Towards a Christian Approach to Gay Marriage, Part II: Biblical Views on Marriage & the Implications

Defining Our Terms

Before beginning conversations about topics that invite disagreement, I like to start by defining the terms. Oftentimes, when two people disagree, it seems almost like they are speaking different languages. We're using the same words, but mean very different things. The current disagreement is but a manifestation of a deeper disagreement about language and meaning.

This is certainly true with regard to the recent Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage.

So, before we talk about gay marriage, we need to define our terms. We'll start with the general term, marriage. As I mentioned in the previous post, before we look at same-sex marriage, we must first define marriage in general.

What is marriage? It sounds like a simple question, right? But, as it turns out, this question is much more complicated than it first appears.

What is marriage? Well, it depends on who you ask.

Within the Christian tradition, Catholics differ very much from Congregationalists, who differ greatly from Presbyterians. And we Baptists, as we often do, differ mightily with each other. Jews and Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists, and more -- all have their own views on marriage. Then there are understandings of marriage that are more secular in nature.

In short, when we talk about marriage, we're not talking about just one thing. This is an important point when Christians look to the Bible for guidance.

From a Christian perspective, it's important to understand the big picture. What marriage means has changed many times over the course of history -- from the Old Testament to the New Testament, across 2,000 years of Christian history spread across every continent, down to today. This is not the first time conservatives in the church have defended a "traditional" view of marriage, nor is this the first time progressives in the church have pushed for a redefinition of marriage.

It's healthy, I would say, to reexamine beliefs from time to time. Marriage has evolved, and it will continue to evolve. Before we look to the future, though, it's important to understand the past.

Here's how we'll proceed:

1. First, we'll look at what the Old Testament has to say about marriage.
2. We'll turn then to the New Testament to see what it says.
3. After laying out the biblical view -- or shall I say views, plural? -- we'll examine them, comparing and contrasting what's in the Bible with 21st century belief and practice.
4. Finally, we'll consider the implications for same-sex marriage.

Old Testament Views on Marriage

Marriage in the Old Testament (OT) is not especially complicated. Overall, the various texts speak with one voice: Marriage between man and woman is the normative way of life. Singleness and other arrangements against the norm are looked upon with suspicion.

Patriarchy is the rule, with the husband being the head of the household. In fact, the Hebrew word for master (baal) is occasionally applied to the husband. The wife -- indeed, the female in general -- is valued as property. She is first the possession of her father, who then makes a business transaction with a man or his family, whereby the woman is transferred over a new ownership. Thus, the woman, now as wife, becomes the property of her husband.

Biologically speaking, the purpose of marriage is to extend the family and the bloodline. In other words, marriage is about procreation -- especially of male offspring. Yet, since the family is the locus of the religious experience in the OT, marriage also has a religious purpose.

The family existed within a tribe or clan, which existed within the framework of the nation. The larger community is more than merely a political organization; it is also a religious community.  Indeed, Israel is a religious community first of all. Although there is some evidence that Israel accepted converts, the primary means of expanding or replenishing the religious community is through childbirth. Thus, marriage in the OT is ultimately about the survival of the people.

The presence and action of God is connected concretely to human sexuality and material bodies. In other words, God cannot be purely spiritualized. If God works through bodies, though, there are definite limits in the OT. Not only are certain sexual acts prohibited, but marriage itself is the boundary between acceptable sex and sinful sex.

Divorce, however, was allowed; there was a fence around marriage, but it had a way out. Indeed, the OT has a very broad understanding of divorce. If the purpose of marriage is to produce offspring, divorce and Levirate marriage can be legitimized. Polygamy can also be understood in this context. In short, procreation was so important that liberties could be taken in order to ensure an heir.

To review, marriage is relatively simply and straight-forward: It is normative from the OT perspective. Its purpose is to sustain and extend the family and the community through procreation, which is understood as a sign of God’s blessing. God is intimately involved in the life of the people, even working through sex. Yet, God’s work through sex is understood primarily as occurring within the institution of marriage.

New Testament Views on Marriage

Marriage becomes immensely less clear in the New Testament (NT). The political climate is vastly different from that of the OT. Whereas the religious and the political in the OT were one, such was no longer the case in the NT -- at least, not with regard to Christianity.

In such a political climate, it makes sense to join together with those you can trust. But the biological family could not necessarily be trusted. Even Jesus didn't recognize his biological family as his true family (Lk. 8.19-21), and he requires those who would follow him to “hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters” (Lk.14.26).

Furthermore, Jesus announced the arrival of the Jubilee, the Kingdom of God, the Kingdom of Heaven. Then, Jesus was raised from the dead, followed by the Holy Spirit coming down at Pentecost. The end was at hand, and a radically new lifestyle was implemented in the early church.

And so family is radically redefined in the NT. Family is no longer husband, wife, and children. For the church, the religious community is now the family. Indeed, Jesus says, “whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother” (Mt. 12.50). The church a fictive family of strangers, transformed and joined together into one body for a common purpose, pitching into the communal pot to meet the needs of the family.

More important is the NT model of (re)generation. Of course, natural procreation still requires the sex act. Yet, the new family now operates according to the law of adoption. New members are no longer welcomed at biological birth, but rather at the new birth into the new family. Blessing is no longer associated with sexual fertility and procreation, but rather obedience to God (Lk.11.27-28). And the church looks to Abraham as its ancestor, not because of biological or tribal connection, but through faith (Luke 3.8). 

How, in light of the situation of the early church, would marriage be understood? Recall that Jesus requires that his disciples hate their spouses. In the age to come, following the resurrection of the dead, “they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven,” (Mk.12.18-27).  Furthermore, Jesus never married; nor did Paul. In fact, Paul reflects on the topic of marriage:

To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am.....I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. I think that, in the view of the impending crisis, it is well for you to remain as you are...Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife (1 Cor. 7. 8, 25-27).

Not only should marriage be avoided, but those with spouses should “be as though they had none” (1 Cor. 7.29). It would seem, therefore, that Jesus has brought a new situation where marriage is, at the very least, no longer normative -- and quite possibly something to be avoided altogether.

However, Paul states in the very same passage that, although it is better to refrain from sex and marriage, they are not inherently sinful. “[B]ecause of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband....if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion....if you marry, you do not sin” (1 Cor. 7.2, 9, 28). The point Paul is making here is that married people have to worry about their spouses and children, whereas those who are single and chaste can devote their whole selves to the will of God (1 Cor. 7. 32-35). Still, it is better to have competing interests than to fall into sexual sin.

Over against these negative voices, however, are some passages praising and supporting the institution of marriage. It is suggested, for example, that Jesus has no problems celebrating marriages,

as he performed his first miracle at one (Jn. 2.1-12); if he attends weddings, he tacitly gives his approval to marriage. And if he enjoys himself, or at least helps others enjoys themselves, his approval becomes more explicit.

The author of Hebrews is unambiguous: “Let marriage be held in honor by all” (Heb. 13.4). In other passages, marriage is just presupposed. For example, Paul writes that “each one of you [to] know how to control your own body [or RSV: take a wife] in holiness and honor” (1 Thess. 4.4).  Paul also assumes leaders in the church will be married when he writes guiding Timothy (1 Tim. 3.1-13) and Titus (2.3-5).

Therefore, to summarize: a NT understanding of marriage is ambiguous. If Jesus and Paul are our primary guides, a strong case can be made against marriage; it need not necessarily be a sin to be placed lower on the sexual hierarchy of the church. However, neither Jesus nor Paul are unequivocal on the matter in either direction.

Biblical Views & Today's World

First, the OT.

Do we understand marriage to be primarily about procreation? In 21st century American churches, I see little evidence of such a view. We have no problem with elderly people getting married, even when procreation is no longer a possibility. We also accept as valid marriage of couples who can't, or choose not to, have children. In short, we see marriage as a good in itself -- and, while it often results in procreation, it does not have to.

Furthermore, we flatly reject the sexual hierarchy OT marriage is built on. For us, marriage is about equal partners, not an exchange of property (the female) between two males.

In short, 21st century Christians by and large reject the OT understanding of marriage.

Now, the NT.

It's more difficult to speak to marriage in the NT because the voices within the NT are less unified and because those voices themselves are less clear. But the main thrust of the teachings of Jesus and Paul is that marriage is at least problematic.

Jesus calls his disciples to hate their spouses -- and modern Christians are so uncomfortable with this teaching that even the most literal fundamentalists insist on a nonliteral interpretation here. Likewise, when Jesus speaks of the end of marriage in the age to come, modern Christians are slow to want to apply that in the here and now.

What about Paul? I've not heard of any group of Christians trying to apply his teaching. Singleness is still seen as suspect in most churches.

In short, 21st century Christians have great difficulty with most NT teachings about marriage.

Implications

First, given the fact that marriage evolved over the course of biblical history, it cannot be argued that a change in the status quo is necessarily bad. It may be, but the Bible tells the story of the status quo of marriage being challenged. Therefore, whatever decision we come to, we must at least be open to change.

If we assume an OT perspective on marriage, then same-sex marriage is obviously unacceptable. However, most 21st century Christians, at least in the West, find the OT model unacceptable on many levels. What does this mean for how we might see same-sex marriage?

If procreation no longer has to be what justifies a marriage, then a door is open for same-sex partners. In this regard, two male partners are no different than an infertile heterosexual couple or an elderly heterosexual couple.

That said, even within an OT model, two female partners could procreate using in vitro fertilization, much in the same way that a heterosexual couple could procreate if the male were infertile. In addition, procreation no longer requires biological heirs; same-sex partners can procreate through adoption.

Thus, the OT perspective on marriage does not preclude our acceptance of same-sex partners joining together. Now, there may be other reasons to not accept same-sex marriage, but appealing to OT views on marriage won't suffice.

What about the NT? Well, the prevailing view is that singleness is preferred. However, since churches don't hold heterosexuals to this standard, it's hard to see how anyone could make this the standard for homosexuals.

But one could use Paul's allowance of marriage (e.g., if your passions are too strong, then marriage is an acceptable way to prevent sin) to make an interesting argument in favor of same-sex marriage. If heterosexual couples are allowed to marry if they can't control their passions, what's stopping us from applying this passage to homosexual couples as well? 

At any rate, the NT does reject the necessity of procreation in marriage -- and that in itself opens the door for same-sex couples.

On the whole, though, the NT lacks the robust theology of marriage that the OT has. And this ambiguity about marriage allows a great deal of latitude for speculation and new possibilities.

In sum, while there may be other reasons to reject same-sex marriage (e.g., if same-sex relations are wrong -- stay tuned, though, because we'll get to that question next), appealing to biblical definition(s) of marriage alone is inadequate.

*          *          *

Stayed tuned. The next post will look at Old Testament verses that apply, or have been understood to apply, to the question of homosexuality. After that, we'll look at the New Testament. And then we'll make some recommendations.