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

[Zao is life]

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.

My first sentence you quoted said "at the close of a thousand years" but I forgot you think that close comes before what Ezekiel is talking about. So we agree and disagree all at the same time.

 

[Zao is life]

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.

I never knew that. Thanks for telling me. I wasn't referring to you only though. I began reading this thread "as an outsider" signed out and it began deteriorating rapidly into assertions of "only those who have as much spiritual understanding as me will understand this (but you disagree, so..)" etc etc, and smaller insults which were going to worsen.

So I just 'self-righteously' (but not actually self righteously) began pointing it out on post after post when I saw it. "As an outsider" it was easy to see.

 

[TribulationSigns]

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

Where does it say in Scripture? Chapter and verse please! How do they kill all "dead bodies"? What "dead bodies" do you find in Scripture?

 

[Zao is life]

Where does it say in Scripture? Chapter and verse please! How do they kill all "dead bodies"? What "dead bodies" do you find in Scripture?

Hope you don't mind but I'm not giving chapter and verse references of the scriptures below to someone who asserts he knows and understands the words of scripture better and deeper than those he is talking to (at all times),

and asks questions from his pedestal of "superior and deeper understanding of these things" in order to "prompt them to work out" what his own understanding of scripture is that exists in his own mind - whether true or untrue - and assume that his understanding is all true because it exists in his own mind.

So hope you don't mind but I'm not giving chapter and verse references (though I know where it is written).

And then shall that lawless one be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming

And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite [G3960 patasso] the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

And the remnant were slain [G615 apokteino] with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive [zao] into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

1. What do believe His sword represents, and what sword in your opinion does His army use?

2. Do you understand why the word slain [G615 apokteino - killed] is used?

3. Do you understand what the words of God tell us when God uses the symbols of a great supper and birds feasting on the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great?

4. If you believe what scripture is saying, rather than what your own mind tells you it's saying, then what association would the answer to 3 above have with the word [G615 apokteino - killed] do you think?

5. Do you understand why the words of God make a difference between using the word [G615 apokteino - killed] for one group, but the word zao [alive] for the beast and false prophet at the time of the beast and false prophet being cast into the lake of fire?

6. Do you understand the difference between being killed and being cast alive into the lake of fire?

5. Is there any reason in your mind that all the above is written in the context of Christ's coming down for battle with the beast and his armies?

 

[TribulationSigns]

Hope you don't mind but I'm not giving chapter and verse references of the scriptures below to someone who asserts he knows and understands the words of scripture better and deeper than those he is talking to (at all times),

You brought up the claim, not me, selah! If you assert something like “Christ’s army of spiritual Israelites, all armed with swords,” then it is entirely reasonable to ask you to support it with Scripture. That is not arrogance — that is accountability.

We are commanded to prove all things (1 Thess. 5:21) and to be ready to give an answer for the hope that is in us (1 Peter 3:15). If your position is biblical, then chapter and verse should not be a burden but a confirmation. Guess you do have a struggle with this.

You cannot introduce an interpretation and then refuse to substantiate it when questioned. Especially after SI asked you plainly, “What exactly do you think will cause there to be dead bodies everywhere?” That question deserves a direct, scriptural answer — not avoidance.

If we are discussing the Word of God, then let the Word speak. If the doctrine is sound, it will stand under examination. If not, it should be corrected.

Iron sharpens iron — but only if both are willing to bring Scripture, not speculation. Amen? :-)

and asks questions from his pedestal of "superior and deeper understanding of these things" in order to "prompt them to work out" what his own understanding of scripture is that exists in his own mind - whether true or untrue - and assume that his understanding is all true because it exists in his own mind.

So that is your concern? That someone might test your interpretation against Scripture? And that is your reason for refusing to provide chapter and verse?

That is not discernment — that is avoidance.

If your understanding is grounded in God’s Word, then it should withstand examination. The Bereans were called noble because they searched the Scriptures daily to see whether those things were so (Acts 17:11). They did not hide behind accusations about tone or posture; they opened the Scriptures.

Instead of addressing the actual question, you attack motive and invent a “pedestal” to justify withholding biblical support. That does not strengthen your argument — it exposes its weakness.

If we are discussing Scripture, then let Scripture speak. If your doctrine is true, it will stand. If not, it should be corrected. Refusing to provide God’s Word while criticizing someone for asking for it is not humility — it is evasion.

So hope you don't mind but I'm not giving chapter and verse references (though I know where it is written).

