The Bride of Christ

I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hidden these things from the wise
and understanding and revealed them to babes; yea, Father, for such was thy gracious will

THE BRIDE OF CHRIST

Does Jesus, the Christ, have a bride?

By Edgar Jones

Introduction: The Evidence from the Churchmen

Many churchmen teach that the church is the bride of Christ. Here I select some statements from churches and their representatives to illustrate the fact.

We have this statement from the Southern Baptists:

Pillar #4. Serving My Church The church is the bride of Christ, comprised of all the redeemed who will, one day, be taken to heaven by Him.

We have this statement from the Presbyterian and Reformed:

I. The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all.

From the Epistle to the Ephesians:

Eph.5 [21] Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ. [22] Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. [23] For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. [24] As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands. [25] Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, [26] that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, [27] that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. [28] Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. [29] For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church, [30] because we are members of his body. [31] "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." [32] This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church;
2Cor.11[2] I feel a divine jealousy for you, for I betrothed you to Christ to present you as a pure bride to her one husband.

And also from the Book of Revelations

Rev.19 [6] Then I heard what seemed to be the voice of a great multitude, like the sound of many waters and like the sound of mighty thunder peals, crying, "Hallelujah! For the Lord our God the Almighty reigns. [7] Let us rejoice and exult and give him the glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his Bride has made herself ready; [8] it was granted her to be clothed with fine linen, bright and pure" -- for the fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints. [9] And the angel said to me, "Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb." And he said to me, "These are true words of God."
Rev. 21[9] Then came one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues, and spoke to me, saying, "Come, I will show you the Bride, the wife of the Lamb."
[10] And in the Spirit he carried me away to a great, high mountain, and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God,

If the question is, "Do some New Testament writers teach that the church is the bride of Christ, and Christ is the bridegroom?" we would necessarily answer in the affirmative. One can also find support for this doctrine in many Old Testament texts.

If the question is, "Does the Christian Church identify itself as the bride of Christ, and that Christ is the bridegroom?" we would also answer in the affirmative. This is one of the least controversial doctrines in Christendom. The churchmen do dispute as to the identification of the Church but, once that is established, there is broad agreement that it is the bride of Christ.

But, if the question is, "Does Jesus teach that the church is his bride and that he is the bridegroom?" the only correct answer must be in the negative. I could sustain this statement in two ways. First, I show that what men, in Christendom, call "the church" is not to be identified with the disciples of Jesus or with any group related to him. Second, I show that Jesus does not identify himself as a bridegroom. I have discussed the concept of the church elsewhere on this site, so here we will focus only on the second, and the question becomes,

"Does Jesus identify himself as a bridegroom?" The correct answer is, "No."

The Evidence from the Logos

Do you dispute this negative answer? Do you immediately think of utterances of the Lord from the gospels that you interpret to mean that He is a bridegroom? We will examine these below and explain how you are mistaken. The perceptual problem is that, when you seek to listen to the Lord, you (as a Christian) hear him through a filter, which is the doctrine of Paul and of Christendom in general. To perceive the Truth in anything the Lord says, one must eliminate this filter and go directly to Jesus for the Word of Truth. Then you will find that he intended the respective utterances to be metaphors only, and not identifications. Stated in other words, Jesus' utterances sometimes compare him with a bridegroom, but they do not identify him as such. There is a vast difference which I hope you will be able to understand so as to perceive and receive the Truth. The quotations above serve to illustrate what I mean when I speak of the identification of Jesus as a bridegroom. The quotations from the Lord below should serve to illustrate what I mean when I speak of the comparison of Jesus with a bridegroom. Finally, I will show, from other utterances, that Jesus does not allow for this identification.

