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
By Edgar Jones
Introduction: The Evidence from
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:
have this statement from the Presbyterian and Reformed:
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.
have this from the Catholics:
The third parallel represents the Church
as the bride of Christ.
Here there is much more than a metaphor. The Apostle says that the
union between Christ and His Church is the archetype of which human
marriage is an earthly representation. Thus he bids wives be subject to
their husbands, as the Church is subject to Christ (Eph., v, 22 sq.).
posited, to some degree at least, on the teaching of Augustine:
For every celebration is a celebration of marriage: the Church's
nuptials are celebrated. The King's Son is about to marry a wife, and
that King's Son is Himself a King: and the guests frequenting the
marriage are themselves the Bride. Not, as in a carnal marriage, some
are guests, and another is she that is married; in the Church they that
come as guests, if they come to good purpose, become the Bride. For all
the Church is Christ's Bride, of which the beginning and first
is the flesh of Christ: there was the Bride joined to the Bridegroom in
is founded on the doctrine of Paul:
] 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
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
] I feel a divine
jealousy for you, for I betrothed you to Christ to present you as a pure
to her one husband.
And also from the Book of Revelations
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,
"Hallelujah! For the Lord our God the Almighty reigns.  Let us
rejoice and exult and give him the glory, for the marriage of the Lamb
has come, and his Bride has made
;  it was
granted her to be clothed with fine linen, bright and pure" -- for the
fine linen is the righteous deeds of the
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."
] 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
] 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,
question is, "Do some New Testament writers teach that the church is
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
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,
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
 Now a discussion arose between John's
disciples and a Jew over purifying.
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."
 John answered, "No one can receive
anything except what is given him from heaven.
 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; 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.
Then the disciples of John came to him, saying, "Why do we and the
Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?"
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.
 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.
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.
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?"
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
 The days will come, when the bridegroom
is taken away from them, and then they will fast in that day.
 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
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.
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
 And Jesus said to them, Can you make wedding guests fast while
the bridegroom is with them?
days will come, when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then
they will fast in those days.
 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.
 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
 But new wine must be put into fresh
no one after drinking old wine desires new; for he says, `The old is
John does not identify Jesus
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
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.
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.
 "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
 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.
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
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
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
disciples will understand when he says to them:
wedding guests fast while the bridegroom
is with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they
days will come, when the bridegroom
is taken away from them, and then they will fast in that day.
surely compares himself to
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
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
steward came to the bridegroom (not Jesus) later with this
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
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
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.
The Parable of the Marriage Feast
again Jesus spoke to them in
kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a marriage feast
for his son,
sent his servants to call those who
were invited to the marriage feast; but they would not come.
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.'
they made light of it and went off, one to his farm, another to his
the rest seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them.
king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers
and burned their city.
he said to his servants, `The wedding is ready, but those invited were
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.
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
to Matthew, it reads as follows:
the kingdom of heaven shall be compared to ten maidens who took their
lamps and went to meet the bridegroom.
of them were foolish, and five were wise.
when the foolish took their lamps, they took no oil with them;
the wise took flasks of oil with their lamps.
the bridegroom was delayed, they all slumbered and slept.
at midnight there was a cry, `Behold, the bridegroom! Come out to meet
all those maidens rose and trimmed their lamps.
the foolish said to the wise, `Give us some of your oil, for our lamps
are going out.'
the wise replied, `Perhaps there will not be enough for us and for you;
go rather to the dealers and buy for yourselves.'
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.
the other maidens came also, saying, `Lord, lord, open to us.'
he replied, `Truly, I say to you, I do not know you.'
therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour.
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:
your loins be girded and your lamps burning,
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
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.
he comes in the second watch, or in the third, and finds them so,
blessed are those servants!
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.
also must be ready; for the Son of man is coming at an unexpected hour.
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
coming at an unexpected hour? No, for he does not identify himself as the
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!
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!
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.
Why it is Not Possible
that Jesus is the Bridegroom.
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?
whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother, and sister, and mother.
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?
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
 Cursed be he who lies with his father's wife, because he has
uncovered her who is his father's.
can Jesus marry his sister?
 `Cursed be he who lies with his sister, whether the daughter of his
father or the daughter of his mother.'
is he able to marry his brother?
a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have
they shall be
put to death, their blood is
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.
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.
then, does it come?
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
there will be little objection to either:
subject to one another out
of reverence for Christ.
be subject to your
husbands, as to the Lord.
For the husband is the head of
the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself
As the church is subject to
Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands.
Husbands, love your wives, as
Christ 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 the church to himself in splendor, without
or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without
 Even so husbands should love
their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
 For no man ever hates his own
flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church,
 because we are members of his
"For this reason a man shall
leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two
shall become one flesh."
 This mystery is a profound one,
and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church;
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:
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
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
the Christ as a bridegroom and the "church" as his bride.
 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;
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?
] Then came one of the seven
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."
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
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
and shall be found no more;
 and the sound of harpers and minstrels,
of flute players and
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;
the light of a lamp
in thee no more;
voice of bridegroom and bride
be heard in thee no more;
for thy merchants were the great
of the earth,
and all nations were deceived by
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
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
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:
Old Testament imagery strongly
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
derived his inspiration from the Old Testament just as did Paul and the
 "And in that day, says the LORD, you will
call me, `My husband,'
and no longer will you call me, `My Ba'al.'
 For I will remove the names of the Ba'als
from her mouth, and they shall be mentioned by name no more.
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.
I will betroth you to
me for ever; I will betroth you to me in righteousness and in
in steadfast love, and in mercy.
will betroth you to me in faithfulness; and you shall know the
VII. The Coup de
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.
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
The new wine says this:
call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in
By means of such words as this,
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 --
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
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
silenced and stands before them, accusing and condemning them, and it
will be their judge on the Last Day:
So it was, I believe, that the
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:
any one hears my sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not
world but to save the world.
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.
are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
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:
But we see what he means when we
 For all who are led by the Spirit of God
are sons of God.
 For the creation waits with eager longing
for the revealing of the sons of
 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.
By the introduction af a second
doctrine, which is that men become children of God by adoption, Paul
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
 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.
 to redeem those who were under the law,
so that we might receive adoption
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
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
"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:
 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
most egregious form it is as stated here:
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.
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:
For in the resurrection they
neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in
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
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.