Christ the Bridegroom: #3

**This is the third of a three-part reflection on "Christ the Bridegroom." The essay was guest posted by a close personal friend of mine who was raised in the Greek Orthodox Church. This section begins with an Orthodox Hymn for Holy Tuesday.**

I see your bridal chamber
All adorned, my Savior,
But I have no wedding garment,
That I may enter therein.
Make radiant the vesture of my soul,
O Giver of Light, and save me!

There remains one aspect of our marriage with Christ, however, which seemed to elude my understanding. Namely, if our relationship to Christ truly feels romantic love for us, and if this relationship is a true marriage, where is its physical consummation?

After all, the very reason that sexual temptation had been so hard for me to resist had been because I didn’t feel that I could have any sort of physical connection with God the way I could with another human being. By the point at which I was asking this question, I had already come to accept that my longing for physical union could not be separated from my desire for spiritual and intellectual union as well, but my relationship with God seemed only capable of existing on the spiritual and intellectual planes. How, then, were all three parts of my being to be united in Christ?

The answer to this question is more obvious if you come from a Catholic or Orthodox background.

It's the Eucharist.

In the sacrament of Holy Communion, we are literally partaking in (taking into ourselves) the Body of Christ. His flesh becomes one with our own, just like the physical consummation of a marriage. In that sense Christ’s Passion on the cross literally merges with His romantic passion for us, and the very act of physical union (the Eucharist) becomes in itself salvational.

As I said before, this truth is perhaps more intuitive if you come from a faith background that believes in transubstantiation because you are literally consuming the Body of Christ, but it makes sense on the metaphorical level as well. In fact even though the great English reformer John Wesley saw communion as purely a symbolic act, he still felt that partaking in communion had the power to save souls and thus allowed it even to non-believers.

If Christ is our lover, however, and we are His bride, doesn’t it follow that we should be in love with Him in the romantic sense as well? I realize that this may be especially strange for men to contemplate, but the obvious answer to that rhetorical question is yes. At first this seemed nearly impossible to me because I had never thought it appropriate for me to be romantically in love with God. To me God was a father, savior, brother, priest and confessor, but I had never before pictured him as my husband and lover in the fullest sense of the words. I had never before considered what it would look like to be in love with him in the same sense as a human lover.

That was when I had the epiphany that Christ is the ultimate romantic hero that I had always dreamed of meeting. He has all the virtues I yearn for in a soul mate, and He is passionately in love with me. Who could ask for anything more?

Once I had accepted the full implication of my bridehood, I began to see the evidence of Christ the Bridegroom all around me, and to understand it more fully. The Song of Songs with all its fleshly, passionate imagery—a book whose spirituality seemed vague at best to me—suddenly not only made perfect sense, but also became one of the most beautiful books in the Bible. It also proves that God has been our lover since the beginning of time, and that Christ’s Passion and his role as the Bridegroom is simply fulfillment of a relationship clearly lined out in the Old Testament.

Looking at my own faith tradition, I realized that the Orthodox Church places such value on the image of Christ as the Bridegroom that they dedicate a whole day in Holy Week (Holy Tuesday) exclusively to that aspect of Him. In fact, Holy Tuesday in the Orthodox tradition is also called Bridegroom Tuesday. The services for Holy Tuesday focus on the Parable of the Ten Virgins, and the congregation prays that we will remain vigilant, with hearts prepared to receive our King and our Lover. Then in hymns and odes we contemplate our own unworthiness to be united thus with Christ’s divinity. Continuing with the theme of repentance and building on the theme from the Old Testament of Hosea’s marriage to the prostitute Gomer as a metaphor for our own desertion of God, the Orthodox sing the Hymn of Kassiani (quoted in the last section), which tells of the prostitute who anointed Christ’s feet with perfume and wiped them with her hair.

Interestingly, it is an Orthodox man who gave us our only extended allegory of Christ as Bridegroom in fiction: Fyodor Dostoevsky , in "The Idiot." Indeed, the bridegroom allegory is the centerpiece of the novel. The majority of the narrative chronicles the romantic pursuit by Prince Myshkin (the Christ figure) of two woman: the tragic fallen Nastassya Fillipovna, and the beautiful and virtuous Aglaia. Some reviewers write that Prince Myshkin's 'love' for Nastassya Filipovna is only pity and Christian charity. After all, Nastassya is so embittered, so base in some of her actions, that it seems impossible for a noble prince to feel romantic love—that deep, abiding admiration and all-consuming passion—for a person like her. Yet a close reading of the text does not support that assertion.

In the first part of the book especially, Myshkin displays all the symptoms of a man deeply in love, complete with professions of adoration and stammering and blushing in Nastassya’s presence. Even when she completely degrades herself and involves Myshkin in her disgrace through their failed engagements, Myshkin still feels deeply enough for her to leave everything for her once again. Although he appears less passionate and adoring near the end of the story, his lack of zeal does not indicate any cooling of his romantic feelings for Nastassya but rather the natural concern he feels over the dangerous course of action she persists in and her seeming mental instability. The humbling thing we must remember, though, is that Myshkin’s love for the undeserving Nastassya is a direct allegory for how we are infinitely undeserving to be the bride of Christ. Thus, the fact that Myshkin’s love does not seem to make sense simply echoes the profound mystery of Christ’s love for us.

