Cultural Literacy (pt. 2 of 3): The Ethiopian Eunuch
I’ll continue in our exercise on cultural literacy, with a text in Acts 8, the Ethiopian Eunuch. But if you didn’t get a chance to check out part 1, I also recommend doing that as well. Acts is a great passage for a topic like cultural exegesis. The Book of Acts is all about the Acts of the Apostles, and the Holy Spirit working through them to establish and build up the 1st Century church. But it’s important to note, up until this point, Christianity/Judaism is almost exclusively concentrated within the Jewish population. In other words, as far as Christianity was concerned, ethnicity/culture was a near perfect predictor of religious tradition. If you’re not Jewish, you’re probably not Christian, with very few exceptions. And if you are a Christian, you’re probably Jewish.
Why wouldn’t the book of Acts be a great place for an exercise on cultural literacy? The writing is all over the walls. God was setting the stage for centuries. I think that’s one of the reasons why the Gentile conversions in the Book of Acts were of paramount importance to New Testament Christianity: God was orchestrating this from the very beginning.
We can start with context in Acts 2. 3,000 Jews from all over the world are gathered together in Jerusalem at Pentecost. While they’re there, the Holy Spirit comes on Peter and the other Apostles, just as Jesus said, and shortly thereafter, Peter preaches a powerful sermon.
A crowd of 3,000 Jews gets baptized.
Don’t celebrate yet though! Shortly after this, persecution comes, and Christians fled Jerusalem in safety. We pick up in Acts 8:26-40, where a man, Phillip, interacts with an Ethiopian Eunuch. We know from the text this eunuch had intentions of worshiping in Jerusalem, and presumably, he was going back to Ethiopia. Let’s focus on 3 things for the time being in our cultural exegesis, perhaps in order of importance.
Observation 1: This man was a Eunuch.
Observation 2: This man was a Gentile.
Observation 3: This man was Ethiopian.
Observation 1: This man was a Eunuch.
This isn’t a term we use much today, although I’ll try and draw some comparisons in just a second.
The short of it is, eunuchs were responsible for guarding the women’s quarters in the palace. To ensure their integrity, and make sure their sexual drive doesn’t compromise their mission, many (although not all) of these men were castrated to make sure they weren’t tempted by the prospect of sleeping with the women they were supposed to be protecting, or impregnating them to usurp the political establishment.
Yes, you read that correctly. Although it’s hard to know for sure, there’s a chance this man had no testicles (or they were damaged beyond repair). I should mention although a number of scholars are of the school of thought that this eunuch was probably castrated, some scholars have a different take.
But for the sake of our exercise, let’s say as part of his job, he’s been castrated.
This is where things get interesting. We don’t have an exact equivalent today, but we could, perhaps, approximate castration with different comparisons. If I don’t have any male genitalia, you could, perhaps, say that I’m a bit less of a man. So, this would be a man who’s probably seen as less masculine, at least compared to his non-eunuch counterparts, right? I would argue that perception would be true for both men and women. That is, when men and women, inside or outside of the church, look at this eunuch, there’s a strong temptation to (perhaps) think of him as less of a man.
I mean, if male sex organs are what makes a man a man, many would say you’re not a man (or not a particularly useful man) if you do not have those parts.
Beyond being perceived as less masculine, what do we liken a man to when he doesn’t measure up to society’s standards of what it means to be a man? In some cases, we may liken him to a homosexual man. And I’ll admit, norms for masculinity have changed over the centuries, but my intuition says, even in the 1st century, both men and women expect men to have male sex organs, and to not have male sex organs might mean that they’re not really a man and/or they don’t actually like women. So, it’s quite possible that not only was this Eunuch’s masculinity called into question, but perhaps his sexuality was called into question, too. Again, I would argue that would be a potential pitfall both inside and outside of the church.
If I did a survey of people in the 1st century, I’m pretty sure results would show that it would be a big deal for a man to not have testicles, even if he has a fancy-pants job (no pun intended).
Keep in mind, just because we’re in the church doesn’t mean we’re immune to the sin of being judgmental or prejudice. In fact, there are situations where we’re more prejudice or judgmental than people who don’t even believe in religion, but that’s a whole different conversation. But obviously, we’re not above the possibility of showing prejudice. The church, as an institution, subscribes to traditional gender roles. So, what do you think happens when a man walks through the door wearing women’s jeans? Or we find out he walks around with a pocket mirror or gets mani pedis with his female friends? Or we find out he has a history of sleeping with other men? Or he’s the only guy in the group who, for whatever reason, doesn’t show a strong interest in starting a family and having kids (the Eunuch couldn’t really do this if he wanted to). What do you think happens when a Eunuch walks through your church doors? Or maybe even someone who was previously a Eunuch?
I’m not really convinced that sisters in the church are lining up out of the door to go on a date with that handsome, young Eunuch. Beyond that, I don’t know how the guys will feel about him either, particularly if they’re hypermasculine and have some reservations about spending time with men they perceive as sexually ambiguous.
I want to stress this: Being a eunuch has NOTHING to do with sexual orientation; Eunuchs are people who hold positions that frequently involve being castrated. I simply chose these examples because they draw a strong parallel between Acts 8 and a more modern topic that we all have some level of familiarity with (although, to be clear, this isn’t a perfect comparison).
But there’s another reason why I like these examples, too. The church, historically, has not had a positive relationship with the LGBT community. There are lots of reasons for that, but suffice to say the relationship is incredibly strained, and it’s a community of people that the church now has great, great difficulty reaching.
This is not unlike the case with our Eunuch.