I. Jesus and John the Baptist

(The Synoptic references are in parallel columns for ease of comparison)

John.3
[25] Now a discussion arose between John's disciples and a Jew over purifying.
[26] And they came to John, and said to him, "Rabbi, he who was with you beyond the Jordan, to whom you bore witness, here he is, baptizing, and all are going to him."
[27] John answered, "No one can receive anything except what is given him from heaven.
[28] You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but I have been sent before him.
[29] He who has the bride is the bridegroom; the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom's voice; therefore this joy of mine is now full.

Matt.9

[14] Then the disciples of John came to him, saying, "Why do we and the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?"

[15] And Jesus said to them, Can the wedding guests mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them?

The days will come, when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast.
[16] And no one puts a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch tears away from the garment, and a worse tear is made.

[17] Neither is new wine put into old wineskins; if it is, the skins burst, and the wine is spilled, and the skins are destroyed;

but new wine is put into fresh wineskins, and so both are preserved.

Mark.2

[18] Now John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting; and people came and said to him, "Why do John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?"
[19] And Jesus said to them, Can the wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast.
[20] The days will come, when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in that day.
[21] No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; if he does, the patch tears away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear is made.

[22] And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; if he does, the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost, and so are the skins;

but new wine is for fresh skins.

Luke.5

[33] And they said to him, "The disciples of John fast often and offer prayers, and so do the disciples of the Pharisees, but yours eat and drink."

[34] And Jesus said to them, Can you make wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them?

[35] The days will come, when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in those days.
[36] He told them a parable also: "No one tears a piece from a new garment and puts it upon an old garment; if he does, he will tear the new, and the piece from the new will not match the old.
[37] And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; if he does, the new wine will burst the skins and it will be spilled, and the skins will be destroyed.
[38] But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins.

[39] And no one after drinking old wine desires new; for he says, `The old is good.'

Even John does not identify Jesus as a bridegroom. In speaking of joy and rejoicing at the bridegroom's voice, he is thinking of the references in the prophet, Jeremiah, that use this expression, the voice of the bridegroom to emphasize the terrible judgment that is to come on Israel, and also to emphasize the resumption of joy as when the bridegroom's voice is heard yet again in the land.

Jer.7
[34] And I will make to cease from the cities of Judah and from the streets of Jerusalem the voice of mirth and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride; for the land shall become a waste.
Jer.33
[10] "Thus says the LORD: In this place of which you say, `It is a waste without man or beast,' in the cities of Judah and the streets of Jerusalem that are desolate, without man or inhabitant or beast, there shall be heard again
[11] the voice of mirth and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, the voices of those who sing, as they bring thank offerings to the house of the LORD: `Give thanks to the LORD of hosts, for the LORD is good, for his steadfast love endures for ever!' For I will restore the fortunes of the land as at first, says the LORD.

John builds on these prophecies that are tied securely to the expression of mirth and gladness, and to his own joy which, as he says, is now full. Within this metaphor, John goes even further and compares himself with the best man, or friend of the bridegroom. No one rejoices more at the voice of the bridegroom than does John, who is the first to recognize the voice and relate it to Jeremiah's prophecy that the voice of the Bridegroom and the voice of the bride is again heard in the land!

There is a special reason why Jeremiah uses the bridegrooms (and the brides) voices in his prophecy. The event of a wedding with all of its attendant festivities was the focus of such great joy, mirth and gladness as to be representative of all rejoicing in the land of Israel. Compared with life in developed countries today, life in those days was tough and somber and devoid of many causes for joy, mirth and gladness. One event where these things were in evidence in a community was the wedding! It was a time of great joy, mirth and gladness such as no other event in the culture of the times. Apart from this, joy is gone -- and no more is heard the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride. The streets of Jerusalem
were made desolate by the judgment of the Lord that ended Zedekiah's reign, but now John sees, or thinks he sees, its desolation as past with the arrival of Jesus. The comparison is: as the community rejoices with mirth and gladness at a wedding, so now let it rejoice at the new age that is coming upon it with the arrival of Jesus the Christ.

