THE BRIDE OF CHRIST

[Elin]

Thanks, and no. . .your own prophetic proof text presents the wife and bride as the New Jerusalem,
not in the New Jerusalem, which text you alter to agree with your theology.

That's esiegesis.

When the plain sense makes common sense, seek no other sense.

Is that in the Bible somewhere?

Who decides if it makes "common" sense?

Really, I think the meaning speaks for itself, it's literal, simple, easy to understand meaning. New Jerusalem will be 1500 square miles wide and high, with 200 ft thick walls, gold as pure as glass and precious stones being the foundation for the gates.
Is it really that difficult to understand?

Strawman gaming. . .

It's not about understanding.

It's not a riddle, not a dark saying. Why must you read into it more than what it is?
Am I really eisegeting to say I agree with the very words of the text?

Strawman gaming. . .

You don't agree with very words of the text which you eisegeted.

We have deep hermeneutical differences, we both think the other reads more into the text,

Strawman. . .

I do not think you read more into the text.

but I really sincerely ask you,
why must these details be uncertain? They are concrete, descriptive, involve actual lengths and heights, they give a picture of what the New Jerusalem will be, isn't is a great description? Beautiful, simple, wonderful.

Strawman gaming. . .

It's not about the certainty of the description.

I like the analogy of being like the Holy of Holies, the details you gave about gold and precious stones, that certainly gives meaning, But
am I really eisegeting to say I believe these details are real and true, aren't I just being a Biblicist?

Strawman gaming. . .

You don't believe the details are true in the text which you eisegeted.

Please, I beg you.

For what?

Non-responsive post.

 

[watcher2013]

Forsaken and Desolated

Was the Church ever been forsaken or has it ever been desolated? I think the answer is very clear…NO and NEVER WAS…
How about Jerusalem:
Jer 4:29 The whole city shall flee for the noise of the horsemen and bowmen; they shall go into thickets, and climb up upon the rocks: every city shall be forsaken, and not a man dwell therein.
Jer 7:34 Then will I cause to cease from the cities of Judah, and from the streets of Jerusalem, the voice of mirth, and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bride: for the land shall be desolate.

Based from the above verses, Jerusalem has been Forsaken and it has been desolated and history will agree with that.
Jerusalem has been literally desolated.

Isaiah’s version of the Bride:

Isa 62:1 For Zion's sake will I not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest, until the righteousness thereof go forth as brightness, and the salvation thereof as a lamp that burneth.
Isa 62:2 And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the LORD shall name.
Isa 62:3 Thou shalt also be a crown of glory in the hand of the LORD, and a royal diadem in the hand of thy God.
Isa 62:4 Thou shalt no more be termed Forsaken; neither shall thy land any more be termed Desolate: but thou shalt be called Hephzibah, and thy land Beulah: for the LORD delighteth in thee, and thy land shall be married.

The fulfilment as to the timing of this vision was uncertain, however there are things we are sure of:

1. It was talking about Jerusalem. (verse 1)
2. Gentiles seeing the righteousness of Jerusalem (verse 2)
3. Jerusalem will have a new name. (verse 2)
4. Confirmation that it was indeed talking about Jerusalem because of the termed Forsaken and Desolate.( verse 4)
5. Jerusalem shall be Married (verse 4)

What we know about Jerusalem in the Book of revelation:

1. It is the name of the city of God, which is new Jerusalem (Rev 3:12),(a parallel fulfilment of no.3).
2. The Saved Nations (including gentiles) will walk in it (Rev 21:24), (a parallel fulfilment of No. 2)
3. The New Jerusalem shall be married ( Rev 21:9), a parallel fulfilment of No. 5

But to whom Jerusalem shall be married?

Isa 62:5 For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee: and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee.

From verse 5:
We see Jerusalem sons (children) was compared to a young man (husband) marrying a virgin (Jerusalem, the Bride).
Incest? No.
Clearly it was a figurative language, and moreover;

The Bridegroom rejoiced over the Bride:

In verse 5, we can also see that God was compared to the Bridegroom rejoicing over the Bride, Jerusalem.

