Skip to comments.Is it true Jesus never addressed same-sex marriage?
Posted on 08/10/2012 6:48:52 AM PDT by Graybeard58
WAKE FOREST, N.C. (BP) -- Today it is popular among those promoting same-sex marriage to say that Jesus never addressed the issue, that He was silent on the subject.
Those who affirm the historical and traditional understanding of marriage between a man and woman often are admonished to go and read the Bible more carefully. If we do so, we are told, we will see that Jesus never addressed the issue. So, the question that I want to raise is, "Is this assertion correct?" Is it indeed the fact that Jesus never addresses the issue of same-sex marriage?
When one goes to the Gospels to see exactly what Jesus did say, one will discover that He addressed very clearly both the issues of sex and marriage. He addresses both their use and misuse. And, as He speaks to both subjects, He makes it plain that issues of the heart are of critical importance.
First, what did Jesus say about sex? Jesus believed that sex is a good gift from a great God. He also believed that sex was a good gift to be enjoyed within a monogamous, heterosexual covenant of marriage. On this He is crystal clear. In Mark 7 Jesus addresses the fact that all sin is ultimately an issue of the heart. Jesus was never after behavioral modification. Jesus was always after heart transformation. Change the heart and you truly change the person.
Thus, when He lists a catalog of sins in Mark 7:21-22, He makes it clear that all of these sins are ultimately matters of the heart. It is the idols of the heart that Jesus is out to eradicate. Among those sins of the heart that often give way to sinful actions He would include both sexual immorality and adultery (Mark 7:21). The phrase "sexual immorality," in a biblical context, would speak of any sexual behavior outside the covenant of marriage between a man and woman. Therefore, Jesus viewed pre-marital sex, adultery and homosexual behavior as sinful. And, He knew that the cure for each is a transformation of the heart made possible by the good news of the Gospel. The Gospel changes us so that now we are enabled to do not what we want, but what God wants. Here we find real freedom and joy.
Second, what about the issue of marriage? Is it truly the case that Jesus never spoke to the issue in terms of gender? The answer is a simple no. He gives His perspective on this when He addresses the issue in Matthew 19:4-6. There, speaking to the institution of marriage, Jesus is clear when He says, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." That Jesus was committed to heterosexual marriage could not be more evident. A man is to leave his parents and be joined to a woman who becomes his wife. This is heterosexual marriage. That He also was committed to the permanence and fidelity of marriage is clear as well.
So, how might we sum up the issue? First, Jesus came to deliver all people from all sin. Such sin, He was convinced, originated in and was ultimately a matter of the heart. Second, Jesus made it clear that sex is a good gift from a great God, and this good gift is to be enjoyed within heterosexual covenantal marriage. It is simply undeniable that Jesus assumed heterosexual marriage as God's design and plan. Third, Jesus sees all sexual activity outside this covenant as sinful. Fourth, it is a very dangerous and illegitimate interpretive strategy to bracket the words of Jesus and read into them the meaning you would like to find. We must not isolate Jesus from His affirmation of the Old Testament as the Word of God nor divorce Him from His first century Jewish context. Fifth, and this is really good news, Jesus loves both the heterosexual sinner and the homosexual sinner and promises free forgiveness and complete deliverance to each and everyone who comes to Him.
John 7 tells the story of a woman caught in adultery. The religious legalists want to stone her, but Jesus intervenes and prevents her murder. He then looks upon the woman and, with grace and tenderness, tells her that He does not condemn her. Then He says to her, "go and sin no more." In Matthew 11:28 Jesus speaks to every one of us weighed down under the terrible weight and burden of sin. Listen to these tender words of the Savior, "Come to me all who labor and are heavy laden and I will give you rest." This is the hope that is found in Jesus. This is the hope found in the Gospel. Whether one is guilty of heterosexual or homosexual sin, one will find grace, forgiveness and freedom at the foot of the cross where the ground is always level.
When I came to fully trust Jesus as my Lord and Savior at the age of 20, I determined that I wanted to think like Jesus and live like Jesus for the rest of my life. When it comes to sex I want to think like Jesus. When it comes to marriage I want to think like Jesus. That means I will affirm covenantal heterosexual marriage. It also means loving each and every person regardless of their lifestyle choices. It means, as His representative, proclaiming His Gospel and extending the transforming grace of the Gospel to others that takes us where we are, but wonderfully and amazingly, does not leave us there. That is a hope and a promise that followers of Jesus gladly extend to everyone, because we have been recipients of that same amazing grace.
Daniel Akin is president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, N.C.
How could anyone really know that? Besides, does anyone really think the subject of same-sex marriage was even talked about then?
