The Doctrine of Millennialism is destroy by Personal Symbolizing of Scripture.

[robert derrick]

But it doesn’t say that it separates the armies and people so if its literal it’s all people

Revelation 19:17-18
17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, “Come, gather together for the great supper of God, 18 so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and the mighty, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, great and small.”

There is no need to say the armies are separated from other people on the earth not with them, because Scripture never says all people men, women, and children were gathered as armies in that one place.

They are called to eat the flesh of those dead armies, and they are called from all the earth to that one battlefield on earth.

To say all people of the earth were there, you must show plain Scripture saying so.

For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.

This is about kings of armies from and of all the earth and world.

They were from all nations, not necessarily were all the people of all nations.

Rev 17 confirms that it is only the 10 kings of the earth giving themselves and their kingdoms to the mind of the beast, to make war with the Lamb.

That is not at all saying all people on the earth.

Taking the Scripture as written, certainly describes the largest host of armies ever gathered into one place on earth, but it does not at all mean all people over all the earth were there.

At the end of His reign, Scripture does speak of a truly world wide gathering around the beloved city of the saints, which is not the place of Armageddon.

Unless of course, that beloved city is not Jerusalem, where the Lord sits on the throne of David, but is indeed a camp of the saints and beloved city of the Lord, that is made on the spot of His victory at Armageddon.

True literal reading of Scripture, isn't just about symbology, but is all about not reading into Scripture what isn't specifically said.

To say all people on earth are gathered at Armageddon with the Lord's return, must be read into the Scripture, because the Scripture does not ever say so.

 

[Randy Kluth]

The king has already introduced His kingdom to planet earth. Wherever you find the king, you find the kingdom. Christ ushered in the kingdom of God when He came. Jesus said in Matthew 11:12, “from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth (biazo) violence, and the (biastes) violent take it by force.”

Jesus said, in Luke 16:16, “The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man (biazo) presseth into it.”

We should immediately note: for men to be able to press into the kingdom and for it to suffer violence it must already exist. The Greek word biazo here means to force, to crowd oneself into, or to seize. The kingdom of God is shown here to be a present reality that the righteous enter upon salvation. This has been the case since John the Baptist. The spiritual kingdom Christ brought was very-much alive and active from the beginning of Christ’s earthly ministry.

Sadly, the overwhelming majority of Jews missed their promised Messiah when He came. He just didn’t fit their expectation of who and what the Messiah was to be. Also, they had an erroneous political racial perception of what the kingdom was. They had a carnal earthly view of Messiah and His kingdom. They believed that the first thing He would do was subjugate all national Israel’s enemies, starting with the Romans. When Christ appeared at His first advent, the Jews imagined He would reinstate the now defunct earthly throne of Israel and reign victorious over the physical nation, restoring their ancient borders. The only problem was: they had a defective hyper-literalist understanding of Old Testament prophesies and a misconception of how the kingdom would look.

Matthew 3:1-2 records, “In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand (or eengiken or ‘is made near’ or ‘approaches’).”

Matthew 4:12, 17 records, “when Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison, he departed into Galilee…From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand (or eengiken).”

Mark 1:14-15 records, “Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand (or eengiken).”

Jesus told the disciples as the kingdom advances, “And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand (or eengiken)” (Matthew 10:7).

The kingdom of God exists wherever the king – the Lord Jesus Christ – exercises His spiritual jurisdiction. His kingdom embodies all those who possess the indwelling Holy Spirit – those who are born-again of the Spirit of God. Christ’s kingdom is therefore found wherever there are citizens of that Kingdom.

I don't completely disagree with all that. There's some valid points, and some things I completely agree with. So let me just state my own views on this, just so we understand where we depart from one another.

I do believe the Kingdom of God has a political, eschatological element to it, and will be realized only at the 2nd Coming of Christ. But I also agree that the Kingdom, although it is in heaven presently, also has a present impact upon the earth. How else can God judge nations, and how else can people get saved? So we have some elements of agreements there.

Getting into the heaven did require looking at the Kingdom from this spiritual perspective, instead of a purely political one. I agree with you that the Jews had a non-spiritual political view of the Kingdom. I just don't think that these things are incompatible. One can have a spiritual view of the Kingdom, as well as a political, eschatological view of the Kingdom.

So you're right. People in Jesus' day were already being confronted by Jesus' Kingdom in the spiritual sense, but certainly not in the eschatological sense. They were facing the judge when Jesus came to them during his earthly ministry. And judgement doesn't wait for the final judgment. It begins right here, where we live. It begins right now, because our actions have immediate consequences, right or wrong.

I also agree that the Kingdom did exist in Israel in the present sense such that when it "suffered violence," it had to exist to suffer violence. That's why I've proposed that the Kingdom of God long had had a temporal, earthly existence since the time of the founding of Saul's monarchy. This is just not the eschatological Kingdom promised by the Prophets to endure forever. It was God's Law present in the constitution of Israel's political system.

Incidentally, I think this temporal form of the Kingdom still exists in Christian nations, just as it did in Israel. None of them are the eschatological Kingdom, and none of them last.

So I suppose our big difference here is in the proposition I make that there is an eschatological Kingdom coming that will last forever, and a temporal Kingdom that always ends in failure. And we differ in describing the present spiritual impact of the Kingdom as indistinguishable from the promised eschatological Kingdom.

Thanks for explaining your positions here. Though we disagree there are definitely some truths there that I can sign onto.

 

[robert derrick]

Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a “religious crutch.”

From: The 45 Communist Goals - Congressional Record 1963

Now THAT is a big Amen, brother!

I immediately become suspicious, when I start reading theology and scholarly words, that no normal person talks with.

I'm thinking the effort is more to impress and confuse, then to say the simple truth of Scripture.

