When the Supreme Court (or any other court) issues a written decision, the first question any lawyer asks is: “What is the holding of the case?” The term “holding” refers to the rule established by the court’s decision. Once this question is answered, we know what the case means, right?
Wrong! There is a vital follow-up question that must be asked: “What were the facts of the case?”
This second question is essential because judges and lawyers have learned through experience that you cannot truly understand a rule unless you also understand the context in which the rule was issued. Because of this, one of the first principles is that judicial holdings are limited to the facts of the case. In other words, you cannot take a rule that a judge issued in one context and automatically apply it to a different set of facts. Before this can be done, the facts of both cases must be carefully examined to determine whether they are similar enough for the rule to apply to both cases.
This methodology is not unique to law of today. It is based on common sense and the way we use language in life. For example, suppose a married couple is talking and the wife says to her husband: “Don’t touch me.” She has announced a “rule.” Now, suppose someone copies down this statement and hands it to us, saying, “These were her exact words.” We now have the wife’s words in front of us in black and white, and that is all we need to interpret the meaning of her statement accurately, right?
Wrong! Until we know the context in which her statement was made, there is every possibility we will completely misunderstand and misapply what she said. For example, if the woman made this statement in the context of an angry encounter with her husband during a bitter divorce, then her statement can fairly be interpreted as an absolute command that her husband should never again touch her under any circumstances. On the other hand, if she made this statement when she was happily married, but lying in bed sick with a fever and her skin was prickly, her statement has a radically different meaning.
This simple example reminds us of a very important principle: If we want to interpret spoken or written statements accurately, we must carefully study the context in which the statements were made. Otherwise we can completely misunderstand what was intended.
Theologians (including the most fundamentalist) have long followed this rule when interpreting statements found in the Bible. As the rabbi’s of the ancient world would have done because: “A text taken out of context is pretext.”
We are used to applying this principle in many biblical settings. For example, in 1 Corinthians chapter 11, the Apostle Paul says women should wear a veil when praying. He also says they should have long hair. Here are two rather simple, straightforward rules announced in the New Testament. How should we interpret them?
Some Christians have tried to interpret them without any reference to the cultural context in which the Apostle Paul spoke. So they require their women to wear hats in church (a modern type of veil) and require them to maintain hair that is shoulder length or longer.
But others who have studied the cultural context of this passage tell us that in Paul’s time only prostitutes wore short hair and appeared in public unveiled. If this is true, then the likely meaning of Paul’s ruling changes radically from an absolute command to one that was meant to address a problem unique to the culture of the time -- women who wore short hair or appeared unveiled in public could easily be mistaken for prostitutes. Today, even most conservative Christians do not require their women to wear head coverings or to keep their hair long. They take this position even though the words of the Bible specifically say women should do so. They refrain from imposing these requirements because they understand that the meaning of words is determined largely by the context in which they are spoken.
“Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves: who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. (Romans 1)
“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men leaving the natural use of the women, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful.” (Romans 1:21-28)
Though it may come as a surprise, this is the easiest of the clobber passages to interpret. This is because Paul, in his classically trained style, thoroughly explains the factual assumptions and rationale behind his condemnation of the behavior described here. Does this passage apply to inherently same-gender-attracted people who are living in loving, committed relationships?
If you follow the passage, step-by-step, we find Paul is moving through a logical progression. He is talking about people who:
1. Refused to acknowledge and glorify God. (v. 21)
2. Began worshipping idols (images of created things, rather than the Creator). (v. 23)
3. Were more interested in earthly pursuits than spiritual pursuits. (v. 25)
4. Gave up their natural, i.e., innate, passion for the opposite sex in an unbounded search for pleasure. (v. 26-27)
5. Lived lives full of covetousness, malice, envy, strife, slander, murder, disrespect for parents, pride, and hatred of God. (v. 29-31)
The model of behavior Paul was addressing here is explicitly associated with idol worship (probably temple prostitution and with people who, in an unbridled search for pleasure (or because of religious rituals associated with their idolatry), broke away from their natural sexual orientation, participating in promiscuous sex with anyone available. You must remember that Rome was filled with pagan worship, cults that practiced sex in mass orgies to honor some false god, like Dionysius. Cults that murdered innocent children as sacrifice, cults that hated gods that did not give immediate gratification. The chapters that contain these verses are clearly identified as speaking against practices involved in cultic idol worship.
