Jesus Defines Marriage For Us: We Don’t Need the Supreme Court’s Definition

I know that many people are waiting with baited and stinky breath on the United States Supreme Court to tell us what the definition of marriage is according to the Constitution, but the Supreme Being of all eternity has already defined it for the Christian. In other words, it matters not what the Supreme Court says, as Christians, Jesus has done so for us.

Matthew 19:4-6 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

For those who don’t know, He was asked about lawful divorces, so the context of His statement is about marriage. He tells us what a marriage is: it is the joining of man and woman together as one flesh to the point that no man can separate that bond. This is God’s expressed will for mankind and the Christian when it comes to marriage. It is central to the family and how God chooses to work among His people.

It is also central to the imago Dei, or the image of God. When God creates man in the beginning, He does so in HIS image and this image is complete in marriage.

Genesis 1:26-27 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all[b] the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

The union that a man and woman have in marriage reflects the image that we have of God. He didn’t make us to be alone, but to be married before Him in this divine appointed state.

The reason Jesus states what He does to the Pharisees is to take them back to the beginning of how God created us and remind them, and us, that marriage is given by God. It is defined by God. It was not given so that we can decide what it should or can be. It is already defined for us.

As Christians, we don’t have a choice whether or not to accept the Supreme Court’s ruling if they decide to redefine marriage. Christians do not have that freedom. Our LORD and Savior has told us what it is, and to try and redefine it, or accept the Supreme Court’s ruling to the contrary, is to sin against God’s expressed will.

The sad reality in this case before the Supreme Court is that those nine justicies are arrogant in thinking that they have a right or responsibility to declare what marriage is to begin with. It takes a great deal of pride on their part to even think they have this responsibility given that the God of all creation has already defined it for us.

This is a barometer of how far our country has fallen from Biblical Truth. It tells us that our country has fallen into new low levels of idolatry in our pursuits of happiness. As a culture, we think we have a right to define what is and is not acceptable for our lives, but in reality we do not. Even if two men decide it is best for them to act like a married couple, they are still in sin against a holy God. To affirm those relationships in any way, is to suppress the truth in all unrighteousness (Romans 1:18ff).

Therefore if the court does rule that gay unions are marriage, Christians cannot go along to get along. We are still called to stand for the truth and stand against that which is not right.

I know that many Christians want to treat this entire subject as though it were the civil rights movement of the 1960s. But the two are not the same thing. One is about race, the other is about sanctioning that which God has declared an abomination. Far too many Christians fail to see this. We cannot affirm the homosexual in his lifestyle, relationships, or habits. We must declare the truth, that his lifestyle is sinful before a holy God and He needs to repent and turn from that lifestyle.

It matters not what the SCOTUS says. What matters is what God’s Word says.

Advertisements

20 thoughts on “Jesus Defines Marriage For Us: We Don’t Need the Supreme Court’s Definition

    1. Yes, it’s absolutely clear for all Christians (even though some will argue the point). The simple fact that no society at any time prior to the 21st century and no religion or lack thereof has ever defined marriage as anything but the union of a man and a woman ought to carry some weight with non-Christians. There is no doubt, even in the minds of the courts, that the intention is to change the definition, not merely to apply “equal rights”, because everyone knows what the definition has always been.

      Like

      1. “has ever defined marriage as anything but the union of a man and a woman”

        …or a man and multiple women, or a man and a woman who is his property.

        Why should I care about tradition? We know more than our ancestors did. Our ancestors also had slaves. We learned better.

        And we’ve learned better about this, too.

        Like

    2. I’m not really writing for you. I’m writing for believers. Our definitions has been given to us by our Lord and Savior. My point is that we need to stick with the definition He has given us regardless SCOTUS’ ruling. It is a matter of conviction, religion, and faith to us. Not a matter that is open for discussion among the non-believers. In other words, we are to stand with our LORD, not SCOTUS.

      Like

    3. BTW, your argument that we know better falls flat. Our ancestors knew that life in the womb was actually life, as all our biology textbooks tell us, but we still slaughter millions every year for some trumped up and imagined right. Before Roe v. Wade, the consensus was with science in every state in the union. Somewhere along the line, we suddenly didn’t know. The arrogance of modernity is never a good place to camp out in your arguments.

      Like

      1. No, that is not what I’m saying. But your argument is that we know more today, yet abortion shows it not to be the case. In some areas we have made progress, but others we have not. The slaughtering of millions of lives every year is the area that shows we are not progressing at all. Homosexuality is also another area we are not progressing. No society in history that embraced it has ever lasted very long afterward. But that is another debate.

        Like

      2. ” No society in history that embraced it has ever lasted very long afterward. ”

        No society in history has ever embraced it. They’ve stigmatized it and forced people to hide it and only express it in secret or risk horrible punishment.

        Turns out, if you treat people like humans and give them respect, they won’t suffer as much.

        Like

      3. Sorry, this is where you are wrong. The Romans embraced it during Paul’s day. Homosexuality along with pedophilia was widely accepted by the Romans. It was not stigmatized, etc., etc. I have a minor in Roman History from Texas A&M University, and have read the original sources on this.

        Why do you think Paul could condemn it while writing to the Roman Christians and Corinthians? He could so because it was so widely accepted.

        Like

      4. Ah. Given the fact that you associate homosexuality with pedophilia tips your hand and reveals you to be an irrational bigot.

        Thanks for letting me know you’re not worth rational discussion. Have fun being on the wrong side of history.

        Like

    4. NotAScientist, just for the record, marriage in history has never been defined as “a man and multiple women, or a man and a woman who is his property.” Nor has it ever been defined as “two people of the same race”. There have been a vast outworking of the trappings of marriage over the history of mankind, but never the definition. In your false polygamy example, there are two problems. First, if polygamy was the definition, than a man married to only one woman was not married. Second, the men who married multiple women married one wife at a time. They may have accumulated them, but the women were not connected to each other. Thus it was still a man and a woman. Finally, at no time in all of history has the union of two people of the same gender been classified as “marriage”. It has always been male and female by definition, by practice, by society, and by pragmatism.

      Like

      1. Stan, very good points. All though NaS is not here to listen. He was only here to declare that we are all bigots in his opinion. Since he was satisfied in his false assumption, he has since left and hopefully will not waste our time with actual dialog.

        Like

  1. phoebehb

    *The Journal of Homosexuality recently published a special double-issue entitled, “Male Intergenerational Intimacy,” containing many articles portraying sex between men and minor boys as loving relationships. One article said parents should look upon the pedophile who loves their son “not as a rival or competitor, not as a theft of their property, but as a partner in the boy’s upbringing, someone to be welcomed into their home.”
    *In 1995 the homosexual magazine “Guide” said, “We can be proud that the gay movement has been home to the few voices who have had the courage to say out loud that children are naturally sexual” and “deserve the right to sexual expression with whoever they choose. …” The article went on to say: “Instead of fearing being labeled pedophiles, we must proudly proclaim that sex is good, including children’s sexuality … we must do it for the children’s sake.”
    *Larry Kramer, the founder of ACT-UP, a noted homosexual activist group, wrote in his book, “Report from the Holocaust: The Making of an AIDS Activist”: “In those instances where children do have sex with their homosexual elders, be they teachers or anyone else, I submit that often, very often, the child desires the activity, and perhaps even solicits it.”
    *In a study of advertisements in the influential homosexual newspaper, The Advocate, Reisman found ads for a “Penetrable Boy Doll … available in three provocative positions. She also found that the number of erotic boy images in each issue of The Advocate averaged 14.
    *Homosexual newspapers and travel publications advertise prominently for countries where boy prostitution is heavy, such as Burma, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand.
    ____________________________

    May NotaScientist live long enough to eventually grasp what Chesterton meant by, “Never take a wall down until you know the reason it was put up”.

    (P.S., NAS: See today’s headline?
    CDC: 110,197,000 Venereal Infections in U.S.; Nation Creating New STIs Faster Than New Jobs or College Grads
    March 27, 2013)

    Like

  2. phoebehb

    P.S.S.
    Yes, NaS, we are “on the wrong side of history” and we know that. I guess we just have a different concept of what “fun” is.

    “On Saturday afternoon, Yale hosted a ‘sensitivity training’ in which students were asked to consider topics such as bestiality, incest, and accepting money for sex.

    http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4646

    Like

  3. Julie

    Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. ~Matthew 7:6~

    Like

  4. Earl Curtis

    As a Christian, I know that Matthew 19.4-6 was about straight marriages or even more to the point, their divorces. It is not a marriage definition.
    Also, the majority of gays feels it wrong for an adult to take advantage of a minor. It really has nothing to do with being gay/homosexual.

    Like

  5. Earl Curtis

    I suggest a book: What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality, written by Daniel Hlemininak. This book does an excellent job of putting scripture into context regarding Homosexuality.

    Like

Comments are closed.