To some of my readers, I feel like my recent blog posts seem to fly in the face of everything they might have thought I understood. I probably look like I'm borrowing rhetoric and arguments from shady places. I think of the people who raised me, influenced me, and shaped me, and I wonder how many of them are thinking, "She knows better than this."
Tim Keller has stated that egalitarians (and certainly those who are LGBT+ affirming) are "loosening" Scripture. This is a bit disheartening coming from a leader in the PCA I respect so much.
I continue to approach Scripture in what is honestly a conservative way by any measure, holding it to be the the authoritative and infallible Word of God. I know and love many brothers and sisters in Christ who would not go so far as to say all of those things, particularly to affirm Scripture's infallibility.
How is it that even looking at Scripture in such a conservative way a person could conclude this?
What is going on here is not an issue of "biblical authority".
My whole life I've grown up and have learned what constitutes good theology. I have learned good ways of interpreting Scripture. Here are things I like to keep in mind when I'm looking at these passages:
What are the key ideas, words, and themes in the passage?
What is the context of the passage being read? Where does it sit in the larger book as a whole?
How does this passage fit in the larger narrative of Scripture? Does it point us to Christ? Does our interpretation of the passage make sense considering the rest of Scripture?
What of the historical context? Does that help us clarify the passage in any way? What of the original language it was written in? How can these things enrich our understanding of the text?
These are all exactly the things that are coloring how I am looking at Scripture. I am only doing what I was taught growing up.
Of all things, though, it undoubtedly seems as though I've lost God's vision for marriage and human sexuality within marriage.
So what I wanted to do with this post was to take a look at God's vision for marriage in Scripture.
Specifically, I wanted to show how I think that when we take a good hard look at what we really see in Scripture, gay marriage does exactly what marriage is supposed to do: namely, be a picture of Christ and the Church.
It may seem to readers that I'm "tricking" Scripture into saying something here that it doesn't. I am not trying to do this here. I will not be like someone making a math problem where they try and trick you into believing 1+1=3 or something by making you divide by a cleverly hidden zero.
In Scripture, all the marriages we see are between men women. That is true and I won't be trying to convince anybody otherwise.
However, normal does not equate to normative.
We already examined how the passages that people use to condemn same-sex relations (and only between men - sex between two women is never explicitly condemned anywhere in Scripture at all) do not condemn what we are speaking of today in our modern context.
In fact, most scholars - even scholars with a traditionalist interpretation - have by and large reached consensus on why Scripture, particularly Paul in the New Testament, so negatively speaks of men having sex with other men (there was a historical context!). This might surprise readers. The debate is more nuanced than one might think, despite how some will point out what is "plainly" written in Scripture.
Of course stating this will not change minds, and this was something I found to be true only after I've studied the matter and read a lot of back and forth on this subject. I would encourage anyone who reads this to do the same. I will try at the end of this blog post to recommend some books that I've found to be helpful. The heart of the debate does not lie in those passages, but rather in the idea of the necessity of male and female in marriage with a particular focus on anatomical complementarity.
Marriage in the Overarching Narrative of Scripture
Just about three years ago now, my husband and I stood in front of our beloved friends and family and took vows. One of the most exciting things for us was planning for the ceremony. Entering into a deeper relationship with the man who is now my husband brought new parts of Scripture into clarity for me.
Our ceremony included Scripture readings from Isaiah and Hosea. In fact, all of the Scripture at our wedding was taken from the Old Testament, and the homily was on Hosea 2:14-23.
This ceremony reflected the greatest wish me and my husband had (and still have): that our relationship might reflect God's faithful love towards his people and ultimately Christ's love for the Church.
All throughout Scripture, we see God's relationship with his people being compared to the marriage relationship.
Yet it's more than just that. Throughout the Old Testament, the prophets are constantly alluding to the mysterious Messiah figure who will come and fulfill and change everything.
All of the comparisons to marriage are wrapped up in the cosmic narrative of God's redemptive plan for not just Israel, but all of humanity.
Consider the book of Isaiah, where wrapped up in the whole book is all of this garden imagery. It makes us hearken back to the garden in Genesis.
I will sing for the one I love a song about his vineyard:
My loved one had a vineyard on a fertile hillside.
