There will be a sun or there won't be a sun in eternity?

[John146]

Isaiah 60:19 The sun shall be no more thy light by day; neither for brightness shall the moon give light unto thee: but the LORD shall be unto thee an everlasting light, and thy God thy glory.

Isaiah 60:20 Thy sun shall no more go down; neither shall thy moon withdraw itself: for the LORD shall be thine everlasting light, and the days of thy mourning shall be ended.

Revelation 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

Revelation 22:5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.

The above would be some of the main passages indicating no more sun someday.


Psalms 72:17 His name shall endure for ever: his name shall be continued as long as the sun: and men shall be blessed in him: all nations shall call him blessed.
18 Blessed be the LORD God, the God of Israel, who only doeth wondrous things.
19 And blessed be his glorious name for ever: and let the whole earth be filled with his glory; Amen, and Amen.

Jeremiah 31:35 Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:
36 If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.

The above passages seem to indicate the sun has to go on shining forever, as well as the moon and stars. So either we have a contradiction or a misunderstanding.

Since context determines meaning, then I would think that's the only way to solve this seemingly contradiction. So what are your thoughts on this and why?

I'll just repost what I posted in the other thread where we were discussing this.

I believe scripture teaches that the sun would endure through all generations (Psalm 72:5) which means it will endure until the end of the age but at that point it will cease to exist. I don't believe "forever" includes all eternity in those verses but instead refers to all of time up until the end of time or end of the age. That doesn't mean His name won't endure even throughout eternity but that wasn't the context of those verses as far as the sun is concerned. It's similar to how Jesus told the disciples that He would be with them always even until the end of the age (Matt 28:20). Well, He will be with them even after the end of the age but that wasn't His point there. So "always" doesn't include eternity in that context but includes all of time until the end of the age. That's how I understand the duration of the sun as well. There will be no need for the sun on the new earth, IMO, because the glory of God and Christ Himself will provide all the light we need.

[John146]

Right, you assume one out. How do the people outside the city see?

The people outside the city would be those who are not part of "the bride, the Lamb's wife" (Rev 21:9) since the new Jerusalem is said to be "the bride, the Lamb's wife". Scripture says that they will be in the lake of fire which likely will be separate from the new earth.

Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. 15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

The wicked will be cast into the lake of fire at around the same time the righteous inherit the new earth so the only ones who will be on the new earth will be the righteous. We will not need the sun at that point since Christ Himself will be our light.

2 Peter 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

The new earth will be a place "wherein dwelleth righteousness", not wickedness.

[John146]

That's the point I get from that passage as well. But for some reason, some folks equate this new Jerusalem with the entire earth. IOW, it doesn't actually have a physical location.

For some reason people like yourself equate the new Jerusalem with an earthly city. I asked you this in the other thread and you gave no response. How can an earthly city be "the bride, the Lamb's wife" (Rev 21:9)? It seems to me that scripture teaches that "the bride, the Lamb's wife" is the church and that we will inherit the entire (new) earth, not just part of it.

[fewarechosen]

The people outside the city would be those who are not part of "the bride, the Lamb's wife" (Rev 21:9) since the new Jerusalem is said to be "the bride, the Lamb's wife". Scripture says that they will be in the lake of fire which likely will be separate from the new earth.

Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. 15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

The wicked will be cast into the lake of fire at around the same time the righteous inherit the new earth so the only ones who will be on the new earth will be the righteous. We will not need the sun at that point since Christ Himself will be our light.

2 Peter 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

The new earth will be a place "wherein dwelleth righteousness", not wickedness.

another scripture i would tie to these above, also note they are cast off into darkness/not in city

Mat 8:11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 8:12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

and one more thing when thinking of looking for it and seeing where it will be on the map.

it doesnt even come with observation. its within, our fleshy eyes cant see there

Luk_17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

[Adstars]

Isaiah 60:19 The sun shall be no more thy light by day; neither for brightness shall the moon give light unto thee: but the LORD shall be unto thee an everlasting light, and thy God thy glory.

Isaiah 60:20 Thy sun shall no more go down; neither shall thy moon withdraw itself: for the LORD shall be thine everlasting light, and the days of thy mourning shall be ended.

Revelation 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

Revelation 22:5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.

