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

[Spiritual Israelite]

Well, right, but the beginning of God's millennium was quite some time ago... <smile>

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

Agree.

Just once...

Agree again.

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

Great question. Some of his reasons are....highly questionable.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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

Using similar logic that you're using here, one would have to conclude that NOSAS is false because it says those who believes in Christ should not perish but have eternal life.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

How do you come to the conclusion that someone who currently believes in Christ and is saved can at some point no longer believe and no longer be saved when this says "whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life"? There's no indication here that anyone who believes in Christ could end up not having eternal life. Yet, you and I both believe that is possible. You come to the conclusion that someone can believe in Christ, but lose their faith and not end up having eternal life because of what is written in other scriptures, right? Well, that's how I can believe NOSAS is true and still be Amil. Other scripture tells us that Christ's resurrection was the first resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:20, Acts 26:23). Since, in my view, having part in the first resurrection equates to being saved by way of spiritually having part in Christ's resurrection (the first resurrection), believing that someone can lose their part in the first resurrection is exactly the same as someone being saved and then falling away because of no longer having faith and no longer being saved as a result.

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

No, you would not. You need to realize that the same logic you're using to conclude that Revelation 20:6 is not compatible with Amil can be used to conclude that John 3:16 is not compatible with NOSAS. You can't draw conclusions like that just from one verse. You need to form your doctrine from all of scripture.

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

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

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

Imaging interpreting John 3:16 like such---not everyone who believes in Christ will not perish and have everlasting life. That's what NOSAS implies about that verse. Yet, you believe NOSAS, anyway, because of how you understand the rest of scripture.

 

[ewq1938]

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

No becausde these are two dif symbolisms using things that represent a bride. The city is a symbolic bride and the church is a symbolic bride.

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

there is no return back. The church ie: the dead leave heaven once, and the city will leave heaven once. It's two different brides leaving heaven two dif times.

Even though I'm Premil myself, I just can't figure out what other Premils think happens to the church after satan's little season, that are already upon the earth at the beginning of the millennium? Maybe that might explain how the church descends twice and at different times?

They simply are on the Earth when the other bride comes. It's not a literal bride. There isn't a literal bride at all.

Except I do not agree with Premils that the NHNE doesn't begin with the 2nd coming. In my view, what follows the DOTL recorded in 2 Peter 3:10-12 is the beginning of the NHNE.

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

The NHNE starts at Rev 21, after the GWTJ. It does not start at the second coming and 2 Peter does not say it does which would be a contradiction anyways.

2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

That day is the GWTJ which is LONG after the Coming.The NHNE cannot happen BEFORE the old HaE are destroyed.

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

Nope.

 

[PinSeeker]

One of the bigger reasons is, I'm in the NOSAS camp...

Okay, why? And the question there really is twofold... not only "How do you define and back up NOSAS?" but also "How do you define and thus reject OSAS?"

...and that NOSAS is not compatible with Revelation 20:6 if one holds an Amil position.

Ah, well, I say that if "OSAS" is understood correctly, one's position with regard to the millennium of Revelation 20 has no impact on it, much less invalidating it.

That verse plainly says that anyone that has part in the first resurrection is blessed and holy, and that the 2nd death has no power over them, meaning impossible that any of them can be cast into the LOF after having had part in the first resurrection. NOSAS contradicts that if one is assuming an Amil position. But does not contradict it if one is assuming a Premil position.

So am I correct in surmising that the only people who will be in the millennium ~ as you understand it ~ will be saved folks? If so, even from a Pre-mill perspective, that seems... odd...

In my mind then, even though I disagree with Amil, only Amil and OSAS make sense, certainly NOSAS and Amil doesn't.

Well, Amil with OSAS, and vice versa? Okay, agree...

Except NOSAS is equally Biblical.

We're back to how you would define "OSAS" and "NOSAS" and how you would justify that Biblically.

If I were to switch to Amil I would have to abandon the NOSAS position and switch to the OSAS position in order to not contradict Revelation 20:6 by way of the NOSAS position.

Agree...

Except I'm not willing to do that since I know full well that NOSAS is also Biblical.

Fair enough, but again... <smile>

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

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

What I understand from this, @Davidpt , is that you are a universalist, that God saves everyone... and maybe that there is no hell. If that is the case, then I would like you to try to justify that Biblically, also. <smile> Or, @Davidpt , that, drawing from what I said just above, that you believe that everyone in the millennium will be saved, which, as I said above, in the same vein, I would like you to try to justify Biblically...

...can't happen per Premil since one falls away or doesn't fall away, before the first resurrection ever takes place.

Ah. Something else to justify Biblically... I mean, what I see here is a misunderstanding about the first resurrection itself ~ what it is, the nature of it, whether it is an individual or collective thing, and when it takes place.