He dug it up and cleared it of stones and planted it with the choicest vines.
He built a watchtower in it and cut out a winepress as well.
Then he looked for a crop of good grapes, but it yielded only bad fruit.
"Now you dwellers in Jerusalem and men of Judah, judge between me and my vineyard.
What more could have been done for my vineyard than I have done for it?
When I looked for good grapes, why did it yield only bad?
Now I will tell you what I am going to do to my vineyard:
I will take away its hedge, and it will be destroyed;
I will break down its wall and it will be trampled.
I will make it a wasteland, neither pruned nor cultivated, and briers and thorns will grow there.
I will command the clouds not to rain on it."
The vineyard of the Lord Almighty is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah are the garden of his delight.
And he looked for justice, but saw bloodshed; for righteousness, but heard cries of distress. - Isaiah 5:1-7 (NIV).
It's as though we're reading the tale of the Fall back in Genesis all over again. In Genesis we had God create humanity, made in his image, who have a special relationship with God. In the end, though, they sin, bring evil into the world, and are cast out of the garden.
Here we see the nation of Israel, who has entered into a covenant relationship with God, being likened to a vineyard. Yet instead of bearing good fruit, it yields fruit that is "bad". The Hebrew word used here means "stinking" or "worthless" (Strong number H891). Instead of good sweet grapes, it yields stinky grapes. In the Hebrew it is literally "stink fruit".
It's a picture of how despite God has been faithful to the nation of Israel, instead of then living as a people of God and loving God and their neighbor, when God looks for justice, he instead finds bloodshed. He looks for righteousness, but instead hears cries of distress. Despite all of their sacrifices and prayers and rituals, despite all of their righteousness appearance, on the inside they are like grapes that look good but taste rotten and bad.
Stinky fruit indeed. So God says he will make this vineyard into a wasteland instead. It will grow only "briers and thorns", which is reminiscent of Genesis 3 where God is pronouncing a curse upon creation and says of the ground that it will produce "thorns and thistles".
Much like all the other prophets, though, in Isaiah the message doesn't stop there at hopelessness and God's curses.
Just like how in Genesis, we are told that from the woman's seed will come someone who will crush the head of the serpent, in Isaiah all throughout we're pointed to a mysterious savior figure who will bring redemption and this seemingly overblown picture of cosmic peace ("... the wolf will live with the lamb...").
Indeed we are told that:
The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel. - Isaiah 7:14 (NIV).
It is in Isaiah we get this picture of the "strong arm" of God who will come to humanity, but instead of coming in the form of a king who everyone will respect, he will be "... like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground" with no beauty or majesty. Instead he will be despised and rejected. He will bear the punishment humanity deserved.
It is in this narrative that we see Israel compared to God's bride:
For Zion's sake I will not keep silent, for Jerusalem's sake I will not remain quiet, till her righteousness shines out like the dawn, her salvation like a blazing torch.
The nations will see your righteousness, and all the kings your glory; you will be called by a new name that the mouth of the Lord will bestow.
You will be a crown of splendor in the Lord's hand, a royal diadem in the hand of your God.
No longer will they call you Deserted, or name your land Desolate.
But you will be called Hephzibah ["my delight is in her"] and your land Beulah ["married"]; for the Lord will take delight in you, and your land will be married.
As a young man marries a maiden, so will your sons marry you; as a bridegroom rejoices over his bride, so will your God rejoice over you. - Isaiah 62:1-5 (NIV).
We see here that God rejoices over Israel just as a bridegroom rejoices over his bride. It's a very beautiful picture.
In spite of Israel's unfaithfulness, God promises to redeem and save Israel and indeed bless all the nations through this mysterious Messiah figure, and he will rejoice over his people as his beloved. He will delight in her.
This beautiful picture of faithful, redemptive love and the comparison of God's relationship to Israel being likened to the relationship between spouses is reflected all throughout the Old Testament.
In the New Testament, we see how all the Old Testament was ultimately pointing us to Jesus. In Jesus, we see this beautiful narrative become clear.
The mysterious Messiah figure is no less than God himself, the Son of God, humiliating himself by putting on human flesh, and submitting himself even to death on a cross for the sins of humanity.
