Eve the Bride of Adam and the Church the Bride of Christ

2,555 Views | 100 Replies | Last: 15 yr ago by PetroAg87
Seamaster
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

"Creation of Eve", Sistine Chapel Ceiling
Michelangelo (1475-1564)


To understand what it means that the Church is the Bride of Christ, we need to understand the relation of Eve to Adam. As God made Eve from the rib taken from Adam's side while he slept, so likewise God is now making a Bride for His Son, from the blood and water that flowed from His side while He slept in death upon the cross. Eve was flesh of Adam's flesh. She was not merely the same *kind* of flesh as Adam; she was made out of Adam's very substance. Eve did not merely share the same human form or essence as Adam; their unity (even before Adam awoke) was ontological, that is, a unity of being. Her being was derived from his being, though not of his making.

When we watch an infant being born, we not only see the extraordinary sight of one human being coming out of the body of another human being, we directly experience the derivative and participatory nature of the infant's being. Eve's being was likewise derived from Adam's, though there are some important differences. She did not spring from his loins, but was taken from his side. Adam did not participate through his intellect or will in Eve's coming to be. Nor was she the result of any natural function of his organs. God alone took the rib from Adam's side, and the rib was not something already intrinsically disposed to become Eve. For these reasons, Adam was not Eve's procreator; she was co-created with him. The two additional divine acts (i.e. taking the rib from Adam, and making Eve out of the rib) formed Eve not ex nihilo but as a continuation of the divine act by which Adam had already been made.

In her coming to be, therefore, Eve participated in the very act by which Adam was given being, because her being was derived from his being. In her substance, she was Adam; she was another one of him. She was "bone of his bones, and flesh of his flesh". He had named the other animals, according to what they were. When God brought this new creature to Adam, he likewise named her according to what she was: אישה ('Ishah', woman): she who came out of Man. "She shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." (Genesis 2:23)

But she was not identical to him; she was different from him in ways that complemented him. Adam was immediately drawn to her both by her likeness to him and by her difference from him -- because of the love he already had for himself. That in her that was his (i.e. which was, in some real sense, *him*) and was the same as him, he loved because he already loved himself. And that in her that was different from him, he loved because he loved the fulfillment and actualization of his own nature, and her differences from him matched him in just this complementary way. In her he found companionship that suited and completed both his human nature and his manhood. Thus when St. Paul says in Ephesians 5:28 that husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies, we should not read this as an arbitrary stipulation, but as a call to live according to reality, according to the ontological relation between men and women described in this account in Genesis 2.

All of this, however is a type of Christ and the Church, as St. Paul, quoting the very next verse in Genesis 2, goes on to say in Ephesians 5:31-32:

"For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh. This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the Church."

The Church is also clearly described as the Bride of Christ in Revelation 19:7; 21:2,9. And St. Paul tells us that Christ is the second Adam. (cf. Romans 5:14; 1 Corinthians 15:22,45)

Many people affirm that the Church is the Bride of Christ, while failing to see how the Bride has to be fashioned out of that which comes from the side of Christ, such that her being and life is derived from His being and life. When God the Father brings the Church to Jesus, the second Adam will say what the first Adam said: "Bone of My bones, and flesh of My flesh", and He will give her a new name that means "taken out of Me". If we fail to recognize that the Bride must be made out of the blood and water that flowed from Christ's side, we fall into a gnosticism that treats some mental act (e.g. faith) as sufficient. Yes, God could have made Eve ex nihilo if God had wanted to do so; God is omnipotent. But if God had done so, the union of Adam and Eve would have been diminished. Their ontology would not have been shared and ordered toward each other, any more than ours is with the angels and the animals. And hence their love for one another would have been diminished. This is why merely believing in Christ is not sufficient for becoming His Bride; we must be washed in the water that flowed from His side, and eat His Body and drink His Blood. This is what it means to become a partaker of the divine nature, to become a partaker of the life of the second Adam, so that at the marriage supper of the Lamb (Revelation 19:9), He looks upon His Bride and loves her as He loves Himself, because she is His very own life, His very own flesh and blood.

