St. Philip and the Eunuch (Acts 8:26-39)
What is to prevent me from being baptized?

Throughout the history of the Church, from Old Testament times to the present, scripture has been interpreted for the most part by heterosexual white men. Only occasionally have they set out intentionally to misrepresent what scripture says, but it would be impossible for these straight men to read anything in scripture without filtering it through their world view as heterosexaul males.

Their experience, training, and socialization have conditioned them to ponder the ideas and principals they read with a particular view that blinds them to many things that leap out at women, racial minorities, and lately to homosexuals when they read the Bible. One such passage is the story of St. Philip and the Eunuch. It is found in the 8th chapter of Acts, which was written by the author of the Gospel of Luke and is a continuation of the Gospel which relates the beginning of the life of the Christian church after the Resurrection.

According to the story, Philip, one of Jesus’s apostles is wakened by an angel and told to go south on the wilderness road that runs from Jerusalem to Gaza. On the road, Philip encountered an Ethiopian eunuch, a high official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians who is the treasurer for her court. He has been in Jerusalem for Passover and is returning home. Seated in his chariot, he is reading from the prophet Isaiah. In those days people were not accustomed to reading silently and had to read a text aloud or have someone read it aloud to them in order to understand it.

Philip hears the eunuch reading and prompted by the Holy Spirit, he goes over to the chariot and joins the man. He asks the Ethiopian if he understands what he is reading and the man answers by saying: “How can I understand unless someone guides me?”

The passage the eunuch is reading is Isaiah 53:7-8 which deals with the suffering servant of the Lord, one of the passages that early Christians believed prophesied the coming of Christ, the Messiah. It reads: “Like a sheep he was lead to be slaughtered, and like a lamb he is silent before the shearer, therefore he does not open his mouth. In his humiliation justice was denied him. Who can explain his generation? His life is taken away from the world.”

The eunuch asks Philip who the prophet is talking about, himself or someone else. Philip begins to speak and starting with the passage from Isaiah, he tells the eunuch the hole story of the Gospel: the good news about salvation through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

As they are going down the road, they come to some water and the eunuch says, “Look there is some water! What is to prevent me from being baptized?” He stops the chariot and both he and Philip go into the water where Philip baptizes him. When they come out of the water, Philip is snatched away by the Spirit of the Lord and the eunuch sees him no more, and goes on his way rejoicing.

At first brush, this story seems to be only an instance in which the Gospel begins to be proclaimed outside of Jewish circles into the gentile world, which is a major burden of both the Gospel of Luke and Acts. Both books relate the Gospel story for gentile ears, and Acts in particular tells how Paul proclaimed that Gospel to non-Jews. This first brush however overlooks some important details of the story.

Not only is Candace’s servant a gentile, but he is also a eunuch. The story tells us that the eunuch as been to Jerusalem to worship, which makes him what is described as a “God fearer,” a non-Jew who was attracted to the Jewish religion, its ethics, and its belief in one God. As a eunuch, however he was prohibited from becoming a Jew. Conversions to Judaism was rare in those days, but it was impossible for someone who was not a “whole man” that is one with intact testicles. Because the eunuch was castrated, he could not become a Jew and therefore a part of the salvation promised to Jews.

When Philip explained to him that salvation was offered to all through Jesus Christ, his immediate response was: “Then what is to prevent me from being baptized?” Philip’s response is to take him immediately into the water and baptize him. One can certainly understand why afterward “he when his way rejoicing.”

In the New Testament epistle to the Galatians (3:28) Paul writes that “in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave and free, there is no longer male or female; for in Christ for all of you are one. The story of Philip and the eunuch shows clearly that he too can be added to this list of those made one in Christ.

Adding the eunuch to the list, however, requires a reason for doing so. What does he have in common with the others? In each of the pairs in Paul’s list one of the two could not be a Jew according to the traditional understanding of scripture and its interpretation. Under the old Jewish understanding, the eunuch was excluded from salvation, under the new dispensation in Jesus Christ, he is now saved.

A Jew, of course was an heir of Abraham and a party of the covenant he received from God, but a Gentile was not. A slave also could not become a Jew, but a free man could, and a woman was part of the Jewish covenant only through a male; her father, a brother, a husband, or as in the case of Naomi in the book of Ruth, her kinsman Boaz. It was because of Naomi’s need to be attached to a man’s household that the widow had to leave Moab, which prompted one of the most poignant expressions of loyalty in the Bible, when her daughter-in-law Ruth declared “Whither thou goest, I will go.”

The importance of the eunuch’s being added to the list is not only because in Christ he was a child of God, but also because his inclusion changed a traditional scriptural interpretation defining who could be a party to God’s covenant. This is an important point for those who have difficulty with changes to the traditional reading of scripture.

In Matthew 19:10-12 Jesus Christ also mentions eunuchs. During one of his private teaching sessions after a discussion with the Pharisees about divorce (a subject that begs discussing with respect to the "protection" of the institution of marriage) his disciples asked him if it might not be best never to marry.

Jesus answers: “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”

This passage suggests something unsettling for anyone who looks to scripture for guidance in how to enter the Kingdom of heaven, but it must be particularly frightening for those who believe in literal the interpretation of the Bible. With the exception of Origen, a 3rd-century Christian mystic who did in fact emasculate himself in literal obedience to the Lord’s words, I have never heard of any other man who destroyed his manhood because of Jesus’s words, regardless of how insistent the person might be about taking the Bible literally. Presumably the literalist would not object to using reason and a 21st Century world view in interpreting this particular passage.

The traditional interpretation is of course not literal, in spite of Origin’s believing he would please God by doing so. The traditional interpretation, which reflects the sensibilities of heterosexual men, is that being celibate is the best way to serve God. This understanding is certainly one that underlies the Roman Catholic requirement that priests be celibate, although in recent times Roman Catholic practice seems to have begged the issue with respect to pederasty as a disqualification for continuing to be a practicing priest.

The interpretation that Jesus is referring to celibacy seems charmingly naive, however, to those who are familiar with eunuchs in their historical context. Eunuchs may have been unable to father children, but they certainly were not celibate. Their primary function was to serve highly placed females as guards, ministers, and advisors. They were a fixture in the domestic lives of queens especially because the were incapable of begetting a bastard heir.

Another argument that Jesus was suggesting celibacy when he encouraged men to become eunuchs was that he was not worldly wise enough to know much about the immorality of the “street,” and therefore would have been ignorant of the sexual excesses attributed to eunuchs. That suggestion is laughable when one considers that Jesus was often criticized for cavorting with prostitutes, drunks, tax collectors and other riffraff. The fact that eunuchs might have been part of that riffraff does not require a greater degree of supposition than other factors that influence the interpretation of scripture.

Eunuchs also served as male concubines for kings and other rich and highly placed men in the ancient world. Mary Renault in her novel The Persian Boy tells the historically accurate story of Boaz a castrated favorite of the Persian king Xerxes who later became the lover of Alexander the Great. Castration of boys continued well into the 18th century in Europe to preserve the soprano and contralto voices of young boys by keeping them from entering puberty. The sexual escapades of these famous castrati are well known tales told by opera buffs.

Clearly a castrated man was not the equivalent of a celibate man. In fact, they were considered unclean and unacceptable as Jews not only because they lacked testicles, but also because of their reputation for sexual excess. So much for the celibacy of eunuchs.

Looking at the story from Acts and Jesus’s words in Matthew with a gay man’s eyes reveals a possibility that is obscured by the delicacy or prejudice of heterosexual interpretation. Jesus’s first and last words about eunuchs contains an essential clue to understanding him. He begins: “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given.” And he ends with “Let anyone accept this who can.”

