A Bible contradiction ? Help please.

[WalterPlinge]

Hello.

My name's Walter and I'm very new here. If you look at my profile you'll see that I was a born-again Christian who's returned to his atheistic pov.

Nevertheless, there is something the Bible that I would like some help with understanding.
So far I've haven't heard a convincing explanation from any Christian sources as to why Revelation 3:7 and Revelation 21:22 appear to be contradicting each other.

The first says that those who overcome will me made into pillars of God's temple, this being in the context of the New Jerusalem and not in any Earthly temple in the ancient city of Philadelphia. The second says that John saw no temple in the New Jerusalem because God and the Lamb are it's temple.

I do realise that a literal reading of these verses yields a contradictory, mutually-exclusive answer - either there is a temple in God's city or there isn't. Perhaps there's a symbolic or figurative reading that can help here?
Is this evidence of a problem within the context of a single book of the Bible, written down at one time by one man? Other contradictions I've heard about seem to be between details in different books, written by different authors at different times.

Any insights you could give me on this would be very much appreciated.

If it's any help, my current research on this matter is as follows...

* All twenty versions of the English language Bibles listed at the BiblegateWay.com site also show this contradiction, to lesser or greater degrees, depending on how they are translated from the New Testament Greek. So there's not much help there.

* At the Scripture 4 all.org site there is an OnlineInterlinear (.pdf files) which gives these verses in their original Koine (N.T. Greek), with translations interlined. Rev. 3:12 has the words stulos (pillar) and naos (temple) clearly shown, relating to the reward the faithful will receive after they have overcome their trials. Contextually I can't see how any other location than the New Jerusalem is meant here.

* At Scripture4all, Rev. 21:22 reads, "KAI NAOS OU EIDO EN AUTOS",
or, "AND TEMPLE NOT I-PERCEIVED IN HER/IT". This verse, being part of John's description of the New Jerusalem, indicates that he saw no temple in the city because God and the Lamb are it's temple. If this is so, isn't John saying that there is no need of a temple building (naos) that has pillars (stulos)? Doesn't that interpretation conflict with the meaning and intent of Rev. 3:12?

* Cross referencing has yielded the following Bible quotes...

1 Kings 6:3
1 Kings 7:21
2 Chronicles 3:17
Jeremiah 1:18
Psalm 23:6
Psalm 27:4
Matthew 24:2
Luke 19:44
John 4:23
Galatians 2:9

While some of these describe the naming of pillars and others talk about where worship to god will be given, only one (Galatians 2:9) uses the words, "seeming to be pillars (stulos)" when referring metaphorically to certain people. Is Paul's metaphoric language a good way to understand what John meant in Rev. 3:12?

I've delved as far as I can using books and the Internet and now I'm turning to you in the hope that you can shed some light on this mystery.

Thanks in advance,

Walter Plinge.

 

[Chesterton]

The first says that those who overcome will me made into pillars of God's temple, this being in the context of the New Jerusalem and not in any Earthly temple in the ancient city of Philadelphia. The second says that John saw no temple in the New Jerusalem because God and the Lamb are it's temple.

I do realise that a literal reading of these verses yields a contradictory, mutually-exclusive answer - either there is a temple in God's city or there isn't.

I don't see a contradiction. There's a temple, but a temple not made with hands - it is God. And believers become part of it - that is, we are joined with God.

Perhaps think of an Eastern conception - that we are to be absorbed into (become part of) God, and then fine-tune it. The Christian conception is similar, yet does not require men to be destroyed - it allows for us (our personality or personhood) to survive, yet be distinct. So how would you describe this? - I think a pillar as part of a larger edifice is about as good a metaphor as can be made.

Of course there is mystery there; not contradiction, but mystery. Whether we're talking about properties of light or gravity, ultimate reality always remains mysterious.

 

[Lukaris]

I am at work & entirely read your question but perhaps these two explanations for each verse in the Orthodox Study Bible (OSB) may provide a answer. For Revelation 3:12 , "The coming down of the New Jersusalem represents the union of heaven and earth and the liberation of all creation from bondage. Pillar indicates permanence; the new name is Christ's full revelation at His 2nd & glorious coming." For Revelation 21:22, "There is no temple in the old sense in the New Jerusalem (John 4:21). Its temple is the presence of God in all (v.22; 1 Corinthians 15:28, Colossians 3:11, 1 Peter 2:4-10). The Church itself is the temple.

 

[PastorJim]

Hello.

My name's Walter and I'm very new here. If you look at my profile you'll see that I was a born-again Christian who's returned to his atheistic pov.

Nevertheless, there is something the Bible that I would like some help with understanding.
So far I've haven't heard a convincing explanation from any Christian sources as to why Revelation 3:7 and Revelation 21:22 appear to be contradicting each other.

The first says that those who overcome will me made into pillars of God's temple, this being in the context of the New Jerusalem and not in any Earthly temple in the ancient city of Philadelphia. The second says that John saw no temple in the New Jerusalem because God and the Lamb are it's temple.

I do realise that a literal reading of these verses yields a contradictory, mutually-exclusive answer - either there is a temple in God's city or there isn't. Perhaps there's a symbolic or figurative reading that can help here?
Is this evidence of a problem within the context of a single book of the Bible, written down at one time by one man? Other contradictions I've heard about seem to be between details in different books, written by different authors at different times.

Any insights you could give me on this would be very much appreciated.

If it's any help, my current research on this matter is as follows...

* All twenty versions of the English language Bibles listed at the BiblegateWay.com site also show this contradiction, to lesser or greater degrees, depending on how they are translated from the New Testament Greek. So there's not much help there.

* At the Scripture 4 all.org site there is an OnlineInterlinear (.pdf files) which gives these verses in their original Koine (N.T. Greek), with translations interlined. Rev. 3:12 has the words stulos (pillar) and naos (temple) clearly shown, relating to the reward the faithful will receive after they have overcome their trials. Contextually I can't see how any other location than the New Jerusalem is meant here.

* At Scripture4all, Rev. 21:22 reads, "KAI NAOS OU EIDO EN AUTOS",
or, "AND TEMPLE NOT I-PERCEIVED IN HER/IT". This verse, being part of John's description of the New Jerusalem, indicates that he saw no temple in the city because God and the Lamb are it's temple. If this is so, isn't John saying that there is no need of a temple building (naos) that has pillars (stulos)? Doesn't that interpretation conflict with the meaning and intent of Rev. 3:12?

* Cross referencing has yielded the following Bible quotes...

1 Kings 6:3
1 Kings 7:21
2 Chronicles 3:17
Jeremiah 1:18
Psalm 23:6
Psalm 27:4
Matthew 24:2
Luke 19:44
John 4:23
Galatians 2:9

While some of these describe the naming of pillars and others talk about where worship to god will be given, only one (Galatians 2:9) uses the words, "seeming to be pillars (stulos)" when referring metaphorically to certain people. Is Paul's metaphoric language a good way to understand what John meant in Rev. 3:12?

I've delved as far as I can using books and the Internet and now I'm turning to you in the hope that you can shed some light on this mystery.

Thanks in advance,

Walter Plinge.

Eh. I'm more curious to know how somebody can be born again and an atheist at the same time.

If you don't believe in God, then why do you care what Revelation says?

 

[WalterPlinge]

Hello Chesterton, Lukaris and Pastor Jim.

Thank you for your replies.

You've certainly given me something to think about and I'd like to come back with some questions relating to what you've said - once I've had time to think. That o.k.?

To answer your question Pastor Jim, my profile says that I accepted Christ in 1986 and that I knew him for ten years, rejecting him as false in 1996. So I was born-again, but now I have reverted to my former p.o.v, which is atheism.

Some Christians I have shared this information with have accepted that I am an atheist, while others hold to the, "once-saved-always-saved" position on these matters. The former believe that I will spend eternity in Hell and the later say that God will shut me out of His presence, thrusting me into the outer darkness where there will be a, "weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth." Naturally, as an atheist I don't agree with either viewpoint, but I wouldn't disagree with their right to hold their own opinions.

Yes, I don't believe in God Pastor Jim, but please don't think that all atheists are bad people who don't care about the meaning of life and the purpose of existence. When I was a Christian I read the Bible as much as I could. Before that time and after my de-conversion I read, researched and absorbed everything I could find about life's purpose and meaning.

I have a great deal of respect for the Bible as a historical and cultural artefact that also contains much wisdom and writings of great beauty. No, I no longer believe that it's the word of God, but then I'm entitled to my own opinions and points of view, aren't I? If I choose to ask true believers about this passage, that chapter or this verse, that's ok, isn't it?

