Eunuch

The word signifies, one who guards the bed. In the courts of eastern kings, the care of the beds and apartments belonging to princes and princesses, was generally committed to eunuchs; but they had the charge chiefly of the princesses, who lived secluded. The Hebrew saris signifies a real eunuch, whether naturally born such, or rendered such. But in Scripture this word often denotes an officer belonging to a prince, attending his court, and employed in the interior of his palace, as a name of office and dignity. In the Persian and Turkish courts, the principal employments are at this day possessed by real eunuchs. Our Saviour speaks of men who “made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven,”

Mat 19:12; that is, who, from a religious motive, renounced marriage or carnal pleasures.

This word, which we have adopted from the Greek, has, in its literal sense, the harmless meaning of ’bed-keeper,’ i.e. one who has the charge of beds and bed-chambers; but as only persons deprived of their virility have, from the most ancient times, been employed in Oriental harems, and as such persons are employed almost exclusively in this kind of service, the word ’bed-keeper’ became synonymous with ’castratus.’ In fact there are few eastern languages in which the condition of those persons is more directly expressed than by the name of some post or station in which they are usually found. The admission to the recesses of the harem, which is in fact the domestic establishment of the prince, gives the eunuchs such peculiar advantages of access to the royal ear and person, as often enables them to exercise an important influence, and to rise to stations of great trust and power in Eastern courts. Hence it would seem that, in Egypt, for instance, the word which indicated an eunuch was applied to any court officer, whether a castratus or not (Gen 37:36; Gen 39:1).

Authority would be superfluous in proof of a matter of such common knowledge as the employment of eunuchs, and especially of black eunuchs, in the courts and harems of the ancient and modern East. A noble law, which, however, evinces the prevalence of the custom prior to Moses, made castration illegal among the Jews (Lev 21:20; Deu 23:1). But the Hebrew princes did not choose to understand this law as interdicting the use of those who had been made eunuchs by others; for that they had them, and that they were sometimes, if not generally, blacks, and that the chief of them was regarded as holding an important and influential post, appears from 1Ki 22:9; 2Ki 8:6; 2Ki 9:32-33; 2Ki 20:18; 2Ki 23:11; Jer 38:7; Jer 39:16; Jer 41:16. Samuel was aware that eunuchs would not fail to be employed in a regal court; for he thus forewarns the people, ’He (the king) will take the tenth of your seed and of your vineyard, and give to his eunuchs [A.V. ’officers’] and to his servants’ (1Sa 8:15).

Under these circumstances, the eunuchs were probably obtained from a great distance, and at an expense which must have limited their employment to the royal establishment: and this is very much the case even at present.

In Mat 19:12, the term ’eunuch’ is applied figuratively to persons naturally impotent. In the same verse mention is also made of persons ’who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake;’ which is a manifestly hyperbolical description of such as lived in voluntary abstinence (comp. Mat 5:29-30); although painful examples have occurred (as in the case of Origen) of a disposition to interpret the phrase too literally.

In the courts of oriental monarchs, the charge of the female and interior apartments is committed to eunuchs. Hence the word came to signify merely a court officer. Such were Potiphar, Joseph’s master, Gen 39:17, and the treasurer of Queen Candace, Mal 8:27 . Our Savior speaks of some who "have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake;" that is, who have voluntarily abstained from marriage, in order more effectually to labor for the kingdom of God, Mat 19:12 ; and the apostle Paul commends the same abstinence in certain exceptional cases in time of persecution, 1Co 7:26,27 . See GAZA.\par

Eunuch. "The English form of the Greek word which means bed-keeper. In the strict and proper sense, they were the persons who had charge of the bed-chambers in palaces and larger houses. But, as the jealous and dissolute temperament of the East required, this charge to be in the hands of persons who had been deprived of their virility, the word eunuch came naturally to denote persons in that condition. But as some of these rose to be confidential advisers of their royal master or mistresses, the word was occasionally employed to denote persons in such a position, without indicating anything of their proper manhood." --Abbott.

("bedkeeper".) Generally used of those emasculated in order to satisfy the jealousy of masters who committed to them the charge of wives, concubines, and the female apartments. Sometimes implying the high office of "chamberlain," without such emasculation (1Ch 28:1). Even the kings of Israel and Judah had eunuchs, probably foreigners (2Ki 9:32; Jer 38:7). Ethiopians were then, as Nubians now, often so employed. The chief of Pharaoh’s cupbearers, and the chief of his cooks, were eunuchs; Potiphar was an "eunuch" (so Hebrew of "officer") of Pharaoh’s (Gen 37:36; Gen 37:41). So the Assyrian Rabsaris, or chief eunuch (2Ki 18:17).

