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

[grafted branch]

There are other ways to try and determine some of these things. one of those being comparing some of Revelation 19-20 with some of Daniel 7, and some of Isaiah 24, to name a few. Then you end up with some Amils questioning where does it ever mention a thousand years in Daniel 7 and Isaiah 24? The response to that---why would it if it's not until it was revealed to John via visions that we even know there is an era of times expressed as a thousand years? Maybe it's just me. But I thought the idea was that a lot of these things were hidden in the OT then revealed in the NT. So why are some Amils asking where does it mention a thousand years in any of those OT passages? You got me?

Well, I think generally speaking, Premil tend to interpret in a literal manner and Amil in a spiritual manner. I get it that sometimes a person may make arguments using hermeneutics that favor their position but when the next topic comes up those same hermeneutics work against them. When hypocrisy shows up in someone’s argument no one is convinced they have the correct interpretation.

 

[ewq1938]

I would also ask this---if the sixth seal already depicts the DOTL and humanity standing before God's wrath (Revelation 6:12-17), what chronological events remain before the seventh trumpet reaches the time of judging the dead, rewarding the saints, and establishing Christ's kingdom (Revelation 11:15-18)?

The events found in the seals are prophecy, visions of the future not events that happen when the seals are opened.

TBH, I'm having trouble understanding your objection because I thought we already agreed that the sixth seal depicts the DOTL and the Second Coming.

Depicts futue events but not events happening at the time of the opening.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Im saying “and I saw” doesn’t necessarily indicate a reset of the timeline.

I'm not saying that it necessarily does. Is that what you think I'm saying? I never came close to saying that. All I'm saying is that it CAN indicate a reset of the timeline like I believe it does in Revelation 20:1, for example.

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.

I disagree with that.

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

All of scripture has to be taken into account when interpreting the book of Revelation. And, you have to consider if the book is describing very similar, but different events involving mass destruction or if they are all describing the same event. For example, is the event involving Jesus coming and treading the winepress of God's wrath in Revelation 14:14-20 different than the event involving the winepress of God's wrath in Revelation 19:11-21 or are those both descriptions of the same event? I obviously see it as the latter and I see several such parallels in the book.

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

By looking at context and being familiar with all of scripture so that you interpret the book in such a way that not only doesn't contradict itself, but doesn't contradict any other scriptures.

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.

What does this even mean? You are always expecting scripture to spell everything out for us as if we're little children who have no spiritual discernment. I don't get it. Clearly, it wasn't God's intention to make the book of Revelation an easy read with everything all spelled out to us, so why do you ask questions like this? To me, it's like you're asking why isn't the book written in literal text with everything explicitly spelled out? I would assume because it's a message intended only for believers, so I would see it as being similar to Jesus's parables in that sense.

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.

What translation are you looking at? Not all translations have the same wording.

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?

Yes, but it's not just believers who will be gathered before Christ. It will be all people, as indicated in Matthew 25:31-46. What the parable illustrates is that there will be some there who believed in Christ, but didn't have a personal relationship with Him and He will tell then He doesn't know them. You know that the gathering is the same as when the judgment occurs because it talks about the person who doesn't have the proper wedding garments on being cast "into outer darkness, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth".

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.

I already replied to you about this when we talked about it before. I showed you that the command to invite as many as they could find happens when the wedding is ready and I showed you that the wedding was declared to be ready even before the destruction of the city.

Matthew 22:4 Again, he sent out other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, “See, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted cattle are killed, and all things are ready. Come to the wedding.” ’ 5 But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business.

See here how it is said that the wedding was ready at this point? This is before it describes His servants as being taken and being treated spitefully and being killed and before the city was destroyed. Now, look at this...

Matthew 22:8 Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. 9 Therefore go into the highways, and as many as you find, invite to the wedding.’

So, the timing of this is when the wedding is ready and we can see that the wedding was ready before the city was destroyed. So, Jesus is not necessarily given a chronological sequence of events here, but rather is turning His attention to the Gentiles after describing what happened to the Jews.

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?

No. It's a parable, not an exact literal chronological telling of the sequence of events. Jesus first focuses on what happened with the Jews and then switches to the Gentiles. I don't think it was His intention to say "Okay, so after their city is destroyed then the invitation will go out to the highways". We know the gospel invitation went out to the Gentiles before 70 AD, so we have to keep that in mind here.

