Protection by Gary Rose

This picture illustrates a fact: If someone is armed, they have protection. Yesterday, many (far TOO MANY) people were killed by a Muslim terrorist. If they had been armed, they would have had protection from him. However, they were unarmed and became easy prey. I encourage everyone who owns a gun to obtain a permit for concealed carry and protect yourself with your weapon, daily. But what about spiritual protection? How do we protect ourselves from Satan? Consider the following...

1 Corinthians, Chapter 10 (WEB)

  ¹ Now I would not have you ignorant, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;  ² and were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea;  ³ and all ate the same spiritual food;  ⁴ and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.  ⁵ However with most of them, God was not well pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness.  ⁶ Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.  ⁷ Neither be idolaters, as some of them were. As it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.”  ⁸ Neither let us commit sexual immorality, as some of them committed, and in one day twenty-three thousand fell.  ⁹ Neither let us test the Lord, as some of them tested, and perished by the serpents.  ¹⁰ Neither grumble, as some of them also grumbled, and perished by the destroyer.  ¹¹ Now all these things happened to them by way of example, and they were written for our admonition, on whom the ends of the ages have come.  ¹² Therefore let him who thinks he stands be careful that he doesn’t fall. 

  ¹³  No temptation has taken you except what is common to man. God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted above what you are able, but will with the temptation also make the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it. (emp. added GDR)

and...

Ephesians, Chapter 6 (WEB)

  ¹⁰  Finally, be strong in the Lord, and in the strength of his might.  ¹¹ Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. (emp. added GDR) ¹² For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world’s rulers of the darkness of this age, and against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.  ¹³ Therefore put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and, having done all, to stand. (emp. added GDR) ¹⁴ Stand therefore, having the utility belt of truth buckled around your waist, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness,  ¹⁵ and having fitted your feet with the preparation of the Good News of peace;  ¹⁶ above all, taking up the shield of faith, with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the evil one.  ¹⁷ And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God;  ¹⁸ with all prayer and requests, praying at all times in the Spirit, and being watchful to this end in all perseverance and requests for all the saints:  ¹⁹ on my behalf, that utterance may be given to me in opening my mouth, to make known with boldness the mystery of the Good News,  ²⁰ for which I am an ambassador in chains; that in it I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak. 

It is a sad thing that so many died Sunday in Orlando. Even worse is that some of the victims were engaged in a homosexual lifestyle and the shooter followed the devil's cult of Islam. Sin has consequences; without Jesus there is no hope. Protect yourself from evil and look to God for protection spiritually. Obey the Gospel and be saved from Hell. 

Bible Reading June 13 by Gary Rose

Bible Reading  June 13 (The World English Bible)

June 13

1 Samuel 19, 20

1Sa 19:1 Saul spoke to Jonathan his son, and to all his servants, that they should kill David. But Jonathan, Saul's son, delighted much in David.

1Sa 19:2 Jonathan told David, saying, Saul my father seeks to kill you: now therefore, please take care of yourself in the morning, and live in a secret place, and hide yourself:

1Sa 19:3 and I will go out and stand beside my father in the field where you are, and I will talk with my father about you; and if I see anything, I will tell you.

1Sa 19:4 Jonathan spoke good of David to Saul his father, and said to him, Don't let the king sin against his servant, against David; because he has not sinned against you, and because his works have been very good toward you:

1Sa 19:5 for he put his life in his hand, and struck the Philistine, and Yahweh worked a great victory for all Israel: you saw it, and rejoiced; why then will you sin against innocent blood, to kill David without a cause?

1Sa 19:6 Saul listened to the voice of Jonathan: and Saul swore, As Yahweh lives, he shall not be put to death.

1Sa 19:7 Jonathan called David, and Jonathan showed him all those things. Jonathan brought David to Saul, and he was in his presence, as before.

1Sa 19:8 There was war again: and David went out, and fought with the Philistines, and killed them with a great slaughter; and they fled before him.

1Sa 19:9 An evil spirit from Yahweh was on Saul, as he sat in his house with his spear in his hand; and David was playing with his hand.

1Sa 19:10 Saul sought to strike David even to the wall with the spear; but he slipped away out of Saul's presence, and he struck the spear into the wall: and David fled, and escaped that night.

1Sa 19:11 Saul sent messengers to David's house, to watch him, and to kill him in the morning: and Michal, David's wife, told him, saying, If you don't save your life tonight, tomorrow you will be slain.

1Sa 19:12 So Michal let David down through the window: and he went, and fled, and escaped.

1Sa 19:13 Michal took the teraphim, and laid it in the bed, and put a pillow of goats' hair at its head, and covered it with the clothes.

1Sa 19:14 When Saul sent messengers to take David, she said, He is sick.

1Sa 19:15 Saul sent the messengers to see David, saying, Bring him up to me in the bed, that I may kill him.

1Sa 19:16 When the messengers came in, behold, the teraphim was in the bed, with the pillow of goats' hair at its head.

1Sa 19:17 Saul said to Michal, Why have you deceived me thus, and let my enemy go, so that he is escaped? Michal answered Saul, He said to me, Let me go; why should I kill you?

1Sa 19:18 Now David fled, and escaped, and came to Samuel to Ramah, and told him all that Saul had done to him. He and Samuel went and lived in Naioth.

1Sa 19:19 It was told Saul, saying, Behold, David is at Naioth in Ramah.

1Sa 19:20 Saul sent messengers to take David: and when they saw the company of the prophets prophesying, and Samuel standing as head over them, the Spirit of God came on the messengers of Saul, and they also prophesied.

1Sa 19:21 When it was told Saul, he sent other messengers, and they also prophesied. Saul sent messengers again the third time, and they also prophesied.

1Sa 19:22 Then went he also to Ramah, and came to the great well that is in Secu: and he asked and said, Where are Samuel and David? One said, Behold, they are at Naioth in Ramah.

1Sa 19:23 He went there to Naioth in Ramah: and the Spirit of God came on him also, and he went on, and prophesied, until he came to Naioth in Ramah.

1Sa 19:24 He also stripped off his clothes, and he also prophesied before Samuel, and lay down naked all that day and all that night. Therefore they say, "Is Saul also among the prophets?"

1Sa 20:1 David fled from Naioth in Ramah, and came and said before Jonathan, "What have I done? What is my iniquity?" and "What is my sin before your father, that he seeks my life?"

1Sa 20:2 He said to him, "Far from it; you shall not die: behold, my father does nothing either great or small, but that he discloses it to me; and why should my father hide this thing from me? It is not so."

1Sa 20:3 David swore moreover, and said, "Your father knows well that I have found favor in your eyes; and he says, 'Don't let Jonathan know this, lest he be grieved:' but truly as Yahweh lives, and as your soul lives, there is but a step between me and death."

1Sa 20:4 Then said Jonathan to David, "Whatever your soul desires, I will even do it for you."

1Sa 20:5 David said to Jonathan, "Behold, tomorrow is the new moon, and I should not fail to dine with the king; but let me go, that I may hide myself in the field to the third day at evening.

1Sa 20:6 If your father miss me at all, then say, 'David earnestly asked leave of me that he might run to Bethlehem his city; for it is the yearly sacrifice there for all the family.'

1Sa 20:7 If he says, 'It is well;' your servant shall have peace: but if he be angry, then know that evil is determined by him.

1Sa 20:8 Therefore deal kindly with your servant; for you have brought your servant into a covenant of Yahweh with you: but if there be in me iniquity, kill me yourself; for why should you bring me to your father?"

1Sa 20:9 Jonathan said, "Far be it from you; for if I should at all know that evil were determined by my father to come on you, then wouldn't I tell you that?"

1Sa 20:10 Then said David to Jonathan, "Who shall tell me if perchance your father answers you roughly?"

1Sa 20:11 Jonathan said to David, "Come, and let us go out into the field." They both went out into the field.

1Sa 20:12 Jonathan said to David, "Yahweh, the God of Israel,be witness: when I have sounded my father about this time tomorrow, or the third day, behold, if there be good toward David, shall I not then send to you, and disclose it to you?

1Sa 20:13 Yahweh do so to Jonathan, and more also, should it please my father to do you evil, if I don't disclose it to you, and send you away, that you may go in peace: and Yahweh be with you, as he has been with my father.