As a history student, the greatest advice my professor ever gave me, was to always write on a level that any normal reader can understand.

He said that is often harder than use great words, because it requires you to know exactly what you are talking about, without the need to dress it up in often meaningless scholarly words.

Someone who is honestly certain of what they are teaching, are comfortable enough with it, to teach it in layman's terms.

Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech.

It is a fact, that many great scholarly and professorial people despise the Bible, because it's written so simple, that even average child can understand it.

The truth needs no decorative verbiage.

But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

The soviets were masters of intellectualizing communism, despotism, and destruction of liberty, which never ever included the truth.

But any normal freedom loving and independent minded individual, can also see right through such rubbish.

 

[Randy Kluth]

To put my post in other words: the Bible reveals the underlying patterns of reality and human consciousness. It reveals the mould which the world is formed from. So this alone has more value than a simple historical chronicle which would put the Bible on the same level as Plutarch's Lives.

If for example, Jesus tells a story about a man who scattered seeds, and some grew into plants and others withered and died, which has more meaning to you? A man literally scattered seeds and some withered and died - a common and uninteresting occurrence; or a man spread teachings, and these teachings, amid controversy, found loyal followers, and the followers spread more seeds and created more loyal followers. Which has more meaning and truth to you?

Matthew 13

I'm not really part of your discussion, but I found this point interesting. It is interesting to consider the difference between a simple parable and telling it in a way that only Jesus can. What is it that enables Jesus' to put an interesting spin on it? It is, I believe, because it calls people to God's Word as the basis for living, as opposed to the autonomous carnal life of man. It brings us back to God's ultimate intention to make us in His own image, after His likeness. It calls us to our roots, to our foundation. There we find our ultimate purpose, to live in obedience to God's word, and so experience eternal fellowship with our Creator. A wonderful Pinocchio story!

 

[robert derrick]

To put my post in other words: the Bible reveals the underlying patterns of reality and human consciousness. It reveals the mould which the world is formed from. So this alone has more value than a simple historical chronicle which would put the Bible on the same level as Plutarch's Lives.

If for example, Jesus tells a story about a man who scattered seeds, and some grew into plants and others withered and died, which has more meaning to you? A man literally scattered seeds and some withered and died - a common and uninteresting occurrence; or a man spread teachings, and these teachings, amid controversy, found loyal followers, and the followers spread more seeds and created more loyal followers. Which has more meaning and truth to you?

Matthew 13
13 The same day went Jesus out of the house, and sat by the sea side.

2 And great multitudes were gathered together unto him, so that he went into a ship, and sat; and the whole multitude stood on the shore.

3 And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;

4 And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up:

5 Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth:

6 And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away.

7 And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them:

8 But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.

I don't deny your principle as true.

However, once men start stripping the Bible of literal truth, because of unbelief or skepticism, then they make the bible literally nothing more than another good book of principles found in myths and legends only.

The great distinction between Scripture of Bible and all other books of philosophy, myth, legend, and telling tales, is that the events of the Bible are not just imaginings of men, but are the exact truth, that the only true God could possibly reveal to mortal men on earth.

And the dirty little secret about all such myth-makers of the Bible, is that what they really don't want to take literally, is God commandments and law.

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

The fact that it is holy men of God that only receive Scripture and true revelation of God, excludes sinners, who must repent and become holy saints of Christ, in order to enter into the literally true spiritual and everlasting kingdom of God in heaven.

Conclusion: once we begin to do away with literal truth of Scripture in one place, because we don't believe it is possible, then of course we can discard the literal words of Christ's law, when it comes to how we live.

There are Christian idealists who literally say that His commandments cannot be possibly kept as written, or at least not all the time.

I.e. the commandments and law of Christ itself become merely symbolic of high ideals, that Jesus no doubt lived by, but not us mere humans.

They literally idolize the man Jesus, and would even worship Him as Lord and God, but they have no intention at all of living up to His 'ideal' life, that is more symbology than reality to them.

That is why they have no trouble at all of reading into Scripture the lie that Paul called himself the greatest of sinners, while he was supposed to be an holy apostles of the Lord.

Scripture itself becomes mere symbolic ideals written in another book, much like all such books of men.

 

[Davy]

Now THAT is a big Amen, brother!

I immediately become suspicious, when I start reading theology and scholarly words, that no normal person talks with.

I'm thinking the effort is more to impress and confuse, then to say the simple truth of Scripture.

As a history student, the greatest advice my professor ever gave me, was to always write on a level that any normal reader can understand.

He said that is often harder than use great words, because it requires you to know exactly what you are talking about, without the need to dress it up in often meaningless scholarly words.

Someone who is honestly certain of what they are teaching, are comfortable enough with it, to teach it in layman's terms.

Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech.

It is a fact, that many great scholarly and professorial people despise the Bible, because it's written so simple, that even average child can understand it.

The truth needs no decorative verbiage.

But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

The soviets were masters of intellectualizing communism, despotism, and destruction of liberty, which never ever included the truth.

But any normal freedom loving and independent minded individual, can also see right through such rubbish.

What is really surprising though, is that wealthy socialists in the Christian west were the actual monetizers of Soviet Communism in 1917. Trotsky left New York with 10,000 U.S. in his pocket, as discovered by the police when passing through Halifax, Nova Scotia. Authorities in Britain said to let him go. He then winds up in Moscow with that money in 1917. Same with Lenin, having been supported by Swiss bankers.

The 1950's Reese Congressional Committee investigation of tax-exempt foundations also revealed this Leftist subversive working by the Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Ford foundations, and other small ones. Senator Reese's lawyer Rene Wormser put the info they discovered in a book, Foundations: Their Power and Influence.

Amazon.com

www.amazon.com

 

[WPM]

I don't completely disagree with all that. There's some valid points, and some things I completely agree with. So let me just state my own views on this, just so we understand where we depart from one another.

I do believe the Kingdom of God has a political, eschatological element to it, and will be realized only at the 2nd Coming of Christ. But I also agree that the Kingdom, although it is in heaven presently, also has a present impact upon the earth. How else can God judge nations, and how else can people get saved? So we have some elements of agreements there.

Getting into the heaven did require looking at the Kingdom from this spiritual perspective, instead of a purely political one. I agree with you that the Jews had a non-spiritual political view of the Kingdom. I just don't think that these things are incompatible. One can have a spiritual view of the Kingdom, as well as a political, eschatological view of the Kingdom.

So you're right. People in Jesus' day were already being confronted by Jesus' Kingdom in the spiritual sense, but certainly not in the eschatological sense. They were facing the judge when Jesus came to them during his earthly ministry. And judgement doesn't wait for the final judgment. It begins right here, where we live. It begins right now, because our actions have immediate consequences, right or wrong.

I also agree that the Kingdom did exist in Israel in the present sense such that when it "suffered violence," it had to exist to suffer violence. That's why I've proposed that the Kingdom of God long had had a temporal, earthly existence since the time of the founding of Saul's monarchy. This is just not the eschatological Kingdom promised by the Prophets to endure forever. It was God's Law present in the constitution of Israel's political system.

Incidentally, I think this temporal form of the Kingdom still exists in Christian nations, just as it did in Israel. None of them are the eschatological Kingdom, and none of them last.

So I suppose our big difference here is in the proposition I make that there is an eschatological Kingdom coming that will last forever, and a temporal Kingdom that always ends in failure. And we differ in describing the present spiritual impact of the Kingdom as indistinguishable from the promised eschatological Kingdom.

Thanks for explaining your positions here. Though we disagree there are definitely some truths there that I can sign onto.

Where in the New Testament, does Jesus or the New Testament writers teach that the Kingdom of God has a "political" element to it? I don't see it anywhere. It teaches the opposite. It is a spiritual entity that will be fully and perfectly revealed at His final appearing. Today we are blessed to have moved from the shadow, figure and type, to the substance, fulfilment and reality. We have moved from the visible, earthly, interim and imperfect to the invisible, heavenly, eternal and perfect.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Where in the New Testament, does Jesus or the New Testament writers teach that the Kingdom of God has a "political" element to it? I don't see it anywhere. He teaches the opposite. It is a spiritual entity that will be fully and perfectly revealed at His final appearing. Today we are blessed to have moved from the shadow, figure and type, to the substance, fulfilment and reality. We have moved from the visible, earthly, interim and imperfect to the invisible, heavenly, eternal and perfect.

In my view, we are moving from the temporal to the permanent, rendering what is spiritual permanent in our lives. I see the "political element" in the Kingdom of God as it was originally set up in Israel, which I call the "temporal form of the Kingdom." It was clearly a monarchy, as political systems go, but it was based on the Law of God, placing God over king.

As such, there was a political element to it. And I think there is a political element to the Millennial Kingdom, as well. I believe God is going to place nations that adopt Christianity in the Millennium in the position of ruling over people with the laws of Christianity. Christian nations have done this in the past, but like Israel, they just can't last in the present age.

That's why I think Satan has to be bound. People are so deluded by Satanic lies that even in nations where the Gospel is very much present, there is still a lot of misunderstanding and misconception about who Christ is. Even when Satan is, I think, bound, there will still be people who dislike Christianity without any deception about it whatsoever. They just won't desire it, as born again people today do.

I realize you don't accept a Millennial Kingdom, so I'm just trying to show that the Kingdom of God must have a political element to it if God is going to establish Christ's government in the future, whether in the Millennium or in Eternity. The prophecy says that the government will rest on Messiah's shoulders.

A government is political. But it's a good question, and I couldn't claim to present, properly, all that Christian government means in the eternal future.

 

[WPM]

There is no need to say the armies are separated from other people on the earth not with them, because Scripture never says all people men, women, and children were gathered as armies in that one place.

They are called to eat the flesh of those dead armies, and they are called from all the earth to that one battlefield on earth.

To say all people of the earth were there, you must show plain Scripture saying so.

For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.

This is about kings of armies from and of all the earth and world.

They were from all nations, not necessarily were all the people of all nations.

Rev 17 confirms that it is only the 10 kings of the earth giving themselves and their kingdoms to the mind of the beast, to make war with the Lamb.

That is not at all saying all people on the earth.

Taking the Scripture as written, certainly describes the largest host of armies ever gathered into one place on earth, but it does not at all mean all people over all the earth were there.

At the end of His reign, Scripture does speak of a truly world wide gathering around the beloved city of the saints, which is not the place of Armageddon.

Unless of course, that beloved city is not Jerusalem, where the Lord sits on the throne of David, but is indeed a camp of the saints and beloved city of the Lord, that is made on the spot of His victory at Armageddon.

True literal reading of Scripture, isn't just about symbology, but is all about not reading into Scripture what isn't specifically said.

To say all people on earth are gathered at Armageddon with the Lord's return, must be read into the Scripture, because the Scripture does not ever say so.

Premil boast that they are literalists when in fact they spiritualize so much literal Scripture away that interferes with their cherished beliefs. General unqualified phrases like “all,” “all nations,” “the quick (or living) and the dead,” “every man,” “every eye,” “every one,” “men,” “man,” “all men everywhere,” “the flesh of all men both free and bond, both small and great,” “all that dwell upon the earth … whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world ,” “they that dwell on the earth … whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world,” “the world,” “the whole world” and “all the world,” that objective and impartial Bible students acknowledge embrace the whole human race (or the full amount of all the wicked) are redefined and explained away to let Premil fit. If one was to take a precise straightforward interpretation of these phrases, one could only come to conclusion that there are no exclusions here. This shows that the Premil boast that they are literalists is inaccurate.

 

[WPM]

In my view, we are moving from the temporal to the permanent, rendering what is spiritual permanent in our lives. I see the "political element" in the Kingdom of God as it was originally set up in Israel, which I call the "temporal form of the Kingdom." It was clearly a monarchy, as political systems go, but it was based on the Law of God, placing God over king.

As such, there was a political element to it. And I think there is a political element to the Millennial Kingdom, as well. I believe God is going to place nations that adopt Christianity in the Millennium in the position of ruling over people with the laws of Christianity. Christian nations have done this in the past, but like Israel, they just can't last in the present age.

That's why I think Satan has to be bound. People are so deluded by Satanic lies that even in nations where the Gospel is very much present, there is still a lot of misunderstanding and misconception about who Christ is. Even when Satan is, I think, bound, there will still be people who dislike Christianity without any deception about it whatsoever. They just won't desire it, as born again people today do.

I realize you don't accept a Millennial Kingdom, so I'm just trying to show that the Kingdom of God must have a political element to it if God is going to establish Christ's government in the future, whether in the Millennium or in Eternity. The prophecy says that the government will rest on Messiah's shoulders.

A government is political. But it's a good question, and I couldn't claim to present, properly, all that Christian government means in the eternal future.

There you go! I ask for NT support for your claims and you all give me is your personal opinion. This is a pattern with you. This is totally inadmissible. This is where I say "you have nothing," and then you falsely cry "ad hominem." Well, when you fail to provide anything, it is nothing. So, I will repeat, where in the New Testament, does Jesus or the New Testament writers teach that the Kingdom of God has a "political" element to it?

 

[WPM]

That's why I think Satan has to be bound. People are so deluded by Satanic lies that even in nations where the Gospel is very much present, there is still a lot of misunderstanding and misconception about who Christ is. Even when Satan is, I think, bound, there will still be people who dislike Christianity without any deception about it whatsoever. They just won't desire it, as born again people today do.

I have repeatedly showed how Jesus showed us He bound the strongman 2000 years ago. You reject that. Your fight is with Him. Genesis 3:15 predicted, “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.”

This is metaphoric language predicting the impairment of the devil through the earthly ministry of the Messiah. Satan was going to be spiritually incapacitated through the work of Christ. We see two amazing things in this prophecy, first, a profound picture of the cross, and second, the acute effect that it had upon the devil. This prophecy is a remarkable forecast of Calvary and the consequence of Christ’s atoning sacrifice on the enemy. It also addresses the incapacitating fate that befalls Satan. This shows that Satan’s ability to function has been impaired. His power and that of his deluded minions is restricted through the preaching of the Gospel and the advance of the kingdom of God. Satan’s power and his movement has been restrained, albeit not completely.

Significantly, the first prophecy of Christ and His coming and the devil and his doom in Scripture is a symbolic one with a literal interpretation. This is surely something Bible students should carefully note. It is also worth noting that nowhere in this well-known prophetic passage does it predict that Satan would be destroyed at Calvary – that is still to come – but that he would be restricted in his operations through the spiritual brain damage he would sustain there.

The bruising of Satan’s head by Christ broke the unchallenged sway of the devil over the nations. Jesus destroyed the incredible lordship that Satan had on the human race and plundered his house of countless souls. Since the cross, numerous Gentiles have been set free from their blindness and bondage. They have been delivered into the kingdom of God. In doing this, Christ destroyed the claims, authority and ownership that Satan had over the nations. Jesus made a way of escape for the Gentiles out of the kingdom of Satan. The power and influence Satan once had over the Gentiles was assaulted through the earthly ministry of Christ. This curtailed the devil, allowing the free-flow of the Gospel across the world. Christ battered Satan’s house, damaged his authority, limiting the scale of his influence. He indeed destroyed the overwhelming claims and ownership that Satan had over the Gentile people.

Matthew 12:22-29 records, “Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw. And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David? But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils. And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges. But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. Or else how can one enter into a strong man’s house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind (Gr. deo) the strong man? And then he will spoil his house.”

The “strong man” here is Satan. His “house” is the dark area of spiritual influence that Satan rules over in the kingdom of darkness. His “goods” are the humans he enslaves in bondage and servitude. To “spoil his house” and “spoil his goods” is to conquer those who are enslaved under the devil’s control and liberate them into the kingdom of God.

Obviously, the fact that Jesus cast out devils by the Spirit of God demonstrated that the promised kingdom of God has already come. This parable confirms that the liberating of the elect could not happen “except he first bind the strong man.” According to Christ, this deliverance from captivity could not happen before Satan was spiritually bound. The binding therefore had to precede the liberation of the redeemed and was definitely not delayed 2000 years+ until the second coming as Premillennialists would wrongly argue. This all occurred through the earthly ministry of Christ.

He came to the strong man's house (this sinful world) and spiritually chained Satan. He is like a dog on a leash that will only harm those that foolishly get close to him. He has power and movement but it is restrained and limited since the ministry of Christ. The devil was subject to the purposes of God and hurt by the spiritual advance of the kingdom of God. This kingdom is still alive and active today. Souls are still being marvellously delivered from the power of Satan. The binding of the strong man continues today wherever the Gospel prevails.

Mark 3:11, 23-27 also records: “unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God ... And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils. And he called them unto him, and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan? And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand. And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end. No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind (Gr. deo) the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.”

