We find, by conversing with brethren, that the principal objection against our views arise from the prevailing opinion that the church is the bride. But when we ask them to harmonize the word of God with that supposition, they appeal to the words of Paul, in which he refers to the love of Christ “to the Church,” to show how men should “love their wives;” and to the subjection of the church to Christ—her head—to show the subjection of the wife to the husband. Eph. v, 22-25. To which the apostle adds: “this is a great mystery; but I speak concerning Christ and the church.” Now it is contended, that “Christ will not have an inanimate city, for a wife,” and as they can find something like the idea that the church is the bride, in the words of Paul—a better wife, it is thought, than a city—and since they can make out that the church is the bride, it can hardly be admitted that the marriage of the Lamb will take place before the church is glorified.
It should, however, be kept in mind, that it is not our work to see what we can make out, from the Bible; but what God has spoken. Not, what can we make it mean? but, what does God mean?—And Adventists need not be informed that that meaning of any text, which may be carried through the Bible, is to be received as the true meaning; that which cannot be sustained without torture and surgery must be from the old “murderer.”
One way to enable men to see any one truth is to show them the absurdities of the error which occupies or claims its place. Allowing then, that the church is called the bride of Christ, and that the Holy City is also called his bride, can there be any propriety in saying that the City is not the bride, but the Church is? Let us look at a parallel case. It is said by Christ himself, in the case of the bread at the supper, “this is my body.” Luke xxii, 19. It is said of the members of the church, “now ye are the body of Christ,” 1 Cor. xii, 27. What, now, should we say of the man who should attempt to prove that the church cannot be the body of Christ, because the bread is his body? Because the bread is his body in one sense, does it prove that the church is not his body in another sense?
Again. Allowing the church is to be the bride, who are “the nations of the saved” that walk in her light? Rev. xxi, 24. If the church is the city—the tabernacle of God—who are the “men,” “with” whom the tabernacle, or church is to “be” and who are to “be his people?” Rev. xxi, 2, 3. If the church is the wife, who are they that are “called to the marriage supper of the Lamb,” as guests? Rev. xix, 9. If “Jerusalem which is above, the mother of us all,” is the church, who are the children? And how could Isaiah say of her: “this is the heritage of the servants of the Lord?” Compare Gal. iv, 26, 27, and Isaiah liv, 1—17.
Can any one fail to see, that there is the same difference between the husband the wife and the children—between the Bridegroom the bride and the guests, that there is between “the Prince of the host, the sanctuary and the host—(Dan. viii, 11, 13, 14.)—between “the Heir of all” the “inheritance” and the “joint heirs?”
If any one insists that a city is an unsuitable bride for Christ, we can only regret that it is necessary to correct ideas, which suppose that there can be any more “suitableness” in an animate church, than an inanimate city, as a bride for Christ. They must have received their notions from the same source from which “the holy Catholic Church” has derived hers. She speaks of herself as “the spouse of Christ,”—an indulgent mother!! &c.
The bride must necessarily denote something distinct from the church; and the marriage act must denote his actual entering into union and covenant with that bride. God tells us that that bride is the holy city; and when we believe the word of God just as he has given it to us, in this case, and suppose the marriage to denote the actual reception of the throne by Christ, all is plain, all is harmonious; and we have as strait a path; as well defined a position; as we have had in any other case. To suppose any thing else to be denoted, makes all confusion.
The following principles and proof texts may be of service to our brethren.
2. The necessary order of the different parts of the marriage arrangement is this: first, the coming to the marriage; second, the marriage itself; third, the marriage supper.
3. The marriage, on any supposition, cannot take place here on earth. If it is the union of Christ to the church it must take place where they meet him—“in the air.” 1. Thess. iv, 17. If it is the reception of the throne it must take place in the presence of “the Ancient of Days,”—in heaven. Daniel vii, 13, 14; Luke i, 32, 33; Rev. xi, 15.
4. As “the guests” go in “to the marriage” before a final decision is made, according to Matthew xxii, 9—14, it would seem to be impossible that the going in to the marriage can mean our being caught up to meet the Lord, as God will never change a person to immortality who will afterwards be found unfit for it.
5. The true midnight cry only carries the virgins “in to the marriage,” which evidently precedes their being changed to a state of immortality.
6. There appears to be a marked distinction between the coming of the Bridegroom to the marriage, and his coming as the King of glory; as there is also between our going in with him to the marriage, and our meeting him as the Lord returning from the wedding. Luke xii, 37; Rev. iii, 20, 21.
Let not our brethren be discouraged if they find themselves in the condition of the poor widow, Luke xviii. That is the picture of what our condition is to be at the time of deliverance—“when the Son of Man cometh.” And why should we be surprised if there should be but little faith to be found at that time? While we are careful not to denounce those who do not agree with us in every particular, as being destitute of true faith in the coming of the Lord; we may be pretty sure that those who oppose us, as the enemies of the Advent doctrine generally have done, are of the same spirit. Never did we need to act independently and carefully, in our investigations of the truth, more than at the present time.—Advent Mirror, 1845.