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!
The cult of the eunuchs in Syria were followers of Cybele and Attis, and their high priests were called the Galli or the Galileans. And Jesus was, of course, a Galilean himself, which is why he was asking his disciples to become eunuchs. See Jesus, King of Edessa.
The central issue here, the heart issue, involves the problems associated with male sexuality in any culture. Whatever view one takes on this, the final word of Jesus in the passage in question helps us see how hard moral purity is for the man. Without controversy, all men who see themselves as in the image of God, and who have devoted themselves to His service, find themselves vexed by the chemical brew of adolescence, the heavy burden of bodily urges, and the enormous power of the IN YOUR FACE NUDITY many cultures ancient and modern practiced. I myself vowed a vow of moral purity at age 16, and now at 67 rejoice that God has always provided a way of escape, chiefly monogamous heterosexual Christian marriage, where my thirst for nudity and intimacy are fully quenched. To God be the Glory. His grace and His ways are truly wonderful in the context of the humility of “trust and obey, for there is no other way to be happy in Jesus, but to trust and obey.” (John H Sammis, in the hymn, “Trust and Obey”
What I would also point out, is that castration may solve some biological issues, but psychological addictions are another matter altogether. History is full of the accounts of emasculated men who still loathed their polluted minds.
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. The former is plural for “Gallus”, the eunuch priest of a Roman cult (similar to militant transgender groups of today) that predates the time of Jesus by a very long time and which Jesus would have no involvement with. The latter is a citizen of “Galilee”, which is itself an English transliteration of Hebrew “hagalil” which can be stated as “the state”, “the district”, or “the circle”, used to reference a political or governmental area. Wow.
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.
The Hebrew Matthew gospel of Shem Tov says it a little different, it basically talks about those who subjugate the desire rather than making oneself eunuch.
There is a very misguided assumption here that eunuchs are unable to have sex. This is quite untrue – they can, do, did. Modern example is medical castration (vasectomy) over total physical castration. Many boys who were made eunuchs so their high soprano singing voice would not change, were able to have sex later as adults. Eunuchs are unable to procreate. Eunuchs in the harems taught the young girls how to please a man(whomever owned them), physically as well as verbally instructed.
Modern squeamishness, puritanism or whatever has twisted this subject up so much to make it more confusing than it must have been at the time of Yehsua.
Middle Eastern repartee is filled with hyperboles. Jesus’ tells parables full of them, think 100 fold harvest. He made people laugh and laugh hard. We, in urban and suburban settings, have little appreciation for his earthy humor.
Paul does much the same when challenging some of his listeners abt circumcision, Gentiles, and being made a eunuch.
It was a cruel joke Saul alias Paul did to the followers of Christ to say cut off your private so you don’t breed more Christian was the reason behind Roman Paul, Damascus Documents and the Qumran Community.
Literal eunuchs were those who were born such because of birth defects or who were made that way by accident or mutilation. However, there were also those who freely made themselves eunuchs. Though eligible for marriage, they exercised self-control and remained single “on account of the kingdom of the heavens.” Like Jesus, they chose the state of singleness so that they could devote themselves to Kingdom service. They were neither born with the gift of singleness nor granted such a gift. They actually made room for it. That is, they deliberately acquired the gift.
Building upon what Jesus said, the apostle Paul explained that while all Christians—single or married—can serve God acceptably, single ones who are ‘settled in their heart’ about their status “do better.” How so? Married people must divide their time and energy to please and care for their mate. On the other hand, single Christians can apply themselves to the Lord’s service without that obligation. They consider their position a “gift” from God.—1 Cor. 7:7, 32-38.
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2012849