Tuesday, September 22, 2015

Acts of the Apostles Online Commentary (25)




This is the twenty-fifth entry in the Bible Junkies Online Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. This entry deals with the Philip’s continuing his mission to Samaria and encountering a marginalized person with respect to Israel, an Ethiopian eunuch.
For previous entries, please now go to the Complete Acts of the Apostle Commentary, where you can find links to each of the entries updated after each new blog post.




3. Contents:
D)  Persecutions of the “Hellenist” Jewish Christians and the First Mission outside of Jerusalem (6:1-8:40): Philip the evangelist and an Ethiopian eunuch (8:26-40):

26 Then an angel of the Lord said to Philip, "Get up and go toward the south to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza." (This is a wilderness road.) 27 So he got up and went. Now there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of the Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of her entire treasury. He had come to Jerusalem to worship 28 and was returning home; seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah. 29 Then the Spirit said to Philip, "Go over to this chariot and join it." 30 So Philip ran up to it and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah. He asked, "Do you understand what you are reading?" 31 He replied, "How can I, unless someone guides me?" And he invited Philip to get in and sit beside 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 silent before its shearer, so he does not open 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 The eunuch asked Philip, "About whom, may I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?" 35 Then Philip began to speak, and starting with this scripture, he proclaimed to him the good news about Jesus. 36 As they were going along the road, they came to some water; and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water! What is to prevent me from being baptized?" 37 38 He commanded the chariot to stop, and both of them, Philip and the eunuch, went down into the water, and Philip baptized him. 39 When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away; the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing. 40 But Philip found himself at Azotus, and as he was passing through the region, he proclaimed the good news to all the towns until he came to Caesarea.  (NRSV)

The last scene in the Samaria narrative, as well as the last portion of Acts 8, finds the evangelist Philip continuing his successful missionary activity which was interrupted by Peter and John in the previous scene. The presence and power of the Holy Spirit is present at the beginning and at the end of this scene. At the beginning of the scene it is actually “an angel of the Lord” who directs Philip, telling him to “Get up and go toward the south to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza” (Acts 8:26). At the end of the scene the Spirit acts even more directly, as it “snatched Philip away” and he “found himself at Azotus” (Acts 8:39-40), a distance difficult to determine with precision, since we do not know exactly where Philip was, but a distance of many miles or kilometers. We are, quite obviously, meant to understand Philip’s travel away from Gaza as instantaneous and miraculous. Almost as miraculous, it seems, is his encounter with an Ethiopian eunuch, whom he meets somewhere along the road between Jerusalem and Gaza (Acts 8:26-28).

There are a few things which need to be sorted out to understand the eunuch and the significance of his presence in this account.  He was “a court official of the Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of her entire treasury. He had come to Jerusalem to worship and was returning home; seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah” (Acts 8:27-28). Among the things to sort out are who is the Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, what did it mean that the eunuch was “in charge of her entire treasury,” and why had he “come to Jerusalem to worship” and “reading the prophet Isaiah” if he was not Jewish? But before these questions are considered, what is a eunuch?

The most common type of eunuch in antiquity was a boy or man, often slaves or prisoners of war, whose testicles had been crushed or whose penis has been cut off. Oxford Biblical Studies online defines eunuchs as “castrated males abhorred by Jews (Josephus, Apion 2.270–71).”  There are regulations regarding such eunuchs in Deuteronomy 23:1, where it states that “no one whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off shall be admitted to the assembly of the Lord,” that is, as proselytes among the people of Israel, and in Leviticus 21:20, which bars such eunuchs from participation in Temple rituals. These eunuchs could not participate in the life of the Jewish community due to the injuries imposed on them.

Jesus also describes another class of “eunuchs who have been so from birth” (Mt 19:11-12).[1] Born eunuchs are also discussed in Mishnah Yebamoth 8:6 in the context of marriage and whether a born eunuch (saris chamah), literally a “sun eunuch,” can marry.

If a priest were a born eunuch (saris chamah) and he married the daughter of an Israelite, he renders her eligible to eat the priest’s-due. R. Jose and R. Simon say, if an hermaphrodite (androgonos) priest wed the daughter of an Israelite, he endows her with the right to eat of priest’s-due. R. Judah says, if one whose sex were indeterminate were operated on and was found to be a male, he must not submit to chalitzah because he is considered as a eunuch (saris). An hermaphrodite (androgonos) may marry but he may not be married. R. Eliezer says, an hermaphrodite (androgonos), one (a male) incurs because of him the penalty of stoning as with a male.[2]

A born eunuch is one who has not developed sexually, for the rabbis by the age of twenty, or one whose genitalia is both male and female (androgonos). A born eunuch (saris chamah) could marry in some situations, since his issues are developmental not the result of injury. And the born eunuch considered an androgonos may marry a woman as a man, but not be married as a female by another man.

