THE BRIDE (One More Time)

I know you guys are tired of my obsession with the bride by now, but, hopefully that is coming to an end. After the last post, I went back over some key scriptures and re-read David's "When He Shall Return from the Wedding", and now I think I may have finally gotten a grip on the whole thing....

My BIGGEST mistake was trying to put the 1000yr reign as the "wedding feast" itself, trying to put too much emphasis on the term "feast" and the "feeding" of Luke 12. In my mind I was trying to make ANY time someone was fed a "wedding feast".

As of today, I think that the entire wedding process, including the feast, is solely partaken of by the bride/elect. When the Son of Man returns to his "household" with his bride after the wedding he can feed them all he wants and for however long without the limitations of a formal ceremony. The explanatory scriptures are thus...

Mat 22:2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,
Mat 22:3 And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.

Mat 22:8 Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.
Mat 22:9 Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.
Mat 22:10 So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.

Obviously the offer was made to the Jews exclusively, but, they rejected it so the parable goes on to show how the offer was made to include the people of the nations (Isa 49:17). But, for the one who came in and was not provided with the proper garment was cast into..."outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

I was prepared to apply this situation to all Christians and not merely the elect, but the last verse gave me pause.
Mat 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

The entire passage only really gives an instance of one person being cast out of the feast, but, the reasons given for why he was cast out are more important than how many, although the last phrase does give us an indication as to the scope of people excluded. Also, the many who were rejected prior as well as the wording of "chosen" which of course in the NT, is usually limited in its use to the "elect" or "chosen" ones give me reason to assume that this particular parable had the elect in mind, although it was given in benefit of the Pharisees.

Next the parable of the ten virgins lends help to the discussion although I can't do much better a synopsis than David did in his article. Suffice it to say, however, that both parties were "waiting" for the groom, and when the unprepared virgins realized their error...

Mat 25:10 And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut.
Mat 25:11 Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us.
Mat 25:12 But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not.

Presumably, the groom and his brides have shut the door to the "wedding feast". Another side note is I find that it could be difficult to say whether the next line...
Mat 25:13 Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.
.....is a retrospective warning or a continuation of the passage for the remaining virgins to keep watching.

Rev 19:7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.
Rev 19:8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.
Rev 19:9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.

ALL these verses now appear to describe the elect/bride only who are called to the feast. The elect need also be instructed and corrected before they themselves can teach the rest of the world. I assume this marriage happens between the time of the Seventh Trumpet and the complete Return of Christ during the "meeting in the air".

In the Luke 12 account, I think it simpler to let the scriptures speak for themselves and allow the marriage (which in some translations say "marriage feast") simply be the entire marriage. Those who are fed afterwards (during the 1000yr reign) are those foolish virgins and those waiting, but, not called to be the elect, of whom no one is sure of until the actual calling...

Luk 12:42 And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season?

It is now easier for me to imagine the 1000yr reign to be akin to Christ and his Apostles feeding the thousands on those particular occasions.

Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride(the elect) say, Come. And let him that heareth(anyone who then hears and accepts) say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.


Thanks for your patience and long-suffering. Please, however, correct me where I may be wrong so I can put this topic to rest for a while!

Your Brother in Christ,

Chris

Well, in light of recent discussions, I must revisit the bride. I'm going to use the Smith's bible Dictionary concerning marriage as a format and insert thoughts and interpretations.

