is a question about which human feelings run extremely high, and there have been many worse disruptions of fellowship among Baptists (more so among them than among other denominations) over this than about more doctrinal issues. And sometimes each side of the matter has pronounced its anathema against the other in a totally unchristian disregard of the common faith and love that each would claim to have for their brethren. But this is to be expected, for nothing gives rise to higher feelings, nor more unscriptural attitudes, than some humanly devised theory, which a calm examination of all the Scriptures relating to this matter will reveal this to often be.

"Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honor to him, for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints. And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God," (Rev. 19:7-9). Here is the prophecy of the preparations for the historic revelation of the Bride of Christ, and it is not in the Church age at all, but is immediately before the return of Christ in judgment when He sets up His universal kingdom to reign for a thousand years on earth. And let it be carefully noted that this is not the consummation of the union of Christ and the Bride, but is only the preparations for it. Later texts reveal the actual coming on the scene of 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," (Rev. 21:2). "And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, and 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," (Rev. 21:9-10). The verses following to the end of this Book are, for the most part, a description of the New Jerusalem, the Bride.

Before going further in this matter, it might be well to notice some of the strange twistings and wrestings of Scripture that advocates of a "Baptist Bride" sometimes resort to in their endeavor to make Scripture fit their theory. It is sometimes said that the New Jerusalem in all its glory, is a gift from God to the Bride. How strange! The angel said, "Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb’s wife," but he says nothing about showing any gift for her. Then Scripture says that he "shewed me that great city, the New Jerusalem," which is supposedly not the Bride at all, but is a gift to her. He promises to show the Bride to John, but doesn’t, but the shows a gift for the Bride, about which he had said nothing. Alas, how human reasoning is so inventive, when it refuses to take the Word of God at face value. (See Eccl. 7:29).

A city is constituted of people, and so it is here. The people of the New Jerusalem will constitute it. And while the descriptions of Revelation 21 and 22 involve a great deal of material things, we have only to remember how that in both the Tabernacle and Temple of old, all of the materials used to construct them were typical of some aspect of the life and ministry of the Saviour, to realize that there is doubtless a lot here that typifies spiritual things. In all the descriptions of this New Jerusalem, reference is made to numerous kinds of people who will be in it, some of whom have never been members of a Baptist church. But more about the qualifications for entry into this New Jerusalem, which is declared to be the Bride, at a later time.

A correlative error to the idea of a "Baptist Bride" is the idea drawn from several Old Testament passages which speak of Israel as being "The Bride Of The Lord." It is concluded from this, that the Nation of Israel was the Bride of God the Father as, it is supposed, true churches are the Bride of Christ. But this totally overlooks the clear teachings of Scripture that God the Father has no contact with any people except through the mediatorial work of the Son of God. As the one and only "Mediator between God and men," (1 Tim. 2:5), He alone can bring men to God, and this only through the redemption that He wrought. Ancient believers looked forward in faith that accepted the promise that God’s appointed Agent would accomplish this. In this age, believers look backward in faith to the accomplished performance of the promise. Notice some of the Scriptures which show that the Father has no contact with men except through Christ: "And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live," (Ex. 33:20). The "Rock" in which Moses was hidden, (vv. 21-23), typified Christ, Who enabled Moses to approach God. "All things are delivered unto me of my Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him," (Matt. 11:27). "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared Him," (John 1:18). "Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father," (John 6:46). "Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto: whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honor and power everlasting, Amen," (1 Tim. 6:16). If God the Father were the Bridegroom, He must have been an absentee Bridegroom.

The occasions in the Old Testament when reference was made to Israel under the imagery of a wife or a bride were simply figures of speech, like those in the New Testament in which a likeness was drawn to some aspect of Israel’s relationship to God (it was often illustrative of her unfaithfulness to Him). But some of those texts clearly are prophetic of the coming of the Son of God, as in Isaiah 61:10, where the subject is salvation—the appointed work of the Son of God. In not one of the Old Testament texts is there the least intimation that they apply to God the Father. And some of those who were included under the imagery of a wife or a bride, are found among those who bring their honor into the New Jerusalem.