Does it matter? He never addressed cannibalism as far as I know but every Christian I ever knew was aware that it’s wrong and evil.
Highly doubtful. Heck...would anyone have thought about it in 1950?
John 10:30...... I and the Father are one.”
That addresses it and puts a period on it.
The gospels have nothing from Jesus on beastiality. So, I guess that means it is just OK!!!!!! What a crock and what a lame argument. Same sex attempted marriage is unnatural at face value. Maybe Jesus said nothing, but I believe St. Paul had some thoughts.
Jesus (as well as the Apostle Paul) spoke about fulfilling Jewish Law.
Was not Jewish Law very specific about homosexuality?
God made it very clear in the Old Testament what He thought of homosexuality. And the Son did not come to refute the Father.
“Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.”- Matthew 5:17
How a liberal tries to misuse religion to push their agenda:
Jesus didn’t directly address texting while driving...therefore texting while driving is ok
1) Incest (it goes on at great length and exquisite detail).
2) Male homosexual acts (bluntly described as an abomination).
3) Sexual acts with an animal (by either a human male or a human female).
I am unaware of any specific prohibition in the Scriptures regarding female homosexual acts.
Let’s see, God destroys Sodom and Gommorah as a result of homosexuality but now He has seen the error of his ways? The homos just want to call it “marriage” because Jesus was quite specific as to the sin of adultery, as was Paul.
Then Christ came into the world.
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Again: Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Christ and God are One in the Same, yet distinct Beings. If God condemned homosexuality, then Christ condemned homosexuality. God condemned homosexuality, therefore Christ condemned homosexuality. End of discussion.
The only people who suggest otherwise are those who are desperately trying to justify their perverted, evil and godless lifestyle.
Paul, addressing Gentiles, addressed homosexuality and we all know how harshly he spoke against it (Romans).
Elsewhere we know what God thought about homosexuality as in the story about Sodom and Gomorrah. Jesus was always fully compliant with God's will so would have believed God's actions against these cities to be righteous. Lev. 18 spells out more laws about what God thinks as far as sexual practices go.
Sexual purity is God's highest and that is stated again and again throughout Scripture.
There are passages that talk about women lying down with women as if with a man, and in similar terms to male homosexual acts.
I am at work, so I don’t have my books handy. Think it is in Leviticus and know it is in Romans. Though the latter is often thrown out by the “Paul is not Christian” crowd.
Yes there is.
I think Christ made it abundantly clear about one man and one woman in Matthew 19:5...
“FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH”
Wife... not “partner,” not “husband,” but wife. Even for liberals in their twisted perverted minds... this isn’t hard to comprehend.
Well, Paul mentions it along with male homosexuality in Romans 1 (This is from the New Living Translation for purposes of clarity):
24 So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each others bodies.
25 They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen.
26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.
27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.
Both the Old Testament and the New address homosexuality and lesbianism in no uncertain terms. The Bible is the inspired word of God, and Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. He cannot and would not disagree with His own Word. The fact that He did not specifically speak to homosexuality in His incarnated time on earth is irrelevant.
I have posted this before but it bears remembering. God made our bodies purposely and it’s functions. He did not make man to reproduce with another man. It is between God and man what he does with his body but the Holy Word says the following and I’m sticking with that.
New International Version (NIV)
22 Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable
New International Version (NIV)
4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom both young and oldsurrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
New International Version (NIV)
9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
New International Version (NIV)
7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
Jesus VERY clearly addressed marriage in Matthew 19. Especially verses 4-6: And He answered and said to them, Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them MALE and FEMALE, (5) 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? (6) So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.
He also implies one man, one woman distancing Him from the polygamy of the patriarchs and kings (Abraham, David, Solomon, etc.)
Read the entire chapter marriage other than male and female is not even on Jesus radar. Though Im sure He knew one day Old Devil would use it to divide even His followers. I look to the woman caught in adultery (John 8), also a capital offense in Jesus day had that been a homosexual I feel sure my Savior would say: Neither do I condemn you go now and SIN NO MORE!
Now ... are you aware of any specific prohibition on female homosexual acts? I'd be much obliged if you could point me to such, as I have been unable to find it.
Redgulum: If folks want to toss Paul as "not Christian", about all I can do at that point is pray for their conversion. I have read all of Leviticus more than once ... but maybe I missed something. Lev 18:22 seems to me specific to male/male sodomy.
CA Conservative: Thanks. I had forgotten the sentence about women doing sex with each other.
I think a lot of people here need to read the article. He makes it very clear that Jesus DID address it.
Just like “non-fat butter”, there’s no such thing as “same sex marriage”.
Jesus didnt directly address texting while driving...therefore texting while driving is ok
ROTFLMAO....that is so funny. That drinking and driving thingee puts us in a quandry too.
