Tony Hoshaw on the Kingdom of God
January 17, 2008
This post is part of an ongoing guest blogger series on the kingdom of God.
Today, we will hear from Tony Hoshaw:
Who belongs in or who gets the Kingdom of God? In an effort to answer that question, I want to rub together an understanding of 1 Corinthians 6:9 and an interpretation of Matthew 19:10-12.
Paul declares certain folk will not ‘inherit the kingdom of God.’ According to Robert Gagnon (2001: 338), some of these folk are male ‘receptive…sexual partners of men’ - malakoi, and male ‘active sexual partners of the malakoi’ - arsenokoitai (1 Cor 6:9). For the sake of argument, let us assume Gagnon understands these terms correctly. What is interesting about Gagnon’s understanding of 1 Corinthians 6:9 is the degree to which it clashes with Jesus’ message, courtesy of Matthew 19.
It is assumed that Matthew 19:1-9 is Jesus’ approval of the ‘heterosexual contract.’ Rather, Jesus simply reiterates one biblical tradition. The disciples respond to Jesus’ teaching by calling into question the desirability of marriage (v 10). Jesus then offers a scandalous message, suggesting not all will be able to hear what ‘he’ says (vv 11, 12). In the tradition of Third Isaiah 56:1-8, Jesus calls attention to eunuchs: some are born as eunuchs, some are made eunuchs by others, and some are eunuchs for the sake of ‘the kingdom of heaven’ (v 12). What does Jesus mean? Simply, those who are unwilling or are unable to conform to cultural norms policing gender relations (e.g., Jesus) are (like) eunuchs (who, at times, did wed).
In an effort to hide ‘the plain meaning of scripture,’ many make Matthew 19:11-12 to be solely about celibacy. This interpretation ignores the obvious fact that eunuchs were also male prostitutes and those who took the role of women in sexual relations (a more symbolic use of the term). In sum, there is not a direct line between eunuch and celibate ‘heterosexual’; ‘eunuch’ represents a wide range of gender taboos (including celibacy). Are the disciples willing to follow Jesus down this path and be associated with such a stigmatized group?
The Kingdom of God cannot be opposed to God. Jesus ties his followers – and himself – with a stigmatized social group, one well known for doing those ‘naughty’ deeds that Gagnon writes hundreds of pages against. On the basis of these and other texts, it seems to me ‘the Gags’ have more to worry about than those declared excluded. ‘Let anyone accept [chōrin, grasp!] this who can’ (v 12).
____
See Robert Gagnon’s The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001) for more about the ‘conservative’ view.
See Dale Martin’s ‘Arsenokoitês and Malakos: Meanings and Consequences’ in Biblical Ethics and Homosexuality: Listening To Scripture, ed. Robert Brawley (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996): 117-136 for more about translation issues.
See Theodore Jenning’s The Man Jesus Loved: Homoerotic Narratives from the New Testament (Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 2003) for more about a view contrary to Gagnon’s.
Tags: Kingdom of God, Queer Theology, TheologyTony was born and raised near Homedale, ID and now lives in Chicago, IL. Tony has a BA in Religion (minor in Philosophy) from Whitworth University in Spokane, WA and an M.Div. from McCormick Theological Seminary in Chicago. Tony’s heroes include: St. Karl Barth, St. Robert Brawley, St. Judith Butler, St. Jacques Derrida, St. Michel Foucault, and St. David Halperin. Tony supports Senator Hillary Clinton and is preparing for doctoral level study. Tony is currently a flight attendant, and he blogs at www.queermessages.com.
Posted in Theology
Adam Walker Cleaveland: I am a 28 yr old 
January 17th, 2008 at 8:55 am
I would also highly recommend William Stacy Johnson’s A Time to Embrace for a rather stout argument along these lines.
January 20th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
Fascinating connection. Even the most subtle postulation that Jesus might fully accept the practice of homosexuality brings such relief.
January 21st, 2008 at 12:35 pm
i don’t claim to know who’s in our who’s out… or if that is even a worthwhile question… but this seems like the biblical equivalent of fuzzy math.
January 22nd, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Steve: I thought some about not responding to your comment - I think it is better, at times, to let people just say what they want to say…but I have a few problems with your comment. First, it’s nice to say ‘I don’t claim to know who’s in or who’s out’ and it’s nice to diss the question; honestly, there are people in this world who claim to know the answer - and their answer is often troubling to those of us who are declared out. At any rate, the question is Paul’s question - and it deserves our attention and thought. And lastly, I have a problem with the last part of your comment ‘fuzzy math.’ I think it is always too tempting to knock someone’s argument in an ambiguous - but pointed way. I take responsibility for the quality of my arguments; in your case, I don’t really know what you mean. It could be ‘fuzzy math’ because you have not taken the time to re-read and do follow-up research. It could be ‘fuzzy math’ because I respected the word limit Adam suggested. It could be ‘fuzzy math’ for several reasons - which you don’t state. So it seems to me your comment is unedifying and does nothing to help me become a better scholar or interpretor of scripture. I would hope that we would all be committed to mutual encouragement and up building rather than simple, cute hits.
January 28th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Tony,
I am offended by your post because you use eunuchs as your method to say imply that Jesus might as well have said homosexual. Well, for lack of a better way of explaining it, i have to be honest. I would be a eunuch (defined as a dude w/0 nuts) would it not be for modern medicine and hormone replacement therapy. I was born with 1 nut and the other failed later… But i am not and never was gay. Some eunuchs may have been forced to be that way because they were castrated, and probably those same people were forced to do sexual activities as slaves for whatever strange rituals there were. It doesn’t mean that Jesus condoned their behavior, but he validated their worth as humans…
I got emotional when i responded because i have always hated to remind myself that were i born in biblical times, i would have been one of those eunuchs. A cast-out, a sexual freak, and outcast. So I do understand a little what it might feel like to be outcast in that way. But i think you are pulling it a little far to say that Jesus condoned that behavior. I think the very same verses you site might simply say that he was willing to validate them as humans…
January 29th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Steve: Thank you for greater clarification re: your comments. ‘Eunuch’ includes a great many possibilities - including ‘heterosexuals’ say, who do not or cannot have children. I think we have to focus on the context of Jesus’ teaching, the larger tradition, etc…and make our conclusions based on that….anyway, Steve, I really do appreciate your honesty.
February 15th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
I read your post three times to grasp the implications you are trying to assert from the text. Does it strike anyone other than myself that you shouldn’t have to use such mind-bending hermeneutics to justify theological and cultural conclusions you probably already have? Thats not letting a text speak for itself.
February 15th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Anthony: Thanks for your comments; I am not certain what is ‘mind-bending’ - but even Jesus suggested his message would be hard to grasp. Your assertion is not new: those who argue along the lines I have argued must be biased or asserting their views on the text, etc. In my view, the interpretation I have offered is radically faithful to the text and the context within which the text was written; I often find those who argue the other side of this coin are too often lazy - and fail to see the way in which they have allowed the other view to insert itself into the text…and so no matter how much the text ’speaks’ … it is never heard, never grasped, if you will. It is true, in my book, interpretation, the generation of meaning, is never, solely, about ‘the text’ inspired by God…but it is also about the reader grasped, redeemed, and sanctified by God. The whole situation is more complex than ‘let the text speak for itself.’