We have all most likely heard teachings and read scripture about “the church” being the bride of Christ. We have also all likely heard about being the body of Christ. I don’t believe I have ever heard these two concepts linked anywhere, which in retrospect I find odd. I think I have always thought of them as two separate analogies. Honestly I’m not sure how this has been the case, as it’s really pretty plain in the scriptures how they are connected.
This is a bit of a long read. Sorry about that, but I don’t think it would have the same effect if rushed or condensed too much.
Recently we (my wife and I) have been hearing a lot about the bride of Christ, most especially from church leadership, but from others as well. This led me to study the nature of the relationship between Christ and the church, and in my meditation, find out if and how that can be reconciled to the concept that we are the “body of Christ”.
The first thing that occured to me is that the concepts do not actually need to be reconciled. They are a natural continuation.
Let’s look at some examples, because that always helps me get something straight in my head.
Let’s say there is a man named Greg Thompson. An unbeliever. At this point he is not a believer, not part of the body of Christ. No bride of Christ status. He hears about Christ (introduction), learns about the good news (courtship). We are already bought with a price (bride price, though modern equivalent would I guess be engagement ring and proposal). Greg makes the decision to follow Christ (accepting the proposal and betrothal). Greg accepts Christ into his heart (consummation, the two become one flesh), and is now part of the body of Christ (the two are one flesh, with Christ as the head, therefor Greg is part of Christ’s body, not the other way around)
Now let’s see how that interpretation/illustration stacks up to Ephesians 5 when applied solely to a human relationship.
Let’s say there is a man named Greg Thompson. He’s single. He meets Ruth (introduction), and they really get to know each other (courtship). Greg buys a ring, even though technically that’s not required, and proposes. (bride price, though modern equivalent would I guess be engagement ring and proposal). Ruth says yes! (accepting the proposal and betrothal). Greg and Ruth have a ceremony, say their vows, and have their wedding night. (consummation, the two become one flesh), Ruth changes her last name to Thompson and submits to her husband (the two are one flesh, with Greg as the head, therefor Ruth is part of Greg’s body, not the other way around)
To me, that seems to match up pretty well. Thoughts?
Now let’s add a dimension. We’ve talked about how someone becomes part of the body of Christ, and in similar fashion how man and wife become one. For the next bit, we need to look at the Biblical definition of “church”.
It appears that “church” is a very similar term to “flock” or “herd”. It is a group, a collection. In the case of the Christian church, it is a group of people whose connection to each other is defined by their connection to Christ.
Example:
Greg Thompson knows Sheila Washington. They are not related by blood, they don’t know each other from work, they were completely unconnected until recently when Sheila became a Christian. They are connected by the commonality that they both accepted Christ’s call and became part of his body. He is their head. He has called to them and they have answered, entering into the covenant that he offers and changing their very identity from “unbeliever” to “Christian”. Christ did not change *his* identity. Greg and Sheila are the ones who required a fundamental shift in who they are to become one flesh with Christ. Christ did not require a fundamental change in himself, though there is a change. Christ is the head of the body, his body is more capable than it would be without either of them, but it would still be his body. Both Greg and Sheila are equally valid parts of his body, members of his family, and have taken his name.
Here comes the bit that your average church-goer would balk at due to our cultural conditioning. You’ve probably already seen where I’m going here, but let’s work through that same setup with the addition of polygyny and see how that tracks.
Ruth Thompson knows Angela Thompson. They are not related by blood, they don’t know each other from work, they were completely unconnected until recently when Angela became a Thompson. They are connected by the commonality that they both accepted Greg’s proposal and became part of his family. He is their head. He proposed to them and they said yes, entering into the covenant that he offers and changing their very name from what it was before to “Thompson”. Greg did not change his name, it was always Thompson. Ruth and Angela are the ones who required a fundamental shift in who they are to become one flesh with Greg. Greg is the head of the family, his family is more capable than it would be without either of them, but it would still be his family. Both Ruth and Angela are equally valid parts of his body, members of his family, and have taken his name.
Seems to track to me. I would put forth that the example is far more Biblically accurate than the argument we have heard from leadership that polygyny is wrong because it does not line up with there being only one bride of Christ: “the church”. Thoughts?
I would go farther even. This one gets a bit more esoteric, but I hope you’ll excuse me. What is the full model we are given? 1 Corinthians 11 tells us that Christ is the head of man, and the man is the head of woman, and God is the head of Christ. It also tells us in John 14 that none come to the Father except through Jesus. I believe that also tracks with the illustration and model of marriage. God is Jesus’ father. When we are wed to Jesus, we by extension become part of God’s family. I feel that extension is less strong, less supported than the model of marriage I present above this paragraph, however I believe it is not actually incorrect, simply not fleshed out fully. I have a few thoughts on “but what about adoption, isn’t that a way to become someone’s child without a wedding?”, but then I reply to myself: “Yes, though Jesus did not abolish the law, but instead gave us a new covenant. Adoption, legally, is a much more complex and work intensive operation than marrying into a family. I believe that someone *can* choose to enter into the old covenant, but that precludes them from benefitting from the new covenant”.
