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

[Scott Downey]

Why are you bringing some of these things up? None of these things apply to me since I'm not Pretrib, I'm Post trib. Pretribbers might be Premils but not all Premils are Pretribbers. In my view, regardless that I'm Premil, Christ only returns 1 time, not numerous different times. What you asked Chatgpt in regards to my post you were addressing makes no sense because you are not dealing with a Pretribber here, you are dealing with a Post tribber that already agrees that Christ only returns 1 time. Therefore, it is not a question of how many times does Christ return. That question has nothing to do with me. Questions like that are for Pretribbers not Post Tribbers.

Not trying to confuse, but to be clearer, I asked some more of ChatGPT about this issue

But if you consider this also, Hebrews 10:12-14 12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. 14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being [a]sanctified. And that 1 Corinthians 15 says, 20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have [d]fallen asleep. 21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. 24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. 27 For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. 28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all. Then how can Christ leave the Father's side to reign on an earthly throne, as during the 1000 year reign of the pre mill view, people are still born and still die? Meaning death is not defeated yet.

ChatGPT said:​

That’s a very perceptive and deeply scriptural question — and you’re bringing together the right passages.
You’ve basically connected Hebrews 10:12–14 and 1 Corinthians 15:20–28 to show a strong theological and logical tension with the premillennial view. Let’s unpack this carefully and see what each passage is saying and how it interacts with the idea of a literal earthly 1,000-year reign.

---

Hebrews 10:12–14 — Christ’s priestly session is complete and heavenly​

“After He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, He sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool...”

Key points from Hebrews:

• His sacrifice is finished (“once for all”).
• He sits at God’s right hand — the position of completed work and ongoing authority (Psalm 110:1).
• He waits until His enemies are made His footstool — i.e., until God subdues them.

The picture is of a heavenly priest-king reigning now, not one who must leave heaven to begin His reign later.
Hebrews repeatedly emphasizes His current heavenly session as final and unchangeable — not a temporary post until He moves to a throne on earth.

---

1 Corinthians 15:20–28 — the order of resurrection and reign​

Paul’s sequence is critical:

1. Christ the firstfruits (already risen).
2. Those who belong to Christ — at His coming (parousia).
3. Then the end — when He delivers the kingdom to the Father, after abolishing every rule and authority, the last enemy being death.

Notice:

• The resurrection of believers occurs at His coming, not at a separate later time after a millennium.
• Immediately following that, “then comes the end” — not “then comes another 1,000 years.”
• Death — the last enemy — is destroyed in this same process, not postponed for another age.

So Paul’s outline looks continuous:
Christ’s return → resurrection of His people → destruction of death → final hand-off of the kingdom → God all in all.
That flow does not leave space for a period where people still die (as premillennialism requires).

---

Logical tension with a premillennial millennium​

If, during a future 1,000-year kingdom:

• People are still mortal and dying (Isa 65:20 is often cited by premillennialists),
• Sin still exists and must be restrained (Satan is bound but later released),

then death has not yet been destroyed — yet 1 Cor 15:26 makes the destruction of death the final act before the kingdom is handed to the Father.
But Hebrews and Paul both place Christ’s reign and priesthood as heavenly and culminating in the resurrection and final victory, not interrupted by another age of partial imperfection.

---

How different interpreters reconcile this​

View	How it interprets the passages
Amillennial / Realized Millennial	Christ is reigning now from the Father’s right hand (Heb 10:12). His reign continues until the final resurrection and destruction of death (1 Cor 15). The “1,000 years” of Rev 20 symbolizes the present age between His ascension and return. When He comes, the end immediately follows — no interim earthly kingdom with mortality.
Historic Premillennial	Christ reigns spiritually now, but the “until” of Heb 10:13 is fulfilled in two stages: He returns to rule bodily on earth before the final destruction of death. The millennium is still a time when death exists, so 1 Cor 15:24–26 is seen as describing the end of the millennium, not His return itself.
Dispensational Premillennial	Similar to the above, but distinguishes between the church and Israel. Christ’s current session is priestly; His kingly reign on earth is a different office begun later. They argue Heb 10 and 1 Cor 15 deal with different phases of His reign.

But as you’ve noticed, that requires inserting a temporal gap between Christ’s return and “the end” in 1 Cor 15, even though the text itself reads as a seamless sequence.

---

Summary — Does the logic hold?​

Taken together, your cited verses suggest:

• Christ’s reign is now, from heaven, as Priest-King.
• He remains there “until” the full subjection of His enemies.
• When He returns, resurrection and final victory over death occur together.
• At that point, He hands the kingdom to the Father — “then the end.”

