| |
THE
BRIDE OF CHRIST
Nowhere in the Bible is the bride specifically and
completely identified.
We find the term “saints” at Rev. 19:8 associated with THE BRIDE -
The righteous deeds of the saints is the clothing of the bride.
We see the New Jerusalem at Rev. 21 stated as being the bride.
”I will show you the bride . . . and he showed him the New Jerusalem.”
Paul gives us an analogy at Ephesians 5:22-23. It is possible that this
analogy can be used to show that the church is PART of the bride.
Paul makes the comparison of the church to a wife.
The comparisons should be clear enough for the objective mind.
Thus, at verse 23, the husband is the head of the wife as Christ
is head of the church (church corresponds with wife).
Verse 24 - church subject to Christ; wives subject to husbands
(church corresponds with wife).
Verse 25, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church (the whole church)
and gave himself for her (church corresponds with wife).
Verse 31, quotes Gen. 2:24 which indicates symbolism that corresponds with
Christ and the church.
Verse 32 - “this mystery is great.”
What mystery? The mystery of the man leaving parents and clinging to WIFE
and the two becoming ONE flesh.
“But I am speaking in reference to Christ and the church.”
That is, the church corresponds with the wife of Gen. 2:24.
And the “one flesh” corresponds with the church being the body of Christ.
Therefore, it can be suggested that the church AS the body of Christ
is also the bride.
However, this illustration should probably be viewed ONLY as something that
teaches FUNCTIONAL issues between Christ and the church body while here
on earth. It should not be used to PROVE that the church is the bride,
for according to the scenario at Revelation 19,
the “bride” is not yet a “wife."
More specific in identifying
the bride,
we have the image taught by Paul at 2 Corinthians 11:2.
“For I betrothed you to one
husband so that to Christ I might present you a pure virgin.”
Here, the church is actually portrayed as “engaged” to Christ through the fact
of its salvation relationship with God. That is, each individual makes a
personal choice to trust in Christ as Savior, and accordingly enters into an
“engaged” relationship with Him.
Paul’s intent is to communicate
truth to the believers so that they might purify their souls from false
doctrine and sin, and as a result produce a maximum amount of good works that
please God.
At the reward seat of Christ,
which will occur sometime before Armageddon, each believer will have his
“deeds” evaluated to see which ones are good and which ones are useless. 1
Corinthians 3:10-15. The useless deeds will be rejected (“burned up”) and the
good deeds will be rewarded. The result will be that only the good deeds
remain. And no matter what amount of good vs. useless has been produced in the
believer’s life, he will still be saved.
Accordingly, after the
evaluation is completed the ENTIRE body of Christ will be seen as RIGHTEOUS
and ready to be wedded to Christ.
At Revelation 19:7-8 the
church/bride is pictured as having “made herself ready.” This READINESS will
be accomplished through the evaluation of deeds at the reward seat of Christ.
The result will be that the church/bride will be clothed in white garments
“which are the righteous deeds of the saints.”
SEE TOPIC:
The Reward Seat of Christ
WHO IS INCLUDED IN THE BRIDE
According to Ephesians
2:11-22, the OT saints and NT saints have been joined into ONE BODY. For those
who recognize a dispensational distinction between the evangelistic function
of Old Testament believers and the church, there is no inconsistency.
Dispensations deal only with the function of the believer while living on the
earth. Dispensational distinctions do not continue into the after life.
The OT saints are currently in heaven, in the heavenly Jerusalem, described as
“the spirits of just men made complete.” Heb. 12:22-23.
The spirits of righteous men made complete. This refers to
Old Testament saints who were taken to heaven at the "first" ascension of
Jesus and were thus, "made complete" but not apart from that "completion"
being given to the church (Hebrews 11:40). Furthermore, it is
important to realize that the "condition" of these Old Testament saints in
heaven is not in resurrection body. The word "made complete" in this context
does not refer to resurrection but to the confirmation of the salvation
promised in the Old Testament. It was given to them by way of promise as they
experienced "comfort" in Paradise, awaiting the arrival and the work of the Messiah.
After His victory, these spirits were taken to heaven where their salvation
was confirmed (made complete) by their heavenly access to the Father
(Ephesians 2:18). No
one receives resurrection until Christ returns (1 Corinthians 15:23).
New Testament saints who die go there as
well. Phil. 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8.
SEE TOPIC:
The Saints in Heaven
Both Old Testament and New
Testament saints are resurrected at the rapture.
