Posted on 11/30/2011 11:38:02 AM PST by 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.
You cannot put God into your box, and tell him what He should and should not do. The concept of God is that He IS the Creator, and we are the created. It took Job a long trial to get to the right end point, and the poor guy was whacked around pretty roughly - more than any of us could ever have lasted - but he finally understood:
Job 42
1 Then Job answered the LORD, and said,
2 I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee.
3 Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not.
4 Hear, I beseech thee, and I will speak: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me.
5 I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee.
6 Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.
Job understood. God IS God. We know He is Good, but we aren't going to know all of the details that are going on in this universe. We may not like when certain things happen (certainly suffering is tough to enjoy), but we know He who does all things right is in charge, and we rest in that knowledge.
And in short, Paul responds to your question in Romans 9:
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21a Hath not the potter power over the clay ...
“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.
A lot of people laugh when priests are limited to men because no female apostles are acknowledged, too. Is that “an ‘argument from silence;’ a logical fallacy”?
I’m a Protestant so you’ll need to take your questions about that issue up with a Roman Catholic priest or layman. The reason I personally believe the office of teaching elder and pastor is limited to men is from the teachings of Paul the Apostle in 1 Timothy 2:12: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.”
As to the main topic of the article, I just wanted to address the liberal fallacy that “Jesus didn’t say anything about homosexuality” when Mark 7:21 and Matthew 15:19 as well as his definition of marriage in Matthew 19:4-6 show clearly what He did teach concerning this subject. There’s zero biblical evidence that he ever endorsed or advocated it.
Me too. I like to ask questions to see what people think about certain things. Why is my question mocking?
If God knows the future, then He must know what a person will do, right?
If God cannot be wrong, then what He knows will happen, must happen. Right?
Why do you assume He would act like a human?
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."
Then, what’s the point of the first five books? Why haven’t the “Christian authorities” expunged them from the Bible?
No one is putting God in anyone’s box. I’m not asking God His reasons for doing what He does, I’m asking what an individual thinks is the reason.
Why do you think God did all that to Job, knowing what the outcome would be?
Is there room for just plain old common sense thinking and reasoning like yours on FR? LOL If everyone simplified their thinking like yours, half the articles and posts on these biblical subjects would disappear.
So, even lusting for a ham and cheese sandwich is a sin?
The Torah? The first 5 books are the heart of the Old Testament—and contain the moral law(s) I’m talking about. They give the earliest history of mankind, the fact that we’re made in God’s image, and his fall from Go—and the origin of sin and death—which Jesus came to save us from. They give the story of God’s people....
There is no Old Testament—or New Testament...or rational biblical message at all—without a profound understanding and acceptance of the first 5 books of the OT.
Kosher dietary regulations were clearly abrogated—with the New Covenant—that is the good news of Jesus Christ, in order to open that good news to Gentiles. The history of how this came about, practically, is found in the New Testament book of Acts.
Biblically educated Christians have not been troubled by diet since the 1st Century—and the writing of the New Testament.
People who try to make an issue of dietary regulations either WANT to cause confusion, or really don’t understand the good news of faith in Christ....or the history of the 1st Century Church at all.
Stuie and I had a little discussion yesterday, about morality. He thinks there are no moral absolutes, unchangeable right and wrong, and that no one’s moral compass can be called wrong, or that someone can have a “broken” moral compass.
His only purpose on FR that I have ever seen is to be a disruptor, and I have never seen him express one single conservative comment.
His especial fun is to slyly (in his own mind) dig at and disrupt and sow dissension on threads involving belief in God.
Why he has not been banned I will never know.
“There is no Old Testament—or New Testament...or rational biblical message at all—without a profound understanding and acceptance of the first 5 books of the OT.”
Or obedience to its laws, all of them.
I’m not talking about people who disobey, for whatever reason, we all do some of that, knowingly, or unknowingly, that’s what Yom Kippur is all about, but Christians claim that their religion, which you have just said is founded on the Torah, openly advocates disobedience to a lot of the laws in the Torah.
No one is putting God in anyone’s box. I’m not asking God His reasons for doing what He does, I’m asking what an individual thinks is the reason.
Why do you think God did all that to Job, knowing what the outcome would be?
####
Job, through his trials, becomes a stronger, more faithful man than before them. I can identify with that concept. I learn more from difficult times than easy ones.
“Kosher dietary regulations were clearly abrogated—with the New Covenant—that is the good news of Jesus Christ, in order to open that good news to Gentiles. The history of how this came about, practically, is found in the New Testament book of Acts.”
By what authority?
If God knows the future, then He must know what a person will do, right?
Yes. Bearing in mind we do have free will.
If God cannot be wrong, then what He knows will happen, must happen. Right?
He does know, read His Word.
Why do you assume He would act like a human?
I never said such a thing, quite the opposite actually.
The Triune God per sacred scripture:
‘1 Now the apostles and the brothers[a] who were throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. 2 So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcision party criticized him, saying, 3 “You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them.” 4 But Peter began and explained it to them in order: 5 “I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision, something like a great sheet descending, being let down from heaven by its four corners, and it came down to me. 6 Looking at it closely, I observed animals and beasts of prey and reptiles and birds of the air. 7 And I heard a voice saying to me, ‘Rise, Peter; kill and eat.’ 8 But I said, ‘By no means, Lord; for nothing common or unclean has ever entered my mouth.’ 9 But the voice answered a second time from heaven, ‘What God has made clean, do not call common.’ 10 This happened three times, and all was drawn up again into heaven. 11 And behold, at that very moment three men arrived at the house in which we were, sent to me from Caesarea. 12 And the Spirit told me to go with them, making no distinction. These six brothers also accompanied me, and we entered the man’s house. 13 And he told us how he had seen the angel stand in his house and say, ‘Send to Joppa and bring Simon who is called Peter; 14 he will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household.’ 15 As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. 16 And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17 If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?” 18 When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life.”’ Acts 11: 1-18
EXACTLY!!! Deserves to be reposted.
Of course. But I also like to point out to those folks who say “I’m a Red-Letter Christian” or “I follow Jesus, not Paul” type stuff that the “Red Letter” words of Christ do not support homosexuality either.
You frame your question in a form that leads to second guess God.
It doesn’t matter why I think God did what HE did to Job. HE did it, and thus it was right.
Now, although I’m not going to pretend to ‘think why God did what HE did’, I can certainly state a couple of positive outcomes from God’s actions:
#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”.
#2: On a personal level, Job was a righteous man – and he knew he was righteous. Ezekiel even references Job’s righteousness, some 1500 years later, when he talks about Job, Daniel, and Noah being examples of righteous men in their generations. Nonetheless, self-righteousness does not get us right with God. Not by works are we saved, but by God’s Grace. This is the central message of the Gospel – we are saved by the finished works of the Lord Jesus Christ – not by any number of good deeds on our part. Job reached that point in Chapter 42 where he could only utter: “I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee. Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not. Hear, I beseech thee, and I will speak: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me. I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee. Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes”.
Job learned humility, and total reliance on God.
By what authority? By the authority of the Messiah, Jesus Christ, and the authority He gave His Apostles:
"“Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)" (Mark 7: 18,19)
"“The voice spoke from heaven a second time, ‘Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.’" (Act 11:9)
"Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble." (Romans 14:20) (Shows transitional phase, over "clean" (Kosher) and "unclean" food--as this was a major transitional issue to the 1st Century Church).
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.