Marriage is good because it is the initiative and gift of the Father. Marriage is perfected by the Spirit for Christ and his church. Marriage is sexually differentiated because it follows the form of church and Christ as bride and groom.

Abstract

This essay argues that monogamous sexually-differentiated marriage (MSDM) is uniquely revealed through Christ’s relationship with the church in Ephesians 5:30–32. Through a trinitarian reading, marriage is understood as the Father’s initiative, sexually differentiated because it follows the form of Christ (groom) and church (bride), and perfected by the Spirit. The bride-groom metaphor is not merely illustrative but constitutive of marriage’s form. Therefore, because Jesus is biologically male, marriage cannot be relativized to accommodate same-sex unions. This makes marriage a scandal not unlike that of Christ’s particularity (1 Cor 1:23), which resists absorption into non-Christian notions of the divine.

Can I tempt you?” my colleague propositioned.¹

“Probably, but no, thank you,” I countered.

“Why ever not?” she replied.

“Because,” I said, “I’m a Christian. I will consummate my relationship only with a spouse, because Jesus will consummate his relationship only with the church.”²

For over twenty years, I have wondered about those words. I could have said, “Because I’m a Christian, I believe that marriage is the appropriate context for sex,” with 1 Corinthians 7:9 in mind. “But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”³ Yet this does not explain why marriage is the appropriate context for sex. And if we transpose this conversation into the current debate over same-sex relationships, I believe and will argue accordingly (section 3), that Jesus’s relationship with the church also explains, albeit mysteriously, why marriage is sexually differentiated (male-female).

The point that marriage is sexually differentiated can be argued from Matthew 19:4–6, where Jesus defines marriage by appealing to Genesis 1:27 and 2:24. Because Jesus refuses to accommodate no-fault divorce, other accommodations (like same-sex marriage) would appear to be out of the question too.⁴ Is that not sufficient?

Perhaps not, if these conclusions are deemed relative. For example, one might argue that Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 specify male and female because male-female describes a relatively common species of sexual relationship (vis-à-vis male-male and female-female). Male-female describes a statistical mode: not an ethical norm.⁵ Or one might argue that creation is relative to incarnation. For even if Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 are granted prescriptive status, their procreative potential,⁶ to make the genealogy of Jesus possible, is fulfilled in his coming.⁷ Therefore, sexual differentiation upon which procreation depends is no longer necessary.⁸ Might this not explain why the New Testament passes over procreation in silence?⁹ There is then a little more work to do.

1. The Mystery of Marriage

Christ and his church are the reason why Paul (Eph 5:30–32) not only presents marriage as sexually-differentiated (section 3) but also as monogamous (section 2). Christ and his church are the reason why monogamous sexually-differentiated marriage (henceforth MSDM) cannot be relativized by polygamy (section 2) or by attempts to relativize sexual differentiation in the incarnation (section 4) or in creation (vis-à-vis the eschaton) (section 5). Attempts to relativize MSDM are attempts to homogenize it, to make different forms of marriage the same. This makes MSDM less significant;¹⁰ although note well: arguments against the homogenization of marriage (sections 4 and 5) do not make a knock-down case against same-sex forms. This would require consideration of texts (e.g., Lev 18:22; Rom 1:26–27; 1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10) that lie beyond the scope of this essay.

What follows receives marriage by faith (Prov 30:18–19). Specifically, faith receives as revelation the “great (μέγα) mystery” (Eph 5:32) that Christ and the church are the reason for marriage. Three things then follow. First, if theology is faith seeking understanding,¹¹ then marriage (and a theology thereof) is best not reduced to an understanding of its goods (procreation, etc.), for that would put understanding before faith. That is, whereas the goods of marriage can be understood by anyone, the mystery of marriage (that Christ and the church are the reason for marriage) can only be received by faith. Second, although marriage is a general—even if not universal—phenomenon¹² and, in that respect, comparable to concepts of the divine, special revelation in Ephesians 5:30–32 gives marriage universal definition.¹³ And third, this special revelation—the mystery that Christ and the church are the reason for marriage—can, and will, be understood in three ways that correspond to the three persons of the Trinity. For example, the third section (below) explores this mystery as it corresponds to the Son as the formal cause of marriage. That is, church and Christ as bride and groom are the reason why the form of marriage is sexually differentiated. And since Christ is the groom because he is biologically male, marriage is sexually differentiated because Jesus is. Because of Jesus, Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 cannot be deemed relative.

