Could Ezekiel 37, 38 and 39 all be post millennial?

[Zao is life]

In God’s eternal Kingdom, there will be no more warfare, no more resistance, and no more learning of conflict—because it will be finished once and for all.

Selah!

It says,

In God's kingdom Eden, there was no warfare, no resistance, and no learning of conflict - because it was impossible that Satan be permitted to test Adam, and it was impossible for Adam to rebel against the Word of God, and die.

Therefore, in God’s eternal Kingdom, there will be no more warfare, no more resistance, and no more learning of conflict—because it will be impossible that Satan be permitted to test the resurrected sons of Adam, and it will be impossible that God should be able to destroy them - body and soul - by fire that comes down from God out of heaven.

 

[Zao is life]

LOL. I am still waiting for your answer to my question I asked you. You avoided answer it by bringing up the subject about the modern weapons which has nothing to do with my question.

"Do you know what eating the flesh spiritually means in Scripture?"

My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. -- John 6:55

Jesus was killed.

You say so many things that are very insightful, showing that what you said can only be spiritually discerned.

Then you say things that show that your own idea has added to parts of scripture what scripture is saying, giving it a meaning that isn't there

- because you're only human too.

That's why it's not nice when you ask questions in a condescending way about something that is written in scripture - without just saying plainly what you believe it means, as you did now in the case of @Davidpt

Knowledge puffs up brother. Understanding of the Word also. I'm sure you agree that it means nothing to Christ, to whom all knowledge and understanding of the words of God belong (the understanding given to us does not belong to us - it's of God and belongs to Him alone).

Christ cares about the way you word things, brother - especially because of the understanding you do have.

 

[Zao is life]

In Ezekiel 39 not only does it mention an X amount of years, it also mentions an X amount of months. But why if neither are involving a literal amount of time specified as years, and specified as months? Why not be consistent if one is God? By saying the burning of the weapons and the cleansing of the land involves 7 years. Or that both involve 7 months. Why would it matter if neither is meaning a literal amount of time to begin with? Not only that, Ezekiel 39 would be the only place in the Bible, where a cardinal number, such as 7, followed by years, isn't literally meaning the amount of years specified. Wow, Ezekiel 39 is the exception even though everywhere else 7 years are mentioned, it literally means 7 years. Who cares about patterns? Right?

In Revelation it's unclean spirits like frogs coming out of the mouths of the dragon, the beast, and the false prophet, gathering them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty, and they are spirits of devils, working miracles, and they go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world.

It's a sword coming out of the mouth of Christ by which they are slain, killed, dead.

It's not traditional man-made weapons of war spoken of in the battle of Armageddon.

But the flesh in Revelation 19 most certainly does represent killing - you are correct.

Copy @TribulationSigns

 

[Zao is life]

God's teaches us all to carefully read His Word as He hides wisdom for those who are His. Deut 29:29

I wish God would be able to get through - to all - that no mortal this side of the return of Christ is correct about his understanding of every part of scripture.

Then we wouldn't have anyone daring to "remind" ANYONE who disagrees with some or a lot of what he says - and who already knows that God teaches us all to carefully read His Word as He hides wisdom for those who are His - that "God teaches us all to carefully read His Word as He hides wisdom for those who are His"

- because we would all know that the person who disagrees with some or a lot of what we say might be correct about some of what they say when they disagree with us (maybe even a lot of what they say when they disagree with us).

 

[Zao is life]

If Ezekiel 38 is meant to be taken literally, then, yes, the evidence would be clear, but I'm not so sure that's the case. No one can point to any event in history where what is described there happened and it makes no sense to apply it to the future. That's why there's many different interpretations of Ezekiel 38 and 39. If you were honest, you would admit that it's hard to reconcile what is written there with the rest of scripture, especially if you take it all literally.

- Unless it's referring to things that will take place a the close of a thousand years into the new heavens and new earth and the VISIONS Ezekiel saw when he saw a new city, new temple, the river of life etc etc - are all symbolic representations of heavenly things and spiritual realities on a new earth.