3. The modes by which marriage was effected. -- The choice of the bride devolved, not on the bridegroom himself, but on his relations or on a friend deputed by the bridegroom for this purpose. The consent of the maiden was sometimes asked, Gen_24:58, but this appears to have been subordinate to the previous consent of the father and the adult brothers. Gen_24:51; Gen_34:11.
Occasionally, the whole business of selecting the wife was left in the hands of a friend.
The selection of the bride was followed by the espousal, which was a formal proceeding undertaken by a friend or legal representative on the part of the bridegroom and by the parents on the part of the bride; it was confirmed by oaths, and accompanied with presents to the bride. The act of betrothal was celebrated by a feast(THE LAST SUPPER?), and among the more modern Jews, it is the custom in some parts for the bridegroom to place a ring on the bride's finger. The ring was regarded, among the Hebrews, as a token of fidelity, Gen_41:42, and of adoption into a family. Luk_15:25.
Between the betrothal and the marriage, some interval elapsed, varying from a few days, in the patriarchal age, Gen_24:55, to a full year, for virgins and a month, for widows, in later times. During this period, the bride-elect lived with her friends, and all communication between herself and her future husband was carried on through the medium of a friend deputed for the purpose, termed the "friend of the bridegroom." Joh_3:29.(the 2000 years since Christ's ascension have been this interval and communication could be represented by the Apostles writings, but, I think the Holy Spirit and its work through the entire scriptures might be better suited for this communicator)She was now virtually regarded as the wife of her future husband; hence, faithlessness on her part was punishable with death, Deu_22:23-24, the husband having, however, the option of "putting her away." Deu_24:1; Mat_1:19.
The essence of the marriage ceremony consisted in the removal of the bride from her father's house to that of the bridegroom or his father. The bridegroom prepared himself for the occasion by putting on a festive dress, and especially, by placing on his head, a handsome nuptial turban. Psa_45:8; Son_4:10-11. The bride was veiled. Her robes were white, Rev_19:8, and sometimes embroidered with gold thread, Psa_45:13-14, and covered with perfumes. Psa_45:8. She was further decked out with jewels. Isa_49:18; Isa_61:10; Rev_21:2.( I believe the mistake I made before is that I assumed that the bride only wore white to the "wedding" itself and decked herself with jewels ONLY when she left the feast. According to this, she always wears white robes regardless of the adornments, but, these adornments are still identified by Isaiah 49 as proselytes from the "Gentiles" therefore not limiting the prepared bride to "natural" Jews.)When the fixed hour arrived, which was, generally late in the evening, the bridegroom set forth from his house, attended by his groomsmen, (Authorized Version, "companions," Jdg_14:11, "children of the bride-chamber," Mat_9:15, preceded by a band of musicians or singers, Gen_31:27; Jer_7:34; Jer_16:9, and accompanied by persons bearing flambeaux, 2Es_10:2; Jer_25:10; Mat_25:7; Rev_18:23, and took the bride with the friends to his own house.( All this is representd repeatedly in the parable of the ten virgins as well as the gathering of the elect in Matthew 24)At the house, a feast was prepared, to which all the friends and neighbors were invited, Gen_29:22; Mat_22:1-10; Luk_14:8; Joh_2:2, and the festivities were protracted for seven, or even fourteen, days. Jdg_14:12; Job_8:19. The guests were provided by the host with fitting robes, Mat_22:11, and the feast was enlivened with riddles, Jdg_14:12, and other amusements.( The feast itself is still the 1000yr reign in which all the nations are fed and Israel is restored, including "gehenna" where the unresponsive are cast.)The last act in the ceremonial was the conducting of the bride to the bridal chamber, Jdg_15:1; Joe_2:16, where a canopy was prepared. Psa_19:5; Joe_2:16. The bride was still completely veiled, so that the deception practiced on Jacob, Gen_29:23, was not difficult.

I think I spot a flaw or two here, but, please note one or some in case I miss something else.

Chris

Dear Friends,

The following quotation is from the work 'The Restitution of All Things' by Andrew Jukes, published in 1867.

This really spoke to my heart and I found it most inspiring. I wanted to share it with you as well....



