More on Philip

We discussed Philip a few months back (Quantum Leap) and traced him from Jerusalem to Samaria (north) then way south to Gaza where he witnessed to the Ethiopian Eunuch. Then he was moved north and ultimately finished his trip in Caesarea. This was in Acts 8. We don't hear about him until Acts 21.

But was that the end of his story? Back in chapter 8 of Acts, Luke recorded that Philip preached all the way up the coast to Caesarea, so would it be to big of a stretch to suppose that he continued to preach in his new, and seeming more permanent home?

Acts 10 has an interesting story that may involve Philip. Will you indulge my sanctified imagination here for a minute? Then you may decide for yourself. Read the story:
     Now there was a man at Caesarea named Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian cohort, 2 a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually.

How many times have we read this and just skipped right over it. This guy was obviously a Roman, leading an "Italian" army group of 100 armed soldiers. (If he were the "cohort" leader it would be 600 men, which is about a 10th of a legion.) Why, or how would this Roman soldier become interested in God and in caring for the Jewish people? Would it be reasonable to think that Philip had kept on preaching for a couple of chapters? (You can puzzle out the time if you are so disposed. I'm not, right now.)

But if Philip were effective in communicating to the people there, Cornelius may have at least heard of his preaching and been curious or intrigued. We can surmise that Philip would not have been reticent about preaching to a Gentile, due to his previous "ministry." But the eunuch was heading for Africa, so the ramifications were not too far reaching in Jerusalem. Philip may have not even told them about it, since it appeared that he did not return to Jerusalem.

If Philip's preaching was instrumental in awakening a hunger in Cornelius and his family, why did they not just go to Philip? Don't you just love how God controls circumstances? The next verse relates how God stepped into the story to take control.

In short, an angel appeared to Cornelius. Luke said that he was "alarmed." This is a pretty tough Roman centurion, and probably not easily frightened. The angel, conspicuously did not deliver the customary, "Fear not." We might explore that some other time.

Cornelius' angelic visitor did direct him to send for Peter, who was currently in Joppa. I just noticed that the soldier who accompanied the two servants was a "devout soldier." (Verse 7) Do you imagine that he may also have been interested in the message about to be brought by Peter?

We know the story how Cornelius and "all those who were listening" (v. 44) were saved and received the same witness that the believers on the Day of Pentecost did. (Think the "devout soldier" was also there?)

So the question is, "Why did the Lord not use Philip to preach to them?" He was obviously in Caesarea, where he was raising his family. Was there something "special" about this congregation? It seems that there was.

Sadly, we read chapter 11 and find that instead of rejoicing at the new believers, some in Jerusalem were critical of Peter for going to "uncircumcised men and eating with them." There is a good chance that the Ethiopian Eunuch was a proselyte, and thus was "technically" a Jew.

If Philip had made the presentation and the Lord responded to Gentiles through that, the argument back in Jerusalem would have been a bit more difficult, I suggest. First, Peter, himself, required convincing by the Holy Spirit before he even went to preach. Had he, and the Jewish believers with him, not seen the evidence themselves of the salvation, as evidenced by the baptism of the Holy Spirit, would the argument have been as fervent and convincing?

The Lord knew that the hard heads back in the "home base" would need a powerful persuader. Hello, Peter. Anyone want to dispute him? Some did, but not very effectively. God was in control there.

So Philip may have been the trail breaker for the belief of the Gentiles in Caesarea, but he was not obsessed with getting the "glory" and praise for his work. The Lord was at work anyway, and whom He used is not important. That He did it is the key issue.

We watched Philip leave a thriving ministry in Samaria, lead a single guy to the Lord, then preach his way all the way up the coast. He started out as a table waiter in Acts 6, as did Stephen, by the way. He was not pretentious or proud. He just got the job done. 

Someone once said that there is no limit of what God can do through a man if he is not concerned about who gets the credit. Sounds like Philip, doesn't it?

We need more Philips.