A DISCUSSION REGARDING MATTHEW 24, THE BOOK OF REVELATION, AND THE NEW JERUSALEM:

And the term "temple" used to describe the church is literally, in the greek, the most holy place... and not the outer court, holy place and most holy place. So it is the church! The Church is His temple!

Revelation 3 describes the church at Philadelphia as having overcomers who have the name of God and the name of the city on their lives. This is saying the city is the church!

God likened Jerusalem of old to His bride (Ezek 16). And of course the church is the bride of Christ.

Revelation notes that the New Jerusalem WAS the bride. Some have noted it was like a bride. But if you keep reading chapter 21, John is told he is to be shown the Bride, and He saw the City! So is the city, comprised of its walls and street and foundations, that is adorned like a bride, and actually IS the bride, going to be literally adorned with a bridal veil, as a literal city? Is Christ going to walk a city down the aisle and marry it? Of course not. This is saying that the Church is the New Jerusalem, just as Israel's goal was to possess Canaan and establish the name of God in the city chosen by God, which turned out to be Jerusalem, and there govern the people of God.

Where we make the demarcation in Revelation as to what is past and what is future is carefully established by the teachings of Jesus and the epistles, in comparison to the interpretation of the emblems used in Revelation. And we are absolutely careful to ensure those interpretations are not flights of fancy either! They have to -- simply have to -- be metaphors that are clearly seen elsewhere in the Bible to be metaphors. If there is no example elsewhere that all can agree upon as being a metaphor, then we cannot say it is.

So here is how we ascertain a demarcation point in the time frame.

We know Christ was speaking about 70 AD in Matthew 24 (which is, I agree, another great argument to many people. But we research the 24th chapter of Matthew, in the same way I am describing how we demarcate Revelation, and settle upon it as being fulfilled.) And we find the same layout of events symbolized in Revelation 6 (I have studies on my site proving this). That causes us to realize Revelation 6 is fulfilled. Then we noted that the City that Rev 18:24 said was full of the blood of all shed upon the earth must be Jerusalem, because Jesus said Jerusalem was guilty of all blood shed on the earth in Matthew 23:35. And Rev. 11:8 establishes for us who the great city is. It also is Jerusalem, where our Lord was crucified. Rev 11:8 calls it the great city, to which the later references to that great city point. The term "that" makes a reference to a previously noted "the". And Rev 11:8 supplies with who that great city is.

And I can go on and on about similar words of Revelation found in the rest of the Bible indicating their figurative nature.

But, we also see that the order of the events in Rev 17 through 19 of the great city burned with fire, followed by the marriage supper indications, are precisely the same order of events noted in Matthew 22:7-9. There, in Mat 22, Jesus said the city of the people who were bidden to the marriage, and did not show up, would be first burned, to be followed by the wedding with other guests, instead. The burning of the city, followed by a wedding, occurs in both Matt 22:7-9 and Rev chapters 17-19. Same order of events.  And Jesus said that in context of being rejected by Jerusalem in Matthew 21. Now, many never note that connection since they did not read through Matthew 21 and 22 contextually. But it's there.

At this point, one realizes that the parallels between Jesus own words, themselves, and the events listed in Revelation are beyond coincidental similarity. They are speaking of the same events!!!

Therefore... knowing the harlot city is Jerusalem, and knowing she was destroyed, and knowing the church is the New Jerusalem, when we read Revelation 19, we see a duration of a very long time ("thousand" in Greek is simply a Greek plurality), followed by the devil hoarding nations against the New Jerusalem, all of that causes us to ponder over when did this, or when will this, occur. And the deduction is generally that the church has not experienced an onslaught similar to that since old Jerusalem was destroyed, which would cause the devil to be forever removed, and would be followed with the great white throne judgment.

So, with the though that the whore is old Jerusalem, due to the words of Christ to Jerusalem have been applied to the whore in Revelation, and knowing Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD, and knowing the great white throne has not yet occurred, we see the demarcation in the midst of Chapter 20.