The same is applied to Leviticus, which many Christians use against homosexuals even though these passages were clearly reinterpreted by Christ, and generally none of these passages are adhered to by any modern Christian. But for those who claim to be adherents to this ancient code, keeping it in historical context you will see the intended meaning. Three different times we are specifically told that the rules set forth in chapters 18 and 20 are meant to prevent the Israelites from doing what the Egyptians and Canaanites did.
Biblical historians tell us the Canaanite religions surrounding the Israelites at the time of Leviticus often included fertility rites consisting of sexual rituals. These rituals were thought to bring the blessing of the god or goddess on crop and livestock production. During the rituals, whole families, including husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, cousins, aunts and uncles would sometimes have sex. Also included was sex with temple prostitutes. In short, every kind of sexual practice imaginable was performed at these rituals, including homosexual sex.
Consider one specific example. Historians tell us that many Canaanites and Egyptians worshipped a goddess of love and fertility called Astarte or Ishtar. Within her temples were special priests called assinu, who were deemed to have special powers. Physical contact with the assinu was believed to ward off evil and promote good luck. These priests were, in effect, living good luck charms, and worshipers would often ritually touch them as part of their worship practices. Sexual intercourse was considered especially effective for gaining the goddess’s favor, because the male worshiper was offering his greatest possession, semen (which was thought to be the essence of life), to the goddess through her priests. Depositing semen in the body of a priest of the goddess was believed to guarantee one’s immortality. Similar cultic sexual practices flourished in connection with many other ancient pagan deities.
Leviticus 18 and 20 specifically say they were written to address pagan religious practices. Leviticus 18 begins with the admonition, “You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you.” (18:3) Chapter 20 is even more specific, beginning with an injunction against the pagan practices associated with a god named Molech. And both chapters include long lists of sexual practices common in the cultic rituals we mentioned above. However, neither of them speaks to the question of whether two people of the same sex can live in loving relationship with the blessing of God.
In fact, historians tell us long-term homosexual relationships did not meaningfully exist in Canaanite culture. This was a tribal culture in which it would have been virtually impossible to form such relationships. Offspring were essential to survival in this primitive agricultural economy. Unlike today the propagation of the species is not a necessity, in fact because of overpopulation it is likely that there is a higher percentage of people born gay than ever before. Leviticus is not intended to prohibit a homosexual relationship, since they simply did not exist at the time. When read in textual and historical context, the prohibitions in Leviticus 18 and 20 are clearly as stated to prevent the cult worship and sexual rituals that were so common at the time. Just as slave holding was a common practice, there are several laws outlining the proper treatment of slaves, an idea that is just as foreign to us today as would be a church in which all members regularly sacrificed goats or people as part of their services, or worshipped golden idols that look like cows and instead of passing a collection plate their parishioners deposited their semen in a bowl, mixed with blood and other unimaginable depravity. Sanity, gender or love were not factors in these cults, they operated out of fear and ignorance, nothing human about them.
These cults were practiced all around the known world at this time and this is precisely why God called to Abraham to show the world by example that these strange gods made of wood in which children were sacrificed out of insane, ignorant superstition, were not the expectations a true loving God. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is about Abraham leaving his home in Ur to travel to the wild west where these rituals were rampant. The evils that were being committed in these lawless lands were detestable and invoked the wrath of God to the point of destroying these cities. But why exactly? Because the whole city was gay?
