Both Pretribbers and Preterists are clearly wrong that great tribulation begins with the DOTL.

[Spiritual Israelite]

Ok, I’ll try this again.

How fun.

My theological interpretation, and yours, is irrelevant to the point I’m making.

It has to be relevant to some extent because you need to be able to prove that Revelation 20:1-3, at least, follows what is described in Revelation 19:11-21 chronologically. So, your theological interpretation plays a part in this in that sense, at least.

I’m talking about the chronological sequence of the narrative itself, prior to any theological interpretation.

Yes, I know that. And I showed where you point is flawed and, naturally, you just dismiss it. We can't just ignore theological interpretations to determine what the chronological sequence is, though. We can claim anything we want about the chronological sequence if no interpretations of the text are necessary.

The phrase “and I saw” (καὶ εἶδον) most commonly transitions John’s viewpoint to the next scene in his visionary experience, either from one vision to the next or from one aspect of the same vision to another.

What does this even mean? It doesn't prove that the next thing he saw in every case was something that chronologically followed what he has just seen prior to it.

By itself, it does not signal that John has abandoned the current narrative, begun a completely new vision, or reset the historical timeline.

Sure.

When Revelation intends that kind of transition, it normally provides additional literary cues, such as, “Then I saw a great sign…,” “Come, I will show you…,” or “He carried me away in the Spirit.”

Nah. Now you're just trying to make up a man-made rule. You may have noticed that I never buy into your man-made rules.

So I’ll start with some low-hanging fruit. Simply reading Revelation 20 on its own, without importing any theological conclusions, do the occurrences of καὶ εἶδον (“and I saw”) in Revelation 20:4, 20:11, and 20:12 suggest that the events following those verses do not occur chronologically after what immediately precedes them?

You are changing the topic here. What you are trying to say about the trumpets is that they must all follow the seventh seal because the beginning of the description of the trumpets starts with "And I saw". Is that not correct? If so, then that would mean you believe that Revelation 20:1, at least, refers to something that occurs after the end of Revelation 19 is fulfilled. So, do you believe that or not?

In other words, within the narrative itself, does Revelation 20:11 occur chronologically after verse 10, or does “and I saw” reset the timeline the way you argue it does in 20:1?

Why are you only talking about Revelation 20:11? You are not even addressing the point that we are debating by doing that. Unless I'm missing your point. If so, you need to be more clear. You are coming across as if you believe the phrase "And I saw" in Revelation 8:2, implies that the trumpets, at the very least the first trumpet event, must follow the seventh seal event chronologically. Is that not what you're saying? If so, then do you believe that at least Revelation 20:1 describes something that chronologically follows Revelation 19:21?

Likewise, does Revelation 20:4 occur chronologically after verse 3, or does “and I saw” reset the timeline there as well?

Answer my question about Revelation 20:1. I'm not saying that "And I saw" doesn't ever refer to something that chronologically follows what was described immediately prior. I'm saying that is not always the case. Address this argument instead of whatever you're doing.

If your answer is no - that 20:4 and 20:11 continue the narrative chronologically despite beginning with καὶ εἶδον - then why should we assume that the identical phrase in 20:1 functions differently?

The onus is on you to prove that what is described in Revelation 20:1 chronologically follows what is described in Revelation 19:11-21. Can you do that?

What in the text itself, apart from theological interpretation, indicates that 20:1 resets the timeline while the other occurrences do not?

Revelation 20:1-3 is one continuous thought, so let's just focus on that for now. What evidence do you have to suggest that Jesus started reigning and Satan was bound after what is described in Revelation 19:11-21 was fulfilled?

And this all leads back to my main point with @Davidpt - why does “and i saw” in revelation 8:2 reset the timeline line so that the seals and trumpets are “parallel”, where as it doesn’t in revelation 20:1?

It does do that in Revelation 20:1. You are not doing anything to prove otherwise.

 

[Truth7t7]

Of course it is. That is clearly what the word consummation In Daniel 9:27 equals per that context. Only someone doctrinally biased would disagree.

More like changing the very scripture and its context in claiming that the word "Consummation" in Daniel 9:27 applies to a 70AD destruction of a temple in Jerusalem, thats just another preterist fairy tale

 

[Truth7t7]

Yeah, just ignore the context of the verse. The consummation is related to the consummation of the destruction of the city and the sanctuary. That happened in 70 AD.

A False "Preterist" fairy tale, as you change the very context of scripture to suit your 70AD preterist needs

(The Future Consummation)

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

Merriam-Webster
Definition of consummation

1: the act of consummating the consummation of a contract by mutual signature specifically : the consummating of a marriage
2: the ultimate end

Daniel's AOD (Even Until The Consummation) "Future" (The End)

Daniel 9:27KJV
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

 

[claninja]

How fun.

lol. I know, I know.

It has to be relevant to some extent because you need to be able to prove that Revelation 20:1-3, at least, follows what is described in Revelation 19:11-21 chronologically. So, your theological interpretation plays a part in this in that sense, at least.


Yes, I know that. And I showed where you point is flawed and, naturally, you just dismiss it. We can't just ignore theological interpretations to determine what the chronological sequence is, though. We can claim anything we want about the chronological sequence if no interpretations of the text are necessary.


What does this even mean? It doesn't prove that the next thing he saw in every case was something that chronologically followed what he has just seen prior to it.


Sure.


Nah. Now you're just trying to make up a man-made rule. You may have noticed that I never buy into your man-made rules.


You are changing the topic here. What you are trying to say about the trumpets is that they must all follow the seventh seal because the beginning of the description of the trumpets starts with "And I saw". Is that not correct? If so, then that would mean you believe that Revelation 20:1, at least, refers to something that occurs after the end of Revelation 19 is fulfilled. So, do you believe that or not?


Why are you only talking about Revelation 20:11? You are not even addressing the point that we are debating by doing that. Unless I'm missing your point. If so, you need to be more clear. You are coming across as if you believe the phrase "And I saw" in Revelation 8:2, implies that the trumpets, at the very least the first trumpet event, must follow the seventh seal event chronologically. Is that not what you're saying? If so, then do you believe that at least Revelation 20:1 describes something that chronologically follows Revelation 19:21?


Answer my question about Revelation 20:1. I'm not saying that "And I saw" doesn't ever refer to something that chronologically follows what was described immediately prior. I'm saying that is not always the case. Address this argument instead of whatever you're doing.


The onus is on you to prove that what is described in Revelation 20:1 chronologically follows what is described in Revelation 19:11-21. Can you do that?


Revelation 20:1-3 is one continuous thought, so let's just focus on that for now. What evidence do you have to suggest that Jesus started reigning and Satan was bound after what is described in Revelation 19:11-21 was fulfilled?