Chapter 19 also notes a demarcation point since the chapter begins with the destruction of the whore followed by a wedding and the going forth of the Lord and the saints conquering with the Word, which I feel is the New Testament era.

The reason I say chapters 19 and 20 both show demarcation is because Revelation is well-known to back up and go forward every know and then in the time-context of the text.

Revelation 21 through 22 shows us the New Jerusalem.

Regarding the lack of weeping and sorrow noted in the New Jerusalem advent, in Rev 21, this is indeed symbolic of the church. But at the present time the church is not finished construction. The city is still being built. One day that construction will be finished. But, as Peter put it, there are still lively stones being added to the construction process.

Nevertheless, Jesus said we are a city set on a hill that cannot be hid. Would we deny Jesus' words? Would we also deny that the Mother of us all is this City, called by Paul "Jerusalem which is above"? And would we think that is a spiritual picture of the church? Or would we still think a literal city birthed us into the Kingdom of God?

Having said that, I will also say, though, that on a personal level, there is a wonderful experience in salvation in which tears are wiped away after repentance, and the thought of old things passing away is simply connected to the words of Paul in 2 Cor 5, where he describes all things passing away and becoming new when we are saved! The context of the words you refer to regarding weeping and sorrow involves the thought of all things being made new. And that is a distinct reference to Paul's words in 2 Cor 5! More on that later.

NO MORE SEA?

We have to refer to Genesis in order to understand many notes in Revelation. The thought of no more literal sea is absurd. If there is no more sea, then there are no more oceans, and that means the earth is one large mass of land, with lakes interspersed.

But sea is "salt" water. And salt represents two things in the word of God. Preservation as well as stealing away or, and resistance against, life.

I once preached a message entitled FROM NO LIGHT TO NO NIGHT. Genesis showed us that a time existed when there was no light, and God spoke light into existence. At that same point in time, there was no fresh water, for the earth was covered in the saline water of one huge ocean. It was not until the third day that the dry land "appeared", or resurrected up from beneath the water. And then the fresh water came into being.

Why would God speak about all of this physical state of things? Just to satisfy our curiosity? No. It was to introduce a principle. And the goal of the Bible is not to answer questions of a scientific nature. Adam's story is not to prove we did not come from apes, although that can be derived from that story. All of it is to lead us to salvation. So in some measure, this series of physical events are giving us a pattern and principle regarding our salvation.

Proverbs says that the glory of God conceals a thing and it is the honour of kings to search out a matter. We are kings and priests. Let's search out what God has concealed for Holy Ghost people like you and I to glean.

Notice the series of events in Genesis 1.

Light, then division of waters, then land "resurrecting". Can you see it? Repentance, water baptism, and Spirit baptism. And it goes on, but you get the idea. And we wind up with man in God's image on the sixth day, and finally the REST in the 7th. We know we are being conformed to the image of Jesus Christ. And we also know there remains a rest for the people of God. So although these things occurred literally, they lead us towards a spiritual message. And that message is the goal of the Bible!

There is also a principle in the Bible that tells us that it is that which is natural that is always first. Afterwards, that which is spiritual. I think some may be inadvertently reversing God's principle.

We all know that Jesus spoke of the Holy Ghost as rivers of living water. Is the river in Revelation 22 literal? Of course not! It is speaking of the living waters of the Holy Ghost. Read John 4's words regarding the woman at the well. Read Jesus' words on the last day of the feast in John 7:38-39. And then tell me that the rivers of living water is not the Holy Ghost.

To say that, yes, it is the Holy Ghost in those  passages, but to then say, no, it is not the Holy Ghost in Revelation 22, which is yet future, is to reverse the principle I noted earlier. You are saying we first have spiritual rivers of living water, but our goal in Revelation 22, in our future, is to wind up with a physical and literal river of living water. You're going in reverse!

Our goal is not a literal and physical river and city! That was the picture before things became spiritual! That which is spiritual is last and final. And would not the last book in the Bible reflect that? Many are going backwards, to make it all a goal of physical things!

I mean, if the Bible did not already establish the fact that the river of living water is the Holy Ghost in John 4 and John 7, then I would be at a loss to state anything as I am doing here. That is what I try to tell everyone who accuses me of haphazard allegorizing of scriptures, as though we never had a biblical foundation to do allegorize. But how can we deny the relevance of John 4 and John 7, as we read Revelation 22? Especially in light of the principle noted in 1 Cor 15 concerning that which is spiritual being our goal?

Have all things been made new?

Yes, that is now!

Howso?

Paul used the same terms, and please note the same terms, as follows:

quote:

---

2Co 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

---

Have you not experienced the above scripture?

No need of the Sun or Moon?

There shall be no night there?

As I said, this regards the church in a state of completion, which is not to be seen today, except in part. However, at the same time, let me say you are missing something if you are restricting this to the physical. In reference, once again, to my sermon, light and darkness, I noted therein, speak of good and evil. In that sermon I noted that at one time the earth was full of sinners. All night. But then Light came, Jesus, as in the book of John, which uses Genesis as a pattern to show the real Spoken word giving light! Jesus is the light! And the darkness comprehended it not. What was John referring to by "the darkness"? The Sinners. The evil ones.

But then it reads that as many as received Him to them gave he power to become the sons of God. He lights every man who comes into the world. But not every man receives that light. However, some of the world did -- us! And all through John's Gospel you see this theme of light and darkness continue.

If we’re stuck on literal and outward too much, we’ll never notice this.

Anyway, Jesus did miracles, stepped out of the scene and watched people fall into two groups... always falling into two groups. Those who accepted the light and gave God glory, and those who argued it away in outright insane denial! The light was spoken, and men were separating into darkness and light.

And you get the idea.

Well, since the spiritual is what God will wind up with, and not the natural, it is not speaking of natural light and darkness in Revelation. It is spiritual. Just as there were no saints of God (light) in the beginning, but only sinners, after Christ came a division occurred as light brought forth more light in the sons of men. And one day all sinners will be removed, and there will only be light!  No night! Genesis 1 is a pattern of Jesus' first coming!! And Revelation shows us the goal!

Same with the sea. After we see nothing but salt water at the start, naturally, we will see nothing but fresh water, in the end, spiritually. Salt is reminiscent of lack of life. Recall that nations salted the lands of the ones they conquered, so as to prohibit agriculture in the future for many years. The entire earth was "salted", so to speak, by sin. But, praise God(!), it will be different after then next time He comes! No sea, no night!

Rev 21: 27 tells us who cannot enter there but these are who makes up the Church.

First of all the kingdom of God is within us! It does not come with observation! The city being seen by John, therefore, represents the Kingdom of God in the church. Otherwise, it refutes Jesus' words, and does indeed come with observation. I have certainly noted that in the past and was blessed to think of its spiritual picture well!

Ever wonder why it said that those that are outside are dogs (spiritual term for unsaved, as Jews called Gentiles dogs), and whoremongers, etc? Imagine if this was literal and looking out through your window in the city, as you imagine the city to be, and seeing a beautiful scene of whoremongers and liars and unrighteous people outside. The Bible says that without, or "outside" ( not saying where outside, but just outside), there are dogs etc. (I was absolutely stunned in a laughing fit as I heard about a very prominent minister say that this proved canines do not go to heaven, since dogs were outside the city.) Dogs refer to Gentiles, which speak spiritually of the unsaved.

And to beat all, the gates never close since there is no night. So outside ("without" in old English), these whoremongers wander around, and the gates are wide open. The only manner in which that can make any sense is for the city to represent the church, and people who walk through its pearly gates become saved and enter in as changed lives!

Is the river of living waters, clear as crystal, not literal?

No. Its the Holy Ghost. How do I know its today, as well?