The Ethiopian Eunuch and the Clarity of Scripture

The Bible is a book God wrote for men to understand, both with and without the help of a minister. Unfortunately, many, including the INC and the Roman Catholic church, have doubted this precious truth. One of the arguments used by the INC refers to the Ethiopian Eunuch of Acts 8:

Acts 8:27-31 (ESV) - 27 And he rose and went. And there was an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure. He had come to Jerusalem to worship and was returning, seated in his chariot, and he was reading the prophet Isaiah. 29 And the Spirit said to Philip, "Go over and join this chariot." 30 So Philip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked, "Do you understand what you are reading?" 31 And he said, "How can I, unless someone guides me?" And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

The argument states that because the Ethiopian eunuch was unable to understand scripture without the help of Philip (a messenger, ordained by God), we also cannot understand scripture without the help of a minister.

This argument is seriously flawed in numerous manners. Upon careful examination, we see that this passage in Acts 8 tells us no such thing.

1. Using a specific example to define a universal norm

First and foremost, we should acknowledge that this example is merely an example. Nowhere does this passage explicitly say that the gospel is inaccessible to those without a minister to teach them. One man's difficulty in reading one passage does not translate to all men's difficulty in reading all passages.

Consider how dangerous such an approach to scripture would be in other matters. For example, God telling Samson he shouldn't cut his hair would mean that nobody should cut our hair. This argument against the clarity of scripture using the example of the Ethiopian eunuch is really no different. The narrative of the Ethiopian eunuch does not teach what the INC has inferred. The INC argument should be rejected because it makes a universal norm out of a specific example.

2. The available scripture

Secondly, the solution to the eunuch's problem was not that he needed a special messenger to explain the passage to him. It was simply that he needed anyone who had received the gospel to explain it to him:

Acts 8:32-34 (ESV) 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 before its shearer is silent, so he opens not 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 And the eunuch said to Philip, "About whom, I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?" 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus.

Yes, an apostle preached the gospel to him, but the gospel that he was preached was not one he had read and misunderstood, it was one that had been veiled and unrevealed to him. He had not heard the good news of Jesus. The implication is that any follower of Christ or even a mere book (eg. one of the four gospels) would have been sufficient for him to understand Isaiah.

In other words, the New Testament, in telling us about Jesus, tells us the correct interpretation of Isaiah. However, the eunuch did not have the New Testament; all he had was the scroll of Isaiah. The eunuch did not need an ordained minister, all he needed was the gospel.

3. The character of prophecy

Not all of scripture has the same character in the manner in which it is to be understood. Specifically, much of scripture is designed to be directly understood and some is designed to be mysterious.

For an example of scripture that was intended to be clear, we may look to the law delivered by Moses:

Deuteronomy 30:11-14 (ESV) - 11 "For this commandment that I command you today is not too hard for you, neither is it far off. 12 It is not in heaven, that you should say, 'Who will ascend to heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?' 13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?' 14 But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it.

Moses told the people concerning the law that they should not need someone to explain it to them. His claim was that the covenant he had quoted was clear in and of itself without the need of a secondary messenger to explain those words.

However, we see that much of prophecy has an entirely different intent:

1 Peter 1:10-12 (ESV) - 10 Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, 11 inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. 12 It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look.

Unlike other genres of scripture, much of prophecy is intentionally mysterious. Neither the angels nor the prophets themselves fully understood their prophecies regarding Christ. As it says in 1 Peter 1:12, they were not serving themselves or their own generation, but rather those who would experience the fulfillment of the prophecy.

The Ethiopian eunuch had difficulty understanding the prophecy of Isaiah because prophecy is a special genre of scripture which is not intended to be understood apart from witnessing or hearing of its fulfillment. He had not heard the fulfillment, and therefore it is expected that he would not be able to understand it. In the same way, we do not claim to understand everything that is said of the second coming of Christ in scripture. This is not because we need a minister to explain it to us, but because the prophecies regarding the second coming are intentionally mysterious and we are not meant to fully understand them until they are fulfilled.

4. The Holy Spirit's work in illumination

Additionally, this argument fails to recognize the Protestant claim concerning the illumination provided by the Holy Spirit. It is not the Protestant claim that anyone can understand the Bible without any supernatural help. Rather, the claim is that all are sinful, blinded by their sin, and the work of the Holy Spirit is required to open their eyes.

1 Corinthians 2:14 (ESV) - The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

The eunuch read the scripture prior to his conversion. As such, he was a natural man without the Spirit. Therefore, we should expect him to be unable to understand the things of God apart from the work of the Spirit.

5. The effect of sin on our faith

Furthermore, the INC argument regarding the Ethiopian eunuch fails to allow for believers to have an imperfect understanding. As previously mentioned, it is the work of the Holy Spirit that sanctifies us. Just as believers grow in holiness with regards to their actions, they grow in holiness with regards to their faith. The Protestant claim is not that anyone can understand any part of scripture without any difficulty at all. The claim is that those who seek God in scripture may understand his truths to the degree which they are not blinded by their sin. Therefore, the Ethiopian eunuch may not be used to defeat this claim because the claim was never one of perfect understanding.

If Protestantism claimed that anyone can perfectly understand anything in the Bible, the example of the Ethiopian eunuch would be a valid argument against such a claim. However, since the position is open to people (including believers) misunderstanding some passages of the Bible, it does nothing to effect this claim.

Conclusion

In summary, the Bible may be understood by those who seek God's truth and are guided by the Holy Spirit. Conversely, the Ethiopian eunuch does not provide us with any valid argument against the clarity of scripture. We should reject the argument because it
1. uses a specific example to define a universal norm,
2. fails to consider the eunuch's unfamiliarity with the New Testament,
3. denies the inherently mysterious nature of prophecy,
4. ignores the illumination of the Holy Spirit,
5. misunderstands the effect of sin on understanding,