So in the Persian court there were eunuchs as "keepers of the women," through whom the king gave commands to the women, and kept men at a distance (Est 1:10; Est 1:12; Est 1:15-16; Est 2:3; Est 2:8; Est 2:14). Daniel and his companions were, possibly, mutilated so as to become eunuchs to the Babylonian king (2Ki 20:17-18; Dan 1:3-7). In Mat 19:12 our Lord uses the term figuratively for those who are naturally, or who artificially, or by self restraint, have become divested of sexual passion (1Co 7:26; 1Co 7:32-34). Our Lord permits, but does not command or recommend, celibacy as superior in sanctity to wedlock; "he that is able to receive it, let him receive it."

(εὐνοῦχος) has, in its literal (Greek) sense, the harmless meaning of "bed- keeper," i.e., one who has the charge of beds and bed-chambers; but as only persons deprived of their virility have, from the most ancient times, been employed in Oriental harems, and as such persons are employed almost exclusively in this kind of service, the word "bed-keeper" became synonymous with "castratus." Castration, according to Josephus (Ant. 4:8, 40), was not practiced by the Jews upon either men or animals, SEE BEAST; yet the custom is frequently referred to in the Bible by the Hebrew term סָרַיס(saris’, Sept. εὐνοῦχος; Vulg. spado; A.V. "eunuch," "officer," and "chamberlain," apparently as though the word intended a class of attendants who were not always mutilated), which (from the Arabic root saras, to be impotent ad Venerem) clearly implies the incapacity which mutilation involves (Isa 56:3; Sir 20:20 [21]), and perhaps includes all the classes mentioned in Mat 19:12, not signifying, as the Greek εὐνοῦχος, an office merely. The law, Deu 23:1 (comp. Lev 22:24), is repugnant to thus treating any Israelite; and Samuel, when describing the arbitrary power of the future king (1Sa 8:15, marg.), mentions "his eunuchs," but does not say that he would make "their sons" such. This, if we compare 2Ki 20:18; Isa 39:7, possibly implies that these persons would be foreigners. It was a barbarous custom of the East thus to treat captives (Herod. 3:49; 6:32), not only of tender age (when a non- development of beard, and feminine mold of limbs and modulation of voice ensues), but, it would seem, when past puberty, which there occurs at an early age.

Physiological considerations lead to the supposition that in the latter case a remnant of animal feeling is left, which may explain Sir 20:4; Sir 25:20 (comp. Juv. 6:366, and Mart. 6:67; Philostr. Apoll. Tyan. 1:37; Ter. Eun. 4:3, 24), where a sexual function, though fruitless, is implied. Busbecq (Ep. 3:122, Oxf. 1660) seems to ascribe the absence or presence of this to the total or partial character of the mutilation; but modern surgery would rather assign the earlier or later period of the operation as the real explanation. (Comp. Juv. 12:35; Philo, Opp. 2:264; Mishna, Yebaimh, 8:2; Deu 23:2; see Gesenius, Thes. page 338; Paul. AEgin. 6:68; Fischer, Proluss. page 497; Pierer, Medic. Realw. I, 2:63.) It is total among modern Turks (Tournefort, 2:8, 9, 10, ed. Par. 1717, taille fleur de ventre); a precaution arising from mixed ignorance and jealousy. The "officer" Potiphar (Gen 37:36; Gen 39:1, marg. "eunuch") was an Egyptian, was married, and was the "captain of the guard." The Jewish tradition is that Joseph was made a eunuch on his first introduction to Egypt; and yet the accusation of Potiphar’s wife, his marriage and the birth of his children, are related subsequently without any explanation. (See Targum Pseudojon. on Gen 39:1; Gen 41:50; and the details given at 39:13.) On the Assyrian monuments a eunuch often appears, sometimes armed and in a warlike capacity, or as a scribe, noting the number of heads and amount of spoil, as receiving the prisoners, and even as officiating in religious ceremonies (Layard, Nineveh, 2:324-6, 334.) A bloated beardless face and double chin is there their conventional type. SEE ATTIRE.

Chardin (Voyages en Perse, 2:283, ed. Amst. 1711) speaks of eunuchs having a harem of their own. If Potiphar had become such by operation for disease, by accident, or even by malice, such a marriage seems, therefore, according to. Eastern notions, supposable. (See Grotius on Deu 23:1; comp. Burckhardt, Tramv. in Arab. 1:290.) Nor is it wholly repugnant to that barbarous social standard to think that the prospect of rank, honor, and royal confidence might even induce parents to thus treat their children at a later age, if they showed an aptness for such preferment. The characteristics as regards beard, voice, etc., might then perhaps be modified, or might gradually follow. The Potipherah of Gen 41:50, whose daughter Joseph married, was "’priest of On," and no doubt a different person. (See Delphini, Eunuchi conjugium, Hal. 1680.)

