Scripture's "Silence"
… ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
A SUMMARY
Scripture simply never addresses the issue of same-sex marriage. As we’ve seen, the New Testament certainly clarified and strengthened the standards of both marriage and sexual conduct expected of God’s people. However, neither Jesus nor Paul ever addressed whether marriage – which legitimises all consensual forms of sex – is permissible between two men or two women. But what, if anything, can we read into their silence and why were they silent? And if we can’t, why didn’t God in his word just speak directly and plainly to us about this issue, so that we could have avoided this debate? (And I could have continued writing my fantasy novel saga rather than this website!)
“Hasn’t God spoken to us on this issue by his silence? Since his word hasn’t said same-sex marriage is acceptable, surely it isn’t?”
No. For three reasons.
First, this is effectively saying that unless Scripture tells us we can do something then we mustn’t do it. But Scripture was never intended to work that way. And so hardly any evangelical Christians normally apply Scripture that way. If we did, we wouldn’t be able to drive a car, fly in a plane, use a computer or mobile phone, receive most life-saving medical procedures, or undergo infertility treatment. After all, all these things can have significant moral consequences today.
In reality no Christians consistently live like that. However, occasionally we inconsistently take that attitude towards certain issues – often ones that don’t impact us personally. I know I certainly used to on this very issue!
Second, beyond occasional prophesies, Scripture does not teach general truths that would have been completely hidden to the original audience and only understood centuries later. Rather, the Holy Spirit often shows us how Scripture’s underlying truths that the original audience could have seen apply to our own particular situation today that they could not have seen. But Scripture was not going to directly teach a message that neither its human writer nor his audience would have understood at the time - to answer a question no one was then asking: can same sex-orientated people get married? We should no more expect Scripture to directly answer this than whether we should smoke pot or buy a petrol, hybrid or electric car.
Third, there were, in fact, very good reasons why scripture did not and could not teach its original audience that they should embrace same-sex marriage, and so of course could not directly give us this teaching either.
Why the Old Testament didn’t address the issue
There were very good practical reasons why no one among God’s people in Old Testament times would have looked to form a marriage with someone of the same sex. Two men together could not have made heirs to provide for them in old age and inherit their property. They would also be failing to provide a man’s protection and support for a woman somewhere. Likewise, two women could not magic a child themselves and would struggle to look after themselves without the support of a man. In that time and culture same-sex marriages simply could not have worked on any practical level. That’s why no one was asking about them. Even if you happened to be gay (a concept they were ignorant of), you wouldn’t have been interested in pursuing same-sex marriage.
It’s an entirely circular argument to say, since God knew in the future people might ask about same-sex marriage, he would have said in Scripture that he supported it. You could just as easily argue that if he opposed it wouldn’t he would have said so in Scripture?
Scripture’s silence on this issue is no different to numerous other important issues we grapple with today which Scripture also doesn't directly address, e.g. abortion, contraception, genetic engineering, climate crisis issues.
Why the New Testament didn’t address the issue
In that patriarchal world the only accepted marriage model was the unequal complementarian one of the dominant husband and submissive wife. This allowed no room for marriage between two men or two women unless one of them took on a “faked” opposite sex gender role (with its own myriad problems –soon illustrated by Nero’s marriage to his slave-boy).
So, before the church could endorse same-sex marriage, it first needed to accept full equality of the sexes and specifically within heterosexual marriage.
As we’ve seen, Jesus and Paul were moving the church towards accepting a full equality of the sexes in both church leadership and marriage model. However, Paul considered it was still far too soon to accept a full equality of the sexes in church leadership (see e.g. 1 Timothy 2) or marriage roles (see e.g. Ephesians 5)
Paul had very good reasons for putting some brakes on these radical changes :
​
-
Do nothing to damage the reputation of this new church in the eyes of wider society and so impede the spread of the gospel
-
Submit to the existing authorities and structures: whether your emperor, your slave-master or your husband
-
Avoid unnecessary dissension between believers to maintain church peace and unity
In a society that wasn’t even ready to accept fully equal male-female marriage, it would have been impossible for Paul to promote such a hugely radical change as same-sex marriage without causing great damage to church reputation, challenging society’s well-embedded patriarchal structures and causing much dissension between church members – the very things Paul wanted to avoid. The spread of the gospel would have been seriously damaged, and no matter how important new social freedoms were, nothing was as important as the gospel’s work of saving lives.
Until patriarchal society changed to give women full social and legal rights and freedoms without a husband’s protection, two men marrying each other would also have deprived two women somewhere of a husband and all the benefits, protections and respect that would go with that. Similarly, two women marrying each other could not enjoy those benefits either.
Until all slaves were set free, allowing same-sex marriage also would have opened a backdoor by which the church encouraged sexually exploitative homoerotic relationships between masters and male slaves – keep the wife but just formalize your male bit on the side by making your slave-boy your husband.
And a terrible illustration of this was coming in AD 67, only two to three years after Paul died, in Nero’s first “gay” marriage to his poor slave-boy, Sporus. In a wickedly farcical ceremony he had the poor lad castrated and shamefully dressed up as his bride. If say three years earlier Paul had suddenly announced the opening up of marriage to two men (or two women) how would that have looked three years later? It would have seemed like the church had given Nero licence for his wicked wedding to his slave-boy! What awful damage might that have done to the reputation of the church and the spread of the gospel?
As Ecclesiastes 3 tells us, “There is a time for all things.” Until it was time for church and society to accept full equality of the sexes and freedom for all slaves, it was not the right time for the church to accept same-sex marriage.