Eunuchs shall not enter the assembly of the Lord

[tonychanyt]

De 23:

1 “No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord."

Why did God care about crushed testicles?

This law was part of the Old Testament’s holiness code, which included various regulations about who could participate in the religious and communal life of Israel. It did sound a bit harsh. In the ancient Near Eastern world, physical wholeness was often associated with spiritual wholeness. The Israelites were called to be a holy people, set apart for God, and this holiness was symbolized in various ways, including physical integrity.

In some surrounding cultures, castration was associated with pagan rituals. The prohibition might have been intended to distance Israel from such practices.

Were these individuals unclean?

The passage did not say that.

Isaiah gave a more balanced view in 56:

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.

This showed a shift toward a more inclusive understanding of holiness, based on faithfulness rather than physical condition.

In Acts 8:38, Philip baptized an Ethiopian eunuch, showing that the gospel was for all, regardless of physical condition.

De 23:1 was part of a broader system of ceremonial laws designed to set Israel apart as a holy people at its cultural time. However, the New Testament revealed a more inclusive understanding of holiness, based on faith in Christ rather than external conditions. That's the transformative nature of God’s grace and the fulfillment of the Law in Jesus.

 

[okay]

And the Ethiopian eunuch was reading Isaiah!

I find it interesting that in Isaiah the eunuchs seems to be blessed as they are - not healed into the man they originally were (assuming we are talking about those who are made eunuchs, as opposed to those who are born eunuchs). They even get a different name than son or daughter, as if their physical castration perhaps changes the language God uses for them.

In writing “name that shall not be cut off” is Isaiah perhaps making a pun?

(To give proper credit - I heard Megan DeFranza discuss this passage which is where some of the above was from)

 

[Jamdoc]

the passage of Isaiah is more specifically about inheritance. Eunuchs couldn't inherit from their family, nor would they have offspring to pass down inheritance to or carry on their name.
God's promise is that they have an inheritance with Him and He will give them a name and it'll never die because they won't die, so they're not utterly forgotten because they had no descendants.

 

[tonychanyt]

Eunuchs couldn't inherit from their family,

reference?

 

[Jamdoc]

reference?

It's not an explicit biblical law, but logically, if they're unable to have children, it was pointless to pass down land inheritance to them, because they would not have descendants to pass down to.
a lot of the laws like the law referred to in Matthew 22 had to do with inheritance.
Why did the younger brother of a deceased older brother have to take the older brother's wife and produce children in his name and not his own name? Inheritance, so that the inheritance would pass from the Father, to the biological son of the younger brother, who is legally the Older brother's son, skipping the younger brother. People think Onan in Genesis 38 was struck dead for masturbating. This is untrue. he had sex with his older brother's wife as he was supposed to after his older brother died childless, but then he pulled out because he didn't want to have offspring that wouldn't legally be his. God struck him dead for not obeying the law to preserve inheritance.
There is also the fact that in most cases where someone is MADE a Eunuch rather than born as one, they're a slave, they're not going to inherit anything.
So the hypothetical Eunuch in Isaiah 56, talking about being a dry tree (couldn't produce anything) and the promises from God, have to do with a Eunuch being given hope, that not all was lost because of their physical condition, the Lord would have a place, an inheritance for them even if on Earth they would have none, and the Lord would give them a name that'd never die, so descendants weren't necessary to not be forgotten when you die, even though they'd be forgotten on Earth with no descendants.

 

[tonychanyt]

it was pointless to pass down land inheritance to them, because they would not have descendants to pass down to.

They could give it to their relatives or adopt a son

 

[johansen]

There is also the fact that in most cases where someone is MADE a Eunuch rather than born as one, they're a slave

Its probably safe to say that the eunuchs moses had to deal with were the ones who consented to such, in order to become priests in their pagan cults.

Remember the Israelites didnt displace the Canaanites as they were supposed to

 

[Jamdoc]

Its probably safe to say that the eunuchs moses had to deal with were the ones who consented to such, in order to become priests in their pagan cults.

Remember the Israelites didnt displace the Canaanites as they were supposed to

Yes but the Babylonians made Eunuchs of the Israelites as well.

 

[johansen]

Yes but the Babylonians made Eunuchs of the Israelites as well

When its not an initiation rite into a false God, its not a spiritual matter keeping them out of the temple.

 

[Jamdoc]

When its not an initiation rite into a false God, its not a spiritual matter keeping them out of the temple.

Yeah but the religious leaders of Jesus' day, and those before that day would be sticklers for the letter of the law, and probably forbid them anyway.

