|
THE INSTITUTION OF
MARRIAGE AND ITS RELEVANCE
TO THE MARRIAGE
BETWEEN: GOD & ISRAEL/ CHRIST & THE CHURCH THE ROLE OF
CHRISTIAN HUSBAND & WIFE IN EPH. 5 HEADSHIP AND THE ORDINATION
OF WOMEN/HOMOSEXUALS. INTRODUCTION One of the controverted matters drawn up by the CTICR
speaks of disagreement on “how the teaching in 1 Cor. 14 v 34 and 1 Tim 2 v 11
on the subordination of women in the church relates to the biblical teaching on
the relationship between male and female in creation, headship, the orders of family,
state and church, and subordination within the orders." (p. 1 A,4) To my
knowledge, nothing has been written recently on the issues raised by that and
its relevance to the heading of this paper. It is not the purpose of this paper to explore in
detail what marriage is, whether it has secular validity as well as Christian
validity, whether it is a Christian ordinance only, whether marriage in other
religions is of equal validity, whether of creation or salvation or what
specifics it might have as preparation for a lasting and happy marriage in some
premarital counselling. Suffice it to say at this point that the life‑long
union (or should that read: long‑life?) of even non‑Christians will
have the blessing of God in general terms. However it is only in the Christian
marriage that the full potential of marriage is realized. As this paper will show, God Himself established the
full potential of marriage by the way He created both Adam and Eve with their
specific roles. He declared himself married to His people with Jesus repeating
that declaration with regard to the Church. A parallel theme is that of the
Lord as head and His people as His body. This is a theme which Paul develops
fully in Eph. 5 in the specific roles given to husband and wife in marriage.
Such roles are possible only with a Christian husband and wife and are simply
not interchangeable, no more than the relationship between Christ and the
Church is. This paper is intended for both pastors and lay
people. In an endeavour to do this effectively, Hebrew and Greek words will be
included in ( ) with meanings given in English. I believe this will make it
easy for both to benefit from what is written. The abbreviation “LXX” is the
Septuagint. 1. THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE. The institution of marriage coincided with the
creation of one man and one woman, and is a direct consequence of that creative
act on the part of God. This was so even though the method of their creation is
different. It was an executive decision on the part of the Triune God (Let us
make ... ) both as to the decision to create ( make = to produce by labour),
the end result, and the chosen material from which, and the consequent
authority and purpose this would give to man with regard to the rest of the
created world. The same word is used for the origin of animals and man:
"Let us make..." ( LXXεποιησεν עשה) produce by labour. (Gen 1 v 25-26). This is distinct
from the “Let there be” which brought
everything else into existence. But then a further divergence occurs between
animals and man. In 1 v 27 we find the specific word "create" [LXX: εποισεν again for Heb. ברא ] which was used in 1 v 1. (NOTE. That the Septuagint makes no
distinction between the two Hebrew words used). What is being emphasized in
this repetition is that something special is intended which is further reinforced
by “in His own image". No other creature was so honoured. It is clear from
the Scripture record that there is a clear distinction between the creation of
the rest of the universe (Let there be ... ) and the creation of the human
being (let us produce ... ) using created material: dust of the ground. We note that the term used in I v 27 is “man” [ LXX: τον ανθρωπον אדם ]The verb on which the noun is based means: to be red. That might suggest
something about the colour of his skin, but is more likely to be a reference to
the word for earth ( LXX: της γης Heb: אדמה ) and so reflects the colour of the earth used.
The word “man” is quite general and is used as we once used the term
"man" as being human being without reference to gender. We need to note however that in the actual form given
to both animals and birds on the one hand and Adam on the other, there is a
common substance from which God moulded ( LXX: επλασεν; Heb: יצר ),or give shape to, like a potter using clay,
(Gen. 2 v 7, 19) and did so using dust of the ground. From that Greek word
comes our Enlish word: plasticine, because of its moulding potential. (LXX: εκ της γης Heb: עפר). The word dust ( LXX: χουν.
אדמה מן עפר) is rarely used of wind blown
dust as in a dust storm, but rather of arable soil that can run through one’s
hand. Sometimes the term is combined with ashes (אפר ) to signify what is passing and
fleeting (Job 30 v 19) and as part of repentance in dust and ashes (Job 42 v
6). Sometimes it is used with the wearing of sackcloth as a sign of deep
mourning. (Esther 4 v 3). We note the significance of the curse on Adam, rather
than on Eve (though she clearly is involved in the curse and its consequences)
in returning to the ground (LXX: γη Heb.: אדמה ) because
he was dust (LXX: γη, though Hebrew word is different from previous one: עפר)and would return to it. Gen. 3 v
19. We note also the significance in the burial service where the words are
used: earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust as a clear reference back to
that curse, yet in the context of the certainty of the resurrection. Clearly
then the suggestion of the devil that by eating the fruit, Eve would move
forward, turned out instead to be a backward step and a cruel hoax. The verse (Gen 1 v.27) moves on from that decision
"to make" to the action. Already the title "man" (LXX: τον ανθρωπον Heb: אדם) suggests further action to
follow. Mankind is to come in two forms: male and female. (The Hebrew words are
(זכר and נקבר) The term for male (LXX: αρσεν. Heb: זכר ) is related to the verb זכר. [There is
no Greek equivalent ) to remember, recollect,
bring to mind. A male then is the one through whom the "memorial of
parents is continued, or who carries on the line”. We note also that it is the
man who is specifically mentioned as leaving father and mother to be united
with his wife (Gen 2 v.24). Thus a new unit is established separate from, and
alongside, that of both sets of parents left and of equal value with them. So
the continuation of the line centres on the man, just as the new unit does. The
term for female (LXX: θηλυ Heb: נקבה ) is
related to a verb which has a significant background. The verb (נקב ) [there is no Greek equivalent] has several possible meanings one
of which is: to bore a hole. Then also to hollow out, to excavate. A female is
thus named either because of her genitalia, whether human or animal, or more
likely because of the womb, and therefore refers to childbearing or reproduction of the young both in animals and in
human beings. Clearly then male and female have specific roles in reproduction
so they can equally fulfil the role stated in the command given for them: be
fruitful and multiply. (Gen.1 v 22, 28). The creation of the two as male and
female for this specific purpose is highlighted again by Paul in Rom. 1 where
he states that homosexuals, by that very fact and act, have departed from their
intended purpose and so despise God's created intention for them, and His gift
to them. Paul there also uses the same words used in the LXX earlier in this
paragraph to indicate that their males and females have departed from their
God-given intention. More of this a little later. In opposition to much of what we hear on TV and in
literature elsewhere about human beings being "animals", it needs to
be stressed that God created "man" in a special manner, thus drawing
a clear distinction between "man" and "animals" in general.
We cannot question the fact that physiologically there are similarities:
organs, skeletal structure, various systems e.g. blood and nervous, but the
similarity ends there. There is no image of God and no participation in
decision making re the ruling and subduing of all things. Another word is used later on in Genesis for man (as
male) and woman (as female). Adam is the progenitor of the human race as Eve is
the mother of all living (Gen. 3 v 20) The term Adam (man) is used consistently
throughout Gen. 2 until we get to v.23 where a change occurs. It is at this
point that the terms are used: man (LXX: ανδρος
Heb: איש) and woman (LXX: γυνη Heb: אישה). The terms in the Hebrew
reflect clearly that there is a close similarity (bone of my bones, flesh of my
flesh) but yet a difference as to the process of creation and the role in
procreation. The man is clearly distinct from the woman and yet both are equal
in their respective God-given roles in it. A most significant word is used for the creating of
Eve from the side or rib of Adam. God did not create her, or mould her like
clay (as He did Adam) but he built her. (LXX: ωκοδομησεν Heb: יבן from בנה). Gen. 2 v 22. This verb means:
to build, to erect such things as: house, temple, city, walls, defences. In
other words Eve was custom built to be the helper suitable for Adam.
Incidentally the word "rib" (LXX: πλευραν Heb: צלע) [We get “pleurisy from the Greek word] is used
both for the structure or skeleton and also for the sides of a wooden ship. The
word "rib" can also mean "side". We get the clear picture
of someone specially made. Structurally (to keep the building terminology) she
was "bone and flesh" of Adam and yet there were significant
differences. Much has been written by protagonists of women's
ordination about the so‑called inequalities between male / female in the
Old and New Testaments. The creation of both shows this to be manifestly
untrue. The act of creation (stated 3 times in different ways) applies equally
to both even though the process was different. (1 v.27) Both equally received
the "Image of God". The blessing of God is upon both, as they are to
be fruitful, thus providing fertility yet even in this they have a different
and specific role to play which is not interchangeable. The subduing of and
ruling over all living creatures is equal. After the Fall they are now equal in
sinning, being turned out of Eden, and with their common need of the coming
Saviour. The different roles given already in their perfection, were not
removed or diminished after the Fall, even though as the curse indicates, it
was going to be more difficult to fulfil them from then on. The distinction
required in reproduction remained, something that homosexuals have been trying
to circumvent, albeit unsuccessfully, even with IVF. They still need donors,
and thus in a backhanded way, only confirm what God had ordained. It is necessary at this point to consider the issue of
divorce, which is a departure from God's original intention and a direct
consequence of the Fall. It is necessary because it serves to confirm what God
had always intended about marriage. The only reference in this paper will be to
Matt. 19 v 4‑6. We note first of all how Jesus gives full authority to
the Old Testament record of Genesis in 19 v 4. The force of the question:
"Haven't you read?" is that the Pharisees had read but not understood
or had ignored it. Jesus therefore confirmed that it was to stand for all time.
