Can natural or castrated eunuchs get married?

[Apex]

While the term "eunuch" can be understood to have various meanings, there is little doubt that there existed some eunuchs who, from birth, had some type of genital defect (natural) and some who, by force or accident, had their testicles damaged or removed (castrated). This made them an obvious choice to manage royal harems, since they were unable to produce progeny.

Now, especially with reference to Matthew 19:11-12, can a natural or castrated eunuch get married? Another way of wording this question could be, can a person who has a genetic or unintended genital defect get married?

I was unable to find an example of a married eunuch in the ancient middle eastern literature. However, I was able to find reference to eunuchs engaging in sexual activity - though mostly homoerotic. The way most Christians interpret Matthew 19, the answer to this question would appear to be "no". However, the implications of this are massive. For example, there are numerous American soldiers returning home with war injuries to their genitals, some no longer able to reproduce.

 

[Hank77]

The way most Christians interpret Matthew 19, the answer to this question would appear to be "no".

I have never, to my recollection, heard this scripture used in that argument. What is the argument using this scripture? Thanks

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

However, I was able to find reference to eunuchs engaging in sexual activity - though mostly homoerotic.

Naturally, in the world, such sin is not only acceptable, but often encouraged,
even though "there is a way that might 'seem' right, but the end of it is DEATH",
so don't be tempted or led astray by it, to certain destruction.
----------------------------------------------------------

For example, there are numerous American soldiers returning home with war injuries to their genitals, some no longer able to reproduce.

They can marry, or remain married, to the opposite sex spouse , no problem.

 

[Apex]

I have never, to my recollection, heard this scripture used in that argument. What is the argument using this scripture? Thanks

How do you interpret Mathew 19:11-12?

 

[Apex]

They can marry, or remain married, to the opposite sex spouse , no problem.

On a related topic, do you believe intersex persons can get married? It seems fair to include hermaphrodites as natural born eunuchs.

 

[Apex]

I have never, to my recollection, heard this scripture used in that argument. What is the argument using this scripture? Thanks

I personally have not seen someone make the direct argument, but you'd be hard-pressed to deny that one of the indirect implications of such an interpretation appears to invalidate eunuchs from marriage. I looked at some of my conservative commentaries and found this:
__________

Jesus responds by saying celibacy is an unrealistic solution except for three groups of people who are able to remain single: those whose sexual drive is diminished by a birth defect (“eunuchs … from their mother’s womb”), those who have been physically castrated (“made eunuchs by men” usually for the purpose of being in charge of a king’s harem), and those who focus themselves exclusively on kingdom interests (“have made themselves eunuchs”) to serve God better. All others would do well to get married (1 Cor 7:9, 36).

Hal M. Haller Jr., “The Gospel according to Matthew,” in The Grace New Testament Commentary, ed. Robert N. Wilkin (Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2010), 87.
__________

The Lord Jesus explained that there are three types of eunuchs. Some men are eunuchs because they were born without the power of reproduction. Others are so because they were castrated by men; oriental rulers often subjected the harem attendants to surgery to make them eunuchs. But Jesus especially had in mind those who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. These men could be married, and they have no physical impairment. Yet in dedication to the King and His kingdom, they willingly forego marriage in order to give themselves to the cause of Christ without distraction. As Paul wrote later, “He who is unmarried cares for the things of the Lord—how he may please the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:32). Their celibacy is not physical but a matter of voluntary abstinence.

William MacDonald, Believer’s Bible Commentary: Old and New Testaments, ed. Arthur Farstad (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1995), 1276.
__________

A eunuch was a person who never married and often served as a royal official. Some were so born, due to physical or mental deficiency; some were made eunuchs of men, either by choice or by force; some had deliberately chosen to be single for the purpose of serving God without being tied to regular family responsibilities (e.g., Origen).

Edward E. Hindson and Woodrow Michael Kroll, eds., KJV Bible Commentary (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1994), 1934.
__________

Many other commentaries said the same thing. They believe Jesus was speaking about remaining celibate in Matthew 19:11-12. The implication is that all eunuchs are celibate people and incapable of marriage.

