The Ethiopian Eunuch: converted through Reading the Scriptures
(Saint John Chrysostom, On Acts, Homily XIX)
Before turning to the next and pivotal section in the book of Acts—Saul’s conversion from persecutor to preacher—it’s worthwhile looking at how Saint John Chrysostom spoke to his congregation in Constantinople about the Ethiopian eunuch’s conversion. Saint John was especially impressed by how diligently and closely the Ethiopian read and questioned Scripture. Indeed, this is what made him ready and eager to hear Philip’s message. Chrysostom says this puts his own present-day churchgoers to shame, and he exhorts them—with flashes of frustration, irony and impatience—to lift their game and read, explore, listen to and question on their own and with each other the richness of the Scriptures.
But, as I said, for the present let us take shame to ourselves (when we think of) the eunuch, both in his baptism and his reading. Do you mark how he was in a station of great authority, how he was in possession of wealth, and even on his journey allowed himself no rest? What must he have been at home, in his leisure hours, this man who rested not even on his travels? What must he have been at night? You that are in stations of dignity, hear: imitate his freedom from pride, his piety… No need had he of signs, no need of miracles: from the Prophet merely, he believed…Because he was yet weak, the Prophet was not easy; yet the Prophet catechized him. For even now, if any of you would apply himself to the study of the Prophets, he would need no miracles. …
It is a great thing, this reading of the Scriptures! That was fulfilled which was spoken by Moses, “Sitting, lying down, rising up, and walking, remember the Lord thy God” (Deut 6:7). For the roads, especially when they are lonely, give us opportunity for reflection, there being none to disturb us. …
Conversant with these wonders, let us show ourselves worthy. But many in these times, even when they come to church, do not know what is read; whereas the eunuch, even in public and riding in his chariot, applied himself to the reading of the Scriptures. Not so you: none takes the Bible in hand: nay, everything rather than the Bible. …
Bury the Bibles! Perhaps the judgment would not be such, not such the punishment: if one were to bury them in dung, that he might not hear them, he would not so insult them as you do now. For say, what is the insult there? That the man has buried them. And what here? That we do not hear them. …
There, common to the whole congregation, stands the deacon crying aloud, and saying, “Let us attend to the reading.” It is the common voice of the whole Church, the voice which he utters, and yet none does attend. After him begins the Reader, “The Prophecy of Isaiah,” and still none attends, although Prophecy has nothing of man in it. Then after this, he says, “Thus saith the Lord,” and still none attends…
But what is the common excuse? “It is always the same things over again.” This it is most of all, that ruins you. Suppose you knew the things, even so you certainly ought not to turn away: since in the theatres also, is it not always the same things acted over again, and still you take no disgust? How dare you talk about “the same things,” you who know not so much as the names of the Prophets? Are you not ashamed to say, that this is why you do not listen, because it is “the same things over again,” while you do not know the names of those who are read, and this, though always hearing the same things? …Do not you exhort your son? Now if he should reply to you, “Always the same things!” would not you count it an insult? …
What equal is there to Timothy? tell me that: and yet to him says Paul, “Give attention to reading, to exhortation” (1 Tim 4:13). For it is not possible, I say not possible, ever to exhaust the mind of the Scriptures. It is a well which has no bottom…
Shall I show you that the things are not “the same?” How many persons, do you suppose, have spoken upon the Gospels? And yet all have spoken in a way which was new and fresh. For the more one dwells on them, the more insight does he get, the more does he behold the pure light. Look, what a number of things I am going to speak of:—say, what is narrative? what is prophecy? what is parable? what is type? what is allegory? what is symbol? what are Gospels?
Answer me only to this one point, which is plain: why are they called Gospels, “good tidings?” And yet you have often heard that good news ought to have nothing sad in it: yet this “good news” has abundance of sadness in it. “Their fire,” it saith, “shall never be quenched: their worm shall not die” (Mark 9:44). “Shall appoint his portion,” it saith, “with the hypocrites,” with them that are “cut asunder: then shall He say, I know you not: Depart from Me, you that work iniquity” (Matt 24:51; 7:23).
Surely, we do not deceive ourselves, when we imagine that we tell you in your own mother-tongue these good tidings? You look downcast; you are stunned; you are struck all of a heap, unable to hold up your heads. “Good news” should have nothing in it of a duty to be done, but rather should counsel what is good: whereas these “Gospels” have endless duties to be done. And again, to mention other things, as for instance, “Except a man hate father and mother, he is not worthy of Me” (Luke 14:26) and “I am not come to bring peace upon earth, but a sword” (Matt 10:34, Luke 12:51), and “In the world you shall have tribulation—(John 16:33).
Excellent good tidings these, are they not!
For good news is such as this—“You shall have this and that good thing:” as in common life men say one to another, “What shall I have for my good news? Your father is coming, or, your mother:” he does not say, “You must do this or that.”
Again, tell me, how do the Gospels differ from the Prophets? Why are not the Prophecies also called Gospels, good tidings? … Why are not those also called Gospels? But if, while you do not so much as know what “Gospels” mean, you so despise the reading of the Scriptures, what shall I say to you?
Let me speak of something else. Why four Gospels? why not, ten? why not twenty? If “many have taken in hand to set forth a narrative” (Luke 1:1), why not one person? Why they that were disciples (i.e. Apostles)? why they that were not disciples? But why any Scriptures at all?... Where are they that say, “Always the same things?” If you knew these, that, though a man should live thousands of years, they are not “the same things,” you would not say this.
Believe me, I will not tell you the answers to any of these questions; not in private, not in public: only, if any find them out, I will nod assent. For this is the way we have made you good-for-nothing, by always telling you the things ready to your hands, and not refusing when we ought.
Look, you have questions enough: consider them, tell me the reasons. Why Gospels? Why not Prophecies? Why duties, to be done, in the Gospels? If one is at a loss, let another seek the answer, and contribute each to the others from what he has: but now we will hold our peace. For if what has been spoken has done you no good, much less would it, should we add more. We only pour water into a vessel full of holes. And the punishment too is all the greater for you. Therefore, we will hold our peace. Whether we speak again rests with yourselves. For if we shall see your diligence, perhaps we will again speak, that both you may be more approved, and we may rejoice over you, in all things giving glory to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ: to Him be glory and dominion now and ever, and world without end. Amen.
Update
Yesterday a scholar from Moscow was visiting the archives and archivist Alexis Liberovsky. Olga Tereshina is researching church-state relations in the Soviet Union during World War II and is looking at material in the OCA Archives that may have a bearing on this issue.