Jesus on Homosexuality

Michael Wood

Tubi Publishing, LLC

Jesus on Homosexuality: A Rebuttal to Dr. Robert Gagnon Copyright 2012 by Michael Wood Tubi Publishing, LLC grants permission for this work to be freely copied and distributed, provided it is done so in full, without any editing or modification. Scripture quotations marked (NASB) are taken from the New American Standard Bible, Copyright 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation Used by permission. (www.Lockman.org) Scripture quotations marked (NIV) are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version, NIV. Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984, 2010 by Biblica, Inc. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide. www.zondervan.com

Printed in the United States of America

Contents
Preface.......................................................................................................... iv Chapter One: The Historical Jesus............................................................ 1 Chapter Two: The Golden Rule................................................................. 8 Chapter Three: The Great Divide............................................................ 12 Chapter Four: Pauls Premise................................................................... 18 Chapter Five: Repentance......................................................................... 23 Chapter Six: Atonement........................................................................... 26 Chapter Seven: Law and Prophets........................................................... 31 Chapter Eight: Adam, Eve and Steve...................................................... 40 Chapter Nine: Reframe............................................................................. 43 Chapter Ten: Still Outside........................................................................ 48 Epilogue...................................................................................................... 51

iii

Preface
For the last 1,900 years, Christianity had been assuming that ancient Jewish law was divided into two categories: ritual and morality. The historical record documents that this simply wasnt so. Christianity had been interpreting Jesus teachings based on an erroneous assumption. To be sure, the Jewish nation did divide their commandments into two groups. However, the historical record shows that the dividing line was nothing other than the precept, Love your neighbor as yourself. Every commandment summarized by this precept was a Justice. Every remaining commandment was a Job. Jesus, Paul, and James all used the precept, Love your neighbor as yourself. Now we know that they used this precept to reference a well-established group of commandmentsthe Justices. This historical discovery completely changes our understanding of the New Testament. Each, in his own particular way, used the precept to explain that the Justices alone are the Christian law. The implications of this revolutionary historical discovery couldnt be more profound, especially when it comes to the hot button issue of homosexuality. Surprisingly, the prohibition on homosexuality was a Job (not a Justice). In other words, it turns out that the prohibition on homosexuality wasnt originally part of Christian law. But then, in the second century, when Gentiles dominated the Faith, they introduced the erroneous assumption regarding the dividing line which caused Christianity to err on this very important matter. Jesus on Homosexuality presents scholarly material that documents Christianitys 1,900-year-old error. More importantly, it presents the necessary historical writings for the Church to reclaim her roots, should she decide to do so. Michael Wood April 25, 2012

iv

Chapter One The Historical Jesus

Since Jesus upheld the law, his silence on the issue of homosexuality indicates his acceptance of the teachings of Hebrew Scripture, which as we have seen is unanimous in its rejection of same-sex intercourse.1Dr. Robert Gagnon Dr. Robert Gagnon is one of the leading anti-homosexual voices. While Dr. Gagnon does not argue against homosexual feelings, he strongly condemns homosexual actions. According to Gagnon, Jesus unambiguously forbade homosexual intercourse. His proof rests on the following logic: 1. Old Testament law forbade homosexual intercourse. 2. Jesus upheld the entirety of Old Testament law. 3. Therefore, Jesus forbade homosexual intercourse. Dr. Gagnons logic is perfectly sound. Jesus view of Old Testament law definitively informs us whether he forbade homosexuality or not. Yet, ironically, Dr. Gagnons perfect logic is his total undoing. Recent historical findings now document that Jesus repudiated the Old Testament prohibition on homosexuality. The most pertinent historical findings are as follows: First century Jews divided the commandments of their law into two groups: Jobs (commandments between man and God) and Justices (commandments between man and man).2
1 Gagnon, Robert A. J. (2002-09-01). Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Kindle Locations 3852-3853). Abingdon Press. Kindle Edition. 2 Jewish tradition makes a distinction between mitzvot bein adam la-Mokom commandments between a person and Godand mitzvot bein adam la-chavero commandments between one person and another.Central Conference of American Rabbis (Gates of Mitzvah: A Guide to the Jewish Life Cycle by Simeon J. 1

Jesus on Homosexuality

The precept Love your neighbor as yourself determined whether a commandment was a Justice or a Job. (Every commandment summarized by Love your neighbor as yourself was a Justice. Every other commandment was a Job.)3
Maslin and Central Conference of American Rabbis, p. 97, CCAR Press, 1979) ----The traditional division of laws is bein adam le-havero, between man and his fellow man, and bein adam la-makom, between man and God Talmudic scholar Joseph Dov Soloveitchik (The Emergence of Ethical Man by Joseph Dov Soloveitchik, Michael S. Berger, p. 198, KTAV Publishing House, Inc.) ----Jewish law distinguishes among matters between man and God and matters between man and his fellow. (The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion by Adele Berlin, Maxine Grossman, p. 254, Oxford University Press, Mar 14, 2011) ----Judaism is a religion of commandments between man and God and commandments between man and man. (Traditions, Values, and Humanitarian Action by Kevin M. Cahill, p. 34, Fordham Univ Press, Jan 1, 2003) ----In his Epistle to the Romans, the apostle Paul used the terms Justices and Jobs to designate the two groups of commandments. Justices translates Greek dikaimata; while Jobs translates Greek erga, literally works. Justices of the Torah (dikaimata tou nomou) is used by Paul in Romans 2:26; Jobs of the Torah (erga tou nomou) is used by Paul in Romans 3:20. Conventional Bibles mistranslate dikaimata tou nomou as requirements of the law. (For a detailed discussion and documentation regarding the ancient meaning of Greek dikaimata see Paul on Homosexuality, chapter 22, Mystery Solved, and chapter 23, Oxymoron.) 3 Rabbi Pinchas was one of the greatest Talmudists (Jewish legal scholars) of all time. His scholarly research is still studied and quoted to this day. Rabbi Pinchas states that all of the commandments between man and man are included in this precept of loving ones neighbor. (Judaism and Global Survival by Richard H. Schwartz, p. 14, Lantern Books, 2002) ----E P Sanders notes, On the Sabbath, Jews throughout the world gathered in schools where they learned what he calls their ancestral philosophy. This philosophy, Philo notes, falls under two headings: duty toward God and duty toward other humans; that is, the Jewish philosophy consisted of the two tables of the Jewish law. When they wanted to summarize these two divisions of the law, Jews quoted two central passages from their Scripture (the Christian Old Testament). One is found in Deuteronomy 6, the famous passage called the Shema in Hebrew, from its first

Michael Wood

The Justices included philanthropy and ethics. The Jobs included ritual observances and sexual taboos.4
word, Hear. These are the first two verses of the passage: Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God, the Lord alone. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might. (Deut 6:4-5) The second passage enjoins, as Philo put it, fellowship with all humans and philanthrpia, love of humanity. It is Love your neighbor as yourself (Lev 19:18). Jesus and the First Table of the Jewish Law by E. P. Sanders in Jews and Christians Speak of Jesus, pp. 55-73, A. E. Zannoni, Fortress, 1994; as reprinted in The Historical Jesus in Recent Research by James D. G. Dunn, Scot McKnight, pp. 225-226, Eisenbrauns, 2005. ----Philo presents this dual division of the law based on the two love commandments as though obvious or well-known. (Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and its Interpreters by Dale C. Allison, p. 154, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2005) ----The notion that the two love commands (love God and love neighbor ) encompass all of Gods commandments is presumed throughout the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs (t. Issachar 5:2, 7:6-7; t. Dan 5:1-3; t. Gad 4:1-2; t. Jos 11:1; t. Benj. 3:-1-3; t. Reub. 6:8-9). ----For further documentation see also The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and Its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity by Hubertus Waltherus Maria Van De Sandt, Huub Van De Sandt, David Flsser, p. 156, Fortress Press, 2002; and Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as it was at the Start of the Common Era by James L. Kugel, p. 758, Harvard University Press, 1998. 4 forbidden sexual acts are classified as transgressions between man and God. (Maimonides Ethics: The Encounter of Philosophic and Religious Morality by Raymond L. Weiss, p. 75, University of Chicago Press, Oct 25, 1991) For further documentation see also Judaism and Homosexuality: An Authentic Orthodox View by Rabbi Chaim Rapoport, p. 159 n. 68, Vallentine Mitchell, 2004. ----The punishment for [false] measures is more severe than the punishment for illicit sexual relations, for the latter is between man and God, whereas the former is between man and his fellow. Rambam in Hilkhot Geneva 7:12 as quoted in Jewish Values in a Changing World by Yehuda Amital, Yehudah Amial, p. 62, KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 2005. ----Rabbi Meir Simchah attests that illicit sexual relations were categorized as

