The Counterfeit Christ of Modern Sexual Ethics

In his book Radical Love: Introduction to Queer Theology, Patrick Cheng claims, “Radical love is ultimately about love [emphasis in original], which, as St. Paul teaches us, is patient and kind, and not envious, boastful, arrogant, or rude. As such, radical love is premised upon safe, sane, and consensual behavior.”ccii This language jibes with a prevailing modern sexual ethic that emphasizes consent and taking precautions against disease and pregnancy. 

But the real Jesus condemned at least one sexual behavior that modern people usually consider to be “safe, sane, and consensual”—remarriage after divorce. And because Jesus did that, we know what principles grounded his sexual ethics; and through those principles we can safely conclude what Jesus believed about the morality of homosexual behavior. 

In the first century there was dispute among Jews over when divorce was permissible. Deuteronomy 24:1 allowed a husband to divorce his wife if “she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her.” The two most important figures in this debate were the rabbis Hillel and Shammai, who founded two opposing schools of thought among the Pharisees. The followers of Hillel believed divorce could be justified for virtually any reason or “indecency,” including a wife accidentally ruining her husband’s dinner. The followers of Shammai, on the other hand, said divorce was only permissible in the case of adultery.  

The Pharisees brought this debate to Jesus by asking him, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” (Matt. 19:3). Instead of siding with one group of Pharisees over another, Jesus answered them by going back to a more fundamental law: 

Have you not read that he who made them from 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?” So they are no longer two but one. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder (Matt. 19:4-6). 

In this answer, Jesus presented an interpretation of the moral law that was stricter than the strictest of the Pharisees: no sin could dissolve the marriage bond God created. In response, the Pharisees brought up Deuteronomy’s provision for divorce, to which Jesus replied, “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced woman, commits adultery” (Matt 19:8-9). 

There is a debate over what Jesus meant by “except for unchastity.”  

This can’t refer simply to adultery because the Greek word for adultery (moicheia) is not used but rather the Greek word for general sexual immorality (porneia). Some scholars think Jesus could be referring to an invalid marriage between relatives that can be dissolved because of its intrinsically sinful nature. Or, he might mean that a man can remarry if he divorced his wife on suspicion of sexual impropriety during the period between the marriage ceremony and the marriage’s consummation (which could be as long as a year in the ancient world). In fact, this is what St. Joseph briefly considered before God reassured him in a dream that Mary had conceived by the Holy Spirit.

Whatever it means, the parallel passage in Mark leaves no doubt as to Jesus’ teaching about remarriage after divorce: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” (Mark 10:11-12).  

Some people try to diffuse the force of Jesus’ teaching by saying that he was trying to be ironic, since wives weren’t allowed to divorce their husbands. But although wife-initiated divorce was rare in the ancient near East, it was not unheard-of, either. Exodus 21:10-11 describes how a slave married to her master can leave him without paying any sort of penalty if he fails to provide for her needs, including “marital rights.”  

A second-century divorce certificate (in Hebrew a get) addressed to a husband from his wife was even discovered in the Judean desert in 1951.ccv According to David Instone-Brewer in his study on divorce and remarriage in the Bible, “Normally women would not write a divorce certificate such as this one, but they would ask a court to persuade their husbands to write one. Perhaps this nonrabbinic practice was influenced by the Greco-Roman world where women could initiate divorce, as wealthy Jewish women in the first century are known to have done.”

Jesus did not care if second marriages were, as Cheng says, “safe, sane, and consensual.” He also didn’t quibble with his opponents about possible exceptions in the Deuteronomic code. He instead went all the way back to creation itself and rooted the morality of sex in the permanent, life-giving nature of marital love that God designed in our own bodies (Gen. 2:23-25). If Jesus condemned what critics would today call “harmless thoughts” (lust) and “finding your soulmate” (adulterous remarriage) because these violated that permanent design found in the one-flesh union that only exists between a man and woman, there is no way he would affirm the use of our sexual organs outside of that context within same-sex relationships. 

Jesus did not teach that what mattered most is finding happiness through our bodily desires. After saying lust was a kind of adultery, Jesus advised his hearers, “If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell” (Matt. 5:30). Jesus’ hyperbole is not a recommendation of mutilation but of mortification: the disciplined subjection of our bodily desires so that they serve our heavenly destiny. 

Our bodily desires are strong, but the grace of God is stronger so anyone who struggles with disordered sexual attractions (no matter their object) should not give into despair and hopelessness. We all feel the “war in our bodies” (Rom. 7:23) tempting us to reject God’s will for us, and so we should look to Christ, not as a heartless judge but as a compassionate savior. He allowed his body to be mocked, abused, scourged, and crucified so that our bodily desires would not condemn our eternal souls.  

What would Jesus actually say about today's most controversial issues? Explore Trent Horn's answers in Counterfeit Christs. Get your copy today!