It’s striking that a biblical theology of God’s people as his bride gets relatively little attention in Reformed preaching, teaching, and liturgy…our exploration of the subject rarely goes beyond Ephesians 5, and is most commonly focused on the dynamics of headship and submission explored in that text. And while that may be a worthy start to exploring the bride-of-Christ theme, it’s just that: a start. If the church wants to continue affirming a robust Christian sexual ethic in the midst of a culture that has long since rejected biblical sexual morals, it would do well to develop and apply an equally robust biblical theology of God and his people as bride and groom.

Since the time of the apostles, the Christian church has held that the gospel love of Christ for his bride should undergird our understanding of human marriage. In Reformed circles, this perspective was recently re-affirmed by the 2020 report of the PCA’s Ad Interim Committee on Human Sexuality. The committee wrote that, “When God created the marital union he was doing so to give us a mysterion—a sign pointing to Christ’s love and union with us.”
But despite the church’s historic commitment to this position, it’s striking that a biblical theology of God’s people as his bride gets relatively little attention in Reformed preaching, teaching, and liturgy. In fact, at least in my experience, our exploration of the subject rarely goes beyond Ephesians 5, and is most commonly focused on the dynamics of headship and submission explored in that text. And while that may be a worthy start to exploring the bride-of-Christ theme, it’s just that: a start. If the church wants to continue affirming a robust Christian sexual ethic in the midst of a culture that has long since rejected biblical sexual morals, it would do well to develop and apply an equally robust biblical theology of God and his people as bride and groom.
And that means doing at least three things. First, the church must recognize that the New Testament applies the bride-of-Christ idea not only to marriage but also to a wide range of other sexual and relational issues. Second, we must see the story of God and his people as husband and wife as an expansive, gospel-soaked motif that unifies scripture from beginning to end. And third, we must use that gospel story as the primary lens through which we understand singleness, sex, relationships, and marriage.
Let’s consider each of these things in turn.
The Bride of Christ as the Basis for New Testament Sexual Ethics
There are at least three major New Testament texts that consider issues of human sexuality in light of the marital relationship between Christ and his people. Together, they cover a wide range of sexual and relational topics, and they give us strong reason to base our understanding of the entire Christian sexual ethic on the story of God’s love for his bride.
The first text to deal with this subject is, of course, the one we’ve already mentioned: Ephesians 5, with its focus on marriage. A second is 1 Corinthians 6, where Paul argues that believers must flee sexual immorality because of their “one flesh” union with Christ. Thus, while Ephesians 5 applies the bride-of-Christ idea to marriage, 1 Corinthians 6 applies it to sexual sin instead. Moreover, Paul’s treatment of the subject in 1 Corinthians 6 forms the centerpiece of 1 Corinthians 5-7, which is arguably the longest discussion of singleness, sex, and marriage in all of Scripture.
But there’s still one more New Testament text that considers human sexuality in light of the gospel reality that Jesus is the ultimate bridegroom: Jesus’ conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4. This text famously includes a discussion of the woman’s checkered romantic and sexual past. But, read with literary sensitivity, it also contains a powerful subtext about the spiritual marriage between Christ and his people.
After all, the meeting at the well is eerily similar to several Old Testament texts in which biblical heroes met their wives (see Isaac in Genesis 24, Jacob in Genesis 29, and Moses in Exodus 2). Moreover, it comes on the heels of the wedding at Cana in John 2, and John the Baptist’s dramatic assertion in John 3 that Jesus is “the bridegroom.” Finally, its use of imagery related to wells and living water echoes several Old Testament texts dealing with sex and marriage (see, e.g., Proverbs 5:15-19, and Song of Solomon 4:12-15). If we pick up the literary hints John is dropping, we find that this text processes the Samaritan woman’s sexual sin, shame, singleness, and hurt against a thematic backdrop that paints Jesus as the true husband she’s been longing for.
