Least of These said:
RAIDER said:
I enjoy the debating with and postings of most everyone on the FFF. We have different views on standards. We have different views on convictions and preferences. I accept that. I have to admit that I find it very hard to stomach that there is not a 100% consensus on a Christian Forum that homosexuality is not Biblically wrong. It's not even a gray area.
Raider, what is it about this one particular issue that you feel puts it above question & disagreement? It's not mentioned in the Bible nearly as much as other doctrines & beliefs that Christians disagree on. What is it about homosexuality that makes it "not even a gray area" - especially if you're willing to acknowledge that other matters ARE gray? Do you agree that there are many things the Bible addresses more often and more clearly, yet Christians still understand them differently?
I agree it is a gray area. It is also conceivable that a eunuch could also include homosexuals.
If that is the case, Jesus makes it a point of reference:
And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?†He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.†They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?†He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.â€
Nobody is arguing here that Jesus is talking about one husband and one wife here. The disciples are confused.
The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.â€
So the disciples were willing to divorce for any cause up to that point but Jesus showed that in the context of marriage, it was to be for life, despite the Law of Moses.
Jesus then continues:
But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given."
What saying? Marriage as one man/one woman for life. Why? Because it was given to specific individuals. Who then would be exempt?
Jesus continues:
"For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.â€
So there are three different classifications of eunuchs listed. Reversing Jesus' order we have:
1. Eunuchs made for the kingdom's sake. These men would remain celibate for the sake of the kingdom, denying themselves marriage for the sake of service. Not that it matters, but probably what Paul had in mind when he told the Corinthians that it would be better for them not to marry as he was not married.
2. Eunuchs made by men. These would have been injured or castrated at the hands of other individuals. They need not heed Jesus' words concerning marriage.
3. Eunuchs who have been so
from birth. The automatic response is a male that had not been born with healthy reproductive equipment.
I tend to believe this myself. However, there is argument against this idea. The argument is that Point 2 already indicates those with "physical equipment" problems. Plus, was there really a plethora of men who were born with that deformity in that culture which today is an extreme rarity?
Now
eunuch in ancient times has been defined as "keeper of the couch". A eunuch would serve special purpose to the kingdom. They had intimate access to the king's wives and daughters so he had to be trusted not to have affairs with them. To do so would upset the king's lineage and mess up inheritances. So it was important that the eunuch was either physically incapable of having relations or was totally disinterested. Jewish tradition as mentioned in
Talmud Bavli by Tractate Yevumos mentions in a segment about eunuchs that they can be "cured", meaning they were not eunuchs for reasons other than the inability to reproduce. For historical reference, the Catholic book of Sirach mentions eunuchs by saying, "...he sees with his eyes and groans as a eunuch groans when embracing a girl (30:20) and the paradox "Like a eunuch lusting to violate a girl is the person who does right under compulsion." (20:4). Other ancient literature such as Sumerian myth and 2nd century Roman play
The Eunuch, along with quotes from ancient people such as Roman Jurist Ulpian, Clement of Alexandria, Lucian, Gregory of Nazianzos, Tertullian and even Jerome, all show that
eunuch in ancient history could also refer to
homosexual.
So is Jesus actually saying that homosexuals are exempt from the "lifetime of marriage" proclamation? Personally, I don't think so but I can certainly see where someone can see where He might be stating it. Hence, I would consider it a gray area whereas others might not.
