This is blog #5 of a continuation of my response to a missive/blog posted several months ago entitled "Why I am a Christian Who Supports Gay Marriage." Please Google it and check it out before continuing.
I think the most disconcerting and, I admit, alarming section of the author's blog is her suggestion that Almighty God, in the form of Jesus Christ, our Creator, must approve of homosexuality and, therefore, gay marriage, because He did not come outright and say not to do those things. Jesus never spoke out against incest or rape or bestiality either, but that didn't mean He approved of these activities. Here's something else you may not have noticed: Jesus spoke several times about adultery, especially in terms of defining its relationship to divorce and remarriage, but He never came out and specifically commanded His followers not to commit adultery. That's because people who were under the Law already knew how God felt about these things because, contrary to the author's insistence, they were well addressed in Old Testament Scriptures which defined His laws, commands and regulations for the Nation of Israel, starting with Moses and the original Ten Commandments; and for those who were not under the Law it didn't matter, because they were going to do what they wanted to anyway, regardless of what Jesus said...or didn't say.
I think that Jesus often addressed issues as much by what He did not say, as by what He did say. Although Jesus never mentioned the word “homosexuality” (which was quite rampant in the Roman Empire at that point in history, as were many other sexually immoral practices), by inference He made some very definitive statements about it. (Paul was quite a bit more blunt, as we shall see later: He tackled the issue head on.) What I mean is this: If Jesus said something about the way things should be, wasn’t He also defining the way things (about the same issue) should not be, and visa versa?
In Mt 19:1-12, the Pharisees kept wanting to talk about divorce, but Jesus was trying to define the “Creator’s” whole male/female sexual plan in general so that the answer to their specific question would be obvious. Picking it up in verse 4: “Haven’t you read”, He replied, “that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man (male) will leave his father (male) and mother (female) and be united to his wife (female), and the two will become one flesh (have intercourse and make babies). So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no man separate.”
Who was Jesus talking about when He used the term “Creator” in the fourth verse? I refer you to Jn 1:3 for the answer: “Through Him (the Word, Jesus) all things were made…”. That’s right, Jesus was referring to Himself as He was about to explain His objection to divorce by way of explaining His design and purpose for creating “them” male and female. Was not His use of the words “male and female”, as opposed to the words “man and woman” or “husband and wife”, an obvious reference to the main physical difference between male and females: The sex and reproductive organs? The Pharisees asked Him a “husband and wife” question; He responded with a “male and female” answer. In other words, the One who set up the whole sexual differences thing was about to explain how He intended these differences were to be used. So in the 5th verse, when Jesus says, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be united to his wife (notice, it doesn’t say “be united with woman” or “be united with his life partner”), and the two will become one flesh”, what was the “reason” He was talking about? Was not Jesus explaining His purpose for giving males a penis and testicles (with their sexual and reproductive functions), and giving females a vagina and womb (with their sexual and reproductive functions)? And by using the words “man and wife”, isn’t He inferring the condition (marriage) under which the “one flesh” thing should occur? Because isn’t the ultimate result of the “one flesh” thing the possibility that it will move from a mostly symbolic act of love (verb) to the actual creation of one flesh (noun), called a baby?
Now, look at verse 6. Under ideal conditions, Who is it that brings the male and female together to be joined as man and wife (not “man and life partner” or “life partner and wife”}? Jesus says that it is God who blesses this plan by inspiring a certain man and a certain woman to be joined together, a process which begins way before vows are exchanged at the alter. So with Jesus as the “Creator” and God as the “Joiner” of this process, how in the world could we infer in any way that They would cause or condone any aberration to this system, to include divorce, homosexuality, lesbianism, prostitution, promiscuity, “shacking up”, adultery, or any other behavior which deviates from the original plan?
