Posted on 03/04/2006 7:16:48 PM PST by sionnsar
You’ve no doubt heard the “Jesus didn’t say anything about homosexuality” argument. It rears its ugly head almost as much as the infamous shellfish argument. The shellfish argument reveals a distressing level of biblical illiteracy, but the argument from Jesus’ supposed silence reveals something a bit more serious than that and in so doing provides yet one more demonstration of the point I’ve been laboring the last few weeks: the differences between revisionists and the orthodox are irreconcilable.
First, let’s deal with the argument. Jesus, in fact, did address the issue of homosexuality during his earthly ministry.
He did so when he condemned “porneia” in Mark 7:20-21 (Matt 15:18-20). In the NIV, the Greek word “porneia” is usually translated as: “sexual immorality” to underscore the word’s comprehensive meaning.
It is commonly understood that “porneia” in first century Jewish circles represented a sort of short-hand reference to all of the sexual behaviors forbidden in Leviticus 18, including, of course, homosexual behavior (Leviticus 18:22).
So when Matthew and Mark record Jesus naming “porneia” as an “unclean” impulse arising from the heart, we can be sure that his words referred not only to adultery, incest, and bestiality, but also to homosexual activity. Since the sexual code of Leviticus 18 was the commonly understood referent of “porneia,” had Jesus intended to establish a special exemption for homosexual activity (or had those who recorded/remembered his words understood him to do so), it would have been necessary to say so explicitly. Otherwise, his listeners and followers would naturally assume the common meaning.
This is why, as Dr. Priscilla Turner rightly points out on a recent titusonenine thread (that I can’t seem to locate), it is not the orthodox student’s task to “prove” that the term “porneia” includes homosexual behavior. The burden of proof falls squarely on the shoulders of anyone who would suggest otherwise.
Now let’s turn to implications.
Let’s assume that Jesus did not refer to homosexuality in the gospels and that the only condemnations of homosexual behavior in the New Testament were to be found in the Pauline and catholic epistles. What real difference would that make?
Apparently, for revisionists who employ the argument, it makes all the difference in the world or they wouldn't bother. Why? There can only be one reason. They assume that the words of Jesus recorded in the gospels carry more weight than the words of Paul, Peter, and Jude recorded elsewhere.
And that assumption constitutes a direct denial of divine inspiration and reduces the biblical text to mere historical record.
How?
The only circumstance that would grant the recorded words of Jesus more authority than the recorded words of Paul would be that of an uninspired text; a historical document of purely human origin.
If the bible is a purely human document, then certainly the historical words of Jesus, the founder of our faith, are far more valuable and authoritative than those of his followers, especially those of Paul who only learned of Jesus’ teachings second hand.
But if the text itself is inspired and superintended by the Holy Spirit through the various human authors, then the entire bible, all of it, is, in fact, the Word of God. The words of Paul are also the words of Christ, the Word, through the power of the Holy Spirit. While it is certainly appropriate to honor the actual recorded words of Jesus in the gospels, theologically speaking the other books carry the same authority and weight. The entire bible is the Word of God.
The argument from Jesus’ silence illustrates yet another core difference between the orthodox and revisionist parties demonstrating, yet again, the depth of our division. The crisis we face is not simply a crisis of discipline or biblical interpretation, but one of core authority.
Is the bible the Word of God or is it solely a collection of human writings? Those who answer this question differently cannot coexist peacefully in the same Body.
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. This is so important. James Carville came with this old canard that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality at a recent symposium at Boston College.
This is not only absurd, it borders on blasphemy.
HA Ping.
Mort Kondrake made a similar remark about a year ago on FOXNEWS "all stars" with Brit Hume. Fred Barnes, supposedly a conservative Episcopalian, made no attempt to counter the statement.
2 Timothy 3:15-17 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
I never understand why people do not also refer to Jesus' comments in Matthew 19.
God created them male and female and for this reason the two shall leave their parents and become one flesh.
This verse explains clearly that the difference in gender has a God ordained purpose upon which marriage is founded.
A selective sola scriptura is the new hermeneutic.
That's cuz their 'Jesus' is apparently the guy with the beanie cap, the Lord of the Social(ist) Gospel.
That famous Biblical scholar, Mr. Carville!
Many a bishop is a liberal Democrat before he is a bishop. They are still under the delusion that they do something to be invited back to the Democratic conventions. They still don't understand they they were dumpred back in 1968 when the party was taken over by McGoverites.
I could not agree more. I have long believed:
The conceit of the Catholic Church is the belief it can make disciples despite widespread ignorance of its own "Constitution."
The conceit of the Protestant Church is the belief it can maintain disciples with no functioning "Judiciary."
"He also didn't say anything about the federal budget reconciliation act..."
LOL!
Mark 10 says a lot more about it without using the word "homosexuality". I can't believe the writer of this article didn't reference Mark 10, unless he considers "wife" a man.
In the gospels of Luke, Jesus says the signs of the times will be like the days of Noah, and of Sodom and Gomorrah. Genesis pretty well documents what those places were like... homosexuality was rampant.
mark
I agree, Jesus lays down firm marriage principles that necessarily exclude the possibility of homosex unions.
At the same time, the reason I did not address them in my article is because the revisionist argument tries to make hay out of the fact that "homosexuality" is not condemned by name.
The point of my article was that in the word "porneia" homosex is mentioned and condemned by name.
We must know that Jesus came to fulfill the prophet and moses law. He did say "...never do it away..." Only Holy Person can throw the stone at sinner but nobody are holy anyway. So, when did Jesus say New Thing or New Law or New watsoever. This people are trying to fool person who never read bible. Poor soul. I am sure Jesus did ask us to fight against our weakness of flesh. GAY or Pro-Gay, Lesbian and other, don't try to be funny or else we will send you to Syariah Law and let them decide to cut which part of your body part!
Make mine the Old Testament.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.