After the Thousand Years (An Interpretation of Rev. 20:7-10)

[ebedmelech]

Based on what I've read in your posts on this thread, especially post #409 on page 21 above, I would say that:

1. You are an inaugurated millennialist, aka an amillennialist.
2. You believe that John's vision of Rev. 20:1-3 is a vision of the defeat of the devil that accompanied Jesus Christ's resurrection. The thousand years that begins with the imprisonment of the devil thus corresponds to the age that began with Christ's resurrection and ends when Christ comes in glory to judge the living and the dead and reign on earth with his holy ones.
3. You do not believe that the devil is entirely bound from deceiving the nations in this age or even from causing the unrepentant to persecute Christians; rather, he is only bound in the particular sense that he cannot deceive all the nations so as to recruit them to mount an all-out attack on the holy ones. For it is that deception and attack which we see when he is released from his prison in Rev. 20:7-10.
4. You believe that the devil's casting down from heaven in Rev. 12:7-12 is another viewpoint on his imprisonment in the abyss in Rev. 20:1-3.
5. You believe that the "short" period referred to in Rev. 12:12 paradoxically refers to the same period of time that the thousand years refers to--i.e. the church age from Christ's resurrection to his coming in glory to judge the living and the dead. (I should mention that I am not against symbolic readings of time statements in prophecy, nor am I closed in principle to the possibility of reading the short period in ch. 12 as the same period as the long period in ch. 20. Please, let's not get distracted by that.)
6. You see the raging of the nations leading to the destruction of those who destroy the earth, and the judgment of the dead, which are referred to in Rev. 11:18, as being revealed more fully in the visions of Rev. 20:7-10 and Rev. 20:11-15, respectively.

Reading between the lines, based what you have said and on what I have seen amillennialists argue in the past, I would also say:

7. You believe that the period characterized in Rev. 11:2 and 13:5 as "42 months," in Rev. 11:3 and 12:6 as "1,260 days," and in Rev. 12:14 as "time, times, and half a time" paradoxically refers to the same period of time that the thousand years refers to--i.e. the church age from Christ's resurrection to his coming in glory to judge the living and the dead.​

You couldn't be more wrong! Don't make the mistake of thinking because I say I'm amillennial, that I follow the full amillennial position! I say I'm amillennial simply to say I don't believe the bible is teaching a literal thousand year reign of Christ.

If you would like to engage in conversation on this issue, I'm open to that so I won't be in and out of this thread. My work schedule is inconsistent, therefore, a conversation would be more appropriate because many times it may be a few days before I can get back to you on this.

 

[jwmealy]

You couldn't be more wrong! Don't make the mistake of thinking because I say I'm amillennial, that I follow the full amillennial position! I say I'm amillennial simply to say I don't believe the bible is teaching a literal thousand year reign of Christ.

If you would like to engage in conversation on this issue, I'm open to that so I won't be in and out of this thread. My work schedule is inconsistent, therefore, a conversation would be more appropriate because many times it may be a few days before I can get back to you on this.

Nope. Not curious anymore. You've had a chance to explain your view rather than just vaguely--and misleadingly--hinting at it.

 

[vinsight4u]

Revelation 19 is where a new vision begins and this vision continues right
on into chapter 20. Therefore the things written in chapter 19 must come
to pass before those in chapter 20 can start.

All saints - as the wife must first get dressed in their eternal life
clothes - of righteousness/ fine linen.
This wife then returns later as armies out of heaven.
One army heads to the battle against the beast.

All of the wife/saints/armies will later sit to reign with Christ.

 

[jwmealy]

Revelation 19 is where a new vision begins and this vision continues right
on into chapter 20. Therefore the things written in chapter 19 must come
to pass before those in chapter 20 can start.

All saints - as the wife must first get dressed in their eternal life
clothes - of righteousness/ fine linen.
This wife then returns later as armies out of heaven.
One army heads to the battle against the beast.

All of the wife/saints/armies will later sit to reign with Christ.

We've already gone round and round about this. I appreciate your diligence, but neither you nor anyone else contributing to this thread has given the slightest rational reason why God should not show John two or more visions of the same event or reality. There is clearly a new vision (much of which is auditory) that starts at 19:1, and this lasts to 19:8. Then comes a short interaction between John and the angel who is giving John these visions (Rev. 19:9-10; cf. 1:1), then another vision begins in 19:11. Whenever John says "And I saw," e.g. in 19:11, 17, 19; 20:1, 4, 10, it becomes an open question: Is what he now sees continuous (in terms of how we are to imagine the fulfillment of the vision) with what he just saw, or another viewpoint on what he just saw, or another viewpoint on something else he saw earlier, or something new, and not continuous? There are no simple tricks for figuring this out, and no easy answers.