Jesus on Homosexuality

Scholars have long known that ancient Jews divided their commandments into two groups. However, only recently have Christian scholars realized that the division was based on the precept, Love your neighbor as yourself. This realization is revolutionary. It shows that Jesus teachings have been misconstrued for a very long time. Only recently have Christian scholars realized that the ancient legal division was based on the precept, Love your neighbor as yourself. Because of this division, sexual prohibitions were separated into two distinct categories. As E. P. Sanders notes, some sexual prohibitions were Jobs while others were Justices. Sexual prohibitions that do not involve the abuse of another person, but are more in the nature of taboos were Jobs.5 Thus, the prohibition on homosexuality was a Job, not a Justice.6 Only sexual prohibitions that involved the abuse of another person (such as adultery and rape) were Justices.
commandments between man and God, with the notable exception of adultery and other practices involving an abused party. (Judaism and Homosexuality: An Authentic Orthodox View by Rabbi Chaim Rapoport, pp. 181-2 n. 35, Vallentine Mitchell, 2004.) ----Philo documents that the commandments between man and God included all piety and holiness [dietary and sexual purity]; whereas the commandments between man and man included philanthropy and ethics (Special Laws 2.63). 5 Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion By E. P. Sanders, p. 364, Fortress Press, Jun 1, 1977 ----Rabbi Meir Simchah attests that illicit sexual relations were categorized as commandments between man and God, with the notable exception of adultery and other practices involving an abused party. (Judaism and Homosexuality: An Authentic Orthodox View by Rabbi Chaim Rapoport, pp. 181-2 n. 35, Vallentine Mitchell, 2004.) 6 The Talmud regards the prohibition of homosexuality as universal in character, applicable to all men. However, homosexual activity falls under the category of sins between man and God rather than that of sins between man and his fellow. (Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality: Volume 1; Volume 1, p 42. Cahners Pub. Co., 1967)

Michael Wood

Only sexual prohibitions that involved the abuse of another person (such as adultery and rape) were Justices. All the others were Jobs, including the prohibition on homosexuality. Ancient writings document that the Jews were taught to interpret the law based on the Justices and Jobs each and every Sabbath.7 In other words, it was an integral part of first century Jewish life. Whenever a first century Jew heard Love your neighbor as yourself, he knew he was hearing a reference to a well-established group of commandmentsthe Justices. He also knew that the topic of conversation was excluding the antithesis groupthe Jobs. (He knew the topic of discussion was excluding all ritual observances and sexual taboos.) With this in mind, consider the following legal teaching of Jesus of Nazareth:
And someone came to Jesus and said, Teacher, which good thing must I do that I may have eternal life8? But he answered him, Why are you asking me about what is good? There is only one who is good. But if you want to enter into that life, keep the commandments. The man said to him, Which ones? And Jesus said, Dont murder, dont commit adultery, dont steal, dont lie, honor your father and motherlove your neighbor as yourself.9

For 1900 years, scholars didnt know that Jesus response specified a well-established group of commandmentsa group of commandments that excluded sexual taboos. The discovery of the Justices and Jobs finally reveals Jesus original message. Jesus told the
7 Jesus and the First Table of the Jewish Law by E. P. Sanders in Jews and Christians Speak of Jesus, pp. 55-73, A. E. Zannoni, Fortress, 1994; reprinted in The Historical Jesus in Recent Research by James D. G. Dunn, Scot McKnight, pp. 225226, Eisenbrauns, 2005. 8 In the original text, the man literally asked what he must do to have life in the age to come. The Greek term ainios zo is a Hebraism based on the Hebrew concept of life in olam haba (the age to come). While the mistranslation eternal life doesnt fully equate to the original concept, the traditional mistranslation has been used here for the sake of reader familiarity. But see p. 9 below. For a detailed explanation of the difference between the original meaning and modern terminology see The Jerome Conspiracy by Michael Wood. 9 Matthew 19:16-19

Jesus on Homosexuality

rich young ruler, in unequivocal terms: only philanthropy and ethics matter when it comes to eternal life (ritual observances and sexual taboos do not). We can accurately paraphrase the exchange as follows:
A rich young ruler asked Jesus which commandments he must follow to inherit eternal life. Jesus answered, Only the Justices.

The sexual taboos were front and center in the minds of Jews when it came to the Jobs. Therefore, Jesus was keenly aware that his answer excluded both ritual observances and sexual taboos. Yet he declared that only the Justices were necessary anyway. Its impossible for this to have been an oversight, given the well-established division of the Justices and Jobs during his day. To insist that sexual taboos are necessary is to insist that Jesus answered him wrongly. The revelation of the Justices and Jobs simply leaves no other alternatives. Dr. Gagnon is incorrect about Jesus silence on the issue of homosexuality. It is one thing to forget, omit, or ignore: that is silence on an issue. But to deliberately exclude, as Jesus excludes the ritual observances and sexual taboos, is the contrary of silence: it specifies that those commandments are irrelevant when it comes to eternal life! That deliberate exclusion was a clear statement of Jesus position on such things as circumcision, eating shellfish, homosexuality, and wearing garments made out of two cloths. Every Jobevery religious requirementwas excluded. This was the provocative message of Jesus of Nazareth. The most effective way for Jesus to say that none of the Jobs are necessary was to teach that only the Justices are necessary. If Jesus had said, "You don't need to keep the Jobs," would that have been teaching that you must keep the Justices? No. But when he says, "You must only keep the Justices," is that teaching that the Jobs aren't necessary? Yes, it is! This is the whole point. This was the most natural, normal way to get his point across. By stating that only the Justices are necessary, he made a clear, unambiguous statement that no Job was necessary. By stating that only the Justices are necessary, he made a clear, unambiguous statement that the prohibition on homosexuality was irrelevant to the issue of

Michael Wood

eternal life.

Chapter Two The Golden Rule

If Jesus had wanted to communicate affirmation of same-sex unions he would have had to state such a view clearly since first-century Judaism, so far as we know, had no dissenting voices on the matter. Without a clear statement none of his disciples would have made such a logical leap.10Dr. Robert Gagnon The precept, Love your neighbor as yourself designated the Justices. Thats why Jesus listed some Justices and then cited the love precept to reference all the remaining ones. Now, heres where things get even more interesting. Ancient Jews used the Golden Rule interchangeably with the precept, Love your neighbor as yourself.11 Since the Golden
10 Gagnon, Robert A. J. (2002-09-01). Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Kindle Locations 3829-3831). Abingdon Press. Kindle Edition. 11 The ancient Aramaic Targums used the Golden Rule interchangeably with the precept, Love your neighbor as yourself. See Aramaic Targum entries for Leviticus 19:18. ----The Didache, a first century Jewish-Christian work, used the Golden Rule interchangeably with the precept, Love your neighbor as yourself. See Didache 1:2. ----Judaism turned the golden rule into a somewhat different formulation of Love your neighbor as yourself.David Flusser, Professor of Early Christianity and Judaism of the Second Temple Period at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. (Judaism of the Second Temple Period: The Jewish Sages and Their Literature by David Flusser, Azzan Yadin, p. 178, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009) ----The Golden Rule is an interpretation or paraphrase (Targum) of the Old Testament Law of Love, found in Leviticus 19:18: love thy neighbor as thyself (The Jewish Sources of the Sermon on the Mount by Gerald Friedlander, pp. 230-31, New York: Ktav, 1969) ----P. S. Alexander notes, the Golden Rule tended to be regarded in early Judaism as 8

Michael Wood

Rule was interchangeable with the precept, it was also used as a designation for the Justices:
What we do not want done to us, we will not cause to be done to others: if you do not want to be killed, do not kill anybody; if you do not want anybody to commit adultery with your wife, do not commit adultery with anyone elses wife; if you dont want anything of yours stolen, do not steal anything that belongs to someone else.12

The above passage is attributed to Clement of Rome, a firstcentury Jewish Christian traditionally held to be the apostle Peters successor. The passage is attested in multiple sources. Clement presents this teaching as one unique saying as transmitted to the Godfearing Jews.13 Thus, during Jesus day, the Golden Rule was indeed a popular designation for the collection of the Justices. During Jesus day, the Golden Rule designated the collection of Justices. Notice the similarity between Clements passage and Jesus teaching:
And Jesus said, Dont murder, dont commit adultery, dont steal, dont lie, honor your father and motherlove your neighbor as yourself.14

Jesus teaching shows that the precept, Love your neighbor as yourself, designated such Justices as dont murder, dont commit adultery, and dont steal. Clements passage shows that the Golden Rule designated the very same things.
simply a variant of the Love Command. (The Historical Jesus in Recent Research by James D. G. Dunn, Scot McKnight, p. 495, Eisenbrauns, 2005) ----Because of the interchangeability, Matthew could tag both the Golden Rule and Leviticus 19:18 [Love your neighbor as yourself ] as the sum of the law and the prophets. See Matthew 7:12 and 22:39. (The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus by Andreas Lindemann, p. 413, Peeters Publishers, 2001) 12 The Ten Commandments in History and Tradition edited by Ben-Tsiyon Segal and Gershon Levi, p. 226 n. 17a, Gefen Books, October 1996 13 The Ten Commandments in History and Tradition edited by Ben-Tsiyon Segal and Gershon Levi, p. 226 n. 17a, Gefen Books, October 1996 14 Matthew 19:16-19

10

Jesus on Homosexuality

Thus there were two designations for the collection of Justices: the precept Love your neighbor as yourself and the Golden Rule. Jesus used both designations to drive his point home. Jesus used the love precept to designate the Justices when responding to the rich young ruler. He used the Golden Rule to designate the Justices in his famous Sermon on the Mount:
In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets. Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.15

Jesus specified the Golden Rule as the road that leads to life. Jesus message was unequivocal to his first century Jewish audience: the Justices alone determine who is on the road to life. All the Jobs are irrelevant. Isnt this the very same thing that Jesus told the rich young ruler? The rich young ruler asked what he must do to have eternal life. In response, Jesus told him that the Justices alone determine this. All the Jobs are irrelevant. For 1,900 years, Christianity didnt know that Love your neighbor as yourself was the dividing line between the two groups of commandments. It didnt know that this precept designated the Justices group. Likewise, it didnt know that the Golden Rule designated the Justices as well. This lack of knowledge caused the Church to misconstrue both Jesus response to the rich young ruler and his teaching on the Golden Rule. The Church completely missed the point. The Church didnt realize that Jesus was upholding a very well-established, well-defined group of commandments as the sole requirement. Jesus consciously and deliberately taught that ritual observances and sexual taboos are irrelevant when it comes to inheriting eternal life. Jesus consciously and deliberately taught that ritual observances and sexual taboos are irrelevant when it comes to the narrow road that leads to life. Weve discussed two passages that are finally unambiguous and unequivocal in light of the historical dividing line between the Justices and Jobs.
15 Matthew 7:12-14 NASB

Michael Wood

11

Were beginning to identify a repetitive pattern in Jesus message. This pattern debunks Dr. Gagnons assertion that Jesus didnt make a clear statement about homosexuality. In one sense, Dr. Gagnon is right. Jesus didnt make one clear statement about homosexuality he made two. Jesus used two popular designations of the Justices to unambiguously communicate his message. Affirming the sole necessity of the Justices is a clear statement about the irrelevance of the Jobs. (Affirming the sole necessity of the Justices is a clear statement about the irrelevance of the prohibition on homosexuality.) Jesus original message couldnt be clearer and more contrary to what is claimed by Gagnon.

