Over the last couple of weeks the subject of “the bride of Christ” has come up in conversation. Now that we have finished our four-year study of Matthew, we don’t have a predetermined course to follow, so we can address some of the subjects which haven’t been examined recently. And I feel led of the Lord to look at that matter of earlier conversation.
In preparation for this message, I first turned to my library for a potential outline to guide us. I didn’t find a good outline, but in the hour I spent looking, I made an interesting discovery. I have over fifty titles on the doctrine of the church – “Ecclesiology” – and on Baptist doctrine in general. I looked at every one of them at least once, and several of them more than once. My discovery was that only two of them dealt with the bride of Christ. Some of these are books by true defenders of Baptist doctrine – Pendleton, Graves, Moody, Huckabee, Norman Wells, Kazee, S.E. Anderson, and along with others a handful of books published by M. L. Moser. Less than 5% of my library addressed the subject of the “bride of Christ.” Of the two books, one was written by a stranger to me named Peter Jansen, and the other was edited by Louis Entzminger – with B.H. Carroll’s article on “the glory church.”
Why do you suppose that so few wanted to address the subject of the bride of Christ? Could it be possible that the subject is so difficult that it is not worth the fight? Or could it be that it is so Biblically obscure that it was not worth the writer’s time or the printer’s ink? One lesson in this might be that no matter what your opinion is, it is not something over which to get too hot under the collar.
The second step in my preparation was to look up my own three messages on “the bride of Christ.” The first message was preached in 1991. According to my notes, in my introduction I said, “What I’m looking at tonight, although important to me, is not essential doctrine. If you disagree with me, that is certainly your privilege. I have preacher friends that agree – and others who disagree with me. I don’t wish to preach these things AT you, but I ask you think. Reject them if you like, but if you do, make sure that you have a good reason.”
My second message was preached more than a decade later – in 2002. Again, according to my recorded notes, I said, “I have been teaching this position for about 30 years now. I have taught this doctrine because it was taught to me by men that I trusted and believed to be solid Baptist theologians. I have read, and heard, at least a dozen different men teach on this subject. But I have to admit that from the very first day, I have taught the doctrine with a bit of fear & trembling. Because I have had personal questions for which I didn’t have answers. And I still have a few things that I’m confused about, but their number has been dropping.” My third look at the “bride of Christ” was part of a larger study of Baptist doctrine, and was a different kind of message.
The thing I’d like you to see is I have never preached this subject declaring to know all the answers. None of those three messages was delivered in arrogance or in an effort to correct or to put down anyone who held to a different position. It is a difficult subject, because the Bible reveals so little. Whether or not we are personally convinced, we should not be too demanding of others. And we should never loose our tempers over the question of who this bride of Christ will be – or is. With that caveat before us, the matter of the bride of Christ IS Biblical and worth our consideration.
Clearly there is – or at least there will be – a bride of Christ.
The Book of Revelation concludes with the words “And the Spirit and the bride say come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whoever will, let him take the water of life freely.” Who is this bride that says “come?” All that we can say for sure is that whoever she is, she belongs to Christ – she is Christ’s Bride. In the previous chapter – 21:9 we read, “And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and 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, having the glory of God…” And that chapter begins with – “And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.” Lay aside for a moment that this bride and wife of Christ is not defined, just recognize that a bride exists. At least she will exist some time in the future.
Is there any information here in Revelation 22 which can help us to identify her? At first glance there is nothing at all, but in thinking about it, there is a slight hint. Doesn’t Revelation 22:17 suggest the preaching of the gospel? “And the Spirit and the bride say come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whoever will, let him take the water of life freely.” I know that anyone who has tasted of salvation and drunk deeply of the waters of life in Christ, can and probably should invite others to do the same. But, I ask you, to whom did Christ give His authority to evangelize the world? To whom was the Great Commission given? To whomever it was, along with the authority to evangelize, was also give the authority to baptize. Was it to given to all saints generally or to the temporary office of the Apostles? No – the authority carry on the work of Christ was given to His church – His local assemblies. IF Revelation 22:17 refers to evangelism, then it must be in the context of Christ’s authority. Revelation 22:17 does not prove that the bride of Christ is the church, but it pushes me in that direction.
