Who were the homosexuals in the Bible? Jesus said this: “For there are eunuchs who were born so from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. To him who can comprehend, that is enough.” (Matthew 19:12 Lamsa). The Aramaic word m'haym-ne (plural) is translated as eunuchs here, but literally means: trusted ones, faithful ones and believers. These "trusted ones" were also servants such as chamberlains, eunuchs and officers. Additionally, m’haym-ne meant homosexual men because they were trusted around women that were married or were not of their family. They weren’t a threat in committing adultery with other mens’ wives or in having pre marital sex with the women of the nation.
The born eunuchs in the above verse from Matthew are referring to homosexual men. The second part of the verse says: "and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men;" These would be the man-made or castrated eunuchs. Also, the eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men were those appointed by the king to be servants in the king’s palace. Some of these were prisoners of war, captives, and exiles (Isaiah 39:7 Lamsa). The third part of this verse should be read as: "and there are believers who made themselves celibates for the sake of the kingdom of heaven."
Throughout the ancient nations that included Egypt, Babylon, Assyria and Persia; homosexuals were exalted to such positions as eunuchs that watched the women of the harem. Because of the mistrust of men, heterosexual or bi-sexual men were castrated; but homosexual men didn’t need to be. Eunuchs also had a recognized place in homosexual prostitution, and youths chosen as catamitic favorites were sometimes castrated. Homosexuality was long confused with eunuchry. Like effeminacy and hermaphroditism, eunuchry was sometimes thought of as creating a woman-man. The following verses will show that the Bible defines the trusted ones (or eunuchs) as homosexual men.
“Now God had brought Daniel into favour and [tender] love with the prince (sar- ruler captain) of the eunuchs.” (Daniel 1:9 KJV). The first underlined word is from the Hebrew word khe-sed, which means loving-kindness, mercy and favor, and is translated as favour in this verse. The second underlined word is from the Hebrew word ra-kha-mim, which is translated as tender love here, but means love. Daniel was given favor and love (plural) in the presence of the prince of the eunuchs. Most likely the intimate word ra-kha-mim, meaning love, was given to Daniel because he was handsome (See Dan. 1:4).
A second evidence where the Bible shows that eunuchs are gay men is in (Daniel 14:2 NAB), which says: "Daniel was the king's favorite and was held in higher esteem than any of the friends of the king." In the Aramaic Old Testament, the word friends is replaced with the Aramaic word raḥ-maw, which means "lovers of him [i.e. the king]". Raḥ-maw is from the singular Aramaic word raḥ-ma (or raḥme), which means love. Chapters 13-14 are in the Catholic canon of scripture. The Aramaic Old Testament contains fourteen chapters of Daniel. The Aramaic text of Daniel also has “the song of the three children” (Or, “Prayer of Hananiah and his companions” – Aramaic name for that portion) after verse twenty-three of Chapter Three. Dr. Lamsa, being a Protestant, just left out the additional parts of Daniel and Esther, plus the Deuterocanonical books. Dr. Lamsa did insert an extra sentence in verse 23 that is not in the Masoretic text, but in the Aramaic and Greek text of Daniel.
The translators of the New American Bible translated the Greek word sym-bi-o-tes as favorite, but that is incorrect. Sym-bi-o-tes, according to Liddell & Scott means: one who lives with, companion. That matches with the Aramaic text, which says that Daniel …was living with the king.
The additional words or text found in the Old Testament book of Daniel in both the Aramaic and Greek texts are probably not inspired. I included this verse from the Aramaic text to show that an Aramaic speaker would have understood eunuchs to be active homosexual men; as they were often the king’s lovers. Boga (or Bagoas Greek pronunciation) was the eunuch lover of Darius the Persian and eventually became the lover of Alexander the Great.
There is good reason to believe the so-called Deuterocanonical books are inspired (at least most of them) but no good reason to believe the additions to Esther and Daniel are inspired. These additions are not in the original Hebrew text of either Esther or Daniel.
THE FOLLOWING SHOWS WHERE SARIS APPEARS IN THE BIBLE. SINCE IT ISN’T ALWAYS TRANSLATED AS EUNUCH IN THE ENGLISH BIBLE LIKE IT IS IN THE GREEK BIBLE.
