"War is Peace" and Other Good Ones - Some Thoughts on Eph 5

[andrew]

War is Peace!
Slavery is Freedom!
Ignorance is Strength!
Love is Rule!

Okay, so maybe Orwell didn't give us that last one, but I have an issue with bible explanations that purport to explain a passage (especially when they supposedly "clearly" explain it) that just explain it away, ignoring the central and obvious meaning of the words in the passage and importing understandings from other passages that say something else. At best, it's just sloppy; at worst, it's misleading and distorts the otherwise 'clear' meaning of scripture.

Let's take a look:

Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
Eph 5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
Eph 5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
Eph 5:29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
Eph 5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

1. We are to love our wives "as Christ loved the church".
2. Christ also "gave Himself for it" (the church). It's not crystal clear what the relationship is between "loved" and "gave", since sometimes Paul sort of gets carried away with his subject, and the word "and" here is ambiguous, but let's just stipulate that we're supposed to love our wives "as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for it". We know that Christ emptied Himself of what was rightfully His to take on Himself the punishment that was rightfully ours, so let's go with that. A husband should be prepared to intercede for his wife and even take her punishment for her sake. The least we can do is forgive her as Christ did ("Father forgive them..."), or like Job, we could remember her in our prayers "in case she has sinned". But at some point and in some ways, we may find ourselves bearing the consequences of her choices. That's what it means that Christ "gave Himself" for the church.
3. The reason Christ gave Himself for the church is so that he could blah blah blah so that he could blah blah blah. He did verse 25 so that he could do verse 26 so that he would get to do verse 27. That's just grammar.
4. Did I mention that sometimes Paul gets caught up in his subject? It's really cool that all this great stuff is going to happen because Christ "loved the church and gave himself for it", but all of that was consequence, and to the extent it was perceived in advance, motivation, but it is not what "loved and gave" is. It's what happens because Christ "loved and gave".
5. In fact, there's no logical necessity that any of that stuff even applies to the husband/wife relationship. Christ had his motivations and his purposes, but do our actions purify and perfect our wives? Really? Could we have other motivations and purposes (and other cool stuff to look forward to)?
6. So we are definitely supposed to love our wives and for now we can stipulate that we are definitely supposed to surrender ourselves for our wives. There are many ways in which a husband/father can actually be a real covering for his family, but you don't get that just for having a Y chromosome. You get it by "loving and giving", by sacrificing for your wife and family because you know it's the right thing to do.
7. Bookmark for another thread: Whatever 5:26 says about the rhema-word, to go from there to "a husband is supposed to lecture his wife from the scriptures until she gets her act together, beating her if necessary—for her own good, of course" is <cough> a stretch.
8. Having sort of exhausted himself praising the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice, Paul shifts gears. A husband is supposed to love his wife "as his own body". He actually appeals to self-interest as well as an accurate understanding of what it means to be "one": By loving our wives we are actually loving our own selves.
9. Feeling that needs a bit of explanation, Paul goes on to state that OF COURSE we don't hate our own bodies, but we nourish and cherish them, which (circling back) Christ also does for the church. The implication there, by the way, is that if you're not nourishing and cherishing your wife, you must hate yourself.
10. Paul closes out by appealing to our oneness with Christ and its analogy to our oneness with our wives.

As we're trying to figure out what it means to love our wives "as Christ loved the church", the three things we know from this passage are that Christ gave Himself for us, he nourishes us, and he cherishes us. If there's something else that needs to be said about the husband/wife relationship from scripture, then we can look at that separately and see what that passage says, but let's not try to make this passage say something it doesn't. Paul's call to love our wives is a call to love. Period.

 

[Pacman]

War is Peace!
Slavery is Freedom!
Ignorance is Strength!
Love is Rule!

Okay, so maybe Orwell didn't give us that last one, but I have an issue with bible explanations that purport to explain a passage (especially when they supposedly "clearly" explain it) that just explain it away, ignoring the central and obvious meaning of the words in the passage and importing understandings from other passages that say something else. At best, it's just sloppy; at worst, it's misleading and distorts the otherwise 'clear' meaning of scripture.