I began my journey towards understanding Christ as the Bridegroom and myself as the bride by lamenting my sins with Kassiani’s prostitute. On a certain level I will continue to lament my sins even though I know God forgives them and “remembers them no more.” But now I have moved beyond blank despair because I paradoxically know that despite my baseness, I am wedded to Christ, my true husband, and destined for the glory of being completely united with Him. Thus I pray the words of the Orthodox hymn for Holy Tuesday: that He may “make radiant the vesture of my soul,” so that I may enter the bridal chamber ordained for me.

Check out the rest of this essay at:
Christ the Bridegroom: #1
Christ the Bridegroom: #2
Christ the Bridegroom: #3

Christ the Bridegroom: #2

**This is the second entry in three-part reflection on "Christ the Bridegroom." The essay was guest posted by a close personal friend of mine who was raised in the Greek Orthodox Church. This section begins with the Hymn of Kassiani, justly acclaimed as perhaps the most famous (and most musically demanding) hymns in the Orthodox liturgy. It is sung on Tuesday of Holy Week for the matins of Great and Holy Wednesday.**

Sensing Thy divinity, O Lord, a woman of many sins
takes it upon herself to become a myrrh-bearer,
And in deep mourning brings before Thee fragrant oil
in anticipation of Thy burial; crying:
"Woe to me! For night is unto me oestrus of lechery,
a dark and moonless eros of sin.
Receive the wellsprings of my tears,
O Thou who gatherest the waters of the oceans into clouds.
Bend to me, to the sorrows of my heart,
O Thou who bendedst down the heavens in Thy ineffable self-emptying.
I will kiss Thine immaculate feet
and dry them with the locks of my hair;
Those very feet whose sound Eve heard at dusk in Paradise
and hid herself in fear.
Who shall reckon the multitude of my sins,
or the abysses of Thy judgment, O Saviour of my soul?
Do not ignore Thy handmaiden,
O Thou whose mercy is without end.

I open this article with Kassiani’s eponymous hymn because the lament of the “woman of many sins” in that poem could very well have been the cry of my soul at one time in my life. Although not engaged in prostitution like the speaker in the hymn, I had let my fleshly desires alienate me from God in a more profound way than I ever dreamed possible. So diseased was the state of my soul that I became physically ill and mentally withdrawn for weeks.

Sadly, this was far from the first time I had struggled with sexual issues in my life, and through my battles I have learned that sexual impurity has become an epidemic among Christian women in my generation. Yet these sins are so personal and so deeply stigmatic that most Christian women suffer in silence, afraid to admit their problems even to their churches, who are supposed to be there to help them with just such issues.

I know I personally lived in dread of anyone knowing what a hypocrite I was, but I also knew I needed someone to pray with me and to keep me accountable with God. So by God’s grace, I finally had courage to confide in a friend about my struggles, and she gave me a rather remarkable book by Shannon Ethridge called "Every Woman’s Battle," which offers comfort and advice to Christian women in their struggle for sexual purity.

This book forced me to confront a fact that I had sensed for years but feared to put into words: namely, that the reason Christian women today make such horrible mistakes in their love lives is because they are searching for something they feel they cannot find in God. The reason that romantic love holds such an appeal for women is because being utterly adored in the romantic sense is the highest validation of our self-worth that we can have. This combined with the joy of union with the person we love above all others on earth creates an irresistible pull on the hearts and minds—and, through those conduits, the bodies—of most women. Yes, I saw this more clearly than ever in my own life. My sexual impurity stemmed from a perversion and obsession with romantic love, something I felt I could not get from God. I could sense this truth penetrating to the depths of my soul even as my mind tried to deny it.

In order to receive the healing I needed, I had to uncover my identity as the Bride of Christ, and I had to realize that this was not an arranged marriage but a love-match.

As I was trying to understand what being the Beloved of Christ meant, I first had to remind myself of all the things that romantic love entails, and then apply that to my vision of God. First of all, romantic love is an all-consuming passion for the beloved. I could picture that. I remembered being in love myself, and I could also remember seeing that blissful look of utter adoration of the face of lovers as they contemplated their beloved. Is that, I wondered, the look on Christ’s face as he gazes at each of us?

Romantic love is also a love that exults in all good while forgiving all shortcomings, a love that elevates the beloved above all else. Yes, I could see that as being true of God because it says in the Bible that Christ not only forgives our sins but also that He “remembers them no more.” There is no condemnation, therefore, in His love. In addition, He must also value us more than Himself or He would not have died a horrible death for us.

Romantic love, however, is not a love that admires from a distance. Rather, it is a deep desire for union with the beloved. We humans are communal creatures in essence, and romantic love is the deepest form of communion possible because connects us with the beloved in all three parts of our essential being: the spiritual, intellectual, and physical being. This kind of communion also exists within the Godhead because God is one in essence but three persons working in perfect harmony.

This means romantic love is more than merely consistent with the character of God. It means that the human ability to feel romantic love is not some base or biological instinct for procreation, but is rather a facet of the imago dei (image of God) which we bear.

All this made sense to me on a certain level at least, but when I looked at the darkness in my own soul—I, who had been a devout Christian all my life—it seemed to be nothing more than an exquisite but impossible dream.

It is truly one of the great mysteries of our faith that a wholly good, beautiful, transcendent, omniscient God could be in love with any one of us, let alone each of us, since we are so flawed, petty, and ugly each in our own unique way. Yet that would explain why He bothers to saves us all individually instead of letting His sacrifice automatically propel all human souls to heaven.

It is not mere immortality that Christ desired to give us through His death and resurrection, but rather a restoration of our intended union with God.

This also fits perfectly with the Protestant insistence that the Christian religion is a “close personal relationship with Jesus Christ.” There is no closer personal relationship than a marriage, which is literally the joining of two people into one. So Christ doesn’t just love us in a benevolent agape sense, nor is He the lover of merely our souls. In order to be our husband He must be our lover in every sense: soul, mind, and body.

Check out the rest of this essay at:
Christ the Bridegroom: #1
Christ the Bridegroom: #2
Christ the Bridegroom: #3

Christ the Bridegroom: #1

**This three-part reflection on "Christ the Bridegroom" was contributed by a guest author as a response to my earlier note on the Church as The Bride of Christ. The essay is subtitled: A Reflection on Spirituality, Sexuality, and the Implications of Our Mystic Marriage. The author is a close personal friend of mine who was raised in the Greek Orthodox Church, and who has helped me considerably in understanding Orthodox beliefs. The epigraph is from Song of Songs 7:10.**

I am my beloved's, and his desire is for me.

Of all the metaphors we have been given for Christ’s relationship with us (and His love for us), the one I think that we as Christians contemplate and analyze the least is that of Christ as the Bridegroom, Christ the lover. I would venture to guess that many of us feel more than vaguely uncomfortable picturing Christ as some love-struck character from a chick-flick, pursuing some romantic object. It seems almost sacrilegious. Our minds can associate Him with the loves philos and agape without problem, but romantic love, eros, seems too base, too fleshly for the eternal divinity of God. It’s one thing to say that Christ loves us, after all, but how can He be in love with any single lowly human in the sense of the all-consuming adoration that we associate with romantic passion? How can He be in a marriage with any of us?

Yet the image of Christ as a lover is deeply Biblical. Not only that, I’ve come to realize that if we do not consider Him in that light, we may obstruct the ability of Christ’s love to transform our lives in the way He intends for us.

I know that I personally had great difficulty comprehending that being "the Bride of Christ" was a work of romantic love, and that it was a love for me personally as well as for the church as a whole. I think in general it's much easier for contemporary Christians to view Christ as having a passion for humanity collectively because this seems more fitting for the Son of God and less like the kind of subjective whim we associate with romantic impulses—or the lecherous deities of Greek mythology. Of course Christ does love humanity collectively in the romantic sense, but this does not mean that He cannot love us each individually in the romantic sense as well. After all, he is and infinite God.

For me personally, associating Christ with romantic love seemed so counter-intuitive that it required me to clarify both my ideas about romantic love and the nature of God.  The first thing that came to mind when I thought about God is that God is love. That being the case, I realized that his essence must encompass all forms of love, including romantic love (eros).

Then I realized that -- though I had always considered eros to be a lowly human form of love -- eros in its true form is the highest form of love, because it also contains philos and agape within it. Since God is love, therefore, and romantic love is the highest expression of love, it must follow that God is not only capable of romantic love but that His very existence is a constant outpouring of romantic love for His beloved.

And of course whenever we hear the words "Christ’s beloved," we reflexively think of the Church. In fact I know I had personally heard the phrase “beloved of Christ” so often that it had lost all meaning for me. But perhaps that was because I had never considered it in a proper light. I had short-changed the nature of Christ’s love for us because I had never been taught to analyze the fact that His marriage to us implies romantic love, and that His romantic love is a love for us as individuals as well as communally. Had I only known the true nature of my bridehood earlier in my life, I could have saved myself a whole world of grief.

Check out the rest of this essay at:
Christ the Bridegroom: #1
Christ the Bridegroom: #2
Christ the Bridegroom: #3

The Bride of Christ

In my last note, I introduced the quintessentially Catholic image of the Church as God's family. Considering that Israel is a type for the Church, we might treat the Biblical images of the Jews as "the people of God" and Israel as "the nation of God" in the same breath. In the same way, standard Catholic eschatology tends to incline towards amillennialism, so they would also identify the present Church with the immanent "kingdom of God" proclaimed during Jesus' ministry on earth. Each of these titles offers a slightly altered perspective on the nature of the Church, but those variances are too subtle to be done justice here.

There is another set of images that run parallel to those given above: the Church as the Bride of Christ. John the Baptist hinted at it in his final sermon: "He who has the bride is the bridegroom, but the friend of the bridegroom who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly because of the bridegroom's voice. So this joy of mine has been made full" (John 3:29). Later, in responding to the Pharisees, Christ compares His actions to those of a bridegroom (Matthew 9:15) and later analogizes the day of judgment to a marriage feast for the bridegroom (in the parable of the ten virgins, Matthew 25:1-9).

The mystical union -- indeed, the marriage -- of Christ and the Church has its forbears in Jewish literature. "Song of Songs" has long been understood not simply as erotic poetry, of the longing of a lover and His beloved, but also as allegory for God's love of His people. It is for this reason that "Song of Songs" can boast of more commentaries than nearly any other book in the Old Testaments. It was and remains a favorite text of Christian saint, such as the Cistercian abbot St. Bernard of Clairvaux (the 'mellifluous Doctor'), who composed 86 separate sermons on first three chapters "Song of Songs" alone.

The apostle Paul was also prolific in his comparisons between Christ as the bridegroom and the Church as His bride. Paul makes the comparison explicit in Ephesians 5:25-32:

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, do that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the Church, because we are members of His body. "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh" [Genesis 2:24]. This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the Church.

It is precisely this imagery, of the Church as the Bride, that is at the heart of Catholic teachings on sexual ethics. After all, marriage is a reenactment writ small of our salvation history, of Christ's mystical union with the body of believers. A number of Christians mystics go further and apply imagery of marriage to the mystical union of the Trinity Itself, of the relation of God to the Son and the Holy Spirit. At the very least, Catholics define marriage as a sacrament, a vessel of God's sanctifying grace, completed through the marital act. Just as Catholics wouldn't dream of using the consecrated hosts of the Eucharist as snack food, so too the Church would teach us not to devalue the 'elements' of marriage: the physical act of sex.

One particular attribute of the Church as Bride deserves mention: its spotlessness. Paul is pretty clear on this score in the passage above, as is St. John the Seer in Revelations 19:7-9:

Let us rejoice and be glad and give glory to Him, for the marriage of the Lamb has come and His bride has made herself ready" It was given to her to clothe herself in fine linen, bright and clean; for the fine linen is the righteousness of the saints. Then he said to me, "Write, 'Bless are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.'" And he said to me, "There are the true words of God."

This particular imagery, of a Divine bridegroom approaching a pure and spotless Bride, stands in pretty stark contrast with the actual conduct of both Jews and Christians throughout salvation history. God Himself commented on this to the prophet Hosea: "Go, take for yourself a wife of harlotry and have children of harlotry; for the land commits flagrant harlotry, forsaking the Lord" (Hosea 1:2). Through the book, God laments the continued unfaithfulness of His people, yet still promises to redeem her: "Go again, love a woman who is loved by her husband, yet an adulteress, even as the Lord loves the sons of Israel, though they turn to other gods..." (Hosea 3:1). Hosea's marriage to the unfaithful Gomer is a sign of God and His people. Yet Christ's marriage to the spotless Bride is a sign of God and His church.

This is the paradox at the heart of Catholic ecclesiology. As Gomer treated her husband, we who live in Christ treat God pretty abysmally. We are often unfaithful. Yet the Church remains spotless, and while we remain in the Church we remain spotless ourselves. This is why Catholics find the Lutheran dictum simul justus et peccator ("both justified and a sinner") incomprehensible. This is the reason for the Catholic dictum extra Ecclesiam nulla salus: "outside of the Church, there is no salvation."

For the Church is more than the Bride of Christ. She is the Body of Christ as well.

Commentary on Scripture: Ephesians

(Please note that I use an NASB translation, so some of the phrase may be different from your Bible).
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~

Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, to the saints who are at Ephesus and the faithful in Christ Jesus: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Eph. 1:3-14 ~~ A doxology to God the Father (v. 3-6) and God the Son (v. 7-13a) with some mention of the Holy Spirit (v. 13b-14). This doxology strongly emphasizes divine benevolence in the various doctrines of spiritual gifts, election, redemption, reward, general and special revelation, eschatology, and teleology.

Eph. 1:3 ~~ "Every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ" seems to indicate that our union with Christ has already empowered us, by granting access to God and his (spiritual) power and might. This dovetails nicely with the discussion of spiritual warfare that ends this letter in Ephesians 6.

Eph. 1:4-5 ~~ A strong statement of predestination, particularly emphasizing the benevolence of God

Eph. 1:7 ~~ The "redemption through His blood" seems to be distinct from "the forgiveness of our trespasses according to the riches of His grace." Theologically they cannot be too distinct, but perhaps they can be considered two different modes of the same act of grace and forgiveness?

Eph. 1:8-9 ~~ God's wisdom expressed by revealing the mystery of His will

Eph. 1:11 ~~ Inheritance as sons of God is distinct from forgiveness or redemption (cf. Eph. 1:7) but is strongly correlated in this doxology with mentions of predestination.

Eph. 1:13-14 ~~ The Holy Spirit is given as a pledge of our inheritance in heaven (which I correlate to the "store up treasures in heaven" passage in Matthew 6:20). This reward is given for the praise of His glory, but (more interestingly) for the purpose of redeeming God's own possession; that is, us. My next contemplation will be on this very topic, actually, but there seems to be a suggestion that we might be more easily redeemed (brought into the Church) with the promise that we will not only be redeemed but also restored, not only forgiven for our sins but also made excellent in virtue.

Eph. 1:17 ~~ "God and Father of glory" gives us the spirit of wisdom and revelation of the knowledge of Him.

Eph. 1:18-19 ~~ Eyes of the heart are opened in the "hope of His calling" -- "the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints." Here again is the prominent suggestion that we are more easily able to approach God with a carrot (incentive for reward) than a stick (punishment for sin). Paul in facts prayed that they would see this hope of inheritance, along with the "surpassing greatness of His power" and the "working of the strength of His might," and thereby accept the Gospel.

Eph. 1:22-23 ~~ This passage parallels Ephesians 5 and the (very controversial) issues of headship in marriage. God gave headship over Church to Christ; all other things were "put... in subjection under His feet" except for the church, which is Christ's body. This is illustrative in the context of Ephesians 5:21-22, for it shows that submission is not subjection but much more dignifying to all involved.

Eph. 2:1-2 ~~ Former death was when you "walked according to the course of the world, according to the prince of the power of the air, according to the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience." We are beset by temptation from around us, below us, and within us; we are caused to sin by influence of the world, of Satan, and of ourselves.

Eph. 2:3 ~~ The sins arising from ourselves are called "lusts of our flesh," but they arise from indulging the desires of both our body and our mind. 1 John 2:16 makes this same point (see especially St. Augustine's commentary on that passage in his Confessions.

Eph. 2:6 ~~ God, rich in mercy, made us alive, raised us up with Him and seated us "in the heavenly places in Christ." This is the same phrase used in the introductory doxology.

Eph. 2:8 ~~ Salvation "through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is a gift from God." Christians receive the spirit of faith as a gift from the Providence of God.

Eph. 2:10 ~~ Humans are "created... for good works." In a similar vein, Lord Acton defined liberty not as unlimited freedom from restraint, but the freedom to act virtuously.

Eph. 2:14-16 ~~ The Law (of commandments and ordinances) is the cause of division. Christ broke down the dividing wall, by abolishing it in His flesh. He reconciled us to God in the cross, "by it having put to death" the Law.

Eph. 2:19-21 ~~ We are residents of God's house, which is built on the foundations of the apostles and the prophets, with a cornerstone of Christ, which is becoming a holy temple in the Lord. The imagery is quite interesting, for the cornerstone is generally laid last and is necessary for the stability of the whole.

Eph. 3:3 ~~ "By revelation there was made known the mystery" (reason clarified through experience) "...as I wrote before in brief" (previous letter to Ephesus: perhaps unpreserved or non-canonical?)

Eph. 3:5-6 ~~ Mystery related to the redemption of Gentiles "not revealed to past generations." This passage suggests that the reason for the early church dispute between Judaizers who wished to preserve Jewish customs and the Law and the bloc led by Peter who wished to open the doors of the Gospel to the Gentiles was ultimately one of knowledge. The answer to the riddle was given by vision or revelation to individuals (Peter in Acts 12; Paul in this passage and others). The authority and credibility of these church elders and apostles gave their individual experiences a rational weight in argument.

Eph. 3:6 ~~ Note the repeated emphasis on the equality of the Gentiles: "fellow heirs... fellow members of the body... fellow partakers of the promise."

Eph. 3:8-9 ~~ Paul given the grace to preach the riches of Christ, to make all know the administration of the mystery" of the universal extent of salvation. That is, Paul did not just spread word that the Gospels could reach the Gentiles; he brought it to them himself.

Eph. 3:12 ~~ in Christ, we have boldness and confident access through faith in Him.

Eph. 3:14-15 ~~ A bit of rhetorical wordplay, since the Greek word for "father" is similar to "family."

Eph. 3:14-19 ~~ Paul humbled that God grants: power of Spirit, riches of glory, indwelling of Christ, grace to comprehend and know God's love, "that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God."

Eph. 3:16 ~~ "Strengthened... in the inner man" (later passages translate similar phrases "inner self")

Eph. 3:18-19 ~~ "Comprehend" (grasp the magnitude of) and "know" (experience personally) the love of Christ. Paul distinguishes rational and experiential modes of learning and knowing.

Eph. 3:20-12 ~~ A mini-doxology, praising God for His power working within us.

Eph. 4:1-3 ~~ Thematic transition: "walk in a manner worthy of the Lord" by living out these virtues: humility, gentleness, patience, tolerance in love, diligence, unity in the Spirit, peace of God.

Eph. 4:4-6 ~~ Quality of unity applies to body, Spirit, hope, calling, Lord, faith, baptism, and God.

Eph. 4:6 ~~ God the Father of all, over all, through all, in all. This reveals three characteristics of God: his transcendence and supremacy, his omnipresence, and his immanence.

Eph. 4:7-16 ~~ Discussion of gifts and unity in the body of Christ clearly parallels 1 Corinthians 12.

Eph. 4:9 ~~ This is one instance in which the interpretation of a passage clearly and directly affects one's view of a particular theological doctrine; in this case, whether Christ descended to hell during the three days between His death and resurrection. One's answer largely depends on the meaning one ascribes to the phrase "lower parts of the earth." Sheol was typically considered to be subterranean in Hebrew cosmology, as was Hades in Greco-Roman understanding. On the other hand, considering the heavenly heights from which Christ descended, even a life of the surface would be the "lower parts."

Eph. 4:11-12 ~~ Four classes of spiritual gifts, often conflated, which Paul distinguishes between. They are united in two works -- equipping of the saints for works of service, and building up of the church -- but have different functions. Apostles are those who plant churches and encourage leaders; prophets are those who restore churches and rebuke leaders; evangelists are those who expand existing churches and introduce new members; and pastors are those who develop churches and help members mature.

Eph. 4:13 ~~ Unity of faith and knowledge of Christ bring us to "measure of stature" that belongs to the fullness of Christ ("until we all attain to a mature man")

Eph. 4:17-18 ~~ Warning against the Gentiles' "futility of mind" (cf. Romans 1:21-22). They were "darkened in understanding... because of the hardness of their hearts." Emotional receptivity to truth found in faith directly correlates to receptivity to truth found by reason.

Eph. 4:19 ~~ A rather ironic statement of sin: the Gentiles, "having become callous," abandoned themselves to sensuality as a result. By losing their moral center, their souls were numbed to the aesthetic and erotic pleasures, making them more desperate to recover those pleasures, and driving them further away from what enabled them to enjoy them.

Eph. 4:22-24 ~~ Three stages or parts of conversation: "lay aside the old self," "be renewed in the spirit of your mind," and "put on the new self, in the likeness of God." Most exhortations to convert in the New Testament don't really include the middle step, which is quite a fascinating addition by Paul.

Eph. 4:26 ~~ Asserts concept of righteous wrath, for not all anger is sinful (cf. Psalms 4:4)

Eph. 4:26-27 ~~ Emphasizes forgiveness as immunization against spiritual warfare (cf. Matthew 5:23)

Eph. 4:28 ~~ Defends labor, capital, private property with a view towards enabling philanthropy.

Eph. 4:29 ~~ Exhorts to speak only edifying words (cf. Plato's Phaedrus, "noble rhetoric")

Eph. 4:30 ~~ My Bible comments that "Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God" necessarily entails that the Holy Spirit is of a personal nature. I find this argument questionable. I agree with the doctrine; I just don't think you can find it here, where the object includes God the Father. God sealed us for the day of redemption by his Holy Spirit; therefore, we are not to grieve either one by our misconduct.

Eph. 4:31-32 ~~ Avoid bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, slander, and malice. Live with a spirit of kindness, tender-heartedness, and forgiveness.

Eph. 5:1-2 ~~ Imitate Christ who "gave Himself up for you" (direct parallel to Ephesians 5:25)

Eph. 5:3-9 ~~ Saints ought not indulge in filthiness, silly talk, or coarse jesting, but should speak with thanksgiving. Three sins are so serious they "must not even be named among you" -- immorality, impurity, and greed (covetousness), which are defined as mere variants of idolatry. These three sins are the reason "the wrath of God falls on the sons of disobedience." They are sufficient for any who leads such a life to lose their "inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God." On the other hand, there are three virtues that are the "fruit of the Light" -- goodness, righteousness, and truth. It seems these are meant to parallel the list of three sins, as to provide the antidote to such idolatry.

Eph. 5:11-13 ~~ We are to expose the sins of others, not by speaking of them publicly, but by leading such Godly lives in comparison that their moral failures cannot be obscured.

Eph. 5:14 ~~ This verse ("For this reason it says...") is a mystery to me. It may be an early hymn of the church. Alternately, the passage may read "For this reason He says," in which case it may be a prophetic utterance or a saying of Christ passed down by oral tradition in the early church, but which did not enter the Gospel accounts.

Eph. 5:15-18 ~~ A series of contrasts, advocating prudence (the conduct of a wise man), industry (making the most of your time), and discernment.

Eph. 5:19-20 ~~ To be filled with the Spirit is to be "making melody with your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks" and speaking in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.

Eph. 5:21 ~~ Submission is a universal command for all in the church.

Eph. 5:22 - 6:9 ~~ This is easily the most controversial passage in Ephesians, and one of the more challenging passages in the New Testament. A few notes that I've found helpful in my own interpretation of these verses. First, these pieces of counsel (whether advice or command) are directed towards specific groups and individuals within the Church. Each section intended for a specific audience and no other (the section to wives is not meant for husbands, and vice versa). Specifically, they are meant as challenges, designed to edify each person's soul in areas of special growth. It is good if we seek to follow Paul's counsel, as it will benefit and educate us greatly; however, these verses cannot be used as bargaining chips or used to demand deference from fellow Christians.

Eph. 5:22-32 ~~ In a much longer controversial passage, this is probably the most challenging subsection. Essentially, Paul argues that the marriage relationship parallels Christ and the Church. The Church (the Bride, feminine role) is called to submit to God, while Christ (the Groom, masculine role) is giving Himself up for the Church. Paul extrapolates this same relationship to a more domestic level in which feminine and masculine roles interacted regularly.

Eph. 5:22 ~~ The counsel to wives to "submit... as to the Lord" is not a command to worship their husbands. Submission is an act of service and love, performed as a gift of worship to the Lord. Also, note that all Christians are called to submit to each other; i.e., all other Christians. Wives are called to be more deliberate and dedicated in applying this virtue to their husbands.

Eph. 5:25 ~~ The counsel to husbands to "love... as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her" is a command to be entirely self-sacrificing. Wives may submit with action, but husbands are called to submit and love with their very being. Husbands follow Christ's example with the church, even if it means they go willingly to their death. As my Bible comments, rather obliquely, "To give oneself up to death for the beloved is a more extreme expression of devotion than the wife is called on to make." I find this to be a bit of an understatement.

Eph. 5:26 ~~ Apparently there's some doctrinal issues involved in "the washing of water with the word." For more information, see John 3:5 & 15:3, Titus 3:5, James 1:18, and 1 Peter 1:23 & 3:21.

Eph. 5:28-29 ~~ Paul makes an interesting point about how "no one ever hated his own flesh." There are some vices that come naturally to us, grounded in our very nature as human beings, including the vice of pride. Other sins, such as self-loathing, are thoroughly 'unnatural vices' that rebel against our human instincts. I would argue it is better to live with natural vices than unnatural vices, if only because more people struggle with the former, and it is therefore easier to find support and counsel.

Eph. 5:33 ~~ This summary re-emphasizes the point that these counsels apply for specific individuals. It is interesting the contrast between wives called to "submit" (v. 22) as opposed to "respect" (v. 33). "Respect" is literally the same word for "fear," as in "fear of the Lord," which may have been Paul's point. Finally, a small parenthetical remark may shed some light of Paul's rhetorical strategy. He writes that "each individual among you also is to love his own wife..." implying that the audience is male. His listeners therefore have an expectation that he will support their authority over wives. Paul's strategy was to first emphasize the submission of wives using the metaphor of Christ and the Church, which would appeal to men (especially Jewish converts) who viewed women as a lower order of being. However, once Paul established the parallel, he turned the metaphor on the men and told them that, if they expected their wives to submit as to Christ, they had better start acting like Christ by practicing self-sacrificial love. In this light, it's an exceptionally clever strategy, and probably caught Paul's audience completely off guard on first reading.

Eph. 6:1-3 ~~ command to children: respect parents (and the authority and traditions they represent) for your own good. In the immortal words of Ben Franklin, "Only a fool learns from his own mistakes. The wise man learns from everyone else's."

Eph. 6:4 ~~ command to fathers: exercise patience in treatment of children, but with firm instruction. Again the emphasis seems to be on moral education and tradition.

Eph. 6:5-9 ~~ In these verses on slavery, Paul seeks to redeem the system by addressing and renewing the virtue of individuals acting within it (see also the book of Philemon). This does not mean that Paul accepts slavery as morally praiseworthy, nor that he rejects it as morally deficient. This passage is neutral in evaluating the institution; its focus is on the individuals.

Eph. 6:5-8 ~~ command to slaves: serve God by serving their earthly master, cultivating virtue, and with an eye for storing up treasures in heaven.

Eph. 6:9 ~~ command to masters: imitate your slaves!!! Perform the same deeds, but with an emphasis on avoiding wrongdoing and averting the wrath of God.

Eph. 6:10-11 ~~ "Be strong in the Lord" (Mars, persona of strength, inspiration for concept of armor, spiritual warfare). Rely on God's might in combating evil.

Eph. 6:12 ~~ Speaking personally, I am profoundly uncomfortable with the concept of spiritual warfare. However, verses such as these are pretty unequivocal that spiritual warfare occurs, and that we as Christians need to take it seriously.

Eph. 6:13-14 ~~ To stand firm "in the evil day," we require the armor of God and every fiber of our being ("having done everything"). This is no picnic.

Eph. 6:14-17 ~~ The Armor of God:
(1) "Gird your loins" -- Truth -- the basics, care for one's own soul
(2) "'Breastplate" -- Righteousness -- heart, will, spirit (C.S. Lewis: "the Chest")
(3) "Shod your feet" -- Gospel of Peace -- faith journey, evangelism
(4) "Shield" -- Faith -- protection of whole being (against arrows of all-consuming fire)
(5) "Helmet" -- Salvation -- protection of mind (cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:8)
(6) "Sword" -- Spirit, Word of God -- offensive weapon, vs. sin and sinners

Eph. 6:18-19 ~~ "Pray at all times in the Spirit, with this in view" -- that is, in light of spiritual warfare. "Be vigilant with all perseverance and petition for all the saints." I believe this verse is sometimes construed to justify 'praying' to the saints. I think reasonable arguments can be made for the doctrine, but its foundations are not found in this passage. "Petition" is not a verb in this instance, but a noun; our vigilance is expressed by prayers for the saints, rather than supported by prayers of the saints.

Eph. 6:24 ~~ "love... with incorrigible love." An ironic ending, in light of Revelation 2:4, a letter from John addressed to the angel of the church at Ephesus: "But I have this against you, that you have left your first love".

Grace be with all those who love our Lord Jesus Christ with incorrigible love.

Contemplations in Theology: #4

This is my controversial fourth "Contemplation in Theology." Most commentators took issue with my reading of Ephesians 5:23-28, on the issue of headship and marriage. I explored this issue and this passage in greater depth in my "Commentary on Scripture: Ephesians", which can be found here.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~

I have recently taken to describing myself as a medievalist, and I'm often asked what that term means. It is far too involved for a simple answer to do it justice; that's why I started this series of notes. But here is a useful definition.

As a medievalist, I think, I feel, I believe in terms of hierarchies.

I am a rationalist; when I was younger, I would have described myself as an analytic philosopher if it were not for the strange looks I received. I think in terms of definitions, categories, discrete ideas and concepts. But categories in isolation are not sufficient; they must be placed in relation to one another.

This is the principle of hierarchy: placing things--ideas, functions, virtues, people--in relation to each other, identifying them by what is above, below, and beside them.

Man was created for the worship of God, for fellowship with others, and for stewardship of Nature. This is a hierarchy.

In marriage, Ephesians 5:23-28 outlines another hierarchy: "For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church.... Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.... Husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies."

It would be fatal to stop at verse 24, to merely apply this command to women. It is preceded by a call for the entire Church to submit to one another; it is succeeded by a call for husbands to give themselves up and practice sacrificial love.

Hierarchy is not a static or rigid structure; it is essentially dynamic and flexible. There are different hierarchies operating even on the same things, if we are measuring for different qualities.

Hierarchy is not a linear relationship; it is fundamentally circular. It is not so concerned with authority and subservience as it is with understanding things in their proper relations, in their appointed places.

Hierarchy is not a uni-directional principle; it is necessarily reciprocal. By this I do not mean that if A is above, then B is below. True reciprocity means that if we place A above B in one respect, we must place A below B in another. It all depends on the scale we use.

Nothing can be more pernicious than a simplistic understanding of hierarchy: that is at the root of sexism, racism, Social Darwinism, imperialism--the great cultural sins of recent Western history. In fact, it may well be said that ignorance of hierarchy is the root of error. For, if we do not understand ideas (or worse, we understand them, but fail to understand the relation and interaction between them), how can we know Truth?

More pointedly, however, I believe that sin itself is fundamentally a rejection of hierarchy.

This ought to be self-evident in one sense, for sin--as an act of rebellion against God--is a rejection of the hierarchy of loyalty. But there is another truth to be found. In "Out of the Silent Planet," C.S. Lewis notes that Weston was corrupted by elevating the virtue of "love for humanity" to an inordinate level, to where it took precedent over any other virtue. Likewise, greed elevates the love of money--material necessities, security--out of proportion; gluttony elevates the love of food--material luxuries, comfort. Virtue is corrupted when it is taken out of the hierarchy; thus, sin is essentially a re-ordering of the hierarchy.

Earlier I wrote that error is more convincing to the degree that it contains elements of truth. Likewise, I believe, sin is more pervasive and dangerous to the degree that it incorporates elements of virtue.

The desire for intimacy and sexual satisfaction is undeniably a virtue--it has an entire book devoted to it (Song of Songs), and is often described in parallel to Christ's relationship to his Church. When the sexual desire is elevated out of proportion, it becomes the sin of lust. And this is why lust is so pernicious an issue: the greater the virtue that is perverted, the greater the sin that it becomes.

But I am called to write of something I cannot fully understand. Hierarchy does not merely help us identify the roots of error and sin. Hierarchy is itself the foundation of virtue.

Just as the greatest sin is in rejecting or replacing the hierarchy instituted by God, so the greatest and most all-encompassing virtue is in desiring one's proper place in the order of God's Creation.

I desire to submit myself before God, demonstrating with love, loyalty, word and deed my worship of the One Who Is. I desire to enter in fellowship with others, loving my neighbor as myself, as befitting equals. I desire to submit myself to those above me, in proportion to their prerogative; I desire to exercise my own authority with care and charity. I desire to acquit myself in stewardship of that and those under my care.

I am a man perpetually restless. I am not content; I am always searching for what I can do, what I ought to do. I yearn for rest. And if this were truly my desire--to be as I ought, to think as I ought, to live as God made me to live--would I not find my place there? Thus did the stoics and ancients speak of resting in God, of contentment, of peace.

Forgive my selfish prayer: may the peace of God weigh on me.