The origination of the practice is ascribed to Semiramis (Amm. Marcell. 14:6), and is no doubt as early, or nearly so, as Eastern despotism itself. Their incapacity, as in the case of mutes, is the ground of reliance upon them (Clarke’s Travels, part 2, § 1, 13; Busbecq, Ep. 1:33). By reason of the mysterious distance at which the sovereign sought to keep his subjects (Herod. 1:99; comp. Est 4:11), and of the malignant jealousy fostered by the debased relation of the sexes, such wretches, detached from social interests and hopes of issue (especially when, as commonly, and as amongst the Jews, foreigners), the natural slaves of either sex (Est 4:5), and having no prospect in rebellion save the change of masters, were the fittest props of a government resting on a servile relation, the most complete organs of its despotism or its lust, the surest (but see Est 2:21) guardians (Xenoph. Cyrop. 7:5, § 15; Herod. 8:105) of the monarch’s person, and the sole confidential witnesses of his unguarded or undignified moments. Hence they have in all ages frequently risen to high offices of trust. Thus the "chief" of the cup-bearers (q.v.) and of the cooks of Pharach were eunuchs, as being near his person, though their inferior agents need not have been so (Gen 40:1). (Wilkinson [Anc. Egypt, 2:61] denies the use of eunuchs in Egypt. Herodotus, indeed [2:92], confirms his statement as regards Egyptian monogamy; but if this as a rule applied to the kings, they seemed, at any rate, to have allowed themselves concubines [page 181].

From the general beardless character of Egyptian heads, it is not easy to pronounce whether any eunuchs appear in the sculptures or not.) The complete assimilation of the kingdom of Israel, and latterly of Judah, to the neighboring models of despotism, is traceable in the rank and prominence of eunuchs (2Ki 8:6; 2Ki 9:32; 2Ki 23:11; 2Ki 25:19; Isa 56:3-4; Jer 29:2; Jer 34:19; Jer 38:7; Jer 41:16; Jer 52:25). — They mostly appear in one of two relations — either military, as "set over the men of war," greater trustworthiness possibly counterbalancing inferior courage and military vigor, or associated, as we mostly recognize them, with women and children. (2Ch 28:1 is remarkable as ascribing eunuchs to the period of David, nor can it be doubted that Solomon’s polygamy made them a necessary consequence; but in the state they do not seem to have played an important part at this period.)

We find the Assyrian Rab-Saris, or chief eunuch (2Ki 18:17), employed, together with other high officials, as ambassador. Similarly, in the details of the travels of an embassy sent by the duke of Holstein (page 136), we find a eunuch mentioned as sent on occasion of a state-marriage to negotiate, and of another (page 273) who was the Meheter, or chamberlain of Shah Abbas, who was always near his person, and had his ear (comp. Chardin, 3:37), and of another, originally a Georgian prisoner, who officiated as supreme judge. Fryer (Travels in India and Persia, page 1698) and Chardin (2:283) describe them as being the base and ready tools of licentiousness, as tyrannical in humor, and pertinacious in the authority which they exercise; Clarke (Travels in Europe, etc., part 2, § 1, page 22), as eluded and ridiculed by those whom it is their office to guard. A great number of them accompany the shall and his ladies when hunting, and no one is allowed, on pain of death, to come within two leagues of the field, unless the king sends a eunuch for him. So eunuchs run before the closed arabahs of the sultanas when abroad, crying out to all to keep at a distance. This illustrates Est 1:10; Est 1:12; Est 1:15-16; Est 2:3; Est 2:8; Est 2:14. The moral tendency of this sad condition is well known to be the repression of courage, gentleness, shame, and remorse, the development of malice, and often of melancholy, and a disposition to suicide. The favorable description of them in Xenophon (1.c.) is overcharged, or, at least, is not confirmed by modern observation. They are not more liable to disease than others. unless of such as often follows the foul vices of which they are the tools. The operation itself, especially in infancy, is not more dangerous than an ordinary amputation. Chardin (2:285) says that only one in four survives; and Clot Bey, chief physician of the pasha, states that two thirds die. Burckhardt, therefore (fub. page 329), is mistaken when he says that the operation is only fatal in about two out of a hundred cases. SEE HAREM.

It is probable that Daniel and his companions were thus treated, in fulfillment of 2Ki 20:17-18; Isa 39:7; comp. Dan 1:3; Dan 1:7. The courf of Herod of course had its eunuchs (Josephus, Ant. 16:8, 1; 15:7, 4), as had also that of queen Candace (Act 8:27). Michaelis (2:180) regards them as the proper consequence of the gross polygamy of the East, although his further remark that they tend to balance the sexual disparity which such monopoly of woman causes is is less just, since the countries despoiled of their women fur the one purpose are not commonly those which furnish male children for the other.

