So while on the one hand I want to talk in this post about how I'm more open to rethinking how we think about the Bride of Christ then I was then. I first want to talk about how the main people you'll find on a google search for "The Church is not the Bride of Christ", are absolute Dispensationists as much as Chuck Missler is, just changing which Covenant people they say is The Bride. And in so doing say things that bug me even more now then they did back then.
Jerusalem is the Lamb's Wife quite clearly in Revelation 21. And to them the word Jerusalem can't possibly apply to The Church. One went all in on this "Revelation is about Israel not The Church" idea saying even the Seven Churches are about Israel not the Church. I think it's absurd to say something so important to the New Testament would be totally absent from the closing book of The Bible.
I could point out to them how the message to Philadelphia and the description of New Jerusalem clearly tie themselves to how Paul taught his The Church is God's Temple doctrine, via the Twelve Disciples as Pillars. Or that Jesus told the Twelve Disciples at the Last Supper they would rule the Twelve Tribes. They simply wouldn't care.
But now to how I'm more open.
The thing I've noticed is that Psalm 45, generally agreed to be a Messianic Psalm, has The Messiah and His Wife and their Children, as distinct entities. Isaiah 53 also says the Suffering Servant will have Seed. These do not mean Jesus will reproduce biologically, they are about John 1 teaching how Jesus gave us the ability to become Sons of God. And probably also about The Man-Child being The Church.
In Matthew 9:15, Mark 2:19 and Luke 5:34 Jesus refers to His Disciples as the Children of the Bridegroom or Bridechamber. Some Translations try to make this say servants, but the Greek text of the Textus Receptus says children making the KJV right here. What John The Baptist says in John 3:29 can be taken in context as saying the former disciples of John becoming Disciples of Jesus are The Bride, but I think that's an oversimplification, he doesn't directly say that.
I think it is believers as the Temple of God/Body of Christ that include The Bride and the Children together. My post about The Vail of The Temple suggests good reason to see The Bride and Groom as the Holy of Holies/Holy Place, The Vail torn means they are no longer separate. The Children may then equate to the Inner Court. Originally only Aaronic Priests could enter it, but now all believers are Priests. There are no separate courts for Gentiles or Women as Galatians 3 shows. Ephesian 2:14 also says the Wall of partition has been torn down.
I believe Israel is the Woman of Revelation 12, I've argued that the Woman of Revelation 12 and 17 possibly are the same Woman, and returned to that in my recent Eden and Sinai post.[but that argument is now corrected by Eden may have been in Yemen]. The one thing that I was uncomfortable with about that is the implication of no happy ending for Israel.
Unless we conclude that this is also the same Woman who becomes the Bride in Chapter 19 and the Lamb's Wife in Chapter 21. It makes sense given Paul's discussion in Romans of the divorce and Re-Marriage of Israel. It's not explicitly stated they are the same because God promised He "will remember their Sins no more", Hebrews 8:12 and 10:17. Remember in Revelation 18 God calls His People out of Babylon.
In fact that Greek word translated Bride in Revelation 19 is the exact same word used for Woman in chapter 12 and 17. A word that more specifically means Bride isn't used till chapter 21. And likewise the word for Wife is usually the same word translated Woman.
It might be Isaiah 62 equates to verses 7-9 of Revelation 19, and then Isaiah 63 equates to verses 11-16.
Update: Types
Chuck Missler likes to back up his dispensationalist view of The Bride of Christ doctrine by talking about a theme of "Gentile Brides" in the Old Testament. I think he said there are at least 7 once. But that whole thing is built on sand, having only really Ruth to go on.
Havvah/Eve was made from Adam's flesh, so you can't call that a marriage between separate Blood Lines.
With Rebecca in Genesis 24, the whole point was Abraham sent his servant to get a Wife for Isaac from the descendants of his brother. Then Jacob's wives came from that same family.
Tamar was not a Canaanite, it was the unnamed wife of Judah who was clearly identified as one.
Rahab the Harlot is not depicted as marrying anyone in the Hebrew Bible, and I've shown that the Recab of Matthew's Genealogy cannot be referring to her.
Of the Wives of David, the only three who have any particular narratives about them are all clearly Israelites. Bathsheba even came from the same Tribe, Judah, as the granddaughter of Athitophel, though her first Husband was a Gentile. Abigail was from Carmel but had been married to a Calebite. And Michal was a princess of Benjamin, perhaps making her the most likely to be a type of the New Jerusalem. Or perhaps Michal is Old Jerusalem and Bethsheba is New Jerusalem.
