Lesson 52 — The Bride of Christ

1. 1 THE BRIDE OF CHRIST

THE BRIDE OF CHRIST Revelation 21:2, 9

Very few subjects of the Bible are as misunderstood as this one, for the reason that details of parables and historical events of the Old Testament are so often used as a basis of teaching instead of plain scriptures on the subject.

Some argue that the term “the bride of Christ” is not used one time in Scripture and therefore, should not be used, especially in connection with the Church. The expression “the bride, the Lamb’s wife” is used in Rev. 21:1-9. Christ is the lamb as proven in Jn. 1:29; 1 Pet. 1:19; Rev. 5:5-7; 14:5; 21:22-23; 22:3. If Christ is the Lamb and the Lamb has a bride, then it is scriptural to speak of the bride of Christ. We will learn in this lesson who the bride of Christ is. Let us study this subject under five headings:

It is very evident that those who believe that Israel is the bride of Christ mainly use so-called types taken from plain historical events in the Old Testament to teach such a doctrine. For example, Isaac and Rebekah is a preferred type used by these teachers. Their main argument tries to show how the characters of this historical story are types of God the Father, the Son, the Spirit, and the bride. If these could be proven to be divine types of the bride of Christ, then there might be some scriptural basis for their conclusions, but there is not one passage of Scripture which will support this, or any other theory taken from a historical event in the Old Testament. All divine types are plainly stated somewhere in Scripture, or are backed up by plain Scriptures on the same subject that the type is supposed to be a picture of. In other words, if this historical event were a type of the doctrine that Israel is the bride of Christ, where do we find two or three plain passages proving this so we can take the historical event as such a type? If we depend on the historical events alone, then we have no true scriptural basis for such teaching. One person can make some historical story a type of Israel as the bride of Christ, another can interpret it to teach that the Church is the bride of Christ, etc. One argument is just as good as the other for both are taken from a story, and without scriptural authority. It is evident that we must have more proof than some so-called type.

What Other Scriptural Basis is There for Such Teaching?

1. 1 It is argued that Israel is the only married wife of God. The Old Testament Scriptures are used to prove the marriage of Israel to God. The conclusion is that if Israel, not the Church, is married to God, then she must be the one referred to as the “wife” of Rev. 19:1-10; 21:1-9.

It cannot be denied that Israel was married to God. That has been proven in Lesson Eighteen, Point VIII, but this does not prove that Israel is the “wife” of Rev. 19 and 21. Israel is also married to Christ, as we have proven in Lesson Eighteen. It can also be proven that the Church is now married to Christ, as will be proven below. But the fact that Israel and the Church are married to God still does not prove that either of them is the “wife” of Rev. 19 and 21.

1. 1 It is argued that the Greek for “wife” in Revelation is “gune,” which means “a married woman,” therefore, Israel, being the only married woman in Scripture, must be the “wife” referred to. This Greek word gune does not only mean a married woman. It means any woman whether married, single, or widow. It is used of single women and widows as is clear from Lk. 10:38; 22:5-6; Jn. 20:11-15; 1 Tim. 5:2, 14; Lk. 4:26; Jn. 19:26; Rev. 17. If gune could mean a single woman, then the argument that this woman is a married woman, and therefore, must be Israel, does not prove anything as to the identification of the bride of Christ. The same is true in the case of the Church.

1. 1 The parables of the marriage feast (Mt. 22) and of the ten virgins (Mt. 25) are used by these teachers to prove that Israel is the bride of Christ, because these parables were spoken to Jews and concern only Jews. It is clear from Lesson Forty-four that this argument does not prove anything as far as the identity of the bride of Christ. It is clear in Rev. 19 and 21 that the bride is to be an heavenly people, not an earthly people as are the Jews. It is inconceivable to think of the New Jerusalem and its inhabitants, which is stated to be “the bride, the Lamb’s wife,” as being Israel. When did Israel get to Heaven to come back to Earth after the Millennium as the occupants of the New Jerusalem when it comes down from God out of Heaven after the Millennium? Where in Scripture was Israel promised the New Jerusalem, as the place to dwell forever? All saints of all ages are promised such a city, and it is clear that the glorified Jews and Gentiles of all ages will dwell in this city John 14:1-3Hebrews 11:8-16Hebrews 13:14Revelation 3:12. But we have no Scripture that ever promises earthly Israel this city. Israel will have the earthly Jerusalem as her city forever (Ezek. 48). But even if earthly Israel did dwell in this city with all glorified saints it would be unscriptural to say that earthly Israel was the bride and the glorified saints were not. What would be the difference if they both live in the same city, which is called the bride? Israel and other earthly people in the New Earth do not dwell in the city. They merely traffic in the city Revelation 21:3, 24. Can we not conceive of a city coming down from Heaven to be among the earthly men who live on the Earth without these men dwelling in the city? Cannot Israel and other peoples be spoken of in connection with the New Earth without concluding that they will dwell in the New Jerusalem?

Therefore, we conclude that there is no warrant for the claim that the bride of Christ is made up of Israel only. That the bride of Christ will include the glorified Jews and not exclude Gentiles will be made clear below.

II. Is the Bride of Christ Only a Part of the Church?

This theory is that the bride of Christ will be made up of a select number of the New Testament Church better known as full overcomers. Believers of this theory use such terms as the bride part of the Church, full overcomers, partial overcomers and a select part of the Church, etc., to describe the bride of Christ. It should be called to your attention that these terms are not found in Scripture. This theory resolves itself into two questions we have fully discussed in Lesson Forty-five, Point II, 3, which proves that the bride of Christ is not made up of only a few special people in the Church, so we will not discuss it again here.

III. Is the Bride of Christ Only the New Testament Church?

It is believed by many that the bride of Christ is to be made up of only the New Testament saints, but this cannot be true as we have seen in Lesson Forty-five, Point II, as is clear from Heb. 11:8-16, 40. In this passage, all Old Testament saints from Abel on were promised the same city as New Testament saints, so all saints of all ages must be part of the bride of Christ Revelation 21:9.

IV. Is the New Testament Church Now Married to Christ?

The common belief is that Israel was married to God all through the Old Testament days, but that the Church is not presently married to God and will not be until the future Marriage of the Lamb Revelation 19:1-10. This is inconsistent, for if Israel was married to God in the Old Testament days because of the covenant God made with them, on the same basis the New Testament Church is also married to God at the present time. In fact, anyone whom God made a covenant with in any age could be considered the wife of God by covenant relationship (See Lesson Thirty-six on “The Fifteen Great Covenants of Scripture”). It is definitely stated in the New Testament that the present Church is married or united to God now in the sense that Israel was in Old Testament times. Note the following New Testament proofs:

1. 1 Jesus called Himself “the bridegroom” of the disciples who were with Him during His earthly ministry Matthew 9:15Mark 2:19, 20. These disciples were the first ones in the present Church Ephesians 2:19-22. What did Jesus mean if He was not then the bridegroom? Certainly He knew what to call Himself. If He were the bridegroom of the first members of the called-out body of people in this age, then He is also the bridegroom of the last members of this body of people. The Greek word for “bridegroom” is numphios, which means “a young married man,” or “a newly married man.” Every passage where this word is used proves this to be true Matthew 9:15Matthew 25:1-10Mark 2:19-20Luke 5:34-35John 2:9John 3:29Revelation 18:23.

1. 1 John called Christ the bridegroom John 3:29. The bride of Christ is going to be composed of people in the new creation in Christ. The Old Testament saints were not legally made a part of the new creation until after Christ, for He is the head of the new creation and the “firstborn” of every creature Romans 8:28-29Colossians 1:15-18Hebrews 12:23. Their sins were not atoned for and could not have been legally blotted out until the New Testament was made Romans 3:25Hebrews 9:15. John belonged to the old order of things and was merely a forerunner and herald of the Head of the new creation and his salvation was upon the same basis as that of the Old Testament saints, which was faith in the blood that was to be shed. The disciples belonged to the new order of things Matthew 11:11-12Luke 16:16 because Christ had already become the “firstborn” of every creature. All Old Testament saints were made a part of the new creation after Christ made atonement for them. Christ had power on Earth to forgive sins but no one before Him ever had such power Matthew 9:6Mark 2:5-12. Therefore, as members of the new creation after Christ, the Old Testament saints will become members of the future bride of Christ as much as the New Testament saints Hebrews 11:8-16, 40.

It was generally believed that John was not to be a member of the bride of Christ because he claimed to be a “friend” of the bridegroom. There is no statement in Jn. 3:29 saying that he could not become a member of the bride of Christ. John merely recognized that he belonged to the old order of things and at the time he made this statement he was not legally a part of the new creation. If John was not to become a member of the future bride of Christ because he considered himself a friend of the bridegroom, on the same basis it can be proven that New Testament saints are not to be members either, for they are also called friends of the bridegroom in the same sense that John was Luke 12:4John 11:11John 15:13-15. This theory is not true for Abraham is also called a friend of God Isaiah 41:8James 2:23 and the father of all them that believe Romans 4:11-16Galatians 3:7-9, and therefore, he must be a member of the final bride of Christ if his children in faith are going to be Hebrews 11:8-16, 40.