In the Hebrew Old Testament, the word sa-ris is translated two ways in the NKJV Old Testament. It is translated as eunuch and officer. The KJV also translated sa-ris as a chamberlain. It is also left untranslated with an additional word as Rabsa-ris (Rab saris KJV), which means chief eunuch. The Hebrew word sa-ris is translated as m'haym-na in the Aramaic Old Testament, with the exception of two places, which are in bold print below. Dr. George Lamsa translated the word m'haym-na as officer and eunuch in his English Translation of the Aramaic Bible (Old and New Testament). The following shows where the words sa-ris and m’haym-na appear in the Bible.
(Note: The NAB dishonestly translates the word “eunuch” as “afflicted man” from the Greek text of Sirach 30:20; plus deletes words.)
ARAMAIC WORD M'HAYM-NA TRANSLATED AS: Eunuch
Matthew 19:12 & Acts 8:27,34,36,38-39
Now, is this verse taken out of context?: “For there are eunuchs who were born so from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. To him who can comprehend, that is enough.” (Matthew 19:12 Lamsa). This verse is found when Jesus is speaking about marriage between a man and a woman. Then Jesus goes on and quotes this verse talking about people that it wouldn’t be good for them to marry because of the way they were born, or because of a situation, or because of their choice. - In order to get a correct interpretation of a verse, you have to know the definition of the words and the way the verse is used in the context. But also, in regards to the New Testament Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John), Jesus a lot of times changed the subject in his teaching or when he was asked questions. Some of his words may appear to be out of context to a reader when they are not. So we have to go by the definitions for the word m'haym-na- Eunuch. Now this verse is actually not out-of-context in regards to men that it wouldn’t be good for them to marry a woman (wife). It would not be good for a homosexual man to marry a woman because he lacks the sexual perophone receptors that enable him to be attracted to a woman. It should be noted that a homosexual is impotent toward a woman. The other two reasons why a male wouldn’t be able to marry a woman are obvious by the meaning of the word m’haym-na and its associations.
Another thing that needs to be pointed out is Jesus’ last statement in verse twelve. He said this about the eunuchs that it wouldn’t be good for them to marry a woman: “…To him who can receive (or accept) [it], shall receive (or accept) [it]." The last part is usually written elliptically as "let him receive it." The word spaq means "to receive, accept," when it accompanies the word mil-tha [word, statement, saying, message] (see Jn. 8:37). It also appears in the previous verse when Jesus says: "...not every man accepts (sa-peq) [or shall be accepting] this saying (mil-tha) but to whom it is given." (Matt. 19:11). However, it literally and mostly means “to be sufficient, enough, adequate; to suffice” (See Deut. 3:26; Matt. 6:34; Jn. 6:7, etc.). Jesus may have meant all three of those meanings with his use of the word spaq.
This last statement is written (or constructed) the same way as Jesus' other statements of "he that has ears to hear, let him hear" or "he that has eyes to see, let him see." I don't see any reason to translate one of spaq's meanings for the first occurrence and then one of its other meanings for the second occurrence as Dr. Lamsa translated that statement as "..to him who can comprehend, that is enough.” I also don't believe "comprehend" is a good translation for spaq in any of the Biblical Scriptures. Spaq was translated into Greek as cho-reo “to receive” (KJV) or can mean “to receive with the mind, accept" (NKJV).
Lastly, it is unlikely that Jesus’ reference to a born eunuch is referring to a straight impotent man. I can’t picture a straight man accepting his impotence or seeing his situation as being sufficient if he is lusting after a woman. Also, a lot of gay men marry women because they don’t know the truth about what the Hebrew and Aramaic Bible teaches. A lot of the men that are impotent toward their wives are homosexuals.
A COMPENDIOUS SYRIAC DICTIONARY
m'hay-min, m'haym-na, m'hay-man-tha a believer, a Christian, faithful, trustworthy, an eunuch
(Syriac Dictionary, edited by J. Payne Smith 1998, pg 255).
This Syriac Dictionary stops short of defining m’haym-na as an effeminate, but it does define the phrase “man of the woman” (gwar ni-sha-ya) as meaning: an hermaphrodite, a eunuch, effeminate. (Syriac Dictionary, edited by J. Payne Smith 1998, pg 59).
Foreign Language Lexicons (or Dictionaries) don’t always give all the meanings of a word. If we go by only the definitions given by this Syriac Dictionary, then we would have a hard time understanding what Jesus meant by his use of “born eunuchs.”
