Jesus and gay marriage

From time to time we find leftists pontificating on the Bible and what Jesus believed or didn't believe. One thing we are certain about is when a leftist starts explaining the Bible, they will never get it right. But why should they? They don't believe it. The reason they're explaining the Bible is not because they love the word of God, it's because they hate it. Their explanations are designed to not only cast doubt on the Bible, but especially to bolster their ideology.

They are doctrinaire leftist partisans first, and theologians second (or third. Or not at all...)

Today we examine the idea of Jesus approving of gay marriage.

Before we begin we need to ask, since leftist are appealing to the Bible, do they consider the Bible authoritative? Also, do the other sayings of Jesus as recorded in the Bible also carry weight? If not, what criteria would they employ to make this delineation?

This is a crucial first step. Are the things Jesus said all valid, or just the things they think support the gay marriage argument?

Point One

The first point we often see raised is that Jesus never mentioned gay marriage. This is a "duh" comment, for the concept of gay marriage is a modern-day expression. Jesus never mentioned sustainable energy or tax the rich, and there is nary a word about Medicare or infrastructure as well. 

An argument from silence is not an argument.

But actually, Jesus isn't silent about what constitutes marriage. Since they appeal to the Bible, we then are allowed our own appeals. We quote Jesus' response to the elites of the day, the Pharisees:

"And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, 'Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?' He answered, 'Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.'" (Matt. 19:3–6).

Jesus was affirming the O.T., particularly Genesis 1:27: "God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them," and Genesis 2:24: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." Jesus seemed to think there was only male and female, and that the two joining together constitutes marriage. It seems pretty clear, even to the casual observer, that Jesus affirmed the traditional expression of marriage, one man and one woman.

Jesus also spoke of sexual matters: 

Mark 7:20-23: "What comes out of a man is what makes him `unclean’. For from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man `unclean’.” 

Jesus' words, not ours. 

The word "immorality" is used many times in the N.T., so Jesus' statements are part of a thread of understanding that is found throughout the N.T.. In each case the word is used to describe various kinds of sexual impropriety, like for example in 1 Corinthians 5:1 where Paul writes against the church for its toleration of a man who is having sex with his father's wife. In other words, Jesus put boundaries on sexual behavior. Other writers like Paul affirmed it. 

Some sex is good, other sex is bad.

Further, we also find an account of an adulterous woman who was brought to Jesus:

John 8:10-11: "Jesus straightened up and asked her, 'Woman, where are they? Has no-one condemned you?' 'No one, sir,' she said. 'Then neither do I condemn you,' Jesus declared. 'Go now and leave your life of sin.'" 

Notice Jesus does not condemn her, that is, He didn't pronounce sentence against her in punishment. But He does say, "leave your life of sin." Wait. Jesus does not condemn but still tells her she is sinning and must change. We can only conclude that condemnation is different than observing that something is wrong, immoral, or even evil, and then prescribing a remedy. Jesus communicated His version of right and wrong and yet didn't condemn. Thus, it is not condemnation to call the sinner to repentance. 

Jesus has a standard, and he clearly isn't shy about imposing his morality.

So Jesus isn't silent on issues of sexual immorality. We would again appeal to how much the Left values Jesus' teachings, and assume they will either abandon their previous admiration of Jesus, or they will conform to this new-found knowledge.

It isn't hard to discover that the rest of N.T. teaching is also in harmony with Jesus, which means that Paul's writings mesh perfectly with Jesus' teaching. Thus the frequent practice of the Left to dismiss Paul or isolate Jesus is unjustifiable.

Point Two

The second point frequently offered are appeals to dietary restrictions and tattoos. That is, the Old Testament rules and laws, which Christians do not follow, are placed in the same category as the OT prohibitions against homosexual behavior, which Christians do follow. Thus hypocrisy is asserted.

However, Christians do not have to rely on the O.T. for their defense. This is because the legal prescriptions of ancient Israel are not relevant to us, for we are not Jews. We do not sacrifice animals, for Jesus is the Lamb of God, offered for our sin as the one perfect sacrifice. We need not build a tabernacle, for now the Body of Christ (that is, the Church) is the dwelling place of Deity. We do not have to stone anyone. We have no requirement to wipe out cities, or any of the other O.T. stuff. 

Because we are not Jews. 

But there is a moral law found in the O.T., repeated by Jesus, affirmed by the apostles, and contained in the Bible. This moral law, timeless and enduring, is what Christians must obey. Those O.T. moral principles were restated and affirmed by Jesus as binding upon us:

Matt. 5:17-18: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." 

Thus in two sentences Jesus makes the whole of the moral law a requirement and simultaneously negates the Left's arguments.

Conclusion

The reader might deduce from this presentation that the Bible speaks to Christians as to their moral duties, but not to heathens. This is true. Although Christians certainly believe that a just, orderly, and healthy society can only be built if it adheres to the moral precepts of Jesus, the heathen does not. The Bible is uniformly clear regarding these duties for Christians, but that morality is likely only of passing interest to those who do not believe. 

But we note that it is the heathen appealing to the Bible for support of their moral predilections. Thus they themselves bring the whole of the Bible to bear on the issue. Had they not done so, they would be free to go whatever way they want in their ignorance. Not any more.