Tackling Tradition 13 (What Did Jesus Say?)

Jason Jimenez at the Christian Post writes…

There is, however, an attempt to counter the interpretation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, which details homosexuality as an “abomination,” by suggesting that it refers only to pagan practices or rituals centered around temple idol worship. But that’s not what you see in the context of Leviticus. In Leviticus, Moses lists sexual tiers from bad to worse: 1. adultery, 2. homosexuality, 3. incest, and 4. bestiality.

These prohibitions are determined based on their rejection of the standard of moral living, especially regarding sexuality and marriage.

Not according to Romans 1:18 - 32.  Romans 1:20 teaches that the Natural Telelogy (purpose) of the created order is to testify to God’s - not our - existence, attributes, & authority, and Lev. 18 is a response to idolatry & sorcery in Egypt & Canaan & in the people in Lev. 17:7. Romans 1:18 - 32 responds to Greco-Roman idolatry & sorcery.   In addition, remember that Leviticus 18 & Romans 1:18 - 32 follow the same outline.   Romans is didactic, whereas Leviticus is casuistic.   We can know what Lev. 18 means by properly understanding Romans 1:18 - 32.  

In both texts, the authors react & reply to the use of the human image & authority by the pagans surrounding them, in which, suppressing God’s image & authority & using their own, they crafted idols that looked like members of the created order, deriving their worship & (sexual) ethics from their own moral & physical image. They started with heterosexual acts, then homosexual, then animal cruelty. 

If natural (Rom. 1:26 - 27) means heteronormative, then it does so by pointing us to the human image & authority as the epistemic font for worship & sexual ethics, which is incongruent with the preceding text. God has no sexual characteristics, so the Natural Teleology of the human body can’t be a reference to heteronormativity. Using the human moral & physical images as a template for worship & sexual ethics is the Unnatural Teleology of the human moral & physical image. 

In Matthew 19, Jesus provides a clear blueprint for the sacred union of marriage and emphasizes the importance of sexual relations within the context of marriage.

This is just more spooftexting on Jimenez’ part. The text isn’t about sexual relations in the marriage context. It’s about marriage & divorce. It also models sound reasoning for us.   

In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus emphasized the sanctity and permanence of marriage as outlined in the creation account in the book of Genesis, but He did not address whether or not marriage is a heteronormative institution.  Let’s take a look at the text.

Mt. 19 refers to Genesis 1 & 2, in which God established marriage as a lifelong, monogamous, one flesh union.  However Genesis 1 & 2 are insufficient to deduce that marriage is a heterosexuals only affair, insofar as the only road to that conclusion runs through conflating God’s decretal will & God’s moral will. That results in a Category Mistake/Error. 

The Bible doesn’t command us to marry - it commands us to be fruitful & multiply, & it does via definite moral command not descriptive statements about God’s decretal will. When we use God’s decretal will to validate God’s decretal will, that qualifies as a Viciously Circular process, insofar as we are failing to reason the way God reasons with us about His moral will concerning the created order. 

In Matthew 19, Yeshua doesn’t simply reason from Genesis. He deploys God’s moral by way of referring to Deuteronomy & Malachi, & other OT texts that refer to individual, familial divorce & national & tribal apostasy. 

Jimenez is reasoning from God’s decretal will & interpreting God’s moral will accordingly, as if God’s decretal will is all we need to warrant sexual ethics. The principles of sound reasoning & hermeneutics do not yield Jimenez view.