I'm trying to not be offensive when I say that it seems you misunderstood the claim and then you built a straw man and tore it down. No attempt to explain anything away has been made (at least not by me).

3. The reason Christ gave Himself for the church is so that he could blah blah blah so that he could blah blah blah. He did verse 25 so that he could do verse 26 so that he would get to do verse 27. That's just grammar.
4. Did I mention that sometimes Paul gets caught up in his subject? It's really cool that all this great stuff is going to happen because Christ "loved the church and gave himself for it", but all of that was consequence, and to the extent it was perceived in advance, motivation, but it is not what "loved and gave" is. It's what happens because Christ "loved and gave".
5. In fact, there's no logical necessity that any of that stuff even applies to the husband/wife relationship. Christ had his motivations and his purposes, but do our actions purify and perfect our wives? Really? Could we have other motivations and purposes (and other cool stuff to look forward to)?

Again trying not to be offense but it seems like you are the one explaining something away?

 

[andrew]

No offense taken, Pacman. The "explaining" away was for the author of that article, not you. Your only role in this was referring to that article as a "clear" explanation.

However it may seem to you, the fact remains that I'm the one "explaining" how the passage means what it actually says, and that author is the one "explaining" how that passage means something it doesn't say because somewhere else in scripture under different circumstances a different author says something else. Take that however you want.

 

[Pacman]

I'm the one "explaining" how the passage means what it actually says,

I guess this is the disagreement I believe the passage actually says "as Christ loved the Church" and that qualification is not only limited to this specific passage but to all passages where Christ interacts with the Churches.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I guess this is the disagreement I believe the passage actually says "as Christ loved the Church" and that qualification is not only limited to this specific passage but to all passages where Christ interacts with the Churches.

I have to agree that this passage isn't an explanation on how to love your wife, but rather a call to love your wife. You have to go deeper to get the how part. I've raised this topic before in a spinoff from another thread. Both threads got pretty acrimonious, to the point that I was afraid I was going to be asked to leave. It's an important question and I wish we could answer as definitively as possible because it is at the core and of what the ministry is about.

 

[Cap]

1 Peter 4:8 Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.

 

[Keith Martin]

I have to agree that this passage isn't an explanation on how to love your wife, but rather a call to love your wife. You have to go deeper to get the how part. I've raised this topic before in a spinoff from another thread. Both threads got pretty acrimonious, to the point that I was afraid I was going to be asked to leave. It's an important question and I wish we could answer as definitively as possible because it is at the core and of what the ministry is about.

@ZecAustin, I'm with you and @andrew that that section of Ephesians is most clearly interpreted as an exhortation to love one's wife. In fact, Paul is more adamant about that than he is about wives submitting -- and, as you mention, eventually elaborates much of the How.

@Clyde Pilkington has written a great book on this subject, with the appropriate name Wife Loving.

 

[Pacman]

I have to agree that this passage isn't an explanation on how to love your wife, but rather a call to love your wife.

I think it's both. Some of the how is included here but not limited to this passage...

 

[andrew]

I guess this is the disagreement I believe the passage actually says "as Christ loved the Church" and that qualification is not only limited to this specific passage but to all passages where Christ interacts with the Churches.

The passage actually says "as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it". If you want to put a period after "church" and then jump somewhere else to try to explain what Paul meant by when he made that comparison, then go ahead, but I don't think that's helpful.

The hey question presented is: "What was Paul thinking when he wrote that? What was he trying to communicate to the people he was writing to?" If you're interested, you can follow his train of thought pretty clearly. The first and most immediate thing on his mind is Christ's sacrificial love for his church, his body. Christ's gift of Himself to his bride is so intimately bound up in what it means to "love as" that the husband should "love" as Christ "loved and gave". When Paul finally simmers down after elaborating on how cool it is that Christ gave His very self, he talks some more about the relationships between husband/wife, head/body, and Christ/church, and the keywords there are "nourish" and "cherish".

