Hey scholars

[forestwalker]

Eunuchs in the ancient world were nearly all made so involuntarily.

Please cite an authoritative source for that. Thanks.

I'm only familiar with later practice around the Mediterranean where it was definitely the case so am making some presumptions about earlier practice in Israel: Jews were forbidden by the law from castrating men and castrated men were excluded from Temple worship, relegated to the women's court. So most who were part of Jewish households would be foreign slaves purchased from outside of Israel. Presumably, eunuch slave is not a chosen profession. There would be some present, of course, especially in the royal court, who chose the life. In the ancient world eunuchism was a means of social advancement for non-royals but even there it was often a path chosen by ones parents as a child. I can't do a thorough search here as it's a NSFW topic but here's one source:

Entry on "Eunuch" in Dictionary of the Ancient Near East

But it's a bit of a side issue. Eunuchs existed in the ancient world to fulfill a social function (service to the powerful). I'm not sure how they're related to those suffering from contemporary gender confusion?

[Pastor Gary]

Eunuchs existed in the ancient world to fulfill a social function (service to the powerful). I'm not sure how they're related to those suffering from contemporary gender confusion?

Today? They serve as fashion designers, hairstylists, wedding planners, window dressers, make-up artists, back-up dancers...

[scooter]

Eunuchs existed in the ancient world to fulfill a social function (service to the powerful). I'm not sure how they're related to those suffering from contemporary gender confusion?

Today? They serve as fashion designers, hairstylists, wedding planners, window dressers, make-up artists, back-up dancers...

Response: It's quite the leap of liberalism to equate a eunuch to a cross dressing homesexual deviant.

I'm afraid to ask what a scholars view of virgin would mean.

[Full Quiver]

Seems obvious that God was telling those that were previously banned from the temple via the law because of their mutilation whether from torture or birth that HE was not leaving them out of HIS new covenant.

This has nothing to do with cross dressers, homosexuals, and those that willingly change their sex.

[scooter]

Seems obvious that God was telling those that were previously banned from the temple via the law because of their mutilation whether from torture or birth that HE was not leaving them out of HIS new covenant.

This has nothing to do with cross dressers, homosexuals, and those that willingly change their sex.

Response: Though Gary did say, " transsexuals finding the Lord and serving Him?"

I've always understood eunuch as a type of celibacy which had a positive God centered focus.

[Full Quiver]

I have no probs with transsexuals getting saved and serving God but I don't think that's what the original quoted verse applies to. Again there were no sex change operations going on back then.

[Pastor Gary]

I have no probs with transsexuals getting saved and serving God but I don't think that's what the original quoted verse applies to. Again there were no sex change operations going on back then.

This entire thread has been frustrating for me; I never CLAIMED the verse was talking about sex change surgery -- I was asking whether the same general PRINCIPLE applied.

I live in a world where there are people who have had sex changes, cross-dressers, gays, and everything in between. If I am called to reach out to al comers, my concerns focus on the practical aspects of church life when "those people" come in.

The Ladies Retreat example was not theoretical: we have had someone born male, but living as female (dressing, talking, acting...) attend our church and leave in anger because they (s/he) were told "NO! You can't attend the Ladies Retreat and share a room with women." We also have dealt with a teenage arriving at camp dressed as a female with an ambiguous name and leaving because of the sleeping arrangements.

I can't attest, personally, to the state of the genitalia of either person, since I didn't look, but my suspicions about both would be more like gender identity disorder.

My world is messier than the neat, tidy worlds of some here.

[forestwalker]

Eunuchs existed in the ancient world to fulfill a social function (service to the powerful). I'm not sure how they're related to those suffering from contemporary gender confusion?

Today? They serve as fashion designers, hairstylists, wedding planners, window dressers, make-up artists, back-up dancers...

Heh. You're describing homosexuals, though. Gender confused folks are a different critter.

