The Biblical Design for Marriage: The Creation, Distortion and Redemption of Equality, Differentiation, Unity and Complementarity

Paul A. Twelker
Professor Emeritus of Psychology
Trinity College
Trinity International University

Chapter 2: Jewish Tradition and Sexuality

What Was The Role of Sex in Israelite and Jewish Tradition?

Now that the Israelite culture has been described, I now want to focus on the role of sex in Israelite and Jewish tradition. This is an important topic since Christian teachings are moored in Jewish thought and tradition, which is itself influenced by other cultures. In many contemporary Christian writings, readers are told that sex, as seen in the Old Testament, was a valuable gift from God and included both procreative and pleasurable purposes. We are told that marriage was viewed by the Jews as a divinely ordained way for men and women to satisfy their emotional and sexual needs and to continue the race. Yet, there are many Jewish writers who take the opposite view and claim that Judaism was sexually repressive. The basis of sexual repression, these writers claim, was grounded in the biblical laws of sexual purity.

The priestly purity code stated that sexual intercourse caused ritual impurity for one day (Lev. 15:16-18). This seems strange in light of the repeated blessings of fertility in Genesis ("be fruitful and multiply"). Why was sexual intercourse connected with ritual defilement? Biale (1992) asks if this reflects a negative attitude toward sexuality. The priests regarded only certain bodily fluids as defiling: semen, menstrual blood, and discharges from genital disease. Other fluids, such as bleeding from an ordinary flesh wound, urine, feces, saliva or mucus, did not defile. Semen and menstrual blood were seen as associated with new life and hence, as having enormous power. Biale suggests that the priests believed that a man who had ejaculated temporarily loses his vital power and thus temporarily acquires a state of impurity which symbolizes a brief loss of fertility which is symbolically equivalent to death. Further, a women who menstruated temporarily lost her vital power. Her state of impurity was longer, seven days, since the menstrual flow was longer.

The question remains: did the purity code reflect a negative attitude toward sexuality? Not really. All of the Levitical laws focused on procreative sex. Anything that was nonprocreative or perceived to be an affront to procreation was condemned: incest, adultery, bestiality, homosexuality, child sacrifice, and sex during menstruation. Most of these practices were legal or at least tolerated among many of the Jew's pagan neighbors. The boundaries imposed by Levitical law did not represent a negative attitude toward sexuality as much as they represented awe and respect for fertility and the creative act.

For people, as opposed to animals, to reproduce is to become a partner with the divine, to act in God's "image." Since fertility represents divine power, to reveal one's reproductive source (one's reproductive power, i.e., menstrual blood) means to reveal something that is sacred. In the Garden story in Genesis, it is said that to feel shame at one's sexual nakedness is to be like God (Genesis 3:5 and 3:22). Since God's sexuality is thoroughly hidden, "imitation" of the divine means that the procreative organs and fluids are scrupulously covered and controlled by the sexual prohibitions (Biale, 1992, pg. 30).

It seems that sex within boundaries was blessed and encouraged. Since the sexual act had divine power associated with it, respect for this power was fostered by a time of impurity to serve as a reminder of this sacredness. Although this does not represent a negative attitude toward sexuality, it does not indicate that Jewish tradition considered any sexual purpose beyond procreation, e.g., pleasure.

In the book of Jubilees, which dates back to the second century B.C., Adam and Eve meet one another for the first time outside of the Garden. In fact, they enter the Garden separately, Adam in 40 days, Eve in 80 days, thus reflecting the days of purification for couples who have just given birth to children. Since there is no biblical record of children, it is unclear how Jubilees bases this detail on the Levitical law. The important point here is that Jubilees sees Eden as a holy site. The couple who enters Eden must be pure since Eden has Temple attributes. In this account, Adam and Eve have sexual intercourse outside of the Garden as it builds on the biblical motif of purity. A person who has sexual emissions is unclean (Lev. 15:18) and unfit to eat sacred food of the Temple (Lev. 22:4-7). The book of Jubilees also outlawed sexual intercourse on the Sabbath, a point that later rabbinic teaching disagreed with (Anderson, 1989).

Although these accounts and prohibitions could be seen in light of a positive view toward sexuality, where sex is placed in a proper perspective of awe and reverence, it is nevertheless obvious that the writers of Jubilees placed distinct boundaries around what behaviors are permissible in a holy place. Eden cannot be both holy and sexual at the same time.

Rabbinic Judaism saw Eden, not as a Temple, but as a spot for divine blessing and joy. For them, the word, Eden, and its root, referred to a provision of fertility and blessing, sexuality and procreation (cf., Isa. 51:3). In fact, in some early Semitic literature, the root word for Eden can be used for the act of sexual union. Since the rabbinic writers associated the end time with the return of blessing and fertility, it was logically consistent for them to characterize the "first-time" as the origin of this blessing and fertility.

Anderson (1989) suggests that rabbinic Jews believed that they were holy (guddisin) because they were married and had children. In other words, holiness referred to the state of marriage. Aphrahat stated that one Jew asserted that Christians were unclean because they did not take wives. Rabbinic Judaism did not have a high regard for celibacy because the celibate "impaired" God's image. The rabbis believed that procreation was a commanded act (Gen. 1:28).

Is there a place for sex for pleasure in the Jewish tradition? Perhaps an answer will be found in the most erotic text in the Jewish tradition, the Song of Songs. This collection of poems are not directly concerned with fertility, but instead explore "the tension between desire and fulfillment" (Biale, 1992). In the Song of Songs, the woman plays a sexually aggressive role:

• the bride searches the streets for her beloved (3:1-4);
• she uses a bold, incestuous metaphor when she suggests that she wishes her beloved were a brother so that she could kiss him in public without being despised (8:1)
• she yearns for the companionship of her beloved (3:1).
• The bridegroom is revealed as one who anticipates the arrival of the bride (2:14), recalls her beauty (4:1-15), and extols the pleasure of sexual embrace (5:1).

In the celebration of erotic desire, as long as the sexual act is within legal boundaries, it seems that in the early Jewish tradition, there is a place for sex for procreation and pleasure. One cannot help but read the Song of Songs without gaining the distinct impression that sexual intimacies bring pleasure to the couple in ways that are difficult to describe.

In the Babylonian Talmud, six benedictions are given to the bride and groom. The sixth speaks of the pleasures of the wedding event as well as sexual intercourse. These joyful experiences included eating and drinking, the wearing of festive apparel, annointings with oil, bathing, and sexual union (Anderson, 1989). In fact, rabbinic Jews thought that the restoration of their nation would be characterized by the return of joyful sounds, including those associated with a wedding (cf., Jer. 33:10-12).

Just as in our culture, where the scriptures are examined and reinterpreted time and time again, so the rabbis and other segments of Judaism added new meanings to the Old Testament accounts of sexuality. Indeed, these interpretations were suggested by the scriptures themselves, especially the prophetic writings that likened Israel to a wife and God as the husband (e.g., Ezek. 16:8). Here, human love seems to serve as a model for the love of God and a description of our relationship to him. But the unmistakable implication here, according to Biale is that:

the love of God might come to compete with human love. The marriage metaphor of the biblical covenant demanded exclusive love between Israel and God: monotheism is the theological version of monogamy. Taken to an extreme unimaginable in biblical culture, the exclusive love of God demanded by monotheism might lead to the renunciation of physical sexuality altogether (Biale, 1992, pg. 32).

Hence, as the notion of sexuality is traced down through the Jewish tradition, and as it slams directly into the early Christian thinking, we see changes that represent a very negative view of physical sex. Sex no longer is unequivocally affirmed, except in the strict context of procreation. Sexual renunciation and asceticism become increasingly valued through the ages. Further, sex is seen as a problem because of the desire and passion involved.

If for the Bible, sex was always an issue of bodily practices and their cultic implications, for the rabbis, the problem was not the body as such, but desire, the physic state of the passions, that might overpower the body. Where biblical culture had taken desire for granted, rabbinic culture made desire itself the subject of much discussion, both as something necessary for the existence of the world and as a potentially destructive, evil force...At the heart of this discourse was a profoundly ambivalent attitude toward sexuality as such, an ambivalence not found in biblical sources (Biale, 1992, pg 35).

Many contemporary writers seem to represent Jewish thinking as having its roots directly grounded in the biblical text with nary a thought about the culture in which they were emersed. Nothing could be further from the truth. Although the Bible played an important part in rabbinic Jewish thinking, it often provided no more than proof texts for that thinking, while the major source of ideas came from the culture. In one instance, the rabbis passed a law requiring men (not women) to marry and have children, with significant penalties for failure to keep the law. This paralleled the Roman law mentioned earlier. In these times, both Jewish and Roman societies had a desperate need to increase population. The law had little to do with the biblical mandate to be fruitful and multiply--the Bible presented procreation as a blessing, not a divine commandment.

Although it is true that other cultures influenced Jewish thinking, it is a mistake to simplify the situation in this way. McCabe (1917) points out that in many cases, Jewish thinkers rejected ideas from their neighbors when they conflicted with their established traditions, even when their neighbors' ideas were more enlightened. This was especially true in matters relating to rights of women and the despotism of the husband. Even though McCabe pictures Jewish tradition as "semi-barbaric", and minimizes the Christian doctrine of marriage and the influence of the Gospel on individuals and societies, he does make a valid point that Jewish thinkers were slow to change their customs, even when doing so would have brought them closer to God's will.

The Stoic philosophy paralleled rabbinic thinking. They argued that the purpose of intercourse was procreation and any sexual act for the sole sake of pleasure was condemned. Further, any nonprocreative sexual position or act was condemned as "against nature". Pleasure was permitted only when it did not lead to loss of control, since loss of control leading to excessive sexual activity could supposedly reduce fertility and harm the body. Stoics went so far as to prescribe circumcision as a way of controlling sexual appetites. Little wonder then we see Jews in the time of Christ having intercourse only for procreative purposes--once conception took place, intercourse ceased. The author of the Wisdom of Solomon went even further and praised barren women and permitted special favor to eunuchs in the Temple, something against biblical law. When the Gospel writer Matthew refers to eunuchs, it may be implied that Jewish eunuchs existed in his time (Biale, 1992). Biale (1992) gives an interesting insight that supports the notion that sexuality was affirmed in rabbinic thinking. "Virtually all of the rabbis adopted an older Jewish belief that Adam and Eve had sex in the Garden." In their eyes, the Fall was punishment for disobedience, not for the sin of discovering sexuality. There was a blessing chanted in marriage ceremonies that exclaimed, "Make happy the loving friends, as you made your creature happy in the Garden of Eden in the beginning." Biale states that the happiness spoken of here is clearly sexual. But while this view seems clearly affirmative, the rabbis countered it with the view that heaven will be sexless:

...intercourse will no longer be necessary, since there will no longer be any distance between God and man; that is, with the messianic resurrection of the dead, man will become immortal like God and will therefore neither need to procreate nor suffer from sexual desire (Biale, 1992, pg. 42).

Perhaps by the time of Christ, rabbis had introduced the notion that there existed a continuum with procreation (in a properly chaste manner) on the one end and asexuality on the other. Between them could be found ascetics and celibates who prepared the way for an asexual heaven. For the vast majority of Jews, procreation was the norm, but the rabbis clearly attempted to set firm boundaries around the act, boundaries that most certainly reflected the improprieties of the free-for-all philosophies of the Grecian and Roman cultures around the time of Christ.

The rabbis understood sexuality both as an instrument for good and for evil. They saw the body itself as neutral, but the passions that all humans possess from birth could lead to evil and hence had to be controlled. The rabbis used the term, yetzer ha-ra, to denote the force that drives men toward sin. The rabbis understood the term as meaning natural desire or passion while the Bible uses the term to mean mind or thought (Biale, 1992). Some rabbis clearly went too far in their rhetoric;

• one urged, "Know from whence you come--from a smelly drop" (tippah seruha, meaning semen);
• another claimed that the ten tribes were exiled because they committed adultery by "befouling their beds with 'semen that was not theirs;'"
• one rabbi claimed that Eve had intercourse with the serpent who injected her with "filth";
• one rabbi urged Jews to avoid looking at or speaking with women, including one's own wife!

Clearly, not all rabbis took such a dim view of sex--many in fact extolled the virtues of legitimate sexual companionship. Once again, rabbinic tradition is not monolithic--many shades of negativism may be found in the literature around the time of Christ.

