The Gospel - The Means of Grace XX

Choosing Christ As Husband

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish." (Eph. 5: 22-27)

Lord Jesus is identified as being the "husband" of the "church" and the church is identified as being his "wife." The Hardshells correctly identify Christ's bride with the elect, with those chosen by the Father before the world began. Some have gone to extremes on this by affirming that the church, as a bride, existed with Christ in eternity past. This is known as the "eternal children" doctrine, connected with the "two seeds" theory of Hardshell founding father, Daniel Parker. Involved in this teaching was the idea that the elect existed with Christ in eternity past, at least seminally, as Eve was in Adam before her actual physical existence, or in what is called "eternal vital union." In this scheme the "eternal children" are the Lord's "seed" from eternity. But, the devil also has a "seed." These also, according to this scheme, are eternal children, but of the Devil. It is ancient Zoroastrianism or Manichaeism (dualism) in Christian disguise.

Many of the first Hardshells followed some aspects of Parker's "two-seedism." Gilbert Beebe believed in "eternal vital union." He did not fully accept Parker's view regarding the Devil's seed, or that the devil was without beginning as God. Further, most Hardshells today reject nearly all aspects of "two-seedism," denying that the elect existed in Christ from eternity. Good for them. Correctly they assert, as do all Calvinists, that the elect had no real existence in Christ before they were born into the world. The elect did exist as an idea or mental image in the mind of God, but this was no actual existence.

God the Father's election of a people to become a "wife" or "bride" for his Son was made from before the world began. (Eph. 1: 4) This the old Baptists have always believed and is what is expressed in her oldest confessions. This choice is a kind of prearranged marriage, done after the oriental fashion, and in accordance with Hebrew practice (see the case of Abraham arranging a marriage for Isaac).

When the elect are effectually "called" according to God's foreknowledge and predestination (Rom. 8: 29, 30), it is the time of their actual "engagement" to their appointed husband. This "engagement" of the appointed bride to her husband, however, goes against Hardshellism.

In the scriptures this "engagement" or "espousal" to Christ occurs in the experience of conversion, a conversion however that the Hardshells divorce from regeneration, and that they say is unnecessary for being the bride of Christ and for being eternally saved. Thus, their views deny that the bride of Christ, though appointed for Christ in the eternal decree of election, must become "engaged" to Christ through conversion. But, that is against both reason and scripture.

The chosen bride of Christ must become "willing" to have Christ as her husband, but the Hardshells argue that such "willingness" does not occur in time when the elect are called or regenerated. Calvinists, of course, believe that she shall be "made willing" by the constraining love of Christ and by the power of his Spirit to allure and draw her. (See Psa. 110: 3; Phil. 2: 13)

Some Hardshells even argue as do the Arminians in saying that all "obedience" is the result of free will and cannot be effectually cause by God. They would also say that is impossible that God irresistibly make one "willing." Yet, the bride of Christ, at some point, either in conversion, or when resurrected to glory, do become "willing" to become the wife of Christ. Other Hardshells, however, will affirm that those who become part of the church or bride of Christ will indeed be "made willing" and "obedient" by the sovereign efficacious grace of God. But, the question for all of them is this - when does one become "engaged" to Christ? When will they become willing to become his bride, willing to say "I do"? There are only three views possible.

First, one can argue that the sinner becomes a member of the church (bride) of Christ when he is "regenerated," and before he is "converted." This would be when the sinner, being saved, becomes "willing" to be engaged to Christ, or chooses to be such. Such a view according to Hardshellism contradicts their teaching that affirms that "regeneration" is "non-cognitive" and on the "sub-conscious" level.

Second, one can argue that the sinner becomes a member of the congregation of the saved, or chooses Christ, when he is "converted." But, the problem is, today's Hardshells believe that "conversion" is not necessary to become part of the bride of Christ.

Third, one can argue that the sinner does not become a member of the church, or bride of Christ, until he is glorified at the return of Christ, when he is resurrected and glorified. But, such a view fails to see how the scriptures teach that the actual marriage is when Christ returns, and the engagement occurs before that.

What saith the scriptures?

We have already agreed that the scriptures teach that the Father appointed the bride for Christ from eternity past. This is typified in God's appointment of Rebecca to become the wife of Isaac. In this choice Christ agreed with his Father's choice. The question is this, however; must not the chosen wife become willing to be the bride of her husband? Yes, she does, and for any Hardshell to deny it is to teach contrary to sacred scripture.

Though the choice of Christ's bride was made before the world began, the winning of the heart of the chosen bride, by Christ, takes place in time when the elect are converted by faith through the gospel.

"For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused (engaged) you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ." (II Cor. 11: 2)

Even the Hardshells must confess that this "espousal" to Christ is what takes place in "conversion," an experience that Hardshells admit comes by faith through the gospel. The "one husband" is Jesus and the "chaste virgin" are those sinners who have given their hearts to Christ in covenant. Paul basically says - "I arranged your engagement to Christ." Paul was not denying that the Father had arranged it, but only acknowledging his being used by God to bring about the engagement. Also, most Hardshells will affirm that this "espousal" is not "regeneration" since it was 1) made through the instrumentality of Paul, that is, by the preaching of the gospel by Paul, and 2) made by the choice or willing of those who become married to the Lord.

"The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son...Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage." (Matt. 22: 2, 9)

"And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut." (Matt. 25: 10)

The scriptures speak of "the marriage supper of the Lamb." (Rev. 19: 7, 9) Without a doubt this marriage and marriage supper are yet future and will occur when all the elect have been called, when "the fulness of the Gentiles be come in," and so to argue that both the engagement and marriage will take place at the same time, when Christ returns, is against all logic and historical marriage tradition. Thus, one can only conclude that the "engagement" takes place in time when a person is saved, and becomes a member of the body of Christ, or church, or when he chooses Christ. Also, the words of Paul shows that the engagement to Christ takes place in time in regeneration/conversion, although he believed that the marriage was yet future.

On this passage the great old Baptist doctor, John Gill, wrote:

"The act of espousing, the apostle here, with respect to this church, takes to himself, though in another sense, and which is the principal one, it is ascribed to Christ himself, who betroths all his to himself in righteousness, in judgment, in lovingkindness, and tender mercies; he saw them in his Father's purposes and decrees, in all the glory they were designed to be brought unto, when he loved them as his Father did, and desired them for his spouse and bride, which was granted to him; and then secretly in covenant betrothed them to himself, and ever after looked upon them as in a conjugal relation to him; wherefore though they fell in Adam, and became guilty and filthy, he gave himself for them as his church and bride, to sanctify and cleanse them, that he might present them to himself, just such a glorious church he had seen them before. In consequence of this, the Spirit of God attends the ministration of the Gospel, to the conversion of each of these souls, when they become willing to be the Lord's, and give their free and full consent to have him for their husband; and this is the day of their open espousal to him, and in this the apostle had, and other ministers of the Gospel have a concern; he was a means, in the hands of the Spirit, of their regeneration, a minister by whom they believed, an instrument in directing their souls to Christ, by setting forth his unsearchable riches, the glory of his person, and fulness of his grace: as Abraham's servant set forth the greatness of his master, and the large possessions his son was heir to, and brought out his bracelets and ear rings, his jewels of gold and silver, and thereby gained his point, a wife for Isaac; so the Spirit of God going along with the ministration of the apostle so wrought upon these Corinthians, as to give up themselves to the Lord, and take him for their head and husband, Saviour and Redeemer." (Commentary)

That is the "Old Baptist" position and the Hardshell notion about it is novel and hybrid, and opposed to the scriptural teachings.

"Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God." (Rom. 7: 4)

Though the word "marriage" is not in this passage, it is nevertheless implied by the context. Literally the text reads - "that you should become another's," meaning become another's spouse. Doubtless Paul alludes to the conversion experience of the Romans, to the time when they chose Christ as their Lord, Savior, and Husband.

On this verse, Gill wrote:

"...here respect is had to their open marriage to him in time, the day of their espousals in conversion; to make way for which, the law, their former husband, must be dead, and they dead to that, that so their marriage to Christ might appear lawful and justifiable; who is very fitly described by him..."

Joined To Christ

"For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh." (Eph. 5: 30, 31)

This is how Paul concludes his words concerning the church's union with Christ in Ephesians chapter five. Notice the word "joined." Marriage is a "joining" or uniting together, a gluing or cementing of two together as one. When are the elect "united" or "joined" together with Christ? First, the engagement (which is in Jewish tradition, a kind of initial marriage, so that the terms wife and husband are used during the engagement period). Second, complete union, which will take place at the marriage when Jesus returns.

Saved people are people who have joined themselves to the Lord in a covenant.

"...joined himself to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants..." (Isa. 56: 6)

"They shall ask the way to Zion with their faces thitherward, saying, Come, and let us join ourselves to the LORD in a perpetual covenant that shall not be forgotten." (Jer. 50: 5)

"And many nations shall be joined to the LORD in that day, and shall be my people..." (Zech. 2: 11)

"But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit." (I Cor. 6: 17)

It would be absurd to affirm that one can be engaged to the Lord and yet be, at the same time, a heathen and idolater. A worshipper of Baal a born again child of God who is also engaged to the Lord? How stupid is that?