Taken together, then, these three texts from two different biblical authors give us substantial warrant for viewing the totality of human sexuality through the lens of God’s love for the church. They touch not only on issues of marriage, but also of sin, hurt, singleness, and shame. And they therefore call us to process all of these issues by deepening our understanding of the long-running biblical story of God’s love for his bride.
A Biblical Theology of God and His Bride
The covenant of marriage between God and his people is one of the most enduring themes in all of scripture. The idea appears at least as early as the book of Exodus (see 34:15-16) and stretches all the way to Revelation. A full treatment of the subject is therefore beyond the scope of this short article. Nevertheless, a brief summary of the most salient plot points in this biblical romance will serve our purposes for now. (I recommend Raymond C. Ortlund Jr.’s book God’s Unfaithful Wife as a good resource for those interested in learning more.)
When God first set out to find himself a bride, he didn’t go looking for the most pure, the most beautiful, or the most powerful. Instead, according to Ezekiel 16, he chose a little pagan girl whom he found wallowing in blood and filth, abandoned to die by parents who “abhorred” her. Filled with love and compassion, he rescued the helpless orphan, washed her clean, gave her beautiful clothes and good food and entered into a covenant of marriage with her.
Ezekiel’s orphan girl is, of course, a metaphor for ancient Israel, God’s people. They were the descendants of pagans (Joshua 24:2-3) and they were enslaved in Egypt with nothing to commend themselves (Deuteronomy 7:7, 9:4-6). Yet God chose them to be his bride just the same. And God is still choosing the foolish, the weak, and the low to be members of his bride, the church (1 Corinthians 1:26-29).
Of course, the story doesn’t end there. Despite God’s kindness to his orphan-bride, Israel, she turned away from him. She followed after other gods. In the words of Ezekiel 16, Ezekiel 23, and Hosea 2 (not to mention countless other passages) she “played the whore.” God’s description of Israel’s unfaithfulness in serving other gods includes some of the most shocking and sexually graphic language in all of scripture. God is repulsed by Israel’s behavior.
But we serve a God who shows undeserved favor. He promises to restore his relationship with his estranged bride. In Hosea 2:14 he says, “Therefore behold, I will allure her, I will bring her into the wilderness, and speak tenderly to her.” God will once again take the initiative towards his faithless lover. He’ll woo her, she’ll respond, and their marriage will be renewed. In fact, he says that she’ll be betrothed to him forever in faithfulness. The renewed marriage covenant will endure.
It is against this prophetic backdrop that the New Testament unfolds. Many of Jesus’ parables involve grooms and wedding feasts, not because they’re a convenient analogy, but because Jesus is specifically asserting that the promised prophetic wedding is coming to pass, and that he is the ultimate groom. He’s come to a world full of unfaithful Jews and godless Gentiles, all of them a mess of sin and rebellion, and he’s going to call all of them to be his eternal bride.
And so, according to Ephesians 5, Jesus takes his bride-to-be, and he “gives himself up for her, that he might sanctify her” (Ephesians 5:25-26). He lays down his life, so that she may be washed in his shed blood. He begins to cleanse her once again, sanctifying her by the preaching of his word. And he looks forward to the day when he will “present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish” (Ephesians 5:27). He looks forward to the day when his church will come to him in glory as the perfect bride, “clothed in fine linen, bright and pure” (Revelation 19:8).
The story of Christ and his bride is therefore far more than a one-off idea in a single Pauline text. It is one of the most unifying gospel themes in all of scripture. And, if the New Testament authors are to be believed, it has the power to transform our understanding of human sexuality.
Shaping the Christian Sexual Ethic
Seeking to apply this gospel love story to human sexual ethics is a project that could, once again, easily fill the pages of a book. Nevertheless, we can summarize at least three ways to apply the bride-of-Christ idea to human sexuality, each of which is suggested by a different New Testament text.
