Wednesday, April 7, 2004

More about Jesus and gay marriage

By WARREN THROCKMORTON

Since Jesus never mentioned homosexuals, how could He have been against gay marriage?

A reader recently asked: “Did Jesus teach about same sex marriage at all? I know He didn’t mention homosexuality so wouldn’t it be true that He didn’t have an opinion about same sex marriage?” Interesting question. Here’s my reading of Christian teaching on this subject.

Jesus did clearly address the topic of marriage. In Matthew 19:3-6, Jesus said: “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

The intent of Jesus is hard to miss. The words He used are direct references to the passage in Genesis also referring to the union of male and female. If Jesus wanted to make marriage a matter of two people without regard to gender, he could have phrased his words in this way. However, his reference to marriage being a union of male and female is unmistakable. Any other reading of the text requires the imposition of modern ideas upon the Bible.

Some writers point to a few verses later in Matthew 19:10-12 as an indicator that Jesus did indeed refer to homosexuals by mentioning “eunuchs because they were born that way.”

The passage reads: “The disciples said to him, ‘If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.’ Jesus replied, ‘Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.’”

While it is beyond the scope of the question to deal with the contention that “born eunuchs” refer to homosexuals, this passage makes it clear that the responsibilities of marriage are great.

When Jesus taught marriage as a union not to be broken lightly, the disciples wondered aloud if marriage was such a good thing after all. Like many people today, the disciples thought the fidelity and permanence teaching might be too difficult.

Anticipating Paul’s teaching in I Corinthians 7, Jesus indicates that some people might find marriage so difficult to maintain that they determine not to enter into the covenant in order to avoid breaking it and thereby disgrace the kingdom.

Concerning eunuchs, Jesus implies that there are some people for whom the marriage teaching is not relevant because they are not going to enter a marriage relationship.

I take “born eunuchs” to refer to people who are born with physical abnormalities such that they are unable to function heterosexually in marriage. The term may also include rare cases of people born without sexual drive or desire to be in close relationship with others.

I have counseled individuals who from their earliest recollections are simply not interested in sexual or romantic relationships with the same or opposite sex. More commonly, some people are rendered incapable of desire for marital bonding due to traumatic circumstances in life, whether physical injury or emotional trauma. Jesus was careful to remind those who are married that not all share the same calling.

Even if a case could be sustained that “born eunuchs” are homosexuals (very unlikely, I believe), there still is no case for same-sex marriage in this teaching of Jesus.

Jesus indicates that such individuals cannot receive his teaching on marriage because they are not capable of fulfilling its requirements. According to Jesus, if one is incapable or unwilling to be in a male-female union, then one is unable to fully participate in marriage.

No matter what “born eunuch” means, only unions involving male and female bonding are considered marriage as taught by Jesus.

In the remainder of the New Testament, marriage is dealt with in several passages, most notably I Corinthians 7 and Ephesians 4. In both places, the clear picture is the union of male and female.

Many of the great images developed by Paul make no sense if marriage may be understood simply as a love commitment between two people of the same gender.

For instance, the New Testament teaching concerning Christ and the church as being like a bride waiting for her groom seems confusing if gender is not relevant. Wives and husbands are likened to Christ and the church in Ephesians. No other unions are contemplated.

To summarize, I can see no support in the Christian Scriptures for same-sex unions that are intended to mimic opposite-sex unions.

The union of male and female is much more than a sociological convenience but provides imagery for some of the central teachings of Christianity. The teachings of Jesus deepens this commitment to male-female unions by very specifically mentioning people who are unable to form such unions.

Thus, if one supports same-sex unions as either church or public policy, one must do it for some other reason or with some other philosophical base than can be found in a conventional understanding of the Christian Scriptures and Christian doctrine.

© 2004 Warren Throckmorton, Ph.D. [Warren Throckmorton, Ph.D., is director of college counseling and an associate professor of psychology at Grove City College, Penn. Professor, counselor and columnist, Dr. Throckmorton is the producer of the “Truth Comes Out,” a spoken-word CD geared to young adults concerning sexual orientation. His columns have been published in over 30 newspapers and numerous websites such as Worldnetdaily.com, Christianpost.com, Townhall.com, and Americandaily.com. Contact him at ewthrockmorton@gcc.edu or via his website: http://www.drthrockmorton.com.]