Imminent.

[blessedhope]

And The most controversial aspect of the rapture is its timing. Some place it at the end of the tribulation making it concurrent with the Second Coming. Others place it in the middle of the tribulation. Still others believe that it will occur at the beginning of the tribulation. The reason for these differing viewpoints is that the exact time of the rapture is not precisely revealed in scripture. It is only inferred.
I believe the best inference of Scripture is that the rapture will occur before the beginning of the Tribulation. The most important reason has to do with the issue of imminence. Over and over in Scripture we are told to watch for the appearing of the Lord. We are told "to be ready" (Matt. 24:44), "to be on the alert" (Matt. 24:42), "to be dressed in readiness" (Luke 12:35), and to "keep your lamps alight" (Luke 12:35). The clear force of these persistent warnings is that Jesus can appear at any moment. Only the pre-Tribulation concept of the rapture allows for the imminence of the Lord's appearing for His Church.
When the rapture is placed at any other point in time the imminence of the Lord's appearing is destroyed because other prophetic events must happen first. For example, if the rapture is going to occur in mid-tribulation, then why should I live looking for the Lord's appearing at any moment? I would be looking instead for an Israeli peace treaty, the rebuilding of the Temple, and the revelation of the Antichrist. Based on Biblical prophecy, then and only then can the Lord appear.
A key argument in behalf of a pre-trib rapture has to do with the promises of God to protect the Church from His wrath. The book of Revelation shows that the wrath of God will be poured out during the entire period of the tribulation. The Bible promises over and over that the Church will be delivered from God's wrath. Romans 5:9 says that "we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him [Jesus]." 1 Thessalonians 1:10 states that we are waiting "for His Son from heaven...who will deliver us from the wrath to come." The promise is repeated in 1 Thessalonians 5:9 - "God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ."
In addition, there are several prophetic types in Scripture that seem to affirm the concept of deliverance from the tribulation. Enoch is a prominent example. He was a prophet to the Gentiles who was raptured out of the world before God poured out His wrath in the great flood of Noah's time. Enoch appears to be an archetype of the Gentile Church that will be taken out of the world before God pours out His wrath again. If so, then Noah and his family are a prototype for the Jewish remnant that will be protected through the Tribulation.
Another Old Testament symbolic type which points toward a pre-trib rapture is the experience of Lot and his family. They were delivered out of Sodom and Gomorrah before those cities were destroyed. The Apostle Peter alludes to both of these examples in his second epistle. He states that if God spared Noah and Lot, then He surely "knows how to rescue the godly from trial and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment" (2 Peter 4-9).
I believe that we should be looking for two future comings of the Lord, one near the beginning of the tribulation, the other at the end. The first is the rapture that will occur when the Lord appears in the clouds for His Church. He doesn't step foot on earth at that time. The second is the Second Coming. It occurs on Christ's return to the earth to "judge and wage war" against the enemies of God (Revelation 19:11).
His appearance at that time will be so powerful that in addition to destroying the massive armies arrayed against him "with the breath of his mouth" (2 Thessalonians 2:8) that at the moment His foot touches down the Mount of Olives outside of Jerusalem will be "split in two from east to west forming a great valley with half of the mountain moving north and half moving south (Zechariah 14:4).
Many skeptics and unbelievers wallow in ignorance and misjudge God by His unfinished work. However haphazard or mysterious God's dealings with men may appear, those who believe the Bible must acknowledge that His original and unalterable plan has been, and still is progressing systematically to completion. Believers are able to discern God's purpose because of spiritual discernment via the Holy Spirit. The view of the rest is obscured by the fog of evil leaving them to grope in darkness while awaiting the surprise unfolding of God's plan. "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:14).

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

Or there could be another explanation for the Greek word...one that would actually make sense to the first century readers...

Actually, it a presumption on your part to assume it must be something which makes sense to a first century reader.

The fact that much of what is written in Revelation hasn't made sense to not only first century readers, but people through nearly twenty centuries thereafter.

So why must its interpretation only be what could have been understood so long ago?

Well, one reason is that allows the commentator to interject his thoughts for theirs, because we have so little to go on about what the earliest theologians, if you could really say there were any in the first century at all, and for the most part: there aren't. The earliest church leaders had much more on their plate than getting folk acquainted with the book of Revelation - which one early church leader doubted was authentic because the Greek was so poorly written.

How was a first century reader to make sense of this horse in Rev 9:17-19?

...and the heads of the horses are like the heads of lions; and out of their mouths proceed fire and smoke and brimstone. 18 A third of mankind was killed by these three plagues, by the fire and the smoke and the brimstone which proceeded out of their mouths. 19 For the power of the horses is in their mouths and in their tails; for their tails are like serpents and have heads, and with them they do harm.

So we have a horse whose power is not in their size or speed but in their mouth and tails - and those tails are like serpents and have heads, and with them they do harm...

So what did John see?

How would John have been able to make sense of a modern battle tank?

How would he have tried to describe it?

He would have no idea of modern guns.

The gun is like a tail, and it has a mouth out of which comes fire and brimstone... and it has a head on top of its body which turns to do damage..

And a first century reader was going to understand this?

Or is John seeing something which was inexplicable to him that still lies in our future - a future unfathomable even a hundred years ago when the first tanks were just coming about?

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

What you ignore is that this same word, hupomone, is used by John at the beginning of this letter to talk about the current "tribulation" thlipsis that those present day Christians were facing...which is why John was on Patmos. It is not a future 7 year period but a present tribulation that John was addressing to early believers...and that tribulation has continued to this day.

