Marital rape

There are arguments for and against the proposition that a husband can rape his wife. The disagreements are, in part, over what the phrase actually means. When one asks if a husband can rape his wife there are several different questions one could be asking.

1. Is a man able to force his wife to have sex against her will?
2. Does sex with one’s wife against her will constitute rape?
3. Does marriage give a man permanent consent to sex with his wife?
4. Is a wife permitted to refuse to have sex with her husband?
5. May a husband override his wife’s refusal of sex?
6. Should the state legislate marital rape laws?

All these are related but distinct questions. They are questions that might be assumed but not articulated when discussing the issue of marital rape. Throughout I am discussing the situation of a husband physically forcing his wife to have sex while she is trying to prevent him. Similar responses would relevant for a wife physically forcing sex with her husband against his will, although that would seem to be an uncommon situation.

Question 1 may be what some people mean by the question: Can a husband rape his wife? Many men are physically capable of forcing sex on a woman when she is unwilling, and that remains the case in marriage. If a wife absolutely refuses sex with her husband, it is the case that many husbands would be physically capable of forcing coitus. Question 1 is obviously true. It is in the other questions where the debate really lies.

In Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, Paul argues that in matters of sex, the husband and wife no longer retain dominion of their own bodies. Husbands are not to refuse wives and wives are not to refuse husbands.

The husband must fulfill his obligation to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but her husband does. And likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but his wife does. Do not defraud one another, except perhaps by agreement, for a time, in order that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and then you should be together again, lest Satan tempt you because of your lack of self control. (1Co 7:3-5 LEB)

That Paul is commanding this to the husbands and wives means that there is a possibility that a spouse may refuse sex. Paul states that refusal is forbidden, moreover that the refusal of sex is fraudulent behaviour towards one’s spouse. But note who the command is given to: the command is given to the husband to fulfill his obligation and the wife to fulfill hers. There is no command that states that if a husband or wife refuses then the other is entitled to force the non-compliant spouse. The question of forcing sex is not being addressed by Paul here, rather the question of refusing sex. A wife could wrongly refuse sex and a husband could, in response to being wronged, wrongly force it. And it would seem from elsewhere in the Bible that obtaining what one is otherwise entitled to by force can be wrong. The principles of laying down one’s life for another, of loving to our own detriment, of fighting battles for others and asking God to fight our battles, of turning the other cheek; these biblical principles are all consistent with not forcing sex when a spouse wrongly refuses it.

So why does Paul give these commands to the Corinthians? Because they were needed. Men and women in Corinth may have been refusing sex to their spouses—though possibly out of a pious motive of a perceived heightened spirituality. Of course this is not true piety, it is not more spiritual to break one’s marriage vows however pious one claims to be otherwise. The Pharisees excused a son’s obligations to his parents if he offered service to God instead. Jesus rebuked false piety and noted that it is in fact rejecting God’s commandment (Mark 7:9-11). Marriage is a commitment between one man and one woman for life with sexual fidelity. As such, marriage vows are an agreement to be both only and always sexually faithful to one’s wife. In modern parlance, marriage vows are a permanent consent to sex with one’s spouse.

This is why the terminology of “rape” is so difficult to apply. How do you apply an idea about consent, or lack thereof, in a situation where permanent consent has been vowed? The idea that a spouse can consent, or not, to sex on a daily or hourly basis in antithetical to marriage vows. The question of marital rape is asked in a language (or culture) of consent whereas the Bible has a language of sexual fidelity. Sex outside of marriage is wrong regardless of the amount of consent given by both parties. And sex inside of marriage is what has been vowed. The whole question of marital rape would seem absurd to many women in ancient times. “What do you mean you refuse to have sex with your husband because you don’t want to?”

Is polygamy acceptable or not?

The question of whether a man may take a second (or third...) wife is arising more frequently in our culture. Islam teaches a man may have up to 4 wives at a time. The Bible has multiple examples of polygamous relationships. Yet throughout Christendom since early in its inception the propriety of monogamy has been taught.

The question is actually quite a complex one. So I will first make the case for monogamy followed by the case for polygamy.

When asked about divorce Jesus points to creation (Mat 19). His reference to God making man and woman is foundational to all questions of marriage and relationship.

So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them. (Gen 1:27)

and

Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” ...So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said,

“This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man.”

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. (Gen 2:18,21-25)

Jesus specifically quotes that God made male and female, that the man is to leave his parents and that they are to be one flesh. There is much that can be taken from these passages in Genesis.

1. Marriage is instituted by God
2. Marriage is to be between a male and a female
3. Marriage is to be between 2 people
4. Marriage addresses the problem of being alone
5. God made the man before the woman (leadership, 1Ti 2:13)
6. God made the woman from the man's side (joint dominion, Gen 1)
7. The nuclear family is primary, and the marriage covenant supersedes filial bonds
8. Marriage is permanent
9. Becoming one flesh through coitus is part of marriage
10. Becoming united in relationship is fundamental to marriage

Jesus emphasises 1, 2, 7, 8, and 10.

For our purposes here we see that marriage is between 2 people which argues that monogamy is the antelapsarian situation. Polygamy is only potentially permissible for fallen man.

The first mention of polygamy is that of Lamech. It is incidental to the narrative. Lamech kills a man and pronounces vengeance for himself. He does so in the pattern of God protecting Cain. Cain rightly feared for his life as he had murdered his brother. God put a mark or sign on Cain to let men know that God would take vengeance seven-fold if they killed Cain. Lamech, a descendant of Cain, in his pride claimed vengeance 77-fold were any man to kill him for murdering another. It is mentioned that Lamech had 2 wives. It is difficult to make much of this other than noting that Lamech was otherwise a wicked man.

There are several examples of multiple wives throughout Scripture. It is often claimed that these are universally negative examples which point to polygamy being a bad institution. Some of the examples are indeed negative but it is not clear that they all are. Moreover, negative examples may be more likely to be identified because of strife. Nevertheless, the stories of Sarah and Hagar, of Rachel and Leah, of Peninnah and Hannah, warrant careful consideration.

Polygamists mentioned in Scripture include: Abijah, Abraham, Ahab, Ahasuerus, Ashur, Belshazzar, Benhadad, Caleb, David, Eliphaz, Elkanah, Esau, Ezra, Gideon, Jacob, Jehoiachin, Jehoram, Jerahmeel, Joash, Lamech, Machir, Manasseh, Mered, Moses, Nahor, Rehoboam, Saul, Shaharaim, Simeon, Solomon, Zedekiah.

Additional to the implications of the creation narrative, we have God warning kings against multiplying wives excessively (Deu 17:17). Solomon being the paragon who both disregarded this command to an extreme measure, and who was drawn away after several foreign gods just as was warned.

Polygamy therefore was never intended to exist before the Fall and has had negative implications on many occasions. Even so, the Bible does not treat it universally as wrong. It is not necessarily immoral.

God commands the Levirate marriage which may entail taking a second wife (his brother's widow). The Mosaic Law has provision for second wives. And God told David that he would have given him more (2Sa 12:8); this may have included more wives. However God still said that David's adultery with Bathsheba was obscene. David's situation should give our own culture pause: we who would condemn a polygamist more than an adulterer.

The Levirate marriage is mentioned in the Mosiac Law although it antedates the Law: note the case of Tamar. The Law states,

If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead man shall not be married outside the family to a stranger. Her husband's brother shall go in to her and take her as his wife and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her. And the first son whom she bears shall succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel. (Deu 25:)

Here the levirate marriage is commanded of a brother if his sister-in-law becomes a childless widow. That is, a man is told that the right thing to do in such a situation is to take a second wife. The reason being to provide children to his brother's widow and they will be counted as his brother's offspring. So the principle one can derive from this passage is that taking a second wife can, in at least one situation, be an act of mercy. It is the right thing to do. It is important to note that this situation may arise in a fallen world, but was not relevant in the antelapsian world.

Monogamy was God's design when he created the world. It fallen world, polygamous relationships may be  merciful.

Saved through childbearing

The interpretation of "saved through childbearing" in Paul's first letter to Timothy is enigmatic with a surplus of suggestions as to its meaning. Is Paul talking about Eve here, or a woman, or all women? Why does he change from the singular to the plural? Paul writes,

Likewise also the women should adorn themselves in respectably, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or expensive clothing, but with good deeds which are fitting for women who profess godliness. A woman must learn in quietness with all submission. But I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve, and Adam was not deceived, but the woman, because she was deceived, came into transgression. But she will be saved through childbearing, if they continue in faith and love and holiness with self-control. (1 Timothy 2)

A common interpretation is to see the salvation through childbearing to be a reference back to Eve, and then incorporating all women if they continue in faith, love and holiness with self-control. The childbearing would refer to Eve being the ancestor of Jesus and the promise of deliverance in the curse on the serpent. That Eve will be saved (future tense) seems slightly unusual although it may be that this is used because of its application to other women that Paul then makes. But why just women? Surely men are also saved through Jesus and must continue in faith.