In modern times, San Francisco is considered to have one of the largest gay communities in the world, yet the homosexual population accounts for less than 5% of the entire city. It is foolish to believe that in the ancient world one city, let alone two could be comprised of an entirely gay population, even the Greek city of Athens where homosexuality was considered to be just as normal as heterosexuality was not even close to being entirely gay.
Abraham had a nephew named Lot who moved to Sodom. At the time, Sodom was considered a comfortable, modern, sophisticated city, and Lot thought it would be a better place to raise his family than out on the plains with Abraham, who was a nomad. Unfortunately, the city was also full of wickedness, and God told Abraham that it would soon be destroyed. Two angels were sent to assess the situation in Sodom, and when Lot saw them in the town square, he invited them to his house for dinner and lodging. He did not recognize they were angels. He seems, however, to have felt a responsibility to be hospitable to strangers — perhaps because he remembered having been a stranger himself.
That night, when the city dwellers learned Lot had welcomed two strangers into his house and into their city, all the people gathered at his door. They demanded that Lot deliver the two men to them so they might “know them.” (Genesis 19:5) (The Hebrew word translated “know” in this passage is sometimes used in Scripture to mean sexual intercourse, and given the context of the passage, that is probably what it means here.
Lot pleaded with his neighbors not to do such an evil thing. So In a despicable act by today’s standards, he even offered them his virgin daughters instead, but the men persisted. Finally, the angels struck all those outside with blindness and warned Lot and his family they should leave the city because God would soon destroy it for its wickedness. The very next day, fire came down from heaven and destroyed the city and all its inhabitants.
The text of the story tells us that “the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man” (vs. 4) gathered at Lot’s door and demanded that his guests be brought out to them. This language is important because it makes clear that the group at Lot’s door was comprised of either all the people of the city (men and women) or, at a minimum, all the males of the city, both boys and men. This is a telling fact.
If the Scripture text had told us that “certain men of Sodom” or even “many men of Sodom” gathered at the door, we might then surmise that the men at the door could have been motivated by homosexual desire. But the text says “both young and old, all the people to the last man” gathered at the door. To suggest that every man and boy in Sodom was homosexual is simply not credible. Any reasonable interpretation of the story must account for the fact that all the males of Sodom (both homosexual and heterosexual), and perhaps even the women, participated in this attack. Something other than homosexual desire seems to have been at work here.
This point is reinforced by another fact recounted in the story. We are told that Lot, in a last-ditch effort to save his guests, offered his virgin daughters to the men at the door. Although Lot’s offer is reprehensible, it does yield another important interpretive clue. Suppose you were hosting a dinner party, when suddenly a group of men that you knew to be homosexual began angrily beating on the door, demanding that you send out a male guest from your house. Would it make any sense to offer them a beautiful woman instead? Of course not! If the men were motivated by homosexual desire, offering them heterosexual sex instead would be nonsensical. Lot knew the men of Sodom much better than any of today’s fundamentalist preachers do. And it’s obvious he believed the crowd outside his door was predominantly heterosexual. Why else would he offer his daughters?
Although it might be simpler to blame what took place in Genesis 19 on homosexuals, the facts indicate that something far more encompassing and complex was taking place. But what? If the motivation for the attack was not homosexual desire, then what was it?
Consider an example from modern times. On August 9, 1997 in New York City, two white police officers were strip-searching a black Haitian immigrant named Abner Louima and grew angry with him. They dragged him into a bathroom and, while one officer held him down, the other repeatedly rammed a broken broom up Louima’s rectum. While they did this, the officers reportedly yelled things like, “We’re gonna teach you n****rs to respect police officers!” In the aftermath of this terrible incident, nobody has suggested the assault was motivated by homosexual desire. Intuitively, we recognize the two officers were motivated by hatred and fear of people like Abner Louima. In their minds, there was no better way to demean and humiliate an “enemy” than to sexually violate him.
From archeological records, we know it was also a common practice in the Near East during ancient times for soldiers to use rape as a way of humiliating their enemies. Perhaps the men of that city feared the two angelic strangers were spies. Perhaps the fact that Lot (a recent immigrant) had taken them in served to heighten their suspicion. Whatever caused their panic, a mob mentality took over, and before long the people of Sodom were at Lot’s house clamoring to brutalize the strangers.
