An Answer to a Letter
Your correspondent writes, “I cannot find anything in the Word to convince me that the Church is both ‘the Body’ and ‘the Bride’ of Christ”. One’s soul opens to the wonder of the oneness of the redeemed with Him. “The Church which is His Body” gives the Church the closest possible relation to her Lord. How should I try to express it? His Body—the Church—is Himself in a unity which fairly passes comprehension. But the Bride is His other Self, to be conceived of as apart from Him in identity and manifestation. It is a close bond of union: but not so close as the vital union of “the Body” to “the Head”. I am writing with great reverence, and remembering the place that is given to Israel in the “Divine purpose.”
To begin with we are all agreed that the Church is the Body of Christ. God “gave Him [Christ] to be the Head over all things to the Church, which is His Body, the fulness of Him that fills all in all” (Eph. 1:22-23). This one Scripture puts this beyond dispute.
Your correspondent evidently cannot think it possible that the Church can alike be the Body and Bride of Christ. He argues that the Head and the members are one, whilst a bridegroom and bride are two entities. By this argument we must deny that the Lord is our Shepherd and believers His sheep, for Shepherd and sheep are two entities. Confusion comes in through not grasping that the Church is looked at in several ways in Scripture, and each way the Church is viewed from a different angle, and conveys a different thought.
We have the symbolism of the Shepherd and the sheep, setting forth the loving care in the way of sustainment and protection that the Lord gives to His own. We have the symbolism of a building, Christ, the living Stone, the chief corner Stone, and believers built in as living stones, setting forth the relationship between believers and their Lord in connection with holy priesthood and offering up spiritual sacrifices. There is the symbolism of a Temple, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief Corner Stone, a habitation of God through the Spirit, His dwelling place on earth. Wonderful thought!
Then we have the symbolism of Christ the Head and believers the members of His body here on earth, setting forth that Christ would display His life here on earth through His members, the Head affording direction, intelligence, spiritual power and support to this end, and this not merely as individual saints but as being linked to one another and by the Spirit to Christ, the Head in glory.
We come now to examine Scriptures that set forth the Church as the Bride of Christ. These surely set forth close relationship, and denote love, affection, nourishing, cherishing.
We must keep separate in our thought Israel and the Church. The former is earthly, an earthly Bride for Jehovah, a Bride for time, the millennium brings that to a close; the latter is heavenly, a heavenly Bride, and that for eternity. And let us not literalise to the extent of saying that the Head and the Body is one entity, and the Bridegroom and the Bride are two entities. Let us be content to grasp the moral meaning behind the symbolism.
Look at 2 Corinthians 11:2: “I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.” Paul is writing to the Corinthian saints. Who could be the “one Husband” but Christ, and what idea is given when he speaks of presenting them “as a chaste virgin” to Christ? Marriage is used as a symbolism and we must clear our minds of materialism. It is a symbolism setting forth the deep affection of Christ to His own on the one hand, and the necessity of holiness, moral suitability to the Lord on the other.
Turn now to Ephesians 5:23-33, a very well known Scripture. There, interwoven with instructions to Christian husbands and wives is the symbolism of Bridegroom and Bride as referring to Christ and His Church. The Apostle ends this set of exhortations with the words, “This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the Church” (v. 32). So that whilst the Apostle gives these instructions he tells us His great thought is far deeper than that, and he rises to the highest theme, the deep affection of the Lord to His own, and how that thought should affect powerfully the relations between Christian men and women in the marriage estate.
Whenever a Bride is spoken of there must be a Bridegroom. There cannot be a Bride without a complementary spouse. The word Bride is found in the Scriptures, and not once the actual word Bridegroom, as applying to the Lord, with the exception of Matthew 25:6, when it is used in a different setting. Yet if the Church is the Bride, He is the Bridegroom.
We read, “The husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the Head of the Church” (v. 23). Here the word Head, does not answer to the symbolism of Christ the Head of the Body, where the symbolism is taken from the figure of a head and a body, one entity. But in this verse the head is a symbolism setting forth the leadership and authority and loving support of the husband in relation to his wife. This is the symbolism given here in relation to Christ and the Church, the relationship of husband and wife.
Verse 24 tells us that the wives are to be subject to their own husbands, even as the Church is to Christ, again the symbolism of husband and wife. No man hates his own flesh, and so close is the union of man and woman in the marriage estate, that he nourishes and cherishes his wife as if she were his own flesh. The example of our Lord towards His Bride in His deep love is the illustration given to govern human relations between a Christian man and his wife.
