Is It True Jesus Never Addressed Same Sex Marriage?

[Editor’s Note: This post originally appeared on August 8, 2012.]

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 more carefully the Bible.  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.  Jesus is pro-sex!  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 1st 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, He 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 everyone 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.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


  1. Terry Dorsett   •  

    Very well written. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this important subject.

  2. John   •  

    It is a pretty large leap, not to mention an obvious interpretation to say that sexual immorality equals homosexuality.

  3. Carter Mundy   •  

    Good article. I wonder if a future article might be what loving our homosexual neighbor should look like, practically. It’s easy to say we should love them, but hard to carry out in reality–much of it involving what we actually say to them, and how we say it. I have been thinking about this, especially with the Chick-Fil-A feud. Of course, I recognize that much of this “movement” involves a political agenda for homosexual advocates. But should Christians jump on the opposite political-agenda-bandwagon? Of course, it would be ridiculous if Christians simply went along with the culture and affirmed homosexuality as acceptable. But what is the best way to go about “standing up” for God’s truth? What does that look like?

  4. Paul Garland   •  

    John…not a far leap at all. Homosexuality as a sin is listed in both the Old and New Testaments.

  5. Joseph Torres   •  

    Very helpful, thanks.

    Jesus never explicitly denounced homosexuality as a deviation from God’s design for human sexuality (using the word ‘homosexual’ or one of its cognates) for one primary reason:

    …the same reason why a GOP candidate doesn’t argue for lowering taxes at the RNC national convention.

    … the same reason why Whoopi Goldberg doesn’t argue in favor of a woman’s “right to choose” at a Planned Parenthood rally.

    … the same reason why a Jehovah’s Witness doesn’t argue against the deity of Christ in a Kingdom Hall.

    …the same reason why a Muslim doesn’t try to convince those at his local mosque that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet.

    I think you get the picture.

  6. Kent   •  

    John – How is it a “pretty large leap”?

  7. Jean Thompson   •  

    Very well written – perhaps the best I’ve read on this topic. Wish there was a way to “share” on facebook. Thank you!

  8. Mike   •  

    This article does not take any leaps when stating that homosexuality is sexually immoral. In the book of Leviticus, chapter 20, God lists out things that are sexually immoral, including in verse 13 “If a man lies with a man as with a woman, both of them have commited an abomination”. The author of this article has properly interpreted the scripture based on the context of the scriptures taken as a whole.

  9. Charles   •  

    I am a nurse in a local hospice organization. I am a heterosexual male, married to the same woman for 40 years. The question about “what loving our homosexual neighbor looks like” reveals a certain isolation from the larger community which often makes those outside our group seem strange and alien. Several times I have attended the passing of individuals in long-term homosexual partnerships and other persons with homosexual family members. I have found that loving and serving people different from me is not at all difficult or un-natural when I can develop a sharp focus on their actual critical needs (as opposed to what I believe they need). So, as a practical means of loving the people in your community (whether gay or straight) I would suggest volunteering in your local hospice group or some other similar organization which will help you remove the barrier of isolation that exists between you and your neighbor. The command to love our neighbor is fundamental to Christianity and the other element of His imperative is to go into all the world – including our own community.

  10. Kris   •  

    I agree with you completely, and to be honest, I have not heard much doubt as to whether or not Christ confirmed that marriage is to be between a man and a woman – nor that homosexuality is a sin. I think the bigger argument should lie outside and separate from what our country (not our God) defines as marriage. For a long time, we (as Americans) have created a definition of marriage that is not 100% in alignment with what God defined marriage to be. God’s word never speaks (to my knowledge) of a marriage that is recognized by the state and how that is any different from what God recognizes as marriage. THAT should be the central issue.

    As a Christian, I believe that homosexuality is a sin. As a Christian, I believe that marriage is defined by my Savior between a man and a woman.

    As an American, I know that my marriage was ratified and signed into law on a specific date. My marriage to my wife was my choice and my religion or religious beliefs are nothing more than a footnote on the marriage license. I believe that my marriage was blessed by God and ratified by the government. They are, however, two very different things.

    In America, we have a foundation of tolerance. We have a foundation of allowing individual’s beliefs to be whatever they might choose (regardless of it’s foundation in spiritual matters). In the 20s and 30s there was great light shed on women being just as (if not more than) capable than men in the workforce. God tells us very differently. In the 50s and 60s there was great light shed on how differently black (or non-white) people were treated. God’s word tells us how to best manage our slaves. Now, we have a great light shed on the differentiation of marriage laws created by our government and who is and who is not considered applicable.

