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

[Davidpt]

Whup, whup... WHOA! That is NOT true (in red).

It's obvious you wrongly assume that all Premills believe the false Pre-trib Rapture theory. Not so. The Bible Scriptures show a Post-trib coming by Lord Jesus, and then His future "thousand years" reign beginning at His return.

It's equally obvious you have no clue what you are talking about since I am a Premil myself, and that I reject Pretrib. I'm post trib. It really makes a lot of sense then that I would insist all Premils are Pretribbers. Where are you coming up with lies like that? Certainly not from anything I wrote unless maybe reading comprehension explains it? Pretty much everyone around here knows that I am Premil, that I reject Pretrib, and that I'm post trib. So why don't you know that as well by now? It's not like this is the first post of mine that you have seen and read.

 

[PinSeeker]

...I can see how “seated at the right hand of God” can be interpreted as a position of authority not a literal physical position.

Well, God the Father does not have a right hand like human beings do, so yeah. <smile>

However, I would say Revelation 19 isn’t talking about a literal physical white horse, it has spiritual meaning.

Right.

So if an Amill claims the fight in Revelation 19 is spiritual in nature and Christ remains seated at the right hand of God during this battle, that all seems to work, it’s all spiritual in nature.

Ugh. <smile> I mean, Christ is going to (literally, of course) return and defeat Satan once and for all. It will certainly have spiritual implications, but it will be a real event. I hope we all agree on that... <smile>

You know, just as a side note (yet very relevant here), this idea that the spiritual and the physical are mutually exclusive and/or that the spiritual aspect of things makes them out to be non-literal... those ideas, or assertions (if made) are quite ridiculous. To put it simply, to understand things in Revelation (and elsewhere in the Bible) as spiritual is absolutely not to imply in any way that the actual events are not literal. Rather, these very real things are described by using symbolism to do so, thus representing very real things... and thus are absolutely pointing to and descriptive of literal things/events. And this is in keeping with the multitude of Old Testament prophecies that used all sorts of different things ~ people, animals, even inanimate objects ~ to represent and thus to point to the true Savior to come.

If we claim the fight in Revelation 19 is literal, then is the white horse literal also?

Yeah, so this is a great example. In answer to your question... yes... and no. <smile> In other words, Jesus is our hero, our, well, "knight in shining armor"... our "Lone Ranger"... <smile> But when He returns, He will not look literally look like this:

...or this:

<smile>

But He is the true Lamb of God (Who is without blemish)... and thus the true Conquerer, our Rescuer, our Deliverer, our Redeemer, our Savior, our King... even our true Husband.

Revelation is a picture book. <smile> What I mean is, Revelation is a picture book, not a puzzle book. We should read it like a child's picture book, in a way... <smile> But it's about very real things. Now, I'm not saying this is what you are doing, but we shouldn't try to puzzle it out; we shouldn't become preoccupied by isolated details. Rather, we should become ~ and maybe you are ~ engrossed in the story. In reading it, we should praise the Lord. We should cheer for the saints. We should detest the Beast. We should long for the final victory. Yeah?

...Christ literally comes to earth while spiritually remaining seated at the right hand of God.

Right, but "seated" means far more than just sitting down (in a chair or not), and at God's right hand means far more than just on God's on the Father's right (which, again, God does not have a right and a left hand like we do; God is Spirit, as John says in John 4:24). Jesus is "seated" in the sense that His work in accomplishing redemption (primarily through His work on the cross and His resurrection) is done, and He "sits at God's right hand" ~ as God, in the power of God, ruling over creation (not taking over the place of the Father, but one with Him, just as He said of Himself in John 10:30 and 17:21. His power and His rule may not look like we want it to yet, but it will; one day there will be no more sin and no more death. Right?

I think in this case the Amill position could claim Christ is both physically and spiritually seated at the right hand of God until His enemies are made His footstool.

Fair enough, but... see above. <smile>

Grace and peace to you, grafted branch.

 

[Marty fox]

In your opinion why does John need to have heaven opened in Revation 19:11 in order to see what he saw? What is the significance of heaven being opened in relation to what he saw? Throughout Revelation John sees numerous things taking place in heaven, yet it never says heaven needed to be opened in order for him to see what he saw. Therefore, there has to be a specific reason why heaven is opened in verse 11.

We don’t know why because it doesn’t say why but we know that it is Opened.

My speclaction is that the wedding supper of the Lamb started right before it so it was showing that the saints are the ones riding with Jesus.

But using that same theory we don’t know that Jesus and the saints come down from heaven because it doesn’t say so

 

[grafted branch]

Here's the issue with that idea unless these Amils in question are Catholics, or maybe agree with Catholics, that it's ok to pray to passed on saints, therefore, it's perfectly reasonable that while in a disembodied state, saints are helping Christ fulfill Revelation 19:11-21 spiritually during the here and now.

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.
8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.


Clearly, some or maybe even all of these meant here are in a disembodied state at this moment in time. Otherwise, we have to assume Pretrib is correct, that these are meaning Pretribbers that were raptured before great tribulation began. The reason why I say 'some' is beacuse these meant here could also mean someone who has been raptured. Obviously, they would not be in a disembodied state, nor are they even in heaven with saints that are in a disembodied state. IOW, verses 7-8 is meaning prior to the rapture, not after the rapture. Yet, ones that are raptured are obviously part of the wife. And are eventually caught up to Christ and the wife in the air as they are descending out of heaven.

Revelation 19:14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.


There is no way of getting around it, these are clearly meaning the wife meant in verses 7-8. We can know that by comparing the following---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). How is it reasonable that the wife is clothed in fine linen, white and clean, according to verse 8, and so are the armies meant in verse 14, except none of the armies meant in verse 14 are meaning the wife meant in verse 8?

No one being intellectually honest is going to insist that none of the armies meant in verse 14 are meaning the wife meant in vesrse 8. Only someone being intellectually dishonest would insist that. So now we're back to that the armies meant in verse 14, that some of them are in a disembodied state first.

But are they still in a disembodied state when verse 14 is being fulfilled? Obviously, no if verse 14 is involving Christ's bodily 2nd coming in the end of this age. Obviously, yes if one is applying verse 14 in a spirtual sense pertaining to the here and now throughout the NT church era preceding Christ's bodily return in the end of this age.

Which view then makes better sense? The view that has these in verse 14 in a bodily risen state when this is being fulfilled? Or the view that has them still in a disembodied state when being fulfilled? Not to mention, this ignores that those meant in 14, that some of them have to be meaning the ones that are raptured(1 Thessalonians 4:17). But how can it include any of them if one is applying verse 14 in a spiritual sense pertaining to the here and now? Should we then conclude that it can still include them, that the answer is simple, that Pretrib explains how it can include those that have been raptured? Surely not. Why fight it then?

The only thing that makes sense of verse 14 is that the armies, these are all in a risen bodily state at the time, post great tribulation. And that the dead in Christ rise first and leave heaven with Christ, and that those who remain and are still alive meet them in the air, therefore, forming the armies meant in verse 14. Not prior to great tribulation, but after great tribulation. Therefore, also meaning this in Zechariah 14:5---and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee. Unless one wants to argue the one meant in Revelation19:11 is not God nor is anyone meant in verse 14 saints.

I think most people would agree that the armies in Revelation 19:14 are the same folks in Revelation 19:7-8. I don’t personally think the bride of Christ is the Church but since most others do I don’t want to get into that debate, let’s just assume they are the same.

The armies in heaven are only following Christ. In verse 9 they are called to the marriage supper which is the fowls being filled with flesh in verse 17-18. The sword of Christ smites the nations and the fowls eat the flesh. I would say the armies are observing, that’s it, I don’t think they are actually doing any fighting or eating flesh.

So, I’m not sure it matters whether the armies in heaven are in a disembodied state or not when these things take place.

 

[grafted branch]

Well, God the Father does not have a right hand like human beings do, so yeah. <smile>


Right.


Ugh. <smile> I mean, Christ is going to (literally, of course) return and defeat Satan once and for all. It will certainly have spiritual implications, but it will be a real event. I hope we all agree on that... <smile>

You know, just as a side note (yet very relevant here), this idea that the spiritual and the physical are mutually exclusive and/or that the spiritual aspect of things makes them out to be non-literal... those ideas, or assertions (if made) are quite ridiculous. To put it simply, to understand things in Revelation (and elsewhere in the Bible) as spiritual is absolutely not to imply in any way that the actual events are not literal. Rather, these very real things are described by using symbolism to do so, thus representing very real things... and thus are absolutely pointing to and descriptive of literal things/events. And this is in keeping with the multitude of Old Testament prophecies that used all sorts of different things ~ people, animals, even inanimate objects ~ to represent and thus to point to the true Savior to come.


