Avondale College

PAUL’S THEOLOGY OF SEXUALITY, MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY AND

SOME ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS: A SYSTEMATIC APPROACH

A Paper
Presented in Partial Fulfilment
of the Requirements for the Subject
BBNT17000 Epistles A

by
Brendan Knudson

“I certify that this assignment is my own work and is free from plagiarism.
I understand that the assignment may be checked for plagiarism by
electronic or other means. The assignment has not previously been
submitted assessment in any other subject or institution.”

Signed ______________
 Introduction
This paper will look at the statements of the apostle Paul regarding sexuality,
marriage and the family as found largely in 1 Corinthians, Ephesians and Colossians.1
It will consider the basis of Pauline theology as rooted in the creation account, the
idea of agape and the image of God motif. From this positive standpoint, the paper
will then consider ethical considerations such as non-marital sexuality and
homosexuality, along with passages from Paul which address these matters.
Sexuality, Marriage and Family
The two millennia gap between the first century and today means a wide
cultural divide for those seeking to find contemporary meaning to New Testament
teachings. Today, the issues of homosexuality and cohabitation are among those that
churches are grappling with. While many start looking at Bible ethics regarding, for
instance, homosexuality beginning at passages like Romans 1:26-27 or 1 Corinthians
6:7, this paper will take a systematic approach.
The systematic approach, used here, is a modified version of the definition of
systematic theology given by Wayne Grudem.2 As such, Paul’s theology of sexuality,
marriage and family will be “treated in an orderly or ‘systematic’ way.”3 To begin
with, there is a need to look at the most comprehensive treatments of these matters
and only then can we safely look at the specific issues that radiate from the core
doctrine.
“Any theology of sex must begin with a theology of the body.”4 And so we
shall take a moment to consider what Paul says about that. The predominant Greek
understanding of his day split man into two parts, one good, the other bad. “The good
part is the soul, which is imprisoned in the bad part, the body.”5 Paul declares, in
opposition to this teaching, that the “body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you,
whom you have from God? You are not your own for you were bought with a price.
So glorify God in your body.”6
This statement immediately precedes Paul’s most comprehensive discussion on
sexuality in 1 Corinthians 7. We see that Paul does not look down on the body as
1
While it is acknowledged that some consider Ephesians and Colossians to be deuteron-pauline,
this study will consider the whole corpus of traditional ‘Pauline’ writings with the exception of
Hebrews.
2
Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 24.
3
Ibid, 24.
4
Sakae Kubo, Theology and Ethics of Sex (Nashville, TN: Review and Herald, 1980), 9.
5
Ibid, 9.
6
1 Corinthians 6:19, 20. All Scripture quotations taken from the English Standard Version.
inherently evil, but views the body as a potential vessel for the Lord. It is the misuse
or impure expression of sex which tarnishes the body, and not sex itself. “The body is
not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body... Every other sin
a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own
body.”7 “The apostle’s affirmations in 6:13b about the body and the Lord were radically out
of step with the cultural values and ethical mores indigenous to a pagan urban setting.”8
While Paul does address specific concerns in chapter 7, he is consistent in his message
that sex is a privilege of marriage, “because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man
should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.”9 Even more than this, it is a
duty. “The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her
husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does.
Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.”10 “[B]y
his use of the term duty [rights] (ojfeilhv), Paul highlights the importance attributed to sexual
intimacy within biblical theology.”11
In the previous chapter, Paul quoted Genesis 2 in his discussion of immorality.
“[D]o you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her?
For, as it is written, ‘The two will become one flesh.’”12 “Paul reaches back to Gen.
2:24 to find the language of ‘oneness’ related to sexual intercourse.”13
We have seen that for Paul, the proper sphere for sexuality is within the
marriage relationship. His theology of sexual intimacy is also seen to be rooted in the
early chapters of Genesis, and is informed by his anthropology. We next move to
Ephesians 5, where Paul most clearly speaks of the marriage relationship.
The section of this epistle concerning the domestic life (5:22-6:9) and
specifically chapter 5, continually draws parallels between the marriage relation and
̔ ώ̔σπερ, καθως)
the Christ-church paradigm. The passage is replete with similies (ως,
comparing such things as the submission and love between Christ and the church to
the husband and wife.
The idea of headship is also found here. “For the husband is the head of the wife
even as Christ is the head of the church.”14 1 Corinthians 11 also parallels these two

