Jesus' View on Homosexuality.

[Michael Stamper]

Hello,

Question: Why did Jesus not refer directly to homosexuality?

Homosexuality was certainly a serious issue in Jesus' time, yet he does not address it directly; he does not refer to people who practice it.

And though Jesus spends a lot of time with sinners and outcasts regularly - prostitutes, criminals, tax collectors - there is nowhere mention in the gospels that he spends any time with homosexuals.

I understand that Jesus considers homosexuality a sin, and I do accept that; but had he directly referred to it that would surely clear up a lot of confusion amongst Christians in the modern world about this issue. For instance, I know some gay people, in relationships, who nevertheless consider themselves true Christians; if Jesus had directly called it out as a sin, they could be in no doubt as to the truth. As it is, they remain in confusion. I do myself believe that homosexuality is a sin, but many do not see this.

Can anyone enlighten me as to why Jesus did not directly refer to homosexuality?

Thank you.

 

[Neogaia777]

Hello,

Question: Why did Jesus not refer directly to homosexuality?

Homosexuality was certainly a serious issue in Jesus' time, yet he does not address it directly; he does not refer to people who practice it.

And though Jesus spends a lot of time with sinners and outcasts regularly - prostitutes, criminals, tax collectors - there is nowhere mention in the gospels that he spends any time with homosexuals.

I understand that Jesus considers homosexuality a sin, and I do accept that; but had he directly referred to it that would surely clear up a lot of confusion amongst Christians in the modern world about this issue. For instance, I know some gay people, in relationships, who nevertheless consider themselves true Christians; if Jesus had directly called it out as a sin, they could be in no doubt as to the truth. As it is, they remain in confusion. I do myself believe that homosexuality is a sin, but many do not see this.

Can anyone enlighten me as to why Jesus did not directly refer to homosexuality?

Thank you.

I think that it's because He was never directly asked about it, etc, and belive me I wish He would have said more in his own words personally about it, etc, most especially for this day and age, etc, but He didn't really, etc, so we only have what we have from Him to go on directly, etc...

But it is my thought or opinion that all sexual desire was considered a weakness by Him, and a weakness of the flesh by Him, due to sin, etc, that we maybe should be able to overcome or do away with completely when we are completely and totally dependent on Him, etc, like He was with His Father while He was here, etc, and if we truly walked with God that way, and like He did, etc, then we all should be able to overcome all of it or any of it pretty easily, etc...

Of course, sounds good in theory right, etc, because none of us seems to be able to be just exactly like Him, etc, so it's kind of "easier said than done", right...

It is clearly spoken about in the OT of course, and by Paul in the NT, etc, but in Jesus very own words, there just isn't a lot about it, etc, at least not directly anyway, etc...

But, Jesus also really didn't "hang out" with any homosexuals either, nor did He do any kind of miracle, or miraculous work, or wonder of supernatural deliverance for any of them either (no casting out of a "homosexual demon", etc) so I guess there is that to consider as well, etc, but we still really don't know "why" specifically, etc, but can only speculate, etc...

A lot of that was really only greatly prevalent in places like Rome, and in places outside of Israel/Judea/Jerusalem, and so that could maybe have something to do with it as well maybe...?

But and/or anyway...

God Bless!

 

[Chrystal-J]

1 Corinthians 6:9
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

2 Timothy 3:16-17
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

It may not of been recorded that Jesus said something. But, the Holy Spirit teaches God's will through the scriptures.

John 14:26
But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

 

[Lukaris]

The Lord created people as man and woman to be married or stay single ( see Mark 10:1-12). Anything else is basically adultery ( see Mark 7:20-23).

What Paul preached in Romans 1 falls within what the Lord says.

 

[com7fy8]

My opinion > the Jewish culture was one man, one woman. And having children was highly valued as being blessing from the LORD. And so, same-whatever was clearly against God's blessing of marriage and children.

Also, you can check out Romans 1:18-32 with Ephesians 5:12. And Jesus knew about Leviticus 20:13 > sodomy is a capital offense, under the law of Moses; so gay stuff might not have needed to be mentioned by Jesus.

Even so, it does seem that Jesus was more displeased with certain people of His time, than than He was displeased with Sodom where men tried to rape those two angels > Genesis 19:1-11 > who were in Sodom to deliver Lot and his family.

