The Ethiopian Eunuch: a sermon (Acts 8:26-40)

(I'm preaching this sermon alongside my hymn "A travelling man from far-off Ethiopia ...".)

When I attended theological seminary, some student folklore was attached to our lesson from the Acts of the Apostles. This was a few years before my time, but the story goes that one student was asked to read this passage in a chapel service. When he read the passage, instead of referring to the Ethiopian as a eunuch, he called the traveller from Africa an “unch” … each of the five times the word eunuch (or “unch”) appeared in the passage. When I was at seminary, some students still referred to this passage as the story of Philip and the “unch”. If I forget myself and refer to the eunuch as an “unch”, please bear with me.

 

This is an important passage in the New Testament. It is one of a number of occasions in the Acts of the Apostles in which we see the Christian faith crossing the cultural and religious boundaries between Jews and Gentiles. Philip’s encounter with the Ethiopian eunuch is as important as the encounter between Peter and Cornelius two chapters later. If Peter’s encounter with Cornelius is the first example in Acts of a European gentile responding to the good news of the risen Christ, the story of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch was the first example in Acts of an African gentile responding to the gospel.

 

But it seems that the fact that the traveller was a eunuch was just as important in the book of Acts as the fact that he was an Ethiopian, possibly even more so. In the passage, he’s called an Ethiopian once, but he’s called a eunuch five times. Commentators say there was great significance - at the time the passage was written - to his being a eunuch. I believe it is still significant for us today.

 

1. The eunuch had a disability.  

 

The eunuch’s physical condition was a disability. It was a serious disability in the ancient Middle East. Twice in the Old Testament books of Torah - law - we find lists of disabilities that would exclude an individual from serving as a priest in the sanctuary. The two lists were not completely identical but eunuchs were among those excluded by both lists.

 

Now, this information - on its own - could lead to an inappropriate criticism of the Old Testament law and the Jewish religion. The fact that people with various disabilities were consciously excluded from service as priests meant that they were alive. Other cultures in the ancient world did not let children born with some disabilities live. Among the Jews, the disabled survived to reach adulthood. Here is one more example – one example out of many - of how the Jews pioneered more merciful attitudes in many areas of life.

 

Philip welcomed the eunuch in Christ’s name. The gospel was extended to the excluded. The Church displayed its essential nature as a deliberately inclusive community.

 

And what does this mean for the Church today?

 

As Philip welcomed the eunuch, the Church today needs to welcome people with disabilities.  

 

Now this sounds easier than it often really is. A congregation can feel that it is very welcoming toward people with disabilities. A church can feel it’s made real progress if it:  

• buys a few large print hymnbooks;
• puts a wheelchair ramp at one of the entrances; 
• installs a handicapped lavatory and puts some handrails in the other lavatories; 
• maybe even organises a few sign language interpreters for the deaf.  

That’s all good, and it’s not so hard.

 

It’s a bit more challenging, though, for a congregation to be consistently welcoming toward people whose disabilities are somewhat more in-your-face, such as some intellectual or psychiatric disabilities. The congregation may be challenged to exercise its gifts of patience ... repeatedly.

 

As Philip welcomed the eunuch in Christ’s name, the Christian Church today has the opportunity to welcome people with all disabilities.

 

2. The eunuch could not father children.

 

That’s what makes a eunuch a eunuch. They can’t father children. They have no descendants. In a traditional society where family relationships and kinship networks were the key to one’s personal identity, a person with no descendants becomes a person on the fringe of society. In addition to having a profound physical disability, a eunuch was regarded, in many ways, as a non-person.

 

Philip welcomed the eunuch in Christ’s name. The gospel was extended to the excluded. The Church displayed its essential nature as a deliberately inclusive community.

 

And what does this mean for the Church today?

 

 As Philip welcomed the eunuch, the Church today needs to welcome people who find themselves outside the structures of traditional family life.  

 

In many ways, it’s significant that we have this passage in front of us on the Sunday a week before Mothers’ Day. Churches have always been very good at giving pastoral support to traditional families: Mum, Dad, two or three children, perhaps a few pets. Churches know how to provide programmes that give good support to such families: Sunday Schools, youth groups, after-school programmes, family worship, and all the rest. Churches are good at this - it’s important that we continue to be good at this – and it’s vital that mainstream churches continue to be good at this, rather than leaving ministry with children, young people, and families to groups on the church’s ultra-conservative fringe.  

 

I believe churches also need to cultivate our ministry with people whose household structures don’t look like traditional families:

• single people - whether single by choice or by circumstance,
• one-parent families,
• childless couples - whether childless by choice or by circumstance,
• unmarried couples,
• same-gender couples,
• blended families in various patterns.

Churches need to become as expert in providing pastoral support for all these different family patterns as we are in providing support for families in the traditional pattern. And that won’t be easy all the time.

 

As Philip welcomed the eunuch in Christ’s name, the Christian Church today has the opportunity to include in its life people outside the usual structures of family life.

