bride', and they must therefore represent a yet further and separate company who are neither restored Israel nor the

elect remnant.

As the `Lamb' the Lord Jesus is `the King's Son', and for Him a marriage has been made. The king's servants

went out and called those who had been bidden, but they would not come. A second invitation, corresponding with

the renewal of the gospel in Acts 2, where `all things are ready', was made, but this was met by excuses and abuse;

`they made light of it'. The result of this hardness of heart was that these were destroyed and their city burned up

(Matt. 22:7). This is a plain allusion to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D 70, and the words `ye would not' of

Matthew 23:37 and the destruction of the temple (24:2) confirm the interpretation.

After A.D. 70 the hope of Israel and the New Covenant were suspended. Necessarily, with the suspension of

that hope and that New Covenant, went the restoration of Israel as the wife, and the calling of the remnant as the

bride, but one feature was perpetuated, namely, the calling of those who should be guests at the marriage. These

were gathered out from the highways, `bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests' (22:9,10). Those

who `were (had been) bidden' (22:3) and to whom a second invitation had been sent (22:4) were Israel. Those who

subsequently took the place forfeited by Israel are referred to by John: `He came unto His own, and His own

received Him not, but as many as received Him ... ' (John 1:11,12). These are `the other sheep' not acknowledged by

Israel (10:16).

John's Gospel differs from the synoptic Gospels in many ways, and prominent among these is the dispensational

position of those who believe its message. Such do not form part of the kingdom of Israel, neither do they constitute

the Bride of the Lamb, but they do fit into Matthew 22:9,10, and those who today respond to the gospel of John 3:16

and order their lives according to the teaching of that gospel constitute that distinctive and blessed company who

shall be the guests at the marriage of the Lamb, an honour high indeed for such as were gathered from highways and

byways, both bad and good.

In harmony with this intention, the first miracle recorded as a sign in John's Gospel is that of a marriage, where

the `friend of the bridegroom' is introduced (2:9) and where the Lord and His disciples were there as `guests'.

John's Gospel is unique. It differs from Matthew in that it is not concerned with the kingdom, but rather with

one phase of that purpose of the ages by which God fills the interval occasioned by Israel's failure. Both the prison

ministry of Paul and the Gospel according to John are written in view of the crisis of Acts 28. In John's prologue the

presentation of Christ as the Word is very close to the presentation of Christ as the Image of the invisible God in

Paul's prison ministry, but the callings are distinct and differ essentially. In John's Gospel the believer is numbered

among those of the Gentiles called after A.D 70 to be guests of the marriage feast, whereas in Paul's prison ministry

the Gentile believer called after Acts 28:28 becomes a member of the body of Christ. In both Acts 28 and in the

climax chapter of John 12, the crisis is indicated by the quotation of Isaiah 6:9,10 (John 12:40,41; Acts 28:26,27).

In John 12:20,21 it is `Greeks' that seek the Lord; in Acts 28:28 it is `Gentiles' that are the object of grace.

Before entering into the question as to whether the `sheep' of Scripture refer only to Israel or ever to the church,

it will be necessary to adjust the translation of the Authorized Version in one important particular. In verse 16 the

Authorized Version uses the word `fold' twice, where the Greek original uses two different words.

Aule is correctly rendered `fold' but poimne should be translated `flock'. Poimne is cognate with poimen

`shepherd', but aule refers rather to the enclosure, the `fold', and if used of `men' instead of `sheep' is translated in