Here we continue with another chapter from Charles A. Weisman’s book Is Universalism Of God? — Chapter 8, which addresses the identity of the Ethiopian eunuch from Acts, a favorite go-to episode that every Christian universalist will cite while attempting to prove that the gospels were intended for everyone, especially “black” Africans.
We have previously noted that the original Ethiopians — or Kushites — were Adamic descendants of Noah through his son, Ham — whose eldest son was Kush. And contrary to most universalists, there is no evidence that the “curse of Ham” changed his children’s skin color to black — thus magically making him the patriarch of black Africans.
However, Charles Weisman brings up the possibility that the Ethiopian eunuch — based on internal evidence from the Book of Acts and elsewhere — may have been an Israelite living in Kush. That is not to suggest, however, that this Israelite was black — as all Israelites were and are white. Weisman writes,
The Ethiopian Eunuch
Acts 8:26-40 narrates the story of the Ethiopian eunuch who is converted to the Christian faith through the agency of the deacon Philip. In addition to the intriguing presentation of the character himself, the story is significant for the questions it has raised regarding the formation of a universal church or — as some would say — a multi-racial church. It is said that with this event, God now revealed His plan to convert all races.
In this narration, Philip was led by the spirit to this Ethiopian eunuch and preached Christ to him, and consequently he was converted and baptized. So here — it is said — the word of God introduces a wider communion in which all races and all conditions stand on an equality with God. This is because a non-Israelite — one who is believed to have been a Negro or a Nubian — was [allegedly] preached to and converted.
Was the intent of this event to transcend racial barriers? Just who was this person whom Philip met in Acts 8? The Wycliffe Bible Commentary — in speaking of this eunuch — states that “he may possibly have been a Jew” that is, an Israelite. [see The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, Moody Press, 1966, p. 1139].
On this subject of the Ethiopian eunuch, the book, Who’s Who in The Bible states:
“The man was possibly a court official from the train of the queen at Meroe, in Nubia, and probably himself also a Jew [i.e., Israelite].”
Comay and Brownrigg, Who’s Who in the Bible, vol. 2, Bonanza, 1980, p. 110
Why would these biblical authorities believe this man may have been an Israelite? The reason lies in the circumstances surrounding this eunuch’s background and conversion. It is said that he “had come to Jerusalem to worship” (Acts 8:27). So he knew of and worshiped the God of Israel — and was going to Jerusalem and perhaps the Temple or a synagogue for worship. This is not something a stranger from a distant land would do, but it is something an Israelite would do who lived in other lands (Acts 2:5). We often read of Israelites who lived in distant lands who knew and worshiped the God of Israel (Acts 14:1; 17:1).
The eunuch was also in possession of and reading from a Greek text of Isaiah — something that would be expected of an Israelite of that time, especially of one living in Egypt where the Greek text originated. He was a person of great authority, quality and status — one who had charge of all the queen’s treasure. This is hardly a description of a Negro or Nubian of that time.
Bible scholars have often acknowledged that the conversion of the first “non-Israelite” [in the New Testament] was Cornelius in Acts 10 — not the Ethiopian of Acts 8. Regarding the conversion of this Ethiopian eunuch, one commentator states,
“Narrating the conversion of a presumed gentile at this point introduces an anomaly into Luke’s story, since Luke later portrays, Cornelius as the first gentile convert” (10:1-1 1: 18).
The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol.2, Doubleday, 1992, p. 667
Because this story appears to contradict the presentation of Cornelius as the first non-Israelite convert, scholars have been eager to determine the history and origin of the story itself. However, no evidence has emerged about its origin or history as being out of chronological order.
It is apparent that Luke — as the author of the book of Acts — did not perceive this Ethiopian eunuch as a so-called “gentile” or non-Israelite. He saw him as a fellow Israelite who happened to live in Ethiopia — and thus referred to him as an “Ethiopian.” Likewise, Aquila could be called a Corinthian or a Greek since he lived in Corinth, but he was also an Israelite (Acts 18:1,2).
The term “Ethiopia” in Acts 8:27 is generally understood as meaning the region of “Meroe” which is in “upper Egypt'” [see Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, A Commentary on the Whole Bible, vol. 2, p. 182]. This would be in the southern area of Egypt that at the time of Christ had a considerable Israelite population — which had developed over the centuries.