1. 1 It is definitely stated in Heb. 11:40 that the Old Testament saints will not be made perfect without the New Testament saints, implying that they would both be made perfect together. This certainly teaches that both classes of people will finally be united in one great heavenly family and will be members together of the bride of Christ.

1. 1 The Old Testament saints were all united to God by the terms of the New Covenant Romans 3:25Hebrews 9:15 and they were saved by the same blood of the New Testament that Church saints are saved by. What would make the difference between them and the New Testament saints? Certainly just living in a different age would not make a difference. If Israel was married to God because God made a covenant with her, then why would not the Church be presently married to God because of the covenant Christ made with believers in this age? Are we not now in covenant relationship with God just as Israel was in the Old Testament? If we are, then we are married to God just as much as Israel was. That we are in such covenant relationship now is clear from Mt. 26:28; Lk. 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:17-30; 2 Cor. 3:1-18; Heb. 7:22; 8:1–10:38; 12:24.

1. 1 Paul tells the Roman Jews that if they would become dead to the law by the body of Christ and be made alive under the terms of the New Testament, they would be married to Jesus Christ Romans 7:1-6. This was to be a present union with Christ, not future.

1. 1 Jesus, in Rev. 22:16-17, after His ascension into Heaven, recognizes that believers in the Earth were already His Bride. If this is not true, how could the bride say, “Come . . . take of the water of life freely”? This bride was in the Earth inviting anyone to come and be saved. If this does not refer to believers now in every generation, to whom does it refer? The Greek word for “bride” here is numphe, which means “a young married woman,” or “a newly married woman.” Thus it is established beyond doubt that the present believers are already married to God under the terms of the New Covenant just like Israel was under the Old Covenant.

1. 1 Paul, in 1 Cor. 11:2; 12:12-28; Eph. 4:12-16; 5:21-33, uses the marriage relationship of a man and a woman to teach the relationship between Christ and His Church. Paul evidently knew what he was doing.

1. 1 The New Testament speaks of believers now being “joined” to the Lord 1 Corinthians 6:16-17. Men in Old Testament times are spoken of as being “joined” to God, so if they were married to God why are not the New Testament saints married to God? Isaiah 56:6Jeremiah 50:5.

Other plain scriptural arguments could be multiplied but these are sufficient to prove that New Testament saints are presently married to God. Now let us examine the few passages which are used to teach that they are not married to God at this time, but will be in the future at the Marriage of the Lamb in Heaven.

1. 1 The first passage is 2 Cor. 11:1, 2. The Apostle Paul tells the Corinthians that he had espoused them to one husband, that he might present them as a chaste virgin to Christ. This, instead of referring to the whole bride of Christ, refers to Paul’s own converts. He was jealous over his converts and was desirous of their remaining true to Christ so that he could present them without fault before God. This is the same desire as expressed in 1 Thess. 2:19, “What is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Are not even ye [Paul’s own converts] in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at His coming”? Paul did not intend to teach in 2 Cor. 11 that he was the one entrusted with the whole body of Christ to present it to the Lord. On the contrary, he taught in Eph. 5 that Christ was the one to present the Church to Himself.

The Greek word “espoused” here is harmodzo , meaning to join in actual marriage relationship . Instead of teaching that the believer is not yet married to Christ and God, it teaches that he is joined to Christ in marriage relationship. This relationship is pictured many times by Paul as in Point 8, above.

1. 1 The second scripture used to teach that the Church is not yet married to Christ is Rev. 19:1-10. In this passage we have the future “marriage of the Lamb” in Heaven after the rapture of the Church. It is argued that if the Lamb is to be married in the future, He is not married now. It is evident that if the Church is now married to Christ and John pictures a future marriage, that there is something wrong. Some have tried to explain this marriage in connection with Israel, but this is unscriptural as we have seen. We do not have to believe this theory in order to have harmony between the facts that the believer is now married to Christ and will eat a Marriage Supper in the future. It is clear from Rev. 19:1-10 that whoever is referred to is called his wife, and that she is already His before the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. This is in perfect harmony with what has been stated before concerning the relationship of Christ and all believers in every age who are to be glorified and made an heavenly people. We will now quote from The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia to illustrate how the believer could be spoken of as being married to God now and still to be united to Him in final ceremonies in the future at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb.

