How do Amils typically deal with Revelation 19:7 in light of Revelation 21:2,9-10?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Spiritual Israelite

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
17,030
6,893
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Jesus, is God, right? Look what happens if we take the following passage to be meaning Jesus.

Revelation 21:7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

Obviously, overcomers, thus the church, can't be the bride if they are the son. Therefore, the NJ = the wife, the mother. Jesus = the husband, the father. Compare with the following where it is plainly obvious Jesus is meant.

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father , The Prince of Peace.
You are way overthinking this. You make simple things complicated for no reason. Think about what the bride of Christ represents. Who could be said to be in a personal, intimate spiritual relationship with Christ except those who belong to Christ? He does not have a personal relationship with the new covenant or with a literal city. Who do you think the wise virgins in Matthew 25:1-13 represent? It indicates that Christ is their bridegroom, which means the wise virgins represent His bride. Do you not think that the wise virgins represent the church?
 

grafted branch

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2023
1,978
334
83
49
Washington
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Jesus, is God, right? Look what happens if we take the following passage to be meaning Jesus.

Revelation 21:7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

Obviously, overcomers, thus the church, can't be the bride if they are the son. Therefore, the NJ = the wife, the mother. Jesus = the husband, the father. Compare with the following where it is plainly obvious Jesus is meant.

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father , The Prince of Peace.
Yes, good point.
 

grafted branch

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2023
1,978
334
83
49
Washington
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Say what now? You are trying to say that the bridegroom, Jesus, will be married to the new covenant? Look at the parable of the ten virgins in Matthew 25:1-13. The bridegroom comes for the wise virgins. Why? Because the wise virgins represent his bride. Would you try to say that the wise virgins represent the new covenant or that they represent those who belong to Christ?
Isaiah 62:4Thou 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.

Is the land is the wise virgins? I’m just reading the Bible for what it says, I don’t have all the answers as to how land or a city or a covenant can be married but that’s what it is.
 

Spiritual Israelite

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
17,030
6,893
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Isaiah 62:4Thou 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.

Is the land is the wise virgins? I’m just reading the Bible for what it says, I don’t have all the answers as to how land or a city or a covenant can be married but that’s what it is.
Why are you bringing up an unrelated verse? But, since you did, it's not talking about the land itself being married there (LOL!), but rather the people of the land called Beulah.

Why did you not reply to what I asked about the wise virgins of Matthew 25:1-13? Do you not think they represent the bride of the bridegroom? The bridegroom obviously represents Jesus in that parable. Who do you think the wise virgins represent? Do you not think they represent the church? Where does scripture ever teach that Jesus is coming for His bride, the new covenant, or for His bride, the literal city of new Jerusalem? It should be obvious that the bride of Christ represents something that Jesus can be married to. He cannot be married to the new covenant or to a city no matter what you say. He can only be married to someone or something that He has a personal relationship with and He has a personal relationship with those who are in His church.
 

grafted branch

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2023
1,978
334
83
49
Washington
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Why are you bringing up an unrelated verse? But, since you did, it's not talking about the land itself being married there (LOL!), but rather the people of the land called Beulah.

Why did you not reply to what I asked about the wise virgins of Matthew 25:1-13? Do you not think they represent the bride of the bridegroom? The bridegroom obviously represents Jesus in that parable. Who do you think the wise virgins represent? Do you not think they represent the church? Where does scripture ever teach that Jesus is coming for His bride, the new covenant, or for His bride, the literal city of new Jerusalem? It should be obvious that the bride of Christ represents something that Jesus can be married to. He cannot be married to the new covenant or to a city no matter what you say. He can only be married to someone or something that He has a personal relationship with and He has a personal relationship with those who are in His church.
The wise virgins represent the new covenant and the foolish virgins represent the old convent.

Here’s an important point that I haven’t brought up yet, the old covenant is a bilateral agreement. God has requirements He has to perform and man has requirements they have to perform in that covenant. The new covenant is unilateral, only God has requirements He has to perform in this covenant, hence it is a covenant of grace.

This is in my estimation the reason we see the new covenant, the land, and the city being married and not people. People being the bride was tried in the old covenant and it failed, the people couldn’t perform the requirements of the covenant, they couldn’t make themselves ready.
 

