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 3: Early Christian Thought

The Cultural Context for Early Christian Marriage

At this point, I want to turn the discussion from the Israelite and Jewish perspective to a description of the Greek and Roman cultures within which Christianity was introduced. As mentioned above, these cultures impacted Jewish tradition and thought. They also impacted Christian thought, for good and for bad, as I will presently show.

Greek Marriage

James (1955) maintains that marriage in Periclean Athens around 400 B.C. was looked upon simply as a matter of convenience, for it fulfilled a duty to the state in the production and rearing of healthy, future male citizens. In other words, marriage contributed to a planned economy and military efficiency of a dictatorship. Further, the place of the female in Grecian society was very low indeed. James states:

...outside the house, it counted for nothing and so not unnaturally came to be regarded more and more as the inferior sex virtually imprisoned in the house (James, 1955, pg. 81).

Marriage was usually prearranged in Greece; romance was minimized. Social service was of greater importance than free choice of an individual. However, many unions had an element of romance, affection, respect, and mutual sharing of responsibilities and purpose. While monogamy was generally practiced, along with some concubinage, adultery was punished by death because it disturbed the harmony of the state. Marriage typically involved a man in his thirties and a woman in her early teens.

The Acts of 451 B.C. prompted some significant changes in that it defined what constituted a valid marriage. The net result was that foreign females were driven into adopting a life of prostitution since marriage was not an option for them. Many became professional companions or courtesans, and were assimilated into Grecian society. Demosthenes boasted:

...concubines for the daily health of our bodies and wives to bear us lawful offspring and be the faithful guardians of our homes.

In fact, prostitution was seen as indispensable for the preservation of virgins since men did not marry until their thirties. Economically, prostitution was good for the state since it was heavily taxed. Some of the higher-class courtesans enjoyed status, wealth, and education that few of their married counterparts enjoyed.

Murstein (1974) takes great pains to note that prostitutes and courtesans were not able to fill the emotional voids in men's lives successfully. The prostitutes were corrupted by greed, avarice and commercialism. The wives were usually much younger, less experienced in the ways of life, cloistered, and probably forced upon the man by his father. This situation was an important factor in the wide acceptance of homosexuality and bisexuality.

Marriage required a formal legal ceremony of betrothal at the girl's home involving the signing of a previously negotiated contract in the presence of witnesses and the receiving of a dowry (at least one-tenth of the bride's father's estate). Often, the bride and groom were absent. Some days later, a feast was held in the girl's home. Before arriving at the home, the couple underwent sacramental purifying baths and sacrificial offerings to the gods of marriage (Zeus, Teleios, Hera, Toleia, Arternis and Athena) and to various household gods. At the bride's home, a religious ceremony was conducted by the girl's father in the presence of the couple and their friends. The pair were crowned with wreathes and the houses garlanded. The bride wore festal clothing and a veil. At a banquet, the couple ate sesame cakes to insure fertility. When they departed the feast, they were showered with figs, nuts, little coins and sweetmeats. A torchlight procession, followed by the bridal chariot, took the couple to the groom's house. This procession was accompanied by musicians playing flutes and harps, with the people singing joyfully, "Hymen, Hymen, Ho!" At the groom's house, the couple engaged in a mock battle, with the groom winning and carrying the girl over the threshold. More ceremonies and libations followed. Finally, the couple retired to the bridal chamber while the guests chanted outside the door, urging the groom to be strong in his manhood. In the chamber, the groom lifted the veil and presented his wife with a gift. If all went well, the groom announced to the crowd that the marriage had been consummated (Murstein, 1974; James, 1955).

Grecian marriage had both a religious and a civil significance in that it marked a new status for the couple as producers of future citizens. But marriage could be revoked with the greatest of ease--for the man. All that was required was that he collect the house keys from his wife and return her to her father's house with her dowry. No reason had to be given, although the only acceptable reason was adultery and barrenness. If a woman wanted to divorce the husband, however, it was a different story. Then the woman was required to make a declaration before the Archon, which acted on her petition. They would usually rule in favor of the wife only in cases of cruelty, adultery, and situations which endangered the safety of the family. Mutual divorce was easier for whatever reason.

As was the case in the Jewish culture, there were regions where there were exceptions to what has been described. For example, in Sparta a more liberal attitude prevailed and women were educated and esteemed. In Crete, they could own property and keep whatever they earned (Osborne, 1986).

Roman Marriage

The Roman culture had a significant influence on Christian thought and ethics. By the second century B.C., Rome had possession of or control of almost every country around the Mediterranean. With this came financial exploitation of the controlled countries with the resultant decline of the virtues of patriotism and ethics. Bribery, greed, the uneven distribution of wealth, the destruction of the middle class, the rise of slavery, and the development of a welfare system all characterized this period. The populace, discontented with their government's inability to solve the economic and social problem, staged a revolution which lasted one hundred years, ending in 31 B.C. But the damage was done, and with the social structure in shambles, moral decay became rampant. There was an increase in slavery but the slaves were often learned and more cultured than their Roman masters. Their revenge was to corrupt their masters and their families, leading them into all sorts of immorality. The head of the house often had sexual intercourse with the slave women while the matrons slept with the male servants. The children were tutored by slaves who were indifferent to morality and ethics. A special class of servants (cosmetes), lavished favors on the upper class, leading to the preoccupation with self and sensuality. However, it was the ruling class that exemplified the worst of the depravity. Nothing was left untouched by this moral decline, and traditional societal institutions and morality could not escape decline (Angus, 1951; Caldwell, 1949; Schaff, 1950). Before the Punic Wars (265-241 B.C. and 218-211 B.C.), the Roman patriarch ruled supreme in his home as a despotic authority--he had the power to decide whom his children would marry, to decide if he could kill or sell into slavery an offending daughter, to have an offending wife sentenced to death, to buy, sell and own property, and to decide which newborns to keep or to "expose", that is, abandon with the possibility that it might be rescued (Gies and Gies, 1987; McCabe, 1916). However, in contrast to the Grecian wife, the woman was not restricted to her apartment--she enjoyed a social life, although she was forbidden to drink wine. When a woman wore a married woman's gown in public, at such occasions as the theater, games, public festivals, and chariot races, she was treated with honor. However, women were considered little more than property, and did not have a voice in who they would marry. Joseph McCabe summarizes the situation succinctly:

The earlier Roman marriage was not an ideal institution, but a social arrangement based on the thoroughly corrupt sentiment that might is right (McCabe, 1916, pg. 5).

After the Punic Wars, the power of the husband decreased while the power of the wife increased. Women were able to inherit property, to become wealthy, and to retain their dowry even when divorced for unfaithfulness. They were able to assume masculine responsibilities such as running a farm. They accompanied men to dinner parties. Yet they possessed no political rights. Divested of any kind of meaningful activity, many turned to adultery as a means of expressing their individuality. Many men felt this newfound freedom was responsible for the increasing immorality Roman culture was experiencing. The penalty for adultery was death to the woman, although usually fines were imposed, and for the upper class, banishment for life in addition to a fine. The male could be fined on occasion, but intercourse with a household slave or a public prostitute was not considered adultery.

As the marriage institution disintegrated, especially among the upper class, the birthrate declined. Among the lower class, and a few upper class, marriage probably remained a stable, meaningful institution.

Roman marriage was a personal, private, familial affair which required no religious or governmental sanction (Murstein, 1974; Gies and Gies, 1987). In early times, a bride purchase (coemptio) was common, but by the first century A.D., it had diminished to a token payment. At the same time, the importance of the dowry (dos), which went to the bridegroom to support the marriage, increased. Roman marriage required the consent of both man and woman, reflecting the legal formula Nuptias consensus non concubitus facit (consent, not intercourse, makes marriage).

In early Roman times, cousins were forbidden to marry, but over time, this rule changed, permitting cousins, and even an uncle and niece, to marry. Although ancient tradition held that every person could marry, not all did, and in 413 B.C., a tax was imposed on bachelors. Girls who were twelve and boys who were fourteen could marry with the boy's father's permission. Otherwise, sixteen was the minimum age for boys. Marriage was strictly monogamous, inclusive of concubines--a man usually had to choose between one or the other.

There were many types of Roman marriages prior to 550 B.C.:

• marriage justum--between Roman citizens of the same social class;
• marriage non-justum--legally acceptable concubinage involving a citizen and a spouse of lower social rank;
• marriage without manus (power of husband over wife)--the wife remained under her father's authority;
• marriage with manus--available only to those in marriage justum; the husband exercised autocratic power over his wife, who was considered legally his daughter or ward. The man acquired all of his wife's property. There were three types of marriage with manus:
• confarreatio--reserved for the upper class, the rites of marriage were religious, extensive, and conducted by a priest in the presence of ten witnesses;
• coemptio--a purely secular marriage usually among plebeians. The heart of the marriage was the placing of a solitary coin in a balance to symbolize a sale of a woman to a man, into whose authority she passed.
• usus--a marriage de facto involving no ceremony. If a couple cohabited continuously for one year, the man gained full power over his spouse;
• contuberium--a quasi-marriage among slaves who legally could not marry;
• concubinatus--cohabitation between two unmarried free individuals or between a free man and a woman servant. This was essentially no marriage.
• stuprum--illicit intercourse, with no children having any legal status.

