Conclusions

Although the scriptural tradition of ancient Judaism sought to constrain human sexual behavior within limits that would shield the community from the disas­trous effects of unbridled lust, Hebrew tradition viewed marital sex as a di­vinely ordained component of human life.

Jesus, as we have seen, said remarkably little about sex and apparently found little to criticize in the conventional sexual ethics of first-century Judaism. Clearly he opposed adultery and sexual promiscuity, and he taught that divorce should be discouraged save for infidelity. But what little we know about his sex­ual views indicates that he made no sharp break with the commonly accepted practices of the Jewish communities in which he lived. St. Paul, on the other hand, was far more concerned with sexual issues than Jesus had been and con­sidered sex a serious hindrance to spiritual perfection. Paul adamantly opposed sexual licentiousness and pleasure-seeking, particularly outside of marriage. Within marriage Paul felt that couples should keep their sexual passions under firm control. Still Paul considered marital sex sacred, a central feature of the bonding of husband and wife, a paradigm of the spiritual union of Christ with the Church.

In the post-apostolic period Christian writers began to express much more restrictive views of the role of sex in human life.

Conclusions

relations, even in marriage. Extreme opinions at both ends of the spectrum were rejected by orthodox authorities, who denounced these beliefs as heretical.^[328]

Although some patristic writers argued that virginity was a highly meri­torious Christian virtue, no mainstream authority prior to the canons of Elvira demanded celibacy, even from the clergy.^[329] Despite this moderate pose, the Church during the late third and early fourth century was clearly moving to­ward a more emphatic stress upon sexual abstinence as an ideal. Sentiment in favor of celibacy, particularly as a requirement for the clergy, drew upon argu­ments grounded in Pythagorean beliefs. Those who believed that virginity rep­resented a spiritually superior state also seem to have adopted some of the rea­soning of the Encratites and Gnostics, who perceived an incongruity between sexual activity and participation in the sacred mysteries of the Christian liturgy.^{[330] [331]}

Symptomatic of a growing body of opinion that depreciated marital sex as impure and debased was the practice of “spiritual marriage,” which first ap­peared in the third century.

At the same time that Christian beliefs and practices relating to sex and mar­riage were changing, Roman civil law concerning marriage was also in flux. Even before the time of Constantine, public policy as enunciated in imperial rescripts and decrees had begun to place greater emphasis on marriage as a personal relationship. Roman law also began to assign greater value to long du­ration, even permanence, in marriage than it had previously done.^[332]

The conversion of Constantine early in the fourth century profoundly al-

tered relationships between the Christian Church and the Roman government. The Church soon became an integral part of the intellectual and cultural life of the Roman world and Christianity attained an intellectual sophistication and respectability that it had never known. As the Church became part of the main­stream of Roman life, it borrowed increasingly from the pagan world, from which it had formerly been almost totally estranged. In the process, both Chris­tian institutions and thought were irrevocably altered. These developments also signaled the beginning of radical changes in the ways that authorities of both Church and government dealt with sexual matters.

ence. The Church, according to Veyne, simply adopted as its own the notions about sex­ual morals that were already current among educated pagans.