We see God's plan for redemption was not just for redemption of the nation of Israel, but to free humanity from the bonds of sin and death and to invite all into a relationship with him. We're adopted into a new family. We have a beautiful new inheritance. And throughout the New Testament, now it is the entire Church that is God's delight.
The most fleshed out picture we get of this is in Paul's letter to the Ephesians when he is speaking of marriage and speaks of Christ loving the church and giving himself up for her, and indeed as being one with her.
We can see here how marriage is like the relationship between Christ and the Church in that it is a covenantal relationship in which both parties delight in each other and are faithful to each other.
Yet there are other important aspects of marriage and God's vision for human sexuality that need to be examined.
God's Vision for Human Sexuality and Marriage
In my post examining complementarian theology, there were a couple important interpretive points that proponents of complementarian theology will point out about Genesis. Many of those points had to do with establishing the headship of men in marriage.
Something I did not examine was the idea of marriage as being only between a man and a woman. This idea of the "complementarity" of the sexes as being a moral "must" in marriage. Indeed, there are some that would say that two people of the same gender marrying cannot possibly be a real marriage.
What I want to do here is look at Scripture which sheds light on God's vision for marriage and see if we can conclude that marriage is only to be between a man and a woman.
The Genesis of Marriage
In my previous post on complementarian theology, we already examined the first three chapters of Genesis at length.
Here, I want to narrow our focus down to chapter two, when we get biblical commentary on what is the first marriage in all of Scripture.
Chapter two of Genesis narrates the creation of Adam ("the man") and Eve ("life" or "living").
I want to focus on an important key things we are told here:
God says it is not good that the man is alone. He needs a strong ally, a companion uniquely "suited" to him.
In both complementarian and traditionalist readings of Scripture, much of made of this point.
People generally infer from what is read that:
Man is incomplete without the woman. Thus you need both genders to "complete" each other.
Eve being a "suitable helper" implies that her femaleness, her biological difference from Adam, is what makes her "suited" to Adam. This shows us that from the beginning, God's vision for marriage is reserved for a man and a woman coming together.
First off, in the narrative we read in Genesis two the problem God names is not Adam's incompleteness, but rather that he is alone. It is not good that he is alone. He needs a companion. But what kind of companion?
There is an important Hebrew word to look at here: kenegdo.
The Hebrew word in Genesis that is often translated as "suitable" is the word kenegdo.
It is a form of the Hebrew word neged. It is a word which can mean "in front of", "before", "in sight of", "at a distance", "opposite" (Strong number H5048).
Marg Mowczko in her excellent article on the matter makes an important observation about this word, its component parts, and its function here in Genesis:
The כּ (kaf) prefix (=”k”) is an inseparable preposition which is typically translated as “like,” “as,” and “according to,” and it affects the meaning of neged. The “k” (kaf) prefix means that “opposite” is an unlikely sense of kenegdô. The pronominal וֹ (holem vav) suffix is equivalent to the pronoun “him.” So the word kenegdô is effectively made up of two prepositions plus a pronoun, and is a prepositional phrase.
BDB [The Hebrew lexicon Brown, Driver and Briggs] goes on to give the definition of kenegdo as “to what is in front of = according to,” and it translates Genesis 2:18 as “I will make him a help corresponding to him i.e. equal and adequate to himself.”
As we can see from this, a good rendering of this word would be "corresponding".
It doesn't seem to necessarily be emphasizing the difference of Eve from Adam, but highlights how she corresponds to him.
A textual clue that backs this is how as we read in Genesis, she was made out of his very own flesh.
This was discussed some in my post examining complementarian theology.
Adam's spontaneous poem where he declares Eve the bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh connotes not Eve's difference from him, but their shared nature.
Recall how all of the animals were very different from Adam, yet none of them would do. It is only when God makes Adam a companion from his own flesh that she is deemed "suitable".
I will highlight once again how the language Adam uses here is used throughout Scripture to connote kinship:
So when Laban heard the news of Jacob his sister’s son, he ran to meet him, and embraced him and kissed him and brought him to his house. Then he related to Laban all these things. Laban said to him, “Surely you are my bone and my flesh.” And he stayed with him a month. - Genesis 29:13-14 (NASB).
