I will start with a general remark: Christians in the past have not yet permeated the dough of sexual reality with the leaven of faith (cf. Mt 13:33 par). This is what we want to do. Christ himself refers to the creation of man and woman, as described in Genesis: "Have you never read that from the beginning the Creator made them male and female? And he added: That is why a man leaves his father and mother, and is united to his wife, and the two become one flesh" (Matth 19:4).

So we have to read carefully what the two 'creation poems' in Genesis tell us about the human being, which is the same 'from the beginning'. The first one in order, Gen 1, though the later one in time, puts it in words of deep insight: "God created man (adam, in the singular) in hisown image, in the image of God he created him(once more: singular), male and female he created them (plural)" (Gen 1:27). So in the original idea of the Creator man or the human being is a unity. Only in the third phrase is man divided or specified into male and female. This means, neither male or female are 'the man' or the human being, only together are they human, they depend on each other to be fully human. This is great wisdom, detected already by Plato when he saw both ways of being human, male and female, as two half globes complementing each other, and it is repeated by the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber in his book Ich und Du (I and You), when he says: "I become I only in relationship to You."

The second creation poem, the older one, Gen 2, tells us, how the original unity of the human being is again achieved. The Creator sees and says: "It is not good for the man [adam, Swidler translates: the Earthling, from adamáh) to be alone. I shall make him a partner suited to him" (Gen 2:18, Revised English Bible, Oxford 1989). And Christ cites the following passage: "That is why a man leaves his father and mother, and is united to his wife, and the two become one flesh" (Gen 2:24 and Mt 19:5). Note that the word 'flesh' describes the most carnal aspect of the human being, without any of the hesitation which we would have.  Yahweh and Jesus see the flesh positively. - Let me remind you of the fact that the Word of God, the Son of God, according to the most spiritual evangelist John "became flesh", not man, but the unity of human being as intended by the creator (cf. Jn 1:14).

Another retrospective quotation from the Old Testament in the New is the word house for generations of a family. "Joseph went up to ... Bethlehem, because he was of the house of David by descent" (Lk 2:4). The unity of generations begotten by the unity of man and woman, is described with a word that depicts a place, a spiritual unity.

Man and woman by engendering children create a spiritual space of life and mutual exchange of words and values which shows that flesh and spirit are very closely linked in the so called carnal act. One should meditate a long time on this strange junction: Begetting makes a place. The sense of the coming together of man and woman in marriage is a lifelong dialogue between parents and children, community, a house full of life.

Just to give an example of the Old Testament use of 'house' in this sense: When David wanted to build a house for the ark, God told him through the prophet Nathan: "You will build me a house? -I will build you a house. When your life ends, I shall set up one of your family, one of your own children, to succeed you" (2 Sam 6:5 and 12). Of this house of David, Joseph was a descent, and through him also Jesus, his son in law.

All this is more of a background of the teaching of the New Testament on human sexuality, but it provides a frame for the following more specific teachings.

MARRIAGE AN IMAGE OF HEAVEN
The first one - in my opinion or awareness - is the fact that Jesus performed his first miracle at a wedding feast in Cana in Galilee (Jn 2). Every one knows the story. It is just the meaning behind it which I want to stress: Why just the first miracle, called a 'sign' by John, at a wedding? To which reality does this sign point? The answer is: wedding has an immense meaning as a symbol and image of heaven. When you go to the last writing of the New Testament, to Revelation, you will several times find a description of heaven as a wedding: "Come, says the Angel to the seer, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb" (Rev 21:9). "Let us rejoice, for the wedding day of the Lamb has come! His wife [in fact: not his bride,but his wife is the true text!] has made herself ready. . ."(Rev 19:7). "Happy are those who are invited to the wedding banquet of the Lamb!" (Rev 19:9). Unity between Christ and his Church as his collective bride or wife is seen as being as close as the unity between husband and wife on earth. Marriage, in other words, is an image of heaven. No surprise, if you read secular novels, but you won't easily find it in church writings!