1Sa 20:14 You shall not only while yet I live show me the loving kindness of Yahweh, that I not die;

1Sa 20:15 but also you shall not cut off your kindness from my house forever; no, not when Yahweh has cut off the enemies of David everyone from the surface of the earth."

1Sa 20:16 So Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, Yahweh will require it at the hand of David's enemies.

1Sa 20:17 Jonathan caused David to swear again, for the love that he had to him; for he loved him as he loved his own soul.

1Sa 20:18 Then Jonathan said to him, Tomorrow is the new moon: and you will be missed, because your seat will be empty.

1Sa 20:19 When you have stayed three days, you shall go down quickly, and come to the place where you did hide yourself when the business was in hand, and shall remain by the stone Ezel.

1Sa 20:20 I will shoot three arrows on its side, as though I shot at a mark.

1Sa 20:21 Behold, I will send the boy, saying, Go, find the arrows. If I tell the boy, Behold, the arrows are on this side of you; take them, and come; for there is peace to you and no hurt, as Yahweh lives.

1Sa 20:22 But if I say thus to the boy, Behold, the arrows are beyond you; go your way; for Yahweh has sent you away.

1Sa 20:23 As touching the matter which you and I have spoken of, behold, Yahweh is between you and me forever.

1Sa 20:24 So David hid himself in the field: and when the new moon was come, the king sat him down to eat food.

1Sa 20:25 The king sat on his seat, as at other times, even on the seat by the wall; and Jonathan stood up, and Abner sat by Saul's side: but David's place was empty.

1Sa 20:26 Nevertheless Saul didn't say anything that day: for he thought, Something has happened to him. He is not clean. Surely he is not clean.

1Sa 20:27 It happened on the next day after the new moon,which was the second day, that David's place was empty: and Saul said to Jonathan his son, Why doesn't the son of Jesse come to meat, neither yesterday, nor today?

1Sa 20:28 Jonathan answered Saul, David earnestly asked leave of me to go to Bethlehem:

1Sa 20:29 and he said, Please let me go, for our family has a sacrifice in the city; and my brother, he has commanded me to be there: and now, if I have found favor in your eyes, let me get away, I pray you, and see my brothers. Therefore he is not come to the king's table.

1Sa 20:30 Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said to him, You son of a perverse rebellious woman, don't I know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother's nakedness?

1Sa 20:31 For as long as the son of Jesse lives on the earth, you shall not be established, nor your kingdom. Therefore now send and bring him to me, for he shall surely die.

1Sa 20:32 Jonathan answered Saul his father, and said to him, "Why should he be put to death? What has he done?"

1Sa 20:33 Saul cast his spear at him to strike him. By this Jonathan knew that his father was determined to put David to death.

1Sa 20:34 So Jonathan arose from the table in fierce anger, and ate no food the second day of the month; for he was grieved for David, because his father had done him shame.

1Sa 20:35 It happened in the morning, that Jonathan went out into the field at the time appointed with David, and a little boy with him.

1Sa 20:36 He said to his boy, Run, find now the arrows which I shoot. As the boy ran, he shot an arrow beyond him.

1Sa 20:37 When the boy was come to the place of the arrow which Jonathan had shot, Jonathan cried after the boy, and said, Isn't the arrow beyond you?

1Sa 20:38 Jonathan cried after the boy, Go fast! Hurry! Don't delay! Jonathan's boy gathered up the arrows, and came to his master.

1Sa 20:39 But the boy didn't know anything: only Jonathan and David knew the matter.

1Sa 20:40 Jonathan gave his weapons to his boy, and said to him, Go, carry them to the city.

1Sa 20:41 As soon as the boy was gone, David arose out of a place toward the South, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.

1Sa 20:42 Jonathan said to David, Go in peace, because we have sworn both of us in the name of Yahweh, saying, Yahweh shall be between me and you, and between my seed and your seed, forever. He arose and departed: and Jonathan went into the city.

Jun. 13, 14

John 15

Joh 15:1 "I am the true vine, and my Father is the farmer.

Joh 15:2 Every branch in me that doesn't bear fruit, he takes away. Every branch that bears fruit, he prunes, that it may bear more fruit.

Joh 15:3 You are already pruned clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.

Joh 15:4 Remain in me, and I in you. As the branch can't bear fruit by itself, unless it remains in the vine, so neither can you, unless you remain in me.

Joh 15:5 I am the vine. You are the branches. He who remains in me, and I in him, the same bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.

Joh 15:6 If a man doesn't remain in me, he is thrown out as a branch, and is withered; and they gather them, throw them into the fire, and they are burned.

Joh 15:7 If you remain in me, and my words remain in you, you will ask whatever you desire, and it will be done for you.

Joh 15:8 "In this is my Father glorified, that you bear much fruit; and so you will be my disciples.

Joh 15:9 Even as the Father has loved me, I also have loved you. Remain in my love.

Joh 15:10 If you keep my commandments, you will remain in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and remain in his love.

Joh 15:11 I have spoken these things to you, that my joy may remain in you, and that your joy may be made full.

Joh 15:12 "This is my commandment, that you love one another, even as I have loved you.

Joh 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.

Joh 15:14 You are my friends, if you do whatever I command you.

Joh 15:15 No longer do I call you servants, for the servant doesn't know what his lord does. But I have called you friends, for everything that I heard from my Father, I have made known to you.

Joh 15:16 You didn't choose me, but I chose you, and appointed you, that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain; that whatever you will ask of the Father in my name, he may give it to you.

Joh 15:17 "I command these things to you, that you may love one another.

Joh 15:18 If the world hates you, you know that it has hated me before it hated you.

Joh 15:19 If you were of the world, the world would love its own. But because you are not of the world, since I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.

Joh 15:20 Remember the word that I said to you: 'A servant is not greater than his lord.' If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will keep yours also.

Joh 15:21 But all these things will they do to you for my name's sake, because they don't know him who sent me.

Joh 15:22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have had sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.

Joh 15:23 He who hates me, hates my Father also.

Joh 15:24 If I hadn't done among them the works which no one else did, they wouldn't have had sin. But now have they seen and also hated both me and my Father.

Joh 15:25 But this happened so that the word may be fulfilled which was written in their law, 'They hated me without a cause.'

Joh 15:26 "When the Counselor has come, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will testify about me.

Joh 15:27 You will also testify, because you have been with me from the beginning.

To Love Another by Donny Weimar

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Weimar/Donny/W/1969/tolove.html

To Love Another

God's Gospel is one large lesson on how to love in such a way that one's inner self finds every need satisfied through service to others. In an increasingly emotional culture we Americans have become detached from a realistic understanding of what it truly means to love. We have come to equate irresistible desires to possess or enjoy with being in love. In contrast with this, biblical love is not about self-gratification.
A gentleman frantically comes into the minister's office because his wife is divorcing him. "Slow down, Daniel," the minister says to him. "Why is Natasha leaving you?" The man relates to him that he had come home to find his wife in bed with another. The next day, the minister goes to Daniel's home because he had convinced his wife to counsel. She explained that other men had told her she could do much better than Daniel. Eventually, one came home with her, and.... she was now determined to divorce.
The Devil knew Natasha all too well. Unwrapping her emotional cravings he found the diabolical gift of deception. "You can do much better," she was told and she broke her commitment to Daniel.
Here is the greatest difference between worldly love and biblical love. The world's vernacular allows love to be temporary, for the moment. Sacred love is forever; it never fails (1 Corinthians 13:8). From Heaven's vantage point, love is not something we fall into or out of and it isn't something that can be discarded because we see something better. When we love as God teaches, there is nothing greater.
Perhaps, it was because her husband came home nightly exhausted from his work and did not find the energy needed to woo his wife with the attention she needed, to know she was the center of his affection. Maybe he didn't tell her 'I love you' enough to reassure her. She wasn't sure anymore. All she knew was that the man she had married was not holding her as long and as tightly as three years before. When Alex gave her the affection she was missing she fell prey to his moves. And now, Daniel is left scratching his head, "Where did I go wrong?"
Commitment. Sacrifice. Communication. These three words are missing from worldly love. From the beginning, God ordained that husband and wife be inseparably committed to their marriage (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:8-9). For this to happen both must put the needs of their mate above their own (Ephesians 5:21-33). Love is not about self-gratification. No, it is about meeting the needs of others (Galatians 6:2). It is not right for the man to come home, plop himself down in his recliner and demand that his wife bring him a beverage, after having ignored her greeting when he came through the door. And, it is not right for the wife to hop in the sack with another man because her needs are going unmet. Marriage is not "what can I get" but "what can I give" (Ephesians 5:33).
Donny Weimar


Published in The Old Paths Archive
(http://www.oldpaths.com)

Did Jesus Break the Sabbath? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=5155&b=Matthew

Did Jesus Break the Sabbath?