The strong possibility is that the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 is a castrated male and a slave, since these eunuchs were often made so in order to serve in royal courts without suspicion of sexual infelicities (Johnson, Acts, 155). Since the eunuch serves the Candace, a royal title of Ethiopian queens, not a personal name, he might have been made a eunuch, even as a boy, to serve in her court. Whether he was a slave cannot be determined definitively, but eunuchs often were, and it was not unusual for such a slave to have a high-ranking position in a royal court, such as the chief of the treasury (Page, Acts, 134).

As to why had he had “come to Jerusalem to worship” and  was found “reading the prophet Isaiah” if he was not Jewish is a fascinating question, whether an actual historical event is described here or not (Johnson, Acts, 159), since the import of the scene is the opening up of the people of God to all, even those previously excluded. As noted above, Leviticus 21:20 and Deuteronomy 23:1 would exclude a eunuch from the people of God, even if he had been born a Jew and later enslaved and castrated. Yet, there are also passages in the Old Testament which look forward to a time of entry, both of Gentiles and eunuchs, into the people of God (Johnson, Acts, 159).

As Gary Gilbert points out, Psalm 68:31 looked forward to Ethiopia “reaching out to God” and more significantly for our purposes Isaiah 56:4-5 foresees a time when eunuchs would be included among the people of God  (Gilbert, “Acts” in JANT, 216): “4 For thus says the Lord: To the eunuchs who keep my sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant, 5 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” The whole point of this scene is that what was promised to the prophet Isaiah is now coming to pass in the life of the Church. A Gentile and a eunuch is welcomed among God’s people.

The Spirit directed Philip to “Go over to this chariot and join it” (Acts 8:29).  When Philip comes to the Ethiopian eunuch he “heard him reading the prophet Isaiah. He asked, ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’ He replied, ‘How can I, unless someone guides me?’ And he invited Philip to get in and sit beside him” (Acts 8:30-31). The scene progresses quickly, Philip and the eunuch being guided by the Spirit and by Scripture.  The significance of Isaiah 56:4-5 is confirmed when we learn that the eunuch is actually reading another passage from the prophet Isaiah.

Indeed, the eunuch is reading from Isaiah 53:7-8, the suffering servant song: “Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter, and like a lamb silent before its shearer, so he does not open his mouth. In his humiliation justice was denied him. Who can describe his generation? For his life is taken away from the earth” (Acts 8:32-33). The fact that the eunuch can read and that he has a copy of Isaiah might be seen as odd, but it does indicate both his wealth and his education as well as his interest.  We are told, after all, that “he had come to Jerusalem to worship” (Acts 8:27), though he would not have been able to go to the Temple, at least not licitly, and we do not know of what his worship consisted or with whom, if anyone, he worshipped.

He has been studying Isaiah, however, because he wants to know the identity of the suffering servant in Isaiah 52-53, a question scholars, if not Christians, still debate today: “the eunuch asked Philip, ‘About whom, may I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?’ Then Philip began to speak, and starting with this scripture, he proclaimed to him the good news about Jesus” (Acts 8:34-35).  Isaiah 52-53 is the most significant prophetic passage which was applied to Jesus and his passion for the early Christians and it is the entrée for Philip’s evangelization.

For the early Christians, only they had the key for proper exegesis of this passage, a belief maintained by other Jewish groups of the time and frankly by many religious groups throughout the ages. “As Jesus on the road to Emmaus opened the meaning of the Scripture concerning himself, so does Philip on the road to Gaza open the text of Isaiah to the Ethiopian, showing how it speaks of Jesus” (Johnson, Acts, 160). Clearly, Philip’s exegesis has convinced the eunuch, for when they arrive at “some water” the eunuch wants to be baptized. He asks, “What is to prevent me from being baptized?” (Acts 8:36) and instead of answering, Philip simply baptizes him (Acts 8:36-38).[3] The scene is presented so matter-of-factly when it is in fact momentous, even earth-shattering, for the Christians. It is the first step to bringing Gentiles into the Church and into, as they understand it, the people of God. Ricard Dillon, in fact, understands this as an “account of the first Gentile conversion, told in Hellenistic circles and rival to the Cornelius story (chap. 10)” (Dillon, “Acts,” in NJBC, 743). Dillon believes that Luke has left the story vague as to whether the eunuch is a Gentile to make certain not to distract from the Cornelius story which has Peter, not the evangelist Philip, at the heart of the Gentile conversion (Dillon, “Acts,” in NJBC, 743).

