What is the Bridal Paradigm? (restated)
19 03 2008This is a long post, one that I wrote a while back but didn’t get much feedback on. I went through and re-worked it. I’m currently developing this message as some I will preach, so it’s in constant flux. feel free to comment.
What is the Bridal Paradigm? This is a question that has been asked over and over again to me in various online communities. There are questions as to what it is, where its origins come from, and questions about its significance in our daily faith. I will first define the paradigm, and then I will explain its significance. I think you will find the BP is at its essence is just a presentation of the gospel. It’s one of the many ways used in the Old and New Testament to describe the good news of Jesus coming to Earth to die for our sins, to give us grace to sustain us until He returns and the good news of that return to the Earth. There is no obfuscation here that is truly the point, purpose, and heart behind the BP: Justification, Sanctification, and Glorification. It’s God’s love for us and our response in the first commandment, that is the foundation to all three theological basics.
Definition.
The “Bridal Paradigm” is a term used to describe the allegory of Jesus being the bridegroom, and us being his bride. This allegory is seen all throughout the Bible, and has been preached by most throughout church history. (At the end of this document is the list of those who preached Christ as our Bridegroom and used Song of Songs in the allegorical interpretation.)
At it’s very core the bridal paradigm is John 3:16: “For God so loved the World that He gave his only begotten son.” The bridal paradigm is a picture of how Jesus feels about us. John 17:24 “Father I desire that they would be with me where I am. Ephesians 2:4 “But God being rich in mercy, because of the great love which He loved us. Even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ-by grace you have been saved.” Psalms 18:9 ” he delivered me, because he delighted in me.” Song of Solomon 8:6 “Set me as a seal upon your heart, as a seal upon your arm, for love is strong as death, jealousy is fierce as the grave. Its flashes are flashes of fire, the very flame of the Lord. Many waters cannot quench love, neither can floods drown it. If a man offered for love all the wealth of his house, he would be utterly despised.” Song of Solomon 1:15 “Behold you are beautiful my Love; behold you are beautiful.” Also see Psalms 45:11; Is. 62:4; Rev. 4:11; Rom. 8:39;
It’s also an example of how we should feel toward him. Matthew 22:34 “You shall love the Lord your God with all of your heart, mind, soul, and strength” I John 4:19 “We love, (Him) because He first loved us.”
The bridal paradigm is one way to tell the glorious story of how we as depraved human beings were created by an all sovereign, all powerful, all wise God. Who owes us nothing, and needs nothing from us. Yet out of His great compassion, out of His great love, freed us from the law of sin and death, so that we could be with Him in eternity; unto His glory. He freed us because he loved us. He freed us because he greatly desired us. He is coming back as not only a King coming to reign. Not only as a Judge coming to make the wrong things right. But also as a Bridegroom coming to reveal to us his great love, and kindness. (Eph2:7) It’s the story of how He died for are sins, conquered death in rising from the grave, and went to prepare a place for us (as a bridegroom does for his bride John 14:3) and is coming back for us (his bride Rev. 19:6-8). We are his glory, (John 17:10) and in us he has wealth and riches (Eph 1:1 
In this definition we use the allegorical interpretation of Song of Solomon, to give language to this understanding of Jesus as the bridegroom and us as His bride. Which has been used all though out church history. Again, the list of those who subscribed to the allegorical interpretation can be found below.
What the bridal paradigm is not:
Many different circles, admitably some charismatic circles, have taken the allegorical interpretation of Song of Solomon too far. The bridal paradigm is only an allegory that can only be valid if it reflects New Testament truths. i.e the cross, the resurrection, justification by faith, the return of Jesus etc. It is not an allegory to be taken literally. We are not in a sensual or erotic relationship with Jesus. He doesn’t physically kiss us. He isn’t our spiritual boyfriend. He isn’t a man that we will marry as our actual husband. It’s merely an allegory. To view it as anything more would be a perversion of the Word, and heresy.
Why is this important now?
First. It’s important to know that we are the Bride and he is a Bridegroom because it’s a biblical truth. (references have been cited.) Though it’s not the gospel. It’s part of it. It gives us the big picture of why God sent his son to die for our sins; because of his love for us. It’s the reason His son, Jesus The Christ, is coming back to the Earth. To reveal his great love and kindness to us. It completes for us the why behind the what.
Second. I and many (around the Earth, not just those involved with one ministry) believe that we are living in the age in which the Lord will return. (I have biblical, personal, and prophetical reasons for that belief which I will break down in the weeks and months to come. But first things first.) In the age when the Lord returns, it is imperative that the bride “make herself ready”(Rev. 19:7) or that she “buy oil”(Matthew 25:1-12) Matthew 24:12 talks about how in the final days, “because of the increase of lawlessness the love of many will grow cold.” It’s important that we as the bride are ready for those days.
What does that look like? “Zack, are you saying now that we must hold ourselves to a higher standard of righteousness so we don’t fall away in the end of the age?” NO. (At least not any higher than the church should hold herself to in any age: “Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect”). I Corinthians 1:8 “Lord Jesus Christ who will sustain us to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Christ Jesus.” Galatians 2:21“I do not frustrate the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained by the Law, then Christ died for nothing.” Jude 24 “To Him who is able to keep you from stumbling” I’m saying we must learn to rest in Christ so as to remain in his righteousness. The message doesn’t change. The way we “buy oil”, the way we “Make ourselves ready” is by abiding in the Vine (John 15) Abiding in Christ. By leaning in the grace and ability of God and by letting Him complete His sustaining work within us.