How do we receive the water and blood that flowed from Christ's side? We receive them in the sacraments, especially baptism (i.e. the gateway to the other sacraments) and the Eucharist (the greatest of the sacraments). In baptism we are incorporated into the Bride. In the Eucharist we receive the living Body and Blood of the second Adam, so that we are made to live with His divine life, just as Eve was made not from inert matter taken from Adam, but from a living part of him. The life that was in Eve's body was the life that had been in Adam's body. When he looked at her, he saw his own life, his own substance, and he loved her, just as God the Father looks at His only begotten Son and sees His own Word and Thought and Being ("consubstantiálem Patri" ) , and loves Him. When we understand that Eve had to be made out of Adam, in order to be a bride for him, then we can better understand John 6, where Jesus says,

"The bread which I shall give for the life of the world is My flesh, ... unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also shall live because of Me." (John 6:51,53-57)

Jesus is here talking about "life", and how to acquire it. He is saying that the source of life is the "living Father", and that Jesus "lives" because of the Father, and that we can have this life only by eating the flesh of the Son of Man (i.e. the Son of Adam), and drinking His blood. This is how the Father is making a Bride for the second Adam. The second Adam has only one Bride, and we who are many, are made one Body, because we partake of one bread, which is His flesh. St. Paul says:

"Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread." (1 Corinthians 10:17)

Since we receive the life of the second Adam through the sacraments, it is important, to say the least, to be able to distinguish valid sacraments from invalid sacraments. We need to be able to know whether the baptism or Eucharist we are receiving is valid, and is truly giving us the life of Christ. We do not want to be receiving mere imitations of the sacraments. If we had no way of knowing whether our sacraments are valid, we would not know whether our baptism is valid, and whether we are receiving the Body and Blood of Christ, the very Bread of Life by which "we who are many are made one Body".

The Catholic Church recognizes the validity of Protestant (Trinitarian) baptisms. But the Catholic Church (and the Orthodox) believe that Protestants do not have the Eucharist, not having maintained Apostolic succession. (This was part of the clarification that the Catholic Church released in July of last year titled Responsa ad quaestiones.) Protestants, however, believe that they do have a valid Eucharist, and that Catholics have it too.

Because Catholics and most Protestants agree that sharing the Eucharist is an *essential* condition for true unity, it seems important to ask the following questions: Couldn't any heretical sect claim that its Eucharist is valid? If so, whose determination of what is necessary for a valid Eucharist is authoritative, and what does this authority teach is necessary in order to have a valid Eucharist? Claiming that this is up for "the whole Church" or "the people of God" to decide only pushes back the question or falls into circular reasoning, or appeals to something abstract like "mere Christianity".

In order to be the one Body which is the Bride of the second Adam, we need to partake of the one Bread which is His flesh and blood, taken from His side. And in order to know whether we are partaking of that one Bread, we need an authoritative witness of what is necessary for a valid Eucharist. But Scripture alone cannot play the role of authoritative witness, because it can be interpreted in many false ways, and no one holding a false interpretation thinks his own interpretation is false. Hence the issue of authority is absolutely essential, and unavoidable, for determining where is the one Bread by which we eat the flesh and blood of the second Adam and receive His life and are made into His eternal Bride.

Source

[This message has been edited by Seamaster (edited 5/28/2008 8:49a).]
PetroAg87
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
If so, whose determination of what is necessary for a valid Eucharist is authoritative, and what does this authority teach is necessary in order to have a valid Eucharist?
All that is required in order for the Eucharist to be valid is faith and belief by those receiving the Eucharist that it is indeed valid. In other words, it is a function of the person receiving the sacrament rather than any specific ceremony or procedure that makes the communion valid.
Seamaster
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
PetroAg.

quote:
All that is required in order for the Eucharist to be valid is faith and belief by those receiving the Eucharist that it is indeed valid.


OK, what if I go to a Church that uses Doritos and Dr. Pepper for the Eucharist. What if the pastor of the Church who is giving the Eucharist is an openly gay man who doesn't believe that Jesus actually rose from the dead. What if I really *believe* that the Eucharist I am receiving is valid. Does that make it valid?

Can I, during lunch today, consecrate my oreos and coke and treat myself to the Eucharist? Would my believing this to be valid make it valid?
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
OK, what if I go to a Church that uses Doritos and Dr. Pepper for the Eucharist. What if I really *believe* that the Eucharist I am receiving is valid. Does that make it valid?

