Jesus Understands Being Gay

First off, let me make clear that I'm not suggesting that Jesus was gay. What I'm suggesting is that he understands what it's like to be gay - which is different.  Recently, there have been many books and articles suggesting that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. But as far as we know (or have any right to assume) Jesus never married or had sexual relations. There is nothing in the Gospels, the writings of Paul, John or Peter or the early church fathers to suggest that Jesus was married. On the contrary - in Matthew 19:12 he implied it would be better for a man not to marry so that he could devote himself more fully to serving God.  And in Ephesians  Paul likens the church to the bride of Christ. Eph 5:31-2  "That's why a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife, and the two will be one. This is a great mystery. (I'm talking about Christ's relationship to the church.)" I don't believe Paul would have written that if Jesus already had a wife.

The real issue is that in Jesus' culture, it was considered the duty of every Israelite man to marry as soon as possible, and later Jewish writings tells us that anyone still unmarried by the age of 20 was considered cursed by God. The Code of Jewish Law states "Every man is obliged to marry in order to fulfill the duty of procreation, and whoever is not engaged in propagating the race it is as if he shed blood, diminishing the divine image and causing His presence to depart from Israel." Remaining single was compared to murder.  By not producing children, Jesus had gone against the expectations of his culture. In that sense, he could understand and identify with many gays and lesbians and transgender persons today.

It’s important to understand where Jesus was coming from when he listed the three categories of eunuchs because all of them were detested by most Jews. The same Mosaic Law that prohibits gay intercourse also excluded castrated men (whether by accident or otherwise) from the nation of Israel (Deut 23:1) – they could neither marry nor worship with other Jews. Jesus’ culture considered sex within marriage a ‘mitzvah’ - a commandment from God. The rabbis, priests, Pharisees, and Sadducees were all married men. Only a much smaller group of Essenes sometimes embraced celibacy, and they were widely considered heretics by other Jews.

Being unmarried and about 30 years old, there would have been considerable suspicion among fellow Jews about which category of eunuch Jesus represented. We know that he was constantly harassed by the scribes and Pharisees, but we tend to overlook that it probably had a lot to do with his own chosen "lifestyle." He had gone directly against the expectations of his culture, where the difficulty was not only in sublimating sexual urges - - they also risked becoming social pariahs.

Another reason why Jesus understands what many gays experience - including myself - was in his estranged relationship with his family. It tells us in Mar 3:21  When his family heard about it (meaning his ministry), they went to get him. They said, "He's out of his mind!" Like the families of many gays and lesbians today, they thought that something was wrong with him that needed to be fixed. It tells us in Mat 12:47-50  that "Someone told him, "Your mother and your brothers are standing outside. They want to talk to you." He replied to the man speaking to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" Pointing with his hand at his disciples, he said, "Look, here are my mother and my brothers. Whoever does what my Father in heaven wants is my brother and sister and mother."  Rather than inviting his family in - because he knew they disapproved of what he was doing - he called his friends and disciples his family because they had accepted him. They had become his non-traditional family. I'm sure there are many gays who can relate to that as well. We all need to find a place where we are accepted and respected for the way that God created us. Jesus also said things like:

lMat 10:35-36 “ I came to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. A person's enemies will be the members of his own family.”

l “And if any man comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters; yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.” (Luk 14:26) 

l“He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."

It's amazing that the same people who like to interpret the Bible literally when it comes to the few verses that refer to homosexuality, have no trouble at all discounting what Jesus himself had to say about traditional families daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” (Mat 10:37) 

We also know that he traveled for three years with twelve men, his disciples, whom he called his friends, and that one of his disciples (John) regularly described himself in the Gospel of John as “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” Again, I'm not suggesting that this was a physical or sexual love. But what I am saying is that Jesus deeply loved, and was loved by, another man.  And gays can certainly relate to that.

So taking all of these things together - his relationship with his family and the fact that he was unmarried - that he went around with 12 other men telling folks they had to love him more than their family - frankly, if someone were to say and do those same things today - - family-values Christians wouldn’t hesitate to accuse him of promoting a ‘homosexual agenda.’

It's not that Jesus was gay. But what we do know is that he was a man, and the Bible teaches that, even though he was the son of God, he was also fully human. The technical term for this is hypostatic union. Two natures in one person. The tradition of the mainline Christian church (excluding some gnostics and early Christian cults) has been that Jesus is both fully God and fully human.  He was a person like us – not some god masquerading in a person suit, or half a man and half a god. Jesus honestly felt, suffered, and experienced, the same things that we do - and in the same way that we do.