There are scriptures which say if a city refuses Jesus, it will be harder for that place, in the day of judgment, than it will be for Sodom where men tried to rape angels. But gays, these days, don't seem to be going around publicly trying to rape people, like the people of Sodom did.

So, I see that Jesus could be much more displeased with ones who refuse His word, than He is even with sodomy rapists >

Matthew 10:15 and 11:23-24, Mark 6:11, Luke 10:12

I see how Jesus was especially concerned about the conceit of ones who welcomed their excuses to look down on sinners. And they felt Jesus wasn't good enough for them!!

 

[Carl Emerson]

I think there were other sins He didn't directly refer to as well.

His main focus was love and freedom from sin.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Hello,

Question: Why did Jesus not refer directly to homosexuality?

Homosexuality was certainly a serious issue in Jesus' time, yet he does not address it directly; he does not refer to people who practice it.

And though Jesus spends a lot of time with sinners and outcasts regularly - prostitutes, criminals, tax collectors - there is nowhere mention in the gospels that he spends any time with homosexuals.

I understand that Jesus considers homosexuality a sin, and I do accept that; but had he directly referred to it that would surely clear up a lot of confusion amongst Christians in the modern world about this issue. For instance, I know some gay people, in relationships, who nevertheless consider themselves true Christians; if Jesus had directly called it out as a sin, they could be in no doubt as to the truth. As it is, they remain in confusion. I do myself believe that homosexuality is a sin, but many do not see this.

Can anyone enlighten me as to why Jesus did not directly refer to homosexuality?

Thank you.

Why would He? He did not need to mention any sins in particular that everyone within the Jewish culture of the time took for granted was a sin. He spent his time wisely. Rather than wasting time reinforcing views already adhered to, He addressed views that were not so widely held. He corrected misconceptions rather than reiterating things people already correctly understood.

 

[Blade]

"certainly a serious issue in Jesus' time". There are so many things that were serious in Jesus time that He never talked about. Yet He already did. That WORD is not just the NT its the OT. He already spoke about this before He became man. So if one truly asked Him from their heart He would just say "did I not say in/is not written" then give you all those chapter and verses.

My view here means nothing ok? I believe some can be blind. I mean they truly do not believe its sin. Now the one that hears reads and Gods does something with in and they still reject it and say they are a believer. To know something is a sin and do it anyway and never repent... not wise to walk that road. Like said blind.. today wow just who do you listen to. The thing is something no one can run from is He wrote His laws in our hearts. So at some point because we love Him He will show us.. and we then must make a choice. SIN in this world saved or not still has a cost and its death. That death comes in may ways .. all lead to death. Yet God gets blamed.

I heard a preacher say when he as asked.. most would know Him.. he answered it with the word called it sin as it is but said.. they are still saved they just lose their reward in heaven. There is a truth there. It is a sin like lying and all sin will not enter heaven and I don't know anyone that truly repented of ever sin and then died See Christ already died for the sin of the world. Forgiven yes but no right to keep walking in sin. When we do it has a price.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Hello,

Question: Why did Jesus not refer directly to homosexuality?

Homosexuality was certainly a serious issue in Jesus' time, yet he does not address it directly; he does not refer to people who practice it.

And though Jesus spends a lot of time with sinners and outcasts regularly - prostitutes, criminals, tax collectors - there is nowhere mention in the gospels that he spends any time with homosexuals.

I understand that Jesus considers homosexuality a sin, and I do accept that; but had he directly referred to it that would surely clear up a lot of confusion among Christians in the modern world about this issue. For instance, I know some gay people, in relationships, who nevertheless consider themselves true Christians; if Jesus had directly called it out as a sin, they could be in no doubt as to the truth. As it is, they remain in confusion. I do myself believe that homosexuality is a sin, but many do not see this.

Can anyone enlighten me as to why Jesus did not directly refer to homosexuality?

Thank you.

there are 2 issues here the first is Jesus never mentioned homosexuality. This is a false question. False because it assumes he needed to explain it. Jesus was a Jew, a religious conservative Jew in It was assumed that the law of Moses the frame work for how the Jews view morality and sexuality. In the Mosaic code. Homosexuality is condemned as a sin. now with that in mind look at what Jesus says

Matthew 23:1-3
1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples: 2 “The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So practice and observe everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.…"

Notice, you are to do what they say in obedience to Moses. That addresses the issue right there. Moses says Homosexuality is a sin. homosexuality was not an open practice in Israel at the the time

The 2nd question you must ask is why is this an issue now? it is an issue because people want acceptance for their behavior and lifestyle that misrepresents God and violates the boundaries he set up. The timing of this is very telling. This seems to be a fulfillment of the image of the beast being formed. A misrepresentation of God on earth.