In the three classes mentioned in Mat 19:12, the first is to be ranked with other examples of defective organization; the last, if taken literally, as it is said to have been personally exemplified in Origen (Euseh. Eccl. Hist. 6:8; see Zorn, De eunachisomo Origenis, Giess. 1708), is an instance of human ways and means of ascetic devotion being valued by the Jews above revealed precept (see Schdttgen, Hor. Hebrews 1:159). Our Savior in that passage doubtless refers to the voluntary and ascetic celibacy of the Essenes (q.v.). But a figurative sense of εὐνοῦχος (comp. 1Co 7:32; 1Co 7:34) is also possible. SEE CELIBACY.

In the A.V. of Esther the word "chamberlain" (marg,. "eunuch") is the constant rendering of סָרַיס, saris, and as the word also occurs in Act 12:20, and Rom 16:23, where the original expressions are very different, some caution is required. In Act 12:20, τὸν ἐπὶ τοῦ κοιτῶνος τοῦ βασιλέως may mean a "chamberlain" merely. Such were persons of public influence, as we learn from a Greek inscription preserved in Walpole’s Turkey (2:559), in honor of P. Aelius Alcibiades, "chamberlain of the emperor" (ἐπὶ κοιτῶνος Σεβ.), the epithets in which exactly suggest the kind of patronage expressed. In Rom 16:23, the word ἐπίτροπος is the one commonly rendered " steward" (e.g. Mat 20:8; Luk 8:3), and means the one to whom the care of the city was committed. See generally Salden, Otia Theol. de Eunuchis, page 494 sq. SEE CHAMBERLAIN.

In Deu 23:1 (פְּצוּעִאּדִּכָּה, one mutilated by crushing, i.e., the testicles, Sept. technically θλαδίας), and also probably in Lev 21:20 (מְרוֹחִ אָשֶׁךְ, one crushed as to his testicles, Sept. partially μονόρχις), the allusion is to a peculiar kind of emasculation still practiced in the East, according to the Greek physicians (Paulus AEgineta, book 6), which consists in softening the testicles of very young boys in warm water, and then rubbing and pressing them till they disappear. As the heathen priests were often thus qualified for office, persons so mutilated were excluded from the Jewish Church. SEE ASHTORETH.

Eunuch. 2Ki 9:32; Est 2:3; Act 8:27. In the strict and proper sense eunuchs were the persons who had charge of the bed-chambers in palaces and larger houses. But as the jealous and dissolute temperament of the East required this charge to be in the hands of persons who had been deprived of their virility, the word eunuch came naturally to denote persons in that condition. But as some of these rose to be confidential advisers of their royal masters or mistresses, the word was occasionally employed to denote persons in such a position, without indicating anything respecting their manhood. The word "eunuch" is employed by Christ, Mat 19:12, in various senses to designate: 1. Those who are naturally incapacitated; 2. Those who have been mutilated; 3. Those who voluntarily abstain from marriage in order to devote themselves more exclusively to the interests of the kingdom of God.

The Lord distinguished three classes of eunuchs: those that were thus born; those emasculated by men; and those who had made themselves such for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. Mat 19:12. It is the second class that are otherwise mentioned in scripture. They often became men of influence in the eastern courts, and had care of the harems; and where there were several there was one called their ’prince.’ Jer 29:2; Dan 1:3-18; Act 8:27. Ebed-melech who befriended Jeremiah was a eunuch in the house of Zedekiah. Jer 38:7-13. And they were eunuchs who threw Jezebel out of the lattice. 2Ki 9:32. This shows that Israel had followed the custom of the East in employing such persons.

One of the things prophesied against Israel was that their sons should be made eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon. 2Ki 20:18; Isa 39:7. The case of Daniel and his companions was an instance of the fulfilment of this, for they were committed to the care of ’the master of the eunuchs.’ Though the word saris signifies ’eunuch’ it is often in the A.V. translated ’chamberlain’ and ’officer’ because the eunuchs were employed in such positions of trust. The man of Ethiopia baptised by Philip was a eunuch of great authority under the queen. Act 8:27.

EUNUCH (εὐνοῦχος; σπάδων occurs sometimes in LXX Septuagint [see Gen 37:36 and Isa 39:7, with which, however, cf. the corresponding passage 2Ki 20:18]).—From the single reference in the Gospels (Mat 19:12) to the barbarous Oriental practice of mutilating individuals for certain purposes, we gather that the existence and purpose of eunuchs as a class were not unknown to the Jews of the time of Jesus. The religious disabilities under which men, deformed in this way, laboured, had the effect of making the practice (… εὐνουχίσθησαν ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων) abominable to the Jews (Deu 23:1; cf. Lev 22:23-25). On the other hand, Josephus informs us that eunuchs were a normal feature of the courts of the Herods; and from him we also learn what share they were at that time supposed to have taken in the family intrigues (Ant. xv. vii. 4), and what base purposes they often subserved (Ant. xvi. viii. 1).