God as the Bridegroom and Jerusalem son (children) as a young man, is a parallel fulfilment of Jesus as (the bridegroom) being the Head, and the Church his body (young man) and the NEW JERUSALEM,THE WIFE, THE BRIDE, THE CITY OF GOD.

So Yashua, there is no need for the body to come out of the Head, because it is not the Bride.

Jesus is the Head...
the Church is the Body:
The new Jerusalem is the Bride....

Soon at the marriage they will become One...

From the very beginning that was the purpose...God dwelling with his people...

First In the garden...then in the wilderness (tabernacle)..then the temple in Jerusalem and then (the flesh temple of God - Jesus Christ)..then we are looking for that New Jerusalem the New Bride where God will dwell with his people.

 

[Elin]

Jesus is the Head...
the Church is the Body:
The new Jerusalem is the Bride....

According to certain and unequivocal NT teaching,

Jesus is the head of the church, his body and the wife (Eph 5:31-32), who is the bride (Rev 21:9),
who is the New Jerusalem.

Church = body = wife = bride = New Jerusalem.

That is the word of God.

Soon at the marriage they will become One...

Christ the head is one with his body and wife, who is his bride, the New Jerusalem (Gal 4:25-26;
Heb 12:22), now.

That is the NT word of God.

 

[watcher2013]

tell that to Isaiah

 

[Elin]

Yahshua, I like what you've said about the prophetic gift. I do think the prophets had an understanding of their prophecies, but I think the deeper issue is just that
Elin has a fundamental presupposition that prophecy can't or shouldn't be understood.

Let's be accurate instead of loose.

Da 2 is understood, Rev 17:15-18 is understood, the dreams of Pharoah and his two officials are
understood, all having been explained by the revelator.

Prophecy is a different genre but it should still be
interpreted according to historico-grammatical interpretation. I'm not sure if Elin believes this.

The practical translation of that for you is "literal."

The dreams interpreted by Daniel and Joseph were not literal, nor is Rev 17:15-18.
"Prophecy is literal" is a human, not a Biblical prinicple.

I like the analogy of being like the Holy of Holies, the details you gave about
gold and precious stones, that certainly gives meaning,

They more than must give meaning, they show the prophecy is symbolic and not literal.

But again, the interpretation presented regarding the description of the New Jerusalem is no more certain than any other interpretation regarding the description of the New Jerusalem.

 

[Elin]

Jesus is the Head...
the Church is the Body:
The new Jerusalem is the Bride....

According to certain and unequivocal NT teaching,

Jesus is the head of the church, his body and wife (Eph 5:31-32), who is the bride (Rev 21:9), who is the New Jerusalem.

Church = body = wife = bride = New Jerusalem.

That is the word of God.

Soon at the marriage they will become One...

Christ the head is one with his body and wife, who is his bride, the New Jerusalem (Gal 4:25-26; Heb 12:22), now.

That is the NT word of God.

tell that to Isaiah

So the uncertain private interpretation of the prophetic riddles of Isaiah
contradicts the certain and unequivocal teaching of the NT in Eph 5:31-32; Gal 4:25-26; Heb 12:22.

Your hermeneutic needs some help. . .it sets Scripture against itself.

 

[watcher2013]

So the uncertain private interpretation of the prophetic riddles of Isaiah
contradicts the certain and unequivocal teaching of the NT in Eph 5:31-32; Gal 4:25-26; Heb 12:22.

Your hermeneutic needs some help. . .it sets Scripture against itself.

NO...It contradict your non sense.