Now, look at verses 10-12 of our scripture. After answering the Pharisees’ specific question about divorce, and, by inference, other deviations from the plan, Jesus addresses the disciples’ statement about His strict interpretation of the plan. It says, “The disciples said to him, ‘If this is the situation between a husband (male) and wife (female), 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 are born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of (God) heaven. The one who can accept this should.”(NIV) Jesus is saying that not everyone can accept this teaching, especially those who don’t know God, because those who don’t know God can’t be expected to know His plan for human males and females, given their strong sexual feelings and drives in the natural flesh, the aberrations created by the devil in a sinful world, and the confusing diversity of sexual behavior among the other creatures of this world. Extrapolating about those who do know His plan, Jesus infers, I think, four categories: 1) Those who have sexual feelings and can accept His marriage program; 2) Those born without sexual feelings or functioning organs; 3) Those whose sexual feelings and organs have been removed by men’s actions (such as castration); and 4) Those who give up or renounce their sexual feelings to pursue the spiritual things of the Kingdom of God. Of these categories, only two - #1 and #4 - allow for those who have sexual feelings and functioning organs.
Now, remembering that Jesus became human, with the normal sexual organs and feelings of a human, which category did He step into? Did Jesus practice what He preached? Here’s something else to chew on: Who do you think that the Creator of the world, and everything in it, identifies with more? Think about it: Jesus created one of the most pleasurable experiences known to humans, only to renounce these feelings and experiences in Himself in order to pursue the Kingdom of God with all of His undistracted being. Won’t He have more compassion and empathy for those who do the same?
Finally, there's one glaring problem with the whole concept of marriage and love: Jesus never equated the two in His teachings or in His commands; He never directly suggested that one depended on the other, or that there was any connection between the two. In fact, a minimum amount of research will reveal that concept of marrying for love is very recent in the history of mankind, like within the past 500 years! That's because God never intended for our lives to be focused on our relationships with each other to the exclusion of our relationship with Him; we were built with the capacity for limitless, unconditional love which only He can provide, and which can only be fulfilled when our focus is on our relationship with Him.
Guys, we must realize that it is the Father of Lies who has aberrated and perverted this beautiful system, just as he tries to pervert everything good that God has provided to man. We must understand and accept this premise if we are to take a stand against Satan and utilize the authority Jesus has given us to overcome his evil influences. Because the truth is, we are all affected one way or another by the aberrations the devil has caused. Christians with homosexual tendencies don’t have a corner on the market; it is just as difficult to deal with feelings involving promiscuity, pornography, adultery, pedophilia, bestiality, voyeurism - and the list goes on. As long as we have to deal with a flesh nature, we will have to deal with some aberration or another. Paul said it succinctly in Romans 7:21-25: “So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being, I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God - through Jesus Christ our Lord!”(NIV)
Here are a couple of more things I gleaned from those verses in Matthew 19 that I think impact our discussion. First, in verses 7- 9, Jesus answered the Pharisees’ trick question about the specific issue of divorce with an important general statement about the condition of mankind, which also explains why He didn’t directly address many issues of His day that are common to our times, such as homosexuality and abortion. In verse 8, Jesus says, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard.” Jesus knew that unless men have a heart change, it was useless to try and change their behavior. Unless a man’s heart is softened by the love resulting from the indwelling presence of the Spirit of God, it will be cold to the things of God, and his behavior will continue to be controlled by the self-centered and self-serving influence of the corrupted flesh nature. Jesus knew that if He could change men’s hearts, He wouldn’t have to explain God’s plan about things; it would be obvious. And the good news is that, unlike for the Pharisees and mankind before Pentecost, the change of heart that changes our “want to’s” is available to all mankind today; there is no longer a valid excuse for ignoring the plans of the “Creator,” especially for Christians.
