Open Forum Dec. 2022
Transcript Search
Notes
Transcript
Sermon Tone Analysis
A
D
F
J
S
Emotion
A
C
T
Language
O
C
E
A
E
Social
What scripture definitively supports the position that the Church will be the bride of Christ, rather than Israel being the bride?
What scripture definitively supports the position that the Church will be the bride of Christ, rather than Israel being the bride?
So, there are two, maybe three views of who Christ’s bride is. First, I do want you to note that there is no passage that actually uses the exact phrase, “The Bride of Christ.”
The exact phrase, “The Bride of Christ” is not found in the Bible.
Christ is called the “Bridegroom” in many places. When you have a bridegroom, you assume there is a bride as well and certainly the bride is talked about, but never given such a title. So, when we speak of the “Bride of Christ,” we are discussing a systematic theological interpretation.
As mentioned, there are two, possibly three views of who Christ’s bride is. Let me just say, although strangely no one emphasizes it, the book of Revelation seems to give a direct picture of the bride coming, that is at least worth a mention, although seemingly ignored as a stand-alone possibility. That is found in 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.
Scripture Supports the New Jerusalem, “…as a bride.”
Scripture Supports the New Jerusalem, “…as a bride.”
The New Jerusalem is described later in the same chapter in detail by its dimensions and composition as a place, a dwelling for God’s people (Rev. 21:10-27). Although the word Jerusalem certainly channels thoughts of Israel, it is clear that this city will be for all those that God has redeemed as His people, throughout the ages, as stated in the next 2 verses in the same chapter (Rev. 21:3-4). However, this passage is a direct reference to a place, a dwelling as the bride adorned for her husband.
Although this description is posed in the text as a form of the grammatical simile, “…as a bride adorned…,” it is too direct of an identification to be ignored as a consideration for this discussion. In fact, being found in the last 2 chapters of the Bible, as John describes the consummation of God’s eternal decree for all of creative history, it is puzzling why it is only used to support the argument for either of the other 2 views rather than a summary of or defining statement. It seems imperative that this passage be given a prominent consideration for understanding the identity of who is referenced as “the Bride.”
So, what about the other two considerations or entities that are called “the bride?”
“For your husband is your Maker, Whose name is the Lord of hosts; And your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel, Who is called the God of all the earth.
“You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, ‘I am not the Christ,’ but, ‘I have been sent before Him.’“He who has the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice. And so this joy of mine has been made full.
Although here, in the context of the rest of John chapter 3, the argument for a wider consideration of the constitution of the bride might be broader than just Israel, John’s attention would likely be focused on Israel as he says this, even though the intent of the Holy Spirit prompting him to write it might have broader implications (i.e., John 3:16).
Scripture supports the Nation of Israel as a “bride.”
Scripture supports the Nation of Israel as a “bride.”
It is important to note that in the Isaiah passage, the Person of the Godhead in focus is not that of the Son of God, the Messiah, but of the LORD of hosts, Jehovah — YHWH. In fact, this is reinforced by the plethora of verses all calling Jehovah as Israel’s Redeemer (like in Isa. 54:5 — i.e., Job 19:25, Psalms 19:14. ...Psalms 78:35. ...Proverbs 23:11. ...Isaiah 41:14. ...Isaiah 43:14. ...Isaiah 44:6. ...Isaiah 44:24; Isa. 60:16; Isa. 63:16.
Isa. 43:11 ““I, even I, am the Lord; And there is no savior besides Me.” is especially noteworthy of the mindset of the LORD of hosts as the Redeemer. So, when we relate Isa. 54:5 ““For your husband is your Maker, Whose name is the Lord of hosts; And your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel, Who is called the God of all the earth.” as an OT proof text for Israel to be identified as Christ’s bride, we are committing eisegesis instead of exegesis. One would be wrongfully reading Christ into the Isa. passage, when out of the passage, it is clear that it is the LORD of hosts that is pointed to as Israel’s “husband.”
In addition, the book of Hosea gives a clear picture of an unfaithful wife and the unconditional marriage covenant between she and her prophet husband. It is clear in this passage that the picture is that of the covenant relationship between God and His chosen people Israel. Jeremiah 2 and Ezekiel 16 also employ similar imagery of the covenant relationship between God and Israel using the symbol of husband and wife.