Christ’s earthly ministry expressly bound Satan and damaged his wicked house on this earth. This was indeed what was prophesied in the Garden of Eden. It didn’t say that the cross would destroy him, but hamper him in his schemes. His head was bruised by the supernatural punch of Christ.

The Lord confronted Satan head on in his own backyard and soundly defeated him. Everywhere that Christ went, demons were subject to his every word. This authority was in turn delegated to his disciples who operated this same spiritual power were ever they gone. His servants enforced his authority casting many demons out and seeing many men and women delivered from the power of Satan to the power of God. This was unprecedented. God's people, as a whole, had now power over the enemy.

Significantly, the Greek word deo (Strong’s 1210) employed here is the exact same word used in Revelation 20 which means to bind in either a literal or a spiritual sense. This is what happened everywhere the kingdom of God was seen, the kingdom of darkness was suppressed. Moreover, at Calvary, Satan’s power to deceive the nations was spiritual bound or curtailed by the finished and victorious work of Christ. Revelation 20:2-3 states, “And he (Christ) laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and (Gr. deo) bound him a thousand years, And cast him into the abyss, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more.”

 

[Randy Kluth]

Premil boast that they are literalists when in fact they spiritualize so much literal Scripture away that interferes with their cherished beliefs. General unqualified phrases like “all,” “all nations,” “the quick (or living) and the dead,” “every man,” “every eye,” “every one,” “men,” “man,” “all men everywhere,” “the flesh of all men both free and bond, both small and great,” “all that dwell upon the earth … whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world ,” “they that dwell on the earth … whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world,” “the world,” “the whole world” and “all the world,” that objective and impartial Bible students acknowledge embrace the whole human race (or the full amount of all the wicked) are redefined and explained away to let Premil fit. If one was to take a precise straightforward interpretation of these phrases, one could only come to conclusion that there are no exclusions here. This shows that the Premil boast that they are literalists is inaccurate.

For me, taking things "literal" has nothing to do with "boasting." It is something we all do when circumstances warrant it. For example, if your wife looks out the window and sees a storm coming, and notifies you about it, you're going to take it literal--you're not going to take it metaphorical, as if a storm is coming to your marriage or to society.

So when you group all of these kinds of inclusive words together like "all" or "every," you're putting all the eggs in one basket. I can't do this using my system of interpretation because I believe what can mean "all" exhaustively in one context can mean "all" selectively in another context.

For example, "all mankind are sinners" is an exhaustive use of the word "all," because the context suggests it. But in another context, "all men died at Armageddon" cannot mean all men universally, since "all" is qualified by its use at a specific place and time, ie at Armageddon.

 

[Randy Kluth]

There you go! I ask for NT support for your claims and you all give me is your personal opinion. This is a pattern with you. This is totally inadmissible. This is where I say "you have nothing," and then you falsely cry "ad hominem." Well, when you fail to provide anything, it is nothing. So, I will repeat, where in the New Testament, does Jesus or the New Testament writers teach that the Kingdom of God has a "political" element to it?

Yes, I suppose its attitude that annoys me rather than just the words. I person feels he is being insulted when he is told, "you have nothing," "you haven't studied," or "you aren't thinking." Things like that.

The reality is, sometimes such claims are prejudgments--something that Jesus forbade us from doing. We are not to judge by appearances even when it may appear someone is being stubborn, not studying properly, or trying to avoid citing Scriptures.

In this case, I'm not avoiding Scriptures. That is simply your style--not mine. I say things with a life long experience with the Bible. Much that I say I figure people already recognize as "from the Bible." But all you have to do is ask, and leave out the prejudgments, and we'll be fine.

I'm not crying "ad hominin" now, so don't worry about it. And if you think I haven't added any Scriptures or enough Scriptures to my points, you *don't have to admit it!* Nobody is saying you have to accept anything.

I don't hope to cover everything in a single post anyway, particularly with subjects like the Kingdom of God. It is a big subject. I was just introducing my views, in contrast with your own.

I could cite Scriptures all day long, but it does get tiring, and prevents me from explaining how I interpret these truths. It is not just in citing Scriptures that determines the truth, but even more, in understanding those Scriptures. So interpretation is important--not just Scripture quotes.

 

[rwb]

You say, "Christ came in his Kingdom?" It's amazing you say this when Jesus warned his Disciples to reject those who say, "Christ is here, or Christ is there." It's amazing you ignore Paul's teaching in 2 Thessalonians 2 where he warned Christians there not to believe those who said, "Jesus has come for his people." It defies logic that you continue to assert that Christ's Kingdom has come when it is presented in the book of Revelation has coming only at the 2nd Coming, and not at the 1st Coming, when "it is near" is repeated by the Apostles well after Jesus' cross, still insisting that the Kingdom has not yet come!

Your problem is like that of the Jews of old. You're looking for a physical, material Kingdom on this earth. What are we to believe when we read Christ telling us that casting out devils is proof that His Kingdom has come?

Matthew 12:28 (KJV) But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.

Luke 11:20 (KJV) But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you.

If the Kingdom has not come with Christ, why would He say we might know and enter the Kingdom when we are born again of His Spirit? Christ says the reason we are not to look for a physical Kingdom on this earth is because His Kingdom is not of/from this world, because it is within you. If we have the Spirit of God in us then we have entered into the Kingdom of God.

Luke 17:20-21 (KJV) And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Stop looking outward for a manifestation of the Kingdom of God physically upon this earth, and start looking inward, realizing His Kingdom is NOT NOW of THIS world because His Kingdom NOW in THIS world is not physical but spiritual.

John 18:36 (KJV) Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

The Kingdom of God will never be made manifest upon THIS earth physically. But His Kingdom, being built a spiritual Kingdom NOW will be physically manifested when the heavenly city, new Jerusalem comes down from heaven after this first heaven and earth has passed away.

Revelation 21:1-3 (KJV) And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

 

[WPM]

Yes, I suppose its attitude that annoys me rather than just the words. I person feels he is being insulted when he is told, "you have nothing," "you haven't studied," or "you aren't thinking." Things like that.

The reality is, sometimes such claims are prejudgments--something that Jesus forbade us from doing. We are not to judge by appearances even when it may appear someone is being stubborn, not studying properly, or trying to avoid citing Scriptures.

In this case, I'm not avoiding Scriptures. That is simply your style--not mine. I say things with a life long experience with the Bible. Much that I say I figure people already recognize as "from the Bible." But all you have to do is ask, and leave out the prejudgments, and we'll be fine.

I'm not crying "ad hominin" now, so don't worry about it. And if you think I haven't added any Scriptures or enough Scriptures to my points, you *don't have to admit it!* Nobody is saying you have to accept anything.

I don't hope to cover everything in a single post anyway, particularly with subjects like the Kingdom of God. It is a big subject. I was just introducing my views, in contrast with your own.

I could cite Scriptures all day long, but it does get tiring, and prevents me from explaining how I interpret these truths. It is not just in citing Scriptures that determines the truth, but even more, in understanding those Scriptures. So interpretation is important--not just Scripture quotes.

Ok, so where is your evidence? I don't see it.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I have repeatedly showed how Jesus showed us He bound the strongman 2000 years ago. You reject that. Your fight is with Him. Genesis 3:15 predicted, “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.”

I'm well aware of Jesus' account of the binding of the strong man, and yes we've discussed it. I have no fight with Jesus about it, however. Binding Satan in matters of demon possession is not binding Satan on earth. We are not "fighting." We have a different way of interpreting the "strong man" story.

This is metaphoric language predicting the impairment of the devil through the earthly ministry of the Messiah. Satan was going to be spiritually incapacitated through the work of Christ. We see two amazing things in this prophecy, first, a profound picture of the cross, and second, the acute effect that it had upon the devil. This prophecy is a remarkable forecast of Calvary and the consequence of Christ’s atoning sacrifice on the enemy. It also addresses the incapacitating fate that befalls Satan. This shows that Satan’s ability to function has been impaired. His power and that of his deluded minions is restricted through the preaching of the Gospel and the advance of the kingdom of God. Satan’s power and his movement has been restrained, albeit not completely.

Are you saying that the Strong Man story is a prophecy? If you are referring to the Rev 20 prophecy of the binding of Satan, I don't think that prophecy relates to the story of the binding of the Strong Man. The "Strong Man" is a generic use of the term, applicable generally in any situation, human or angel.

In the example of the story of the Strong Man, Jesus was applying the "stronger man" to himself in unloosing the bondage demons had over men who had been possessed.

Matt 12.27 And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. 28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
29 “Or again, how can anyone enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can plunder his house.

Significantly, the first prophecy of Christ and His coming and the devil and his doom in Scripture is a symbolic one with a literal interpretation. This is surely something Bible students should carefully note. It is also worth noting that nowhere in this well-known prophetic passage does it predict that Satan would be destroyed at Calvary – that is still to come – but that he would be restricted in his operations through the spiritual brain damage he would sustain there.

Not only do the Scriptures not say that Satan will be destroyed at Calvary, but neither do they say that Satan will be bound at Calvary. The Strong Man story does not teach that, although it does establish the principle that in order for Christ to do something that Satan is resisting, Satan must at least temporarily be bound. This might apply to the Cross, to demon exorcism, or to any event in which Satan's resistance must be eliminated.

Obviously, the fact that Jesus cast out devils by the Spirit of God demonstrated that the promised kingdom of God has already come. This parable confirms that the liberating of the elect could not happen “except he first bind the strong man.” According to Christ, this deliverance from captivity could not happen before Satan was spiritually bound. The binding therefore had to precede the liberation of the redeemed and was definitely not delayed 2000 years+ until the second coming as Premillennialists would wrongly argue. This all occurred through the earthly ministry of Christ...
He came to the strong man's house (this sinful world) and spiritually chained Satan.

I don't think so. At best, it was a temporary chain, in order to accomplish one thing--not to "bring in the Kingdom of God. The Strong Man story does not say that Satan will be chained at the cross. But we do know that eternal condemnation was undone at the Cross on behalf of those who accept Christ. Satan lost his power to condemn us for all eternity.

But you say, "Where in the New Testament, does Jesus or the New Testament writers teach that the Kingdom of God has a "political" element to it?"

The Scriptures are not a Dictionary, defining terms like "political" or "apolitical." It is understood by the common use of language that a "government" refers to something political. So when Isaiah prophesied that "the government shall be on his shoulders," a political idea is being used.

Isa 9.6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders.

2 Sam 7.“‘The Lord declares to you that the Lord himself will establish a house for you: 12 When your days are over and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, your own flesh and blood, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever."

Also, the metaphor of "conquest" is used in the NT, suggesting that Christ's enemies are even now being defeated. The "last enemy" to be defeated is Death.

1 Cor 15.25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

Again, "conquest" suggests political domination. So we simply have to understand, "In what way is the Kingdom of God presently judging and defeating nations?"

I would have to say that the Gospel is going forth "to all nations," as the Great Commission suggests. Inasmuch as it goes out to nations, it is not just suggesting ethnicities are being reached, but entire "nations," ie "kings" and political systems that they represent.

Matt 28.18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations."

Mark 13.9 On account of me you will stand before governors and kings as witnesses to them.

Gen 17.6 I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you.

And so, as nations convert to the Gospel, we see the conquest of the Kingdom of God in wars between Christian countries and non-Christian countries, between theism and atheism, between moral systems of government and non-moral systems of government. Of course, not always are Christians nations truly "Christian." And religious wars are not always done unselfishly, by the inspiration of God!

I would argue, as well, that the conquest of the Kingdom of God presently is not just the victory of Christian countries over non-Christian countries--much more, it is the conquest of God over our own personal lives and over the pagan societies that have been resisting the Kingdom of God. When nations and individuals convert, the Kingdom is being victorious, and subjugating human resistance to His eternal Kingdom.

I believe that God's Kingdom has been conquering individual lives and the systems of entire nations for 2000 years now. But the ultimate conquest will come, I believe, with the defeat of the forces of Antichrist, and with it the defeat of Satan himself. That is when I believe he will be bound. This will usher in a new form of political domination by Christ's Kingdom, resulting in international peace for a thousand years. My opinion, brother.

 

[WPM]

I'm well aware of Jesus' account of the binding of the strong man, and yes we've discussed it. I have no fight with Jesus about it, however. Binding Satan in matters of demon possession is not binding Satan on earth. We are not "fighting." We have a different way of interpreting the "strong man" story.

Are you saying that the Strong Man story is a prophecy? If you are referring to the Rev 20 prophecy of the binding of Satan, I don't think that prophecy relates to the story of the binding of the Strong Man. The "Strong Man" is a generic use of the term, applicable generally in any situation, human or angel.

In the example of the story of the Strong Man, Jesus was applying the "stronger man" to himself in unloosing the bondage demons had over men who had been possessed.

Matt 12.27 And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. 28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
29 “Or again, how can anyone enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can plunder his house.

Not only do the Scriptures not say that Satan will be destroyed at Calvary, but neither do they say that Satan will be bound at Calvary. The Strong Man story does not teach that, although it does establish the principle that in order for Christ to do something that Satan is resisting, Satan must at least temporarily be bound. This might apply to the Cross, to demon exorcism, or to any event in which Satan's resistance must be eliminated.



I don't think so. At best, it was a temporary chain, in order to accomplish one thing--not to "bring in the Kingdom of God. The Strong Man story does not say that Satan will be chained at the cross. But we do know that eternal condemnation was undone at the Cross on behalf of those who accept Christ. Satan lost his power to condemn us for all eternity.

But you say, "Where in the New Testament, does Jesus or the New Testament writers teach that the Kingdom of God has a "political" element to it?"

The Scriptures are not a Dictionary, defining terms like "political" or "apolitical." It is understood by the common use of language that a "government" refers to something political. So when Isaiah prophesied that "the government shall be on his shoulders," a political idea is being used.

Isa 9.6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders.

2 Sam 7.“‘The Lord declares to you that the Lord himself will establish a house for you: 12 When your days are over and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, your own flesh and blood, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever."

Also, the metaphor of "conquest" is used in the NT, suggesting that Christ's enemies are even now being defeated. The "last enemy" to be defeated is Death.

1 Cor 15.25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

Again, "conquest" suggests political domination. So we simply have to understand, "In what way is the Kingdom of God presently judging and defeating nations?"

I would have to say that the Gospel is going forth "to all nations," as the Great Commission suggests. Inasmuch as it goes out to nations, it is not just just suggesting ethnicities are being reached, but entire "nations," ie "kings" and political systems that they represent.

Matt 28.18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations."

Mark 13.9 On account of me you will stand before governors and kings as witnesses to them.

Gen 17.6 I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you.

And so, as nations convert to the Gospel, we see the conquest of the Kingdom of God in wars between Christian countries and non-Christian countries, between theism and atheism, between moral systems of government and non-moral systems of government. Of course, not always are Christians nations truly "Christian." And religious wars are not always done unselfishly, by the inspiration of God!

This is where we differ. Amils take Christ at His word. They take Him literally. You can pretend Satan was not bound or that the chain or restraint is not real. But, Satan's kingdom is not free to control/deceive the nations as he once did. Something significant has changed. This is all Rev 20 is showing us.

One thing that is to the fore of Christ’s earthly ministry and His subsequent death, burial and resurrection was His steadfast assault upon the kingdom of darkness and its consequential defeat. It was the Lord’s unswerving concern to destroy Satan’s power and dislodge his demonic powers. It was Jesus Himself who spoke of the necessity to "bind the strong man" (Satan) in order to plunder his house and rescue people from his ugly grip (Matthew 12:29).

The disciples experienced the power of the Gospel and the damaging impact it had on Satan when after returned from preaching the gospel in Luke 10:18 they rejoiced how the demons were made subject to them. Luke 10:17 records, “the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.” When the gospel advances in the world and men and women are delivered from the bondage of sin and Satan, the devil is defeated and bound in their lives. Christ said of this attack upon the kingdom of darkness, “I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven. Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you” (Luke 10:18-19).

Satan has always been subject to the sovereign mind of God. When the kingdom of God manifested before the cross demons were curtailed, however, the legal act of binding the demonic world didn't occur until the cross. As the disciples advanced in the delegated authority of Christ the kingdom of darkness was demolished wherever they went. Blindfolds that “the god of this world (Satan) hath blinded the minds of them which believe not” with were ripped off (2 Corinthians 4:4-6). The sick were healed; the demon-possessed were set free from the powers of darkness. Everywhere the Gospel went and was received saw Satan dislodged from his previous control. Before the cross the Gentiles were blind and bound. Notwithstanding, that didn't mean they were inoperative (they had full and proper movement), but were spiritually bound. Now, these same chains that he placed on others have now been placed on Satan since the cross. This limits his movement and curtails his plans. Satan's control was demolished everywhere the kingdom triumphed - in the case of individuals, nations and peoples.

In Luke 9:1, we learn of Christ, “he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases."

The Church currently exists in heavenly authority procured for them through our Savior’s life, death and resurrection. Christ defeated Satan and his minions at every turn, when fulfilling His heavenly assignment. It is therefore “through Christ” and “in Christ” and “by Christ” that the Church now stands in victory and exercises its authority. The evil spiritual giants that resist the Church are only removed by a people of faith employing its God-given power. The Church of Christ, as an offensive army on the march, is forcefully evicting Satan everywhere the kingdom of God is faithfully preached. Souls are released from the devil’s grip, lives are changed, bodies are healed and devils are bound. Sinners are immediately freed from the awful bondage of the kingdom of darkness into the glorious liberty of the kingdom of God. Colossians 1:13 tells us that God has “delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son.”

With the supernatural help of the Holy Spirit and the powerful weapon of the preaching of the Word of God, demonic strongholds are exposed and disarmed and Satan is unseated in the lives of countless millions throughout the nations.

Revelation 12:11 tells us that “they (the Church) overcame him (Satan) by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony.” Satan can be overcome in this life.

Satan is curtailed when the Church operates in and under the anointing and authority of the Lord Jesus Christ. Christ’s life, death and resurrection have opened the door and bust the devil aside.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Your problem is like that of the Jews of old. You're looking for a physical, material Kingdom on this earth. What are we to believe when we read Christ telling us that casting out devils is proof that His Kingdom has come?

In my view, seeing things as the "Jews of old" did is not a problem, unless you're talking about the way they saw it in a time of backsliding? I don't find fault with Jews who saw things as God wanted them to see it when they were under the Law. They saw the Kingdom of heaven as operating among the kingdom of men, when the temple stood in the city of Jerusalem, where David had had his throne.

There's nothing wrong with seeing a physical kingdom, in my view. One day the earth will not be symbolically remade. No, it will be physically remade to reflect the image of Christ and his Kingdom on earth.

Matt 6.10 your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.

I agree that the Kingdom can take a temporal form on earth right now, and has spiritual elements to it presently. The Kingdom approaches people when the Holy Spirit convicts men of their sins. The Kingdom of heaven encompasses the earth, and affects it--it is not isolated from it.

However, when we read that the Kingdom will "come," what I believe it is talking about is the conquest of Antichristian and Satanic forces that prevent Christian nations from developing and remaining. That will take place, I believe, at Christ's return.

I do *not* disagree with you that the Kingdom of heaven has a present aspect to it, that it impacts the earth today! I would just distinguish this activity of the Kingdom from the Eschatological Kingdom that is coming at the Return of Christ in my theological system.

If the Kingdom has not come with Christ, why would He say we might know and enter the Kingdom when we are born again of His Spirit? Christ says the reason we are not to look for a physical Kingdom on this earth is because His Kingdom is not of/from this world, because it is within you. If we have the Spirit of God in us then we have entered into the Kingdom of God.

We have become members of Christ's Kingdom, yes--we can agree on that. I just don't believe we enter into that Kingdom until we are transformed into immortal beings. "Flesh and blood" does not inherit the Kingdom of God, as we read. 1 Cor 15.50

Luke 17:20-21 (KJV) And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Yes, the Kingdom initially is established only in a temporal sense, and men do not observe it in its spiritual aspect. They may see Christian laws being effected, but apart from the Spirit of God, they don't see Christ spiritually resident in Christian nations.

Jesus was essentially saying that he was the King over the Kingdom of God, and that his status as such would not be recognized by the Jewish majority in his day. But his 1st Coming is linked, in some sense, with his 2nd Coming, when the Kingdom will actually come and be established permanently.

You do have some valid arguments for Amill. We just disagree is all. Thanks for your arguments.

 

[Marty fox]

There is no need to say the armies are separated from other people on the earth not with them, because Scripture never says all people men, women, and children were gathered as armies in that one place.

They are called to eat the flesh of those dead armies, and they are called from all the earth to that one battlefield on earth.

To say all people of the earth were there, you must show plain Scripture saying so.

For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.

This is about kings of armies from and of all the earth and world.

They were from all nations, not necessarily were all the people of all nations.

Rev 17 confirms that it is only the 10 kings of the earth giving themselves and their kingdoms to the mind of the beast, to make war with the Lamb.

That is not at all saying all people on the earth.

Taking the Scripture as written, certainly describes the largest host of armies ever gathered into one place on earth, but it does not at all mean all people over all the earth were there.

At the end of His reign, Scripture does speak of a truly world wide gathering around the beloved city of the saints, which is not the place of Armageddon.

Unless of course, that beloved city is not Jerusalem, where the Lord sits on the throne of David, but is indeed a camp of the saints and beloved city of the Lord, that is made on the spot of His victory at Armageddon.

True literal reading of Scripture, isn't just about symbology, but is all about not reading into Scripture what isn't specifically said.

To say all people on earth are gathered at Armageddon with the Lord's return, must be read into the Scripture, because the Scripture does not ever say so.

First it says all flesh so if literal it’s all flesh

Second your mistake is that you think the battle in chapter 16 is the same as the battle in chapter 19

So to stay true to scripture Rev 16 is the battle at Armageddon which is the kings and the beast destroying Babylon the great which is confirmed at the end of chapter 17

Rev 19 is a Jesus defeating and the beast and the false prophet

Two different battles with different combatants different outcomes and Armageddon isn’t mentioned in chapter 19 thus they are not the same events

 

[ewq1938]

First it says all flesh so if literal it’s all flesh

Then all animals and fish die there too? How about angels because they have flesh also. You are using a hyper literal approach there. Clearly in context it's all the flesh of the people brought to the area for that battle, not all flesh everywhere.