God shall add unto him the plagues

[grafted branch]

You could also make the case that it applied only to the messengers to the churches, as the letters were addressed individually to them. I wouldn't argue for that either, I think the "If ever any" makes it a general warning to all.

I agree with you on this

I understand, and I think I understand your reasons.

But is there anything in Scripture which would indicate what the Scriptural meaning of these plagues would be? The narratives given seem detailed and precise, at least to me.

I agree the descriptions of the plagues are very detailed. I know there are Preterist who have tried to tie a literal interpretation to events in Jerusalem up to 70AD. I’ve looked at some of their explanations and I can only see where there are similarities but I’m not convinced of a fulfillment. As you say the plagues have detailed and precise descriptions.

Amos 8:11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:

I think this verse is one of the best verses that show a plague of famine isn’t necessarily a literal plague. There are other well known spiritual meanings for things such as water, where Jesus tells the woman at the well that He will give her living water.

So, for example, if we look at the third bowl being poured out on the rivers and fountains of water and they became blood, a spiritual interpretation would involve the gospel or water being contaminated with blood, the blood of bulls and goats that was not possible to take away sins. Put another way, the new covenant gets contaminated with the old covenant rituals.

 

[Davidpt]

I agree with you on this


I agree the descriptions of the plagues are very detailed. I know there are Preterist who have tried to tie a literal interpretation to events in Jerusalem up to 70AD. I’ve looked at some of their explanations and I can only see where there are similarities but I’m not convinced of a fulfillment. As you say the plagues have detailed and precise descriptions.

Amos 8:11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:

I think this verse is one of the best verses that show a plague of famine isn’t necessarily a literal plague. There are other well known spiritual meanings for things such as water, where Jesus tells the woman at the well that He will give her living water.

So, for example, if we look at the third bowl being poured out on the rivers and fountains of water and they became blood, a spiritual interpretation would involve the gospel or water being contaminated with blood, the blood of bulls and goats that was not possible to take away sins. Put another way, the new covenant gets contaminated with the old covenant rituals.

Per this subject pertaining to the OP, it seems to me several things seem rather obvious.

1)

Revelation 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.


As of these visions, meaning the days John was currently living in, John indicated that the beast 'is not', and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit. Can't ascend out of there unless you are in there first. Therefore, 'is not' apparently equals is in the pit at the time of John having seen these visions. IOW, shall ascend out of the bottomless pit was meaning in the future from John's perspective at the time.

2)

Revelation 15:1 And I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvellous, seven angels having the seven last plagues; for in them is filled up the wrath of God.


Can't be the 7 last plagues if there are more plagues at a later time that follow these last 7 plagues.

3)

Revelation 16:1 And I heard a great voice out of the temple saying to the seven angels, Go your ways, and pour out the vials of the wrath of God upon the earth.
2 And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image.

Here's one of the 7 last plagues, verse 2 above. Take note who it is being poured out on---the men which had the mark of the beast, and them which worshipped his image.

Obviously, none of these last plagues can be poured out until the beast that was, and is not, ascends out of the bottomless pit first. IOW, what's involving all of Revelation ch 13, for one. Which involves the 42 month reign of the beast. Which means the 42 month reign of the beast runs it's course, and once that is fulfilled the 7 last plagues begin following that.

4)

Which means that everyone being targeted by the 7 last plagues, they all have to be living in the same era of time, and that it is after the beast ascends out of the pit first, then reigns for 42 months.

5)

heareth the words of the prophecy of this book For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:


The key here appears to be this--heareth the words of the prophecy of this book. IOW, fully understands these words. But who fully understands the words of the prophecy of this book? Look at all of the different interpretations. How can that be so if everyone are fully understanding the words of the prophecy of this book?

 

[Timtofly]

I agree that those who deliberately and intentionally add or subtract will be held accountable but in order to participate in the plagues wouldn’t someone have to be alive and on earth? Or would you say the plagues can happen to the dead?