Spiritual Israelite

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
17,030
6,893
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
The wise virgins represent the new covenant and the foolish virgins represent the old convent.
Where is that indicated in the parable in Matthew 25:1-13? So, you think that the parable is talking about the bridegroom, Jesus, coming for the new covenant and then the new covenant goes in with Him to the wedding banquet?

Matthew 25:10 “But while they were on their way to buy the oil, the bridegroom arrived. The virgins who were ready went in with him to the wedding banquet. And the door was shut.

No, the wise virgins do not represent the new covenant. They represent those who are saved under the new covenant, which is the church. Those who belong to Christ.

Here’s an important point that I haven’t brought up yet, the old covenant is a bilateral agreement. God has requirements He has to perform and man has requirements they have to perform in that covenant. The new covenant is unilateral, only God has requirements He has to perform in this covenant, hence it is a covenant of grace.

This is in my estimation the reason we see the new covenant, the land, and the city being married and not people.
Good grief, man. The new covenant, the land and a literal city can't be married and scripture never teaches that. You misinterpret Isaiah 62:4 because you are unable to discern that it's talking about the people of the land being married and not the land itself.

People being the bride was tried in the old covenant and it failed, the people couldn’t perform the requirements of the covenant, they couldn’t make themselves ready.
That was then, but the people of the new covenant, the church, will be ready for His return. Are you ready?
 

grafted branch

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2023
1,978
334
83
49
Washington
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
That was then, but the people of the new covenant, the church, will be ready for His return. Are you ready?
Proverbs 25:6 Put not forth thyself in the presence of the king, and stand not in the place of great men: 7 For better it is that it be said unto thee, Come up hither; than that thou shouldest be put lower in the presence of the prince whom thine eyes have seen.



Yea, I’m ready. I’m not going to claim I’m the bride, I’m just a guest, I don’t want to have to be put lower in the presence of the prince.
 

Davy

Well-Known Member
Feb 11, 2018
15,980
3,382
113
Southeastern U.S.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
If you are referring to the OP where in the OP did I even bring Preterib into this to begin with? The OP has zero to do with Pretrib or even Post trib. The OP is in regards to what happens once Christ returns in the end of this age. Obviously, once Christ returns in the end of this age, all tribulation events would be in the past at this point.

In the OP I'm basically questioning, that in light of Revelation 19, Revelation 21 appears to not be after the GWTJ, but appears to maybe be before the time of the GWTJ. Then I mentioned that most Premils disagree with that, and clearly most do. But then I was wondering if Amils disagreed as well, that Revelation 21:2,9-10, is the same event as Revelation 19:11?

Once again, having zero to do with Preterib or anything like that. If this had anything to do with Pretrib why would I be bringing up Revelation 21:2,9-10 of all things? What does that possibly have to do with Pretrib? Therefore, there is zero for me to edit in the OP since you are not reading what I said and meant correctly. If anyone should know what I meant, you would think it would at least be me that would.

I was referring the following statement you made in a previous post...

You said:
"The point is this. Obviously, imo anyway, that what is recorded in Revelation 19 and Revelation 21, these are referring to the same events. Of course though, most Premils disagree."

That underlined part I disagreed with. I do... agree that the Rev.19:1-9 events are post 2nd coming events, including the marriage supper. And they actually have greater connection with the events in Rev.20 than just Rev.21.

But believing in a false pre-trib rapture is not... a prerequisite for Premil belief, yet your underlined statement is assuming it is.
 

PinSeeker

Well-Known Member
Oct 4, 2021
4,289
1,034
113
Nashville
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
...the church, can't be the bride if they are the son.
Collectively, David... all those who are born again of the Spirit and thus believers, so all those in Christ, collectively... are the bride of Christ; we are His and He is ours. Individually, though, we are sons, with Jesus our elder Brother, so children of the living God.

Goodness gracious.

Grace and peace to all.
 

Spiritual Israelite

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
17,030
6,893
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Proverbs 25:6 Put not forth thyself in the presence of the king, and stand not in the place of great men: 7 For better it is that it be said unto thee, Come up hither; than that thou shouldest be put lower in the presence of the prince whom thine eyes have seen.