Can I, during lunch today, consecrate my oreos and coke and treat myself to the Eucharist? Would my believing this to be valid make it valid?


Under these conditions, it would be valid.

quote:
What if the pastor of the Church who is giving the Eucharist is an openly gay man who doesn't believe that Jesus actually rose from the dead.


Under these conditions, it would be valid, but unwise to take. However, the "openly gay" reference has nothing to do with this topic.

edit: thinking more about validity, I come to the conclusion that validity is "taker"-side only.

[This message has been edited by diehard03 (edited 5/28/2008 9:32a).]
PetroAg87
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
What if I really *believe* that the Eucharist I am receiving is valid. Does that make it valid?
Yes absolutely. As long as you truly believe in the validity of what you are receiving.

quote:
Can I, during lunch today, consecrate my oreos and coke and treat myself to the Eucharist? Would my believing this to be valid make it valid?
Again, yes. As long as you beieve it to be valid. If it is done as satire or less than seriously however, then it is not valid.

Imagine a group of soldiers in a foxhole during battle. During a lull in fighting, they decide to take a final communion prior to the big charge. If one soldier pulls out his MRE and canteen of water, reminds everyone of the reason for and meaning of the Eucharist and then distributes said food and water, I believe it is every bit as valid as if the soldier was receiving the sacrament from the Pope himself. As long as the reciever of the sacrament understands and believes in the meaning of the sacrament...

[This message has been edited by PetroAg87 (edited 5/28/2008 9:18a).]
PetroAg87
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
doesn't believe that Jesus actually rose from the dead.
Whether the priest believes it or not doesn't matter. What DOES matter is whether the receiver of the Eucharist believes it.
Seamaster
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
Under these conditions, it would be valid.


How do you know that it would be valid?

Also, if the pastor's heterodoxy concerning the resurrection would render the Eucharist invalid...

How much unorthodoxy is allowed before the Eucharist becomes invalid? I mean, how much theology does the presider have to "get right" in order for the Eucharist to be valid?
TechDiver
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
Can I, during lunch today, consecrate my oreos and coke and treat myself to the Eucharist? Would my believing this to be valid make it valid?


I personally don't think so if you're dining alone.

However, if you're sharing that experience with another, then yes, I think so.

I served the communion meal (bread and wine) for me and my wife the night we were engaged. We also shared communion on our wedding day.

quote:
Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.–Matt. 18:20
Seamaster
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG


[This message has been edited by Seamaster (edited 5/28/2008 9:18a).]
PetroAg87
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
I mean, how much theology does the presider have to "get right" in order for the Eucharist to be valid?
He doesn't have to get any of it right. The validity of the Eucharist is based on the spirituality of the receiver, not the giver.
TechDiver
How long do you want to ignore this user?

quote:
How much unorthodoxy is allowed before the Eucharist becomes invalid?


I would say that if the person partaking doesn't believe, then that's the amount of unorthodoxy required to invalidate the communion meal for that person.

To my knowledge, the Bible doesn't articulate any particular blessing or procedure that causes the elements to be transformed (nor, to my knowledge, does it even indicate that they are).

And to my knowledge, the purpose of the communion meal is to remember Jesus, so I'd say that a meal shared between believers where Jesus' sacrifice is honored and remembered, in a spirit of genuine confession and repentance of sins, constitutes a valid communion meal.
Seamaster
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
PetroAg...that was aimed at Diehard...since he disagrees with you.
Seamaster
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TD.

If I believed that the Eucharist was simply a memorial meal than I would agree with you.

Heck, if its a memorial meal and symbolic and not really "from the side of the 2nd Adam" than sure, why not do it at home every night?
TechDiver
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
why not do it at home every night?


Cuz I'm a sinner that fails to properly honor my Lord in the way(s) that I should.
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
Whether the priest believes it or not doesn't matter. What DOES matter is whether the receiver of the Eucharist believes it.


True, I will give you that. Maybe "invalid" is the wrong terms I am looking for in my 2nd case. I believe that if someone is giving the Eucharist and perverts it by disregarding the resurrection, it might be better if you didn't take it...from a stumbling block point of view. I guess it doesn't make it "invalid" persay if you feel led to take it.

quote:
Also, if the pastor's heterodoxy concerning the resurrection would render the Eucharist invalid...

