I often read and hear people speak of the church as the “bride of Christ.” This is remarkable because nowhere does the Bible say so. There are not even very many passages that speak of a bride and none speak of the church as a bride. Perhaps the most detailed passage in the Bible in which the word “bride” occurs is the following:

“Then John answered, ‘No man can take anything unless it is given him from heaven.’ You yourselves are my witnesses that I said, I am not the Christ, but I was sent before that one. He who has the bride is the bridegroom; and the friend of the bridegroom who stands by and hears him rejoices with gladness at the voice of the bridegroom. This joy of mine has now been fulfilled. The latter must grow, but I must become smaller.”
John 3:27-30

So here we find everything: bride, groom, friend of the groom. It is also clear that Jesus is the bridegroom. However, not a word is said about the community. So how do people come to apply the image to the church today? And: Is the church the bride? These two questions may occupy us a bit here.

Bride, groom and friend of groom

John, the Baptist, speaks here about Jesus. For his disciples, he explains the relationship between Jesus and him. Thereby he holds that he is not the Messiah (gr. Christ, the anointed one), but only has the function of the pioneer and friend. John then explains this with an image: “He who has the bride is the bridegroom; and the friend of the bridegroom who stands by and hears him rejoices with gladness at the voice of the bridegroom”. The statement is not difficult to understand. Jesus is the bridegroom and John is the friend of the bridegroom, standing by and rejoicing. The image aptly describes the relationship between Jesus and John. However, the starting point for this imagery is the bride.

Who has the bride now? Again, the answer is simple: Jesus. But who is the bride? The bride in this speech of John is simply the audience of Jesus. Specifically, these were listeners from Israel to whom he preached the kingdom of heaven, the messianic kingdom (Matt. 4:17). In the parable of the 10 virgins, Jesus compares the dawn of this kingdom of heaven to 10 virgins going to meet the bridegroom. The upcoming wedding is then thought about (Mt 25:1-13).

However, some Christians see it quite differently. The connection to Israel and the proclamation of a messianic kingdom are often no longer known. The bride, it is assumed, is today’s church. In this context, however, that is not possible at all, because the community did not exist before. Jesus did not speak to a church of all nations, nor did he preach God’s grace based on the cross and resurrection – all this had yet to take place.

But – are there no other biblical passages that speak of the church as a bride? No. The word “bride” (Gr. numphê) exists only in this passage and then only again in the book of Revelation(Rev 18,23, Rev 19,7, Rev 21,2, Rev 21,9, Rev 22,17), where among other things it is about the establishment of the messianic kingdom, as Jesus spoke about it. However, no reference is found in the community time in between. Nowhere is the term “bride” associated with today’s church of all nations. Neither Jesus nor any of the apostles use the word later, and we do not find it in Acts or back in the epistles. However, the words “bridegroom” (gr. numphios) and “bridal chamber” (gr. numphion) are still used a few times. It is striking that all these terms are mentioned exclusively in the Gospels and in the book of Revelation. That’s the context that interpretation is all about.

Now how do you come to call the church a “bride”? One could simply dismiss this notion by pointing out that the Bible nowhere clearly states this. However, if you want to understand it well, you have to take a closer look at the text.

From lids and pots

Before we get into the details, I would like to make a comparison first.

Anyone who has a selection of different pots in their kitchen knows this: The lid that fits perfectly on one pot is too big, too small, too different to fit on another pot. Each pot has its own lid. The point of this article is: we must learn to use the right lid to the right pot. Transferred to the Bible: We have to interpret every text in its own context and understand every word there. If we do not, there is a great chance that we will misinterpret the Bible on this or that point, or that the original meaning will remain closed to us.

Some terms are used in a specific context but are not mentioned in any other context. These differences are not arbitrary, but have meaning. As long as we do not check, we may not notice a difference. A lid that is too big will cover the pan, but it still won’t fit. If we find a matching lid one day, we can ask ourselves why this was not recognized earlier. We have a similar experience when we recognize connections between lid and pot, between text and context. It is a process of differentiation wherein meaning speaks out of context and meaning can also be returned to context at any time.

