Adult Sunday School - The Analogy Of Marriage

The Analogy of Marriage in Ephesians 5

Dear Heavenly Father, thank you for this morning. We pray that you would open our eyes to understand the truth of your word, and we pray that we would be more like Christ, the one who is able to stand before you, in Jesus' name,.

Amen.

All right, so it's been three weeks, I think, since we last looked at marriage. Sorry, if I could get a little bit less volume in here, I tend to talk quieter when I hear myself behind me like that. It's been about three weeks in which we looked at marriage, and the last time we looked at all the New Testament passages that talk about the union between Christ and the church, at least speak of it maritally, Him as the bridegroom.

And now we're just going to be looking at Ephesians 5, that main passage, and exploring all that that entails. What exactly is that analogy of marriage? All right, so yeah, this singular truth about the union between Christ and church is the main truth that drives the Christian ethic of marriage.

So it's important to know exactly how that analogy applies. And in subsequent weeks, we'll be looking at this more and more, but today, just like, how does that analogy apply exactly? All right, so the locus classicus, meaning the main text that's about a particular topic is for this topic, Ephesians 5.

Would someone like to read Ephesians 5, 22 to 33? We won't be reading as many texts as we have in previous weeks, but I'd still like to have a volunteer read a couple of these. Yeah, yeah, so some volunteer, whoever that is.

All right, sure, okay, we'll get, Nick, you'll get the next one. Yeah, Ephesians 5, 22 to 33.

22 to 33, right?

Yeah.

Wives, submit to your own husbands as to the Lord, for the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body and is himself its savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

In the same way, husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself, for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it just as Christ does the church.

Because we are members of his body, 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 as the church.

However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let his wife see that she respects her husband.

Human Marriage as a Sign of Christ and the Church

Okay, so interestingly, this teaches not that the union between Christ and the church is like a human marriage, but rather that human marriage is like the union between Christ and the church. So there's a primacy to the union between Christ and the church.

And that's a surprising thing. The Book of Common Prayer says that marriage is an honorable state signifying unto us a mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his church. So even the Book of Common Prayer used in Anglican churches acknowledges this, that human marriage is signifying this marriage between Christ and the church.

So what is the sign, and what is the thing signified? Well, the human marriage is the sign, and the thing signified is Christ and the church. So there are a lot of analogies in Scripture that contrast or compare things.

And of course, all things are designed to point to our Maker. So Psalm 19 says that the heavens declare the glory of God, right? So all things ultimately point to our Maker. However, even though God has ordained everything for his purposes, we can't always say that the primary purpose of some aspect of creation is to illustrate some particular truth about him in such a way.

So for example, John 15 says that Christ is the true vine. Does that mean that vines were given primarily, above all other purposes, to illustrate some truth about Christ being the source of life? I think it's hard to say.

So one, we have no testimony from Scripture to that apart from that passage and maybe a few others. But in addition to that, we have other passages that use it to mean different things. For example, Israel is frequently compared to a vine, and on one occasion, it talks about just how as the wood of a vine, I mean, you don't really think of that as wood, but just like the wood of a vine is not useful for construction, but only useful to be thrown into the fire, so Israel will be cast into judgment.

And so, well, there, vines represent weakness and worthlessness. So is that the primary purpose of God creating vines and putting them in our universe? It'd be hard to make that assertion. Similarly, we could look at leaven, yeast.

Why did God give us yeast? Well, for enjoyment, to make fluffy bread. But then we might say, well, maybe His primary purpose in giving us yeast was to illustrate the reality of sin and how it spreads throughout the whole world.

We see that repeated a few times during Scripture, but we also see Scripture speak of the kingdom of heaven being like a little leaven, right, that grows. And so, once again, it would be hard to assert that that's the primary purpose of God creating yeast and exposing us to these aspects of creation that might illustrate some truths about Him.

But marriage, on the other hand, accomplishes this purpose of teaching us about our Maker in a particularly heightened way, in a way where Paul is testifying that its primary purpose is to illustrate Christ in the church.

