I have to buy this book! Just a few months ago my pastor made a joke about a kid killing a gay spider during his sermon. Totally inappropriate. Maybe I should get him this book too.
I love that Graham quote by the way.

I am a Gay Messianic Jew and live in a monogamous relationship with my partner. We entered into a Civil Partnership, which is possible under UK law.
This is a hugely polarising issue and I am wading into this debate very reluctantly. It is suggested above that only about 20% of the LGBT community are interested in changing orientation. Do you honestly believe that we chose to be ridiculed, chose to be persecuted, chose to be laughed at, chose to be held in contempt or chose to be rejected by G-d (apparently, according to some people’s scriptural interpretation)? I was married for over 15 years and G-d knows, I tried to live a normal hetero-sexual life.
It has taken me many years of clinical depression until I finally accepted that I am gay and that G-d made me this way. I wish with all my heart that it were not so, but it is. I have always been attracted to guys, all my life. Despite all the rejection I have been exposed to, G-d has not abandoned me. He has shown me, through many miracles, that He loves me and has a plan for my life.
For those with a genuine interest to learn more, I would suggest reading “Stranger at the Gate” by Mel White (the gay friend of Philip Yancey) or “Exchanging the truth of G-d for a lie” by Jeremy Marks (Marks was the UK Director of an Ex Gay ministry and after many years had the courage to tell the truth about this movement).
Homosexuality is not a sin. The story of Sodom is not about sexual orientation, but about rape and lack of hospitality. I wish more believers had LGBT friends, who could help remove the fear of the unknown. We know the six or seven ‘clobber passages’ better than anyone. They have been hurled in our faces all our lives. It’s unnatural, I hear some of you say. Well, then why is homosexuality out there in the animal kingdom (about 8-10 in most species are gay, another percentage are ‘bi’ and some percentages ‘a-sexual’)?
The above books will help anyone who is honest about dialogue.

It is the work of the Holy Spirit to convict. It is our job to love. However, I don’t think that we see these two torn apart in the letters of St. Paul. When he sees Christians doing things that are against the will of God he confronts them about it. Paul is very concerned with how Christians behave and I don’t think we ever get the idea that he just leaves that part to the Holy Spirit. If homosexuality is a sin, and I think the Bible says it is, then we need to treat it as such. With that said, God is creating a society that is filled with sinner’s who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. We need to show what kind of king Jesus is by inviting all sorts of sinner’s to our tables. Nevertheless, there is a difference between loving a sinner and endorsing sin.

Nick and Avigdor (2&3) are a good summary, a microcosm, of the arguments I’ve heard for years.
1.) Nick (interpreting St. Paul) says homosexuality is something we choose, and it’s an evil choice.
2.) Avigdor says homosexuality is something we’re born with, not a choice.
Who can say with certainty? Homosexuality, for me, falls into that category of “I frankly don’t understand it.” I don’t get the physical and psychological motivations behind H. And when I don’t understand something, I can’t judge it. I won’t judge it. How can I judge something I don’t understand?
I seek greater understanding. In the meantime, I accept and love people for who they are as images of God, not restricted by sexual orientation, etc..
And, between you and me, limiting our entire response to H to 6 passages in a 2000 year old manuscript is probably not the best use of our God-given faculties for discernment and wisdom.

I’m on the same page as John. How can I judge something I don’t understand?
And furthermore, how could I ever look my friends who struggle with this in the eye and tell them that they are wrong, and have “sinned”. How can I say that when (like Avigdor’s story) they have already tried going against this intrinsic part of them that has been with them since they were children. I don’t want to be another person that throws Bible verses and judgement in their faces. I just want to be their friend. I just want to love them. And honestly, that’s what feels right. Even though my friends will no longer walk through the doors of my church (because of the overwhelming feeling of rejection and judgement from the others in attendance) we can still be in community together and be real and honest with each other.
And as far as those Bible verses that are used against the GLBT community – why do we concentrate so much on those. I am infuriated with my own Christian community for raising up the value of those verses (which apparantly are up to interpretation, and who follows all the OT rules anyways, I don’t cover my head in church) and not valuing enough all the verses that have to do with justice and helping the poor. There’s so much POSITIVE we can do together.
I know it kind of sounds hippie-ish but why can’t we just love each other and come together and do GREAT things in the world. With God working in and through us we have so much power to help people. And it’s not like we’ll solve issues like poverty and oppression overnight. We can all come together and work hard at doing the things we KNOW God has called us to do. Why do we have to fight over this issue that tears us apart?
In my efforts to be a “Christ follower” I think about what Jesus did with those who were “sinners” in his society. He hung out with them, ate dinner with them. When the prostitute was crying at his feet and his disciple was trying to pull him away, Jesus said “Do you see this woman?” Jesus valued everyone and treated them as equals. People were convicted, but only because they recognized God in Jesus and wanted to be a part of that. Jesus never called those people out on what they messed up on. Even if you believe that those living a GLBT lifestyle are sinning, why not try to treat them as Jesus would?

Scot, how does Andrew’s option #4 differ from option #2 in practical terms?

There is probably no way I can writer what I’m going to write without offending someone… and for that I’m sorry — It’s not my intention…
But, I thought I should respond to a couple points made from commentors:
Homosexuality is not a sin: I certain think we (Christians) should be open to discussion about this and it’s something we can talk about, but I’ve never seen any compelling argument to show it’s not sin. And in case someone is rushing to call me a bigot. I didn’t become a Christian until I was 24 and until then had no problems with homosexuality.
Choice vs Born that way: I honestly can’t say whether or not those desires are genetic. I certainly don’t think they’re ‘choice’ but actions are. I have desires that I’m sure God would not approve of me acting on.

oops.. continued:
animal kingdom: The animal kingdom does lots of things I don’t think humans should mimic: incest, inter-species killing, etc.
2000 year old text: I guess we should throw out all the stuff about Jesus and being saved from our sins too.
6 passages: How many passages are there on visiting prostitutes? Is that how we’re going to determine sin? By how many times it’s mentioned?
Understanding: There are TONS of sins I don’t understand. It doesn’t mean they’re not sin.
Ok.. so now that I have truly pissed people off — again I’m sorry. But I think we need to be careful about quieting the Bible when we don’t like what it says… (Heck, most of Jesus’ words are incredibly hard to read).

This sounds like just a fantastic book. One of the things I often think about with this issue (and these four ‘options’ remind me) is how we forget how far we all are–including especially the hetero evangelicals among us such as myself–from God’s larger moral standard, even taking our sexual transgressions out of the equation entirely. We generally come nowhere close to fulfilling the greatest commandments, even on our best day. How, then, do we deal with ourselves in light of our repeated selfishness and failures to obey the great commands?
I think as we start or continue the kind of apprenticeship to Jesus that takes regular honest and thorough inventories of how we are actually progressing towards Christ-likeness, we’ll be much more willing to take the more mercifully patient “come alongside” approach that this book seems to argue for, regardless of sexual orientation.
Relatedly, I don’t know how relevant the “born this way” vs. “choice” issue is for followers of Jesus. I don’t think there’s a single desire with which I was born that hasn’t taken me down as many sinful roads as helpful ones (desire for sex, for food, for physical safety, for life, etc.) How many of the “born with” desires rise to the level of entitlement for one who is called to pick up his or her cross every day and follow Christ? Even as a married man, I do well when I don’t consider myself “entitled” to the benefits of marriage. From a standpoint of what God is looking to ultimately accomplish (re-creation along the lines of Christ), I think we overplay the significance of the “born this way” vs. “choice” sub-issue. I was born selfish. I was born greedy. I was born lots of ways that don’t conform to Christ’s character, and I choose this stuff too. But my future, and increasingly my present, is Christ. My future isn’t even being male as it is currently thought of, let alone married and having sex. My future is Christ and his character and relationships “as the angels are.” That’s why Paul tells even married folks to be “as if they weren’t.” Not to go commit adultery, but to set our minds and hearts more fully on our future, not on what’s passing away, like our sexuality. If we were to be true to the NT, the Christian “ideal” is not “getting married and having kids,” it’s remaining single to follow Christ without the temporary relationship of marriage. Marriage is not portrayed as the highest good. Singleness shaped and motivated by the age to come is. I think that reality can help relieve some of the tensions on this issue.

I’m actually bi which to some in the gay community means i’m not really gay. All I know is I’ve had attraction to women since my teens and now i’m in my 50′s. I’ve done many things to try to get rid of it. I think acting on same sex attraction is sin. Note there – the attraction isn’t sin, but acting on it and acting can be going places with it in your head. I’ve never had sex with a woman, only aware of attraction. I talked with a woman who helps people come out of same sex attraction and in conjunction with therapy I realized I was using attraction to women as a way to fill a mommy hole in me, a place where I need/needed mothering and didn’t get it. The woman I talked with called same sex attraction idolatry, filling holes with a homosexual lifestyle rather than turning to God to fill it. The golden calf filling the need.
Even tho I think acting on same sex attraction is sin, the last thing needed is pointing it out. Love someone, become their partner/friend. Enjoy them for who they are. Love them and let the rest be up to God. I would say every gay person knows people think it’s wrong and they feel the pressure of disapproval. They don’t need to be told what they already know. Walk along beside a gay person, be their friend, figure out what it means to love and when the topic comes up of if we think it’s right or wrong, direct the conversation back to the importance of loving God with all heart, soul and mind.

My struggle, as a married-to-a-woman Christian man, is in trying to convince people that I actually *have* changed!
I can’t help but believe that change is possible, because I’m living it every day. Not perfectly, not completely and certainly not instantaneously, but truly.
I once had primarily gay attraction and behavior. Now I continue to have gay attraction, but it gets weaker and weaker as I choose to focus all my sexual energy on my wife. I will probably always notice attractive men, but that does not lead to the behaviors it always led to before. Through the power of the Holy Spirit, I can (finally) choose to walk away from gay fantasy, porn and sex… But it is a long, slow, challenging process. (I’m going on 7 years of being “out” with my struggles and seeking freedom and healing.)
I don’t know why I deal with this when so many others will never have these feelings (Avigdor is right: No one chooses this), but I will never let go of the reality that change is possible.
It’s a challenging but very fulfilling way to live.

Kenny (#8) says: “2000 year old text: I guess we should throw out all the stuff about Jesus and being saved from our sins too. 6 passages: How many passages are there on visiting prostitutes? Is that how we’re going to determine sin? By how many times it’s mentioned?”
Kenny, you may be right. H might be a grievous sin. I’m not “throwing out” anything – everything remains on the table. I simply don’t understand it. I don’t “GET” it. And I refuse to solidify a religious position on something that I can’t feel, explain, or justify in my own mind and heart. Until then, I will love and welcome gay people no differently than straights or celibates.
I think “T” (#9) makes an excellent NT point that “Marriage is not portrayed as the highest good. Singleness shaped and motivated by the age to come is.” In context of spiritual life and practice, I GET it. This ideal takes the H debate to an entirely different, and very healthy, level.
As for forgiveness, compassion, helping those in need, loving others into the kingdom, a man paying the ultimate sacrifice for me, etc.. I GET these, too. They resonate in the deepest part of my being. But there a few other passages in the NT that I simply don’t grok, so I remain “agnostic” on taking a religious position. I hope you can see this as honesty rather than weakness.
And, yes, there are myriad “sins” mentioned in both OT and NT that I “get.” H is not one of them (nor am I convinced that we’re reading Paul accurately in this matter. But that’s another topic for another time.)

I don’t claim to ‘understand’ homosexuals. I know it is a very complicated issue. My argument doesn’t hinge on whether or not one chooses to be gay or not. I have had many desires in the past that are against the will of God and I don’t ever remember ‘choosing’ to feel that way. Nevertheless, when I became a Christian I knew that some of the things I was doing were against the will of God and I needed to change. God has been gracious to me. God is creating a community of people who do the will of God and is accomplishing this through his Spirit. He is changing people, no matter what their sins.

Which is the worse sin: Homosexuality or Christianity’s response to it?
Jesus talked a lot about greed. Do we exert any effort for constitutional amendments to prevent it? No, we LOVE greedy materialistic people, because they power our economy and give lots of money to the church. The US is founded upon dog-eat-dog capitalism in which greed is a virtue and the one who can pay their workers the least wins.
Jesus talked a lot about religious hypocrisy, those who place the letter of the law above love. Are we condemning that behavior in the news? Are we having discussions about whether people are born hypocrites or choose it?
Our response to homosexuality has been to persecute people, to deny them (in all practicality) the ability to attend church, to pass laws against them adopting children, to condemn them without mercy to conform to Scripture or go to hell.
I fear the worse sinners in this arena are the “Christians.”

This post makes me think that this book has principles in it that would apply across the board — not to just to the gay community. As I read the statement, “So what is love? “tangible and measurable expressions of one’s unconditional behaviors toward another”, I thought that is universal, regardless of one’s place in life. Whether gay or straight but living in a state of sin. In my own church, I’m ashamed to say that we’re struggling with the issue of changing our membership process. Currently, such a high price is placed on agreeing the doctrinal statement of the church, that if someone disagrees with one of our testimonies, that can keep them from being a member. And yet our mission statement was recently changed to say we love people unconditionally. SIGH! We (the Church) have got to get it together! If we’re really practicing being “with” people, shouldn’t that mean that there is room in our churches and in our hearts for people that may not align to our standards, but yet exhibit a love for God and a desire to be with His people?