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

One common misconception regarding the behavior of Jesus is that, on occasion, in healing the sick and performing other benevolent actions, He broke the Sabbath in order to accommodate the higher law of love. This viewpoint leaves the impression that law is sometimes, if not frequently, antithetical to being loving. It implies that sometimes breaking God’s laws is necessary in order to be loving. This notion, of course, is flawed and contrary to Bible teaching. As Paul explained to the Romans: “he who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments…are all summed up in this saying, namely, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law” (Romans 13:8-10). Paul meant that when you obey the law’s directives concerning how to conduct yourself toward your neighbor, you will be engaging in loving behavior. To love, one must enact God’s laws.

The fact is the perfect Son of God obeyed all of God’s laws, never violating even one Divine precept (Hebrews 4:15). Sin is defined as violation of God’s law (1 John 3:4). Since Jesus was sinless, He never broke God’s laws. Hence, He could not have broken the Sabbath. Those who leveled such an accusation against Him were, in fact, mistaken.

THE POOL

Take, for example, the incident in John 5, when Jesus caused a man, who suffered from a 38-year-old ailment, to rise from his bed of confinement and walk. The fact that Jesus’ action took place on the Sabbath drew the criticism of the Jews who promptly informed the man, “It is the Sabbath; it is not lawful for you to carry your bed” (vs. 10). Many would suppose that Jesus would not be concerned with careful conformity to the Law. They would assume that He would chide the Jews for their “nit-picky, legalistic” approach to religion, and that He would be quite willing to dismiss the requirements of the Law in order to give priority to human need in the name of compassion. But this viewpoint is fraught with error, not the least of which is its demeaning assessment of law—law which God, Himself, authored. Law, according to God, is given for human well-being (Deuteronomy 6:24; 10:13; Proverbs 29:18). God’s law is “holy and just and good” (Romans 7:12), and serves divinely intended, positive purposes (e.g., Romans 3:20). Indeed, Jesus’ handling of His critics illustrates the high regard He had for law, the necessity of carefully conforming to that law, and the critical importance of applying it accurately.

In John 7, calling attention to the miracle He performed in chapter 5, Jesus offered a logical rebuttal to the allegation that He violated the Sabbath. Here is that argument placed in syllogistic form:

Premise 1: If the Law of Moses requires the circumcision of a male infant on the 8^th day after birth—even when the 8^th day falls on the Sabbath—then healing a man on the Sabbath is equally legal.

Premise 2: The Law of Moses requires the circumcision of a male infant on the 8^th day after birth—even when the 8^th day fell on the Sabbath.

Conclusion: Therefore, healing a man on the Sabbath is equally legal.

Jesus then offered a concluding admonition that cinched the validity of His argument: “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment” (vs. 24). Making application of God’s laws based on “appearance” refers to doing so based on how things seem or look to the person making the judgment, i.e., forming an opinion based on inadequate evidence. To the contrary, to “judge with righteous judgment” means to make accurate assessments by drawing only warranted conclusions from the evidence, i.e., thinking and acting rationally. One must be very careful that he is “accurately handling the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15, NASB) and not “handling the word of God deceitfully” (2 Corinthians 4:2).

THE SYNAGOGUE

Another instance in which Jesus was falsely accused of breaking the Sabbath is seen on the occasion when Jesus entered the synagogue and encountered a man who had a deformed hand (Matthew 12:9-13). This circumstance prompted His enemies to ask Him a question in hopes of being able to accuse Him of breaking the Law. They asked: “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?” Of course, they had pre-decided that the answer to the question was “no,” and that, in fact, the Law would naturally forbid such an action.

Unfortunately, the prevailing interpretation of the Law of Moses at the time, at least among the Jewish leaders, was that the Sabbath law enjoined total inactivity—as if everyone was to sit down for 24 hours and do absolutely nothing. This view was a distortion of God’s Law on the matter. The Law gave the right, even the obligation, to engage in several activities (that could rightly be designated “work”) that did not constitute violation of the Sabbath regulation. On this occasion, Jesus pinpointed one such instance: “What man is there among you who has one sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not lay hold of it and lift it out?” (vs. 11). Jesus was recalling a directive from the Law of Moses:

You shall not see your brother’s ox or his sheep going astray, and hide yourself from them; you shall certainly bring them back to your brother. And if your brother is not near you, or if you do not know him, then you shall bring it to your own house, and it shall remain with you until your brother seeks it; then you shall restore it to him. You shall do the same with his donkey, and so shall you do with his garment; with any lost thing of your brother’s, which he has lost and you have found, you shall do likewise; you must not hide yourself. You shall not see your brother’s donkey or his ox fall down along the road, and hide yourself from them; you shall surely help him lift them up again (Deuteronomy 22:1-4; cf. Exodus 23:4-5).

Such passages give insight into the nature of God and provide tremendous assistance in making proper application of God’s laws to everyday circumstances.

Observe that God’s laws never contradict or countermand each other. Unlike manmade laws which often manifest inconsistency and contradiction, God’s laws function in perfect harmony with each other. The Mosaic passage to which Jesus alluded demonstrates that the general principle of the cessation of usual work on the Sabbath did not conflict with any number of specific circumstances in which benevolence and compassion were to be expressed. In an agriculturally based society, a family’s survival depends on its farm animals. If a sheep, ox, or donkey were to break out of its stall, flee the premises, and then fall into a pit from which it would be unable to extricate itself, the animal would most likely die or become seriously ill if left in its predicament for 24 hours. To expend the necessary effort (i.e., “work”) to retrieve the animal from danger was not considered by God to be included in the Sabbath prohibition. Hence, Jesus stated the logical conclusion: “Of how much more value then is a man than a sheep?” (vs. 12). If action could be exerted to see to the well-being of a dumb animal, then obviously, God would approve of action taken to see to the physical care of a human being! Here, once again, is Jesus’ argument placed in syllogistic form:

Premise 1: If the Law of Moses requires a person to manifest care, concern, and physical effort to recover a neighbor’s escaped, endangered farm animal—even when the incident occurs on the Sabbath—then healing a man on the Sabbath is equally legal.

Premise 2: The Law of Moses requires a person to manifest care, concern, and physical effort to recover a neighbor’s escaped, endangered farm animal—even when the incident occurs on the Sabbath.

Conclusion: Therefore, healing a man on the Sabbath is equally legal.

The logic is penetrating and decisive. Indeed, “they could not answer Him regarding these things” (Luke 14:6; see also Luke 6:6-11). Far from suggesting that law is unimportant and may be ignored under the guise of “human need,” or implying that humans can break the “letter of the law” in order to keep the “spirit of the law” (see Miller, 2003), Jesus demonstrated that inherently built into God’s laws are all concerns deemed by Deity to be necessary. The benevolent, loving thing to do willalways harmonize with God’s laws, since “love is the fulfillment of the law” (Romans 13:10), i.e., every truly loving action has already been defined by God in His legal admonitions.

THE GRAIN FIELD

A final instance in which Jesus was accused of breaking the Sabbath is seen in the grain field incident (Matthew 12:1-8). Many commentators automatically assume that the charge leveled against Jesus’ disciples by the Pharisees was a scripturally valid charge. However, when the disciples picked and consumed a few heads of grain from a neighbor’s field, they were doing that which was perfectly lawful (Deuteronomy 23:25). Working would have been a violation of the Sabbath law. If they had pulled out a sickle and begun harvesting the grain, they would have been violating the Sabbath law. However, they were picking strictly for the purpose of eating immediately—an action that was in complete harmony with Mosaic legislation (“but that which everyone must eat”—Exodus 12:16). A modern equivalent might be reaching for a box of cereal on the pantry shelf, pouring it in a bowl, retrieving the milk from the refrigerator, pouring it on the cereal, and eating it. The Pharisees’ charge that the disciples were doing something “not lawful” on the Sabbath was simply an erroneous charge (cf. Matthew 15:2).

