The Rise of False Biblical Homosexualism Argument

^{The Business of Christian Education XCI
1} Now when Jesus had finished these sayings, he went away from Galilee and entered the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. ² And large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

³ And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” ⁴ He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, ⁵ and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? ⁶ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” ⁷ They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” ⁸ He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. ⁹ And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

¹⁰ The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” ¹¹ But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. ¹² For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”

Matthew 19:1-12

           

            The whole world is now in total confusion.  In the midst of all the wars, epidemic, terror attacks, racial injustice, the issue of homosexualism does not cease.  It continues to dominate discussions in many arenas.  In the politics, in the media, in the classrooms, and even in the church.  A lot of attempts have been made to rename and re-categorize homosexual practice as something normal, an alternative lifestyle, and even human right.  In the name of tolerance their proponents push further so as to force those who say that homosexual practice is wrong to convert or else.  In that sense, their “tolerance” has not been applied to themselves for they cannot tolerate the people who are against homosexual practice.  People use big words such as love in order to
make them feel better in including homosexual practice in the normal living arrangement category.  They also use “biology” in order to base their argument on genetics, and thus name homosexual practice “natural” for it is rooted in the natural gene.  Even the bible is being twisted in order to accommodate their agenda to get homosexual practice acceptable.  In the name of God’s love they condemn those who proclaim that homosexualism is wrong.

            One of the newest articles in the CNN on the subject of “same-sex marriage” is written by Jay Parini.  Parini is a poet and novelist, who also is teaching at Middlebury College in Vermont, according to the editor’s note in CNN.  On October 3, 2014, his article was uploaded in the CNN website with the title “Would Jesus OK same-sex marriage?”  Which in the end he basically says: “Yes.”  So with his twisted and undisciplined interpretation of the Scripture, Parini puts words in Jesus’ mouth.  He makes use of Matthew 19:11-12 as his text.  His main argument boils down to the word “eunuchs.”  Then he explains the Greek word of eunuchs, which is “εὐνοῦχος.”  He says:

So what is a eunuch?  In Greek, the word is eunochos, and it occurs eight times in the Greek scriptures.  The word usually refers to castrated men, but it has many meanings, and one of them is “an ineffectual, powerless, or unmasculine man.”[1]

Basing his argument on that paragraph, he then continues:

One recalls that Alexander the Great, in fact, had a male lover called Bagaos, who was described as a eunuch.

So a eunuch was, in some instances, a gay man.  If I read correctly what Jesus says about eunuchs who [sic] “who have been so from birth,” he may well refer to this sort of person.  Certainly, there has been a lot of discussion of this topic among gay Christians.[2]

This is where he is twisting the text in Matthew 19.  His interpretation is undisciplined so that he takes it out of the conversation context Jesus has with his disciples.  Parini does not bother to explain why Jesus says what he says.  For sure just taking it out of context like that and without any exegetical explanation the meaning of Jesus’ words, anything will do.  For sure Jesus does not make any reference to gay people.  What Parini is doing is what theologians and biblical scholars call as eisegesis.

            Now, it is important that we understand the flow of the conversation in Matthew 19:1-12.  The whole discussion starts from the question by Pharisees whose motivation is to test Jesus.  So they ask Jesus: “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?”  To that tricky question Jesus answers comprehensively:

“Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, ⁵ and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? ⁶ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Jesus makes his reference to the state before the Fall, Genesis 1 and 2.  This reference point is the foundation of Jesus’ answer about marriage.  If we read this passage properly and follow the right interpretation in Genesis 1 and 2, it is clear that marriage always is about a man and a woman.  In fact both Hebrew and Greek languages make a clear distinction between man and woman, husband and wife.  For both Hebrew and Greek, husband is always a man, and wife is always a woman.  In fact the word to say a man is also the word to say a husband, and so the word to say a woman is also the word to say a wife.  In Hebrew the word אִישׁ literally means man or husband.  This word can never be applied to a woman or wife.  The word אִשָּׁה literally means woman or wife.  This word can never be applied to a man or husband.  In Greek, the word ἀνδρός literally means man or husband.  This word can never be applied to a woman or wife.  There is another word used for man which is ἄνθρωπος.  This word means man, or can also be used to mean human being in general.  In their culture at that time it is very appropriate to use words specific for male gender to represent all human beings.  So the word ἄνθρωπος must be understood within their cultural context if we are to understand its usage.  The word γυνή literally means woman or wife.  This word can never be applied to a man or husband.  Here then it is clear whenever Jesus, the apostles, the NT writers, the prophets, OT writers, when they refer to husband, they always have in mind a man, and in the same way when they refer to wife, they always have in mind a woman.  This modern world today is confusing all that.  And certainly Parini with his undisciplined interpretation has twisted the word of God to make it look like it is saying what he wants it to say.

            Now, Jesus’ reference to the state before the Fall is to keep his disciples and bible readers in perspective.  The kind of perspective that Jesus anticipates as the Pharisees can’t easily accept Jesus’ explanation, and thus push him further by asking: “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?”  Then Jesus answers firmly: “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.”  The hardness of their heart becomes the blinding spell that they are unable to see the truth.  This is the main reason why Jesus refers to Genesis 1 and 2.  He does not make the reference to Moses.  Here Jesus rebukes and corrects their mistake.  In this simple answer we can find the desire of God when he created humans, a male and a female, in the first place.  Marriage is then always in the context of a man and a woman.  Never a man with a man or a woman with a woman.  The hardness of people’s heart in this era has blinded them of the truth.  So they twist the eternal word of God to serve their sinful desire.  But Jesus is not finished.  He concludes by saying: “whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”  This is the high standard that God has set since the beginning.  So Jesus’ final answer to the initial question: “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” is a strong “NO!”  The problem with the Pharisees question is that they want to indulge their own sinful desire by exploiting the Law of God.  This is precisely what people like Parini is doing.  They want to perpetuate their sinful tendency by exploiting the Law of God.  So they use one word here and there in order to excuse themselves to enjoy sin.  Be careful with these kind of people!

            Now, going into the twist that Parini does in verse 12.  Verse 12 cannot be disconnected from the previous conversation, especially verses 10 and 11.  After Jesus explains to the Pharisees and answers them firmly, his disciples make a comment.  Their comment is: “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”  Now, before we proceed further, I have to explain that the original Greek words arrangement is a bit different in the second clause of the disciples’ comment.  Almost all translations translate it “it is better not to marry,” whereas the Greek is “οὐ συμφέρει γαμῆσαι.”  If we read the Greek as is, it is better translated: “not it is better to marry.”  Or if we want to smooth the English translation a bit, it can be put this way: “It is not better to marry.”  Which means that it actually does not give any connotation to suggest that “not to marry is better than to marry,” but instead it only suggests that “to marry is not better than not to marry.”  If we misread this, the response that Jesus gives is then can easily be misunderstood as if not to marry (for the sake of the kingdom of heaven) is better than to marry.

            Verse 12, then is a response that Jesus gives to his disciples’ comment “it is not better to marry.”  In this way Jesus affirms his disciples’ comment when he says: “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given.”  It is not easy to understand that to marry is not better than not to marry.  Especially in the culture which ascribes shame to those who are childless.  The culture of the OT and the NT agree on the understanding that those who are barren are not blessed by God.  A vivid example is the story of Hannah and Peninnah in 1 Samuel 1.  Both women are wives to Elkanah.  But Hannah is childless, while Peninnah have children.  So Peninnah always taunts and makes fun of Hannah because she is barren.  Hannah, with her heart broken, goes to the tabernacle and prays so fervently that Eli mistakes her for a drunk.  She pours out her heart before the Lord.  She asks for a child, a son.  With that example, it should be enough for us to picture the context at that time and understand that what Jesus says is true.  In fact it is not easy at all to understand that to marry is not better than not to marry.  It is like saying in our modern world today that to have cell phone is not better than not to have one.  Because everybody thinks that to have cell phone is better than not to have one.

            So in the context of the difficulty to accept such understanding, Jesus illustrates it by bringing in the statement about eunuchs.  So Jesus illustrates:

¹² For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.

It is well noted here that theologians and bible scholars from the first century to now agree that what Jesus is saying about eunuchs must not be taken literally.  It is an illustration.  For sure, Parini does not bother to mention that because his purpose is to make the gospel speaks what it never intends to.  Parini wants the gospel to speak what he has in mind.  So he doesn’t bother to dig deeper and discipline himself in carefully understanding this passage according to its historical context, grammatical, and theological structure.  Jesus here uses “eunuchs” only to illustrate the difficult understanding within the context of their culture that his disciples just realize, that “to marry is not better than not to marry.”  Everybody says that “to marry is better than not to marry.”  And so within that illustration, Jesus for sure neither talks about gay people nor gay issues.  He simply illustrates that there are people who are unable to marry due to the fact that they are born that way.  And there are people who cannot marry because they are made that way by other people.  And lastly, there are people who decide not to marry for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.  And Jesus is one of those people who decide not to marry for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.

