Daniel: Eunuchs and Homosexuality?

[KristofferUmfrey]

Anyone who has read my posts will know that by no means do I support homosexual behavior. So bear that in mind as I offer the following for discussion...

A while back a radio preacher was talking on the story of Daniel in Daniel 1 where Daniel and his friends refused the food of the king. As the preacher read the following verse I was intrigued by a couple words in the passage...

"9 Now God had brought Daniel into favor, and tender love with the prince of the Eunuchs."

For some reason that verse struck me, so I went to my Strong's concordance to see which Hebrew word for "love" was used in the verse and was surprised to find the verse is shown but no number corresponding to a Hebrew root.

Is it possible the root word show something more then brotherly love between the two and the Christian compilers of Strong's don't want to show it?

Is it possible that because Daniel was a Eunuch and essentially a non-sexual person that a more intimate relationship with the Prince was and acceptable practice?

Yes I do realize that other words in Strong's have no corresponding root but maybe someone more knowledgeable is the source language and text could give me some insight?

[Elrond]

I have no idea unless I study it thoroughly. I have also heard suggested David and Jonathan had a relationship....

If any of these men did do it it was not of God and was still sin. I really don't think they did.

Homosexulaity, especially between two males is considered an abomination in Gods eyes.

In the context of the verse saying GOD brought Daniel into favor AND tender love..... it seems to suggest God brought it about.... and I don't think God would arrange a homosexual affair.

However, if by "Eunic" we are talking about someone who has been castrated and cannot perform sexually, then I suppose it would be possible to have a loving relationship with someone with no sexual activity...... and I really don't know where God would stand on something like that.

But if they were Eunics by choice and still physically capable of sexual functions...... I don't think it would be right at all.

Edited December 7, 2008 by Elrond

[BenRaines]

Modern society makes me sick. That two men could love each other in a non sexual way has been made perverse. Jonathan and David were best of friends. I have men that I love and would give my life for and they feel the same about me. We would do and give anything for the other.

I am not homosexual nor have I ever even given it any thought. I have been with one woman only and we have been married for 33 years.

Oh a perverse generation that calls good evil and evil good.

Ben Raines

[Elrond]

Modern society makes me sick. That two men could love each other in a non sexual way has been made perverse. Jonathan and David were best of friends. I have men that I love and would give my life for and they feel the same about me. We would do and give anything for the other.

I am not homosexual nor have I ever even given it any thought. I have been with one woman only and we have been married for 33 years.

Oh a perverse generation that calls good evil and evil good.

Ben Raines

Sounds like me when I get all fired up! (But I'm new to this forum so I kept it calm)

I agree. If there was any "tender love" between the two it was non sexual. Maybe they even went so far as to give each other a massage, which is no sin as long as it doesn't get sexual.

I too hate it when people start talking about David and Jonathan and their "love" like it was some sort of affair and it excuses them to the point that some churches now ordain homosexuals and perform same sex marraiges.

Is it safe to say that?

[KristofferUmfrey]

Modern society makes me sick. That two men could love each other in a non sexual way has been made perverse. Jonathan and David were best of friends. I have men that I love and would give my life for and they feel the same about me. We would do and give anything for the other.

I am not homosexual nor have I ever even given it any thought. I have been with one woman only and we have been married for 33 years.

Oh a perverse generation that calls good evil and evil good.

Ben Raines

Calm down big guy. I don't know if this rage is directed at me, but with those big muscles I want to be safe. I said nothing of David and Jonathan but since it was brought up, I looked in Strong's and 2 Samuel 2:26 has a root listing and it is regular old love meaning "affection". I was just intrigued that there was no root attached to the Daniel verse and just wondering if there are some theologians out there that might know the status of eunuchs within ancient Judaic law.

Edited December 7, 2008 by KristofferUmfrey

[Fugazi]

Daniel 1 is about how he entered the Babylonian Royal court. So after reading the whole chapter, I seriously doubt if the "tender love" means anything sexual. I believe it means that God provided a way for Daniel to find friendship or a brotherly love in the Prince.

Also even though he was the Prince of Eunuchs, I don't believe he was one himself. Eunuchs have been used throughout history as guards, military commanders, singers, religous advisors, servants. Which in Daniel they were probably being trained to be religous advisors since Daniel became prophet in the royal court later.

[BenRaines]

Kris, not directed at you. I have read a few articles, not on this site, that refer to what I posted about. Looks like we are all in agreement here that men can love one another without there being anything sexual or immoral about it. Thanks guys.

Ben Raines