These verses are a good representation of the overall idea and reference in the OT of Israel as a bride, but instead of Messiah, they describe the “husband” as the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, YHWH (Jehovah). There are no clear-cut OT or NT passages that directly call Israel, Christ’s bride, with the exception of John’s writing in John 3, but this passage can include both John’s perspective (that of Israel), with the Holy Spirit’s perspective (that of all who come to Christ, John 3:16). One would think that, if this were a major consideration, there might be more clear references to it throughout the writings of Scripture.
Although the theology of this bridal concept is somewhat secondary (it is a peripheral teaching that seems to be that which paints a picture about relationship more than it does define the official identity of that relationship), there are a number of belief systems that do depend upon the interpretation of this theology and is; therefore, worth looking at. Without getting distracted by a discussion as to which ones, it may be time to consider what other NT passages refer to this husband-bride relationship and who the antecedents of that relationship are. Eph. 5:22-33 is one of the major passages that use such husband-wife descriptions; thereby, pointing us to the third consideration as to who the “bride” is.
Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord.For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her;that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she should be holy and blameless.So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself;for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church,because we are members of His body.For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh.This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.Nevertheless let each individual among you also love his own wife even as himself; and let the wife see to it that she respect her husband.
Especially when considering the emphasis of Eph. 5:32, the point of this passage is not human marriage between husband and wife (although extensive implications in context are there), but the point Paul states that he is making is rather to paint a picture between Christ and the church as an example to husbands towards wives. As with Israel and the LORD of hosts in the OT, now Christ is called the Savior of the body (here, the church, Eph. 5:23) and the husband-bride relationship is alluded to.
Scripture supports the Church as a “bride.”
Scripture supports the Church as a “bride.”
Matt. 9:15, “And Jesus said to them, “The attendants of the bridegroom cannot mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them, can they? But the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast.” such imagery is employed by Christ Himself. The question here is whether or not Christ’s comment can be confined to just the nation of Israel (Israel, since this is during His earthly ministry) or in a broader sense all those who put their faith in Him (the Church, since this speaks of after He is taken away and He makes it clear elsewhere that when He goes, God will send another Comforter, which is clearly the start of the church). At best, it seems that we cannot confine this statement to either, definitively.
Matt. 25 includes a number of parables that employ similar marriage speech. When the chapter is taken as a whole, it is difficult to limit it to Israel or the church, or in that context — even the full corpus of humanity as a whole.
Paul’s intent in some of his writing might seem a little more clear. When speaking of his desire for the church of Corinth, he makes this statement in 2 Cor. 11:2
For I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy; for I betrothed you to one husband, that to Christ I might present you as a pure virgin.
Here, Paul employs a direct reference to marriage language as a description of their relationship with Christ as a church.
If you remember, the marriage in NT times had 2 stages to it. First came the betrothal. That was the actual marriage, covenant, and commitment moment for a couple. However, at that point the husband would then go and prepare a home to which he would eventually retrieve and bring his wife back to. Additionally, the year wait was to verify that the bride was indeed a virgin at the moment of their marriage and not already expecting. Like in the narrative of Mary and Joseph.
Paul employed the imagery of the betrothal period for the church of Corinth having born out their unfaithfulness to Christ, having departed from the gospel and purity from sin. Instead, their “betrothal” period manifested their sin…they couldn’t hide it.
Again, here with Paul, it is not clear that Paul is saying the church is Christ’s “bride,” but rather that he is using something culturally understood to paint a picture of their relationship with Christ.
There seems to be three figures of speech employed for all 3 of these views (Israel, the Church, the New Jerusalem):
++Metaphor — A metaphor is a figure of speech that directly compares one thing to another for rhetorical effect.
++Simile — similes create a comparison using like and as, comparing one thing to another for rhetorical effect.
++Analogy — An analogy serves a similar purpose to simile and a metaphor—i.e. showing how two things are alike—but with the ultimate goal of making a point about this comparison.
Without a scholarly study of every occurrence of these marriage relationship figures of speech, it seems increasingly clear that the “bride” term does not seemed used as a technical term as much as it is an illustrative one.
It seems we may desperately be trying to make something out of that which was simply meant to use that which was familiar to us as that which paints a picture of God’s relationship with His people, OT…NT…Eternal state in the New Jerusalem.