Paul tells us: Php 2:6-8  "Although he was in the form of God and equal with God, he did not take advantage of this equality. Instead, he emptied himself by taking on the form of a servant, by becoming like other humans, by having a human appearance. He humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, death on a cross."

His human existence is both authentic and permanent. Jesus' humanity is not something that can be discarded. Upon his ascension, Jesus was not deified, but rather was glorified.

It's a difficult concept for even Christians to wrap their mind around.  On the other hand, I don't really understand how a television set works - but does that mean I don't spend too much time staring at it.  God can do whatever He wants to do - that's how He got to be God.

And when you think about it, the fact that Jesus overcame sin would have been an pretty empty accomplishment if he were incapable of being tempted as any other man is tempted. It would miss the point of why God humbled himself as a man. It wasn't an empty gesture. The Bible tells us not only that Jesus was tempted, but that he was tempted in every conceivable manner:

Heb 4:15 says“For we have not such a high priest which cannot be touched with the feelings of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, and yet without sin.”

To be tempted in all points must mean that Jesus knew what it was like to be tempted sexually - and by another man. He knew what it was to be gay, and also what it was like to be straight. He knew what it was to be bisexual and tempted by both. Yet he never indicated it was wrong to be gay or bisexual; he never said it was sinful to have intimate feelings for someone of the same sex.

More than 100 years ago Sigmund Freud concluded that human beings are naturally bisexual. He also wrote to a mother whose gay son he was treating: "Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation; it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function." While extensive research and sampling conducted by Alfred Kinsey more than 50 years ago showed that gay and straight are actually part of a continuum, with most folks falling somewhere in between. 

Jesus had gained a comprehensive understanding of the human condition precisely because he grew up dealing with the same emotional and psychological issues that we do. That's why he talked about "eunuchs who are eunuchs from birth." He was talking about Jewish men who weren't attracted to women, and in Jesus' culture, they would have been stoned or shoved off a cliff if they risked having sex with another men.  So they became eunuchs by default.

How could Jesus help us when we are tempted if he really has no idea of what it’s like to be tempted - or to be tempted in a particular way? How could he show us how to overcome the temptation to use rather than to love each other, if he never had  any experience in dealing with the these issues?

Heb 2:17-18 'Therefore in all things it behooved him to be made like His brothers, that He might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of His people. For in that He Himself has suffered, having been tempted, He is able to rescue those who are being tempted.'

Because we often neglect that Jesus was indeed fully human, we fail to emphasize the extent to which his teachings were based upon his life experience. He wasn’t playing in a role and reading from a script - he taught from the perspective of someone who understood, first hand, how powerful and sometimes dangerous some temptations could be - and how to deal with them. He wasn’t preaching theories - he taught from practical experience.  He tells us “We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen.” (Joh 3:11) 

Knowing all this, his silence on the issue of homosexuality becomes quite deafening since he certainly wasn’t as reticent to speak out on other issues. We know, for instance, that he was tempted by money and power, and that the devil had offered him all the kingdoms and riches of the world. (Mt 4:8-10) As a result, he continued to warn others about the “deceitfulness of riches,” (Mat 13:22) and concluded that “you cannot serve God and Mammon.” (Mat 6:14) He also taught us to be humble and take the lowest seat as dinner rather than a seat of honor, and if someone has ambition for power and authority, he must first become the servant of all. Moreover, the only thing he said about sexual temptation is that "that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." 

Jesus’ teachings were a pragmatic set of guidelines based upon his life experience. He wasn’t hiding out in Nazareth for 30 years, masquerading as a carpenter and just waiting to tell the world that he was God. When he told his disciples that, “I have overcome the world” (Joh 16:33) - Jesus had already experienced every challenge and temptation in the world that needed to be overcome. God has no need to overcome the world since the world can only exist through Him. But as a man, Jesus overcame every temptation, culminating in his overcoming at the cross.

In the Garden of Gethsemane, it tells us that he was sweating drops of blood, asking that the cup be taken from him, and that God the Father find another way to redeem our humanity. He was fully human.  He didn't want to die anymore than any sane person wants to die.  He wanted to live, like we all do.  He wasn't crazy, depressed, or suicidal. He had humbled himself as a man and servant of God and always put the Father's will above his own. As the Son of God, he knew exactly what was about to happen - the horrible agony and shame that he would experience on the cross. But as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient - even unto death.

So what was Jesus' prescription for overcoming all the evil and injustice in the world?  Someone asked him what was the most important part of the law.

Mat 22:36-40  Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

All of Jesus' teachings and commandments were built upon a foundation of love – love for God and for our neighbors. He taught us that love must play the central role in living a full and victorious life. Battling against the ‘homosexual lifestyle’ was never Jesus’ strategy for overcoming sin.

