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

[Zao is life]

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.

I agree with everything you say except of course mortals in the millennium as you pointed out.

I've never seen the point you made above, which is how Amillennialists can imagine that the beloved city, the camp of the saints (which is New Jerusalem, not the physical Jerusalem on earth) could be surrounded by mortals on earth if it were in heaven and had not even come down from God out of heaven yet.

Very good point.

 

[DavidPT]

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.

I provided my reasoning for this, did I not? Or do you disagree, that per Revelation 19, the armies seen descending with Christ, they are not immortal yet? Which would mean the rapture doesn't occur during the 2nd coming after all, if the armies seen coming with Christ in Revelation 19 are not even immortal yet, when confronting the beast and it's armies. And that if Revelation 20:7-9 is supposed to be paralleling some of Revelation 19, how can in one account the saints are immortal, but in the other account, they are not?

In Revelation 20:7-9, is not, when those that are coming against the camp of saints, this is when God devours them with fire from heaven? What are you applying that to in Revelation 19, meaning in regards to being devoured by fire? Would it not be verse 21? And if yes, how can there be any mortal saints still on the planet being surrounded in any sense by the enemy, if the saints are seen descending with Christ from the sky?

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.

Per Revelation 19, when Christ and His armies are confronting the beast and it's armies, how does that not equal immortals vs mortals? How can Christ's armies still be mortals if the dead in Christ rise first, and that those alive and remaining, are caught up to them in the air, before they even confront the beast and it's armies on the earth below? When Revelation 19:19-21 is being fulfilled, do you think saints are still on the earth in mortal bodies rather than having already been changed into immortal bodies at this point? Thus 1 Thessalonians 4:13 -17 precedes Revelation 19:19-21. Which BTW, has zero to do with me implying Pretrib here.

All I'm saying is, the fact the armies with Christ in Revelation 19 are descending with Him from the sky, this indicates that before they even confront the beast and it;s armies below, the dead in Christ have already risen, and that the rapture has already taken place. Thus no mortal saints still on the earth at this point. Yet, per Revelation 20:7-9, saints are being surrounded on the earth. In Revelation 19, saints are not being surrounded on the earth, in any sense, if they are instead seen descending with Christ from the sky. Therefore, in my mind, regardless how Amils are reasoning Revelation 20:7-9, Revelation 19 proves there is no parallel between these accounts. Thus Revelation 19 debunks Amil's interpretation of Revelation 20:7-9, being the point.


BTW, maybe in this particular case I did inadvertantly misrepresent Amil by insisting that if Amils are correct about Revelation 20:7-9, this then equals immortals vs mortals. Why might I assume that to begin with, though? Because, if Amils are seeing these events paralleling some of Revelation 19, Reveletion 19 is undeniably invoving immortals vs mortals, the fact the armies with Christ would be immortals at this point, while the beast's armies would be mortals. Therefore, if I did misrepresent Amil in this case, I apparently wrongly assumed Amils agreed that the saints seen coming with Christ in Revelation 19, that they are in immortal bodies at this point, thus no saints still on the earth in mortal bodies. Therefore, at the time, I didn't see myself misrepresenting Amil in this case, even if I did misrepresent Amils here.

 

[DavidPT]

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

I do realize that some in the early church days, including Premils, such as Justin Martyr, applied Isaiah 2:4 in that manner. Does that mean they understood that passage correctly? Maybe, maybe not.

How do you propose we should understand 'nation' in Isaiah 2:4? In Matthew 24:7, IMO, nation should be understood as entire countries, thus countries rising against countries. It seems to me then, since Isaiah 2:4 involves nations no longer doing something, 'nation' should be understood as entire countries, the same way it appears to be meaning entire countries in Matthew 24:7. Thus---and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: countries, such as the USA, shall not lift up sword against countries, such as China, neither shall they learn war any more.

And if applying it in this manner, obviously it is not yet true, that entire countries such as the USA, are no longer going to rise up against nations such as China, etc. That neither of these countries are learning war anymore.

Something else I bring up when this subject comes up. Imagine interpreting Isaiah 2:4 the way some of you do, then some of these same interpreters being enlisted in the military at the time, or enlisting in the military after having interpreted it in this manner. This contradicts learning war no more, does it not? Is there proof that every single person that interprets Isaiah 2:4 in this manner, that none of them are/were enlisted in the military while interpreting it in this manner? After all, it makes zero sense to interpret it in this manner then be enlisted in the military at the time.

The problem is, if you have one person being persecuted, thus not fighting back, and that the one persecuting is doing all of the fighting, no way does that add up to---nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. IOW, it takes both sides to no longer be doing this, not just one side no longer doing this. In this example I just provided, it only has one side doing this, learning war no more. Not both sides learning war no more.

Had Isaiah 2:4 said this instead, thus left out the part about nations, maybe then it might be reasonable to interpret this in this manner---: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: neither shall they learn war any more. If that is what the text said instead, it's not necessarily required that it has to involve both sides doing this. But when the text is saying
nation shall not lift up sword against nation, in my mind that is meaning both sides are doing this, not just one side is doing this.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The idea of "nation" meaning "nation-state" is a fairly modern idea, as the idea of the nation-state did not exist until the modern period. Nation, rather, referred to groups of people. So, for example, the Jewish nation wasn't a nation-state, it was the Jewish people. It is closer in meaning to the English words "ethnicity" or "nationality" rather than "nation-state"--a socio-cultural identity rooted in shared language, history, etc.

The nation-state as a concept, arising within the early modern period transformed the concept of nation and united it with state-hood; so where the French nation referred to French people; the concept of a French nation now corresponds to the French state.

So, we can speak of the United States of America as a nation-state, and in that sense we call it a nation; but in the older sense the USA could instead be described as a mix of nations, i.e. the "melting pot" analogy.

So "nation rising against nation" doesn't necessarily mean states waging war (though "kingdom against kingdom" would carry that idea more strongly); rather it is the turmoil between groups of people. So, as an example, we can speak of the turmoil between the Jewish people and the Roman state, that would be an example of "nation against nation" just as much as Rome waging war against Persia or vice versa.

Nation against nation and kingdom against kingdom simply speaks of the present reality of what life is like in this present fallen world in which people fight against each other, from individual to individual violence, community to community violence, tribe against tribe, nation against nation, kingdom against kingdom, empire against empire, etc.

This is the conflict of this fallen, disordered, violent world in which sin and death have claimed tyrannical dominion over us.

Personally, I'm not sure why we should see any conflict between what Jesus says about this in the Olivet Discourse (the ways of the current and fallen world, a world crying out in pain longing for the new world which God will usher at Christ's return) with the promise of God that, there will come a time when this will no longer be the case.

While I don't completely agree with St. Justin's interpretation of Isaiah 2:4, I do believe Justin rightly understood how the Church is to be a different kind of people, a different kind of nation, a different kind of kingdom than the temporal powers and principalities of this fallen world. The Church is a kingdom, but it is the kingdom ruled by Christ the Prince of Peace who calls us to lay down our swords and suffer for His sake, as Tertullian would say, "In disarming Peter Christ disarmed every soldier". Or as St. Martin of Tours would say, "I am Christ's soldier, it is not permitted of me to fight." So that Christians are soldiers armed not with the implements of war, but of peace; we come bearing the cross not the sword. For the kingdom of God is not a kingdom of glory, but a kingdom of the Cross of Jesus Christ. Our King and Lord reigns as a Lamb seated on the throne. And so His servants, we who are citizens of His reign and rule, are to take up our cross and live our lives by laying them down.