It is equivalent to: "it is written". The next thing is the endorsement by Jesus of the
creative act in Genesis first of all of male and female (αρσεν and θυλη) and thereby
clearly picking up on Gen.1 v 27. These are the same terms used by Paul in
Rom.1 v 26‑27. (NOTE: The NIV is incorrect here in translating men and
women instead of males and females). Paul thereby shows homosexuality as being
in direct conflict with the Creator's intentions and therefore cannot be
condoned in any way e.g. same sex marriages. The next issue is the endorsement by Jesus of marriage
which is to be held in honour by all. It is significant that Jesus uses the
general term for human being (ανθρωπος) even though in Gen. 2 v 24 it is specifically a man
(LXX: ανθρωπος Heb: איש) as male who is given a wife. Clearly though what
is meant is the marriage situation of one man and one woman. It could well be
that Jesus was going back to "Adam ‑ man" in Gen. I v 27. As
well this Greek word, though general is occasionally used in a direct reference
to gender where the context makes it plain that a male is intended. (John 7 v
22). The creation of male and female therefore also means the institution of marriage
in Genesis even though men and women do not necessarily marry from then on. Finally we have two definite additions to Genesis. The
first is being one flesh, to which Jesus adds: "the two" i.e. the man
and his wife (LXX adds "the two” which is missing in the Hebrew). This is
the only marriage that God and Jesus recognize as valid. In fact Jesus actually
states it twice in Matt. 19. Add to this that God has joined and it is not to
be pulled apart, and we have a permanent, life‑long union intended by God.
This is the reason for the inclusion in the marriage vow: As long as you both
shall live. There is significance here too for marriage and its permanence, in
the intended permanent marriage covenant of God and Israel, Christ and the
church and the overtones of that in Eph. 5 So far we have examined the terms used prior to the
fall and have already noted both equality and distinctive roles for male and
female in God's own order. We turn now to any changes following the fall and
then to conclusions that can be drawn in the purpose and role of man and woman,
male and female after the fall. It is quite clear that the devil attacks Eve with the
temptation to disobey in the absence of Adam. In that procedure the devil is
described as being "more crafty". The serpent is more crafty because
it is used by the devil. The term used for Eve is "the woman" (LXX: τη γυναικι Heb: אישה ), (Gen 3 v 1) the same as that given to her by
Adam. (2 v 23) This is the word used throughout chap. 3. On the other hand
there is a variation between the title man (generic: LXX: Αδαμ Heb: אדם) (3 v 8,12) and his name Adam.
Most noteworthy in this is the enunciating of the curse, where he is addressed
as Adam, (3 v 17) the man, and thereby shown how he had abdicated the role
given by God in creation and switched roles with Eve. Now to examine what if anything changed after the fall
and in consequence of the curse but also the promise of the Saviour. It is
quite evident that while God speaks of having male and female to constitute
"man", he first created "man". The creation of Eve was a
later action. Therefore the possession of the image of God was initially that
of Adam alone. There is no further mention of this image of God in chap. 2 when
God breathes the breath of life into the lifeless clay. (2 v 7) We are
therefore left to assume that this was the point where the image of God was
given because God is life and also life‑giving. In the creation of Eve,
there is no mention of either breathing life or the giving of the image of God
but we take it from the intention of God (1 v 27) that this would occur and
did. So in that sense, Eve is by no means inferior to Adam in the sight of God.
As well, the fact of their nakedness giving them no need for shame indicates
the sinlessness which was part of the image of God. Beyond this point, this
paper will not address this issue except to say that the image was lost and a
Saviour was needed (and promised) to restore it in the children of God. The command of God to rule the earth and subdue it as
well as the provision of a vegetarian diet, like the image of God being equally
available to male and female, is clearly the intention of God for Eve as part
of the grand plan. (Gen. 1 v 26‑30). There is no indication about who passed this
information on to Eve plus the prohibition, whether God alone, Adam alone, or
both. One thing is clear: she knew, as her answer to the devil indicates. (Gen.
3 v 1‑3). It is very clear that God gave directions to Adam about the two
trees. (Gen. 2 v 9, 15‑17). From the fact that God held Adam responsible
for listening to his wife instead of God we can see the teaching and guarding
role which belonged to Adam by divine intention. More of this in a moment. Adam is placed in the created Garden of Eden for a
specific purpose. (2 v 15). Yet twice it is stated that there is something
lacking for Adam. (2 v 18, 20b). We note that what Adam needs is one who is a
complement, not a clone because the latter would be no use to him bearing in
mind the command to be fruitful and multiply given to both man and all living
creatures. All living creatures could reproduce because they already were male
and female, and created as such by God. But there was nothing of that for Adam.
We further see the leadership role given to Adam in the naming of all animals
and birds by Adam alone, thus indicating a superior intelligence compared to
all other living things. Adam's failure to live up to that role is further
highlighted in 3 v 8‑10 and several other Scripture references. Starting
with Gen 3 we find that while God confronts both, it is Adam who is addressed
first and foremost. The question of God : "Where are you?" is not a
game of hide and seek but a genuinely spiritual question: "Why are you
hiding or thinking you can?" He was the responsible leader, and not Eve, a
fact to be highlighted further by God and therefore too Adam should not have
been hiding and running away. The endeavour of Adam to shrug off responsibility only
highlights his abdication of his God‑given responsibility. He even blames
God. Eve tries the same tactic of passing the buck. It is only after God has
dealt with the serpent that He deals next with Eve and then with Adam and in
this way re‑establishes the role of leadership, albeit now in a sinful
state, which Adam is to take up once again. We note also the original role of
ruling and subduing the earth is re‑established, as well as the gift of
the vegetarian diet. This would now no longer be a totally joyful employment
but a troublesome one till the end of the world. At the same time Eve is re‑issued with her role,
albeit with the curse upon her and the consequences for all women till the end
of time. Child bearing is not part of the curse because it was directly
involved with being the suitable helper to Adam in being fruitful and multiplying.
