Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Isaiah

[Skeptical]

Does anyone know the meaning of these two passages involving Eunuchs?

Isa. 56:3b–5:

“Do not let the eunuch say, ‘I am just a dry tree.’

For thus says the LORD:

To the eunuchs who keep my sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant, I will give, in my house and within my walls, a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off.”

And

Matt. 19:11–12:

“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.”

[jimwalton]

Maybe a couple of quotes can get the conversation started. It's best to start with scholarship.

> Isa. 56.

Barry Webb writes, "There is no direct command here, but the implication of what is said is very clear: the Lord accepts the foreigner and the eunuch who sincerely seek Him, and His people must do the same. This was a very difficult and sensitive issue, for there were specific statements in the law of Moses excluding emasculated men and foreigners, especially Moabites and Ammonites (Dt. 23.1-6, cf. Lev. 22.24-25). These were powerful reminders to Israel that the holiness God demanded of his people was totally incompatible with physical mutilation (as practiced in pagan cults), and that his love for them was no casual thing. Those laws were never meant to exclude genuine converts (see Rahab and Ruth).

"In their new situation of restored community, the danger of being unduly influenced by their pagan environment still existed, but they were also on the threshold of a new age in which God intended to gather outsiders into his kingdom on a totally unprecedented scale (44.1-5; 45.22; 55.1-7). The import of this passage is that they were not to adopt a legalistic attitude which would stand in the way of this happening.

"Eunuchs in particular were to be treated with compassion. Isaiah had foreseen that members of the royal family would be made eunuchs in Babylon (39.7). How were such people to be regarded in the situation following the exile – as people permanently tainted with paganism and cursed by God? Certainly not. This passage makes it plain that God does not intend to exclude them from his coming kingdom. Nor should his people, who await its arrival."

Kerry Sonia writes, "The trauma of exile cast doubt onto preexisting ideologies, particularly the covenant between YHWH and Israel and the inviolability of Jerusalem and its Temple. The forced migration of Judahites to Babylon further challenged these concepts and begged the question whether YHWH had been defeated by a foreign power—if not, why would the national God of Israel willfully abandon His people? Some biblical texts go so far as to question whether the exiles may continue to worship YHWH in a foreign land.

"Ezekiel 37.11-14 and Isaiah 56.3-5 respond to these anxieties using the imagery of the cult of dead kin and casting YHWH in the role of caregiver to the dead.

"Here, God constructs a stele for the childless eunuch, thus commemorating the dead in place of his offering. The covenant between YHWH and Israel is still valid."

> Matthew 19

James Brownson, in "Bible Gender Sexuality," writes, "The disciples see Jesus's intensified prohibition of divorce as an infringement on human freedom, an ideal highly valued in the Cynic perspective. Marriage, in this view, is an intrusive and unnecessary entanglement. Therefore, the disciples suggest to Jesus that his prohibition of divorce tilts the bias toward the Cynics view of the relative importance of marriage." Basically they are wondering, “Who could risk a no-exit relationship?”

Jesus is not recommending celibacy, since he promotes marriage in vv. 3-9 as a God-given institution; it's so highly prized it is not to be violated by divorce. Also, he uses the word eunuch, not the term for celibacy (parthenoi). What he is suggesting is some people (not many) are able to make a voluntary renunciation of marriage for the sake of God's kingdom.

Eunuchs "who are born that way" are those who are biologically impotent. Those who were "made that way by men" have been castrated. The third category is those who have renounced marriage for spiritual ends. Since marriage was the accepted norm, those who chose celibacy would sometimes face disdain.

Brownson, again: "Jesus’s commendation arose not because of any negative view of sex itself, but rather out of pragmatic concerns related to Jesus’s call to missionary proclamation. Jesus recognized that some of his followers might face similar demands of ministry as his own, requiring them to forego marriage. Yet in such cases Jesus promises not only eternal rewards but benefits in this life as well (Lk. 18.29-30). Therefore, even though marriage is commendable (the Stoic view), it may not be the appropriate path for everyone (the Stoic adaptation to the Cynic view), and the unmarried life may bring its own rich rewards (the Cynic view). But in all of this, there is not a hint of concern with the defiling nature of sex, the need to control lust, or debates about whether sexual relations compromise one’s holiness. In other words, what we see here is not a form of sexual asceticism, in which the center of concern is the avoidance of sex; instead we see a form of celibacy, where the focus falls on the avoidance of the responsibilities of marriage for pragmatic reasons."

Frank Gaebelein writes, "Neither Jesus nor the apostles see celibacy as an intrinsically holier state of than marriage (cf. 1 Tim. 4.1-3; Heb. 13.4), nor as a condition for the top levels of ministry (Mt. 8.14; 1 Cor. 9.5), but as a special calling granted for greater usefulness in the kingdom. Those who impose this discipline on themselves must remember Paul’s conclusion: it is better to marry than to burn with passion."