Keeping in mind that the parable is about the gospel invitation/offer of salvation, the only way it could make sense if Matthew 22:8 was intended to pick up chronologically where Jesus left off in verse 7 is if He was talking about the gospel spreading even beyond where it had spread up until 70 AD, which was probably only the known world of that time and not to more remote places that it hadn't reached yet. But, I don't know if that's really a valid understanding of what He was saying or not. I think, the view that makes more sense is that He was not intending to give a chronological sequence of events in relation to the gospel going out to the Jews first and then the Gentiles there. He wouldn't have given that sequence in a way that contradicts other scripture and what actually happened.

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

LOL. What kind of question is this? Are you willing to interpret the parable in a way that contradicts other scripture which shows the gospel going out to the Gentiles well before 70 AD?

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?

By looking at what scripture teaches as a whole. But, I guess that approach is somehow not valid to you like it is to almost everyone else.

 

[Davidpt]

The events found in the seals are prophecy, visions of the future not events that happen when the seals are opened.

Why would you think I would not agree with that? I'm not even remotely arguing that as Jesus opened each seal, the events of them began being fulfilled at the time. As far as I can tell, all 6 seals involve the final days of this age. When Jesus opened each seal 2000 years ago it was not yet the final days of this age.

All I'm saying is, the first trumpet, for example, when it sounds in real time, it won't be after the events of seals 1-6 have been fulfilled first. The trumpets happen during the seals. The 6th seal alone proves that if the 7th trumpet sounds during it. Well you can't reach trumpet 7 without 6 trumpets preceding it, though. Therefore, these first 6 trumpets logically fit during the seal events 1-5 and maybe some overlap of trumpet 6 during the beginning of seal 6.

Depicts futue events but not events happening at the time of the opening.

Once again, for the life of me, I fail to understand why you think I would disagree? If Jesus already opened seal 6 2000 years ago, and that seal 6 involves the 7th trumpet, but that the 7th trumpet is yet to sound, how can that even remotely mean I think the seals began being fulfilled as Jesus was opening them?

Trust me, we are closer here than you think, closer than you give me credit for. We are on the same page if you agree that trumpet 7 happens during seal 6 and that seal 6 involves the 2nd coming at some point.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Why would you think I would not agree with that? I'm not even remotely arguing that as Jesus opened each seal, the events of them began being fulfilled at the time. As far as I can tell, all 6 seals involve the final days of this age. When Jesus opened each seal 2000 years ago it was not yet the final days of this age.

All I'm saying is, the first trumpet, for example, when it sounds in real time, it won't be after the events of seals 1-6 have been fulfilled first. The trumpets happen during the seals. The 6th seal alone proves that if the 7th trumpet sounds during it. Well you can't reach trumpet 7 without 6 trumpets preceding it, though. Therefore, these first 6 trumpets logically fit during the seal events 1-5 and maybe some overlap of trumpet 6 during the beginning of seal 6.


Once again, for the life of me, I fail to understand why you think I would disagree? If Jesus already opened seal 6 2000 years ago, and that seal 6 involves the 7th trumpet, but that the 7th trumpet is yet to sound, how can that even remotely mean I think the seals began being fulfilled as Jesus was opening them?

Trust me, we are closer here than you think, closer than you give me credit for. We are on the same page if you agree that trumpet 7 happens during seal 6 and that seal 6 involves the 2nd coming at some point.

We get bogged down in some very silly and unnecessary arguments on this forum sometimes. It doesn't matter when He opened or will open the seals. All that matters is when the events described in each actually happen.

As for the 7th trumpet, do you not see that as being the same as the last trumpet Paul wrote about in 1 Corinthians 15:50-54?

 

[Davidpt]

We get bogged down in some very silly and unnecessary arguments on this forum sometimes. It doesn't matter when He opened or will open the seals. All that matters is when the events described in each actually happen.

As for the 7th trumpet, do you not see that as being the same as the last trumpet Paul wrote about in 1 Corinthians 15:50-54?

Of course the 7th trumpet is meaning the last trump in 1 Corinthians 15:50-54. Is there any particular reason why you think I might not agree with that?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Of course the 7th trumpet is meaning the last trump in 1 Corinthians 15:50-54. Is there any particular reason why you think I might not agree with that?

I, of course, never ask questions for no reason. I didn't think you disagreed with that, but I don't understand your interpretation of the 7 vials in light of the last trumpet and 7th trumpet being the same. The reason I asked that question is because we know that Jesus returns at the 7th and last trumpet, so why do you have all of the vials occurring after He returns (you have all 7 vials being poured out after the 7th trumpet sounds)?

Look at this passage...

2 Thessalonians 1:7 and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, 10 when He comes, in that Day, to be glorified in His saints and to be admired among all those who believe, because our testimony among you was believed.