Now, Jesus knows that John has explained the coming reign of the messiah in these terms of joy, mirth, and gladness, using the rejoicing of the bridegroom and the bride as a metaphor. Therefore he knows that John's disciples will understand when he says to them:

Can the wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast.
[20] The days will come, when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in that day.

He surely compares himself to a bridegroom and his disciples to wedding guests. He does not identify himself as such, but uses this language in speaking to John's disciples only because John has used it. Observe also this important feature of this utterance: Jesus compares his disciples to wedding guests, not to the bride.

II. The Wedding at Cana

Life in First Century Palestine remained bleak, as it had been according to Jeremiah's prophesy of the judgment of God. Perhaps a wedding and the birth of a child were the prime occasions for joy and people took full advantage of them. We have a window opened for us when we view this event in this way, at the wedding where Jesus turned the water into wine. It would have been a terrible embarrassment for the bridegroom to run out of wine, and he was surely grateful to Jesus. His steward came to the bridegroom (not Jesus) later with this observation:

John.2
[9] When the steward of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the steward of the feast called the bridegroom
[10] and said to him, "Every man serves the good wine first; and when men have drunk freely, then the poor wine; but you have kept the good wine until now.

That gives us insight as to the nature of the occasion. They were really drinking it up, in mirth and gladness. Jesus would not deny them that, who seldom had such joy. It is because the wedding with its marriage feast was so festive an occasion that Jesus chose to use it as a metaphor for the kingdom of God.

III. The Parable of the Marriage Feast

Matt.22
[1] And again Jesus spoke to them in parables, saying,
[2] The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a marriage feast for his son,
[3] and sent his servants to call those who were invited to the marriage feast; but they would not come.
[4] Again he sent other servants, saying, `Tell those who are invited, Behold, I have made ready my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves are killed, and everything is ready; come to the marriage feast.'
[5] But they made light of it and went off, one to his farm, another to his business,
[6] while the rest seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them.
[7] The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.
[8] Then he said to his servants, `The wedding is ready, but those invited were not worthy.
[9] Go therefore to the thoroughfares, and invite to the marriage feast as many as you find.'

Does this identify Jesus as a bridegroom? The church as his bride? The thought is ridiculous! This parable compares the invitation that Jesus is issuing to the Jews to enter the kingdom of God with the invitation to a wedding feast. He foresees that they will not respond, and so the invitation will extend to the Gentiles -- to the thoroughfares. Then the king will send his troops (Romans) and burn their city (Jerusalem). It is a pretty stiff penalty, even for the insult of refusing a wedding invitation! This parable is both a warning to the Jews and a promise to the Gentiles -- but it does not identify Jesus as a bridegroom or the church as a bride. The marriage feast was selected because of its prominence in the society as a source of joy and mirth and also because refusing a wedding invitation was the maximum insult to the bridegroom and his family. The refusal of Israel to hear was just that sort of insult to the Father, hence the marriage feast comparison.

That the marriage feast comparison is not central to the lesson is established by Luke's additional parable, which does not at all speak of a marriage feast but of a man who once gave a banquet and invited many (Luke 14:16-24).

IV. The Parable of the Ten Maidens

Unique to Matthew, it reads as follows:

Matt.25
[1] Then the kingdom of heaven shall be compared to ten maidens who took their lamps and went to meet the bridegroom.
[2] Five of them were foolish, and five were wise.
[3] For when the foolish took their lamps, they took no oil with them;
[4] but the wise took flasks of oil with their lamps.
[5] As the bridegroom was delayed, they all slumbered and slept.
[6] But at midnight there was a cry, `Behold, the bridegroom! Come out to meet him.'
[7] Then all those maidens rose and trimmed their lamps.
[8] And the foolish said to the wise, `Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.'
[9] But the wise replied, `Perhaps there will not be enough for us and for you; go rather to the dealers and buy for yourselves.'
[10] And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the marriage feast; and the door was shut.
[11] Afterward the other maidens came also, saying, `Lord, lord, open to us.'
[12] But he replied, `Truly, I say to you, I do not know you.'
[13] Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour.

