Indisputable proof that the Premillennial theory contradicts Scripture

[Spiritual Israelite]

In Revelation 20, thrones are associated with the activity of judging, which indicates a group of people who will rule and govern. In the Bible, the term "judge" often refers to someone who is appointed to rule over the people. For example, the book of Judges illustrates this role. In the context of Revelation 20, thrones are established for individuals like Peter and the other apostles who have been resurrected to rule with Christ for a thousand years. Matthew 15:27-29

In your view, this judging occurs when Jesus returns, right? Look at Matthew 25:31-46. Does that look like a description of ruling that goes on for a thousand years or is it instead a case of judging people in terms of handing out eternal rewards or punishments?

That's right. The "New Earth" will see a restoration of the current planet. Jesus tells his apostles that they will rule over the twelve tribes during the time of the restoration.

The new earth is eternal. It will be a place where there is no more death, crying, sorrow or pain (Rev 21:4). The thousand years has nothing to do with the new earth.

Paul argues that we have "come" to the heavenly Jerusalem, meaning that through Jesus Christ, we have come to the Jerusalem that God is building.

Right, so the new heavenly Jerusalem is not just a future entity, but a current one as well.

The New Jerusalem is a physical place where Jesus rules over his followers. It is both a city and a people. During the millennial period, Jesus will also meet with the nations in this place.

Nope. You have decided to interpret symbolic text literally which results in a confused doctrine that makes no sense. The bride of Christ, which the new Jerusalem is (Rev 21:2,9) is not a physical city. He's not the bridegroom of a physical city. He doesn't have a personal relationship with a city. That's ridiculous. His relationship is with His church.

True. But he doesn't refer to the church as the bride.

In contrast, the analogy is between husband and wife, not husband and bride as you suggested. The church is currently the body of Christ. However the "bride" metaphor suggests a future relationship, not currently a reality.

The terms "bride" and "wife" are synonyms, so you're wrong to try to differentiate between those terms.

Revelation 21:9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.

Is "the bride" in this verse a different entity than "the Lamb's wife" or are they the same entity? They clearly are the same.

If it was obvious, it would be clearly and explicitly stated.

That's what people who lack spiritual discernment and need to have scripture spoon fed to them say.

We are discussing figurative language. No attempt is being made to divide what Jesus brought together. I simply take issue with your presupposition that the kingdom is only a spiritual condition in the hearts of believers.

I have never said that. We are in Christ's kingdom (the kingdom of God) spiritually now, but will inherit it in its fullness in the future, which is referenced in verses like 1 Corinthians 15:50 and Matthew 25:34.

Other than your assumption that John's vision is meant to indicate the spiritual condition of the church of Christ, what specific wording of the passage indicates a "spiritual" church, rather than a physical circumstance? You and I certainly agree that one gains "entrance" into the church through the apostles and prophets, i.e. through their teaching and witness. But in this context, why does John indicate that the unrighteous will not be able to enter through the gates? Is it true that the unrighteous are not able to enter the church if they repent?

It is referring to the future time when it will be too later for the unrighteous to repent. They will be cast into the lake of fire when Jesus returns. If you read Matthew 25:31-46, you should see that the goats represent unbelievers who, when Jesus comes with His angels, will be judged and cast into "everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels". You have that happening a thousand plus years later, which doesn't line up with Matthew 25:31-46 and other scriptures which have that happening at the end of the age (Matt 13:36-43, Matt 13:47-50) which is when Jesus will return (Matt 24:3).

The New Jerusalem is not symbolic of the church; it is a physical city where only the righteous are allowed to enter.

The church is the bride of Christ and the new Jerusalem is His bride (Rev 21:2,9). Therefore, the New Jerusalem is symbolic of the church. Very simple.

John describes in vivid detail what happens when Satan is released. He goes out into the world, proposing to bring the nations against the camp of the Saints. And while the nations were camped around the city, fire came down from heaven and devoured them. No actual fighting takes place, the battle is preempted by the destruction of the opposition.

