Tears in God's Wineskin: A Theology of Hospitality

Part 2: Eunuchs

The Rise of Christianity and the Disappearance of the Natural Eunuch

 As the young church developed and grew, eunuchs and natural eunuchs continued to be part of society, regarded with a mixture of respect, admiration and desire, but occasionally treated with scorn and ridicule for being different. Speaking directly to natural eunuchs who confess faith in Christ, Gregory of Nazianzus says, regarding their having no sexual interest in women, “[T]he good which is by nature is not a subject of merit; that which is the result of purpose is laudable. What merit has fire for burning, for it is its nature to burn? . . . What thanks does the snow get for its coldness, or the sun for shining? . . . Claim merit if you please by willing the better things. You will claim it if, being carnal, you make yourself spiritual; if, while drawn down by the leaden flesh, you receive wings from reason; . . . Since then, natural chastity is not meritorious, I demand something else from the eunuchs. Do not go a whoring in respect of the Godhead. Having been wedded to Christ, do not dishonour Christ.” [1] Gregory seems to have understood that natural eunuchs who had no sexual interest in women, or possessed what he termed, “natural chastity,” faced different temptations concerning sexual relations with other men. He warns them not to become involved with cult prostitution or the worship of fertility goddesses.

Flavius Josephus speaks adversely of natural eunuchs, “Let those that have made themselves eunuchs be had in detestation . . . avoid any conversation with them who have deprived themselves of their manhood . . . let such be driven away, as if they had killed their children . . . for evident it is, that while their soul is become effeminate, they have withal transfused that effeminacy to their body also.” [2] In other words, he regards them negatively, as having an effeminate soul, so although they are male, their inner self is female. However, he does concede that eunuchs were important members of a regal household, especially under Herod the Great, whose cup-bearer was a eunuch, the bringer of his supper another; a third eunuch was entrusted with putting Herod to bed and, “also managed the principal affairs of the government,” [3] and Herod's favourite wife, Mariamne, was similarly attended by a eunuch. [4]

Hagiographer Shaun Tougher refers to a number of eunuchs during the early Byzantine period, such as Ignatios, John of Heraclea and Symeon the New Theologian, some of which were castrates, some not, but who were “praised for their chastity and temperance.” [5] Similarly, Kathryn Ringrose cites an article by Pascal Boulhol and Isabelle Cochelin that refers to 18 eunuchs listed in a group of 541 male saints, suggesting favourable regard for eunuchs during this time. [6] Interestingly, it is during this period the term ‘natural eunuch’ begins to disappear. Instead, as Tougher mentions, “Holy eunuchs are depicted as an opposite of the stereotypical bad eunuch,” [7] implying a shift occurring with the natural eunuch beginning to be viewed as stereotypically bad and unchaste, while the castrated (and celibate) eunuch is seen as good and even holy, and it was established that in order for a eunuch (whether a castrate or natural) to be identified as saintly he must exhibit masculinity. [8]

Ringrose similarly refers to masculinity, confirming that the Byzantines no longer viewed eunuchs or natural eunuchs as a ‘third sex,’ as had the ancient world, but rather as a ‘third gender’ who were male in sex, but male with a difference, and while pagan authorities had stressed physiology when defining two kinds of eunuchs, for the rising Christian viewpoint behaviour became the primary criterion, with procreation being a requirement for full maleness. [9] Eunuchs, which included celibate castrates, monks and nuns, became regarded as ‘good,’ while fully intact natural eunuchs and castrated eunuchs involved sexually with other men were regarded as ‘bad.’          

By the fourth century, and with Christianity’s control of the Roman Empire, the distinct category of natural eunuchs was eradicated, predominantly for legal purposes, and any remaining regard for eunuchs was overturned by the church. This was because church leaders in the late fourth century wanted to disenfranchise known powerful eunuchs who had rivalled them for control of imperial policy and continued to rival them in matters of religious belief and doctrine. The most relevant of these relates to the rise of the Arian heresy (spanning from before 325 C.E. to 381 C.E.), which was supported by the eunuch Eusebius, the palace chamberlain under Constantine’s son Constantius and who exercised almost imperial power because of his ability to control access to the emperor.

