From The Acts of the Apostles From Jerusalem to Rome
by Wayne Jackson:
It is futile to argue, as some have done, that this region
was "wholly destitute" of water, and therefore
Luke's descriptive can only mean "a small degree or
quantity" (Alexander, 348).
In 1879, J.W. McGarvey did extensive studies in
Palestine. He identified two streams which might well
accommodate the biblical description; in addition, the learned
professor observed that there was an abundance of artificial pools
throughout the countryside. These collected water in the
rainy season for use in the dry. One of these might have been
employed (1881, 262).
[Acts 8] Verse 37 has been
omitted from the ASV and, virtually, all standard translations of
the modern era. [Acts 8:37 KJV:
"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."] The passage is missing from most
of the oldest Greek manuscripts of the third through the fifth
centuries, and, as Metzger notes: "There is no reason
why scribes should have omitted the material, if it had originally
stood in the text" (1971, 359). Sadler, however, while
conceding that the passage likely was not a part of the original
manuscript, surmises that it was later added by Luke himself
(160). J.A. Alexander (350) felt that the evidence
"for" and "against" the text was pretty
balanced and that the scales ought to be tipped in favor in
retaining the passage, as in the KJV. In the final analysis
no point of doctrine is affected by the controversy.
As they came to the depository of water, the Ethiopian
commanded the chariot to stand still (the driver to stop?).
Both Philip and the eunuch "went down into" the water,
and Philip baptized this believer. Did Philip immerse the
eunuch, or merely pour some water over the candidate's
head? Larkin says: "The account will accommodate
both understandings" (136).
There cannot be two "understandings" concerning
whether this was immersion or non-immersion. One or the other
has to be wrong, reflecting a misunderstanding.
Alexander argues that just because both "went down
into" the water, and subsequently "came up out
of" the water, does not prove that the ritual was
immersion. He is correct. What it would prove is that
both of them were rather silly to descend into the water when a
servant easily could have fetched a cup of water and saved everyone
else a good deal of trouble. What proves the case for
immersion is the verb itself. The text says:
"...he [Philip] baptized him [the
eunuch]...." Consider the following
points:
1) Try substituting "poured" in the
place of "baptized," and see how much sense it
makes. The action of the verb is on the man, not the element
(water). Whenever one correctly defines a term, the
definition may be substituted for the original word itself, without
any sacrifice of sense. That can be done with
"immersed;" it cannot be done with
"poured." 2) The Greek word baptizo
means "dip, immerse" (Arndt, 131; Thayer, 94).
Detzler (32) cites a reference from Greek literature. A sea
captain, whose ship was going down, signaled a "mayday"
message: "Baptizo! Baptizo!"
(literally, "I'm sinking! I'm
sinking!") 3) A recent secular source, published
by the Reader's Digest Association, says: "The
word baptize comes from the Greek verb baptizo,
meaning to immerse, go under, or sink. In the earliest
Christian rites, baptism meant full immersion in water"
(Ward, 1991). 4) "Dip" (baptizo) is
clearly distinguished from "pour" (cheo) and
"sprinkle" (rhantizo) in biblical literature
(see Leviticus 14:15-16 LXX).
Regarding the eunuch, Irenaeus (c. A.D. 130-200) says that he
was returned to Ethiopia where he preached what he himself had
learned (Against Heresies, 3.12.8).