After 550 B.C., marriage with manus became rare because the role of the government became more powerful and superseded the father's role. In the third century B.C., a new form of marriage favored women more by allowing them to retain membership in the wife's father's household (marriage sine manu) (Gies and Gies, 1987). This change allowed the woman to keep her inheritance rights as a daughter, thus allowing her a measure of independence from her husband. By the first century A.D., this became the most popular form of marriage.

With the moral fiber of the nation weakening and the birthrate falling, the Emperor Augustus in 19 B.C., instituted a number of laws designed to aid marriage and the production of children. The rules are interesting:

• marriage was obligatory for men under 60 and women under 50. Celibates (men over 25 and women under 50) could not inherit property, could not attend festivals or games, and under certain circumstances, had to pay a tax;
• betrothals were limited to two years;
• widows and divorcees had to remarry within six months of their divorce or their husband's death. This period was later extended;
• men of the senatorial class could not marry a freed woman, actress or prostitute. A senator's daughter could not marry an actor or freedman;
• tax advantages were initiated for the married and for those with up to three children.

Further, motherhood was rewarded by setting the mother of three or more children free from male guardianship. Needless to say, these laws created quite a furor, and were not easily enforced. Among other things, it increased the state's control over the family while reducing the family's autonomy as a mini-state. The birthrate did rise, confarreatio was rarely practiced, and usus became more popular. Murstein (1974) suggests that the laws did not weaken marriage--they followed the weakening of psychological and emotional marriage ties.

As marriage became more and more a political and economic contract, wealthy fathers would not risk losing control of any dotal sums they might grant their daughters, and accordingly, marriage contracts stipulated that the marriages were without manus. If the husband, then, could not touch the wife's dowry, she could no longer inherit from him. The concept of marriage was an uneasy and limited alliance now settled upon the wary participants.

It is easy to see how prostitution flourished during these times. As farmers were displaced to the urban areas, as foreigners continued to come to Rome, as wealth was accumulated, and as the slave trade grew, conditions were ripe for prostitution. The average working prostitute paid taxes and was protected by the police. They either worked in a brothel and shared their income with the keeper, or they rented cubicles and kept their earnings for themselves. There was another group of prostitutes called prostibulae who serviced their clients in the streets: in the archways in the Coliseum, the theaters, and beneath public edifices. The Latin word for arches is fornix, and serves as the root for our word, fornication. Other prostitutes conducted business in parks and graveyards.

Eventually, concubinage became popular as a legally and morally recognized system. The concubine's status was above that of a prostitute but below that of a wife. McCabe (1916) points out that the institution of concubinage became so entrenched in Roman culture that St. Augustine did not condemn the practice if a wife was barren. Marital infidelity among the women also became commonplace. Abortion was easily obtainable whenever a woman wanted to terminate a pregnancy.

Divorce was extremely easy for the husband, since his wife was under his absolute rule. He simply called a council of his family and explained the reason, which could range from adultery to counterfeiting household keys. A woman could obtain a divorce, but the grounds had to be substantial, such as desertion or the man being made prisoner of war.

Prior to the second century B.C., homosexuality was rare. However, homosexuality became pervasive in Roman culture, especially among the upper classes, during the days of the empire. Of the first fifteen emperors, only one, Claudius, was not homosexual. Plato claimed that homosexual relationships were superior to heterosexual relationships, which were only "instinctive" (Durant, 1939). Homosexuality may be a misnomer in that most Romans were more apt to be bisexual.

Lewis Mumford describes a rather complete degrading of sexuality in the Roman Empire:

...adultery became fashionable and abortions necessary. Sexual intercourse became ever more easy and ubiquitous. Slaves, whores, pederasts were at hand for the asking. When the body was sated, the imagination whipped it up again; when the genitals failed to respond, the eye glutted itself on revolting exhibitions of carnality...The circus released inhibitions and heightened sexual excitement...a new form of theater was devised for the bored Roman citizens...as the pantomime worked itself out, the favorite plots were those in which disrobing--the strip tease--and (public) copulation were enacted...Circus, pantomime, spectacle, public bath, must have kept the sexual organs in a state of swollen expectation (Mumford, 1944, pg. 47).

Within this milieu of declining family importance, sexual immorality, corrupt business and governmental practices, and the perversions that paganism produced, Jesus came on the scene with a startling alternative to this lifestyle. The early Church was forced to make a decision to adapt to the prevailing culture or develop a brand new community based on Gospel teachings. Although it choose the latter track, it was not done in a vacuum. Christians reacted strongly to the moral decay, which eventually threw them off-balance, especially in the area of sexuality. Further, questionable exegetics and hermeneutics coupled with an intellectual alliance with certain Greek philosophies and the unmistakable influence of Israelite and Jewish tradition, fostered an ethical system that in some cases could be labeled as marginally Christian, at least as represented in Jesus' teachings. Modern-day evangelicals have inherited this rich and varied tradition, for better or for worse.

The Teaching of Jesus on Marriage

Jesus came on the scene in a turbulent period where the Jewish culture was clashing with encroaching pagan cultures. Two of these cultures were examined in detail above, although it should be recognized that these were not the only ones that impacted Jewish life. Other pagan neighbors included the Babylonians, Asians, Egyptians, Africans, and Persians (Pagels, 1989). The Roman culture was examined in detail since the Jews were their subjects and Judea was a Roman province ruled by a puppet Jewish leader, Herod the Great. The Greek culture was also reviewed since many New Testament writings are placed in the Greek context.

In Jesus' time, there were some Jews who wanted to embrace pagan culture and accept its political domination while others resisted both the culture and politics. The Pharisees were representative of this latter group, and were known as separatists in two senses: they separated themselves from the spread of Hellenization and they also separated themselves from the "people of the land", those who did not satisfactorily observe the law and the rabbinic and legal commentary on the written law. Rabbinic Pharisaism was the leading influence on Jewish learning in Jesus' time. Jesus had little good to say about this group. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus accused the Pharisees of placing heavy loads on the people while taking no responsibility for their own actions (Matt. 23:1-7). Further, their motives were questionable in that they wanted to be the center of attention. Some Pharisees attracted rather large numbers of devotees who highly regarded their commentary on the written law and memorized their "oral Torah". Over time, the Rabbi's words were considered almost sacred. For a time, Jesus was evidently considered as a rabbi with all that this entails (Mann, 1986).

It is to this group of Pharisees that Jesus addresses his remarks concerning marriage (Mark 10: 1-12; Matt. 19:1-12). Jesus had been teaching a large crowd when a group of Pharisees walked up. They wanted to know where Jesus stood on the subject of divorce. In Jesus' time, there were two "schools" of thought. The school of Shammai said that the law of Moses allowed for divorce in the case of the wife's sexual misconduct including adultery. By this time, the rabbis could no longer sentence a woman to death for adultery. The school of Hillel was more liberal: a man could divorce his wife for practically any cause that was considered shameful. Pagels (1988) states that the reason might be as innocuous as the wife burning the husband's soup! Another well-known teacher of the day, Akiba, who agreed with Hillel, included among his list of justifications for divorce the reason of finding a woman more beautiful than his wife.

These two schools of thought evolved over centuries from what might be called an Israelite ideal, the thinking that marriages were made in heaven. In the Genesis narrative of Isaac and Rebekah, marriage is seen as something "that comes from the Lord" (Gen. 24:50). However, as wife abuse became increasingly prevalent in the Mosaic period, legislation regarding divorce was instituted as a protection for women (Deut. 24:1-4). In this passage, it is clear that women were free to remarry under certain conditions. In the intertestamental period, laws were added to cover the most minute of details, thus discouraging all but the most ambitious (Baron, 1952). By the time of Christ, it appears that divorce was easily secured, by reason of the Pharisee's question addressed to Jesus: "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause at all?" (Matt. 19:3). Note that the question implicates men only: women could not obtain divorces easily, except in certain situations (Edersheim, 1961).

The Old Testament passage at issue in the encounter of Jesus with the Pharisees was Deut. 24:1-4:

When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house, and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man's wife, and if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled...

Jesus avoids entirely a long, drawn out discussion of this complicated passage and goes directly to God's original design in marriage as found in the Creation narrative. As such, he was more concerned with expressing the ideal one flesh union which should characterize marriage:

Have you not read, that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, "For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh? Consequently, they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate" (Matt. 19:4-6).

The Markian version, as encountered in the New American Standard Bible and several other versions, is missing the phrase, "and shall cleave to his wife". What Jesus does by switching the subject from divorce to marriage is to take the focus away from legal ordinance of marriage and direct the focus on the true character of human life as originally designed by God. The law of Moses was a compromise with the more important design of creation, and could no longer stand in the New Reign of God that was coming. Otto Piper argues that:

Jesus went back to the will of God as expressed in the creation of the two sexes ("They two shall be one flesh"), and also showed that the actual prescriptions found in the Torah, which regulated sex relationships, did not fully correspond with the creative purpose of God (Matt. 19:1-19, Mark 10:1-12). Although being part of the Revealed Law many of these commandments represented divine accommodations to the earlier stages of Israel's spiritual development. Their content was therefore no longer to be regarded as something absolute or binding in its actual form; it rather expressed the Divine Will as tempered by God's long-suffering and patience shown in view of the stubbornness of the Israelites (Piper, 1953, pg. 13).

Richard Batey expresses it this way:

The radical demand of Jesus' ethical teaching concerning marriage, as elsewhere, was grounded in the will of God for mankind. It is in terms of God's will as expressed in creation that Jesus developed his answer; he considered the union of marriage to be the result and fulfillment of God's purposeful activity, which restores the original wholeness of Man and is permanent (Batey, 1966-67, pg. 277).

For the Pharisees, who were interpreters of the law of Moses, this answer was shocking since Jesus ruled out divorce altogether. Divorce, although allowed by God in special cases, does not correspond to the will of God in the same way that marriage does.

Since procreation was assumed by many Jews to be the purpose of marriage, and since Jewish tradition had taken divorce for granted as a male prerogative--Jesus' answer to the Pharisees broke with Jewish teaching (Pagels, 1989, pg. xxii).

Probably even more shocking than the ruling out of divorce was the reason why divorce was not an option. The Genesis passage that Jesus quotes states emphatically that the design of God is for two persons to become one or "one flesh" which implies that "the relationship between the pair was just as unbreakable as was a blood-relationship such as between a father and a son" (Bruce, 1986). Something that is "one flesh" cannot be separated or split into two once again within rendering a serious wound to both. Any discussion of law concerning divorce becomes academic and useless, and the Pharisees apparently do not argue the point. Their entire effort to maintain the integrity of the law has been in vain in the face of Jesus' teaching.

If this were not radical enough, Jesus revealed the true nature of sin in other places by stating that one may obey the letter of the marriage law externally, but can become an adulterer by merely intending to commit adultery or can become a murderer by having anger or ill will against a brother (e.g., Matt. 5:21-22, 28). Sin involves motivation and mental attitude. Certainly, Jesus' teachings could hardly have been more disruptive to the rabbinic tradition, for by a person's actions, they were judged. As Helmut Thielicke points out,

"Nobody can be hanged for thinking." But the moment a man sees that he is confronted with God himself, the Author of the order of creation, then his heart and his thoughts become important. For, after all, we belong to God totally, whereas we belong to the law and the earthly judge only partially, that is, only as we act and exteriorize ourselves. The judgment of the "God who knows the heart" (Acts 15:8) strikes not only the heart but also our "thoughts." We stand before his bar not only in our acts but in our whole being.(Thielicke, 1964, pg. 110).

Thielicke makes it clear that Jesus does not promote a new marriage law here, one that must be legalistically applied. No, Jesus's words should be considered as a call to repentance addressed primarily to social attitudes, conditions and practices.

The disciples apparently were not content to let the matter rest, and they begin questioning Jesus about his teaching. We are told in the Matthean account that the disciples thought that if the marriage relationship was permanent and indissoluble, then it would be better to remain celibate (Matt. 19:10). Henry Leenhardt, as quoted by Karl Barth in his treatise, On Marriage, suggests several reasons for this remark:

• perhaps the wives were so disagreeable that the husband could not think of a lifelong commitment without apprehension;
• the concept of family was distorted;
• the idea of sexual relations was distorted (Barth, 1968, pg. 2).

Barth discounts Leenhardt's observations as "stupid and unworthy". He states that the fear expressed by the disciples about marriage relates to their inability to see that there should be a relation of this sort between a husband and a wife. For Barth, marriage represents a divine vocation that is binding "with all the force of divine authority, stringency, and precision" (Barth, 1968, pg. 4). Therefore, entrance into marriage is entrance into an entity so holy that our response must be one of awe and respect. Likewise, celibacy is equally a divine calling, and once again, cannot be entered into without grave thought.

I would not be so quick to dismiss Leenhardt's observations as it represents some understanding of the Jewish tradition. It is clear that a great deal of distortion existed in the institution of marriage and the role of sexuality in human endeavors. The disciples were unable to see that there should be an indissoluble marriage relationship precisely because their concept of family life and the place of sexual relations was distorted. This distortion was a carryover of their Jewish tradition. As stated above, the Jewish male was in a severe bind. On the one hand, he was expected to marry. On the other hand, the new meanings added to the scriptures by the rabbis, layer by layer, infected the institution of marriage with distortions to the extent that a newly married Jewish man could forgo sexual relations with his wife in favor of the study of Torah. Sexuality was dangerous, even within marriage. Obviously, this distortion could have tainted the disciples thinking to some extent. In light of the seriousness of Jesus' comments about the one flesh bond, it is little wonder that his disciples were ready to embrace celibacy.

However, Barth's point is well made that the disciples did not clearly perceive that the true nature of the marriage relationship required this type of bond referred to as one flesh. And Barth is also correct in pointing out that celibacy is a divine calling. The point here is that celibacy is not better than marriage, nor is marriage better than celibacy. Jesus clearly sees the creation narrative as expressing God's will for humans. But He also is making the point that God gifts some individuals with the "'capacity' to find companionship of a different (it could never be the same) sort outside of marriage in the special kingdom works to which some are called" (Adams, 1980, pg. 9). Jewish tradition lost track of this truth, and prevaricated between embracing sexuality as good and distorting sexuality to the point that sexual drive is better expressed in the study of Torah than in fulfilling sexual desires, even within marriage. Jesus' teaching on marriage and divorce is in keeping with his focus on the dismissal of laws that placed a heavy burden on the people and that allowed them to avoid responsibility to those in need. It also represents a simplicity of thought. Henry Bowman puts it this way:

Jesus was not a lawgiver. He was a propounder of principle, an expounder of fundamental truth. Because of this, his teachings are characterized by a certain simplicity as compared with the complexities involved in formulating law. His major emphasis was placed on the human spirit, that is, the motives and attitudes underlying human action. He was more interested in the meaning of an act than in the act per se. He repeatedly penetrated behind a given statement, act, law, or practice to its significance for human personality. In neither his teaching nor his acts is human personality ever subordinated to legalism...He taught that all the important elements of the law could be expressed in two simply stated principles: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength...You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Mark 12: 30-31) (Bowman, 1954, pg. 60).

In the Matthew account of Jesus' teaching on marriage and divorce, a phrase, "except for immorality" appears in vs. 9. It does not appear in the Markian account. Recent thinking on this "Matthean exception" suggests that this may have been a piece of community legislation, perhaps added at a later time (Mann, 1986).

There is one more point that bears mentioning. For the rabbis, only a woman could commit adultery. For Jesus, adultery was possible for both men and women.

...whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her (Mark 10:11).

For the rabbis, this statement was probably as hard to accept as Jesus' statement on divorce and marriage.

Marriage and the New Testament Writers

As we turn to the New Testament writers, we find some mixed messages concerning marriage. For example, the Apostle Paul seemed to consider marriage with some degree of negativism.

...it is good for a man not to touch a woman. But because of immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband (I Cor. 7:1-2).

...I wish that all men were even as I myself am. (I Cor. 7:7)

But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn. (I Cor. 7:8-9)

Now concerning virgins, I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one who by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy. I think then that this is good in view of the present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you should marry, she has not sinned. Yet such will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you. (I Cor. 7:25-28)

...both he who gives his own virgin daughter in marriage does well, and he who does not give her in marriage will do better (I Cor. 7: 38).

It is important to note the cultural context in which these passages were written. Twenty years after the end of Jesus' earthly ministry, Paul appeared on the scene. He was born in the cosmopolitan city of Tarsus and brought up under the strict tutorage of the Pharisees. One day, on the road to Damascus, he was confronted by Jesus Christ, and suddenly he was converted from one of Christianity's most bitter enemies to one of its leaders. If it could be said that Jesus and his followers lived at a particularly turbulent time, it could also be stated that Paul saw times as even more potentially explosive. Little wonder, then, that Paul advises against marriage for the sake of the Kingdom and for the purpose of sparing his brothers and sisters from peril and trouble.

Early New Testament times were conflictual not only in the political sphere. We would miss the point indeed if we failed to realize that there was a conflict between pagan and Christian morality. Pagels (1989) points out that many converts, including Justin, Athenagoras, Clement, and Tertullian "all describe specific ways in which conversion changed their lives and those of many others, often uneducated, believers, in matters involving sex, business, magic, money, paying taxes, and racial hatred." Justin's comments represent this tremendous change that occurred:

We who ourselves used to have pleasure in impure things now cling to chastity alone. We who dabbed in the arts of magic now consecrate ourselves to the good and the begotten God. We who formerly treasured money and possessions more than anything else now hand over everything we have to a treasury for all and share it with everyone who needs it. We who formerly hated and murdered one another and did not even share our hearth with those of a different tribe because of their customs, now, after Christ's appearance, live together and share the same table. Now we pray for our enemies and try to win those who hate us unjustly so that they too may live in accordance with Christ's wonderful teachings, that they too may enter into the expectation, that they too may receive the same good things that we will receive from God, the Ruler of the universe (Justin, First Apology 14, quoted in Arnold, 1979).

In addition to changing their sense of political and social obligation, these converts changed the ways they thought about themselves, nature, and God. These new ways of thinking placed them in diametric opposition to the world system. When Paul penned the words,

...if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come...(II Cor 5:17),

these words meant that a person who accepts through faith a new relationship with God now possesses "nothing less than the fulfillment of God's eternal purposes in creation" (Hughes, 1962). Further, this new creature is in the process of being "renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him (Col. 3:10). I believe that Werner Foerster is shortsighted when he claims that "the decisive thing in the new creature, then, is not an alteration in man's moral conduct but the acceptance (in faith) of a new relation to God" (Foerster, 1965, pg. 1034). James clearly states that "faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself" (James 2:17).

The creation narrative states that humans were created in the image or likeness of God. Carlson (1978) lists several implications of this fact:

• Men and women were created with the capacity "to relate extensively with his fellow man..(with) one of the highest forms of fellowship...that of male and female (Carlson, 1978, pg. 15);
• Men and women are created with the capacity to increase in number;
• Men and women are created with the capacity to subdue the earth;
• Men and women are created with the capacity to rule or keep under control, the earth;
• Men and women are born with the capacity to relate to their Creator in a way that is unique to humankind. Carlson notes that Jesus speaks of His relationship to God as one where "the Father was always at hand to be consulted--anytime, anywhere". This type of closeness should characterize the relationship of men ans women with their God.

The Fall disrupted both the horizontal relationship with others as well as the vertical relationship with God. Each of the capacities listed above were distorted. With repentance comes restoration, although it is far from complete. Complete restoration must await the coming New Reign of God. But with whatever degree of restoration we have in Christ as new creatures, it must have consequences in our present circumstance. Becoming a new creature meant to the early Christians nothing less than a radical, transforming shift in lifestyle and world view that could be described in no other way. Further, this shift invaded every facet of existence, including marriage! This is why the Christian movement was so appealing to subsequent generations. And this is also why the Christian movement was so threatening to the world system and to the traditional Jews, whose viewpoints were turned topsy-turvy. In the face of this radical transformation, all bets were off concerning personal safety in this politically seething part of the world. Paul confirms this by stating that:

we are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not despairing; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed..for we who live are constantly being delivered over to death for Jesus' sake...(II Cor. 4:8-11).

From the perspective of Jesus' teaching concerning the new Reign of God, Paul's opinions and pronouncements should come as no great surprise. Jesus clearly foresaw bad times, and warned his followers repeatedly:

• Jesus agreed with his disciples when they claimed "it is better not to marry" (Matt. 19:10) and even praised "men who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:12);
• Jesus praised barren women (Luke 23:29), apparently implying that those without children would be the more fortunate ones;
• Jesus indicated that celibacy is a virtue in those who "are considered worthy to attain to that age, and the resurrection of the dead" (Luke 20:34-36);
• Jesus commanded his followers to not get entangled in worldly concerns, and to sell their property, and give to charity (Luke 12:33)
• Jesus asked his followers to go so far as to abandon family obligations if they wished to follow him (Luke 14: 26);
• Jesus acknowledged that his teaching would be in conflict with family relationships and marriage (Luke 12:49-53; 20:34-36).

Pagels (1989) summarizes the impact of Jesus on this first-century world in a precise way:

Unmarried himself, Jesus praised the very persons most pitied and shunned in Jewish communities for their sexual incompleteness--those who were single and childless; for Jesus' radical message of the impending Kingdom of God left his followers no time to fulfill the ordinary obligations of everyday life (Pagels, 1989, pg. 15).

Jesus thus overturns the very family obligations considered most sacred to traditional Jews. The coming New Reign of God requires total allegiance to Jesus, and that allegiance will disrupt natural relationships.

By subordinating the obligation to procreate, rejecting divorce, and implicitly sanctioning monogamous relationships, Jesus reverses traditional priorities, declaring, in effect, that other obligations, including marital ones, are now more important than procreation. Even more startling, Jesus endorses--and exemplifies--a new possibility and one that he says is even better: rejecting both marriage and procreation in favor of voluntary celibacy, for the sake of following him into the new age (Pagels, 1989, pg. 16).

The emphasis of the Apostle Paul concerning celibacy is consistent with the words of our Lord. Marriage may not be sin, but it certainly detracts from "undistracted devotion to the Lord" (I Cor.: 7:1-35). And for the married, Paul has words of advice that should come as no surprise:

But I say this, brethren, the time has been shortened so that from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none...for the form of this world is passing away (I Cor. 7: 29,31).

Pagels makes it abundantly clear that for both Jesus and Paul, their words "were not a reflection of sexual revulsion but a necessity to prepare for the end of the world, and to free oneself for the 'age to come'" and out of "urgent concern for the practical work of proclaiming the gospel" (Pagels, 1989, pg. 17).

The Apostle Paul goes one step further: he stated to the young churches that he saw the Church as Christ's "bride". He saw himself as a marriage-broker who was concerned for maintaining the purity of the bride, purity that could be compromised by doctrine and practices that de-emphasized the "simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ". Taken in the context of the world systems competing with Christianity, including traditional Judaism with its myriad of written and oral laws and commentaries, we might conclude that Paul was worried that the converts might leave the original Gospel teaching in its simple, pure form. However, it is possible that some Christians would take Paul's words literally, and choose to be celibate, based on the premise that their true bride was Christ, not a traditional husband or wife (cf., Pagels, 1989, pg. 18). The purpose of Paul's nuptial analogy of Christ and the Church, especially as elaborated in Ephesians, will be discussed later in greater detail.

So far, I have dwelt on the negative aspects of marriage as seen by the Apostle Paul. I believe this to be a legitimate focus concerning the cultural context in which Paul wrote and preached. However, in fairness to the Apostle, I now turn to some of the positive statements he made:

Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and do not be embittered against them (Col. 3:18-19);

...if any man aspires to the office of overseer...the husband of one wife... (I Tim. 3:1-2);

Let deacons be husbands of only one wife... (I Tim. 3:12);

But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods, which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected , if it is received with gratitude; for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer (I Tim. 3: 1-3);

I want younger widows to get married, bear children, keep house, and give the enemy no occasion for reproach (I Tim. 5:14);

Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord...Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her...For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh (Eph. 5: 22-31).

Once again, the ambivalent attitude toward marriage expressed by the Apostle Paul parallels the contrasting statements of Christ. The gift of marriage to a man and a woman is indeed affirmed; the severity of the times, and the importance of proclaiming the Gospel in what appeared to be a short time period simply took precedence. It is interesting how Paul, in the Timothy passage, condemns teachers who forbid marriage. Thus it can be implied that in no way did Paul ever give the impression to converts that he forbid marriage.

Pagels (1989) suggests that as the epistles were written to the various churches, Paul raised more questions than he answered.

Some Christians took Jesus and Paul at what they believed to be their word and preached the gospel message as liberation from all worldly concerns, especially from care for family and children, which preoccupied the majority of their contemporaries. Some of Paul's converts in Corinth, both men and women, enthusiastically embraced celibacy. Although Paul specifically had advised married Christians against unilaterally refusing marital relations (I Corinthians 7:2-5), some married Christians, prohibited by Jesus' command from divorce, chose to take Paul's advice ("Let those who have wives live as though they had none," (I Corinthians 7:29) as if, Paul, in fact, urged sexual abstinence within marriage (Pagels, 1989, pg. 18).

Pagels suggests that many young converts refused to marry, even when their families had prearranged it. They took the message of Jesus and Paul seriously. Thus, Paul's purpose in writing the positive passages on marriage was not only to present biblical doctrine, it served to clarify his position on the institution of marriage, and possibly correct some of the attitudes and behaviors of young converts. Bowman (1954) states that:

we must not conclude from what Paul wrote about marriage that he disapproved of it as an institution and would have done away with it if he could have done so. Each of his letters is addressed to a particular group of readers who lived under particular conditions and had particular problems. His primary concern was his readers' relationship to God and Christ. He was deeply disturbed lest the church be sidetracked by the events, affairs, and practices of the day, and thus not be prepared when the anticipated era dawned (Bowman, 1954, pg. 81).

Uppermost in Paul's thinking was that "the form of this world is passing away" (I Cor. 7: 29-31). With such a focus, little wonder the Apostle considered marriage as a less-than-top priority.

Leaving the Pauline epistles, we find in The Epistle to the Hebrews another positive expression of marriage:

Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge (Hebrews 13:4).

This writer reveals none of the consternation expressed by Paul, and in fact implies that God will see the believer through difficult circumstance:

I will never desert you, nor will I forsake you...The Lord is my helper, I will not be afraid. What shall man do to me? (Hebrew 13: 5_6).

Marriage and the Early Church Fathers

Pagels (1989) claims that within thirty to fifty years after Paul's death, Christians were divided on the issue of marriage and celibacy. Both camps used the same writings of Jesus and Paul: both insisted on their own interpretation of these writings. Probably the vast majority of Christians were content to take the middle ground, and let the warring factions battle over doctrine. But the Ante-Nicene and Post-Nicene periods provide us with abundant literature to assess the doctrinal differences. And the church to this day struggles with the interpretations of the role of sexuality and marriage in the believer's life.

Clement of Alexandria

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215), one hundred years after Paul's death, claimed that the ascetics misunderstood Paul. Clement argued that Jesus never intended his followers to follow in his footsteps:

the reason that Jesus did not marry was that, in the first place, he was already engaged, so to speak, to the church; and, in the second place, he was not an ordinary man (Pagels, 1989, pg. 26).

Further, Clement argued that Peter did not leave his wife to accompany "other apostles and brothers of the Lord" but traveled with his wife at church expense. Clement goes so far as to argue that Paul too was married, but left his wife at home so as not to be inconvenienced in his ministry.