Jesus commenced to counter their accusation with masterful, penetrating logic, advancing successive rebuttals. Before He presented specific scriptural refutation of their charge, He first employed a rational device designated by logicians asargumentum ad hominem (literally “argument to the man”). He used the “circumstantial” form of this argument, which enabled Him to “point out a contrast between the opponent’s lifestyle and his expressed opinions, thereby suggesting that the opponent and his statements can be dismissed as hypocritical” (Baum, 1975, p. 470, emp. added). This variety of argumentation spotlights the opponent’s inconsistency, and “charges the adversary with being so prejudiced that his alleged reasons are mere rationalizations of conclusions dictated by self-interest” (Copi, 1972, p. 76).

Observe carefully the technical sophistication inherent in Jesus’ strategy. He called attention to the case of David (vss. 3-4). When David was in exile, literally running for his life to escape the jealous, irrational rage of Saul, he and his companions arrived in Nob, tired and hungry (1 Samuel 21). He lied to the priest and conned him into giving to his traveling companions the showbread, or “bread of the Presence” (12 flat cakes arranged in two rows on the table within the Tabernacle [Exodus 25:23-30; Leviticus 24:5-6])—bread that legally was reserved only for the priests (Leviticus 24:8-9; cf. Exodus 29:31-34; Leviticus 8:31; 22:10ff.). David clearly violated the law. Did the Pharisees condemn him? Absolutely not! They revered David. They held him in high regard. In fact, nearly a thousand years after his passing, his tomb was still being tended (Acts 2:29; cf. 1 Kings 2:10; Nehemiah 3:16; Josephus, 1974a, 13.8.4; 16.7.1; Josephus, 1974b, 1.2.5). On the one hand, they condemned the disciples of Jesus, who were innocent, but on the other hand, they upheld and revered David, who was guilty. Their inconsistency betrayed both their insincerity as well as their ineligibility to bring a charge against the disciples.

After exposing their hypocrisy and inconsistency, Jesus next turned to answer the charge pertaining to violating the Sabbath. He called their attention to the priests who worked in the Temple on the Sabbath (12:5; e.g., Numbers 28:9-10). The priests were “blameless”—not guilty—of violating the Sabbath law because their work was authorized to be performed on that day. As previously noted, the Sabbath law did not imply that everyone was to sit down and do nothing. The Law gave the right, even the obligation, to engage in several activities that did not constitute violation of the Sabbath regulation. Again, examples of such authorization included eating, Temple service, circumcision (John 7:22), tending to the basic care of animals (Exodus 23:4-5; Deuteronomy 22:1-4; Matthew 12:11; Luke 13:15), and extending kindness or assistance to the needy (Matthew 12:12; Luke 13:16; 14:1-6; John 5:5-9; 7:23). The divinely authorized Sabbath activity of the priests provedthat the accusation of the Pharisees brought against Jesus’ disciples was false. [The term “profane” (vs. 5) is an example of the figure of speech known as metonymy of the adjunct in which “things are spoken of according to appearance, opinions formed respecting them, or the claims made for them” (Dungan, 1888, p. 295, emp. added). By this figure, Leah was said to be the “mother” of Joseph (Genesis 37:10), Joseph was said to be the “father” of Jesus (Luke 2:48; John 6:42), God’s preached message was said to be “foolishness” (1 Corinthians 1:21), and angels were said to be “men” (e.g., Genesis 18:16; 19:10). Priestly activity on the Sabbath gave the appearance of violation when, in fact, it was not. Coincidentally, Bullinger classified the allusion to “profane” in this verse as an instance of catachresis, or incongruity, stating that “it expresses what was true according to the mistaken notion of the Pharisees as to manual works performed on the Sabbath” (1898, p. 676, emp. added).]

After pointing out the obvious legality of priestly effort expended on the Sabbath, Jesus stated: “But I say to you that in this place there is One greater than the temple” (12:6). The underlying Greek text actually has “something” instead of “One.” If priests could carry on Tabernacle/Temple service on the Sabbath, surely Jesus’ own disciples were authorized to engage in service in the presence of the Son of God! After all, service directed to the person of Jesus certainly is greater than the pre-Christianity Temple service conducted by Old Testament priests.

For all practical purposes, the discussion was over. Jesus had disproved the claim of the Pharisees. But He did not stop there. He took His methodical confrontation to yet another level. He penetrated beneath the surface argument that the Pharisees had posited and focused on their hearts: “But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless” (12:7). In this verse, Jesus quoted from an Old Testament context (Hosea 6:6) in which the prophet of old struck a blow against the mere external, superficial, ritualistic observance of some laws, to the neglect of heartfelt, sincere, humble attention to other laws while treating people properly. The comparison is evident. The Pharisees who confronted Jesus’ disciples were not truly interested in obeying God’s law. They were masquerading under that pretense (cf. Matthew 15:1-9; 23:3). But their problem did not lie in an attitude of desiring careful compliance with God’s law. Rather, their zest for law keeping was hypocritical and unaccompanied by their own obedience and concern for others. They possessed critical hearts and were more concerned with scrutinizing and blasting people than with honest, genuine applications of God’s directives for the good of mankind.

They had neutralized the true intent of divine regulations, making void the Word of God (Matthew 15:6). They had ignored and skipped over the significant laws that enjoined justice, mercy, and faith (Matthew 23:23). Consequently, though their attention to legal detail was laudable, their misapplication of it, as well as their own neglect and rejection of some aspects of it, made them inappropriate and unqualified promulgators of God’s laws. Indeed, they simply did not fathom the teaching of Hosea 6:6 (cf. Micah 6:6-8). “I will have mercy, and not sacrifice” is a Hebraism (cf. Matthew 9:13) [McGarvey, 1875, pp. 82-83]. God was not saying that He did not want sacrifices offered under the Old Testament economy (notice the use of “more” in Hosea 6:6). Rather, He was saying that He did not want sacrifice alone. He wanted mercy with sacrifice. Internal motive and attitude are just as important to God as the external compliance with specifics.

Samuel addressed this same attitude shown by Saul: “Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed than the fat of rams” (1 Samuel 15:22). Samuel was not minimizing the essentiality of sacrifice as required by God. Rather, he was convicting Saul of the pretense of using one aspect of God’s requirements, i.e., alleged “sacrifice” of the best animals (1 Samuel 15:15), as a smoke screen for violating God’s instructions, i.e., failing to destroy all the animals (1 Samuel 15:3). If the Pharisees had understood these things, they would not have accused the disciples of breaking the law when the disciples, in fact, had not done so. They “would not have condemned the guiltless” (Matthew 12:7, emp. added).

While the disciples were guilty of violating an injunction that the Pharisees had concocted (supposing the injunction to be a genuine implication of the Sabbath regulation), the disciples were not guilty of a violation of Sabbath law. The Pharisees’ propensity for enjoining their uninspired and erroneous interpretations of Sabbath law upon others was the direct result of cold, unmerciful hearts that found a kind of sadistic glee in binding burdens upon people for burdens’ sake rather than in encouraging people to obey God genuinely.

Jesus placed closure on His exchange with the Pharisees on this occasion by asserting the accuracy of His handling of this entire affair: “For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath” (vs. 8). In other words, Jesus affirmed His deity and, therefore, His credentials and authoritative credibility for making accurate application of the Law of Moses to the issue at hand. One can trust Jesus’ exegesis and application of Sabbath law; after all, He wrote it!

Matthew 12 does not teach that Jesus broke the Sabbath or sanctions occasional violation of His laws under extenuating circumstances. His laws are never optional, relative, or situational—even though people often find God’s will inconvenient and difficult (e.g., John 6:60; Matthew 11:6; 15:12; 19:22; Mark 6:3; 1 Corinthians 1:23). The truth of the matter is that if the heart is receptive to God’s will, His will is “easy” (Matthew 11:30), “not too hard” (Deuteronomy 30:11), nor “burdensome” (1 John 5:3). If, on the other hand, the heart resists His will and does not desire to conform to it, then God’s words are “offensive” (Matthew 15:12), “hard,” (John 6:60), “narrow” (Matthew 7:14), and like a hammer that breaks in pieces and grinds the resister into powder (Jeremiah 23:29; Matthew 21:44).

