Before the flood is actually "after"

[Randy Kluth]

I do not get what you are proposing here.
Are you saying He is revealed and destroyed at the same time or not???

IOW...are you saying the elect, the church, will have no clue who he really is ???
Not revealed until Jesus returns???

Paul is saying that Christians in his time should reject the current claim that Jesus has already come back and has already begun to establish his Kingdom on earth. In our day we've had cults claim the same thing, that their movement is in process of establishing God's Kingdom on earth.

Of course, Christians are, in a sense, establishing membership in God's Kingdom today. But we are not establishing the eschatological Kingdom on earth yet. There is a big difference!

So Paul is saying that Christians should not be deceived by such false prophecies that Christ's eschatological Kingdom is presently being established on earth. And Paul's argument is very simple: if Antichrist has not come yet, and fulfilled his 3.5 year reign, as Dan 7 depicts, then the Son of Man cannot yet have come down from the clouds of heaven.

This is the scenario painted by Daniel in ch. 7. The Son of Man comes to destroy the Antichrist.

So unless you see the Antichrist being destroyed, then Christ is not coming yet. Simple. Antichrist is, as Paul said, the "man doomed to destruction." That is, Christ will come to destroy him "with the breath of his mouth" at his Coming.

Unless Antichrist is being destroyed *right now* then don't say that Christ has already come and is already establishing his eschatological Kingdom. That is Paul's argument in 2 Thes 2!

He is not just saying that Antichrist must be revealed 1st. Far more than that Paul is saying that Christ's very purpose in coming is to *destroy Antichrist* such that any purported coming of Christ before that event must be deemed a "false prophecy."

 

[rebuilder 454]

This is so typical of those with an agenda to produce a new "prophecy map." I hope you're not trying to do that? You take symbolic language and then try to over-literalize it until it fits your own plan. "Sitting on a cloud" is symbolic language, brother! Revelation is literally strewn with mini-visions that confirm all aspects of Christ's Coming, which relates back to Dan 7 where the Son of Man comes with the clouds of heaven. The full context is right there. Antichrist is destroyed and the Kingdom of God is established on earth. God's People are delivered.

Nice try but "sitting on a Cloud holding a sickle, is NOT riding a white horse at the second coming

And both of those VIVID coming are not mat 25, (the bride groom coming EXPLICITLY AND SINGULARLY for the bride) ...AND IMMEDIATELY taking her into the marriage chamber..

an attempt to erroneously change it is shown to be folly.
The hurdles you have are beyond covering up with "spiritualizing"

 

[Randy Kluth]

Nice try but "sitting on a Cloud holding a sickle, is NOT riding a white horse at the second coming

Not playing games with symbols and words... I did my best--take it or leave it.

You see, there are 2 ways to interpret these things, as I see it. Either you try to synchronize all of the symbols to make them fit your favorite scenario, or you go back to the original blueprint in Dan 7 and see everything said about the Son of Man as related to that context, which is Postribulational.

That's why I see the Church saved *at* the Coming of Christ, and Antichrist having to be destroyed *at* the Coming of Christ, because the original blueprint in Dan 7 explicitly says that!. But you can use "sickle" and "sitting on a cloud" as a smokescreen for your own Pretrib scenario--it's a free world. Symbols can be manipulated any way you want to se them. But you can't ignore explicit biblical statements such as we have in Dan 7 and in 2 Thes 2.

And both of those VIVID coming are not mat 25, (the bride groom coming EXPLICITLY AND SINGULARLY for the bride) ...AND IMMEDIATELY taking her into the marriage chamber..

an attempt to erroneously change it is shown to be folly.
The hurdles you have are beyond covering up with "spiritualizing"

 

[rebuilder 454]

Not playing games with symbols and words... I did my best--take it or leave it.

You see, there are 2 ways to interpret these things, as I see it. Either you try to synchronize all of the symbols to make them fit your favorite scenario, or you go back to the original blueprint in Dan 7 and see everything said about the Son of Man as related to that context, which is Postribulational.

That's why I see the Church saved *at* the Coming of Christ, and Antichrist having to be destroyed *at* the Coming of Christ, because the original blueprint in Dan 7 explicitly says that!. But you can use "sickle" and "sitting on a cloud" as a smokescreen for your own Pretrib scenario--it's a free world. Symbols can be manipulated any way you want to se them. But you can't ignore explicit biblical statements such as we have in Dan 7 and in 2 Thes 2.