The Arian doctrine held that Almighty God is the Father of Jesus in the procreative sense (despite the virgin birth), but that God only adopted Jesus as his divine Son through grace, thus emphasizing his humanity and repudiating his eternal divinity. In his History of the Arians, Athanasius, a forceful advocate of Catholic doctrine, alleged that the mission of Eusebius in Rome was, by threats and force, to induce Bishop Liberius to accept communion with Arian Christians:

“How often and how strictly did they guard the harbour and the approaches to the gates, lest any orthodox person should enter and visit Liberius! Rome also had trial of the enemies of Christ, and now experienced what before she would not believe, when she heard how the other Churches in every city were ravaged by them. It was the eunuchs who instigated these proceedings against all. And the most remarkable circumstance in the matter is this; that the Arian heresy which denies the Son of God, receives its support from eunuchs, who, as both their bodies are fruitless, and their souls barren of virtue, cannot bear even to hear the name of son . . . the eunuchs of Constantius cannot endure the confession of Peter [Mt.16:16], nay, they turn away when the Father manifests the Son, and madly rage against those who say, that the Son of God is His genuine Son, thus claiming as a heresy of eunuchs, that there is no genuine and true offspring of the Father. On these grounds it is that the law forbids such persons to be admitted into any ecclesiastical Council.” [10]

Arianism became associated with eunuchs who were in essence portrayed as dangerous lovers of men and enemies of Christ and the door was swung wide for homophobia to be conceived and instituted by the church. Male-to-male sexual activity was prohibited by the Roman church on 14^th May, 390 C.E., when a new law was published in the names of emperors Valentinianus, Theodosius and Arcadius-to-Orientius, Vicarius of the City of Rome. The document was De Stupratoribus (Lex Dei 5:3) showing Leviticus 20:13 as being in line with Theodosius’ law of 390 C.E. (Codex Theodosianus IX, 7:6) which covered judicial concern over male brothels. [11] The new law stated:

“One who has illicit sexual intercourse with a free male against his will, shall be punished by death. One who of his own will submits to illicit intercourse, a shameful and impure act, is fined one half of his property and is not allowed to make a will relating to more than half his estate.” [12]

Interestingly, this is followed by:

“We do not allow the city of Rome, which is the mother of all virtues, to be defiled any longer by the contamination of the feminization of male modesty. . . therefore seize, as the enormity of their crime demands, all those whose habitual crime it is to employ their manly body in a feminine manner and to condemn it by the passive role of the opposite sex, drag them out of male brothels, and expiate [their crime] by means of avenging flames before the people, so that all may understand . . . that one who has disgracefully corrupted his own sex [cannot be permitted] to have sought the opposite sexual identity without the ultimate punishment.”

Initially the death penalty was intended only for the perpetrator of male-to-male rape, but with this additional clause the law changed to target both active and passive homosexuals and the reference to “avenging flames” refers to the penalty of execution by burning. The new law was published in the Atrium of Minerva, a public place where actors, artists and writers regularly met. [13] The church had already prohibited concubinage and prostitution in Rome, so with this action all forms of sexuality other than marital sex were now illegal and almost anything a person could do sexually, outside of the missionary position with their legal spouse, was forbidden by the church as unnatural. As the dust of the Arian heresy settled, negativity towards homosexuals and homosexual behaviour did not quieten with it. Rather, it increased with the development of homophobic attitude and religious negativity aided by growing thought that Genesis 19 concerned the condemnation and destruction of homosexuals, as did Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1.

If, during the second century, a natural eunuch had been accepted and tolerated as a homosexual, impotent with women but sexually active with other men, even while scorned by some for being different, by the seventh century, the meaning of eunuch reverted to being solely a castrated, usually celibate heterosexual male and any concept of the natural eunuch had disappeared from law and literature. With the reign of Byzantine Emperor Leo VI new laws were introduced prohibiting all eunuchs from marriage, despite previous Roman law only prohibiting castrated men from marriage as in Constitution 98. [14] Eunuchs in general had been allowed to adopt in accordance with earlier laws, but Leo presented a law permitting only castrated eunuchs to adopt (Constitutions 26 and 27), believing that the ancients were wrong to prohibit adoption by such men who had suffered “lethal acts” at the hands of other human beings. Now, all distinction between atomically intact natural eunuchs who were homosexual, and eunuchs who were castrated men, was entirely lost, with the castrated eunuch remaining in name and actuality, while any acceptance of the term ‘natural eunuch’ vanished. In its place arose the church’s horrendously translated Genesis reference of ‘sodomite.’