Chapter Three The Great Divide

At no time did Jesus overturn a specific prohibition of the law16Dr. Robert Gagnon More than two centuries before Jesus was born, Jewish sages had already codified a legal distinction between that which is done for God and that which is done for the neighbor:
The world rests on three pillars: Torah, avodah, gemilut hasadim. Shimon HaTzadik around 280 BCE17

Torah originally referred to the study of the scriptures. Avodah had a dualistic meaning: work/worship. It expressed the devotional jobs done for God. Gemilut hasadim meant performing acts of loving kindness. Through the study of torah, a person learns avodah (devotional jobs done for God) and gemilut hasadim (acts of loving kindness done for others).18
16 Gagnon, Robert A. J. (2002-09-01). Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Kindle Location 3837). Abingdon Press. Kindle Edition. 17 Ethics of the Fathers 1:2 (an ancient Jewish writing) 18 The world stands on three pillars: on Torah, on avodah, service [to God], and on gemilut hasidim, deeds of loving kindness. (Shma: Volume 36, Issue 627 Volume 38, Issue 646, p. 5, 2006) Brackets included in the original text. ----In one of the classical commentaries on the Mishnah dating from the seventeenth century, Ovadiah of Bartenura reconciles the two passages. The Bartenura suggests that we read the first Mishnah as: the world would not have been created but for these three things. In other words, humanity was brought into the world to engage in study (Torah), to become spiritually grounded by serving God (avodah), and to engage in acts of loving-kindness (gemilut chasadim). (Judaism and Justice: The 12

Michael Wood

13

Acts of loving-kindness done for others (gemilut hasadim) were contrasted with the devoted deeds done for God. In other words, gemilut hasadim was associated with the Justices group (the ethical commandments between man and man).
Gemilut hasadim (deeds of mercy) and its nearly synonymous term, maasim tovim (good deeds), both refer to those ethical commandments that are considered to be acts of loving-kindness19 Karen-Marie Yust (Associate Professor of Christian Education at Union Presbyterian Seminary, D. Theol. Harvard Divinity School) * * * In the commentary to the Mishnah (Pe'ah 1: 1) Maimonides defines the category of commandments between man and his fellow man in terms of the quality of charity (gemilut hasadim).20

Over a three hundred year period, the Jewish nation developed a rich terminology to distinguish between devoted deeds done for God and deeds of loving-kindness done for others. There were at least three designations for the Justices (the group of commandments based on love for others). Three Designations for the Justices The precept, Love your neighbor as yourself. The Golden Rule Gemilut hasadim (acts of loving-kindess done for others).
Jewish Passion to Repair the World by Sidney Schwarz, Ruth Messinger, p. 80, Jewish Lights Publishing, Jan 1, 2008) ----Alternatively, some scholars see avodah as referring exclusively to temple service by the priests, and Torah as representing each mans responsibilities to God. In all cases, mans individual relationship to God is categorized separately from mans responsibility to show loving-kindness to others (gemilut chasadim). In all cases, the distinction between these two categories predates Jesus by three centuries, showing the depth of this manner of thinking. 19 Nurturing Child And Adolescent Spirituality: Perspectives from the Worlds Religious Traditions by Karen-Marie Yust, p. 277, Rowman & Littlefield, 2006 20 The New scholasticism: Volume 76 by Edward Aloysius Pace, American Catholic Philosophical Association, James Hugh Ryan, p. 171, American Catholic Philosophical Association, 2002

14

Jesus on Homosexuality

Jesus used all three designations to drive his message home. He used the precept to teach that only the Justices are necessary for eternal life. He used the Golden Rule to teach that the Justices alone determine who is on the narrow road to life. In this chapter well take a look at how Jesus used gemilut hasadim to teach the same thing. In order to understand Jesus teaching, we must first know the exact nature of gemilut hasadim (the acts of loving-kindness done for others). Popular examples of gemilut hasadim included: Feeding the hungry Giving drink to the thirsty Hospitality Clothing the naked Visiting the sick With these examples of gemilut hasadim in mind, consider Jesus quintessential teaching on judgment:
But when the Son of Man comes in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his majestic throne. All the nations will be gathered before him and he will separate them from one another just as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right and the goats on the left. Then the king will say to those on his right, Come here! you who are blessed of my father, take possession of the kingdom held for you from the foundation of the world because I was hungry and thirsty, and you gave me food and drink; I was a stranger and you invited me in; I was naked and you clothed me; I was sick and you visited me; I was in prison and you came to me. Then those who treated people with loving-kindness will reply to him, Your highness, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? And when did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you sick, or in prison, and come to visit you? The king will answer saying to them, I assure you that as much as you did it for one of these brothers of mine, the lowest in society, you did it for me. And then he will say to those on his left, Go away from me, accursed ones, into the fire of the age which has been held for the devil and his

Michael Wood

15

angels because I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat; I was thirsty and you gave me nothing; I was a stranger and you did not invite me in; naked, and you did not clothe me; sick, and in prison, and you didnt visit me. Then they also will answer, Your highness, when did we see you hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison and were not of service to you?' Then he will answer them saying, 'I assure you, as much as you didnt do it for the lowest of society, you didnt do it for me. These will go away into the punishment of the age, and those who treated others with loving-kindness into the life of the age.21

In this teaching, all the actions which determine entrance into the kingdom were examples of gemilut hasadim.22
All of the deeds mentioned here are acts of kindness (Heb. Gemilut hasadim): feeding the hungry, given drink to the thirsty, hospitality, clothing the naked, visiting the sick, burying the dead, and freeing the captives.23 * * * The parable of the Last Judgment, unique to Matthew, is rich in themes found in the Jewish tradition: feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, welcoming the stranger. All the actions cited by Jesus are deeds of loving-kindess (gemilut hasadim).24

In this teaching, Jesus declared that the reward will be given to all who alleviate the distress of people in need:
Those standing on the right, who would enjoy eternal life in Gods kingdom, were blessed because they alleviated the distress of people in need.25 21 Matthew 25:31-46. 22 What the Rabbis Said: 250 Topics from the Talmud By Ronald L. Eisenberg, p. 12 ----Basic Judaism for Young People Vol. 1, Gemulit Chasadim, pp. 29-36 23 A Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke by Samuel Tobias Lachs, p. 394, KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 1987 24 Preaching the Gospels Without Blaming the Jews: A Lectionary Commentary by Ronald James Allen, Clark M. Williamson, p. 85, Westminster John Knox Press, Aug 1, 2004 25 A Rabbi Looks at Jesus Parables by Rabbi Frank Stern, p. 251, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2006

16

Jesus on Homosexuality

Jesus teaching was unique among his contemporaries. His judgment teaching included only two groups: those on the left and those on the right. This was significant because the leaders of the two most popular schools described judgment in terms of three groups, not two.26 Thus, this two-group division was a conscious, deliberate choice that must have been recognized for its uniqueness. It was necessary for Jesus to have only two groups in order for him to communicate his point: The Justices will be the sole determinant. By limiting it to two groups, Jesus made it a black and white issue. There is no gray area. Those who keep the Justices are on one side, and those who dont keep the Justices are on the other. Period. He purposefully made it that cut and dry. Lets recap: After 1,900 years, scholars have realized that Christianity presumed the wrong division of Jewish law. The Jews of Jesus day used the precept Love your neighbor as yourself to divide the law into two groups: Justices and Jobs. Hence, the precept Love your neighbor as yourself designated the Justices group of commandments. The Golden Rule, which was interchangeable with the precept, likewise designated the Justices as well. The concept of gemilut hasadim (acts of loving-kindness done for others) was the oldest principle associated with such commandments. Its history stretched back almost three hundred years before Jesus day.
26 The two most popular religious schools during Jesus day were Bet Shammai (School of Shammai) and Bet Hillel (School of Hillel). Bet Shammai taught that there would be three groups at the judgment. (Why Jews Do What They Do: The History of Jewish Customs Throughout the Cycle of the Jewish Year by Daniel Sperber, p. 149, KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 1999.) For the teachings of Bet Hillel see Rabbi Yohanans reference. Rabbi Yohanan was also a direct descendent of Hillel himself. For his teaching on the three categories see Theological Dictionary of Rabbinic Judaism: Making Connections and Building Constructions by Jacob Neusner, p. 18, University Press of America, 2005. For the teaching on the three groups directly attributed to Hillel see The Rabbinic Traditions About the Pharisees Before 70 by Jacob Neusner, p. 238, Brill Archive, 1971.