After Armageddon, the bride is described via her place of residence - the new
Jerusalem.
The church is described as those who have been betrothed to Christ at the
moment of salvation (2Cor. 11:2) and “enrolled in heaven” as “the church of
the firstborn.”
Their place of residence is also the heavenly Jerusalem (Hebrews 12:22-23).
Therefore, it is not strange for us to see this “church” along with the Old
Testament saints (the spirits of righteous men made complete), designated AS
the bride of the Lamb at Revelation 21:1-14.
The 12 gates (12 tribes of
Israel) represent Old Testament saints (Rev. 21:12) and the 12 foundation
stones (12 apostles) represent the New Testament saints (the church), Verse
21:14.
Both of these are part of the bride.
The city comes down - looking like a bride.
WHY? It is because the city HOUSES the bride.
Then at verse 9, "come, I will show you the bride . . .
Verse 10, and he showed me the New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven -
HAVING THE GLORY OF GOD.
It is probably best to view the resurrected Day-of-the-Lord martyrs of
Revelation 20:4 as part of the bride.
SEE COMMENTARY: Revelation 20:1-4
Since these believers share the "reigning" destiny of the bride, they should
be considered part of the bride. It seems that in Revelation 19:7-9, the
wedding has not yet occurred, but only that preparation has been made.
The wedding and wedding feast will occur at the start of the millennial
kingdom. After Armageddon, then, the saints of Revelation 20:4 will be
resurrected, have their works evaluated, and then be joined to the saints who
were resurrected at the rapture. The entire group will then be "wedded" to
Christ at the start of the kingdom.
I don’t think that ANY Millennial kingdom saints are part of the bride. This
group will have a different designation in eternity, which is not revealed in
Scripture.
THE JEWISH WEDDING CUSTOM
The pretibulational theory of
the rapture teaches that the customs of the Jewish wedding picture the rapture
of the church BEFORE the 7 years of the 70th week of Daniel.
However the PATTERN of a Jewish wedding does not illustrate the second coming
of Christ.
The picture of Christ and the church as a groom and a bride is
AN ILLUSTRATION that communicates a spiritually intimate relationship.
It is not designed to give us a detailed PATTERN of how the end times scenario
will take place. If one chooses to take the illustration as a detailed
pattern, then ALL the details should be included. When we look at the parables
where Jesus uses this illustration, it is apparent that only a specific
spiritual truth is being communicated rather than a pattern to be applied in
detail to His coming.
According to Ephesians 5:22-33, the church is ALREADY the wife of Jesus.
But of course, this TOO is simply an ILLUSTRATION to teach a spiritual
concept. And at 2 Corinthians 11:2, Paul says that he has “betrothed” us to
one HUSBAND (Christ) in order that we might be presented as PURE. Of course,
this too is talking about a SPIRITUAL issue, and the marriage relationship is
used ONLY as an illustration. Now we have Ephesians 5
and 2 Corinthians 11 - are we engaged or are we married?
Both are JUST ILLUSTRATIONS.
Where in the Bible can it be found that requires the marriage of the Lamb at
Revelation 19 to follow exactly ANY pattern of ANY marriage ceremony?
John 3:29? Purely an ILLUSTRATION that John uses to portray the IMPORTANCE of
Jesus vs. the relative unimportance of John. There is no intent to establish a
PATTERN that must be followed.
The parable at Matthew 22:1-14?
Parables have ONE MAIN point of focus and the
details are there simply to TELL A STORY, not to establish a pattern.
In this ILLUSTRATION, who are the wedding guests portraying?
The guests are portraying BELIEVERS - Christians. Those who God chooses to
temporarily replace
Israel
because Israel rejected Jesus as the Messiah. That is the main point of focus.
Verses 3-8 illustrate the Jewish age and the fact that the Nation of Israel
rejected Christ and failed as the evangelistic agent to take the gospel to the
world.
Verses 9-10 illustrate the ones chosen to REPLACE the old agent with a new
agent. That replacement is THE CHURCH - comprised of people from “the main
highways” - the rest of the world, thus Jew AND GENTILE.
Verse 11 - what is the significance of the man without wedding garments?
He is NOT A BELIEVER. He has not trusted in Christ.
That is the whole point of the passage. Those who reject Christ are replaced
by those who accept him.
By the way - NOW we have the church as a bride, an engaged woman AND a group
of wedding guests. All are simply illustrations.
Next we have the PARABLE at Mat. 25:1-13.
This is an illustration of PREPAREDNESS.
The one who is prepared will be taken (go into the feast) and the one who is
not prepared will not be taken (not go into the feast).
What is PREPARED? Verse 12, says “I do not KNOW YOU.” The issue is salvation
relationship with Jesus.
The purpose of the parable is NOT to establish some kind of pattern that will
be followed at the second coming, but rather to teach a spiritual principle.
Some will be saved when Jesus comes back and some will not.
Do we take these DETAILS of this parable LITERALLY? There is no good reason to
do so.
Having enough oil teaches - salvation.
Not having enough oil teaches - no salvation.
Do we think that there will be an announcement “here comes Jesus,” and that 5
of these “virgins” are going to run off to find some OIL? I don’t think so.
When Jesus comes back - you are either saved or unsaved; you will either go
into the feast or be rejected. And what’s this DETAIL about these 5 foolish
ones coming LATER? You are either going to go UP or be left behind.
Thus, Verse 13, therefore be on the alert! What does that mean?
It means to be prepared! How are you prepared? Make certain that you are
saved. This is exactly what was taught by Jesus in the previous chapter;
Matthew 24.
The same thing is taught by OTHER PARABLES. Are we going to take EACH ONE OF
these parables and apply the DETAILS to the second coming? I don’t think so. A
landlord, servants, head of a household. (Jesus comes and knocks on the door
to come in to his own house - Luke 12:36).
Luke 12:40
- YOU TOO BE READY! Make sure you are a believer.
Look for the MAIN spiritual principle (and sometimes a few minor ones) and
don’t get bogged down by the details.
Here’s a good ILLUSTRATION -
God in the Old Testament had TWO WIVES (Kingdom
of Judah
and Israel).
And he divorced them at two different times.
Where in Scripture does it tell us or EVEN HINT that the pattern of the Jewish
wedding process is the pattern that will be followed when Jesus returns?
Here is a good question. Where does it say that Jesus is EVEN coming for a
BRIDE when He returns?
The bride is mentioned at four
places in the book of the Revelation.
Rev. 19:7 “Let us rejoice and be glad and give the glory to Him, for the
marriage of the Lamb has come and His bride has made herself ready.”
Rev. 21:2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem,
coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her
husband.
Rev. 21:9 And 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 shall show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.”
Rev. 22:17 And 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.
Yes, the saints are PICTURED as a bride about to be wed to the groom. That
ILLUSTRATION begins RIGHT THERE in Revelation 19. It is perpetuated AFTER that
event. Of course the church IS OF THE BRIDE (or is that the WIFE?), but again,
there is no place that tells us the Jewish wedding process is the PATTERN for
when Jesus comes for the church.
The attempt to claim support for a pre-trib rapture through the bride of
Christ analogy totally breaks down.
ANSWER TO RENALD SHOWERS’ BOOK,
“Maranatha – Our Lord Come!”
(The following answer was
written by an unknown author replying to Renald Showers.)
Another passage that is used to
claim validity for this “bride” theory, and therefore the pre-trib rapture
theory is John 14:2-3.
"In my Father's house are many mansions. If it
were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I
go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself;
that where I am, there you may be also."
Scripture consistently refers
to the relationship between the Church and the Lord Jesus Christ as being like
a marriage covenant, with the Church as the Bride and Jesus as the
Bridegroom. Based on this comparison, Renald
Showers, the author of “Maranatha – Our Lord Come!” looks at the timing of the
rapture in comparison to the traditional Jewish
marriage ceremony. He contends that this would have been a familiar
analogy to His audience.
According to Dr. Showers, the traditional Jewish
wedding ceremony went like this: The bridegroom traveled to the home of
the prospective bride, where he negotiated her purchase price. Once the price
was paid, the two were considered to be husband and wife. As a symbol of their
new covenant relationship, the
bride and groom drank a cup of betrothal wine,
after which the groom returned to his father's house to prepare a place for
her. They remained separated for approximately 12 months. When the time came
to fetch his bride, the bridegroom returned, usually at night, accompanied by
male escorts in a torch-light procession. Because the bride did not know the
time of the groom's coming, his arrival was preceded by a shout, which gave
her time to prepare. Once the groom arrived, the bride and her attendants
returned with the procession to the groom's father's house, where the wedding
guests were assembled. The couple then consummated their marriage and the
wedding party spent the next seven days celebrating.
The analogy to the relationship between Christ and the Church is
lovely. Jesus, as the Bridegroom, pays the purchase price for His Bride with
His own blood. As the traditional Jewish bride was declared to be sanctified
(or set apart) after her betrothal, so, too, is the Church declared to be
sanctified until Christ's return. Like the betrothal wine, Jesus gave us the
communion cup. And just as the groom returned to his father's house to prepare
a place for his bride, so, too, Jesus went to heaven to prepare a place for
us. Now the Church, like the Jewish bride, awaits the shout. In like manner
that the groom took his wife to live with him in his father's house, so, too,
will Jesus take the Church to be with Him in His Father's house, where the
heavenly angels and the saints will attend the marriage supper in a
joyous celebration.
And here, in Dr. Showers' estimation, is the most critical aspect of the
argument: Just as the bride and groom came out of hiding after seven days, so
Christ and the Church will come out of hiding after the seven years of the
70th Week, when Jesus returns to earth with the Church at
Armageddon. The author asks, "Which rapture
view corresponds perfectly with this analogy? Only the pretrib view." In other
words, only the pretribulation rapture teaches that Christ will rapture His
Church to meet him in the air, where He will take her to heaven to live in His
Father's house during the seven years of the "Tribulation."
At the end of this time, Jesus will bring the Church with him to remain with
Him on the earth throughout the Millennium.
Dr. Showers writes: "In contrast with the other rapture views, the
pretribulation view corresponds fully with what has been observed in this
chapter concerning Jesus' promised John 14 coming. In light of this, His
promise in John 14:2-3 is a significant inference in favor of the
pretribulation rapture" (p. 172).
Interpreting Parables
Because Dr. Showers interprets this as a parable, the basic rules for
interpreting parables apply. According to The New
Unger's Bible Dictionary, there are four restraints upon the
interpretation of parables.
1. The analogies must be real, not arbitrary.
2. Parables are to be considered as parts of a whole and the
interpretation of one is not to override or encroach upon the lessons taught
by others.
3. The direct teaching of Christ presents the
standard to which all interpretations are to be measured.
4. The parable may not be made the first source of doctrine. Doctrines
otherwise and already grounded may be illustrated or further confirmed by
them, but it is not allowable to constitute doctrine first by their aid.
The author's constructed analogy breaks all four of these rules.
First, many of the analogies are arbitrary. The author turns some aspects of
this parable into a strict analogy, while rejecting others. Thus, when he
makes this statement, "In contrast with the other rapture views, the
pretribulation view corresponds fully with what has been observed in this
chapter concerning Jesus' promised John 14 coming," what he really means is
that the pretrib view is the only view that corresponds fully with his
analogy, and of that, only with the details that support his position.
In fact, no rapture view corresponds perfectly with this parable. That is not
the purpose of parables. If it were, Jesus would have negotiated with Satan
for the purchase price of His Bride (since prior to the marriage covenant,
man's father is Satan, not God), and there would be a period of waiting
between the shout and the arrival of Jesus, giving the Church time to prepare.
Furthermore, if the seven days of the wedding feast correspond with the seven
years of the "Tribulation," then the period of separation between Jesus and
the Church must also correspond to the 12 months of separation between the
Jewish bride and the groom, which would have required Jesus to return for His
Bride about the turn of the fourth century.
There are other comparisons that could be made, but this would descend into
the realm of the ridiculous. In fact, it is only one detail - the seven days
of celebration - that the author attempts to turn into an exact analogy with
the Second Coming. The other details are quite
fuzzy, and understandably so.
Second, the strictness of this analogy creates contradictions with other
parables that relate to the rapture if all are taken with equal strictness.
Take, for example, the parable of the bridegroom and the wise and foolish
virgins.
When the bridegroom comes, it is at the darkest hour, not before the darkest
hour as pretrib theology teaches. This parable also records a time period
between the shout of the bridegroom and His arrival, not the "twinkling of an
eye" as taught by scripture. It also records that when the foolish virgins
cried out to the bridegroom, the door was shut, yet we know that many will be
saved during the remainder of the 70th Week, including all of the remainder of
Israel.
It is clear that this parable, like all parables, was meant to
illustrate a point - preparedness - and if taken as a strict analogy in all
details, the doctrine can quickly become distorted. The third rule of
interpretation is that Christ is the standard by which all of our
interpretations are to be referenced. In this case, Jesus said only, "I go to
prepare a place for you." The detailed analogy between the traditional
Jewish marriage ceremony and the rapture, and all the implications that
follow, are drawn solely by the author. Further, the direct
teaching of Jesus, given to us in Matthew 24,
is that His return is not prior to the 70th Week, but after the sixth seal.
