DEBUNKING THE DEMONIC: THE BIBLICAL EUNUCH REFUTES GENDER IDEOLOGY

There are no "trans" people in the Bible regardless of how some may try to twist the scriptures. The what is a eunuch as found in the Bible? Read more...

I decided to write this article because I had many people reaching out to me for an explanation, many of whom are even atheists but recognised that the claims being made so called “Christian” preachers are actually the fantasies of gender theory infecting scriptural interpretation to the degree that, it becomes purely a figment of their imagination, far removed from any Biblical or Historical truth. This article will refute the claims of the Church of the Good Shepherd and display why their teachings are an apostasy. Notwithstanding very basic Biblical knowledge as that found in Deuteronomy 22: 5 “neither shall a man put on a woman's garment; for whosoever doeth these things is an abomination unto Jehovah thy God”. There are no “trans” people in the Bible, nor any “gender ideology” which is a modern invention. (I have written a short book on this malignant heresy).

*In this article, the Old Testament will be referred to as the Hebrew (Aramaic) Scriptures and the New Testament will be referred to as the Greek Scriptures in accord with the languages in which they were recorded. 

So where do we begin? One important thing to understand is the methodology used in Biblical translation. Where possible, it is desirable to translate word for word however, since the languages are ancient, there are often expressions that must be translated into a modern equivalent with side annotations given concerning the original form and transliteration. Another factor is that the Bible was recorded in Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek, languages which all have words denoting certain meanings within the cultural context in which they were written. This happens in modern languages too where direct equivalents may be difficult to find, or a specific word may be applied in a wider scope than it is within other languages. In such cases where confusion occurs, the target language is of secondary importance and the semantics of the original language must be emphasised.

We find that ideologues which twist scripture often use either an Anglicised meaning of words and interpret it via an ideological lens, or otherwise claim that the original word somehow has a meaning not recognised by any credible scholar nor which can be surmised from any correlating historical records. Context and culture are key!
Firstly, we need to understand how the term “eunuch” is used in the Bible (1 Kings 22;9)  and was understood by the cultures that used the term.  The Hebrew word sometimes translated as eunuch is “ saris” (סָרִ֖יס) the term while on occasion referring to a male which is castrated, is also used to refer to a court official or in some cases even an officer with military rank. Genesis 37:36, 39:1 both use the title Saris (סָרִ֖יס) to refer to Potiphar, who was an officer of Pharaoh and who was a married man. Later, in the Book of Esther, we see Saris (סָרִ֖יס) as referring to an official who is also castrated. How so? Esther 2:14 specifically refers to Shaashgaz the Eunuch (סָרִ֖יס שַֽׁעֲשְׁגַ֛ז) who was in charge of the House of the Women “bêṯ han-nā-šîm “ (בֵּ֤ית הַנָּשִׁים֙) that is to say, the King’s Harem. We know from historical evidence that the Medes and the Persians castrated men for use in guarding the harems and as attendants for the wives of the King. Two eunuchs (doorkeepers), Bigthan and Teresh were captured in a plot to murder King Ahasuerus.

Daniel 1:3 calls  Ashpenaz “the master of the eunuchs” (סָרִיסָ֑יו רַ֣ב) when referring to him as the chief officer of his officials but there is no indication that he himself was a castrated male.  
 
So we can see that “Saris” has a flexible meaning, in some cases it is the title of a position of an officer and at other times it refers to a castrated male depending on the context of the scripture. This differs from other words used in Hebrew which ONLY denote a person who is castrated such as in Deuteronomy 23:1 which uses eunuch as “emasculated one” (p̄ə-ṣū-a‘- פְצֽוּעַ־) and which specifically refers to the crushing (dak-kā דַּכָּ֛א) or severing (ū-ḵə-rūṯ וּכְר֥וּת)  of the male genitals (šā-p̄ə-ḵāh שָׁפְכָ֖ה).  In this scripture, eunuchs are expressly forbidden from becoming part of the assembly of Jehovah/ Yahweh (biq-hal Yah-weh. בִּקְהַ֥ל יְהוָֽה). The question is why?

Israel was to be the nation from which the promised seed, that is to say, the Messiah would come from. As such, the Mosaic Law in Deuteronomy 23:1 was aimed not only to keep people spiritually and physically healthy, but also preserve the nation along with its population until the time that the Messiah appeared. As eunuchs could not contribute to the population growth of the nation, they were not permitted to become proselytes as proselytes were considered under Law to effectively BE Jewish. This is a very important point when we focus on two accounts which deal with North African individuals who are referred to as “eunuchs”.