The following is a possible solution. The Greek word gyne is usually translated "women" in this passage. Were the term to mean "wife" in this context this could modify how we read Paul here. The passage would read,

Likewise also wives should adorn themselves in respectably, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or expensive clothing, but with good deeds which are fitting for wives who profess godliness. A wife must learn in quietness with all submission. But I do not permit a wife to teach or to exercise authority over her husband, but to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve, and Adam was not deceived, but [his] wife, because she was deceived, came into transgression. But she will be saved through childbearing, if they continue in faith and love and holiness with self-control.

Thus when Paul talks of "saving through childbearing," he may be referring back to this sentence: "I do not permit a wife to teach or to exercise authority over her husband". If so, then it makes sense for him to use the singular "she": the wife of her husband. But when Paul adds the qualification to continue in faith, this qualification refers to all wives, not the exemplar wife Paul was specifying in his original instruction.

What does Paul mean by saved through childbearing? Childbearing may well be a synecdoche for raising children. The curse in Genesis is likely a synecdoche as conception is hardly painful. That is, a wife can and will be saved in the role of motherhood even if such a role may seem less prominent in the church. Of course a wife who raises children must still remain faithful to Christ in that role and Paul specifies this.

An egalitarian interpretation of the woman's curse

The first 3 chapters of Genesis profoundly impact on the rest of Scripture. Many discussions of other passages of Scripture hinge on what Genesis means. Previously I have written on the curse placed on the woman in Eden. The conclusion was that the curse could mean

1. Your desire is against your husband [curse] but he is to lead you [right action]; or
2. Your desire will be against your husband [curse] and he will dominate you [curse].

With the first seeming more likely.

This is based on the parallel between the phraseology in Genesis 3 and 4.

To the woman he said,

“I will greatly increase your pain in conception;
in pain you shall bear children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you.” (Genesis 3)

And Yahweh said to Cain,

“Why are you angry, and why is your face fallen?
If you do well will I not accept you?
But if you do not do well,
sin is crouching at the door.
And its desire is for you,
but you must rule over it.” (Genesis 4)

Others have pointed to the use of "desire" in Canticles.

I belong to my beloved,
and he desires me!

This is a positive use of the term desire, though desire need not be intrinsically positive. The context can show whether a term is positive or negative, as seen by the use in Genesis 4. But if "desire" is being used in a positive sense in Genesis 3, how can we make sense of it?

If the passage should be translated, "Your desire will be toward your husband", then the curse is in him ruling over her in a way that was not intended. Taking a cue from Canticles: the man desires his wife. It may be prior to the Fall that man desired his wife much in the way that Solomon desires the Shullamite. Canticles is an example of the pre-Fall situation. God created man to desire his wife and a wife to desire her husband. The curse is then the change in attitude of the man from desiring his wife to dominating his wife, all while she maintains her desire.

“I will greatly increase your pain in conception;
in pain you shall bear children.
Your desire will [continue to] be for your husband,
and he [will no longer desire you but instead he] shall rule over you.

This interpretation is more egalitarian.

Although this interpretation is worth contemplating, there are a couple of potential difficulties.

1. The curse on the woman is God forming a sinful attitude in the man.
2. Men seem to desire women generally, and sexual desire in a man for his wife may be greater than her sexual desire.

The first is of some concern as it could suggest that sin in more of a male problem. It is not uncommon in the modern West to blame men for their failings as being intrinsic to them, and to excuse women for their failings as being reactions to sinful situations extrinsic to them. While external factors do come into play, externalising our failures and not acknowledging them as our sin is unbiblical. Also, by making the problem one of a husband's domineering attitude it may imply that difficulties within marriage are predominantly due to husbands.

The second is not so much concerning but rather it does not seem to match reality. Men often (though not always) sexually desire their wives more than the other way around. To resolve this one could argue for a desire of women to be cared and protected. This may be true but it removes the connection to Canticles which has a strong romantic and sexual overlay.

Husband help

While men can be unobservant to a fault, their wives can have unreasonable expectations and they can find the negative in genuine attempts at helpfulness. Ingratitude will make a husband believe that while he needs to be kind, at times it does not seem to be worth it. Here is some (increasingly difficult) suggested advice.

Wives, if you are expecting to do a job and your husband does it for you; don't complain, be grateful.

If he completes the job

• Don't complain that he did not do the job the way you would do it;
• Be grateful that you do not have to do the job.

If he does not do the job to your standards

• Don't complain that the job is substandard;
• Be grateful the job is essentially done and can be quickly spruced up.

If he doesn't finish the job

• Don't complain the job is incomplete;
• Be grateful that there is a smaller job to do than otherwise.

If he creates as much work as he saves

• Don't complain that he created work for you, he didn't;
• Be grateful he is wanting to help.

If, in the unlikely scenario, he creates more work than he saves

• Don't complain about all the work he caused you;
• Be grateful he made a gesture;
• And if this happens on a regular basis, let him know at an appropriate time that he may be better suited to other tasks.

And whatever you do, don't ask a man to do a job for you while he if actively doing it.

Does marrying early help avert the sins of pornography use and fornication

Doug Wilson has written a somewhat controversial post, 7 Reasons Young Men Should Marry Before Their 23rd Birthday. Though I don't necessarily agree with everything he has said, I think the principles behind it are sound. I would like to give my take on a few of his claims (though Wilson may not agree with how I have read him).

The distinction between gift of celibacy and the gift of singleness is probably important: a man with the gift of celibacy is not distracted by women.

Concerning the issue of age. I do not think Christians should approach marriage the way that Wilson recommends. I think we should be more circumspect and place more emphasis on prayer and hearing God in the situation. That said, we need to consider the situation Christians find themselves on a population basis. When are they marrying and why? What are their relationships like prior to marriage? Do they differ from their secularist friends? Are they subsequently divorcing?

It may be that Christian men should marry younger on average. Yet even if this were true this would apply to the group, there would be plenty of individuals who for specific reasons would marry later (and earlier) than average. The church can give general teaching on the nature of marriage and general principles and at the same time, give advice on learning to hear from God in their own situation. What this means is that (specific) people who marry significantly older than the average for good reasons are not an argument against the proposal that Christians (generally) may be waiting too long for marriage.

Something that may suggest people are waiting too long is how they are behaving. The Bible is clear that sex outside of marriage is wrong yet way too many Christians are fornicating. Now adultery is a much more serious sexual sin than extra-marital sex. And God can forgive fornication. Even so, it is a sin, a serious one, and one that Christians should not minimise, especially in the defence of other good things that people desire such as education and work. If the percentage of Christians marrying as virgins is low then perhaps the age of marriage may be part of the issue. Paul after all did write

because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. (1Co 7:2-3)

and

To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion. (1Co 7:8-9)

So if a person is being tempted to have sex, or is even having sex, then Paul says it is preferable to be married. Arguments about needing to finish university, or having enough money, and many other important things, and largely irrelevant in this context. If you are old enough to be having sex you are old enough to be married, and if you are too young to be married you are too young to be sexually active (not physically, morally).

Which brings us to Wilson's comments on pornography.

The temptations of porn do not disqualify men for marriage. Rather they qualify men for marriage. God has a solution for sexual temptation for those not gifted with celibacy. That gift is called sex, bounded and surrounded with covenant vows.

He expands this in the article though one needs to read more Wilson if he disagrees with him here. Not that reading more may convince him otherwise, just that he will better understand Wilson's position.

Reading through the comments reveals significant misunderstanding of Wilson here. When Wilson says this about a consumer of porn

If a man despises women, hates his mother and sisters, and seeks out the kind of porn that specializes in degrading women, then no one should be surprised that marriage will fix nothing. Something else is wrong with him

he is talking about a person with a specific problem and is not talking about the pornography industry. Of course the industry is degrading and despising of women. But not every man who has seen or used pornography is as depraved as the industry or the hardcore consumer. This is not a defence of the mildness of porn, porn is dangerous and the industry is diabolical. It is saying that people are on a scale and the use of pornography, while always wrong, may be for mixed reasons. One of those reasons is we are sexual and struggle with our sexuality. Porn is an illegitimate outlet for this. Paul says that marriage is a legitimate outlet for this. (I think that refraining from sexual urges when not married makes it easier over time to be self-controlled, and indulging them—including using pornography—makes it harder. Porn feeds intemperance.)

Marrying early may help avert the sins of pornography use and fornication. There are other things to be considered but idea should not be overly contentious.