Yea, I’m ready. I’m not going to claim I’m the bride, I’m just a guest, I don’t want to have to be put lower in the presence of the prince.
So, you don't think you can relate to the wise virgins in the Matthew 25:1-13 who are ready for their bridegroom to come? The bride of Christ is the church, as Paul made very clear. If you want to deny that, that's your choice, but it really could not be more clear than Paul made it in Ephesians 5:22-32 when he talked about the relationship between a husband and wife being analogous to the relationship between Christ and His church.
 

Davidpt

Well-Known Member
Dec 6, 2023
2,524
799
113
68
East Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Collectively, David... all those who are born again of the Spirit and thus believers, so all those in Christ, collectively... are the bride of Christ; we are His and He is ours. Individually, though, we are sons, with Jesus our elder Brother, so children of the living God.

Goodness gracious.

Grace and peace to all.

Why would one of Jesus' name be called the everlasting Father? How can that not imply the father of sons and daughters? How can any father's sons and daughters be their bride? Prove that with a real world example. IOW, why use real world imagery then contradict what it would look like in the real world by having it meaning something that doesn't even remotely match reality in the real world?

BTW, I may have to change my view in regards to the OP since the OP assumes the church is the bride and that the bride is then seen descending to the earth, Revelation 19:11, 14. Obviously, it is still meaning the church. That fact doesn't change. But is the church meaning the bride? That's the million dollar question.
 
Last edited:

ewq1938

Mod
Staff member
Jul 11, 2015
8,519
1,699
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Why would one of Jesus' name be called the everlasting Father? How can that not imply the father of sons and daughters? How can any father's sons and daughters be their bride? Prove that with a real world example. IOW, why use real world imagery then contradict what it would look like in the real world by having it meaning something that doesn't even remotely match reality in the real world?

He is an immortal/everlasting Father in his own right:

Joh_13:33 Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me: and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you.

We are his children so he is our Father...not God the Father but God the Son who is our father because we are his "little children".

BTW, I may have to change my view in regards to the OP since the OP assumes the church is the bride and that the bride is then seen descending to the earth, Revelation 19:11, 14. Obviously, it is still meaning the church. That fact doesn't change. But is the church meaning the bride? That's the million dollar question.

The bride of Christ is written as a singular female however she is actually composed of a huge number of men and women (Christians). So is there one bride or many? The many form a singular. It is the same way with the Trinity. Three composing a single God does not equal 3 Gods despite that there are three of them in the Trinity. The three form a singular God.


Christians (the Church) are the bride/wife:

Eph 5:23 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.
Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
Eph 5:27 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.
Eph 5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
Eph 5:29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
Eph 5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
Eph 5:31 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.
Eph 5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

Here we are told plainly that the example of a man and his wife being of one flesh is about Christ and the church.


Rom 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God


Here again it is Christians that will marry Christ who was raised from the dead.


2Co 11:2 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.


Spoken to Christians, the church, being presented as Virgins in a spiritual sense to one Husband who is Christ.


Rev 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Rev_17:18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.


If a woman, "Babylon", called a city can represent a group of unsaved people then certainly the bride of Christ, a group of saved people, can be represented as a city, "New Jerusalem", as well.
 

Davidpt

Well-Known Member
Dec 6, 2023
2,524
799
113
68
East Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
He is an immortal/everlasting Father in his own right:

Joh_13:33 Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me: and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you.

We are his children so he is our Father...not God the Father but God the Son who is our father because we are his "little children".



The bride of Christ is written as a singular female however she is actually composed of a huge number of men and women (Christians). So is there one bride or many? The many form a singular. It is the same way with the Trinity. Three composing a single God does not equal 3 Gods despite that there are three of them in the Trinity. The three form a singular God.


Christians (the Church) are the bride/wife:

Eph 5:23 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.
Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
Eph 5:27 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.
Eph 5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
Eph 5:29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
Eph 5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
Eph 5:31 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.
Eph 5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

Here we are told plainly that the example of a man and his wife being of one flesh is about Christ and the church.


Rom 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God


Here again it is Christians that will marry Christ who was raised from the dead.


2Co 11:2 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.


Spoken to Christians, the church, being presented as Virgins in a spiritual sense to one Husband who is Christ.


Rev 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Rev_17:18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.