Second, did you notice in verse 12 how Jesus acknowledged that some people are born with design differences other than what He intended? If it is possible for some people to be born without sexual feelings or capabilities, isn’t it also possible that some people are born with abnormal sexual dealings and drives? Wouldn’t “abnormal” include anything that is different from the way the “Creator” meant things to be? In acknowledging that some people are born with abnormalities (and that others are made “abnormal” by the actions of other people), do you think Jesus was thereby accepting culpability for or approving of this type of situation? In other words, do you think that God, Who created man in His own image and likeness, also created a system for causing people to be born with variations to His original design? What possible reason could he have had for doing that: To create a little variety among mankind? And if you think He does cause people to be born with variations to His original design, then why do you think that He causes Paul to speak so adamantly against the behavior you could expect to result from these abnormalities in New Testament Scriptures like 1 Corinthians 6:9-20?
What I mean is this: I dare say that most people who participate in homosexual behavior will say that they were either born with homosexual drives and tendencies, or made that way by the actions of other people, or both. (Incidentally, science has already determined that there is no gene or gene mutation that causes homosexuality.) The inference is that since God either caused or allowed this to happen, then He must be giving His approval for this lifestyle, so it is okay for them to indulge in this behavior, regardless of what the Scriptures have to say. What a convenient way out of dealing with the aberrations and tribulations of our flesh nature! “After all,” they say, “didn’t Paul say that ‘Everything is permissible’?” This kind of thinking, I believe, results in what we know as “moral relativity,” probably the most potent destroyer of civilized society, in which our mores tumble like dominoes, as we progressively pursue man’s happiness, instead of God’s joy.
For the serious Christian, who believes in the Scriptures and who is trying to find God’s way in things like this, I ask you to consider some pointed questions:
- Do you believe God has (had) a plan for the way things should be in this world? I think that the very fact that He gave us the Bible, and His Holy Spirit to understand it, means that He does. That is why if you confess to know God, but don’t believe His Word as it is written, or try to dismiss parts of it because you don’t think that they apply to the world today, then you are terribly deceived, and you will always be confused in your attempts to understand His Word and interpret its meaning for your life.
- Do you think that God allows things to happen in this world that deviate from His original plan? I believe that the answer must be “yes”, if we are to believe that God is in control, and that His allowance is the cornerstone of the concept of “free will." But wouldn't you agree that the concept of "free will" also involves exposing ourselves and those around us to varying degrees of consequences when the choices we make are wrong and go against the the obvious plans of God for mankind?
- Do you believe that by allowing deviations to His original plans He is thereby approving of them? I opine, surely not! On the contrary, God has given us everything that He has to give – His Son, His Spirit, His Word, His Power – to counteract the deviations and aberrations that Satan has inflicted on mankind and this world. In 2 Peter 1:3-4, Peter puts it this way“His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.”(NIV)
But you know what, if you're a born again Christian, here's something I think you need to take under consideration: Suppose the Lord Jesus Christ came to you and told you that He wanted you to teach a Sunday school class of teens and preteens an anatomy class as it relates to sex and marriage, because He was going to monitor your class and right afterward He would be teaching them a class on Ephesians 5:21-32 (21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the Church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church.) and how the physical aspect of the marriage relationship is used to describe the spiritual aspect of His relationship to the Church. Can you in all honesty sit there and tell me that you would teach those young folks that the actual gender of the husband and wife makes no difference? I mean, really? And while you're at it, how would you be explaining the "two will become one flesh" issue in a lesbian marriage, or how the union of two gay people can result in the "one flesh" of a baby. which is the primary purpose for the sacrament of marriage?
You see, the BIG problem of this whole gay marriage issue is that not only does it contradict the biological reason for which God created the institution of marriage, but primarily it distorts the model God uses to explain the spiritual relationship He wants with His Church, the Bride, thru His Son, Jesus Christ, the Bridegroom.
You see, the BIG problem of this whole gay marriage issue is that not only does it contradict the biological reason for which God created the institution of marriage, but primarily it distorts the model God uses to explain the spiritual relationship He wants with His Church, the Bride, thru His Son, Jesus Christ, the Bridegroom.
