Homosexuality & the Bible: The Truth, Part 4: The Words of Christ

To read earlier parts of this series, please click on the following links:

Homosexuality & The Bible: The Truth, Part 1:
Sodom & Gomorrah
Homosexuality & The Bible: The Truth, Part 2:
Levitical Law
Homosexuality & The Bible: The Truth, Part 3:
David & Jonathan
Homosexuality & The Bible: The Truth, Part 4:
The Words of Christ
Homosexuality & The Bible: The Truth, Part 5:
Paul's Letter to the Romans

---

So in the course of time and space, Christianity always comes down to one thing: The words of the God of Christianity. You know, the words that appear red in your bible? (I always thought that added a nice splash of color myself on those boring Sunday mornings, wearing a tie and wondering why preachers were always so long-winded...) Now, I will ask you, dear reader, if you aren't already in a seated position with a safety belt in place and a working knowledge of all emergency exits in your immediate vicinity, I ask you now to take a moment and prepare, for the next group of words may come as a bit of a shock; dare I say, these words may be distressing to your very being.

Are you ready?

JESUS NEVER SAID
ONE WORD ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY.

NOT ONE
SINGLE
WORD

Reader? Are you still there?

---

But, dear reader, you ask, "How can this be? Isn't this the single greatest threat to God's church? Isn't this the one single issue that churches rally around and state as the one thing that could bring America to her knees? Destroy marriage? Create hell on earth?!? How could he say nothing?!?" (This is the point where Tom should say I should tone down the anti-fundie rhetoric in the hopes of reaching a greater reading audience that won't be turned away by my obvious hang-ups and complaint about the fundies... But I just don't feel my posts would have the same--charm?--otherwise...)

Now, dear reader, yes, this is truth. Jesus never said a single word. But let's take a moment to look at a few passages that this man did say (as recorded in the bible, not aired on the nightly news... as Jesus decided to come to earth before mass media and digital recording, which speaks only slightly about his ill-timed coming to spread the word of his message...) that fundies like to use as an argument against homosexuality, shall we? And of course, in keeping with tradition in this series, please feel free to leave your thoughts and comments, for nothing is censored here.

---

Passage 1:

---

Matthew 18: 15-20
"If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Again, truly I tell you, if two of you agree on earth about anything you ask, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them."

---

Now, if you ask me, this is a bit of a stretch. Not only is there no reference to homosexuality, there's no reference to heterosexuals either. It is simply a "guide," as it were, for how church members (I'm assuming?) should deal with someone there having a disagreement with. More specifically, though, Jesus says, "If one sins against you." This is a personal matter, something someone has done against you. This is not saying "If someone does something you don't like, do such-and-such." It is saying "If so-and-so has _______ (stolen; cheated; lied; raped; murdered; thrown rocks) you, then do such-and-such." If you study any part of Jesus life in the bible, you will notice he is all about personal relationships. And he is saying if someone has personally sinned against you, this is what you do. The words in the original Greek are "adelphos hamartano eis se," or, better translated, "Brother actively sinning against you." Greek is a very specific language, down to tense. This is in reference to an "active" sin, or, an ongoing issue or problem between you and your brother. Jesus is not saying "Be all up in one another's business and make sure your cribs in the hood ain't happenin'." He's saying, if you got an issue, confront your brother about it. Tell him what's on your mind. If he won't listen to you, find others who have observed this behavior against you as well, and confront him together. If he's still being an ignoramus, then go to your spiritual leader, enlist his help in dealing with your perceived issue between you and your brother. Then if he still won't recognize the issue, treat him like a, in Jesus words, "a Gentile or a tax collector." Another note of interest, Jesus was nice to tax collectors and Gentiles. So, in the end, if you are to follow Jesus words and example, if you can't resolve your issue... Treat him not like your brother, for he is no longer, according to Jesus, but neither do you shun him or kick him out of your life. At least, that's not how Jesus treated the tax collectors and Gentiles. He even made Matthew (ahem... a tax collector) one of his disciples...

Interesting to say the least, don't you think? So not only can you not use this passage against a homosexual Christian (and yes, they do exist) for a homosexual is not actively sinning against you (unless he's trying to bed you and you're not gay; or he's raping/raped you; or, I dunno, something else actively...), but you also can't use it as justification for shunning and looking down on a homosexual person (or, really, any type of person you simply don't like...) Any questions?

---

Passage 2:

---

Matthew 19:3-12
Some Pharisees came to him, and to test him they asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?" He answered, "Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate." They said to him, "Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?" He said to them, "It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery."

His disciples said to him, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry." But he said to them, "Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can."

---

Okay, I'm going to take a leap here. I think--I think--Jesus may be talking about divorce. Anybody agree with me?

Fundies use this passage to say, "See? Jesus says one man, one woman! Not Adam and Steve, but Adam and Eve!" (Can I just say for the record that I hate that phrase and wish someone would come up with a new rhyme? Let's show some creativity, people!) Okay, so, how else was the supposed sky god supposed to populate the earth? I think we all know man and woman and sex equal baby. But, again, not what the passage is even remotely talking about. Dare I point out, Jesus is actually speaking about the real, ignored, and largely untalked about threat to traditional marriage. DIVORCE.

So the Pharisees (this group of guys who thought they were hot shit and knew all there was to know about the Torah back in the day) said, "Hey, let us test your knowledge. What are the reasons, if any, a man can get a divorce?"

And J.C., he isn't having any of this, so he goes to the basics of the Torah, the creation story in which the sky god said, "And the two shall become one flesh." End of story, J.C. says, except, of course, for "unchastity." Greek is "porneia." (Hmm, why does that word sound vaguely familiar?) Illicit sexual intercourse, in layman's terms. Most everyone reads this as "adultery," but that definition leads much to be desired, doesn't it? The problems of dealing with a dead language, I suppose. Strong's Concordance lists a whole slew of possible meanings, among them "homosexuality, adultery, intercourse with animals" and on and on. Of course, this pretty much means, culturally, a Jewish man back in the day could divorce his wife for pretty much anything he didn't think was "kosher" (pardon he pun...) Pretty much, and stay with me here, since there was no such thing as "gay marriage" back then (though plenty of homosexual relationships back in that day and time), and the discussion was strictly within the confines of talking about divorce and marriage, it is actually hard, within the actual context of the passage, to construe this as "proof" or "doctrine" against a homosexual or their relationships. It actually speaks volumes, though, about what the doctrine of the followers of literal interpretation and truth about marriage and divorce should be in today's fundamentalist churches. And one have only to follow the links in my post about being a glutton for punishment to see some key truths about where the highest divorce rates in the country are--the Bible Belt.

But, back to the passage. It continues, than, with the disciples in an aside with Jesus, saying, "Well, is we can't divorce our women, even for something like 'porneia,' should we even bother getting married?" (Brave men, these disciples. So afraid of their womenfolk, they won't even consider marriage without their escape plan of divorce in place...) And Jesus at first says, "Yes, this is a hard pill to swallow." But it's the next batch of words that are truly interesting. He says, "For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can." The Greek word for "eunuchs" is eunouchos, and the main meaning for this isn't "one without balls," believe it or not, although the word has the same root as what we know today as "eunuchs." It's primary meaning in the Greek was "a bed keeper, bed guard, superintendent of the bedchamber, chamberlain." Almost like "the man in charge of the chastity belt," wouldn't you say? :) So what are we to guess from this definition is Jesus' meaning? That men who guard their beds are better off? Jesus is clearly referencing men who give up marriage for a variety of reasons. Some are just that way ("eunuchs who have been so from birth"; could this possibly have meaning for transgendered, homosexual, and hermaphrodite-type persons? Jesus would be seeming to say that some people could not become married and be one flesh due to being that way from birth; not a choice; genetically predisposed, perhaps?), some are made that way by other eunuchs ("eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others"; also perhaps a reference to homosexual persons, who forgo the marriage "to be made one flesh" by choice, and live a lifestyle free from such constraints?), and then monks and nuns and other types of spiritual leaders (made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven; one of the main passages [as well as some of Paul's letters] for the Catholic church's prohibition against their priests and nuns marrying; also speaking about people who forego the marriage bed, but for a higher purpose beyond earthly pursuits and desires). Any way you slice this, Jesus is basically saying "If you get married, you have really no reason to divorce; but if you choose not to marry, here are a variety of reasons why people do so." He's not saying you must get married, and he's also not saying the only reason not to get married is to become a monk. He seems to be acknowledging a whole score of persons and individuals for whom marriage is not only not an option ("who have been so from birth"), but others who choose not to marry for whatever reason, and those that simply forgo marriage to pursue a more spiritual life. And then, and this is the clincher, he says, "Let anyone accept this who can."

Should I repeat that? "Let anyone accept this who can." In Greek, "dunamai choreo choreo," or, in layman's terms, "For those that can comprehend this idea, let them be open to it." I shit you not. That is the most accurate way of putting it I can. Jesus is saying, "Keep an open mind. Marriage isn't for everyone." And culturally, marriage in Jesus' day meant "one man, one woman" as a homosexual relationship wasn't thought of in terms of "marriage" and "civil union." One simply has to look at Part 3 of our series to see that is was viewed, at least in David and Jonathan's case, as a covenant that surpassed what a man and woman could share together.

Ironically, in the very next verse is when Jesus is having the children come to him, you recall? When the disciples try to keep the kids from reaching him? And Jesus replies, "Suffer the children to come unto me." Might the disciples have been thinking, "No! No! Don't let the kids up here! Look at what we're talking about! Sex, marriage, divorce, alternate lifestyles! Keep the kids back!"

And again, Jesus was having none of it. Radical guy, regardless of whether he was god or not.

---

I have not heard of any other passages of Jesus used to defend the "Homosexuality is evil," but perhaps you have? E-mail or let me know of any other passages in the gospels fundies have used against you, and we will dispel them here for the lies and half-truths they are! Until next time, Part 5 will deal with Paul's letters, and the passages used there.

Thanks for stopping by!