Judah and Tamar

The story of Judah and Tamar raises questions for some Christians. The story itself seems a little unusual to moderns, and others have wondered why Tamar is called righteous, especially when engaging in prostitution.

The story is in Genesis 38 and is worth a read if you have not read it before or are not particularly familiar with it.

Briefly, Judah marries and has 3 sons. He finds a wife, Tamar, for his eldest son Er who is put to death by God for his wickedness before they have children. Tamar marries the next son who refuses to conceive children as any children through Tamar will be regarded as Er's brothers offspring not his, and God kills him also. Then Tamar is sent back to her father until the youngest son is old enough to marry her. Judah does not give the youngest to Tamar for fear he would die as well. Judah's wife dies. Tamar disguises herself and Judah has sex with her thinking she is a cult prostitute. On learning of Tamar's pregnancy Judah orders her execution, which is stayed because Tamar proves Judah is the father.

The story is more detailed and more dramatic than my brief summary. I wish to draw out some issues that I think helps understand this story. I used to think that Tamar's behaviour was wrong, just less wrong than Judah's; now I am more inclined to defend Tamar's actions.

Dealing with Judah's sons Er and Onan firstly. We are not told of the sin of Er, not that it matters greatly. God put him to death for his wickedness. As God is the ultimate judge; all human judges gaining their authority from him. If Er's actions warranted death in God's sight then he deserved death. And if God enacted that judgment then so be it.

The idea that a man had children for his deceased childless brother thru the widow appears to be an ancient custom. Moses describes the laws surrounding this situation in Deuteronomy 25 though this is over 200 years later. In cultures for much of history, and especially thousands of years ago a woman relied on her father for protection and provision. On marriage this responsibility passed to the husband. Now one's identity was strongly related to his family: posterity for men and raising children for women. A widow is left without protection and support. Childless women carried the shame of their condition, raising children being the focus of her role in society. Children also provided for one in his old age. So a childless woman has the shame of childlessness (though maybe not to the same extent as infertility), no child to help support her as she ages, and no husband to protect or provide for her at the time. This left her particularly vulnerable.

The brother in such society was to marry the widow. This immediately gave the widow provision that she lacked, but also the promise of children. The first child (or children) would be considered as a descendant of the deceased husband so as to preserve his name in future generations. The brother was able to take his own wife and have his own family. Of course some of his income would go to support his brother's widow. Note that Judah describes the marrying of a widow as a duty.

Then Judah said to Onan, "Go in to your brother’s wife and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother."

While Onan took Tamar as his wife, his refusal to enable her to conceive was both an affront to Tamar as she was unable to be a mother, and an affront to his dead brother as he would be left without posterity. It was a very harsh situation. Essentially there was no other option for Tamar, as long as Onan was alive Tamar was unable to remarry yet she would stay childless and Er may remain without remembrance. I tend to think God was probably more concerned with Onan's mistreatment of Tamar than Er's sin. Onan's sin entailed significant mistreatment of others and for such wickedness God put him to death. We see elsewhere in Scripture God's great concern for the defenceless such as widows and orphans.

After Onan's death Tamar was now free to remarry and the duty now fell to Judah's next son Shelah. Apparently Shelah was too young and Judah sent Tamar back to her father. The real reason is that Judah feared for Shelah's life. A question is raised as to how old was Shelah and was he really too young. More importantly was it right for Judah to send Tamar back to her father. I am uncertain as to whether Judah should have taken responsibility for Tamar and provided for her in his own house. This seems possible based on the comment that Judah feared for Shelah, that is, sending her away alleviated Judah's fears.

Judah failed to give Shelah to Tamar when Shelah was of age. This is mistreatment of Tamar by Judah; she is in the same situation as when she was with Onan: unable to remarry (as pledged to Shelah) and unable to have children. Tamar's solution is to goes up to meet Judah in disguise. It is uncertain whether Tamar intended to appear as a prostitute in order to have sex with Judah, or whether she responded to his request for sex.

When Judah saw her, he thought she was a prostitute, for she had covered her face. He turned to her at the roadside and said, “Come, let me come in to you,” for he did not know that she was his daughter-in-law. She said, “What will you give me, that you may come in to me?”

The text may read that he thought she was a prostitute because of the veil. However it possibly just implies that he thought she was a prostitute because she was sitting at the entrance to Enaim and he did not recognise her because her face was covered with a veil. Judah's friend Hirah calls her a cult prostitute (qedeshah).

Tamar takes a pledge then leaves before Judah can redeem it. Tamar dresses like a widow again. Judah finds out she is pregnant and demands she be burned. Tamar was betrothed to Shelah so getting pregnant is proof of adultery. This was punishable by death. Adultery is a more serious crime than sex outside of marriage or prostitution by a woman who is not betrothed or married. The request for death by burning seems a little excessive by Judah. It is prescribed in Leviticus 21 for daughters of priests who become prostitutes, possibly because priests are to be holy.

Tamar returns the pledge to Judah making him aware the child is his. Then we hear this interesting comment by Judah

She is more righteous than I, since I did not give her to my son Shelah.

This is not necessarily claiming Tamar is righteous, the comparison is with him. Judah is acknowledging that his behaviour is worse than Tamar's. Judah is not claiming that he is indeed righteous, thus he need not be claiming that Tamar is either.

Nevertheless, I think Tamar's choice may be acceptable, and if not the best decision, surely an understandable response of a desperate woman. A key to understanding this episode is that Tamar's behaviour with Judah had nothing to do with sex. It was that from Judah's point of view, but for Tamar it was merely the means for her to gain the status and responsibility that she had failed to obtain; first because of her wicked husband, then because of her wicked brother-in-law, then because of her fearful and unfaithful father-in-law. It was right that Tamar be treated righteously, yet she wasn't. Perhaps she should have let God fight for her as we learn elsewhere in Scripture, but interestingly we have a Canaanite woman who acts honourably in all her dealings yet is mistreated by the people who worship the true God. The fact that Tamar secured her own rights is of less concern.

Judah makes right his failure to give Shelah to Tamar. He takes Tamar into his own house and provides for her and her children (she had twins), though does not lie with her again. Tamar now has both provision and children, she is honoured by her posterity (Rut 4:12), and she becomes an ancestor of the Messiah (Mat 1:3).

Was Mary a perpetual virgin?

Catholic doctrine and many church fathers believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. That Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus is explicitly documented in the Bible and is universally believed by Christians. The doctrine of perpetual virginity is early but more contentious. It is defended by appealing to its wide support in the early church and for many years, even believed by some protestants such as Luther, Zwingli, and Wesley.

It is claimed that Mary took a vow of perpetual virginity and that a guardian was appointed her, an old widower who would marry her but not consummate the marriage. Thus Joseph was betrothed to her then married her but never consummated the marriage. Jesus' brothers were either his half brothers through Joseph, or Jesus' cousins.

Biblically the defence is much weaker. The relevant verses are

but [Joseph] knew her not until (ἕως) she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus. (Matthew 1:25)

And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?” (Luke 1:34)

When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home. (John 19:26-27)

Matthew is interpreted to mean Joseph did not know her before the birth and thenceforth. Luke is read as a vow of perpetual virginity. John is read as implying Mary had no other sons therefore Jesus handed his responsibility for his mother to John.

I hold tradition in some regard but hold Scripture higher. I think the verses espoused as proof of Mary's ongoing virginity as weak, and other verses suggest otherwise. Dealing with the above verses first.

Matthew 1:25 is usually translated as until. Most versions do this. Some argue that a translation such as

but [Joseph] knew her not before she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus. (Matthew 1:25)

is allowed. "Until" implying that Joseph abstained from sex prior to but not after the birth, whereas "before" only makes claims of abstinence up until to the birth and doesn't imply anything about their conjugal activity after the birth. The problem with this is even if we accept a translation using a more neutral preposition, the context implies sexual activity after the birth. Coitus is so connected to marriage that it is assumed without any information. For coitus to not be part of marriage requires an explicit denial. For there to be no sex would require the sentence to say

but [Joseph] knew her not before she had given birth to a son; nor did he know her after the birth of her son. And he called his name Jesus. (Matthew 1:25)

Such a situation is so unusual that further clarification may be given along the lines of

and Joseph knew Mary not for their entire marriage, Mary remaining a virgin until her death.

As to the Lukan passage, there is nothing suggesting this is a vow. And the context reads that Mary cannot conceive because she is a virgin, not because she has taken a vow of virginity.

John is an argument against Jesus having brothers, not for Mary being a virgin. That is, if Jesus has brothers (Mary has children) that is evidence against Mary's virginity, but Jesus not having brothers is not evidence for her virginity.