The passage containing the reference to eunuchs is peculiar to St. Matthew, and seems to be added to the Markan section, which deals with the question of divorce (Mar 10:2-12 = Mat 19:3-9), from a source unknown to the author of the latter (see Tischendorf’s Synopsis Evangelica^{7 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred]} , § 113, ‘Interrogantibus de Repudio respondet’; and Wright’s Synopsis of the Gospels in Greek, ‘Anonymous Fragments,’ p. 267). The remark made by the disciples touching the difficulties arising out of Jesus’ interpretation of the law of marriage, shows the widespread influence of the lax teaching on this subject characteristic of the school of Hillel (see art. Adultery, p. 30^a).

It matters not for our purpose whether in the reply of Jesus τὸν λόγον (Mar 10:11) be connected with οὐ συμφέρει γαμῆσαι (Mar 10:10), or, which is more intelligible to the present writer in the light of what follows, with the primal law quoted in Mar 10:5 (ἕνεκα τούτου … οἱ δύο εἰς σάρκα μίαν). All men are not in a position to accept a hard and fast rule. Men are constituted differently by nature, or adventitious circumstances produce artificial dissimilarities. There is no question as to the law of nature. The married life is the norm of man’s condition; and the union effected thereby transcends every other natural bond, even that of filial affection. At the same time, Jesus would have His hearers understand that there are cases, and these numerous enough to be taken seriously into account, where the rule does not hold. It is not granted^{* [Note: The Lewis-Gibson Syriac Palimpsest adds ‘by God.’]} to every man to be in a position to fulfil the functions of the married state. Here it is of interest to note that Jesus, in speaking of three classes of ‘eunuchs,’ was making a distinction well known to those He was addressing. Moreover, the metaphorical use of the word in speaking of the third class finds also its place in the language of the Jewish Rabbins סְרִים, בירִי שָׁמַיִם סְרִים, אָרָם סָרִים, חַמָה cf. Lightfoot’s Horœ Heb. et Talmud., and Schöttgen’s Horœ Heb., in loc.).

The well-known case of Origen, who literally emasculated himself ‘for the kingdom of heaven’s sake,’ to which he afterwards seems to make pathetic, though incidental, reference in his commentary (in Matt. tom. xv. 1 ff.), was not the only example of a perverted interpretation of these words of Jesus. The Talmudic tractate Shabbath (152a) contains a reference to a eunuch of this class (cf. Midrash on Ecc 10:7), and the Council of Nicaea (c. 1) felt called on to deal with the danger, as did also the Apostolical Canons (c. 21), and the Second Council of Arles (c. 7). The common sense which thus prevailed amongst the guiding spirits of the Church is enhanced when we remember that the disabilities attaching to self-mutilation had no reference to those who were eunuchs from their mother’s womb, or who ‘were made eunuchs by men’ (see for examples of both, Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica vii. 32; Socrates, Historia Ecclesiastica vi. 15; Sozomen, Historia Ecclesiastica viii. 24; cf. Bingham’s Ant. iv. 9).

It is not without significance that in the conversation of Jesus with His disciples no mention is made of any word of condemnation by Him of the horrible practice of emasculation. The complete lack of the sense of the dignity of human life, so characteristic of the ancient world, and the absence of the feeling of human brotherhood, found expression in no more terrible way than in this consequence of the laws of slavery. Yet Jesus refers directly neither to the institution of slavery nor to this, its result. He prefers the plan of instilling principles which lead by the processes of thought and application to the recognition that God hath ‘made of one (ἑξ ἐνός) every nation of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth’ (Act 17:26; cf. Luk 10:29 ff; Luk 4:25 ff., Mat 8:11 = Luk 13:29). It is as if He had an unconquerable belief in the power of the human mind ultimately to accept the truth, and to reject, finally and for ever, what has been false, in its provisional solutions of life’s problems.

And as it was with His treatment of this form of cruelty practised by the strong upon the helpless, so it was with the mutilation of the body self-inflicted for so-called religious purposes. To the present writer it seems probable that Jesus made a conscious and deliberate reference to this practice (see Driver’s ‘Deuteronomy’ in Internat. Crit. Com. on Deu 23:1). Here, too, there is no condemnation expressed of an inadequate and artificial method which was the outcome of a legalistic conception of moral purity. It is rather by His positive teaching on the subject of purity that we are led to understand (ὁ δυνάμενος χωρεῖν χωρείτω) what are the lines along which we must move in order to reach the goal of perfect self-renunciation. There is another and a more excellent way of obtaining the mastery of the sexual passion than by literally ‘cutting off’ the offending fleshly member (cf. Mat 5:28 f. where the words βλέπων and ὁφθαλμός point to the radical character of the treatment insisted on by Jesus). The peculiarity about His method of treating this particular question is its loving cautiousness. It is not possible for all, but it is possible for some, to obtain as complete an ascendency over this strong instinct as if they were physically sexless; while, of course, the resultant moral victory is of infinitely more value than the merely negative, unmoral condition produced by self-emasculation. Those who adopt His method ‘make themselves eunuchs’ with a definite purpose in view (διὰ τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν), and the interests which are created by that purpose are so absorbing that neither time nor opportunity is given to the ‘fleshly lusts which war against the soul’ (1Pe 2:11).

