heavily popular in many mainline churches today. Each pastor is different, and each congregation is different. Some are into the social gospel almost exclusively, and some are in it a little bit, and some are not. I think it is accurate to say that my pastor emphasizes it almost exclusively, at least so far.

However, it would be incorrect to say he doesn’t emphasize spiritual. He doesn’t emphasize what I consider to be Christian spiritual things. However, he is also heavily into spiritual formation/contemplative spirituality, and does not seem to mind if the spirituality comes from non biblical sources. He is a spiritual director.

The church you grew up in tends to be special. However, if the current pastor isn't ministering to your soul you may need to find a different one. You might even be able to do that with some of the other church members, assuming they feel the same way.

 

[Baby Cottontail]

The church you grew up in tends to be special. However, if the current pastor isn't ministering to your soul you may need to find a different one. You might even be able to do that with some of the other church members, assuming they feel the same way.

It’s definitely an option I am keeping open.

Pastors at our church are appointed, and sometimes they are moved around. There is the possibility that the pastor might become overwhelmed, and want to be transferred, as he seems stressed with the reality that the associate pastor will be graduating and receiving her own appointment.

Also, as I said before, the whole denomination might be splitting, and the pastor might go a different direction from the congregation. It also is likely that things will be mixed up a bit in the denomination.

I am curious to see what might be added or taken away in regards to the new mission statement.

I am also trying to see what goes on in the denomination.

If I left now, I am not sure what church I would go to. I have been thinking that there may come a time when I will not be able to find a local church that preaches theology that I agree with. I might have to try to find some like minded believers and start a home church in the future.

I imagine that at some point, churches in small communities may be closed, and people might need to drive to bigger cities if they want a church in a particular denomination. I imagine that this will happen as we get closer and closer to the end. Finding a church that teaches sound doctrine will get harder and harder.

If I knew of a good church in my community, I might seriously consider switching sooner. There are definitely other churches in my community, but most of them are other mainline churches. There are a few non denominational churches, but the one doesn’t even preach from Scripture. A couple others have questionable theology.

There is another UMC here, but it doesn’t sound like it will remain open much longer, and it would have the same issue in regards to the upcoming general conference next year.

There does not seem to be any advantage to leaving right away. I would leave immediately if the pastor started preaching non Christianity, such as if he preached interfaith/multi faith, Or started preaching Hinduism or Buddhist beliefs.

Am I happy with his preaching right now? No. Definitely not.

He’s not preaching the gospel. Yet, he also isn’t preaching against the historic faith...in that he’s not outright denying core beliefs. He isn’t talking about certain beliefs, and seems to be avoiding certain central topics. He has made it clear that theology isn’t important to him. He also is redefining some important terms. If I were not already a member, I would have already left.

As a member, I feel like I still have a responsibility. It has been pointed out several times in various circumstances that when I was confirmed, I did make a vow to God that I would support the church and the denomination. I do need to consider that as well. That’s one reason I really struggle with leaving.

I believe it is my duty to fight as hard as I can for the church while still being a member. I do still have a vote and still have some sway. If genuine Bible studies are started, I believe that maybe at least a few of us could stand strong against false and incomplete teaching. Unless God tells me otherwise, I think I still have a part to play here.

One thing I need to do is figure out where the line is between leaving and staying. If it becomes a nonChristian “church” then that is definitely over the line. If the pastor directly preaching against an essential doctrine, I would take my concerns to staff parish. If my complaints were ignored, and nothing changed, I would leave. The same is true with contemplative spirituality. If that’s what the Bible studies turn into, I would complain to staff parish. No change = I would leave.

The pastor definitely is not the congregation, as he is a member of the conference, not the local church. If members of our church are unhappy with him, we can ask for a new pastor. We definitely have a say on that.

 

[Davy]

So, I have always understood this passage as showing that The Suffering Servant in Isaiah 52 and 53 is about Jesus, and that when Philip used the passage to share Jesus with the eunuch, he was sharing the gospel message with him.

