Do You Understand What You Are Reading?

By Cottrel R. Carson

Do You Understand What You Are Reading? is an attempt to read the Ethiopian eunuch story in the historical, grammatical, and cultural contexts presented within the narrative of Acts. Soon after Luke wrote Acts, which is the only New Testament book of history, interpreters (Church Fathers) began wrestling with the moral—Promise—worldview it contained. Many, not all, signified upon the Ethiopian character in ways that expressed disdain for Imperial eunuchs who were their contemporaries. It was a time of transformation in Western culture.

As Rome attracted the best and brightest from all cultures, positions held by Imperial eunuchs were coveted; they were national bureaucrats, priests, and confidants to monarchs. Roman emperor Domitian (81–96) issued an edict banning making eunuchs, while maintaining his own eunuch, Stephanus. Domitian was murdered by courtiers and castrated. Roman emperor Constantine (306–337) issued another edict banning making eunuchs. The social climate became extremely hostile for high-ranking eunuchs as they were attacked in public culture—theater, music, poetry (spoken, written and sung).

In 399, Eutropius—a eunuch, the first and only eunuch Consul in the Eastern Roman Empire—was murdered by his own troops. The Syrian poet Claudian wrote and published a political invective attacking him, which focused social hostility toward him. He ran to Church Father John Chrysostom’s church. Eutropius had placed Chrysostom over his bishopric. Eutropius stayed at the altar for three days after Chrysostom closed the sanctuary. On the third day, he emerged and was promptly killed. Afterward, a general slaughter of eunuchs occurred throughout the Western empire; although, they may still be found in the east (e.g. Hijras).

In the midst of tectonic shifts in Greco-Roman society, in Acts, Luke engages Greco-Roman culture on behalf of Promise. His audience includes Imperial eunuchs, whose salvation prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah had foretold, and who were Luke’s contemporaries.

1

• Language: English
• Publisher: Page Publishing, Inc.
• Release date: Sep 9, 2021
• ISBN: 9781662433245

Book preview

Chapter 1

I. History of Interpretation: The Ethiopian Eunuch Story (Acts 8:26-40)

A. Church Fathers

1. Irenaeus (ca. 115–ca. 202)

Irenaeus was the first Greek writer to interpret the Chamberlain story. A native of Smyrna, Asia Minor, he probably studied and taught at Rome before becoming bishop of Lyon. He was an advocate of a type of Christian orthodoxy and found himself at odds with a Valentinian Gnostic movement. The five books of Against Heresies (Adversus haereses) were written in response to Valentinian Gnosticism and provide the classic statement of orthodoxy in the primitive Greek-speaking church.³

In Adversus haereses, Irenaeus uses the Ethiopian eunuch story to illustrate the need for catechesis prior to baptism:

This one is Jesus and the scripture has been fulfilled in him, as the eunuch himself is persuaded, and immediately being worthy to be baptized, he said, I believe Jesus Christ to be the son of God. This one also was sent to the region of Ethiopia, preaching this, the very thing which he believed, one God having been preached through the prophets and the son of this one already made the advent for the human, and as a sheep to slaughter he was led, and the rest, whatever the prophets say concerning him.⁴

Irenaeus’s interpretation is especially important because of its early date.

As an opponent of gnostic philosophy, Irenaeus wanted to ensure that Christians were taught to read texts in a manner consistent with his view of orthodoxy. He used the Chamberlain story to illustrate how the Chamberlain’s reading of the prophet Isaiah was a necessary catechesis to prepare him for baptism. Our focus is the manner in which Irenaeus adapted the story.

First, the Ethiopian is portrayed as ignorant of the significance of what he reads. Irenaeus’s first concern was to illustrate the need for persons to be taught by recognized church leaders so as to prevent unorthodox readings of texts. In Irenaeus’s reading, Philip is the mediator of truth to the Ethiopian and is the one who sends him to Ethiopia. The authority that Irenaeus ascribes to Philip is a radical deviation from the Acts text and must be seen as a reflection of Irenaeus’s own presuppositions with regard to the roles of Philip and the Ethiopian.

Second, Irenaeus refers to the Chamberlain only as eunuch. As Ephraem Syrus (Ephraem the Syrian) did two centuries later, Irenaeus omits terms used in Acts to denote social status. The independent nouns man and Chamberlain are not used, though Irenaeus does connect him with the queen of Ethiopia (Lat. reginae Æthiopum), which is an ethnocentric reading of Candace. (The Empire was never ruled by a queen, but the Candace is a sovereign ruler.)

This downplaying of the Ethiopian’s social status highlights Irenaeus’s portrayal of Philip as the independent agent who points out the significance of what is being read and then sends the Ethiopian on his way. By removing the tension (which I will discuss later) between the divine agent’s empowering of Philip and the Ethiopian’s social status, Irenaeus presented a reading of the story that in issues of culture significantly varies from the actual text of Acts. That is, whereas Luke’s portrayal of the interaction between Philip and the eunuch discounts social class as a hindrance to community, Irenaeus portrays Philip as the Ethiopian’s social superior.

