Does Matthew 24:6-7 contradict Isaiah 2:4 if both are true at the same time?

[DavidPT]

Isaiah 2:4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more

Matthew 24:6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars : see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.

In order to try and determine this, we first need to provide an example of what it might look like involving this---nation shall rise against nation.

China is a nation, right? The USA is a nation, right? Therefore, what it might look like might be this---China shall rise against the USA or vice versa. Which then can result in wars, exactly what verse 6 records.

This should mean in Isaiah 2:4 since it also involves nations, but not rising against one another, but no longer rising against each other, this, using these 2 nations China and the USA as examples---they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: China shall not lift up sword against the USA, nor the USA against China, neither shall they learn war any more.

If one agrees that this would be a reasonable way to reason nation shall rise against nation in Matthew 24:7, but then disagrees that one should also reason Isaiah 2:4 in the same manner, why the disagreement then? Doesn't Isaiah 2:4 record that nation shall not lift up sword against nation? In order for them to no longer do that it requires at minimum at least 2 different nations no longer doing that, does it not? How can nation shall not lift up sword against nation not be involving numerous nations? And that if we try and apply this to this present age, how do we do that while still making sense of the text, plus not contradicting Matthew 24:7 in the process?

 

[Unqualified]

Isaiah 2:4 is Gods promise for the future if Israel repents and follows. They didn’t; it’s part of the old covenant. But Matthew scripture is the end times approaching, the beginning of sorrows..

 

[PloverWing]

Isaiah 2 seems to be talking about a time farther in the future than Matthew 24. Matthew 24 might be describing the destruction of the temple in the first century, or it might be talking about other calamities, but "the end is not yet" (24:6). By contrast, Isaiah 2 seems to describe the state of the earth at the end of things, when God has healed or recreated the whole world and made all things right.

 

[DavidPT]

Isaiah 2 seems to be talking about a time farther in the future than Matthew 24. Matthew 24 might be describing the destruction of the temple in the first century, or it might be talking about other calamities, but "the end is not yet" (24:6). By contrast, Isaiah 2 seems to describe the state of the earth at the end of things, when God has healed or recreated the whole world and made all things right.

One reason for this thread is because there are some interpreters, mainly Amils in this case, who apply Isaiah 2:4 to the here and now, spiritually. That way I guess it wouldn't be contradicting Matthew 24:7 in that case. Yet how does one apply something spiritual to something involving multiple different nations? When one becomes saved, regardless what nation they might be living in at the time, they become part of one nation, the church. Except Isaiah 2:4 involves multiple different nations no longer warring with each other.

Let's go with what you stated here "Isaiah 2 seems to describe the state of the earth at the end of things, when God has healed or recreated the whole world and made all things right".

Which means we need to factor the following in as well. And it shall come to pass in the last days(Isaiah 2:2). Wouldn't this mean we are still in the last days when the following has occured---"Isaiah 2 seems to describe the state of the earth at the end of things, when God has healed or recreated the whole world and made all things right"?

And then we have to factor in the 2nd coming. What I have quoted by you, wouldn't that be meaning after Christ has bodily returned in the end of this age?

 

[SavedByGrace3]

One is before the return of Christ, the other is after the return of Christ.

 

[TribulationSigns]

In order to try and determine this, we first need to provide an example of what it might look like involving this---nation shall rise against nation.

China is a nation, right? The USA is a nation, right? Therefore, what it might look like might be this---China shall rise against the USA or vice versa. Which then can result in wars, exactly what verse 6 records.

(facepalm).

Did God actually talk about some ecopolitical nations?? No no no!!! The battle is NOT a literal conflict between physical nations in this world, but a conflict of spiritual nature between truth believers and false ones in and surrounding the church, Revelation 17:14.
Rev 16:14 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.

So, per Revelation 20:7-9, how do you want to see this gathering of the spirits of devils, who go forth working miracles, then to be a literal alliance of armies of governments and peoples armed with literal guns and heavy artilleries, modern weaponry, and missiles and all ... turn out to be against the physical nation of Israel?! HUH?! Which is not even found in Revelation chapter 16.

