Jesus coming in like manner?

[TheForgiven]

Brother Richard,

Could you compare the Greek text for these two passages:

Acts 1:9-10 (NKJV) Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. 10 And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel, 11 who also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven."

Luke 13:34 (NKJV) "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you were not willing!

Notice the words in red. Are the Greek words the same in these two passages? [hon tropon] I ask because if Futurist insists that Acts chapter 1 is an "EXACT" representation of what they were witnessing, then shouldn't have Christ literally meant that He wanted to gather the Jews as Hens under its wings? Both expressions were metaphoric in nature, yet Futurist insist that Acts chapter 1 was not metaphoric, but literal.

But first, could you compare the two passages and see if the same Greek word is used?

Joe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Brother Richard,

Could you compare the Greek text for these two passages:

Acts 1:9-10 (NKJV) Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. 10 And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel, 11 who also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven."

Luke 13:34 (NKJV) "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you were not willing!

Notice the words in red. Are the Greek words the same in these two passages? [hon tropon] I ask because if Futurist insists that Acts chapter 1 is an "EXACT" representation of what they were witnessing, then shouldn't have Christ literally meant that He wanted to gather the Jews as Hens under its wings? Both expressions were metaphoric in nature, yet Futurist insist that Acts chapter 1 was not metaphoric, but literal.

But first, could you compare the two passages and see if the same Greek word is used?

Joe
Hey there Joe,


Good find. The Greek is identical in those two cases. But it carries different meanings in different contexts. Sometimes it means "in exactly the same way" and other times it indicates a metaphorical similarity, as with the "hens." A good example of "exactly the same way" is in Acts 15:
Acts 15:7-12 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. 8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; 9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as (hon tropon) they.
Now we know that the "hon tropon" means in exactly the same fashion. But the interesting thing is that the "we" refers to the Jewish Apostles who shall be saved "in the same was as" the Gentiles. I would have expected the grammar to be reversed with the Peter saying that the Gentiles would be saved in the same manner as "us." It seems like this may be significant because the council was discussing what the Gentiles needed to do relative to Torah, and to this Peter said specifically that they could not keep the law. So this looks like a very good example of the clear statement that Jews and Gentiles alike are saved by faith and not by works of the law.

But getting back to the eschatology question, futurists can argue that "in like manner" means "in exactly the same way" but I doubt they can prove it. There are plenty of examples of it indicating a metaphorical similarity.

Thanks for the insightful question. It looks like it led to more than you expected.

Richard

[TheForgiven]

Hey there Joe,


Good find. The Greek is identical in those two cases. But it carries different meanings in different contexts. Sometimes it means "in exactly the same way" and other times it indicates a metaphorical similarity, as with the "hens." A good example of "exactly the same way" is in Acts 15:

Acts 15:7-12 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. 8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; 9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as (hon tropon) they.

Now we know that the "hon tropon" means in exactly the same fashion. But the interesting thing is that the "we" refers to the Jewish Apostles who shall be saved "in the same was as" the Gentiles. I would have expected the grammar to be reversed with the Peter saying that the Gentiles would be saved in the same manner as "us." It seems like this may be significant because the council was discussing what the Gentiles needed to do relative to Torah, and to this Peter said specifically that they could not keep the law. So this looks like a very good example of the clear statement that Jews and Gentiles alike are saved by faith and not by works of the law.

But getting back to the eschatology question, futurists can argue that "in like manner" means "in exactly the same way" but I doubt they can prove it. There are plenty of examples of it indicating a metaphorical similarity.

Thanks for the insightful question. It looks like it led to more than you expected.

Richard

Thanks brother Richard. I thought I'd try to add more information to the debate. It seems our repeated arguments are not enough, even thought the gospels which contain the predictions of the temple's destruction is very strong, yet for some odd reason, Futurist's refuse to accept it. And I don't have a single clue why.

I'll keep searching for more solid facts.

Joe

[shawn]

I have a question....

Are preterists more metaphoric in their interpretation of the bible or do they read it literally as most "futurists" seem to do?

Shawn

[TheForgiven]

I have a question....

Are preterists more metaphoric in their interpretation of the bible or do they read it literally as most "futurists" seem to do?

Shawn

Hellow Shawn, and welcome. :welcome:

Futurist's interpret scripture more literally, with very few metaphoric interpretation permitted. They understand parables that the Bible gives answers to, sort of like memorizing the answers to a test. When Christ spoke in parables, and he later explains it to the Apostles, Futurist will admit that those were metaphoric explanations, such as the message of faith as little as a mustard seed. But allow me if you will to show you a perfect example.

Jesus said, "If you have the faith the size of this little mustard seed, you could say to the mountain, "be cast into the sea" and it will be done. Now we know that faith is not literally a mustard seed, but rather a figurative explanation of the magnitude of such a small amount of faith. Yet, on the same token, there are millions who actually believe that this kind of faith demands that a person be literally able to throw a mountain into the sea. So they understand the metaphoric expression of the mustard seed, but they interpret the mountain being cast into the sea literally. Do you see where I'm going with this?

Preterist understand that the Old Testament is filled with prophetic language used in poetic expressions which were fulfilled without the literalness of the word, but the literalness of the metaphoric expression. Brother Richard quoted a passage from the Old Testament which was fulfilled long before Christ, yet the same language matched that of Revelation. An example I like to use is "Sun, Moon, and Stars". Futurist's believe the end of the world would be witnessed by the darkening of the sun, the moon turning into literal blood, or the color blood, and the stars literally falling from the sky. We understand these expressions to be symbolic of the destruction of Jerusalem. The Sun is a picture of God's righteousness and Holiness. The Moon is a picture of Israel of the flesh. The stars is a picture of angels, or ministers of the Churches. So when the prophet Joel prophesied about the sun, moon, and stars before the coming of the Lord, he was talking about Jerusalem (The Moon) losing the light (Sun) of God because of their rejection, which eventually led to their deaths (Stars falling from the sky). Jerusalem was supposed to be a city reflecting God's holy kingdom. But their sin caused the light to be darkened, leading to their deaths.

Revelation considered the woman which gave birth to a male child, to be Israel. When the woman was led into the wilderness (Symbolic of the Israelite's being led into the desert after crossing the red sea), she was nourished for a time. But somewhere along the line, this woman became corrupt, and eventually become a Harlot. This Harlot is later pictured in Revelation as riding a huge Beast with seven heads.

Understanding that Revelation was written with a sense of urgency to the Seven Churches of Asia, to prepare them for what was about to take place, we are able to see that Israel of the flesh is the intended target of the discussion. Israel is the one who brought forth the Messiah. But most of Israel of the flesh had become corrupt. Like their forefathers, those who sinned wandered in the wilderness for 40 years. This, to me, matches that time from Christ crucifixion to the destruction of Jerusalem; approximately 40 years. Thus, by 70 AD, the destruction of the temple was completed, the sinners were destroyed (who rejected and persecuted the Messiah), and the promised Kingdom of righteousness was being delivered. What many didn't understand was that the Kingdom of Christ is not about military strength or power. Rather it was about testimony and faith. Although the Roman Empire severely persecuted the Church, her testimony and faith influenced thousands within the Empire, leading to the eventual crumbling of this vast dynasty.

Revelation tells the story of the Harlots destruction, the persecution from the Harlot and the Beast towards the Saints of the most High, and the eventual destruction of both Harlot (Jerusalem) and Beast (Rome). Thus was fulfilled in Revelation, "The Beast will hate the Harlot and eat her flesh, and burn her with fire...." Rome destroyed Jerusalem in 70AD, just as the Lord prophesied.

Sorry for the lengthy answer.

Joe

[shawn]

Thank you Joe.....it's refreshing to know that these things are not taken literally. I appreciate the response and the example you gave me....I read it thoroughly.

Shawn

[TheForgiven]

Thank you Joe.....it's refreshing to know that these things are not taken literally. I appreciate the response and the example you gave me....I read it thoroughly.

Shawn

You are very welcome brother Shawn. And I look forward to discussing these things with you a great deal more. I'm certain you have more questions you'd like to discuss. However, let it be known that I do not have all of the answers. That's what makes this forum so blessed; we depend on each other instead of numbers. Some forums become too dominant, and the opposing position becomes outnumbered, making any form of debate difficult.

I'm not perfect and I'm as peaceful as I can be. But bad habits have rubbed off on me from other forums, and brother Richard, a blessed man of God, keeps me straight from time to time. Sometimes, my posts become ill-tempered, and he's always the first one to set me back on track. Sometimes he slips as well, especially when we lose control and joke about some ideas that just seem too far fetched.

But doing what all runners do, I lay behind me what was past, and look forward to what's ahead. [By the way, did you see how I used the runner as a metaphor, not to be taken literally? That's how Preterist interpret scripture where it appears necessary].

I'd recommend reading Brother Richard's "Synoptic Gospels" article, for it will give you insight to nearly all of what a Preterist believes.

Lastly, Preterism is not as knew as the Historicist's believers try to preach. They claim that the Futurist and Preterist teaching was invented by two Jesuit priests in the 15th century. That is not true. Rather, the two Jesuits spilled two views of Revelation, that actually already had influence within the Church as early as the 2nd century. St. Oregon believed in a form of Preterism, as well as St. Julius Africanus. In the 3rd century, St. Eusebius believed in a form of Preterism. There are many others, but those are the three I primarily talk about. However, there are some differences between their belief and ours.

God bless you Shawn, and may He lead you towards knowledge that spans this universe, and the love and joy of the Holy Spirit.

Joe

[Brother Les]

I have a question....

Are preterists more metaphoric in their interpretation of the bible or do they read it literally as most "futurists" seem to do?

Shawn


I tend to think that 'Preterists', read Scripture in the Eastern Oriental Hebreic styl that it is written in. All Scripture is 'Literal' in some nature, the test of true understanding is taking the context of what is said to see if that context is Physical Literal or Metaphoric (Spritital) Literal.



poted by Joe
Jesus said, "If you have the faith the size of this little mustard seed, you could say to the mountain, "be cast into the sea" and it will be done. Now we know that faith is not literally a mustard seed, but rather a figurative explanation of the magnitude of such a small amount of faith. Yet, on the same token, there are millions who actually believe that this kind of faith demands that a person be literally able to throw a mountain into the sea. So they understand the metaphoric expression of the mustard seed, but they interpret the mountain being cast into the sea literally. Do you see where I'm going with this?

Taking this teaching by Jesus, the Disciples that He was talking to, clearly understood what He was saying. Preachers 'today'...say, that 'if' 'we' have 'faith'...then 'we' can move 'mountains'....Jesus on the other hand was talking only to His Disciple about ONE Mountain....The Temple Mount...which represented 'The Mosaic Law'.

Hbr 9:8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:
Hbr 9:9 Which [was] a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;



The First Tabernacle (Mosaic Law) that was made with hands would be thrown into 'The Sea', by The Disciples as their preaching of Jesus grows and grows. 'The Sea' is a metaphor that is contrasted by 'The Land'....Those of 'The Sea' are non-Elect of God and those of 'The Land' are the Election.

Mat 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.


Every parable had an under current about 'Israel' in its' Hebraic meaning.

Blessings
Brother Les

[TheForgiven]

I tend to think that 'Preterists', read Scripture in the Eastern Oriental Hebreic styl that it is written in. All Scripture is 'Literal' in some nature, the test of true understanding is taking the context of what is said to see if that context is Physical Literal or Metaphoric (Spritital) Literal.

Well that's probably a better way of putting it. I believe that much of prophesy is based on poetic literature, comprised of metaphoric expressions. Some simply refer to this as a "spiritual truth".


Taking this teaching by Jesus, the Disciples that He was talking to, clearing understood what He was saying. Preachers 'today'...say, that 'if' 'we' have 'faith'...then 'we' can move 'mountains'....Jesus on the other had was talking only to His Disciple about ONE Mountain....The Temple Mount...which represented 'The Mosaic Law'.

Exactly! :thumb: Many today misunderstand the "spiritual truth" behind the above message, and are instead too focused on literally accomplishing this. Besides, if Christ was talking about literally causing a mountain to be cast into the sea, what Christian hasn't tried to do this within these past two millennium's? LOL! As far as I know, there is yet to be a mountain cast into the sea. This must mean that nobody truly has faith. :lol: Rather, we know that Christ was showing that faith as small as a mustard seed can accomplish a great deal in ones life. And the mountain I believe he was referring to was the temple, or Judaism. I, for one, don't believe he was talking about a literal mountain. This may have been common Jewish practice to refer to kingdoms as mountains or hills.


Hbr 9:8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:
Hbr 9:9 Which [was] a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;

Agreed!


The First Tabernacle (Mosaic Law) that was made with hands would be thrown into 'The Sea', by The Disciples as their preaching of Jesus grows and grows. 'The Sea' is a metaphor that is contrasted by 'The Land'....Those of 'The Sea' are non-Elect of God and those of 'The Land' are the Election.


Correct again! :thumb: The Sea is a representation of people outside the Kingdom. When you think literally of the sea, what do you often think of?

Well, there is a beautiful sense of peace when there are no storms. But most seas are usually unstable, and are always influenced by the wind or stormy wind. Now lets apply this using "storm" or "wind" on the "sea". If the sea stands for nations outside the Kingdom of God, and the "Storm" stands for the destruction of armies, with that we can clearly see what this would mean. Metaphorically, I'd be saying that the wind causes rough seas. But what does this metaphor mean? It means that an army of destruction causes the nations to be unsettled, just like the storm or wind causes to the sea to be unsettled.

There are passages in Isaiah and the Psalms that speak of Leviathan, the great serpent, who always cause the seas to be unsettled. This simply means that an evil Empire is causing chaos and turmoil within the inhabited world.

Now what about those on Dry Land? Winds cannot bother dry land, unless the winds are strong enough. These are usually referred to as "whirl winds". Additionally, "Locusts" are usually referred to as armies of destruction who devour all the food and water supplies, which was quite common in the past, and especially in the ancient days. "Scorpions" are also used as metaphor's, describing armies that cause torment. Unlike the Locust that feeds on everything, scorpions are built on torture and offense. This is a perfect representation of the Roman governments which caused forced Christians to go through great persecution and suffering.

MAN I love this stuff! Isn't anyone else remotely interested talking about this stuff? I just love it!

Joe

[Rose]

MAN I love this stuff! Isn't anyone else remotely interested talking about this stuff? I just love it!

Joe

Hi Joe,

Hey! I love it too :D

I was just talking to Richard about Brother Les's last post on "having enough faith to move mountains", and what that really means.

All these insights are wonderful! It's what inspired me about 7 months ago to start writing a book on Revelation....the only problem is I'm never going to get it finished, because every time I read one of the many posts here I get new insights, which I want to add to my book and on..... and on..... it goes. :lol:

Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

MAN I love this stuff! Isn't anyone else remotely interested talking about this stuff? I just love it!

Joe
I TOTALLY love it .... but I'm working ten hour days right now, and then I am capping it off by taking my wife out to dinner. I hope to participate more soon.

Richard

[TheForgiven]

I TOTALLY love it .... but I'm working ten hour days right now, and then I am capping it off by taking my wife out to dinner. I hope to participate more soon.

Richard

:thumb: Well you two lovelies have a wonderful dinner. ;o)

And take your time. I wasn't referring to you only. :D I'm wondering where brother Dave is. Oh, and I too know about the 10+ hours of work. My job has me there from 6:30 AM to about 5:30 PM (Or 6:30 PM). I'm working nearly 11 hours everyday. I've also had to work a few hours these past four weekends. I'm hoping to catch a breather this weekend, at least for the first time in a while.

I've always known, or at least thought, what the locusts represent, but I never concentrated too much on the scorpions that cause pain. Then it hit me! Scorpions aren't consumers like Locusts, so their mission is not to consume, but to torment. As soon as I started thinking about torment, then I put two and two together. "TORTURE" would be the intended message. The next step is applying who was receiving this "torture". Were the scorpions (figurative for persecutors) torturing the Jews during the destruction of Jerusalem? Or was persecution towards the Saints (Christians)? I've got to read the chapter again, and see who it was that the scorpions were tormenting. Right now, I'm leaning towards the Jews, because the locusts (Roman soldiers) consumed all the food in the fields, as well as their (Jews) homes. Of course we all know that Roman torture always seemed to be followed with a large dose of torture. Then again, Nero Caesar's torture of the Christian's also comes into mind. However, his torture was prior to the Jewish revolt, so I'm thinking this had to with what was going on inside the city (Jerusalem), and all throughout Israel.

Another theory to consider is could the scorpions been a representation of the evil robbers inflicting torment upon its citizens who attempted to leave Israel, when they heard of the coming Roman armies.

Well, it's off to reading as I have more research to conduct. I'm interested in your inputs.

Joe

[Brother Les]

All these insights are wonderful! It's what inspired me about 7 months ago to start writing a book on Revelation....the only problem is I'm never going to get it finished, because every time I read one of the many posts here I get new insights, which I want to add to my book and on..... and on..... it goes.

Rose


#7 04-08-2008, 09:17 AM
Brother Les Online:
Full Preterist Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 499



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you would like to read these (or parts of these) book before you buy them. they can be found online in e-book form, PDF files.


http://www.freebooks.com/docs/2226_47e.htm


http://www.freebooks.com/docs/2206_47e.htm



I believe that that Greg Bahnsen's review On "The Days of Vengeance",is skewed as he (Greg) seems to look at Revelation from a Historist view point and David looks at Revelation from a Partial Preterist view Point. Let the reader decide.

Blessings
Brother Les



My Dear Sister Rose,
If you want more things to ponder these are two good books to scan through.

David Chiltons: "Days of Vengeneance"
subtitle: And Expositions of The Book of Revelation

a verse by verse first century fulfillment commentary, very interesting




also:

Ken Gentrys: "Before Jerusalem Fell"
subtitle: dating the Book of Revelation





Let us all pray for Wisdom

Blessings
Brother Les

[Brother Les]

I've always known, or at least thought, what the locusts represent, but I never concentrated too much on the scorpions that cause pain. Then it hit me! Scorpions aren't consumers like Locusts, so their mission is not to consume, but to torment. As soon as I started thinking about torment, then I put two and two together. "TORTURE" would be the intended message. The next step is applying who was receiving this "torture". Were the scorpions (figurative for persecutors) torturing the Jews during the destruction of Jerusalem? Or was persecution towards the Saints (Christians)? I've got to read the chapter again, and see who it was that the scorpions were tormenting. Right now, I'm leaning towards the Jews, because the locusts (Roman soldiers) consumed all the food in the fields, as well as their (Jews) homes. Of course we all know that Roman torture always seemed to be followed with a large dose of torture. Then again, Nero Caesar's torture of the Christian's also comes into mind. However, his torture was prior to the Jewish revolt, so I'm thinking this had to with what was going on inside the city (Jerusalem), and all throughout Israel.

Another theory to consider is could the scorpions been a representation of the evil robbers inflicting torment upon its citizens who attempted to leave Israel, when they heard of the coming Roman armies.

Well, it's off to reading as I have more research to conduct. I'm interested in your inputs.

Joe

Joe,
'The Christian' 'movement' during the first century was always considered by 'Christians' as a 'Sect' (of The Way) of the 'Israelites' (Judaism?which is religion(s)of the 'Jews') community.They thought and preached that 'they' were the 'Elect Remnent' and True 'Israel'. They were forced to 'break' from the synaguge worship system by the Rabbianic(sp) leadership because of politics (Many of the 'sects' had a 'messiah' to lead them).The Sect of The Way did not support the Jewish War against Rome, but saw it as 'Revelation' of Old Covenant Scripture...(They understood the 70 weeks and the types and anti-types of Sinia and Pentecost) By not suporting 'The War', they were deemed like a cancer of subvertion that needed to be removed. 'Revelation' was written by John to show what was about to come down on the 'old' Creation and Economy of Apostate 'Israel'. Notice that every plague was in line with every plague that came down on Egypt and every plague matched with an Egyptian 'god'......Jerusalem/Judea was shown in the likeness of Babylon/Egypt...


Blessings
Brother Les

[TheForgiven]

Joe,
'The Christian' 'movement' during the first century was always considered by 'Christians' as a 'Sect' (of The Way) of the 'Israelites' (Judaism?which is religion(s)of the 'Jews') community.They thought and preached that 'they' were the 'Elect Remnent' and True 'Israel'. They were forced to 'break' from the synaguge worship system by the Rabbianic(sp) leadership because of politics (Many of the 'sects' had a 'messiah' to lead them).The Sect of The Way did not support the Jewish War against Rome, but saw it as 'Revelation' of Old Covenant Scripture...(They understood the 70 weeks and the types and anti-types of Sinia and Pentecost) By not suporting 'The War', they were deemed like a cancer of subvertion that needed to be removed. 'Revelation' was written by John to show what was about to come down on the 'old' Creation and Economy of Apostate 'Israel'. Notice that every plague was in line with every plague that came down on Egypt and every plague matched with an Egyptian 'god'......Jerusalem/Judea was shown in the likeness of Babylon/Egypt...


Blessings
Brother Les

Bingo! :thumb: They line up perfectly. Don't you love it? :yo:

Joe

[Rose]

I thought I would awaken this thread with a different way of looking at what "coming in like manner" could mean.


John 14:18-20 'I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you. A little while longer and the world will not see Me no more, but you will see me. Because I live, you will live also. At that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you.'

John 14:23 '…..If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.'

John 14:26 'But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.'……28) 'You have heard Me say to you, I am going away and coming back to you…….

John 15:26 'But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto youfrom the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

John 16:7 'Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.'

John 16:16 'A little while, and you will not see Me; and again a little while, and you will see Me, because I go to My Father. Jesus promised His Disciples that He would send them the Holy Spirit who would teach them all things they would need to know to be witnesses of who He was….but first it was needful that He depart to the Father so He could send the Holy Spirit.

Looking closely at the above verses it becomes clear that Jesus is speaking of going away and coming back in the same context as sending the Holy Spirit. He says He is going away so the He can send the Holy Spirit, then He says He is coming back to them and that He and the Father will make their home with them. So from that context it appears that the particular 'coming' that Jesus is talking about to the Disciples is the 'coming' of the Holy Spirit, and He is using that interchangeably with His coming.


Acts 1:4-11 'And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.' The above verses in Acts take place just before Jesus departs, after being with the Disciples 40 days after His resurrection. Jesus is with His Disciples and He is telling them that they are going to be baptized with the Holy Spirit in a few days; they in turn ask Jesus when He is going to restore the kingdom to Israel, Jesus responds by saying that it isn’t for them to know at this time…..then Jesus brings them back to the topic of the Holy Spirit, elaborating on the fact that they will soon receive power to be witnesses for Him on the earth.

After He has spoken these things Jesus is taken upward to heaven and disappears into a cloud. As the Disciples stand looking up, two men in white (probably angels) ask them why they are staring up into the sky, for Jesus who just left, is going to return to them' in the same manner' as He left.

The question that now arises is: What is the manner in which Jesus is going to return?

I think the whole point of the interaction that Jesus had with His Disciples before Pentecost was to inform them that He was leaving so that He could send them the Holy Spirit as He had promised, and I think 'the manner' in which He would return was in the power of the Holy Spirit. The whole discourse is directed at the Disciples (you), they are the ones on whom the beginnings of the Church have come upon, they are the ones who are going to see Him return in "like manner", receiving power to become His witnesses. This 'coming' that the two men are speaking of appears to be the same 'coming' that Jesus spoke of to His Disciples when He told them He must 'go for a little while, so He could come again in a little while', and indeed it was a little while…..'not many days hence' was the 10 days till Pentecost, when that promise would be fulfilled.

Rose

[TheForgiven]

Interesting Rose. Very interesting. This is worth looking into. So if I understand you correctly, you're saying that His "Coming/Presence" is through the Holy Spirit?

I tend to believe that what He was saying is this. The coming of the Messiah to restore Israel would not be with visible observance, just like Him vanishing behind a cloud. Thus, His return would not be visible, but through the cloud itself. And the clouds is a metaphor for a stormy time, such as a severe thunderstorm. This storm was the Roman Empire which darkened the skies, filled the streets with blood, and resulted in more than a million killed.

Thus, Christ return is to be interpreted in a Spiritual sense, and not a literal Sense as many do. They're focussing too much on the cloud, and not the cloud, if you know what I mean.

Joe

[Rose]

Interesting Rose. Very interesting. This is worth looking into. So if I understand you correctly, you're saying that His "Coming/Presence" is through the Holy Spirit?

I tend to believe that what He was saying is this. The coming of the Messiah to restore Israel would not be with visible observance, just like Him vanishing behind a cloud. Thus, His return would not be visible, but through the cloud itself. And the clouds is a metaphor for a stormy time, such as a severe thunderstorm. This storm was the Roman Empire which darkened the skies, filled the streets with blood, and resulted in more than a million killed.

Thus, Christ return is to be interpreted in a Spiritual sense, and not a literal Sense as many do. They're focusing too much on the cloud, and not the cloud, if you know what I mean.

Joe

Hi Joe,

The "coming" that Jesus spoke of in John 14 is what I think took place at Pentecost, which is different from His coming in power and glory in 70 A.D., when He delivered up the kingdoms to God and put the last enemy "death" under His feet.

Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Joe,

The "coming" that Jesus spoke of in John 14 is what I think took place at Pentecost, which is different from His coming in power and glory in 70 A.D., when He delivered up the kingdoms to God and put the last enemy "death" under His feet.

Rose
I think a careful exegesis of John 14 makes it abundantly clear that Christ was talking about the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. I wrote about it in my recent post called "An Exegesis of John 4."

Richard

[TheForgiven]

Hi Joe,

The "coming" that Jesus spoke of in John 14 is what I think took place at Pentecost, which is different from His coming in power and glory in 70 A.D., when He delivered up the kingdoms to God and put the last enemy "death" under His feet.

Rose
__________________

Yes, I agree. John 14 talks about the Counselor, who would not only convict the world of sin (through our conscious) but who would remind the Apostles everything that He taught them, while He was in the flesh. This part we agree. I was primarily referring to Acts chapter 1, when the Angel stated, "This same Jesus will come "in like manner" as you saw him go into heaven...." That, I believe, was referring to the coming in 70AD, when the Kingdom was completed, and handed over to God the Father, after death itself was defeated.

It's ironic that we're talking about death being defeated, and we're not the first to suggest this. St. Anthanius of the 2nd - 3rd century taught this in his writing. He showed a complete fulfillment of Matthew 24 in 70AD, and also stated that Death was swallowed up in victory, for Christ was the end of death.

The "death" I believe was more spiritual death, and not physical death. Prior to Christ crucifixion, death reigned from Adam, but no life had been provided until the "times of refreshing" had been sent. This times of refreshing began at Pentecost, as Peter himself testified, "The times of refreshing may come, and that He might send the Holy Spirit....." It is the Holy Spirit that results in the opposite of Satan's work.....spirit of death, vs the Spirit of life that gives life.

Joe

[TheForgiven]

I think a careful exegesis of John 14 makes it abundantly clear that Christ was talking about the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. I wrote about it in my recent post called "An Exegesis of John 4."

Richard

Agreed, John chapter 14 spoke of the Holy Spirit of Christ coming, which began at Pentacost. This may be applied to Acts chapter 1, but I haven't quite grabbed it yet. I'll need to read the passage again.

Joe

[TheForgiven]

Here is the passage in discussion.


Acts 1
4 And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, “which,” He said, “you have heard from Me; 5 for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” 6 Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7 And He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority. 8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

I tried to color code the context. Based on what I'm reading, it appears the Apostles wanted to know when Israel would be restored, and a King be placed back on the throne. Instead of getting a direct answer, Jesus explains to them that it's not their business to know the times or events to take place, but that they would receive power from the Holy Spirit (John 14) to serve as witnesses, NOT ONLY in Jerusalem, Judea, or Samaria, but to the "ENDS OF THE EARTH". I think this is very important because it appears that Christ did answer their question but went beyond that. IMO, I think he's saying this, that NOT ONLY will Israel be restored, but the ends of the earth as well. How does this restoration take place? By their preaching and testimony of Jesus, through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Now, tie that in with what the Angel says to them:


9 Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. 10 And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel, 11 who also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.”

I'm convinced that Christ going into heaven, and being hidden by a cloud was a symbol of His mighty return in a "cloud of power and great glory", which we believe happened in 70AD. A cloud "Hid" Christ as He ascended into Glory, and a Cloud would hide His view when He returned with Power and Judgment [70AD]. BUT, this mighty event would not happen (times or seasons), that is to say, Israel and the ends of the earth would not be restored, UNTIL their mission to testify about Him was completed, first in Jerusalem, and then to the ends of the earth [i.e. the Gentiles]. By the time their testimony of Jesus was comleted, then comes the end, and final judgment in 70AD. This fits perfectly with the words of Christ who said,

"This gospel of the Kingdom will be preached unto the entire inhabited earth, and then the end will come..."

and again,

"This generation shall not pass until all these things are completed. Heaven and earth will pass, but my words will never pass..."

Sister Rose and brother Richard, I'm interested in your take on this.

Joe

[Rose]

Acts 1:4-11 'And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.' Hi Joe,
The more I think about what is being said in that passage the more I'm convinced that the main focus was on "the promise of the Holy Spirit" and when and how that would take place. So I tend to lean towards "shall come in like manner" meaning the way in which the Holy Spirit would be sent.

IMO it would have been confusing to the Disciples to jump ahead to the coming of Christ in power and glory, ushering in the Kingdom when the Disciples had not even received the Holy Spirit yet, which would enable them to be witnesses for Christ in the world.

Rose

[TheForgiven]

Acts 1:4-11 “And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.”
Hi Joe,
The more I think about what is being said in that passage the more I'm convinced that the main focus was on "the promise of the Holy Spirit" and when and how that would take place. So I tend to lean towards "shall come in like manner" meaning the way in which the Holy Spirit would be sent.

IMO it would have been confusing to the Disciples to jump ahead to the coming of Christ in power and glory, ushering in the Kingdom when the Disciples had not even received the Holy Spirit yet, which would enable them to be witnesses for Christ in the world.

Rose
__________________

Well you might be right. But I myself seem to believe He was answering their question about Israel being restored, but indirectly. The promise of the Holy Spirit was what He promised them, as recorded by John in chapter 14. But the question was, "Will you at this time restore the Kingdom to Israel?" Keep in mind that the Apostles were not yet filled with the power of the Holy Spirit, but they did receive the Holy Spirit before His ascension, when He appeared to them to show Thomas His wounds. But the question was, IMO, the context. His reply was,

It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

It sounds as though He's saying, "You don't have the right to know the times or seasons of if or when, BUT you will be filled with the power from on high, in order to witness to Jerusalem first, and then to the uttermost parts of the earth.."

This in essence is Him saying that not only would Israel be restored, but the entire world would be brought under one King and Kingdom. However, at that time, they did not yet understand God's plan. In other words, I believe this matches up perfectly with Paul, who spoke about the temporary blindness which came upon Israel to stir them to jealousy, while the Gentiles were being brought into the Kingdom by the Apostles. The end would result in not only Israel being restored, but the inhabited nations as well.

Remember the primary goal of God was to bring all nations unto Himself, and not just a single nation, as the Apostles were obviously thinking. Paul, a devout Jew, would later learn that the gospel must be sent to the Gentiles, of which both he and Peter had a sharp dispute over the matter. Later, of course, they realized what God's plan was, and the House of Cornelius was the first of the Gentiles to be brought into the Kingdom.

Therefore, His coming in like manner, IMO, would happen when all things are restored unto Himself, both Jew and Gentile, into one kingdom, which was completed after the ministry of the Apostles, leading up to the prophesied events in 70AD. Thus, not only would Israel be restored with a King, but the inhabited Gentile nations as well, through the testimony of the Apostles; to the Jew first, and then to the Gentile. That is what I believe He was trying to tell them. Unfortunately, they were not yet aware of God's plan.

Despite our difference of opinion, I do respect yours. ;)

Joe

[Rose]

I hear what your saying Joe, ;) because that's the way I interpreted that passage also....until I took a closer look at John 14, and saw the close connection between the two.

In John 14, Jesus refers to the sending of the Holy Spirit as a "coming" then He says He will come to them, and the way that the Disciples will know that Jesus is in the Father is that when the Holy Spirit has come that will be the sign that Jesus went to the Father.


John 14:18-20 "I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also. At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you."It does seem like the main reason that Jesus gathered the Disciples together just before He departed, was to inform them of the soon to be (10 days) baptism in the Holy Spirit. Even though I think they had no idea what He really meant, or how it was going to happen.....but they were very interested in when the kingdom was going to be restored to Israel, because that is what they expected the Messiah to do!


Acts 1:4-11 'And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.'Rose

[TheForgiven]

Excellent points Rose, and I fully agree about the Holy Spirit coming upon them. Jesus commanded them to await the gift that He promised them. For He says, "John in truth, baptized in [plain] water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit..." However, on a side note, the apostles asked, "Will you at this time [as king] restore the kingdom to Israel?" This had little to do with Christ commanding them to wait for the gift, at least to their knowledge. IMO, they wanted to know when Israel would be restored to its glorious days.

I could almost sense their eagerness for Israel to be restored to its rightful place. But Jesus answers their question by saying, “It is not for you to know the times, or seasons [events] which the Father has set by His own authority. BUT [as in, however] you will receive power with the Holy Spirit comes upon you. You will be witnesses [of me] to Jerusalem, Samaria, and to the uttermost parts of the earth.” Christ, in the other gospels, tells them that, “All authority on heaven and earth has been given to me! Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit [Jesus].

Now as Jesus ascended into heaven, the Apostles were staring as He departed, and He was hidden by a cloud. This is important because too many futurists view his departure as the likeness of His return, but they seem to forget about the cloud. This means, IMO, that the cloud that hides His ascension into heaven, is the same type of cloud that hides His return from heaven, but only observable signs. These signs would show that as the cloud hid Him from view of the Apostles as he departed into glory, in the same way, their view would be hidden when He returns in the full Glory of His Kingdom. That is why the Angel tells them, “This same Jesus will come to you in likeness as you saw him go “into heaven”. How did Christ go into heaven? He was hidden by a cloud. Thus the cloud is a symbol of His return, just as it was His ascension. This is further substantiated when Christ tells Pontus, “Hereafter, you shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of power and glory….”

Therefore, the entire point of Acts chapter 1 was that the promise of the Holy Spirit would be sent to them, and they [through the Spirit] would witness to Jerusalem, to the uttermost parts of the earth. Why? To build the Kingdom and restore all things, which is the entire reason for their commission. Once the Kingdom was completed, and the labor of the Apostles was finished, the New Jerusalem was ready for full conquering, and striking down the nations with a Rod of Iron. The end result is all things being restored.

Joe

[TheForgiven]

Sister Rose and Brother Richard,

I was researching your last few posts in dealing with "In Like Manner" referring to the Holy Spirit being poured out, and I came across a website that spoke of this same theory.

As I indicated, you might be right, and I am not challenging you by any means. I'm merely sharing my insights, though you'll always hear me admit that I could be wrong, especially in areas of uncertainty. I see your point regarding the Holy Spirit being poured out referring to the words of the Angel when he said, "This same Jesus who was taken unto heaven, will come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven...." It's very possible, but for some reason, I can't get past the question of the Apostles, "Will you at this time restore the Kingdom to Israel...."

One fact does remain, of which both you and I would agree on, that the out-pouring of the Holy Spirit is the reason for the restoration of all things. Without the Holy Spirit, there is no restoration, no hope for righteousness, and no hope for a spiritual Counselor. Thus, as I indicated, you might be right.

I'll keep looking into it.

On a different note, I've once again hit a road block of doubt with the theory of the Full Preterist position on the Millennium. I was studying Revelation chapter 20 last night, and a huge stir of emotion hit me. I believe I brought this up before, but this does support the A-Mil / Partial Preterist position. Not that I'm lapsing back to former habits, but my internal spirit is telling me something is wrong.

Here's where I'm at. We know prior to Revelation chapter 20 that the Harlot is destroyed. Yet, Rome was still in power [This is the Beast]. After the Beast burned the Harlot with fire, it wared against the Saints and the Messiah by attempting to kill Christians. But Christ, the rider on the white horse (spiritual figure of course) overcomes the Beast, and the false prophet who deluded those who received the mark of the Beast and the two were tossed into the Lake of Fire. It is here that it appears the Millennium begins. Having stated this, I know that we teach the 40 year ministry of the infancy Church to be the figurative (thousand years), but my spirit is rejecting it sternly. I've neglected this problem so long that I forgot about it even being there.

Don't get me wrong brothers and sisters. I hold very firmly to a complete fulfillment of Matthew 24 regarding the Olivet Discourse. But Revelation chapter 20 seems to be regarding the resurrection of the Martyrs, and their reigning with Him in power [from heaven of course].

If Christ reigns now (we all agree that He is), and we don't see Him except through His signs, why would that be any different with the Martyrs? We don't have to see them physically reigning to know that they are. That's why we have faith in Christ. My inner spirit is telling me that the Millennium is now, and was not prior to Jerusalem's destruction. But does this mean an exact 1000 years, or is this to be understood in the plural sense? I'd say the plural sense. It's during the Millennium that Satan is bound in order to be prevented from deceiving the nations with false doctrine. Huh oh, I think I just opened up a can of worms on that one. :lol: I can hear a few futurists saying, "See! There's your proof that Satan is still alive and well, because of the many different false doctrines!" Oh boy, I'll end that discussion right here for now. I primarily want to focus on the Millennium.

After the 1000 years are fulfilled (as in, completed of it's mission), Satan is released to deceive the nations again. Now we Full Preterist's place this with the surrounding of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70AD. But that would mean the Martyrs would have to be raised prior to that, yet Nero Caesar was the first to persecute Christians. Actually, that might not be correct. It was the Jews who first persecuted the Christians. So if the Harlot is destroyed (70 AD) and then the Martyrs are raised, (assuming that's the correct order), then how could we place the resurrection of the Martyrs prior to Jerusalem being destroyed? According to Revelation chapters 20 and beyond, the Martyrs are raised after the Harlot is destroyed....unless I'm missing something.

Another thought, however, has indicated to me that the 1000 years is not the literal 1000 years, but figurative for the "Day of the Lord". So John may have been using the 1000 years figure as the "Day of the Lord".

I'm interested in opening this discussion wide open, from anyone, Futurist's, Historicist's, and Preterists. This needs to be discussed.

With God's love,

Joe

[joel]

Joe, the Forgiven stated,....."One fact does remain, of which both you and I would agree on, that the out-pouring of the Holy Spirit is the reason for the restoration of all things."

Joe, I am asking for a clarification. The restoration of all things seems like a sequential set of events occurring over time. Please clarify. I would certainly agree with you that the spirit of God is the active agent in the process, but, is not the process itself. Am I missing something?

Joel

[Rose]

Hi Joe, :yo:


Rev. 20 certainly does have a lot going on in it, and it continues to be the most difficult chapter for me to understand. What we know for sure from Revelations own timeline is that the harlot (Jerusalem) was destroyed, and the blood of the prophets avenged in Rev. 19, then chapter 20 starts off with the souls that back in Rev. 6 were asking how long it would be before their blood would be avenged, and they were told it would be a little longer.


Rev. 6:9-11 'And when He had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellow servants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they [were], should be fulfilled.

Now John sees those same souls in Rev. 20 and judgment has been given to them confirming the fact that their blood has been avenged. As for the meaning of the 1,000 years I tend to lean towards the ideas that you presented.

'Another thought, however, has indicated to me that the 1000 years is not the literal 1000 years, but figurative for the "Day of the Lord". So John may have been using the 1000 years figure as the "Day of the Lord".'
Scripture speaks very little of the meaning of 'a thousand years' except to connect it with Gods timing being different from ours.


Psalm 90:4 'For a thousand years in thy sight [are but] as yesterday when it is past, and [as] a watch in the night.'

2 Pet. 3:8 'But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.'


The time of the '1,000 years' starts after the blood of the Saints has been avenged, and ends before the 'Great white Throne judgment', after which the old heaven and earth pass away and the New Kingdom is ushered in, being New Jerusalem which is the Church. To place that time at a point in history it would have to be after the Temple was destroyed, so the 1,000 years could symbolically represent the 'Day of the Lord' when all things are made new….meaning that the Old Covenant age is judged and gone, and the New Covenant age begins.

Rose

[TheForgiven]

Joe, the Forgiven stated,....."One fact does remain, of which both you and I would agree on, that the out-pouring of the Holy Spirit is the reason for the restoration of all things."

Joe, I am asking for a clarification. The restoration of all things seems like a sequential set of events occurring over time. Please clarify. I would certainly agree with you that the spirit of God is the active agent in the process, but, is not the process itself. Am I missing something?

Joel

The Holy Spirit is how we fellowship with God. When Adam and Eve sinned, they were separated from God and since that time, because of sin, man had to live in separation from God.

When the Law was established, God dwelt among men through temples made of hands. But when they violated the Law, the Holy Spirit departed the temple, and it was destroyed by the Babylonians. Since that time, God would never place His Spirit within a temple until Christ had come. Since Christ, our relationship with God has been restored, though instead of God dwelling in temples made of hands, He dwells in temples of the human heart. Only through Christ are we seated with God in the heavenly places, both here and above.

That is what I meant by restoring all things. There's an illusion which teaches that God will restore the earth, as if nothing will ever corrupt or grow old again. This is taken by the statement, "Heaven and Earth". According to John, and Peter, they were awaiting the New Heaven and New Earth. Papias, a 2nd century teachers, taught that Christ would reign personally in Jerusalem, in a temple made of hands, and the earth would produce glorious fruit by the billions, and it's nutrients would nourish those who will live forever.....as in those who were raptured and returned to rule with Christ. The problem with this theory is that Revelation speaks of the New Jerusalem producing leaves for the healing of the nations, and also fruits each month. Many take this literally. But will nations actually be required to eat leaves in order to be healed? Will nations actually be required to eat literal fruits in order to have eternal life? It can't be because eternal life comes from Christ, and not fruit or leaves from plants or trees.

Therefore, the restoration of all things comes by the nations coming to Christ, and showing His rule through the Church. The Church is ruled (rather influenced) by the moving of the Holy Spirit. As the Church dominates more of the earth, thus are the nations restored. The leaves and the fruits are symbolic for the righteous acts of the Saints, and the leaves are symbolic for covering us from heat, and permitting us to be healed.

Joe

[joel]

Joe, I understand what you are saying, so,
l will attempt to show it in the format of a diagram;

Let's say that the church is represented by {church}

and let's say the spirit of God
is presented by [the spirit of God]

(I am certainly not saying that the "spirit of God' is smaller than the church),

by combining the two; we could show;

{chu[the spirit of God]rch}


The Holy Spirit is how we fellowship with God. When Adam and Eve sinned, they were separated from God and since that time, because of sin, man had to live in separation from God.


Can we, by using the same diagram format, display it as follows;

{Adam [the spirit of God]Eve}
.....before the event in the garden,
and,
{Adam[sin]Eve}....after the event.

Joel

[TheForgiven]

Hello again, brother Joel.

I see it like this. The "Spirit" of God that hovered over the face of the deep, of whom also created the heavens and the earth, associated with them (Adam and Eve). But when they sinned, they were cast out of the garden.

The "Garden" is key. What is your understanding of the "Garden"? That alone will tell you my answer.

In short, we fellowship with the Father through Christ Jesus, who is forever God. God is Spirit, and we worship Him in spiritual truths. We see God through Jesus Christ, who for the time being, abides in our hearts; both the Father and the Son, for they are all one.

After we've departed this tent, we will be with the Lord forever. As Paul stated, "For to be absent from our earthly tent (the body) is to be at home with the Lord..."

For now, we're plants within the Garden sharing fruits of all kinds. Now who do you feel is monitoring, tending, and weeding the Garden? None other than God, who makes things grow. This is the same principle with the Garden of Eden.

Joe

[joel]

(Gar{Adam & Eve}den)

Would this rudimentary illustration depict the garden with Adam & Eve within it?

It says in Genesis 3:8, after the serpent beguiled Eve and she ate, and gave to her husband who was with her, and he ate.....that they heard the "voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day:"

Which I attempt to depict as;

(Gar{Adam & Eve hiding...Voice of the Lord God walking}den)

What do you think?

Joel

[TheForgiven]

(Gar{Adam & Eve}den)

Would this rudimentary illustration depict the garden with Adam & Eve within it?

It says in Genesis 3:8, after the serpent beguiled Eve and she ate, and gave to her husband who was with her, and he ate.....that they heard the "voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day:"

Which I attempt to depict as;

(Gar{Adam & Eve hiding...Voice of the Lord God walking}den)

What do you think?

Joel
__________________

I don't recall God having legs, or hands. God is Spirit, just as the Lord Jesus states. However, God can show Himself in many ways, and in diverse manners, according to the Author of Hebrews. At any rate, they (The Apostles) beheld the glory of God through the man Jesus. Though, as John states in his final letters, we do not know Jesus as a man, but we will know Him for how He currently is.

My point is that we shouldn't focus on things that are seen; at least not most of the time. If our goal is to "walk" in the Garden, then fine; there's nothing wrong with that. But that, IMO, is not what the scriptures are trying to tell us. It's entirely about relationship.

I know the popular theory that teaches the Garden of Eden will be restored, with the tree of life will be in the middle of the garden. But who's to say that Adam and Eve would never have physically died after biting the apple? Does the scripture say anywhere that they were created as eternal beings before biting the apple? Of course not. Satan lied to them, and his deception resulted in their spiritual death; not physical. That is very easy to prove.

Paul states in His Epistle to the Romans, "The Law was added because of transgression.." and again, "Once I was alive apart from the Law. But when the Law came [to His knowledge], sin came to life and I [he] died."

Why did Paul state that he died? It's because the Law made him aware of good and evil. And evil, brought on by the habits and temptations of the sinful nature, lead his life towards death. This is exactly what happened to Adam and Eve. By biting the fruit which contained the knowledge of good and evil, they became aware of right and wrong. In their eyes, when they were spiritually opened, they realized they were naked. Thus, prior to their biting the apple, they had no idea of their nudity, and thus had no condemnation to worry about. Sin is not imputed when a person has no idea they are sinning. It's the knowledge that brought forth spiritual death, just as the Apostle Paul. Therefore, the idea that the Garden of Eden will be restored, and mankind will live as it was in the beginning, IMO, does not make much sense, and misses the entire reason for the past 7000 years of human history. It's about relationship, repentance, and eternal life, and this life comes from Jesus, who is the tree of life. If Jesus is the vine, and we are His branches, then we are part of the tree of life. It's God who causes this tree to grow, and He cuts off every branch that does not bear fruit.

On earth, our communion with Him is spiritual. But in heaven, our lives abide with Him, and see Him as he is.

Joe

[joel]

Joe,

I simply asked a simple question......I wasn't trying to slip you up....or pull anything over on you......

When they heard "the voice of the Lord walking"......I find no problem with the two of them actually "hearing" "the voice of the Lord" walking. Jesus walked into the garden, and they heard Him. What's so ambiguous about that?

"I don't recall God having legs, or hands"...what exactly does that mean? Jesus is the hands and legs of God.

"My point is....we shouldn't focus on things that are seen".....and why not? Paul says that the hidden attributes of God are clearly seen by the things which He has made.

Let me ask you again;

Is this diagram valid?;

{Adam [sin] Eve}....after the event in the garden.

I am attempting to place us on common ground, not trick you or cause you to stumble.

If you don't want to answer, that's fine.

Joel

[TheForgiven]

Joe,

I simply asked a simple question......I wasn't trying to slip you up....or pull anything over on you......

When they heard "the voice of the Lord walking"......I find no problem with the two of them actually "hearing" "the voice of the Lord" walking. Jesus walked into the garden, and they heard Him. What's so ambiguous about that?

"I don't recall God having legs, or hands"...what exactly does that mean? Jesus is the hands and legs of God.

"My point is....we shouldn't focus on things that are seen".....and why not? Paul says that the hidden attributes of God are clearly seen by the things which He has made.

Let me ask you again;

Is this diagram valid?;

{Adam [sin] Eve}....after the event in the garden.

I am attempting to place us on common ground, not trick you or cause you to stumble.

If you don't want to answer, that's fine.

Joel
__________________

No problem brother Joel. I wasn't worried, or confused, and I understand what you're saying. Although the {Adam [sin] Eve} I don't quite understand.

My answer is that God had direct fellowship with Adam and Eve before they sinned. When they became aware of sin, through biting the apple, they realized their shame in being naked. Shame is a result of knowing they sinned, but the scriptures do not exactly say what sin they committed, if at all.

Even so, God took animal skins and made them clothing, which shows that even after sinning, He had cared for them.

Brother Joel, this a picture for us, that even though you and I should sin, God's love is still there, and He will continue to abide with us because of what His Son did, in giving up Himself for our sins.

If I missed the answer, I'm glad to hear it. That's why we're here; to debate these things.

God bless you brother Joel. :hug:

Joe

[joel]

God bless you brother Joel.

And back to 'ya you yellow smiling hugging yellow ball.

Happy Labor Day.......and pray for the levees to hold.

Joel

[TheForgiven]

And back to 'ya you yellow smiling hugging yellow ball.

Happy Labor Day.......and pray for the levees to hold.

Joel

Well it looks as though the prayers of the Saints were answered. The levees held and the damage was minimized. Praise God who permitted this to happen, and spare an already destroyed city.

Now back to the discussion.

We skewed off topic with the discussion on Adam and Eve and their relationship with God. We also covered an off-topic discussion about sin, and how it relates to our relationship with God. We've concluded that Christ is our door which gives us access to God in the union of the Holy Spirit. Let us now get back to the topic at hand, "Jesus coming in like manner".

Brother Richard and Sister Rose have proposed the theory that His coming in like manner happened on Pentecost. I'm hardly in a position to dispute this theory. For I certainly can see how this is the fulfillment of what the Angels told the Apostles. However, I myself am leaning towards my proposed theory, that Christ came in power and glory as the clouds, as also shown in Jeremiah 4:11-14:

11 At that time they shall say to this people and to Jerusalem, There is a spirit of error in the wilderness: the way of the daughter of my people is not to purity, nor to holiness. 12 But a spirit of full vengeance shall come upon me; and now I declare my judgments against them. 13 Behold, he shall come up as a cloud, and his chariots as a tempest: his horses are swifter than eagles. Woe unto us! for we are in misery.

This fits with the other NT scriptures which speak of Christ coming in a cloud of power and glory. It would appear, at least in my opinion, that what the Angel was showing them (or what Christ showed them) was the He was received in a cloud, and would return in a cloud. Acts chapter 1 states that a cloud received Him from their site. Now did the cloud "Receive" Christ, or did it merely "hide" Him? I'd have to rely on the Greek wisdom of Brother Richard, or anyone else who has an extensive knowledge of the Greek.

In conclusion, my internal thoughts lean towards Christ coming in the clouds of His judgment and raging fire that consumed the enemies of Christ abiding in Jerusalem. Notice the first part of Jeremiah, which talks about a false spirit that abides in Jerusalem, and how He would come as a cloud to destroy them. "We are doomed" says the prophet. Granted, Jeremiah's prophesy was fulfilled when the Babylonian Empire destroyed Jerusalem. But the very same thing happened again in 70AD.

I'm interested in all of your thoughts.

God bless you all.

Joe

[gregoryfl]

Yes, the term "hupelaben" does mean to receive, either literally or figuratively. For example, someone who "takes up" a question is receiving the question and then continuing it by answering it. In this case, the cloud "received Jesus" which means it bore him upward until they could no longer see him, hence phrase "from their sight". Am enjoying reading this discussion by the way.

Ron

[joel]

Attempting to put it in a simple diagram;

taken up
( Jesus )
in clouds

Same as.....i.e.......in like manner

Armies compassed about
++Jerusalem++
++++++++

Joe, is this what you are saying? These two events are similar?

Joel

[TheForgiven]

Yes, the term "hupelaben" does mean to receive, either literally or figuratively. For example, someone who "takes up" a question is receiving the question and then continuing it by answering it. In this case, the cloud "received Jesus" which means it bore him upward until they could no longer see him, hence phrase "from their sight". Am enjoying reading this discussion by the way.

Ron

Well hello there Ron. :welcome: It's great to see you again. That was my understanding as well, that a cloud "received" Him from their site. In my opinion, I believe the Angel was showing them a picture, that just as a cloud received Christ into glory, he would return in a cloud of judgment and raging fire; to the one, deliverance to those who patiently waited for Him, and to the other, the taste of revenge and destruction for having rejected Him.

I'm glad that you are enjoying this discussion. It is here at the blessed forum moderated by Richard and Rose. Here we can enjoy a peaceful discussion without fear of account termination. ;) This is how we learn, or at least learn to disagree. I do love you all and I thank you sincerely for engaging in these discussions.

Thank you for sharing your knowledge of the Greek. I tend to trust in others who are experienced, or at least studied the ancient Greek language. I myself am too lazy to learn. :lol: God hopefully not counting my laziness against me.

I'm interested on your opinions in this matter Ron.

Joe

[TheForgiven]

Attempting to put it in a simple diagram;

taken up
( Jesus )
in clouds

Same as.....i.e.......in like manner

Armies compassed about
++Jerusalem++
++++++++

Joe, is this what you are saying? These two events are similar?

Joel

:thumb: Well that's my opinion brother Joel. I believe the passages regarding Christ coming in a cloud of power, and glory, had the same fulfillment of Jeremiah's vision when the Babylonian Empire destroyed Jerusalem the first time. Revelation, in my opinion, was fulfilled in the same manner. I believe King Nebechegnedzar (Babylonian Empire) fulfilled Jeremiah's vision, and the Romans (Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian) fulfilled the vision of Christ and the clouds...I'll explain a little further if it's okay brother Joel.

God, during Jeremiah's day, was displeased with how Jerusalem had become. They violated the Laws and the statues, and because Solomon sinned a great sin, as did David, of whom both committed adultery against God, He vowed to destroy the temple and city because of their lack of holiness. Thus was fulfilled Jeremiah's prophesy of God coming as a cloud of judgment. This resulted in the words of Jeremiah 7

30 "`For the children of Judah have done evil in My sight, saith the LORD. They have set their abominations in the house which is called by My name, to pollute it. 31 And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I commanded them not, neither came it into My heart. 32 Therefore behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that it shall no more be called Tophet, nor the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter; for they shall bury in Tophet till there be no place. 33 And the carcasses of this people shall be meat for the fowls of the heaven and for the beasts of the earth; and none shall frighten them away. 34 Then will I cause to cease from the cities of Judah and from the streets of Jerusalem the voice of mirth and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride; for the land shall be desolate.

The cutting off of the voice of the Bridegroom and Bride, and leaving the land Desolate was the fulfillment of God's judgment of cloud (the nations of armies) coming against Jerusalem. John, in Revelation, speaks the same language when he writes, "Behold! He comes with the clouds and every eye shall see Him, even those who pierced Him..." John shows this fulfillment in the final chapters of Revelation which reads:

Revelation 18
21 Then a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, "Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all. 22 And the voice of harpers and musicians, and of pipers and trumpeters shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more in thee; and the sound of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee; 23 and the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee. For thy merchants were the great men of the earth, for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived. 24 And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth [land]."

Revelation chapter 18 completed the wrath of God against the Harlot, whom I firmly believe was Jerusalem. For once the Christians fled to Mt. Pella, what was left in Jerusalem but the sinners who opposed Christ? This matches perfectly with what happened in Jeremiah's prophesy. The Beast turned on the Harlot and destroyed her with fire. This, in my firm opinion, was the Roman Empire that turned against Jerusalem because they no longer wanted to serve Caesar. Remember before they were friends with Rome and used Rome to carry out their death penalty, as well as their affliction. Christ of course, would return in a cloud of wrath and judgment. Thus, the Roman armies are the "clouds" of judgment and raging fire against the city which was comparable to Sodom and Egypt, which was none other than Jerusalem.

Think about it friends. Beast and Harlot going at it, but its the Beast who winds the victory. Though not for long, because after the Harlot was destroyed, the Beast was then subject to the Rod of Christ. Just as Jerusalem got theirs, Rome got it 10 times worse, with all the natural disasters, barbarian wars, plagues, famines, diseases, economical losses, and so forth. The Beast itself was finally destroyed.

It is here that I'm seriously thinking about the remaining chapters of Revelation. Satan is bound during the Millennium's, and was (or will be) let loose after its completion to deceive the nations outside of Jerusalem (Gentiles). This would appear to mean that a final war is in the future, assuming that the Millenniums are still taking place.

I'll explain this in more detail on my next post, to keep this one short.

God bless you all.

Joe

[joel]

Taken up
(Jesus)
in clouds.........ascension

Armies
(Jerusalem)
compassed
about...........desolation

Coming back
(Jesus)
in clouds.........redemption

Is that an accurate assessment?

Joel

[Victor]

Sister Rose and Brother Richard,

I was researching your last few posts in dealing with "In Like Manner" referring to the Holy Spirit being poured out, and I came across a website that spoke of this same theory.

As I indicated, you might be right, and I am not challenging you by any means. I'm merely sharing my insights, though you'll always hear me admit that I could be wrong, especially in areas of uncertainty. I see your point regarding the Holy Spirit being poured out referring to the words of the Angel when he said, "This same Jesus who was taken unto heaven, will come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven...." It's very possible, but for some reason, I can't get past the question of the Apostles, "Will you at this time restore the Kingdom to Israel...."

One fact does remain, of which both you and I would agree on, that the out-pouring of the Holy Spirit is the reason for the restoration of all things. Without the Holy Spirit, there is no restoration, no hope for righteousness, and no hope for a spiritual Counselor. Thus, as I indicated, you might be right.

I'll keep looking into it.

On a different note, I've once again hit a road block of doubt with the theory of the Full Preterist position on the Millennium. I was studying Revelation chapter 20 last night, and a huge stir of emotion hit me. I believe I brought this up before, but this does support the A-Mil / Partial Preterist position. Not that I'm lapsing back to former habits, but my internal spirit is telling me something is wrong.

Here's where I'm at. We know prior to Revelation chapter 20 that the Harlot is destroyed. Yet, Rome was still in power [This is the Beast]. After the Beast burned the Harlot with fire, it wared against the Saints and the Messiah by attempting to kill Christians. But Christ, the rider on the white horse (spiritual figure of course) overcomes the Beast, and the false prophet who deluded those who received the mark of the Beast and the two were tossed into the Lake of Fire. It is here that it appears the Millennium begins. Having stated this, I know that we teach the 40 year ministry of the infancy Church to be the figurative (thousand years), but my spirit is rejecting it sternly. I've neglected this problem so long that I forgot about it even being there.

Don't get me wrong brothers and sisters. I hold very firmly to a complete fulfillment of Matthew 24 regarding the Olivet Discourse. But Revelation chapter 20 seems to be regarding the resurrection of the Martyrs, and their reigning with Him in power [from heaven of course].

If Christ reigns now (we all agree that He is), and we don't see Him except through His signs, why would that be any different with the Martyrs? We don't have to see them physically reigning to know that they are. That's why we have faith in Christ. My inner spirit is telling me that the Millennium is now, and was not prior to Jerusalem's destruction. But does this mean an exact 1000 years, or is this to be understood in the plural sense? I'd say the plural sense. It's during the Millennium that Satan is bound in order to be prevented from deceiving the nations with false doctrine. Huh oh, I think I just opened up a can of worms on that one. :lol: I can hear a few futurists saying, "See! There's your proof that Satan is still alive and well, because of the many different false doctrines!" Oh boy, I'll end that discussion right here for now. I primarily want to focus on the Millennium.

After the 1000 years are fulfilled (as in, completed of it's mission), Satan is released to deceive the nations again. Now we Full Preterist's place this with the surrounding of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70AD. But that would mean the Martyrs would have to be raised prior to that, yet Nero Caesar was the first to persecute Christians. Actually, that might not be correct. It was the Jews who first persecuted the Christians. So if the Harlot is destroyed (70 AD) and then the Martyrs are raised, (assuming that's the correct order), then how could we place the resurrection of the Martyrs prior to Jerusalem being destroyed? According to Revelation chapters 20 and beyond, the Martyrs are raised after the Harlot is destroyed....unless I'm missing something.

Another thought, however, has indicated to me that the 1000 years is not the literal 1000 years, but figurative for the "Day of the Lord". So John may have been using the 1000 years figure as the "Day of the Lord".

I'm interested in opening this discussion wide open, from anyone, Futurist's, Historicist's, and Preterists. This needs to be discussed.

With God's love,

Joe
I'm afraid sometimes we get "blind" to some relatively obvious things. Case in point: how could a "millenium" refer to a period of a few decades between the Cross and the destruction of Jerusalem? If we say that the meaning of "soon" is stretched beyond any reasonable limit by futurists, how come can we then say that a "millenium" is only something like 40 years? How can anyone offer a comprehensive preterist interpretation that ignores Revelation 20?

[Rose]

Hi Victor, glad you jumped into the conversation.


I'm afraid sometimes we get "blind" to some relatively obvious things. Case in point: how could a "millenium" refer to a period of a few decades between the Cross and the destruction of Jerusalem? If we say that the meaning of "soon" is stretched beyond any reasonable limit by futurists, how come can we then say that a "millenium" is only something like 40 years? How can anyone offer a comprehensive preterist interpretation that ignores Revelation 20?

Scripture speaks very little of the meaning of 'a thousand years' except to connect it with Gods timing being different from ours. So the time frame of when the millennium takes place must be set from Rev. 20.


Psalm 90:4 'For a thousand years in thy sight [are but] as yesterday when it is past, and [as] a watch in the night.'

2 Pet. 3:8 'But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.'


The time of the '1,000 years' starts after Gods wrath has been poured out (harlot = Jerusalem destroyed), the blood of the Saints avenged (which Christ said would come upon the 1st century generation), and ends before the 'Great white Throne judgment' (at which time death and hell are cast into the lake of fire); after which the old heaven and earth pass away (meaning the old ways of the law) and the New Kingdom is ushered in. Then New Jerusalem which is the Church begins its age of spreading the Gospel.

To place that time at a point in history it would have to be after the Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D., so the 1,000 years could symbolically represent the 'Day of the Lord' when all things are made new….meaning that the Old Covenant age is judged and gone, and the New Covenant age begins with the Church being the living Temples. Death is gone; it was the last enemy to be put under the feet of Christ, now there is no more separation (death) from God for those who are filled with His Holy Spirit, we drink from the fountains of living waters (eternal life).

The 'Millennium' could be that moment in time"one day" when communion was fully restored with God and separation no longer exists for those who are His living Temples. The age that followed was the Church age, and we are now still in that age.

Just some thoughts.....:pop2:

Rose

[Victor]

Hi Victor, glad you jumped into the conversation.



Scripture speaks very little of the meaning of 'a thousand years' except to connect it with Gods timing being different from ours. So the time frame of when the millennium takes place must be set from Rev. 20.


Psalm 90:4 'For a thousand years in thy sight [are but] as yesterday when it is past, and [as] a watch in the night.'

2 Pet. 3:8 'But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.'


The time of the '1,000 years' starts after Gods wrath has been poured out (harlot = Jerusalem destroyed), the blood of the Saints avenged (which Christ said would come upon the 1st century generation), and ends before the 'Great white Throne judgment' (at which time death and hell are cast into the lake of fire); after which the old heaven and earth pass away (meaning the old ways of the law) and the New Kingdom is ushered in. Then New Jerusalem which is the Church begins its age of spreading the Gospel.

To place that time at a point in history it would have to be after the Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D., so the 1,000 years could symbolically represent the 'Day of the Lord' when all things are made new….meaning that the Old Covenant age is judged and gone, and the New Covenant age begins with the Church being the living Temples. Death is gone; it was the last enemy to be put under the feet of Christ, now there is no more separation (death) from God for those who are filled with His Holy Spirit, we drink from the fountains of living waters (eternal life).

The 'Millennium' could be that moment in time"one day" when communion was fully restored with God and separation no longer exists for those who are His living Temples. The age that followed was the Church age, and we are now still in that age.

Just some thoughts.....:pop2:

Rose

Rose, thank you for your thought-out response! Indeed, in terms of 'comparing Scripture with Scripture', we don't have much information about the concept of "a thousand years". So we feel tempted to link it to Psalm 90 and 2 Peter 3.

But it just doesn't sound natural at all. Preterists say that the word "soon" in Revelation is robbed of any meaning when it is applied to a period 2000+ years in the future. Futurists even use these very same verses to justify their application.

So, in the same tone, how can in Revelation a period called "a thousand years" mean "one day", IOW, a short period of time? Does it not take away the very spirit of the concept of "millenium"?

And as Joe points out, it really sounds anachronistic. When is Satan bound? Before 70 AD? But then how could he mislead the nations? How could he persecute Christians in the eve of Jerusalem's destruction (which supposedly is the climax of Neronian persecution)? And he cannot be released after that destruction, otherwise we cannot say that all was fulfilled around 70 AD.

But the point that really seems central here is interpreting the Millenium as a short period of time at the same time as we claim that we should be careful about the plain meaning of time markers in Revelation. Is it not more natural to say that it is a long period of time as Scripture suggests (Gen 5:5,27; Ecc 6:6)?

[Rose]

Rose, thank you for your thought-out response! Indeed, in terms of 'comparing Scripture with Scripture', we don't have much information about the concept of "a thousand years". So we feel tempted to link it to Psalm 90 and 2 Peter 3.

But it just doesn't sound natural at all. Preterists say that the word "soon" in Revelation is robbed of any meaning when it is applied to a period 2000+ years in the future. Futurists even use these very same verses to justify their application.

So, in the same tone, how can in Revelation a period called "a thousand years" mean "one day", IOW, a short period of time? Does it not take away the very spirit of the concept of "millenium"?

And as Joe points out, it really sounds anachronistic. When is Satan bound? Before 70 AD? But then how could he mislead the nations? How could he persecute Christians in the eve of Jerusalem's destruction (which supposedly is the climax of Neronian persecution)? And he cannot be released after that destruction, otherwise we cannot say that all was fulfilled around 70 AD.

But the point that really seems central here is interpreting the Millenium as a short period of time at the same time as we claim that we should be careful about the plain meaning of time markers in Revelation. Is it not more natural to say that it is a long period of time as Scripture suggests (Gen 5:5,27; Ecc 6:6)?

Thank you Victor, for joining into the conversation, you bring up many good points.

In all my studying of Rev. chapter 20 has proved to be the most difficult to fit into the larger picture, with so many significant events happening. If we look at Rev. as a chronological vision, then what happens in chapter 20 needs to be finished before the New Jerusalem is fully come in, which happens in chapter 21. So we are left with trying to fit "the millennium","the war of Gog and Magog" and "the Great white Throne judgment" into the picture before "the Bride of Christ" which is New Jerusalem comes in.

I do hear what your saying about the use of "soon", but I think a different concept is applied to the 1,000 years. It appears to be used symbolically whereas the "soon" time markers are not. The verse I quoted in 2 Peter is flipping the 1,000 years to 1 day back and forth to show the timelessness of Gods ways. A thousand years is a long time to us, but to God it is as yesterday or 1 day, whereas 1 day to us is a short time....but could be a 1,000 years worth of time in Gods timeframe.

I look forward to discussing this more. :)

Rose

[TheForgiven]

Hello everyone. I'm glad to see that some of you are engaging in this very good debate. I certainly look forward to discussing these things each and everyday.

Determining the meaning of the Millenniums is tough, but then again that depends on how we're interpreting it. Victor brings up a great point that it makes no sense for Preterist to assume that "Near" means near, while as the same time, a thousand years can only mean a short time, as in 40 years. At the same time, sister Rose brings up a contrasting point with Peter's 1000 years = a day, or a day a 1000 years. This makes it even more tough.

But is it? Instead of quoting all the text, I'd like you all to read chapters 18 - 20 and see if I'm on target with the listed events.

