Was Daniel a eunuch?

Status
Not open for further replies.

PezLad

Puritan Board Freshman
3 Then the king instructed Ashpenaz, the master of his eunuchs, to bring some of the children of Israel and some of the king’s descendants and some of the nobles, 4 young men in whom there was no blemish, but good-looking, gifted in all wisdom, possessing knowledge and quick to understand, who had ability to serve in the king’s palace, and whom they might teach the language and literature of the Chaldeans. 5 And the king appointed for them a daily provision of the king’s delicacies and of the wine which he drank, and three years of training for them, so that at the end of that time they might serve before the king. 6 Now from among those of the sons of Judah were Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. 7 To them the chief of the eunuchs gave names: he gave Daniel the name Belteshazzar; to Hananiah, Shadrach; to Mishael, Meshach; and to Azariah, Abed-Nego.
 
Maybe. 2Ki.20:18/Is.39:7.

There is also the question of the meaning of the word. The word may refer generally to a palace official (Jer.34:19?). Obviously there's a connection to gelding males (Mt.19:12); the only question is how rigorous were (for instance) the Babylonians to insist on a literal expression. Did their kings feel safer (or more dominant) if surrounded by such converted persons?

If Daniel was a literal eunuch, it would fit with the penalties God laid on Israel according to the Law, see Lev.26 & Dt.28, if they should break covenant with him.

Daniel is never mentioned as having a wife or children. To be a literal eunuch was enough to leave one out of the public worship of the nation, as being an unclean person would, Lev.21:20. One blessing of the New Covenant is to have that restriction taken away, Is.56:3-4.

Daniel may not have been able to add his physical sons to the hope of Israel. But he has many spiritual sons, including (I think) Nebuchadnezzar.
 
The fact that other men who served in a capacity similar to Daniel had wives and children (Daniel 6:24) suggests Daniel may have remained capable of the same, or even had children himself. But certainly, it's also very possible he could not and did not. We simply don't know, so we should be careful not to base our understanding of his story on any speculation about this matter.
 
I am teaching through Daniel now, and that was certainly a question I had as I began preparation. As already stated, it is within the realm of possibility in regards with the meaning of the word. However, from the context (again, just to affirm what is already said), I think it refers simply to the initial office for which these youths were brought into Babylon - to be trained as servants in the king's palace.

It is worth noting, though, as the narrative sections progress, Daniel is not called a 'eunuch' again. Rather, he is referred to as being among (indeed, the wisest of) the counsellors of the various kings and chief of the governors.
 
If Daniel was literally a eunuch, he could not have been described as being "in whom there was no blemish" (verse 4).
 
If Daniel was literally a eunuch, he could not have been described as being "in whom there was no blemish" (verse 4).
That would have been when he was inspected, then caged for transport. Comment assumes a Babylonian definition of "blemish" included castration. Babylon's demand might have simply meant they didn't want people with obvious deformities, mangled missing or useless limbs, mental deficiencies. It's not hard to imagine a despot not giving a rip if a servant could have children (or even pleasure).

Daniel could have been brought in, stamped "Grade A Beef," and then sterilized. And from there sent off to courtier school. We may hope it wasn't exactly like that...
 
In the ancient world, eunuchs were generally made so in order that they might be more trusted around the various palace females. An emperor/king wanted to make sure his concubine or wife's child, potentially the future emperor, was really his own.

The answer would probably lie, then, with the exact nature of the role intended for the captive young men and how much access they would have with the domestic side of palace life.

It might be ultimately unknowable, but perhaps some inferences could be drawn through an examination of the Biblical data and Chaldean palace culture, to the extent that we have much information on it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top