Precisely as with the preceding Parable of the Marriage Feast, this parable makes a comparison of events surrounding a marriage feast with the Kingdom of God, and for the same reason -- the marriage feast and its related festive events were very familiar to all and were among the most positive images in the minds of those who first heard Jesus. In this case, the lesson is that we must always be prepared for the Lord's return. Jesus does not identify himself with the bridegroom. He does compare himself with such. Luke has the same teaching in similar terms:

Luke.12
[35] Let your loins be girded and your lamps burning,
[36] and be like men who are waiting for their master to come home from the marriage feast, so that they may open to him at once when he comes and knocks.
[37] Blessed are those servants whom the master finds awake when he comes; truly, I say to you, he will gird himself and have them sit at table, and he will come and serve them.
[38] If he comes in the second watch, or in the third, and finds them so, blessed are those servants!
[39] But know this, that if the householder had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have left his house to be broken into.
[40] You also must be ready; for the Son of man is coming at an unexpected hour.

The parable is different, but the message is the same: You also must be ready; for the Son of man is coming at an unexpected hour. Does he say, "for the bridegroom is coming at an unexpected hour? No, for he does not identify himself as the bridegroom.

There is another aspect to this parable that confirms this interpretation. The false doctrine of Christ as a Bridegroom includes a complete picture, in which the Bridegroom gathers the Bride (the church) for admission to the marriage feast. But in this parable, the servants are waiting -- not for a bridegroom to admit them to the marriage feast -- but for a master to come home from the marriage feast! It is a vital point easily overlooked by those whose prime influence is Paul and the Christians. Yes, and the master will be so pleased with their diligence and wakefulness that he will, indeed, invite them in to the house and serve them up a feast as a reward for their long night of vigilance without refreshment. Observe carefully that this is not a marriage feast!

Have you also observed that, in this case, the one returning from the marriage feast is not the bridegroom? We are left to conclude that he was only a guest at the marriage feast. Why, then, even mention a marriage feast? Simply because it was an event with which all were familiar and could identify. Those celebrations sometimes lasted a whole week, which means that the poor waiting servants were some hungry!

When we confine our study to the Logos, we find it always to be the same. He does compare himself to a bridegroom; he does not identify himself as such. He makes this comparison because it was so familiar and blessed an event in Israel, which all could understand. None of his disciples, hearing his voice for as much as three years, had any reason to identify him as a bridegroom and the fellowship of disciples as the bride -- and they did not.

V. Why it is Not Possible that Jesus is the Bridegroom.

It is not possible that Jesus considers himself a bridegroom with the "church" as his bride because other teachings absolutely eliminate such a thought. We could cite numerous utterances but for our purpose here only one is necessary, which makes the point when evaluated in the light of the Levitical law. If the disciples, considered as "the church," are not the bride of Jesus the Christ, what are they? Surely there is a close relationship between them?

Matt.12
[50] For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother, and sister, and mother.

This utterance clearly defines the relationship between Jesus and his disciples who, like him, are children of God the Father in Heaven. He also identifies them as his mother. Now, can Jesus marry his Mother?

Lev.20
[11] The man who lies with his father's wife has uncovered his father's nakedness; both of them shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.

Deut.27
[20] Cursed be he who lies with his father's wife, because he has uncovered her who is his father's.

Now, can Jesus marry his sister?

Deut.27
[22] `Cursed be he who lies with his sister, whether the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother.'

Now, is he able to marry his brother?

Lev. 20
[13] If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an

abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.

Jesus does not always abide by the Levitical Code, and when he did not do so, his enemies called him to task. Had he been teaching that he was the husband, the bridegroom, of his mother, brothers and sisters, they would surely have raised their voices, for these were capital violations. They never did. Therefore, it is not possible that Jesus teaches that he is the bridegroom and the community of his disciples -- his brothers, sisters, and mother -- who do the will of the Father, is the bride.

