May He grant you a spirit of wisdom and revelation as you examine the scriptures to see if what has been written here is true.

    

     

      What I have learned after thirty years of intense Bible study and discipleship is that anger and demonstrative rejection of the offending teacher of error is not an appropriate response when my espoused doctrines, practices, and interpretations of scripture are challenged. What I have noticed when those doctrines, practices, and interpretations of scripture that I have received (by revelation), believed in my heart, and confirmed time and again are challenged, is that my appropriate response is to be grieved in the spirit just as the Holy Spirit is grieved. 

       Yet, when a valid case is made for a differing opinion, my response should be the same as the Bereans who examined the scriptures to see if what Paul was saying was true or not.

       Some claim "righteous anger" when their doctrinal beliefs are challenged, but "righteous anger" is the anger prompted by the Holy Spirit for reasons only the Holy Spirit knows. And righteous anger is seldom prompted by the Holy Spirit in most believers. Our anger when our beliefs are challenged is typically personal, as though we ourselves are being attacked. And that response is inappropriate.

 

       Early in my walk with the Lord, the church I was attending had an interim pastor who taught biblical Hebrew and Greek at a local Christian University. He chose his own pet subject, amillenialism (the belief that there will be no literal millennial reign of Christ after the resurrection of the saints), for a series of lectures. And he impressed us appropriately by translating directly out of the Hebrew and Greek scriptures.

       Yet, even the most unlearned among us recognized that there was no "life" in what he was teaching, and, for the first time in my walk with the Lord, I recognized that I was grieved, not angered, by what he was teaching.

       His erudite, but deeply deceived teaching found no fertile ground in that congregation. Yet, it was not because we were clinging inordinately to an alternate view. It was because his teaching was not anointed with the light of the Holy Spirit, and by the Spirit we knew it.

       My response, and the response of others was to thoroughly and prayerfully examine the scriptures in regard to the return of Christ, not to refute him, but to determine and confirm the truth for ourselves, which was and always is, an appropriate response.

 

       So...when I kick your pet dog by telling you that the church is not the "bride of Christ," and that this oft repeated, automatically believed, "feel good", but erroneous, interpretation of scripture, is in reality a startling example of the twin demons of presumption and assumption prevalent in the Laodicean church (the church that blends error with truth and does not know the difference)...what will you do?

       Will you respond with anger and demonstrative rejection, or will you be a "noble" Berean and hang in for a dose of truth?

           

Definitions:

 

       Presumption is the inaccurate and inappropriate interpretation of scripture, obviously lacking in revelatory light from the Holy Spirit, and resulting in erroneous doctrines, practices, and interpretations of scripture. Nor is presumption necessarily the result of faulty hermeneutics. It is generally the result of soulish bias and a lack of dependence on the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth.

       Assumption is the adoption by believers of various doctrines, practices, and interpretations of scripture from an "authority" other than the Holy Spirit guided exegesis of scripture. These "authorities" include the Pope, study Bibles, our denomination, our seminary, our pastor, our favorite TV or radio preacher-teacher, etc. And, in many cases, we may think we have examined scripture appropriately, but typically we have only adopted the proof texts presented by our chosen authorities.

 

       What does the Lord say about this assumptive approach to receiving and believing various doctrines and interpretations of scripture?

 

          "But you are not to be called rabbi...(teacher)..., for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ."  Matthew 23:8-11 ESV

(insert and emphasis are the author's)

 

       This passage does not negate the five-fold ministry, but those whom we call "teacher" (including the author) and those institutions we have adopted as "authorities", are, at best, good facilitators of His gift, and, at worst, teaching erroneous, assumed doctrines, even, doctrines of demons.

       If the disciple is asked, therefore, "What is your authority (source) for believing this doctrine or that doctrine or this interpretation or that interpretation or following this practice or that practice?", there is only one correct answer.

       It is not "the Pope." It is not "my pastor." It is not "my denomination." It is not "the prophet," and it is not "the Holy Bible." (What? Did I kick your pet dog again?)

 

      The correct answer is, "My authority is the Word of God, Jesus Christ, who is the Spirit of Truth, my Teacher, and who speaks His living word into my heart as I rightly divide the scriptures by thorough inductive study and meditation, waiting on Him to guide me into all truth appropriately as He pleases."

       All else is hearsay, and, sometimes, heresy.

  

Is the church the "bride of Christ"?

 

The dispensational distinctive of a pre-tribulation resurrection-"rapture" of church only saints, without a single direct scripture to support it, has spawned the ever-so-popular teaching that the church is the "bride of Christ," and this "feel good" teaching, so precious to the Laodicean church, is itself formulated on indirect, metaphorical presumption.

Search as you might, there are no specific references to the church as the "bride", and in this passage Paul was using analogy rather than speaking in literal terms.

Another example of Paul's use of analogy is in the letter to the Galatians where Paul said that he was in the pain of childbirth again until Christ be formed in you (in the Galatian believers). Was Paul saying that he was the literal "mother" of the Galatian church? Of course not. Paul was using a metaphor to demonstrate his intense concern for the Galatian believers, like a mother's concern for her baby before it is born.

Nor did Paul have authority to "promise" the believers at Corinth to Jesus. Their relationship with Jesus was already established by the new birth as they were mystically united with Christ (adopted as "sons") and with all fellow believers (the other adopted "sons") by the circumcision and indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Paul's statement was metaphorical, and an expression of his apostolic calling. He was using an example that all of the men and women of Corinth would understand, the presentation of a chaste virgin bride to her husband by the father of the bride. As a metaphor the meaning is clear. It was the Lord's will for Paul to build up the church at Corinth so that they would be exemplary in their faith and obedience, just as it is the father's duty to make sure his daughter is pure and chaste at the time of her marriage.

Paul is, therefore, not presenting doctrinal truth in this passage. If he was presenting doctrinal truth we would hear the theme repeated elsewhere and, in all likelihood, by other authors. And, more importantly, it would not contradict established interpretations of scripture and doctrine, supported by direct scriptural evidence rather than metaphorical presumption.

As an example, when Paul writes about the church being the body of Christ he is being literal. There are numerous specific uses of that term in Paul's letters, and these uses are combined with specific doctrinal truth about the believer's incorporation "in" Christ and His Spirit "in" us, so that we are, in a literal sense, the "body" of Christ in the earth.

That being true, how could the literal "body" of Christ also be the literal "bride" of Christ?

It is compatible for the church to have a literal relationship with the Father as adopted sons and daughters ("sons of the bride chamber") and still be incorporated into the "body" of Jesus Christ, because our adoption as sons and daughters of the Father is the result of our spiritual incorporation into the Son. We are the sons and daughters of God because we are incorporated in the Son.

They are not mutually exclusive as "body" and "bride" are. Instead, they are mutually supportive.

As adopted sons and daughters of the Father, we are already kinsmen of Christ, and, as literal adopted sons of God, are we to marry the Son of God?

In addition, we have already received His name and His authority. Does a bride receive her husband's name and authority before she is wed?

Our literal, specific, scriptural identification in regard to the marriage supper of the Lamb is that of "guests," (unmarried kinsmen, "children of the bridechamber").

The KJV uses a more literal translation, when it identifies the "guests" of the marriage party as "children (sons) of the bridechamber", a term that would apply to the bridegroom's close relatives, including adopted brothers and sisters.

This interpretation comes from the Lord's literal identification of His disciples as "guests" and Himself as the literal "bridegroom."

 

How can the guests ...("children of the bridechamber" KJV)...of the bridegroom mourn while he is with them? The time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them; then they will fast. Matthew 9:15 NIV  (emphasis is the author's) 

 

 

Scripture	Literal Identity of the church	Identity of Jesus Christ
Matthew 9:15	We are the literal guests - unmarried kinsmen - "sons of the bride chamber" - virgins - not the bride	He referred to Himself as the literal bridegroom
Colossians 1:18	We are the spiritual body of Christ	He is the head of His spiritual body
Galatians 3:26; John 3:16	We are adopted sons of God	He is the only begotten Son of God

 

 

The specific identification of the church as "the body of Christ," adopted sons of God, and "sons of the bride chamber" (unmarried kinsmen of the bridegroom) all contradict our assumptive identification of the church as the "bride." But, more importantly, the "bride" and "wife" of the Lamb is specifically identified in scripture.

 

And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband

. Revelation 21:2 NASB

 

Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and spoke with me, saying, ^"Come here, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb." And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the holy city, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God. Revelation 21:9,10 NASB (emphasis is the author's)

Although the description in Revelation 21:2 of the new Jerusalem as the "bride" of  Christ could be interpreted as a metaphor, the statement in Revelation 21:9,10 specifically identifies this "bride", the new Jerusalem, as the bride and the wife of the Lamb (Jesus Christ).

The literal "bride" in these verses (Revelation 21:9) has already been identified as the new Jerusalem, and Revelation 21:10-27 goes on to describe the "bride" in detail right down to the names of the tribes of Israel written on the twelve gates.

Would the angel of the Lord say, "I will show you the bride", meaning the church, and then immediately provide a lengthy description of the new Jerusalem?

Absolutely not.

 

The time frame of reference for Revelation 21 is after the renovation of the earth by fire when the holy city descends out of heaven to take its permanent place on the renovated, sanctified earth, and, at that point, it is already the "wife" of the Lamb, meaning that the marriage took place previously. Therefore, the new Jerusalem is the literal "bride" of Christ, not the church.

The church will inhabit the new Jerusalem along with old testament saints, tribulation saints, and millennium saints. It is not erroneous, therefore, in a metaphorical sense, to identify the church with the "bride" of Christ. But it is erroneous to identify the church as the literal "bride", and most who use this terminology, adopted from dispensational theologians, are using it in a manner that excludes old testament saints, tribulation saints, and millennium saints from the definition. 

In Revelation 22:17 we read, The Spirit and the bride say, "Come " And let the one who hears say, "Come " And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost.

 

If we insert "the new Jerusalem" in place of "the bride" the verse continues to make sense. "...The Spirit and the new Jerusalem ...(the City of God)...say, 'Come'..."

The verse makes sense here because the invitation is to all those whose names have been written in the Lamb's Book of Life from Adam all the way through the millennium.

If we substitute "the church" for "the bride" the verse becomes confusing and more than a little arrogant. "The Spirit and the church say, 'Come'..."

In spite of the obvious identification of the "bride" as being the new Jerusalem, dispensational theologians will argue that the Spirit and the church are responding to the Lord's statement back up in Revelation 22:12. Instead it is the Spirit and the new Jerusalem, the City of God, who are issuing the invitation to all whose names are written in the Lamb's Book of Life. The one who "hears" the invitation is responding directly to the Lord with, "come" (Lord Jesus), and the one who is thirsty is responding to the invitation by the Spirit.

 

Note also in this passage that "His bride" has been permitted to dress or adorn herself with fine linen, which is the righteousness of the saints. The bride and the dress are clearly not one and the same. The saints, then, in this passage are the "dress" or adornment of the literal bride, and the word, "saints", is inclusive of all those whose names are written in the Lamb's Book of Life, not just the church (which is an example of extreme arrogance and a demonstration of Laodicean willingness to blend truth with error just because it sounds good and feels good to us).

                

Let us rejoice and shout for joy [exulting and triumphant]! Let us celebrate and ascribe to Him glory and honor, for the marriage of the Lamb [at last] has come, and His bride has prepared herself.

She has been permitted to dress in fine (radiant) linen, dazzling and white-for the fine linen is (signifies, represents) the righteousness (the upright, just, and godly living, deeds, and conduct, and right standing with God) of the saints (God's holy people).

Then [the angel] said to me, Write this down: Blessed (happy, to be envied) are those who are summoned (invited, called) to the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he said to me [further], These are the true words (the genuine and exact declarations) of God. Revelation 19:7-9 Amplified

            

      I do not know when the term, "the bride of Christ," was first used as an assumptive reference to the body of Christ, but it was not used by Paul. Nor should it be used by us, no matter how useful that metaphor may seem to be, because that title, "the bride of Christ," was not given to us by the Lord.

 

       A strange thing happens when the believer receives this truth or any other truth from the Holy Spirit and confirms it in his/her own heart by a thorough and prayerful examination of scripture.

       Once the Holy Spirit, our Counselor, the Spirit of Truth, has confirmed this truth in the believer's heart he/she will grieve, just as I grieve now, when they hear that term being used inappropriately by others who are still deceived by their assumption of that presumptuous interpretation of scripture.

       But why? Why is it important to the Lord for us to be accurate about such a seemingly harmless identification of ourselves as the lovely Laodicean "bride" (the one He has promised to spew out of His mouth if we do not repent of blending truth with error and not being able to tell the difference)?

 

      The answer, of course, is that He does not identify us as His "bride." And our erroneous assumption of that title, based on some original presumption of metaphorical scripture, is not true and hinders our understanding of the Lord's will for the body of Christ, especially in these end times.

 * * *

       For further study see also, The Olivet Prophecy and

 

       If this article has blessed you, (or even if it disturbed you) and you want to forward it to others, you may safely do so by using the "forward email" link below. ConstantContact does not capture the email addresses. If those you forward the email to want to receive email articles from me in the future, they will have to subscribe. 

        Jim Sayles