Instead of using Jesus' own words to interpret the parables, however, the
author uses the parable to interpret Jesus.
Thus, the author also breaks the fourth principle by making this parable a
source of doctrine.
When we look at scripture as a whole, we see that the analogy between the
rapture and the Jewish wedding ceremony is a beautiful one, but it was
designed to make a general point, not to be used as a point-for-point analogy.
In doing this, the author takes this comparison farther than it ought to be
taken.
----------------
DISCUSSION ABOUT THE BRIDE
The un-named person in this
discussion claims that the bride is taken OUT OF the body of Christ and is
comprised only of FAITHFUL believers and not all believers.
This person’s comments are
indicated by > . . . <.
My comments follow the various
entries.
>Using the "rule of first mention," and keeping in mind that the things
written in the Old Testament are types and examples for our learning,
(Rom.15:4, ICor.10:11)<
The “rule” of first mention is not a LAW. It is only a guideline for
interpretation. Every first mention does not automatically find a counterpart
in a 2nd mention, etc.
Everything in the Old T. is given for our instruction -
Rom. 15:4;
And examples - 1 Cor. 10:11.
BUT not everything is a “type” for something in the NT.
For something to be a type it needs to be identified as such. To take just
anything from the OT and make it a type is simply the arbitrary fantasy of an
over zealous imagination.
>we can see that the Bride is taken out of the Body.<
This is a good example of stating a supposition and reaching for straws to try
to prove it.
>Two examples from the Old Testament illustrate this truth:
>The first bride Eve was not the body of Adam,
>but was taken out of his body. Adam is a type of Christ.
>Eve is a type for the Bride.<
Adam is not a “type” of Christ. The Bible does not support that claim.
One needs to use the Bible to show HOW Adam is a type of Christ.
What did Adam do to qualify as a type for Christ.
No where does the Bible even hint that Eve is a type for the bride.
You can’t build doctrine on this kind of sloppy manipulation.
>In Genesis 24 we have the story of Abraham who sent his servant to take a
bride for his son, Isaac. Most people say this is a type for God the Father
sending the Holy Spirit into the world for calling out the Church.
However, this is not the true meaning of the story.
While the Gospel is to go into all the world, in this story Abraham told the
servant not to go to the Canaanites, but to go to his own people to take a
bride for his son.
The correct interpretation is this: Abraham, a type of the Father, sent the
servant, a type of the Holy Spirit, to his own people, a type of the
Church, to take a bride for his son Isaac, a type of Christ.
When the message of salvation goes forth, it goes to everyone;
but when God calls for his Bride, He calls not the world, but His own people,
or His family.<
Once again, this is building doctrine on an “imaginary” type.
The bible does not teach that this story is a type for anything.
The Bible does tell us that Isaac is a type - a type for resurrection
at Heb. 11: 19.
>Our Lord used the term "family" because of its meaning to us in our
physical life.
We are born the first time into a physical family. When we believe on the Lord
Jesus Christ, trusting Him who died in our place, we are born again, into the
family of God. The word "Bride" is used in a similar sense. We know what the
blessings of family life involve. We also know the bride and groom, while in
the family, share a closeness and an intimacy, which is not shared by the
other members of the family.<
This, of course, is a valid distinction but finds no scriptural support as
being what God has in mind by using “family” and “bride.”
Both family and bride relates to salvation.
Family emphasizes entrance into relationship with God through the new birth.
Bride emphasizes the place of believers “beside” Christ and reigning with Him
in the New Jerusalem, not only during the Mill. but for all eternity.
>With these thoughts in mind, we can see how the Lord calls those who are His
to come up closer. It is not to the world, but to His own that He says, "I
beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your
bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God which is your reasonable
service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the
renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good and acceptable and
perfect will of God" (Rom. 12:1-2).
Not many Christians heed this direct command. Many who are saved continue to
conform to this world and they never experience sweet communion and
fellowship with the Lord Jesus; and like Esau, forfeit spiritual rewards in
the future for gratification of the carnal nature in the present.
In writing to the carnal Corinthians Paul tells them they are espoused to one
husband, that is, they are promised in marriage or engaged.<
Yes, the betrothal occurs at the moment of salvation, when someone trusts in
Christ as savior. And the betrothal carries the same force as an actual
marriage. That is why in the case of Joseph who was betrothed to Mary, sought
to “put her away” (divorce) her privately - because breaking a betrothal had
the same restrictions and required the same procedures as breaking a marriage.