Nevertheless, Jesus likely had brothers. These passages all mention Jesus' brothers:
Matthew 13:55; Mark 3:31; 6:3; John 7:3; Acts 1:14; and 1 Corinthians 9:5. Note especially what the people at Nazareth ask,

Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us? (Matthew 13:55-56)

These are rhetorical questions from people who grew up in the same town as Jesus. They are accurate, and the terms "brothers" or "sisters" can hardly mean "cousins" here.

This counts against Mary being a perpetual virgin (unless the siblings are Joseph's children from a prior marriage). Jesus being the firstborn and thus eldest would be responsible for his mother. The reason for asking John to take care of his mother may have been because at that stage even Jesus brothers did not believe him. In wasn't until after the resurrection that they had faith in Jesus.

What Scriptural evidence is there that Mary did not remain a virgin?

1. The evidence given above that Matthew 1:25 is contextually definitive evidence of subsequent coitus however we translate the preposition.
2. The evidence above that Jesus had siblings.
3. Paul's command concerning marriage in 1 Corinthians.

Paul commands men and women to give each other their conjugal rights. He specifically tells them not to abstain from sex other than for short periods of time for the sake of prayer. Conjugal rights are normative for marriage since creation and Paul reminds the Corinthians that this remains the case. It has always been important for marriage to have regular sexual expression. The command for Mary to not have sex with Joseph goes against not only the creation mandate, but also the specific command (a reminder) Paul gave to the Corinthians.

Divorce and the Bible

Understanding what the Bible teaches about divorce has a history that antedates the New Testament as evidenced by the Pharisees questioning Jesus. Then subsequently within the church until now. There is much tradition is associated with various teachings about divorce, especially within, but not confined to, the Roman Catholic church. Opinions run strong and emotions high; is there much to be added?

Divorce is rightly viewed as something that is sub-optimal and to be avoided; it is likely that a lot of divorce within the church is unbiblical. Because divorce is viewed so negatively some Christians allow divorce for minimal reasons, specifically the situations allowed by Jesus. Others try a systematic approach to the question of divorce hoping to establish principles consistent with the relevant scriptural passages. The later seems preferable; taking the larger context of the various passages into account. Any theology of divorce will undoubtedly see divorce as something to be avoided if possible, but we live in a fallen world and must allow for the sins of men. Murder should never occur but we need a theology that rightly deals with murderers. Likewise, there may be situations where divorce is allowed, where one party is predominantly innocent. In such cases a divorcee may believe himself or herself guilty when in fact they are not. The church should not treat all divorce the same as much as the state does not treat all killing the same.

The Jews were not to add or subtract from God's words (Deu 4:2); likewise we should not be more lenient nor more restrictive than God. Having "higher" ideals than God makes one a legalist, especially when he places these expectations on others.

Any good theology of divorce originates from a right theology of marriage. Jesus pointed us to what God's intent for marriage was prior to the Fall (Mar 10:6). Marriage was instituted by God. God made man and it was not good that he was alone. Everything he created was good but man's aloneness was not good. Adam was permitted to know he was alone before God put him to sleep in order to make a woman to help him; compatible with him but different from him. An equal who had come from him in order that Adam may not be alone. Designed so that they could become one in flesh (Gen 2:24); being two in order that they would not be alone, yet becoming one. A type of the Godhead: the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father (Joh 17:21), with the Spirit. And we were given a component of the Spirit in our marriages (Mal 2:15). Why did God create marriage? So that we may raise godly children (Mal 2:15).

This teaches us

1. that marriage was instituted by God; 
2. that marriage was between men and women; 
3. that marriage was to be between one man and one woman; 
4. that it was permanent (at least in this age); and
5. that marriage is intended for the conception and raising of godly children.

Why then would God allow divorce? Jesus said what God has joined together let no man destroy.

Jesus said,

Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. (Mat 19:8)

Divorce was a concession because of hard hearts. God regulated a situation because men are sinners.

The passages on divorce in the gospels are

“It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” (Mat 5:31-32)

“Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.” (Luk 16:18)

Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.” (Mat 19:3-12)

Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away.” And Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” (Mar 10:2-12)

The first passage in Matthew comes from the Sermon on the Mount. The passage in Luke is probably parallel though possibly something that Jesus had said several times during his teaching ministry. The second passage in Matthew parallels Mark. The teaching of Jesus in both these situations is similar though both times Matthew mentions an exception for adultery. It could be argued that the parallel passages in Luke and Mark may be distinct, for example Matthew has the added phrase "for any cause" (this is an appeal to the debate over how to interpret Deuteronomy which I will address shortly). Nevertheless, the most reasonable way to understand Matthew's exception of divorce is to realise that Matthew is including explicitly what Mark and Luke see as implicit. There was no disagreement over whether divorce was allowed in the case of adultery by either party. All agreed that when adultery occurred the innocent party was allowed to obtain a divorce. Marriage is a covenant and adultery breaks that covenant. Divorce doesn't break the covenant in the situation of adultery because the covenant has already been broken. Divorce is this situation is merely a legal acknowledgement that there is no longer any covenant. There was no disagreement between the various schools over divorce in the case of adultery therefore the adultery exception did not need to be specified; nevertheless, Matthew mentions it explicitly for completeness.

Matthew gives us an example with Joseph. Joseph and Mary are betrothed which is not the same as marriage but is more than engagement. The couple are not married and coitus is forbidden. Yet there is an agreement that betrothed couples will marry and dissolution requires a divorce. When Mary was found to be pregnant Joseph sort to divorce her quietly.

Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. And her [future] husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce (ἀπολῦσαι) her quietly. But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” (Mat 1:18-21) 

Joseph (wrongly) thought that Mary had been sexually unfaithful. He seeks to divorce her and is called righteous. This is because Joseph sort to divorce her quietly so that Mary may not be shamed. There is no indication that Joseph's plan to divorce Mary is in anyway wrong given how he had interpreted Mary's pregnancy; that is he is not corrected concerning the wrongness of divorce per se, rather he is made aware of Mary's fidelity thus he has no reason for divorce.

Divorce is allowed in the case of adultery because one party has already broken the marriage. There really should be no dispute about this. Though it is worth mentioning that while divorce is allowed it is not mandatory.

Returning the Pharisees' challenge. The Pharisees were trying to test Jesus here asking,

Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?

Deuteronomy addresses divorce tangentially.

When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found something indecent (’ervat davar) in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house, and if she goes and becomes another man's wife, and the latter man hates 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 man dies, who took her to be his wife, then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled, for that is an abomination before the Lord. And you shall not bring sin upon the land that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance. (Deu 24:1-4)

The law is about returning to a former husband which is important when we come to Paul's comments. For the purposes of the divorce debate the question is what does "something indecent" mean?

Some emphasised the "something" and some emphasised the "indecent". If we emphasis the "something" then anything indecent is grounds for divorce. If we emphasis "indecent" then only things indecent are grounds. The later seems preferable, the something is still required to be indecent. The term "indecent" here carries the connotation of nakedness or sexuality.

In actually, however, this passage only assumes that the man might happen to divorce his wife if he finds something indecent in her. It does not clearly say that he is allowed to do this. This may be why Jesus says that Moses allowed divorce because of hardness of heart. The Jews were saying that Moses commands that the man give her a certificate of divorce but this is more than what this passage says. To have a law based on activities that men do perform is not to proscribe such activity. Consider the reasons why both men divorce the woman. The first man finds something indecent in her. The second man hates her. Both divorce her, but nothing in this passage states that either is justified in doing so. Only that the first husband may not take her back.

So Jesus only allows adultery as a reason for divorce here. Note, however, that the Law did not specify divorce for adultery, if specified execution (Lev 20:10). How do we explain this? There seem to be several reasons for the Jews choosing divorce over execution. Firstly, the Mosaic Law usually gave maximum sentences not minimum sentences. Occasionally the law was explicit in stating that a ransom was forbidden (Lev 27:29), that is, the sentence could not be commuted to a lighter sentence. Such a law implies that sentences could be commuted. Thus an adulterer who is divorced by another receives a lighter sentence than one who is executed.

Secondly, proving adultery is difficult. Proof of adultery such that the adulterer be executed needs to reach the high standard of 2 or 3 witnesses. Divorce is a response to probable adultery that lacks adequate evidence for a more severe sentence.

Thirdly, the Jews were not permitted to execute people during the occupation of the Romans. Thus divorce would be the appropriate response to adultery in this situation.

If adultery is the only reason for divorce then why does Paul add another? To understand Paul we need to go back to Jesus' teaching given just prior to when the Pharisees tested him. Jesus is teaching the disciples about humility, sin, forgiveness and the salvation of the lost. In this context Jesus teaches how to win back a sinning brother.

