Jesus listed three in Matthew 19:12.

(ASV) "For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."

The following translation is really what I would call a "paraphrase" for it is not a literal translation. Jesus uses "eunuch" 3 times but this translation doesn't indicate that He did. However, it does explain who each of the three "eunuchs" are that Jesus referred to and is therefore helpful to us in this way.

(CEV) "Some people are unable to marry because of birth defects or because of what someone has done to their bodies. Others stay single for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Anyone who can accept this teaching should do so."

(1) There is the physically impaired eunuch from birth.
(2) There is the other "physically impaired" eunuch who has had an operation "by men".
(3) Then there is the spiritual or metaphorical eunuch who has mentally determined not to marry for the kingdom of God sake.

Paul identifies himself as #3 in 1 Corinthians 7. [It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. (1 Cor. 7:8,9)]. As Jesus says, "This is for anyone who is able to accept it" (ERV). Paul calls on the Corinthian brethren to follow his example during the "present distress" (1 Corinthians 7:26) if they are able to "contain."

Origen, i.e., Origen Adamantius, was a scholar and theologian of early Christian interest in Alexandria, and one of the writers regarding the early Church. According to Eusebius, he interpreted Jesus' statement of "eunuch for the Kingdom of God" as being made so by physical operation. However, this only made him the eunuch of #2: "made so by men." If Origen had hoped to remove sexual temptation from himself, he might have been disappointed. "Most eunuchs who are castrated before puberty are not sexual" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunuch)which suggests that "some are". Boston Corbett, the soldier who shot John Wilkes Booth, is said to have castrated himself because of Matthew 19. Neither Jesus nor Paul told anyone to castrate themselves.

Number 4: "Potiphar type" of "eunuch"

Now, here's the fourth kind of "eunuch": Potiphar. Potiphar was an eunuch ⁱ(KJV: "officer") of the royal court of Egypt. This word is used several times in the Old Testament for literal castrated individuals and/or as a designation of royal office.

"And Joseph was brought down to Egypt; and Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh, captain of the guard, an Egyptian, bought him of the hands of the Ishmeelites, which had brought him down thither" (Genesis 39:1). Potiphar as an eunuch would not have been castrated physically nor a single male because he had a wife (Genesis 39:7).

Because of a possible double meaning here (“royal [uncastrated] official” or “castrated official”), many Bible interpreters have been hesitant about identifying eunuchs in the OT narrative, especially among the Israelites and even among later Jews who were taken captive and deported. Daniel is an example who is listed among those "eunuchs": "Now at the end of the days that the king had said he should bring them in, then the prince of the eunuchs brought them in before Nebuchadnezzar" (Daniel 1:18).

To show the problem among translators, compare The New English Bible (1970), which translates saris/sarisim (see endnote 1) as “eunuch(s)” in every instance, to the Contemporary English Version (1995), which avoids using "eunuch(s)" entirely, preferring general terms like "officer(s)" and "official(s)." Was the Ethiopian eunuch simply an "uncastrated officer" of the Queen's court?

"He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation [OT ekklesia G1577/H6951, 'church'] of the LORD" (Deuteronomy 23:1, KJV + ABP).

  Finally, it is argued that since the Law (Deuteronomy 23:1) "stigmatized" the castrated male by banning them from taking part in Israel’s worshipping community, such physical eunuchs would have left ancient Israel. This argument is mute, however, when it is very evident that Israel did not obey God in every respect and like Jezebel would have copied the other nations in using eunuchs in the courts, especially in the harem. Josephus reports that Herod was well furnished with such eunuchs. I refer the reader to the article "eunuch" in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.

However, it is God that opened his arms to Jewish eunuchs in Isaiah 56:3–5:

"Neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree. For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off."

Esther's Hegai in the Old Testament

"Now when the turn of Esther, the daughter of Abihail the uncle of Mordecai, who had taken her for his daughter, was come to go in unto the king, she required nothing but what Hegai the king's chamberlain (H5631, KJV; G2135, LXX), the keeper of the women, appointed" (Esther 2:15a). "Eunuchs feature heavily in the story of Esther. Hegai, who was in charge of the harem, helped Esther gain the attention of King Ahasuerus. Hathach was Esther's personal servant and the lifeline between her and her cousin Mordecai (Esther 4:5). Bigthana and Teresh were close enough to Ahasuerus to threaten his life (Esther 6:2), and Harbonah was quick with a suggestion for the dispatch of Haman (Esther 7:9)." ⁱⁱ

THE ETHIOPIAN OF ACTS 8

Was the eunuch ⁱⁱⁱ of Acts 8 just an officer or was he a castrated eunuch?

I found only two translations that I have access to, that did not use "eunuch":

(BBE): "And he went and there was a man of Ethiopia, a servant of great authority under Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, and controller of all her property, who had come up to Jerusalem for worship;"

(CEV) "So Philip left. An important Ethiopian official happened to be going along that road in his chariot."

It is interesting that Luke, the writer, uses “eunuch” and “official” describing the Ethiopian in the same verse (8:27). If “eunuch” simply means “official” here, then Luke would be redundant. Because Luke used both terms in the same sentence, it seems that the Ethiopian is sexually mutilated. It is also true that in ancient times it was common for male servants of a queen to be physical eunuchs. It would show how devout the eunuch was to travel submissively to Jerusalem as commanded in the Law.

It is unimportant whether the eunuch was a "real eunuch." All are invited to obey the gospel (Mark 16:15,16). Whether he was born a Jew or was a converted Gentile seems to me to be insignificant. The official was "God fearing" and was so dedicated as to make the long pilgrimage to Jerusalem to worship. To what extent he would have been permitted inside the Temple (as a converted Gentile or a "eunuch"), it is uncertain in current archeological material. He was influential enough to have a copy of the Scriptures while in journey.

GW