That is also why Paul makes the comparison of the church to a wife at Eph.
5:22-23, which this person denies as equating the church with the bride.
But the comparisons are clear enough for the objective mind.
Thus, at verse 23, the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is head of
the church (church corresponds with wife).
Verse 24, church subject to Christ; wives subject to husbands
(church corresponds with wife).
Verse 25, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church (the whole church)
and gave himself for her (church corresponds with wife).
Verse 31, quotes Gen. 2:24 which indicates symbolism that corresponds with
Christ and the church.
Verse 32 - “this mystery is great.”
What mystery? The mystery of the man leaving parents and clinging to WIFE and
the two becoming ONE flesh.
“But I am speaking in reference to Christ and the church.”
That is, the church corresponds with the wife of Gen. 2:24.
And the “one flesh” corresponds with the church being the body of Christ.
Therefore, it should be perfectly clear that the church AS the body of Christ
is also the bride. And there is no HINT anywhere in the bible that this is
otherwise.
And since via Eph. 2, the OT and the NT saints have been joined into one body,
Eph. 5:22-23 would apply to both.
>The word espoused is the same word used in Matthew 1:18,
>where Mary is espoused to Joseph.
Before they came together, he thought of putting her away since he thought she
had been unfaithful. Many believers today are unfaithful, and there is a sense
in which the Lord will "put them away."<
Nowhere in the bible does it teach that God will “put away” any who have
trusted in Him. Therefore, there is NO “sense” in which the Lord will “put
them away.”
This does not mean the loss of their salvation, but in Revelation 16:15, we
read, "Behold I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watches, and keeps his
garments lest he walk naked and they see his shame."
This refers not to His
righteousness with which He clothes us for our own salvation (Isaiah 61:10),
but to a garment of good works (deeds) which may be maintained with a
profitable result, or which may be lost to our shame and loss of rewards when
Jesus returns (see I John 2:28, Titus 3:8, and II John 1:8).
Revelation 19:7,
The bride has made herself ready by having all her works evaluated and
what was not “white” or acceptable to God as reflecting His righteousness was
rejected by God (burned up by His justice) 1 Cor. 3:10-15.
The judgment seat of Christ is where this takes place sometime after the
rapture and before Armageddon. Rom.
14:10; 2 Cor. 5:10.
The bride has all the unrighteous deeds purged out by the “fire” of God’s
justice so that all that remains is “the righteous deeds of the saints.”
Thus, she is prepared for the marriage.
There will indeed be individual rewards for consistency in faithfulness to God
while here on earth (Actually, 4 separate crowns) but such faithfulness or
lack of, has nothing to do with one’s STATUS in the bride.
>Many Christians do not work for Christ after they are saved and they are not
preparing themselves to meet the Bridegroom.<
See now how one can take that “present tense” of prepare and keep on using it
in error?
>These unprepared Christians will be "put away" as it were, into the darkness
oustide the wedding feast. Outer darkness is not representative of hell for
there are unprofitable servants there.<
This is good! It can’t be hell because there are “servants” there??
In the parable the servants don’t equal believers.
>It is the darkness outside the feast where the unfaithful will be; while
those who have been faithful, will be enjoying a communion not shared by all.<
Such conclusions reveal a failure to understand those parables that are now
listed.
Every detail of a parable does not correspond with spiritual truth.
A parable is an illustration from normal human life to teach ONE overall theme
>In Matthew 25:14-30, the Lord deals with His own servants and we find the
unprofitable servants cast into the darkness outside.<
This parable as well as the one at Matthew 22, deals with the faithlessness of
the nation of Israel who rejected Jesus as the Messiah.
The servants in Matthew 25:14-30 represent members of the nation of Israel.
The “race” = God’s chosen people; and the nation = God’s chosen vessel for
communicating spiritual truth to the world.
The talent = $1000 in silver content and refers to the “resources” God gave to
Israel which they were to pass on to others.
>We have a parallel passage in Matthew 22 where one without a wedding garment
is also cast into outer darkness.<
At Mat. 22:1-14, the subject is the failure of Israel and the fact that God
turns to the Gentiles to fulfill His plan on the earth.
Verses 3-8 represent the Jewish age, and how they continued to be unfaithful
to God.
The wedding feast represents “status” in the kingdom of God.
The slaves represent God’s messengers and prophets throughout the Old Test.