Not impressed. You knew the chapter and verse reference in Scripture but won't show us? Guess its too hard for you to do.

And then shall that lawless one be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming

And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite [G3960 patasso] the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

And the remnant were slain [G615 apokteino] with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

Interesting — but none of those passages say what you are claiming.

Yes, the Lord destroys the lawless one with the breath of His mouth. Yes, a sharp sword proceeds from His mouth. Yes, the remnant are slain by the sword that comes from Him. And yes, the armies in heaven follow Him clothed in fine linen.

But where does it say that “all spiritual Israelites are armed with swords”?

The sword in every passage you cited proceeds from His mouth — not theirs. The text is explicit about that. The armies are described as clothed in fine linen, white and clean — symbolic of righteousness (Revelation 19:8) — not described as wielding weapons.

You are inserting something into the text that is simply not there.

If you want to argue that Christ’s army is armed, then show the verse that says so, it reads as private interpretation layered onto symbolic language.

The Word is clear about the sword coming from His mouth. It is not clear — because it is not stated — that all spiritual Israelites are armed with swords. That distinction matters. So you need to show us Scripture where the Army of God will have swords.

And tell me exactly who are the remnant were slain with the Sword of Christ before we process.

 

[Davidpt]

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?

If it was literal fire as you seem to believe, it is then nonsensical to use imagery of feasting birds and feasting beasts of the field. The fire would eventually turn their bodies to ashes, as in--cremation. Which then makes the aftermath depicted in Ezekiel 39 nonsensical since ashes don't require graves everywhere.

Ezekiel 39:11 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 Hamongog.
12 And seven months shall the house of Israel be burying of them, that they may cleanse the land.
13 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 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 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 Hamongog.
16 And also the name of the city shall be Hamonah. Thus shall they cleanse the land.

7 months to bury ashes--lol.

Isaiah 34:2 For the indignation of the LORD is upon all nations, and his fury upon all their armies: he hath utterly destroyed them, he hath delivered them to the slaughter.
3 Their slain also shall be cast out, and their stink shall come up out of their carcases, and the mountains shall be melted with their blood.
4 And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree.


Maybe you think this has nothing to do with the end of this age, but I do. Assuming I'm correct, how should we understand verse 3? In the literal sense? Or some other sense? Is the verse nonsensical if meaning in the literal sense? Of course not. But as to verse 4, is that verse nonsensical if meaning in the literal sense? Of course it is. But that doesn't mean just because verse 4 is not meaning in a literal sense, then neither is verse 3 meaning in a literal sense.

Isaiah 34:8 For it is the day of the LORD'S vengeance, and the year of recompences for the controversy of Zion.
9 And the streams thereof shall be turned into pitch, and the dust thereof into brimstone, and the land thereof shall become burning pitch.
10 It shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up for ever: from generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it for ever and ever.


And when does Revelation indicate the Lord enacts His vengeance? After great tribulation and during the DOTL, of course. Only Pretribbers and Preterists and those who are not Preterists but align with Preterist thinking might disagree. No one else should, though. And that that is where verse 3 in Isaiah 34 fits, IMO. And BTW. also IMO, verse 9 and 10 seem to be meaning the judgment on the great whore(Revelation 18-19).

Compare, for example.

the smoke thereof shall go up for ever(Isaiah 34:10)---And her smoke rose up for ever and ever(Revelation 19:3)

Also, BTW, if Amil is correct about what follows the 2nd coming, then what is the point in burying Gog and his multitude in all these graves? That seems nonsensical if what you envision follows the 2nd coming happens next. As in no more days---the immediate fulfilling of 1 Corinthians 15:28 instead.

 

[Davidpt]

Not impressed. You knew the chapter and verse reference in Scripture but won't show us? Guess its too hard for you to do.

LOL. Everyone, including you, know exactly which chapters and verses he is referencing. It might be different if some of the verses he was referencing were found in the OT instead. In that case it would be a good idea to list the chapters and verses. But it is obvious that he is meaning in both 2 Thessalonians 2 and Revelation 19, in this case.

 

[TribulationSigns]

LOL. Everyone, including you, know exactly which chapters and verses he is referencing. It might be different if some of the verses he was referencing were found in the OT instead. In that case it would be a good idea to list the chapters and verses. But it is obvious that he is meaning in both 2 Thessalonians 2 and Revelation 19, in this case.

Did you write the text as if its yours or his? No, its God's Word, so you need to learn to include chapters and verses. Still not impressed!

