The little season in Revelation 6 and 20, two different ones, or one and the same?

Rev 22:1&2- Pregnant Mary and she also represents heavenly Jerusalem.

Rev 22:3&4 - Herod killing the babies 2 years and under in an attempt to kill the Christ.

Rev 12:5 - Mary delivers the baby and then he is crucified.

Rev 12:6 - Mary is protected during the time of Jacobs trouble.

Rev 12:7-9 - The devil is cast out of the kingdom of heaven on EARTH. Aka taking the kingdom from the SATANIC wicked Jews and giving it to the Godly Jews.

Rev 12:10-11 - Salvation has come through the cross. The saints have overcome the devil in more ways than one.

Rev 12:12 - The Satanic Jews realize Christianity is spreading like wildfire and they have to put an end to this “rebellion” before it grows so large they can’t stop it.

Rev 12:13 - The Satanic Jews persecute heavenly Jerusalem trying to intimidate them into shutting their mouths.

Rev 12:14 - God protects the woman for 42 months. Same 42 months as mentioned earlier.

I want go on any further but this is very simple until people try to make 42 months mean something other than 42 months and try to push all of this 2000 years down the road at the “end of the earth” that has no end.

Just how long is a "little season" anyway?

I know this much; a "little season" is shorter than a "long season".

Well then, just how long is a "long season"? Scripture tells us in Joshua 24:7. "...And ye dwelt in the wilderness a long season". This "dwelling in the wilderness" we are told lasted 40 years in Deuteronomy 8:2. "And thou shalt remember all the way which the Lord thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness..."

Now, if a "long season" lasts for 40 years, then a "little season" reasonably should be shorter than 40 years duration.

Therefore, the souls under the altar who received those white robes of resurrected righteousness only had to wait that "little season" (of less than 40 years) for the rest of their fellow-servants who were "about to be killed" just as the souls under the altar had been.

Bob_1000, if you put the date for those souls under the altar being given white robes at the year of the crucifixion, then that "little season" would be less than 40 years before God would begin exacting vengeance for their shed blood during those "Days of Vengeance". I claim that the "little season" started in AD 33 on Christ's resurrection day when the Matthew 27:52-53 saints were resurrected and given those "white robes" at that time. A "little season" of 33 years passed until the "Days of Vengeance" against that wicked generation began in AD 66. That's shorter than a "long season" of 40 years.

There were plenty of "fellow-servant" martyrs being put to death by the hostile Jewish leadership and then by Nero's persecution during those 33 years (from AD 33-66).

It is the very same "little season" of 33 years (from AD 33-66) during which Satan was loosed against the inhabitants of the earth and the sea in great wrath for just a "short time" at the end of the millennium. That is why we have Peter telling the believers around AD 65 that Satan as a "roaring lion" was at that time walking about, seeking those whom he could devour.

DavidPT said:

I admit I had never noticed that before, the point you are trying to raise here. I noticed the part that indicates that should be killed as they were, but didn't think much about it. Why can't it just be a general statement about being martyred? If the martyrdom involving their fellowservants involves being martyred because they refuse to worship the beast, why do the ones under the altar have to have been killed for the same reasons? I'm assuming Stephen would be among the martyrs under the altar. Was he killed because he refused to worship the beast? If, when John received the visions, the beast 'is not' at that time, wouldn't it be true that when Stephen was martyred, that the beast 'is not' at that time as well? How can anyone be martyred for refusing to worship the beast if it is not even active at the time?

Click to expand...

The problem is that you are confusing two different beasts. You are thinking the beast that "is not" while John was writing (the Scarlet Beast of Revelation 17) is the same one in Revelation 13 - the Sea Beast. They are not the same beast. The Sea Beast had existed for 666 years prior to John writing Revelation. Many had died for not giving homage to that Sea Beast during its 666 years of existence, ever since Nebuchadnezzar's days when he came against Israel. On down through the Medo-Persian empire, the Greek empire, and the Roman empire that existed in John's days, they had all demanded homage for themselves against God in some way or another. And ever since 19 BC, even the Revelation 13 Land Beast of Judea's religious rulers had colluded in this scheme, by demanding that their own people give homage to the Roman phase of the Sea Beast.

