Streams of Healing Water - Attempts to bridge the gay and non-gay communities through Christ's love

Were David and Jonathan Lovers?

By Rev. John W. Brown

Were David and Jonathan gay lovers? Many would insist they were
and the Bible speaks of it. Others would equally deny any such
relationship existed insisting they were just good friends or even
just in a political alliance with each other. So what is the truth?
Can we prove David and Jonathan were lovers and possibly married? Or
is that all a myth? What does the Bible actually say about all this?
The following is a study I have done on the subject going back into
the original Hebrew as I try to determine exactly what the Bible
teaches on the issue. For those who may not know me I am gay and a
lay minister in the Old Catholic Church. Others of my writings can be
found at ChristianGays.com. So come now and join with me as we take
a look at the story of Jonathan and David and see what truths we can
discover there.

As we open up this study I need to mention that all scripture
quotes will taken from the New King James Version of the Bible. I
also need to state that everything shared here is from my own
research and understanding being shared here for your enlightenment,
consideration and to do with however God leads you.

WERE DAVID AND JONATHAN LOVERS?
1. David and Jonathan's First Recorded Meeting

"1 Now when he had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of
Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as
his own soul. 2 Saul took him that day, and would not let him go
home to his father¢s house anymore. 3 Then Jonathan and David made
a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. 4 And Jonathan took
off the robe that was on him and gave it to David, with his armor,
even to his sword and his bow and his belt." (I Samuel 18:1-4)

In the above passage of scripture we find some interesting
things about David and Jonathan. Jonathan was Saul's son and heir
apparent to the throne. Yet we see something going on here between
David and Jonathan. First it says Jonathan's soul was knit to the
soul of David. Soul as used here refers to life or the breath of
life. So it would read that the life of Jonathan was knit with the
life of David. So what does that mean?

The word knit used here has several meetings. It can mean to
confine, to make a compact either in love or league, to bind or
conspire, to join together, to make stronger, to work treason. So
while it is possible that this was a sexual union it is equally
possible that this was nothing more than a polticial alliance or one
in which they agreed to want the best for each other and to take
care of each other and their respective families. As we shall see
that is a very possible explanation of their relationship.
It also says Jonathan loved David as his own soul. The word used
here for loved is ahab which has a variety of meanings. It means to
have affection for someone either sexually or otherwise. It can
refer to a loving frienship, being like a friend, or to brotherly
love. The latter is the meaning of the name of King Ahab of Israel
which according to Strongs means brother. Some uses of this word in
the scriptures can be seen in the following.

"5 But if the servant plainly says, "I love my master, my wife,
and my children; I will not go out free," 6 then his master shall
bring him to the judges. He shall also bring him to the door, or to
the doorpost, and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and
he shall serve him forever." (Exodus 21:5-6)

Here we see the use of the word ahab used when the slave
has a chance to go free but refuses. He instead chooses to remain a
slave because he loves (ahab) his master. Here he says because he
loves his master, his wife, and children that he will remain as a
slave. Although masters used slaves both male and female for sex in
the ancient world it was not their only purpose. In this case no sex
is mentioned, just that the slave loved his master, period.

In Duteronomy 7:8, I Kings 10:9, 2 Chronicles 2:11, 9:8 and
Hosea 3:1 the word ahab is used to describe God's love for Israel. I
don't know of anyone who would suggest God was wanting to have
sex with the people of Israel. Here instead I believe God was saying He
wanted the best for Israel and wanted to provide it for them if they
would let Him.

For the other meanings of ahab we can take a look at
Genesis 24:67

"67 Then Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent; and he
took Rebekah and she became his wife, and he loved her. So Isaac was
comforted after his mother's death."

Here we see another use of the word ahab in the scriptures when
it says Isaac ahab his wife. Since they were a married couple and
had children they would have had sex also obviously.

Another use of this word ahab can be found in Genesis 34:3 when
after Shechem rapes Dinah it says that he loved (ahab) her and spoke
kindly to her.

All this is to show that the word ahab is used several different
ways in the Old Testament and although it can refer to a sexual
union it can also mean something else totally. So again not
conclusive proof that they were lovers.

In verse 3 it says that David and Jonathan made a covenant. As
used here a covenant is a confederacy or league or covenant. So
again this could imply that this was a political alliance or one in
which they would seek the best for each other, look out for each
other, take care of each other's families as brothers would.

In verse 4 it says Jonathan took off or stripped off his robe,
armor and sword and gave them to David. Was this a stripping for
sex? If so why is David not stripping and getting ready for sex? The
word used here in the Hebrew is pawshat. It means to spread out, to
deploy in an hostile manner, to strip, unclothe, plunder, flay,
invade, make an invasion, pull or put off, make a road, run upon,
rush, spoil, spread selves abroad, and to strip off self. As we see
here it has a lot of meanings. Was Jonathan getting ready to rape
David by invading his body? Given all we know of the relationship
between David and Jonathan I believe we can safely reject that and
assume no hostility was meant by Jonathan towards David. So then
what was happening here?

The same verse says that after Jonathan took them off he gave
them to David. Does this infer some type of a sexual thing here such
as the giving of a dowry or an engagement ring in anticipation of a
promise of marriage? Could it be simply the giving of a present as
we might do at Christmas, on a birthday or anniversary to show
someone how much we love and respect them? The word used here for
gave is nathan which has a wide latitude in how it can be used in
the scriptures. The best idea I think of what is happening here from
what I have read would be that Jonathan is giving a present to
David. This could be in acknowledgment of the great victory David
had just won over Goliath and Jonathan's respect and admiration of
David for that. It could also mean that Jonathan was ordaining,
ascribing or yielding something to David. We know that David had by
this time been anointed already as king to replace Saul. Could word
have gotten back to Jonathan and he is simply recognizing
that fact and yielding to that? In I Samuel we find the following
statement from Jonathan to David.

"17 And he said to him, "Do not fear, for the hand of Saul my
father shall not find you. You shall be king over Israel, and I
shall be next to you. Even my father Saul knows that."
(I Samuel 23:17)

These are strange words coming from the heir apparent to the
throne. Should anything have happened to Saul, Jonathan would have
become king automatically, not David. Yet Jonathan says he knows
David will be king, as does his father and he, Jonathan, will be next
to David. We are not told when Jonathan found out about David being
anointed king. However if he knew at the time they first met, then
by stripping off his robe, armor and sword and giving them to David,
he'd be recognizing that fact and yielding to it and God's will for
him. Probably no way to know for certain but I believe it is a
possibility.

2. What Was Saul Actually Saying to David When Offering His
Daughter Michal To David?

"17 Then Saul said to David, "Here is my older daughter Merab; I
will give her to you as a wife. Only be valiant for me, and fight
the LORD's battles." For Saul thought, "Let my hand not be against
him, but let the hand of the Philistines be against him." 18 So
David said to Saul, "Who am I, and what is my life or my father's
family in Israel, that I should be son-in-law to the king?" 19 But
it happened at the time when Merab, Saul's daughter, should have
been given to David, that she was given to Adriel the Meholathite as
a wife. 20 Now Michal, Saul's daughter, loved David. And they told
Saul, and the thing pleased him. 21 So Saul said, "I will give her
to him, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the
Philistines may be against him." Therefore Saul said to David a
second time, "You shall be my son-in-law today." 22 And Saul
commanded his servants, "Communicate with David secretly, and say,
"Look, the king has delight in you, and all his servants love you.
Now therefore, become the king's son-in-law." 23 So Saul's
servants spoke those words in the hearing of David. And David
said, "Does it seem to you a light thing to be a king's son-in-law,
seeing I am a poor and lightly esteemed man?" 24 And the servants of
Saul told him, saying, "In this manner David spoke." 25 Then Saul
said, "Thus you shall say to David: "The king does not desire any
dowry but one hundred foreskins of the Philistines, to take
vengeance on the king's enemies." But Saul thought to make David
fall by the hand of the Philistines. 26 So when his servants told
David these words, it pleased David well to become the king's son-in-
law. Now the days had not expired; 27 therefore David arose and
went, he and his men, and killed two hundred men of the Philistines.
And David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full count
to the king, that he might become the king's son-in-law. Then Saul
gave him Michal his daughter as a wife." (I Samuel 18:17-27)

Some have tried to infer from the scriptures that there was a
relationship or marriage between Jonathan and David or even a
relationship between Saul and David. However though the Hebrew may
be a bit ambiguous here I believe Saul could be simply offering
David a second chance to be his son-in-law. Saul had first offered
David the chance to be his son-in-law by offering him the hand of
his eldest daughter Merab. Then for whatever reason he marries her
off to another man. He then gives David a second chance to become
his son-in-law by marrying Michal which he does. This I believe
fits the text nicely and fits in with the original Hebrew text also
quite well. Not to say that the other couldn't have happened but in
my opinion this is a more likely scenario.

3. Why Would Jonathan Refuse To Kill David Or Allow Him To Be
Killed?

"1 Now Saul spoke to Jonathan his son and to all his servants,
that they should kill David; but Jonathan, Saul's son, delighted
greatly in David. 2 So Jonathan told David, saying, "My father Saul
seeks to kill you. Therefore please be on your guard until morning,
and stay in a secret place and hide." (I Samuel 19:1-2)

Here we see that Jonathan delighted in David greatly. What does
this mean?

As used here the word delighted means to incline, to bend
(rarely though), to be well pleased with, desire, to take delight
in, to favor, to like, and to have pleasure with. So again the
possibility of a sexual relationship exists. However it can equally
mean to be well pleased with David. He may have simply approved of
his victory over Goliath, his service to his father King Saul, and
of how David conducted himself. We know the delight was enough that
Jonathan disobeyed his father's command to kill David. However was
that just a brotherly affection or something more? Again I believe
both are possibilites but again no conclusive evidence.

4. What Does It Mean That David Found Favor In The Eyes Of
Jonathan?

"2 So Jonathan said to him, "By no means! You shall not die!
Indeed, my father will do nothing either great or small without
first telling me. And why should my father hide this thing from me?
It is not so!" 3 Then David took an oath again, and said, "Your
father certainly knows that I have found favor in your eyes, and he
has said, "Do not let Jonathan know this, lest he be grieved. But
truly, as the LORD lives and as your soul lives, there is but a step
between me and death." (I Samuel 20:2-3)

In this passage David says he had found favor in the sight of
Jonathan. The word used here, chen, can mean grace, graciousness,
kindness, favor, pleasant, precious, or well favored. It can also
refer to an object of beauty. It could mean that Saul finds Jonathan
an object of beauty in the eyes of David. It could also be that
David finds Jonathan an object of beauty or vice versa. It can also
mean that Saul knows that David has found favor in Jonathan's eyes
to the point that Jonathan is ready to give up his throne for David
and serve as his second in command as we saw earlier. It could also
mean that Saul knows how much Jonathan loves David and doesn't want
to hurt him. That would seem to be David's thought on the subject.
Perhaps Saul doesn't want Jonathan running to David to forewarn him
of his plans thereby allowing David to escape. Again a sexual
relationship is not ruled out but neither is it unequivocally in
either.