So, do you see all seven vials as being equal to the vengeance that Jesus will take "on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ" on the day He returns?

 

[Davidpt]

We get bogged down in some very silly and unnecessary arguments on this forum sometimes. It doesn't matter when He opened or will open the seals. All that matters is when the events described in each actually happen.

As for the 7th trumpet, do you not see that as being the same as the last trumpet Paul wrote about in 1 Corinthians 15:50-54?

These things matter, though. For example. If one is Pretrib and take the 7 trumpets to be meaning after all 7 seals, when they get to Revelation 11 and the 7th trumpet, many of them take the 7th trumpet to be meaning the beginning of great tribulation. What some of them would call mid trib. Mid trib of course is just another title for Pretrib. They are the same thing, basically. Except the 7th trumpet is not in the middle of anything. It's at the end of something, this age, in this case.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

These things matter, though.

Of course. But, it does not matter when the seals are opened. It matters when the events in the seals occur. Wouldn't you agree?

For example. If one is Pretrib and take the 7 trumpets to be meaning after all 7 seals, when they get to Revelation 11 and the 7th trumpet, many of them take the 7th trumpet to be meaning the beginning of great tribulation. What some of them would call mid trib. Mid trib of course is just another title for Pretrib. They are the same thing, basically. Except the 7th trumpet is not in the middle of anything. It's at the end of something, this age, in this case.

I agree. So, how does that leave time for all 7 vials to occur after that? Do you see the vials as occurring all in rapid succession on the day Jesus returns at the end of the age after the 7th trumpet sounds?

 

[ewq1938]

Why would you think I would not agree with that? I

A few things you said, similar to this:

The trumpets happen during the seals.

Maybe this is bad wording buit it's wrong. The trumps don't sound anytime near the opening of the seals. As you said, the seals were opened long ago and the trumps are for the endtimes. I personally think we are in the 5th trump but time will tell.

The 6th seal alone proves that if the 7th trumpet sounds during it. Well you can't reach trumpet 7 without 6 trumpets preceding it, though. Therefore, these first 6 trumpets logically fit during the seal events 1-5 and maybe some overlap of trumpet 6 during the beginning of seal 6.

Agaiu, no trumpet sounds during the opening of the seals. The seals re strictly vision of the distant future.

Once again, for the life of me, I fail to understand why you think I would disagree?

See above.

If Jesus already opened seal 6 2000 years ago, and that seal 6 involves the 7th trumpet, but that the 7th trumpet is yet to sound, how can that even remotely mean I think the seals began being fulfilled as Jesus was opening them?

Trust me, we are closer here than you think, closer than you give me credit for. We are on the same page if you agree that trumpet 7 happens during seal 6 and that seal 6 involves the 2nd coming at some point.

We do agree on most of this but a few statements don't seem to fit so maybe bad woprding or something. Let me know :)

 

[claninja]

I determine chronology versus recapitulation primarily by comparing repeated events and thematic markers within Revelation itself, not by importing an external system first.

For example, compare Revelation 6:16-17

For the great day of his wrath is come...

with Revelation 11:18

...thy wrath is come...

Those are unusually similar declarations. Revelation 11 explicitly places thy wrath is come at the sounding of the seventh trumpet (11:15–18), where the kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ.

That suggests to me that the sixth seal and the seventh trumpet are describing the same climactic point from different perspectives rather than two events separated by years. IOW, this is an example of recapitulation.

Likewise, Revelation 6 depicts people crying for the mountains and rocks to hide them from the wrath of the Lamb. If Revelation 11 identifies that wrath with the seventh trumpet, then Revelation itself provides the connection. I don't need to appeal to an outside framework to make that observation.

This is the same reason I let Revelation help interpret Matthew 24:29-30. Although Matthew was written before Revelation, the later revelation provides additional inspired detail that helps identify the timing of those events. The original audience of Matthew did not need Revelation in order to obey Christ's commands, but that does not mean God could not later provide further revelation clarifying the sequence of end-time events.

So my method is not to begin with premil and force Revelation into it. Rather, I first compare parallel passages, repeated phrases, and shared judgment scenes within Revelation itself. Only after doing that do I construct a broader eschatological framework.

I compare repeated expressions, repeated judgment scenes, repeated cosmic language, and repeated descriptions of God's wrath within Revelation. When two passages appear to describe the same climactic event, I conclude they are recapitulating the same point from different perspectives. When the text signals genuine forward movement, I read it chronologically

So, in my mind, I'm not using two different hermeneutics. I'm using the same hermeneutic everywhere. I ask whether the text itself indicates chronological progression or whether it presents another vision of the same events.