You hit all around the three comings vividly portrayed as not lining up.
But Jesus sitting on a cloud is not Jesus sitting on a horse.
No matter how hard you want to change it.
Saying Jesus sitting on a cloud is a smokescreen is such disrespect for the word of God.
You can not unpack it, because you committed to false doctrine.
So you need it changed.
Instead of admitting you are painted into a corner , you sit back and try to spiritualize...not into reconciling it...not into ANY cohesive Understanding...but spiritualize into OMISSION.
That's the heart if the matter. You are shown by those 3 comings, you messed up and now you must accuse me of a mix of nothing burgers.
You can not address the 3 comings.
You literally can not do it.

 

[PinSeeker]

But Jesus sitting on a cloud is not Jesus sitting on a horse.

His coming on the clouds means that He's coming in judgment.

His coming on a horse is his coming in battle and triumph, and to the rescue.

John's Revelation is a picture book, to be read and "seen," really, like a fantasy novel... but of course it's all true. There is no "spiritualization." Or "allegory."

No matter how hard you want to change it.

Nobody's changing anything.

Saying Jesus sitting on a cloud is a smokescreen...

Nobody's saying such.

You can not address the 3 comings.

Well, we could, but such would be foolish, as there are only two.

Grace and peace to you, Rebuilder.

 

[Randy Kluth]

You hit all around the three comings vividly portrayed as not lining up.
But Jesus sitting on a cloud is not Jesus sitting on a horse.
No matter how hard you want to change it.
Saying Jesus sitting on a cloud is a smokescreen is such disrespect for the word of God.

No, what is disrespect for the word of God is your insistence on using symbols, instead of theological statements, to form your theology. Symbols can be manipulated. Theology cannot.

 

[rebuilder 454]

No, what is disrespect for the word of God is your insistence on using symbols, instead of theological statements, to form your theology. Symbols can be manipulated. Theology cannot.

Lol
You changed sitting on a cloud into symbolism
It is you that insists your "spiritualizing" verses, and changing what is written, into a force fit for your theory, that is clearly not what is truth.
Rev14:14
Sitting on a cloud holding a sickle, gathering, AFTER FIRSTFRUIT JEWS is only the main harvest.
No horses, no accompanying millions of horses with saints riding, and a warrior Jesus leading FROM HEAVEN.
Then a bride groom Jesus gathering half the church in mat 24 AND MAT 24:38.
That corner you painted yourself into is simply too great of a problem to come out of. It is called condemnation prior to investigation. The verses I bring to the table on the three Comings, you will never ever see any post-trib teaching that brings those verses voluntarily to the table. Oh they will try to cover them up like some here doing but they cannot and will not address them.

 

[rebuilder 454]

His coming on the clouds means that He's coming in judgment.

His coming on a horse is his coming in battle and triumph, and to the rescue.

John's Revelation is a picture book, to be read and "seen," really, like a fantasy novel... but of course it's all true. There is no "spiritualization." Or "allegory."


Nobody's changing anything.


Nobody's saying such.


Well, we could, but such would be foolish, as there are only two.

Grace and peace to you, Rebuilder.

blend the 3 into one. Let me see your interpretation.
Rev14:14
Sitting on a cloud holding a sickle, gathering, AFTER FIRSTFRUIT JEWS is only the main harvest.
No horses, no accompanying millions of horses with saints riding, and a warrior Jesus leading FROM HEAVEN.
Then a bride groom Jesus gathering half the church in mat 25 AND MAT 24:38.
That corner you painted yourself into is simply too great of a problem to come out of. It is called condemnation prior to investigation. The verses I bring to the table on the three Comings, you will never ever see any post-trib teaching that brings those verses voluntarily to the table. Oh they will try to cover them up like some here doing but they cannot and will not address them.


Randy insists that sitting on a cloud is a smokescreen
Take it up with him.

"That's why I see the Church saved *at* the Coming of Christ, and Antichrist having to be destroyed *at* the Coming of Christ, because the original blueprint in Dan 7 explicitly says that!. But you can use "sickle" and "sitting on a cloud" as a smokescreen for your own Pretrib scenario--it's a free world. Symbols can be manipulated any way you want to se them. But you can't ignore explicit biblical statements such as we have in Dan 7 and in 2 Thes 2."
Tell him how he really has the correct interpretation.
Tell it to him
It is his silliness and detour.