The above would be some of the main passages indicating no more sun someday.


Psalms 72:17 His name shall endure for ever: his name shall be continued as long as the sun: and men shall be blessed in him: all nations shall call him blessed.
18 Blessed be the LORD God, the God of Israel, who only doeth wondrous things.
19 And blessed be his glorious name for ever: and let the whole earth be filled with his glory; Amen, and Amen.

Jeremiah 31:35 Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:
36 If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.

The above passages seem to indicate the sun has to go on shining forever, as well as the moon and stars. So either we have a contradiction or a misunderstanding.

Since context determines meaning, then I would think that's the only way to solve this seemingly contradiction. So what are your thoughts on this and why?

The first references to the New Jerusalem may indicate that the city will be totaly enclosed. we are told that it's length breadth and height are the same, 10,000 furlongs. This may mean that it has a roof also. So inside it where the saints will dwell there will be no sun light. But the light within it shall be the light emanating from God Himself.

So there may be a sun in eternity but it will not be the source of light that the saved will be guided by in their dwelling place, The New Jerusalem.



All Praise The Ancient of Days

[divaD]

For some reason people like yourself equate the new Jerusalem with an earthly city. I asked you this in the other thread and you gave no response. How can an earthly city be "the bride, the Lamb's wife" (Rev 21:9)? It seems to me that scripture teaches that "the bride, the Lamb's wife" is the church and that we will inherit the entire (new) earth, not just part of it.

Ok then. let's see if I can illustrate why, so you will at least know what this some reason is. Either folks like you, or folks like me are misunderstanding something. I have no problem admitting that it could be folks like me that is misunderstanding, that is, if I can clearly be shown why and how. Are you willing to be that reasonable as well, not that you're not reasonable?

I read your response earlier, so I formulated the following in notepad. I'm not a fast typer in general, so I kind of formulate my lengthier responses in advance, then log in and post it.

Let's begin with the following verse then, trying to dissect whom would be given what by whom.


Revelation 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.


The speaker is Jesus. The 'him that overcometh', that would be a saint. In relation to this saint we see the following is going to happen to this saint....and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

But let's rephrase that verse, since the new Jerusalem is supposed to be the bride.

THE SAINT that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is THE BRIDE, THE SAINTS OF GOD, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

So why, if this saint is part of the bride, would Jesus then be writing upon this same saint the name of His God, meaning the Father, and the name of the city of His God, meaning the city of the Father, which is THE BRIDE, THE SAINTS OF GOD? The verse says the name of the city is new Jerusalem. And the overcomer in that verse is anticipating the name of the Father, and the name of the city of the Father being written upon him. So let's break that down a bit more.
and I will write upon him the name of my God...This name would be different from the overcomer, correct?, since it would be the Father's name. So why then wouldn't the name of the city of my God be different from the overcomer as well? How can the former be different from the overcomer, but the latter equals the overcomer, since you are concluding the new Jerusalem is not an actual city, but is the bride of Christ? Why can't it just be that the bride of Christ will dwell in this city? Why do they have to be this city, since that seems to make this verse somewhat unreasonable?

[fewarechosen]

hi divaD, i know for one i dont grasp how far this stuff goes, and i find myself in a state of misunderstanding.

2 things that your post above made me ponder, i feel it is most unwise to put any new words or substitute our understanding into a scripture even a slightest bit, i dont say this as some sort of attack or to mock you for saying it, just as i understand it thats how confusion starts to creep in. i reason very much like you so i sort of say it based on my own experience.

the second when you ponder the names /city and all that remember that when two are married they become one flesh, so if they are married they are one. that might help shed light.

Eph_5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

its not a common thing, its a great mystery,and i dont think we can grasp it with our minds so to speak, but the Holy Spirit He knows exactly that mystery. some things only God can answer.

also if you look at common marriages you will note the bride often takes on the name of one married.

[divaD]

2 things that your post above made me ponder, i feel it is most unwise to put any new words or substitute our understanding into a scripture even a slightest bit, i dont say this as some sort of attack or to mock you for saying it, just as i understand it thats how confusion starts to creep in. i reason very much like you so i sort of say it based on my own experience.