The passage is plain on its face. Paul's concern here is that we are appropriately caring for our wives from a foundation of agape-love. There is no reason to make it say something else.

 

[andrew]

1 Peter 4:8 Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.

Cap has the right of it. We could add 1 Cor 13 or many other passages if we really wanted to talk about how Christ wants us to love our wives. Covering sin is a big deal, probably best suited for another thread.

 

[Pacman]

The passage actually says "as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it". If you want to put a period after "church" and then jump somewhere else to try to explain what Paul meant by when he made that comparison, then go ahead, but I don't think that's helpful.

The hey question presented is: "What was Paul thinking when he wrote that? What was he trying to communicate to the people he was writing to?" If you're interested, you can follow his train of thought pretty clearly. The first and most immediate thing on his mind is Christ's sacrificial love for his church, his body. Christ's gift of Himself to his bride is so intimately bound up in what it means to "love as" that the husband should "love" as Christ "loved and gave". When Paul finally simmers down after elaborating on how cool it is that Christ gave His very self, he talks some more about the relationships between husband/wife, head/body, and Christ/church, and the keywords there are "nourish" and "cherish".

The passage is plain on its face. Paul's concern here is that we are appropriately caring for our wives from a foundation of agape-love. There is no reason to make it say something else.

No period after church. It's a comma actually. He begins the list with the most important part. I agree with that. I actually agree with most of what you've said on the subject. But I still disagree that the "as Christ loved the Church" analogy is limited to this passage. I also don't agree that vs 26 and 27 do not apply to marriage. I guess we will agree to disagree on these points.

Question for you... Even if the love part does not include rule from Ephesians 5. Do you believe that a husband is also supposed to rule? Gen. 3:16 for instance...

Perhaps answer in a new thread?

 

[Pacman]

Covering sin is a big deal

This is definitely something I would like to hear more about. Honestly I'm not entirely sure what your referring to...

 

[andrew]

Question for you... Even if the love part does not include rule from Ephesians 5. Do you believe that a husband is also supposed to rule? Gen. 3:16 for instance...

Perhaps answer in a new thread?

We're getting into that a bit over on the other 'call to love' thread. I'll check that in a few minutes and see what's happening there before starting something else.

 

[andrew]

This is definitely something I would like to hear more about. Honestly I'm not entirely sure what your referring to...

I was referring to 1 Pet 4:8; I thought that was obvious. What do you think Peter meant there?

 

[Pacman]

I was referring to 1 Pet 4:8; I thought that was obvious. What do you think Peter meant there?

Ah I see. Definitely not something I have studied in depth.
I always thought that meant have charity and you won't be easily offended by the sinful actions others do towards you. Because your charity covers that... More of a statement about my heart attitude and not implying that my love or charity covers their sin in God's eyes.
Again I have not studied it so I absolutely could be wrong.

 

[andrew]

Fuel for another thread, but short version would be that a religious spirit seeks to expose sin (that is, other people's sin). Fault-finding, gossip, the guys that brought the adulteress to Jesus, self-righteousness generally, all are driven by a kind of schadenfreude that sadistically takes pleasure in the downfall of others (makes us look better in comparison). The spirit of love doesn't seek to expose or punish other people. "Knowledge puffs up; love builds up." Love is a positive energy; religion is a negative energy. Religion exposes and judges sin; love covers not just a sin, but "the multitude of sin". (Cf. God's "covering" of Adam's and Eve's bodies (and shame) on their expulsion from the garden, or the big one, the blood of Christ.)

If you have access to computer bible tools, just do a word search on 'cover' (or 'cov*' or whatever to get covers, covereth, covering, etc.). You'll get passages such as this:

What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. (emphasis added)

Do you see yourself in these verses? Do you see yourself as a man to whom the Lord will not impute sin?

You know the parable of the unforgiving servant, right? Having received so great a gift of forgiveness from our Father in heaven, do you want to be a generous forgiver as well, or the kind of guy that is ungrateful for his own forgiveness and still demands strict payment from others?