It is not only in Revelation that the wedding and the bridegroom are mentioned as images of heaven. It starts, when John the Baptist says: "He who has the bride is the bridegroom. The bridegroom's friend who stands by and listens, rejoices at hearing the bridegroom's voice. This is my joy" (Jn 3:29). Another instance is the parable of the royal wedding feast in Mt 22:1-14. Here on earth, we are invited by prophets and apostles and their followers to come to the wedding, but the feast itself, the wedding of the Son of God and his collective bride - who consists of all the invited guests, for no other bride is mentioned! - will take place in heaven. The same is the case with the five wise virgins in Mt 25:1-13; they are the collective bride of Christ. Our first conclusion then is: Marriage is an image of heaven.

Now we can turn to Paul in I Corinthians. In chapter 7 he deals with marriage and virginity. There are several teachings of great importance in this chapter.

ABSTENTION AN EXCEPTION
First, in view of tendencies in the young church for men to abstain from any contact with women, he says that marriage is the normal way of living for a Christian. "Each man shall have his wife, and each woman shall have her husband" (1 Cor 7:3). His reason is somewhat negative: "In order to prevent immorality".

Second: marital intercourse is a duty for all couples: 'The husband must give the wife what is due to her, and equally the wife must give the husband his due" (7:4).

Third: one of my major points, and one of the new aspects to be brought to the fore, is the following rule on exceptions from this duty: "Do not deny yourselves to one another (or: refuse one another), except when you agree to devote yourselves to prayer for a time, but then come together again! Otherwise, through lack of self-control, you may be tempted by Satan" (7:5). You may note that nothing is said here about children or procreation! Paul stresses only what later theologians called the mutuum adiutorium, you must help each other, you shall come together as husband and wife, for this is the normal way of living for married people, lest one of both partners might look for a partner outside of the marriage! You must not have in mind to engender a child, when you wish to come together (as Pope Paul VI wished in Humanae Vitae), simply do what the Creator wanted you to do: Become one flesh.

I think this is 'good news', is redeeming, is liberating from many fears. And it is consonant with Scripture. Even Vatican II taught in Gaudium et Spes (50) that the second purpose of marriage, the mutum adiutorium, is of equal value as the so long first one, the procreation of offspring.

What follows has given rise to a grave misunderstanding of Paul's teaching. He says: "I say this by way of concession, not command" (7,6). What is the concession? The coming together in marriage or the temporary abstention from intercourse? Severe moralists thought it is marriage. Marriage only a concession to human weakness? Beware! It is, of course, the exception from the rule, which is a concession. Then the phrase makes sense: 'You may abstain for a while, on mutual agreement, but then come together again. I say this (the exception) as a concession, not as a command, that is, you must not abstain, you are not obliged to, not even for reasons of prayer. The rule and the command is, as I stated before: Every man shall have his wife, and vice versa, and the wife shall give her husband his due, and vice versa.' Marriage remains normal, abstention is an exception. This is the second conclusion we have to draw from Scripture.

FOR EACH ONE HIS OWN CHARISM
With the next phrase we touch celibacy and marriage in their balance treated by Paul: 'I would that all men were indeed as I am (celibate). However, each has his own spiritual gift from God, one of this kind, one of another" (7:7). Paul underlines the possibility of abstaining by his own example, which was (we must assume) lifelong. But he knows and teaches all centuries: This is not possible, because everyone has received his own gift from God, one the gift of celibacy (compare Mt 19:11 the word of Christ: 'Not all can grasp this, not marrying, but only those to whom it has been given), the other the gift of marriage!

Marriage is a gift. Behold! Did you ever hear this in church teaching? 'Marriage is less valuable than celibacy', that is what we have been told. Paul says both are equal. The Council of Trent defined in 1563 that celibacy is better (Denzinger-Schonmetzer n° 1810, D 980), but according to Paul this can only be true for those who "have received the charism" of celibacy. For those who "received from God the charism" of matrimony, marriage is better. Paul resumes his teaching on celibacy and marriage at the end of chapter 7: "He who marries does well, who does not marry, does better" (7:38), which is true only on an objective level, not on the subjective one. For each one it is the best to follow his own charism, is my third conclusion.