It does do that in Revelation 20:1. You are not doing anything to prove otherwise.

Let’s try with different example, as you still don’t seem to be understanding what I am saying.

Take the Parable of the Wedding Feast. Within the narrative of the parable itself - and before we begin interpreting its symbolism - no one is brought into the wedding hall until after the destruction of the city. Do you agree or disagree? If you agree, then we’re on the same page regarding the narrative sequence. If you disagree, please identify the verse where people are brought into the wedding hall before the city is destroyed.

Now, when you interpret that parable, you don’t believe the gathering into the wedding feast is exclusively after the city’s destruction, correct? Rather, you understand that gathering to begin with Christ and the Great Commission, not solely after the city’s destruction. In other words, your theological interpretation is not constrained by the chronological sequence of the parable’s narrative.

That brings us back to Revelation. The phrase καὶ εἶδον (“and I saw”) consistently marks John’s transition to the next scene in the vision, or to another aspect of the same vision. By itself, it does not reset the timeline. See Revelation 6, Revelation 19:11, 19, and Revelation 20:4, 11, etc….

Revelation 20 naturally follows Revelation 19 in the narrative. One indication is Revelation 20:10 and the ellipsis of the copula. Koine Greek frequently omits the verb “to be” (εἰμί) when it is understood from the context. Thus, when English translations read, “where the beast and the false prophet are,” the verb are is supplied by the translators; it is not present in the Greek text. The implied copula derives its meaning from the immediately preceding context, namely Revelation 19:20, where the beast and the false prophet are thrown alive into the lake of fire. The most natural reading is that Revelation 20 continues the same narrative sequence rather than restarting it.

My point, however, isn’t that a chronological narrative automatically determines theology. You’ve already demonstrated, with the Parable of the Wedding Feast, that you don’t think it does. You distinguish between the chronological flow of the narrative and the theological meaning of the passage.

So I’m not sure why you’re resisting the point that Revelation 20 narratively follows Revelation 19. You are free to argue that the theology of Revelation 20 reaches beyond that narrative sequence, just as you do with the Wedding Feast.

My point was that Davidpt often hammers the importance of chronology as a driving force for his theology, yet throws that out in revelation 8:2.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Let’s try with different example, as you still don’t seem to be understanding what I am saying.

You are incorrect. I fully understand what you're saying. But, for some reason, you are seemingly unwilling to address my point in relation to the beginning of Revelation 20 and the end of Revelation 19. The debate is not whether SOME of Revelation 20 follows SOME of Revelation 19. Do you understand that? What you've been trying to say is that any time it says "And I saw" it means that what is immediately described after that occurs chronologically after what was immediately described previous to that. Is that not what you're saying? If I'm mistaken about that, then let's just forget all of this because it seems impossible that either of us can understand each other, which would be nothing new.

Take the Parable of the Wedding Feast. Within the narrative of the parable itself - and before we begin interpreting its symbolism - no one is brought into the wedding hall until after the destruction of the city. Do you agree or disagree?

I agree. In my view no one is brought into the wedding hall until Jesus returns because that is when He will have us gathered to Him (1 Thessalonians 4:14-17) and that is when the "wedding" will take place.

If you agree, then we’re on the same page regarding the narrative sequence.

You and I on the same page? I'm not sure that's possible. But, I'll keep reading....

Now, when you interpret that parable, you don’t believe the gathering into the wedding feast is exclusively after the city’s destruction, correct?

Incorrect. See above. The parable is about God's offer of salvation to all people that started with the Jews and then went out to the Gentiles. The wedding has not yet taken place.

Rather, you understand that gathering to begin with Christ and the Great Commission, not solely after the city’s destruction.

No, I understand that the invitation began then but we will all be gathered at the same time when Jesus returns, as indicated in 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17. Those who accepted the invitation will be gathered to Christ when He returns. The dead in Christ will be resurrected and then they, together with those who are alive and remain, will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air. After that, the judgment of all people will occur, as is portrayed in Matthew 25:31-46. When that is finished is when I think the "wedding" actually takes place in the sense that it will be at that point that we will inherit the eternal new heavens and new earth and be with Christ forever at that point.

In other words, your theological interpretation is not constrained by the chronological sequence of the parable’s narrative.

I don't know what you mean by that. Can you clarify? I already know that you're misinterpreting how I view the parable, so what you're saying here is based on that misinterpretation. Yet, I still am not sure what you're even intending to say here exactly and why you're saying it.

That brings us back to Revelation. The phrase καὶ εἶδον (“and I saw”) consistently marks John’s transition to the next scene in the vision, or to another aspect of the same vision. By itself, it does not reset the timeline. See Revelation 6, Revelation 19:11, 19, and Revelation 20:4, 11, etc….

You're far too vague a lot of the time. What does "the next scene in the vision" mean? Are you talking from a real time chronological perspective?

Revelation 20 naturally follows Revelation 19 in the narrative.

Another vague comment. What do you mean by this exactly? It seems that you're trying to claim that what is described in the beginning of Revelation 20 naturally follows what is described at the end of Revelation 19 chronologically. Is that what you're intending to say?

One indication is Revelation 20:10 and the ellipsis of the copula. Koine Greek frequently omits the verb “to be” (εἰμί) when it is understood from the context. Thus, when English translations read, “where the beast and the false prophet are,” the verb are is supplied by the translators; it is not present in the Greek text. The implied copula derives its meaning from the immediately preceding context, namely Revelation 19:20, where the beast and the false prophet are thrown alive into the lake of fire. The most natural reading is that Revelation 20 continues the same narrative sequence rather than restarting it.

You are jumping ahead to Revelation 20:10 here for some unknown reason. What I'm trying to get you to address is whether or not you believe that what is described in Revelation 20:1-3 in terms of Jesus beginning to reign and Satan initially being bound chronologically follows what is described in Revelation 19:11-21. Yes or no?

My point, however, isn’t that a chronological narrative automatically determines theology. You’ve already demonstrated, with the Parable of the Wedding Feast, that you don’t think it does.

You don't even understand how I interpret the parable, so I will disregard this claim.

So I’m not sure why you’re resisting the point that Revelation 20 narratively follows Revelation 19.

You're not sure why because you do not understand how I interpret the parable not do you understand anything I believe (seemingly).

You are free to argue that the theology of Revelation 20 reaches beyond that narrative sequence, just as you do with the Wedding Feast.

You wasted so much time making statements that do not represent my understanding of things because of your mistaken understanding of how I interpret the parable. That's unfortunate.

My point was that Davidpt often hammers the importance of chronology as a driving force for his theology, yet throws that out in revelation 8:2.

