What Did Jesus Say About Eunuchs

What is a eunuch in the Bible? What does the Bible say about eunuchs?

According to Joachim Jeremias, the Samaritans in Josephus are regarded as a “mixed Judeo-Gentile race,” a view that continues to be held in some circles even in contemporary times. However, Jeremias is mistaken. Josephus’ origin stories for the Samaritans are the subject of this essay, which also draws attention to the names that Josephus gives them. As we will see, these names have less to do with the Samaritans’ actual origins than they do with the names Josephus gives them. Instead, the names Josephus gives to the Samaritans serve a social-rhetorical function, categorizing these people as being different from us, that is, different from Jews/Judeans.

October 2019 – Stewart Penwell Corydon (Indiana).

This essay will be limited to specific passages in Josephus that deal with the origins of the Samaritans, and it will not cover all of them even if it does cover them all.

As a result of his entry on the Samaritans in TDNT in 1965 and the publication of Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, Joachim Jeremias set the tone for the discussion of Samaritans for several decades (1969).

The fact that Jeremias has also created a “false picture” of the Samaritans, particularly in relation to the notion of a “mixed race,” can be seen fifty years later.

Due to the fact that Jeremias’ discussion of Samaritans is included in “Part Four: The Maintenance of Racial Purity,” I encourage everyone to reconsider what we know about the Samaritan people based on our primary source material, and it is my hope that this essay can serve as an impetus in that regard (see also Coggins 1975).

As a result, “Jews/Judeans” is the group of people with which Josephus identifies himself.
11.173).
So we can see that names, and in particular ethnographic names, are defined by their geographic origins.
(Feldman 1996).
According to this model, a group can use a variety of cultural features to understand themselves (in-group identity), as well as to understand other groups (intergroup identity) (out-group categorization).
Listed below are some of the cultural traits: H-S1: a common proper name that can be used to identify the organization.
6–7).

Anth.

(cf.Ant.

Josephus’ criticism of Samaritans was not based on their being a “mixed-race” (whatever that term means), nor was it based on the fact that they were Gentiles, as these six cultural characteristics demonstrate.

(seeAnt.

Because it is in the origin stories that Josephus firmly establishes his main criticism of wavering communal solidarity against the Samaritans, I have chosen to concentrate my attention on those stories (Ant.

Both of the Samaritans’ origin stories are recounted by Josephus in his book Antiquities.

Interestingly, the second origin story revolves around the name “Shechemites,” and it reveals Josephus’s ambivalence towards the Samaritans.

As we will see, the purpose of referring to the Samaritans by these other names is not only to distinguish them from other ethnic groups, but also to separate them from their Judean ethnic identity, as will be demonstrated.

The First Account of Josephus’s Birth According to Josephus, when the ten tribes of the northern Israelites were deported by Assyria, they were replaced by a different group of individuals (cf.Ant.

These people are known as the “Chthaioi,” and this “is the name by which they have been known to this day because they were brought over from the region known as Chtha, which is in Persia, as is a river by the same name,” according to the encyclopedia Wikipedia.

9.288 ).

9.29), “because they are called Chthaioi” (Cuthim) in the Hebrew language.

the way Josephus’ version differs from the account in 2 Kings may be the most intriguing fact to consider.

9.290) of lion attacks (2 Kgs 17:25) after the introduction of Yahwi.

9.29).

the Samaritans’ religious practices are not denigrated by Josephus in the Cuthean origin story of the Samaritans, but rather their opportunistic identification with Judean ethnic identities is Annotation 9.29: At the conclusion of his first account, Josephus states that his central criticism is that the Samaritans “change their attitude according to circumstance” (Ant.

The Samaritans “call them their” when the Judeans prosper, and they remember that they are descended from Joseph (Ant.
1).
9.29).
The fact that they had a dual ethnic identity, which they could use to their advantage when the situation called for it, concerned Josephus.
The Samaritans as Renegade Judeans: A Second Origin Story St Josephus repeats his criticism from Ant.
11.34), which is the beginning of the second origin story.
0).

11.34; Ant.

Yet, when the Samaritans met Alexander, they did not “proclaim themselves Jews,” but rather stated to him that they were “Hebrews” (Ant.

The claim of the Samaritans to be Hebrews is a distinct possibility in this, Josephus’ second origin story, given that here Josephus states that the Samaritans’ main city of Shechem “was inhabited by apostates from the Jewish nation (o)” (Ant.

In addition, Josephus states that “whenever anyone was accused by the people of Jerusalem of eating unclean food or violating the Sabbath or committing any other such sin, he would flee to the Shechemites, claiming that he had been unjustly expelled” (Ant.

If Shechem were to be inhabited by Judean deserters, this would undoubtedly lend credence to the Samaritans’ claim of Israelite/Hebrew ancestry.

(See Ant.

The name “Shechemites” appears earlier in Josephus’ writings when he recounts stories from the book of Judges.

As an illustration of this, despite their initial decision to “profess themselves Jews” (Ant.

11.350).

Instead, the Samaritans claimed to be “Hebrews” by “tracing their line back to Ephraim and Manasseh, the descendants of Joseph” (Ant.

11), Joseph, Ephraim, and Manasseh were not, after all, Jews or Judeans, which is a term used to refer to the inhabitants of and descendants of the tribe of Judah.

As a result of their identification as descendants of Joseph (H-S2), the Samaritans posed an inherent threat to the establishment of Judean identity.

The Samaritans have done a lot.

12.257; cf.

9.291; Ant.

Since Josephus’ main point of criticism is “the hypocrisy of the Samaritans,” and given that these “accounts state that they are not Jews,” Ingrid Hjelm has shrewdly observed that “in consideration of their hypocrisy, should imply that they, in fact, are Jews and therefore should partake in the fate of the Jews, whether good or bad” (Hjelm 2000, p.

However, Hjelm’s statement requires qualification because, according to Josephus, the Samaritans did not identify themselves as “Jews” or “Judeans.” The Samaritans, like those who came before them in the preceding section, consistently identified themselves with the tribes of Joseph in the north, making them “Hebrews” who descended from the Judeans but were not themselves “Jews” or “Judeans.” Given Josephus’ primary critique of hypocritical hypocrisy directed at the Samaritans, he believed that the Samaritans, as Yahwists, should demonstrate solidarity with their Judean co-religionists to the s.” ann.

Hughes (1994) asserts that “the experience of a common life and the confronting of common problems” is what stimulates the development of a common ethnic identification.
The Samaritans, for example, ask Alexander to “remit their tribute in the seventh year, claiming that they did not sow therein” (Ant.
However, Alexander “replied, ‘But I have granted these privileges to the Jews'” (Antiocheia, 11.344; emphasis added).
Another example is that both the Judeans and the Samaritans observed the Sabbath on different days.
11.346, they were Sabbath-keepers in Ant.
Regardless of whether Josephus thought the Samaritans were good or bad at keeping the Sabbath, the important point is that the Samarians had anything to do with the Yahwistic practice in the first place if the Samaritans were indeed foreigners from Cilicia (modern day Turkey).
The distinction between the Judeans and the Samari was unquestionably important for Josephus, as well as for other Judeans.

In this regard, Pummer states: “If one considers to what extent intra-community quarrels can go, one can see that they can go to extremes.” “Any argument will do—contradictions aren’t a hindrance” (Pummer 2009, paraphrased) The Samaritans, who were both foreigners (Cutheans) who also practiced Yahwism and ancient inhabitants of Shechem (Shechemites) who took in Judean reneg, revealed an ambivalent attitude toward them in this way.

ades.
12).
Because of this, Jeremias created his own “false picture” of the Samaritans as a racially impure people, but as we have seen, this was not Josephus’ concoction.
J.
J.
J.
A Reconsideration of the Origins of Samaritanism, published in 1975.

Theo’s Developing Characteristics John Knox Publishing Company, Atlanta.

In the book A Wandering Galilean: Essays in Honour of Sean Fr., pages 73–91 are devoted to this topic.

The Leiden University Press, B Feldman, Louis H., and others Studies on Hellenistic Judaism, published in 1996, The aism of B.

Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, ysis.

(responsible party).

The pages 91–96 of On Work, Race, and the Sociological Imagina are devoted to the subject of ons.” Lewis A.

served as the editor for this work.

1996.Ethni The Oxford University Press, New York Mr.

Joachim In 1969, an investigation into economic and social conditions in Jerusalem during the time of Jesus was published in the journal Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus: An Investigation into Economic and Social Conditions during the New Testament period.

the first two volumes published by Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1926 –1965, the year of Magnar Kartveit’s birth; The Samari’s Origins were discovered in 2009 by a group of researchers.

Jeremias, rill “It was 1964.” “On pages 88–94 in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, volume 7.

Pi (co-editor) contributed to this work.

Mason Jews, Judaeans, Judaizing, and Judaism: Problems of Categorization in Ancient History” by teve.

“Review of Jerusalem in the Time of Jehovah” by Jacob Neusner, 1971.