This should mean in Isaiah 2:4 since it also involves nations, but not rising against one another, but no longer rising against each other, this, using these 2 nations China and the USA as examples---they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: China shall not lift up sword against the USA, nor the USA against China, neither shall they learn war any more.

Christ has established a kingdom (church) on earth where BOTH the Elect and unsealed believers work together to build His church! We all once at enmity with God with our sword, but no more. We will not learn war against God anymore. Thus, as part of God's kingdom, we beat our swords into plowshares and spears into pruninghook to WORK FOR GOD and plant his kingdom in the world. This is what it's about! It is not about USA and China modifying their weapons into "plowshares, pruninghooks, etc." to start planting on lands to produce fruits so we can eat. Oh mine!

If one agrees that this would be a reasonable way to reason nation shall rise against nation in Matthew 24:7, but then disagrees that one should also reason Isaiah 2:4 in the same manner, why the disagreement then?

Because you fail to understand what God actually talks about. You obviously did not understand what nation or kingdom God talked about here. And what sort of war it is.

Doesn't Isaiah 2:4 record that nation shall not lift up sword against nation? In order for them to no longer do that it requires at minimum at least 2 different nations no longer doing that, does it not?

Here is the language of this spiritual Jerusalem that will learn war no more (that is if you understand what warfare is about):

Isaiah 40:1-3

• "Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God.
• Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned: for she hath received of the LORD'S hand double for all her sins.
• The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God."

This Jerusalem represents the elect people of God who will study war no more because they are the Jerusalem that is Spiritual and comforted of God. It's NOT earthly Jerusalem, or the physical city in Israel that finds physical Peace and safety. NO! It is the people of this burdenless Stone! These are two distinct and separate Jerusalems, as diverse as Hagar and Sarah and the Covenants with Israel that they represented. It is all about the congregation of Israel, not some nation between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans!

How can nation shall not lift up sword against nation not be involving numerous nations? And that if we try and apply this to this present age, how do we do that while still making sense of the text, plus not contradicting Matthew 24:7 in the process?

Sigh... The truth is that God is talking about two diverse SPIRITUAL kingdoms and nations has it been since the Dawn of Man. Not two geopolitical nations on Earth you tend to pick (USA and China) as possible candidates for "nation against nation" in Matthew 24. That is not what Jesus talked about.

 

[Timtofly]

Isaiah 2:4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more

Matthew 24:6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars : see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.

In order to try and determine this, we first need to provide an example of what it might look like involving this---nation shall rise against nation.

China is a nation, right? The USA is a nation, right? Therefore, what it might look like might be this---China shall rise against the USA or vice versa. Which then can result in wars, exactly what verse 6 records.

This should mean in Isaiah 2:4 since it also involves nations, but not rising against one another, but no longer rising against each other, this, using these 2 nations China and the USA as examples---they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: China shall not lift up sword against the USA, nor the USA against China, neither shall they learn war any more.

If one agrees that this would be a reasonable way to reason nation shall rise against nation in Matthew 24:7, but then disagrees that one should also reason Isaiah 2:4 in the same manner, why the disagreement then? Doesn't Isaiah 2:4 record that nation shall not lift up sword against nation? In order for them to no longer do that it requires at minimum at least 2 different nations no longer doing that, does it not? How can nation shall not lift up sword against nation not be involving numerous nations? And that if we try and apply this to this present age, how do we do that while still making sense of the text, plus not contradicting Matthew 24:7 in the process?

They don't happen at the same time. Matthew 24:7 has been the last 1993 years.

Isaiah 2 is talking about the time of the Second Coming.

 

[DavidPT]

They don't happen at the same time. Matthew 24:7 has been the last 1993 years.

Isaiah 2 is talking about the time of the Second Coming.

That is my understanding as well. Yet some interpreters insist Isaiah 2:4 is applicable to this present age, just not in a literal sense.

Isaiah 2:4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

Matthew 24:7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.


