Jesus & Gender (Matthew 19:8-12)

 This is my third and final sermon about what the Bible says about gender and gender identity… I picked this scripture because of what Jesus says in the last verse; but before I get to that, let me give some attention to the rest of this passage, where he talks about divorce.

It is, as Jesus says, a hard teaching.

Now, no one really likes divorce. No one dreams of getting divorced one day. 

Yet divorce is something that many in our society have experienced—either themselves, or someone in their family. Divorce is often challenging, and sometimes painful, but it is also, for many, a necessary step to healing and wholeness.

Yet Jesus seems very much against divorce, in all but the most extreme circumstances. 

Well. It helps to understand why Jesus was so against divorce. Jesus was against divorce mainly because Jesus always sought to protect the vulnerable. And in the first century, a woman whose husband had divorced her, would be left very vulnerable.

In the first century, only the husband could initiate a divorce. And if a man divorced his wife, he would leave her extremely vulnerable. She’d become like a widow, with no male relative to support her.

For the divorced woman, there would be no spousal support. No alimony. She’d end up on the street, forced to support herself any way she could… any way she could. There’s a good chance she’d become a beggar. Or a prostitute.

So, in the first century, to divorce one’s wife, and sentence her to that type of life, would be a cruel and selfish act. 

Marriage and divorce are not the same today. Both are more mutual. Either the husband or the wife could initiate the divorce. And sometimes, divorce is necessary to protect a vulnerable party. Divorce in the first century always left a woman more vulnerable, but divorce today often helps a vulnerable woman become less vulnerable… and divorce today can, when necessary, lead to healing and wholeness for both the husband and the wife. 

Jesus’ compassion, and his desire to protect the vulnerable, are things that remain consistent across time. We are called to have just as much compassion for the vulnerable today as Jesus had 2,000 years ago. 

When Jesus met a woman who admitted she had been married five times, he did not condemn her, but instead showed her great compassion.

So while Jesus would still encourage faithfulness and loyalty, and would encourage many couples to stay in marriage, Jesus’s compassion, and his desire for healing and wholeness, would lead him to say that some divorces are necessary, and perhaps even good, in order to protect the vulnerable, or to allow healing and wholeness to take place.

This, I believe, is a view that is consistent with scripture, because it is consistent with the compassion of Christ, and it is consistent with God’s call for us to seek healing and wholeness for ourselves and for others.

—------------------------------------------------

Now let me talk about the last verse of today’s scripture…

In that last verse, Jesus talks about eunuchs. 

To be honest, I never paid much attention to this. It could be that listening to someone talk about eunuchs just makes me just a little uncomfortable.

So I always skimmed over it… and, in doing so, I missed something very interesting.

What I missed, and what I now find so interesting, is that Jesus talks about three kinds of eunuchs.

(Three kinds of eunuchs? I didn’t know there were three kinds of eunuchs!)

Jesus talks about eunuchs who have been eunuchs from birth, and eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by other people, and eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs because of the kingdom of heaven.

And now this is the part where I have to explain in a little more detail just what these three types of eunuchs are.

A eunuch, generally speaking, is a man who has been castrated, typically before puberty. Usually, this was done so that the eunuch could be an attendant or guard in a royal court or harem, where their inability to father children was seen as a guarantee of loyalty. And because this was done before puberty, eunuchs often had more feminine traits, such as voices that never lowered, and less facial and body hair.

So that explains those who have been made eunuchs by other people. But what about those who have made themselves eunuchs? And, especially, what about those who have been eunuchs from birth?

What does that even mean, to be a eunuch from birth?

Well, to state the obvious, it means they were born that way. It means they were born with genitalia that somehow didn’t match their biological sex. 

It means they are intersex, which is a rare but natural occurrence. 

I looked up intersex on WebMD, where I learned that 1% to 2% of the population has intersex traits. That makes being intersex more common than having red hair or being an identical twin. Statistically, it is likely that one or two people in this room are intersex.