01–3. Reinhard Pummer is the author of this chapter. The Samaritans in Flavius Jose in 2009. phus. Mohr Sie, Tübingen: beck • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • The Samaritans: A Profession in 2016, The Eerdmans Publishing Company in Grand Rapids mans.

Eunuchs in the Bible

According to Joachim Jeremias, the Samaritans in Josephus are seen as a “mixed Judeo-Gentile race,” a concept that is still accepted in some quarters today. Jeremias, on the other hand, is completely wrong. It is the focus of this essay to examine Josephus’ origin stories for the Samaritans, as well as the names he uses to refer to them. As we will see, these names have less to do with the Samaritans’ actual origins and more to do with the names Josephus applies to them in order to categorize them as “not us,” that is, “not Jews/Judeans.” See also: Jesus the Samaritan: Ethnic Labeling in the Gospel of John (Brill 2019).

This essay will be limited to specific passages in Josephus that deal with Samaritan origins, and even then, it will not cover all of them.

Between his entry on the Samaritans in The Dictionary of New Testament Theology (TDNT) in 1965 and the publication of Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus), Joachim Jeremias had set the tone of the discussion about Samaritans for several decades (1969).

The older accounts had a tendency to overlook this, resulting in a distorted picture” (Jeremias 1969, 352).

Yet, in a book review ofJerusalem in the Time of Jesus that has gone unnoticed, Jacob Neusner correctly observes: “That one-fourth of the work should concern racial purity is perhaps a reflection of the obsession of the country in which it was written rather than of the country which it concerns” (Neusner 1971, 201).

Consider the following: In order to begin to correct Jeremias’ “false picture,” it is necessary to point out that in Josephus, the names of people groups are linked to geographical locations.
“This name, by which they have been known since the time when they came up from Babylon, is derived from the tribe of Judah; because this tribe was the first to arrive in those parts, both the people themselves and the country have derived their names from it” (Ant.
While Josephus acknowledges that the term Jew/Judean was first used in the post-exile era (538 BCE), he also points out that the term Jew/Judean is a derivative of Judah, the tribe that inhabited the region.
I believe, as do other scholars, that Josephus employs ethnic categories for both Jews and Samaritans (Mason 2001, 2007; Esler 2009), as well as for the Samaritans themselves (Feldman 1996).
According to this model, a group can use a variety of cultural features to understand themselves (in-group identity), as well as to understand other groups (out-group categorization).
The following are examples of cultural characteristics: H-S1: a common proper name that can be used to distinguish the group.
Although Josephus portrays the Samaritans as a distinct ethnic group from the “Judeans” (cf.

10.184, 17.20, and 18.85), he acknowledges the Samaritans’ claim to Israelite descent at the same time (cf.Ant.

Josephus’ criticism of Samaritans was not based on their being a “mixed-race” (whatever that term means) or even on the fact that they were Gentiles, as revealed by these six cultural characteristics.

11.340; 12.257, 261).

9.291; 11.340; 12.257).

The first story that Josephus records is about the Samaritans being referred to as “Cutheans.” Interestingly, the second origin story revolves around the name “Shechemites,” and it reveals Josephus’s ambivalence toward the Samaritans.

10.184).

“e” (Ant.

Josephus also “explains” that “those who are called Chthaioi (Cuthim) in the Hebrew tongue are called Samareitai (Samaritans) by the Greeks” (Ant.

the way Josephus’ version differs from the account in 2 Kings may be the most intriguing fact to note.

According to both accounts, the Samaritans were “liberated from the pestilence” (Ant.

However, rather than condemning the Samaritans for religious syncretism (as in 2 Kings 17:29–41), Josephus appears to praise them because “even to this day” the Samaritans continue to use “these same rites” in which they “worshipped Him with great zeal” (Ant.

0).

the Samaritans’ religious practices are not denigrated by Josephus in his Cuthean origin story, but rather their opportunistic identification with Judean ethnic identities is.

At the conclusion of his first account, Josephus states that his central criticism is that the Samaritans “alter their attitude according to circumstance” (Ant.

1) When the Judeans prosper, the Samaritans refer to them as “their” and remind them that they are descended from Joseph (Ant.

and they (the Samaritans) declare themselves to be aliens of another race” (Ant.

1) According to this origin story, the Samaritans were Cutheans from Persia who had evolved into Yahwistic Samaritan-Israelites.

A Second Origin of the Samaritans as Renegade Judeans Josephus repeats his criticism from Ant.

11.34), which is the start of the second origin story.

11.34).

According to Josephus, when times are good for the Judeans, the Samaritans “suddenly grasp at the connection with, saying that they are related to them and tracing their line back to Ephraim and Manasseh, the descendants of Joseph” (Ant.

1) Despite this, the Samaritans did not “profess themselves Jews” when they met Alexander; instead, they told him that they were “Hebrews” (Ant.

“Whenever anyone was accused by the people of Jerusalem of eating unclean food or breaking the Sabbath or committing any other such sin, he would flee to the Shechemites, claiming that he had been unjustly expelled” (Ant.

Furthermore, Josephus adds: If Shechem were to be inhabited by Judean deserters, this would unquestionably lend credence to the Samaritans’ claim of Israelite/Hebrew ancestry.

347).

Ant.

1) According to Magnar Kartveit, the name “Shechemites” implies that “the Samaritans had a connection to the original inhabitants of the city,” which “runs counter to his first story that they are immigrants” (Kartveit 2009).

Josephus uses the term “Cuthean” to designate the Samaritans as foreigners and outsiders to Israel in this instance, whereas the term “Shechemites” is used to designate the Samaritans as heretics (apostates/deserters) within Israel but not within Judah in this instance.

11.340), the Samaritans ultimately chose not to do so and instead self-identified as “Hebrews” (Ant.

While it would have been advantageous for the Samaritans to claim they were Jews in accordance with Josephus’ repeated criticism, the Samaritans did not do so in accordance with Josephus’ accusations.

11).

11), Joseph, Ephraim, and Manasseh were not, after all, Jews or Judeans, which is a term used to refer to the inhabitants and descendants of Judah.

Because the Samaritans claimed to be descendants of Joseph (H-S2), they posed a significant threat to the establishment of Judean identity (see :32).

Josephus Protests as Well The Samaritans have done a great deal.

12.257; cf.

9.291; Since Josephus’ main point of criticism is “the hypocrisy of the Samaritans,” and given that these “accounts state that they are not Jews,” Ingrid Hjelm has shrewdly observed that “in consideration of their hypocrisy, should imply that they, in fact, are Jews and therefore should partake in the fate of the Jews, whether good or bad” (Hjelm 2000).

outh As a result of Hughes’ principle, it is reasonable for Josephus to criticize the Samaritans for their waning communal solidarity (H-S 6) rather than criticizing the Samaritans for similar, if not identical, ethnic characteristics such as Yahwistic cultic practices (H-S 6).
11), claiming that they did not sow in that year.
11.344; emphasis mine).
Another example is the fact that both Judeans and Samaritans observed the Sabbath.
11.346, they were Sabbath-keepers in Ant.
11.346, Regardless of whether Josephus thought the Samaritans were good or bad at keeping the Sabbath, the important point is that the Samarians had anything to do with the Yahwistic practice in the first place if the Samaritans were indeed foreigners from Crete.
The distinction between the Judeans and the Samari was unquestionably important for Josephus and the other Judeans, as well as for the rest of the Judeans.

In this regard, Pummer states: “If one considers to what extent intra-community quarrels can go, one can conclude that “Any argument will do—contradictions aren’t a hindrance” (Pummer 2009, p.

It is possible that Jeremias intended this ambivalence when he stated that Jewish attitudes toward Samaritans “have reached extremes” (Jeremias 1969, p.

As a result, Jeremias created his own “false picture” of the Samaritans as a racially impure people, but as we have seen, this was not Josephus’ concoction.

Atlanta: John Knox Publishing Co.

Pages 73–91 of A Wandering Galilean: Essays in Honour of Sean Fr.

eyne, edited by Zuleika Rodgers, Margaret Daly-Denton, and Anne Fitzpatrick McKi nley.

Studies in Hellenistic Judaism, 1996.

Leiden: B Ingrid Hjelm and rill Samaritans and Early Judaism: A Literary Analysis (New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 2000).

“The Study of Ethnic Relations,” published in 1994.

Lewis A.

edited the final version.

1996.Ethni Oxford University Press, New York Jeremias, Joachim, ress.

London: Fortress P Publishing Co.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926, 2 volumes.

The Samari’s Origins, published in 2009.

Jeremias, Joachim “The year is 1964.

Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey William Bromiley, Gerhard Friedrich, and Ronald E.

Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI Mason, S.

“Journal for the Study of Judaism38 (4–5): 457.” “Review of Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus,” Jacob Neusner, 1971, p.

512. sus.”Journal of the American Academy of Religion39 (2): 2 01–3. Reinhard Pummer, et al. The Samaritans in Flavius Jose, 2009 Tübingen: Mohr Sie, phus. beck . — — —. — — —. The Samaritans: A Profession in 2016. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids mans.