It’s right there in Leviticus 21:18-20. “No one with crushed testicles may offer sacrifice to God.”
Deuteronomy 23 (vs 1) makes a similar point: “If your testicles are crushed or cut off, you’re not permitted to enter the assembly of God.”
The implication is simple. The church has a documented history of excluding people like this Eunuch. At this point in history, approximately 1500 years or so. Absolutely NO eunuchs allowed. For 15 centuries. This isn’t unlike our comparison to the LGBT community at all. Suffice to say, there’s probably a bit of tension present between this man and the Jewish/Christian community.
Observation 2: This man was a Gentile.
This is an important point, because it would ultimately come to be the story of the Book of Acts (Acts 10, particularly, is a good reference). The Gentiles are not unclean. It’s okay to worship and fellowship with them. Sure, that’s easy for us to say now, but in the 1st Century, it was still a very radical idea. The reason why the scripture on the Ethiopian Eunuch is such a great reference in our exercise of cultural exegesis is because he represents one of the first Gentile converts in the 1st Century church. It was a truly historic moment.
Can you imagine what it was like to embody an identity that, up until a few days ago, an entire church community was under the impression that you were not fit to fellowship with? Hmmmm, my impression is he probably felt like he was walking on egg shells. In fact, maybe he was thinking, “The Apostle Peter says I’m allowed to be here, but that doesn’t mean my Jewish brothers and sisters actually want me here.” It only takes a few miscommunications… maybe they go out to breakfast one day after church and don’t send him a text about it. Or maybe they organize a trip to the movies and he finds out about it on Facebook. Or maybe they do a roadtrip to a nearby city and cancel house church that day and he shows up because he had no idea everyone was out of town. Seriously, it only takes a few less-than-stellar experiences…
Now, for context, this man was presumably going back to Ethiopia, so my hypotheticals above aren’t particularly likely (when the church got started in Ethiopia, it would likely have a lot more Ethiopians, and these people would be gentiles). Still, I think this is an important observation: this is a man who embodies an identity that has, historically, been both excluded and marginalized in the church. How you treat a man like this in your fellowship is actually pretty important.
Again, we’re doing a cultural exegesis. We can’t just read the passage. We need to read the situation.
Observation 3: This man was Ethiopian.
So, this is interesting. This man is a chocolate brotha! Literally. Some commentaries note that the term ‘Ethiopian’ was used as a generic, umbrella term for anyone who looked like they were African… slender, dark, etc. It’s quite possible this man was truly Ethiopian, but at a minimum, he was from somewhere in Africa and probably looked the part, too. Why is this relevant? Well, remember, Christianity is hyperconcentrated within the Jewish community at this point in history. And the 1st Century church consists of two groups of Jews: Hellenistic Jews and Hebraic Jews. Hellenistic Jews were Jewish, but grew up outside of Judah. Thus, they had more exposure to Greek influence and probably spoke Aramaic with a bit of an accent. Hebraic Jews grew up in Judah, and they were probably a bit more in touch with their Jewish roots. Thus, even though they probably knew Greek, their preference was probably Aramaic, and they probably had a stronger affinity for Jewish culture (vs. Greek culture).
Our dark-skinned Ethiopian Eunuch is neither. That is, he isn’t a Hellenistic Jew or Hebraic Jew. In fact, by virtue of his title, there’s reason to believe that just by looking at him, it was quite obvious that he was from a foreign land.
Beyond that though, let’s keep in mind, this is a man of stature. He works in the palace of the queen. That’s the equivalent of working in the white house. Suffice to say he needed to know Greek to occupy such a high position. But since he’s Ethiopian, he spoke Greek with an Ethiopian accent. And looking at the list of countries these Jews were from (see Acts 2:7-11), it doesn’t look like any of them have direct ties to Ethiopia.
So, in addition to being a Gentile, this guy looks funny (because he’s from a foreign land) and he talks funny (because he’s from a foreign land).
So, what do we do now? “Is this the guy we want on our praise and worship team? Are people going to understand him?”
“Is this the guy we want serving as an usher? If we put him at the door, is it going to run people away? What if they’ve never seen an Ethiopian before?!”
“Should we use his apartment for house church? I don’t want any visitors thinking that we’re an Ethiopian church! Oh, God no! Peter said we have to open our doors to Gentiles, but let’s not get carried away!”
We could probably add two or three other observations, but here’s my point. In performing our cultural exegesis, and reading the situation, we see certain things highlighted. If you’re a Hellenistic or Hebraic Christian when this Eunuch gets baptized (Acts 8:38), your thought process may go a little something like this.
Us: Jewish
Him: Ethiopian
Us: Excluded him for 1500 years
Him: Excluded for 1500 years
Us: God’s chosen people; a royal priesthood
Him: A gentile, on the outside looking in
Conclusion: “Wow, if we’re not intentional about building a bridge, Satan may convince this guy he isn’t welcome and this whole “discipleship” thing was a bad idea. I’m going to go out of my way to make sure he feels welcome.”
I want to be very clear about this; a lot of what we just discussed was speculative. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t relevant. That doesn’t mean it isn’t applicable. Just because we don’t know something for sure doesn’t dismiss its importance. Just like our exercise in part 1, it’s important not only to read the text but to read the situation, too. This is a situation in which I think a man has the potential to be marginalized or feel marginalized. It’s perhaps for that reason that we see Paul continuing to emphasize Jew-Gentile relations throughout the New Testament. This is the real deal, people. I’ll share part 3 next week.
Just some random thoughts.
Nnamdi