EUNUCH (εὐ?νοῦ?χος; σπάδων occurs sometimes in LXX Septuagint [see Genesis 37:36 and Isaiah 39:7, with which, however, cf. the corresponding passage 2 Kings 20:18 ]).—From the single reference in the Gospels (Matthew 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 (… εὐ?νουχίσθησαν ὑ?πὸ? τῶ?ν ἀ?νθρώπων) abominable to the Jews (Deuteronomy 23:1, cf. Leviticus 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 (Mark 10:2-12 = Matthew 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 τὸ?ν λόγον (Mark 10:11) be connected with οὐ? συμφέρει γαμῆ?σαι (Mark 10:10), or, which is more intelligible to the present writer in the light of what follows, with the primal law quoted in Mark 10:5 (ἕ?νεκα τούτου … οἱ? δύο εἰ?ς 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 סְ?רִ?ים, בירִ?י שׁ?ָ?מַ?יִ?ם סְ?רִ?ים, אָ?רָ?ם סָ?רִ?ים, חַ?מָ?ה 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 (152 a) contains a reference to a eunuch of this class (cf. Midrash on Ecclesiastes 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 (ἑ?ξ ἐ?νός) every nation of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth’ (Acts 17:26, cf. Luke 10:29 ff; Luke 4:25 ff., Matthew 8:11 = Luke 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 Deuteronomy 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 χωρεῖ?ν 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. Matthew 5:28 f. where the words βλέπων and ὁ?φθαλμός 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? τὴ?ν βασιλείαν τῶ?ν οὐ?ρανῶ?ν), 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’ (1 Peter 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 (ὤ?στε οὐ?κέτι εἰ?σὶ?ν δύο ἀ?λλὰ? μία σάρξ, Mark 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 ἕ?σονται εἰ?ς (Heb. הָ?יָ?ה לְ?ְ?) 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. 1 Corinthians 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. John 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 1 Corinthians 7:29), we know that he was speaking from the plane on which he himself stood (cf. 1 Corinthians 9:5, 1 Corinthians 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 (ἴ?διον 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.