Redeeming God

Liberating you from bad ideas about God

Learn the MOST ESSENTIAL truths for following Jesus.

Get FREE articles and audio teachings in my discipleship emails!


  • Join Us!
  • Scripture
  • Theology
  • My Books
  • About
  • Discipleship
  • Courses
    • What is Hell?
    • Skeleton Church
    • The Gospel According to Scripture
    • The Gospel Dictionary
    • The Re-Justification of God
    • What is Prayer?
    • Adventures in Fishing for Men
    • What are the Spiritual Gifts?
    • How to Study the Bible
    • Courses FAQ
  • Forum
    • Introduce Yourself
    • Old Testament
    • New Testament
    • Theology Questions
    • Life & Ministry

Two Men in one Bed (Luke 17:34)

By Jeremy Myers
154 Comments

Two Men in one Bed (Luke 17:34)
Note: This post is part of the July 2015 Synchroblog.

In the past, I have taught that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality.

But a few weeks ago, after the Supreme Court of the United Stated ruled that gay couples could get legally married, a guy came up to me and said, “This ruling is a sign of the end of the world! Jesus prophesied in Luke 17:34 that when the rapture happens, there will be two men in a bed!”

I went on to show him that in the Greek, the word “men” is not actually there, so all it really says is “There will be two in one bed …”

And besides, there is some question about whether Luke 17 is even referring to the rapture.

Jesus teaching Luke 17:34But even if the text is referring to a gay couple in bed, and even if the text does teach about the rapture, I pointed out to him that one of the men was taken in the rapture, which means that apparently, God accepted him.

He apparently hadn’t though about this … and so started back-peddling a bit from this text.

But I decided to look into Luke 17:34 a bit more deeply.

Is it just two people in a bed?

As I pointed out to the end-of-the-world alarmist, the word “men” is not in Luke 17:34. The text literally reads:

In that night there will be two in one bed; one will be taken and the other left.

But then I noticed that in the context, our English translations go on in Luke 17:35 to record Jesus talking about two women grinding at the mill. I looked briefly at the Greek here as well, and noticed that the word “women” was not in Luke 17:35, just as the word “men” was not in Luke 17:34. Note that the word “mill” is not in the text either. Luke 17:35 literally says this:

Two will be grinding together; one will be taken and the other left.

So I asked myself, “What am I missing? Why do many English translators supply the word “men” in Luke 17:34 and “women” in Luke 17:35 when neither word is there? So I looked at the verses a little more carefully, and noticed that other words in Luke 17:34-35 revealed the gender of the people in question.

When Luke 17:34 says, “one will be taken and the other left,” the words “one” and “other” are both masculine. By itself, this might not mean that the two people were men, for Greek (as in most languages) can use male words and pronouns to refer generically to “people” whether they are male or female.

But Luke 17:35 is much more clear. When this verse says, “one will be taken and the other left,” the words “one” and “other” are both feminine. A feminine pronouns are only used of women.

So when you compare Luke 17:34 and Luke 17:35, and Luke 17:35 is clearly referring to two women, then it seems pretty clear that Luke 17:34 is referring to two women. The burden of proof lies on those who want to say that Luke 17:35 refers to women while Luke 17:34 refers generically to “people.”

But so what?

Just because two men are in one bed, this doesn’t mean they’re gay.

This is very true.

While rare, it is not completely unheard of for two straight men to share one bed today. They might share a bed for warmth, or for protection, or simply because there is a lack of bed space.

This is especially true of men in ancient Middle-Eastern cultures. Unlike most modern Western males, I read in various sources that men of the Ancient Near East didn’t feel “weirded out” by sharing a bed with another man.

But then I started studying the context further.

One source that really provided some background details for my study was a series of blog posts by Ron Goetz on gays and lesbians in Luke. What follows below is a brief summary of his arguments.

NOTE: I am not saying I agree with Ron Goetz. All I am doing is summarizing his research. I would like your opinion on what he argues, and would like your thoughts about whether or not Jesus does, in fact, mention homosexual couples in Luke 17:34-35, and what this means (if anything) for the debate today about Same-Sex Marriage.