What has changed is the pain which is added to it, something not present
before. In spite of the obvious discomfort of child bearing, two conditions
will apply. Her desire (LXX: η αποστροφη σου = your escape, refuge, resource. Heb: תשוקה) will be for her husband (LXX: τον ανδρα Heb: איש). In fact the verb for desire (αποστρεφω = to turn back,
return. Heb: שוק) means to run after, to desire,
to long for. Hidden in here is not just the need to fulfil a sexual role, but
also the need to have one to guide and lead because the second condition is
that her husband will rule, and have dominion over her. (LXX: κυριευται. Note term: κυριος for Jesus = Lord Heb:משל). In what sense this shall be
comes out clearly in Eph. 5. At the same time God is here placing a permanent
reminder on women of the part played by Eve in the origin of sin. See comments
on I Tim.2 below also on this subject. We need at this point to consider several New
Testament references to see how the above is reinforced. The first is Rom. 5 v
12. It is through one man (Greek: ανθρωπος ) that sin enters. We need to note two things. This
is the general term for human being, whether male or female, similar to the
Genesis record: man. (אדם). However, we are not left in
doubt about who was to blame, even though both Adam and Eve sinned. Two verses
later we are told that sin ruled from Adam to Moses so we can safely make the
assertion that until Adam abdicated his role and acceded to Eve's action, sin
had not yet occurred even though Eve had already eaten of the fruit. At that
point, where Adam took the fruit and ate, sin entered, and not before. In fact,
this verse (5v14) says it plainly that death reigned over all from Adam to
Moses, even over those who had not sinned like Adam. This is further reinforced in 1 Cor. 15 v 22. It is in
Adam that all die, which again points to Adam, rather than to Eve, even though
she is not therefore exonerated. In 15 v 45 we see the close relationship
between the first Adam and the second i.e. Christ in the consequences of the
actions of each. In Adam all die, in Christ shall all be made alive. There are
overtones here already of Eph. 5. And finally on this subject we turn to 1 Tim. 2 v 13‑14.
It is because she acted on her own authority, without reference either to Adam
or God that Eve was deceived and sinned. Paul makes it quite plain that it was
because of that action that Eve is forever denied the possibility of the
authoritative office of the ministry, together with the fact that Adam was
formed first. Some further comments on 1 Tim 2 are needed. There are
clearly overtones here on the issue of ordination which hark back to the
situation both before and after the fall, though Paul lays heavy emphasis upon
what happened after the fall. There is first of all the fact that Adam was
formed first and then Eve. Then there is the question of authority which
clearly belongs to Adam. So much for pre‑fall. Then there is the question
of Eve's part in the original sin. She was deceived and the nature of that
deception was in wanting an authority which had not been given to her by God.
Adam's part in this was to agree that Eve had the right to make such decisions
apart from him. From that time on as the curse states to Eve, she will be
reminded forever as also her women descendants will be, of that fact through the
pain involved in childbirth and that her husband will rule over her. This paper
asserts that when Paul is speaking of child‑bearing in v.15 he is
actually speaking of this. The curse of pain in child‑birth is not an
eternal condemnation, though she bears the consequences of her action as also
all women since that time. They are forbidden ordination because that would be
to reactivate what Eve did in the first place. The authoritative role is not
for her because it never was. However, Adam is not exonerated by any means. While
his headship is re‑instated after the fall, he will have considerable
difficulty in exercising that responsibility because of the presence of the sin
which he helped bring into the world. He still has the authority to rule and
subdue the earth but it will not submit without a battle. The same will apply
in the marriage relationship. Those over whom he is to exercise headship will
not always accept that role. In fact, wives will challenge that headship and
children will do the same thing, even being encouraged to do so by the state.
Therefore both men and women suffer as a consequence of sin in this world. If
we see only the consequence to Eve here, we could easily become victims of
bias. I realize that this has gone on for a long time but it
has been necessary to establish that headship was already present pre‑fall
and re‑established post‑Fall. This fact is further reinforced in
the New Testament. One can easily understand why feminism is so opposed to
Genesis and so anxious to re‑interpret Scripture and Genesis in
particular. These simply condemn the underlying a priori position of feminism
which sees the Old Testament and also Paul particularly in the New Testament as
down‑grading the role of women and allowing men to turn them into virtual
slaves. It also shows how contrary feminism is to the divine will and how it is
really once again stating: Did God really say .... ? We could call it: Eden
revisited. Feminism wants once again to have women defy the scheme of things
which the Creator has laid down for all times and once again to inflict a cruel
hoax. II. THE MARRIAGE BETWEEN GOD AND ISRAEL. The marriage between God and his people Israel and
between Christ and the Church, will be discussed separately even though it is
really the same marriage. Quite clearly the relationship between a husband and
wife is intended to be one of faithfulness and for life. That relationship is
already part of the creation of male and female, and in the fact that God
brought Eve to Adam. The position and role of responsibility of Adam towards
Eve is a reflection of the relationship of God and His people Israel. The
position and role of desiring her husband by Eve is a reflection of the desire
of Israel for her God. The yearning of God's people for worship in God's house
and of being in His presence can easily be checked out by use of a concordance
and does not come within the scope of this paper apart from stating the fact. God made covenants with the Israelites which He for
His part intended to keep faithfully and which He never breaks or withdraws.
