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.
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