There was a prophetic word given that in this generation, God is going to change the understanding and expression of Christianity in this single generation. The expression isn’t being changed to something new. It’s that the church in our day is preaching many other things outside of Christianity (emergent gospel, prosperity gospel, dominionism, humanism, universalism, gnosticism, hyper catholicism etc.) and God is going to change the understanding back to its foundation; the Word.
The “Bridal Paradigm” is not to say that we just found a new way to walk out Christianity. The Bridal Paradigm is the Bible’s way of helping us understand the WHY behind the WHAT:
Justification: We were justified by Christ’s atoning work on the cross. Why? Because of His love. Because He first loved us.
Sanctification: Walking out our salvation with both fear and trembling. Why? Because we desire to grow in love with Him. John 14:15 “If you love me you will keep my commandments.”
Glorification: We appear with Christ in resurrected glory. Why? So that we can be with Him forever. We become his. It’s the Wedding Day. (Rev. 19) It’s when we appear with him in glory (Col. 3) and are never to be plagued by the laws of sin and death. So that we can commune and delgitht with the Holy Trinity the same way the The Father, Son and Spirit have since eternity past. (John 17:22-24)
He loves us. He sent his son for us. In our weakness he desires us. He will sustain us. He is coming back for us.
Paul in telling of the second coming of Jesus says: “Therefore encourage one another with these words.” -1Thes. 4:8 Why encourage each other? Why does His return matter? Because it’s then that the one we are betrothed in our salvation, glorifies us so that we can glorify Him forever.
The command is to encourage each other that He is coming. That we should take heart that the King is returning to the earth. To take heart because the Judge is coming with justice to right all those things that are wrong. To rest an anxious heart because the Bridegroom is coming back for his bride, and because of his grace, we will be found spotless on that day. It’s because of His love we get to stand with him on that day (Rev. 19). Because of his love we get to stand righteous before that Great White Throne (Rev. 20) Because of his love we get to live forever with him. Giving him all the praise, honor, glory, power and authority he is due, forever and ever.
Amen.
This is the list of all those who used the allegorical interpretation of Song of Solomon, as being about Christ and the church; His Bride.
A. Patristic Christian
4. Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150-216)
5. Origen of Alexandria (185-251)—his magnum opus was a ten volume commentary on the Song. It was hailed by Jerome as surpassing all other books Origin had written and all other books any other Christian author had written.
6. Athanasius, archbishop of Alexandria (295-373)—leader of the opposition against the Arian heresy of the fourth century that asserted that Jesus is a divine man but not God.
7. Gregory Nazianzen (329-380) – one of the leading theologians of the Eastern church
8. Gregory of Nyssa (335-95)—wrote an extensive commentary on the Song only completing through 6:9 by the time of his death
9. Ambrose of Milan (b. 340)—drew upon the Song in many of his writings and sermons
10. Augustine of Hippo (345-430)
11. Philo, bishop of Carpasia in Cyprus
12. Jerome (ca. 348-420)—wrote an entire commentary on the Song
13. Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus in Syria
15. Gregory the Great (540-604)
16. John Chrysostom—considered by many to be the greatest preacher in the early church
B. Medieval—more commentaries were written on the Song of Songs during the Medieval period, than any other book of the bible.
1. Bede, the Venerable (d. 735)
2. Anselm (1033-1109) (disputed whether of Laon or Canterbury)
3. Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179)
4. Bernard of Clairvaux—his magnum opus is eighty-six sermons on the first two chapters of the Song. This lifelong project was cut short only by death.
5. Claire of Assisi (1193-1253)
6. Albertus Magnus (1193?-1280)—spiritual father of Thomas Aquinas
7. Thomas Aquinas—arguably one of the greatest theologians of the medieval period
8. Mechthild of Magdeburg (ca. 1212- ca. 1282)
C. Reformation and Beyond
2. John Calvin (1509-64) John Calvin even had Reformer Sebastian Castillo exiled from Geneva for not believing in the allegorical interpretation of Song of Solomon: (link click here)
3. The Westminster Assembly—which produced The Westminster Confession of Faith, a classic Reformed creed, understood the Song allegorically
4. Theodore Beza—The 1599 Geneva Study Bible; numerous sermons on the Song
7. John of the Cross (1542-91) – his books are flooded with allegorically understood allusions to and quotations of the Song.
8. Francis de Sales (1567-1622)
9. Puritans—Thomas Brightman (1614), John Cotton (1642), and John Flavel
10. John Owen (1616-1683)
12. Jeanne Guyon (1647-1717)
13. Francois Fenelon (1651-1715)
14. Matthew Henry (1662-1714)—in his Commentary on the Whole Bible
15. John Gill (1697-1771)
16. Jonathan Edwards (1703-175
D. Modern (1800-Present)—Allegorical/Typological Interpretation
1. Robert Jamieson (1802-1880), Andrew Fausset (1821-1910), David Brown (1803-1897).
2. Charles Spurgeon—preached over 60 sermons from the Song between 1859 and 1890
3. Joseph Parker (1830-1902)—The People’s Bible
4. J. Hudson Taylor (1832-1905)
11. Arthur W. Pink (1886-1952)
In his epistle to the Romans Ignatius calls Jesus “my eros” (eros being the Greek word for the more passionate and sexual side of love, sometimes used of the object of love, similar to the word “beloved”). From the time Origin’s commentary on the Song of Songs was written and onward it was relatively common for Christians to use eros as a name for Jesus in connection to the allegorical interpretation of the Song of Songs. Ignatius’ use of such may indicate that such usage of both eros and the allegorical interpretation of the Song of Songs was used even earlier.
