Indisputable proof that the Premillennial theory contradicts Scripture

[Spiritual Israelite]

Language operates based on conventions that suggest authors are literal unless specified otherwise. When authors speak figuratively, they leave clues in the passage to guide the reader. Aside from the city's extreme magnificence, the author provides no indication that his words should be interpreted figuratively.


Could the term "bride" be interpreted figuratively? It might represent the whole scenario, including the city, its inhabitants, and the circumstances surrounding them.

Good point. So we have missed something. Let's look again.

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

You make a valid point that the "wife" of Christ refers to his followers. However, what about the city? Upon reviewing the text again, I see that John uses the term "bride" as a simile. The city is not literally the bride; rather, it is like a bride in a meaningful way. This supports my suggestion that the term "bride" should be interpreted as a simile, indicating that the city, its gates, and other elements are indeed actual, real structures.

I disagree that John uses the term "bride" as a simile there because in verse 9 he calls the new Jerusalem "the bride, the Lamb's wife". So, he directly calls it the bride of the Lamb (Christ) there instead of saying it is "made ready as a bride". It IS "the bride, the Lamb's wife". Nothing you said here changes the way I see all of this, so I guess we just need to agree to disagree.

The church is also described figuratively by Paul in Ephesians 2:19-22. He describes it as a "building" that is "joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord". Obviously, that isn't meant to be taken literally. But, it shows that the church being described figuratively is nothing new.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

My questions are my answer. All one needs to do is consider the relationship between the Bridegroom, the Bride, and the Wedding attendants to see that the Bride is NOT the wedding attendants.

Are you referring to Matthew 22:1-14? You understand that is a parable, right? You seem to have a problem with taking parables and symbolic text literally. The guests of the wedding in the parable of Matthew 22:1-14 who have the proper wedding garments on make up the bride of Christ. That parable is all about being offered salvation (that's what the invitation to the wedding represents) which results in having a personal, spiritual relationship with Jesus Christ as part of His bride.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I disagree that John uses the term "bride" as a simile there because in verse 9 he calls the new Jerusalem "the bride, the Lamb's wife". So, he directly calls it the bride of the Lamb (Christ) there instead of saying it is "made ready as a bride". It IS "the bride, the Lamb's wife". Nothing you said here changes the way I see all of this, so I guess we just need to agree to disagree.

Do you see the term John used to indicate a simile? The term "as" indicates a simile.

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

And since the "bride" includes a city with gates, John is saying that the city itself is the "bride."

The church is also described figuratively by Paul in Ephesians 2:19-22. He describes it as a "building" that is "joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord". Obviously, that isn't meant to be taken literally. But, it shows that the church being described figuratively is nothing new.

I agree. But don't you see? We both agree that the church is described as the "wife" of Christ. However, the term "Bride" of Christ presents a different image with a distinct meaning. While the "Bride" includes the church, it also encompasses the city of Jerusalem and its gates. John uses the term "Bride" to convey a broader concept.

Yes?

 

[Skovand]

“When it comes to the meaning of “the second death” most evangelicals are in solid agreement that this is talking about eternal damnation. Revelation 20:14 tells us: “death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.”


That’s not actually as solid of a belief as many think. The belief in hell, even within westernized Christianity under Protestantism is fairly diverse.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Are you referring to Matthew 22:1-14? You understand that is a parable, right? You seem to have a problem with taking parables and symbolic text literally.

What makes you say that? We are talking about symbolic language. If one person says that the passage means 'x' and another says that it means 'y', is it fair for someone to conclude that one or both of them are taking the symbols literally?

I disagree with your interpretation, not because I believe the parable should be taken literally, but because it mistakenly conflates the concepts of "bride" and guests. If an interpretation equivocates where the author does not indicate equivocation, then the interpretation is not understood the way it was intended.

The guests of the wedding in the parable of Matthew 22:1-14 who have the proper wedding garments on make up the bride of Christ.

Jesus doesn't indicate equivocation. He doesn't explicitly say or imply that the guests are the bride. The concept of "the bride" indicates a larger picture, mainly focused on the kingdom that was promised to Jesus.

The parable is not solely about being offered salvation; it primarily focuses on the coming age and who will be deemed worthy to participate in it. The symbol of the "bride" represents everything associated with the Father's promise to grant His Son a kingdom. The parables mainly concern the kingdom itself. The wedding signifies the inauguration of His kingship and the fulfillment of that promise. The guests symbolize those who heard the call to participate in the coming kingdom and responded positively to that invitation.