Clement's views concerning sexual intercourse were interesting, to say the least. He rejected the claim by ascetics that the sin of Adam and Eve was to engage in sexual intercourse. He also rejected other ascetics' views that Satan invented sexual intercourse, borrowing this practice from "the irrational animals". Clement believed sexual intercourse was "part of God's original--and good--creation". In this sense, Clement lined up with the traditional Jewish thinking on the goodness of procreation, at least that thinking that occurred before the rabbis began to debate the subject. However, it should be noted that, for Clement, Adam and Eve's sin did take sexual form. Clement in Stromateis proposed that "Adam and Eve, like impatient adolescents, rushed into sexual union before they had received their Father's blessing" (Pagels, 1989, pg. 28; cf., Bigg, 1913). In essence, Clement believed that Adam was created an infant and that as an underage child, he "desired the fruit of marriage before the proper time" when he should have been content with childhood obedience. Thus Adam and Eve "fell into sin...because they were still young, and had been seduced by deceit".

If some of these views seem outlandish, consider Clement's ideas about desire. Christians must not only place reason ahead of desire, they must strive to annihilate it altogether. Clement wrote:

Our ideal is not to experience desire at all...We should do nothing from desire. Our will is to be directed only toward what is necessary. For we are children not of desire but of will. A man who marries for the sake of begetting children must practice continence so that it is not desire he feels toward his wife...that he may beget children with a chaste and controlled will (Pagels, 1989, pg. 29).

Here, Clement sides with traditional Jewish thinking by limiting sexual intercourse to specific procreative acts. Any couple who had sexual intercourse for any other reason did "injury to nature". Thus, oral and anal intercourse, intercourse with a menstruating, pregnant, barren or menopausal wife, and even intercourse with one's wife "in the morning", "in the daytime", or "after dinner" was "injury to nature". This injunction is carried one step further by the warning:

not even at night, although in darkness, is it fitting to carry on immodestly or indecently, but with modesty, so that whatever happens, happens in the light of reason...for even that union which is legitimate is still dangerous, except in so far as it is engaged in procreation of children (Pagels, 1989, pg. 29).

Here we see one of the most liberal of the church fathers who extolled marriage and sexual relations for the sake of procreation, and considered them as gifts from God, on the one hand, place such stringent boundaries around sexuality as to suggest that "chaste marriage" was an ideal. Clement preached that spouses who turn to celibacy can recover their virginity, which in turn allows them to recover the spiritual equality Adam and Eve lost through the fall. "Souls are "neither male nor female," when "they no longer marry nor are given in marriage," claimed Clement. Undoubtedly, Clement was influenced by Stoic philosophers, whose thinking in turn influenced Hellenistic Jewish culture (Biale, 1992, pg. 38). His thinking definitely embraces asceticism which originated in Eastern religions, as well as Gnostic concepts of good and evil as they relate to the spirit-flesh conflict. In fact, Clement of Alexandria is identified by Pearson (1972) and Hustin (1987) as a leading proponent of Christian Gnosticism. Clement put a great deal of stress on Greek philosophy in his teachings, and in fact states that Greek philosophy was a necessary preamble to Christianity. In Clement's eyes, Gnosticism was necessary to preserve the orthodox faith of the Apostles and that gnosis (religious knowledge or illumination) was the chief element in Christianity. Clement of Alexandria believed that ignorance and error were more fundamental evils than sin. His teachings certainly catered to the intellectuals.

Pagels (1989) suggests that this "doublespeak" regarding marriage prevails to this day, with most Christians content to live with the ambiguity. On the whole, Christians leaned toward the positive view of marriage as against the ascetic view, and they simply tolerated or ignored the hard sayings of radical renunciation. In all likelihood, as the years passed, and the coming of the New Reign of God was seemingly postponed, most Christians took the logical course of action open to them--they incorporated the positive aspects of marriage into what they considered to be a sanctified life. One can only speculate what would have happened if all converts had taken Jesus and Paul seriously and renounced marriage in favor of an ascetic life devoted exclusively to the spread of the Gospel message without the burden of family life.

Origen

Origen (c. 184-254), was a student of Clement and succeeded him as the head of the catechetical school in Alexandria. He was born into a Christian home and instructed in the scriptures as well as Greek literature. His father, Leonides, was martyred. This had a great impact on his life: he desired martyrdom as a victory over the Devil and to help in the perfection of love. He claimed that a proof of the truth of Christianity was that a Christian showed a contempt for death.

Danielou (1955) reports that even as a child, he was not content with the straightforward and obvious meanings of scripture. He lived in extreme asceticism and curtained sleep, devoting himself exclusively to the catechetical school. Taking literally the words of Matt. 19:22, and "partly to avoid possibility of scandal in teaching women catechumens, he made himself a eunuch" (Benko, 1984; Danielou, 1955). Afterward, he admitted that he had been wrong on this point. To Origen's credit, he lived his life based on the Gospel as he understood it.

Origen taught that virginity, lived under specific conditions, makes possible the union of Christ and the soul more possible. Virginity moves a Christian forward into the perfect marriage of Christ and the Church. Therefore, virginity was believed to be superior to marriage "because it already makes real what marriage imitates..." (Crouzel, 1989, pg. 137). Further, although Origen advocated chastity in marriage, he defended the state of marriage. Like Clement, Origen was very sensitive to the increased danger of sexual pleasure that could lead to idolatry. Origen was the first theologian to teach clearly the perpetual virginity of Mary. Justin and Irenaeus only hinted at it.

Origen was very critical of Marcion, who headed an heretical sect called the Marcionites, who imposed virginity and forbid sexual intercourse of all its members. Marcion required the married couples in his churches to separate. That was going too far. For Origen, the aim of bodily chastity was chastity of the heart. By this, he meant chastity of the intellect. He believed that if a chaste person thought unchaste thoughts, he was not chaste.

Origen became very controversial for his mystical theology. He believed in a form of universal salvation where even devils, through repentance, learning and growth, could be saved. He proposed that individuals advance from purgation to illumination to union with Christ. Yet he had his followers, notably Jerome and John Chrysosytom. He was branded a heretic at the First Council of Constantinople in 543 and again at the second Council of Constantinople in 553 (Hustin, 1987; Benko, 1984).

Jerome

Jerome (c. 347-420) was born in Stridon of prosperous Catholic parents. He spent in teen years in Rome where he was a student. He became associated with a famous group of ascetics at Aquileia who admired the teaching of Bishop Valerian. In 379, he moved to Constantinople and was ordained a priest. In 382, he returned to Rome where he promoted the ascetic life. In the Spring of 384, he wrote a letter to Eustochium, a young daughter of the recently widowed Paula, the head of a convent established in Bethlehem This letter placed a heavy emphasis on virginity and continence. He did not command virginity but he counseled it. He suggested that marriage had its place, so it was not condemned by the Church or by himself. But in his letter to Eustochium, who was identified as a nun, he emphasized the seamy side of marriage over the noble side of marriage.

You have, to be sure, learned from an example in your own family the sorrows of wedlock and the uncertainties of marriage. For your sister Blesilla, older in years but weaker in strength of will, after taking a husband became a widow in the seventh month. O unhappy mortal lot, so ignorant of the future! She has lost both the crown of virginity and the joy of marriage, and although she may keep the second degree of chastity, yet what torment do you suppose she endured every moment, seeing daily in her sister what she herself has lost? (Hieronymus, 1963, pg. 146-147).

I would not have you consort with married women. I would not have you visit houses of the distinguished. I would not have you see frequently what you disdained in your desire to be a virgin...Why do you, the bride of God, make haste to call on the wife of a mortal man?...Know that you are better than they....Avoid those also whom necessity has made widows. Not that they ought to wish for the death of their husbands, but that they should gladly seize an opportunity for chastity. But as it is, they change merely their dress; their former ruling passion is unchanged. (Hieronymus, 1963, pg. 147).

It is not disparaging marriage when virginity is preferred to it. No one compares evil with good. Let married women glory too, since they come second to virgins. (Hieronymus, 1963, pg. 150).

Eve was a virgin in Paradise. After the garments of skin her married life began...And that you may know that virginity is natural, and that marriage came after the offense: it is virgin flesh that is born of wedlock, restoring in the fruit what it had lost in the root. (Hieronymus, 1963, pg. 151).

I praise marriage. I praise wedlock, but I do so because they produce virgins for me. I gather roses from thorns, gold from the earth, the pearl from the shell. (Hieronymus, 1963, pg. 152).

Jerome believed that Paul did not teach virginity more strongly as a commandment from the Lord because virginity had more value when it was done voluntarily. Further, a command for virginity would be taken as a forbiddance of marriage, which was not Paul's intent.

Tertullian

Tertullian (c. 160-230), one of the greatest Western theologians of the patristic period, also embraced asceticism. He became a Christian about 190 A.D. and was a avid reader of philosophical, historical and Christian literature. He was impressed with the power of sin and the human's weak will to overcome it. The answer for Tertullian was for the believer to voluntarily sacrifice worldly pleasures, which he saw as exciting lust and impure emotions. By so doing, the flesh would be brought under control, and the believer would become victorious.

Tertullian believed that marriage lasted for eternity, which led him to advocate that spouses who lost their marriage partners should not remarry (which would impair the spiritual fellowship with the deceased spouse), and should daily intercede in prayer for the deceased, should celebrate annually the date of death,, and hope for a reunion after the resurrection (Schaff, 1950). The thinking that marriage is for eternity persists to this day, namely in the Orthodox traditions.

On the other hand, Tertullian regarded marriage in less than high regard.