Such differentiation also applies to the use of the word “bride”. It is the perfect lid for one’s context, however, unfortunately, it does not fit the community’s pot.

Is there a “bridal community”?

The idea that the church is the “bride,” the “bride of Christ,” or similar is particularly popular. A search on the Internet for “bride church” immediately reveals a very long list of posts that assume that the church is the bride. There is no actual justification for this – only texts “that sound something like this” are quoted. However, this is not sufficient for a justification. If you search there, you will also find interpretations to the contrary. What is true now? Here it should only be noted that a word “bride church” or an expression like “the church, that is the bride of Christ” or similar does not occur in the Bible. Those who speak of the church as a bride must do so without direct support of biblical statements.

But wait, someone might say, it does talk about bride and church in the Bible? That’s correct. However, these terms do not exist in combination. Nowhere is it clearly stated that the present church from all nations is the Bride.

So where do these assumptions come from?

How we read the New Testament

Now it gets interesting. It is about our understanding of the New Testament. How do you come to call today’s church a “bride”? Well, I think there are two reasons for that:

1. The terms “bride”, “wedding”, etc. are actually used
2. It is assumed that the entire New Testament speaks of the present-day church.

In combination, confusion arises, not because the terms are foreign to the Bible, for example, but because the biased understanding of the New Testament does not let the Bible have its say.

Specifically, the issue is that in the understanding of many people, the entire New Testament speaks of the church today, even though this is demonstrably not the case. It is true that the whole New Testament speaks of Jesus, but that does not mean that everything is only about the church or the congregation. Such an assumption prevents an unclouded view of the text. Those who think that the whole New Testament speaks of today’s church are looking at the New Testament through a certain lens. These glasses color our understanding so much that we no longer take the text seriously. This creates links between concepts that have nothing to do with each other. It is interpretation based on assumptions about the text, not on information from the text.

Let’s deepen this observation a bit more.

Wherever Jesus is written on it, is the church in it?

The assumption about the New Testament is, casually put, “Everywhere Jesus is on it, there is church in it.” This idea is widespread, both in national churches and in free churches, and it is hardly questioned. People like to preach from the Gospels as if they were about today’s church. This is despite the fact that most theologians will say that the church did not come into existence until the Acts of the Apostles. The Gospels are chronologically before the Acts of the Apostles. How do you come to read the church doctrine already in the gospels? Such assumptions have far-reaching consequences for the understanding of faith.

Another assumption is that there would be only one church, with only one message, and it would affect all people. This can be questioned based on the Bible (see: “Is There Only One Gospel?”).

A differentiation could look like this:

Jesus did not come to establish the church. Check the Bible passages below. He came to save His people, the people of Israel (Matt. 1:21). He Himself saw His mission exclusively to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matt. 15:24). His mission was to confirm the promises made to the fathers of Israel (Rom 15:8). This is the proclamation of the Gospels in a nutshell. The gentiles are only mentioned here in passing. When gentiles are addressed, they are invariably proselytes or people who expect salvation via the Jewish people (as foretold by the prophets). The nations (gentiles) as an independent entity were not in view. The disciples also received clear instructions in this regard (Mt 10:5-6).

During this time, the community did not exist. Jesus’ proclamation was exclusively to the people of Israel and only in the context of Old Testament prophecy. While this prophecy foresaw a blessing for all nations, it first required Israel to turn to the LORD. This is to herald the messianic time. Jesus spoke of the kingdom of heaven, by which the messianic kingdom was meant. In this view, a renewed Israel was once to become a blessing to all nations (Isa. 2:1-4; Matt. 28:20). This has not taken place to date. Instead, something completely new came along.

This newness came in the form of a 13th apostle: Paul. He preaches Christ, but makes Him accessible to the nations. He did not do this as the prophets had predicted, but nations were given an equal place in the family of God (Eph 2:11-14). This was mind-blowingly new, not only as a target group, but also in terms of content. Read more in the article “The Special Message of the Apostle Paul”.

The point is this: The New Testament is not a one-size-fits-all pulp. Jesus had a mission to fulfill to Israel. This is what the Gospels tell us about. After the cross and the resurrection, a new orientation follows, which is reported in the Acts of the Apostles. The Messianic Kingdom was no longer imminent, but the time of its establishment God alone knows (Acts 1:6-7). The Twelve Apostles persevered in the familiar expectation of Israel and had their eyes on the establishment of the Messianic Kingdom. The church in Jerusalem with the 12 apostles continued to preach the “gospel of the kingdom of God” (Acts 1:6; Acts 8:12) and this specifically to Israel (Acts 2:36; Gal 2:7-9; Jas 1:1; 1Pet 1:1)

Then Paul was called to be an apostle to the nations (Rom 11:13; 1 Tim 2:7, etc.) who had to reveal what was previously unknown (Rom 16:25-26; Gal 1:11-12; Eph 3:1-3, etc.). At that point, a church of all nations gradually emerges , parallel to the work and mission of the 12 apostles in Jerusalem.

So not everywhere Jesus is written on it, the present church is in it. Once you recognize the development within the New Testament, you automatically fade in Israel again. The understanding of the mission of Jesus grows, as does the appreciation of the special mission of the apostle Paul. Once the broad context has been clarified, the individual details in the text are also easier to classify. The idea of a one-size-fits-all brew can be abandoned. Again, the text speaks for itself.

Where is it about today’s community?

After the excursion into the rough developments within the New Testament, many questions can be clarified more easily. Anyone can check the Bible for this information:

• Jesus spoke to Israel about the expectation of Israel
• The 12 apostles (like Jesus) spoke of the Messianic Kingdom
• The Messianic Kingdom Was Postponed, Not Abolished
• Paul was called as the 13th apostle and became the “apostle to the nations” (the church, the body of Christ)
• Today’s church/community from all nations is based on the message of Paul

If we take away the Pauline letters from the New Testament, then the proclamation of the messianic kingdom reads as a continuous story all the way to the establishment in the book of Revelation. If you have never heard it like this, you can hold it as a hypothesis once and then read through the New Testament yourself with this idea. For me it was amazing to discover how this gave each text a meaning in its own context.

Bride or body?

Whoever sees the development in the New Testament, and realizes that Israel also has a place (not only the church), can also understand many other statements from the New Testament. Contradictions disappear and each text speaks for itself. If you put the data in order, you can see this:

• 12 Apostles for Israel
• Peter, John and James as the supporting “pillars” of this church (Gal 2:9)
• A church in Jerusalem as a “remnant” (Matt. 16:18; Rom. 11:5; Rom. 11:16).
• the bride (John 3:29)
• A Gospel of Circumcision (Gal 2:7-9)
  –
• 1 Apostle for the rest of the nations
• Paul as an apostle to the nations (Rom 11:13; 1Tim 2:7; Eph 3:1-2)
• One church from all nations (Rom 9:24; Eph 2:11; Eph 3:6).
• The body of Christ (Rom. 12:4-5; 1 Cor. 10:16-17; 1 Cor. 12:12-27; Eph. 1:23, etc.).
• A Gospel of Uncircumcision (Gal 2:7-9)

The 12 apostles preside over the church in Israel. This is the bride that Jesus has. The church from all nations, on the other hand, is described as the “body of Christ” (in many translations: body of Christ).

• The term bride is used only in the context of Israel’s expectation
• The expression body of Christ is used only by Paul

Between bride and groom, logically, there is no community yet. Only the wedding seals the community. This is not a good picture for today’s community, because the picture suggests that there is no community today. In contrast, the image Paul uses, the image of the “body of Christ,” is one of immediate communion.

“But ye are together the body of Christ, and seen as parts, members of it.”
1Cor 12,27

Since we are – in figurative language for the church – the body of Christ, we do not need a wedding before communion occurs. We are His body and even His completion.

“All things He [Gott]subordinates to Him[Christus] , at His feet, and Him He gives as head over all things to the called-out church, which is His body, the completion of Him who completes the all in all.”
Eph 1:22-23

Christ the Head and the church from all nations His body. So it fits together inseparably.

Israel, the bride

Israel has been called the bride from ancient times. For example, we read:

“Go and cry in the ears of Jerusalem, saying, Thus says the LORD, I remember – to your credit – the faithfulness of your youth, the love of your bridal days, how you went after me in the wilderness, in the unseeded land.”
Jer 2:2

Here the prophet Jeremiah describes the time when Israel wandered through the wilderness as a “bridal time”. It was the run-up to marriage, so to speak. Marriage itself is a covenant. A covenant between Israel and the God of Israel. This covenant is made before Mount Sinai:

“And now, if ye will willingly hearken unto my voice, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be mine out of all nations: for all the earth is mine.”
Ex 19:5

“And I passed by thee again, and saw thee, and, behold, thy time was come, the time of love; and I spread the edge of my garment over thee, and covered thy nakedness. And I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the LORD, and thou became mine.”
Ezek 16,8

Israel, however, does not remain in this covenant, but has behaved like a faithless one. The prophets tell of this several times. For example, Jeremiah says:

“And the LORD said unto me in the days of Josiah the king, Hast thou seen what Israel the apostate hath done? She went up into every high mountain, and under every green tree, and whored there. And I said, After she has done all these things, she will return to me. But she did not return. And her faithless sister Judah saw it. And she also saw that I dismissed Israel, the apostate, precisely because she had broken the marriage, and gave her a letter of divorce. But her sister Judah the faithless was not afraid, but went and committed fornication herself also. And it came to pass, by the levity of her fornication, she profaned the land; for she committed adultery with stone and with wood. And even with all this, Judah her sister, the faithless one, returned not unto me with her whole heart, but only in appearance, saith the LORD. And the LORD said unto me, Israel the apostate hath proved herself more righteous than Judah the faithless.”
Jer 3:1-11 (cf. Ezek 16:15-52)

The story does not end with this statement. God does not reject His people. He is quite different and holds out the prospect of restoration:

“Go and proclaim these words toward the north, saying, ‘Turn back, O Israel, you apostate,’ says the LORD. I will not look darkly upon you. For I am kind, says the LORD; I will not grudge forever.”
Jer 3:12-14

“Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant I made with their fathers on the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, which they broke, though I was their master, declares the LORD. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them and write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they will be my people. Then shall no more any man teach his neighbor, nor any man teach his brother, saying, Know the LORD. For they shall all know me from their least to their greatest, saith the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and will remember their sin no more.”
Jer 31:31-34

“But I, I will remember my covenant which I made with you in the days of your youth, and I will establish for you an everlasting covenant.”
Ezek 16:60ff

Israel, then, owns the new covenant. This is logical, because a “new” covenant can only be obtained by someone who already had an “old” covenant. Otherwise, the addition of “new” makes no sense. So this view belongs to Israel as described here. The detailed description of this view is striking. If one reads the Old Testament (the Tenach), then this picture is filled more and more with content. It culminates in the expectation of a Messiah who will establish a new kingdom of heavenly origin once among all the heavens (throughout the earth) (Dan 2:44; Dan 7:27). This was the expectation of Israel and the reason that with Jesus this long-awaited expectation was now near:

“From that time Jesus began to proclaim and to say, “Repent! For the kingdom of heaven has come near!”
Mt 4,17

The story with which the New Testament begins is not new. It is the continuation of history with Israel, or rather, it is the fulfillment of the promises made to Israel (Rom 15:8). Therefore, the Gospels mention many different terms with an origin in the Old Testament. The kingdom of heaven, the bride and a wedding are descriptions of these expectations. They are not individual words, but entire conceptual worlds. If we become familiar with the conceptual worlds of the Old Testament, we see more clearly why the Gospels are about.