 

[weakness]

I have just read all 14 pages. I must say at first there was some stimulating post, or worth looking into but now!! maybe I have had enough. I just wanted to inject some similar scripture and see if anybody had insight,You were saying the body is really a part of Christ and not the bride( at one point) and got me thinking about other examples for the believers. are the temple and are building the temple ,apostles are foundation and master builders, we Gods husbandry and laborers together with God and sowers of seed for husbandry waters,we are his workmanship also his workers,out of our bellies living water, under the throne living water, we are the building also the builders,we are the bride also the wife, we are the husband also the bride In new Jerusalem servants serve him but we are son and not servants,144000 are firstborn ,church is firstborn. We are Gods temple yet no temple in new Jerusalem.New Jerusalem preparedas a bride not as the bride, were are a pillar in the house of God but we are married to it These are real scriptures and do not ignore them think instead of speak for awhile quick to hear slow to speak, study to be quiet, Your dialog was confusing . God is not the author of confusion. We really should be edifying one another and out preaching the kindness and goodness of God and doing it . All this debate today got you not one centimeter closer to Gods kingdom . there are so many in need out there they need to see the gospel through you. Plus it will be a GREAT blessing to you.And you would see some of those miracles that are not seen any more Grace and peace in Christ Jesus

 

[Elin]

So the uncertain private interpretation of the prophetic riddles of Isaiah
contradicts the certain and unequivocal teaching of the NT in Eph 5:31-32; Gal 4:25-26; Heb 12:22.

Your hermeneutic needs some help. . .it sets Scripture against itself.

NO...It contradict your non sense.

I understand that is your opinion, but it must be supported with demonstration to have merit.

You have not addressed my responses to your last allegations of non-sense.

 

[watcher2013]

I understand that is your opinion, but it must be supported with demonstration to have merit.

You have not addressed my responses to your last allegations of non-sense.

because it is not worth responding. it was left un answered for the viewers to see your defence.
you should be delighted you have the last word.

 

[Elin]

Based from this analysis and from revelation 3:12;

Which is your uncertain private interpretation of prophetic riddles, which can be, and are, validly interpreted by others to mean things entirely different, and which particular uncertain interpretation contradicts certain NT teaching,

The Bride of the Lamb is not the same as the Church, but the Price for the Church

Except for that part where

1) the certain and unequivocal teaching that because
the church is the body of Christ (Eph 1:22-23, 4:12; 1Co 12:7; Col 1:18, 24),
as Eve was the body of Adam (Eph 5:30; Ge 2:23),
the church is, therefore, the wife of Christ
in the two-in-one enfleshment of the marital union (Eph 5:31-32),
as Eve was the wife of Adam in the two-in-one enfleshment of the maritial union (Ge 2:24).

2) And except for the certain and unequivocal NT teaching that Christ is the Lamb (Jn 1:29, 36; 1Pe 1:19).

3) And except that your our own proof text states that the New Jerusalem is the wife of the Lamb (Rev 21:9-10).

4) And except for certain NT teaching that Christ is the Lamb (Jn 1:29) whose wife is the church (Eph 5:31-32).

"Other than" those four glaring contradictions of it,
you are in perfect agreement with certain and unequivocal NT teaching.

Try as you might with your theology that divides and separates what God has joined,
you cannot overcome the certain NT teaching that
the New Jerusalem is the wife of Christ the Lamb, whose wife is the church.

And you've presented nothing which overcomes this certain and unequivocal NT teaching.

So it's not for lack of very specific, clear and certain NT teaching that the church is the New Jerusalem, the wife of Christ the Lamb, it is simply unbelief of that certain and unequivocal NT teaching.

You are simply being obdurate in the face of the unequivocal facts presented in certain NT teaching.

Your hermeneutic needs some help. . .it sets Scripture against itself.

NO...It contradict your non sense.

I understand that is your opinion, but it must be supported with demonstration to have merit.

You have not addressed my responses to your last allegations of non-sense.

because it is not worth responding. it was left un answered for the viewers to see your defence.

I agree.

It speaks for itself.