    In America, this should not be so.

    I am 100% for equal rights for homosexual marriages in America. I believe it to be a great travesty that our country has denied them the taxation rights and benefits that a heterosexual marriage has.

    Is it a marriage blessed by God? Of course not! Should it be blessed by the government? In my opinion, absolutely!

    A marriage of God is not a marriage of law, and vice versa. Should they be the same? In a perfect world, yes of course. In ours? No, they shouldn’t be. That’s one of the very tenants of American freedom. Everyone should feel free to believe as they desire, without repercussions from the government.

    (just my 2 cents)

  11. Steve Utley   •  

    Well written expounding the natural Biblical narrative on the issue. I would disagree with John’s comments and fail to see any ‘leaps’ in what you have written.

    Any sexual act outside of the marital relationship between a man and wife is encompassed within the term ‘sexual immorality’, so I fail to understand how that couldn’t include homosexuality.

    I think your final two paragraphs are important in firstly avoiding the all pervasive ‘single issue’ trap which evangelicals are all too fond of and secondly pointing out that there is no-one outside the boundaries of God’s grace. In my experience, we should just carry the gospel to all. God does the rest.

  12. Kevin   •  

    Although there are definite scriptural statements on the subject in both the Old and New Covenant and although you could certainly argue that this was not an issue Jesus would have needed to address given the culture in which he was speaking…I would agree with John that a leap is made here.

    “He (Jesus) also believed that sex was a good gift to be enjoyed within a monogamous, heterosexual covenant of marriage.” This statement is not supportable within the gospels outside of interpretation.

    So, yes a leap is made. One can argue that it’s a safe leap but not that on leap is made. Absent specific scriptures to the contrary of course. Of which there are none.

    The reason of course is that Jesus was not a moralist…so of course it didn’t come up.

  13. DL   •  

    Good article, but what is your justification for this statement: “First, what did Jesus say about sex? Jesus believed that sex is a good gift from a great God. Jesus is pro-sex!”

    Jesus was unmarried and did not partake of sexual intercourse, and therefore would seem to be more in favor abstinance given the option. Also, what about Matthew 22:29-30 with regard to marriage?

  14. Josh   •  

    DL brings up a good point which I would like to attempt to address.

    Both Jesus and Paul chose the celibate lifestyle (not abstinence until marriage but lifelong abstinance), as likely did several of Jesus’ apostles and likely many other early Christians. Jesus and Paul both encouraged this, but both acknowledged that many are not called to celibacy.

    I infer from Matthew 19:10-12 that Jesus says only those who are called to celibacy will be able to avoid sexual sin.

    I also read in Paul that he wished all Christians could be celibate, but understands that many simply aren’t able.

    Jesus may not have been “pro-sex” exactly. He was “pro-following-God’s-call” If that means marriage and sex, do it. If that means a celibate lifestyle, do it.

  15. Wally   •  

    People mature sexually at about age 12, yet the USA culture disables them from getting married until about 13 years or 17 years later, how does this make sense?
    The Evangelical church is just the world, delayed by n years, except more stupid and senseless.
    Questions which need answering in the Hebrew context of the gospels include were the Talmidim married, what age were they? Why is nothing mentioned about their wives?
    Children? Were they on a temporary monk-like mission trip for 3 years having left their wives behind? What is the Jewish and Rabbinic and Hebrew linguistic context?
    Please let’s have more substantial creative thinking rather than recycling patness from dusty old commentaries over and over again ad nauseam.

  16. Justin   •  

    We also have to remember that Jesus said this…..

    “When you enter a town and are welcomed, eat what is set before you. Heal the sick who are there and tell them, ‘The kingdom of God is near you.’ But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its streets and say, ‘Even the dust of your town that sticks to our feet we wipe off against you. Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God is near.’ I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town.” – Luke 10:8-12

    He sent His disciples out two by two and they “preached that people should repent” (Mark 6:12). If they refused to listen to them, Jesus instructed them to “shake the dust” off their feet and move on to the next town. He never encouraged them to settle down for a few months and develop friendships with those who rejected His message. Nor did He tell them to avoid quoting Scriptures so that their hearers wouldn’t be offended or turned off to the Gospel. He knew that the “message of the Cross is foolishness to those who are perishing” (1 Corinthians 1:18), and that most people will reject that message, no matter how friendly the manner in which it is presented. Christ was rejected by the world and He told us to expect the same reaction (John 15:18-20).