“Speak, now, in the hearing of all the leaders of Shechem, ‘Which is better for you, that seventy men, all the sons of Jerubbaal, rule over you, or that one man rule over you?’ Also, remember that I am your bone and your flesh.” - Judges 9:2 (NASB)
Then all the tribes of Israel came to David at Hebron and said, “Behold, we are your bone and your flesh. - 2 Samuel 5:1 (NASB).
You are my brothers; you are my bone and my flesh. Why then should you be the last to bring back the king?’ Say to Amasa, ‘Are you not my bone and my flesh? May God do so to me, and more also, if you will not be commander of the army before me continually in place of Joab.’” - 2 Samuel 19:12-13 (NASB).
The focus in Genesis two is not the difference or even necessarily the complementarity of Eve to Adam in their sexual difference (a side note here: the "complementarity" of two people need not be reduced to sexual difference), but on their shared identity and nature.
This reflects what we previously read in Genesis one, where both male and female are made equally in the image of God.
They and they alone are set apart from all the rest of creation in that they are both made in the image of God and share a human nature.
Another thing that is important to note about this passage is that it does not take both a man and a woman coming together to be an image of God.
Both individually equally image God. We ought not make the mistake that many have made assuming that it either takes both sexes or that one sex bears the image of God more than the other.
Does a person who is single not carry the image of God? Did not God create all of humanity in his image?
We must not forget:
God created humanity in God’s own image,
in the divine image God created them,
male and female God created them. - Genesis 1:27 (CEB).
I want to note here that a huge criticism of LGBT+ affirming Christians is that the beauty of how God has created male and female is diminished. This is not true. There is beauty and significance in this fact.
That men and women have differences that stem both from biology and society means we each have unique ways we can glorify God. It shows the genius and creativity God had in our creation. I enjoy learning about neuroscience and psychology and learning all the ways in which men and women think differently on the whole and in the aggregate. Studying this aspect of God's creation is truly amazing and fascinating.
But the passage in Genesis points us to the amazing truth that each of us regardless of sex is created fully and completely in God's image.
We also cannot forget how some are born with ambiguous sexual characteristics, and some are born with a dissonance in the their body (the more visible aspects of biological sex) versus their mind (the less visible). They too are made in the image of God. This does not undermine how that individual is still made in God's image.
We do not image God insofar as we are more "male" and "female" or more masculine or feminine.
It is not our maleness and femaleness that separates us from the rest of creation, but that we are made in the image of God.
The "One Flesh" Aspect of Marriage
In Genesis two, we read, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh."
Much has also been made of this "one flesh" aspect of marriage.
There are two important theological interpretive points to engage with here:
The assumption certain proponents of the traditionalist interpretation have of the anatomical complementarity of male and female (ie. the fittedness of the male penis and the female vagina) as being necessary for this "one flesh" relationship.
Only the "otherness" that comes from the sexual difference between male and female can truly reflect the divine-human difference in the relationship between Christ and the Church.
The first point about anatomical complementarity might surprise some readers. However, this honing in on the biological difference and "complementarity" of male and female on the biological level shows that this is an important sticking point for many people.
There was recently an article written on Piper's Desiring God website. Here is a quote from it that illustrates what I'm talking about quite well:
"Sexually, a man’s body is structured to harden, initiate toward a woman, and give. Her body is structured to soften, welcome, and receive.... God designed male physiology in such a way that, whether or not he ever marries and has children, a man is uniquely equipped to be a husband and father. Conversely, God created female physiology in such a way that, whether or not she ever marries and has children, a woman is uniquely equipped to be a wife and mother. Generally speaking, a man’s constitution inclines him toward initiation, provision, and protection, whereas a woman’s constitution inclines her toward responsiveness, care/nurturing, and relating."
The article spends a lot of time speaking of the biological differences on the whole between men and women before using that to make statements about what these things say about how men and women reflect Christ and the Church.
It's another argument from nature.
However, these arguments from nature by themselves do not hold water when making a moral argument or to say, "This is what your divinely ordained purpose is that you should pursue." You can only use them if you're already reading Scripture with a certain bent and then interpreting these things as evidence for something your already believe.
Not to mention they can become problematic in other ways.