So first of all, it's not some relatively insignificant part of creation that's being harnessed to demonstrate the glory of God. Now, many parts of creation are less significant than others, relatively speaking, you know, blades of grass and, you know, the smell of rain when it hits the soil, things like that.

But marriage is kind of the crown of creation in a lot of ways. God created heavens and earth. We have six days. On the sixth day, He created man. And then on that sixth day, it describes Him, man naming all the animals, and then at last coming across woman, God creating woman.

On that day, He created both male and female in the image of God and blessed that union. And so this is like, this is the final aspect of creation. This is, creation is the stage on which, it's a stage, it's a platform created for the purpose of showing this beautiful marriage.

And then as we saw last week, as we looked at marriage, the marriage between Christ and church in the New Testament, it's how scripture ends as well with the marriage. So not only does the new creation or the old creation end as a, with, crowned with a marriage, but the new creation is crowned with a marriage.

So this is not some aspect of creation that has lesser significance. This is something that really is a crowning aspect of creation, if not the crowning aspect of creation. So, and then secondly, yeah, Paul's testimony in this passage explicitly teaches that human marriage points to the reality of Christ and the church.

Both unions are a gift from God, and one is an illustration of the other. And so that union between Christ and the church is the primary one, and then our own marriages are the secondary one. All right, now let me, let me prove this a bit further, that human marriage is not just some arbitrary illustration of Christ and the church, but actually designed for that.

So first Paul asserts this, asserts that the union between Christ and the church implies an ethic for marriage. So on the one hand, it's not surprising. As an exemplar, you know, Christ's love should be the pattern of our love.

Of course, that's going to have implications for how we love one another. John 13, 34 says, a new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.

However, Paul's not merely saying that his demonstration of love implies an ethic of.

Love.

He's saying that the church's submission also implies an ethic of submission, and the union between the two implies an ethic of union. Ephesians 5, 23 says, for the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, being himself the savior of the body.

So in this light, the church does not function, Christ and church don't function merely as exemplars of a union, but as antitypes, so an antitype being something that creation is pointing to, right, of marital union in particular.

It does not provide the relation between, this union also does not provide the template for other kinds of relations. You know, you see throughout the rest of Ephesians 6, where it talks about parents and children, it talks about masters and servants, and it's not, it doesn't go on and say, well, just like Christ loves the church and the church submits, so fathers, you should love your children and children, you should submit to your fathers.

It doesn't keep using that union as the driver of all these other things, so it's not, this is an exemplar of love, let's apply that to everything. True, Christ is an exemplar of love, that should be applied to all situations that require love, all relationships, but this union is providing something particular when it comes.

To marriage.

All right, so yeah, the only explanation for that is that the union between husband and wife derives its purpose from the union between Christ and church. So the second demonstration of this is, Paul speaks of marriage as implying a mystery.

All right, so given that God has revealed his will for human marriage, he's revealed his will for this marriage between Christ and church, it would be easy for us to just say, okay, well, Paul is just looking at two aspects of creation, right, this union he created here and this union he created there, and he's just drawing some similarities, and that's all he's doing.

But he's not just drawing similarities, he's between things that are revealed, he's even saying that this has implications for things that are unrevealed, and so he's asserting that there are similarities without even observing what the similarities are, because he can't know them, right, and so that demonstrates there must be some kind of organic connection if he can say, there are similarities between these and I haven't even seen what those are yet, right.

Ephesians 5 31 says, for this reason, though a man leave his father and mother and will join with his wife, and the two will become one flesh, this mystery is great, but I speak in regard of Christ and the church.

So yeah, what is a mystery? A mystery is something that is hidden and then later revealed. What here is hidden? The full nature of this union, it will not be known until we are in glory, until that wedding is consummated.

But Paul is asserting that human marriages speak to that mystery, and this is him asserting that there is an organic connection, it's not just, I happen to notice some similarities.

Here.

Creation, Redemption, and the Fulfillment of Marriage

All right, so third, Paul speaks of this parallel as being natural, right, he kind of, he assumes this organic connection more than arguing for it. You know, maybe this was given to him by Christ, you know, all the disciples, all the apostles were taught by Christ for three years.