  17. Max   •  

    John says:
    “It is a pretty large leap … to say that sexual immorality equals homosexuality.”

    Scripture says:
    “They gave up God: and therefore God gave them up — to be the playthings of their own foul desires in dishonouring their own bodies. These men deliberately forfeited the truth of God and accepted a lie, paying homage and giving service to the creature instead of to the Creator, who alone is worthy to be worshipped for ever and ever, amen. God therefore handed them over to disgraceful passions. Their women exchanged the normal practices of sexual intercourse for something which is abnormal and unnatural. Similarly the men, turning from natural intercourse with women, were swept into lustful passions for one another. Men with men performed these shameful horrors, receiving, of course, in their own personalities the consequences of sexual perversity. Moreover, since they considered themselves too high and mighty to acknowledge God, he allowed them to become the slaves of their degenerate minds, and to perform unmentionable deeds.” (Romans 1:24-28 Phillips)

  18. Jaina   •  

    Carter: I’ve often wondered the same thing myself. On a personal level, I have many friends and coworkers who identify themselves as gay or lesbian. I constantly find myself torn between wanting to show them Christ’s love for them while not affirming them in their sin, and I’m sure I fail more often than I succeed.

    I don’t have much to offer except pray, pray, pray – pray for the GLBT community, pray for yourself, pray for the culture, pray for friends and family, pray without ceasing. (Not, I’ll admit, that I’m as good about THAT as I ought to be either!) I know I’m much more able to act in Christ’s love when I spend time actively dwelling in it.

  19. Andrew   •  

    A response…

    The Lord was gracious in saving me 6 years ago. He has poured His amazing truth, through His word, into me in a deep and life changing way. At times, I can so relate to our brother John who felt both the bitterness and the sweetness of our Lords truth. This issue of homosexuality has become somewhat of of a forerunner for the mark of the beast. The beast uses it mightily to cause countless Christians to stumble by trying to moralize a society who, apart from Christ and His cross, suffer countless consequences in their unbelief. Our Lord is the truth behind all of His word, not just the red letter text of our man printed bibles.

    In Romans, the Holy Spirit reveals the heart of this issue resulting in the downward spiral revealed as God gives them up (three times repeated) to a debased mind and in Romans 1:27 He reveals this:

      Romans 1:27
    and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

    That due penalty is the horrific consequence of rejecting Gods truth…here is how I pray I can compassionately communicate to all those deceived by this work of Satan. 

    If you had a son, and you asked him and 99 of his best male friends, brothers, cousins etc. to travel into a jungle and then return. Upon their return, you discover that your son and 19 of his friends had a terminal disease that will ultimately rip their lives away and kill them. You also learned that in addition to that you found a total of 51 of them had contracted horrific transmitable diseases that would equally steal the joy of their lives away. And then each time you sent another group of boys and men into that jungle to explore it, you found an ever increasing percentage of them who return ravaged with these diseases. This is the life of the male homosexual, who represents 79% of all of the HIV cases in the world.

    Amazingly, this what our society is fighting for…the freedom to keep going into this jungle that is destroying man after man at a rate higher than any other killer known to man. This all comes back to the simple question. Is God blessing or cursing this jungle or lifestyle? Please reread verse 27…and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

    Pray brothers and sisters that we, the church will have the heart to understand and communicate this in a loving and compassionate way. That this life they seek is a life of death and bitterness and can be completely wiped clean and turned into peace, joy, contentment and eternal life through the precious, precious work of our Lord on that cross. Weep, pray and hope for them…that the Lord would grant them His heart that turns us from the very thing that destroys us…the consequences of unbelief!

    For more information, simply go to the Centers for Disease Control and search MSM and HIV to read the tragic truth of this lifestyle and the tragic consequence that our Lord tells us is the due penalty of their error…pray brothers and sisters…pray for our Lord who will restore this world back to His design.

    In Christ and His amazing grace…andrew

  20. Jim   •  

    How can anyone make it through the first 5 pages of the bible and not realize it’s not complete a total fiction? You guys are wankers.