“I, John, your brother and companion in the suffering (thlipsis) and kingdom and patient endurance (hupomone) that are ours in Jesus, was on the island of Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.” (Revelation 1:9, NIV84)

Distress and patient endurance are required of every generation. We each have our difficulties and tests of faith. As stressful as modern times can be, arguably in the past it was much worse.

However, the Great Tribulation Jesus spoke of, is unique in time -

DA 12:1 "At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then.
MT 24:21 For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now--and never to be equaled again.

Going forward from the midpoint is the next event in prophecy: the megas thlipsis. The description of being unequaled makes this time unique and allows for ordering further events to be delineated with this specific event as a point in the timeline developed so far. In Daniel, the junction at which Michael, literally, who is like God, arises comes on the heels of the Antichrist encamped around Jerusalem. The overall order is the same – the anti-Christ comes to Jerusalem and then there is great tribulation. The middle event in Daniel: Michael arising is not defined, however, it is not arriving, nor is it conquering. However, His arising is in response to the provocation of the King of the North’s arrival, which in Matthew leads to the seminal event of the abomination. That response by who is like God is first seen in the Two Witnesses as will be integrated with additional linear narratives.

Also, Daniel uses the same imagery in 11:45 as Luke 21:20 in setting up the precursor to the time of the end; they describe the same event from different authors (multiple accounts). Before entering the Temple and setting up the Abomination(s) mentioned by Jesus in the Olivet Discourse (from Matthew’s Gospel buttressed by Paul's 2nd letter chapter 2 to the Thessalonians), the anti-Christ must arrive. The two quoted verses from Daniel and Matthew are thus also multiple accounts of the same event. Both verses chronicle a time that is the worst ever. Taking each as being true, then leads to the conclusion that both are speaking of the same event. The unique feature of being the worst ever makes the Great Tribulation a specific event that can tie these two prophetic accounts together.

This is the Great Tribulation as defined by the Bible. While most refer to the entire period of the seventieth ‘seven’ as the Tribulation, and certainly it will be trying for Christians in the first half, and will be terrible for non-Christians in the second, the Bible’s defines this lesser period as the Tribulation. This lesser period within the one ‘seven’ addresses what will be the most trying time ever. To surpass the excesses of Roman persecution where as an example of excess, Nero lit his gardens with burning tarred Christians, would be terrible indeed, but that is exactly the level of persecution that will be in store for Christians. And Jesus, speaking to the beginnings of the Church, warns the Church through the Disciples to expect the worse in all of time.

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

Sorry for the multiple edits, but I wrote the original a long time ago, and it needed both clarification and polish.

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

χάραγμα (“mark”) was used of the emperor’s seal on business contracts and the impress of the Roman ruler’s head on coins. If this background is in mind in Revelation 13, then it enforces the metaphorical idea that the mark alludes to the state’s political and economic “stamp of approval,” given only to those who go along with its religious demands. Interestingly, Ignatius (Magnesians 5) uses a coin metaphor the way John uses the “mark”: “there are two coinages, the one of God and the other of the world, and each has its proper stamp impressed on it, the unbelievers the stamp of this world, but the faithful in love the stamp of God the Father through Jesus Christ.” If the “mark” in Rev. 13:16–17 is to be taken literally, which is unlikely, it means that Christians are excluded from economic dealings because they refuse to use the common, yet idolatrous, means of economic dealings. The “mark on the forehead,” which is “the name of the beast” and “the number of his name” (so v 17), is the parody and opposite of the “seal” in 7:3–8, which is the divine “name written on the foreheads” of true believers (14:1; so likewise 22:4; 3:12).

G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Carlisle, Cumbria: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 1999), 715–716.

While the abomination is not defined in either the books of Daniel or the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus revealed the nature of the abomination to John in Revelation as the talking image of the beast of a man, the King of the North, i.e., the anti-Christ. With that seminal moment, the apex of man of perdition or lawlessness, from his meteoric rise in the first half of the one ‘seven’, has his second, the false prophet institute two laws which make the Great Tribulation so terrible as to threaten to wipe out the Elect were it not for God’s intervention from His arising which He delays from an immediate response (Mt 25:5).

Worship or die: God’s people will be killed if they refuse to worship the talking statue. This then becomes the “Daniel test” of the end-times. Where a person’s heart lies will be exposed. Will people who profess Jesus as their Savior be willing to lay down there life for that belief? Do they indeed have a faith that saves their soul, or will they attempt to save their own life? Will they whisper that they ‘have Jesus in their heart’, only to demonstrate that their faith is no more than empty words? The foolish will, but the Elect will obey Jesus’ command not to bow down.

Jesus said: For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it ― Mt 16:25. This verse applied in the past during times of persecution and it will apply again doubly so in the end-times. The fifth Seal condition God told the martyrs comes true here: they will be joined by their fellow brothers and servants who will be killed as they were. The Elect who fall to this test will gain the Martyr’s Crown. While their resurrection will be delayed until after the one ‘seven’ is complete, they will in no way suffer for it because of that reward, and when each Christian has to account for their selves, they will have a powerful tale to tell. Death should not be feared by the Christian reader because it has been swallowed up by Jesus. Here victory is gained through defeat and true faith in the Savior leads to eternal life.

Furthermore, this False Prophet will cause God’s people to want for basic necessities. Christians without the mark will not be able to buy or sell. Nominal Christians with the mark are not of the Elect, and will have no place in the Book of Life or in Heaven. This ‘mark’ has certain overtones to a similar sign in the Old Testament with the reference to head and hands, but there is an important aspect in the original language that distinguishes the two. In Deuteronomy it relates to thoughts and actions as they pertain to a person’s relationship with God, while the latter in Revelation shows it is much more material in its application dealing with external relationships with man in a very worldly sense.

