The Bride of Christ, NOT who (rather what) you think it is.

The saints past, present and future make up Heavenly Jerusalem the same way God is called the Temple...


Revelation 21
22And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb.

Are they are building?

I don't understand the need to be facetious (or slightly belittling). I am just sharing what appears to be an evident truth in scripture, that the Lamb's wife, the bride, is the new Jerusalem. I then also see the inadequate evidence given to suggest that the bride is the Church of Christ, the Body of Christ.

To me, the analogy of a husband and wife is used as a symbolic representation of what Christ is to the Church, becoming one body. Yet, it is a symbolism, not that the Church is the Lamb's wife, only that the analogy as like a shadow points to Christ. The mystery.

In respect to who or what the bride is, our clearest scripture is Revelation 21:2 and Revelation 21:9. It is straightforward and to the point. The angel says he will show John the bride, the Lamb's wife, and then the angel brings him in the spirit to the great city, holy Jerusalem, the new Jerusalem.

It's not meant to be facteous or belittling.

If you understand how the "river of life" represents God's words flowing from His throne,then you would understand the symbolism used to describe the Heavenly Jerusalem because words can't fully convey the spiritual reality.

it's why Jesus used parables.

To the woman at the well Jesus talked of Living water.

So you don't believe that the new Jerusalem is a literal city? You believe the whole passage is describing the saints?

We currently live in temporary tents. Jesus promises mansions.

Do you believe He refers to buildings or resurrected bodies?

I believe it describe what it will be like to see and live with God face to face.

Now we see the world dimly and in part. In the future these will be no darkness and we will know how to live with one another truly as parts of One body.

A discussion between better theologians than myself....think i'll just read this one.

We individually are not the bride, but corporeally we are Jerusalem, who is our mother and is Christ's bride. Paul is talking corporeally here:

There are plenty of verses that reveal that the Church is the Bride of Christ (to become the Lamb's Wife). I will give you just one passage.

EPHESIANS 5
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

When you go to Revelation 19 you will find that the Bride becomes the Wife at the Marriage of the Lamb.

Also, it would be totally ABSURD to regard anything inanimate (such as a city) as the Bride. Have you heard of anyone marrying bricks and mortar?

Yes, the Church is the Bride of Christ. Why is the new Jerusalem new? Because we are spiritual Jerusalem. We have been clothed with Christ/white robes/righteousness. Revelation 7:14- they washed their robes white in the blood of the Lamb (baptism). Ananias said to Paul "What are you waiting for, arise, be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord." When a bride marries her husband she takes his name. We have taken the name CHRISTIan.

Isaiah says in isaiah 61:10 "I will rejoice greatly in the LORD, My soul will exult in my God; For He has clothed me with garments of salvation, He has wrapped me with a robe of righteousness, As a bridegroom decks himself with a garland, And as a bride adorns herself with her jewels." The Bride of Christ is not a physical person, it is not meant literally but figuratively.

I see no reason to complicate things.

Revelation is a book of images. The heavenly Jerusalem is church. Its not a literal city, its an image.

City, bride, body, these are all images of the church.

Fire, Lion, Rock, Light, these are all images of God.

Cannot God be a lion, because he is already a rock? Cannot church be a city or bride because its already a body? I do not think so.

There is no need to see contradictions.

I think it goes together with Peter telling us we, as living stones, are being built into a spiritual house.

Hello Trofimus,

First of all, though the book of Revelation has symbolic imagery in it, it should not be read as though everything were symbolism. The book should be read in the plain literal sense until another sense is required. It is interpreting the book as being all symbolic that distorts the meaning.

The new Jerusalem is indeed a literal city, for there is way too much detail for it to not be. For example, we have the measurements of the width, depth and height and thickness of the city walls given and that by human measurement which John says the angel was using.

We have twelve gates mentioned, each made from a single pearl with the names of the twelve tribes of Israel written on them.

We are told that the foundations of the walls are made from different precious stones and that it is garnished with multiple gems and much, much more.

We have Jesus and Paul referring to the new Jerusalem as a literal city:

"I will write on them the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on them my new name.

Paul on speaking about the hero's of faith:

"All these people died in faith, without having received the things they were promised. However, they saw them and welcomed them from afar. And they acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. Those who say such things show that they are seeking a country of their own. If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. Instead, they were longing for a better country, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them.

City - a material thing - cannot be a bride of God.

