Who is the Bride of Christ?

Part of a Series Examining Traditional Beliefs in Light of Scripture.

Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

Matthew 15:3

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Colossians 2:8

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

II Timothy 2:15-16

A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

Galatians 5:6

“For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.”

The Apostle Paul, Acts 20:29-31

“When we come to ask ourselves, and say,'Where did I learn this?', 'How did I get this?', 'Who taught me this?', it is astonishing to find how much we have imbibed from man, and from tradition; and not directly and for ourselves, from the Word of God.

“All that we have learned from our youth up must be tested and proved by the Word of God. Where we find it is true we must learn it over again, from God. And where it will not stand the test of His Word we must be not only content, but thankful to give it up; and receive divine revelation in the place of man's imagination.” (E.W. Bullinger. How to Enjoy the Bible, p.6)

Introduction. It is a widely held belief, cherished by many, that the Scriptures teach the true, spiritual Church of Jesus Christ is the “Bride of Christ”. This view is also held by many professing denominations and in Roman Catholicism as well. While not desiring to offend those Christians who hold this belief, when considering the actual teaching of the Scripture, Truth, as revealed by God's Word, the Holy Scriptures, must reign supreme, even at the expense of our most dearly held traditions. If we desire to apprehend the Truth, then we must also apprehend the courage of our convictions and lay our traditions upon Truth's altar, and trust that God, using the means He has placed at our disposal, through the Holy Spirit, will lead us into the Truth which we seek (I John 2:21; 27).

Paul Little, in Chapter 7 of his excellent book: “ Know What You Believe”, writes: “The Church is called the Bride of Christ. Marriage illustrates Christ's relationship to the Church (Eph. 5:25-27, 31, 32; cf. 2 Cor. 11:2; Rev. 19:7; 22:17).”

Since these are the most often cited Scripture references to this belief, we will examine all of them. We must take note that the phrase “Bride of Christ” is not found anywhere in the Scriptures. So, then, where, we have to ask, did this doctrine come from? Let's look first at the Scriptures in an attempt to establish an objective point of reference to begin our examination.

Let's begin with the most cited section of Scripture which is presented as teaching this doctrine: Ephesians, Chapter 5:21-33.

21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23 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.

24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

27 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.

28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. [This should have settled the question.]

31 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.

32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

The above Scripture is often quoted, especially in most modern translated with the feminine pronouns emphasized in the text. Ex.: rendering the “its” as “hers”.

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her

26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word,

27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.

We will focus initially upon these three verses.

We will have to consult the Greek language from time to time here. Lacking a universal cognate, the styles of different languages oftentimes will obscure important ideas and concepts with either nonsensical literalness or excessive subjectivity.

Here, we are interested in how a couple of pronouns relate to a particular noun. There are rules for dealing with pronouns and in this case, New Testament usage maintains that the “auto” words, αυτης and αυτην, (when used as personal pronouns – he, she, it, etc.), should mostly be translated as “it” when the English translation antecedent (the noun going before or preceding the pronoun) is neuter and the context does not dictate a male or female reference.

Now, “church”, “εκκλησιαν” (ekklesia), (proceeded by the definite article “την”, the), is a noun in the feminine gender, and this is why some translations render the “auto” words in the feminine form.

This may seem more “literal” in their minds, but it may be an artificial or forced literalness. Gender in Greek does not always communicate a physical condition, as in sex. However, because “church” is proceeded by the definite article “the”, the use of feminine pronouns seem to be out of place. More likely, their usage is an expression of the deeply-rooted Patristic tradition that seeks to feminize the Church and equate it with the Bride.

(A point to remember is that in Greek, most all abstract nouns, like redemption, resurrection, philosophy or wisdom, are feminine gender. This means that the Greek word “sophia”, which means wisdom and which sometimes stands in the place of God, sounds to us like a feminine noun. Let us not forget, there's the issue of pistis, “faith” being of the feminine gender in Greek, and nomos, “law” is of the masculine gender. There are many, many other examples of this. The general rule is that pronouns take the gender of the antecedent noun, except in the case of the “auto” pronouns, which should be neuter unless the antecedent noun and the immediate context demand an he/she interpretation.) In the verses we are considering here, the context does not demand a feminine translation because verse 30 reads: “For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.” As noted above, this verse should have settled the question. Nevertheless, one must remember that where deduction and dialectic are involved, nothing is impossible. Only us narrow-minded didactic and inductive thinkers have problems here.