HOLY THROUGH THE FAITH OF THE PARENTS
Another point of great importance in Paul's teaching on matrimony is I Cor 7:14: Children are sanctified through their believing parents, already before being baptised! This astonishing news occurs in Paul's treatment of marriage between an unbelieving partner and a Christian. It is known in Church Law as the 'Privilegium Paulinum': If a non-Christian partner wants to continue to live together with his or her Christian partner, that is OK : "For, the unbelieving husband is sanctified through (literally: in) his wife, and the unbelieving wife is santified through (or: in) the believing brother. Otherwise your children would be unholy (or: unclean), yet they are holy." The faith of the one parent is spreading all over the family! The 'house' is fully sanctified even through the faith of the one parent. Baptism of children is therefore not a necessity but only a common usage. Holiness, one might conclude, is transferred through sexual intercourse; that is the opposite of what St. Augustine thought: original sin is transferred by sexual intercourse! No: Christian children are engendered and born holy, or rather they become holy through the faith of their parents, my fourth conclusion.

MARRIAGE CONTRACTED IN THE LORD
The rest of chapter 7 of I Corinthians is dedicated to virginity (7:25-38). It is only by way of a counsel or an opinion, that Paul recommends remaining unmarried, because he sees the end of the world coming soon. But even then he says: "I say this for your own good, not in order to throw a noose upon you" (7:35). All must be absolutely free, as he repeats several times: "If a man is free to act at his own discretion, etc..." (7:37). But the very end of the chapter is devoted to marriage again: "A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if he dies, she is free to marry whom she will, it should, however, be in the Lord' (7:39). That means, marriage can be contracted 'in the Lord'. We may presume: he surrounds them, puts an envelope around the marriage. Marriage can be contracted 'in the Lord', that is my fifth conclusion.

MARRIAGE A HOLY MAKING SACRAMENT
How this can happen is detailed in Ephesians:
"Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her" (Eph 5:25). 'Wives, be subject to your husbands as though to the Lord" (5:22). The - often overlooked! - headline above these two instructions is: "Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ" (5:21). The love of Christ to his Church is the 'envelope' that is to sanctify the Christian marriage. Love, according to this instruction, is giving! Giving oneself as Christ gave himself to his bride or better: to his wife. St. Ephrem the Syrian boldly applies this to the eucharist, in a prayer used in a marriage rite of the Eastern Catholic church: "Christ, thou the husband, thou who gavest thy wife, the church, thy flesh and blood in the supper-room, bless these two" (see A. Raes, Le mariage dans les Eglises d'Orient, Chevetogne, 1958, pp.12, 150).

The wedding rite should be reformed, so as to say not: "I take you as my wife/my husband" but "I give myself unto you as your husband/your wife". It would indicate a 'Copernican revolution' in Christian marriage, right from the beginning. The German ritual therefore has already been changed to say: "I accept you as my wife, as my husband", which indicates that the partner is a gift.

The similarity between Christ's and the Church's love for one another and the love of Christian husband and wife for one another, as stressed in Ephesians, is the reason for marriage being a sacrament, a way of sanctifying both partners. You can easily see why: heathens take their wives, their husbands; it is a kind of egoism. Christians should give themselves to one another; it is a kind of self-surrender. Taking is inspired by avidity: giving is inspired by charity. This makes the difference, and a lifelong difference. Marriage is a sacrament which makes holy, my sixth conclusion.

Paul indeed is very specific on that in 1 Thessalonians: "This is the will of God, that you should be holy, that each one of you knows to be the owner of your wife's body (I cannot translate it better, as to be true to the Greek text; perhaps I might say: to have intercourse with your wife) in holiness and honour, not in passionate desire like the pagans who know nothing of God" (1 Thess 4:4). See the difference between taking and giving! Giving makes holy. If young people do not dare to many sacramentally, it's a pity. Their marriage in fieri should become one in esse. Therefore some priests in the confessional condone intercourse before marriage.

PRAYER BEFORE SLEEPING TOGETHER
With the following quotation from I Timothy we come to the culmination point of Paul's (or his school's) teaching on sexual morality: Pray before sleeping together! We are used to listening to the story of Tobit and Sarah in the Old Testament in the later version, that tells us something about three nights of prayer before they indeed sleep as husband and wife. This deterred most Christians from following their advice. And in fact, it is not the true text of that book. In reality they just prayed in the very first night and then slept peacefully together (Tob 8:4-9).

