55b “The eunuch should not say,
‘Look, I am like a dried-up tree.’ ”
56:4 For this is what the LORD says:
“For the eunuchs who observe my Sabbaths
and choose what pleases me
and are faithful to my covenant,
56:5 I will set up within my temple and my walls a monument
that will be better than sons and daughters.
I will set up a permanent monument for them that will remain.”

The issues to be explored here are (a) whether this inclusion of eunuchs among the people of God represents a change of mind from earlier biblical teaching, and (b) whether this signals the inclusion of other groups who might be considered similar to eunuchs (especially transgender persons).

In The Widening of God’s Mercy, Christopher Hays argues that this passage represents a clear change of teaching, compared with Deut 23:1, which says:

23:1 ‘A man with crushed or severed genitals may not enter the assembly of the LORD.’

According Hays, just as Isaiah swept away such traditions, so the church today should set aside those traditions that exclude sexual minorities from membership and leadership.

Oswalt contrasts the two passages in terms of their purpose: Deut 23:1 teaches the goodness of the created order, while Isa 56:3-5 sets out God’s reemptive will for faithful eunuchs.

Oswalt understands Deuteronomy 23:1 as teaching about the goodness of the created order, while Isa 56:3–5 reveals God’s true desire for faithful eunuchs. With this approach, he claims to follow the hermeneutical principles taught by Christ

As Martin Davie remarks, this passage in Isaiah is oriented to the future, as a result of the redeeming work of the Suffering Servant (Isa 52:13-53:12).  There is no indication that he is setting aside the command of Deuteronomy in the (his) present.  Acts 8-10 records the fulfilment, as Samaritans, the Ethiopian eunuch, and then Gentiles, become included among God’s people.  Isaiah does not claim that Deuteronomy was wrong, but that a new stage will be reached in God’s saving activity.

Furthermore (notes Davie), inclusion is conditional: it applies to those who “observe my Sabbaths and choose what pleases me and are faithful to my covenant”.  The analogy with LGBTQ persons, if it were to work at all, would mean that they were living in accordance with God’s law.

Deut 23:1-8 excluded some groups (Ammonites and Moabites) from fellowship with the people of God.  But even that turned out not to be an absolute prohibition, as the story of Ruth (a Moabitess) shows.  The exclusiveness of Ezra 4;10; Neh 9:2; 13:23-30 (dating from a similar period as this part of Isaiah) is due to the need to safeguard the purity of the community; but the present passage teaches that when foreigners and eunuchs share the distinctive features of the believing community, they may be welcomed within it.  Now, as then, the people of God must avoid two equal and opposite errors – syncretism and isolationism.  With syncretism, we absorb the ideas and practices of the surrounding culture and lose everything that is distinctive about the faith of the gospel.  With isolationism, we draw a boundary around our own religious subculture and seek to protect our identity by excluding others.  In the early church, the lesson was not learned without some difficulty: see Acts 10:9-19, 34f; Gal 2:11-14; 3:28; Eph 3:4-13; Col 3:11. But the seeds of this inclusivism are found right here (see esp. Isa 56:8). (Oswalt).

The Apologetics Study Bible explains:

‘The Lord’s word to Isaiah here in effect canceled the directives of Dt 23:1–8, which excluded eunuchs, Ammonites, and Moabites from the congregation of Israel. The law of Moses was given when Israel was about to occupy the land of Canaan, a time when strict separation from pagan religious practices and from anything symbolic of spiritual imperfection or rebellion against the Lord, was of highest priority…What God originally sought of His people, through the law, was purity of heart and righteous behavior, Now, hundreds of years later, He graciously allows anyone who loves Him, regardless of physical or ethnic characteristics, to enter the temple and worship Him.’

We should, accordingly, regard prohibitions such as those found in Deut, Ezra and Nehemiah as ‘special measures’ that were required for limited period of time in order to preserve the distinctiveness of God’s people.

Megan DeFranza (Understanding Transgender Identities) writes:

‘The Lord does not promise to heal eunuchs or restore them to one of the two categories established in the book of Genesis. Yahweh does not declare these “dry trees” fertile so that they can perpetuate their name as Jewish men did, by begetting sons who begat sons. The Lord does not seem concerned to restore these ambiguous bodies to some creational pattern or ideal. Rather, they are blessed as eunuchs. They are promised, not the same blessing as those given to Jewish men, but something “better than sons and daughters . . . an everlasting name that shall not be cut off” (v. 5).’

DeFranza concludes that eunuchs (including those with a congenital intersex condition) simply lie on one part of a continuum between male and female:

‘Eunuchs are promised a place in God’s house as they are, not after some kind of restoration to an Edenic pattern (Isa. 56:5).’

While DeFranza is, of course, right to observe that eunuchs and foreigners are to be welcomed by the Lord into his kingdom, she is probably reading too much into the text when she claims that the Lord is indifferent to eunuchism itself.  If we take a whole-Bible view, then we should regard any intersex condition as entailing a disability (due to a genetic or hormonal fault, say) from which the individual will be released in the age to come.

Justin Tanis ‘sees the welcome and inclusion of eunuchs in Isaiah 56:1-5’ as relevant to transgendered people because:

‘Eunuchs are the closest biblical analogy we have to transgendered people. Not only were eunuchs subject to physical modification through castration, but they also shifted roles in society from the clearly defined male and female gender roles.’

According to Tanis:

‘For transgendered persons who have a sense of an internal reality that is or may be in conflict with our physical bodies, the prophet speaks a word that focuses on the faithfulness of our lives, not on the particularities of our bodies. God’s emphasis is not on where our bodies came from or how they have been altered, but rather on the ways in which we practice our faith. Justice, inclusion and faithfulness become the primary indicators of people who are acceptable to God.’

(Cited by Davie)

The interpretative strategy of Walter Brueggemann is to set the present text (which demonstrates a welcome for eunuchs among the people of God) in opposition to Deut 23:1 (which excludes eunuchs).  Both cannot be binding, argues Brueggemann, and so we much choose which best represents the message of the gospel.

The present text, says Brueggemann,

‘issues a grand welcome to those who have been excluded, so that all are gathered in by this generous gathering God. The temple is for “all peoples,” not just the ones who have kept the purity codes.’

Further, he argues, we may take notice of other texts, such as Mt 11:28-30,

‘that are tilted toward the inclusion of all persons without asking about their qualifications, or measuring up the costs that have been articulated by those in control….No qualification, no exclusion.’

But, responds Ian Paul:

‘The welcome here is not to those who have failed to keep the purity codes, but an invitation to all to keep covenant obedience with God.’

Further (argues Ian Paul:

‘It is rather odd to take Matt 11.28 as a sign that Jesus makes no demands on his followers. The gospels are replete with comments from Jesus about how difficult and demanding it is to follow him. Our righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees (Matt 5.20); if we are to enter the kingdom, we must travel on a hard and narrow way (Matt 7.14); for those attached to their wealth, entering the kingdom is impossible (Mark 10.27); indeed, all who follow Jesus must radically renounce their own interests, in principle their very life, in order to follow him day by day (Mark 8.34). We could go on!’