Intellectuelle

(3) The church. The dominant theme of Ephesians is the church as the body of Christ. He means that Christ functions in the world through the church, just as our human personalities function through our physical bodies.

Paul uses this body metaphor in several different ways. He calls Christ the "head of the body," indicating that Christ rules over and directs the church as the head directs the body. Paul even uses another metaphor: the church is the bride of Christ (Eph. 5), and she is to be faithful to him as the wife is faithful to her husband, surrendering her own life unto him.

Very frequently, Paul means yet another thing by the use of the term "body of Christ with members in particular." Then he means that every member of the church, however great or small, has an important function to perform. No one is greater than another -- the foot needs the eye; the eye needs the ear; every member needs the specific contribution which the other members give to the total welfare of the body.

Ephesians 1:19-23 (NKJV) reads thus: "And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all."

Ephesians 2:4-7 reads: "But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace are ye saved;) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus."

My question: if Jesus broke the system where man dominated the woman, male and female being equal before God, then why is only the wife's need to be faithful mentioned, and why is only her submission of her life to her husband mentioned? If Ephesians 5:23 reads that the huband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church, then does this mean, as implied in the introductory notes, that the husband "rules over and directs" his wife?

Many say that, yes, this is what it means.

So I must ask, what is it in the passage I quoted from Ephesians chapter 1 that suggests that Christ rules over and directs the church? It says that Christ has been set at the right hand (position of honor, second only to the one on the throne) of the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory. It says that this position is far above all power and dominion and name in this world and the world to come. It says that all things are under Christ's feet (below Him) and that he has been given to be head over all things to the church, His fullness which He fills completely.

(I wrote my previous post on Ephesians 5, in which I mentioned fullness, and the fulfilment of Christ, about a week ago. I read my friend's NKJV Bible this morning. I tell you this so that you can be aware that this reading of and commentary on the NKJV notes in no way influenced the previous post.)

So from what does the writer of the introductory notes (Alfred Martin, Th.D of Moody Bible Institute) derive the notion that Christ "rules and directs" the church? Although Ephesians 5:25-27 describes Christ's love of the church as one of preparation so that it would be holy, without spot, and blameless, Paul bases the marriage relationship upon Christ's relationship to the church, not the other way around. He does not base Christ's relationship to the church upon marriage. If anything, the marital analogy is derived from prophecy such as that found in Isaiah which speaks of God as the husband and Israel the bride, especially the analogy of God as Kinsman-Redeemer (Isaiah chapter 54). Why do so many commentators insist on putting it the other way?

Why does Dr. Martin say that the church must be faithful to Christ, based on Ephesians 5? The chapter does not say this; it says that Christ loved it and gave himself for it that He might sanctify and cleanse it that He might present it to Himself a glorious church without blemish. Verse 24 says that the church is subject to Christ. Faithfulness is not mentioned (although it is part of subjection). Wives are to submit to their husbands as unto the Lord. They submit to their husbands as they submit to love others as part of their submission to the Lord, which, in marriage, will be more deep and profound than in any other relationship due to the nature of the marriage relationship. This is not a submission or subjection to direction, nor to rule, in the conventional sense.

A thing's being subject to something or someone doesn't necessarily mean that it is ruled in the conventional sense of the word. Christ's rule is an anti-rule. His direction is one of love and service. In God's hierarchy, one does not achieve position by ruling or directing; one achieves it by loving and giving oneself for the good of another. "Good" is preparation for glory, pointing the way to holiness, blamelessness, and spotlessness, removing stumbling-blocks that might impede the other's sanctification. This is why Christ was elevated so far above everything: because He gave Himself completely and wholly and totally. As in, every molecule of His being.

And if, indeed, "No one is greater than another -- the foot needs the eye; the eye needs the ear; every member needs the specific contribution which the other members give to the total welfare of the body," then how might direction and rule foster this? Can they? If the wife surrenders her life to her husband, then this cannot mean that she somehow negates or gives up her life or parts of her life. It must mean that she gives all of it, and all that she is, to him, because he needs the contribution of every "part" of her in order to fulfil the marriage. As she needs his utter self-giving of all that he is, in the same way.

This is why I say that maleness and femaleness, or manhood and womanhood, are not about playing certain roles, or even fulfilling certain roles, if doing so means that a person is acting outside of the utter giving spelled out in Ephesians 5. If a husband gives his life for his wife, and she gives her life to him, then, by the nature of whom each of them is as created by God, the husband will be an utter man and the wife an utter woman, each complete in their manhood or womanhood.