 

[Hank77]

I personally have not seen someone make the direct argument, but you'd be hard-pressed to deny that one of the indirect implications of such an interpretation appears to invalidate eunuchs from marriage. I looked at some of my conservative commentaries and found this:
__________

Jesus responds by saying celibacy is an unrealistic solution except for three groups of people who are able to remain single: those whose sexual drive is diminished by a birth defect (“eunuchs … from their mother’s womb”), those who have been physically castrated (“made eunuchs by men” usually for the purpose of being in charge of a king’s harem), and those who focus themselves exclusively on kingdom interests (“have made themselves eunuchs”) to serve God better. All others would do well to get married (1 Cor 7:9, 36).

Hal M. Haller Jr., “The Gospel according to Matthew,” in The Grace New Testament Commentary, ed. Robert N. Wilkin (Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2010), 87.
__________

The Lord Jesus explained that there are three types of eunuchs. Some men are eunuchs because they were born without the power of reproduction. Others are so because they were castrated by men; oriental rulers often subjected the harem attendants to surgery to make them eunuchs. But Jesus especially had in mind those who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. These men could be married, and they have no physical impairment. Yet in dedication to the King and His kingdom, they willingly forego marriage in order to give themselves to the cause of Christ without distraction. As Paul wrote later, “He who is unmarried cares for the things of the Lord—how he may please the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:32). Their celibacy is not physical but a matter of voluntary abstinence.

William MacDonald, Believer’s Bible Commentary: Old and New Testaments, ed. Arthur Farstad (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1995), 1276.
__________

A eunuch was a person who never married and often served as a royal official. Some were so born, due to physical or mental deficiency; some were made eunuchs of men, either by choice or by force; some had deliberately chosen to be single for the purpose of serving God without being tied to regular family responsibilities (e.g., Origen).

Edward E. Hindson and Woodrow Michael Kroll, eds., KJV Bible Commentary (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1994), 1934.
__________

Many other commentaries said the same thing. They believe Jesus was speaking about remaining celibate in Matthew 19:11-12. The implication is that all eunuchs are celibate people and incapable of marriage.

And I agree with all those explanations of the scripture. Even Origen does not say that a eunuch was forbid to marry.

So what is your argument that a eunuch is forbid, by God, to marry?

 

[Apex]

And I agree with all those explanations of the scripture. Even Origen does not say that a eunuch was forbid to marry.

So what is your argument that a eunuch is forbid, by God, to marry?

Can you provide one example of a married eunuch in the first century AD - or any time before that? Why are the eunuchs in Matthew 19:11-12 celibate? By choice or by circumstance? It appears that only the last group had any choice (made themselves).

 

[Hank77]

Can you provide one example of a married eunuch in the first century AD - or any time before that? Why are the eunuchs in Matthew 19:11-12 celibate? By choice or by circumstance? It appears that only the last group had any choice (made themselves).

So your argument is based on scriptural silence? The issue of whether a eunuch was allowed to marry is not addressed anywhere that I know of. So far I haven't seen anything written by men that addressed it and haven't heard a scriptural argument against it.

 

[Apex]

So your argument is based on scriptural silence? The issue of whether a eunuch was allowed to marry is not addressed anywhere that I know of. So far I haven't seen anything written by men that addressed it and haven't heard a scriptural argument against it.

Partly from historical silence, yes. But my second question was the scriptural question. What is your answer to it? Why did Jesus use eunuchs in his analogy for celibacy if they were not all celibate?

 

[Apex]

So, I did some more research and I no longer think there is "historical silence" on this issue. We have countless historical sources that state that eunuchs did not marry. For example, Xenophon (Cyropaedia vii.5.60-65) reports that it was the belief of the Persian king Cyrus the Great that emasculation yielded more docile and easily managed slaves because they were undistracted by family ties.

As for Matthew 19:11-12 is concerned, is their another interpretation for "eunuch" that suggests that this was a group of people eligible for marriage? Does not Jesus use the analogy of eunuch for this specific reason? His analogy fails if so.

 

[ViaCrucis]

So, I did some more research and I no longer think there is "historical silence" on this issue. We have countless historical sources that state that eunuchs did not marry. For example, Xenophon (Cyropaedia vii.5.60-65) reports that it was the belief of the Persian king Cyrus the Great that emasculation yielded more docile and easily managed slaves because they were undistracted by family ties.

As for Matthew 19:11-12 is concerned, is their another interpretation for "eunuch" that suggests that this was a group of people eligible for marriage? Does not Jesus use the analogy of eunuch for this specific reason? His analogy fails if so.

