In the following page (52) we encounter some extraordinary statements indeed. On the gates of the city Dr. B. finds the names of the twelve tribes of Israel, and in the foundations the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. We should have supposed that the names of all the twelve apostles would have satisfied even a divine of the nineteenth century that the holy city was the church of God. But they are no match for Dr. B.; with one stroke of his pen he cuts off the whole band. We are familiar with wholesale excommunications by arrogant popes; but even they were never bold enough to turn Peter and the eleven en masse out of the church of which they were the honored foundations (Eph. 2).
But Dr. B. is troubled by no squeamish scruples. What can he do with his theory about the Bride if the apostles form part of the body of Christ? With rare effrontery, urged on by overwhelming zeal for the offspring of his imagination, he declares that the twelve apostles are “separated off from the church!” The church is part of the Bridegroom, but the apostles form no part of the bride! There is therefore, according to our author, not the shadow of a shade of a doubt that those who have regarded Peter and John, for instance, as among those whom God set first in the church, have been the unfortunate victims of an egregious delusion!
The fact that the names of the twelve apostles are seen in the foundations of the symbolical city of Rev. 22 receives explanation from the Epistle to the Ephesians (2:19-22). It indicates, in spite of Dr. B.'s reveries, that the apostles had a good deal to do with the church. So far from being outside of it, they are as closely connected with it as a foundation is with the building raised upon it. Saved Jews and Gentiles were and are being built upon a foundation which is not of the apostle Paul to the exclusion of the others, but “of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief corner stone.” This building under the workmanship of the Holy Ghost is growing unto a holy temple in the Lord. In that same word the Ephesian saints, with other believing Jews and Gentiles, are viewed by the apostle as forming God's house upon earth, God dwelling in it by His Spirit.
Here then in this Epistle, which specially treats of the mystery, the body of Christ is presented as a building having the apostles for a foundation, and growing to a temple in the Lord, but is even now God's habitation in the Spirit (cf. 1 Peter 2:5, 65Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. 6Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. (1 Peter 2:5‑6)); while in Rev. 21 a building is again presented to us, having foundations in which are the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. Now what more simple and unstrained than to see in both places a figure of the church, the body and bride of Christ?
Nay, says the author of the “Mystery,” that cannot be. What are we to do with the promise of Christ to the apostles which has never been abrogated, that they should judge the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:2828And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matthew 19:28)) if they form part of the body of Christ (page 52)? But it is puzzling to see how membership of the body of Christ would hinder the apostles from judging the tribes of Israel, any more than it would hinder the Corinthian saints from judging the world (1 Cor. 6:22Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? (1 Corinthians 6:2)), or the overcomer in Thyatira from ruling the nations with a rod of iron (Rev. 2:26-2726And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: 27And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father. (Revelation 2:26‑27)). Will Dr. B. amputate the body still further by cutting off the Corinthian saints and those in Thyatira? The sole justification for his monstrous excision of the apostles is a “comparison of Matt. 19:2828And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matthew 19:28) with Rev. 21:1414And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. (Revelation 21:14).” Let wise men examine for themselves. What necessary connection is there between the names in the foundations and sitting on twelve thrones?
On page 54 Dr. B. sums up in very decided terms, “What is clear and certain is that the church is the body of Christ Himself, and that the members of the body being in Christ (mystical) are PART OF THE BRIDEGROOM, and cannot possibly, therefore, be the bride herself.”
Now it is hardly conceivable that our author is unaware of the common danger of confusing the sign with the thing signified. He surely knows also that it is a frequent and well-understood practice to compare an object in two perfectly dissimilar ways, for the purpose of illustrating two distinct qualities of that object.
We will give an example of this to make our point quite clear. Let us suppose that an impatient reader, referring to a treatise of inconsequential ideas and vain fancies, alludes to its author as “a goose,” and subsequently as “a mule.” By the first figure he would probably wish to convey the general vacuity of thought characteristic of the writer, and by the second his stubborn persistence in wrong notions. And though the figures might perhaps be more forcible than elegant, they would be perfectly admissible. But Dr. B. would contend that they must refer to two different persons. For, he would say, if a man is a goose how can he be a mule? One is a biped, the other a quadruped. One cackles, but the other kicks; and so on with other dissimilarities. But does he not forget that though a goose cannot be a mule, a man may be both a goose and a mule at the same time, inasmuch as it is quite possible for him to be not only foolish but obstinate as well?
Dr. B. keeps insisting that the body cannot be the bride, when the truth is that it is the church which is figured both as the body and the bride. While it is perfectly true that these figures are allied in character, they are nevertheless used to set forth distinct ideas. The “body” indicates that intimate degree of living unity existing between Christ and His members, and is used particularly of the church during its stay on earth. On the other hand, the foremost thought suggested by the “bride” is that of association. The church is to love and share Christ's glory, reigning with Him. Hence where the professing church is shown as the false bride (Rev. 18), she is seen taking her glory from the kings of the earth with whom she enters into unnatural alliance. But the true bride awaits the heavenly glory of Christ.