            But that doesn’t mean that “not to marry is better than to marry.”  This is why it is important to look at the original Greek language: “οὐ συμφέρει γαμῆσαι.”  In this way we can understand more clearly that the Bible never gives any theological suggestion that “it is better not to marry.”  The original Greek meaning is lost in the English translation.  So we have to come back to the original meaning, which simply states: “It is not better to marry.”  The placement of the “not” is crucial for the right understanding.  The Reformers battled out the misinterpretation precisely because of the misreading of this particular clause in verse 10.  So John Calvin commented on this, saying: “In short, Christ teaches us, that it is not enough, if unmarried men live chastely, unless they abstain from having wives, for the express purpose of devoting themselves to better employments.^[3]”  And for Calvin, better employment means: “Afin d’estre plus libres pour s’employer à meilleures choses à la gloire de Dieu;”—“in order to be more free for being employed in better things for the glory of God.”^[4]  This completes our basic understanding of this passage.  Certainly its true understanding is nowhere near what Parini is suggesting in his short article.  This passage cannot and must not be twisted to support homosexual practice.  So if he is trying to answer his own question “Would Jesus OK same-sex marriage?” he certainly can’t find Jesus answering “Yes” to that in Matthew 19:1-12.  If we read this passage more clearly, with the reference to Genesis 1 and 2, it is very appropriate to say that Jesus would not OK same-sex marriage.  The idea of marriage, as we refer back to Genesis 1 and 2, is always about a man and a woman.  It is deeply rooted in the language of Hebrew and Greek, the languages God chose to reveal himself, and it is therefore foundational theologically.

            Parini’s last attempt is then to appeal to his mistaken belief that says:

I myself believe that God has a loving eye for all of his creation and judges harshly only those who choose to judge – and condemn – others.  As the poet William Blake put it beautifully: “Everything that lives is holy.”[5]

God’s love has been misused, manipulated, and exploited so many times in order for people to indulge in sin.  People like Parini know nothing about God, the Holy One of Israel.  Even though he is a loving God, he also is a holy God.  His holiness prohibits him from compromising sin.  Parini does not bother to study what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 that says:

⁹ Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, ¹⁰ nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

God has a loving eye, but he won’t permit those who continue in their sin to inherit the kingdom of heaven.  People like Parini are false teachers, false prophets, of whom Paul in Galatians 1:6-9 speaks very strongly:

⁶ I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— ⁷ not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. ⁸ But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. ⁹ As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

With such harsh words coming out from the mouth of the Apostle Paul, does it mean that he is being judged harshly by the God with a loving eye (as Parini suggests)?  These people, Parini or whoever, they do not know God, so they twist the gospel of Jesus Christ.  Thus according to the Apostle Paul, “let them be accursed!”

Parini closes his article by saying: “The mainstream Christian churches seem to be moving in this direction, however slowly, and this is a cause for celebration.”[6]  What a pity?!  Looking at the way the churches are moving, movement like what PCUSA makes in allowing gay marriage in their church, it is not a cause for celebration.  Instead, it is a cause for lamentation.  It is now the time to put on the sackcloth and pour out the ashes on our head.  We should lament because many Christians have been conformed into the pattern of this world.  I hope that “7,000” Christians are still faithful to the Lord and not bowing down to the “Baal” of the modern world.

---

[1] Parini, Jay.  Would Jesus OK Same-Sex Marriage?  Retrieved from” http://www.cnn.com/2-14/10/03/opinion/parini-would-jesus-be-ok-with-gay-mariage/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7

[2] Ibid.

^[3] John Calvin and William Pringle, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists Matthew, Mark, and Luke, vol. 2 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 387–388.

^[4] John Calvin and William Pringle, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010).

[5] Parini, Jay.  Would Jesus OK Same-Sex Marriage?  Retrieved from” http://www.cnn.com/2-14/10/03/opinion/parini-would-jesus-be-ok-with-gay-mariage/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7

[6] Ibid.