Jesus frequently speaks cryptically to his followers preceding his words by saying, “Let those with ears to hear, hear.”and similar expressions. He speaks cryptically not only because of the danger of his enemies misrepresenting what he says, but also because much of his teaching goes counter to accepted, traditional beliefs (including scriptural interpretation) of his time. He is in constant conflict with Pharisees who try to trap him into blasphemy. He speaks sometimes in riddles which can only be understood because he uses an insiders’ argot, much like the argot of oppressed groups, such as street gangs, racial minorities, and homosexuals whose expressions and choice of clothes have meaning only to the initiates of a group.

Gay men and women are very familiar with the need to speak in code and the code is in constant flux. As gay-speak becomes intelligible to the straight world, it changes to preserve the ability to communicate without being understood by those outside of or not trusted by the group.

Few lexicons of gay-speak are ever current. By the time they are compiled, the argot has moved on, but a gay man or women can usually surmise a new term or meaning without having to be taught what it means. The context and the intent are usually quite clear even if the expression is a new one. The ability to constantly reformulate and invent verbal code goes along with being in any tight-knit group, particularly a persecuted one.

Gay men and women, live in a world of code-speaking. For one thing code is necessary because the information conveyed would be shocking, and probably repulsive or disgusting to outsiders, although not necessarily so to a member of the gay group. The more disgusting to the outsider, the greater necessity for the code.

The discussion of sex acts in a gay context, such as cunnilingus, analingus, fellatio, and the use of sex toys, and drugs are, for the most part, commonplace among gay men and women, even among those whose sex habits are more restrained than others. A group of gay men are just as apt to discuss sexual encounters as straight men, and perhaps with the same amount of graphic detail, and no more attention to the bizarre. The difference is that being overheard and understood would have far greater consequences than if a group of straight men were overheard.

While it is not possible to know exactly the meaning of the code in Jesus’ statement about eunuchs, it does provide clues to those who regularly use insiders’ code in speaking. Jesus is obviously encouraging his disciples to consider a particular sort of ministry, one that he can not describe plainly. To a Gay man, the subject of eunuchs immediately suggests something sexual in nature given the sexual associations with eunuchs in ancient times. Their condition as non-reproducing males has a parallel with the fact that usually a homosexual male is a genetic endpoint. Figuratively a gay man, even though virile and capable of fathering children as many do, is perceived as a social eunuch. If Jesus is suggesting becoming a social eunuch, however, he does not seem to be suggesting that his followers become non-active sexually.

When receiving instruction for confirmation from an Episcopalian priest, a candidate for confirmation asked if his being queer would prevent him from being confirmed. The priest did not tell the man he had to stop being queer, or that a queer could not be a Christian. He told him to be a queer for Christ. In a gay man’s ears, Jesus is saying that there are (social) eunuchs who have made themselves (social) eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. A gay Christian is called through his homosexuality to proclaim the Gospel to the gay world and he can do so only by entering it. A gay man is called to take Christ into the baths and the bars, the streets and the beds: wherever gay life takes him. He imitates Christ who took the Gospel into the homes of sinners, into the company of prostitutes, drunkards, and all the other outcasts and riffraff of his day. Who, but the gay man can take the Gospel into those places in the gay world?

Shocking? Certainly, but Jesus prefaced his statement saying, “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given.” And he ends with “Let anyone accept this who can.”

At this point, it is necessary to reiterate that this discussion is not meant to persuade non-gay men and women of its validity. For them it is a shocking idea, but it is not written for them. It is written to provide a gay person with insight into scripture from a gay person’s life and experience. Whatever Jesus intended to convey to his disciples, he had to convey in verbal code. If he had been merely encouraging them to a life of celibacy, encoding his message would have been unnecessary.

The story of the eunuch in Acts and Jesus discussion in Matthew both offer persuasive evidence that Jesus Christ intended his Gospel message for many who had traditionally been denied salvation under the old covenant God made with the Jews. The fact is that Biblical reinterpretation is not only permitted but required. This seems clearly to make contemporary protestations about “reinterpreting” scripture pointless. If the Hebrew scriptures had not been reinterpreted by Jesus Christ, most of those currently claiming eternal truth in "traditional" interpretations would not now be eligible to become God’s children. “Let anyone accept this who can.”