What Jesus said about homosexuality -- Part 1

Renew America ^ | 11-14-11 | Dan Popp

[ReformationFan]

It's another slogan that passes for thought among the thinking-averse: "Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality...." The rest of the sentence remains unspoken for fear that laughter might break out. "Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality; therefore He approves of it."

First of all, that's what's known as an "argument from silence;" a logical fallacy. By this rule Jesus would be made to endorse rape, cannibalism and lots of other nasty stuff. Secondly, we cannot know whether Jesus, in His brief earthly ministry, ever mentioned homosexual sin specifically (see John 21:25), so the claim can't be substantiated. But the slogan is not only unverifiable and non-rational; it reveals ignorance of what we know Jesus did say. Though His teachings recorded in the gospels don't directly address the issue of same-sex sex, the Scriptures leave no room for an honest reader to conclude that Christ condones any sin, including this one.

Before we look at what Jesus said about homosexuality, let me explain my purpose in writing this. It isn't to put anyone down, or to say, "Jesus hates fags." If the Lord hated homosexual sinners, He would have to hate heterosexual sinners (like King David), and certainly murderers (like David, Moses and Paul), thieves, and so on, right down to jaywalkers. And me. And all Christians. If the Son of God had hated us sinners, He certainly wouldn't have endured torture and death on the cross to rescue us. To rescue us from our sins. My one intention is to help other believers respond to the far-less-than-half-truth that "Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality."

Jesus' affirmation: The morality of the Old Testament is still valid

Contrary to the popular misconception, Jesus is not the Second Moses. He didn't come to give us new laws, or to hand out free passes to break the old ones. Christ didn't have to stand on a mountain and repeat by name every sin mentioned in the Old Testament for all of those sins to remain sins. God, by definition, doesn't change; therefore He does not change His ideas about what's right and wrong. If sin is not sin, then God is not God. *

Jesus addressed all sins generally when He said, "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished." (Matt. 5:17,18) Again in Luke 16:16,17 He said, "The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John; since then the gospel of the kingdom of God is preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of the Law to fail."

Far from smashing the moral code revealed to Israel, Jesus didn't even relax it — He tightened it.

"You have heard that the ancients were told, 'You shall not commit murder....' But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court.... You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery,' but I say to you, that every one who looks on a woman to lust for her has committed adultery with her already in his heart." (read Matt. 5:21ff)

In this less-loved portion of the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord continues with four more laws — each time with that same formula: You have heard...but I say — each time showing not that the Law of God has been repealed; rather, that it reaches deeper than we ever knew.

Jesus' premise: The original pattern is God's will

In answering a question about divorce, Christ lays a foundation that has implications for our topic.

And some Pharisees came to Him, testing Him, and saying, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause at all?" And He answered and said, "Have you not read, that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh'? Consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate and divorce her?" He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it has not been this way." (Matt. 19:3-8 NASB, emphasis mine — see also Mark 10:2-9)

His argument assumes that God created things a certain way because (duh) that's the way He wanted them. If we can get back to the original pattern, before sin marred the picture, we'll be able to see God's will for human sex and marriage. That heavenly will, restated here by the Lord, is one man and one woman united in marriage for life.

Christ taunts the Pharisees, faulting them for not deducing God's perfect will regarding marriage from the simple words, the two shall become one flesh. The implications of the fact that before God joined them, He made them male and female are even more elementary.

Homosexual behavior and "gay marriage" aren't going to fit into this primal pattern, which Jesus here places above the Law of Moses. If "serial monogamy" between man/woman couples isn't God's will, then neither is anything further outside the lines drawn in the opening chapters of Genesis. Jerry Falwell popularized this argument, "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." He created them male and female for a reason. Creation involves design, and design reveals intent.

There are at least two other ways that Jesus spoke out against same-sex sex. I hope to examine those next time.