Michael Wood

17

It was well-known and well-established that the other group, the Jobs, included all the ritual observances and sexual taboos. Jesus used the three designations to unequivocally teach that only the Justices are necessary for eternal life (the Jobs are irrelevant to the issue). o Story of the Rich Young Ruler: Jesus used the precept to teach that only the Justices are necessary for life in the age to come. o Sermon on the Mount: Jesus used the Golden Rule to teach that the Justices alone determine who is on the narrow road to life. o Quintessential Teaching on Judgment: Jesus used gemilut hasadim to teach that the Justices are the sole deciding factor on who inherits the kingdom and who doesnt. These teachings on the exclusivity of the Justices were the most effective way to teach that the Jobs will be irrelevant on judgment day. All three teachings directly and unambiguously repealed all the Jobs. Yet even though Jesus literally repealed hundreds of commandments, Dr. Gagnon doesnt hesitate to claim that At no time did Jesus overturn a specific prohibition of the law. Dr. Gagnons research is sorely outdated. The recent recognition of the ancient dividing line between the two groups thoroughly invalidates his most fundamental claims.

Chapter Four Pauls Premise

(T)he case for claiming that Jesus was opposed to every form of same-sex intercourse is overwhelming. One need only consider: The univocal and intensely strong rejection of same-sex intercourse in both the Hebrew Bible and early Judaism. The univocal and intensely strong rejection of same-sex intercourse by Jesus earliest and closest followersincluding Paul, who was a far more vigorous critic of the law of Moses than Jesus.27 Dr. Robert Gagnon Weve applied recent Christian realizations regarding ancient Jewish law to the following three teachings: Jesus Quintessential Teaching on Judgment Jesus Teaching on the Golden Rule Jesus Response to the Rich Young Ruler This enabled us to recover the long-lost meaning of all three teachings. It is only natural to ask, Is there any evidence that Jesus earliest followers understood their meanings? After all, its now clear that the Church has a long history of having missed the point. So did Jesus first followers understand them? Jesus quintessential teaching on judgment taught that everyone who engages in gemilut hasadim (acts of loving-kindness done for others) will inherit the kingdom. Jesus examples of gemilut hasadim all dealt with bearing the burdens of others: feeding the
27 http://www.robgagnon.net/RevCountryman.htm, April 11, 2012 18

Michael Wood

19

hungry, clothing the naked, sheltering the homeless, etc. Did any of Jesus earliest followers understand that bearing the burdens of others fulfills Jesus law?
Bear one anothers burdens and in this way fulfill the Law of Christ.28

The apostle Paul understood it perfectly. What about the second teaching? Jesus Sermon on the Mount taught that the Golden Rule is the entire law. The Golden Rule was used interchangeably with the precept Love your neighbor as yourself. In other words, according to this teaching, the entire law is fulfilled in one statement, in the precept Love your neighbor as yourself. Did any of Jesus earliest followers understand that the entire law is fulfilled in one statement, in the precept Love your neighbor as yourself ?
The entire Law is fulfilled in one statement, in the precept Love your neighbor as yourself.29

The apostle Paul understood it perfectly. What about the third teaching? Jesus doubled down in his response to the rich young ruler. He not only cited examples of Justices, but he also quoted the precept Love your neighbor as yourself. In doing this, he told the rich young ruler that anyone who loves others has fulfilled the law, because only the commandments based on Love your neighbor as yourself are the law. Did any of Jesus earliest followers understand that anyone who loves others has fulfilled the law, because only the commandments based on Love your neighbor as yourself are the law?
He who loves others has fulfilled the Law because dont commit adultery, dont kill, dont steal, dont covet, and if there is any other commandment it is summed up in these words: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.30

The apostle Paul understood it perfectly. When we apply the recent Christian realizations regarding ancient Jewish law, we end up with the very same conclusions as the Apostle Paul! This is significant for a very big reason: We now know
28 Galatians 6:2 29 Galatians 5:14 30 Romans 13:8-10

20

Jesus on Homosexuality

which passages of Paul are reiterations of Jesus teachings. These are the teachings that should be in the forefront of our attention when we translate and interpret everything else Paul wrote (including his supposed condemnation of homosexuality).31 Dr. Gagnon claims that Paul had a more critical view of the law than Jesus.32 Yet knowledge of the ancient division of Jewish law has allowed us to discover something remarkable: Jesus and Paul taught identical things about the law. They both taught that only the Justices are the law; the Jobs are not. Dr. Gagnon didnt know that Paul taught the same thing as Jesus because he didnt know what either of them actually taught. Therefore, his analysis of Pauls writings was built on a faulty foundation, causing him to wrongly conclude that Paul condemned consensual, monogamous homosexual relationships. If that is what Paul really did, then he would have been repudiating his very own teachings about the Justices being the entire law! If that is what Paul really did, he would have been repudiating the very teachings that reiterate what Jesus taught! Fortunately, there is an abundance of historical and archaeological documentation that shows what Paul actually taught. In short, Paul taught that the rapists of young boys cannot enter the kingdom of God. These rapists violate the Justices (in a disgusting way) and they will be appropriately excluded and punished.33 The prohibitions on rape and adultery were Justices. The
31 Paul on Homosexuality provides historical and archaeological documentation that the foundation of Pauls belief system was the conviction that the Justices alone were Jesus law. The work then examines the translation of all his writings on morality including those on homosexuality, heterosexuality, idolatry, and more. The work demonstrates, through attention to the original Greek, that Pauls letters were written to teach his converts that only the Justices are the law; the Jobs are not. Paul never deviated from this, not one iota. Conventional translations have mistranslated his letters through and through, making him appear to repudiate his own teachings in Romans 13:8-9, Galatians 5:14, and Galatians 6:2. In other words, conventional translations make it appear that Paul repudiated the very teachings that were reiterations of what Jesus taught! 32 Notice in the introductory quotation that Dr. Gagnon wrote Paul was a much more vigorous critic of Moses law than Jesus. 33 See Paul on Homosexuality for historical documentation on the proper translation of the Greek arsenokoitai (which is wrongly translated as homosexuals in conventional English versions).

Michael Wood

21

prohibition on consensual same-sex coupling was a Job. There was a clear, definitive ideological wall separating actions which abuse others from actions that dont (as well there should have been!). Paul consistently (at least in the original Greek) treated actions that abuse others differently from those that dont. This sheds tremendous light on the earliest Christian view of the story of Sodom. The story of Sodom is a story about attempted gang rape. Gagnon would argue that there is a whole laundry list of reasons to conclude that Sodom is a story which condemns consensual same-sex coupling. Yet, at the end of the day, the Genesis account only mentions the attempted gang rape. Thus, at the end of the day, the question boils down to whether there is an ideological link between same-sex gang rape and monogamous same-sex coupling. The authors of the New Testament all shared a well-defined ideological distinction between rape and consensual sex, and therefore must have viewed the Old Testament story of Sodom accordingly. The Apostle Pauls writings show (in the original Greek) that he viewed rape and adultery as being very different from sexual taboos.34 His writings are reflective of the first-century distinction between the Justices and Jobsthe historical distinction that Christian scholars are just now beginning to comprehend. This realization is destined to awaken the Church to the original teachings of Jesus and Paul. And the wonderful news is that both of them would concur that gay marriage is not an impediment to heaven not even in the slightest. In fact, pressuring gay men to remain unmarried (or worse, get married to women theyre compelled to cheat on)35 results in a lot of injustice and damaged lives. Ironically, this creates impediments to gay Christians
34 See Paul on Homosexuality, chapter 16, Separation Anxiety, and chapter 33, Legal Labyrinth. 35 Exodus International was the largest organization to be involved in trying to change homosexual orientation. After decades of failures, the current president now acknowledges that sexual orientation never fully changes. In the 1980s and 90s, the counseling emphasis was heavier than it was today, said Alan Chambers, the president of Exodus. Transformation in Christ is possible, but it doesnt necessarily mean that we will never be tempted or completely move beyond a certain struggle that we may have. (Amid Bachmann controversy, many Christians cool to conversion therapy for gays: Religion blogs, by Dan Gilgoff, CNN.com Religion Editor, reported on July 18, 2011, CNN religion blogs, http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/18/amidbachmann-controversy-many-christians-cool-to-conversion-therapy-for-gays/)

22

Jesus on Homosexuality

entering heaven. May God forgive the Churchs prior decision to set up spiritual stumbling blocks for its homosexual parishioners. (And may the Church soon repent and mend the errors of its ways.)

Chapter Five Repentance

Luke, who more than any other New Testament author stresses repentance, certainly could not be illustrating that repentance and transformation are non-essential features of the Christian life.36Dr. Robert Gagnon Dr. Gagnon tells homosexuals that they must repent and be transformed (i.e. changed). To Gagnon, repentance involves abandonment of all homosexual activity. Gagnon equates Lukes references to repentance to his own definition of the word. However, he somehow overlooked what repentance meant to Luke. Luke first mentions repentance in a scene involving John the Baptist:
bear fruits corresponding to repentance Indeed the axe is already laid at the root of the trees; so every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. And the crowds were questioning him, saying, Then what shall we do? And he would answer and say to them, The man who has two tunics is to share with him who has none; and he who has food is to do likewise. And some tax collectors also came to be baptized, and they said to him, Teacher, what shall we do? And he said to them, Collect no more than what you have been ordered to. Some soldiers were questioning him, saying, And what about us, what shall we do? And he said to them, Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages.

