Now the Jewish Temple had various sections, and according to Hebrew law, there were prescribed rules as to who was permitted to enter each of these sections. Within the first set of walls, the first set of cloisters, you would come to a large courtyard. This courtyard was as far as the Gentiles were allowed to proceed, persons who were not Jewish. Then beyond the outer court, you would come to the women’s court, and then the men’s court, and then the priest’s court, with its square altar, and beyond that the inner Temple itself - first the Holy Place, and finally the Holy of Holies, the dwelling place of God which contained the ark of the covenant - a space that only the high priest could enter once a year, on the day of atonement. It was in the outermost courtyard, the Gentile’s courtyard, that Jesus turned over the tables of the money changers, because it disrupted and blocked the access of the Gentiles. Jesus then put an embargo on all people carrying any merchandise through the Temple (Mark 11:16), disrupting the possibility of all commerce. And this principle of Jesus, I believe, should carry forward in all places that are set apart for the worship of God, such as our Meeting House. Commerce in such a place would degrade the principles on which it was established; as Fairfax expressed them, “…we are now in the Tabernacle of Meeting where we meet not only one with another, but all with God.”

And so, returning to our Ethiopian Eunuch visiting the Temple, how far towards the Holy of Holies would you imagine he was permitted to go? Well, being an Ethiopian, you might assume he’s able to go as far as the outermost courtyard, where the Gentile’s worshipped God. But as he was a Eunuch he would not have been permitted to even go this far. For as it says in Deuteronomy 23, “A man whose testicles have been crushed or whose male member has been cut off is not to be admitted to the assembly of Yahweh.” Eunuchs weren’t welcome in God’s house. So, the Ethiopian Eunuch would have travelled all that way, and been met with rejection. Rejection as a foreigner, as a black African, as an Ethiopian, as a Gentile, and as a Eunuch. It’s with all this social and religious context in mind that we can recognise just how remarkable the encounter between Philip and the Eunuch is. Philip, with no hesitation whatsoever, sits beside him as an equal, eager to discuss the Bible. And what is the verse in question? What was the Eunuch reading aloud? As I said, it was a section in the book of Isaiah, fortuitously a part about the Suffering Servant of God, who was “cut off” from the people of God. A section which would have chimed-in very closely with what the Eunuch himself had just experienced in Jerusalem, being reviled, shunned, and “cut off” from God, being as he was unable to worship. As he was reading this passage in Isaiah, we can assume that he probably read the passages in the next chapter also, in which God promises blessing upon all those who had been excluded. It reads:

“Sing, O barren one who did not bear; burst into song and shout, you who have not been in labour!”…”and do not let the eunuch say, ‘I am just a dry tree….I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off…Thus says the Most High God, who gathers the outcasts of Israel…” Yahweh declares: “eunuchs who keep the Sabbath and follow the covenant will have an everlasting name and blessing, better even than sons and daughters, an everlasting name that shall not be cut off.”

This is a very powerful passage. Whenever the Hebrew Bible talks about the relationship between God and his people, it talks in terms of covenants, and sons and daughters are a recurring theme of such covenants. For example, If you take the first covenant between God and Abraham in the Book of Genesis, it’s all about Abraham’s descendants, and how they will be blessed. But here in Isaiah, it is stressed that this blessing of God extends beyond sons and daughters, beyond Abraham’s progeny, it encompasses all: foreigners, barren woman, and Eunuchs alike. But the law keepers of Jerusalem had lost sight of this. They had excluded, when they were supposed to include. They were not receptive to the Spirit, that Spirit which prompted Philip towards what should be our default position, that of love and inclusion

Philip tells the Eunuch about Jesus, about his message of radical love, about the one who has been called the suffering servant. For just like the Eunuch, Jesus was also reviled and cut off, he was the stone which the builders rejected, which became the chief cornerstone. And with that the Ethiopian Eunuch asks to be baptized. Note that there was no doctrinal test administered, he is not asked to jump through a series of prerequisite hoops, his ambiguous gender is not a factor, his lack of Jewish identity is not a factor, the fact that he is a foreigner is not a factor, Philip does not consult with others, there are no meetings to determine if it’s appropriate. He is simply baptised and welcomed into the company of God’s faithful, with no qualifications. He is just welcomed. There is no deliberation, no talk, just action, led by the Spirit. Receptive as Philip is to the Spirit’s movement, he acts. It is very refreshing. In a heartbeat, Philip is in the water, baptising the Christ-seeking, scripture-reading Eunuch. He goes on his way rejoicing, the first Christian of Africa, the first missionary. From then until now there have been Christians in Ethiopia, all possible because the Spirit called Phillip to move across traditional barriers, just as we are called by the Spirit to move across traditional barriers - to make houses of prayer such as this, places of hospitality, houses for all who seek after the sacred.

Amen.