Suppose the two angels in the story had been women, but the story otherwise unfolded exactly the same: The men of Sodom clamored to have sex with the two female angels and God destroyed the city. Do you think anyone would conclude this story was a blanket condemnation of heterosexuality? Of course not! Instead, we all would conclude (correctly) that the wickedness of Sodom was shown by their desire to sexually violate two strangers in their midst. In some sense this is closer to the true interpretation, because angels are referred to as asexual being, having no gender distinction. There are about twenty references to the story of Sodom in the Bible, and none of them says homosexuality was the sin of Sodom. One of the most extensive references to Sodom is found in Ezekiel, which says, “This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it.” (Ezekiel 16:49-50) In truth, this story is a condemnation of rape. And, as other Scriptures affirm, it is more generally a condemnation of the mistreatment of those who are most vulnerable, including strangers. It is ironic that the story of Sodom is now used by Christians to justify hatred toward another vulnerable group — gay people.
“Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” (Jude 7) At the time the book of Jude was written, many believed some of the women of Sodom had engaged in intercourse with male angels. This belief was probably derived from Genesis 6:1, 2 and 4, where we are told the “Sons of God”(angels) took the daughters of humans as wives. This was the final act which brought God’s judgment on the earth in the form of a great flood. And it seems some Jewish writers believed this was also the sin which sealed Sodom’s fate.
It is not only a prevalent theme in the bible but it exists in almost every other culture, a strange and cryptic story of gods having had sexual interests in humans, in this story the angels, referred to as the fallen angels or sons of light mating with the daughters of men. According to first century legend, some of the women of Sodom (and other wicked ancient cities) were thought to have had sex with beings who were made of different flesh — angelic flesh. This is what Jude was referring to when he talked about “going after strange flesh.” He was referring to heterosexual sex between angels and human women, not homosexual sex between humans.
Another passage of Scripture sometimes used against gay people is 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, which reads as follows in the King James Version:
“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves . . . shall inherit the kingdom of God.”
The word sometimes translated "effeminate" in these passages are obscure and difficult to translate. The first word identifies someone who is morally weak, and has nothing to do with gay men. The second word probably means “people who use power to obtain sex,” though the word is so rare that a confident translation is impossible. Neither word refers specifically to gay men or lesbians.
In truth, however, the Greek word translated “effeminate” in verse 9 is quite broad. The word is malakoi, and it literally means “soft.” So Paul is saying “soft people” will not inherit the kingdom of God. Since we know Paul was not talking about the Pillsbury Dough Boy, we have to ask what he meant.
Arsenokoitês and Malakos: Meaning and “frailty of body or character, illness, sentimentality, or moral weakness” for the meaning of this word in other contexts. This common Greek word had different connotations depending on the context in which it was used. In terms of morality, it generally referred to something like laziness, degeneracy, decadence, or lack of courage.
The connotation was of being “soft like a woman” or like the delicate expensive fabrics worn by rich men. In the patriarchal culture of the time, women were thought to be weaker than men, more fearful, more vulnerable, and more vain. Thus, men who ate too much, liked expensive things, were lazy, or liked to dress well were considered “soft like a woman.” Although this type of misogynistic thinking is intolerable in our modern society, it was common in ancient times and explains why the King James Version translated malakoi as “effeminate.”
But it is important to understand the difference between ancient and modern notions of what makes one effeminate. Paul wasn’t condemning men who swish and carry purses; he was condemning a type of moral weakness. The ancient Roman and Greek understanding of what it meant to be manly or womanly was quite different from today. First-century Romans didn’t think of effeminacy as merely a homosexual trait. In that culture, any man who was more interested in pleasure than in duty was considered to be woman-like. And men who worked to make themselves more attractive, “whether they were trying to attract men or women, were called effeminate.”