Post#3 – “there is a difference between loving a sinner and endorsing sin.”
This statement goes for pride, greed, heterosexual lust, fantasies, divorce, adultery, emotional adultery, self-righteousness – all of which Jesus had more to say about than about homosexuality. So to what degree is “love the sinner hate the sin” practiced against these other vices.
Those who go on about how Paul condemned homosexuality in Romans 1, should just be a better Bible student and go on to read Romans 2, where Paul held the so called people who claimed to have the Law to a higher standard. If those who think they have the Law judge others by the standards of the Law, then let them not lose sight of the fact that they are immediately held accountable to the very same standards by which they judge.
Homosexual sins are very very easy to denounce because these are things that majority of straight Christians don’t have to struggle with themselves. Pride and greed are much more universal so let’s just keep quiet about them. And let’s practice grace to those who divorce their wives.

There is some good discussion here. I appreciate that so many desire to be loving toward the LGBT community. As someone who has same-gender attraction, I appreciate that compassion.
Just one thought. Someone mentioned, “so I remain “agnostic” on taking a religious position” [due to not understanding everything about homosexuality]. While being agnostic may be a personally honest assessment and may seem the most compassionate response, I would like to offer that we need to move beyond agnosticism. Why? Because this is not a theoretical issue for people like me. This is not just an interesting idea or debate to volley around and muse about. This is something that I and others have to make huge, and very difficult life decisions on, and we can’t do it alone. I need someone who can come alongside me and say something more than, “Well, I really don’t know. Good luck with that.”
Those of us who are gay and conflicted in regards to our faith are potentially giving up the love of our lives based on convictions. We are potentially choosing to live single and celibate for life. And there is no way in heck we can or would make those decisions based on “We don’t know what the Bible really says or what God wants.”
All that to say–take the time to really study and pray about this issue. Don’t settle for agnosticism. And hold fast to both grace and truth. There are ways of speaking truth without coming across like the Religious Right. Get to know us, hear our stories, educate yourself, and stand by us when we have to make very painful, difficult life decisions. Be ready to remind us that Jesus is worth losing everything for. If we lose our life, we will find it. But, I am not going to lose my life over something that is mere speculation.

Andrew Marin’s book is reviewed in Books and Culture by Wesley Hill, who describes himself as a celibate gay Christian. I think his conclusion echoes the good points made by Karen K in comment 17. The review is at the link below:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/columns/bookoftheweek/elevating.html

Some questions :
1. At what point do we define social-cultural prohibitions / memes / traditions / elaborations / embellishments as Church Doctrine ?
2. At what point do we define church rules/laws/doctrines/elaborations as Sins?
The question is important because we know many examples of Clergy/ Religious Leaders confusing social norms and interpreting/elaborating/embellishing the Words of God and Christ out of context, converting church doctrine(s) into Sin, excommunicating and even murdering under the premise of heresy. Examples include: ?the world is flat? ? ?witch hunts ? ?handicapped & deformed are of Satan? ? racism ? slavery – Bi-Racial Marriage ? political views ? indulgences – the list goes on.
3. If we worship Christ, why are we to hold to prohibitions (including elaborations and embellishments) written out by ?religious leaders? (men who created the Historical/Pauline Epistles/General Epistles/Wisdom books over centuries) to the same degree as Sins clearly defined in the Ten Commandments (delivered directly to Moses from the Hand of God on Mt Sinai), and teachings / attitudes of Christ as triangulated in first hand accounts of the disciples (The Gospels, occurring during the Ministry of Our Lord Jesus Christ)?
4. If we are to hold a literal/conservative/traditionalist view for all books beyond the Gospels, why do we not adhere to the many doctrines/laws/ prohibitions called out in those books: shaving of beards, pork, killing anyone who is of another religion, handling of slaves, role of women, etc, etc.?
5. If I condemn, ?run away from?, and deny brethren a place at Christ?s table under guise of doctrine, elaboration, and embellishment, what Sin(s) ? as defined in the Ten Commandments and teachings of Christ ? am I committing?
6. Christ speaks adamantly about marriage, divorce, and the fact that some should not marry:
MATHEW 8Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”10The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.” 11Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[c]because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
If we are held to the letter of the ?Law? (as the Pharisees did), why do we allow divorced people to partake of the elements and hold church office even though Christ himself admonishes divorce and, in the very same passage, talks about ?eunuchs? and those who chose not to marry? Who are these ?eunuchs? ? Why does Christ discuss their existence in the same passage? Why do we allow heterosexual people in the church greater ?room for error? ?
7. Under a conservative/literal/traditionalist interpretation of the bible, are those born as Hermaphrodites or with Testicular Feminization forbidden to develop physical relationships? Have there not always been homosexual people, in all societies, throughout all time?
8. There is no doubt that Christians must not knowingly continue to engage in a sinful life. That is a given. Can you develop a stronger argument that homosexuality is truly a Sin in the eyes of Christ and not simply another doctrine developed by religious leaders, tradition, and minor prophets within some social-cultural contexts
“Research suggests that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth. It is found in about ten percent of the population, a figure which is surprisingly constant across cultures, irrespective of the different moral values and standards of a particular culture. Contrary to what some imply, the incidence of homosexuality in a population does not appear to change with new moral codes or social mores. Research findings suggest that efforts to repair homosexuals are nothing more than social prejudice garbed in psychological accouterments.? APA 1994
The teachings & attitudes of Christ will stand the test of time and science and will ultimately outshine the teaching and attitudes of ?religious leaders? who devise doctrines and social-cultural morays that ?elaborate? and ?embellish? on God?s clear intent.
“And God spoke all these words, saying: ‘I am the LORD your God? ??ONE: ‘You shall have no other gods before Me.’ ??TWO: ‘You shall not make for yourself a carved image–any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.’ ??THREE: ‘You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.’ ??FOUR: ‘Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.’ ??FIVE: ‘Honor your father and your mother.’ ??SIX: ‘You shall not murder.’ ??SEVEN: ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ ??EIGHT: ‘You shall not steal.’ ??NINE: ‘You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.’ ??TEN: ‘You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.’
With great respect: These questions are of paramount importance, not to the writer ( a straight ? married ? Christian ) but for clergy who continually condemn and deny gay people a place at Christ?s table. Clergy live in a cloistered environment, cared for by their parishioners. Parishioners are exposed to gay people in everyday society. Real homosexual people are not liars, thieves, adulterers, charlatans, hypocrites, Godless atheists, promiscuous male prostitutes, rapists, child molesters, or pagan ritualists: they are family members, co-workers, neighbors, friends, and even fellow worshipers. In an effort to live as a conscientious Christian, my focus is to extend compassion and love, regardless of sexual orientation. It is extremely disconcerting that some clergy hold stead fast to traditions and doctrines ? rather than the teachings of Christ – perhaps jeopardizing their own place in Christ?s Kingdom and acting as modern day Pharisees. Many first hand biblical accounts describe Christ?s attitude toward the arrogance of Pharisees.
Notes:
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; because it is an abomination.?(Leviticus 18:22 Lamsa). The Hebrew literally says: ?You shall not lie with a male [on] the beds of a woman (or wife), it is a despising.” Going from the literal or plain meaning of the Hebrew text, the lying with a male was done to despise the woman. It appears the sexual act was done in the beds of the woman to rub it in her face.
?Do not misuse the name of the LORD your God. The LORD will not let you go unpunished if you misuse His name.? (Ex. 20:7 NLT). If Christians deliberately misrepresent God by giving false interpretations of Scripture contrary to what God intended, they are taking the LORD?s name with deceit. Presently, most New Testaments are translated from the Greek Text which has Greek words that are translated as homosexuals that don?t mean homosexuals. Hate filled scholars have put their prejudice in our Bible. In the Today?s English Version (TEV), the translators translated the words ma-la-koi and ar-se-no-koi-tai as “homosexual perverts.? Even if these scholars believe these words refer to homosexuals, they deliberately add the word perverts, because of their own prejudice. In Jude 7 it says: ?Even as Sodom and Gomorrha…giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh…,?: The actual Greek says that the people went after other flesh, which is referring to the foreigners. Some translators translate the underlined portion as the people committing perversion (TEV) and practiced unnatural vice (New American Bible [Catholic]). Remember, people pick and choose verses out of the Bible to justify their own prejudices. In the (NIV), the translators deliberately add the word ?sinful? in their translation of Romans 1:24: ?Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.? The word sinful is not in the Greek text, nor in any other English Bible. In the Living Bible, it states: ?Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin.? (Leviticus 18:22 THE LIVING BIBLE TYNDALE first printing 1987). The Hebrew word to-e-vah is translated enormous sin (Living) and abomination (KJV), but has the primary meaning of ?a despising? or ?an abhorrence.? Also, for the New Living Translation, it translates Leviticus 18:22 as: ?Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.?
When one consults the Greek-English Lexicons on what are the definitions of some Greek words, one also finds some deception here. Scholars are deleting definitions for the Greek words. For the word ma-la-kos, Strong has this word meaning only ?soft,? and ?effeminate.? But Liddell and Scott have this word meaning someone that is morally weak, lacking in self-control, and indulgent.? Vine has the word ma-la-kos denoting homosexuality and also ?someone that is addicted to sins of the flesh, voluptuous.? I believe Strong deliberately left out the definition for ma-la-kos as an indulgent person for his own advantage; to make people not question if the word ma-la-kos carries the definition of homosexual. For Strong?s definition for the word to-e-vah, he adds a definition to this word as: Prop. something disgusting (mor); knowing full well that this word doesn?t mean this, nor can he find this word to carry that definition anywhere in the Bible in context.
There are many more examples I could give, but this should suffice you to see that their is some deliberate forgery of what the Hebrew and Greek actually says.- There is a lot of ignorance on the subject of homosexuality, but a lot of scholars know you can be gay and Christian, but they want to oppress. They use the Bible for power and try to use religion to control society according to their beliefs. Also, there are some hate filled and oppressive verses in the Bible about women, which is not what the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek says.
OLD TESTAMENT:
Gen. 37:36; 39:1; 40:2; 40:7; 1Sam. 8:15; 1Kings 22:9; 2 Kings 8:6; 9:32; 18:17; 20:18; 23:11; 24:12; 24:15; 25:19; 1Chr. 28:1; 2 Chr. 18:8; Judith 12:11; Esther 1:10; 1:12; 1:15; 2:3; 2:14; 2:15; 2:21; 4:4; 4:5; 6:2; 6:14; 7:9; Esther Additions A:12,14,17; Wisdom 3:14; Sirach 20:3; Isa. 39:7; 56:3; 56:4; Jer. 29:2; 34:19; 38:7; 39:3; 39:13; 41:16; 52:25; Dan. 1:3; 1:7; 1:8; 1:9; 1:10; 1:11; 1:18.
ARAMAIC WORD M’HAYM-NA TRANSLATED AS: Eunuch
NEW TESTAMENT:
Matthew 19:12 & Acts 8:27,34,36,38-39
Now, is this verse taken out of context?: ?For there are eunuchs who were born so from their mother?s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. To him who can comprehend, that is enough.? (Matthew 19:12 Lamsa). This verse is found when Jesus is speaking about marriage between a man and a woman. Then Jesus goes on and quotes this verse talking about people that it wouldn?t be good for them to marry because of the way they were born, or because of a situation, or because of their choice. – In order to get a correct interpretation of a verse, you have to know the definition of words and the way the verse is used in the context. But also, in regards to the New Testament Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John), Jesus said a lot of things that appear to be out of context when he was asked questions; so we have to go by the definitions for the word m’haym-na- Eunuch. Now this verse is actually not out-of-context in regards to males that it wouldn?t be good for them to marry a woman (wife). It would not be good for a homosexual male to marry a woman because he lacks the sexual perophone receptors that enable him to be attracted to women. He has more of the X-chromosome. It should be noted that a homosexual is impotent toward a woman. The other two reasons why a male wouldn?t be able to marry a woman are obvious by the meaning of the word m?haym-na and its associations.
A couple other things that need to be pointed out is, the Aramaic word il-mi-saw, translated in Matthew 19:10 as ?to marry,? means “to take.” Jesus was talking about males that it wouldn?t be good for them to take a woman. The other thing is when Jesus talks about the eunuchs that it wouldn?t be good for them to take a woman, he says: ??To him who can comprehend, that is enough.? That last phrase is better translated as: “Whoever is able to receive it, let him receive it.” The root word here spaq, also metaphorically means to “receive with the mind,” “accept.” The eunuchs not sleeping with women not only receive it, but they accept it. It is unlikely that Jesus? reference to a born eunuch is referring to a straight impotent man. I can?t picture a straight man accepting his impotence if he is lusting after a woman. Also, a lot of gay males marry a woman because they don?t know the truth about what the Hebrew and Aramaic Bible teaches. A lot of the males that are impotent toward their wives are homosexuals.