From: Robert Gagnon
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 9:28 AM
To: J.
Subject: RE: Princeton University Scholar Maliks Faris Scholarship on Eunuchs and Homosexuals
J.,
Probably "born eunuchs" in the ancient world did include people homosexually inclined, which incidentally puts to the lie the oft-repeated claim that the ancient world could not even conceive of persons that were congenitally influenced toward exclusive same-sex attractions...
...Jesus' comparison of men who make themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven with "born eunuchs" shows that Jesus categorized "born eunuchs" as persons not having any sex (Matt 19), for certainly Jesus was not giving the disciples permission to have sex outside of marriage and thereby avoid his newly enunciated standard for marriage. So, from that standpoint, any argument that is made about "born eunuchs" including homosexual persons (with which I would agree) leads to the view that Jesus did not give homosexually oriented persons the option of sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman.
Blessings,
Rob Gagnon
Brother Brian: While I obviously disagree with Dr. Gagnon's opinion that Jesus was saying the "born eunuchs" must never have sexual relations (at least "from that standpoint"), I certainly I agree that (at least from that standpoint) Jesus did not give homosexually oriented persons the option of sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman, but I do *not* believe that automatically precludes Jesus' alluding to the option of marriage between persons of the same gender, with all the privileges, rights (and responsibilities) pertaining thereto, and that those rights and responsibilities would be no different for gay people than they are for straight people, including sexual relations with their marriage mate exclusively, faithfully, and monogamously, for life.
As a Christian, I also believe that Jesus indicates that "those who are made eunuchs by other men" could include men who pass laws banning same gender marriage, and that "born eunuchs" would marry each other, if only the laws of the land permitted. Paul even alludes to this and gives it his permission in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9, saying "to the unmarried people and to the widows, I say they SHOULD marry", immediately following his own reaffirmation of heterosexual marriage, and including the word "but.......prior to his declaration upon "unmarried people" (which could include eunuchs whom the Amplified Bible translates as "incapable of marriage).
So going back to my earlier post's point, where laws are designed to strictly forbid gay marriage, again, I would say 1 Timothy 4:1-4 should encourage Christians to reconsider their position.
Dr. Gagnon is known as having no gay supporters ever even challenge him in the debate on gay marriage, so I hope to share (later) some of my own thoughts on some of his arguments and how I believe they fall short of convincing, regardless of how well delivered and thought out they are. I respect Dr. Gagnon, and his efforts to do what he believes God has called him to do, and would encourage all Christians (especially those who oppose gay marriage) to give a listen to him sometime, read his articles sometime, and even send him an email now and then to encourage him, knowing that even some homosexual people have a great deal of respect for him and his method for discussing this issue while still proclaiming Jesus as the Savior, even if we tend to continue to disagree on certain points he makes. He stands (in my opinion) as a sterling example of how Christians should discuss their thoughts with homosexual people, if they truly intend to encourage homosexual people to come to the Lord and not simply be driven further away.
Dr. Gagnon:
Eunuchs
Claim: The positive treatment that “eunuchs” receive in some biblical texts (Isaiah 56:3‐5; Matt 19:12; Acts 8:27‐39) provides grounds for supporting homosexual unions, as does Jesus’ attitude toward the woman caught in adultery and toward other outcasts.
What the evidence really shows:
The references to eunuchs in Isa 56:3‐5 and Acts 8:27‐39 refer to persons who were physically castrated against their will, not to persons who willingly removed their marks of masculinity, much less actively engaged in sexual relations forbidden by Scripture. Jesus’ saying about eunuchs in Matt 19:12 presupposes that eunuchs are not having sexual intercourse at all, let alone having forbidden sexual intercourse.
Brother Brian: This presupposes that the ONLY types of eunuchs ever mentioned in Scripture were those who were castrated. But in Matthew 19:11-12, Jesus explicitly defines 3 types of eunuchs:
those born eunuchs, (which Dr. Gagnon has already stated includes those homosexually inclined)
those made eunuchs (which includes those Dr. Gagnon speaks to as being castrated)
those who choose to be eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven (celibate people).
To assume that all 3 of these types of eunuchs are NOT included in God's prophecies to eunuchs in Isaiah 56 is to assume that the only eunuchs God prophecies toward are those who are castrated. If this was true, Jesus would not mention 3 types of eunuchs, but only one type (those castrated).
As it is though, even Dr. Gagnon agrees that the "born eunuchs" were not only homosexually inclined, but in no way excluded from the prophecy in Isaiah 56. This means Dr. Gagnon has no basis upon which to state that the only eunuchs included in God's prophecy to eunuchs were only those who were castrated, or otherwise unable to perform sexually.
But just because a "born eunuch" can include gay people in no way ascertains that gay people were incapable of sexual relations.