Gay Sex in Luke 17:34-35

Below is a small sampling of what Ron Goetz argues regarding two same-sex couples in Luke 17. Before you criticize what he says, I strongly urge you to go read through his entire series of posts, as it is likely that he has already responded to your question or criticism.

The summary/extended quote from Ron Goetz begins below…

I tell you, in that night,
there shall be two men in one bed;
the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
Two women shall be grinding together;
the one shall be taken, and the other left.
(Luke 17:34-35, KJV)

The Context of Sodom

Sodom and GomorrahImmediately before the mention of two men in one bed is a lengthy discussion of the destruction of Sodom. Now I don’t believe the sin of Sodom was homosexuality. But there are many today who believe that it was, and I think most of the Jewish believers in Luke’s audience may have believed it as well.

Jesus knew that by recounting key details of Sodom’s destruction, his audience would have man-on-man sex on its mind. Jesus intended for us to understand that the “two men in one bed” were gay.

One key practice for interpreting a passage in the Greek scriptures is to look for its antecedents in the Old Testament.

I’ve only found two Old Testament references to two men laying together.

“Thou shalt not lie with a man, as with a woman: it is abomination” (Leviticus 18:22).

“If a man lie with a man, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them” (Leviticus 20:13).

By clearly alluding to the Levitical prohibitions against male homosexuality, followed immediately with his declaration that “one shall be taken, and the other left,” Jesus declared his own acceptance of gays and lesbians, and that gays and lesbians are not automatically rejected by God.

Whether or not you believe in this final separation, or whether or not you believe the Bible, doesn’t matter with regard to the significance of the passage. What is important is that Luke 17:34-35 teaches that sexually active gays and lesbians are not automatically consigned to perdition.

Two Women Grinding Together

In the Hebrew Bible, “grind” is used as an acceptable euphemism for sexual intercourse in at least four places: Job 31:10, Judges 16:21, Isaiah 47:2-3, and Lamentations 5:13.

[Yet] It seems shocking that Jesus would use what sounds to us today like gutter language when referring to lesbian love-making. The idea of Jesus uttering the words “women grinding together” can be very uncomfortable. It certainly was for me. Even though the Old Testament evidence confirmed my hypothesis, it was difficult for me to hear that language coming from the mouth of Christ.

But when you remember that there is earthy language throughout the Bible, in both testaments, we get an understanding that the church’s demand for regal, solemn, respectable language is not a Biblical demand. Our personal and cultural expectations are not necessarily in sync with the scriptures. What sounds like earthy language today were, generally speaking, acceptable Biblical euphemisms.

Solomon’s love poem, the Song of Songs, is well known for its graphic descriptions of romantic love. First century Israel did not have the clinical, scientific nomenclature for sexual matters that we have today, but they did have acceptable ways to discuss these things among adults.

No, Jesus Christ was not using gutter language when he mentions “two women grinding together.” The Old Testament books of Job, Judges, and Lamentations contain the Biblical use of the metaphorical grind. Jesus used the ordinary, acceptable language of his day to refer to lesbian love-making.

[But it is not just a couple of Old Testament texts that use “grind” in this way.]

In Latin, the word “grind,” and the related word “mill,” are both euphemisms for things sexual. The Roman poet Horace (65 to 8 BCE) used “grind” in his endorsement of brothels. Writing in Latin just decades before the birth of Christ, [one author] says that

Once, when a noble left a brothel, “Blessed be thou for thy virtue!” quoth the wisdom of Cato: “for when their veins are swelling with gross lust, young men should drop in there, rather than grind some husband’s private mill.”

His use of both “grind” and “mill” shows that even the presence of the word “mill” does not eliminate the possibility of sexual meanings in the word “grind.” Horace’s usage is very significant because it is proof of the use of “grind” as a euphemism for sexual intercourse in the Roman empire just a few decades before the birth of Christ.

[Such euphemisms are also found in Greek.]

Sapphos from LesbosPlutarch (ca A.D. 45 to 120) was born in Greece near Delphi, and was a contemporary of Luke. One of Plutarch’s s, “The Banquet of Seven Wise Men,” is a fictional conversation among some famous men who lived around 650 BCE. After a brief lull in the conversation, Thales of Miletus speaks:

This remark arrested the attention of the whole company, and Thales said jestingly…. “when I was at Lesbos, I heard my landlady, as she was very busy at her handmill, singing as she used to go at her work:

Grind, mill, grind;
For even Pittacus grinds,
King of great Mytilene.

Plutarch records “grind” used as a sexual metaphor in the last quarter of the first century A.D., overlapping the probable years when Luke was composed.

The sexual meanings of “grind” and “mill” were common in Greek society when Luke being composed, and could have been in common usage for as long as 700 years prior to that. There is no room for quibbling over whether or not “grind” and “mill” were used sexually in the Greek language of the first century, and that this layer of meaning was familiar to literate Greeks.

The Lightning and the Eagle

Zeus and GanymedeA major piece of evidence supporting the thesis of a deliberate gay theme in Luke’s Small Apocalypse (which I call “Luke’s Gay Apocalypse”) is found in the two primary symbols of Zeus, the supreme god in Roman religion. The symbols of Zeus are the lightning bolt and the eagle, and they appear in Luke 17:24, 37.

I subsequently investigated the Luke 17 passage specifically as the “Q Apocalypse,” and was blessed to find a terrific resource, “Where the Eagles are Gathered”: The Deliverance of the Elect in Lukan Eschatology, by Steven L. Bridge (2003), who connects the lightning and the eagles with Zeus and Ganymede.

The lightning bolt was Zeus’ powerful weapon, and the eagle was sent to retrieve the bolts after Zeus had thrown them. One of the most popular and enduring stories involving the eagle describes the Abduction of Ganymede. According to the story, the King of Troy had a beautiful son named Ganymede, and Zeus found Ganymede irresistibly attractive.

Zeus and GanymedeAccording to the story, the attractive young Ganymede is abducted by an eagle, who in one version is Zeus himself, having transformed himself into an eagle. While the story had several uses (as a paradigm for imperialism and an allegory for Truth), in the Roman era the sexual nature of Ganymede’s relationship with Zeus was widely recognized.

Zeus had numerous liaisons with mortal women, but only one same-sex relationship, and the eagle is vividly associated with his romantic relationship with Ganymede. Just as the donkey reminds Christians of the Nativity and the Triumphal Entry, so also the eagle reminded Romans and Roman subjects of Zeus’ sexual relationship with his cup bearer and servant, Ganymede. The story of Zeus and Ganymede adds a layer of sexual meaning and interest to the eagle’s image which is missing from its common use as a symbol of power.

Zeus and Ganymede What we have here are the two chief symbols of Zeus, lightning and eagles, one of which is vividly associated with Zeus’ same-sex relationship with Ganymede, located at the beginning and end of a discrete unit of the third gospel, Luke’s Small Apocalypse. That distance between the verses may seem great, and this distance has obscured their historical and cultural connection. But these were the symbols of Zeus. If we were to read a paragraph that opened with a mention of a “crown of thorns” and ended with a “cross,” no one would doubt that the crucifixion was a central element in that paragraph.

Anywhere in the Roman Empire, someone reading Luke 17:20-37 would immediately recognize Zeus and Ganymede in Luke 17:24, 37.

So are Gay People Accepted by God or not?

The upshot of all this? Once we recognize the common thread running through the major elements of the passage–Zeus and Ganymede, Sodom, and the gay and lesbian couples–the entire passage coheres as a unified whole. Not only do the major elements of the passage become related in a single theme, but several unresolved interpretive questions fall into place as well.

The general topic or theme of the passage is indeed judgment, but the examples Jesus uses to illustrate the enactment of judgment don’t tell us what is worthy of judgment, but what is not worthy of judgment.

And this is one very accurate way of describing the purpose of the passage. We’ve never quite known what the basis of acceptability was for the favored members of these pairs. We have surmised that they have an unspoken relationship with God, that they have faith, that they have remained awake and watchful and kept their lamps trimmed, but the passage has forced us to guess what the difference is between those who are taken and those who are left.

That puzzled guessing is understandable, because the point of the passage never has been to tell us the difference between who is acceptable to God and who is unacceptable. The point has been to tell us that homosexuality is not a factor in a person’s acceptability to God.

People’s sexual orientation is not among the criteria for whether they’re in or whether they’re out.

Luke’s Gay Apocalypse, with the romantically involved gays and lesbians and the gathering of the Eagles around the Body of Christ, tells both Jews and Roman gentiles the “moral of the story.” It is this:

  • Non-Celibate Gays and Lesbians are not Rejected by God.
  • Homosexuality is Not a Criterion of Acceptability for God.
  • Lesbians and Gays are Present in the Final Eschatological Gathering of God’s Elect.

Just because the word “homosexual” doesn’t appear in the gospels doesn’t mean Jesus didn’t talk about it. He did talk about homosexuality, using concrete terms similar to those in the Hebrew scriptures.

I tell you, in that night,
there shall be two men in one bed;
the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
Two women shall be grinding together;
the one shall be taken, and the other left.
(Luke 17:34-35, KJV)

Jesus discussed homosexuals in precisely the way we would expect him to, not in abstract terms, but using concrete examples.

The post above was part of the 2015 Sychroblog on Gay Marriage. Below are posts from other bloggers who also contributed. Go read them all to see what they have to say!

  • Justin Steckbauer – Gay Marriage, LGBTQ Issues, and the Christian Worldview
  • Leah Sophia – Marriage Equality Again
  • Tony Ijeh – Thoughts on Gay Marriage
  • Tim Nichols – Imago Dei: Loving the Different
  • Carlos Shelton – About Gay Marriage
  • Wesley Rostoll – Some Things to Consider Regarding Gay Marriage
  • K. W. Leslie – Same-sex Marriage
  • Paul W. Meier – Gay Marriage: Love is the Narrow Gate
  • Tara – Justice for All
  • Michelle Torigian – Marriage Equality: The Constantly Expanding Love of God
  • Lifewalk Blog – Here I am
  • Mary – A Recovering Evangelical Writes about Homosexuality
  • Liz – Same Sex Marriage Stuff: Part 1
  • Loveday – Gay Marriage in Africa, USA, and the World
  • Jea7587 – Loving Your Gay Neighbor, Part 2
  • D. L. Webster – Questions of Interacting with Differing Beliefs

God is Redeeming Life, Redeeming Scripture Bible & Theology Topics: Bible Study, gay marriage, homosexual, homosexuality, Jesus, lgbt, Luke 17:34-35

Advertisement

Let the gay marriage games begin!

By Jeremy Myers
28 Comments

Let the gay marriage games begin!

In light of the ruling from the Supreme Court about Gay Marriage, I knew it wouldn’t be long before:

  1. The name-calling and back-stabbing among Christians got worse (not better),
  2. Lawsuits began to fly between the right of gay people to get married and the right of certain religious people to not marry them
  3. A continued attempt by some to redefine (further) what constitutes a “marriage.”

gay marriageI just didn’t think it would all happen so quickly… But I was wrong.

Christian name-calling over Gay Marriage

Calvinistic Pastor Kevin DeYoung wrote a post that went viral which used the “When did you stop beating your wife?” approach to ask 40 questions to Christians who support gay marriage.

In response, John Shore wrote a post of his own, showing that when it comes to asking loaded questions that imply guilt before they are even asked, two can play that game.

I laughed more when I read John Shore’s post, so … he wins.

Edit: At the recommendation from one of the comments, I read Susan Cottrell’s 40 answers to the 40 questions. She makes excellent points. Go read it.

Both bloggers were pretty tame when it came to name-calling, but expect this sort of back-and-forth rhetoric to continue by all sides of this debate, with the name-calling and finger-pointing only getting more and more angry and ugly.

This shows once again how well we Christians have learned to “Be one” (John 17:21).

Lawsuits: Gay Marriage vs. Religious Freedom

A Christian county clerk in Kentucky has refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. She cited her religious beliefs as the motivating reason for her actions. Two gay couples have filed a lawsuit. I suspect she will lose that lawsuit, because issuing a license in her capacity as a county clerk is quite different from whether she herself believes that gay people should be able to get married.

If she feels it is wrong for gay people to get married, she has the religious freedom to believe this. But as a person who holds a public office, she needs to follow the law and issue the marriage licenses. If she is unable to do this in good conscience, that is fine also, but in that case, she should quit her job because she is unable to carry it out.

The REAL issue is going to happen when a gay couple, who has been issued a marriage license, approaches a prominent pastor and asks him to perform the wedding, and he refuses. Will the gay couple sue? Maybe. Maybe not. If they do, will religious freedom win out, or will the right of gay couples to get married win the day? I suspect that in this case, religious freedom will win, but it all pretty much depends on how the pastor handles himself.

Remember, many pastors during the Civil Rights movement refused to let black people into their churches on the basis of the “religious belief” that black people were inferior. In such cases, the laws of the land won out over religious freedom (and rightly so, in my opinion).

It will be interesting to see how these court cases play out… but no matter what happens, we expect to see more vitriol from all sides of the debate…

What exactly is a “marriage”?

Nathan Collier 2 wivesIn the wake of the Supreme Court basically saying that two people can get married if they love each other, even if they are of the same sex, a Montana man and his two wives have requested to get legally married. He plans to sue the state if he is denied. And if he loses there, he might even end up in the Supreme Court.

It will be interesting to see if all those in favor of Gay marriage will use the same arguments to support a marriage between three people. Or four? Or twenty?

Hmmm … I wonder what sort of tax-break a “marriage” would get from the IRS if the marriage consisted of 100 people? It wouldn’t be “filing jointly” anymore … but “filing grouply” or “filing crowdly.” And imagine how many kids that family would have! There could be hundreds! The IRS would be paying them tens of thousands of dollars a year in “Earned Income Credit.” This could be a really good job.

I have heard some Christians argue that this “redefinition” of marriage will result in further redefinition (as with Nathan Collier). They could be right. The more alarmist groups say that it won’t be long before marriage is allowed between a man and an underage daughter, or a man and his dog. This is ridiculous, of course. Neither animals nor underage children are considered consensual adults.

But, I see no logical reason at this point for the courts to deny Nathan Collier to get legally married to two wives…

So … am I FOR or AGAINST Gay Marriage?

Some readers of this blog have criticized me in the past for appearing to support gay marriage. I have never come out in actual support of it. At the same time, I have never spoken against it. And I am not doing so here either. If you are curious what Jesus said about homosexuality, you can read that here…

I also really liked Chuck McKnight’s stance on the gay marriage ruling. Go read his post and let me know what you think.

So what exactly am I saying?

The only thing I am really saying in this post is this: “I knew all this was coming, but WOW that was fast!”

God is Redeeming Life Bible & Theology Topics: gay marriage, homosexuality, lgbt, marriage

Advertisement

Gay Marriage, the Sanctity of Marriage, and the State

By Jeremy Myers
23 Comments

Gay Marriage, the Sanctity of Marriage, and the State

David Dunn recently wrote an incredibly insightful post about gay marriage and how many Christians are calling on the government to help us protect the “sanctity of marriage.” He says in his article that doing is basically making an idol of the state. I couldn’t agree more! Here is an excerpt from the article he wrote:

Gay Marriage

New York’s recent legalization of gay marriage is being hailed by many as a watershed moment in the history of the fight for equal rights for same sex couples. Whatever the long-term consequences of this decision may be, chances are, in the near term, it will be met with increased opposition from Christian conservatives. Their efforts, which reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of marriage, are misguided at best and sinful at worst. There will always be Christians who oppose “homosexuality” on moral grounds, but enlisting the state to protect “the sanctity of marriage” is a mistake. Such efforts demonstrate a fundamental – even idolatrous – misunderstanding of the meaning of “holy matrimony,” effectively denying Christ by vesting the state with divine authority.

California’s infamous Proposition 8 and similar measures sure to make it onto the ballots during next year’s election fall prey to the so-called Constantinian temptation. When Constantine legalized Christianity in the early fourth century, some began to see an almost godlike authority in the state. An increasing number of Christians found it difficult to tell the difference between the things that belong to Caesar and the things that belong to God.

Yet, despite their confusion, those earlier Christians generally knew there was a difference between God and the state, even if they could not always tell where it was. Our sin is worse. Today’s Christian conservatives seem to be worshiping America, or at least a certain idea of it, when they ask the government to protect the “sanctity” of marriage. In doing this, they have vested the state with the power to sanctify.

[Read more…]

God is Uncategorized Bible & Theology Topics: Discipleship, gay marriage, homosexuality, idolatry, sacraments, sanctity of marriage, Theology of the Church

Advertisement

C. S. Lewis on Gay Marriage

By Jeremy Myers
46 Comments

C. S. Lewis on Gay Marriage

CS LewisAs far I know, C. S. Lewis never directly wrote about gay marriage (but see the update note at bottom of this post). But he did write about whether or not the government should be involved in defining what is marriage and what is not.

In his classic book, Mere Christianity C. S. Lewis wrote something which directly applies to the question in our courts and churches today about defining marriage. Lewis was writing about marriage between divorced people, but the idea can equally be applied to marriage between two gay people.

Here is what he wrote:

Before leaving the question of divorce, I should like to distinguish two things which are very often confused. The Christian conception of marriage is one: the other is quite the different question—how far Christians, if they are voters or Members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws. A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for every one. I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the Mohammedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine.

My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognize that the majority of the British people are not Christian and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not.

Incidentally, Lewis’ view appears to be quite similar to my view on the gay marriage amendment. It is time for Christians to recognize that the United States Government (or any human government for that matter) is not the enforcer of biblical guidelines and laws. Governments make their own laws which they believe will help bring peace, safety, and security within their own lands, but these laws are often at odds with the instructions and commands of Scripture.

Even though the government makes something “legal,” this does not mean that it is now legal for Christians, for we must follow both the laws of God and the laws of our government, with the laws of our King taking precedent in our personal behavior over the laws of our land. And we must be wary about trying to get our government to enforce Biblical guidelines on all the people in a country, for if it can be done with “Christian” laws, it can also be done at a later time with “Muslim” laws, or “Mormon” laws, or whatever religion is in “power” at the time. C. S. Lewis gives the example of Muslims and their prohibition to drinking alcohol, but if Mormons ever came into power over the country, maybe they would put a law into effect prohibiting the drinking of coffee. Then where would we be? Just imagine if Romney had been elected President!!!

I’m joking, of course, for I doubt Mormons would ever do that. But in some countries Muslims are trying to enforce their Sharia law upon everybody in that country, just as here in the United States some Christians are trying to enforce some of our laws on all the people in our country. If anything has been learned from history, we know that it is bad for everybody when any religion picks up the sword of government and tries to enforce religious laws on anybody.

UPDATE: In re-reading The Four Loves recently, I discovered that Lewis did in fact write about homosexuality, but mainly in the context of male friendship. He scoffs at the idea that some modern proponents of homosexual marriage see homosexual behavior in the deep male friendships of ancient literature. Here is some of what he says:

It has actually become necessary in our time to rebut the theory that every firm and serious friendship is really homosexual (p. 245)

Which Lewis then goes on to do for the next page or two. He concludes with this:

Kisses, tears and embraces are not in themselves evidence of homosexuality. The implications would be, if nothing else, too comic. Hrothgar embracing Beowulf, Johnson embracing Boswell (a pretty flagrantly heterosexual couple) and all those hairy old toughs of centurions in Tacitus, clinging to one another and begging for last kisses when the legion was broken up… all pansies? [His word; not mine!!!] If you can believe that you can believe anything (p. 247).

So he did say a little something on the subject after all…

UPDATE 2: I have been reading the letters of C. S. Lewis compiled in Yours, Jack. C. S. Lewis wrote a letter to Sheldon Vanauken about homosexuality (p. 241). In it, he wrote this:

I take it for certain that the physical satisfaction of homosexual desires is sin. This leaves the homosexual no worse off than any normal person who is, for whatever reason, prevented from marrying. Second, our speculations on the cause of the abnormality are not what matters and we must be content with ignorance. The disciples were not told why the man was born blind (John 9:1-3): only the final cause: that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

… What should the positive life of the homosexual be? I wish I had a letter which a pious male homosexual, now dead, once wrote to me–but of course it was the sort of letter one takes care to destroy. He believed that his necessity could be turned to spiritual gain: that there were certain kinds of sympathy and understanding, a certain social role which mere men and mere women could not give. But it is all horribly vague–too long ago. Perhaps any homosexual who humbly accepts his cross and puts himself under divine guidance will be shown the way.

Did you like this post? Share it below! Also, you may like to read what Jesus taught about homosexuality.

God is Redeeming Life Bible & Theology Topics: CS Lewis, Discipleship, gay marriage, homosexual, homosexuality

Advertisement

Would you invite this couple back to your church?

By Jeremy Myers
43 Comments

Would you invite this couple back to your church?

Holding Hands

Imagine yourself in church, and as the service starts, a young couple sits down in front of you. You are a bit surprised to see them in church, because you know one of them from work. He is not the kind of guy you think would come to church. But here he is!

As the service starts, the worship leader invites everybody to stand and greet those around them. You do, and warmly greet the couple in front of you. The guy you know from work says they came because you are always talking about how great your church is. You are excited he came because of that, but are a little nervous because you know he isn’t the “churchgoing” type. The couple isn’t married, but is very sexually active, and they don’t have any qualms about public displays of affection. You hope they don’t hold hands or kiss during the service.

But wouldn’t you know it…as the music starts, they put their arms around each other and hold one another close. Then, after a few minutes, they start holding hands. You look around nervously. Not even many married people hold hands when they are in your church, and you are afraid how this couple’s affection will be taken, especially since you know most people know that they are not married.

During the sermon, they sit close enough to each other that they are touching, but that’s about it.

After the service is over, they turn around to greet you again, and say, “You were right! We really liked attending here. I think we will come again next week.”

What would you say to them? Who would you introduce them to? Would you tell them to not hold hands next week? Would you tell them about a six-inch rule for unmarried couples? Would you tell them that sex before marriage was a sin and God did not approve of fornication?

Oh, and before you answer, I forgot to tell you…The couple is gay. It’s two guys.

Now, with that information, what would you say?

P.S. I originally wrote this post 10 years ago! It is interesting to compare the comments that came in back then with the comments that come in today. Be part of the historic conversation and add your own input below!

Gay Couple Holding Hands

God is Redeeming Church Bible & Theology Topics: church, Discipleship, gay, gay marriage, gays, homosexual, homosexuality, lgbt, Theology of Salvation

Advertisement

Join the discipleship group
Learn about the gospel and how to share it

Take my new course:

The Gospel According to Scripture
Best Books Every Christian Should Read
Study Scripture with me
Subscribe to my Podcast on iTunes
Subscribe to my Podcast on Amazon

Do you like my blog?
Try one of my books:

Click the image below to see what books are available.

Books by Jeremy Myers

Theological Study Archives

  • Theology – General
  • Theology Introduction
  • Theology of the Bible
  • Theology of God
  • Theology of Man
  • Theology of Sin
  • Theology of Jesus
  • Theology of Salvation
  • Theology of the Holy Spirit
  • Theology of the Church
  • Theology of Angels
  • Theology of the End Times
  • Theology Q&A

Bible Study Archives

  • Bible Studies on Genesis
  • Bible Studies on Esther
  • Bible Studies on Psalms
  • Bible Studies on Jonah
  • Bible Studies on Matthew
  • Bible Studies on Luke
  • Bible Studies on Romans
  • Bible Studies on Ephesians
  • Miscellaneous Bible Studies

Advertise or Donate

  • Advertise on RedeemingGod.com
  • Donate to Jeremy Myers

Search (and you Shall Find)

Get Books by Jeremy Myers

Books by Jeremy Myers

Schedule Jeremy for an interview

Click here to Contact Me!

© 2025 Redeeming God · All Rights Reserved · Powered by Knownhost and the Genesis Framework