Any kind of pre-marital counseling worth its salt will use Eph 5:22-33 in the course of teaching on marriage, and there’s a specific aspect within that passage that I need to get straight. So what follows below will function both as an attempt to collect my thoughts on the passage and a solicitation to help me in clarifying where I may not see things clearly.
For Paul here in Eph. 5, Christ is clearly the analogue for the husband, and the church is clearly the analogue for the wife. Not only is this relationship analogous, the relationship of Christ and the church is to be seen as the example and model for how spouses are to relate to each other in their respective roles (v. 24-30). In v. 29-30, Paul argues that Christ nourishes and cherishes his church as a husband does for his wife, because we are members of Christ’s body. Paul then quotes Gen 2:24:
24 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”
Verse 32 is where I want to focus:
32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.
To which mystery is Paul referring? Whichever mystery it is, that mystery refers to Christ and the church, and Paul informs us of one of its qualitative attributes – “profound” or “great.” Now, Paul has just described what he means by “mystery” back in chapter 3:
3:1 For this reason I, Paul, a prisoner for Christ Jesus on behalf of you Gentiles— 2 assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace that was given to me for you, 3 how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly. 4 When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. 6 This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel. 7 Of this gospel I was made a minister according to the gift of God’s grace, which was given me by the working of his power. 8 To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9 and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things, 10 so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places. 11 This was according to the eternal purpose that he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord, 12 in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through our faith in him.
Paul has established what this mystery is; that is, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs with the Jews in the same body of believers (v. 6), and he has established how that will be revealed, which is through the church (v. 10), and this plan was established by God’s eternal purpose and now realized in Christ (v. 11).
I realize that’s a lot of fairly obvious points to establish before I get to my main point, but I think we’ll need that groundwork. My question is, Can we say that Adam and Eve’s marriage at the time they were united was analogous to Christ and the church?
Part of my reason for asking the question is because I have seen and heard some argue that because Paul quotes Gen. 2:24 in the context of Adam and Eve, Adam and Eve’s marriage was at the time of their union a picture of Christ and his church. I don’t think that’s a necessary conclusion, and I’m not sure if it’s an exegetically valid one.
Before the Fall, we do not have redemptive history, we have pre-redemptive history, because at that point in Eden there was nothing to redeem. Sin had not yet come into the world. So picture the implications if God was to tell Adam and Eve that their marriage union was analogous to the union of the coming Redeemer and his people. Imagine the host of questions that would come up – What needs to be redeemed? And redeemed from what? How and why would this be accomplished? If pre-redemptive marriage was analogous to Christ (Redeemer) and the church (the redeemed), it would seem that a host of complex problems would arise.
But we do know that in one sense Adam and Eve’s marriage union was in fact analogous to Christ and the church, because marriage itself as an institution is analogous to the relationship between Christ and his church. This sense, I believe, is from the perspective of “God’s eternal purpose” or his eternal decree. But this is not saying more than whatever happens in history happens because God eternally decreed it to be so, and this includes post-Fall marriage.
Taking a cue from Francis Turretin, we read
Would it have been necessary for the Son of God to become incarnate, even if man had not sinned?…As the Son of God became incarnate only on account of sin, so it would not have been necessary for him to become incarnate if man had not sinned. (Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. 2, p. 299)
The Reformed tradition wants to affirm that it was not necessary that Christ became incarnate; that the necessity of the incarnation was a consequent necessity based on the Fall. So if we uphold this truth, I would think that within human history at the time point of Adam and Eve’s marriage-union we would not want to say that their union was analogous to Christ and his church from the perspective of human history (but affirming that analogy from the perspective of the eternal decree, like all events in human history). We may need to say that Adam and Eve’s marriage union was analogous to God’s pre-redemptive relationship to his people (Adam and Eve), and the Fall adds a redemptive component to the relationship and its analogue.
Hi Jared,
I always appreciate your thoughts. Could I ask you to take your thinking a bit farther and close the loop on this? So, how is Paul applying Gen.2:24 to Christian marriage? And how is “mystery” as Paul uses it in 3:1-12 relevant to Christian marriage? Thanks!
I’d be a lot more interested in your thoughts on that than mine!
I think Paul is using Gen 2:24 to give his previous statement(s) OT precedent and foundation. What does Paul mean when he says husbands should love their wives as their own bodies? Gen 2:24 provides the answer: they are one flesh, and analogously Christ and his church are one. So I think Paul is using the verse to clarify the “oneness” he has described. In the original context of Gen 2:24, Adam and Eve have no earthly parents, so it would seem that Moses is briefly pausing the narrative there to address his readers when he makes the conclusion using “therefore”, then resumes the narrative.
As far as “mystery” and how it’s used here in ch. 5 and its relation to ch. 3′s definition, I think I can say that the mystery of the marriage union is related to the body of believer’s union with Christ, but I haven’t worked out how to draw a line between that and the specifics of what Paul says in ch. 3 when he defines it redemptive-historically. I would think that the relevance starts with that foundational union of believers and Christ, then moves to the marriage analogue. Paul is, at least in part, expressing a vertical relational precedent to the horizontal relationship, right?
Jared,
See my post with reference to Andrew Moody’s article below.
If God foresees and ordains whatsoever comes to pass he must have foreseen the incarnation, glorification and Christ’s inheritance of creation including the church as the bride of Christ from eternity. Thus it would seem that the prelapsarian relationship of Adam and Eve could in some sense foreshadow the relationship of Christ and His bride, the church. Furthermore, if the ultimate purpose of salvation is the glory of Christ (See Moody/Goodwin) and secondarily to save the elect, the Father accomplished this through the fall & the redemptive work and person of Christ. Following Goodwin, part of the problem may be in the question, “Would the incarnation have taken place IF Adam had not fallen”? Goodwin’s response is that God foreordains all that comes to pass.
Jared,
I recently read an article by Andrew Moody in Themelios 36.3 (2011): 403-411 (“That All May Honour the Son: Holding OUt for a Deeper Chrstocentrism”) on Gospel Coalition and a couple sermons by Thos. Goodwin linked to from there I think may provide some direction here. Even if it doesn’t it’s good material to ponder.