What does the New Testament say about homosexuality? Short answer: "Nothing"

[Cypress]

Ron Miller, professor of religious studies, Lake Forest College:

It is important to remember that there was no general word for same-sex relations in Greek vocabulary at the time the New Testament authors were writing. A word inclusive of all same-sex relations does not occur in any language until the nineteenth century. So, the shortest and, strictly speaking, most accurate answer to the question “What does the bible say about homosexuality?” is “Nothing”. The current English-language Bibles translating these words as “homosexuals” are thus both incorrect and misleading.

If Paul intended to refer to same-sex relations in using the terms found in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, then he was making an unwarranted generalization. The emphasis of the passage is clearly on deliberate, destructive behavior, not on one’s personal sexual preferences. We know of no instance where Jesus or Paul dealt with a loving, committed same-sex couple and therefore have no solid basis for conjecturing about their possible views of such a relationship.

 

[gmark77]

Is the thinking that since there's nothing in the NT explicitly forbidding homosexuality that Christ would not have believed that Leviticus 18:22 was still the law of the land?

Or is homosexuality another of the Mosaic laws that became "moot" upon Christ's appearance and the new Dispensation? Or simply doesn't apply to Christianity but still applies to Judaism? Is it part of the New Covenant?

 

[Cypress]

Is the thinking that since there's nothing in the NT explicitly forbidding homosexuality that Christ would not have believed that Leviticus 18:22 was still the law of the land?

Or is homosexuality another of the Mosaic laws that became "moot" upon Christ's appearance and the new Dispensation? Or simply doesn't apply to Christianity but still applies to Judaism? Is it part of the New Covenant?

I can't speak for Ron Miller, who I quoted in the first post.

It is clear in Galatians that as far as gentiles are concerned the Torah was a temporary covenant, that only held until the Messiah came. Gentile sinners are not judged by the law of Torah. Having faith in Jesus renders the holiness laws in Torah obsolete, and the moral law in Torah is fulfilled simply by following the commandments of Jesus to love God and love your neighbor as yourself.

I'm sure there are Bible thumpers who have a different take. But the principles mentioned by Ron Miller in the first post seem broadly applicable. Both the local Episcopalian Church, and the United Church of Christ here have lesbian and gay ministers, respectively.

 

[gmark77]

I can't speak for Ron Miller, who I quoted in the first post.

It is clear in Galatians that as far as gentiles are concerned the Torah was a temporary covenant, that only held until the Messiah came. Gentile sinners are not judged by the law of Torah. Having faith in Jesus renders the holiness laws in Torah obsolete, and the moral law in Torah is fulfilled simply by following the commandments of Jesus to love God and love your neighbor as yourself.

I'm sure there are Bible thumpers who have a different take. But the principles mentioned by Ron Miller in the first post seem broadly applicable. Both the local Episcopalian Church, and the United Church of Christ here have lesbian and gay ministers, respectively.

I always assumed that if Jesus was, as he clearly stated, only there to fulfil the law and not alter it that he, himself, probably understood Leviticus as it was written to be against homosexuality (the strong's Concordance seems to confirm this). If this is the case it would go unstated that he found homosexuality to be a sin.

However, I also understand that religions evolve to suit the morality of the age. Our current morality is one of acceptance and as such we alter the faith in order to allow a God who clearly stated his position in re to homosexuality to be as accepting as we have grown and evolved to be.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Is the thinking that since there's nothing in the NT explicitly forbidding homosexuality that Christ would not have believed that Leviticus 18:22 was still the law of the land?

Or is homosexuality another of the Mosaic laws that became "moot" upon Christ's appearance and the new Dispensation? Or simply doesn't apply to Christianity but still applies to Judaism? Is it part of the New Covenant?

If Leviticus 18:22 is still in play, then why not these?:

Exodus 20:14
“You shall not commit adultery."

Exodus 20:16
"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor"

Exodus 23:1
"You shall not spread a false report. You shall not join hands with a wicked man to be a malicious witness."