That brings us to the “Marriage supper of the Lamb.” Rev. 19:7-10
“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.”And it was given to her to clothe herself in fine linen, bright and clean; for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints.And he *said to me, “Write, ‘Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.’” And he *said to me, “These are true words of God.”And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he *said to me, “Do not do that; I am a fellow servant of yours and your brethren who hold the testimony of Jesus; worship God. For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”
We know that this is the Lamb…specifically noted as the Messiah of the OT and the Christ of the NT. Here, the adornment is that of the “righteous acts of the saints.” This is not definitive as to the church, the OT saints, or all saints throughout all ages. Here, the marriage motif is employed. The Lamb has the betrothal covenant fulfilled in union with His adorned wife.
Now back to where we started in 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.
Here, the bride is made ready by God, which sounds a little like the groom is someone else. However, the rest of the passage reads clearly the new living/dwelling description of that of God with His people (the husband dwelling with His wife), Rev. 21:3-4
And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He shall dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself shall be among them,and He shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there shall no longer be any death; there shall no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.”
Here, it would seem the husband who is dwelling with His bride is God Himself.
Could it be that we are simply trying to over compartmentalize God and Christ, (at the risk of sounding Amillennial) Israel and the church (at least in the eternal state), and God’s dwelling with His people throughout the ages?
The original question is:
What scripture definitively supports the position that the Church will be the bride of Christ, rather than Israel being the bride?
What scripture definitively supports the position that the Church will be the bride of Christ, rather than Israel being the bride?
It is my assertion that both are referred to as brides…neither are directly called Christ’s bride…both the LORD of hosts and Christ are described as Grooms…Israel, the church, and the New Jerusalem are all described as brides…God will dwell forever with His people and they will forever be His according to His covenant relationship with them.
However, to answer the original question about the scripture that definitively supports the position of such a relationship with the church:
It does seem clear that the church’s relationship with Christ is clearly illustrated by the relationship of a husband and wife in Eph. 5:22-33 and 2 Cor. 11:2.
To the contrary, the only indirect reference that could potentially infer such a relationship between Christ and Israel is John 3:28-29. However, the OT clearly paints a picture of such a relationship between the LORD of hosts and Israel clearly (Isa. 54:5).
Anything more than this I will have to let rest with theologians more scholarly than myself.
What does Hebrews mean when it says those who are fallen away will be put to shame and that it will be impossible to renew them again to repentance in Hebrews 6:1-8?
What does Hebrews mean when it says those who are fallen away will be put to shame and that it will be impossible to renew them again to repentance in Hebrews 6:1-8?
Hebrews 6:1–8 (NASB)
Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God,
of instruction about washings, and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.
And this we shall do, if God permits.
For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit,
and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,
and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God, and put Him to open shame.
For ground that drinks the rain which often falls upon it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God;
but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned.
Hebrews ((2) Pressing on to Maturity (5:11–6:8))
The questions are:
++Who has been enlightened, tasted of the heavenly gift, and been partakers of the Holy Spirit; and what does that mean?
++What does it mean that they have fallen away and cannot be renewed again?
++What does it mean that they again crucify Christ?
“Hebrews 6:4–6 is considered by many to be the most difficult interpretative passage in all the book of Hebrews, and some would say in the entire New Testament. Because so much of the interpretation of the warning passages as well as the entire epistle hinges on this paragraph, considerable attention to its exegetical, historical and theological aspects is mandated.266 Most attempts at analyzing this passage fall into the trap of putting theology before exegesis. While it is impossible to come to this or any text with a hermeneutical tabula rasa, it is at least incumbent on each interpreter to suspend, as far as is possible, presuppositions concerning the various theological positions centered around this text. Since biblical theology must precede systematic theology, a thorough linguistic, exegetical, and historical examination of this passage is in order.267 Only then will we be in a position to theologize.” 1.
1. David L. Allen, Hebrews, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2010), 345.
The author repeatedly uses the term for impossibility in the book of Hebrews. It is worth noting how it was used.
In 6:18 of the impossibility for God to prove false;
++In 10:4 of the inability of the blood of animals to remove sin;
++In 11:6 of the impossibility of pleasing God without faith.