He places the essence of marriage in the communion of flesh, and regards it as a mere concession, which God makes to our sensuality, and which man therefore should not abuse by repetition. The ideal of the Christian life, with him, not only for the clergy, but the laity also, is celibacy (Schaff, 1950, pg. 367-368).

Tertullian was concerned with the Church and its drift toward secularism, and sided with the Montanisic movement. Montanists had strong ascetic leanings, but were most noted for their view that the Holy Spirit provided new revelations for believers throughout history. They called themselves "pneumatics" or people of the spiritual church as opposed to the carnal Catholic Church. The Holy Spirit taught these pneumatic believers where Christ left off, and in fact, helped the believer interpret scripture. Since the Spirit operates in any age, Tertullian believed, New Testament writers, such as Paul, could be reinterpreted or in some cases ignored as irrelevant for later times. The Montanists argued that if Christ could abolish the law of Moses, why couldn't the Holy Spirit at a later time cancel the writings of an apostle. With respect to I Cor. 7:2, where Paul states that men and women should each have a spouse, Tertullian believed that the Apostle's frame of reference was Mosaic law which was not binding upon Christians. Later, when Paul embraces celibacy (I Cor. 7:40), Tertullian here states that this is not only from the Lord, it is also from the Holy Spirit who instructs believers day by day.

It is hard to believe how Tertullian could have so missed the point, with respect to Paul's teachings. It is true that Israelite tradition thought it prudent that every man should have a wife, and every wife should have a husband. In fact, they held to this ideal to the point that polygamy was probably rationalized as appropriate on the account that every woman would be accounted for in a family. It is also true that Tertullian was correct in his assertion that the Holy Spirit would be given to believers to teach them. Jesus told His disciples:

I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come (John 16:12-13.

But Tertullian simply misses the mark by saying that Paul's thinking was based on rabbinic traditions. Paul's statement is preceded by the preliminary statement, "Now because of immoralities...". Corinth was the center of heathen worship involving prostitution and fornication. For the typical Corinthian, sex was part of the pathway to salvation. Sex was connected as much to religion as to marriage. The problem was that some of the Corinthian Christians brought their heathen practices into their new life. On particular festivals, they would go back into the heathen temples to worship the goddess of fertility through fornication. It is because of this immorality spoken of in I Cor. 7:2 that Paul sets the boundaries around these Christians' sexual lives--each should be married. Marriage should replace the worship of other gods through fornication (Thieme, 1964).

The Influence of the Early Church Fathers

McCabe summarizes the Christian conception of marriage and the place of sexuality in one's life in this way:

The Christian idea undoubtedly was that pleasure of sexual intercourse was part of the curse which Adam's sin brought on the world, and that only the need to maintain the race justified men and women in experiencing it; that, moreover, such married men and women must be regarded as far inferior to the celibate, and they would have a less share of the joys of heaven (McCabe, 1917, pg. 64).

Winslow (1976) argues that the writings of the early church leaders may not represent an objective picture of what Christians in general thought about sexuality and marriage. Most were leaders such as bishops; very few were laypeople. It is Winslow's belief that the ecclesiastical hierarchy, where the father was placed at the top of the structure, is not likely to produce either balanced or genuinely representative views.

Pagels (1989) presents a picture of the early Christian church that helps us evaluate Winslow's assertion. Pagels reminds us that the spread of Christianity involved a proliferation of house churches in Asian and Greek cities, and more organized dioceses in other areas. Hierarchical leadership patterns emerged to oversee each group and to instruct and discipline its members. Pagels maintains that the sporadic persecution, as well as the concern over gnostic heresies and the desire to set Christianity apart from the pagan environment by living by an ethical system based on the Sermon on the Mount, led most Christians to accept the evolving leadership. Many churches were headed by strong personalities who were courageous and astute. These early writings reveal an immense amount of communication among its members and a desire to live exemplary lives. Most likely, the role of marriage, asceticism, celibacy as well as the nature of sexuality were often the subject of many discussions among the believers, both in informal groups as well as more formal meetings.

Winslow, however, does us a favor by reminding us that not everyone agreed with the leaders on these matters. Through these early years, their evolved a group of Christians who reacted against being told what to think and how to act. Pagels characterizes these believers as sincerely wanting to become spiritually mature or as desiring the "deeper life", in contemporary terms. They wanted higher levels of understanding which they called gnosis. Although alluded to in the New Testament, their actual writings were unavailable until the discovery of scrolls in the Egyptian desert in 1945. The study of these previously secret writings reveals that many lay persons and clergy were Gnostic Christians in Christian congregations. Their viewpoints were diverse and represented many schools of thought. The point is that Winslow is probably correct when he states that the early (orthodox) writings may not reflect representative views of everyone. Obviously they did not. But we have good evidence that laypeople tended to follow the leaders in doctrinal matters and lifestyle because of the cultural context in which they lived and the desire to lead exemplary and ethical lives in a dangerous environment.

A review of Gnostic interpretations of sexuality and marriage are beyond the scope of this study. The reader is referred to Pagels (1989) for an intensive review of the diversity of thought within Gnostic writings.

Was There Sexual Consciousness Before the Fall?

It is interesting to note that some of the early Church Fathers came to the conclusion that sexual relations were not a part of the one flesh relationship prior to the Fall. This seems surprising to many contemporary thinkers in light of what is known about Jewish thought concerning sexuality. As it has been noted, rabbinic Judaism did not have a high regard for celibacy, and since procreation was a commanded act, the Garden was thought by most scholars as the location of humankind's first sexual encounter. But for the early Church Fathers, the Garden of Eden narrative was more than a simple account of creation and the primeval world. It was also a metaphor of the world to come. Since the Christians believed that the next world was devoid of marriage, on the basis of Luke 20:27-40, it followed that the Garden was also devoid of marriage (and its attendant sexual relations) as well (Anderson, 1989).

This thinking perhaps became the most important basis of placing a negative spin on sexuality. Chrysostom believed that sexual relations had no part in Eden, and sought to refrain a friend from marriage by equating intercourse with the unsanitary: "...phlegm and blood, and humor, and bile, and the fluid of masticated food..." was equated with sexual emissions. Chrysostom also told his friend that "because having once allianced himself to Christ, to contract a marriage would be adultery" (Bainton, 1957). Origen took Matthew 19:12 literally, which speaks of making oneself a eunuch "for the sake of the kingdom of heaven." He castrated himself, claiming that "matrimony is impure and unholy; a means of sexual passion." He too claimed that Adam and Eve did not have sexual intercourse before the Fall. Gregory of Nyssa and John of Damascus stated that if Adam has been obedient to God, he would have lived forever in a state of virginal purity and some harmless form of vegetation would have peopled paradise with a race of innocent and immortal beings (Fielding, 1942).

Some early Christians in Syria saw themselves as preparing for a holy war. The preparation involved becoming consecrated and single-minded, and this single-mindedness involved singleness from a spouse, single in heart, and united to Christ alone. These Christians thought that sexual experience was dangerous, and based their thinking on a supposed connection between Eden and the Temple. Ephrem, who wrote Hymns on Paradise, a commentary on Genesis, viewed Eden as a mountain sanctuary (cf., Ezek. 28:14). The stones of fire, mentioned in Ezek. 28:14 were equated with the bdellium and onyx stones, mentioned in Gen. 2:11-12 and precious stones, mentioned in Exod. 28:17-20. In other words, these Christians perceived the imagery of the Temple and Eden as interchangeable. All that remained for them to do was to show how the sanctuary of Eden was profaned, and that was done by showing the sin of Adam as a violation of the laws of temple purity. They modeled Eden on the Temple, thus relating the tree of the knowledge of good and evil with the veil that separated the outer court from the holy of holies, the site of the tree of life. Adam began his life in a relatively impure state, so this reasoning goes, and had he persevered (as a good warrior), he would have been granted access to this inner realm. But Adam was impatient, and he desecrates the holy shrine of Eden. This Syriac tradition is consistent with the pre-rabbinic thinking found in the book of Jubilees--both show Adam's sin as violation of the purity laws. It is interesting how the rabbis rejected this thinking and made Eden a place of blessing and fertility while the Syriac Christians followed the standards of Levitical purity (Anderson, 1989).

The Creation narrative has Adam and Eve living in a total state of nudity. For many Church Fathers, some Jewish thinkers, and the Syriac Christians, the state of nudity would not necessarily have to denote sexual consciousness. The Interpreters' One Volume Commentary on the Bible (Layman, 1971) suggests that "nudity may be thought of here as a symbol for a mutually frank and honest self-giving, which is now impossible except rarely and imperfectly among young children." The commentary goes on to maintain that prior to the Fall, there was no sexual consciousness. "With the Fall, sex consciousness sprang to life and demanded that they be covered."

Coote and Ord (1989) agree:

Both were entirely unaware of their sexual differentiation at this point in time, and Yahweh intended that they remain this way, that they did not '"know". They were to enjoy a mutual helpfulness but not to engage in the divine prerogative of creating other human beings. That the introduction of heterosexuality was an afterthought of the god is also evident from the fact that Yahweh first brought the animals he created to the human to see if they would solve the problem of its being alone, and clearly there was no sexual purpose in this...Had they not eaten of the fruit, the possibility of mating and mating's entire social context would have remained latent.