Read more articles about eunuchs in the Bible in the BAS Library:

According to Joachim Jeremias, the Samaritans in Josephus are viewed as a “mixed Judeo-Gentile race,” a view that is still held in some circles today. Jeremias, on the other hand, is mistaken. This essay focuses on Josephus’ origin stories for the Samaritans and draws attention to the names he uses to refer to the Samaritans. As we will see, these names have less to do with the Samaritans’ actual origins than they do with Josephus’ social-rhetorical function of categorizing these people as “not us,” that is, “not Jews/Judeans.” Also see: Jesus the Samaritan: Ethnic Labeling in the Gospel of John (Brill 2019).

This essay will be limited to specific passages in Josephus that deal with the origins of the Samaritans, and even then, it will not cover all of them.

Between his entry on the Samaritans in The Dictionary of New Testament Theology (TDNT) in 1965 and the publication of Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus), Joachim Jeremias had set the tone for the discussion about Samaritans for several decades (1969).

Fifty years later, however, we can see that Jeremias has also created a “false picture” of the Samaritans, particularly with regard to the notion of a “mixed race.” However, in a book review ofJerusalem in the Time of Jesus that has gone unnoticed, Jacob Neusner correctly notes that “the fact that one-fourth of the work should concern racial purity is perhaps a reflection of the obsession of the country in which it was written rather than of the country which it concerns” (Neusner 1971, 201).

Since Jeremias’ discussion of Samaritans is included in “Part Four: The Maintenance of Racial Purity,” I encourage everyone to reconsider what we know about the Samaritan people from our primary source material, and it is my hope that this essay can serve as an impetus in that direction (see also Coggins 1975).

As a result, the people group with which Josephus identifies himself is the “Jews/Judeans.” “This name, by which they have been known since the time when they came up from Babylon, is derived from the tribe of Judah; because this tribe was the first to arrive in those parts, both the people themselves and the country have taken their names from it,” he explains (Ant.

In this passage, Josephus notes that the term Jew/Judean was first used in the post-exilic period (i.e., after 538 B.C.E.
As a result, we can see that names, and particularly ethnic names, are defined by their geographic location.
Because Josephus uses ethnic categories to distinguish between Jews/Judeans and Samaritans, I employ a social-scientific model of ethnicity to draw attention to Josephus’ portrayal of Samaritan origins.
In particular, John Hutchinson and Anthony Smith have identified six cultural characteristics that are used instrumentally (that is, in the moments of everyday practice) to 1) inculcate its members with the culture and 2) distinguish them from other ethnic groups.
While Josephus portrays the Samaritans as a distinct ethnic group from the “Judeans” (cf.
10.184, 17.20, and 18.85), he also acknowledges the Samaritans’ claim to Israelite descent (cf.Ant.
Using these six cultural characteristics as a heuristic tool highlights the fact that Josephus’ criticism was not that Samaritans were a “mixed-race” (whatever that term means) or even that they were Gentiles.

11.340; 12.257, 261).

9.291; 11.340; 12.257).

The first story that Josephus records is about the Samaritans, who were known as “Cutheans” at the time.

There is a third possible origin story for the Samaritans that is related to the name “Sidonians,” but for the sake of simplicity, we will only discuss the first two.

Samaritans are Cutheans: The First Account of Josephus’ Origins According to Josephus, when the ten tribes of the northern Israelites were deported by Assyria, they were replaced by another group of people (cf.Ant.

9.29) are “those who are called Chthaioi (Cuthim) in the Hebrew tongue” (Ant.

ns.

17.

9.290) of lion attacks (2 Kgs 17:25) after the introduction of Yahwi.

9.29).

For Josephus, the problem is not the Samaritans’ Yahwism (H-S4: a common culture that includes things like religion), but rather the Samaritans’ lack of “communal solidarity” (H-S6) with the Judeans to the south.

In the Cuthean origin story of the Samaritans, Josephus does not disparage their religious practices, but rather their opportunistic identification with Judean ethnic identities.

At the conclusion of his first account, Josephus states that his central criticism is that the Samaritans “change their attitude according to circumstance” (Ant.

1) When the Judeans are prospering, the Samaritans “call them their” and remind them that they are descended from Joseph (Ant.

1) However, when the Judeans are in trouble, the Samaritans “say that they have nothing whatever in common with them (the Judeans),.

9.29).

What bothered Josephus, however, was their dual-ethnic identity, which could be used to their advantage when the situation demanded it.

Samaritans as Renegade Judeans: A Second Origin St The second origin story begins with Josephus repeating his criticism from Ant.

11.34).

Josephus observes that when times are good for the Judeans, the Samaritans “suddenly grasp at the connection with, saying that they are related to them and tracing their line back to Ephraim and Manasseh, the descendants of Joseph” (Ant.

1) Despite this, the Samaritans did not “profess themselves Jews” when they met Alexander; rather, they told him that they were “Hebrews” (Ant.

4).

11).

11.346–47).

Regardless of this possibility, Josephus concludes this section by referring to the Samaritans twice as “Shechemites” (Ant.11.344, Ant.11.345).

Ant.

0–1).

11.340), the Samaritans ultimately chose not to do so and instead self-identified as “Hebrews” (Ant.

While it would have been advantageous for the Samaritans to claim they were Jews in accordance with Josephus’ repeated criticism, the Samaritans did not do so, according to Josephus’ account.

11), thereby establishing their ethnicity as “Hebrews.” After all, Joseph, Ephraim, and Manasseh were not Jews or Judeans, which, as we previously noted, is a term used to refer to the inhabitants and descendants of the tribe of Judah (seeAnt.

Since Joseph and his descendants were considered “Hebrews,” the Samaritans could only deny their affiliation with the Yahwist Judeans to the s.

Because the Samaritans claimed to be descendants of Joseph (H-S2), they posed an inherent threat to the establishment of Judean identity.

Josephus Protests As Well The Samaritans are doing a great job.

12.257; cf.

9.291 Ingrid Hjelm has shrewdly observed that since Josephus’ criticism is “the hypocrisy of the Samaritans,” and given that these “accounts state that they are not Jews, which, in consideration of their hypocrisy, should imply that they, in fact, are Jews and therefore should partake in the fate of the Jews, whether good or bad” (Hjelm 2000, p.

, 92).In light of Hughes’ principle, it is reasonable for Josephus to criticize the Samaritans for their waning communal solidarity (H-S 6) rather than criticizing the Samaritans for similar, if not identical, ethnic features such as Yahwistic cultic practices (H-S 6).
11), claiming that they did not sow therein.
11.344; emphasis added).
Despite the fact that the Samaritans were Sabbath-breakers in Ant.
12.259 Regardless of whether Josephus thought the Samaritans were good or bad at keeping the Sabbath, the important point is that the Samarians had anything to do with the Yahwistic practice in the first place if the Samaritans were indeed foreigners from Cush.
Conclusion: The Samaritans Are a People Group That Is Too Close For Comfort mfort It was unquestionably important for Josephus, as well as for the rest of the Judeans, to distinguish themselves from the Samari.
In this regard, Pummer states: “If one considers to what extent intra-community quarrels can go, one can conclude that c “Any argument will do—contradictions are not a hindrance” (Pummer 2009, p.

This ambivalence is perhaps what Jeremias had in mind when he observed that Jewish attitudes toward Samaritans “have reached extremes” (Jeremias 1969, p.

As a result, Jeremias fabricated his own “false picture” of the Samaritans as a racially impure people, but as we have seen, this was not Josephus’ concoction.

Theo’s Strengthening Elements logy.

Esler, Philip Francis.

“Judean Ethnic Identity in Josephus’ Against Apology.” Pages 73–91 in A Wandering Galilean: Essays in Honour of Sean Fr.

Feldman, Louis H.

Leiden: B rill.

A Literary Analysis of the Samaritans and Early Judaism, published in 2000.

Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press ress.

“The Study of Ethnic Relations,” published in 1994 ons.” Pages 91–96 in On Work, Race, and the Sociological Imagina Lewis A.

edited the final version of the book.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press ress.

New York: Oxford University Press ress.

London: Fortress P ress.

St.

Thackeray & al., Loeb Classical Library, 10th edition Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926.

Leiden: B rill.

“It’s 1964.

7 of Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey William Bromiley, Gerhard Friedrich, and Ronald E.

tkin.

Mason, S “Jews, Judaeans, Judaizing, Judaism: Problems of Categorization in Ancient History,” teve.

Neusner, Jacob, “Review of Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus,” 1971.

sus.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion39 (2): 2 Pummer, Reinhard, 01–3. The Samaritans in Flavius Jose, 2009. phus. Tübingen: Mohr Sie beck . — — — 2016 – The Samaritans: A Profession Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI mans.

Dig deeper into biblical Archaeology with your All-Access Membership

As described by Joachim Jeremias, the Samaritans in Josephus are considered to be members of a “mixed Judeo-Gentile race,” a concept that is still believed in some quarters today. Jeremias, on the other hand, is incorrect. It is the aim of this article to examine Josephus’ origin myths for the Samaritans, as well as the names that he used to refer to this people. However, as we will see, these names have less to do with the Samaritans’ actual origins than they do with the names Josephus applies to them.

