SOME ARE EUNUCHS:Jesus Christ's ONLY Comment on Human Sexuality
7 January 2000
Overly literal interpretations of Bible verses can be confounding. At times, they can be comical. They can also be dangerous. I find one of the most disturbing aspects of many fundamentalist denominations to be their fervent, uncompromising insistence on unbending, rock-ribbed literalism when it comes to the Bible. And with few exceptions, their Bible of choice is the King James Version, or "KJV."
The KJV is one of the principle weapons in the anti-gay arsenal, lending its peculiarly (sometimes mistakenly) translated verses alluding to "lying with a man as thou wouldst with a woman," "vile affections," and "giving themselves over to strange flesh." But one of the greatest ironies I have ever encountered is the fact that the man who lent his name to that book; the man who, though he did not engage in the actual translation, chartered and financed the entire project; the man who was Scottish-born King James I, and reigned over England from 1603 to 1625 -- was homosexual.
But that, truly, is a topic for another essay.
Concerning the King James Bible, since the English language has evolved so much over the ensuing 380+ years since the KJV was written, there are many words and phrases in it that are almost incomprehensible to the modern reader, unless he or she is a student of Jamesian/Elizabethan era (16th-17th century) English. From having taken several courses in Shakespeare, I'm pretty good at decoding it -- but there are nonetheless many, many passages that are confusing without a more up-to-date version. In using a newer translation, if I encounter any passage that is especially tough or ambiguous, or where I suspect the original meaning might have been corrupted, I research it back to the original Hebrew or Greek, look in a translating dictionary, and work it out for myself. But I doubt many people take it that far. Indeed, most fundamentalists content themselves to accept without hesitation or question whatever organized religion teaches them on the meaning of King James Bible verses.
This truly amazes me, and behooves me to ask: Of what use is a Bible translation which must be explained to people? What good can come from a Bible that most people cannot readily understand for themselves? I'm not even remotely suggesting we throw the KJV in the trashcan. But where did this notion come from that must we accept the King James version as more authoritative than any other -- in some peoples' estimation, even to the exclusion of any other? Last and certainly not least, the very intention behind the KJV was to put a Bible into the hands of the common man and woman that could be readily understood. Are religious conservatives aware that by insisting upon such an antiquated Bible translation today that they are actually abandoning this worthwhile objective of yesterday?
I want to examine a few King James passages and the results that can occur from overly literal interpretations. First, there's this one from the Gospel of Matthew:
So much for the "comical" results of Biblical literalism of which I spoke earlier. Other results are not quite so entertaining.
There are fanatical cultists known as "Biblical Reconstructionists" who believe we should reconstruct society to follow, to the letter, the Old Testament Laws of Israel. Writing for The Public Eye Magazine, Frederick Clarkson explains:
Those who are open to less restrictive and literal interpretations of the Bible -- even the KJV -- still are not above making occasional errors. For instance, no one would seriously suggest that women should eat only bread based on Matthew 4:4 and Luke 4:4, which quote Jesus as saying, "Man" shall not live by bread alone. Yet how many have completely misunderstood Genesis 19 in the famous "Sodom and Gomorrah" tale, and thought that the crowd outside Lot's home was comprised of only men? Indeed, it was not: Genesis 19:4 clearly states "all the people from every quarter" of the town were out there. [See my deconstruction of Sodom & Gomorrah for more on this subject.] In fact, it is this same sort of unfortunate sexism (whether intentional or accidental) which has caused many people to overlook the monumental significance of Jesus's lesson on the topic of marriage. And it is this point which brings us to my most important objective here; that being a close examination of the phrase "Some are eunuchs" in Matthew 19. Continued....
I have two goals in writing this essay, the most important of which is to show that Jesus Christ never directly mentioned homosexuality. In fact, He did not mention or endorse human sexuality of any kind. Please note carefully the distinction I am drawing between "sex" and "sexuality." Jesus did mention specific sexual acts which He considered sinful, such as adultery. But that is not the same thing as sexuality -- a persons inner sexual orientation. Careful reading will show only one passage where Jesus indirectly dealt with the subject, and that passage -- Matthew 19:11-12 -- is a sympathetic, not a hostile one. My secondary goal here is to illustrate the utter folly of demanding a literal interpretation for Biblical verses when a figurative meaning is clearly called for.
"Enter into thy closet" had a different meaning back then than it does now. Whereas today we think of a closet as a small storage space, in that day, it meant simply a private room. Yet there have been some fundamentalist sects which have literally built "prayer closets" based on this verse! (It also might give an entirely new meaning to the term gay "closet case!")
In the name of Christianity, such people would obliterate the U.S. Constitutional line between church and state and establish a theocracy (and slaughter a shocking number of people in the process, it would seem). Yet how ironic that one of the most profound lessons ever taught on the separation of church and state was by the very Leader of Christianity Himself in His famous "Render unto Caesar" command in Matthew 22:21 !
CLICK HERE TO READ NEXT SEGMENT
Return to menu of essays
Return to "V.E.'s" home page.