From this perspective, Paul was condemning men who are vain, fearful, and self-indulgent.
In recent years, however, some have suggested that, in the context in which it appears in 1 Corinthians 6, malakoi may refer specifically to male prostitutes, who would have served as the receptive partner. This translation is reflected in two of the most widely used modern English translations of the Bible, the New International Version and the New Revised Standard Version. Since malakoi was used to refer to men who exhibited the negative traits associated with women in first-century culture, it’s not hard to see how the term might also be used to refer to male prostitutes. They would be viewed as sexually indulgent (a trait associated with women) and as the ones who played a receptive role in intercourse (again, associated with women). Because here Paul uses malakoi in a list of sexual sins, it is possible to infer that he may have been referring specifically to male prostitutes, rather than soft men in general. The next key phrase in this passage is rendered in the King James Version as “abusers of themselves with mankind.” A similar phrase appears in a list of sins in I Timothy 1:10. Both phrases are derived from a single Greek word, arsenokoitai, which is quite rare. In fact, these two biblical references may be the first examples we have of this word being used in the literature of the time.
One translation technique is to look at the root words alone. Arsenokoitai is a combination of two existing words, one meaning “bed” and referring to sex, and another meaning “male.” (See note 5.) Thus, some scholars surmise the term has something to do with male sexual expression — perhaps exclusive male sexual expression, since no woman is mentioned.
Unfortunately, this method of translation often leads people astray. For example, imagine a future translator coming across the word “lady-killer” two thousand years from now and wanting to know what it means. It’s clear the phrase is made from two words, lady and killer. So, it must mean a woman who kills, right? Or is it a person who kills ladies? The difficulty in obtaining a good translation is clear — particularly when we know lady-killer was a term used in the 1970s to refer to men whom women supposedly found irresistible.
A better way to understand what Paul may have meant by arsenokoitai is to look for other instances of the word in the subsequent writings of his time. This approach yields several telling facts. First, two early church writers who dealt with the subject of homosexual behavior extensively, Clement of Alexandria and John Chrysostom, never used the word in their discussions of same-sex behavior. The word shows up in their writing, but only in places where they appear to be quoting the list of sins found in 1 Corinthians 6, not in places where they discuss homosexuality. This suggests they did not believe Paul’s term referred to homosexual behavior.
In one instance, a Greek author uses the term when cataloguing the sins of the Greek gods. Arsenokoitai is also used in an ancient legend in which the snake in the Garden of Eden is said to have become a Satanic figure named Naas. Naas uses a variety of means (including sleeping with both Adam and Eve) to gain power over and destroy them.
It is noted in Matthew 19 that Jesus explains the viewpoint of Divorce as it was misinterpreted, so severe are his words on divorce that the people are left to question if it would be better than to NOT marry a woman.
As the dialogue continues, Jesus’ disciples are disturbed by his strict teaching on divorce. The disciples say that if divorce is not a ready option, perhaps it would be best for a man not to marry a woman. Jesus responds:
“Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.” (Matthew 19:11-12)
Here Jesus refers to "eunuchs who have been so from birth." This terminology ("born eunuchs") was used in the ancient world to refer to homosexual men. Jesus indicates that being a "born eunuch" is able to obtain and worthy of the Kingdom of Heaven. Yet so many Christians will approve of a Divorce today and condemn a homosexuals saying that they are not born that way? Quoting OT references to justify their condemnation, ignoring the NT and Jesus!
Here Jesus identifies three classes of men who should not marry women. Taking his categories in reverse order, first, there are those who have made themselves “eunuchs” for the kingdom of heaven, i.e., those who foreswear marriage to better serve God. Second, he mentions those who have been “made eunuchs by others,” an apparent reference to castrated males. But Jesus mentions a third category — eunuchs who were born that way. Some might argue that Jesus was referring to males born without testicles, but this would be extremely rare. Moreover, this interpretation ignores how the term “born eunuchs” was used in other literature of the time.
In the ancient world, including ancient Jewish culture (as reflected in the Talmud), “natural” or “born” eunuchs were not associated with missing testicles. Rather, they were associated with stereotypically effeminate characteristics and behavior (just like modern gay men), and were thought by some to be subject to “cure” (just like modern gays). Moreover, as we have also seen, eunuchs were commonly associated with homosexual desire.
Jesus feels no need to “cure” these born eunuchs. He speaks no words of condemnation. Rather he lists people born gay alongside another honored class (eunuchs for the kingdom), and accepts them as a natural part of God’s creation order.
Thus, when Matthew 19 is read as a whole, we see Jesus teaches that most people are created for heterosexual marriage. (Homosexuals are a small portion of society and too accept this as God’s predominant creation paradigm.) But, unlike some modern Christians, Jesus does not see this as the only honorable way to live. He acknowledges that some human beings have been created by God to follow a less common, but equally legitimate path. There are some who have been eunuchs from birth — made that way by God.
In the ancient world, eunuchs were widely associated with homosexuality. Here a self-avowed eunuch is welcomed in to the early church without any concerns about his sexual orientation. He was welcomed on the same basis as other people – his faith in Jesus Christ.
(Acts 8:28-
And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship, Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet. Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.
And Philip ran thither to [him], and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:
In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.
And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on [their] way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, [here is] water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.
This story challenges the “grasshopper mentality,” a phrase that comes from an old joke about a grasshopper in a bar. (If you come from a conservative background like we do, to understand the joke, you need to know there’s a mixed drink called a “grasshopper.”)
A grasshopper steps up to a bar and says, “I’d like a drink, please.”
The bartender asks, “What’ll it be?”
“I don’t know. What do you suggest?”
“Well,” the bartender says, “you may not know it, but we have a drink named after you!”
At this, the grasshopper grins and says, “In that case, I’ll have a Stuart!”
You see, the bartender had been unable to see past the grasshopper’s “type” to think he might have a name, a family, and a life beyond his “grasshopperness.” And that is the way many Christians view gay, lesbian, and bisexual people. Once they find out someone is gay, it is as if that person has a neon sign on his or her forehead, flashing, “Gay! Gay! Gay!” But God sees people differently, looking past incidental labels and seeing into the core of each being. As the Apostle Peter says, “God shows no partiality.” (Acts 10:34) The grace of God is available to gay people on the same basis as all other humans. That is what the story of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch is all about.
The author of Acts sought to write a well-researched history of the acts of the apostles following the resurrection of Jesus and his ascension into heaven. In chapter eight of that book, we find Philip heading a great evangelistic campaign in Samaria. The story tells us that along with “proclaiming the Messiah,” (8:4) Philip was healing people and casting out demons. His efforts were going so well, and so many were coming to faith, “there was great joy in that city.” (8:8) However, in the midst of this great revival, the Holy Spirit told Philip to “get up and go toward the south to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” (8:26) This road was in the wilderness.
This seems like a strange command: Leave the great revival among the Samaritans, and go out into the wilderness. But Philip did what God asked. Then the story gets even stranger. Out in the wilderness, Philip finds a lone Ethiopian eunuch traveling south from Jerusalem. The author tells us the man was sitting in his chariot, reading from Isaiah. Having just been to Jerusalem to worship, he was now headed home.
It is this nameless man who makes the story so important to gay, lesbian, and bisexual Christians. So, let us look more closely at the identity of the Ethiopian eunuch. At the time of the writing of Acts, the term Ethiopian was used to describe people from Nubia, south of Egypt. So, we know from this description that he was probably a black African. But that still leaves us with the question, “What is a eunuch?”