Yeah, so this is a great example. In answer to your question... yes... and no. <smile> In other words, Jesus is our hero, our, well, knight in shining armor... <smile> But when He returns, He will not look literally look like this:

Revelation is a picture book. <smile> What I mean is, Revelation is a picture book, not a puzzle book. We should read it like a child's picture book, in a way... <smile> But it's about very real things. Now, I'm not saying this is what you are doing, but we shouldn't try to puzzle it out; we shouldn't become preoccupied by isolated details. Rather, we should become ~ and maybe you are ~ engrossed in the story. In reading it, we should praise the Lord. We should cheer for the saints. We should detest the Beast. We should long for the final victory. Yeah?


Right, but "seated" means far more than just sitting down (in a chair or not), and at God's right hand means far more than just on God's on the Father's right (which, again, God does not have a right and a left hand like we do; God is Spirit, as John says in John 4:24). Jesus is "seated" in the sense that His work in accomplishing redemption (primarily through His work on the cross and His resurrection) is done, and He "sits at God's right hand" ~ as God, in the power of God, ruling over creation (not taking over the place of the Father, but one with Him, just as He said of Himself in John 10:30 and 17:21. His power and His rule may not look like we want it to yet, but it will; one day there will be no more sin and no more death. Right?


Fair enough, but... see above. <smile>

Grace and peace to you, grafted branch.

I think I agree with your post. Let me ask you this, in Matthew 5:35 the earth is His footstool. In Psalm 110:1 Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Does Christ sit at the right hand of God (and all that that means) until the earth is made His enemy?

 

[PinSeeker]

I think I agree with your post. Let me ask you this, in Matthew 5:35 the earth is His footstool. In Psalm 110:1 Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Does Christ sit at the right hand of God (and all that that means) until the earth is made His enemy?

Hmmmm... What do you mean when you say "the earth is made His enemy"?

Grace and peace to you.

 

[grafted branch]

Hmmmm... What do you mean when you say "the earth is made His enemy"?

Grace and peace to you.

Well the earth is His footstool. I think “the earth” can have several different meanings and I’m not trying to pin down any particular one but to me it looks like the earth is not the enemy, then at some point it does become the enemy and then Christ is no longer in position of being seated at the right hand of God.

Do you see that progression of events occurring or maybe you see something else?

 

[Marty fox]

I think most people would agree that the armies in Revelation 19:14 are the same folks in Revelation 19:7-8. I don’t personally think the bride of Christ is the Church but since most others do I don’t want to get into that debate, let’s just assume they are the same.

The armies in heaven are only following Christ. In verse 9 they are called to the marriage supper which is the fowls being filled with flesh in verse 17-18. The sword of Christ smites the nations and the fowls eat the flesh. I would say the armies are observing, that’s it, I don’t think they are actually doing any fighting or eating flesh.

So, I’m not sure it matters whether the armies in heaven are in a disembodied state or not when these things take place.

Yes I think that the food of the marriage supper is symbolic for Gods enemies being eaten by the birds the church don’t actually do the eating

 

[PinSeeker]

Well the earth is His footstool.

Okay, but surely you don't think this (ore something like it) is an actual satellite photo of the earth:

<smile>

So, yes, God's footstool (God proclaims this Himself in Isaiah 66:1), but this is to say ~ symbolically, really ~ that, as Jesus is teaching in Matthew 5, God's sovereignty and the vastness of His dominion is over all the earth, and thus is a reminder of the futility of confining God to man-made structures, as He is omnipresent; in Matthew 5:34-35, Jesus is teaching about the sanctity of oaths and the importance of the earth's significance in the divine order. Despite how it may seem to us at least from time to time, God is King and is in full control.

I think “the earth” can have several different meanings...

Well, it's talked about in different contexts in the Bible, sure. I mean to use it as it is in two very different contexts:

A. the earth ~ all of creation, really ~ is good, even very good, as Moses quotes God in making that declaration in Genesis 1, right? And all things were created through Christ, per John 1... And Jesus says in Matthew 5 that the meek will inherit the earth, and that's just a few sentences (in the Sermon on the Mount) as His reference to the world as God's footstool...

B. the earth in its present state (since the Fall in Genesis 3) is fallen, sinful, even evil; we can point to several Old and New Testament passages that say this in different ways.

So, good in one sense/context, but bad in another.

and I’m not trying to pin down any particular one...

Okay...

but to me it looks like the earth is not the enemy, then at some point it does become the enemy and then Christ is no longer in position of being seated at the right hand of God.

Hm. Well, I guess I would say that in one sense the earth is most assuredly not His enemy (A above), but in another sense it is (B above)...

Do you see that progression of events occurring or maybe you see something else?

I don't really understand this question. But I would say that God will ~ one great day, in the Person of Jesus Christ, when He returns ~ permanently separate from the world, even remove from the world ~ even from all of creation ~ all evil and sin and death. Yes?

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Davidpt]

You're not making any sense here.

Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. 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.
3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. 4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. 5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

The main point I'm trying to make over all throughout this thread, that unless one disputes that the bride of Christ descends out of heaven with Christ when He comes, in this case meaning the dead in Christ who are in heaven now in a disembodied state, this indicates that the bride of Christ is descending out of heaven in ch 19, obviously. We also see the bride of Christ descending out of heaven in Revelation 21, except most interpreters take ch 19 to be meaning before/during the GWTJ and then take Revelation 21 to be meaning after the GWTJ.

Therefore, in my mind this would equal the bride of Christ descending out of heaven twice and at different times. One way round this, it would have to mean the bride of Christ meant in ch 19 is not the same bride of Christ meant in ch 21. Which then leads to something nonsensical. I'm not saying Amils believe that, I'm saying it would be one way around it. Now we are back to where we started since there can't be a way around this that makes any sense.

Either the NHNE begin prior to the GWTJ, thus making the bride of Christ descending out of heaven only happening one time, thus Revelation 21 agreeing with the timing of Revelation 19, or we are back to trying to find a way around this that makes sense and doesn't require that the bride of Christ descends out of twice and at different times. Except there is no way around this that I can see. And that even though I am Premil, my position is that Revelation 19:11, 14 is the same event as Revelation 21:2, 9-10. Which would then have to mean that Revelation 21:2, 9-10 is prior to the GWTJ since Revelation 19:11, 14 is prior to the GWTJ, or maybe involves the GWTJ if one is Amil and that that is their position pertaining to ch 19.

 

[PinSeeker]

...most interpreters take ch 19 to be meaning before/during the GWTJ and then take Revelation 21 to be meaning after the GWTJ.

I'm not so sure about "most," but those who do... are wrong... <smile> As I said in my previous post to you (which you may or may not intend to respond to), "the 'pothole' many unwittingly fall into is not realizing that many of the events in parts of Revelation are thematically arranged rather than chronologically arranged. And, regarding Revelation as a whole, they think it to be strictly chronological rather than circling over the same cycle of time several times over... seven, to be exact."

Therefore, in my mind this would equal the bride of Christ descending out of heaven twice and at different times.

Right, which you and I would both say is ridiculous.

One way round this, it would have to mean the bride of Christ meant in ch 19 is not the same bride of Christ meant in ch 21.

I don't think there is anyone out there even suggesting or intimating that Christ is a polygamist. <smile> At least I hope not... <smile>

...we are back to where we started since there can't be a way around this that makes any sense.

Yeah, I say there's nothing to "get around."

Either the NHNE begin prior to the GWTJ, thus making the bride of Christ descending out of heaven only happening one time, thus Revelation 21 agreeing with the timing of Revelation 19...

And I say the NHNE is ushered in, in its fullness, after the GWTJ ~ because all sin and death and evil will have been sent away, removed, and the wedding feast of the Lamb would be its initial... initiating, consummating... event. And in that way, yes the timing of the part of Revelation 19 we're talking about and Revelation 21 would agree. They do.

Grace and peace to you, David.

 

[grafted branch]

Yes I think that the food of the marriage supper is symbolic for Gods enemies being eaten by the birds the church don’t actually do the eating

I’ve come across the idea that the marriage supper is the Lord’s supper and those that are partaking of it unworthy are not eating and drink his blood but are eating the flesh of men. So in this view the fowls of the air are the unsaved that claim to be saved.

Personally I’m not sure how exactly to interpret the marriage supper but it seems the Lord’s supper would be a good example to look at.