Chesterton and Lukaris have been kind enough to respond quickly to my initial query and I'll probably ask a little more on this topic to satisfy my curiosity. I hope this answers your question Pastor Jim.

Btw, do you have any views or comments about the meaning of these Bible verses?

Thanks,

Walter.

 

[PastorJim]

To answer your question Pastor Jim, my profile says that I accepted Christ in 1986 and that I knew him for ten years, rejecting him as false in 1996. So I was born-again, but now I have reverted to my former p.o.v, which is atheism.

What does that mean, to "accept Christ"? If you're born again, then didn't you receive a new nature? Where does the Bible say that you can change to receive a third nature or to lose the new nature you received in Christ?

What do you believe it means to be born again?

Lasty, how do you explain the logical contradiction of being born again when there is, according to you, no God?

Yes, I don't believe in God Pastor Jim

So then how were you born again? If there is no God, then there is no Christ then there is no way for you to be crucified with Christ and raised to new life in Him.

I think this all goes back to the idea that we can "accept" Christ.

I have a great deal of respect for the Bible as a historical and cultural artefact that also contains much wisdom and writings of great beauty.

How can you respect the Bible as an historical account when, if there is no God, it must be wrong about many of the historical accounts it contains?

Btw, do you have any views or comments about the meaning of these Bible verses?

Yes, but, like I said, I don't see the point of getting into the deeper meaning of them with somebody who says that they don't even believe in God. That's putting quite a few carts before the horse.

 

[WalterPlinge]

Hello Pastor Jim.

What does that mean, to "accept Christ"? If you're born again, then didn't you receive a new nature? Where does the Bible say that you can change to receive a third nature or to lose the new nature you received in Christ?

Yes. I certainly believed that I received a new nature.

No, I afraid I don't know about this third nature you refer to. If you read my posting I said that there were two positions held by Christian's I had talked with. Some accepted my return to atheism and others said that I couldn't be un-saved. The passage they quoted was in the book of Hebrews, chapter 6. They interpreted the Apostle Paul's words about, "not laying again the foundation" as meaning that the saving grace given to me when I accepted Jesus could not be taken away. These conversations took place almost a decade ago so please allow me to be a bit fuzzy when it comes to remembering the exact details.

Some Christians (rightly or wrongly) thought that God would honour my free choice to reject Him just as he had honoured my free choice to accept Him. These were the ones who said I would be going to Hell.

Others (rightly or wrongly), said I couldn't be un-saved and that God had a place of deepest darkness reserved for Christians who then turned away from Him. I can look up the scripture they quoted if you want - I just can't recall it right now.

What do you believe it means to be born again?

At the time when I accepted Jesus as my saviour I believed that my old self had died and that was I was re-born through the power of the Holy Spirit. Christ's sacrifice on the cross had redeemed me from eternal separation from God. I looked forward to growing in my faith and my relationship with Jesus, using his spiritual gifts to grow good fruit and to being with Him in glory. It's true that I was torn over the sudden death of my brother Paul, knowing that he never knew Christ as I had done, but I hoped that this sadness would be replaced with joy when He came again at the End of Days.

Lasty, how do you explain the logical contradiction of being born again when there is, according to you, no God?

Pastor Jim, please understand the chronology of my life events that I've described here. Prior to 1986 I was an atheist who believed there was no God. Between 1986 and 1996 I reversed that opinion, having accepted Jesus, as described above. Then, just as I chose to accept Him, I chose to reject, for reasons that I haven't yet discussed. So as far as I can see there is no logical contradiction in what I said.

1959, born naturally.
1959, to 1986, athiest pov. "There is no God"
1986, born again, belief and relationship with my God, Jesus Christ.
1996, rejection of Jesus & a return to the atheist, "There is no God" pov.
2008, still atheist and still curious about the Bible.

So then how were you born again? If there is no God, then there is no Christ then there is no way for you to be crucified with Christ and raised to new life in Him.
I think this all goes back to the idea that we can "accept" Christ.

Now can I ask you two questions please?

Are you saying that you believe I was never born-again in the first place?
And that it was impossible for me to reject Jesus if I was born-again?

How can you respect the Bible as an historical account when, if there is no God, it must be wrong about many of the historical accounts it contains?

Sorry, but I don't accept that last question as being a valid summary of my point of view. Atheism isn't an automatic assumption that the historicity of the Bible is faulty. There is a lot of well-documented archaeological evidence that backs up scripture and I'd be foolish to argue with it.

Yes, but, like I said, I don't see the point of getting into the deeper meaning of them with somebody who says that they don't even believe in God. That's putting quite a few carts before the horse.

Umm...so does that mean that you don't want debate with someone who doesn't believe in God? So far all I've asked for is clarification on the meaning of some verses in Revelation. Is that such a bad thing? Chesterton and Lukaris have replied with their views, but I'm getting different vibes from you. Have I breached the etiquette of this forum or offended one of it's members?

Pastor Jim please note that I've politely answered as many of your questions as I could right now. I'll come back to you (assuming that you still want to engage in dialogue) with those quotes about the "outer darkness", but if they don't accord with what you believe - don't take it up with me. These were the opinions of Christians I spoke to a long time ago.

It's getting late on this side of the Atlantic and I'm tired so after I post this reply I'm going to log off. Come the morning I'll check back here.
I hope I've answered your questions and look forward to 7 a.m.

Good night,

Walter.

 

[Ikuis]

Hello.

My name's Walter and I'm very new here. If you look at my profile you'll see that I was a born-again Christian who's returned to his atheistic pov.

Nevertheless, there is something the Bible that I would like some help with understanding.
So far I've haven't heard a convincing explanation from any Christian sources as to why Revelation 3:7 and Revelation 21:22 appear to be contradicting each other.

The first says that those who overcome will me made into pillars of God's temple, this being in the context of the New Jerusalem and not in any Earthly temple in the ancient city of Philadelphia. The second says that John saw no temple in the New Jerusalem because God and the Lamb are it's temple.

I do realise that a literal reading of these verses yields a contradictory, mutually-exclusive answer - either there is a temple in God's city or there isn't. Perhaps there's a symbolic or figurative reading that can help here?
Is this evidence of a problem within the context of a single book of the Bible, written down at one time by one man? Other contradictions I've heard about seem to be between details in different books, written by different authors at different times.

Walter Plinge.

Hi Walter,

I guess the first reference is Rev 3:12, not v.7?

I do not, personally, see any contradiction here. I think Rev 21:22 is telling readers not to expect to see a physical, structural temple in the New Jerusalem as there was in the historical Jerusalem built by Soloman, because it is replaced with the spiritual "temple" of God and the Lamb.

Paul also uses a metaphorical "temple" when describing our bodies as "...a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own" 1 Cor 6:19.

Paul also talks of Jesus as the head of the overall body and Christians being the various parts of that body. In the same way, I think Rev 3:12 is describing Christians as spiritual pillars of the overall spiritual temple mentioned in Rev 21:22.

I realise this is only a personal interpretation.

 

[WalterPlinge]

Hi Walter,

I guess the first reference is Rev 3:12, not v.7?

I do not, personally, see any contradiction here. I think Rev 21:22 is telling readers not to expect to see a physical, structural temple in the New Jerusalem as there was in the historical Jerusalem built by Soloman, because it is replaced with the spiritual "temple" of God and the Lamb.

Paul also uses a metaphorical "temple" when describing our bodies as "...a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own" 1 Cor 6:19.

Paul also talks of Jesus as the head of the overall body and Christians being the various parts of that body. In the same way, I think Rev 3:12 is describing Christians as spiritual pillars of the overall spiritual temple mentioned in Rev 21:22.

I realise this is only a personal interpretation.

Hello Ikuis.

Thanks for the input and, Yes, I did mean Rev. 3:12, not 3:7. Just a typo!

Walter.

 

[WalterPlinge]

Hello again Pastor Jim.

I've slept on your questions and looked up those Bible passages I mentioned yesterday. If you recall I said that I'd spoken to two different groups of Christians who held different opinions about salvation.

One group said that since God was supremely fair and just He would respect my choice to reject Him just as He respected my choice to accept Him. Quite frankly I don't remember if they backed this view up with scripture or not.

The other group quoted the "Parable of the Talents", saying that this applied to saved Christians who fell away from their faith. These "wicked servants" couldn't be un-saved and sent to hell, but would be shut out of God's presence and thrust into the "outer darkness". See Matthew 25:30.

They also mentioned 1 Corinthians 3: 10 - 15, interpreting that to mean that ungodly works by saved Christians would be "burned up" on Judgement Day and then they would be consigned to the outer dark.

I hope this answers your question.

Please note that I am not trying to cause trouble here. Being an atheist I am not advocating either point of view - I am trying my best to report about conversations that took place around ten years ago.

Btw, If it's any further help on this topic, I see that there's a thread called, "Salvation - can it really be lost?" in the Theology > Christian Apologetics section of this forum. This seems to cover the same ground.

Thank you,

Walter.

 

[WalterPlinge]

Hello again Chesterton, Lukaris and Ikuis.

I've taken some time to think about your replies to my question and I believe that I now have a clearer idea of how to approach what's written in Revelation.

It looks like I was being too literal in saying that verses in Rev 3 seemed to contradict those in Rev 21. The temple / no temple dilemma goes away if I realise that the pages of Revelation are a mixture of...

* Reports of actual events (History).
The trials and temptations of the seven churches by the Synagogues of Satan, the "prophetess" Jezebel, the works of the Nicolaitians, etc.

* Symbolic / Metaphoric language.
The faithful of the seven churches becoming pillars in God's temple, being given a white stone, refined gold, crown of life, etc.

* Reports of future events (Prophecies).
In later chapters; the opening of the Book of Life, the chaining of Satan, the Antichrist, the False Prophet, the arrival of the New Jerusalem, etc.

Things make a lot more sense if I take your advice to read certain passages metaphorically and/or symbolically, rather than literally. Thanks for your help.

Walter.

 

[Ikuis]

I am really glad that you found this forum useful, Walter - thanks for the feedback

 

[salida]

First, we are pillars in Gods temple. And secondly, John saw no temple(building). Meaning a physical temple building because God is shining over us and is our temple. God is omnipresent and no temple(building) can hold and contain Him, 2 Chronicles 6:18, 2 Chronicles 2:6.

In Rev 16:7: Heaven is also called a temple.

 

[Alcamo]

Hi WalterPlinge!

Thanks for being one of the nicest atheists in this forum! Usually all I see here are atheists who read books and "non-tracts" by people who are at least as ignorant about the Bible and Christianity as they are. Worse still, some here who profess Christ can be just as bad!

A brief point about your question. When the Bible says that we will be "pillars" in the temple, we have to understand the symbolism in light of the cultural and historical background in which it was written. It was a way of saying we will be placed in positions of great importance in God's kingdom.

Hope this helps and great chatting!

 

[WalterPlinge]

Thank you Ikuis, Salida & Alcamo for the replies.

All of your points, references and views were of help. I think I'm beginning to get a better grip on what's being written about in Revelation.

To Alcamo...

Your input about the cultural / historical background made me remember talking to my Dad about architecture. He was a builder by trade and we were comparing ancient and modern techniques for building load-bearing structures. These days we have steel and concrete at our disposal. Also we have computers to calculate stresses and loads. But back in Biblical times it was a different story.

There were a limited number of building materials; stone, brick, wood, mud, etc.
Also the range of possible architectural forms was limited. The ones that come to mind from the ancient world are the pyramid, the arch, the dome and the column. By far the most widespread and important was the column/pillar. All the Mediterranean civilizations (Greece, Rome, Egypt, etc.) and the Middle Eastern ones (Assyria, Babylon, Israel, Judea, etc.) were familiar with and made use of the pillar.

So your point about pillars being of great importance is well made. It was an obvious choice to use as a symbol for strength, stability and power.

As to being "one of the nicest atheists" all I can say is that I'm pleased and saddened in equal measures about this. Pleased that people who don't necessarily agree on matters of belief can still hold sensible conversations and saddened on two counts.
Firstly, Alcamo, that your experience of atheists in this forum has been largely negative. Secondly, that professed Christians can act ignorantly within this forum.

I must say that I found Pastor Jim's blunt tone and rapid-fire questioning a little challenging. Perhaps he's had some bad experiences with atheists here before now?
Anyway, I hope that there can be a raprochement (as the French say) between us. In plain English that's a reconcilliation or meeting on friendly terms.

Thanks again,

Walter.

 

[Alcamo]

Hey again,

Just a quick clarification... I also felt pastor Jim's tone could have been less blunt, but I'm sure he means well. When I said "some here who profess Christ can be just as bad", however, I meant "here" in the context of the entire forum, not any one particular post or any one person specifically.

Thankx

 

[Lukaris]

I think the Lord commands us to understand that the Beatitudes can be seen in anyone but not necessarily in everyone. This applies to Christians and non Christians; at the same time we must not judge but must discern anti Christian behavior whether it is present in Christians or non Christians. Just the 2 cents of a sinner.