The Greek word used in Acts is eunouchos, which means literally “guardian or keeper of the couch.” (See note 1.) The term refers to those who were placed in positions of highest trust in royal palaces and wealthy households. Eunuchs served and guarded the women in these households. Because of their intimate access to the royal courts, eunuchs often rose to senior government positions. In this story, the Ethiopian eunuch was Treasurer to the Queen of Ethiopia. (8:27)
Not just anyone was permitted to serve as a eunuch. Given their intimate access to the women of the household, they had to be men who could be trusted not to have affairs with (or force themselves upon) the women — because to do so would cloud the line of succession to the throne and confuse inheritance rights. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the ideal candidate for the position of eunuch would be someone known for his disinterest in women. Although the ancients did not have the same clear concept of heterosexual and homosexual that we do today, people were put together in the same way then as now. There were men then (as now) who had a reputation for being disinterested in women as objects of sexual attraction. They would make the ideal eunuch.
Of course, it was not always possible to find someone like this. In those situations, or in situations where the master wanted to be extra cautious, eunuchs were often castrated, i.e., their testicles were removed so they would be incapable of fathering children. But it would be historically inaccurate to picture eunuchs as a bunch of straight men who were castrated. Ancient literature indicates that various types of eunuchs were recognized. There were “man-made eunuchs,” meaning those who had been castrated. But there are also references to so-called “natural” or “born” eunuchs. This category apparently included males who from childhood seemed incapable of or disinterested in intercourse with women.
For example, in the Jewish Babylonian Talmud, which was written several hundred years after Christ but is based on an oral tradition that goes back much further, Rabbi Eliezer refers to “eunuchs by nature” and contrasts them with man-made eunuchs. He asserts that natural eunuchs can be “cured,” a statement that would make no sense if he were talking about men who had physical genital defects.
In the same Talmud, other rabbis discuss how a natural eunuch can be identified. Signs of natural eunuchs are said to include lateness of pubic hair, urine that does not form an arch, absence of a beard, softness of hair, smoothness of skin, a high voice, and a body that does not steam when bathing in winter. The ancient stereotype of “natural” or “born” eunuchs are the same as the modern stereotype of gay men as effeminate who need to be “cured” because something is wrong with them.
And what was “wrong” with them? It is clear from the ancient literature that eunuchs as a class had a reputation for being attracted sexually to men, rather than women. For example, an ancient Sumerian myth about the creation of eunuchs says they “do not satisfy the lap of women.” They were specifically created, the myth says, because they can resist the wiles of women.
The book of Sirach, found in the Old Testament of the Catholic Bible, says that embracing a girl makes a eunuch groan. Lucian, a Greek satirist who lived about one hundred years after Christ, compares a eunuch with a concubine to a deaf man with a flute, a bald man with a comb, and a blind man with a mirror. In other words, a eunuch has as much need for a woman as a fish has for a bicycle.
Instead, eunuchs were commonly associated in ancient culture with sexual interest in men. For example, the Kama Sutra (an ancient Eastern sacred text) has an entire chapter on eunuchs seducing men.
Alexander the Great’s palace included “herds of eunuchs, also accustomed to prostitute themselves [like women]. Alexander the Great fell deeply in love with a eunuch named Bagoas and they entered into a relationship of mutual love.
These examples from ancient literature indicate that, in ancient culture, eunuchs were a suspect category. They were commonly regarded as being sexually interested in men, not women. This does not mean all were gay. But clearly, as a class, they were strongly associated with homosexual desire in the popular mind.
When the Ethiopian introduced himself to Philip as a eunuch, Philip would have immediately known he was dealing with a man who was part of a class commonly associated with homosexual desire.
Acts 8:32-33 tells us the Ethiopian eunuch was reading from Isaiah 53:7-8. This passage was seen by early Christians as a prophecy about Jesus. The whole chapter tells about the suffering of God’s anointed one. Verse 3 says, “He was despised and rejected by others.” Verse 7 says, “He was oppressed and he was afflicted.” It seems like a strange passage for someone to read just after worshipping in Jerusalem, the holy city. But it makes sense when we understand that the Ethiopian eunuch had probably found himself despised and rejected by the religious leaders in Jerusalem.
Just like gay, lesbian, and bisexual people of today, eunuchs were the sexual outcasts of Jewish religious society. Deuteronomy 23:1 states, “No one whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off shall be admitted to the assembly of the Lord.” By the first century, this verse was understood as applying to anyone who was incapable of fathering children (either physically or by reason of what we today would call sexual orientation). The first-century teachers of Jewish law forbade converting such a person to Judaism, and they would have informed the Ethiopian eunuch when he arrived in Jerusalem that he could not even enter the outer court of the temple.
So, in Jerusalem, the Ethiopian eunuch would have been assured by the people of God that he could not become one of them. He would have been despised and rejected, cut off from God’s grace by the religious leaders.
Perhaps someone among his friends had furtively told him about Isaiah 56:3-5, which promises eunuchs who keep God’s commandments that someday they will receive a house, a monument, and a name within God’s walls. Perhaps, like gay, lesbian, and bisexual Christians today, he had gone to his religious leaders pointing to the Scriptures which affirmed him, hoping he might somehow be accepted. But instead, he had been clobbered once again with Deuteronomy 23:1. A eunuch “may not enter the assembly of God’s people!” And so he had taken his precious scroll of Isaiah and begun his journey home, reading about another of God’s children who had been despised, rejected, and cut off.
It was at this point Philip, guided by the Holy Spirit, happened along and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” The Ethiopian eunuch, still seeking a religious authority figure, answered “How can I unless someone guides me?” (8:31) So, Philip started with this Scripture and “proclaimed to him the good news of Jesus.” (8:35) Then they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is some water! What is to prevent me from being baptized?” Philip’s answer should be astonishing to anyone who still holds a prejudice against gay, lesbian, and bisexual believers.
Philip responded, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.”
Philip did not say, “Let’s talk about Deuteronomy 23:1.” He also did not say, “I realize since you’re a eunuch that you may desire men; can you promise me you’ll never have a sexual relationship with a man?” Instead, operating under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” We have no way of knowing whether the Ethiopian eunuch was in fact gay. But we do know he was part of a class of people commonly associated with homosexuality and that this fact was completely irrelevant to whether he could become a Christian.
The implications of this story are profound for gay, lesbian, and bisexual people. This story illustrates that what matters is how we relate to Jesus — a point made over and over again in the New Testament, but which many modern Christians refuse to apply consistently. Scripture is not what keeps them from accepting their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters; only prejudice does. For if there were some authentic scriptural basis for excluding the Ethiopian eunuch because of the real possibility he was homosexual, we can be sure that Philip, a man who followed God even when God led him into the wilderness, would have been quick to pursue it.
A Roman Centurion comes to Jesus to ask to heal his servant. It is well documented that eunuchs were known as chamberlains or servants and it is also historically understood that Romans of status were the only privellaged citizens to hold eunuchs as property. The Centurion prostrates himself to Jesus explaining that his authority is great and that what he asks is granted by his subordinates. Jesus is in awe at this man’s faith. Why? Because a man of such authority would be so concerned for his eunuch? Jesus tells the others that from every foreign country will men of this example be seen as righteous in the eyes of God, more so than the Israelites who are the source of this man’s torment. The Greek word that the Roman centurion uses in this passage to describe the sick man – pais – is the same word used in ancient Greek to refer to a same-gender partner. The Affliction of the servant is that he is greatly tormented because of who he is by the inhabitants of Israel. Jesus affirms that this man will go to heaven before these tormentors.
Matt 8:5-13
The same Hebrew word that is used in Genesis 2:24 to describe how Adam felt about Eve (and how spouses are supposed to feel toward each other) is used in Ruth 1:14 to describe how Ruth felt about Naomi. Her feelings are celebrated, not condemned.
And throughout Christian history, Ruth's vow to Naomi has been used to illustrate the nature of the marriage covenant. These words are often read at Christian wedding ceremonies and used in sermons to illustrate the ideal love that spouses should have for one another. The fact that these words were originally spoken by one woman to another tells us a lot about how God feels about same-gender relationships.