Therefore, anyone that falls away in this age are never part of the first resurrection in the future to begin with.

Ah, the future... Well that at least partially answers my question to you directly above... I would agree with you at least somewhat here, David, but would actually state it thusly: Anyone that falls away in this age never experienced the first resurrection and never "shared in" it (Revelation 20:6).

They never have part in it...

Had...

...since the first resurrection is meaning after they have already fallen away earlier, not before they have fallen away.

Fallen away from what? <smile> Because I would argue, Davidpt ~ and I can back this up Biblically, although maybe not to your satisfaction, but I can ~ that before the first resurrection, they had not attained or been given anything to fall away from...

Anyway, very interesting...

Grace and peace to you.

 

[PinSeeker]

there is no return back. The church ie: the dead leave heaven once, and the city will leave heaven once. It's two different brides leaving heaven two dif times.

The church and the New Jerusalem are the same thing, ewq1938. Two ways ~ one concrete and the other symbolic ~ of referring to the same thing... the same body (the body of Christ)... see what I did there? ... of folks.

There isn't a literal bride at all.

Ohhhh, there is... <smile> Just not in the wooden sense that we know it today, in this world. But... Christ and His church will finally be fully joined, and we will be one with God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), the same as ~ but on a much greater level ~ a husband and wife become one flesh (Ephesians 5) in a covenant marriage now. And in this way, what Jesus prayed for in John 17, specifically in verses 11 and 21, will finally be a reality: "Holy Father, keep them in Your Name, which You have given Me, that they may be one, even as We are one... that they may all be one, just as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You, that they also may be in Us..." There will be a marriage supper of the Lamb...

The NHNE starts at Rev 21, after the GWTJ. It does not start at the second coming...

Well... but there is really no significant passage of time between Christ's second coming and the final Judgment and its execution.

That day is the GWTJ...

Right, but...

...which is LONG after the Coming.

The NHNE cannot happen BEFORE the old HaE are destroyed.

Ah, well, not "destroyed," but become one. Again, actually. In this way, everything will finally be "made new" by God, Who says that's exactly what He's doing ~ doing... very significant ~ in Revelation 21:5. But, He's not "making new things." <smile>

Grace and peace to you, ewq!

 

[Davidpt]

Okay, why? And the question there really is twofold... not only "How do you define and back up NOSAS?" but also "How do you define and thus reject OSAS?"

I do not reject OSAS. What I reject is the claim that only OSAS is biblical and that NOSAS isn’t. Both are clearly biblical truths---and that is not a contradiction.

Let’s take Paul, for example. Which position fits him---OSAS or NOSAS? Obviously not the latter. He finished his course in faith and love (2 Timothy 4:7–8).

Now take Judas. Which position fits him---OSAS or NOSAS? Clearly not the former. He walked with the Lord, yet fell away and betrayed Him.

Even if someone argues Judas was never truly saved, that argument collapses when we look at those who were saved but later fall away and worship the beast (Revelation 13:8). Which position fits them? OSAS or NOSAS? Obviously not the former.

And Romans 11 alone settles the matter. To be grafted into the good olive tree is to be brought into salvation, to be cut off from it is to be removed from salvation. To deny this is to deny the plain meaning of Scripture itself. In this case, meaning in regards to Gentiles that have been grafted in. So not meaning Jews that were cut off. They were never saved to begin with, obviously. But one can't say the same about Gentiles grafted into the good olive tree, that if they are cut off after having been grafted in first, this too means they were never saved to begin with. Which then begs the question. How did they get grafted into the good olive tree to begin with, without that involving them being saved first?

Only a person speaking deceitfully could teach that those cut off from the good olive tree remain saved, or that they were never saved to begin with. Once again, meaning Gentiles that have been grafted into the good olive tree, not Jews cut off from it for disbelief. That is not mere misunderstanding---it is willful distortion of truth. Scripture warns plainly about such deceit:

Revelation 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.


If NOSAS were somehow false, no one would be harmed by believing it. Those who hold it simply stay watchful, striving to remain faithful to the end. But if the 'only-OSAS' teaching is false---if people have been told they can never fall away when Scripture says otherwise---then many souls could perish believing they are eternally secure while living in sin and never repenting.

 

[MatthewG]

Revelation 21, and 22 are totally brand new scenes.

Revelation 21, starts with things becoming new.

 

[PinSeeker]

I do not reject OSAS.

Okay, good...

What I reject is the claim that only OSAS is biblical and that NOSAS isn’t. Both are clearly biblical truths---and that is not a contradiction.