This passage contains a laundry list of deeds corresponding to repentance. And look! The deeds corresponding to repentance are all Justices!:
36 Gagnon, Robert A. J. (2002-09-01). Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Kindle Locations 4132-4133). Abingdon Press. Kindle Edition. 23

24

Jesus on Homosexuality

Clothe the naked: the man who has two tunics is to share with him who has none Feed the hungry: he who has food is to do likewise Do not steal: Collect no more than you have been ordered to / Do not take money from anyone by force Do not slander: Do not accuse anyone falsely Do not covet: Be content with your wages First-century Jews were taught to interpret all religious discussions relative to the Justices and Jobs each and every Sabbath.37 Therefore, they all recognized that the list was exclusively Justices. They understood the point perfectly: Repentance means keeping the Justices. Notice the similarity between Lukes teaching of repentance and Jesus response to the rich young ruler. Context is everything. The rich young ruler asked Jesus which commandments were necessary for eternal life. Therefore, Jesus was obliged to make sure the man understood everything he needed to do. We cant presume that theres anything more than what Jesus said because of this context. Likewise, we have a similar situation with Luke on repentance. John brings up the word repentance. And (in essence) Luke has the crowd asking John, what does repentance mean? John is obliged to make sure the crowd understands everything they need to do. Therefore, Luke used the account of John the Baptist to establish the meaning of repentance, just as Jesus established the requirements of salvation. (And its no coincidence that they both said exactly the same thing! The Justices alone are required for repentance; they alone are required for eternal life.) Now Lukes last reference to repentance makes perfect sense:
Jesus said to them, Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.38

37 See footnote 3, paragraph on E P Sanders. 38 Luke 24:46-47 NASB

Michael Wood

25

Given Lukes definition of repentance, this teaching is in perfect alignment with Matthews Gospel. Luke taught that those who repentthose who keep the Justiceswill receive forgiveness of sins. In other words, those who keep the Justices will inherit eternal life (as Jesus told the rich young ruler); they will inherit the kingdom of heaven (as Jesus said in his quintessential teaching on judgment); they will have fulfilled the entire law (as Jesus said in his teaching on the Golden Rule, and as Paul wrote three times to his converts). Seven teachings spanning Matthew, Luke, and Paul all teach exactly the same thing! They all teach that philanthropy and ethics are the sole requirement for entering the kingdom; ritual observances and sexual taboos are irrelevant.

Chapter Six Atonement

God expects forgiveness to transform the life of the person forgiven. If it does not, the forgiveness is retracted. The woman demonstrates clearly by her actions that she has put herself entirely at the service of Jesus, ready to do whatever he commands. It is inconceivable that this woman, abounding in love for God and intensely grateful for forgiveness, will now continue in whatever activity earned her the notoriety of being a sinner. 39Dr. Robert Gagnon The concept of forgiveness of sins is called atonement. The most important Jewish holiday is Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement). Each year, as required by Jewish law, an animal was sacrificed at the temple for the forgiveness of the nations sins. This practice continued until 70 CE. The Romans laid siege to Jerusalem in 70 CE, and promptly destroyed the temple. The place appointed for the atoning animal sacrifice was utterly destroyed. The ancient Rabbinic texts contain a most remarkable account of how the Jewish nation dealt with the devastation:
When the temple was destroyed Rabbi Joshua said: Woe to us! for this house that lies in ruins, the place where atonement was made for the sins of Israel! But Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai replied, My son, be not grieved, for we have another means of atonement which is as effective, and that is, the practice of loving-kindness, as it is stated, For I desire lovingkindness and not sacrifice (T.B. Aboth de Rabbi Nathan 20a).40

This event marked a pivotal turning point for the Jewish nation. According to the Gospels, the Jewish people were so distracted by the
39 Gagnon, Robert A. J. (2002-09-01). Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Kindle Locations 4129-4132). Abingdon Press. Kindle Edition. 40 The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Volume 4, by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, p. 275, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, Jun 1, 1995 26

Michael Wood

27

Jobs that they neglected to do the Justices. After the fall of Jerusalem, something remarkable happened. Instead of becoming embittered, they turned to gemilut hasadim (acts of loving-kindness) instead!41 Why? The Rabbis realized that their scriptures offered two methods of receiving forgiveness of sins:42
[God says] I desire loving-kindness and not a sacrifice43

According to the prophet Hosea, God will forgive the sins of everyone who practices gemilut hasadim (acts of loving-kindness).
41 According to AHaron Oppenheimer, Hosea 6:6 was understood by Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai as referring to charity, not devoted deeds done to God as is translated in modern convention Christian translations, and is claimed in modern conventional Christian commentaries as well: Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai produced a solution for non-Jews: It was taught [in a baraita], Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai said to them: Just as the sin-offering atones for Israel, so does hesed/charity atone for the nations of the world. It is interesting that after the destruction of the Temple an opinion is attributed to Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai which rules that, in the absence of the Temple, the atonement of the Jewish people is dependent on hesed which is no less valuable than sacrifices. On one occasion Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai was on his way out of Jerusalem and Rabbit Joshua was walking behind him and he saw the Temple in ruins. Rabbi Joshua said: Woe to us that it is destroyed! This is the place which atoned for the sins of Israel! He said to him: My son, do not feel bad, we have another atonement which is as good, and what is it? Acts of hesed, as it is said: For I desired hesed [R. V.: mercy], and not a sacrifice (Hos. 6:6). From this it is clear that in the opinion of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai the atonement of Jews is actually dependent on the same factor as the atonement of non-Jews.AHaron Oppenheimer, Department of Jewish History, Tel Aviv University (Between Rome and Babylon: Studies in Jewish Leadership and Society by AHaron Oppenheimer and Nili Oppenheimer, p. 171, Mohr Siebeck, 2005) ----According to Encyclopedia of Love in World Religions, Hosea 6:6 was understood by Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai as referring to gemilut hasadim (acts of lovingkindness done for others). (Encyclopedia of Love in World Religions, Yudit Kornberg Greenberg (Editor), p. 269, ABC-CLIO, 2008.) 42 According to the American Academy of Jewish Research, Hosea 6:6 considers acts of loving-kindness or gemilut hasadim equivalent to sacrifices. (Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research: Volume 50 by American Academy of Jewish Research, p. 38, American Academy for Jewish Research, 1983.) 43 See note 42 above.

28

Jesus on Homosexuality

Could this be the principle that Jesus appealed to as the basis of his teachings about the Justices? The answer is yes! Jesus quotes this very passage from Hosea twice in the Gospel of Matthew:
[Jesus told the Pharisees,] Go and learn what this means: I desire compassion and not a sacrifice44 * * * [Jesus told the Pharisees,] If you had known what this means, I desire compassion and not a sacrifice, you would not have condemned the innocent.45

This is why Jesus told the rich young ruler that eternal life solely relies on the Justices, for God forgives the sins of those who practice loving-kindness. This is why Jesus taught that those who bear the burdens of others will inherit the kingdom, for God forgives the sins of those who practice loving-kindness. This is why the Golden Rule is the entire legal obligation, for God forgives the sins of those who practice loving-kindness. This is why Luke wrote that God forgives the sins of those who repent (those who keep the Justices), for God forgives the sins of those who practice loving-kindness. The New Testament is all about repentance for the forgiveness of sins. However, the concept has been terribly misconstrued by religious organizations down through the centuries. The concept was originally about keeping the Justices for the forgiveness of sins. This was the whole point! This was what launched Christianity in the first place. The Hosea Principle runs throughout the New Testament:
The Hosea Principle: God forgives the sins of those who practice lovingkindness.

Weve already seen how this principle is reflected in the three Matthew teachings, the three Pauline passages, and Lukes teachings on repentance. Another striking parallel to the Hosea Principle is also found in Luke:
Give that which is within as charity and all things will be clean to you. 44 Matthew 9:10-13 NASB 45 Matthew 12:7 NASB

Michael Wood

29

In one sense, this teaching is remarkable! In another sense, its simply one more repetitive example of the very same thing. Jesus taught that as long as you love your neighbor as yourself, all things are lawful for you. In other words, as long as you keep the Justices, all things are allowable for you (including eating shellfish, homosexuality, wearing garments made of two cloths, etc.). Another striking parallel is found in 1 Peter 4:8:
Most importantly persist in love for one another because love covers over a multitude of sins.

Peter basically restated the Hosea Principle, the principle upon which Jesus teachings were built. Yet how many centuries have passed in which the meaning of Peters words have been ignored? Meanwhile, this is the very passage of Peters which reiterates Jesus teachings! Therefore, this is the passage around which all of Peters writings should be translated and interpreted. Yet another striking parallel to the Hosea Principle is found in John:
We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren.46

To paraphrase John: we know our sins have been forgiven because we practice loving-kindness. Theres the Hosea Principle again! Weve now examined twelve passages spanning Matthew, Luke, John, Peter, and Paul. All twelve passages teach the very same thing. Every one of them states that those who keep the Justices will receive forgiveness of sins. The Justices, and the Justices alone, determine who enters the kingdom of God and who doesnt. The New Testament simply couldnt be clearer on the irrelevance of ritual observances and sexual taboos when it comes to the issue of salvation. Jesus quoting of the Hosea Principle is particularly apropos:
[Jesus told the Pharisees,] If you had known what this means, I desire compassion and not a sacrifice, you would have not condemned the innocent.47

46 1 John 3:14 NASB 47 Matthew 12:7 NASB

30

Jesus on Homosexuality

In this passage, the Pharisees accused Jesus of violating the Sabbath, a Job of the Torah whose violation required the death sentence. Jesus told the Pharisees that if they understood the Hosea Principle then they wouldnt have condemned the innocent. Many people overlook this part of the passage, where Jesus declares that he and his disciples are innocent (their sins are already forgiven) because they practice loving-kindness. Therefore, the Sabbath isnt an issue, even though violating that Job once required the death sentence. Many Christians point to the fact that violating Moses prohibition on homosexuality required the death sentence. They use this fact to condemn homosexuals. If these Christians only understood the Hosea Principle, then they wouldnt condemn the innocent.