Does not---For nation shall rise against nation---involve numerous nations doing this? Of course it does. Would anyone argue otherwise, including Amils?

That should mean the same is true here as well---nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more--that this involves numerous nations no longer rising up against one another. Therefore, both Isaiah 2:4 and Matthew 24:7 can't be true at the same time since that leads to a contradiction.

 

[grafted branch]

That should mean the same is true here as well---nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more--that this involves numerous nations no longer rising up against one another. Therefore, both Isaiah 2:4 and Matthew 24:7 can't be true at the same time since that leads to a contradiction.

I would agree with you on this, but remember Isaiah 2:4 says they won’t lift up sword or learn war anymore. Isaiah 2:4 has to take place after Satans little season else Isaiah 2:4 would have said they won’t lift up sword or learn war for 1,000 years.

 

[DavidPT]

I would agree with you on this, but remember Isaiah 2:4 says they won’t lift up sword or learn war anymore. Isaiah 2:4 has to take place after Satans little season else Isaiah 2:4 would have said they won’t lift up sword or learn war for 1,000 years.

I think I grasp your point. And assuming I am, the first thing to keep in mind, what Isaiah 2:4 is involving is that nations will no longer rise up against one another. What Revelation 20:7-9 is involving, is not nations rising up against each other. It is involving one united group attacking another united group. That is not the same as, for example, China rising up against the USA or vice versa. In my mind mind then, Isaiah 2:4 can already be true prior to satan's little season, but not true during what Matthew 24:7 is involving. It would only be a contradiction for Isaiah 2:4 to already be true before satan's little season if satan's little season was involving what Matthew 24:7, for example, is involving, nation rising up against nation. But that is not what Revelation 20:7-9 is involving. It is not involving, for example, nations, such as China and the USA rising up against each other.

Therefore, Isaiah 2:4 can already be true before satan is loosed from the pit after the thousand years since nothing pertaining to Revelation 20:7-9 is involving nation rising up against nation. Though, I guess it could be argued, that if one group is united and that another group is united, and that they are in conflict with one another, this can be viewed as nation rising up against nation. But even so, the battle involving what is recorded in Revelation 20:7-9, regardless when one thinks that is meaning, couldn't possibly be involving military weapons, such as tanks, missiles, nuclear weapons, etc, while what is involving Matthew 24:7 could and does in some cases.

The question then is, pertaining to Isaiah 2:4. Is the war they are learning no more, pertaining to wars such as what Matthew 24:6-7 is involving? Or is it meaning in another sense altogether?

 

[grafted branch]

The question then is, pertaining to Isaiah 2:4. Is the war they are learning no more, pertaining to wars such as what Matthew 24:6-7 is involving? Or is it meaning in another sense altogether?

What exactly “learning war” means would be the question. I think those who are gathered to battle in Revelation 20:8 did learn some kind of warfare (literal or spiritual) because they compass the camp of the saints which would be considered a strategy of war.

If “learning war” is meant in the spiritual sense in Isaiah 2:4 then Tribulationsigns post #6 needs to be considered.

But then verses such as Ephesians 6:10-17 would also need to be explained as to why a person should put on the armor of God if they don’t learn war any more.

 

[DavidPT]

But then verses such as Ephesians 6:10-17 would also need to be explained as to why a person should put on the armor of God if they don’t learn war any more.

This alone proves that it is not reasonable to apply 'learning war no more' in that manner. Since it doesn't make sense to not be prepared for spiritual warfare by learning spiritual warfare no more, if one is expected to be a victor during spiritual warfare. Therefore, it has to be involving literal warfare, such as via literal weapons, that being what they are no longer learning.

But let's suppose it might be involving something such as the following instead.

Matthew 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.


How would that equal nation not lifting up sword against nation, when in this example, even though one of them is turning the other cheek, the other one is smiting both cheeks? Thus the one doing the smiting certainly doesn't fit learning war no more.

 

[grafted branch]

How would that equal nation not lifting up sword against nation, when in this example, even though one of them is turning the other cheek, the other one is smiting both cheeks? Thus the one doing the smiting certainly doesn't fit learning war no more.

