Which Philip Baptized the Ethiopian?
In the eighth chapter of Acts of the Apostles in what we know as verses 26-40, we read the story of a man named Philip baptizing a Eunuch from Ethiopia. The traditional view is that this person is Philip the Deacon mentioned by Luke in Acts 6:5. Others hold that this person was in fact Philip called by Jesus to be an apostle (John 1:43-44). This blog post presents evidence for both, and reaches a startling conclusion.
In Acts 8:26-40 we read about a Eunuch from Ethiopia. This person was riding in a chariot reading from the 53rd chapter of Isaiah. He was the treasurer of the Queen’s court. He was returning from worship in Jerusalem. God instructs Phillip to approach him, and Phillip uses that very scripture to teach and ultimately baptize this person.
One argument which is often made for this being Philip the Deacon is found earlier in the chapter. Acts 8:1 tells us that, due to persecution, Christians were scattered “except for the apostles.” This argument does not seem persuasive. It seems clear that this Philip was in fact in Jerusalem (Acts 8:26) where only the apostles were. It was the road from Jerusalem to Gaza which God instructs Philip to take. Further, one could argue that God knew the apostles needed some direct guidance to motivate them to leave Jerusalem and that is why he was sent.
A second argument we have heard indicates that Philip had gone to Samaria and his preaching was so effective that the apostles in Jerusalem heard about it and sent Peter and John to give them the Holy Spirit. (Acts 8:14-16). When at least one person saw they were giving people power by the laying on of hands, he tried to buy that gift from him (Acts 8: 17-24). The argument is that since Phillip could not give the gift of the Holy Spirit, he was obviously not Philip the Apostle.
This argument is not persuasive for two reasons. First, Samaria is not near the road between Jerusalem and Gaza nor is there any indication of divine transport to the location, in fact quite the opposite (Acts 8:26). Second, it rests on the assumption that this Philip is the same Philip that is described in Acts 8:26-40 merely because they have the same name. There are several times in the Bible where others with the same name are mentioned in close proximity.
A third argument we have heard is that the narrative shifts in Acts 6 to focus on deacons. This seems to us to be counter indicated by Acts 8:14-17, and later in Acts 11:1+. In fact, much of the remainder of the Book of Acts focuses on events in the life of apostles.
On the other hand, there is solid evidence that this was Philip the Apostle. In Acts 6:1-4 it seems clear that the whole reason deacons were appointed were to free the apostles up to preach the word. That is obviously exactly what happened in Acts 8:26-40.
We should say that even our team is divided on this question. It is not clear cut. There are solid arguments both ways. Anyone who tells you they know authoritatively it is one or the other has not been Berean on this topic. One final question to contemplate this: why would God send a deacon if an elder/apostle was available?