But before then, and because the faith that theology seeks to understand is handed down (Latin tradere) via tradition, traditional Christian teaching on marriage will be considered first.¹⁴ And this begins with Augustine. Augustine famously delineates three (ascending) goods of marriage: procreation, fidelity, and sacrament.¹⁵ Procreation, being the lowest, is not essential to marriage.¹⁶ The highest, sacrament, has two-fold significance. It is a bond between the spouses that points to something greater.¹⁷ It also symbolizes the one city of God subjected to the one God.¹⁸

Later tradition refines the symbol (or sacrament) to that of Christ and the church. For example, Aquinas writes about “the union of Christ with the church, signified by matrimony.”¹⁹ And elsewhere,

Since, then, the union of husband and wife gives a sign of the union of Christ and the Church, that which makes the sign must correspond to that whose sign it is. Now, the union of Christ and the Church is a union of one to one to be held forever.…Necessarily, then, matrimony as a sacrament of the Church is a union of one man to one woman to be held indivisibly, and this is included in the faithfulness by which man and wife are bound to one another.²⁰

Therefore, in contrast to later refinement, it is notable that within Anglican tradition Cranmer omits this third good and splits the first.²¹ He omits symbol/sacrament in reaction to Catholic teaching and splits procreation into procreation per se, on the one hand, and procreation as a cure for concupiscence, on the other.²² Fidelity remains.

But despite severing marriage as a sign of divine action, this good continues to echo in the wider tradition. Barth observes that the monogamy of marriage follows from the exclusivity of the covenant.²³ And he notes that this covenant is summed up in the marriage metaphor of Ephesians 5:22–33.²⁴ Tom Wright resonates,

Heaven and earth…are different, radically different; but they are made for each other in the same way (Revelation is suggesting) as male and female. And, when they finally come together, that will be cause for rejoicing in the same way that a wedding is: a creational sign that God’s project is going forwards; that opposite poles within creation are made for union, not competition; that love and not hate have the last word in the universe; that fruitfulness not sterility is God’s will for creation.²⁵

Echoes like these are undoubtedly the source of my words to my colleague. But before we consider them further, the goods of marriage demand several qualifications. First, “The LORD God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him’” (Gen 2:18). Marriage, then, is a particular form of a general male-female good. So we marry because marriage itself is good. We do not marry just to procreate, or to be faithful, or to signify a greater reality. The goodness of sexually differentiated marriage (henceforth SDM, monogamous or otherwise—polygamy will be considered in the second section) precedes, transcends, and cannot be reduced to, the goods of marriage. Second, “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you” (Gen 3:16). Sin belies the reduction of the goodness of SDM to a self-evident truth of natural law. Such goodness must be revealed through Scripture. One corollary is that arguments for and against same-sex relations cannot be reduced to self-evident truths either. Third, how can we give due weight to the goodness—and goods—of marriage without idolising them? And conversely, how can marriage signify a greater reality without losing its own goodness?

1.1. The Trinity

This third two-part question will be addressed through a theological interpretation of Ephesians 5:28–31. Paul writes that,

husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church—for we are members of his body. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” (NIV)

“For this reason” (Eph 5:31) can mean a number of things. These correspond to three of the four Aristotelian causes.²⁶ If I make a table, the material cause of the table is the wood, although the material cause will not be considered in what follows.²⁷ The efficient cause of the table is my agency in making it. The formal cause is the design of the table. And the final cause might be the community that forms around that table. If this is what it means to create a table, then what might it mean for God to create marriage? What does it mean for marriage itself?