First, we can use the bride-of-Christ story to ground our moral prohibitions (the 1 Corinthians 6 approach). For example, because God’s love for his people is covenantal and enduring, so we should practice sexual love within the confines of an enduring covenant relationship. This means we oppose sexual activity before marriage as an inferior form of love—it’s non-covenantal and fundamentally conditional on the parties deciding not to call things off. Similarly, we discourage divorce because it breaks a covenant which should be as binding as God’s everlasting covenant of grace with his people. Thus, the moral prohibitions in the Christian sexual ethic are not an arbitrary list of “dos and don’ts,” but rather the straightforward ethical implications of a consistent biblical call to embody the full depth of God’s love in human romance.
A second way to leverage the bride-of-Christ idea is using it to apply the gospel to our sexual brokenness (the John 4 approach). After all, God’s love for his bride is a powerful story of redemption: she’s an orphan and whore at the start of the story, but ends up rescued, cleansed, healed, and forgiven—a vision of perfect purity. And it’s worth noting that God does more than just forgive her sin. He covers her shame with royal robes. He delivers her from slavery and bondage. He binds up her wounds and satisfies her longings. Thus, the gospel story of God’s love for his bride reminds us that through the death and resurrection of Jesus, we can find forgiveness for our sexual sin, cleansing for our sexual shame, healing for our sexual hurt, and deliverance from our sexual oppression. How desperately we need that good news!
Finally, we can apply the bride-of-Christ story by using it to set the example for marital love (the Ephesians 5 approach). God loves his people with a tender, costly, and enduring love—even when it means laying down his own life for his beloved. He calls us to love our spouses in the same way, laying down our lives each and every day, repenting and forgiving, helping and serving, comforting and encouraging. And, while Paul says husbands have a unique and particular call to emulate this love, there’s no reason we need to stop there. After all, one can hardly imagine Paul saying that wives shouldn’t love their husbands with Christ-like love. Moreover, given that Jesus has instructed all his disciples to “love one another as he has loved us” (John 13), we have a general call to show gospel love in all of our relationships, romantic or otherwise. Thus, we should all be seeking to embody the redeeming love of God with our friends, children, coworkers, parents, and even strangers—but especially in our marriages.
Preaching, Teaching, and Living the Story
There is, of course, far more that I could say about God’s love for his bride and its applicability to human romance. Nevertheless, I hope that this short introduction to these ideas inspires the church to explore this biblical idea more deeply. We need to read and understand this biblical story. We need to preach it and teach it, both as a gospel metaphor and as a basis for our relational and sexual ethics. And then we need to live it out in our singleness, in our courtships, and in our marriages. It is only then that we can truly embody the beautiful, positive vision of human romance demonstrated in God’s love for his own bride.
Dayne Batten is a member of Peace Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Cary, N.C.
Related Posts:

However great the benefits of reading the scriptures in schools have been, I cannot help remarking, that these benefits might be much greater, did schoolmasters take more pains to explain them to their scholars. Did they demonstrate the divine original of the Bible from the purity, consistency, and benevolence of its doctrines and precepts—did they explain the meaning of the Levitical institutions, and show their application to the numerous and successive gospel dispensations—did they inform their pupils that the gross and abominable vices of the Jews were recorded only as proofs of the depravity of human nature, and of the insufficiency of the law, to produce moral virtue and thereby to establish the necessity and perfection of the gospel system—and above all, did they often enforce the discourses of our Savior, as the best rule of life, and the surest guide to happiness, how great would be the influence of our schools upon the order and prosperity of our country! 

Introduction
Benjamin Rush (1746-1813) is rarely remembered as an American founder; his writings are ill-read. But like most of his contemporaries, he lived a rich life of correspondence. One letter is produced below. Thus far at American Reformer we have only republished seventeenth-and-eighteenth-century sermons as part of our resourcement project. Rush’s letter is the first to diversify our genre but will not be the last.