The story also indicates how rapidly such missionary activity progresses, both in terms of witness, but also in terms of the actual performance of the ritual. We will see this rapidity in evangelization throughout the Gentile mission presented in Acts. Even allowing for literary license and historical imprecision, this must reflect the practice of the earliest Christians.

The passage ends as abruptly as it began and with a miracle performed directly by the Holy Spirit, who clearly has been directing all of the events up to this point (Dillon, “Acts,” in NJBC, 743; Johnson, Acts, 151). “When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away; the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing. But Philip found himself at Azotus, and as he was passing through the region, he proclaimed the good news to all the towns until he came to Caesarea” (Acts 8:39-40).  The catechesis of the Ethiopian eunuch has ended as quickly as it began; Philip has been spirited away, literally, and finds himself miles away. The language of “caught up” reflects the tradition of heavenly assumptions found in the biblical tradition, such as Enoch in Genesis 5:24 and Elijah in 2 Kings 2:16. The eunuch, thank goodness, is not troubled by this absence and rejoices. Philip just continues his evangelization, he, too, untroubled by his heavenly journey. After all, in Acts the Holy Spirit takes all of the initiative and here the initiative is direct.



Next entry, Saul is blinded by the light.

John W. Martens
I invite you to follow me on Twitter @Biblejunkies
I encourage you to “Like” Biblejunkies on Facebook.
This entry is cross-posted at America Magazine The Good Word




[1] Jesus also describes a third class, “eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven,” but this is not relevant for this discussion.
[2] Philip Blackman translation from Mishnayoth. New York: Judaica Press, 1965.
[3] Other ancient 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.’”

Wednesday, September 9, 2015

Kim Davis, the Bible, and Religious Freedom




 Kim Davis’s convictions, like so much of religious thought in the USA, is a mish-mash of American civil religion, the Bible, the constitution and the invocation of freedom. One of the quotations which looms large biblically in the claim of religious freedom for Christians is found in Acts 5. Peter and John have been arrested and imprisoned on the Temple mount for preaching in Jesus’ name. Miraculously freed from prison, they continue to teach in Jesus’ name. When they are rearrested they appear once again before the council:

26 Then the captain went with the temple police and brought them, but without violence, for they were afraid of being stoned by the people.
27 When they had brought them, they had them stand before the council. The high priest questioned them,
28 saying, "We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and you are determined to bring this man's blood on us."
29 But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than any human authority.” (Acts 5:26-29)
This has been, since the origins of Christianity, a significant issue: what to do when the demands of civil law conflict with what are understood as divine commands or prerogatives?
The depth of Kim Davis’ convictions can only be ultimately judged by God and her, but her willingness to flout the civil law in order to maintain her religious convictions has a long and noble history in Christianity. All of us would recognize, for instance, that laws entrenching slavery were wrong and those who fought against these laws were on the side of the angels, even when those laws had the strength and support of government and civil law.

The big difference between Kim Davis and many predecessors in these battles, including the early Christians and including Peter and John in Acts 5, is that they were not tasked with upholding governmental laws. Kim Davis is an elected member of the government and it is her responsibility to follow the law. It is clear that if she does not wish to follow the law, and cannot with a clear conscience or with a religious exemption she can maintain, she should resign her position.

It is not just the earliest Christians, martyrs such as Felicity and Perpetua, Polycarp and Ignatius, who were willing to stand up to laws which they could not follow, and so die for their convictions, but even Christians today find themselves in these positions, even if martyrdom is not usually the result in the USA. One of the reasons you will not find an Old Order Mennonite or member of the Amish community wrestling with their conscience as to whether to issue a license for a same-sex marriage as a county clerk is that they long ago made the decision to opt out of the governmental and electoral process to preserve their Christian integrity, just as the earliest Christians did in the first three centuries. Believing that there was to be a strict separation between state and church, they found the simplest way to maintain that integral separation by choosing not to participate in the political process or to seek elective office. While maintaining the authority of the state, for instance to bear the sword (Romans 13:1-7), Mennonites and the Amish see the focus of their community life to be the locus of moral authority, punishment and reconciliation. As Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 5, 

9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral persons—
10 not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since you would then need to go out of the world.
11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother or sister who is sexually immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber. Do not even eat with such a one.
12 For what have I to do with judging those outside? Is it not those who are inside that you are to judge?
13 God will judge those outside. “Drive out the wicked person from among you.” (1 Corinthians 5:9-13)
Two key verses come at the end with the focus on judging those “inside” the church, but not judging those “outside” the church. The Church’s judgment and authority, therefore, is an internal and not external matter.

Although it seems a radical position today, it was the position of the early Church prior to Constantine. Most of us, however, certainly most Catholics, fit more into an Augustinian, or post-Constantinian, position in which we participate in both the city of God and the city of man in more formal ways, such as voting and seeking elective office. Then, of course, the laws of the world impact us in different ways and call upon us to engage in them in different ways. If Kim Davis has found a law which she cannot enact, and cannot do so even with a religious exemption, then she must heed her conscience and remove herself from that role. She must serve God and not human beings. But she cannot stand in the way of these laws either as an elected official. Religious integrity calls on her to heed her own conscience, but not dictate the conscience of others. They too have the right of their consciences.

Many commentators have taken this position, including the biblical scholar Candida Moss, and I do believe it is the Christian position, because Kim Davis, free of the burdens of her office, could then argue against the legislation if she chooses or silently reject it. Her conscience is her own and she must honor it.

Two others, however, have claimed that there are ways around her resigning her position. Monsignor Pope, writing in the National Catholic Register,  believes that the law regarding same-sex marriage is not just an “unjust law,” but “despotic and shameful abuse” and so worthy of civil disobedience by Kim Davis in her position as county clerk (he cites CCC, 1902-1903 in reaching this conclusion).  Elsewhere in his article he cites CCC, 2242, which I quote directly from his article:

“When citizens are under the oppression of a public authority which oversteps its competence, they should still not refuse to give or to do what is objectively demanded of them by the common good; but it is legitimate for them to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this authority within the limits of the natural law and the law of the gospel. (2242)
There are times as well when Civil Disobedience is required of us. The Catechism says in the same place: 
The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s." "We must obey God rather than men": (2242)”

There are two issues with his position, however, which I think still demand that the result be that Kim Davis resign her position if a satisfactory religious exemption cannot be found. First, the
CCC says that, The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, but no one is obliged to marry a same sex partner. I need not follow that directive of the civil authorities in any way if I choose not to do so. Peter and John chose not to follow the directives of the Sanhedrin. If, however, I am a member of that civil authority and am bound by my job or position to follow a directive contrary to the moral order or natural law, the path of resignation offers itself as the best case scenario. It does not rule out civil disobedience; resignation is a form of civil disobedience.  

Second, there is a question, it seems to me, as to whether the civil authorities have overstepped their competence here, but if they have, when citizens are under the oppression of a public authority which oversteps its competence, they should still not refuse to give or to do what is objectively demanded of them by the common good. What is the common good in this case for Kim Davis or the citizens of Rowan County? Is it to hold back marriage licenses from the citizens or to perform the duty for which she was elected?

Eugene Volokh, writing in the Washington Post, takes on the particularly American legal and constitutional aspects of Kim Davis’ case, apart from the Christian theological aspects.  He notes that “sincere religious objections can indeed legally excuse you from doing part of your job — if the employer can exempt you without undue cost to itself, its other employees, or its clients (recognizing that some cost is inevitable with any exemption request).” He then applies this legal reality to what he calls “the Kim Davis controversy.” 

The first point he makes is that “Title VII,” which allows for religious exemptions, “expressly excludes elected officials.” That indicates a different sort of reality for governmental officials. He goes on to add, though, that “Kentucky, like about 20 other states, has a state Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) statute that requires government agencies to exempt religious objectors from generally applicable laws, unless denying the exemption is the least restrictive means of serving a compelling government interest.” This is certainly beyond my competence or knowledge as a biblical scholar, but Volokh mentions that such an exemption is what Kim Davis is seeking. He has updates about these exemptions which have allowed Kim Davis to be released from jail as long as her office, in some form or another, continues to issue marriage licenses for all who seek them under the applicable civil laws, which means both heterosexual and same-sex couples. “However,” Volokh writes, “whatever Davis thinks of the federal judge’s order, she has to comply with it or risk being jailed again (as of this update, she has just been released from jail), though she is of course free to continue appealing the order.”

So, perhaps, American civil law will allow her a way out of her religious predicament after all, but if it does not, her next act if she desires to “obey God rather than any human authority” (Acts 5:29) will be to follow the example of Peter and John - in general obviously, not in particulars - who were flogged and then ordered “not to speak in the name of Jesus” (Acts 5:40). Nevertheless, “the apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name. Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Christ” (Acts 5:41-42). They did not, that is, join the Sanhedrin – not that they could have done so – or attempt to change the order of the Sanhedrin, but focused on their religious vocation.  As both the Gospels of Matthew and Luke say, “No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth” (Matthew 6:24; cf. Luke 16:13). Sometimes conscience requires that if you cannot do your job you leave your job, regardless of the cost.

John W. Martens
I invite you to follow me on Twitter @Biblejunkies
I encourage you to “Like” Biblejunkies on Facebook.
This entry is cross-posted at America Magazine The Good Word