Spiritual directors gave the counsel to keep the three Tobit-nights. Did you ever hear them give the counsel to pray before sleeping together? This makes the difference! We pray before eating, another corporal joy. Why not before the greatest joy God has invented for humans? Remember that it is an image of heaven, and right so. Why not thank God for this great gift? The Letter to Timothy invites us explicitly to do so: "Everything that God has created is good, and nothing is to be rejected, if it is taken with thanksgiving; it will then be made holy by God's word and by prayer" (I Tim 4:4). Prayer before sleeping will make the 'envelope' of Christ's love to his Church tangible. The glory of God the Creator will surround the two, like Adam and Eve in paradise before the Fall, and they will not feel naked! If you do not pray, the whole affair will remain in the realm of nature, perhaps in that of desire and taking. Only prayer will change natural desire into self-giving love. This is my seventh conclusion.

DIVORCE IS ADULTERY AND MARRIAGE IS HONORABLE
I will deal very shortly with divorce which is covered by Jesus (Mt 19:1-6 parr) and Paul (1 Con 7:10). Divorce should not be, Jesus and his apostle say. It is like adultery. But adultery can occur and can be forgiven. The Latin Church has made of this command - it 'cannot be' - the indissolubility of marriage. The Eastern Church since the time of the Fathers has said: There is an order, and God's householding. The Eastern Churches therefore bless a new marriage, after both parts have repented, but they do not judge on the sacramental character of this new union. In any case they admit the spouses to all sacraments. There are endeavours in the Latin Church to follow this practice, especially since the Council of Trent did not condemn the practice of the Eastern churches (DS 1807, D 977).

INTERCOURSE IS KNOWING
The rest is a corollary to what has been said as being of paramount importance. Hebrews 13:4 admonishes: "Marriage must be honoured by all, and the marriage bond be kept inviolate." The first part of the phrase would not have been said, if there were not tendencies to dishonour marriage!  So, positively, we must read: Marriage is honourable: eighth conclusion.

The first Letter of Peter, after stressing the interior beauty of women rather than the exterior, addresses the husbands in these terms: "You husbands, you shall cohabitate with your wives according to Christian knowledge, as with the weaker ones, and honour them, because they are heirs of the grace of (eternal) life together with you. Then your prayers will not be impeded" (1 Pet 3:7, partly my translation). Some comment may be permitted: Scarcely any translation dares to render what the Greek text says: 'Cohabitate', our word for sleep together. This shall happen, however, according to your Christian knowledge, that is, with the head leading the cohabitation in marriage. Knowledge reminds us of knowing.

Having in mind all we have heard about the spiritual space or house that a marriage is supposed to be, about the resemblance of Christian marital love to Christ's love for his Church, about the glory of the Creator enveloping the lovers, we will certainly understand why both the Old and the New Testament call sleeping together "knowing" each other! "Adam knew his wife, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain" (Gen 4:1). Mary asked the angel: "How shall this (conceiving the saviour) be, because I know not man?" (Lk 1:34). That is, reason should be the leading force in lying with one another. If this knowledge - similar to giving thanks to the creator and to praying in I Peter - is provided, further prayers are not impeded. Sexual intercourse does not distance us from God but, if 'received with thanks', brings us nearer to him, is my ninth conclusion.

DELIGHT AS AN IMAGE OF GOD
My last biblical instance concerning marriage and sexuality is found in I John 2:15. And here we deal with a final error, as well. It runs: "My children, don't love the world and what is in the world ...For everything in the world, the appetite of the flesh, and the appetite of the eyes, and the arrogance based on wealth, all this does not spring from the Father but from the world." Appetite (translation of the REB, the rest is mine) reminds us of the desire blamed by I Thessalonians, and insofar is clearly to be avoided: "Giving makes one happier than taking", as Jesus, according to Paul, says (Acts 20:35). But the error consists in the wrong translation which you often can find:
"All that is in the world, the lust (or delight) of the flesh etc. is not from God". No, the delight is one of the greatest inventions of God, image of heaven, and a gift to be received with thanksgiving, as I Timothy says. Already in the Old Testament loving tenderness between bride and bridegroom is praised in the Song of Songs as royal feelings. It is significant that the New Testament does not once quote this book of the Old Testament!

So let us rejoice in God's gift and put ancient errors aside, my tenth and last conclusion.