First, “for this reason” could mean that because we are members of his body, marriage is possible.²⁸ This makes grace, by which membership is possible, the efficient cause of marriage. Second, “for this reason” could mean that because membership takes the form of a body, which is the bride of Christ, a man will marry a woman. This makes the bridegroom metaphor the formal cause of marriage, and the topic of the third section. Barth puts it this way, albeit referring to Yahweh and Israel, “We have here the unattainable prototype of what is realized in the human sphere between husband and wife.”²⁹ And again, “The basis of love and marriage is not, then, the creation of woman out of man, but behind and above creation the co-existence of Christ and his community.”³⁰ Third, “for this reason” could mean that the goal of marriage is to procreate members of his body. This makes being members of his body the final cause of marriage.³¹ Marriage makes the church and genealogy of Jesus possible through procreation.

Further, we can entertain all three causes if we say that the Father corresponds to the efficient cause, the Son to the formal, and the Spirit to the final.³² The one God then acts indivisibly through these three causes.³³ What does this mean for marriage? Marriage is good because it is the initiative and gift of the Father. Marriage is sexually differentiated because it follows the form of church and Christ as bride and groom. Marriage is perfected by the Spirit for Christ and his church. The latter will occupy us in the next section.

2. The Perfection of Marriage

Christ and his church are the reason why Paul (Eph 5:30–32) presents marriage as sexually-differentiated. But if this reason is understood solely in a final sense, i.e., the goal of marriage is to procreate Christ’s lineage and body, the church, then polygamy, which lies in the lineage of Jesus, is not self-evidently precluded. Polygamy relativizes the implied bride-groom monogamy of Eph 5:30–32. But if the Spirit corresponds to the final cause, then the goal of marriage is not only to procreate Christ’s lineage and body, but also to become like Christ and his church, i.e., monogamous. This is what it means for the Spirit to perfect marriage for Christ and his church.

Perhaps we can say that when the Spirit perfects, the Spirit enables creation to be the good it was meant to be.³⁴ The Spirit enables creation to be good in itself. For example, in Matthew 16:16, when Peter confesses that Jesus is the Messiah, Tom Smail notes that Peter answers for himself (i.e., in himself) but not by himself. The Spirit enables Peter to be the good who he was meant to be—himself for Jesus. In this sense, “the mysterious relationship between grace and freedom is closely connected with the even more mysterious relationship between the Spirit and Son.”³⁵

We can now return to the third two-part question, How can we give due weight to the goodness—and goods—of marriage without idolising them? Marriage and its goods/goodness are subordinate to the Son because, as the next section shows, the Son is their formal cause. The cause (the Son) is greater than its effect (the goods), so the goods are not idolised. Conversely, how can marriage signify a greater reality without losing its own goodness? How can it be good in itself and not the mere means to some good? Because the Spirit enables creation to be good in itself—the good it was meant to be. And because marriage is created, the Spirit enables marriage to be the good it was meant to be—a good that will be outlined both finally and formally. First, what might it mean for the Spirit to enable marriage? Calvin writes that marriage is an ordinance, like ‘farming, building, cobbling, and barbering’.³⁶ And elsewhere he notes that ‘the knowledge of all that is most excellent in human life [epitomized by Oholiab and Bezalel’s workmanship (Exod 31:1–6)] is said to be communicated to us through the Spirit of God’.³⁷ The Spirit, therefore, not only enables the sanctification of individual believers, but also the institution of general ordinances. Second, the Spirit enables marriage to be the final good it was meant to be—marriage for Christ and the church. Christ and the church are the final destination for marriage. The Spirit can enable marriage towards its destination because the formal good—here the institution of MSDM—provides the possibility for procreation, even if particular marriages are not fertile. And because procreation makes possible the genealogy of Jesus and every person in the church, marriage is for Christ and the church. Procreation therefore follows from sexual differentiation.

Third, the Spirit also enables marriage to be the formal good it was meant to be, which is to enable marriage to follow the form of church and Christ as bride and groom. (This form, which is revealed and therefore good, will be discussed in the next section.) This means that the Spirit enables marriage to be monogamously male-female. We see that perfecting work in action as Scripture moves from the polygamy of the patriarchs to the monogamy of Jesus’s time.

