Revelation 19- A major Key to understanding Revelations

[Revelation1v8]

Ezekiel 37 does talk about reuniting the northern and southern kingdoms, but here’s the part you’re missing: Ezekiel gives the vision in Israel’s own categories, but the New Testament tells you what those categories ultimately point to. The prophets always speak in the symbolic world of Israel’s history — tribes, land, kings, temple, exile — because that’s the language their audience understands.
But the apostles consistently show that those symbols reach their final fulfillment in Christ’s kingdom, not in a rebuilt geopolitical Israel. So you’re right that Ezekiel 37 depicts the reunification of the twelve tribes; what you’re not seeing is how Scripture says that reunification actually happens.

Ezekiel 37’s two sticks represent the historic division between Judah and Israel, but the NT says the true reunification happens when Christ creates one new people out of Jew and Gentile (Ephesians 2), which is why Paul calls the Church “the Israel of God” (Galatians 6:16) and why James addresses the twelve tribes in diaspora as believers in Christ (James 1:1); the prophets use Israel’s tribal imagery to describe the restoration of God’s people, but the apostles reveal the mystery that the restored people are those united to the Messiah, not a future political merger of ancient tribes; this is exactly how prophetic fulfillment works — Isaiah’s Zion becomes the worldwide people of God, Jeremiah’s New Covenant becomes the covenant in Christ’s blood, Amos’s rebuilt Davidic tent becomes the Gentile inclusion (Acts 15), and Ezekiel’s reunited tribes become the one body of Christ; you’re treating Ezekiel’s imagery as the final form, but Scripture itself shows that prophetic symbols expand into their Christ‑centered fulfillment, meaning the “whole house of Israel” is not a future tribal census but the unified people of God brought together under the one Shepherd, the Son of David

I guess I've always viewed this a little bit differently. I've always believed that "all Israel will be saved" included believing Jews, Gentiles, and the land of Israel itself for the purpose of the Millennial Kingdom period before the New Jerusalem made our relationship together as permanent and different.

I still sincerely believe that the whole purpose of the Millennial Kingdom period was for Jesus to fulfill the Abrahamic & Davidic covenants for the people that He has always claimed that He "has set apart" before we're all joined together in the New Jerusalem, so that the number of cultural Jews would significantly increase before the permanent kingdom sets in. While I know there will be no difference between Jews & Gentiles in the permanent kingdom, I believe the Millennial Kingdom has been set apart for this reason. A fulfilled promise literally, physically, and spiritually.

 

[OMC]

I guess I've always viewed this a little bit differently. I've always believed that "all Israel will be saved" included believing Jews, Gentiles, and the land of Israel itself for the purpose of the Millennial Kingdom period before the New Jerusalem made our relationship together as permanent and different.

I still sincerely believe that the whole purpose of the Millennial Kingdom period was for Jesus to fulfill the Abrahamic & Davidic covenants for the people that He has always claimed that He "has set apart" before we're all joined together in the New Jerusalem, so that the number of cultural Jews would significantly increase before the permanent kingdom sets in. While I know there will be no difference between Jews & Gentiles in the permanent kingdom, I believe the Millennial Kingdom has been set apart for this reason. A fulfilled promise literally, physically, and spiritually.

You’re treating the Millennial Kingdom as a separate redemptive program designed to fulfill the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants for ethnic Israel, increase the number of cultural Jews, and temporarily preserve Jew–Gentile distinction before the New Jerusalem, but the New Testament never teaches a two‑stage kingdom, never teaches a temporary return to ethnic hierarchy, and never teaches a future era where Jesus restores land‑based tribal identity before dissolving it again; instead, the apostles consistently teach that the Abrahamic promise is fulfilled in Christ Himself (Galatians 3:16), that the Davidic throne is fulfilled in Christ’s present reign (Acts 2:30–36), that the “Israel of God” is the one unified people of Christ (Galatians 6:16), and that “all Israel will be saved” refers to the full ingathering of God’s elect—Jew and Gentile together—under the one Shepherd, not a future ethnic expansion program; your system requires a temporary kingdom where ethnic Israel receives land, political restoration, tribal multiplication, and national exaltation before the eternal kingdom, but the NT says the dividing wall is already broken (Ephesians 2), the kingdom is already inaugurated (Colossians 1:13), the promises already belong to those in Christ (2 Corinthians 1:20), and the new creation is the next event after Christ’s return, not a thousand‑year ethnic interlude; in short, you’re inserting a transitional kingdom with ethnic priority that the apostles never describe, because you’re reading OT prophetic imagery as final form rather than as symbolic categories that reach their fulfillment in Christ’s unified people.