++In each case there is no provision for compromise. The statements are all absolutes. 2.
Donald Guthrie, Hebrews: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 15, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1983), 144.
First, who are these people?
First, who are these people?
We have little help in the original text. The terms being used have various meanings in their common usage in the Greek. Although the structure of the sentences here seem to lean towards certain definitions of these terms, the structure itself is not sufficient to come to a clear determination. The only things that we have left is the immediate context of the book of Hebrews itself and the greater context of other similar passages.
Heb. 1:1-4; Heb. 2:1-4; and Heb. 3:12 help with the who.
It seems that this book was written to Hebrews (Jews) who were following Jesus, some of which may have been believers and some of which were not. According the Heb. 3:12 “Take care, brethren, lest there should be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart, in falling away from the living God.” there were likely those who were following the church culture, but not true believers. Since this is written to Hebrews, it is important to note that “brethren” in these passages could mean Jewish brethren rather than true Christian brethren. In such a case, Heb. 3:12 gives a warning to the unbelieving much in the same way as the author does in Ch. 6…same sort of wording. This seems supported again by Heb. 4:1
Therefore, let us fear lest, while a promise remains of entering His rest, any one of you should seem to have come short of it.
Rest from what? From the practices and rituals of the Law as Jews.
The context supports that Hebrews is written to help groupings of Jews that may have left full-blown Judaism of the day and banded together under a new religious umbrella, but some of which in their ranks may not have fully surrendered their practices under the Law nor fully accepted Christ. That is the immediate context in Hebrews.
Although Heb. 6 seems to suggest a loss of salvation and position with Christ for believers, we know from the greater context of Scripture that that cannot be the case. The only other plausible explanation is that the author of Hebrews is still singling out and addressing those warned in Heb. 4:1.
Back to Heb. 6:1-2
Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God,
of instruction about washings, and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.
It would seem the maturity part would then indicate moving on to the maturation of faith for salvation, rather than the exercises that evidenced faith in the OT that are listed here.
Verse 3 then says that this “we” will do if God permits…that is, moves us to this saving faith that frees us from the things we once trusted to.
2. What does it mean that they have fallen away and cannot be renewed?
2. What does it mean that they have fallen away and cannot be renewed?
4 For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit,5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,6 and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God, and put Him to open shame.
Since this continues the discussion started, this is those who have joined the group, enjoyed the taste of true believers around them and partook of the blessings of that community, seeing the good and the power in it, but refuse to take that final step of faith and trust in the old things described in the 1st 2 verses. The weight of what they were putting their trust in was the very thing that Christ died for, so their actions and faith in rudimentary things rather than in Christ alone, continues to reflect that which put Christ on the cross in the first place.
Even in modern days, we have religions that call themselves Christians, but focus over and over again on the death of Christ. They leave Christ on the cross as a work that is not complete enough. They still depend on their own rudimentary works of righteousness for their salvation.
Hebrews here is saying that they have fallen away from the gospel that could save them. For those who cannot respond in faith, who cannot surrender their trust in the rudimentary things of vv. 1-2, there is no hope of repentance or renewal, since they trust more in what they themselves do rather than in what Christ did.
3. What does it mean to again Crucify Christ?
3. What does it mean to again Crucify Christ?
This question is already mostly answered. The very things that these non-believing, but proselyte Christians are putting their trust in was the very thing that Christ died for, so that He could offer the lifted burden of the Law that only had the power to condemn.
37 “For by your words you shall be justified, and by your words you shall be condemned.”
19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, that every mouth may be closed, and all the world may become accountable to God;20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.
3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,4 in order that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.
24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith.
This passage was written to those who would not be led to Christ, away from the burden of the Law. For them, it was impossible to renew them to repentance.
As far as re-crucifying Christ, vs. 6 parallels with 1 Cor. 11:27
Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.
These things are the very things that sent Christ to the cross in the first place.
So, Heb. 6:1-8 is speaking of Jewish proselytes to Christianity, that had a taste of Christ’s redemption through those to whom they joined in community with, but those who refused to take that step of faith and instead, sealed their destiny for eternity.
In closing, lets finish with Heb. 6:9
9 But, beloved, we are convinced of better things concerning you, and things that accompany salvation, though we are speaking in this way.