In verse 8 of the same chapter David asks Jonathan to deal
kindly with him. Here we see David asking Jonathan to favor him with
a good deed, loving kindness, and mercy as that is what the word
kindly means as used in this text. He is also telling Jonathan that
if he has done anything wrong for him to reprove him or reproach him
but not turn David over to Saul for him to deal with..

5. A Brotherly Concern By Johnathan To Make Sure David Takes
Care Of His Family?

"14 And you shall not only show me the kindness of the LORD
while I still live, that I may not die; 15 but you shall not cut off
your kindness from my house forever, no, not when the LORD has cut
off every one of the enemies of David from the face of the earth."
16 So Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, "Let
the LORD require it at the hand of David's enemies." 17 Now Jonathan
again caused David to vow, because he loved him; for he loved him as
he loved his own soul." (I Samuel 20:14-17)

Here we see the same thing we saw in verse 8 as the same word is
used in the Hebrew. Here Jonathan is concerned that David not cut
off his good deeds, and give mercy not only to himself but his entire
family as well. This then could refer to a brotherly love wherein
each looks out for the welfare of each other and Jonathan's making
sure David will look out for and take care of his family forever
should anything happen to him. This David does when he takes
Mephibosheth (Jonathan's son) and moves him into the palace and
provides for him. (See 2 Samuel 9:1-13)

As we study this portion of scripture more fully I see that it
says Jonathan and David enter into a covenant (we discussed covenant
earlier) and Jonathan causes David to vow or swear as he loved David
as his own soul. As used here what Jonathan had David do was to make
him repeat a declaration seven times, to take an oath, straightly
cause, or make happen to the full, and complete what he had promised.
This would be the agreement discussed above about showing kindness
to Jonathan and his family. As for the love Jonathan and David had
we discussed that earlier, basically one at least of great affection
for each other. This again being referred to in verse 42 at their
final parting that the Lord would be with them and their descendants
forever.

6. What Does Saul Think Of The Relationship Between Jonathan and
David and Why?

"30 Then Saul's anger was aroused against Jonathan, and he said
to him, "You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that
you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame
of your mother's nakedness? 31 For as long as the son of Jesse lives
on the earth, you shall not be established, nor your kingdom. Now
therefore, send and bring him to me, for he shall surely die." 32
And Jonathan answered Saul his father, and said to him, "Why should
he be killed? What has he done?" 33 Then Saul cast a spear at him to
kill him, by which Jonathan knew that it was determined by his
father to kill David. " (I Samuel 20:30-33)

The scene is, David was supposed to be having a meal with his
father-in-law, the king. When the king misses David he asks Jonathan
why he hasn't been there in the last two days. When Jonathan tells
him what David told him to tell him, Saul blows up, making
accusations and demanding Jonathan bring David to him so Saul could
kill him. When Jonathan asks his father why, Saul tries to kill him.
In this passage Saul calls Jonathan the son of a perverse rebellious
woman and says he knows that Jonathan has chosen David to his own
shame and that of his mother. In Saul's eyes this was perversion
because Jonathan could never be king as long as David lived. Neither
could the dynasty of Saul last if David was alive. So what all is
Saul saying here?

First lets look at what Saul is calling his son. He says his son
is the son of a perverse and rebellious woman. The word perverse
used here means to be or make crooked, to bow down to, do amiss,
commit iniquity, pervert, trouble, do wickedly or wrong. To Saul it
was totally wrong and perverted that Jonathan wouldn't want to be
king after him and carry on the royal family dynasty. That he would
prefer to be second in command to David was unthinkable to Saul. So
he tried to make sure Jonathan would become king and his line
preserved by killing David. However God had other ideas.

Secondly he calls him rebellious - a rebel. After all in Saul's
eyes Jonathan wasn't doing what he was supposed to do and what would
be normal in Saul's eyes. Instead Jonathan was siding with a man Saul
considered an enemy and a threat to his family and all he stood for.
He was well aware of the prophecy of Samuel against him, of the end
of his family's reign and his being replaced by David. Saul was also
determined to stop it and keep it from happening if he could. If
he could kill David, Saul's prophecy would fail to come to pass,
Jonathan would eventually become king and Saul's royal dynasty
continue as kings over Israel indefinitely. So maybe Saul by
insulting his wife and the mother of his son was trying to drive
home the point of exactly what he thought of Jonathan, of his
actions and exactly how he felt about everything. Maybe Saul was
thinking maybe that his son will come to his senses, see him as
right, agreeing with him and bring David to be killed. Instead his
son is insulted and hurt for his father's shameful conduct both
towards David as well as himself. He leaves the table in a
fury, weeping, refusing to eat until he meets David again.

Saul however doesn't stop by just insulting his son but by insulting
his mother. He goes on in his rage and accuses Jonathan of choosing
David to his and his mothers shame. The word used for chosen here
refers to trying something, being acceptable, appoint, select,
choose, excellent, join, be rather or require. So Saul is saying
that Jonathan has chosen David as more acceptable or excellent than
Jonathan as king. Again a total perversion in the eyes of Saul. Then
to Saul Jonathan has done this to his own shame and to the shame of
his mother's nakedness. Lets break this down.

First the word shame here refers to a feeling or condition of
shame or the cause thereof. It can refer to an idol or to be greatly
put to shame. A possible rendering here is that Jonathan has made an
idol out of David leading him to do things of which he should be
ashamed of in Saul's eyes anyway. This has led him to shame his
mother's nakedness. As used here it refers to nudity and to a
woman's private parts (especially her pudendum or external genital
sexual organs especially the vulva). So here we could see Saul
saying that Jonathan by his actions has exposed his mother's private
parts and totally disgraced her figuratively at least. The idea of
an idol could mean that Jonathan was making David into a sex object
which he worshipped but again the evidence is iffy at best and
inconclusive also.

7. David and Jonathan's Last Meeting

"41 As soon as the lad had gone, David arose from a place toward
the south, fell on his face to the ground, and bowed down three
times. And they kissed one another; and they wept together, but
David more so. 42 Then Jonathan said to David, "Go in peace, since
we have both sworn in the name of the LORD, saying, "May the LORD be
between you and me, and between your descendants and my
descendants, forever." So he arose and departed, and Jonathan went into the
city." (I Samuel 20:41-43)

In this passage we see the last meeting of David and Jonathan
prior to Jonathan's untimely death in battle. Here we see David
arising falling on his face before Jonathan bowing three times to
him. They also kiss and weep with each other until they finally
part. We need to note here David is a commoner who is only related
to royalty by marriage at this point. Therefore by the real royalty
would be considered an inferior thereby making this action towards
Jonathan totally appropriate
.
Now lets break down this passage of scripture and see what is
really happening here. I believe there are some things going on here
that we might miss if we read the English only.

First it says David arose. We might think that he got up from
wherever he was hiding and stepped forward to meet Jonathan.
However there is more to it in the Hebrew. In the Hebrew the word
used here is koom. It means to rise, to accomplish, to be clearer,
to confirm, to continue or endure something and to perform. The last
time they had met Jonathan was to find out whether or not his
father Saul wanted to kill David. Now he is reporting back to David
what he has found out which is yes Saul plans to kill David. So
David here is arising to accomplish what they had discussed
previously. He is also arising so he can become clearer about what
Saul's intentions are towards him. It would also be to continue their
friendship, to endure their parting and to perform all they had
agreed to previously.

Secondly it says David fell with his face to the ground. As used
here it means to fall, to be accepted, to cease, to die, to divide,
to make ready to become a fugitive and be judged by mistake. So here
David would be simply recognizing the fact his relationship (in
whatever respect that was) was about to end or be altered. It would
have also been the acknowledgment that he was about to become a
fugitive due to the false judgment of King Saul and this might very
well be the last time they would meet.

Thirdly it says he bowed three times. The word for bowed used in
this text means to depress, to prostrate or reflex in homage to
royalty or God. It can also mean to humbly beseech, to reverence or
worship someone. So this would confirm what I said earlier that
David as a commoner was simply paying homage or respect to who
Jonathan was - a prince and therefore royalty.

Fourthly it says David and Johnathan kissed. Hurray, we finally
got the proof they were lovers right? Not so fast. In eastern
cultures it is perfectly normal for men to kiss, usually on both
cheeks. This would be like a handshake in our culture. Nothing
sexual about it at all, just a way of greeting each other. So
although it might be a lover's kiss, more than likely wasn't and was
instead just a normal greeting.

Fifthly is says that both men wept. While in western culture
there seems to be the view that "real men" don't cry. That is not the
case in eastern cultures. Men cry there without inhibition. Jesus
wept at the tomb of Lazarus and if there was ever a "real man, a
man's man" He was it. As used here wept means that they bewailed
what was about to happen, made great lamentation, perhaps complained
a bit about it, and wept sorely with tears. Again this could be
because they were partners/lovers but could also be because they
were good friends or even like brothers. Regardless of which might
be the case this would have been a very emotional meeting for them
as they prepared to part for the last time. So here we see it could
go either way,

8. Davids Reaction Upon Hearing Of The Deaths of Jonathan and
Saul.

To set the stage for the next scriptures we will be looking at
we need to understand a few things. In 2nd Samuel first chapter an
Amalekite comes from the battle on Mount Gilboa to David with the
news of the deaths of Jonathan and Saul. He claims to know Saul is
dead because he allegedly killed him himself. Let us now look at
selected portions of scripture and see David's reaction and whether
it proves some kind of love relationship there other than just a
brotherly love.

"Therefore David took hold of his own clothes and tore them, and
so did all the men who were with him." (I Samuel 1:11)

This has been interpreted by some as to show great love of David
for Jonathan and Saul. They are partly correct. This sign of tearing
clothes was a sign of extreme grief and horror. It could be equated
to the grief that Americans felt at the assassinations of John F.
Kennedy or Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr or at the events of 9 11, 2001
and the attacks on the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon. In
other words deep shock, incomprehensible to their minds, a very deep
sorrow and feeling of loss.

"13 Then David said to the young man who told him, "Where are
you from?" And he answered, "I am the son of an alien, an
Amalekite." 14 So David said to him, "How was it you were not afraid
to put forth your hand to destroy the LORD's anointed?" 15 Then
David called one of the young men and said, "Go near, and execute
him!" And he struck him so that he died. 16 So David said to
him, "Your blood is on your own head, for your own mouth has
testified against you, saying, "I have killed the LORD's anointed."
17 Then David lamented with this lamentation over Saul and over
Jonathan his son." (II Samuel 1:13-17)

The next action we see David taking is the execution of the
Amalekite for killing Saul. Some may feel that this shows his great
love for Jonathan as he executes the killer of the father of his
alleged "lover". However in context it makes plain the Amalekite is
killed for killing the Lord's anointed and for no other reason.
Relationship didn't matter here. The fact that God had anointed Saul
to be king was the issue here. Only God had the right to kill Saul,
not some Amalekite. So therefore David kills him in revenge for
killing Saul, God's anointed king.

The next action David takes is to lament with great lamentation
over Saul and Jonathan. As used here lament means to chant or wail.
Lamentation here means a dirge accompanied by the beating of the
breasts or on instruments. The dictionary describes a dirge as a
funeral hymn or lament. It can also be a funeral service which is
sung. So this would be an outward manifestation of the grief and
pain David was feeling at the time of the news of the deaths of Saul
and Jonathan. This would have been a way for David to show his deep
feelings for Saul and Jonathan both.

