Independence Day Pride

For your edification, 92 ~
Part 2: Eunuchs: Eunuchs in Roman Law & Rabbibical Literature - Theology At the Edge

Eunuchs in Roman Law & Rabbinical Literature

Eunuchs in Roman Law

The Digest of Justinian (483-565 C.E.), the collected established Roman law in Latin, concentrated on the work of the foremost Roman legal experts, Papinian, Ulpian, Paulus and Julian. [1] Statements in Roman law regarding eunuchs fell under the category of slavery and it was Ulpian (172-223 C.E.) who defined the eunuch as understood by the ancient Romans, “The name of eunuch is a general one; under it come those who are eunuchs by nature, those who are made eunuchs, and any other kind of eunuchs (probably those who voluntarily abstain from marriage).” [2] Ulpian’s definition of three kinds of eunuchs is in accord with the teaching of Jesus and it is clear from Roman law that eunuchs were not solely castrated men. Born or natural eunuchs were capable of marriage, even if they had no attraction for women, and were legally allowed to marry, as noted by Justinian. [3]

If a natural eunuch was generally considered to be homosexual, what would be the point of marriage to a woman? Since the majority of eunuchs were slaves the primary reason would have been a commercial one: producing children for the slave owner in order to increase his stock. Just as some homosexual men today marry and sire children, so then procreation did not change the innate sexual orientation of a homosexual eunuch any more than heterosexual marriage changed then or changes now innate sexual orientation. Legal marriages ensured legitimate children and children born in wedlock were simply more beneficial than bastards. Similarly, a natural eunuch might be purchased and married by a woman in order to produce children for her and the eunuch, being a slave, had little say in the matter. Those natural eunuchs who were free men might marry simply to escape from the occasional ridicule they faced, [4] perhaps viewing a heterosexual life as a safer way to live or even hoping to be cured.
__________________________________

Ulpian defines a eunuch:

“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.

"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.
__________________________________________

https://people.well.com/user/aquarius/cardiff.htm

The Ancient Roman and Talmudic Definition of Natural Eunuchs
Presented at a conference on Eunuchs in Antiquity and Beyond held at Cardiff University on July 27, 1999

When the Roman jurist Ulpian states in Lex Julia et Papia, Book 1 (Digest 50.16.128), that "Eunuch is a general designation: the term includes those who are eunuchs by nature, moreover the crushed and the pounded, as well as any other kind of eunuch," he places the natural eunuchs first. Mutilated eunuchs are placed into a secondary rank after an extenuating Latin conjunction item, which I have translated as "moreover." Unfortunately, Roman law does not provide a statement of what exactly unites the various types of eunuchs under one general classification. But it does provide more material for understanding the distinction between types of eunuchs.

The law (D 28.2.6) says that someone who cannot easily procreate is nonetheless entitled to institute a posthumous heir, but it gives no concrete examples of such a man. In the same context, it states that the "eunuch" holds this right as well, while "castrated men" expressly do not.

_________________________________

Robert Gagnon, professor of New Testament Theology at Houston Baptist University, wrote a book entitled The bible and Homosexual Practice:Texts and Hermeneutics. He is opposed to homosexual practices, but admits born eunuchs did include people with same sex attraction. In his book he wrote, "I do not doubt that the circles out of which Lev 18:22 was produced had in view homosexual cult prostitution, at least partly.
Homosexual cult prostitution appears to have been the primary form in which homosexual intercourse was practiced in Israel.”

The Bible And Homosexual Practice,
p. 130.

On his web page he admitted, "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. I have always argued that homosexual orientation is not a radically "new" concept."
Answers to Emails on the Bible and Homosexuality

 

Do you follow the entire bible or just pick and choose? And what made you single out gays? Are you one of those bible buffet people? You only pick and choose what to follow?

 

Really unfortunate that the mere existence of others who happen to have a different orientation makes some people so freaking uncomfortable. You do you and leave the others alone?

 

...but then there's this...lots of this...

The eunuchs of the Bible were usually castrated males or those incapable of reproduction due to a birth defect. A eunuch could also be someone who performed work typical of eunuchs, although he remained perfectly capable of having sex—i.e., “eunuch” in some cases was simply a title. The purpose of intentional castration was to induce impotence and remove sexuality. It was a common practice in ancient times for rulers to castrate some of their servants and/or advisers in order to subdue and pacify them. It was especially common to castrate men who tended the royal harem. Queen Esther’s eunuchs are mentioned in Esther 4:4.​

In Matthew 19:12, Jesus mentions eunuchs in the context of whether it is good to marry. He says, “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.” Jesus identifies three types of “eunuchs” here: natural eunuchs (“born that way”), forced eunuchs (“made eunuchs by others”), and voluntary eunuchs (“those who choose”).​

Natural eunuchs include those who are born with a physical defect, but they also comprise those who are born with no real desire for marriage or sex. Forced eunuchs are those who have been castrated for whatever reason. Voluntary eunuchs are those who, in order to better serve the Lord in some capacity, choose to forego marriage. God calls some people to remain single (and therefore celibate). Paul speaks of those who serve the Lord in their unmarried state in 1 Corinthians 7:7—9.
​

Some gay groups argue that Jesus was referring to homosexuals when He mentioned eunuchs who were “born that way.” However, the Bible never uses the words homosexual and eunuch interchangeably. Furthermore, eunuchs are never referred to in Scripture as being in sin, while homosexuality is universally condemned in both the Old and New Testaments.