 

[konroh]

Elin, you believe Daniel 2 and Rev. 17 are certain interpretations, but I really don't understand how you rip just those two chapters from their entirety of prophetic revelation. The entire books of Daniel and Revelation are prophetic, they all need to be understood naturally. I understand that you don't seem to like the idea that all of the Bible must be taken literally, because what I really mean by that is that all the Bible must be taken naturally, in its historical context, following the rules of grammar and language and genre, and each verse must be taken in its own meaning and within its context both near (chapter) and far (book, author, genre, testament, Bible). I think we actually agree on this.

What we disagree on is how much of prophecy to take symbolically and how much to take at face value (literally). What I have been attempting to show is that with all the details we have about the New Jerusalem, does it make sense to take all the details as being symbolic and not literal (length, width, ornamentation)? Or does it make sense to take it as having real meaning, yet we have the statement that the Bride of Christ is the New Jerusalem. This can be taken as a figurative expression for the fact that all the saints, both the Old and New Testament believers, will enjoy living in the New Jerusalem, and so this beautiful city which the OT saints longed for (Heb. 11) will be the eternal home of God's people, and will be Christ's bride.

Does it make more sense to find symbolic all the details of the New Jerusalem, or does it make sense to take the phrase "the Bride of Christ is the New Jerusalem" as synecdoche, a beautiful picture of peace, security and comfort?

If you wish to respond by saying I'm making the riddle have more meaning than the certain, unequivocal teaching of the NT, then please don't bother, I beg you.

 

[homwardbound]

In Acts 10: Peter introduced to Cornelius Jesus without introducing the whole Law...The Holy Ghost fell on them which hear the word...NOT THE LAW...

I am not against the Law...but against the teaching of those who by their post keep pulling the Gentiles believer into the Law...

Doers of the Law of .love need not the law, and Cornelius's family prayed this to know God, Peter still underr law from time to time and beinmg in unredeeemd flesh preached the law and even had them water Baptized after they were already Spirit baptized.
I understand and know we are not under Law, The Mosaic, or any law. We are free to do
So here comes the warfare of the evil forces in high places, planting thoughts in the head. Those fiery darts that appear to be righteous and are not. Such as what the Corinthians received, they were forgiven and are. And they thought since they are forgiven, they could just do what they want, and that is what they did, and harmed their neighbor, which today still goers on. So Paul had to put them under Law. and for anyone taking God's grace for granted need to be under law, to come to appreciation of God's Mercy, grace given to all or:
Hebrews 2:3 how shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;
Hebrews 10:28 He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

The Spirit of God and Grace go hand in hand for us to appreciate and not take for granted or use Christ as an escape goat, thanks

 

[homwardbound]

Salvation comes to all...Whether you are under the law or Have not the Law...

And will all believe God in this, over mankind, and accept and be?

 

[Elin]

If you wish to respond by saying I'm making the riddle have more meaning than the certain, unequivocal teaching of the NT, then please don't bother, I beg you.

Your request is granted.

Elin, you believe Daniel 2 and Rev. 17 are certain interpretations, but I really don't understand how you rip just those two chapters from their entirety of prophetic revelation. The entire books of Daniel and Revelation are prophetic, they all need to be understood naturally. I understand that you don't seem to like the idea that all of the Bible must be taken literally, because what I really mean by that is that all the Bible must be taken naturally, in its historical context, following the rules of grammar and language and genre, and each verse must be taken in its own meaning and within its context both near (chapter) and far (book, author, genre, testament, Bible). I think
we actually agree on this.

What we disagree on is how much of prophecy to take symbolically and how much to take at face value (literally).

That is precisely the issue. . .and we do agree on the former.

And apart from an objective authoritative explanation of the meaning of prophetic riddles,
there is no certain subjective interpretation of them.

What I have been attempting to show is that with all the details we have about the New Jerusalem,
does it make sense to take all the details as being symbolic and not literal (length, width, ornamentation)? Or does it make sense to take it as having real meaning, yet we have the statement that the
Bride of Christ is the New Jerusalem. This can be taken as a figurative expression

So we agree. . .some of it is figurative, and not all of it is literal.