25 "How the mighty have fallen in the midst of the battle! Jonathan was slain in your high places. 26 I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; You have been very pleasant to me; Your love to me was wonderful, Surpassing the love of women. 27 "How the mighty have fallen, And the weapons of war perished!" (2 Samuel 1:25-27)

Here we have the final lament of David for Jonathan. First
please note David calls Jonathan his brother which again shows their
relationship might have been no more than a deep brotherly
affection for each other. David says he is distressed for Jonathan.
As used here it means David was feeling cramped, distressed,
afflicted, oppressed. It also means he was in a strait (between a
rock and a hard place to use an American idiom), trouble and vexed.
In other words extremely upset over the death of Jonathan. David
goes on to say that Jonathan was pleasant to him.

Pleasant as used here means to pass in beauty, to be agreeable,
to be a delight, to be pleasant, and to be sweet. Here David says
that his relationship with Jonathan was agreeable to him as well as
delightful and sweet. He also says it passed in beauty something.
What was that?

David says his love (ahab) for Jonathan was wonderful. As used
here David was saying it was separate from anything else he had
experienced. It had been great and wonderful but also difficult and
hard. He said that there love had been hidden but it was also
accomplished. Given the stormy relationship with King Saul over his
ahab of Jonathan it can be seen how it could have been both hard and
difficult. Yet they persevered and found times to meet and enjoy
their love and those times had been great and wonderful. Though they
may have had to keep it hidden from Saul at least partially to keep
Saul from finding out where David was and killing him they still
made it work. They accomplished it to the mutual satisfaction of
both.

Finally David says his love for Jonathan surpassed the the love
of women. The word used for surpassing or passing in other
translations is abar. It is a very ambigious word in the Hebrew
having over forty ways it can be used. One of the ways it can be
used is to cover in copulation and to crossover. The only question
is with whom? Did they have sex together which surpassed having sex
with a woman? Did their affection for each other surpass the love
they may have had for women? Was gay sex better than with sex with
women according to David and Jonathan? Again the scripture here
gives us no final answer. It leaves the possibility open but doesn't
say outright that anything sexual ever happened between David and
Jonathan.

In conclusion then although there may have been some type of
sexual relationship between David and Jonathan it cannot be proven
beyond a shadow of doubt in my opinion. As both men were married and
had children (David had several wives) I believe they would have
been bi sexual not exclusively homosexual if a sexual union did
occur. I believe it shows us that two men can be in love with each
other, have a deep meaningful relationship, and be committed to the
welfare of each other and their families.

What does this show us and how can it apply to those of us who
are gay? Were David and Jonathan lovers in a sexual union? I haven't
a clue. However I believe that is immaterial here. David is called a
man after God's own heart. In that respect I believe he shows us what
a godly relationship is about. It is a relationship which is loving
and affirming of each other. One where the welfare of the other is
all important and the putting of the others needs first paramount
before their own. It is a committed relationship wherein there is
no drawing back. It can stand the test of time and whatever
obstacles it may encounter. It doesn't care of what others think and
will endure whatever it takes to last. I believe wherever two men,
women, or a man and woman have that kind of a relationship gay or
heterosexual they have a union pleasing to God and blessed by Him.
That is what I believe David and Jonathan show us and how they can
speak to us as gay people. Theirs is an example for us to emulate in our relationships with our partners, with others, and if we are single then in what we seek for in whatever relationship we might enter into with another person as our partner. Let us do that and follow the example given us.

19 Nov, 2008

How I Learned That I'm Gay And It's OK

HOW I LEARNED THAT I’M GAY AND IT’S OK.”
(Chapter 5)

In the past few weeks we have looked at what the Bible has to say about homosexuality, If you have missed any of my studies you can get my notes on my blog Stream of Healing Waters on CG1 site. This we will take a bit different approach as tonite we wont be in the Bible but will be looking at homosexuality from an historical perspective and see where the anti gay teaching came from. This will be the final teaching in my current series.

As I mentioned at the beginning of this book I have been on a 40 year search to define my true self, as gay and yet an evangelical Christian. Gay and yet one who loves the Lord is committed to Him and wants to do His will as completely as I can. Also gay and yet a minister, Bible teacher in a world where being gay is not looked on with favor. Having studied the Bible and found out it didn’t necessarily teach what I had been told it taught and beginning to get some enlightenment being a history buff I began to wonder what was the historical setting in which the decision to condemn homosexuality was made. Did it have anything to do with the Bible and a proper understanding of it? If not then what reason was there for the condemnation of homosexuality by the church?
As I studied this further I was amazed to find out that for almost the first four hundred years of church history the church had no problem with homosexuality and homosexuals were allowed to be in positions of trust in the church including advising Bishops. That revelation was like a light bulb going on. It told me that there was nothing wrong with me and that the early church would have had no problem with my being a member or even with holding office in the church. As I studied further I found out the decision to condemn homosexuality was a politically motivated decision resulting from a power struggle for control of the church. A lot of the homosexuals were Arian in their religious beliefs and when they lost their battle to control the church the winners decided to punish them. The results were the first pronouncements against homosexuality and a reinvention of what the Bible taught about it. From then on it would be taught that homosexuality was morally wrong, that the Bible condemned it unequivocally, anyone who was homosexual was of the devil couldn’t be a Christian or needed deliverance, and to abstain from all sexual activity and most definitely needed to stay hidden in the closet or risk being excommunicated from the church and ruined publicly by exposure as a homosexual. He could even face the death penalty for being homosexual. Thank God there are those out there who believe differently and are trying to do something about it. The following is something I found on the Internet, which details the history of homosexuality and the church. It helped to liberate me, help me to understand where a lot of the feelings on homosexuality come from, and to find freedom as I came to realize that the early church and early church fathers had no problem with homosexuality and that I by being a gay Christian fit right in with the early church its practices and beliefs. May it do the same for you also.

Since the Bible does not teach against homosexuality then where does the teaching come from and who started it? It may come as a shock to some that for almost the first 400 years of church history there was no problem with same sex relationships. However that all changed on May 14, 390, when an imperial decree was posted at the Roman hall of Minerva, a gathering place for actors, writers and artists,[2] which criminalized for the first time the sexual practice of those whom we call “homosexual” men—this had never happened before in the history of law. The prescribed penalty was death by burning. This law was promulgated by an emperor who at the time was under a penance set by St. Ambrose, the bishop of Milan,[3] and the law was issued in the context of a persecution of heresies. Homosexual men at the imperial court had been powerful opponents of Catholic doctrine during the fourth-century conflicts over the nature of Jesus Christ, known as the Arian controversies.

Prior to 390, both religious and secular laws had targeted only one particular form of homosexuality: when a man or youth who otherwise exhibited a virile attraction toward women nonetheless agreed to or was forced to play a female role in intercourse with other men. For example, Biblical laws against homosexual acts call it an abomination and prescribe death as a punishment when “a man lies with a male the way one lies with a woman.”[4] Meanwhile, only heterosexually oriented men (including bisexual men)would properly be called “male,” since potency with women was the primary proof of masculinity. Augustus Caesar’s law against adultery likewise prohibited intercourse with “males,”[5] and may well have provided the impetus for a widely attested wave of castrations in the early empire—in order to supply sex partners who were not “male.”[6] As late as 342, Constantius II issued a decree imposing an “exquisite punishment” for the crime which occurs “when a male gives himself in marriage to an effeminate [femina, literally ‘a woman’] and what he wants is for the effeminate to play the male role in sex [literally ‘project the male parts’],” thus for himself to play the female role. [7]

Men lacking desire for or potency with women, like today’s homosexual men, were never intended by these laws—they would not have been deemed, on the whole, to be male. Maleness implied playing the role of penetrator and procreator. Those who did not, failed to meet the ancient criteria for being called male. One could say that the very concept of masculinity or virility was defined throughout the ancient Mediterranean, not in contrast to women, but to homosexual men. Innumerable loci can be adduced to show that exclusively homosexual men were called non-male, half-male, neither male nor female, androgynous, or third sex—but never male.

It is a very little-known fact that there was a category of men in the ancient Mediterranean who were called “natural” or “constitutional” eunuchs.[8] It is even less known that these eunuchs are defined in early third-century Roman laws as having no physical defects—at most they had a peculiar mental orientation.[9] They were evidently what we call “born homosexuals.” In the laws, they are differentiated from castrated men and others, who do have physical defects. Natural eunuchs were entitled to marry women, adopt, and bequeath property, since “there is no bodily defect present as an impediment to that”[10], while castrated men were prohibited from doing all these things. Nonetheless, Juvenal had found that” when a eunuch marries a woman, it is hard not to write satire.”[11

From early Babylon down to the late Roman Empire, eunuchs had played two major roles in ancient society—as priests in pagan temples, and as domestic servants in wealthy households and royal palaces. Thus eunuchs had a tradition of spirituality, and of being close to power. In the fourth century, this combination made them a great help to bishops whom they supported, and a potent threat to those whom they opposed. The eunuch Eusebius, the grand chamberlain of the Byzantine palace under Constantine and then under his son Constantius, was considered to wield virtually imperial power due to his ability to control access to the emperor, especially during the son’s reign. Eusebius was an active proponent of the Arian doctrine, which held that the Almighty God was not the Father of Jesus in a procreative sense (notwithstanding the virgin birth), but rather that God adopted Jesus as His Son through grace. In his History of the Arians, St. Athanasius, a virulent advocate for Catholic doctrine, recounted Eusebius’s mission to Rome allegedly to bribe and threaten the pope Liberius into accepting communion with Arian Christians. Afterwards he summed up: It was the eunuchs who instigated these proceedings against all [i.e., pressure tactics against Nicene Christians in various cities]. And the most remarkable circumstance in the matter is this; that the Arian heresy which denies the Son of God receives its support from eunuchs, who, as both their bodies are fruitless, and their souls barren of the seeds of virtue, cannot bear even to hear name of son...The eunuchs of Constantius cannot endure the confession of Peter [Matthew 16:16], nay, they turn away when the Father manifests the Son, and madly rage against those who say that the Son of God is His genuine Son, thus claiming as a heresy of eunuchs that there is no genuine and true offspring of the Father.[12]

Regardless of what homosexual Christians may feel today about Jesus’ status as God, it is clear that in the fourth century they were identified as powerful enemies of Catholic doctrine. This is not the place to examine the merits of official Church doctrine – to discuss whether Jesus was more or less like other human beings, or whether the male role in a procreative act can properly be attributed to God. Suffice it to say, the early supporters of the Nicene Creed saw homosexual men as dangerous rivals. Now, in addition to being spiritual authorities and palace servants, eunuchs had a traditional role as sexual passives. Because they were not “male,” this behavior was legal in both pagan and Biblical law throughout all prior history. A sympathetic historian in the time of Constantius II noted that the emperor himself was sexually devoted to his eunuchs, courtiers, and wives; while, “content with these, he was never defiled by any transverse or unjust lust.”[13] It was Constantius, a Christian, who issued the aforementioned decree implicitly recognizing homosexual marriage (as long as it did not involve a “male” partner in a passive role). Remember that this decree was issued in a period when palace eunuchs were powerful and influential in the imperial court.

