This is very interesting. I don't have anything specific to add as to what was going on with the captain and his well-loved slave, but I will note that culturally back then, "eunuchs" had a social place in society and apparently it was linked with the affection of some sort, apparently non-sexual, that the eunuch would have for his master and that role would often be given to those in charge of the house or "court officials". Thus even in ancient times a "court official" is often exchangeable for a eunuch.
In that regard, I think we need to understand that perhaps a non-sexual but loving relationship did exist between a eunuch and a master. Cyrus was known to be insistent only to hire eunuchs because of this emotional devotion of the eunuch. But particularly in the case of Cyrus' choice of Nehemiah as the secretary to the Jews at first and then later his becoming the chief "cup bearer" to Xerxes. Nehemiah was a eunuch. But Jewish traditional folklore reflect that he was in love with Artaxerxes. We can safely assume there might have been a "romance" of sorts here, but an aesexual one.
In some versions of Nehemiah, for instance, when he is asking Artaxerxes to return home they depict him as sitting on his lap and batting his eyes at the king, clearly in an effeminate manner. This traditional view of Nehemiah being effeminate and in love with the king, found its way into a very popular adaptation of this story in the "Book of Esther" where the effeminate character of Nehemiah, the cupbearer eunuch in love with the king became two characters; the beautiful woman Esther and her "cousin" Mordecai who was a man of high office. This was done since this part of the Persian history was suppressed for political reasons since Xerxes was claiming to be his son "Artaxerxes" when they were really the same king.
At any rate, it would seem these times and even among Jews, a relationship between a castrated male and someone who was his master was common, but would not necessarily have to be an overt sexual one, even though in some cases they certainly were!
The social state of the "eunuch" and his behavior and role in society, therefore, might be considered as part of this picture and perhaps the relationship was acknowledged but it was one that was non-sexual. In that regard, Jesus was a "eunuch" himself and his relationship with the apostle John, "the one he loved" was such a relationship. An open "bonding" of two men in substitution of a woman for the most part. That is, the eunuchw as not expected to fall in love with a woman but understandly would fall in love with another man and have a special relationship with that man, but it needn't be expressed in an inappropriate sexual way. Thus this servant to the captain could have been similar to the implied relationship between Xerxes and Nehemiah, who folklorically was in love with the king.
Thanks for this interesting discovery about this term. For sure, suppression of even "understanding" special relationships between persons of the same sex, whether overtly sexual or not, is going to get resistance in our puritanital influenced culture.
It would appear that overt homosexual behavior is condemned in scripture, but not some forms of expression and relationship between men or a servant and master that some in our coulture would consider homosexual.
For instance, what about two Christian men, who consider themselves to be gay, are in love with each other, who buy a house together and hug and kiss each other in the same bed but for Christian reasons insist upon keeping their clothes on. That's technically a non-sexual relationship, would Jesus condemn it? Would God? In the meantime, there certainly is some cultural reference of these homosexual "romances" and relationships, such as Jesus with John, but apparently that were sexless.
???
Thanks for this interesting discussion.
P.S. Yes, obviously the Book of Esther, being an adaptation of Nehemiah to cover up for historical revisionism would not be an "inspired" book. As proof, the original version of thebook from the LXX has Esther married to "Artaxerxes" instead of Xerxes, which is how Josephus also tells the story and does not include Esther in the books he considered sacred to the Jews in the 1st century. Esther was not admitted into the canon until the third century A.D. Nehemiah was a eunuch and can be seen as the Jewish cupbearer with Xerxes and Darius as well as with Artaxerxes all over Persepolis, proving he was much honored and apparently loved by Artaxerxes/Xerxes. Nehemiah's favored presence with "Xerxes" and later "Artaxerxes" is part of the evidence that they were the same king. The Persian kings customarily changed their names when they became king.