Pope, 118. 122, 237, 302, 443, 517, 520
Hildegard of Bingen, Scivias, trans. by Columba Hart and Jane Bishop (New York: Paulist Press, 1990), pp. 133-4, 249, 255-6, 259-60, 439-42.
Francis and Clare: The Complete Works, trans. R. J. Armstrong and I. C. Brady (New York: Paulist Press, 1982), pp. 205; E. Ann Matter, The Voice of My Beloved: The Song of Songs in Western Medieval Christianity (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1990), pp. xix, xxxiii.
Mechthild of Magdeburg, Meditations (Brewer, MA: Paraclete Press, 1999).
Longman, 33; Murphy, Song, 34-5; Martin Luther, Selections From His Writings. ed. John Dillenberger (New York: Anchor Books, 1962), pp. 61.
Murphy, Song, 35; J. Cheryl Exum, Song of Songs: A Commentary (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005), 73-4.
Ray Steadman, Highlights of the Bible (Ventura, California: Regal Press, 1980), chapter 16.
Murphy, Song, 37. Teresa of Avila, “Meditations on the Song of Songs” in The Collected Works of St. Teresa of Avila, Volume 2. Tr. Otilio Rodriguez and Kieran Kavanaugh (Washington D.C.: ICS Publications, 1980), pp.207-262.
Murphy, Song 37. esp. John of the Cross, “The Spiritual Canticle” in The Collected Works of St. John of the Cross. Tr. Otilio Rodriguez and Kieran Kavanaugh (Washington D.C.: ICS Publications, 1991), pp. 461-632.
Murphy, Song, 36; Thomas Brightman. Scholia et analysis in Canticum Canticorum (Basel, 1614); John Cotton, Expliciatio Cantici Canticorum (London, 1642)
James Durham, The Song of Solomon. (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1982).
Fenelon, Spiritual Progress. http://www.ccel.org/f/fenelon/progress/htm/viii.htm
Jonathan Edwards, Religious Affections (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers), pp.12, 39, 162.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes upon the Old Testament (Bristol, England, 1765).
Delitzsch, Commentary on the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes, 6; Tanner, 32.
Unger, Unger’s Commentary on the Old Testament, 1:1107; Tanner, 32.
C.I. Scofield, The Scofield Reference Bible. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1945).
Bethany Parallel Commentary on the Old Testament. pp. 1318, 1326, 1333.
Reuben Archer Torrey, Torrey’s New Topical Textbook. http://www.ccel.org/t/torrey/ttt/ttt/081.html
Arthur W. Pink, The Nature of God (previously published as Gleanings in the Godhead), (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), pp. 94, 158, 172, 241.
Typically, those innocent of obfuscation need not disclaim against it in an introduction.
Zack said,
“At it’s very core the bridal paradigm is John 3:16: “For God so loved the World that He gave his only begotten son.” The bridal paradigm is a picture of how Jesus feels about us. John 17:24 “Father I desire that they would be with me where I am. Ephesians 2:4 “But God being rich in mercy, because of the great love which He loved us. Even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ-by grace you have been saved.” Psalms 18:9 ” he delivered me, because he delighted in me.””
None of these verses have anything to do with the Biblical picture of Christ as bridegroom and His people as bride. In fact, most of the scriptures you cite outside SoS have nothing to do with this theme. This is part of the BP’s problem - it crams all scripture through this one filter, resulting in a love-sick God concerned about man’s inability to love himself as He loves him. This is not God’s chief concern with man.
Zack said,
“There was a prophetic word given that in this generation, God is going to change the understanding and expression of Christianity in this single generation. The expression isn’t being changed to something new. It’s that the church in our day is preaching many other things outside of Christianity (emergent gospel, prosperity gospel, dominionism, humanism, universalism, gnosticism, hyper catholicism etc.) and God is going to change the understanding back to its foundation; the Word.”
The Word? How does a movement FOUNDED on extra-biblical (extra-WORD) prophecy (see “Blueprint Prophecy” and Bickle’s “Prophetic History of IHOP”) bring a generation back to the Word? How does a movement that abandons sound hermeneutics in favor of a Bridal Paradigm” - translating/interpreting scripture through this one lens - bring a generation back to the Word? I don’t mean to be overly harsh here, but IHOP has done anything but bring this generation back to the Word. It has encouraged reliance on extra-biblical revelation and personal divine promptings… and THEN the Word. Word PLUS anything (whether tradition or personal - or corporate - revelation) is definitionally NOT a return to the Word (Sola Scriptura).