Under Christianity, the lack of sexual drive towards women, signifying the natural eunuch, was no longer a basis for differentiating a homosexual male from a heterosexual male. A man who lacked sexual desire for women now had the option of becoming a celibate priest, or entering into a celibate marriage.[15] Couples who refrained from sexual indulgence might even be admired, although one would hope that a potential bride was fully aware of her future husband’s lack of interest in her.

In 534 C.E. Justinian’s Enactments, or New constitutions, were published, with Enactment XXIV: 141, Chapter 1 on same-sex behaviour between men, stating:

“[God] informs Us that we should abhor conduct of this description, which is contrary to the laws of nature . . . Wherefore it is proper that all those who are influenced by the fear of God should abstain from such impious and criminal acts which even are not committed by beasts, and that those who have not yet perpetrated them may hereafter be deterred from doing so. Hence those who are given to this species of vice must hereafter not only refrain from sinning, but also show that they are penitent; prostrate themselves before God; confess their faults in the presence of the Most Blessed Patriarch . . . We consciously and wisely beseech to bring to repentance those who defile themselves with filthy practices of this kind, so that there will no longer be occasion for us to prosecute such offences. We notify all persons who may hereafter be guilty of this crime that if they do not cease to sin . . . they will render themselves liable to terrible chastisement, and will not, in the future, be deserving of pardon. We shall not neglect to adopt severe measures against such as do not manifest their repentance on the most holy festival days, and who persist in their wickedness, for if we should show any negligence in this respect, we will bring down the wrath of God upon us, and by closing our eyes will become accomplices in a crime sufficiently atrocious to arouse the anger of Heaven against all persons.”

Active and passive partners exposed for homosexual acts were either burned to death under church law or subject to castration and banishment under the newly developed Visigoth laws. [16] So for both Eastern and Western Christianity, homosexuals were forced to live celibately or, if they did live in accordance with their natures, they had to live in hiding and become ‘closeted,’ living a careful double life or risk being castrated or executed. Regard for the history and previously accepted status of the natural eunuch, Isaiah’s prophecy, the matter-of-fact teaching of Christ and the church’s embrace of the eunuch through Philip, were lost, ignored or rewritten without reference to the natural eunuch. In place of these things heteronormativity and homophobia progressed, enduring and affecting societies and their laws for almost two thousand years, up to the present day. The events of the 2^nd - 7^th centuries seem only to emphasize Christ’s words: “Not everyone can receive this teaching, only those to whom it has been given” (Mt.19:11), confirming that, regrettably, the growing church could not accept that homosexuality was and is a simple fact of human life.  

Conclusion

It is difficult to complete this chapter without sounding damning towards the church, but evidently there was little or no religious, societal or law-based homophobia leading to the condemnation and execution of homosexuals until the church introduced it in the fourth century, through their zealously making eunuchs synonymous with heretics, separating the ‘good’ eunuch who was celibate from the ‘bad’ eunuch who was sexually involved with members of the same sex, and from the mistranslation and misrepresentation of scriptural text. Today, secular society is further ahead in redressing homophobic and heteronormative attitudes than is the church, and while substantial theologians and liberal Christians have begun to accept homosexuals and same-sex relationships, conservative Christians continue to opine their condemnation and on occasion attempt to rouse negative emotions through provocative preaching and teaching.

A full and sincere review of homosexuality and heteronormativity by the church as a whole may be long overdue, but such an action may be difficult while pro-gay and anti-gay Christians frequently refuse to hear one another above the volume of their own assumptions. This is why historical and biblical accounts of eunuchs may be useful tools in moving the dialogue forward, allowing people the opportunity to consider how the story of the eunuch unfolded, how God’s grace was manifested through Isaiah, how Christ spoke simply about natural eunuchs, and how both castrated and natural eunuchs were accepted in the early church, initiated through Philip’s actions. As harsh as it may sound, it was certainly the church that effectively invented and implemented homophobia with a view to suppressing and even wiping out homosexuality. The challenge, therefore, of drawing new conclusions concerning Christian attitudes towards gay men and lesbians, particularly in the light of the journey of eunuchs, needs serious consideration.

In the shaping of history, eunuchs have played significant roles as government leaders, military generals and royal aides, as well as in their traditional roles as priests and the protectors of harems. In Judaism, response towards eunuchs reveals a complete shift in understanding, both in terms of purity laws and a theological concept of God’s grace. The Deuteronomic Temple ban protected Israel’s purity from the outside influence of fertility cult priests who were predominantly eunuchs, whilst revealing to Israel God’s grace and his care for them as the unique people of God. Under captivity, Israel faced the horror of Jewish males being castrated and consequently the question of Jewish eunuchs being exiled from the worship of Yahweh. Isaiah brings to God’s people a revelation of God’s outrageous grace and infinite love, no longer banning eunuchs from the Temple but welcoming any who love him, maintain his covenant and keep the Sabbath, likewise extending this ‘welcome’ to the stranger or foreigner. By no means all Israelites accepted this new teaching and certainly leading up to the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 C.E. eunuchs were still allowed no further than the women’s courts, confirming that habits and traditions of exclusion are immensely difficult to break.

Rabbinical literature, Roman law and Greek/Roman satirists reveal the development of distinguishing between the castrated heterosexual eunuch and the natural eunuch, or eunuch of the sun, who was impotent with women and sexually active with other men. In Hebrew and Greek, an actual word for homosexual did not exist; only entering the English language during the 19^th century. However, the descriptions of and references concerning natural eunuchs make it plain that a natural eunuch was without doubt a homosexual male. The simple and direct teaching of Christ that, in essence, non-heterosexuals exist and will not be intimately involved with the opposite sex, and the non-judgemental attitude of Philip towards the Ethiopian eunuch, confirm, I believe, that in the beginning the church had no issue with same-sex relationships that were committed and faithful. The problems were no different regarding homosexuals than they were for heterosexuals: infidelity, promiscuity, sexual exploitation, violence, selfish overindulgence and idolatry. Sadly, what may have been originally so for all people may too easily become twisted and confused by the powerful in relation to societal minorities when emotions run high, as is evidenced by historical church reaction to heresies associated with eunuchs.          

The long unquestioned and comfortable position of the church and her enduring repression and domination over gender nonconformity since the 4^th century can be more clearly seen to be a man-made phobia instigated by those in power in the church and the supportive Roman judiciary. Historians, linguists and archaeologists have unquestionably revealed to us what a eunuch was in the ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean worlds. Similarly, the enthusiastic and vocal gay liberation movement has, since the 1960s, made it possible for the gay community to be considered a natural demographic group, identifiable as analogous with the natural eunuchs of ancient days, whom Jesus Christ confirmed to be a natural part of life and whom the early church fully embraced. The question for us today, as the church, is do we continue to ignore the evidence available or shall we, in a spirit of grace and reconciliation attempt to rebuild what our Christian ancestors destroyed so long ago, wash the blood of countless executed homosexuals away and together seek forgiveness, understanding and reconciliation?

-------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 37: XVI-XVII (New Advent, Church Fathers), Available Online at: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310237.htm

[2] Flavius Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews, Book IV: 8, 40, (Project Gutenberg), Available Online at: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2848/2848-h/2848-h.htm

[3] Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVI: 8, 1 (Project Gutenberg)

[4] Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews, Book XV: 7, 4 (Project Gutenberg

[5] Shaun Tougher, Holy Eunuchs! Masculinity and Eunuch Saints in Byzantium, in P.H. Cullum and Katherine J. Lewis [eds.], Masculinity in the Middle Ages (Malta: Gutenberg Press, 2005), p.102.

[6] Kathryn M. Ringrose, The Perfect Servant: Eunuchs and the Social Construction of Gender in Byzantium (University of Chicago Press, 2003), pp.116-17, referring to: Pascal Boulhol and Isabelle Cochelin, La Rehabilitation de l'eunuque dans l'hagiography Antique, II^e-VI^e Siècles, in Memoriam Sanctorum Venerantes: Miscellanea in Onore de Monsignor Victor Saxer (Vatican, 1992), esp. pp. 66-69.

[7] Tougher, in Cullum and Lewis, Masculinity in the Middle Ages, p.102.