So yes, your reasoning follows the internal logic of Hebrews and 1 Cor 15 quite naturally.
It’s one of the strongest biblical arguments against a literal earthly millennium with ongoing death and sin.

 

[Scott Downey]

Why the Early Church Finally Rejected Premillennialism | Modern Reformation

Chiliasm (1) is the ancient name for what today is known as premillennialism, the belief that when Jesus Christ returns he will not execute the last judgment at once, but will first set up on earth a temporary kingdom, where resurrected saints will rule with him over non-resurrected subjects for...

www.modernreformation.org

 

[grafted branch]

I just quoted two passages in the Bible that undoubtedly identify Christ's Bride as the church.

​

No you didn’t, there is a large amount of doubt that you didn’t address. I showed you Luke 20:35 where people who are resurrected from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, they are as the angels in heaven. This is an important point that you didn’t address. Also when Paul’s literary style fits the church being the bride you use that an undoubtable proof but when that same literary style points to him being a mother you change your tone.

Let’s go one step further, and look at Galatians 4:21-31. In verses 24-26 it says this is an allegory, the new covenant is the Jerusalem above (new Jerusalem), which is the mother of us all. Verse 31, we are children of the free (new Jerusalem). Revelation 21:9-10 shows the Lamb’s wife is the holy Jerusalem (new Jerusalem).

Now, since you place the Church as the bride, that means the Church is the new Jerusalem/new covenant and the Church is both the mother of itself and the children of itself.

Since the Protestant denominations broke off from the Roman Catholic that means they broke off from the new covenant, right? I mean that’s a legitimate argument since the Church is the new covenant and I’m pretty sure the RCC doesn’t see the Protestant denominations as her children (at least not legitimate children). Or maybe you see the RCC as your mother, since that’s where this idea leads us, the Church is both the mother and children of itself, and the RCC recognizes itself as the bride of Christ. The RCC would have to be true and correct if they themselves are the new covenant.

 

[grafted branch]

No because that wording is not found in the verse.

The earth is His footstool and He remains at the right hand of God until His enemies are His footstool.

How are you defining “footstool”? It means being in subject to or being defeated, right? And death is the last enemy, right?

 

[Davy]

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.

You might want to edit your above statement because at first you claim you are posttrib and Premil, but then in your next statement you insist that all Premils are Pretribbers.

 

[PinSeeker]

I just quoted two passages in the Bible that undoubtedly identify Christ's Bride as the church.

No you didn’t...

Well I did, you just don't think so, which... is fair enough. But these are interchangeable terms, meaning referring to the same group of people:

• Israel ~ God's Israel, consisting of God's true Jews, which includes many outwardly/ethnically Jewish people, but all those circumcised of the heart by the Spirit, their praise being from God, as Paul says in Romans 2:28-29
• those elect of God ~ God's elect (Romans 9)
• children of God ~ it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise (who) are counted as offspring, as Paul says in Romans 9:8.
• the Church ~ Christ's Church, consisting of people from every tongue, tribe and people group
• all believers in Christ, those born again of the Spirit, all of us who are now in Christ... we are one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28-29)

And yes...

• Christ's Bride
• New Jerusalem

The wedding feast of the Lamb is coming... <smile>

I showed you Luke 20:35 where people who are resurrected from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, they are as the angels in heaven. This is an important point that you didn’t address.

I bypassed it, I guess you could say, because ~ and not to be insulting in any way ~ it's really irrelevant, or not immediately so anyway ~ to the discussion. What Jesus is indicating here is that people neither marry nor are given in marriage in the age to come; the earthly institution of marriage is not a permanent fixture in God's eternal purpose. However, I would submit to you that this lends yet more credence two the idea that the Church is Christ's bride... we, as one, in eternity, the age to come, will be with our true Husband forever.

Also when Paul’s literary style fits the church being the bride you use that an undoubtable proof but when that same literary style points to him being a mother you change your tone.

Pish. <smile> No, my... tone... hasn't changed one iota. Some of the problem here seems to be that your ideas are... well, a bit disjointed... <smile>

Let’s go one step further...

Oh, further into the abyss... well okaaaay... <chuckles>

...look at Galatians 4:21-31. In verses 24-26 it says this is an allegory...

Point of order: No, it doesn't say it is an allegory, but that it may be interpreted allegorically. What Paul is speaking of there, grafted branch, regarding Abraham and Hagar and Ishmael, are real, historical events, things that actually happened, but ~ again ~ may be interpreted allegorically... so, indicative of, pointing to, a much greater truth... and the difference between the covenant of the law and the covenant of the promise, those under still in slavery under the law and those now free in Christ... and yes, the old Jerusalem and the New Jerusalem.

...the new covenant is the Jerusalem above (new Jerusalem), which is the mother of us all. Verse 31, we are children of the free (new Jerusalem). Revelation 21:9-10 shows the Lamb’s wife is the holy Jerusalem (new Jerusalem).

Well, right (that's a bit amazing)... WE are New Jerusalem, grafted branch, all those who are born again of the Spirit and thus in Christ Jesus. This is exactly what Paul is saying. Paul also says elsewhere that we are seated with Christ in the heavenly places (Ephesians 2:8), and we have died and our lives are hidden with Christ in God (Colossians 3:3). So, as John says in his Revelation, even if we are still alive here on earth when Jesus returns and immediately after the second resurrection and the subsequent final judgment, we, the holy city, New Jerusalem, will come down out of heaven from God, prepared as a Bride adorned for her Husband, Christ Jesus. You see? Well, maybe not, but you should. <smile>

Now, since you place the Church as the bride...

Right, because Scripture... God... does...

...that means the Church is the new Jerusalem/new covenant

Well, the new Jerusalem, but under the new covenant (Christ) and not the old (the law)...

and the Church is both the mother of itself and the children of itself.

Since the Protestant denominations broke off from the Roman Catholic that means they broke off from the new covenant, right?

<chuckles> No... <smile>

...the Church is the new covenant...

Not sure what you even mean by this...

and I’m pretty sure the RCC doesn’t see the Protestant denominations as her children (at least not legitimate children).

No doubt true, but irrelevant...

...maybe you see the RCC as your mother...

<smile> No...

...the Church is both the mother and children of itself...

Ugh. <smile>

...the RCC recognizes itself as the bride of Christ.

Yes, the RCC has a lot of... issues... <chuckles> I mean, of course, they don't (it doesn't) think so, but yeah. <smile>

Grace and peace to you, grafted branch.

 

[PinSeeker]

Revelation 19, for one, obviously involves Christ's return. Can you point out in that ch where we ever see Christ defeating Satan once and for all at that particular time?

Sure... Well, it is implied as immediately following what we "see" with John in his vision in verses 14-16, and then depicted graphically in verses 20-21. The language used is intimately similar, even synonymous, with what we "see" again, in Revelation 20:9-10.

If I can see that in that chapter I guess I need to literally abandon Premil and become Amil, since that would undeniably prove Amil thus disprove Premil.

Hm. Interesting. Well? <smile>

Which verse or verses then, in ch 19, can I see Christ defeating Satan once and for all at that particular time, meaning during His 2nd coming since ch 19 is indeed meaning during His 2nd coming?

One of the biggest... misunderstandings... of premillennialism is that the events described in Revelation 20 are subsequent to the events described in Revelation 19. This cannot be true, for several reasons, mainly though because a) the final battle in Revelation 20:7-10 is the same as the final battle in Revelation 16:14, 16, Revelation 17:14, and Revelation 19:11-21, and b) all Christ’s enemies have been destroyed in Revelation 19:11-21, so if Revelation 20:1-6 were to represent events later than 19:11-21, there would be no one left for Satan to deceive in Revelation 20:3.

As I have said of the structure of Revelation as a whole, it is a series of seven visions, each one depicting roughly the same time period, but with a focus more and more... progressively, from vision to vision... of the end and Christ's return. What we "see" with John ~ or what he is "shown" by Christ and what he then relates to us ~ in Revelation 19:11-21 and then in Revelation 20:1-21:8 are the sixth and seventh, respectively, of those visions ~ where we actually see the return of Christ. And then only in the seventh do we "see" the final judgment and the ushering in of the New Heaven and New Earth. Up until then, the visions stop short of that, but, again, progressively make a closer and closer approach to. It's a building up to the final climax, an anticipatory thing... Did you ever see the Bill Murray movie "Groundhog Day"...? <smile>

Is or is not the LOf in view in ch 19? Does or does not satan get cast into the LOF?

Yes and yes. Ah, the LOF... another "troublesome," to some, concept... Our God is a consuming fire (Deuteronomy 4:24, 9:3; Hebrews 12:29),,,

Where then do we see in ch 19, satan also being cast into the LOF at the time?

Revelation 19:20 ~ "...the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur."

That's a super major event to leave out if John indeed saw that happening during the visions ch 19 are pertaining to.

Agreed. But in light of what I said just above, If he had stopped short of it in Revelation 19, that still would not have been a "deal-breaker," so to speak. In my opinion, at least...

After all, John was instructed to write what he sees.

Ah, yes, "sees." Very, very important... <smile>

Where then did he ever write in ch 19 that he saw satan also being cast into the LOF at the time? The fact he didn't write that...

