Eunuchs in the Bible
What is a eunuch in the Bible?
But he said to them, “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”
—Matthew 19:11–12
Stephen J. Patterson discusses what Jesus meant when he referred to “eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.”
Should the above words of Jesus from the Gospel of Matthew be taken literally? Is he saying that men—who can—should emasculate themselves?
The initial question that prompted this controversial teaching about eunuchs in the Bible actually concerned marriage.
When asked about marriage and divorce in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus informs his crowd that anyone who divorces—other than for reasons of unchastity—and marries another, commits adultery (Matthew 19:9).
Upon hearing this, his disciples respond, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry” (Matthew 19:10). Jesus then says there are indeed some who are called to be eunuchs “for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.”
What is a “eunuch” in the Bible passage? Is Jesus talking literally about castration—or just metaphorically about celibacy? Stephen J. Patterson, the George H. Atkinson Chair of Religious and Ethical Studies at Willamette University, addresses this question about eunuchs in the Bible in his Biblical Views column “Punch Thy Neighbor” in the May/June 2015 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review. He believes that the passage should be taken literally—that Jesus is talking about castration:
Scholars squeamish at the thought of Christian castrati have sometimes insisted that this passage must be referring metaphorically to celibacy. But that is nonsense. If Matthew’s author had meant to speak of celibates (parthenoi), he knew perfectly well how to do that. In a religious context, eunuch had to mean eunuch, else he would simply have confused his audience. In the Book of Matthew, Jesus advises men (who can) to emasculate themselves!
This interpretation is as controversial and countercultural today as it would have been in the days of Jesus—a time saturated with masculine dominance and power. In the Roman world of “phallo-dominance,” castration would have set anyone apart. Stephen J. Patterson explains that Matthew’s eunuchs “remov[ed] the thing that ancients most associated with male power and dominance. This is how they chose to embody the kingdom of heaven on earth.”
FREE ebook, Who Was Jesus? Exploring the History of Jesus’ Life. Examine fundamental questions about Jesus of Nazareth.
Yet not everyone agrees with Stephen J. Patterson on this issue. Birger A. Pearson thinks that this passage about eunuchs in the Bible should be taken metaphorically. He makes the case that Jesus is speaking in hyperbole in his BAR article “Did Jesus Marry?”:
While some people in the early Church took Jesus’ saying literally, we should understand it as a case of deliberate hyperbole, such as is found in other of his injunctions (see, for example, Matthew 5:27–30 on adultery: “… If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell.”) The point Jesus is making about the eunuch is that it is possible for a man to live on earth as he would in God’s kingdom, where there is neither marriage nor procreation. Jesus is challenging people who are “able to receive it” to live a life of celibacy for the sake of the kingdom, and thus to live now as though the future kingdom had already come.
While there will likely always be debate about this passage, both sides can agree that Jesus’ teaching ran contrary to the majority’s opinion about power and dominance in the Roman Empire. For more information about eunuchs in the Bible—and a literal interpretation of Matthew 19:11–12—read the full Biblical Views column “Punch Thy Neighbor” by Stephen J. Patterson in the May/June 2015 issue of BAR.
BAS Library Members: Read the full Biblical Views column “Punch Thy Neighbor” by Stephen J. Patterson in the May/June 2015 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.
Not a BAS Library or All-Access Member yet? Join today.
All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library
Not a BAS Library or All-Access Member yet? Join today.
This Bible History Daily feature was originally published on May 4, 2015.
Related Posts
Must-Read Free eBooks
Want more Bible history?
Sign up to receive our email newsletter and never miss an update.
Unlock Unlimited Access to the Bible's Past
Unlock Unlimited Access to the Bible's Past
Become an All-Access Member to explore the Bible's rich history. Get Biblical Archaeology Review in print, full online access, and FREE online talks. Plus, enjoy special Travel/Study discounts. Don't miss out—begin your journey today!
As used in the Bible, what does the term “eunuch” mean?
At times, the word may refer to a man who was castrated. In Bible times, some men were castrated as punishment or on being captured or enslaved. Trusted men who had been castrated oversaw the women’s quarters, or harems, in royal households. For example, the eunuchs Hegai and Shaashgaz served as guardians of the wives and concubines of Persian King Ahasuerus, who is thought to be Xerxes I.—Esther 2:3, 14.