If your main point is that he is being inconsistent in his approach, then I fully agree. I have said the same thing many times.

 

[claninja]

You are incorrect. I fully understand what you're saying. But, for some reason, you are seemingly unwilling to address my point in relation to the beginning of Revelation 20 and the end of Revelation 19. The debate is not whether SOME of Revelation 20 follows SOME of Revelation 19. Do you understand that?

I never said the debate is over “some”

What you've been trying to say is that any time it says "And I saw" it means that what is immediately described after that occurs chronologically after what was immediately described previous to that. Is that not what you're saying? If I'm mistaken about that, then let's just forget all of this because it seems impossible that either of us can understand each other, which would be nothing new.

What I meant is that the phrase “and I saw” does not automatically signal a reset in the vision or a shift to a different timeline. Instead it often signals what’s next chronologically.

Do you disagree that all the “and I saw” phrases in revelation 6 are chronological shifts? For example, does revelation 6:1 not occur chronologically after chapter 5? Does 6:2 not occur chronological after 6:1? How about revelation 19? Does revelation 19:11 not occur chronologically after 19:10? How about revelation 20? Does revelation 20:4 not occur chronologically after 20:3?

I agree. In my view no one is brought into the wedding hall until Jesus returns because that is when He will have us gathered to Him (1 Thessalonians 4:14-17) and that is when the "wedding" will take place.
You and I on the same page? I'm not sure that's possible. But, I'll keep reading..
Incorrect. See above. The parable is about God's offer of salvation to all people that started with the Jews and then went out to the Gentiles. The wedding has not yet taken place.
No, I understand that the invitation began then but we will all be gathered at the same time when Jesus returns, as indicated in 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17. Those who accepted the invitation will be gathered to Christ when He returns. The dead in Christ will be resurrected and then they, together with those who are alive and remain, will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air. After that, the judgment of all people will occur, as is portrayed in Matthew 25:31-46. When that is finished is when I think the "wedding" actually takes place in the sense that it will be at that point that we will inherit the eternal new heavens and new earth and be with Christ forever at that point.
I don't know what you mean by that. Can you clarify? I already know that you're misinterpreting how I view the parable, so what you're saying here is based on that misinterpretation. Yet, I still am not sure what you're even intending to say here exactly and why you're saying it.

On another thread (Who is Paul discussing in 2 Thessalonians 2?) you posted the following, when I asked you about the difference between the gathering of parable of wedding feast and the gathering of the OD:

• “No, I didn't. The difference is that the gathering of Matthew 22:1-13 relates to the preaching of the gospel over a long period of time while the gathering that occurs when Jesus returns is a one time event that happens on the day He returns.”

You said THE GATHERING of Matthew 22 was about the preaching of the gospel over a long period of time. That’s my understanding of your position about the gathering in the parable of the wedding feast.


that’s not your position? Or has your position changed?

You're far too vague a lot of the time. What does "the next scene in the vision" mean? Are you talking from a real time chronological perspective?
Another vague comment. What do you mean by this exactly?

Real time? Not sure what that means.

I simply mean this: when Revelation 19 is read immediately followed by Revelation 20, before any theological system is imposed onto the text, the narrative naturally reads as chronological progression.

In Revelation 19, the harlot is judged and destroyed, followed by the defeat of the beast and the false prophet. Then in Revelation 20, attention shifts to the binding and eventual judgment of Satan. Read in sequence, the vision presents a successive unfolding of Christ’s victory over His enemies—first the harlot, then the beast and false prophet, and finally Satan himself.

On a straightforward narrative reading, the structure gives the impression of a progressive account of defeat rather than a reset or recapitulation.

It seems that you're trying to claim that what is described in the beginning of Revelation 20 naturally follows what is described at the end of Revelation 19 chronologically. Is that what you're intending to say?

Yes

You are jumping ahead to Revelation 20:10 here for some unknown reason. What I'm trying to get you to address is whether or not you believe that what is described in Revelation 20:1-3 in terms of Jesus beginning to reign and Satan initially being bound chronologically follows what is described in Revelation 19:11-21. Yes or no?

Unknown reason?? Revelation 20:10 is part of the same Satanic narrative unit in Revelation 20:1–10. Within that sequence, Satan is bound (vv. 1–3), later released (vv. 7–9), and finally thrown into the lake of fire (v. 10).

The key point is this: verse 10 doesn’t function as an isolated theological summary - it is the narrative conclusion of the events just described in 20:1–9. It completes Satan’s storyline.

And importantly, verse 10 explicitly places Satan in the same lake of fire where the beast and false prophet already are. That detail naturally connects back to Revelation 19:20, where the beast and false prophet are cast into the lake of fire prior to Satan’s final judgment.

So rather than collapsing chronology, Revelation 20:10 actually preserves it: it shows Satan arriving at the same end-state already reached by the beast and false prophet, which presupposes the prior judgment described in Revelation 19.

Also, nothing in revelation 20 says Christ “began” to reign. So I don’t know what you are talking about??

You don't even understand how I interpret the parable, so I will disregard this claim
You're not sure why because you do not understand how I interpret the parable not do you understand anything I believe (seemingly).
You wasted so much time making statements that do not represent my understanding of things because of your mistaken understanding of how I interpret the parable. That's unfortunate.

It’s based on you previously stating “the gathering” in the parable of the wedding feast = the preaching of the gospel over a long period of time.

So that’s not the case any more?

If your main point is that he is being inconsistent in his approach, then I fully agree. I have said the same thing many times.

Cool. We agree.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I never said the debate is over “some”

I can't even be sure what you are intending to say at this point. So, here's a question for clarification. Are you trying to argue that the phrase "And I saw" implies that what is described immediately after it occurs chronologically after what was described immediately before it? That has been my understanding of your argument the whole time.

What I meant is that the phrase “and I saw” does not automatically signal a reset in the vision or a shift to a different timeline.

Of course not. I'm not making that argument. Why is it that we can't seem to understand anything the other person is saying? We might as well be speaking different languages. All I'm saying is that the phrase "And I saw" does not automatically mean what is described immediately after that phrase has to chronologically follow what was described immediately before that phrase. So, do you agree with that or not?

Instead it often signals what’s next chronologically.

Key word there is "often". I can't believe after all this time discussing this that you have apparently missed my point the entire time. Well, actually, I can believe it. But, anyway, all I'm saying is that it doesn't necessarily have to mean that. So, you apparently agree with that, after all?

Do you disagree that all the “and I saw” phrases in revelation 6 are chronological shifts?