7
1 Corinthians 6:13, 18.
8
Richard E. Oster, Jr, The College Press NIV Commentary: 1 Corinthians (Joplin, MO: College
Press, 1995), 144.
9
1 Corinthians 7:2.
10
1 Corinthians 7:3, 4.
11
Oster, ibid, 156.
12
1 Corinthians 6:16.
13
Oster, ibid, 147.
14
Ephesians 5:23
headship ideas with God and Christ. “I want you to understand that the head of every
man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.”15
Concerning the Greek word for “head” in Ephesians (and by extension, 1
Corinthians),
The specific basis of the submission of the wife is that God has set the husband in
the family as its “head” (kefalhv). Some have argued that this word means only
“source,” but the lexical evidence and Paul's own usage in 1:22 are conclusive in
support of the meaning “leader” or “ruling authority.” In Eph 1:22 Paul says that
God “subjected” (uJpotavssw) all things under Christ's feet and that Christ was
appointed to be “head” (kefalhv) over all things. Now, in the context of chapter
five, Paul clearly intends to use these key words in the same sense.16

From these headship comparisons, it is clear that Paul considers the family
marital relation to be a shadow of the divine. 1 Corinthians 11 also contains
references to the creation account, and so we could consider these parallels to be an
allusion to the idea of the “image of God.”17
Moving on from looking just at the spousal element of the family, Ephesians 6
discusses child-parent relationships. “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this
is right. ‘Honor your father and mother.’”18 Again, Paul’s theology is firmly grounded
in torah, specifically the ten commandments.
The complete picture of the Pauline understanding of family, then, is that it
includes predominantly a husband and wife relationship, the only valid context for
sexuality to be expressed, and that these become mother and father to any children
that are a result of that sexual activity. This is all founded upon the creation account,
rooted in torah, and is seen to be an expression of divine realities.

Ethical Implications
A key to understanding Paul’s ethic is to realise that he does not simply reiterate the
ethics of the Old Testament, though he draws on Old Testament principles and
commands from time to time. If we miss the fact that Paul is essentially a sectarian
person who is drawing on his heritage for a new social situation and community, we can
fall prey to fundamental misunderstandings... For Paul there is a very close connection

15
1 Corinthians 11:3. Some argue against “husband” and “wife” as appropriate translations here,
yet the context of Genesis quotations appears to make this implicit.
16
Kenneth L. Boles, College Press NIV Commentary: Ephesians (Joplin, MO: College Press,
1995), 312.
17
1 Corinthians 11:7 (cf. Genesis 1:26, 27). That the image of God idea can be seen in the three-
tiered parallel in verse 3 is recognised by some, for instance: “Due to the fact that Paul makes a
correlation between “divine order” (i.e., God is the kefalh of Christ) and male “headship” (i.e., man is
the kefalh of woman) at Corinth, some interpreters with feminist-egalitarian commitments end up
promoting an egalitarian view of the Trinity in its depiction of the relationship between God and Christ.
This view is obviously non-Pauline! (See 1 Cor 15:28.)” Oster, ibid, 249.
18
Ephesians 6:1, 2.
 between theology and ethics, between Christology and paraenesis in the life of the
believer.19
Paul relates his ethics closely to his theology. Often he makes a statement of
fact followed by a “therefore.” In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul establishes the proper realm of
human sexuality so that we might know where safety lies. Outside of this is
immorality, and Paul gives a list of immoral practices in the preceding chapter which
includes sexual perversions.
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be
deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who
practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor
swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were
washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and
by the Spirit of our God.20
This passage is highly significant and will be examined carefully. While it is
true that Paul adapts the theology of his Jewish heritage to new cultural
circumstances, he does not go to the extent to redefine sins. The issue at stake in this
passage is acceptability to inherit the kingdom of God, and unrighteousness is said to
keep a person out. But Paul goes further than his and gives a list of what this
constitutes in the context of what the Corinthians dealt with. Of this list, a number of
terms are significant to this paper.
The first term, translated above “sexually immoral” is “πορνος” and “[t]he
Greeks considered one who prostituted himself for gain as a pórnos.”21 The word
“adulterers” from the passage above is the Greek “μοιχος”. This word generally
speaks of infidelity to the marital covenant and the root word features prominently in
the Septuagint of the 10 Commandments.
The phrase “men who practice homosexuality” includes two Greek terms which
cover both the active and passive participants in homosexual couples. The first term,
“μαλακος”, literally means “soft to the touch” and is often used of clothing and soft
materials, but figuratively refers to one who is effeminate. The other term,
̓
“αρσενοκοιτης”, is very significant. It is a composite word that is only used by Paul
and is made up of two words that appear closely together in the Septuagint of
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. The last reads, “If a man lies with a male as with a woman,

