Paul's Passing Thoughts

Originally published November 17, 2014

A few weeks ago my family sat down together and watched Fiddler on the Roof.  It is a rather long movie for young children to sit through (there were several “potty breaks”), but the little ones enjoyed the songs, and the older ones gained an appreciation for the historical context.  One scene in particular depicts a traditional Jewish wedding.  Please take a moment and watch the brief clip below:

Traditionally, Jewish weddings were arranged between the fathers of the proposed couple.  Keep in mind, there are many details here that I am leaving out because I am trying to be brief.  After the parents have come to an agreement to the marriage, the couple is considered “espoused”.  This is a formal legal contract into which the couple has entered, and for all intents and purposes, the couple is considered “married” even though the marriage has not yet been consummated.  This espousal period can last for up to a year.  During this time, the man returns home to make preparations for his bride, and the bride-to-be prepares herself for becoming a wife.  Her fidelity to her bridegroom is on display during this period as well.

On the actual wedding day, the bridegroom leads a procession of his friends through the streets of the village to go and meet the bride. This usually occurs between sunset and midnight. There is much pomp and celebration that occurs along the way, and as the procession continues, people exit their homes, bringing a torch or lamp along with them to help light the way, and so the “wedding party” grows larger and larger as more and more “guests” join in celebration with the bridegroom. The bridegroom then receives his bride, and the two, along with the entire party of friends and guests return to the bridegroom’s house where the wedding ceremony occurs with a grand feast and celebration following.

One of the major tenets of Protestant/Reformed/Catholic orthodoxy is that the “church” is the “bride of Christ”.  This doctrine can be traced as far back as Augustine.  But while originally a Catholic doctrine, evangelicals and fundamentalists still cling to this teaching to this day.  You cannot go into any institutional church of any denomination where you won’t hear this taught or not find it in its “statement of faith”.  However, what they fail to conveniently mention is that the phrase “bride of Christ” is found nowhere in the Bible.  Let me repeat that – the phrase “bride of Christ” is found NOWHERE in the Bible!

This brings me to the point of this article: the doctrine of the “church” being the “bride of Christ” is a FALSE doctrine.  Why is that?  Because the Bible tells us who the Bride is specifically, and it is not the church!  A plain grammatical interpretation of Revelation 21 reveals exactly who the Bride is.

Revelation 21:2, 9-10

“And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband…And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, ‘Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb’s wife.’ And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God…”

Here in plain terms, the Bride is clearly and explicitly shown to be the New Jerusalem.   The angel says, “I will show you the Bride”, and he shows John, not a body of people, but the New Jerusalem.  The remaining verses of chapter 21 go on to give in great detail a description of what this city looks like.  Notice that nothing is said about the inhabitants of the city.  The focus of the chapter is the actual city itself.  Not only does the angel tell John that this city is the Bride, but in case there was any doubt, he reinforces that fact by stating plainly that this city is the “Lamb’s wife”.   So while the Bible never uses the expression, “bride of Christ”, it does use the terms “the Bride, the Lamb’s wife”.  But that title is clearly given to the New Jerusalem and not the “church”.

Moreover, even the nation of Israel is not referred to as the “bride”.  So if the “church” is not the “bride”, and Israel is not the “bride”, there where exactly does the church and Israel fit in to all of this?  Again, scripture tells us plainly.  Elements of the Jewish wedding tradition are clearly visualized when Jesus described the “Kingdom of Heaven” in the parable of the wedding feast (Matthew 22), and the parable of the ten virgins (Matthew 25).  Let’s begin with the parable of the wedding feast in Matthew 22.

Matthew 22:1-10

“And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said, ‘The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son, and sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come. Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage. But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise: and the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them. But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city. Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy. Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage. So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.’ ”

It should be fairly obvious that, as Jesus points out right at the beginning, this parable is used to describe a particular aspect of the Kingdom.  In this parable, He is using the metaphor of the traditional Jewish wedding, with the wedding feast being the focus.  Of course, this would have been a familiar metaphor to His audience since they were all Jews.

The theme of this parable revolves around two particular groups of people.  The first group is made of those who already had invitations to participate in the wedding feast.  These were the King’s special invited guests.  They received their invitations first.  One would think that since these people have been given such a special invitation from the King that they would not hesitate to respond.  But notice what happens.  On the day of the feast, none of them show up.  They reject the gracious invitation.  They view it with an attitude of indifference and make all kinds of excuses why they cannot attend.  Some even killed the servants who were sent to them to tell them that everything was ready for them to attend the feast.

This first group is a description of national Israel.  This is the very nation whose God was Jehovah, but who rejected every prophet that God sent unto them to bring them unto Himself.  Stephen accused them in Acts 7:52 when he said, “Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers?” accusing them of killing Jesus, their Messiah.  And for this God judged them with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.  And in His wrath, God will pour out His judgment upon national Israel during the period of the Great Tribulation.

