The paper on the "Bride" in the " Voice" is evidently put in to re-assure those who thought the corporate relationships of Christians in danger of being set aside; so that with its purport I can have no quarrel, as assuredly I have not with its author. But my objection to what I have read is wider and deeper, and I allude to it now only for common profit in reading scripture, making no suppositions which many have made. My objection to what I have read is this: generalizations as to divine teaching in scripture, drawn from slight expressions without any adequate examination of the word, and consequently, when sifted, found sometimes very imperfect and misleading, sometimes wholly false. To this I confine myself here.
We are told that Peter does not name the assembly, nor John the body; Paul does not name the bride. If the name were all, a concordance would suffice to judge of it. But it is not all. The article continues, ' These omissions are characteristic of the writings of each;' so that whatever collateral help we may find in them, this characterizes, and so far gives the scope of the Holy Ghost in these inspired writings. Let us examine the facts. Peter does not name the assembly. But Jude does not, nor James, nor John. The last two speak of a local assembly, with which we have nothing to do here. Not even in the Apocalypse does John speak of the assembly as such; on the contrary, carefully avoids it, so that its absence is certainly not characteristic of Peter. That a special dispensation of the mystery was committed to Paul, he states himself, and that has been the subject of teaching about fifty years. But so little is the omission of the assembly characteristic of Peter, that he alone, of all besides Paul, does speak of it in a special, but very interesting aspect. (See 1 Peter 2:4, 54To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, 5Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. (1 Peter 2:4‑5).) The saints are built up a spiritual house.
But the grand point is that we get the bride in John. The bride aspect, the affections of the heart for Christ, is to be found there only; Paul does not name it, and this is 'characteristic of each.' I read through John's gospel—not a trace or a hint of it, not a thought of anything corporate place, my answer is, The passage, where what of John, turn to them: total and confounding silence! The truth is, that John is exclusively and carefully individual in all his teaching. This is what, in this respect, unequivocally characterizes him But I forget `Mary Magdalene, as it were, telling the brethren in the corporate place of blessing'; but this is another example of this misleading carelessness. There is nothing of bridal relationship, nothing corporate. If in this obscure phrase with no tail to it, it be said it is we who are in the corporate place, my answer is, The passage, where what was told is given, leads away from everything else to our wondrous relationship along with the blessed Savior to His Father and God. Relationship with the glorified Man brings in the body and bride. (See Eph. 1 and 4) This [John 20:1717Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. (John 20:17)] refers to individuals and the place of sons. The whole ground is wholly wrong. In John's teaching what is said to characterize it, is not found at all.
I shall be referred, of course, to the Apocalypse. There I find myself on altogether other and lower ground, however glorious. It is the Lord God Almighty and a throne. If the churches be referred to, Christ is a judge, not a Bridegroom. There is neither body nor bride. In the properly prophetic part we have the divine judgment of the world, we are going to reign over the earth. But it will be said, the bride, the Lamb's wife, is shown to us. It is; but in what way? Affections for a bridegroom? Not a trace of them. It is a great city. The throne of God and the Lamb are in it. It is a matter of glory and government. The bride has this place, but the place of the bride with Christ as such is not hinted at. There is one word which speaks of it when the contents of the book are closed, "The Spirit and the bride say, Come." Here the relationship is alluded to, but assumed, and if I am to know what or who the bride is, I must look outside John, unless I make it a great city and government, for he, in all his teaching, never says one word about it. And where shall I find it? In poor, cold Paul! There, using the image of the wife, I find the ways of the Lord in love in gaining, preparing, and presenting to Himself the heavenly spouse according to the love He bears it. And if I would learn the other side, what we ought to be in this character, I turn to 2 Cor. 11, "I am jealous over you with godly jealousy; for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin unto Christ."
I do not know what is meant by 'naming,' but when I examine scripture, I find every one of the statements of the article baseless, wholly baseless, as to the alleged characterizing facts. Paul is the only one who really teaches anything of that, the omission of which, we are told, characterizes him. And in John's teaching, not one word is found of that which we are taught to look for in him. Paul is sober on such topics, and would have others not be led away from the simplicity that is in Christ. I entirely disagree, as to the fact, with what is said of the Reformers, but my object is not controversy nor teaching. I would only add, that, pretending to be Philadelphia is quite another thing from being Philadelphia, and tends directly to Laodiceanism of heart. May the saints be kept in the simplicity that is in Christ. Assuredly I can have no wish to weaken true devotedness to Christ, Christ being all, which only is life; but I have not found this the effect of this teaching, but rather filling people with the thoughts of themselves and the wonderful new things they had got—not a self-judging knowledge of Christ Himself. Nor do I a moment question that John has a peculiar place and character in the teaching of the Holy Ghost, specially in the revelation of the Father, and, through Him, immediate relationship with Him. But then only notice, that in the summing up and guarding of the system found in the article I comment on, what is true is old, and what is new is wrong.