The Stoics believed that the study of philosophy could control the human passions while the rabbis believed that the study of Torah was a way to channel sexual energy. In other words, study was a means of sublimating sexual desire. But there may have been more to it than that--a great many rabbis probably believed that the study of Torah held some magical properties. For example, some believed that the study of Torah caused impotence, a total redirection of sexual energy. According to Biale (1992), the Palestinian rabbis urged young men to first study the Torah and then marry. In contrast, the Babylonian rabbis urged men to marry first and study later, the reason being that sexual desire would not detract them from their studies. This strategy was probably seen as somewhat dysfunctional since many Torah scholars left home for extended study leaves, despite the laws that required them to have regular sexual intercourse with their wives. From all this, it may be inferred that sexuality could easily have been considered as less than positive. We may also gain insight into the attitudes of the rabbinic Jews by noting their attitudes toward the Gentiles. Biale (1992) informs us that some rabbis felt that the Jews did not suffer from the hypersexuality of the Gentiles. Quoting one source, Biale notes:

Israel's lust ceased when it stood at Mount Sinai [and received the Torah], while the lust of the idolatrous nations, which did not stand at Mount Sinai, has not ceased. The idolaters are always to be found with their neighbors' wives and when they can't find their neighbors' wives, they find their animals...They love the animals of the Jews even more than their own wives (Biale, 1992, pg. 47).

As noted above, circumcision played a role in lessening sexual desire, so it was thought. One rabbinic text went so far as to say that the Gentiles were hypersexual because they lacked the Torah and retained their foreskins. "It is hard for a woman to separate herself from an uncircumcised man with whom she has had intercourse" (Biale, 1992, pg 48). Apparently, some rabbis felt that circumcision made men less sexually attractive which in turn reduced sexual drive. Some rabbis went even further and suggested that some biblical heros, including Adam and Job, were born circumcised. Again, we may conclude from these sources that for many rabbis, and the Jewish people that followed them sexuality had a distinct negative overtone. Sexual passion was to be controlled since it could lead to sin. Thus, circumcision as well as scholarly reading of Torah were remedies for redirecting this negative energy.

Most certainly, the most important way of controlling sexual energy for most Jews was marriage itself. But even here we see differences. The more sexually ascetic Palestinian Jews generally saw marriage as a defense against sexual temptation, while their Babylonian counterparts generally emphasized the emotional benefits. The latter certainly represents a more relaxed and positive view toward sexuality than the former.

What Were Considered Appropriate Sexual Practices in Marriage?

The Old Testament is relatively silent on the issue of what sexual practices are appropriate in the marriage relationship. Not so the rabbinic literature. Biale (1992) suggests that two contrasting foci are noted: modesty and moderation, on the one hand, and freedom to engage in any act, as long as it is procreative, on the other. One text goes so far as to allow a man to have intercourse with his menstruating wife:

When one's wife menstruates, she is alone with him at home. If he wishes to, he has intercourse with her; if he does not wish, he does not have intercourse with her. Does anyone see him or does anyone know so they might say anything to him? He fears only [God] who has commanded [the laws] concerning menstruation (Biale, 1992, pg. 50).

Not all rabbis agreed on these matters. Some pronounce extremely negative (and preposterous) consequences of doing certain things during sexual intercourse:

• intercourse in the non-missionary position causes lameness
• kissing "that place" produces dumbness
• conversing during intercourse produces deafness
• looking at "that place" leads to blindness
• intercourse in the standing position may lead to convulsions
• intercourse in the sitting position produces spasms
• intercourse with the wife in the superior position may produce diarrhea.

Against these pronouncements, other rabbis simply said that "a man may do whatever he pleases with his wife" as long as she is not coerced.

The emphasis on modesty, however, seems to be a common element in all rabbinic writing. Most rabbis held that intercourse should take place at night or in the dark. No person was allowed to witness the act, and in one writing, a holy man even chased away a fly. A minority of rabbis allowed daytime intercourse, especially if a man might be tired at night and unable to "perform perfunctorily, and end up despising his wife" (Biale, 1992, pg. 52).

In first- and second-century Palestine, rabbis required couples to have intercourse while fully clothed. Yet in Babylon, rabbis required naked intercourse. Biale suggests that the reason Palestinian Jews were more modest was that the Roman culture emphasized modesty. This explanation seems rather strange in light of the destain rabbis held toward Rome.

The other emphasis that seems common in rabbinic writings is moderation. It was believed that moderation and self-control were signs of holiness. "Man has a small member--if he starves it, it is satisfied, but if he satisfies it, it remains starved" (Biale, 1992, pg. 52).