 

[Zao is life]

While we wait for Douggg to give his explanation, I'll answer that by referring you to one of the primary and crucial rules of Biblical interpretations.

..and the hubris and condescension stops anyone who could learn anything from reading any further.

 

[Zao is life]

What insincerity? I made light of you criticizing a type of people of which include you. That was sincere. I sincerely believe that what you said is something that can be said about yourself. When your many false interpretations of scripture are tested, they often prove to fall short. That describes you very well. I sincerely believe that.

But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have one Teacher and you are all brothers. -- Matthew 23:8

The problem starts when those who believe they have the "correct understanding of these things" begin implying or even stating that the reason any brother might disagree is because "he has less understanding than me", and talking condescendingly about the one they are talking to - even while they are talking TO them.

Leading to the saints driving all away - both other saints looking for deeper understanding of certain scriptures - and those who could have heard and believed the gospel

- because we are all so foolish and full of it.

We should all stop talking because we will be abased in that day - but the "Douggs" will all be exalted

- and it will serve us right.

 

[Zao is life]

It’s rare, but I agree with everything written above, there’s nothing to add to what’s already true. While we may differ on the true nature of Babylon, let’s delight in the agreement! @Douggg you should read the above and seek to learn how to skillfully divide the Word of Truth.

Even though it all be true God agrees with none of it because He disagrees with they way it's delivered.

 

[Zao is life]

I got it the first time which is why I called you out lol.

And while we are all still calling one another out we lose everyone else, and none of us realizes the error in our understanding.

 

[Zao is life]

Maybe the feasting birds are literal, maybe they are not. But one reason they could be literal is that they would obviously aid in cleansing the land of all the corpses littered throughout. But you probably don't even believe there will be dead bodies everywhere or anywhere. That it's meaning something spiritual instead.

BTW, I'm not intimidated in the least by you continuing to insist I lack spiritual discernment. I'm not losing sleep over your opinion, that's for sure. All I'm attempting to do is try and agree with the texts, not make nonsense out of them like you are trying to do in Ezekiel 38-39. God is the speaker in those 2 chapters. And that He is telling us that the house of Israel meant, He is hiding His face from them until He executes His judgment on Gog and his multitude. Then once He does that He will no longer be hiding His face from them.

Clearly, this judgment on Gog and his multitude is yet to happen. And that those currently occupying that region fit to a T who God would still be hiding His face from. And that nothing in Ezekiel 38 nor 39 can be involving Revelation 20:7-9, since it would be absurd to place 7 years of weapon burning and 7 months of cleansing the land, after satan's little season but prior to the GWTJ. It obviously can't fit there. Yet, it has to fit somewhere, and it has to fit after God executes His judgment on Gog and his multitude. Otherwise, we have to assume God is a liar since He said there would be an aftermath involving 7 years and involving 7 months, if there is no such aftermath. Maybe you are ok with making God out to be a liar. But I'm not ok with doing it.

God is not telling them that He will hide His face from them until He has judged Gog.

In Ezekiel 39:23-29 is God going back to the same thing He was telling them about in Ezekiel 36 and 37, and reminding them of what He was talking about in Ezekiel 36 & 37.

Take the chapter divisions out of the text of Ezekiel 36 - 39 (because they were inserted in 1227 AD), and put back the Markan Sandwich that the chapters took away from our understanding (i.e until we understand it).

-- A Markan Sandwich is a literary technique used where a narrative is interrupted by another narrative, creating a structure that resembles a sandwich:

The technique involves starting with a narrative (the first piece of bread), inserting a second narrative (the meat), and then closing with the first narrative (the second piece of bread).

This method allows the author to juxtapose two narratives, and the technique is not just a literary device but also serves to enrich the understanding of the narratives by layering different stories and teachings, allowing readers to see new connections and meanings. --

 

[TribulationSigns]

My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. -- John 6:55

Jesus was killed.

