Did Jesus Bless Homosexuality?

Concerned Women for America ^ | 11/1/05 | Warren Throckmorton, PhD

[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.

[sure_fine]

My Opinion of Homo's and Liberals is best said in the text below:

Romans 1:21-31

1:21 Because, though they knew God, they did not glorify him as God, nor were they thankful; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

1:23 And exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling corruptible man, and birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.

1:24 Therefore God gave them up, through the lusts of their own hearts, to sexual impurity, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves:

1:25 Because they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

1:26 For this cause God gave them up to vile affections: for even their women exchanged natural relations for that which is against nature:

1:27 And likewise the men, leaving their natural relations with woman, burned in their lust toward one another; men with men doing that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

1:28 And as they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.

1:29 They were filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, malice; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malevolence; whisperers,

1:30 Slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

1:31 Without understanding, untrustworthy, without natural affection, unmerciful:

[Clint N. Suhks]

Those claiming Jesus never had anything to say about homosexuality always omit his repeated references to Sodom and Gomorrah

Jesus mentions this fate more often than just Matt and Luke. He advises that this fate, for those who won't receive His Word, in Mark and John and numerous other books, as a fate worse than the homosexuals received, as a fate worse than death.

[BizzeeMom]

This is an article by Dennis Prager, Jewish conservative: Judaism's Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality

[jmaroneps37]

"And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality..."
Here's just one of the problems in this question: using a Bible that was written to allow a king to marry as many times as he wanted to. Jesus didn't say the part about
" .. except for sexual immorality..".
This is like finding a right to abortion in the Constitution,but it aint in there!

[RobbyS]

Many people look at Galatians and Paul's fulmination against THE Law, and take this as their text against ALL law. But Romans leaves no doubt that he prized his heritage as a Jew and by no means repudiated the ethical code of his people who were, as the gays would say. "homophobic."

[RobbyS]

Thanks for spreading this around. To me this is the last word against the Christian and Jewish apologists for homosexuality.

[BizzeeMom]

It is an awesome piece, I like to post it whenever I can! :)

[Sam the Sham]

Precisely.

That is why I detest people who call themselves "New Testament Christians". Jesus was no "New Testament Christian". He constantly and continually presented himself as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. He was constantly quoting the Old Testament. The parable about the vineyard giving only wild grapes came from Isaiah.

"Then, starting with Moses, He explained what pointed to Him in all of scripture."

Jesus was a Jew speaking to Jews. They all knew the laws of God. No one needed to have it repeated to them what "abomination" meant.

[Sam the Sham]

I keep thinking of Ezekiel 9 where God showed Ezekiel the Babylonian exile a vision of His temple filled with worshippers of Asherah and Tammuz.

That didn't happen overnight. Doubtless "open minded" priests explained that in the modern world they should be more inclusive and tolerant towards other faith traditions. Asherah, Yahweh. What's the difference ? It would be so judgemental to limit worship to just worshippers of God.

[no dems]

"I have begun to wonder if the Greek word eunouchoi (eunuchs) might also include someone without natural attraction to the opposite sex."

I hardly think so, especially when you read the rest of that verse: "...and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake."

KEY WORDS: "for the kingdom of heaven's sake." I don't think people were "born" homosexual for the sake of the Kingdom of God.

[no dems]

"I thought this was an interesting exegesis."

Let me offer mine: We live in a world that is under a curse. That "curse" works it's way out in each of us differently. Some people have to deal with the effects of homosexuality as a result of that curse. That does not mean that God lets them off the hook. They need salvation through Jesus Christ just as does the adulterer, the habitual criminal, those predisposed to alcoholism or drugs, etc., etc. etc.

[RatRipper]

Right on, Sam. I am with you on all that. "He who has seen me has seen the Father." God did not change one iota between the times of the Old and New Testament, and Jesus gives us a wealth of insight into the unchanging nature of God.

[chesley]

You are so correct. This has always been a problem of the ages. Paul also addresses it.

2 Corinthians 11:13-15 (King James Version)

13For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.

14And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

15Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.