When is the last time you actually read Revelation 6? It only actually has the phrase "and I saw" once in the first verse. In verse 11 it says "When He opened the fifth seal, I saw". And that's it. No other time does it contain the phrase "And I saw" or "I saw". So, in relation to the two times "And I saw" or "I saw" are used, I would answer no, I do not disagree. But, so what? That doesn't prove that every time it says "And I saw" in Revelation, it represents a chronological shift.

For example, does revelation 6:1 not occur chronologically after chapter 5? Does 6:2 not occur chronological after 6:1? How about revelation 19? Does revelation 19:11 not occur chronologically after 19:10? How about revelation 20? Does revelation 20:4 not occur chronologically after 20:3?

Yep. But, so what? That does not prove every time it says "And I saw" or something similar, it means it represents a chronological shift. You deny that John saying "Now a great sign appeared in heaven" in Revelation 12:1 is the same thing as him saying "And I saw a great sign in heaven", but I completely disagree. It is the same, but just with different wording. And we know that what is described starting in Revelation 12:1 does not chronologically follow what was described in Revelation 11:19.

On another thread (Who is Paul discussing in 2 Thessalonians 2?) you posted the following, when I asked you about the difference between the gathering of parable of wedding feast and the gathering of the OD:

• “No, I didn't. The difference is that the gathering of Matthew 22:1-13 relates to the preaching of the gospel over a long period of time while the gathering that occurs when Jesus returns is a one time event that happens on the day He returns.”

You said THE GATHERING of Matthew 22 was about the preaching of the gospel over a long period of time. That’s my understanding of your position about the gathering in the parable of the wedding feast.

Looks like I misspoke then. I meant that the parable is about the preaching of the gospel over a long period of time and at the end of that time is when everyone is gathered. I did not mean to say that people are gathered during that whole time. The gathering of those who accepted God's offer of salvation takes place when Jesus returns (1 Thessalonians 4:14-17, Matthew 24:30-31, Mark 13:26-27).

Real time? Not sure what that means.

I'm talking about from the perspective of what is being symbolically represented. So, I meant to refer to what is happening in real time or in reality that is being symbolized in the text. But, notice that what you said here is in response to me not knowing what you meant. I don't know why I bother talking to you when we don't even understand each other at least half the time.

I simply mean this: when Revelation 19 is read immediately followed by Revelation 20, before any theological system is imposed onto the text, the narrative naturally reads as chronological progression.

That's merely your opinion and proves absolutely nothing. John was not always seeing events as they would occur chronologically in real time. That is very clear when you look at Revelation 11 and 12. So, why try to insist that the phrase "And I saw" implies that what immediately follows would be a chronological progression from what immediately preceded it? There's no basis for making that assumption.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

In Revelation 19, the harlot is judged and destroyed, followed by the defeat of the beast and the false prophet. Then in Revelation 20, attention shifts to the binding and eventual judgment of Satan. Read in sequence, the vision presents a successive unfolding of Christ’s victory over His enemies—first the harlot, then the beast and false prophet, and finally Satan himself.

What you need to do if you really want to make a convincing argument is tell me your understanding of the timing of Revelation 19:11-21 and Revelation 20:1-3. You're trying to claim that at least part of what is described in Revelation 20:1-3, which includes Christ beginning to reign and Satan being bound, has to occur chronologically after what is described in Revelation 19:11-21 or, at least, Revelation 19:21. I just have no reason to take that seriously without even knowing how you interpret those verses.

On a straightforward narrative reading, the structure gives the impression of a progressive account of defeat rather than a reset or recapitulation.

That's your opinion and I disagree with it no matter how many times you say it. That's what you would naturally think in relation to Revelation 12 as well, yet we both know that what is described in at least the beginning of Revelation 12 does not follow what is described at the end of Revelation 11.

Yes

Okay, so you are basically saying then that you believe the beginning of the reign of Christ and the time when Satan was initially bound occurred chronologically after what is described at the end of Revelation 19. Explain how that can be the case.

Unknown reason?? Revelation 20:10 is part of the same Satanic narrative unit in Revelation 20:1–10. Within that sequence, Satan is bound (vv. 1–3), later released (vv. 7–9), and finally thrown into the lake of fire (v. 10).

Are you even trying to see my point? I was trying to get you to clarify whether you believed the beginning of that sequence followed what is described at the end of Revelation 19 chronologically or not. So, bringing up Revelation 20:10 does nothing to answre that question. But, you seemed to finally answer it above and that your answer is, yes, you would say that the binding of Satan and beginning of the reign of Christ that would last for a thousand years chronologically follows what is described at the end of Revelation 19.

The key point is this: verse 10 doesn’t function as an isolated theological summary - it is the narrative conclusion of the events just described in 20:1–9. It completes Satan’s storyline.

And importantly, verse 10 explicitly places Satan in the same lake of fire where the beast and false prophet already are. That detail naturally connects back to Revelation 19:20, where the beast and false prophet are cast into the lake of fire prior to Satan’s final judgment.

This is a separate discussion from determining if Satan's binding occurred chronologically after what is described at the end of Revelation 19 or not.

So rather than collapsing chronology, Revelation 20:10 actually preserves it: it shows Satan arriving at the same end-state already reached by the beast and false prophet, which presupposes the prior judgment described in Revelation 19.

Also, nothing in revelation 20 says Christ “began” to reign. So I don’t know what you are talking about??

In order for Him to reign for a thousand years He has to begin to reign at the beginning of the thousand years, right? I can't believe I have to spell this out to you. What I'm trying to get you to clarify is whether or not you believe that the beginning of His reign chronologically followed what is described at the end of Revelation 19 or not. It seems that you do believe that?

It’s based on you previously stating “the gathering” in the parable of the wedding feast = the preaching of the gospel over a long period of time.

So that’s not the case any more?

Again, I misspoke. I was addressing something you were saying about your particular view of the Matthew 22:1-13 parable, so I had the word gathering in my mind and I misspoke when describing the gospel invitation going out over a period of time. I meant to say that I didn't see the timing of the gathering the same as you do. We agree that the invitation goes out over a period of time and people accept or reject the invitation during that time, but I don't believe the gathering occurs until Jesus returns because that is what other scripture indicates.

Cool. We agree.

It seems like a miracle whenever we agree on anything. Partly because it's at least a minor miracle whenever we actually understand what the other is saying.

 

[Davidpt]

My point was that Davidpt often hammers the importance of chronology as a driving force for his theology, yet throws that out in revelation 8:2.

But why do I need to do that in Revelation 8:2? Because I have no choice but to if the 6th seal is involving the 7th trumpet. It's mathematically impossible to go from seal 7 to that of trumpet 1 then arrive at trumpet 7 during seal 6. Obviously, 6 comes before 7, not after 7. It might be different if seal 6 didn't involve the 7th trumpet, yet it clearly does in my view.

Am I then being inconsistent by treating Revelation 19-20 in a different manner? Maybe, maybe not.

Take ch 5 and 6, for instance. I would not treat the "I saw" in ch 6 in the same manner I treat the "I saw' in ch 8. Yet I do treat the "I saw" in chapter 6 in the same manner I treat the "I saw" in Revelation 20:1. Therefore, it doesn't seem possible to treat the "I saw' in the same manner every time.

Revelation 6 is clearly continuing from where ch 5 left off. But In Revelation 8 it is different, for the reasons I already specified.

If all this equals me being inconsistent, then the same applies to @Spiritual Israelite as well, if he too treats ch 5 and 6 chronologically but then doesn't in regard to the 7th seal and the unfolding of the 7 trumpets. Obviously, he can't have the 7 trumpets meaning after the 6th seal if he too has the 6th seal involving the the 7th trumpet. Therefore, to insist I'm not being consistent, as if he is, is hardly fair to me. Not to mention. Notice how he treats the I saw in ch 6 in regard to ch 5 vs how he treats the I saw in ch 20 in regard to ch 19. He treats them in an entirely different manner if he takes ch 6 to chronologically follow ch 5. So why am I being charged with not being consistent but he isn't being charged with it?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

But why do I need to do that in Revelation 8:2? Because I have no choice but to if the 6th seal is involving the 7th trumpet. It's mathematically impossible to go from seal 7 to that of trumpet 1 then arrive at trumpet 7 during seal 6. Obviously, 6 comes before 7, not after 7. It might be different if seal 6 didn't involve the 7th trumpet, yet it clearly does in my view.

Am I then being inconsistent by treating Revelation 19-20 in a different manner? Maybe, maybe not.

Take ch 5 and 6, for instance. I would not treat the "I saw" in ch 6 in the same manner I treat the "I saw' in ch 8. Yet I do treat the "I saw" in chapter 6 in the same manner I treat the "I saw" in Revelation 20:1. Therefore, it doesn't seem possible to treat the "I saw' in the same manner every time.

Revelation 6 is clearly continuing from where ch 5 left off. But In Revelation 8 it is different, for the reasons I already specified.

There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason as to how you determine when things are chronological and when they are not. I think that is what @claninja is trying to point out. I tend to agree.

If all this equals me being inconsistent, then the same applies to @Spiritual Israelite as well, if he too treats ch 5 and 6 chronologically but then doesn't in regard to the 7th seal and the unfolding of the 7 trumpets.

I would not equate that with you somehow seeing the seals and trumpets being parallel to each other, but not the vials. I am consistent in seeing several parallels within the book all culminating with the second coming of Christ. Your understanding of where things are chronological and where they are not seems more random and inconsistent.

Obviously, he can't have the 7 trumpets meaning after the 7th seal if he too has the 6th seal involving the the 7th trumpet. Therefore, to insist I'm not being consistent, as if he is, is hardly fair to me.

How are you being consistent by seeing parallels between the seals and trumpets but not also with the vials?

 

[Davidpt]

How are you being consistent by seeing parallels between the seals and trumpets but not also with the vials?

Because in my view the 7th trumpet is during the 6th seal and that the 7 vials of wrath are contained in the 7th trumpet. How can the DOTL not involve the fierce wrath of God? How can any of the vials not be involving the fierce wrath of God?

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

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.

Revelation 6:17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

Revelation 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.

Revelation 11:18 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.

Every single passage I just submitted has this word in common---wrath.

If you do a search in Revelation for the word 'wrath' I'm not seeing anywhere, in regard to God's wrath that is pertaining to trumpets 1-6, for example. Maybe you see something I overlooked, but I don't see anything offhand.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Because in my view the 7th trumpet is during the 6th seal and that the 7 vials of wrath are contained in the 7th trumpet.

I don't see how that answers my question. How do you conclude that the 7 vials of wrath are contained in the 7th trumpet?

How can the DOTL not involve the fierce wrath of God?

It does, but it involves the wrath of Christ when He returns, as indicated in passages like 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3 and 2 Peter 3:10-12. So, unless the vials of wrath all refer to the wrath that will occur on the day Jesus returns, it's not possible that all of the vials occur on the day of the Lord.

How can any of the vials not be involving the fierce wrath of God?

Do you believe they all refer to the wrath that will occur when the DOTL arrives unexpectedly as a thief in the night when Jesus returns? Because, again, that is the wrath that scripture associates with the DOTL.

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

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.

Revelation 6:17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

Revelation 6:17 refers to the wrath of the Lamb (Jesus) specifically. Do you see the seven vials as all referring to the wrath of Christ?

Revelation 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.

How can the seven vials all follow the kingdoms of the world already having become the kingdoms of God the Father and Christ?

Revelation 11:18 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.

Every single passage I just submitted has this word in common---wrath.

Sure, but what is the context of each verse? The seventh trumpet brings the final wrath that will occur when Jesus returns at the last trumpet. Do you not believe that the seventh trumpet is the last trumpet? You do believe that Jesus will return when the last trumpet sounds, don't you?

If you do a search in Revelation for the word 'wrath' I'm not seeing anywhere, in regard to God's wrath that is pertaining to trumpets 1-6, for example. Maybe you see something I overlooked, but I don't see anything offhand.

Whatever the vials of wrath refer to exactly is something we can try to determine, but I'm trying to tell you that the wrath that is associated with the unexpected arrival of the DOTL is the wrath of Christ that will come down on the day He comes as a thief in the night. To me, only the 7th vial describes that wrath and is parallel to the 7th trumpet and 7th seal. You might ask what about the 6th seal? Notice that passage talks about the wrath of Christ being at hand at that point, but not actually coming down quite yet because it talks about people wanting to hide from it. It comes down once the 7th seal is opened, which I believe is very shortly after that.

 

[Davidpt]

How can Micah 4:3 ever be fulfilled in a literal manner, this age or a Premil millennium? The Bible never passes away and the Bible contains detailed descriptions of war. How can war not be learned anymore literally? I think you’re going to have to argue that people don’t have free will if you argue they can’t literally learn war. Maybe you have no free will in the millennium, I don’t know.

As for the question about Micah 4:3 (they shall learn war no more), the issue is different. Even if books describing war still exist, that does not necessarily mean people are learning war in the sense intended by the prophecy. The Hebrew expression generally refers to training for warfare or preparing for military conflict, not merely possessing historical knowledge that wars once occurred. Reading an account of ancient battles is different from nations maintaining armies, military academies, and combat training.

So a Premil like myself could argue that Micah 4:3 is literally fulfilled because warfare ceases as a human institution, even though Scripture still records historical wars.