 

[trophy33]

Hello,

Question: Why did Jesus not refer directly to homosexuality?

Homosexuality was certainly a serious issue in Jesus' time, yet he does not address it directly; he does not refer to people who practice it.

And though Jesus spends a lot of time with sinners and outcasts regularly - prostitutes, criminals, tax collectors - there is nowhere mention in the gospels that he spends any time with homosexuals.

I understand that Jesus considers homosexuality a sin, and I do accept that; but had he directly referred to it that would surely clear up a lot of confusion amongst Christians in the modern world about this issue. For instance, I know some gay people, in relationships, who nevertheless consider themselves true Christians; if Jesus had directly called it out as a sin, they could be in no doubt as to the truth. As it is, they remain in confusion. I do myself believe that homosexuality is a sin, but many do not see this.

Can anyone enlighten me as to why Jesus did not directly refer to homosexuality?

Thank you.

I think the answer is simple - because homosexuality was not a thing between Jews. Together with for example adultery, witchcraft, idolatry, it was considered to be a mortal sin with death penalty.

Prostitution was not judged so harshly, in those times. So it was more common to meet a prostitute than to meet somebody who was openly homosexual.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Hello,

Question: Why did Jesus not refer directly to homosexuality?

Homosexuality was certainly a serious issue in Jesus' time, yet he does not address it directly; he does not refer to people who practice it.

And though Jesus spends a lot of time with sinners and outcasts regularly - prostitutes, criminals, tax collectors - there is nowhere mention in the gospels that he spends any time with homosexuals.

I understand that Jesus considers homosexuality a sin, and I do accept that; but had he directly referred to it that would surely clear up a lot of confusion amongst Christians in the modern world about this issue. For instance, I know some gay people, in relationships, who nevertheless consider themselves true Christians; if Jesus had directly called it out as a sin, they could be in no doubt as to the truth. As it is, they remain in confusion. I do myself believe that homosexuality is a sin, but many do not see this.

Can anyone enlighten me as to why Jesus did not directly refer to homosexuality?

Thank you.

God has already revealed His stance on homosexuality. I don't know why Jesus needed to confirm it. I also have no evidence to suggest that homosexuality was commonplace among Jews. They were well aware of the prohibition in Leviticus. For sure Greeks and Romans thought it acceptable. Lord Jesus was not hanging out with Greeks and Romans.

It is possible to be a Christian and homosexual. However, it disqualifies anyone who engages in same gender sex from entering the Kingdom of God. There are other sins that equally disqualify people - 1 Corinthians 6:9 & 10 spells them out.

It is not acceptable to cherry pick scriptures as so many try to do. Some try to justify adultery. Some slander others without a thought. And, more recently, people are trying to justify homosexuality. Read Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 to homosexuals. Jesus came to set the captives free, not give them a licence to sin.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Hello,

Question: Why did Jesus not refer directly to homosexuality?

Homosexuality was certainly a serious issue in Jesus' time, yet he does not address it directly; he does not refer to people who practice it.

And though Jesus spends a lot of time with sinners and outcasts regularly - prostitutes, criminals, tax collectors - there is nowhere mention in the gospels that he spends any time with homosexuals.

I understand that Jesus considers homosexuality a sin, and I do accept that; but had he directly referred to it that would surely clear up a lot of confusion amongst Christians in the modern world about this issue. For instance, I know some gay people, in relationships, who nevertheless consider themselves true Christians; if Jesus had directly called it out as a sin, they could be in no doubt as to the truth. As it is, they remain in confusion. I do myself believe that homosexuality is a sin, but many do not see this.

Can anyone enlighten me as to why Jesus did not directly refer to homosexuality?

Thank you.

He did address the issue. If Jesus Christ of Nazareth walked the earth as God in the flesh , then we can certainly look into the Old Testament for clarification on moral issues.
This is what Jesus Christ of Nazareth said to Moses:
18 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the Lord your God.
3 After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.
4 Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the Lord your God.5 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the Lord.

