Take the 2-minute tour ×
Christianity Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Now God had brought Daniel into favor and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs. (Dan 1:9, KJV)

The prince of the eunuchs is the guy Daniel asks for permission to eat the pulse and water instead of the king's meat. This seems to indicate that Daniel was a eunuch, because the prince of the eunuchs was the person that he asks. This is an important question because how we translate it gives credibility to how hard it would be if not impossible to be as great and for God as Daniel was.

Think about it. Guys are distracted by lots of things that wouldn't be as distracting, if distracting at all, if one was a eunuch. If Daniel was indeed a eunuch then in a sense he would have had a head start at being a man of God.

share|improve this question
    
So... what do you want us to do? Are you searching for biblical support or contrary evidence to your claims? Are you searching for denominational refutation or support to your claims? –  Anonymous Apr 5 at 20:45
    
I am looking for nothing but the truth. Was Daniel made a eunuch? –  Hand of Don Apr 5 at 20:46
3  
Better on Biblical Hermeneutics? –  DJClayworth Apr 6 at 2:54
    
@HandofDon- Eunuchs worked in the palace, with the women, ie Esther, so may have worked with the young male captives. No reason to think Daniel was because this man was. –  Hello Dec 5 at 5:44

4 Answers 4

up vote 2 down vote accepted

While the Bible does not say it, it can certainly be implied. It would be strange for him to not be. Unfortunately, since the Bible is silent about it, then that is about as close as we can get to it. But, I say definitely yes, he was a eunuch.

share|improve this answer
3  
Could you cite a source on that? What you say is not helpful, what do authoritative sources say? –  wax eagle Apr 7 at 20:11
1  
Well, I suppose the only source I could list would be my bible (KJV). It does not say if he was a eunuch or not specifically. Because there is no information available, all you are going to get from people are their opinions and assumptions. –  user10712 Apr 7 at 20:46

The word eunuch and its plural, eunuchs are used 27 times in the bible. None of these entries indicate that Daniel was a eunuch.

share|improve this answer
1  
I disagree with your interpretation. The verse quoted in the OP refers to the man placed in authority over Daniel as the prince of eunuchs - there is a strong implication from this verse that Daniel is in fact a eunuch. You may say it doesn't constitute definitive proof, but you can't logically say that it doesn't indicate such a state of affairs –  bruised reed Apr 6 at 16:18
    
Wouldn't the prince of eunuchs have authority over all the household slaves, not just the other eunuchs? I don't think this fact is determinative for this question. –  SDGator Apr 6 at 23:38
    
The 27 passages listed, do not indicate that Daniel was a eunuch. this is not my interpretation. If there is a verse that states Daniel is a eunuch Ok. I don't see it in my bible. I could make the assumption that Daniel was a eunuch, but I don't. If there were other verses to support the assumption,then I may reconsider. I try to base my answers on what is actually written. –  V. Rollins Apr 7 at 17:00

No, the Bible does not say that Daniel was an eunuch.

For every verse that may imply that Daniel was, there are verses that imply otherwise. In the absence of concrete proof, I am more inclined to believe that he was not, especially since the Bible had specified in another case when someone was an eunuch (Acts 8:36).

Verses that may imply Daniel was an eunuch:

The divine judgement spoken by Isaiah to Hezekiah may have included Daniel and his friends.

(2 Kings 20:18) ‘And they shall take away some of your sons who will descend from you, whom you will beget; and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon.’

Daniel was under the charge to the chief of eunuchs and given a new name by the eunuch.

(Daniel 1:3) Then the king instructed Ashpenaz, the master of his eunuchs, to bring some of the children of Israel

(Daniel 1:7) To them the chief of the eunuchs gave names

Verses that may imply Daniel was not an eunuch:

Ezekiel, a contemporary of Daniel, implied that Daniel would not be able to save neither son nor daughter.

(Ezekiel 14:20) Even though Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it, as I live,” says the Lord God, “they would deliver neither son nor daughter; they would deliver only themselves by their righteousness.”

Daniel and his friends' well-being were very important to the king, even given a portion of the king's delicacies. If they languished in health, the king would have the chief eunuch's head. These circumstances imply a status that is different than an eunuch.

(Daniel 1:5) 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.

(Daniel 1:10) For why should he see your faces looking worse than the young men who are your age? Then you would endanger my head before the king.”

Regardless, the Bible is full of examples of great men of God who were not eunuchs, for example, Elijah, John the Baptist, Paul the Apostle. They likely had some help from God given the important ministry they were to fulfill,

(Matthew 19:12) For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.”

share|improve this answer

Daniel wasn't eunuch based in Dan 1:4v. It says he was blameless. The state of eunuch is not perfection, rather it is blame. Kings in the early days they use to appoint eunuchs for security purpose- especially to queens. Since they are eunuchs, they more focused on their jobs and also physically stronger.

share|improve this answer

This post does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this post by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

1  
Hi and welcome! Your answer requires support (citation) to be valid according to your site standards - refer to our help centre for further clarification. –  bruised reed Sep 9 at 8:32
1  
Eunuchs are not physically stronger. In fact, they suffer many abnormalities because of their state, and among them is decreased muscle mass. –  fredsbend the Grinch Sep 14 at 15:06
    
I +1 fredsbend, maybe the answerer intending mental strength from temptation? I mean, I do not understand how they couldn't break by their temptation. –  The Freemason Sep 14 at 15:45

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.