The following is a reworking of an older post (Man and Woman), reworked because the earlier one was written before the Supreme Court ruling on June 26, 2015, and for the purpose of setting these details out in a purely teaching format.
And Adam said, This is now bone
of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was
taken out of Man.
And he
[Jesus] answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them
at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a
man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall
be one flesh? (Matthew 19:4,5)
Dearly
beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of
this congregation, to join together this Man and
this Woman in holy Matrimony;
which is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man's
innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his
Church.
(Book
of Common Prayer)
In the two
quotations from Genesis and from Matthew we have been given God's word concerning
marriage, and specifically, in Matthew, the words of Jesus Christ Himself. The
purpose of this article is to examine and highlight what He Himself taught when
He was physically present in this world. As you can see, Jesus quoted from
Genesis, but deliberately modified it with the word "Two" (or
"Twain" in the older English of the KJV), thus ruling out polygamy
for His followers. What we have, therefore, from the teaching of our Lord Jesus
Christ, is His word that marriage is between one man and one woman. He
follows that by saying that “some have made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom Heaven
We have
been given, in Christ’s doctrine, the teaching of sacramental marriage, that is,
that marriage is God's own work. For, He follows it directly in the next verse
with the words, "Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What
therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder (v.6)."
Sacramental marriage is what we celebrate and bless in the Church, because it
is the work of God Himself: "What therefore God hath joined together..." Not
simply the Church, not simply the power of the state, not simply a covenant
between a man and a woman, but God Himself makes the man and the woman one
flesh.
And,
indeed, it is clear from both Genesis and the words of Jesus in the Gospel of
Matthew that two people of the same sex cannot
be married in the eyes of God. The Hebrew words in Genesis are unmistakable.
The word for "Woman" and "Wife" (as quoted above) are one
and the same word: Ishah (אִשָּׁה). The word for
"Man" is Ish (אִישׁ). The same applies
to the Greek original in Matthew. The word for "wife" is Gyne (γυνή), from which comes
the English word "Gynecology," and which means a woman of any age,
and also means "wife." Furthermore, this follows the words from
Jesus' own mouth: "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the
beginning made them male and female..." making the following words obvious
in meaning: "For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall
cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh." Sexual
complementarity, something two people of the same sex do not have and cannot
have, was created by God for marriage as a sacramental bond, to produce
children and establish the family.
We can well
understand why the Bible translators used the word "Wife" rather than
"Woman" in both Genesis and Matthew. In English, to say that a man
shall be joined to his woman might suggest something other than
marriage to lazy ears, even though it is clear from the context that marriage
is the only possible understanding of the words. But, in this day and age, we
need to know that in Hebrew and in Greek the words for "Woman" and
"Wife" are the same, with the meaning of a married couple derived
from the context.
I was made
aware of some celebrity championing same sex "marriage" with the
argument that its advocates do not want to change the definition of what
marriage is. That statement constitutes a factual absurdity. Of course it is a
redefinition. In the whole history of the world every civilization has known
that sexual complementarity - male and female - are of the very essence of what
marriage is. It has never been understood any other way. From the teaching of
scripture we see why: It is literally a part of God's creation, and not a
man-made institution. Its roots do not come from jurisprudence. It is a part of
human nature itself, as anthropology confirms (this celebrity went on to bring
up Women's Suffrage and the Civil Rights Movement as if there is a connection
between those important accomplishments and this new same-sex “marriage” idea.
But there is no genuine connection, none whatsoever; only what some want to
create by the power of suggestion rather than by facts, reason and logic).
One might
as well argue that a triangle has the right to define itself as a circle, and
that such an expanded definition of the word "circle" would not
change the nature of circleness. If
the word "circle" can mean also a triangle, then we have lost the
meaning of the word. Such a definition is too inclusive to be meaningful. If
the cause of including recognition of a triangle as a circle is fortified by
the ruling of a court, all that would happen is that Mathematics teachers could
no longer teach geometry, that is, not legally, because words would have lost
their meaning.
The revelation of Christ’s
own teaching is not subject to change, whether one calls it “evolving” or “being
led by the Spirit.” The Holy Spirit will not contradict what Christ has taught,
because God will not contradict God. The truth is settled forever.
1 comment:
The Churches don't honor marriage any more. They allow civil divorce and remarriage which means they allow people to live a lifetime in adultery. Our parish says that it "doesn't compromise on moral issues" but I've never heard a word about divorce probably because it would offend lots of people and they'd leave and not come back. It's the same in the Roman Church although I guess they can point to the traditional teaching as being at least theoretically "on the books."
Post a Comment