<img class="alignnone wp-image-99356 size-full" src="https://expound.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/bride-bread.jpg" alt="" width="960" height="640" />

In seeking to address the framing question the point of departure is to problematize the binary interpretation of biblical texts that seeks to say its either A or B. It could be AB or K, or A and B etc. Dynamic and contextual biblical interpretation is not the same thing as attempting to “relativise” or render as subjective the objective import of scripture.

With regards to the biblical bride symbol, A major problem lies in fixing the bride symbol to the church or to city exclusively when the application of the symbol is fluid and dynamic.

Jerusalem is the capital of the kingdom (dominion) of God (Christ). The problem with equating Jerusalem with the bride across all contexts is in that in Rev 21 it is the Kingship of Christ over the entire universe, and not just his groom status over the earthly bride; that is being established. His death on the cross marked a new dispensation even among unfallen intelligent beings as his death brought to light to the entire universe the true malicious and treacherous character and operative of Satan.

To the angels and the unfallen worlds the cry, “It is finished,” had a deep significance. It was for them as well as for us that the great work of redemption had been accomplished. They with us share the fruits of Christ's victory. DA 758.2

So the city is thus a perfect epitome of universal dominion, the great controversy plays out for the great part on planet earth yet it has cosmic ramifications. Angels and other beings have been watching keenly.

On that grand scale as captured in Rev 21 the groom thus should “marry” Jerusalem as the epitome of universal rulership. In that scope the church bride-ship would be inappropriate as it would be exclusionary.

Nonetheless, in the context of Christ’s disposition to humanity (the church) He indeed presents Himself as the groom and the church as the bride.

We should not approach scripture with a binary mindset that says its either or. For example if we say the bride is either the church or the city then we reduce the import of scripture to suit limited interpretive theorems. Such an approach wrecks the profundity and rotundity of biblical text whose meaning is objective yet fluid and whose transcendency is not mutually exclusive to its incontrovertible immanence.

The bride is both the city and the church contingent on context and the the scope of the great controversy under spotlight in that given context.

Some symbolism is categoric (very clear), yet some is implied.
<blockquote>2 Corinthians 11:2:
For I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy; for I betrothed you to one husband, so that to Christ I might present you as a pure virgin.</blockquote>
If Paul is “presenting” us, the church as betrothed to one Husband Christ, what are we? If Christ in this context is the husband to whom the pure virgin (the church) is being presented, what is the identity of the that being presented to Christ in this analogy? Guest? Not quite. In this context the church is the bride.

Consider the following:
<blockquote>(Ephesians 5:23-25; see EGW on ch. 7:9). God the Husband of His Church—God is the husband of His church. The church is the bride, the Lamb's wife. Every true believer is a part of the body of Christ. Christ regards unfaithfulness shown to Him by His people as the unfaithfulness of a wife to her husband. We are to remember that we are members of Christ's body (Letter 39, 1902). 7BC 985.9
Conduct Befitting the Bride of a King—The church is the bride, the Lamb's wife. She should keep herself pure, sanctified, holy. Never should she indulge in any foolishness; for she is the bride of a King. Yet she does not realize her exalted position. If she understood this, she would be all-glorious within (Letter 177, 1901). 7BC 986.1
(Chs. 3:4; 7:14; 16:15.) Clean Garments—The church is the bride of Christ, and her members are to yoke up with their Leader. God warns us not to defile our garments (Letter 123a, 1898). 7BC 986.2</blockquote>
Ephesians 5:25-27
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless.

Its no mere philosophical injunction that the love husbands should exude for their wives is equated to that which Christ has demonstrated for the church. The “bride-ship” or “wife-ship” of the church in this context is not only categorically established but is poignantly employed to assert the defining principles of unconditional love and selflessness.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, In the following contexts the bride-ship of Jerusalem however can not be missed.

Revelation 21:2
<blockquote>And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband.

Revelation 22:17
The Spirit and the bride say, "Come " And let the one who hears say, "Come " And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost.</blockquote>
If the both the Spirit and the Bride are saying come to the church the church can not be both the caller and the called.
The symbol of the city of Jerusalem as the bride is categoric in those specific contexts.

To infer that in the context of the given texts in revelation the bride is the church is to apply interpretive acrobatics.
And to confute the bride-ship of the church as presented in other cited contexts is the very praxis of eisegesis. (infusing inventive meanings into scripture as apposed to gathering meaning from scripture (exegesis)).

In establishing the bride symbol as the city it is helpful to underscore that the groom is not entering a solemn union with mere gold furnished walls and celestial infrastructure. The groom’s (Christ) union with the city derives meaning only in the fundament and the constituency that Jerusalem represent. Marrying Jerusalem represents the genesis or rather the resumption of the harmonious sovereign and universal rulership. If the earthly church is not an interested party and stakeholder in that (city) establishment then the union is of no relevance to the earthly church. In the context of the bride symbol as the city, the redemptive import of that prophecy must not be eclipsed by the empty pageantry of non-salvific hemerneutics or exegesis.
Such parochial interpretations that relegate the station of the earthly church in the context of Rev 21 dangerously leave the church justifiably feeling like a jilted lover.

So the view that the bride is the city is sustained by the bible clearly in certain contexts as much as the view that the church is the bride is indubitably established in certain contexts.

The interpretive ballyhoo ensues when the mind attempts to systematize and intellectualize, which inevitably becomes an attempt to diffuse and to humanize.

If we can abandon the mono-dimensional binary approach and its attendant antics such as seeking to solve for X, as if the bible is a corpus of algebraic monoliths, and the associative penchant to reconcile (where there is neither conflict nor cognitive dissonance) we would be helped a great deal.

The object of the bible is redemptive and not academic. Across all dynamic employments of the bride symbol as the city or the church the salvific deliverable in never lost.
In both contexts the bride is subject to an unconditionally loving groom. The bride must ready herself for the union either as a guest or bride.

Ultimately, God is in charge, truth will triumph over evil and all candidates of the future kingdom must now prepare themselves thoroughly for the grand and solemn occasion.

We should embrace the beautiful tension for example in that Jesus resurrected Himself (John 10:18), Jesus was resurrected by God the Father (Acts 2:24), the Spirit of God resurrected Jesus (Rom 8:11) and that an Angel was sent by God to resurrect Jesus. ( DA 779.2)
There is no conflict whatsoever in the above until one begins to attempt solving for X and fractionating the import of scripture whose transcendency is not mutually unintelligible with its immanence.