The mistreating and killing of the slaves represents the killing of the
prophets (Mat. 23:33-36)
because they reject the salvation provided by the messengers of God.
The king sending his armies represents the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
Verse 8 is the rejection of Israel: Mat. 21: 43;
23:37-38
Verses 9-10 represents God turning to the Gentiles to form a “nation producing
the fruit of the kingdom.”
Verse 11 - wedding clothes = salvation status through faith in Christ.
Also, the foolish virgins in Matthew 25, are shut outside
when the Bridegroom arrives.
The virgins represent people (focus on Gentiles)
The 5 wise = people who have trusted in Christ. Oil simply represents the
PRINCIPLE of being PREPARED.
The 5 foolish = those who have no relationship with God and are therefore
UNPREPARED.
Midnight = the Day of the Lord
return of Jesus (the rapture)
The 5 wise are accepted because they are saved.
The 5 foolish are rejected - and even though they get some oil later, it is
too late to go up. The oil represents being prepared. And even though oil is
obtained later, the FACT of the matter is that they were UNPREPARED at the
time the Lord came.
Notice verse 12, “but He answered them, I do not know you.”
This is a relationship (salvation) issue - not a production issue.
>All of these are references to Christians.<
No, they are not.
>As Christians, we will give an account of the deeds we have done (II
Corinthians 5:10).<
This is true.
>The unconcerned, unfaithful Christians will weep over their failures.<
The initial shame at His return - but he STILL is AT the judgment seat.
If he is AT the judgment seat - that means he was raptured.
>for it is only after the Millennium is over that God will wipe away all the
tears from their eyes (Rev. 21:4).<
This is wrong. The raptured church at Rev. 7:9-17 has every tear wiped away.
>To be part of the Bride of Christ is a great reward to those Christians who
have earned it. It is a figurative picture of those who have lived a clean,
pure and holy life yielded to Him. They "made themselves ready" to be His
Bride by their righteous deeds.<
The bible does not say that “being a part of the bride” is a reward for
faithfulness.
Every believer who has died is RIGHT NOW in the presence of God and the Bible
does NOT make any distinction between those who are there - but ALL are
designated as “those who have died through Jesus” and “the dead in Christ.” 1
Thes. 4:13-17.
Furthermore, they are all designated as being in the heavenly Jerusalem at
Heb. 12:22-24, along with angels, the Father, Old testament saints and Jesus.
>The Apostle Paul referred to this in Philippians 3:11. He certainly had no
fear of missing the resurrection, but he desired to be among those who are
called out for the prize of the high calling of God. Salvation is not a prize,
but a gift freely given to those who call upon Jesus Christ to be saved.<
Yes, Paul was aware of rewards for faithfulness. But nowhere does Paul equate
such rewards with being part of the bride.
>Paul knew we are saved by grace through faith and works did not play any
part. Yet he said he strives for the prize and was even concerned he might be
disqualified for the prize (I Corinth. 9:24-27).<
Yes, any believer can be “disqualified.” Literally - disapproved after
evaluation. That is, loss of reward due to lack of faithfulness. It is not
referring to loss of salvation.
>The Church is one Body, made up of all believers in Christ. It is made up of
two classes: the spiritual and the carnal (see I Corinthians 3). Those carnal
believers will be saved as through fire, but they will not be part of the
Bride.<
GEE, if the bible actually said that, wouldn’t it be much easier?
>Who then is the Bride? Those who are providing themselves with a wedding
garment & those who are preparing to meet the Bridegroom when He returns
very soon. All Christians will not qualify to be the Bride. WILL YOU?<
The bride is comprised of those who have been betrothed to Christ at the
moment of salvation and “enrolled in heaven” as “the church of the firstborn.”
Their place of residence is the heavenly Jerusalem (Heb. 12:22-23). Therefore, it is not strange for us
to see this “church” along with the Old Testament saints (the spirits of
righteous men made complete), designated AS the bride of the Lamb at Rev.
21:1-14.
The 12 gates (12 tribes of
Israel) represent Old Testament saints (Rev. 21:12) and the 12 foundation
stones (12 apostles) represent the New testament saints (the church), Verse
21:14.
Both of these are part of the bride.
And nowhere in scripture does it indicate or even suggest that anyone who has
trusted in Christ before the 1000 year reign of Jesus, is not part of this
bride.
>And just because the wedding doesn't occur until this point in the Trib
doesn't mean that the church hasn't been in heaven all this time either.<
The raptured church is in heaven FROM the time of the rapture - we are not
disputing that. The issue is WHEN does that rapture occur.