If a woman, "Babylon", called a city can represent a group of unsaved people then certainly the bride of Christ, a group of saved people, can be represented as a city, "New Jerusalem", as well.

Then we are back to where we began, meaning the OP, since it's absurd that the bride of Christ descends out of heaven twice at different times. No one can deny that the bride is descending out of heaven in Revelation 21. Only Preterists might deny that the bride is descending out of heaven in Revelation 19 though, meaning verse 14. That assuming that the church is the bride. And clearly, verse 14 is meaning the church. Verse 8 proves it since verse 8 and verse 14 have this in common---And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white(verse 8)----clothed in fine linen, white and clean(verse 14)

The problem is then this. Obviously, Revelation 19:14 is meaning before the time of the GWTJ. And that most interpreters place Revelation 21:2, 9-10 after the GTWJ. This might not be an issue if the church isn't meaning the bride. But if the church is meaning the bride, one then has to explain why the church is descending out of heaven twice at different times? Before the GWTJ then again after the GWTJ.

After all, one can't argue that the church is the bride then deny that that makes the bride the new Jerusalem then. IOW, in Revelation 21 if the church is the bride, and the bride is the NJ, that obviously means that it is the church itself descending out of heaven in ch 21. Except we already see the church descending out of heaven in Revelation 19. Except Ch 19 is meaning prior to the GWTJ and that most interpreters apply Revelation 21 after the GWTJ. Sounds like a paradox to me.
 

ewq1938

Mod
Staff member
Jul 11, 2015
8,519
1,699
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Then we are back to where we began, meaning the OP, since it's absurd that the bride of Christ descends out of heaven twice at different times. No one can deny that the bride is descending out of heaven in Revelation 21. Only Preterists might deny that the bride is descending out of heaven in Revelation 19 though, meaning verse 14. That assuming that the church is the bride. And clearly, verse 14 is meaning the church. Verse 8 proves it since verse 8 and verse 14 have this in common---And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white(verse 8)----clothed in fine linen, white and clean(verse 14)

The problem is then this. Obviously, Revelation 19:14 is meaning before the time of the GWTJ. And that most interpreters place Revelation 21:2, 9-10 after the GTWJ. This might not be an issue if the church isn't meaning the bride. But if the church is meaning the bride, one then has to explain why the church is descending out of heaven twice at different times? Before the GWTJ then again after the GWTJ.

After all, one can't argue that the church is the bride then deny that that makes the bride the new Jerusalem then. IOW, in Revelation 21 if the church is the bride, and the bride is the NJ, that obviously means that it is the church itself descending out of heaven in ch 21. Except we already see the church descending out of heaven in Revelation 19. Except Ch 19 is meaning prior to the GWTJ and that most interpreters apply Revelation 21 after the GWTJ. Sounds like a paradox to me.

There's a dif between the bride represented by a physical city and as a group of ppl. Also, there really isn't limit on how many times a bride can descend from heaven.
 

PinSeeker

Well-Known Member
Oct 4, 2021
4,289
1,034
113
Nashville
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Why would one of Jesus' name be called the everlasting Father?
Jesus answered them, “...I give (My sheep) eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of My hand... I and the Father are one" (John 10).

How can any father's sons and daughters be their bride? Prove that with a real world example.
giphy.gif


IOW, why use real world imagery then contradict what it would look like in the real world by having it meaning something that doesn't even remotely match reality in the real world?
Ah, "why use real world imagery..." David, you are obviously a very intelligent, thoughtful person. I think you can answer that question for yourself. <smile> I'll answer it this way: On a far lesser level, even we do the same sort of thing, like... (I'm assuming you are American here, but even if not, you'll get this) ...yeah, why is George Washington called the father of the United States of America? I mean, you know, in the real world, human fathers and mothers don't give birth to and raise land masses (dirt, rocks, and such), right? <smile> But, well, otherwise, I mean, can you even imagine the labor Martha endured? <smile> Come on, man. Or this way; here's another one: Why do we say things like "Necessity is the mother of invention"...? 'Necessity' is a thing, and therefore a noun, but it is intangible, right, so in that sense not a thing, so it can't be a mother of anything in the literal sense, right? Or, more relevantly... No, you know what, I'll stop there. You get it, I'm sure. <smile>