  21. Robert   •  

    To say that Jesus defined marriage as being between a man and a woman in Matthew 19 is intellectually dishonest because Jesus was responding to a question asked by the Pharisees about divorce. Since a divorce presupposes a marriage, and since the only marriage that existed among Jews at that time was between a man and a woman, of course His response would be limited to that type of marriage. How could it be otherwise?
    To my knowledge, Jesus never said anything about homosexuals. The word “homosexual” did not even exist intil 1897 A.D. But this is interesting: Look at Matthew 19:11-12. Directly following His pronouncements on divorce, He excludes eunuchs from them. And He distinguishes three types of eunuchs. Could one of these be what today is called “homosexual?”

  22. foxyfluff   •  

    Well the Bible also has passages against eating shrimp Lev.11:10,working on the sabbath Ex. 35:2,entering heaven if you have a defect in your sight Lev. 21:20,That children who curse their parents are to be killed Lev.20:9. Bible verses which no one,not even fundimentalist Evangelicals take literally today.

  23. Karen   •  

    Anyone can make the Bible say what they want. You can manipulate any written word and have it agree with your way of thinking…BUT you can never change what God MEANT in HIS Word. Romans 1:25-28 says that the act of homosexuality is wrong and that God gave them over to a depraved mind. Not my words, but God’s words. By the way, the Bible is the written form of the Living Word which is Christ Jesus, thus these are all His words.

  24. Russ   •  

    Foxyfluff, we take Exodus and Leviticus to be literal, but we don’t think that it’s applicable to us as New Covenant Christians. It was, however, literal for the Jews of that day. These laws reveal a lot to us about God’s standard of holiness. It should be noted that homosexuality is listed elsewhere as a sin. That’s why we still hold to it. Not just because of Leviticus.

    However, I don’t see why these laws were so absurd to begin with. God said, “Here’s the penalty for —–“. The people knew ahead of time the penalty. They knew what was coming if they committed the sin. That’s how all laws work. It’s not like God said, “I’m not going to tell them, but if they curse their parents, they die.” A hundred years from now speed limits might be abolished. And people will look back and say, “They used to charge people hundreds of dollars if they drove too fast. Isn’t that ridiculous?” But that doesn’t mean that the law wasn’t applicable and FAIR for us today. If God says that there is a punishment for a certain sin, the people better not do whatever he has said not to do, because they know what’s coming. Whether you think the punishment is harsh or not has nothing to do with it. Death is what we all deserve for sin committed in the sight of Almighty God.

    Additionally, entrance into the modern day church of that time was through your ethnic identity. In modern times we remove people from the church through church discipline (or at least we should). They enter through a confession that they have believed in Christ as their Savior and they leave through the process of discipline. In that time, people entered through birth and they were removed through death. God is right in doing things how he wanted to then just like he is in doing things now in the New Covenant era. If you want to take issue with that, you’re a braver man/woman than me.

  25. Russ   •  

    P.S. Leviticus 21:20 says no such thing. It’s talking about offering sacrifices, not entering heaven.

  26. Jeff Q   •  

    To those of you that believe that Jesus didn’t address it…do you think He approves?

  27. Ike   •  

    Jesus is God in human form, He is also called Emmanuel (which means God with us) – Matthew 1:23. In John 1, it is made clear that Jesus is God, as well as the Word of God made flesh spoken about in that chapter. So He has spoken clearly about homosexuality (and other sins) throughtout the Bible, as so many have ably highlighted here. The myth that He never spoke about homosexuality should be laid to rest.

  28. Paul   •  

    You forgot to add that Jesus clearly defines remarriage after divorce as adultery in Matthew 19. He does not mince these words, in fact its the point of the first part of 19. As a result, the majority of Christianity (Catholics and most Orthodox) view any remarriage after a divorce as adultery because it is the law of Christ and they are Christians.

    Really its worse than just adultery when you think about it. Someone stands in the house of God, makes and unbreakable promise to God then breaks it. To add insult to injury, They then make another “unbreakable” promise to God. Consecration of this sham of a marriage with sex is really blasphemy, its not just adultery it is an insult to God.

    And since Jesus never mentions gay marriage, remarriage should be enemy number one for Christians.

    Why isn’t it?