Chapter Seven Law and Prophets

Nothing in the authentic Jesus tradition suggests that Jesus abrogated the Torah during his earthly ministry.48Dr. Robert Gagnon

The Law and the Prophets are mentioned twice in Jesus Sermon on the Mount:
I have not come to abolish the Law and the Prophets In everything, therefore, treat others the same way you want to be treated for this is the Law and the Prophets.

In context, we see that the Golden Rule (which designated the Justices) was the entire Law and Prophets for Jesus. Thus, when Jesus said that he didnt come to abolish the Law and the Prophets, he was referring solely to preserving the Justices. Now, imagine what would happen if someone quoted Jesus first reference in isolation. What would this out-of-context quote mislead people to believe? Law and Prophets (in context): I have not come to abolish the Law and the Prophets In everything, therefore, treat others the same way you want to be treated for this is the Law and the Prophets.49 Law and Prophets (out of context): I have not come to abolish the Law and the Prophets A person could quote the first reference out of context in an attempt to persuade people that Jesus upheld the entire law. Would
48 Gagnon, Robert A. J. (2002-09-01). Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Kindle Locations 3831-3832). Abingdon Press. Kindle Edition. 49 Matthew 5:17; 7:12 31

32

Jesus on Homosexuality

this be disingenuous? Of course it would be. Would it be effective? Of course it would be. Most people havent memorized the Bible. They wouldnt know the context of the topic off the top of their heads. Therefore, the tactic would work like a charm. But what person would do such thing? One such person is Dr. Robert Gagnon.
Moreover, nothing in the authentic Jesus tradition suggests that Jesus abrogated the Torah during his earthly ministry. According to Matt 5: 17-18 (cf. Luke 16: 16-17), Jesus states, Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets50Dr. Robert Gagnon

Dr. Gagnon employs the disingenuous tactic of quoting Jesus first reference independent of his second one, even though both references were made in the very same sermon. The Sermon on the Mount is meant to be read as one whole passage. It is both disingenuous and unscholarly to lift a statement out of context and use it to repudiate another teaching in the same passage! Yet this is precisely the tactic Dr. Gagnon takes. Gagnon not only takes the statement out of its local context, but he also takes it out of the larger context of Matthew as well. Matthew repetitively taught that the Justices were the entirety of the Law and Prophets for Jesus. He taught this in Jesus teaching of the Golden Rule in Jesus response to the rich young ruler in Jesus mention of the Hosea Principle in Matthew in Jesus other mention of the Hosea Principle in Matthew in Jesus quintessential teaching on judgment. The notion that the Justices are the entire law was central to Matthews depiction of Jesus. Yet Dr. Gagnon lifts a statement out of context and uses it to repudiate five teachings within the very same book! If that werent bad enough, it gets even worse. Weve already seen that this one teaching is what unifies Matthew, Luke, John, Peter
50 Gagnon, Robert A. J. (2002-09-01). Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Kindle Locations 3831-3832). Abingdon Press. Kindle Edition.

Michael Wood

33

and Paul with Jesus. So what Dr. Gagnon has done is to lift a statement out of context and use it to repudiate the one teaching that unites Matthew, Luke, John, Peter and Paul to Jesus! The Sermon on the Mount originally included the two references for a very specific reason. Lets take a look at the two references again in context:
I have not come to abolish the Law and the Prophets In everything, therefore, treat others the same way you want to be treated for this is the Law and the Prophets.

The meaning is so simple that even a child can understand it. In essence Jesus stated:
I havent come to abolish the Law and the Prophets because only the Justices are the Law and the Prophets.

This was the whole point of the Sermon on the Mount! And doesnt this point match everything else Jesus taught in Matthew? Doesnt this point match the teaching that unifies Matthew, Luke, John, Peter and Paul with Jesus? There is even worse to be said of Dr. Gagnons out-of-context tactic; but to understand the full implications of his error, youll first need to understand a pattern of teaching found in Christian writings. The pattern is as follows: Cite teachings on relations between man and neighbor, and Reference the precept, Love your neighbor as yourself. This was a very clear way to reference the Justices. Consider Jesus response to the rich young ruler:
And someone came to Jesus and said, Teacher, which good thing must I do that I may have eternal life51? But he answered him, Why are you asking me about what is good? There is only one who is good. But if you want to enter into that life, keep the commandments. The man said to him, Which ones? 51 In the original text, the man literally asked what he must do to have life in the age to come. See above, note 7.

34

Jesus on Homosexuality And Jesus said, Dont murder, dont commit adultery, dont steal, dont lie, honor your father and motherlove your neighbor as yourself.52

Notice that Jesus: Cited teachings on relations between man and neighbor. Referenced the precept, Love your neighbor as yourself. Now consider what Paul wrote:
He who loves others has fulfilled the Law because dont commit adultery, dont kill, dont steal, dont covet, and if there is any other commandment it is summed up in these words: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.53

Notice that Paul: Cited teachings on relations between man and neighbor. Referenced the precept, Love your neighbor as yourself. Now consider what James wrote:
If you are fulfilling the Kings law according to scripture, Love your neighbor as yourself, you are behaving well. But if you are showing partiality based on personal appearances, you are committing sin, and are indicted under the Law as lawbreakers. For anyone who keeps the whole law, but is at fault on one count, has turned guilty on all counts. He who said Do not commit adultery also said Do not murder. If you are not going to commit adultery, but are going to murder, you have become a lawbreaker.54 Speak and act like people who are about to be judged by the Law of Freedom; for judgment without compassion will be for the one who has not shown compassion. Compassion triumphs over judgment.55

52 53 54 55

Matthew 19:16-19 Romans 13:8-10 James 2:8-10 James 2:12

Michael Wood

35

Notice that James: Cited teachings on relations between man and neighbor. Referenced the precept, Love your neighbor as yourself. Consider what Clement wrote:
What we do not want done to us, we will not cause to be done to others: if you do not want to be killed, do not kill anybody; if you do not want anybody to commit adultery with your wife, do not commit adultery with anyone elses wife; if you dont want anything of yours stolen, do not steal anything that belongs to someone else.56

Notice that Clement: Cited teachings on relations between man and neighbor. Referenced the precept, Love your neighbor as yourself (via the Golden Rule which was used interchangeably with Love your neighbor as yourself ). Would you like to see one more example of this pattern? I promise youll be amused when you see where its found. Jesus used this very same pattern immediately after declaring, I havent come to abolish the Law and the Prophets! The six antitheses which immediately follow Jesus promise to uphold the law deal with the following topics: 1. Murder [5:21-26] 2. Adultery [5:27-30] 3. Adultery [5:31-32] 4. Lying [5:33-37] 5. Not showing pity [5:38-42] 6. Not loving your neighbor as yourself [5:43-48]

56 The Ten Commandments in History and Tradition edited by Ben-Tsiyon Segal and Gershon Levi, p. 226 n. 17a, Gefen Books, October 1996

36

Jesus on Homosexuality

In other words, right after stating, I have not come to abolish the Law and the Prophets, Jesus immediately clarified that he was solely referring to the Justices! Notice that in Jesus six antitheses he: Cited teachings on relations between man and neighbor. Referenced the precept, Love your neighbor as yourself. Therefore, not only did Gagnon lift the statement out of the Sermons whole context; he even quoted it out of the immediate context as well! For the immediate context clarified that Jesus was solely referring to the Justices, and Biblical scholarship recognizes this:
The entire subject deals with commandments between man and his fellowman, summed by the rule to love ones neighbor, at which the entire discourse is aimed. However, in his introduction, Jesus had spoken of the whole Torah, with all of its major and minor commandments. Consequently, he takes the same line in the present context as he took when he defined the Golden Rule, saying This is the whole Torah (Matthew 7:12). Jesus requires of his disciples that they observe the mitzvot [commandments] even more strictly than the scribes. From what follows we learn that it is the ethical mitzvot that he is talking about. It is these that he means when he speaks of the least of these commandments. That is why in this sermon of his he moves as a general rule from the minor instance to the majora rabbinic method of interpretation called qal vahomer (a fortiori)57

A man as well read as Gagnon should certainly be aware of scholarship related to his primary proof text. Thus, he is without excuse. Just when it seems that Gagnons situation couldnt get worse it does. Among the six antitheses, Jesus did something quite astonishing to make sure his audience knew that he solely upheld the Justices: he abolished one of the commandments in Moses law! Which commandment did Jesus abolish? He abolished the following:
you shall not show pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth...58 57 The Ten Commandments in History and Tradition edited by Ben-Tsiyon Segal and Gershon Levi, p. 233 n. 17a, Gefen Books, October 1996 58 Deuteronomy 19:21 NASB

Michael Wood

37

Before we look at Jesus abrogation of this command, lets first consider two different ways of abolishing it: Neutralize it: Teach people to forgive, and let bygones be bygones. Command the opposite: Teach people to offer an opportunity for double injury! For example, when teaching someone how to deal with a slap to the right cheek, one could: Neutralize it: Teach the person to forgive, and let bygones be bygones. Command the opposite: Command the person to turn his face to allow the left cheek to be slapped as well. Another example, when teaching someone how to deal with a stolen shirt, one could: Neutralize it: Teach the person to forgive, and let bygones be bygones. Command the opposite: Command the person to offer another garment as well. Neutralizing a commandment would be sufficient enough to abolish it. But commanding the exact opposite would be the strongest way possible to show the total, absolute, utter abolishment of a commandment. Commanding the opposite makes the strongest possible statement that this commandment is completely abrogated! It would leave absolutely no doubt in the listeners minds. Therefore, take a guess at which approach Jesus took? If you chose commanding the opposite you are correct:
You have heard that it was said, AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH. But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.59 59 Matthew 5:38-40 NASB

38

Jesus on Homosexuality

Jesus commanded the opposite in order to leave no room for ambiguity: the commandment in Deuteronomy 19:21 is completely abolished. It is fully repealed. It is totally abrogated. Thus, immediately after declaring I have not come to abolish the Law and the Prophets Jesus does three things: Cited teachings between man and neighbor; Referenced the precept, Love your neighbor as yourself ; Abolished a commandment that wasnt based on the precept, Love your neighbor as yourself. Over and over and over again, Jesus made sure that his audience knew that he was upholding the Justices and the Justices only. Over and over and over again, Jesus made sure his audience knew that he solely considered the Justices to be the Law and the Prophets. So what does Dr. Gagnon do with the fact that the six antitheses completely contradict his claim about Jesus statement? Gagnon completely mischaracterizes the six antitheses! He claims that at no time did Jesus overturn a specific prohibition of the law:
At several points, Jesus did prioritize the laws core values and even amended the law by closing loopholes and expanding its demands. This much is clear from the six antitheses that follow in Matt 5: 21-48. It is possible that Jesus did not demand the death penalty for certain sexual sins such as adultery and prostitution, although he clearly maintained his opposition to such behavior (cf. below). But at no time did Jesus overturn a specific prohibition of the law60

According to Gagnon, at no time did Jesus overturn a specific prohibition of the law, including Jesus discussion of the six antitheses that follow in Matthew 5:21-48. Yet, Jesus did overturn a specific prohibition right within the six antitheses themselves! In fact, he commanded the opposite of a prohibition in order to utterly and completely abolish it. Jesus utterly abolished the prohibition against showing pity to our enemies. He completely abrogated the specific prohibition of the law found in Deuteronomy 19:21. In summary, Gagnon takes Jesus statement out of context and
60 Gagnon, Robert A. J. (2002-09-01). Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Kindle Locations 3834-3837). Abingdon Press. Kindle Edition.

Michael Wood

39

then mischaracterizes the immediate context in which it is found. Such deliberate torturing of the biblical text makes it very difficult to give Gagnons motives the benefit of the doubt. He should have never been viewed as an authority on the Bible and homosexuality. This has truly been a case of the blind leading the blind.

Chapter Eight Adam, Eve and Steve

The creation texts authorized only one type of sexual union. It would have been a foregone conclusion for Jesus that homoerotic relationships and human-animal unions, both proscribed in Leviticus, were unacceptable. The whole point of Jesus stance in Mark 10:1-12 is not to broaden the Torahs openness to alternative forms of sexuality but rather to narrow or constrain the Torahs sexual ethic to disallow any sexual union other than a monogamous, lifelong marriage to a person of the opposite sex.61Dr. Robert Gagnon Dr. Gagnon often relies on his readers unawareness of biblical context. We saw one example of this in the previous chapter. Well take a look at another example in this one. In fact, as you will soon see, the very popular Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve is based on a contextual bait and switch! When reading anything, including the Bible, words have no meaning independent of their context. Jesus brought up Adam and Eve within the context of heterosexual divorce:
Some Pharisees came up to Jesus, testing Him, and began to question Him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife. And He answered and said to them, What did Moses command you? They said, Moses permitted a man TO WRITE A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY. But Jesus said to them, Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.Mark 10:2-9

61 Gagnon, Robert A. J. (2002-09-01). Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Kindle Locations 3884-3888). Abingdon Press. Kindle Edition. 40

Michael Wood

41

The context of Mark 10:1-12 is heterosexual divorce (a legal question was asked about a man divorcing a woman). Naturally, the discussion would therefore focus on that which pertains to the marriage relationship of men and women. Is Dr. Gagnon justified in using this passage to condemn the concept of Christian homosexuals? The invalidity of Dr. Gagnons assertion is easily demonstrated. Consider the contexts of all the passages weve discussed so far: The context of the rich young ruler story: Which commandments must be followed to attain eternal life? The context of Jesus quintessential teaching on judgment: What is the deciding factor between those who inherit the kingdom and those who dont? The context of Jesus teaching of the Golden Rule: What determines whether a person is on the narrow road to life or not? The context of Mark 10:1-12: What are legitimate grounds for heterosexual divorce? If one wants to know which commandments must be followed to attain eternal life, he should look to the story of the rich young ruler. Why? Because thats what the story of the rich young ruler is all about. If one wants to know what is the deciding factor between those who inherit the kingdom and those who dont, he should look to Jesus quintessential teaching on judgment. Why? Because thats what the teaching is all about. If one wants to know what determines whether a person is on the narrow road to life or not, he should look to Jesus teaching of the Golden Rule. Why? Because thats what the teaching is all about. What, therefore, would be an inappropriate, invalid, nonsensical way of reading the Bible? Heres a list of inappropriate, invalid, nonsensical ways of reading the Bible: Using a passage on divorce to decide which commandments must be followed to attain eternal life.

42

Jesus on Homosexuality

Using a passage on divorce to decide what is the deciding factor between those who inherit the kingdom and those who dont. Using a passage on divorce to decide what determines whether a person is on the narrow road to life or not. Would anyone really read the Bible in such an invalid and nonsensical way? Dr. Gagnon uses a teaching on divorce to speculate who can enter the kingdom of God and who cant. Meanwhile, his speculation contradicts Jesus own teachings on who can enter the kingdom of God and who cant. Ill repeat: Dr. Gagnon uses a teaching on divorce to speculate who can enter the kingdom of God and who cant. Meanwhile, his speculation contradicts Jesus own teachings on who can enter the kingdom of God and who cant. This nonsensical approach to reading would be amusing if the consequences werent so severe. In his blind pursuit of condemning Christian homosexuals, Dr. Gagnon apparently cannot see the fallacious arguments he is making. We must pray that one day he finds eyes that can see, and ears that can hear. Jesus appealed to a well-established group of commandments to precisely explain who inherits the kingdom and who doesnt. These are the passages that we must look to if we want to truly understand Jesus teaching. These are the passages we must distract attention away from if we want to convince people to believe in a fictitious version of Jesus. I really do not believe that Dr. Gagnon is deliberately trying to deceive. Yet the damage that is the negative effect of his crusade is the same, whether his arguments are intentionally deceptive or not.

Chapter Nine Reframe

I am persuaded that to love God with ones whole being and to pray for the coming of Gods rule entails submitting ones pursuit of sexual pleasure to the revealed will of God.62Dr. Robert Gagnon It is literally impossible to understand the teachings of Jesus without a working knowledge of the Justices and the Jobs. Fortunately, the concept is an easy one:
On the Sabbath, Jews throughout the world gathered in schools where they learned what Philo calls their ancestral philosophy. This philosophy, Philo notes, falls under two headings: duty toward God and duty toward other humans; that is, the Jewish philosophy consisted of the two tables of the Jewish law. When they wanted to summarize these two divisions of the law, Jews quoted two central passages from their Scripture (the Christian Old Testament). One is found in Deuteronomy 6, the famous passage called the Shema in Hebrew, from its first word, Hear. These are the first two verses of the passage: Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God, the Lord alone. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might. (Deut 6:4-5) The second passage enjoins, as Philo put it, fellowship with all humans and philanthrpia, love of humanity. It is Love your neighbor as yourself (Lev 19:18).63

During Jesus day, the Justices and Jobs were designated by two central scriptures:
62 Gagnon, Robert A. J. (2002-09-01). Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Kindle Locations 723-724). Abingdon Press. Kindle Edition. 63 Above, note 2. 43

44

Jesus on Homosexuality

Love God: designated the Jobs (ritual observation and sexual taboos). Love your neighbor: (philanthropy and ethics). designated the Justices

Very few people are aware that the command Love God designated the Jobs during Jesus day. Therefore they interpret this command relative to our modern view of the verse (instead of interpreting it from a first century perspective). When a first-century teenager would ask, Why must we avoid eating shellfish? The parent would answer, Because we must love God with our whole heart, soul, and might. When a first-century teenager would ask, Why cant we wear garments made of two cloths? The parent would answer, Because we must love God with our whole heart, soul, and might. If a brave first-century teenager asked, Why cant men be with other men? The parent would answer, Because we must love God with our whole heart, soul, and might. In the first century, love God designated the Jobs and love your neighbor designated the Justices. Thanks to this recent realization of Christian scholars, we can finally understand one of the most crucial passages in the entire New Testament:
One of the Pharisees, an expert in the Law, asked Jesus a question to trap him. Teacher, what is the great commandment in the Law?64

The Pharisee wanted to prove that the Jobs were necessary for salvation. Therefore, he sought to get Jesus to admit that Love God was the greatest commandment (since that commandment designated the Jobs). Why did the Pharisee do this?