Rush graduated Princeton and then attended medical school at Edinburgh becoming fluent in several languages galivanting around Europe. Upon his return, he practiced medicine in Philadelphia and taught chemistry at what would be come University of Pennsylvania, and authored textbooks on multiple subjects. An active member of the Sons of Liberty, he was a signatory to the Declaration of Independence and a delegate to Pennsylvania’s Constitutional Convention. He served as a field surgeon with the Philadelphia militia. After the war he stayed busy, founding, among other things, the Pennsylvania Bible Society, and was heavily involved with the American Sunday School Union. Public morality and education were central to his work.
Rush’s position on education and Christianity was like Noah Webster’s (1758-1843) who famously recorded in his Dictionary, “Education is useless without the Bible. The Bible was America’s basic textbook in all fields. God’s Word, contained in the Bible, has furnished all necessary rules to direct our conduct.” (See also Webster’s Value of the Bible and Excellence of the Christian Religion (1834)). Both Rush and Webster can, by all accounts, be rightly called Christian nationalists. Webster was a staunch Calvinist and Rush was a microcosm of all American Protestant denominations it seems. Both men saw education, its quality generally and use of the Bible particularly, as invariably dictating America’s future. They were right, on both counts.
In 1791, Rush wrote to the Congregationalist clergyman, Jeremy Belknap (1744-1798), presenting his case for why the Bible should be central to American curriculum. Education was socially and politically essential in a republic, Rush argued elsewhere. And if it was to be good education, then it must be religious. If it was to be religious then it must be true, that is, Christian. Rush’s arguments below are as potent today as they were then. Has his view not been demonstrated by converse occurrences? (More commentary on the substance of the letter will be provided in the Forum section.)

Letter
Dear Sir,
It is now several months, since I promised to give you my reasons for preferring the Bible as a schoolbook, to all other compositions. I shall not trouble you with an apology for my delaying so long to comply with my promise, but shall proceed immediately to the subject of my letter.
Assumptions
Before I state my arguments in favor of teaching children to read by means of the Bible, I shall assume the five following propositions.
1. That Christianity is the only true and perfect religion, and that in proportion as mankind adopt its principles, and obey its precepts, they will be wise, and happy.
2. That a better knowledge of this religion is to be acquired by reading the Bible, than in any other way.
3. That the Bible contains more knowledge necessary to man in his present state, than any other book in the world.
4. That knowledge is most durable, and religious instruction most useful, when imparted in early life,
5. That the bible, when not read in schools, is seldom read in any subsequent period of life.
First Argument
My arguments in favor of the use of the Bible as a schoolbook are founded, in the constitution of the human mind.
1. The memory is the first faculty which opens in the minds of children. Of how much consequence, then, must it be, to impress it with the great truths of Christianity, before it is pre-occupied with less interesting subjects! As all the liquors, which are poured into a cup, generally taste of that which first filled it, so all the knowledge, which is added to that which is treasured up in the memory from the Bible, generally receives an agreeable and useful tincture from it.
2. There is a peculiar aptitude in the minds of children for religious knowledge. I have constantly found them in the first six or seven years of their lives, more inquisitive upon religious subjects, than upon any others: and an ingenious instructor of youth has informed me, that he has found young children more capable of receiving just ideas upon the most difficult tenets of religion, than upon the most simple branches of human knowledge. It would be strange if it were otherwise; for God creates all his means to suit all his ends. There must of course be a fitness between the human mind, and the truths which are essential to its happiness.
3. The influence of prejudice is derived from the impressions, which are made upon the mind in early life; prejudices are of two kinds, true and false. In a world where false prejudices do so much mischief, it would discover great weakness not to oppose them, by such as are true.
I grant that many men have rejected the prejudices derived from the Bible: but I believe no man ever did so, without having been made wiser or better, by the early operation of these prejudices upon his mind. Every just principle that is to be found in the writings of Voltaire, is borrowed from the Bible: and the morality of the Deists, which has been so much admired and praised, is, I believe, in most cases, the effect of habits, produced by early instruction in the principles of Christianity.