DavidPT said:

Revelation 6:11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.


I admit I had never noticed that before, the point you are trying to raise here. I noticed the part that indicates that should be killed as they were, but didn't think much about it. Why can't it just be a general statement about being martyred? If the martyrdom involving their fellowservants involves being martyred because they refuse to worship the beast, why do the ones under the altar have to have been killed for the same reasons? I'm assuming Stephen would be among the martyrs under the altar. Was he killed because he refused to worship the beast? If, when John received the visions, the beast 'is not' at that time, wouldn't it be true that when Stephen was martyred, that the beast 'is not' at that time as well? How can anyone be martyred for refusing to worship the beast if it is not even active at the time?

Click to expand...

It is YOUR interpretation that the beast and Satan being in the bottomless pit/abyss means they are completely inactive as a result, not mine. You're talking to me as if I'm supposed to have the same understanding of what it means to be in the bottomless pit as you do.

I've already explained my understanding of what it means for Satan to be bound many times. I see the beast as being bound in the same way. They are restrained rather than completely incapacitated.

And, again, if you want me to take your view seriously then you need to tell me who or what you think the beast is. I'm thinking you'll never do that, though.

They don't necessarily have to be a literal 42 months in my view.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but I have a hard time believing that. Don't you see that time period as being the second half of Daniel's 70th week like most futurists do?

But I can't see them involving centuries.

Click to expand...

If it's figurative, why do you have to limit how much time it can represent? To me it represents a partial period of time. Obviously, 3.5 years (42 months) is half of 7 years. The number 7 symbolically represents fullness and perfection. So, since 3.5 is half of 7, then I see the 42 months/1260 days/time, times and half a time as representing just a part, but not all of history. I see it as representing the New Testament time period.

I don't believe the purpose of the book of Revelation has anything to do with identifying exact durations of time. We could potentially pinpoint the exact time when certain things will happen in that case including the return of Christ. That would contradict what Jesus said when He said no one knows the day or hour of His coming and what Paul said when he said in 1 Thessalonians 5:1 "But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you". Clearly, it's not meant for us to know the exact times of when things are going to happen, including the return of Christ.

Nor would I think Amils should either since this would mean the 42 months are parallelling the thousand years, or may even be meaning the thousand years. I'm not trying to speak for Amils, I'm just pointing out that it doesn't appear to be logical if the 42 months span centuries, thus parallelling or maybe even meaning the proposed thousand years that allegedly take place in this age.

Click to expand...

I don't think much of Revelation is logical from a human standpoint. It portrays a woman, who is also a city called Mystery Babylon, sitting on many waters while riding a beast with seven heads and ten horns. Is that logical? When dealing with figurative and symbolic text we should be careful about applying man-made rules to what it can or can't mean.

I'm interested in trying to discuss the remainder of your post as well. I'm just not up to it at the moment. I just wish there was an easier way to discuss/debate these things other than through having to type out everything, other than what can be copied and pasted, such as Bible verses. I wish there was a way I could simply copy what's in my mind then paste into a post without having to type anything.

Click to expand...

Maybe in the future they'll have the kind of technology that can read your mind and put your thoughts directly into your post.

Spiritual Jew said:

It is YOUR interpretation that the beast and Satan being in the bottomless pit/abyss means they are completely inactive as a result, not mine. You're talking to me as if I'm supposed to have the same understanding of what it means to be in the bottomless pit as you do.

Click to expand...

Exactly. You hit the nail on the head. David does not get this. This is at the heart of why he cannot grasp Amil. He judges Amil through Premil bias lenses.

DavidPT said:

Was he killed because he refused to worship the beast? If, when John received the visions, the beast 'is not' at that time, wouldn't it be true that when Stephen was martyred, that the beast 'is not' at that time as well?

Click to expand...

Can you not be objective? It is hard to take your argument serious when you only quote half what the sacred text says about the beast. This is the ongoing blatant bias that diminishes your arguments. It actually states: “is not, and yet is.”

DavidPT said:

I examine everything through what I feel the text indicates or doesn't indicate, and then base my conclusions on this, then try and determine that what some are proposing, does it agree or disagree with what the text is indicating? Why is it so wrong to want to try and stick to what the text is saying or not saying? What procedure would you use if you were debating with a JW, for example, about whether on not Jesus is God? What lense would you be looking at things through? Your lense or the JW's lense?