64 Matthew 22:35-36

Michael Wood

45

Jesus had already used the six antitheses to teach that only the Justices are the law. Jesus had already used the Golden Rule to teach that only the Justices are the law. Jesus had already told the rich young ruler that only the Justices are necessary for attaining eternal life. Jesus had already invoked the Hosea Principle twice to teach that only the Justices are necessary for forgiveness of sins. From the Pharisees perspective, by abrogating the Jobs, Jesus must have abrogated the commandment to love God. This is what the passage with the Pharisee was all about. And since conventional translators didnt understand the historical context, they mistranslated the passage terribly. Heres how the passage reads when properly translated:
One of the Pharisees, an expert in the Law, asked Jesus a question to trap him. Teacher, what is the great commandment in the Law? And Jesus said to him, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And the second is the same as it. You shall love your neighbor as yourself.65

The lawyer brought up the command to Love God in an attempt to prove that the Jobs were essential. He brought up the command in order to thwart Jesus teaching that only the Justices are necessary for salvation. Jesus rose to the challenge and completely turned the tables. He reframed Love God, making it a designation of the Justices! In other words, he said: Everyone who loves his neighbor as himself is loving God with his whole heart, soul, and might. The second commandment is the same as the first. This translation is confirmed on three independent levels: Historical Setting: The historical setting informs us of the Pharisees intent. The Pharisees associated love God with the Jobs, and it would be inconceivable that Jesus simply
65 Matthew 22:35-39

46

Jesus on Homosexuality

reaffirmed the Pharisees belief. Internal Consistency: The Greek word homoia could be translated in two ways: the second is the same as the first or the second is like the first.66 The first meaning upholds all of Jesus other teachings in Matthew. The second meaning repudiates all of Jesus other teachings in Matthew. Proper translation requires upholding internal consistency whenever the language allows. Gezera Shava: In the first century, when two commands shared a term in common, they were allowed to be treated as equivalent precepts. This practice was known as gezera shava. The lawyer brought up the commandment You shall love God. Jesus volunteered You shall love your neighbor. Volunteering another commandment that shares a term in common was a popular way of employing gezera shava. Jesus used the fact that the commandments shared the term you shall love in order to show that the second is the same as the first. In other words, they are equivalent precepts.67
66 Note from Dr. William Berg: The adjective homoios (feminine homoia, neuter homoion) derives from homos, which means one and the same (see H. Frisk, Griechisches etymologisches Wrterbuch and P. Chantraine, Dictionnaire etymologique de la langue grecque, under the -entries); homoios, likewise, signifies identity at one end of its spectrum of meaning, and similarity at the other end. For the most part, especially in first-century contexts, it leans toward the upper end of the spectrum, indicating equivalence, equality, congruence or the perfect match. Its real force is best seen in Greek mathematics, from Euclid through Archimedes and Ptolemy and beyond, where congruent angles, triangles, polygons, etc. are called isa kai homoia (equal and the same, one and the same). In that very common expression, homoia reinforces and emphasizes the equality specified in isa (the conventional translation, equal and similar, fails to take note of that intensifying function). (For references, see Liddell-Scott-Jones, Greek Lexicon, under the entry .) The fact that Matthew 22:37-40 uses homoia in the context of a Gezerah Shavah (equivalent pronouncement) would indicate a semantic position in the upper reaches of homoios range of meaning, in the area of equal or equivalent, or the same. Therefore, the Greek text would support the premise that Love your neighbor as yourself is one and the same with Love God with your whole being. 67 For a helpful explanation of gezera shava see Paul on Homosexuality, chapter 11, Gezera Shava: the Missing Link, chapter 12, The Tables Have Turned, and chapter

Michael Wood

47

Jesus repeatedly taught that only the Justices are the Law. He did so because he believed that God solely desires loving-kindness for the forgiveness of sins.68 It was therefore only natural for him to teach that those who love their neighbors as themselves are loving God with their whole heart, body, soul and might. This is what it means to love God.

13, Mystical Union. ----For a brief online tutorial see: http://jcstudies.com/articleDetail.cfm?articleId=60 68 See chapter six, Atonement.

Chapter Ten Still Outside

however we describe Jesus distinctive teaching in relation to the Mosaic law, at the end of the day we cannot say that Jesus abrogated the law or any part of it (though he did prioritize some parts of the law over others).69Dr. Robert Gagnon One of the most overlooked passages in the New Testament is found in the twelfth chapter of Mark:
One of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that Jesus had answered them well, asked Him, What commandment is the foremost of all? Jesus answered, The foremost is, HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD; AND YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH. The second is this, YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF. There is no other commandment greater than these. The scribe said to Him, Right, Teacher; You have truly stated that HE IS ONE, AND THERE IS NO ONE ELSE BESIDES HIM; AND TO LOVE HIM WITH ALL THE HEART AND WITH ALL THE UNDERSTANDING AND WITH ALL THE STRENGTH, AND TO LOVE ONES NEIGHBOR AS HIMSELF, is much more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices. When Jesus saw that he had answered intelligently, He said to him, You are not far from the kingdom of God.70

The sentence that is most overlooked is: You are not far from the kingdom of God. In other words, the mans answer was close, but still incorrect. (He was close, but still outside the kingdom.) Why did Jesus acknowledge that the man was close, but still outside? As you may recall, the Hosea Principle taught that lovingkindness is all that is needed for the forgiveness of sins. (God desires loving-kindness not a sacrifice.)71 The man, however, said that loving
69 Gagnon, Robert A. J. (2002-09-01). Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Kindle Locations 4373-4375). Abingdon Press. Kindle Edition. 70 Mark 12:28-34 NASB 71 See chapter six, Atonement. 48

Michael Wood

49

others is more important than sacrifice. He was close, but still outside. He didnt go far enough. The Gospel of Mark was written to a first-century Jewish audience. Heres what the passage communicated to them: A man asks Jesus what is the greatest commandment. Jesus answered Love God. Jesus then volunteers Love your neighbor to employ gezera shava (showing that the two commandments are equivalent precepts.)72 The man couldnt fully accept Jesus teaching, but his position was moved as he thought about it. He stated that he now understood that loving others was more important than sacrifice. Jesus told him that his answer isnt far off, but hes still outside. The account was written to emphasize Jesus seriousness that the Justices are the only commandments that matter. The Jobs arent merely diminished. Rather, they are irrelevant. Two chapters earlier, Mark had already presented the story of the rich young ruler. As in Matthews Gospel, the man asked Jesus which commandments were necessary for eternal life. As in Matthews Gospel, Jesus cited only Justices. Jesus teachings in Mark chapters 10 and 12 were both written to teach that only the Justices are necessary. In fact, if someone thinks that the Jobs are diminished yet necessary, they are still outside the kingdom. Sadly, this is precisely what Dr. Gagnon teaches people today:
however we describe Jesus distinctive teaching in relation to the Mosaic law, at the end of the day we cannot say that Jesus abrogated the law or any part of it (though he did prioritize some parts of the law over others).73

Gagnon is in the same boat as the man mentioned in Mark. He can accept that Jesus intensified the Justices, but he cannot (yet)
72 See chapter nine, Reframe. 73 Gagnon, Robert A. J. (2002-09-01). Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Kindle Locations 4373-4375). Abingdon Press. Kindle Edition.

50

Jesus on Homosexuality

accept that Jesus disregarded the Jobs. Gagnons theology is close to the kingdom, but still outside. And now we have come to the crux of the Christian homosexual issue. Those who fight against full acceptance of homosexuals risk being close to the kingdom, but still outside. They still havent surrendered to the fullness of Jesus message: Only the Justices are the Law; the Jobs are not. This was the number one issue faced by the apostle Paul. Everywhere he went, Judaizers were telling his converts that they must keep the Jobs of the Torah. But Paul understood that faith in Jesus was incompatible with believing in the necessity of any Jobs. Much of his writings to the Galatians and Romans contrast faith in Jesus against the Jobs of the Torah. He told people they must choose. Do they have faith in him who taught that only the Justices are the Law, or do they seek vindication through the Jobs? You cannot have it both ways. Pauls message has been bastardized in two ways. One group says that faith is independent of any commandments whatsoever. Jesus core message about the necessity of the Justices is thrown overboard. Another group says that the prohibition on homosexuality must be obeyed for entering the kingdom. These folks are close, but still outside. I write this book in hopes that the homosexual debate will awaken Christians to the original teachings of Jesus and Paul. If the members of the Christian faith embraced keeping the Justices (repentance) for the forgiveness of sins, the entire world would be transformed overnight. Can we imagine a world in which hundreds of millions of people are dedicated to acts of loving-kindness in Jesus name? May Christianity return to her roots so she can grow and heal the world!

Epilogue
This work has demonstrated: Homosexuality was a Job and Jesus taught that only the Justices matter when it comes to eternal life. (Chapter One) Homosexuality was a Job and Jesus taught that only the Justices are the Law. (Chapter Two) Homosexuality was a Job and Jesus taught that only the Justices will matter on judgment day. (Chapter Three) Homosexuality was a Job and Paul taught that only the Justices are the Law. (Chapter Four) Homosexuality was a Job and Luke taught that repentance requires only keeping the Justices. (Chapter Five) Homosexuality was a Job and Jesus taught that only the Justices are necessary for the forgiveness of sins. (Chapter Six) Homosexuality was a Job and Jesus taught that he is only preserving the Justices section of the Law. (Chapter Seven) Homosexuality was a Job and Jesus taught that keeping the Justices fulfills our entire obligation to love God. (Chapter Nine) Homosexuality was a Job and Jesus taught that anyone who believes the Jobs are necessary is still outside the kingdom. (Chapter Ten) The Justices and Jobs eliminate the possibility that Jesus condemned homosexuality. Period. Its only a matter of time before Christianity realizes it.

51

For more information on Jesus and homosexuality:

www.JesusOnHomosexuality.com

For more information on Paul and homosexuality:

www.PaulOnHomosexuality.com

For information on other works by Michael Wood:

www.MichaelWoodCrypto.com