However, not all whom the Bible calls eunuchs were actually castrated. Some scholars say that the term was also used in a broader sense to refer to an official assigned to duties in the court of the king. This appears to be the sense in which the term is applied to Ebed-melech, the associate of Jeremiah, and to the unnamed Ethiopian to whom the evangelizer Philip preached. Ebed-melech evidently was a high-ranking official, for he had direct access to King Zedekiah. (Jeremiah 38:7, 8) And the Ethiopian is described as a royal treasurer who “had gone to Jerusalem to worship.”—Acts 8:27.
http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/wp20150101/eunuchs-shepherds-in-bible-times/
Within the Christian gay community, there is a school of thought that believes Jesus is including gay men in the category of “born eunuch.” This interpretation seems plausible in light of modern research that indicates homosexuality originates at birth or early in childhood, long before a boy could make any rational “choice” of sexual orientation. The teaching in Matthew 19 therefore would give gay men the option of celibacy or a monogamous, loving relationship with another man — not pederasty, rape, orgies or temple prostitution. True, that interpretation contradicts the purity code of Leviticus, but it is in keeping with teachings that Christians need not be circumcised nor follow a kosher diet. The interpretation may be regarded as heresy by some, but I see it as in line with the Isaiah 56 prophecy that eunuchs and foreigners (Gentiles) will one day be welcomed in God’s house and affirmed by God.
If Jesus says that adultery is the only reason for divorce, what about beating their wives, throwing acid in their faces and burning them alive ?
In this passage, it doesn’t sound as though Jesus had any respect for women. Maybe that is why it continues to this day. Women were worth nothing except to sexually satisfy themselves as continues to happen today !
Lynne, seems you collect practices from minorities around the world, especially in India, for your comment. If Jesus did not include those dastardly deeds, it is because that evil had not emerged on earth in His region. Please consider historical settings and contemporaneous values in judging Jesus. The remark above seems well aligned with much radical feminism, that insists today’s version of morality (with the absurd notion that all male activity must be feminized, made gentle, made undemanding and non-governing), a notion that seems to be gaining traction in the US. God made men to be men and women to be women. Each has his or her role, and it is an attack on God and on nature to try to make all humans to have the same nature. I am not suggesting you hold these disgusting notions, but that the above statement seems to bend that way. In His day Jesus elevated women, gave them place and standing and protection not often practiced in the world of His day. I will stick with Him, and seek to practice true honor and blessing in humility with my wife and my children, and with all in my influence. This is His way.
If a man castrates himself, he is no longer a “eunuch who choose to be so.” Instead, he would be moved to the other category of eunuchs “made so by men”.
Jesus taught LGBT people are born naturally from our mother’s womb in Matthew 19:11-12, as he delineates 3 types of eunuchs:
Celibates, castrated men, and BORN eunuchs.
Jesus exempts all 3 types from hetero marriage.
If Born Eunuchs are not celibate, nor castrated, nor entering into heterosexual marriage, that means BORN EUNUCHS must include LGBT people.
http://brianbowenministries.com/1-born-this-way.html
Then Paul ordains same sex marriage for these very same born eunuchs in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9, after ordaining marriage for heterosexual couples in 1 Corinthians 7:1-7…
…and even goes so far as to recognize same sex divorce in 1 Corinthians 7:15
Jesus said to them, Not all men can accept this saying, but it is for those to whom the capacity to receive it has been given.
For there are eunuchs who have been born incapable of marriage; and there are eunuchs who have been made so by men; and there are eunuchs who have made themselves incapable of marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.
Let him who is able to accept this accept it. Matthew 19:11-12
In doing so, Jesus leaves two questions unanswered:
1. Is it better to engage in sexual relations without ever marrying in order to avoid the act and penalty of adultery?
2. Who are the born eunuchs Jesus exempted from heterosexual marriage, and why did He exempt them?
It’s important to pause here and recognize that Jesus was teaching Jewish people living under the Old Covenant, and not Christians who now live under the New Covenant. While recognizing this distinction, the Apostle Paul is confronted with these same questions in a letter he received from the Christian Church in Corinth. We will see him answer the 1st question in 1 Corinthians 7:1-7, and see him answer the 2nd question in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 as he addresses two distinctly separate groups of unmarried people:
1 Now as to the matters of which you wrote me. It is well [and by that I mean advantageous, expedient, profitable, and wholesome] for a man not to touch a woman [to cohabit with her] but to remain unmarried.
