Some of you may recall that I have preached on
this scripture before. I preach on it again because it is the lectionary
reading for today, and because it so clearly demonstrates how we are to
interpret and understand scripture.
First, the story:
An Ethiopian eunuch had gone to Jerusalem to
worship, and was now on his way home. I always wonder what it was like for him
in that holy city. The scripture doesn’t say.
But there are some clues.
First of all, we know that the temple in
Jerusalem was divided into different courtyards: inner courtyards, outer
courtyards, courtyards-within-courtyards. Which courtyard you were allowed into
depended on several things. Women couldn’t go as far in as men. Gentiles
couldn’t go as far in as Jews.
And an Ethiopian eunuch – a man who was both a
foreigner and a sexual minority – well, I’m not really sure how far he could go
in.
But I do know that Deuteronomy 23 says – in
rather explicit detail – that no eunuch or foreigner shall be admitted into the
assembly of the Lord. That’s right: any male whose private parts are in any way
mutilated, deformed, crushed, cut off, etc. – except for circumcision, of
course – is prohibited from entering the place of worship.
And foreigners are also excluded; particularly
those pesky Ammonites and Moabites. “No Ammonite or Moabite shall be admitted
to the assembly of the Lord.” But just to be safe, we’ll exclude all
foreigners, except maybe the Edomites, because they were nice to us once.
Anyway, that’s what the Torah says. And
there’s a good chance that those at the temple were strict followers of these
ancient teachings.
Which means that the Ethiopian eunuch, despite
having traveled so far just to worship in the temple, was not allowed in.
Unless…
Unless there were officials at the temple who
had read the story of Ruth. There is a whole book in the Bible devoted to
telling her story, and it describes Ruth as a woman from Moab.
Think about that for a second: A woman. From
Moab.
If that was all you knew about her – that she
was a woman from Moab – you would automatically assume that she could be no
hero of any biblical story. The expectations and assumptions you would have
about women and about people from Moab would be such that you would know that
she was no hero, and that nothing good could come from her.
And yet, in the book of Ruth, she is the hero. Not only that, but she
becomes the great-grandmother of none other than King David.
Maybe if one of the officials at the temple
had read the book of Ruth, the Ethiopian eunuch would be allowed in?
And yet, that doesn’t seem to be the case.
OK; how about the prophet Isaiah? Here is what
Isaiah 56 says:
“Do not let the foreigner joined to the Lord
say, ‘Ah! The Lord will surely separate me from his people!’ … And do not let
the eunuch say, ‘Ah! I am just a dry tree!’ For thus says the Lord: to the
eunuchs, I will give a monument and a name – an everlasting name – that shall
not be cut off.’”
If you
need me to explain to you the play on words there, about the eunuch receiving a
name that shall not be cut off, talk to me later…
And to the foreigners, the Lord says: “I will
bring you to my holy mountain, and make you joyful in my house of prayer… for
my house shall be a house of prayer for all peoples.”
So back to the Ethiopian eunuch: he’s
traveling back from Jerusalem to his home in Ethiopia. Was he allowed into the
temple to worship? Probably not, despite the conflicting scriptures.
Riding in his chariot, he’s reading out loud
from the prophet Isaiah. And Philip, urged by the Spirit, approaches and asks,
“Hey, do you understand what you are reading?”
And the eunuch says, “I haven’t got a clue.”
And he invites Philip to join him in the
chariot and explain to him what all the scriptures are talking about.
And Philip explained to the eunuch about
Jesus, and how Jesus broke down the barriers, and lived out many of Isaiah’s
teachings about justice and equality and creating a place for all people… and
how the authorities didn’t like Jesus’s take on things, and killed him, but
that God did like Jesus’s take on
things, and so raised him back to life…
And right about then, they came to some water,
and the eunuch said, “Look! Water! What is there to keep me from being
baptized?”
Now, those authorities back at the temple had
an answer to that: Deuteronomy.
But Philip understood what the Spirit was
doing, and how God had opened up a path for all people, and Philip willingly
baptized the eunuch and welcomed him into the body of believers.
Now, I’ve preached on this before. But today
I’d like to go one step further. Because what happened here is not all that
different from what’s happening today.
Both Philip, and the authorities at the temple,
had knowledge of the same set of scriptures. Both had heard or read the Torah
and the writings of the prophets. Both knew what Deuteronomy taught, and both
had heard the words of the prophets. And yet they arrived at very different
conclusions.
We see that today, don’t we? The Bible we read
is essentially the same, and yet Christians of different branches of
Christianity arrive at very different conclusions.
Some Christians allow women to preach and
pastor; others don’t. Both base their decision on scripture.
Some Christians allow homosexuals to be
members and leaders, and to get married in their churches; others don’t. Both
use scripture to arrive at their conclusion.
Here are some things I try to keep in mind
when interpreting scripture.
One of the first questions I ask is, “How does
scripture interpret scripture?”
Deuteronomy says no foreigners or eunuchs. And yet, the stories of Ruth and the
Ethiopian eunuch – along with the prophet Isaiah – all seem to think that
Deuteronomy was wrong. At the very least, they seem to think that what
Deuteronomy said was specific to Deuteronomy’s time, and not applicable to
their own situations.
Today, there are some Christians who say you
can’t do that. You can’t say that scripture is wrong. You can’t say that it
doesn’t apply today. Scripture is God’s word, it is timeless, and it is
eternally valid.
Well, tell that to Isaiah, Philip, and the
author of Ruth, who all thought otherwise.
When I read scripture, I think of it as a
conversation. It’s an ongoing conversation between people from different times
and different places, about the nature of God and what God wants for the world.
You know how it is with a conversation: one
person says one thing, another person says something else. Maybe what the
second person says contradicts what the first person said, or maybe it refines
or reworks it. Either way, the conversation continues. I may not agree with
everything said in the conversation, and yet as the conversation moves along, I
find myself reworking and refining my own thoughts on whatever topic is being
discussed.
Here’s an example of how this works in
scripture: In the book of Genesis, and throughout much of the earlier writings
of the old testament, it is emphasized that those who obey God are blessed, and
those who turn away from God and do what is evil are cursed.
In other words, those who do good are
rewarded, and those who do bad are punished.
But then we get to the book of Ecclesiastes.
It’s as if the writer of Ecclesiastes has listened to these comments in the
conversation, and then adds his own comment.
And basically, what the writer of Ecclesiastes
says is, “That’s how you see things? Because that’s not been my experience. In
my experience, those who are wise, those who do what is right, suffer just as
much as those who are foolish and those who do what is wrong. The rain that
blesses the earth falls on the just and the unjust. So what’s the point of
doing good?”
And this takes the conversation to the next
stage.
For those of you who don’t know, Chapman
University is a Disciples-related school that, every spring, hosts a series of
lectures in conjunction with Founders Day. A few years back the featured
speaker was Amy Jill-Levine, who is a Jewish academic who has devoted her life
to studying the New Testament.
In the evening, after her lectures, she was
speaking at Temple Beth Shalom, and all the lecture attendees were invited. I
think there were more Christians in worship that night than Jews.
And several times during her sermon,
individuals in the crowd would holler “Amen!” Amy Jill-Levine laughed and said,
“In Jewish congregations, we don’t usually shout Amen. Usually, we wait until
after worship, and we say to the rabbi, “So that’s how you see things, huh?
Because that’s not how I see things…”
And the conversation continues.
I kind of like that. Instead of always having
to have the final word, maybe Christians should learn to think of it all as an
ongoing conversation. There is no final answer, and yet, with every course
alteration in the conversation, wisdom is gained.
That’s how I see scripture. The various books
of the Bible are part of an ongoing conversation. That doesn’t mean the
conversation wanders aimlessly. I think it’s safe to say that our reading today
shows how the conversation moves in a somewhat forward direction, guided by the
Spirit. I definitely see the conversation moving from exclusivity to
inclusivity, for example. It moves from defining who’s in to welcoming everyone
in. It moves from Jerusalem, then to Judea and Samaria, and on to the ends of
the earth.
But it doesn’t necessarily get there in a
straight line. The conversation moves forward for awhile until it hits a
roadblock. Then it navigates around that roadblock and continues until it sees
something interesting, something useful, off to the side, and it wanders over
to take a look.
But eventually it does move forward. Onward.
Because the Spirit is guiding and leading.
The Ethiopian eunuch needed a conversation
partner to help him understand the scripture he was reading, and the Spirit
sent him Philip.
I like to think that, during their
conversation, Philip also gained a new understanding. I like to think that the
eunuch’s question – “What is there to prevent me from being baptized?” – helped
open Philip’s eyes to a new understanding, that it made him pause a moment, and
think; that it caused him to recalculate the direction of his own journey, and
continue with the conversation.
And that the Spirit was leading him through
this.
And that, I think, is what it means to be a
progressive Christian. It means not standing still, but following the
conversation wherever the Spirit leads. The journey of discovery progresses
onward. Wisdom is gained. The conversation continues.
No comments:
Post a Comment