Yea, and we also have 1 Peter 2:9 which says ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation…

If believers are considered a holy nation and any other nation smites them on the cheek you still have a situation of nation against nation even if the holy nation isn’t against anyone.

 

[DavidPT]

So, per Revelation 20:7-9, how do you want to see this gathering of the spirits of devils, who go forth working miracles, then to be a literal alliance of armies of governments and peoples armed with literal guns and heavy artilleries, modern weaponry, and missiles and all ... turn out to be against the physical nation of Israel?! HUH?! Which is not even found in Revelation chapter 16.

Your point is valid if the battle pertaining to Revelation 20:7-9 is the same battle pertaining to Rev 16:14. But you are still somewhat setting up a strawman in my case, since I don't remotely view Revelation 20:7-9 involving "peoples armed with literal guns and heavy artilleries, modern weaponry, and missiles and all ... turn out to be against the physical nation of Israel".

If my view is that Isaiah 2:4 applies to the millennium after Christ has returned, and that I take Ezekiel 39:9 to be involving the literal destruction of modern weaponry, symbolized by the burning of them for 7 years, this obviously means if satan's little season is a thousand years after the 2nd coming, it couldn't possibly involve modern weaponry to begin with if all of that was destroyed during the first 7 years of the millennium.

But even if we took that out of the equation, meaning Ezekiel 39:9, there is still no way that Revelation 20:7-9 could be involving a war being fought with modern weaponry nor have I ever thought that it possibly could. Which is yet another reason that Revelation 20:7-9 has to be meaning after the 2nd coming since what Ezekiel 38-39 is involving will be involving modern weaponry, otherwise, what is the point in burning something for 7 years that doesn't even literally exist, thus doesn't need to be destroyed? As if in the 21st century, modern weaponry doesn't literally exist. Therefore, there is zero reason to apply it to anything involving Ezekiel 38-39.

 

[PloverWing]

Let's go with what you stated here "Isaiah 2 seems to describe the state of the earth at the end of things, when God has healed or recreated the whole world and made all things right".

Which means we need to factor the following in as well. And it shall come to pass in the last days(Isaiah 2:2). Wouldn't this mean we are still in the last days when the following has occured---"Isaiah 2 seems to describe the state of the earth at the end of things, when God has healed or recreated the whole world and made all things right"?

And then we have to factor in the 2nd coming. What I have quoted by you, wouldn't that be meaning after Christ has bodily returned in the end of this age?

There's a lot of figurative language in the prophets and in apocalyptic writing, but even allowing for that, Isaiah 2 seems to be describing a state that is not yet true of the world. So my guess is that Isaiah 2 will be fulfilled after Jesus returns and establishes the Kingdom of God in its fullest form, in a fully healed "new heaven and new earth".

I can't comment on the Amillennialist interpreters without reading the specifics of what they have to say. But even allowing for figurative language, I can't see that Isaiah 2 applies yet. The earth is not currently at peace, and whether you see Jerusalem as referring to Israel or Christianity or God's own self -- whichever it is, we don't currently see all the nations of the world streaming to it for wisdom. If Isaiah 2 is going to happen, it's something off in the future.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Isaiah 2:4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more

Matthew 24:6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars : see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.

In order to try and determine this, we first need to provide an example of what it might look like involving this---nation shall rise against nation.

China is a nation, right? The USA is a nation, right? Therefore, what it might look like might be this---China shall rise against the USA or vice versa. Which then can result in wars, exactly what verse 6 records.

This should mean in Isaiah 2:4 since it also involves nations, but not rising against one another, but no longer rising against each other, this, using these 2 nations China and the USA as examples---they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: China shall not lift up sword against the USA, nor the USA against China, neither shall they learn war any more.

If one agrees that this would be a reasonable way to reason nation shall rise against nation in Matthew 24:7, but then disagrees that one should also reason Isaiah 2:4 in the same manner, why the disagreement then? Doesn't Isaiah 2:4 record that nation shall not lift up sword against nation? In order for them to no longer do that it requires at minimum at least 2 different nations no longer doing that, does it not? How can nation shall not lift up sword against nation not be involving numerous nations? And that if we try and apply this to this present age, how do we do that while still making sense of the text, plus not contradicting Matthew 24:7 in the process?

David, do you think this is the best way to go about understanding Isaiah 2:4 or do you think it would be easier to use scripture itself to determine the timing of Isaiah 2:4?

What I'm getting at here is that Isaiah 2:4 is talking about something that would occur during "the last days". You can see that when you start reading from Isaiah 2:1.

Isaiah 2:1 This is what Isaiah son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem: 2 In the last days the mountain of the Lord’s temple will be established as the highest of the mountains; it will be exalted above the hills, and all nations will stream to it. 3 Many peoples will come and say, “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the temple of the God of Jacob. He will teach us his ways, so that we may walk in his paths.” The law will go out from Zion, the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. 4 He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore.

Do you agree that this entire passage relates to the last days? If so, what does scripture itself indicate about the timing of the last days?

Acts 2:15 These people are not drunk, as you suppose. It’s only nine in the morning! 16 No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: 17 “‘In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams.

What is described here occurred on the day of Pentecost long ago. This passage indicates that the last days had begun already back then. Agree?

So, the last days began around 2,000 years ago already. When do they end? We can determine that using scripture as well.

2 Peter 3:3 Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.”

This passage indicates that the last days would be a time period during which scoffers would question the promise of Christ's second coming and scoff at it. Obviously, once He comes again no one will be scoffing at His second coming anymore, so this means the last days lead up to the day that Christ returns and that is when they will end.

So, with all of that in mind, how can you conclude that the last days referenced in Isaiah 2:1-4 are talking about a time period AFTER the return of Christ when scripture itself indicates that "the last days" basically represent the time period between His first and second coming?

When you insist on interpreting Old Testament scripture literally like you are doing here with Isaiah 2:4, that leads to all kinds of false interpretations. You're not using scripture to interpret scripture here, you're using only human logic, which is fallible. I understand what Isaiah 2:4 may SEEM to be saying, but since it's talking about the time period between the first and second coming of Christ it can't possibly mean what you think it means. Instead, it must be speaking figuratively in terms of the peace that exists within the spiritual kingdom of Christ that all of us believers are in. We are taught to love our enemies rather than make war with them and try to get vengeance on them. That is what Isaiah 2:4 is about. It's not talking about the entire world being at peace or anything like that.

 

[Zao is life]

Isaiah 2:4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more

Matthew 24:6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars : see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.

In order to try and determine this, we first need to provide an example of what it might look like involving this---nation shall rise against nation.

China is a nation, right? The USA is a nation, right? Therefore, what it might look like might be this---China shall rise against the USA or vice versa. Which then can result in wars, exactly what verse 6 records.

This should mean in Isaiah 2:4 since it also involves nations, but not rising against one another, but no longer rising against each other, this, using these 2 nations China and the USA as examples---they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: China shall not lift up sword against the USA, nor the USA against China, neither shall they learn war any more.

If one agrees that this would be a reasonable way to reason nation shall rise against nation in Matthew 24:7, but then disagrees that one should also reason Isaiah 2:4 in the same manner, why the disagreement then? Doesn't Isaiah 2:4 record that nation shall not lift up sword against nation? In order for them to no longer do that it requires at minimum at least 2 different nations no longer doing that, does it not? How can nation shall not lift up sword against nation not be involving numerous nations? And that if we try and apply this to this present age, how do we do that while still making sense of the text, plus not contradicting Matthew 24:7 in the process?

The reason I'm quoting these scriptures first is because I'm making my point afterwards, based on this:
​

"And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.
And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem." Isaiah 2:2-3

"God, who at several times and in divers manners spoke in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he has appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds" Hebrews 1:1-2

"Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high" Hebrews 1:3

"O house of Jacob, come ye, and let us walk in the light of the Lord." Isaiah 2:5.

"And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters." Revelation 14:6-7

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

"And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." Isaiah 2:4

Maybe Amils are on time with regard to the fulfillment of Isaiah 2:2-3, but too early with regard to the fulfillment of Isaiah 2:4.

 

[DavidPT]

​

Maybe Amils are on time with regard to the fulfillment of Isaiah 2:2-3, but too early with regard to the fulfillment of Isaiah 2:4.

I'm onboard with that. I'm not saying nothing pertaining to Isaiah 2:2-4 is applicable to the here and now. I'm mainly meaning in regards to verse 4. Plus, there is the following to factor in.

Isaiah 2:10 ¶Enter into the rock, and hide thee in the dust, for fear of the LORD, and for the glory of his majesty.
11 The lofty looks of man shall be humbled, and the haughtiness of men shall be bowed down, and the LORD alone shall be exalted in that day.
12 For the day of the LORD of hosts shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty, and upon every one that is lifted up; and he shall be brought low:
13 And upon all the cedars of Lebanon, that are high and lifted up, and upon all the oaks of Bashan,
14 And upon all the high mountains, and upon all the hills that are lifted up,
15 And upon every high tower, and upon every fenced wall,
16 And upon all the ships of Tarshish, and upon all pleasant pictures.
17 And the loftiness of man shall be bowed down, and the haughtiness of men shall be made low: and the LORD alone shall be exalted in that day.
18 And the idols he shall utterly abolish.
19 And they shall go into the holes of the rocks, and into the caves of the earth, for fear of the LORD, and for the glory of his majesty, when he ariseth to shake terribly the earth.
20 In that day a man shall cast his idols of silver, and his idols of gold, which they made each one for himself to worship, to the moles and to the bats;
21 To go into the clefts of the rocks, and into the tops of the ragged rocks, for fear of the LORD, and for the glory of his majesty, when he ariseth to shake terribly the earth.
22 Cease ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils: for wherein is he to be accounted of?


Compare some of this to Revelation 6.

Revelation 6:15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;
16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:
17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?


Assuming the same time period is meant in both accounts, this would mean per Isaiah 2:10-22 that we in the final days of this present age since that is the time period Revelation 6:15-17 is involving. To me then, as to pertaining to---and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more---this fits during/after the Lord alone is being exalted in that day. Why would anyone still be learning war at the point if no one but the Lord is being exalted in that day?

Which could mean once the vials of wrath have been completed, and that the beast and fp have been cast into the LOF, satan bound in the pit, all men of war having been made bird food(Revelation 19:21), it is now an era of time of peace and safety, thus learning war no more. Then after the thousand years satan throws a monkey wrench into this era of peace by deceiving those, the number of whom is as the sand of the sea, into thinking they can somehow overthrow the new heavens and new earth.

Amils find it preposterous that mortals think they can fight immortals and somehow win. Wonder why they don't find it preposterous in Revelation 19 as well? Obviously, the armies which were in heaven that followed Him upon white horses, these are immortals at this point, and so is Christ of course. And that the remnant in verse 21, these are obviously mortals. You then end up with mortals confronting immortals. Yet, Amils don't think that is preposterous.

As to you though, as far as I can tell, you don't see anyone pertaining to Revelation 20:7-9 even involving mortals, thus no mortals vs immortals. In your case, my point would be moot. Yet, if Amils are correct about Revelation 20:7-9, it would obviously be involving mortals vs immortals. Therefore, in regards to these Amils, it's funny, not as in comical though, that if Revelation 20:7-9 is involving what Revelation 19 is involving, in this case it is not preposterous, mortals vs immortals, but if Revelation 20:7-10 is meaning a thousand years after Christ has returned, now all of a sudden, it's preposterous that there can be mortals vs immortals.

And something else while it's on my mind. Per Revelation 19 there aren't even any saints still on the planet at the time. They are seen descending with Christ from the sky. Which then tells me, maybe not someone else though, that 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 is the reason they are seen descending with Christ from the sky. While in Revelation 20:7-9, that account places the camp of saints on the earth at the time, not descending from the sky instead.

Revelation 20:9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

Obviously, the breadth of the earth and up in the sky, these are not remotely the same location. How does one, in any sense, compass someone about that is up in the sky at the time? Yet another reason why Revelation 20:7-9 can't be paralleling anything involving Revelation 19.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I'm onboard with that. I'm not saying nothing pertaining to Isaiah 2:2-4 is applicable to the here and now. I'm mainly meaning in regards to verse 4. Plus, there is the following to factor in.

Isaiah 2:10 ¶Enter into the rock, and hide thee in the dust, for fear of the LORD, and for the glory of his majesty.
11 The lofty looks of man shall be humbled, and the haughtiness of men shall be bowed down, and the LORD alone shall be exalted in that day.
12 For the day of the LORD of hosts shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty, and upon every one that is lifted up; and he shall be brought low:
13 And upon all the cedars of Lebanon, that are high and lifted up, and upon all the oaks of Bashan,
14 And upon all the high mountains, and upon all the hills that are lifted up,
15 And upon every high tower, and upon every fenced wall,
16 And upon all the ships of Tarshish, and upon all pleasant pictures.
17 And the loftiness of man shall be bowed down, and the haughtiness of men shall be made low: and the LORD alone shall be exalted in that day.
18 And the idols he shall utterly abolish.
19 And they shall go into the holes of the rocks, and into the caves of the earth, for fear of the LORD, and for the glory of his majesty, when he ariseth to shake terribly the earth.
20 In that day a man shall cast his idols of silver, and his idols of gold, which they made each one for himself to worship, to the moles and to the bats;
21 To go into the clefts of the rocks, and into the tops of the ragged rocks, for fear of the LORD, and for the glory of his majesty, when he ariseth to shake terribly the earth.
22 Cease ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils: for wherein is he to be accounted of?


Compare some of this to Revelation 6.

Revelation 6:15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;
16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:
17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?


Assuming the same time period is meant in both accounts, this would mean per Isaiah 2:10-22 that we in the final days of this present age since that is the time period Revelation 6:15-17 is involving. To me then, as to pertaining to---and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more---this fits during/after the Lord alone is being exalted in that day. Why would anyone still be learning war at the point if no one but the Lord is being exalted in that day?

Which could mean once the vials of wrath have been completed, and that the beast and fp have been cast into the LOF, satan bound in the pit, all men of war having been made bird food(Revelation 19:21), it is now an era of time of peace and safety, thus learning war no more. Then after the thousand years satan throws a monkey wrench into this era of peace by deceiving those, the number of whom is as the sand of the sea, into thinking they can somehow overthrow the new heavens and new earth.

Amils find it preposterous that mortals think they can fight immortals and somehow win. Wonder why they don't find it preposterous in Revelation 19 as well? Obviously, the armies which were in heaven that followed Him upon white horses, these are immortals at this point, and so is Christ of course. And that the remnant in verse 21, these are obviously mortals. You then end up with mortals confronting immortals. Yet, Amils don't think that is preposterous.

I see that you have not stopped misrepresenting Amil after all this time. Let me clear something up for you. We do NOT believe that mortal unbelievers will try to fight against immortals as if they would be dumb enough to think they can defeat immortals. That IS preposterous. It's insane. It's ludicrous. It won't happen.

What we believe is that it is portraying the global spiritual war of unbelievers that oppose the church with the goal of destroying it. Now, are fallen angels and God's angels involved in spiritual warfare? Of course. So, it's portraying that as well such as what is described in Revelation 16:13-14. But, no Amil believes that mortals will think they can defeat immortals. No, they persecute mortal believers. Their way of fighting against Christ is to try to destroy His church. But when Christ returns He will put an end to all of that by returning with His angels and the souls of the dead in Christ and destroying them all.

As to you though, as far as I can tell, you don't see anyone pertaining to Revelation 20:7-9 even involving mortals, thus no mortals vs immortals. In your case, my point would be moot. Yet, if Amils are correct about Revelation 20:7-9, it would obviously be involving mortals vs immortals.

No, it would not. Where are you coming up with this stuff? It portrays mortal unbelievers ON EARTH coming up against mortal believers ON EARTH. It's amazing to me that after all these years, you are still clueless about what Amils believe. It's just unbelievable.

Therefore, in regards to these Amils, it's funny, not as in comical though, that if Revelation 20:7-9 is involving what Revelation 19 is involving, in this case it is not preposterous, mortals vs immortals, but if Revelation 20:7-10 is meaning a thousand years after Christ has returned, now all of a sudden, it's preposterous that there can be mortals vs immortals.

We do NOT believe there will be a battle of mortals vs. immortals. Read that again 100 times. You waste so much time misrepresenting Amils. If only you could get that wasted time back.

And something else while it's on my mind. Per Revelation 19 there aren't even any saints still on the planet at the time.

What? Again, where do you come up with this stuff? How are you coming to this conclusion? Where does it say that? Sure, once Christ actually descends from heaven, then the saints will be caught up to Him but the battle is already going on before that while there are saints on the earth.

They are seen descending with Christ from the sky. Which then tells me, maybe not someone else though, that 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 is the reason they are seen descending with Christ from the sky.

Their souls have to descend from heaven first before that. We are not going to ascend bodily to heaven first and then descend with Him from there. That's how pre-tribs think. Why are you thinking like a pre-trib here?

While in Revelation 20:7-9, that account places the camp of saints on the earth at the time, not descending from the sky instead.

Revelation 19 is no different. You have somehow decided that the saints will bodily ascend to heaven first and then descend with Him from heaven, but that is not taught anywhere in scripture.

Revelation 20:9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

Obviously, the breadth of the earth and up in the sky, these are not remotely the same location. How does one, in any sense, compass someone about that is up in the sky at the time? Yet another reason why Revelation 20:7-9 can't be paralleling anything involving Revelation 19.

You come up with reasons to not believe in Amil based on things that Amils don't even believe. This shows that you go completely out of your way to find excuses to not believe in Amil.

 

[ViaCrucis]

One reason for this thread is because there are some interpreters, mainly Amils in this case, who apply Isaiah 2:4 to the here and now, spiritually. That way I guess it wouldn't be contradicting Matthew 24:7 in that case. Yet how does one apply something spiritual to something involving multiple different nations? When one becomes saved, regardless what nation they might be living in at the time, they become part of one nation, the church. Except Isaiah 2:4 involves multiple different nations no longer warring with each other.

Let's go with what you stated here "Isaiah 2 seems to describe the state of the earth at the end of things, when God has healed or recreated the whole world and made all things right".

Which means we need to factor the following in as well. And it shall come to pass in the last days(Isaiah 2:2). Wouldn't this mean we are still in the last days when the following has occured---"Isaiah 2 seems to describe the state of the earth at the end of things, when God has healed or recreated the whole world and made all things right"?

And then we have to factor in the 2nd coming. What I have quoted by you, wouldn't that be meaning after Christ has bodily returned in the end of this age?

I believe it was St. Justin Martyr who, writing in the 2nd century, used this passage to speak of the peace which Christ has given to His Church, that we as the redeemed people of God in Christ, have become a people of peace--having converted our swords and spears into instruments into farming implements, forgetting the ways of war. This was part of the overall Christian commitment to non-violence in antiquity, as one of the hallmarks of being a Christian in the early centuries was the refusal to take up arms and engage in violence, even legal violence such as in war.

Of course, with the advent of legalized Christianity, and even Christians finding themselves in positions of political power many Christian thinkers tried to find ways to mitigate by coming up with Just War Theory--a way to limit violence except when all alternatives have been exhausted.

But for early Christians it really was simply unthinkable that a Christian could take up the sword in any context. Christians were killed, they didn't do the killing. And so passages like Isaiah 2:4 were genuinely seen as having in some sense started to become inaugurated through the Church--for the Church, comprised of many nations, was God's kingdom of peace acting as the vanguard of the coming peace that would one day be found everywhere and throughout the world when Christ returned and all things were made new.

-CryptoLutheran