Isaiah 56 is not about the time of Moses, but about the time of Jesus

Isaiah 56

1 Thus saith the Lord, Keep ye judgment, and do justice: for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed.

 

[Johan2222]

This law is prophetic revelation, confirming what Paul wrote here;

Colossians 2:14-17 KJV
Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; [15] And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. [16] Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: [17] Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

The handwriting of ordinances that was against us is the law.

The law dealt with meat and drink and holy days and new moons and Sabbath days and Paul said they were a shadow of things to come, i.e. they prophesied the future.

The eunuch was banned from the assembly, being unable to bear fruit, which is a shadow of what is fulfilled in Christ for those who do not bare fruit shall not enter his assembly.

Here is a more convincing confirmation of this foreshadowing principle revealed within the law;

Is the Bible the word of God?

Loosely speaking, yes. Some people think the KJV is the word of God, but God did not speak to Abraham in English. Technically, I consider the Bible a translation of a recording of the word of God. One problem is that there is no universal definition of the Bible. The Protestant Bible has 66...

www.christianforums.com

 

[KevinT]

In some surrounding cultures, castration was associated with pagan rituals. The prohibition might have been intended to distance Israel from such practices.

This might be a bit off the topic of your original post, but it triggered a memory of boys reported to be castrated before puberty so that they could maintain a high singing voice. They were called "Castrato" Reference. Apparently art audiences would prefer a castrated male singer to a natural female singer?? Or women were not allowed to sing in church??

I'm glad God prohibited it. Perhaps it prevented this practice from being more widespread.

KT

 

[Jamdoc]

This might be a bit off the topic of your original post, but it triggered a memory of boys reported to be castrated before puberty so that they could maintain a high singing voice. They were called "Castrato" Reference. Apparently art audiences would prefer a castrated male singer to a natural female singer?? Or women were not allowed to sing in church??

I'm glad God prohibited it. Perhaps it prevented this practice from being more widespread.

KT

Yeah I'm not sure how the Catholic Church saw this as an acceptable practice, I know a Pope wanted to ban it but he ended up not doing it because it'd hurt Church attendance

 

[DragonFox91]

This makes sense to me but I believe there were also prohibitions for the blind & lame. I know he has promises for them in the prophets & the NT, but what about the Law sections? Are there ways to understand it like 'the pagans practiced castration a lot so it was to distance from that?'

 

[Jamdoc]

This makes sense to me but I believe there were also prohibitions for the blind & lame. I know he has promises for them in the prophets & the NT, but what about the Law sections? Are there ways to understand it like 'the pagans practiced castration a lot so it was to distance from that?'

as a lame person it is a little bit of a downer to see that earlier on they were kind of rejected. Though I take a little bit better heart in the passages about David's relationship with Mephibosheth, as that is a picture of God's grace to the disabled, David showed the kindness of God not for Mephibosheth's sake, but because of another (his father, Jonathan) despite his inability to repay David at all. We're shown grace and the kindness of God, not for our sake, but for the sake of another, our relationship to Jesus, despite our inability to repay God.

 

[RamiC]

They could give it to their relatives or adopt a son

Or marry a widow with children?

 

[tonychanyt]

This makes sense to me but I believe there were also prohibitions for the blind & lame. I know he has promises for them in the prophets & the NT, but what about the Law sections? Are there ways to understand it like 'the pagans practiced castration a lot so it was to distance from that?'

Leviticus 21:16-23 prohibited priests with physical disabilities, including blindness and lameness, from offering sacrifices at the altar, though they could still eat the holy food.

 

[Jamdoc]

Or marry a widow with children?

the Israelites didn't really see it that way, they wanted inheritance to be passed down to their seed.
In Genesis when Abraham was old and God had promised him a son, Abraham actually asked God if what God meant was his steward, IE instead of biological children "spiritual children" that worshiped the same God.
God rebuked that and said that it would be a son from his own body, a biological son.
so these bloodlines and inheritance being kept within the family was of upmost importance.
They didn't see it the way modern people do where adopting a child is seen the same as biological children

 

[RamiC]

the Israelites didn't really see it that way, they wanted inheritance to be passed down to their seed.
In Genesis when Abraham was old and God had promised him a son, Abraham actually asked God if what God meant was his steward, IE instead of biological children "spiritual children" that worshiped the same God.
God rebuked that and said that it would be a son from his own body, a biological son.
so these bloodlines and inheritance being kept within the family was of upmost importance.
They didn't see it the way modern people do where adopting a child is seen the same as biological children

Thank you, I do understand that. I can even see that before Jesus arrived in human form, it may have been vital to God's plan. The geneologies from which we can trace His heritage do not work otherwise.

 

[Jamdoc]

Thank you, I do understand that. I can even see that before Jesus arrived in human form, it may have been vital to God's plan. The geneologies from which we can trace His heritage do not work otherwise.

What's interesting about it all is that Jesus' genealogy includes a Moabite.