Click to expand...

What are you talking about? The Bible only recognizes saved and lost humans. You are trying to invent a third type of people that do not exist in Scripture.

What happens to the righteous when Jesus appears? What happens to the wicked when He appears? In Matthew 25:33 Christ (the king) sets “the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.” He then sentences them, and eternally separates them. The sheep are the believers, the goats are the unbelievers. Jesus confirms this in this final sentencing of all mankind in Matthew 25:34, 41&46, declaring: “Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world … then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels … and these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.”

The terms “the sheep,” “them on his right hand,” “ye blessed” and “the righteous” are seen to be synonymous in this parable. The wicked on the other hand are simply deemed “the goats,” “them on the left hand” or “ye cursed.” The righteous are seen in Matthew 25:31-45 to “inherit the kingdom” and “life eternal” whereas the wicked are cast “into everlasting fire” and receive “everlasting punishment” (Matthew 25:46). The designations and sentences can only relate to the saved and the unsaved. They could not be clearer. There are no exceptions or other groups additional to these two diametrically opposing groupings.

This is the final separation of the wicked from the redeemed of God. It is the climactic assignment of eternal destinies. All mankind is found embodied in one of these two unique groupings. There are no ‘nearly saved or ‘semi-saved’ people or ‘nearly lost’ or ‘semi-lost’ people on this day. One is either clothed with Christ’s robes of righteousness or eternally saved or he is He is clothed with his own filthy rags of righteousness and eternally lost. No one inherits the kingdom through national identity.

DavidPT said:

I guess this means that some of the OT is not holy writ then, even though I would think it would be. IOW, Zechariah 14, for example, flat out lied to us, thus is not holy writ, when it tells us that after the LORD fights against all the nations coming against Jerusalem, where it then involves Zechariah 14:12 being their fate, where that obviously hasn't happened yet, in any sense, that there are still ppl remaining of these nations that battled Jerusalem, and that they are to come up to Jerusalem to keep the feast of tabernacles or they will face plagues instead, such as no rain. These couldn't possibly be meaning saved Christians. Zechariah 14:16-19 could not possibly be pertaining to this age when Zechariah 14:12 hasn't even been fulfilled yet, and that Zechariah 14:16-19 is meaning after the fulfillment of Zechariah 14:12, not before it is fulfilled instead.

How about this idea? Debunk the fact that Zechariah 14:12 is yet to be fulfilled. Prove that it has already been fulfilled. When you or any other Amil can do that, that would prove Zechariah 14:16-19 fits in this age after all. The chance of you or anyone for that matter, proving that Zechariah 14:12 has already been fulfilled, is zero since it is beyond preposterous that that has already been fulfilled in any sense. But just ignore debunking any of this. It's obviously much easier to just claim someone is wrong without actually having to prove why they are.

Click to expand...

There is no Premil that has had the details of Zechariah 14 explained in a through and correct manner, and has chosen to reject that. Premil has been repeatedly debunked re a correlation with Revelation 20. You refuse to correlate the 2 because there is no comparison. The same applies with every Premil argument. You clearly do not want to know what this text means. You are fixed in your position. Nothing you present supports your invention of 3 peoples.

DavidPT said:

I examine everything through what I feel the text indicates or doesn't indicate, and then base my conclusions on this, then try and determine that what some are proposing, does it agree or disagree with what the text is indicating? Why is it so wrong to want to try and stick to what the text is saying or not saying?

Click to expand...

You just don't get it. It's obvious that Amil can't work according to the Premil understanding of Satan's binding. Why waste time pointing out something obvious like that? What does it accomplish to point out what everyone already knows?

Instead, you should try to explain why the Amil understanding of Satan's binding can't be correct. But, you never do that. You assume that it's talking about him being bound to the point of being incapacitated. That's all you seem to have to refute Amil is an assumption about what Satan being bound means. Do you have anything more than that? Do you have other scripture to support your interpretation of Satan's binding the way Amils use scriptures like Hebrews 2:14-15, 1 John 3:8, Colossians 2:14-15, Ephesians 2:11-13 and Matthew 12:28-29 to support our understanding of his binding?