Even if Jesus HAD nothing to say about homosexuality, Paul did. And Paul was an inspired apostle from God.
Jesus is the word of God in the flesh and the law come to life. In Jude 7 it states “strange flesh”, it stands to reason since marriage is between one man and one woman, strange flesh stands for male or female.
6] And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.
 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.
 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
Why address something that did not exist?
He posits that Yah'shua(Jesus) He serves some unknown god.
Daniel seems confused. shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
is not one(echad) with YHvH.
He posits that Yah'shua(Jesus)
He serves some unknown god.
Obvoiusly YOU never read Romans 1, Have You!
Rom 1:18-32 is clear and does address your concern.
Now ... can you show me where female homosexual acts are prohibited? Something equivalent to Lev. 18:22?
Seriously. Show me. I'm not defending female homosexual perversion. I'm looking for ammunition against it.
You, OTOH, are demonstrating a very bad habit common among protestant apologists on this forum. You are substituting snarky remarks for intelligent and informative discourse.
The following website is most probably more info that you wanted but you will find it interesting and informative.
There is a passage about the last days where women will turn their lusts toward other women but I have to look for it and get back with you.
Right. Rom 1:26 characterizes female homosexuality as unnatural. I find it interesting and odd that the OT seems not to address the matter at all.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
There is no female equivalent to Lev. 18:22 or Lev 20:13.
The argument is a ruse. The ENTIRE Bible is the Word of God. You cannot separate parts of it from the whole and use it to argue in favor or against anything. The Bible is clear on what is sin and what is righteous and it is not silent on this issue.
If you're thinking about Rom. 1:26, I don't believe that's a "last days" thing. Instead, it's a description of how folks who know neither The Law nor The Gospel behaved up until the time of Paul's writing ... and it holds true today. The whole passage is Rom 1:18-32, and the first few verses give the context.
Liberals comprehend NOTHING except power and their own desires.
You have to remember that the Bible was written by men, inspired by God, but in specific cultural milieus. In those times, I don't think women were considered all that important as people. But I do think that the moral strictures of God applied to them as well.
There never would have been any opportunity for Jesus to address “same ‘sex’ marriage,” since in his time the candidates would have been stoned to death in a roadside ditch.
Good grief, Jesus’ first miracle was at the Wedding of Cana where a man and a woman were married!
>> “Daniel seems confused.” <<
Daniel seems to be doing the work of his father, Satan.
More so in some cultures, less so in others.
But I do think that the moral strictures of God applied to them as well.
Sure. And The Law explicitly forbids women having sexual relations with animals. Doesn't mention women having relations with women.
Maybe it just wasn't a problem.
Drunk driving (a chariot, for example) isn't mentioned, either.
Jesus did not address directly each and every violation of the Law. However, he did address the Law itself.
Luke 16: 15 - 17
15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.
16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.
17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
You are right. There is no female equivalent to Leviticus 18:22 or 20:13. It is likely that there is something cultural going on here. There were cultural differences between east and west in the ancient world in regard to sexual practices and the tolerance thereof.
The Greeks, as I’m sure you know, were regarded as the popularizers (if such a word can be used in this context) of, especially, male homosexuality. It is not that homosexuality (or at least sex between men, as in Afghanistan today) was not practiced elsewhere, because there is evidence in art and, less, in literature that it was. But the Greeks not only tolerated it, but celebrated it and often depicted it in art. The Greek attitude toward lesbianism (or, again, at least sex between women) is a little less certain. The term lesbian is derived from the island of Lesbos, the home of the lyric poet Sappho (the origin of the term, sapphic), but was not really used in the sense we do today until about the 18th century, as classical studies attracted more and more attention. But unlike with men, I know of no depictions of female to female sex even among the Greeks. And it is not certain that Sappho’s either requited or unrequited love for other women involved physicality. In later antiquity there are other indications, but I don’t have time right now for that.
So, if among the Greeks, well known in the ancient world for their tolerance of and even approval of male homosexuality, there is little direct evidence of female homosexuality/lesbianism, it stands to reason that in the east where there is less evidence of male homosexuality (although there is quite a bit) that there would be near silence in regard to female homosexual practices.
That such practices would be viewed unfavorably in the ancient Near East, analogous to the culture’s general view of male homosexuality, is probable, if not certain.
But in the end one would have to say, with Solomon, that there is nothing new under the sun. I’m the same perversions of today were to be found then.
The question of whether something was specifically addressed rahter than being able to be reasonably inferred from the context, and from the whole text of the Bible, is a separate question.
Now, maybe you are addressing a separate question, but to me the question is: Does the Bible disapprove of lesbianism, and my considered opinion is that it does.