And?

You say so many things that are very insightful, showing that what you said can only be spiritually discerned.

What I said wasn't false.

Then you say things that show that your own idea has added to parts of scripture what scripture is saying, giving it a meaning that isn't there

- because you're only human too.

I am human yet I do have spiritual discernment, gift by Christ, to know what Christ talked about. In case you did not bother to check with the context.

Joh 6:50-58
(50) This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
(51) I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
(52) The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
(53) Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
(54) Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
(55) For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
(56) He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
(57) As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
(58) This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

Do you understand what Christ is actually teaching in this passage? Nothing you’ve said addresses or refutes the substance of my previous posts. Instead, the focus has shifted to my tone rather than the text itself.

If you believe my interpretation is incorrect, then please show from Scripture where the error is. Let’s deal with the context, the language, and the full counsel of God’s Word—not personal reactions. The issue should be what Christ meant, not whether my wording offended you.

That's why it's not nice when you ask questions in a condescending way about something that is written in scripture - without just saying plainly what you believe it means, as you did now in the case of @Davidpt

It was not condescending at all. My intent was not to belittle him, but to encourage him to dig deeper into the Scriptures and search out the matter carefully.

The Bible itself teaches us to study diligently and compare Scripture with Scripture (2 Timothy 2:15; 1 Corinthians 2:13). Even the Bereans were commended because they “searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so” (Acts 17:11).

Asking questions is often a way to prompt someone to examine the text more closely rather than simply accepting a surface-level answer. My goal was to point him back to God’s Word so he could see the answer there for himself.

Knowledge puffs up brother. Understanding of the Word also. I'm sure you agree that it means nothing to Christ, to whom all knowledge and understanding of the words of God belong (the understanding given to us does not belong to us - it's of God and belongs to Him alone).

Have you actually refuted anything I wrote to Davidpt yet? I haven’t seen a single point addressed from Scripture. If my interpretation is wrong, then show me clearly from the text where it fails. Otherwise, dismissing it without engagement isn’t a rebuttal, amen?

Christ cares about the way you word things, brother - especially because of the understanding you do have.

I am not worried about that. Christ warned me about people who do not like to hear the truth I testified.

Gal 4:16
(16) Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?

 

[TribulationSigns]

You have quite a few inaccuracies here, which as I mentioned in an earlier post, does not come as a surprise to me. I note the lack of supporting evidence in your opening paragraph.

You claim I have ‘quite a few inaccuracies,’ yet you haven’t demonstrated a single one from Scripture. Simply asserting that I’m wrong is not the same as proving it. Where is the chapter and verse that corrects me? Where is the contextual analysis that overturns my argument?

Pointing out an alleged ‘lack of supporting evidence’ while offering none of your own does not strengthen your case. If my position is truly flawed, it should be easy to expose it biblically. Until then, your statement remains an assertion—not a refutation.

A misunderstanding of Revelation 17 & 18 will instantly cause you to misinterpret Revelation 11:3-12

Not at all. That’s simply an assertion. If you believe I’ve misunderstood Revelation 17–18 and that it necessarily distorts my understanding of Revelation 11:3–12, then demonstrate it from the text, please.


Show specifically where my interpretation contradicts the context, the language, or the structure of Revelation itself. Trace the connection step by step. Simply claiming that one error ‘instantly’ causes another does not prove anything. Let’s deal with the actual passages, will you?!

View attachment 79306

So you’re saying:

• The beast of Revelation 12 is “judgment” on Pagan Rome?
• The beast from the sea in Revelation 13 is “judgment” on so-called Christian Rome?
• The beast from the earth in Revelation 13 is “judgment” on Papal Rome?
• The scarlet beast of Revelation 17 is “judgment” on Catholic Europe?

On what specific Scriptures do you base the claim that each of these beasts is limited to successive phases of European history? Where does the text itself confine their authority, influence, or symbolism strictly to Europe?


Revelation 13:7 says the beast has power “over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.” Revelation 17:15 defines the waters as “peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues.” That language is global in scope, not geographically European. The burden of proof is on the one making the restriction.


To confine these symbols to European political developments requires clear textual evidence—not historical overlays or inherited systems of interpretation. Without that, it appears to be speculation imposed onto the text rather than drawn out from it.

Because you do not interpret the Apocalypse in the same way you interpret Daniel’s prophecies, which are likewise continuous and historical, you lack a framework for understanding God’s judgments beyond the “things which must shortly come to pass.” When we begin to examine the details, you will likely fall behind, having missed the crucial links and references to Daniel 2 and 7 in Revelation 1, where Christ provides the key to unlock its mysteries.

“The Apocalypse is not some separate or mysterious book outside of Scripture. ‘Apocalypse’ simply means ‘revelation’ or ‘unveiling.’ It is the Revelation of Jesus Christ (Revelation 1:1), fully part of the canon of Scripture.

The issue isn’t whether we call it ‘Apocalypse’ or ‘Revelation.’ The real question is whether your interpretive framework is coming from the text itself or being imposed on it. Simply asserting that I ‘lack a framework’ doesn’t prove your historical-continuous model is correct.

If you believe Daniel 2 and 7 are the controlling key to every symbol in Revelation, then demonstrate that connection clearly from the text—chapter and verse—rather than assuming it. Let’s compare Scripture with Scripture carefully, instead of appealing to a system as though it were self-evident.

I also assume you hold to fallen-angel theology, which represents another significant weakness in your understanding.

Tell me what is fallen-angel theology? And what made you think it is something I teach?

 

[TribulationSigns]

Yes.

Just as I thought so. :-)

 

[TribulationSigns]

..and the hubris and condescension stops anyone who could learn anything from reading any further.

True love—agapē—is defined by God, not by society, not by modern theologians, and not by cultural sentiment. Scripture tells us that love “rejoices in the truth” (1 Corinthians 13:6). It does not redefine truth in order to avoid offense.

For example, if I preach what Scripture plainly says—that certain behaviors, including homosexuality, are sin and that unrepentant sin excludes one from the kingdom of God (Romans 1:26–27; 1 Corinthians 6:9–11)—many professing Christians would not consider that loving. They would call it judgmental, harsh, or unkind. Yet repeating what God has already declared is not hatred; it is fidelity to His Word. Calling sin what God calls sin is not a failure of love—it is a refusal to compromise truth.

Often, instead of addressing the biblical argument itself, people shift the focus to tone, delivery, alleged motives, or even hatred against "spiritual discerned." Sounds familiar? The substance goes unanswered while the messenger is criticized.

The same pattern appears in this Eschatology forum. If I argue from Scripture that Babylon the Great represents an apostate church all over the world rather than a geopolitical power like the Roman Pagan, RCC or America, the response is often not a careful refutation from the text but an accusation that I am arrogant or divisive. If I identify the Two Witnesses as faithful saints empowered to proclaim the gospel for 1,260 symbolic days which represents the period of time until the last elect is sealed, the objection again centers on tone rather than exegesis.

Disagreement is fine. Correction from Scripture is welcome. But dismissing an argument by attacking the person instead of engaging the text avoids the real issue. If what I am teaching is false, then it should be corrected from Scripture. If it is biblical, then discomfort does not make it unloving.

Truth and love are not enemies. Biblical love speaks truth—even when that truth is unpopular or hated.

Selah.

 

[Davidpt]

God is not telling them that He will hide His face from them until He has judged Gog.

In Ezekiel 39:23-29 is God going back to the same thing He was telling them about in Ezekiel 36 and 37, and reminding them of what He was talking about in Ezekiel 36 & 37.

Take the chapter divisions out of the text of Ezekiel 36 - 39 (because they were inserted in 1227 AD), and put back the Markan Sandwich that the chapters took away from our understanding (i.e until we understand it).