That's how you see it with your carnal way of looking at things, but it's describing the global opposition to the church in a symbolic way. I believe Revelation 20:9 refers to the same event as 2 Peter 3:10-12. If you want to believe that a number of people "as the sand of the sea" will somehow all travel to Jerusalem to try to attack the city, then so be it. I think that is as farfetched as it gets and is not a reasonable thing to believe. I'd love to see you try to explain the logistics of that if it was meant to be taken literally the way you understand it.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

@WPM
I appreciate the both of you. I am not feeling well at the moment and our fellowship together is helping me pass the time. I hope you both have a wonderful Thanksgiving with family and friends.

You, too. I hope you feel better by tomorrow, at least.

 

[CadyandZoe]

"Implied" is theological speak for "it is not there!"

Perhaps -- sometimes. But when I say something is implied, I mean it is understood from a larger context.

 

[CadyandZoe]

In your view, this judging occurs when Jesus returns, right?

This judging takes place during the millennial period after Jesus returns.

Look at Matthew 25:31-46. Does that look like a description of ruling that goes on for a thousand years or is it instead a case of judging people in terms of handing out eternal rewards or punishments?

The latter. Matthew 25:31-46 depicts a single judgment event with universal, eternal consequences. Revelation 20:4 would certainly include this event. However, Revelation 20:4 doesn't rule out other judgment events or even thousands of years of rulership.

The new earth is eternal. It will be a place where there is no more death, crying, sorrow or pain (Rev 21:4). The thousand years has nothing to do with the new earth.

Well, I guess I have more work to do.

Right, so the new heavenly Jerusalem is not just a future entity, but a current one as well.

I am uncertain about Paul's point in Hebrews 12. Jesus and the apostles often speak of the immutable nature of God's promises, using "heaven" metaphorically to emphasize the indestructibility and unwavering certainty of these promises coming to fruition.

Immutable: God's promises are described as immutable because they are unchanging and everlasting. Unlike human promises, which can be broken or altered, God's promises are believed to be steadfast and reliable. This idea is often rooted in the belief in God's omnipotence and faithfulness. For instance, in the Bible, Hebrews 6:18 states that it is "impossible for God to lie," emphasizing the unwavering nature of divine promises.

Indestructible: The indestructible quality of God's promises underscores their permanence and resilience. Regardless of the challenges and tribulations encountered in life, believers hold that God's promises remain intact and unshaken. This belief provides a source of comfort and hope, reinforcing the faith that, ultimately, God's will and purpose will prevail.

Using heaven symbolically captures these qualities, portraying a vision of ultimate fulfillment where God's promises are fully realized. This vision encourages believers to remain faithful and hopeful, even in the face of life's uncertainties and hardships.

In other words, did Paul mean to suggest that the New Jerusalem is an actuality in heaven? Or Did Paul mean to say that the New Jerusalem is a potentiality with eternal qualities?

Nope. You have decided to interpret symbolic text literally which results in a confused doctrine that makes no sense. The bride of Christ, which the new Jerusalem is (Rev 21:2,9) is not a physical city.

I am skeptical of your take on this because John includes a lot of detail concerning the city's physicality. For instance, if the city is symbolic of something, then what do the gates represent and what do the gems represent? John never develops the metaphor, leaving the reader to guess?

That's what people who lack spiritual discernment and need to have scripture spoon fed to them say.

My objection is honest and valid. What did you mean to say? Is it fair of us to claim that our opinions are "obviously" correct?

I have never said that.

You didn't need to say it; the idea that Jesus's role as king is to rule over a collection of spiritual people is a basic tenet of the Amillennial view. We are in the millennial period now, because Jesus is ruling over his church now.

We are in Christ's kingdom (the kingdom of God) spiritually now, but will inherit it in its fullness in the future, which is referenced in verses like 1 Corinthians 15:50 and Matthew 25:34.

We are discussing your objection to my eschatological position. You accused me of denying that Jesus united both Jews and Gentiles into one body through his blood. I don't believe I've said anything that would lead to your objection.

I see now that my earlier objection to your supposition was unclear. I incorrectly (and inadvertently) couched my objection in terms of "God's kingdom", rather than "The millennial kingdom." According to amillennialism, Christ is currently reigning spiritually from heaven, and His kingdom is already present among believers. This view emphasizes the spiritual and heavenly aspects of Christ's reign, rather than a future earthly kingdom.

I do not deny that Jesus has united both Jewish and Gentile believers into one body by his blood. I do not deny that Christ is currently reigning spiritually from heaven and that his kingdom is already present among believers. However, I take issue with Amillennialists who reject the idea of a future millennial kingdom where Christ will physically rule on Earth for a thousand years. Revelation 20 doesn't discount the possibility of a future reign of Christ on earth.

It is referring to the future time when it will be too later for the unrighteous to repent. They will be cast into the lake of fire when Jesus returns. If you read Matthew 25:31-46, you should see that the goats represent unbelievers who, when Jesus comes with His angels, will be judged and cast into "everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels". You have that happening a thousand plus years later, which doesn't line up with Matthew 25:31-46 and other scriptures which have that happening at the end of the age (Matt 13:36-43, Matt 13:47-50) which is when Jesus will return (Matt 24:3).

My question related to an exegesis of Revelation 20, and I was looking for statements that would deny an earthly reign of Christ.

Nonetheless, I don't remember locating the Sheep/Goat Judgment at the end of the thousand years. Bear in mind that the Premillennial view does not hold that cataclysmic destruction of the Earth immediately follows the Second coming of Christ.

The church is the bride of Christ and the new Jerusalem is His bride (Rev 21:2,9). Therefore, the New Jerusalem is symbolic of the church. Very simple.

But can you point to a passage where this idea is made explicit?

That's how you see it with your carnal way of looking at things, but it's describing the global opposition to the church in a symbolic way.

Let's be honest. Claiming your opponent has an epistemological disadvantage is a theory lacking the ability to be tested.

I believe Revelation 20:9 refers to the same event as 2 Peter 3:10-12. If you want to believe that a number of people "as the sand of the sea" will somehow all travel to Jerusalem to try to attack the city, then so be it. I think that is as farfetched as it gets and is not a reasonable thing to believe.

Incredulity isn't proof.

 

[CadyandZoe]

You, too. I hope you feel better by tomorrow, at least.

@WPM
Thanks for your encouragement and your kind fellowship. I am feeling a bit better now.

 

[Truth7t7]

Nope. You have decided to interpret symbolic text literally which results in a confused doctrine that makes no sense. The bride of Christ, which the new Jerusalem is (Rev 21:2,9) is not a physical city. He's not the bridegroom of a physical city. He doesn't have a personal relationship with a city. That's ridiculous. His relationship is with His church.

Scripture below shows a city that has walls, foundations, gates, precious stones, nations of the saved walking in it?

Please explain how you take what's written below describing God's eternal dwelling place "The Tabernacle Of God" and claim it's "The Church"?

Revelation 21:10-27KJV
3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,
11 Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal;
12 And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:
13 On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates.
14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
15 And he that talked with me had a golden reed to measure the city, and the gates thereof, and the wall thereof.
16 And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal.
17 And he measured the wall thereof, an hundred and forty and four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of the angel.
18 And the building of the wall of it was of jasper: and the city was pure gold, like unto clear glass.
19 And the foundations of the wall of the city were garnished with all manner of precious stones. The first foundation was jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, a chalcedony; the fourth, an emerald;
20 The fifth, sardonyx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh, chrysolyte; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, a topaz; the tenth, a chrysoprasus; the eleventh, a jacinth; the twelfth, an amethyst.
21 And the twelve gates were twelve pearls: every several gate was of one pearl: and the street of the city was pure gold, as it were transparent glass.
22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.
23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.
24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.
25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.
26 And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.
27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Scripture below shows a city that has walls, foundations, gates, precious stones, nations of the saved walking in it?

Please explain how you take what's written below describing God's eternal dwelling place "The Tabernacle Of God" and claim it's "The Church"?