2 But because of the temptation to impurity and to avoid immorality, let each [man] have his own wife and let each [woman] have her own husband.
1 Corinthians 7:1-2
We see in verse 1 that the people Paul begins speaking of are unmarried, and recognize that indeed some people in the early Church believed Jesus’ Disciples were correct in deciding not to marry in order to prevent adultery. Recognizing the sexual immorality the Disciples’ approach of not marrying could lead to, Paul specifically says in verse 2 to let each man have his own wife and each woman have her own husband. He goes on to add very specific reasoning for his conclusion:
3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights (goodwill, kindness, and what is due her as his wife), and likewise the wife to her husband.
4 For the wife does not have [exclusive] authority and control over her own body, but the husband [has his rights]; likewise also the husband does not have [exclusive] authority and control over his body, but the wife [has her rights].
5 Do not refuse and deprive and defraud each other [of your due marital rights], except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, so that you may devote yourselves unhindered to prayer. But afterwards resume marital relations, lest Satan tempt you [to sin] through your lack of restraint of sexual desire.
So that answers the 1st question. At first glance, Paul’s answer seems to overlook Jesus’ teaching that not all men could accept marrying heterosexually, but when we read verses 6-7 we see Paul recognize that Jesus indeed exempted some men (eunuchs) from heterosexual marriage. He first addresses celibate eunuchs saying:
6 But I am saying this more as a matter of permission and concession, not as a command or regulation.
7 I wish that all men were like I myself am [in this matter of self-control]. But each has his own special gift from God, one of this kind and one of another. 1 Corinthians 7:6-7
Here we see the Apostle Paul make the same exemption from heterosexual marriage for one of the three types of eunuchs Jesus mentioned in Matthew 19:12; (those who choose to not marry and remain celibate). Paul clarifies in verses 6-7 that his teaching “each man” and “each woman” to marry in verse 2 is not a command or regulation for every man, but instead is a matter of permission and concession to anyone so choosing to refrain from sexual relations. He further verifies he is speaking here of the celibate eunuchs as he only speaks of men, and does not mention women in verses 6-7, just as Jesus did in Matthew 19:11-12. Paul emphasizes here that his statement on marriage in verses 1-2 are focused on preventing sexual immorality for those who are not gifted with God given celibacy. It’s also important to notice that Paul considers celibacy only one gift from God while recognizing there is yet another God given gift pertaining to marriage as well, and that every man has either one or the other kind of these God given gifts.
In verses 8-9, we will now see Paul recognize Jesus’ teaching on marriage in relation to another of the three types of eunuchs Jesus exempted from heterosexual marriage (the born eunuchs) whom Paul refers to as “unmarried people.” In doing so, Paul recognizes that if Jesus had specifically exempted eunuchs from heterosexual marriage, they were obviously “unmarried” at the time Paul wrote this letter. But it’s important to recognize that in verses 8-9, Paul addresses these “unmarried people” separately and apart from the unmarried people he addressed in verses 1-2, and separately and apart from the celibate eunuchs whom he addressed in verses 6-7, and now says:
8 But to the unmarried people and to the widows, I declare that it is well (good, advantageous, expedient, and wholesome) for them to remain [single] even as I do.
9 But if they have not self-control (restraint of their passions), they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame [with passion and tortured continually with ungratified desire]. 1 Corinthians 7:8-9
For the first time since verses 1-2 we see Paul once again address women. We saw Paul had already clarified in verses 6-7 that his teaching “each man” to marry a person of the opposite gender in verses 1-2 was not intended to include every human being, but only those men who were so inclined to engage in relations with women. We further already saw he went on to clarify he did not intend his teaching to be a command or regulation toward celibate eunuchs being forced to marry contrary to their will and gifting. So far, Paul has addressed the same men and women inclined toward heterosexual marriage that Jesus taught on in Matthew 19:3-10, as well as the celibate eunuchs Jesus taught on in Matthew 19:11-12. Which leaves now only the castrated eunuchs, and the born eunuchs for Paul to address.
