One of the gifts that the Roman Empire gave to European civilization was their legal system. They helpfully differentiated three types of law: natural law, the law of nations (international law), and civil law (the law of a particular people). Similarly, one of the major characteristics of Mesopotamian civilizations (Babylonians, Akkadians, and the Medes and Persians), was their legal system--a 'characteristic,' but not necessarily a gift. The Jewish law, however, stood out as a significant contribution to civilization. Like the Roman law, it understood that certain moral laws were established in God's creation for all people: the sanctity of life and wrongfulness of murder, the establishment of two genders equalling biological sex--males and females, the goodness of marriage between a male and a female, the commandment to be fruitful and multiply upon the earth, oversight over and responsibility for the flourishing of all creation, and the commandment to live by God's law and not try to take His place (i.e., not to eat of the forbidden fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil). In addition to this natural law, God gave the Jews their own law--the Mosaic Law. Less important for Israel was the third category, the law of nations. Since both the Law of nature and the Mosaic Law were God-given, the laws of nations were problematic. Human law codes, even if agreed on among nations, were at best inadequate and at worst codifications of morally compromised people.
With this foundational thinking about law, Paul the Christian Jew was able to answer some questions from the Corinthian church about marriage and sexuality. One question that the church needed answered was what to do in the case of a mixed marriage, that is, a marriage between a Christian and a non-Christian. Paul stated the obvious: a Christian should only marry a Christian (1 Cor. 7.39). This makes marriage more like a 'civil law' for Christians. That is, this view has no bearing on non-Christians.
Yet people inevitably found themselves in mixed marriages, whether because one spouse left the Christian faith or because the couple was married before one came to faith. In this case, Paul says that the Christian should not leave the marriage (1 Cor. 7.12-16). This advice is understandable from the creation narratives in Genesis 1-3. Marriage is part of natural law, whatever particular laws human law codes add around this. This is why, of course, Jews and Christians have held through the millennia that marriage is only between a man and a woman and that, whatever one's religion, it is binding. In fact, when asked about divorce, Jesus replied that one--anyone--should not divorce because of the creation ordinances of marriage (Mark 10.6-9). He said, 'What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate' (v. 9).
There is more to Paul's statements to the Corinthians, however. While recognising that marriage fits under the category of natural law, he introduces a new understanding: holy matrimony. This has very practical value. If there were not a sanctity in a Christian's marriage, the children would not be holy but unclean (1 Cor. 7.14). Not only are the children holy, but because of the believing spouse the unbelieving spouse is made holy (v. 14). This does not mean that the unbelieving spouse is 'saved,' but continuing in a mixed marriage makes it possible that the believer would win the unbeliever to the faith and he or she be saved (v. 16).
Crucially, one of the fundamental convictions about marriage in this entire argument is that creation established that marriage was between a man and a woman. In this same letter, he declared in no uncertain terms that crossing genders ('soft men') and homosexual sex are sins that will keep one from the Kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6.9; cf. 1 Tim. 1.10). (Sadly, the ESV translation of 1 Cor. 6.9 obscures the two terms Paul uses and simply translates them as 'homosexuality.' This is part of what Paul means, but in our now transgender culture, we need both terms, which also refer to orientation and acts.) Paul's letter to the Romans also includes a clear word against lesbian and male homosexuality (Romans 1.25-27). Thus, he would never have recognized contractual marriages that did not have the backing of the creational understanding of marriage, such as the novelty of same-sex marriage.
So, now, we come to contemporary Western society--Postmodernity's rejection of natural law and creation. In this context, marriage is contractual. It is neither based on God's purposes in creation nor is it holy. Whatever civil laws a Western country passes, they are not God's laws. Christians naturally reject any laws passed about marriage that reject creational ordinances. Nor is a Christian to associate with anyone who 'bears the name of brother [i.e., claims to be a Christian] if he is guilty of sexual immorality' (1 Corinthians 5.11). Paul adds that, if the person does not claim to be a Christian, one should not judge him or her (v. 12). Christians should only judge those within the Church, and for this he quotes a common rule in the Mosaic law: 'purge the evil from your midst'--see Deut. 13:5; 17:7, 12; 21:21; 22:21, 22, 24; Judg. 20:13. Paul says that one should not even eat with such a person (1 Cor. 5.11). This law does not apply to fellowshipping with non-believers. Of course, no Christian would countenance a sinful marital union, such as same-sex 'marriages' or other unions that oppose their faith. One does not countenance sin even if one might fellowship with sinners, and marital celebrations are not matters of fellowship but, indeed, 'celebrations' and support for the union.
This clear teaching has a variety of applications to our present circumstances. First, there is no such thing for Christians as 'same-sex marriage' according to the laws of nature. No Christian will recognise even non-Christian 'same-sex, civil marriages' as marriage. This would be an example of codifying sin. Second, anyone coming to faith in such a 'marriage' will not have that marriage recognised in the Church because it is not recognised in God's creational order. Nobody is holy in such a 'marriage'--the person claiming to be a Christian is not a true believer. Becoming a Christian would involve separating from such a sinful union. Paul says, 'Such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God' (1 Corinthians 6.11. Third, no Christian would approve of adoption of children by persons who are in same-sex 'marriages.' This is simply child abuse.
However, fourth, Christians can associate and eat with non-believers in such sinful relationships, and sinners of all sorts. They recognise that they were once cut off from God themselves until they came to faith and changed their ways (1 Cor. 6.9-11). This association is not accepting of their lifestyles but an association that witnesses to them God's law. Christians need to witness to God's ways and God's salvation from sin in the death of Jesus Christ. They need to witness to the cleansing through Christ and the sanctification of the Holy Spirit that they have received.
Fifth, Christians should not marry non-Christians. They should, sixth, stay in any marriages to non-Christians if they find themselves in them--again, only if the marriage is between a man and a woman. The believer sanctifies his or her spouse and the children in such marriages. This means that, as the Christian is 'set apart' or sanctified unto God, so a marriage is set apart as holy unto God when there is a Christian. Christian marriage is 'elevated' from being a natural union intended by God in creation for procreation to being holy before God. (Paul expands on the nature of Christian marriage in Ephesians 5.21-33.) Seventh, Paul also says that, should the unbeliever wish to leave the marriage, the Christian should let them go--grant the divorce (1 Cor. 7.15). (He says nothing about remarriage in such cases.) God has called us to peace, he adds.
Comments