One of those ordinances:
Leviticus 18
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

 

[Jamdoc]

I think that it's because He was never directly asked about it, etc, and belive me I wish He would have said more in his own words personally about it, etc, most especially for this day and age, etc, but He didn't really, etc, so we only have what we have from Him to go on directly, etc...

You and me both... and for that matter I've always wanted to go back in time, grab a Sadducee, and shake him by the puffed up robes about why he didn't ask Jesus further in reference to Marriage not being a part of eternity, Jesus' rationale was they did not know the scriptures, what scriptures is Jesus talking about pointing to Marriage between men and women not being an eternal plan, and why? Why did God declare it is not good for the man to be alone, and decide to create woman, specifically, not just more men, like how he created multitudes of angels... and then God just changes His mind and decides that Marital partnership is not something he wants in eternity?

The loneliness of man is the first thing that God said was not good. His solution wasn't "hey stare at me, and you won't be lonely anymore" nor was it "I'm your companionship, you need no other". He decided, the best course of action, was to make woman. Then declared it was good.

Song of Solomon, which is determined to be God breathed Inspired scripture, is all about romantic love.

and Matthew 22:30 is such an abrupt about face that I cannot stand it, and am frustrated by the Sadducee's only focus on Marriage being producing heirs for land inheritance, and focusing on Levitical law to ensure that inheritance stayed in the family. Jesus addressed that you won't need heirs for intermittence anymore because you can't die anymore...... but nobody had the wit to consider the more important thing in regards to marriage, love (including Romantic love, Song of Solomon is not about brotherly/sisterly love or agape, it's romantic) and companionship, the things that Marriage was designed to supply.

There are also some areas where frankly, I consider the bible to be too silent on.
Many people see masturbation as sin, yet it's not condemned anywhere in the bible. Lust is condemned, but touching yourself is not. They had adequate context to do it in, but it's not addressed directly.
Things like medicines that can cause intoxicating states, are they sin? Drunkenness is condemned, and medicine in general is not addressed. So where do you go in regards to using things like narcotic analgesics, medical marijuana. Scripture doesn't give a direct answer, unless you want to claim it as sorcery/Pharmakeia which is more specifically the use of drugs for spiritual purposes (which can be used to condemn recreational purposes), not medical.

As far as homosexuality goes, as you mention, the OT and Paul do cover it....... but Jesus does not Himself speak about it directly... and John 14.. I've heard that was a Galilean marriage proposal to some degree... between Jesus... and a bunch of men.. and John had a very intimate relationship with Jesus, "the disciple Jesus loved." and referring to John resting his head against Jesus' chest. Now I'm not saying they were homosexual.. but uh.. given these contexts.. shouldn't Jesus have clarified that this marriage proposal was "no homo"?

Because there are a lot of pastors out there that teach that you personally become the bride of Christ, teaching a personal intimate (even to some degrees sexually intimate, I about vomited in my own mouth the way Jonathan Cahn was describing it) relationship between you and Jesus akin to marriage, rather than like parent/child master/servant and friends, while the "marriage" relationship is corporate between Christ and the Church as a whole.

and I can't hold the "Gay for Jesus Theology".

So I wish He'd come out and been clear about that topic, and all its tangents.

The relationship between men and women in eternity is so murky and veiled that it's frustrating.

 

[Lukaris]

Christ never changed the moral law. He preached that sinners must be forgiven so they have a chance to repent of their sins. The Lord was clearly calling for an end to such severity as punishing sinners with measures like death by stoning.

I would suggest reading Leviticus 18, Leviticus 19, & Leviticus 20 as strong examples of the moral law. Next, I would suggest reading the sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5, Matthew 6, & Matthew 7 to see the shift from severity to mercy in human understanding.

There is no change in how the individual should live life but as how people should treat each other. Reading Romans 1 ( for ex.) we have to realize Paul understood all of this but realized the moral law remained in place.

The ancient Christians knew this also as an ancient church manual ( from about 100 AD) called: The Didache attests to the law of mercy and the law of the commandments.

see:

Didache

 

[Jamdoc]

Christ never changed the moral law. He preached that sinners must be forgiven so they have a chance to repent of their sins. The Lord was clearly calling for an end to such severity as punishing sinners with measures like death by stoning.

I would suggest reading Leviticus 18, Leviticus 19, & Leviticus 20 as strong examples of the moral law. Next, I would suggest reading the sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5, Matthew 6, & Matthew 7 to see the shift from severity to mercy in human understanding.