DT 6:8 Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads.

The point in Deuteronomy is that this would be a sign. Concentrating on hands and head at this junction confuses the function between the two. The operative word between Revelation and Deuteronomy is the action in each. In Deuteronomy, what the NIV calls symbols and the NASB calls a sign comes from the word, ‘ot and is best described in the Greek as semeion, according to the Word Book of the Old Testament (page 39).

As a sign it appears as an outward expression, like the signs in the sky. It can also be a token expression. It can mean a sign of something that is greater than itself like the rainbow is the sign of the covenant.
First used in the second century B.C., Hasmonean Jews literally applied this by wearing phylacteries, the little box of God’s word on their forehead or arm. It marked them as different just as circumcision did. Circumcision itself was an outward sign that God controlled the most intimate aspect of a man’s being, his sexuality. But being circumcised does not necessitate any person follow God, it is only a sign.

Just as the Hasmoneans didn’t get the gist of what God meant, taking a sign literally; the overriding part of the passage in Deuteronomy cited as a corollary to Revelation is not the head and hands, but the aspect of practical instruction on how we are to love God. Focusing on the most literal aspect they elevated the symbology and made that the measure of how good they were and they forgot the greater aspects of God, and that is love. Jesus, the prophets, David and other Jews in the Book of Life kept God in their thoughts (head), and their actions (hands) followed.

Rev 13:16 He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, 17 so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name.

In Revelation, the mark is not a sign as it is in the symbolic sense as ‘ot is in the Hebrew. The Greek has it as charagma, an impression, as a mark or a stamp according to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. And it is received as in to give, from didomi. While certain authors comment on how this is not to be taken literally, that goes against the plain nature of the words here in a chapter meant to reveal. While the impression is symbolic of the worship given the beast with a fatal wound, it misses the context in which John puts this physical impression: it relates wholly to economics.

The symbology of this mark is truly demonic, just as is the false prophet too. It is relevant that God dismisses those that receive this impression as not being in the Book of Life. The relationship Christians are to keep is with God, and He is to guide thoughts and actions. But discounting this as a physical impression means it has to do so doubly because it is tied to a physical activity, buying and selling. Furthermore, the warning in the Bible is explicitly tied to the two laws which come on the heels of the midpoint abomination. Thus, rather than being speculative, this warning concerns a real concern that has just not yet been realized.

Rev 14:11b There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name." 12 This calls for patient endurance on the part of the saints who obey God's commandments and remain faithful to Jesus.

This is the second call for patient endurance in this parallel account. The first was during the first half of the seventieth ‘seven.’ This is also the third instance of hupomone including standing firm in Luke 21:19 which also relates to the midweek point. Here it falls on the other side of the midweek as presented in the parallel account containing all of the seventieth ‘seven:’ Revelation chapters 13 through 16. Specifically, it falls right after the three angels call out their messages and just before the Son of Man comes on the cloud. This warning takes the Christian right up to the moment of their deliverance. Christians must remain faithful until the end. There will be some Christians still alive even with the unprecedented persecution and martyrdom of the first half week and this nebulous period of time after the midweek.

 

[Wormwood]

Marcus,

Thanks for your reply. I am not ignoring your responses... I can only reply to a little at the moment...

You said, "Actually, it a presumption on your part to assume it must be something which makes sense to a first century reader.The fact that much of what is written in Revelation hasn't made sense to not only first century readers, but people through nearly twenty centuries thereafter."

Actually, it would have made a lot of sense to early readers. There were lots of apocalyptic writings during this time period. The images and visions Jesus gave to John would have been very common symbols to his readers. Not to mention that many of these symbols are taken straight out of the OT. Most people misinterpret Revelation because they do not know it is often referencing very specific OT passages in its images.

Moreover, when a letter is addressed to someone, it is not "presumption" to assume that it was written so that the recipient can understand it. I think it is "presumption" to assume the original readers would not be able to understand it, but we in the 21st century would!


You said, "So why must its interpretation only be what could have been understood so long ago?"

Because Jesus is sending these letters to 1st century churches first....and then preserving the for us. This is like arguing that we should not expect that Timothy would have been able to understand Paul's letters to him. It is responsible Bible interpretation to assume that the original readers would have actually been able to make sense of the words addressed to them...at least in large part.

You said, "Well, one reason is that allows the commentator to interject his thoughts for theirs, because we have so little to go on about what the earliest theologians, if you could really say there were any in the first century at all, and for the most part: there aren't. The earliest church leaders had much more on their plate than getting folk acquainted with the book of Revelation - which one early church leader doubted was authentic because the Greek was so poorly written."

Oh come on now...which approach allows the "commentator" free license to interject his/her own ideas: the one that tries to understand how these words would have been understood by the recipients based on historical study and researching other like documents....or the approach that simply dismisses all of that and grabs the latest newspaper and plays pin the verse on the headlines. I think you are way off base here. What does early church debates on the legitimacy of the book have to do with our discussion anyway? We both accept it is inspired, correct?


So what did John see?

Again, you are ignoring everything about history, John, and these churches. and are just trying to slap 21st century thinking into a 1st century writing. By your rationale, God could be a battle tank (see 2 Sam. 22:9). Moreover, these are declared to be "angels." John tells us they are spiritual beings, so why do you automatically assume they are tanks and ignore the spiritual references?

I have to go, will try to respond more later.