Zack said,
“Bridal Paradigm is the Bible’s way of helping us understand the WHY behind the WHAT”
This is not the only “why” offered by Scripture. In fact, I don’t believe it (love, generally, not just bridally) is even the primary “why” offered. God’s glory is preeminent, not His romantic love for the bride. This love (expressed in various ways, not just bridegroom to bride) flows from His glory. (”What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy…”)
The chief end of man is to… understand how much God really digs you?
Zack said,
“To rest an anxious heart because the Bridegroom is coming back for his bride, and because of his grace, we will be found spotless on that day. It’s because of His love we get to stand with him on that day (Rev. 19). Because of his love we get to stand righteous before that Great White Throne (Rev. 20) Because of his love we get to live forever with him. Giving him all the praise, honor, glory, power and authority he is due, forever and ever.”
You start right and then veer wrong. It is by God’s GRACE that all of the above will come to pass. Justification, Sanctification and Glorification are secured by GRACE. This may seem like splitting hairs to some, but these finer points matter. God does not accomplish these for us by REALLY LOVING us. He purchases these at the Cross. This is Grace, that Christ absorbed the Father’s wrath rightly due us. (And yes, it is motivated, in part, by God’s love. John 3:16)
And yes, it is obfuscation to list all of the above as if they used SoS in the same manner IHOP does. To accept the allegorical interpretation of this one book does not equate to employing it as an interpretive filter and making it the keystone of one’s ministry.
God Bless
I think you are still misunderstanding the BP/ Let me make it easier.
The term “bridal paradigm” is an un biblical term like “Christian Hedonism”. It’s a term used to describe the steadfast love of God. Yes it’s by grace we are saved, it’s His grace that sustains us. And it’s His grace that will glorify us on the last day. But why? Because He loved us and desires us to be his glory.
I think scripture is pretty clear that love is the primary reason God set us free from sin. Without love there is no purpose to salvation. God wants glory for his son. That’s why the first and primary commandment is to Love the Lord you God. With out love it’s all a loss.
Heck Martin Luther started the reformation primarily because the heresies of the day made God into a mad God, and he insisted that God had to be a God of love.
The bridal Paradigm is a way of telling that story. It isn’t to make God a weak man longing for people to love Him. But to make Him all sovereign. Using His soverignty to gain the love of his people. In Hosea God takes Israel out to the wilderness to “slay her with thirst” so she will turn back to Him. In Hosea 11 God laments: “my people are bent on turning from me”. He devises a plan to to draw them “with cords of loving kindness” to him. This is a biblical picture of the Bridal Paradigm.
Our ministry isn’t founded on the term but on understanding “the length the width the deepth and higheth of God’s love. The love of Christ that surpasses all knowledge.” (Eph 3:16)
It’s founded on fasting and prayer and making Jesus the “Onething” that we are after in life.
also I’m not saying those on that list interpreted SOS as we do. But they did all acknowledge the allegory in the book was Christ as the bridegroom and us the church as the bride.
But can we leave your problem with IHOP aside, I want to hear biblical critique of what I’ve written, not your disagreements with what you assume about IHOP.
What is your view of this allegory in scripture?
God Bless.
“But can we leave your problem with IHOP aside, I want to hear biblical critique…”
My problem with IHOP IS a biblical critique. We all (IHOP’rs and Calvinists alike) have to ask ourselves: Do we become persuaded of or enamored by a particular paradigm and then force it (usually unconsciously) on Scripture, or do we allow Scripture to lead us to a particular paradigm? I believe the Bridal Paradigm is clearly an example of the former. An example of Bickle doing just this (though more from a Dominionist paradigm then from a Bridal one):
http://blatzkrieg.wordpress.com/2007/07/14/how-not-to-read-the-bible/
A more personal example: I was reading several of the scriptures you cited in this post. Upon reading Ephesians 1:18, I immediately reacted out of my anti-BP bias (biases are not inherently bad, as long as they are well founded) and thought to myself, “We (saints) are not Christ’s inheritance - Christ is our inheritance.” But then I re-read the verse. And re-re-read it. And then I checked some commentaries. My initial reaction was wrong. Eph 1:18 does refer to us as Christ’s inheritance. (It is also true that Christ is our inheritance.)
My point being that we need to figure out what our biases/prejudices/paradigms are and then do our best to read Scripture ONTO/OVER THEM and not vice versa.
…
My view on SoS: I am not convinced the Holy Spirit inspired Solomon to write this as an allegory of Christ and His Church. If so, why no explicit references to it in the New Testament? (The general picture of Christ/Church as Bridegroom/Bride does not in and of itself make SoS apply as allegory.) However, I have no problem reading the book in this way GENERALLY. If one says, “Christ loves His Church as Solomon loved the Shulamite woman” in a general or vague sense - fine. It’s when we start dissecting the book for subtextual messages that I become troubled. When Jennifer Roberts (and others, I’m sure) state - as Gospel! - that the “link of the necklace” is an act of human will, then I have a problem. When entire sermons (and ministries) are founded on Christ being “ravished with one look of your eye” - again making Christ’s chief concern with man a self-esteem issue - I have a problem. I have a problem, because this is nowhere in the text. I have a problem, because this kind of hermeneutic allows an individual or ministry to make Scripture say whatever they want it to say.
Example: You failed to address the fact that almost NONE of the scriptures you cited have any explicit reference to the BP or SoS. That’s a problem. These verses have BP implications for you, because you want them to, not because anything in the text gives them this meaning. While some of the errors are admittedly harmless, it is the underlying method of handling Scripture that is dangerous.