There is no change in how the individual should live life but as how people should treat each other. Reading Romans 1 ( for ex.) we have to realize Paul understood all of this but realized the moral law remained in place.

The ancient Christians knew this also as an ancient church manual ( from about 100 AD) called: The Didache attests to the law of mercy and the law of the commandments.

see:

Didache

But there were other radical changes in relationship. Matthew 22:30 being the most radically different, but Jesus' associating with Samaritans, and even His commending of Gentiles in Luke 4 are very shockingly different teachings than what is held in the Old Testament that the Jews were to be separated from the Gentiles, and such teachings such as the sermon on the mount having a departure from eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth with "turn the other cheek" etc.

Jesus' doctrine was on another level in a lot of ways

so no, just looking back at the Old Testament for Jesus' doctrines on this or that is insufficient, because when Jesus did discuss moral law, He took it to another level over what had been previously revealed. Looking on a woman in lust, or simply being angry with your brother were not defined as sin in the old testament. Jesus declared them as sin.

 

[Neogaia777]

You and me both... and for that matter I've always wanted to go back in time, grab a Sadducee, and shake him by the puffed up robes about why he didn't ask Jesus further in reference to Marriage not being a part of eternity, Jesus' rationale was they did not know the scriptures, what scriptures is Jesus talking about pointing to Marriage between men and women not being an eternal plan, and why? Why did God declare it is not good for the man to be alone, and decide to create woman, specifically, not just more men, like how he created multitudes of angels... and then God just changes His mind and decides that Marital partnership is not something he wants in eternity?

The loneliness of man is the first thing that God said was not good. His solution wasn't "hey stare at me, and you won't be lonely anymore" nor was it "I'm your companionship, you need no other". He decided, the best course of action, was to make woman. Then declared it was good.

Song of Solomon, which is determined to be God breathed Inspired scripture, is all about romantic love.

and Matthew 22:30 is such an abrupt about face that I cannot stand it, and am frustrated by the Sadducee's only focus on Marriage being producing heirs for land inheritance, and focusing on Levitical law to ensure that inheritance stayed in the family. Jesus addressed that you won't need heirs for intermittence anymore because you can't die anymore...... but nobody had the wit to consider the more important thing in regards to marriage, love (including Romantic love, Song of Solomon is not about brotherly/sisterly love or agape, it's romantic) and companionship, the things that Marriage was designed to supply.

There are also some areas where frankly, I consider the bible to be too silent on.
Many people see masturbation as sin, yet it's not condemned anywhere in the bible. Lust is condemned, but touching yourself is not. They had adequate context to do it in, but it's not addressed directly.
Things like medicines that can cause intoxicating states, are they sin? Drunkenness is condemned, and medicine in general is not addressed. So where do you go in regards to using things like narcotic analgesics, medical marijuana. Scripture doesn't give a direct answer, unless you want to claim it as sorcery/Pharmakeia which is more specifically the use of drugs for spiritual purposes (which can be used to condemn recreational purposes), not medical.

As far as homosexuality goes, as you mention, the OT and Paul do cover it....... but Jesus does not Himself speak about it directly... and John 14.. I've heard that was a Galilean marriage proposal to some degree... between Jesus... and a bunch of men.. and John had a very intimate relationship with Jesus, "the disciple Jesus loved." and referring to John resting his head against Jesus' chest. Now I'm not saying they were homosexual.. but uh.. given these contexts.. shouldn't Jesus have clarified that this marriage proposal was "no homo"?

Because there are a lot of pastors out there that teach that you personally become the bride of Christ, teaching a personal intimate (even to some degrees sexually intimate, I about vomited in my own mouth the way Jonathan Cahn was describing it) relationship between you and Jesus akin to marriage, rather than like parent/child master/servant and friends, while the "marriage" relationship is corporate between Christ and the Church as a whole.

and I can't hold the "Gay for Jesus Theology".

So I wish He'd come out and been clear about that topic, and all its tangents.

The relationship between men and women in eternity is so murky and veiled that it's frustrating.

Well, I think it is God the Spirit, or the Holy Spirit, which is the bride of Christ, but which Spirit is supposed to be dwelling in us, etc, and I most certainly agree that a lot of teachers "mess it up" when they think it is supposed to be like an earthly marriage between a man and a woman in this fallen world or reality here, etc...