As to no free will during the millennium. I would not agree with that based on Zechariah 14:16-19, for one. It appears they have a choice in the matter. Choices involve free will. If they don't come up there are consequences for failing to comply.

I would say what it looks like spiritually is a garden of Eden scenario, prior to the fall of mankind, when there was innocence and no sin. Only going back to that time can war be learned no more, war can be learned once sin enters into the equation. Remove sin and you have swords into plowshares, the wolf and the lamb feeding together, all things become new, and so on. Christ removes or put away sin and that’s what it’s pointing to spiritually.

Were there even nations back then? Micah 4:3 is involving nation no longer coming against nation. I can't seem to make sense of it if we are to apply this spiritually to the here and now. Nation and nation require at least 2 or more nations no longer doing these things.

 

[grafted branch]

As for the question about Micah 4:3 (they shall learn war no more), the issue is different. Even if books describing war still exist, that does not necessarily mean people are learning war in the sense intended by the prophecy. The Hebrew expression generally refers to training for warfare or preparing for military conflict, not merely possessing historical knowledge that wars once occurred. Reading an account of ancient battles is different from nations maintaining armies, military academies, and combat training.

So a Premil like myself could argue that Micah 4:3 is literally fulfilled because warfare ceases as a human institution, even though Scripture still records historical wars.

As to no free will during the millennium. I would not agree with that based on Zechariah 14:16-19, for one. It appears they have a choice in the matter. Choices involve free will. If they don't come up there are consequences for failing to comply.

Ok, I have had some Premils tell me there will not be Chess, Checkers, laser tag, type games in the millennium because war won’t be learned.

I think it’s fair to limit the scope of war being learned to governmental military type operations. But, let’s not forget about terrorist and organized crime, they often perform war like activities and aren’t generally considered to be a government. Limiting the scope of Micah 4:3 to legitimate governments learning war has its problems when we have people able to use their free will to organize themselves against government.

Our National Guard has been used for conflicts within our own country and against organized crime. For a government to voluntarily dismantle a military unit like the National Guard they would need the assurance that the problems it addresses will not arise again. Will Jesus Himself be addressing those problems or will He be using subordinates like the National Guard for that?

If we argue that there won’t be any effort whatsoever to organize against the millennial reign of Christ while Satan is bound then you have the free will issue again. We would have to say people don’t have the free will to disagree with how Christ reigns or if they can disagree they don’t have the free will to organize against Christ.

Were there even nations back then? Micah 4:3 is involving nation no longer coming against nation. I can't seem to make sense of it if we are to apply this spiritually to the here and now. Nation and nation require at least 2 or more nations no longer doing these things.

No, there were no nations in the garden of Eden, at least what we would currently consider a nation to be. In Acts 3:21 we have the restitution of all things. When did the wolf and the lamb feed together? Did that ever occur after the fall of man? No, that took place in the garden of Eden.

Acts 3:21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

 

[Davidpt]

Ok, I have had some Premils tell me there will not be Chess, Checkers, laser tag, type games in the millennium because war won’t be learned.

I think it’s fair to limit the scope of war being learned to governmental military type operations. But, let’s not forget about terrorist and organized crime, they often perform war like activities and aren’t generally considered to be a government. Limiting the scope of Micah 4:3 to legitimate governments learning war has its problems when we have people able to use their free will to organize themselves against government.

Our National Guard has been used for conflicts within our own country and against organized crime. For a government to voluntarily dismantle a military unit like the National Guard they would need the assurance that the problems it addresses will not arise again. Will Jesus Himself be addressing those problems or will He be using subordinates like the National Guard for that?

If we argue that there won’t be any effort whatsoever to organize against the millennial reign of Christ while Satan is bound then you have the free will issue again. We would have to say people don’t have the free will to disagree with how Christ reigns or if they can disagree they don’t have the free will to organize against Christ.


No, there were no nations in the garden of Eden, at least what we would currently consider a nation to be. In Acts 3:21 we have the restitution of all things. When did the wolf and the lamb feed together? Did that ever occur after the fall of man? No, that took place in the garden of Eden.

Acts 3:21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

I have to admit, that slipped my mind. Your point in regard to terrorist and organized crime is certainly valid.

But even so, assuming a millennium follows the 2nd coming, there is not one Scripture I'm aware of that indicates terrorists and organized crime is going to be an issue at the time.


Here is something to ponder. If the battle pertaining to Revelation 20:7-9 happens in the end of this age, this would seem to mean the battle is going to be involving, tanks, planes, ships, missiles, the whole 9 yards, in that case. I'm not remotely saying that is Amil's position. I'm saying that that would have to be the logic if meaning in the end of this age. It's not like, if Jesus were to return within the next 20 years, that there will be no such thing as tanks, planes, ships, missiles, the whole 9 yards. We are to believe one wouldn't try and use those weapons on Christ and His invading armies?

But if we place Revelation 20:7-11 a thousand years after the 2nd coming, then apply Micah 4:3, this obviously means the battle involving Revelation 20:7-9 won't be involving tanks, planes, ships, missiles, the whole 9 yards. These things would have been done away with during the beginning of the millennium. Plus I tend to think the 7 years of burning weapons(Ezekiel 39) might symbolize the destroying of all weapons like this. They then do what Micah 4:3 records, following the destroying of all weapons.

 

[claninja]

I can't even be sure what you are intending to say at this point. So, here's a question for clarification. Are you trying to argue that the phrase "And I saw" implies that what is described immediately after it occurs chronologically after what was described immediately before it? That has been my understanding of your argument the whole time.

Im saying “and I saw” doesn’t necessarily indicate a reset of the timeline. In other words, revelation 8:2 is chronologically following 8:1 within the series of visions - when the 7th seal is opened, there is silence for half an hour, 7 angels are given 7 trumpets, and an angel throws incense and fire to earth.

The issue is recapitulation - how do we determine when and where recapitulation occurs within revelation, if “and I saw” does not determine it.

Of course not. I'm not making that argument. Why is it that we can't seem to understand anything the other person is saying? We might as well be speaking different languages. All I'm saying is that the phrase "And I saw" does not automatically mean what is described immediately after that phrase has to chronologically follow what was described immediately before that phrase. So, do you agree with that or not? Key word there is "often". I can't believe after all this time discussing this that you have apparently missed my point the entire time. Well, actually, I can believe it. But, anyway, all I'm saying is that it doesn't necessarily have to mean that. So, you apparently agree with that, after all?

If the key word is “often”, then how do you determine when “and I saw” does NOT chronologically follow what came before it?

In other words, if revelation consists of recapitulations, we should be able to find those in the context of the narrative prior to applying external framework.

When is the last time you actually read Revelation 6? It only actually has the phrase "and I saw" once in the first verse. In verse 11 it says "When He opened the fifth seal, I saw". And that's it. No other time does it contain the phrase "And I saw" or "I saw". So, in relation to the two times "And I saw" or "I saw" are used, I would answer no, I do not disagree. But, so what? That doesn't prove that every time it says "And I saw" in Revelation, it represents a chronological shift.
Yep. But, so what? That does not prove every time it says "And I saw" or something similar, it means it represents a chronological shift. You deny that John saying "Now a great sign appeared in heaven" in Revelation 12:1 is the same thing as him saying "And I saw a great sign in heaven", but I completely disagree. It is the same, but just with different wording. And we know that what is described starting in Revelation 12:1 does not chronologically follow what was described in Revelation 11:19.

Incorrect, more than once: 6:1, 6:2, 6:12 all contain the Greek phrase “and I saw”. But I’m assuming you would also agree that these are in chronological order.

Looks like I misspoke then. I meant that the parable is about the preaching of the gospel over a long period of time and at the end of that time is when everyone is gathered. I did not mean to say that people are gathered during that whole time. The gathering of those who accepted God's offer of salvation takes place when Jesus returns (1 Thessalonians 4:14-17, Matthew 24:30-31, Mark 13:26-27).

Ok, so to clarify, you believe the gathering of the good and band into the wedding hall in Matthew 22, is the same gathering as the elect in Matthew 24?

How about the command to invite as Many as you can find after the first guests rejected? In the chronology of the parable, the command to invite as many as you can find goes out exclusively after the destruction of the city. Do you interpret this command to invite to have occurred exclusively post Jerusalems destruction? Or how about the first guests. Do you interpret this as only the Jews were invited prior to the city’s destruction?

Or is the chronology of the parable not as important to your theological interpretation of that parable?

I'm talking about from the perspective of what is being symbolically represented. So, I meant to refer to what is happening in real time or in reality that is being symbolized in the text. But, notice that what you said here is in response to me not knowing what you meant. I don't know why I bother talking to you when we don't even understand each other at least half the time. merely your opinion and proves absolutely nothing. John was not always seeing events as they would occur chronologically in real time. That is very clear when you look at Revelation 11 and 12. So, why try to insist that the phrase "And I saw" implies that what immediately follows would be a chronological progression from what immediately preceded it? There's no basis for making that assumption.

And I’m talking about the visions PRIOR to their interpretation.

what is the chronology as presented in the vision prior to interpretation? In otherwords, prior to interpreting revelation 19 as the 2nd coming, and revelation 20 as Christ beginning to reign according to amil, how are you determining that narrative of revelation 20:1-9 doesn’t occur chronologically post revelation 19?

 

[Truth7t7]

as i thought. You are conjecture centered.
no verses at all.

Pot, Kettle, Black

 

[grafted branch]

Here is something to ponder. If the battle pertaining to Revelation 20:7-9 happens in the end of this age, this would seem to mean the battle is going to be involving, tanks, planes, ships, missiles, the whole 9 yards, in that case. I'm not remotely saying that is Amil's position. I'm saying that that would have to be the logic if meaning in the end of this age. It's not like, if Jesus were to return within the next 20 years, that there will be no such thing as tanks, planes, ships, missiles, the whole 9 yards. We are to believe one wouldn't try and use those weapons on Christ and His invading armies?

Let’s assume Micah 4:3 is talking about literal weapons being recycled into farming equipment. Where would Joel 3:10 take place? In that verse they beat their plowshares into swords and pruning hooks into spears, then in verse 15 the sun and moon will be darkened, and the stars no longer shine.

It would seem that Micah 4:3 should take place first, thus having an abundance of farming equipment, then Joel 3:10. If we say Joel 3:10 takes place first then we have to make assumptions about why our current military weapons stockpiles in the world are depleted to the point existing farming equipment is turned into weapons. I suppose we could argue that the Ezekiel 39 burning of weapons takes place prior to Joel 3:10 but I would think farming equipment wouldn’t be the first choice of items to do away with in order to create more weapons, at least in our current society.

But if we place Revelation 20:7-11 a thousand years after the 2nd coming, then apply Micah 4:3, this obviously means the battle involving Revelation 20:7-9 won't be involving tanks, planes, ships, missiles, the whole 9 yards.

What weapons, if any, do you think will be used in a Premil Revelation 20:7-9 battle?

 

[Truth7t7]

I have to admit, that slipped my mind. Your point in regard to terrorist and organized crime is certainly valid.

But even so, assuming a millennium follows the 2nd coming, there is not one Scripture I'm aware of that indicates terrorists and organized crime is going to be an issue at the time.


Here is something to ponder. If the battle pertaining to Revelation 20:7-9 happens in the end of this age, this would seem to mean the battle is going to be involving, tanks, planes, ships, missiles, the whole 9 yards, in that case. I'm not remotely saying that is Amil's position. I'm saying that that would have to be the logic if meaning in the end of this age. It's not like, if Jesus were to return within the next 20 years, that there will be no such thing as tanks, planes, ships, missiles, the whole 9 yards. We are to believe one wouldn't try and use those weapons on Christ and His invading armies?

But if we place Revelation 20:7-11 a thousand years after the 2nd coming, then apply Micah 4:3, this obviously means the battle involving Revelation 20:7-9 won't be involving tanks, planes, ships, missiles, the whole 9 yards. These things would have been done away with during the beginning of the millennium. Plus I tend to think the 7 years of burning weapons(Ezekiel 39) might symbolize the destroying of all weapons like this. They then do what Micah 4:3 records, following the destroying of all weapons.

Micah Chapter 4 is nothing more than the Eternal Kingdom in the New Heaven and Earth, after (The Day Of The Lord) takes place, the parallel reading is found in Isaiah Chapter 2 that gives a more detailed explanation

Micah 4:7 below clearly tells the reader that it's the eternal forever kingdom

Micah 4:7KJV
7 And I will make her that halted a remnant, and her that was cast far off a strong nation: and the Lord shall reign over them in mount Zion from henceforth, even for ever.