Revelation 21:10-27KJV
3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,
11 Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal;
12 And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:
13 On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates.
14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
15 And he that talked with me had a golden reed to measure the city, and the gates thereof, and the wall thereof.
16 And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal.
17 And he measured the wall thereof, an hundred and forty and four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of the angel.
18 And the building of the wall of it was of jasper: and the city was pure gold, like unto clear glass.
19 And the foundations of the wall of the city were garnished with all manner of precious stones. The first foundation was jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, a chalcedony; the fourth, an emerald;
20 The fifth, sardonyx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh, chrysolyte; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, a topaz; the tenth, a chrysoprasus; the eleventh, a jacinth; the twelfth, an amethyst.
21 And the twelve gates were twelve pearls: every several gate was of one pearl: and the street of the city was pure gold, as it were transparent glass.
22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.
23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.
24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.
25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.
26 And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.
27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

Do you have something against symbolism? Is it somehow offensive to you? The beast is said to have seven heads and ten horns. Are those seven literal heads and ten literal horns? No, right? So, why do "walls, foundations, gates, precious stones" have to be literal? The church is symbolically described as "the building fitly framed together" which "groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord" in Ephesians 2:21. Why can't it be described symbolically in Revelation as well? Do you believe that Jesus is or will be spiritually married to a physical city? How does that make any sense? How can anything but the church be "the bride, the Lamb's wife" (Rev 21:9)?

 

[Truth7t7]

Do you have something against symbolism? Is it somehow offensive to you? The beast is said to have seven heads and ten horns. Are those seven literal heads and ten literal horns? No, right? So, why do "walls, foundations, gates, precious stones" have to be literal? The church is symbolically described as "the building fitly framed together" which "groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord" in Ephesians 2:21. Why can't it be described symbolically in Revelation as well? Do you believe that Jesus is or will be spiritually married to a physical city? How does that make any sense? How can anything but the church be "the bride, the Lamb's wife" (Rev 21:9)?

You've been shown "Several Times" over the years that the symbolism of (The Beast) is interpreted in the very chapter Rev 17 given and you know this Israelite, 7 heads are literal mountains, 10 horns are literal kings

The holy city New Jerusalem will be in the eternal New Heaven and Earth, it has measurements and the righteous saved walking into its gates, it will have the river of life with fish, nets, and fishermen, also the tree of life that bears fruit for food every month, your symbolic allegory of the afore mentioned is a "Farce"!

 

[jeffweeder]

The holy city New Jerusalem will be in the eternal New Heaven and Earth, it has measurements and the righteous saved walking into its gates, it will have the river of life with fish, nets, and fishermen, also the tree of life that bears fruit for food every month, your symbolic allegory of the afore mentioned is a "Farce"!

Are you sure?

1 Corinthians 6:13

Amplified Bible

​

13 Food is for the stomach and the stomach for food, but God will do away with both of them.

 

[Truth7t7]

Are you sure?

1 Corinthians 6:13​

​

Amplified Bible​

​

​

13 Food is for the stomach and the stomach for food, but God will do away with both of them.

The New Heaven, Earth, Jerusalem, explained

Below you see houses built and inhabited, vineyards planted and eaten, you see the wolf, lamb, lion, and bullock living together, and the lion is no more a carnivore but is eating grass/straw in peace, a return to the garden of eden IMHO

Isaiah 65:17-25KJV
17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
18 But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.
19 And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.
20 There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.
21 And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them.
22 They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.
23 They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the Lord, and their offspring with them.
24 And it shall come to pass, that before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear.
25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the Lord.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You've been shown "Several Times" over the years that the symbolism of (The Beast) is interpreted in the very chapter Rev 17 given and you know this Israelite, 7 heads are literal mountains, 10 horns are literal kings

But, it's not a literal beast and they are not literal heads and horns. Likewise, the gates of New Jerusalem are not literal gates. So, you completely missed the point, as you so often do. You clearly don't understand how symbolism works. The symbols in Revelation are always described as if they were literal, but we know they are not.

The holy city New Jerusalem will be in the eternal New Heaven and Earth, it has measurements and the righteous saved walking into its gates, it will have the river of life with fish, nets, and fishermen, also the tree of life that bears fruit for food every month, your symbolic allegory of the afore mentioned is a "Farce"!

