Warren Throckmorton has adopted an interesting take on scripture in Matthew in which Jesus refers to “eunuchs because they were born that way”. Throckmorton’s interpretation seems to be that some men are born without an attraction to women.
His article seems to be in response to Norwegian theologian, Ragnhild Schanke and her scholarship relating to Matthew 19: 3-12:
Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’ so they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”
“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”
Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
Throckmorton says
A recent paper by a Norwegian theologian, Raghnild Schanke, asserts that Jesus was indeed referring to several categories of people including asexual persons and those who would fit the modern concept of homosexuality. She notes that many eunuchs in antiquity were capable of sexual relations but did not seem to have natural desire for women. She amasses an impressive array of ancient references to some eunuchs being disinterested in the opposite sex even though physically capable.
Throckmorton’s take is interesting and somewhat toublesome to the ex-gay movement’s statment that “no one is born gay”. Throckmorton balances on the idea that the “eunuchs” of which Christ speaks were born not gay but rather with a blank sexuality:
Such men are not born gay, but rather, without responsiveness to the opposite sex. Attractions to the same sex may or may not develop during the formative years via a combination of biological and environmental factors.
However, Jesus did not say that these people became eunuchs over their formative years. Christ clearly and simply said they were “born that way”.
Although suggesting some sort of in-between status (contrary to the words of Christ), he then concedes (in a backwards way) that, indeed, some people are gay due to circumstances of birth. Throckmorton then tries to double up the “formative environmental factors” to the second group and read into the words of Christ that some people were made to be gay by some psychological trauma:
I have counseled individuals who from their earliest recollections have little or no attraction to the opposite sex. Also, the opposite-sex desire of some is hindered due to traumatic circumstances in life, whether physical injury or emotional trauma (“eunuchs made that way by men”). And still others choose celibacy for “the kingdom of heaven.” Note that Jesus does not condemn such persons for their situation.
I think it HIGHLY unlikely that “eunuchs made that way by men” refers to emotional trauma. Christ’s listeners would never have understood Him to mean such a thing. They clearly would have understood what caused a eunuch made by man; at that time castrated persons were not at all uncommon.
Throckmorton wisely notes that Christ did not condemn the eunuchs be they castrati or (as he interprets) homosexual. I would also point out to him that there is no suggestion on the part of Christ that the person in any way change or try to become ex-eunuch.
Throckmorton (via Dr. Robert Gagnon, an anti-gay activist) then makes a huge leap. He jumps from a non-judgmental position that Christ has on homosexual persons to a condemnation of homosexual unions:
So do homosexual relationships have the endorsement of Jesus? Not so, says Dr. Gagnon: “The implication of Jesus’ saying is that all such ‘born eunuchs’ have no option for engaging in sexual activity outside of a man-woman bond.” Furthermore, fidelity to this teaching “does not require that one become exclusively heterosexually responsive with no homosexual temptation. However, it does require abstinence from homosexual bonds.”
Nonsense. I included the full text above to show that there is no indication whatsoever that there was any condemnation of sexual activity on these people’s part.
Surely if Jesus wanted to condemn homosexual activity, here was the place to do it. But it isn’t present in the text.
What is clear, however, is that there were classes of people for whom Jesus did not think it appropriate that they marry women. Throckmorton has, perhaps unintentionally, classified all categories of gay people (those born and those made) into this group. Clearly, Christ does not approve of gay men marrying women.
This too is troublesome for the goals of reorientation, especially those seeking to “maximize their heterosexual potential”.
Interestingly, Phillip had an experience with converting an Ethiopian eunuch as is told in Acts 8:27-39. Again there was no condemnation or encouragement to reorient. In fact, this story suggests that God’s grace extends far from the assumptions at that time. This person clearly was not a circumcised Jew (God’s chosen) but was a foreigner, probably black, possibly gay, definitely socially outcast, and Phillip made no demands on him. He baptized him and simply disappeared.
I’ve heard the eunuch theory for years and am not certain whether or not I agree. I don’t read Greek and am not a historian. However, if one does accept it, then the sum total of what Jesus said about homosexuality can be summarized in the following:
Jesus Christ said some men are born gay and should not marry women.
They’re starting to comment on this particular scripture because of ‘eunuch theology’ arguments of liberal churches, like the MCC — such as this one here:
John Boswell* reconstructs the minds of ancient people in his books. One of the most important things he offers us is an understanding of how ancient people in Rome, Greece, Europe and the Jewish states each viewed sexuality. Homosexuality, hermaphrodism and transgender were, to the ancient mind inter-related and merely degrees of a spectrum. The idea that the mind resides in, but is separate from the body is a very recent concept that fortunately is disproving itself. Ancient people would view an effeminate personality to be the “nature” of an individual in the same way as they would view the “nature” of a mixed genital body, (intersex). The language regarding the intersexed, transgendered and the homosexual is frequently interchangeable in ancient cultures. All such people also fall under the common catch words for Eunuch. In our age we think of a eunuch as a man whose testicles have been removed. In the ancient world the term and the concept included anyone who did not or could not use sex for reproduction. This included the thousands of Eunuchs surgically altered as servants and slaves, homosexuals, hermaphrodites (intersexed), and the transgendered. In ancient Judaism no one incapable of reproduction could be considered ritually pure and was denied access to the temple, whether for biological or behavioral reasons — they did not perceive these as mutually exclusive. This view was challenged and changed, and actually abhorred by Christianity. Once we understand that the word eunuch would have been used to describe the intersexed we are given access to wonderful news. Please refer to Isaiah 56, Acts 8, and Matthew 19. Isaiah, the prophet who foretells Jesus reassures us that although the world thinks we’re inferior, God considers us quite differently. In Acts, the first Christian convert is a Eunuch. In Matthew, Jesus calls himself one of us and tells his followers that there will be people who just don’t get it. They still don’t get it. Most people read this and think that Jesus means that as a 33-year-old unmarried Rabbi he was just saying that he’d chosen to be celibate. This doesn’t jive well with his feminist-like practices, or his relationship with John. Many sources that don’t understand that Jesus’ use of the word Eunuch would be the equivalent of the word “queer” in today’s vernacular think that Jesus never mentioned GLBTI [Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender Intersex] people. Not only did he mention us, he speaks directly to us. The early church, even St. Paul, considers the goal of enlightened Christians to view humanity as being “neither male nor female” but rather that all are one in the body of Christ — a community based upon love. It is beyond the scope of this missive to address the mistranslations of St. Paul that have resulted in the popular opinion that he condemned what would be currently thought of as gay people, but it is in fact owing to mistranslation.