 

[Davidpt]

Do you expect to be made a literal pillar in a literal temple of God? Do you think Jesus will literally write God's name and "new Jerusalem" on you? If so, what writing utensil will He use and where will these things be written exactly?

Yea, right, I expect all those things to be literal the same way, for example, it's raining cats and dogs outside, and that I expect the cats and dogs to be literal since the raining outside is literal. You might think I'm an idiot yet I'm not one. You treat me as if I am one by asking silly questions like that to me all the time.

I'm basically saying that the church is not the NJ but that the church and the NJ combined equal the bride. You might then ask how can Christ marry a literal place? The same way a woman and wedding gown would equal the bride but that the husband doesn't marry the wedding gown, yet the wedding gown is part of the bride. It is something she is inside of. In the same way, the NJ would be something the woman, the church, is inside of. If you can't make any sense of that then I don't know what to tell you since it at least makes sense to me to reason it in that manner. How else are we supposed to reason it? That it is not a literal city, thus not a literal place? Maybe the garden of Eden wasn't a literal place either, right? Maybe Adam wasn't a literal person, right? So on and so on. Where does it end if we can't accept that some things in Revelation are literal?

 

[WPM]

Yea, right, I expect all those things to be literal the same way, for example, it's raining cats and dogs outside, and that I expect the cats and dogs to be literal since the raining outside is literal. You might think I'm an idiot yet I'm not one. You treat me as if I am one by asking silly questions like that to me all the time.

I'm basically saying that the church is not the NJ but that the church and the NJ combined equal the bride. You might then ask how can Christ marry a literal place? The same way a woman and wedding gown would equal the bride but that the husband doesn't marry the wedding gown, yet the wedding gown is part of the bride. It is something she is inside of. In the same way, the NJ would be something the woman, the church, is inside of. If you can't make any sense of that then I don't know what to tell you since it at least makes sense to me to reason it in that manner. How else are we supposed to reason it? That it is not a literal city, thus not a literal place? Maybe the garden of Eden wasn't a literal place either, right? Maybe Adam wasn't a literal person, right? So on and so on. Where does it end if we can't accept that some things in Revelation are literal?

Your argument is very weak. It does not add up!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Do you see the term John used to indicate a simile? The term "as" indicates a simile.

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

And since the "bride" includes a city with gates, John is saying that the city itself is the "bride."


I agree. But don't you see? We both agree that the church is described as the "wife" of Christ. However, the term "Bride" of Christ presents a different image with a distinct meaning. While the "Bride" includes the church, it also encompasses the city of Jerusalem and its gates. John uses the term "Bride" to convey a broader concept.

Yes?

No. There's no basis for differentiating between the terms "bride" and "wife" as it relates to Christ. The terms are used synonymously in Revelation 21:9 where it refers to the new Jerusalem as "the bride, the Lamb's wife". Do you think "the bride" in that verse is referring to a different entity than "the Lamb's wife"? It's not.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

What makes you say that? We are talking about symbolic language. If one person says that the passage means 'x' and another says that it means 'y', is it fair for someone to conclude that one or both of them are taking the symbols literally?

I disagree with your interpretation, not because I believe the parable should be taken literally, but because it mistakenly conflates the concepts of "bride" and guests. If an interpretation equivocates where the author does not indicate equivocation, then the interpretation is not understood the way it was intended.

What is your interpretation of Matthew 22:1-14 then? What do you believe the invitation to the wedding represents and who are the guests? What is the difference between a guest who has his or her wedding garment on and one who doesn't?

Jesus doesn't indicate equivocation. He doesn't explicitly say or imply that the guests are the bride. The concept of "the bride" indicates a larger picture, mainly focused on the kingdom that was promised to Jesus.

No, Jesus doesn't explicitly explain what the parable means like He did sometimes with other parables. He did summarize by saying "For many are called, but few are chosen" (Matt 22:14). So, what do you think that means? Who are the ones being called? What are they being called to? Who are the ones who are chosen?

The parable is not solely about being offered salvation; it primarily focuses on the coming age and who will be deemed worthy to participate in it.

That's what salvation is about. Everyone who is saved will inherit eternal life in the eternal age to come and those who are not will be cast into the lake of fire instead.

