The Depth of the Biblical Doctrine of Marriage and Morality

Photo Credit: www.layman.org

The Biblical doctrine of marriage, and the morality that flows from it, is not reasonably open to new claims about the text’s original meaning, despite intense pressure to conform to the individualistic moral autonomy favored by the Western elite. This message was impressively conveyed by Robert Gagnon, Associate Professor of the New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, author of the definitive The Bible and Homosexual Practice, and numerous articles on the contemporary struggle about homosexuality, and marriage and sexual morality more generally. Dr. Gagnon spoke at a Family Research Council presentation on June 18.

Against the claim that the lack of any explicit statement from Jesus condemning homosexuality indicates either indifference or tacit approval, Gagnon noted that Jesus’ statements about marriage and sexuality are rooted in Gen 1:27 “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” (NASB) and 2: 24, “ For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh”. In doing so, He endorsed as divinely ordained the marriage of one man and one woman as “normative for defining acceptable sexual behavior, with proscriptive implications.” The image of God is presented in this male/female union, with each sex being “an angled expression of that image.” In referring to the creation of woman, Gagnon pointed out that the Hebrew word “tsela” which is normally translated as “rib,” could be better understood as “side,” especially a side of “sacral architecture.” The extraction of woman leaves man diminished. Sexual union restores the missing part of man. Human sexuality is thus “sacral architecture.” By contrast, there is no extraction separating the sexes in the pagan Mesopotamian creation account, the “Atrahasis.” Also, the male and female sexes of non-human species do not reflect the image of God.

Gagnon held that Jesus’ teaching of the “twoness” of the sexual body means that both serial monogamy (divorce and remarriage) and polygamy are prohibited. This is the essential basis for rejecting polygamy, with sexual activity restricted to exactly two persons based on the number of sexes God ordained at creation. Comparing Jesus to the Pharisees and Essenes of his day, Gagnon found Him more restrictive in sexual ethics, unilaterally closing gaps in the sexual prohibitions of the Law of Moses (this also being an indication of His deity). Thus Gagnon held that liberals are right about the Law of Moses being changed by Jesus, but wrong about the direction of the change (Jesus made it stricter). “Twoness” indicates that male and female are integral to divinely ordained sexual relations. Homosexual unions are thus an attack on this foundation. No gap in the prohibitions of the law needs to be filled for homosexual practice, it was utterly forbidden under the Law of Moses. Gagnon also found a gradation of sexual sin in the Old Testament law, with homosexual sodomy the worst form of sexual sin except bestiality. Jesus didn’t speak directly about homosexuality because the condemnation of sodomy was universally understood among ancient Jews. But Jesus did intensify sexual restrictions already given in the Old Testament, and warned against hellfire resulting from temptation between His prohibitions of lust and divorce in Matthew chapter 5. Gagnon said that this indicates that warning against sexual sin is in fact a loving act, a judgment based on Jesus own teaching. Additionally, Jesus’ reference to Sodom indicates a condemnation of homosexual sodomy, as the sin of Sodom was understood to include homosexual sodomy, not just violence, a view in Jesus’ day Gagnon said was confirmed by both Philo and Josephus.

In discussing the explicit condemnations of homosexual sodomy in Paul’s epistles, Gagnon noted the “intertextual echoes” to the creation doctrine found between Romans chapter 1 and the Book of Genesis. These references show that idolatry and same-sex intercourse constitute a “frontal assault on the work of the Creator in nature,” with suppression of the truth about God followed by suppression of the truth about human nature, as human anatomy and psychology both testify to the complementary and normative nature of the two sexes. This perennial testimony is shown in the contemporary world in that homosexuals in both sexes “experience disproportionate effects of negative harm” relative to the general population, although in different respects. Promiscuity and sexual diseases characterize men, while women suffer from short relationships and mental health problems. Although homosexual desires may seem natural to those who experience them, Biblical doctrine is that feelings cannot be trusted to be virtuous, Gagnon said, which is why Christ speaks of discipleship in terms of giving up one’s own life.

He then discussed three arguments used to show that Paul’s condemnations of homosexual sodomy are not absolute, specifically, that Paul was referring only to abusive activity (the exploitation argument), that he did not understand that some persons are inclined toward homosexuality (the orientation argument), and that homosexual practice was condemned because it is incompatible with patriarchy (the misogyny argument). However, the evidence from the ancient world shows that Paul’s condemnations are in fact absolute, not partial. Testimony from the early church shows that Rom. 1:26 is indeed a condemnation of lesbianism, which was not coercive in the ancient world, yet its condemnation shows that the sin of Romans 1 could not refer only to exploitative relationships. Likewise, the reference to male homosexual desire in Romans 1 shows that homosexual activity is being universally condemned, not merely when it is coercive. “Semiofficial” homosexual marriage in the ancient world argues against the claim that Paul did not know of homosexual orientation, while the misogyny argument ignores the structural compatibility of the sexes as the true basis for Biblical condemnation, as well as the fact that pagan societies in some degree accepting of homosexuality were more patriarchal than either Israel or the early Christians. Gagnon noted scholars supportive of homosexuality who also concur that the Biblical condemnations are absolute. They agree that claims that the Biblical texts have been misunderstood have no basis in the New Testament text, either from its words or context.

Gagnon thus presented an impressive, and doubtless, to many laypersons and the general public, surprisingly profound argument for the traditional Judeo-Christian understanding of marriage and sexual morality. The case rests not on a few scattered verses in the Bible, as is often claimed, nor is it foreign to the teaching of Jesus, but is integral to Jesus’ teaching and the doctrine of the Kingdom of God. To live showing love for God and godliness fit for the Kingdom of God is to live in accordance with the understanding of marriage and morality that recognizes Jesus’ kingship, to reject this teaching is to be unfit for the Kingdom. Confronting the contentious issue of homosexuality in the world today, Christians indeed need to exhibit both love and truth. But in doing so, as Gagnon pointed out, we should heed the admonition of Augustine: “Love not the person in his error, but the person.”