One of the chief bases of a misunderstanding of this matter is that many people do not differentiate between a figure of speech, and the reality that is meant to be illustrated. Scripture abounds with figures of speech, for the Eastern mind was and is particularly attuned to such methods of teaching. Our Lord often used numerous figures of speech, such as metaphors, similes, metonyms, litotes, parables, proverbs, et al., in His teachings. Their purpose was to "liken" some aspect of what He was teaching to something that was well known to His hearers. See Matthew 11:16; 13:24, for example. This is one of the seven laws of teachings—to explain the unknown in terms of the known.

But when one tries to make the figure that is only intended to picture it in one or two points, to be the reality, he quickly runs into serious error. Nor does Scriptures always use the words "liken" or "likeness" or other such words to show that only a likeness is meant. Sometimes "as...so" show this likeness. And more often than not, no such statement of likeness is made, but rather it is left to sanctified common sense to see that the teaching is of some sort of a likeness between the representative thing, and the reality. And if one is not led by the Spirit he will always take the wrong view. We see this illustrated in the heresy that takes Jesus’ words "This is my body," and perverts them into the idea that Jesus’ literal body is meant, when in reality, this is simply the common usage of language, found in most languages, wherein "is" means represents. We often show a picture of a woman and say, "This is my wife." No sane person takes this literally. All know that it is a pictorial representation of her. So with many Biblical figures of speech. They represent only.

Let us notice some of the figurative references that are thought to prove the "Baptist Bride" position. One of the texts thought to teach that not all saints are in the Bride, but that it is limited, is John 3:29: "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."

The argument is, that since John the Baptist was never a member of any New Testament church, therefore he could not be part of the Bride of Christ, but is only the friend of the Bridegroom. But if this verse proves anything, it proves too much. First, the advocates of a "Baptist Bride" hold that faithfulness to Jesus puts one in the Bride, but in the light of Matthew 11:11 and similar teachings, no one has ever been more faithful than John was. Nor can it be argued as Protestants often do, that John was not of the Gospel or Church age. The inspired Greek will not bear the common interpretation. It was not one who is "least" in the Kingdom (the Greek is not in the superlative degree, which it would have to be in order it to be correctly translated "least" but is in the comparative degree), but was rather Him Who is "later" in the Kingdom, Who is greater than John. Thus, this harmonizes completely with John 1:30; 3:30-31. And Mark 1:1-2 shows clearly that this present Gospel age began with John. But second, John 3:29 is dealing with a present tense situation, not with something that is yet to be, for all the verbs here with the exception of "stand" and "fulfilled" are present tenses. Especially notice the key verb "hath"—it is a present participle—"the one having the bride." That this has no relevance either to the Bride of Christ or to the church is evident because: (1) The Bride is never seen before the close of Revelation, and (2) There was no church in existence at the time John 3:29 was spoken. A study of the Harmony of the Gospel accounts reveal that Jesus came on the scene six months after John began his ministry, and their ministries only slightly overlapped, if, indeed, they overlapped at all, for Mark 1:14 shows that Jesus began His ministry after John was put in prison, and so, after John’s ministry had ended. And Jesus’ ministry, as recorded in John 1:29-4:45, covers a year or more before the other gospel writers record any of His public ministry. Therefore, the first church was not brought into existence by Jesus until sometime during His second full year of ministry. Ergo: what is said about the bride in John 3:29 has no relevance whatsoever to the Bride of Christ, nor to Jesus’ church. It is a figure of speech only, and was intended to illustrate John’s joy at being Jesus’ forerunner, who was to prepare a people for the Lord.

There are several other figures of speech employed in the New Testament to illustrate some aspect of the Lord and His people, which use nuptial terms, but they are as little to the point of proving that only faithful Baptist church members are to constitute the Bride of Christ as John 3:29 is. Such a text is 2 Corinthians 11:2: "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."

It is assumed as a case proven that this makes only church members to be espoused to Christ, but such is not the case. Both the Corinthian epistles are of wider application than just to the church there, as we see in 1 Corinthians 1:2 and 2 Corinthians 1:1. And while there are some things, especially in 1 Corinthians that relate only to the church there, these are generally shown to be restricted to the church by the terms used. For example, the abuses of the Lord’s Supper in chapter 11 is specifically limited by the words "when you come together in the church," (v. 18), "When ye come together into one place," (v. 20), etc. But as a general rule, where no exceptions are noted, the epistles apply to "them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ," (1 Cor. 1:2). Hence, most of both epistles apply to all the saved. Nor is the Second Epistle any different than the first in this regard, for Paul specifically says that he wrote the second epistle to the same people to whom he wrote the first. 2 Corinthians 1:2 says no more than what we read to be the qualifications to be in the bride in Revelation chapters nineteen through twenty-two, that they must be real saints. More concerning these qualifications later. How easy it is to place a preconceived theory about something over a Scripture verse, then try to force that Scripture to conform to it, sometimes even by trying to force back under the theory any Scriptures facts sticking out.

We now come to the oft cited "proof" in Ephesians 5:22-23, where verse 32 seems at first glance to make this an appropriate citation, for it says "This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church." However, several important matters make it evident that this has no relevance whatsoever to the Bride of Christ. (1) The subject of the discussion is submission, (vv. 21-22). And this subject runs all through these verses. This section is teaching proper relationships in regard to authority. (2) The key words "as ...so" and "even as... so;" which show a likeness in some regard, are extensive here, "as" (a word denoting likeness) appearing six times. (3) This figure of speech relates to a "wife," not to a "bride," and there is scripturally a difference between the two, as we are told in 1 Corinthians 7:34. Brides were required to be virgins, and it is certain that the Bride of Christ will be a virgin. Therefore, whatever is said here about wives has no application to the Bride of Christ. Whenever Christ presents His Bride to Himself, it will be in that glorious state when she is without spot, or wrinkle, or any such things, but will be holy and without blemish, (Eph. 5:26-27). (4) This presentation of the glorious church to Himself, (v. 27), is a future matter, as the subjunctive requires. This looks forward to Revelation 21:2, when Jesus shall present "to Himself in glory the church." This is something to take place in glory, and has no relevance to anything now existing. Though it is common for men to state that "we believe that the church is the body and bride of Christ," the second part of that confession is totally incorrect. Presently the Bride of Christ does not exist, except in the Divine purpose. Otherwise, there would be no need to "show" her when she comes on the scene. (5) The great "Mystery" here (a mystery is something that could not be found out by mere human learning, but which has been hidden from men until it is revealed by God, (Rom. 16:25-26), is the revelation of Christ’s love for His churches, a love so great that it moved Him to purchase them with His own blood, (Acts 20:28). Such a self-denying love for his wife, God requires every husband to have. Sadly, some of the most vociferous proponents of a present "Baptist Bride" theology give evidence of the least love for their wives, who are God’s gracious gifts to them, (Prov. 18:22). (6) When the "church in glory" is gathered and presented to Christ, it will differ in numerous points from all present churches, and will be a "church" chiefly in that it will be a called out assembly of the saints. This calling out is presently being done by the preaching of the Gospel so that people will have the imputed righteousness of Christ, one of the few requirements for being in the Bride of Christ, as we will subsequently see.

Perhaps some have tried to draw from the parable of the ten virgins in Matthew 25:1-13 some help for this theory, but, as the opening verse shows, this can have nothing to do with the Bride question, even though reference is made to the virgins and the bridegroom, for this is illustrative of the "Kingdom of heaven," in its present earthly form, which shall terminate at the coming of the Son of man, (v. 13)—a thousand years and more before the Bride of Christ comes on the scene.

Sometimes brides from the Old Testament are preached as typical of the Bride of Christ, and this is supposed to prove that the New Testament church is the Bride of Christ. But no supposed Old Testament type should ever be used to originate any idea. If something is not taught in the New Testament in clear statements, any supposed type representing that will only be an accidental likeness to what does not, in fact, exist. Nothing should so warn us of the danger of building doctrines on such fabrications like the example of Origin of Alexandria. This professing Christian, who lived about 185-254 A. D., brought many false teachings into the churches of his day by his constant spiritualizing and allegorizing of Scriptures which generally had no other than a literal and historical meaning. Such forms of teaching may be able to present intriguing and beguiling idea, but if they are not established on the clear, literal teachings of Scripture, they will ultimately become a curse by leading people astray instead of leading them into the truth.