Recall that the major reason a Jewish couple had sexual intercourse was to procreate. However, the rabbis attended to the woman's needs through a set of laws called onah. These laws not only guaranteed every woman the right to have regular sexual intercourse, they made clear that the purpose of sex was to give pleasure. The rabbis apparently believed that pleasure was necessary for procreation and in fact, decided that the woman had a greater capacity for passion than the man. The problem was that women were not allowed to ask for sex, so it was imperative that the man attend to the woman's sexual needs in a sensitive manner. The rabbis used Job 5:24 to defend their position:

For you will know that your tent is secure, for you will visit your abode and fear no loss. You will know also that your descendants will be many and your offspring as the grass of the earth. You will come to the grave in full vigor. like the stacking of grain in its season.

For the rabbis, this passage referred to conjugal visits before a journey, and from the broader context, this interpretation seems appropriate. The passage clearly links "visiting your abode" with procreation, with security (peace), and with sexual vitality during old age. The onah first appeared when the Palestinian mishnaic schools were trying to prevent scholars from staying away from their home for extended periods of time.

The conclusion that the rabbis held positive views toward sexuality as evidenced by onah must be tempered by the recognition that another set of laws, the niddah, prescribed a period of abstinence after menstruation of twelve to fourteen days, twice the biblical injunction. Interestingly enough, the resumption of sexual activity coincided with the greatest probability of fertility of the woman.

So far, the evidence concerning the role of pleasure in sexuality seems mixed. Below are listed a number of other rules or practices promoted by the rabbis:

• marital sex was mandated even for infertile women;
• a wide variety of sexual practices designed largely for pleasure were permitted;
• coitus interruptus was opposed;
• nonvaginal intercourse (anal and oral, for example) was frowned upon, but not technically forbidden;
• masturbation was condemned without reservation--it was considered a heinous crime;
• holding the penis during urination was also considered to lead to the possibility of masturbation, and was opposed.

Biale (1992) suggests that the rabbis did not reject male pleasure, but that pleasure had to be in the context of a greater purpose, i.e., procreation. Pleasure was not a legitimate end in itself. To this end, men had to control their sexual drive through the study of Torah, through moderation and modesty, and through marriage. But it seems clear that even within marriage, some rabbis conceived of sexual drive as an ambivalent and potentially dangerous force.

Biale points out that with the destruction of the temple, biblical prophecy vanished. God was not directly accessible as He had once been. The consequence of this was that the rabbis:

'secularized' the purity laws by applying them to all areas of life, as opposed to just the sacred site of the cult...Purity now became necessary for the sake of the body, rather than for the sake of the cult (Biale, 1992).

This revision seems to be reflected in New Testament writings:

Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? I Cor 6:19)

For we are the temple of the living God...(II Cor 6:16).

Apparently, some rabbis were comfortable with this change: for them, it meant that when sexual relations were proper, God's presence stood between husband and wife. For other rabbis, sexuality was much too dangerous, even within marriage. The destruction of the temple, for them, meant that cultic constraints on sexual drive no longer operated. Biale argues concisely that:

the intimate role of the divine in human sexuality, which was so central in biblical theology, was now shattered with God himself now in exile with the Jewish people. In this view, the body cannot serve as a substitute Temple, since, even within marriage sexuality remains an ambivalent and dangerous desire (Biale, 1992, pg. 558).

In summary, it may be conjectured that at the time of Christ, rabbinic thought about sexuality was ambivalent. On the one hand, rabbis thought that the human being could focus their sexual drive toward procreation within marriage, and as such, "the erotic body becomes the site where the divine can still be found in this world" as compared with its previous residence within the temple. Counterbalancing this view was the notion, paralleling currently popular Greco-Roman thought, that sexuality was a "thoroughly secular, material activity that conflicted with the life of the spirit" (Biale, 1992, pg. 58). For these rabbis, the study of Torah was a virtue equal to or even surpassing procreation, and in fact, emanated from the same sexual drive. Even if they could not support celibacy, their pronouncements and commentaries on the biblical texts allowed freedom for the young Jewish man to forgo sexual relations with his wife for extended periods. The reader is referred to Biale (1992) for a fascinating overview of the evolution of Jewish thought about sexuality in later historical periods.