Beginning with chapter 18, we see the conclusion with the destruction of the Harlot, and heaven rejoices over this. Those who are rejoicing include a huge multitude with the sound of many waters. This, IMO, represents the entire Christian community who suffered martyrdom. They wanted revenge over the Harlot who persecuted them. Now from a Preterist perspective, this appears to be Jerusalem. I found additional proof (from my perspective, though not conclusive) that Jerusalem of the flesh is the intended target. It takes a strong Angel to pick up what looked like to John, a giant millstone. What is a millstone? These were huge rough surfaced stones used to crush wheat into fine flour. I'll explain the significance of that on another post, which I believe you will find interesting. For now, compare the passage about the millstone being tossed into the sea, with the passage of Christ when He says, "It is better that that person have a millstone tied around his neck and tossed into the sea.... " if such a person should cause any one of those little ones (Jewish Children) to sin. I find this very interesting. The sea, as we know, represents the nations outside of Israel, and Israel represents the land.

Now getting back on target, the Harlot is destroyed by the Beast. What happens next? The wedding supper of the Lamb (Christ). This is Christ who reigns with the Martyrs and begins to "eat the flesh of kings, princes, slave, rich, free, and poor..." This could mean one of two things. It may have been a fulfillment of the birds eating the dead corpses that lied all around Israel after the war. Or it may have been symbolic of communion. The birds represent the Angels, or resurrected martyrs who reigned with Christ. Could this mean that the spirits of the resurrected martyrs can baptize themselves into men on earth, just as Christ did after His resurrection on Pentecost? I'm uncertain of the meaning regarding the birds eating the flesh, although more than likely, I'd say it represents the first idea...birds eating the dead corpses.

Now the birds eat the flesh, and this spawns another conflict. This time, the Beast goes after the kingdom of Christ (The Church), as do the kings of the earth (Israel). We know in the late first century that many surviving Jews still persecuted Christians within the different parts of Asia Minor, and all throughout the Roman dominated territories. At the same time, Jews were considered outcasts from their own last. That is the significants off the millstone, in my opinion. The angel throwing the millstone into the sea, in my opinion, represents the biological remnant of the Harlot (Former Jerusalem) was tossed into the sea of nations.....they were scattered. No doubt, based on a few of the early church writings, they were still causing trouble within the Church. This is what I think is meant by the passage, "The Beast and the kings of the earth fought against the rider on the white horse....." This would certainly explain the severe persecution that the Church endured during the reigns of Domitian, Trajan, Marcus, and so forth. There was also the persecution caused by a Jewish leader who claimed to be the Messiah in 130AD, during the short small lived reign of Shimeon Bar Kaphba, although it wasn't necessarily him who claimed to be the Messiah, but his followers. These attempted to reclaim Israel, but this resulted in a final defeat of the Jews (flesh).

At this point, the Beast and the kings of the earth attack the kingdom of the rider on the white horse. But they lose, Christ is victorious over them, and then the Beast and the false prophet are thrown into the lake of fire. Thus ends the reign of the Beast, and the kings of the earth (Israel of the flesh). It is here that an Angel seizes the dragon, or Satan, and binds him during the thousand years to keep him from deceiving the nations, at least until the times of the Millennium are completed (not ended).

CRITICAL THINKING: It was Satan who deceived the Gentile nations, by also deceiving the Jews of the flesh. These two sides were both deceived into fighting each other, yet both ended up being destroyed. Therefore, how could Satan be bound during the 40 year ministry when even Paul himself states that Satan would use the weakness of the flesh (sexual lust) among members of the Corinthian Church who were yoked together with unbelievers? How could Satan be bound if Peter warns that Satan roars around like a lion searching for someone to devour. Lastly, how could Satan be bound if even in John's Revelation, that Satan's throne abides in the city of Symrna (Is this the right Church)?

Therefore, Satan could not have been bound during the 40 year ministry seeing the Apostles themselves state that he was still actively going after the Saints. This can only mean that the 1000 years begins AFTER the harlot and the Beast are destroyed, and not prior to 70AD.

Now where does this leave us? First, we know the Harlot was destroyed in 70AD, but the Beast still reigned in power. In my opinion, the Beat itself is destroyed when the Roman way of life came to an end, and the Kingdom of God successfully struck down the nations of that time. I myself cannot define this moment in time, but you could say that in the 3rd century, when Constantine made peace with the Church, would be a good candidate. I myself do not know, but I do know that after the end of the 1st century, Rome's population became more accustomed to Christianity, and paganism was declining into poverty. We must also consider the miraculous signs being poured out by St. Polycarp, who's body spilled water and milk after being pierced, when the fire did not harm his body. It would appear that the Kingdom of God was proving itself powerful through the miracles that took place throughout the Roman Empire. I'd say, in my own opinion, that Satan was certainly bound during this time, and the people of the Roman Empire began to die....by the word of God that is. Though thousands of Gentile citizens did die from famine, disease, volcano eruption, war, and earth quakes.

The rest who did not follow the Beast were killed with the double edge sword that comes from the mouth of the rider on the white horse......

The word of God had begun to strike down the Beast, as well as the false prophet. Was this false prophet a single person? I myself do not think so, just as there was more than one anti-Christ's during Johns day.

So lets recap.

1. Harlot is destroyed
2. Beast and kings of the earth (Israel of the flesh) go after Christ and His Kingdom.
3. Both are killed and tossed into the Lake of fire.
4. Then begins the Millennium which prevents Satanic deception.
5. When the Millenniums are completed, Satan is released to begin deception AGAIN....this is important because he deceived the nations once before, and then again when he is released. Thus, that is two deceptions, and not one. If we were to assume the millennium began during the 40 year ministry, Satan was already in the deceptions mode which began with Adam and Eve.

Therefore, it's my opinion that the Millennium began sometime after Jerusalem's destruction (70AD), and the fall of the Beast (Rome) and the false prophet (Israel of the flesh). The Church is then permitted time to expand and multiply over the face of the globe. Sometime after that, he is released, and begins another age of deception, leading up to the final conflict.

Could this conflict be Islam after all? Islam against the Kingdom of Christ?

At this point, I am uncertain. But based on my close review of Revelation 18 - 20, the Millennium could not have started prior to 70AD, for the Harlot was not yet destroyed, nor the Beast. Therefore, it began after both Harlot and Beast were destroyed. But it is the Harlot that is destroyed first, and there's a logical reason why. Christ's Kingdom could not take official reign of the world, until the first kingdom had been purged of evil. This was the sheep being separated from the goat, the weeds from the tares, etc. This happened during the 40 year ministry of the Apostles. Those that were accepted (symbolically the 144,000 sealed for deliverance) were spared, while the rest suffered death, famine, and destruction in 70AD.

I'm interested in your thoughts my friends.

Joe

[TheForgiven]

TIME-OUT

My fellow brothers and sisters, I just came across something very important last night as I was studying Revelation 20 -22. Sister Rose, I believe you and Brother Richard are going to love this. This may in fact solve the definition of the 1000 years.
Read these two passages:

Revelation 19:
6 And I heard, as it were, the voice of a great multitude, as the sound of many waters and as the sound of mighty thunders, saying, 'Alleluia! For the Lord God Omnipotent reigns! 7 Let us be glad and rejoice and give Him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready.' 8 And to her it was granted to be arrayed in fine linen, clean and bright, for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints. 9 Then he said to me, 'Write: ‘Blessed are those who are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb!’'

Revelation 21:
1 Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. 2 Then I, John,[a] saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, 'Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people.

I’m VERY interested in everyone’s take on this. Notice that the 'Bride' and the 'Marriage' occurs right after the Harlot is destroyed. Then in Revelation 21, after the 1000 years, notice how we see again that the Bride is adorned (as in a wedding) for her husband. See it? On one hand, the Bride dressed herself after the death of the Harlot, and then again, after the 1000 years, and Satan, death, and Hades are tossed into the lake of fire.

Joe

[Victor]

Thank you Victor, for joining into the conversation, you bring up many good points.

In all my studying of Rev. chapter 20 has proved to be the most difficult to fit into the larger picture, with so many significant events happening. If we look at Rev. as a chronological vision, then what happens in chapter 20 needs to be finished before the New Jerusalem is fully come in, which happens in chapter 21. So we are left with trying to fit "the millennium","the war of Gog and Magog" and "the Great white Throne judgment" into the picture before "the Bride of Christ" which is New Jerusalem comes in.

I do hear what your saying about the use of "soon", but I think a different concept is applied to the 1,000 years. It appears to be used symbolically whereas the "soon" time markers are not. The verse I quoted in 2 Peter is flipping the 1,000 years to 1 day back and forth to show the timelessness of Gods ways. A thousand years is a long time to us, but to God it is as yesterday or 1 day, whereas 1 day to us is a short time....but could be a 1,000 years worth of time in Gods timeframe.

I look forward to discussing this more. :)

Rose

Hi Rose, I wish one of my days were tranformed into a thousand years to post all stuff that can be discussed... :D

Revelation 20 is really hard to "fit". Revelation 11 too. But the big thing about the interpretation of the thousand years is: do we view the 1,000 years as a period that must be fit within a timeframe that we have already decided that it is the correct one? For example, for a futurist, it can only be in the future. For a preterist, it must have already happened. So our own belief dispostion may color the way we interpret it.

Does it really need that all must have been fulfilled in the first century? Does this presuposition color the way we interpret what the Millenium signifies?

So how do you feel about the "thousand years" of Revelation 20 being actually "one day" (i.e., a short period of time)? Does it sound natural to you? Doesn't it sound like a forced fit?

I can understand that the "soon" in Revelation can be read as literal and the "thousand years" as symbolic, but, yet, doesn't "a 'thousand years' meaning one day'" seem like a stretch after all?

[Victor]

Hello everyone. I'm glad to see that some of you are engaging in this very good debate. I certainly look forward to discussing these things each and everyday.

Determining the meaning of the Millenniums is tough, but then again that depends on how we're interpreting it. Victor brings up a great point that it makes no sense for Preterist to assume that "Near" means near, while as the same time, a thousand years can only mean a short time, as in 40 years. At the same time, sister Rose brings up a contrasting point with Peter's 1000 years = a day, or a day a 1000 years. This makes it even more tough.

(snip)

CRITICAL THINKING: It was Satan who deceived the Gentile nations, by also deceiving the Jews of the flesh. These two sides were both deceived into fighting each other, yet both ended up being destroyed. Therefore, how could Satan be bound during the 40 year ministry when even Paul himself states that Satan would use the weakness of the flesh (sexual lust) among members of the Corinthian Church who were yoked together with unbelievers? How could Satan be bound if Peter warns that Satan roars around like a lion searching for someone to devour. Lastly, how could Satan be bound if even in John's Revelation, that Satan's throne abides in the city of Symrna (Is this the right Church)?

Therefore, Satan could not have been bound during the 40 year ministry seeing the Apostles themselves state that he was still actively going after the Saints. This can only mean that the 1000 years begins AFTER the harlot and the Beast are destroyed, and not prior to 70AD.


So there goes "full" preterism... :D

[TheForgiven]

So there goes "full" preterism...

:lol: Hi there Victor. I'm glad we can all agree, to some extent, that some passages are just plain difficult to understand. I'll smile with you as we discuss these issues. But keep in mind that all of us are attempting to sharpen our swords. So the ideas that I'm proposing are not necessarily what I believe. If you read my last post about the Millennium, you'll see that Rose may be right about the Millennium being merely one day. Here's why.

The wedding occurs after the Harlot is destroyed. Christ, at this point, takes His Kingdom (The Bride) and begins to reign with a rod of iron. Thus, the wedding clothes are provided after the Harlot is taken out.

Now, jump forward to the completion of the Millennium and Satan's defeat (along with those whom he deceived) and you'll see that the Bride of Christ comes down from heaven, adorned as a Bride for her husband.

Do you see this? If the wedding occurred prior to the Millennium, how could the "Bride" be adorned as a Bride some several thousand years later? This would make no sense.

For those of us who are married, did we have our wives put on a wedding gown many years after our marriage, say about 40 or so years? This doesn't seem natural at all. Therefore, sister Rose may be right.

Now here's my proposed theory, and I'll leave it up to you all to test it.

The wedding is referred to as the joining of two into one. This marriage occurs after Jerusalem is destroyed in 70AD. So how do you explain the New Jerusalem (Bride) coming down from heaven several thousand years later, but dressed as a Bride? If the wedding happened in 70AD, then why the wedding gown several thousand years later? The answer? The 1000 years may have simply meant, "The Day of the Lord".

What say you all?

Joe

[Rose]

Hi Rose, I wish one of my days were tranformed into a thousand years to post all stuff that can be discussed... :D

Revelation 20 is really hard to "fit". Revelation 11 too. But the big thing about the interpretation of the thousand years is: do we view the 1,000 years as a period that must be fit within a timeframe that we have already decided that it is the correct one? For example, for a futurist, it can only be in the future. For a preterist, it must have already happened. So our own belief dispostion may color the way we interpret it.

Does it really need that all must have been fulfilled in the first century? Does this presuposition color the way we interpret what the Millenium signifies?

So how do you feel about the "thousand years" of Revelation 20 being actually "one day" (i.e., a short period of time)? Does it sound natural to you? Doesn't it sound like a forced fit?

I can understand that the "soon" in Revelation can be read as literal and the "thousand years" as symbolic, but, yet, doesn't "a 'thousand years' meaning one day'" seem like a stretch after all?

Hi Victor,

I understand what you are saying....our presuppositions do color the way we interpret Scripture. About a year ago I set out to interpret Rev. from the Bible, at that point I barely knew what Preterism was, I had purposely shied away from interpreting Rev. because of all the "bad theology" surrounding it, so when I decided to try and understand why Rev was the capstone book of the Bible I did so an open mind, and to this day my number one goal is to seek the truth, and the way I know the truth is "the great cloud of witnesses" that Scripture provides me with.

Richard will tell you that I can come up with what seems like some pretty unorthodox ideas on the surface, :eek: but once I get all the pieces connected with the witnesses of Scripture he settles down :D.

So to answer your question about the 1,000 years being one Day.....the more my understanding grows concerning whats going on in Rev. 20 and how it ties in with 2 Peter the more natural it becomes. I'll continue more in my next post.;)

Rose

[Rose]

Now here's my proposed theory, and I'll leave it up to you all to test it.

The wedding is referred to as the joining of two into one. This marriage occurs after Jerusalem is destroyed in 70AD. So how do you explain the New Jerusalem (Bride) coming down from heaven several thousand years later, but dressed as a Bride? If the wedding happened in 70AD, then why the wedding gown several thousand years later? The answer? The 1000 years may have simply meant, "The Day of the Lord".

What say you all?

Joe

Hey Joe, looks like you might be on to something :rolleyes:.


I also noticed something very interesting along those same lines as I was studying Rev. 20, trying to understand its time frame, and connecting it with other verses in the Bible; I came across a striking parallel to 2 Peter.


2 Peter 3:7-13 'But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.'



Notice how Peter speaks of the heavens and earth which are now, and will be passing away, a Day of Judgment that will happen being equal to the Day of the Lord, a description of a thousand year period given, comparing it to a day with the Lord, and a day to a thousand years, and then Peter uses the properties of fire to describe the destruction of the old, ending with a coming of new heavens and a new earth.

Now looking at Rev. 20 we see similar language used in John’s description of what looks like the same events that Peter was describing. There is a thousand year period after which a Judgment Day occurs, at which time the heavens and the earth flee from before the face of God, there is destruction by fire, ending with a new heavens and a new earth.


Rev. 20:4-15 'And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them. And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.''

Rev. 21:1 'And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.'


Now, what say you all? :pop2:

Rose

[TheForgiven]

I see Sister Rose. So the theory is that the 1000 years is simply a metaphor for "The Day of the Lord". If we were to assume Peter was referring to what John would eventually refer to, then the "Day of the Lord" ends with the judgment of the fire Peter spoke about.

The question remains then, was the "fire" that destroyed the heavens and the earth the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD? If so, then that would mean that 1000 years began prior to the destruction. There's where the conflict is.

According to Revelation, the Harlot is first destroyed, and then the 1000 years begins. Or, the Harlot is destroyed at the end of the 1000 years. But Revelation isn't worded to support this. That is why I see a major problem.

In regard to Revelation, there's absolutely no problem identifying the Harlot as Jerusalem, as indicated also by the prophet Jeremiah, who used the same language to describe the saddened circumstance over the city. It was demonic, adulterous, and unholy. Thus was the case when Rome sacked Jerusalem, ate her flesh (figurative) and burned her with fire. In this, there is no dispute or conflict identifying Jerusalem of the flesh as the Harlot that was destroyed by the beast. Where the problem remains is in the beginning point of the Millennium.

Now some "Full" Preterist assert that the 1000 years began with the reign of David, and ended when the armies of Rome and their allies, surrounded Israel and destroyed the entire city, to include its most valuable possession; the temple. But, as I indicated, the problem with this theory is that it must place the resurrection of the Martyrs, and the persecutions of the Beast, before the Harlot is destroyed; additionally, it must place the beginning of the 1000 years way in advance of the Millennium. Therefore, so far, I can only conclude that the Millennium doesn't begin until after the Harlot is killed, and the Lamb is married to his wife, the Church.

I'm still trying to discern this problem, but Partial Preterism may be the only viable solution.

Joe

[Rose]

Hi All :yo:
First off I want to say that I absolutely love this kind of discussion. All of us here are seeking the truth and willing to look at things from all points.

I agree the best starting point is what we know for sure…the Harlot is Jerusalem and she was destroyed in 70 A.D. by the Beast, who represents the power of the Dragon 'Satan' given to the Caesars of Rome, to accomplish the will of God in bringing judgment on Jerusalem for the blood of the Prophets. Ending chapter 18.

At that point in time the marriage of the Lamb happens, Rev. 19 (the Bride of Christ is wed), ending with the Beast who represents the Dragon 'the seat of Satan' and the False Prophet being thrown into the Lake of Fire.

Next Satan’s power is restricted 'bound' while judgment is given to the Saints whose souls we saw under the altar in Rev. 6:9-11, waiting for their blood to be avenged, which begins the 'millennium'.

After that Satan is given back his power to deceive the peoples, and then is destroyed by God with fire from heaven. All this leads up to the great White Throne judgment when all of creation is judged…..the old heaven and earth vanishes away, dissolved by the fire of God.

Rev. 21 begins with the presentation of a New Heavens and Earth (the old law has passed away it has been dissolved, remember the words of Jesus in Matt. 5:18 'Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.') where we see the married bride the 'Church' presented to her Husband 'Christ'.

I see everything from Chapter 19 on as happening after 70 A.D…. the question is the time frame. Does it all happen in a moment of time? Or over thousands of years?
What I do know is this: Revelation is a vision presented in a symbolic form though it represents actual events, and there is no reason to think that the thousand years time period is any more literal than the beast or the dragon.



Keep the great posts coming.....:thumb:


Rose

[Brother Les]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheForgiven
Hello everyone. I'm glad to see that some of you are engaging in this very good debate. I certainly look forward to discussing these things each and everyday.

Determining the meaning of the Millenniums is tough, but then again that depends on how we're interpreting it. Victor brings up a great point that it makes no sense for Preterist to assume that "Near" means near, while as the same time, a thousand years can only mean a short time, as in 40 years. At the same time, sister Rose brings up a contrasting point with Peter's 1000 years = a day, or a day a 1000 years. This makes it even more tough.

(snip)

CRITICAL THINKING: It was Satan who deceived the Gentile nations, by also deceiving the Jews of the flesh. These two sides were both deceived into fighting each other, yet both ended up being destroyed. Therefore, how could Satan be bound during the 40 year ministry when even Paul himself states that Satan would use the weakness of the flesh (sexual lust) among members of the Corinthian Church who were yoked together with unbelievers? How could Satan be bound if Peter warns that Satan roars around like a lion searching for someone to devour. Lastly, how could Satan be bound if even in John's Revelation, that Satan's throne abides in the city of Symrna (Is this the right Church)?

Therefore, Satan could not have been bound during the 40 year ministry seeing the Apostles themselves state that he was still actively going after the Saints. This can only mean that the 1000 years begins AFTER the harlot and the Beast are destroyed, and not prior to 70AD.

Victor posted
So there goes "full" preterism...




Rev 2:24 But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden.


Rev 3:9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.


Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Rev 20:1 ¶ And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.


Rev 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,


Rev 20:3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.


Rev 20:4 ¶ And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received [his] mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.


Rev 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This [is] the first resurrection.

Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy [is] he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.


Rev 20:7 ¶ And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,




Lexicon Results for Satanas (Strong's G4567) Greek for G4567 Σατανᾶς Transliteration
Satanas
Pronunciation

sä-tä-nä's (Key)

Part of Speech
proper masculine noun

Root Word (Etymology)

of Aramaic origin corresponding to G4566 (with the definite affix)


[I]SATAN

Outline of Biblical Usage 1) adversary (one who opposes another in purpose or act), the name given to

a) the prince of evil spirits, the inveterate adversary of God and Christ

1) he incites apostasy from God and to sin

2) circumventing men by his wiles

3) the worshippers of idols are said to be under his control

4) by his demons he is able to take possession of men and inflict them with diseases

5) by God's assistance he is overcome

6) on Christ's return from heaven he will be bound with chains for a thousand years, but when the thousand years are finished he will walk the earth in yet greater power, but shortly after will be given over to eternal punishment

b) a Satan-like man




In the book of Revelation "man", seems to want to read and connect the term 'Satan', as 'a' fallen Angel (Messenger). The term 'satan', is Adversary. We know that Jesus Christ said to Peter, "Get behind me Satan". Jesus was saying to Peter to not block His way on what needs to be done... His Fathers Business. Peter thought that he was helping, but in fact hindering.But Peter Was Satan at that point in time. We should be able to 'see' the 'small snake' of Adam (The Man) (yes I said Adam) grow up into a Giant Dragon,(The Men) of many people and 'a' System (Temple Worship Cultus) that was 'now' (first century) The Adversary of God/Jesus Redemptive plan at The End of The Ages. This 'system' (and people) were 'held' in check (so to speak) by the Power of The Holy Spirit that was 'in Force' during the Apostic Age(which ended in AD70) , while 'His Church' was coming to maturity. We should keep the context of 'Satan' of Revelation, where it belongs, it is 'The People', 'The Place', and 'The System', of That Age. Is 'Satan', 'still here'? 'That Satan' is not.....


Covenant Eschatology confirmed....


Blessings
Brother Les

[TheForgiven]

Let's just assume that the 1000 years are an undefined (or defined) amount of time, based on actual years, be it 1000, 2000, etc. What events must take place within this time span.

Before the 1000 years begins, the following events are completed:

1. Harlot Destroyed
2. Beast and False Prophet killed
3. The rest of those who followed the Beast are killed by the sword of Christ
4. The Wedding of Christ
5. Christ rules with his wife to "Strike down the nations".
6. The Millennium begins
7. Thrones were setup for judgment.

Here are the events which must happen during the Millennium:

1. Satan Bound during this time
2. Martyrs are raised to rule with Christ (this happens at event 4 above)
3. Martyrs serve as Priests of God and of Christ (begins at event 5 above)
4. The 1000 years are completed

It's at this point the Millennium served its purpose, and this permits Satan to be released from his prison, but no time span was provided except "A short while".

During Satan's "short while" he is permitted to deceive the nations on the four corners of the earth once again. This time he attacks the very heart of the earth, which most believe is the literal city of Jerusalem. I believe John was referring to the "camp of the Saints", that is, the Christians abiding as one in their fight against evil (not physical warfare, but spiritual).

5. Satan is killed, along with those who were deceived (Fire comes down from heaven and devours them)
6. GWT judgment occurs.
7. Bride comes down from heaven in the form of a 1,500 tall, wide, and long.
8. Great White Throne Judgment

Now notice this important, often missed detail. John states, "But fire comes down from heaven and devours them (those who were deceived that surrounded the city He loves). If we assume that the surrounding of the camp represented the Romans in 70AD, this will not fit. Why? Because fire (whether literal or spiritual) did not come down from heaven to devour them, or defeat them. They continued on, and persecuted not only the captured Jews, but the Christians as well. This causes a problem with trying to fit the 1000 years in 70 AD.

At the same time, on another post, I've shown that there were not two periods of time when man is judged. That is a misconception based on how we read the text. John was describing a single time where man is judged. He says:

I saw thrones on which those were seated....skip down to verse 11...and I saw a Great White Throne, and Him seated on the throne....

Does this judgment happen on a single time? No, for John doesn't say that. He just says that I he saw the dead, small and great, and whom ever was not written in the book of life, was throne into the Lake of fire. He mentions nothing about this judgment not being continious; we just assume that. Then again, it might be a single judgment day. But then how do you explain two judgments taking place, if we were to assume that the "Thrones" he saw, and the "Great White Throne" are two periods of judgments, one past, and another future (or both future based on Futurist interpretation).

Any thoughts?

Joe

[Rose]

Does this judgment happen on a single time? No, for John doesn't say that. He just says that I he saw the dead, small and great, and whom ever was not written in the book of life, was throne into the Lake of fire. He mentions nothing about this judgment not being continious; we just assume that. Then again, it might be a single judgment day. But then how do you explain two judgments taking place, if we were to assume that the "Thrones" he saw, and the "Great White Throne" are two periods of judgments, one past, and another future (or both future based on Futurist interpretation).

Any thoughts?

Joe
Hi Joe,

The souls of the Saints who are given judgment in Rev. 20:4 are the same souls we saw under the altar in chapter 6. I'm not sure who they are judging because the text doesn't say, and it doesn't say if they are judging at that moment or just that judgment is given to them.

Rev. 6:9-11 " And when He had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?

Rev. 20:4 " And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and [I saw] the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the Word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received [his] mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Whereas the judgment of Rev. 20:11 is the final judgment of all creation by God. At least that's how it seems to me.

Rose

[gregoryfl]

What if this judgment is actually connected to the cross of Christ? And by being connected in that way, instill confidence in those of us who believe on Him; that despite how things appear now, there will be a day that will reveal what has already taken place on that cross; that judgment has been meted out already, and therefore, when we do stand before him as representing the bema seat, just as in Roman times, we receive our reward, Christ himself, seeing him as he is?

[TheForgiven]

Hi Joe,

The souls of the Saints who are given judgment in Rev. 20:4 are the same souls we saw under the altar in chapter 6. I'm not sure who they are judging because the text doesn't say, and it doesn't say if they are judging at that moment or just that judgment is given to them.

Rev. 6:9-11 " And when He had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?

Rev. 20:4 " And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and [I saw] the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the Word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received [his] mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Whereas the judgment of Rev. 20:11 is the final judgment of all creation by God. At least that's how it seems to me.

Rose

Right, that's how I've always though of it. But now, let me show you the text without the degression, or supporting detail regarding the Throne.


4 And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. [skip to verse 12] Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. 14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

When you take out the additional detal about the Martyrs, and the 1000 years, notice how verse 4 connects directly in with verse 12. So John was not talking about two thrones stretched between thousands of years, but one throne. This fits perfectly with Daniel's vision of the Throne:


Daniel 7:
9 “ I watched till thrones were put in place,
And the Ancient of Days was seated;
His garment was white as snow,
And the hair of His head was like pure wool.
His throne was a fiery flame,
Its wheels a burning fire;
10 A fiery stream issued
And came forth from before Him.
A thousand thousands ministered to Him;
Ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him.
The court[b] was seated,
And the books were opened.

Daniel speaks of "Thrones" with the Ancient of Days (Christ) seated as His throne. In Revelation our minds are detracted from the additional detail about the Millennium, and the risen Martyrs who reign with Christ during those 1000 years, and when he returns to describe the Throne he was seeing, we automatically assume that the Great White Throne is a future Throne from the first Thrones that John first saw, prior to the 1000 years. But if you read Daniel chapter 7, that would seem to contradict each other.

Therefore, there's one Throne, and not necessarily within one moment in time, for, "They shall reign for ever and ever...." Thus the Throne and Judgment's, in my opinion, occur forever and ever. If anyone dies, they go straight to judgment, and are judged based on what's recorded in the books. (This fits with the Full Preterist position).

Joe

[joel]

Thus the Throne and Judgment's, in my opinion, occur forever and ever. If anyone dies, they go straight to judgment, and are judged based on what's recorded in the books. (This fits with the Full Preterist position).

Joe,

There is an on-going judgment occuring as we "live"......described by Paul in Romans 1:18-32.

But, I would caution you to conclude that immediately upon death each person enters into judgment that is a finality. Paul says there is a "day of wrath and the revelation of the righteous judgment of God".

Each person enters into death, and remains there until the resurrection. (But, I think we have discussed that before without any unanimity).

Joel

[Rose]

Daniel speaks of "Thrones" with the Ancient of Days (Christ) seated as His throne. In Revelation our minds are detracted from the additional detail about the Millennium, and the risen Martyrs who reign with Christ during those 1000 years, and when he returns to describe the Throne he was seeing, we automatically assume that the Great White Throne is a future Throne from the first Thrones that John first saw, prior to the 1000 years. But if you read Daniel chapter 7, that would seem to contradict each other.

Therefore, there's one Throne, and not necessarily within one moment in time, for, "They shall reign for ever and ever...." Thus the Throne and Judgment's, in my opinion, occur forever and ever. If anyone dies, they go straight to judgment, and are judged based on what's recorded in the books. (This fits with the Full Preterist position).

Joe

I think you are definitely are right on track. It is the way in which we look at the 1,000 years that determines what we see. If we could look at the millennium as a frame in which an event occurs, we could then fit the thrones for the Martyrs and the Throne of God all in the same picture.

Rose

[Victor]

Hi Victor,

I understand what you are saying....our presuppositions do color the way we interpret Scripture. About a year ago I set out to interpret Rev. from the Bible, at that point I barely knew what Preterism was, I had purposely shied away from interpreting Rev. because of all the "bad theology" surrounding it, so when I decided to try and understand why Rev was the capstone book of the Bible I did so an open mind, and to this day my number one goal is to seek the truth, and the way I know the truth is "the great cloud of witnesses" that Scripture provides me with.

Richard will tell you that I can come up with what seems like some pretty unorthodox ideas on the surface, :eek: but once I get all the pieces connected with the witnesses of Scripture he settles down :D.

So to answer your question about the 1,000 years being one Day.....the more my understanding grows concerning whats going on in Rev. 20 and how it ties in with 2 Peter the more natural it becomes. I'll continue more in my next post.;)

Rose

Great approach. There's a lot of junk intepretation of the Apocalypse. Lots of nonsensical speculation out there.

A great principle to guide our study is the one you have been using: comparing Scripture with Scripture. (1Co 2:13)

Coming up with unorthodox ideas is not necessarily bad, because they quite a few times spark a new thought that helps us to interpret the visions. :thumb:

Victor

[Victor]

Hey Joe, looks like you might be on to something :rolleyes:.


I also noticed something very interesting along those same lines as I was studying Rev. 20, trying to understand its time frame, and connecting it with other verses in the Bible; I came across a striking parallel to 2 Peter.


2 Peter 3:7-13 'But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.'


Notice how Peter speaks of the heavens and earth which are now, and will be passing away, a Day of Judgment that will happen being equal to the Day of the Lord, a description of a thousand year period given, comparing it to a day with the Lord, and a day to a thousand years, and then Peter uses the properties of fire to describe the destruction of the old, ending with a coming of new heavens and a new earth.

Now looking at Rev. 20 we see similar language used in John’s description of what looks like the same events that Peter was describing. There is a thousand year period after which a Judgment Day occurs, at which time the heavens and the earth flee from before the face of God, there is destruction by fire, ending with a new heavens and a new earth.


Rev. 20:4-15 'And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them. And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.''

Rev. 21:1 'And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.'


Now, what say you all? :pop2:

Rose

That's really good! You prove that the 2Pe 3 <> Rev 20-21 link is not ad hoc. It is much more robust than a mere reference to "a thousand years". They are actually unique because only these two passages in the Bible speak of "a thousand years" together with the ideas of fire, the vanishing of heaven and earth and the mention of "new heaven and new earth".

Thus 2 Peter may be shedding light into what the thousand years of Revelation 20 signifies. It can be a symbolic way to say that "many things take place during the day of the Lord".

May God help us to increase in understanding of these difficult passages of His Book. It is still a very hard chapter to interpret.

Joe did something I thought of but don't have the time to pursue now: scanning the whole chapter to check whether this interpretation fits. But I'll give an example of the difficulties:

Rev 20:3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
Here we have the Millenium side by side with a mention of "a little season". See how they are contrasted: Satan is bound for 1,000 years and then he is released for a short while. It doesn't make much sense to say that 1,000 years lasts for only a short period of time, otherwise the time periods in which Satan is bound and Satan is unconstrained would last about the same amount of time. So why is he bound afterall? What possible meaning could this verse have? And when was he bound in the first century?

This illustrates why this is such a "difficult" part of the Bible.

[Rose]

Joe did something I thought of but don't have the time to pursue now: scanning the whole chapter to check whether this interpretation fits. But I'll give an example of the difficulties:
Rev 20:3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
Here we have the Millenium side by side with a mention of "a little season". See how they are contrasted: Satan is bound for 1,000 years and then he is released for a short while. It doesn't make much sense to say that 1,000 years lasts for only a short period of time, otherwise the time periods in which Satan is bound and Satan is unconstrained would last about the same amount of time. So why is he bound afterall? What possible meaning could this verse have? And when was he bound in the first century?

This illustrates why this is such a "difficult" part of the Bible.

I think we all agree that Rev. 20 is probably the most difficult part of Rev. to understand.


One possible reason for Satan to be "bound" is to restrain him from deceiving the nations like he was allowed to do when he gave his power and authority and "seat" to the Beast,

Rev.13:2 " And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as [the feet] of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his throne, and great authority.

which was the power behind Rome allowing them to fulfill the will of God in the destruction of the Harlot,

Rev. 17:17 " For God hath put in their hearts to fulfill his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.

I can only assume that at the point Satan was "bound" which was after 70 A.D. was a critical time in the bringing to a close the end of the Old Covenant age. The martyrs blood had been avenged and they were given thrones and judgment, which could be what the thousand years signifies "establishing the rule and reign of Christ through the Church" and then afterward Satan is released "for a short time" to try and again deceive the nations...but this time the rule of Christ through the Church has been established so his power is destroyed by fire. Then comes the final judgment of the Old Covenant system and it seen fleeing from the face of God, and death and hell are cast into the lake of fire completely dissolving the Old.

Just some more thoughts.:pop2:

Rose

[gregoryfl]

There was indeed a judgment for all the nations, and that judgment took place in Christ. It was pronounced guilty and all in Christ died. This is why all the things pertaining to this "illusion" we think is the real world is said by John to be "passing away." What occured during the time of 67 to 70 CE is but the revealing of that which has already taken place in God's eyes. For each of us individually who are in Christ, the reality of all that the new creation is all about is being judged and revealed for what it is, the very Life of Christ hidden in God, who is all in all.

Ron

[gregoryfl]

Thus 2 Peter may be shedding light into what the thousand years of Revelation 20 signifies. It can be a symbolic way to say that "many things take place during the day of the Lord".

May God help us to increase in understanding of these difficult passages of His Book. It is still a very hard chapter to interpret.
Yes Victor, as I shared in my post above, the word thousand has reference, not to time, but to all things that are contained within the context of what the thousand signifies. Again, the thousand hills (or, as most bibles have it thousand cattle) is not speaking of a literal thousand hills or cattle, but all the cattle, all the hills. Again, when Peter speaks of a day being as a thousand years, he is not speaking primarily of time, but of his all encompassing patience, that not one person or thing gets by him on any given day. It was meant to be a verse of comfort, not a formula for figuring out a timeline of eschatology.

Ron

[TheForgiven]

I know this might sound like wisdom based on simple deduction, and so there might be some fallacy to this statement. It appears the 1000 years is as Ron stated, not an exact determination of time, but a completion. For instance, the Millennium may have been an expression used to signify that this was the moment of victory! The moment of truth! What took so long to come had finally come, and now the Millennium is the completion of all the work of Christ.

I know this makes no sense, but that's what my inner guts are telling me.

For one, as I explained about the thrones set up for judgment, we cannot (at least in my opinion) explain two thrones in two different time periods. Remember, John saw thrones and those seated upon the throne prior to the Millennium. Then after the Millennium is completed, and Satan is released for a short while deception of the nations, he is defeated, and that ushers in the Great White throne judgment. Thus, this presupposes two thrones; one in the beginning of the Millennium, and the other after the Millennium. But if we believe that there were two Throne periods, then Daniel must have left out the Great White Throne. However, we know he didn't because he states that "The Ancient of Days took His seat..." and John states that He sat upon the Throne during the Great White Throne.

Therefore, a simple process of elimination tells me that we're interpreting the 1000 years incorrectly. As indicated, there is no gap between the two thrones, for they are all one for all eternity. Therefore, the 1000 years must not be a specific moment of time, but a completion of time.

There is, of course, another possibility. The Great White Throne judgment occurred before the Millennium, and continues forever and ever, and Satan is defeated after his short reign, but the Throne itself was already in action, if this makes any sense. Here's a simple picture.

In all this, even Partial Preterism would work, but then you'd be left with two Thrones in a large span of time.

God help us resolve these mysteries.....in Jesus name.

Joe

[Rose]

Therefore, a simple process of elimination tells me that we're interpreting the 1000 years incorrectly. As indicated, there is no gap between the two thrones, for they are all one for all eternity. Therefore, the 1000 years must not be a specific moment of time, but a completion of time.

It seems the key to understanding this chapter is the way in which we look at the 1,000 years, and that determines what we see. If we could look at the millennium as a frame in which certain events occur, we could then fit the thrones for the Martyrs and the Throne of God all in the same picture. I think that was what Peter was saying when he compared a thousand years to a day, and a day to a thousand years, and also in Psalms when David tells us a thousand years is as yesterday in the eyes of God. Time wasn't the point.....but the lack thereof, that is timelessness.

Rose

[TheForgiven]

HI ROSE! :yo:

Let's examine the verses again to see what takes place.


Revelation 20
1 And I saw an angel come down from Heaven, having the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. 2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. 3 And he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years should be fulfilled; and after that he must be loosed a little season.

Okay, lets analize this. It appears that time may be a factor. After all, it was time that Satan had in the Old Covenant age, where he was the ruler of the air, even during the ministry of the Apostles; that is of course, until 70 AD. But prior to Christ, it was Satan who had charge over the nations, even though God was the one in command and control. But if you recall, particularly with Job and Zacheriah, Satan had free reign among the inhabitants of the earth. We also know that he was described as a huge seven headed dragon with horns. This indicates how vast his kingdom was, which as we all know, would take a very long time to build. The Kingdom of Christ is the reversal of what Satan had accomplished; instead of a kingdom of darkness dominating the earth, a kingdom of light would begin to take over.

Therefore, considering that Satan had free reign and charge up until 70AD, when Jerusalem was destroyed, we must assume then that Satan lost his reign when he was unable to defeat the Church (in the first century), and thus lost his ability to "DECEIVE" the nations. I'd have to place this event towards the latter half of the 1st century.

Now consider this. When the Roman Empire began to decline, and Christianity was gaining a huge foothold within the Empire itself (the entire Roman Empire), this would be the indication that the nations were being healed by the message and witness of the Saints; particularly their faithful testimony to the point of death. This must mean that Satan lost his ability to "DECEIVE" the nations and was growing weak. When false churches sprung to life, Christ (The King) sent a disaster upon them to clean the land of sickness (spiritual sickness).

What does this mean? Here's my theory. The Thrones were set-up in the first century (To include the GWT), which would be the same time the Martyrs were raised to serve as judges (whether literal or figurative). HERE'S THE KEY POINT--The completion of the reign has nothing to do with the Martyrs, or Christ; for both reign for ever and ever. The 1000 year limitation had to do with Satan's ability to "DECEIVE" again, but for a short while. Since his prior time was limited, we can only assume (if Time is a factor) that his current reign is shorter than the first. Let's just state theoretically that Satan ruled the earth for about 5,000 years. His current reign (if not already ended) would have far less than that.

Now examine the history of the Church, and we can see that nothing major against the Church happened until the Spanish Inquisition. In our day, we're seeing Greek Orthodox Christians suffering in Russia, and are being forced into China (This is common among Christians). This will serve as a chance for Christians to witness to the Chinese.

In conclusion, my theory is that the eternal reign and throne of the Martyrs, along with Christ Jesus, happened sometime in the first century. The New Jerusalem was established after the defeat of the Beast, the False Prophet, and the Harlot. The 1000 year reign had to do with Satan's length of time to be prevented from "DECIEVING" the nations. Afterwards, he's set free again to deceive.......my gut tells me this represents the Islamic Terrorist's. But that's just me....they are the ones who seem to pose the more serious threat in our day, just as the Romans were in the days of Iranaeus.

So here's a short picture for a summary:

Beast & Harlot War------>70 AD Harlot dies / Thrones Set up / Martyrs raised / Bride of Christ rules in full power----->Beast goes after the Church------>Christ kills Beast and Satan is Bound------>Church expands quickly 1000 years---->Satan released / deceives nations for a short time--------->Satan killed, along with those who were deceived.

Inputs anyone?

Joe

[Bob May]

Hi everyone,

I cannot spend much time on this right now as I have to sleep and get up for work later, but I have to write a few things or I'm afraid I won't get any sleep.
Interesting discussion.
Here are a few elements of my "take" on the subject.
The 69th week of Daniel ended the day Jesus entered Jerusalem riding an ass.
It had begun during the captivity in Babylon. (Beginning or end, I'm not sure)

Mary, Lazarus' sister anointed Jesus (The holy one) that night or the next day, I don't remember which. (That was prophecied by Daniel) That was 5-6 days before passover.
So, the 70th week was the week of the Crucifixion. (There is no gap there the word translated "week" is seven) 69 weeks (sevens) of years plus 1 week (seven) of days.
In the midst of that week (counting backwards 3 1/2 days from the resurrection) Anti-Christ was revealed when the people cried out "crucify him." He was revealed in the people.
To calculate the number of the beast you come up with the name Sethur.
As far as I know it is the only name in the Pentatuch that adds up to 666.
That name means "hidden" which is exactly what the beast is until he is revealed. That spirit was hidden in the people.
It is the epitomy of fallen Man. 6 being man,... 666 being manifestation of that principle. It is written that Jesus "knew what was in man."
We also see what is in man when our eyes are opened.

The second coming is a Spiritual experience. An individual affair. That is why the day and hour are not known.
Read Margaret MacDonald's revelation. It's easy to find online and comes closest to agreeing with my viewpoint of anyone I've read. She points out that these things are spiritually discerned. We came to the same conclusion 200 years apart.

That the apostles believed they were in the end times is evident in the N.T.
They were not mistaken. The end times began 2000 years ago and so did the second coming. At Pentecost for the first time. Remember Peter stood up and said, "This is that which was spoken of by Joel..." It has been happening to individuals ever since.

Jesus said, what I say unto you, I say unto all, Watch.

P.S. I almost forgot; "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto THEM THAT LOOK FOR HIM shall he appear the SECOND TIME without sin unto salvation."

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey Joe, looks like you might be on to something :rolleyes:.


I also noticed something very interesting along those same lines as I was studying Rev. 20, trying to understand its time frame, and connecting it with other verses in the Bible; I came across a striking parallel to 2 Peter.


2 Peter 3:7-13 'But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.'



Notice how Peter speaks of the heavens and earth which are now, and will be passing away, a Day of Judgment that will happen being equal to the Day of the Lord, a description of a thousand year period given, comparing it to a day with the Lord, and a day to a thousand years, and then Peter uses the properties of fire to describe the destruction of the old, ending with a coming of new heavens and a new earth.

Now looking at Rev. 20 we see similar language used in John’s description of what looks like the same events that Peter was describing. There is a thousand year period after which a Judgment Day occurs, at which time the heavens and the earth flee from before the face of God, there is destruction by fire, ending with a new heavens and a new earth.


Rev. 20:4-15 'And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them. And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.''

Rev. 21:1 'And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.'


Now, what say you all? :pop2:

Rose
Well, my dear, you have really outdone yourself! :flowers: :hug:

The connections you have found here are simply too deep for words. So I have put together a chart that shows a few of the primary connections:



http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/images/Rev20-2Pet3a.jpg


2 Peter directly links in context the "day of the Lord" and the "coming day of God" to "a thousand years" and explicitly states that a "thousand years" is like a single day to God. The phrase "thousand years" appears in the NT ONLY in these two passages. The "thousand years" and the "day of the Lord" and the "day of judgment" all appear to be a single "DAY" in these integrated passages.

A second unique reference is the "new heavens and new earth" which is found nowhere else in the NT except these two passages.


A third unique (though indirect) reference is found in Peter's reference to "holy conversation." This phrase appears in only one other passage, also penned by Peter:
1 Peter 1:13-16, 2:9-12 Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ; 14 As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance: 15 But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; 16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy. ... 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: 10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy. 11 Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul; 12 Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.

This passage links the "holy conversation" with the "royal priesthood." And what is the literal Greek really say? The adjective "royal" is basileios which is cognate with the noun "basileus" (king) and the verb basileuo which is translated as "riegn" in Rev 20:6
Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign (basileuo) with him a thousand years.

"Reigning priests" are "royal priests" and this idea is expressed elsewhere in Revelation as
Revelation 1:5-6 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, 6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

The convergence of this many ideas in the parallel between 2 Peter 3 and Rev 20 is the ONLY EXPLICIT EVIDENCE that the Bible contains concerning the meaning of the "thousand years" in Rev 20. The futurist theories have NO direct evidence for a literal temporal period of a thousand year reign of Christ on earth, and the actual evidence placed by God in His Word strongly points to a symbolic meaning of the thousand years, since that is how Peter used it in the context which is linked to the Day of the Lord.

This is the good fruit of an integrated study of Scripture that demands there be at least two or three clear and unabmiguous passages supporting any doctrine.


And all of this cohere's with everything else seen concerning the Fulfilled Prophecy. Specifically, the reference in Peter and Revelation confirms that the prophecies originially given in the context of carnal Israel have been fulfilled in the Church. Specifically:
Exodus 19:5-6 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: 6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

Everything confirms everything else. The only real challenge is to find a way to express the integrated theological and prophetic complex in a way that folks can easily see the ten thousand mutually confirming verses.

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The integrated correlation between 2 Peter 3 and Rev 20 strongly suggests that the "thousand years" is a symbol of "judgment day." So I decided to see what happens if we simply replace "thousand years" with "judgment day" in Rev 20:
Revelation 20:1 - 21:1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. 2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him [for] judgment day, 3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the judgment day should come to completion: and after that he must be loosed a little season. 4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ [during] judgment day. 5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the judgment day would come to completion. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him [during] the judgment day. 7 And when [it is time for] the judgment day to come to completion, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, 8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. 9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them. 10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. 11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. 14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.




Well, it actually seems to fit pretty well, but there certainly are some wrinkles to iron out yet. In any case, I had almost despaired of every finding anything in the Bible that would confirm the correct intepretation of this passage. I now am convinced that we have found the true key, though I have am not certain as to all the details just yet.

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I moved Bob May's recent post over to the Hermeneutics and Theology forum because he raised a whole lot of very interesting ideas that deserve their own thread, and it would lead this thread too far afield to pursue them here. The new thread is called The Qabbalistic Hermeneutic. I encourage anyone interested to check it out and contribute.

Richard (As Administrator)

[TheForgiven]

The integrated correlation between 2 Peter 3 and Rev 20 strongly suggests that the "thousand years" is a symbol of "judgment day." So I decided to see what happens if we simply replace "thousand years" with "judgment day" in Rev 20:

Revelation 20:1 - 21:1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. 2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him [for] judgment day, 3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the judgment day should come to completion: and after that he must be loosed a little season. 4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ [during] judgment day. 5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the judgment day would come to completion. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him [during] the judgment day. 7 And when [it is time for] the judgment day to come to completion, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, 8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. 9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them. 10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. 11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. 14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

He lives!!! :lol: I wondered what happened to you. Man, I missed you. :hug:

The ideas you just expressed are what I was thinking of a few days ago, when we all started digging deeply into the later parts of Revelation. However, everything sounds nearly perfect, until we get to the time of His release. We may fully agree that Satan was bound until judgment day, which most of us agree was the 70AD judgment of the Harlot. But let us all be reminded that it wasn't just the Harlot that was judged, but the Beast as well.

Thus far, I'm persuaded that the Harlot was judged in 70 AD, but the Beast was being judged afterwards, until the Beast no longer lived. This Beast was, in my opinion, the Roman Empire; additionally, the Roman Empire lived even after 70 AD, but was declining greatly.

St. Eusebius talks about how Rome's economy began declining when Christian conversions within the Empire population were suffering dramatically because of the declining temple market sales [i.e. sacrificial meat, idols, etc.]

There's a story of Ignatius (or was it another ECF) who argued intensley against the Greeks that Christ was far more superior than the demons who were being worshipped by the Greek citizens. I think it was Ephesus, but I don't remember. The Greeks tried arguing that Christ was too new of a religion, while their demonic gods lived much longer than Christ. Therefore, it must be more truthful than Christ. Ignatius argued against that and was eventually sentenced to death.

I firmly believe that demonic activity was extremely high, as the threat of Christianity threatened, not only the population, but leaders within the governments. Rome was losing ground to the rider on the white horse, and in time, he (Rome/Beast) would come to its end, and be burned with fire. This fire may have represented all the disasters that came upon Rome for the next two centuries [i.e. volcano's, earth quakes, famines, diseases, wars with the Barbarians, etc.]

In all this, I can only state that this is my theory, and not my fact. I'm trying every way possible to solidify the Full Preterist position. But as you indicated, doing so requires a great deal of working with the details. As I stated, we can see how Satan was being bound during judgment day, until it's completion. But how do we explain his short release afterwards, to deceive the nations at the four corners of the earth (a squared earth)?

Joe

[Greenbrier]

In all this, I can only state that this is my theory, and not my fact. I'm trying every way possible to solidify the Full Preterist position. But as you indicated, doing so requires a great deal of working with the details. As I stated, we can see how Satan was being bound during judgment day, until it's completion. But how do we explain his short release afterwards, to deceive the nations at the four corners of the earth (a squared earth)?

Joe

As a newcomer to the idea of preterism, that is one of the issues that I've thought about too. As I was watching BBC's Robin Hood recently, it struck me that the Kings of Europe were engaging in the Crusades in the Holy Land. That was around 1190's I think.

I think also of what the Beast does when he is released he deceives the earth and "Gathers them together, Gog and Magog at the valley of A. to make war.

The Christian dominance of the first 1000 years after Christ is often called the Dark Ages but were they really that dark? Did the deciever get released sometime near the start of the Crusades? Islam had existed for several hundered years without an all out war with Christianity then something causes the two sides to start fighting about Jerusalem - a battle that continues in our time.

Of course, I'm no expert on any of these topics so I'm wondering if this could be a possibility.

Jeff

[Richard Amiel McGough]

He lives!!! :lol: I wondered what happened to you. Man, I missed you. :hug:

I missed you too bro! Here's a hug back atchya. :hug:

It's great to be back. I've been real busy with my "day job" writing Actionscript for a Flash application, and my "spare time" got eaten up in an utterly vain attempt to reason with folks that were beyond all rationality. They were "futurists" of a very strange variety, willing to deny the plain text of almost every line of Scripture except the phrase "one stone upon another" which was interpreted in an absurd hyperliteralistic fahsion to prove that the Temple was not really destroyed in 70 AD because the "wailing wall" was part of the "buildings of the Temple." Pure, pathetic madness. I finally realized the errors of my way and quit that thread.



The ideas you just expressed are what I was thinking of a few days ago, when we all started digging deeply into the later parts of Revelation. However, everything sounds nearly perfect, until we get to the time of His release. We may fully agree that Satan was bound until judgment day, which most of us agree was the 70AD judgment of the Harlot. But let us all be reminded that it wasn't just the Harlot that was judged, but the Beast as well.

Thus far, I'm persuaded that the Harlot was judged in 70 AD, but the Beast was being judged afterwards, until the Beast no longer lived. This Beast was, in my opinion, the Roman Empire; additionally, the Roman Empire lived even after 70 AD, but was declining greatly.

St. Eusebius talks about how Rome's economy began declining when Christian conversions within the Empire population were suffering dramatically because of the declining temple market sales [i.e. sacrificial meat, idols, etc.]

There's a story of Ignatius (or was it another ECF) who argued intensley against the Greeks that Christ was far more superior than the demons who were being worshipped by the Greek citizens. I think it was Ephesus, but I don't remember. The Greeks tried arguing that Christ was too new of a religion, while their demonic gods lived much longer than Christ. Therefore, it must be more truthful than Christ. Ignatius argued against that and was eventually sentenced to death.

I firmly believe that demonic activity was extremely high, as the threat of Christianity threatened, not only the population, but leaders within the governments. Rome was losing ground to the rider on the white horse, and in time, he (Rome/Beast) would come to its end, and be burned with fire. This fire may have represented all the disasters that came upon Rome for the next two centuries [i.e. volcano's, earth quakes, famines, diseases, wars with the Barbarians, etc.]

In all this, I can only state that this is my theory, and not my fact. I'm trying every way possible to solidify the Full Preterist position. But as you indicated, doing so requires a great deal of working with the details. As I stated, we can see how Satan was being bound during judgment day, until it's completion. But how do we explain his short release afterwards, to deceive the nations at the four corners of the earth (a squared earth)?

Joe
I understand your point, but there are still some things to consider. In the view I am currently exploring, the "thousand years" is a symbol of "judgment day" which includes but is not resticted to the destruction of 70 AD. I think there are three nested time periods we must consider before coming to any conclusion:

THE LAST DAYS: The 40 year period beginning with the crucifixion and ending with the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem in 70 AD. Peter quoted Joel saying it was the last days.
THE DAYS OF VENGEANCE: The 3.5 year great tribulation that ended in the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem in 70 AD. Christ used this term to describe the destruction of Jerusalem in Luke 21:22.
THE GREAT AND NOTABLE DAY OF THE LORD: The final days in which the Temple was actually destroyed.
Now I'm not certain if those terms are consistently used with those three meanings, but this is just an outline to help you see the point of view that I am explaining. As discussed in the previous post, the connection between 2 Pet 3 and Rev 20 strongly suggests that the "thousand years" is a symbol of the "day of judgment" and it is starting to look like the day of judgment spans that 40 year period. In a very real sense, "judgment day" began with the Crucifixion of Christ. This is confirmed in many Scriptures:
John 12:31-33 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. 32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

We know that Christ overcame death on the Cross. And we know that He defeated the Devil at that time. This then coheres with the casting out of Satan from heaven in Revelation 12 immediately after the "Man-child" (Christ) ascended unto his throne in heaven (as confirmed in Acts):
Revelation 12:9-11,13 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. 10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. ... Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.

What's that? The Devil was cast out of heaven, and was very angry because He knew he had only a "short time." That sounds familiar:
Revelation 20:1-3 And I saw an angel [is this a recap of Rev 12 when the angel Michael cast out Satan?] come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. 2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, 3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
Now the key to the misunderstanding of this verse is that folks interpret "till the thousand years should be fulfilled" as implying that the "little season" comes after the "thousand years." But that's not the only possible interpretation. The grammar could also mean "until the consummation of the thousand years" meaning "at the time when the thousand years is to be completed." The point being that if Judgment Day started at the Cross, then the destruction of Jerusalem happened near the time when the "thousand years" was to be completed. Thus, we see Satan was defeated at the Cross, and he lost his spiritual power to deceive the nations, until near the end of judgment day when he was released for a "short time" (little season) when God let him out to wreak havoc upon Jerusalem. This is confirmed by Paul who told his first century Christians that they had been transfered from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of God's dear son. In a real sense, Satan lost his power to deceive the nations because of the victory of Christ.

Thus we have a threefold coherence between the words of Christ (Now is the world judged, and devil cast out), the words of Rev 12 (devil cast out, with a short time), and Rev 20 (Devil bound during judgment day till a short time he is released near its consummation.)

There are many other verses that just "snapped" effortlessly into place after I closely reviewed the connection between 2 Pet 3 and Rev 20. I don't claim to have a "certain answer" by any means, but this interpretation is by far the most promising of any I have yet seen.

Lookin forward to diggin deep into this topic with you bro!

Many blessings,

Richard

[TheForgiven]

What's that? The Devil was cast out of heaven, and was very angry because

He knew he had only a "short time." That sounds familiar:
Revelation 20:1-3 And I saw an angel [is this a recap of Rev 12 when the angel Michael cast out Satan?] come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. 2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, 3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

This puts us back to square one. The Devil was cast out of heaven at the cross...that I believe we all agree. Then Revelation speaks of how his anger for being cast down to the earth (Israel of the flesh) would result in his fury towards them (He attacks the woman who gave birth to the male child). But when this too resulted in failure, he goes after the rest of the woman's "Offspring". I believe this was Nero Caesar tormenting the Christians.

So Satan was cast down from the earth at the cross, attacks the woman and her offspring, and is defeated by 70 AD. But would this work? We know that Rome continued attacking the Saints even after 70 AD. So in a pictoral, it would look like this:

Satan Cast down at the cross ----->attacks woman and offspring ------> Wages war against Christ (Rider on the white horse) ------> runs out of time and is chained -------> the Day of Judgment (1000 years) ------> Satan loosed again to cause another Deception (for a short time) ------- Battle of Armageddon ------->LOF

Is this right?

Joe

[gregoryfl]

This puts us back to square one. The Devil was cast out of heaven at the cross...that I believe we all agree. Then Revelation speaks of how his anger for being cast down to the earth (Israel of the flesh) would result in his fury towards them (He attacks the woman who gave birth to the male child). But when this too resulted in failure, he goes after the rest of the woman's "Offspring". I believe this was Nero Caesar tormenting the Christians.

So Satan was cast down from the earth at the cross, attacks the woman and her offspring, and is defeated by 70 AD. But would this work? We know that Rome continued attacking the Saints even after 70 AD. So in a pictoral, it would look like this:

Satan Cast down at the cross ----->attacks woman and offspring ------> Wages war against Christ (Rider on the white horse) ------> runs out of time and is chained -------> the Day of Judgment (1000 years) ------> Satan loosed again to cause another Deception (for a short time) ------- Battle of Armageddon ------->LOF

Is this right?

JoeJoe, not trying to throw a monkey wrench into this discussion, but regarding, not only what happened to Satan, as well as a host of other things, I am not quite sure how to get my thoughts together coherently to propose what I am sort of mulling through my mind. I will just bring out this scripture and ask how can we relate this to what usually is said about Satan? Here is what I mean:

Heb 2:14 Therefore, since the children have flesh and blood, he himself also shared the same things, so that by his death he might destroy the one who has the power of death (that is, the devil)

and

1Jn 3:8 The person who practices sin belongs to the evil one, because the devil has been sinning since the beginning. The reason that the Son of God was revealed was to destroy the works of the devil.

Notice that in both instances, the devil himself, as well as his works, appear to be spoken of as being destroyed-specifically, destroyed by the death, burial, and resurrection (revealing) of Jesus Christ. Yet, as you mention, Satan is shown to be alive and well, doing his thing even after the resurrection. How can both be true?

I have a theory about this, but it is in its infancy stages with me, and also is something I have not heard anyone else to my knowledge bring out, which gives me reason to not be forthright about it.

I see us trying to fit things into a timeline (I include myself in that) and wonder if perhaps the timeline is in Christ himself fully, and that what we see is but the revealing of everything that has been fulfilled by the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ?

[TheForgiven]

Joe, not trying to throw a monkey wrench into this discussion, but regarding, not only what happened to Satan, as well as a host of other things, I am not quite sure how to get my thoughts together coherently to propose what I am sort of mulling through my mind.

Don't feel left out brother. We're all trying to understand these things; that's what helps us rely on each other, instead of one believing he or she has all the answers, giving that one a reason to boast in himself. I'm under the opinion that this is a way for God to convince His children to depend on each other, as well as Him. So don't feel as though you are throwing a monkey wrench into this discussion. :lol: I feel like a monkey anyway, having studied these things for years, and still not fully understanding it.


I will just bring out this scripture and ask how can we relate this to what usually is said about Satan? Here is what I mean:

Heb 2:14 Therefore, since the children have flesh and blood, he himself also shared the same things, so that by his death he might destroy the one who has the power of death (that is, the devil)

and

1Jn 3:8 The person who practices sin belongs to the evil one, because the devil has been sinning since the beginning. The reason that the Son of God was revealed was to destroy the works of the devil.

Notice that in both instances, the devil himself, as well as his works, appear to be spoken of as being destroyed-specifically, destroyed by the death, burial, and resurrection (revealing) of Jesus Christ. Yet, as you mention, Satan is shown to be alive and well, doing his thing even after the resurrection. How can both be true?

We have no disagreement here. The death, burial, and resurrection of Christ are how we live, die, and live again. In all things, His glory revealed through His death, and resurrection is how we are saved, through faith.


I have a theory about this, but it is in its infancy stages with me, and also is something I have not heard anyone else to my knowledge bring out, which gives me reason to not be forthright about it.

I see us trying to fit things into a timeline (I include myself in that) and wonder if perhaps the timeline is in Christ himself fully, and that what we see is but the revealing of everything that has been fulfilled by the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ?

You might be right, and for the most part, I agree with you. However, we on earth are indeed bound by the tick of time. God used time measurements in the past to give us a chance to look for things, specifically, the coming of the Messiah, which was fulfilled when He was born into flesh, preached among the nations, taken up into glory, and rules the world. The title of John's letter explains exactly what you are implying, "The REVELATION of JESUS CHRIST". This means simply, to reveal a hidden truth, to unveil what was once kept secret, to openly declare the wondrous glory of this magnificent ruler.

In the past, I've often explained that Revelation isn't a story book of prophetic events we are to use to piece together a return of a cloud surfing Messiah. (No poke intended...just being a bit funny) Rather, the book was written to explain the nature of the Kingdom, the invisible ruler of Heaven and Earth, the hardship of the Saints, and how He (Christ) brings things about upon the earth and NOT WITHOUT His express decision. In short, Revelation is a pictorial book explaining the nature and victory of Him, and His Kingdom. But man has turned this book into what it is not...a time-ticking count down to the last days of mankind upon the earth. That IS NOT what it is, and I myself have sometimes perverted this wonderful book of glory, courage, encouragement, and hope, into a rather obscure book of hidden codes, secrets, and prophetic events. God forgive us.

But I do enjoy discussing these things, so I hope you all don't mind discussing them as well.

Joe

[Rose]

In the past, I've often explained that Revelation isn't a story book of prophetic events we are to use to piece together a return of a cloud surfing Messiah. (No poke intended...just being a bit funny) Rather, the book was written to explain the nature of the Kingdom, the invisible ruler of Heaven and Earth, the hardship of the Saints, and how He (Christ) brings things about upon the earth and NOT WITHOUT His express decision. In short, Revelation is a pictorial book explaining the nature and victory of Him, and His Kingdom. But man has turned this book into what it is not...a time-ticking count down to the last days of mankind upon the earth. That IS NOT what it is, and I myself have sometimes perverted this wonderful book of glory, courage, encouragement, and hope, into a rather obscure book of hidden codes, secrets, and prophetic events. God forgive us.


But I do enjoy discussing these things, so I hope you all don't mind discussing them as well.

Joe

You are so right Joe, :thumb: Revelation has been turned into a fantasy story book, instead of the revelation of Jesus Christ, the greatest man who ever lived, and died, and LIVED!

Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

This puts us back to square one. The Devil was cast out of heaven at the cross...that I believe we all agree. Then Revelation speaks of how his anger for being cast down to the earth (Israel of the flesh) would result in his fury towards them (He attacks the woman who gave birth to the male child). But when this too resulted in failure, he goes after the rest of the woman's "Offspring". I believe this was Nero Caesar tormenting the Christians.

So Satan was cast down from the earth at the cross, attacks the woman and her offspring, and is defeated by 70 AD. But would this work? We know that Rome continued attacking the Saints even after 70 AD. So in a pictoral, it would look like this:

Satan Cast down at the cross ----->attacks woman and offspring ------> Wages war against Christ (Rider on the white horse) ------> runs out of time and is chained -------> the Day of Judgment (1000 years) ------> Satan loosed again to cause another Deception (for a short time) ------- Battle of Armageddon ------->LOF

Is this right?

Joe
Hi Joe,

I don't think I made my point very clear. But Rose and I have received a major insight since I wrote yesterday, so I think I should be able to explain my understanding better now.

A close comparison of 2 Peter 3 with Rev 20 strongly suggests that the term "thousand years" is a symbol for the "Day of the Lord" which spans the 40 years from the Cross in 30 AD to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. This time period is divided into two primary parts:

THE LAST DAYS: The 40 year period beginning with the crucifixion and ending with the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem in 70 AD. Peter quoted Joel saying it was the last days.
THE DAYS OF VENGEANCE: The 3.5 year great tribulation that ended in the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem in 70 AD. Christ used this term to describe the destruction of Jerusalem in Luke 21:22.
The KEY to the sequence of events is found in Revelation 20. We agree that Satan was "bound" at the Cross. This corresponds to him being cast out of heaven in Rev 12 and bound in the pit in Rev 20. It was then that he was stripped of his power to "deceive the nations." And what is the meaning of that term? It is defined for us in Rev 20:
Revelation 20:7-9 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, 8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. Near the end of the "Day of the Lord" - that is, in 66 AD - when the "Day of the Lord" about to be consummated, Satan was loosed from his prision so he could go out to deceive the nations which means that he was given back his power to gather together "nations" of people to attack Jerusalem. God had taken away this power when He bound him in 30 AD so that he could not destroy the fledgling Church or Jerusalem before its time. But when the end of the "thousand years" came, it was time to loose him for a little season to deceive the nations and raise an army to destroy apostate Jeruslaem.


This interpretation is confirmed in Rev 12:
Revelation 12:15-17 And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood. 16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.

What is the symbol of a flood, especially in the context of the destruction of a people? We all know that symbol. It is a symbol of an invading army:
Jeremiah 46:7-11 Who is this that cometh up as a flood, whose waters are moved as the rivers? 8 Egypt riseth up like a flood, and his waters are moved like the rivers; and he saith, I will go up, and will cover the earth; I will destroy the city and the inhabitants thereof. 9 Come up, ye horses; and rage, ye chariots; and let the mighty men come forth; the Ethiopians and the Libyans, that handle the shield; and the Lydians, that handle and bend the bow. 10 For this is the day of the Lord GOD of hosts, a day of vengeance, that he may avenge him of his adversaries: and the sword shall devour, and it shall be satiate and made drunk with their blood: for the Lord GOD of hosts hath a sacrifice in the north country by the river Euphrates. Thus the meaning of "deceive the nations" from Rev 20 is confirmed in Rev 12 and Jer 46.

To recap to this point: In 30 AD Satan was cast out of heaven (Rev 12), bound in the pit (Rev 20), and deprived of his power to "deceive the nations" (raise entire armies). He could still deceive individuals and cause havoc and all that, but his power to "deceive the nations" was taken from him ... until the "little season" that began in 66 AD.


Then when it was time for the consummation of the "thousand years" (the "last days" or "day of the Lord" that began in 30 AD) Satan was loosed in 66 AD to raise an army (called "Gog and Magog" in Rev 20) and to ravage apostate Jerusalem and destroy the Temple. This is the same battle depicted in Rev 16:
Revelation 16:13-16 And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet. 14 For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty. 15 Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.

See that. Exactly the same ideas. Lying devils deceived the kings of the earth to gather them together to battle just like Rev 20. But there is another astounding connection here. There is one and only one other reference to the "Day of God" in the entire Bible. It is found in the same passage that proved to be the KEY to Rev 20:
2 Peter 3:8-13 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? See that? Not only is the reference to the "day of God" unique to 2 Pet 3 and Rev 20, but both also refer to that day coming "as a thief in the night." This is another double confirmation. I have found this phenomenon of multiple mutual confirmations at every turn ever since Rose showed me the connection between 2 Pet 3 and Rev 20.

The entire book of Revelation now lays open! Revelation 20 was the last piece that confounded everyone's attempts to interpret it. And now I don't have a mere "strained explanation" that does its best to explain it somehow - no, that's not what I have. I now SEE how Rev 20 explains the rest of the book! Everything effortlessly confirms and explains everything else. It is the most amazing enlightenment of Scripture that I have received in years.

So here is the timeline of the entire book as I currently see it. Remember I just discovered the meaning of Rev 20 yesterday, so there will probably be some refinements needed. But here is what I have, integrated with the Seven Feasts:

Rev 1-3: Intro and letters to the churches (contempory 1st century)

Rev 4: Revelation of the Throne room (timeless)

Rev 5: Vision of Christ as PASSOVER Lamb, as dead (UNLEAVENED BREAD) and now alive (FIRSFRUITS) - 30 AD

Rev 6 Vision of the whole sequence in terms of the Seals (30 - 70 AD)

Rev 7: Vision of PENTECOST when Christians first sealed with Holy Spirit (30 AD)

Rev 8: Half hour = half year (in "feast time"). This moves us from the Spring to the Fall Feasts and from 30 to 66 AD. The fall feasts start with TRUMPETS, and moves immediately into Yom Kippur (DAY OF ATONEMENT) in which the Priest enters the Temple (hence the priestly activity of the angel in Rev 8). Jews also call this YOM DIN = JUDGEMENT DAY. Thus the outpouring of judgment on apostate Jerusalem begins. We are in 66 AD.

Rev 9: Judgment continues 66-70 AD.

Rev 10: More prophecy given

Rev 11: 66-70 AD. Vision of the entire judgment of the Great Tribulation (1260 days = 3.5 years).

Rev 12: New Vision: Recap from birth of Christ to His ascension to heaven and casting out of Satan. Ends in 30 AD.

Rev 13: Begins in 66 AD when Satan is loosed to "deceive the nations" and empower the beast to raise up the Roman mercenary armies from all the nations to dominate and then destroy Jerusalem.

Rev 14: Recap from Pentecost (Rev 7) that reveals the COMING OF CHRIST ON CLOUDS to judge apostate Jerusalem (66-70 AD).

Rev 15: Heavenly vision revealing the meaning of the seven plagues

Rev 16: Another view of the Great Tribulation of 66-70 AD

Rev 17-18: Harlot revealed and destroyed. 66-70 AD.

Rev 19: Celebration in heaven for the victory of God. Marriage of the Lamb. Revelation of Christ on the white horse. 70 AD.

Rev 20: Recap that begins with 30 AD (Rev 12) and continues all the way to the consummation in 70 AD.

Rev 21-22: New heaven and new earth. God now TABERNACLES with man. 70 AD - present.

So that's the Book of Revelation.

I can't wait for your questions. I want these ideas TESTED. :D

Richard

[Victor]

http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/images/Rev20-2Pet3a.jpg



Hey Richard, I would like to add some more that strenghtens the link between 2 Peter and Revelation 20.

There is a variant reading of 2 Peter 3:10 according to some manuscripts. Compare the two:

KJV But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

CSB But the Day of the Lord will come like a thief; on that day the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, the elements will burn and be dissolved, and the earth and the works on it will be disclosed (heurethesetai).
Variations like this sometimes sound like a little divine hint for us to follow. If we read that "the works" on earth will be "disclosed", we have another point of contact with Revelation 20:

Revelation 20:11-13 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found (heurethe) no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is [the book] of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
So in 2 Peter we have the works on earth being found and in Revelation no place is found for earth. The Greek verb is the same. The verses seem to explain each other: the old earth vanishes and the works therein are revealed. The dead in Hades and the sea are disclosed. This fits perfectly with the mention of judgment "according to their works" in Revelation and the works being disclosed in 2 Peter! This is a joint appearence of heurethe and ergos (work) linking the two passages.

Therefore Revelation 20 has much of 2 Peter's look and feel! This theme of opening, disclosing, charactherizes 2 Peter and its parousia theme. It is additonally reflected in the portion that mentions the One seated on the White Throne "from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away".

There's more but I'l take a break. :thumb:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey Richard, I would like to add some more that strenghtens the link between 2 Peter and Revelation 20.


There is a variant reading of 2 Peter 3:10 according to some manuscripts. Compare the two:
KJV But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

CSB But the Day of the Lord will come like a thief; on that day the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, the elements will burn and be dissolved, and the earth and the works on it will be disclosed (heurethesetai).

Variations like this sometimes sound like a little divine hint for us to follow. If we read that "the works" on earth will be "disclosed", we have another point of contact with Revelation 20:
Revelation 20:11-13 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found (heurethe) no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is [the book] of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
So in 2 Peter we have the works on earth being found and in Revelation no place is found for earth. The Greek verb is the same. The verses seem to explain each other: the old earth vanishes and the works therein are revealed. The dead in Hades and the sea are disclosed. This fits perfectly with the mention of judgment "according to their works" in Revelation and the works being disclosed in 2 Peter! This is a joint appearence of heurethe and ergos (work) linking the two passages.

Therefore Revelation 20 has much of 2 Peter's look and feel! This theme of opening, disclosing, charactherizes 2 Peter and its parousia theme. It is additonally reflected in the portion that mentions the One seated on the White Throne "from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away".

There's more but I'l take a break. :thumb:

That's an excellent insight Victor! I checked with Metzger commentary on textual variations and he says that the heurethesetai reading is the oldest. It is what the NU chose. Here are his comments:

3.10 (javascript:BwRef('2Pe 3:10')) eu`reqh,setai {D}
At the close of ver. 10 (javascript:BwRef('2Pe 3:10')) the extant witnesses present a wide variety of readings, none of which seems to be original. The oldest reading, and the one which best explains the origin of the others that have been preserved, is eu`reqh,setai, which is attested by a B K P 424c 1175 1739txt 1852 syrph, hmg arm Origen. In view of the difficulty of extracting any acceptable sense from the passage, it is not strange that copyists and translators introduced a variety of modifications. Thus, several witnesses retain eu`reqh,setai but qualify it with other words: (a) the Sahidic version and one manuscript of the Harclean Syriac version insert the negative, and (b) the Bodmer Papyrus (î72) adds luo,mena ('the earth and the things in it will be found dissolved') – an expedient, however, that overloads the context with three instances of the same verb. Other witnesses either (c) omit eu`reqh,setai and the accompanying clause (so Y vg Pelagius al), or substitute another verb that gives more or less good sense. Thus (d) C reads avfanisqh,sontai ('will disappear'), and (e) A 048 049 056 0142 33 614 Byz Lect syrh copbo eth al read katakah,setai ('will be burned up').
Because eu`reqh,setai, though the oldest of the extant readings, seems to be devoid of meaning in the context (even the expedient of punctuating as a question, 'Will the earth and the things in it be found?' fails to commend itself), various conjectural emendations have been proposed: (a) after e;rga the word a;rga has fallen out

Page 637
(Bradshaw), 'the earth and the things in it will be found useless'; (b) eu`reqh,setai is a scribal corruption of r`uh,setai or r`eu,setai (Hort),2 (mk:@MSITStore:c:\program%20files\bibleworks%207\d atabases\metzger.chm::/bbw-metzger-ch22.htm#fn22002) 'the earth and the things in it will flow'; (c) surruh,setai (Naber), '… will flow together'; (d) evkpurwqh,setai (Olivier), '… will be burnt to ashes'; (e) avrqh,setai (J. B. Mayor), '… will be taken away'; (f) kriqh,setai (Eb. Nestle), '… will be judged'; (g) ivaqh,setai (or evxiaqh,setai) (Chase), '… will be healed (thoroughly)'; (h) purwqh,setai (Vansittart), '… will be burned.'
I'm busy working on code (my mundane job) right now, but will get back to this as time permits.

Richard

[Roya Dayspring]

Hi Joe,

Hey! I love it too :D

I was just talking to Richard about Brother Les's last post on "having enough faith to move mountains", and what that really means.

All these insights are wonderful! It's what inspired me about 7 months ago to start writing a book on Revelation....the only problem is I'm never going to get it finished, because every time I read one of the many posts here I get new insights, which I want to add to my book and on..... and on..... it goes. :lol:

Rose

EDITED BY MODERATOR:

Dearest Rose, hypothetically speaking of course; if you were GOD in the flesh, why do you suppose He would chose Oregon, USA for His return and only schedule a visit to Jerusalem, Damascus,Tehran, and Beijing,
the old fashioned way " on the clouds (aircraft and suspicion)?" :pray:http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_god.htm (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_god.htm)

All Blessings-Always

REASON FOR EDIT:

Roya,

If you want to participate in the conversation, you are most welcome here. But interruptions with huge colored fonts concerning your personal delusions about being God incarnate are not welcome. If you want to discuss that topic, then please feel free to start your own thread. It may be that someone will feel called to lead you to an understanding of your true nature as just another human.

RAM (As Administrator)

[gregoryfl]

Victor

Thanks for bringing up that correlation between Peter and John. That is precisely what scriptural judgment is all about. Consider that the judgment seat and the cross are like flip-sides of the same coin as I see it. It's not like the judgment seat we think of in a court of law where God will figure out what He's going to do with us. It (everything concerning judgment day, the day of the Lord) was done in Christ on the cross. Everything revolves around the finished work of Christ.

The only difference in the future (from our perspective) is the matter of appearance. We will then be seen exactly as He has already made us in Christ. What we see will eventually match exactly what we are. It doesn't match now, (because our physical senses cannot see it matching) but that doesn't change who and what we are now. Truly all things concerning the old heaven and earth are seen for what they really are, as Peter says, disclosed, discovered. And truly, as John writes, there is no place before the face of God for that which is of the old, and passing away.

Ron

[Bob May]

Brother Richard,

Could you compare the Greek text for these two passages:

Acts 1:9-10 (NKJV) Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. 10 And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel, 11 who also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven."

Luke 13:34 (NKJV) "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you were not willing!

Notice the words in red. Are the Greek words the same in these two passages? [hon tropon] I ask because if Futurist insists that Acts chapter 1 is an "EXACT" representation of what they were witnessing, then shouldn't have Christ literally meant that He wanted to gather the Jews as Hens under its wings? Both expressions were metaphoric in nature, yet Futurist insist that Acts chapter 1 was not metaphoric, but literal.

But first, could you compare the two passages and see if the same Greek word is used?

Joe


I will take your word for it that the two words are the same.
But what I see as the important thing here is that if he was recieved into a cloud. He would return in a cloud.
Now a cloud is about the least physical thing you can think of that is still physical. It is made up of water and air. I have actually driven through clouds in both West Virginia and Tennesssee while driving up mountain roads. You don't even know you are in them until you are above them,...They just look like fog.
Both water and air are symbols for Spirit.

Joh 3:
8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

Here is my way of interpreting this verse.
Jesus became less and less physical until he was not able to be seen anymore. UP into Heaven was not UP. Just less physical.
Now if that be the case, then his coming would be the same. It is said he will come to "them that look for him."
Two peole can be in the same room at the same time and one may witness his coming and another will just go on about their business as if nothing happened. (Two shall be grinding at the mill, one taken, the other left.) ("We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye recieveth not our witness")

"The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit."

We are like the wind. Those who do not know what we know cannot understand what we do. The second coming is like that. It will come to individuals, one at a time and unless a person has experienced it, they cannot understand that it happens.

It is similar to a person seeing fog on the way up the mountain but seeing a cloud from the top looking down.

[TheForgiven]

I will take your word for it that the two words are the same.
But what I see as the important thing here is that if he was recieved into a cloud. He would return in a cloud.
Now a cloud is about the least physical thing you can think of that is still physical. It is made up of water and air. I have actually driven through clouds in both West Virginia and Tennesssee while driving up mountain roads. You don't even know you are in them until you are above them,...They just look like fog.
Both water and air are symbols for Spirit.

Joh 3:
8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

Here is my way of interpreting this verse.
Jesus became less and less physical until he was not able to be seen anymore. UP into Heaven was not UP. Just less physical.
Now if that be the case, then his coming would be the same. It is said he will come to "them that look for him."
Two peole can be in the same room at the same time and one may witness his coming and another will just go on about their business as if nothing happened. (Two shall be grinding at the mill, one taken, the other left.) ("We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye recieveth not our witness")

"The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit."

We are like the wind. Those who do not know what we know cannot understand what we do. The second coming is like that. It will come to individuals, one at a time and unless a person has experienced it, they cannot understand that it happens.

It is similar to a person seeing fog on the way up the mountain but seeing a cloud from the top looking down.

Hello Bob. It's nice to see you. Welcome to the Bible wheel forum. :welcome:

I'm very glad to see you, and I thank you for joining in this great discussion. I'm quite certain that our discussion will be fruitful, and our swords sharpened as we study God's word, and try to uncover the mysteries as the Holy Spirit inspires us to yearn for the pure milk of His word.

I'm very interested in your position on the matter of Christ "presense" in like manner. However, I'm a bit confused at your post. On one hand, it appears you're stating that the "presense" of Christ will happen as it did when He was taken up into heaven. Then on the otherhand, it appears you're interpreting the passage figuratively, that only those who would recognize His "Presense" would be able to understand.

Could you explain this a little more? I'm very interested in what you're saying. Once I gain a clearer understanding of your post, I will reply accordingly.

Again brother, welcome, and my name is Joseph, but I usually type "Joe" because it's shorter. :lol:

God bless you friend.

Joe

[TheForgiven]

I can't wait for your questions. I want these ideas TESTED.

Richard

Eeeeek! I think you've got me here. :lol: I'm getting too old for this difficult debate. I don't think my brain can produce any more cells to absorb all of this wonderful stuff.

I'd say your explanation of Rev 20 was pretty much right on the money. Oh, but there is one question.

The Martyrs are raised to participate in the "Day of the Lord". The rest of the dead lived not again until the "Day of the Lord" had been completed.

At what point are the Martyrs raised to reign with the Lord during His Great Day, and then the "rest of the dead" raised? Would this mean that the Martyrs are raised prior to the "Day of the Lord", and then the rest were raised afterwards?

Just thought I'd propose a challenge question. :D

Joe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Eeeeek! I think you've got me here. :lol: I'm getting too old for this difficult debate. I don't think my brain can produce any more cells to absorb all of this wonderful stuff.

I'd say your explanation of Rev 20 was pretty much right on the money. Oh, but there is one question.

The Martyrs are raised to participate in the "Day of the Lord". The rest of the dead lived not again until the "Day of the Lord" had been completed.

At what point are the Martyrs raised to reign with the Lord during His Great Day, and then the "rest of the dead" raised? Would this mean that the Martyrs are raised prior to the "Day of the Lord", and then the rest were raised afterwards?

Just thought I'd propose a challenge question. :D

Joe
Hey there bro!

You can't fool me. :nono: I know you got all the brainpower and a huge store of requisite knowledge to test my ideas. :lol:

As for your question: The "last days" = "day of the Lord" = "day of judgment" began in 30 AD at the cross when the world was judged. It extends to 70 AD. It is that whole 40 year period. When a person believes in Christ, they are Resurrected. When any martyr died, he/she went straight to be with the Lord and reigned with Him in heaven. Paul confirms this.

The rest of the dead did not live again until the time when the "thousand years" were to be consummated in 70 AD.

Simple, isn't it?

:sunny:

Richard

[gregoryfl]

Remember when Paul said that those in Christ were raised and seated with Christ in heavenly places? That is not merely a positional truth, but a reality. Believers were all raised with Christ and were with him ruling, even though physically they were still on earth. That period took place to reveal that the old heaven and earth was old, and the new was indeed there then, waiting for the revelation of it by means of the revelation of Jesus Christ.

We are in two dimensions in Christ, physical, here on earth, and spiritual, in heaven. Jesus as well is in both dimensions, in heaven as spirit, and on earth as his body, us believers.

Ron

[Bob May]

Hello Bob. It's nice to see you. Welcome to the Bible wheel forum. :welcome:

I'm very glad to see you, and I thank you for joining in this great discussion. I'm quite certain that our discussion will be fruitful, and our swords sharpened as we study God's word, and try to uncover the mysteries as the Holy Spirit inspires us to yearn for the pure milk of His word.

I'm very interested in your position on the matter of Christ "presense" in like manner. However, I'm a bit confused at your post. On one hand, it appears you're stating that the "presense" of Christ will happen as it did when He was taken up into heaven. Then on the otherhand, it appears you're interpreting the passage figuratively, that only those who would recognize His "Presense" would be able to understand.

Could you explain this a little more? I'm very interested in what you're saying. Once I gain a clearer understanding of your post, I will reply accordingly.

Again brother, welcome, and my name is Joseph, but I usually type "Joe" because it's shorter. :lol:


Ron said,

""Remember when Paul said that those in Christ were raised and seated with Christ in heavenly places? That is not merely a positional truth, but a reality. Believers were all raised with Christ and were with him ruling, even though physically they were still on earth. That period took place to reveal that the old heaven and earth was old, and the new was indeed there then, waiting for the revelation of it by means of the revelation of Jesus Christ.

We are in two dimensions in Christ, physical, here on earth, and spiritual, in heaven. Jesus as well is in both dimensions, in heaven as spirit, and on earth as his body, us believers.""

Ron

God bless you friend.

Joe

Hi Joe and Ron and all,
I have to admit I have not had time to read the entire thread yet. So maybe I'm butting in too soon but I couldn't help from jumping in.
Joe, I addede some of Ron's post because it sheds some light on what I was trying to say.

Joe said, ""On one hand, it appears you're stating that the "presense" of Christ will happen as it did when He was taken up into heaven.""

Let me try a different approach.

He is always present and always here: "..For in him we live, and move, and have our being;.."
He also prayed that both he and the Father would come and make their abode in us. (We should take that prayer as a promise, because as far as I know Jesus never had a prayer unanswered.)
So his presence is not in question here. Both his presence inside of us and outside of us is assured. Whether we are aware of it or not!!!

Joe also said, ""Then on the otherhand, it appears you're interpreting the passage figuratively, that only those who would recognize His "Presense" would be able to understand.""

I am not being figurative here. And I'm not speaking about his "presence." I am speaking about him actually appearing. It says that he will come again.

Heb 9:28 "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that LOOK FOR HIM shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation."
This says to me that not everyone will see him.

Now this brings up another question. What is the second coming? We all agree when the first coming happened.

Was it the many times he was seen after Resurrection?

Or maybe on the road to Damascus when he appeared to Paul?

(But didnt e appear to Paul later and teach him? And didn't it happen on that road to Damascus that those traveling with him did not see or hear the same things that Paul did?)

Or is the second coming something we are all waiting to happen in some far off future? Where "every eye shall see him."

If I am understanding Ron correctly, I would agree with him. The Revelation of Jesus Christ given to John was a revealing of what IS. What Daniel was told to seal up, the Lamb has made available. He has broken the seals. It is timeless from now on. It was opened at the time of the Crucifixion, Resurrection and Pentecost.

Below is the revelation of a sixteen year old girl from 1880's Scotland. She says what I am trying to say much more precisely and eloquently than I am capable of.


MARGARET'S REVELATION
"It was first the awful state of the land that was pressed upon me. I saw the blindness and infatuation of the people to be very great. I felt the cry of Liberty just to be the hiss of the serpent, to drown them in perdition. It was just 'no God.'
I repeated the words, Now there is distress of nations, with perplexity, the seas and the waves roaring, men's hearts failing them for fear. Now look out for the sign of the Son of Man. Here I was made to stop and cry out, O it is not known what the sign of the Son of Man is; the people of God think they are waiting, but they know not what it is.
I felt this needed to be revealed, and that there was great darkness and error about it; but suddenly what it was burst upon me with a glorious light. I saw it was just the Lord himself descending from Heaven with a shout, just the glorified man, even Jesus; but that all must, as Stephen was, be filled with the Holy Ghost, that they might look up, and see the brightness of the Father's glory.
I saw the error to be, that men think that it will be something seen by the natural eye; but 'tis spiritual discernment that is needed, the eye of God in his people.
Many passages were revealed, in a light in which I had not before seen them. I repeated, 'Now is the kingdom of Heaven like unto ten virgins, who went forth to meet the Bridegroom, five wise and five foolish; they that were foolish took their lamps, but took no oil with them; but they that were wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps.'
'But be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is; and be not drunk with wine wherein is excess, but be filled with the Spirit.' This was the oil the wise virgins took in their vessels - this is the light to be kept burning - the light of God - that we may discern that which cometh not with observation to the natural eye.
Only those who have the light of God within them will see the sign of his appearance. No need to follow them who say, see here, or see there, for his day shall be as the lightning to those in whom the living Christ is. 'Tis Christ in us that will lift us up - he is the light - 'tis only those that are alive in him that will be caught up to meet him in the air.
I saw that we must be in the Spirit, that we might see spiritual things. John was in the Spirit, when he saw a throne set in Heaven. But I saw that the glory of the ministration of the Spirit had not been known. I repeated frequently, but the spiritual temple must and shall be reared, and the fullness of Christ be poured into his body, and then [note: no imminency teaching here!] shall we be caught up to meet him. Oh none will be counted worthy of this calling but his body, which is the church, and which must be a candlestick all of gold.
I often said, Oh the glorious inbreaking of God which is now about to burst on this earth; Oh the glorious temple which is now about to be reared, the bride adorned for her husband; and Oh what a holy, holy bride she must he, to be prepared for such a glorious bridegroom.
I said, Now shall the people of God have to do with realities - now shall the glorious mystery of God in our nature be known - now shall it be known what it is for man to be glorified. I felt that the revelation of Jesus Christ had yet to be opened up - it is not knowledge about God that it contains, but it is an entering into God - I saw that there was a glorious breaking in of God to be.
I felt as Elijah, surrounded with chariots of fire. I saw as it were, the spiritual temple reared, and the Head Stone brought forth with shoutings of grace, grace, unto it. It was a glorious light above the brightness of the sun that shone round about me. I felt that those who were filled with the Spirit could see spiritual things, and feel walking in the midst of them, while those who had not the Spirit could see nothing - so that two shall be in one bed, the one taken and the other left, because the one has the light of God within while the other cannot see the Kingdom of Heaven.
I saw the people of God in an awfully dangerous situation, surrounded by nets and entanglements, about to be tried, and many about to be deceived and fall. Now will THE WICKED be revealed, with all power and signs and lying wonders, so that it it were possible the very elect will be deceived. - [This is the fiery trial which is to try us. - It will be for the purging and purifying of the real members of the body of Jesus]; but Oh it will be a fiery trial. Every soul will he shaken to the very centre. The enemy will try to shake in every thing we have believed - but the trial of real faith will be found to honour and praise and glory. Nothing but what is of God will stand. The stony-ground hearers will be made manifest - the love of many will wax cold.
I frequently said that night, and often since, now shall the awful sight of a false Christ be seen on this earth, and nothing but the living Christ in us can detect this awful attempt of the enemy to deceive - for it is with all deceivableness of unrighteousness he will work - he will have a counterpart for every part of God's truth, and an imitation for every work of the Spirit.
The Spirit must and will be poured out on the church, that she may be purified and filled with God - and just in proportion as the Spirit of God works, so will he - when our Lord anoints men with power, so will he. This is particularly the nature of the trial, through which those are to pass who will be counted worthy to stand before the Son of man. There will he outward trial too, but 'tis principally temptation. It is brought on by the outpouring of the Spirit, and will just increase in proportion as the Spirit is poured out.
[The trial of the Church is from Antichrist. It is by being filled with the Spirit that we shall be kept].
I frequently said, Oh be filled with the Spirit - have the light of God in you, that you may detect Satan - be full of eyes within -be clay in the hands of the potter -submit to be filled, filled with God. This will build the temple. It is not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord. This will fit us to enter into the marriage supper of the Lamb.
I saw it to be the will of God that all should be filled. But what hindered the real life of God from being received by his people, was their turning from Jesus, who is the way to the Father. They were not entering in by the door. For he is faithful who hath said, by me if any man enters in he shall find pasture. They were bypassing the cross, through which every drop of the Spirit of God flows to us. All power that comes not through the blood of Christ is not of God.
When I say, they are looking from the cross, I feel that there is much in it - they turn from the blood of the Lamb, by which we overcome, and in which our robes are washed and made white. There are low views of God's holiness, and a ceasing to condemn sin in the flesh, and a looking from him who humbled himself, and made himself of no reputation. Oh! it is needed, much needed at present, a leading back to the cross.
I saw that night, and often since, that there will be an outpouring of the Spirit on the body, such as has not been, a baptism of fire, that all the dross may be put away. Oh there must and will be such an indwelling of the living God as has not been - the servants of God sealed in their foreheads - great conformity to Jesus - his holy holy image seen in his people - just the bride made comely by his comeliness put upon her.
This is what we are at present made to pray much for, that speedily we may all be made ready to meet our Lord in the air - and it will be. Jesus wants his bride. His desire is toward us. He that shall come, will come, and will not tarry.
Amen and Amen Even so come Lord Jesus.''

P.S. Thanks for the welcome,
Bob

[Bob May]

Hi Brother Les,


I tend to think that 'Preterists', read Scripture in the Eastern Oriental Hebreic styl that it is written in. All Scripture is 'Literal' in some nature, the test of true understanding is taking the context of what is said to see if that context is Physical Literal or Metaphoric (Spritital) Literal.




""Taking this teaching by Jesus, the Disciples that He was talking to, clearly understood what He was saying. Preachers 'today'...say, that 'if' 'we' have 'faith'...then 'we' can move 'mountains'....Jesus on the other hand was talking only to His Disciple about ONE Mountain....The Temple Mount...which represented 'The Mosaic Law'.""

I caught that "this mountain" myself years ago but you are the first person I have heard of saying the same thing. It is good when you find someone get the same revelation but separately. When it happens you know it is the Spirit confirming it for you.

""Hbr 9:8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:
Hbr 9:9 Which [was] a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;


Every parable had an under current about 'Israel' in its' Hebraic meaning.""

I think it also applies to others.
Rom 2:14 "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) "


""Blessings
Brother Les""

Bob

[Rose]

Below is the revelation of a sixteen year old girl from 1880's Scotland. She says what I am trying to say much more precisely and eloquently than I am capable of.


MARGARET'S REVELATION
"It was first the awful state of the land that was pressed upon me. I saw the blindness and infatuation of the people to be very great. I felt the cry of Liberty just to be the hiss of the serpent, to drown them in perdition. It was just 'no God.'
I repeated the words, Now there is distress of nations, with perplexity, the seas and the waves roaring, men's hearts failing them for fear. Now look out for the sign of the Son of Man. Here I was made to stop and cry out, O it is not known what the sign of the Son of Man is; the people of God think they are waiting, but they know not what it is.
I felt this needed to be revealed, and that there was great darkness and error about it; but suddenly what it was burst upon me with a glorious light. I saw it was just the Lord himself descending from Heaven with a shout, just the glorified man, even Jesus; but that all must, as Stephen was, be filled with the Holy Ghost, that they might look up, and see the brightness of the Father's glory.
I saw the error to be, that men think that it will be something seen by the natural eye; but 'tis spiritual discernment that is needed, the eye of God in his people.
Many passages were revealed, in a light in which I had not before seen them. I repeated, 'Now is the kingdom of Heaven like unto ten virgins, who went forth to meet the Bridegroom, five wise and five foolish; they that were foolish took their lamps, but took no oil with them; but they that were wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps.'
'But be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is; and be not drunk with wine wherein is excess, but be filled with the Spirit.' This was the oil the wise virgins took in their vessels - this is the light to be kept burning - the light of God - that we may discern that which cometh not with observation to the natural eye.
Only those who have the light of God within them will see the sign of his appearance. No need to follow them who say, see here, or see there, for his day shall be as the lightning to those in whom the living Christ is. 'Tis Christ in us that will lift us up - he is the light - 'tis only those that are alive in him that will be caught up to meet him in the air.
I saw that we must be in the Spirit, that we might see spiritual things. John was in the Spirit, when he saw a throne set in Heaven. But I saw that the glory of the ministration of the Spirit had not been known. I repeated frequently, but the spiritual temple must and shall be reared, and the fullness of Christ be poured into his body, and then [note: no imminency teaching here!] shall we be caught up to meet him. Oh none will be counted worthy of this calling but his body, which is the church, and which must be a candlestick all of gold.
I often said, Oh the glorious inbreaking of God which is now about to burst on this earth; Oh the glorious temple which is now about to be reared, the bride adorned for her husband; and Oh what a holy, holy bride she must he, to be prepared for such a glorious bridegroom.
I said, Now shall the people of God have to do with realities - now shall the glorious mystery of God in our nature be known - now shall it be known what it is for man to be glorified. I felt that the revelation of Jesus Christ had yet to be opened up - it is not knowledge about God that it contains, but it is an entering into God - I saw that there was a glorious breaking in of God to be.
I felt as Elijah, surrounded with chariots of fire. I saw as it were, the spiritual temple reared, and the Head Stone brought forth with shoutings of grace, grace, unto it. It was a glorious light above the brightness of the sun that shone round about me. I felt that those who were filled with the Spirit could see spiritual things, and feel walking in the midst of them, while those who had not the Spirit could see nothing - so that two shall be in one bed, the one taken and the other left, because the one has the light of God within while the other cannot see the Kingdom of Heaven.
I saw the people of God in an awfully dangerous situation, surrounded by nets and entanglements, about to be tried, and many about to be deceived and fall. Now will THE WICKED be revealed, with all power and signs and lying wonders, so that it it were possible the very elect will be deceived. - [This is the fiery trial which is to try us. - It will be for the purging and purifying of the real members of the body of Jesus]; but Oh it will be a fiery trial. Every soul will he shaken to the very centre. The enemy will try to shake in every thing we have believed - but the trial of real faith will be found to honour and praise and glory. Nothing but what is of God will stand. The stony-ground hearers will be made manifest - the love of many will wax cold.
I frequently said that night, and often since, now shall the awful sight of a false Christ be seen on this earth, and nothing but the living Christ in us can detect this awful attempt of the enemy to deceive - for it is with all deceivableness of unrighteousness he will work - he will have a counterpart for every part of God's truth, and an imitation for every work of the Spirit.
The Spirit must and will be poured out on the church, that she may be purified and filled with God - and just in proportion as the Spirit of God works, so will he - when our Lord anoints men with power, so will he. This is particularly the nature of the trial, through which those are to pass who will be counted worthy to stand before the Son of man. There will he outward trial too, but 'tis principally temptation. It is brought on by the outpouring of the Spirit, and will just increase in proportion as the Spirit is poured out.
[The trial of the Church is from Antichrist. It is by being filled with the Spirit that we shall be kept].
I frequently said, Oh be filled with the Spirit - have the light of God in you, that you may detect Satan - be full of eyes within -be clay in the hands of the potter -submit to be filled, filled with God. This will build the temple. It is not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord. This will fit us to enter into the marriage supper of the Lamb.
I saw it to be the will of God that all should be filled. But what hindered the real life of God from being received by his people, was their turning from Jesus, who is the way to the Father. They were not entering in by the door. For he is faithful who hath said, by me if any man enters in he shall find pasture. They were bypassing the cross, through which every drop of the Spirit of God flows to us. All power that comes not through the blood of Christ is not of God.
When I say, they are looking from the cross, I feel that there is much in it - they turn from the blood of the Lamb, by which we overcome, and in which our robes are washed and made white. There are low views of God's holiness, and a ceasing to condemn sin in the flesh, and a looking from him who humbled himself, and made himself of no reputation. Oh! it is needed, much needed at present, a leading back to the cross.
I saw that night, and often since, that there will be an outpouring of the Spirit on the body, such as has not been, a baptism of fire, that all the dross may be put away. Oh there must and will be such an indwelling of the living God as has not been - the servants of God sealed in their foreheads - great conformity to Jesus - his holy holy image seen in his people - just the bride made comely by his comeliness put upon her.
This is what we are at present made to pray much for, that speedily we may all be made ready to meet our Lord in the air - and it will be. Jesus wants his bride. His desire is toward us. He that shall come, will come, and will not tarry.
Amen and Amen Even so come Lord Jesus.''

Thank you Bob, for sharing that revelation with us. I have highlighted some of the points that I think are particularly important.

Rose

[gregoryfl]

In a nutshell, all things have been wrapped up in Christ, all prophecy, including those things people continue in vain to look for today in a fleshly way. All was completed on the cross. What we have witnessed since then is but the revealing of those things which already were and are in Christ.

And that revelation is simply this: That all of the new creation in Christ abides forever, and everything else of the old is dead and passing away.

Ron

[gregoryfl]

Consider this as well:

Rev 21:4 He will wipe away from them every tear from their eyes. Death will be no more; neither will there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain, any more. The first things have passed away.'

Rev 21:5 He who sits on the throne said, 'Behold, I am making all things new.' He said, 'Write, for these words of God are faithful and true.'

Most would look at this as either something to be done in the future, or something that occured in 70 CE. I would suggest that it occured even before that, on the cross of Christ. For Jesus is the start of the New Creation, where God is joined to man, and before Revelation was even written, Paul knew of the reality of the New Creation, where he wrote:

2Co 5:17 Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old things have passed away. Behold, all things have become new.

The reality that already existed is made manifest for each of us when we see Christ for who he is. Notice that Paul speaks about the reality even though we can't see all old things passed away, nor all things as new. These are not products that can be sensed by the flesh. They are of faith, and are products of revelation.

John wrote from his perspective of the same thing in Christ, but from the standpoint of it being revealed to him where he could picture the reality by signs. Perhaps this is why he could write:

1Jn 3:2 Beloved, now we are children of God, and it is not yet revealed what we will be. But we know that, when he is revealed, we will be like him; for we will see him just as he is.

There is coming a day when each of us will see clearly, seeing Jesus just as he is, and seeing ourselves as we truly have been the whole time, a new creation, where judgment has been meted out on Christ and our works found wanting and thus death was pronounced. Because of this all died in Christ, and thus the old creation was killed. Now there is the New Creation, and it alone will never come under judgment.

Ron

[Bob May]

Consider this as well:

Rev 21:4 He will wipe away from them every tear from their eyes. Death will be no more; neither will there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain, any more. The first things have passed away.”

Rev 21:5 He who sits on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” He said, “Write, for these words of God are faithful and true.”

Most would look at this as either something to be done in the future, or something that occured in 70 CE. I would suggest that it occured even before that, on the cross of Christ. For Jesus is the start of the New Creation, where God is joined to man, and before Revelation was even written, Paul knew of the reality of the New Creation, where he wrote:

2Co 5:17 Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old things have passed away. Behold, all things have become new.

The reality that already existed is made manifest for each of us when we see Christ for who he is. Notice that Paul speaks about the reality even though we can't see all old things passed away, nor all things as new. These are not products that can be sensed by the flesh. They are of faith, and are products of revelation.

