Ver. 38. εἰς τὸ ὕδωρ: even if the words are rendered ‘unto the water” (Plumptre), the context ἀνέβησαν ἐκ in- dicates that the baptism was by immer- sion, and there can be no doubt that this was the custom in the early Church. St. Paul’s symbolic language in Rom. vi. 4, Col. ii. 12, certainly seems to presuppose that such was the case, as also such types as the Flood, the passage of the Red Sea, the dipping of Naaman in Jor- dan. But the Didaché is fairly quoted to show that at an early period immer- sion could not have been regarded as essential, cf. vii. 3. See also “ Teaching of the Apostles,” iv., 807, in Dict. of Christ. Biog. (Smith & Wace), ‘‘ Apos- tellehre” in Real-Encyclopddie fir pro- testant. Theol. und Kirche (Hauck), Ρ. 712; ‘‘ Baptism” in B.D.%. “ Mutavit Z&thiops pellem suam” is the comment of Bede, ‘id est sordé peccatorum abluta, de lavacro Jesu dealbatus as- cendit.”
Ver. 39. Πνεῦμα K. ἥρπασε: although the expression is simply Πνεῦμα K. the reference is evidently to the same divine power as in ver. 29, and cannot be ex- plained as meaning an inward impulse of the Evangelist, or as denoting a hurricane or storm of wind (as even Nésgen and Stier supposed). The article _ is omitted before Πνεῦμα K. in Luke iv. 18, so also in LXX, Isa. Ixi. 1, and we
227
αὐτόν. 39. ὅτε δὲ ἀνέβησαν ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος, Πνεῦμα Κυρίου ἤρπασε
1
τὸν Φίλιππον 1: καὶ οὐκ εἶδεν αὐτὸν οὐκέτι εὐνοῦχος, ἐπορεύετο γὰρ
1 Πνευµα Κ. ηρπασετον Φ.; instead of this A?, Par., Wern., Syr. H. mg., Jer., Aug. read πνευμα αγιον επεπεσεν επι Tov ευνουχον, αγγελος Se K. ηρπασεν τον Φ. Wendt regards as interpolation partly according to νετ. 26 and partly according to ver. 44. Hilg. retains and Belser, p. 51, defends as Lucan. It is fitting that in Scripture the Holy Ghost is not represented as given after Philip’s Baptism, because his work was to be completed by the advent of Peter and John ; but in the case before us no Apostle was present, and so the Holy Spirit came down miraculously after Philip had baptised the eunuch. So, too, Hilgenfeld leans towards the reading ᾖ. ο., and regards it as just possible that the ordinary text is a set-off against the contradiction involved with viii, 15-18, in accordance with which the Holy Spirit was only bestowed through the laying on of the hands of the Apostles. Blass rejects, and follows T.R. (see below). After Φιλιππον Par., Syr. H. mg. (no other authorities) add “‘ab eo”; so Hilg., and so Blass in B, am’ avrov, which seems somewhat strange in the case of the latter
-writer.
cannot therefore conclude anything from its omission here. ἥρπασε, abripuit, the disappearance, as the context shows, was regarded as supernatural, cf. LXX, 1 Kings xviii. 12, 2 Kings ii. 16 (Ezek. iii.
14, Hebrew only rm): Thus Hilgen_
feld recognises not only a likeness here - to the Ο.Τ. passages quoted, but that a miraculous transference of Philip to another place is implied. No doubt, as Hilgenfeld points out, πνεῦμα may mean wind, John iii. 8, but this by no means | justifies exclusion of all reference here to \-the Holy Spirit. No doubt we may see with Blass a likeness in the language of the narrative to the O.T. passages just cited, and St. Luke’s informants may have been the daughters of Philip, who were them- selves προφήτιδες (see Blass, in loco) ; but there is no reason why he should not have heard the narrative from St. Philip himself, and the rendering πνεῦμα by ventus is not satisfactory, although Blass fully recognises that Philip departed by the same divine impulse as that by which he had come. . Holtzmann endorses the reference to the O.T. passages above, but specially draws attention to the parallel which he supposes in Bel and the Dragon, ver. 34 ff. But this passage should be contrasted rather than com- pared with the simple narrative of the text, so free from any fantastic embellish- ment, while plainly implying a super- natural element: cf. for the verb ἁρπάζω, 1 Thess. iv. 17, 2 Cor. xii. 2, 4 (a reference to which as explaining Philip’s with- drawal is not to the point, since the narra- tive cannot imply that Philip was ἐκτὸς τοῦ σώματος), Rev. xii. 5, used of a snatching or taking up due to divine agency, cf. Wisdom iv. 11, where it is