BTW, I may have to change my view in regards to the OP since the OP assumes the church is the bride and that the bride is then seen descending to the earth, Revelation 19:11, 14. Obviously, it is still meaning the church. That fact doesn't change.
Wait. You "see" Jesus in Revelation 19:11-13, 15-16, no? If not, you should; He is "the one sitting on (the white horse) called Faithful and True, (Who) "in righteousness... judges and makes war"... no? Nut then yes, Revelation 19:14... "the armies of heaven..." In the Old Testament the heavenly armies are composed of angels. Possibly the saints are included as well at this point; but there is no explicit indication to that effect here, although Revelation 17:14 ~ "...the Lamb will conquer them, for He is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those with Him are called and chosen and faithful" ~ may indicate that, but in any case, the "assistants" seem to have no distinct role in the "battle." The achievement and the glory belong to Christ, and all the focus is appropriately on Him. His weapon is the sharp sword, as in Revelation 1:16 ~ "from his mouth came a sharp two-edged sword" ~ representing His all-powerful Word. The Bride, though, David, is synonymous with New Jerusalem, which, as in Revelation 21:2, "com(es) down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband." We ~ as the Bride ~ enjoy personal intimacy and joy in the presence of God, and structural organization with other saints ~ thus the city ~ in a harmonious worldwide community. The fundamental character of the "city" is that it shines with the glory of God (Revelation 21:11)... we glory in Him... which we actually do now, just not yet in full.

Surely you can "see" and understand these things, David. I know you can... <smile>

But is the church meaning the bride? That's the million dollar question.
Yes. <smile> As I said earlier, these are all synonymous terms (not an exhaustive list):
  • Bride of Christ
  • Christ's church
  • God's elect
  • saints of God
  • sons/children of God
  • sons/children of the living God
  • Israel of God
  • true Jews of God
  • chosen Nation
  • a holy priesthood
  • a holy temple in the Lord, a dwelling place for God by the Spirit
  • the holy city, new Jerusalem
Grace and peace to you, David.
 

Spiritual Israelite

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
17,030
6,893
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Why would one of Jesus' name be called the everlasting Father? How can that not imply the father of sons and daughters? How can any father's sons and daughters be their bride? Prove that with a real world example. IOW, why use real world imagery then contradict what it would look like in the real world by having it meaning something that doesn't even remotely match reality in the real world?
Jesus is also called the Son of God. Using your logic, He can't be both the everlasting Father and the Son of God at the same time. But, He is. Why do you always only use fallible human logic to understand spiritual things?

BTW, I may have to change my view in regards to the OP since the OP assumes the church is the bride and that the bride is then seen descending to the earth, Revelation 19:11, 14. Obviously, it is still meaning the church. That fact doesn't change. But is the church meaning the bride? That's the million dollar question.
I can't make any sense of what you said here. First, you said "Obviously, it is still meaning the church" and then you asked "is the church meaning the bride?". So, what is "it" that you say is obviously meaning the church?

If you read Ephesians 5:22-33 it should be abundantly clear that the church is the bride of Christ.
 

Davidpt

Well-Known Member
Dec 6, 2023
2,524
799
113
68
East Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
There's a dif between the bride represented by a physical city and as a group of ppl.

If the NJ is the bride that has to mean that the church is the NJ if the church is the bride.

Also, there really isn't limit on how many times a bride can descend from heaven.

This is true if one can demonstrate from Scripture why the bride returned back to heaven after she left heaven in ch 19, in order to once again be seen descending from heaven in ch 21. Amils have the same issue to resolve, imo.

Even though I'm Premil myself, I just can't figure out what other Premils think happens to the church after satan's little season, that are already upon the earth at the beginning of the millennium? Maybe that might explain how the church descends twice and at different times? Except I do not agree with Premils that the NHNE doesn't begin with the 2nd coming. In my view, what follows the DOTL recorded in 2 Peter 3:10-12 is the beginning of the NHNE.

