Canon 1: On Self-Castration and Admission to the Clergy
@heyquilia
Unsplash
Context of the Canon
The Canons of the Council of Nicaea are the oldest surviving collection of church canons produced by an ecumenical (church-wide) council. There had certainly been other councils. While other councils had made significant decisions, they tended to be smaller, and more local or regional. Nicaea was different. It was worldwide. It had imperial backing. It was big. It covered a wider range of issues. It was an important council. So you’d expect the first canon of the council to address an important issue. And it did! But perhaps not the issue that you’d expect: castration.
Seems like a random place to start, but it was a major pressing issue in its day because of Matthew 19:12, Origen and the Valesians.
a) Matthew 19:12
Many teenage boys find Matthew 18 and 19 a difficult read. First, they come across Jesus’ command to “cut off” anything that causes them to sin in Matthew 18:8. Then, in Matthew 19:12 we read:
For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.
Most people in church history have understood that Jesus wasn’t explicitly telling people to slice off limbs and cut off private parts. Jesus is serious about people repenting of sin. He wants us to be radical about that. But he’s not literally commanding people to cut off their limbs in Matthew 18, nor is he calling for people to make themselves eunuchs (a eunuch is a man whose testicles have been removed or rendered non-functional). Origen and the Valesians didn’t quite understand this.
b) Origen
Origen of Alexandria (c. 185–254 AD) was one of the big daddies of the early church. He was a major pioneer in early biblical interpretation. His book, On First Principles (De Principiis) is the first known systematic theology in Christian history, and laid the groundwork for many future theological discussions. He also castrated himself. According to the great early church historian Eusebius of Caesarea:
1. At this time while Origen was conducting catechetical instruction at Alexandria, a deed was done by him which evidenced an immature and youthful mind, but at the same time gave the highest proof of faith and continence.
For he took the words, There are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake (Matthew 19:12) in too literal and extreme a sense. And in order to fulfil the Saviour’s word, and at the same time to take away from the unbelievers all opportunity for scandal—for, although young, he met for the study of divine things with women as well as men,—he carried out in action the word of the Saviour.
2. He thought that this would not be known by many of his acquaintances. But it was impossible for him, though desiring to do so, to keep such an action secret.
Eusebius, Church History, 1.8.1-2
Eusebius goes on to say that, at first, Origen’s bishop, Demetrius, admired his boldness and he encouraged him to continue teaching. However, as Origen gained fame and influence, Demetrius became less of a fan. He opposed Origen’s ordination. Despite this, the bishops of Caesarea and Jerusalem ordained Origen as a presbyter (elder), and his reputation—and his bold move—became well known.
c) The Valesians
There was also a group called the Valesians, an extreme heretical sect, probably active in the late 3rd or early 4th century. We only know of this group through Epiphanius of Salamis. According to Epiphanius, the Valesians were originally part of the Church, but they were later kicked out when their weird practices became known. Chief among their weird practices was ritual castration. Epiphanius writes:
When they recruit a man for discipleship, as long as he is not yet mutilated, they admit him only partially to their rites.
But once they persuade him—or forcibly mutilate him— then he is granted full participation, as someone who has “finished the contest” and is no longer at risk of being led by bodily passions into desire and pleasure. And they do not limit this to their own members. They have often imposed this treatment on foreigners and guests who stayed with them.
It is widely rumoured that they seize such a person and drag him inside, and after tying him down on a bench, they perform the manual operation to remove his genitals by force.
These are the reports that have come down to us.
Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion (Adversus Haereses), 62.1
A pretty messed up group, right? William Bright suggests that the first canon of Nicaea “may have been, at least in part, called forth by the fanaticism of the Valesian heretics”.[1]
2. Content of the Canon
Here is what the first canon states:
If anyone in sickness has undergone surgery at the hands of physicians or has been castrated by barbarians, let him remain among the clergy. But if anyone in good health has castrated himself, if he is enrolled among the clergy he should be suspended, and in future no such man should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this refers to those who are responsible for the condition and presume to castrate themselves, so too if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians or by their masters, but have been found worthy, the canon admits such men to the clergy.[2]
In other words, this canon establishes three categories:
1) Those who mutilated themselves by choice (e.g., Origen).
2) Those who were mutilated involuntarily, such as through enslavement or by captors.
3) Those who underwent medical procedures for health reasons.
Those belonging to categories 2 and 3 can serve as clergy or ministers in the church. Those belonging to category 1 cannot. If they are already clergy, they must be suspended. If they are not yet ordained, they should remain that way.
3. Comments on the Canon
When you first read this canon, you might wonder why this matters. At first glance, it feels like something you’d file under “weird church trivia”. But behind this specific situation lies a set of deep convictions about what it means to be human in a post-fall world, and what it means to lead other humans in God’s church. This canon stands at the intersection of theology, ethics, and ecclesial order. It not only speaks to the challenges of its own time but also offers wisdom that is surprisingly relevant and helpful today, especially as the Church continues to navigate complex questions around embodiment and ordination.
a) The Goodness of the Human Body
Firstly, this canon affirms the God-given goodness and dignity of the human body. By prohibiting voluntary self-castration for the clergy, the council pushes back against extreme ascetic practices that viewed the body as an obstacle to holiness. It reflects a Christian doctrine of humanity rooted in the belief that the body is part of God's good creation (Genesis 1:31), and that we are “fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psalm 139:14). Rather than denigrating the body, the canon reinforces the idea that holiness involves the right use of the body, not its mutilation. Being made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27) includes our embodied existence, and the Church was already guarding that truth.