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

, it is not "presumption" to assume that it was written so that the recipient can understand it. I think it is "presumption" to assume the original readers would not be able to understand it, but we in the 21st century would!

Since the Churches being written to surpass the physical locales of the time, (indeed, the choice of cities have been likened to Church types over the last 2000 years) and since the message to the Churches is for all variations of Churches without regard for the time they live in during the Church Age; it is a presumption that John's writing must only apply to the first century Church - when in fact, Revelation concerns the end-times.

Prophecy often is deemed difficult, or hazy, until understood with the passing of the event. The sixth century B.C. Jews were addressed by Isaiah in 61:2. They didn't understand that message then, and they still don't. However, we can see the two Advents of Christ Jesus in one sentence with a gap between the two encompassing the whole Church Age.

....or the approach that simply dismisses all of that and grabs the latest newspaper and plays pin the verse on the headlines. I think you are way off base here. What does early church debates on the legitimacy of the book have to do with our discussion anyway? We both accept it is inspired, correct?

One, I am innocent of the charge you make, and two, it has everything to do with it.

For much of the Church Age, Man's affairs have been centered on an agricultural economy with limited resources, and time/space framework in which to live. If you wanted light, you had to have fire; if you wanted any work done, it took muscle (whether man or beast). People were tied to the land, and their frame of reference was day to day and how far they could walk in a day.

Now enter something new: the Industrial Revolution. History calls it a revolution for good reason too. It upset millennia of man's living condition. I think the first Horseman of the Seals has something to do with the sudden outburst of man's ingenuity which propelled our world into this modern state we take for granted. It is surprising to me how many people look to technology, science, and capitalism to "save them". It certainly is a knight in shining armor to many, and it has brought about the means to wage war on a scale the ancients never knew.

The fact is, that just forty years ago, computers were mere calculators. Now, we're connected by a world-wide web, which is an ominous name if you ask me, which can accurately track with near perfect precision, every transaction made, and with artificial intelligence meant to mimic human behavior and we're talking about robots replacing not only menial work, and complex operations like milling and welding, but all kinds of human work - even at managerial levels.

So for centuries, theologians scoffed at the idea of a revived nation of Israel. Thomas Aquinas, a great thinker in his own right, began the Amillennial eschatology whereby the Church was God's Kingdom realized here on earth. You can't blame him for his ignorance of the larger things going on 1500 years ago, they had no idea about the Americas, or the Orient, or just how big the world was. To them, the passages about the nation of Israel made no sense.

Even in the Intellectual Age of our American Revolution, which brought a new type of animal out of the shackles of Europe born of a mighty winged power (England), thinkers thought America was the new Israel.

You see, none of those people could have imagined that Israel as a nation would be revived from the ash heap of history in 1947. They hadn't a clue.

However, they still had centuries of theological teaching which minimized the very thought of a physical Temple in Jerusalem, which by their limited knowledge could never exist, and so they had layer and layer of argument dismissing that very idea as being superfluous, and even to use a term you use, dangerous. Anyone suggesting a physical Temple would again occupy Mount Moriah would even be labeled a Judazier - a term you used on me (which also is not true).

So the fact that since much of what is written is totally beyond comprehension by the first century readers, but can be discerned as possible today is exactly why I think your argument falls flat - but by your very question, I see that you are not able to grasp its significance at all. Like many who post, changing one's mind is not an option...

By your rationale, God could be a battle tank (see 2 Sam. 22:9). Moreover, these are declared to be "angels." John tells us they are spiritual beings, so why do you automatically assume they are tanks and ignore the spiritual references?

No, I interpret 2nd Samuel 22 in light of the context in which it was written. To say I would say God is a battle tank just because of a coincidence of the use of "fire, smoke and brimstone" is ludicrous and pejorative on your part. This is actually a slight ad hominem attack wrapped in a straw man argument where you belittle my question of what John was describing - which goes way beyond any understanding a first century reader could have had!.

Secondly, I read the sixth Trumpet's second Woe, and John does not call the horses spiritual beings. That again is an Idealized interpretation mode of Revelation.

However, in the light of our experience, coming up on what I think are the end-times, we can certainly see how a very simple, agricultural man would be hard-pressed to describe the awesome destructive power of massed armor in a modern, high-speed, mechanical warfare. I noticed you didn't have any answer on how a horse could have a head of a lion - nor fire, smoke and brimstone could come out of their mouth like it does the barrel of tank - nor did you even try to describe how a first century reader could make sense of the aspect of power being in their "tails" with heads like serpents.

Just how is this supposed to be written to an uneducated, unsophisticated, agricultural people who would marvel at a simple mechanical wristwatch?

John even records the number of men as 200 million. This surpasses some estimations of the entire population of the world in the first century (low -170 million, high 400 million). So how in the world could that have made sense to a first century reader? Why, they say, it's too wild to be real - so it must be symbolic and just figurative speech. However, today, China alone has three times as many able-bodied men who are fit for duty. The number of men in amassed armies John is describing can actually be realized today with a population of over seven billion.

The fact is, the horses are not described as spiritual beings - that is a construct that had to be forced because it was totally unimaginable for 19 centuries.

It's time to come out of the past. What is written in Revelation concerns our future, which some of us may live to see. (Which in no way lessens the necessity to live right today because none of us know when it is our last day.)

 

[Wormwood]

"Since the Churches being written to surpass the physical locales of the time, (indeed, the choice of cities have been likened to Church types over the last 2000 years) and since the message to the Churches is for all variations of Churches without regard for the time they live in during the Church Age; it is a presumption that John's writing must only apply to the first century Church - when in fact, Revelation concerns the end-times."

I only have a minute. However, I never said John's writing applies only to the first century Church. I believe it applies to all ages. You are the one who seems to indicate that most of the book only applies to a very limited time span and that most of the letter was completely foreign and meaningless to the original recipients. I think such a notion is ridiculous.

Moreover, your attempts at interpretation point out exactly why I think your view is so unsettling. Your interpretation of the "horsemen" has nothing to do with Jewish mindsets, apocalyptic literature or the early Church. You just see some image constructed in your own 21st century head and starting trying to pin that image on historical events or possible future events. Thus, you make the validity of the text tied to your own imagination of how you would assign images to current world events. Every Dispensationalist does this and none of them agree...and all of them are 99.9% sure they are right. It does nothing but make people distrust the Bible and turn the BIble into a some sort of secret decoder ring. You say you are innocent of my charge that you dismiss the early church and history in interpretation and proceed to post pictures of tanks, and tie images in this ancient text to the industrial revolution, etc. How are you NOT doing exactly what I said?

I am not belittling your description... I am showing you how these images are used symbolically for destructive power and are not literal images that God is actually shooting fire out a literal mouth. Moreover, I told you what John was describing. He says he is describing angels. He is describing spiritual powers and forces using symbology and figures of speech to portray power, destruction, and fearsome images that would have been very meaningful to these Christians: war horses, locusts, fire, stinging scorpions, plagues, etc.

The numbers in Revelation are to be weighed, not counted. Just as Jesus does not have literally 7 eyes, 7 horns or 7 spirits...and the churches are not 7 literal lamp stands with 7 stars and there aren't literally 10,000 x 10,000 angels circling the throne, neither are these numbers of soldiers to be multiplied and counted. The numbers in revelation are all multiples of 7, 10, and 12 (except for 3.5 which is half of 7). Personally, I think I am very consistent in my interpretation of Revelation. All of the numbers are symbolic. I don't pick and choose which are symbolic and which are literal. It is an apocalyptic book and all of the numbers are to be weighed, not counted.

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

Rev 9:15 And the four angels, who had been prepared for the hour and day and month and year, were released, so that they would kill a third of mankind.

That is a fact.

Rev 9:16 The number of the armies of the horsemen was two hundred million; I heard the number of them.

That is another fact.

The two are separate statements which both are linked to the end-time which is not yet.

The four Angles are not two hundred million horsemen.

Rev 9:17 And this is how I saw in the vision the horses and those who sat on them...

- and that vision is also tied to the end-times which are not yet.

John is not describing the four Angels; he is describing the armies of horsemen.

That is it eerily similar in description to a modern battle tank ought not surprise us when this is the main weapon of war, the Queen on any chessboard - and John is seeing World War III being played out before his very eyes - and he doesn't know how else to describe what he is seeing.

.

And yeah, Jesus is the slain lamb and He has seven eyes and seven horns - but the difference between you and I is how we see this might be accomplished.

I allow that I cannot box God into my preconceived notions and that there may be other visions which are true in a spiritual realm beyond my natural sight.

You just spiritualize the book and write it off as all being figurative.

Which I think is just as dangerous as you think my position is too.

 

[blessedhope]

Worm>if you don't like the Rapture>that's your problem.Enjoy

 

[ATP]

:lol:

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

The numbers in Revelation are to be weighed, not counted. Just as Jesus does not have literally 7 eyes, 7 horns or 7 spirits...and the churches are not 7 literal lamp stands with 7 stars and there aren't literally 10,000 x 10,000 angels circling the throne, neither are these numbers of soldiers to be multiplied and counted. The numbers in revelation are all multiples of 7, 10, and 12 (except for 3.5 which is half of 7). Personally, I think I am very consistent in my interpretation of Revelation. All of the numbers are symbolic. I don't pick and choose which are symbolic and which are literal. It is an apocalyptic book and all of the numbers are to be weighed, not counted.

It would seem you have some agreement here:

Finally, according to General William K. Harrison (an expert in military logistics), an army of 200 million could not be conscripted, supported, and moved to the Middle East without totally disrupting all societal needs and capabilities ("The War of Armageddon," xerographic copy of unpublished, undated article). As General Harrison brings out on this aspect of Revelation, God has made men with certain limitations; and the actual raising and transporting of an army of the size spoken of in v. 16 completely transcends human capability. All the Allied and Axis forces at their peak in World War II were only about 70 million (The World Almanac, 1971, ed. L. H. Long [New York:Newspaper Enterprise Association, 1970], p. 355). -- Expositor's Bible Commentary on Rev 9:13-19

However again, while WWII used 70 million mobilized men, they only killed 70 million total in that time, which includes civilians as well as troops in all theaters.

According to the Bible, a third of mankind will be killed. Right now that population stands at over 7 billion. Take away all who profess to be Christian, and you're left with about 6 TRILLION.

2 Trillion will die. Even if you want to allow that the preceding desolations kill some, even half - the amount of carnage inflicted by the Second Woe is astronomical when compared to WWII, which is the highest number of dead in a conflict in world history that we know. (The An Lushan Revolt -36 million, and the Mongol Conquest -40 million; combined killed more, and arguably, they had a larger impact as a percentage of world population in each over WWII - but the point is that this end-time killing, aided by God's agents, surpasses all of them combined and then some.)

So WWII is not as bad as WWIII will be in the one 'seven'.

And the people waging the war won't care a whit about destroying societal needs and capacity. This is when they go all-in.

Furthermore, having just under three times the number of combatants, especially if you throw China in as the King of the East, and considering the scope of WWIII is going to be truly global (WWII was, for all of a world war, rather localized to Europe and the Pacific isles) - the number of troops is not out of the realm of possibilities.

Now you may complain about numbers being taken literally, but when you take a futuristic outlook at the Book of Revelation, the numbers are not unrealistic.

If you say I'm comparing headlines to prophecy - I respond that if the Book of Revelation truly reveals what will happen - and we are told by Jesus to watch - then I certainly can see that only now, after centuries of complete inability to render this kind of destruction in an agricultural world, and now nearly 160 years after the Industrial Revolution which set us down this road - yes, it is possible.

If you say my view is dangerous from your point of view - well then I will reply that your view is equally dangerous from my point of view.

Otherwise, I'm happy to let you keep whatever eschatology you want. It is not on that basis that we are saved. If you want to discuss, fine, let's discuss. But if you want to make blanket statements of condemnation, or come off the wall with some kooky theory, or just foolishly say this means that when it is quite plainly stated not to be - then I will defend my position.

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

As far as number, let's look past China to what I have struggled to find: the King of the South - Islam.

With 1600 million believers, Islam is second only to Christianity in number. Current intelligence estimates set 15-25% of that population, and the percentage is growing as the youth are taught Jihad, are radicalized. That puts the number of potential Satanic death worshipping fighters between 240 and 400 million.

So both China and radical Islam have a large pool of potential warriors and both rely on massed troops rather than high tech.

Now how is drying up the river Euphrates applicable in and only in modern times so as to oave the way for the King of the East?

The river Euphrates was both the strength and the undoing of Babylon. It gave them water during a seige, but dried up, allowed the enemy to infiltrate their wall.

So too does the "North" rely on its technology to make its relatively small army combat effective, being a distinct force multiplier of high order. Blind their satellites which allows them unprecedented ability to pierce the fog of war and allows them complete command and control of their troops to fight the battle, and they are reduced to a tenth of their strength.

The computerized flow of information is the North's Euphrates river. Without it, they're reduced to the 20th Century.

 

[Wormwood]

Okay, let me go back and address a few issues. I wont try to tackle it all due to time constraints.

What we have here - is a failure to communicate.
I don't know how to be more "clear" than saying that taking a literal approach doesn't mean I cannot adjust my interpretation to account for figurative speech.
You then pepper me with silly questions which are not serious so as to portray a literal approach as infantile, simple, and even comical.

Good movie, but I dont think so. You said, "I take a literal approach." Of course, most of the time when dispensationals say this, they are accusing, often outrightly of saying those who see things symbolically do not take Scripture seriously. Moreover, you do not take a literal approach. You clearly do not see literal dragons and so forth. So the question is, "What causes you to switch from literal to figurative when it comes to these symbols and numbers? It seems the battles and the descriptions of war you want to take literally, but the descriptions of Jesus, the churches, the enemy an so forth you want to take figuratively. But there is no consistent approach to this. That is my point. Clearly you dont see it all as literal and you are quite happy to see much of it as figurative. Yet, when it comes to the 1,000 years or the description of an army spewing fire (which is consistent with OT descriptions of armies as well) you want to imagine battle tanks and so forth. I just dont think this is an appropriate way to look at Scripture.

Now you may complain about numbers being taken literally, but when you take a futuristic outlook at the Book of Revelation, the numbers are not unrealistic.
If you say I'm comparing headlines to prophecy - I respond that if the Book of Revelation truly reveals what will happen - and we are told by Jesus to watch - then I certainly can see that only now, after centuries of complete inability to render this kind of destruction in an agricultural world, and now nearly 160 years after the Industrial Revolution which set us down this road - yes, it is possible.

Its not a matter of, "if it is possible." It is a matter of hermeneutical consistency. Bouncing randomly from literal to figurative without any actual cues for doing so is why dispensationalists can never agree on anything. It is 90% imagination and 10% text.

If you say my view is dangerous from your point of view - well then I will reply that your view is equally dangerous from my point of view.

The fact that you see helicopters, battle tanks and so forth is not what I view to be dangerous. It is the Dispensational's facination with physical Israel as the "chosen people" that I feel is dangerous. Jesus broke down the dividing wall and made becoming a child of God about the faith of Abraham with nothing to do with the flesh of Abraham. Those who fixate on physcial cities and physical peoples are like Hagar who were slaves with her offspring. They focus on the flesh of Abraham which accounts for nothing. In so doing, they undermine the cross of Christ and his work that fulfilled and did away with the Old Covenant and emphasized faith. Those who want to bring back the Old Covenant with its Temple, sacrifices and focus on the flesh of Abraham are effectively undermining the work of Christ and the message that cost Paul his head. "The flesh counts for nothing!" It causes Christians to see themselves as second rate children of God and reduces the Church that Jesus died to create to a parenthetical side show that needs to get out of the way so God can focus on the real people he cares about, Israel, and fulfill his promises that apparently Christ was insufficient to address. This concept I find highly unbiblical and pretty much undermines everything written about Israel, Jesus and the purpose of the cross in the NT. This is what I find dangerous and incredibly unbiblical. I also find it dangerous when you start attaching Islam and China to Revelation. If Islam were to die out tomorrow, or China to be dissolved (as we saw with the Soviet Union) you would cause those on the outside looking in to question the validity of the BIble because you have attached the text to your imaginary theories. You blur the lines between what the Bible actually says and what is your imagination. Those who do not know the Bible cannot tell the difference between the two, and often, neither can the dispensationalists that spout these views.

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

It is the Dispensational's facination with physical Israel as the "chosen people" that I feel is dangerous.

I love eschatological arguments with A- and Post-Millennialists which when the subject of the Millennium comes up and I suggest it will be so all of Israel will be saved - that they hit me over the head with the charge that I am not a good enough Christian or that I diminish the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross!

it's not a fascination when a person takes a dispensational view of Christian salvation bypassing the Jews. It's part of the real world.
Twenty centuries and the Jewish nation has not converted.
What is the rarest person I know? A Messianic Jew. I know they're out there, but try to find one. I found one twenty years ago, and I haven't met one personally since.

The Jews I do know, know all about Jesus and they're not budging from their rejection of Him.

Let's look at what the Apostle Paul has to say about the separation between Jew and Christian:

Rom 11:1 I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew.

And I'm dangerous?

Rom 11:7 What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened; 8 just as it is written,
" God gave them A spirit of stupor,
Eyes to see not and ears to hear not,
Down to this very day."

We are the Elect. We were selected when we believed in Jesus. We are the only ones who will be gathered up in the Harvest from the clouds - which is not figurative, but quite literal.
And God's Chosen people? The woman of Israel? He has not forgotten her - she will be protected for a time, times, and half a time during the Wrath of God.
But she is not taken up because of her unbelief in Christ Jesus.

And that's exactly what Paul is saying here:

Rom 11:11 I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous.

Israel will not realize who their Messiah King is until He reveals Himself as the very same Servant Messiah they had rejected.

Zec 12:10 "I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.

And Paul says it here:

25 For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery—so that you will not be wise in your own estimation—that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; 26 and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written,
" The Deliverer will come from Zion,
HE will remove ungodliness from Jacob."
27 " This is MY covenant with them,
When I take away their sins."

Paul is not talking about what the Gospel has done in the Apostles, he is talking about God will do in with the Jews at a later time.

That is when the fullness of the Gentiles have come in - and that doesn't happen until the Resurrection of the Dead in Christ and the Rapture of the Elect.

And it's a mystery.

And when Amills and Post Mills cite Scripture saying we are united in Christ - I ask has that already happened? When has Israel flocked to Christ Jesus?
NO! That hasn't happened - YET.
But it will.
And those words are true; they haven't been realized up to this point in time.

 

[Wormwood]

I love eschatological arguments with A- and Post-Millennialists which when the subject of the Millennium comes up and I suggest it will be so all of Israel will be saved - that they hit me over the head with the charge that I am not a good enough Christian or that I diminish the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross!

I think any turn back to the OT and Temple sacrifices is a very problematic doctrine. Even if someone interprets Romans as Paul saying the entire nation of Israel will be saved (which I do not find at all to be what Paul is saying), that still has nothing to do with OT promises left unfulfilled by Jesus, the need for the Temple and animal sacrifice, the rapture of the church to focus on national Israel, etc. Those are all distinct concepts that have nothing to do with how one interprets Romans 9-11.

it's not a fascination when a person takes a dispensational view of Christian salvation bypassing the Jews. It's part of the real world.
Twenty centuries and the Jewish nation has not converted.
What is the rarest person I know? A Messianic Jew. I know they're out there, but try to find one. I found one twenty years ago, and I haven't met one personally since.

First, I dont think Jews are being bypassed. God's plan is to save people by faith. Some Jews have embraced the faith and many have not...just as in Paul's day. Of course the Jewish nation has not been converted. Has any nation been "converted?" That is precisely my point. God's plan is not about nations, but about creating a new citizenship by faith. There is a remnant of Israel who believes, just because it is a small one, does not mean that God's plan is failing if the whole nation doesnt convert. In fact, that is precisely what Paul is addressing in Romans 9-11. "It is not as though the word of God has failed..." (Rom. 9:6).

Let's look at what the Apostle Paul has to say about the separation between Jew and Christian:
Rom 11:1 I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew.

I never said God "rejected" his people. I said God does not show Israel favoritism. God has not rejected them, but that doesnt mean he has a special plan that involves reverting back to the first covenant! Lets not confuse "rejecting" with "a special plan that involves going back to the covenant before Christ." The two are not the same....surely you see that.

Paul is not talking about what the Gospel has done in the Apostles, he is talking about God will do in with the Jews at a later time.
That is when the fullness of the Gentiles have come in - and that doesn't happen until the Resurrection of the Dead in Christ and the Rapture of the Elect.

I dont have time to go into an exposition of Romans 9-11 with you. Suffice it to say that the church has had Romans 9-11 for 2000+ years and never saw these things you claim are so evident for 1800+ of those years. You make it sound as if these things are so apparent. No Christian ever thought this way for almost 2,000 years and the idea that God would go back to the first covenant with Israel after he got the church off the scene would have been viewed as a horrific undermining of Christ and the significance of the Church by pretty much every early church father.

 

[blessedhope]

If you look today.2016 , 90% of so called Christians reject the rapture and that Israel has a different path , most Christian ignore the saying and don't even understand the saying Jacobs troubles {TRIBULATION} it just flows off them like water off a Ducks back and they just go on with THEIR dogma what the bible and prophecy should say and not what it is really saying!Enjoy

 

[ATP]

If you look today.2016 , 90% of so called Christians reject the rapture and that Israel has a different path , most Christian ignore the saying and don't even understand the saying Jacobs troubles {TRIBULATION} it just flows off them like water off a Ducks back and they just go on with THEIR dogma what the bible and prophecy should say and not what it is really saying!Enjoy

Makes you wonder about their salvation huh John 3:3. The mystery continues...

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

I think any turn back to the OT and Temple sacrifices is a very problematic doctrine.

Did anyone ask you to return to OT Temple sacrifices?
Where did I say we had to re-institute that as a Church doctrine?

Since, no one here did, and I didn't either, what you complain about is a straw man. Nobody is saying you have to change your doctrine to what you call "problematic". Lord knows, we don't need problems like slaughtering animals going on in our churches. All that blood isn't good for the carpet.

Even if someone interprets Romans as Paul saying the entire nation of Israel will be saved (which I do not find at all to be what Paul is saying),

Did I say 100%, down to the last drop of Jewish blood, entire nation had to be saved? Please let me know where I said that.

Because I know in Isaiah 3:24-4:1 where he describes what the Jewish people look like after going through the one 'seven' and it's not pretty.
Because I know in Zechariah 13:8-9 where two-thirds of the Jews will perish.

But I also know that God will save a remnant through it just as He hides the woman in the wilderness for three and a half years as is written in Rev 12:6 and again in Rev 12:14.

So "ALL" can mean something akin to kol in the Hebrew which differs from our iron-clad 100% rule in our language and culture - all that is applicable!

OT promises left unfulfilled by Jesus, the need for the Temple and animal sacrifice, the rapture of the church to focus on national Israel, etc. are all distinct concepts that have nothing to do with how one interprets Romans 9-11.

OT promises left unfilled by Jesus?
Pray tell, is it true that in your doctrinal positions, God doesn't keep His Promises?

And I'm dangerous because I think Jesus will fulfill those promises in the Millennium?

So to get to the descriptions of what the Millennium will be like in Isaiah, with the rules spelled out in Ezekiel and elsewhere by the prophets (Zechariah being another of particular note) - do you really want to tell me that what God has said, is void?
Do you really want to go there?

Because I am not in the business of telling God how He should do anything.
Maybe you are in the same mindset I've heard before by Amillennialists that those promises don't comport with their take on Jesus so they dictate those promises are null and void, that there is an escape clause somehow in the New Covenant and the road has changed and 'that isn't going to happen'.

Well there is a God, and I'm not it, and I'm pretty sure no one around typing on a keyboard is either.
So we have a fundamental difference which causes you to label me 'dangerous', so I returned the favor -
But then again, like when I get into this argument, I find I'm not a "good enough" Christian - because that is simply not how one interprets Romans 11.
But then again, I listen to AC/DC too - so with typical holy roller attitude, I must be on the highway to hell.

 

[Wormwood]

Did anyone ask you to return to OT Temple sacrifices?
Where did I say we had to re-institute that as a Church doctrine?

I am sure you have your own unique flavor of dispensationalism. However, I am dealing with the view in general...how it is generally presented. Many who are dispensationalists believe the Temple has to be rebuilt in Israel and sacrifices have to be reinstituted. I mean, that is the purpose of the Temple is to allow for sacrifice...and supposedly this Antichrist figure has to set himself up in the Temple as a god....

This is not a straw man, it is how the view is most generally presented. I have read plenty on these views and am very familiar with their general arguments and views on Scripture. I think you are trying to deflect this by acting like I am misrepresenting the view and I do not believe I am.

Did I say 100%, down to the last drop of Jewish blood, entire nation had to be saved? Please let me know where I said that.
Because I know in Isaiah 3:24-4:1 where he describes what the Jewish people look like after going through the one 'seven' and it's not pretty.
Because I know in Zechariah 13:8-9 where two-thirds of the Jews will perish.

Look, if this is going to devolve into an argument about who said what then I will politely leave the discussion. I am here to discuss doctrine and not play rhetoric games. You know what I am referring to, the dispensational view of Romans 11 that claims "all Israel will be saved" is referring to the nation being converted. You didnt say "down to the last drop of Jewish blood" and consequently, neither did I. So, can we deal with the doctrine and the overarching claims of this eschatology? My point is that this view emphasizes the circumcised, physical Israelite and sees an end times focus by God on this people group based on their flesh, not their faith. God has to rapture the church away so he can focus on the national Israelites...is that not the purpose of the rapture? If not, please share your understanding of dispensationalism as it relates to Israel.

OT promises left unfilled by Jesus?
Pray tell, is it true that in your doctrinal positions, God doesn't keep His Promises?
And I'm dangerous because I think Jesus will fulfill those promises in the Millennium?

You know what I am saying. My view is that Jesus fulfilled all the Law and the Prophets and all of God's promises are "Yes" in Christ Jesus. The dispensational view holds that most of God's promises to Israel were not fulfilled in Christ and this is why God has to refocus his attention on Israel after the Church is raptured so he can fulfill the Temple and millennial promises to Israel that have yet to be accomplished. In my opinion, this is a dangerous view. The Jews rejected Jesus because he did not meet their expectations about what the Messiah was supposed to be. He was supposed to be a physical King that exalted Israel, brought glory to the Temple and crushed Rome. However, Jesus' entire ministry was about showing that this was NOT his mission and the Kingdom of God was very different than what they were anticipating. Dispensationalism basically says, "The Jews were right to be disappointed because Jesus did not fulfill the promises of the Temple, exaltation of Israel and so forth...God has yet to do that. Once he gets the church out of the way, he will get back to his chosen people and meeting their expectations." To me, this strikes against pretty much everything the NT says with regards to the Kingdom of God, the purpose of Christ and the nature of Christ's fulfillment of the OT.

The OT has passed away because Christ has fulfilled it. IT does not need to be reinstituted because promises were left incomplete. They were types and shadows to point us to Christ and the realities of the new covenant, whereas dispensationalism argues that the OT covenant with Israel is the pinnacle of God's work and the Church is merely a historical parenthesis.