We should not be surprised, then, at the need to discern a history of sex that elaborates a nature of sex—a history that includes, of course, all kinds of perversion and exploitation, but which may also include (can we rule this out a priori?) differentiations, elaborations, complexifications that are essentially constructive. Even the married-single alternative presented by the New Testament is a salvation-historical development upon the “male and female” of Genesis.³⁸

It is because of the Spirit, then, that Jesus interprets Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 to mean one thing and not another (Matt 19:4–6), i.e., not one that allows for polygamy. Understood in this way, Christ’s relationship with the church not only forms marriage (the formal reading) but does so through time.³⁹ Thus the movement from garden to garden-city—from Genesis 2 to Revelation 21—is therefore complemented by a movement from forms of one-flesh union⁴⁰ that include polygamy to one monogamous male-female form. So, in the same way that the Spirit works through us, cultivating (or perfecting) the garden into actual cities to more fully reflect Revelation 21, cultivating (or perfecting) polygamousforms of one-flesh unions into one monogamous male-female form more fully reflects church and Christ as bride and groom.

Three qualifications follow concerning, first, the form of marriage vis-à-vis married individuals; second, the particularity of MSDM vis-à-vis homogeneity; and third, the goodness of marriage: sexual differentiation vis-à-vis procreation.

First, the perfection of the form of marriage concerns precisely that—the form of marriage rather than the individuals therein. So the perfection of the form of marriage is not about the perfection of individuals, married or otherwise. After all, individuals within monogamous male-female marriage are no more perfect than anyone else. The perfection of the form of marriage also does not mean that it is the only final form. For the singleness of Jesus reveals singleness to be the perfection of another form. But that lies beyond the scope of this essay.

Second, by enabling things to be one thing and not another, the Spirit perfects (or realizes) the particularity of creation (e.g., the particularity of MSDM vis-à-vis polygamy).⁴¹ Therefore, perfecting the particularity of creation contrasts with homogenization, whereby one thing (e.g., same-sex marriage) is treated as the same as another thing (e.g., MSDM).⁴² Homogenization characterizes the call for same-sex marriages, although not all advocates of same-sex unions call for those unions to be marriages.⁴³

Third, although MSDM is good, it is not good because its final cause is procreation. If marriage required procreation to be good, our understanding of a good (i.e., procreation) might monopolize what we mean by marriage. We might then ask, “Is a childless marriage really a marriage in the fullest sense?” But precisely because MSDM is a mystery received by faith, the form of church and Christ as bride and groom is revealed to be good in itself. So MSDM is good simply because it is sexually differentiated. Therefore, the burden is taken off procreation, which may come as a relief to infertile couples or to couples who do not wish to produce children. But even then, two things follow. One, children are neither accidental to, nor exist solely for, MSDM. On the one hand, children are not accidental because as a material cause of MSDM⁴⁴ they remain intrinsically bound up with the goodness of MSDM. That is, if no children became adults then there would be no adults to marry and, therefore, no MSDM. On the other hand, the goodness of children is not intrinsically bound up with MSDM. Rather, the goodness of children is bound up with the imago Dei, which allows for the pathway of celibacy, say. Children do not exist solely for MSDM. Two, infertile MSDMs are not equivalent to same-sex couples, at least not in their resurrection possibilities. Having lost twins at twenty-one weeks’ gestation, I imagine, perhaps not implausibly so, that their resurrection will take place in the womb of my wife. Although marriage will pass away (Matt 22:30) perhaps parenthood will not. And if twenty-one week foetuses, then why not embryos? And if embryos then why not zygotes, gametes, and fertility? Is the healing of MSDM infertility, then, possible at the resurrection? I confess to not knowing the answer. But therein lies the difference. Whereas the possibility can be imagined for MSDM, it cannot be imagined for same-sex couples. For even at the resurrection, same-sex couples could not produce life.Recapitulating, Christ and his church are the reason why Paul (Eph 5:30–32) presents marriage as monogamous and sexually-differentiated. MSDM is not only established because accounts of creation state it but also because Christ and his church are the formal and final causes of those accounts. The final cause not only concerns the perfection (or realization) of the church and genealogy of Jesus but also the perfection (or realization) of the sexually-differentiating formal cause.⁴⁵

Read More