...is not a fact. <smile> See above. Surely you "see" the intimate relationship, the sameness, really of the following:

• "...I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The One sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. His eyes are like a flame of fire...the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur" (Revelation 19:11-12, 20)
• "...fire came down from heaven and consumed them, and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever." (Revelation 20:9-10)

...what should that be telling us then?

Hmmm, well I would ask you ~ in light of what I just said ~ the same thing.

Grace and peace to you, my friend.

 

[Davidpt]

You might want to edit your above statement because at first you claim you are posttrib and Premil, but then in your next statement you insist that all Premils are Pretribbers.

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.

 

[grafted branch]

Well, the new Jerusalem, but under the new covenant (Christ) and not the old (the law)...

Ah, that’s the issue. The church is under the new covenant and that covenant is the mother of us all, it is what is married, not the church itself. The problem with saying the church is the bride is that Paul says the old covenant is old Jerusalem the new covenant is new Jerusalem, and it’s clear that new Jerusalem is the bride. It doesn’t add up unless the church isn’t the bride.

And yes...

• Christ's Bride
• New Jerusalem

The wedding feast of the Lamb is coming...

This brings up the next problem, in Matthew 22:1-14 we have the parable of the wedding banquet. That wedding is furnished with guests but they clearly are not the bride. If the bride is the church then who are the guests of the wedding? The unsaved? Keep in mind that in Matthew 22:8 the wedding was ready prior to being furnished with guests but.

 

[PinSeeker]

Ah, that’s the issue. The church is under the new covenant and that covenant is the mother of us all, it is what is married, not the church itself.

So you think the New Covenant is the Bride of Christ? Or our mother? I mean, yeah, either way, that's certainly an issue (even more so if the latter)... <smile> To the 'mother' thing, going back to our exchange regarding what Paul says in Galatians 4, if... looking at it allegorically as we should; Paul explicitly says that in 4:24... if Hagar, as Paul says, corresponds to the present Jerusalem and is in slavery with her children (4:25)... who, then, is Paul implicitly saying corresponds to the New Jerusalem and with her children is free, and is thus our mother and we children of the promise (Romans 9) with Isaac? <GRIN> Her name starts with the letter 'S'... <smile>

You know, I almost brought this larger issue about the Old and New Covenant up previously... and really what the covenants (collectively) are, and what is really the one everlasting Covenant, and actually Who that is, but then thought better of that, just because that's a larger discussion. In a nutshell, this gets into dispensational theology versus covenant theology, and there are entire books out there that differentiate between those two things. To that, I'll just say that we worship a covenant-making God, and not one who changes his ways when... something isn't working... <chuckles> No, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever" (Hebrews 13:8).

The problem with saying the church is the bride is that Paul says the old covenant is old Jerusalem the new covenant is new Jerusalem, and it’s clear that new Jerusalem is the bride.

Well, now this is interesting. <smile> I mean, what you're saying here ~ without realizing it of course ~ is that Christ's church is not His Bride, but His church is His Bride. Yes, that's... interesting...

It doesn’t add up unless the church isn’t the bride.

I think what doesn't add up is your apparent... duality... within yourself... <smile>

This brings up the next problem...

Why am I not surprised?

...in Matthew 22:1-14 we have the parable of the wedding banquet. That wedding is furnished with guests but they clearly are not the bride. If the bride is the church then who are the guests of the wedding? The unsaved? Keep in mind that in Matthew 22:8 the wedding was ready prior to being furnished with guests but.

"But" what? Oh well, never mind that. You should be able to formulate an answer to your own question by remembering that last verse, which is not part of the parable, but applicable in the parable, and true to what Jesus is saying about he kingdom of Heaven on a much greater level: "For many are called, but few are chosen." But just to be more explicit... everyone is invited, saved and unsaved alike. But... few are chosen. So you say "they are clearly not the bride," to which I would say, not all of them are. <smile>

Grace and peace to you.

 

[grafted branch]

who, then, is Paul implicitly saying corresponds to the New Jerusalem and with her children is free, and is thus our mother and we children of the promise (Romans 9) with Isaac? <GRIN> Her name starts with the letter 'S'...

Sarah and Agar and their relationship with Abraham are the allegory for the two covenants. Sarah is not the mother of us all, it is the new covenant which is new Jerusalem that is the mother of us all. If someone traces their linage back to Agar or Esau they can still be saved, their mother would be the new covenant not Sarah or Rebecca once they are saved.

Good grief.

Well, now this is interesting. <smile> I mean, what you're saying here ~ without realizing it of course ~ is that Christ's church is not His Bride, but His church is His Bride. Yes, that's... interesting...