That's why, apart from meaning given by the revelator (e.g., Da 2, dreams of Pharoah
and officials, Rev 17:15-18), private interpretation of prophetic riddles is uncertain.

Your rule for determining what is figurative and what is literal is "it makes sense."

Apart from that not being a Biblical standard,
do you not see that is merely a subjective evaluation?

What makes sense to you does not necessarily make sense to others.
That should be as plain as the nose on your face.

What does "make sense" is that your rule "it make sense" does not make sense as an
objective standard by which to measure uncertain meanings.

For example, I offered a figurative private uncertain interpretation (here) that is more in agreement
with the NT (Rev 21:9; Eph 5:31-32; Gal 4:25-26; Heb 12:22) than is your literal interpretation.

this beautiful city which the OT saints longed for (Heb. 11)

Heb 11:16 states that the city has been prepared for them, and God's promise of an everlasting
possession is fulfilled in the heavenly land/city in which they are now dwelling (Heb 11:13),
which is why God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has fulfilled his promise (Ge 15:9-21)
to the patriarchs of an everlasting land/city (Heb 11:16).
The city is now, the NT church of both departed and living saints in Christ (Heb 12:23).

will be the eternal home of God's people, and will be Christ's bride.

Does it make more sense to find symbolic all the details of the New Jerusalem,
or does it make sense to take the phrase
"the Bride of Christ is the New Jerusalem" as synecdoche, a beautiful picture of peace, security and comfort?

Apart from "making sense" not being a Biblical standard,

it is also purely subjective, not an objective standard by which to measure uncertain meanings.

What does "make sense" is an objective standard by which to measure uncertain meanings.

 

[Elin]

P.S. to post immediately above:

What I have been attempting to show is that with all the details we have about the New Jerusalem,
does it make sense to take all the details as being symbolic and not literal (length, width, ornamentation)? Or does it make sense to take it as having real meaning, yet we have the statement that the
Bride of Christ is the New Jerusalem. This can be taken as a figurative expression.

So we agree. . .some of it is figurative, and not all of it is literal.

That's why, apart from meaning given by the revelator (e.g., Da 2, dreams of Pharoah and officials, Rev 17:7-18),
private interpretation of prophetic riddles is uncertain.

Note that at Rev 22:17 in your prophetic riddle,

"The Spirit and the bride say, 'Come!' "

Two things are noteworthy:

1) The verb "say" is in the present tense, for the bride is now.

2) The bride (who is also the wife, Rev 21:9) speaks, which makes the bride a person;
i.e., the church (Eph 5:31-32) composed of both OT and NT saints.

And then there is Heb 12:23 which locates the "spirits of righteous men" (OT saints) in the

heavenly city now (v. 22), which is the bride and wife (Rev 21:9) of Christ the Lamb (Jn 1:29),

which makes it the church (Eph 5:31-32). Therefore,

church = body = wife = bride = New Jerusalem.

 

[watcher2013]

I agree.

It speaks for itself.

Did you quoted your whole response, if not you should.

Anyway, just to add to your non sense

Here in Post no 71 in page 4 of this thread
In your response to Gal 4:25-26, you have argued that those O.T believers represents those who are slaves to the law, which by your logic do not belong to the Heavenly Jerusalem…

It's an analogy, not a doctrinal statement,

wherein the heavenly Jerusalem represents the free in Christ (the church of NT believers),
while the earthly Jerusalem represents the slaves to the law (OT believers, under the law).
The church is the the New Jerusalem (Heb 12:22; Rev 21:14), the Bride of the Lamb (Rev 21:2, 9-10).

And here again in your subsequent response in post no 91, page no 5 of this thread:
You again argued that those OT. Believers represent the Old (Sinaitic) Covenant, or shall we say the Mosaic Covenant and do not belong to the New Covenant.
Wherein, the new covenant is the Heavenly Jerusalem above which is the Church.
You even noted that the heavenly Jerusalem is allegorized as those free in Christ in the New Covenant, which is the church, and NOT as those (O.T Believers)who are slaves under the law in the Old Covenant.

You've lost me again.

Gal 4:25-26 is an allegory of comparison using the two mothers, Hagar and Sarah,
one a slave and the other free, to represent the Old (Sinaitic) Covenant and the
New Covenant in Christ, wherein the Jerusalem that is above represents those who are free in Christ
in the New Covenant, which is with the NT people of God, the church.
I note that the heavenly Jerusalem is allegorized as those free in Christ in the New Covenant,
which is the church, and not as those who are slaves under the law in the Old Covenant.
That is the point of the allegory.
It's not a statement about motherhood, it's an allegorical comparison of slavery and
freedom under the two covenants, using motherhood as the vehicle of allegory to
represent slavery under the law and freedom in Christ.

By your logic above and by your continuous argument that:
The Church (N.T believers)=Bride=New Jerusalem,
The O.T believers, who were under the Mosaic Covenant, cannot be part of the New Jerusalem.
(e.g, David, Solomon, Joshua, the Prophets etc who were under the Mosaic Covenant)
However, after it was shown to you that the New Jerusalem was a price for the Patriarchs and the Prophets, you have shifted your argument,
from your post no 234 page 12 of this thread

The text allows no such option.
It presents the New Jerusalem as the wife of Christ the Lamb.
All those, both OT and NT, who have been redeemed by Christ are the church
(Heb 12:23, "spirits of the righteous").
Nor is the New Jerusalem "representative" of the church, it is the church,
the wife of Christ the Lamb, made up of both OT and NT saints.

See how you shifted from the New Jerusalem as the NT Believers ONLY…to now include BOTH.
With all your certain and unequivocal teaching defense…YOU ARE NOT CERTAIN TO YOURSELF.
You are just full of NON SENSE

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Yes, in the NT Greek, it is ekklesia, meaning "called-out assembly," and refers to NT believers.

Actually, it just means an assembly. or a gathering together of a group of people for a purpose.

It was used of the assembly gathering together in government terms.

It was also used of Isreal being the ekklesia of God.

and it is used of the church, as an assembly gathered together.

 

[watcher2013]

Doers of the Law of love need not the law, and Cornelius's family prayed this to know God, Peter still underr law from time to time and beinmg in unredeeemd flesh preached the law and even had them water Baptized after they were already Spirit baptized.
I understand and know we are not under Law, The Mosaic, or any law. We are free to do
So here comes the warfare of the evil forces in high places, planting thoughts in the head. Those fiery darts that appear to be righteous and are not. Such as what the Corinthians received, they were forgiven and are. And they thought since they are forgiven, they could just do what they want, and that is what they did, and harmed their neighbor, which today still goers on. So Paul had to put them under Law. and for anyone taking God's grace for granted need to be under law, to come to appreciation of God's Mercy, grace given to all or:
Hebrews 2:3 how shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;
Hebrews 10:28 He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

The Spirit of God and Grace go hand in hand for us to appreciate and not take for granted or use Christ as an escape goat, thanks

See how you put them back in the Law with your story...
You uses warfare of evil forces...etc. to support your argument that Paul had to put back the Corinthian under the Law...(Please provide the scriptures that support your argument)
That is not so Paul, on the other hand...Paul suggested in 1 Cor 5 that the gentile believer who committed fornication (who had relationship with his father's wife) To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

See how you put them back in the Law with your story...
You uses warfare of evil forces...etc. to support your argument that Paul had to put back the Corinthian under the Law...(Please provide the scriptures that support your argument)
That is not so Paul, on the other hand...Paul suggested in 1 Cor 5 that the gentile believer who committed fornication (who had relationship with his father's wife) To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

ok I just noticed there are 12 pages already.. Wow. not going to read and respond to them all. Will just try to stick to current debate.. Sorry