Revelation 21 contains the Bible’s primary references to the bride, the Lamb’s wife.
“And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.” I have seen some very funny looking women during my life, and some of them have been men’s wives. But this is a very strange wife indeed – The angel said, “I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb’s wife – the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, having the glory of God.”. Most of the rest of that chapter is spent further describing the bride that holy city, the new Jerusalem. Consider verse 22 – “I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it. And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it. And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life.”
When will these events take place? It will be after the Millennium. It will come after the Great White Throne judgment. So as I understand it, this is describing the beginning of what we call “the future eternity.” In other words, the Lord’s redeemed from the Millennium, including even some who were saved during the earlier tribulation, will be ON THE EARTH at the beginning of this chapter. And then out of heaven will descend this new Jerusalem. It will be huge – some say 1,500 miles cubed. It will be glorious – built with some of the most spectacular and beautiful minerals of creation. After descending, it appears to hover over the earth. Verse 24 says that the nations, all the citizens of which will all be redeemed, will walk in the light of Christ’s city. The kings of the earth – the new earth – will bring what little glory they possess into the Lord’s city. And of course, “there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life.” I believe that there will not be a person alive, who is not a saint of God, and all of them will have access to Christ and the New Jerusalem. BUT – it doesn’t appear to me that those people will be residents of the city. They are visitors, coming and going – through gates which will never be shut. Does it mean that this 12,000 furlong city will have no inhabitants except for Christ and His angels?
If that is true, who is it that says, “Come, take of the water of life freely?” The invitation of Revelation 22:17 is for use today, because all the living souls of chapters 21 and 22 will already be redeemed. The invitation is for today, but it is declared to come from the Holy Spirit and the bride. But still, that doesn’t definitively prove who the bride will be.
Does Ephesians 5 prove that Christ’s church is his bride?
I don’t believe that it does, but “proof” is a very strong word. The term “bride of Christ” is not mentioned here. In fact the word “bride” is not here. But toning down the question, does Ephesians 5 shed light on our question? Most assuredly, it does. “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 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. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.”
The first thing to notice here is that this is not a theological discussion on “ecclesiology” – the church. Paul is dealing with problems in Ephesus, exhorting church members there toward holiness and service. The reference to the church is used as an illustration – “For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church.” “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it.” Despite the illustration – an appropriate illustration, I might add – Paul concludes – “This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.” It is as though, having presented his illustration, Paul suggests that what he had just said is MORE than just an appropriate simile. “This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church” – this is a REALITY. What is this reality? Christ is the husband of His church.
Did the members of the church in Ephesus understand the word “ecclesia” – “the church”? They understood the word better than 99% of today’s professing Christians. There was an Ephesian governmental “ecclesia” – a city council – which is mentioned in Acts. But in contrast to that, they understood that their church was another special “called out assembly.” It was a called out assembly belonging to Christ – similar, but different, from the gathered elected officials of the city council. When Paul used the word “ecclesia,” those people knew he was talking about the Christian assembly which he had helped to establish a few years earlier. Was that a SCRIPTURAL church? Did it have the authority of Christ to carry on the work and testimony of Christ? Was it a Baptistic church? There may be questions in other people’s minds, but there is none in mine. This church in Ephesus was a Baptist church in doctrine and practice, serving the Lord under the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ. Some may say that I’m being arrogant to make such a statement, but that is not my intention. It isn’t with any personal pride when I say that the churches of Christ in the Book of Acts were Baptist in their doctrine and preaching. I believe that I am merely stating the facts.
When Paul used his illustration about the husband and wife, as directed by the Holy Spirit, those people pictured their church as the bride or wife of Christ. Is that PROOF that Paul’s subject was “the bride of Christ?” No, it is not PROOF, but I am quite sure that the Ephesian church members saw it that way. And I believe that we should see it that way as well. If the church in Ephesus was “the wife or bride of Christ” why can’t churches of similar faith and practice also be called “the bride of Christ?”
Are there other scriptures which shine a light on this subject?
There are people who believe that Psalm 45 speaks prophetically of the bride of Christ. “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. All thy garments smell of myrrh, and aloes, and cassia, out of the ivory palaces, whereby they have made thee glad. Kings’ daughters were among thy honourable women: upon thy right hand did stand the queen in gold of Ophir. Hearken, O daughter, and consider, and incline thine ear; forget also thine own people, and thy father’s house; So shall the king greatly desire thy beauty: for he is thy Lord; and worship thou him.” One of the things to see in that scripture is that there are many honourable women who are friends of the King’s bride. There are also people who see the bride of Christ in the Song of Solomon. Again there are several passages in that book which speak about the righteous friends of Christ’s beloved.
The parable of the ten virgins contains lots of mystery, But a couple of things are plain – those virgins are not the bride; they are friends of the bride and groom. They are awaiting for the continuation of the marriage festivities. Some of them are prepared, while others are not. Some appear to be saved, but others only think that they are. Will the five wise virgins ever become a part of the bride? Not at least in that parable. It appears that the Bible teaches that some believers – some saints – are not a part of the bride.
Who are those who will make up the bride which we find in the last chapter of the Bible?
Most theologians refuse to answer the question. But almost everyone who does say that the bride is made up of the members of Christ’s church. But the majority of those people, tell us that she is made up of all those whom the Lord has saved. These people argue that “the bride” is “the church,” but they define the church as “universal.” They make the bride equivalent to the entire family of God – something which is illogical and confusing. Then there are those who call themselves “Baptist Briders.” These people also make the bride to be from the Lord’s church or churches. And what is Christ’s only authorized ecclesia? Has she not, throughout the ages, been Baptist or at least “Baptistic” churches?
In my 2002 message on the bride of Christ, I said that I no longer call myself a “Baptist Brider.” I think that the words “Baptist Bride” can be dangerously misleading. First, our forefathers in the faith, were often not called “Baptists.” They were Waldensians, Donatists, Cathari, and a dozen other names. Eventually they were Anabaptists and finally just “Baptists.” Why doesn’t someone call himself a “Waldensian Brider” or “Albigensian Brider?” Is a Baptist under any other name “just as sweet” or doctrinally correct? And then there are hundreds of members of Baptist churches who are not even children of God. We have had some of them on the church rolls of this church. But can a lost Baptist be a part of the Lord’s bride? Of course not! You and I today, might not be able to distinguish between true saints of God and really good look-a-likes, so they remain in our churches until the day of the Lord. Also, we are supposed to discipline and exclude members who are not as godly as they ought to be. But as fallible and sinful creatures ourselves, we often don’t act when we should. There are saints who are members of God’s true churches who should not be members. They are true children of God, but living in sin, and therefore should be disciplined and excluded. Will those backslidden saints, living in sin, be a part of “the bride of Christ,” when the Head of the Church becomes the pastor once again? Won’t the omniscient Christ exclude those whom He determines are unworthy? Just because someone claims to be a Baptist, or is a member of a Baptist church, does not mean that he will automatically be a part of the Lord’s bride. It just might be that neither you nor I will be a part of the bride.
I think that every truly saved person ought to be a member of one of God’s churches. After all, Christ died for His church, and it is “the pillar and ground of the truth.” With some exceptions, the Christian who is not a member of the Lord’s church is living in disobedience. But, as I say, there may be Christians who for one reason or other, ought not to be a part. At the bema judgment, or perhaps later, the Christ, the Head of His church is going to judge and exclude those church members who have not served Him as they should have. It seems to me that the bride will be made up of faithful, godly, members of the Lord’s churches. The rest of the saved will still be eternally saved, but they will not dwell in the Holy City, the bride which John saw descending out of heaven.
I have heard it said, and I have sometimes read, that this doctrine is bigoted and arrogant. But it is no more so than to teach that Christ started a Baptist Church out of people baptized by the first Baptist. It is no more arrogant than to call Calvary Baptist Church “the pillar and ground of the Truth,” and to say that the church west down 12th avenue three blocks is not. This doctrine is no more bigoted than to call our church “the body of Christ” in Post Falls. Just about everything we believe about the Lord’s church and our church – things like closed communion and alien baptism – are offensive to others. But whether or not others are offended should not stop us from declaring what we believe to be true. So long as we try to teach the scriptures as we understand them – with humility, kindness and the fear of the Lord.