What is a eunuch in the Bible? What does the Bible say about eunuchs? | GotQuestions.org
Q: #298. In (Mt 19:12), when Jesus is speaking about eunuchs "who were born that way," is He referring to homosexuality?

By: Steve Shirley

A: Here is the verse to which you refer:

(Mt 19:12)(NASB) For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.

Sadly, there are some within the homosexual movement that have tried to use Jesus’ words about eunuchs “who were born that way from their mother’s womb” to say that Jesus was referring to, offering support for, and accepting homosexuality. This is not the case…

....

I should also add that Jesus was well aware of Old Testament law condemning homosexuality, and clearly stated that He did not come to change one “jot or tittle” of that law (Mt 5:17-18). (Referring to moral laws [i.e. against homosexuality] as opposed to ceremonial laws.) To say that He is offering support for homosexuality in this verse is to say that He is going against Old Testament law.

In my studies on eunuchs in the Bible, I find nowhere that equates being a eunuch with being a homosexual. Neither the Hebrew word “caric” nor the Greek word “eunouchizo” for eunuch points to a eunuch being a homosexual. Nowhere does the Bible call being a eunuch a sin, while it does call homosexuality a sin. The Bible does equate being a eunuch with having a “defect.” Because of this, eunuchs were not allowed to serve as priests (Lev 21:16-20), or enter into the assembly of Israel (Deut 23:1).
...
Eunuchs in (Mt 19:12), is Jesus referring to homosexuality? - JesusAlive.cc​

Throughout history, Jewish and Christian scholars have recognized that one of the chief sins involved in God’s destruction of Sodom was its people’s homosexual behavior. But today, certain homosexual activists promote the idea that the sin of Sodom was merely a lack of hospitality. Although inhospitality is a sin, it is clearly the homosexual behavior of the Sodomites that is singled out for special criticism in the account of their city’s destruction. We must look to Scripture’s own interpretation of the sin of Sodom.​

...

Reinterpreting Scripture
To discount this, some homosexual activists have argued that moral imperatives from the Old Testament can be dismissed since there were certain ceremonial requirements at the time—such as not eating pork, or circumcising male babies—that are no longer binding.

...
Elsewhere Paul again warns that homosexual behavior is one of the sins that will deprive one of heaven: “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9–10, NIV).

All of Scripture teaches the unacceptability of homosexual behavior. But the rejection of this behavior is not an arbitrary prohibition. It, like other moral imperatives, is rooted in natural law—the design that God has built into human nature.

Natural Law
.... We perceive intuitively that the natural sex partner of a human is another human, not an animal. ... The same reasoning applies to the case of homosexual behavior. The natural sex partner for a man is a woman, and the natural sex partner for a woman is a man. Thus, people have the corresponding intuition concerning homosexuality that they do about bestiality—that it is wrong because it is unnatural.

Homosexuality
​

 

Equal rights should be part of every American's agenda.

You say you don't believe in gay marriage, which I interpret as your saying that you don't believe gays should have the legal right to marry (since it's impossible to not believe in something that exists as a matter of law). But the historical denial of that right for gays is what made it necessary for them to have such an agenda.

Not sorry that you think that it's ramming it down your throat--maybe your understanding of equality & fairness--core values of American democracy--is the problem?

 

Why is that?

You don’t know yours?

I can also count how many of my friends are conservative, liberal, and black.

I don’t throw the term friend around loosely. I have a ton of acquaintances that most people might call friends.


My friend list is not real big and I like it that way.

 

All I know about eunuchs I learned from Mel Brooks

 

I don't know the number without pulling out a pen and piece of paper. I'm not counting acquaintances, but people I hang with actively, break bread with, etc... I have cis, gay, lesbian, and bi friends, but how many of each would take a count, and I never felt the need to take a running tally of my friends sexuality.

 

Yes I follow the WHOLE Bible even the part about Sodom and Gomorrah. You bring up cherry picking do you acknowledge their destruction or just gloss over it?

 

I made my stance very clear and yes they have the right to live as they like but I also have the right to my opinion. We still have that right as far as I know. Some people want to cancel bully and shame others that don’t agree with their view on how to live but I’m not one to be intimidated.

 

"Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man's brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother." (Mark 12:19)

"For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9)

"For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." (Matthew 10:35-27)

DO you eat pork?

 

Now you’re being silly. I’m done. Good luck.

 

You follow sodom and Gomorrah? Does that mean you support allowing immigrants into the country? You do know that the reason that sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed was not because of gay relationships, but because the residents abused visitors and didn’t share their wealth? And locked them out of the Cities.

 

The laws of kashrut do not apply to Hall unless he is Jewish. Otherwise, He can eat pork and still follow the Bible.

 

Oh boy...almost afraid to ask...but...

WTH is "cis"?

 

I knew were a buffet bibler

The good book teaches you to hate

 

My point is that no one follows the whole bible. No one. They pick and choose which parts. Sad stuff.

 

It was destroyed because of SIN and according to the BIBLE homosexuality is a SIN. The residents were calling for Lot to send out the Angels so they could have relations with them and Lot offered his daughters but they wanted the men. It was destroyed for its depravity. Suggest you might want to revisit why GOD leveled it.

 

I don’t hate gay people just disagree with their lifestyle which angers you. It’s your problem not mine.