The symbol of the "bride" represents everything associated with the Father's promise to grant His Son a kingdom. The parables mainly concern the kingdom itself. The wedding signifies the inauguration of His kingship and the fulfillment of that promise. The guests symbolize those who heard the call to participate in the coming kingdom and responded positively to that invitation.

His Son already has a kingdom and His followers are in it now.

Colossians 1:12 and giving joyful thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of his holy people in the kingdom of light. 13 For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves,

At His second coming, everyone will be divided up into two groups (see Matt 25:31-46) with His followers inheriting eternal life in the eternal kingdom of God (Matt 25:34,46) and the rest being cast into "everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matt 25:41).

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yea, right, I expect all those things to be literal the same way, for example, it's raining cats and dogs outside, and that I expect the cats and dogs to be literal since the raining outside is literal. You might think I'm an idiot yet I'm not one. You treat me as if I am one by asking silly questions like that to me all the time.

It's not my fault if you take things the wrong way. I was not saying you are an idiot at all. I do believe that you have trouble differentiating between literal and symbolic text. That doesn't make you an idiot and I've never said that. No reason to make this personal. I'm certainly not trying to do that. I could say that you might think I'm an idiot since I disagree with your view, but no one is an idiot just for having an opinion.

I'm basically saying that the church is not the NJ but that the church and the NJ combined equal the bride.

So, would you say that the following verse referring to both the church and the New Jerusalem?

Revelation 19:7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. 8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.

You might then ask how can Christ marry a literal place? The same way a woman and wedding gown would equal the bride but that the husband doesn't marry the wedding gown, yet the wedding gown is part of the bride.

Sorry, but I don't buy this logic. The woman herself is the bride, not her wedding gown. The wedding gown is not part of the bride. It's clothing that the bride is wearing.

It is something she is inside of. In the same way, the NJ would be something the woman, the church, is inside of. If you can't make any sense of that then I don't know what to tell you since it at least makes sense to me to reason it in that manner.

It makes no sense to me. You don't have to tell me anything else. I think you are trying to do whatever you can to support your view that the new Jerusalem should be taken literally and that is because of doctrinal bias. I don't think you would draw these same conclusions if you were objective about this.

How else are we supposed to reason it? That it is not a literal city, thus not a literal place?

Sure, why not? You somehow have no trouble concluding that passages like Matthew 24:15-21 and 2 Peter 3:10-12 shouldn't be interpreted literally, but when it comes to Revelation 21's description of new Jerusalem, it has to be literal? How does that make sense?

Would you agree that the following is a description of the church?

Ephesians 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; 21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Is this referring to a literal, physical "building fitly framed together" and a literal, physical "holy temple"? No, right? It's describing the church figuratively. Why can't that be the case in Revelation 21 as well where it talks about the new Jerusalem with twelve gates and so on?

Maybe the garden of Eden wasn't a literal place either, right?

LOL. Do you think making false equivalences supports your case? Not at all. It's all about context. Is there anything written there at all that might suggest it wasn't a literal place? No. But, there are things that would suggest that the new Jerusalem is not a literal place, such as John calling it "the bride, the Lamb's wife" (Rev 21:9).

Maybe Adam wasn't a literal person, right? So on and so on. Where does it end if we can't accept that some things in Revelation are literal?

This is not a valid argument. You're comparing apples and oranges here. It's very clear that the book of Genesis is written mostly with a literal, historical context, so it should be interpreted as such. The book of Revelation, however, was purposely "signified" or symbolized so that only believers could understand it. It's similar to Jesus's parables in that way. That doesn't mean there is nothing literal in the book at all, but it's mostly symbolic and was purposely written that way by God's design.

Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

 

[3 Resurrections]

Revelation 20:6 tells us: "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."

What is "the second death" and what is the biblical means by which we escape it? At what point does the second death no longer have power over someone? When does that kick in?

The second death

When it comes to the meaning of “the second death” most evangelicals are in solid agreement that this is talking about eternal damnation. Revelation 20:14 tells us: “death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.”

Back to the point of the OP...

Perhaps when it comes to understanding what the "second death" is, we should clear up what the "second death" DOES NOT consist of. We are told in scripture in Hebrews 9:27 that "it is appointed unto men ONCE TO DIE, and after that the judgment." Therefore, the physical bodies of mankind are destined for ONE physical death experience ONLY - NOT TWO. This applies to the physical bodies of the wicked dead also.

This "second death" is already defined for us in the Revelation 14:14 as the occasion when both Death and Hell (Hades - meaning the grave) were to be cast into the Lake of Fire. This was NOT going to be the physical bodies of the wicked dead dying a second time, since that interpretation is denied by Hebrews 9:27, and scripture cannot contradict itself.

Instead, this was to be the SECOND TIME that the CITY OF JERUSALEM (the surrounded "beloved city" in Revelation 14:9) was to have both Death and Hell (Hades - meaning the grave) cast into it to overcome the living inhabitants of that besieged city as it burned down.

Back in 586 BC, when the Babylonian invasion of Jerusalem destroyed and burned up the city of Jerusalem and its temple, the prophet Isaiah had predicted for the men who ruled the people in Jerusalem that their agreement and their "covenant with Death and with Hell" would not stand. When the Babylonian "overflowing scourge" came to Jerusalem, these rulers who thought the city and themselves were immune from destruction would be overtaken by both of these plagues of Death and Hell (Isaiah 28:14-19). The entire book of Lamentations is a funeral dirge by the weeping prophet Jeremiah for this first death of Jerusalem.

Likewise, in the approaching AD 70 destruction, THE CITY OF JERUSALEM WOULD AGAIN DIE FOR A SECOND TIME, with both Death and Hell being cast into the city and the temple as it burned down again, virtually on the very same day of the year as its first death under the Babylonians back in 586 BC.

Those who had participated in the "First resurrection" along with Christ (the Matthew 27:52-53 resurrected saints who had gone into the city of Jerusalem in AD 33) who were still living on earth at the time were secured from being harmed by this "second death" of the city of Jerusalem being besieged and burned to the ground for a second time.

The status of bodily-resurrected saints is immortal and incorruptible - impervious to any harm from either physical disasters, physical death, illness, or even demonic oppression. That is why that "remnant of the dead" who participated in the "First resurrection" with Christ in AD 33 (the bodily-resurrected Matthew 27:52-53 saints) were called "Blessed and holy" in Revelation 20:5-6. When the AD 70 disasters for Jerusalem took place with Death and Hell coming to plague the besieged inhabitants of the city, none of it was able to affect those bodily-resurrected saints who had participated in the "First resurrection" event in AD 33.

 

[CadyandZoe]

No. There's no basis for differentiating between the terms "bride" and "wife" as it relates to Christ. The terms are used synonymously in Revelation 21:9 where it refers to the new Jerusalem as "the bride, the Lamb's wife". Do you think "the bride" in that verse is referring to a different entity than "the Lamb's wife"? It's not.

I pointed out at least two reasons for differentiating the "bride" metaphor from the "wife" metaphor. First, John uses the term "bride" is a simile. Jerusalem will come down from heaven AS a bride. Second, the "bride" metaphor contains a larger picture than the "wife" metaphor in that the "bride" metaphor not only includes people, it consists of a place and a time element.

The image relies on the wedding custom of a father giving away his daughter to be married. In this instance, God the father is giving his son an inheritance, depicted as a bride being given away to the bridegroom, which not only consists of a set of worshippers, but also a walled city with strong gates and a large domain.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I pointed out at least two reasons for differentiating the "bride" metaphor from the "wife" metaphor.

And I found those reasons to be completely unconvincing. Why didn't you answer my question? Again, Revelation 21:9 refers to "the bride, the Lamb's wife". Do you think the reference to "the bride" in that verse is a reference to a different entity than "the Lamb's wife" or are the references to "the bride" and "the Lamb's wife" in that verse referring to the same entity using two different terms?

 

[CadyandZoe]

What is your interpretation of Matthew 22:1-14 then? What do you believe the invitation to the wedding represents and who are the guests? What is the difference between a guest who has his or her wedding garment on and one who doesn't?

In that parable, "the bride" represents everything associated with the "ionic age" or "the eternal age of human fulfillment and flourishing under the rulership of Jesus Christ. The wedding guests represent everyone who has been invited to experience that age. Those who respond and attend are those whom Jesus Christ will save and place in his eternal kingdom. A wedding guest wearing the wrong clothing represents a person who is unwilling to enter eternal life on Jesus' terms, i.e. pardon, forgiveness, repentance, and belief in Jesus Christ.

No, Jesus doesn't explicitly explain what the parable means like He did sometimes with other parables. He did summarize by saying "For many are called, but few are chosen" (Matt 22:14). So, what do you think that means? Who are the ones being called?

In this context, the "chosen" refers to the Israelites whom God called out of Egypt. However, God did not limit His call to them alone; He also extended it to everyone else. Ultimately, it will become apparent that only a few of those who were chosen will be among those who responded to this call.

That's what salvation is about. Everyone who is saved will inherit eternal life in the eternal age to come and those who are not will be cast into the lake of fire instead.

Okay, but salvation is only a part of the "bride" metaphor. The bride metaphor is a much larger picture that includes not only the salvation of Jesus' followers but also a kingdom, a domain, a millennial kingdom, and much more. The Bride symbol denotes everything that the Father has promised David and Jesus Christ the king of Israel.

His Son already has a kingdom and His followers are in it now.

I agree, Paul likens the body of Christ to a kingdom, mainly because Jesus is a king. But Jesus will inherit rulership over the entire world, which has yet to be fulfilled.

 

[CadyandZoe]

And I found those reasons to be completely unconvincing.

Okay. I'm sure you have your reasons.

Why didn't you answer my question?

What question? I didn't intend to skip over it. I apologize for missing it.

Again, Revelation 21:9 refers to "the bride, the Lamb's wife". Do you think the reference to "the bride" in that verse is a reference to a different entity than "the Lamb's wife" or are the references to "the bride" and "the Lamb's wife" in that verse referring to the same entity using two different terms?

No. As I say, the "bride" metaphor denotes a much larger picture than the "wife" metaphor as we can see from the passage, which includes reference to walls and gates.

 

[WPM]

In that parable, "the bride" represents everything associated with the "ionic age" or "the eternal age of human fulfillment and flourishing under the rulership of Jesus Christ. The wedding guests represent everyone who has been invited to experience that age. Those who respond and attend are those whom Jesus Christ will save and place in his eternal kingdom. A wedding guest wearing the wrong clothing represents a person who is unwilling to enter eternal life on Jesus' terms, i.e. pardon, forgiveness, repentance, and belief in Jesus Christ.

In this context, the "chosen" refers to the Israelites whom God called out of Egypt. However, God did not limit His call to them alone; He also extended it to everyone else. Ultimately, it will become apparent that only a few of those who were chosen will be among those who responded to this call.


Okay, but salvation is only a part of the "bride" metaphor. The bride metaphor is a much larger picture that includes not only the salvation of Jesus' followers but also a kingdom, a domain, a millennial kingdom, and much more. The Bride symbol denotes everything that the Father has promised David and Jesus Christ the king of Israel.


I agree, Paul likens the body of Christ to a kingdom, mainly because Jesus is a king. But Jesus will inherit rulership over the entire world, which has yet to be fulfilled.

I would put it different:

• The wedding guests represent everyone who is subject to the Gospel invitation.
• Those who respond and attend are those who Christ will save and place in His eternal kingdom.
• The wedding guest wearing the wrong clothing represents those who profess Christ but place their faith in themselves, their own merits and their own works.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

In that parable, "the bride" represents everything associated with the "ionic age" or "the eternal age of human fulfillment and flourishing under the rulership of Jesus Christ.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. In Ephesians 5:21-31, Paul relates the relationship between a husband and his wife to the relationship between Christ and His church. The bride of Christ represents those who Christ has a personal relationship with. Why are you associating His bride with anyone or anything besides those who He has a personal spiritual relationship with? How can "the bride" refer to the eternal age? I don't believe that makes any sense.

The wedding guests represent everyone who has been invited to experience that age. Those who respond and attend are those whom Jesus Christ will save and place in his eternal kingdom. A wedding guest wearing the wrong clothing represents a person who is unwilling to enter eternal life on Jesus' terms, i.e. pardon, forgiveness, repentance, and belief in Jesus Christ.

The wedding guests who have on the proper clothing represent those who have a personal relationship with Christ and will spend eternity with Him, right? How can they not represent His bride then? Who else will He be spiritually married to, so to speak, except for the ones who He has a personal, spiritual relationship with?

In this context, the "chosen" refers to the Israelites whom God called out of Egypt.

Huh? No, that is not the context of the parable. It doesn't go back to OT times. The context in relation to the preaching of the gospel and how it was first preached to the Jews in Israel and they rejected it (not all of them, of course, but generally speaking). So, it then went out to the Gentile nations.

However, God did not limit His call to them alone; He also extended it to everyone else. Ultimately, it will become apparent that only a few of those who were chosen will be among those who responded to this call.

It's not a literal few, though. It's just relatively few in relation to the many or multitude who are called. In Revelation 7, the number of those who are saved is referred to as a great multitude.

Okay, but salvation is only a part of the "bride" metaphor. The bride metaphor is a much larger picture that includes not only the salvation of Jesus' followers but also a kingdom, a domain, a millennial kingdom, and much more. The Bride symbol denotes everything that the Father has promised David and Jesus Christ the king of Israel.

You are equating what is promised for the bride with the bride itself, which makes no sense at all.

I agree, Paul likens the body of Christ to a kingdom, mainly because Jesus is a king. But Jesus will inherit rulership over the entire world, which has yet to be fulfilled.

I beg to differ.

Matthew 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. 17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Yet to be fulfilled? Try to tell that to Jesus Himself.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Okay. I'm sure you have your reasons.

I've been giving my reasons, so they shoudn't be a mystery to you if you've actually been reading everything that I've been saying.

What question? I didn't intend to skip over it. I apologize for missing it.

It wasn't hidden. The question about Revelation 21:9 in terms of whether "the bride" is a different entity than "the Lamb's wife".

No. As I say, the "bride" metaphor denotes a much larger picture than the "wife" metaphor as we can see from the passage, which includes reference to walls and gates.

Are you saying "No", to my question which would mean you don't believe the reference to "the bride" in Revelation 21:9 is a reference to a different entity than "the Lamb's wife"? If so, then why are you still trying to differentiate those terms if they are used synonymously in Revelation 21:9?

 

[CadyandZoe]

I would put it different:

• The wedding guests represent everyone who is subject to the Gospel invitation.
• Those who respond and attend are those who Christ will save and place in His eternal kingdom.
• The wedding guest wearing the wrong clothing represents those who profess Christ but place their faith in themselves, their own merits and their own works.

I don't see much difference between what you said and what I said, except I observe that the guests are not the Bride. The Bride metaphor is a larger picture that includes everything that the Father promised the Son: land, temple, people, kingship, and dominion over all the earth.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

What part do you not understand?

In Ephesians 5:21-31, Paul relates the relationship between a husband and his wife to the relationship between Christ and His church. The bride of Christ represents those who Christ has a personal relationship with.

I am arguing that the Bride metaphor conveys a much larger picture than the church alone. It also includes a domain, a land, a temple, a city, and a millennial rule over Israel.

Why are you associating His bride with anyone or anything besides those who He has a personal spiritual relationship with?

We understand the Bride metaphor from Revelation 21, where John includes not only people, but a place, a city, gates and much more. This indicates to me that the Bride metaphor is a larger picture than the Wife Metaphor.

How can "the bride" refer to the eternal age? I don't believe that makes any sense.

Why not?

The wedding guests who have on the proper clothing represent those who have a personal relationship with Christ and will spend eternity with Him, right?

Yes.

How can they not represent His bride then?

Because they are the guests.

Who else will He be spiritually married to, so to speak, except for the ones who He has a personal, spiritual relationship with?

We agreed that the church is his wife. The Bride metaphor is a much larger picture.

Huh? No, that is not the context of the parable.

The parable depicts a wedding invitation that first goes out to local people, such as a farmer and a businessman. Then, the invitation is offered to those further away, such as those on the highway. In my view, the first group represents the Jewish people, and the second group represents the Gentiles.

Jesus says "many are called", referring to everyone whom the slaves invited. Then he says "few are chosen" indicating the Jewish people. Jesus laments that among all those who were called, few of them were also among the chosen people.

It doesn't go back to OT times.

Why not?

The context in relation to the preaching of the gospel and how it was first preached to the Jews in Israel and they rejected it (not all of them, of course, but generally speaking). So, it then went out to the Gentile nations.

Of course.

You are equating what is promised for the bride with the bride itself, which makes no sense at all.

How so?

I beg to differ.

Matthew 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. 17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Yet to be fulfilled? Try to tell that to Jesus Himself.

According to Daniel 10, Jesus will be granted dominion over all the kingdoms of the earth. This promise is one aspect of the Bride metaphor. And Jesus has not yet been granted dominion over all the kingdoms of the earth.