Q. Were Daniel and his friends (Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego) eunuchs?
This is an important question because the answer helps inform how the community of Jesus’ followers should relate to those who are not able to have children.
The book of Daniel tells us that these young exiles were taken to Babylon and placed in the care of the “chief of the eunuchs” (ESV). The Hebrew word is saris, the specific word that was used to describe a man in the ancient world who had been emasculated in order to fill a religious or governmental role.
However, saris also came to have a more general meaning, “government official,” not implying emasculation, because those who were actually eunuchs eventually filled a variety of important positions, after first being used to guard royal harems. Potiphar in Genesis, for example, is called a saris even though he is married (the ESV calls him an “officer”). And according to Jeremiah, the Judean kings had officials known as sarisim (the plural) in their courts, even though emasculation was strictly forbidden in the law of Moses and, to discourage the practice, eunuchs were excluded from religious and civic life in ancient Israel. So these Judean officials were likely not emasculated, either.
So we see that the Hebrew word saris, used to describe Daniel and his friends, can mean either a literal eunuch, or more generally a government official. For this reason the NASB calls the Babylonian officer in charge of Daniel and his friends the “commander of the officials,” the NLT calls him the “chief of staff,” and the NIV the “chief official.”
So how can we tell whether saris in the story of Daniel and his friends is being used in the literal sense, meaning “eunuch,” or in the more general sense, simply meaning “government official”? We have two clues elsewhere in the Bible that suggest the literal meaning is actually in view.
After Hezekiah shows the Babylonian envoys all the treasures of the kingdom of Judea, the prophet Isaiah warns him, “All that is in your house, and that which your fathers have stored up till this day, shall be carried to Babylon. . . . And some of your own sons, who will come from you, whom you will father, shall be taken away, and they shall be eunuchs [sarisim] in the palace of the king of Babylon.” If this simply meant “leading officials,” it would not be an ominous warning of judgment. But if it meant “eunuchs,” then it would be as dreaded an outcome as the plundering of the entire royal treasury, because (in addition to the dishonor already associated with being a eunuch) it would represent the destruction of the kingdom’s future hope in addition to its past heritage. So this is likely a prediction that some Judean exiles of royal blood, such as Daniel and his friends, would be made eunuchs by the Babylonians.
The other clue comes after the time of exile. The book of Isaiah addresses two groups of people who would have come back to Judea with the returning exiles but who would have wondered whether they had any place in the restored community. The response to them is a splendid passage that is worth quoting in its entirety:
Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord say,
“The Lord will surely separate me from his people”;
and let not the eunuch say,
“Behold, I am a dry tree.”
For thus says the Lord:
“To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths,
who choose the things that please me
and hold fast my covenant,
I will give in my house and within my walls
a monument and a name
better than sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name
that shall not be cut off.
And the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord,
to minister to him, to love the name of the Lord,
and to be his servants,
everyone who keeps the Sabbath and does not profane it,
and holds fast my covenant—
these I will bring to my holy mountain,
and make them joyful in my house of prayer;
their burnt offerings and their sacrifices
will be accepted on my altar;
for my house shall be called a house of prayer
for all peoples.”
The basis of inclusion in the community is now simply faithful covenant-keeping. The former restrictions against eunuchs and foreigners, which had the original important intention of protecting the community from pagan religious influences and practices, are now superseded by a more vital consideration in these post-exilic circumstances.
But more specifically to our point here, it appears that some Judeans had indeed been made eunuchs in the exile, and that is why they were wondering what their place was in the restored community. In light of these two clues it does seem likely, although not altogether certain, that Daniel and his friends were made eunuchs by the Babylonians.
And yet Daniel is one of the most honored and respected figures in the rest of the Bible. God tells Ezekiel, for example, “When a land sins against me by acting faithlessly, and I stretch out my hand against it . . .even if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they would deliver but their own lives by their righteousness.” That’s pretty good company for Daniel to be in. And Jesus himself honored Daniel as a prophet and spoke of his visions being fulfilled.
So while we should grieve at the cruelty that Daniel and his friends suffered at the hands of the Babylonians, we should also recognize that if a person is not able to have children, for whatever reason, this does not mean that they should be treated as a second-class citizen (or even worse, as unwelcome) in the community of Jesus’ followers. Instead, they should be seen as someone potentially with faith and gifts as great as Daniel’s. The community should provide encouragement and opportunities for every such person to serve and share fully in its life, so that they may have “a monument and a name better than sons and daughters in God’s house and within His walls.”
32 thoughts on “Were Daniel and his friends eunuchs?”
I think there is another reason to see Daniel as a eunuch and that is because of the book’s placement in the Tanakh. As it contains prophecy, one might at first expect it to be in second section of the Tanakh called The Prophets, but it is placed in the third section called the Writings. This is because this scroll was not kept in the temple with the other prophets, as Daniel was in some sense seen as being with his scroll when it was read, so it was kept outside the temple with others books in the Writings and read there. So 2nd temple Jews saw Daniel as being an actual eunuch.
Thanks as always for another valuable contribution to the discussions on this blog. In response I’d say:
(1) I’m not sure what conclusions we can draw from what works may or may not have been kept in the Temple, as it seems difficult to determine today what books were actually held there. Dr. Ed Gallagher, a scholar of textual and canonical issues relating to the Hebrew Bible, writes in this post, “The evidence makes it probable that the temple housed a collection of scripture, but it is hard (impossible) to know the exact contents of this collection, and it seems unlikely that it contained precisely the Jewish canonical books, no more and no less.” So I would not press the inclusion or exclusion of the book of Daniel from a presumed temple collection as evidence that Daniel was or was not a eunuch.
(2) Even if Second Temple Judaism did exclude the book from its temple collection, this would go contrary to Isaiah’s insistence that eunuchs who kept the covenant faithfully, as Daniel certainly did, should be welcomed into the community. So if the book was excluded, it should not have been. Nor should we today, as I argue in the post, have a standard “script” for all followers of Jesus (marriage and children) and marginalize those who don’t fit this script.
Thanks again for your contributions!
This site helps me to really learn about the word of God i love it
Thanks so much for your encouragement.
They did not have families and as teens they would be distracted as hormones kicked in. To serve better and not deal with the sexual part of a man, and using KJV of the bible they were changed to serve totally the king. Kings did this all the time for others to serve them better. This is just common sense. It was a common practice. Jews did not believe in it but Babylon is pagan and certainly did do this practice. They would have no desire for women or men and what great servants they would be.
I believe the kind of change you’re describing, resulting in single-minded and pure devotion to duty, needs to be the result of inner spiritual transformation and not outward physical measures.
You are right to believe that, but I think that Sharon is describing the Babylonian practice rather than reality. In fact, we can see that Daniel indeed, though outwardly devoted to the king (ie. using his everyday energy for the betterment of Babylon), was fundamentally devoted to his God.
i believed if Daniel and his friend were made eunuch, the bible would have stated that for our lessons we all as Christian have great Lesson to learn from Daniel and his friends.liking the experience to your today life ans how you have following God in the minst of challenges. hold your ground in christ and let heaven be proud of you. your faith can only be proven in face of challenges or difficultis. stand on christ.
Our faith is proved daily, everyday, without any serious or real challenges. When such challenges come our way, we are prepared because we have been faithful at all cost no matter what the world and Satan launch at us. What may seem small and minute as faith goes, its seen by God as an enormous service for Him. Our faith is displayed by our our daily works: Love, kindness, mercy and patience towards all, speaking to all we can about God and His name, about His only begotten son, about what the future holds, about why The Bible is of great importance and much more. We are tested every day. Every day we make ourselves ready for what’s to come.
I have been listening to audio bible CDs. Geneologies are extensive and voluminous. Look at what is missing – the family heritage of all 4, and any mention of children or wives. Mr. Smith writes “But if it meant “eunuchs,” then it would be as dreaded an outcome as the plundering of the entire royal treasury” This might be the reason their family heritage is missing, becuase it would be shame to their parents who might be of royal descent.
You’re right, biblical characters are typically introduced with some kind of genealogy to indicate their parentage and clan, even if they don’t appear in one of the more extensive genealogies. (For example, “The word of the Lord came to Zephaniah son of Cushi, the son of Gedaliah, the son of Amariah, the son of Hezekiah, during the reign of Josiah son of Amon king of Judah.”) And sometimes a figure’s descendants are named, as in the ten-generation genealogy at the end of the book of Ruth. So I think the absence of genealogies tracing ancestors or descendants for Daniel and his friends provides one more suggestion that they may have been eunuchs. But in that light, I’d repeat what I say at the end of my post: “If a person is not able to have children, for whatever reason, this does not mean that they should be treated as a second-class citizen (or even worse, as unwelcome) in the community of Jesus’ followers. Instead, they should be seen as someone potentially with faith and gifts as great as Daniel’s. The community should provide encouragement and opportunities for every such person to serve and share fully in its life.”
If Daniel and his companions were castrated, then why a eunuch has to guard them, and take in charge of them. If Daniel and his companions were castrated what is that King has to fear of his harem?
Eunuchs served in the royal courts of ancient empires in a far wider range of capacities than just as harem guards. The text in the book of Daniel makes clear that the Babylonians had these young Jewish captives in mind for roles such as scribes and royal advisors. That’s why it notes that “to these four young men God gave knowledge and understanding of all kinds of literature and learning” and that “in every matter of wisdom and understanding about which the king questioned them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and enchanters in his whole kingdom.” Future court servants were unfortunately made eunuchs so that they couldn’t do anything else, i.e. settle down into domestic life and start a family, whether or not they would ever be near the royal harem.
Is it wrong in this present age if a man decides to just seperate Himself for the gospel sake and not marry?
This is what have been on my mind lately.
I believe that each follower of Jesus needs to consider seriously whether God is calling them to serve Him with the freedom and flexibility of singleness, rather than by getting married (which also provides marvelous opportunities to serve God, but of a different type). Paul commends the option of singleness in his teaching about marriage in 1 Corinthians. Jesus also spoke of those who “choose not to marry for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven.” So I would say that it is not wrong to decide not to marry for the sake of the gospel, so long as this decision is the result of carefully seeking God’s guidance through prayer and counsel. God bless you as you reflect upon this!
It is not wrong, but because of our humanity, marriage is essential, and just as God said in the case of Adam, That he needs a help mate,,,,, A woman can be a source of help to your ministry. All that is needed is the leading of the spirit of God.
But being unmarried is never wrong,,,just like Paul said in 1 Corinthians 7:7
For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
(May the HOLY GHOST guide you).
I found the connection to Isaiah 56 very insightful and helpful. Thank you.
Really impressive site and materials. Keep it up Smith!
Thanks so much for your encouragement!
Thanks Bro Smith for a balanced explanation of the topic. God bless.
Dr. Smith I found your commentary to be enlightening and encouraging. Thank you very much for your insight.
You’re welcome! Thanks for your encouragement.
Thank you very much for an interesting discussion and helpful comments, I have been enlightened. I desire to serve the Lord faithfully as these four young men did. Eunuchs or not, they are a great example of how we should should live our lives in the short time we have here on earth!
I’m glad the post was helpful. And yes, Daniel and his friends are a great inspiration to us today!
Thanks brother Smith for the explanation
Daniel wouldn’t have allowed himself to be castrated. If he were castrated, he wouldn’t be permitted to worship in the temple. He stood up for himself on dietary issues, and I am certain this would be equally important. Since this isn’t mentioned, it must have never been an issue.
We can certainly hope that Daniel and his friends were spared this fate. However, it appears that at least some of the Judean exiles were not spared, because God made a special accommodation to allow eunuchs among the returned exiles to worship in the temple when it was rebuilt:
“To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths,
who choose what pleases me
and hold fast to my covenant—
to them I will give within my temple and its walls
a memorial and a name
better than sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name
that will endure forever.” (Isaiah 56:4–5)
It would be great if The Bible somewhat clearly said Daniel and the three were eunuchs. Were there not quite a few Israelis or Jews who were of prestige lineage? Of kings, prince, princess, queen, and any of their family members lineage, maybe some of them? Maybe the three were eunuchs, but considering they were in Gods serious favor, one would think no, they were not eunuchs, no matter Babylons practice: Earthly kings are dust to God.