Actually, I would say that's a false dichotomy. The proper way to see it is, for we who are saved, who have been born again of the Spirit, we both have been saved and are being saved (so in that sense not yet fully saved) at the same time. Saved ~ having received God's mercy and compassion, having been born again of the Spirit), but our final salvation is still yet future. We have been saved, but we are being saved in that we are not yet conformed to the image of God's Son (Jesus, of course). But we are predestined to be thus, and will be at the day of Christ... when He returns. So the certainty of it is unassailable. We have this faith, which, by definition in Hebrews 11:1, is God's assurance given to us that our sins are forgiven and of our salvation.

Let’s take Paul, for example. Which position fits him---OSAS or NOSAS? Obviously not the latter. He finished his course in faith and love (2 Timothy 4:7–8).

Paul, without question, knew the certainty of his calling and what his eternal destiny was. One need only do a cursury reading of Romans 8, especially verses 31-39...

"If God is for us, who can be against us? He Who did not spare His own Son but gave Him up for us all, how will He not also with Him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the One who died ~ more than that, Who was raised ~ Who is at the right hand of God, Who indeed is interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? ...No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord."​

...or Ephesians 1, especially verses 11-14...

"In Him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of His glory. In Him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in Him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, Who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of His glory."​

...or Philippians 1:6...

"...He Who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Christ."​

...to know that. And that list is not exhaustive... <smile>

Now take Judas. Which position fits him---OSAS or NOSAS? Clearly not the former. He walked with the Lord, yet fell away and betrayed Him.

I would argue that Judas's betraying Jesus is not evidence that he fell away. Now, of course he did something really, really terrible, but any sin is really terrible ~ Jesus said that if one commits one sin, even the smallest of sins, it is as if he/she has broken the whole law. One could also say ~ and would be correct in doing so ~ that God used Judas's actions to accomplish something... pretty good... <smile> ...even to bring about the crucifixion and then even the resurrection of Christ. So, was Judas a vessel created for noble use, and therefore one of God's elect, those called by God and thus receiving of God's mercy and compassion, as Paul puts it in Romans 9? I say yes. Judas, along with all the other disciples, was called by Jesus, and he was present when Jesus said to them all, in John 15:16, "You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you."

And Romans 11 alone settles the matter.

It should, yes. <smile>

To be grafted into the good olive tree is to be brought into salvation, to be cut off from it is to be removed from salvation. To deny this is to deny the plain meaning of Scripture itself. In this case, meaning in regards to Gentiles that have been grafted in. So not meaning Jews that were cut off. They were never saved to begin with, obviously. But one can't say the same about Gentiles grafted into the good olive tree, that if they are cut off after having been grafted in first...

Ah, so what part of what Paul is saying there makes you think there are some Gentiles grafted in and then cut off? If you are referring to verse 17, "if some of the branches were broken off," I submit that ~ if I am right about who you are attributing that to ~ are not assigning that to the intended group of folks. Or, even if you are assigning it to the right group, I would point out to you, David, what Paul has just said, that ~ and I'm giving away here who verse 17 should be attributed to; Paul does lament the state of many of his ethnic brethren and go on to say that "a partial hardening has come upon Israel" (11:25) ~ "God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew... there is a remnant, chosen by grace... The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened" (11:2-7). What Paul said in Romans 9:6 is true... "not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel."

, this too means they were never saved to begin with.

Right.

Which then begs the question. How did they get grafted into the good olive tree to begin with, without that involving them being saved first?

They were not. <smile> Even speaking of us now, it may look to us for a time like they have been grafted in, that they are believers. But if they do not stay with us, if they go out from us, it will then become evident that they were never really with us. This is exactly what John says in 1 John 2:19... "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us."

Only a person speaking deceitfully could teach that those cut off from the good olive tree remain saved, or that they were never saved to begin with,,,

Ah, well, I agree with the "remain saved" thing, but not the latter. Just because they were a part of the commonwealth of Israel does not mean they were ever really of Israel. See above.

Once again, meaning Gentiles that have been grafted into the good olive tree, not Jews cut off from it for disbelief.

No. Jews cut off because of disbelief. Actually, disbelief is the outward evidence of being cut off.

That is not mere misunderstanding---it is willful distortion of truth.

Disagree. Neither is the case.

If NOSAS were somehow false, no one would be harmed by believing it.

Maybe not, but understanding that if God has called us and given us faith (His assurance of salvation) and that we have been born again of the Spirit, and are thus children of the promise, and that we are thus in Christ, and God's promises have their 'yes' and 'amen' in Christ Jesus, and that we have been sealed with the Spirit, Who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of God's glory... <> ...then aren't we at least psychologically a little better off in this life? <smile>

Those who hold it simply stay watchful, striving to remain faithful to the end.

Absolutely. "OSASers" too... <smile>

But if the 'only-OSAS' teaching is false---if people have been told they can never fall away when Scripture says otherwise---then many souls could perish believing they are eternally secure while living in sin and never repenting.

So you probably know what Hebrews 6:4-6 says; it's been brought up on this board a time or two:

"For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt."​

We agree that it is certainly possible to be "NOSAS" and use this passage as proof. Maybe you do, and if so, you are not alone. But... you knew there would be a "but," I'm sure... remember what the writer of Hebrews said just previous to this in Hebrews 3:12...

"Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God."​

So, which comes first, the chicken or the egg? <smile>

Grace and peace to you, Davidpt.

 

[grafted branch]

The church and the New Jerusalem are the same thing, ewq1938. Two ways ~ one concrete and the other symbolic ~ of referring to the same thing... the same body (the body of Christ)... see what I did there? ... of folks.

1 Corinthians 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

1 Corinthians 6:16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

If the church is the bride of Christ and we are currently the body of Christ, how can the marriage be future unless the church is fornicating?

 

[ewq1938]

1 Corinthians 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

1 Corinthians 6:16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

If the church is the bride of Christ and we are currently the body of Christ, how can the marriage be future unless the church is fornicating?

The marriage is future and it is error to mix and conflate dif metaphors and symbolism else you have Christ marrying his own body which is nonsense.

 

[grafted branch]

The marriage is future and it is error to mix and conflate dif metaphors and symbolism else you have Christ marrying his own body which is nonsense.

Sure, and there are people on this thread that mix and conflate metaphors to make the church the bride.

 

[ewq1938]

Sure, and there are people on this thread that mix and conflate metaphors to make the church the bride.

No, the bible teaches that.

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.

 

[grafted branch]

No, the bible teaches that.

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.

And the Bible clearly teaches that we are currently the body of Christ.

1 Corinthians 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

So how can we be the body of Christ when the marriage hasn’t consummated yet?

 

[ewq1938]

And the Bible clearly teaches that we are currently the body of Christ.

1 Corinthians 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

So how can we be the body of Christ when the marriage hasn’t consummated yet?

The body existed at the time of the gospels and stop conflating that with anything marriage related.

 

[grafted branch]

The body existed at the time of the gospels and stop conflating that with anything marriage related.

You wouldn’t have to be married to become the body of Christ but you would have to be “joined”.

1 Corinthians 6:16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

 

[Davidpt]

The wise virgins represent the new covenant and the foolish virgins represent the old convent.

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

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

Did you happen to take note of how Matthew 25:1 begins? It begins with a 'Then'. which then typically requires a 'when'. The when is found in the end of ch 24. What is it about those verses that would make you think anything is involving the old covenant and the new covenant?

IMO, Matthew 25:1 needs to at least be read in this manner.

Matthew 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.
43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.
44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.
45 Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season?
46 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.
47 Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods.
48 But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;
49 And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken;
50 The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of,
51 And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Matthew 25:1 Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.
2 And five of them were wise, and five were foolish.

 

[PinSeeker]

1 Corinthians 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

1 Corinthians 6:16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

If the church is the bride of Christ and we are currently the body of Christ, how can the marriage be future unless the church is fornicating?

Oh my goodness...

Grace and peace to you, grafted branch.

 

[ewq1938]

You wouldn’t have to be married to become the body of Christ but you would have to be “joined”.

False. That only applies to the bride/wife. The body of Christ is a dif metaphor and is not marriage related but I have already corrected you on that before.

 

[grafted branch]

Did you happen to take note of how Matthew 25:1 begins? It begins with a 'Then'. which then typically requires a 'when'. The when is found in the end of ch 24. What is it about those verses that would make you think anything is involving the old covenant and the new covenant?

IMO, Matthew 25:1 needs to at least be read in this manner.

Matthew 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.
43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.
44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.
45 Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season?
46 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.
47 Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods.
48 But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;
49 And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken;
50 The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of,
51 And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Matthew 25:1 Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.
2 And five of them were wise, and five were foolish.

I think the parables of the ten virgins is about the time period between the cross and 70AD, just like the Matthew 24 coming of the Son of man is about His 70AD coming. In that time period the new covenant was in force and the old covenant hadn’t vanished yet.

Under the new covenant, a person is always ready due to the one time sacrifice of Christ. Under the old covenant a person has to make sacrifice after sacrifice, they weren’t always ready. In this aspect we see five virgins representing those under the new covenant and five still under the old covenant.

Jewish custom required the bridesmaids to wait at the bridegroom's house, to receive him and the bride, and as this was commonly after sunset, they were provided with lamps or torches.

 

[grafted branch]

False. That only applies to the bride/wife. The body of Christ is a dif metaphor and is not marriage related but I have already corrected you on that before.

Well I can say the bride of Christ is a different metaphor and is not related with Christ marrying new Jerusalem. There, I just made a statement like you did. Now any argument against my position I can say I have corrected you.