 

[rebuilder 454]

His coming on the clouds means that He's coming in judgment.

His coming on a horse is his coming in battle and triumph, and to the rescue.

John's Revelation is a picture book, to be read and "seen," really, like a fantasy novel... but of course it's all true. There is no "spiritualization." Or "allegory."


Nobody's changing anything.


Nobody's saying such.


Well, we could, but such would be foolish, as there are only two.

Grace and peace to you, Rebuilder.

"""Well, we could, but such would be foolish, as there are only two."""
You not only won't..you can't.
You have no actual interpretation.

 

[rebuilder 454]

Paul is saying that Christians in his time should reject the current claim that Jesus has already come back and has already begun to establish his Kingdom on earth. In our day we've had cults claim the same thing, that their movement is in process of establishing God's Kingdom on earth.

Of course, Christians are, in a sense, establishing membership in God's Kingdom today. But we are not establishing the eschatological Kingdom on earth yet. There is a big difference!

So Paul is saying that Christians should not be deceived by such false prophecies that Christ's eschatological Kingdom is presently being established on earth. And Paul's argument is very simple: if Antichrist has not come yet, and fulfilled his 3.5 year reign, as Dan 7 depicts, then the Son of Man cannot yet have come down from the clouds of heaven.

This is the scenario painted by Daniel in ch. 7. The Son of Man comes to destroy the Antichrist.

So unless you see the Antichrist being destroyed, then Christ is not coming yet. Simple. Antichrist is, as Paul said, the "man doomed to destruction." That is, Christ will come to destroy him "with the breath of his mouth" at his Coming.

Unless Antichrist is being destroyed *right now* then don't say that Christ has already come and is already establishing his eschatological Kingdom. That is Paul's argument in 2 Thes 2!

He is not just saying that Antichrist must be revealed 1st. Far more than that Paul is saying that Christ's very purpose in coming is to *destroy Antichrist* such that any purported coming of Christ before that event must be deemed a "false prophecy."

I know ,and understand, you can not go there.
But anyway, maybe just say "revealed" does not mean "revealed"?

 

[Timtofly]

No, what is disrespect for the word of God is your insistence on using symbols, instead of theological statements, to form your theology. Symbols can be manipulated. Theology cannot.

Theology is the manipulation of God's Word to fit human understanding. Theology comes from humans giving certain interpretations to symbolic words in Scripture. Theology is not the inspired Word of God. Most theology is not inspired by God at all.

Theology is taking God's Word, for instance the 144k, and saying that is merely symbolic, thus we are going to define our own theology and interpret them as not literal, but only a mere representation of something other than what Scripture states.

Of course theology can be manipulated. How else does it create thousands of denominations? A denomination is the manipulation of theology.

God's Word should not be manipulated, but theology is constantly doing that to fit popular belief systems. You think theology is some concrete unchanging truth, yet theology is voted on and changed constantly by humans.

Both symbols in Scripture and human theology can be changed, if enough people are swayed to believe a certain way. Each individual as a member of the church, holds the keys that open and close how the church is perceived. That is why every individual in the church will give an account on how they did or did not obey God in their service to Him. Jesus did not give that power to one single person, nor denomination.

 

[rebuilder 454]

Theology is the manipulation of God's Word to fit human understanding. Theology comes from humans giving certain interpretations to symbolic words in Scripture. Theology is not the inspired Word of God. Most theology is not inspired by God at all.

Theology is taking God's Word, for instance the 144k, and saying that is merely symbolic, thus we are going to define our own theology and interpret them as not literal, but only a mere representation of something other than what Scripture states.

Of course theology can be manipulated. How else does it create thousands of denominations? A denomination is the manipulation of theology.

God's Word should not be manipulated, but theology is constantly doing that to fit popular belief systems. You think theology is some concrete unchanging truth, yet theology is voted on and changed constantly by humans.

Both symbols in Scripture and human theology can be changed, if enough people are swayed to believe a certain way. Each individual as a member of the church, holds the keys that open and close how the church is perceived. That is why every individual in the church will give an account on how they did or did not obey God in their service to Him. Jesus did not give that power to one single person, nor denomination.