    I never understood American Christianity with its blatant hypocritical interpretation of the law of Christ. But then again, considering that historically the bible in America was used to justify enslavement of Africans (literally Africans as opposed to the the continued enslavement of the Irish and other Europeans, or Native Americans) racial segregation etc… its not surprising that such a stance would be taken so myopically to justify bigotry against homosexuals.

  29. Joe   •  

    You mentioned Matthew 19:4-6. Below, in my link, I go into other passages, the original Greek, context, history, and structures of Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6, but for now, let’s look farther down in Matthew 19, to verses 10-12:

    10 His disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 But he said to them, “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”

    Matthew 19:10—His disciples state this because they are surprised by his response. It being quite contrary to what they had been taught, and very different from the general practice and usage of their nation. But Jesus, like Paul later in 1 Corinthians, says it would be more expedient and advisable for a man to live his entire life single.

    Matthew 19:11—Jesus is saying that it is not good to marry, but that not everyone is sufficient or fit for the single life. Not everyone is given this gift of continecy however, and in fact, very few are, and therefore it is expedient to marry. Jesus says “to whom it is given.” This implies it is received as a gift…to live unmarried with context, having the gift of chastity, for this is not of nature, but it is a gift of God to have this heart. Christ says not everyone can accept this!

    Matthew 19:12—The Jesus speaks about eunuchs. He distinguishes the various sorts of person that can live in a single state with content. Some by nature, others by violence, and others through a gift of God in order to be more useful to the Kingdom and abstain from marriage cheerfully and contentedly. The number of these people are few in comparison to those who choose a married state.
    Those who were born from their mothers womb: This does not mean those who through a natural temper or inclination of mind could easily abstain from marriage and live a single life, but those who had physical defects. Specifically, a eunuch is a castrated man.

    And there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: this was done by violence or often in the gaze of slavery. This is literally men who were castrated by other men.
    And there be eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heavens sake: This is not likely in the literal sense of a eunuch. Although, some people throughout history have taken it literally and physically castrated themselves. But here, almost every scholar agrees, it means the gift of continence without mutilating their bodies. This is done so that they would be free from the encumbrances of a marriage state and they are able to focus on worship and service of God. As I stated before, this is the same thing that Paul speaks about in 1 Corinthians.
    He that is able to receive it, let him receive it: Whoever is able to receive it acceptingly, cordially, and embrace it fully, because it is a gift from God, can live accordingly to it. They should take this give and hold fast, act upon this gift so that they may be more useful for God. No man should be forced into it. It is not an order. Those who try are not bound to remain single.

    With homosexuality not existing as an orientation, and Jesus really speaking about divorce in this passage, it is not even remotely clear in stating that gay marriage is a sin. In fact, it can very much be implied that unless someone is given the overwhelming call to singleness, it is better they marry. Do you believe that the desire for marriage only happens to heterosexuals? Do you believe only heterosexuals experience sexual desires? Because Paul tells those who can’t control their sexual desires to marry to not be tempted by Satan.

    I am going to ask everyone that reads this to ask yourself this one question. Is there a chance you could be wrong about the way you’ve interpreted the biblical texts sometimes used to condemn homosexual orientation? Read my blog, comment, and let me know.

  30. Trudy Beerman   •  

    FANTASTIC article. My Pastor actually shared it on his feed. I, of course shared it too. My favorite line from your work – “Jesus was never after behavioral modification. Jesus was always after heart transformation. Change the heart and you truly change the person.”

    I agree of course, and this was the core of your message. Thank you for sharing this insight.

  31. Jonathan B   •  

    There’s one word I believe you need to correct in this:

    ‘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, He tells her that He does not condemn her. Then He says to her, “go and sin no more.”’

    Replace murder with execution. This was not a murder. The Law of Moses did say that she as an adulterer should be stoned to death. That was God’s law, not man’s. Jesus did not declare that law wrong in His words. He challenged the religious leader with their own sin and the hypocrisy of their own internal self-righteousness, and they went away in shame. But Jesus could still have chosen to stone her, for He was the One without sin. He was the very God against Whom she had offended. But He was also the One who had come to die in her place for her adultery. One of the many sins for which He was to go to the cross not long after was that very act of adultery. So He chose not to sentence her to death, out of His grace. This was the God against Whose law she had offended extending pardon to her because He was about to take the punishment the law demanded on Himself. Just as He does to all of us.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *