Fisher on Marriage Against the Book of Common Prayer
- Status
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
Does marriage refer to Christ and his church? Yes
Was it instituted in the garden to demonstrate Christ and his church? That is harder to answer yes, and to that might be what Fisher is referring.
Was it instituted in the garden to demonstrate Christ and his church? That is harder to answer yes, and to that might be what Fisher is referring.
D
Deleted member 6112
Guest
He's speaking of the end for which marriage was instituted. He's saying it stands as an end in itself, i.e. it was not instituted on account of the relationship between Christ and his Church.
This question actually has huge implications for the order of the decrees. I've never thought of that before. I don't see how an infralapsarian could disagree with Fisher here. For the supralapsarian, it could go either way, depending of the species of supralapsarianism.
R
Request-Deleted member 11775
Guest
Here is an excerpt from Turretin on why marriage is not a sacrament, perhaps it may shed some light on your own question:
“XL. The fifth sacrament is matrimony, according to the Council of Trent (Session 24, Canon 1, Schroeder, p. 181). But here all the requisites of a sacrament are equally wanting. (1) The divine institution, since it is evident that from the first creation it was ordained for the propagation of the human race (from which end it has not turned in the New Testament, Mt. 19:4, 5). (2) The element, which may be a sacramental sign ordained by Christ. (3) The word of promise of grace, peculiarly annexed to marriage, that it may be confirmed and applied by it. (4) The ordinary and perpetual use in the New Testament church alone, while marriage according to the law of nature and the Gentiles is common both to believers and unbelievers and belongs to both churches.
XLIII. The passage of Paul in Eph. 5:32 is falsely wrested to human marriage. He expressly interprets this himself concerning the mystical union of Christ with his church, which both the form of exclamation (having a feeling [pathos] of admiration) and the whole preceding context from vv. 26, 27 evince. The word “mystery” is improperly translated sacrament because that word usually declares in the Scriptures not a sign, but a spiritual thing sealed. And it extends more widely than sacrament strictly so called, for not every mystery can be called a sacrament, but only that which offers the grace of salvation by a word of promise and confirms it by an external symbol divinely instituted.
XLIV. Whatever represents a sacred thing is not immediately a sacrament. For thus the sun and other things of the same kind representing Christ would be sacraments. Nor is whatever has an annexed promise of any grace a sacrament; otherwise almsgiving and prayer would be sacraments. Finally, the promise of grace connected with marriage is temporal concerning the raising up of seed, not sacramental. ”
Excerpt From
Institutes of Elenctic Theology (Vol 3)
Francis Turretin
A further quote may be helpful from Flavel's "Husbandry Spiritualised":
"As man is compounded of a fleshly and spiritual substance, so God hath endowed the creatures with a spiritual, as well as fleshly usefulness; they have not only a natural use in Alimental and Physical respects, but also a spiritual use, as they bear the figures and similitudes of many sublime and heavenly mysteries."
Source: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A39665.0001.001/1:2?rgn=div1;view=fulltext
Last edited by a moderator:
Charles Johnson
Puritan Board Senior
There are different ways to understand Ephesians 5:31-32.
One is that Paul is saying marriage was instituted to represent to us Christ and his Church. Its principal end is to function within the economy of the covenant of grace.
This interpretation, which Fisher criticizes, is probably not correct. For one, marriage was instituted in creation, before the covenant of grace. So it couldn't have represented the gospel. For another, non-christians have valid marriages. Are they receiving a sacrament? Have the lost the essence of marriage by not relating it to the church?
The other way to understand Paul is that, in our marriages, we should strive to imitate Christ, in his self-sacrificial love, and that marriage can be compared to the covenant bond between Christ and the Church, not because that's the primary end for which marriage was instituted, but because of some natural similitude between them.
Think of other New Testament analogies. The parable of the wheat and the tares. Would we say God made wheat in order to teach us about the church, and that wheat is a sort of pseudo-sacrament, or did God make wheat to feed us, and Christ's comparison is essentially post facto, drawing from what already exists to teach his people?
Moreover, if we examine the structure of Paul's argument, he's teaching about human relations, and he brings in Christ's relationship with the church to teach us about marriage. His primary purpose is not using marriage to teach about Christ, but the reverse. So the claim that marriage was instituted to teach about Christ actually gets the order of Paul's argument backwards.
One is that Paul is saying marriage was instituted to represent to us Christ and his Church. Its principal end is to function within the economy of the covenant of grace.
This interpretation, which Fisher criticizes, is probably not correct. For one, marriage was instituted in creation, before the covenant of grace. So it couldn't have represented the gospel. For another, non-christians have valid marriages. Are they receiving a sacrament? Have the lost the essence of marriage by not relating it to the church?
The other way to understand Paul is that, in our marriages, we should strive to imitate Christ, in his self-sacrificial love, and that marriage can be compared to the covenant bond between Christ and the Church, not because that's the primary end for which marriage was instituted, but because of some natural similitude between them.