Nowhere does it say the church is Christ’s ARMY to fight at Armageddon.
The bride, who lives in the new Jerusalem descends to the earth where both the
marriage and the supper take place AFTER Messiah’s victory. Rev. 21:1-4.
>Rev 19:14
doesn't say this "Army" does the fighting. It is merely accompanying Christ.
He is the one who does all the fighting with the sword that comes out of his
mouth "The Word of God". That's all he needs.<<
The implication is that ARMIES fight.
Verse 19, IMPLIES that the army is there to fight, for the nations are
"assembled to make war against Him and against His army."
Now if you if you want to stray away from the CLEAR implication, nothing I can
do about it - but these are the reasons I think that the army is there to
FIGHT.
In fact, at verse 20, "the beast WAS SEIZED, etc - leaves lots of room for an
angel to do the seizing. Even in Rev. 20:1, it is an ANGEL who throws the
dragon into the abyss.
>As I already proved above the Marriage has already taken place.<
Not proof to me - nor to many many others.
>>What we have in Rev 21:2 is the New Jerusalem coming down from heaven
***AS*** a bride. THIS IS NOT THE BRIDE HERSELF.<<
I think then, that you are denying the clear intent of the language:
The city comes down - looking like a bride -
WHY? Because the city HOUSES the bride.
Then at verse 9, "come, I will show you the bride - - -
Verse 10 - and he showed me the New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven -
HAVING THE GLORY OF GOD.
Just for FOR EXAMPLE - instead of being so strongly in favor that the “armies
(plural) which are in heaven,” at Rev. 19:14 MUST refer to the church BECAUSE
they have white garments on, it should be considered that:
>1. It is not logical for the “bride” to ALSO be the armies.
>Quite the contray. Jesus said that we would be with him always. And being as
I have just shown that the marriage has already occurred it is most
appropriate for the Bride to accompany her husband wherever he goes from now
on. In fact this is what Thayer's indicates the wedding ceremony in Rev 19:7
means, " Under the figure of a marriage here is represented the intimate and
EVERLASTING union of Christ, at his return from heaven, with his church."<
Perhaps "always" does not mean every second and minute? JUST PERHAPS what is
in view is the PRINCIPLE of marriage that joins TWO as ONE, and their life is
now ONE and they share and share alike all sorrows, joys, ups and downs, etc.
BUT they are indeed separated for many hours at a time as the hubby goes out
to the fields, etc.
2. Nowhere is the church viewed as armies in heaven, but instead a very well
known title for the Lord Jesus in the Old Testament is Yahweh of HOSTS, which
means - Yahweh of the armies.
>Also the word "host" does not occur in Rev 19:14. The word in question is "Strateuma" #4753, or the soldiers that
make up an army. Paul says that Christians are to be soldiers (II Tim 2:3; 1
Pe 2:11). Ephesians 6:10-19 indicates how we are to be good soldiers and that
we are to put on our armour daily. Therefore I strongly disagree with you that
we are not the army that accompanies Jesus at his return.<<
I do not agree that the "principle" of SPIRITUAL warfare as it relates to the
church ON THE EARTH has any bearing on the armies of Rev. 19:14.
I don't think it is a valid comparison and would not use it myself as any kind
of proof.
Re: John 3:29-30
Let me suggest that John 3:29-30 has nothing to do with our "bride" subject or
of Christ as the OFFICIAL bridegroom.
John the Baptizer is using a common figure of speech to communicate HIS
ministry as compared to Christ's.
The FRIEND of the groom is JOHN.
The PROMOTION of the groom far exceeds the status of the friend.
The friend is equivalent to our "best man."
The friend rejoices in the PROMOTION (marriage) of the groom.
John rejoices at the promotion (public ministry of Jesus as the Messiah).
The friend stands for and announces the arrival of the groom and has "glory"
for that moment of time that all ears are attentive to him. But once the
ceremony begins, all eyes dart away from "John" and are exclusively attentive
to the groom.
The friend in the meantime takes a back seat - but not grudgingly. He REJOICES
at the marriage of his friend and wants only his happiness upon this occasion
(Thus, John proclaims, "and so this joy of mine has been fulfilled"). For all
intents and purposes, the friend of the groom leaves the scene and the ONLY
issue is the groom and his glory; his presence; his words. Thus, John
proclaims, "He must increase, but I must decrease."
|
|