—---------------------------------------

An intersex cardinal is a major character in the movie Conclave. The movie is a work of fiction, and having an intersex cardinal seemed a bit far-fetched at the time I saw it, but now that I’ve done my research, I realize it may not be quite as far-fetched as I thought.

Statistically speaking, it is likely that at least one of the 133 cardinals in a conclave would be intersex.

Being intersex is not a disorder or a disease... At one time, doctors would perform surgery on a child born with intersex characteristics, to try to “correct” what was then seen as a “problem,” but that is a practice that is now discouraged. 

—----------------------------------------

Two weeks ago I mentioned that the ancient rabbis recognized at least seven different genders. In today’s scripture, we find out that Jesus is aware of individuals who do not fit neatly into the category of male or female…and he mentions them without judgment… perhaps remembering that the prophet Isaiah spoke affirmatively and welcomingly to eunuchs, saying in Isaiah 56: “the Lord says… I will give [eunuchs] a monument, and a name better than sons and daughters. I will give to them an enduring name that won’t be removed.”

The passage where Jesus speaks about eunuchs is yet another scripture passage demonstrating a greater complexity in gender and gender identity, and for that reason I find this passage fascinating. Especially since I read scripture for so long not expecting to find such things in scripture, and reading right over them, and not even seeing what was right there in front of me, on the pages of my Bible.

—------------------------------------------------

This is the third week in a row I’ve preached on the Bible’s complex view of gender. You’re probably ready for me to move on to some other topic. TBH, I’m ready for something else myself.

But the reason I felt compelled to preach on this three weeks in a row is to show that scripture’s embrace of gender diversity isn’t limited to just one or two obscure passages. It appears throughout the Bible.

In fact, there are many more passages I could have included, and many more weeks we could have spent on this. 

For example, several articles I’ve read talk about how Mordecai—Esther’s cousin—displays nonbinary behavior when it comes to gender. Maybe I’ll preach about that someday, after I read and learn a little more.

And then there are other ways that Jesus himself didn’t behave in ways that a person of his gender were expected to behave. When he spoke to the woman at the well, for example: it wasn’t right for a man to speak with a woman like that. A person could have initiated a conversation with a woman if the person were a woman herself. Jesus was not a woman; yet that did not stop him.

This has led one commentator to wonder if Jesus, in speaking to this woman, allowed himself to take on a more feminine role, or if he shifted how he perceived this woman, moving her into a more masculine role, in order to allow for this conversation?

Or was he simply blurring the line that divides men and women, male and female, creating a space that was neither exclusively male or female?

And I’ve read commentators who’ve written about Paul’s command to not be conformed to this age, but be transformed. Paul speaks often of transformation, of becoming something new, and why shouldn’t gender be included in that transformation? Paul himself also said that, in Christ, there is no longer male and female, for all are one in Christ.

It all gives you something to think about.

And while all this is about gender, it’s also about more than just gender.

Humans often see only two options in the world. This, or that. You’re one, or the other. Black or white. Gay or straight. Christian or non-Christian. Democrat or Republican. Good or bad. Right or wrong.

You’re always one or the other. You’re either this, or that. And we allow no space in between, and no other option.

To quote Gaston when he attacked the Beast’s castle: “If you’re not with us, you’re against us.” (That’s also in the Bible, but the Bible also presents an alternative: “Whoever is not against us is for us.”)

Scripture often presents a third option when it appears there are only two. In this sermon series we’ve learned that scripture often shows that there are more ways to express oneself or to identify oneself when it comes to gender.

But Jesus often presents a third, unexpected option in many other ways. In fact, Jesus’ whole life is a third option, an option that breaks the binary, when it comes to how one is to respond to Roman oppression. 

See, most people assumed that one either had to go along with Rome, or take up arms and fight against Rome.

But Jesus didn’t like either of those options. To go along with Rome was unacceptable, as Rome was oppressive; Rome acted in ways that deprived people of life and harmony; Rome worked against God’s vision of a kingdom of shalom, a beloved community. 

