Here is paper where I explore some of the aspects of being a eunuch in the New Testament.

(Scripture quotes are by the author from the Greek Majority Text.)

Executive Summary:

Eunuchs and the concept of being eunuch-like has played a much greater part in the Christian Church and church history than commonly appreciated. The purpose of this paper is to show where eunuchs and the concept of “eunuch-like” appear in the New Testament (NT) and early church history. The paper shows that eunuchs virtually from the beginning of the Church have been held in high regard. Efforts by some Christian Churches to demean eunuchs are without scriptural basis.

Discussion:

The word “eunuch” appears seven times in the NT. The word in Greek is “eunouchos” and, unfortunately, not a precise term. As used in the NT it can mean physically a man who was born with undescended testicles, a man who has had his testicles removed, or a man who has had both his testicles and penis removed. It can also, however, mean a man incapable of sex such as an impotent man or simply a man who lives without a sex life. The context can help in translation in some cases. The term is further complicated that a man with normal testicles can via hormone treatment become a eunuch in the chemical sense. Conversely, a man without testicles can perform normally, albeit without the ability to procreate, again with the aid of hormones.

With that in mind I quote the most common NT verse in this regard, Matthew 19:12, that quotes Jesus.

For there are eunuchs born that way, eunuchs made that way by men, and eunuchs who made themselves that way for the Kingdom of Heaven. One may accept this if they are able.

Some Bible commentators like to “interpret around” this verse, but to me it is very plain and says simply what it says. It is perfectly fine for a Christian to be either born a eunuch or to make oneself into a eunuch.

The other place where the term “eunuch” appears in the NT is in Acts regarding the story of the Ethiopian eunuch, Acts 8:26-39.

An angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Rise and go south in the desert from Jerusalem to Gaza.”

He started out and on his way, he came upon an Ethiopian eunuch, an official of Queen Candice, who was her state treasurer. He was on his way to Jerusalem to worship. He was sitting in his vehicle reading the Book of Isaiah the prophet.

The Spirit said to Philip, “Go over to that man and meet up with him.”

As he approached, he heard the man reading the prophet Isaiah and said, “Do you know what you are reading?”

And the (eunuch) replied, “I need some help and someone to explain this to me.”

Philip sat down with him. The passage he was reading was:

“He was like a lamb led to slaughter and like a lamb to be sheared; and said nothing. In humiliation he was judged without justice. Who can speak of his children, for he was murdered.” (Isaiah 53:7-8)

The eunuch asked Philip, “Tell me, is the prophet talking about himself or someone else?” Philip went over that passage and explained about Jesus.

As they proceeded down the road they came upon some water. The eunuch said, “Here is some water, is there any reason I cannot be baptized?”

They stopped and both went down into the water as Philip baptized him. After that, the Lord separated them and Philip saw no more of the eunuch who proceeded on rejoicing.

There cannot be the slightest doubt that any eunuch is more than welcome in the Christian Church. One interesting question is that as to what the eunuch might have been wearing. The question is interesting because a transgender male is a eunuch by any other name. Yet many Christian churches seem reluctant to welcome transgender males into their company. That sort of policy is clearly at odds with the scripture.

No discussion of the role of eunuchs in the Early Christian Church would be complete without a mention of Origen [1]. He has been the subject of numerous discussions here on the EA, but deserves another mention. Origen (185-254) was a brilliant scholar and actually corrected and revised the Septuagint, the translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek. Some accomplishment for sure. It is believed that he castrated himself after contemplating Matthew 19:12, however, this is a subject of debate. That he became a eunuch is widely accepted, however. He is a fine representative of the Christian Church and a splendid example of a man who probably chose to be a eunuch to complement the Kingdom of Heaven.

Tertullian [2] is another early Christian figure. One of his ideas was that both Jesus and Paul the Apostle were eunuchs. There is no proof for this one way or the other. In the case of Jesus, it is arguably true that there is no mention of him having any sort of sex life in the gospels. This would contrast, for example, to Muhammad who certainly did have a sexual relationship with his first wife Khadija and then after death with additional wives.[3] There is always the tantalizing question of Jesus’ relationship with Mary Magdalene. We do not know. I will throw out an interesting point to ponder.