CONCLUSION

The religion of Christ surpasses all human religion. It is rooted in the very essence of Deity. When Jesus took on human form on Earth, He showed Himself to be the Master logician and exegete Who always conducted Himself in a rational manner and conformed His actions to divine law. May we do likewise.

[NOTE: For more on Jesus’ handling of the Sabbath, see Miller, 2004.]

REFERENCES

Baum, Robert (1975), Logic (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston).

Bullinger, E.W. (1898), Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1968 reprint).

Copi, Irving (1972), Introduction To Logic (New York: Macmillan).

Dungan, D.R. (1888), Hermeneutics (Delight, AR: Gospel Light).

Josephus, Flavius (1974a reprint), Antiquities of the Jews (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Josephus, Flavius (1974b reprint), Wars of the Jews (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

McGarvey, J.W. (1875), Commentary on Matthew and Mark (Delight, AR: Gospel Light).

Miller, Dave (2003), “The Spirit and Letter of the Law,” Apologetics Press,http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1225.

Miller, Dave (2004), “Situation Ethics—Extended Version,” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=645&topic=38.

Was Jesus Gay?—An Examination of the Secret Gospel of Mark by Alden Bass

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1431

Was Jesus Gay?—An Examination of the Secret Gospel of Mark

by	Alden Bass

Over the last several centuries, people have made Jesus what they wanted Him to be. In nineteenth-century Europe, Jesus was a Romantic, then an Existentialist. In the United States, the foremost historians of the 1920s considered Jesus a social reformer. Forty years later, in the 1960s, the same historians saw Him as a radical revolutionary pushing for political change. Most recently, Jesus has been characterized by some scholars as a libertine and a homosexual. This is a clear reflection of our “sexually liberated” age, just as other versions of Jesus proliferated through the ages are snapshots of their own time. So long as we craft God in our own image, God cannot condemn us, and we will always be approved regardless of our error. George Tyrell famously commented in 1909 that when the Liberal Protestant scholars looked back at Christ “through nineteen centuries of Catholic darkness,” what they saw was “only the reflection of their Liberal Protestant face, seen at the bottom of a deep well” (as quoted in Bryan, 1996, p. 339).

Interestingly, the homosexual community feels that the traditional “hetero-normative” Jesus is a reflection of heterosexual Christians who have read into Jesus their own sexuality, while ignoring the possibility that Jesus was a homosexual. Rollan McCleary, an Australian academic who recently wrote a book arguing that Jesus and His disciples were gay, was asked if his own homosexuality tainted his research. McCleary replied: “You could see that either way. You could also say that heterosexual people have their eyes wide shut on the matter, that they don’t want to see that Jesus would have been of a gay disposition…. You maybe have to be gay to read the signals and to see things and research things which other people wouldn’t” (as quoted in Johns, 2001). Lately, gay scholars have seen many things in the Bible that heterosexuals have apparently missed for the past 2,000 years.

Several works, both scholarly and popular, have been published in the last decade suggesting that Jesus was gay. In 1992, J. Robert Williams, the first actively homosexual priest in the Episcopal Church, penned a book titled Just As I Am: A Practical Guide to Being Out, Proud, and Christian. Six years later, gay playwright Terrance McNally wrote the play Corpus Christi, which featured a gay Jesus (named Joshua) and his “sexual adventures with his 12 disciples” (“Was Jesus Gay?—Terrance…,” 1998). These popular works have been followed by several scholarly investigations that attempt to argue Jesus’ homosexuality from biblical and theological evidence. The same year McNally’s play went up, Finnish scholar Martti Nissinen released his book,Homoeroticism in the Biblical World, judged by some to be the best work yet published on the subject. The twenty-first century has witnessed an eruption of these sorts of studies, some more respectable than others. McCleary’s 2003 book, Signs for a Messiah, is based largely on John’s Gospel and Christ’s astrological chart. Theodore Jennings looks to liberation and feminist theologies to construct a more “homocentric” gospel narrative in his 2002 volume, The Man Jesus Loved: Homoerotic Narratives from the New Testament. Queering Christ, Robert Goss’ semi-autobiographical telling of his homosexual guilt and expulsion from the Roman Catholic Church, might also be mentioned. The marked increase in these types of publications in the last five years is an indication of Western society’s growing acceptance of homosexuality.

Typically, these books begin by dispensing in one way or another with the five explicit biblical injunctions against homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:27; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10). Some carefully attempt to explain away the passages in question, blaming the sexual biases of the ancient world for adversely influencing the Bible writers, while others dismiss the offending verses with a simple wave of the hand. After dealing with the negative commands, these scholars turn to the gospel narratives to develop their own “reading” of the traditional Gospel story. Jesus’ life is deconstructed to shed “new light” on His attitude toward same-sex relationships and His own homosexuality—postmodern hermeneutics at their best. Despite a complete absence of biblical support for their thesis, most of these liberal scholars do not have to read very far to find what they are looking for (in the jargon of biblical interpretation, this is known as eisegesis). British homosexual advocate Peter Tatchell summed up one popular position in a 1998 press release:

We don’t know for sure whether Jesus was straight, gay, bisexual or celibate. There is certainly no evidence for the Church’s presumption that he was heterosexual. Nothing in the Bible points to him having desires or relationships with women. The possibility of a gay Christ cannot be ruled out (“Was Jesus Gay? Missing…,” 1998).

Tatchell’s quote illustrates that the argument for Jesus’ homosexuality finds its strongest support, not in Scripture, but in its silence. Homosexual advocates argue that the absence of any explicit commentary on Jesus’ sexuality ought to remove the ancient assumption that He was heterosexual. Demonstrating to their own satisfaction that there is nothing in the New Testament that necessitates Jesus’ heterosexuality, these scholars move on in search of passages favoring Jesus’ homosexuality, the “signals” that McCleary mentioned. Unfortunately for them, biblical references to support their political thesis are few and circumstantial. Most are vague and focus on men whom Jesus “loved,” such as Lazarus (John 11:36), the Rich Young Ruler (Mark 10:21), John (John 21:20), and the “beloved disciple” (John 20:2). Love in these contexts is interpreted as homoerotic love. Further evidence is supposedly found in Jesus’ healing of the centurion’s servant in Luke 7:1-10. Because the text says the servant was “dear to him,” it is alleged that centurion and his servant were gay lovers. That Jesus healed him is presented as proof that He condoned their homosexual relationship (cf. Horner, 1978; Jennings, 2003).

These arguments are supplemented by the censorship hypothesis to which Tatchell alluded: “Large chunks of Jesus’s life are missing from the Biblical accounts. This has fuelled speculation that the early Church sanitised the gospels, removing references to Christ’s sexuality that were not in accord with the heterosexual morality that it wanted to promote” (“Was Jesus Gay? Missing…,” 1998). Some scholars believe that the original gospel accounts of Jesus’ life contained homosexual references not found in the canonical gospels that we possess. These passages allegedly were censored by “hetero-normative” church leaders of the first few centuries who felt that homosexuality was an abomination. Though this may sound conspiratorial, proponents do put forth some evidence in support their theory (in contrast to the usual wild speculation), evidence that some scholars have accepted as valid. This evidence—which nearly every Christian homosexual advocate uses to support the cause—is the so-called “Secret Gospel of Mark.”

Secret Mark (as I shall call it) is one of several apocryphal gospels that circulated in the early centuries of the Christian era. These alternative accounts of Jesus’ life range from a few verses to entire books. Some, such as the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary Magdelene, have received much attention, but most are obscure and known only by New Testament scholars. Secret Mark is unique among these in that it claims to be an expanded version of the canonical gospel of Mark, not an independent gospel. It contains two passages, otherwise unrecorded in the gospel accounts—the first fitting between Mark 10:34 and 10:35 and the second in the middle of Mark 10:46. Fragment 1 reads:

And they came to Bethany. And there was a woman there, whose brother was dead. And she came and fell down before Jesus and said to him: Son of David, have mercy on me. But the disciples rebuked her. And in anger Jesus went away with her into the garden where the tomb was; and immediately a loud voice was heard from the tomb; and Jesus went forward and rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And immediately he went in where the young man was, stretched out his hand and raised him up, grasping him by the hand. But the young man looked upon him and loved him, and began to entreat him that he might remain with him. And when they had gone out from the tomb, they went into the young man’s house; for he was rich. And after six days Jesus commissioned him; and in the evening the young man came to him, clothed only in linen cloth upon his naked body. And he remained with him that night; for Jesus was teaching him the mysteries of the Kingdom of God. And from there he went away and returned to the other bank of the Jordan.

Fragment 2 describes what purportedly happened in Jericho:

He came to Jericho. And there were there the sisters of the young man whom Jesus loved, and his mother and Salome; and Jesus did not receive them.

These fragments were found in a letter seemingly written in the late second century by Clement of Alexandria to an unknown Christian named Theodore. Clement wrote in response to questions Theodore had sent him regarding a heretical gnostic sect called the Carpocratians. This sect is known from Irenaeus and Eusebius, and was characterized by its belief in metempsychosis, or transmigration of souls. Carpocratians believed that a soul could not be liberated until it had experienced all aspects of earthly life—including all aspects of sexual activity. Theodore had asked Clement about some of the scripture they were using to justify their actions, particularly some passages from Mark’s gospel. Clement responded by explaining that there were actually three versions of the book of Mark circulating in Alexandria: the canonical version, used by “those who were being instructed,” the secret version, reserved for those “who were being perfected,” and the Carpocratian version. According to Clement, Mark wrote his gospel in Rome, where he spoke directly with the apostle Peter. After Peter’s death, Mark moved to Alexandria, bringing with him his research notes. There, he “composed a more spiritual gospel” by expanding his original gospel to include mystical truths for the spiritual benefit of enlightened Christians (the orthodox congregation in Alexandria over which Clement presided also tended toward gnosticism). This secret gospel was then stolen by a rogue elder in the church and given to Carpocrates, who added to it his own “blasphemous and carnal doctrine.” Theodore needed to know how to distinguish genuine Mark from the corrupted version, which they used to legitimize their sexual license. Apparently, Carpocrates had strengthened the innuendo in Fragment 1 by adding “naked man with naked man,” a phrase Clement assured Theodore was not in the original text (1.67-68).

It is Fragment 1, attributed to Mark, that skeptics and homosexual advocates use as their most potent ammunition in the battle over Jesus’ sexual orientation. Morton Smith, the scholar who discovered and catalogued the letter from Clement, was the first to suggest that Secret Mark might indicate that Jesus’ teachings contained erotic elements. He based this on three observations from the text: (1) the description of the young man’s affection for Jesus: “the young man looked upon him and loved him, and began to entreat him that he might remain with him;” (2) the young man’s attire (or lack thereof): “in the evening the young man came to him, clothed only in linen cloth upon his naked body;” and (3) Clement’s denial of the phrase “naked man with naked man” (Hendrick, 2003, p. 142). Smith tied this speculation regarding Jesus’ homosexuality into his theory that the historical Jesus was a charismatic magician Who baptized His disciples (contra John 4:2) into His secret mystery cult. It is worthwhile to quote his theory at length:

…[F]rom the scattered indications in the canonical Gospels and the secret Gospel or Mark, we can put together a picture of Jesus’ baptism, “the mystery of the kingdom of God.” It was a water baptism administered by Jesus to chosen disciples, singly and by night. The costume, for the disciple, was a linen cloth worn over the naked body. This cloth was probably removed for the baptism proper, the immersion in water, which was now reduced to a preparatory purification. After that, by unknown ceremonies, the disciple was possessed by Jesus’ spirit and so united with Jesus. One with him, he participated by hallucination in Jesus’ ascent into the heavens, he entered the kingdom of God, and was thereby set free from the laws ordained for and in the lower world. Freedom from the law may have resulted in completion of the spiritual union by physical union. This certainly occurred in many forms of gnostic Christianity; how early it began there is no telling (as quoted in Eyer, 1995).

Smith was a scholar of some repute, known for his depth of classical knowledge and linguistic abilities. Despite his credentials, the initial reaction of the scholarly community toward this radical theory was one of strong distaste. Eyer catalogued some of the most reputable scholars’ remarks concerning Smith’s interpretation: “…a morbid concatenation of fancies…” (Skehan); “…venal popularization…” “…replete with innuendos and eisegesis…” (Fitzmeyer); “…an a priori principle of selective credulity…” (Achtemeier); “…in the same niche with Allegro’s mushroom fantasies and Eisler’s salmagundi” (Danker). Many more quotations could be listed (Eyer, 1995).

Though Smith’s magician theory has never gained much of a following in the academic world, his suggestion that Jesus practiced sexual initiation rituals was too sensational to be forgotten. Skeptics have used Smith’s innovative hypothesis to debunk Christianity as a religion of arch-hypocrites who denounce the very lifestyle of their founder. Pointing to Matthew 19:12, these enemies of the cross accuse Christ of posing as a eunuch in order to satisfy his lasciviousness. By preaching celibacy, Jesus was able to disguise His true intentions of having sexual relations with His followers. According to one particularly vicious attacker, “Jesus was never a eunuch as the Christians sham but a gay lecher feigning to be a eunuch by the help of his warriors (disciples and other Christians)” [Atrott, 2002]. Another skeptic turned Smith’s suggestion into a certainty: “The plain meaning of the words naked man with naked man and whom Jesus loved support the conclusion that Sexual union with a man as part of the sacrament was practiced” (Kahn, 2004, emp. in orig.). A final quote from an anonymous agnostic reads: “[The Clement letter] makes references to the effect that Jesus was understood to have engaged in possible homosexual practices involving the ‘rich young man’ mentioned in Mark’s Gospel. I am making the point that the Christian hierarchy have been deceiving and lying to their followers right from the start” (as quoted in Miller, 1999).

The skeptics quoted above are not scholars, and they have little or no training in biblical interpretation (or so it seems from their writings). In the main, scholars pay more attention to the dry details of the lexicography and historical analysis of Secret Mark and Clement’s letter. As noted by Hendrick, “homosexual acts by Jesus should be a non-issue for a historian, though one may appreciate ecclesiastical concerns about the contexts of the texts” (2003, p. 142). Nevertheless, as is indicated by the brief bibliography above (and a quick search of Amazon.com), the homosexuality insinuated in Secret Mark is very much an issue for several influential writers. For those seeking biblical approval for homosexuality, Secret Mark has become a secret weapon.

Yet does this passage prove that Jesus was gay? In no way! The three observations on which this assumption rests must be examined:

• The language of the young man. While it is true that the young man (thought by some to be the rich young ruler mentioned earlier in Mark 10 [see Meyer, 2001]) “looked upon Jesus and loved Him,” there is no suggestion in the text that this was an erotic love. It is not uncommon to read of Jesus loving others—both men and women. He loved the young ruler, John, and Lazurus, but He also loved Mary and Martha (John 11:5). The love of the young man toward Jesus was doubtless of the same nature as the love Jesus had for the world (John 3:16) and for His heavenly Father (John 17:23)—the pure, dispassionate love that ultimately results in sacrifice (John 15:13). If we are to understand love (agapaô) as sexual love, then the New Testament commands to “love your enemies” and “love your neighbor,” and Jesus’ instruction to His disciples to “love one another” as He had loved them must take on an entirely new meaning
   
• The attire of the young man. The young man was wearing a linen garment (sindon) in the fashion of the Greeks, which would not have been unusual. According to Miller, “the rich man would not have worn his woolen outer garment inside the house necessarily, and there still is nothing to suggest any disrobing or even physical contact” (1999). The phrasing “clothed only in a linen cloth wrapped around his naked body” is also not unique; the Greek phrase is exactly the same as Mark 14:51, the account of the young man fleeing from Gethsemane. It has even been suggested that this similar phrasing is intentional, and indicates that these two men are one in the same (see Meyer, 2001). The linen garment he was wearing also was used by Jews as a burial shroud (see Mark 15:46), so it is possible that the young man was wearing the robe as a result of his time in the tomb (see Fragment 1).
   
• The denial of Clement. Clement stressed to Theodore that the phrase “naked man with naked man” was absent from the genuine text of Mark, and we have no reason to doubt his word. The phrase is only mentioned because it seems to have been included in the Carpocration version of Mark, which, according to Clement, was manipulated by those heretics to justify their libertine practices.

Summing up his examination of Fragment 1, Miller concluded: “One simply cannot find any real clues to any kind of sexual contact, content, or intent in this passage. It is pure speculation (and counter to what we know of the culture and history of the day) to somehow imagine these words to refer to homosexual behavior” (1999, emp. in orig.). The Greco-Roman literature to which Miller alluded made no secret of homosexual love. Erotic references in those works are never subtle, but always explicit. Plato’s Symposium narrates a dinner party of philosophers discussing love (eros). Aristophanes, one of the guests, unabashedly notes that “all who are male slices pursue the males; and while they are boys…they are friendly to men and enjoy lying down together with and embracing men.” In Lives of the Caesars, the Latin historian Seutonius described the alleged sexual indisgressions of Rome’s emperors more explicitly than can be quoted here. The Ancients were not embarrassed to record sexually explicit material, and “the absence of such images and terminology would constitute a prima facie case against seeing it in [Fragment 1]” (Miller, 1999, emp. in orig.). Thus, these passages in no way endorse the theory that Jesus was gay.

That these passages are even relevant rests on the assumption that Secret Mark was the original gospel, and that canonical Mark is a censored version of the longer original—an assumption that most scholars are not willing to make. “Most scholars consider [Secret Mark] to be an expansion of the canonical Gospel, as Clement himself believed” (Brown, 2003, p. 89). The story related in Fragment 1 is a blend of a Markan and Johannine elements, containing phrases and allusions probably clipped directly from these other works. It superficially resembles the story of the raising of Lazarus in John 11:17-44, but the details are so confused that it evidently is not a legitimate parallel. A close examination reveals that nearly every phrase in Fragment 1 has been lifted from another part of Mark or from one of the other gospels, usually John. Bruce lists these identical phrases at length, finally concluding that the fragment from Secret Mark is a patchwork of phrases from Mark and John. “The fact that the expansion is such a pastiche…with its internal contradiction and confusion, indicates that it is a thoroughly artificial composition, quite out of keeping with Mark’s quality as a story-teller” (1988, p. 308). Though this pattern does not fit Mark, it is what would be expected from an ordinary gnostic text, such as Papyrus Egerton 2 (see Schneemelcher, 1991, 1:107).

Further suspicion is cast on these fragments by comparing the language of Secret Mark to canonical Mark. The vocabulary and syntax of Secret Mark very closely resemble the style of Mark: in fact, they resemble it a little too closely. Schneemelcher noted: “[E]ven the Marcan character of the fragment is not without its problems. ‘The style is certainly Mark’s, but it is too Marcan to be Mark’; such was already C.C. Richardson’s verdict in 1974, and E. Best in 1979 confirmed this judgment in detail. In Mark itself the Marcan peculiarities of style are nowhere so piled up as in the ‘secret Gospel’!” (1991, 1:107).

Scott Brown, on the basis of redaction criticism, also rejected the originality of Secret Mark. Fragment 1 upsets the neat pattern of Mark’s three passion predictions (Mark 8:31-9:1; 9:31-37; 10:33-45). According to redaction critics, the three cycles are framed by the two accounts of Jesus healing blind men (Mark 8:22-26; 10:46-52). In each passage, Jesus predicts His coming death and resurrection (8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34), the disciples fail to comprehend Jesus’ prophecy (8:32; 9:32-34; 10:35-41), and Jesus responds by teaching a lesson on discipleship (8:34-9:1; 9:35-37; 10:42-45) [Brown, p. 102]. However, when the Secret Mark fragment is inserted between 8:34 and 8:35, the entire pattern is thrown off balance. “What is essential to note about this tight, logical, and highly structured pattern is that the inclusion of [Fragment] 1 disrupts the logic and the parallelism” (Brown, p. 103).

Apart from these considerations, most scholars do not consider Clement to be an accurate source of information. Recall that Secret Mark is known only from Clement’s letter to Theodore; it is not mentioned in any other patristic writing. Clement was notorious for accepting fake documents and fake traditions (Parker, 1973, p. 237). “Keen as Clement was on opposing what he regarded as heretical, he seems to have been uncritical almost to the point of gullibility in accepting material which chimed in with his own predilections” (France, 1986, p. 83). Clement quoted from non-canonical sources more than most patristic writers, and was particularly fond of gnostic sources such as the Gospel According to the Hebrews, the Gospel of the Egyptians, the Preaching of Peter, and the Apocalypse of Peter (Bruce, pp. 310-311). Clement quoted the Gospel of Thomas no less than six times, whereas no other patristic writer quoted it more than once (France, p. 83). In other words, just because Clement quoted Secret Mark and claimed that Mark wrote it does not mean that it is legitimate. All evidence suggests that it was the product of Alexandrian Gnostics, not the writer of the Gospel of Mark (Schneemelcher, 1:107).

Thus far I have demonstrated that the Secret Gospel of Mark lends no support to the contention that Jesus was gay, or that He endorsed homosexuality in any way. The Secret Mark that Clement quoted was probably a heretical text written long after the four canonical gospels, and actually constructed from bits and pieces of them. However, the most compelling part of the story has yet to be told. Just as scholars doubt the authenticity of Clement’s quotation of Mark, so they also doubt Morton Smith’s discovery of the letter. Nearly 50 years after his discovery, most scholars believe it to have been a fraud. Here is the story.

In 1958, while searching for old manuscripts in the ancient monastery of Mar Saba, about 12 miles southeast of Jerusalem, Smith made a startling find. On the back leaves of the 1646 Dutch edition of Ireneaus’ letters, scrawled in an 18^th-century hand, was Clement’s letter to Theodore, containing the Secret Gospel of Mark. Smith, then assistant professor of history at Columbia University, was not allowed to remove the book from the library, so he carefully photographed the two-and-a-half page document for later examination. Only after he had transcribed and translated the document did he realize its worth. Two years later, in December of 1960, he presented his find to the 96th meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis (Knox, 1960, p. 1). In 1973, he published the document in two books: one a popular read, called Secret Mark, and the other a dense, technical work for scholars, examining in minute detail every aspect of Clement’s letter and his quotation of Secret Mark.

Almost immediately, questions were raised as to the genuineness of the artifact. Though Smith had meticulously amassed evidence demonstrating the authenticity of the letter, several of Smith’s closest associates believed the document to be a forgery. Arthur Darby Nock, Smith’s own professor, famously called the manuscript a “mystification for the sake of mystification” (as quoted in Quesnell, 1975, p. 54)—in other words, a fake for the sake of faking it. Jacob Neusner, Smith’s student at Columbia, also doubted the letter’s authenticity, calling it “the forgery of the century” (as quoted in Miller, 1999). Several scholars have confidently reached this consensus (Brown, Skehan, Quesnell), while several others imply the document was forged without laying any explicit charges (Metzger, Osborn, Criddle, Ehrman). Many clues point to a deliberate “mystification” by Smith.

• No copy of the original manuscript exists. Smith photographed the pages while at the monastery library, but was unable to obtain the actual document. Only one other set of photographs has been made (see Hendrick and Olympiou, 2000), and the original document has since vanished—either lost, sequestered, or destroyed by the Greek Orthodox monks of Mar Saba. It is peculiar that Smith, an expert in ancient manuscripts, spent 13 years of his life examining a photograph of the letter without ever going back to the monastery to examine it further (Ehrman, 2003, p. 85). If only we possessed the original document, ink samples could be taken and dated, and the whole matter would be cleared up in hours; as it stands, we must rely on the paleographer’s estimation of the handwriting in a black and white photograph. There is as much physical evidence at this moment for the Mar Saba letter as there is for the Loch Ness Monster.
   
• The letter is undocumented in contemporary sources, and its contents are highly dubious. The manuscript contains no source, even though we would expect an educated 18th-century scholar to acknowledge the provenance of such an important text (see Schneemelcher, 1:107). So it is with Clement’s original epistle. The Mar Saba letter was the first letter of Clement ever discovered (though we have several other works by him). No extant ancient document mentions Clement’s letter to Theodore, nor does Clement himself mention it in any of his authenticated writings. Nowhere does Clement mention alternative forms of the scriptures such as Secret Mark, and while he often speaks of a spiritually elite corp of Christians, they were elite because they more deeply understood the canonical scripture, not some spiritually advanced version of them. Furthermore, Clement encourages Theodore to deny Secret Mark with an oath if necessary, though in his other writings he declares that Christians ought never to swear. Other dissimilarities abound (see Ehrman, pp. 84-86).
   