The gender of eunuchs, until the fourth century, was typically described as it is in Lucian’s dialogue The Eunuch: “neither man nor woman, but something composite, hybrid, and monstrous, alien to human nature.”[14] Or as in Aristotle’s assertion that eunuchs “fall but little short of the idea of the female.”[15] Or in Pliny’s categorization of eunuchs, alongside hermaphrodites and castrati, as a third gender.[16] However, by the early fourth century the first signs appear of an expansion of the definition of masculinity to include eunuchs. To Firmicus Maternus, an astrologer and Christian convert, eunuchs are “males without seed and who cannot copulate, obscene, disreputable, filthy, lewd passives”[17] --the point being that he calls them males, something writers in prior centuries had never done.

At the same time, we notice the definition of eunuch is beginning to shrink. In the early third century, Clement of Alexandria had defined the eunuch as one not unable, but unwilling to have sex.[18]
Basilides (quoted by Clement) had defined the born eunuchs of Matthew 19:12 as persons who “from their birth have a nature to turn away from women, and those who are naturally so constituted do well not to marry.”[19] Now, in the fourth century Epiphanius of Salamis claims the born eunuchs are incapable of doing anything sexual “because they lack the divinely created organs of generation.”[20] And they get no credit or heavenly reward for their abstention from sex, for “they have not done the thing not because they didn’t want to but because they couldn’t” and therefore “they have no experience of the struggle”(committing the sin is a physical impossibility for them). Nonetheless, “they have felt desires.” This is a flat reversal of Clement’s and Basilides’s statements.
This reduction of eunuch status to a physical defect is but one churchman’s tactic (eventually superseding all others) within a general fourth-century ecclesiastical strategy to deprive physically whole, natural eunuchs, i.e. homosexual men, of their religious credibility. Gregory Nazianzen adopted a different rhetorical means towards the same end. In his case, he admitted that natural eunuchs lacked desire to procreate, but, like Epiphanius,Gregory too denied them credit for their abstinence because it was natural for them and had not resulted from a fierce internal struggle. Rather than abstain from procreation, Gregory instead called on Christian natural eunuchs to avoid prostituting themselves and thus dishonoring Christ.[21]
So it is against the backdrop of a concerted effort by Nicene proponents to debase their powerful enemies that we must assess the outlawing of the sexual life of homosexuals. In 389, one year before the anti-homosexual decree mentioned at the start, the emperor had taken away the right of heretical neo-Arian eunuchs to make or benefit from wills. [22] This exemplifies the targeting of eunuchs through imperial laws as a way of combating heresy. Early the next year, having committed an atrocity against the residents of Thessalonica, the emperor Theodosius was excommunicated by St. Ambrose. His august majesty came crawling to the bishop, theoretically an imperial subject, and begged for forgiveness and reinstatement. The bishop relented and promised reinstatement after the emperor had completed a penance, which lasted eight months. It happened to be during the first month of this penance that the law against sex acts by homosexuals was promulgated. Initially unsuccessful due to the unexpectedly high number of violators,[23] the decree was reissued in August at Trajan’s Forum as follows:
All those whose shameful habit it is to condemn the male body to suffer an alien sex in the manner of women, for they appear to be in no way different from women, shall expiate a crime of this kind in avenging flames in the sight of the people.[24]
The old crime of passive male homosexuality was thus expanded to include passive “non-male” homosexuality by the focus on the “male body” [virile corpus]. The universality of the law is reinforced by the word omnes [”all those”]. Heretofore, those known in law as natural eunuchs were not considered “male,” but they certainly had male bodies. Prior Roman law had already established that, with natural eunuchs, “there is no bodily defect” [corporale vitium non est]. Finally, the emphasis on the effeminacy of the perpetrators makes clear that this law is specifically targeted at those “non-male” types—i.e. natural eunuchs – who had been exempt from all prior laws against homosexuality.
Having once established power over imperial legislation regarding religion, Catholic authorities never looked back. With the outlawing of heresies, enforced by imperial power, no one was in a position to contradict the established doctrine of the Church. If the Church decided that Jesus meant only persons suffering from anatomical birth defects in Matthew19:12, who would have been in a position to object? If the now imperial Church found that a homosexual engaging in his own natural sexuality was guilty of the sin of Sodom, who would stand up to argue? Rather, the Church continued to use the oppression of homosexuals (of whom, like Jesus’ living water, there is an unending supply) as a tool to consolidate power. When Justinian enacted the next laws against homosexuality, in 538 and 544,[25] he returned to characterizing the crime as a corruption of “males”(as opposed to male bodies), but since the term male was beginning to be applied to homosexuals already in the fourth century—a trend that the Church supported since it preferred to define maleness based on anatomical organs rather than procreative libido—it can be assumed that the New Constitutions 77 and141 against homosexuality were meant to include all those with a male body as well. In case the real target of the laws was unclear to anyone, No. 77 also castigated blasphemy. Perhaps 150 years had not been enough time to silence eunuch theologians who insisted on Christ’s full humanity—and even labeled Him a fellow eunuch? [26] What is interesting and new about No. 141 is its insistence that those who were guilty must “not only refrain from sinning,” but “confess their faults in the presence of the Most Blessed Patriarch,” thereby averting punishment but ruining their reputations and putting an end to any hope of an ecclesiastical career.

The seventh century Visigothic Code ultimately solved the ambiguity around natural eunuchs by ordering the castration of every man guilty of a homosexual act [27] -- which certainly gives the Spanish obsession with cojones a whole new dimension. The closet was thus constructed, and with it a new definition of masculinity as well—based not on the fulfillment of the procreative role, but rather on the preservation of bodily integrity. Merely an intact penis and testicles now identified a male.

Essentially summarizing the above for almost 400 years it was ok to be homosexual and a Christian even holding positions of trust in the church. However a vast majority of them were Arian opposed to the Trinitarian position. When the Trinitarians won in the Roman Catholic Church it was decided that the Arians needed to be punished. One-way was to outlaw the practice of homosexuality and teach that the Bible said it was wrong and an abomination. Please note this was a political decision in retribution for many homosexuals being on the wrong end of a struggle within the church for control. It had nothing to do with the Bible. Since then the teaching has been passed down to where almost all of Christianity now accepts it as truth and a proper understanding of the scriptures.

However I believe that I have shown that there is another interpretation and understanding of the Bible concerning homosexuality than that which has been traditionally taught. I have shown historically that for at least almost 400 years the church had no problem with homosexuality. The decision to outlaw homosexuality then was a political decision not one based on the Bible, apostolic tradition or anything else. I believe it is time to present the facts as they exist. It is time to restore gay, bisexual and lesbian people to full rights in the church as they enjoyed for the first 400 years of church history. It is time to right the wrong committed against homosexuals back in 390. It is time to truly teach what the apostles taught and to teach the Bible correctly not through the prejudice and bigotry of false teachers trying to put down and destroy homosexual people. It is time to bring all God’s children into the church . Lets commit to that vision, see the church march forth united regardless of race, sex or sexual orientation and take our world for the cause of Christ.
Some may say they have no problems with gay people living the way they want to. However they are opposed to gays “trying to force their lifestyles” on others and forcing homosexuality to be taught as an acceptable alternative lifestyle in schools, churches etc. They also believe erroneously I believe that homosexuals are out to seduce young people and convert them to becoming homosexuals. First again I state homosexuality is a born state no one can force another to become homosexual. Either you are or you aren’t it has nothing to do with free choice but the way you were made, in some cases the way in which you were brought up and other factors having nothing to do with choice. The only choice a homosexual person gets about this is whether or not to accept their sexuality and live openly as gay or to try and deny it living in the closet of fear, repression, frustration, denial and trying to live as society says they should as heterosexual people with all the frustration and condemnation that comes with that way. The only other alternative is to abstain from sex completely, which for most people would drive them insane. Far better I believe to live in an open free gay relationship than in either of the other two relationships I described.
Secondly gays are not pedophiles. Most would be as revolted by that as any other person would be. Sex with children is as off limits within the gay community just as it is in the heterosexual community. The majority of gays are for sex between consenting adults for the mutual satisfaction of both parties involved and although there may be some promiscuity within the gay community so is also within the heterosexual community yet we don’t ban sex between men and women or prescribe the death penalty for adultery or prostitution. We still allow marriage between men and women as a way of showing their love for each other and cementing their relationship. Why not the same for gays?
Thirdly most gays are not sadistic serial killers. I realize that when we hear of people like John Gacy, Jeffery Dahlmer and of certain practices of the BDSM community we might have the idea that it is all about power, control, domination, proving yourself superior to someone else even to the killing of the supposed “weaker one” because you can. If this is all we see of the gay community then we might feel that is what gay people are all about. However that would be a minority view within the gay community probably less than 1% just as it would be a minority view in the world at large where those things happen but don’t represent the views of the majority. For a majority including those in the BDSM community it is again about consensual sex between two people for the mutual satisfaction of both parties and in building long term relationships based on trust, affection, understanding, commitment, love, a desire to please as well as be with the other person, just as in heterosexual relationships. In other words they are no different than anyone else except they are attracted to those of the same sex as themselves not to the opposite sex.
Most gay people just want the same rights and opportunities as everyone else enjoys. They want to be treated equally in the market place, workplace, in rights guaranteed to everyone else but quite often ignored when talking about gays. They want the right to live without fear openly without being beat up and murdered for what they are. They want the same rights to build families, relationships, to love, visit their love ones at the hospital especially if they are dying, to make decisions affecting their loved ones, to inherit property, to receive the same benefits afforded to married couples or even of heterosexual couples who are just living together, to pursue the ‘American Dream” to become all they can be just like any other American or people in any other culture.
As for the idea of forcing our lifestyle on others other than to obtain the above rights guaranteed to us by the constitution I know of no attempt by most gay people to force anything down anyone’s throat. Indeed it is the so called “Christian Right” with their own agenda that seem determined to force their views down the throat of every single gay American. It is the Christian Right that are signing petitions, getting anti homosexual initiatives on the ballot, trying to pass laws to take rights away from homosexual people leaving gay people to rise up and fight for our rights and to be treated as first class citizens not second, or third class citizens or worse. It is to be recognized as human with the same needs, the same desires, the same hopes, dreams, as everyone else that most gay people strive for and otherwise are willing to live their lives and let others do the same. As for gay marriage or civil unions or domestic partnerships all we are asking for is the same right to express our love, and commitment to our partners even as heterosexual couples do in marriage and to receive the same benefits and rights they do. In other words end the discrimination against gay people. Some might wonder if that would destroy traditional marriage. Why should it? Those who want to marry one of the opposite sex in a heterosexual manner would still be free to do so. Vice versa those living in homosexual relationships would continue to do so as now but with the added blessing of being able to openly commit to their partners and enjoy the full benefits thereof like anyone else.
As for gays in the military it would be the right to serve our country openly without fear of being kicked out if discovered. I am sorry but I believe the policy of President Clinton did nothing to change that. Don’t ask don’t tell still discriminates against gays in the military as if you are found out you can still be kicked out of the military for being gay. Gay people are as devoted, patriotic and in love of their country as anyone else. They vote, serve in the legislatures of their country or state, believe in freedom and making democracy work and want the chance to defend those ideals and their country openly like everyone else can.
In the church it is to be able to love God, serve, and participate in all aspects of church life including the ministry if God calls us to that. It is not being forced to live in the closet out of fear of exposure, ridicule, being excommunicated should we come out or be discovered as gay. It is to be received on the same level as all other believers with all rites of the church open to our families and us as they would be to anyone else. It would be for the church to end its official condemnation of gays, allowing the persecution of gays to be ended by the church and a new era of understanding and respect to begin to grow between the church and the gay community. It would be for the church to be that loving, inclusive, caring of all people body it has been called to be and to follow the example of its leader and founder Jesus Christ that we discussed earlier when we talked about the Great Commission.