2 Peter 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.


One can't have one without the other. I can't fathom that if Christ and His saints are bodily upon the earth governing the planet, how that does not equal this--wherein dwelleth righteousness? But if it does equal that, and surely it does, it also has to equal this---new heavens and a new earth
 
Last edited:

Spiritual Israelite

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
17,030
6,893
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
2 Peter 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

One can't have one without the other. I can't fathom that if Christ and His saints are bodily upon the earth governing the planet, how that does not equal this--wherein dwelleth righteousness? But if it does equal that, and surely it does, it also has to equal this---new heavens and a new earth
But, in your view that the new heavens and new earth will be ushered in at the beginning of the thousand years right after Christ returns, you also have wickedness dwelling on the new earth. Why would Peter say that righteousness dwells in the new earth if wickedness also dwells there? That's something that could be said about the current earth, so if wickedness also dwelt on the new earth, it would make his statement pointless and meaningless. But, if he is saying it will be a place where only righteousness dwells, in contrast to the earth as we know it now, then that would give meaning to his statement. It would also line up with John saying that it will be a place where there is no more death, crying, sorrow or pain (Revelation 21:4).
 

PinSeeker

Well-Known Member
Oct 4, 2021
4,289
1,034
113
Nashville
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
If the NJ is the bride that has to mean that the church is the NJ if the church is the bride.
giphy.gif


This is true if one can demonstrate from Scripture why the bride returned back to heaven after she left heaven in ch 19, in order to once again be seen descending from heaven in ch 21. Amils have the same issue to resolve, imo.
giphy.gif


This gets into the whole ordering... mis-ordering, actually... of the events described in various passages in Revelation 19-21, which I addressed a few posts ago. No one "returns back" to, well, anywhere, much less heaven. The only "leaving" or departing is a) that of Satan, "seen" in Revelation 19:20 and 20:10, and b) those not in Christ as a result of the final Judgment, which is depicted in Revelation 20:11-15, and the latter will very closely follow the former.

Even though I'm Premil myself, I just can't figure out what other Premils think happens to the church after satan's little season, that are already upon the earth at the beginning of the millennium?
Well, right, but the beginning of God's millennium was quite some time ago... <smile>
giphy.gif


So it's a bit difficult to be pre-mill...

Maybe that might explain how the church descends twice and at different times?
giphy.gif


Just once...

...I do not agree with Premils that the NHNE doesn't begin with the 2nd coming. In my view, what follows the DOTL recorded in 2 Peter 3:10-12 is the beginning of the NHNE. I can't fathom that if Christ and His saints are bodily upon the earth governing the planet, how that does not equal this--wherein dwelleth righteousness? But if it does equal that, and surely it does, it also has to equal this---new heavens and a new earth.
giphy.gif


Why are you pre-mill, David? In a nutshell. Why are you pre-mill?

Grace and peace to you.
 

Davidpt

Well-Known Member
Dec 6, 2023
2,524
799
113
68
East Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Why are you pre-mill, David? In a nutshell. Why are you pre-mill?

Pretty much every post I have posted on this board, pertaining to this subject, explain numerous reasons why. One of the bigger reasons is, I'm in the NOSAS camp, and that NOSAS is not compatible with Revelation 20:6 if one holds an Amil position. That verse plainly says that anyone that has part in the first resurrection is blessed and holy, and that the 2nd death has no power over them, meaning impossible that any of them can be cast into the LOF after having had part in the first resurrection. NOSAS contradicts that if one is assuming an Amil position. But does not contradict it if one is assuming a Premil position.

In my mind then, even though I disagree with Amil, only Amil and OSAS make sense, certainly NOSAS and Amil doesn't. Except NOSAS is equally Biblical. If I were to switch to Amil I would have to abandon the NOSAS position and switch to the OSAS position in order to not contradict Revelation 20:6 by way of the NOSAS position. Except I'm not willing to do that since I know full well that NOSAS is also Biblical.

Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Imagine interpreting that like such---Not everyone is blessed and holy that hath part in the first resurrection: on some of these the 2nd death still has power, thus they can and will be cast into the LOF.

That's what Amil and NOSAS implies about that verse. The same can't happen per Premil since one falls away or doesn't fall away, before the first resurrection ever takes place. Therefore, anyone that falls away in this age are never part of the first resurrection in the future to begin with. They never have part in it since the first resurrection is meaning after they have already fallen away earlier, not before they have fallen away. The latter then equaling Amil plus NOSAS.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: Spiritual Israelite