“Betrothal with the ancient Hebrews was of a more formal and far more binding nature than the engagement with us. Indeed, it was esteemed a part of the transaction of marriage, and that the most binding part. Among the Arabs today it is the only legal ceremony connected with marriage. Genesis 24:58-60 seems to preserve for us an example of an ancient formula and blessing for such an occasion. Its central feature was the dowry (mohr), which was paid to the parents, not to the bride. It may take the form of service 1 Samuel 18:25. It is customary in Syria today when the projected marriage is approved by both families, and all financial preliminaries have been settled, to have this ceremony of betrothal. It consists in the acceptance before witnesses of the terms of the marriage contracted for. Then God’s blessing is solemnly asked on the union thus provided for, but to take place probably only after some months, or perhaps some years. The betrothal affected, all danger of any further financial fencing and bluffing now being at an end, happiness and harmony may preside over all the arrangements for the marriage day. Among the Jews the betrothal was so far regarded as binding that, if marriage should not take place, owing to the absconding of the bridegroom or the breach of contract on his part, the young woman could not be married to another man until she was liberated by due process and paper of divorce. A similar custom prevails in China and Japan, and in cases becomes very oppressive. The marriage may have been intended by the parents from the infancy of the parties, but this formality of betrothal is not entered on until the marriage is considered reasonably certain and measurably near. A prolonged interval between the betrothal and marriage was deemed undesirable on many accounts, though often an interval was needed that the groom might render the stipulated service or pay the price—say a year or two, or, as in the case if Jacob, it might be seven years. The betrothed parties were legally in the position of a married couple and unfaithfulness was adultery Deuteronomy 22:23Matthew 1:19.”

For the marriage ceremony see Lesson Forty-four. After this ceremony the marriage supper followed. There was no formal religious ceremony connected with it, as is true with us in modern weddings. The entrance into the chamber consummated the marriage and then the marriage supper immediately followed. The Marriage Supper of the Lamb is merely the consummation of the union between God and all heavenly and glorified saints of all ages. It could never simply refer to the first and final union of the believer with Christ. These passages above are the only ones that could be taken to teach such a theory, except a few historical events in the Old Testament, which are not worthy of consideration in view of the many plain passages on the subject.

One thing is certain and it is stated in the clearest way possible that the Holy City, the New Jerusalem, is the bride, the Lamb’s wife. This is clearly stated in Rev. 21:2, 9-10: “And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband . . . And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the last plagues, and he talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb’s wife. And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God.” What could be clearer as to what the bride of Christ really is?

Certainly this plain passage should settle the question for all honest people. Surely one could not read this passage and still maintain a clear conscience in teaching that the bride is something else. The bride of Christ is not the Church as a whole. It is not only a part of the Church. It is not Israel as a whole. It is not only a part of Israel. It is not the Gentiles as a whole. It is not a part of the Gentiles only. It is not any one particular nation, denomination, race, or color. It is not many of the things that men have taught through the ages. It is the Holy City—the New Jerusalem—and it cannot be anything else. If the angel said that the bride is the New Jerusalem, then he either lied or told the truth. If he told the truth, then the bride is a city and not some nation or Church, as is claimed by many Bible teachers of today.

Let us be reasonable and believe that the bride is a city just as the angel told John. It may well be asked how the Holy City could be the bride? This question is plainly answered by the Bible writers. In Heb. 11:8-16 we have definite proof that Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, and all the faith worthies of the Old Testament looked for a city to come as their eternal home. It is clear from Heb. 13:14 that the present Church saints are also looking for the same city. It is clear from Rev. 19:7-10 that the saints are the wife of Christ. And it is clear from Rev. 21:9-10 that the New Jerusalem is the bride of Christ. If the saints are the wife of Christ and the city is the bride, as stated in the above passages, then we must conclude that the city with all of the buildings and inhabitants will make the final bride of Christ. That is, all the redeemed of all ages from Abel to the last tribulation saint of the future who will have part in the first resurrection will live in the New Jerusalem which is called “the bride, the Lamb’s wife.”

We could ask any person living in Atlanta if he is Atlanta, GA and he would have to say no. We could point to any Church building in Atlanta and ask if that Church is Atlanta, GA, and the answer would have to be no. And so it would be with any citizen, building, or single part of Atlanta, but for any one person to say that he is Atlanta would mean that he had lost common sanity. So it is with the New Jerusalem. It is unscriptural to speak of the present Church as the bride, for the bride is the New Jerusalem. It is unscriptural to speak of any particular group of redeemed of any period as the bride of Christ, for the bride is a real city and not some company of redeemed of a particular period.

