What we have see was the voyage of Paul and his companions; that which follows is their land journey. “And on the morrow we departed and came into Caesarea; and entering into the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, we abode with him” (Acts 21:88And 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. (Acts 21:8)).
The words of the inspired writer are full and distinct. From their precision one might think it impossible that any intelligent mind could fail to discern the person meant; yet no less a one than the father of ecclesiastical history contrived to misunderstand the verse, and to confound Philip the evangelist with Philip the apostle. It is no pleasure to point out a lapse so strange and unaccountable in an intelligent reader of scripture; but it becomes a duty to notice the error, and urge its importance as a warning to those who cry up the authority of patristic tradition. Indisputably Eusebius was neither better nor worse than most of the Christian fathers. For superstitious eyes he has the advantage of holding a decidedly early place amongst them; for he flourished in the days of the Emperor Constantine. No ancient MS. of the Greek New Testament that survives was written before his day; and but two can pretend to be as early. Yet it is plain that, with the text as it stands before him, he grossly erred, not on a point of nice doctrine, but in a plain matter of fact. For we are here told that the Philip, with whom the apostles’ party stayed, was not the evangelist only, but one of the seven i.e. one of the seven men appointed by the apostles for diaconal service during the days of first love, soon after Pentecost.
If the unquestionable meaning of scripture could be thus overlooked, and so serious a mistake find its way into his history, what confidence ought to be reposed in any alleged facts or statements outside the scriptures? Not that any evil object is imputed to that historian; but the circumstance proves that in those days, as in our own, there is deplorable ignorance of God’s word where one might least expect it. Patristic authority in divine things is no more reliable than modern systematic divinity. The value of scripture practically as well as dogmatically is incalculable. It is the standard as well as source of truth.
“Now this man had four daughters, virgins, who did prophesy; and, as we tarried many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet named Agabus; and coming to us and taking Paul’s girdle, he bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, so shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and deliver him into the hands of [the] Gentiles” (Acts 21:9-119And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy. 10And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judea a certain prophet, named Agabus. 11And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles. (Acts 21:9‑11)).
The fact stated in the 9th verse deserves full consideration. Philip had four unmarried daughters, of whom it is declared that they prophesied; that is, they had the highest form of gift for acting on souls from God. Such prophesying was yet more than teaching or preaching. We cannot doubt, therefore, that they used their gift on the one hand; and on the other that it was forbidden to use it in the assembly. “It is shameful,” had Paul written in his First Epistle to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 14:34-3534Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 35And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. (1 Corinthians 14:34‑35)), “for a woman to speak in [the] assembly.” At Corinth it seems that some were bold enough to attempt this and other innovations; but it also seems to have been at that time a very unusual and unheard of notion. In general, Christian women understood their place better in these early days. Still there might arise some such desire here or there. At any rate the apostle felt it necessary in his First Epistle to Timothy to write (chap. ii. 12), “I permit not a woman to teach, nor to exercise authority over a man, but to be in quietness.” The word αὐθεντεῖν does not convey the “usurpation,” but the possession or exercise, of power, where it does not mean committing murder. The woman is not set in authority, nor is she to act as if she were. As to this there can be no dispute for subject minds. “If any one thinketh himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize the things which I write unto you, that it is the commandment of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:3737If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. (1 Corinthians 14:37)). The Lord’s will is on record unmistakably, if indeed we respect scripture.
But these maiden daughters of Philip did prophesy, if not in the assembly, somewhere else. Decorum would have forbidden it still more in public, if God’s order prohibited it for the assembly. No place can be conceived more suitable than one’s father’s house. 1 Corinthians 11 renders it plain that the woman, in praying or prophesying, was to see that she bore the mark of subjection; for even in prophesying she must not forget she is a woman, and that the head of the woman is the man, as the head of every man is Christ. The woman, therefore, should be veiled, while the man was not so to be. “Every man praying or prophesying, having [anything] on his head dishonoureth his head; but every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered dishonoureth her own head, for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven. For if the woman is not covered,” says the apostle, “let her also be shorn; but if it is a shame to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered; for a man indeed ought not to have his head covered, being God’s image and glory; but woman is man’s glory.” Both have their place respectively in the Lord, Who, if He give power, maintains order no less; but each has a place He has assigned of its own, as all things are of God. So His word regulates all; and we should remember this the more in days when man’s voice is loud, and God’s word exposed and subjected to increasing slight.
We are not told whether these maidens predicted anything about Paul; but we do hear that Agabus the prophet added to the warnings already given by others. Not only so, but, he came and took Paul’s girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, “Thus saith the Holy Spirit, The man to whom this girdle belongs shall the Jews thus bind in Jerusalem, and deliver him up into the hands of the Gentiles.” It was quite in the symbolic manner of the ancient prophets; and it filled those who beheld and listened with sorrow for the honored apostle. “And when we heard these things, both we and those of the place besought him not to go up to Jerusalem; then Paul answered, Why do ye weep and break my heart? For I am ready, not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus. And when he would not be persuaded, we ceased, saying, The will of the Lord be done” (Acts 21:12-1412And when we heard these things, both we, and they of that place, besought him not to go up to Jerusalem. 13Then Paul answered, What mean ye to weep and to break mine heart? for I am ready not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus. 14And when he would not be persuaded, we ceased, saying, The will of the Lord be done. (Acts 21:12‑14)).
It is clear that the apostle did not understand that the Lord meant him to turn from Jerusalem. He only heard reiterated by Agabus, as he had been so often warned by others, what he must suffer there. Indeed from his conversion it was intimated how many things he must suffer for the Lord’s name’s sake. Paul clearly must have concluded that the Holy Spirit spoke, not to dissuade him from his perilous path, but rather to prepare him in it—certainly for prison, and perhaps death. The brotherly kindness of others would have screened him from all that was to await him in Jerusalem; but love goes beyond brotherly kindness. So it was working in the servant, as with all perfection in the Master.