Reflections

Just as marriage was a constantly changing institution, so likewise the Israelite view of sexuality evolved throughout the ages. Further, at any given point in time, different segments of Israelite culture perceived of sexuality differently. Evangelical writers who cite biblical passages to support a generic Jewish view may be prone to oversimplification. I would challenge you to keep a wary eye toward this type of oversimplification in your consideration of biblical sexuality.

As the evidence accumulates concerning marriage and sexuality, it appears to me that one fact stands out above all the others. The Old Testament record is blatantly frank when it comes to the reporting of the Israelite traditions and customs about sexuality. Certainly, the rabbis tried their best to make sense out of these strong cravings that erupted from humankind's innermost soul, but their task was made exceedingly complex by the foreign cultures that impacted them. Some of their teachings seem more in reaction to another culture's customs than representative of any systematic view of personality or biblical teaching.

Another fact is becoming increasingly apparent to me as I grapple with the wide range of opinions and beliefs. There is something desperately wrong in the hearts and minds of humankind, and that "wrongness" is represented in what I believe to be distortions in the way humankind perceive themselves as well as how they perceive their relationships to each other and to God. These distortions are not covered over or minimized in the scriptures. They are presented for all to observe, ponder, and learn from. My challenge to you is to consider how both the culture as well as biblical truth has impacted your suppositions and beliefs about sexuality. Have you fallen into the same mode of thinking as the rabbis, who used biblical proof texts to substantiate their off-the-wall notions about their bodies, their sexual organs, their sexual practices, and their sexual relationships with others? How do you understand sexuality? Is sexuality a gift from God to be enjoyed or a passion to be controlled and sublimated? If sexuality is understood as a gift from God to be enjoyed, how do you place limits around sexual expression while still enjoying the fruits of your sexuality, i.e., relationships with others? And how do you balance your quest for human relationship with your quest for God? If sexuality is to be controlled and sublimated in favor of some sort of spirituality (e.g., in the case of the rabbis, the study of Torah), then how do you balance the drive toward human relationship with the quest for God? Have you ever considered how the wrongness of which I spoke tints or distorts your decisions and flavors your reading of God's Word?

One of the evangelical's most cherished habits is the way in which they criticize those who do not agree with them. Many times, this criticism goes so far as to reject altogether the person who acts or thinks differently. This breeds an ugly form of exclusivism and discrimination that appears in such forms as sexism and fear, if not outright hatred of the different person, e.g., homophobia. In our study of Israelite and Jewish tradition and culture, we see this sort of thing operating repeatedly. What begins as a quest for purity ends up as a wholesale rejection of a person or a culture. The net result is that God's desire for all to come to a knowledge of Him is thwarted. The ministry of reconciliation becomes all but impossible because we are so busy calling out the evil in culture that we find it impossible to share the love of God. What I am suggesting is that perhaps your view of sexuality either promotes your effectiveness as a witness to a dying and decaying world or it stand in the way of your being an effective witness.

One other thought strikes me as I review this chapter. How prone are evangelicals to speak out against a sexual practice when the biblical record is silent? The rabbis were notorious for their use of proof texts to support outlandish prohibitions concerning sexual practices. I am sure that part of the dynamic here was their use of principles and values that guided their thinking. My challenge to you is to examine your deeply held principles and convictions. Are they free from distortion? Are they serving you well? Are they consistent with the whole truth as revealed in Holy Scripture? I am amazed by the number of questionable proclamations quoted by evangelicals that are attributed to God's will. Often, there is hardly a shred of evidence to suggest that these commands represent God's authoritative word on the subject. They seem more like the prohibitions issued by some of the rabbis that limited intercourse to the missionary position, without conversation and in the dark! The principle of modesty and moderation is certainly valid, but this principle cannot be applied in the absence of other equally compelling principles, e.g., the principle of love. How prone are you in overemphasizing a good principle without considering other principles as well as the context of your application?

Readers of this document are permitted to download any portion provided "all such use is for . . . personal noncommercial benefit." Please cite the document as follows: Twelker, Paul A. (1998). The Biblical Design for Marriage: The Creation, Distortion and Redemption of Equality, Differentiation, Unity and Complementarity. Deerfield: Trinity International University. Internet resource available at URL: <http://kamsandsinfo.com/Professional/BDFMChap2.htm> (last updated 20 April 1998).

Return to Top

Return to Index

Go to Chapter 3 Early Christian Thought