Homosexual Eunuchs - Did You Know That Some Eunuchs
Were Gay Men Or Lesbians?

Matthew 19:3-12 gives us God’s view of heterosexual marriage and natural exceptions to heterosexual marriage as Jesus intended His followers to understand them.

It is interesting to note that Jesus does not state or imply that born eunuchs exit the womb with genital deformities. Instead, Jesus makes a distinction between born eunuchs and eunuchs who have been physically castrated, whether by illness or by men.

Jesus makes a further distinction between born eunuchs and eunuchs who make a personal choice to voluntarily abstain from sexual relationships for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.

The distinctions below, so carefully articulated by Jesus, imply that born eunuchs are not required to abstain from sexual relationships such as a committed, same sex marriage. Some Christians believe that born eunuchs were often homosexual eunuchs. Abstinence from sexual relationships particularly describes the third class of eunuchs and possibly the second class but not the first class, whom Jesus referred to as born eunuchs.

This distinction becomes important when confronting Complementarian assertions that limit marriage to the Adam and Eve marriage paradigm. God does not assert that limitation in scripture.

Instead, Jesus carefully exempts eunuchs from the Adam and Eve marriage paradigm. Eunuchs, according to Jesus, cannot receive His saying about Adam and Eve style marriage.

“He that is able to receive it,” [Jesus’ statement about marriage] “let him receive it.” 19:12.

1. Eunuchs so born from their mother’s womb. These eunuchs, according to Jesus, were born that way. They did not make a personal choice to be eunuchs and they were not physically castrated by men. Some Christians believe these men were homosexual eunuchs.

2. Eunuchs made so by men via physical castration. These eunuchs were physically castrated and could not consummate marriage.

3. Eunuchs who made a personal choice to be eunuchs, by abstaining from marriage, for the kingdom of heaven.

   Jesus distinguishes the third class of eunuchs, who made a choice to be eunuchs, from the first class, who did not make a choice to be eunuchs.

According to Jesus, born eunuchs are exempt from the Adam and Eve style, heterosexual marriage paradigm. The common traditionalist tendency is to read into that exemption that all eunuchs must therefore be celibate, an assertion Jesus never makes.

It seems clear in Matthew 19:11-12, that Jesus did not expect homosexual eunuchs, born eunuchs, gay people, to abstain from loving, committed, same sex, marriage relationships which observe Biblical moral principles.

Is there room in this passage to allow homosexual eunuchs the right to same sex marriage? I believe there is room.

How do I arrive at that conclusion? In the passage, Jesus intentionally differentiates between born eunuchs and the class of eunuchs who voluntarily abstain from marriage.

Emperor Justinian’s legal commission edited some fourteen hundred years of Roman law, consulting more than two thousand ancient law books, to produce The Digest of Justinian. The English translation of The Digest is four thousand pages long.

Ulpian therefore, is the outstanding expert on Roman law. His legal opinions carry far more evidentiary weight than the contrary opinions of modern, antigay traditionalists.

“The name of eunuch is a general one; under it come [1] those who are eunuchs by nature [born eunuchs], [2] those who are made eunuchs [by castration or crushing], and [3] any other kind of eunuchs [those who voluntarily abstain from marriage].”

The Digest of Justinian, Vol. IV, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1985, p. 944.

Some eunuchs are born eunuchs. No human being made a “born eunuch” into a eunuch by castrating him. Ulpian, the foremost Roman legal expert and the Roman Law itself, which was much older than Ulpian, and our Lord Jesus Christ, in Matthew 19:12, are in agreement that there are three classes of eunuchs.

The first class of eunuchs mentioned by Jesus and by Roman law, are natural eunuchs (born eunuchs), so born from their mother’s womb.

Are all of these born eunuchs or homosexual eunuchs physically intact men, capable of reproducing but apparently not interested in sexual relationships with women, condemned to a life of celibacy?

St. Paul said it is better to marry than to burn" [in lust], I Corinthians 7:1-9. It seems nothing more than a matter of common decency and common sense that homosexual eunuchs or born eunuchs, should be allowed same sex marriage, to meet the companionship, emotional, physical, sexual and spiritual needs which are inborn in all human beings.

"Where a woman marries a eunuch, I think that a distinction must be drawn between a man [a eunuch] who has been castrated and one [a eunuch] who has not, so that if he has been castrated, you may say that there cannot be a dowry; but where a man [a eunuch] has not been castrated, there can be a dowry and an action for it, because a marriage can take place here.”

The Digest of Justinian, Vol. 1, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1998, Book XXIII.3.39.1.

Uncastrated eunuchs, what scripture and Roman Law describe as born eunuchs or natural eunuchs, (what some understand as homosexual eunuchs) were capable of marriage and were legally allowed to marry a woman.

If a eunuch was a man who was not sexually interested in women, why would a eunuch decide to marry a woman?

• The first reason a born eunuch might marry a woman was to produce children for his master. Many eunuchs in the Roman empire were slaves. In New Testament times, slaves comprised one third of the population of Rome. If slaves could reproduce, their children could enrich the slave owner.

  Let's be honest. Some homosexual men, what we might call homosexual eunuchs, have married and sired children. Procreation did not change the innate sexual orientation of homosexual eunuchs. Heterosexual marriage did not change the innate sexual orientation of homosexual eunuchs.

