Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Daniel Was A Eunuch

0 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I rightly don't think you can prove they were eunuchs because they were under the watch, care of a eunuch.

You would need more proof of it than just that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post



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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I thought it was pretty plain, myself, but hey....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

For the sake of the discussion, if Daniel and his friends were not eunuchs, where else in Scripture do we find the fulfillment of the prophecy made to Hezekiah?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I thought it was pretty plain' date=' myself, but hey....[/quote']

The Secret Service is basically in charge of the President, but that doesn't make him a Secret Service operative. Just because they were in the care of the eunuch simply means that he was charged with those men's care, not that they themselves were castrated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post



I do not know whether they were castrated but I do think they were eunichs in the sense that they were never married. Like I said...the warden of the concubines was in charge of the beauty contest girls (that's another discussion) and here, the guy in charge of the Eunichs was simply that...in charge of all the Eunichs. Its pretty simple really. No big mystery IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post




Being unmarried is not akin to being a eunuch. A eunuch has a physical change. A single man does not necessarily have that issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Oh. Okay. So I'm stupid. :lol

Then Daniel had a physical change because that's what the Bible says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Oh. Okay. So I'm stupid. :lol

Then Daniel had a physical change because that's what the Bible says.


Lol the Bible never says Daniel was a Eunuch; only Ashpenaz was, according to the Bible. Saying anything more than that is either speculation or outright reading things into the Bible that aren't there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Matthew 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

This verse is not referring to Daniel and his friends - but it does go to show that God considers some eunuchs who have made the choice to be celebate for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

It would make sense to me that kidnapped young men would be made eunichs in order to serve the king forever. The king would not want them lusting after women when they were supposed to serve him. This was not a saved king so I have no doubt that he did this to all of his young captives, especially since the Bible said that man was the prince of the eunichs...in other words...in charge of all the king's eunichs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I agree, Kitagirl - coupled with the prophecy to Hezekiah I think that you have the right conclusion. The king would not exalt commen men or use them as his wise men or counsellors. See this passage as well:

Daniel 1:3-4 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; 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I rightly don't think you can prove they were eunuchs because they were under the watch, care of a eunuch.

You would need more proof of it than just that.


:amen:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post



:amen:


Where is anyone getting dogmatic or trying to prove anything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites