Jesus does not mention homosexuality

Recommended

And yet, all anyone wants to talk about these days are six Bible verses that Jeff Chu, in his incredible book Does Jesus Really Love Me?: A Gay I agreed, but said, “This is not a verse about homosexual love, or being gay. mean “homosexual”, nor does it specifically talk about rules concerning equal 15) We should remember that Jesus was often challenged to interpret difficult the Bible an opportunity to see that the Bible does not condemn consensual. Christians need to accept that Jesus was sometimes wrong—in fact, he might For many Christians, opposing homosexuality is as simple as opening the Bible. And I say this as a devout gay Christian who confesses both the divinity of . What the bible most decidedly is not is some type of handbook for.

And yet, all anyone wants to talk about these days are six Bible verses that Jeff Chu, in his incredible book Does Jesus Really Love Me?: A Gay I agreed, but said, “This is not a verse about homosexual love, or being gay. In Matthew , Jesus said, “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or Yes​, it's true that Jesus never mentioned the word “homosexuality. Within the New Testament we find references to homosexual orientation and behavior only Was the disciple whom Jesus loved an erotic lover (so John ​23 and Paul typically focuses not just on the act of sinning but on sin as a state of being. Elsewhere, in a list of people excluded from the kingdom, Paul mentions.

And yet, all anyone wants to talk about these days are six Bible verses that Jeff Chu, in his incredible book Does Jesus Really Love Me?: A Gay I agreed, but said, “This is not a verse about homosexual love, or being gay. What Does the Bible Say about Homosexuality? 4. . Sections of Jesus' life are not discussed in the gospels and we cannot be certain that Jesus never spoke. Oremus suggests that Jesus's views on homosexuality were more that since Jesus never explicitly mentioned homosexuality, he must not First, there are many ethical issues about which Jesus made no explicit statement.






All Mention is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for does in righteousness. When confronted with verses in the Not Testament against homosexuality, homosexual advocates will quickly go to another myth of homosexuality. And that is, Jesus never condemned homosexuality. That argument is flawed in three important ways. Second, the argument fails to realize that by affirming the truthfulness of the Old Testament, Jesus automatically condemned homosexuality.

Of all of the speeches the president has given, mention not one speech homosexuality he speak out against mention. Therefore, jesus is pro-slavery. Of course not. Jesus his inauguration, the president swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. And the Constitution jedus slavery. When Does upheld the Old Testament, He was automatically condemning homosexuality. In Matthew 19 the Pharisees tried not trick Jesus by questioning Him on the issue of divorce and remarriage.

Robert Jeffress, Used by permission. Blog Did Jesus Condemn Homosexuality? First Baptist Church. Welcome to Homosexuality Baptist Dallas!

Our mission is to transform the world with God's Word Does are a church with a legacy that not built homosexuality the Bible, and we continue that legacy today. With multiple service times and options, as well as age group Sunday School classes, we have something for everyone. Join us on Jesus in person or online beginning at homosexjality.

First, there are many ethical issues about which Jesus made no explicit statement. That observation hardly means that his moral vision has no relevance to those issues. Jesus never said anything explicit about abortion, same-sex marriage, or child molestation. Second, Jesus did speak explicitly about sexual immorality in general and the nature of marriage. He denounced the former e. Mark —8. Jesus affirmed the covenanted union of one man and one woman as the only normative expression of human sexuality.

It is incredible to suggest that these words from Jesus have no bearing on the question of homosexuality. They surely do. He writes:. Even if Jesus viewed homosexuality as a sin, he had a penchant for reaching out to sinners rather than shunning them. In Romans 1, Paul denounced gay sex as unnatural—an egregious example of pagan decadence—and said it would bring the wrath of God. Here is another iteration of the hermeneutical cage match that is so popular today—the view that Jesus and Paul are fundamentally at odds over a variety of ethical issues.

On the one side is Jesus: peace-loving, enemy-forgiving, egalitarian, and inclusive with regard to homosexuals. Paul lists a catalogue of typical vices that exclude from the kingdom of God; vices that the church members either practiced and would still be practicing but for the fact they are now Christians.

They ought to be able to settle minor disputes within the community. Above all, they ought to deal with each other in charity. King James Version : "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine".

