Jesus included the gentiles - therefore Jesus includes Homosexuals argument?



Dr. Kirk (Fuller Seminary) didn't contest much of what I said about Jesus and Scripture. He just thinks Jesus (along with all the rest of Scripture) was wrong in insisting on a male-female foundation for sexual ethics, though that is not Jesus' fault because he was captive to his culture on this issue and lacked adequate information. So that idea that Jesus had, that the duality of number in a sexual union is predicated on the God-ordained duality of the sexes, is rendered irrelevant for Kirk apparently.

Kirk appealed to the Gentile inclusion episode in Acts 10-11 as a basis for departing from Jesus and the entirety of Scripture to promote homosexual unions. I believe that I was able to show that this was a bad analogy, citing a half dozen arguments.

His food analogy is also off-target. Jesus and Paul specifically said: Don't compare sex to food. Yet Dr. Kirk did so anyway.

Didn't have the time to talk about his Sabbath illustration but this hardly serves as a closer analogue than the Bible's stance on adult-consensual incest and the NT's stance on polygamy (far more proximate analogies at almost every level than the attempted analogies by Kirk but then they don't get Kirk where he wants to go, ideologically speaking). Jesus placed saving work over the demands of the Sabbath, noting that the Sabbath was made for humans and not humans for the Sabbath, something that Jesus would never say about God's intentional creation of "male and female" as an exclusive sexual pair. Paul no longer considered any day as more special than the rest (Rom 14:1-15:13). Sabbath observance was regarded in the first century as a distinctive Jewish identity marker that Paul clearly regarded as a non-moral command that Gentiles had the option to observe or not. That is completely different from Jesus' and Paul's stance on a male-female prerequisite for sexual activity.

I think the cavalier way in which Dr. Kirk dismissed Jesus' view on a matter that he (Jesus) so obviously regarded as essential is stunning (though no longer surprising). It spells disaster for any church that follows this view. If Jesus was that far wrong about sexual ethics, don't trust him on anything. Call yourself Lord instead. But of course Jesus was not wrong.

Popular posts from this blog

Ontario Catholic school board to vote on flying gay ‘pride flag’ at all board-run schools

Christian baker must make ‘wedding’ bakes for gay couples, court rules

Australia: Gay Hate tribunals are coming