Why are these plagues unique from any that have ever happened in the past? Moses in Egypt experienced plagues, and the book of Revelation had not even been written yet. Any one would be punished at the time they changed the meaning or added to the book when they were still alive, not that they would have to return and experience them when they actually happened.

 

[grafted branch]

Which means that everyone being targeted by the 7 last plagues, they all have to be living in the same era of time, and that it is after the beast ascends out of the pit first, then reigns for 42 months.

Are you saying that the last plagues take place after the millennium, after Satan has been loosed? Isn’t Satans little season a plague?

The key here appears to be this--heareth the words of the prophecy of this book. IOW, fully understands these words. But who fully understands the words of the prophecy of this book? Look at all of the different interpretations. How can that be so if everyone are fully understanding the words of the prophecy of this book?

I don’t think we will ever fully understand or agree on Revelation until we are out of our sin cursed bodies. If the warning is meant for that time when we do understand then that would imply that we are capable of committing sin at that time also. I would have to say the warning meant for anyone who hears applies to both anyone who physically hears and those who “have an hear”.

 

[grafted branch]

Why are these plagues unique from any that have ever happened in the past? Moses in Egypt experienced plagues, and the book of Revelation had not even been written yet. Any one would be punished at the time they changed the meaning or added to the book when they were still alive, not that they would have to return and experience them when they actually happened.

So do you think the plagues are literal or spiritual?

 

[Randy Kluth]

Ok, if I understand you then the last plagues in Revelation 16 are the absolute last time a plague happens, after that specific time period no plague can ever happen again.

In Revelation 16:12-13 the sixth bowl is poured out and the spirits of devils work miracles and they gather them together to battle. The miracles performed by the false prophet in Revelation 13:14 are said to deceive those who dwell on the earth.

After the millennium Satan deceives and gathers to battle. If the last plague occurred prior to the millennium then what qualifies as a plague?

<4127> plege a blow, stripe, wound; an affliction, plague

Wouldn’t Satans little season that takes place after the millennium be considered a plague?

In context, the "7 last plagues" are called last because it ends the Kingdom of the Antichrist--not because there will never again be a future "plague" of any sort. So, I wouldn't say they are the last "plagues." There will be a plague in the Millennium...

Zech 14.18 If the Egyptian people do not go up and take part, they will have no rain. The Lord will bring on them the plague he inflicts on the nations that do not go up to celebrate the Festival of Tabernacles. 19 This will be the punishment of Egypt and the punishment of all the nations that do not go up to celebrate the Festival of Tabernacles.

 

[marks]

I agree the descriptions of the plagues are very detailed. I know there are Preterist who have tried to tie a literal interpretation to events in Jerusalem up to 70AD. I’ve looked at some of their explanations and I can only see where there are similarities but I’m not convinced of a fulfillment. As you say the plagues have detailed and precise descriptions.

Have you read Sir Isaac Newton's Observations on the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John?

Here it is if you want to:

Sir Isaac Newton’s Daniel and the Apocalypse (1733)

Best known for his advancements in scientific thought Sir Isaac Newton was also big into his apocalyptic prophecy.

publicdomainreview.org

I think this book is a great example of a man seeking spiritual interpretations of prophecies. Perhaps one of the smarter men who have lived, maybe. He is said to have written a million pages of commentary on Scripture. This book is a very detailed interpretation of each passage, showing historical fulfillments of the beasts and the plagues and all. This pope was this, and that war was that.

To me, fascinating, but unintelligable, as to why it would be this pope and not that pope, or this war but not that war, do you know what I mean? To me interpretations like these seem arbitrary if not linked to something direct in Scripture. For me, narrative prophecy needs to be understood that way, but bringing us to the next point:

Amos 8:11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:

I think this verse is one of the best verses that show a plague of famine isn’t necessarily a literal plague.

I agree. But I'd like to point out that this passage tells us it doesn't mean a literal famine of food or water, but of the Word of the LORD. We re told this, so this interpretation has Biblical Authority. No guesswork, no unsubstantiated interpretations.

And I'm not going to come outright and say that such kind of interpretation - "I just know this water isn't literal water" - is false, only, if it doesn't come from the actual text, then it simply lacks Biblical Authority.

There are other well known spiritual meanings for things such as water, where Jesus tells the woman at the well that He will give her living water.

Yes, however, what is the rule by which we know when we are talking about literal water and when we are not?

So, for example, if we look at the third bowl being poured out on the rivers and fountains of water and they became blood, a spiritual interpretation would involve the gospel or water being contaminated with blood, the blood of bulls and goats that was not possible to take away sins. Put another way, the new covenant gets contaminated with the old covenant rituals.

That's an interesting idea. On a side note, what are your thoughts on this passage:

Revelation 15:2-4 KJV
2) And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God.
3) And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints.
4) Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest.

What does it mean that the sea of glass is mingled with fire? But not to detract from our current conversation! I'm just interested in your thoughts on that.

Back to the plagues:

Revelation 16:4-7 KJV
4) And the third angel poured out his vial upon the rivers and fountains of waters; and they became blood.
5) And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus.
6) For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and thou hast given them blood to drink; for they are worthy.
7) And I heard another out of the altar say, Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous are thy judgments.

On the face of this passage, those who shed the blood of God's people are now given blood instead of water to drink, God's righteous judgment.

Your suggestion is waters mixed with blood show New Covenant and Old Covenant mixed, that is, turning new covenant believers legalistic. Is that the idea? How does that fit with them having shed the blood of saints and prophets?

The life is in the blood. This is the blood of the new covenant. From His side came water mixed with blood. Do not eat animals with their blood. You shall poor the blood at the base of the altar. There are many many references, how do we know which is appropriate, if we don't have something specific to go by?

It seems to me that this is how we've come to so very many different interpretations of the Bible. Those who say, No, it's a real, literal plague, God turns the rivers of water to blood, to give these bloodthirsty murderers blood for their thirst, these will all agree on what it means. Those who say, the water means this, and the rivers mean that, and the blood means this, and so on, these will each need to determine what the elements refer to, and by what I've seen, for the most part, the answers are all different.

So how do we all get on the same page?

Much love!

 

[Davidpt]

Are you saying that the last plagues take place after the millennium, after Satan has been loosed? Isn’t Satans little season a plague?

Hmmm..I see where you are going with that, the fact I'm a Premil. Very good point then, on your part by bringing that up.

I don’t think we will ever fully understand or agree on Revelation until we are out of our sin cursed bodies

Good point. You indeed might be right about that, but even so, these 7 last plagues still only make sense if being poured out on ppl living in the same era of time. For example. Someone living in the 1st century, someone living in the 5th century, and someone living in the 21st century, how can these all be living in the same era of time? Obviously, they can't be, therefore, the 7 last plagues can't be poured out on all of these.

You have proposed that these plagues are spiritual not literal. But how does that help solve anything one way or the other unless they all are living in the same era of time, meaning the ones being targeted by these 7 last plagues?

IMO, take the first last 7 plagues, for instance. I see it making zero sense to take a grievous sore in a spiritual sense rather than a literal sense. As if, though God did things like that in OT times, unleashed literal plagues like that, He no longer unleashes literal plagues during the NT era. Why not, though?

 

[BlessedPeace]

It sounds like it could be fun to speculate with you on some things!



You could also make the case that it applied only to the messengers to the churches, as the letters were addressed individually to them. I wouldn't argue for that either, I think the "If ever any" makes it a general warning to all.


I understand, and I think I understand your reasons.

But is there anything in Scripture which would indicate what the Scriptural meaning of these plagues would be? The narratives given seem detailed and precise, at least to me.

Much love!

So,it would be an ongoing plague for millennia then?