 

[Revelation1v8]

You’re treating the Millennial Kingdom as a separate redemptive program designed to fulfill the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants for ethnic Israel, increase the number of cultural Jews, and temporarily preserve Jew–Gentile distinction before the New Jerusalem, but the New Testament never teaches a two‑stage kingdom, never teaches a temporary return to ethnic hierarchy, and never teaches a future era where Jesus restores land‑based tribal identity before dissolving it again; instead, the apostles consistently teach that the Abrahamic promise is fulfilled in Christ Himself (Galatians 3:16), that the Davidic throne is fulfilled in Christ’s present reign (Acts 2:30–36), that the “Israel of God” is the one unified people of Christ (Galatians 6:16), and that “all Israel will be saved” refers to the full ingathering of God’s elect—Jew and Gentile together—under the one Shepherd, not a future ethnic expansion program; your system requires a temporary kingdom where ethnic Israel receives land, political restoration, tribal multiplication, and national exaltation before the eternal kingdom, but the NT says the dividing wall is already broken (Ephesians 2), the kingdom is already inaugurated (Colossians 1:13), the promises already belong to those in Christ (2 Corinthians 1:20), and the new creation is the next event after Christ’s return, not a thousand‑year ethnic interlude; in short, you’re inserting a transitional kingdom with ethnic priority that the apostles never describe, because you’re reading OT prophetic imagery as final form rather than as symbolic categories that reach their fulfillment in Christ’s unified people.

I disagree and the reason I do is because of the fact that there's a Millennial Kingdom at all. If the kingdom was already inaugurated, there would be no need to even mention a period of 1,000 years of peace on earth or Jesus reigning from Jerusalem and even referring to Heaven as the New Jerusalem. I think you're ignoring why there's a 1,000 year period mentioned at all. I think you're forgetting what the Disciples believed about the Kingdom.

Acts 1:6-7

6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

Jesus never denied that that there would be a restored kingdom to Israel, He just told them that they wouldn't be the ones to know the time or the season for which it would happen.

There's a reason we have the Old Testament combined with the New Testament, they are both equally important to the fulfillment of God's plans and promises.

 

[OMC]

I disagree and the reason I do is because of the fact that there's a Millennial Kingdom at all. If the kingdom was already inaugurated, there would be no need to even mention a period of 1,000 years of peace on earth or Jesus reigning from Jerusalem and even referring to Heaven as the New Jerusalem. I think you're ignoring why there's a 1,000 year period mentioned at all. I think you're forgetting what the Disciples believed about the Kingdom.

Acts 1:6-7

6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

Jesus never denied that that there would be a restored kingdom to Israel, He just told them that they wouldn't be the ones to know the time or the season for which it would happen.

There's a reason we have the Old Testament combined with the New Testament, they are both equally important to the fulfillment of God's plans and promises.

Your entire framework depends on one assumption: that the existence of a “1,000‑year reign” in Revelation 20 requires a future, earthly, ethnic‑Israel kingdom where Jesus restores land, tribal identity, and national hierarchy before the eternal state.
But that assumption is not in the text — it’s in your system.
Let me show you, plainly, where the disconnect is

You think the Millennium must be a separate kingdom because it is “the reason I do is because of the fact that there's a Millennial Kingdom at all.”
But Revelation 20 never says:
Jesus reigns from Jerusalem
ethnic Israel is restored
land promises are fulfilled
tribal identity returns
Gentiles are subordinate
the Abrahamic covenant is fulfilled in a geopolitical way
the Davidic throne moves to earthly Jerusalem
the Millennium is a “practice kingdom” before the real one

You import all of that from your system.

Revelation 20 only says:
Christ reigns
the saints reign with Him
Satan is bound
judgment comes afterward
That’s it.

Everything else you attach to the Millennium is external.

You appeal to Acts 1:6–7 — but Jesus corrects their expectation, He doesn’t affirm it.
The disciples ask: “Will You restore the kingdom to Israel?”
They are thinking political restoration, land, tribes, Davidic monarchy — exactly the framework you’re defending.

Jesus does not say:
“Yes, but later.”
“Yes, in the Millennium.”
“Yes, after the church age.”
“Yes, after the Gentiles come in.”

He says: “It is not for you to know the times or seasons…”
And then immediately redirects them to: “You will receive power… and be My witnesses to the ends of the earth.”
He shifts their expectation from:
ethnic kingdom → global mission
land restoration → Spirit empowerment
tribal identity → worldwide church
Acts 1 is not Jesus affirming a future ethnic kingdom.
Acts 1 is Jesus reframing the kingdom entirely.

You say the kingdom can’t be inaugurated because there’s a Millennium.
But the NT repeatedly says the kingdom is already present:
“He has delivered us into the kingdom of His Son.” (Col 1:13)
“The kingdom of God is in your midst.” (Luke 17:21)
“We are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken.” (Heb 12:28)
“He must reign until He puts all enemies under His feet.” (1 Cor 15:25)

The Millennium is not a second kingdom.
It is the same kingdom, described symbolically in apocalyptic genre.

You’re treating Revelation 20 as a literal chronological chart.
But Revelation is the most symbolic book in Scripture.