Yes
Way too explicit for it to be shelved and minimized.
Vivid and clear. They are actual in number and ethnicity.
.....a huge...huge problem for them.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Theology is the manipulation of God's Word to fit human understanding.

That's pure cynicism. Theology is being defined by the user, namely me. I get to define words the way I wish to use them in the context I'm using them in. By "theology" I'm talking about biblical theology, involving clear-cut statements from the Bible indicating what is to be believed, as opposed to reading into visions and symbols what we *wish* to believe they mean.

Theology is not the inspired Word of God. Most theology is not inspired by God at all.

You're defining "theology" differently than how I was expressly using the term. As I said, what matters most, with respect to what we should believe, is *what the Bible teaches as theology.* In other words, we should believe not what the Bible appears to infer, but what it actually says we should believe, what is at the core of all of its teachings, which is what "theology" is.

Obviously, people can formulate their own theology. But I was expressly talking about *biblical theology.*

Of course theology can be manipulated. How else does it create thousands of denominations? A denomination is the manipulation of theology.

You're completely missing the boat! Of course, people can take a simple comprehensible biblical truth and turn it into a personal theology that constitutes a lie! That is not the point.

If we are to develop a biblical theology at all it must be based on what the Bible says, regardless how of others may wish to obscure it. You can't have biblical fundamentals, or creeds, or Christian doctrine, if you don't have a starting place.

And that starting place is with simple, comprehensible statements in Scriptures that are intended to form doctrine. That is, as I'm using the term, "biblical theology."

God's Word should not be manipulated, but theology is constantly doing that to fit popular belief systems. You think theology is some concrete unchanging truth, yet theology is voted on and changed constantly by humans.

When the Bible says something explicitly, simply, and easily comprehended as such, without too much fuss, then we can rely on what the authors of Scripture are saying. This is why belief in biblical inspiration is so important.

If there is nothing clear in Scriptures, there is no basis for Christian doctrinal unity. Talking about how clear-cut biblical doctrinal statements can be misconstrued by imps and trolls is beside the point.

Both symbols in Scripture and human theology can be changed, if enough people are swayed to believe a certain way. Each individual as a member of the church, holds the keys that open and close how the church is perceived. That is why every individual in the church will give an account on how they did or did not obey God in their service to Him. Jesus did not give that power to one single person, nor denomination.

So your point is what, that there is no basis for truth or unity?

 

[Randy Kluth]

I know ,and understand, you can not go there.
But anyway, maybe just say "revealed" does not mean "revealed"?

You're not making any sense. Jesus has not come unless Antichrist has been "revealed" 1st. Jesus is only coming when he comes to destroy Antichrist. Does "destroy" mean "destroy?"

 

[Randy Kluth]

Lol
You changed sitting on a cloud into symbolism

"sitting on a cloud" is the very definition of symbolism!

 

[Davidpt]

Nice try but "sitting on a Cloud holding a sickle, is NOT riding a white horse at the second coming

Why do a lot of interpreters, pretribbers and post-tribbers alike, take that passage to be meaning Christ?

Ephesians 1:20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,
21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:


Isn't verse 21 true of Christ? Why then, assuming Christ is meant in Revelation 14, would Christ be taking orders from angels rather than giving orders to angels?

Revelation 14:14 And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.
15 And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe.

Compare this with the following.

Matthew 13:39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;


This passage indicates that the reapers are the angels not Christ Himself. And that Christ Himself is the one sending forth His angels to reap. Therefore, the one meant in Revelation 14:14 can't be meaning Christ since these accounts appear to contradict each other if Christ is meant in Revelation 14:14.

Which apparently means that the angel that comes out of the temple in Revelation 14:15 to tell the one in verse 14 it's time to reap, it is Christ Himself from within the temple giving the orders to do so.

 

[PinSeeker]

blend the 3 into one.

Not even sure what you mean by this... but no matter.

Let me see your interpretation.

Well, with all due respect, you're "seeing" seems to be the issue.

Sitting on a cloud...

Seated in judgment...

...holding a sickle, gathering...

Right, with which the final harvest of all mankind will be executed, and the wheat separated from the tares...

AFTER FIRSTFRUIT JEWS is only the main harvest.