VI. The Source

It is not possible that the early disciples could have identified Jesus as the bridegroom based on the Logos. It is not possible that the modern churchmen make that identification based on the Logos.

Whence, then, does it come?

We will begin with the immediate sources and thence back to the origin of this error. The immediate sources are two -- Paul and the Book of Revelation. We will point, again, to two texts from Paul, and I think there will be little objection to either:

[21]Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ.

[22]Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord.

[23]For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.
[24]As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands.
[25]Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,
[26]that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,
[27] that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.
[28] Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
[29] For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church,
[30] because we are members of his body.
[31]"For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."
[32] This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church;

This point by point comparison of the relationship of Christ and the church with husband and wife demands an identification of Christ as the bridegroom, the church as the bride, and Paul does not fail to make it clear:

2Cor.11

[2] I feel a divine jealousy for you, for I betrothed you to Christ to present you as a pure bride to her one husband.

Probably the most egregious expression of this false doctrine comes from Revelation. There, it is so profuse and so explicit that anyone who honors that document as the Word of God has no choice but to believe that Jesus is the Bridegroom and the "church" is his bride. I will not copy it all here, just a few lines from the text that will surely be sufficient to establish the point, which is that the author of this document definitely identifies the Christ as a bridegroom and the "church" as his bride.

Rev.19
[7] Let us rejoice and exult and give him the glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come,and his Bride has made herself ready;
Rev.21
[9] Then came one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues, and spoke to me, saying, "Come, I will show you the Bride, the wife of the Lamb."

Such lines as these (and notice the equally egregious identification of the Christ as the Lamb) combined with Paul and the common misunderstanding of Jesus' relevant parables leaves no question as to the immediate source of this error. But where did they get it? What was the source of this error of Paul and the Seer of Revelation?

The Seer went back to the Old Testament prophets. In Rev. 18 we read this, a portion of which refers back directly from Jeremiah 25:10. Refer to the highlighted text below and compare it with Jeremiah.

Rev.18
[21] Then a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone and threw it into the sea, saying, "So shall Babylon the great city be thrown down with violence,
and shall be found no more;
[22] and the sound of harpers and minstrels, of flute players and
trumpeters,
shall be heard in thee no more;
and a craftsman of any craft
shall be found in thee no more;
and the sound of the millstone
shall be heard in thee no more;
[23] and the light of a lamp
shall shine in thee no more;
and the voice of bridegroom and bride
shall be heard in thee no more;
for thy merchants were the great men of the earth,
and all nations were deceived by thy sorcery.

Jer.25

[10] Moreover, I will banish from them the voice of mirth and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, the grinding of the millstones and the light of the lamp.

Paul and the Seer of Revelation had no difficulty finding this imagery in the prophets, according to which God seeks to betroth Israel to himself. The early Christians had only to transpose the imagery such that the Christ becomes the bridegroom and the "church" becomes the bride (described by the Seer as the New Jerusalem). Hosea loved to use this imagery in his prophecy. The entire book is built around the metaphor, the following words being representative, in which God the Lord is the husband, or bridegroom, and Israel is the betrothed bride:

Hos.2
[16] "And in that day, says the LORD, you will call me, `My husband,' and no longer will you call me, `My Ba'al.'
[17] For I will remove the names of the Ba'als from her mouth, and they shall be mentioned by name no more.
[18] And I will make for you a covenant on that day with the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, and the creeping things of the ground; and I will abolish the bow, the sword, and war from the land; and I will make you lie down in safety.
[19] And I will betroth you to me for ever; I will betroth you to me in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love, and in mercy.
[20] I will betroth you to me in faithfulness; and you shall know the LORD.

Old Testament imagery strongly tended to picture the Lord as a husband, or groom and Israel as the wife, or betrothed one. We saw above that Jeremiah was a source of the imagery of John the Baptist, and so he derived his inspiration from the Old Testament just as did Paul and the Seer.