Why do I say that? Because of Galatians 5: “2 Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 And Itestify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law”. In the same way, if Greg’s dad had legally adopted Ruth as a child, Greg could not have then married her. Again, not as strong an argument I think, but not wholly without merit.
This is a bit of a long read. Sorry about that, but I don’t think it would have the same effect if rushed or condensed too much.
Recently we (my wife and I) have been hearing a lot about the bride of Christ, most especially from church leadership, but from others as well. This led me to study the nature of the relationship between Christ and the church, and in my meditation, find out if and how that can be reconciled to the concept that we are the “body of Christ”.
The first thing that occured to me is that the concepts do not actually need to be reconciled. They are a natural continuation.
Let’s look at some examples, because that always helps me get something straight in my head.
Let’s say there is a man named Greg Thompson. An unbeliever. At this point he is not a believer, not part of the body of Christ. No bride of Christ status. He hears about Christ (introduction), learns about the good news (courtship). We are already bought with a price (bride price, though modern equivalent would I guess be engagement ring and proposal). Greg makes the decision to follow Christ (accepting the proposal and betrothal). Greg accepts Christ into his heart (consummation, the two become one flesh), and is now part of the body of Christ (the two are one flesh, with Christ as the head, therefor Greg is part of Christ’s body, not the other way around)
Now let’s see how that interpretation/illustration stacks up to Ephesians 5 when applied solely to a human relationship.
Let’s say there is a man named Greg Thompson. He’s single. He meets Ruth (introduction), and they really get to know each other (courtship). Greg buys a ring, even though technically that’s not required, and proposes. (bride price, though modern equivalent would I guess be engagement ring and proposal). Ruth says yes! (accepting the proposal and betrothal). Greg and Ruth have a ceremony, say their vows, and have their wedding night. (consummation, the two become one flesh), Ruth changes her last name to Thompson and submits to her husband (the two are one flesh, with Greg as the head, therefor Ruth is part of Greg’s body, not the other way around)
To me, that seems to match up pretty well. Thoughts?
Now let’s add a dimension. We’ve talked about how someone becomes part of the body of Christ, and in similar fashion how man and wife become one. For the next bit, we need to look at the Biblical definition of “church”.
I was surprised to find out that it is only in our english language that there is a singular “church” and plural “churches” form, but it tracks.
It appears that “church” is a very similar term to “flock” or “herd”. It is a group, a collection. In the case of the Christian church, it is a group of people whose connection to each other is defined by their connection to Christ.
Example:
Greg Thompson knows Sheila Washington. They are not related by blood, they don’t know each other from work, they were completely unconnected until recently when Sheila became a Christian. They are connected by the commonality that they both accepted Christ’s call and became part of his body. He is their head. He has called to them and they have answered, entering into the covenant that he offers and changing their very identity from “unbeliever” to “Christian”. Christ did not change *his* identity. Greg and Sheila are the ones who required a fundamental shift in who they are to become one flesh with Christ. Christ did not require a fundamental change in himself, though there is a change. Christ is the head of the body, his body is more capable than it would be without either of them, but it would still be his body. Both Greg and Sheila are equally valid parts of his body, members of his family, and have taken his name.
Here comes the bit that your average church-goer would balk at due to our cultural conditioning. You’ve probably already seen where I’m going here, but let’s work through that same setup with the addition of polygyny and see how that tracks.
Ruth Thompson knows Angela Thompson. They are not related by blood, they don’t know each other from work, they were completely unconnected until recently when Angela became a Thompson. They are connected by the commonality that they both accepted Greg’s proposal and became part of his family. He is their head. He proposed to them and they said yes, entering into the covenant that he offers and changing their very name from what it was before to “Thompson”. Greg did not change his name, it was always Thompson. Ruth and Angela are the ones who required a fundamental shift in who they are to become one flesh with Greg. Greg is the head of the family, his family is more capable than it would be without either of them, but it would still be his family. Both Ruth and Angela are equally valid parts of his body, members of his family, and have taken his name.
Seems to track to me. I would put forth that the example is far more Biblically accurate than the argument we have heard from leadership that polygyny is wrong because it does not line up with there being only one bride of Christ: “the church”. Thoughts?
I would go farther even. This one gets a bit more esoteric, but I hope you’ll excuse me. What is the full model we are given? 1 Corinthians 11 tells us that Christ is the head of man, and the man is the head of woman, and God is the head of Christ. It also tells us in John 14 that none come to the Father except through Jesus. I believe that also tracks with the illustration and model of marriage. God is Jesus’ father. When we are wed to Jesus, we by extension become part of God’s family. I feel that extension is less strong, less supported than the model of marriage I present above this paragraph, however I believe it is not actually incorrect, simply not fleshed out fully. I have a few thoughts on “but what about adoption, isn’t that a way to become someone’s child without a wedding?”, but then I reply to myself: “Yes, though Jesus did not abolish the law, but instead gave us a new covenant. Adoption, legally, is a much more complex and work intensive operation than marrying into a family. I believe that someone *can* choose to enter into the old covenant, but that precludes them from benefitting from the new covenant”.
Why do I say that? Because of Galatians 5: “2 Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 And Itestify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law”. In the same way, if Greg’s dad had legally adopted Ruth as a child, Greg could not have then married her. Again, not as strong an argument I think, but not wholly without merit.
