10 Responses to “February 25, 2009”

1. Michael
   February 26th, 2009 @ 12:07 pm

   No way is it right for a person who had a sex change, by their own choice or someone else’s choice, to marry someone of the same sex they originally were. If the person was reborn into the family of God at some point after they had the sex change, they still cannot marry someone of the same sex they originally were because they are not being true to who God made them to be. I think I would even go so far as to say that the reborn sex-changed person cannot marry anyone of the proper intended opposite sex unless their sex-changed genitals/body parts are removed, so as to protect the witness of the marriage and also not leave any room for the temptation of various potential sins, including bisexuality or homosexuality. The reborn sex-changed person should also realize that his relationship with Christ is far more important than any earthly marriage, so although marriage is a gift from God, it is not essential that everyone be married as the apostle Paul said. Plenty of phyically disabled people who follow Christ are content in Him alone, understanding that their marriage opportunities are pretty much nonexistent, but they have their minds set on everlasting joy in Christ and not the temporary pleasures of this life.

2. Michael
   February 28th, 2009 @ 4:09 am

   Consider this aspect of the GLBT rights movement.

   Is anyone confused as to how a homosexual can say I was born homosexual and then go so far as to say this is the way God made me and proclaim it (his sexual perversion) is a gift from God?
   Now lets move over to the T for transgender and these confused individuals(who go so far as to mutilate their own bodies) proclaim that God made me the wrong way.

   Let’s not forget all the “ministers” who support them with the welcoming and affirming ‘catch phrase’ (a warning to all true Christians to stay away from these demon inspired excuses for churches) and are only only leading them down the broad road to destruction.

   If anyone has ears….let him hear.

3. Joel Santiago
   February 28th, 2009 @ 9:12 pm

   God bless you all:
   Talking about the sabbath I have found that all the jews apostles including the greatest one (Jesus) observe that day. The reason? Because they where jews and the Lord gave the Law to them. Though the holy day (sabbath) was established in the creation he doesn’t demand it observation by the gentiles, what I think is wrong is to think that God doesn’t demand it to the jews. I think we (the gentiles) have tried to gentilize the jews and that’s wrong.

4. Zoe Brain
   March 1st, 2009 @ 2:52 am

   Isaiah 56:3-5 covers the situation.

5. Dr Michael Brown
   March 1st, 2009 @ 6:44 pm

   Zoe B.,

   Would you be kind enough to follow through with a clear NT application of the principle you cite here from Isaiah 56? Also, could you explain how this goes along with Paul’s instructions in Romans 14, along with the apostolic decision handed down in Acts 15?

   Thanks!

6. Zoe Brain
   March 2nd, 2009 @ 3:22 am

   I’ll do my best, and thanks so much for the opportunity. Please bear in mind that it’s my partner who got the High Distinction in Theology, not me! I’m merely a Rocket Scientist with an unusual medical condition, and a thirst to find out what is the Right.

   My interpretation of Isaiah 56:3-5 must be seen in the light of Matthew 19:12.

   There are three definitions of eunuchs – the Intersexed males as we’d call them today, those castrated against their will, and a third category that has traditionally been held to mean those who are voluntarily celibate. Given the context of the rest of Matthew 19, I believe the traditional interpretation to be accurate, rather than referring to people who had voluntarily castrated themselves- which could be stretched to those who had sex reassignment today.

   I would classify the victim here, and I see *him* as a victim, as being a eunuch of the second kind. He was gulled, mislead, and is not transsexual. Not a “Her” at all. He was exploited in the most terrible way.

   Most of my dealings have been with Intersexed or Transsexual people, and this man does not fit either pattern at all. His surgery really was mutilation, not bringing mind and body into alignment, but the opposite. He has been surgically created transsexual.

   There is a biblical quotation that is exactly apt. Acts 8:27-39.

   The eunuch was reading this passage of Scripture:
   “He was led like a sheep to the slaughter,
   and as a lamb before the shearer is silent,
   so he did not open his mouth.
   In his humiliation he was deprived of justice.
   Who can speak of his descendants?
   For his life was taken from the earth.”

   Like a sheep to the slaughter he was, and then led into paths of degradation.

   So how should the Church treat him? Acts 8 says how – that he is fit to be baptised, and by extension, welcomed into the congregation. The Old Law regarding those “injured in the stones” being unable to enter the temple does not apply any more, in this context.

   As to how he should behave, it’s clear from Isaiah 56 that the normal rules about men’s gender-specific behaviour do not apply to eunuchs. They cannot, as they are not men.

   To have someone with a female figure forbidden to wear female attire and forced to wear male attire would be a public scandal.

   In fact, all the rules about gender-specific behaviour are inapplicable. But not all rules. Eunuchs are still bound to do “what is pleasing to God” and to “Keep the Sabbath”. This means obeying the ten commandments to the extent they are physically applicable.