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” (Mat 18:15-20)

There are 2 common but different ways to understand what Jesus meant by, "let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector." One approach says that Jesus sought to reach tax-collectors and sinners and we should focus our efforts on winning this brother back. The other approach says that we should treat them how the Jews in that culture treated tax-collectors and sinners. While the latter approach is probably more accurate, it seems best to read this as it relates to community. The unrepentant sinner is to be considered outside the community. In modern parlance they are excommunicated. They are refusing to even listen to the church so they must be treated as someone outside the church. This is not to say that they are unsaved (though they may be), rather that the church needs to have a form of discipline. The people inside the church need to be subject to the elders and those that refuse to be subject to the eldership must be removed to protect the rest of the sheep. The passage makes clear we are to do everything to reach such a person, yet if they are recalcitrant, sanctions must be enforced. (Of course a church can be sufficiently dysfunctional and a righteous man might get kicked out of a heretical church).

This covenantial relationship is the context into which Jesus was talking when he discussed the issue of divorce. Adultery is the only reason for divorce for 2 people in God's kingdom. To the Pharisees this meant amongst the Jews. For us it means those within the church.

This does not mean that only people within the church have true marriages. Marriage is defined by God and remains a marriage even if one or both spouses are not part of the kingdom of God. What it does mean is that Jesus is addressing a specific situation: the situation where 2 people in a marriage covenant are within God's larger covenant.

So when the Corinthians asked Paul about divorce Paul advises them according to the teaching that Jesus gave.

To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife. (1Co 7:10-11)

Paraphrasing,

Paul: "To the married I give this command concerning divorce. But this is not my teaching it is Jesus' teaching."

Paul reiterates Jesus' teaching about divorce to those within God's kingdom. When both spouses are within the church they must not divorce.

But what if one spouse is not a believer?

To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. (1Co 7:12-13)

Paul here is giving a command and he specifies that it is he that gives it, not Jesus. In other words, Jesus did not give any command that addresses the situation where one spouse is a believer and one is an unbeliever. This comment by Paul shows that the situation in the gospels is solely addressing the case where husband and wife are married and both are within God's covenant.

When reiterating Jesus' command for married couples not to divorce Paul mentions that if a wife does separate she is to remain unmarried. Paul does not here mention the exemption for divorce in the case of adultery but we know it is the case from Jesus' teaching which Paul is reiterating. However Paul adds that in the case of two believers, if a woman divorces her husband she is to remain unmarried or be reconciled to him.

To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate (χωρισθῆναι) from her husband; but if she does separate (χωρισθῇ) she should remain unmarried (ἄγαμος) or else be reconciled to her husband; and the husband should not send away (ἀφιέναι) his wife.

To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not send her away (ἀφιέτω). If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not send him away (ἀφιέτω). For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. But if the unbelieving partner separates (χωρίζεται), let them separate (χωριζέσθω). In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved (δεδούλωται). God has called you to peace. For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife? (1Co 7:10-16)

By separate (χωρισθῆναι) Paul means what we mean by divorce. In commanding the woman to remain single Paul is referring back to Deuteronomy. In the passage above it states that if a woman is divorced and remarried, then subsequently divorced again or widowed, then she is not to remarry her first husband. Paul applies this to the case of a believing marriage. The woman must not divorce but if she does (and she is wrong to do so) she should reconcile with her believing husband or remain single. The reason she is to remain single is to allow the possibility of reconciliation; for if she remains single and the situation can be resolved then she can remarry her previous husband. But if she were to remarry someone else then there is no possibility of her returning to her previous husband, either through subsequent divorce or through widowhood.

However in the case of marriage to unbelievers, stay married but if the unbeliever wishes to leave then let them do so. The call to the kingdom is greater than the call to one's spouse (Luk 14:26). This appears to be a similar situation to the case of mixed marriages in Ezra. In that circumstance Ezra told the Jews to divorce their unbelieving wives (Ezra 10:3) whereas Paul allows unbelievers to stay if they so wish. Why do Paul and Ezra give different commands?

It is difficult to be completely certain but there are some differences that may be relevant. The first is that in Ezra we are dealing with the Old Covenant. It was important that unbelieving foreigners were kept out of the Jewish covenant. God was bringing the Messiah and external forces sort to thwart that. While we still should not be yoked to unbelievers in the new covenant, there is not the necessity to dispose of them. The Messiah has come and the kingdom of God is not a nation, rather it is within us, and God is expanding it through the earth. Before Christ the unclean made the clean unclean. In Christ the clean cleanses the unclean. As Paul says, "the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband."

Secondly, the foreign wives mentioned in Ezra were idolators. Idolatry was a capital offence in Israel. An idolatrous wife (or husband) was to be executed (Deu 17). As the Jews were (probably) forbidden from instituting the death penalty when ruled by the Persians, divorce was the only alternative option. Of course in Paul's day the unbelievers were also idolaters but many in the church were not Jews and not under the Mosaic Law.

Another question often raised is what is the status of those who get divorced without valid reason? Jesus says that such divorce is adultery. What is a person in this situation to do? This question has also caused some consternation though I think it less tricky than the above questions. In confronting the Pharisees about the sanctity of marriage Jesus says,

What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.

Jesus gives a command here. The fact it is a command suggests it can be obeyed, and disobeyed. We are not to separate what God has joined together but it is feasible to do so. Adam was not to eat of the tree but he did. Divorces can be entered into wrongly but they are divorces. Jesus said,

Whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery. (Mat 19:)

What Jesus is saying is that if you do not have a reason to divorce and yet you get a divorce anyway then you are guilty of breaking the commandment against adultery. Jesus is not saying you are therefore not divorced, or that you have to return to your previous spouse. If there is no adultery already then divorce causes adultery. In Matthew 5 Jesus even says that if you divorce your wife (without reason) then you are making her commit adultery.

So the legitimate reasons for divorce are

• Adultery by a spouse;
• Abandonment by an unbeliever.

Further relevant commandments are

• A believer must only marry a believer;
• A believing woman who divorces her believing husband should reconcile or stay unmarried.

Illegitimate divorces cause adultery. They are still divorces. Remarriages are marriages.

This exegesis of Scripture is consistent with many Protestant interpretations of marriage and divorce. There seem to be many more possible scenarios than the 2 mentioned above. There are, but they can be addressed by considering church fellowship. Reformulating the reasons for divorce we get.

Legitimate reasons for divorce when both spouses are believers: that is, are in fellowship

• Adultery by a spouse

Legitimate reasons for divorce when one spouse is a believer: that is, in church fellowship

• Adultery by the unbeliever
• Abandonment by the unbeliever

How might this apply to difficult situations like physical abuse, criminal offending, etc? For the case of the unbeliever it seems that we can have a situation of functional abandonment. That is, even if the spouse claims they wish to remain married; if a wife's behaviour is that of serious abuse or neglect, or a husband is convicted and imprisoned for a criminal offence, then the desire to remain married is belied by the behaviour and a divorce can be obtained. A believing wife need not remain married to a murderer just because he consents to stay married to his wife.

In the case where both spouses are believers the approach is one of Matthew 18. The husband or wife is to seek to resolve the problem directly, then with a few others, then with the church. The spouse who is sinning needs to avail himself of the church's council and advice and repent. If he repents then the couple can work on repairing the marriage. If he refuses to repent then the church needs to discipline him appropriately. Ongoing refusal to repent and address sin should eventually be met by excommunication. At that stage the spouse is to be treated as out of fellowship, that is, as an unbeliever. Such the situation becomes the same as that of an unbeliever above. Serious crimes should be reported and capital offences should result in execution. Churches in countries that fail to execute or which prolong the process should allow divorce. Serious sins may result in immediate excommunication (1Co 5:1) and divorce may be obtained.

None of this should mean that if divorce is a legitimate option it must be pursued. God's grace is evident in many situations where offended parties forgave and rebuilt their marriage. This is a wonderful testimony for God. Mercy triumphs over judgment. But neither should churches condemn or allow a spirit of condemnation in cases where divorce is a legitimate option. Innocent men and women should not be censured.

Does Moses force a woman to marry her rapist?

A not infrequent claim of the abhorrence of Scripture is that it commands victims of rape to marry their attacker. Support for this proposition comes from Moses' sermon before the Israelites entered the promise land.

If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days. (Deu 22:28-29)

Even conceded by some Christians as a difficult passage, or even a harsh one, for those who have read the relevant sections of the Old Testament. The problem is, in part, not due to too much Bible but to too little.

It is worth reading a larger section of Deuteronomy, if not the entire book. Here is a slightly larger section. This comes within laws dealing with sexual crimes and immediately following the issue of sexual fraud.

If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman. So you shall purge the evil from Israel.

If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor's wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor, because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her.