How do the laws of the Achaemenid Empire relate to Divine law on whether a eunuch may marry or not? This still ends up as silence.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Apex]

How do the laws of the Achaemenid Empire relate to Divine law on whether a eunuch may marry or not? This still ends up as silence.

-CryptoLutheran

What is your opinion on the other questions raised on this thread?

 

[ViaCrucis]

What is your opinion on the other questions raised on this thread?

I can think of no good reason to forbid eunuchs from marrying. There's certainly nothing in Scripture to come to that conclusion. In antiquity a eunuch probably wouldn't get married, since marriage was a very different sort of institution back then then it is now: with people generally arranged to be married and generally with the express purpose to sire children. We don't practice marriage the way they did two thousand years ago.

I have no doubt that eunuchs probably didn't get married in antiquity. But that doesn't mean that someone who, for whatever reason today, lacks certain anatomical equipment should be prohibited from getting married. There's certainly no proscription or command from God on the matter. The Church is not in the business of enforcing cultural norms from any period of time; but in proclaiming Jesus Christ.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Apex]

I can think of no good reason to forbid eunuchs from marrying. There's certainly nothing in Scripture to come to that conclusion. In antiquity a eunuch probably wouldn't get married, since marriage was a very different sort of institution back then then it is now: with people generally arranged to be married and generally with the express purpose to sire children. We don't practice marriage the way they did two thousand years ago.

I have no doubt that eunuchs probably didn't get married in antiquity. But that doesn't mean that someone who, for whatever reason today, lacks certain anatomical equipment should be prohibited from getting married. There's certainly no proscription or command from God on the matter. The Church is not in the business of enforcing cultural norms from any period of time; but in proclaiming Jesus Christ.

-CryptoLutheran

How do you interpret Matthew 19:11-12? Do you believe Jesus used eunuchs in this analogy because they were celibate? And if so, was the celibacy of the natural and castrated eunuchs by choice or by circumstance?

 

[ViaCrucis]

How do you interpret Matthew 19:11-12? Do you believe Jesus used eunuchs in this analogy because they were celibate? And if so, was the celibacy of the natural and castrated eunuchs by choice or by circumstance?

Jesus refers to "eunuchs by choice" figuratively, they have chosen to devote themselves to chastity (chastity and celibacy often go hand-in-hand but are not the same thing; chastity refers to abstention from sexual activity, while celibacy is to abstain from marriage). The natural eunuch (those born this way) and those made enuchus (by cruel circumstance) are mentioned because, yes, in that time and period a eunuch wouldn't have been married off, and thus they would have rather inevitably lived chaste and celibate lives.

That doesn't, however, mean that someone today who, let's say was born with undeveloped genitals or cruel circumstance such as an accident damaged them, should be barred from being married. There is no reason to impose such a rule on someone, and to impose such a rule would be sinful and unjust.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Apex]

That doesn't, however, mean that someone today who, let's say was born with undeveloped genitals or cruel circumstance such as an accident damaged them, should be barred from being married. There is no reason to impose such a rule on someone, and to impose such a rule would be sinful and unjust.

-CryptoLutheran

Why not? Jesus seems to not consider it abnormal for eunuchs to be barred from marriage. Why would he reinforce this idea by using them in an analogy if he ultimately knew this was improper?

 

[Apex]

That doesn't, however, mean that someone today who, let's say was born with undeveloped genitals or cruel circumstance such as an accident damaged them, should be barred from being married. There is no reason to impose such a rule on someone, and to impose such a rule would be sinful and unjust.

-CryptoLutheran

On a related topic, do we not prohibit homosexuals from marriage due to their genitals?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Why not? Jesus seems to not consider it abnormal for eunuchs to be barred from marriage. Why would he reinforce this idea by using them in an analogy if he ultimately knew this was improper?

Because Jesus was speaking to people of a particular time and culture and drawing from those cultural experiences. Jesus didn't say, one way or the other, whether a male without a penis can or can't marry; you are reading into this passage what simply isn't there.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

On a related topic, do we not prohibit homosexuals from marriage due to their genitals?

Different topic, and one that, AFAIK, isn't permitted to be debated anywhere on this site.

-CryptoLutheran