If the interpretation above for the term ‘eunuch’ is contextually/historically accurate, then Isaiah 59:4-8 and Matthew 19:12 can be interpreted as Jesus/God is more LGBTI friendly than the ‘scriptural literalists’ would have Christians believe. It appears ‘scriptural literalists’ are coming up with apologetics to counter this ‘unchristian’ interpretation of Isaiah 59:4-8 and Matthew 19:12.
—
*Boswell, John. Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality.
Boswell, John. Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe.
Warren Throckmorton has adopted an interesting take on scripture…
Um, I’m not going to waste time reading this. “On scripture”? I had been led to believe that Throckmorton was a clinical psychologist of some sort. That is supposedly based on science of some sort–although my opinions of psychology as being science are well known.
So where does “scripture” enter into the “science” of psychology?
If Throckmorton wants to engage in indoctrination using scripture, that’s a completely different issue. But he really should leave the rest of us alone.
For anyone interested, and I know I am, the paper Dr. Throckmorton appears to be referring to is available on-line in PDF format here: https://www-same-sex.ined.fr/WWW/04Doc124Ragnhild.pdf
And despite the fact that she’s Norwegian and the site has a French domain name, the paper is in English.
thanks skemono
From the first glance it looks to be a bit dry and deals to a great extent with the norwegian church structure (woo-hoo). But I’ll certainly read it – if for no other reason than to know what compelled Warren to consider the eunuch theology.
Ragnhild Schanke’s paper is a great read! One thing that I was surprised to learn is that the word for eunouchoi is used repeatedly in both the old and new testaments, but that the eunouchoi are in some passages “…made invisible because translators have chosen to call them officers.” That’s really interesting.
It’s also interesting (not) that Throckmorton is busy reassuring us that the bible condemns same sex relationships, regardless of what’s actually in there. No matter how thick they wrap it in a veneer of science, the dogmatic religious fundamentalism at the core of the ex-gay movement just keeps wanting to poke it’s head out and smile, doesn’t it?
I just saw a fascinating Ken Burns documentary about Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, the mothers of the women’s equality movement.
Their work dovetailed with abolitionists and marriage equality advocates. Stanton’s cousin and her husband were abolitionists.
SBA was the daughter of Quakers, the original and only religious sect that allowed women to vote in community affairs and be ordained as ministers. The Quakers were part of the Underground Railroad.
In their photographs, these ladies are seated with black people and among those they admired and worked with were Frederick Douglas and Sojourner Truth.
The reason I bring it up is because statesmen and the captains of industry of their time, brought Bibles into the legislatures to ‘prove’ that it was against Biblical law that women assemble with men in legal business.
It was unnatural for a woman to ever consider divorce or an unmarried state by choice.
It was Bibles in courts and legislatures that determined that blacks were of no station that could ever be equal to whites and it was Scripture that allowed for slavery.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights is what WE ALL LIVE under, NOT the Bible!
Our country is STILL paying for not doing right before by not applying equality under the law.
So when people try to use that SAME book ALL OVER again to justify inequality, DESPITE the competence, compassion and endurance of gay people and homosexuality itself THROUGOUT HISTORY…and EVERY walk of life,
I, without a moments hesitance, will tell these Scripture breathing anti gay know nothings WHAT they can do with their Bibles!
Dear Regan,
the trouble is not the Good Book, but that those that prosper from Unrighteousness c l a i m they have the Bible on their side. What else can they do?
But it simply isn’t true.
Check out the web essay Born Eunuchs: Homosexual Identity in the Ancient World for lots of historical references. https://www.well.com/user/aquarius
the scripture of some are born eunuchs from their mother’s womb is referring to people who are born underdeveloped or not developed that will never function for the capacity of sex not an attraction to have sex with the opposite or same.
those who are made eunuchs by men is referring to castration and when done can never have sex again or won’t ever have it ever.
those who become eunuchs for the kingdom of God choose not to be with the opposite sex for doing work for God’s kingdom. Choose not to marry or propogate but devote all available time to the working of God’s kingdom.
Not all are able to recieve this message!
before you gay people start trying to change the meaning of a eunuch it means incapable of sex not having it at all!!!!!!!!!!!!
Anonymous person:
Please avoid generalities like “you gay people” and punctuation which indicates you are screaming. This is a place for debate, not ebay.
Dr. Warren Throckmorton, the person whose speculation is the subject of this article, is not pro-gay, but a noted ex-gay researcher. That isn’t exactly “the gays” as you put it. If you have more than an opinion on what these verses mean, please provide this in a civil manor and perhaps someone will comment. However, as you noted, this thread is quite old.