Is a straight couple who gets married only "one flesh" if they have penetrative sex? What if they never do? Is that morally wrong? "Unnatural"? What about couples where one person has an injury or disability that makes this kind of intimacy impossible? Is this "one flesh" relationship really reducible to the fittedness of the penis and the vagina or to the possibility of having children? Is it only reducible to sex?
Or could the "one flesh" relationship being spoken of at the end of Genesis chapter two be at least in part referring to leaving one's "bone and flesh", one's kin, to form a new relationship and familial unit with one's spouse?
Another quote that is a good example of biological arguments of nature of this contentious quote Douglas Wilson made about what biology teaches us about the sexual relationship between men and women and what it ought to look like:
Notice the contrasting language of conquer/surrender.
If we were trying to make a moral argument from nature, someone could easily assert that because of physiological attributes we note about the penis, then those who possess a functioning one have a divinely ordained purpose to go about "penetrating, colonizing, and planting" anyone with a vagina regardless of consent.
I could also try to use an argument from nature to appeal to my own position. Namely that humans in comparison to most other animals on this earth have much lower levels of sexual dimorphism. Often studies that look at the various differences between men and women will note that if you compare differences among just men and just women, you'll find just as great if not greater differences even in those groups.
But this would not be a good fact to use to make a moral argument or say something about the roles men and women should take. Nor would it be good to use to support my position. Is it good information? Can we learn from it? Absolutely.
Yet it's clear that such arguments are not truly informative of God's vision concerning human sexuality and marriage.
Those we must get from Scripture. Which brings me to an important point:
There is nothing in Scripture pointing to a biological understanding of gender complementarity.
We have seen how nothing in Genesis seems to be referring to this idea of gender complementarity - certainly nothing explicitly stated. The only thing we get is in Genesis one where it states God made people male and female.
Yet the point of that passage is that both male and female are created equally in the image of God.
Another quote in the Desiring God article also happens to be a great example of how many with a traditional interpretation of Scripture say that it is male and female together in marriage which reflects Christ and the Church. According to this view, only the "otherness" that stems from sexual difference can fully reflect the picture of Christ and the Church that marriage is meant to illustrate.
"God created man and woman, sons and daughters, for the ultimate purpose of bringing God glory (Isaiah 43:7). The Bible indicates that we shine light on the beauty of the gospel in distinct ways. Men tell the Jesus-story in bodies that reflect truths about the nature of Christ’s relationship to the church from the groom’s perspective. Women tell the same story from the perspective of the bride (Ephesians 5). God strengthens us — sex-specifically — to honor him in this way."
This is a very interesting theological point that I want to examine thoroughly.
To do that, we must look closely at what Paul is saying in Ephesians five and consider just what aspect of marriage he is comparing to Christ and the Church. Does this aspect necessitate two different genders in a marriage?
Ephesians and the Unity of Christ and the Church
Just as is the case for complementarian theology, the traditionalist approach to Scripture puts a lot of emphasis on the household codes in Scripture - particularly on the most fleshed out version of those which we get in Ephesians chapter five.
Yet this small passage stands in a larger context of Paul's letter to the church in Ephesus.
Ephesians was likely written by Paul during his imprisonment in Rome, and it was likely meant to be read not just to the church at Ephesus but to all the churches around Ephesus, since Ephesus was such an important city. It was a port city and an important center of trade.
A huge recurring theme throughout the whole letter is unity. Paul constantly is reminding those who will receive this letter that we are all members of one body, and how this has a dramatic affect on how we live with one another. He is addressing churches made up of both Jews and Gentiles, and unity was something that was difficult to achieve among those two groups of people.
After writing his greetings, Paul reminds his readers that we all were dead in our transgressions, and all of us were made alive in Christ. He says:
It is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast. - Ephesians 2:8 (NIV).
It is by grace we have been saved. Paul is saying that for this reason, no one believer can say they're better somehow or getting a better inheritance or place in the kingdom of God than the other by their own merit.
He reminds his Gentile readers that they have been "brought near through the blood of Christ". He says that:
For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. - Ephesians 2:14-16 (NIV).
He is drawing both his Jewish and Gentile audience to the fact that they are made one, unified, by the work of Christ. Both Jew and Gentile have access to the Father by the Spirit (verse 18).
This is true of all who are in Christ.
