The case of Philip

This is the thirteenth in a series of blog posts in which we are seeking to answer one overarching question—is a properly qualified administrator essential to valid baptism? The first post introducing the series can be found here.

In our last post, we began looking for evidence that any of those who administered baptism in the New Testament were specially authorized to do so by a local church. We reviewed every instance of baptism recorded in scripture, and while we found plenty of occasions where this might have been the case, we found none where scripture explicitly affirms it to have been so.

However, our search for a pattern isn’t over. The New Testament identifies two administrators of baptism after Pentecost by name—Philip and Paul. If we can establish that either of these two men was authorized by a local church to administer baptism, we may still find the pattern we’re looking for.

In this post, we’ll be asking, was Philip specially authorized by a local church to perform the baptisms recorded in Acts 8?

Although one of the original twelve Apostles was named Philip (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13), we read for the first time of a different disciple named Philip in Acts 6, where he is listed as one of seven faithful men who were appointed to oversee the daily distribution of food to widows:

And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.

Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, “It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.”

And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch: whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them. (Acts 6:1-6)

This event is usually understood as the election of the first seven deacons, and therefore this Philip is sometimes referred to as Philip the Deacon.

We next read of Philip in Acts 8, when the church at Jerusalem was under severe persecution. Amidst the widespread scattering of believers, Philip is said to have traveled to the city of Samaria, where he preached Christ:

And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles …

Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word. Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them. (Acts 8:1b-5)

Luke’s statement that the apostles remained in Jerusalem makes it clear that the Philip who went to preach at Samaria was Philip the Deacon, not Philip the Apostle.

At Samaria, Philip not only preached, but also performed great miracles. His powerful witness resulted in the conversion of many men and women, who were then baptized. A former sorcerer named Simon even professed faith and was baptized:

But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done. (Acts 8:12-13)

Although Luke doesn’t explicitly write that Philip personally baptized these believers, it does seem likely.

A short time later, Philip was led by the angel of the Lord to preach Christ to an Ethiopian eunuch returning back from Jerusalem. The eunuch believed and asked to be baptized. In this case, the text affirms that Philip personally baptized the eunuch:

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

Immediately, the Spirit carried Philip to another location, and the eunuch continued on his way back to Ethiopia, rejoicing in his Savior.

The only other time we hear of this Philip in scripture is in Acts 21—perhaps as much as two decades after the events of Acts 8—when the Apostle Paul and his companions stayed in Philip’s house in Caesarea:

And the next day we that were of Paul's company departed, and came unto Caesarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him. And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy. (Acts 21:8-9)

Luke’s description of Philip as “one of the seven” makes it clear this Philip is one and the same as Philip the Deacon. We find that Philip is also referred to here with another title—Philip the Evangelist.

Having finished our brief review of Philip’s career, we’re now ready to consider the question at hand. Was Philip specially authorized by a local church to perform the baptisms recorded in Acts 8?

First, some have proposed that when the church at Jerusalem appointed Philip to the deaconship in Acts 6, they also authorized him to preach and administer baptism. But although there is nothing inherently unlikely in the suggestion itself, it must be admitted that the text says no such thing.

Luke tells us precisely what Philip was selected to do. He was specifically appointed “over this business” (v. 3)—that is, over the relief of the widows, some of whom were being “neglected in the daily ministration” (v. 1). In this text, Philip was not being appointed either to preach or to baptize. On the contrary, he was being appointed to minister to the material needs of the church, so that the apostles would be freed up to focus on “the ministry of the word” (v. 4). The apostles did not have time to “serve tables” (v. 2), and that’s exactly what these seven faithful men were appointed to do instead.

There is therefore no basis in the Acts 6 account of Philip’s appointment to conclude that it included an appointment to either preaching or the administration of baptism.

Second, it might be suggested that Luke’s use of the title Philip the Evangelist indicated an official appointment to a church office that included both preaching and the administration of baptism.

This is not entirely unlikely, especially considering that Paul lists evangelists as gifts of Christ alongside apostles, prophets, pastors, and teachers in Ephesians 4:11. Nevertheless, Luke may have simply used the title Philip the Evangelist to distinguish him from Philip the Apostle, or to refer to him in connection with the works of evangelism he had performed earlier in Acts.

But even if we were to understand Philip to be an evangelist in the sense of an official church officer, scripture would remain completely silent as to when he was ordained to this office. Had he been ordained as an evangelist by a local church at the time he preached and baptized in Acts 8? We do not know, because scripture does not say.

In the end, we find there is simply no scriptural evidence that Philip was specially authorized by a local church to administer the baptisms recorded in Acts 8. Our search for a pattern will have to continue.

What about the Apostle Paul? We will consider his case in our next post.