We must, however, say a word as to Dr. B.'s treatment of Eph. 5:28, 2928So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: (Ephesians 5:28‑29), which is another instance of his pitiful trifling with these sacred themes. Here, he says, “the great secret is employed as an argument to the reciprocal duties of husbands and wives. In neither case is it said that the church is the wife or that Christ is the husband. But that as Christ loves His body (the church), so husbands ought to love their bodies (their wives)” (page 54). Now Dr. B. admits in so many words that a man's wife is here spoken of as his body, but where the question is the church as both the body of Christ and the Lamb's wife, he is completely boggled. He simply shuts his eyes, and says the only thing “clear and certain” is that it cannot possibly be.
Now the point in the verses is that a bride is a man's body, that he and his wife are mystically “one flesh.” This was literally true in the case of Adam and Eve; for the rib that God took from Adam He builded into a woman; and God called their name, Adam (Gen. 5:22Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. (Genesis 5:2)). And these figures are applied by the apostle (we are not so concerned about “New Testament Expositors”), to Christ and the church. “This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church” (Eph. 5:3232This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. (Ephesians 5:32)). So that the passage bases the love of the husband to the wife upon the identity (in figure) of his body and his bride; adding, that so it is with the Lord and the Church.
Dr. B.'s remarks on Matt. 25:1-131Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. 2And five of them were wise, and five were foolish. 3They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them: 4But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps. 5While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept. 6And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him. 7Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps. 8And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out. 9But 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. 10And 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. 11Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us. 12But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not. 13Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh. (Matthew 25:1‑13) afford another example of his riding a figure to death. The virgins cannot be the bride, because they are her attendant companions! We wonder if he objects in the same way to the Lord's similitudes of the kingdom of the heavens in Matt. 13. Does he say it is “clear and certain” that the great tree cannot be the leaven hid in three measures of meal, any more than the latter can be the same as the treasure, because it is likewise “clear and certain” the treasure was hid in a field and not in the three measures of meal? The Lord, however, likens the kingdom of heaven to all three, however they may differ when compared among themselves. In point of fact, just as the types of scripture cannot be understood until we know the truths they typify, in like manner, paradoxical as it may seem, the language of scripture cannot be correctly interpreted without knowing the underlying thoughts,
But why does Dr. B., dwelling upon the nonidentity of the bride and the virgins, her companions, reiterate the ruler's question, “How can these things be?” Is it not best first to ascertain the purpose of the parable? This is supplied in Matt. 25:1313Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh. (Matthew 25:13), “Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour.” Now we can understand attendant virgins slumbering and sleeping; but how incongruous would it have been to represent a bride falling asleep on such an occasion? Do not the “Spirit and the bride say, Come?” (Rev. 22:1717And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. (Revelation 22:17).) Beside half of them are shut out, a circumstance quite foreign to the figure of a bride, but faithfully illustrating the fate of the mass of professing Christendom, as we are taught in unfigurative language elsewhere. The ten virgins therefore set forth the mixed company of those who take the place of Christians, while the bride figures the church in glory associated with Christ in His public appearing and reign.
Dr. B. maintains (page 55) that Rebekah does not illustrate the church but the bride, that is, O.T. saints spoken of in Heb. 11. The sole reason given is that the bride (Rebekah) was not to be of “the Canaanites,” and “Gentiles were expressly shut out” in contrast with the church which embodies Jew and Gentile.” But Dr. B. overlooks that amongst those expressly named in the “great cloud of witnesses” (to which he refers in Heb. 11) Rahab is included (verse 31), who was both a Gentile and a Canaanite. We think this fact rather spoils the symmetry of Dr. B.'s argument; and it is undeniable that theories must give way to facts.
The “better thing” (Heb. 11:39, 4039And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: 40God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect. (Hebrews 11:39‑40)) is said by our author to refer to the position of greater glory and honor the body of Christ will have than the bride; whereas it refers to the present blessing of Christianity which God has now provided for us and which we enjoy already, while they had only unfulfilled promises. Nevertheless both they and we shall be perfected together in the first resurrection (compare the use of “better,” in Heb. vii, 19-22; viii. 6; ix. 23),
We have now examined the scriptures that Dr. B. has brought forward to show that the body of Christ is not identical with the heavenly bride of Christ; and we find that not one of them bears him out in his misshapen theory. Being over-occupied with the nature of the metaphors employed, he has missed the truth signified. The “body,” which indicates in a word the nature of present living unity betwixt Christ and the church, is characteristically found in the Epistles; while the “bride” signifying the future association of the church, when perfected and glorified with Christ, is appropriately used in the prophetic visions of the Apocalypse. What is first His body becomes His bride, as in the case of Adam and Eve (Gen. 2), which Eph. 5 authorizes as a picture of Christ and the church.
Until the nuptial day the church awaits with joyous anticipation. “The Spirit and the bride say, Come” (Rev. 22:1717And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. (Revelation 22:17)). How perverse to suppose that the Holy Ghost is moving the spirits of the departed saints of O.T. days, who are now on high, to cry, Come! The bride here can only refer to the church, which alone is the habitation of the Spirit. Besides it is the saints on earth, not those in the presence of Christ, who say, Come. The fact is Dr. B.'s theory does not accord with the truth as revealed. He has offered us bread, but we find it is a stone.
We propose (D.V.) to examine some further points raised by Dr. B. in this tract.