That phrase can be figurative, but it can also be used to describe the day Christ returns as Paul did in 1 Thess 5 and Peter did in 2 Peter 3. The phrase does not always refer to the same thing, which is what you miss. The phrase even can refer to what began on the day of Pentecost (compare Acts 2:16-21 to Joel 2:28-32).
That's correct. You are making a straw man argument here which is a complete waste of time. The only thing I have contended is that the way Paul and Peter used the phrase "the day of the Lord" in 1 Thess 5 and 2 Peter 3 had to do with the day (24 hour day) that Christ will return. It is you that is trying to say that the phrase "the day of the Lord" has to always refer to the same thing. If that's the case then explain why Peter indicates that Joel 2:28-32 was being fulfilled (or least starting to be) on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:16-21)?
....The Isaiah verses I quoted were about the end times where God dealing out His wrath to the world, at the end of the world... similar imagery of Jesus having His clothes soaked in blood after having tread the winepress of the wrath of God... same imagery given in Revelation 14 and 19. It's the same "day of the Lord" your referring to, the second coming, the heavens rolling up like a scroll, etc etc...
and in those verses it's given as both a day and a year...
... and you still insist on literal 24 hour day.
Exhausting. Read Isaiah rather than assume it's referring to something different.
Is there not already a great multitude of believer's souls in heaven? It seems like you are only able to think of people with bodies for some reason. The timing of what John saw in Revelation 7 is not indicated.
To assume that it is a scene before any of the trumpets and vials is nothing more than speculation. Revelation 7 is just a parenthetical section of the book like Revelation 12. Also, there are a number of parallel sections within the book, so it should not be read in such a way as if it was one, long chronological book. For example, what is described in Rev 12 clearly does not follow what is described in Rev 11 chronologically.
2 points.
#1. In revelation 6 after the 5th seal John described souls, in Revelation 7, they're not described as souls just people, I think the distinction, is that they have bodies, where before, they did not. Before, they were complaining, there was still suffering. After, nothing but praise.
#2. Leading into chapter 7 after the 6th seal in chapter 6, is the words "and after these things". Does Chapter 12 state that what he saw came after? No. That means a continuity break is possible, and in that case, it is a break in continuity.
I see 2 cycles of tribulation, rapture, wrath, and final judgement. Chapters 6-11 with 10 being definitely parenthetical, and chapters 12-20, with chapter 17 definitely being parenthetical. I'd almost be willing to listen to an argument that chapter 20 was not part of the second vision and could be a 3rd vision but...
Revelation 20:10 shows the beast and false prophet. People who were introduced in this second vision that John saw of end times events, and so it connect it to chapter 13, and logic would dictate, places it after chapter 19, when Jesus throws the beast and false prophet into the lake of fire.
Note the false prophet wasn't mentioned in the first vision, and the beast was only mentioned once. The beast is only formally introduced in the second vision.
So I do see recapitulation, but more continuity than you do.
That's the problem. It only sounds like that. It's all figurative language, unlike 2 Peter 3:3-13. Trust me, if i believed it was all literal I would believe like you do. But, the problem with interpreting it like you do is that it contradicts other scripture.
Only when you interpret "day of the Lord" literally.
Sure, it says that to me, too. But, that doesn't have anything to do with whether it's literal or figurative. Again, I give "the beast" as an example. The beast is mentioned 35 times. Seems like "the beast" must be something important to understand. But, it's not a literal beast with seven literal heads and seven literal horns.
When I believe there are 2 end time's resurrections, because I believe that the wrath of God happens after the rapture, I have no reason whatsoever, to see the 1000 years as anything other than literal, Because I know that there's a resurrection before the wrath, and another resurrection after the wrath before the final judgement, that gives time between resurrections, not to mention those resurrections have different characteristics. one is blessed and not under judgement where the second death is a possible outcome, the other is judgement and death is on the line.
Because there has to be some time between, why not go with what the bible says is the time between and believe it is 1000 years?
It doesn't have to be exactly 1000 years, but that's the only scripture to go off of that gives any length of time between the two resurrections, so sure, 1000 years. I'll believe the word of God on that until God says otherwise.
Yeah, he's waiting to deliver His kingdom to the Father when He comes at the end of the age as 1 Cor 15:20-24 and Matt 13:40-43 indicate.
and for the fullness of the gentiles.
I don't believe that people can't be saved during Satan's little season (which I equate to the time when iniquity will no longer be restrained), so in my view that time period could potentially have already started.
2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
This verse is in regards to the Lord's desire for more people to repent and be saved. But, to me, it indicates that people can be saved right up until the day His keeps the promise of Christ's coming. But, during Satan's little season it seems that it will be more difficult to reach people with the truth because of the increase in deception and wickedness.
Perhaps that's why angels end up finishing the job for us.
But, you have Jesus descending from heaven and then going back to heaven for a period of time and then descending from heaven again. The problem with that is scripture never teaches that He would be descending form heaven twice in the future.
The bible also doesn't say that we'll be on the earth yet protected from the wrath of God (aside from the 144k) yet you seem to believe that.
Jesus will return, it doesn't mean He is forbidden from going back to Heaven after to get married and come back down with His bride on whatever sweet ride the horse is supposed to be if that's figurative. Isaiah 34 describes unicorns so.. who knows.
I do think because of Isaiah 63 though, that Jesus will have been participating in the wrath of God over however long it took, His clothes get stained red with blood, and.... Revelation 19, He rides down, and His clothes are also, already stained in blood.
So as far as I can interpret the second vision, Tribulation from the second half of chapter 12 through chapter 13.. Jesus coming in the clouds and the rapture in chapter 14... then Jesus is participating in the wrath of God, all the way through chapter 18.. then back to Heaven (or simultaneously in Heaven and on Earth, He is God) for the wedding supper of the lamb, and then back down to earth to finish off the false prophet and beast, His clothes already stained in blood.
As far as there being a series of events connected to Jesus returning, have I not said that several things happen on the day He comes back? You make so many straw man arguments and I can only assume that is because this is the first time in your life that you've debated an amillennialist. The difference between us isn't that you see several events happening in relation to His second coming and I don't. No. Instead, the difference is that you see those things happening over a prolonged period of time, but I don't. And, as I pointed out above, you see Him descending from heaven twice while I believe scripture clearly teaches that He will descend from heaven only once.
What's your proof texts that He is only allowed to come down once? Again all events after He comes in the cloud are the second coming just like all events after His birth are the first coming.
The 5th trumpet lasts 5 months.
Yet another straw man argument. Where did I say that some event involving an individual antichrist during the 70th week already happened? I didn't. Don't put words in my mouth. I don't interpret the 70th week the way you do, so I have no obligation to see the fulfillment of it the way you do in terms of it having anything to do with an individual antichrist confirming some future covenant for a week and all that.
Sin and transgression haven't ended yet.
I could write 10 more pages about why I interpret the 70 week prophecy the way I do, but I don't have the desire to do that right now. For now, I will just say that I believe Jesus is the prince/ruler who confirmed the new covenant long ago. It has nothing to do with an antichrist confirming some 7 year peace treaty. To insert a huge time gap into a prophecy that never gives any indication that the 70 weeks would not be consecutive just boggles my mind.
Messiah was cut off in the 69th week, leaving 1 week remaining.
That is how you interpret it, but I disagree. I see no reason to assume that it's speaking of his ability to deceive in general. You interpret it that way because you are what they call a hyper-literalist.
And here is your next straw man argument. I never said that no Gentiles at all believed the truth in OT times. Stop putting words in my mouth. I'm saying that very few did. In Noah's day, only 8 people did and they were not Jews. The people of Nineveh in Jonah's day were Gentiles and they repented and believed. Did you somehow think I wasn't aware of that as well?
But, what I'm saying is that a far lower percentage believed in those times than in NT times and that is a fact.
You just aren't understanding my point. Please tell me how you interpret theses passages:
Heb 2:14 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— 15 and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.
Eph 2:11 Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (which is done in the body by human hands)— 12 remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
What do you think passages like these say about the impact Christ had on Satan and on the ability of the Gentiles to be set free from spiritual darkness?
If this is "deceive the nations no more" then color me unimpressed.
Where does scripture itself indicate to us that since the first coming involved events over more than 30 years then we should understand the events related to the second coming as happening over a significant period of time as well? If scripture itself does not make that comparison, then I won't, either.
Because the 5th trumpet lasts 5 months by itself.
Why would it take that long? If Jesus is coming back to take vengeance on "them that don't know God and don't obey the gospel of Christ" (2 Thess 1:7-10) then what would be the point of Him taking His time doing so? And how exactly would it take that much time when this time it will be by fire instead of water?
Because if it takes time, then people can come to repentence, I know you're going to quote that people DIDN'T come to repentence, but as we both agree, just like Gentiles could fear God in the OT despite most of the OT treating gentiles like they're totally in darkness and none know the Lord, most people won't repent, but some will repent, if you drag things out for some time, some of those people, those prepper types or people living in isolation types that are self sufficient who didn't take the mark out of necessity might just say as they see fire raining down from the sky "I have a bible here somewhere, maybe it's all real afterall". It is worth it to the Lord to drag things out if even 1 more sheep gets saved.
Please clarify something. You said, in relation to Noah and the flood, that the destruction lasted over a year. It rained for 40 days and 40 nights, so the earth was certainly already destroyed by the floodwaters by the time the 40th day came. So, I have to assume that you're not trying to say it took over a year to destroy the earth and all the wicked living on the earth.
So, I assume you're talking about how long it took the floodwaters to recede and all that? Does this mean you think God will just let the earth burn for over a year when He sends fire down upon it? Why would that be and what difference does that really even make?
As far as the length of time of the fire actually coming down upon the earth and killing all the unbelievers on the earth, I see no basis for thinking that would take very long at all (certainly not longer than it took for the flood to do so).
Genesis 7:11
Second month of the year, 17th day
40 days means over a month right there
and then
Genesis 7:24
the earth was flooded for 150 days after the 40 days and 40 nights. So this is already about 200 days.
Then it took awhile for it all to drain away, Noah was sending doves and ravens to see if the water was low enough to come down off the mountains, and so on, until finally
Genesis 8:14
2nd month, 27th day, the earth was dry, and Noah left the Ark
1 year, 10 days.
also, not everyone is destroyed by fire during the wrath of God, that's why there's other judgements than fire, and, the first doesn't REALLY come down and become all consuming until Revelation 20, and referencing the beast and false prophet being in the lake of fire, I take it to mean after armageddon and they've been being tortured for 1000 years.
Revelation 20 is where you have an instant destruction, with no events happening afterward, just fire comes down from heaven, satan gets thrown into hell, and then the resurrection and final judgement. So there's your 2 Peter 3:10, your Zephaniah, etc.
If it weren't for the book of Revelation I'd maybe believe in instantaneous destruction at the return like you do.
But Revelation exists for a reason. It wraps up most of the old testament day of the lord prophecies and the olivet discourse and shows them in concert. It makes sense out of scramble.