   One interpretation, supported by Matthew 19:12, is that they should remain celibate. Another is that they must remain unmarried, but as they are not men, the rules about a “man lying with another man as with a woman” can’t apply. They’re not men. neither are they women. It’s not clear whether they physically *can* commit adultery or abominable acts, and there’s plenty of historical evidence that states that eunuchs were “outside the rules” of sexual conduct, as it were, at the time.

   Here’s where I’m unsure. The rest, I think I have excellent scriptural justification for, but not here. I think – I don’t know – that it has to be a matter of individual conscience. Do your best to find out what is right, be kind, be charitable, Love God, and that’s all.

   For an outsider to forbid them marriage seems terribly cruel, and against 1 Corinthians 13. For them to voluntarily decide that they cannot marry in all good conscience is another matter. They then become the third kind of eunuch, someone who enters celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. But it’s not compulsory, “let those who can receive it, receive it”.

   Now let’s look at Romans 14. Romans 14:1-18 tends to support my thesis, but there is a caveat. Romans 14:19-21 makes it clear that it’s not just the eunuch’s moral situation that’s important. Even if a Eunuch cannot commit adultery or licentious behaviour, others can. And it is up to the Eunuch not to lead others into temptation. To blatantly engage in what appears to be immoral behaviour (even if it isn’t for them) would be to encourage true immoral behaviour in others.

   Once again, for this person to wear male clothing with such a bodily appearance would be scandalous.

   All of this would appear to be in agreement with Acts 15:6-11

   One final thing: Female to Male transsexuals exist. It’s not beyond the realms of medical science to partly – though not completely – reverse the surgical changes. It is however, expensive, and success rates are not high, about 30%. Then this person would be deemed a man again, and would be subject once more to all the rules about male behaviour, not crossdressing, not engaging in homosexual acts with other men, and so on.

7. Marcus French
   March 2nd, 2009 @ 5:20 pm

   Of interest: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-02-24-transgender-penner_N.htm

8. Dr Michael Brown
   March 2nd, 2009 @ 8:47 pm

   Zoe B.,

   With regard to your comments re: Isaiah 56 (and my response), I thought you were addressing the second hour of the show, which deal with the question of mandatory Sabbath observance, hence the wording of my question.

   With regard to the eunuch issue of Matthew 19, I addressed it in my lecture “The Bible and Homosexual Practice,” noting that under no circumstances can this text be used (as it is by gay activists and theologians) to sanction homosexual practice. Obviously! That being said, it is clear that the people spoken of in this passage have either willfully or by necessity renounced marriage (and sexual activity).

   The good news is that God Himself gives them a wonderful promise in Isa 56:5 (as you quoted, above), while Jesus puts the emphasis on “the kingdom of heaven,” a far greater reward than anything that this world could ever offer. So, while not minimizing the painful and unique challenges experienced by some (apparently, including yourself), the rewards of being separated to the Lord are even greater.

   Let me also note here, for the record, that with due respect to the inner turmoil experienced by many transgender and/or GID people, sex-change surgery is not God’s way to bring the mind and body in harmony. Rather, as Dr. Paul McHugh of Johns Hopkins famously stated, the problem is in the mind, not the member, and so we should treat the former rather than mutilate the latter. (Again, I’m not dealing here with people with ambiguous sexual organs or other unique physiological issues, but it’s important to be clear in terms of my understanding of the definite prohibition of sex-change surgery.)

   You might want to view my debate with Harry Knox of the HRC (on our homepage) for more thoughts on this.

9. George
   March 14th, 2009 @ 4:58 pm

   Regarding Romans 14, Paul stated ‘a’ Sabbath not the Sabbath. Gen. 2:3 as the Sabbath Day was created before there was distinction of Jews and Gentiles.
   Yeshua/Jesus stated that the Sabb was made for man(mankind) and not man for the Sabbath.
   Yeshua/Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath.
   The Sabbath day was changed by Constantine 317 AD and blessed by the Councel of Nicea in 325 AD. He worshipped Apollo. the “Sun God”.
   Acts 15 addresses those parts of Torah that the Jews themselves could not do (The burdenof Torah). A day of rest is not a burden.

10. Dr Michael Brown
    March 14th, 2009 @ 9:09 pm

    George,

    Would you kindly share with me where in the NT the Gentile believers are ever commanded to observe the seventh day Sabbath (or any specific Sabbath)? Can you also give me the clear, historical evidence that in the days before Constantine, the Gentile Christians observed the seventh day Sabbath? Can you also show me where in the NT th Ten Commandments are distinguished from the rest of the Torah? Could you also give me solid exegetical support for your interpretation of Acts 15?

    Thanks!

Leave a Reply