146
THE K I N G ’ S B US I NE S S
The command in Deut. 7:3 prohibit ing the Israelites from taking wives ex cept of their own people, has no ref erence to Christ the Saviour of the world and Head of the Church. Christ did not marry. The reference is a prohibition of intermarriage with the idolatrous inhabitants of the promised land who were to be driven out (v. 1, 2 ). It is true that the Church is called “ the Body of Christ,’’ but this does not exclude the thought that it is also the Bride of Christ. Eph. 5:30, 31, which is mentioned in support of the idea that the Church is the Body only, not the Bride, itself excludes this interpreta tion. Verses 30 and 31, which say that we are “ members of His Body, flesh and bones,” are quoted from Gen. 2:23, 24. Eve was taken from Adam’s body and was “ bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh.” She was also his bride, which in another sense made her “ one flesh” (Matt. 19:5, 6). Here we see a clear type of Christ and the Church. Death had to be accomplished to bring forth the Bride (Gen. 2:21), and the death of Christ had to be accomplished be fore the Church could be set up. God had to open Adam’s side to provide the woman, and the Church was born from the opened side of Christ. Eve was not made of earth as was Adam, but of his living body, even as the Church is not an earthly body but a Spiritual Body. Surely no better illustration of Christ and the Church could have been chosen by Paul to picture the nearness of tfie relation. Note, too, that he makes an emphatic statement to dis tinguish from the narrator of the Eden marriage— “ I speak concerning Christ and the Church.” This relationship is to be the model for all Christian mar riages. As to the thought that the Church could not at the same time be both Body and Bride, the Church is called
by several different names. For in stance, one might say that the Church could not be the Body of Christ and still be the Temple built of living stones. As His Body, the Church draws its- life from Christ, the Head. As a Temple, the Church is the habitation of the Holy Spirit, and as the Bride, the Church gets the thought of loving re lationship. There is no contradiction whatever. Whether Paul uses the word “virgin espoused” or “ wife,” in each case he connects his expression with the Church. As to the objection that Chris! was called “ the Lamb of God,” which is a Jewish title, we would point out that “ Lamb of God” identifies Christ as the atoning Saviour of the whole world— “ the Lamb of God that beareth the sin of the world” (Jno. 1:29). It cannot possibly be called a Jewish title. Furthermore it speaks of Christ as the suffering and rejected One, and the Church is especially identified with Him in His rejection and in the fellowship of His sufferings. The further objection is made that God could not be the Father of the Bridegroom and also the Father of the Bride. This is getting down to fine points. One might go further and say that Christ could not be the King of Israel and at the same time the Hus band of Israel, or that God could not be the Father of a Jew and at the same time of a Negro or an Irishman. Spirit ual terms must not be pressed too far It is well to remember also that Jesus is not merely the offspring of God, but that He is Himself God. The Old Testament types used iri. pic turing the Church and Christ are mani festly only illustrations. The Church was not in view in the Old Testament history, but it is perfectly appropriate to draw illustrations from the Old Testament if they are not pressed too far.
Made with FlippingBook Online document