Then we are told that “we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones” (v. 30). We must not materialize here, but could language more clearly and forcibly set forth the mystic union of Christ and His Church? This language is the quotation from Adam’s exclamation of wonderment when he awoke from his deep sleep, typical of the death of Christ for His redeemed that He might have a Bride for His affections. Adam said when he looked on his fair bride, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Gen. 2:23). It is significant that this is quoted substantially in Ephesians 5:30. It was literally true of Adam and Eve, symbolically used of Christ and His Church. Adam and Eve were two entities, even though the language speaks of their being one flesh.
Then we read of a man leaving his father and mother and cleaving to his wife, and this magnificent passage ends up with, “This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the Church.”
We turn now to the last book in the Bible. We read, “Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to Him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and His wife has made herself ready” (Rev. 19:7). It is interesting to see how one Scripture supports and harmonises with kindred passages bearing on the same subject. Here we get “the chaste virgin” of 2 Corinthians 11:2. “To her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white, the righteousness of saints.” We may call this the private preparation as in contrast to the public presentation of Revelation 21:2, which we shall presently allude to.
Thank God, in the end position and condition will answer one to the other; position won by the atoning death of Christ and conferred by the sovereign favour of God, all of grace—condition, the result of the sanctifying and washing of water by the word, ceaselessly going on till that moment arrives when the Church will be presented to the Lord, “not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing” (Eph. 5:27).
We have no doubt who the Lamb is? Can we have any doubt who the Bride is? If not the Church, but Israel, as some think, how out of proportion such a thought is! The future of Israel, the earthly Bride, is delineated for us in the Old Testament in the way of glowing prophecies, and spoken of in Romans 11, where the sovereignty of God in relation to His earthly Bride is spoken of. But where shall the Church be spoken of, if not at the end of Revelation? To think otherwise is to stultify the word of God. The Church is God’s great masterpiece, and we see the triumph of His thoughts and purposes for His Church finding their grand and glorious consummation in Revelation 21
Let us turn to that great chapter. Chronologically the first part—verses 1-8—leads us to the eternal state, after the heavens and the earth have been destroyed, and the great white throne set up on the threshold of eternity. But verses 9-27, and chapter 22:1-5, carry us back to time, to the setting up of the millennial kingdom of Christ on the earth, and the part His Church will play in that.
Notice “that great city, the holy Jerusalem,” is presented as “a Bride adorned for her Husband” (v. 2) whereas “the Lamb’s wife” in verse 9 is seen as “that great city, the holy Jerusalem”, just the reverse way. Your correspondent to be logical would have to deny that this is not so, for how can the Church be a city and a wife, two entities? There again we must ask, what do the symbolisms set forth? The city sets forth rule, administration, order. We speak of the city hall, the city corporation, the city councillors, etc. The wife sets forth union, affection, delight. The former is the relation of the Church to the earthly kingdom, the millennium, when it is set up for one thousand years. The latter sets forth affection, the LAMB’S wife sets forth the cost that was paid by the Lord to possess Himself of His Bride, the object of His affection for eternity.
It has been attempted to prove that Revelation 21:9-27, 22:1-5 refers to Israel. Three considerations will show this to be untenable. First, the Holy City is seen “descending out of heaven from God, having the glory of God” (vv. 10-11). Galatians 4:26 tells us what the heavenly Jerusalem is. Now Israel does not come out of heaven. Israel is on earth and nowhere else when the Lord intervenes, and delivers them from their enemies, and sets up His earthly kingdom. Secondly, “And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb” (v. 14). That settles the point that this Scripture refers to the Church, for Ephesians 2:20 tells that the Church is built upon the foundations of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner Stone. If the holy city has the names of the twelve apostles in the foundation, we know the passage refers to the Church of God. Thirdly, if the Church is not alluded to here, but Israel, where is the consummation of the calling, of the Church, the realisation of the hope of her calling to be found? Nowhere! If such an exegesis were allowed to stand the Church would be like a glorious river, starting in all its promise on the day of Pentecost, and making its conquests all down the ages and then losing itself on the desert’s sands. This cannot be.
Finally we have “that great city, the holy Jerusalem”, coming down once again from heaven, having the glory of God, prepared as a Bride adorned for her husband. What a beautiful contemplation of the Church at the end of time, and the start of that eternal state of incomparable bliss. No longer will the symbolism of Christ as Head in heaven and the Body on earth be needed. The Church will be no longer on earth to witness in life and ways to an absent Lord; but in His presence be forever the Bride of Christ, the object of His affections and delight. Nothing to grieve or spoil the joy of that relationship for ever! What a fitting close!
I cannot think your correspondent is far from the truth, for one sentence of his letter which I have quoted at the beginning says, “‘The Church which is His Body’ giving the church the closest possible relation to HER Lord.” What does He mean by “HER”? Is it not a touch of bridal affection he has for His Lord. I think so.