Jesus according to the gospels was a product of a close encounter of the fourth kind. That is, the mating of an extra-terrestrial with an earth woman. In Luke 1:30-31 we read,

Fear not Mary, for you have found favor with God. You will conceive a male child and his name will be called “Jesus.”

Mary inquires how this is to come about. We read in Luke 1:35

The angel answered and said, “The Holy Spirit will come to you and cause you to bear a holy one called ‘The Son of God.’ "

If Jesus, then, was such a product of a close encounter, then it is not unreasonable to ask if he could reproduce. Hybrids often cannot, as we know. That to me is one explanation as to why Jesus could have in a reasonable sense of the word be called a eunuch.

Paul is also interesting to consider. Paul aside from being among the first to pen what we today call the New Testament, is arguably its most influential theologian. He formed the foundation of Christian attitudes towards sex.

He states in 1 Corinthians 7:7 an enigmatic statement regarding relationships with women,

I wish all men were like me, but each man has his own gift from God.

What he meant has been a subject of debate down through the centuries. It probably means simply that he was living as a single man. On the other hand, he could have been castrated after his conversion on the Road to Damascus.

There is one verse in particular that deserves attention, 1 Cor 6:9-10. This verse is often used to demean homosexuals in particular, but also transgenderists and eunuchs in particular. It reads as follows:

Don’t you realize that wrongdoers will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Make no mistake, I speak of the sexually immoral, that is, idolaters, adulterers, call boys and their keepers. Neither will thieves, con-persons, or those into drugs so inherit.

I do suggest anyone interested to read this in their own Bible. I could display the Greek text and go over it in detail. A particular point here is the Greek: “malakoi oute arsenokoitai” and is often translated, “effeminates nor homosexuals.” This implies that any man with feminine traits or any man attracted to another man is evil. What is mentioned is a particular relationship between men of that day who kept young boys for the main purpose of sex. The NIV renders this as “male prostitutes,” which is closer to correct. Specifically, “malokos” derives from the idea of “soft.” It appears only two other places in the NT, Matt 11:8 and Luke 7:25 in the context of soft clothing. The person could or not be a eunuch, and was often a prepubescent boy. The important point is the context where the word is used. It is not a condemnation of eunuchs and specifically a eunuch who exhibits feminine characteristics.

My translation above I think clarifies this as well as any. Paul, in short, is speaking to the matter of sexual irresponsibility. He does not single out homosexuals any more than heterosexuals.

Since this paper concerns the matter of the role of eunuchs, I will stop here. A detailed look at the question of homosexuality is properly the subject of a separate paper.

In summary, we see that eunuchs have a totally legitimate role in the Christian Church both historically and in the present era. There is no basis from the NT to consider a eunuch in any demeaning sense. Verses used to this end are misinterpreted and are speaking to other issues aside from one being a eunuch.

References:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunuch

[3] Esposito, John L., Islam, The Straight Path, Oxford Univ. Press, 2005.

To go with this, my pastor was present at each of the operations to remove my testes. He had no problem with me becoming a eunuch. It probably was the first for him since he was only in his middle 30's when it happened. No problem. I kept all my responsibilites and duties at church and continue them now, even after he has moved to another church.

Enjoyed reading the article. I've been aware of most of the scriptures you mentioned in it.

As a practicing Christian (albeit an openmined one) I can see, and realize that becoming a eunuch can be a spiritual journey. I've actually had a married female friend mention that to me.

I guess a question that comes is what the modern Christian Church would think about a eunuch as a part of their membership?

Then too, to some Christians I can see becoming a eunuch, could be their calling in life. If churches support missionaries in their calling, I wonder if they would support a person in this calling. Then again I might just be too openminded for some.

Eunuch2be

You ask a good question about church acceptance of eunuchs. I should have been more explicit in my first post. Merely being a eunuch probably would not mean much of anything in any church I am aware of. It is the analogue of a gay person “in the closet” attending a Christian Church. What I had in the back of my mind when I wrote the paper was that a eunuch should feel no personal qualms with being a Christian. I also alluded to the non-acceptance on the part of many churches to transsexuals.

I am a liberal Episcopalian and as you may know, we created some stir a while back with naming openly gay V. Gene Robinson as a Bishop. We also reaffirmed recently our intention to do so again in the future if a qualified person is under consideration. This fall, I am attending our Diocesan convention as a delegate. I want to nose around a bit and see if I can get a better picture of where the church stands on the transgender issue. Also to better understand the position regarding a person who wishes by choice to live as a eunuch and is open about it.