It is time to destroy the closet forever. It is time to judge a person by his worth, by what they can contribute, by what they have to offer, and to what they can do or be if given the chance, not by their sexual orientation, religion, race, sex, or anything else. Its time to open the American dream to all including gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people. Let us all be able to be proud of who we are, our heritage, our country, our religion or lack thereof, our freedoms and the chance to be whatever we want to be, and are willing to invest the time, effort and determination to become. That is the America I want to be a part of and pray will one day come to pass. That is the America I believe our forefathers fought to establish and is in danger today. It was to be an America free from tyranny, domination by one person, group or religion and why the constitution and the Bill of Rights were written so that would never happen ensuring that our rights would be protected forever.
That is the America I and most gays believe in and are committed to. That is what we want for ourselves as well as everyone else. We invite you to join us in that struggle and fight to bring equality, liberty, and justice to all without exception. We ask for toleration and inclusion to be the accepted norm for all people including gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people not bigotry and hate. We ask to be allowed to be us, you to be allowed to be you without any recriminations, repercussions because of what we are. If that is the America you want then come join us and welcome aboard.

Footnotes

1 Rev. M. Hyamson, ed. and tr., Mosaicarum et
romanarum legum collatio, London, 1913 (reprint
Buffalo, 1997), pp. 82-83. (Coll. leg. mos. et rom.
5.3.1-2)

2 Columbia Encyclopedia, 5th edition, New York, 1993,
s.v. Minerva, p. 1782.

3 Wilhelm Ensslin, Die Religionspolitik des Kaisers
Theodosius des Grossen, Munich, 1953. In:
Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Year
1953, No. 2.

4 Leviticus 18:22, 20:13.

5 Institutes of Justinian 4.18.4.

6 Seneca, De ira 1.21; Juvenal 6.371-373, 10.306;
Martial 6.2, 9.6.4, 9.8.5; Statius, Silvae 4.3.16;
Suetonius, Nero 28, Domitian 7.

7 Code of Theodosius 9.7.3.

8 Matthew 19:12; Digest of Justinian 50.16.128.

9 Digest of Justinian 21.1.1.9 in conjunction with
21.1.5-6 and 21.1.38.7.

10 Digest of Justinian 1.7.2.1, 1.7.40.1, 23.3.39.1,
28.2.6.

11 Juvenal 1.22.

12 Athanasius, History of the Arians, 5.38.

13 Sextus Aurelius Victor, Epitome of the Caesars,
42.19.

14 Lucian, The Eunuch, 6.

15 Aristotle, Generation of Animals, 4.1.

16 Pliny, Natural History, 11.49.

17 Firmicus Maternus, Mathesis, 3.9.1.

18 Clement of Alexandria, The Educator, 3.4.26.

19 Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies, 3.1.1.

20 Epiphanius of Salamis, Basket of Heresies, 4.3.2-5.
21 Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 37, 16-17.

22 Code of Theodosius, 16.5.17.

23 Otto Seeck, Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken
Welt, Stuttgart, 1920-1922 (reprint 1966), vol. 5, p.
531, note regarding p. 229, line 9.

24 Code of Theodosius, 9.7.6.

25 New Constitutions of Justinian, 77 and 141. For the
dates I rely on Derrick Sherwin Bailey, Homosexuality
and the Western Christian Tradition, London, 1955
(reprint 1975), pp. 73ff.

26 As Tertullian had done, for example, in Monogamy,
3: "The Lord Himself opened the kingdom of heaven to
eunuchs and He Himself lived as a eunuch. The apostle [Paul] also, following His example, made himself a eunuch and indicated that continence is what he

19 Nov, 2008

Why Did Jesus Fold the Napkin

"Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; and he saw the linen cloths lying there, and the handkerchief that had been around His head, not lying with the linen cloths, but folded together in a place by itself." (St. John 20:6-7)

Dear family,

Recently I posted an article I received from a group I belong to on Christian Gay. It was about why Jesus folded the napkin. It provoked some controversy and got me interested in finding out what the actual truth was. I am committed to teaching the truth and the pure word of God as close as I can determine. I also believe no scripture is there by accident or without possible signifance. So then given that I wondered what would be the signifance of the folding of the napkin. There are several things I noticed here which I will share as we go along here. Some thought it was no big deal. If you are one of them you can stop reading here and delete and I won't be offended. For those still interested in the subject I invite you to read on as I look into the subject and share some insights I believe the Holy Spirit gave me on the subject.A first thought might begin with what was the napkin referred to here? Was it a table napkin like we use today thereby lending credibility to the story I first posted? Or is there another possibility that may be equally as interesting.The word used for napkin is the Greek word soudarion or sudarium. The word refers to a towel used to wipe sweat or perspiration from the brow. It was used to bind the mouth of a corspe to keep it from dropping open. So not likely a napkin that one might use at a meal.Secondly as I read this passage it doesn't say who folded the napkin. It just says that Peter looked in and saw the napkin folded in a place seperate from the rest of the grave clothes. The assumption was that it was Jesus who did it but it could have been angels or perhaps another third party we know nothing about. I believe that it was Jesus, as is church tradition and will continue from that platform.Thirdly what does it mean that the napkin was folded? In the Greek the word is entulisso meaning to twist, entwine, wind up in, or wrap up in or together. It comes from the Greek word tulisso which denotes a time or place or state. It refers to a state of rest as in death. It can also refer to something happening mightily, openly, speedily. This would seem to infer that at one moment Jesus is lying at rest in death. Then comes the power of the resurrection Jesus becomes alive and the napkin is then taken off and twisted or rolled together at that point. In John 11:43-44 we find Lazarus coming forth from the tomb at the call of Jesus. He was still bound in his grave clothes and still had the napkin on his face. He needed help to get them off of him. If that happened at the resurrection of Jesus then who ever helped him out of the grave clothes and napkin most likely angels could have folded or rolled up the napkin and laid it where Peter saw it. So what does it matter and why is in the Bible. I believe there may be a few reasons why it matters.First is its a powerful witness to the resurrection of our Lord. If it had been grave robbers or even His disciples coming to steal the body they would have been concerned with grabbing the body and getting out so they wouldn't be caught. Especially as there was a group of soldiers they would have to either have bribed or drugged, or persuaded to leave their post, to even get into the tomb in the first place as they were there to prevent the stealing of the body of Christ. The tomb was also sealed which would have to be broken to get into the tomb. That without permission from whoever ordered the sealing meant death to the offenders as well as to the soliders who were supposed to be guarding the tomb. (See St. Matthew 27:62-66) So they would have been a real hurry to get in get the body and disappear so they wouldn't be caught. The fact that someone took the time to roll up the napkin shows this was not a hurried affair. Jesus actually took the time to roll up the napkin, take off the grave clothes and lay them aside then walk walk out of the tomb. Therefore proving He was alive and well as none of that would have happened if He was still dead. This would seem to be the main point of the incident as it says a verse later that John went into the tomb after Peter and saw and believed.A second thought as to it referring to Jesus coming back again as I said earlier in my second post there is a possibility that it is a tradition from the Roman Catholic Church. In either case we know that Jesus spoke of his coming again several times in scripture. If that is the case then there can be a double meaning here which would be "I am alive and I am coming back again". The latter I believe would be in reference to His second coming to earth and a reminder to us of that promise.Thirdly it is a testimony to all believers. It tells us that Jesus is alive, He conquered death and is now seated at the right hand of the Father. Therefore we too can know that death is not the end for us. That just as Jesus arose from the dead so will we one day be resurrected. We too will ascend to be with Jesus and the Father in heaven and be there together forever. Death is not the end life goes on on the otherside. We will again be reunited with our love ones who have passed on before us. Also at the time Jesus returns we too will come with Him, riding with him when He defeats the anti Christ at the battle of Armageddon. We will also reign with Him when He establishes His kingdom here on earth. Therefore it is a message of hope too us.These are the lessons I believe we can learn from the folding of the napkin. Whether the story of the servant I shared in my original post it gospel truth or legend is immaterial. What we need to see is that Jesus is alive and well. Jesus is also coming again. Because of those facts we too will live eternally and be a part of the future that God has planned for eternity with His Son Jesus. That should give us hope, send us rejoicing and praising our Lord and maybe even set our feet to doing a little dance of joy before Him.God Bless YouRev. John W. Brown

19 Nov, 2008

What Do The Apostles Say About Homosexuality

WHAT DID THE APOSTLES TEACH CONCERNING HOMOSEXUALITY?

A. What Does The Apostle Paul Say About Homosexuality?
The only one of the apostles who can possibly be construed to have much of anything possibly to say on the subject is Paul but I believe that his words may have been misconstrued, misinterpreted and made to say something that I am not sure the apostle ever said or meant to say. Romans 1st chapter would be an example of this.

1. What Does Paul Teach in Romans 1:18-32 on the subject?
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so they are without excuse, because although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts and there futile hearts were darkened. , who is blessed forever. AmenProfessing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man – and birds, and four-footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchange the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Like wise the men, leaving the natural use of a woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil mindedness, ; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.” (Romans 1:18-32)
Although the above description may apply to some in the gay community I believe it also applies to the whole church wherever these practices may be found. Going back now lets break these verses down and see if we can see what Paul is really talking about here. On the surface it may seem that the apostle is condemning homosexuality but is he really? To whom is Paul actually writing?

a. Backslidden Christians
"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so they are without excuse, because although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts and there futile hearts were darkened."(Romans 1:20-21)
The first thing we need to see here that Paul is talking about people who are backslidden who once knew God but then walked away from Him. We are not told why they left just that they did. This would not therefore apply to the millions of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people who love God and Christ. They are doing everything in their power to show their love for Him, to follow His will and live by His teachings. They are also as committed to the cause of Christ and to His church as anyone else. When the church doors open they are there. When anything is happening at the church they are there taking part in all thats going on. Gays, lesbians, trangendered and their partners support the church with their tithes and offerings like anyone else for the support of the ministry. They sing on the choir, are ministers of the gospel, read their Bibles and try to live according to its principles. They also try to love one another and their neighbor as Jesus commanded us to. Most people might never suspect they were gay. They would think they were average people who love the Lord. Their whole lives are lived for one purpose i.e. to live lives that glorify God and are thankful for all He has done for them.

b. Idol Worshippers
"Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man – and birds, and four-footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchange the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator." (Romans 1:22-23)
The second thing we see here in this passage is that the people Paul speaks of are idol worshippers who worship creation more than the creator. An idol is anything we either put before God or worship in place of God. It can also be anything we worship as God rather than the true God. Again not the case for millions of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people who although they love all of God’s creation still look to the one who created it all and worship that one.

c. Lustful Men and Women
"For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Like wise the men, leaving the natural use of a woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. " Romans 1:26-27)

Thirdly we need to see that Paul speaks of men and women leaving their natural instincts to lust after those of their own kind. On the surface this would seem to be a direct condemnation of homosexuality. However I believe that is because we look at from a 21st century Western mind and not from a 1st century Eastern mind which is the context in which Paul was writing. As I mentioned earlier in the ancient world of the Bible there were three classes of people.
1. Male
2. Female
3. Eunuchs
In Biblical times to be indentified as a male one had to be able to pentrate a woman and produce offspring. If he couldn't or wouldn't he was not a male but an eunuch. Eunuchs (today homosexuals) could own property, vote, marry, and bequeath property. They could not be castrated however as that would prohibit from doing all of the above. So for those whose sexual orientation caused them to attracted to those of the same sex as themselves and had their penis intact there was no problem. In the early church they rose to places of power and advisors to Bishops. They eventually came to be seen as enemies of the Trinitarian position and were condemned by the Roman Catholic church in 390. However that is another issue for discussion at another time. For the purpose of this study it simply needs to be noted that the early church had no problems with those we now call homosexuals. (For more on the subject refer to my book "I'm Gay and Its Ok on Christian Gay site)

So what does Paul say these men and women were doing. He says they were leaving their natural instincts to lust after one another. What does it mean to lust?

Defenition For Lust
As used here to lust means to have an excitement of the mind or a strong longing for something. The dictionary defines lust as a sexual craving especially excessive and unrestrained or any overwhelming desire or craving. The attitude expressed by lust is “I have a need, I have to fulfill it, I want it, I’ve got to have it, I’ll do anything I have to, to get it and if you get in my way I’ll run you over. All that is important is me and my need. If you can help meet that need then I’ll use you then discard you when I’m done.” Lust doesn’t care about the other person, his feelings or emotions. Instead it’s all about me.
Needless to say love is the total opposite of all that. Love is defined as follows:

1. An intense affectionate concern for another person
An intense sexual desire for another person
A strong fondness or enthusiasm for something or someone.

Lust is selfish and cares nothing about anyone else. Love on the other hand is concerned about the other person and their welfare. It wants to build the other person up, help them to become the best they can be, are concerned for their welfare and well being. It wants to share their life with another so that together they can accomplish something good. Love sees a problem and wants to fix it. If it sees needs, hurts it wants to help alleviate them ministering with compassion to those who are needy and hurting. If there is injustice love wants to correct it.
While I believe Paul condemns lust I am unconvinced that carries over into a loving relationship between two gay men or women who are concerned for each other, affirming of each other and want the best for each other. Who are also in a committed relationship dedicated to loving and serving the other as together they seek, love, and serve God. Since Paul as we have seen was talking about those who left God in order to fulfill their own lusts in conclusion I believe he could not have been talking about gay men and women who love the Lord and therefore could not be speaking against homosexuality. As a matter of fact I believe this passage shows us about God more than anything else. God is far superior to anything He has created. As a result He wants to be worshipped as such and is hurt when we turn to something less than Him and worship that instead. Also we need to look at what it means to leave ones natural use.

What Does Natural Use Mean
There are two things we need to see here.

1. What Is Natural?

For those of us who are gay we believe we were born the way we are. Our sexual orientation was given to us by God. We had no choice in the matter but to accept ourselves the way God made us or to continue to deny it with all the resulting consequences. For us it is natural for us to be attracted to someone of the same sex as ourselves. It would be unnatural for us to be attracted to someone of the opposite sex. Vice versa for the heterrosexual person it would be unnatural for them to be attracted to someone of the same sex as themselves. So Paul is arguing here for each to do what is natural to themselves not what is unnatural. Therefore saying nothing about homosexual love.
2. What Does Use Mean?
As used here it means to use one's body in sexual intercourse for employment i.e. prostitution. As we have seen prostitution is condemned throughout the scriptures. Again sex is supposed to be a loving act between two people for the mutual edification and expression of their love towards each other.
Based on all the above I do not believe Paul was condemning homosexuality in Romans 1.

2. What Does Paul Teach In I Corinthians 6:9 about Homosexuality?
“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortionist will inherit the kingdom of God”. (I Corinthians 6:9)
Although the above is one possible translation of the Greek here there is a big problem with it. That is because the Greek here is very imprecise as to its exact meaning. . The word used here by the apostle can mean effeminate, abuser of themselves with mankind, boy prostitutes, pedophiles, sodomites, or homosexuals take your choice. It could include any of those or possibly all of them again take your choice. I have five different translations of the Bible here at my home none of which agree as to the exact meaning of this verse. Also we need to remember that the words homosexual and homosexuality do not appear anywhere in the original Hebrew or Greek in which the Bible was written. The word homosexual was first introduced in this passage by the translators of the Revised Standard Version of 1958. Prior to then no reputable Bible translators used the word homosexual or homosexuality. Those words were not invented until the mid 18’00s and therefore they would be an addition by someone trying to interpret the passage to their own liking. There is something however I believe we can glean from this passage.
First abusers of mankind cannot be in a loving relationship as abuse is never loving. It is the degrading, hurting, humiliation of another person without regard to the others wants, concerns, desires, but simply because we have the power we can force them to do what we want them to. A United Methodist pastor I know a Harvard graduate (Rev. Dr. John Mathis Lurvey) sent me the following when I asked him about how we can understand homosexuality today in light of the Bible, tradition and today. He writes:
“You raise many important questions. I believe that serious Christians cannot dilute the moral teachings of our faith to please themselves .That demonstrates a lack of integrity and betrays our moral authority as the church. Many people inside and outside the church believe that even raising doubts about an absolute ban on homosexuality for Christians violates the church’s moral integrity."
Here Dr. Lurvey and I would agree. We cannot just rewrite or dilute the moral teachngs of the Bible tp suit ourselves. We must be a people of intregity who have moral authority in the church. I believe I have shown that we are a people of intregity. We teach I believe the Bible as it was originally understood. Dr. Lurvey goes on to say
"Christian church tradition for more than 1500 years approved of slavery and government by absolute monarchy. Paul and other biblical writers supported that tradition by some of their statements, Christian theologians including both evangelicals and Catholics recognized a “progressive” purpose of God’s reign and kingdom running through both Bible history and continuing through church history into modern times. God directs history toward a widening of human freedom, limits upon absolute human centers of authority and power, and larger attempts to improve the human condition in this life as well as our eternal destiny in heaven.
Therefore, just as Jesus corrected the earlier traditions in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:21-48) so God acting through prophetic leaders corrects ancient traditions. In recent centuries, Christians embraced the more “idealistic” love ethic of Jesus as having greater weight that corrected traditional teachings based on the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible and some of Paul and Peter’s letters in the New Testament. This line of argument proved effective against those who continued to argue for slavery, or an absolute monarchy or for a secondary role of women in society."
As I see it and I believe Dr. Lurvey would agree is that the church is constantly changing in beliefs as it comes to understand the will of God and His purposes better. We no longer condone slavery, absolute monarchies, women as second class citizens but have come to see God's widening of human freedoms. This would also include limits upon the authority and power of government. It would also include the need to improve the human condition (by ending war, poverty, disease etc) as well as prepare us for the next life. Thus as Jesus corrected the traditional teachings of the Pharisees and the Sadducees based on the Old Testament so is the church today called to correct the false teachings and mininterpretation/misrepresentation of the scriptures of the past and of a good portion of the modern church today and speak the truth in love.

"I look at 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 within this larger framework of the progressive work of God through history. In chapter 6 Paul exposes the shortcomings of the spiritually proud Corinthian congregation. They claim spiritual enlightenment but lack the capacity to settle disputes among church members without going to pagan court. After his critique Paul reminds them of the boundary line for the church in 1 Corinthians. 6:9-10 by using a vice list. His vice lists appear in other places Romans 1:29-32, 13:13-14, 2 Corinthians 12:20-21, and Galatians 5:19-21. These lists overlap but are not uniform. They fit various local situations. They illustrate Paul’s mind, as he interprets the will of God. We must be careful when applying them in another situation. Among the vices Paul regards as beyond the boundary of God’s reign are malakoi (effeminacy or unmanliness) and arsenokoitai (male sexual pervert). In light of our knowledge of the time in which Paul lived we know that Greek-language culture devalued women. Homoeroticism emerged as a choice for men who felt degraded by sexual relations with women and the children produced. Adult men could enter into marriage but retain a male slave, perhaps a boy or young man with feminine qualities (malakoi) who acted as a passive recipient of their private enjoyment. The active male, often an older man or slaveholder is the arsenokoitai. Paul rejected those relationships and so do I. Social circumstances forced young men and slaves to submit to the socially dominant, sexually active homoerotic males."
Here again this would go back to what we saw earlier. God is always against anyone being forced to have sex (rape). Again it is to be a loving act between two people not an act of force or rape. (See notes on Sodom and Gomorrah for further details)

"If we believe that God intended to end slavery and absolute control by one class of people over another in favor of a wider freedom, then we see Paul’s boundary as limited to forced homoerotic relations. Paul also excludes porneia which are fornication and adulterous relations that are unbounded by a covenant of fidelity between the sexual pair. Does Paul’s boundary line exclude homoerotic relationships freely entered into and bounded by a Christ-centered covenant?
Some Christians believe in the Bible and understand Paul’s ban on porneia, malakoi and arsenokoitai does not forbid a freely-entered covenant relationship of mutual fidelity to God and the other, similar to marriage. Other Christians believe such distinctions only cater to our sexually permissive modern culture and should be opposed in the name of holiness and godliness. I personally understand and respect both positions. My conviction opposes modern day porneia just as Paul does. I also oppose exploitative relationships as Paul did. I’m less certain, than some Christians, that if Paul were writing today, he might be open to a same-sex Christ-centered union as long as it guarded against the porneia of multiple sex partners so prominent in the so-called “Gay lifestyle.”
In other words if I understand my friend right a loving Christ centered committed relationship between two people of the same sex is permitted and not condemned by Paul. Also we need to note here that the Apostle Paul requires women to wear a covering on their heads, be silent in the church, not to teach or be in authority over a man all of which the modern church as a whole have come to disregard as having any meaning for us today. I believe it is time to go back and reexamine the ban on homosexuality and see if it is time in the light of modern times for it to be rejected also. Perhaps the ban was for a time and place but not necessarily for ours.
3. What Does The Apostle John Have To Say About Homosexuality?
Some would say that the Apostle John addresses the issue in the book of Revelation when he says:

“But outside our dogs, and sorcerers, and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves or practices a lie”.(Revelation 22:15)

In the original Greek the word used here by John can be translated whoremonger or prostitute. A whoremonger is a fornicator or one who engages in sexual intercourse between a man and a woman who are not married to each other. Here again we see nothing about a relationship based on mutual love and affection.

