SEMESTER 1
316 – Metaphors Describing the Church (A Bride)
BIBLE INSTITUTE OF CORRESPONDENCE
COURSE: ECCLESIOLOGY I LESSON # 16
METAPHORS DESCRIBING THE CHURCH (THE BRIDE)
INTRODUCTION:
1. Read Jn. 3:29, Rev. 18:23
2. Read Mat. 9:15
3. Notice that no Scripture definitely refers to the church as the bride, or the bride as the church.
4. You would imagine, to hear some men that the parallel appears in every chapter.
5. It seems that most of this preaching puts more heat on the hearer than light on the subject.
6. I do feel, however, that some investigation of this infrequent and indirect metaphorical description of the Christ-Church relationship is warranted
i. Perhaps error and presumption demands more here than Scripture.
I. SOME CONCEPTS OF THE BRIDE, “THE CHURCH”
Let it be said that each of the following is considering the bride in a literal, not a symbolic sense.
1. The Catholic view is that only Catholicism constitutes the church and the bride.
2. The Darbey-Scofield-Interdenominational View: Note Scofield Bible page 922 – note 1.
i. That Israel was the adulterous wife (bride) of Jehovah.
ii. That all believers (their definition of “True Church”) make up the bride of Christ.
a) The problem here is: (a) An un-biblical definition and (b) Polygamy on God’s part, since Christ is Jehovah.
3. The traditional “Baptist Bride Position.”
i. Let it be said that there is much variation of opinion here and I could not represent any one position.
ii. Let it further be said that this position is frequently misrepresented by opponents, i.e., “only Baptists are saved.”
iii. The position, as I understand it, is that true Baptist churches will compositely make up the bride.
4. Problems I see in this view are as follow:
i. It seems to support a Catholicity among Baptist congregations, exactly like “Scofieldism” represents it among “local churches,” and the “true church.”
ii. It makes this positional relationship to Christ a matter of works.
iii. It makes this future position (in heaven) something we could have and later lose.
5. Problems I think all these views hold:
i. They all maintain the existence of some kind of “church” that is beyond the local congregation, either present or future.
ii. They thus smack of Catholicity, whatever it is called.
iii. They seem to be an attempted correction of the “one church” doctrine of Catholicism, rather than a rejection.
II. A BASIC DEPARTURE FROM THE METAPHORICAL PRINCIPLE
1. Let me say I do not claim to have all of this together, nor do I expect to satisfy everyone with my opinion.
2. You must search the Scriptures to see what you can learn on the subject.
3. You should not bow to any man’s, or group’s opinion in this, or any matter.
4. It seems to me that the problem arises out of giving a term that is to symbolize a spiritual relationship, a literal meaning.
5. If Scripture couples Christ with the church in a husband-wife relationship, it is found in Eph. 5:23-32
i. There can be no real question that this is a language of symbolism.
ii. I am persuaded, it is a present relationship in this passage.
III. THE BRIDE, A MULTIPLE ILLUSTRATION
1. It seems to me that there are three basic relationships in Scripture which God illustrates with the bride metaphor.
i. The relationship He had to Israel as a nation (all Old Testament references).
ii. The relationship Christ had and has to His church. (Jn. 3:29
a) I feel this is a relationship He had with His church while He was upon the earth and has with it today.
b) The relationship He will have with the redeemed of all nations when He comes into His glory. (Rev. 19:1-9
2. I close realizing that I may not have answered many questions for you. I still have some for myself.
3. I hope I may have provoked you to thought and emboldened you to uninhabited examination.
4. Finally, let me say the church-bride relationship of Scripture involves the relationship Christ has with true, scriptural churches today.