The better analog today to the ancient eunuch is the career man or woman whose commitment to the needs of the government or our corporate powers (but I repeat myself) or some individual or cause is so deep that s/he forgoes (or neglects or abandons) family in order to be free to serve their master without competing loyalties. Such a person is a tool and without dignity or posterity. Not so big a deal to us (it's much easier to stop being a servile minion than a castrati and childlessness is not the curse it once was) but it was a huge deal to the ancients. God is promising them in this passage that, seed or no, they are part of God's people and their memory will be preserved in Him. That this is an aside within a passage making the same promise to foreigners in general, I think, strengthens such a reading. In short:

Seems obvious that God was telling those that were previously banned from the temple via the law because of their mutilation whether from torture or birth that HE was not leaving them out of HIS new covenant. This has nothing to do with cross dressers, homosexuals, and those that willingly change their sex.

I'd add a caveat, though. While the ancient eunuch and modern transsexual are not really equivalent given the hugely different social contexts that produced them, both are approaching God from similar places of brokenness and exclusion. Both (all) are welcome to enter His covenant and receive His healing, reconciliation, and salvation. And any taboos that bind us and present a stumbling block to them are sin.

[MacUser]

PG.
Seriously. You are doing God's work. Reach all of these you can and are called to reach. Keep it up and do whatever God tells you specifically to do regardless of affirmations here or elsewhere.

I personally just think we need to lead everyone to Jesus Christ FIRST, encourage the new believer as to whom they are now... and let Jesus do the rest... as we can't always determine how that seed will grow. If they are believers in Jesus they are His Church.

We don't always have to plug them into our neat religious structures... to be a success for Christ.

Be encouraged.

[forestwalker]

This entire thread has been frustrating for me; I never CLAIMED the verse was talking about sex change surgery -- I was asking whether the same general PRINCIPLE applied.

Eh. Sorry. That wasn't clear. I usually only see this passage pulled out by queer studies folks trying to equate ancient eunuchs to homosexuality. The historical anachronism bugs me. We cross-posted, but my last paragraph above, I think, puts us at about the same place.

I live in a world where there are people who have had sex changes, cross-dressers, gays, and everything in between. If I am called to reach out to all comers, my concerns focus on the practical aspects of church life when "those people" come in.
...

My world is messier than the neat, tidy worlds of some here.

Ditto. I'm in So Cal and swim in similar waters. My church has a lot of ex-punks and does outreach among them where gender-bending is pretty much the norm. Our folks are hard to shock, though, and salvation isn't equated with becoming a bourgie middle-class suburbanite so the hurdle is pretty low.

[PastorDaniel]

Well...I don't have the answer to this...I sure wish I did...my world is messy also...4 of my youth have lesbian parents...so I have two lesbian couples that I visit with and minister to regularly...they come to church on and off and consider our church as their church...they come to all of the special functions...we just love them and keep inviting them back...

[Full Quiver]

I'd add a caveat, though. While the ancient eunuch and modern transsexual are not really equivalent given the hugely different social contexts that produced them, both are approaching God from similar places of brokenness and exclusion. Both (all) are welcome to enter His covenant and receive His healing, reconciliation, and salvation. And any taboos that bind us and present a stumbling block to them are sin.

That's fine but we always say context, context, context and therefore the verses originally posted for this discussion do not apply to today's transsexuals.

I stumbled upon a phrase I had never noticed before and it made me go hmmmmmm...

Isaiah 56
4 For this is what the LORD says:
"To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths,
who choose what pleases me
and hold fast to my covenant-

5 to them I will give within my temple and its walls
a memorial and a name
better than sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name
that will not be cut off.

That's from the NIV, but it's about the same idea in other versions.

Based upon your understanding of this passage, what does this say about transsexuals finding the Lord and serving Him? How would that work out in your local church context?

Sorry for your frustration Gary bit originally you did not mention the ladies retreat and camping situations.

Verses 4 & 5 seem to suggest that a eunuch -- by extension, those who have mutilated their sexual organs, had sexual reassignment surgeries, etc... -- are capable of coming to faith and being honored by God.

I read this as you saying sex changes operation VOLUNTEERS are = to the plight of the eunuchs.