For example, I've heard people sometimes say Jesus never had stance on homosexual marriage. But that's not true. Rather than highlight the wrong behavior, Jesus Highlighted the correct behavior. He defined marriage between one man and one woman by reaffirming what was already written (Matt 19). He could have said same-sex marriage is bad in some way, but instead He talked about what was good.
At the risk of diverging from the topic, I sympathize with and appreciate your position, but I think what often keeps us from productive discourse with each other is the absence of true candor. To claim that "Jesus had a stance on homosexual
marriage" simply is not accurate at all. Words (like "stance") imply things--sometimes very strongly.
We often paint homosexuality as the direct opposite of heterosexuality. But it really isn't. It's the same, in a sense, as any other sin in that:
Actually, there is righteousness, and then there's everything else.
There is an obvious limitation on the Bible's ability to enumerate (or have a stance upon, if you will) every possibility of that which
is at variance with virtue. To me, this suggests that there must be ample illustration of that which
is virtuous to provide comprehensive and sufficient guidance for appropriate behavior.
In short, we need not feel obligated to produce a definite Biblical position upon everything which arises and appears to be unholy. To do so is to tempt ourselves to misrepresent what we do have that is sure.
Genuine marriage is a holy union between one male and one female member of the human race. Anything that is presented as a suitable substitute for the genuine is a counterfeit. Now the most effective counterfeit is the one that most closely resembles the genuine. The human race was not yet degenerate enough in the time of Christ for homosexual marriage to serve as an effective counterfeit. Today, the image of God in man has been so minimalized and corrupted that society has begun to accept it. Homosexual marriage was a non-issue in antiquity. People who engaged in homosexual activity had no desire to be married because they knew there was no hope of enjoying the public fringe benefits of marriage for them. Private relations sufficed for them. Of course it is reasonable to assume that some might have wished they could be accepted as a sacred union in society, but reality relegated this notion to mere fantasy.
To say that Christ had a distinct position on homosexual marriage is like saying that he had a distinct position on any and all other counterfeits, which simply is not true. There is righteousness and there is everything else. Corruption is not the opposite of virtue. This would make it an equal, in a sense. We are susceptible to this viewpoint because in the world, "everything else" appears to bear sway.
But in God's universe, or the entire creation, righteousness is the rule, not the exception. We, along with the disease of sin, are quarantined for the time being. Satan's efforts are bound to this sphere, and soon Christ will come to reclaim and restore what is rightfully His since the blessed Calvary event. God gave Adam dominion over the earth. Satan usurped it in Eden. Christ recovered it at Calvary. And He will fully establish it at His second coming. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
