One of the first positions generally taken by the ultra-dispensionalists is that it is unthinkable that the church should be the body of Christ, and yet at the same time be identified with the bride of the lamb. They insist that there is a mixing of figures here, which is utterly untenable. How could the church be both the bride and a part of the body of the bridegroom? Some even go farther and suggest that Christians who all down through the centuries have had no difficulty as to the two figures (recognizing the fact that they are figures, and therefore that there need be no confusion in thought when it comes to harmonizing both), are actually guilty of charging deity with spiritual polygamy. This is their own expression. They point out that in the Old Testament Israel is called the bride and the wife of Jehovah. “Then,” they exclaim, “how can the Lord have two wives without being guilty of the very thing that He Himself condemns in His creatures here on earth?”
In view of such faulty deductions, it will be necessary to examine with some care just how these figures are used. In the first place, we find God used a number of different figurative expressions in speaking of Israel. He declared Himself to be their Father, that is, the Father of the nation, and Israel is called His son. “I . . . called My son out of Egypt” (Hos. 11:11When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt. (Hosea 11:1)), and, “Let My son go, that he may serve Me” (Ex. 4:2323And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn. (Exodus 4:23)). In other places, similar expressions were used, and yet the prophets again and again spoke of Israel as the wife of Jehovah, and the later prophets depicted her as a divorced wife because of her unfaithfulness, some day to be received back again, when she has been purged from her sins. But it is important to see that a divorced wife can never again be a bride, even though she may be forgiven and restored to her wifely estate. What incongruity we have here if we are to interpret Scripture on the principle of the Bullingerites, for we cannot have a son who is also a wife.
We have Israel depicted as a vine. “Thou hast brought a vine out of Egypt” (Psa. 80:88Thou hast brought a vine out of Egypt: thou hast cast out the heathen, and planted it. (Psalm 80:8)), and, “Israel is an empty vine; he bringeth forth fruit himself” (Hos. 10:11Israel is an empty vine, he bringeth forth fruit unto himself: according to the multitude of his fruit he hath increased the altars; according to the goodness of his land they have made goodly images. (Hosea 10:1)). In many other places, the same figure is used. Elsewhere we have this favored nation spoken of as the priests of the Lord, occupying a special position throughout all the millennium, as though they were intermediaries between the Gentiles and Jehovah himself. Other similitudes are used, but these are enough to show that there is no attempt made in Scripture to harmonize every figure. Each one has been used as suited God’s purpose for the moment. So the nation which at one time is viewed as a son is seen on another occasion as a vine, elsewhere as a wife, and in other portions as a nation of priests.
This being so in connection with Israel, why need we be surprised if a similar diversity of terms is used in connection with the church? When our Lord first introduced the subject of the new order, he spoke of the church as a building: “Upon this rock I will build My church” (Matt. 16:1818And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Matthew 16:18)). The Apostle Paul viewed the church in the same way: “Ye are God’s building . . . . I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon” (1 Cor. 3:9-109For we are laborers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building. 10According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. (1 Corinthians 3:9‑10)). Consider Ephesians 2:19-2219Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; 21In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. (Ephesians 2:19‑22): “Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God: And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone: In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.”
In regard to this passage, note that if the Bullingerites were correct, we would have had here a building suspended in the air with a great gap between the foundation and the superstructure, for this building is said to rest on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. But according to the views of those we are discussing, we must separate in a definite way the New Testament apostles and prophets of the book of Acts from the Ephesian church, which is supposed to be a different company altogether. The incongruity of this becomes the more apparent as we see how we should have to do damage to the picture of the building as used here by the Apostle Paul. The fact is the church of Acts and that of the prison epistles is one and indivisible. In 1 Timothy 3:1515But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. (1 Timothy 3:15), Paul spoke of “the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” The Apostle Peter looked at the church in exactly the same way as a company of living stones built upon the living stone, our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2:55Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. (1 Peter 2:5)).
We have already seen that the figure of the body is used in a number of Paul’s writings, not only in the prison epistles, but in Romans and 1 Corinthians, to set forth the intimate relationship existing between Christ in glory and His people on earth. The figure of the house expresses stability, and tells us that the church is a dwelling place for God in this world, as the temple was of old. The body speaks of union with Christ, by the indwelling Spirit. But Paul saw no incongruity whatever in changing the figure from that of the body to the bride. In the fifth chapter of Ephesians he moved readily from one to the other, and no injustice whatever is done to either view. He showed us that a man’s wife is to be regarded as his own body. And in the latter part of that chapter, where he went back to the marriage relationship as originally established by God, he said: “Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. 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. Nevertheless, let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband” (Eph. 5:24-3324Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. 25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27That 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. 28So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 30For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 31For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband. (Ephesians 5:24‑33)).
The relationship of Adam and Eve at the beginning was intended by God to set forth the great mystery of Christ and the church. Writing to the Corinthians at an earlier date, Paul said, “I have espoused you as a chaste virgin unto Christ,” and Christian behavior is shown to spring from the responsibility connected with that espousal. The church is viewed as an affianced bride, not yet married, but called on to be faithful to her absent Lord until the day when she will be openly acknowledged by Him as His bride.