Ah, see, I agree with you here... at least to an extent. The "firstfruits for God and the Lamb" are the ones who "have been redeemed from mankind," Rebuilder. Ethnicity has no bearing on those redeemed, those born again of the Spirit; God, "of His own will... brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures" (James 1:18). So this "main harvest," as you call it, is of Jew and Gentile alike, and together, they will be true Jews, members of God's Israel, those whom Paul speaks of in Romans 2:29 ~ "a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter... (h)is praise is not from man but from God." We are the "main harvest," as in those redeemed, those who, as Paul puts it in Ephesians 2:5-8, "even when we were dead in our trespasses, have been made alive together with Christ..." ~ born again of the Spirit ~ "...and raised up with Him and seated with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus..."

The harvest of Revelation 14:14-20)... The main background is the picture of final divine harvest in Joel 3:12-16, where grain is harvested with a sickle, and grapes are trampled in the winepress, and both carry the primary connotation of punishment. But in Revelation specific connotations of punishment come only with the second, grape harvest, thrown into the great winepress of God’s wrath (v. 19). The background from Joel gives us the main clue to interpretation here; both grain and grape harvests are directly primarily the judging the wicked. As in Joel, deliverance for God’s people still comes in conjunction with the judgment of the wicked.

No horses, no accompanying millions of horses with saints riding, and a warrior Jesus leading FROM HEAVEN.

Hmmm, no literal horses, no, but for sure, all the saints who have gone on before will return with Him, following in His wake...

Then a bride groom Jesus gathering half the church in mat 25 AND MAT 24:38.

If one says, "one does this and the other does that," Rebuilder, that does not necessarily imply a strict 1 versus 1 relationship. It could be a many versus many thing, with no real percentages implied at all. And what we know from Scripture is that ~ as Jesus says ~ "many are called, but few are chosen" (Matthew 22:14), which fits with the idea of God preserving a remnant for Himself, which surely implies a minority of the whole rather than two equal portions.

That corner you painted yourself into....

Ah, well, I guess we all "paint ourselves into a corner," so to speak.

It is called condemnation prior to investigation.

Well, as for "investigation," I would hope everyone investigates the things we're discussing here. The issue, though, is often preconceived conclusions, which can precipitate, or result in, faulty, flawed investigation. Often, we call this self-fulfilling prophecy.

The verses I bring to the table on the three Comings...

There are only two "comings," Rebuilder. When He was born of Mary was the first, and when He returns in glory and judgment will be the second. There is no "third coming." Or a second return, as dispensational pre-millennial believers would have it.

...you will never ever see any post-trib teaching that brings those verses voluntarily to the table. Oh they will try to cover them up like some here doing but they cannot and will not address them.

Nah, they just don't "address them" the way you think they should.

Randy insists that sitting on a cloud is a smokescreen...

No, he says (and you even quote him here): "...you can use "sickle" and "sitting on a cloud" as a smokescreen for your own Pretrib scenario..." (emphasis added). See what I mean about your supposed "seeing?"

It is his silliness and detour.

No, Rebuilder, it seems to be all yours...

You have no actual interpretation.

Such a ridiculous assertion, for at least two reasons:

1. I just gave you mine, at least the relevant portion of it, as opposed to yours.
2. To say someone has "no actual interpretation" is to say that that someone has no thoughts or conclusions regarding the matter.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Timtofly]

That's pure cynicism. Theology is being defined by the user, namely me. I get to define words the way I wish to use them in the context I'm using them in. By "theology" I'm talking about biblical theology, involving clear-cut statements from the Bible indicating what is to be believed, as opposed to reading into visions and symbols what we *wish* to believe they mean.

You're defining "theology" differently than how I was expressly using the term. As I said, what matters most, with respect to what we should believe, is *what the Bible teaches as theology.* In other words, we should believe not what the Bible appears to infer, but what it actually says we should believe, what is at the core of all of its teachings, which is what "theology" is.

Obviously, people can formulate their own theology. But I was expressly talking about *biblical theology.*

You're completely missing the boat! Of course, people can take a simple comprehensible biblical truth and turn it into a personal theology that constitutes a lie! That is not the point.

If we are to develop a biblical theology at all it must be based on what the Bible says, regardless how of others may wish to obscure it. You can't have biblical fundamentals, or creeds, or Christian doctrine, if you don't have a starting place.