​

 

[Cypress]

I always assumed that if Jesus was, as he clearly stated, only there to fulfil the law and not alter it that he, himself, probably understood Leviticus as it was written to be against homosexuality (the strong's Concordance seems to confirm this). If this is the case it would go unstated that he found homosexuality to be a sin.

However, I also understand that religions evolve to suit the morality of the age. Our current morality is one of acceptance and as such we alter the faith in order to allow a God who clearly stated his position in re to homosexuality to be as accepting as we have grown and evolved to be.

Gospel of Matthew was specifically written for a Jewish audience. The New Testament is collection of 27 books. I don't think anyone suggested Jews themselves should abandon the Mosaic Law, which was specifically written as a collection of rules, rituals, holiness codes for the theocracy of ancient Israel.

Biblical literalists always forget that Jesus also specifically told his disciples he had not taught them everything they needed to know, and he would send the Holy Spirit after he was gone to further guide them on how to practice and live God-centered lives.

That is precisely why the apostles, the Church fathers, the ecumenical councils said they were justified in the practice of interpretation and disputation. And for purposes of this thread, the end result is that Gentiles are not judged by Torah, and they are not required to live a Torah-centered life.

 

[Cypress]

If Leviticus 18:22 is still in play, then why not these?:

Exodus 20:14
“You shall not commit adultery."

Exodus 20:16
"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor"

Exodus 23:1
"You shall not spread a false report. You shall not join hands with a wicked man to be a malicious witness."

Jesus said the moral laws of Torah are fulfilled simply by following his two commandments: love God, and love your neighbor as yourself.

If you love your neighbor as yourself, you aren't going to murder or steal.

Technically, nothing from Exodus to Deuteronomy actually applies to Christians. And certainly not the Mosaic laws of ritual, diet, and cleanliness.

 

[gmark77]

Gospel of Matthew was specifically written for a Jewish audience. The New Testament is collection of 27 books. I don't think anyone suggested Jews themselves should abandon the Mosaic Law, which was specifically written as a collection of rules, rituals, holiness codes for the theocracy of ancient Israel.

Biblical literalists always forget that Jesus also specifically told his disciples he had not taught them everything they needed to know, and he would send the Holy Spirit after he was gone to further guide them on how to practice and live God-centered lives.

That is precisely why the apostles, Church fathers, ecumenical councils were justified in the practice of interpretation and disputation. And for purposes of this thread, the end result is that Gentiles are not judged by Torah, and they are not required to live a Torah-centered life.

I can definitely see how Christianity has evolved and differentiated itself from Judaism.

I just assume that Jesus would still be Jewish and since he was pretty clear about his position in re the "laws" my assumption is that he would also hold the same view of homosexuality as Leviticus.

I think, if I were to get to advise Jesus on his messaging I might have suggested that his language on the applicability of the Laws be a bit more clear about the changing Dispensation.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Jesus said the moral laws of Torah are fulfilled simply by following his two commandments: love God, and love your neighbor as yourself.

If you love your neighbor as yourself, you aren't going to murder or steal.

Technically, nothing from Exodus to Deuteronomy actually applies to Christians. And certainly not the Mosaic laws of ritual, diet, and cleanliness.

Note how every JPP MAGAt cherry-picks from the Bible on what scripture they'll choose to follow. None of them follow Christ's two commandments.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I can definitely see how Christianity has evolved and differentiated itself from Judaism.

I just assume that Jesus would still be Jewish and since he was pretty clear about his position in re the "laws" my assumption is that he would also hold the same view of homosexuality as Leviticus.

I think, if I were to get to advise Jesus on his messaging I might have suggested that his language on the applicability of the Laws be a bit more clear about the changing Dispensation.

Jesus went a step above the OT. Yes, he said the OT still applied when asked, but, again, he took it further as @Cypress explained.

 

[Cypress]

I can definitely see how Christianity has evolved and differentiated itself from Judaism.

I just assume that Jesus would still be Jewish and since he was pretty clear about his position in re the "laws" my assumption is that he would also hold the same view of homosexuality as Leviticus.

I think, if I were to get to advise Jesus on his messaging I might have suggested that his language on the applicability of the Laws be a bit more clear about the changing Dispensation.

