Does Jesus harbor affection for individuals identifying as gay?
This piece constitutes a segment of the "What Did Jesus Teach?" series.
Does Remaining Silent Imply Approval?
In a contribution from 2012 for Slate online, Will Oremus posited a thought-provoking inquiry: Could Jesus have been a homophobe?1
The aforementioned piece was triggered by a narrative concerning a gay adolescent residing in Ohio who initiated legal action against his secondary institution after its representatives forbade him from donning a tee bearing the phrase, "Jesus Is Not a Homophobe."
Oremus demonstrated less apprehension regarding the legal ramifications intrinsic to the account, directing his focus instead toward the veracity of the declaration emblazoned upon the tee. As Oremus intimates, Jesus's perspectives pertaining to homosexuality exhibited greater inclusivity when juxtaposed against those espoused by Paul, as he articulates:
Despite the plausibility of presuming Jesus, alongside his Jewish contemporaries residing within first-century Palestine, might have disapproved of same-sex relations, there exists no documentation indicating his explicit acknowledgment of homosexuality, let alone the conveyance of pronounced aversion toward it. . . . Nowhere within the Bible does Jesus himself provide a clear and unmistakable condemnation of homosexuality.
Oremus appears to be implying that, given the absence of Jesus's direct mention of homosexuality, it conceivably occupied a peripheral position within his concerns.
There exist, at minimum, a pair of rationales compelling us to adopt a skeptical posture toward this viewpoint.
Acquire a complimentary digital edition of the tome 'What Does the Bible Actually Instruct Regarding Homosexuality?' simply by furnishing us with select particulars pertaining to yourself!
Partake in a concise, one-minute questionnaire to enlist within our subscriber roster, thereby procuring a freely-provided digital book presented in your favored format. Engage with it utilizing your preferred digital apparatus, spanning smartphones, tablet devices, laptops, and desktop computers.
Dual Predicaments
Firstly, numerous ethical considerations exist in relation to which Jesus refrained from articulating an explicit pronouncement. Such an observation scarcely intimates that his moral perspective lacks pertinence when applied to these aforementioned considerations.
Jesus never rendered any explicit declarations pertaining to abortion, matrimony between individuals of the same gender, or sexual abuse targeting minors. Nevertheless, it would constitute an extraordinary proposition to infer from this specific actuality that Jesus's doctrines bear irrelevance to our ethical evaluation of such matters.
Secondly, Jesus did, indeed, articulate clear viewpoints pertaining to sexual immorality in general and the intrinsic essence of matrimony. He openly condemned the former (for example, Matthew 5:28; 15:19) and characterized the latter in consonance with Genesis 2:24: 'Therefore shall a man forsake his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh' (Matthew 19:5 AT; compare with Mark 10:7-8).
Jesus validated the union under covenant of a solitary male and a solitary female as the sole and exclusive accepted manifestation of human sexuality. It would be quite incredible to posit that the pronouncements originating from Jesus bear absolutely no relation to the inquiry surrounding homosexuality; to be sure, they assuredly do.
Jesus validated the union under covenant of one man and one woman as the singular, normative expression of human sexuality.
Jesus Compared to Paul
Evidently, Oremus has misconstrued the significance of Jesus's teachings in addressing the subject of homosexuality. However, he proceeds to draw a comparison between Jesus's disposition and that of Paul, the apostle, as he elucidates:
Even under the assumption that Jesus regarded homosexuality as a transgression, his inherent inclination leaned toward extending a hand to transgressors as opposed to rejecting them. . . . Nevertheless, not all adherents of Jesus embraced such a compassionate perspective. Within Romans 1, Paul censured same-sex relations as aberrant—an exceptionally egregious instance of pagan excess—and asserted that such actions would elicit divine retribution.
Herein lies another version of the hermeneutical cage combat that enjoys such widespread prevalence in contemporary discourse—namely, the viewpoint asserting a fundamental discordance between Jesus and Paul across a spectrum of ethical quandaries.
Positioned on one facet is Jesus: an advocate for tranquility, extending forgiveness to adversaries, championing egalitarianism, and embracing inclusivity with respect to individuals identifying as homosexual.
Conversely, on the opposing facet resides Paul: an advocate for armed conflict, proponent of capital punishment, upholder of patriarchal structures, and discriminator against individuals identifying as homosexual.
In stark contrast to Jesus, characterized by love and tolerance, Paul allegedly embodied "wrath" and intolerance. Consequentially, the affirmation displayed upon the tee appears to be legitimized. Irrespective of the inhibitions exhibited by figures such as Paul, Jesus remained devoid of homophobia.
What Constitutes the Essence of Sex?
Denny Burk
Sex, in its very essence, was conceived by God to serve His divine glory. This book, through the application of clarity and compassion, explicates the Bible’s teachings pertaining to sexuality from a complementarian viewpoint, with deliberations involving contentious matters such as homosexuality and polygamy.
A Spurious Altercation
Individuals who orchestrate hermeneutical cage matches pitting Paul against Jesus essentially conduct a competition that neither Jesus nor Paul would have sanctioned. The given methodology appears to erode the assertion of the New Testament's standing as a normative foundation for ethics by rendering the black characters subordinate to the red ones.
Ultimately, the crux of the discourse centers not around the pigmentation of characters, but rather the intrinsic nature of Scripture. Those endeavoring to affirm biblical authority over the extended trajectory shall actively eschew the cage-match methodology. Moreover, those who aspire to embody genuine red-character Christians shall carefully attend to the declarations articulated by Paul and the other apostolic authors of Scripture, recognizing them as the very pronouncements of Christ.
This piece constitutes a derivative of What Is the Meaning of Sex?, authored by Denny Burk.
Endnotes:
1. Will Oremus, 'Wait, Was Jesus a Homophobe?'Slate, April 9, 2012,
Denny Burk (holding a PhD conferred by The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) functions as a professor specializing in biblical studies at Boyce College, which serves as the undergraduate division of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He additionally fulfills the responsibilities of an associate pastor at Kenwood Baptist Church, situated in Louisville, Kentucky. Burk assumes the role of editor for The Journal for Biblical Manhood & Womanhood and contributes extensively through speeches and writings pertaining to topics surrounding gender and sexuality. His popular web log can be accessed at DennyBurk.com.