Matthew 19:12 -- "born eunuchs"?

Perhaps you've asked the wrong question, because there hasn't been a lot of study into that aspect of the verse, so the only answer people could give is, "No, I haven't studied what 'born eunuchs' means"?

I'll give a few thoughts from other Scriptures. When I look at Romans 1, I see a progression from verse 21 down through verse 27. Those who knew God honored Him not and were unthankful. They rejected Him and His plan, and set up other things in His place. God gave them over to their sin, their thinking became darkened/corrupted, and eventually this took them into homosexual sin.

Christians have often been sloppy in the way they have approached this topic (Mohler is right on that point) by taking the clear condemnation of homosexuality in Romans 1 out of context. Romans 1 doesn't tell us that people chose to have homosexual desires. It tells us that they've chosen to reject God (v. 21), and that homosexuality has its root in that choice. It's one of the results of being "given over" to sin by God when mankind has rejected Him.

How does this relate to your question? As I see it (and I certainly don't think I have this all nailed down), I doubt that anyone is really "born homosexual". If I'm understanding Romans 1 correctly, this sin arises out of the choice to reject God and all that followed from that. Someone may honestly think they have been "born homosexual", because they don't see the connection between their choices and the sinful desires that came as they have been given over to sin. They've been ensnared, trapped. Rejection of God has taken them much further than they intended when they made that choice. Satan blinds the eyes of the lost, so it is doubtful that they would understand how they became ensnared. He will convince them they are "born that way" so that they will blame God and, even more, so they will be hopeless and think they cannot be changed. If we take the Scriptures seriously, we will expect homosexuals to honestly think they were born that way, even if they weren't. Romans 1, however, appears to suggest they weren't born that way.

The undisputed fact that some homosexuals have been saved, have been given complete victory, and have been happily married and had children would argue that at least some homosexuals were certainly not "born eunuchs".

There are at least two possible counter-arguments to what I've said here, both of which could have some merit but which I don't find compelling. The first would be to say that Romans 1 is not intended to be a full theological explanation of homosexuality. It's talking about the progression of sin generally. So there may be a lot more to be said about homosexuality that Romans 1 isn't really concerned with saying. (This is undoubtedly true.) Therefore, not everyone who becomes ensnared in this sin necessarily became ensnared through the path described in these verses, and some could have been trapped in other ways, perhaps even because they were born with these desires.

The second counter-argument would be that Romans 1 is describing man's corporate progression of unbelief and sin. It isn't really talking about individuals at all, it is talking about how mankind as a whole rejected God, and what resulted. These sins came into the human race because the human race did not honor God and was not thankful. Thus, homosexuality is not so much the result of an individual's sin, but mankind's corporate sin. It has become a part of the sin nature. People could be born with these desires, because we are all born sinners.

My conclusion: we can't say for sure, because I think there are Biblical arguments to be made on the other side, but I think there is more Biblical evidence against the concept of people being born with only homosexual desires. So I would be very doubtful that "born eunuchs" is referring to "born homosexual". I could certainly not preach that it is. I might consider saying something like this: Some may think this includes homosexuals, but that can't be proven from Scripture, and there would be some difficulties with that view. But since God clearly condemns homosexuality, this verse would show us that if someone has only homosexual desires (however that came to be) they would be called to singleness/celibacy, unless/until God changed them. We know that homosexuality is a result of the fall and sin, and even if it could be shown that someone is born with these desires, salvation can change desires, immediately or over time.

My bigger conclusion: It really is the wrong question, to ask whether people are born homosexual. Scripture doesn't try to give us a full theological/anthropological understanding of homosexuality. The closest we have to that is Romans 1, where it is only one aspect of the much larger topic -- man's rebellion.

The focus of Scripture is on the following key facts: 1) This sin is an offense to Almighty God. 2) Those who are in this sin are enslaved to it (Romans 1), which is consistent with what we see elsewhere in Scripture about sin generally. 3) Those who are trapped in sin can be set free! (I Cor. 6:9-11). We're very good at emphasizing #1, and arguing over "choice" and the origin of the sin. We too often forget #2, and the enslaving power of sin. The result is that we too often, I think, give the impression that people need to free themselves rather than trust Christ to set them free. We lose the compassion of God for lost sinners who are in the grip of a sin they simply can't defeat. And so, in losing sight of fact #2, and in wasting time arguing over #1 (which most people internally know even if they deny it), we end up giving a twisted version of fact #3.

The origin of our sin, whatever sin it may be, is that we have turned our back on God and gone our own way. The only solution is the forgiveness, cleansing, and freedom from sin's power that is found in Christ.

That's interesting that they would adopt that view, since the implication is that singleness is the resulting role. But I doubt that many SI members have pursued a study of it, which is why you aren't getting much response. If you ask for a study of quotes from the church fathers, you're not going to have a lot of people beating down your door. Hopefully someone has checked at least some of them, or knows someone who has, I would find that interesting as well.

On reflection, I'm not sure what I said in the quote here is sound. The fact that homosexuals have been saved and been given complete victory only demonstrates the power of God to set people free. It doesn't say anything about whether they were born with the temptation or not. Likewise, I'm not sure Wesley Hill's testimony says anything more than that sin and corrupted patterns of emotion and thought can continue to affect us long after salvation. I don't think we can draw any lessons on the origins of a temptation from post-salvation experiences. It's all in the "perhaps" category, nothing we can safely conclude here. Does that sound correct to you?

This would be the second counter-argument, stated more effectively than I stated it. As I said, there may be some merit in that. I would take the view that it is individual rebellion resulting in individuals being given over. The society I live in might cause me to think your way, though.

That's fair enough. The obvious answer to the question is that we know that there are those who are born with physical incapacity. If we are exegeting (not eisogeting), is there anything in the passage that would cause us to assume any more than that? Is there anything anywhere else in Scripture that would really make us go further than that? I don't see how exegetically you can really bring the question of "born homosexual" into it. This passage isn't teaching that people are born homosexual, and there isn't really any other one that does, either. Are they included here? The furthest we can possibly go is, "Well, perhaps, but there's nothing in Scripture to really support that."

I CAN see pastorally applying the passage to those who do not have heterosexual desires (whether they think they were born that way or otherwise).

One other thing you might think about. I've heard the "unnatural" language from Rom. 1 used to argue against the "born homosexual" view. The argument is, "Paul says it is unnatural, so obviously they weren't born that way." I don't find that argument particularly compelling, but the arguments the other way are even less compelling.