VII. The Coup de Grâce

Perhaps you did not notice, but when I copied the parallel readings of Jesus' response to the disciples of John above, I included the words immediately following the bridegroom/bride metaphor that speak of sewing unshrunk cloth on an old garment, or of putting new wine in old wineskins. Now we are in a position to explain the meaning of this metaphor that Jesus added to the bridegroom/bride metaphor. We will also understand why he issued this utterance at this particular point, for it has no obvious relevance to bride or bridegroom.

Jesus is correcting John's error in using this metaphor in that way. The Old Testament -- the prophets -- are the old garment; the Logos, in the New Testament, is the new cloth. The Old Testament is the old wineskin; the new wine is the Logos. If you can hear him, what our Lord is saying to us is that the Old Testament conception, according to which the Lord is wed to Israel as a bridegroom to a bride -- that is the old garment and the old wineskin. If one applies the Logos according to this particular Old Testament imagery, one destroys them both.

That is precisely what Paul, the Seer of Revelation and the Christians have done, and the result is precisely as Jesus explained. The old garment is torn thereby, and the old wineskin has burst, and the new wine has no suitable vessel and is pouring out onto the ground.

VIII. Eureka!

I have just had a eureka moment. Are you able to follow this to its logical conclusion and thereby have your eureka moment? The old wineskin represents the relationship of the Lord and his people as that of bridegroom and bride. But the new wine, how does it depict this relationship?

The new wine says this:

Matt.23
[9] And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.

By means of such words as this, Jesus has revealed that God in heaven wants only one thing of humans, which is that they love him and return to him as his dear children who honor Him exclusively as their Father. He sent Jesus to the earth to rescue his children, call them to him and lead them back to heaven to join their Father and inherit His kingdom. Thus, the new wine metaphor is not according to that of the old wineskin, which was bridegroom/bride, husband/wife, or the Lord's betrothed. No, the new wine metaphor is Father/children, not bridegroom/bride. The new wine metaphor is paternal, not spousal; within it Jesus is the elder brother, not the bridegroom.

Here is the point of my eureka moment: Presenting Jesus the Christ to the world as the bridegroom made it impossible for the Jews and God fearers in the First Century to see the Truth -- that God desires only to be their real and only Father -- because of the Levitical prohibitions of lying with, or marrying, persons related as brothers, sisters and mothers as they must be in the new paradigm. If Jesus is the bridegroom, it is impossible for those tutored under the old paradigm to conceive of becoming his brothers and sisters -- of lying with their brother!

They were blindfolded to the very essence of the Truth, for God does not desire brides or in-laws (sons-in-law and daughters-in-law). He desires only one thing, which is sons and daughters! Not adopted sons and daughters, but genuine sons and daughters conceived by His Holy Seed and nurtured by his Bread of Life and by His Living Water! Therefore, believing that, as the "church" they were the bride of the Christ (the Son of God), it was impossible for them to acknowledge God as their Father and themselves as his sons and daughters, which makes them siblings of the Lord Jesus. How could they accept the thought of marrying their brother? They believed a lie, became Christians and rejected God's purpose for them, thus sealing their eternal doom.

This blindfold has been passed down from generation to generation in Christendom and continues to be the prevailing doctrine. Levitically prohibited incest has continued to be imbedded in the human psyche, whether due to the influence of Judaism or others, and constitutes a near universal taboo. Consequently, even to this day the bride/bridegroom doctrine succeeds wonderfully as a blindfold, concealing the Truth that God desires only children. He does not desire a bride for his eldest son!

Did Paul, the Seer of Revelation and their disciples deliberately concoct this malicious doctrine as a blindfold to the Truth?

One cannot say, but they surely became the most successful servants of the forces of evil that the world has known by promoting so successful an obstruction to the truth of the gospel. It was effective in the beginning of the gospel, and it seldom fails to this day. My sense of things is that the obstruction was not deliberate, but that, in general, the early Christians (I do not say "disciples") were both unwitting victims and servants of the evil one, and so it continues.