So going along with Rome wasn’t an option.

Most people would say, well, the only other option is to fight against Rome. The problem is that fighting against Rome was futile; Rome was just too powerful. And fighting itself—using violence—is contrary to God’s vision for the world.

But Jesus talked about a third way. 

Jesus said that one could live in God’s kingdom of shalom now, that one didn’t need to wait. “The kingdom of God is among you,” he said. Right now. If you believe it.

And living in that kingdom of God was, itself, a form of resistance against Rome. A form of nonviolent resistance. 

Living with love in a world of hate. Living with peace in a world of violence. And working for justice in a world where so many were denied justice.

Where the world saw only two options, Jesus lived and taught a third way… and that is what drew so many to him. 

I’m reminded of the camp curriculum we used this summer at Camp Walter Scott. The theme for the curriculum was “Another Way.” Jesus shows us a way that is a third way, an option most didn’t even realize was an option.

Learning that gender can be expressed in more than just the two ways we are used to thinking of can help us better understand the third way of being in the world Jesus represents. It helps us realize a whole new way of being in the world, a way more closely aligned with how Jesus calls us to live.

One reason why American Christians find it so hard to actually follow the way of Jesus is that we have this mindset in which we question whether Jesus is calling us to live this way or that way, without realizing that he’s calling us to something completely different, a way of living that is neither this nor that, but an entirely different third option that isn’t even on the same spectrum. 

It’s like we imagine our choices as existing along a straight line that goes to the left and to the right, and asking where on that line Jesus is calling us to, but in reality, Jesus is calling us off the line, into a whole new dimension. 

That’s just hard for us to imagine.

But opening our minds up to the different ways scripture presents gender and gender identity can help open our minds to other possibilities, all the possibilities that exist in God’s kingdom.

Dressed Like a Girl (Genesis 37)

 What a tragic story! It does have a happy ending, as many of you know… but it takes a long time to get there.

Despite the story’s dark tones, we like to have fun with this story. Andrew Lloyd Webber made it into a lighthearted musical, filled with comedy and laughter. And there’s nothing wrong with that. I love Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat!

But this could also have easily been made into a dark and somber production, because Joseph’s life was filled with one terrible event after another.

What was it about Joseph that so offended his brothers? Many siblings pick on each other, tease each other, even bully each other… but to go so far as to seriously consider murdering their brother? And then to sell their own brother into slavery?

This is more than just a sibling rivalry. It’s horrific.

The thing that really sets Joseph’s brothers off, and pushes them over the edge, is that gift, that article of clothing, that their father gave to Joseph.

Many of you are familiar with this story, so let me ask you: how do you remember that article of clothing being described?

I grew up calling it a coat of many colors. Anyone else?

But that’s not what the scripture we heard today calls it. In the updated NRSV, it’s called an “ornamented robe.” 

That sounds weird to me. Yet, what sounds even weirder is the Bible I have on my desk, which calls it a “long robe with sleeves.”

I never realized that sleeves were so important that they needed to be mentioned like that. Today I’m wearing a coat with sleeves. Just in case you thought I might show up to preach in a coat without sleeves. 

The truth is, the translators of the various Bible translations weren’t really sure how to describe this item of clothing. The footnotes in the Bible on my desk even admit that the meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain. 

So what was it? An ornamented robe? A long robe with sleeves? A coat of many colors?

And why was it so offensive to Joseph’s brothers? Why did it get them so upset?

Before I answer these questions, I’m going to back up a bit and talk about Jacob, the father who gave Joseph that gift.

⚫Jacob, and his twin brother Esau, were the only children of Isaac and Rebekah. They were born just minutes apart, first Esau, and then Jacob.

But those few minutes made all the difference in the world, because in those times, the first-born son received certain rights and blessings that other children did not.