In your example, you seem to like the sequence, gathering, conquering, reigning. But everything in Revelation tells us that the holy ones are gathered by resurrection, and that the conquering must be by the resurrected ones who come in glory with Christ. Thus the "coming to life" of those who had been slain for their testimony in Rev. 20:4 cannot be understood to happen after the holy ones coming with Christ to conquer the beast and his armies, as John sees in Rev. 19:14. I suppose you could get around this by insisting that the heavenly armies are angels, not the human faithful. But that would put you in conflict with Rev. 2:27, which trains us to see the resurrected holy ones coming with Christ in 19:14.

 

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[Berean777]

In Rev 19 the beast that satan gave power to is destroyed and satan is prevented from deceiving the world in the beginning of Rev 20. During this time period of the millennium reign the beast does not exist, John says he is not, then at the end of the millennium the image of the once destroyed beast is raised and then comes the end of the world when the GOG and Magog war that encompasses all the world gathers in battle to fight the lamb and destroy his witnesses, when fire comes down from heaven, which is the brilliant coming of the Lord and at this time satan himself becomes victim in the lake of fire.

The first battle of Armageddon when the original beast was persecuting the first century church was taken out in 70 AD and satan was prevented from blocking the spread of the everlasting gospel which found its way into the newly discovered lands that opened up for the women who was given spiritual wings, the women being the symbol of the church and her seeds are those who hold the testimony of Jesus. The beast's image is given life by the lamb like beast pretending to be Christian who then greets the earthly messiah satan who comes in flesh. Just like Jesus came in flesh as the almighty God the next turn of events brings satan into the world as a fleshly player who then according to Isaiah 14 who is said to be named as the king of Babylon and the king of the bottomless pit, is finally destroyed and delivered into the lake of fire.

There are two events separated by the millennium heavenly reign. The millennium is the time period between the first battle the battle of Armegedon and the final battle of GOG and Magog. Satan comes himself as the earthly messiah who is warmly welcomed by the lamb/Christ like second beast who gave life to the first beast who was taken in 70AD that means back before 70AD and John's time, he was taken the he was not yet, then int he future he is again awaiting the seventh king as his head who will be none other than satan in flesh who is also the eighth king, meaning reincarnated king from the bottomless out of hell mentioned in Isaiah 14.

 

[jwmealy]

There is no evidence...not one scrap.

1. There is no hint of any kind that a renewed beast and a false prophet and and an image are involved in the scene Rev. 20:7-10. As far as any common sense reader is concerned, there is one beast and one false prophet, and they are both in the lake of fire (Rev. 19:19-20), and this is confirmed when the devil is cast, belatedly, into the same lake of fire, where they are already in residence (Rev. 20:10).
2. There is no hint of any kind that the devil and his hordes achieve the slightest success in persecuting of "the camp of the holy ones" (Rev. 20:9). They gather to attack, and are instantly and completely destroyed by fire from heaven. John's allusions to Isa. 26:10-11, 20-21, 27:1-5, Ezek. 38, and 2 Kgs 1:10-15 underline the complete safety of God's protected ones and the complete powerlessness of the attackers.
3. The vision of Isaiah 14 contributes nothing one way or the other to this discussion. However, it is to be noted that nothing in Isaiah 14 supports the assertion that the king of Babylon is "named...as the king of the bottomless pit." He used to be powerful when he was alive on earth...now that he is dead, he is utterly powerless, no different than the other erstwhile kings. He has no authority, no nothing.

 

[BABerean2]

I am sorry it has taken so long to get back to our conversation.

I had a question about the amill position in your paper.

Do you think all amills believe Rev. 12 and Rev 20 are two versions of the same event?

.

 

[jwmealy]

Do you think all amills believe Rev. 12 and Rev 20 are two versions of the same event?

No one can make a blanket statement like that. As far as I remember--and I have read literally dozens of amil commentaries and journal articles on Revelation--that is the typical move. In particular, it is the move made by Greg Beale, who has published the most comprehensive technical commentary on the Greek text of Revelation in two generations, and who has been praised for having presented the best case ever for amillennialism.