4. We are subject, by a general law in our natures, to what is called habit. Now if the study of the scriptures be necessary to our happiness at any time of our lives, the sooner we begin to read them, the more we shall be attached to them; for it is peculiar to all the acts of habit, to become easy, strong and agreeable by repetition.
5. It is a law in our natures, that we remember longest the knowledge we acquire by the greatest number of our senses. Now a knowledge of the contents of the Bible, is acquired in school by the aid of the eyes and the ears; for children after getting their lessons, always say them to their masters in an audible voice; of course there is a presumption, that this knowledge will be retained much longer than if it had been acquired in any other way.
6. The interesting events and characters, recorded and described in the Old and New Testaments, are accommodated above all others to seize upon all the faculties of the minds of children. The understanding, the memory, the imagination, the passions, and the moral powers, are all occasionally addressed by the various incidents which are contained in those divine books, insomuch that not to be delighted with them, is to be devoid of every principle of pleasure that exists in a sound mind.
7. There is a native love of truth in the human mind. Lord Shaftesbury says, that truth is so congenial to our minds, that we love ever the shadow of it: and Horace, in his rules for composing an epic poem, establishes the same law in our natures, by advising the “fictions in poetry to resemble truth.” Now the Bible contains more truths than any other book in the world: so true is the testimony that it bears of God in his works of creation, providence, and redemption, that it is called truth itself, by way of preeminence above things that are only simply true. How forcibly are we struck with the evidences of truth, in the history of the Jews, above what we discover in the history of other nations? Where do we find a hero, or an historian record his own faults or vices except in the Old Testament? Indeed, my friend, from some accounts which I have read of the American revolution, I begin to grow skeptical to all history except to that which is contained in the Bible. Now if this book be known to contain nothing but what is materially true, the mind will naturally acquire a love for it from this circumstance: and from this affection for the truths of the Bible, it will acquire a discernment of truth in other books, and a preference of it in all the transactions of life.
8. There is a wonderful property in the memory, which enables it in old age, to recover the knowledge it had acquired in early life, after it had been apparently forgotten for forty or fifty years. Of how much consequence, then, must it be, to fill the mind with that species of knowledge, in childhood and youth, which, when recalled in the decline of life, will support the soul under the infirmities of age, and smooth the avenues of approaching death? The Bible is the only book which is capable of affording this support to old age; and it is for this reason that we find it resorted to with so much diligence and pleasure by such old people as have read it in early life. I can recollect many instances of this kind in persons who discovered no attachment to the Bible, in the meridian of their lives, who have notwithstanding, spent the evening of them, in reading no other book. The late Sir John Pringle [1707-1782], Physician to the Queen of Great Britain, after passing a long life in camps and at court, closed it by studying the scriptures. So anxious was he to increase his knowledge in them, that he wrote to Dr. [Johann David] Michaelis [1717-1791], a learned professor of divinity in Germany [i.e., University of Halle], for an explanation of a difficult text of scripture, a short time before his death.
Second Argument
My second argument in favor of the use of the Bible in schools, is founded upon an implied command of God, and upon the practice of several of the wisest nations of the world. —In the 6th chapter of Deuteronomy, we find the following words, which are directly to my purpose,
And thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with all thy heart and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words which I command thee this day shall be in thine heart. And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.
It appears, moreover, from the history of the Jews, that they flourished as a nation, in proportion as they honored and read the books of Moses, which contained, a written revelation of the will of God, to the children of men. The law was not only neglected, but lost during the general profligacy of manners which accompanied the long and wicked reign of Manasseh. But the discovery of it, in the rubbish of the temple, by Josiah, and its subsequent general use, were followed by a return of national virtue and prosperity. We read further, of the wonderful effects which the reading of the law by Ezra, after his return from his captivity in Babylon, had upon the Jews. They hung upon his lips with tears, and showed the sincerity of their repentance, by their general reformation.
