show. It is a characteristic of these visions of the Apocalypse to lead up to a climax, as in Revelation 6:14-17, and

then to go back in time and approach the same climax by another avenue. The same principle that would make the

wife of Revelation 19 distinct from the bride of Revelation 21, sees two separate creations and two Adams, in the

dual records of Genesis 1 and 2, whereas it is obvious that in the second account fuller details are given. The word

`wife' is not exclusive to the record of Revelation 19, for in 21:9 we read of `The bride, the Lamb's wife'. It has

been affirmed that because Revelation 19:7 tells us that `His wife has made herself ready', we are here on legal

ground, and that salvation by works is in view. This is untrue on two counts. First because there will be none saved

in that day, apart from those who are redeemed, their own works having no place therein, and secondly, the idea of

the wife preparing herself or making herself ready, is but the scriptural and natural action, spoken of by Isaiah `as a

bride adorneth herself with her jewels' (Isa. 61:10).

In Revelation 19 the marriage supper of the Lamb is inaugurated. A specific period of time was observed for

this ceremony, referred to in Genesis 29:27 as `her week', and it appears from the Revelation that this week lasts

throughout the millennium, after which the holy city is seen descending from heaven and the `tabernacle of God'

will be with men. The language of Revelation 21:10 when compared with Revelation 17:1 places these two women,

these two cities, these two systems in direct opposition, a third woman, city or system would be an intruder here.

Before concluding, we must consider the teaching that affirms that the Church of the Mystery, `The Body' must

be at the same time `The Bride' by reason of what is taught in Ephesians 5. First, it is a matter of demonstrable truth

that the Church of the Mystery is called `The Body' of which Christ is the Head. Secondly, the statement made by

Paul as to the exclusive character of this high calling, would not only be nullified, but would prove to be

unwarrantable exaggerations, if after all that is written in Ephesians 1 to 3, this Church should turn out to be a part

of the hope of Israel or the promise made to Abraham. Thirdly, the apostle (to say nothing of the deeper thought of

inspiration) could be accused of badly mixing his metaphors.

We remember once meeting an enthusiast for `The Bride' who contended that the MAN child of Revelation 12

must be the Bride! but this is no more extravagant than maintaining that a company destined to be `the perfect MAN'

is nevertheless `The Bride'. It may be objected that the word `man' includes both sexes, but this is not so.

Anthropos yes, but Paul does not use the word anthropos in Ephesians 4:13 but aner, a word actually translated in

Ephesians 5 by the English word `husband', so that they who insist that the Church of Ephesians 5 is the bride, must

insist that Paul taught that the bride will be the perfect husband - which is absurd.

Ephesians 5 and 6 belong to the practical portion of the epistle (see the structure of the epistle in the article

EPHESIANS, p. 275) and in these chapters human society is divided up into three groups: (1) Wives, Husbands. (2)

Children, Parents. (3) Servants, Masters. Quite irrespective of the dispensation of grace these three divisions of

society would need to be recognized, and wives and husbands are just as surely advised on their relation to the

calling that Peter administered as wives and husbands were advised as to their relation to the calling administered by

Again, some have pointed out that the Church is feminine, and that the pronouns in Ephesians 5:25-27 should be

translated `her' and `she' instead of `it' thereby making it clear that the Church is `the bride'. This, however, is just

sheer ignorance, or trading upon ignorance. Gender in grammar is not the same as sex. Does anyone imagine that

because la table in French is `feminine' it has the remotest allusion to sex? We need not, however, go outside the

Greek of Ephesians 5 itself to demonstrate how utterly false the argument is that would speak of the Church as `she'.

Kephale `Head' is feminine. Is Christ, the Bridegroom, therefore a female? Akatharsia `uncleanness' is feminine.

Do we therefore teach that this is impossible for a man to exhibit or fall into? Basileia `kingdom' is feminine, rutis

`wrinkle' is feminine, sarx `flesh' is feminine and so on. Nothing concerning the calling of the Church can be made

out of the fact that the word ekklesia is in the feminine gender. Does Ephesians 5 say that the Church is the bride,

therefore wives should act in accordance with the fact? The answer is No, it draws its power of appeal from the fact

that these `wives' were by grace members of the Body.

`He is the Saviour of the Body' (Eph. 5:23).

`We are members of His Body' (Eph. 5:30).

`No man hateth his own flesh' (Eph. 5:29).