As for the different spellings of the “auto” words here, αυτης and αυτην, this has to do with their Greek “case”, and relates only to this discussion insofar they show that Christ directs His love from Himself to and into the Church. The ultimate expression is, of course, the crucification.

The reason for pulling these Greek words and phrases apart as we have done is to illustrate that the feminine usage in Greek is not meant to give the impression of “femaleness” to the Church (or Christians, for that matter), any more than femaleness must be assigned, in English, to ships, airplanes, rifles, cars, or any other thing that we might refer to affectionately as “her” or “she”.

An observation by Anderson seems appropriate, since we have been examining the importance of words and our right-rendering of them during the process of translation. “A recent incident in the French Chamber might teach us a lesson here, for "the children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light." Trouble was caused in a certain district through the general in command having communicated a War Office order in his own words. And when the Minister of War was challenged in Parliament for punishing him, his answer was, "He committed an offense, and I removed him; he paraphrased an order which it was his duty only to read." ( Sir Robert Anderson: The Lord from Heaven, p39, Kregel, 1900, 1978)

The point Anderson is making above is that, even in the human dimension, words mean things, and there are often times when to paraphrase is expressly forbidden. How much more so when considering God's divinely inspired Words. It is our duty, as it was the general above, to communicate God's Words; not to paraphrase them, especially if we are doing so in an effort to support our own imaginations and obscure Truth in the process.

Notice that nowhere in the above Scriptures, is there found any implication that a Bridal relationship exists between the Lord Jesus and his Church. Verse 31 should be interpreted in light of verses 30 and 32, where the Body, “σωματος” soma, which is neuter as one would expect, relationship takes precedence over the personal. Men are to love their wives because, in Christ, both are one with Christ and each other. Injury to one is injury to the other because both are the same, period. The mystery of verse 32 is the absolute oneness of the “new creation” (II Cor 5:17); of the Body of Christ, which gives even greater weight to Paul's admonition in II Cor 6:14, not to be unequally yoked together.

Another favorite Scripture cited as teaching the Church=Bride doctrine is Revelation 19:7.

Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.

What do we notice immediately from this verse about the “wife”? It is said that “... his wife hath made herself ready”.

Okay now, which is it? Ephesians says Christ made the Bride ready, but here it says the Bride made herself ready? Is she ready or not? Which is it? Are you confused yet?

Or, could it be perhaps, and that's the whole point of this investigation, that Revelation is talking about something altogether different.

First, did you also notice that when I fail to follow the contextual biblical terminology how easy it is to cause confusion? We need to remember that, Christ and the Lamb are not synonymous terms in either the text, or theologically. Words have meanings, and we must not blend or blur them.

The “Lamb”, not “Christ”, first appears in the New Testament associated with the ministry of John the Baptizer: “The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” (John 1:29). John also says: “He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled.” (John 3:29)

John identifies himself as the “friend of the bridegroom”, and contextually, Israel is identified for the first time in the New Testament as the Bride, because John's ministry is to Israel as the forerunner (John 1:19-23) with a specific mission (Lk 1:17) to Israel. Later, Jesus identifies himself specifically as the bridegroom (Matt. 9:15, Mk. 2:19-20, Lk. 5:34-35). This is the Kingdom portion of the Lord's ministry, which was directed to Israel only (Matt. 10:6), to fulfill the Old Testament Kingdom promises (which are now in abeyance until the establishment of the Millennium Kingdom, after the Great Tribulation), where the bridal relationship between God the Father and national Israel is so prominent.

At the close of the Baptizer's ministry both the Lamb and the bride disappear from Scripture until Revelation 19:7, where we find the Lamb's arrival and that his wife has made herself ready. In John's description of the Holy City, Revelation 21:9ff, New Jerusalem, we see that all the symbols relate to Israel and the Jewish people. The names on the foundations (v14), are the names of the Apostles of the Lord's Kingdom ministry to Israel; the same shall also sit upon twelve thrones, judging the tribes of Israel.

So, what's our part in this? The Christian's relationship to the City is found in Galatians 4:26 “But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.”

Many portions of Old Testament Scripture illustrate the bridal relationship between Israel and God. We can rest assured that the Israelites didn't think of the “Church of God”, which was hidden in God, (Rom 16:25, Eph 1:9-10), not hidden in the Scriptures, when they read their prophetic Scriptures. Some examples are :

Isa 54:5 For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called.

Isa 62:4-5 Thou shalt no more be termed Forsaken; neither shall thy land any more be termed Desolate: but thou shalt be called Hephzibah, and thy land Beulah: for the LORD delighteth in thee, and thy land shall be married. For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee: and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee.

Hosea 2:16, 19 And it shall be at that day, saith the LORD, that thou shalt call me Ishi; and shalt call me no more Baali ... And I will betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in lovingkindness, and in mercies.

Jeremiah 3:14 Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion:

We can never apprehend a clear understanding of the Word of God if we insist upon disregarding the clear and specific words of Scripture to affirm our traditions.

The phrase “... his wife hath made herself ready”, couldn't possibly be applied to the Church, as Colossians 1:12, Colossians 2:10, Colossians 1:28, Ephesians 1:6, et. al., teach us clearly that God Himself has made us ready. We could never do more to be made ready than what He has already done for us.

The tradition-based tendency is to read “Christ” where Lamb is written, and “Church” where Bride is written. (Ask yourself a question: If they are the same thing, why give them different names?) Often cited in support of this idea, are the “early church fathers” who were obsessed with the idea that God had completely rejected Israel and thus appropriated all good things from Israel for the Church, while leaving, of course, all the curses to Israel. This obscene idea is one of the main roots of Replacement Theology, Rationalism, Christian Reconstructionism, Preterism, etc. Scripture, on the other hand, teaches us that Israel, which is the Bride, is also our mother, and we, who are truly born again believers, are the Body of Christ. He is also the Lamb, the bridegroom of redeemed Israel. The relationships are different and specific. We must not blur them.

Sometimes II Corinthians 11:2 is cited as Paul teaching the Church=Bride doctrine.

For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

Reading this verse, in context, demonstrates that Paul is not teaching the Church=Bride doctrine in it. Rather, Paul is comparing his concern for the purity of the doctrine held to by Corinthian church, to one of the responsibilities of a groomsman in a Jewish wedding. Those responsibilities include, among others, that of guaranteeing the chastity of the bride. It is also noteworthy that Paul doesn't use the word “numphe (νυμφην), bride”, but rather “parthenos (παρθενον)”, the ordinary word for an unmarried girl.

Again, we must not allow ourselves to “filter” God's words through what men has taught us to believe. We must let God's words speak for themselves.

At this point, I think the case for the Church not being the Bride should be pretty clear, but the question still remains “Where did this idea come from, and why is is so popular?”

We can trace references to it back to the so-called “Fathers” of the Early Church. It seems to have a fairly early origin:

The so-called second Epistle of Clement is now known to be the work of another: which is in actuality an anonymous homily of the mid-second century, records:

“And I do not suppose ye are ignorant that the living Church is the body of Christ: for the scripture saith, God made man, male and female. The male is Christ and the female is the Church. And the Books and the Apostles plainly declare that the Church existeth not

now for the first time, but hath been from the beginning: for she was spiritual, as our Jesus also was spiritual, but was manifested in the last days that He might save us.”

2 Clement 14:2 (About 130-160 AD)

It's interesting how this Clement reflects back to Genesis and the Creation to develop his view. It's a shame that he didn't pay as much attention to Paul when he wrote in Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Irenaeus also, in Irenaeus Against Heresies, makes several allusions to the Church being the Bride, but does not use the phrase “Bride of Christ”.

Clement of Alexandria wrote in his: Stromata,

Some openly declare that marriage is fornication and teach that is was introduced by the devil. They boast that they are imitating the Lord himself who neither married nor possessed anything in the world, and they claim to understand the gospel better than anyone else. To them Scripture says: God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble (Jas. 4:6; 1 Pet. 5:5). Moreover, they do not know the reason why the Lord did not marry. First, he had his own bride, the church; second, he was no ordinary man who had need of a helpmate after the flesh (cf. Gen. 2:18). Nor did he need to beget children, since he lives eternally and was born the only Son of God. The Lord himself says: What God has joined together, man must not separate (Matt. 19:6). And again: As it was in the days of Noah, they were marrying and giving in marriage, building and planting, and as it was in the days of Lot, so will be the coming of the Son of Man (Matt. 24:37-39).

Clement also taught that the Church “is the body of Christ, nourished on His Body and Blood.”

The Alexandrian Fathers, especially Origen in his Commentary on the Canticle of Canticles, adopted this evangelic concept of the Church as the heavenly Bride of Christ, in which they found a genuine basis of relationship between God and man.

Do not believe that the Bride, that is, the Church, has existed only since the Savior’s incarnation. She exists since before the creation of the world (Eph. 1:4). So the church’s foundations have been laid from the beginning.

Origen also taught that the Church is the Body of Christ, animated by Him as an ordinary body is animated by the soul, and the believer who belongs to her is his member.

We say that the Holy Scriptures declared the body of Christ, animated by the Son of God, to be the whole Church of God, and the members of his body, considered as a whole, to consist of those who are believers; since, as a soul vivifies and moves the body, which of itself has not the natural power of motion like a living being, so the Word, arousing and moving the whole body, the Church, to befitting action, awakens, moreover, each individual member belonging to the Church, so that they do nothing apart from the Word.

For Origen the allegorical meaning is not hard, as he says, "The spiritual interpretation, however, is not so difficult and hard to come by. For the Bride of the Word, the soul who abides in His royal house - that is, in the Church - is taught by the Word of God, who is her Bridegroom, whatsoever things are stored and hidden within the royal court and in the King's chamber."

R.P. Lawson comments on Origin, "The exquisite picture that the great Alexandrian portrays of his beloved Church is so vivid and so rich in color... Small wonder that for too many to-day she stands only for an organization, rather than for what she was familiarly in Origen's thought of her-Our Lord and Savior’s mystical Bride!

Here, Origen seems to be reflecting back to 2 Clement:

I would not have you suppose that "the bride of Christ (Rev. 21:2), or the Church is spoken of only after the coming of the Savior in the flesh, but rather from the beginning of the human race, from the beginning of the human race, from the very foundation of the world; I may follow Paul in tracing the origin of this mystery even further, before the foundation of the world. For Paul says," He chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy..." (Eph. 1:4,5).

The Apostle also says that the church is built on the foundation not only of the apostles but also of prophets (Eph. 2:20). Now Adam is numbered among the prophets, and he prophesied the "great mystery in respect of Christ and the Church" when he said; "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and shall cleave to his wife and the two shall be in one flesh" Gen. 2:24. For the apostle is clearly speaking of these words when he says: "This mystery is great; but I am speaking in respect of Christ and the Church" (Eph. 5:32). Further the apostle also says: "For He so loved the church that He gave Himself for Her, sanctifying her with the washing of water" (Eph. 5:25,26)... And in this He shows that it is not the case that she did not exist before. For how could He love her if she did not exist? without doubt she existed in all the saints who had been from the beginning of time. Thus loving the church, He came to her. And as His "Children share in flesh and blood, so He also was made partaker of these" (Heb. 2:14) and gave Himself for them. For these saints were the Church, which He loved so as to increase it in number, to improve it with virtues, and by the "Charity of perfection" (Col. 4:6), transfer it from earth to heaven.

Notice how in the above quotations how Scripture, when it is cited, is taken out of context, misinterpreted altogether alone, and stitched together with the thin thread of human imagination to produce a belief that the Church is the Bride; A belief made dogma by the Papists; A belief that Protestantism has been unable or unwilling to shake itself free of.

Conclusion

One will search in vain to find any of this bridal terminology in St. Paul's epistles. In fact, Paul frequently makes reference to Christ as Savior, Lord and Head, but he never speaks of Him as the Lamb of God and for good reason. In prophecy, God had graciously imparted the sacrificial system which foreshadowed the once-for-all sacrifice. Thus, Christ was the sinless, spotless Lamb of God who satisfied the righteous demands of the law. He was consistently portrayed as the innocent victim--a lamb being led to the slaughter (Lev. 4:3235; Isa. 53:3-8). With the introduction of a new dispensation, Christ is portrayed in a completely different light by the Apostle Paul. Today, He is the Lord of glory, the mighty victor who has conquered sin through His death and resurrection (I Cor. 2:8; 15:20-23).

Consistent interpretation of Scripture clearly teaches that it is the Body relationship that exists between the Church and the Lord Jesus, not the Bridal relationship, language peculiarities notwithstanding. These two are incompatible, one with the other. The latter has always belonged to the redeemed of Israel. The Christian's relationship with the Lord Jesus, as a member of His Body, is that of absolute oneness, while the relationship between the Lamb and the Bride is personal. The Body relationship is incompatible with and takes precedence over the Bridal.

We have also identified some of the dangers of blurring clear Scriptural distinctions, and the errors produced thereby.

As a result, we can, I believe, safely dispose of that hangover of the Patristic Dark Ages and Papal tyranny: the Church = the Bride doctrine.

Appendix

Excerpt from “Misunderstood Texts of the Bible”, by Sir Robert Anderson, Kregel, 1916, 1991, pp. 100-102

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord" (Ephesians v. 22 if.).

In this section of Ephesians the marriage relationship is readjusted by a heavenly standard, the ordinance of Genesis ii. 24 being re-enacted on a spiritual basis and with a new sanction. The Church is the body of Christ, and "because we are members of His Body" (v. 30, R.V.) the Christian is "to love his wife even as himself." For while the bridal relationship which pertains to the heavenly election out of Israel implies the closest unity, the body relationship between Christ and the church connotes absolute oneness. And this is the "great mystery" of verse 32; not the marriage bond - for such a use of the word "mystery" is foreign to Scripture - but the truth of the one body, which is specially revealed in this Epistle. And so the Apostle adds, "I am speaking concerning Christ and the Church. Nevertheless (Gk.: plen, (plane), i.e. though it is not true in fact of man and wife, yet because it is true of Christ and the Church), let every one of you so love his wife even as himself."

Now is it conceivable that, if the Church-bride doctrine were a Divine truth, the Apostle would not have made it the basis of this exhortation? But that doctrine is discredited by the absence of all mention of it in this the very Scripture which is supposed to teach it. It may be said, perhaps, that verse 27 implies it. But the body figure expresses a corporate unity, and until it is complete it cannot be presented. It is now only in building (ch. iv. 12, 13) In Revelation xix. 7 we have a kindred thought in the bride becoming ready. The Church-bride doctrine is really a by-product of that deplorable error of Patristic theology, that God has "cast away His people whom He foreknew " ; and therefore their promised blessings are now appropriated by the Church!

The question whether A. B. is C. D’s wife may receive a negative answer, either by pointing to another woman as his wife, or by indicating a relationship between them which is incompatible with marriage. And in both ways Scripture vetoes the Church-bride theory. For Abraham’s city, the heavenly Jerusalem, is the bride, and that city is "our mother"! (Galatians iv. 26, R.V.). It may be added that the typology of Scripture refutes it. For Isaac was admittedly a type of Christ, and it was the Divine purpose that his bride should be of his own kindred.

But it may be asked, As these body and bride phrases are figurative, may they not be interchangeable ? We must here distinguish between a figure which expresses a truth, as when the Lord called Himself "the Shepherd of the sheep," and a figure which is merely illustrative, as when He said He was the door of the sheep. And the figures of the body and the bride are in the former category, and express real relationships.

We may learn much by marking the order in which these truths appear in the New Testament. The bride is prominently mentioned in the kingdom ministry (John iii. 29) ; but during all the interval between the close of that ministry and the Patmos visions, Israel is set aside and the bride disappears from Scripture. Is it conceivable that if the Church were really the Bride we should seek in vain for a single mention of it, or even of the word numphê throughout that entire section of Scripture in which the truth of the Church is specially revealed?

The use made of 2 Corinthians xi. 2 in this connection is a strange vagary of exegesis. In his Jewish Social Life, Dr. Edersheim cites the passage to illustrate the functions of "the friend of the bridegroom." But to construe such an illustrative reference as being a Divine revelation of a truth of such vital importance betrays want of respect both for Holy Scripture and for the intelligence of men. Moreover, if the Christians of Corinth were the Bride of Christ, the same must have been true of every other local church; and if thus construed, the verse would suggest a harem rather than a wife! And by a single step further in error the Church of Rome applies it to the individual, and thus claims a Scriptural sanction for the evil system of convents and nuns.

And this should bar our dismissing this subject with a cui bono?* All Scripture is profitable if read aright. But perverted Scripture has been the bane of Christianity. For by a misuse of Scripture the historic church has found a warrant for every atrocity and crime that has befouled its history. And if every true Christian ought to stand clear of its guilt, this responsibility rests specially upon any one who brings the gospel to Jews; and if he ignores or shirks it he is false to his message and his Lord. It behooves him to declare, in the spirit of Dean Alford’s words quoted on p. 85, ante, that "the Christian Church . . . the outward frame of Christendom" is an apostasy, and to remind his hearers that the Christian victims of its fiendish persecutions have outnumbered the Jewish a hundredfold.

More than that, it behooves him to repudiate that "orthodox" system of exegesis which, by spiritualizing the prophetic Scriptures, robs the covenant people of their heritage - an evil system which, as Adolf Saphir wrote, "has paved the way for Rationalism and Neology.**" And he might begin with the twenty-first chapter of Revelation. Can we not realize the wondering delight of a company of Jews on hearing for the first time the glowing words of the Patmos vision of the heavenly Jerusalem, and being told by a Christian preacher that it is all for Israel, and will be realized for Israel in the coming age, when at last they accept their long-rejected Messiah

*Utility, advantage, or self-interest considered as the determinant of value or motivation.

**A new doctrine or a new interpretation of scripture.