In Revelation 6 and 11, I see strong internal evidence that they converge on the same climactic event. Both announce God's wrath (the great day of his wrath is come---thy wrath is come), both depict final judgment themes, and Revelation 11 adds the kingdom being given to Christ. Those textual parallels lead me to conclude they are describing the same point from different visions.

By contrast, between Revelation 19 and 20 I do not see comparable internal evidence requiring recapitulation. Instead, the narrative naturally continues from Christ's victory in chapter 19 to satan's binding in chapter 20. Unless the text provides compelling reasons to restart the timeline, I read the sequence as continuing.

Plus, the way I look at it, if the millennium is applicable to the here and now, you would think something prior to ch 19 and 20 in Revelation supports it. But all I see prior to those chapters is an unbound satan. None of it makes me think it's meaning when satan is depicted bound in the pit. It doesn't matter whether that is literal or not, nothing that I can see prior to chapter 20 leads me to conclude satan is in a bound condition per any of those verses. Meaning any verses prior to ch 20.

I don’t think your argument is far-fetched, but I also don’t think it is the most compelling reading of the passage. When the sixth seal is opened, the text says the great DAY of wrath “has come.” The verb is in the aorist indicative, which presents the arrival of the DAY as a decisive, completed event in concept - emphasizing its arrival

For example, if I say, “The wedding day has come,” I do not mean the wedding is already over, but that the appointed day has arrived and its events are now imminent or underway.

Revelation 6:17 emphasizes the arrival of the “great day of wrath” without specifying the internal sequence or stages of judgments within that day. Revelation 11:18 similarly declares that “your wrath came,” but does so within the context involving the rage of the nations, the establishment of God’s kingdom, and the judgment of the dead, and the reward of the righteous.

So I would argue a natural reading is the 6th seal is opened, the DAY of wrath has come ->the saints are sealed for protection ->the seventh seal is opened ->the trumpets are blown -> after the 7th trumpet is blown elders sing of the coming kingdom, the wrath, and judgement of dead.


As to revelation 19-20, I think I can agree, there is no internal evidence of recapitulation.






.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Well, I think generally speaking, Premil tend to interpret in a literal manner and Amil in a spiritual manner.

This is simply not true. Amil is based on literal, straightforward scriptures that we use to interpret more difficult scriptures in books like Daniel and Revelation.

 

[claninja]

not saying that it necessarily does. Is that what you think I'm saying? I never came close to saying that. All I'm saying is that it CAN indicate a reset of the timeline like I believe it does in Revelation 20:1, for example.

The phrase “and I saw” is never the SOLE indicator that a recapitulation has taken place. You also need surrounding contextual clues determine if recapitulation is happening. That’s what I’m saying. What other internal contextual clues are you using to determine recapitulation in chapter 20?

I disagree with that.

You disagree that the angels are given the trumpets after the 7th seal is opened?

All of scripture has to be taken into account when interpreting the book of Revelation. And, you have to consider if the book is describing very similar, but different events involving mass destruction or if they are all describing the same event. For example, is the event involving Jesus coming and treading the winepress of God's wrath in Revelation 14:14-20 different than the event involving the winepress of God's wrath in Revelation 19:11-21 or are those both descriptions of the same event? I obviously see it as the latter and I see several such parallels in the book.

When “interpreting”, sure. “Interpreting” is the key word.

But you do need to actually read the story/vision/parable as whole prior to determining any theological lesson/meaning.

By looking at context and being familiar with all of scripture so that you interpret the book in such a way that not only doesn't contradict itself, but doesn't contradict any other scriptures.

You can’t make the literal chronology of revelation nicely harmonious with other scripture. It’s never going to happen. You can, however, harmonize the theological lessons from revelation with other scripture.

What does this even mean? You are always expecting scripture to spell everything out for us as if we're little children who have no spiritual discernment. I don't get it. Clearly, it wasn't God's intention to make the book of Revelation an easy read with everything all spelled out to us, so why do you ask questions like this? To me, it's like you're asking why isn't the book written in literal text with everything explicitly spelled out? I would assume because it's a message intended only for believers, so I would see it as being similar to Jesus's parables in that sense.

How do you know revelation 20 starts a new recapitulation from the internal context?

What translation are you looking at? Not all translations have the same wording.

I’m looking at the Greek.

Yes, but it's not just believers who will be gathered before Christ. It will be all people, as indicated in Matthew 25:31-46. What the parable illustrates is that there will be some there who believed in Christ, but didn't have a personal relationship with Him and He will tell then He doesn't know them. You know that the gathering is the same as when the judgment occurs because it talks about the person who doesn't have the proper wedding garments on being cast "into outer darkness, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth".
I already replied to you about this when we talked about it before. I showed you that the command to invite as many as they could find happens when the wedding is ready and I showed you that the wedding was declared to be ready even before the destruction of the city.

Matthew 22:4 Again, he sent out other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, “See, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted cattle are killed, and all things are ready. Come to the wedding.” ’ 5 But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business.

See here how it is said that the wedding was ready at this point? This is before it describes His servants as being taken and being treated spitefully and being killed and before the city was destroyed. Now, look at this...

Matthew 22:8 Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. 9 Therefore go into the highways, and as many as you find, invite to the wedding.’

So, the timing of this is when the wedding is ready and we can see that the wedding was ready before the city was destroyed. So, Jesus is not necessarily given a chronological sequence of events here, but rather is turning His attention to the Gentiles after describing what happened to the Jews.
No. It's a parable, not an exact literal chronological telling of the sequence of events. Jesus first focuses on what happened with the Jews and then switches to the Gentiles. I don't think it was His intention to say "Okay, so after their city is destroyed then the invitation will go out to the highways". We know the gospel invitation went out to the Gentiles before 70 AD, so we have to keep that in mind here.

Keeping in mind that the parable is about the gospel invitation/offer of salvation, the only way it could make sense if Matthew 22:8 was intended to pick up chronologically where Jesus left off in verse 7 is if He was talking about the gospel spreading even beyond where it had spread up until 70 AD, which was probably only the known world of that time and not to more remote places that it hadn't reached yet. But, I don't know if that's really a valid understanding of what He was saying or not. I think, the view that makes more sense is that He was not intending to give a chronological sequence of events in relation to the gospel going out to the Jews first and then the Gentiles there. He wouldn't have given that sequence in a way that contradicts other scripture and what actually happened.

This is exactly my point. Your position on Matthew 22’s wedding feast is that it’s parable, not a literal chronological telling of sequence. Therefore, theological lesson is more important than the chronological sequence within the parable, correct?

If that’s the case, I’m not sure why the visions presented revelation 19-20 are not understood in the same manner as your hermeneutic for Matthew 22. The visions may present chapter 19-20 in a chronological sequence, but that’s just it, they are symbolic visions, which don’t override the theological lesson. It’s The theological lesson that should not contradict what is taught in other scripture. But that’s where dispensational premil goes to far imho. They take the symbolic visions literaly, especially chronology, which does often contradict the gospels and epsistles.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The phrase “and I saw” is never the SOLE indicator that a recapitulation has taken place. You also need surrounding contextual clues determine if recapitulation is happening.

Of course. Did I ever say otherwise? No.

That’s what I’m saying.

And I would say the same thing.

What other internal contextual clues are you using to determine recapitulation in chapter 20?

Revelation 19 refers to Christ's second coming and Revelation 20 refers to His reign and to His followers being His priests. He started reigning after His resurrection (Matthew 28:18, Ephesians 1:19-22) and He hasn't come back yet, so it's quite clear that Revelation 20 doesn't just pick up where Revelation 19 left off. Revelation 20:9 refers to fire coming down on all who oppose "the camp of the saints", which I see as being a reference to the church and that lines up with passages like 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10 and 2 Peter 3:10-12.

You disagree that the angels are given the trumpets after the 7th seal is opened?

I disagree that the events related to the trumpets occur after the 7th seal event occurs.

This is exactly my point. Your position on Matthew 22’s wedding feast is that it’s parable, not a literal chronological telling of sequence.

So? It obviously is a parable. And I'm not saying it doesn't have any chronological telling of sequence within it. I just think that Jesus focused on what happened with the Jews first before then focusing on the Gentiles.

Therefore, theological lesson is more important than the chronological sequence within the parable, correct?

Of course.

If that’s the case, I’m not sure why the visions presented revelation 19-20 are not understood in the same manner as your hermeneutic for Matthew 22.

What are you talking about?

The visions may present chapter 19-20 in a chronological sequence, but that’s just it, they are symbolic visions, which don’t override the theological lesson. It’s The theological lesson that should not contradict what is taught in other scripture. But that’s where dispensational premil goes to far imho. They take the symbolic visions literaly, especially chronology, which does often contradict the gospels and epsistles.

You need to learn to communicate more clearly. When we take about chronological sequence I'm thinking in terms of how the events occur in real time. You seem to be talking about something else.