There are those (e.g Bousset, Beckwith, Schüssler Fiorenza, Bauckham, and Adamsen, who unfortunately has not yet published in English) who would not make that move, and who instead simply conclude that the millennium is pictured as being inaugurated at the coming of Jesus Christ in glory (reading Rev. 19:11--20:3 as one unbroken sequence), but is not intended to be taken literally. I refer to this position as the a-temporal approach, but if word etymology had any deciding power, his view ought to be encompassed under amillennialism (= no millennum). Indeed, Greg Beale calls his own position inaugurated millennialism, and proposes to retire the word amillennialism as referring to his approach.

I personally think that the a-temporal interpretation has the least problems, if (1) one is both highly concerned that the NT should be self-consistent in its eschatological models on the one hand, and (2) one cannot recognize even the slightest hint elsewhere in the NT for a temporally split resurrection of the righteous and unrighteous (e.g. Lk. 20:35). It messes up my resurrection-and-last-judgment-as-final-rebellion paradigm based on the parallels between Isa. 24--27 and Rev. 19--21, but in general it does the least harm to the text of Revelation of the non-premillenial approaches.

 

[BABerean2]

No one can make a blanket statement like that. As far as I remember--and I have read literally dozens of amil commentaries and journal articles on Revelation--that is the typical move. In particular, it is the move made by Greg Beale, who has published the most comprehensive technical commentary on the Greek text of Revelation in two generations, and who has been praised for having presented the best case ever for amillennialism.

There are those (e.g Bousset, Beckwith, Schüssler Fiorenza, Bauckham, and Adamsen, who unfortunately has not yet published in English) who would not make that move, and who instead simply conclude that the millennium is pictured as being inaugurated at the coming of Jesus Christ in glory (reading Rev. 19:11--20:3 as one unbroken sequence), but is not intended to be taken literally. I refer to this position as the a-temporal approach, but if word etymology had any deciding power, his view ought to be encompassed under amillennialism (= no millennum). Indeed, Greg Beale calls his own position inaugurated millennialism, and proposes to retire the word amillennialism as referring to his approach.

I personally think that the a-temporal interpretation has the least problems, if (1) one is both highly concerned that the NT should be self-consistent in its eschatological models on the one hand, and (2) one cannot recognize even the slightest hint elsewhere in the NT for a temporally split resurrection of the righteous and unrighteous (e.g. Lk. 20:35). It messes up my resurrection-and-last-judgment-as-final-rebellion paradigm based on the parallels between Isa. 24--27 and Rev. 19--21, but in general it does the least harm to the text of Revelation of the non-premillenial approaches.

Since I have only adopted the amill position in the last couple of years, I have only been exposed to the views of a few.

I have read Pastor Sam Storm's book "Kingdom Come". His perspective was interesting since he was a graduate of Dallas Theological, which is the "Mecca" of Dispensational Theology.

Kim Riddlebarger's book "A Case for Amillenialism Understanding the End Times" was also good overall.

Presently, I have just started on Anthony Hoekema's "The Bible and the Future".

I have not agreed 100% with any of these guys.

Like many others who were saturated with Dispensational Futurism and saw it's tremendous weaknesses, the obvious alternative was the amill viewpoint.
I would say my view could be considered to be "Church Age Millenniallism", since I have viewed the souls in Rev. 20 as being all of the martyrs since Stephen and will also include those to come during the persecution of the last few years before the Second Coming. Although there may be a future world dictator, there have been many antichrists according to the New Testament writers.

The most difficult part of the Book of Revelation is understanding what is literal and what is symbolic.

Yours is a refreshing alternative, since it does not seem to cause a major conflict in the text in my opinion.
I would say we are in agreement on at least 90% of what you have written.

The only area of disagreement may be regarding the John chapter 5 resurrection.
I have come to view it as a simultaneous resurrection of all of the dead, both the just and the unjust.

 

[jwmealy]

Yours is a refreshing alternative, since it does not seem to cause a major conflict in the text in my opinion.
I would say we are in agreement on at least 90% of what you have written.

The only area of disagreement may be regarding the John chapter 5 resurrection.
I have come to view it as a simultaneous resurrection of all of the dead, both the just and the unjust.

