Literature.— J. Weisa, Die Predigt Jem vom Seiche Gottes ; Bousset, J'eSM Predigt in ihrem Gegensatz zum Jvdentum; Jacoby, NT Ethik, bk. i.; R. Mackintosh, Christ and the Jewish
Law. Johannes Weiss.
EUNUCH (ewvoCxos ; ffTrdduv occurs sometimes in LXX [see Gn 37=" and Is 39', with which, however, cf. the corresponding passage 2 K SO'*]).— From the single reference in the Gospels (Mt 19'=) to the barbarous Oriental practice of mutilating indi- viduals for certain purposes, we gather that the existence and purpose of eunuchs as a class were not unknown to the Jews of the time of Jesus. The religious disabilities under which men, de- formed in this way, laboured, had the effect of • Cf. J. Weiss, op. cit. i. 1, p. 172 II.
548
EUNUCH
EUNUCH
making the practice (. . . evi'ovxl<rdri<rai> virb rii- di/epuiTui/) abominable to the Jews (Dt 23' ; cf. Lv 2'2^-^). On the other hand, Josephus informs us that eunuchs were a normal feature of the courts of the Herods ; and from him we also learn what share they were at that time supposed to have taken in the family intrigues (Ant. XV. vii. 4), and what base purposes they often subserved {Ant. XVI. viii. 1).
The passage containing the reference to eunuchs is peculiar to St. Matthew, and seems to be added to the Markan section, which deals with the ciuestion of divorce (Mk IM-'- ^Mt l!i'''i. from a source unknown to the author of thi- latter (see Tiscliendorf's Synops^is Evdnijiliru'. s ll.S. ' Inter- i(.L:antilius de Kepudio respondet"; and Wright's >///(. y/Mv uf the Gospels in Greek, 'Anonymous I'l ailments,' p. 267). The remark made by the iliNciples touching the difficulties arising out of Jesus' interpretation of the law of marriage, shows the widespread influence of the lax teacliing on this subject cliaracteristic of the school of Hillel (see art. ADULTERY, p. 30").
It matters not for our purpose whether in the reply of Jesus rdi- X(57oi' (v.") be connected with ov crv/iipipei ya/iTJa-ai (v."), or, which is more intel- ligible to the present writer in the light of what follows, with the primal law quoted in v.= (fi-exa Toirrov . . . ol Suo El's o-ctpra /iiav). All men are not in a position to accept a hard and fast rule. Men are constituted differently by nature, or adventitious circumstances produce artilicial dissimilarities. There is no question as to the law of nature. The married life is the norm of man's condition ; and the union effected thereby transcends every other natural bond, even that of filial affection. At the same time, Jesus would have His hearers understand that there are cases, and these numerous enough to be taken seriously into account, where the rule does not hold. It is not granted * to every man to be in a position to fulfil the functions of the married state. Here it is of interest to note that Jesus, in speaking of three classes of ' eunuchs,' was making a distinction well known to those He was addressing. Moreover, tlie metaphorical use of the word in speaking of the third class finds also its place in the language of the Jewish Rabbins n=rT D-io, DIN D-ip, d:?^ n'^ D-ip, cf.Lightfoot's Hora: Hcb.et Talmud. , and Schottgen's ffora; ffeb. , in loc. ).
The well-known case of Origen, who literally emasculated himself ' for the kingdom of heaven's sake,' to which he afterwards seems to make pathetic, though incidental, reference in his com- mentary (m Matt. torn. xv. 1 ft'.), was not the only example of a perverted interpretation of these words of Jesus. The Talmudic tractate Skabbath (152«) contains a reference to a eunuch of this class (cf. Midrash on Ec 10'), and the Council of Nictea (c. 1) felt called on to deal with tlie danger, as did also the Apostolical Cano7i.9 (c. 21), and the Second Council of Aries (c. 7). The common sense which thus prevailed amongst the guiding spirits of the Church is enhanced when we remember, that the disabilities attaching to self-mutilation had no reference to those who were eunuchs from their motlier's womb, or who 'were made eunuchs by men ' (see for examples of both, Eusebius, HE vii. 32 ; Socrates, HE vi. 15 ; Sozomen, HE viii. 24 ; cf. Bingham's ^«<. iv. 9).
It is not without significance that in tlie con- versation of Jesus with His disciples no mention is made of any word of condemnation by Him of the horrible practice of emasculation. The complete lack of the sense of the dignity of human life, so characteristic of the ancient world, and the absence of the feeling of human brotherhood, found ex- pression in no more terrible way than in this con- ' The Lewis-Gibson Syri.ic Palimpsest adds 'by tiod.'
sequence of the laws of slavery. Yet Jesus refers directly neither to the institution of slavery nor to this, its result. He prefers the plan of instilling principles which lead by the processes of thought and application to the recognition that God hath ' made of one (ef ei-As) every nation of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth' (Ac 17=«; cf. Lk l,,jsff. 425rr._ ]^it 8" = Lk 13-^). It is as if He had an unconquerable belief in the power of the human mind ultimately to accept the truth, and to reject, finallj' and for ever, what has been false, in its provisional solutions of life's problems.