With Paul, you see explicitly, you know, that he encounters Christ on the road to Damascus and then in Galatians 1, he explains that he went away for three years to Arabia. There's never really an explanation of why that is, but it does seem to fit that, well, the other disciples were discipled for three years and taught under Christ, and Paul is explaining the teachings of Christ.

When did Christ teach him? I don't think it was all on the road to Damascus, I think it was these three years that happened immediately after he met Christ and then before he began his public ministry like this.

So it's possible, it's possible that Christ taught him these connections, however, the way he is not even arguing for it, but just assuming it is implying that it should be obvious to us as well, I believe.

Yeah, and if the New Testament has revealed that God's ultimate purpose in creation, his ultimate purposes in creation are found in redemption, then non-redemptive features of creation require some sort of fulfillment, and I can give you a few examples of that.

So, first, Paul elsewhere in 1 Corinthians asserts the natural body of Adam implies that there is a glorified body. So right, the particular weakness of Adam, he's prone to fall, he's unstable, implies that there must be something, a redemptive state to his body as well.

1 Corinthians 15 .44 says, it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. That's a pretty wild thing that Paul is saying, that basically this old creation thing that is obviously lacking in some ways demands that there must be something better.

And if he's willing to say that about Paul's body, would he not also be willing on the same grounds of recognizing God's purposes in redemption to say the same thing about.

Marriage?

Secondly, God rested on the seventh day from his work, and we see in the New Testament there is a new day of rest in light of a new creation. So on the day that God rested from his old creation, the seventh day, the Jews rested.

On the day when Christ rested from his new creation, on the first day of the week, we now rest. And so there is even an anticipation in scripture of there being some changes in a post-creation world, a post-redemption world.

So considering all that, if Adam and Eve is this crowning moment of creation, right, them coming together, this is the flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone, I think I got those backwards, but anyway, if this is the crowning moment of creation, and then we are also informed in Matthew and Mark that in the new heavens and new earth, there is no marriage, but we will be like the angels in heaven, neither being married nor given in marriage.

Is it really the case that we just throw away the crowning aspect of creation, or is it the case that we should expect there to be some fulfillment of it, some redemptive fulfillment of it in a post-redemption world?

The pattern of scripture, and this is, yeah, I get that a lot of what I'm saying doesn't have real direct proof texts that say, you know, a marriage between man and woman demands that there be some greater kind of marriage, but this is the pattern that you see throughout scripture, and especially if we have marriage, human marriages being the crowning moment of creation, the idea that God would just throw that away without some kind of fulfillment really does not match any of the patterns of what we see elsewhere in scripture.

And so I believe that we could come to these same conclusions that Paul is coming to, even apart from having Ephesians 5. Now thank God he did give us Ephesians 5 because it makes it all the more clear, but what I'm arguing for is I think Paul is asserting what is only the natural implication of the rest of God's revelation to us.

Also feel free to ask questions at any point, yeah, I love questions, yes, yes, right, and so that's what I'm saying, yeah, fulfilled, yeah, and that's what I'm saying is that would he throw away and there be no fulfillment, right?

Just like you're saying, there is a fulfillment and that's why there's not the, and yeah, I'm saying that God's pattern in creation, the way he has operated, the way he has communicated lets us know that it would be incomplete if there weren't some kind of fulfillment, yeah, does that make sense?

Yeah, thank you.

Right, yeah, and sometimes people can feel uncomfortable about trying to read God's patterns this way, but really scripture demands it. You look at Jesus' assert that the scripture said that he would arise in three days and the disciples have to, are obligated to believe that.

Now there's one proof text that could possibly be directly saying that, I think it's in Haggai or Habakkuk I think, but in general you just see throughout scripture this pattern of three day, third day deliverance from the dead.

You see that with the baker and the cupbearer, you see it with Hezekiah, you see it with Isaac being delivered from the potential human sacrifice that was going to take place. You see it with Jonah, right?

It's just happening repeatedly and so I believe Jesus is asserting you were obligated to have read this pattern and understood what it was going to point to. And so we have to do that sort of thing cautiously and with humility, but there is an approach to scripture that says, you know, unless I have a real direct proof text, I'm not going to, I'm not even going to touch it and I don't think that's appropriate.