How much unorthodoxy is allowed before the Eucharist becomes invalid? I mean, how much theology does the presider have to "get right" in order for the Eucharist to be valid?


Like I mentioned above, I was thinking more of "should you do it or not" way. Maybe one shouldn't participate.
Seamaster
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So, from whence does the idea that it is valid based on the perception and belief of the person receiving it come from?

Paul, in the first letter to the Corinthians, seemed to think that their Eucharist wasn't being properly celebrated. Why did he correct them and outline how it is to be done?
PetroAg87
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Seamaster: Do you believe that the Eucharist is ONLY valid if part of an official ceremony conducted by a RC priest? In my scenario of soldiers taking communion in a foxhole, you don't believe that such a communion would actually count in God's eyes?
Seamaster
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
Seamaster: Do you believe that the Eucharist is ONLY valid if part of an official ceremony conducted by a RC priest? In my scenario of soldiers taking communion in a foxhole, you don't believe that such a communion would actually count in God's eyes?


No, I believe that the Eucharist is valid in many Orthodox congregations. Soliders in a foxhole can partake in spiritual communion...

Or...

diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Are you talking about the "discerning the body" reference? I see nothing that contradicts with other's viewpoint on this thread. Paul says to examine one's self. Validity rests with the one who is taking it...

Paul is correcting the Corinthians meal practices because people were excluding others (ie, rich people were eating before the poorer ones arrived, which created division)
Seamaster
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yes, but in the same passage he gave instructions on how it is to be done.
PetroAg87
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
Soliders in a foxhole can partake in spiritual communion...
So we are in agreement!

Which verses are you referencing from Corinthians?

[This message has been edited by PetroAg87 (edited 5/28/2008 9:57a).]
Seamaster
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Well, spiritual communion isn't the same thing as Eucharistic communion.

I was speaking about 1 Cor 10 and 11.

Also, Acts 20:28...Paul tells the "Elders"-not everybody to "feed" the Church.

Luke 22:19, 1 Cor. 11:24-25...Jesus commanded the apostles to "do this"...and in Acts, we see that the apostles began apostolic succession by replacing Judas sacramentally.

TechDiver
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
..and in Acts, we see that the apostles began apostolic succession by replacing Judas sacramentally.




.... are new Popes still selected by throwing dice? That seems to be how the apostles did it.

I'm just sayin...
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
Yes, but in the same passage he gave instructions on how it is to be done.


I think one needs to explore what Paul is referring to by an "unworthy manner". Paul is chastizing the Corinthians for creating division amongst themselves by the rich ones eating before the poor ones.

Also, just because Paul says "bread" and "cup" when laying out the Lord's Supper that that means that anything but that is not valid. Let's not stray into legalism.
Seamaster
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
Let's not stray into legalism.



Jesus used bread and wine. Paul talked about Bread and wine. There is no example of any Christians using anything but bread and wine for at least 1700 years....

That is legalism?
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
Jesus used bread and wine. Paul talked about Bread and wine. There is no example of any Christians using anything but bread and wine for at least 1700 years....

That is legalism?


Yes. That is the very definition of legalism (to strictly adhere to the letter of the law).

Next question?
PetroAg87
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
Well, spiritual communion isn't the same thing as Eucharistic communion.
Well I suppose it depends on what definitions you choose to use. But the soldiers in the foxhole are most certainly receiving exactly the same level and sort of Eucharist as is received from a priest on a Sunday morning.

quote:
21Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.
This passage isn't giving directions as to how the Eucharist must be given. It is saying that you cannot expect to take a valid communion while living other parts of your life in worship of things unchristian.

quote:
27Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
And again, Paul's instructions have to do with the faith and intent of the reciever of the Eucharist rather than the giver.

A side point for you Seamaster while we are looking at 1 Corinthians 11: How come we don't demand that women shave their heads if they worship uncovered as Paul said we should do?

[This message has been edited by PetroAg87 (edited 5/28/2008 10:42a).]
747Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
.... are new Popes still selected by throwing dice? That seems to be how the apostles did it.

I'm just sayin...

The modern way of electing the pope is a BINGO tournament.

B... 16!
LevelAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wow! Obedience is now legalism. We have certainly moved to serving ourselves instead of God. We can now discern what is acceptable and not acceptable even without Him telling us. We are so wise. In fact, we just might be as wise as the Corinthian church.