See the Appendix to get proof of the definitions for the word m’haym-na (translated as eunuch). I also cover certain beliefs about eunuchs that are accepted, that may not be false, but that the Bible does not support as absolute truth regarding eunuchs. Pictures of eunuchs are shown with information under the “Eunuchs” tab.
IS THE BIBLE AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY?
You may need to refresh the page several times for Bible Reference Tagger to work
The Bible contains selected knowledge and hence doesn't contain everything. There was an existing culture that the Bible sprung out of and hence embraces. Since our culture is a continuum of that culture of the past we have a good idea of what the words would be to describe the unions and partners of heterosexuals and LGBTI people. Western culture and the culture of the ancient nations were tolerant of LGBTI people. We know that heterosexuals and LGBTI people use the same relationship terminology today, so I don't see any reason why the terminology would be different back then. Additionally, we know that most of the words about or describing the covenants, partners and words of endearment are the same for heterosexuals and LGBTI people in the Bible. Furthermore, some of the concepts that are true about heterosexual relationships can also be shown to be true about same-sex relationships by using deduction. All this shows that God accepts peoples different sexual orientations. Given that same-sex relationships have been erased in the Bible translations; more knowledge of these relationships are continually being uncovered. When people were married, they made a covenant (agreement). The vows in a modern marriage would be similar to the covenant of the past. Additionally, when the two parties get married, the relatives of both of the families become "in laws." People don't become "in-laws" if the parties are just boyfriend and girlfriend. (Malachi 2:14 KJV) speaks about a heterosexual marriage by the statement: "... the wife of thy covenant." We can deduct that same-sex marriages consisted of the same things. Shaul (Saul) said to David, "you shall be my son-in-law by two [of my children]" (1 Sam. 18:21 Masoretic Text). Shaul was referring to David being his son-in-law by his son Jonathon and his daughter Michal. Now how does one become an "in law?" It is by marriage. So we can deduct that David and Jonathan must have made a marriage covenant. The two or more people in the covenant are known literally as shaw-ta-pe (partners) in the Aramaic language. Shaw-ta-pa (ms) means a "husband" and its feminine spelling shaw-tap-ta (fs) means a "wife" (Malachi 2:14).(3 Macc. 4:8 Aramaic) literally says: "But the partners(husbands) of these [brides] were being led and coming by force..." These brides were espoused and married before their bridal feasts or entering into the bridal chamber because verse six talks about the brides having husbands (gaw-re). If you still have doubt, the Greek text translated the Aramaic word "partners" as suzugeis "yoke-fellows, husbands" at (3 Macc. 4:8).
Separately, it is important to note that in the Bible, God nowhere set up statutes for a priest to marry couples; though I'm not against the practice. There are also some things that English readers don't see. Generally, when it says a man married a woman, the Hebrew word used says the man took the woman. The Hebrew word la-qakh, which means “he took,” is underneath the words “he married” in the following verse: “Now afterward Hezron went in to the daughter of Machir the father of Gilead, whom he married when he was sixty years old; and she bore him Segub.” (1 Chronicles 2:21 NKJV). Also, in the Hebrew text, the words man & husband are from the same word (ish); and the words woman & wife are from the same word (ish-sha) in our English Bible. An example is in this verse: “Then Sarai, Abram’s wife(ish-sha-woman), took Hagar her maid, the Egyptian, and gave her to her husband(ish - man) Abram to be his wife(woman), after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan." (Genesis 16:3 NKJV). No marriages in ancient societies closely match our modern equivalent.
The Old Testament does record a verse that shows that not all unions were between a man and a woman: “If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son, or your daughter, or your lawful wife, or your friend, who is as your own soul, entices you secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which you have not known, you nor your fathers;” (Deuteronomy 13:6 Lamsa). The underlined words your friend, who is as your own soul in the Aramaic literally means: “your lover according to your soul [heart, emotion(s)].” The word raḥ-ma, translated here as “friend,” also means a lover (in a relationship), as shown here: “His mouth is like sweet honeycombs; his garments are lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.” (Song of Solomon 5:16 Lamsa). For some, it is hard to distinguish when the word raḥ-ma is referring to a friend or when it is referring to a lover in a relationship. I believe the context gives the clue.