God Bless
Well I used scriptures that define the concept that is purely biblical. Rev. 19 & 22
Matt. 25; Hosea, Psalms 45; Jeremiah 3; Isiah 62:5 There are plenty of Hermeneutics. That talk about God’s love as the bridegroom and us the bride.
“for as a young man marries a young woman, so shall your sons marry you and as the bridegroom rejoices over the Bride, so shall you God rejoice over you.” Is. 62:5
In the previous verse He is going to change their name to: “My delight is in you” and then says “for the Lord delights in you”
Why were the Israelites in the desert for 40 years? Why does God come to the prophets and send Israel into exile in Babylon? Because, and this is defined biblically he wanted the affections of His people.
Why does Christ die on the cross? to take away those things that hindered us glorifing him.
Why were we created? To worship. What is worship? Glorifying and loving Him.
Why is the first commandment to Love him? because of all actions we could do, the primary thing he wants is love.
What does Jesus ask God for in the Garden in John 17? Us. That we would be with Him.
Am I misreading all these passages and books?
Am I using it to fit my interpretation?
Is Christ ravished with love for us? A poetic way of saying that he is burning with passion? Yes. It was that love that sent Him to the cross. Eph. 2 and John 3:16 tells us that. That’s a pretty ravished love. Love enough to die on the cross. That’s the gospel.
Sure the gospel is good news that we are set free from sin. But the glorious message is that we are set free and get to live forever with him.
I thess. 4:17-18 “Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with him. Encourage each other with these words.”
We are to encourage each other that hope. We will be forever with him.
I understand that there are other things in the gospel, those things I preach. Trust me I’m on the streets in downtown K.C. doing that often.
But your reluctance to acknowledge that God desires us, when that is a clear picture in the word. Are you reading the word right?
Obfuscator! (I don’t think that’s a word.)
NO ONE, MYSELF INCLUDED, DENIES THE BIBLICAL IMAGE OF CHRIST AND HIS CHURCH AS BRIDEGROOM AND BRIDE. As you said, “…I’m not saying those on that list [the list of those who have interpreted SoS allegorically] interpreted SOS as we do.” Precisely my point - you (IHOP) are employing this image (specifically, the images within SoS) in a way others have heretofore not employed it.
You are stretching it to apply to EVERYTHING in a way Scripture does not. Again, most of the verses you cite have NOTHING to do with this image. God sent His people wandering in the desert, because they were disobedient. God exiled His people to Babylon because they were disobedient. This perfectly illustrates the problem with the BP. When the BP becomes the main filter through which one reads Scripture, the Old Testament history of Israel - one of repeated divine drawing and discipline - becomes primarily a story of a Bridegroom’s romantic pursuing of His Bride. While this is certainly an element of the story, it is not THE story. It is not the primary theme. The primary theme of Israel’s repeated failure is to demonstrate man’s inability to keep covenant with God on his own. The whole story points to the need for God to remove our hearts of stone and replace them with hearts of flesh, to cause us to walk in His statutes. (Ezek. 36:22-32) Christ dies a perfect sacrificial death to secure for us what the imperfect animal sacrifices could not - new birth.
I don’t recount these things, because I think you don’t know them, Zack. I recount them to demonstrate what the BP (as taught and promoted by you and IHOP) does to the Gospel. The Gospel is not about God getting us to love ourselves the way He loves us. I have heard you and countless other IHOP’rs say this. THIS IS NOT THE GOSPEL. God’s chief concern with man is not his poor self-esteem. This notion springs directly from the BP. This is exactly the problem I had with Jennifer Roberts pep-talk at Onething Minneapolis.
http://blatzkrieg.wordpress.com/2007/10/28/thoughts-on-onething-and-the-bridal-paradigm/
And why does God want us to love Him? Because, as my favorite pastor says, God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him. Even in desiring that His people love Him, God is ultimately aiming at His glory. This is another place where the BP (and many other modern errors) gets things backwards. God’s ultimate aim is not “love”, but His glory. Love (defined biblically) flows from this aim of glory. God is an egoist, and He is the only justifiable egoist. (Please loot at the text from Ezekiel: “It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name…”
…
And I am not reluctant to acknowledge that God desires His people. I am reluctant to enthrone this desire as God’s ultimate aim in creation and redemption. I am reluctant to so focus on God’s ravished love for me that I become obsessed with me.
God Bless
@Jim
I appreciate your comments very much… probably more than you know. Though I don’t agree with you on some things I take your critiques to heart.
I indeed failed to establish the Hermeneutic before I presented the concept the Hermeneutics describe. This I will remedy. I was mostly trying to establish the God’s concept of God’s great love, and how we are to respond. The BP is a common allegory in scripture used to describe God’s love. but I presented the concept without establishing the verses.
By the way I think you would be able to say I know the Word pretty well right? at least have a growing understanding.
See I came to IHOP 6 years ago not knowing the Word. Everything I know in the Word, and understanding atonement, salvation, my depravity and how I’ve been set free from the bounds of sin and death and made alive together with Christ until one day when I will be appear with Christ in glory.
All my understanding of the Word has come from the classes, and teaching and leading of this ministry. To say IHOP doesn’t bring people back to the Word is a pretty unfair statement. and not true. I and many thousands have gained a better understanding of the Word from being here. I’ve never had a education in the Word. Never went to college, I just know the Word from being encouraged to study it and talk about it. I’m in like 4 different Bible studys where we just discuss the Word.
In essence you could say my life is the Fruit of this ministry… take that for what you will.
WOW I was typing the above while you were commenting…
Did I ever say anything but it was about God getting glory? Exactly why He loves us so that we would Glorify him.
That’s why He has a great inheritance in us!!!!
That’s why Jesus in John 17 says Father I desire them because in them I have glory!!!!
I think you are reading my writing through your own lens of what you “think” I’m saying
It’s not about us it’s about him. If anything causes us to focus on our self I would consider it wrong.
In fact my definition of sin is: Choosing ourselves over God.
It’s about His glory…
But “we Love Him because He first loved us” I John 4
In fact we quote that same quote from Piper in presenting the message.
and Henry Scougal’s “The worth and excellency of a soul is measured by the object of it’s love”
Either way We are forgiven much therefore we should love much.
I love God, I love the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. I’m thankful that though I deserve nothing He made me alive when I was dead. Does anything else really matter as long as that is being preached?
With out Christ I have no good thing. Bless you
First of all plese forgive the all caps. This is not yelling. This is a portion of a conversation I had with another brother and I had everything in caps to distinguish between his comments and mine. So, again, I am not yelling.
I have a thought, question, issue, (I’m not sure what I have) but I agree with the whole concept that Christ died on the cross to bring glory to God but:
THE BIBLE HAS FAR MORE TO SAY ABOUT THE ANGER AND WRATH OF GOD THAT IT DOES LOVE–CHECK IT OUT. GOD IS HOLY, JUST, AND RIGHTEOUS. TRUE THE “HARD” ATTRIBUTES OF GOD DO NOT NEED TO BE ACCENTED IN EVERY SERMON TO THE EXCLUSION OF THE “SOFT” ATTRIBUTES OF LOVE, FORGIVENESS, MERCY AND GRACE. THE PROBLEM IS, IT WARPS THE PICTURE OF GOD, DOWNPLAYING AND IN MANY CASES OMITTING THE “HARD” ATTRIBUTES OF GOD–AND MAKES “COMING TO CHRIST” OVERLY SIMPLISTIC AND OFTEN VOID OF REPENTANCE. CHRIST PORTRAYED ARE, IN EXTREME CASES, AN “IDOL” AND NOT AT ALL IN LINE WITH A BALANCED VIEW OF THE NATURE AND CHARACTER OF GOD FOUND IN THE OT AND NT. AND IF PEOPLE PLACE THEIR “FAITH” IN AN IDOL THEN THEY ARE PLACING THEIR TRUST IN A FALSE CHRIST WHO CANNOT SAVE, INDEED, A CHRIST IN ACCORDANCE TO THEIR OWN IMAGINATION.
So in light of this comment is the BP a paradigm that is for after the fact? In other words to give one a picture of their relationship to God after salvation?
Hey, this is still a bear to read. See if you can take out all the bold, and include the proof-texting/ references in a download. You’ve still got too much of the mechanics showing to make this useful: Give us the message, and then a link to a follow up if someone wants.
@ TJ For starters I wouldn’t call the God’s love a “soft” attribute. In fact It’s his love that stirs his wrath. Because He is jealous for his people’s affections, allegiance, and worship.
SoS. 8:6 “For Love is as strong as death, jealousy as fierce as the grave. It’s flashes are flashes of fire the very flame of the Lord.”
Proverbs 6:34 “Jealousy is a husband’s fury, Therefore he will not spare in the day of vengeance.”
We know from Romans 1:18 “For the wrath of God has been revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men , who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness.” The wrath of God is not against people but sin.
We are therefore objects of his wrath because of are sin. Which God being rich in mercy, and in his unfailing love set us free from sin and death.
His love superceades his wrath for those who choose Christ. Because we are hidden in Christ.
All that to say His love is “the very flame of Ja” I wouldn’t consider it soft but fierce, jealous, and all consuming.
- Is the bridal paradigm after salvation? yes and no. Salvation is a completing work until we are glorified then it is completed. Until Christ returns to the Earth and the dead in Christ rise (after the tribulation) then our salvation is completed. That is when we are presented as a “pure and spotless bride” before him. But this the work of the cross we have been betrothed to Him.
2 Corinthians 11:2 “I feel a divine jealousy for you, for I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ.”
So we are betrothed to Christ, but not until glorification (our presentation before him) do we become His “bride” or people that dwell with Him forever.
P.S. It’s really early in the morning… so I hope that makes sense I might edit this whole comment in a few hours once I’ve gotten some coffee. Plus I’m realizing how bad I am at articulating this all so continue to ask questions, it helps me get better at the articulation.
peace
Thanks Bret. I’m going to scrap the whole thing a re write it. I’m realizing how many different ways I should have written it. so I’m going to start over.
I already miss you all on nights bro!
Zack,
First, I wouldn’t call God’s love a “soft” attribute either, but I think I understand what TJ was trying to say.
“In fact It’s his love that stirs his wrath.”