Continuing the theme of unity in Christ, Paul likens the church to a building, with Christ as the chief cornerstone.
And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit. - Ephesians 2:22 (NIV).
You can see how from the beginning there is all of this imagery of being made one in Christ and being built up in Christ.
In chapter three, Paul talks about "the mystery"of Christ that has been made known to him, and says his readers will be able to understand his insight, and he tells them what this "mystery" is:
This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus. - Ephesians 3:6 (NIV).
The mystery Paul is speaking of here is referring to how these two different groups of people who were once separate and far from one another now share together in the same promise and are members together in one body.
He prays for those reading this letter that Christ may dwell in their hearts and that they might be rooted and established in love to grasp the love of Christ.
He goes on in chapter four to continue fleshing out this theme of unity in Christ.
He starts off by saying he is urging them to live a life worthy of the call they have received. He says:
Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit - just as you were called to one hope when you were called - one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. - Ephesians 4:3-6 (NIV).
Again, Paul is emphasizing all of these things which we who are in Christ share. There is one body and one Spirit. He is building off what he said earlier when he said Jesus has broken the dividing wall and he himself is our peace. So he is urging his readers to keep this unity, ever keeping Christ at center.
He will go on to say that each has been given gifts, "... so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and became mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ."
Before beginning to transition to then applying this "mystery" to giving guidance on how his readers can really live all of these truths out, he says that instead of being "like infants" and spiritually immature:
"... speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work." - Ephesians 4:15-16 (NIV).
It may seem like I've been quoting a lot of Ephesians, and I have. Rereading the letter as a whole, I think, is a good idea. I can't tell you how many times I've heard sermons on just the husband/wife passage in Ephesians five, which loses focus on the whole narrative we get in the letter.
While most sermons I have heard will say, "Paul is comparing marriage to Christ and the Church," I haven't heard as many that situate what Paul is saying in that passage as flowing out of ideas he's been developing all the way up until this point in the letter.
I think there are also helpful textual clues we get which can help us understand Paul's meaning in the household codes.
Starting at the end of chapter four and going into chapter five, Paul starts talking about more practical application of the gospel.
He urges them to get rid of unwholesome talk, anger, falsehood, and all manner of things. He does this by continually reminding his readers that as people in Christ, they are no longer living in darkness, but living in light. They have new hearts, minds, and attitudes. This should change how they live with one another.
Instead of being filled with wine, they should be filled with the Spirit, whom they all share.
It is at this point that Paul tells them to submit to one another before going into the household codes.
You can see from this that the code doesn't function as Paul's directives for how to structure family, government, and all of society as was the case in Aristotle's Politics.
Nor is he rooting people's identities in roles or purposes that stem from their forms or biology.
Instead he is constantly reminding them of Christ and how they are one in Christ.
When we read what he says about marriage in this way, it takes on a new light.
Paul is using this head-body metaphor to make us think about the things he already said leading up to this point in the letter.
While some would say there must be some significance in how he labels husbands as heads and how this must connote authority, I do not think this is how this passage is supposed to be read at all.
For one, he could have said in the letter that Christ is the body and the Church is the head, and when comparing this to marriage we still would've had all the same questions. We'd still likely assume that because Christ has authority and husbands in the metaphor are being compared to Christ that husbands must have authority like Christ does.
Yet using that Paul calls husbands "heads" here as part of the metaphor to make an argument for God-given authority is reading something into the passage that is not there.
His readers would not need to have been told or instructed that husbands were over their wives in society. They were indeed at that time the paterfamilias. They were the most public and therefore the most prominent. They represented their families. They had the most power. That Paul when using his head-body metaphor likens husbands to the head could easily be taking all of those things into account.
But Paul doesn't have to argue with his readers during this time that there was a hierarchical structure present here. Nor does he spend his time arguing for one. Nowhere in the passage does he tells us he's comparing the submission/authority dynamic between Christ and the Church to the marriage relationship.
First off, the command to submit is given to all believers, and all believers are being pointed in Ephesians to what they all share as members of the body of Christ.
The picture we get from Paul is that of the wife as the body and the husband as the head. Both are united as one flesh. The point of the head-body metaphor is you have two parts that function as one whole.