The clear and definite teaching of Jesus on the subject of marriage will help to elucidate the words under review. The Divine idea (ὤστε οὐκέτι εἰσὶν δύο ἀλλὰ μία σάρξ, Mar 10:8), on which He laid special stress, involves mutual effort and restraint. It is not possible but that even under the most favourable circumstances duties will arise which will prove irksome, and not less so because they are peculiar to the married state. Indeed, the Hebraistic ἕσονται εἰς (Heb. הָיָה לְְ) emphasizes the truth that perfect union does not follow at once on the consummation of marriage. It is a gradual process, and, because it is so, it involves some amount of mutual self-abnegation. The cares and responsibilities which follow in the wake of those who are married necessarily mean absorption both of time and attention which may clash with the work given to some to do (cf. 1Co 7:33 f.). It is for this reason that these find themselves debarred from ever undertaking the duties attaching to marriage. They voluntarily undertake eunuchism because they are completely immersed in, and engrossed by, the work of ‘the kingdom of heaven.’ There is no need to suppose, as Keim does, that Jesus is here deliberately referring to Himself and to the Baptist. At the same time, we are able to see in His life the highest expression of that ‘blessed eunuchism’ (Bengel, of the NT, in loc.) which renounced all earthly ties for the sake of the work He was given to do^{* [Note: See Clem. Alex. Strom. iii. § 1 ff.]} (cf. Joh 17:4); and if St. Paul, in view of a stern emergency, felt justified in enjoining upon even the married the necessity of adopting this condition (see 1Co 7:29), we know that he was speaking from the plane on which he himself stood (cf. 1Co 9:5; 1Co 7:7 f.). At the same time, the apparent harshness of his asceticism is softened by his repeated expressions of regard for the gift peculiar to each (ἴδιον χάρισμα). See, further, art. Marriage.

Literature.—Ency. Brit.^{9 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred]} art. ‘Eunuch’; Neander, Ch. Hist. [Clark’s ed.] ii. 493; Morison, Com. on Mt. in loc.; Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, ii. 72 ff.; Expositor, iv. vii. [1893] 294 ff.

J. R. Willis.

(Hebrew, ; Greek ευνουχος).

By: Emil G. Hirsch, Wilhelm Nowack, Solomon Schechter, M. Seligsohn

—Biblical Data:

As throughout the Orient in very ancient times, and more especially in Egypt and Assyria, where they seem to have held the most important offices, there were eunuchs in the kingdom of Israel. The reference to them in I Sam. viii. 15 (Hebr.) is general; but in other passages they are mentioned as attendants of the kings; for instance, Ahab (I Kings xxii. 9, Hebr.) and Jehoram (II Kings viii. 6; comp. ix. 32). No allusion to eunuchs in the kingdom of Judah occurs before the time of Josiah (comp. II Kings xxiv. 12, 15, Hebr.; Jer. xxix. 2, xxxiv. 19, xxxviii. 7, xli. 16). In II Kings xxv. 19, Hebr; Jer. lii. 25, a military officer taken captive at the conquest of Jerusalem is called a eunuch. Among the Jews, as among others, the existence of eunuchs was connected with polygamy, for in passages like II Kings xxiv. 15; Jer. xli. 16 (comp. II Kings ix. 32), they are expressly mentioned when reference is made to the women of the king's harem. Consequently there is no reason to interpret "saris" as applying to all royal offices in general.

It is questionable whether the eunuchs were Jews. A passage in Jeremiah (xxxviii. 7), in which the eunuch is an Ethiopian, indicates that they were not always natives of Judea, and it is probable that they were usually non-Jews, since in Deut. xxiii. 1 castration was forbidden the Israelites; that is, castrates might "not enter into the congregation of the Lord." Later regulations were milder, and the author of Isaiah (lvi. 3 et seq.) did not consider the fact of being a eunuch a reason for exclusion from the congregation. Eunuchs were more expensive than ordinary slaves, but there was no difficulty in obtaining them.

