The Body of Christ vs. The Bride of Christ

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

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

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

Trekson

Well-Known Member
Jul 24, 2012
2,084
218
63
67
Kentucky
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hi all, Without getting over excited, I'm just offering this as an alternative theory. I am in no way saying, "thus saith the Lord."

Perhaps, because I'm a male of the species, I've always been uncomfortable with the description of the church as the Bride of Christ. As I've listened to various pre-trib preachers use the constant references of us as the bride of Christ, the discomfort has increased as I've sensed that this isn't just a "guy thing", I believe it is a misunderstanding derived from erroneous biblical interpretations. Some of the arguments they give for keeping the church out of the 70th week contrary to what the bible teaches is that "no bridegroom would make his bride suffer that way", or "we need to be in heaven for the marriage banquet during the seven years of Daniel's 70th week". They've even "made up" and embellished Jewish wedding customs that have no historical validity, to support what they teach. For example, there is no support for the bridegroom "kidnapping" his bride a week before the wedding. A term Zola Levitt has used to equate that with the rapture. Another pre-trib believer, Greg Killan, has written that John 14:2-3 was spoken to the bride by the groom as he left to prepare for the wedding. Again, there is no written historical documentation to support this. I've also heard it taught that Israel is the bride of Father God and the church is the bride of His Son, Jesus. The former has some scriptural support but the latter is not clearly stated in the bible. I believe that if the church was to be his bride then He would have clearly stated that fact somewhere in His teachings. I think it's important that it isn't there.

Dispensationalism is a doctrine of separation and God through Jesus is the author of unity. I consider myself sort of a quasi-dispensationalist. By that I mean, I recognize that Israel has a few future physical promises yet to come that will find their fulfillment in the millennium but all spiritual promises have found their completion and fulfillment through the church, which as you know, was basically just Jewish in origin for the first several years before Paul started preaching to the gentiles. Any doctrine that eternally separates the church from Israel should be considered false and subject to intense scrutiny.
Before we get into the NT teachings let's take a quick review of what the OT has to say on this subject. Jer. 3:14 - "Return, faithless people," declares the Lord, "for I am your husband. I will choose you—one from a town and two from a clan—and bring you to Zion. I believe this prophecy, which is the Lord speaking to the Jews is fulfilled in Rev. 14:1 - Then I looked, and there before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father's name written on their foreheads. Is.62 is speaking about the new name of Zion. Vs. 5 states - As a young man marries a maiden, so will your sons marry you; as a bridegroom rejoices over his bride, so will your God rejoice over you. The virgin sons of Israel will marry Zion and/or the King of Zion who is Jesus Christ! (Rev.14:4). Jer. 14:18 tells us that Judah will unite (marry?) Israel. Jesus is also called the Lion of the tribe of Judah.

This may surprise some of you but nowhere in the bible is the term, "the bride of Christ" used, however, the "body of Christ" referring to the church is used twice by Paul, once in 1 Cor. 12:27 and again in Eph. 4:12 and inferred in a few more places. Well then, where did this idea come from? Some have used the parable of the ten virgins as support but this really isn't logical once you dissect the passage.
Matt. 25: 1-13 - "At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. 2Five of them were foolish and five were wise. 3The foolish ones took their lamps but did not take any oil with them. 4The wise, however, took oil in jars along with their lamps. 5The bridegroom was a long time in coming, and they all became drowsy and fell asleep. 6"At midnight the cry rang out: 'Here's the bridegroom! Come out to meet him!' 7"Then all the virgins woke up and trimmed their lamps. 8The foolish ones said to the wise, 'Give us some of your oil; our lamps are going out.' 9" 'No,' they replied, 'there may not be enough for both us and you. Instead, go to those who sell oil and buy some for yourselves.' 10"But while they were on their way to buy the oil, the bridegroom arrived. The virgins who were ready went in with him to the wedding banquet. And the door was shut. 11"Later the others also came. 'Sir! Sir!' they said. 'Open the door for us!' 12"But he replied, 'I tell you the truth, I don't know you.' 13"Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour.

I can't argue the fact that Christ is sometimes pictured as a bridegroom but that doesn't automatically translate into the church being the bride. In this parable, believers or the church would equate to the ten virgins, a bride isn't mentioned at all although it could be implied that the ten virgins were keeping her company. This parable doesn't support the theory of imminence, but it does warn of preparation, readiness and what might happen to those who fail to watch. A couple of other things can be assumed by this passage, one is that they knew what exact day the wedding would be. They were at their posts, but the bridegroom was delayed. There is historical documentation that typically the bridegroom would arrive at 11:30 pm to pick up his bride and guests then they would proceed to the bridegroom's father's house for the midnight ceremony. Here, the bridegroom was delayed and the announcement didn't come until midnight. That is why the virgins fell asleep. They didn't know how long the delay would be. I think this fits a pre-wrath scenario quite nicely.

Another passage used is found in three of the gospels. Matthew, Mark and Luke, they are all the same. Matt. 9:15 - And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast. Christ is referring to himself as a bridegroom, but the disciples are called children of the bride chamber, the NIV words them as friends of the bridegroom. These were typically close friends of the groom who made sure all the preparations were made in their version of the "honeymoon suite" and where the actual ceremony would take place. If the disciples here are representative of the church, again they are not called the bride.

A third reference can be found in John 3:29 - He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled. Here, John, a servant and follower of Christ and God, refers to himself and which could include the rest of us as friends of the bridegroom, not the bride. A follow up to this verse is John 10:16 - And other sheep I have (gentiles), which are not of this fold (jews): them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. (emphasis and conclusions mine) In John 9:15, the disciples are called guests of the bridegroom.

A fourth reference sometimes used to describe the church as the bride is adapting the verse that compares Jesus, the head of the church to the husband as the head of the wife Eph. 5:23-25. Those that use this as support are, in my opinion, stretching scripture to coincide with their beliefs rather than taking it at face value and seeing it simply as a comparison. In this passage Paul uses marriage as an example of headship, submission and the importance of purifying our bodies or His body as the two, the head and the body will become one flesh. This would be the perfect place for the scriptures to state that the church is the bride of Christ, but it doesn't. In fact, Paul goes out of his way to re-emphasize we are His body at least three times and infers it a couple of more times.

Another verse commonly used to assert our “brideship” is 2 Cor. 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. In this verse, Paul is the one doing the betrothing, not God or Christ. Here is a short version of the story behind this chapter. The Corinthians were being swayed by false teachers and listening to some of them deriding Paul and his ministry and authority. In this chapter he is defending his apostleship and explaining to them that they should remain pure of heart and not to be easily persuaded to abandon their relationship with God. Corinth was a very paganistic place with several different idols being worshipped at the time around the city. People worshipped several gods at once to "cover their bases" in case one or more of them wasn't real. Paul is using the espousalship as an example of steadfastness and purity of worship to God alone.

During the engagement period, a person, usually a friend of the bridegroom watched over the bride-to-be to ensure her purity and faithfulness prior to the wedding. If one was to have relations with another person during their engagement period, in those days, they would have been guilty of adultery and faced stoning or worse, as punishment. In this case, Paul is comparing his concern for their spiritual well-being with the friend of the bridegroom that ensures the purity of the virgin bride. When studying the bible it is just as important to understand what is not being said as well as what was said. There are at least two other places in scripture where Christ could have simply identified the church as his bride, but He did not. Matt. 12:50 - For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother." And in Matt. 22:30 - At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. In the first one He could have added wife and in the second one He could have added, for example, except for my marriage to all those that believe in me. The truth of unity is summed up by Christ in this one verse. John 10:30 - I and the Father are one" and the ultimate goal is the one stated above where Christ said that eventually there will be "one fold and one shepherd". This verse in no way alludes to there being a father's bride and a son's bride or Israel being God's and the church being Christ's, WE ARE ALL ONE IN HIM!!

However, the parable of the talents does show that there will be a heavenly hierarchy based on how well we served and obeyed Him. The wedding parable of Matt. 22 implies that the gentile church are guests to the wedding but we must make sure we have the proper wedding garment. What are the proper wedding garments? Simply put we are to be clothed with humility having our robes washed white by the blood of the Lamb (Rev.7:9). The church here is clothed differently from the bride of Rev. 19 whose white linen garments stand for "the righteous acts of the saints". We, as believers in Christ, don't have to earn our way to heaven by works, it is a free gift; but the future bride of Christ must purify herself by their deeds.

There are a few more scriptures, all in Revelation, that may shed some light on this subject. Rev. 21:2 - I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband.
Rev. 21:9-10 - One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and said to me, "Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb." 10And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God.

The two questions we must ask ourselves are: if the church is not the bride then who is? and what exactly is the best description for the church?

In the first two, the bride is the New Jerusalem where all of us Christian and Jew will eternally reside together as one big, happy family. Rev. 19:7, emphasizes that wedding has come, utilizing the same future, present tense as is used to describe that the wrath of the Lamb is about to come in Rev. 6:17. Both clarify the fact that the event being spoken of has not yet occurred but is about to. This scripture is speaking of a time after the seven vials of wrath have been poured out; so from this verse alone the picture of the church as the pre-tribulational bride and our wedding being in heaven for the previous seven years has absolutely no foundation. From this passage we know that the wedding supper will take place after the 70th week is completed and the prophetic Feast of Tabernacles can equate to that wedding supper and that it will occur here on earth.

In the case of the prophetic wedding scenario, I suggest that it will be played out as follows.
We know that the wedding supper takes place here on earth after the 70th week. We know that Christ is depicted as the bridegroom. Everything else is subjective and I don't declare the following as doctrine, just a different way of looking at things. The rest of the wedding party consists of: the bride, her virgin attendants, friends of the bridegroom and finally, the guests. I believe the New Jerusalem will come to earth after the millennium and won't be fully complete as one under God until the millennium is over and it is within the description of the New Jerusalem that we find the identity and place for all those who will abide with Him eternally.

It is only because of Israel and God's design through that nation that we are able to enter into the city. There are twelve gates and the names of the twelve tribes of Israel are on those gates. In Rev. 7, God sets aside 12,000 from each tribe totaling 144,000. Guarding those gates are twelve angels. There are 12 foundations and on those are the names of the twelve apostles. The city is built upon Jesus Christ and His gospel which was the message entrusted to the apostles to bring to the world. He is the chief cornerstone and Jesus told Peter that upon him ("this rock") He would build His church or (ek kaleo) "called out ones".

As God the Father and God the Son are one I believe that, spiritually, they will have the same bride which based upon the city and OT teachings I believe is primarily Jewish. So here is how I see it all playing out: The friends of the bridegroom are the 12 apostles and the OT prophets and those Christians whose faithful service and obedience elevates them to that stature. Martyrdom may also play a role here. John the Baptist identified himself as a friend of the bridegroom and I believe he was representative of all the prophets that had come before. The guests are those gentile and jewish representatives of humanity that are allowed to enter the millennium after the sheep and goat judgment, to repopulate the earth. ( Matt. 22:2-14 and Matt. 25:31-46, Rev. 19:17 ).

If you multiply the gates of the city of New Jerusalem by the height (12,000 furlongs) you get 144,000. If you multiply the foundations by either the length or the height to you get 144,000. If you multiply either the length, the height or the width by the number of tribes (12) you get 144,000. The beginning of Rev. 14 tells us that the 144,000 are with Christ wherever he goes, like a bride would be, and they sing a new song that only they can know; perhaps a love song similar to the Song of Solomon. Jesus tells us that there is no marriage in heaven so I conclude that his bride must be an earthly one. The fact that they are either physical or spiritual virgins only emphasizes to me their purity as a bride. In Rev. 7:9 they are sealed and protected, as a bride would be, so I conclude the 144,000 are His bride. The virgin attendants would be the 12 angels that are guarding the gates of the city. They ensure that all who enter are pure and have not entered in by mistake.

As the Body of Christ and as we grow and mature in Him we seem to acquire a deep, spiritual concern for the welfare of Israel. We want our nation to continue to protect her and we care about her spiritual condition as a groom would for his bride. We pray for her and dread the judgments that God will bring upon her but we also understand that this is necessary for her refinement through fire as we, His body, will also be refined through fire. We share the same concerns as our Best Friend and as the physical manifestation of the Groom's presence on Earth we must do all we can to ensure the safety, purity and well-being of His bride. Therefore I conclude that we the church as the Body of Christ are not the bride but are united with Christ as the bridegroom.

There are so many different levels to eternity that we certainly can not know or understand them all, but Daniel tells us that in the end times; knowledge will increase and I believe this includes general human knowledge as well as a new and greater understanding of spiritual truths. Perhaps this one of them and God is calling us to a greater level of concern for Israel as befitting a groom towards a bride. Perhaps this will prepare us for the next level of spiritual warfare, especially when we see another man, the antichrist, try and woo her away from us. I think we will react with a spiritual jealousy and a greater determination to fight the good fight to protect as much of Israel as we can. We surely won't allow the gates of hell to prevail against us and though the scriptures tell us that many of us will be killed, we know that we will still be part of His armies that come to vanquish satan once and for all, until that time he is let loose for a season at the end of the millennium.

I'm sure many of you will disagree with my assessment but I ask that you pray about it and keep an open mind. I'm sure some of you may feel that I'm robbing you of a special blessing by not being the bride but I think it greater to be part of the groom as members of Christ's body and I can see how this radical viewpoint could unite us Christians under the banner of love for Israel, as that will eventually become a greater concern for us and cause us to not be annoyed by the little things that divide us as a church but instead will unite us as an army who will never give up, who will not allow the god of this world to rest in peace. An army who will take that old song, Onward, Christian Soldiers as a battle cry for this world, who will put on the armor of God so that when that evil day comes, "you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. 14Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. 16In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. 18And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints." ( Eph. 6:13-18 )

Rev. 22:17 - The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" And let him who hears say, "Come!" Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life. This verse sums it all up for me. In vs. 16 Christ states that this message is for the church. The groom and the bride are (prophetically) complete. When the spirit and the bride say come, they are extending a wedding invitation to the world where; upon acceptance they become part of His Body. We are to partake of the wedding between the Groom and the 144,000, the combined righteous remnant of the tribes of Judah and the tribes of Israel as foretold by prophecy.
 

Tex

New Member
Jun 29, 2014
199
7
0
Ephesians 5:22-33 directly contradicts the "bride of Christ is not the Church" thing. Here's verses 31 and 32.

"'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."

The 144,000 is the Church.

P.S. Quit with the Left Behind theology. It's bad. There is not going to be a chronological/historical Great Tribulation, Thousand Year Reign, Millennium, 144,000, etc.
 

Trekson

Well-Known Member
Jul 24, 2012
2,084
218
63
67
Kentucky
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hi Tex, Regarding the brideship, you just proved my point. Paul is only using marriage as an example of the relationship between the Body and the Head. Our walk with Christ should develop as we mature in Him so that we are "as" one flesh and it's the Holy Spirit that makes this possible.

Sorry, but the Left Behind thing isn't new but I agree it is a misinterpretation of scripture. I guess I'm kind of peculiar because I believe in the Revelation of Christ to John. Do I think Christ was babbling a bunch of nonsense" No, but apparently you do! Do I think Christ used all kinds of super spiritualization or a bunch of metaphors that don't mean what they seem to mean? Absolutely not!

Here's how one should look at the scriptures. If the words make sense, seek no other sense, but if they don't seem to make sense look for the next simplest explanation according to previous scriptures!

There are over a hundred prophecies concerning Christ in the OT that were fulfilled as written and several more spiritual prophecies of Israel that came to light in the church which was primarily just Jewish in its origin. Why would I not believe Christ and take Him at His word. BTW, the early church fathers were futurists but according to their writings there theology would be called post-persecution rapturists!!
 

Tex

New Member
Jun 29, 2014
199
7
0
The phrase "Bride of Christ" is also a metaphor. That doesn't mean it's not improper to use or false. We're not actually supposed to have sex with Jesus. I'm a male, so that would be a bit sinful of God...

I also believe that Revelation is infalible scripture. Do not question my faith simply because I say your interpretation is wrong. That's rather childish.

I agree with you that the 144,000 is the Bride of Christ. I simply understand "12" to mean "holy" and "1000" to mean "many". Taking the numbers literally is exactly what John did NOT mean. 144,000 is the saved, and the Church is the saved.

12 x 12 x 1000 = 144,000
 

Trekson

Well-Known Member
Jul 24, 2012
2,084
218
63
67
Kentucky
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hi Tex, Why wouldn't you take scripture literally? Consider this: John was able to number...Rev. 5:11 - "And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands;" That's over one hundred million and in Rev. 9:16 - "And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand: and I heard the number of them" That's 200,000,000 a number China has boasted of having in it's army! The raptured/resurrected church in Rev. 7:9 is so vast, no one can number them.

So if John can count that high why reduce it to a mere 144,000, unless of course he wasn't talking about the church. He even lists the tribes where they are from and if you've ever studied it, two of the original tribes are missing and replaced with two others. That makes for an interesting study right there. Also your math is right but it's the wrong equation. It's not 12 x 12 x 1000, it's 12 x 12,000. It just makes sense to me to take Christ literally at His word, especially when it all flows together and makes perfect sense.
 

shturt678s

New Member
Apr 16, 2014
211
5
0
Trekson said:
Hi Tex, Why wouldn't you take scripture literally? Consider this: John was able to number...Rev. 5:11 - "And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands;" That's over one hundred million and in Rev. 9:16 - "And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand: and I heard the number of them" That's 200,000,000 a number China has boasted of having in it's army! The raptured/resurrected church in Rev. 7:9 is so vast, no one can number them.

So if John can count that high why reduce it to a mere 144,000, unless of course he wasn't talking about the church. He even lists the tribes where they are from and if you've ever studied it, two of the original tribes are missing and replaced with two others. That makes for an interesting study right there. Also your math is right but it's the wrong equation. It's not 12 x 12 x 1000, it's 12 x 12,000. It just makes sense to me to take Christ literally at His word, especially when it all flows together and makes perfect sense.
Well put forth!

Old Jack
 

Tex

New Member
Jun 29, 2014
199
7
0
@Trekson
@Jack

The reason you don't have to take all of literature literally is because that's not intelligent. Some parts you need to take literally. Some parts are poetry. Some parts are apocalyptic. You need to read passages as the Author intended them. Revelation is apocalyptic, so don't read it as a history book. Read it as apocalyptic literature. That's what John meant. That's what the Holy Spirit meant.

With that in mind, John didn't count to 200,000,000. He didn't count to 144,000. The numbers are representative of God's might, benevolence, etc. The book of Revelation is an assurance to God's promise of resurrection by faith through Jesus Christ. Any other kind of interpretation is necessarily false.

For example, let's take 666, the number of the beast. Satan, right? Well yes, but hold your horses. John specifically says in Rev 13:18 "This calls for wisdom: let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666." Common to the ancient Palestine area (south of the Caucasus, east of the sea, west of Babylon, north of Egypt) is the fact that numbers and letters are expressed the same. 'A' is '1', 'B' is '2', and so on. This includes Hebrew, Aramaic, etc. This is used in other places of the bible with "David", which is Hebrew is "dwd" (no vowels), and in Hebrew, d+w+d = 14. There were 14 generations from Jesus to David, and 14 from David to Abraham. When knowing this and looking at the 666, a similar process is used. I'm looking for a man who John does not want knocking on his door if he happens to read what he wrote, someone not from the Palestine area.

Nero, if spelled in Hebrew and multiplied, is 666.

To double check, there are Aramaic copies of Revelation floating around. They don't have 666, they have 616. Why? The forumla changed. In Aramaic, Nero multiplied is 616, not 666.

Is John talking about Satan? Kinda. What is he specifically communicating? Nero. Not to mention that Solomon had 666 talents of silver, and that '6' means "man" and 3 '6's mean "great man". Nero is a great man, in terms of man. He is the beast because he was a horrible persecutor of Christians.

Here's a dude who uses fancy characters I can't make on my screen easy.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2823957/posts

So, to conclude, certain things need to be read in certain lights because that's how they were intended. Revelation needs to be read as apocalyptic literature because it IS apocalyptic literature. It isn't a history book.
 

Trekson

Well-Known Member
Jul 24, 2012
2,084
218
63
67
Kentucky
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hi Tex, I had to do a little research to determine what you meant by "apocalyptic literature". Very few defined it the same way but all included some of the parts of this answer from the web.


7 Characteristics of Apocalyptic Literature
  1. All apocalyptic literature claims to be revelation of new/hidden knowledge. Hence the name.
  2. Apocalyptic literature often uses prophetic vision formula to see the future, “and I saw...” This phrase appears many times in Revelation. It is not in the earliest examples of the genre, however.
  3. The literature uses mysterious and symbolic language. This is ironic, as the name means "unveiling" and then the writing goes to lengths to clothe everything in symbolism.
  4. With the exception of Revelation, practically all written after the close of the Tanakh is pseudonymous. That is, the author's name on the piece is not the person who wrote it. This was probably to avoid persecution of authors. John was already in exile so had no reason to hide himself.
  5. Main theme throughout the life of the genre is surety of God’s victory over evil.
  6. The Theology of apocalyptic literature is very deterministic-moderately Calvinistic (where the sovereignty of God is inviolate) and far from ultra-Armineanism (where man's decisions and will decide the future with God being surprised). God is in control, even if evil seems to have run amuck.
  7. Because the present stinks, apocalyptic literature is preoccupied with future events. While it does not envision the end of the cosmos, it does envision the end of evil and suffering and the visible reign of God on earth. The earth and Heavens as they are might end and be replaced or they might be cleansed where they are without being destroyed first. Either way, they will be purged.
I guess the main one I have trouble with is #3. Does Revelation contain some symbolism? Yes, but imo the percentage is very low. Personally, I wouldn't describe God's Word as "literature". It doesn't do it justice and reduces it to a "literary style". The holy words of God are way more than that. That would be like saying the ten commandments are intellectual guidelines to reduce stress in your life but only if you can unlock the secret codes hidden within each commandment. Revelations is not some fictional account by John to reassure the church to "take heart, we will be victorious in the end"!! While John may be the writer, Jesus Christ is the author of Revelations. Do you really think our Lord and Saviour would give his church a book consisting only of hidden riddles and symbols and not just tell us the plain truth?

Let's look at a couple of examples. Let's start with the 144,000. Does it make sense that God would want some living Israeli believers to repopulate the millennium with? Yes, it does. If God tells us that there will be a period of peace lasting specifically a thousand years, why would we question that? Is the dragon with seven heads and ten horns of Rev. 13 symbolism? Yes it is, but Christ also reveals what that symbolism means in Rev. 17:9-13. We don't have to scratch our heads to figure it out. Are the locusts of Rev. 9:3 real or symbolic? In my opinion, they are neither. How would a man from John's time describe a fleet of helicopters? He would use the closest thing that he could come up with based on his personal experience.

You're right, Revelations is NOT a history book but you seemed to reduce it to that with your "Nero" reference. I'm sure if one played with the numbers enough one could come up with several possibilities but I'm just going to wait and see and it will become obvious as we see the prophetic future unfold. If anyone really wants to understand Revelations they should,imo, take it as literally and as chronologically as possible and when either of those two don't make sense, decide if it's symbolic and then seek an answer within the book itself or just use your God-given common sense. The last thing we want to do is to reduce any specific information revealed as vague generalities which doesn't mean what God says it does. To me that would be a violation of the specific warning Christ gave us in Rev. 22:18-19.
 

Tex

New Member
Jun 29, 2014
199
7
0
Trekson said:
Hi Tex, I had to do a little research to determine what you meant by "apocalyptic literature". Very few defined it the same way but all included some of the parts of this answer from the web.

7 Characteristics of Apocalyptic Literature
  1. All apocalyptic literature claims to be revelation of new/hidden knowledge. Hence the name.
  2. Apocalyptic literature often uses prophetic vision formula to see the future, “and I saw...” This phrase appears many times in Revelation. It is not in the earliest examples of the genre, however.
  3. The literature uses mysterious and symbolic language. This is ironic, as the name means "unveiling" and then the writing goes to lengths to clothe everything in symbolism.
  4. With the exception of Revelation, practically all written after the close of the Tanakh is pseudonymous. That is, the author's name on the piece is not the person who wrote it. This was probably to avoid persecution of authors. John was already in exile so had no reason to hide himself.
  5. Main theme throughout the life of the genre is surety of God’s victory over evil.
  6. The Theology of apocalyptic literature is very deterministic-moderately Calvinistic (where the sovereignty of God is inviolate) and far from ultra-Armineanism (where man's decisions and will decide the future with God being surprised). God is in control, even if evil seems to have run amuck.
  7. Because the present stinks, apocalyptic literature is preoccupied with future events. While it does not envision the end of the cosmos, it does envision the end of evil and suffering and the visible reign of God on earth. The earth and Heavens as they are might end and be replaced or they might be cleansed where they are without being destroyed first. Either way, they will be purged.
I guess the main one I have trouble with is #3. Does Revelation contain some symbolism? Yes, but imo the percentage is very low. Personally, I wouldn't describe God's Word as "literature". It doesn't do it justice and reduces it to a "literary style". The holy words of God are way more than that. That would be like saying the ten commandments are intellectual guidelines to reduce stress in your life but only if you can unlock the secret codes hidden within each commandment. Revelations is not some fictional account by John to reassure the church to "take heart, we will be victorious in the end"!! While John may be the writer, Jesus Christ is the author of Revelations. Do you really think our Lord and Saviour would give his church a book consisting only of hidden riddles and symbols and not just tell us the plain truth?

Let's look at a couple of examples. Let's start with the 144,000. Does it make sense that God would want some living Israeli believers to repopulate the millennium with? Yes, it does. If God tells us that there will be a period of peace lasting specifically a thousand years, why would we question that? Is the dragon with seven heads and ten horns of Rev. 13 symbolism? Yes it is, but Christ also reveals what that symbolism means in Rev. 17:9-13. We don't have to scratch our heads to figure it out. Are the locusts of Rev. 9:3 real or symbolic? In my opinion, they are neither. How would a man from John's time describe a fleet of helicopters? He would use the closest thing that he could come up with based on his personal experience.

You're right, Revelations is NOT a history book but you seemed to reduce it to that with your "Nero" reference. I'm sure if one played with the numbers enough one could come up with several possibilities but I'm just going to wait and see and it will become obvious as we see the prophetic future unfold. If anyone really wants to understand Revelations they should,imo, take it as literally and as chronologically as possible and when either of those two don't make sense, decide if it's symbolic and then seek an answer within the book itself or just use your God-given common sense. The last thing we want to do is to reduce any specific information revealed as vague generalities which doesn't mean what God says it does. To me that would be a violation of the specific warning Christ gave us in Rev. 22:18-19.
Thank you for the response. I greatly appreciate you actually went and googled what you didn't know and came back to me. You don't even realize. I'm a little nerd about to start the masters degree in philosophy, and wanting the Ph.D. after. When people don't debate and just tell me I'm wrong, I want to kick them in the face. You are debating me, which is exactly why I come to forums like these. So thank you.

Those 7 characterists are pretty standard, and you're right, we seem to disagree on the third one. While you do well to assume my positions and then find the faults with it, I do not believe in a millennium. I think that the thousand year reign is part of that numerology. So, God wouldn't need some living Israeli believers to repopulate anything with. Rather than this being historically prophetic, it is much more symbolic. I agree that we shouldn't reduce everything in Revelation to numerology, but I do follow point 3 on apocalyptic characteristics. Revelation has so much symbolism. Most of it is obvious, but if he were even using symbolism on the obvious stuff, I find it easier to say that it's probably also symbolism in many other passages.

As for support of point 3, I can only have two options: the book itself and stuff outside the book. As I just said, Revelation has even the obvious wrapped in sybolism. This makes it more likely that the passages we find not wrapped in symbolism are simply being misinterpreted (although, of course, not all). I think the more compelling argument will be the same kind of writting outside the bible. Especially in that greater Palestine area, apocalyptic writing definitely follows point 3, before and after John wrote Revelation. It is also from this area that mysticism arrises, which is a very poetic way of extracting doctrine from passages of the bible. Your right to say that I should reduce the bible to literary style, but I think it is this kind of literature that John was imitating to communicate Apocalypse.

The only other point I have is that which is true of all scripture. If Revelation is not primarily designed to bring mankind closer to God, we're reading it wrong. If Revelation is a giant prophetic history book, how does it move me toward God? If we read it as apocalyptic literature, it instead allows for points 4-7, assuring me of God's omnipotence, benevolence, and the fruitition of his promises.
 

Trekson

Well-Known Member
Jul 24, 2012
2,084
218
63
67
Kentucky
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hi Tex, I don't know if I could ever change your mind regarding Revelations but you keep using this term which within the context of our debate is out of place. Your words: "If Revelation is a giant prophetic history book, how does it move me toward God?"

Why do you keep referring to it as a"history book"? The term should be a prophetic "future" book. History has nothing to do with it,imo. The greater question is: how believing in the literalness of Revelations can move you towards God? That's a pretty deep question and honestly it's a question I've never heard before and I've been doing this about 25 yrs. So, if you don't mind I'm going to take a day or so to ponder on this and do a little study to see if I can answer your question in a satisfactory manner. This should make for a fun study so thanks for the opportunity to stretch my brain a little bit!
 

Tex

New Member
Jun 29, 2014
199
7
0
I don't know if I'd ever change my mind. If the truth was presented to me long enough, perhaps I'd finally grasp truth. But of course, I currently think I know the truth =)

And you're right, "prophetic history book" isn't entirely accurate. It seems to be good enough though, because you noticed it's imperfection and corrected it to what I intended to communicate. "Prophetic 'future book'" is much more accurate.

And ponder away. I think it is a good rule of thumb of interpretation. It isn't perfect, but it's amazingly useful for how basic it is. The question you need to ask is "Is it necessary for all bits of scripture to bring people closer to God?" and "what other functions apart from edification can it have?". For the first, I answer yes, and for the second I'll say many different things, but all of the other functions I see as secondary.

Thank you for the discussion thus far.
 

Trekson

Well-Known Member
Jul 24, 2012
2,084
218
63
67
Kentucky
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hi Tex, I'm still pondering the "main" question but for now here are a few thoughts I have regarding symbolism.

The definition of “symbolism” is “the practice of representing things by means of symbols or of attributing symbolic meanings or significance to objects, events or relationships.”

In my opinion, those who interpret scripture, especially prophetic scriptures utilizing symbolism are way off track. They would get more meaning in their search for truth using a “magic 8-ball”. There is no denying that scripture uses symbolism occasionally but usually it defines it within the context. Ex. Rev.17:3 - “So he carried me away in the Spirit into the wilderness. And I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast which was full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.”

Symbolism explained: Rev. 17:9 - “…The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits.”

Rev. 17:12 - “The ten horns which you saw are ten kings…”

Rev. 17:18 - “And the woman whom you saw is that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth.”

The problem with using symbolism is the possibilities are endless. Trying to find real truth using symbolism is like chasing unicorns and leprechauns. You might get lucky but I wouldn’t bet my life on it, which some of these people do.

To me there is only one logical way to discern the bible. I like this “Golden Rule of Interpreting Bible Prophecy” - “When the plain sense of scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense, but take every word at its primary, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context clearly indicate otherwise.”

(I found this on the internet several years ago and do not know who to give credit to. It is not original to me)

Symbolism also makes up its own rules like: a word once used symbolically must always be considered in it’s symbolic sense when used again. SDA’s do this with their “year for a day principle” which isn’t a “principle” at all. Usually, if such a symbolic time line is given, the scriptures say so within the context, and should only be considered within that context, not applied to every other prophetic timeline given.
 

Tex

New Member
Jun 29, 2014
199
7
0
There is only one correct interpretation of any writing, bible or no. Poetry is often highly symbolic, but generally it doesn't have to be explained and we all understand what it means.

For a piece in Revelation that has no explanation, yet is obvious, turn to chapter 12. There is no explanation given as to what was talked about. However, John is speaking of Jesus' birth and infancy. Jesus was born, and Herod attempted to kill him. Joseph, Mary, and Jesus fled to Egypt to escape Herod, and did not return until his death. Nothing in it is even prophetic. More importantly for this discussion, there was symbolism everywhere yet no explanation.

Plus, since Revelation is Apocalyptic, you've got to know that unexplained symbolism is part of the style. John is mimicking a style in order to communicate salvation in a specific way, a style which uses symbolism everywhere.

And it's not impossible to figure out. When John thought it was too hard, he told you what it was or warned you prior.
 

shturt678s

New Member
Apr 16, 2014
211
5
0
Tex said:
@Trekson
@Jack

The reason you don't have to take all of literature literally is because that's not intelligent. Some parts you need to take literally. Some parts are poetry. Some parts are apocalyptic. You need to read passages as the Author intended them. Revelation is apocalyptic, so don't read it as a history book. Read it as apocalyptic literature. That's what John meant. That's what the Holy Spirit meant.
We had Rev.1:4, 5, "....the One who Is and the One who Was and the One who is Coming." decades ago in ancient Greek, 1st Semester stuff. Not literature in the least, ie, nothing similar to this appears elsewhere in Scripture. This greeting with these designations belong to Revelation, could not belong to any other document, viz. the anomalous wording.

It's been a long time, but I do remember the teacher saying that the recipients were to know that this is a document personally from Jesus Christ in His human nature...I agreed then. and still agree till today.



With that in mind, John didn't count to 200,000,000. He didn't count to 144,000. The numbers are representative of God's might, benevolence, etc. The book of Revelation is an assurance to God's promise of resurrection by faith through Jesus Christ. Any other kind of interpretation is necessarily false.
I have a whole different interpretation thus false by default?



For example, let's take 666, the number of the beast. Satan, right? Well yes, but hold your horses. John specifically says in Rev 13:18 "This calls for wisdom: let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666." Common to the ancient Palestine area (south of the Caucasus, east of the sea, west of Babylon, north of Egypt) is the fact that numbers and letters are expressed the same. 'A' is '1', 'B' is '2', and so on. This includes Hebrew, Aramaic, etc. This is used in other places of the bible with "David", which is Hebrew is "dwd" (no vowels), and in Hebrew, d+w+d = 14. There were 14 generations from Jesus to David, and 14 from David to Abraham. When knowing this and looking at the 666, a similar process is used. I'm looking for a man who John does not want knocking on his door if he happens to read what he wrote, someone not from the Palestine area.

Nero, if spelled in Hebrew and multiplied, is 666.

To double check, there are Aramaic copies of Revelation floating around. They don't have 666, they have 616. Why? The forumla changed. In Aramaic, Nero multiplied is 616, not 666.

Is John talking about Satan? Kinda. What is he specifically communicating? Nero. Not to mention that Solomon had 666 talents of silver, and that '6' means "man" and 3 '6's mean "great man". Nero is a great man, in terms of man. He is the beast because he was a horrible persecutor of Christians.

Here's a dude who uses fancy characters I can't make on my screen easy.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2823957/posts

So, to conclude, certain things need to be read in certain lights because that's how they were intended. Revelation needs to be read as apocalyptic literature because it IS apocalyptic literature. It isn't a history book.
You could be correct, however we are very far apart,

Old Jack's opinion
 
  • Like
Reactions: JPPT1974

JPPT1974

Flowers of May
Staff member
Encounter Team
Jan 23, 2012
359
218
43
49
East TN
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
We should always take Christ at His Word. He has never lied. Nor never will! As His Word is past, present, and future.
 

shturt678s

New Member
Apr 16, 2014
211
5
0
JPPT1974 said:
We should always take Christ at His Word. He has never lied. Nor never will! As His Word is past, present, and future.
Thank you so much for caring!

I absolutely agree to agree with you. We just have to determine what Christ's precious inerrant, infallible, and inspired Word is then followed by if we need to allow the God the Holy Spirit to interpret that Word?

Old Jack just thinking out loud again,

btw appreciated your post and you.
 

Trekson

Well-Known Member
Jul 24, 2012
2,084
218
63
67
Kentucky
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hi Tex, Your words: "For a piece in Revelation that has no explanation, yet is obvious, turn to chapter 12. There is no explanation given as to what was talked about. However, John is speaking of Jesus' birth and infancy. Jesus was born, and Herod attempted to kill him. Joseph, Mary, and Jesus fled to Egypt to escape Herod, and did not return until his death. Nothing in it is even prophetic. More importantly for this discussion, there was symbolism everywhere yet no explanation.

I believe you are totally wrong about this. It is both symbolic and prophetic and you have identified some of the characters erroneously. This is where studying and knowledge of the bible comes into play. I will copy the passage with explanations at the end of this post.

Plus, since Revelation is Apocalyptic, you've got to know that unexplained symbolism is part of the style. John is mimicking a style in order to communicate salvation in a specific way, a style which uses symbolism everywhere.

Revelations is not "apocalyptic" and John isn't mimicking any style. The closest analogy I can come up with at the moment is; John is taking dictation from Christ and some angels. The only sections that are not "dictated" are the parts where he "sees" and then tries to put in his own words things that, for him, are really quite unexplainable.

And it's not impossible to figure out. When John thought it was too hard, he told you what it was or warned you prior."

John isn't doing any "thinking", he is simply writing down what Christ and the angels tell/reveal to him. Rev.1:19 - "Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter."

Now for an explanation of Rev. 12: "And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:
The "woman" here is not Mary. It is the nation of Israel. The sun is God, the Moon is the world and the twelve stars signify the tribes of Israel. This is a broader vision of what Joseph was given in Gen. 37:9, imo.
2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.
Christ came out of all of Israel spiritually, personified by Mary, physically.
3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.
Explained in Rev. 17:3,10
4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. Herod ready to kill Christ, you're right on that one.
5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.
Birth of Christ and His ascension.
6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days."
This is not Mary. It has changed from Israel in general to believing Israel. This passage is repeated in vs.12 &13 and is also the timing of Matt. 24:16-20, imo.
 

Tex

New Member
Jun 29, 2014
199
7
0
JPPT1974 said:
We should always take Christ at His Word. He has never lied. Nor never will! As His Word is past, present, and future.
That's exactly what I'm doing, but thank you for the reminder.

@Trekson

You keep calling the book "Revelations". That's not even it's name. It isn't plural. I doubt the expertise of anyone I find that doesn't know the name of the book.

And I believe we are off topic. I've given you my piece. I think the debate will be fruitless from here on forward.
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
The Body of Christ IS the church in as much as those who are actual believers and not just adherents.

The Bride of Christ is the New Jerusalem as depicted in Rev 21 and 22