They were and are without excuse, of course, because the Logos has never been silenced and stands before them, accusing and condemning them, and it will be their judge on the Last Day:

John.12
[47] If any one hears my sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world.
[48] He who rejects me and does not receive my sayings has a judge; the word that I have spoken will be his judge on the last day.

So it was, I believe, that the message stood before Paul and was then, as now, so powerfully focussed on the exclusive Fatherhood of God that Paul could not ignore it; it demanded some rebuttal, some explanation that would seem to embrace it while undermining it. Jesus said this:

Matt.5
[9] Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
Luke.20
[36] for they cannot die any more, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.

Therefore we find in Paul such statements as this, which seem at first to negate what I am saying:

Rom.8
[14] For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.
[19] For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God;
Gal.3
[26] for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.

But we see what he means when we come to this:

Rom.8
[23] and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.
Gal.4
[5] to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.

By the introduction af a second false doctrine, which is that men become children of God by adoption, Paul has removed the taboo. With one blow he makes the Truth of the Logos seem to be the lie of the evil one. Under this doctrinal umbrella, it is possible to incorporate all the Words of Jesus concerning God as Father and the disciples as sons and daughters of God into the Christian faith that holds Christ to be the bridegroom and the "church" to be the bride.

Believing that they are children of God by adoption only, and that it is a bond of the Spirit with no relevance to the flesh, the Christians claim a dual parentage -- the carnal or natural one and the spiritual one by adoption. They restrict the incest taboo to the natural environment. The spiritual parentage of God becomes detached from any connection to the natural. Jesus can be the bridegroom and the "church" can be the bride without offense because bridegroom/bride applies only to the spiritual order where Christians see themselves as sons and daughters by adoption only. Christians retain their carnal bonds and claim two Fathers, the one who sired them according to the flesh, and the one who "saved" them according to the Spirit. The taboo applies to the flesh and does not effect spiritual relations.

When the thought of a singular parentage that is spiritual comes to the Christian mind, the taboo kicks in and secures the blindfold. Jesus directly asserted the exclusive fatherhood of God in one utterance only, and it is very easy, mentally, to overlook it when it leads to other ideas the Christian is unwilling to entertain due to the prior acceptance of the old paradigm.

"That must be an error" or "I wonder what that could mean" or "this is probably a redaction or the result of some sloppy scribe." Such rationalizations are easy to come by, and Matthew 23:9 goes by the way with little or no serious consideration. It reads as follows:

Matt.23

[9] Ane call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.

IX. One Final Blow

One utterance of the Lord deals the final blow to the doctrine that sees the Christ as a bridegroom and the "church" as his bride. In its most egregious form it is as stated here:

Revelation 19
⁷Let us be glad and rejoice and give Him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready."⁸And to her it was granted to be arrayed in fine linen, clean and bright, for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints.
⁹Then he said to me, "Write: "Blessed are those who are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb!"' And he said to me, "These are the true sayings of God.

The bride has made herself ready; blessed are those invited to the marriage supper of "the lamb." We are to understand that the lamb is Christ, the bride is the church (the saints), the marriage supper is the great celebration at the end time, when the bridegroom and the bride, his wife, are forever joined following the Resurrection of the saints. There is only one problem:

Matthew 22:30
For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven.

X. Conclusion

The false doctrine according to which the Christ is the bridegroom and the "church" is the bride has the effect of blindfolding all human beings to the Truth and insuring their eternal condemnation. It does not come from Jesus but from Paul and other early Christians who completely misread the gospel. It is one of the most effective tools in the arsenal of deception by which humans by the billions around the earth and across the span of history have been and are to this day deceived, blinded, and doomed. They rend the old garment, split the old wineskin, spill the new wine and assure the eternal condemnation of the soul.