Are you aware of the origin of marriage? A lot of Christians would say "Yes" and point us back to Genesis. In chapter 2 we read, "A man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" (Gen 2:24). That's it, the origin of marriage. Jesus quoted it in Matthew 19 as the reason why we shouldn't allow divorce. Paul quoted it in Ephesians 5 as the reason why husbands should love their wives. The origin of marriage is the union of a man and a woman. See?
I think it would be a mistake to agree with me there. Look at the Ephesians 5 passage:
"Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church (Eph 5:31-32).Do you see that? Paul just disagreed with me.
Marriage didn't originate in the union of Adam and Eve. According to Paul, the concept of the union of a man and a woman originated in God's plan to unite Christ and the Church. Marriage, then, is simply the human representation of the divine concept. In other words, marriage, properly understood, should be a representation of the relationship between Christ and the Church.
Look back at the Ephesians passage again. We see there that wives (who represent "the Church") are to submit to their husbands (who represent "Christ") "as the Church submits to Christ". See that? Wives submit to their husbands as to the Lord because the first purpose of marriage is to illustrate the relationship between the Church and Christ. Husbands (who represent "Christ"), in turn are to love their wives (who represent "the Church") "as Christ loved the Church". Again, the first purpose of marriage is to illustrate the relationship between Christ and the Church.
You can spend some time considering the ramifications of such imagery. We know, for instance, that the Great Commission to the Church is to make disciples (that is, to bring people to Christ and then "raise them" in the training and admonition of the Lord). The great commission (no capital letters) for a marriage is to bear children, bringing them into the world and bringing them up in the training and admonition of the Lord. Or, from another perspective, we know that there are different roles for Christ and for the Church, so we shouldn't be surprised that there should be different roles for husbands and wives. We know that Christ is the head of the Church and we know that the husband is the head of the wife. We know that the Church is supposed to adore Christ and we read that wives should respect their husbands. We read how Christ sacrificed Himself for the Church and we read that husbands ought to do the same for their wives. And so it goes.
If you agree with the premise, there are two very important applications. First, does your marriage provide a good illustration of the relationship between Christ and the Church? Are you as husbands providing the headship and care that the wife needs? Are you as wives providing the love and support that the husband needs? Are you seeking to reproduce and, if you are/have, are you making it a priority ("great commission") to disciple those children? Frankly I think that if we can get it through our heads that marriage is a picture of that relationship between Christ and Church, it will clear up a lot of confusion many of us have over what marriage should look like.
The second application is in the public sector. If we allow "marriage" to be redefined, what then? Where are we going to go to provide the biblical image? If they redefine marriage to something else, they've already stripped off all the useful imagery. There is no submission, no reproduction, no connection whatsoever to the relationship between Christ and the Church and, therefore, God's design for marriage. I'm not concerned at all about the fact that sexual relations between two people of the same gender is sin. Fine. That's a given. But if we allow God's definition of marriage as an image of Christ and the Church to be stripped away, the consequences are much worse than we realize. Think, for instance, what happened to Moses when he struck the rock rather than spoke to it (Numbers 20). Moses destroyed the image of the Rock once struck that could now be appealed to by prayer, and it cost him entry into the Promised Land. God takes His imagery seriously. Those who engage in sexual immorality (whether they are homosexual or heterosexual) will bear the consequences of their own sin, but we need to be careful not to give up too easily in defending God's imagery of marriage.
6 comments:
The hard question to ask is if Christians in general would have better success in their fight against the redefinition of marriage if their own marriages more clearly reflected Christ. Personally I think that is true, but I also think that there is a tendency to "hide" from the world rather than engage with it, and thus many Christians with marriages that do reflect that relationship of Christ to His Church, aren't rubbing elbows enough with "sinners" to have much of a testimony. If we won't go out, who will?
Kind of like "Let your light so shine before men ...", right?
Thanks for this post. Very interesting perspective. I use that Ephesians tract to explain to some who think that marriage is a one way thing submission wise, or to explain to the feminists that there's some inequality at work there. Considering how Christ's love for His church was manifested, what with the scourging and crucifixion and all, there's enough spousal submission from either side.
Anyway, as the traditional marriage reflects the Christ/church relationship as you describe, distorting the imagery that traditional marriage is would work well in the agenda of the redefiners. Christianity is a major stumbling block for them as they seek to change the entire understanding of marriage and family. Christianity and marriage/family are then co-equal partners. Redefining (or "destroying" for those who want things straight up) of either side of the equation works to harm the other as well.
On unequal submission, I'd say that submission is "equal" (both submit), but the submission looks different. The wife submits to authority. The husband submits his desires to love.
Sure, the parallel holds.
But my point was only that women who feel put upon by the verses in question need not, and men who see the verses in question as a green light to be domineering best not.
Sorry, Marshall Art, I came across wrong. I was being supplemental, not disagreeing. To those who say, "It's mutual and wives don't need to submit to their husbands" I use your approach. It's not mutual. Clearly wives submitting to husbands as the Church submits to Christ is not "mutual". To those who say, "It's not mutual" I use the other fact. There is a sense of mutual submission. And to the husband who sees this as license to be domineering, well, I have no kind words to offer.
Post a Comment