Israel was bound to those covenants, not as a party in drawing them up but as a
recipient through faith and obedience as a gift of God. It was like a precious
vase made by God and containing all His benefits. Israel did not make the vase
or include the benefits. Israel could either hold to it firmly, or drop it, in
which case, they broke it. (Exod. 20 v
1‑21) Of particular interest here are these facts:
It may not look very obvious that what God established
here in this covenant was actually a marriage relationship. This shows up
clearly only in Jer. 31 v 3.1 ‑ 32 where reference is made to the Exodus
and how God rescued them. This is stated as a preamble to the covenant
established on Mt. Sinai. This covenant relationship was broken by Israel very
soon after it was established by God in the idolatry of the Golden Calf, which
was so quickly an act of blatant rebellion against the authority of God. This
already shows idolatry to be spiritual adultery and a breaking of the marriage
relationship with God. This is so, even though that relationship is stressed
only much later in the Old Testament, as will be shown shortly. Here is
mirrored the reason for the faithfulness required between husband and wife. One of the claims of supporters of ordination of woman
is that women in the Old Testament were considered mere chattels who were
punished most severely, even with death for adultery while a man could be
unfaithful and get off scot‑free. However this claim can be made only by
ignoring what the Old Testament says e.g. Exod. 20 v 14 where there is no
distinction made between husbands and wives. Consider also the adultery of
David and Bathsheba. This fact was forgotten also by the Pharisees who brought
to Jesus the woman taken in the very act of adultery. From the texts which follow, we see from a negative
perspective the high value that God put upon marriage in the terms He uses. In
the faithfulness required by God of a husband and wife to each other we see
mirrored the covenant marriage of God and His people. That is why judgment came
so heavily on unfaithful wives and families collapsed when husbands failed to
fulfil their roles as leaders and teachers for their wives and children. It is not the intention of this paper to itemize in
detail but only to summarize the total picture and then provide the list of
texts for private study. Three Old Testament books in particular make reference
to the marriage relationship. They come at that point in history when Israel
was either ripe for exile or already there. Though Israel had acted as unfaithful
wives (and that included both men and women) God did not divorce them at once. • God is the
Creator of His people and thus also their husband providing for them; • God is the
author of the covenants with His people which are called a marriage; • Just as a wife breaks the marriage by
unfaithfulness so Israel had been faithless to her husband-God by her idolatry
and its concurrent immorality. • God had rescued Israel like an abandoned
newborn baby (e.g. from Egypt), nurtured her, adorned her in full wedding
regalia and full splendour. (see also Rev. 21v2). Incidentally there is more
than a little symbolism in a bride dressing up as she does in a beautiful white
dress.
REFERENCES. Jer. 3 v 14,20; 31 v 31‑34; Is. 54 v 5‑7; 62 v
5; Ezek. 16 v 1‑45 (a devasting indictment of Israel); 23 v 35‑48;
Hos. 2 v 2,5,19; 3 v 1; 4 v 13‑19. There is no need to labour the point that already in the
Old Testament marriage of responsible faithful husbands and faithful obedient
wives mirrored the relationship between God and His people. Their respective
roles are as distinct from each other as those of God and His people, a fact
which becomes even clearer in Eph. 5 III CHRIST AND THE CHURCH. It is perhaps quite significant that the first miracle
performed by Jesus was at a wedding, though the major emphasis then was that
the disciples saw the glory of Jesus in that miracle rather than reinforcing the
sanctity of marriage and Jesus as bridegroom. It is noteworthy that the only reference by Jesus to
marriage comes as a response to a question on the validity of divorce and what
Moses had to say about It. (Matt. 19). We therefore turn instead to see the
connection between the verses speaking of Christ as bridegroom and the Church
as bride and the illustration of the human body but with Christ as head and the
Church as body. This will then lead directly in Eph. 5. The first reference to this marriage relationship
comes from John the Baptist. John was responding to a question of conflict with
Jesus and possible professional rivalry between himself and Jesus. His response
was one of bridegroom and bride as he once again reinforces his role as
preparatory. Nevertheless marriage is hinted at as a mirror of Christ and the
Church. (John 3 v 22‑30) The first reference by Jesus Himself as bridegroom
comes early in His ministry. It is spoken in the context of marriage. Weddings
are a joyful occasion. The coming of the bridegroom and his actual presence is
also cause for joy because the promised bridegroom is the Saviour who has come
in the person of Jesus himself. However, the time is not yet ripe for the
marriage feast to begin. The bridegroom will be taken away through his
crucifixion, resurrection and ascension. Yet, in the institution of Holy
Communion, God's redeemed people already share in anticipation in the heavenly
wedding feast. (Matt. 9 v 15). It is significant that in the Alternative Order
of Service, the second offertory speaks
of this with the words: “Grace our table with your presence, and give us a
foretaste of the feast to come.” The only two other references to marriage of Christ
and the Church are in two parables spoken by Jesus. (Matt. 22 v1‑14; 25
v:1‑13). These two parables have more to say about the invitation to the
banquet (22) and the consequences of rejecting it and the preparation for the
banquet and readiness to enter in to the marriage feast (25) than about
marriage itself. Nevertheless there is a clear indication that the Son is the
bridegroom even though the bride is not specified directly. It is clearly the
Heavenly Father preparing the banquet for His Son. We have to turn elsewhere in
Scripture to find that the guests invited and actually present at the banquet
are the bride. Paul takes up his missionary task, given by Christ
Himself as promising and presenting e.g. the Corinthians to Christ as their one
husband, so that they were a pure virgin. (2 Cor. 11 v 1‑6) Significant
is the reference to the danger of those who would preach another Christ and so
deceive them just as Eve was deceived by the serpent. This could lead to them
being led astray. It is significant that Gal. 3 v 28 falls in a context where
another Christ was also being proclaimed. By dragging this verse out of
context, people are also being led astray. While Paul, (2 Cor.) does not say so
in so many words he is refering to the spiritual adultery which breaks the
marriage relationship between the husband (Christ) and His pure virgin bride
(the Church). It is in the book of Revelation that finally we have
this glorious marriage feast detailed. The end of all things sees the wedding
feast begin. (19 v 6‑7). The picture changes then from bride and church
to the Holy City, the New Jerusalem. Dressed as a bride in glorious robes of
righteousness, she, the people of God, is finally revealed in glory as what she
has always been, though seen only in a glass, dimly. (22 v 1‑4). The
final urgent invitation comes from the Spirit and the Bride to drink the free
gift of the water of life. (22v 17) We turn now to a different picture of Christ and the
Church which is inseparably joined to the marriage theme. Christ has been
appointed as Head (κεφαλη ) of the Church, which is His body. (Eph.1 v 22‑23)
At His ascension Christ sits at the right hand of power in fulfilment of the
promise of making His enemies His footstool (Ps. 11O v 1). The theme of head
and body (Christ and the Church) is virtually identical to the theme of
bridegroom and bride because Christ is both bridegroom and head and the Church
is both bride and body. This same theme receives a further emphasis from Paul
(Eph. 4 v15) when he states that Christ as Head (again κεφαλη) is the cause of the body being joined and held
together, and then grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its
part. We see here the role of Christ as both head and bridegroom, and the
further theme of husband and wife developed. Within this context, having noted the headship of
Christ, we are now ready to look at Ephesians 5 v 21‑33. A standard and
important rule of interpretation is this: Where a word is used a number of
times in a given context, it always has the same meaning, unless clear and
incontrovertible proof is shown in the context that another meaning is now
intended. The three references to Jesus as “Head” appear in the same context
and therefore have the same meaning. So then we cannot separate headship,
marriage, Christ and the Church already stated from this reference. We see the
full significance then of the roles of husbands and wives in their connection
with the roles of Christ and the Church. We have come full circle from what God
instituted in marriage in the beginning and His intentions for what that
relationship signified in the relationship between God and His people. It is
the contention of this paper that what Paul here enunciates, at the inspiration
of the Holy Spirit, is precisely what God created in the beginning. A few comments are necessary here at this point on the
subject of sin and its effects on human marriage, even Christian marriages. It
is of course true that sin has very much interfered with what God originally
planned and which continued until the Fall. Adultery, unfaithfulness, even
divorce are a fact of life. Nevertheless the original intentions of God for
marriage and its sanctity, remain. Remember the statement of Jesus: “From the
beginning it was not so”. Even the marriages of pagans bring some blessings to
them. It is however only in the Christian marriage that the full significance
of marriage can come to the fore, as we have seen already. A few introductory comments need to be made too on
feminism and its effects on marriage. While a distinction can be made with
regard to feminism, on the basis of secular or within churches, they have a
common origin. This distinction is necessary. Secular feminism deliberately and
openly attacks the institution of marriage, what it is, the foundation of home and
family and its heavy emphasis upon the rights of women for self‑determination
and expression. The whole emphasis upon abortions as a woman's choice has its
origins here. Add to that the presentation of same sex marriages as the
rightful choice of those who were supposedly "born" that way, coupled
with the lobbying for legislation protecting against discrimination (so‑called)
has its origins in secular feminism. While there may be, here and there, those within the
visible Christian Church, including the LCA, who might advocate some of the
above, by and large, endeavours have clearly been made to justify certain
aspects of feminism by an appeal to Scripture, but more likely, the so-called
reinterpreting (misinterpreting?) of what clearly prevents the agenda of
feminism in the Church. There are no doubt many who believe the line that all
that is needed is love which allows for considerable differences of opinion but
without destroying the unity of the Church and strangely without affecting the
authority and inspiration of Scripture. Then there is the other line which is
promoted: whatever does not destroy the Gospel but allows for it to be
proclaimed more effectively, is not only permitted but necessary. Whoever
therefore opposes this feminist line, is then charged with hindering the
preaching of the Gospel and the work of the Holy Spirit. This paper
emphatically rejects this. Though it has been vigorously denied by protagonists
of women's ordination, there is almost an air of inevitability about lobbying
for the ordination of homosexuals, both male and female, as we see for example
in the Uniting Church of Australia and the Anglican Church. It is significant
that in the Uniting Church there is no secret about the fact, that the
arguments for such ordinations are not based on Scripture, and often not even
on distorted Scripture, but on sociological arguments. The efforts of those
pushing for ordination of women and homosexuals to give the impression that
they are still upholding the authority of Scripture, even to the point of
providing dubious re‑interpretations, only makes the deception worse.