But there is a second group mentioned in this parable.  Since the King made all these preparations, it was his desire to have the feast furnished with guests.  So he instructed his servants to go out and issue an invitation to anyone, as many as they could find.  This second group represents the nations of the world, or the Gentiles, those whom God would redeem by the blood of the Lamb out of “every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.” (Revelation 5:9, 14:6)  I think it is important to note that this second group would also include repentant individuals from the first group, or converted Jews.

Nevertheless, the point to take from all of this is that neither of the two groups in this parable are the bride.  They are guests, and this is important.  What we have is a body of individuals that make up the “church”, or using the correct Biblical term, the εκκλησια (“ekklaysia”), the “called out” (invited) assembly that makes up the Body of Christ.  In this parable they are not the bride, but they are clearly the guests at the wedding.

Take a look at the second parable in Matthew 25.

Matthew 25:1-13

“Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. And five of them were wise, and five were foolish. They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them: But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps. While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept. And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him. Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps. And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out. But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves. And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut. Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us. But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not. Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.”

Now the point to make here with this parable is not to determine who the foolish virgins represent and who the wise virgins represent.  The point is to show that all of these “virgins” represent those who would go out to join the procession of the wedding party as the bridegroom goes to meet his bride and return with her to his father’s house for the wedding feast.  Refer to the video clip at the beginning of this article and you will notice all of the people who accompany the groom on his way to pick up his bride.  As the procession goes through the streets of the village, more and more people come out of their houses carrying a candle or “lamp” and join the procession.  Notice that this happens at “midnight” or more literally, sunset, as portrayed in the video clip.  The young girls in the parable are not going to the wedding to marry the bridegroom.  The bridegroom already has a bride.  The young girls are simply guests at the wedding.

This is not the first instance that scripture posits this notion of wedding guests.  Matthew 9:15, Mark 2:19, and Luke 5:34 use the term “children of the bridechamber”, referring to Jesus’ disciples – those who were called by Christ to follow Him.  That would include not only the twelve, but all those who would be saved by faith in Christ, the “ekklaysia”.  In John 3:29, John the Baptist referred to himself and any others “which standeth and heareth Him as a “friend of the bridegroom”.

So in terms of the picture of a traditional Jewish wedding, all believers, members of the Body of Christ, are referred to as “guests” and “friends of the bridegroom”, but they are NOT the bride.  They go out joyfully with the Bridegroom as He goes to receive His Bride.  But clearly from a scriptural standpoint, the wedding guests cannot be the Bride.

Now there are questions that remain.  For example, how can Christ “marry” a city?  And if the “church” is not the Bride, then what about all those New Testament passages that seem to refer to the “church” in “spousal” terms?  These are all valid questions, and I will seek to address them in part 2.

Andy

I am presently working on a couple of series and one is about the two biblical realities of mankind; under law and under grace. In part one, I have begun to describe the reality of under grace that is defined by God’s love and worldview. “Grace” is a state of being that experiences life through the mind of God. One experiences grace to the degree that they are like God. “Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy” (1Pet 1:16 KJV).

I usually try to avoid being distracted by trending news, but once again we see the passive response of European leaders regarding the most recent terror attack in Manchester, England. In fact, European leaders are beginning to, in essence, say the following: get used to it; it is what it is…just part of life. German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently commented that Germany is becoming Muslim and the German people need to get over it and move on.

Wow! What in the world is going on? And what does this have to do with being “under law”?  Let’s also include the church’s penchant for a lax attitude towards justice. Doesn’t it seem strange that those under law would have an aversion to justice? This is an area that I am not going to address to any degree in the series so let me take opportunity here.

As we will examine in the series, those under law are under condemnation, and under the fear of judgement and death. People primarily fear death because of God’s judgement. Sin, death, law, and judgment are closely related in the Bible. For purposes of this post, we will note that condemnation is the water in which those under law swim. This includes condemnation from induvial conscience, others, and self. Most people commit suicide because they have condemned themselves; this would seem rather evident. ALL mental illnesses are associated with fear; that’s not my opinion, that’s what the experts say when you examine the listed symptoms of every mental illness.

In the Bible, justice is associated with life-value. Traditionally, a popular and ancient notion for those under law is the idea of the total inability of man. And, supposedly, the all-wise are those that know man is unable. Furthermore, some higher power appoints those who know that they don’t know to rule over those who think they know, viz, the great unwashed. This is the issue of individualism versus collectivism; this is the issue of statism.

Does the state exist to serve the individual’s pursuit of wellbeing and happiness, or does the individual exist to serve the state because man needs to be protected from himself? Mankind’s propensity to condemn others and self feeds the latter notion.

So now the question is begged; to what degree can terrorism hurt a state? This is a question of attrition versus cost to the state. How much does it hurt the state when its children are slaughtered versus the cost to prevent the slaughter? It depends on the numbers. And, what if Germany does become, to some great degree, Muslim? Will that effect the elitist ruling class? The answer for Germany is found in Merkel’s mentality…no. The ruling elitist class care little about the variety of people they rule over just so they are ruling over people in general.