The "second death" (Rev. xx. 14.) therefore, so far from being, as some think, the hopeless shutting up of man for ever in the curse of disobedience, will, if I err not, be God's way to free those who in no other way than by such a death can be delivered out of the dark world, whose life they live in. The saints have died with Christ, not only "to the elements of this world," (Col. ii. 20.) but also "to sin," (Rom. vi. 10.) that is, the dark spirit-world. By the first they are freed from the bondage of sense; by the second, from the bondage of sin, in all its forms of wrath, pride, envy, and selfishness. The ungodly have not so died to sin. At the death of the body therefore, and still more when they are raised to judgment, because their spirit yet lives, they are still within the limits of that dark and fiery world, the life of which has been and is the life of their spirit. To get out of this world there is but one way, death; not the first, for that has passed, but the second death. Even if we have not the light to see this, ought not the present to teach us something as to God's future ways; for is He not the same yesterday, today, and for ever? We know that, in inflicting present death, His purpose is through death to destroy him that has the power of death, that is the devil. How can we conclude from this, that, in inflicting the second death, the unchanging God will act on a principle entirely different from that which now actuates Him? And why should it be thought a thing incredible that God should raise the dead, who for their sin suffer the penalty of the second death? Does this death exceed the power of Christ to overcome it? Or shall the greater foe still triumph, while the less, the first death, is surely overcome? Who has taught us thus to limit the meaning of the words, "Death is swallowed up in victory"? Is God's "will to save all men" (1 Tim. ii. 4.) limited to fourscore years, or changed by that event which we call death, but which we are distinctly told is His appointed means for our deliverance? All analogy based on God's past ways leads but to one answer. But when in addition to this we have the most distinct promise, that "as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive,"--that "death shall be destroyed,"--that "there shall be no more curse," but "all things made new," and "the restitution of all things;"--when we are further told that "Jesus Christ is the same," that is a Saviour, "yesterday, today, and for the ages;"--the veil must be thick indeed upon man's heart, if spite of such statements "the end of the Lord" is yet hidden from us.

To me too the precepts which God has given are in their way as strong a witness as His direct promises. Hear the law respecting, bondmen, (Deut. xv. 12-15.) and strangers, (Exod. xxii. 21; Lev. xix. 33,34.) and debtors, (Deut. xv. 1,2,9.) and widows and orphans, (Exod. xxii. 22; Deut. xxiv. 17.) and the punishment of the wicked, which may not exceed forty stripes, "lest if it exceed, then thy brother should seem vile unto thee;" (Deut. xxv. 2,3.) yea even the law respecting "asses fallen into a pit:" (Exod. xxi. 33,34; and xxiii 4, 5.)--hear the prophets exhorting to "break every yoke," to "let the oppressed go free," and to "undo the heavy burdens:" (Isa. lviii. 6.)--hear the still clearer witness of the gospel, "not to let the sun go down upon our wrath," (Eph. iv. 26.) to "forgive not until seven times, but until seventy times seven," (S. Matt. xviii. 22.) "not to be overcome of evil, but to overcome evil with good:" (Rom. xii. 21.) to "walk in love as Christ has loved us," and to "be imitators of God as dear children:" (Eph. v. 1,2.)--see the judgment of those who neglect the poor, and the naked, and the hungry, and the stranger, and the prisoner; (S. Matt. xxv. 41-43)--and then say, Shall God do that which He abhors? Shall He command that bondmen and debtors be freed, and yet Himself keep those who are in worse bondage and under a greater debt in endless imprisonment? Shall He bid us care for widows and orphans, and Himself forget this widowed nature, which has lost its Head and Lord, and those poor orphan souls which cannot cry, Abba, Father? Shall He limit punishment to forty strips, "lest thy brother seem vile," and Himself inflict more upon those who though fallen still are His children? Is not Christ the faithful Israelite, who fulfills the law; and shall He break it in any one of these particulars? Shall He say, "Forgive till seventy times seven," and Himself not forgive except in this short life? Shall He command us to "overcome evil with good," and Himself, the Almighty, be overcome of evil? Shall He judge those who leave the captives unvisited, and Himself leave captives in a worse prison for ever unvisited? Does He not again and again appeal to our own natural feelings of mercy, as witnessing "how much more" we may expect a larger mercy from our "Father which is in heaven"? (St. Matt. vii. 6-11.) If it were otherwise, might not the adversary reproach, and say, Thou that teachest and judgest another, teachest Thou not thyself? Not thus will God be justified. But, blessed be His Name, He shall in all be justified. And when in His day He opens "the treasures of the hail,"

(NOTE: Job xxxviii. 22. The two questions of the book of Job are, How can man, and How can God, be justified? Jobs complainings in substance, amount to this,--How can God be justified in treating me as He does? His three friends, who cannot answer this, urge him rather to ask, How can man be justified? Elihu answers this latter question; and God then answers Jobs question by asking him if he knows what God can bring out of things which at present are dark and crooked. Jobs question is not the sinners question, but that of the "perfect man;" (ch. i. 8.) a question not unacceptable to God, who declares of Jobs three friends, that "they have not spoken of me the thing which is right, like my servant Job." ch. xiii. 8.)

and shews what sweet waters He can bring out of hard hailstones; when He unlocks "the place where light now dwells" shut up, and reveals what light is hid in darkness and hardness, as we see in coal and flint, those silent witnesses of the dark hard hearts, which God can turn to floods of light; when we have "taken darkness to the bound thereof," (Job. xxxviii. 19,20.) and have seen not only how "the earth is full of God's riches," but how He has laid up the depths in storehouses; (Psa. civ. 24; and xxxiii. 7.) in that day when "the mystery of God is finished," and He has destroyed them which corrupt the earth," (Rev. xi. 18.)--then shall it be seen how truly God's judgments are love, and that "in very faithfulness He hath afflicted us." (Psa. cxix. 75.)




--David

Summary of the Seven Seals

First Seal A.D 96 – 180 Rome Victorious

Second Seal A.D. 185 – 284 Rome Divided by Civil Wars

Third Seal A.D. 200 – 250 Excessive Taxation and Depression

Fourth Seal A.D 250 – 300 Death and Decay

Fifth Seal A.D. 303 – 313 Christian Martyrs under Diocletian

Sixth Seal A.D 313 – 381 The True Faith Extinguished

Seventh Seal A.D 396 - ??? The Seven Trumpet Judgments

--David

NEW RESEARCH ON THE SIXTH SEAL

And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:
(Rev 6:12-16)

Hello Friends,

I have been looking more into the proper interpretation of this passage and how/where it fits into the historicist interpretation of prophecy.

E. B. Elliott interprets the above as the fall and banishment of paganism from the Roman Empire under Constantine. I have always taken exception to that interpretation. Constantine was the instrument in turning Christianity into the favored religion of Rome. However, this was done as a political strategy in an attempt to unite his crumbling empire. The banishment of paganism from the empire was likewise a political move; it hardly seems reasonable to me that the language given to us in scripture would be used to describe these events.

I had offered, as an alternate interpretation, that what Constantine had REALLY banished from his empire was not paganism but TRUTH. After all it was Constantine himself who convened and personally presided over the council of Nicea where it was formally affirmed that the 'orthodox' position included the belief that Jesus was God, and any disagreement was considered heresy. While this is true, further research has shown that by no means was this the end of the story.

In fact, Arianism (the belief that Jesus is less than, and subordinate to God) continued to flourish in the Eastern Half of the Empire. Constantine himself came to believe that Arianism was indeed 'orthodox' and called many Arian Bishops back from exile. Constantine's son who succeeded him as Emperor was totally Arian, and within 4 decades of Nicea the entire empire was Arian, not Nicene.

So can we really say that Constantine banished the truth from his empire? Do these events seem to answer to the description given under the sixth seal? I don't believe that they do once the whole story of Nicea and the years that followed are considered. The Arian and Nicene positions jockeyed back and forth for power and influence, each trying to use the political authorities and the emperor himself as leverage. In fact for many decades following Nicea, it appears that the Arian position was accepted as equally 'orthodox' as the Nicene.

So what happened? When and why did Arianism (which we arrifm to be the true faith) suddenly become 'heresy'. After the death of Constantine Rome went through a series of emperors. Though each envisioned himself as the one who would unite Rome and restore its old glory, the empire continued to deteriorate and de-stabilize. Finally the empire came under the rule of Theodosius.

Theodosius was militantly anti-arian. His solution was to unify his empire and Christianity by force if needed. Theodosius decided that a unified empire and unified Christianity (which by this time was already splitting between east and west) could only be accomplished by crushing Arianism once and for all.

In the year 381, Theodosius convened the Council of Constantinople. The deck was conveniently stacked to insure that Trintarianism would become the new 'true and unifying' doctrine of the empire. (Prior to this, the 'trinity' as such was not an issue, only the relationship of the Son to the Father). The council adopted this new 'orthodoxy', and declared all Arians heretics. Theodosius immediately outlawed Arianism from the Empire.