Israel, the wedding

Bride and the groom are designations until the wedding. They are not roles that you want to have as a permanent condition. Jesus therefore speaks of the kingdom of heaven as a wedding. He does this in several parables, such as Matthew 22:

“Then Jesus took the floor again to speak to them in parables: The kingdom of heaven is like a man, like a king who gave his son a wedding feast …”
Mt 22:1-14

This parable is about the guests. If those invited do not come, others are invited. Jesus ends the parable with the words, “For many are called, but few are chosen” (Mt 22:14). So whoever wants to be part of this messianic kingdom should take this parable to heart. However, this has nothing to do with today’s community. The community did not even exist then. The parable, however, fits 100% as a lid on the pot of messianic promises. This is about Israel’s expectation. Jesus constantly points out that not everyone will enter this messianic kingdom just like that:

“When Jesus heard this, He was amazed and said to those who followed Him, ‘Truly I tell you: With no one in Israel have I found so much faith. But I say unto you, That many shall come in from the east and west, and shall sit down to meat with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven: but the sons of the kingdom shall be cast out into the darkness that is without. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.”
Mt 8,10-12

In the same way, the end of the parable of the 10 virgins is a warning:

“While they went to buy oil [für ihre Lampen] the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage feast, and the door was shut.”
Mt 25,10

Jesus tells this parable as part of his end-time discourse, which comprises a whole two chapters (Mt 24 and 25). The speech is His answer to the question of His disciples, “Tell us, when will this be, and what is the sign of Your presence and the conclusion of the eon?” (Mt 24,3). They asked about the conclusion of this time and the dawn of the new, messianic time. In the two chapters Jesus describes the change from this age to the next. The next age is the age in which the promises to Israel will be fulfilled – and accordingly a new beginning will take place for the whole world. This is the wedding and whoever lives then should desire to be at the wedding ceremony.

It is not until the last book of the Bible, the book of Revelation, that this coming time is again reported. Here we read:

“For the marriage of the little lamb has come and his bride has made herself ready”.
Rev 19:7

“Blessed are those invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb!”
Rev 19:9

Then the messianic kingdom will be established. Today’s church, from all nations, is not mentioned with a word.

Summary

How we read the New Testament is often shaped by unconscious assumptions. If this outlined view is new, then it was only demonstrated that things can be seen differently. The view was well justified. An answer was also found to the question of whether today’s church is the bride. We discovered that this is not said anywhere. On the contrary, what we can learn about the bride in the Bible always has to do with Israel’s expectation.

However, this realization is not the end. We can rejoice with the fact that God is working in this world, that there is a prospect for Israel. This is valuable and can be followed with wonder. If you look at the development with a little distance, you see two things happening:

• For Israel there is an expectation, of which the church from Israel (12 apostles) is the beginning
• For the church from all nations, there is a new prospect that will be fulfilled in parallel with Israel’s expectation (Paul).
• Both congregations were called so that they could each fulfill their own mission. They complement each other.

If we hold that today’s church is not the Bride, we are not taking anything away from the Bible. We read the text only in its own context. What we may discover is a God who is much greater than our understanding and has something in mind not only for us but for the whole world.

Deepening

• What texts come to mind when you hear “the church is the bride”?
• Examine Paul’s statement in Ephesians 5:23. Is it about a bride there?
• Examine Paul’s statement in 2 Corinthians 11:2. Is it about a bride there? What words are used and what do they mean?

All texts are about applying the basics of inductive Bible study if the texts are to speak for themselves.