Monday, February 27, 2012

5 Reasons Jesus Condemned Homosexuality

You often hear the odd remark that Jesus never condemned homosexuality. This is rather strange for many reasons. For one, what people really mean by this is that Jesus in the Gospels never condemns it (supposedly); but the Gospels don't tell us everything Jesus had to say on every subject. It's not like they're a list of what He thought was right and wrong. They're presentations of Christ's teaching concerning salvation in regard to His work and our trusting in Him as Lord. He doesn't explicitly condemn pedaphilia or worshiping Zeus in the Gospels either. That has nothing to do with whether He implicitly condemns them both through general condemnations of the sinful categories under which they fall and by way of affirming the rest of the Bible. The Gospels, however, do give us a representative example of what He confirmed and condemned, and this is why we know what He believed on the matter. So here are the top 5 reasons we know that Jesus condemned and condemns homosexuality.

1. Jesus is YHWH God, who is the same yesterday, today and forever. And YHWH God condemned homosexuality in Leviticus 18:22. Hence, Jesus, who as God does not change, condemned and condemns homosexuality.

2. Jesus affirmed the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture (it cannot be broken), and thus affirmed that what it says in terms of moral issues is absolute and rather than be diminished to specifics, should be expanded upon to include a rejection of all aspects of the evil against which the Old Testament speaks and a much fuller embrace of the good in all of its applications. Hence, Jesus would not, nor does, do away with the command that condemns homosexuality.

3. The word porneia in Second Temple Judaism referred to all forms of sexual immorality that included homosexuality. When Jesus condemns porneia as evil, He condemns homosexuality with it.

4. The apostles continue to speak for Christ, as Jesus reveals to them His teaching and His Holy Spirit guides them to write what He wishes to teach that becomes the New Testament. Hence, what is found in the rest of the New Testament as condemnations of homosexuality are condemnations made by Jesus.

5. Jesus confirms the Genesis narratives in terms of their teaching that God intended one woman and one man to come together as one, and that this is the only model we have affirmed by Him. Furthermore, a confirmation of the Genesis narrative is a confirmation of the larger teaching of Genesis that condemns all non-procreative, and therefore chaotic toward human life and existence, sexual acts, which would then include a condemnation of homosexuality.

So the next time you hear that Jesus never condemned homosexuality, you should be able to assess the superficiality of that comment. One may enter a debate concerning the specific passages, but it is clear that as Creator, Jesus would not have run counter to the idea that sexual acts that do not work toward allowing God to create human life through them by obeying the command to become one in the male-female union are evil, as the rest of the Bible indicates.

The good news is that if one humbles him or herself and allows God to correct him or her, forgiveness and life can be found in the Lord Jesus Christ. If we obey His words, "Repent and believe the good news," we can enter a salvific relationship with God whereby we will no longer receive any condemnation, but begin a journey toward holiness in the Lord.

5 comments:

  1. Such nonsense. Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian. Even if he came to fulfill the law, as he said, it is not our law. Today, in the free world, we MUST continue to resist the religious doctrines of bigots and small minds. Homosexuality is not a choice, no matter what unscientific religious zealots claim. Come into the 21st century, people. Superstition is a fault and you are among the most superstitious.

    ReplyDelete
  2. bigot - "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance."

    Let's see, 1. obstinately refusing to engage the position of others because you are intolerantly devoted to your own; 2. intolerantly devoted to your own opinions and prejudices without engaging the arguments supplied; 3. treating another group (i.e., Christians) with hatred and intolerance.

    A. Your first response is incoherent. Both Judaism and Christianity have always taught that it was wrong, and my argument is based upon what the Bible says about who Jesus is as God (Jew, Christian or otherwise), not your opinion about Him.

    B. Why MUST you do anything like resist others you see as religious bigots? Do you have some sort of religious basis for it? From whence comes your morality that dictates you must resist? A made up rule you and your religious atheists construct? Sounds very bigoted to me. At least I'm seeking to implement what One who is transcendent toward culture has said, and not merely my own opinion, as though I were God to do so. I cannot say the same for you here.

    C. If by "superstition" you mean one who founds his understanding upon a metaphysical presupposition then I'm afraid you're faulting yourself as well, as empirical verificationism, and every other idea in the world is based upon metaphysical presuppositions. I would suggest you do some more reading in the area of epistemology before you call the kettle black.

    D. The idea that a sexual act that does not lead to human life is just as good as one that does is complete stupidity. Even if you are an atheist, you ought to stop and think for a moment. If everyone practiced homosexuality, it would mean the annihilation of the human race. Sounds very antidarwinian to me.

    Finally, have the guts to leave your name next time, along with a cogent argument. Otherwise, I'll likely just delete it. I want this blog to get people to think more about the issues I write about, not be bombarded with more unthoughtful rhetoric that seeks to produce more heat than light.

    ReplyDelete
  3. BTW, the same law that speaks against homosexuality is the same law that tells us to give to the poor and preach the gospel, so you seem to be confused about what law we observe as Christians. We observe the law of love, and love is directed by what is good toward humanity. Homosexuality destroys it, is an anticreational sin, and is equivalent to murder in that it diminishes humanity upon the earth rather than increasing it. I'm pretty sure Christians are still supposed to do things that lead to human life and preservation over things that lead to human destruction, even if the prohibition against murder resides in the "Jewish" law.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Do you eat shellfish? Cut your hair at the temple? If so, please don't bring up Leviticus.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Do you think that having sexual relations with your siblings, or sacrificing your children are things we should prohibit today? Do you love your neighbor? If so, this is all taught by Leviticus. You should understand the argument of a book before you condemn it. The ritual is meant to provide a picture for the moral. The pericope in which homosexuality is condemned is self contained and condemns everything I would condemn today. That's because this part of the Holiness Code isn't on the same moral plain as the ritual texts that are only meant to provide cultural reminders of the moral and theological.

    For the superficiality of your reply, go here: http://theologicalsushi.blogspot.com/2011/09/of-homosexuality-and-shellfish-letter.html

    And please note that my argument wasn't just centered on a prooftext from Leviticus. Leviticus is simply a small part of a massive canonical context where the creational trajectory is good and the anticreational trajectory is evil. Your interpretation of Leviticus rips it out of this context and tries to make it about something more culturally bound. This is pure ignorance of the argument it provides toward what is good. But you didn't really leave your comment to learn that you might be wrong, did you?

    ReplyDelete