bluethread wrote:
... "the Scriptural preference for male/female matrimonial sex"...
On that note, I'm not promoting polygamy, but the Bible certainly seems to prefer polygamy to a large degree:
Sometimes, people are indeed honest enough to admit that the Bible really does not prohibit polygamy (polygyny). However, as a hedge against that admission, such ones may then resort to saying one of the following assertions:
• "Yes, but God never condoned polygamy."
• "Yes, God allowed it, but He was against polygamy."
• "Polygamy was only man's idea, not God's".
• "Yes, but God never approved of polygamy."
The passage involving 2 Samuel 12:8 rather clearly reveals otherwise.
“I also gave you your master's house and your master's wives into your care, and I gave you the house of Israel and Judah; and if that had been too little, I would have added to you many more things like these!� -2 Samuel 12:8.
The context of the verse is that of God, speaking through a prophet (Nathan), calling out David for David's sin of taking another man's wife (Bathsheba, wife of Uriah the Hittite), which is adultery indeed, and for setting up the death of Uriah the Hittite to try to hide David's sin.
Also, at the point in time of this situation, David had already been married to at least seven known-named wives. (1_Samuel 18:27, 25:42-43, 2_Samuel 3:2-5.)
In verse 12 God was not condemning David for all his wives. In fact, verse 12 shows God Himself actually saying that HE was the One Who had GIVEN David His wives.
If God was against David's polygamy, He certainly would not have said that He had GIVEN David his wives.
But the LORD did not stop there. Verse 12 shows that the Lord took it even one step further than that. The LORD God went on further to say that if David had wanted more wives, the Lord Himself said that He would have given David even more.
Another Biblical example of polygamy being approved by God: "If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish." -Exodus 21:10.
Exodus 21:10 protects the first (and previous) wife(s).
Lamech practiced polygyny (Genesis 4:19). Abraham likewise had more than one wife (Genesis 16:3-4; 25:6 "concubines"). Nahor, Abraham's brother, had both a wife and a concubine (Genesis 11:29; 22:20-24). Jacob was tricked into polygamy (Genesis 29:20-30), yet later he received two additional wives making a grand total of four wives (Genesis 30:4, 9). Esau took on a third wife hoping it might please his father Isaac (Genesis 28:6-9). Ashur the father of Tekoa had two wives (1 Chronicles 4:5). Michael, Obadiah, Joel, Ishiah, and those with them "had many wives" (1 Chronicles 7:3-4). Shaharaim had at least four wives, two of which he "sent away" (1 Chronicles 8:8-11).
Caleb had two wives (1 Chronicles 2:18) and two concubines (1 Chronicles 2:46, 48). Gideon had many wives (Judges 8:30). Elkanah is recorded as having two wives, one of which was the godly woman Hannah (1 Samuel 1:1-2, 8-2:10). David, a man after God's own heart (1 Samuel 13:14; Acts 13:22), had at least 8 wives and 10 concubines (1 Chronicles 1:1-9; 2 Samuel 6:23; 20:3). Solomon, who breached both Deuteronomy 7:1-4 and 17:14-17, had 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:1-6).
Rehoboam had eighteen wives and sixty concubines (2 Chronicles 11:21), and sought many wives for his sons (1 Chronicles 11:23). Abijah had fourteen wives (2 Chronicles 13:21). Ahab had more than one wife (1 Kings 20:7). Jehoram had wives who were taken captive (2 Chronicles 21:17). Jehoiada the priest gave king Joash two wives (2 Chronicles 24:1-3), and Jehoiachin had more than one wife (2 Kings 24:15). Polygamy is mentioned several times over in the Bible and never once is polygyny condemned.
Polygamy was governed, not forbidden:
Not only is polygamy not forbidden, but God actually gave laws concerning its practice. For example, in Deuteronomy 21 the Lord gave Moses a law regarding a man who had two wives.
If a man has two wives, one loved and the other unloved, and they have borne him children, both the loved and the unloved, and if the firstborn son is of her who is unloved, then it shall be, on the day he bequeaths his possessions to his sons, that he must not bestow firstborn status on the son of the loved wife in preference to the son of the unloved, the true firstborn. But he shall acknowledge the son of the unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his. (Deuteronomy 21:15-17)
This law does not condemn the man who has two wives. It simply governs how he deals with the offspring.