Telling fellow Jews they should live a Torah-centered life, tells us nothing about whether Gentiles have to live a Torah-centered life.

As it turns out, that question was settled 1,800 years ago

 

[gmark77]

Jesus went a step above the OT. Yes, he said the OT still applied when asked, but, again, he took it further as @Cypress explained.

That's the bit that always sort of confused me. Jesus was quite clear that not one jot or tittle of the law shall pass before all be fulfilled. I guess the argument is that Jesus' mere presence was the fulfilment but that also doesn't seem to fit either. Jesus was pretty clearly eschatological in his preaching and there was to be an imminent end to all things and he would return in Glory.

I guess he could have meant that his mere existence was the fulfilment and that at the point he showed up the laws of Moses became secondary.

I've never really heard a Dispensationalist say that, though. So I don't know what the normal Dispensationalist theology is on this front.

That's why I wish Jesus had been more clear on his points with regards to the Mosaic laws. Considering that it took some significant strife within the church after Jesus' passing for the correct theology to arise with regards to the ritual laws.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

That's why I wish Jesus had been more clear on his points with regards to the Mosaic laws. Considering that it took some significant strife within the church after Jesus' passing for the correct theology to arise with regards to the ritual laws.

He may very have done so. Let's not forget that 1) the Gospels weren't written until decades after the Crucifixion and when many of the Apostles were already dead and 2) of all the books being written about Jesus and his times, they were cherry-picked to formalize the beliefs of the budding Catholic church.

 

[martin]

Ron Miller, professor of religious studies, Lake Forest College:

It is important to remember that there was no general word for same-sex relations in Greek vocabulary at the time the New Testament authors were writing. A word inclusive of all same-sex relations does not occur in any language until the nineteenth century. So, the shortest and, strictly speaking, most accurate answer to the question “What does the bible say about homosexuality?” is “Nothing”. The current English-language Bibles translating these words as “homosexuals” are thus both incorrect and misleading.

If Paul intended to refer to same-sex relations in using the terms found in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, then he was making an unwarranted generalization. The emphasis of the passage is clearly on deliberate, destructive behavior, not on one’s personal sexual preferences. We know of no instance where Jesus or Paul dealt with a loving, committed same-sex couple and therefore have no solid basis for conjecturing about their possible views of such a relationship.

Strange, since homosexuality is not a rare theme in Greek art.

 

[Cypress]

Strange, since homosexuality is not a rare theme in Greek art.

I don't read Greek, and can't say if there was a specific word in ancient Greece for a homosexual relationship. The Spartans did have a tradition of pairing boys with older men in their agoge system, bur the extent to which these were romantic relationships versus mentoring relationships is open to debate.

 

[martin]

I don't read Greek, and can't say if there was a specific word in ancient Greece for a homosexual relationship. The Spartans did have a tradition of pairing boys with older men in their agoge system, bur the extent to which these were romantic relationships versus mentoring relationships is open to debate.

I miss-read it. Your source cited only the absence of a word for "all" same sex relationships.

 

[Cypress]

Note how every JPP MAGAt cherry-picks from the Bible on what scripture they'll choose to follow. None of them follow Christ's two commandments.

I am always suspicious of cherry-pickers, and fake Christians!

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I am always suspicious of cherry-pickers, and fake Christians!

Agreed. A person who cherry-picks is intentionally lying by omission or too stupid or mentally ill to understand what they are saying.

This is the puzzle I try to solve when observing the posts of JPP political extremists. Mostly the MAGAts since they far outnumber the LWLs by about 10 to 1.

 

[gmark77]

A good Christian knows what the Good Book says about cherry picking.

2. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
...
7 For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the LORD our God is in all things that we call upon him for?

8 And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?

9 Only take heed to thyself, and keep thy soul diligently, lest thou forget the things which thine eyes have seen, and lest they depart from thy heart all the days of thy life: but teach them thy sons, and thy sons' sons;

 

[EdwinA]

It doesn't have to, since it was already said in the OT. The NT apostles were busy with important stuff, and not much concerned with making perverts and sexual fetishists feel good about being degenerates and perverts.