The New Testament also has a verse that can be interpreted to include heterosexual and homosexual marriage unions along with men or women marrying transgender persons. 2nd Corinthians 6:14 literally says this: "And you shall not be married men(sons of the yoke) with those who are not believing[mhaym-nin mp]. For what partnership has righteousness with evil? Or what intimacy has light with darkness." The words "married men" and "those who aren't believing" are both grammatically masculine; though masculine words can also include females. I believe that is the case here, but I will get to that later. This verse is literally talking about male homosexual marriages. There is a feminine verb spelling for: "those who are not believing." If this verse was talking only about heterosexual men not being in a marriage with female unbelievers, then the verb spelling and pronunciation would be mhaym-nan "believing" [fp].
The following are a couple examples of the root word za-wig (yoking, marrying); so you can see how the words "sons of the yoke" mean "married men, etc." 1st Timothy 4:3says:"And they [will be] forbidding to be married (yoked, paired, coupled) ..." Also, Yeshua discouraged divorce by saying: "Therefore what God was joining together (yoking, uniting), let not man be separating." (Mk. 10:9).
The word "sons" can refer to" men (offspring) of any age." So "sons of the yoke," in regard to homosexual unions, refers to "married men." Additionally, there are other marriage/relationship words used in this verse. The word show-ta-pu-tha means: "partnership, communication, marriage, conjugal intercourse, etc." It's referring to the relationship between "partners, spouses." Also, the Aramaic word khul-ta-na means: "intimacy, mingling, contact, intercourse, meeting, etc."
The words "sons of the yoke" can refer to "children of the yoke," hence "married men and married women." Plus, the word "believers" can refer to either male or female believers. Again, masculine words can refer to males and/or females. The word "sons of" is used in the statement "sons (children) of Yisrael." That statement and like constructed statements include both males and females. So 2nd Corinthians 6:14 is talking about married men or married women being joined together in marriage to either male or female believers. The statement is constructed perfectly to refer to "men marrying men," "men marrying women," "men marrying trans-women," "women marrying trans-men," etc. The Aramaic word ay-len "those," is a "common (neuter)" pronoun; meaning it refers to both males and females. It's the only Aramaic word that I'm aware of that isn't grammatically either masculine or feminine ONLY. If this statement was referring to only "men marrying men," then the masculine pronoun ha-non "those" would have been used. The word "those" is the key word that is letting us readers know that 2nd Cor. 6:14 is referring to the various marriages of all the sexual orientations.
Lesbians and gay men also married the opposite sex to have children so they could dispose of their property (wealth) to them. They likely were more inclined to marry each other since they wouldn't want to have sex with the opposite gender once kids were born. There was no natural insemination back then. A lesbian marrying a heterosexual man or a gay man marrying a heterosexual woman would result in their partners suffering through sexual abstinence. The following is a verse which I believe supports this: "Even the weak(or effeminate) man among you and very luxurious, his eye shall be evil against his brother and against the wife of his bosom, and against the remnant of his children that he(the enemy) shall let remain." (Deut. 28:54). The Hebrew word rak means "weak, effeminate, soft, tender, and delicate." James Strong's Concordance leaves out the meaning of "effeminate" but the Aramaic word maạdan means "effeminate, dainty, pleasant" (CAL). Also, along that line, this Hebrew word was translated into Latin as delicatus - "delicate, soft, tender, delightful, pleasing, effeminate, etc." Hebrew words and statements often have multiple layers of meaning. This verse can refer to some heterosexual men who are "weak" but it can more so refer to effeminate gay men. Consider that this "man" is also said to be VERY delicate (luxurious, pampered). I get the definition of "pampered" from the Aramaic text, which has the word mpa-naq "luxurious, tender, delicate, delightful, pampered, treated with affection, indulgent, given to pleasure, feeding luxuriously." Those same Hebrew and Aramaic words are also used to describe the "delicate (soft, tender) woman (Deut. 28:56).
Help financially support this Website so it will continue for future generations. The "Donate" button allows you to give a one time donation. The "Subscribe" button allows you to give a reoccuring monthly donation.
Please fill out the subject with info pertaining to my site if you want me to respond. Otherwise I might delete the e-mail as spam.
You may need to refresh the page several times for Bible Reference Tagger to work