John wrote from his perspective of the same thing in Christ, but from the standpoint of it being revealed to him where he could picture the reality by signs. Perhaps this is why he could write:

1Jn 3:2 Beloved, now we are children of God, and it is not yet revealed what we will be. But we know that, when he is revealed, we will be like him; for we will see him just as he is.

There is coming a day when each of us will see clearly, seeing Jesus just as he is, and seeing ourselves as we truly have been the whole time, a new creation, where judgment has been meted out on Christ and our works found wanting and thus death was pronounced. Because of this all died in Christ, and thus the old creation was killed. Now there is the New Creation, and it alone will never come under judgment.

Ron

Hi Ron and Rose,

Jesus came to fulfill the Law, not to change it.
He fulfilled it by dying. We screwed up and he paid the penalty. It is finished.

But Jesus also said that Moses wrote of him. Not one jot or tittle of the law would be changed until all was fullfilled.

Moses brought the Law Jesus brought truth and grace. Opposites.
And yet after we get an awareness of what Grace is (God is not mad at anyone, everything is a gift, Also it means "influx from God") This influx comes as the Spirit and manifests as revelations, our eyes and ears begin to open. This could be the meaning of the phrase "children of God."

(Which, by the way, were the signs that Jesus used to prove to John the Baptist that he was the one spoken of in the Old Testament prophecies.)
These were "analogies" actually performed in the physical realm to show us his true mission. To raise us from the dead, to open our ears and eyes, etc.

But back to Moses and the Law. The Law was not supposed to change until all was fullfilled. It has been. At the cross.
The Law has many functions. It is a good way to start a civilization. Without it society would be chaos.
It was brought in to bring every man guilty before God. No one was ever able to keep it. This leads a person to the realisation that they need a savior.

But now, after the cross, after we accept this fact that Jesus is our saviour, of what use is the law?
Back to "Behold, all things have become new" and "the old things have passed away." This applies to the Old Testament/Covenant also.
Read in the light of what happened upon the Cross, Resurrection and Pentacost, The Law "reads differently."

This is why Paul refers to the Law of Moses as the "Oracles of God." It speaks to us in a completely different way after we have accepted Grace.
It gives many small revelations of what Jesus came to bring us, which is Grace and Truth. This is also why it is known as the "living word of God."

The Old Thing called the Testament or Covenant hides Prophecies and Promises behind a veil of Rules and Regulations. This is the veil which was over Moses' face which Paul said was still "untaken away" in some.
These small revelations are what lead us to Life. And to larger revelation. In the multitude of councilors there is Wisdom.

To a legalist, their goal is to make the New Covenant Old. This following verse can be read two different ways (as can the entire Bible) one leads to self condemnation, the other to freedom and life.

2ti 2:15 Study to show thyself APPROVED unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ASHAMED, rightly dividing the word of truth.

These small revelations of scripture is I believe what Paul was speaking of when he said;
Rom 8:16 "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:.."

Bob

[TheForgiven]

Hey there bro!

You can't fool me. I know you got all the brainpower and a huge store of requisite knowledge to test my ideas.

As for your question: The "last days" = "day of the Lord" = "day of judgment" began in 30 AD at the cross when the world was judged. It extends to 70 AD. It is that whole 40 year period. When a person believes in Christ, they are Resurrected. When any martyr died, he/she went straight to be with the Lord and reigned with Him in heaven. Paul confirms this.

The rest of the dead did not live again until the time when the "thousand years" were to be consummated in 70 AD.

Simple, isn't it?



Richard

So lets assume that the 1000 years (or day of the Lord) speaks of the events which happened between 30 - 70 AD. The Martyrs are raised before Jerusalem falls. Then Satan is taken out after Jerusalem falls. It was during the final 3.5 years of Jerusalem that Satan was given a chance to deceive the nations; additionally, it was these nations that surrounded Jerusalem, as they surrounded the camp of the Saints.

Two problems with this:

1. Those that remained in Jerusalem were not Saints, but false Jews.
2. What is the "Fire" that comes down to devour those who surrounded Jerusalem?

:eek:

I do have a theory....but that'll have to wait. You know me. :D

Joe

[TheForgiven]

Hi Joe and Ron and all,
I have to admit I have not had time to read the entire thread yet. So maybe I'm butting in too soon but I couldn't help from jumping in.
Joe, I addede some of Ron's post because it sheds some light on what I was trying to say.

Joe said, ""On one hand, it appears you're stating that the "presense" of Christ will happen as it did when He was taken up into heaven.""

Let me try a different approach.

He is always present and always here: "..For in him we live, and move, and have our being;.."
He also prayed that both he and the Father would come and make their abode in us. (We should take that prayer as a promise, because as far as I know Jesus never had a prayer unanswered.)
So his presence is not in question here. Both his presence inside of us and outside of us is assured. Whether we are aware of it or not!!!

Hello again brother. Thanks for your reply.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the Holy Spirit coming upon them (and us) is the sign of His presense? Is this correct? If so, then you are right on the money. That is 100% correct.

The events that happened over Jerusalem in the first century was a classical sign of God's presense. He did this in the Old Testament, and He did it during the days of the first century, even to our day.

The Holy Spirit upon the children of the Kingdom (Christians) is the "Presense" of Christ. This is the Spiritual Kingdom that was to come, just as Christ prayed, "Thy Kingdom come...Thy will be done....ON EARTH.....as it is IN HEAEVN..." This is the Church.

Now, what about your other comment, "He will come again...."

I'm interested in this comment.

Joe

[gregoryfl]

Now, what about your other comment, "He will come again...."

I'm interested in this comment.

Joe

Hey Joe,

He did indeed come again as he said he would, on Pentecost when the early called-out assembly of 120 believers were filled with the Spirit. I presume you are speaking about his saying he would come again to receive them to himself, as recorded in the book of John.

Ron

[TheForgiven]

Hey Joe,

He did indeed come again as he said he would, on Pentecost when the early called-out assembly of 120 believers were filled with the Spirit. I presume you are speaking about his saying he would come again to receive them to himself, as recorded in the book of John.

Ron

Not only that, but He also says, "That were I AM, there you may be also..." Thus, I believe He did come back for them, and received them (The Apostles) unto Himself, and they reign forever and ever.

What I believe you are referring to above has to do with the gospel of John, where Jesus explained to them how He would not leave them as orphans, but that He would send the "Counselor" who would remind them of everything He taught them, while He was with them in the flesh. This was the Holy Spirit (The mind of Christ) that came to them on Pentecost.

But the coming in the likeness as recorded in Acts chapter 1, in my opinion, was not talking about Pentecost, but the figure applied to the cloud that received Him, or rather obstructed their (The Apostles) view as He ascended into the Heavens.

I understand that some might believe that Acts chapter 1 was fulfilled on Pentecost, but that's nearly the same thing that some Futurist's will insist happened to His statement, "There are some standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Kingdom of God......", as though this was fulfilled during the transfiguration.

Jeremiah chapter 6 records the expression, "Behold! He comes as the clouds..." Jeremiah was referring to the destruction of Jerusalem during the Babylonian invasion.

All in all, although I disagree with Acts chapter 1 being fufilled at Pentecost, I certainly understand the idea. I'm just not convinced that's what the angel was talking about. Then again, all the events, from Pentecost onward, are a great representation of Christ coming in clouds.

Joe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

So lets assume that the 1000 years (or day of the Lord) speaks of the events which happened between 30 - 70 AD. The Martyrs are raised before Jerusalem falls. Then Satan is taken out after Jerusalem falls. It was during the final 3.5 years of Jerusalem that Satan was given a chance to deceive the nations; additionally, it was these nations that surrounded Jerusalem, as they surrounded the camp of the Saints.

Two problems with this:

1. Those that remained in Jerusalem were not Saints, but false Jews.
2. What is the "Fire" that comes down to devour those who surrounded Jerusalem?

:eek:

I do have a theory....but that'll have to wait. You know me. :D

Joe
Hi Joe,

I knew you'd come through! :thumb: Those are very good questions.


Let's begin with the context of that single verse you cited (which seems to be the only difficult part left to understand):
Revelation 20:7-10 And when the thousand years [to be] consummated, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison [66 AD], 8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. 9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them. 10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
To understand this passage, we have to understand the phrase "camp of the saints." I just sat down to determine what it means and was surprised to find that there are two possibilities, and that the "camp of the saints" is not the most likely. In Greek, the phrase is:

η παρεμβολη των αγιων
h parembole ton agion
The camp of the holies


These words first appear together in the OT (LXX) is in the description of the camp (a region of space) surrounding the Tabernacle, known as the "agion" meaning "holy place":
Leviticus 10:4 And Moses called Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of Uzziel the uncle of Aaron, and said unto them, Come near, carry your brethren from before the sanctuary (ton agion) out of the camp (parembole).

With this understanding, let us read again the passage in question:
Rev 20:9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the area around the Temple, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

Now the story should begin to sound familiar. This is just a very abbreviated vision of the fundamental theme of the entire book of Revelation. And with this understanding, we see that the final pronoun "them" refers to its immediate antecedent, which is the "holies" - the Temple - in the center of Jerusalem (the camp):
Rev 20:9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the area around the Temple, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them [the Temple and the city].

Now I know how hard it will be for you to read this passage in this sense after years and years of thinking it was talking about the "camp of the saints." But there are many reasons to reject that view. First, that phrase is used nowhere else in Scripture. Second, it makes no sense in light of the rest of the Bible or the way that all the pieces of Revelation hang together. Third, it makes perfect sense in light of the rest of the Bible, especially Revelation, where God specifically pours out his fiery judgment upon apostate Jerusalem, the Harlot, as it is written:
Revelation 18:8 Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.

Now the final challenge for you to be able to understand this passage is the "tug" that will make you think that "them" must refer to the armies of Satan rather than the enemies of God encamped around the Temple, aka the apostate Jews judged by fire from God in 70 AD. But that is merely a bad habit that can be quickly overcome. Consider this scenario:
An army raised up [I]by the express will of God goes forth to conquer His enemies. They surround God's enemies and prepare to destroy them. But then a fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them.
Who are designated by the final "them" in that little story?

That's the $64,000 question.

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

We find a very strong confirmation of the meaning of "parembole ton hagion" as "the area of the Tabernacle" from the book of Hebrews:
Hebrews 13:10-15 We have an altar, whereof they [the first century Levitical priests] have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle. 11 For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary (hagia) by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp (parembole). 12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. 13 Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp (parembole), bearing his reproach. 14 For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come. 15 By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.
Here we see the focus of the text is on the Tabernacle (Hagia) in the center of the camp (parembole) and that Christians are to have nothing to do with Jerusalem (the city) because we "have no continuing city" here on earth.

Note the three elements - the Tabernacle (Hagia), the Camp (Parembole), and the City of Jerusalem. This confirms the interpretation of "camp of the saints" as "area around the Temple" which was destroyed with fire from God in 70 AD.

Richard

[Bob May]

Hello again brother. Thanks for your reply.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the Holy Spirit coming upon them (and us) is the sign of His presense? Is this correct? If so, then you are right on the money. That is 100% correct.

The events that happened over Jerusalem in the first century was a classical sign of God's presense. He did this in the Old Testament, and He did it during the days of the first century, even to our day.

The Holy Spirit upon the children of the Kingdom (Christians) is the "Presense" of Christ. This is the Spiritual Kingdom that was to come, just as Christ prayed, "Thy Kingdom come...Thy will be done....ON EARTH.....as it is IN HEAEVN..." This is the Church.

Now, what about your other comment, "He will come again...."

I'm interested in this comment.

Joe

Hi Joe and Ron,

There are several things going on at the same time here the way I see it. And the way I see it may be wrong, but just for the sake of trying to organize my own thoughts,...

PRESENCE
1.The "presence" of Christ is always here. He is the light, the Word. He was in the beginning and through him all things consist. (Hold together) He came as a man, died, sits at the "right hand" ( as close as you can be without losing all sense of individuality) of the Father (the source of everything that ever was or will be.) We can be aware of and believe in his presence or not.

COMING AGAIN
2. In the last chapters of John he tells the Apostles several times that he is going away but that he will send a "Comforter" to be with them/us in his stead. Then he prays some very important prayers and says that he is not just praying for those Apostles, but for those who believe in him because of their words. Then he is crucified buried and rises again.
Then comes Pentecost.

The Spirit is poured out and Peter stands up and says,

Acts 2:16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:
19 And I will show wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:
20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come:
21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
So there are visions, dreams, speaking in one language and being heard in many. Signs in heaven and wonders in the earth. The same Spirit that was in Jesus fell upon these 120 individuals. So I will agree that this was a "second coming" and the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy by Joel.

But wait a minute. In Hebrews 9:28 Paul says;
"So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation."

"..Shall he appear the SECOND TIME.."

What I see in this is that long after the day of Pentecost Paul is still refering to a future date of the "second coming". And not only that, but there is a stipulation put on it. Christ Jesus will come to those that look for him.
Remember one of Jesus' last words to his disciples was "Watch."

Bottom line in the way I see this is that Pentacost is not an end because it was a fulfillment of a prophecy, but a beginning.
This was the first time the Spirit was poured out, not the last.
Visions, dreams, signs and wonders and all kinds of Spiritual gifts, revelations and even visitations by angels or Jesus himself did not end with the New Testament times.
Maybe people are not believing in the "second coming" or are "looking" in the wrong places. Or maybe it happens to individuals and they are not sharing it.

When we watch as a line in scripture suddenly opens to us,.. one that we have read a hundred times without understanding it we are recieving a Spiritual gift. Because these things are spiritually discerned. The carnal mind cannot understand the things of the Spirit.

When we see the error of Christian churches teaching Old Testament Law and yearn for Grace, we are experiencing another gift of the Spirit. Because the carnal mind is geared to cause and effect, an eye for an eye, etc.

When we first believed we were experiencing another Spiritual gift called faith.

If we lay up these experiences as treasures in our hearts they will grow in strength and frequency. Then some day when we least expect it, because we know neither the day or the hour, something "BIG" will fall on us.

Bob

[gregoryfl]

What I believe you are referring to above has to do with the gospel of John, where Jesus explained to them how He would not leave them as orphans, but that He would send the "Counselor" who would remind them of everything He taught them, while He was with them in the flesh. This was the Holy Spirit (The mind of Christ) that came to them on Pentecost.

But the coming in the likeness as recorded in Acts chapter 1, in my opinion, was not talking about Pentecost, but the figure applied to the cloud that received Him, or rather obstructed their (The Apostles) view as He ascended into the Heavens.

I understand that some might believe that Acts chapter 1 was fulfilled on Pentecost, but that's nearly the same thing that some Futurist's will insist happened to His statement, "There are some standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Kingdom of God......", as though this was fulfilled during the transfiguration.

Jeremiah chapter 6 records the expression, "Behold! He comes as the clouds..." Jeremiah was referring to the destruction of Jerusalem during the Babylonian invasion.

All in all, although I disagree with Acts chapter 1 being fufilled at Pentecost, I certainly understand the idea. I'm just not convinced that's what the angel was talking about. Then again, all the events, from Pentecost onward, are a great representation of Christ coming in clouds.

JoeThanks Joe, and Bob,

I have had opportunity to rethink how I worded it and would like to offer an adjustment to my thinking on the matter. You made a valid point there.

When Jesus said he would go away and prepare a place for them, then that he would come back and receive them to himself, that where he is, there they would be also, I would take that to mean that when he was resurrected he went to the Father to present himself to him. Part of this involved the preparing he would start. Then he came again, appearing to his disciples to open their minds to the entire scriptural testimony of himself. When he went up in the cloud, they were at that time with him spiritually, for he had said that when he returned (which he did after his resurrection) they would be with him.

The revelation of that reality took place from their perspective on the day of Pentecost when the Spirit was poured out on them. However, as you brought out Bob, that was merely the beginning, not a fulfillment in the sense of it ending. Even though the new heaven and new earth was fulfilled in Christ in the first century, and revealed to be so by the destruction of the temple, we still live in it. It still exists.

For each of us, he comes again with reference to salvation in that there comes a day when he is fully revealed to us. In that day, we also are revealed in the same glory as his. We then, as the apostle John wrote in his epistle, will see him as he is, and what will be revealed is that we are like him. We have to be, for we are his body.

Ron

[gregoryfl]

Concerning this idea of things being reality and already fulfilled, even though we do not see them with our physical eyes, consider carefully what is written here:

Heb 2:8,9 You have put all things in subjection under his feet.”For in that he subjected all things to him, he left nothing that is not subject to him. But now we don’t see all things subjected to him, yet. But we see him who has been made a little lower than the angels, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God he should taste of death for everyone.

Notice that God has put (past tense) all things under his feet. This is also confirmed by Jesus saying after the resurrection that "all authority has been given to [him]", recorded in Matthew 28:19. Nothing is not subject to him. This is reality. This is the spiritual.

Now he takes us down to the physical where he says that we do not "see" all things subjected to him yet. This seeing has to do with our physical eyes.

Having said that, he then reassures us by taking us back to the spiritual reality when he says that we indeed do "see him....crowned with glory and honor." This seeing is a seeing by faith, and we get tripped up when we look around us in the physical realm and try to equate that with reality. It isn't.

We are raised up with Christ and are seated with him in heavenly places. Can we see that? Not with our physical eyes we can't. It is by faith that we know that in reality we are truly with him in heavenly places, even though physically we are still here on earth.

The difference is in who we are looking at, and what we are looking with. If we keep it on the physical, using the physical, and looking only at the physical, we will miss out on what is truly real, that which is spiritual. In time we will all see things correctly, but what a blessing it is to not have to wait, but to be aware of these things even now, by faith. Hope this helps with this discussion.

Ron

[gregoryfl]

Good stuff Richard:thumb:

What would you all say about how Ezekiel 38 and 39 relates to all of this concerning those who gather around the city and are devoured by fire? I am in the process of rereading it now.

Ron

[TheForgiven]

Concerning this idea of things being reality and already fulfilled, even though we do not see them with our physical eyes, consider carefully what is written here:

Heb 2:8,9 You have put all things in subjection under his feet.'For in that he subjected all things to him, he left nothing that is not subject to him. But now we don’t see all things subjected to him, yet. But we see him who has been made a little lower than the angels, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God he should taste of death for everyone.

Notice that God has put (past tense) all things under his feet. This is also confirmed by Jesus saying after the resurrection that "all authority has been given to [him]", recorded in Matthew 28:19. Nothing is not subject to him. This is reality. This is the spiritual.

Now he takes us down to the physical where he says that we do not "see" all things subjected to him yet. This seeing has to do with our physical eyes.

Having said that, he then reassures us by taking us back to the spiritual reality when he says that we indeed do "see him....crowned with glory and honor." This seeing is a seeing by faith, and we get tripped up when we look around us in the physical realm and try to equate that with reality. It isn't.

We are raised up with Christ and are seated with him in heavenly places. Can we see that? Not with our physical eyes we can't. It is by faith that we know that in reality we are truly with him in heavenly places, even though physically we are still here on earth.

The difference is in who we are looking at, and what we are looking with. If we keep it on the physical, using the physical, and looking only at the physical, we will miss out on what is truly real, that which is spiritual. In time we will all see things correctly, but what a blessing it is to not have to wait, but to be aware of these things even now, by faith. Hope this helps with this discussion.

Ron

Ron! That was an outstanding post. :thumb: Are you sure that you're not a full preterist?

Joe

[TheForgiven]

Thanks Joe, and Bob,

I have had opportunity to rethink how I worded it and would like to offer an adjustment to my thinking on the matter. You made a valid point there.

When Jesus said he would go away and prepare a place for them, then that he would come back and receive them to himself, that where he is, there they would be also, I would take that to mean that when he was resurrected he went to the Father to present himself to him. Part of this involved the preparing he would start. Then he came again, appearing to his disciples to open their minds to the entire scriptural testimony of himself. When he went up in the cloud, they were at that time with him spiritually, for he had said that when he returned (which he did after his resurrection) they would be with him.

The revelation of that reality took place from their perspective on the day of Pentecost when the Spirit was poured out on them. However, as you brought out Bob, that was merely the beginning, not a fulfillment in the sense of it ending. Even though the new heaven and new earth was fulfilled in Christ in the first century, and revealed to be so by the destruction of the temple, we still live in it. It still exists.

For each of us, he comes again with reference to salvation in that there comes a day when he is fully revealed to us. In that day, we also are revealed in the same glory as his. We then, as the apostle John wrote in his epistle, will see him as he is, and what will be revealed is that we are like him. We have to be, for we are his body.

Ron

That was another good post Ron. However, I beleive I might not agree with Him coming back for them spiritually. I do agree that He kept His promise to not leave them as orphans. This was fulfilled when the Holy Spirit came upon them. But Christ also says, "In my fathers house are many mansions..." Now I don't necessarily believe there are millions of mansions made of brick and stone in the heavens. But I do believe that Christ returned for them in 70 AD, and that would explain the awesome events Josephus described prior to the height of the war. Josephus records angelic beings, an earth quake in Jerusalem, and a loud voice which stated, "Let us leave hence..."

So on the one hand, we know Christ didn't leave them as orphans, when he sent the Holy Spirit upon them. But on the other hand, I believe they were taken to be with the Lord (in the air) and that sight must have been awesome to those who saw it. The Romans, however, thought these signs to be a "departure of the gods...." according to Tacticus, a Roman Historian who wrote of that account.

What do you think?

Joe

[TheForgiven]

Now the final challenge for you to be able to understand this passage is the "tug" that will make you think that "them" must refer to the armies of Satan rather than the enemies of God encamped around the Temple, aka the apostate Jews judged by fire from God in 70 AD. But that is merely a bad habit that can be quickly overcome. Consider this scenario:
An army raised up by the express will of God goes forth to conquer His enemies. They surround God's enemies and prepare to destroy them. But then a fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them.
Who are designated by the final "them" in that little story?

That's the $64,000 question.

Richard

Your posts were excellant Brother Richard. But the $64,000 question was what I was going to ask you.

I'm still going to make everyone wait to hear my mystery answer. That's not to say I'm right or wrong, or that I'm holding an advantage for the sake of debating. :D Just trying to test the waters first.

Who were the ones that were surrounded? And what "Fire" came down to devour them, assuming we're holding to a first century fulfillment.

:bounce:

Joe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Your posts were excellant Brother Richard. But the $64,000 question was what I was going to ask you.

I'm still going to make everyone wait to hear my mystery answer. That's not to say I'm right or wrong, or that I'm holding an advantage for the sake of debating. :D Just trying to test the waters first.

Who were the ones that were surrounded? And what "Fire" came down to devour them, assuming we're holding to a first century fulfillment.

:bounce:

Joe

Ah... do I have to spell out every detail? I think you are playing hard-to-get. But that's ok :lol:


Let's look at the verse again:
Rev 20:9 And they [the Romans armies gathered by Satan after GOD let him out of the pit] went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the fortified area around the Temple, [which is in] the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them [the enemies of God who were using the Temple as a fortress]. The final "them" refers to its immediate antecedent. It is ambiguous, and could be taken either way depending on your view of whom God would want to destroy. The identity of those destroyed by fire is confirmed by numerous witnesses in Revelation and the rest of the Bible, and it is confirmed again in the historical fact that apostate Jerusalem was indeed destroyed by fire which was "fire from God" because it was the result of His judgment upon them.


This interpretation is further confirmed by the record of Josephus (Wars VI.2.4)
4. Now Titus was deeply affected with this state of things, and reproached John [the tyrant who personally sacked the temple for its gold] and his party, and said to them, "Have not you, vile wretches that you are, by our permission, put up this partition-wall before your sanctuary? Have not you been allowed to put up the pillars thereto belonging, at due distances, and on it to engrave in Greek, and in your own letters, this prohibition, that no foreigner should go beyond that wall. Have not we given you leave to kill such as go beyond it, though he were a Roman? And what do you do now, you pernicious villains? Why do you trample upon dead bodies in this temple? and why do you pollute this holy house with the blood of both foreigners and Jews themselves? I appeal to the gods of my own country, and to every god that ever had any regard to this place; (for I do not suppose it to be now regarded by any of them) I also appeal to my own army, and to those Jews that are now with me, and even to yourselves, that I do not force you to defile this your sanctuary; and if you will but change the place whereon you will fight, no Roman shall either come near your sanctuary, or offer any affront to it; nay, I will endeavor to preserve you your holy house, whether you will or not." So there it is. The apostate Jews turned the Temple area into a fortress and defiled it with dead bodies. This may well be the real meaning of the Abomination of Desolation. This was the camp/fortress of the holies/temple that was destroyed by God with "fire from heaven" which is a standard biblical metaphor for His judgment, whether executed literally as in Sodom and Gommorah or figuratively through the vehicle of a invading armies.

Does that answer your question? Should I be expecting a check for $64,000?

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Good stuff Richard:thumb:

What would you all say about how Ezekiel 38 and 39 relates to all of this concerning those who gather around the city and are devoured by fire? I am in the process of rereading it now.

Ron
Hi Ron,


I'm in the process of re-reading too. Here is one thing I noticed right off the bat:
Ezekiel 39:6-7 And I will send a fire on Magog, and among them that dwell carelessly in the isles: and they shall know that I am the LORD. 7 So will I make my holy name known in the midst of my people Israel; and I will not let them [Israel] pollute my holy name any more: and the heathen shall know that I am the LORD, the Holy One in Israel.
What does "a fire on Magog" have to do with stopping the Jews from polluting God's holy name? As it turns out, the fire is not necessarily "on" Magog - the Hebrew says "esh b'magog" which could also mean quite literally that God will send a fire IN or THROUGH Magog against apostate Jerusalem who really were polluting God's name as well as the Temple with dead bodies. This then coheres with my interpreation of Rev 20:9. Of course, this is just something I noticed while reading. I have a lot more study to do before coming to any certain conclusion.

Great chatting Ron! You are making many valuable contributions.

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Ezekiel 38 fits PERFECTLY with my interpretation of Rev 20:9 because it is a prophecy of God bringing Gog against Jerusalem at a time when they were "living in safety" which coheres with both the historical reality in the first century as well as this passage from Paul:
1 Thessalonians 5:2-3 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. 3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.
And this of course coheres with all the other passages concerning the Day of the Lord that was fulfilled in 70 AD.

But Ezekiel 39 is not so obvious because it appears to be speaking of a destruction of Gog and Magog and we have little if any confirming verses of what this could mean or when it happened. So I need to study that chapter more.

Richard

[Victor]

Let's begin with the context of that single verse you cited (which seems to be the only difficult part left to understand):
Revelation 20:7-10 And when the thousand years [to be] consummated, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison [66 AD], 8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. 9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them. 10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. To understand this passage, we have to understand the phrase "camp of the saints." I just sat down to determine what it means and was surprised to find that there are two possibilities, and that the "camp of the saints" is not the most likely. In Greek, the phrase is:

η παρεμβολη των αγιων
h parembole ton agion
The camp of the holies




These words first appear together in the OT (LXX) is in the description of the camp (a region of space) surrounding the Tabernacle, known as the "agion" meaning "holy place":
Leviticus 10:4 And Moses called Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of Uzziel the uncle of Aaron, and said unto them, Come near, carry your brethren from before the sanctuary (ton agion) out of the camp (parembole).

With this understanding, let us read again the passage in question:
Rev 20:9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the area around the Temple, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

Now the story should begin to sound familiar. This is just a very abbreviated vision of the fundamental theme of the entire book of Revelation. And with this understanding, we see that the final pronoun "them" refers to its immediate antecedent, which is the "holies" - the Temple - in the center of Jerusalem (the camp):
Rev 20:9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the area around the Temple, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them [the Temple and the city].

Now I know how hard it will be for you to read this passage in this sense after years and years of thinking it was talking about the "camp of the saints." But there are many reasons to reject that view. First, that phrase is used nowhere else in Scripture. Second, it makes no sense in light of the rest of the Bible or the way that all the pieces of Revelation hang together. Third, it makes perfect sense in light of the rest of the Bible, especially Revelation, where God specifically pours out his fiery judgment upon apostate Jerusalem, the Harlot, as it is written:
Revelation 18:8 Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.

Now the final challenge for you to be able to understand this passage is the "tug" that will make you think that "them" must refer to the armies of Satan rather than the enemies of God encamped around the Temple, aka the apostate Jews judged by fire from God in 70 AD. But that is merely a bad habit that can be quickly overcome. Consider this scenario:
An army raised up [I]by the express will of God goes forth to conquer His enemies. They surround God's enemies and prepare to destroy them. But then a fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them. Who are designated by the final "them" in that little story?

That's the $64,000 question.

Richard

Hey Richard,

Gramatically speaking, it seems that the "devoured them" part can apply to either "the camp of the saints and the beloved city" or to Gog and Magog and the nations. But the first option creates a lot of tension.

First, will would a "fire from heaven" be necessary to destroy the camp/city if the armies are joined to battle against the camp/city? That would rob the armies of their purpose for being there.

Second, if "them" means the city/camp, why does the meaning of "them" change in the sentence that immediately follows?

Rev 20:8 And [the devil] shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
Rev 20:9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured THEM.
Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived THEM was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Third, this passage is clearly inspired in Ezekiel 38-39, so why would the "fire from heaven" shift its focus from Gog to Israel in Revelation?
Eze 38:22 And I will plead against him [Gog] with pestilence and with blood; and I will rain upon him, and upon his bands, and upon the many people that are with him, an overflowing rain, and great hailstones, fire, and brimstone.
This reading is not simple at all.

[Victor]

As it turns out, the fire is not necessarily "on" Magog - the Hebrew says "esh b'magog" which could also mean quite literally that God will send a fire IN or THROUGH Magog against apostate Jerusalem who really were polluting God's name as well as the Temple with dead bodies. This then coheres with my interpreation of Rev 20:9. Of course, this is just something I noticed while reading. I have a lot more study to do before coming to any certain conclusion.

Although that seems quite possible, the more natural reading would be "on" Magog. Compare to the same use in other places:

Lam 1:13 From [Mem prefix] above hath he sent fire into my bones.
From heaven on/into someone. That's what sounds more natural.

The same phrase "I will send a fire on/in" is repeated numerous times, always meaning that the fire is poured on the object of the phrase:

Amo 1:4 But [B]I will send a fire into the house of Hazael, which shall devour the palaces of Benhadad.
This is repeated in Amos 1:7,10,12;2:2,5.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey Richard,

Gramatically speaking, it seems that the "devoured them" part can apply to either "the camp of the saints and the beloved city" or to Gog and Magog and the nations. But the first option creates a lot of tension.

First, will would a "fire from heaven" be necessary to destroy the camp/city if the armies are joined to battle against the camp/city? That would rob the armies of their purpose for being there.

Hey there Victor,

Excellent questions! I'm really glad you are here to challenge my interpretations.

A literal "fire from heaven" wasn't "necessary." As explained in a recent post to Joe, the image of "fire from heaven" is "a standard biblical metaphor for His judgment, whether executed literally as in Sodom and Gommorah or figuratively through the vehicle of a invading armies." Does that seem reasonable to you?




Second, if "them" means the city/camp, why does the meaning of "them" change in the sentence that immediately follows?
Rev 20:8 And [the devil] shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.


Rev 20:9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured THEM.


Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived THEM was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.


That's an excellent point. I agree that if we begin by assuming that the enemies of God to be destroyed were the invading armies, then the "them" would naturally refer to the same group in all three cases. But the text is ambiguous, and if we knew from other evidence that the target of the destruction was the desecrated fortified Temple, then we would be forced to understand the second "them" as referring to the group in the Temple. Ambiguity with pronouns like "him" and "them" is very common in all languages because the noun for which such pronouns stand is not stated explicitly. A quick google search for "amiguous pronouns" returns 197,000 pages.

Also, the traditional interpretaion is essentially meaningless because the term "camp of the saints" is used nowhere else in Scripture and it makes no sense in the context of Rev 20 if we follow what we learned from 2 Peter 3 concerning the "thousand years" as a symbol of "the day of the Lord."

Furthermore, in the OT, the Tabernacle was in the center of the camp and it was called "ton hagion" - the exact words found in Rev 20, which also are found in Hebrews in reference to the Tabernacle.

And we have the witness of Ezekiel 38 that God would bring Gog against Jerusalem and there would be a "great shaking" in Israel. But then in Ezekiel 39 we see judgment on Gog, so there is tension here I do not yet understand.



Third, this passage is clearly inspired in Ezekiel 38-39, so why would the "fire from heaven" shift its focus from Gog to Israel in Revelation?
Eze 38:22 And I will plead against him [Gog] with pestilence and with blood; and I will rain upon him, and upon his bands, and upon the many people that are with him, an overflowing rain, and great hailstones, fire, and brimstone. This reading is not simple at all.
Correct - that part is not simple at all. But the first part from Ezekiel 38 does seem to fit perfectly, and no one has yet challenged that part. But I readily admit that I do not understand all of Ezekiel 39 yet, and that it does seem to support the idea that "them" refers to the same group all three times in Rev 20.

But there still is much tension in your interpretaion of the fire "on" Magog, since that fire was to correct the behaviour of Israel - to stop them from polluting the name of God. This judgment fits with my interpretation of Rev 20.

Again, I would like to thank you for bringing up very important points. I find your comments very helpful as I search for understanding.

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Although that seems quite possible, the more natural reading would be "on" Magog. Compare to the same use in other places:
Lam 1:13 From [Mem prefix] above hath he sent fire into my bones.From heaven on/into someone. That's what sounds more natural.

The same phrase "I will send a fire on/in" is repeated numerous times, always meaning that the fire is poured on the object of the phrase:

Amo 1:4 But [B]I will send a fire into the house of Hazael, which shall devour the palaces of Benhadad. This is repeated in Amos 1:7,10,12;2:2,5.