 

[grafted branch]

you read Sir Isaac Newton's Observations on the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John?

Here it is if you want to:

No, I haven’t, thanks for the link. I’ll take a look.

And I'm not going to come outright and say that such kind of interpretation - "I just know this water isn't literal water" - is false, only, if it doesn't come from the actual text, then it simply lacks Biblical Authority.

You are correct, there are many such places where a verse can be literal or spiritual and we have to make the decision. That’s why I was debating more on why it can’t be a physical plague. If it can be shown that the plagues can be physical without causing issues with other scriptures then that’s where we have to leave it.

Yes, however, what is the rule by which we know when we are talking about literal water and when we are not?

Well people who tend to spiritualize will use Matthew 13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them.

The thought is that every verse pertaining to Christ has a spiritual meaning. The book of Revelation starts out with “The Revelation of Jesus Christ”.

What does it mean that the sea of glass is mingled with fire? But not to detract from our current conversation! I'm just interested in your thoughts on that.

Well, obviously sea water doesn’t mingle with fire literally, although it is possible to have an oil fire on water, or some such thing.

I personally think this is meant spiritually, the sea being the waters in Revelation 17:15 peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues. The fire being the whore burned with fire in Revelation 17:16.

The life is in the blood. This is the blood of the new covenant. From His side came water mixed with blood. Do not eat animals with their blood. You shall poor the blood at the base of the altar. There are many many references, how do we know which is appropriate, if we don't have something specific to go by?

We don’t, in John 6:54 we are told we must drink His blood, but it doesn’t make sense to apply that drinking of blood to those in Revelation 16:6 who have been given blood to drink.

There are many paths that can be followed but there is really only one path that ultimately has all verses agreeing. I have found that a good rule of thumb is look for Christ in the verse we are studying.

Also keep in mind that John was speaking to the circumcision. In Galatians 2:9 an agreement was made that James, Peter, and John would go to the circumcision while Paul and Barnabas should go to the heathen. There is no evidence that this agreement was ever rescinded.

So how do we all get on the same page?

I don’t think we ever will be on the same page on all verses while here on earth. I think God made the Bible complex enough that we will have to continually read it, study it, and yes debate it as sword sharpens sword.

 

[grafted branch]

IMO, take the first last 7 plagues, for instance. I see it making zero sense to take a grievous sore in a spiritual sense rather than a literal sense. As if, though God did things like that in OT times, unleashed literal plagues like that, He no longer unleashes literal plagues during the NT era. Why not, though?

1 Corinthians 15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

I really don’t have an issue with the plagues being literal, it’s just that if they ever do happen literally I think it had to be back in 70AD, with spiritual plagues happening after that.

You might be able argue that the plagues will happen literally before the millennium and spiritually after but then you would still have to understand the grievous sores spiritually.

 

[grafted branch]

In context, the "7 last plagues" are called last because it ends the Kingdom of the Antichrist--not because there will never again be a future "plague" of any sort. So, I wouldn't say they are the last "plagues." There will be a plague in the Millennium...

Zech 14.18 If the Egyptian people do not go up and take part, they will have no rain. The Lord[b] will bring on them the plague he inflicts on the nations that do not go up to celebrate the Festival of Tabernacles. 19 This will be the punishment of Egypt and the punishment of all the nations that do not go up to celebrate the Festival of Tabernacles.

1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour.

Here John declares it is the last hour <5610>. If the last plagues are still future and take place in the Antichrist kingdom then the “last hour” is still on going. This “last hour” would also be when Jesus comes back. The problem is Matthew 24:36 says no man knows the day or hour<5610>.

 

[Randy Kluth]

1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour.

Here John declares it is the last hour <5610>. If the last plagues are still future and take place in the Antichrist kingdom then the “last hour” is still on going. This “last hour” would also be when Jesus comes back. The problem is Matthew 24:36 says no man knows the day or hour<5610>.

I agree. John is here using the term "last hour" idiomatically, to refer to the "final stretch" of the age, which he was identifying as Christianity in the present age.

 

[grafted branch]

I agree. John is here using the term "last hour" idiomatically, to refer to the "final stretch" of the age, which he was identifying as Christianity in the present age.

But then we do know the hour <5610> that Jesus returns. How does that square with Matthew 24:36? Are you thinking that one is a literal hour and the other isn’t?

 

[marks]

You are correct, there are many such places where a verse can be literal or spiritual and we have to make the decision. That’s why I was debating more on why it can’t be a physical plague. If it can be shown that the plagues can be physical without causing issues with other scriptures then that’s where we have to leave it.

And you've hit on a good example in this your question about the plagues. It's an interesting discussion!

BTW . . . good luck with Newton. I had to force myself to read it, being so very bone dry. Like someone said, dive down deep, come up dry.

Well people who tend to spiritualize will use Matthew 13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them.

The thought is that every verse pertaining to Christ has a spiritual meaning. The book of Revelation starts out with “The Revelation of Jesus Christ”.

Yes, I've heard the arguments. "Which He sent and signified . . ."

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ", I used to think this meant "Jesus is Revealed", except I've learned that's not actually the meaning of the passage.


Here we see that Jesus Christ is in the Genetive Case, which indicates possession or origin.

This is Jesus Christ's Revelation, that God gave to Him, so He could show His servants what must quickly happen. He signified it, and sent it to His servant John. The Revelation is not a revealing of Jesus, it's a revealing of what will happen, and God gave it to Jesus for Him to then show it to His servants. For that purpose He sent it by His angel to John.

Concerning that this was signified, some interpret that as "sign-i-fied", as if to say, Jesus converted everything to symbols. But that's actually opposite what this means. It's to indicate something.

John 21:18-19 KJV
18) Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.
19) This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.

Here is another place the same word is used. Jesus tells Peter what's going to happen, and by this, Jesus was signifying to Peter how he would die. Not hidden, clarified.

Now, in saying, "will take you where you don't want to go", well, Peter was crucified. He must have had a special horror of the thought of crucifixion, for this to mean what it says. Which gives a little more understanding to Peter's denial of Jesus, considering Peter was watching Jesus meekly heading down a path that would only lead to the cross. Jesus wasn't fighting, and Peter was horrified of being crucified.

Much love!

 

[grafted branch]

Yes, I've heard the arguments. "Which He sent and signified . . ."

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ", I used to think this meant "Jesus is Revealed", except I've learned that's not actually the meaning of the passage.

Here we see that Jesus Christ is in the Genetive Case, which indicates possession or origin.

This is Jesus Christ's Revelation, that God gave to Him, so He could show His servants what must quickly happen. He signified it, and sent it to His servant John. The Revelation is not a revealing of Jesus, it's a revealing of what will happen, and God gave it to Jesus for Him to then show it to His servants. For that purpose He sent it by His angel to John.

Concerning that this was signified, some interpret that as "sign-i-fied", as if to say, Jesus converted everything to symbols. But that's actually opposite what this means. It's to indicate something.

John 21:18-19 KJV
18) Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.
19) This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.

Here is another place the same word is used. Jesus tells Peter what's going to happen, and by this, Jesus was signifying to Peter how he would die. Not hidden, clarified.

Now, in saying, "will take you where you don't want to go", well, Peter was crucified. He must have had a special horror of the thought of crucifixion, for this to mean what it says. Which gives a little more understanding to Peter's denial of Jesus, considering Peter was watching Jesus meekly heading down a path that would only lead to the cross. Jesus wasn't fighting, and Peter was horrified of being crucified.

Fair enough, I will admit a person can over spiritualize verses. The book of Revelation is full of symbolism and much of the book is given to John when he was in the spirit. I suppose where to draw the line on what’s literal and what’s not is influenced to at least some degree on how we interpret the rest of the Bible.