b) The Need for Discernment in the Ordination Process
Canon 1 highlights that not just anyone should be ordained or appointed to significant positions of leadership. The Church must uphold clear standards for ministry. While the canon specifically addresses self-castration, its underlying concern is the character and integrity of those set apart for leadership. This lines up with the New Testament’s teaching in 1 Timothy 3:1–13 and Titus 1:5–9, where Paul lays out detailed qualifications for overseers and deacons, especially with regard to their character. Godliness is an essential ingredient for ordination (if you’ve ever met an ungodly pastor, you’ll understand why it’s so important). Though these passages don’t mention bodily mutilation, they establish a clear precedent for discernment in appointing leaders.
c) Life in a Messy World
Of course, life is messy, and sometimes there’s a need for flexibility and compassion as well as discernment. Canon 1 makes important distinctions between those who have chosen to mutilate themselves and those who have suffered bodily harm through sickness or an act of violence by barbarians. This reflects the Church’s awareness of the brokenness of life in a fallen world. The council shows an awareness of the complex realities people face. It acknowledges that not all cases of bodily harm necessarily disqualify someone from ordained ministry. That said, while recognising the complexity of life, it maintains that there still needs to be a standard.
d) The Language Legacy
The Nicene canons played a key role in shaping how the early Church used the word canon, introduced in Canon 1. Originally meaning a ”measuring rod”, canon had already come to mean a rule or standard in Scripture (Galatians 6:16; 2 Corinthians 10:13). By the fourth century, it was also used for the “rule of faith”, the core truths passed down from the apostles. At Nicaea, canon took on added weight as a term for official church decisions, setting out clear boundaries for belief, leadership, and church life.
e) The Question of Transgender Clergy
In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, some churches began ordaining openly transgender clergy. In 2021, upon being ordained as America’s first transgender Bishop, Megan Rohrer tweeted:
The first council of Nicaea’s first action was to try to limit the leadership roles of trans pastors and bishops. I’m grateful the Lutherans of the @sps_elca are beginning to dismantle this and some of the the other hurdles BIPOC and LGBTQ pastor’s encounter.
As well as being a striking claim, this also happens to be a complete misreading of Nicaea. The Council wasn’t addressing transgender identity or ordination in that context. As we’ve already seen, Canon 1 was responding to the specific issue of self-castration, especially in light of Matthew 19:12 and people like Origen and the Valesians.
Still, setting that aside, the biblical and theological principles underpinning Canon 1 do raise important questions for the transgender question. As Christians, we always want to show compassion and care toward those who experience gender dysphoria or gender incongruence. At the same time, the biblical principles undergirding Canon 1 raise serious concerns about ordaining someone who openly identifies with—and promotes—a gender different from their biological sex, especially when this involves surgical alteration of the body.
Scripture affirms the goodness of the body as God created it (Genesis 1:31; Psalm 139:14), and our embodied identity is part of being made in God’s image (Genesis 1:27). In Matthew 19:4–5, Jesus further says, “the Creator ‘made them male and female’” and then speaks of a man leaving his father and mother to be united to his wife. He affirms that God created humans as male and female, and he connects that biological reality with their identity as man and woman. In other words, Jesus shows that gender identity (being a man or a woman) aligns with biological sex (being male or female).
Ordination requires a godly example, especially in how a person understands and uses their body as a good gift from God. Canon 1 promotes that standard. As painful and difficult as it may be for them, someone who openly claims and promotes a gender identity different from their biological sex denies that gift and thus fails to reflect what the Bible teaches. This concern becomes even more serious in cases of surgical transition, which involves a deliberate and permanent alteration of one’s God-given biology. This is very similar to the kind of bodily self-mutilation that Canon 1 sought to guard the clergy against. Church leaders are called to uphold and model God’s design, not depart from it.
In response to the transgender issue, the task of the church then becomes the task of holding together the tensions present in Canon 1.
We need to recognise that, in this messy world, there are realities that are beyond our control. Canon 1 recognises this, such as for those who were mutilated involuntarily, or who were mutilated for health reasons. Those who experience gender dysphoria or gender discongruence will almost definitely tell you that their experience is beyond their control. We need to understand this and appreciate how difficult it must be.
At the same time, we can’t lose sight of the biblical truths about creation, embodiment, and the qualifications for church leadership. Empathy, love and compassion are essential, but so is fidelity to Scripture. Canon 1 reminds us that the body matters, that our physical selves are not incidental but integral to how we serve God. Therefore, those who lead the church must demonstrate godly integrity not only in doctrine and conduct, but also in how they understand and steward their created bodies. Compassion and clarity have to go hand in hand. We have to care deeply for those struggling with gender identity while still upholding the Church’s calling to ordain leaders who model faith consistent with the gospel.
Notes
[1] William Bright, The Canons of the First Four General Councils: Of Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon, With Notes, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1892), 1.
[2] Tanner, Norman P., ed. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils: Volumes 1 and 2: From Nicaea I to Vatican II. London: Georgetown University Press, 1990, 6.
Disclaimer: I used ChatGPT to edit and remove typos.