If the things that matter to most Christians today are not the things that Jesus ever taught or spoke about, there’s a question that needs to be answered: Why are so many Christians following the instructions of Robertson and Dobson rather than the teachings of Jesus? They've made battling the ‘homosexual agenda’ and preserving traditional families their primary objective. But that wasn’t what Jesus taught, or how he lived. Jesus didn't come from a traditional family (inasmuch as his mother was a virgin) nor did he start one of his own.

What he did instead  was to focus upon issues that tend to undermine our love for God and for our neighbors. These include issues like greed and materialism, religious pride and hypocrisy, judging and condemning others, and refusing to forgive.  He encouraged his followers to trust God, to do good works, to forgive and concentrate on the log in our own eye, and to love our enemies rather than judging them.

But let’s be honest – that’s too difficult for many Christians. Loving their lesbian, gay, and transgender neighbors is a much tougher assignment than denouncing and excluding them. It's much easier to focus upon the 'homosexual lifestyle' than our own selfish and materialistic lifestyle. Many expect a Christian’s life to be easy, and there are plenty of churches across America that fill up their pews every Sunday by making it easier for them to hate their neighbors.

That's why we (as gay, lesbian, and transsexual persons) need to follow Jesus' teaching: Mat 5:43-45  "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." 

We follow Jesus' teaching because that's the way to victory.

Jesus’ ministry of love, tolerance, and forgiveness stood in stark contrast to the sanctimonious religiosity of the Pharisees. Their method for overcoming sin – the religiosity and self-righteousness that comes though judging and condemning others – only created the outward appearance of being righteous. Jesus called them ‘whitewashed tombs’ because even though they seemed very religious, they hadn't kept the most basic principal of the law - to love and cherish their neighbors.

As we read through the four Gospels we find two distinct religions and methods for overcoming sin: There’s the example of loving, forgiving and choosing not to judge others - as preached and practiced by Jesus; and then there’s the practice of focusing on everything you judge to be wrong about your neighbors to feel righteous by comparison - as practiced and promoted by the Pharisees. The reason these are held in stark contrast - sometimes it seems on every other page - was to demonstrate how only one is effective in helping to overcome sin and live a fuller life.

The reason Jesus never preached or practiced the scriptural legalism the Pharisees insisted upon – and why he ate and drank with sinners, healed on the Sabbath, and refused to condemn a woman accused of adultery - was not because he didn’t know right from wrong. It’s because the Pharisee’s method simply didn’t work. It was an abysmal failure. All they had accomplished was to make themselves hypocrites.

In conclusion:  Loving someone, rather than judging him, isn’t always easy. And it’s especially true in a culture with a long history of homophobia. For many Christians today, the more challenging assignment would be to accept and love their lesbian, gay and transgender neighbors as equal human beings. I believe it will happen, not because I say so, but because the Gospel and the teachings of Jesus demand that it happen.  Jesus said “with man it is impossible, but with God, all things are possible.” (Mar 10:27) And I believe the progress that has been made in just the last several years has happened because more and more people are beginning to recognize the difference between a religion based in hypocrisy and one grounded upon the love of God in Christ.

A New Covenant

What does it mean to be a Christian, and why is the Bible divided into the Old and New Testament?  Paul tells us in 2 Cor 3:6 , “Who also hath made us able ministers of the New Testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.” So what is the spirit of the New Covenant that we have in Jesus Christ?

Jesus was asked  "which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” and he replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’^[ This is the first and greatest commandment.  And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” Paul would later write "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF. Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." And James would write, "If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well."

The Spirit of the law and the substance of the New Covenant is that we love God and our neighbor. (Mar 12:30-31) And make no mistake - it’s much more difficult, to follow the Spirit and love our neighbors as we ought to, than to judge and impose a self-serving letter of the Law against our neighbors, to appear more religious than they are.

Which is why many Christians prefer to be legalists and fundamentalists. Because however strict fundamentalism may appear, it’s much easier than letting go of our pride, our fear, and any prejudices that we may still harbor against our neighbors – including the fear and hatred of gays and lesbians. It’s much easier to become a fundamentalist Christian than to make those fundamental changes of heart that define a Christian.

Many of them would say: ‘It’s not about judging gays; it’s about looking at how the Bible considers homosexuality a serious offense. Unless we want everyone living by their own rules and doing whatever they please, we must look to the Bible for bedrock principals. The notion that homosexuality is wrong is one of them.’