 

[marks]

Fair enough, I will admit a person can over spiritualize verses. The book of Revelation is full of symbolism and much of the book is given to John when he was in the spirit. I suppose where to draw the line on what’s literal and what’s not is influenced to at least some degree on how we interpret the rest of the Bible.

I think that is really the heart of this discussion, where do we draw the line?

I go back to, where it says a symbol, then we know, and where it gives the meaning, then we know. For example (I forget if I've said this already )

Revelation 12:3 KJV
And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

Revelation 12:9 KJV
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.

There is no question here that this dragon symbolizes, literally signifies the Devil, Satan, because we are told straight out.

Revelation 16:13 KJV
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.

They are "like frogs", not frogs themselves. Just a very simple example.

A propositional statement:

Revelation 16:12 KJV
And the sixth angel poured out his vial upon the great river Euphrates; and the water thereof was dried up, that the way of the kings of the east might be prepared.

A simple narrative giving an order of events, and the reason why it happens.

I try and stay as close to this standard as I can.

Much love!

 

[Randy Kluth]

But then we do know the hour <5610> that Jesus returns. How does that square with Matthew 24:36? Are you thinking that one is a literal hour and the other isn’t?

Words mean what they mean depending on how the user wishes to use the term and understood by the context in which he uses it. An idiomatic use of the term "last hour" is not literal and has nothing to do with predicting the literal day and hour that Christ will return.

 

[lforrest]

Has anyone heard of this rev22 warning causing someone to receive plagues in their lifetime?

 

[grafted branch]

Revelation 16:12 KJV
And the sixth angel poured out his vial upon the great river Euphrates; and the water thereof was dried up, that the way of the kings of the east might be prepared.

A simple narrative giving an order of events, and the reason why it happens.

I try and stay as close to this standard as I can.

Let’s take a look at what the sixth bowl being poured out literally looks like.

Revelation 16:12 And the sixth angel poured out his vial upon the great river Euphrates; and the water thereof was dried up, that the way of the kings of the east might be prepared. 13 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.



First off we have to have a literal angel with a literal bowl literally pouring out its contents into the literal river Euphrates.

Next, the water drys up, dry water is water droplets that are surrounded by a silica coating which consists of 95% liquid water, but the silica coating prevents the water droplets from combining and turning back into a bulk liquid. The result is a white powder.

The purpose of drying the water is to make way for the kings of the east. The Euphrates river starts in Turkey, flows through Syria and Iraq.

Currently according to Wikipedia there is a total of 30 kings and monarchs in the entire world. Let’s just suppose that all 30 kings are in view and that the Euphrates river being dry has now made a way for these kings.

The three spirits are like frogs, so as you said we know that it isn’t literal frogs, but these spirits come out of the mouth of the dragon, beast, and false prophet. I take it you don’t see the dragon or beast as literal but if you see the false prophet as literal then a literal spirit will have to exit his literal body, literally through his mouth.

These spirits work miracles, which is by the way the only place we see spirits performing miracles, these spirits go forth to the kings of the earth (which is currently 30) and also to the whole world. Unless these three spirits are omnipresent they are going to have to cover the 196,900,000 square miles of the earth one mile at a time. 196,900,000 divided by 3 = 65,633,333 square miles for each spirit to cover. If each spirit was to cover 1,000 square miles each day it would take 65,633 days to cover the whole earth. That amounts to approximately 179 years. By the time these spirits cover the earth several generations of people will have been born and died.
Now let’s look at the three spirits just making contact with the people on earth. Currently there are about 8,100,000,000 people on earth. 8,100,000,000 divided by 3 = 2,700,000,000 people. If each spirit visited 73,972 people per day they would cover the entire current population once every 100 years, but by that time they do that, they would have to start over again because the first people they visited would be dead by then. Keep in mind these spirits not only have to make contact with people, they have to gather them for the battle. This also has to take place with no electricity because during the fifth bowl the kingdom is in literal darkness.