  Some Roman slave owners were in the business of raising slaves like they raised farm animals. They compelled their slaves to legally marry so that the children were legitimate.

  Roman law viewed children born out of wedlock differently than it viewed children of a married couple. In ancient Rome, children of a legally married couple had more legal rights than children of an unmarried couple. A master might require his homosexual eunuch or gay slave to marry a woman to produce children. The slave would have little say in the matter.

  
  Roman Senators, bas relief in stone

  ---

  
  
• The second reason a born eunuch might marry a woman is to fit in. Some eunuchs were free men. Perhaps a homosexual eunuch or a gay man in the Roman Empire tried to “pass” as heterosexual just like some gay men today try to pass. Perhaps gay men in the Roman Empire thought that fitting into “the heterosexual mold” was the safest way to live.

  Heterosexuals sometimes opine that gay people constantly flaunt their sexual orientation. In the opinion of many heterosexuals, gay people should keep quiet about their sexual orientation and “just fit in.”

  Yet when we assert that perhaps a homosexual eunuch tried to “fit in by marrying a woman,” traditionalists immediately insist gay men would not have done that. Perhaps "fitting in" was what homosexual eunuchs who married women were attempting to do.

• The third reason, perhaps gay men in the Roman Empire were told the same thing gay men are told today.
  “Get married to a woman.
  Heterosexual sex will
  cure you of being gay.”

  So perhaps homosexual eunuchs in the ancient Roman Empire married a woman, only to discover that heterosexual sex and marriage does not cure them. Solomon told us there is nothing new under the sun. Human nature has not changed much from Roman times to modern times.

Roman Law points out that those who sell slaves are required to inform purchasers of any disease or defect in the slave. Roman Law defined disease as an unnatural physical condition which impairs use of the body for the purposes for which it is intended. Those purposes include procreation. Ulpian, in the Roman Law, then remarks on eunuchs.

"To me it appears the better view that a eunuch is not diseased, any more than one who, having one testicle, is capable of procreation."

The Digest of Justinian, Vol. 1, Book XXI.1.7.

According to Ulpian, Roman Law did not view all eunuchs as diseased or defective. In other words, a born eunuch had not been castrated and did not suffer from genital deformity. Some eunuchs were capable of procreation yet were regarded differently than normal men.

What accounts for the difference? Could it be that the homosexual eunuch was not sexually attracted to women?

Based on Roman Law, we understand that some eunuchs were capable of procreation.

This procreative capability becomes inportant in the context of Roman slavery. Slaves who could reproduce enriched their masters by producing children. The statements about eunuchs in Roman law are in the context of slavery.

The New Testament was written in the Roman Empire. Jesus and the authors of the New Testament lived under Roman Law.

For this reason, when Jesus, Ulpian and Roman Law define what a eunuch is, their definitions carry greater evidentiary weight than definitions in modern Greek lexicons or Bible Dictionaries.

Ulpian, perhaps the most important human expert on Roman Law, reminds us that eunuchs are not always physically castrated men. Eunuchs by nature, according to Ulpian, are born that way, are physically intact and capable of procreation.

We have seen that, according to our Lord, Jesus Christ and according to Roman Law, all eunuchs were not castrated men.

Our next page will examine ancient Jewish documents and ancient Christian preachers to see what they believed about eunuchs.

There is more information about Eunuchs in our book:

Gay Christian 101 - Spiritual Self-Defense For Gay Christians.

Same Sex Attracted Eunuchs. Is it possible that some eunuchs were same sex attracted individuals, what today would be called gay men or lesbian women?

Is it possible you missed something God wants you to see, when you read the story of the Ethiopian Eunuch?

There is much misinformation being circulated about eunuchs. Some folks believe eunuchs were always castrated men, never physically whole men who simply were not interested in marrying a woman.

There are four popular analogies which are used to validate Gay Relationships as blessed by God.

Here is a real-life example of a prominent gay partnership in scripture - the amazing true love story of Jonathan and David is the greatest human love story in the Bible.

Jesus identified the sin of Sodom and it was not homosexuality.

I am saying that the Holiness Code was aimed at Israel, in a specific place, the land of Israel, in a specific time period, while Israel was in the land, living under the Law. And what some Christians wrongly interpret as a universal prohibition of all gay relationships is, in reality, a prohibition of shrine prostitution in worship of the Canaanite fertility goddess.

What was a sodomite in the Bible? Was it a homosexual, as many conservative preachers insist or was a sodomite in the Bible always a shrine prostitute who worshipped the Canaanite fertility goddess?

Those who believe that the Centurion’s pais was only a servant and not the same sex partner of the gay Centurion, cite Greek lexicons to prove their case. Since most Biblical Greek lexicons do not mention beloved or same sex lover as possible meanings of pais. most nongay Christians insist same sex lover could not possibly be the meaning of pais.

You’ve read about Homosexual Eunuchs. Click Here To Return To Gay Christian 101.com Home Page.

In Gay Christian 101: Spiritual Self-Defense For Gay Christians, I list 18 possible ways to interpret the Levitical Holiness Code, where it is alleged to deal with homosexuality.

Family Values in the Bible are so different from Traditional family values as taught by Focus On The Family that modern Christians would totally reject the "family values" practiced by Abraham and Sarah, Ruth and Boaz and many of the heroes of faith in the Old Testament.

Did you know that Christians are not required to keep the Old Testament Law to be right with God?