Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Daniel Was A Eunuch


Recommended Posts

  • Members

I guess I never noticed this before but saw it today when thinking about the Daniel hijack to Suzy's thread...


Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael & Azariah were eunuchs.


Daniel 1:3 And the king spake unto Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring certain of the children of Israel, and of the king's seed, and of the princes;

4 Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king's palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.

5 And the king appointed them a daily provision of the king's meat, and of the wine which he drank: so nourishing them three years, that at the end thereof they might stand before the king.

6 Now among these were of the children of Judah, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah:

7 Unto whom the prince of the eunuchs gave names: for he gave unto Daniel the name of Belteshazzar; and to Hananiah, of Shadrach; and to Mishael, of Meshach; and to Azariah, of Abednego.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

Yup.

2 Kings 20:16-18 And Isaiah said unto Hezekiah, Hear the word of the LORD. Behold, the days come, that all that is in thine house, and that which thy fathers have laid up in store unto this day, shall be carried into Babylon: nothing shall be left, saith the LORD. And of thy sons that shall issue from thee, which thou shalt beget, shall they take away; and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon.

Could explain why he's one of the few people in the bible that you can't find fault in.


Joseph is another - and he is a type of Christ in various ways - though I do not know why God would show Daniel this way. Perhaps like Enoch, it was to emphasize his dedication and service to the Lord. Of course, we know from the overall testimony of Scripture that all have sinned and even the just sin - so we know he was a sinner, but he was not living in open or ongoing sin, like many others in the Bible (that is what the Bible refers to as blameless - though it does not say that specifically about Daniel). Daniel had no skeletons in his closet.

Daniel 6:5 Then said these men, We shall not find any occasion against this Daniel, except we find it against him concerning the law of his God.

Daniel 6:10 Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went into his house; and his windows being open in his chamber toward Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

In the absence of male hormones, mammals, including humans, tend to gain weight and grow much larger. Historically, then, they were used as guards, because of their size, and because the king could trust them around women. So the position of a Eunach in the king's household was of a steward that had the weight and muscle to enforce the king's wishes. So if the king wanted youngsters to be raised as learned advisors, being expoed to writing, education, intensive studies, history, etc., the logical person to then be in charge of those students, making sure tehy obeyed and tended to their studies, would be the eunachs. So that the king called for the chief of the eunachs in matters regarding Daniel, Shadrack, Meshach and Abednego, wouldn't necesarily mean that the four youngsters were eunachs. There simply isn't solid enough evidence in the Bible to come to that conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Looks to me like the king made them eunichs. That is why they were under the "master of the eunichs". Similar to how the girls who lost to Esther were put under the head guy of the "king's concubines"....because that's what they became.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I assume it was like the concubines in Esther...there was an entire seperate house for them. It was like a convent or something. You should study customs before you say they were not eunichs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I know this in itself doesn't prove that they were eunuchs, but consider the prophecy to Hezekiah already quoted. Would Nebuchadnezzar have taken common teens and raised them like Daniel and his friends were raised? If they were noblemen or royalty, then it would certainly seem like a fulfillment of that prophecy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Oriental kings customarily had eunuchs for their high officials. Since these men [Daniel and the other captive princes] would have no sons to carry on a kingly line, the motivation for intrigue and assassination attempts were minimized. See note on Nehemiah 1:11 - [Nehemiah, cupbearer] The position of cupbearer was one of great trust. The cupbearer tasted the king's wine before the king drank it in order to guard against him being poisoned. Because of the sensitivity of the position, cupbearers were generally eunuchs. A eunuch was considered a low risk individual in regards to overthrowing the king because he had no children for whom he could plot.


Source: Zhodiates Key Word Study Bible notes



If you google "the effects of castration", you will see that yes, eunuchs tend to gain some weight but don't become great hulking bodyguard types because the complete loss of testosterone significantly reduces muscle mass, greatly reduces male aggressiveness and generally makes the man a quite passive individual.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I searched the net, read what some say about this, some claim he was, others seem to think there is just not enough proof to say 100% sure. I feel I have to go with the latter and not assume.

I want to say that I have never heard it taught that he was an eunuch, but I understand that is not really proof. :roll

I've got a book here somewhere on Daniel and his 3 Hebrew friends, I searched high and low for it, but have not found it yet, seems any more if something isn't on my computer its lost, and if its on my computer its libel to be lost as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I agree that it's possible, I don't think it very plausible. The eunuch was simply a steward over a part of the king's house, and his part was that which the Hebrew captives fell under.

On another note, while God can and does use anyone who will serve Him, He set some rather harsh restrictions on certain things in the Law. While the Law regarding eunuchs or those wounded in the groin area were specifically against them serving as priests, we should also take this into effect when considering the question at hand. Just a thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
While the Law regarding eunuchs or those wounded in the groin area were specifically against them serving as priests' date=' we should also take this into effect when considering the question at hand.[/quote']

I don't see how that relates to God using these noblemen or wise men in the King's palace. God's requirements for Levitical priests also does not hinder or affect their usage by a lost king.
Link to comment
Share on other sites



I was just pointing out the law; I'm not saying it directly affects the situation, but it should be considered. I seriously doubt that the men in question were eunuchs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...