- Jul 22, 2014
- 41,433
- 7,859
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
"You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies: you anoint my head with oil; my cup runs over." (Psalms 23:5).
Upvote
0
Another example is when God told Peter to kill and eat unclean animals. Yet, God meant that this was going to be the inclusion of the Gentiles. So the eating of unclean animals (Which is offensive to the Jew) = represents the inclusion of the Gentiles. Granted, in Peter's vision I see it as both literal and metaphorical, but the point here is that God does regard metaphors. If we miss those metaphors, we miss what God is trying to say.
In Revelation 14, we read this.
"And another angel came out from the altar, which had power over fire; and cried with a loud cry to him that had the sharp sickle, saying, Thrust in thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth; for her grapes are fully ripe." (Revelation 14:18).
Now, if we are going to take your extreme literal approach to this verse, we would have to assume that God is gathering literal grapes from off the Earth. But I think it is safe to say that you think that this verse is metaphorical like me. In fact, the grapes being gathered here is a type of food and it relates to God's coming judgment upon the wicked. Food (grapes) = Coming judgment upon the wicked. So we already have the cross reference or parallel verse that makes it all fit later in Revelation 19. The marriage supper is symbol or a metaphor for the battle of Armageddon. Food (grapes) = judgment (Revelation 14). Food (marriage supper) = judgment (Revelation 19).
King David said,
"I have pursued mine enemies, and overtaken them: neither did I turn again till they were consumed." (Psalms 18:37).
Again, metaphorical. King David did not literally consume or eat his enemies.
Many stopped following Jesus because they thought He was referring to cannibalism in reference to His own body (John 6:53). But Jesus was speaking metaphorically.
Jesus said, " "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." (John 6:53).
Jesus said to those who who were offended by this statement,
"Does this offend you?" (John 6:61).
I see this as.... "God may ask us to believe or do certain things that do not make sense at first."
Like with Abraham, God was asking him to do something that was very difficult. To take the life of his son. Little did he realize in the time of his test that this was to be a later metaphor of God the Father offering up His Son (Jesus Christ) for the salvation of the whole world by paying the price for man's sins so as to offer mankind the free gift of salvation.
Now, I think there are Christians who may think (as a result of Christ's teaching on non-resistance under the New Covenant) that destroying His enemies literally is offensive to them. I know of some Christians who are Pacifists who are against all forms of war and they reject the GOD of the Old Testament (Which takes Jesus's teachings on non-resistance to the wrong extreme; Note: I do believe we as Christians are to act non violent in this life as a part of our faith, and we should not take up a gun or weapon to go to war). Anyways, I can imagine those Christians who are offended of God of the OT with Christ saying, "Does this offend you?" For people do not realize that in order to have peace, you need to have war. There needs to be a battle to stand for what you believe in. To stand for the Lord and His good ways vs. the evil and sinful ways. But there is a time and a place for everything. For if the Lord says "stop," we stop. If He says "go" we go.
When a person's stomach rumbles full of hunger and they feel like they are almost passing out of lack of food, a good meal truly satisfies. That is the picture here with the battle of Armageddon with Christ's 2nd coming with his saints following Him into the battle. They are finally going to satisfy the Consummation (Mentioned in Daniel). The End. The Consuming (Consummation) of it all. The Lord and His saints will finally be satisfied by the wicked being destroyed from off the Earth so as to bring in age of righteousness (i.e. the Millennium or the 1,000 year reign of Christ).
The bible says the 70th week begins with the confirming of the covenant for 7 years. Not the sealing of the 144,000.The week begins with the 7th seal and the trumpet judgments. The trumpet judgements START the harming of the earth. At that time few of any people will know who the Beast is. So the answer is, NO. The harming of the earth starts first, 3.5 years before the 42 months of authority begins.