Immediately before this passage, we find Deuteronomy 21:10-14.
"When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God delivers them into your hand, and you take them captive, and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and desire her and would take her for your wife, then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. She shall put off the cloths of her captivity, remain in your house, and mourn her father and her mother a full month; after that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. And it shall be, if you have no delight in her, then you shall set her free, but you certainly shall not sell her for money; you shall not treat her brutally, because you have humbled her."
Here the Lord makes no mention as to whether "you" are already married or not. He simply gives the Israelites the permission to marry a captive girl and how to deal with her.
This law applies to either a single man or a married man, and in its application of a married man, the Lord is giving permission for polygamy. In fact, this passage rests in that very context, because the very next statement after verse 14 is, "If a man has two wives, . . ." (Deuteronomy 21:15).
Another interesting law in the light of polygamy is found in Deuteronomy 25:5-10.
'If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the widow of the dead man shall not be married to a stranger outside the family; her husband's brother shall go in to her, take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her. And it shall be that the firstborn son which she bears will succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel. But if the man does not want to take his brother's wife, then let his brother's wife go up to the gate to the elders, and say, "My husband's brother refuses to raise up a name to his brother in Israel; he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother." Then the elders of his city shall call him and speak to him. But if he stands firm and says, "I do not want to take her," then his brother's wife shall come to him in the presence of the elders, remove his sandal from his foot, spit in his face, and answer and say, "So shall it be done to the man who will not build up his brother's house." And his name shall be called in Israel, "The house of him who had his sandal removed."
This passage requires the living brother to marry his brother's wife, and there is absolutely no statement whatsoever in regards to the living brother's marital status. He could be single, or he could already be married. The passage says nothing either way. All that is said is,
"If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the widow of the dead man shall not be married to a stranger outside the family; her husband's brother shall go in to her, take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her."
If the living brother was already married, then we have here a command from God for a man to have a polygamous relationship. If the living brother was already married, in order to obey the Lord, the man would be required to have more than one wife. If he refused to do so, he would be spit in the face and bear reproach (Deuteronomy 25:9-10).
Similarly, if a married man were to have sex with a virgin who was not betrothed, he would be required to marry her, and thus end up with another wife.
If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the bride-price of virgins. (Exodus 22:16-17; see also Deuteronomy 22:28-29)
Here again there is no specification on whether the man is married or not. Therefore, this law would apply to both a single or married man.
Regardless of the fact that God clearly approved of polygamy, Jesus clearly stated that there are those who are born with no attraction to women.
In Matthew 19:3-12 Jesus answers questions posed by Pharisees about divorce, leading to a question whether it is not perhaps better not to marry. He responds to it with a short discussion in Matthew 19:12 that the King James Version (1611) translates this way:
"For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb; and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men; and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."
Castrated males are not the only people included in the term 'eunuch'. There can hardly be a question that gays fall into the eunuch definition given by Christ, and Isaiah 56:4-5 offers a particularly hopeful prospect for those who keep the covenant with God.
Using common sense, rationality and basic logic from what we know about gay people now, it is honest to interpret the third type of eunuch that Jesus mentions as "those who choose to refrain from marriage with women because doing so would be contrary to their God-created nature and therefore dishonest."
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.
Once people who have prejudice against gays 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 10:30)
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, and the acceptance of them. 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." 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 also included males who from childhood seemed incapable of or disinterested in intercourse with women.
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 Summarian 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. - Inanna's Descent into the Nether World, (Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 4, # 4, 1950), page 200.
The book of Sirach, found in the Old Testament of the Catholic Bible, says that embracing a girl makes a eunuch groan. (Sirach 30:30)
The Roman playwright Juvenal (who lived near the time of Christ) stated, "When a soft eunuch takes to matrimony. . . it is hard not to write a satire." It's obvious he wasn't talking about a castrated male.
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.
With this historical background, we can now return to the story in Acts 8 about the Ethiopian eunuch. The point we have been leading up to is this: 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."
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 with kindness and love. 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." The eunuch was part of a class of people commonly associated with homosexuality and yet 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, and for the acceptance of them by the church.
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.