* Disbelievers have been known mock this truth, conflating universal laws with rules given to Israel to make it unique; failing to differentiate the ceremonial from the moral; and confusing changing punishments for sin, with the unchangeable sinfulness of sin. A digression for their sake is either unnecessary or unmerited.

[stuartcr]

You know this? How?

[Persevero]

“I thought trinitarians believed that the Son is the ‘second person’ of the trinity. Did the the coequal, coeternal Holy Ghost get moved up to second place? If so, on which lap?”

You are correct, the Bible talks about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, so normatively Jesus is described as the second Person of the Trinity.

[little jeremiah]

I just realized that you’re psychotic.

This is my last post to you.

[El Cid]

Yes, I didn’t ask God, and I’m aware of the outcome and benefits of the story.

I don't believe you are aware of any of the outcomes or benefits of Scripture. If you were, your attitude (and tagline) would be a bit different.
You have previously referenced your 'politeness'. I'd have to say your politeness reminds me of the politeness of the serpent in Genesis 3. Well mannered, and full of questions. But behind the mask: insincerity, and a desire to denigrate God.
You obviously aren't the serpent, but at this time you are playing on the same team. And as our first parents should not have engaged in a conversation with a mocker, I'll also disengage from your '20 question' games.

[ReformationFan]

‘Actually not—if you are at all familiar with the biblical arguments against female ordination. Those are based primarily not simply on the fact that the primary leaders Jesus trained and ordained, the Apostles, were men—but, over the fact that specific qualifications are listed (which refer only to men), more than once, in the New Testament epistles—making clear there were no female elders (pastors/priests) allowed in the Apostolic-era 1st Century Church.

‘Orthodox Christianity has always said that if you cannot find biblical warrant for a change in practice or theology of the Church, then you cannot find a good reason at all to change. This is why “innovation” in theology and practice is a dirty word in orthodox Christian circles.

‘I don’t believe the author of this article is commenting on how homosexuality is being treated politically or socially in modern America—rather he’s only replying to the utterly ridiculous, a-historical claim—often made in religious circles—that Jesus would of approved of homosexual activity—since there’s no record He specifically spoke about it.

‘The author didn’t mention it, but 1st Century Judaism (like orthodox Judaism of all centuries, actually) was appalled at the rampant sexual perversion promoted and found in the Gentile world of its day.... If Jesus had deviated from that Jewish standard there is no question he would of been pilloried for it—by those who pushed for His death, and He never was... Neither were Christians later accused of being sexually permissive...by rivals who hated them. That’s not an argument from silence, rather a logical deduction.

‘If the Bible is a unified whole—as Christianity has always taught—than one would expect Jesus to be in accord with Old Testament sexual ethics....and subsequently that the Apostles would also be in accord with Jesus and those same OT sexual ethics. This is what one finds—if you have, as Jesus put it, “the ears to hear.” ‘

Excellent post, AnalogReigns! The idea of marriage being anything other than being between a man and a woman(although polygyny was practiced by many in that time) or that sexual practices outside that relationship would have been given official countenance and sanction by either Jewish priests or the first century Christian church at that time is an absurd anachronism. Such a thing would have been utterly unthinkable and untenable.

[NCLaw441]

Your comment suggests that God made Job suffer. That is not what happened, according to the text.

[Daveinyork]

Convenient

[RoadGumby]

“So why do you think God creates those He knows will sin?”

I answered that - because He loves us. We do Not deserve it, yet He does. We reject Him, QUESTION Him, curse Him, Hate Him, and yet He loves us.

Why would He create us? He loves us. An even bigger question, why would He send HIS Son here knowing, KNOWING that Jesus would not only die here but be tortured and KILLED here.

Because He loves us.

He loves us enough to creatae us knowing we will stray. He loves us enough to create a way, through His Son for us to return to Him.

[lupie]

#1: We have the Book of Job. No matter whatever happens to us in our lives, we can look at Mr. Job and say – whatever happened to me is nothing. Job got chewed up like a Doberman pincher’s favorite rag doll, yet at the end he was still standing. God condescended to show Job a small portion of His Glory – and Job was satisfied. He was still leprous, impoverished, deserted by family and friends – yet sitting there in the dust Job was satisfied. Whatever God did was right. And we can take that with us. No matter what is happening, we know God knows and that He cares. We may not enjoy the suffering while it occurs – but we can rest in the knowledge that the Good Lord knows, and if our temporal suffering serves His purposes – we rest knowing that all is well. God has given us the invaluable Gift of His Word in the Bible – and we are to learn from all of His Words for “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”.

Amen and Amen!!

When you really understand Job, it a most comforting book. Our comfort does not lie in anything or anyone or any circumstance. It lies solely on the fact that God is a covenant keeping God who loves us and only allows things to happen to us for His glory in our lives - which is really our true joy. God revealed that to Job, and as you said, Job was satisfied. We should be too.

[fwdude]

Mark for later.

[Former Fetus]

What is that supposed to mean? Convenient like in me twisting Scripture? I would never do that, but I don't pick and choose my Scripture, I accept all of it, even when it does not agree with preconceived ideas. Or do you mean, convenient how the Lord set things up? I'm thankful to live in the dispensation of grace, rather than the law, but if you have any problems with that, you need to address your concerns (and sarcasm) to the Lord Himself!

I don't see why so many Christians get all tied up with the old Law. Do you stone your children if they ever talk back to you? Do you eat kosher? Even if you answer yes, do you perform animal sacrifices to atone for your sins? Let me tell you, you would be wasting your time, sacrifices were supposed to be offered at the temple, and the temple only.

Convenient? Depends on what you mean by that!

BTW, we have got away from the topic of the thread, which is homosexuality. Just because we don't live under the law it doesn't mean the Lord does not care any longer. The New Testament validates what the Old Testament says about homosexuality.

[stuartcr]

Didn’t you mean psychic, ‘cause that must be the way you figured out my intentions and reason for being here, right?

[stuartcr]

You’re psychic too?

[stuartcr]

So then why create billions of Muslims and non-Christians over the years? When He breathes life into them, He knows they won’t be saved, right?

[Daveinyork]

You know what I mean, but you choose to twist it.

[RoadGumby]

I was, and all are, born a non-Christian. Yet, when presented with the Gospel, I saw. Others do also. And some others do not. God gives us all life, we decide whether to return to Him or not. He’ll honor that decision. Yes, or no.

IMHO, you are even worse off than those you enjoy pointing out that ‘won’t’ be saved. You live in this country and enjoy the blessings He has given us. And you have obviously heard lots of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Two strikes if you will.

Yet, you still sit there and throw out your sophic ‘Why’ questions. You play the part of ‘seeking’ answers except you do not seek. You seem to want to disrupt or sow doubt and seem to enjoy doing it.

I suggest you get yourself under some good Biblical preaching and read your Bible (if you have one). All the answers to all you need to know about God, His Son, a persons options for salvation or not, are there.

[ReformationFan]

Simple. For His Glory. The Creator is under no obligation to explain or justify Himself to His creatures.

[rollo tomasi]

Why do you insist on capitalizing God and He? Your puppet master should be shown the same respect as loki since they are one in the same from the POV you put forth.

[rollo tomasi]

BTW, how do you know your god is a he?

[stuartcr]

I’ve never pointed out that anyone would or wouldn’t be saved, as I don’t believe in a need for salvation.

What exactly, is wrong with asking someone why or what they believe in?

I will reiterate...I am not asking God any questions as to why or what He does. I am asking people why or what they believe. If you cannot see the difference, say so, and I will not ask you anymore, at least on this thread. I don’t know about future threads, as I don’t remember all the people I respond to. If I do, just remind me that you do not know the difference, and I’ll probably remember you.