[8] Tougher, in Cullum and Lewis, Masculinity in the Middle Ages, p.103-04.

[9] Ringrose, The Perfect Servant, pp.3-6.

[10] Athanasius, History of the Arians, V:38 (New Advent, Church Fathers), Available Onilne at:     http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/28155.htm

[11] Lex Dei 5:3 should not be confused with the 16^th century work of Collatio Legum Mosiacarum et Romanarum (Concerning Jewish and Roman Law), which was published as if a newly discovered 4^th century church ruling against homosexuality. Some pro-gay scholars seem to promote this Jewish/Roman work as the original church ruling, which is not the case. It merely incorporates the original work of Lex Dei 5:3. For reference to the 16^th century work see Francis Triebs, Lex Dei Sive Collatio Legum Mosaicarum et Romanarum (Wratislava: Nischkowsky, 1902); also N. Smits, Mosaicarum et Romanarum Legum Collatio (Haarlem: Tjeenk Willink, 1934). Robert M. Frakes’ work also relates to the original document, but as part of the 16^th century collection, in Compiling the Collatio Legum Mosaicarum et Romanarum in Late antiquity, Oxford Studies in Roman Society and Law (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2011); also for the orignal work see Timothy D. Barnes, Leviticus, the Emperor Theodosius, and the Law of God: Three Prohibitions of Homosexuality (A paper presented to the Edinburgh Roman Law Group, 17^th February, 2012), Available Online at: http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fromanlegaltradition.org%2Fcontents%2F2012%2FRLT8BARNES.PDF&ei=0HMTUtWiCem6yAG_poCwCw&usg=AFQjCNF6lA95vrknh3tj3Tp-mdbWB1AF1w

[12] That is half of his remaining estate after confiscation.

[13] See Minerva, in Columbia Encyclopaedia, 5th edition (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), p.1,782. The Hall of Minerva was a regular meeting place for those involved in the arts. Minerva was the goddess of arts and handicrafts, so her hall was an obvious choice of public meeting place for actors, artists and a variety of writers.

[14] The Constitutions of the Roman Empire were generally uncodified guidelines concerning checks and balances, equity, impeachments, vetoes and elections. They were usually set by president and were driven by conflict between the aristocracy and ordinary citizens. Consequently, Constitutions could evolve and develop, although changes tended to be gradual.

[15] Between the Councils of Elvira (306 C.E.), Nicaea (325 C.E.) and Carthage (387, 390 or 400 C.E., the date is not fully agreed upon) clergy celibacy was discussed and eventually decreed. Until then, marriage had been an acceptable practise, but by 400 C.E. bishops, priests, and deacons were encouraged to no longer marry, but remain celibate, while those married were directed to have no sexual relations with their wives. A statement is recorded in the Canons of the CCXLII Blessed Fathers Who Assembled at Carthage, Canon III: “It is fitting that the holy bishops and priests of God as well as the Levites, i.e. those who are in the service of the divine sacraments, observe perfect continence, so that they may obtain in all simplicity what they are asking from God; what the Apostles taught and what antiquity itself observed, let us also endeavor to keep . . . It pleases us all that bishop, priest and deacon, guardians of purity, abstain from conjugal intercourse with their wives, so that those who serve at the altar may keep a perfect chastity.” See Helen Parish, Clerical Celibacy in the West: C. 1100-1700 (Surrey: Ashgate, 2010), pp.43-44 and Stephan Heid, Celibacy in the Early Church: The Beginnings of Obligatory Continence for Clerics in East and West (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2001), pp.111-14.

[16] Lex Visigothorum or Liber Iudiciorum 3:5, 5-6. Punishment for so-called sodomy was castration and banishment. Castration covered all sexual crimes considered to be unnatural, such as male homosexuality, anal sex (heterosexual and homosexual) and bestiality. Lesbianism was only considered sodomy if it included phallic aids. It was king Chindasuinth (C.E. 642–653) who dictated that the penalty for homosexuality should be punished by castration, never heard of before in previous Visigoth laws, except regarding cases of Jews who practiced circumcision. Following castration, the guilty party was placed in the care of the local bishop, who would then banish him. If he was married, the marriage was annulled, the dowry was returned to the woman and the man’s possessions distributed amongst his relatives.