Philip
and the Ethiopian Eunuch
The
issue of homosexuality has become an incredibly painful and divisive
one among Christians, even among Quakers who have a reputation for
being peace makers. Most recently, Indiana Yearly Meeting—which has
a long history of conflict between its conservative and liberal
wings—has split into two because one of its meetings declared
itself “welcoming and affirming.” This Christ-centered pastoral
meeting didn't go so far as to support same-sex marriage; it simply
affirmed that gay and lesbian members would be treated as equal to
straights. For this openness, this meeting was condemned and
essentially forced to separate from the Yearly Meeting. As a result, dozen other
monthly meetings are leaving and forming a new entity called “A New
Association of Friend.” Like divorces, such splits can be excruciating. As one who has been through a traumatic divorce, I am
holding these Friends in the Light, praying that they will find peace
and new spiritual insight after their split up.
I
have come to see the issue of homosexuality in a new, biblical light.
During this past year, I have had numerous conversations with
Evangelical Christians (including my wife) who are good, kind-hearted
people who love Jesus and the Bible. They believe that the Bible
teaches that homosexuality is not what God intends, but that Christ
commands us to love our homosexual brothers and sisters as much as we
love ourselves. As a result, I have looked into the bible to find out
what Spirit says to me about how we are to treat those who are sexual
minorities. I'd like to share my biblical perspective on
homosexuality, based on the story of Philip and the eunuch from the Book of Acts. I realize that there are many viewpoints on this topic, some of which I list at the end of this piece. I especially want to lift up Tony and Peggy Compolo, Evangelical Christians who have different views on homosexuality and have had the courage to share their differences publicly. They prove you don't have to agree to love each other! See http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/campolo.htm
When
it comes to matters of religion, I am convinced what we do is often more important
than what we say we believe. That's why I turn to the Book of Acts
which describes an encounter between an Ethiopian eunuch and Philip,
an Evangelist who was one of the Seven Deacons
chosen to care for the poor of the Christian community in
Jerusalem. Note
that Philip is called by an angel of the Lord to go on a mission to a
“desert place,” an unpopulated area. The angel’s command made
no sense, but Philip (like many other early Christians, and like early Friends) listened and
obeyed whenever the Lord gave a command, however illogical or
counter intuitive it might seem.
26
Now
an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Rise and go toward the
south[a]
to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” This is a
desert place. 27
And
he rose and went. And there was an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a court
official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of
all her treasure. He had come to Jerusalem to worship 28
and
was returning, seated in his chariot, and he was reading the prophet
Isaiah. 29
And
the Spirit said to Philip, “Go over and join this chariot.” 30
So
Philip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked,
“Do you understand what you are reading?” 31
And
he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited
Philip to come up and sit with him. 32
Now
the passage of the Scripture that he was reading was this:
“Like
a sheep he was led to the slaughter
and like a lamb before its shearer is silent,
so he opens not his mouth.33 In his humiliation justice was denied him.
Who can describe his generation?
For his life is taken away from the earth.”
and like a lamb before its shearer is silent,
so he opens not his mouth.33 In his humiliation justice was denied him.
Who can describe his generation?
For his life is taken away from the earth.”
34
And
the eunuch said to Philip, “About whom, I ask you, does the prophet
say this, about himself or about someone else?” 35
Then
Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told
him the good news about Jesus. 36
And
as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the
eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being
baptized?”[b]
38
And
he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the
water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. 39
And
when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried
Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way
rejoicing.
Acts
8:26-39 English
Standard Version (ESV)
Footnotes:
- Acts 8:26 Or go at about noon
- Acts 8:36 Some manuscripts add all or most of verse 37: And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he replied, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”
What
an amazing story! Philip, the evangelist, sent by an angel of the Lord, encounters an Ethiopian
eunuch, baptizes him, and makes him a joyful Christian. What good
news! I have shared this story many times this past year as I have
tried to explain to my Evangelical Friends how I, as a Christian
Quaker, feel about homosexuality.
I
am aware that the Old Testament condemns homosexuality and so does
Paul. But the Torah condemns many things, including eating lobster,
that Jesus’ gospel of love no longer condemns as contrary to God’s
law.
So
what biblical warrant do we have for accepting gays and lesbians into
full fellowship in the body of Christ?
I
think the story of the Ethiopian eunuch is a powerful example of how
the early church treated those who were sexually “different.” I
am convinced the Book of Acts deserves to be taken very seriously,
perhaps even more seriously than some of Paul’s theological
statements, since it describes how early Christians actually put in
practice (in their best moments) the teachings of Christ. According
to the Book of Acts, they shared things in common so “there was no
poor among them.” They offered health care for free (unlike most
mystery cults which charged money for healing). And they accepted
people of all races, ethnicities, and sexual orientations, including
“eunuchs.”
Let’s
begin by exploring what the Bible meant by “eunuch.” Jesus makes
it clear this word was used to mean many things, perhaps even
homosexuals:
“For
there are eunuchs who were born so from their mother’s womb; and
there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are eunuchs
who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. To
him who can comprehend, that is enough.” (Matthew 19:12)
The
word “eunuch” literally means someone who has been sexually
altered. But clearly in this passage it has a wider, metaphorical meaning. To be a
eunuch from birth implies a man who has no sexual desire for women,
which suggests homosexuality. It is clear from this passage that like
Isaiah, Jesus did not condemn eunuchs. Since Jesus didn’t marry,
unlike most rabbis (and most of the apostles), he even seems to have identified with them. By
not marrying, he is one of those who “made themselves eunuchs for
the sake of the kingdom of heaven.” I realize he is probably
talking about celibacy, but if so, it's significant he equates
celibacy with being a sexual outcast, a “eunuch,” or perhaps even
a homosexual.
This
was a radically prophetic teaching. Eunuchs (whether they were “from
birth” or not) weren’t permitted to enter the “assembly of God”
and become full-fledged members of the Jewish community, as
Deuteronomy makes clear:
“No
one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall
enter the assembly of the Lord.”
(Deuteronomy
23:1)
But
the prophet Isaiah, who was a source for many of Jesus’ radical
ideas, offers hope to eunuchs:
Thus
says the Lord:
“Keep justice, and do righteousness, for soon my salvation will
come, and my deliverance be revealed. Blessed is the man who does
this, and the son of man who holds it fast, who keeps the Sabbath,
not profaning it, and keeps his hand from doing any evil.” Let not
the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord
say, “The Lord
will surely separate me from his people”; and let not the eunuch
say, “Behold, I am a dry tree.” For thus says the Lord:
“To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose the things that
please me and hold fast my covenant, I will give in my house and
within my walls a monument and a name better than sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off. ...
(Isaiah
56:1-12)
According
to Isaiah, there is hope for the foreigner and for those who are
sexual outcasts. This prophecy was fulfilled in the story of Philip
and the eunuch. The eunuch was an Ethiopian Jew, a high-ranking
official, who came to worship in Jerusalem, but probably would not
have been allowed to enter the Temple since he was a foreigner and a
eunuch, and hence an outcast. But he followed God’s teachings (the
Torah), and wanted to learn more about the prophecies of Isaiah. When
he asked Philip to teach him, Philip shared the good news that the
Messiah had come in fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophesy. The eunuch,
who knew how to read Hebrew and was well versed in the Bible, was
probably wondering: How does this apply to me? Will I, a eunuch, be
accepted into this new movement? Hence the eunuch’s bold, yet
poignant question:
“What
prevents me from being baptized?”
A
rabbi or priest might have responded, “Why are you asking that
question? You know the answer!” It was risky even to ask since it
opened up the possibility of rejection. Imagine if Philip had
responded, “Christ came to save everyone, except for eunuchs.” Or
if he had said, “Well, you’re saved. But don’t expect to be
baptized. That’s just for those who are sexually ‘normal.’”
After all, baptism was a big deal in the early church. It meant that
you were washed clean of all your sins and a full-fledged member of
the community. Many would-be Christians went through a long
initiation process in order to become spiritually ready for baptism.
The
eunuch wasn’t willing to wait, however; he was impatient as well as
bold. He “commanded the chariot to stop,” and Philip went down to
the river and baptized him immediately.
In
an instant, the eunuch became a full-fledged Christian. His sins
were forgiven. He was a new man. He had an “everlasting name that
would never be cut off.” What a glorious moment!
Then
Philip mysteriously disappeared. I don’t know what this mysterious
disappearance means. Perhaps it means that this baptism was a
spiritual one, divinely sanctioned; certainly it was supernatural. We
do know this baptism transformed the eunuch’s life. He “went away
rejoicing.”
According
to legend, this eunuch went back to Ethiopia and became an
evangelist. He is credited with founding the Ethiopian church!
This
story suggests to me that the early church was inclusive and open to
everyone, people of different races, ethnicities and sexual
orientations. All were welcome, as long as they loved God and sought
to live faithful lives in accordance with Jesus’ teachings. This
was and still is good news!
For
more on eunuchs in the bible see:
For
a discussion of the range of views on homosexuality among Friends,
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Quakerism
Thank you for this. Well-written and well-reasoned.