At this point we can add a biblical nugget about the very essence of sin; it possesses an ardent desire to rule over others (Gen 4:7). Why? Because that’s what sin does. It can well be argued that total inability/total depravity is just a theological/metaphysical excuse to fulfill a lust to rule over others. The condemnation playbook executes this scheme: “Since you are totally depraved and unable, you need a ruling class to take care of you and think for you, and we need to be richly rewarded for saving mankind accordingly.” This has always played well with the masses in the condemnation realm albeit with ongoing disastrous results…for the individual. By the way, this is also an unfortunate working dynamic in marriages as well.

You can also see the church through the same prism. Individuals are expendable for the sake of the institution whether children or the elderly. Be sure of this; the church’s pseudo righteous indignation towards abortion is for purposes of benefiting the church institution in some way. If you think the church really cares about individual unborn babies you are egregiously naïve. Why does the church fight against abortion? Follow the money/power.

Per Plato, the real god of Western thought, “justice” is defined by societal unity around any given belief system propagated by the ruling state. This is why you hear so much ado about “unity” in the church and the bemoaning about our “divided nation.” Nevertheless, this is where America parted with history in its definition of justice; it protects the dignity and value of the individual. In this way, America was founded on Christ-like principles via the “one in 99.”

Matthew 18:12 – What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off? 13 And if he finds it, truly I tell you, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander off. 14 In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should perish (NIV).

Why is Europe and the church that came out of it so willing to lose a few children? Because they still have 99 to rule over and the cost of finding one is too high. This is a collectivist mentality that goes hand in hand with statism, and those under condemnation are all too often willing to accept it because of their supposed unworthiness.

“Since you are totally depraved, you need to humble yourself and let us rule over you for your own sake.”

paul

The Bible states that there are but two kinds of people in the world: lost and saved; or in other biblical words, under law and under grace.

“For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace” (Romans 6:14).

I have come to believe that most things that happen in the world flow from this reality; especially what people say and the ideas they propagate.

“Grace” is a word much tossed about without any real understanding of what it means. In Protestantism, “grace” is synonymous with “salvation.” Protestant scholars come unhinged when you launch this accusation, but their denial is disingenuous. Interpreting “grace” as salvation fits the Protestant false gospel of progressive justification.

For months, I have tried in vain to nail down a definition of “grace.” The word has many synonyms making a definitive definition impossible. It’s not like the word, “cat” that can replaced with “feline.” It’s not like the word “car” that can be replaced with “automobile.” It’s more like the word “world” which encompasses so many different meanings—such is the case with the word “grace.”

Grace is a state of being that perceives the world in the same way that God does. Grace thinks about the world with “the mind of Christ” (1Cor 2:16). The one word that best synonymizes grace is “love.” In almost every case biblically, the word “love” will fit contextually in a Bible sentence when used to replace “grace.”

“Under grace” is a reality that perceives life in a certain way; it is a state of being that is radically contrary to the former life of “under law.” Truly, “all things are new” (2Cor 5:17). Understanding this begins to open-up the Bible to clearer understanding; for example, those “under grace” are also “in Christ” (Col 1:27) and “Christ is in you” (Rom 8:10). You are one with Christ and His body. To be under grace is to also be under hope, and under peace, among many other adjectives.

“Under grace” has a defined hypostatic state of being with a defined normality or compos mentis. A right-headed Christian will be defined by, hope, peace, boldness, and confidence. This is what the born-again Christian is called to. Under grace may also be defined by its antithesis, “under law.” Under grace is everything under law isn’t and vice versa. The two are radically differentiated. Sanctification is defined by its apartness from “under law.” For those under grace, experiencing tenets of under law is the warning light on the dashboard. You are not properly putting off the old you and putting on the new in all areas of life (Eph 4:24).

Be sure of this: this is not a mere declaration; this is life itself, and life more abundantly as opposed to death. Under grace is life, and under law is death. This is perhaps the paramount demarcation between the two. Sanctification is defined by what has been left behind for that which is in front—the “high calling” (Phil 3:12-16).

Paul, in his treatise to the Ephesians, shared that he bowed his knees to the Father and prayed that we would understand this:

Ephesians 3:14 – For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, 15 from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, 16 that according to the riches of his glory he may grant you to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in your inner being, 17 so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith—that you, being rooted and grounded in love, 18 may have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, 19 and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.

20 Now to him who is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us, 21 to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen.

Notice the emphasis on love which best defines grace, but has a vast definition all its own (see 1Cor 13). Paul’s oft greeting, “grace to you,” is a wish for others that encompasses all of the aforementioned prayer.

Hence, in the same way you must understand the particular worldview of a psychiatrist (there are approx. 200 different schools of thought in psychology) to really understand what he or she is saying or attempting to relate, you must determine if the one you are listening to is under law or under grace or at least functioning and thinking like they are under law. Keep in mind that most Protestant scholars are at least functioning and thinking like they are under law. Before you protest that Protestantism is by “faith alone” and not law, please know what the biblical definition of “under law” is.

“Under law” is to be under condemnation (Rom 8:1), and under death (Rom 8:2). Also, among the other “under(s)” that define “under law,” the one under law is “under sin” (Rom 3:9). In part two, we will define “under law.” In the process, we will bring the meaning of grace into sharper focus as well.

paul