-- A Markan Sandwich is a literary technique used where a narrative is interrupted by another narrative, creating a structure that resembles a sandwich:

The technique involves starting with a narrative (the first piece of bread), inserting a second narrative (the meat), and then closing with the first narrative (the second piece of bread).

This method allows the author to juxtapose two narratives, and the technique is not just a literary device but also serves to enrich the understanding of the narratives by layering different stories and teachings, allowing readers to see new connections and meanings. --

Ezekiel 39:7 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.

In your opinion, has this already been fulfilled? Or is it yet to be fulfilled? Then ask yourself, if God is hiding His face from someone, would it be someone that is still polluting His holy name? Or would it be someone who no longer is polluting His holy name?

Ezekiel 37:23 Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions: but I will save them out of all their dwellingplaces, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them: so shall they be my people, and I will be their God.

Ezekiel 37:25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever.


Verse 23 seems to mean they are no longer polluting His holy name at this point once He cleanses them. Which presents a conflict with Ezekiel 39:7 if Ezekiel 37:25 is already fulfilled before Ezekiel 39:7 is fulfilled.

Verse 25 has them dwelling in their land forever, and clearly His servant David is meaning Christ. Ezekiel 38-39 also have them dwelling in their land except Christ is not yet present. Ezekiel 37:25 requires that they are in their land. And that they are there forever. And that Christ is there among them

Some argue that the land meant is not literal land. Yet the text plainly says it is the same land He has given unto Jacob His servant, wherein their fathers have dwelt. The land He gave to Jacob His servant, was it literal land or not?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Maybe the feasting birds are literal, maybe they are not. But one reason they could be literal is that they would obviously aid in cleansing the land of all the corpses littered throughout. But you probably don't even believe there will be dead bodies everywhere or anywhere.

So, you believe there will be dead bodies everywhere when Jesus returns, but you just can't bring yourself to believe that they could be killed by fire because that would just be a case of God going too far in your mind despite what God did to Sodom and Gomorrah. So, what exactly do you think will cause there to be dead bodies everywhere?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

- Unless it's referring to things that will take place a the close of a thousand years into the new heavens and new earth and the VISIONS Ezekiel saw when he saw a new city, new temple, the river of life etc etc - are all symbolic representations of heavenly things and spiritual realities on a new earth.

Why did you say "Unless..."? I said that it's hard to reconcile it with the rest of scripture if you take it literally. When I said it can't be applied to the future, I only meant if it is taken literally. You obviously are not taking it literally, but instead as "symbolic representations of heavenly things and spiritual realities on a new earth". I think the only way to reconcile it with the rest of scripture is to see it as being symbolic and it appears that you agree with that.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have one Teacher and you are all brothers. -- Matthew 23:8

The problem starts when those who believe they have the "correct understanding of these things" begin implying or even stating that the reason any brother might disagree is because "he has less understanding than me", and talking condescendingly about the one they are talking to - even while they are talking TO them.

Leading to the saints driving all away - both other saints looking for deeper understanding of certain scriptures - and those who could have heard and believed the gospel

- because we are all so foolish and full of it.

We should all stop talking because we will be abased in that day - but the "Douggs" will all be exalted

- and it will serve us right.

I can confidently say that someone like him who denies the deity of Christ has less understanding than me and you who do not deny something that is so clearly taught in scripture. It's just a fact that he lacks discernment and isn't someone to be taken seriously. No need to go into all this stuff that doesn't apply when things are obvious like this. I'm not going to play patty cakes with people who blatantly deny who Jesus is.

 

[Zao is life]

Ezekiel 39:7 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.

Read the context of what God is saying to Israel and Judah in the light of:

1. what He had said to the house of Israel and the house of Judah in Eze 36:16-38, in Eze ch 37, and again in Eze 39:23-29; and
2. what He said about Gog and Magog gathering against them after all the above had been fulfilled.

Ezekiel 39:7 is in that same context.