Irenaeus’s understanding of oikos explains his interpretation of this text, an interpretation confirmed by his insistence that Cornelius (Acts 10) is the first non-Israelite convert. The Ethiopian eunuch has remained an other though a Christian. Ironically, when he quotes the Ethiopian’s confession of faith (cf. 8:37), Irenaeus provides strong evidence for the Ethiopian being the first non-Israelite convert. Later, fourth century scribes will remove the Ethiopian’s confession of faith, attempting to resolve the obvious tension. This matter will be treated more fully in the fifth chapter of the present work.

2. Tertullian (ca.160–ca. 225)

Tertullian, a native of Carthage, North Africa, was the first extant Latin writer to address the Chamberlain story. A strongly individualistic theologian, Tertullian wrote in response to issues raised in the Monarchian controversies: Their importance lies in the fact that with them began the Trinitarian and christological controversies that dominated the history of Christian doctrine in the next two centuries.⁵ Tertullian described his own relation to God as a ray projected from the sun (Apology 21.12).

In De Baptismo, he drew on the Chamberlain story to bolster his contention that catechesis was not a necessary precondition for the eunuch to be baptized:

If Philip so easily baptized the eunuch (eunuchum), let us recognize that a manifest and conspicuous honor (dignationem) that the Lord deemed him worthy had occurred. The Spirit had instructed Philip beforehand to continue onto that road. The Chamberlain (spado) himself also was not found idle nor as one who was suddenly seized with desire to be baptized, but after going up to the temple to pray and being engaged on the divine scripture, it was necessary thus to understand—to whom God had, unasked, sent an apostle, which one, again, the Spirit commanded that he join himself to the eunuch’s chariot (se curriculo eunuchi). The scripture that he was reading happens to fall in with his faith. The exhorter is received and is taken to sit beside him. The Lord is pointed out. Faith does not delay. Water is not waited for. The apostle with the affair complete is snatched away.⁶

Tertullian’s reading begins with an appeal for readers to recognize that the Lord deemed him (the eunuch) worthy. Several aspects of Tertullian’s reading of the Ethiopian eunuch story reflect a close reading of Acts and a worldview that allows for a place of honor within early Christian tradition to be accorded the Ethiopian eunuch.

First, in Tertullian’s telling of the Chamberlain story, the Ethiopian is granted a conspicuous honor by God before meeting Philip, who was instructed by the Spirit, sent by God, commanded by the Spirit, and finally snatched away. Contrary to his contemporary Irenaeus, Tertullian incorporates in his reading the details from the Acts text concerning divine control of Philip’s actions. For Tertullian, Philip, as in Acts, is not an independent mediator of knowledge but rather is simply an instrument of the Divine.

Second, Tertullian makes clear that Philip did not approach the chamberlain on his own accord but rather under the power of the Spirit. Philip’s social status was augmented by divine instruction. Thus, he was able to approach one of higher social status. While Philip was divinely instructed to join himself (on foot) to the Chamberlain’s chariot, the Chamberlain alone has the prerogative to invite Philip onto the chariot.

Noticeably absent from Tertullian’s telling of the story are both the description of the Chamberlain being sent to Ethiopia and the circumscribing of his evangelistic concern to Ethiopians. As in the Acts text, Tertullian’s Philip is snatched away, but the Chamberlain’s destination remains unspecified.

Tertullian’s reading of the Chamberlain’s story must be understood, at least in part, as a response to Irenaeus’s. Though they are contemporaries, Tertullian’s African origin probably informs his seeing of the positive depictions of the Chamberlain in Acts more readily than Ireneaus. Whereas for Irenaeus, the Ethiopian’s role is peripheral, for Tertullian, the world envisioned permits a prominent role for the Ethiopian. And in the case of the Chamberlain story, Tertullian’s reading shows fewer deviations from the details of the Acts text.

3. Eusebius of Caesarea in Palestine (ca. 265–ca. 339)

Eusebius lived and wrote at a time when Christians feared persecution: Events in Galerius’s domain had been moving toward a climax. To physical pressure on the Christians was added a war of words.⁷ For twenty years, Eusebius dedicated himself to formulating a systematic and comprehensive defense of Christianity.⁸ In Historia Ecclesiasticus (History of the Church), while explaining the spread of the Gospel to Ethiopia, Eusebius refers to the Ethiopian eunuch story:

But while the preaching of the deliverance was daily advancing, a certain providence led from the land of the Ethiopians a court official (Gr. dunastei) of the sovereign queen. For according to a certain ancestral custom, Ethiopia, even to the present day, is ruled by a woman of the nation. He, first out of the nations, from Philip, as a result of a revelation, received the mysteries of the word of God. And having become the first fruits of believers in the world, he returned to his ancestral land to preach the knowledge of the God of the universe and the life-making sojourn of our Savior to humans. By this deed, through the chamberlain, the prophecy was fulfilled, which says, Ethiopia will stretch her hands to God⁹ (cf. Ps.