Josephus shows that eunuchs were important members of a regal household, especially under Herod the Great, the care of whose drink was entrusted to one, the bringing of his supper to another, and the putting of him to bed to a third, "who also managed the principal affairs of the government" ("Ant." xvi. 8, §, 1). Herod's favorite wife, Mariamne, was attended by a eunuch ("Ant." x v. 7, §, 4).

E. G. H. W. N.—In Rabbinical Literature:

The Rabbis distinguished two kinds of eunuchs: (1) "seris adam," a eunuch made by man; (2) "seris ḥamma," a eunuch made by the sun; that is to say, one born incapable of reproduction, so that the sun never shone on him as on a man. According to the Shulḥan 'Aruk, "seris ḥamma" means "castrated in consequence of fever." The Talmud gives various criteria by which the eunuch of the second kind may be recognized, and refers to various disabilities due to the state, especially as regards ḤaliẒah.

A seris adam is not allowed to enter into the assembly of the Lord (Yeb. 70a), as it is written (Deut. xxiii. 2 [A.V. 1]): "He who is wounded in the stones . . . shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord"; that is to say, shall not marry an Israelitish wife. Removal of or defect in either or both of the testicles disqualifies for admission to the assembly of the Lord.

A eunuch of either kind is not to be judged as a rebellious son (see Deut. xxi. 18) because he is not considered as a man (Yeb. 80b). As every Israelite is commanded to perpetuate his race, it is a sin liable to severe punishment to cause one to become a eunuch (Shab. 111a). Still there is a difference whether one castrates another with his own hands or causes him to be castrated. In the first case the punishment is "malkot," that is, thirty-nine stripes; in the second an indefinite number of stripes may be inflicted.

Finally, one whose only son is a eunuch has not accomplished the commandment to perpetuate the race.

Bibliography:

Yeb. 75a, 79a, 80b, 94b;

Niddah, 47b;

B. B. 155b;

Maimonides, Yad Ishut, ii., xiii., xvi., xvii.;

Shulḥan 'Aruk, Eben ha-'Ezer, 5, 1-13; 172, 1, 3, 5, 7.

EUNUCH.—In the proper sense of the word a eunuch is an emasculated human being (Deu 23:1), but it is not absolutely certain that the Heb. sârîs always has this signification, and the uncertainty is reflected in our Eng. tr. [Note: translate or translation.] , where ‘officer’ and ‘chamberlain’ are frequently found. It is interesting to note that the group of scholars who rendered Jeremiah for the AV [Note: Authorized Version.] adhered to ‘eunuch’ throughout: unhappily the Revisers have spoiled the symmetry by conforming Jer 52:25 to 2Ki 25:19. The following reasons, none of which is decisive, have been advanced in favour of some such rendering of sârîs as ‘officer’ or ‘chamberlain.’ 1. That Potiphar (Gen 37:36) was married. But actual eunuchs were not precluded from this (see Ter. Eun. 4, 3, 24; Juv. vi. 366; Sir 20:4; Sir 30:20 etc.). And the words in Gen 39:1 which identify Joseph’s first master with the husband of his temptress are an Interpolation. 2. That in 2Ki 25:19 etc. ‘eunuchs’ hold military commands, whereas they are generally unwarlike (imbelles, Juv. l.c.). But there have been competent commanders amongst them. 3. That the strict meaning cannot be insisted on at Gen 40:2; Gen 40:7. Yet even here it is admissible.

The kings of Israel and Judah imitated their powerful neighbours in employing eunuchs (1) as guardians of the harem (2Ki 9:32, Jer 41:16); Est 1:12; Est 4:4 are instances of Persian usage; (2) in military and other important posts (1Sa 8:15, 1Ki 22:9, 2Ki 8:6; 2Ki 23:11; 2Ki 24:12; 2Ki 24:15; 2Ki 25:19, 1Ch 28:1, 2Ch 18:8, Jer 29:2; Jer 34:19; Jer 38:7; cf. Gen 37:36; Gen 40:2; Gen 40:7, Act 8:27, Dan 1:3 does not of necessity imply that the captives were made eunuchs). For the services rendered at court by persons of this class and the power which they often acquired, see Jos. [Note: Josephus.] Ant. XVI. viii. 1. But their acquisitions could not remove the sense of degradation and loss (2Ki 20:18, Isa 39:7). Deu 23:1 excluded them from public worship, partly because self-mutilation was often performed in honour of a heathen deity, and partly because a maimed creature was judged unfit for the service of Jahweh (Lev 21:20; Lev 22:24). That ban is, however, removed by Isa 56:4-5. Euseb. (HE vi. 8) relates how Origen misunderstood the figurative language of Mat 19:12; Origen’s own comment on the passage shows that he afterwards regretted having taken it literally and acted on it. See also Ethiopian Eunuch.