Both God’s love and wrath flow from His zealous passion for the glory of His name. God is glorified when when we are awakened to respond lovingly to all He is for us in Christ. God is also glorified when His wrath is poured out on unrighteousness. This includes unrighteous persons (that would be all of us). God’s wrath is absolutely directed at persons. Pleas cite one scripture that indicates God is not angry at people, but only at their sin. Sin is who we are - No one is righteous, no one seeks after God, all have fallen short of the glory of God, etc.
“His love superceades his wrath for those who choose Christ.”
God’s love does not “supercede” His wrath. God’s attributes do not compete with one another or cancel each other out; they are always working together for His glory. God’s wrath is satisfied in the loving sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. Both attributes are seen at the Cross, not just love. God’s love does not “trump” His wrath. God’s love works to satisfy it.
I’m sure some of this sloppiness is due to your early-morning need for caffeine, but I cannot help but wonder if some of it is a symptom of a flawed paradigm.
Good Morning & God Bless
P.S. Haybark, if you read this, I read your comment on my blog, and I plan on devoting a post to the topic soon. Though I disagree with your take on the preeminence of God’s love, I appreciate your forthrightness in explaining it and fearlessness in addressing our points of disagreement head-on.
@JimB
Thank you so much for always being my ever persistent ever meticulous doctrine cop… guess you are what you do right?
Obviously no one is righteous… Total depravity… yeah got it. i think you know I’ve stated that often enough here. We are objects of his wrath. But because of sin. Unless you are saying Adam and Eve were objects of his wrath before the fall, and God said on the 6th day it was horrible! I hate them! They are so flawed! Don’t think that happened. we are all unrighteous… and it’s because of that unrighteousness that we are objects, not because we exist. In other words unrighteousness being the object of wrath not people, but people in unrighteousness… are then objects which is all of us before redemption we become the righteousness of Christ… so kinda the same thing you are trying to say eh?
His love does indeed supercead His wrath… you know what I meant bro. However Where in the Bible does it say God is Wrath? He is fierce in wrath and vengeance but why? Because He is Jealous for his name. But God is defined as Love. I John 4:8 “God IS love”.
Plus here is another hermeneutic for you: Lamentations 3:22 “Because of His unfailing love are We not consumed… Therefore I have hope”
His unfailing love thus keeping back or trumping His wrath, or satisfying it as you said.
Do we really need to argue over semantics too?
I have a question that you still have never answered. What is the Bridal Paradigm or if you feel better allegory to you? It’s easy to always point out people’s flaws. Heck I could do it all day. But give me some bite to your ferocious bark man… What do you believe? Not Piper rhetoric (I don’t give you Bickle rhetoric) But what do you believe concerning these things? Give me Some Jerry Rice less Lawrence Taylor, some offense to your awesome defense.
I leave you with that and this… I’m not a scholar. I will never claim to be. I appreciate your critiques but know that I don’t claim to yet fully know the Word. I desire to with all my heart, but the road is long. I think we all have a flawed paradigm, unless you are the incarnate knowledge of God… We all have flawed paradigms. Be we are all growing in the knowledge of God, so if we are brothers in Christ why spend all your energy point out the flaws that are bound to be there? That’s both just love and rest in the grace of God and be attentive to God’s helper the Holy Spirit who is faithful to bring to remembrance all things Christ has said. I think God is faithful enough to help those who are faithful.
blessing to you man
.::zack
p.s. I still praying for your request… How are things? you can e-mail me in private. peace
“His love does indeed supercead His wrath… you know what I meant bro.”
Uh, no, it doesn’t, so no, I clearly don’t know what you mean.
“I’m not a scholar. I will never claim to be.”
This is my concern, Zack, and this is why I take the time and energy to combat you on these matters: I’m not a scholar either. You (and many of the others I have heard/read at IHOP) are really sloppy on really important doctrines. And you are in teaching positions over a very large segment of young believers (not just those under your immediate direction, but also the hordes of youth gobbling up IHOP teaching around the world). Getting these things right early on has huge blessings later, and getting these things wrong will create huge problems.
“…and it’s because of that unrighteousness that we are objects, not because we exist.”
Of course.
“In other words unrighteousness being the object of wrath not people, but people in unrighteousness…”
Had you imbibed your coffee by this point? This is really hard to follow. You can’t separate the sinner from his sin like this - his sin emanates not just from his wrong thoughts, attitudes, actions, inactions, etc., but from the very nature of who he is. God is angry at sin and sinners. His wrath rightly abides upon us. There’s no need to parse this and try to separate the sinner from His sin. God will one day crush His enemies (persons) under His feet.
Again, I have to wonder if this need to separate these two doesn’t spring from a paradigm that elevates God’s love above all His other attributes.
Re: I John 4:8
First, we need to look at the context of the verse. Is John’s primary aim in this passage to define God (let alone in such a way that one divine attribute is elevated above others)? No. John’s aim is to encourage his listeners to love one another, because “…love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.” The point is this: Whoever is truly born of God (”born again”
will love his brother, because God is love.
Second, I think there is a way that God’s love is different than His anger. Before creation, God would have had no outlet for anger or wrath, because there was no sin. However, because of the Trinitarian relationship within the Godhead, there would have been love. The Father loved the Son, and vice versa, before creation.
John 17:24 - Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.