Dr. Gagnon: Both Jesus’ response to the woman caught in adultery and his outreach to sexual sinners was aimed at achieving their repentance so that they might inherit the kingdom of God that he proclaimed.
Brother Brian: AGREED! And just for the record, I am unaware of any pro homosexuals who believe that the woman caught in adultery has anything at all to do with supporting same gender marriages.
Dr. Gagnon: Isaiah 39:7 makes clear that the eunuchs mentioned in Isaiah 56:4-5 were Israelites who, against their will, were taken to “the palace of the king of Babylon” and made eunuchs, but had now returned to Israel.
Brother Brian: This is not entirely true. When we look at the context of Isaiah 39:5-7, we see a specific situation directed toward a specific man, Hezekiah, and there is nothing in all of Scripture that indicates the eunuchs God prophecies about in Isaiah 56:4-5 were strictly direct toward these same eunuchs only, but rather ALL eunuchs, with God even saying in Isaiah 56:4-5, that the eunuchs would be given a name better and more enduring than sons AND daughters, which would eliminate the possibility that God was confining his prophecy to only the 7 male eunuchs that would come from Hezekiah, but indicates some eunuchs were indeed female as well. And if we look at the Isaiah 56 prophecy in its fullness, we see God's prophecy about them being included in His House of Prayer for all People even included foreigners as well as eunuchs, and not just Israelites:
1 Thus says the Lord: Keep justice, do and use righteousness (conformity to the will of God which brings salvation), for My salvation is soon to come and My righteousness (My rightness and justice) to be revealed.
2 Blessed, happy, and fortunate is the man who does this, and the son of man who lays hold of it and binds himself fast to it, who keeps sacred the Sabbath so as not to profane it, and keeps his hand from doing any evil.
3 Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord say, The Lord will surely separate me from His people. And let not the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree.
4 For thus says the Lord: To the eunuchs who keep My Sabbaths and choose the things which please Me and hold firmly My covenant--
5 To them I will give in My house and within My walls a memorial and a name better [and more enduring] than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that will not be cut off.
6 Also the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord to minister to Him and to love the name of the Lord and to be His servants, everyone who keeps the Sabbath so as not to profane it and who holds fast My covenant [by conscientious obedience]
7 All these I will bring to My holy mountain and make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on My altar; for My house will be called a house of prayer for all peoples.
8 Thus says the Lord God, Who gathers the outcasts of Israel: I will gather yet others to [Israel] besides those already gathered.
The whole purpose of God prophesying about eunuchs being included in His House of Prayer after the advent of Christ (those who take hold of His Covenant) is predicated on the fact that Moses had banned eunuchs from the congregation of the Lord in Deuteronomy 23:1:
He who is wounded in the testicles, or has been made a eunuch, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord.
We can clearly see God was not prophesying regarding only to Hezekiah's sons who would become eunuchs as Dr. Gagnon assumes, because God's promise to (all) eunuchs would not even be possible until Christ was born, those eunuchs that Dr. Gagnon refers to would not even live long enough to "hold fast to His Covenant" (Jesus Christ). The book of Isaiah was written 750 years before Christ was born, so there is no way the eunuchs that were once Hezekiah's sons would even live long enough for Christ to be born. Not only that, but then we see in verse 8 of God's prophecy to (all) eunuchs that the whole purpose of Him overturning the ban was:
Thus says the Lord God, Who gathers the outcasts of Israel: I will gather yet others to [Israel] besides those already gathered. Isaiah 56:8
But don't just take my word for it! Compare for yourself the prophesy God gave regarding eunuchs in general, and the specific eunuchs included in Isaiah 39:7.
Here is the context of Isaiah 39:7 where Isaiah prophecies to Hezekiah regarding only his own sons:
5 Then said Isaiah to Hezekiah, Hear the word of the Lord of hosts:
6 Behold, the days are coming when all that is in your house, and that which your predecessors have stored up till this day, shall be carried to Babylon. Nothing shall be left, says the Lord.
7 And some of your own sons who are born to you shall be taken away, and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon
Dr. Gagnon: According to Isa 56:4-5, God will not cut them off from his people so long as they “choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant.”
Brother Brian: True, but again, we cannot confine this prophecy to only those who were sons of Hezekiah, but rather must include ALL eunuchs, as explained.
Dr. Gagnon: There is no way that the author would have regarded someone engaged in same-sex intercourse as still pleasing God and holding fast to the covenant.
Brother Brian: This is where even the gay Christian community is divided. Some believe in gay marriage, but believe that no sexual component should be expressed within the marriage. Some believe that only acts that do not resemble sodomy can be included, as there are no specific Scriptural prohibitions against them. And then still others believe that as Paul said "unmarried people and widows" ( another reference to eunuchs and widows) from Isaiah 54 and Isaiah 56, that any sexual component that would be permissible in a heterosexual relationship would likewise be permissible in a homosexual relationship.