To drive his point further home, Paul tells husbands to love their wives as their own bodies:
After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, 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." This is a profound mystery - but I am talking about Christ and the church." - Ephesians 5:29-32 (NIV).
Does it look like Paul is comparing the authority-submission aspect of how Christ has all power and authority given to him and the church submits to him as the head? I do not think that is what Paul is trying to show us here.
Paul is trying to point his readers to how as Christ and the Church are one, a husband and wife also are one. Two parts, one unified whole. The one flesh relationship of marriage is what is being compared to the relationship between Christ and the Church.
He alludes once again to this unity being a profound mystery. This should make us hearken back to chapter three, where he speaks of the mystery as being how we are in Christ members together in one body with him as the head and as sharing a beautiful inheritance.
Christ is united to the Church, and the Church is all united together in Christ.
Nothing about this says anything about the gender complementarity here, and nothing about this would make us conclude that only marriage between a man and a woman is capable of being a picture of Christ and the Church.
Two people faithfully committed to one another becoming "one flesh", as the Church is united in Christ. That is the picture we see here. You do not need two genders to show such a thing.
Concluding Thoughts
There is so much that has led me to the LGBT+ affirming position I have today. Denying the authority of Scripture is not one of those things. Meeting and listening to members of the LGBT+ community was part of it. Also part of it has been taking time to study the back-and-forth between various biblical scholars and different books that have been written on this subject.
I do not pretend to assume these blog posts will be persuasive to people who think differently than me. I do hope it shows people how a believer can take a different stance on this issue and still be a genuine and sincere follower of Jesus. I am so appreciative to anyone who has taken the time out of their day to read this.
This post was difficult to write. It is extremely challenging to write about how LGBT+ marriage can be a picture of Christ and the Church, and not for primarily exegetical reasons.
Here I will conclude with a quote from James Brownson, ordained minister and a professor of New Testament at Western Theological Seminary:
"But the debate is not only an exegetical one. Elements of personal experience factor largely into this discussion as well, but often remain implicit and hidden. I would suggest that most heterosexual persons who have the opposite sex know deep in their something of the mystery that stands at the heart of such a relationship. That mystery is characterized by a deep and profound interaction of similarity and difference - in other words, complementarity. Many men and women think differently, solve problems differently, tend to experience the world differently. Those differences enrich many heterosexual marriages in countless ways, both great and small. It is enormously tempting simply to assume that this is what the Bible has in mind when it speaks of the 'one flesh' union in Genesis 2:24. It is also tempting, in this light, to wonder whether same-sex intimate relationships must necessarily lack something that many heterosexual marriages find of enormous beauty and value....
We cannot clearly distinguish, even in modern experiences of intimate complementarity, between those patterns of similarity and difference that are inherent to gender (understood biologically) and those patterns that are simply a function of the otherness of one's life partner... I believe that is why so many discussions about 'gender complementarity' in Scripture stay at such a general and nonspecific level."
Recommended Books
Affirming:
Torn by Justin Lee - this is not a scholarly book, but I cannot recommend it highly enough. It is an important read for anyone who wants to know how to love their LGBT+ brothers and sisters in Christ.
Bible, Gender, Sexuality: Reframing the Church's Debate on Same-Sex Relationships by James Brownson - this is a highly influential and scholarly book. It is very in-depth, both looking at Scripture and at what we can learn from history. James Brownson dialogues with both non-affirming and affirming scholars. It is an incredibly well written work, though somewhat heady. Great if you want to learn more about the back-and-forth and various arguments presented by both sides.
Scripture, Ethics, & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships by Karen Keen - also a well done scholarly work. This book is more recently written and Karen does a fantastic job of summarizing the different positions and engaging with other scholars. Karen also asks fantastic questions about sound ways of deriving ethics from Scripture. She approaches this conversation from multiple angles.
Non-affirming:
What Does the Bible Really Teach about Homosexuality? by Kevin DeYoung - Not a very long book, but a good summary of the traditionalist view of Scripture.
The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics by Robert Gagnon - very influential scholar on this subject who almost every affirming scholar has ever had to dialogue with. Quite scholarly and heady, but a good read for those who want to know the scholarship on this side of the table.
People to Be Loved: Why Homosexuality is Not Just an Issue by Preston Sprinkle - very graciously written book with a traditionalist interpretation.