Think of other New Testament analogies. The parable of the wheat and the tares. Would we say God made wheat in order to teach us about the church, and that wheat is a sort of pseudo-sacrament, or did God make wheat to feed us, and Christ's comparison is essentially post facto, drawing from what already exists to teach his people?
Moreover, if we examine the structure of Paul's argument, he's teaching about human relations, and he brings in Christ's relationship with the church to teach us about marriage. His primary purpose is not using marriage to teach about Christ, but the reverse. So the claim that marriage was instituted to teach about Christ actually gets the order of Paul's argument backwards.
Your point about it being instituted in creation, prior to the covenant of grace is helpful.
Would you say marriage is a symbol or type of Christ and the Church?
This makes sense of Eph. 5:22-30, but I'm still struggling with how it makes sense of Paul citing Gen. 2:24 and then saying it refers to Christ and the Church. Do you know of any commentaries that take your position?
Would you say marriage is a symbol or type of Christ and the Church?
Charles Johnson
Puritan Board Senior
I assume you're using the ESV, that reads "This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church."
Other translations don't translate the verse in a way that necessarily implies that Genesis 2:24, in its original context, referred to Christ and the Church.
For example:
"This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church." (KJV)
"This is a great secret, but I speak concerning Christ, and concerning the Church." (1599 Geneva)
"This mystery is profound, but I am talking about Christ and the church." (CSB)
"This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church." (NIV)
"This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church." (NASB)
So I think you might be getting a bit hung up on the ESV's use of "it refers," which is actually less literal to the Greek than some of these others. With " I speak concerning Christ and the church", it could be understood that Paul is applying words that originally related only to marriage to "the great mystery" of Christ and the Church, because of their fittingness.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
God brought Eve to Adam, and in the beginning Adam by the prophetic Spirit recognized a future mystery, as the text says.
Johannes Oecolampadius, An Exposition of Genesis, trans. Mickey Mattox, Reformation Texts with Translation, no. 13 (1531; Milwaukee WI: Marquette University Press, 2013), p. 143.
The footnote names the text as Ephesians 5:31-32.
Johannes Oecolampadius, An Exposition of Genesis, trans. Mickey Mattox, Reformation Texts with Translation, no. 13 (1531; Milwaukee WI: Marquette University Press, 2013), p. 143.
The footnote names the text as Ephesians 5:31-32.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
More from the same author:
It is necessary here that we bid farewell to our reason and let the story be the story. For the God who made all things, it was most easy to remove a rib and put flesh upon it. By that miracle God wanted to commend to us the highest love and friendship, which the married ought to preserve between them, and finally to teach each one to acknowledge one’s spouse as one’s own flesh. We have in this place and the following one a great mystery, which the Apostle explains in Ephesians 5[:32]. “The mystery,” he says, “is great, but I am speaking about Christ and the church. For just as a man loves his wife, so God also loves the church, which he redeemed by his own blood.” This mystery at the beginning of the world has generally been explained like this: that when the second Adam was dead or “sleeping” on the cross, the church was destined to be drawn from his side when he shed blood and water. Surely by these symbols the church has been gathered. Christ alludes to this when he says: “I, when I am lifted up from the earth, shall draw everyone to myself.” Moreover the church which has been redeemed at such a price ought rightly to be grateful to Christ her own spouse and love him more intently. For she has been redeemed not by gold or silver, but by the precious blood of Christ.
Johannes Oecolampadius, An Exposition of Genesis, trans. Mickey Mattox, Reformation Texts with Translation, no. 13 (1531; Milwaukee WI: Marquette University Press, 2013), p. 147.
It is necessary here that we bid farewell to our reason and let the story be the story. For the God who made all things, it was most easy to remove a rib and put flesh upon it. By that miracle God wanted to commend to us the highest love and friendship, which the married ought to preserve between them, and finally to teach each one to acknowledge one’s spouse as one’s own flesh. We have in this place and the following one a great mystery, which the Apostle explains in Ephesians 5[:32]. “The mystery,” he says, “is great, but I am speaking about Christ and the church. For just as a man loves his wife, so God also loves the church, which he redeemed by his own blood.” This mystery at the beginning of the world has generally been explained like this: that when the second Adam was dead or “sleeping” on the cross, the church was destined to be drawn from his side when he shed blood and water. Surely by these symbols the church has been gathered. Christ alludes to this when he says: “I, when I am lifted up from the earth, shall draw everyone to myself.” Moreover the church which has been redeemed at such a price ought rightly to be grateful to Christ her own spouse and love him more intently. For she has been redeemed not by gold or silver, but by the precious blood of Christ.
Johannes Oecolampadius, An Exposition of Genesis, trans. Mickey Mattox, Reformation Texts with Translation, no. 13 (1531; Milwaukee WI: Marquette University Press, 2013), p. 147.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