J. Taylor.

ū´nuk (סריס, ṣārı̄ṣ; σπάδων, spádōn; εὐνοῦχος, eunoúchos): Primarily and literally, a eunuch is an emasculated man (Deu 23:1). The Hebrew word ṣārı̄ṣ seems, however, to have acquired a figurative meaning, which is reflected in English Versions of the Bible where “officer” and “chamberlain” are found as renderings (compare Gen 37:36; Gen 39:1, where ṣārı̄ṣ is applied to married men; Est 4:4). The barbarous practice of self-mutilation and the mutilation of others in this way was prevalent throughout the Orient. The religious disabilities under which men thus deformed labored under the Mosaic law had the effect of making the practice abominable to the Jews as a people (Deu 23:1; Lev 22:23-25). The law excluded eunuchs from public worship, partly because self-mutilation was often performed in honor of a heathen god, and partly because a maimed creature of any sort was deemed unfit for the service of Yahweh (Lev 21:16; Lev 22:24). That ban, however, was later removed (Isa 56:4, Isa 56:5). On the other hand, the kings of Israel and Judah followed their royal neighbors in employing eunuchs (1) as guardians of the harem (2Ki 9:32; Jer 41:16), and (2) in military and other official posts (1Sa 8:15 margin; 1Ki 22:9 margin; 2Ki 8:6 margin; 2Ki 23:11 the King James Version margin; 2Ki 24:12, 2Ki 24:13 margin; 2Ki 25:19 margin; 1Ch 28:1 margin; 2Ch 18:8 margin; Jer 29:2; Jer 34:19; Jer 38:7; compare Gen 37:36; Gen 40:2, Gen 40:7; Act 8:27). Josephus informs us that eunuchs were a normal feature of the courts of the Herods (Ant., XV, vii, 4; XVI, viii, 1). From the single reference to the practice in the Gospels (Mat 19:12), we infer that the existence and purpose of eunuchs as a class were known to the Jews of Jesus’ time. There is no question with Jesus as to the law of Nature: the married life is the norm of man’s condition, and the union thereby effected transcends every other natural bond, even that of filial affection (Mat 19:5, Mat 19:6). But He would have His hearers recognize that there are exceptional cases where the rule does not hold. In speaking of the three classes of eunuchs (Mat 19:12), He made a distinction which was evidently well known to those whom He addressed, as was the metaphorical use of the word in application to the third class well understood by them (compare Lightfoot, Horae Hebrew et Talmud; Schottgen, Horae Hebrew, in the place cited.).

How Origen misunderstood and abused the teaching of this passage is well known (Euseb., HE, VI, 8), and his own pathetic comment on the passage shows that later he regretted having taken it thus literally and acted on it. His is not the only example of such a perverted interpretation (see Talmud, Shabbāth 152a, and compare Midrash on Ecc 10:7). The Council of Nicea, therefore, felt called on to deal with the danger as did the 2nd Council of Aries and the Apos Canons (circa 21). (Compare Bingham’s Ant, IV, 9.)

It is significant that Jesus expresses no condemnation of this horrible practice. It was in keeping with His far-reaching plan of instilling principles rather than dealing in denunciations (Joh 3:17; Joh 8:11). It was by His positive teaching concerning purity that we are shown the lines along which we must move to reach the goal. There is a more excellent way of achieving mastery of the sexual passion. It is possible for men to attain as complete control of this strong instinct as if they were physically sexless, and the resultant victory is of infinitely more value than the negative, unmoral condition produced by self-emasculation. These “make themselves eunuchs” with a high and holy purpose, “for the kingdom of heaven’s sake”; and the interests created by that purpose are so absorbing that neither time nor opportunity is afforded to the “fleshly lusts, which war against the soul” (1Pe 2:11). They voluntarily forego marriage even, undertake virtual “eunuchism” because they are completely immersed in and engrossed by “the kingdom of heaven” (compare Joh 17:4; 1Co 7:29, 1Co 7:33 f; 1Co 9:5 and see Bengel, Gnomon Novi Test. in the place cited and Clement of Alexandria., Strom., iii.1ff). See MARRIAGE.

Literature

Driver,” Deuteronomy,” ICC, Deu 23:1; Commentary on Mt, in the place cited. by Morison and Broadus; Neander, Ch. Hist, II, 493; Wendt, The Teaching of Jesus, 72ff; The Expositor, IV, vii (1893), 294ff; Encyclopedia Brit, article “Eunuch.”

See Chamberlain and Ethiopian Eunuch.

A public official or a servant in

charge of the women in a ruler’s household.

Originally, a man who had been

castrated so that he could not have sex.

A male who has been castrated; that is, had the testes removed. Eunuchs were often used as guards of harems. In Act 8:27, a Eunuch was "a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure." Biblically, some people are born Eunuchs and others are made Eunuchs (Mat 19:12). They were forbidden to enter into sacred duty (Deu 23:1).