Also, your explanation is not mainstream/traditional:

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers:
"The city-bride is now adorned for her Husband. We know what her ornaments are, now that He is about to present her to Himself a glorious Church"

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary:
"This new Jerusalem is the church of God in its new and perfect state, the church triumphant."

Barnes' Notes on the Bible
"This, of course, does not mean that this great city was "literally" to descend upon the earth, and to occupy any one part of the renovated world; but it is a symbolical or figurative representation, designed to show that the abode of the righteous will be splendid and glorious."

Matthew Poole's Commentary
"The holy city, new Jerusalem; that is, the whole chorus or number of the elect of God"

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
"The same with the beloved city in Revelation 20:9 the church of God: sometimes the church militant is called a city"

Geneva Study Bible
"And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. The state of this glorious Church is first described generally..."

Expositor's Greek Testament
"The Christian prophet John not only sees it but sees it realised among Christian people"

Pulpit Commentary
"The holy city" is the Church of God (see on Revelation 11:2)"

--------

All commentaries I was able to find were saying that its church. Some commentaries were somehow indifferent in their meaning so I was not sure what they teach. I have found no commentary saying its a literal city.

And you never will.

That idea is so ABSURD that it cannot even be considered for one minute.

I am quite certain that in todays era its very easy to write a commentary for any small church, so maybe there is something like that, existing somewhere.

But such a commentary will not be reputable or generally used/spread, IMHO.

I like the story of Ruth and Boaz, I like think there is a parallel
there of Jesus and and church (His people).

Boaz was Ruth’s kinsman redeemer. To confirm this hd gave his
sandal. Boaz bought Ruth back. She became his bride. For a woman
not to be covered and aided by a man in biblical times, it meant a life
of poverty, no sense of belonging, a life of hardship.

Jesus did the same for us, He bought us with a price, He redeemed us
with His blood, rather than a sandal. We are His redeemed individually and
also collectively as the church - His bride.

We were lost now we are found. We were not covered, now we are covered
by the blood of the lamb.

Ruth 4:1-10 NKJV
[1] Now Boaz went up to the gate and sat down there; and behold, the close
relative of whom Boaz had spoken came by. So Boaz said, "Come aside, friend, sit
down here." So he came aside and sat down. [2] And he took ten men of the
elders of the city, and said, "Sit down here." So they sat down.

[3] Then he said to the close relative, "Naomi, who has come back from the
country of Moab, sold the piece of land which belonged to our brother
Elimelech. [4] And I thought to inform you, saying, 'Buy it back in the presence
of the inhabitants and the elders of my people. If you will redeem it, redeem
it; but if you will not redeem it, then tell me, that I may know; for there is
no one but you to redeem it, and I am next after you.'" And he said, "I will redeem it."

[5] Then Boaz said, "On the day you buy the field from the hand of Naomi, you
must also buy it from Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, to perpetuate
the name of the dead through his inheritance." [6] And the close relative
said, "I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I ruin my own inheritance. You redeem
my right of redemption for yourself, for I cannot redeem it."

[7] Now this was the custom in former times in Israel concerning redeeming
and exchanging, to confirm anything: one man took off his sandal and gave
it to the other, and this was a confirmation in Israel. [8] Therefore the close
relative said to Boaz, "Buy it for yourself." So he took off his sandal

. [9] And Boaz said to the elders and all the people, "You are witnesses this
day that I have bought all that was Elimelech's, and all that was Chilion's
and Mahlon's, from the hand of Naomi. [10] Moreover, Ruth the Moabitess,
the widow of Mahlon, I have acquired as my wife, to perpetuate the name
of the dead through his inheritance, that the name of the dead may not be
cut off from among his brethren and from his position at the gate. You are
witnesses this day."

I don't know why you said the above, because I'm agreement with that. In my post I said that there is too way much detail for the new Jerusalem to not be a literal city. You obviously misread my post.



I'm not nor have I ever been concerned about mainstream, but only what the word of God says. And the word of God says that the new Jerusalem is a literal city that will be coming down out of heaven and which we will be living in.

Commentaries don't make the new Jerusalem literal or symbolic. It is the word of God and the description of the city and the fact that scriptures says that it is a city. Jesus says that for the one who is victorious, He will write on that person the name of His God and the name of the city of His God, the New Jerusalem. Paul mentions the new Jerusalem in that the hero's of faith were waiting forward to that city that God had made for them. You don't need a commentary, when you have chapter 21 and 22 giving complete details about the city.

As I said, there is way too much detailed information about the city for it to be speaking symbolically.

It's a real city!

If we interpret that literally then we have to assume the existence of some very large oysters.