Some have supposed that the personages in the Song of Solomon typify Christ and His Bride. But there is not a single reference to such a meaning or application of this Book in the New Testament. It is a purely gratuitous supposition to think that this Book has any meaning or application to anything but to Solomon and his first, or his favorite, wife. Yet whole books have been written on the Song of Solomon, interpreting it of the Bride of Christ. Most of this Book cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be applied to the Bride of Christ. But taken as an inspired Marriage Manual, written by Solomon concerning the joyous relationship between him and his wife, to show how married couples are to relate to one another so as to have the fullness of martial happiness, and it all makes perfect sense. And the fact that several New Testament texts state that the Church was a "mystery," hidden from man until New Testament revelations, makes certain that it could not in any way have been revealed in Old Testament times.

There are few other passages of Scripture that are thought to prove the theory that there is presently a "Baptist Bride of Christ," but if they are examined, their supposed "proof" will be found, as these above, to be the results, either of misinterpretation, misapplication, or mistranslation. The very paucity of Scripture texts that are supposed to teach this, evidences that it cannot be the terribly important doctrine that many try to make it to be. It is to be feared that in many instances human pride and the desire to glorify ourselves, and to be able to assume an "I’m better than you because I’m going to be in the Bride" attitude lies at the root of this teaching. Indeed, we have often heard otherwise good men throw it up to people of other denominations that "We Baptists are better than you, for we’re the Bride of Christ." Such certainly doesn’t sound like the attitude that is required by 1 Corinthians 1:26-31.

That the Bride of Christ could be a present reality, made up of "faithful Baptist Church members" would require the acceptance of a false teaching regarding the "body of Christ," which Scripture plainly teaches to be the local church. This is so because there is but one Bride, but there are many local churches, each of which is recognized in Scripture as being the body of Christ (not just a "part of the body") in its own locality. Thus the churches at Rome, at Corinth, at Ephesus, at Colosse, etc., are all declared to be "the body of Christ." Advocates of a "Baptist Bride" do not hesitate to declare that "All True Baptist Churches Form The One Body Of Christ." Brethren, that is a universal church—a universal Baptist Church. And that idea is totally contrary to the very meaning of the word translated "church," and is a violation of New Testament Church truth. It is strange that many independent Baptists, who will have nothing to do with the Baptist super-church organizations, such as The Southern Baptist Convention, which considers itself to be a "church"—a universal Southern Baptist Church—will nonetheless hold to a theory which requires the same belief, but just a different application.

And the issue is often obscured by advocates of this theory implying that if one doesn’t subscribe to the "Baptist Bride’ theory, then he must subscribe to either the Catholic theory, or the Protestant "church branch" idea. But this is not true at all. A scriptural view will be compelled to reject all three of these, for they all tend too much to exalt the pride and arrogance of those who hold to them. All three of these theories come very close to the old Augustinian heresy that "The Catholic (universal) church is the Bride of Christ, outside of which there is no salvation." It is the scare tactic of some to try to drive those who disagree with them into their camp by holding up the bugaboo of "then you believe in a universal church." All theories hold to a universal church of some kind. Let’s think about that for a moment.

Ending with Revelation 20:11-15, when all unsaved people are judged and delivered into eternal perdition, there are no distinctions made between the different kinds of saints. Revelation 21 and 22 has all of the saints gathered together inside the Holy City, the New Jerusalem, and outside are only the unsaved, (Rev. 21:27; 22:15). And yes, we are aware that some proponents of the "Baptist Bride" theory, seeing the inconsistency of their position with these texts, have claimed that these outside are truly saved people, but who were not faithful enough to have a part in the Bride, and so, are shut out. That violates Scripture terminology in order to establish a theory. That would make participation in the Bride to be based on human works, which is contrary to the whole teachings of grace. More about this later. This gathering together of all the saints does indeed constitute a universal church. This is what is referred to as "the glory church," or more literally "the in-glory church," which has finally been purged of all spots, wrinkles and blemishes. This is that which is foretold in Ephesians 1:10. Reference to the "church of the firstborn ones, which are written in heaven," (Heb. 12:23), refers to the same thing. Scripture speaks of all of God’s elect being enrolled in the Lamb’s Book of Life from the foundation of the world, (Rev. 17:8), and elsewhere, and this is one of the things that distinguishes those who are in the Bride, (Rev. 21:27). When this all comes about, there will be no disharmony in this being called a universal church, for then and only then will all the calling out be completed, all of the called gathered together, and all of the requisite criteria for the word "church" met in this. But not until that time and circumstance will it be possible to scripturally use "universal" and "church" together.

Sometimes the "Baptist Bride" theory is promoted by claiming that most Baptists have held to it, and often great names are cited as believing it. But, brethren, we are all just sinners saved by grace, and none of us are infallible. And the fact that Graves, Moody and other men who were generally sound in the faith held to this theory, proves nothing except that we are all prone to error if we are not diligent in holding to the Scriptures instead of to human theories. We must all answer to God, not to our Baptist ancestors, nor to scholarly Bible interpreters. Scripture alone is to be the shaper and molder of our faith, and anything that varies a hair’s breadth from this must be instantly rejected as not the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.

Another misconception about this matter, is the assumption that being in the Bride is a reward for faithfulness to Christ. But it is interesting to observe that the Bride has to do with a relationship, and no relationship with God is ever based in human works. To hold such is a denial of the whole principle of grace. We can easily understand the Arminian holding to this position, for his theology is generally in the mistaken belief that his works earn him God’s favor in part or in whole. But how could the believer in God’s grace take this position? Yet this is the case, and Scripture is even misinterpreted to try to force this idea upon this matter. It is said that "his wife hath make herself ready," (Rev. 19:7), proves that this position is based in the saints’ faithfulness. The "righteousness of saints" with which she is clothed, (Rev. 19:8), is claimed to be the personal righteous acts done by the saints, and not the imputed righteousness of Christ, that is the free gift of grace. But this ignores the word "granted" here, which is the Greek word more commonly translated "given" and is so rendered in verse 7 of this same chapter. Indeed, it is related to the Greek word "gift" that appears in Romans 5:15-17 in regard to this Divinely imputed righteousness of Christ. The inspired text says that this "righteousness of saints" has been given as a free gift, and is not something that they have produced by themselves. Not only so, but even the tense of this verb (aorist) suggests the same thing, for it refers to a single act in past time, not to a lifetime of actions, as would be required if this were based in human faithfulness.

In this same connection it is sometimes objected that if faithful saints are not rewarded for their faithfulness by being given a higher place than other Christians, then there is no reason to be faithful, especially inasmuch as it often entails suffering considerable reproach. First, let it be said that such reasoning sounds awfully carnal, for faithfulness ought to be based solely in love and respect for God. And if any believer only serves God for what he can get out of it, he will get nothing, for he is doing it only for a selfish reason, which the Saviour indicted several times (see Matt. 6:1, 5, 16, etc). Second, as already noted, relationships in Scripture are never the result of human works. Every relationship that we sustain to God is the result of His gracious workings. No one can work his way into the family of God, nor can anyone work his way into the Bride of Christ. No man of sense and integrity ever married a woman because she was "worthy," but rather because he loved her, warts and all. And God pity the woman whose husband married her because he considered her "worthy" of him, for sooner or later, he will change his mind and throw up to her the supposed unworthiness, and perhaps even cast her off. Third, while there are certainly rewards for faithfulness to God, the time of rewarding is at Jesus’ return, (Matt. 16:27), not a thousand years later when time has ceased and the Bride comes on the scene. There will be adequate time for rewards to be given to the saints during the thousand years of Jesus’ reign over all the earth to more than compensate for any service that they may have rendered, and any sufferings they have endured. Fourth, God never dangles a bribe for service before believers’ eyes, for He desires love-motivated service. He commands our faithfulness irregardless of any other considerations, and only incidentally promises rewards to them on other occasions.

It is sometimes argued that there must be "guests" at the wedding, and that these must be those who have not been faithful Christians. But who says that there must be guests at the Wedding" Scripture doesn’t in those texts which truly apply to this matter. And while there might be guests at the wedding supper, there are no guests at the actual joining of a man and a woman, for this is a very private matter. "But," it may be objected, "at Eastern weddings, the wedding feast, at which there were guests, always followed the actual wedding. This may or may not be true, but Revelation 19:7-9 shows that the Wedding Supper of the Lamb follows the actual joining of the Bride with the Lamb, (Rev. 21:1). We must be careful that we don’t let mere human customs or traditions interpret the Bible for us. God has His own agenda in all things, irregardless of what human customs or traditions may be. But even if it were required that there be "guests" of some kind, there are always the multitude of angels which would suffice, for these have been the onlookers and admirers of the activities of the saints in all times, (l Pet. 1:12; Eph. 3:10; 1 Cor. 11:10, etc).

The all too common effects of holding the theory of a "Baptist Bride" must not be overlooked, for while there are no good effects to holding this that might not be better effected in other ways, there are some sadly deleterious effects to it. There is a great deal of carnal pride seen in those who hold this most tenaciously, and in the light of the word "everyone" in Proverbs 16:5, this cannot be good. Anything, Anything, ANYTHING that caters to, or encourages carnal pride must immediately be suspect as from God. God cannot even condone, much less encourage, that which produces pride in His people. The scriptural view of the Bride compels us to all see ourselves as eternal debtors to Divine grace, which alone gives us a place in such an intimate relationship as this. Sometimes the advocates of a "Baptist Bride" have been guilty of self-righteously looking down upon non-Baptist Christians, whose main crime may have only been that they had never been taught the truth about the Lord’s true churches. Few things drew forth the Lord’s disfavor so much as a self-righteous attitude. And in the light of the fact that anyone is accepted by grace alone, and never by any human doings, we should all be able to see the folly of anyone thinking himself better than others. An ignorant but humble Christian is more pleasing to God than one who knows the truth, but proudly and arrogantly thinks that his standing is by his own wisdom and works.

Much of what has gone before has been negative, as we have looked at the misinterpretations and misapplications of texts thought to teach the "Baptist Bride" position, all of which have been scripturally dispatched. Now we come to a positive approach. "What saith the Scriptures" regarding the Bride of Christ? The historical appearance of the Bride is first seen in the closing chapters of Revelation, and the Scriptures relating to this are clear beyond all question as to who shall constitute the Bride of Christ. The first thing that we see in Revelation 19:7-9 is that this one has prepared herself for this. It is interesting to observe that the Greek word here used is identically the same one used in Matthew 3:3; Luke 1:17 of John the Baptist’s Gospel preaching by which souls were called to repentance. This preparation involves the receiving of the imputed righteousness of Jesus, as given to those who trust in Him, as we have already noted. Romans 3:24-5:11 deals extensively with this subject of imputation as the free grace gift that is given to every born again person. People are prepared to be in the Bride first of all by being brought to an acceptance of the Gospel message.

Then in Revelation 19:9 reference is made to the blessedness of being called to the marriage supper of the Lamb. Some have thought that these who were called were not the constituents of the Bride, but were only the "guests." But that is a rather extreme interpretation, and if it were so, would automatically eliminate all church members, yea, all saved persons. For we must remember that every saint is a saint by calling, as we see in such texts as Romans 1:6-7; 1 Corinthians 1:2, 24; Jude 1; Revelation 17:14. Often "calling" is used as a synonym of salvation, as in 1 Corinthians 1:26; 2 Timothy 1:9; Hebrews 3:1; 2 Peter 1:10. And the Greek word for "church" is ekklesia—a called out assembly, an assembly of called out ones, so that if the called are not in the Bride, then no saved person is, nor is any member of a sound church.

After telling many things about the Bride, the New Jerusalem, we are told in Revelation 21:24 that "the nations of them that are saved" shall walk in the light of it. And we are aware of some trying to make this mean that these are not actually in the Bride, but are only outside where they enjoy the outshining of it. But that will not do at all, for there is no distinction made here between the saved ones. It is not "part of them that are saved," nor "the unfaithful saved." Nor the "saved who were not members of true churches" that are referred to, but simply "them that are saved" without any distinction nor diminution of numbers. All those outside are declared to be unsaved people, (Rev. 22:15). And among others who are in the Bride are "the kings of the earth." What king was ever a member of any sound church? History is silent about any such, but there have been numerous kings who were truly saved. This again fully harmonizes with the requirements in Revelation 19:7-9.

Furthermore, Revelation 21:27 details who shall not enter into it, and who shall: "But they which are written in the Lamb’s Book of life." There are numerous references in Scripture to this "Book," which is the enrollment of God’s elect. And in not one of them is human works or worthiness the qualification for being written in it, so that the incontrovertible conclusion here must be, that the elect the saved—they and they only—will be in the Bride. Again, this will exactly harmonize with what is demanded in Revelation 19:7-9.

Now let us review these requirements that are so clearly set forth here in the only section of Scripture where the Bride of Christ is historically set forth. What is required to be in the Bride? (1) One must have been prepared by having heard and believed the Gospel of the grace of God. (2) This preparation results in one having the imputed righteousness of Christ the fine linen "which is the righteousness of saints." (3) This is how one becomes a "called one"—one who is a called saint, or a saint by calling. (4) One is therefore a saved person, and all who are not saved are shut outside. (5) All these things reveal that one is of the elect, and has had his name recorded in the Lamb’s Book of Life from eternity past, (Rev. 17:8). These are the requirements to be in the Bride—the only scriptural requirements—and they all relate to salvation in its causes and consequences only. To try to add any other and more stringent requirements is to presumptuously add to Scripture, and that is very solemnly interdicted in this very Book (see Rev. 22:18-19). Can anything justify such action?

The "Baptist Bride" theory of what the Bride of Christ is-that it is comprised only of those who were faithful members of true churches-is proven to be a mistaken idea, however popular it may be, and however it may cater to our natural pride, by the following facts:

1. There are no Scriptures which clearly declare this, when they are properly understood, and Biblically interpreted. The misuse and misinterpretation of certain Biblical figures of speech only seem to give a shallow indication of such a theory, but this contradicts the other clearer declarations of who is in the Bride.

2. The theory rests entirely upon the misinterpretation of only a half dozen or so figurative uses of terms which are drawn from nuptial relations.

3. The Bride of Christ involves a relationship between God and saved people, and no such spiritual relationship in Scripture ever rests upon human actions, yet this theory demands faithful human works for it to be held.

4. The time element of the entering into the Bride is against any theory which brings human works into the matter, for Christ will reward His people at His return, which rewards are to be enjoyed during the Millennium, a thousand years before the Bride comes on the scene.

5. The number of churches and the number of the Bride necessitate the violation of the Scriptural teachings about the Lord’s institutional "body." This theory would demand some sort of a present "universal" body, when the Scripture treats each church as the "Body of Christ" in its locality.

6. This theory would require the misapplication of human customs and traditions, so that they would interpret Scriptures regarding the Bride, instead of Scripture shaping the right view of it.

7. The obvious appeal of this theory to carnal pride and the promotion of too much party-spirit, makes the theory instantly suspect. Biblical views of anything tend to humble believers, not elate their pride.

8. Consequently, this theory has deleterious effects upon love for those who are recognized as true brethren, but who have not progressed in the truth as much as desired.

9. This theory is contrary to right views of grace, and of the basis of our acceptance and fellowship with God. Grace, not any form or degree of works, is our only hope of acceptance with God.

10. But finally, and foremost, the clear declaration of Scripture in the only texts specifically relating to the Bride of Christ, to the effect that saved people, irregardless of any other considerations, are the constituents of the Bride of Christ, is destructive of any other views. Will we be subject to Scripture, or follow the traditions and interpretations of men, and the promptings of pride?