If you want to believe that Jesus will be spiritually married to a literal, physical city (remember, New Jerusalem is "the bride, the Lamb's wife" - Rev 21:9), that's your choice. But, it's a ridiculous thing to believe.

 

[Truth7t7]

But, it's not a literal beast and they are not literal heads and horns. Likewise, the gates of New Jerusalem are not literal gates. So, you completely missed the point, as you so often do. You clearly don't understand how symbolism works. The symbols in Revelation are always described as if they were literal, but we know they are not.


If you want to believe that Jesus will be spiritually married to a literal, physical city (remember, New Jerusalem is "the bride, the Lamb's wife" - Rev 21:9), that's your choice. But, it's a ridiculous thing to believe.

Yes the Lord has prepared New Jerusalem (The Father's House) there will be a literal eternal spiritual kingdom that will have houses built and inhabited, vineyards planted and eaten, a marriage supper that will have drink at the Lord's table in the Father's House

Just as the disciples handled and touched the body of Jesus Christ after the resurrection, a body that ate tangible earthly food, that vanished out of sight in a closed room, the mystery of the glorified body that will be received at the resurrection of the dead and changing of the living

New Jerusalem is the (Father's House) his eternal dwelling place amongst the saved as the scripture clearly teaches, I look forward to the New Heaven, Earth, and Jerusalem God's promise

John 14:2-3KJV
2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

Matthew 26:29KJV
29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

Revelation 19:9KJV
9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Do you have something against symbolism? Is it somehow offensive to you? The beast is said to have seven heads and ten horns. Are those seven literal heads and ten literal horns? No, right? So, why do "walls, foundations, gates, precious stones" have to be literal? The church is symbolically described as "the building fitly framed together" which "groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord" in Ephesians 2:21. Why can't it be described symbolically in Revelation as well? Do you believe that Jesus is or will be spiritually married to a physical city? How does that make any sense? How can anything but the church be "the bride, the Lamb's wife" (Rev 21:9)?

In the Parable of the wedding feast, Matthew 22, who are the attendants? In the Parable of the Ten Virgins, who do the virgins represent? Are all symbolic representations allegorical in form?

 

[CadyandZoe]

But, it's not a literal beast and they are not literal heads and horns. Likewise, the gates of New Jerusalem are not literal gates. So, you completely missed the point, as you so often do. You clearly don't understand how symbolism works. The symbols in Revelation are always described as if they were literal, but we know they are not.


If you want to believe that Jesus will be spiritually married to a literal, physical city (remember, New Jerusalem is "the bride, the Lamb's wife" - Rev 21:9), that's your choice. But, it's a ridiculous thing to believe.

What statement or statements in the passage would lead someone to conclude that the gates were not literal/ physical gates?

Why gates, or walls?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

In the Parable of the wedding feast, Matthew 22, who are the attendants? In the Parable of the Ten Virgins, who do the virgins represent? Are all symbolic representations allegorical in form?

Answering questions with questions? I'm not into that type of discussion. If you answer my questions, then I'll answer yours.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

What statement or statements in the passage would lead someone to conclude that the gates were not literal/ physical gates?

It doesn't just spell it out to us that it's symbolic. It's something that can be spiritually discerned by looking at other scripture. The fact that the New Jerusalem is referred to as "the bride, the Lamb's wife" (Rev 21:9) highly suggests that the description of the New Jerusalem having gates is not meant to be taken literally. How exactly can a literal, physical city be considered the bride of Christ? That makes no sense.

Who is Christ's wife that the following passage is referring to?

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.

Does Jesus have more than one bride/wife? No. So, there's no reason to think that His wife mentioned here is a different wife than the one mentioned in Revelation 21.

Why gates, or walls?

I believe that the gates symbolize how anyone is free to enter the church (by way of repenting and putting their trust in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior). Jesus talked about entering the kingdom of God "through the narrow gate" (Matt 7:13-14). Obviously, He wasn't talking about a literal gate there.

Proverbs 14:19 Evildoers will bow down in the presence of the good, and the wicked at the gates of the righteous.