Isaiah Chapter 2:12-22 represents the (Day Of The Lord) second coming of Jesus Christ (The End) and Isaiah 2:2-5 represents the eternal kingdom in the New Heaven and Earth that follows (The Day Of The Lord)

Isaiah 2:1-22KJV
1 The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem.
2 And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.
3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
5 O house of Jacob, come ye, and let us walk in the light of the Lord.
6 Therefore thou hast forsaken thy people the house of Jacob, because they be replenished from the east, and are soothsayers like the Philistines, and they please themselves in the children of strangers.
7 Their land also is full of silver and gold, neither is there any end of their treasures; their land is also full of horses, neither is there any end of their chariots:
8 Their land also is full of idols; they worship the work of their own hands, that which their own fingers have made:
9 And the mean man boweth down, and the great man humbleth himself: therefore forgive them not.
10 Enter into the rock, and hide thee in the dust, for fear of the Lord, and for the glory of his majesty.
11 The lofty looks of man shall be humbled, and the haughtiness of men shall be bowed down, and the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day.
12 For the day of the Lord of hosts shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty, and upon every one that is lifted up; and he shall be brought low:
13 And upon all the cedars of Lebanon, that are high and lifted up, and upon all the oaks of Bashan,
14 And upon all the high mountains, and upon all the hills that are lifted up,
15 And upon every high tower, and upon every fenced wall,
16 And upon all the ships of Tarshish, and upon all pleasant pictures.
17 And the loftiness of man shall be bowed down, and the haughtiness of men shall be made low: and the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day.
18 And the idols he shall utterly abolish.
19 And they shall go into the holes of the rocks, and into the caves of the earth, for fear of the Lord, and for the glory of his majesty, when he ariseth to shake terribly the earth.
20 In that day a man shall cast his idols of silver, and his idols of gold, which they made each one for himself to worship, to the moles and to the bats;
21 To go into the clefts of the rocks, and into the tops of the ragged rocks, for fear of the Lord, and for the glory of his majesty, when he ariseth to shake terribly the earth.
22 Cease ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils: for wherein is he to be accounted of ?

 

[claninja]

What you need to do if you really want to make a convincing argument is tell me your understanding of the timing of Revelation 19:11-21 and Revelation 20:1-3. You're trying to claim that at least part of what is described in Revelation 20:1-3, which includes Christ beginning to reign and Satan being bound, has to occur chronologically after what is described in Revelation 19:11-21 or, at least, Revelation 19:21. I just have no reason to take that seriously without even knowing how you interpret those verses
That's your opinion and I disagree with it no matter how many times you say it. That's what you would naturally think in relation to Revelation 12 as well, yet we both know that what is described in at least the beginning of Revelation 12 does not follow what is described at the end of Revelation 11

My entire premise is this: How do we determine that Revelation is recapitulating before applying an external interpretive framework?

As we’ve already established, the phrase “and I saw” does not, by itself, indicate that John has started a new recapitulation. So by what textual criterion do we conclude that Revelation 8:2 begins a new recapitulation? Or that Revelation 20:1 does? If the answer is based on a theological framework brought to the text rather than indicators within the text itself, then the conclusion has been assumed rather than demonstrated.

My position is simply that Revelation 20:1–10 follows chapter 19 chronologically. Revelation 20:1–10 never says Christ begins to reign. It only says that the saints come to life and reign with Christ for a thousand years. The idea that Christ’s reign begins at that point is an inference from a particular theological framework, not something the text explicitly states.

Revelation 20:1–10 is one continuous vision. Satan is bound, the saints live and reign with Christ for a thousand years, Satan is released to deceive the nations and wage war, and finally Satan is thrown into the lake of fire - where the beast and the false prophet already are.

• The reason I bring up vs 10 is that the verb “are” (or “to be”) is not actually present in the Greek text. Greek frequently omits the copula, leaving it to be supplied from the context. Literally, the text reads, “where the beast and the false prophet.” Translators supply “are” or “have been thrown” based on the surrounding context. Since the nearest antecedent is Revelation 19:20, where the beast and false prophet are cast into the lake of fire, the most natural reading is that Revelation 20 continues that sequence, with Satan later joining them in the same place after the thousand years. You have not addressed this

As to Revelation 11–12. Chapter 11 concludes with the judgment of the dead. Chapter 12 then opens with “a great sign appeared in heaven” and introduces a woman, a male child, and a dragon attempting to devour the child.

The question, again, is methodological: How do we determine whether chapter 12 continues the chronology of chapter 11 or begins a new recapitulation before importing an external framework?

Here, the text itself provides the answer. The broader context of Revelation places the judgment of the dead after the dragon’s final defeat (Revelation 20:10–15). Yet chapter 12 depicts the dragon still active, attempting to destroy the Messiah at His birth. If chapter 11 has already reached the final judgment, chapter 12 cannot naturally be the next chronological event. The narrative has clearly moved backward, indicating a new visionary cycle. This is based on broader context prior to applying framework

This is a separate discussion from determining if Satan's binding occurred chronologically after what is described at the end of Revelation 19 or not.

I disagree. Revelation 20:1–10 is a single narrative concerning Satan: he is bound (vv. 1–3), released (vv. 7–9), and finally thrown into the lake of fire (v. 10). Verse 10 is the conclusion of that same sequence. If verse 10 chronologically follows Revelation 19 because Satan is thrown into the lake of fire where the beast and false prophet already are, then the burden is on you to demonstrate from the text where John suddenly rewinds the timeline between verses 10 and 1. The chapter itself gives no indication of such a flashback, unless you can show, prior to applying theological framework, how revelation 20:1-10 does not follow chronologically after chapter 19?

In order for Him to reign for a thousand years He has to begin to reign at the beginning of the thousand years, right? I can't believe I have to spell this out to you. What I'm trying to get you to clarify is whether or not you believe that the beginning of His reign chronologically followed what is described at the end of Revelation 19 or not. It seems that you do believe that?

Revelation 20:4 gives the duration of the reign of those who come to life and reign “with” Christ. It does NOT state that Christ Himself reigns for only a thousand years or begins to reign.

Again, I misspoke. I was addressing something you were saying about your particular view of the Matthew 22:1-13 parable, so I had the word gathering in my mind and I misspoke when describing the gospel invitation going out over a period of time. I meant to say that I didn't see the timing of the gathering the same as you do. We agree that the invitation goes out over a period of time and people accept or reject the invitation during that time, but I don't believe the gathering occurs until Jesus returns because that is what other scripture indicates.

You were responding to my question about the difference in the “gathering” between Matthew 22 and Matthew 24. If you were instead addressing the timing, that doesn’t really answer the question I asked if you believe the gathering into the wedding hall of Matthew 22 is the same as the gathering of the elect in Matthew 24.


A couple of points:

1. The rejection of the invitation is only attributed to the first group of guests. The second invitation—which occurs exclusively after the destruction of the city- doesn’t mention anyone refusing or choosing whether to come. Instead, they are simply gathered.

2. Within the chronology of the parable itself, the invitation to the first guests continues until the destruction of the city. Only after the city is destroyed does the king send his servants to gather “as many as you find.” So, narratively, the invitation of the second group occurs exclusively after the city’s destruction.

Is it safe to say that you don’t interpret this chronology in a strict literal fashion?