So we do have a proof text here, we do have Ephesians five, but part of my point is I think Paul is just explaining what is the natural conclusion of the other revelation that God has given us. So let's talk about some of the implications of this, that we have a primacy to the union between Christ and the church.

So first it means that marriage was designed to prepare us for that eternal state. So it's instructive and we should learn from it. Now that doesn't mean that the individual experience of marriage is the primary way that we're being taught, right?

Like Mormonism would teach, right? They would say that like marriage, you being personally married is preparing you for the eternal state. I'm just saying that God having given us marriage and us as a Christian society honoring marriage either as a married person or as a single person is preparing us for the union between Christ and the church.

It is illustrative, it is instructing us about this union. And if you look at the way God has ordered creation in history, you'll realize that this is typically how he works. Why did he give all the sacrifices for Israel for 4 ,000 years or so?

It was to illustrate what would be coming later. It was to prepare and instruct and in the words of Galatians, to be a tutor, right? And so marriage is in a way tutoring us even now in preparation for what is to come.

So that means that it should be studied by all believers, right? If you're single and you think, well, I don't really need to think too much about marriage or I'll think about marriage when I get there, something like that.

If it really is instructive in this way, it's actually an important subject for everyone to look at scripture and see what it says, not just a practically as I need helps to fix my life. That's a lot of times how people approach scripture, right?

You know, I'm not going to really pay attention to it until I'm in desperate need. But this is something where we're proactively looking at scripture is helping us in more ways than just preparing us for human marriages.

Secondly, and inversely, we can best pursue our own marriages by looking to the union between Christ and church. So not only looking to honoring the human unions prepares us for that other union and equips us for this other union that we already have with him, but also that if we understand more about Christ, his gospel, that can equip us for our marriages here on earth, right?

So the more you understand about the love of Christ, the more you understand about the role of church, the more you are going to understand about how the husband and wife are to interact with one another and the healthier that relationship will be generally speaking.

All right.

And so third, we especially honor God by honoring marriage. Yeah, on one hand, this is true in all interactions among men by following the second table of.

The law.

We follow the first table of the law, loving one's neighbor, we love God, right? Matthew 22, 39 says. And the second is like to, yeah, and a second like to it is this. Speaking of the greatest commandment being to love God, but there's another commandment that's pretty much like it.

You shall love your neighbor as yourself. When you love your neighbor, you are loving God. So it is the case that when we love our neighbor in general, we're loving God. However, there's a special way that that is done in marriage.

If marriage is particularly in a heightened way, expressing the union between Christ and church, when we honor marriage, we are especially honoring the relationship between Christ and his church. Hebrews 13, four says, let marriage be had in honor among all and let the bed be undefiled for fornicators and adulterers.

God will judge. Oh, why is there so much concern about the marriage bed being had in honor? Uh, it is because it, it honors God, especially in the last thing. And I've mentioned this in some previous sessions, but, uh, it shows that redemption is primary in the order of God's decrees.

Uh, now I'll, I'll explain that this is known as supra lapsarianism. Uh, so there's a question of, now God doesn't deliberate through matters like we do. He's saying, well, I think I'll do this. And then if I'm going to do that, then I'm going to go here.

You know, if I'm going to go to Yosemite, I'm probably going to stop here. And then, uh, you know, he doesn't, he doesn't deliberate through things like that, but it is a useful question to ask. Did God send Jesus Christ to die on the cross because we, he knew that we would fall because he had ordained the fall.

Or did he ordain the fall in order that he might redeem us through Christ?

Right?

So it's a real important question to ask because it really changes the nature of, uh, God's.

Goodness.

If you understand that he has, he actually ordained the fall in order that he might demonstrate his mercy to us in Christ. Just, uh, it heightens his goodness to show just how wise he is in having ordained what he's ordained.

And, uh, us being in this situation that we're in, this is not plan B where he's fixing up things that got messed up, right? This was his plan A all along. And what this passage shows us is that it was plan A, right?

Why, why would God have, you know, if, if the relationship between these two unions, uh, Christ and the church is primary, how would that make any sense if God had created these human marriage without an eye towards redemption?

And then only once, you know, mankind fell, then he thinks, well, how, how am I going to, uh, use marriage as best as I can so that all things work together for good? Right? That's not what he's doing.

He's not saying, okay, now that, now that we're going to have some redeemed state, now that everybody's going to be in heaven without marriage, um, you know, we're going to have a new heavens and new earth, and there's not going to be marriage anymore.

How can I find some fulfillment of that? No, the fulfillment was always in view and marriage is created the other way around. So anyway, this, this backs up the, uh, the scriptural idea of superlapsarianism.

Now, if you, you hang out in Reformed churches, you'll find there's a pretty good split on, uh, this topic. The other position being known as infralapsarianism. And then there's a lot of people who deny that this is a useful question to ask at all and that we can't order God's decrees like that.

You'll find that too. But anyway, I believe that, uh, superlapsarianism is affirmed by passages just like this one. Um, yeah, I think that God's purpose in creation is primarily in redemption and everything else, including the fall, was ordained in order to support that purpose of us knowing him in the mercy of Christ.

Christ, the Church, and the Meaning of Headship

All right, so now what is, uh, this analogy between Christ and the church? Um, so it might, it might seem obvious, uh, what the, what the different reference are, but I think it's worth, uh, stepping through these.

So first of all, like, so what I mean by that is what is Christ? What is the church? And what is the union? Um, so Christ is the son of God. Uh, the word Christ corresponds to the Old Testament term Messiah referring to anointing.

Um, and so typically we think of anointing and the terms of his offices, right? His particular offices as prophet, priest, or kings. These are things in Old Testament Israel that you would need some special anointing for.

But, uh, you also see, uh, him speak of anointing in the context of marriage. Song of Solomon 1 .3, your oils have a beautiful fragrance. Your name is as oil poured forth. Therefore, do the virgins love you.

Psalm 45 .7, you have loved righteousness and hated wickedness. Therefore, God, your God has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your companions. All your garments smell of myrrh and aloes and cassia.

Out of ivory palaces, string instruments have made you glad. And Psalm 45 being a wedding song. Both of those being wedding songs. Song of Solomon and Psalm 45. So as such, it's worth pointing out that Christ is an incarnational title.

Okay, when we speak of Christ, we are speaking of one who is anointed. We are speaking of one who is appointed by God. This refers to Jesus as man primarily rather than Jesus as God primarily. And a lot of people don't realize that.

A lot of people just think Christ and they think son of God and they apply, they end up taking passages that are particularly talking about Jesus as man and applying it to Jesus as God and that's, that can be pretty dangerous.

So just to back up what I'm saying here, Hebrews 5 .1 says, for every high priest, right, a high priest being one of those offices that requires anointing, for every high priest being taken from among men is appointed for men and things pertaining to God that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins.

And then verse 5 says, so Christ also did not glorify himself to be made a high priest, but he who spoke to him, you are my son today, I have begotten you. And yeah, if you're familiar with that last line, you are my son today, I've begotten you in Psalm 2.

What is that talking about? It's talking about the Lord's anointed, you know, the Messiah, right? This is one who is appointed and selected. This is not an eternal state that he has, it's something that happens in time and happened in the first century, all right?

Right, so for example, how do people abuse this when they say, when they think of Christ as just being a term for Jesus as God even? 1 Corinthians 11 .3 says, but I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God.

A lot of times you will see people take this and say that the son has eternally submitted to the father. If the head of man is Christ and the head of woman is man, head of Christ is God, okay. Well, if the head of Christ is God, the woman submits to the man, Christ eternally submits.

And in fact, we can use this to prove that there's nothing subordinate to a woman if the son and the father are co-equals and the one is eternally submitting to the other. But that's not what this passage is talking about at all.

In fact, when it speaks of Christ, it's speaking of Jesus as man, not Jesus as God. And so he is not eternally submitted to the father. You don't have two wills in the Godhead, one submitting to the other.

You only have a distinct will in Christ as man submitting to God. So this is unfortunate theology. This is also known as the eternal functional subordination, right, when people say that Christ has eternally submitted to the father.

Christ has not eternally existed as Christ, right? He's not been eternally anointed. Certainly that was in God's plan, but he is chosen once from among men, right? As it says in Hebrews 5 .1, there's a need for him to become a man before he could take that office of prophet, priest, and king, right?

Yeah, additionally, it's worth pointing out the uniqueness of this role as husband. Second Corinthians 11 .2 says, For I am jealous over you with a godly jealousy, for I espoused you to one husband that I might present you as a pure virgin to Christ.

So Jesus is the one husband, right? That's what Paul says, espoused you to one husband. In Roman Catholicism, the pope is also considered the head of the church, right? And he's also considered, and all the priests being considered vicars of Christ, especially since they're celibate too and they don't marry.

It's considered that the church is their wife, and they are the husbands of the church. That goes against what scripture says when it says that, you know, I've espoused you to one husband, right? What is the church?

Now that we've talked about who Christ is, this is a particularly incarnational title, what is the church? The church refers to all the elect of God. So first of all, this is a corporate notion rather than an individual notion.

A lot of people think about this union between Christ and the church as being primarily about a union between them and Christ. Now, we all are individually united to Christ, that is true. But when it's talking about this marriage, it's talking about us corporately being united to Christ.

Yeah, a lot of guys find it pretty emasculating to be talked about as the bride of Christ. And it would be, but don't worry, you individually are not the bride of Christ, okay? The church is the bride of Christ.

More properly to that analogy, when it's spelled out further in scripture, you see that we individually are considered the children of the bride. Okay, Galatians 4, 26 says, but the Jerusalem above that is above is free, which is our mother.

Isaiah 54, 1, which is quoted by that same passage in Galatians says, Sing, O barren, that you did not bear. Break forth in the singing and cry aloud, you that did not labor with child. For more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, says Jehovah.

So you have this prophecy that Jerusalem will have many children. What is Jerusalem? What is that heavenly city in Revelation that's coming down from the heavens? It's called the bride. That cubic city we talked about last week, or well, last session, that is about half the size of the United States and just as tall coming down out of the sky in Revelation 21, that is the bride.

And the people of the city are the children, right? So this is a corporate analogy. It does not make sense to apply it to individuals too directly and can lead to some bad theology as well. Secondly, if this is all the elect, this is not just referring to those who presently identify with the church.

So first of all, not all those who identify as members of the church do receive the special love that's described in this passage because not all are truly of God's people. There are a lot of people who look like true members of his church, but in reality, their hearts have not turned toward him.

They are not converted. And then in addition to that, this includes the elect, both past and present, all as part of that assembly. And God's love for us exists even apart from us being brought into the fold in the course of our life.

Romans 5, 8 says, but God commends his own love toward us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us, right? It was while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. His love for us is one that, his love for this bride, this bride is all the elect, past, present, future.

And so his love is not just those who are there in the church presently, right? It's all the elect. Now, of course, there's some limits to this because not all of the elect have submitted to Christ. And so can you use that as a model of submission?

Well, you can if you understand, first of all, that this is corporately, right? The church is submitting to Christ, even though some of the individuals might not yet because they are not yet saved. Christ submits, or excuse me, the church submits to Christ.

And then on top of that, this is a growing and maturing submission. And while Christ is described as the mature head that the body is growing into to match, yeah, it gives us a picture of what that submission is supposed to look like.

It's supposed to be a growing one that approximates some ultimate submission, even though as we look at the churches that exist today, it might not be the perfect model of submission. So you can't say, well, well, it's okay for me to not submit to my husband because this church over here did this awful thing that wasn't submitting to Christ, right?

That's no excuse. Yeah, and this would also stand in contrast to those who deny the reality of a global church. It is pretty clear there's a singular bride here, right? Not many brides. There's a singular bride called the church in this passage because there are some people who would reject that the Bible ever uses the word church to speak of a global church, right?

So now what is that union between Christ and church? So it refers to the mystical bond that joins them together into a common interest for each other. So first, some caveats to that union. It exists in a state of betrothal.