• There are no major copyists’ errors in the manuscript (Schneemelcher, 1:107). The more frequently early Christian documents were copied, the more mistakes were introduced. If the Clement letter is authentic, it was written in the 3rd century and copied until the 18th, when it was finally reproduced on the back cover of Issac Voss’s Writings of Irenaeus. It is highly unlikely that a manuscript could be copied by hand for fifteen centuries without accumulating at least a few scribal errors.
   
• Circumstantial clues cast suspicion on the entire project. In some ways, this just feels like a forgery. (The following points are taken primarily from Ehrman, 2003.) The vocabulary in the letter is more Clement-like than any other of Clement’s writings, as if the author of the letter had at hand Stählin’s concordance to Clement, written in 1936 (Quesnell, p. 64). Also, the manuscript ends just as it gets to the most tantalizing part; the letter breaks off: “But the many other things about which you wrote both seem to be and are falsifications. Now the true explanation and that which accords with the true philosophy….” Just as the letter prepares to reveal “the truth,” it conveniently ends. The dedication of the books also is mysterious. Smith dedicates the technical work to his teacher, Arthur Darby Nock, the man who went to his grave believing the letter to be a forgery; Secret Mark, Smith’s popular description of the letter, is dedicated to “the one who knows.” Quesnell rightly asks, “Who is ‘the one who knows’? What does he know?” (p. 66). Ehrman also observed from Smith’s photographs a page of text from the book in which Clement’s letter had been copied. Issac Voss, the editor of the 17th-century collection of Ireneaus’ epistles, concluded his book with a warning against scholars who falsify texts and attempt to pass off spurious ones as genuine (p. 87). Directly across from that warning, on the first blank leaf at the end of the book, Clement’s letter begins. The irony is too rich to be coincidence.
   
• It must finally be noted that Smith was himself a homosexual, a potential motive for the forgery. The historian Donald Akenson considered Smith’s two books to be nothing more than “a nice ironic gay joke at the expense of all the self-important scholars who not only miss the irony, but believe that this alleged piece of gospel comes to us in the first-known letter of the great Clement of Alexandria” (as quoted in Ehrman, p. 267, n. 19).

Literary forgeries are nothing new. In the first few centuries of the church, many documents were produced in the name of Peter, Paul, or John. Even today it is not unusual to hear of a scholar trying to pass off a document just to see if it can be done. Bruce Metzger described his own professor at Princeton, Paul Coleman-Norton, who claimed to have found a lost saying of Jesus in an old Latin manuscript of the gospel of Matthew he picked up in French Morocco in 1943. It purportedly continued Jesus’ conversation with His disciples in Matthew 24:51, where He taught that the lost would be “cast into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” One of the disciples asked, “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?” Jesus replied, “Oh you of little faith! Do not be troubled. If some have no teeth, teeth will be provided.” Thus Professor Coleman-Norton preserved in an “authentic” text a little joke that he had often told his classes, that dentures would be provided in hell to those who had no teeth (Ehrman, p. 69). Yet some scholars were temporarily hoodwinked, and his findings were published in the Catholic Biblical Quarterly.

Even though such influential scholars as Metzger and Nock have ruled Secret Mark a fake, some scholars continue to cling to the hope that it is authentic. The subject lately has been revisited after many years of dormancy (see Meyer, 2001; Brown, 2003; Hendrick, 2003; Eyer, 2004). I suspect this may be attributed to the increasing popularity of the homosexual cause with the academic world, yet this is speculation. It is certain, however, that those who are currently turning to the Bible for support of homosexuality are making use of Secret Mark, even though the authenticity of the text provides no evidence for the homosexual case. Even if Clement’s letter is genuine, it remains doubtful that the quotation from Secret Mark is anything other than a gnostic construction. Moreover, if the letter could be proved to be credible, and the “lost” scripture turned out to be original, homosexual advocates would remain without biblical support for their cause. Neither the fragment nor the Bible indicates that God condones the homosexual lifestyle. Though the gospel writers do not discuss Jesus’ sexuality specifically, the whole of divine revelation testifies to the utter degradation and sinfulness of homosexuality (see Miller, et al., 2004), and to the absolute purity and sinlessness of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15). The only evidence in the Bible in favor of homosexuality is that which is read into the text by interpreters trying to shape a Jesus Who approves of their sinful lifestyle. As Christians defending God’s truth, we must be informed of these matters so that we are not taken off-guard by those who would pervert the gospel of Christ to their own ends (2 Timothy 3:1-5).

REFERENCES

Atrott, Hans Henning (2002), “Lazarus’ ‘Resurrection’—Another Futile Provocation of Agent Provocateur Jesus Christ,” Debunking Jesus Christ, [On-line], URL: http://www.geocities.com/trailofjesus/ew123.htm.

Brown, Scott (2003), “On the Composition History of the Longer (‘Secret’) Gospel of Mark,”Journal of Biblical Literature, 122[1]:89-110.

Bruce, F.F. (1988), The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity).

Bryan, Christopher (1996), “Discerning Our Origins: Reflections on the Work of the Jesus Seminar,” Sewanee Theological Review, 39[4]:339-348.

Ehrman, Bart (2003), Lost Christianities (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Eyer, Shawn (1995), “The Strange Case of the Secret Gospel According to Mark,” Alexandria: The Journal for the Western Cosmological Traditions, 3:103-129.

France, R.T. (1986), The Evidence for Jesus (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity).

Goss, Robert (2002), Queering Christ: Beyond Jesus Acted Up (Plymouth, MI: Pilgrim Press).

Hendrick, Charles and Nikolaos Olympiou (2000), “Secret Mark,” The Fourth R, 13[5]:3-16.

Hendrick, Charles (2003), “The Secret Gospel of Mark: Stalemate in the Academy,” Journal of Early Christian Studies, 11[2]:133-145.

Horner, Thomas (1978), Jonathon Loved David: Homosexuality in Biblical Times (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press).

Jennings, Theodore (2003), The Man Jesus Loved: Homoerotic Narratives from the New Testament (Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press).

Johns, Matt (2001), “Was Jesus Gay?,” metroG Newlines, [On-line], URL: http://metrog.com/headline/articles04/042001_jesusgay.html.

Khan, Jerome (2004), “Jesus Was Gay According to Mark,” [On-line], URL: http://jeromekahn123.tripod.com/newtestament/id5.html.

Knox, Sanka (1960), “A New Gospel Ascribed to Mark,” New York Times, December 30, late edition.

McCleary, Rollan (2003), Signs for a Messiah: the First and Last Evidence for Jesus(Christchurch, New Zealand: Hazard Press).

Meyer, Marvin (2001), “The Youth in the Secret Gospel of Mark,” Semeia, 49[1]:129-153.

Miller, Dave, Bert Thompson, and Brad Harrub (2004), “An Examination of the Biblical Evidence Against Homosexuality,” Reason & Revelation, 24:81-88, September.

Miller, Glen (1999), “The Secret Gospel of Mark?,” [On-line], URL: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qbadmark.html.

Nissinen, Martti (1998), Homoeroticism in the Biblical World (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress Publishers).

Parker, Pierson (1973), “An Early Christian Cover-up?” New York Times, July 22, late edition.

Quesnell, Quentin (1975), “The Mar Saba Clementine: A Question of Evidence,” Catholic Bible Quarterly, 37[1]:48-67.

Schneemelcher, Wilhelm (1991), New Testament Apocrypha, trans. R.M. Wilson (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press).

“Was Jesus Gay? Missing Fragments from St. Mark’s Gospel” (1998), Outrage!, [On-line], URL: http://outrage.nabumedia.com/pressrelease.asp?ID=37.

“Was Jesus Gay?—Terrence McNally’s new play, Corpus Christi, defended” (1998), Outrage! [On-line], URL: http://outrage.nabumedia.com/pressrelease.asp?ID=43.

Williams, J. Robert (1992), Just As I Am: A Practical Guide to Being Out, Proud, and Christian(New York: Random House).