Yes, that is the more natural reading, and it seems to be confirmed by the larger context in which God said that He would "give unto Gog a place there of graves in Israel (Ezekiel 39:11)." But in contrast with that, we have the even larger context in which God filled the entire previous chapter with prophecies about how He would bring up Gog against Jerusalem, and this is confirmed in the immediate context of the verse that follows that tells us what that fire in/on/through Gog would accomplish, namely, causing Israel to cease from polluting His holy name.
Ezekiel 39:6-7 And I will send a fire on/in/through Magog, and among them that dwell carelessly in the isles: and they shall know that I am the LORD. 7 So will I make my holy name known in the midst of my people Israel; and I will not let them pollute my holy name any more: and the heathen shall know that I am the LORD, the Holy One in Israel.
Again, this certainly is not simple. But we also have one huge overriding consideration. If we can see the clear fulfillment of Ezekiel 38 in 70 AD, and it is referenced in Rev 20 in the book whose central theme is the destruction of 70 AD, then it seems extremely unlikely that something altogether different is being squished into a single verse near the end of the book (Rev 20:9).

But who knows? I'm just exploring my first thoughts on Rev 20:9 and Ezek 39.

I very much appreciate your help in these matters.

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Second, if "them" means the city/camp, why does the meaning of "them" change in the sentence that immediately follows?
Rev 20:8 And [the devil] shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
Rev 20:9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured THEM.
Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived THEM was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Digging into this a little more. I want to be sure everyone understands that my interpretation of Rev 20:9 is purely exploratory right now. I am only giving my first impressions. But concerning the "thousand years" as a symbol of the "Day of the Lord" and the relation between 2 Pet 3 and Rev 20, I am very confident because of the way the many passages that had previously been extremely difficult just "clicked" into a mutually confirming integrated network.

So taking a second look at the question of Rev 20:8-10 - here it is divided into two sections:

Rev 20:9a And they [Gog] went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints/Temple about, and the beloved city:
Rev 20:9b and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.We have a very interesting tension here.

Rev 20:9a fits well with Ezek 38 where God said He would use Gog against Israel who had been polluting His holy name.
Rev 20:9b fits well with Ezek 39 where God said He would send a fire on Gog.One of the things that makes this so difficult is that we all know that apostate Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD, and so it seems clear that Rev 20:9a was fulfilled in 70 AD. But we have no certain (as yet) interpretation of when or how Rev 20:9b was or will be fulfilled.

Another thing to consider is that Gog is not totally destroyed in Ezek 39 - a "sixth part" returned from the battle. It is possible that the Roman casualities might have something to do with this, but no one seems to know how many Romans died in the siege against Jerusalem.

In any case, does this mean we have a tension between Rev 20:9b (in which "they" are "devoured" by fire from heaven) and Ezek 39 (in which a significant portion of "Gog" escaped destruction)? The only "entity" that was utterly destroyed by fire in 70 AD was Jerusalem and the Temple.

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Concerning the Roman casualties in 70 AD, I found this quote from a tremendous MUST READ synopsis of the destruction of Jerusalem from HistoryNet.com:

http://www.historynet.com/first-jewish-roman-war.htm


The emperor’s son prepared to assault Jerusalem. He placed three of his four legions in a main camp west of the city, while the fourth legion took up position east of the city on the Mount of Olives. Josephus became Titus’ interpreter. During this time, turmoil reined inside the city. A rebel leader named Simon Bar-Giora had entered the city, and he, John and Eleazar were fighting a three-way civil war. The Romans’ year of inactivity had cost them nothing; Jerusalem was destroying itself.




The factions made an awkward truce while the Romans were settling in. Rebels then attacked the Roman camp on the Mount of Olives, catching the legionaries by surprise and inflicting heavy casualties until Titus arrived with other forces.

Two things of note:

1) The Romans had heavy casualities, but ultimately were victorious after a very long and protracted battle. It may be that only a "sixth part" of the original troops survived.


2) The three-way civil war coheres well with the description of the destruction of Jerusalem found in Revelation 16:
Revelation 16:19 And the great city [defined as Jerusalem in Rev 11:8] was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath.
Richard

[gregoryfl]

Ron! That was an outstanding post. :thumb: Are you sure that you're not a full preterist?

Joe

Well, I do believe that it offers the closest in terms of understanding the fulfillment of prophecy. I do differ though in that I understand all prophecy to have been fulfilled when Jesus was crucified, and raised again. Not fulfilled as in ended, but as in totally existing in Christ, the union of God and man.

It is hard for me to explain where it makes sense, but I see all prophecy as complete in Christ, yet revealed over time to each of us as we live. So, for example, I do not look for a second coming of Christ as most people would understand it. He has already done that and yet, at the same time, for each of us there is a revealing of his coming again which we will all experience.

Ron

[gregoryfl]

Here is one thing I noticed right off the bat:
Ezekiel 39:6-7 And I will send a fire on Magog, and among them that dwell carelessly in the isles: and they shall know that I am the LORD. 7 So will I make my holy name known in the midst of my people Israel; and I will not let them [Israel] pollute my holy name any more: and the heathen shall know that I am the LORD, the Holy One in Israel.


Here is something I have noticed. What does this "fire" accomplish on Magog and them that dwell carelessly in the isles? I am not discounting what you said about it possibly being "through" them, but just for this post am presenting it from the standpoint as though Magog and the isles are receiving this fire.

It causes them, the ones on whom the fire comes, to know that he is Yahuwah. It is also perhaps the means by which he makes his name known to his people Israel, which, in first century terms, is speaking of all who are in Christ. I'm thinking that this fire perhaps isn't for destruction as we know it, but symbolic of something that reveals who God is to those exposed to it.

In fact, there are many such references to fire like this that ultimately is beneficial and purifying rather than destructive as we are often tempted to think of fire as. What I would see as devouring and destroying is only the cessation of that which is an illusion, that only the reality remains. So it is a beneficial thing. Remember, the very glory of God is a devouring fire. Who here would say that God's glory is something to be feared and avoided? Not at all, for we too have that glory in Christ, although I know I am getting a bit off the subject, so will put on the brakes here.

Will also need to keep thinking on these things, is all so rich and good. :D

Ron

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Here is something I have noticed. What does this "fire" accomplish on Magog and them that dwell carelessly in the isles? I am not discounting what you said about it possibly being "through" them, but just for this post am presenting it from the standpoint as though Magog and the isles are receiving this fire.

It causes them, the ones on whom the fire comes, to know that he is Yahuwah. It is also perhaps the means by which he makes his name known to his people Israel, which, in first century terms, is speaking of all who are in Christ. I'm thinking that this fire perhaps isn't for destruction as we know it, but symbolic of something that reveals who God is to those exposed to it.

In fact, there are many such references to fire like this that ultimately is beneficial and purifying rather than destructive as we are often tempted to think of fire as. Will also need to keep thinking on these things, is all so rich and good. :D

Ron
Hey Ron,

I love your final comment - it casts the fire of God into a redemptive light, and that is the glory of God as I see it: the redemption and reconciliation of the world through Jesus Christ. Well done! :thumb:

But as for the specific point: You said "It causes them, the ones on whom the fire comes, to know that he is Yahuwah." While that may be true, it does not seem to be the message of this particular text which states that the ones who will come to know YHWH as God are the Israelites. Of course, it could be both I suppose ....

Great chatting,

Richard

[gregoryfl]

Concerning the Roman casualties in 70 AD, I found this quote from a tremendous MUST READ synopsis of the destruction of Jerusalem from HistoryNet.com:

http://www.historynet.com/first-jewish-roman-war.htm


The emperor’s son prepared to assault Jerusalem. He placed three of his four legions in a main camp west of the city, while the fourth legion took up position east of the city on the Mount of Olives. Josephus became Titus’ interpreter. During this time, turmoil reined inside the city. A rebel leader named Simon Bar-Giora had entered the city, and he, John and Eleazar were fighting a three-way civil war. The Romans’ year of inactivity had cost them nothing; Jerusalem was destroying itself.




The factions made an awkward truce while the Romans were settling in. Rebels then attacked the Roman camp on the Mount of Olives, catching the legionaries by surprise and inflicting heavy casualties until Titus arrived with other forces.

Two things of note:

1) The Romans had heavy casualities, but ultimately were victorious after a very long and protracted battle. It may be that only a "sixth part" of the original troops survived.


2) The three-way civil war coheres well with the description of the destruction of Jerusalem found in Revelation 16:
Revelation 16:19 And the great city [defined as Jerusalem in Rev 11:8] was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath.
Richard
Nice find Richard! Thanks for that link. Will add it to my favorites.

Ron

[TheForgiven]

Okay, I think I've kept everyone in suspense long enough. :D

Richard is nearly right on, but I think the focus of who were the ones God sent fire upon (Figuratively). If we try to say that the Romans represented the deceived people from the four corners of the earth, we're left trying to find a place where Rome was punished by the fire of God (figuratively wrath).

However, here's what I propose for the Full Preterist position. .

FULL PRETERIST

Using Young's Literal Translation, this is what the text says:


7 And when the thousand years may be finished, the Adversary shall be loosed out of his prison, 8 and he shall go forth to lead the nations astray, that are in the four corners of the earth -- Gog and Magog -- to gather them together to war, of whom the number [is] as the sand of the sea; 9 and they did go up over the breadth of the land, and did surround the camp of the saints, and the beloved city, and there came down fire from God out of the heaven, and devoured them; 10 and the Devil, who is leading them astray, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where [are] the beast and the false prophet, and they shall be tormented day and night -- to the ages of the ages.

I underlined the key test.

My first theory was that it is possible the "Deceived" may have been the impostors that Josephus wrote about. Most of these factions came from outside Israel, some from Egypt, and so forth. It would be possible that the three factions represented the people of the four corners of the earth who came to defend Israel against the Romans. It would be these who were trapped behind the large walls encompassed around the entire city. Now this is important because Josephus describes a man with a Greek name (can't find the article) which had to do with something called "Alexander’s Wall". This wall is similar to what the Romans did to starve out the Jews by containing them. But if we accept that the wall of Alexander is the possible key to which the deceived were, then that rules out the robbers of Josephus. Or does it? According to Josephus, the factions themselves erected a wall within the walls the Romans were building. This decision was made through their idea that having two walls to protect them would make it that much more difficult for the Romans to penetrate their protection, and slaughter them. So regarding the wall, it fits either the Romans or the Impostors (Robbers) that Josephus described. The problem with using the Romans leaves us with the difficulty in identifying the time in the first century when wrath (or fire) would come upon them. So between the two, the more likely candidates were the Impostors that surrounded the camp (temple) and the city, and erected a wall inside of the Roman wall. This is not my factual opinion, but at least one deserving consideration. Therefore, the more likely candidates are the Impostors which comprised the factions.

PARTIAL PRETERISM

According to some web sources, Gog - Magog represented the ancient people related to one of Noah's sons....[I]Japheth. Some sources claim that their descendants live in our day, and make up modern day Turkey. Gog-Magog is believed to represent many disputed ancient territories, and it's not easy to trace historical beliefs on Gog / Ma-God, because there are so many, even in our day. The Hebrews believed these were Syria, east of Syria, and even Greece. Muslims, ironically, connect them with one of the sons of Noah, again being Japheth. Now I find this very interesting! One source states that part of the ancient territory of Gog was the former territory's of Asia Minor, now modern day Turkey. Now present day Turkey contains what ethnic group? You got it! Muslims! The same for Russia, France, Indonesia, and other territories. I've speculated off and on, that the Islamic terrorists might be the children of the rise of Gog / Ma-Gog. It was the Turks from the Ottoman Empire that attacked the Christians in Cappadocia (spelling), eventually leading to the Crusades, if I'm not mistaken. Jews teamed up with Arabs to win back Israel, and the English were cast out of the city; twice. Since that time, there's been a rapid expansion of this fundamentalist race, and they've caused problems with Christians for more than 1000 years. Some modern day evangelists are too preoccupied with Russia, though I wouldn't exactly rule them out. Why? Because Russia is also occupied by Muslims. If one looks at most of the poverty stricken nations around the world, you'll find a large share of Islamic radicals infecting the lands. Thus, I'm under the opinion that Partial Preterism would do quite well if they consider modern day Muslims to be the people of Gog / Ma-Gog. Ma-Gog simply means "The city of Gog". Sadly, Muslims are spreading like aunts on discarded food. Therefore, the more likely candidates for the people of Gog/Ma-Gog are the Muslims.

In conclusion, I've proposed two theories for the Full Preterist position, and one theory for the Partial Preterist position, in identifying who Gog / Ma-Gog are. This is important because they are the ones who are destroyed by the fire (wrath) of God. Was it the Romans, or perhaps the factions, that occupied Israel in the first century? Or could it be the Muslims who have fought against Christians for more than 1000 years.

I'll leave that up to you all to test.

Joe

[Bob May]

Hi guys,
Ron said,

"The difference is in who we are looking at, and what we are looking with. If we keep it on the physical, using the physical, and looking only at the physical, we will miss out on what is truly real, that which is spiritual. In time we will all see things correctly, but what a blessing it is to not have to wait, but to be aware of these things even now, by faith. Hope this helps with this discussion."

Ron

Joe said,

"So on the one hand, we know Christ didn't leave them as orphans, when he sent the Holy Spirit upon them. But on the other hand, I believe they were taken to be with the Lord (in the air) and that sight must have been awesome to those who saw it. The Romans, however, thought these signs to be a "departure of the gods...." according to Tacticus, a Roman Historian who wrote of that account."

What do you think?

Joe

I don't know that much about the history, Joe, but I don't doubt that it could have happened. But as far as being "taken up", Rapture, I think it's called, I don't think that is some physical thing. Paul speaks about a man he knew who was taken up to "Paradise" in one instance in which he related the story and the "Third Heaven" in another instance. He came back to talk about it.
I believe his spiritual eyes were opened to that level (heaven) of Reality.

To explain the accounts you mentioned I would have to pose another concept. Because all of creation is so interwoven that to look only in one place is next to impossible.
I look at it this way. The entire Bible and especially the Old Testament are allegory. Stories that tell us about Reality.
There are many levels of Reality.
Does that mean that these things, these stories did not happen? No.
Because God also wrote the world and it can be looked at as a book.

Ro 1:20 "For the INVISIBLE things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"

Job 12:7 "But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee; and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee:
8 Or speak to the earth, and it shall teach thee: and the fishes of the sea shall declare unto thee.
9 Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the LORD hath wrought this?"

The carnal mind can only comprehend the "surface" of things.
When we recieve the Spirit and begin to realise what Grace is we begin to gain the ability to discern the hidden side of both Scipture and the world around us. But this ability must be nourished and developed. Both the world around us and the Bible begins to "read" differently. This growing ability is illustrated in many ways in Scripture. But bottom line is that the scriptures and the world around us begin to tell us a story of "Grace" instead of a harsh God of retribution.

Abram illustrated the belief in the unseen. He left everything he knew for a promise of a better land. (place to dwell) His name changed to Abraham and Righteousness was given him because he believed. This is "Imputed Righteousness". Now this Abraham is the Father of all those who believe,...US!
(Israel after the Spirit, as believers)
He is also the direct ancestor of Jesus. Two geneologies are given for Jesus in the New Testament. One stemming from ADAM or Son of Man. One beginning at Abraham, Faith, "friend of God". (by the way Jesus called the Apostles "friends" and gave the reason he did this.)

Joh 15:15 "Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you FRIENDS; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you."

But back to Abraham. He was given a "Covenant" called Circumcision.

Gen. 17:9 "And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee IN THEIR GENERATIONS.
10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and YOU AND THY SEED AFTER THEE; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be A TOKEN OF THE COVENANT betwixt me and you.
12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child IN YOUR GENERATIONS, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.
13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be IN YOUR FLESH for an EVERLASTING COVENANT.
14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant."

Now this "Covenant" can be looked at as a Law to be kept. A physical requirement to be undertaken as obviously has been practiced for thousands of years.
But it can also be looked at differently as Paul points out;

Rom 2:28 "For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."

The "generations" leading from Abraham, Faith to Jesus, "I and the Father are one" are the pealing away of the flesh of our hearts. (Remember the "coats of skins", plural, that mankind recieved when leaving the Garden) The "generations" are "awakenings" that have been promised to us by a "Covenant" called circumcision.
These are awakenings to Truth and Grace and an "Everlasting Covenant" that Abraham saw "a long way off".
And which we are seeing happen to us today.
Paul said something like; I don't count myself as having accomplished or attained anything. (of course not, it's all a gift.) But he spoke about pressing forward to a high calling. And also said something like we do not yet know what we shall be but we know this we shall be like him.

I don't know that we will ever know the extent, or even whether there is an end to this "pealing away of the flesh" to reveal the Spirit, but as long as we continue to see things "opening up to us" I think we are on the right track.

Bob

[TheForgiven]

Joe

I don't know that much about the history, Joe, but I don't doubt that it could have happened. But as far as being "taken up", Rapture, I think it's called, I don't think that is some physical thing. Paul speaks about a man he knew who was taken up to "Paradise" in one instance in which he related the story and the "Third Heaven" in another instance. He came back to talk about it.
I believe his spiritual eyes were opened to that level (heaven) of Reality.

I myself don't believe in the Rapture as it is taught today. I believe they were raised to be with the Lord in the first century. But prior to 70 AD, they fell into sleep after death. But at the consummation of the ages (New Covenant completed; Church established forever), those who fell asleep in Christ were awakened to be with the Lord. It's my opinion that the angelic beings, and loud voices they heard and saw over Jerusalem (prior to its destruction) were the Saints who were Martyred by evil Jews and Nero Caesar. Since that time, all (in my opinion) go straight to judgment. But let us not forget the resurrection that happened in Matthew 28, when the Lord was raised. That was a visible resurrections that were recorded in scripture, as well as external sources.

Some of what you're saying sounds like Covenant theology. In other words, these believe that our initial salvation is the resurrection from the dead. While there is great truth in that, I do not believe that is the "First Resurrection" spoken of in Revelation. Here's why.

Those who take part in the first resurrection are told that they will be "Priests of God, and they shall reign forever and ever..." We know that being born again (into the Kingdom of God) makes us Priests, just as the New Testament teaches. Christ Jesus became the High Priest after His crucifixion. It wasn't until He was taken into glory, did He become the Great High Priest. Now this doesn't mean that the only time we are a "Royal Priesthood" is while we're on earth. Even after death do we become stewards of the Kingdom, serving and working as Angels for the benefit of the Kingdom. We don't see them, but we know by faith that Christ and His risen Saints serve in many different responsibilities. As Christ stated, "We shall be as the Angels in heaven, serving God...." Our service is in the Kingdom upon this earth; just the same when we're taken into heaven. It's not as though we'll have an eternity watching TV or reading books. Nay, I say that even after death, our service to the Lord, and to His Kingdom, is forever and ever.

Finally, the two theories that I proposes in my previous post was to give us something to discuss, and see if we can't (as a team, and dear brothers in Christ) determine the answer to the mysteries. But only through the Lord will we understand these things. But by our sharing of the word, and studying together, we show that we learn and function as a family, and not as self indulged Learners/Teachers.

In short, I rely on everyone to assist me in learning these spiritual truths. Thus, like you, I do not look at the mere physicality of things, but the spirituality.

I'm very glad to read your posts dear brother in Christ. Thanks for your responses.

P.S. I made a word choice correction in my previous post. I wrote, "I'll ALWAYS propose the Partial Preterist view.." I meant to say, "I'll ALSO...." That's been corrected.

Didn't mean to scare you brother Richard. :lol: Not that Partial Preterism is a reason to fear. We love them just as they love us. Even I often dwell on Partial Preterism, for Partial Futurism, what ever you want to call it.

Joe

[Victor]

Hey there Victor,

Excellent questions! I'm really glad you are here to challenge my interpretations.

A literal "fire from heaven" wasn't "necessary." As explained in a recent post to Joe, the image of "fire from heaven" is "a standard biblical metaphor for His judgment, whether executed literally as in Sodom and Gommorah or figuratively through the vehicle of a invading armies." Does that seem reasonable to you?
Sure! But that's not my point. What I'm saying is that it is incoherent, if we take the camp as Jerusalem, for God to gather the armies all at one place and then send fire from heaven to Jerusalem to destroy it. If the fire means divine destruction (it sure does, Revelation is symbolic), the gathered armies there are meaningless.

So if we want to refer to Jerusalem's destruction in Rev 20 one of the two should have been said:

Armies surround the camp and destroy it or,
A fire from heaven destroys the camp.Both together sound incoherent. I hope you got my message across; it is really a subtle point.


That's an excellent point. I agree that if we begin by assuming that the enemies of God to be destroyed were the invading armies, then the "them" would naturally refer to the same group in all three cases. But the text is ambiguous, and if we knew from other evidence that the target of the destruction was the desecrated fortified Temple, then we would be forced to understand the second "them" as referring to the group in the Temple. Ambiguity with pronouns like "him" and "them" is very common in all languages because the noun for which such pronouns stand is not stated explicitly. A quick google search for "amiguous pronouns" returns 197,000 pages.
Well, the most natural, obvious, simple and direct reading is that the first "them" is the same as the super-close "them" that follows a couple of word later (Occam's razor). But it is not necessarily incorrect to read it another way, though not as smooth.


Also, the traditional interpretaion is essentially meaningless because the term "camp of the saints" is used nowhere else in Scripture and it makes no sense in the context of Rev 20 if we follow what we learned from 2 Peter 3 concerning the "thousand years" as a symbol of "the day of the Lord."
Sorry, I don't understand the connection yet.


Furthermore, in the OT, the Tabernacle was in the center of the camp and it was called "ton hagion" - the exact words found in Rev 20, which also are found in Hebrews in reference to the Tabernacle.
I'm sorry but I didn't understand this either. How does it impact the interpretation of "them"?


And we have the witness of Ezekiel 38 that God would bring Gog against Jerusalem and there would be a "great shaking" in Israel. But then in Ezekiel 39 we see judgment on Gog, so there is tension here I do not yet understand.

Correct - that part is not simple at all. But the first part from Ezekiel 38 does seem to fit perfectly, and no one has yet challenged that part. But I readily admit that I do not understand all of Ezekiel 39 yet, and that it does seem to support the idea that "them" refers to the same group all three times in Rev 20.

But there still is much tension in your interpretaion of the fire "on" Magog, since that fire was to correct the behaviour of Israel - to stop them from polluting the name of God. This judgment fits with my interpretation of Rev 20.
I'll have to go over Eze 38-39 again to get the whole picture.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey there Victor,

Excellent questions! I'm really glad you are here to challenge my interpretations.

A literal "fire from heaven" wasn't "necessary." As explained in a recent post to Joe, the image of "fire from heaven" is "a standard biblical metaphor for His judgment, whether executed literally as in Sodom and Gommorah or figuratively through the vehicle of a invading armies." Does that seem reasonable to you?


Sure! But that's not my point. What I'm saying is that it is incoherent, if we take the camp as Jerusalem, for God to gather the armies all at one place and then send fire from heaven to Jerusalem to destroy it. If the fire means divine destruction (it sure does, Revelation is symbolic), the gathered armies there are meaningless.

So if we want to refer to Jerusalem's destruction in Rev 20 one of the two should have been said:

Armies surround the camp and destroy it or,
A fire from heaven destroys the camp.Both together sound incoherent. I hope you got my message across; it is really a subtle point.

Good morning Victor,

I think I see what you are getting at, but I don't see why you say it would be "incoherent." It seems the most you could say would be that it was "superfluous" to add the symbol "fire from heaven" if it was intended as a symbol indicating the same destruction as that wrought by the invading armies.

But would it be superfluous? I don't think so. If my tentative interpretation is correct, we are dealing here with the entire destruction of Jerusalem in a mere two verses. The armies are mentioned because that corresponds to how God judged Jerusalem, just as in days past when He judged the northern tribes of Israel with the Assyrian armies and the souther tribes of Judah with the Babylonian armies. The "fire from heaven" is added to emphasize that the ultimate source of the judgment and destruction was God in heaven and not the mere human armies that He used (which could not have destroyed Jerusalem had not God given them leave to do so).





Also, the traditional interpretation is essentially meaningless because the term "camp of the saints" is used nowhere else in Scripture and it makes no sense in the context of Rev 20 if we follow what we learned from 2 Peter 3 concerning the "thousand years" as a symbol of "the day of the Lord."

Sorry, I don't understand the connection yet.

That's ok - I'm happy to flesh it out. We have seen that 2 Peter 3 is strongly integrated with Rev 20-21. It seems to me that he actually was explaining the meaning of Rev 20 to those that had read it. He explained that the "thousand years" was a symbol for the "day of God" which was soon to be completed in 70 AD. And from his first sermon on Pentecost we understand that the "last days" began in 30 AD. Thus we have a complete integration of Rev 20 with the general preterist view of the entire Bible with hundreds of passages mutually confirming each other. This is the "context" to which I was refering in the post you quoted. It makes perfect sense to see another extremely abbrevated view of the destruction of Jerusalem in Rev 20 immeditately before the vision of the New Heavens and New Earth, but it makes no sense (to me yet, anyway) to imagine that the "fire of God" came down and destroyed the armies that were attacking Jerusalem in 70 AD and leaving the "camp of the saints" intact since that directly contradicts the rest of the biblical story as well as the historical record.





Furthermore, in the OT, the Tabernacle was in the center of the camp and it was called "ton hagion" - the exact words found in Rev 20, which also are found in Hebrews in reference to the Tabernacle.

I'm sorry but I didn't understand this either. How does it impact the interpretation of "them"?

I mentioned that point because it shows that the translation "camp of the saints" is not necessarily correct. It could be the "camp/fortress surrounding the Temple" and we know that the "camp/fortress surrounding the Temple" was indeed destroyed by "fire from God" (Divine Judgment) in 70 AD.

Thanks bro! I'm lovin' the conversation,

Richard

[Victor]

Good morning Victor,

I think I see what you are getting at, but I don't see why you say it would be "incoherent." It seems the most you could say would be that it was "superfluous" to add the symbol "fire from heaven" if it was intended as a symbol indicating the same destruction as that wrought by the invading armies.
Oh yes, we could also call "superfluous". It also suggests some incoherence, but since this is a highly symbolic passage, we can have some "freedom" in the way we interpret it. But I got my message across; you grasped it.


(...) The "fire from heaven" is added to emphasize that the ultimate source of the judgment and destruction was God in heaven and not the mere human armies that He used (which could not have destroyed Jerusalem had not God given them leave to do so).
Very nice way to put it. It is an admissible way of reading Revelation 20:9.


(...) It makes perfect sense to see another extremely abbrevated view of the destruction of Jerusalem in Rev 20 immeditately before the vision of the New Heavens and New Earth, but it makes no sense (to me yet, anyway) to imagine that the "fire of God" came down and destroyed the armies that were attacking Jerusalem in 70 AD and leaving the "camp of the saints" intact since that directly contradicts the rest of the biblical story as well as the historical record.
Correct, I undertand. If Rev 20:9 is a vision on the attack of Old Covenant Jerusalem, that's the way to read it.

But note that this is one possible interpretation. In the history of the church, the "camp of the saints, the beloved city" is usually interpreted in a diametrically opposite way, referring to "restored Israel" (= the Church; or as some today say, the modern Jewish state).

So, the camp can be interpreted either way (old Jerusalem/NT church), and both "them" and the object of fire will be interpreted accordingly, with the disadvantage that the Camp = old Jerusalem interpretation brings a shift from the meaning of "them" in the immediate context.

Concerning the vision in Ezekiel: we can take it as a parallel vision of Rev 20 or as an inspiration/type that gives the imagery background to Revelation 20. You're assuming the first.

What is then the meaning of "Israel" in Ezekiel 38-39? If it is the unfaithful Old Covenant people, it would be a dissonant note (though not necessarily a wrong reading), because the chapters are sandwiched between two visions where Israel = the Church. Ezekiel 37 talks about the spiritual resurrection (dry bones) and the New Covenant in terms of the reuniting of the northern and south kingdoms. Ezekiel 40f speaks of the temple as a vision of the New Testament age. And in Ezekiel 38-39 there's no condemnation at all on Israel; it only speaks of their past sins ('they will not pollute my name anymore') which can be read as the Gospel message of forgiveness. It uses the same tone of address as in Ezekiel 37 and Ezekiel 40-48. Israel seems to be safe and protected by God. He gathers the nations to show His power.

The latter chapters of Revelation seem to nearly follow the thematic flow of Ezekiel 37-48. There are too many point of contact: resurrection, the new kingdom, birds eat dead bodies, Gog/Magog battling "Jerusalem", the seer on a high mountain, New Temple/Jerusalem and the river of life. Here are some striking parallels:

Revelation 19:17-18 = Ezekiel 39:17
Revelation 19:21 = Ezekiel 39:20
Revelation 20:5 = Ezekiel 37:10
Revelation 20:4-6 = Ezekiel 37:21
Revelation 20:8 = Ezekiel 38:2-15
Revelation 20:9 = Ezekiel 38:22
Revelation 21:3 = Ezekiel 37:27
Revelation 21:10 = Ezekiel 40:2
Revelation 21:12-13 = Ezekiel 48:31-35
Revelation 21:15 = Ezekiel 40:5
Revelation 21:23 = Ezekiel 43:2
Revelation 22:2 = Ezekiel 47:12There's also the issue of the fire from heaven. Though a possible way of reading it is saying that it is directed to Jerusalem, the background in Ezekiel strongly suggests that it is not.


Apocalyptic literature often mentions nations gathered surrounding Jerusalem, and the object of punishment seems to be the invader, not Jerusalem. Joel and Zechariah for example come to mind. Outside the canon we can find other examples. In a Jewish commentary on the Torah, for instance, the fire is on Gog/Magog (http://books.google.com.br/books?id=K0mjfGyCBXAC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0#PPA575,M1):
Behold, a king shall arise from the land of Magog at the end of days. He shall gather kings crowned with crowns, and prefects ... and all nations shall obey him. They shall prepare for war in the land of Israel against the sons of the exile. However, the Lord is near them at their hour of distress, and all of them will be killed by a burning breath in a consuming fire that comes from beneath the Throne of Glory. (Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan, commentary on Numbers 11:26)
So the background seems to point to the nations being consumed by the fire, not Jerusalem.

And there are yet other factors that make the whole picture complicated. Satan goes to the lake of fire, but Revelation seems to state that the beast and the false prophet were already there, as also shown in the previous chapter (Revelation 19:20; 20:10). How can the beast be destroyed before the fall of Jerusalem?

[Victor]

That's an excellent insight Victor! I checked with Metzger commentary on textual variations and he says that the heurethesetai reading is the oldest. It is what the NU chose. Here are his comments:
3.10 (http://javascript<b></b>:BwRef('2Pe 3:10')) eu`reqh,setai {D}
At the close of ver. 10 (http://javascript<b></b>:BwRef('2Pe 3:10')) the extant witnesses present a wide variety of readings, none of which seems to be original. The oldest reading, and the one which best explains the origin of the others that have been preserved, is eu`reqh,setai, which is attested by a B K P 424c 1175 1739txt 1852 syrph, hmg arm Origen. In view of the difficulty of extracting any acceptable sense from the passage, it is not strange that copyists and translators introduced a variety of modifications. Thus, several witnesses retain eu`reqh,setai but qualify it with other words: (a) the Sahidic version and one manuscript of the Harclean Syriac version insert the negative, and (b) the Bodmer Papyrus (î72) adds luo,mena ('the earth and the things in it will be found dissolved') – an expedient, however, that overloads the context with three instances of the same verb. Other witnesses either (c) omit eu`reqh,setai and the accompanying clause (so Y vg Pelagius al), or substitute another verb that gives more or less good sense. Thus (d) C reads avfanisqh,sontai ('will disappear'), and (e) A 048 049 056 0142 33 614 Byz Lect syrh copbo eth al read katakah,setai ('will be burned up').
Because eu`reqh,setai, though the oldest of the extant readings, seems to be devoid of meaning in the context (even the expedient of punctuating as a question, 'Will the earth and the things in it be found?' fails to commend itself), various conjectural emendations have been proposed: (a) after e;rga the word a;rga has fallen out

Page 637
(Bradshaw), 'the earth and the things in it will be found useless'; (b) eu`reqh,setai is a scribal corruption of r`uh,setai or r`eu,setai (Hort),2 (mk:@MSITStore:c:\program%20files\bibleworks%207\d atabases\metzger.chm::/bbw-metzger-ch22.htm#fn22002) 'the earth and the things in it will flow'; (c) surruh,setai (Naber), '… will flow together'; (d) evkpurwqh,setai (Olivier), '… will be burnt to ashes'; (e) avrqh,setai (J. B. Mayor), '… will be taken away'; (f) kriqh,setai (Eb. Nestle), '… will be judged'; (g) ivaqh,setai (or evxiaqh,setai) (Chase), '… will be healed (thoroughly)'; (h) purwqh,setai (Vansittart), '… will be burned.'

The fact that there are many variations among manuscripts shows how disputed the meaning of the verse is. It is interesting that the very first example of variation that Metzger chooses to mention is the one about the negative of heurethesetai instead of heurethesetai only. "Thus, several witnesses retain eu`reqh,setai but qualify it with other words: (a) the Sahidic version and one manuscript of the Harclean Syriac version insert the negative."


We don't know why some copyists opted for using the very opposite concept, that is, emending the negative ("not discovered/found") but this option may somehow be an influence of Revelation 20:11, because this verse uses this same exact "not" + "found" expression:
Rev 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place (ouk heurethe) for them.

So we see that 2 Peter 3:10 was not easy to understand when it said that the works would be burned or disclosed but the latter reading really connects with Revelation 20. Why so? Because "the works on earth will be disclosed" seems parallel to the idea of "opening the books" in which all works of the resurrected are recorded as they stand before the Throne of Judgment:
Rev 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

So the works are disclosed because the books are opened! That's why the text says that they are judged according to their works. Their deeds are laid bare. Their works are disclosed. This deepens the link between 2 Peter 3 and Revelation 20!

[Victor]

2 Peter is on Spoke 17 of the Bible Wheel, corresponding to the Hebrew Letter Pey. There are many Pey-based concepts in 2 Peter, specially the theme of Parousia (coming/presence).

The essence of the Letter Pey (P) (http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Peh_coming.asp) as explained in the Bible itself has to do with the idea of opening, disclosing, appearing, breaking, face, presence and suddeness. These concepts are often expressed with words that begin with the P-R root (http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Peh_AV.asp#PehResh). PaRousia for example uses this root.

Now the interesting thing is that in Revelation 20 we read about many ideas that are linked to the symbolic meaning of Pey:

Rev 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face (Panim) the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found (=discovering) no place for them.
Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before (l'Pnei) God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
The theme of opening is very strong here. And the theme of recording works in a book is also very reminiscent of another book on Spoke 17:

Malachi 3:16 Then they that feared the LORD spake often one to another: and the LORD hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the LORD, and that thought upon his name.
The kings of old had books where they recorded the remarkable deeds of his people. This links to the first book on Spoke 17:

Est 6:1 On that night could not the king sleep, and he commanded to bring the book of records of the chronicles; and they were read before the king.
Est 6:2 And it was found written, that Mordecai had told of Bigthana and Teresh, two of the king's chamberlains, the keepers of the door, who sought to lay hand on the king Ahasuerus.
Est 6:3 And the king said, What honour and dignity hath been done to Mordecai for this? Then said the king's servants that ministered unto him, There is nothing done for him.
Revelation 20 is on Spoke 20 (Resh) of the Wheel of Revelation. It is not on Spoke 17 but has many ideas related to Pey. Why is that? There seems to be a thematic interchange between Pey and Resh.

For example, in Revelation 17 there are many ideas relating to the 20th Letter: the mystery of the "seven heads (rosh)" of the beast, the last mention of wisdom in the Bible, the harlot (Pritzut) and her licentiousness/showing off, her resemblance with Madam Folly of Proverbs, the fulfillment of God's vengeance in Luke's Apocalypse, the use of the Lukan Rhema (word) and so on and so forth.

Spokes 17 and 20 have a common thematic river in Revelation and they swap ideas and links back and forth. It seems that this interchange is due to the fact that Pey and Resh form the strong P-R Hebrew root, therefore linking them in the context of Revelation. And why in Revelation? Well, maybe because Revelation is the ultimate book on the PaRousia of Christ! It is the Top/Sum (Resh) of His Revelation (Pey).

[TheForgiven]

Bothers Richard and Victor are blowing me away. :lol: Makes me want to take Greek.

I'm clueless at this point. But I do enjoy the reading. :D

Joe

[Victor]

Bothers Richard and Victor are blowing me away. :lol: Makes me want to take Greek.

I'm clueless at this point. But I do enjoy the reading. :D

Joe
Hi Joe!

I know there's a lot of stuff that sounds Greek in this last couple of posts. :lol: But I could say that the whole point of my second to last post was to show how deep the relationship between 2 Peter 3 and Revelation 20 is. They have a combination of Greek words that link these two portions of Scripture. Indeed, there's a lot of contact between Peter's Epistles and Revelation, as Richard pointed out in the thread Did the Apostle Peter read the Book of Revelation? (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=666)

Concerning my last post, it has to do with a very interesting fact:

Revelation has 22 chapters.
The Hebrew Alphabet has 22 letters.When we study Revelation we find that the meaning of the Hebrew letters perfectly correlate with the corresponding chapters of Revelation!

For example, the fourth letter is Dalet, which means "Door". And what do we find when we read the fourth chapter of Revelation?

Revelation 4:1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven.
That is amazing to me! :eek: And the pattern runs through all 22 chapters.

I wrote something more advanced in my last post. It is a little study on combination of letters instead of isolated letters as in the example of Dalet above. I know most people won't understand the Pey-Resh study because first we should learn the ABC. But I wanted to have that little insight put down in writing for the record.

Victor

[TheForgiven]

Hi Joe!

I know there's a lot of stuff that sounds Greek in this last couple of posts. But I could say that the whole point of my second to last post was to show how deep the relationship between 2 Peter 3 and Revelation 20 is. They have a combination of Greek words that link these two portions of Scripture. Indeed, there's a lot of contact between Peter's Epistles and Revelation, as Richard pointed out in the thread Did the Apostle Peter read the Book of Revelation?

Concerning my last post, it has to do with a very interesting fact:

* Revelation has 22 chapters.
* The Hebrew Alphabet has 22 letters.

When we study Revelation we find that the meaning of the Hebrew letters perfectly correlate with the corresponding chapters of Revelation!

For example, the fourth letter is Dalet, which means "Door". And what do we find when we read the fourth chapter of Revelation?

Revelation 4:1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven.

That is amazing to me! And the pattern runs through all 22 chapters.

I wrote something more advanced in my last post. It is a little study on combination of letters instead of isolated letters as in the example of Dalet above. I know most people won't understand the Pey-Resh study because first we should learn the ABC. But I wanted to have that little insight put down in writing for the record.

Victor

Hi Victor! :thumb: That's a connect I've never noticed before. I'm going to study that a bit further because there might actually be a connection there.

This is pretty good.

Anyways, I've always wanted to study Greek, but I didn't want to be another person who always claims that the Bible scholars made another mistake. :lol: All in all, I still use the New King James Version, although I fully dislike the use of the word "Lucifer", knowing that the 4rth century had a different meaning to what it does now. "Lucifer" was meant to describe the bright morning star Venus. But somewhere along the line, that became the name of Satan, which it is not, neither in Hebrew tradition, nor traditional Christian. If anything, that passage (Isaiah 14:12) has nothing to do with the fall of Satan, but the fall of the King of Babylon (Neb...) And that prophesy came true. The king of Babylon exulted himself over his kingdom and wealth, and God brought him low to the ground, where he lived like a pig for seven years, and then his kingdom was restored after he blessed God, recognizing that it is God who blesses, builds, and establishes Kingdoms.

At any rate, I like the NKJV, but I can't stand the 1611 version....it's too archaic.....

My goodness, I took this thread off topic. I apologize about that Richard. :D

Getting back to the discussion, Jesus coming in like manner, IMO, represented the clouds of wrath and destruction. He left in a cloud, and returned in a cloud, though the Bible never says anything about an H2O type of cloud....as in water.

Any thoughts?

Joe

[Victor]

Hey Joe, what you think of my comments on the relationship between the latter chapters of both Ezekiel and Revelation and how it can affect the interpretation of Revelation 20 (Gog/Magog? It was on post #130 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=8628&postcount=130).

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Concerning the vision in Ezekiel: we can take it as a parallel vision of Rev 20 or as an inspiration/type that gives the imagery background to Revelation 20. You're assuming the first.

What is then the meaning of "Israel" in Ezekiel 38-39? If it is the unfaithful Old Covenant people, it would be a dissonant note (though not necessarily a wrong reading), because the chapters are sandwiched between two visions where Israel = the Church. Ezekiel 37 talks about the spiritual resurrection (dry bones) and the New Covenant in terms of the reuniting of the northern and south kingdoms. Ezekiel 40f speaks of the temple as a vision of the New Testament age. And in Ezekiel 38-39 there's no condemnation at all on Israel; it only speaks of their past sins ('they will not pollute my name anymore') which can be read as the Gospel message of forgiveness. It uses the same tone of address as in Ezekiel 37 and Ezekiel 40-48. Israel seems to be safe and protected by God. He gathers the nations to show His power.

The latter chapters of Revelation seem to nearly follow the thematic flow of Ezekiel 37-48. There are too many point of contact: resurrection, the new kingdom, birds eat dead bodies, Gog/Magog battling "Jerusalem", the seer on a high mountain, New Temple/Jerusalem and the river of life. Here are some striking parallels:

Revelation 19:17-18 = Ezekiel 39:17
Revelation 19:21 = Ezekiel 39:20
Revelation 20:5 = Ezekiel 37:10
Revelation 20:4-6 = Ezekiel 37:21
Revelation 20:8 = Ezekiel 38:2-15
Revelation 20:9 = Ezekiel 38:22
Revelation 21:3 = Ezekiel 37:27
Revelation 21:10 = Ezekiel 40:2
Revelation 21:12-13 = Ezekiel 48:31-35
Revelation 21:15 = Ezekiel 40:5
Revelation 21:23 = Ezekiel 43:2
Revelation 22:2 = Ezekiel 47:12There's also the issue of the fire from heaven. Though a possible way of reading it is saying that it is directed to Jerusalem, the background in Ezekiel strongly suggests that it is not.



Apocalyptic literature often mentions nations gathered surrounding Jerusalem, and the object of punishment seems to be the invader, not Jerusalem. Joel and Zechariah for example come to mind. Outside the canon we can find other examples. In a Jewish commentary on the Torah, for instance, the fire is on Gog/Magog (http://books.google.com.br/books?id=K0mjfGyCBXAC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0#PPA575,M1):
Behold, a king shall arise from the land of Magog at the end of days. He shall gather kings crowned with crowns, and prefects ... and all nations shall obey him. They shall prepare for war in the land of Israel against the sons of the exile. However, the Lord is near them at their hour of distress, and all of them will be killed by a burning breath in a consuming fire that comes from beneath the Throne of Glory. (Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan, commentary on Numbers 11:26)So the background seems to point to the nations being consumed by the fire, not Jerusalem.

And there are yet other factors that make the whole picture complicated. Satan goes to the lake of fire, but Revelation seems to state that the beast and the false prophet were already there, as also shown in the previous chapter (Revelation 19:20; 20:10). How can the beast be destroyed before the fall of Jerusalem?

That's an excellent synopsis of the many parallels. I agree completely that the prophecies in Ezek 37 and Ezek 40+ speak of the Church under the types of Israel and the Temple. David is cleary used as a type of Christ in Ezek 37:24, Pentecost in Ezek 37:14, etc. And Ezek 38 seems to match perfectly with the destruction of 70 AD. So here we have what seems to me to be a perfect correlation with everything except for the "fire from heaven" destroying the armies of Gog and Magog which is the topic of Rev 20:9b and Ezek 39. My tentative solution of the "fire from God" representing His judgment on Jerusalem seems "possible" but it's not satisfying to me as yet.

As for the beast being "destroyed before the fall of Jerusalem." That is not what the text says if we are correct in interpreting all of Rev 20 as a recapitulation of the whole story of the destruction of Jerusalem that was already told and retold in Rev 11, Rev 16, and Rev 17-19. Rev 20 is then seen as a recap of the story as it relates to the devil rather than his agents (the beast and the false prophet). He suffers the same fate as his agents as told in the previous recaps, and he is said to be tossed in the lake of fire where they were tossed in the previous tellings of the same story. It is important to note that the text does not explicitly state they "were already there." It could simpy using them as identifiers of the lake of fire. That is, the devil was tossed in the lake of fire at the end of this recap just as the beast and the false prophet were tossed in that same lake at the end of the previous telling.

But I do agree that this particular piece of the puzzle is still puzzling. But the big picture seems to be pretty clear. The difficult passage rests primarily on the latter part of a single verse, namely Rev 20:9b.

Richard

[Victor]

That's an excellent synopsis of the many parallels. I agree completely that the prophecies in Ezek 37 and Ezek 40+ speak of the Church under the types of Israel and the Temple. David is cleary used as a type of Christ in Ezek 37:24, Pentecost in Ezek 37:14, etc. And Ezek 38 seems to match perfectly with the destruction of 70 AD. So here we have what seems to me to be a perfect correlation with everything except for the "fire from heaven" destroying the armies of Gog and Magog which is the topic of Rev 20:9b and Ezek 39. My tentative solution of the "fire from God" representing His judgment on Jerusalem seems "possible" but it's not satisfying to me as yet.

It doesn't seem to "match perfectly". Note that in the passages both immediately before and after Ezekiel 38-39 we agree that Israel = Church. Why would the meaning of Israel change in the chapters in between? Plus the depiction of Israel in chapter 38 doesn't sound like an apostate, harlot-like Jerusalem. It sounds like a quiet place, where people leave peacefully, cleansed from their sins. That would be a nice parallel with Revelation 20 in the mention of the "beloved city": it could be the Church, the Beloved of Christ, those who have the Peace of God.

The "Camp/City = unfaithful Jerusalem" interpretation appears dissonant in light of the background provided by Ezekiel.


As for the beast being "destroyed before the fall of Jerusalem." That is not what the text says if we are correct in interpreting all of Rev 20 as a recapitulation of the whole story of the destruction of Jerusalem that was already told and retold in Rev 11, Rev 16, and Rev 17-19. Rev 20 is then seen as a recap of the story as it relates to the devil rather than his agents (the beast and the false prophet). He suffers the same fate as his agents as told in the previous recaps, and he is said to be tossed in the lake of fire where they were tossed in the previous tellings of the same story. It is important to note that the text does not explicitly state they "were already there." It could simpy using them as identifiers of the lake of fire. That is, the devil was tossed in the lake of fire at the end of this recap just as the beast and the false prophet were tossed in that same lake at the end of the previous telling.

Richard
I agree with you there. It can be interpreted that way.

The problem is that it is hard to read Revelation from a chronological point of view. We know that "before" and "after" often indicate things that happen sequentially in a very literal way (like the well-defined things in Revelation 20 that take place "before" and "after" the thousand years).

So in Revelation 19 the beast and the false prophet go to the lake of fire. Then "after" the Millenium Satan is sent there too. Should that be read literally as a sequential vision? Or do we a have a sequence of continuous recaps of the same events?

It can be read one way of the other. If it is the second option, why does Revelation care to state that certain things take place "before" and "after" the Millenium? Remember that there were no chapter breaks when the book was written, so the binding of Satan in early chapter 20 immediately follows the destruction of the beast and the false prophet late in chapter 19.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

It doesn't seem to "match perfectly". Note that in the passages both immediately before and after Ezekiel 38-39 we agree that Israel = Church. Why would the meaning of Israel change in the chapters in between?

I think the confusion is caused by the distinction between "Israel" and the "Church." When I read Ezekiel 37-40 I see only one "Israel" but that one "Israel" is divided into two camps - the remnant that believed in Christ and those who rejected him. Thus I see God giving prophecy about Israel in general, with aspects applying to both groups within "Israel."

Ezekiel 37: It seems pretty clear to me that this is a prophecy of Pentecost when God poured out His Spirit upon the remnant that believed in Him when He visited them in the first century. There are passages here that cohere with Paul's description of the Church:

Ezekiel 37:27 My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
2 Corinthians 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Ezekiel 38 describes a huge army that comes up against Israel when they are dwelling in apparent safety:
Ezekiel 38:14-16 herefore, son of man, prophesy and say unto Gog, Thus saith the Lord GOD; In that day when my people of Israel dwelleth safely, shalt thou not know it? 15 And thou shalt come from thy place out of the north parts, thou, and many people with thee, all of them riding upon horses, a great company, and a mighty army: 16 And thou shalt come up against my people of Israel, as a cloud to cover the land; it shall be in the latter days, and I will bring thee against my land, that the heathen may know me, when I shall be sanctified in thee, O Gog, before their eyes.

This reminds me of Paul's warning:
1 Thessalonians 5:2-3 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. 3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.

I don't see any indication of the spiritual condition of Israel in Ezekiel 38, but in Ezekiel 39 we do see that the sins of Israel are in view:
Ezekiel 39:6-8 And I will send a fire on Magog, and among them that dwell carelessly in the isles: and they shall know that I am the LORD. 7 So will I make my holy name known in the midst of my people Israel; and I will not let them pollute my holy name any more: and the heathen shall know that I am the LORD, the Holy One in Israel. 8 Behold, it is come, and it is done, saith the Lord GOD; this is the day whereof I have spoken.

It is interesting that the phrase "it is done" also appears in the description of the war of Armageddon in Revelation:
Revelation 16:17-21 And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; and there came a great voice out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, It is done. 18 And there were voices, and thunders, and lightnings; and there was a great earthquake, such as was not since men were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake, and so great. 19 And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath. 20 And every island fled away, and the mountains were not found. 21 And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, every stone about the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof was exceeding great.

The "great hail" is mentioned in Ezekiel 38:
Ezekiel 38:22 And I will plead against him with pestilence and with blood; and I will rain upon him, and upon his bands, and upon the many people that are with him, an overflowing rain, and great hailstones, fire, and brimstone. So it seems pretter clear that elements of Ezekiel 38-39 are found scattered throughout the various descriptions of the judgment on Jerusalem/Babylon if that is, in fact that correct interpretation of the "great city" in Revelation. Of special note is the fact that it is the inhabitants of the "great city" in Rev 16 that are rained upon with great hailstones. This should inform any interpretation of how Gog and Magog are interpreted in Revelation.



Plus the depiction of Israel in chapter 38 doesn't sound like an apostate, harlot-like Jerusalem. It sounds like a quiet place, where people leave peacefully, cleansed from their sins. That would be a nice parallel with Revelation 20 in the mention of the "beloved city": it could be the Church, the Beloved of Christ, those who have the Peace of God.

The "Camp/City = unfaithful Jerusalem" interpretation appears dissonant in light of the background provided by Ezekiel.

I agree that is sounds like "a quiet place, where people leave peacefully" but I would not go so far as to say "cleansed of their sins" because that idea is not in the text as far as I can tell, and the NT gives us the warning that destruction would come at a time when they felt secure in Jerusalem.

I don't see any dissonance per se - the text lacks any emphasis upon the moral condition of Israel in Ezek 38 good or bad, and the only explicit reference is to their sins when they polluted the name of God.




As for the beast being "destroyed before the fall of Jerusalem." That is not what the text says if we are correct in interpreting all of Rev 20 as a recapitulation of the whole story of the destruction of Jerusalem that was already told and retold in Rev 11, Rev 16, and Rev 17-19. Rev 20 is then seen as a recap of the story as it relates to the devil rather than his agents (the beast and the false prophet). He suffers the same fate as his agents as told in the previous recaps, and he is said to be tossed in the lake of fire where they were tossed in the previous tellings of the same story. It is important to note that the text does not explicitly state they "were already there." It could simpy using them as identifiers of the lake of fire. That is, the devil was tossed in the lake of fire at the end of this recap just as the beast and the false prophet were tossed in that same lake at the end of the previous telling.

I agree with you there. It can be interpreted that way.

The problem is that it is hard to read Revelation from a chronological point of view. We know that "before" and "after" often indicate things that happen sequentially in a very literal way (like the well-defined things in Revelation 20 that take place "before" and "after" the thousand years).

That is a very persistent misunderstanding. The word "after" does not actually occur in the Greek text of Rev 20 in reference to the thousand years. The text can be interpreted as saying "at the time the thousand years is to be completed" meaning events that we to happen near the end of the thousand years and that would involve the consummation of the "thousand years" which was the "last days" = the "Day of the Lord" which began when Satan was cast out of heaven and bound so that he could not deceive the nations to raise armies before the time appointed. Then he was loosed not "after the thousand years had expired" but "near the time when the thousand years were to be completed" which is the last 3.5 years when Satan raised the Romans and their mercenary armies from all the nations of the world to destroy Jerusalem and the Temple.



So in Revelation 19 the beast and the false prophet go to the lake of fire. Then "after" the Millenium Satan is sent there too. Should that be read literally as a sequential vision? Or do we a have a sequence of continuous recaps of the same events?

I think a recap is the only possibility if I am correct that the binding of Satan happened at the Cross, and then he was loosed for a "little season" near the end of the last days just before 70 AD.

Also note that we have the precedent of a "recap" in Rev 12, and elsewhere in Rev too I believe.



It can be read one way of the other. If it is the second option, why does Revelation care to state that certain things take place "before" and "after" the Millenium? Remember that there were no chapter breaks when the book was written, so the binding of Satan in early chapter 20 immediately follows the destruction of the beast and the false prophet late in chapter 19.
Again, the text never says anything about "before" the millenium as far as I recall, and the word "after" does not occur in the Greek text either. If we follow Peter's teachings (which were probably written as an explanation of the meaning of the thousand years after he read the Book of Revelation) then we see that the "thousand years" is a symbol of the "last days" which began in 30 AD and was consummated in 70 AD. Every reference to "after the thousand years" should be understood as "at the time when the thousand years were to be completed."

Richard

[Victor]

I think the confusion is caused by the distinction between "Israel" and the "Church." When I read Ezekiel 37-40 I see only one "Israel" but that one "Israel" is divided into two camps - the remnant that believed in Christ and those who rejected him. Thus I see God giving prophecy about Israel in general, with aspects applying to both groups within "Israel."
That's a way of seeing it. It would be an explanation on why the meaning of "Israel" shifts back and forth in the prophecy. In OT prophecy things were not fully clear about the New Covenant so when God says "Israel" He can either mean fleshly Israel or the Church. We should discern which one is being referred to depending on context. And the context of chapter 38 (chapter 37) favors Israel = Church, but that is not conclusive.


Ezekiel 37: It seems pretty clear to me that this is a prophecy of Pentecost when God poured out His Spirit upon the remnant that believed in Him when He visited them in the first century. There are passages here that cohere with Paul's description of the Church:

Ezekiel 37:27 My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
2 Corinthians 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Ezekiel 38 describes a huge army that comes up against Israel when they are dwelling in apparent safety:
Ezekiel 38:14-16 herefore, son of man, prophesy and say unto Gog, Thus saith the Lord GOD; In that day when my people of Israel dwelleth safely, shalt thou not know it? 15 And thou shalt come from thy place out of the north parts, thou, and many people with thee, all of them riding upon horses, a great company, and a mighty army: 16 And thou shalt come up against my people of Israel, as a cloud to cover the land; it shall be in the latter days, and I will bring thee against my land, that the heathen may know me, when I shall be sanctified in thee, O Gog, before their eyes.

This reminds me of Paul's warning:
1 Thessalonians 5:2-3 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. 3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.

This shows that Israel's safety in Ezekiel 38 can be harmonized with the sense of security the Jews in first century had. But the description of Israel's safety in Ezekiel 38 is also harmonized with no problem at all with the peace and safety enjoyed by the church. She has the Peace of Christ and lives without walls. Just like you linked Ezek to 1Thes, I can link it to Zech:
Eze 38:11 And thou shalt say, I will go up to the land of unwalled villages; I will go to them that are at rest, that dwell safely, all of them dwelling without walls, and having neither bars nor gates.


Zech 2:4 And said unto him, Run, speak to this young man, saying, Jerusalem shall be inhabited as towns without walls for the multitude of men and cattle therein.
And Zechariah chapter 2 has an application in the Church. So it can go one way or the other in that particular regard.

The whole prophecy in Ezekiel 38 and 39 is centered on Gog's defeat; it is really hard to find any reference at all to a destruction upon Jerusalem. It seems like the other way around: when the nations are about to attack Israel, she is delivered, a common theme that is found in Joel 3, Zechariah 14, Daniel 11... And Israel buries Gog and his armies.

Here is the prophecy in its entirety:


Chapter 38
1 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=eze+38:1&sr=1&t=kjv)And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, 2 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=eze+38:2&sr=1&t=kjv)Son of man, set thy face against Gog, the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy against him, 3 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=eze+38:3&sr=1&t=kjv)and say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against thee, O Gog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal: 4 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=eze+38:4&sr=1&t=kjv)and I will turn thee back, and put hooks into thy jaws, and I will bring thee forth, and all thine army, horses and horsemen, all of them clothed with all sorts of armor, even a great company with bucklers and shields, all of them handling swords: 5 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=eze+38:5&sr=1&t=kjv)Persia, Ethiopia, and Libya with them; all of them with shield and helmet: 6 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=eze+38:6&sr=1&t=kjv)Gomer, and all his bands; the house of Togar'mah of the north quarters, and all his bands: and many people with thee.

7 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=eze+38:7&sr=1&t=kjv)Be thou prepared, and prepare for thyself, thou, and all thy company that are assembled unto thee, and be thou a guard unto them. 8 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=eze+38:8&sr=1&t=kjv)After many days thou shalt be visited: in the latter years thou shalt come into the land that is brought back from the sword, and is gathered out of many people [a reference to restored Israel of 37:21,22, the Church], against the mountains of Israel, which have been always waste: but it is brought forth out of the nations, and they shall dwell safely all of them [it seems to report the reader back to 37:25,26, where restored Israel dwells in the land, safe because of God's presence]. 9 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=eze+38:9&sr=1&t=kjv)Thou shalt ascend and come like a storm, thou shalt be like a cloud to cover the land, thou, and all thy bands, and many people with thee.

10 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=eze+38:10&sr=1&t=kjv)Thus saith the Lord GOD; It shall also come to pass, that at the same time shall things come into thy mind, and thou shalt think an evil thought: 11 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=eze+38:11&sr=1&t=kjv)and thou shalt say, I will go up to the land of unwalled villages; I will go to them that are at rest, that dwell safely, all of them dwelling without walls, and having neither bars nor gates, 12 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=eze+38:12&sr=1&t=kjv)to take a spoil, and to take a prey; to turn thine hand upon the desolate places that are now inhabited, and upon the people that are gathered out of the nations [once again the reference to reunited Israel of chapter 37], which have gotten cattle and goods, that dwell in the midst of the land. 13 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=eze+38:13&sr=1&t=kjv)Sheba, and Dedan, and the merchants of Tarshish, with all the young lions thereof, shall say unto thee, Art thou come to take a spoil? hast thou gathered thy company to take a prey? to carry away silver and gold, to take away cattle and goods, to take a great spoil? [sounds like they will not take a spoil, will they?]

14 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=eze+38:14&sr=1&t=kjv)Therefore, son of man, prophesy and say unto Gog, Thus saith the Lord GOD; In that day when my people of Israel dwelleth safely, shalt thou not know it? 15 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=eze+38:15&sr=1&t=kjv)And thou shalt come from thy place out of the north parts, thou, and many people with thee, all of them riding upon horses, a great company, and a mighty army: 16 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=eze+38:16&sr=1&t=kjv)and thou shalt come up against my people of Israel, as a cloud to cover the land; it shall be in the latter days, and I will bring thee against my land, that the heathen may know me, when I shall be sanctified in thee, O Gog, before their eyes.

17 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=eze+38:17&sr=1&t=kjv)Thus saith the Lord GOD; Art thou he of whom I have spoken in old time by my servants the prophets of Israel, which prophesied in those days many years, that I would bring thee against them? 18 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=eze+38:18&sr=1&t=kjv)And it shall come to pass at the same time when Gog shall come against the land of Israel, saith the Lord GOD, that my fury shall come up in my face. 19 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=eze+38:19&sr=1&t=kjv)For in my jealousy and in the fire of my wrath have I spoken, Surely in that day there shall be a great shaking in the land of Israel; 20 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=eze+38:20&sr=1&t=kjv)so that the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the heaven, and the beasts of the field, and all creeping things that creep upon the earth, and all the men that are upon the face of the earth, shall shake at my presence, and the mountans shall be thrown down, and the steep places shall fall, and every wall shall fall to the ground [just like Joel and Zechariah!]. 21 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=eze+38:21&sr=1&t=kjv)And I will call for a sword against him throughout all my mountains, saith the Lord GOD: every man's sword shall be against his brother. 22 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=eze+38:22&sr=1&t=kjv)And I will plead against him with pestilence and with blood; and I will rain upon him, and upon his bands, and upon the many people that are with him, an overflowing rain, and great hailstones, fire, and brimstone [the hailstones are on him, not Jerusalem!]. 23 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=eze+38:23&sr=1&t=kjv)Thus will I magnify myself, and sanctify myself; and I will be known in the eyes of many nations, and they shall know that I am the LORD.

Chapter 39

1 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=eze+39:1&sr=1&t=kjv)Therefore, thou son of man, prophesy against Gog, and say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against thee, O Gog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal: 2 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=eze+39:2&sr=1&t=kjv)and I will turn thee back, and leave but the sixth part of thee, and will cause thee to come up from the north parts, and will bring thee upon the mountains of Israel: 3 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=eze+39:3&sr=1&t=kjv)and I will smite thy bow out of thy left hand, and will cause thine arrows to fall out of thy right hand. 4 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=eze+39:4&sr=1&t=kjv)Thou shalt fall upon the mountains of Israel [do the Gentile armies in 70CE fall upon the mountains of Israel?], thou, and all thy bands, and the people that is with thee: I will give thee unto the ravenous birds of every sort, and to the beasts of the field, to be devoured. 5 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=eze+39:5&sr=1&t=kjv)Thou shalt fall upon the open field: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD. 6 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=eze+39:6&sr=1&t=kjv)And I will send a fire on Magog, and among them that dwell carelessly in the isles [just like God "sends a fire" against several nations in Amos]: and they shall know that I am the LORD.

7 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=eze+39:7&sr=1&t=kjv)So will I make my holy name known in the midst of my people Israel; and I will not let them pollute my holy name any more [the same New Covenant language of 37:23]: and the heathen shall know that I am the LORD, the Holy One in Israel. 8 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=eze+39:8&sr=1&t=kjv)Behold, it is come, and it is done, saith the Lord GOD; this is the day whereof I have spoken.

9 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=eze+39:9&sr=1&t=kjv)And they that dwell in the cities of Israel shall go forth, and shall set on fire and burn the weapons [how come do they do it if Israel has been destroyed?], both the shields and the bucklers, the bows and the arrows, and the handstaves, and the spears, and they shall burn them with fire seven years: 10 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=eze+39:10&sr=1&t=kjv)so that they shall take no wood out of the field, neither cut down any out of the forests; for they shall burn the weapons with fire: and they shall spoil those that spoiled them, and rob those that robbed them [sounds like Israel and Gog's nations have distinct fates], saith the Lord GOD.

11 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=eze+39:11&sr=1&t=kjv)And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will give unto Gog a place there of graves in Israel, the valley of the passengers on the east of the sea; and it shall stop the noses of the passengers: and there shall they bury Gog and all his multitude: and they shall call it, The valley of Ha'mon–gog. 12 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=eze+39:12&sr=1&t=kjv)And seven months shall the house of Israel be burying of them, that they may cleanse the land. 13 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=eze+39:13&sr=1&t=kjv)Yea, all the people of the land shall bury them; and it shall be to them a renown the day that I shall be glorified, saith the Lord GOD. 14 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=eze+39:14&sr=1&t=kjv)And they shall sever out men of continual employment, passing through the land, to bury with the passengers those that remain upon the face of the earth, to cleanse it: after the end of seven months shall they search. 15 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=eze+39:15&sr=1&t=kjv)And the passengers that pass through the land, when any seeth a man's bone, then shall he set up a sign by it, till the buriers have buried it in the valley of Ha'mon–gog. 16 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=eze+39:16&sr=1&t=kjv)And also the name of the city shall be Hamo'nah Thus shall they cleanse the land.

17 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=eze+39:17&sr=1&t=kjv)And, thou son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD; Speak unto every feathered fowl, and to every beast of the field, Assemble yourselves, and come; gather yourselves on every side to my sacrifice that I do sacrifice for you, even a great sacrifice upon the mountains of Israel, that ye may eat flesh, and drink blood. 18 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=eze+39:18&sr=1&t=kjv)Ye shall eat the flesh of the mighty, and drink the blood of the princes of the earth, of rams, of lambs, and of goats, of bullocks, all of them fatlings of Bashan. 19 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=eze+39:19&sr=1&t=kjv)And ye shall eat fat till ye be full, and drink blood till ye be drunken, of my sacrifice which I have sacrificed for you. 20 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=eze+39:20&sr=1&t=kjv)Thus ye shall be filled at my table with horses and chariots, with mighty men, and with all men of war, saith the Lord GOD.

21 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=eze+39:21&sr=1&t=kjv)And I will set my glory among the heathen, and all the heathen shall see my judgment that I have executed, and my hand that I have laid upon them. 22 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=eze+39:22&sr=1&t=kjv)So the house of Israel shall know that I am the LORD their God from that day and forward. 23 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=eze+39:23&sr=1&t=kjv)And the heathen shall know that the house of Israel went into captivity for their iniquity: because they trespassed against me, therefore hid I my face from them, and gave them into the hand of their enemies; so fell they all by the sword. 24 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=eze+39:24&sr=1&t=kjv)According to their uncleanness and according to their transgressions have I done unto them, and hid my face from them.

25 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=eze+39:25&sr=1&t=kjv)Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Now will I bring again the captivity of Jacob, and have mercy upon the whole house of Israel, and will be jealous for my holy name; 26 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=eze+39:26&sr=1&t=kjv)after that they have borne their shame, and all their trespasses whereby they have trespassed against me, when they dwelt safely in their land, and none made them afraid. 27 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=eze+39:27&sr=1&t=kjv)When I have brought them again from the people, and gathered them out of their enemies' lands, and am sanctified in them in the sight of many nations; 28 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=eze+39:28&sr=1&t=kjv)then shall they know that I am the LORD their God, which caused them to be led into captivity among the heathen: but I have gathered them unto their own land, and have left none of them any more there. 29 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=eze+39:29&sr=1&t=kjv)Neither will I hide my face any more from them: for I have poured out my Spirit upon the house of Israel, saith the Lord GOD.


The whole spirit of the prophecy seems to be against Gog and the nations, not against Israel.

[Brother Les]

YLTEzekiel 39

21And I have given My honour among nations, And seen have all the nations My Judgment that I have done, And My hand that I have laid on them.

22And known have the house of Israel that I [am] Jehovah their God, From that day and henceforth.

23And known have the nations that for their iniquity, Removed have the house of Israel, Because they have trespassed against Me, And I do hide My face from them, And give them into the hand of their adversaries, And they fall by sword -- all of them.
24According to their uncleanness, And according to their transgressions, I have done with them, And I do hide My face from them.

25Therefore, thus said the Lord Jehovah: Now do I bring back the captivity of Jacob, And I have pitied all the house of Israel, And have been zealous for My holy name.

26And they have forgotten their shame, And all their trespass that they trespassed against Me, In their dwelling on their land confidently and none troubling.

27In My bringing them back from the peoples, I have assembled them from the lands of their enemies, And I have been sanctified in them before the eyes of the many nations, 28And they have known that I [am] Jehovah their God, In My removing them unto the nations, And I have gathered them unto their land, And I leave none of them any more there.
29And I hide not any more My face from them, In that I have poured out My spirit on the house of Israel, An affirmation of the Lord Jehovah!'

What do you make of these verses that are in the same chapter? This sounds like Ephraim coming back from the Disporia. This could only happen in the New Covenant Age. As 'The House of Israel' was divorced from God in the Mosaic Covenant context.


Brother Les

[Victor]

What do you make of these verses that are in the same chapter? This sounds like Ephraim coming back from the Disporia. This could only happen in the New Covenant Age. As 'The House of Israel' was divorced from God in the Mosaic Covenant context.


Brother Les
Sorry bro, but I don't understand what your point is. Can you explain it further to me? :confused: