I had previously mentioned the meme that listed all of the scriptures that affirmed homosexuality, and I found it. So today I’m going to take each of these scriptures, one at a time, and look to see if we can find where there is actually affirmation and approval of homosexuality. Then at the end I’ll look at the whole “would Jesus discriminate” idea.
So let’s start with Matthew 8:5-13:
5 And when Jesus entered Capernaum, a centurion came to Him, begging Him, 6 and saying, “Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, terribly tormented.” 7 Jesus *said to him, “I will come and heal him.” 8 But the centurion replied, “Lord, I am not worthy for You to come under my roof, but just say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9 For I also am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to this one, ‘Go!’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come!’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this!’ and he does it.” 10 Now when Jesus heard this, He was amazed and said to those who were following, “Truly I say to you, I have not found such great faith with anyone in Israel. 11 And I say to you that many will come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven; 12 but the sons of the kingdom will be thrown out into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” 13 And Jesus said to the centurion, “Go; it shall be done for you as you have believed.” And the servant was healed at that very moment.
So, for clarification up front, I use the NASB (New American Standard Bible) as my preferred translation. Supposedly it is one of the more historically and scripturally accurate versions, from things I’ve read on the different translations. With that being said, I have looked through at least a dozen other translations and I have yet to find anything that would indicate in any way that this is somehow “Jesus affirming a gay couple.” I can’t find any interpretation or analysis of any translation that views this in that light. And this will be a common theme of many of these scriptures. The people who create memes like this bank on the understanding that 99.9% of people don’t know the scripture and aren’t going to go look it up…they’ll just reference a meme as “proof” that this thing is true. I’d be interested to see a defense of this scripture as being affirming of a gay couple, but as of this writing I have not been able to find one.
We’ll stay in Matthew and look at Chapter 19:10-12 for the next one:
10 The disciples said to Him, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.” 11 But He said to them, “Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by people; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who is able to accept this, let him accept it.”
This one actually gets brought out regularly as an example that people are born gay. Which completely misses the very definition of eunuch and understanding of the role of the eunuch in Jewish and Roman society of the time. A man “born that way from their mother’s womb” as is described in this scripture would not be gay… they would be more accurately defined as asexual. But the overall point of the eunuch of that time is they do not engage in any sexual activity of any sort, neither heterosexual nor homosexual. In Jewish culture they remain chaste and dedicate their lives to study and prayer and devotion to God and service to the Kingdom of Heaven. So what we’ve found in this scripture is a complete ignorance of reality in favor of promotion of a narrative. Eunuch =/= Gay. Not even remotely close…
Sticking with the New Testament, we’ll have a look at Acts 8:26-40:
26 But an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip, saying, “Get ready and go south to the road that descends from Jerusalem to Gaza.” (This is a desert road.) 27 So he got ready and went; and there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure; and he had come to Jerusalem to worship, 28 and he was returning and sitting in his chariot, and was reading Isaiah the prophet. 29 Then the Spirit said to Philip, “Go up and join this chariot.” 30 Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” 31 And he said, “Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. 32 Now the passage of Scripture which he was reading was this:
“He was led like a sheep to slaughter;
And like a lamb that is silent before its shearer,
So He does not open His mouth.
33 In humiliation His justice was taken away;
Who will describe His generation?
For His life is taken away from the earth.”
34 The eunuch answered Philip and said, “Please tell me, of whom does the prophet say this? Of himself, or of someone else?” 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him. 36 As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch *said, “Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?” 38 And he ordered that the chariot stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him. 39 When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away; and the eunuch no longer saw him, but went on his way rejoicing. 40 But Philip found himself at Azotus, and as he passed through he kept preaching the gospel to all the cities, until he came to Caesarea.
According to the meme, this scripture is an example of the early church accepting a gay man. All of the translations I have looked at describe this particular segment as “An Ethiopian Receives Christ.” It would seem the meme creators are confusing the sexuality of eunuchs once again. And this is not uncommon for those who want to promote a particular agenda…take a particular word or phrase, twist it out of it’s actual definitional meaning, and then continue to hammer that misinterpretation over and over again until no one argues with you on the matter. It is both dishonest and disingenuous. These things should be looked in to and called out at every turn. Words have purpose, definition, and meaning, and those things are important. Allowing them to be conflated for a political agenda bastardizes our language, the word, and the people who fit the actual description of the word being used.
Next let’s move to the Old Testament and II Samuel 1:26 and check in on to-be King David:
26 I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan;
You have been a close friend to me.
Your love for me was more wonderful
Than the love of women.
This is a blatant mischaracterization of the lines “Your love for me was more wonderful than the love of women.” Literally nothing about the relationship between David and Jonathan was sexual in any manner or nature. If you read through the entirety of I Samuel you’ll see that they were bonded like brothers; Saul, Jonathan’s father, loved and treated David as his own son (aside from the times he was trying to kill him). They fought together in battles and commanded Saul’s armies together. In this particular verse David has just learned that both Saul and Jonathan have been killed in battle. All of the first chapter of II Samuel is David learning what happened to them, and his song of lament at their deaths. Perhaps, in our modern society where relationships are almost always separated by some degrees for varying reasons, it is hard for people to understand brotherly love on the level that is described throughout the Bible (not just in the example of David and Jonathan). And that could be the most damning condemnation of the current state of our culture; the fact that people cannot fathom a love like that without it being viewed sexually or somehow being perverted in to a thing that it is not.
We will close out with the final Old Testament scriptures, Genesis 2:24 and Ruth 1:14
24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.
14 And they raised their voices and wept again; and Orpah kissed her mother-in-law, but Ruth clung to her.
To be completely honest, I have absolutely no idea what the creator of the meme was attempting to get at with the inclusion of these scriptures. Again, absolutely nothing in the scriptures describes anything that could be perceived as a homosexual relationship between the women. Naomi’s husband and both sons had died, and Naomi was sending her daughters-in-law back to their own people. Orpah left and returned to her people, but Ruth begged to stay and return with Naomi to her own homeland. Naomi allowed her to remain and took her on as her daughter. That’s the long and short of it.
So, the moral of the story is to always check the scriptures being listed whenever someone is trying to use the Bible to push an agenda. More often than not, they’re relying on the fact that most people who see or hear what they have to say neither know the Bible well enough to refute them, and won’t take the time to do the research to find out if it’s accurate or not.
In closing, we have the question “would Jesus discriminate?” And obviously, for anyone who has read the gospels, the answer is absolutely yes. He tells his followers not to associate with certain people. He tells sinners to turn from their sin or depart from him. He flips tables and calls out Pharisees. He is not the “Buddy Jesus” modern society wants him to be, as I discussed in a previous article. The whole idea that Jesus is anything and everything to whoever needs that thing at that time is complete lunacy. Reading the preaching and teachings of Jesus, along with understanding the time he was living in, the part of the world and culture he was living in, and the full context of these stories and their connection from the Old Testament running out through all of the various letters, you can find a very clear and direct message for what is meant. It’s blatant dishonesty, if not outright evil, that twists and distorts that and tries to manufacture a narrative where none exists. Like the meme shared at the beginning.