The learning of the Jews, for many years consisted in nothing but a knowledge of the scriptures. These were the textbooks of all the instruction that was given in the schools of their prophets. It was by […] of this general knowledge of their law, that those Jews that wandered from Judea into our countries, carried with them and propagated certain ideas of the true God among all the civilized nations upon the face of the earth. And it was from the attachment they retained to the Old Testament, that they procured a translation of it into the Greek language, after they lost the Hebrew tongue, by their long absence from their native country. The utility of this translation, commonly called the Septuagint, in facilitating the progress of the gospel, is well known to all who are acquainted with the history of the first age of the Christian church.
But the benefits of an early and general acquaintance with the Bible, were not confined only to the Jewish nations. They have appeared in many countries in Europe, since the reformation. The industry, and habits of order, which distinguish many of the German nations, are derived from their early instruction in the principles of Christianity, by means of the Bible. The moral and enlightened character of the inhabitants of Scotland, and of the New England States, appears to be derived from the same cause. If we descend from nations to sects, we shall find them wise and prosperous in proportion as they become early acquainted with the scriptures. The Bible is still used as a schoolbook among the quakers. The morality of this sect of Christians is universally acknowledged. Nor is this all, —their prudence in the management of their private affairs, is as much a mark of their society, as their sober manners.
Read More
Related Posts:

I found out in the spring of 2022, when our baby was diagnosed prenatally as having Trisomy 18. The initial diagnosis from an ultrasound was confirmed by non-invasive prenatal testing. It was hard to hear that our child would be severely disabled if she were to live. It was even harder to hear she would likely die before birth, or soon thereafter. My wife had already had two miscarriages in the previous two years. It was painful to realize that, although our little daughter was doing well in utero, she probably would not live very long. In our initial genetic counseling, we were informed abortion was an option. Though we didn’t have statistics, we knew intuitively that most people in our situation would choose abortion. But because of our Christian faith, we didn’t consider it.

When genetic conditions such as Trisomy 21 (Down syndrome) and Trisomy 18 are diagnosed prenatally, parents may face a very difficult dilemma. They must either prepare themselves to provide an extraordinary level of care for their child — perhaps for the rest of their lives — or choose to abort. In many cases, parents sadly choose abortion.
According to a report from 2017, among women who chose to have prenatal screening and who then received a diagnosis of Down syndrome, the abortion rate was 67 percent in the U.S. (1995-2011); 77 percent in France (2015); 98 percent in Denmark (2015); and close to 100 percent in Iceland. The article quotes an Icelandic geneticist who said, “My understanding is that we have basically eradicated, almost, Down syndrome from our society — that there is hardly ever a child with Down syndrome in Iceland anymore.”
In the fall of 2020, I had an article published in The Federalist that expressed my admiration for Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s pro-life stance, especially in view of her having a child who has Down syndrome. Since the vast majority of babies diagnosed prenatally with Down syndrome are aborted, I admired her integrity in keeping her child. My own brother has Down syndrome, so I know firsthand how challenging and rewarding it can be to provide care for someone with disabilities.
Of course, being the sibling of someone with disabilities is different from being the parent of a child with disabilities, as I found out in the spring of 2022, when our baby was diagnosed prenatally as having Trisomy 18. The initial diagnosis from an ultrasound was confirmed by non-invasive prenatal testing. It was hard to hear that our child would be severely disabled if she were to live. It was even harder to hear she would likely die before birth, or soon thereafter. My wife had already had two miscarriages in the previous two years. It was painful to realize that, although our little daughter was doing well in utero, she probably would not live very long.
In our initial genetic counseling, we were informed abortion was an option. Though we didn’t have statistics, we knew intuitively that most people in our situation would choose abortion.

Related Posts: