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
153 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

Stop Saying You “Love the Sinner; Hate the Sin”

By Jeremy Myers
449 Comments

Stop Saying You “Love the Sinner; Hate the Sin”

love the sinner hate the sinIt is common in Christian circles to hear admonitions to “Love the Sinner; hate the sin.”

More and more I hear this said in the context of LGBT people and gay marriage.

“Oh, I don’t hate gay people, I just hate the gay lifestyle. … You know, I love the sinner, but hate the sin.”

There are so many things wrong with the “Love the Sinner; Hate the Sin” statement, I hardly know where to begin. So let’s begin with a laugh:

Calvin and Hobbs love the sinner hate the sin

Now… on with the post…

There are several things wrong with the statement, “Love the Sinner; Hate the Sin.”

Let’s begin with the word “sinner”

love the sinner hate the sinThe simple fact that we label the person we are talking about as a “sinner” indicates that we do not have love for them in the first place.

To label someone a “sinner” is to imply that they are outside of God’s grace and unless they clean up their act, cannot be forgiven.

To label someone a “sinner” reveals an “us vs. them” mentality, where you are the “righteous” person looking down your nose at the poor, wretched, ignorant “sinners” down below who just cannot get their act together. If only they would listen to what you tell them to do…

We Christians pay lip service to the idea that “We are all sinners” but we reveal that we do not really believe this when label someone else a “sinner.”

By labeling them a “sinner,” we condemn the sin of someone else as worse than our own.

Then there’s the word “hate”

love vs hateWhen a watching world says Christians are full of hate, it is not a good strategy to tell them that we don’t hate them we just hate their sin.

Why do we have to “hate” anything?

Is it because God “hates” sin?

Well, there are some statement like this in the Bible, but such statements require great care in understanding and applying them to life.

We have to understand why God says what He says.

We also have to recognize that even if God does “hate” (which I don’t think He does … at least, not the way we understand it), He doesn’t anywhere tell us to hate.

Furthermore, we have to recognize that when God uses this sort of language about certain sins, it is not because He that upset at the person for committing the sin, or even at the sin itself for being so “terrible.” God isn’t nearly as worked up about sin as we are. God is not in the sin-management business.

The reason God says some strong things about certain sins in the Bible is because these sins hurt us, and He loves us, and doesn’t want to see us hurt by sin.

So if you really, really want to hate someone’s sin, hate a sin which is actually hurtful to them and to others. Hate a sin like rape, murder, incest, child abuse, torture, sex slavery, or one of the other multitudes of damaging and destructive sins.

But why do we Christians sometimes focus on hating the “sins” in others that they say results in love and community? If a homosexual couple wants to get married because they say they love each other, why would we say they cannot?

“Because it destroys families!”

Really? How exactly does their love hurt your family? I suspect any problems in your family might be found a bit closer to home…

“Because it destroys the definition of marriage!”

Is it really? And even if it does, so what? What is more important? The definition of a word or a relationship between people? Don’t use an argument over the definition of a word as an excuse to hate people. That sounds an awful lot like something a Pharisee would do in the days of Jesus. Even if the definition of marriage changes, will that somehow ruin your marriage? I cannot possibly think how.

“Yeah, but … but … AIDS!!! They’re gonna get AIDS and AIDS will hurt them and so I’m just trying to warn them about the dangers of AIDS! You see? I am concerned about them! I don’t want them to get AIDS!”

… If this is how you express your concern, I think they don’t need it.

I could say so much more about this, but I must move on. Here is a post which says more: Love the Sinner, hate the sin is really just hate

love the sinner hate the sin is just hate

There is also a problem with the word “sin”

Yes, yes, “sin” is a biblical word. No, I don’t want people to stop talking about sin.

But here is what I have noticed in my own life, and among the majority of Christians.

We all have our “favorite sins” we commit.

We have sins we ourselves commit all the time that we don’t bat an eyelash at. And when someone point out to us the sin in our own life, we say, “Well, Christians aren’t perfect, you know.” Or maybe we say, “Thank God for grace!” Or possibly, “Yeah, I know that’s an issue, but God is working with me on that.” Occasionally, we may even justify our behavior and says, “What?! No, that’s not a sin! Stop judging me!”

Lots of these “favorite sins” in Christians circles are even “Pulpit approved.” That is, pastors and churches leaders raise up these “sins” as virtues to be acquired.

The sin of pride is called “healthy self-esteem.”

The sin of gluttony is called “Respecting the wife’s cooking.”

The sin of laziness is called “relaxing after work.”

The sin of greed is calling “planning for the future.”

The sin of national idolatry is called “patriotism.”

The sin of hate is called “warning them of the fires of hell.”

The sin of anger is called “standing up for what I believe.”

And so on.

These are our favorite sins, and we have baptized our sins to make them acceptable and even praiseworthy. And even when our sins our not praiseworthy, we allow ourselves excuses which we never allow to anyone else.

mark lawry on love the sin hate the sinner

And then we have our “favorite sins” we like to point out in others.

These sins are ones we typically do not commit, but we use these to make ourselves feel better about our own sin. How? We point them out in others and condemn them and their sin for all the problems in the world and in society.

Ironically, when we point out the “sin” in others, we hardly ever allow them to use the same “excuses” toward us that we use toward others about the sin in our own lives. We tell them that their sin is worse than ours. That their sin is destroying the unity in the church. That their sin is bringing down our country. That their sin is perverting our culture. That they better fix their life right now, or God is going to kill them and punish them and send them to hell to burn forever.

More ironically still, the favorite sin we love to condemn in others the most are usually the sins that are mentioned by Scripture the least, whereas the “favorite sins” we ourselves commit are the sins that get a lot of attention in Scripture.

Take the most popular “sin” in America to condemn right now: homosexuality. It is mentioned 3 times in the Bible (6 times at the most, depending on how you want to understand a few terms).

But how often are greed, pride, slander, gluttony, anger, and hatred mentioned? I don’t know, but it’s probably in the hundreds for each one.

So why have we picked out this one “sin” as the one to focus on?

Because we need a scapegoat to blame for our own sin, and the “other,” the “outsider,” the “one who is not like us,” is always the person who gets chosen to be the scapegoat.

So to bring this back around…

love and hateWhen we say, “Love the sinner; hate the sin,” what we are really saying is “I will love only those I want to love, and I will hate and despise and cast out those people who do things I have decided are worse than the things I myself do, and this way I can make myself feel better while I condemn them for all the problems that I myself have contributed to but don’t want to admit.”

That’s my problem with the word “sin” in that statement. It sets us up in the position of God to decide which sins are worse than others, and which sins can be overlooked and which cannot. It makes us the arbiter or grace and forgiveness.

Which is the worst sin of all? When we say “Love the Sinner; Hate the Sin” we ourselves commit the worse sin possible, by setting ourselves up in the position of God to decide which sin is acceptable and which is not. We Christians must repent of this self-idolatrous, scapegoating judgmentalism of others.

And finally, the entire “Love the Sinner; Hate the Sin” statement is complete BS

If you just take the statement as a whole, it makes no sense.

People are complex creatures, and psychologically and emotionally, it is nearly impossible to separate what a person does from who a person is. This is especially true when a person is the way they are because they were born that way.

Forget homosexuality; take obesity as an example.

Many people who are overweight say that they were born with a slow metabolism, or they have some sort of disorder. Or maybe they went through some difficult times in life that were out of their control and psychologically turned to food for comfort. Or maybe they were just born with tastebuds and a stomach that really liked to eat good food.

Now imagine going up to such a person and saying, “Overeating is a sin. I love you, but I hate your fatness.” How will such a person respond?

I believe that person will be rightly offended.

Here’s the bottom line: If you love someone, you love all of them — even the lifestyle choices that might have resulted from sinful actions and behavior.

This does not mean you have to agree with what they do, but instead, you simply view the things in their life that you don’t agree with the same way you view all the sinful habits and choices you make in your own life.

And how do you want people to view you and your sin? You want to be loved while others withhold judgment.

This also is how you should view others who do things, say things, or live in ways that you think are “sinful.” Just love them, and withhold judgment.

And look, if you really want to start judging some sin somewhere, start with the whole mess in your own life first. Stop pointing out what you think is the sinful behavior in other people, and instead, work on the stuff in your own life.

I think Jesus said something about that… (You know … something about specks in their eye and a log in your own?) And when the Bible does talk about the relationship between love and sin, it says that love covers a multitude of sins. Hmmm…

just love and forgive the sin

The One Word I Like

So when it comes down to it, the only part of the “Love the Sinner; Hate the Sin” statement that I like is the word “love.”

just loveAnd why can’t that be enough? When we see someone else behaving in ways we don’t approve of and which we think is sin (and as long as it’s not illegal or harming someone), why can’t “love” be the only word that comes to our mind?

Apparently, Jesus loved this other person enough to die for them. And if He loved them, why can’t we?

So the next time you are tempted to say you “Love the Sinner; hate the sin,” just stop at love.

God is Redeeming Life, Redeeming Theology Bible & Theology Topics: forgiveness, homosexuality, looks like Jesus, love, love like Jesus, Theology of Sin

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

I’m so tired of hate speech and guilt trips masquerading as the Gospel

By Jeremy Myers
86 Comments

I’m so tired of hate speech and guilt trips masquerading as the Gospel

angry preachers hate speechI listened to a sermon today in which the preacher (I’m not going to call him a pastor) said these things:

If you are going to follow Jesus, you need to stop hanging out with your non-Christian friends…

Gays are disgusting people…

God has called me to a new ministry…

On that last point, the preacher forgot to mention publicly that he got a $10,000 bonus for agreeing to go to this new area of ministry.