I think why Jesus said there would be no marriage in heaven, is because hopefully there will not be sexual desire or lust anymore, etc, but that that gets gotten rid of when we are changed, etc, and I don't think there will be a need to procreate anymore there either, etc, but all of that, and all of those thoughts/concepts/ideas, will be done away with when we are changed, etc, so then, how can the one and only marriage that does happen there, but only happens once and for all of the rest of time there (in heaven), be like that of an earthly marriage between a man and a woman here, etc, because I don't think that's at all what is, or means, or will truly be like, etc, it is just simply the union of the bridegroom (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit that dwells within us, etc, and is just simply a joining or a reconciling or partnership between them/us that will last eternally there, etc, and I think it's very very sad that many pastors/preachers/teachers get it twisted and all but turn it into some kind of gay-like thing, etc, because that won't exist there, etc...

But, yeah, I wish Jesus would have said more about it himself directly or in his own words as a flesh and blood man here, while he was here in the flesh here, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Well, I think it is God the Spirit, or the Holy Spirit, which is the bride of Christ, but which Spirit is supposed to be dwelling in us, etc, and I most certainly agree that a lot of teachers "mess it up" when they think it is supposed to be like an earthly marriage between a man and a woman in this fallen world or reality here, etc...

I think why Jesus said there would be no marriage in heaven, is because hopefully there will not be sexual desire or lust anymore, etc, but that that gets gotten rid of when we are changed, etc, and I don't think there will be a need to procreate anymore there either, etc, but all of that, and all of those thoughts/concepts/ideas, will be done away with when we are changed, etc, so then, how can the one and only marriage that does happen there, but only happens once and for all of the rest of time there (in heaven), be like that of an earthly marriage between a man and a woman here, etc, because I don't think that's at all what is, or means, or will truly be like, etc, it is just simply the union of the bridegroom (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit that dwells within us, etc, and is just simply a joining or a reconciling or partnership between them/us that will last eternally there, etc, and I think it's very very sad that many pastors/preachers/teachers get it twisted and all but turn it into some kind of gay-like thing, etc, because that won't exist there, etc...

But, yeah, I wish Jesus would have said more about it himself directly or in his own words as a flesh and blood man here, while he was here in the flesh here, etc...

God Bless!

I believe also that it is always supposed to be like a parent/child relationship here, until we actually get there first, and that, that marriage that happens there, but does not at all happen until we actually get there, signifies a change in the relationship to being more like that of which Jesus and God the Holy Spirit has, or always had, or use to have, with all of the angels after that, and I think that's what it might signify also, etc, but that does happen or take place until we get there, and only after we are changed first, etc...

But for here and until we actually get there and are changed first, it supposed to always be like a parent/child relationship until we get there first and are changed first, etc...

And never changes from that here until after we get there and are changed first, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

You and me both... and for that matter I've always wanted to go back in time, grab a Sadducee, and shake him by the puffed up robes about why he didn't ask Jesus further in reference to Marriage not being a part of eternity, Jesus' rationale was they did not know the scriptures, what scriptures is Jesus talking about pointing to Marriage between men and women not being an eternal plan, and why? Why did God declare it is not good for the man to be alone, and decide to create woman, specifically, not just more men, like how he created multitudes of angels... and then God just changes His mind and decides that Marital partnership is not something he wants in eternity?

The loneliness of man is the first thing that God said was not good. His solution wasn't "hey stare at me, and you won't be lonely anymore" nor was it "I'm your companionship, you need no other". He decided, the best course of action, was to make woman. Then declared it was good.

Song of Solomon, which is determined to be God breathed Inspired scripture, is all about romantic love.

and Matthew 22:30 is such an abrupt about face that I cannot stand it, and am frustrated by the Sadducee's only focus on Marriage being producing heirs for land inheritance, and focusing on Levitical law to ensure that inheritance stayed in the family. Jesus addressed that you won't need heirs for intermittence anymore because you can't die anymore...... but nobody had the wit to consider the more important thing in regards to marriage, love (including Romantic love, Song of Solomon is not about brotherly/sisterly love or agape, it's romantic) and companionship, the things that Marriage was designed to supply.

