Israel is the bride of the Father and the Church is the bride of Christ.

[Tirian]

So says one Mr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum of Ariel Ministries. Full statement below. I am wondering how far one has to go before one could be labelled a heretic - thoughts and guidance?

Concerning the six stages of Israel's relationship as the wife of Jehovah, and the church as the bride of Christ, I am confused if we are talking about one or two “wives” in the Millennium.

A: To answer your question, we are talking about two wives, Israel and the Church, though the metaphor is to be related to two different persons. Israel is related to God the Father, while the Church is related to Christ. This should not be looked upon as purely a bigamist relationship simply because there are three persons in the Godhead: Israel, as the wife of Jehovah, is related to the Father, whereas the Church is related to Christ. Incidentally, it is not unusual for God to picture Himself related to two wives at the same time. You will find Him using the multiple-wife motif for Himself in Ezekiel 23.​

Bride of Christ

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

AF also wrote the book, Israelology: The Missing Link in systematic Theology (I dumped my copy when I had to thin out my library for lack of space). This is the quandary dispensationalists get themselves into.

God in the OT being husband to Israel is Jehovah the Son. When Dispensationalists separate the church and Israel they have problems. (For those who don't like my use of Jehovah rather than Yahweh check this out: Who is this Deity Named Yahweh? .)

 

[Tirian]

so, saying that God has two wives - would you consider that a heresy?

 

[Cymro]

As with Steve, the Lord Jesus is considered the spouse of the church, which
is demonstrated by the OT Song of Solomon. The church in the old and the
Israel of God in the new being one and the same, the elect.

 

[Tirian]

I'm on board with what you guys are saying. I'm trying to guage how serious an issue is that he is forcing this theology of two wives. Heresy?

 

[Cymro]

It might be a bit strong to call it heresy for it has no significant attack on the the
fundamentals,but it is a serious aberration. I would liken it to the belief in some
Arminian churches, 'that it is not sufficient to have Jesus as Saviour, you must have
Him as Lord.' A rigged dichotomy to get people to climb a step higher. When I hear these
these kind of things, I feel hurt for the sheep who look up to be fed, and are given husks.
Someone wrote, that such doctrine is as nutritious as bread made out of sawdust.

 

[Peairtach]

It depends on how strongly you define heresy. Presumably this guy wouldn't deny outright the Trinity but he's willing to draw these ridiculous conclusuons from his Dispensational beliefs and overlay them, or place them alongside orthodox Trinitarianism.

It would be interesting to hear his response when it's pointed out to him how his dispute musings clash with his orthodox Trinitarianism. The defense would be incoherent.

I don't know what he does with Jews who are in the Church alongside the Gentiles, like Alfred Edersheim, etc. Presumably these are married to both the Father and Christ?

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[arapahoepark]

Seven or eight years ago back when I was a die hard dispensationalist, I read stuff from Hilton Sutton, specifically his Revelation commentary. He was such a wooden literalist he denied that the Church/Israel or whatever group of people was not the bride of Christ but the New Jerusalem is! The actual cube of a city/living quarters of the church!

 

[Peairtach]

Seven or eight years ago back when I was a die hard dispensationalist, I read stuff from Hilton Sutton, specifically his Revelation commentary. He was such a wooden literalist he denied that the Church/Israel or whatever group of people was not the bride of Christ but the New Jerusalem is! The actual cube of a city/living quarters of the church!

Technically-speaking the New Jerusalem, the Lamb's Bride, is the Church, and is incomplete without both Jewish and Gentile members as living stones, from both the OT and NT dispensations.
But it's true that Dispensationalists tie themselves in knots and miss out on some of the beautiful coherence and harmony of God's Word because of their erroneous interpretative grid being imposed on the Word.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[arapahoepark]

Seven or eight years ago back when I was a die hard dispensationalist, I read stuff from Hilton Sutton, specifically his Revelation commentary. He was such a wooden literalist he denied that the Church/Israel or whatever group of people was not the bride of Christ but the New Jerusalem is! The actual cube of a city/living quarters of the church!

Technically-speaking the New Jerusalem, the Lamb's Bride, is the Church, and is incomplete without both Jewish and Gentile members as living stones, from both the OT and NT dispensations.
But it's true that Dispensationalists tie themselves in knots and miss out on some of the beautiful coherence and harmony of God's Word because of their erroneous interpretative grid being imposed on the Word.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

I know this. Revelation is full of symbols and New Jerusalem stands for the church but, since he interpreted it so literally he did not see it. He thought Christ was marrying this actual cube of a city that did NOT stand for the church in his mind.