The Apostle Paul reaffirms in his qualifications for bishops, and deacons the requirement we discussed earlier when talking about Jesus and His views on marriage that one husband and one wife are the requirement for a leader in the church. However again that was stated against the practice of polygamy. Therefore I don’t believe that it automatically disqualifies homosexuals from either being Christian or holding office in the church provided they are not going from one relationship, or one night stand to another being promiscuous. I believe the goal should always be for either heterosexual or gays to live a life pleasing to God and if they are going to be in a relationship with someone that it would be a committed, Christ centered relationship, seeking Him first and His will for their lives and then doing it.

In summation I think what the Bible is trying to teach as I have researched the topic is it is opposed to prostitution, to someone being forced into sexual services. It also supports the idea of marriage between one man and one woman thus opposing both polygamy and multiple marriages resulting from divorce and remarriage. It is however I believe either silent or ambivalent on the subject of homosexuality provided that is a loving, caring, and affirming relationship. Perhaps we need to do what Jesus said do when He said

“Judge not that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you willed be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. And why do you look at the speck in your brother’ eye but do not consider the plank in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye and then you shall see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” (Matthew 7:1-5)

Which one of us has reached the state of perfection where we don’t have issues in our own lives or planks in our eyes that God is dealing with us about? Can we say we have reached a point where there is nothing displeasing to God in our lives and we can truly see and judge as God would? If not should we not be dealing with those and leave the speck in our brother’s eye to God who can see the heart and judge accordingly. Perhaps it is time we learn simply love as God loves us, preach the gospel and leave the results to God.

I belive we have seen in this study what the Bible actually says about homosexuality and God. As for homosexuality it is either silent or indifferent. As for God is shows us a God who loves everyone equally including gay, lesbian and transgendered people. God has no favorites and will recieve lovingly all who will come to Him/Her. All He asks is that we agree with Him/Her with what He/She says about us, let Him/Her make us into what He/She wants. If we will do that we get to spend eternity with Him or Her. It is time for us to do the one commandment that Jesus gave us to do which is lover one another.

"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another," (John 13:34-35)
It is time to return to basics. There are no exceptions to whom we are to love. Jesus said love all without exception. Easy no but necessary most definitely. When people can see Jesus reaching out to them in love through us then they will begin to change. When they see love instead of hate they will respond. That as Gay Christians needs to be our platform and response. To commit to the way of love and non-violence as did Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, Mahatma Ghandi and others and won. We can do the same. Will we?

18 Oct, 2008

What Did Jesus Say About Homosexuality

WHAT DOES JESUS TEACH ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY?

Many would be suprised to know that Jesus was practically silent on the subject of sex in general and had nothing to say about homosexuality. The few times He does speak on the subject of sex and marriage He seems to be more concerend with polygamy and fornication than anything else. Because of this He makes the rule of one man one wife for His church. Fornication as Jesus used it refers to three things namely adultery, incest and haroltry. It says nothing about a loving relationship between two people of the same sex. Therefore cannot be used to say Jesus would be opposed to homosexuality. So what would Jesus views on homosexuality if he were alive today? Do the gospels give us a hint?

A. JESUS HEALS THE CENTURIONS SERVANT

1. Matthew 8:5-13
2. Luke 7:2-10

I believe the gospels do and indicate that Jesus would have no problem with homosexuality. In this case I believe the actions of Jesus may speak louder than His words. In Matthew the 8th chapter and again in Luke the 7th chapter we read of a centurion who was looking for healing for his servant. It was a common practice of the time for a soldier to have a servant either male or female with whom he could have sex with prior to battle. The servant would also be used when the wife or other women were not available. This was considered totally acceptable by the society of the time. This being the case there is a chance that the servant the centurion brought to Jesus was one the centurion used for sexual purposes. If that was the case Jesus healed the servant with no words of rebuke to the Centurion or the servant. Instead Jesus praises the centurion as a man of great faith more than any other in Israel. This raises the question of whether or not Jesus knew of the relationship and healed the servant anyway? Would Jesus look at sex different than a good portion of the church does today? If that is the case would that not infer He would have nothing against same sex between two men or two women and therefore no problem with homosexuality? While there may not be a definitve answer one way or another I believe it merits some thinking about and prayer.

B. Jesus Teaching on Eunuchs

Another thought on what Jesus might think about homosexuals can be found in his words on eunuchs.
“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…” (St. Matthew 19:12)
We have been taught that a eunuch is one who has been castrated but that is not how Jesus, the apostles and the first 4,000 years of history and the Bible understood the term. In Bible times there were three types of people recognized by law. There were, male, female, and a third group who were considered to be neither male nor female but were called eunuchs or what we would call homosexuals today. These were men who lacked the desire for sex with women, being attracted to those of the same sex as themselves. I will have more to say about these people later on. For now suffice it to say that ancient society had no problem with these people nor did the church for almost the first 400 hundred years of church history. Given then this definition of eunuch we see that Jesus says they can be a part of the kingdom of heaven and again no words of condemnation of them or their lifestyle.
Also it should be noted that the first convert from Ethiopia and apostle to that land was a eunuch serving under Queen Candace as the head of her treasury whom the apostle Philip speaks to concerning the faith as he returns from Jerusalem to his homeland and baptizes. The eunuch them returns to Ethiopia and we can presume I think helped to preach the gospel and establish the Christian church there. This would mean then that one of the first converts of the Christian faith might have been homosexual and used by God to establish His church in Ethiopia. (Acts 8:26-39)
Another idea of what Jesus might think about homosexuality can be found in the last words He spoke prior to His ascension into heaven. This is what is called the “Great Commission”. If you were to listen to some of our evangelical brothers you would think that we were told to go preach the gospel to everyone except gay people. However that is not what Jesus told us.
In Mark 16:15 He says, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature”.
Creature here could be translated as person
Jesus also says in Matthew “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.. (Matthew 28:19)
Please note there is no exceptions listed here that we are not to preach to. The words all and every are inclusive not excluding anyone including gay people. A disciple is a disciplined follower of someone in this case Jesus Christ. This means since the gospel is for all without exception then all without exception can become disciples and followers of Jesus Christ including gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people. The message of Jesus Christ is all-inclusive and so should the message of the church be today.
Given this attitude of Jesus, which, we see is all-inclusive rejecting no one, I believe He is still doing the same today. His message is still all - inclusive. If that is the case and we want to be like Christ then our message should be all-inclusive rejecting no one.

06 Oct, 2008

IS SAME SEX OK?
By

Brother John c.s.e.f (aka Rev. John W. Brown)

Last time we looked at the account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and discovered it had nothing to do with homosexual or gay relationships. Now as we move on we come to the next scripture used to condemn gay/homosexual relationships.

A. Does Leviticus Condemn Homosexuality?

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." (Leviticus 18:22)
“If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. (Leviticus 20:13)

On the surface this would seem to condemn homosexual/gay relationships outright as an abomination. But is that what it actually means that homosexuality is an abomination to God? Is there another understanding of this passage which is not a condemnation of homosexuality?

First let us note that Leviticus was written to the Levites (the priests of that day) not to the population as a whole. This passage was included in a holiness code which prohibited the eating of certain foods, incest, prostitution, the wearing of certain clothing, prohibited travel over 3/4 of a mile on the Sabbath, barred women from ministry, owning property and basically made them second class citizens or chattel owned by their husbands or fathers. It also established the death penalty for children who disobeyed their parents, for any form of theft and other such like things. Most of this has been rejected by the modern church as not applicable to us today.

So exactly what are these verses teaching us?

First let us have a look at the word lie
Definition: In the original the word lie has many meanings to including to lie with sexually or to rape.
As I mentioned previously in my last study rape is never condoned in the Bible but sex is to be a free act of love between two people. Secondly who is the male referred to here?
Most would say a male is one who has a penis. However that is not how the early Jews or Christians would have understood the term. In Bible times there were three main classes of people. There were males, females, and a third group called Eunuchs. The latter were men who lacked desire for sex with women but were attracted to those of the same sex as themselves. They could have sex with a woman if they wanted and have children but chose not to do so. One of the main things a man had to do to be considered male was to produce children with a woman. If he couldn't or wouldn't then he was not considered a male. Therefore this prohibition would not apply to them, It would only apply to heterosexual men who went out and had sex with a man. By the standards of that time and their law this was totally acceptable. I will have more to say on this when I address Jesus teaching on homosexuality as well as that of the apostles.

This was also written in contrast to the pagan idolatry that they lived in the midst of. Free sex as a means of worshiping their gods was a common thing. Human sacrifice (especially babies) was a common practice. Music was performed to drown out the cries of the children as they slid down the arms of Baal into the fire so the worshipers wouldn't become distraught or concerned. The growing of long hair and cross dressing by men were common in imitation of the goddesses they worshiped or to trick people into having sex with them thinking they they were women. They also would castrate themselves to become like the goddesses they worshiped and show their dedication and consecration to them. For the female it would be the opposite. In their case they would cut their hair short, put on men's apparel in an effort to appear as men. God said things like that brought confusion and were an abomination.These were the issues being addressed by the holiness code and these prohibitions we read in the two verses we started this study with. The church has almost unanimously rejected the holiness code for the church today except for this alleged prohibition against homosexuality. I believe it is time to end this alleged prohibition also as no longer binding on the church anymore than any other part of the holiness code is binding on us today.

B. What Do The Apostles Say About All This?

The Apostle Paul writing on this says:
"Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us...that the blessings of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith". (Galatians 3:13-14)
We need to realize that as New Testament Christians we are no longer under the Old Testament law or its curses. We have been set free from them through faith in Christ. So even if this were an prohibition of homosexuality (I dont believe it was) it was done away with by the death of Christ on Calvary and therefore no longer applies to us today. The Apostle John has this to say about this.

“And this is His commandment that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as He gave us commandment”. (I John 3:23)
The first part we did when we made a conscious decision to follow Christ and live by His teachings. That only leaves one thing for us to now which is love. Please note John gives us no exceptions he doesn’t say love all but those you cant stand, those who are different from you, gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people. He says to love one another or all who call themselves Christian.

C. What Is An Abomination As Used in These Passages From Leviticus We Have Been Looking At?

We need also to look at the word abomination used in the Leviticus passages.

Definition: As used in these passages it means something disgusting, abhorrent, idolatrous, abominable or abomination.
In this case while it can mean something which God sees as abominable it can also refer to something which the author finds abominable and therefore believes God does also. In the time in which these passages were written not only man lying with man an abomination punishable by death but also masturbation or the interruption of coitus or the halting of sex with your spouse before ejaculation as a means of birth control which was also punishable with death. In other words to the writer of Leviticus a man lying with a man was an abomination. Therefore he automatically assumes it is an abomination in the eyes of God and writes it into the holiness code. It may or may not actually accurately reflect how God actually thinks on the subject.

D. What Can Learn For Us Today From These Passages We have Looked At?

So what can we learn from these passages and what do they show us of the character of God? Is God a harsh taskmaster, cracking the whip and trying to spoil our fun? On the contrary it shows us a God of love. It shows a God who wants keep sex as a means of expressing love with our partners. I also believes it shows us that God doesn't want us confused but committed to Him which is the only way we can find true fulfillment, joy and peace in this life. It shows a loving Father concerned for our welfare and wanting what is best for us. So through His laws He shows us the way to live and then through Christ gives us the ability to live that life which will be best for us. These are what the holiness code I believe try to show us. Again not a treatsie on homosexual/gay love. In the next study we will look at what Jesus has to say about homosexuals.

01 Oct, 2008

Why Did God Destroy Sodom and Gormorrah?

What Does The Bible Say About Being Gay?

by Rev. John W. Brown

Introduction

Recently there has been discussion on the ChristianGays.com List Serve about the so-called "clobber verses" used to condemn gay/homosexual people by the church. These verses have been used to say that God hates us, that we have chosen to be what we are, and in the process have turned our backs on God. Therefore God has given us over to a reprobate mind and condemns us all to hell. However, is that what the Bible really says?

Are these verses being truly interpreted rightly, or as I believe, are these verses being deliberately misinterpreted, taken out of context, and forced to say something they were never intended to say in order to support the church's and people's prejudices and biases?

In this study we will look at those verses and see how they truly apply to gay people.

For more information than I will cover here, see my book "I'm Gay and It's OK". Click here to download.

Also for a more abbreviated version of this study please join me on Sunday nights in the Bible Study Chat Room at 9 pm ET / 6 pm PT starting Oct 12. Follow the Gay CHAT link at the top of any page of the website.

All quotes are taken from the New King James Version of the Bible and the definitions of the Hebrew and Greek are taken from Strong's Concordance and Vine's Dictionary of the New Testament.

I have also collaborated with a friend, Dr. John Mathis Lurvey, a graduate of Harvard University and an expert in Hebrew and Greek.

Having said all that, let's set sail and take a journey through the Bible and see what the Bible actually says about being gay.

The following on Genesis 19 and the story of the destruction of Sodom is the first study of several I will be doing on these clobber verses.

It is my hope that if you are gay, by the time we get through all the studies on the "clobber verses" you will realize the Bible is silent on the subject of homosexuality, and be able to accept your gayness as a gift from God. Also that God made you as you are, and loves you as your are.

If you are not gay but reading this anyway then you will come to understand what the Bible actually teaches and what God actually thinks of homosexual/gay people.

I pray this will be a stream of healing to those who have been hurt by the church as well as to those trying to come to understand all this. May it be a voice of reconciliation and deliverance until all God's gay people can leave the closet forever and declare in the words of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. "Free, Free, Free at last. Thank God Almighty, I'm free at last".

WHY DID GOD DESTROY SODOM AND GOMORRAH?

Is The Story of Sodom and Gomorrah a Condemnation of Homosexuality?

One of the first areas many of our evangelical and other Christian brethren will point to as a condemnation of homosexuality is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. They would claim they were destroyed because of homosexuality. But is that really the case? Turn now to Genesis 19th chapter and lets break it down a bit and see what it is in fact saying.

A. Background

Two angels approach Sodom to stay there overnight. They are intending to sleep in the town square but are compelled by Lot to accept his invitation of hospitality. A little later a crowd shows up outside Lot's door and demands he bring out the angels they think are men so they can get to know them.

B. What Happens?

So what does the Bible actually say happens according to this chapter?

i.) The Men Are Rapists
“Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the
men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from
every quarter, surrounded the house. And they called
to Lot and said to him, ’Where are the men who came to
you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know
them carnally.” (Genesis 19:4-5)

This verse tells us a lot of the frame of mind of those gathered that night. First, let's look at the term "man" used here.

Definition: Enoshe is the Hebrew word used here for men of Sodom. While it can refer to the male sex it can also refer to people, including women. That leaves the possibility that women were present in the crowd that night.

Secondly, it says they wanted know them. As used here it leaves open a couple of possibilities.

One is that this was to be an act of rape, which is what I believe. This was not to be a loving act between two people of the same sex, but a violent rape of the men/angels, which would have no say in what happened to them.

Throughout scripture rape is condemned, as sex should be an act of love between two people affirming each other, and the love, desire and commitment they have to each other. It should be an act which brings the two closer together.

The other possibility is that they were wanting to question and examine the strangers. As we shall see when we look at a correlating passage in Ezekiel, the people of Sodom were notoriously inhospitable and selfish. They didn't want strangers passing through their land or eating any of their food. So it could have been they wanted to find out why these strangers were there, and make sure none of their food was being consumed by them.

Also, Lot was living in Sodom only with the permission of the elders of the city so may still have been a second class citizen (as opposed to native born citizens of Sodom) and had no right to invite anyone into his home without their full knowledge and approval.

These men could also have been enemy spies coming to spy out the weaknesses of the city so they could report back to their army, thereby helping them take the city. This would have been a very serious matter, and Lot's refusal to hand over the men for interrogation would have angered the people no end.

In either case it has nothing to do with an act of love between two people of the same sex.

ii.) The Men Were Not Homosexuals
“ Please my brethren, do not so wickedly! See now, I
have two daughters who have not known a man; please let
me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as
you wish; only do nothing to these men, since this is
the reason they have come under the shadow of my
roof”. (Genesis 19:8)

Laying aside the moral question of a father offering his virgin daughters to be raped, I would like to pose a question, why offer them your daughters in the first place? If these men were truly homosexual they'd have no interest in women, making this offer stupid. The only reason I can come up with at this point is that Lot is desperate at this point to protect the guests under his roof. So he offers his daughters to them to appease them, hoping they will take his daughters and leave the men/angels alone. This would then mean that they were, at least some of them, bi sexual, not exclusively homosexual. This is confirmed just a few verses later.

“So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who had married his daughters, and said, ‘Get up, get out of this place; for the Lord will destroy this city’. But to his sons-in-law he seemed to be joking.” (Genesis 19:14)

This says that some of the men were married. Lot has sons-in-law and I suspect there were other married men in Sodom as well. Maybe their women were there in the crowd cheering their husbands on desire to rape the men, and perhaps the women were hoping to have sex with the men/angels themselves. In either case they were not exclusively homosexual. They sons-in-laws apparently didn't heed the warning of their father-in-law, and perished in the destruction of Sodom.

So what then were the real reasons why Sodom was destroyed?

C. Six Reasons Why God Destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah

“Look, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom; She
and her daughter had pride, fullness of food, and
abundance of idleness; neither did she strengthen the
hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty and
committed abomination before Me; therefore I took them
away as I saw fit.” (Ezekiel 16:49-50)

Six Reasons
1. Pride
2. Fullness of Food
3. Abundance of idleness
4. Didn't take care of the poor and needy
5. They were haughty
6. They committed abomination

So are any of these six things an actual condemnation of homosexuality? Let's break down this verse and see what it's actually talking about here.

The word iniquity used here means evil, fault, moral perversity, mischief, punishment of iniquity, and sin. Having defined iniquity what does this passage tell us as to what God sees as iniquity? Does it have anything to do with homosexuality?

1. Pride: In the Hebrew, as used in this passage, it means swelling with pride, to be arrogant, and pompous.

To understand this better let's take a look at the dictionary definition of arrogant and pompous.

Arrogant:
i) Making unwarrantable claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights
ii) A feeling of superiority or an offensive exhibition of it
iii) Presumptuous or overbearing conduct, statements resulting from such a feeling.

Here we see that the people of Sodom felt they were superior to everyone else. As a consequence they made others feel inferior to them by their actions and words.

Pompous:
i) Characterized by an ostentatious display of dignity or importance
ii) Ostentatiously lofty or high flown
iii) Characterized by pomp, stately splendor or magnificence

Ostentatious: Defined as the following in the dictionary.
i) A pretentious display
ii) The act of showing or exhibiting
iii) Actions or manners intended to attract notice.

Because they felt they were superior, they acted in a way that drew attention to themselves and let everyone know how important they thought they were. Instead of humbleness, they were full of self-righteousness, self-importance, and had disdain for everyone else who didn't match up to them and their standards. This was the first problem God had with them, but it doesn't end there.

2. Fullness of Food: As used here in the Hebrew it means to be in a state of satiety, which is a state of satisfaction with one's appetite or desire, to the point of boredom.

So the people of Sodom and Gomorrah had everything they could want to the point they were bored with what they had. The Jewish Rabbis taught that the people of Sodom decided to hoard the food for themselves. So they passed laws to discourage strangers from entering their land.

They also built walls around their orchards and fields so that the animals couldn't get in and eat their crops. They even stretched nets over their orchards and trees to keep the birds from landing in the trees or fields and eating their food.

Anyone caught entertaining a stranger or feeding them was to be put to death. They taught that an older daughter of Lot had been caught feeding a beggar and was taken and stoned to death for it. Thus Lot knew the consequences of his actions and what could happen, and took the strangers in anyway, in disregard of the laws of Sodom. That was God's second problem with them but He was just getting started.

3. Abundance of Idleness: This refers to a false security, abundance, peace, prosperity and quietness. This led them to idleness, which is a state of being at rest, appeasement, and stillness, and of being settled.

Because of their abundance they felt they were secure, at peace, prosperous and able to live a quiet life. They could kick back and be bored with all they had, as they felt nothing could hurt them or disrupt their lifestyle. They were set for a long time to come. Only one problem, they forgot about God in this equation, and He would have something to say loud and clear about all this. This was his third charge against Sodom but He doesn't stop there.

4. Failed to Strengthen the Hands of the Poor and Needy

The problem wasn't that they were poor and didn't have anything to give to strangers. They had plenty to give but refused to give it to strangers, hoarding it to themselves instead.

The fourth reason given was their failure to strengthen the hands of the poor and needy. As used in this passage it means to help the poor and needy and to restrain.

Here we see that the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, although they had so much they were bored with it, restrained themselves from giving it to those who were in need, but hoarded it to themselves.

In Matthew the 25th chapter, in the parable of the goats and sheep, the determining factor was what they did with what they had. Did they feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, provide shelter for the stranger, cloth the naked, and visit those in prison? If so then Jesus says they were sheep. If not then they were goats, destined for everlasting punishment.

The problem with Sodom and Gomorrah was that they were inhospitable. They wanted to rape the guests in their town, rather than provide food and drink for them, and provide shelter for them so they could be protected from the elements of nature, or of those wishing to do them harm.

They could have cared less about the men themselves, and only cared about their lust and satisfying it, regardless of cost or consequences. This we see when the angels smite the men of the city with blindness, and rather than recognize a miracle has just taken place and repenting, they keep on trying to find the door handle in the hopes of being able to open the door and fulfill their lusts, until they finally get tired searching for it,and give up and leave. (See Genesis 19:11)

5. Haughty:

As Ezekiel uses it here, it means to soar, to be lifted up, to be proud, to be raised up to a great height. Believing themselves superior, they put themselves on a pedestal. They were the gods in the world whom everyone was to worship and serve. Again they failed to take God into account, and committed the same act which got Lucifer (Satan) thrown out of heaven.

Due to the fact that they believed they were superior, acted accordingly, refused to help those considered less than them, the people of Sodom and Gomorrah exalt themselves to a high place - a certain recipe for disaster. For you see they were committing the very act that got Lucifer or Satan cast out of heaven.

“How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, you who weakened the nations! For you have said in your heart: I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation on the farthest sides of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High. Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol, to the lowest depths of the Pit. (Isaiah 14:12-15)

Five times Lucifer boasts in arrogance and pride of all that he is going to do. Instead he