It would be scriptural, however, to say concerning any single redeemed person, that he is now married to Christ, that he is a citizen of Heaven, and that he is or will be a part of the bride when he becomes a citizen of the Holy City. It is scriptural to say that the Old Testament saints as a company are and will always be a part of the bride. It is perfectly scriptural to say that the present Church saints are married to Christ and will also be a part of the bride. We can say the same thing about all the future tribulation saints, the 144,000 Jews of the Tribulation days, or any single individual or company of individuals of any period, that they will be just as much a part of the bride as other redeemed peoples who will live in the New Jerusalem forever.

Even now, Christians are citizens of Heaven and they are destined to have a part in the bride, the New Jerusalem, when they die and are taken to that city to live forever. Naturally, until a person or a group of persons get to the city they cannot be called the bride, because they are not yet, in reality, a part of the New Jerusalem. In the same way, any person who moves to a city does not become a citizen or part of that city until he settles in that place. So the saints will not actually become a part of the New Jerusalem until they move to the city and become a part of it.

For centuries Bible students have limited the word “bride” in connection with the Church, or some other company of redeemed, but this is not true. The city itself is the bride and this includes all the inhabitants of the city, not just a few of them. It is not proper to call the present Church the bride, but it is proper to call it a part of the bride. When we understand this truth, then it will not limit the bride of Christ to a special select few of the redeemed of any age, because the bride includes all redeemed saints of every age who have part in the first resurrection and who will become inhabitants of the New Jerusalem.

It may also be asked how could a city with material buildings be called a bride and be clothed in fine linen, which is the righteousness of the saints, as stated in Rev. 19:7-10? This also becomes clear when we recognize that the bride also refers to the inhabitants of the city. Sim larly, we have read in the newspapers that Atlanta, GA gave a banquet and a big welcome to some great person who visited the city. From the way the newspaper read we could argue that the buildings of Atlanta could not welcome anyone or give a banquet for him and that would be true. This is the human way of saying that the city officials and prominent citizens gave the banquet and welcomed the visitor.

It stands to reason that the buildings of the New Jerusalem could not eat a marriage supper and be clothed in fine linen. This simply means the inhabitants of the city will eat the supper and be clothed in linen, as taught in Rev. 19:7-10. What God wants us to understand in all the statements in Rev. 19:7-10; 21:2, 9-11; 22:17 and like passages concerning the bride is that there is a real material city with buildings and that there are also inhabitants in the city, just like in any earthly city. It does not make sense to ignore the fact that there is a real city in Heaven. Neither does it make sense to ignore the fact that the city has inhabitants. There could be no city without buildings and inhabitants. It takes both to make a city.

With these facts in mind it is clear that we are not robbing one Christian of the hope of being part of the bride of Christ, but when present Church saints teach that they are the bride of Christ they are wrong. They will be only a part of the bride. When they teach that the Old Testament saints are not a part of the bride they are wrong, for they are also a part of the bride. When they make any particular group of redeemed the exclusive bride of Christ they are wrong. Therefore, to be perfectly scriptural we must conclude that the Old Testament saints will be a part of the New Jerusalem, which is the bride, the Lamb’s wife, that the New Testament saints will be a part of the bride, and that every redeemed person in every age who will go to live in the New Jerusalem will be a part of the bride of Christ as much as all other redeemed people.

This will do away with the following fallacies in Christendom:

• That the bride of Christ consists of a special few of the redeemed.

• That only a few will have a part in reigning with Christ.

• That only a few will be the wife and the rest of the redeemed will be the guests at the Marriage Supper.

• That one has to be a super-saint in order to be a member of the bride.

• That God only knows which ones of the redeemed will be in the bride and which ones will not be.

• That some will be rewarded and exalted higher than others because they lived in a particular period.

• That one has to belong to a certain denomination to be in the bride of Christ.

• That the present Church saints will be exalted higher than the Old Testament saints.

• That those who are least in this period will be greater than the greatest of any other period.

• That one has to live in this age and get certain spiritual experiences, which have been received only in this age, to be in the bride of Christ.

These and countless other false doctrines are taught by men of various Church groups of this generation. All such unscriptural teachings will be automatically proven wrong when we get the true conception of the bride of Christ.

We conclude, therefore, that the bride is the real material city in Heaven called the New Jerusalem and its inhabitants, which have been redeemed from the human race in all ages from Adam to the Millennium.