Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 15

Born Eunuchs

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.



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 Testaments). The following
shows where the words sa-ris and m'haym-na appear in the

Gen. 37:36; 39:1; 40:2; 40:7; 1Sam. 8:15; 1Kings 22:9; 2 Kings
8:6; 9:32; 18:17; 20:18; 23:11; 24:12; 24:15; 25:19; 1Chr. 28:1;
2 Chr. 18:8; Judith 12:11; Esther 1:10; 1:12; 1:15; 2:3; 2:14;
2:15; 2:21; 4:4; 4:5; 6:2; 6:14; 7:9; Esther Additions
A:12,14,17; Wisdom 3:14; Sirach 20:3; 30:20; Isa. 39:7; 56:3;
56:4; Jer. 29:2; 34:19; 38:7; 39:3; 39:13; 41:16; 52:25; Dan. 1:3;
1:7; 1:8; 1:9; 1:10; 1:11; 1:18.
(Note: The NAB dishonestly translates the word "eunuch" as
"afflicted man" from the Greek text of Sirach 30:20; plus deletes
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.


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."

The word m’haym-na (singular) no doubt means: a homosexual,

a trusted one, a believer and a celibate (chaste) person. M’haym-
na means a homosexual in the verses I quoted at the beginning
of this pamphlet. M’haym-na also means a person that is
“trustworthy, trusted or faithful” (see Tobit 5:9; Matt. 24:45; 1
Peter 5:12). M’haym-ne (plural) means believers here: “…be an
example to the believers..” (1 Tim. 4:12 Lamsa). Lastly,
M’hay-man (indefinite singular pronunciation) means a
"celibate one" here: "But concerning virginity: I don't have a
commandment from God; but I am giving [you] advice, as
a man, even I who has received mercy from God, that I
should be a celibate person." (1 Cor. 7:25 P'shitta).
The word m’haym-na is also defined as a “eunuch” or
“castrated man.” However, it literally refers to a person that is
“trusted” or “faithful” (Rev. 3:14). M’haym-na acts as both an
adjective and a noun in the Aramaic language. The Aramaic
language doesn’t let the reader know if the “trusted one” or
“eunuch” is castrated or not. However, some of the “trusted
ones” were castrated because the king of Babylon wanted
“trusted ones” that were unblemished [i.e. not castrated] (Dan.
1:4). The only way for a reader to perhaps consider that the
“trusted one” is castrated is when the “trusted one” is a royal
official. Then again, some of the royal officials that were
“trusted ones” weren’t castrated in the Bible. So the reader
won’t know if the trusted one is castrated unless some other
words are used to say that the “eunuch” is castrated. The word
m'haym-ne also doesn't always refer to royal officials. Luke
16:11 (Peshitta) says "If therefore you were not trusted ones (or
faithful ones) with wealth dishonestly gotten, who will entrust to
you the true [wealth]."
Nevertheless, whether a person understands a eunuch as
an unblemished homosexual or a castrated male, they were both
trusted in two major functions. We see this by examining the
Bible. They were trusted around women in dwelling,
communication and dealings. One major underlining reason
would be to prevent an illegitimate child. They were also trusted
as civil servants. They weren’t able or less likely to have
children, which made them less likely to kill the king and start
their own dynasty. 1st Ezra (1st Esdras) 3:7 suggests that wise
eunuch guards advised the king because of their wisdom.
Some of the trusted ones (eunuchs) guarded the king
when he slept in his bedroom. They were either inside the
bedroom guarding the king on his bed or outside the bedroom
doors (1st Ezra [1st Esdras] 3:4, 8). First Ezra 3:4 (Aramaic
Text) says: "Then those (ha-non) three young men, the
bodyguards, [even] those (ha-len) who were guarding
(watching, preserving) the body of the king, said one to
another." The pronoun word "those" in Aramaic has a
masculine, feminine & common designation for the genders. It's
usually used when both genders are referred to in the sentence.
The first pronoun ha-non (those) is masculine because it
designates the masculine word "young men." However, the
second pronoun ha-len (those) is a common designation
describing men here. This suggests that eunuchs (trusted ones)
were not viewed totally as men. And hence the Semitic
designation of the genders would be male, female and eunuch
(trusted one). In India, however, LGBT people were known as
the third gender. This should be emphasized because the
Aramaic language only has words that are masculine or
feminine; no neuter words like the Greek language.
Every word in scripture is important. In the book of
Daniel, it says that the king wanted males that were handsome.
God didn’t have to have the word “handsome” in His holy word
at this place. The information would have still been sufficient
for readers to be educated without that word. However, God is
preserving a valuable connection on why the king wanted
handsome eunuchs. God is showing today’s readers the
homosexual tendencies of the king toward eunuchs. The
following paragraphs will clear up some misconceptions
regarding eunuchs.
The primary meaning for a eunuch is not a castrated
man, but more often as a trusted one. The context tells if the
trusted one is a commander, doorkeeper or other occupation. In
Gen. 39:1 it says: “..And Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh,
commander of the guard,..” Literally, the Aramaic text says
that Potiphar was a trusted one of Pharaoh, a “commander.” So
the context tells us what type of trusted one that Potiphar was,
he was a commander. In Esther 2:21, we are told that Bigthan
and Teresh were “trusted ones,” of those that kept the door,
so they were door keepers. A homosexual “trusted one” was
also a keeper of women; as was the case of Hegai in Esther
Homosexual eunuchs weren’t always castrated. In the
Book of Acts it talks about an Ethiopian Eunuch under Candace,
queen of the Ethiopians, going into the Temple in Jerusalem to
worship (Acts 8:26-27). But in (Deuteronomy 23:1) it says that a
castrated male is not to enter the congregation of the LORD. The
Book of Acts, chapter (8:26-27) is a good reference of a Eunuch
that was not castrated.

Castration was done for some of the following reasons.

Castration was performed on beaten enemy warriors (See 1 Sam.
18:25, 27; 2 Sam. 3:14). Additionally, some men castrated
themselves because they were transgender persons or because of
religious reasons. Lastly, castration was done as a form of
punishment: “he who is wounded by affliction and (or) has [his]
penis cut off shall not enter into the assembly of YHWH.”
(Deut. 23:1 Masoretic Hebrew Text). The Hebrew word dac-ca
was translated into Aramaic as mu-ca-cha “affliction,
humiliation, abasement, submission” at Psalm 90:3 and as ma-
ci-ca "afflicted" at Isaiah 57:15. Dac-ca suggests an “affliction”
by “beating (smiting),” “breaking into pieces” or “crushing” as
the verb root da-ca is translated in the KJV or NKJV. The
related word dac is translated as “afflicted” (KJV) and
“oppressed” in the (KJV, NKJV). Additionally, Dac-ca is
personified in two places in the Hebrew text and translated into
Aramaic as ma-ci-cai: “those afflicted in” and mach-i-we: "the
maimed, wounded ones;” as in: “those afflicted in spirit” (Ps.
34:18) or “the spirit of the maimed (or wounded ones)” (Isa.
57:15). Mach-i-we (Syr. Pron. mach-e-we) literally means
"those made to feel pain, suffering" or "those who are in pain"
(Lamsa). The verb cew was also used to make the word ce-wa
"pain." Nevertheless, Mach-i-we means the "maimed, wounded
ones" at 2 Maccabees 8:28 and Luke 14:21. Another related
word Ma-ce-wu-tha means: "infliction of pain, wounding."
The KJV added the word stones (i.e. testicles) plus
translated the word “and” as “or” at Deuteronomy 23:1; though
it is unclear if or is the correct interpretation: “He that is
wounded in the stones (testicles), or hath his privy member
(penis) cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the
LORD.” Though the KJV carries a lot of the meaning of the
original Hebrew text, it fails to communicate to English readers
that this verse is referring to men that were punished, and hence
can’t enter into the congregation of the LORD. Thus, this verse
isn’t referring to transgender persons who voluntarily remove
their genitalia.
This verse may be describing an alternate punishment for
adultery because the Aramaic text translated Deuteronomy 23:1
as: “No adulterer shall enter into the assembly of the
LORD.” (Deut. 23:1 Lamsa). This would mean that the other
punishment was more severe: “the adulterer and the
adulteress, shall surely be put to death.” (Lev. 20:10


Sa-ris is the Hebrew transliteration of the Akkadian word

sa-resi (Also pronounced sa-res). The s’s in Sa-resi may have a
“sh” sound; with a possible pronunciation of sha-reshi. Sa-resi is
from the Akkadian words sa “man” and resi “of the Head.” Resi
is the genitive form of resu (Head). The literal meaning of sa-
resi is “Head Man” or “Head.” The word “Man” is not needed in
the understanding of a “Head.” Sa is connected to many
Akkadian nouns such as sa-ariti (lit. “man of the shield” or
“shield-man”). A “Head” in the Semitic languages of Hebrew
and Aramaic refers to “a person in authority or who has a
leadership role.” I am making an educated guess that this is the
meaning of sa-resi in the Akkadin language, since Akkadian is a
Semitic language. I am not proficient in Akkadian and I have not
read any books in Akkadian.
The defining of sa-ris as a “Head” or a “person of
authority” is very similar to one of James Strong’s definitions.
He also defined sa-ris, as “a minister of state.” Even though “a
minister of state” is not the root meaning of sa-ris, it definitely
appears to be its meaning in usage.
James Strong is obviously wrong when he says that sa-
ris is from an unused root meaning “to castrate.” A root meaning
of “to castrate” is wrong because of the proof I presented that sa-
ris is from two Akkadian words, and by the fact that some of the
saris’ were not castrated. The Bible records that Potiphar was a
sa-ris (translated as officer at Gen. 37:36 & 39:1) and had a
wife. So he was clearly not castrated.

The definitions of all the Akkadian words are from the

The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2007.

Note: The Preface to that Dictionary states: “The Standard

Akkadian entries deriving from the inscriptions of Neo-Assyrian
kings were edited by Luukko and Van Buylaere, the
supplementary ones (culled from Akkadian literary, religious,
and scientific texts) by Parpola and Van Buylaere.”

Is the Bible Against Homosexuality? by Preacher Mattai ©

2016. All rights reserved.