It’s surprising, but some Christians attempt to support the transgender movement using Scripture. They can’t legitimately use the Bible to bolster their position, though. Instead, they try to force the text to fit their narrative. One common approach is to claim the biblical passages about eunuchs signal a trajectory towards transgender inclusion.
Jesus mentions three kinds of eunuchs in Matthew 19:12. The first kind includes eunuchs who were “born that way,” a type of intersex individual with congenital atypical sexual anatomy. The second are eunuchs who were “made eunuchs by men,” meaning they had been castrated, a procedure often done by royal officials to protect the harems. The third are eunuchs who “made themselves that way,” referring to men who forsook sexual relations and renounced marriage to serve God with undivided attention (e.g., 1 Cor. 7:32). So, how is it alleged that eunuchs provide support for the transgender movement?
First, transgender advocates believe the Bible’s references to eunuchs signal a biblical trajectory towards inclusion of “sexual minorities.” For example, while the Old Testament Mosaic Law prohibited eunuchs from entering the assembly of the Lord (Deut. 23:1), the New Testament records an Ethiopian eunuch accepting the gospel and getting baptized (Acts 8:26–39). The Human Rights Campaign, a pro-LGBT civil rights organization, writes, “This story of a gender-expansive person of color welcomed as one of the first Christian converts is a powerful part of our spiritual history.”
Second, eunuchs with atypical sexual anatomy are accepted into the kingdom in their altered physical state. Nowhere does Scripture suggest they need to change. Though Jesus healed people with physical ailments (e.g., the lame, blind, and bleeding), he never healed a eunuch. Christian transgender advocate, Megan DeFranza, believes this indicates that surgical transition isn’t as problematic as modern Christians make it out to be. She writes, “What is enlightening for our discussion is that the outrage many Christians today express over the surgical alteration of genitals, of castration, when done willingly by some transgender people was not shared by many of our Christian ancestors who saw service to God as a eunuch…as having higher value than conformity to male gender.”
These Christian transgender advocates believe the biblical data about eunuchs makes a case for people who identify as transgender today. Is that true? No, and here’s why.
First, while it’s true that the Ethiopian eunuch’s intersex condition was not a barrier to getting saved, it’s wrongheaded to draw conclusions from this about God’s attitude towards surgical alteration of sexual anatomy. What matters to God is what Isaiah said was necessary for eunuchs: “Hold fast My covenant” (Isa. 56:4). The covenant in force in Acts was the covenant of grace, received through faith. Anyone—whether intersex or not—can put their faith in Christ. But the fact that God accepts the faith of a eunuch does not imply his approval of castration.
Second, although the Ethiopian eunuch likely had atypical sexual anatomy, nothing indicates he identified as anything other than a man or was—as is said today—transgender. That the Bible mentions eunuchs or that Jesus extoled the virtue of eunuchs (Matt. 19:12) is not evidence for transgender ideology. Being a eunuch (or intersex) and identifying as transgender are two different things. The former is someone with a physical alteration, whereas the latter is someone who holds a self-perception that is incongruent with their biology. Scripture doesn’t suggest the Ethiopian believed he was anything other than a man.
Third, advocates of transgender ideology often use the term “gender” when describing biblical accounts of eunuchs. DeFranza refers to “conformity to male gender,” the Human Rights Campaign talks of a “gender-expansive person,” and Linda Tatro Herzer (another Christian pro-transgender author) says Jesus recognized “gender variance.” This is, at best, confusing and, at worst, intentionally misleading. The Bible describes people as male and female and doesn’t delve into a eunuch’s self-perception (what is described as “gender identity” today). Using “gender-expansive person” or other similar expressions to describe a eunuch in biblical times is anachronistic and attempts to force a modern category on an ancient text. The biblical authors did not have these ideas in mind.
In fact, virtually no Jew or Christian since the first century believed the Bible taught that God created people who were neither male nor female. Why? Because such a notion is foreign to the text. This idea doesn’t come from God or Scripture. Rather, it’s a destructive anachronism that attempts to import an alien meaning into God’s Word.
It’s unfortunate that Christian scholars and authors try to harmonize modern gender identity theory with Scripture. It’s evidence of culture’s seductive draw. The church—in every generation—has been tempted to capitulate to culture. Unfortunately, in this instance, these authors are also trying to import new and faulty meaning into Scripture.