This is the same kind of deception that the devil used in the beginning and
"Eve" is once again the target of the devil's tricks and
"Adam" only too willing to "eat of the fruit". It has even been seriously suggested (in documents
presenting the case for the ordination of women, prior to 2000 General Synod,
and subscribed to by some Seminary Lecturers) that Jesus and Paul both bowed to
the pressures of culture. Jesus appointed only men on this basis. That is so
close to a denial of the Deity of Jesus, as well as being blasphemy and heresy,
that it does not matter. It is a direct attack on Jesus as Lord, as Head of the
Church, and bridegroom. This will become even clearer as we turn now to the
next major heading. IV EPHESIANS 5 v 21‑33 It is here that we finally gather the true potential
of a Christian marriage is and what part or role husband and wife have and what
God originally intended for husbands and wives. It is no wonder then that this
section of Scripture has received a lot of attention because if it stands, the
proof for ordination of women and homosexuals must fall. The “shape” of this Scripture is very important in
this discussion. There are four components in this reference: Christ, church,
husband, wife. These can be condensed to two pairs: Christ and the Church,
husband and wife. It can be further condensed simply to a unit with parallel
lines. It is therefore impossible to alter or amend in any way what Paul says without seriously
debasing the truth stated there. It is also important to note that the
comparison is from Christ plus church, down to husband plus wife. The issue of the headship of Christ stated here (v.23)
cannot be understood in any other way than what has already been stated in chap
2 v 21, 4 v 15 according to the hermeneutical rule stated above. It is
precisely the same word used there. Understanding what the submission is can be
understood only from the standpoint of the Church to Christ. To start from the
wife's submission and then working back, can only lead to confusion. To do it
this way leads, for example, to the deletion of the word "obey" from
the marriage vow. It is clear that the kind of submission or obedience is not
of a woman to a man generally, otherwise the parallel of Church to Christ makes
no sense. Of course history has shown that men have dominated and subjugated
women, also in the Lutheran Church in Australia and as is still evident in a
worse situation in Islam today. However it could never be justified on the
basis of these verses. God did not give it in His delegation of responsibility. The kind of submission referred to (υποτασσω) is to be in a state of fear i.e. respect or reverence for Christ.
(v.21) This already indicates that it is not something to be rejected as
detrimental to a woman. Nor for that matter to a man either. It is not the
purpose of this paper to delve into the textual question of whether v. 21
belongs to what precedes or to what follows though from the standpoint of this
paper it is taken as belonging to what follows. Such respect for Christ
includes: Who He is i.e. his person and work, what He has said i.e. the
Scriptures, what He expects from us i.e. what we believe, teach and confess and
also what we reject. So when Jesus says: If you love me you will keep my
commandments, respect kicks in without question or argument or denial of the
truth. There is no question that Paul speaks first to wives
towards their own husbands and not the other way round. It could well be
significant that Paul did it that way because Eve went her own way and paid the
price. While this cannot conclusively be demonstrated from the text, the whole
thrust of this paper is that the foundation of marriage in the beginning is being
re‑enforced in a Christian context. Even after the fall Eve is told that
Adam shall rule over her, just as he did in their previous sinless state. We
need to note the fact that Paul quotes from Gen. 2 v 24 and so goes back before
the fall (v.31) thus reinforcing again what Jesus had said: It was not like
that in the beginning. A further textual question is that the Greek text
(Nestle) has no verb in v.22. That is no problem for the Greek language,
because this often happens. Always though, when that happens, the context
easily supplies the appropriate verb to use in English translation. There is a
verb in the notes at the bottom of the Greek text which is the same one as in
v.21 (υποτασσεσθωσαν). However, we need to remember that in the light of
"one another" (v.21) this submission applies equally to husbands and
wives, and not just to wives. More of this later on. Some comments are in place on the significance of the
three words translated "as" from the Greek and their respective
emphases. The first word translated "as" is a simple comparison. It
is used in v.22,23,24,28. To summarize: "as to the Lord" v.22;
"as Christ is Head of the Church" v.23; "as the church submits
to Christ" v.24; "as their own bodies" v.28. What is this
submission? Take a look at Christ and the Church. It is the same word as before
in v.24 (ως). The second pair comes up in v.25 and v.28. (καθως , ουτως)The translation is: "just as ...... (v.25) and
"in the same way" (v.28). It is significant that when Paul refers to
love, he uses these two words. He continues to use both of them in v.29,33 :
"just as Christ does the church (v.29), " as he loves himself".
(v.33) The epistle for 19th Sunday after Pentecost, C series,
is 2 Tim. 2 v 8‑15. The protagonists for women's ordination run foul of
v. 14: "Keep warning them in these things. Warn them before God against
quarrelling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who
listen". Their emphasis is on arguing about what it means for a woman to
submit and to do so on the basis of today's culture v. first century A.D.
culture. This is a major flaw in the argumentation of feminist theology which
sees only the supposed inferiority of a woman in a male dominated world and in
part at least, blames Eph. 5 for this. Therefore it completely misses the point
of comparison in chap. 5. It is quite clear from what Paul has written under
inspiration, that the starting point is not what this submission of a wife to
her husband has always meant and still does today. Equally, for that matter the
starting point is not what it means for the husband to be head. This is a
sociological approach and to follow it means we will drown in a turbulent mix
of our own making. For proof of this, we need simply look at the deep division
within the LCA and also in other churches for that matter on this subject. It
only makes it even worse when even presidents of districts consider WO to be an
adiapharon [non-essential teaching or one not clearly stated in the Bible] and
we need to get on with the real business of preaching the Gospel, leaving all
else to be resolved by love! What Paul presents on these relationships does not
require such debate or misunderstanding. His starting point is: Christ is head
of the Church; the Church submits to him. (υποτασσω) If there really
is such lack of clarity in the kind of submission of a wife to her
husband, then it is unavoidable that there must be the same lack of clarity
over the kind of submission that the Church gives to Christ. If there really is
such lack of clarity in the kind of headship of a husband to his wife, then it
is unavoidable that there must be the same lack of clarity over the kind of
headship that Christ exercises over the Church. The point of comparison simply
cannot be denied. What Paul teaches here is a unit. Any tampering breaks this
unity. No doubt this would be vigorously denied but it is unavoidable. We will never come to see clearly the roles of husband
and wife unless we see the parallel roles of Christ and the Church. Casting
doubt on the clear meaning given by Paul and Scripture in general by citing
such things as the following will only confuse the issue further: single women/
single again women / women in general or only marriage. What Paul says applies
for all times, just as the relationship between Christ and the Church stands
for all times. All this debate and doubts will succeed only in producing a
Church which refuses to acknowledge Christ as head and the need to submit to
Him. Paul does acknowledge that this relationship has a
mystery element about it. On the one hand a husband has the role of being like
Christ to his wife and the wife has the role of being like the Church to her
husband. On the other hand both actually are the Church and are submissive to
Christ. (v. 21, 29‑30) It remains to re‑iterate a previous statement.
What Paul teaches by the Holy Spirit, is what marriage originally was and will
continue to be in spite of sinful weakness. The submission of both wife and
husband to each other as Church to Christ is not to each other as male and
female (though obviously they will remain such) but rather to the role given
originally to Adam and Eve by God. Each is to help the other fulfil the
individual role given. There can be no negation of roles nor any exchange of
roles without each missing out on a great blessing. So husband and wife as
Christians become a living out of the relationship between Christ and the
Church as a little Church, as two equals in God's sight live out their God‑given
roles. The submission of both to each other out of reverence for Christ, clealy
includes acceptance of the role given to each by God and an encouragement of
each to the other to fulfil that role. Clearly then for women to become ordained, they have
to exchange their roles for the one of leadership with men. In every Christian
marriage the woman has been given the privilege of being like the Church to
Christ in her relationship with her husband. This principle remains whether a
woman marries or not. A congregation is made up of any number of such families,
a situation which does not change the roles of men and women because they are
now a wider "family" in Christ. It is equally true that in the same
Christian marriages, the man has been given the privilege of being like Christ
to Church. This principle also remains whether a man marries or not. Therefore
a woman cannot assume the role of a man to be Christ to the church within the
congregation anymore than she can take that role within marriage. This is so
even if some in the congregation remain single, or have become single again for
whatever reason. Because feminism recognizes that this true submission
in reality demolishes its position, a great deal of discussion has taken place
about what this submission really is in an endeavour to show that it is untenable
or by casting doubt on it. The charge still remains, that feminism has done an
enormous disservice to men, but more particularly so to women, by holding out
to women what they may NOT have and actually taking away from them what they DO
have. This is "Eden revisited" as the devil once again is encouraging
women to defy God and go their own way in the vain hope of
"Improving" their lot. That is precisely what the devil offered:
progress. It turned out to be the very opposite. Ordination of women does the same
when it appears to offer something great for women but in reality takes away
what they already have in Christ. We see this strange idea of progress in the
recent debate within the Anglican Church on the issue of same‑sex
marriages. While the proposal was lost one Archbishop on television described
the debate as being progressive, which this paper takes to mean: give us time
and we will achieve our objective or find some compromise somewhere. Like
Eden this is not forwards but
backwards. We need to question also whether we can accept the ministry of the
Uniting Church on an equal basis to that of the LCA when it ordains women and
also lesbians. At the same time, what Paul says in Eph. 5 is also
"Eden revisited" as we see once again the roles given to God‑fearing
husbands and wives and the harmonious working of our heavenly Bridegroom with
His bride the Church. A word used often in this paper is
"clearly". This is not a glich in grammer. It is rather a deliberate
intention of stressing the clarity of Scripture over against those who have
been urging doubt and endeavouring to explain away what is most clear and also
authoritative in the Scriptures Much more could be said e.g. on the subject of what it
means that the Church submits to Christ. Suffice it to say that as we study
what Paul says about Christian living, individually or collectively, we will
find the answer to that. It is my hope that this paper may stimulate further
study and then also a bold confession of the truth. If we fail now, may God have
mercy on the LCA, if it is not already too late. Geoff Noller. Ararat October 2004 (The public domain but to be used as printed without alteration unless
authorised) |