 

But, even with all the exclusion, being a eunuch often had its compensations, in a way, because,

3. The eunuch in our passage was a senior government official.

 

This eunuch managed the finances of the Queen of Ethiopia. And this wasn’t all that unusual to find a eunuch in such a role. Often various high-powered jobs in royal courts were reserved for eunuchs. Kings and queens trusted eunuchs to manage their affairs. This was for a number of reasons:

• A eunuch would not have been tempted to lead a rebellion against the monarch. The eunuch could not have produced an heir to inherit the kingdom and establish a new dynasty.
• A eunuch could be trusted to behave himself around female members of the royal household. He had no choice.

 

This eunuch was a senior mover and shaker in the Ethiopian court. He moved and shook in significantly different circles from those that the Christian Church was used to operating in its first few years. This may have been an indication that the Church was beginning to mix it with the big boys.

  

Philip welcomed the eunuch in Christ’s name. The gospel was extended to a member of the decision-making elite. Through it all, the Church still continued to display its inclusiveness.

 

And what does this mean for the Church today?

 

As Philip welcomed the eunuch, the Church today needs to enter into dialogue with those in our community who shape public policy.

 

Ever since the days of the Emperor Constantine, churches historically have tended to go to either of two extremes in their attitudes to the community’s decision-makers.

• One extreme is for the Church to give a docile tug to the forelock in the direction of the state, and to feel all warm and fuzzy when the “powers that be” merely acknowledge the Church’s existence.
• The other extreme is for the Church to always stand up on a high place, waggling our finger, and denouncing the same “powers that be” in our best prophetic voice, particularly in terms of issues relating to sex or bioethics.

 

However, neither forelock-tugging nor finger-waggling is terribly viable as an exclusive position.  

• The Christian Church needs to approach the community’s decision-makers assertively, and with an authentic confidence in the compassionate perspective our faith provides on public issues.  
• But, the Church also needs to develop a fuller appreciation of the complexities, “grey areas”, and ethical ambiguities often confronting the shapers of public policy.

 

As Philip welcomed the eunuch in Christ’s name, the Christian Church today has the opportunity to develop relationships with people who shape the life of the broader community.

 

 * * *

 

After their discussion, Philip baptised the eunuch. We hear that the eunuch “went on his way rejoicing”. We assume he went back to Ethiopia with the message of the gospel. And, to this day, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, one of the oldest Christian Churches in the world, still ministers in Christ’s name to the people of that nation (as well as to Ethiopians living in nations around the world, including Australia).  

 

As the eunuch “went on his way rejoicing”, we can rejoice in the grace of the crucified and risen Christ. 

 

As the eunuch “went on his way rejoicing”, we can also rejoice in the profound task Christ gives us - the task of developing the Church as an inclusive community that seeks to serve all humanity in Christ’s name.

Hymn: “A travelling man from far-off Ethiopia…” (based on Acts 8:26-40)

A trav’lling man from far-off Ethiopia
offered a ride to Philip on the road.
They rode and talked of ancient Hebrew scriptures
and of the hope  which God’s great love bestowed.
Christ calls the church to build a new community,
including people of each land and race;
all nations, genders, classes, personalities,
all sorts, conditions: Christ extends his grace.

He was a eunuch, broken in his body,

and scorned by many for his injuries.
So shall the church extend its hand in welcome
to all who live with disabilities.
Christ calls the church to build a new community,
including people of each land and race;
all nations, genders, classes, personalities,
all sorts, conditions: Christ extends his grace.

He was a eunuch, could not father children.

Descendants would not share his elder years.
Now may the church include folk of all lifestyles
and share their joys and pains, their hopes and fears.
Christ calls the church to build a new community,
including people of each land and race;
all nations, genders, classes, personalities,
all sorts, conditions: Christ extends his grace.

He was a eunuch, senior court official,

custodian of his nation’s treasury.
The church is also called by Christ to dialogue
with those who work in public policy.
Christ calls the church to build a new community,
including people of each land and race;
all nations, genders, classes, personalities,
all sorts, conditions: Christ extends his grace.

The Ethiopian traveller continued on;

he went rejoicing on his homeward road.
As well, the church is still a people on the way
and still rejoices in the grace of God.
Christ calls the church to build a new community,
including people of each land and race;
all nations, genders, classes, personalities,
all sorts, conditions: Christ extends his grace.

Copyright Robert J. Faser, 2000; tune:  Londonderry Air

"Do not be alarmed.": a sermon for Easter (Mark 16:1-8, 1st Corinthians 15:1-11)

“Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified.  He has been raised ….” 

Even though Mary Magdalene and her friends were told not to be alarmed, our lesson ends with these words.

So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized the; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

Our gospel lesson for Easter ends with these words.  And, in fact, the oldest known copies of Mark’s gospel end with these words.  Many New Testament scholars (not all, but many) believe that this is the original ending of Mark’s gospel, with the eleven or so verses following to be a later addition.

It’s very interesting if this is the real ending.  The oldest one of the gospels ends with Mary Magdalene and her friends being given the good news of the resurrection, and their response was to run away, to say nothing, and to do nothing, … out of fear.