Not quite, I’m not insist the church is new Jerusalem, therefore I’m not saying “Christ's church is not His Bride, but His church is His Bride”. But since you insist the church is new Jerusalem but don’t think the new covenant is new Jerusalem then it’s you essentially saying “Christ's church is not His Bride, but His church is His Bride”.

Yes, it is interesting.

For many are called, but few are chosen." But just to be more explicit... everyone is invited, saved and unsaved alike. But... few are chosen. So you say "they are clearly not the bride," to which I would say, not all of them are. <smile>

Many are called to the wedding banquet but few are chosen. My question was who are those who are attending the wedding as guests? Well, are some of them the church who is supposedly the bride?

 

[ewq1938]

the new covenant is new Jerusalem,

new Jerusalem is the bride.

It doesn’t add up unless the church isn’t the bride.

No, it adds up just fine,. The church is the bride.

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.

 

[grafted branch]

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

Luke 20:35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: 36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.



Here we are told plainly that people who are resurrected do not marry nor are given in marriage but are as the angels in heaven. Did Jesus give a half truth here and people who are resurrected do get married, just not to each other?

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.

Paul himself espouses and in Revelation 19:7 His wife has made herself ready. There has to be more than one bride if it’s talking about people, Paul doesn’t espouse himself, right? Did Paul espouse you, are you planning on making yourself 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.


Be careful, you don’t want to claim you are the bride when you are really just a guest at the wedding, and have to be put lower in the presence of the prince.

 

[PinSeeker]

Sarah and Agar and their relationship with Abraham are the allegory for the two covenants.

Sarah and Hagar. Yes, but they are not the covenants themselves.

Sarah is not the mother of us all,

She absolutely is, in the same sense that Abraham is our father. And we are children of them through Isaac, the child of the promise, rather than Ishmael, the child of the bondwoman. You've read John 8, yes? The Jews Jesus is speaking to, there, claim that Abraham is their father ~ and these are ethnic Jews, through and through ~ and Jesus says to them, "If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing the works Abraham did. You are doing the works your father did.” And what did they do then? They became very indignant, and said ~ in the larger sense; they knew what they were saying, "We have one Father ~ even God.” And what did Jesus say then? He said, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear My word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires... why do you not believe me? Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God” (John 8:39-47). Sarah is the mother of all believers, in the same sense that Eve is the mother of all the living (Genesis 3:20). Abraham is our father and Sarah our mother because Abraham is the one whom God made His people covenant, in Genesis 17...

"When Abram was ninety-nine years old the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, 'I am God Almighty; walk before Me, and be blameless, that I may make My covenant between Me and you, and may multiply you greatly.' Then Abram fell on his face. And God said to him, 'Behold, My covenant is with you, and you shall be the father of a multitude of nations. No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations. I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make you into nations, and kings shall come from you. And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God."​

It is the new covenant which is new Jerusalem that is the mother of us all.

The New Covenant, grafted branch, is Jesus, the one everlasting covenant (which is not a different covenant than the ones before):

• the covenant of life, made with Adam and then remade with Noah
• the land and people covenant, made with Abraham
• the covenant of the law, made with Moses
• the covenant, to provide a King, made with David

...but rather the one embodiment and full manifestation of all these lesser covenants:

• Jesus is the one Who gives us eternal life,
• Jesus is the one in and through Whom we as believers will inherit the earth (not just a tiny sliver of land on the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea,
• Jesus is the true Law
• Jesus is the greater David, the Forever King of God's true Israel.

If someone traces their linage back to Agar or Esau they can still be saved...

Well, but that would mean their true lineage is through Abraham and Sarah and Isaac... and Jacob, Isaac's other son. Curious you would say that, since God clearly says, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated," This does not mean that God detested Esau, but that He loved Jacob differently, in a sovereign, distinguishing, even choosing ~ way. And now we are getting to God's purpose of election... <smile>

, their mother would be the new covenant not Sarah or Rebecca once they are saved.

If they are not elect of God, their mother is and remains Hagar.

Good grief.

My sentiments exactly. <smile>

I’m not insist the church is new Jerusalem, therefore I’m not saying “Christ's church is not His Bride, but His church is His Bride”.

That's what was curious; without even realizing it, you said both in the same sentence, that the Church is His Bride and the Church is not His Bride. You still don't, apparently.

But since you insist the church is new Jerusalem

... it is; we are the city of God referred to in Revelation 21. And "the Bride, the wife of the Lamb... the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God."

but don’t think the new covenant is new Jerusalem...

Ah, you're getting the, um, equation, I guess, wrong, grafted branch. Or, rather, you're equating the wrong things.

NOT CORRECT: Church = New Jerusalem = New Covenant
CORRECT: Church = New Jerusalem... and... New Covenant = Jesus

As I said, the true Embodiment of the New Covenant ~ the one everlasting Covenant ~ is Jesus. He is the full and perfect Manifestation of all the lesser covenants, the one through Whom all things were made (John 1:3) and in Whom all things will be made new (Revelation 21:5), and in Him all things hold together (Colossians 1:17).

then it’s you essentially saying “Christ's church is not His Bride, but His church is His Bride”.

<eyeroll> Nope. See above. Christ's Church, God's elect, is the Bride of Christ.

Yes, it is interesting.

That you can somehow mangle what I'm saying like you are, yes.

Many are called to the wedding banquet but few are chosen. My question was who are those who are attending the wedding as guests? Well, are some of them the church who is supposedly the bride?

The ignorance is strong with this one... <smile> This is one of Jesus's "kingdom parables," grafted branch. If you can't read it allegorically (much like what Paul says in Galatians 4), then you will not understand. Seems to me you're just being... intransigent... but fair enough.

Grace and peace to you, grafted branch.

 

[ewq1938]

Luke 20:35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: 36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.



Here we are told plainly that people who are resurrected do not marry nor are given in marriage but are as the angels in heaven. Did Jesus give a half truth here and people who are resurrected do get married, just not to each other?

It's full truth. The marriage between Jesus and the church is non-literal.

Paul himself espouses and in Revelation 19:7 His wife has made herself ready. There has to be more than one bride if it’s talking about people, Paul doesn’t espouse himself, right? Did Paul espouse you, are you planning on making yourself ready?

The bride is symbolic of all the saved.

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.


Be careful, you don’t want to claim you are the bride when you are really just a guest at the wedding, and have to be put lower in the presence of the prince.

Same to you.

 

[David in NJ]

Sarah and Hagar. Yes, but they are not the covenants themselves.


She absolutely is, in the same sense that Abraham is our father. And we are children of them through Isaac, the child of the promise, rather than Ishmael, the child of the bondwoman. You've read John 8, yes? The Jews Jesus is speaking to, there, claim that Abraham is their father ~ and these are ethnic Jews, through and through ~ and Jesus says to them, "If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing the works Abraham did. You are doing the works your father did.” And what did they do then? They became very indignant, and said ~ in the larger sense; they knew what they were saying, "We have one Father ~ even God.” And what did Jesus say then? He said, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear My word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires... why do you not believe me? Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God” (John 8:39-47). Sarah is the mother of all believers, in the same sense that Eve is the mother of all the living (Genesis 3:20). Abraham is our father and Sarah our mother because Abraham is the one whom God made His people covenant, in Genesis 17...

"When Abram was ninety-nine years old the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, 'I am God Almighty; walk before Me, and be blameless, that I may make My covenant between Me and you, and may multiply you greatly.' Then Abram fell on his face. And God said to him, 'Behold, My covenant is with you, and you shall be the father of a multitude of nations. No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations. I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make you into nations, and kings shall come from you. And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God."​

The New Covenant, grafted branch, is Jesus, the one everlasting covenant (which is not a different covenant than the ones before):

• the covenant of life, made with Adam and then remade with Noah
• the land and people covenant, made with Abraham
• the covenant of the law, made with Moses
• the covenant, to provide a King, made with David

...but rather the one embodiment and full manifestation of all these lesser covenants:

• Jesus is the one Who gives us eternal life,
• Jesus is the one in and through Whom we as believers will inherit the earth (not just a tiny sliver of land on the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea,
• Jesus is the true Law
• Jesus is the greater David, the Forever King of God's true Israel.

Well, but that would mean their true lineage is through Abraham and Sarah and Isaac... and Jacob, Isaac's other son. Curious you would say that, since God clearly says, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated," This does not mean that God detested Esau, but that He loved Jacob differently, in a sovereign, distinguishing, even choosing ~ way. And now we are getting to God's purpose of election... <smile>


If they are not elect of God, their mother is and remains Hagar.


My sentiments exactly. <smile>


That's what was curious; without even realizing it, you said both in the same sentence, that the Church is His Bride and the Church is not His Bride. You still don't, apparently.


... it is; we are the city of God referred to in Revelation 21. And "the Bride, the wife of the Lamb... the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God."


Ah, you're getting the, um, equation, I guess, wrong, grafted branch. Or, rather, you're equating the wrong things.

NOT CORRECT: Church = New Jerusalem = New Covenant
CORRECT: Church = New Jerusalem... and... New Covenant = Jesus

As I said, the true Embodiment of the New Covenant ~ the one everlasting Covenant ~ is Jesus. He is the full and perfect Manifestation of all the lesser covenants, the one through Whom all things were made (John 1:3) and in Whom all things will be made new (Revelation 21:5), and in Him all things hold together (Colossians 1:17).


<eyeroll> Nope. See above. Christ's Church, God's elect, is the Bride of Christ.


That you can somehow mangle what I'm saying like you are, yes.


The ignorance is strong with this one... <smile> This is one of Jesus's "kingdom parables," grafted branch. If you can't read it allegorically (much like what Paul says in Galatians 4), then you will not understand. Seems to me you're just being... intransigent... but fair enough.

Grace and peace to you, grafted branch.

GREAT POST

 

[grafted branch]

NOT CORRECT: Church = New Jerusalem = New Covenant
CORRECT: Church = New Jerusalem... and... New Covenant = Jesus

I get the impression that you need a straw man argument here. I think we are in agreement that allegorically Sarah is our mother and Abraham is our father but not necessarily literally through linage. I’m not sure why you felt like you had to go into detail about that.

Maybe you’re trying to avoid the issue where you separate the new covenant and new Jerusalem, you have them as two separate things but in Galatians 4 they are equated with each other.

Galatians 4:24(NIV) These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar.

Here in this verse, there really is no doubt that allegorically Sarah represents the new covenant and Hagar represents the old covenant. The old covenant bears children, it doesn’t literally say the new covenant bears children but I would say it’s implied. Do you agree with this so far?

Galatians 4:26(NIV) But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.

In this verse it says the Jerusalem that is above, which I interpret as the new Jerusalem, is free and she is our mother. I interpret this as new Jerusalem bears free children, believers, which is why she is our mother. Are you in agreement so far? I don’t think you agree here because that would mean the church is its own mother if it’s new Jerusalem and you seemed to disagree with that concept in another post.

So both the new covenant and new Jerusalem are bearing children (there isn’t two different linages of free children), I see them both being allegorically represented by Sarah, they are the same entity in these aspects. I don’t think you are in agreement here either but I guess you’re entitled to your opinion.

The ignorance is strong with this one... <smile> This is one of Jesus's "kingdom parables," grafted branch. If you can't read it allegorically (much like what Paul says in Galatians 4), then you will not understand. Seems to me you're just being... intransigent... but fair enough.

Well, that’s really what it all boils down to, isn’t it? I can also say to you, if you can’t read Ephesians 5 as being allegorical (much like what Paul says in Galatians 4), then you will not understand.

 

[David in NJ]

I get the impression that you need a straw man argument here. I think we are in agreement that allegorically Sarah is our mother and Abraham is our father but not necessarily literally through linage. I’m not sure why you felt like you had to go into detail about that.

Maybe you’re trying to avoid the issue where you separate the new covenant and new Jerusalem, you have them as two separate things but in Galatians 4 they are equated with each other.

Galatians 4:24(NIV) These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar.

Here in this verse, there really is no doubt that allegorically Sarah represents the new covenant and Hagar represents the old covenant. The old covenant bears children, it doesn’t literally say the new covenant bears children but I would say it’s implied. Do you agree with this so far?

Galatians 4:26(NIV) But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.

In this verse it says the Jerusalem that is above, which I interpret as the new Jerusalem, is free and she is our mother. I interpret this as new Jerusalem bears free children, believers, which is why she is our mother. Are you in agreement so far? I don’t think you agree here because that would mean the church is its own mother if it’s new Jerusalem and you seemed to disagree with that concept in another post.

So both the new covenant and new Jerusalem are bearing children (there isn’t two different linages of free children), I see them both being allegorically represented by Sarah, they are the same entity in these aspects. I don’t think you are in agreement here either but I guess you’re entitled to your opinion.


Well, that’s really what it all boils down to, isn’t it? I can also say to you, if you can’t read Ephesians 5 as being allegorical (much like what Paul says in Galatians 4), then you will not understand.

GREAT POST

 

[PinSeeker]

I get the impression that you need a straw man argument here.

Not sure how that's even possible, but no... <smile>

I think we are in agreement that allegorically Sarah is our mother and Abraham is our father but not necessarily literally through linage.

Literally through image... What does that even mean? But okay, good. Even though you denied it, but I guess what's in the rear view mirror now really matters not... <smile>

I’m not sure why you felt like you had to go into detail about that.

Because... it was worth it. For several reasons.

Maybe you’re trying to avoid...

I "avoid" nothing, grafted branch. Nothing.

the issue where you separate the new covenant and new Jerusalem, you have them as two separate things...