And that starting place is with simple, comprehensible statements in Scriptures that are intended to form doctrine. That is, as I'm using the term, "biblical theology."

When the Bible says something explicitly, simply, and easily comprehended as such, without too much fuss, then we can rely on what the authors of Scripture are saying. This is why belief in biblical inspiration is so important.

If there is nothing clear in Scriptures, there is no basis for Christian doctrinal unity. Talking about how clear-cut biblical doctrinal statements can be misconstrued by imps and trolls is beside the point.

So your point is what, that there is no basis for truth or unity?

People cannot even get Paul's theology correct which is part of God's Word. The Bible is just a book. The Bible cannot create theology. No one is going to understand you if you make up your own definitions. Words have defined meanings for the purpose of communication. When you say biblical theology, all would understand it is about the Bible, not inspired by God. Unless you think that God is a theologian.

 

[Randy Kluth]

People cannot even get Paul's theology correct which is part of God's Word. The Bible is just a book. The Bible cannot create theology.

Words mean what the user intends it to mean. Does the Bible have its own "theology?" Of course. What I'm saying is that when the Bible makes its theology abundantly clear by making expressly-pointed theological points, then we have something we can put our faith in.

For example, when Jesus said he is the Son of God, the Light of the world, the Bread of life, the source of Eternal Life, and the bread come down from heaven, we have a clear-cut theological statement. We can safely conclude that "Jesus is Divine."

What we cannot do is draw upon a vision of the Son of Man sitting on a cloud and then deduce that it means, according to my theology, that this is one of three comings of Jesus.

 

[Timtofly]

Why do a lot of interpreters, pretribbers and post-tribbers alike, take that passage to be meaning Christ?

Ephesians 1:20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,
21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:


Isn't verse 21 true of Christ? Why then, assuming Christ is meant in Revelation 14, would Christ be taking orders from angels rather than giving orders to angels?

Revelation 14:14 And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.
15 And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe.

Compare this with the following.

Matthew 13:39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;


This passage indicates that the reapers are the angels not Christ Himself. And that Christ Himself is the one sending forth His angels to reap. Therefore, the one meant in Revelation 14:14 can't be meaning Christ since these accounts appear to contradict each other if Christ is meant in Revelation 14:14.

Which apparently means that the angel that comes out of the temple in Revelation 14:15 to tell the one in verse 14 it's time to reap, it is Christ Himself from within the temple giving the orders to do so.

Not so fast here. Jesus Christ is on the earth at that point. Why would He not wait for a messenger from heaven from God to let Him know what is about to happen?

Sure God could shout so all creation could hear. Remember the baptism of Jesus, where there was a dove, and a voice from heaven? John wrote what happened, so that is what John saw.

This is in the midst of the week of the days of the voice of the 7th Trumpet. Either the winepress would happen at that point and all on earth, not redeemed, would be instantly killed. Or the week would be divided into two halves, and Satan would be granted 42 months, and the winepress of God's wrath would then happen at Armageddon.


You cannot kill everyone twice. Either they are dead in the midst of the week, or 42 months later and 4 days later. This is why people get Daniel 9:27 incorrect. The confirmation is the word of the angel at this moment. All would die then, or some would yet need to be redeemed, by being beheaded in the next 42 months, preferably sooner than later. Why wait and take your chance until the very end to be redeemed?

When God confirms the Atonement Covenant with the many, Jesus will know what to do via the messenger from the heavenly temple. If Satan is granted 42 months, Jesus and the 144k will retreat to heavenly mount zion. That is how the beginning of that chapter confirms.

Revelation 14 is a split view like chapter 7. In chapter 7, the church is in heaven per the last half, and the 144k are on the earth. This is after the 6th Seal. Now in Revelation 14, we are in the days of the 7th Trumpet. Yes, we saw the 3rd woe in chapter 13, but that happens instead of the winepress mentioned in chapter 14. Reading Revelation is not the same as watching things happen all at the same time. There is overlap, and two different endings presented by John. Is there any redeemed at that point on the earth? You have to remember that before a new heaven and earth can actually start every thing about curent sin and death has to be removed.

The Flood was not over in a blink of an eye. The baptism of fire, and the final harvest are not over in a blink of an eye. There was and will be a new heaven and earth after the Flood, and after the final harvest during the days of the 7th Trumpet.