Although evangelicals have reason to question several points of theology here, it cannot be denied that there is ample basis for claiming that there was no sexual consciousness before the Fall. The reasons given by Coote and Ord are these:

• No mention is made of Adam and Eve having a sexual relationship until after the Fall (Gen. 4:1);
• God sought a helpmate for Adam and first looked to the animals He created. Obviously, Adam could not have sexual relations with them;
• The consequence of eating the fruit involved a new awareness that was definitely sexual in nature. The fig leaves that were sewn together covered the "loins", not the head or the feet or other non-sexual portions of the body;
• "One-flesh" (Gen. 2:24) refers to one's personality and total being, not simply sexual relations. Symbolically, it relates to the creation of Eve from a part of Adam's body;
• Marriage is characterized primarily by companionship. Cleaving has more to do with a man and a woman bringing their different gifts in equal honor and equal service than it does a fleshly, sexual relationship.
• There is no record of Adam and Eve conceiving children before the Fall. Usually, we would expect a 95 percent chance of pregnancy within one year from unprotected sexual intercourse.

Not all modern-day scholars go along with the negative view of sexuality that relegates sexual relations to after the Fall. A number of arguments are advanced to refute the thesis that sexuality is the result of the Fall:

• God created Adam and Eve as whole, perfect mature beings with finely tuned bodies, complete with sexual organs, hormones, sexual drive, and an intact sensory apparatus. It is inconceivable that Adam and Eve could have avoided sexual arousal since sexual arousal is a result of sexual stimulation from a variety of sources, including touch. Since sexual drive is God-created, one could deduce that He intended that humans satisfy this drive in appropriate ways, and this could happen pre- or post-Fall.
• Adam and Eve had to be aware of the sexual coupling habits of the animals they were in charge of.
• The powerful sexual drive found in humans may be explained by the fact that "God created man and woman so that, having come from one flesh, they are strongly moved to become one flesh again." This explains why a man would leave the paternal protection of his parents and cling to his wife (Kelly, 1959).
• The Bible's silence on pre-Fall sexual relations must not be taken as an indication that there was none. Neither does the Bible describe in precise ways Adam and Eve's language, eating habits, sleeping habits, their need to cope with the elements, and so forth.
• God gave the command for humans to be fruitful and multiply (Gen. 1:28). This must involve sexual relations. The fact that Adam and Eve did not bear children before the Fall could be explained by the fact that the Fall came relatively quickly after Eve's creation.

A number of evangelicals hold to the theory that Adam and Eve had sexual awareness. Lewis Smedes is one:

God did not wince when Adam, in seeing Eve, was moved to get close to her. Male and female were created sexual to be sexual together. When Adam and Eve, Ish and Ishshah, clung together in the soft grass of Eden, wild with erotic passion, and finally fulfilled in their love, we may suppose that God looked on and smiled. It could not have entered God's mind that, when his two creatures were sexually aroused, they were submitting to a demonic lust...(Smedes, 1994).

William Kirwan adds to our understanding by reminding us that the creation of Adam and Eve, in God's image, means that they were partakers of the divine nature (II Peter 1:4) and that they were whole and fulfilled persons who enjoyed perfect harmony within themselves and in their relationship to God and to one another. The fact that they were naked and felt no shame can be in no way construed that they had no sexual consciousness.

From their first moments of consciousness Adam and Eve were able to view life and the world from God's perspective...The result was a totally secure self-image...That Adam and Eve's frame of reference was rooted in God's truth meant that they had an absolute knowledge of reality. As a result, they were able to formulate ideas and develop attitudes that were thoroughly sound (Kirwan, 1984).

It is Kirwan's thesis that Adam and Eve enjoyed absolute knowledge with the following characteristics:

• They felt no need to distort reality;
• They received all types of sensory input perfectly (by implication this includes sensual input);
• They enjoyed healthy attitudes (emotions and feelings toward each other);
• They had knowledge of possibilities, except in the area of evil or what the loss of the image of God and absolute truth would involve. In other words, they did not know all the results of disobedience.

At first glance, it would seem reasonable to suggest that if one holds to Kirwan's thesis, it seems highly unlikely that Adam and Eve could have been unaware of their sexual differentiation, unaware of sexual arousal, and unaware of their sexual self-identity. But possessing these qualities does not necessarily mean that they acted on them. The adequacy of their emotional, spiritual, and intellectual intimacy, plus the newly created job requirements as Garden-keepers, may have pushed sexual desire aside. Although this may have been the case, we still must grapple with what it means to be created in God's image or likeness.

Clifford and Joyce Penner clarify what is meant by being created in God's image:

Our image, as it reflects God and as it relates to sexuality, includes two dimensions: our sexual functioning and our functioning in relationship as a couple. Both of these functions grow out of our becoming "one" physically, spiritually, and emotionally (Penner and Penner, 1981).

They go on to point out that in God's blessing of his creatures, he said to them to be fruitful and increase in number, which is a sexual function. The Penners are clear in their viewpoint that God-given sexuality included sexual intercourse:

The perfect, sinless state of man and woman included sexual union, and this too was a perfect and beautiful part of God's creation plan--part of our being reflections of him, here on earth. The two of us grew up with the implicit view that sexual union occurred after man's fall into sin. Given our view of sexuality, there was no way God would be with Adam and Eve if they had been sexually involved. After all, we thought, sex is at least somewhat sinful, and thus God would absent himself if Adam and Eve were acting "like that"...The phrase, "becoming one flesh," refers to sexual intercourse. This becoming one also reflects our being created in his perfect image (Penner, and Penner, 1981).

Carlson (1978) states that when the Genesis Creation narrative speaks of the image of God, it speaks of the whole man as created in His image. The word salem (image) connotes similarity, resemblance, or correspondence to the original image. Carlson indicates that the context of Gen. 1:27-28 indicates that the following aspects are connected with image: maleness and femaleness, creativity (increasing in number), subduing (bringing the earth under control), and ruling (keeping the earth under control). The first aspect of maleness and femaleness indicates that man was created to have fellowship with woman. Only humans can relate extensively with other humans, and this relating is similar to how members of the Godhead relate. Each member of the Godhead has their own responsibilities, yet they are united and equal. Although Carlson does not address the matter of pre-Fall awareness of sexuality, it is clear that the fact that mankind was created in the image of God has definite implications to how they male and female would relate in each other's presence. It is reasonable to assume that on the basis of the aspects of differentiation and creativity, two features of being created in God's image, sexual awareness was built into humans at the beginning.

Tim LaHaye is another evangelical writer who argues for seeing Adam and Eve as sexual:

God is the creator of sex. He set human drives in motion...to bring them enjoyment and fulfillment...Man was unfulfilled in the Garden of Eden. Although he lived in the world's most beautiful garden, surrounded by tame animals of every sort, he had no companionship of his own kind. God then took some flesh from Adam and performed another creative miracle--woman--similar to man in every respect except for her physical reproductive system. Instead of being opposites, they were complementary to each other. What kind of God would go out of His way to equip His special creatures for an activity, give them the necessary drives to consummate it, and then forbid its use?...Adam and Eve knew no embarrassment or shame...for three reasons: they were introduced by a holy and righteous God who commanded them to make love; their minds were not preconditioned for guilt; and no other people were around to observe their intimate relations (LaHaye, 1976).

James Moore adds another positive note to the viewpoint that sexuality is positive:

The free enjoyment of sexuality is a central aspect of God's creation, given specific authorization by God. Any efforts to make the sexuality the source of our downfall, the seat of sin, are a distortion of the biblical view of creation. Sin is by no means rooted in sexuality, not even in unbridled enjoyment of sexuality, since sin is fundamentally a spiritual matter and has to do with our choices in relation to God and others...Sexuality is a good aspect of our experience, created by God in the balanced order of this creation, as every fiber of our sensitivity would tell us (Moore, 1987).

One of the most oft-quotes reasons given concerning Adam and Eve's lack of pre-Fall sexual awareness has to do with their nudity. Only after they sinned did they realize they were naked. When the Bible speaks of being naked, the term is used in several ways. The most obvious meaning has to do with physical nakedness and the lack of clothes (Matt. 25:36). Here, sexual shame would only be incidental to the nakedness, not the primary aspect of it. The second obvious meaning has to do with sexual exposure with its resultant shame (Gen. 9:20-27). There are two other aspects of nakedness that could be involved here: relational nakedness and spiritual nakedness. Carlson (1978) points out that since humans are created in the image of God, and hence are relational beings, they wanted to cover themselves for a relational reason--they were fearful because they were exposed, emotionally and intellectually to each other. Sin placed a barrier between them so they would not be able to know each other too well. Adams (1980) states it in this way:

...Moses refers to nakedness without shame. This, too, has been interpreted sexually (wrongly). The shame has to do with sin; since Adam and Eve were sinless, they were shameless. They were able to be perfectly open, transparent and vulnerable to one another. They had nothing to hide (Adams, 1980, pg. 17-18).

As mentioned before, Layman (1971) suggests that nudity may be considered a symbol for a mutually frank and honest self-giving. In the Genesis Fall narrative, nakedness has nothing to do with the lack of clothes, in the sense of physical nakedness due to poverty or want. I believe that sexual exposure and relational exposure is certainly implied in the account, but these facets of nakedness are not primary. They take second place to something far more basic and far more important.

Paul, in his second letter to the Corinthian church, gives us a clue concerning this nakedness:

...if the earthly tent which is our house is torn down, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For indeed in this house we groan, longing to be clothed with our dwelling from heaven; inasmuch as we, having put it on, shall not be found naked. For indeed while we are in this tent, we groan, being burdened, because we do not want to be unclothed, but to be clothed, in order that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. Now He who prepared us for this very purpose is God, who gave us the Spirit as a pledge. (II Cor. 5: 1-5).