In addition, see Jesus the Samaritan: Ethnic Labeling in the Gospel of John (Brill 2019).
The study of the Samaritans in Josephus is a distinct area that is supported by a substantial amount of research.
See Reinhard Pummer’s work on the Samaritans in Josephus for a thorough examination of the subject (2009).
According to Jeremias, the Samaritans were a mixed Judeo-Gentile race throughout the post-biblical period, and their attitude toward the Jews changed dramatically and reached severe levels.
The fact that Jeremias has also produced a “false picture” of the Samaritans, particularly with regard to the concept of a “mixed race,” may be seen fifty years later.

Due to the fact that Jeremias’ discussion of Samaritans is included in “Part Four: The Maintenance of Racial Purity,” I encourage everyone to reconsider what we know about the Samaritan people based on our primary source material, and it is my hope that this essay will serve as an impetus in that regard (see also Coggins 1975).

As a result, the people group with whom Josephus identifies himself is known as “Jews/Judeans.” His explanation is as follows: “This appellation, by which they have been known since their exodus from Babylon, is derived from the Tribe of Judah; because this tribe was the first to arrive in those places, both the people and the country have acquired their names from it” (Ant.

While Josephus acknowledges that the term Jew/Judean was first used in the post-exile era (538 BCE), he also points out that the term Jew/Judean is a derivation of Judah, the tribe that occupied the region at the time of his writing.
I believe, as do other historians, that Josephus used ethnic categories for both Jews and Samaritans (Mason 2001, 2007; Esler 2009), as well as for the Samaritans (Mason 2001, 2007).
Because Josephus categorizes Jews/Judeans and Samaritans according to ethnic categories, I employ a social-scientific model of ethnicity in order to call attention to Josephus’ presentation of Samaritan origins in his work.
A number of cultural characteristics have been found by John Hutchinson and Anthony Smith, who have utilized them instrumentally (that is, in the context of everyday practice) to 1) instill their members with the culture and 2) distinguish them from other ethnic groups.
Anth.
Anth.
(cf.Ant.

With the use of these six cultural characteristics, we can see that Josephus’ condemnation was not directed against Samaritans because they were a “mixed race” (whatever that phrase implies) or even because they were Gentiles, as some have suggested.

(seeAnt.

Because it is in the origin myths that Josephus firmly establishes his fundamental critique of faltering communal cohesion against the Samaritans, I have chosen to concentrate my attention on these accounts (Ant.

Josephus provides two different origin myths for the Samaritans in Antiquities.

However, there is a third probable origin story for the Samaritans that has to do with the term “Sidonians,” but for the purpose of simplicity, we will only be concerned with the first two.

“Samaritans are Cutheans,” says one.

10.184).

e” (Ant.

Josephus further “explains” that “those who are called Chthaioi (Cuthim) in the Hebrew language are called Samareitai (Samaritans) by the Greeks” (Ant.

9.29).

The fact that Josephus’ interpretation differs from the tale in 2 Kings is perhaps the most fascinating detail.

According to both versions, the introduction of Yahwi resulted in the Samaritans being “liberated from the plague” (Ant.

9.29).

the Samaritans’ religious practices are not denigrated by Josephus in the Cuthean genesis tale of the Samaritans, but rather by their opportunistic connection with Judean racial identities Annotation 9.29: At the conclusion of his first story, Josephus argues that his main critique is that the Samaritans “change their attitude according to situation” (Ant.

1) When the Judeans flourish, the Samaritans refer to them as “their” and remind them that they are sprung from Joseph (Ant.
One exception is that, when the Judeans are in difficulties, the Samaritans “claim that they have nothing whatever in common with them (the Judeans), and they (the Samaritans) declare themselves to be foreigners of a different race” (Ant.
1) According to this origin tale, the Samaritans were Cutheans from Persia who had converted to Yahwistic Samaritan-Israelite beliefs and practices.
A Second Origin of the Samaritans as Renegade Judeans: A Theological Perspective Josephus repeats his criticism from Ant.
11.34).
The Samaritans meet Alexander the Great outside of Jerusalem, and because “Alexander had so signally honored the Jews,” the Samaritans “decided to profess themselves Jews,” according to Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, 11.34).

11.34) Josephus observes that when times are good for the Judeans, the Samaritans “suddenly grasp at the connection with, claiming that they are related to them and tracing their line back to Ephraim and Manasseh, the descendants of Joseph.” The Samaritans eventually did not “profess themselves Jews” when they met Alexander; instead, they stated to him that “they were Hebrews” (Ant.

The claim of the Samaritans to be Hebrews is a distinct possibility in this, Josephus’ second origin story, given that here Josephus states that the Samaritans’ main city of Shechem “was inhabited by apostates from the Jewish nation (o)” (Ant.
To this end, Josephus states that “whenever any individual was falsely accused by Jerusalem’s citizens of eating unclean food or violating the Sabbath or committing any other such sin, the individual would flee to the Shechemites, claiming that he had been unjustly expelled” (Ant.
The presence of Judean deserters in Shechem, therefore, would lend credence to the Samaritans’ claim of Israelite/Hebrew ancestry (see 347-348).
347).
Ant.
0–1).
, 94).

It is illustrated by the fact that, despite their initial decision to “profess themselves Jews” (Ant.

11.350).

Instead, the Samaritans claimed to be “Hebrews” by “tracing their line back to Ephraim and Manasseh, the descendants of Joseph” (Ant.

After all, Joseph, Ephraim, and Manasseh were not Jews or Judeans, which, as we noted earlier, is a term used to refer to the inhabitants and descendants of the tribe of Judah (seeAnt.

Joseph and his descendants were “Hebrews,” and in this way, the Samaritans only denied their identification with the Yahwist Judeans to the s.

Since the Samaritans claimed to be descendants of Joseph (H-S2), they posed an inherent threat to the establishment of Judean identity.

Josephus Protests, As Well The Samaritans have done a lot: Jews?

12.257; cf.

9.2 Ingrid Hjelm has shrewdly observed that since Josephus’ criticism is “the hypocrisy of the Samaritans,” and given that these “accounts state that they are not Jews, which, in consideration of their hypocrisy, should imply that they, in fact, are Jews and therefore should partake in the fate of the Jews, whether good or bad” (Hjelm 2000, p.

However, Hjelm’s statement requires qualification because the Samaritans, according to Josephus, did not identify themselves as “Jews” or “Judeans.” Instead, as described in the previous section, the Samaritans consistently identified themselves with the tribes of Joseph in the north, making them “Hebrews” who shared descent with the Judeans but were not themselves “Jews” or “Judeans.” In light of his main criticism of opportunistic hypocrisy against the Samaritans, Josephus believed that the Samaritans, as Yahwists, should demonstrate solidarity with their Judean co-religionists to the s.” According to sociologist Everett Hughes, it is “the sharing of a common life and the confronting of common problems” that stimulates the development of a common ethnic identification (Hughes 1994).

, 92).
-S 4).
11).
Alexander “replied, ‘But I have granted these privileges to the Jews'” (Ant.
sis).
Although the Samaritans were Sabbath-breakers in Ant.
12.259, despite the fact that they were Sabbath-breakers in Ant.

Regardless of whether Josephus felt the Samaritans were excellent or poor at keeping the Sabbath, the relevant issue is that the Samarians had anything to do with the Yahwistic practice in the first place if the Samaritans were really aliens from Cilicia (modern-day Turkey).

The distinction between the Judeans and the Samari was unquestionably important for Josephus and the other Judeans, as well as for the rest of the Jewish people.

tans In this regard, Pummer states: “If one considers to what extent intra-community quarrels may go, one can see that they can go rather far.” “Any argument will do—contradictions aren’t a hindrance” (Pummer 2009, paraphrased).

ades.

In any case, Jeremias’ remark that Samaritans “were viewed as blended Judeo-Gentile race” does not take into consideration these “extreme” differences.

This led Jeremias to construct a “false picture” of the Samaritans as a “racially dirty people,” yet as we have shown, this was not Josephus’ concoction.

Theo’s Strengthening Points logy.

2009.

are devoted to this topic.

Feldman, Louis H., and others.

aism.

The Samaritans and Early Judaism: A Literary Analysis (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2000).

Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Publishers Hughes, Everett C., and others “The Study of Ethnic Relations” was published in 1994.

Lewis A.

served as the editor for this publication.

oser Hutchinson, John, and Anthony David Smith are the authors of this work.

In 1969, an investigation into economic and social conditions in Jerusalem during the time of Jesus was published in the journal Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus: An Investigation into Economic and Social Conditions during the New Testament Period.

London: Fortress P Publishing Jose is a ress.

St.

Thackeray provided the translation.

Magnar Kartveit was born in 1965.

the tans.

Jeremias, rill.

” Volume 7 of Theological Dictionary of the New Testament has the following pages: 88–94 Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey William Bromiley, Gerhard Friedrich, and Ronald E.

Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan S.

Mason, S In 2007, teve published “Jews, Judaeans, Judaizing, and Judaism: Problems of Categorization in Ancient History.” in the Journal for the Study of Judaism38 (4–5): 457–468 “Review of Jerusalem in the Time of Jehovah” by Jacob Neusner, published in 1971.

Reinhard Pummer is the author of this work. 2009. The Samaritans in the town of Flavius Jose. In Tübingen, there is a Mohr Sie. beck — — —. — — —. The Samaritans: A Profession in 2016 Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan mans.

Matthew 19:12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way; others were made that way by men; and still others live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

According to Joachim Jeremias, the Samaritans in Josephus are seen as a “mixed Judeo-Gentile race,” a notion that continues to be accepted in some quarters even in contemporary times. However, Jeremias is mistaken. Josephus’ origin myths for the Samaritans are the subject of this article, which also draws attention to the names that Josephus gives them. As we will see, these names have less to do with the Samaritans’ actual origins than they do with the names Josephus gives them. Instead, the names Josephus gives to the Samaritans serve a social-rhetorical function, categorizing these people as being different from us, that is, different from Jews/Judeans.

October 2019 – Stewart Penwell Corydon (Indiana).
This article will be confined to certain passages in Josephus that deal with the beginnings of the Samaritans, and it will not cover all of them even if it does cover them all.
As a result of his article on the Samaritans in TDNT in 1965 and the publishing of Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, Joachim Jeremias set the tone for the debate of Samaritans for several decades (1969).
The fact that Jeremias has also produced a “false picture” of the Samaritans, particularly in relation to the concept of a “mixed race,” may be seen fifty years later.

As a result, “Jews/Judeans” is the group of people with which Josephus identifies himself.
11.173).
So we can see that names, and in particular ethnographic names, are characterized by their geographic origins.
(Feldman 1996).
According to this paradigm, a group can utilize a variety of cultural elements to understand themselves (in-group identity), as well as to understand other groups (intergroup identity) (out-group categorization).
Listed below are some of the cultural traits: H-S1: a common proper name that may be used to identify the organization.
6–7).

Anth.

(cf.Ant.

Josephus’ condemnation of Samaritans was neither based on their being a “mixed-race” (whatever that word implies), nor was it based on the fact that they were Gentiles, as these six cultural characteristics demonstrate.

(seeAnt.

Both of the Samaritans’ origin legends are recounted by Josephus in his book Antiquities.

Interestingly, the second genesis tale hinges on the word “Shechemites,” and it illustrates Josephus’s ambivalence towards the Samaritans.

As we will see, the objective of referring to the Samaritans by these other names is not merely to identify them from other ethnic groups, but also to distance them from their Judean ethnic identity, as will be demonstrated.

The First Account of Josephus’s Birth According to Josephus, when the ten tribes of the northern Israelites were exiled by Assyria, they were replaced by a different group of individuals (cf.Ant.

These people are known as the “Chthaioi,” and this “is the name by which they have been known to this day since they were carried across from the region known as Chtha, which is in Persia, as is a river by the same name,” according to the encyclopedia Wikipedia.

9.288 ).

9.29), “since they are named Chthaioi” (Cuthim) in the Hebrew language.

the way Josephus’ version differs from the story in 2 Kings may be the most fascinating fact to consider.

9.290) of lion attacks (2 Kgs 17:25) with the arrival of Yahwi.

9.29).

the Samaritans’ religious activities are not denigrated by Josephus in the Cuthean origin account of the Samaritans, but rather their opportunistic connection with Judean ethnic identities is Annotation 9.29: At the conclusion of his first story, Josephus notes that his fundamental critique is that the Samaritans “change their attitude according to situation” (Ant.

The Samaritans “call them their” when the Judeans flourish, and they remember that they are sprung from Joseph (Ant.
1).
9.29).
The fact that they had a second ethnic identity, which they might use to their advantage when the situation called for it, concerned Josephus.
The Samaritans as Renegade Judeans: A Second Origin Story St Josephus repeats his critique from Ant.
11.34), which is the beginning of the second genesis myth.
0).

11.34; Ant.

Yet, when the Samaritans encountered Alexander, they did not “proclaim themselves Jews,” but rather stated to him that they were “Hebrews” (Ant.

The claim of the Samaritans to be Hebrews is a clear possibility in this, Josephus’ second origin narrative, considering that here Josephus writes that the Samaritans’ major city of Shechem “was inhabited by apostates from the Jewish people (o)” (Ant.

In addition, Josephus states that “whenever someone was accused by the inhabitants of Jerusalem of eating unclean food or violating the Sabbath or committing any other similar offense, he would run to the Shechemites, claiming that he had been unjustly banished” (Ant.

If Shechem were to be colonized by Judean deserters, this would undoubtedly lend credence to the Samaritans’ claim of Israelite/Hebrew ancestry.

(See Ant.

The word “Shechemites” appears earlier in Josephus’ writings when he recounts incidents from the book of Judges.

As an illustration of this, despite their initial decision to “profess ourselves Jews” (Ant.

11.350).

Instead, the Samaritans claimed to be “Hebrews” by “tracing their pedigree back to Ephraim and Manasseh, the descendants of Joseph” (Ant.

11), Joseph, Ephraim, and Manasseh were not, after all, Jews or Judeans, which is a name used to refer to the people of and descendants of the tribe of Judah.

As a result of their identification as descendants of Joseph (H-S2), the Samaritans posed an intrinsic threat to the establishment of Judean identity.

The Samaritans have done a lot.

12.257; cf.

9.291; Ant.

However, Hjelm’s remark requires qualification because, according to Josephus, the Samaritans did not identify themselves as “Jews” or “Judeans.” The Samaritans, like those who came before them in the preceding section, continuously associated themselves with the tribes of Joseph in the north, making them “Hebrews” who descended from the Judeans but were not themselves “Jews” or “Judeans.” Given Josephus’ primary critique of hypocritical hypocrisy directed towards the Samaritans, he believed that the Samaritans, as Yahwists, should display unity with their Judean co-religionists to the s.” ann.

Hughes (1994) asserts that “the experience of a similar existence and the confronting of common difficulties” is what encourages the establishment of a common ethnic identification.
The Samaritans, for example, ask Alexander to “remit their contribution in the seventh year, claiming that they did not sow therein” (Ant.
However, Alexander “replied, ‘But I have granted these advantages to the Jews'” (Antiocheia, 11.344; emphasis added).
Another example is that both the Judeans and the Samaritans observed the Sabbath on different days.
11.346, they were Sabbath-keepers in Ant.
Regardless of whether Josephus felt the Samaritans were excellent or poor at keeping the Sabbath, the significant issue is that the Samarians had anything to do with the Yahwistic practice in the first place if the Samaritans were really immigrants from Cilicia (modern day Turkey).
The distinction between the Judeans and the Samari was unquestionably crucial for Josephus, as well as for other Judeans.

In this regard, Pummer states: “If one considers to what extent intra-community quarrels may go, one can see that they can go to extremes.” “Any argument will do—contradictions aren’t a hindrance” (Pummer 2009, paraphrased) The Samaritans, who were both outsiders (Cutheans) who also practiced Yahwism and ancient natives of Shechem (Shechemites) who took in Judean reneg, revealed an ambivalent attitude toward them in this way.

ades.
12).
Because of this, Jeremias built his own “false picture” of the Samaritans as a genetically filthy people, but as we have shown, this was not Josephus’ concoction.
J.
J.
J.
A Reconsideration of the Origins of Samaritanism, published in 1975.

Theo’s Developing Characteristics John Knox Publishing Company, Atlanta.

In the book A Wandering Galilean: Essays in Honour of Sean Fr., pages 73–91 are devoted to this topic.

The Leiden University Press, B Feldman, Louis H., and others Studies on Hellenistic Judaism, published in 1996, The aism of B.

Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, ysis.

(responsible party).

The pages 91–96 of On Work, Race, and the Sociological Imagina are devoted to the subject of ons.” Lewis A.

served as the editor for this work.

1996.Ethni The Oxford University Press, New York Mr.

the first two volumes published by Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1926 –1965, the year of Magnar Kartveit’s birth; The Samari’s Origins were discovered in 2009 by a group of researchers.

Jeremias, rill “It was 1964.” “On pages 88–94 in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, volume 7.

Pi (co-editor) contributed to this work.

Mason Jews, Judaeans, Judaizing, and Judaism: Problems of Categorization in Ancient History” by teve.

“Review of Jerusalem in the Time of Jehovah” by Jacob Neusner, 1971.

01–3. Reinhard Pummer is the author of this chapter. The Samaritans in Flavius Jose in 2009. phus. Mohr Sie, Tübingen: beck • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • The Samaritans: A Profession in 2016, The Eerdmans Publishing Company in Grand Rapids mans.

Is a eunuch a creation of God? What does the Bible say about eunuchs?

Is a eunuch a creature created by God? When it comes to eunuchs, what does the Bible have to say about them?

