Can I suggest it never really did? Do we think God did really once have a thing against eunuchs?
There's stuff in the Torah which implies this, but I have sometimes speculated whether Daniel and Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego would have been made eunuchs when they were taken into the king of Persia's service. Dan 1:7 could imply this. The next verse, though, might have been expressly included so as to make it clear this had not been done to them.
As is universally the case, it was not God that had anything against eunuchs, it was the men who made the rules and wrote them down. I doubt anyone except perhaps Jesus Christ ever knew exactly what God 'had anything against'. A lot of guess work going on in OT times, mostly based on male patriarchal prejudice and accepted superstitious cult practices. Urim Thumim, sacrifices and all that crap.
Sure we can trace types and symbols through all the nonsense, but its not until we get to the life of Christ that we get any real insight into what God might might actually think about much at all. If that were not the case we might as well not bother ever reading another parable of Jesus. Just assume everything we read in the OT is the absolute God's Honest opinion of Almighty God Himself.
But is he a eunuch in what we might call a 'technical' sense, or is the term merely being used in the more general sense of 'government official' which seems to have been a possible extended meaning?
But is he a eunuch in what we might call a 'technical' sense, or is the term merely being used in the more general sense of 'government official' which seems to have been a possible extended meaning?
We don't know and given the lack of any other cues, never shall.
But is he a eunuch in what we might call a 'technical' sense, or is the term merely being used in the more general sense of 'government official' which seems to have been a possible extended meaning?
My guess (and that is all it is) is that he was a genuine eunuch. Why? Because of his question, "what is to prevent me from being baptised" There seems to me to be an implied expectation that his being a eunuch would prevent baptism, just as it had prevented him being anything more than a God-fearer.
And if so, it makes his baptism all the more remarkable. This is truly revolutionary compared to the Judaism of the time.
And also that everybody, irrespective of sex, gets baptised with the same baptism, whereas circumcision can only happen to babies if they are male.
We take that for granted and don't think about it, but it must have been revolutionary at the time.
Enoch, There's a particularly nasty form of genital mutilation sometimes carried out on girls, which goes by the euphemism of female circumcision. It severely restricts pleasure during intercourse. In recent years there have been several prosecutions here for the activity.
Editing to add that those passages do support the theory that the Ethiopian was in fact a eunuch.
Re female genital mutilation (FGM), aka "female circumcision":
In the most extreme version, one bit is amputated, and the opening below it sewn nearly closed.
Generally is done around puberty, but I think I've heard of it being done much earlier.
(mad)
Never, as far as we know, a custom among Semites. The practice of FGM seems to be associated mostly with various African tribes and has very little actual religious significance in those cultures. It is mostly, it seems linked with male property rights and ignorant superstition in primitive societies. It is certainly a primitive practice which marks out those who practice it as primitive, by comparison to 21st century, 1st world standards of civilization.
It is a criminal offense here in the UK, to subject any girl to this form of mutilation, no matter where the 'procedure' took place. Here or outside the UK.
The incident as related in scripture clearly defines the extent to which ALL are acceptable to God under The New Covenant. i.e. both females and eunuchs are now accepted for baptism, whereas they were both excluded, (or at least were unable to receive the sign and seal if it), under The Old.
Do we really think God had something against Eunuchs? No, but it was quite common for eunuchs to be excluded from temple worship in other cultures surrounding the Isrealites
No [man] who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the Lord. Deut 23:1 NIV
Do not let the foreigner joined to the Lord say,
‘The Lord will surely separate me from his people’;
and do not let the eunuch say,
‘I am just a dry tree.’
4 For thus says the Lord:
To the eunuchs who keep my sabbaths,
who choose the things that please me
and hold fast my covenant,
5 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.
6 And the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord,
to minister to him, to love the name of the Lord,
and to be his servants,
all who keep the sabbath, and do not profane it,
and hold fast my covenant—
7 these I will bring to my holy mountain,
and make them joyful in my house of prayer;
their burnt-offerings and their sacrifices
will be accepted on my altar;
for my house shall be called a house of prayer
for all peoples.
8 Thus says the Lord God,
who gathers the outcasts of Israel,
I will gather others to them
besides those already gathered.
This is an episode in the explanation that all the gospels/acts have on how a branch of Judaism now regards gentiles equally for becoming members of Jesus' Kingdom of God/Heaven.
It is a narrative that declares the fulfilment of Isaiah's promise.
Do not let the foreigner joined to the Lord say,
‘The Lord will surely separate me from his people’;
and do not let the eunuch say,
‘I am just a dry tree.’
4 For thus says the Lord:
To the eunuchs who keep my sabbaths,
who choose the things that please me
and hold fast my covenant,
5 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.
6 And the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord,
to minister to him, to love the name of the Lord,
and to be his servants,
all who keep the sabbath, and do not profane it,
and hold fast my covenant—
7 these I will bring to my holy mountain,
and make them joyful in my house of prayer;
their burnt-offerings and their sacrifices
will be accepted on my altar;
for my house shall be called a house of prayer
for all peoples.
8 Thus says the Lord God,
who gathers the outcasts of Israel,
I will gather others to them
besides those already gathered.
This is an episode in the explanation that all the gospels/acts have on how a branch of Judaism now regards gentiles equally for becoming members of Jesus' Kingdom of God/Heaven.
It is a narrative that declares the fulfilment of Isaiah's promise.
----
That is a really fitting passage.
Acts seems to be quite specific about it being Isaiah 53
32 This is the passage of Scripture the eunuch was reading:
“He was led like a sheep to the slaughter,
and as a lamb before its shearer is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
33 In his humiliation he was deprived of justice.
Who can speak of his descendants?
For his life was taken from the earth.”
(I did worry I'd made the association extra-biblically)
But obviously that's only a little way away. Are we expected to make the connection (did Luke? or Philip?).
If so it's a stirring reminder that Jesus being good news for everyone, a theme which arguably grows from the gospels and through acts, has its roots much earlier.
As a narration it would be artistic if Philip and eunach stayed in Isaiah and reached this passage and then "why shouldn't I be baptised", but acts doesn't force that.
I definitely think about Philip talking 9 times about his experience of Jesus and 1 time calling back to the passage. Or jumping between references (not happening on a scroll).
Yes, It would be good to know how the intended audience of Luke-Acts would have understood associations of cited passages of scripture with their context.
We don't know how familiar the eunuch would have been with Isaiah, but to have a scroll he would probably have been affluent.
The strange passage about Phillip being spirited away possibly has some similarities with Peter's dream about cleanness and uncleanness. And Phillip seems to then have travelled from Judaea (Ashdod) to Samaria (Caesarea), if there's any significance for Luke's audience in that.
Yes, It would be good to know how the intended audience of Luke-Acts would have understood associations of cited passages of scripture with their context.
We don't know how familiar the eunuch would have been with Isaiah, but to have a scroll he would probably have been affluent.
The strange passage about Phillip being spirited away possibly has some similarities with Peter's dream about cleanness and uncleanness. And Phillip seems to then have travelled from Judaea (Ashdod) to Samaria (Caesarea), if there's any significance for Luke's audience in that.
We had a discussion about Phillip and the Eunuch a year ago. See here. However, you raise in interesting question. How did Luke's original audience understand it?
Comments
As is universally the case, it was not God that had anything against eunuchs, it was the men who made the rules and wrote them down. I doubt anyone except perhaps Jesus Christ ever knew exactly what God 'had anything against'. A lot of guess work going on in OT times, mostly based on male patriarchal prejudice and accepted superstitious cult practices. Urim Thumim, sacrifices and all that crap.
Sure we can trace types and symbols through all the nonsense, but its not until we get to the life of Christ that we get any real insight into what God might might actually think about much at all. If that were not the case we might as well not bother ever reading another parable of Jesus. Just assume everything we read in the OT is the absolute God's Honest opinion of Almighty God Himself.
We don't know and given the lack of any other cues, never shall.
My guess (and that is all it is) is that he was a genuine eunuch. Why? Because of his question, "what is to prevent me from being baptised" There seems to me to be an implied expectation that his being a eunuch would prevent baptism, just as it had prevented him being anything more than a God-fearer.
And if so, it makes his baptism all the more remarkable. This is truly revolutionary compared to the Judaism of the time.
We take that for granted and don't think about it, but it must have been revolutionary at the time.
Enoch, There's a particularly nasty form of genital mutilation sometimes carried out on girls, which goes by the euphemism of female circumcision. It severely restricts pleasure during intercourse. In recent years there have been several prosecutions here for the activity.
Editing to add that those passages do support the theory that the Ethiopian was in fact a eunuch.
In the most extreme version, one bit is amputated, and the opening below it sewn nearly closed.
Generally is done around puberty, but I think I've heard of it being done much earlier.
(mad)
Never, as far as we know, a custom among Semites. The practice of FGM seems to be associated mostly with various African tribes and has very little actual religious significance in those cultures. It is mostly, it seems linked with male property rights and ignorant superstition in primitive societies. It is certainly a primitive practice which marks out those who practice it as primitive, by comparison to 21st century, 1st world standards of civilization.
It is a criminal offense here in the UK, to subject any girl to this form of mutilation, no matter where the 'procedure' took place. Here or outside the UK.
This discussion has veered away from the Bible. If you want to discuss female genital mutilation, start a thread in Purg
Host hat off
----
That is a really fitting passage.
Acts seems to be quite specific about it being Isaiah 53 (I did worry I'd made the association extra-biblically)
But obviously that's only a little way away. Are we expected to make the connection (did Luke? or Philip?).
If so it's a stirring reminder that Jesus being good news for everyone, a theme which arguably grows from the gospels and through acts, has its roots much earlier.
As a narration it would be artistic if Philip and eunach stayed in Isaiah and reached this passage and then "why shouldn't I be baptised", but acts doesn't force that.
I definitely think about Philip talking 9 times about his experience of Jesus and 1 time calling back to the passage. Or jumping between references (not happening on a scroll).
We don't know how familiar the eunuch would have been with Isaiah, but to have a scroll he would probably have been affluent.
The strange passage about Phillip being spirited away possibly has some similarities with Peter's dream about cleanness and uncleanness. And Phillip seems to then have travelled from Judaea (Ashdod) to Samaria (Caesarea), if there's any significance for Luke's audience in that.
We had a discussion about Phillip and the Eunuch a year ago. See here. However, you raise in interesting question. How did Luke's original audience understand it?