Or so their argument goes…because they don’t have any faith in the New Covenant that we have through faith in Jesus Christ. They have no faith in the power of faith to transform a person’s life, and they believe a Christian cannot be trusted with the liberty guaranteed us when Jesus said, Joh_8:36  "If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed." and when Paul warned us to Gal_5:1  Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.. Frankly, they’re afraid of the New Covenant; they much prefer the letter to the spirit of the law; and they don't believe that Christ died to free us from the Law. They talk about the power of the gospel, but they’re afraid that it won’t work.

Their line of reasoning doesn’t conform to the truth of the Gospel because they have the wrong kind of faith. They've put more faith in controlling people rather than in loving them. Certainly the Bible can - and should - be used for edification and instruction: But only within the context of the absolute liberty guaranteed every Christian. The Bible cannot be used to refute or to dilute our liberty in Christ, or to safeguard Christians from the freedom that Christ died to secure for us. In the most necessary sense, the Gospel law of Love is the only law that matters. We are no longer under the Law of condemnation, but under the full and complete authority of God’s grace.

The problem with using the Bible to build a circumstantial case against gays is that you are doing something that directly contradicts the New Covenant. You are misusing scriptures in an attempt to prove something you would never need to prove if you had followed the Spirit of the law by loving your neighbor - rather than giving into the temptation to judge and condemn him.

The Gospel says that a Christian is free from the Law and any condemnation coming from the Law; and yet many have attempted to construct an entirely New and Abridged Mosaic Law aimed specifically at singling out and condemning gays. While at the same time, they conveniently excuse themselves from all the other obsolete prohibitions in the Bible, inasmuch as they judge those to be merely ceremonial, not as important, or no longer in force. Like the law against eating shellfish or wearing clothing with mixed threads, or stoning a bride when she is found not to be a virgin, or killing anyone that practices a different religion, or marrying off a young girl to the man who raped her. And there are many more like these.

Their new and Abridged Law, targeted against gays, could never change the path leading to our justification, which can only come by faith in Christ. They have merely annulled the power of the New Covenant  within their own life by condemning rather than loving your neighbor.

If a Christians is using the Bible to justify their hatred and perpetuate an injustice - however long in existence – he has broken the only Law that matters: ‘love thy neighbor as thyself.’ He has transgressed the law of love, against which every other Law is ultimately judged. It’s not the Law that judges us, it’s the spirit of Christ’s love that weighs and judges the Law.

 ‘What then?’ they would counter. ‘Can’t we as a society ever decide what’s right, what’s wrong, and make our laws accordingly? Does ‘freedom in Christ’ mean freedom from every moral precept and a sense of common decency? What sort of a world would it be if murderers and rapists and theives were allowed to do whatever they pleased, while we stood idly by with our hands behind our back because we don’t want to violate their Christian liberty?’

The most obvious fault with this kind of emotional hyperbole is that nobody is arguing that those who harm others – those like murderers, rapists, and thieves - should not be brought to justice and prosecuted. That’s a red herring. Society has a duty to pass and enforce laws that establish justice and protect the innocent from harm. However, society has no right to force the personal, private moral standards of one religious group upon everybody. Nor does society have any right to deny folks their basic Constitutional rights - like the right to marry - just because they happen to violate the moral code of others. This is not only unjust and unconstitutional, but an infringement upon the basic liberty guaranteed us by the Gospel.

American law is based upon the separation of church and state. Which is to say, we allow individuals the freedom to practice their own faith (or no faith) and to obey their own conscience in matters of personal and private morality. The separation of church and state is predicated upon the truth of the Gospel because it allows folks to make those kinds of decisions for themselves.

As Martin Luther would later write, “They wish to deprive us of our consciousness of liberty in such a way that we believe that what they do is well done; and it is not permissible to censure it, or complain that what they do is evil… It is solely on behalf of this liberty that I cry aloud; and I do so with good conscience, and in the faith that it is not possible for either men or angels rightfully to impose even a single law upon Christians except with their consent; for we are free of all things.”   Martin Luther

What we call privacy and personal freedom is the outward and secular side of the inward freedom that we enjoy in Jesus Christ. And just because some may abuse that freedom to their own harm doesn’t mean that we all must live under religious tyranny.

The Old Covenant was a combination of both civil and religious laws, since at that time there was no separation between church and state. At that point in history, the mediator between God and humanity wasn’t Christ, but the Mosaic Law. (The same situation exists in some fundamentalist Islamic states in their enforcement of Sharia law.) At one time, the idea of personal rights and moral freedom wasn’t possible because the New Covenant had yet to be preached. The Mosaic Law instructed everyone, not only in how they should live together in a safe and just community, but in how they must worship God and the moral standards they had to uphold.