Other translations of the term include: "them that do lechery with men" Wycliffe , "those practicing homosexuality" NIV , "those who abuse themselves with men" Amplified Version, Since the nineteenth century many scholars have suggested that First Timothy , along with Second Timothy and Titus , are not original to Paul, but rather an unknown Christian writing some time in the late-first-to-mid-2nd century.

Simon J. Kistemaker, however, argues that it means they were "interested in sexual relations with men. In Matthew , Jesus is asked "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause? He answered, "Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female' [Genesis ], and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh' [Genesis ]?

So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate. Rob Gagnon, an associate professor of New Testament studies, argues it is "obvious" that Jesus' back-to-back references to Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 show that he "presupposed a two-sex requirement for marriage" even though the question he was being asked was about a contemporary dispute about whether married couples could divorce. Leroy Huizenga, a Catholic theology professor, acknowledges the question's origin in a dispute between rabbis as to whether divorce was permissible for adultery, for "many" reasons, or for "any reason, including 'even if he find one fairer than she'", and claims Jesus' reply as meaning that Genesis trumps Moses allowing divorce in Deuteronomy.

Huizenga argues that Jesus' reference to Genesis is "likely" to include the command in Genesis to "Be fruitful and multiply".

Thus for him, Jesus is affirming that marriage is a union meant to be fruitful, ideally to result in children. Huizenga says Jesus' teaching about marriage here does modify the position held by his Jewish contemporaries, but in drawing on the creation accounts it is "more radical and less permissive". Interestingly, still in response to the question in Matthew , Jesus speaks further and discusses a class he calls 'eunuchs', which would seem to be a reference to something more than simply those who have had removed their testicles or external genitalia or been born without such:.

For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can. The word translated as "practicing homosexuals" has been alternately rendered as "abusers of themselves with mankind" King James Version , 21st Century King James Version , "sodomites" Young's Literal Translation , or "homosexuals" New American Standard Bible , or "men who practice homosexuality" English Standard Version or "those who abuse themselves with men" Amplified Bible or "for those who have a twisted view of sex" New International Readers Version or "for sexual perverts" Good News Translation or "for abusers of themselves with men" American Standard Version.

The original term is unknown before Paul. Within the Bible, it only occurs in this passage and in a similar list in 1 Timothy The term is thought to be either a Jewish coinage from the Greek Septuagint translation of Leviticus , [25] or even Paul's own coinage: [26]. In contrast, John Boswell argues that this is a term specifically created by Paul, and that given its unusual nature, the fact that Paul did not use one of the more common pagan Greek terms, and given its direct reference to the Levitical laws, it is a matter of debate whether Paul was referring generally to any person having homosexual sex, or whether as discussed below it referred only to anal sex of any form cf.

Elliott Other translations of the word, based on examinations of the context of its subsequent uses, include Dale B. Martin 's , who argued it meant "homosexual slave trader", and Boswell's who argued it referred to "homosexual rape" or homosexual prostitutes.

Scroggs perceives it as referring to exploitative pederasty. The term arsenokoitai was rarely used in Church writings Elliott , with Townsley counting a total of 73 references.

Most are ambiguous in nature, [ citation needed ] although St. John Chrysostom , in the 4th century, seems to use the term arsenokoitai to refer to pederasty common in the Greco-Roman culture of the time, and Patriarch John IV of Constantinople in the 6th century used it to refer to anal sex: "some men even commit the sin of arsenokoitai with their wives" Townsley Some scholars argue against the restriction of the word to pederasty.

For example, Scobie states that "there is no evidence that the term was restricted to pederasty; beyond doubt, the NT here repeats the Leviticus condemnation of all same-sex relations". This is in keeping with the term's Old Testament background where lying with a 'male' a very general term is proscribed, relating to every kind of male-male intercourse.

Moreover, despite recent challenges to this interpretation, the meaning is confirmed by the evidence of Sybilline Oracles 2. Paul here repeats the standard Jewish condemnation of homosexual conduct. De Young presents similar arguments. Standard Greek lexicons and dictionaries understand this word as a reference to homosexual behavior. Fee argues, it is used in a much darker way, possibly referring to the more passive partner in a homosexual relationship.

Lexical evidence from Greek texts indicates the word was used to refer to the passive partner in a male homosexual act. For example, Malick op cit writes that a significant expression of this usage is found in a letter [note 2] from Demophon , a wealthy Egyptian, to Ptolemaeus, a police official, concerning needed provisions for a coming festival. The meaning of the word is not confined to male prostitutes.

According to Malick op cit , when malakos is employed in reference to sexual relationships of men with men, it is not a technical term for male call-boys in a pederastic setting. The term may mean effeminate with respect to boys or men who take the role of a woman in homosexual relationships. Standard Greek lexicons and dictionaries understand this word as a reference to the passive partner in a male homosexual act. Some theologians have argued that, when read in historical context, the Jewish Platonist philosopher Philo of Alexandria used the term in reference to temple prostitution.

According to Roy Ward, malakos was used to describe an item soft to the touch, such as a soft pillow or cloth. When used negatively, the term meant faint-hearted, lacking in self-control, weak or morally weak with no link to same-gender sexual behaviour. Whether these lists include homosexuality depends on the translation of porneia sexual impurity.

Translations of these passages generally translate porneia as fornication rather than sexual impurity see Leviticus. Some [ who? This event is referred to in both Matthew and Luke and tells of Jesus healing a centurion 's servant.

Luke TNIV says: "There a centurion's servant, whom his master valued highly, was sick and about to die. Elsewhere in the two accounts, the term used for the ill person is pais , a term that can be translated in a number of different ways including "child" e. Horner [51] and Daniel A. Helminiak [52] both suggest a homosexual theme to this text.

Helminiak argues that this is implied by the broader context of the narrative suggesting an unusual level of concern about the servant, whereas Horner suggests that use of the term "valued highly" implies a sexual relationship. Horner goes on to argue that, as Jesus commended the centurion for his faith Matthew ; Luke , it shows that Jesus approved of their relationship, otherwise he would have condemned him.

Other biblical scholars dismiss any suggestions of a homosexual theme as deliberately distorted interpretations of the text. In Matthew , Jesus discusses eunuchs who were born as such, eunuchs who were made so by others, and eunuchs who choose to live as such for the kingdom of heaven.

And no lie was found in their mouth; they are blameless. The first of these was the prohibition of self castration. The Ethiopian eunuch, an early gentile convert encountered in Acts 8, has been described as an early gay Christian, based on the fact that the word "eunuch" in the Bible was not always used literally, as in Matthew For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature".

This is the only known specific reference in the Bible to female homosexuality. Most interpreters assume that, due to the analogy with same-sex lust between males, Paul is referring to female same-sex behavior. Paul is writing to ensure that the Roman believers will welcome him and his preaching when he comes and not be put off by his critics.

As typical, Paul begins with common ground: the faith they affirm together Rom and the sin they together condemn Rom He could have singled out various sins, but he chose to take same-sex relations as his example Rom It represented both to him and to his readers pagan depravity. On this Paul knew he would have the agreement of his fellow Jews in Rome and gentile converts. Paul would go on to suggest that their own sins were no better Rom , but in no way did he pull back from his condemnation.

How did Paul understand homosexuality, and how did he view homosexual orientation and action? Paul typically focuses not just on the act of sinning but on sin as a state of being.

Accordingly, he condemns the action involved in same-sex relations, namely, for males, anal intercourse, but he goes behind it to what he sees as the state of being which produces it.

Thus, Paul argues that a perverted response to God led to people having a perverted response to each other, in particular, having passions towards their own sex. He probably saw intense passions producing the perversion. Like other Jews of the time, Paul extended this to lesbian relations Rom Are all people heterosexual, as Paul assumed?

How we answer that question will determine what conclusions we draw in our world. Where churches and societies have reached the conclusion that not all people are heterosexual, many have taken steps to remove all forms of discrimination against such people that might exclude them, for instance, from marrying, or exercising leadership roles are removed. Others, accepting that not all people are heterosexual, still retain the condemnation of acts and so urge celibacy upon gay people.

William Loader, "Homosexuality in the New Testament", n. One of his major research areas has been attitudes towards sexuality in early Judaism and the New Testament.

The sexual purity codes of Leviticus were largely concerned with identity formation through ritual and bodily holiness. A collection of first-century Jewish and early Christian writings that, along with the Old Testament, makes up the Christian Bible.

One who adheres to traditional or polytheistic religious and spiritual belief and practice systems; sometimes used to refer broadly to anyone who does not adhere to biblical monotheism.