It may not make sense to you, but it made perfect sense to God - so that is what He caused to be written. The truth is, the 70th week is marked by 7's - and that is very much like God.The bible says the 70th week begins with the confirming of the covenant for 7 years. Not the sealing of the 144,000.
It make no sense for the trumpet judgments to begin at the start at the beginning of the 7 years - for no reason.
__________________________________________________________________________
The seven years begin right after Gog/Magog in Ezekiel 39. And you are going to have the trumpet judgements begin immediately after? No, that makes no sense.
I don't think my theory is extreme: of course God is not going to put literal humans into a literal wine vat. I will agree that we can't take that as literal. But a carrion eating bird eating dead bodies can most certainly be taken literally. The danger is, taking things that can and should be taken literally and making them metaphors turns the book into nonsense: everything meant to be taken literally becomes something else entirely. Of course God is not going to harvest humans with a sickle meant to harvest corn or wheat.
I agree, a God of love MUST also be a God of justice. A God of love MUST consume sin. You will find no argument with me on this: I am a 21 year military Vietnam Veteran.
The marriage supper is symbol or a metaphor for the battle of Armageddon. Here you have gone too far! The marriage is REAL. God married and then divorced Israel in the Old Covenant. He is going to have another bride and another marriage coming soon. It is REAL, not a metaphor. And with that marriage will be a marriage supper. As I have said before, many people have SEEN with their own eyes the preparations in heaven for this marriage supper. We are just going to disagree on this.
I don't think my theory is extreme: of course God is not going to put literal humans into a literal wine vat. I will agree that we can't take that as literal. But a carrion eating bird eating dead bodies can most certainly be taken literally. The danger is, taking things that can and should be taken literally and making them metaphors turns the book into nonsense: everything meant to be taken literally becomes something else entirely. Of course God is not going to harvest humans with a sickle meant to harvest corn or wheat.
I agree, a God of love MUST also be a God of justice. A God of love MUST consume sin. You will find no argument with me on this: I am a 21 year military Vietnam Veteran.
The marriage supper is symbol or a metaphor for the battle of Armageddon. Here you have gone too far! The marriage is REAL. God married and then divorced Israel in the Old Covenant. He is going to have another bride and another marriage coming soon. It is REAL, not a metaphor. And with that marriage will be a marriage supper. As I have said before, many people have SEEN with their own eyes the preparations in heaven for this marriage supper. We are just going to disagree on this.
Jason, the problem with that interpretation is the kingdoms and kings in Daniel 7 don't start with Egypt, but Babylon and Nebuchadnezzar.1st King = Egypt
2nd King = Assyria
3rd King = Babylon (Statue of Neb. starts) (Different Beast Animals Start)
4th King = Medo Persia
5th King = Greece
Jason, the problem with that interpretation is the kingdoms and kings in Daniel 7 don't start with Egypt, but Babylon and Nebuchadnezzar.
The same in Daniel 2.
_________________________________________________
What about this instead...
Daniel 7
Babylon empire
Medes persian empire
Greek empire
Roman Empire
........king 1 Julius Caesar
........king 2 Augustus
........king 3 Tiberius
........king 4 Caligula
........king 5 Claudius
........king 6 Nero
........king 7 little horn
10 kings in the end times
.........little horn comes up among them
.........becomes the prince who shall come
.........becomes the Antichrist
.........becomes the revealed man of sin
.........becomes the beast, king 8
Daniel 7 gives the criteria for the little horn person. And that person in the text of Daniel 7:23-24 comes up among ten kings of the fourth kingdom.Daniel 7 is not meant to be a chronological frame work for the eight kings. The key to understanding on the frame work of the order here is Revelation 17:10.
Jason, I looked at your commentary on the Antichrist, assuming that is your site.Daniel 7 is not meant to be a chronological frame work for the eight kings. The key to understanding on the frame work of the order here is Revelation 17:10.
"And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space." (Revelation 17:10).
John was speaking from his perspective and time period.
The one that is would be Rome (Which is the 6th king or kingdom).
Tracing back to the different empires or kingdoms it is not hard to figure out.
Greece was conquered by the Romans.
The leopard has four heads (Which more than likely represented the 4 provinces that came about after Alexander's death). We can also see the fall of the other major empires. But the basis for the connection is Revelation 17:10 for the eight kings.
Check out this article here:
Seven Heads and Ten Horns | RevelationLogic
Side Note:
The thing is that not only does history confirm the fall of the great empires such as Egypt and Assyria, but the Bible also records the fall of these empires, too.
Jason, I looked at your commentary on the Antichrist, assuming that is your site.
You wrote...
"However, referring Jesus as “the Christ” places emphasis on the office of Christ (or the Messiah), whereas referring to Jesus with the proper name “Christ” places emphasis the uniqueness of the person who fills that office."
You left out the most important part of being "the" Christ, the office.
And that is, to be the King of Israel, descended from David, to lead the Israel, the Jews and the world into the messianic age of peace and harmony.
When you leave that core factor out, being the King of Israel - it completely alters the understanding of the end times prophecies.
You have committed the same almost universal error of referring to the person as the Antichrist when he is not in the role of being the Antichrist, but other roles.
It is like calling someone mayor, or governor, or senator, when a person is in the role of being president of the United states.
little horn
prince who shall come
the Antichrist
the revealed man of sin
the beast
These are all different roles - like mayor, governor, senator, president.
Hi Jason,Anyways, the little horn is said to overcome the saints (Daniel 7:21). Revelation 13:7 is said that the beast overcomes the saints. So the titles here are interchangeable.
It is talking about the 4th kingdom in Daniel 7 (and Revelation 17). It is not counting from any kings in Daniel 7.When it says he (the little horn) is of the 4th, it is counting from the 3rd king onward (Which is where Daniel's prophecy would begin) out of the 8 kings blueprint given to us in Revelation 17:10
Hi Jason,
Even though it is the same person, and the same actions by the same person. The titles are not interchangeable because the role of the person has changed, when he becomes the beast.
As the little horn, he is the 7th king of the Roman Empire (of that particular family line). As the beast, he is the 8th king of the Roman Empire, having been of the 7 other kings.
It is talking about the 4th kingdom in Daniel 7 (and Revelation 17). It is not counting from any kings in Daniel 7.
The 7 kings of Revelation 17 are 7 kings of the 4th kingdom. The 7th king is not counting from the 3rd king there either, but from king 1 of the 4th kingdom.
I was going by your statement of the counting starting at king 3. It was not clear what you meant.There is nowhere in Daniel 7 says (or alludes) to the start of the counting of the 1st king mentioned as mentioned in Revelation 17:10. Daniel simply mentions 4 kings. Revelation mentions 8 kings.
I was going by your statement of the counting starting at king 3. It was not clear what you meant.
But since you had the seven kings in Revelation 17:10 beginning with the kingdom of Egypt - I assumed that you were talking about king 3 of those seven kings being the king of Babylon.
Daniel 7 does not have 7 kingdoms but 4 kingdoms. With the little horn associated with the fourth kingdom.
In Revelation 17:10 there are 7 kings. Those too, are associated with the fourth king kingdom of Daniel 7.
So those 7 kings begin with king 1 of the fourth kingdom.
______________________________________________________________
Revelation mentions 8 kings - but not 8 kingdoms.
I have a better chronology for the end times
Side Note:
- The gospel will be preached throughout the whole world
- there will be people faking it and some pretending to be Jesus or something like that
- some wars will start and some will be rumoured to start
- there will be earthquakes in various places
- there will be famines
- there will be illnesses that spread far and wide
- then the end will some.
This post will not be re-worked because it got it right the first time and no hyperlinks are necessary because anybody with a bible - electronic or printed - can find the chronology in the Gospel according to Matthew.
four what? and eight what?Daniel is saying there is 4. John is saying there is 8