One example is from the Hebrew-Aramaic Scriptures, and perhaps one of the most well-known examples of bravery and faith in the face of adversity, Ebed Melech (מֶ֨לֶךְ עֶֽבֶד־). When the spineless King Zedekiah allowed the Prophet Jeremiah to be thrown into a watery cistern to die a slow agonizing death(Jeremiah 37:4-7), Ebed-Melech set out to rescue the prophet despite great risk to himself. While in verse 7 he is called “the Ethiopian”( in Hebrew literally hak-kū-šî  הַכּוּשִׁ֜י  meaning “the Kushite”, Kush corresponds to ancient Nubia and Kingdom of Kush (Egyptian: 𓎡𓄿𓈙𓈉 kꜣš, Hebrew: כּוּשׁ)  in what is modern day Sudan), he is also referred to as by the previously used “saris”( סָרִ֗יס).   

When we compare the Mosaic Law in Deuteronomy 23:1 with the prevalent culture in Israel, we know that the castration of men did not take place and that an Ethiopian proselyte to Judaism would not have been a person who is castrated, hence, the “saris” (סָרִ֗יס) appellation used for Ebed Melech referred not to him being a physical eunuch but to his position as a court official, one who had sufficient trust and rank to appear directly before the King in order to make a personal request.  

The second example is that of the individual known as “the Ethiopian Eunuch”. The modern name of Ethiopia comes from the Greek name Ai-thi’o’pia meaning “Region of Burt Faces”.

In this case (Acts 8:27) once again the Greek term eunuch (εὐνοῦχος) does not refer to a castrated man but to a Court Official since he was permitted to worship at the temple. This devout man likely had to travel more than 2500 kilometres in one direction in order to worship in Jerusalem.

It is interesting to note that he was reading Greek because Ethiopia had been Hellenized under Ptolemy II (308-246 B.C) This Court Official was the servant of an Ethiopian Candace or Queen (Kandake, kadake or kentake (Meroitic: 𐦲𐦷𐦲𐦡 kdke, 𐦲𐦴𐦲𐦡 ktke)

.

So, what did Jesus mean when he spoke in Matthew 19:12? One needs to understand the context of all the words being spoken in the context of the chapter and the verses preceding verse 12 (something that those who wish to twist meaning often conveniently “forget”). Matthew 19: 1-12 speaks about what constitutes grounds for divorce and also deals with the subject of morality and submitting to divine purpose. In verse 4, Jesus reiterates the words in Genesis stating that God made humans male (Ἄρσεν) and female (θῆλυ). In verse 12, Jesus refers to eunuchs who are born as such ( that is to say those that we understand in modern terms to have a  DSD condition that makes procreation impossible), he then talks about those who are made into eunuchs, or in other words, forcibly castrated (εὐνουχίσθησαν), then he adds a that some have made eunuchs of themselves (εὐνούχισαν) for the sake of the kingdom.

At first glance it would appear that Jesus is saying that some have castrated themselves. Remember, Jesus was a devout Jew, he never taught a contradiction to the law and so would not advocate what was forbidden by the law such as the prohibition on self-mutilation (Leviticus 19:28). Here we see εὐνουχίσθησαν (aorist indicative passive verb) and εὐνούχισαν (Aorist Indicative active verb) so why the difference? In the case of εὐνουχίσθησαν, the person already having forcibly been castrated exists so in a passive state however the use of εὐνούχισαν is different because it denotes an active or ongoing operation, hence, in the context of  εὐνούχισαν which literally denotes “"alone in bed" (i.e. without a marriage partner)”, one can clearly see that this refers to a self-imposed celibacy. This might be so that some can focus more on a religious life, but the context shows that this is a personal decision.

In conclusion there is no Biblical, linguistic or historical reason to believe the claims made by those who teach an apostate gender ideology masked as Christian Theology. Of these it is well spoken of in 2 Timothy 4:3-5 “There will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching, but, in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled (tell them what they want to hear), and they will turn their ears away from the truth, whereas they will be turned aside to false stories.” Indeed, such ones are the false prophets spoken of in Matthew 12: 33-37, “who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves”, yes “by their fruits ye shall know them”