However, my pastor preached on this Scripture last Sunday. His interpretation seemed to be that Philip used the Suffering Servant as an analogy for the eunuch, and that in Jesus the eunuch no longer needed to be rejected by society, since the eunuch had been mutilated and rejected by society, and that that was the “sharing Jesus” that Philip did. My pastor specifically said that Philip did not talk about “some complicated mathematical atonement theory.”

While it is true that Acts only quotes part of the Suffering Servant passage from Isaiah, I had always assumed that Philip had discussed the whole Suffering Servant passage with Philip, and was teaching him the gospel, which would have included Jesus dying on the cross for our sins. I had always taken the context to imply that, since the Holy Spirit had led Philip there, and the eunuch’s response after talking with Philip is that he wants to be baptized. However, this could be me reading my understanding into the text.

Then again, my pastor seems to be against/not want to talk about any idea of why Jesus died. He seems to avoid the topic altogether, so maybe he is trying to avoid drawing the conclusion that Jesus died on the cross for our sins, and that that is what Philip was sharing with him, because my pastor doesn’t seem to think too highly of theology, and has said believing in an atonement theory is not necessary.

What do you think? Have you heard anyone interpret this passage the way that my pastor does?

Only a SOCIALIST bent on 'bending' the Scriptures like that would preach such a duped message. You might want to regard Christ's "hireling" warning He gave in John 10.

The Acts 8 Scripture is very clear about Jesus being Who the Isaiah 53 Scripture is about. That's what the Ethiopian eunuch was reading, i.e., about Jesus Christ. And Philip made that very... clear to the eunuch, who then wanted to be baptized in Christ Jesus. Psalms 22 also gives events about Christ's crucifixion, and that was through David about a thousand years before it happened.

I hate to say it, but a lot of Church systems today have been taken over by Christ's enemies, and are pushing doctrines contrary to Christian Doctrine in The New Testament Scriptures. And no marvel, even doctorate grads from seminaries are guilty of preaching a form of Socialism instead.

That reminds of what ex-FBI agent Cleon Skousen said with the 45 Soviet Strategic Points against the West in his 1958 book The Naked Communist. The following was one of those 1958 goals he said the Soviets have against the Christian Church...

"Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."'


What you have revealed is exactly... that, an example of it.

 

[Baby Cottontail]

Only a SOCIALIST bent on 'bending' the Scriptures like that would preach such a duped message. You might want to regard Christ's "hireling" warning He gave in John 10.

The Acts 8 Scripture is very clear about Jesus being Who the Isaiah 53 Scripture is about. That's what the Ethiopian eunuch was reading, i.e., about Jesus Christ. And Philip made that very... clear to the eunuch, who then wanted to be baptized in Christ Jesus. Psalms 22 also gives events about Christ's crucifixion, and that was through David about a thousand years before it happened.

I hate to say it, but a lot of Church systems today have been taken over by Christ's enemies, and are pushing doctrines contrary to Christian Doctrine in The New Testament Scriptures. And no marvel, even doctorate grads from seminaries are guilty of preaching a form of Socialism instead.

That reminds of what ex-FBI agent Cleon Skousen said with the 45 Soviet Strategic Points against the West in his 1958 book The Naked Communist. The following was one of those 1958 goals he said the Soviets have against the Christian Church...

"Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."'


What you have revealed is exactly... that, an example of it.

I wouldn’t necessarily call it socialist, but it is definitely not the kind of message I wanted to hear. However, the social gospel does have a lot in common with socialism.

And, yes, I think it is increasingly going to be hard to find a church that I can agree with, unless some kind of revival happens. And yes, I agree that there are definitely things that I consider as unbiblical that are being pushed in many churches today.

Your quote of what the Soviets wrote is almost identical to a quote someone shared with me about what New Agers and Gnostics wanted to do with the church. I think that Satan wants to infiltrate the church to lead it away from the truth. Spong had said he had similar hopes that traditional Christianity would be replaced by New Thought ideas.