ReplyDeleteIt is sad to see how this issue is splitting the church. But we must remember this is far from the first issue to have done so. In the end I trust that the Spirit will lead us to truth.
peace
An interesting piece and the first I've seen that uses "eunuch" in these controversies. It seems to me that identifying "sexually altered" or "sexual outcast" in the case of the eunuch with "sexual orientation" is not convincing. Interpreters on all sides generally agree that the Bible does not address sexual orientation, and my study leads me to agree with that.
ReplyDeleteIt's too complicated for a short response, but I suppose you recognize that interpreting OT law and Leviticus in particular requires more than just dismissing it all because Christians don't eat kosher and don't continue OT ceremonial practice.
Blessings on your thoughtfulness.
When it comes to music and other etherial aspects of worship, pastors don't mind acting more like Philip.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your thoughtful article. I would like to make some pointed comments, if you would allow me. The argument you advance is "biblicist," that is, it takes a modern phenomenon and tries to find Bible passages that might address the phenomenon. These sorts of arguments necessitate broadening the application of a particular passage to include the modern phenomenon. Here, the kingdom includes eunuchs, which is broadened to all who are "sexually different," esp. persons who are involved in same-sex intimate relationships. These sorts of arguments are usually only convincing to those who agree with the author's position before reading the argument. Alas, I would put your article in that category. It is not likely to convince anyone not already on the author's side. I would question, though, the biblicist approach that lies behind the article . . . and that lies behind almost every discussion of "Homosexuality and the Bible," no matter where the author comes down on the present-day issue in our churches and meetings. I would want us to look at the power dynamics in the current debate, esp. in the use of the Bible. For example, this article represents a "heterosexist" perspective: Homosexuals are "sexually different," but we, like God, love them anyway and accept them as equal (sort of) "members" of our meetings and churches . . . as long as they "live faithful lives in accordance with Jesus' teachings." Is that really good news? It is . . . at least to us good liberal heterosexuals who refuse to look at how we use our own biblical interpretation to solidify our power.
ReplyDeleteI fear that my words have been overly harsh. I apologize for their tone. I ask that they be received with grace.
Michael, I very much appreciate your comments. As a liberal Quaker, I regard the Spirit, not the Bible, as the ultimate source of authority. For me, the "golden rule" (treating others as you would like to be treated, with love and respect) is the most important ethical principle and is grounded in the experience of worship--where all are equal in God's sight. Having said that, I also see the Bible as an important source of truth for many people (including myself) and I want to share my understadning of a story that has not received the kind of attention I feel it deserves. My hope is that my interpretation of this story will help "people of the book" to have a more compassionate and open attitude towards those who are "sexually different." Having said that, I want to address your objection that I write from a position of power as a straight male. This is true. I also write from the position of one who has not always lived his life faithful to Jesus' teachings, as someone who needs grace and forgiveness. I don't consider myself in any way superior to my gay and lesbian friends. Some have lived lives that are far more faithful and loving than mine. I have learned much from them and appreciate that my branch of the Religious Society of Friends has been open and welcoming and affirming to all.
ReplyDeleteWHAT HINDERS ME FROM BEING BAPTIZED?
ReplyDeleteWhen the Ethiopian eunuch said "what hinders me from being baptized," did he mean what hinders me from being immersed, poured, or sprinkled?
Acts 8:36 Now as they went down the road, they came to somewater. And the eunuch said, "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?" (NKJV)
Acts 8:36 As they were going down the road, they came to somewater; and the eunuch said, "Look! Here's some water! Is there any reason why I shouldn't be immersed?" (CJB-Complete Jewish Bible)
Acts 8:36 And , as they went on their way, they came to certain water; and the eunuch said, Look, here is water; what is there to hinder me from being immersed? (TBVOTNT-The Better Version of The New Testament by Chester Estes)
There are no translations of the Bible that translates Acts 8:36 as..."What hinders me from being poured or sprinkled."
The only place water baptism is expressed as sprinkling and pouring is in books written by men. Do preachers, pastors, priests, and the early church fathers have the authority to change immersion to sprinkling or pouring?
If preachers, pastors, priests, and the early church fathers have been given the authority to change immersion to sprinkling or pouring, then why can they not change water to olive oil or milk. The example of a man-made verse of Scripture. (Acts 8:36 Now as they went down the road, they came to some olive oil or milk. And the eunuch said, "See here is olive oil or milk. What hinders me from being poured or sprinkled?")
God has not authorized any preacher, pastor, priest, nor the early church fathers to change immersion to poured or sprinkled.
God inspired one book, the Bible.
YOU ARE INVITED TO FOLLOW MY CHRISTIAN BLOG.http:steve-finnell.blogspot.com