If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days. (Deu 22:22-29)

Adultery is forbidden and both participants are condemned to death.

Betrothal was a covenant to get married but the ceremony had not yet occurred and the marriage was not consummated. Thus coitus between a man and a woman betrothed to another was viewed as a violation of that covenant and a form of adultery. As such bath parties were to be executed. Both these situations describe consensual sex. But what if it is not consensual?

The next command states that if a betrothed woman does not consent but is taken by force then she is innocent. She is free but the rapist shall be executed.

Which brings us to the passage in question. There are several things to say about it because our culture is significantly different when it comes to issues of betrothal, marriage, provision, sexual consent.

The first thing to note is that the command is somewhat parallel to the previous commands. Each case reflecting further consideration. Consensual married, consensual betrothed, non-consensual betrothed, unbetrothed. The problem for the modern reader is that he is concerned about the consent but the law is concerned about the covenant. So sex with a person when they are covenanted to another is punishable by death, unless it turns out that it was non-consensual. The woman can not be punished when she was not breaking the covenant. So the last case is not so much discussing consent as it is discussing a case that does not involve transgressing a covenant. The woman is neither married nor betrothed.

So it is difficult to address the consent aspect in a command that is written for the covenant aspect. In the first 2 cases the man lies (shakab) with the woman. In the 3rd the man overpowers (chazaq) the woman and lies (shakab) with her. In the 4th the man seizes (taphas) the woman and lies (shakab) with her.

Now it may be that the man is doing this against the woman's will. The fact that the country or city is not mentioned in this case as it is in cases 2 and 3 means that this case covers both situations. Even so, if she were in the city she would be expected to call out. This means that the case is covering the situation where there may be consent. The term translated "seize" may cover both the concepts of seduction and subjugation.

The command is that the man in this position must take responsibility for his actions. That is he cannot have sex without responsibility. Such actions make the woman unmarriageable in this culture, or at least much less desirable as a wife. He is commanded to pay the bride-price and take her as a wife; that is provide for her. Further, he is forbidden to divorce her; that is his actions mean that he will be forced to provide for the woman for her entire life.

Note that this is not a command for the woman or her father, it is a command for the man. What if the father does not wish his daughter to be married to this man? In Exodus Moses gives this command for a man who seduces a woman and lies with her. This is parallel to the command in Deuteronomy except that the command in Deuteronomy may possibly be read to include both seduction and subjugation as mentioned. Moses writes,

If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins. (Exo 22:16-17)

The Bible allows a father to refuse the marriage of his daughter but still demand the bride-price. The ongoing provision for the woman will be the father's responsibility unless the woman subsequently married. Thus Exodus allows an out for the woman via her father if they so wish. But both passages command the man to provide as a husband. He must marry and provide and is forbidden to divorce but the woman could refuse.

The modern Westerner asks who would marry a rapist but this assumes a much different culture. We have a culture of much greater food and wealth; one in which woman frequently provide for themselves. And people usually marry those that they fall in love with.

This was much less common the past. Although there were some women of means in times past, daughters (and sons) were provided for by their fathers until they cot married and then were provided for by their husbands. Famine an starvation were frequent risks faced by the majority of society. Marriages were often arranged. In a culture where food was scarce at times provision was vital. Being able to provide was important in a husband.

It is the view and expectation in all societies that the married couples will be sexually active. In most societies having children is also highly valued. A girl in such a society is concerned that she is provided for and that she will have a family. It is her expectation that she will be having sex with her husband, and that she may have little say (and sometimes no say) in who her husband will be.

That is not to say that romantic love was unheard of (consider Jacob and Rachel, also Canticles); nor that parents never asked their daughters about prospective grooms. It just means that our thoughts about love and consent were not the significance to them that they are to us.

Consider the example of David's daughter Tamar. When Amnon asked her to have sex with him she said,

“No, my brother, do not violate me, for such a thing is not done in Israel; do not do this outrageous thing. As for me, where could I carry my shame? And as for you, you would be as one of the outrageous fools in Israel. Now therefore, please speak to the king, for he will not withhold me from you.” (2Sa 13:12-13)

She declined sex but was willing to become his wife if Amnon requested this from the king. Nevertheless Amnon overpowered Tamar and raped her. Then he told her to leave. Tamar viewed Amnon's shaming of her by refusing to marry her as worse than him raping her.

But she said to him, “No, my brother, for this wrong in sending me away is greater than the other that you did to me.” But he would not listen to her. He called the young man who served him and said, “Put this woman out of my presence and bolt the door after her.” Now she was wearing a long robe with sleeves, for thus were the virgin daughters of the king dressed. So his servant put her out and bolted the door after her. And Tamar put ashes on her head and tore the long robe that she wore. And she laid her hand on her head and went away, crying aloud as she went. (2Sa 13:16-19)

It is right to see Amnon's behaviour as despicable. Yet moderns struggle to understand why Tamar thought Amnon's rejection of her the greater offence. You cannot assess how her culture viewed the situation from a 21st century Western perspective. In a culture with arranged marriages every women knows that she will have sex with the man who becomes her husband, not a man in the community who she happens to find appealing. This changes how they viewed sexual consent. We struggle because don't grasp the cultural issues. Moderns discuss the concept of marital rape whereas this would have made little sense to the ancients, they thought that married people have sex. Consent had to do with who you were married to, not who you wanted to do it with (though the latter is still a consensual issue). The much bigger issue is, Who is going to provide for me? not, Who am I going to have sex with? because it was assumed you would have sex with the man (husband) who was providing for you.

40 answers on same-sex attraction and the Bible

Matthew Vines posted 40 questions to Christians who believe that people of the same sex cannot get married.

Below are the questions; a couple of comments about the them. Some are written from the perspective that homosexual behaviour is a morally acceptable therefore they can be difficult to answer without addressing or rejecting the assumptions behind the question. Further, I don't buy into the concept of gay Christian. The term gay is used to identify those who have sexual desires toward those of the same sex. But we don't say diabetic Christian, or covetous Christian, or vegan Christian, or lusting Christian. Christians who struggle with wrongly-directed sexual attraction should not define themselves by their inappropriate desire.

1. Do you accept that sexual orientation is not a choice?

I think that sexual desire is a complicated situation. Men who desire other men do so to varying degrees. It is hard to know why this is always the case but it seems that sexual abuse by other men and lack of father input can contribute to this. This may mean an absent father or a soft father, especially in the context of a domineering mother. Other actions within the child's life such as a lack of redirecting desire or an encouragement toward same-sex desire can make things worse. Same sexual activity,even experimental in those who do not have much same sex desire, can intensify desire. That is, both actions by the person and actions by others, especially in formative years, can strongly influence later desire. There may also be intrinsic qualities, such as effeminacy, that contribute.

2. Do you accept that sexual orientation is highly resistant to attempts to change it?

I think it can be in some circumstances. It depends on the strength of the underlying desire, the age at which it is addressed, the behaviour already engaged in, and the degree to which the environment encourages and discourages such behaviour. It can also be very difficult when there are significant spiritual issues that are not addressed.

3. How many meaningful relationships with lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) people do you have?

How does one answer this and why is it relevant? And what do you mean by meaningful. For years it was pushed that 10% of the population is gay. This was unlikely to be true and shown to be false. Figures closer to 1% were more likely though I think this may rise as it becomes more culturally acceptable and somewhat trendy. Assuming 1% of the population are gay may suggest that 1% of my meaningful relationships would be with gay people but that's not how it works. I have greater or lesser meaningful relationships with people of various careers and ages and religions depending on my job and age and religion. As it is I don't exactly know because I don't know who is gay. Unless someone is vocal about their sexuality or demonstrates overtly gay stereotypes I do not know that they are gay. I have known people for several years before finding out that they are gay (openly so). On balance of probabilities, most people I know are heterosexual. Of the 10 I work most closely with 1 is gay.

4. How many openly LGBT people would say you are one of their closest friends?

Again, why is this relevant? And why would it be likely that I have close friends that are gay. My closest friends are Christian, yet the number of Christians in society is much lower than the percentage that are my closest friends. Some good friends are highly skewed careerwise. Friendships are not random. Men have more male friends. Policemen have more police friends. If I have say 10 good friends there is no reason to suspect that at least one of them would be gay, especially if my friends are more likely to be Christian.

5. How much time have you spent in one-on-one conversation with LGBT Christians about their faith and sexuality?

Faith? As much as they wish to talk about it. Sexuality, not a lot, but then I don't talk about this a lot with my friends either. And some gays are more than happy to tell me far more about their proclivities than I really wish to listen to.

