"Unbeknownst to the people of Moses' day (it was a "mystery"), marriage was designed by God from the beginning to be a picture or parable of the relationship between Chris and the church" (p 175, emphasis in the original).
In other words, marriage was designed to remind us of the fallen nature of humankind and our need to be redeemed. Hence, when Adam saw Eve for the first time, he rejoiced because she reminded him of his inability to redeem himself without the Messiah, and Eve rejoiced because she would be re-united to the man whose enemy she had been because of sin.
Does that sound right? No, of course it doesn't, for how could the first humans have known about sin and redemption, being perfectly innocent of evil? And how did Israel understand marriage as a covenant, imaged by their covenant relationship to God, if marriage images only the relationship that exists between Christ and the church? Something's not right with Knight's concept.
The most immediate problem with Knight's concept is that it is so clearly based on the world of sin. Yet, earthly marriage does not exist because of our sinfulness; it exists because of our humanness. We marry because we seek to become one flesh with our spouses, not because we seek to end an enmity that has kept us apart, which is true of Christ and the church. If marriage is based on the perfection of creation, and not the disastrous consequences of sin, why does Paul compare earthly marriage to Christ and the church?
I wrote the following in my newest book, "Genesis 3: The Origin of Gender Roles":
"If the creation account doesn’t mention the man’s authority, and if Ephesians 5 instructs husbands to love their wives the way they love themselves instead of exercising authority over them, why do our theologians nevertheless insist that Ephesians 5 confirms that the man was given authority over the woman as part of creation? If we for a moment set theology aside, and focus only on the Bible, we suddenly notice that Paul compares earthly marriage to the relationship that exists between Christ and the church, not because of the perfection of creation, but because of the consequence of sin. Let me explain. Although marriage was instituted in the beginning and was part of the perfection of creation, the church did not exist in the garden. The promise of the redeemer didn’t appear until Genesis 3, wherefore it follows that the church belongs to the world of sin. Now the question is, if marriage was instituted in the garden, and the church appeared after the entrance of sin, why would Paul use the sacrificial love of Jesus as an example to teach husbands how to love their wives? The answer is simple: because men desire to rule women as a consequence of sin and no longer love their wives the way humans were created to love—unselfishly. In other words, Paul is not advising husbands to exercise authority over their wives; in fact, he is saying the exact opposite. By using the example of the self-sacrificial love of Jesus, Paul guides husbands to forsake their desire to rule over women, and conquer the consequence of sin through mutual submission. By humbly serving their wives the way Jesus served the church, husbands can re-create the beauty of the first moment when Adam saw Eve and rejoiced because he had found his equal partner" (p 78).
In Ephesians 5, Paul seeks to restore the beauty of the original plan, the one in which servanthood and equality creates oneness. For really, if authority could create "one flesh" oneness, we would still have the law. Jesus would never have died and Knight would happily point to God's authority over Israel as the supreme manifestation of the husband's authority over the wife. But that's not the case. Jesus died, we were freed from the law, and the only obligation we have is to love, for love does that which the law could not; it freed us from sin.
No comments:
Post a Comment