However, we must remember that when Paul references the "unmarried people and widows", he clearly says, they SHOULD marry, and should do so because "it is better to marry than to burn in our lusts." So Paul clearly relates sexual morality to these eunuch marriages and indicates not only that the eunuchs were "capable" of sexual relations, but would be engaging in a moral manner as well, provided they were married.
To be certain Paul was including eunuchs in his term "unmarried people" aside from the fact that he references the Isaiah 54 and 56 prophecies, we also see Compton listing 1Corinthians 7:8-9 as instances of eunuchs in the Scriptures. When we see what Paul actually said regarding eunuchs in that passage in its entirety, we see:
8 But to the unmarried people and to the widows, I declare that it is well (good, advantageous, expedient, and wholesome) for them to remain [single] even as I do.
9 But if they have not self-control (restraint of their passions), they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame [with passion and tortured continually with ungratified desire].
Dr. Gagnon: These are persons that had a portion of their masculinity taken away from them against their will. Why should they now be penalized if they do not support erasure of their own masculinity and have no intent to violate any of God’s commands regarding sexual behavior? A first-century Jewish text, The Wisdom of Solomon, both extols a eunuch who does not violate God’s commands and condemns homosexual practice (Wisd 3:14; 14:26). Another Jewish work presumes that eunuchs are not having any sexual intercourse (Sirach 20:4; 30:20).
Brother Brian: But there is a difference between "Jewish works" and the Holy Scriptures. We cannot accept a "presumption" that eunuchs are not having any sexual intercourse as an overarching prohibition against such for ALL eunuchs, especially given the fact there are 3 types of eunuchs Jesus mentions. It is very possible that both the Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach both presume the eunuchs being addressed were only those who were the second and third types of eunuchs Jesus mentions (those castrated, and those choosing celibacy for Kingdom Work), while not specifically addressing the first type of eunuch Jesus mentions (the born eunuchs), whom again, Dr. Gagnon and I both conclude included people of homosexual natures.
Dr. Gagnon: This is exactly what Jesus presumes when he compares “eunuchs who make themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of God”—that is, Christians who opt out of marriage and choose a celibate life in order to have more time and freedom of movement and action to proclaim the gospel—with “born eunuch” and “made eunuchs.”
Brother Brian: Here, Dr. Gagnon stretches his definition of those who make themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of God to apply the proscription of celibacy to all 3 types of eunuchs, when in fact, Jesus nor Paul makes any such blurring of the distinctions that Dr. Gagnon must do in order to make his supposition intentionally oppose gay marriage, even though Scripture never does.
Dr. Gagnon: The analogy only works on the assumption that eunuchs do not have sexual relations.
Brother Brian: EXACTLY!
Dr. Gagnon: So if “born eunuchs” included for Jesus not only asexual men but also men who had sexual desire only for other males then Jesus rejected for them all sexual relations outside the covenant bond of marriage between a man and a woman.
Brother Brian: AGREED! But it appears He did not necessarily exclude them from marriage between two eunuchs, and neither did Paul.
Dr. Gagnon: In fact, the whole context for the eunuch saying in Matt 19:10-12 is Jesus’ argument that the twoness of the sexes in complementary sexual pairing, “male and female,” is the basis for rejecting sexual relationships involving three or more persons.
Brother Brian: Agreed, but while at the same time indicating that eunuchs were excluded from heterosexual marriages, but not necessarily homosexual marriages, which would render the need for the twoness of sexes in complementary sexual pairing a non sequitor, because it is not the twoness of the sexes that makes for sexual pairing, but the twoness of the people. But yes, I agree that Jesus and Paul both make it clear that ALL marriages are to be confined to only 2 people, and monogamous, and for life, except in the cases of adultery, whether gay or straight.
Dr. Gagnon: He can hardly be dismissing the importance of a male-female requirement for sexual relations immediately after establishing the foundational character of such a requirement—
Brother Brian: Yet He does, when He Himself says, "not all men can accept this saying, for there are eunuchs."
Jesus was not exempting eunuchs from having monogamous marriages, but only heterosexual marriages.
Dr. Gagnon: certainly not in Matthew’s view of the matter.
Brother Brian: Matthew had no view on the matter. He simply records Jesus' view in his Gospel.
__________________________________
THANK YOU for your generous support of this work!
Let him who receives instruction in the Word of God share all good things with his teacher, contributing to his support. Galatians 6:6
10% of all donations received by this ministry are tithed to my personal Home Church.
The remaining 90% are used exclusively to purchase necessary equipment, to cover fees related to funding our ministry website, to produce, advertise, publish, and distribute teaching media, books, and videos, and to fund regular operational costs incurred in the process of reaching out to Churches and Pastors to share these teachings with their Congregations.
We couldn't do it without YOU!
__________________________________