For the first time, Arians became TRUE outlaws. They were to recant or be executed. Their writings were burned en masse. Anyone caught preaching the Arian doctrines or even possessing Arian writings was to be executed on the spot.

The new 'orthodox' Christians (those who had now accepted the Trinity) saw in Theodosius' decree a blank check to persecute anyone who did not agree with them. Suddenly not only Arians, but Jews, pagans, and anyone else who could be branded a 'heretic' found themselves a target. The empire exploded into chaos- from here it disintegrated rapidly and never recovered. The year was 381 AD.

Looking back at E.B. Elliot we see something amazing.

And so then in 396 the first fearful tempest burst (a tempest characteristic as well as introductory of all that followed) on the central and hitherto unravaged provinces of Thessaly, Greece, Epirus, and the Peloponnese, under the devastation of Alaric and the Goths.

The dates here could not correlate more perfectly. If Elliott was correct that the first trumpet blast corresponded with the Gothic invasions of Alaric which began in 396, then it is probably safe to believe that these judgments began in response to the banishment of truth from the empire which began in 381.

Of course Elliott was himself a Trinitarian, therefore he would not (or could not) see the council of Constantinople of 381 as something which would call down the judgment of God. Historically however, the correlation between the acceptance of trinity doctrine at this council, and the rapid decay and judgment upon the empire which quickly followed seems like too much to be deemed 'coincidence'.

So, within 15 years of accepting the doctrine of the trinity (as an official, wholly formulated doctrine - the point at which Christianity formally split with its Jewish roots which acknowledged God as a single individual) the Roman empire came under fearful judgments - judgments from which the empire would never recover.

--David

Calculating the Earth’s Circumference from the Bible

1) The New Jerusalem described in Rev 21 is 12,000 Furlongs. While ambiguous, most commentators agree that this means 12,000 furlongs in circumference, 3000 furlongs to a side. This is roughly 350 miles to a side.

2) Ezekiel describes the city as 4,500 CUBITS to a side. This is of course much smaller than the city described in Revelation. The city in Revelation is roughly 230 times the size of the one in Ezekiel.

3) Ezekiel describes a temple complex at 5,000 cubits to the north of the city. Since the temple has never been any distance from the city, Ezekiel must be describing future conditions.

4) Ezekiel describes the dividing of the land – 13 strips of land – one for each of the 12 tribes, plus one strip for the city and temple complex. The city and temple complex is 25,000 cubits.

5) If we assume that all 13 strips of land are to be the same width, we would get:

13 x 25,000 cubits = 325,000 cubits

6) If we enlarge Ezekiel’s entire plan – all 13 strips of land – in proportion, until its city is the size of the city mentioned in Revelation, then we arrive at a startling number for the entire width of the land mass.

7) A Roman furlong was approximately 606.84 feet. Bullinger, appendix 51 says ‘Furlong – approximately 202 English yards. 202 X 3 feet = 606.

The city in Revelation is 3000 furlongs to a side. Therefore 3000 x 606.84 = 1,820,520 feet. 1,820,520 / 5280 ft per mile = 344.80 miles.

So the city in Revelation is foursquare 344.80 miles to a side

8) So we do a simple proportion. In Ezekiel the proportion is 4500 cubit preside of city to a total landmass of 325,000 cubits. Using the same proportion on the city in Revelation, how much land mass would there be if the city was 344.8 miles to a side.

So we do a simple calculation…

or, 344.8 miles x 325,000 cubits / 4500 cubits = 24,902 miles as the width of the land mass for the ‘New Earth’

24,902 miles is the known circumference of the earth.

9) We can use the same ratios to calculate the size of the Holy Place and Most Holy Place. Ezekiel's Holy Place was 20 by 40 cubits, and his Most Holy Place was 20 by 20 cubits (Ezek. 41:2, 4).

20 / 4500 * 344.8 = 1.53 miles

40 / 4500 * 344.8 = 3.06 miles

It is quite possible, therefore, that the heavenly temple which will be outside the New Jerusalem will have a Holy Place about 3 by 1.5 miles, and a Most Holy Place about 1.5 miles square. A structure that can accommodate millions of worshippers