So Esau was born first, and when Esau came out, his body was all hairy… which I always thought was a strange thing for the scripture to point out. I didn’t know why scripture thought that was important to mention. Usually, when a baby is born, there are observations about the baby’s smile, or the baby’s eyes, or even the baby’s toes… 

But the scripture doesn’t mention any of those things. Just that he was red (like a redneck, I suppose, except all over), and hairy. 

As the twins grew, Esau became a skillful hunter, a man out in the field; but Jacob was a quiet man, who liked to stay in the tents.

Then the scripture talks about a time when Jacob was cooking a stew, and Esau, who had been out hunting, came in from the field, famished, and asked Jacob for some food. But Jacob wouldn’t give Esau any food unless Esau first gave Jacob his birthright, the birthright of the firstborn. 

Esau was so hungry, that he agreed.

Although I grew up with this story, it wasn’t until later in life that I connected the dots: 

Esau, all hairy, a hunter out in the field; and Jacob, a quiet man, who liked to stay in the tents, and who liked to cook.

This is scripture’s way of saying that Esau was a real manly man, while Jacob was not.

In ancient times, according to social expectations, men were the ones who worked in the field, who went hunting… while women were expected to stay in or near the tents, cooking…

Which means Jacob was not really living the way a man should… the way a real man should. Jacob was living and acting more like a woman.

And this seems to be a part of Jacob’s nature from birth. When scripture says that Esau was born red and hairy, that was scripture’s way of saying that Esau was a man from the beginning. But Isaac, born with a paler complexion and with smooth skin, was less of a man. 

But the Bible never condemns Jacob. The Bible never considers him less favored by God, because of this. In fact, surprisingly, Jacob seems to be more favored by God.  

Later, Jacob went to their father Isaac to try to steal the blessing that was meant for Esau. He did this, with help from his mother Rebekah, by pretending to be Esau. 

See, Isaac was old and blind by this point. So Jacob covered his arms with fur, so that when his father reached out to hold him, he would feel the fur, and think it was the hairy, manly arms of his brother Esau.

The plan was almost ruined when Jacob spoke; he still had his own soft, quiet voice, not the deep manly voice of his brother Esau. But in the end Jacob succeeded, and received the blessing that was meant for his brother.

So now Jacob had received both the birthright and the blessing, even though he wasn’t the firstborn son, and even though he wasn’t as manly as his brother Esau.

Now I understand why the scripture describes Esau as having been born red and hairy, and why it mentions that Esau was a hunter, while Jacob liked to stay near the tents. Scripture is showing that these two boys had different ways of expressing their gender identity. 

Esau, following cultural expectations, was the more manly one, while Jacob, going against cultural expectations, was more feminine.

And the fact that Jacob is the one who ends up with the birthright and the blessing, and becomes sort of the hero of this part of the story, shows that God was not only OK with how Jacob lived out his identity; God approved of it.

God eventually gives Jacob a new name, the name Israel, a name which later was given to the nation that grew from his descendants.

Jacob’s refusal to conform to the expected gender roles did not disqualify him from this special role in history. God was unbothered by Jacob’s lack of manliness. In fact, it turns out that Jacob’s bending of gender roles was his gift, his special talent.

⚫Years later, when Jacob had become an old man, and all his children were grown, or nearly grown, he saw something special in his son Joseph. 

As we heard, Jacob loved Joseph more than any of his other sons. The Bible says this was because Joseph was the son of his old age. But maybe there was another reason.

Joseph was different from his brothers. Joseph was a dreamer. And Joseph—well, apparently, Joseph liked to play dress-up, because when his father Jacob gave Joseph that special clothing, Joseph was delighted.

But what was that article of clothing?

A multicolor coat?

An ornamented robe?

A long robe with sleeves?

⚫ The Hebrew phrase describing this article of clothing is ketonet passim. 

Unfortunately, ketonet passim is not mentioned very often in ancient literature. If it were, scholars and translators could look up the different ways that phrase is used. They could go to one passage where it is used and say, “ah, this is how that phrase is used here,” and they can go to another passage and say, “ah, this is how that phrase is used there…” And they could keep doing that, and get a good idea of what, exactly, that phrase means.