Adam and Eve, as created in the image of God, had an eternal body which they lost when they sinned. Paul refers to this eternal body as life (vs. 4), a dwelling from heaven (vs 2) and a building from God (vs. 1). Before the Fall, they possessed knowledge of the limit God placed on them and the consequence of disobeying God, i.e., death (the loss of life). They also possessed knowledge implicit with the possession of their eternal, spiritual aspect of their personhood. After the Fall, this knowledge base was contracted to preclude at least certain aspects implicit in their eternal body. The major loss involved both self-knowledge as well as the knowledge requisite in our ability to love (cf., I Cor 13:9,12). Further, their knowledge base was expanded to include experiential knowledge of two types. Cognitively, they knew what it felt like to "lose a body", a spiritual and eternal body, that is. They knew what death, referred to by God in His command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, was all about. Emotionally, they experienced two new feelings for the first time: fear and shame. Standing naked with shame before each other, without a spiritual body to clothe them, was too much to bear. They rushed to sew together aprons of fig leaves to act as a substitute for their spiritual body they had lost (Gen. 3:7). Their fear and shame was so great that when they heard God as a wind in the Garden, the tried to hide from Him.

Note that in Paul's letter to the Corinthians, when we become believers, we do not receive the heavenly body back. We are not restored into an pre-Fall condition. The new creature, of which Paul speaks later in the Corinthian passage (II Cor. 5:17), possesses the Holy Spirit as a pledge of eventual complete restoration. The sin nature, at home in "the earthly tent", prevents complete restoration until our death. What we receive at salvation is justification through faith, peace with God, and "our introduction by faith into this grace" (Rom. 5:1-2).

But, as Paul states in his letter to the Roman church,

..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body...we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it (Rom. 8:23).

It is clear from these passages that Adam and Eve's nakedness was due to the loss of nothing less than their spiritual body, and had little to do with sexual awareness. I stated this last proposition very carefully, in that the nakedness had a sexual consequence (as well as an emotional and cognitive consequence). The pre-Fall relationship which Adam and Eve enjoyed would not be the same, in that distortion in all aspects of their personhood would be manifested. Sexual shame was but one of these manifestations.

Incidently, it is important to realize that the distortion mentioned above is primarily a "mind thing". By this I mean that our thought processes are twisted, almost hopelessly, so that it is difficult to see clearly ourselves, our marriage partner, our friends, and our God. Throughout the New Testament, and especially Paul's letter to the Roman church, the mind with its thoughts and feelings, and actions, are emphasized (Rom. 1:18-32; 7:22-25; 8:6-8).

Why is this question crucial in our discussion of sexuality, one flesh bonding, and marriage? If Adam and Eve did not have sexual desires and did not engage in sexual intercourse prior to the Fall, we might deduce, as many early Church Fathers did, that our sexuality is inherently negative and evil and tainted by distortion. Our sexual desires would then be seen as antithetical to spirituality and should be controlled or sublimated or even rejected.

On the other hand, if Adam and Eve enjoyed their sexuality to the fullest, as Smedes and other writers would have us believe, then we could say that our sexuality as created is positive, something to be enjoyed and celebrated. Our goal, then, would be to live out our sexuality within God's will, setting limits around its expression so that its purposes would have the best opportunity to fulfillment.

If Adam and Eve had no sexual consciousness before the Fall, can we necessarily assume that sex is evil? Not at all, according to The Interpreter's Bible. It suggests that sex is ordained by God so it can only be good (cf., Gen. 2:18;21-22). But it was infected by evil when humans in their desire for power had disobeyed God. Thus, the relationship between God and human was so impaired that the relationship between man and woman was thrown into disarray.

It is the thesis of The Interpreter's Bible that the true meaning of our sexuality unfolds throughout scripture, and that the records of Genesis were never meant to give us a definitive view of our sexuality. Thus, it is a mute point to try to gain a clear picture of our sexuality as created:

...its true meaning would unfold with the unfolding of the meaning of the universe as a whole...

Moore (1987) supports this view:

More than Genesis 1 is necessary to create a biblical understanding of the sexes...

Because biblical authors do not provide their readers with their thought processes when it comes to excluded material, there is no way of knowing for sure if any one element, such as sexual intercourse, was consciously excluded in the Genesis creation narrative. However, as Yee (1990) suggests, we can attempt to evaluate the degree to which that element would be consistent with the narrative as a whole as well as the entire biblical revelation on sexuality. This of course has been attempted throughout the ages. Some of our earliest commentaries on the subject from ancient Jewish sources reveals a remarkable degree of ingenuity with respect to the issue. For example, one scholar claimed that the snake had seen Adam and Eve engaging in sexual intercourse and developed a passion for Eve. Another scholar interpreted the Gen. 2:22 passage as a description of the first marriage ceremony. It is clear that the scholar's cultural mores were deeply embedded in his interpretation, since the fashioning of a woman from the rib (literally, building), was equated with God's adornment of the bride before the marriage (cf., Ezek. 16:10-13) and the bringing of the woman to Adam was equated with God acting as Adam's groomsman or sosbin. The precious stones of Eden (cf., Ezek. 28:13) was seen as an extraordinary huppa or bridal canopy under which Adam and Eve were married. This scholar adds a final touch to this interpretation by pointing out that by the time the snake arrives, Adam and Eve had made love and Adam had gone to sleep (Gen 3: 1-2). Although these early efforts to make sense out of the biblical texts appear to us to be ludicrous, I submit that many modern-day scholars are guilty of the same mistake of reading their own cultural preconceptions into the text.

Perhaps the question of Adam and Eve's sexual desires fades into insignificance as we acknowledge the impossibility of ever answering the question with a degree of certainty. Emotionally, we long for them to be sexual so we can rationalize the goodness of sexuality. Theologically, we want them to be sexual so we can define redeemed sexuality in light of created sexuality. Erotically, we need them to be sexual in the most fulfilling ways possible so we can label our own impulses as God-created, hence God-pleasing, even when they border on addictive behavior. Maybe our frustration will serve to drive us away from dependence on reason and theology, and toward a closer and deeper relationship with our Creator.

Reflections

Just as the rabbis reacted against the excesses of pagan societies, so too the early Christian Church was forced to find its way past the legalism of Judaism and the moral corruptness of Greece and Rome. I am impressed by the way cultures redefine immoral practices to suit the times or the situation. For example, in Roman culture, extra-marital sex was commonplace and was not considered adultery when it involved a household slave or prostitute. Concubinage was tolerated even by Augustine when the wife was barren. Take a moment to contemplate changes over the past fifty years in the North American society. Many things that were taboo fifty years ago are acceptable today, including divorce, illegitimacy and homosexuality. Even the terms become outdated. Today, we talk of family structure variations and alternate sexual preferences and lifestyles.

I am also impressed by the interlinkage between the decline of social structure and the change in moral values. Consider how political and social changes influenced legislation which in turn influenced more political and social change. Change does not occur in a vacuum. What effect does social legislation have on morality? What effect does morality have on changing legislation? What should be a Christian response to declining morality? Changed legislation or changed lives? These are complex issues and they are not easily thought about.

Realize that the Church today faces the same complex cultural situation that the early Church faced. In its strong reaction against the prevailing culture, it became off-balanced in its perspective on sexuality. The 20th century North American Church has inherited this off-balance stance to a great extent. Faced with hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty, the youth of the Church have forged a path that accommodates the license and tolerance of the sexually freed to the point that there is little difference between the sexual behavior and attitudes of churched and unchurched young people.

How tolerant are you toward the cultural norms of this decade? How tolerant are you toward alternate social structures such as divorce, single-parent families, homosexuality, heterosexual cross-dressing, just to name a few? What will it take before tolerance becomes intolerable?

I hope that it has become crystal clear in your thinking of the importance of considering the cultural milieu when you interpret the scriptures. In the sections on the teachings of Jesus and the New Testament writers, I went to great lengths to show how this information helps us interpret passages on marriage and sexuality. To what extent has your thinking been changed by reading this chapter? To what extent have you distorted scripture? What specific areas of your own sexuality might you want to reflect on in the coming weeks that might have been subjected to distorted scriptural interpretation?

One final thought. As I struggle to understand the thoughts of the early Church fathers, I am reminded that they sought to keep the purity of the faith against significant forces of change. I cannot question their motives. They not only had the challenge of living Christ-like lives in a pagan, morally crumbling society, they also had to live within a transforming Church that moved towards an ecclesiastic organizational structure as well as a society that reflected philosophies that emphasized reason and logic. For Montanists, the leaders of the Catholic Church were seen in opposition to the free-working Spirit. What started out as a legitimate concern--keeping the original faith of the apostles--gradually evolved into a sect which became increasingly narrow, legalistic and divisive. How are you coping with the challenge of fleshing out a vital, growing faith in the midst of the organized church and a fast-developing post-Christian society? Has your development of a personal perspective on sexuality reflected the tensions mentioned above? What are you doing to avoid problems when reason overpowers spirituality, performance becomes more important than grace, and structure and program pushes faith and waiting on God to the side?

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/BDFMChap3.htm> (last updated 20 April 1998).

Go to Top

Go to Index

Go to Biblical Design for Marriage Chapter 4