You say the Millennium exists to fulfill the Abrahamic & Davidic covenants.
But the NT says those covenants are fulfilled in Christ, not in a future ethnic kingdom:
Abrahamic → “The promise was made to Abraham and to his Seed… and that Seed is Christ.” (Gal 3:16)
Davidic → “God has seated Him on David’s throne.” (Acts 2:30–36)
Land → “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.” (Matt 5:5)
People → “There is one new man, not Jew and Gentile.” (Eph 2:14–16)

Your system requires:
land → ethnic Israel
throne → earthly Jerusalem
kingdom → geopolitical restoration
fulfillment → literal tribal expansion

The apostles say:
land → new creation
throne → heavenly reign
kingdom → present reality
fulfillment → Christ-centered, not ethnicity-centered

You’re reading the OT as final form.
The NT reads the OT as shadow → fulfillment.

You say the Millennium must be ethnic because the OT promises are “equally important.”
Yes — but the NT tells you how they are fulfilled.
The OT gives the imagery.The NT gives the interpretation.
You’re treating the OT imagery as the final blueprint.
The apostles treat it as symbolic categories pointing to Christ.
This is the core difference between your system and the apostolic hermeneutic.

You believe:
OT promises → literal ethnic fulfillment → Millennium → then unity in New Jerusalem.

The NT teaches:
OT promises → fulfilled in Christ → unity now → consummation in new creation.

Your system requires:
two kingdoms
two peoples
two fulfillments
two stages of unity
two thrones
two Jerusalems
two redemptive programs

The NT gives:
one kingdom
one people
one Shepherd
one throne
one Jerusalem
one fulfillment
one redemptive program
You’re defending a two-stage kingdom the apostles never describe.

 

[Revelation1v8]

I disagree and the reason I do is because of the fact that there's a Millennial Kingdom at all. If the kingdom was already inaugurated, there would be no need to even mention a period of 1,000 years of peace on earth or Jesus reigning from Jerusalem and even referring to Heaven as the New Jerusalem. I think you're ignoring why there's a 1,000 year period mentioned at all. I think you're forgetting what the Disciples believed about the Kingdom.

Acts 1:6-7

6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

Jesus never denied that that there would be a restored kingdom to Israel, He just told them that they wouldn't be the ones to know the time or the season for which it would happen.

There's a reason we have the Old Testament combined with the New Testament, they are both equally important to the fulfillment of God's plans and promises.

I accidentally left out why I believe both the Old & New Testaments are equally important and I think it shows why Jews believe the way they do and New Testament Christians believe what they do...

Jesus IS the God of the Old Testament and the New Testament; the Alpha & Omega in Isaiah 44:6, Isaiah 41:4, Revelation 1:8,11,18 and Revelation 21:6 and Revelation 22:3.

Personally, I believe that this revelation is hidden from many from both camps and this entire revelation needs to be revealed to all. The reason I believe it is currently hidden is in order for God to fulfill all of the prophecies outlined in the Bible.

 

[OMC]

I accidentally left out why I believe both the Old & New Testaments are equally important and I think it shows why Jews believe the way they do and New Testament Christians believe what they do...

Jesus IS the God of the Old Testament and the New Testament; the Alpha & Omega in Isaiah 44:6, Isaiah 41:4, Revelation 1:8,11,18 and Revelation 21:6 and Revelation 22:3.

Personally, I believe that this revelation is hidden from many from both camps and this entire revelation needs to be revealed to all. The reason I believe it is currently hidden is in order for God to fulfill all of the prophecies outlined in the Bible.

The New Testament never teaches that God hides the meaning of the Old Testament from the church; it teaches the opposite, that the mystery once hidden is now revealed in Christ (Ephesians 3:3–6), that the veil is removed in Him (2 Corinthians 3:14–16), and that the apostles openly proclaim that all the promises of God find their Yes in Christ (2 Corinthians 1:20); the reason Jews interpret the OT one way and Christians interpret it another is not because God is hiding the truth until the Millennium, but because unbelief blinds (Romans 11:7–8) and faith unveils (2 Corinthians 3:16), meaning the difference is spiritual sight, not prophetic concealment; your system assumes God must keep the OT meaning “hidden” so He can later fulfill land promises, tribal restoration, and ethnic expansion, but the NT says those promises are already fulfilled in the Messiah Himself — the Seed of Abraham (Galatians 3:16), the Son of David reigning now (Acts 2:30–36), and the One who makes Jew and Gentile one new man (Ephesians 2:14–16); in other words, you’re treating “Jesus is Yahweh” as a reason to preserve OT categories into a future ethnic kingdom, while the apostles treat “Jesus is Yahweh” as the reason those categories reach their final fulfillment in Him, not in a temporary Millennial stage.

 

[Revelation1v8]

Your entire framework depends on one assumption: that the existence of a “1,000‑year reign” in Revelation 20 requires a future, earthly, ethnic‑Israel kingdom where Jesus restores land, tribal identity, and national hierarchy before the eternal state.
But that assumption is not in the text — it’s in your system.
Let me show you, plainly, where the disconnect is

You think the Millennium must be a separate kingdom because it is “the reason I do is because of the fact that there's a Millennial Kingdom at all.”
But Revelation 20 never says:
Jesus reigns from Jerusalem
ethnic Israel is restored
land promises are fulfilled
tribal identity returns
Gentiles are subordinate
the Abrahamic covenant is fulfilled in a geopolitical way
the Davidic throne moves to earthly Jerusalem
the Millennium is a “practice kingdom” before the real one

You import all of that from your system.

Revelation 20 only says:
Christ reigns
the saints reign with Him
Satan is bound
judgment comes afterward
That’s it.

Everything else you attach to the Millennium is external.

You appeal to Acts 1:6–7 — but Jesus corrects their expectation, He doesn’t affirm it.
The disciples ask: “Will You restore the kingdom to Israel?”
They are thinking political restoration, land, tribes, Davidic monarchy — exactly the framework you’re defending.

Jesus does not say:
“Yes, but later.”
“Yes, in the Millennium.”
“Yes, after the church age.”
“Yes, after the Gentiles come in.”

He says: “It is not for you to know the times or seasons…”
And then immediately redirects them to: “You will receive power… and be My witnesses to the ends of the earth.”
He shifts their expectation from:
ethnic kingdom → global mission
land restoration → Spirit empowerment
tribal identity → worldwide church
Acts 1 is not Jesus affirming a future ethnic kingdom.
Acts 1 is Jesus reframing the kingdom entirely.

You say the kingdom can’t be inaugurated because there’s a Millennium.
But the NT repeatedly says the kingdom is already present:
“He has delivered us into the kingdom of His Son.” (Col 1:13)
“The kingdom of God is in your midst.” (Luke 17:21)
“We are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken.” (Heb 12:28)
“He must reign until He puts all enemies under His feet.” (1 Cor 15:25)

The Millennium is not a second kingdom.
It is the same kingdom, described symbolically in apocalyptic genre.

You’re treating Revelation 20 as a literal chronological chart.
But Revelation is the most symbolic book in Scripture.

You say the Millennium exists to fulfill the Abrahamic & Davidic covenants.
But the NT says those covenants are fulfilled in Christ, not in a future ethnic kingdom:
Abrahamic → “The promise was made to Abraham and to his Seed… and that Seed is Christ.” (Gal 3:16)
Davidic → “God has seated Him on David’s throne.” (Acts 2:30–36)
Land → “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.” (Matt 5:5)
People → “There is one new man, not Jew and Gentile.” (Eph 2:14–16)

Your system requires:
land → ethnic Israel
throne → earthly Jerusalem
kingdom → geopolitical restoration
fulfillment → literal tribal expansion

The apostles say:
land → new creation
throne → heavenly reign
kingdom → present reality
fulfillment → Christ-centered, not ethnicity-centered

You’re reading the OT as final form.
The NT reads the OT as shadow → fulfillment.

You say the Millennium must be ethnic because the OT promises are “equally important.”
Yes — but the NT tells you how they are fulfilled.
The OT gives the imagery.The NT gives the interpretation.
You’re treating the OT imagery as the final blueprint.
The apostles treat it as symbolic categories pointing to Christ.
This is the core difference between your system and the apostolic hermeneutic.

You believe:
OT promises → literal ethnic fulfillment → Millennium → then unity in New Jerusalem.

The NT teaches:
OT promises → fulfilled in Christ → unity now → consummation in new creation.

Your system requires:
two kingdoms
two peoples
two fulfillments
two stages of unity
two thrones
two Jerusalems
two redemptive programs

The NT gives:
one kingdom
one people
one Shepherd
one throne
one Jerusalem
one fulfillment
one redemptive program
You’re defending a two-stage kingdom the apostles never describe.

I'm going to be perfectly honest with you here. I've seen your introduction post and I see that you are a teacher of the New Testament, but I think it's hindering your ability to spend more time and study in the Old Testament to really dig deeper into how and why the O.T. and N.T. fit together. My last post that you haven't seen goes into greater detail about this.

I can't express enough how important the following verse is:

Luke 24:44 - And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

 

[Revelation1v8]

The New Testament never teaches that God hides the meaning of the Old Testament from the church; it teaches the opposite, that the mystery once hidden is now revealed in Christ (Ephesians 3:3–6), that the veil is removed in Him (2 Corinthians 3:14–16), and that the apostles openly proclaim that all the promises of God find their Yes in Christ (2 Corinthians 1:20); the reason Jews interpret the OT one way and Christians interpret it another is not because God is hiding the truth until the Millennium, but because unbelief blinds (Romans 11:7–8) and faith unveils (2 Corinthians 3:16), meaning the difference is spiritual sight, not prophetic concealment; your system assumes God must keep the OT meaning “hidden” so He can later fulfill land promises, tribal restoration, and ethnic expansion, but the NT says those promises are already fulfilled in the Messiah Himself — the Seed of Abraham (Galatians 3:16), the Son of David reigning now (Acts 2:30–36), and the One who makes Jew and Gentile one new man (Ephesians 2:14–16); in other words, you’re treating “Jesus is Yahweh” as a reason to preserve OT categories into a future ethnic kingdom, while the apostles treat “Jesus is Yahweh” as the reason those categories reach their final fulfillment in Him, not in a temporary Millennial stage.

Here's the thing though, Jesus isn't only hiding the revelation of Jesus from the Jews. In the New Testament, he's hiding from some Christians, the revelation of Jesus as the God of the Old Testament. I believe the reason is due to the ability for God to fulfill all of His plans in Zechariah, chapter 12 through 14. There's an anti-semitic problem going on among some Christians right now, but I believe it's because it's the only way to allow these chapters to unfold and the complete fulfillment of prophecy to come to fruition.

 

[OMC]

I'm going to be perfectly honest with you here. I've seen your introduction post and I see that you are a teacher of the New Testament, but I think it's hindering your ability to spend more time and study in the Old Testament to really dig deeper into how and why the O.T. and N.T. fit together. My last post that you haven't seen goes into greater detail about this.

I can't express enough how important the following verse is:

Luke 24:44 - And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

Brother i have laid bare all i can on the subject in the most understandable way i can, If your finding fault with what I wrote then please let's go there and work it through together. That includes OT. I want AI to describe what it is scriptural theologists do so you don't think what I say is bias in its description.
A scriptural theologian is someone who builds all theology directly from the biblical text itself, letting Scripture’s own grammar, context, and literary shape determine meaning rather than any external system, tradition, or denominational framework. They begin with exegesis, not with a pre‑built doctrinal grid, and they refuse to force verses into patterns the text does not establish. Their work moves in one direction only: from the words the inspired authors actually wrote → to the meaning those words carry in their historical and literary setting → to the theology that emerges from that meaning. They do not start with a theological system and then make Scripture fit it; they let Scripture dismantle or reshape any system that cannot survive close textual scrutiny. A scriptural theologian treats prophetic visions as visions, poetry as poetry, narrative as narrative, and apocalyptic as apocalyptic — always asking what the biblical author intended, not what later interpreters assumed. Their loyalty is to the text, not to charts, timelines, denominational traditions, or inherited frameworks. In short, a scriptural theologian is someone who lets the Bible interpret the Bible, who follows the text wherever it leads, and who refuses to override the plain subject‑chain, grammar, or literary signals of Scripture with external expectations or theological pressure.
This includes all scripture OT and NT. Both need each other and are meaningless without unity. I study OT just as faithfully as NT.

 

[Revelation1v8]

Brother i have laid bare all i can on the subject in the most understandable way i can, If your finding fault with what I wrote then please let's go there and work it through together. That includes OT. I want AI to describe what it is scriptural theologists do so you don't think what I say is bias in its description.
A scriptural theologian is someone who builds all theology directly from the biblical text itself, letting Scripture’s own grammar, context, and literary shape determine meaning rather than any external system, tradition, or denominational framework. They begin with exegesis, not with a pre‑built doctrinal grid, and they refuse to force verses into patterns the text does not establish. Their work moves in one direction only: from the words the inspired authors actually wrote → to the meaning those words carry in their historical and literary setting → to the theology that emerges from that meaning. They do not start with a theological system and then make Scripture fit it; they let Scripture dismantle or reshape any system that cannot survive close textual scrutiny. A scriptural theologian treats prophetic visions as visions, poetry as poetry, narrative as narrative, and apocalyptic as apocalyptic — always asking what the biblical author intended, not what later interpreters assumed. Their loyalty is to the text, not to charts, timelines, denominational traditions, or inherited frameworks. In short, a scriptural theologian is someone who lets the Bible interpret the Bible, who follows the text wherever it leads, and who refuses to override the plain subject‑chain, grammar, or literary signals of Scripture with external expectations or theological pressure.
This includes all scripture OT and NT. Both need each other and are meaningless without unity. I study OT just as faithfully as NT.

If we both want to be totally honest with ourselves, there is no way to completely remove bias from our ability to read scripture and how we read it. We're all different in how we perceive things because we were created that way. We were meant to see and experience things differently. I have a twin sister. We grew up and shared the exact same experiences, but when we talk about them, she sees them totally different than I do. I don't want you to feel like I'm personally attacking you and I apologize if I came across that way. Unfortunately, it's all this way for a reason and I believe it plays a big role in how prophecy get fulfilled. Love you, friend!

 

[OMC]

If we both want to be totally honest with ourselves, there is no way to completely remove bias from our ability to read scripture and how we read it. We're all different in how we perceive things because we were created that way. We were meant to see and experience things differently. I have a twin sister. We grew up and shared the exact same experiences, but when we talk about them, she sees them totally different than I do. I don't want you to feel like I'm personally attacking you and I apologize if I came across that way. Unfortunately, it's all this way for a reason and I believe it plays a big role in how prophecy get fulfilled. Love you, friend!

You’re absolutely right that none of us come to Scripture without bias, and pretending otherwise is just self‑deception, but the difference between honest bias and destructive bias is whether we let the text correct us or whether we force the text to fit what feels right to us; you’re not attacking, and I never took you that way — you’re naming the reality that two people can share the same Bible, the same Spirit, the same covenant, and still see different angles because God wired us differently, and that’s fine, but the responsibility of a scriptural theologian is to let the grammar, subject‑chain, and authorial intent override our instincts when they conflict, because that’s the only way to keep bias from becoming doctrine; your heart is in the right place — you love the OT, you love the NT, you see them as one unified revelation from the same God, and you’re trying to honor that unity — but unity doesn’t mean flattening the genres or forcing prophetic imagery into literal fulfillment when the apostles themselves reinterpret those images in Christ; and you’re right that God uses human differences in how prophecy unfolds, but He never uses those differences to contradict the textual signals He gave us, which is why I keep pressing the grammar, not your sincerity; you’re a brother, not an opponent, and the fact that you can step back, acknowledge bias, apologize if needed, and still hold firm to your convictions tells me you’re not here to win an argument — you’re here to sharpen iron, and that’s exactly the posture God honors

 

[Revelation1v8]

You’re absolutely right that none of us come to Scripture without bias, and pretending otherwise is just self‑deception, but the difference between honest bias and destructive bias is whether we let the text correct us or whether we force the text to fit what feels right to us; you’re not attacking, and I never took you that way — you’re naming the reality that two people can share the same Bible, the same Spirit, the same covenant, and still see different angles because God wired us differently, and that’s fine, but the responsibility of a scriptural theologian is to let the grammar, subject‑chain, and authorial intent override our instincts when they conflict, because that’s the only way to keep bias from becoming doctrine; your heart is in the right place — you love the OT, you love the NT, you see them as one unified revelation from the same God, and you’re trying to honor that unity — but unity doesn’t mean flattening the genres or forcing prophetic imagery into literal fulfillment when the apostles themselves reinterpret those images in Christ; and you’re right that God uses human differences in how prophecy unfolds, but He never uses those differences to contradict the textual signals He gave us, which is why I keep pressing the grammar, not your sincerity; you’re a brother, not an opponent, and the fact that you can step back, acknowledge bias, apologize if needed, and still hold firm to your convictions tells me you’re not here to win an argument — you’re here to sharpen iron, and that’s exactly the posture God honors

The more I study the Bible, the more I come to the realization (even if it's only my own realization) that the same text has many meanings and I read them in a way in which they have both a literal AND a spiritual meaning behind them.

 

[OMC]

The more I study the Bible, the more I come to the realization (even if it's only my own realization) that the same text has many meanings and I read them in a way in which they have both a literal AND a spiritual meaning behind them

What you’re sensing when you say “the same text has many meanings” is actually the normal experience of someone whose mind is finally seeing how Scripture works at full depth.
You’re not imagining it, and you’re not doing anything wrong.
You’re noticing that God often speaks in layers — a literal layer rooted in history, and a spiritual layer rooted in Christ — and both are real because both come from the same Author.
The mistake people make is thinking those layers mean “multiple interpretations,” but what you’re actually encountering is one inspired meaning expressed through multiple dimensions of God’s plan.
The literal meaning anchors the text; the spiritual meaning unfolds from it.
When you read that way, you’re not adding meanings — you’re tracing the way God Himself carries a promise from its immediate context into its ultimate fulfillment.
That’s not confusion. That’s maturity.
And it’s exactly how the apostles read Scripture.
You’re growing, brother, and what you’re describing is the normal path of someone whose eyes are opening wider to the unity of the Word. Much love indeed

 

[Revelation1v8]

What you’re sensing when you say “the same text has many meanings” is actually the normal experience of someone whose mind is finally seeing how Scripture works at full depth.
You’re not imagining it, and you’re not doing anything wrong.
You’re noticing that God often speaks in layers — a literal layer rooted in history, and a spiritual layer rooted in Christ — and both are real because both come from the same Author.
The mistake people make is thinking those layers mean “multiple interpretations,” but what you’re actually encountering is one inspired meaning expressed through multiple dimensions of God’s plan.
The literal meaning anchors the text; the spiritual meaning unfolds from it.
When you read that way, you’re not adding meanings — you’re tracing the way God Himself carries a promise from its immediate context into its ultimate fulfillment.
That’s not confusion. That’s maturity.
And it’s exactly how the apostles read Scripture.
You’re growing, brother, and what you’re describing is the normal path of someone whose eyes are opening wider to the unity of the Word. Much love indeed

When I consulted my Brave Search Assistance about this, here is what it tells me:

The principle is: the NT authors treat OT events as having a "forward-looking" dimension built into them by God's design. The dry bones of Ezekiel 37 really did point to Israel's national restoration (the literal/historical sense), but the same imagery—God breathing ruach into dead matter—was designed by God to also find its ultimate antitype in the bodily resurrection (1 Cor 15) and the spiritual resurrection of the believer (Eph 2:1–5). The NT authors didn't invent these connections; they recognized a pattern that was already in the text by divine intention.

The key distinction from allegory (which the church has always warned against): a type is a real historical event that God designed to prefigure something greater. Allegory reads hidden symbolic meanings into a text that weren't there. Typology says the text was genuinely about what it was about historically, and God intended it to point forward. Both levels are real; the antitype doesn't negate the type.

 

[OMC]

When I consulted my Brave Search Assistance about this, here is what it tells me:

The principle is: the NT authors treat OT events as having a "forward-looking" dimension built into them by God's design. The dry bones of Ezekiel 37 really did point to Israel's national restoration (the literal/historical sense), but the same imagery—God breathing ruach into dead matter—was designed by God to also find its ultimate antitype in the bodily resurrection (1 Cor 15) and the spiritual resurrection of the believer (Eph 2:1–5). The NT authors didn't invent these connections; they recognized a pattern that was already in the text by divine intention.

The key distinction from allegory (which the church has always warned against): a type is a real historical event that God designed to prefigure something greater. Allegory reads hidden symbolic meanings into a text that weren't there. Typology says the text was genuinely about what it was about historically, and God intended it to point forward. Both levels are real; the antitype doesn't negate the type.

Scripture does not have many meanings; it has one meaning with multiple layers God Himself built into it.
That’s the difference between typology (which is biblical) and allegory (which is not).

What "Brave", Your assistant. described is exactly right — the OT event has a real, historical meaning, and God intentionally designed that event to point forward to something greater in Christ.
That’s not “two meanings,” it’s one meaning unfolding across time.

Ezekiel 37 is the perfect example.
Literal level: Israel’s return from exile — real bones, real graves, real national restoration.
Typological level: God breathing life into the dead becomes the pattern for spiritual resurrection (Eph 2:1–5) and bodily resurrection (1 Cor 15).
Both levels are real because God put the forward‑looking pattern there. The NT authors didn’t invent it; they recognized it.
And Brave is right about the danger:
Typology = God‑designed historical event pointing forward.
Allegory = humans reading hidden meanings into the text that God didn’t put there.
You’re not doing allegory.
You’re noticing the layers God actually built into Scripture.
That’s why you feel like the text is “literal AND spiritual” — because it is.
But the spiritual meaning never cancels the literal, and the literal never blocks the spiritual. They’re two sides of the same divine intention.

Brother, what you’re experiencing is not confusion. You’re learning to see Scripture the way the apostles saw it: one story, one meaning, many layers, all converging in Christ.

 

[Revelation1v8]

Scripture does not have many meanings; it has one meaning with multiple layers God Himself built into it.
That’s the difference between typology (which is biblical) and allegory (which is not).

What "Brave", Your assistant. described is exactly right — the OT event has a real, historical meaning, and God intentionally designed that event to point forward to something greater in Christ.
That’s not “two meanings,” it’s one meaning unfolding across time.

Ezekiel 37 is the perfect example.
Literal level: Israel’s return from exile — real bones, real graves, real national restoration.
Typological level: God breathing life into the dead becomes the pattern for spiritual resurrection (Eph 2:1–5) and bodily resurrection (1 Cor 15).
Both levels are real because God put the forward‑looking pattern there. The NT authors didn’t invent it; they recognized it.
And Brave is right about the danger:
Typology = God‑designed historical event pointing forward.
Allegory = humans reading hidden meanings into the text that God didn’t put there.
You’re not doing allegory.
You’re noticing the layers God actually built into Scripture.
That’s why you feel like the text is “literal AND spiritual” — because it is.
But the spiritual meaning never cancels the literal, and the literal never blocks the spiritual. They’re two sides of the same divine intention.

Brother, what you’re experiencing is not confusion. You’re learning to see Scripture the way the apostles saw it: one story, one meaning, many layers, all converging in Christ.

Yes, but that still doesn't describe the full events as I see them. These aren't just one time events that happen literally once and then immediately happen spiritually. In my opinion, Ezekiel 37 is yet ANOTHER example of history repeating itself before the full spiritual meaning sets in. Ezekiel 37 as it is written, was never fully realized in past history, only partially. It still has a future literal fulfillment that will happen before the spiritual fulfillment kicks in for all eternity.

 

[OMC]

Yes, but that still doesn't describe the full events as I see them. These aren't just one time events that happen literally once and then immediately happen spiritually. In my opinion, Ezekiel 37 is yet ANOTHER example of history repeating itself before the full spiritual meaning sets in. Ezekiel 37 as it is written, was never fully realized in past history, only partially. It still has a future literal fulfillment that will happen before the spiritual fulfillment kicks in for all eternity.

The reason you believe Ezekiel 37 must repeat literally in the future is because you’re treating partial historical fulfillment as proof of an unfinished literal cycle, but Scripture never teaches that typological events must recur in history before their final spiritual fulfillment;
the pattern God uses is, type → partial fulfillment → Christ‑centered fulfillment, not
type → partial fulfillment → future repetition → final fulfillment;
Ezekiel 37 was historically realized in the return from exile — the “graves” were the nations, the “slain” were the covenant‑dead, the “breath” was God restoring them as a people — and the NT explicitly applies the deeper layer (resurrection life in Christ) without ever predicting a second national resurrection of ethnic Israel before the new creation; your claim that “it was only partially fulfilled” is true, but partial fulfillment in the OT is normal typology, not evidence of a future literal replay; if every partial fulfillment demanded a second literal cycle, then the Exodus, the temple, the Davidic throne, the land promise, and the sacrificial system would all need future literal repetitions — yet the apostles say they reach their final form in Christ; you’re not wrong to see layers, brother, but the layer you’re adding — a future literal reenactment before the eternal spiritual fulfillment — is the one the text itself never signals.

 

[tttallison]

you say I “throw away” prophetic visions because I read Ezekiel 37 symbolically, but that accusation only works if Ezekiel himself doesn’t tell you it’s a vision — and he does;
The chapter opens with a visionary setting, God interprets the bones as “the whole house of Israel,” and every element (bones, flesh, breath, graves) is explained as imagery for covenant death and covenant restoration, not biological resurrection, so I’m not throwing anything away — I’m letting the text interpret its own symbols; the problem is that you treat every prophetic vision as literal unless forced otherwise, but Scripture itself never treats prophetic visions that way — Isaiah’s trees clap their hands, Daniel’s beasts rise from the sea, Zechariah’s flying scroll curses the land, and none of those are literal events, yet all are fulfilled prophecy, meaning fulfilled prophecy does not require literalism, it requires correct referent; your insistence that “two kingdoms must literally reunite” ignores the apostolic interpretation that the reunification happens in Christ, where Jew and Gentile become one new man (Ephesians 2), which is exactly the fulfillment Ezekiel anticipated — not a geopolitical merger but a covenantal one; the reason you can’t see it is because you assume the prophets must describe the end in the same categories they lived in, but the NT repeatedly shows that prophetic imagery expands, transforms, and reaches fulfillment in Christ in ways the OT symbols only foreshadowed; I’m not discarding Ezekiel — I’m refusing to flatten prophetic genre into wooden literalism, because once the NT tells you what the vision means, refusing that interpretation is not fidelity to Scripture but resistance to apostolic hermeneutics.

Let me ask you this question. Was Eve one of Adam's ribs, or was that a metaphor?

 

[Revelation1v8]

The reason you believe Ezekiel 37 must repeat literally in the future is because you’re treating partial historical fulfillment as proof of an unfinished literal cycle, but Scripture never teaches that typological events must recur in history before their final spiritual fulfillment;
the pattern God uses is, type → partial fulfillment → Christ‑centered fulfillment, not
type → partial fulfillment → future repetition → final fulfillment;
Ezekiel 37 was historically realized in the return from exile — the “graves” were the nations, the “slain” were the covenant‑dead, the “breath” was God restoring them as a people — and the NT explicitly applies the deeper layer (resurrection life in Christ) without ever predicting a second national resurrection of ethnic Israel before the new creation; your claim that “it was only partially fulfilled” is true, but partial fulfillment in the OT is normal typology, not evidence of a future literal replay; if every partial fulfillment demanded a second literal cycle, then the Exodus, the temple, the Davidic throne, the land promise, and the sacrificial system would all need future literal repetitions — yet the apostles say they reach their final form in Christ; you’re not wrong to see layers, brother, but the layer you’re adding — a future literal reenactment before the eternal spiritual fulfillment — is the one the text itself never signals.

I think you're forgetting that the reason total fulfillment of the historical scriptures hasn't happened yet is because God/Jesus uses the complete fulfillment of all that's been written to prove to them (and to us) that He is God and that we all share the same ONE. Jesus will use all of this to prove Himself even if you feel like He doesn't need to. The Millennial Kingdom will be the primary driver to do this.

 

[OMC]

I think you're forgetting that the reason total fulfillment of the historical scriptures hasn't happened yet is because God/Jesus uses the complete fulfillment of all that's been written to prove to them (and to us) that He is God and that we all share the same ONE. Jesus will use all of this to prove Himself even if you feel like He doesn't need to. The Millennial Kingdom will be the primary driver to do this.

You think Ezekiel 37 must have a future literal replay is because you’ve built a purpose for the Millennium that Scripture never assigns — you’re treating the Millennium as God’s “proof stage,” a period where Jesus must literally reenact every Old Testament promise in physical form so Israel (and the world) will finally recognize Him as God; but the New Testament never says the Millennium exists to “prove” Jesus’ identity, never says ethnic Israel needs a second national resurrection to be convinced, and never says God delays fulfillment so He can stage a future demonstration.
The apostles say the opposite:
God has already proven Jesus by the resurrection (Acts 17:31),
already enthroned Him on David’s throne (Acts 2:30–36),
already revealed the mystery hidden in the OT (Ephesians 3:3–6),
and already broken the dividing wall between Jew and Gentile (Ephesians 2:14–16).
You’re inserting a future literal cycle because you assume God must “finish the story” in the same categories He began it, but the NT says the story is finished in Christ — the OT shadows reach their final form in Him, not in a temporary kingdom designed to repeat Israel’s history. The Millennium is not a stage for God to prove Himself; the cross and resurrection already did that.