6. Do you accept that heterosexual marriage is not a realistic option for most gay people?

No I do not accept that, at least for those who wish to follow Christ. While this question requires a post of its own, I think that marriage between a gay man and a woman, or a gay woman and a man can be useful depending on the reasons, and so long both parties are aware of the other's struggles. If the issue is companionship then (heterosexual) marriage may be appropriate as most men can find companions in either men or women. If the issue is sexual desire then many gay men can perform sexually with a woman even if they do not desire a female in a sexual manner.

7. Do you accept that lifelong celibacy is the only valid option for most gay people if all same-sex relationships are sinful?

I think that unmarried gay men should avoid sex just like all unmarried men and women. I also think the term celibacy is unhelpful rhetoric. Chaste is the expectation.

8. How many gay brothers and sisters in Christ have you walked with on the path of mandatory celibacy, and for how long?

I have walked the path (in as much as it is appropriate) with a single woman for many years; she would like to be married and is not and is therefore not sexually active. I have encouraged a Christian who struggles with attraction to men to hold onto God's grace in his struggles. I know of men married to women who struggle with attraction to other men and who struggle with this at times. But again, why is this relevant and why is every Christian expected to both know and walk with multiple Christians who struggle with homosexuality?

9. What is your answer for gay Christians who struggled for years to live out a celibacy mandate but were driven to suicidal despair in the process?

Press into Christ. And address the issues that make suicide seem like an option.

10. Has mandatory celibacy produced good fruit in the lives of most gay Christians you know?

Chaste behaviour leads to less problems than unchaste behaviour in Christians. I don't see why this should be different for those who are gay.

11. How many married same-sex couples do you know?

I deny that same sex couple can ever be married. The concept is oxymoronic. Further the issue is the same as #3 and #4. If it matters, I have worked with a a few females who have longish-term relationships with other women, one of whom would call herself married. Many gay men I meet are highly promiscuous.


12. Do you believe that same-sex couples’ relationships can show the fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control?

I believe a relationship could show that. Any relationship between 2 people, married or unmarried, friend or acquaintance, could exhibit patience for example. But this is not really what the fruit of the Spirit means. Rather it means that these (love, joy, etc.) are qualities that the Spirit is developing in those in which he dwells. Unbelievers can exhibit some of these qualities in various measures. I don't believe that the sexual aspect of same-sex couple's relationship is one that is revealing the fruit of the Spirit. Such sexual behaviour is a fruit of abandoning God.

13. Do you believe that it is possible to be a Christian and support same-sex marriage in the church?

Yes and no. My concept of salvation is such that people can believe a range of things including unorthodox ideas. A person may be a Christian and misguided about this. If they have been a Christian for some length of time and this issue has been addressed and they do not come around to understanding that marriage is between men and women they may not be Christian. If they have gone from thinking that marriage is only between men and women to thinking people of the same sex can get married then they may not be Christian or may have abandoned the faith. If they are in a position of leadership in the church and they advocate for same-sex marriage then they are a wolf in the church and should be removed.

14. Do you believe that it is possible to be a Christian and support slavery?

Yes.

15. If not, do you believe that Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Jonathan Edwards were not actually Christians because they supported slavery?

Not applicable, but note also what it means to be saved.

16. Do you think supporting same-sex marriage is a more serious problem than supporting slavery?

Yes. Much worse. One must also distinguish between the institution of slavery and the slave trade.

17. Did you spend any time studying the Bible’s passages about slavery before you felt comfortable believing that slavery is wrong?

I don't believe it is always wrong. The Bible condemns kidnapping (Deu 24:7) and the slave trade (1Ti 1:10). It does not condemn owning slaves, though freedom is better than slavery (1Co 7:21). It seems ironic that you seem to think slavery is wrong and not homosexuality given that both appear in the same vice list: the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers.

18. Does it cause you any concern that Christians throughout most of church history would have disagreed with you?

It concerns me that moderns don't understand these distinctions.

19. Did you know that, for most of church history, Christians believed that the Bible taught the earth stood still at the center of the universe?

While I don't hold to geocentrism for our planet within the solar system, the idea that our planet and solar system is near the centre of the universe is not an unreasonable assumption. It also has some empirical evidence depending on one's interpretation of red-shifts. The church held to the idea of geocentrism as much as the surrounding un-churched culture. It did so partly based on the teachings of Aristotle and Ptolomy. It was Christian scientists who challenged this belief based on their strong Christian convictions. They were opposed by those within the church who were married to the pagan ideas. Kind of opposite to the current situation.

20. Does it cause you any concern that you disagree with their interpretation of the Bible?

No. It delights me that faithful Christians (such as Kepler) thinking God's thoughts after him made such strides in understanding  the natural world.

21. Did you spend any time studying the Bible’s verses on the topic before you felt comfortable believing that the earth revolves around the sun?

I am familiar with verses that some have used to defend geocentrism in times past. The interpretation is poor and unwarranted by context. More importantly, although I think the Bible talks to history and facts that are observable, morality is not the same kind of issue. A book can mention the colours of various plants and a person may observe the same plants, but morality is not observed in the same way. Some morality can be observed in the sense of natural revelation, but more is gained from special revelation. Aristotle was wrong in thinking physics could be entirely deduced by logic. Moderns are wrong in thinking that moral knowledge can be obtained via experiment.

22. Do you know of any Christian writers before the 20th century who acknowledged that gay people must be celibate for life due to the church’s rejection of same-sex relationships?

I don't know enough specific writings but am aware that prior to the 20th century the church taught that sex outside matrimony is sinful as was sodomy was condemned.

23. If not, might it be fair to say that mandating celibacy for gay Christians is not a traditional position?

Chaste behaviour is a very traditional position: no sex for those who are not married and  sex only with one's spouse for those who are married. You are trying to create arbitrary categories to legitimise your claim.

24. Do you believe that the Bible explicitly teaches that all gay Christians must be single and celibate for life?

I believe the Bible teaches that men can only marry women and women can only marry men. I do not believe it bans people who are sexually attracted to someone of the same sex from marrying someone of the opposite sex, and in some situations that may be appropriate.

25. If not, do you feel comfortable affirming something that is not explicitly affirmed in the Bible?

Again, arbitrary categories. If people wish to be sexually active they must be married to someone of the opposite sex.

26. Do you believe that the moral distinction between lust and love matters for LGBT people’s romantic relationships?

No. I believe that wrongly directed sexual desire is lust. Expressed desire: behavioural or willful (covetness) towards anyone you are not married to is lust. Expressed desire: behavioural or willful to someone as the same-sex as you is lust. All sexual activity including kissing, petting and sodomy between 2 men is inappropriate desire, that is lust, regardless of their feelings.

27. Do you think that loving same-sex relationships should be assessed in the same way as the same-sex behavior Paul explicitly describes as lustful in Romans 1?

Yes. Sin between 2 people is forbidden even if they both agree to it. Bondage is sinful between a married man and woman even if they both wish to engage in such behaviour.

28. Do you believe that Paul’s use of the terms “shameful” and “unnatural” in Romans 1:26-27 means that all same-sex relationships are sinful?

I believe that all same-sex sexual relationships are intrinsically sinful. "Shameful" and "unnatural" are descriptors of this. There are sins that are not shameful. There are sins that are not unnatural. Paul uses natural (φυσικα) to highlight that the activity is contrary to nature. He probably uses shameful (ασχημοσυνην) because of its connection to nudity, and because the behaviour should make them ashamed but doesn't.

29. Would you say the same about Paul’s description of long hair in men as “shameful” and against “nature” in 1 Corinthians 11:14, or would you say he was describing cultural norms of his time?

It is not completely certain what Paul means here. Samson certainly had long hair as did any Nazirite; and also Absalom. Although "long hair" is the usual translation for koma (κομα), the context is in comparison to women's hair; it may mean "tresses". The point seems to mean that it is unnatural for a man to grow out his hair in order to look like a woman. Thus this passage speaks against effeminacy. And Paul says that this is more dishonourable (ατιμια) than shameful.

30. Do you believe that the capacity for procreation is essential to marriage?

Yes, in the sense that procreation is a design feature of marriage.

31. If so, what does that mean for infertile heterosexual couples?

It means we should mourn with them that they suffer this way in a fallen world.

32. How much time have you spent engaging with the writings of LGBT-affirming Christians like Justin Lee, James Brownson, and Rachel Murr?

Never heard of them. While I believe that such engagement may be necessary in the current milieu for the sake of the church; the idea that one can affirm sin, aberrant sex, and psychologically disturbed positions is antithetical to the Christian faith.

33. What relationship recognition rights short of marriage do you support for same-sex couples?

In terms of their relationship, as opposed to any contract 2 people enter? None specifically, though I expect the courts to honour property issues that have been agreed to such as shared ownership of a house.

