Like Button

Friday, May 06, 2011

The Bible is Silent

"You know," I've been told, "the Bible is completely silent on gay marriage." (You know I've been told that because I would never use the term "gay marriage" myself as it is a massacre of the English language.) "Why are you so hard over against 'same-sex marriage' (see, I can't even use that phrase without the quotes) when the Bible says nothing at all about it?"

Well, let's look at that. The Bible is indeed silent on the subject of whether or not people who practice homosexual behavior should be allowed to marry. So that means ... what? Do we conclude that it is meaningless? That is, if the Bible says nothing on a subject, does that mean that the subject is approved? And how do we define the phrase "says nothing on the subject"? Does that require that the subject in question must be mentioned specifically? The Bible, for instance, says nothing about handling an automobile in traffic, so there must be nothing that we can learn from the Bible on the subject, right? Two questions, then. If the subject at hand is not specifically mentioned, are there conclusions possible? And does the absence of a specific mention mean that the subject is, therefore, approved by God?

One approach to these questions it to find an agreeable subject -- something on which we can all agree -- and examine it from the perspective that the Bible says nothing about it. In so doing, I need to point out that such a subject need not be an "equivalent". This is a common mistake in this effort. I am not drawing an equivalence between the subject I choose to examine and "same-sex marriage", so don't go there. I say that because the one that I'm using as an agreeable subject is thoroughly agreeable. The Bible, if you examine it with any sort of care, is completely silent on the topic of child molestation. Not a word. It doesn't mention it in exact terminology nor even in similar terminology. Not one word. So, since we have no word from the Bible on the morality of molesting children, what can we conclude? Well it must be that it is not forbidden and, in fact, that it is approved by God ... right? (See, a thoroughly agreeable subject, in that we are all agreed that God does not approve of child molesting. And this is also why I stressed that "same-sex marriage" is not connected to "child molesting" ... because so many do make that connection. "You know, all homosexuals are child molesters." I'm not making that connection.) I think you can see with this topic that it would be horribly wrong to assume that 1) for the Bible to say something on a subject, it must mention it verbatim, and 2) the lack of mention of a topic must indicate God's approval. That should be clear.

So what about "same-sex marriage"? What can we figure from the pages of Scripture if the topic is not mentioned? Well, the topic isn't mentioned, but there are things we can glean from Scripture on the topic. This is a viable path to take. What are the biblical principles underlying the topic? These principles can lead you to a proper conclusion even without the specific mention of the subject in question. So what can we find?

Well, first, the Bible is not circumspect on the question of marriage. First defined in Genesis 2, the Bible assumes man and woman. "A man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" (Gen 2:24). That this definition is still in effect is indicated by Jesus's use of the very same definition in Matthew 19 when He was asked about divorce. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Further, God indicated the two fundamental purposes of marriage in Genesis. The first (chronologically) is a "shared mission". Eve was made as a "helper" to Adam. It was "not good" for Man to be alone. Secondly, then, the primary "shared mission" of a married couple is to "be fruitful and multiply." So, marriage, according to the Bible, is the union of a man and a woman whereby the two share in companionship and mission to generally face life as a couple in their endeavors and specifically to bear offspring. So we have definition and direction.

Then there is the whole "same-sex" question. Is the Bible silent there? No, not at all. Even advocates of homosexual relations recognize that the Bible is universally opposed to homosexual relations. The advocates will either deny the viability of the Bible to make such statements or attempt to alter the understanding of the texts. They don't do this because it is unclear, but because it is crystal clear. In discussions about everyday sexual relations in the Old Testament (as opposed to, say, religious events as some claim), God said, "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death" (Lev 20:13). This is not in amongst any religious stuff like sexual deviations in pagan temple settings, but among the rulings on adultery, incest, and bestiality. If we're going to say, "Oh, no, this is just a reference to pagan temple practices" as some do, then we'll also need to eliminate any biblical morality on bestiality, adultery, and incest if we are to be consistent. And don't try to pass off that it is an Old Testament reference. First, God calls it "an abomination" and it's not as if He has changed His mind on what He finds abominable. "You know, I used to be disgusted by it, but I'm kind of getting used to it now." Not happening. Besides, it is repeated in the New Testament, especially in Romans 1 where Paul describes sexual relations "contrary to nature" where women and men indulged in same-sex relations -- something called "dishonorable passions" and the ultimate rejection of God. Some might try to tell you, "It just means that they went against their own natures -- 'contrary to nature'," but that doesn't even make the slightest sense since it is described as "consumed with passion" and since violating one's own nature is not natural or feasible, let alone "passionate". No, the Bible may not mention "gay marriage", but it is not silent on the morality of homosexual behavior ... or any sort of sexual relations outside of marriage (regardless of any so-called "sexual orientation").

Now, how does that work in the "same-sex marriage" realm? All of the biblical references to marriage are in terms of "husband and wife", where wives are given specific instructions and husbands are given specific instructions and they are not identical instructions. Further, no record in history includes "same-sex marriage" at any time, either during the biblical period or after. Thus, all of biblical writing and all of history conclude that "marriage" is the union of a man and a woman and nothing else. Beyond this, the Bible is not even remotely silent on the topic of homosexual behavior. It's wrong without the slightest doubt. Acknowledging these, then, we would say, "Okay, the Bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman and aimed at least partly at procreation, and the Bible is clear that homosexual behavior is sinful. That's not the question. The question is 'Is it wrong for two people of the same gender to get married?'" I would hope that, at this point, the question would appear as foolish as it is. Of course the Bible is silent on the subject. It already covered the component parts. Why would there be a question about the joining of those two parts?

The Bible is silent on many current subjects. There is nothing in there about child pornography, child molestation, abortion, or many other topics we are facing in our society today. It is not, however, silent on the underlying principles. Murder is wrong, so why even discuss "abortion"? Children are to be defended and sexual relations outside of marriage are sin, so why even entertain the topic of "child molestation"? And since children are to be protected and lust is to be avoided, where's the question about "child pornography"? Indeed, the Bible may be silent on current subjects like these, but it's not mute. They may not be specifically mentioned, but God didn't leave us without clear and sufficient principles on which to face these types of questions. Indeed, it speaks of the eternal wisdom of God that He would provide such principles in a book written so long ago.

7 comments:

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Excellent analysis - well done! It is essentially the same argument I use every time I am confronted with that claim about the Bible not speaking to same-sex "marriage." Just a wee bit of common sense proves otherwise.

Stan said...

Is common sense so common anymore?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I guess not :oD

Danny Wright said...

I can understand the atheist's position on the subject. He simply rejects the Bible as true or relevant.

I don't get those who try to pull themselves off as Yahweh worshiping theologians or Christians while at the same time trying to turn the Bible on its head so that it conforms to this evil and adulterous generation.

Marshal Art said...

As I have mentioned in a debate now ongoing on this topic, the argument in favor is so chock full of holes that have never had a handful of dirt thrown in, much less have any of them been filled. Yet, the enablers cling to these tired and worn angles that require an incredible suspension of reason to take seriously.

I have a keen desire to know how long ago, or how recently, the first attempt at putting forth this argument from silence took place (and how it went down). I'm guessing it was no further back than within the last 100 years.

Stan said...

Dan, my thoughts exactly with the Thieves Among Us post. I get when they toss it all out. I don't get it when they try to embrace it and reject it at the same time.

Marshall, the earliest reference to this line of thinking that I can find is the 1960's. Good to know that Man has matured enough after some 2000 years to finally figure out what God originally intended and no one prior could figure out. Whew! Am I relieved! (Or, perhaps the proper word there is "sarcastic"?)

Anonymous said...

Great points all around. The argument from silence is a concession speech. When they use the "but Jesus didn't specifically say 'gay marriage' was wrong" argument you know how desperate and wrong they are.