If this is the real ending, it makes sense in many ways.
·        It fits well into Mark’s gospel.  At many points in Mark’s gospel, Jesus does something spectacular and tells his disciples not to tell anyone about this – yet.  And what do they do?  They tell the immediate world.  Once someone’s told to share the news, what do they do?  They clam up.  It’s called irony.
·        It also fits well into the situation faced by the first generation of Christians that read Mark’s gospel.  They too experienced fear.  It may have comforted them to know that the first people to receive the good news of the resurrection were themselves too afraid to share the news, at least at first.  The fact that the news got out meant that they eventually developed the courage to get the message out.
·        And it also fits well into our situation today.  The world in which we live is a scary place for many people.  Fear has become part of our day-to-day lives, and many politicians and media figures  encourage us to be fearful.

But, the resurrection of Jesus addresses our fear.
·        The resurrection addresses our fear as it addressed the fear of Mary Magdalene and her friends on the first Easter morning.
·        The resurrection addresses our fear as it addressed the fear of that first generation of Christians who first read about Mary’s initial fear when Mark first put pen to papyrus.

The message that the stranger gave Mary Magdalene and her friends was intended to address her fears: 

“Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified.  He has been raised; he is not here.  Look, there is the place they laid him.  But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you.”

But of course, the first part of the message had the opposite effect: “Do not be alarmed.”  It’s a bit like saying, “Don’t be afraid, but ….”  It often has the opposite effect to that desired.

But part of the good news is that the good news got out.  In our lesson from the First Letter to the Corinthians, Paul speaks of the good news that he received, the good news that he passed on to the Corinthian Church, and the good news which the Corinthians were, in turn passing on:  the good news that Christ was raised, and that that his resurrection was not for his own benefit, but for the benefit of humanity, for the benefit of the same flawed humanity that connived in his death.

“Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified.  He has been raised ….” 

And the story did not stop there.  From Mary Magdalene and her friends, the story continued to be told.  The story motivated many people … throughout the centuries … in lands around the world … to overcome their fears … to promote peace, justice, mercy, and reconciliation … to change their world.

And the story continues to be told today.  We are also links in that same chain that began with the message to Mary Magdalene and her friends two thousand  years ago; and we are given the same task that was given to Mary Magdalene and to Paul … to St. Patrick and to St. Nicholas … to St. Francis of Assisi and to John Wesley … to Martin Luther King and to Dietrich Bonhoeffer … to John Flynn and to Father Damian … to St. Mary McKillop and to Mother Theresa … and to you and I and the people on either side of you … the task of keeping alive the message:

“Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified.  He has been raised ….” 

“Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.”: a sermon for Good Friday (Luke 23:26-34)

“Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.”

When Jesus spoke these words, of whom was he speaking?

Was it the Roman soldiers, those professional men of violence, who were “just obeying orders” as they carried out their grisly task of executing those who were deemed a threat to the good order of the empire?

“Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.”

Or was it the leaders of his own people, the religious politicians who believed that the future was most secure if the Romans were kept happy, and who were willing to consent to the death of any person – however innocent – who threatened the Roman equilibrium?

“Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.”

Or was it the crowds – the ones who shouted “Hosanna in the highest!” on Sunday afternoon and “Give us Barabbas!” on Friday morning? Crowds are always fickle, in any culture. In all societies, the mob will always be tempted to bay for the blood of a “tall poppy’, however innocent. Over the centuries, in many lands, public executions were an opportunity to draw a huge crowd to witness the gruesome spectacle. The large number of people in our country who call for restoring the death penalty says that, given half the chance, Australians could behave just as badly.

“Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.”

Perhaps it was Pilate, the cruel Roman governor; the governor who was recalled to Rome for extreme cruelty by an empire which expected at least some level of cruelty as a display of political strength. When Pilate said “jump”, Roman soldier and Jewish priest alike were equally expected to ask “how high?” When the soldiers nailed Jesus to the cross, Pilate was the man ultimately responsible.

“Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.”

Or perhaps it was the disciples:

• Peter, who three times said “I do not know the man”, adding a few choice swearwords for emphasis the third time.
• Judas, who betrayed him to those whom he knew would hand him over to the Romans;
• or most of the others, finding safe hiding places and cowering.

“Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.”

 

Or perhaps the Spirit at that moment gave Jesus a glimpse into the future.

• Perhaps Jesus was saddened by those over the centuries who would persecute his followers.
• Perhaps Jesus was horrified by those over the centuries who would claim to be his followers, but who would persecute people of other faiths – Jews, Muslims, and others - and who would do so in his name.
• Perhaps Jesus was disgusted by those over the centuries who would claim to be his followers, but who would persecute suspected witches in his name; or who would persecute gays, lesbians, or unmarried mothers in his name. 
• Perhaps Jesus was sickened by the future prospect of some over the centuries who would claim to be his followers, but who would persecute others of his followers – and who would even do so in his name.

“Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.”

 

Throughout the centuries, Jesus continues to pray this prayer to his Father. He prays for us.

 

“Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.”