Esther also was a Benjamite, in that scenario it's the groom who was a gentile.
Solomon's marriages to foreigners are not depicted positively. And my studies of the Song of Solomon have firmly lead me to conclude that Shulamith was a granddaughter of Solomon.
Nor does Psalm 45 in anyway make it's Bride a Gentile, despite how some seek to abuse the text to make it about the Queen of Sheba. The "Queen in Gold of Ophir" verse is simply about her wearing expensive imported clothes, because Solomon got his Gold from Ophir. What's interesting is that Gentile women attend the Wedding. Her being told to forget her own people and her father's house use "Am" not "Goyi" for people, it could be used in the sense of being from a different Tribe of Israel. Again reflecting how in Deuteronomy 33 the Beloved is of Benjamin. But also the most significant verse to use "Am" is Genesis 48:19 of Manasseh.
So getting back to Ruth, the thing about her is she's not the only Wife depicted in the story. Naomi (Who Chuck Missler says represents Israel) is also a Widow, and her husband's name makes him a possible type of the King, Elimelech. The narrative point in this Book is about Ruth being a gentile who becomes an Israelite via Faith in Israel's God, not about a Gentile Bride being separate from Israel.
So don't let anything I said above make you think I'm against Mixed Marriages, I have a post on my other Blog defending them.
Update April 16th 2018: Methosius of Olympus.
Methodius of Olympus a Pre-Nicene Church Father taught that The Woman of Revelation 12 is The Church and The Man-Child the Saints. That is a confusing explanation, but I think a product of being at least partly aware of the truths I just laid out above but being blinded by the Anti-Semitism the Early Church had already developed.
Of course that could be explained by language like in Ezekiel 16, where Judah, Samaria and Sodom are refereed to as well as their "daughters", referring to the people of the City as the City's children.
Methodius's writings we don't have in full. This looks to me like evidence he was a Pre-Nicene father who wasn't Post-Trib since I don't see how making the Man-Child the Saints rather then Jesus can be made compatible with Post-Trib. But I'm not gonna bet on that because playing games with the chronology of Revelation is what Post-Tribbers do. (I'm also well aware he wouldn't have used terminology like Post-Trib).
So Methodius might have provided a way to make distinguishing the Bride from the Children of the Bride not even Semi-Dispensational. But to me that way of looking at it would still have to be Mid-Trib, since it has the Church still existing on Earth after the Rapture. However there are other pieces of the puzzle that wouldn't quite fit.
Update May 14th 2018: Paul's views on the matter.
All three passages that can be cited as sounding like they're describing The Church or Christians as The Bride rather then the Children are from Paul.
Now I'm someone who wants to refute the notion that Paul was in conflict with the rest of the New Testament, I have posts already dedicated to that issue. But on this I must admit to being currently a little stumped.
Romans 7 is totally misunderstood however, that marriage related Law is what Paul singled out because he wanted to demonstrate that you are no longer under the Law at Death, and now we are Dead to the Law. At best it actually makes Believers the Husband not the Wife. Because we Die in Christ at Baptism.
However Ephesians 5:21-33 and 2 Corinthians 11 do seem to be making The Church the Bride of Christ.
Whether or not those passages can be reinterpreted differently. Paul is one witness, I have multiple witnesses above on The Church being the Children of the Bridegroom.
Update August 2018: I've contemplated these Paul passages some more.
Ephesian 5 is not really doctrinally calling anyone a Bride or Bridegroom, just telling Husbands to love their wives like Jesus loves them.
2 Corinthians 11:2 I think may have some translation issues. First of all the word translated "espoused" is not the same Greek word that refers to betrothal elsewhere like when talking about Mary and Joseph, but a form of the same Greek root that the word "harmony" comes from. Looking at other usage of related words "joined" may be a better translation.
The word for "Husband" Andri, can also just mean an adult male, no word for wife or bride is used.
Some things about the word order are not what I expected either. The Young's Literal Translation reads.
for I am zealous for you with zeal of God, for I did betroth you to one husband, a pure virgin, to present to Christ,Which is interesting, but I'm not sure how accurate it is either given the Greek word order. For one thing, it might be possible it's actually the Andri who's being called a pure virgin.
Basically, it could be this verse is really more about the Body of Christ Doctrine then the Bride of Christ.
No comments:
Post a Comment