Here is another verse that uses the term "gates" in a symbolic sense in reference to God's people. I'm not saying this verse necessarily relates directly to the New Jerusalem, but I'm just showing that there's no reason to think that a reference to gates has to be taken literally.

I believe the walls symbolize how those who are in the church are secure and protected by God as His people.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Answering questions with questions? I'm not into that type of discussion. If you answer my questions, then I'll answer yours.

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.

 

[CadyandZoe]

It doesn't just spell it out to us that it's symbolic. It's something that can be spiritually discerned by looking at other scripture.

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.

The fact that the New Jerusalem is referred to as "the bride, the Lamb's wife" (Rev 21:9) highly suggests that the description of the New Jerusalem having gates is not meant to be taken literally. How exactly can a literal, physical city be considered the bride of Christ? That makes no sense.

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

Who is Christ's wife that the following passage is referring to?

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.

Does Jesus have more than one bride/wife? No. So, there's no reason to think that His wife mentioned here is a different wife than the one mentioned in Revelation 21.

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.

 

[Davidpt]

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

Since I tend to think outside the box a lot, I tend to look at it like the following, right or wrong. In a real world application a bride consists of herself and a wedding gown. Which could mean the NJ symbolizes the wedding gown. It would still mean that the city is literal the same way the wedding gown would be literal per a real world application. And besides, the following passage below undeniably proves that the body of Christ is not the NJ. The body of Christ will be dwelling in the NJ, not are the NJ. The same way a bride would be dwelling in a wedding dress but is not the wedding dress itself.

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

Not one single person would insist that the name of His God, meaning the Father, is also meaning the overcomers. He writes upon the overcomers the name of His God and not, His God and the overcomers are one and the same. The same logic has to apply to this part as well--I will write upon him the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God. And not, the overcomers and the NJ are one and the same. The text plainly says Jesus writes the name of the city of His God upon the overcomers and not, the city of His God and the overcomers are one and the same. If that's true then it's equally true that His Father and the overcomers are one and the same, which of course is ludicrous. Which means one would be cherry picking unless they are applying both parts in the same manner.

Apparently, some interpreters must think that since Revelation is full of symbolism, this means nothing can be taken as literal. I wonder if some of these same interpreters took the garden of Eden to be a literal place? Because if they did, keeping in mind it too was paradise as is the new Jerusalem, why then would Eden be a literal place but the NJ wouldn't be?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Since I tend to think outside the box a lot, I tend to look at it like the following, right or wrong. In a real world application a bride consists of herself and a wedding gown. Which could mean the NJ symbolizes the wedding gown. It would still mean that the city is literal the same way the wedding gown would be literal per a real world application. And besides, the following passage below undeniably proves that the body of Christ is not the NJ. The body of Christ will be dwelling in the NJ, not are the NJ. The same way a bride would be dwelling in a wedding dress but is not the wedding dress itself.

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

Not one single person would insist that the name of His God, meaning the Father, is also meaning the overcomers. He writes upon the overcomers the name of His God and not, His God and the overcomers are one and the same. The same logic has to apply to this part as well--I will write upon him the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God. And not, the overcomers and the NJ are one and the same. The text plainly says Jesus writes the name of the city of His God upon the overcomers and not, the city of His God and the overcomers are one and the same. If that's true then it's equally true that His Father and the overcomers are one and the same, which of course is ludicrous. Which means one would be cherry picking unless they are applying both parts in the same manner.

Apparently, some interpreters must think that since Revelation is full of symbolism, this means nothing can be taken as literal. I wonder if some of these same interpreters took the garden of Eden to be a literal place? Because if they did, keeping in mind it too was paradise as is the new Jerusalem, why then would Eden be a literal place but the NJ wouldn't be?

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?

I don't understand why you can't accept that verses like Revelation 3:12 are all symbolic. Do you have a problem with symbolism? It's not as if it symbolizes something fictional. It symbolizes something real, which is the church. Christ's followers. Both as individuals (each figuratively being a pillar) and collectively (as the temple of God/the church). We aren't going to just inherit some literal city called new Jerusalem, we are going to inherit the entire new heavens and new earth.