34. What are you doing to advocate for those rights?

These are established and are indifferent to sexuality.

35. Do you know who Tyler Clementi, Leelah Alcorn, and Blake Brockington are, and did your church offer any kind of prayer for them when their deaths made national news?

No.

36. Do you know that LGBT youth whose families reject them are 8.4 times more likely to attempt suicide than LGBT youth whose families support them?

I suspect the case is similar for thieves, murderers, anorexics, alcoholics if we compare families rejecting and accepting them. I wouldn't be surprised to see an increased risk for any youth who are rejected by families even those without any vices.

37. Have you vocally objected when church leaders and other Christians have compared same-sex relationships to things like bestiality, incest, and pedophilia?

No. Nor do I see any reason to. One could say that paedophilia is partially non-analogous because of consent issues, but the others are fitting.

38. How certain are you that God’s will for all gay Christians is lifelong celibacy?

Absolutely certain that it is God's will for all people to be chaste. Fornication and adultery are forbidden.

39. What do you think the result would be if we told all straight teenagers in the church that if they ever dated someone they liked, held someone’s hand, kissed someone, or got married, they would be rebelling against God?

And this means what? So I tell the children who earn their money to spend it wisely. Is it somehow wrong that I tell a child-thief that he is not to spend the money wisely but rather return it. If I tell the young married youth to enjoy sex with each other, is it bad that I tell the unmarried youth to abstain. Your question assumes that homosexual acts are morally acceptable. If such acts are sinful the question is irrelevant.

40. Are you willing to be in fellowship with Christians who disagree with you on this topic?

It all depends. People can be mistaken; see #13. I don't think we should attempt to pull up the weeds before time, we don't want to exclude those within the kingdom who are still mistaken in their acceptance of homosexuality. But we should drive away the wolves.

Love, submission and cultural blindness

I recently commented that I have not written a lot on the somewhat contentious issue of the relationship between husbands and wives. After a few recent comments on a recent post I thought I might expand on this topic.

There are, I think, several influences to our approach here such as: previous experience, our perception of fairness, our egalitarian Western culture, our dislike of submission, our concepts of freedom, our narcissism. With the emphasis on the word "our" in the previous list. But times and fads change therefore in any era parts of the Bible will align with cultural norms—the prohibition of murder currently—and other truths of the Bible will not—the various idolatries of this age. If egalitarianism is a biblical truth then we need to hold on to it while secularism spirals the West to its death; if complimentarianism is the correct interpretation then the church needs to resist secular definitions of liberty.

These ideas and influences that affect our approach to biblical commands need to be faced, especially when we find them harder to see. It is much easier to see the problems with arranged marriages in our culture which marries for love; but there are problems with the later which we, immersed in "till love do us part," struggle to identify. Paul's claim that there is no male or female (Gal 3) in a hierarchical society, or there is no Jew or Greek in a tribal or nationalist society—especially if you are the chosen race!—is a clear challenge. Incredibly shocking! This is not quite so radical in the 21st century after 2000 years of Christian influence. But tell slaves to submit to their masters... We reply no they should not, and then talk continuously about emancipation.

One of my concerns is the fallacy of abuse. The abuse of a principle does not invalidate the use of it. In this situation it would apply to leadership or dominion. A bad boss does not mean that businesses should not have them. Destruction of the environment does not mean that humans do not have dominion over the world. The abuse of wife by her husband does not disprove male headship (if it exists). The mistreatment of a child by his mother does not mean motherhood should be banned. The specific abuse in all these situations should be addressed. Consistent misuse of a situation may lead us to question whether the situation is indeed valid, and structural modifications may be needed to discourage abuse (taking fully into account the law of unintended consequences). But of itself, abuse speaks more of a fallen world than incorrect principles.

A second problem is, as my pastor puts it, reading other people's mail. One of the valid complaints by egalitarians is people who try to enforce what others are commanded to do. In Ephesians 5 Paul commands wives to submit to their own husbands. He is not saying that husbands are to force wives to submit to them. In as much as a wife is not submitting to her husband she is disobedient, yet for him to try and force obedience is not what the command is, and forced obedience is hardly submission. Further, he is disobeying his command which is to love his wife and nourish her and cherish her.

Likewise, a husband who does not love and cherish his wife is disobedient, yet if she tries to manipulate him to do so is not obedience to the command to love. The command is not to her and her actions may in fact make it more difficult for him to obey the command to love. Further, she is disobeying her command to submit to her husband.

The egalitarian complaint that husbands are not to enforce submission (and the unstated complaint that wives are not to enforce loving and cherishing) is valid. This should be acknowledged by all complimentarians.

Nevertheless, we are given our commands and we are to obey them irrespective of whether our spouse is being obedient to God in the matter. Husbands are to love, nourish and cherish their wives even if she never submits to him; likewise wives are to submit to their husbands and this command is not contingent on her husband's love.

Submitting to one another

SLW raised some issues concerning complimentarianism and egalitarianism in Genesis on a previous post. Here I wish to discuss a couple of ways that Ephesians 5:21 may be understood. It says,

...submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Two questions arise: whether this should be attached to the preceding or following verses; and who the submission applies to. The second question is the more disputable one, though the former may have implications as how to best answer the latter.

In Ephesians Paul is instructing the believers in Christian behaviour—the Christian walk. Christians have new life in Christ therefore they are no longer to behave like the other Gentiles (Eph 4:17) and stop acting how they did prior to trusting Christ; put off their old self, put on their new self, change they way they think (Eph 4:22-24).

Interspersed in the following verses are several behaviours that need addressing: falsehood, unrighteous anger, theft, laziness, corrupt speech, bitterness, slander, covetness, sexual immorality. Concluding these Paul states,

Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, making the best use of the time, because the days are evil. Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, (Ephesians 5:15-18).

There is debate as to whether one does these things in order to be filled, or whether one does these things because he is filled. Nevertheless, what does being filled with the Spirit look like? Paul lists the following:

1. addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs,
2. singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart,
3. giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
4. submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ. (Ephesians 5:19-21)

The structure suggests that submitting to one another is connected to the list of being filled with the Spirit.

Following this Paul talks to husbands and wives. He tells wives to submit to their husbands and husbands to love their wives.

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband. (Ephesians 5:22-33)

The egalitarian interpretation suggests that the passage about submitting (Eph 5:21) applies to everyone in the church; all people within the church are to submit to each other. Thus it (Eph 5:21) is a summary of things to follow, with the subsequent discussion giving specific advice to husbands and wives based on areas they tend to struggle with. Wives are to actually submit to their husbands; that is the command to submit to each other (Eph 5:21) applies in marriage even as women tend to struggle to do so. Men are to love their wives (Eph 5:25, 28, 33) as well as submit (Eph 5:21). But the tendency for the man is not to love the woman in the same way that he loves himself (Eph 5:28). The woman is not specifically told to love as she generally does not find that difficult. The man is not specifically told to submit as he does this more easily.

The complementarian interpretation would see the passage about submitting (Eph 5:21) as be a prelude to the subsequent examples. Verse 21 concludes the previous passage and Paul then gives some specific examples of submission. These are marriage, fatherhood and slavery. In these 3 situations the specific person in the submissive role is reminded that it is still appropriate to submit, even though they (wife, child, bondslave) have equal standing as believers in Christ.

Submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ (Eph 5:21) therefore means that those who are in submissive roles are to submit.

1. Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. (Eph 5:22)
2. Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. (Eph 6:1)
3. Bondslaves, obey your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, (Eph 6:5)

After each of these Paul adds a command to the people who are being submitted to ensure that they act godly in their actions and not abuse their position.

Some of the debate is over what is meant by "to one another" or "one to another" (Greek allelon) in verse 21. I do not think this can easily be resolved; it almost certainly cannot be if verse 21 is interpreted in isolation. The term "one to another" can mean both "all to all" and "some to all". "All to all" is meant in certain contexts, eg.

Greet one another with a holy kiss. (2Co 13:12)

See also Luk 24:14; Joh 13:34; 15:17; Other contexts can only mean "some to others", eg.

Its rider was permitted to take peace from the earth, so that people should slay one another, (Rev 6:4)

See also Joh 4:33; Act 26:31. Many other phrases could possibly be read as "all to all" though it would seem more likely that "some to others" is what occurs in any one specific situation, even if these roles are somewhat fluid and change in other specific situations, such as,

Show hospitality to one another without grumbling. (1Pe 4:9).

See also Gal 6:2; Eph 4:32; Col 3:13; 1Th 5:11.

So the egalitarian interpretation reads this as a summary of what is to follow, and claim all are to submit to each other; the complementarian interpretation reads this as a prelude (and possibly as a conclusion of the preceding verses) and some categories of people are to submit to other categories of people.