Christ is the perfect image of the Father. Therefore, the Father was loving and delighting in the Son before creation. This again points to God’s glory as being the fount of all divine attributes: God makes much of Himself before creation, because he is supremely worthy of praise, love and admiration - even from Himself. God’s love flows to Himself as an expression of His glory, as both His love and wrath fall upon people as expressions of this same glory.
“Plus here is another hermeneutic for you: Lamentations 3:22 “Because of His unfailing love are We not consumed… Therefore I have hope”
His unfailing love thus keeping back or trumping His wrath, or satisfying it as you said. ”
That’s not a hermeneutic, it’s a verse. A hermeneutic is a method of interpreting Scripture.
Why are we not consumed? It is not because God’s love outweighs or trumps His wrath. If this was the case; if God’s love was bigger, weightier, more important/significant, etc. than His love, then God would have been justified in pardoning our sin without the Cross. God could rightly say, “Yes, man, I am angry at your sin, but in the divine calculus my love outweighs this anger, and so I forgive you.” This is the way the world sees God. “God is love”, therefore God cannot punish sinners in righteous anger.
But God is more than love. Therefore, God’s wrath against sin and sinners must be satisfied; hence the Cross. Satisfaction and “trumping” are not the same thing. As much as God loves us, He is equally angry at sinners. Therefore these two glorious attributes of God come together in the wondrous Cross, bringing maximum glory to the Father and Son.
I have the feeling, Zack, that your response will be, “Yeah, I agree. We are basically saying the same thing.” But, we’re not saying the same thing. This is my point and my frustration, and it is not mere semantics. You are depicting God as founding His mercy and grace on His preeminent, ravished, love alone. This is not the whole truth. This is cheap grace and I believe it springs from the BP, because the BP obsesses on one attribute of His relationship with His people at the exclusion, or at least minimization, of others.
And this is how I feel about the BP. While the Bride/Bridegroom imagery is certainly biblical and therefore useful, it is hugely overemphasized and employed as a kind of key to the rest of Scripture by IHOP.
God Bless
P.S. I’m sure I haven’t brought all the Randy Moss you were hoping for, but this conversation has inspired me to post on a topic (God’s love vs. wrath) I’ve been meaning to dig into for a while. Thanks!
love this quote by Tozer on God’s attributes… “He need not suspend one to exercise another, for in. Him all His attributes are one.”
@ Jim
James 1:19: “Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak”
I fear I have not to held to the wisdom in the verse above. I have spoken to quickly and not articulated this well at all. I apologize because I believe most of the statement above was me trying to be prideful and trying to be right, and I said something i didn’t actually mean in the purpose of trying being right.
Please forgive me. I am wrong.
I appreciate this discussion because you bring up a lot of good points. I agree we aren’t saying the same things because I’m indeed being sloppy with my statements. I would like to say that I’m not always as sloppy as I have been in this post, however I let my want to be right get in the way of the truth.
One of IHOP’s big messages is actually the wrath of God. In fact Mike says that the side of Jesus being Wrath no one actually wants to talk about they treat That attribute like the drunken uncle at Christmas… Just hide that in the other room. Often at our conferences is it the forefront message.
Is. 63, Rev 14 &19 Jesus Comes back as a real man making His procession into Jerusalem actually slaying actual people, as part of His Justice, and Wrath.
I didn’t make this clear though I stated in the article above. That we see Jesus coming back in 3 primary ways. Bridegroom being only one of them.
But also as a Judge bringing justice, and a King coming to reign in all sovereignty. Neither is higher than the other. Plus we also see Jesus as a Prophet and Priest, none are exalted above the other.
You said:
“You are depicting God as founding His mercy and grace on His preeminent, ravished, love alone. This is not the whole truth. This is cheap grace and I believe it springs from the BP, because the BP obsesses on one attribute of His relationship with His people at the exclusion, or at least minimization, of others.”
If I have done this I am wrong/. Because that’s not want I believe. I believe God’s love is why Jesus came to “satisfy” God’s wrath toward us.
Cheap grace is actually something I am strongly against.
The convo has helped me to sit down and go back to the drawing board.
However the purpose of this post WAS to emphasize God’s love because it was the subject. However I do not want to make it sound like I’m deemphasizing anything else as I have.
The Tozer quote speaks volumes as to why.
I have indeed been sloppy I appreciate you, keep bringing the heat… though we wont always agree, it helps me tremendously articulate my messages.
A man once came to Mother Teresa and said How can I be humble like you? I’m often humbled but never have humility… she told him, “Don’t worry being humbled may one day lead to being humble”
I have hope
Zack,
I appreciate the opportunity to back-and-forth on these things here. It sharpens me as well.
Have a Blessed Easter! (It’s still snowing here!)
Thanks, for an informative, interesting read guys.
For reference:
Nahum 1:2-4 - “A jealous and avenging God is the Lord; The Lord is avenging and wrathful. The Lord takes vengeance on His adversaries, and He reserves wrath for His enemies.”
That seems to be one definition of God.
God IS wrathful and avenging.
This does not seem to be a simple statement of an emotion of God towards sin and how He feels when people do it, but a description of who God is, was, and will always be.
Later in the chapter it talks about the fierceness of Him as wrath: Who can stand before His indignation? Who can endure the burning of His anger? His wrath is poured out like fire and the rocks are broken up by Him.