DavidPT said:

Revelation 6:11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

Revelation 20:3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.


If anyone can undeniably prove these are referring to the same little season in both accounts, this would undeniably prove Amil in that case. What this means of course, if they are one and the same, the little season recorded in Revelation 20 involves the martyring of saints since the little season recorded in Revelation 6 obviously involves the martyring of saints.

My position is this. They are not meaning the same little season. The little season recorded in Revelation 6:11 is meaning prior to the thousand years and explains the martyrdom recorded in Revelation 20:4 involving the following saints---which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands. IOW, per my view, the little season recorded in Revelation 6:11 is referring to the 42 month reign of the beast recorded in Revelation 13, and that it is also meaning what is recorded in Daniel 7:21 for another.

No matter how one looks at it, it is unreasonable to think the little season recorded in Revelation 6:11 does not involve the 42 month reign of the beast recorded in Revelation 13. It is also unreasonable to think that this 42 months does not precede the 2nd coming. This 42 months involve both the beast and the false prophet, where they need to be active in the earth in the end of this age in order to be cast alive into the LOF recorded in Revelation 19 which involves the 2nd coming. Obviously, both are active during the 42 months recorded in Revelation 13. Plus, 42 months compared to an even greater period of time, such as a thousand years, it would not be unreasonable to view 42 months as a little season.

Click to expand...

Revelation 6 is many chapters and years before Satan is cast to the earth. Revelation is fairly easy to understand if one has done much work in the OT prophets, and one is not confined by the 7-year trib theory. Many have to rearrange Revelation in order to jam everything into 7 years. That just isn't the case. The time of the end, the age of unrighteousness, is much longer than 7 years.

As for Rev 6, first:

Rev 1:6 and has made us a kingdom of priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever.

On earth we are a kingdom of priests to Christ. Once in heaven, we will serve the Father in His Temple. (Rev 7) Therefore, the first ingathering/rapture takes place at this point. Further, the 24 elders are in heaven when Jesus opens the seals. Thus, the rapture is past tense when they are opened.

Rev 22:6 Then he said to me, “These words are faithful and true.” And the Lord God of the holy prophets sent His angel to show His servants the things which must shortly take place. 7 “Behold, I am coming quickly! Blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book.”

In recap, Jesus says He is coming quickly. From the time the book applies, how quickly?

Isaiah 32:1 For, behold, a righteous king shall reign, and princes shall govern with judgment. 2 And a man shall have secret words, that have been hidden, and he shall be as rushing water, and shall appear in Zion as a rushing river, glorious in a thirsty land. 3 The eyes of those who see will not be dim, and the ears of those who hear will listen. 4 And the heart of the weak ones shall attend to hear, and the stammering tongues shall soon learn to speak peace. 5 The fool will no longer be called noble, nor the scoundrel be highly respected. ... 9 Rise up, you rich women, and hear My voice; you confident daughters, listen to My words. 10 For a year and a few days, you shall be troubled: the vintage shall be cut off; it will fail, the ingathering shall not come.

There is a year and a few days between the ingatherings; the rapture and the coming of the Bridegroom. During that year after the righteous have been removed, a new church will arise and face persecution by the wicked quickly. These are those being collected in the 5th seal. Then, the 6th seal is the coming of the Bridegroom; the second ingathering. Only half the virgins will make it. Then, the rest of Revelation will unfold over time.

There are 4 Days of the Lord, but no one seems to know that. They are not east to figure out. Here is another source you may not have read.

Apocalypse of Abraham 47. And I looked and saw, and behold the picture swayed and from it emerged, on the left side an ungodly people and they pillaged those who were on the right side, men, women, and children, and some they murdered, and others they kept as slaves. And I saw them run towards them through four entrances/descents [<depending on translation] and they burned the Temple with fire, and the holy things that were therein were all plundered.

53. And He showed me a multitude of His people and said to me, "On their account, through four 'entrances' as you saw, I shall be provoked by them, and in these (four descents) shall My retribution for their deeds be accomplished. But in the fourth descent, even one hour of the age, there shall be misfortune among the nations, but also for one hour there shall be mercy and honor among those nations.”