I can make some guesses based on the reaction of American Episcopalians to the gay issue. The liberal end of the Church I doubt would have any particular trepidation. There is also the matter that the conservative end of the Episcopalian Church in the United States (ECUSA) has split off and formed a new church of their own. So right now I can only make some educated guesses.

Regards, Glenda

ALL,

There is another New Testament verse that I could have included that may be of interest. It is Matthew 22:30. Jesus is discussing with some of the Jewish Sadducees the matter of the resurrection. They put to him a seeming dilemma. Suppose a woman’s husband dies and she marries his brother (a custom in ancient Israel.) Then that man dies and she remarries again etc. They inquire whose wife she will be after the resurrection of the dead on the last day.

Jesus replies with a snappy comeback:

For in the resurrection, people will neither marry nor be given in marriage. All will be as the angels in heaven.

So it looks like, in Heaven, all of us will end up eunuchs. How about that?

I suppose that's one way to look at it, of course others could say that in heaven believers will be celibate. Another way to think about it is that heaven will be so absolutely wonderful that no one will care about sex. Or because sex is/was for procreation, it's simply unnecessary in heaven. Pleasure in heaven will come from seeing and being with God. Someone said that being in heaven will be like waking up on Christmas morning every day.

Interpretations of Matthew 22:30 have, of course, varied over time, space, and theological orientations within the range of Christian belief. The question, of course, being, ‘What are angels?’

Eunuchs were reasonably common, and certainly very visible, in the ancient world. They were to be found in public positions as administrators and military personnel. In many of the ancient cultures they were recruited from the local population, and in some times and places parents arranged for the castration of their sons to ensure their future, beginning at least as early as the Assyrian Empire, where families with several sons might castrate one or more of the younger ones to provide them with a career in government.

The parallels begin with eunuchs as the intermediaries between the ruler and the commoners and angels as the intermediaries between God and man. Both eunuchs and angels are beardless and sexless. Both are depicted as taller than normal mortals. When we say that someone has an “angelic” voice, we mean a voice like the castrati. (Castration of young boys to become praise singers to the gods probably began in Sumer in the 20th century BCE, 4000 years ago.) All of the physical traits attributed to angels characterize eunuchs castrated before puberty.

Angels show up early and often in the Torah/Old Testament. In Genesis we find them guarding the gates of Eden after Adam and Eve’s expulsion (Genesis 3:24). We find them informing Sarah that she will bear a child (Genesis 18) and we find them stopping Abraham from sacrificing that same offspring (Genesis 22).

Within early Christianity, some groups believed that it was proper for Christian males to castrate themselves or to be castrated in order to maintain celibacy. The Valensians even believed that all true Christian males should be castrated.

Within the Eastern branch of the church, eunuchs continued to play an important role well into the 15th century. A number of saints were eunuchs, as were a number of Patriarchs and other ecclesiastic officials. At various times in the Eastern Church it was considered virtuous for parents to castrate their children for service in the church. Emperor Alexios I Komnenos (1081-1118) even decreed that Byzantine families who had several sons should have one of them castrated for religious or administrative service.

There was a recurring theme in Byzantine lore of people having contact with angels, believing them to be eunuchs and of people having contact with eunuchs, believing them to be angels. Both Kathryn Ringrose (The Perfect Servant: Eunuchs and the Social Construction of Gender in Byzantium) and Shaun Tougher (The Eunuch in Byzantine History and Society) devote many pages of their books to comparison of angels and eunuchs.

The Skoptsy faith, a branch of the Russian Orthodox church, revived the idea that castration was important for entry into Heaven. They flourished from the early 18th century until at least the beginning of WWII, still recruiting members by adopting orphans in Romania.

A couple of years ago, I visited a nearby Russian Orthodox church that was under construction and spoke with the artisan who was painting the portraits of the archangels in it. I asked him why they were depicted beardless and with such unnaturally long arms and legs. Without any prompting, he immediately informed me that the physical form of angels was the same as that of earthly eunuchs.

thats very interesting jesus thanks

glenda that is a good reasearch paper thankyou

If you can find a copy, Ringrose's book is a really good read.