There are also some areas where frankly, I consider the bible to be too silent on.
Many people see masturbation as sin, yet it's not condemned anywhere in the bible. Lust is condemned, but touching yourself is not. They had adequate context to do it in, but it's not addressed directly.
Things like medicines that can cause intoxicating states, are they sin? Drunkenness is condemned, and medicine in general is not addressed. So where do you go in regards to using things like narcotic analgesics, medical marijuana. Scripture doesn't give a direct answer, unless you want to claim it as sorcery/Pharmakeia which is more specifically the use of drugs for spiritual purposes (which can be used to condemn recreational purposes), not medical.

As far as homosexuality goes, as you mention, the OT and Paul do cover it....... but Jesus does not Himself speak about it directly... and John 14.. I've heard that was a Galilean marriage proposal to some degree... between Jesus... and a bunch of men.. and John had a very intimate relationship with Jesus, "the disciple Jesus loved." and referring to John resting his head against Jesus' chest. Now I'm not saying they were homosexual.. but uh.. given these contexts.. shouldn't Jesus have clarified that this marriage proposal was "no homo"?

Because there are a lot of pastors out there that teach that you personally become the bride of Christ, teaching a personal intimate (even to some degrees sexually intimate, I about vomited in my own mouth the way Jonathan Cahn was describing it) relationship between you and Jesus akin to marriage, rather than like parent/child master/servant and friends, while the "marriage" relationship is corporate between Christ and the Church as a whole.

and I can't hold the "Gay for Jesus Theology".

So I wish He'd come out and been clear about that topic, and all its tangents.

The relationship between men and women in eternity is so murky and veiled that it's frustrating.

Anything that comes because of of from a place of personal imperfection or weakness is a sin, or is sin, etc, but Jesus came just for those kind or type people specifically as well, etc...

So the way I see it, the only solution for us is to just always be throwing ourselves upon the mercy of God/Jesus Christ and be asking or begging for Him to forgive and/or change us while we are always doing our part or are always doing our best to change ourselves, and do this everyday or daily all of the time or every single day until we get there and/or are changed after that permanently by Him ourselves, etc, or it's the only thing or solution I can see or come up with right now, etc...

Or at least I think this is always the right attitude for us to have with Him or towards Him until then, etc...

A child to a parent, or a parent to a child relationship until then when it might become different after that, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Jamdoc]

Anything that comes because of of from a place of personal imperfection or weakness is a sin, or is sin, etc, but Jesus came just for those kind or type people specifically as well, etc...

So it's a sin to be sick?
It's a sin to be lonely?

 

[Jamdoc]

Well, I think it is God the Spirit, or the Holy Spirit, which is the bride of Christ, but which Spirit is supposed to be dwelling in us, etc, and I most certainly agree that a lot of teachers "mess it up" when they think it is supposed to be like an earthly marriage between a man and a woman in this fallen world or reality here, etc...

Thing is, marriage and sex are not the result of a fallen world, they were created in a very good world.
There was an original plan, be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

God created His imagebearers to rule the Earth, to be the highest things He created, to represent Himself to all creation that does not have the blessing of being able to know Him personally, they know us instead. He did not create us to be a choir.

So with new testament kind of sort of steering away from that original plan.. no marriage, no be fruitful and multiply.. and.. at least some teachers teach that we just become a choir.
That would mean the original plan was changed, and that's frustrating. The rock you build your foundation on shifts? How is your home eternally secure then?

The way at least I have always wanted to see it, and with some exceptions do see it.. is a restoration to Eden, with improvements. That means God is indeed the rock, the foundation, and your home is eternally secure built on it, because God made a plan, and He's sticking to that plan, and doesn't change it to be a different plan.

But if He changes it... that's faith shattering is what it is. Now you're dealing with someone indecisive, and nothing is secure. I hope you can see how important that aspect is. It's less about the particulars, and more about the idea that God changes His mind and alters the plans. It turns from "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today, and forever" to "I have altered the deal, pray I do not alter it any further *heavy breathing*".

and the problems with the exceptions in the "restoration of all things" ... is that they point at God changing plans.
I don't like that.

I think why Jesus said there would be no marriage in heaven, is because hopefully there will not be sexual desire or lust anymore, etc, but that that gets gotten rid of when we are changed, etc, and I don't think there will be a need to procreate anymore there either, etc, but all of that, and all of those thoughts/concepts/ideas, will be done away with when we are changed, etc, so then, how can the one and only marriage that does happen there, but only happens once and for all of the rest of time there (in heaven), be like that of an earthly marriage between a man and a woman here, etc, because I don't think that's at all what is, or means, or will truly be like, etc, it is just simply the union of the bridegroom (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit that dwells within us, etc, and is just simply a joining or a reconciling or partnership between them/us that will last eternally there, etc, and I think it's very very sad that many pastors/preachers/teachers get it twisted and all but turn it into some kind of gay-like thing, etc, because that won't exist there, etc...

3 points
#1. we never needed to procreate sexually. God could have just created hundreds of millions of men, like He did angels. So procreation was never the sole reason for sex and marriage. God specifically created female as the solution to Adam's loneliness. It goes far beyond just procreation and far beyond just having more people in general to be friends with. The partnership was complimentary, not exactly the same, but complimenting each other. Men and Women are specifically different in ways that meet up, and the union is stronger than the sum of its parts. Sex itself is not just to procreate. It's an expression of love, and a means of intimacy. That is why the biblical term is to "know". It's not just "he went up into her and she conceived seed" it's "he went into her, and knew her"
So even without any procreation needs.. they fulfill other things, intimate companionship, and romantic love. Romantic love cannot just be brushed aside as unimportant and just say "oh well, there's Agape love that's better".. an entire book of the bible is written specifically about romantic love. It's important enough that God wanted it preserved in His word even though His name is never mentioned in it.
#2. and on bearing children itself. God never intended for it to be a painful experience. The pain of childbirth was part of the curse. We have NEVER experienced what God intended for procreation to be.. and if God has truly changed His mind on this.. then we never will.
I can look at one passage in the Old Testament that suggests this idea is false and that we will experience it as God intended from the beginning....

Isaiah 65

17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

I just wanted to highlight that while many people think this is about the Millennial Kingdom, I'm not so sure, because here it specifies the new heavens and new earth.

18 But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.

I wanted to highlight that this eternal singalong where everyone just stares at Jesus and sings.... not what God had planned, at least in the Old Testament. We're not just rejoicing in God, but also in what He creates. It will however, be properly processed in thanksgiving to the God who created it.

19 And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.
20 There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.
21 And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them.
22 They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.
23 They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the Lord, and their offspring with them.
24 And it shall come to pass, that before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear.
25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the Lord.

"and their offspring with them" suggests that there will continue to be procreation on the New Earth. God certainly doesn't save children just because their parents are saved on this fallen world. So it's not that.

So.. old testament teaches a restoration of an Eden like Earth.... but if the "no marriage and no procreation after the resurrection" is the truth and we haven't misinterpreted it....
then that's a dramatic change of plan.
and something I would have shaken the stuffing out of a Sadducee's head to get them to get more clarity from Jesus on.

and finally
#3. The idea of just losing a desire as a means of satiating a desire... what a horrible line of thought to travel down. Is losing your appetite ever fulfilling?
I've never found losing my appetite to be a pleasant experience I rejoiced in. To have a sexual desire never be sated, just lost as a single man? That's nothing to rejoice over, and yes, some people go their whole lives unmarried, so don't just take it for granted.
In the past, God has supplied for needs by creating the means to sate the need. Adam was lonely, God created a companion. Man needs food, God creates food and drink to sustain him. Jonah was out sitting in the sun feeling sorry for himself, God created a tree to shade and comfort him (yes He later took it away to make a point to Jonah, but still).
But in Eternity.... God no longer provides for needs and good desires, He just takes them away?

I mean.. that isn't what He promises

Revelation 22

17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

I mean what I get out of that verse is that God still provides for needs... not takes them away.

But, yeah, I wish Jesus would have said more about it himself directly or in his own words as a flesh and blood man here, while he was here in the flesh here, etc...

God Bless!

Yeah, I know I'm supposed to believe the bible is sufficient in all things.. but it leaves me wanting more clarity. To have been there to actually ask Jesus questions myself.

With regards to homosexuality itself.. yeah okay, I can get that doctrine other places.. but on other topics there's somewhat of a radical expansion of the law to levels not previously given. So it'd be nice to know fully His doctrine on it.
and also clarity to relationships, so that Jonathan Cahn wasn't talking about Jesus inviting you into His tent on your wedding night to Him in a way that sounded like sexual intimacy.
Lord have mercy that was vile to hear out of the lips of a man.