 

[Hiddenthings]

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?

But was the observation correct?


It was unlike you to make a statement without supporting it with the same evidence you later requested from me.

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.

Happy for you to create a separate thread dealing with the two witnesses.

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?

Correct - The telescopic structure of the Apocalypse is well known to the most diligent of the students.

If your methodology is not continuous historical then its impossible for you to interpret God's judgements down through this time period.

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?

If I ask you the same question on Daniel 2 & 7 could you answer your own question?

Revelation 13:7 says the beast has power “over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.”

This phrase occurs seven times in the Apocalypse and is drawn from Daniel’s prophecy (cf. Dan. 4:1; 6:25). It is equivalent to “the nations of the inhabited world.” In the days of the Lord, this was limited to the Roman Empire (Luke 2:1), but it later became more extensive as the boundaries of civilisation expanded.

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.

Are you willing to be shown?

“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.

Agree

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.

These are merely things you would say either because you have not been shown the correct framework or because you do not have a structure which fits with Daniels prophecy.

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.

We can discuss - do you want to start a new thread? I'm not a fan of multiple discussions within the one thread.

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

If you are like many Christians who believe divine angels can sin. God's Holy Divine Nature cannot sin - impossible.

 

[Douggg]

Correct - The telescopic structure of the Apocalypse is well known to the most diligent of the students.

If your methodology is not continuous historical then its impossible for you to interpret God's judgements down through this time period.

A telescope (as in the image you posted) is not a timeline.

 

[Hiddenthings]

A telescope (as in the image you posted) is not a timeline.

It is selective history, interwoven with visions, intended to strengthen those true saints who have suffered persecution throughout the ages.

If you don't know how to see you only need ask.

 

[Hiddenthings]

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?

This is probably your most insightful question so far.

You have already acknowledged a lack of understanding in the prophetic scope of Daniel’s prophecies, and that Daniel 2 and 7 are essential to unlocking the beasts of Revelation. How, then, can one properly understand the prophetic landscape of Revelation without being able to:

1. Discern the geographical scope of Daniel’s prophecies;
2. Discern the development of the beast system upon the earth;
3. Discern the continuous historical interpretation of both Daniel and Revelation?

Indeed, it is pointless to attempt to establish point 3 if points 1 and 2 cannot first be acknowledged.

The answer is right in front of you and you have missed it!

 

[Hiddenthings]

@TribulationSigns I had a small smirk when you asked that question about Europe as the empires of Daniel 2 and 7 are Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greek, and Roman, all of which are in that prophetic arena.

Maybe you have your own personal interpretation of Daniel 2&7 as well?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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

What do you mean by this? You think Christ's army of spiritual Israelites will be armed with literal swords?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

If it was literal fire as you seem to believe, it is then nonsensical to use imagery of feasting birds and feasting beasts of the field.

Why is that? You obviously have no understanding of symbolism. It's not required that symbols resemble what they are symbolizing.

Look at this verse, for example...

Revelation 1:20 The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.

Do angels look like literal stars? No. Do churches look like literal candlesticks? No. Can you see how symbols don't have to resemble what they symbolize? Yet, here you are acting as if destruction by literal fire can't be symbolically represented by a sword coming out of Christ's mouth that results in dead bodies being feasted on by birds. You are trying to take the symbolism too literally, which shows that you don't understand how symbolism works.

I asked you what you think will cause the destruction that will occur when Jesus returns. It's a very simple, straightforward question. So, what is your answer to that question?

The fire would eventually turn their bodies to ashes, as in--cremation. Which then makes the aftermath depicted in Ezekiel 39 nonsensical since ashes don't require graves everywhere.

Ezekiel 39:11 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 Hamongog.
12 And seven months shall the house of Israel be burying of them, that they may cleanse the land.
13 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 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 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 Hamongog.
16 And also the name of the city shall be Hamonah. Thus shall they cleanse the land.

7 months to bury ashes--lol.

You're talking in the sense of all of that being taken literally, But, what if it isn't meant to all be taken literally? It seems that you're not even considering that.

Isaiah 34:2 For the indignation of the LORD is upon all nations, and his fury upon all their armies: he hath utterly destroyed them, he hath delivered them to the slaughter.
3 Their slain also shall be cast out, and their stink shall come up out of their carcases, and the mountains shall be melted with their blood.
4 And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree.


Maybe you think this has nothing to do with the end of this age, but I do.

I do, too.

Assuming I'm correct, how should we understand verse 3? In the literal sense?

No, not in the literal sense. Why do you try to read books that undeniably have a lot of symbolism in them as literally as you possibly can? I seriously don't get that at all. So, you think there will be literally blood splattered all over the mountains and all over the earth when Jesus returns? If so, what exactly do you think will cause that?

Or some other sense? Is the verse nonsensical if meaning in the literal sense? Of course not.

I believe it is nonsensical to think that people's blood will be literally spilled out over the mountains and all over the earth when Jesus returns. Especially when you can't even tell me how exactly you think that will occur.

But as to verse 4, is that verse nonsensical if meaning in the literal sense? Of course it is. But that doesn't mean just because verse 4 is not meaning in a literal sense, then neither is verse 3 meaning in a literal sense.

How convenient for you to think that. It figures that it would make sense to you that the text would not be consistent and that you would think it makes sense that it goes back and forth from being literal to symbolism.

Isaiah 34:8 For it is the day of the LORD'S vengeance, and the year of recompences for the controversy of Zion.
9 And the streams thereof shall be turned into pitch, and the dust thereof into brimstone, and the land thereof shall become burning pitch.
10 It shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up for ever: from generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it for ever and ever.


And when does Revelation indicate the Lord enacts His vengeance? After great tribulation and during the DOTL, of course. Only Pretribbers and Preterists and those who are not Preterists but align with Preterist thinking might disagree. No one else should, though. And that that is where verse 3 in Isaiah 34 fits, IMO. And BTW. also IMO, verse 9 and 10 seem to be meaning the judgment on the great whore(Revelation 18-19).

I agree with that. We're not discussing the timing of the day of the Lord and return of the Lord in relation to the tribulation or anything like that, so try to stay focused and stick to the topic we're discussing, which is whether the passages we're talking about should be taken literally or not. I believe you take the symbolic passages literally and the literal passages like 2 Peter 3:10-12 figuratively. That's what we're talking about here.

Also, BTW, if Amil is correct about what follows the 2nd coming, then what is the point in burying Gog and his multitude in all these graves?

I don't know what that is about and neither do you. Why do you not establish your doctrine on clear scriptures and instead get all confused and bogged down by less clear scriptures found in highly symbolic books? I don't get that.

That seems nonsensical if what you envision follows the 2nd coming happens next.

Yes, a lot of things seem nonsensical if taken literally when they are not meant to be taken literally. Ask God for wisdom so that you can start to learn to discern between figurative and literal text (James 1:5-7). Up to this point, I don't believe you have any idea of how to discern that.

As in no more days---the immediate fulfilling of 1 Corinthians 15:28 instead.

You seem to reference 1 Corinthians 15:28 a lot, but I have no idea why. And you've never clearly explained it.

 

[Hiddenthings]

The Roman Catholic Church is not Babylon the Great described in Revelation 17 and 18. She was never a faithful representative of God’s kingdom to begin with, which immediately disqualifies her from being the apostate “Mother of Harlots” that Scripture portrays.

Two points here:

Your statement requires supporting evidence to show that early Christians did not drift toward pagan-influenced Christian practices, for example, as witnessed in the First Council of Nicaea, First Council of Constantinople, Council of Ephesus, Council of Chalcedon, Second Council of Constantinople, Third Council of Constantinople, and Second Council of Nicaea.

Additionally, if you believe the Roman Catholic Church is not apostate and that Revelation 17 and 18 refer to another denomination, please provide supporting evidence.

I understand you may want to move past what you started, but in doing so, it can come across as insincere and lacking the integrity to follow through.

 

[Zao is life]

What do you mean by this? You think Christ's army of spiritual Israelites will be armed with literal swords?

No. It's quite clearly a spiritual battle and it's between:

(a) The words (lies) of Satan and those who fight on his behalf (the unclean spirits like frogs coming out of the mouths of the beast, the false prophet and the dragon); and

(b) The all-powerful Word of God proceeding from the mouth of Christ.

Ephesians 6
17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

His army are not crusaders, lol.

The same question you asked was asked by Tribulation Signs - so I'm repeating my answer to him below, because the questions in the quote below were for him, but it would be good to know how you would answer questions 3, 4 and 7. Not for the sake of arguing your points, but only for the sake of clarity of how you understand the passage:

And then shall that lawless one be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming

And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite [G3960 patasso] the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

And the remnant were slain [G615 apokteino] with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive [zao] into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

1. What do believe His sword represents, and what sword in your opinion does His army use?

2. Do you understand why the word slain [G615 apokteino - killed] is used?

3. Do you understand what the words of God tell us when God uses the symbols of a great supper and birds feasting on the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great?

4. What association would the answer to 3 above have with the word [G615 apokteino - killed] do you think?

5. Do you understand why the words of God make a difference between using the word [G615 apokteino - killed] for one group, but the word zao [alive] for the beast and false prophet at the time of the beast and false prophet being cast into the lake of fire?

6. Do you understand the difference between being killed and being cast alive into the lake of fire?

7. Is there any reason in your mind that all the above is written in the context of Christ's coming down for battle with the beast and his armies?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

No. It's quite clearly a spiritual battle and it's between:

(a) The words (lies) of Satan and those who fight on his behalf (the unclean spirits like frogs coming out of the mouths of the beast, the false prophet and the dragon); and

(b) The all-powerful Word of God.

The same question was asked by Tribulation Signs - so I'm repeating my answer to him below.

Questions in the quote below were for him, but it would be good to know how you would answer questions 3, 4 and 7. Not for the sake of arguing your point, but only for the sake of clarity of how you understand the passage:

I'm not interested in going into detail about what all of the symbolism means, but I'll just say that I believe it's all symbolism and none of it is literal. What I would like to know is do you believe that mass physical destruction will occur when Jesus returns? If so, what exactly do you think will cause it? This is what I was asking Davidpt about when you chimed in and said it would be with swords. Based on what you've said about 2 Peter 3:10-12, you don't think it will be literal fire. So, what else would cause it? Or do you not believe any physical destruction will occur when Jesus returns?

 

[Zao is life]

I'm not interested in going into detail about what all of the symbolism means, but I'll just say that I believe it's all symbolism and none of it is literal. What I would like to know is do you believe that mass physical destruction will occur when Jesus returns? If so, what exactly do you think will cause it? This is what I was asking Davidpt about when you chimed in and said it would be with swords. Based on what you've said about 2 Peter 3:10-12, you don't think it will be literal fire. So, what else would cause it? Or do you not believe any physical destruction will occur when Jesus returns?

I believe that these words in Revelation 19 are meant to suggest the mass slaughter of humans who are killed by the Divine wrath of the Spirit of God which proceeds out of the mouth of Christ:

1. flesh.
2. killed.

Think of how all flesh save the redeemed family was destroyed in the flood.

As to your second question, you said that it's all symbolic.

IMO it's all metaphorically talking about something that will very literally take place. I believe you agree

- but you said it's all symbolic, which I agree with

- and the Holy Spirit is often referred to symbolically / metaphorically as fire.

2 Thessalonians 2
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.

You could be right about literal fire mentioned by Peter, but IMO it may be the Refiner's Fire that causes the death of all flesh, save the redeemed family, and planet-wide regeneration.

I don't know which of the two it is - literal fire, or the fire of the Spirit of God.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I believe that these words in Revelation 19 are meant to suggest the mass slaughter of humans who are killed by the Divine wrath of the Spirit of God which proceeds out of the mouth of Christ:

1. flesh.
2. killed.

Think of how all flesh save the redeemed family was destroyed in the flood.

Yes, they were destroyed by the flood waters. So, how exactly do you think "the Divine wrath of the Spirit of God which proceeds out of the mouth of Christ" will physically kill people? How does that work?

As to your second question, you said that it's all symbolic.

IMO it's all metaphorically talking about something that will very literally take place. I believe you agree

Yes. To me, it's metaphorically talking about the destruction of unbelievers at Christ's return which I believe will be literally caused by literal fire. I'm not clear on how exactly you think they will be physically destroyed/killed.

- but you said it's all symbolic, which I agree with

Yep.

- and the Holy Spirit is often referred to symbolically / metaphorically as fire.

2 Thessalonians 2
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.

You could be right about literal fire mentioned by Peter, but IMO it may be the Refiner's Fire that causes the death of all flesh, save the redeemed family, and planet-wide regeneration.

I don't know which of the two it is - literal fire, or the fire of the Spirit of God.

I don't really know what it means for the Refiner's fire to cause physical death. I'm obviously fully convinced that it will be literal fire, but it will be controlled by God and not just some random fire coming down on the earth. Similar to what happened with Sodom and Gomorrah except it will also involve regenerating/renewing the earth, resulting in the new earth. Do you believe that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by literal fire?