 

[Davidpt]

I don’t personally think the bride of Christ is the Church

Hmmm---maybe we have something in common then since I too have thought along those lines. I don't know how you arrived at that yourself until you tell me first but my reasoning went like such.

Revelation 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

Obviously, the overcomers meant here are meaning saved saints. And if the new Jerusalem, which we already know from Revelation 21, is meaning the bride of Christ, and that the church is meaning the new Jerusalem, and that the overcomers in verse 12 above is meaning saved saints, thus the church, this indicates we would need to understand verse 12 maybe like such.

Revelation 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

Let's start with this---I will write upon him the name of my God. Write upon who? Obviously, these--Him that overcometh

and I will write upon him the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem. Write upon who? Obviously, these--Him that overcometh.

Which then begs the question, though it's obvious that writing upon him is likely not meaning in the literal sense, yet that is beside the point, as to why overcomers would have Jesus writing the name of the new Jerusalem upon them if they are the new Jerusalem?
First Jesus is writing the name of His God upon the overcomers, and not one single person would insist that the overcomers and His God are one and the same, Why are they then being inconsistent, thus cherry picking, by insisting that the overcomers and the NJ are one and the same?

To this day I haven't fully made up my mind either way, though I do currently lean more towards the bride of Christ equals the church. I don't know why though, since it seems to render Revelation 3:12 nonsensical if the the church is meaning the new Jerusalem, where we already know from Revelation 21 that the NJ is the bride of Christ.

 

[PinSeeker]

I don’t personally think the bride of Christ is the Church but since most others do I don’t want to get into that debate, let’s just assume they are the same.

Well they are; all we have to do (among other things) is look at what Paul says in Ephesians 5:22-33 concerning wives and husbands...

"Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, His body, and is Himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her, that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that He might present the church to Himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of His body. 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband."​

Like I said, among other things (passages), but I mean... there you go...

Grace and peace to you.

 

[grafted branch]

Hmmm---maybe we have something in common then since I too have thought along those lines. I don't know how you arrived at that yourself until you tell me first but my reasoning went like such.

Revelation 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

Obviously, the overcomers meant here are meaning saved saints. And if the new Jerusalem, which we already know from Revelation 21, is meaning the bride of Christ, and that the church is meaning the new Jerusalem, and that the overcomers in verse 12 above is meaning saved saints, thus the church, this indicates we would need to understand verse 12 maybe like such.

Revelation 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

Let's start with this---I will write upon him the name of my God. Write upon who? Obviously, these--Him that overcometh

and I will write upon him the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem. Write upon who? Obviously, these--Him that overcometh.

Which then begs the question, though it's obvious that writing upon him is likely not meaning in the literal sense, yet that is beside the point, as to why overcomers would have Jesus writing the name of the new Jerusalem upon them if they are the new Jerusalem?
First Jesus is writing the name of His God upon the overcomers, and not one single person would insist that the overcomers and His God are one and the same, Why are they then being inconsistent, thus cherry picking, by insisting that the overcomers and the NJ are one and the same?

To this day I haven't fully made up my mind either way, though I do currently lean more towards the bride of Christ equals the church. I don't know why though, since it seems to render Revelation 3:12 nonsensical if the the church is meaning the new Jerusalem, where we already know from Revelation 21 that the NJ is the bride of Christ.

Isaiah 62:4 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.

Here are my thoughts, in Isaiah 62:4 the last phrase in that verse is “and thy land shall be married.” Some translations put it this way “and your land will be His bride.”. Now look at Hebrews 11:16 But now they (those who died in faith) desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

I personally think the promised land is the new heaven new earth, New Jerusalem, New Testament or covenant, bride of Christ. The Church enters into that covenant but they are not the covenant itself.

So in Revelation 3:12 it is the new covenant that is written on him that overcomes, which agrees with Jeremiah 31.

Jeremiah 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

 

[grafted branch]

Well they are; all we have to do (among other things) is look at what Paul says in Ephesians 5:22-33 concerning wives and husbands...

"Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, His body, and is Himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her, that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that He might present the church to Himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of His body. 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband."​

Like I said, among other things (passages), but I mean... there you go...

Grace and peace to you.

Ephesians 5:22-32 does give the impression that the Church is the bride but if we draw an absolute conclusion from that then it creates issues.