It is this glorious occasion that John brought before us in Revelation 19. He was not speaking of an earthly bride, but of a heavenly one. After the destruction of the false harlot, Babylon the Great, the marriage supper of the lamb is celebrated in the Father’s house, and all saints are called on to rejoice because the marriage of the lamb has come and His wife hath made herself ready. At the judgment seat of Christ, she receives from His hand the linen garments in which she is to be arrayed at the marriage feast. Notice that on this occasion we have not only the bride and the bridegroom, but we read, “Blessed are they that are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb.” These invited guests are distinguished from the bride herself. They are another group of redeemed sinners, namely Old Testament saints, and possibly some tribulation saints who have been martyred for Christ’s sake. These are the friends of the bridegroom who rejoice in His happiness when He takes His bride to Himself.
All down through the Christian centuries believers have reveled in the sweetness of the thought of the bridal relationship, setting forth, as no other figure does, the intensity of Christ’s love for His own. How truly we may sing:
“The bride eyes not her garment,
But her dear Bridegroom’s face;
I will not gaze on glory,
But on my King of grace;
Not at the crown He giveth,
But on His pierced hand;
The Lamb is all the glory
Of Immanuel’s land.”
How much we would lose if we lost this! And yet one is pained sometimes to realize how insensitive Christians, who ought to know better, can be as to its preciousness. I remember on one occasion hearing an advocate of the system we are reviewing exclaim, “I am not part of the bride; I am part of the bridegroom Himself. I belong to Christ’s body, and His body is far more precious to Him than His bride.” I replied, “You mean then that you think far more of your own body than you do of your wife!” He was rather taken aback, as he might well be.
But after all, if Israel is a divorced wife to be restored some day and the church is also a bride, is there not ground for what some have called spiritual polygamy? Certainly not. Similar figures may be used in each dispensation to illustrate spiritual realities. It is important to see that Israel is distinctively called the wife of Jehovah, whereas the church is the bride of the lamb. Israel’s nuptial relationship is with God Himself apart altogether from any question of incarnation. The church is the bride of the incarnate one who became the Lamb of God for our redemption. Who would want to lose the blessedness of this?
In the last chapter of the book of the Revelation, we have added confirmation as to the correctness of the position taken in this paper. In verse 16, our Lord Jesus declared Himself as the coming one, saying, “I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.” In the very next verse we are told, “And the Spirit and the bride say, Come.” Here we have the church’s response to our Lord’s declaration that He is the morning star. The morning star shines out before the rising of the sun. It is as the morning star Christ comes for His church. Unto Israel, He will arise as the sun of righteousness with healing in His wings. The moment the announcement is made, which indicates His near return, the Spirit who dwells in the church and the bride actuated by the Spirit, cry with eager longing, “Come,” for the word is addressed to Him. It would be foolish to try to bring Israel in here as though the earthly people were those responding to the Savior’s voice during this present age.
But so determined are these ultra-dispensationalists to take from the church everything that is found in the book of Revelation that they even insist that the letters addressed to the churches in chapters 2 and 3 are all for Israel too. Ignoring the fact that the Apostle John had labored for years in the Roman proconsular province of Asia, that he was thoroughly familiar with all these seven churches, they nevertheless even go so far as to deny that some of these churches had any existence in the first century of the Christian era, when John wrote the apocalypse, although Sir William Ramsay’s researches have proven the contrary. On the other hand, they declare that all of these churches are to rise up in the future after the body has been removed to heaven, and that then the seven letters will have their application, but they have no present bearing on the consciences of the saints.
I cannot conceive of anything more inaccurate than this. Here are churches actually raised up of God through the preaching of the gospel. Ephesus we know well. Laodicea is mentioned in the letter to the Colossians. The other churches we may be sure existed at the time and in exactly the state that John depicted. The risen Christ addressed these churches in the most solemn way, and seven times over called on all exercised souls to give heed to what He said to each one, crying, “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.” In these letters, we have depicted every possible condition in which the churches of God can be found from apostolic days to the end of the Christian era. More than that, we have in a mystic way the moral and spiritual principles of the entire course of church history portrayed.
All this should have immense weight with us as believers, and should speak loudly to our consciences. But Bullingerites misinterpret Scripture and dismiss them entirely for the present age, declaring that the seven churches have no message for us whatever, that they are all Jewish, and will only have their place in the great tribulation after the church is gone. Thus the people of God who accept this unscriptural system not only are robbed of the precious things in which these letters abound, but also their consciences become indifferent to the solemn admonitions found therein.
Surely this is a masterpiece of evil strategy, whereby under the plea of rightly dividing the word of truth, the Scriptures are so wrongly divided that they cease to have any message for God’s people today, and the word of the Lord is made of no effect by this unscriptural tradition. And yet the Lord in instructing John, said, “Write the things which are.” The present continuous tense is used here. It might be rendered, “The things which are now going on.” But the Bullingerite insists that these are the things which are not going on, neither will they have any place so long as the church of God is on earth. Others may accept this as deep teaching and advanced truth. I personally reject it as a perversion calculated to destroy the power of the Word of God over the souls of His people.