Paul clearly predicates his ordination of marriage in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 on “it is better to marry than burn.” This means the eunuchs he is addressing here does not apply to castrated eunuchs (who would have had no sexual capacity or desire), but instead is addressing the born eunuchs (some of which must have had both sexual capacity and desire, based on Paul’s predication of marriage for them).
Full exposition with Scripture flow charts that color code and track Jesus’ and Paul’s teaching on heterosexual and same sex marriage here: http://brianbowenministries.com/ch-2-eunuch-marriages.html
>>Ralph?! Let’s do some research in reality before following false trails.
>>“Galli” has nothing whatsoever to do with “Galilean”. The former is
>>Latin, the latter is an English transliteration of Hebrew.
Err, wrong entirely. The Galli came mostly from Syria and spoke Aramaic, not Latin. Same as the eunuch Emperor Elagabalus was Syrian, and spoke Aramaic.
In case you have forgotten, castration was forbidden within the Roman Empire, so the name Galli would hardly be Latin, would it. This was one of the main reasons that Elagabalus was eliminated so early in his career – it was not appreciated that the emperor was castrated and dressed like a woman.
Oh, and by the way, Josephus Flavius says that the Galileans were indeed the castrated Galli. Are you going to argue with Josephus too? Like, he was only there at the time, and witnessed them slaughtering people during the Jewish Revolt.
Ralph.
>>Ralph, you are nuts. The land of Galilee has nothing to do with Galli.
>>The name of Galilee comes from the Hebrew HaGalil and has nothing
>>to do with eunuchs. You are confusing Hebrew culture with Roman culture.
Do you ever do any research, before posting? The Galli eunuchs were technically illegal within the Roman Empire. This was a Syrian cult that originated in Parthia, and arrived in Syria courtesy of Queen Thea Muse Ourania and the resulting Edessan monarchy.
The Galli had nothing to do with Rome, and everything to do with the Galileans – just as Josephus Flavius clearly says. Please read Jewish War before posting again.
Ralph
Josephus was a Galilean; does that make him a eunuch as well?
>>Chavoux says
>>Josephus was a Galilean; does that make him a eunuch as well?
Not all Christians are priests. Not all Galileans were eunuch Galli. As Jesus said, “Let those who can accept this, do so”. And as pseudo-Lucian said, certain of the Galileans whipped themselves into a frensy during a parade, and whipped off their testicles and threw them through a window. And if a lady caught them, she had to give the Galli a dress. But note it was just a few, not all.
And as you know, Josephus was as anti-circumcision as Saul was, so the chances of Josephus becoming a Galli castrate was nil to nonexistent. Face facts – Jesus was a Gallilean and had Galli among his disciples. But which one? Peter?
Ralph
Based on number 12, Thomas’ comment.
Thomas, it’s not as simple as you say. Notwithstanding, if a young boy shows feminine tendencies, it not natural — it reflects the curse.
“The teaching in Matthew 19 therefore would give gay men the option of celibacy or a monogamous, loving relationship with another man — not pederasty, rape, orgies or temple prostitution. True, that interpretation contradicts the purity code of Leviticus, but it is in keeping with teachings that Christians need not be circumcised.”
No — Matthew 19 would not give homosexuals any options whatsoever since it was theologically precluded long before; and God never let up even slightly in its condemnation, which crescendoed in the well known 1Corinthians 6:9, making certain they understood they could never enter the kingdom of God — in that condition — they would have to repent. No way to spin that lifestyle into acceptability. That would be pure eisegesis.
A male and female living in a sexual relationship have the option to marry, and therefore be blessed. Homosexuals have no such option.
The purity code? That is the law of God, not some modern psychology seminar.
You are also forgetting about the moral law, which never ceased along with the dietary laws. Circumcision is not a problem — Paul was talking to Jews who had to learn to comprehend the impact of the New Covenant, and had to unwind from centuries of conditioning; otherwise, circumcision in-and-of-itself is fine to do.