But the New Covenant tells us that there are no written laws that could teach us how to worship God perfectly - in spirit and in truth through love, as Jesus taught us. (John 4:23-24) And there are no written laws that could enable us to love our neighbors as we ought to. That kind of information and ability can only come directly from God through the love of Jesus Christ working in our hearts by faith. As it says, “I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts.” (Jeri 31:33)

Strictly speaking, because a Christian answers directly to a ‘Higher Law’ through faith in Jesus Christ, he is completely free - not only from any religious laws but from civil and secular laws as well.

That’s not to say that a Christian is free to be a murder or a thief; but that a Christian refrains from murder and theft inasmuch as he is already obeying the law of Love written by Christ within his heart. A Christian doesn’t harm others because he’s freely chosen to love his neighbors instead. A Christian honors secular authority, rather than endorsing anarchy, because the law of love includes a genuine respect for civil authorities whom, as Paul tells us in Rom 13:1-5, God established them for the common good.

But where the laws of men and the law written within a Christian’s heart stand in opposition – as often has been the case over issues like slavery, civil rights, going to war, or an equal right to marry – a Christian has the right (and moral duty) to peacefully demonstrate his opposition to an unjust law, even if it means going to jail.

In demonstrating against unjust laws, a Christian demonstrates his allegiance to a much higher law. And though there were once sodomy laws on the books in America – they were struck down by the US Supreme Court in 2003, in the case of Lawrence vs. Texas, which found, “no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual."  Just as the laws prohibiting gays and lesbians from marrying are being struck down today.

Many would counter: ‘It may be that the government has no right to invade our privacy or to impose its moral code. But does that mean a church cannot instruct their parishioners in matters of personal conduct? Isn’t that their purpose and function – to guide their flock in these matters? So then, aren’t churches obligated to reprimand, or even exclude, those who won’t live up to the moral code they teach and believe in?’

The duty and purpose of every Christian church is to preach the Christian Gospel without discrimination or favor - especially to the poor and persecuted. It’s admirable to preach values like love, tolerance, forgiveness, honesty, patience, courage, charity, faithfulness, commitment, and self-sacrifice. However, calling someone’s lifestyle evil when they have done no harm to anyone – but only because they haven't conformed to your particular lifestyle – that isn’t Christian. It’s a heterosexual country-club posing as a Christian church.

Even if they were right and a gay person's lifestyle was wrong, shaming and forcing him to deny how God created him cannot save him. Declaring a cultural war against you neighbors will neither change their heart nor their sexuality. Nor would it matter if it could.

If a pastor solved the problem of stingy parishioners by holding a shotgun on the congregation, forcing everyone to make a much larger donation - would God reward the congregation for their generous giving or consider it extortion and severely condemn the pastor for his methods? Obviously the latter.

 If Jesus intended to turn homosexuals into heterosexuals - why would he need anyone to shame and compel them to leave the “homosexual lifestyle” if he were already leading them in that direction?

The Lord not only judges what we do, but why we did it. He judges our heart. That’s why it’s so important to allow every Christian the freedom to choose, because without it, there can be no reward for making the right choice. Only condemnation for those who took away our freedom and stifled what Jesus may have been working within our heart. It’s not for their sake that gays have been compelled, through religious and legal discrimination, to attempt to transform their sexuality; it’s an attempt to stifle what Christ is already doing within the hearts of more loving and tolerant Christians; and the latter attempt won’t be any more successful than the former has been.

That being said, every church has a legal right to discriminate against whomever they choose; there is no law saying that our churches must welcome gays and lesbians, and none should ever be written. Still, if they are a church that preaches the New Covenant in Christ, they should necessarily adhere to the terms of that covenant, or they’re not really a Christian church.

Someone might concoct a Christian denomination that was based upon the Koran. But if their religion were based upon the Koran or some other revelation, rather than the New covenant, it would be Christian in name only.

Similarly, many legalistic/fundamentalist churches today are Christian in name, though not in spirit. Enforcing a regressive and legalistic moral code doesn’t make them traditional Christians. That they often seem very judgmental, angry, and intolerant towards those with differing points of view is more evidence of a spirit that’s not at all Christian.

Every church that preaches the New Covenant of justification through faith in Jesus Christ is theologically obligated to honor the personal dignity and Christian liberty of every member. They should, and I believe one day will, accept all those who believe the Gospel and have faith in Jesus Christ – whether or not they are heterosexual.

Like the fundamentalists of other religious persuasions, fundamentalist Christianity has become skilled at advancing the view that they represent the only legitimate version. But things don’t always come as advertised. Because those that have compromised the faith are those who have compromised (and taken away) the liberty of the Gospel.