For example, in verse 26 it is Christ that sanctifies and cleanses yet in Revelation 19:7 it is the bride that makes herself ready. In verse 27 Christ presents the wife/bride to Himself yet in 2 Corinthians 11:2 Paul says he has espoused that he may present them as a chaste virgin to Christ. In verse 31 it indicates the marriage is already consummated which would place Revelation 19 taking place before Ephesians was written.

Colossians 2:10 says we are complete in Him, if the marriage was still future and it involved the Church then this statement wouldn’t be true until after the marriage. If we look at verses such as Galatians 4:19 where Paul says he travailed in birth, meaning he was their mother and 1 Corinthians 4:15 where Paul places himself as their father, we can see that Paul uses these types of relationships as examples which were not meant to be taken literally.

 

[Davidpt]

I'm not so sure about "most," but those who do... are wrong... <smile> As I said in my previous post to you (which you may or may not intend to respond to), "the 'pothole' many unwittingly fall into is not realizing that many of the events in parts of Revelation are thematically arranged rather than chronologically arranged. And, regarding Revelation as a whole, they think it to be strictly chronological rather than circling over the same cycle of time several times over... seven, to be exact."


Right, which you and I would both say is ridiculous.


I don't think there is anyone out there even suggesting or intimating that Christ is a polygamist. <smile> At least I hope not... <smile>


Yeah, I say there's nothing to "get around."


And I say the NHNE is ushered in, in its fullness, after the GWTJ ~ because all sin and death and evil will have been sent away, removed, and the wedding feast of the Lamb would be its initial... initiating, consummating... event. And in that way, yes the timing of the part of Revelation 19 we're talking about and Revelation 21 would agree. They do.

Grace and peace to you, David.

The way you tend to be reasoning some of this tends to make John out a liar since he indicated that he saw the bride of Christ descending out of heaven in both ch 19 and 21. Except in ch 19 it is implied by putting 2 and 2 together, while in Revelation 21 it comes right out and says so.

One thing I think some interpreters overlook is who is showing John these things in Revelation 21, meaning this angel-- one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues. Which then places this vision in the proximity of the last 7 vials of wrath, meaning after they have already been poured out.

Maybe I'm wrong here, but I don't think anyone would propose that the time of the last 7 vials of wrath is involving the GWTJ recorded in Revelation 20:11-15. IOW, it wouldn't even be in view yet. Yet here we have one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues showing John the bride of Christ coming down out of heaven in ch 21.

One thing I have noticed is this. Both ch 19 and 22 basically have this in common---

Revelation 19:10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy

Revelation 22:8 And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.
9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.

How many times should we assume John is going to keep making this same mistake, falling at one's feet to worship him, until he gets the clue that he is not to do that? I would think after the first time, there wouldn't be a 2nd time nor a 3rd time, etc. IOW, it is highly likely that the same angel showing him these things in ch 21-22 is the same angel showing him these things in ch 19. Therefore, a connection between both chapters, that maybe ch 21-22 is running in parallel with ch 19, not meaning after ch 19?

 

[PinSeeker]

Ephesians 5:22-32 does give the impression that the Church is the bride but if we draw an absolute conclusion from that then it creates issues.

Heavenly, spiritual things are not the same as earthly, human things... or in this case institutions, like marriage. Right. But ~ again, in a nutshell ~ we are to regard our own marriage... or that of a husband to his wife... in this world in light of Jesus's relationship to His Bride, the church. We should have that high a view of earthly marriage.

For example, in verse 26 it is Christ that sanctifies and cleanses yet in Revelation 19:7 it is the bride that makes herself ready.

Cannot both be true? I say they are... Paul also exhorts us to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God Who works in us, both to will and to work for His good pleasure. Both are simultaneously true.

In verse 27 Christ presents the wife/bride to Himself yet in 2 Corinthians 11:2 Paul says he has espoused that he may present them as a chaste virgin to Christ.

Paul is not saying he saved them, grafted branch. But they came to belief in Christ through faith, which comes by hearing. He was the one who shared the gospel with them; they heard of Christ and were converted to Christ not by him but through his preaching. So he feels a responsibility toward them, has this "divine jealousy" for them.

In verse 31 it indicates the marriage is already consummated which would place Revelation 19 taking place before Ephesians was written.

<chuckles> Disagree...

Colossians 2:10 says we are complete in Him, if the marriage was still future and it involved the Church then this statement wouldn’t be true until after the marriage.

