Pointers

Scripture's Pointers to
Same-Sex Marriage

This is another fairly short section, so you may well not feel the need for a summary. But in case you do please press the link here.

"Could same-sex relationships fulfil the fundamentals of marriage as expected by the New Testament?"

Yes, after Christ, I believe potentially they could. That’s because, as I believe we've seen, the New Testament, especially Paul’s letters, shows us Christ has now removed the following key barriers to accepting same-sex marriage:

The strict application of the letter of the old law has been replaced with the new higher law of Christ’s love
The gradual end of the gendered complementary marriage model
The gradual return to a fully equal life partnership model of marriage that Adam and Eve enjoyed before the Fall
Baby-making is no longer expected from marriage (although by implication marriage should be a suitable place in which to bring up any children)
Sex within marriage can and should be enjoyed for its own sake

However, this only means that these particular factors no longer rule out same-sex marriage . It does not necessarily mean such relationships are acceptable to him. There might be other fundamental reasons why they could never be.

Does the Old Testament show us any relationships pointing towards same-sex marriage?

Yes, I believe it does.

The Old Testament gives us a few examples of same-sex relationships which appear to have bonds as close as or even closer than many male/females marriages, and similar to the original kenegedo ezer marriage model we see in Adam and Eve before the Fall: like-minded, equal help-mates, life-bonded to each other, doing life together. The two stand out examples are Ruth and Naomi and David and Jonathan.

Ruth and Naomi

After the death of her husband, the Moabite widow Ruth refuses to leave her now childless, widowed mother-in-law, Naomi, when she journeys back to Israel. She is described as “clinging to” Naomi – the very same Hebrew word – debaq - used in Genesis 2 to describe how a man will leave his parents to “cling to” his wife and the two become “one flesh” – basar, i.e., close kins. Ruth makes the following covenant vow to Naomi, which shares many elements of a marriage vow:

“But Ruth replied, “Don’t urge me to leave you or to turn back from you. Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. 17 Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the LORD deal with me, be it ever so severely, if even death separates you and me.” (Ruth 1: 16)

David and Jonathan

In David and Jonathan we see the closest, most loving of male friendships. They also exchanged vows and it was said that “Jonathan loved David as his own soul” (1 Samuel 18:3). After Jonathan’s death David says of their friendship, “I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women.” He was effectively saying his bond to Jonathan felt stronger than his bond to his various wives. And he was still so affected by their love that years later he went out of his way to find the sole surviving descendant of Jonathan’s (Mephibosheth) so that he could accept him into his royal household.

There has been much debate about whether there was a homoerotic element to their relationship. There is certainly nothing to suggest any sexual intimacy between them, and both were polygamously married men. Could either or both of them have them have been bisexual and was part of their love for each other a sexual attraction? It’s possible. Some have suggested a strong hint of that on Jonathan’s part when he appears to “fall in love at first sight” with David. But, from David’s point of view perhaps one of the reasons why he felt their love so keenly was because, unlike his many relationships with women, there was no complicating sexual element to it; something which later got him into all sorts of trouble with Bathsheba! It may well be that we simply see here a beautiful example of male platonic, friendship love of the highest sort.

The great evangelical preacher, Dr Roy Clements, kindly shared with me the address he gave at the wedding of his friends, Jeremy and Paolo – in my Further Resources and linked here

Roy makes the following observations:

“David was a ladies’ man … He had affairs with dozens of women – he married six of them and sired at least 20 sons together with an unspecified number of daughters … Yet here is a remarkable thing … David was also a great poet and musician – most of the hymns in of the Book of Psalms are his composition … And yet, as far as we know, David never wrote a love song for any of the many women in his life. One love song and one only from the pen of David has been preserved in the Bible, and significantly it is dedicated not to a woman, but to Jonathan. It is a song of immense pathos and poignancy, for it is also a requiem – it was composed after Jonathan’s tragic death on the battlefield – and, to be honest, I would not mention it on a happy life-affirming day such as this, were it not for a single extraordinarily revealing line that this broken-hearted lament contains: I grieve for you, Jonathan, my brother. You were very dear to me. Your love was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women. Does that suggest there was an, albeit tacit, sexual dimension to their love? I don’t know ... I just know this was a special love - covenant love. And a love like that transcends sex – the Bible describes sexual union as becoming ‘one flesh’ - but we read David and Jonathan were fused as ‘one soul’ – deeper than just sex then - the love that united them was one of such intimacy, such commitment, such devotion – it was, by David’s own testimony, more wonderful than that of women. And (let’s face it) he should know!”

There may or may not have been a sexual attraction between David and Jonathan and nothing suggests any physical sexual relationship. However, in all other respects their relationship had the hallmarks of the original marriage that we saw in Adam and Eve before the Fall: equal, like-minded soul mates, helping and supporting each other, permanently covenant-bonded in a close kinship union like they were “brothers” - “one flesh” as the Hebrews would have understood it. There seems to have been a similar bond formed between Ruth and Naomi. Their relationships surely show there was and is no need to have a “complementary ” man and woman to form such a relationship. These examples show us that two men or two women are capable of forming a basar “one flesh” union of equals.

The differences to Old Testament marriages

It’s true that these relationships were quite different to marriage as it was seen in the Old Testament after the Fall. That’s because, as a result of God’s curse for disobedience, this original partnership of equals model was replaced with a hierarchical relationship of a man ruling over his submissive wife. This by definition required the two partners to the marriage be a man and a woman. This complementary, unequal male-female marriage model became the baby-making vehicle for God’s people to fulfil the promises to Abraham - to create a great nation through his “seed” that would ultimately bless all peoples. The Law then institutionalized that hierarchical marriage model. So, after the Fall, there simply could be no room for same-sex marriage in the Old Testament.

But what if at some future point in time Eve’s curse were lifted so that marriage could return to the original model of equal life-partners? And what if at some point through Abraham’s seed God had already blessed all nations, so the expansion of his kingdom now rested not on new physical births but on new spiritual births? In this new world could that equal partnership type of marriage be formed not only by a man and a woman but by two men or two women?

I believe the Old Testament, at least, does not show that God is so firmly set against any same-sex sexual relations that this rules out any notion of same-sex marriage for all time, given that:

Robert Gagnon’s interesting theory that only male-female sexual union re-creates the original "androgenous Adam", I believe, turns out to be effectively just another Greek myth, which conflicts with the Hebrew text.
The Old Testament does not ban any form of same-sex sexual acts except for male-only intercourse, being an act so readily associated with Canaan’s child-sacrificing, idolatrous religion which seriously threatened Israel and ultimately brought about its downfall.
Far from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah’s destruction showing us how God condemns all same-sex sex acts, Scripture itself tell us that the core of their sin was arrogant, selfish pleasure-seeking that crushed the poor, an attitude of “I can do whatever I want to whomever I want and even God and his angels can’t stop me”. In fact, Jude 7 indicates the final straw that brought about their destruction was not an attempted homosexual sexual offence at all but a heterosexual one – sex with beings of a different, higher order - angels.

Does the New Testament show us any relationships pointing towards same-sex marriage?

Yes, I believe it does.

Jesus and his 12 disciples

In Jesus’s relationships with his twelve disciples we see similar very close bonds, especially with his three nearest and dearest friends, Peter, James and John, who shared his most intimate highs and lows. Most of all we see this with John “the disciple he loved" and trusted above all. So, on the cross, as Mary’s oldest son, Jesus asked that John take over care for his mother, despite Jesus having younger brothers.

Jesus and us

Most importantly, in the New Testament, all God’s people, whether men or women or “eunuchs” are seen as being in a “one flesh” union with Christ – not as husbands and wives but an even closer bond as part of his body - see Ephesians 5 discussed above.

To sum up …

None of this conclusively proves that God accepts marriage between same-sex couples. But Scripture does testify that God recognises people of the same sex are able to form the very closest of kinship bonds. Ignoring sex for the minute, these relationships were effectively as close as marriage. So, should we be surprised if same-sex couples are able to form permanent life-enhancing partnerships that appear equivalent to marriage? And if so, on what basis are we barring them from marriage? And if they can be married, on what basis should we deny them the right to enjoy sex together?