Because they are...

... but in Galatians 4 they are equated with each other.

Hagar and the old covenant are. Not that Hagar to the old covenant is a 1:1 relationship, but that Hagar corresponds to the old covenant: ~ she is the bondwoman, and her children are those still under/bound to the law are under that old covenant ~ and Sarah corresponds to the new ~ she is the free woman and the mother of Isaac.. and all of those in Christ, who are children of God's promise.

Galatians 4:24(NIV)...

<chuckles> I'm glad you seem to have changed your mind. <smile> Thanks for... (mostly) regurgitating what I just explained to you. <smile> However...

Galatians 4:26(NIV) But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.

This is wrong. In the English translation, it's a bit hard to see, but the 'she' in Galatians 4:26 refers to the 'free woman' of 4:22. So, because we are born again of the Spirit and thus in Christ, Sarah is our mother, and not Hagar, the slave woman. This is why we ~ New Jerusalem ~ are free, because we, like Isaac, are children of the promise.
.

In this verse it says the Jerusalem that is above, which I interpret as the new Jerusalem, is free and she is our mother.

Nope. See directly above. Again, the 'she' in Galatians 4:26 refers to the 'free woman' of 4:22, and that is a direct reference to Sarah.

I interpret this as new Jerusalem bears free children, believers, which is why she is our mother.

I understand, but that's backwards, really. Sarah "bears" ~ as she literally did Isaac ~ children of the promise, and we are thus New Jerusalem, the city of God.

Are you in agreement so far?

No, and if you stay there, we never will be. <smile>

I don’t think you agree here because that would mean the church is its own mother if it’s new Jerusalem and you seemed to disagree with that concept in another post.

Yeah, I don't agree; I've been very clear about that. To suppose that "the church is its own mother" is absurd.

So both the new covenant and new Jerusalem are bearing children...

(there isn’t two different linages of free children)

Agree on this...

I see them both being allegorically represented by Sarah...

Even though Paul is explicit in saying Sarah corresponds to the new covenant. and not new Jerusalem... And 'corresponds' is a very important word there... So, not that she is new Jerusalem, but that her position (free) in relation to Hagar (slave) is like that of the new covenant to the old. Therefore the children she bears ~ Isaac literally and all believers figuratively and spiritually thereafter, as Abraham is our father and we his offspring and thus children of and by the promise that God made to Abraham ~ are in Christ and free.

, they are the same entity in these aspects. I don’t think you are in agreement here either but I guess you’re entitled to your opinion.

<chuckles> And you yours. <smile>

Well, that’s really what it all boils down to, isn’t it? I can also say to you, if you can’t read Ephesians 5 as being allegorical (much like what Paul says in Galatians 4), then you will not understand.

Oh, I understand pretty well your line of thinking, but that line of thinking itself is... problematic. <smile> In Ephesians 5, grafted branch, Paul gives us very practical exhortations. There is no allegory in Ephesians 5, lest he be explicit in saying it as he did in Galatians 4. The relationship between man and wife in the covenant of marriage is to be like Jesus's to His bride, the church, most explicitly in the sense that the man is to give himself up for his wife ~ sacrificed himself for her in a lesser sense ~ as Christ did the church ~ sacrificed Himself on the cross, thereby accomplishing her redemption:

"Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord... the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church... Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her... '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..."​

Goodness gracious. It is enough. <smile>

Grace and peace to you, grafted branch.

 

[Davidpt]

Since I converse with Chatgpt at times, I then asked it the following, since it is relevant to the topic of this thread.

Is this insight and the reasoning of these things yours, or are you basically echoing someone else's reasoning and insight?

---------------------
Chatgpt:

That’s an excellent distinction — and a fair question.

Here’s the honest answer:
The specific wording, structure, and synthesis I gave you — how Revelation 19 and 21 fit together, and how the saints’ righteousness adorns the Bride (without the saints themselves being the Bride) — is my own reasoning and articulation. I wasn’t quoting or paraphrasing any particular theologian or commentary.
However, the core insight itself — that the “Bride of the Lamb” in Revelation 21 is the New Jerusalem rather than the Church — is not original to me. It’s a position that has existed for centuries, though it’s not the dominant one. For example:


Some early interpreters (and a few modern ones) have argued that the city symbolizes the dwelling place prepared for God’s people, and that the Bride imagery applies to that city, not directly to the saints.


The more common (majority) interpretation, however, takes the New Jerusalem to be symbolic of the glorified Church itself — meaning the city represents the people.


So I’m not “echoing” one person’s idea; I’m independently reasoning through Scripture in a way that happens to align with that minority interpretive stream.