In your opinion, has this already been fulfilled? Or is it yet to be fulfilled?

IMO it began taking place in Christ and will be ultimately fulfilled by Christ when He returns.

Then ask yourself, if God is hiding His face from someone, would it be someone that is still polluting His holy name? Or would it be someone who no longer is polluting His holy name?

IMO you have Ezekiel 39:22-29 taking place after it already took place because you have it taking place after the judgment of Gog.

Read the context of what God is saying to Israel and Judah in the light of:

1. what He had said to the house of Israel and the house of Judah in Eze 36:16-38, in Eze ch 37, and again in Eze 39:23-29; and
2. what He said about Gog and Magog gathering against them after all the above had already been fulfilled - the gathering against the camp of the saints.

Ezekiel 39:7 is in that same context. It's talking about how the judgment of Gog will honor God's holy name.

In Ezekiel 39:7 God is only repeating what He already said in chapters 36 & 37 about restoration for Israel

- and He repeats this same promise again in Ezekiel 39:23-29 after telling Israel about how Gog will come upon them following this restoration He was promising them.

It's all one prophecy.

I can't repeat it again also because from what I can see, in your opinion Ezekiel 39:22-29 will take place after it already took place. In your view God does not repeat a promise He makes in the first part of a prophecy, again at the end of that same prophecy.

I see God's promises of restoration for Israel as ONE and once, not once before Gog comes against Israel, and then again after Gog comes against Israel. You see a natural chronology in the text following the judgment of Gog. I see a theme that began in chapter 36.

Ezekiel 37:23 Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions: but I will save them out of all their dwellingplaces, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them: so shall they be my people, and I will be their God.

Ezekiel 37:25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever.

Ezekiel 37:23 I will save them out of all their dwellingplaces.

Ezekiel 37:25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant.

What do you think will come first - dwelling in the land, or God saving them out of all their dwelling places?

Verse 23 seems to mean they are no longer polluting His holy name at this point once He cleanses them. Which presents a conflict with Ezekiel 39:7 if Ezekiel 37:25 is already fulfilled before Ezekiel 39:7 is fulfilled.

Does Ezekiel state or imply that Ezekiel 37:25 will be fulfilled AFTER Ezekiel 39:7 is fulfilled?

The prophecy in Ezekiel chapters 36 to 39 is ONE WHOLE:

- from the history of how and why it came about that Israel was scattered among the nations, to why God will bring them out from the nations into the land and cleanse them from their sins (chapter 36)

- to how once in the land, God will ALSO join the 12 tribes into one nation after having been split into two nations - since the days following Solomon's death - and until the days the prophecy is fulfilled (chapter 37)

- to how Gog and Magog will come against them following their restoration, and be judged (chapters 38 & 39)

- and to how God's Holy name will be exalted by all this (chapters 36 & 39).

Throw the chronology of the sentences out the window, with the verse and chapter numbers that were inserted after 1200 AD, and find the THEME. Then you will see God repeating the same promises made in Ezekiel chs. 36 & 37, in Ezekiel chapter 39:7 and again later, when He closes the prophecy in chapter 39.

Verse 25 has them dwelling in their land forever, and clearly His servant David is meaning Christ. Ezekiel 38-39 also have them dwelling in their land except Christ is not yet present.

Revelation 20 has the saints dwelling in their land and Gog's armies gathering against them. According to the above Christ is not yet present because He isn't mentioned as being present in Revelation 20:7-10 either.

Ezekiel 37:25 requires that they are in their land. And that they are there forever. And that Christ is there among them

Revelation 20:4-10 requires the same.

Some argue that the land meant is not literal land. Yet the text plainly says it is the same land He has given unto Jacob His servant, wherein their fathers have dwelt. The land He gave to Jacob His servant, was it literal land or not?

IMO the land in the new earth is literal.

 

[Zao is life]

So, what exactly do you think will cause there to be dead bodies everywhere?

Christ's army of spiritual Israelites, all armed with swords.