Posted on 11/01/2005 8:03:22 PM PST by tuesday afternoon
Many “gay” religionists insist that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality and thus could not have opposed it. Often conservatives counter that He taught against any form of sexual expression other than heterosexual marriage, so He did not need to specify every sexual act outside of marriage for condemnation. What is the correct position?
Certainly, Jesus did address the topic of sexual ethics and marriage. In Matthew 19:4b-9, Jesus said:
"Have you not read that He 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 then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate. They said to Him, ‘Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?’ He said to them, ‘Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wife, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”
Jesus’ disciples were nervous at this teaching. In fact, since Jesus made divorce much more difficult to attain than Moses did, they wondered aloud if marriage was such a good thing after all (“If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry." Matthew 19:10). Like many people today, the disciples thought the fidelity and permanence taught by Jesus might be too difficult for anyone to follow.
To the skepticism of the disciples, Jesus responded:
"All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given: For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.” For years, I did not give much thought to who Jesus might have been referencing here by the use of the term “eunuchs.” I assumed that all eunuchs were males who were castrated or otherwise physically incapable to have sexual relations. Recently, however, I have begun to wonder if the Greek word eunouchoi (eunuchs) might also include someone without natural attraction to the opposite sex.
Could Jesus be referring here to male homosexuals as being among those who experience no other sex attraction, and if so, does this passage signal the blessing of Jesus on homosexuality?
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.
To address these questions, I turned to one of the top Biblical scholars in the world regarding sexuality, Dr. Robert Gagnon of the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. Author of the encyclopedic The Bible and Homosexual Practice, Dr. Gagnon commented, “I think that the phrase ‘eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb’ [Matthew 19:12] is probably an inclusive group consisting of any man who lacks sexual interest in women. This group would include both men who have genital abnormalities that result in impotence and men whose genitals are still capable of begetting children. It would also include both asexual persons and persons who, in time, develop exclusive same-sex attractions.”
Regarding Jesus’ phrase “eunuchs who were born thus” Dr. Gagnon said, “The saying does suggest a recognition on the part of Jesus and early Christianity that some men are born in such a way that they do not develop, as adolescents and adults, other-sex attractions, for whatever reason.” 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 temperamental and environmental factors.
There is a modern-day, experiential validity to this interpretation. 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.
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.
For classical Christianity, the union of male and female is much more than a sociological convenience but provides imagery for some of its central teachings (e.g., Christ as the bridegroom and the church as his bride). The teachings of Jesus in Matthew 19 deepen this commitment to male-female unions by very specifically considering people who either are unable or choose not to form such sexual relationships.
Thus, if one supports same-sex relations or unions as sound ecclesiastical policy, one must do it with some other philosophical base than can be found in these teachings of Jesus.
Scriptures are taken from the New King James Version.
Warren Throckmorton, PhD, is an Associate Professor of Psychology and Fellow for Psychology and Public Policy in the Center for Vision and Values at Grove City (Pennsylvania) College. Dr. Throckmorton is past-president of the American Mental Health Counselors Association and is the producer of the documentary, I Do Exist, about sexual identity formation. His columns have been published by over 70 newspapers nationwide. He can be contacted through his Web site at www.drthrockmorton.com.
Look, I think that we're saying the same thing. I agree with you as my sarcastic comment was meant to convey the idea that it "DOESN'T MATTER that Jesus isn't quoted directly addressing this issue."
Those claiming Jesus never had anything to say about homosexuality always omit his repeated references to Sodom and Gomorrah as examples of what awaits those who do not repent. Matthew 10:15, Matthew 11:23-24, Luke 10:12, Luke 17:29.
The apostle Peter, who no doubt heard Jesus' teaching, says virtually the same thing in one of his epistles. 2 Peter 2:5-7
And no, Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed for the sin of "inhospitality." Everyone in Jesus' time knew what Sodom and Gomorrah were about:
". . .Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire." Jude 1:7
Dennis Prager
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0003.html#
Has a good exposition. It seems that Moses was the original "homophobe."because a new sexual morality based on heterosexuality was part and parcel of worship of Yahweh, a sexless god altogether different from the bisexual gods of the Canaanites and Egyptions.
What it does is to reject the Bible as a revelation, the acceptance of which is to enter into a covenent with God altogether different from the gods of Egypt and Babylon.
The latest argument making the rounds in the LGBT community is along the following lines: "Jesus, when he accepted St. Veronica's veil, didn't first ask her if she was a Lesbian, ergo, charity, not homosexuality was the most important thing to Jesus. Therefore, there's no question He would have approved of gay marriage"
Doesn't surprise me.
Doesn't surprise me.
Let me guess the authors "orientation" .
I found it quite revealing. Ironic that the first "homophobe" was Moses.
Liberals, gay activists, and feminists seem to have a problem with Paul. In general, they seem to think that Jesus is an OK guy that would be a pleasant comrade for toking up with. Paul is seen by them as, well, you or I might be, only more so. Paul hijacked Christianity and totally distorted it for 2000 years. According to them.
Quite true. Perhaps we can use this to shoehorn them into irrelevancy. If they *won't* accept St. Paul's writings as canonical Scripture, then they are heretics. If they are heretics, then they can simply be totally ignored in the same way that a Hindu pontificating to Christians about the canon of Scripture can be ignored.
Let's prepare them for their potential sendoff with the words of Joshua 24:15, "Choose this day whom you will serve..."
When they have left (of their own choice) then no one, however squishy, will need to cater to them and feel constrained to make concessions. Then perhaps we can get on with the retroactively needed catechesis of the multitude.
The direct answer to the question in the headline is "NO!".
Well, it might not be easy to throw 'em all out individually, in the literal sense. But, if Church leaders would simply realize that these people, by (among other things) excising St. Paul from the scriptural canon, have excised themselves from the Body of Christ, they may yet see that they do not have to appease and coddle them, and can get on with authentically ministering to the rest of their flock.
Later pingout!! (whoever gets to it first; I know you're busy and if I can't do it tonight I'll do it tomorrow.)
I think it a good plan. Now we only need the church leaders (lay & clerical) to make it work.
Homosexual Agenda Ping.
Throckmorton is always good.
Freepmail me and DirtyHarryY2K if you want on/off this pinglist.
Christ did not quote specifically all of OT law regarding what God divinely revealed moral but He sure did endorse all it!
New Testament: Sacred Scripture on subject of homosexuality:
- Matthew 5:1-48
17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.
18 Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.
19 Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.