You're conflating some things, here, grafted branch. As individuals, yes, we are complete in Him. Our lives are hidden in Christ.

If we look at verses such as Galatians 4:19 where Paul says he travailed in birth, meaning he was their mother...

Remember in Romans 8, Paul says "the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now," and this is still true. Paul is with us in these trevails, which is to say he is participating with us in the difficulties or hardships of life on this earth. Come on, man. Goodness gracious. <smile>

and 1 Corinthians 4:15 where Paul places himself as their father, we can see that Paul uses these types of relationships as examples which were not meant to be taken literally.

Right; here he's saying basically the same thing as above regarding 2 Corinthians 11:2... he was the one from whom they heard the gospel, and God, by His Spirit, worked faith in them ~ faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:9), and they believed.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[PinSeeker]

The way you tend to be reasoning some of this tends to make John out a liar...

Pish.

since he indicated that he saw the bride of Christ descending out of heaven in both ch 19 and 21. Except in ch 19 it is implied by putting 2 and 2 together, while in Revelation 21 it comes right out and says so.

For the most part ~ but not fully, either now or when Christ does actually return ~ the bride of Christ is in heaven now and will come with Him in His return, but there will be many who are still alive when Christ returns, as Paul says and is clearly indicating in 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17... "through Jesus, God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep. For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord..."

...Therefore, a connection between both chapters, that maybe ch 21-22 is running in parallel with ch 19, not meaning after ch 19?

There absolutely is a connection, and some of Chapter 19 ~ not all of it ~ is "running in parallel" with Chapter 21. But Chapter 19 itself is not strictly chronological. Verses 1-10 are an interlude, of sorts, but the marriage supper of the Lamb, which we see the beginning of in verses 6-9, is parallel with what we see in Revelation 21. Verses 11-21 circle back over the same course of events as Revelation 20:7-10, which are parallel to other previous parts of Revelation but in those previous parts ~ like Revelation 16:14, 16 and Revelation 17:14; there we see the same final battle being referred to ~ not described in nearly as much detail, sometimes more implied to be about to happen rather than a depiction of the battle itself.

Like I said, it's just a misunderstanding of the structure of Revelation. Some things are chronological, but some are not and are more thematically arranged rather than chronologically arranged... and, as I said, there are some "interludes" mixed in here and there, in the sense of, "while..." or "because of..." even "in spite of..." ... "...all these things going on, here is what is happening in heaven..." I mean, I know it sounds, oh, discombobulated, I guess, but it's not... <smile>

I don't mean to make it sound so complicated, but, well, it is and it is not at the same time, really. <smile> I think if we quit trying to puzzle out the details, and step back and read it like a child would a storybook... <smile> Or maybe at least sort of like an older kid or even an adult would a fantasy novel, and "see" as John did... which I do think possible... <smile> Then, there might come more understanding. Hey, John says at the outset of Revelation that all who read his prophecy will be blessed... he puts no minimum age on that, which should tell us something... <smile>

Grace and peace to you.

 

[grafted branch]

But ~ again, in a nutshell ~ we are to regard our own marriage... or that of a husband to his wife... in this world in light of Jesus's relationship to His Bride, the church.

But you are assuming Jesus’s bride is the church.

Paul is not saying he saved them, grafted branch. But they came to belief in Christ through faith, which comes by hearing.

Right, just like Paul isn’t saying the church is the bride in Ephesians 5. That’s my point, Paul talks as if he is a mother, father, or that he espouses them but that’s his way of communicating a thought. The church isn’t the bride anymore than Paul is a mother or that he espouses them.



In Isaiah 62:4 the land shall be married. Who is the land married to?
We know from Luke 20:35 people who are resurrected from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, they are as the angels in heaven. So the land can’t be married to people and we know in Revelation 21:9-10 the angel tells John “I will show thee the bide, the Lambs wife … and showed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem descending out of heaven from God”. It’s not hard to see that the city in the land is the bride, that is what is married and people who die and are resurrected can live in that land and in that city but the people themselves are not married.

One other thing to keep in mind, the term "Bride of Christ" has its roots in the Roman Catholic Church. The clergy or priests of the Roman Catholic Church "marries" their church, taking an oath to celebacy. As a result, the term "Bride of Christ" was eventually coined in relation to this practice.