Bible Answer:

The Bible’s most important passage on eunuchs is Matthew 19:10-12, which is the most commonly quoted. We’ll take a look at that section. It may come as a surprise to some that the phrases eunuch and eunuchs appear in both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, but they do. The book of Esther contains the most occurrences of the words, with eleven occurrences (Esther 1:10, 12, 15; 2:3, 14, 15; 4:4, 5; 6:2, 14; 7:9). Issaris is the most commonly used word to describe eunuch. This term is translated as “official” in certain Bibles.

Eunuchs, according to Daniel 1:11, were Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, according to the Bible.

We will now look at Matthew 19:10-12 in more detail.

What Is a Eunuch?

A castrated man, according to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, as well as “a person or entity with some type of disability” are both defined as eunuch. The term “castrated” refers to a guy who has had his testicles removed or smashed such that they are no longer functional. As a result, castrated males are unable to reproduce since they have lost their sexual urge. During ancient times, such men were frequently employed to protect a king’s harem (see the book of Esther). The only occasion in the New Testament that a person who is a eunuch is mentioned is in Acts 8:27.

Eunuchs In the Bible — Created By God

It is in Matthew 19 that the most important text in the Bible regarding eunuchs may be found. Christ makes a significant message in verses 10-12, which is captured in this verse. When the disciples told Him, they answered, “If a man’s relationship with his wife is like this, it is best not to marry.” His response was as follows: “This declaration cannot be accepted by all mankind, but only by those to whom it has been given.” For there are eunuchs who were born in this manner from their mother’s womb; there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.

Whoever is able to accept this, please let him or her to do so.” Matthew 19:10–12 (KJV) (NASB) In this passage, Jesus explains that there are three categories of eunuchs.
To put it another way, he does not have any testicles when he is born.
Cryptorchidism is a medical term that refers to a guy who is missing one or both of his testicles.
Because, according to Exodus 4:11-12, God claims that He creates the deaf, the blind, and the dumb.
Or, alternatively, who renders him mute or deaf, or seeing or blind?
Go ahead and speak what you’re going to say, and I, even I, will be at your side, instructing you on what you’re going to say.” Exodus 4:11–12 (KJV) (NASB) He is in charge of determining our bodily state.
Physical variances are also permitted by the Almighty in order to attract both men and women to Himself.
This is recorded in John 9:1–3.
When Jesus brought Lazarus from the grave, he was also able to bring glory to God (John 11:40-45; 12:9, 17).

We’ve learned that certain guys are born as eunuchs because God decreed that they would be eunuchs at the moment of their conception. The only one who understands the reason is God (Isaiah 55:8-9).

Eunuchs In the Bible — Made By Men

Man who has been castrated is the second sort of eunuch to be encountered (see previous section). Either his testicles were removed or they were smashed to the point that they were no longer functional. This is the sort of eunuch that most of us are familiar with. Castration was historically used to convert males into eunuchs in the ancient world. In some cases, the testicles were removed or crushed; in others, the entire penis and scrotum were removed. These guys were turned into eunuchs by other men.

The warning does not appear to be related to incapacity to reproduce, but rather to a guy whose testicles had been purposefully smashed by another man.

However, it is most probable that this was owing to the Canaanite religion’s use of castration for religious purposes, which was a pagan practice at the time.

Eunuchs In the Bible — Made By Oneself

The third sort of eunuch is a guy who has made the decision not to marry in order to devote his entire life to God’s service. Our understanding of this remark is enhanced by the fact that Jesus had just been questioned by the disciples, “If the relationship between a man and his wife is like this, it is best not to marry.” This means that there may be men who decide not to marry “for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.” Paul, the apostle, claims that he chose to live without a wife in order to better serve the Lord and others.

In 1 Corinthians 7:7-8, take note of his statement.
Each individual, on the other hand, has his or her own talent from God, one in this way and another in another.
Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 7:7-8, ” (NASB) In these two passages, Paul confesses that he was not married at the time of his death.
God has given us the power to be joyful even if we are not in a relationship.
He does not have a strong desire to be sexually active.

Conclusion:

Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 7:32-35 that we do not have to be physical eunuchs in order to be spiritual eunuchs. We have the option of choosing to be completely committed to the Lord Jesus and to serve Him. It is a personal decision made by the individual in consultation with the Lord. However, I want you to be free of any worries. One who is single is preoccupied with the things of the Lord, with how he might satisfy the Lord. This is something I say for your own advantage; I do not say it to place restrictions on you, but rather to encourage what is acceptable and to ensure uninterrupted devotion to God.

Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 7:32 and 35 that (NASB) While married, it is possible to be entirely committed to the Lord. As Paul explains, if one is single and does not have a family, one may devote more time to the Lord.

References:

1. A condensed version of the Oxford English Dictionary. Vol. 1, page 873, published by Oxford University Press in 2007. J. A. Thompson is the second author. Deuteronomy. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries are a collection of essays on the Old Testament written by Tyndale scholars. Inter-Varsity Press, 1974, p. 239 (inter-varsity press). 3. Peter Craigie’s The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (The New International Commentary on the Old Testament). Eerdmans Publishing Company, p.

‘God Made Them Male and Female…and Eunuch’: Why the Biblical Case For Binary Gender Isn’t So. Biblical

A portion of this article is taken from the book Republican Jesus: How the Right Has Rewritten the Gospels (The University of California Press, 2020). Here is a link to Peter Laarman’s review of the book. It is Matthew 19:3–6, which is one of the most important biblical passages that Republican Christians have tied to their “family values” agenda. While discussing marriage and divorce in this verse, Jesus cites from Genesis: “created them male and female,” which is a reference to the creation of male and female.

Christian transphobia and homophobia are undergirded by Republican influencers’ interpretations of this verse, which range from Jerry Falwell’s berating of the “effeminate” purple Teletubby, Tinky Winky, to extremist pastors’ public praise of the actions of the radical Islamic fundamentalist who slaughtered 49 people at a gay nightclub in Orlando in 2016.

The AIDS crisis in the late 1980s, when homosexual men and other disadvantaged people were fighting for their lives against the virus, prompted Billy Graham to declare that the disease “may be a punishment of God on the nation.” Mr.

Evangelical influences, like Vice President Mike Pence, have predicted that same-sex marriages will be the cause of “societal breakdown.” And although Trump purports to be pro-gay rights, his administration has worked to weaken nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ+—and particularly transgender—people in employment, health care, and military service, among other areas.

The scriptures do not condemn homosexual marriage; in fact, they do not even mention it.

As an example, Matthew 19:3–6 continues to serve as the biblical foundation for Franklin Graham’s vociferous defense of binary gender against the expansion of Title IX to protect transgender people from discrimination, against the recognition of the letter “X” as a sex classification on birth certificates, and even against Target’s gender-neutral store makeover.

According to conservative interpretations, the verse in Matthew describes marriage as a union of two people: a man and a woman.

In Mark and Matthew, Jesus’ teaching is presented as a tightly circumscribed debate related to the interpretation of a law from the book of Deuteronomy.

Jesus in Matthew’s gospel does acknowledge nonbinary gender in the grand climax of his teaching on divorce, in a line that conservatives often leave out of their sermons.

(See Matthew 19:10) In response, Jesus says, “For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who have been transformed by others, and there are eunuchs who have transformed themselves for the sake of God’s kingdom.” “Anyone who is capable of accepting this should do so” (19:12).

The first group, the eunuchs who were born in this manner, is particularly fascinating since Jesus refers to them as having been “from their mother’s womb” in his description of them.
Similarly to slaves who were castrated so that they may serve in political administration without the opportunity to pass on their office to their children, eunuchs were largely regarded as imperfect and unmanly individuals from the moment they were born into the world.
Eunuchs were considered to be a “third class of half-males,” according to Pliny the Elder, who censored his work.
Matthew’s Jesus, on the other hand, acknowledges—shortly after speaking of those “formed male and female”—that some people are born as neither entirely female nor fully male, according to Matthew’s Jesus.
Like Matthew’s Jesus, the rabbis disputed the legal powers of eunuchs in respect to marriage and procreation, and this was a topic on which they agreed.
Both of these rabbis maintained the importance of marriage, and they did so because they believed that the goal of marriage was to produce children.
Unlike the rabbis, he predicted the impending end of the world and, as a result, glorified eunuchs, despite the fact that they were frequently single and unmarried.

The apostle Paul’s desire for celibacy is echoed in Jesus’ command to “let anybody accept this who can,” with a specific accommodation made for those who lack the self-control to be celibate: “Let anyone accept this who can.” It is best for them to remain unmarried as I am, I tell those who are not married or widows.

For it is preferable to be married than to be engulfed in passion.” In Matthew, Jesus instructs his followers not to self-castrate, but rather to live a life of celibacy.
Celibacy is presented as an ideal in Matthew’s gospel, as it is in Paul’s letters, in part because it necessitates the rejection of traditional gender norms.
There will be no distinction between male and female resurrected bodies since “in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven” (Matt.
It appears that there are no separate bathrooms for men and women in heaven.
They symbolically acquired nonbinary gender through the ceremony of baptism, by donning Christ’s garments and declaring that “there is no longer a distinction between male and female” (Gal.
Ancient conceptions of androgyny presupposed a mutual reliance between the sexes, but not an equal relationship between the sexes in any way.

The Gospel of Thomas, a very early gospel that many ancient Christians considered canonical, has the following statement by Jesus: “Look, I shall lead her so that I will make her male in order that she also may become a live spirit, like you men.” “For any woman who transforms herself into a man will be admitted into the kingdom of heaven.” In accordance with the New Testament teachings, celibacy was a method for the baptized to experience during their remaining time on earth the relinquishment of conventional gender norms that would be their recompense in paradise after their death.

In this sense, celibacy was regarded as androgyny in terms of one’s own gender presentation and identity (being clothed with Christ means expressing as neither male nor female).

In their restrictive view of Matthew 19:4, Franklin Graham and other conservative leaders claim that, “you can’t get much clearer” about conventional marriage and binary gender than their understanding of the verse.

After all is said and done, their reading of the text appears to be about as obvious as the gender of the resurrected bodies.

What Does the Bible Say About Eunuchs?

As a result, there are eunuchs who have been eunuchs from birth, there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have chosen to be eunuchs in order to further the interests of the kingdom of heaven on earth. Allow this to be received by the one who is capable of receiving it.”

Isaiah 56:3-5ESV / 136 helpful votes

As a result, there are eunuchs who have been eunuchs from birth, there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have chosen to be eunuchs in order to further the interests of the kingdom of heaven. This should be given to the person who is capable of accepting it.”

Acts 8:26-39ESV / 67 helpful votes

“Rise and travel toward the south, to the route that descends from Jerusalem to Gaza,” an angel of the Lord instructed Philip to do. This is a desolate location. And then he got up and left. And there was an Ethiopian, a eunuch, who served as a court official to Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, and was in charge of all of Candace’s property. He had been to Jerusalem to worship and was now on his way back, sat in his chariot, and he was reading from the book of Isaiah as he did. In response, the Spirit instructed Philip to “cross over and join this chariot.” In response, Philip hurried up to him and overheard him reading the prophet Isaiah, and he said, “Do you comprehend what you are reading?”

Isaiah 56:1-12ESV / 60 helpful votes

“Keep justice and righteousness in your hearts, because soon my salvation will arrive, and my rescue will be shown,” declares the Lord. He who does this is blessed, as well as the son of man who does it with perseverance, who observes the Sabbath without profaning it, and who guards his hand from committing any evil.” No foreigner who has attached himself to the Lord should declare, “The Lord will definitely remove me from his people,” and no eunuch should remark, “Look, I am a dried-up tree,” when they have dedicated themselves to the Lord.

“To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who chose the things that please me, and who stay faithful to my promise, I will give a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an eternal name that shall not be removed from the earth.”

Deuteronomy 23:1ESV / 43 helpful votes

In the presence of the Lord, no one whose testicles have been crushed or whose male organ has been removed is permitted to enter.

Matthew 19:9-12ESV / 30 helpful votes

That’s right: anyone who divorces his wife, save in cases of sexual immorality, and marries another is guilty of adultery.” In response, the disciples stated, “If this is the situation with a man and his wife, it is preferable not to get married.” “However, not everyone can benefit from this statement; rather, it is only available to those who have been granted access to it.” As a result, there are eunuchs who have been eunuchs from birth, there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have chosen to be eunuchs in order to further the interests of the kingdom of heaven on earth.

Allow this to be received by the one who is capable of receiving it.”

Daniel 1:1-21ESV / 29 helpful votes

In the third year of Jehoiakim’s tenure as king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar, the ruler of Babylon, marched into Jerusalem and laid siege to the city. After then, the Lord delivered Jehoiakim, king of Judah into his hands, along with a few items from the sanctuary of God. And he transported them to the kingdom of Shinar, to the temple of his deity, where he deposited the vessels in the temple’s treasury. When the king returned, he ordered Ashpenaz, his chief eunuch, to bring some young people from Israel, both from the royal family and from the nobility, who were without blemish, of good appearance, and skilled in all wisdom, endowed with knowledge and understanding learning, and competent to serve in the king’s palace, and to instruct them in the literature and language of the Chaldeans.

It was agreed that they would each get an equal share of the food and wine that was served to the monarch each day by the monarch. Their education was to last three years, and at the end of that period, they were to appear before the monarch.

Acts 8:26-29ESV / 25 helpful votes

Jeremiah 38:7-10ESV / 25 helpful votes

“Rise and go toward the south, to the route that runs down from Jerusalem to Gaza,” an angel of the Lord instructed Philip to do. We are in the middle of a desert. Afterwards, he got up and walked away. Furthermore, an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her riches, was on hand to assist her. Ishmael had traveled to Jerusalem to worship and was on his way back when I met him in his chariot, reading from the prophet Isaiah. “Come over here and join this chariot,” the Spirit instructed Philip.

Jeremiah 39:15-18ESV / 13 helpful votes

“Go, and tell Ebed-melech the Ethiopian, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Behold, I will fulfill my words against this city for harm and not for good, and they shall be accomplished before your eyes on that day,'” the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah while he was imprisoned in the court of the guard. But, says the Lord, I will deliver you on that day, and you will not be delivered into the hands of the guys that you are scared of. Because you have placed your confidence in me, I will undoubtedly preserve you, and you will not perish by the sword, but you will get your life as a trophy of war, declares the Lord.”

Daniel 1:18-20ESV / 12 helpful votes

At the conclusion of the allotted period, when the king had ordered that they be brought in, the leader of the eunuchs brought them in front of Nebuchadnezzar and presented them to him. And the king had a conversation with them, and it was discovered that none of them matched Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. As a result, they appeared before the king. And in every topic of intelligence and understanding concerning which the king enquired of them, he discovered that they were 10 times more knowledgeable than all of the magicians and enchanters who existed throughout his realm.

Jeremiah 38:7-13ESV / 12 helpful votes

As soon as Ebed-melech the Ethiopian, a eunuch who was in the king’s house, heard that they had cast Jeremiah into the cistern—while the king was sitting in the Benjamin Gate—Ebed-melech went out of his home to the king and said, “My lord the king, these men have done evil in everything that they have done to Jeremiah the prophet by casting him into the cistern, and he will Afterwards, the king issued the following order to Ebed-melech the Ethiopian: “Take thirty men with you from here, and take Jeremiah the prophet out of the cistern before he expires.” And then Ebed-melech gathered his band of warriors together and went to the king’s residence, where they found an old closet in the warehouse, whence they removed old rags and worn-out clothing, which they lowered into the cistern with ropes for Jeremiah.

Esther 2:15ESV / 12 helpful votes

It was Esther’s turn to appear before the king, and she asked for nothing more than what Hegai the king’s eunuch, who was in charge of the ladies, recommended. Esther was the daughter of Abihail, Mordecai’s uncle, who had adopted her as his own daughter. Esther was now gaining popularity in the eyes of everyone who came into contact with her.

1 Corinthians 7:29-40ESV / 11 helpful votes

This is what I’m talking about, brothers: the allotted time has become extremely short. From now on, those who have wives should live as if they did not have any, and those who mourn should act as if they were not mourning, and those who rejoice should act as if they were not rejoicing, and those who buy should act as if they did not have any goods, and those who deal with the world should act as if they did not have any dealings with it. Because the current manifestation of this planet is slipping away.

When it comes to the matters of the Lord, the single man is concerned about how to satisfy the Lord.

Romans 1:25-29ESV / 11 helpful votes

Because they traded the truth about God for a lie, and because they worshipped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who has been blessed eternally! Amen. As a result, God allowed them to succumb to dishonorable appetites and desires. Due to the fact that their women exchanged natural relationships for those that are contrary to nature, and that their men did the same, men gave up natural relationships with women and became consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the appropriate punishment for their error And since they did not see proper to recognize God, God abandoned them to the whims of a depraved mind, allowing them to do what should not have been done.

They were filled with every kind of iniquity, evil, covetousness, and malice a person could imagine.

They are rumor mongers.

Acts 10:35ESV / 11 helpful votes

However, in every country, he accepts as acceptable everyone who is afraid of him and performs what is right.

Isaiah 56:7ESV / 11 helpful votes

These I will bring to my holy mountain, and I will make them joyful in my house of prayer; their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar, for my house will be known as a house of prayer for all peoples.” “These I will bring to my holy mountain, and I will make them joyful in my house of prayer.”

Isaiah 39:7ESV / 11 helpful votes

Moreover, some of your own sons, who will descend from you and whom you will father, will be taken away, and they will be kept as eunuchs in the royal palace of the King of Babylon.”

Acts 10:34-35ESV / 7 helpful votes

Therefore, Peter opened his lips and replied, “Truly, I realize that God shows no prejudice, but I also understand that anybody who respects God and does what is right is acceptable to him in any nation.”

Acts 10:1-48ESV / 7 helpful votes

A centurion of the Italian Cohort, Cornelius was a pious man who feared God with his entire household, contributed liberally to the people, and prayed constantly to God. Cornelius lived in Caesarea, and he was a centurion of the Italian Cohort. He had a distinct vision of an angel of God coming into his room and saying to him, “Cornelius,” at around the ninth hour of the day.

His eyes were wide with fear as he glanced at him and asked: “What is it, Lord?” And he told him, “Your prayers and alms have ascended to God as a testament to your generosity.” And now send men to Joppa to bring a man named Simon, who will be known as Peter.

Isaiah 54:1-17ESV / 7 helpful votes

“Sing, O barren one, who has not given birth; burst into song and scream loudly, you who have not been put through labor! ” “Because the offspring of the lonely one will outnumber the children of woman who is married,” theLord declares emphatically. “Increase the size of your tent and the length of your habitations’ curtains; do not hold back; extend your ropes and reinforce your posts. ” Because you will spread over the world to the right and to the left, and your descendants will rule over countries and populate deserted towns.

“Fear not, for you will not be humiliated; be not dismayed, for you will not be disgraced.

For your Maker is your spouse, and his name is theLord of hosts; and the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer, and his name is the God of the entire earth.

Hebrews 13:4ESV / 5 helpful votes

Let marriage be revered by all, and let the marriage bed be kept clean, for God will condemn those who are sexually immoral and unfaithful in their relationships.

Isaiah 53:1-12ESV / 3 helpful votes

Who has put his faith in what he has heard about us? In addition, to whom was the arm of theLord made known? Because he sprang up before him like a young plant, and like a root emerging from dry earth; he possessed neither shape nor grandeur that we should admire, nor beauty that we might desire him as a result of our admiration. As a man of sorrows who was well acquainted with suffering, and as one from whom folks hide their faces, he was hated and rejected by his fellowmen, and we did not see him as a person worthy of respect.

However, he was wounded for our trespasses, he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and it is by his stripes that we are healed.

2 Kings 9:30-34ESV / 3 helpful votes

Anyone out there who has taken our word for it is a fool. In addition, to whom was the arm of the Lord revealed? Due to the fact that he had grown up before him like a young plant and like a root growing out of dry earth, he didn’t have any shape or grandeur to draw our attention, nor any beauty to make us adore him. As a man of sorrows who was well acquainted with suffering, and as one from whom folks hide their faces, he was hated and rejected by his fellowmen, and we did not see him as a person worthy of our regard.

However, he was wounded for our trespasses, he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and it is by his stripes that we are healed.

1 Corinthians 6:11ESV / 2 helpful votes

And this was the case for several of you.

However, you have been washed, you have been cleansed, and you have been justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our Father.

Matthew 19:3ESV / 2 helpful votes

And a group of Pharisees approached him and put him to the test by asking, “Is it legal to divorce one’s wife for any reason?”

Acts 8:1-40ESV / 1 helpful vote

And Saul gave his blessing to his execution. There arose on that day a violent persecution against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the provinces of Judea and Samaria, with the apostles remaining in Jerusalem as the only survivors. A large number of devout men buried Stephen and wept bitterly over his death. However, Saul was wreaking havoc on the church, breaking into home after house and dragging men and women away to be imprisoned. Those who had dispersed went out and preached the gospel to the people.

Luke 7:1-50ESV / 1 helpful vote

He arrived Capernaum after he had concluded all of his speeches in front of the crowds and before the sun set. Now, a centurion had a servant who was ailing and on the verge of death, and he placed a high value on his service to him. When the centurion learned about Jesus, he dispatched Jewish elders to summon him to his estate and request that he come and heal his servant. Upon reaching Jesus, they pleaded with him sincerely, saying, “He is deserving to have you do this for him, for he loves our nation, and he is the one who constructed our synagogue.”

Mark 10:1-52ESV / 1 helpful vote

And he left there and traveled to the area of Judea and across the Jordan, where he was greeted by throngs of people once again. And, as was his usual, he instructed them once again. And a group of Pharisees approached him and asked, “Is it legal for a man to divorce his wife?” in order to put him to the test. “What command did Moses give you?” he inquired of them. They said that “Moses let a guy to create a divorce document for her and to send her away.” As a result, Jesus explained to them, “He wrote you this law because of your hardness of heart.”

Matthew 19:9ESV / 1 helpful vote

That’s right: anyone who divorces his wife, save in cases of sexual immorality, and marries another is guilty of adultery.”

Matthew 19:3-12ESV / 1 helpful vote

And a group of Pharisees approached him and put him to the test by asking, “Is it legal to divorce one’s wife for any reason?” “Have you not read that the one who created them from the beginning formed them male and female, and that he stated, ‘Therefore, a man must leave his father and his mother and hold tight to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?” he said rhetorically. As a result, they are no longer two people but one flesh. Because of this, whatsoever God has brought together, let no one separate.” They questioned him, “Why, then, did Moses tell one of his followers to issue a divorce certificate and send her away?”

Matthew 8:5-13ESV / 1 helpful vote

The moment he arrived in Capernaum, a centurion rushed up to him and begged him to intervene, saying, “Lord, my servant is laying paralyzed at home, suffering horribly.” And he told him, “I’ll come over here and heal him.” Nevertheless, the centurion said, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my house, but if you utter a word, my servant will be healed.” Because I, too, am a man in charge, with soldiers reporting to me.

As a result of my instructions, I have one go who immediately follows my instructions. I have another come who immediately follows my instructions, and I have my servant do what I tell him to do.”

Matthew 8:1-34ESV / 1 helpful vote

When he descended down the mountain, he was greeted by a large number of people. As he was speaking, a leper approached him and bowed before him, pleading, “Lord, if it is your will, you may cleanse me.” And Jesus reached out his hand and kissed him on the cheek, saying, “I will; wash your feet.” And his leprosy was cleared up almost soon. In response, Jesus said to him, “See to it that you don’t say anything to anybody else, but go, reveal yourself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses instructed as proof to them.” When he arrived at Capernaum, a centurion approached him and pleaded with him to come with him.

Matthew 5:32ESV / 1 helpful vote

To the contrary, I claim that anybody who divorces his wife, other than on the grounds of sexual immorality, compels her to commit adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman also commits adultery with her.

Enter a Verse Reference(e.g.,John 3:16-17)

If you don’t know the exact paragraph you’re searching for, you can use theBibleonline to search for terms.

What is a eunuch in the Bible? What does the Bible say about eunuchs?

Eunuchs in the Bible

Read more articles about eunuchs in the Bible in the BAS Library:

Dig deeper into biblical Archaeology with your All-Access Membership

Matthew 19:12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way; others were made that way by men; and still others live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

Is a eunuch a creation of God? What does the Bible say about eunuchs?

Bible Answer:

What Is a Eunuch?

Eunuchs In the Bible — Created By God

Eunuchs In the Bible — Made By Men

Eunuchs In the Bible — Made By Oneself

Conclusion:

References:

Suggested Links:

‘God Made Them Male and Female…and Eunuch’: Why the Biblical Case For Binary Gender Isn’t So. Biblical

What Does the Bible Say About Eunuchs?

Isaiah 56:3-5ESV / 136 helpful votes

Acts 8:26-39ESV / 67 helpful votes

Isaiah 56:1-12ESV / 60 helpful votes

Deuteronomy 23:1ESV / 43 helpful votes

Matthew 19:9-12ESV / 30 helpful votes

Daniel 1:1-21ESV / 29 helpful votes

Acts 8:26-29ESV / 25 helpful votes

Jeremiah 38:7-10ESV / 25 helpful votes

Jeremiah 39:15-18ESV / 13 helpful votes

Daniel 1:18-20ESV / 12 helpful votes

Jeremiah 38:7-13ESV / 12 helpful votes

Esther 2:15ESV / 12 helpful votes

1 Corinthians 7:29-40ESV / 11 helpful votes

Romans 1:25-29ESV / 11 helpful votes

Acts 10:35ESV / 11 helpful votes

Isaiah 56:7ESV / 11 helpful votes

Isaiah 39:7ESV / 11 helpful votes

Acts 10:34-35ESV / 7 helpful votes

Acts 10:1-48ESV / 7 helpful votes

Isaiah 54:1-17ESV / 7 helpful votes

Hebrews 13:4ESV / 5 helpful votes

Isaiah 53:1-12ESV / 3 helpful votes

2 Kings 9:30-34ESV / 3 helpful votes

1 Corinthians 6:11ESV / 2 helpful votes

Matthew 19:3ESV / 2 helpful votes

Acts 8:1-40ESV / 1 helpful vote

Luke 7:1-50ESV / 1 helpful vote

Mark 10:1-52ESV / 1 helpful vote

Matthew 19:9ESV / 1 helpful vote

Matthew 19:3-12ESV / 1 helpful vote

Matthew 8:5-13ESV / 1 helpful vote

Matthew 8:1-34ESV / 1 helpful vote

Matthew 5:32ESV / 1 helpful vote

Enter a Verse Reference(e.g.,John 3:16-17)

Leave a Reply Cancel reply