When Babylon attacked and destroyed Jerusalem, many Israelites escaped and sought refuge in Egypt (Jeremiah 24:8; 26:22; 43:7) Isaiah alludes to Israelites who were scattered throughout Cush (Ethiopia) and Egypt (Isaiah 11:11). When Alexander the Great conquered Persia and Egypt, many Israelites found the newly-founded city of Alexandria a favorable site to settle. Ptolemy — the successor of Alexander and the first king of Egypt — invited more Israelites to Egypt to translate their Old Testament text into Greek — now known as the Septuagint. This is the text the Ethiopian eunuch was reading.
By the 1st century A.D. there were around one and a quarter million Israelites living in Egypt, primarily in the northern cities such as Alexandria. It thus should not be at all surprising that some Israelites would be living in southern Egypt and Ethiopia. Being from either Egypt or Ethiopia, these Israelites would be called Egyptians or Ethiopians — much in the same way Moses was called an Egyptian (Exodus 2:19). During the 1st century, an Egyptian lsraelite stirred up a revolt against Roman authority, and the Apostle Paul was mistaken for this man by the captain of the Roman army (Acts 21:38).
It is said that this Ethiopian eunuch brought the Gospel to Ethiopia and Sudan — just like the Apostles brought it to Europe. Yet Europe is Christian — whereas Ethiopia and Sudan are not since the Israelite population did not remain prevalent in these places.
“Yet Europe is Christian — whereas Ethiopia and Sudan are not”
Sudan is not Christian but Ethiopia is. Christianity is the main religion in this country. You don’t have to lie to get your point across.
Isaiah 11:11-12 confirms that there are Israelites in Cush (Ethiopia):
“Then it will happen on that day that the Lord Will again recover the second time with His hand The remnant of His people, who will remain, From Assyria, Egypt, Pathros, Cush, Elam, Shinar, Hamath, And from the islands of the sea. 12 And He will lift up a standard for the nations, And will assemble the banished ones of Israel, And will gather the dispersed of Judah From the four corners of the earth.”
This does not tell us that there are Israelites in Ethiopia today.
If “Cush” is taken to mean a geographic location, then it only tells us that on that day there will be His people in Cush/Ethiopia. It does not tell us that they are in Ethiopia at right now.
If Cush is taken to mean a people, wherever they might be on Earth, then it tells us that on that day there will be still some of His people descended from Cush.
Armed with the knowledge that a patriarchal name generally denotes a people rather than a place, I’m inclined towards option 2.
There is no such thing as a negro Israelite and there aren’t exactly a whole lot of White folk in modern Ethiopia at present.
In Churchianity, the Sons of Thunder are considered to be black as the night. Everyone today knows that it is bogus but, like this Ethiopian, will everyone tomorrow believe it?
Recently, the Churchianity-based TV show The Chosen ran a maudlin special involving a bunch of broken youths. One of them was black, and this negro gushed over seeing Christian figures blackwashed as “I thought Christianity was a Whipepo thing.”
Sadly, this is touted as justification for The Chosen‘s policy of being absurdly diverse racially. Joseph (nog) and Mary (arab) in it are even portrayed as being from different races.
While this absurd casting rankles Churchianity followers, the idea that all of the people in the Bible were White is just too much for them to process. Hopefully their gut reaction that this racial casting is wrong will open them up to finding out why.
Perhaps we should also keep in mind in our research that the ancient Greek language, as we see it today, is of Indo-European origin and has no Semitic or African roots. Why should a black African have Germanic language skills?
The Greek and Hebrew alphabets are very similar….so similar that Greek must be based on Hebrew to a certain degree. Check out the similarities, and I think you will agree that this could not be a mere coincidence:
https://carm.org/the-bible/the-greek-and-hebrew-alphabets-with-numeric-equivalents/
You’re right.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenician_alphabet
The Spartans were Semites though, so there must be some connection. Also, with Abraham promised that his descendants would create many nations to the east, I wonder also if the “Indo” part of “Indo-European” refers to an entirely semetic people.
If the eunuch were black then we would need to redouble our archeological efforts in Egypt/Ethiopia as they would have had technology to make a negro compatible with civilization, something that has not been recreated in over a thousand years.
Sure, I suspect we’ve all met some Talented Tenthers, but have any of them seemed capable of managing the entire treasure of an empire?
Ethiopia = Ancient Kush
Ancient Kush was part of the Egyptian Dynasty whose god(s) were the same as the mythical Greeks.