But that phrase doesn’t appear in many places. In fact, in the entire Bible, there is only one other place where that phrase appears.

⚫It’s in 2 Samuel 13:18. There, we have the story of Amnon and his half-sister Tamar. They were royalty; a prince and a princess. And in verse 18 it says that Tamar, the princess, was wearing a ketonet passim; and then the scripture explains that “this is how the virgin daughters of the king were clothed.”

According to this verse, a ketonet passim is what the virgin daughters of the king wore.

So, one could call it a robe; an ornamented robe, perhaps with long sleeves, that the daughter of the king wore… But perhaps a more accurate translation would be to call it a princess dress. Since it’s what daughters of the king wore.

That is what Jacob gave to Joseph. 

⚫I can see why the translators didn’t want to translate it this way. Boys don’t wear dresses. So the translators had to think of a different way to translate it.

But their father Jacob didn’t care. Jacob, who was never as manly as his brother Esau, wanted to make sure that his son Joseph felt free to be his authentic self, the person God made him to be.

Joseph’s brothers, on the other hand… they had a problem with this. As many people do. They had a problem with Joseph. And they had a problem with Joseph’s new robe… or dress… it just made them hate Joseph that much more.

And the brothers came up with a plan—that evil plan—to get rid of Joseph once and for all. They were willing to murder him, but then decided to sell him as a slave.

And then they lied about their crime to their father.

In slavery, Joseph was taken to Egypt, where he was subject to sexual harassment, false accusations, and imprisonment for a crime he didn’t commit.

So much violence, and hardship, and persecution, and injustice.

And you know: some things never change.

Because that is exactly the experience of far too many today, who dare to live out their authentic identities in a world that still refuses to understand, to accept, to affirm, and to love.

The Human Rights Campaign keeps track of fatal violence committed against transgender and gender non-conforming people. There have been about 400 murders of transgender and gender non-conforming people in the past ten years. And the rates are not going down.

According to the Trevor Project, almost 2 percent of youth identify as transgender. Transgender youth report significantly higher rates of depression, suicide, and victimization compared to their cisgender peers. One in three transgender youth reported attempting suicide; almost one-third reported being a victim of sexual violence; and more than half reported a period of depression lasting two weeks or more.

According to Scientific American, In states where laws have been passed recently taking away rights for transgender youth, rates of attempted suicide among transgender and nonbinary youth have risen 72%.

Rates of attempted suicide among transgender youth have risen 72% in states that deny them rights and protection.

Our children are dying!

But in places where gender-affirming care is available, and among youth who have at least one affirming adult in their lives, rates of depression and suicide are significantly lower. 

Joseph was affirmed by his father Jacob. That, and his faith in God, allowed Joseph to endure the bullying and harsh treatment he received from his brothers and others.

We can help save lives. We can lower rates of depression and suicide. We can reduce the amount of violence.

In fact, I believe that we are already doing this. As an Open and Affirming church, we are making a witness, and that witness is saving lives.

People say to me: why do you have to talk about such things? My answer: because I want our children to live.

I’ve heard from and have read stories by queer youth who grew up in communities or households that did not embrace or affirm their sexual orientation or gender identity. And of course it was a hard existence for them. 

But just the sight of a rainbow flag in a neighbor’s window, or in front of a church, gave them enough hope to live another day. It was a sign that they were not alone, and that maybe, just maybe, God did love them after all.

We will never meet all the people impacted by our congregation’s ministry. But I know we have given people hope. And I know we have saved people’s lives. 

Just by our witness to God’s limitless love, and by the way we seek to express that love to the world. 

So thank you for being part of this church. Thank you for your prayers for our church, and for your support for our church, the financial support you give, and the time and energy you give. Thank you for sharing with others the good news of God’s incredible love, the love saves people from death, and restores people to life.