19
Ben Witherington, III, The Paul Quest: The Renewed Search for the Jew of Tarsus (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998), 263, 264.
20
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
21
Spiros Zhodhiates (ed.), The Complete Word Study Dictionary (Chattanooga, TN: AMG
International, 1992).
both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their
blood is upon them.”22
Paul clearly condemns each of the sins he lists as “unrighteousness” and goes on
to say that some of the 1 Corinthians engaged in these practices before their
conversion. However, Paul says that that was in the past, and now they are washed
and sanctified. This idea is also found in Ephesians:
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the
course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at
work in the sons of disobedience--among whom we all once lived in the passions of our
flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of
wrath, like the rest of mankind. 23
Paul speaks of what the Ephesians “once” did, meaning that they are no longer
bound to these practices. Here is where Paul’s ethic comes in: Christ gives us freedom
to choose the right when we are prone to the wrong. Let us look now at one final
passage which deals again with homosexuality, and apply what we have learned so far
of Paul’s belief-ethic approach.
For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the
men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for
one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the
due penalty for their error.24
This passage has traditionally been accepted as a blanket condemnation of
homosexual practices, significant for its mention of women as well as men. However,
recently, it has come under reinterpretation as homosexuality has become more
socially acceptable. If we look at the wider context, Paul initiates a discussion of good
and evil with reference to the Creation account. In verses 18-20, Paul talks about how
God and His goodness are attested to by the natural world. Verses 21-25 discuss a
debasing of the image of God and God handing them over to their own “lusts”,
“impurity” and “dishonourable passions”.
The homosexual practices in 26-27 are listed separately to a larger list in 29-32.
Homosexuality is seen as the end cause of idolatry, where “both idolatry and certain
sexual practices change the created order. According to the created order, males are
supposed to worship God and have intercourse with women. Women are supposed to
worship God and have intercourse with men.”25

22
̓
“αρσενοκοιτης” is also found in 1 Timothy 1:10.
23
Ephesians 2:1-3.
24
Romans 1:26, 27.
25
David L. Bartlett. "A Biblical Perspective on Homosexuality." In Harold L. Twiss (Ed),
Homosexuality and the Christian Faith: A Symposium. (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1978) 30, 31.
 There is no mistaking the direction of Paul’s argument, or its consistency with all other
known branches of ancient Judaism and early Christianity. Convinced that
heterosexuality was part of the divinely created order for humankind, and that sexual
identity is essential to humans as bodily creatures, he presents deviations from
traditionally Judaic role definitions as indicative of an arrogant assault on the Creator and
as a sign of current and forthcoming wrath.26
Conclusion
Paul viewed sex to be pure only when practiced in monogamous, heterosexual
marriages. His view was founded upon the creation account in the first two chapters
of Genesis, where the marriage unit constituted an “image” of God, which Paul also
extends to a shadow of Christ and the Church.
Paul’s ethics flow naturally out of this theology. He views any expression of
sexuality contrary to the confines of the marriage prototype as sexual immorality.
Aberrant behaviour in this regard can keep a person out of God’s kingdom. The good
news Paul points to, though, is that sexual sin as possible to be overcome through
Christ.
Paul’s references to homosexuality are found in lists of specific sins which
disqualify from inheritance of the kingdom. His terminology shows that he takes the
Levitical laws in this regard seriously (though he doesn’t repeat the punishment found
there).
In the recently controverted passage of Romans 1, we can see all the hallmarks
of Paul’s positive theology – reference to creation and the image of God motif. In this
context, Paul does not appear to say that homosexuality is “unnatural” in a biological
sense, as some today read, but “unnatural” as in against the original created design.

Bibliography

Bartlett, David L. "A Biblical Perspective on Homosexuality." In Harold L. Twiss

(Ed), Homosexuality and the Christian Faith: A Symposium. Valley Forge, PA:
Judson Press, 1978.

26
Robert Jewett, "The Social Context and Implications of Homoerotic References in Romans
1:24-27." In David L. Balch (Ed), Homosexuality, Science, and the “Plain Sense” of Scripture. (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000) 234, 235.
Boles, Kenneth L. College Press NIV Commentary: Ephesians. Joplin, MO: College
Press, 1995.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994.

Jewett, Robert. "The Social Context and Implications of Homoerotic References in

Romans 1:24-27." In David L. Balch (Ed), Homosexuality, Science, and the
“Plain Sense” of Scripture. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000.

Kubo, Sakae. Theology and Ethics of Sex. Nashville, TN: Review and Herald, 1980.

Oster, Richard E, Jr. The College Press NIV Commentary: 1 Corinthians. Joplin, MO:
College Press, 1995.

Witherington, Ben, III. The Paul Quest: The Renewed Search for the Jew of Tarsus.
Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998.

Zhodhiates, Spiros (ed.). The Complete Word Study Dictionary. Chattanooga, TN:
AMG International, 1992.