Let us make God in our image b/c it's much easier than letting Him make us into His image.

If that's legalism, then call me a legalist!
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
Wow! Obedience is now legalism. We have certainly moved to serving ourselves instead of God. We can now discern what is acceptable and not acceptable even without Him telling us. We are so wise. In fact, we just might be as wise as the Corinthian church.


I don't know how you came up with this...but ok.
Seamaster
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
Yes. That is the very definition of legalism (to strictly adhere to the letter of the law).

Next question?


Diehard. I am surprised.

Do you consider water baptism legalistic?
747Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
I don't know how you came up with this...but ok.

Maybe it stems from the alleged validity of doritos and oreos as acceptable for Eucharist/Communion. This may be fine and dandy for those who view the Lord's Supper as purely symbolic and/or a remembrance. Honestly, this view of the Eucharist/Lord's Supper is alien to me.

The nature of the discussion strikes me as highly subjective. It comes off as rather relativistic: "whatever you believe is the determinant of validity." I'm sorry, but I just don't buy that.

From the Catholic perspective, Eucharistic validity is predicated on a number of things. First, is the one who is doing the consecrating a valid priest? Does he have valid orders (valid ordination)? Is his Church apostolic? The understanding that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have with regard to the priesthood and Eucharist is that they integrally linked together. In order to consecrate the Eucharistic species (bread and wine) into the Body, Blood, Soul, & Divinity of Christ one must be conformed to Christ in a unique way through the imposition of hands (ordination to the priesthood) by his bishop.

Second, the matter of the Sacrament (i.e. Eucharistic species) must be bread and wine. Not oreos. Not doritos and Dr. Pepper. Not grape juice. The proper form of the Sacrament (i.e. words of consecration) must be used. More on this here.

Having the validity dependent upon the disposition of the celebrant is the old heresy of Donatism. Augustine of Hippo was instrumental in fighting this heresy.
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
Diehard. I am surprised.

Do you consider water baptism legalistic?


No, but to copy off the foxhole idea: if someone accepts Christ in the middle of combat and one cannot find water to baptize someone with...I cannot see why using mud or simply laying hands wouldn't suffice. If you were to say that "no dude...your baptism wasn't legit, you have to do it again", then I would say one is being legalistic.

Likewise, I believe that "dunking" and "sprinking + confirmation" are equal. They both fulfill Scripture, but different ways.

Maybe I understand what LevelAg was saying now...the line between legalism and obedience can be a fine one. One crosses it when we say "this is the only way to do this" and ignore the heart behind the matter. Paul wanted to solve the heart behind the matter in the case of the Corinthians. To take his words and apply a finer filter than was intended (imo), is to take it to the legalistic state.
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Don't get me wrong...I think churches should baptize with water and serve communion/Eucharist with bread/wine/juice.

We just get ourselves in trouble when we say "oh no no no...if you dont do it this way, you are wrong!"
baumenhammer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
baptism is an entirely different sacrament.

The Church defines 3 forms of Baptism.

1. Baptism by Water (traditional form that we all know)

2. Baptism by desire - You come to faith in Christ, but die before you get a chance to actually be baptized. - Example: Theif on the Cross

3. Baptism by Blood (Martyrdom) - If you are killed for your faith in Christ, you have been Baptized by your faith in Christ, and through suffering death for His sake.


Baptism and Marriage are the only 2 of the 7 sacraments that do not require a Priest.

Anyone can Baptize at any time in cases of emergency (but it is highly recommended that people get it done in the Church as well - if the emergency passes and you have the chance to get it done in the church)

- A priest witnesses a marriage, but the couple themselves administer the sacrament

People keep reinterating variations of:

quote:
To my knowledge, the Bible doesn't articulate any particular blessing or procedure


Nor does the Bible have specific Vows that you must say in order to be married - but the general vows used in almost every Christian faith are the same.

Diehard: would you say that a common law marriage is a sacramentally valid marriage? It meets the basic requirements in the Bible: a woman leaves her parents and moves in with the man.

If that's not a valid sacramental marriage, then how can any one just eating bread and drinking wine, thinking about Christ be a valid Eucharist?
Last Page
Page 1 of 3
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.