Here is what we know so far:
There is to be a metaphorical wedding.
Jesus is consistently described as the Bridegroom
There is confusion over the other participants (the bride and the guests)
The teachings of Jesus and John the Revelator correspond and harmonize perfectly. These I accept as eternal truths. We will see that the teachings of Paul are problematic and do not harmonize. Temporarily, I have to assume that Paul is NOT teaching doctrine but is using homilies and examples.
Jesus' Teachings
Bridegroom
Jesus is explicit in describing Himself as the Bridegroom
And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast. Matthew 9:15
Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man [bridegroom in this parable] cometh. Matthew 25:13
This is confirmed by John the Baptist:
He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled. John 3:29
Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. Revelation 19:7
... I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife. Revelation 21:9
We know that Christ is (metaphorically) the lamb. The lamb's wife is the bride so the lamb is the bridegroom.
Guests at the Great Wedding Banquet Matthew 22:1-14
This parable is about a wedding feast. It doesn't mention the bridegroom or the bride, but does say that the wedding feast was prepared for the son of the king. It is MOSTLY a parable about the guests.
And he sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come... Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage. So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests. Matthew 22:3, 9-10
Who were the guests? We (His followers - those who were invited and came) are guests at the great wedding banquet. If we are guests, we can't be the bride.
Ten Virgins at a Wedding Matthew 25:1-13
In this parable about another wedding we are told that the bridegroom is the "son of man". (Matthew 25:13). Again, the bride is not mentioned or identified.
Likewise, in this parable of the virgins, we can see ourselves as either wise or foolish wedding guests, again, not the bride.
John the Revelator Identifies the Bride
And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. Revelation 21:2
... saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife. And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, Revelation 21:9-10
To be certain that there's no confusion, John describes Jerusalem, the Holy City and Bride of Christ as a geographical city with streets of gold, gates of pearls that are never closed, walls around the whole city and a river flowing through it. Revelation 21:11-14
Then, to be extra certain and sure that we would understand, he gave the physical measurements.
And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal. And he measured the wall thereof, an hundred and forty and four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of the angel. Revelation 21:16-17
The bride is not a church
It is not a people
It is a city, his kingdom, Jerusalem, the Holy City of God
Paul's Teachings
Paul's teachings are confused on their own, but then become even more entangled because of the edicts that King James forced on his translaters, requiring "ekklesia" to be incorrectly translated as "church".
In the entire four gospels, Jesus was only quoted using the word "ekklesia" in two verses of Matthew. This should make us dubious about Paul's extensive (new) use of the word (in 93 verses).
Either:
1. Jesus and John the Revelator were mistaken about their descriptions of the Kingdom with its metaphor of the wedding (NOT), or
2. Paul was mistaken about his use of the metaphor, or
3. Paul is NOT teaching doctrine but is using homilies and examples.
I have two general problem areas with Paul:
1. His use of Body of Christ (with other variants)
2. Comparing the ekklesia to a bride or wife.
Let's explore these in order:
Body of Christ
Paul frequently uses "Body of Christ" with variants such as:
Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. 1 Corinthians 12:27
For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Ephesians 4:12
Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the ekklesia: Colossians 1:24
What is the "BODY" of Christ and its members? Oh... you likely reply ... the "church". No! "church" (or even "ekklesia") would only be the metaphor. What is the original literal body? Is the metaphor an outdated likeness of the physical body of Christ while he was a man on Earth? It can't be a metaphor of His current, glorified body because he is now Spirit, not body.
If it refers to his no longer existing, previous physical body, the bread of life that was broken to save the world and I am now part of that body (that doesn't exist), am I also the bread of life whose body will be broken to save the world? I think not.
And if I am part of his previously existing body and he was the bridegoom (Matthew 9:15) am I (as part of the same body) also the bridegroom? Again, no.
Are we part of the body but the Master no longer is because he is now without body?
We could rationalize that Paul was NOT creating a new (previously unknown) metaphor, if we assume that his use of body and its members refers to the corporate (coming from corpus or body) ekklesia (citizens). This this could be satisfactorily correct.
However, to be sure we know that he is speaking about Christ's former, physical body and not a body corporate, he specifies flesh and bones:
For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. Ephesians 5:30
Unless there is some new metaphor (unknown to me) for flesh and bones, I have to assume he is being literal, describing a physical body, not a corporate body, extended by new metaphors. I am confident in the teachings of Jesus and the two Johns. Jesus, is the bridegroom, his bride is the Holy City, and we, the ekklesia are wedding guests.
Ekklesia as a Bride or Wife
The next difficulty is Paul's use of Ekklesia as a bride. Christ's teachings and John's teachings clearly show that the CITY (not the ekklesia, not a church) is the bride. The ekklesia are invited guests.
Ephesians 5 - This entire chapter is largely Paul's comparison of the love that Christ has for his people (ekklesia) with that of a husband and wife.
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Ephesians 5:23
This verse has easily and frequently been mistaken by extending "wife" by the metaphor of the bride. That would be a mistake because it would also require extending the husband to be the bridegroom, which he clearly is NOT. This entire chapter has nothing to do with the creation of a new metaphor nor with the marriage of the lamb. It is only an example of love and submission.
For 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 to Christ. 2 Corinthians 11:2
This one is a problem. It seems that either Paul thinks we are the bride (which we are NOT) or he's talking to Jerusalem, the Holy City.
Here is an example of Isaiah addressing Jerusalem and its companion verse in Hebrews:
For thy Maker is thine husband; the Lord of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called. Isaiah 54:5
For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God. Hebrews 11:10
In the commonly held theory, and as appears to be taught by Paul, we, the church, are the body of Christ. The church will be the Bride of Christ. This means Christ will marry his own body. This metaphor doesn't work and is contrary to the teachings of Jesus and John.
Paul does understand our proper relationship:
Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; Ephesians 2:19
Until I receive light otherwise, I have to assume that either Paul is using homilies and examples instead of defining new metaphors and doctrines or I have misunderstood him.