I could go on, but you get the idea. That's me trying in good faith to respond to your question and give you a summary without getting too far off in the weeds. Does that help any?

 

[andrew]

Anecdote [SPOILER ALERT]: Took the fam to see A Star Is Born last night (we're suckers for music-biz-related movies). There's a scene in which Jack is so wasted that he pees himself in front of a large audience as Ally is giving an acceptance speech for a Grammy award. Ally's first move is to quickly position herself between Jack and the audience and grab her skirts to widen her profile a little bit and cover Jack's shame. Couldn't help connecting that to the above post. "That woman understands that 'love covers the multitude of sins'."

Religion looks at Jack and says: loser, sinner, the damage is self-inflicted, he deserves ridicule.
Love looks at Jack and says: that's horrible, I'll stand here and block the view, we need to get this guy some help.

Something like that, anyway!

 

[Pacman]

Fuel for another thread, but short version would be that a religious spirit seeks to expose sin (that is, other people's sin). Fault-finding, gossip, the guys that brought the adulteress to Jesus, self-righteousness generally, all are driven by a kind of schadenfreude that sadistically takes pleasure in the downfall of others (makes us look better in comparison). The spirit of love doesn't seek to expose or punish other people. "Knowledge puffs up; love builds up." Love is a positive energy; religion is a negative energy. Religion exposes and judges sin; love covers not just a sin, but "the multitude of sin". (Cf. God's "covering" of Adam's and Eve's bodies (and shame) on their expulsion from the garden, or the big one, the blood of Christ.)

If you have access to computer bible tools, just do a word search on 'cover' (or 'cov*' or whatever to get covers, covereth, covering, etc.). You'll get passages such as this:

Do you see yourself in these verses? Do you see yourself as a man to whom the Lord will not impute sin?

You know the parable of the unforgiving servant, right? Having received so great a gift of forgiveness from our Father in heaven, do you want to be a generous forgiver as well, or the kind of guy that is ungrateful for his own forgiveness and still demands strict payment from others?

I could go on, but you get the idea. That's me trying in good faith to respond to your question and give you a summary without getting too far off in the weeds. Does that help any?

Helps a lot. Thank you! This will likely be my next in depth study topic. Any additional thoughts or resources you have would be appreciated.

 

[rockfox]

The spirit of love doesn't seek to expose or punish other people. "Knowledge puffs up; love builds up." Love is a positive energy; religion is a negative energy.

Love as only warm fuzzy positive feelings? This is a completely un-Biblical concept and not at all how God views love...

He who withholds his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines him diligently.

Lest you think this is just an OT thing or about parents and children...

“MY SON, DO NOT REGARD LIGHTLY THE DISCIPLINE OF THE LORD,
NOR FAINT WHEN YOU ARE REPROVED BY HIM;

FOR THOSE WHOM THE LORD LOVES HE DISCIPLINES,
AND HE SCOURGES EVERY SON WHOM HE RECEIVES.”

It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live? For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good, so that we may share His holiness. All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness.

Yes, sometimes in order to love someone, you have to make them sorrowful. It is not sin to cause someone negative feelings.

Jesus isn't our boyfriend, here to complete our lives and give us what we want. This isn't a best life now gig we signed up for. Sometimes what God expects of us involves suffering and sacrifice. But that doesn't make God unloving.

Religion exposes and judges sin; love covers not just a sin, but "the multitude of sin".

That is a misuse of 1 Peter 4:8. Loving relationships between brethren will cover (i.e. hide them as if they are not there) the sins and chaffing that inevitably happens between imperfect people. This isn't a verse about ignoring sin. We don't ignore sin; there are times when we will need to "reprove, rebuke, and exhort". It is a verse about how to achieve and maintain the community of faith in the face of trouble.

Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal among you, which comes upon you for your testing, as though some strange thing were happening to you; but to the degree that you share the sufferings of Christ, keep on rejoicing, so that also at the revelation of His glory you may rejoice with exultation.