Curious George Exegesis

No one who is ^[a]emasculated or has his male organ cut off may enter the assembly of the Lord.  Deuteronomy 23:1  NASB

Emasculated – You’ll notice that there’s a footnote to the word “emasculated” in this verse.  Oh, by the way, I would be very surprised if you have ever heard a sermon preached from this verse.  It’s not the kind of thing we talk about in public, but apparently ancient Israelites were less concerned with Victorian propriety.  The footnote states that the actual Hebrew term means, “wounded by crushing of testicles.”  But how would anyone know?  And, for that matter, how would anyone know that a man’s penis had been cut off?  The answer is the social structure of ancient Israel.  Castration of men in the ancient world wasn’t simply the removal of the testicles.  It was often the removal of all the genitals.  That, of course, meant the loss of control of urination.  Thus, smell.  Eunuchs typically wore or carried fragrant herbs or spices to cover the smell.  In addition, eunuchs were publicly known figures.  Everyone knew their condition.  They played particularly important roles in royal harems and religious rituals.  So when the Israelites left Egypt and some Egyptians accompanied them, eunuchs were among the assembly.  The descriptive part of this verse is pretty easily understood, even if slightly embarrassing to us.  But the rest of the verse isn’t understood today.  Why is God so insistent when it comes to male sex organs?

First, we should note that the Hebrew word translated “emasculated” is not specifically about testicles.  pāṣaʿ is used in Exodus 21:25 and Isaiah 1:6.  You are familiar with the use in Exodus, but probably only with the first part of the continuing verse from 24 to 25: “eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”  Since the word has a general sense (“wound”), it cannot mean that anyone with a wound is not allowed to enter the assembly of the Lord.  Therefore, in the context of this verse it must mean a man who has a wound to the testicles.  In fact, here the word doesn’t mean just any wound.  It means “crushed,” that is, no longer functional.  The context is explained by the second word, šopkâ, modestly translated as “male organ” but literally, “penis.”  Clearly ancient Israel was considerably more direct than we are.  It is also quite interesting that šopkâ is a feminine noun (although I don’t think anyone was confused by transgender issues.  Fortunately, ʾešek, the word for “testicle” is masculine).  The point of the vocabulary is that these things happen, especially in an age where eunuchs were part of the social world.  And not just voluntarily.  Castration was a form of punishment for crimes.  It was also an act of religious piety with some pagan gods and goddesses.

But that raises the real question.  Why were these men forbidden from the assembly of the Lord?  In many cases, their condition wasn’t intentional.  And even if it were so in the past, why prohibit them now?  Doesn’t God forgive?  Was God only interested in sexually capable males?  This is particularly troubling when we read a story in Acts 8:26-40.  As you recall, the Ethiopian eunuch was a God-fearer Gentile.  Philip was sent by God to this man to deliver the news of the Messiah and baptize him into the assembly.  If he is deliberately included through God’s initiative in the first century, why does Moses prohibit such a man in the 14^th Century B.C.E.?  Did God change His mind about the penis?  Probably not.  The reason Moses excludes men who have been castrated or who have suffered irreparable damage to the testicles may be two-fold.[1]

First, without a penis circumcision is impossible, and circumcision was a requirement of membership in the assembly (for men, of course).  So a eunuch who had his penis removed couldn’t meet one of the basic requirements for joining Israel.  It didn’t matter how this happened.  It only mattered that the penis wasn’t there.

Secondly, a man without a penis or whose testicles are so damaged that he is unable to produce sperm cannot produce children, and for Israel, this is also an important requirement.  The family line means there must be a family that issues from sexual relations between the husband and wife.  A man who cannot create the family name so crucial to Israel’s destiny at the time of Moses is excluded.

Or so it seems.  But the next verse adds a crucial factor.

“No one of illegitimate birth may enter the assembly of the Lord; none of his descendants, even to the tenth generation, may enter the assembly of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:2) NASB.

The two verses are related because they both address the question of sexuality and the right to the assembly.  We think that these exclusions prevent damaged men or persons born illegitimately from joining Israel, but this is not the case.  “May enter the assembly” does not mean “cannot become Jewish” because clearly this second verse is addressed to Jews already in the assembly.  The rabbis interpret these two verses to be about marriage, not citizenship.  They argue that marriage is a protected, sacred rite in Israel, and anything that draws suspicion to the purpose or legitimacy of children from the marriage must be prohibited.  In the first verse, men who are unable to produce children are not allowed to marry Jewish women.  It doesn’t matter how they either were castrated or injured, the fact is that they are unable to fulfill a primary role of marriage within Israel, namely, to produce offspring.  Therefore, they are not allowed to marry a Jewish woman who would otherwise be able to have a family.

The second verse protects the sanctity of the children born to the marriage.  It disallows the marriage between an illegitimate person and another legitimately-born person because of the consequences to the potential children.  However, it does not prohibit such persons from otherwise being part of the tribe.

This explains the story of the Ethiopian eunuch.  The Ethiopian eunuch seemingly could not meet the requirements of Deuteronomy 25, yet God deliberately included him.  Why?  It seems to me that there are two reasons.  First, the story is not about the Ethiopian marrying into Israel.  And secondly, the story is about adoption into the Kingdom.  Because of the Messiah, adoption no longer required circumcision or sexual production.  The eunuch was included because he accepted the good news of the Kingdom in the person of Yeshua, the Messiah.  His sexual equipment, or lack thereof, no longer mattered.  The time of Yeshua wasn’t the same as the time of Moses.  God didn’t change His mind.  The social circumstances changed.

Topical Index:  penis, testicles, pāṣaʿ, šopkâ, circumcision, eunuch, Acts 8:26-40, Deuteronomy 23:1

[1] Cf. Rich Oka, https://messianic-revolution.com/d23-10-the-real-reason-why-a-eunuch-was-barred-from-entering-the-assembly-of-israel/