[“The eunuch was also in possession of and reading from a Greek text of Isaiah — something that would be expected of an Israelite of that time, especially of one living in Egypt where the Greek text originated.:]
It would make sense that the Ethiopian (Kushite) Israelite who spoke Hebrew and/or the language of Ethiopia, was able to converse with Philip. It is here that we are aware of the influence of Greek/Egyptian mythology shrouding this ‘Ethiopian’ (Israelite) that Philip brought the Good News of Salvation through Jesus Christ who is spoken of in Isaiah 53. Greek/Egyptian mythology parallels the Truth of Jesus Christ and conflates it into a mythical theology.
Acts 8:27
[27 And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,]
The royal title Candace (or queen) is of Latin origin which means “clarity, whiteness”. In ancient mythology and rule the female was equal to that of the king/pharaoh.
The eunuch Israelite in Ethiopia (Kush) had the same authority as Joseph in Egypt next under Pharaoh.
We can also read that it was God who ‘called’ for this certain eunuch (lost sheep of Israel).
[26 And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert.
27 And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,
28 Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Isaiah the prophet.
29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.
30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Isaiah, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?]
Ethiopia (Kush) was very different from today’s Ethiopia.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKf5l57TnNQ
Ancient Kush documentary
Sparrow writes “Ethiopia (Kush) was very different from today’s Ethiopia.”
Yes, in the same way America of the 1920s was very different from the America of today, only 100 years later. 100 years ago, you would have been hard pressed to find any racial diversity traveling the roads of America, while today it’s hard to escape it. Children growing up in America today probably cannot imagine that America was virtually all white in the not-too-distant past. In fact, many children are being taught that America has always been a multi-racial “melting pot”, in an Orwellian erasure of our history, “It’s always been this way.”
And while the ancient Near East was the same at one point (largely white), few people today know its history. Yes, brown people live on top of the ruins of ancient white civilizations and claim them as their own, yet anyone who dares point out that white history and culture is being erased by brown “colonizers” will be smeared as a “racist”. “How dare you deprive people of color their glorious past?” Ethiopia’s “glorious past”, its “golden era”, occurred when it was white. And the Ethiopian Eunuch is proof of that.
This is amusing….a mainstream judeo-christian website just can’t find a good explanation of why a black African would undertake this pilgrimage to Jerusalem:
“…it’s difficult to understand why a non-Jewish person would undertake such a long and expensive trip in order to worship at the Jewish temple. ”
Often the simplest explanation is the correct one — only an Israelite would undertake such a such a long and expensive trip in order to worship at the Jewish temple.
https://www.learnreligions.com/who-was-the-ethiopian-eunuch-in-the-bible-363320
Worth noting that the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 is reading a passage from Isaiah 53:7….
“He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. ”
This seems to refer to the silence of Christ before those judging Him, but also refers to His “sheep”, and only Israelites are referred to as “sheep”. It would seem that the Eunuch heard His voice and came to Jerusalem to worship Him (“My sheep hear my voice”), and confirm the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy of the coming Messiah.
Just look at them. You know they were once white.
I did an image search for “ethiopian eunuch”, and sure enough, most of the images were of a black man, (not surprising), but there were a few old engravings and paintings like the one above that depicted the ethiopian eunuch as a white man.
https://lectionaryart.org/2017/05/26/philip-and-the-ethiopian-eunuch/
So when exactly did the “Eunuch was black” revisionism start, who started it and why?
Nice find with that list.
It looks like the (((subversion))) started early as the first painting dates to the 10th century yet it depicts a dusky negro and with limited exception (the most notable being that depiction from 1335), the Ethiopian has been shown as swarthy, or a full-blown black, for over a thousand years.
That last painting in the list, the one by Herbert Boeckl, is some degenerate modern art to be sure. This artist is listed as self-taught and had been painting for 35 years before this painting was made.
One would think he would have gotten better in that time.
Unsurprisingly, this Boeckl is listed as having been influential in the post-ww2 (((reconstruction))), and so this painting from the 1950s made its way to an Austrian abbey.
Yes, I was struck by just how awful that Boeckl piece was too, RB!
It wouldn’t surprise me at all if the eunuch became a negro at about the same time as the “three wise men” became three in number and one became a negro. Someone may have gone on a “diversity drive” a thousand years ago hahaha
Good site, Mark. Thanx for sharing.