When it's done to illustrate a point, then that would be different. I'm simply trying to show how this verse would be understood. By making that verse say the new Jerusalem is not the name of the city of the Father, but is the bride itself, that is adding to that passage. That was what I was trying to illustrate. The verse doesn't say the new Jerusalem is the bride. It says that the new Jerusalem is the name of the city of the Father, and that Jesus will write the name of the city upon the one that overcomes. The one that overcomes would be of the bride.

and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem,

Once again, the point would be this. The name of my God would belong to the Father. the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, that would belong to the Father as well. IOW, it would be His city, originating from Him, the same way His name would be His, originating from Him.

[fewarechosen]

so He writes His name "I AM" and writes cities name "New Jerusalem". very key when you ponder what those names say. tie that to marriage, and as to why one would have a new name written, meaning 2 become one.


not sure the above will make sense just remember when moses asked Gods name what He said it was.

and i agree completely with your last paragraph.

so now lets say bride isnt new jerusalem(not saying it isnt just coming from that view) but the bride marries new jerusalem and they become one, and take on His name. then they are no longer seperate, but one. also remember all things originated from God for he created all things. even his bride.

i in them and them in me and so on.

[divaD]

so He writes His name "I AM" and writes cities name "New Jerusalem". very key when you ponder what those names say. tie that to marriage, and as to why one would have a new name written, meaning 2 become one.


not sure the above will make sense just remember when moses asked Gods name what He said it was.

and i agree completely with your last paragraph.

so now lets say bride isnt new jerusalem(not saying it isnt just coming from that view) but the bride marries new jerusalem and they become one, and take on His name. then they are no longer seperate, but one. also remember all things originated from God for he created all things. even his bride.

i in them and them in me and so on.

Let me try and explain it another way, since I'm even confusing myself. The new Jerusalem is a separate entity from the bride of Christ, which is the church. So it's not that the bride of Christ doesn't equal the new Jerusalem, it's that the bride of Christ itself is not the new Jerusalem, but that the bride of Christ dwelling in new Jerusalem, these two together equals the bride of Christ. That's a bit different than saying the new Jerusalem is the bride of Christ, but that the new Jerusalem isn't a separate entity.

[fewarechosen]

Let me try and explain it another way, since I'm even confusing myself. The new Jerusalem is a separate entity from the bride of Christ, which is the church. So it's not that the bride of Christ doesn't equal the new Jerusalem, it's that the bride of Christ itself is not the new Jerusalem, but that the bride of Christ dwelling in new Jerusalem, these two together equals the bride of Christ. That's a bit different than saying the new Jerusalem is the bride of Christ, but that the new Jerusalem isn't a separate entity.

lol im so with you on confusing myself cause i do that a lot too. i cant explain what i mean and when i try it comes out muddled. because all of scripture is tied together and its not easy to seperate one thing from another as im sure you know what i mean.

but remember also -ye are lively stones - if He made a person a lively stone and used those lively stones to build a temple whats the temple made out of ?

also were they/saints always lively stones ? did they always have a new name or did He have to give it to them. you dont take on a new name unless your married.

so lets take paul for an example, he was persecuting Christians so at that point he didnt have new name or any of that. Christ chose him and gave him a new name while paul was still here on earth.

peace divaD and may God guide our way.

I think that about covers what i have to say as i do not want to throw confusion on you just thought it might be good things to ponder.

[Beckrl]

I like what you say here, and I tend to agree overall, I think. But I'm still unclear what your overall position would be, whether the literal sun continues to shine upon the earth for all eternity, or whether it doesn't? If by chance you choose the latter, what would you be basing that on? The same for the former to. Hopefully I'm not asking anything too unreasonable, since that might be a lot for you to have to try and explain. I'm interested in your opinion, the reason why I ask.

David in your response to Markedward I would tend to agree with Mark that it's hyperbolic language not meant to be read literally. It's in the same manner as the literal sun and moon and stars, but in an spiritual sence. The sun is light, here in the spiritual sence is knowledge and that knowledge is God's word of which is reflected by the moon and stars. Jesus said he was the Light or knowledge of the Word of God unto an darken world. An world without the true knowledge of God and we are to be an reflection of Jesus as lights on a hill. The Pslams and Others were only writting about that day when the true light would shine unto the earth (Jesus)

[John146]

Ok then. let's see if I can illustrate why, so you will at least know what this some reason is. Either folks like you, or folks like me are misunderstanding something. I have no problem admitting that it could be folks like me that is misunderstanding, that is, if I can clearly be shown why and how. Are you willing to be that reasonable as well, not that you're not reasonable?

Of course. Just because we disagree on some things doesn't mean I don't consider your views or haven't considered your views before.

I read your response earlier, so I formulated the following in notepad. I'm not a fast typer in general, so I kind of formulate my lengthier responses in advance, then log in and post it.

Let's begin with the following verse then, trying to dissect whom would be given what by whom.


Revelation 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.


The speaker is Jesus. The 'him that overcometh', that would be a saint. In relation to this saint we see the following is going to happen to this saint....and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

But let's rephrase that verse, since the new Jerusalem is supposed to be the bride.

What do you mean "supposed to be"? Rev 21:9 says it is the bride.

Rev 21:9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife. 10And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

Notice the angel told John he would show him "the bride, the Lamb's wife" and he proceeded to show him the new Jerusalem. That makes the new Jerusalem "the bride, the Lamb's wife". You like to talk about putting two and two together in order to determine the truth about something. Well, how can you not conclude that the the bride is the new Jerusalem when you put the two parts I bolded above together? What does other scripture indicate about the identity of the bride of Christ? Does it indicate that it is a physical entity or spiritual?

THE SAINT that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is THE BRIDE, THE SAINTS OF GOD, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

So why, if this saint is part of the bride, would Jesus then be writing upon this same saint the name of His God, meaning the Father, and the name of the city of His God, meaning the city of the Father, which is THE BRIDE, THE SAINTS OF GOD?

You don't understand. We (the saints of God) are all part of the bride. The bride itself is the church, which is the body of Christ. The saints aren't the church itself. I'm not the bride. You're not the bride. We are each part of the bride of Christ. Each saint is a member of the church (Rom 14). The church or new Jerusalem is our spiritual city, if you will, and we populate it. We don't populate an earthly city, we populate a spiritual heavenly city.

The verse says the name of the city is new Jerusalem. And the overcomer in that verse is anticipating the name of the Father, and the name of the city of the Father being written upon him. So let's break that down a bit more.
and I will write upon him the name of my God...This name would be different from the overcomer, correct?, since it would be the Father's name. So why then wouldn't the name of the city of my God be different from the overcomer as well? How can the former be different from the overcomer, but the latter equals the overcomer, since you are concluding the new Jerusalem is not an actual city, but is the bride of Christ? Why can't it just be that the bride of Christ will dwell in this city?

Because scripture says the city is the bride of Christ in Rev 21:9.

Why do they have to be this city, since that seems to make this verse somewhat unreasonable?

I think you're thinking too hard here. So, let's simplify this a bit. What I'm asking you is how can an earthly physical city rather than a spiritual, heavenly city be called "the bride, the Lamb's wife"? Can a physical city on the earth be "the bride, the Lamb's wife"? Again, the bride of Christ is not a physical entity but a spiritual one so since the new Jerusalem is the bride of Christ (Rev 21:9) that means the new Jerusalem is a spiritual city, not a physical city. We don't become citizens of that heavenly city by physically entering into it, we become citizens of that city by spiritually entering into it.

[John146]

When it's done to illustrate a point, then that would be different. I'm simply trying to show how this verse would be understood. By making that verse say the new Jerusalem is not the name of the city of the Father, but is the bride itself, that is adding to that passage. That was what I was trying to illustrate. The verse doesn't say the new Jerusalem is the bride.

That verse may not say it, but Rev 21:9-10 does.

It says that the new Jerusalem is the name of the city of the Father,

How does that mean that the new Jerusalem can't be the bride of Christ? The new Jerusalem is the name of the city of the Father AND it is the bride of Christ. How can you try to say that the new Jerusalem is not the bride of Christ in light of what it says in Rev 21:9-10? Shouldn't you make sure your interpretation of Rev 3:12 agrees with what it says in Rev 21:9-10?

[nzyr]

This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. (1 John 1:5)

And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever. (Revelation 22:5)