There are two remarkable things about John 5, in relation to my view. (1) Jesus says that the hour of resurrection has already come, which already contradicts the notion--held by the majority of his contemporaries--that there would be a single future occasion on which there would be a universal resurrection of all the dead. (2) I admit that, if I did not have information from elsewhere, the default interpretation of John 5:28-29 would be that there will be a single resurrection. But its wording does not rule out a split resurrection, anymore than the following sentence from a High School Principal giving a speech to the assembled Sophomore, Junior, and Senior classes on the first day of school implies that they will all graduate on the same day: "The moment is coming when all of you who have studied here with any effort at all will cross this stage--those who have done their finest work to receive a diploma with honors, and those who have just done what was required, to receive a mere certificate of completion." If he had been speaking to the Senior class, which we know will all graduate together, we would understand him to be referring to a single occasion. But if he says the same words to the whole school, whose classes we know graduate in different years, his words take on a different meaning. On the basis of the words of Jesus in Lk. 20:35, which cannot reasonably be taken as saying anything else but that those found worthy will be the only ones resurrected at the break between this age and the age to come, I take the distributed interpretation of John 5:28-29. Not only that, but on my interpretation of Rev. 20:7-10 || Isa. 26:10-11 || Isa. 26:20-21 || Isa. 27:1-5 || Heb. 10:26-27 || Rev. 20:13-15, Jesus' words, "a resurrection of judgment" take on particular significance. The unrepentant are not raised in order to judge them for their deeds in mortal life--on which basis they have already been judged unworthy and denied resurrection at Christ's coming in glory to judge the living and the dead (Lk. 20:35). Their resurrection is a resurrection in which they will be judged in relation to their actions as resurrected people. You see the result of this examinatory judgment in the string of parallel passages above.

 

[BABerean2]

Is it possible in the first passage below from John chapter 5, Christ is referring to being "born-again", which is passing from death to life in the spiritual sense, when we accept the Gospel?


John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth him that sent me, hath eternal life, and cometh not into judgment, but hath passed out of death into life.


John 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour cometh, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live. (We know this part seems to be in the present tense.)

If this is the intended meaning, then the second reference to the resurrection below, could be the resurrection of the body, at His Second Coming.



John 5:27 and he gave him authority to execute judgment, because he is a son of man.


John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour cometh, in which all that are in the tombs shall hear his voice,


John 5:29 and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment. (This part seems to be future tense.)

 

[jwmealy]

Is it possible in the first passage below from John chapter 5, Christ is referring to being "born-again", which is passing from death to life in the spiritual sense, when we accept the Gospel?

I can't disprove it, but it's not the most natural interpretation. Not only that, but he's going to turn around very shortly and literally call someone out of the tomb, namely Lazarus (Jn 11). Jesus also raised two others during his ministry that we have a record for in the gospels: The young man of Nain (Lk. 7:11-17), and the daughter of Jairus (Mt. 9:18-26; Mk 5:21-43). Jesus uses the word "hour" the way we might use the word "moment," or "season." It's not simply a particular and strict time designation (although it can be used that way, Mt. 26:40), but can refer to a significant moment in the flow of history or personal life. For example, when Jesus says to Mary in Jn 2, "My hour has not yet come," he's not talking about the twenty-fourth part of a day, he's talking about the moment in his life when he comes out into full and public expression of his messianic mission.

 

[BABerean2]

Jesus uses the word "hour" the way we might use the word "moment," or "season." It's not simply a particular and strict time designation (although it can be used that way, Mt. 26:40), but can refer to a significant moment in the flow of history or personal life. For example, when Jesus says to Mary in Jn 2, "My hour has not yet come," he's not talking about the twenty-fourth part of a day, he's talking about the moment in his life when he comes out into full and public expression of his messianic mission

I tend to view the John chapter 5 resurrection as simultaneous, because I see parables that seem to reflect the same idea.

In the wheat and tares, the tares are gathered first and burned in the fire, while the wheat is gathered into the barn.

In Matthew chapter 25 we have the wise virgins who are prepared for the Bridegroom while the unprepared virgins are not accepted by the Bridegroom. Some have claimed the unprepared virgins will have a second chance. However, I cannot find the second chance in the text.

In the same chapter we have the sheep and we have the goats.

 

[jwmealy]

I tend to view the John chapter 5 resurrection as simultaneous, because I see parables that seem to reflect the same idea.

In the wheat and tares, the tares are gathered first and burned in the fire, while the wheat is gathered into the barn.

In Matthew chapter 25 we have the wise virgins who are prepared for the Bridegroom while the unprepared virgins are not accepted by the Bridegroom. Some have claimed the unprepared virgins will have a second chance. However, I cannot find the second chance in the text.

In the same chapter we have the sheep and we have the goats.

I'm not going to have time right away to answer this post but I just want to commend you for stating, simply, without posturing and sneering at my view, the way in which your own thinking works. This is the kind of conversation I really enjoy. Blessings on you, bro.

 

[BABerean2]

I'm not going to have time right away to answer this post but I just want to commend you for stating, simply, without posturing and sneering at my view, the way in which your own thinking works. This is the kind of conversation I really enjoy. Blessings on you, bro.

Amen, to that, Brother.

 

[Chicken Little]

My conclusion from a concordant reading of these passages from Isaiah and Ezekiel with Rev. 19–21 (keeping in mind Isa. 26.10-11 and its relationship to Heb. 10.27) is that the last judgment of the unrepentant is what happens to them when they are belatedly granted the gift of resurrection. It is not a courtroom-style examination of their deeds in mortal life, which already has happened at Christ's coming (Rev. 20.4, cf. e.g. Dan. 7, Mt. 25 and 2 Cor. 5.10). At that judgment they were judged unworthy of resurrection and/or participation in the kingdom (cf. Lk. 20:35). Yet, according to the limitless grace of God, after missing but the first divine "day" (= 1000 years) of the new creation, the unrepentant are given amnesty and are invited to come "through the gates into the city" (Rev. 22:14). The great judgment is that although "they are shown favor" (Isa. 26.10; 27:5; and, very importantly, Isa. 57:14-21), they don't learn righteousness but make attack all over again (a dog returns to its vomit, and a pig returns to wallow in the mire, says Peter, 2 Pet. 2.22), and this time they are irrevocably judged according to their works (Rev. 20.13-15 // Rev. 20.7-10). The grace of God extends to the very, very last second, the very, very last invitation:

I think you are reading this wrong.
maybe try adding these verses to your senario.

Mat 22:32

I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God ofthe dead, but of the living.
Mar 12:27

He is not the God of the dead, but the God ofthe living: ye therefore do greatly err.
Luk 20:38

For he is not a God of the dead, but of theliving: for all live unto him.

if he has to wake them they are dead , not are not of the living. there names are not in his book of life , that is why they have to have a book because they will wake up people who were only dead in their head seconds not millenniums.

then He says this

Mar 12:24

And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?
Mar 12:25

For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.
Mar 12:26

And as touching the dead, that they rise ( so even this will be a odd case ) : have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?
Mar 12:27

He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.

compassion oh yes , yes .. stupid no! he is not stupid!
maybe some the dead may rise and maybe are granted the right to live if they wanted it bad enough it will odd case but maybe it can happen. . they will not Rise from death as sons. not as sons and children because he is sayin the DEAD will be like the angels.. maybe some some odd conditions maybe will be for each case.. I dont' know . like maybe they all have to be eunuchs and servants of angels or something if they raise from the dead and are not of the living . But he is not God of the dead , his people are living people , they are written in the book of life and are alive and seat with him at the moment of death. at no time are they ever DEAD( as He defines dead) .

so I can't see your senario unless you add what Jesus says here.

 

[Berean777]

There is no evidence...not one scrap.

1. There is no hint of any kind that a renewed beast and a false prophet and and an image are involved in the scene Rev. 20:7-10. As far as any common sense reader is concerned, there is one beast and one false prophet, and they are both in the lake of fire (Rev. 19:19-20), and this is confirmed when the devil is cast, belatedly, into the same lake of fire, where they are already in residence (Rev. 20:10).
2. There is no hint of any kind that the devil and his hordes achieve the slightest success in persecuting of "the camp of the holy ones" (Rev. 20:9). They gather to attack, and are instantly and completely destroyed by fire from heaven. John's allusions to Isa. 26:10-11, 20-21, 27:1-5, Ezek. 38, and 2 Kgs 1:10-15 underline the complete safety of God's protected ones and the complete powerlessness of the attackers.
3. The vision of Isaiah 14 contributes nothing one way or the other to this discussion. However, it is to be noted that nothing in Isaiah 14 supports the assertion that the king of Babylon is "named...as the king of the bottomless pit." He used to be powerful when he was alive on earth...now that he is dead, he is utterly powerless, no different than the other erstwhile kings. He has no authority, no nothing.

The beast that was during John's time then John witnesses that he is not, then he prophesies he is at a future time. Satan is as the red dragon who persecuted the first century church, is not when he is imprisoned at the battle of Armegedon then he is released to decieve the nations which are now in all newly discovered nations of the globe as GOG and Magog then satan as you said aboveis destroyed by the brilliant coming of the Lord when he and his army mounts the last concerted effort to kill off the remaining Saint held up on a mountain. No the enemy doesn't achieve success but they do try to encircle the camp of the last remaining bastion where the saints are hunkering down on that mountain that is described in Joel 2:1-12.

Isaiah 14 contributes everything to the very detail of satan aka Lucifer coming in flesh where his earthly kings say oh you have become like us human/fleshly you have have become weak like us mortal/weak. It describes his pomp and ceremony of his coming to be welcomed as the king of Babylon. Satan comes in person to try and finish the job that the first beast during the first century couldn't finish, when he as the red dragon gave him his power in his stead. This time satan takes no chances and comes out from his bottomless pit prison to finish the job and thereby wages war against the saints and this is the climax to the battle of GOG and Magog.

 

[Berean777]

Is it possible in the first passage below from John chapter 5, Christ is referring to being "born-again", which is passing from death to life in the spiritual sense, when we accept the Gospel?


John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth him that sent me, hath eternal life, and cometh not into judgment, but hath passed out of death into life.


John 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour cometh, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live. (We know this part seems to be in the present tense.)

If this is the intended meaning, then the second reference to the resurrection below, could be the resurrection of the body, at His Second Coming.



John 5:27 and he gave him authority to execute judgment, because he is a son of man.


John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour cometh, in which all that are in the tombs shall hear his voice,


John 5:29 and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment. (This part seems to be future tense.)

John 5:24 alludes to when a person accepts Christ he no longer falls under the Adamic curse of the original sin which says though shalt surely die. The curse of death is lifted because the person has believed in the name that carries life and is the resurrection Christ Jesus.

John 5:28 had been initiated in that same hour that the Lord was raised into his glorified body where as it is written:

Matthew 27:52-53
And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Some wished that this verse was not there, but unfortunately for them the verse also is pointing to a fulfilment of prophesy of the Old covenant saints who were waiting in their graves/lots just like Daniel was told to wait in his lot until the messiah comes at the beginning of the 70th week and makes a stand for your (Daniel's) people the old convenant saints as the Michael, declared in the prophesy Daniel 12. He makes a stand and in the middle of the 70th week he is crucified but not for his own benefit but for the redemption of men.

This hour means that the time of the reaping of the harvest must have been initiated after Christ's resurrection as is clearly declared in Matthew 27:52-53 in fullfilment of Daniel 12 to Daniel's people the Jews who were waiting for messiah and when he came and made a stand for them on the cross at Calvary he raised them as the firstfruits mentioned by Paul and John in his revelation. The 144,000 were the firstfruits of the harvest and thereby signalled the beginning of the heavenly millennium reign as declared in:

Ephesians 4:8
Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.

The heavenly court of Christ the inner measured court spoke of in Revelation of John sat as the kingly thrones, the 24 heavenly judges (jury) with Christ when he ascended up on high and sat on the right hand of power as the almighty judge. At that time in the first century began the separation of the sheep and goats to every departed man who would die to face judgement before Christ's heavenly courtroom.

Revelation 20:4
And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

This is a past tense participle usage of language when shortly after this declaration of the vision of what John saw, he sequentially observes:

and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

You see the souls of them that had already been beheaded for the witness of Jesus and for the word of God encompasses both the new covenant and old covenant saints at the time the millennium started, the resurrection of the dead has already been initiated and the first beast and false religious system is destroyed and then later satan is released at the end of the millennium reign.

These are said to have already past tense participle overcome the beast, so how could satan come back and have another crack at them unless they are already in Christ's heavenly barn as part of the many redeemed within his measured inner court in his Father's house. Those who are in the natural world are amongst the two witnesses who are preaching the gospel and satan comes at them because they have yet to be numbered amongst Christ heavenly barn numbers and so they have yet to die and be raised or even sing the song that no man can sing. Those in the millennium reign cannot be accessed by the devil when he is released because they are told to rejoice you heavens and those that live in them and woe onto the inhabitants of the world.

 

[Pink Spider]

MOD HAT ON

Thread closed PERMANENTLY because of CF-rule:

● Personal Prophecy (prophetic utterance) will be considered off-topic to all site forums.
These may be posted in your own personal blog.

MOD HAT OFF