If I were a bolder person, I would have stood up and called him out on these points.

But I didn’t.

Instead, I took notes so I could write a blog post about it…

Look, here’s the point…

If you are going to preach hate, legalism, and self-righteousness, don’t do it in the name of Jesus, and don’t call it the Gospel. Of course, that’s probably asking too much.

When it comes to hate speech, legalism, and self-righteousness, Christianity has a corner on the market. 

The Gospel is good news. The center of the Gospel is the message of Jesus: that God loves everyone, has forgiven everyone, and extends infinite grace to everyone. If you claim to be a Christian but can’t preach that, it makes me think you don’t understand the Gospel.

God is z Bible & Theology Topics: Discipleship, evangelism, forgiveness, gays, gospel, grace, hate, homosexuality, love of God, pastoral ministry, Preaching

Advertisement

The Next Christian Crusade

By Jeremy Myers
17 Comments

The Next Christian Crusade

christian crusadesThe Christian crusades of the Middle Ages were one of the greatest evils ever carried on in the history of the world. Oh, I know, I know. It was nothing compared to the holocaust, right? The crusades were just wars where one country was trying to get land from another country, right?

Wrong.

I would argue that the crusades were worse than the holocaust and all other wars. Why? Because the crusades were carried out in the name of Jesus and under the banner of the church. Though numerous evils occur in this world, they become exponentially more evil when done in the name of Jesus.

Which is worse? Rape, or raping someone in the name of Jesus? It does happen. Some men treat their wives like crap, and then when the woman doesn’t want to sleep with him, he rapes her, quoting 1 Corinthians 7:4-5: “The wife does not have authority over her own body; but the husband does,” and “Do not deprive one another…”

Which is worse? Killing babies, or killing them in the name of Jesus? Again, this happens also. We have all read news stories about parents who kill their children because they thought Jesus was telling them to do so. That is not Jesus; that is pure evil.

Which is worse? Going to war, or going to war in the name of Jesus?  War is bad enough, but when we go forward to kill and conquer others for the cause of Christ, we are not following Jesus but the devil instead.

The New Christian Crusade

So I was shocked and outraged to learn about a new “Crusade” that is starting to take place in Uganda under the guise of Christianity and bearing the name of Jesus. It is a new “Holy War” for Jesus where Christians are going out to kill other people because those people live a certain way. And before we too quickly blame African Christians for such barbaric behavior, it is American Christians who are going over to Africa to teach and encourage the Christians there to engage in this bloody and murderous crusade.

There is a documentary coming out this week about this newest Christian crusade. It is called “God Loves Uganda.” Here is the preview:

I have looked at some of the comments on this video on other blogs, and it is shocking to me how some Christians try to defend what is going on in Africa at the hands of Christians.

God loves ugandaI read one person who said, “They’re gay and under the curse of God!” WHAT? Even if that were true (it isn’t), that gives you the right to kill them? Such an idea is Satanic.

Another person said that what the Ugandan Christians were doing is nothing compared to what the Muslims are doing or what Kony is doing. So…. our standards of behavior are now Muslim extremists and Kony? Whatever happened to following the ways of Jesus?

Look, I am sure there are extenuating circumstances in Uganda that I know nothing about. I am sure that the makers of this film had some sort of agenda. I am sure that some of the people who kill others in the name of Jesus are not really Christians.

But I don’t care about any of that.

As long as there are Christians who teach people to hate others because of their lifestyle, politics, or skin color, there must be other Christians who stand up and denounce such behavior as having absolutely nothing to do with Jesus Christ or His church.

Where do You Stand?

If you want to read more about this film and it’s director, Roger Ross Williams, I recommend an interview he did here with the Sundance Film Festival. Here is one thing he said:

It’s OK to believe that homosexuality is not God’s way, but it’s not OK to condone or support or even look the other way when there’s violence against LGBT people. Many of the Evangelicals who are missionaries in Uganda, even though they’re not directly participating in violence, will look the other way and pretend it’s not happening. If you’re a Christian you don’t condone violence against anyone, but they’re not standing up. American Evangelicals have a huge amount of influence in Uganda.

I do not know if there were Christians who stood up and condemned the Crusades against the Muslims in the Middle Ages, but I, for one, stand up and condemn the Crusade against Gays in our own day. Where do you stand?

God is Uncategorized Bible & Theology Topics: crusade, Discipleship, gays, homosexuality, Jesus, lgbt, love, Theology of the Church

Advertisement

  • 1
  • 2
  • Next Page »
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

Take Online Courses
with N. T. Wright

Choose from Six Courses:
*N. T. Wright on Jesus
*N. T. Wright on Romans
*N. T. Wright on Galatians
*N. T. Wright on Philippians
*N. T. Wright on the Gospel
*N. T. Wright on Worldviews

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!

© 2023 Redeeming God · All Rights Reserved · Powered by Knownhost and the Genesis Framework