I believe Isaiah 2:4 helps point us toward the great reality of what life shall be like in the Age to Come, that is the fullness of peace and justice upon the earth; but the Church lives in the hopeful anticipation and expectation of that future world. We therefore bear in our present that which we hope for in the future. The Day is coming when justice will flow like a river, an ever-flowing stream; and so the Church bears even now the hopeful expectation of justice and seeks to live by righteousness even now in how we regard and treat our neighbor--with love. Righteousness for the poor, the weak, the lowly, the hungry, the thirsty, etc will come in fullness when God sets all things to rights in the end: but we are still supposed to be a people of justice toward the poor, the weak, the lowly, the hungry, the thirsty, etc. For Christ has said, "I was hungry" did we give Him food or did we not? On the Day He comes to Judge, He will say to us, "I was naked" did we clothe Him or did we leave Him bare and exposed to the elements by depriving our neighbor of warm clothes, shelter, and a belly full of food?

So there is a now-and-not-yet dimension to all these things. Christ has already overcome the world (John 16:33), having conquered death by His death and resurrection; and He will conquer death when, in the end, He returns in glory and the dead are raised. For St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15 that the resurrection is a two-part event: Christ the Firstfruits, and then at His coming all who belong to Him (1 Corinthians 15:23-26, 1 Corinthians 15::51-58)

There is victory now, and victory to come. There is eternal life now, and eternal life to come. We have received invisibly through faith what shall be visibly at Christ's glorious return. So that all, Paul says, who have been baptized have been baptized into Christ's death, buried with Him, and thus now are alive in Him--we have been raised up with Christ by grace through faith, in the Sacrament of Holy Baptism. And we shall be raised up bodily, our own bodies being transformed on the Last Day, when the Lord returns.

Now and not-yet.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Timtofly]

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.

They are not mortal believers though. That is not a proper interpretation of Scripture. These people have been resurrected into permanent incorruptible physical bodies. They are not mortals at all.

That is your private interpretation of Scripture based on your Amil bias. There are no mortals mentioned in Revelation 20. Even those deceived by Satan are not mortals.

Your supposition is based on an "if". If Revelation is the here and now. If Revelation 20 is not chronologically after 19.

But Scripture reads that Revelation 20 is chronologically after Revelation 19. Satan is defeated at Armageddon, and bound in the pit. Some souls are resurrected and receive permanent incorruptible physical bodies. They are not mortals. Their offspring for 1,000 years are not mortals. All of Adam's mortal flesh was destroyed at Armageddon. No mortals in dead flesh are born in the Millennium. You may call that a private interpretation. But it is not based on an "if".

The direct reading has no opinion attached. Those resurrected can not be sent to the LOF. None of the camp of the saints can be sent to the LOF. They are not mortals. Now you can explain without contradicting that fact how all mortals are dead prior to the 1,000 years, where these mortals come from, you claim exist at the end of the thousand years?

This point does not contradict any Scripture. A mortal would not need Satan to be deceieved. They are already deceived and in a hostile state towards God.

"For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God."

These people would not survive at all in the Millennium. They were all dead at the start, and they would all be dead during the Millennium. Now some claim, they are ressurected by Satan and come from the grave. Where is that found in Scripture? If one accepts these individuals are deceived by Satan they are not in a state of death, nor already deceived and at enmity with God. They are not festering resentment waiting for Satan to be released to act on that resentment. Satan would not have to deceive them, as they would already be deceived and at enmity in their minds. This type of deception started with Eve in the garden. We have Scriptural evidence and types that do not contradict Scripture nor logic. One does not have to be a mortal to be deceived by Satan. In fact one cannot be a mortal in this scenario. Eve was not a mortal when she was deceived. Why do Amil keep avoiding that fact?

Revelation 20 does not state how they were deceived. They were deceived enough to travel great distances from every corner of the earth to a central location called the camp of the saints. They never engaged in battle, but were consumed by fire from heaven. Jesus did not descend to rescue any one. Jesus was already ruling in the beloved city with that camp of the saints.

"and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years."

Why would this not be the camp of the saints? They lived, not in mortal bodies of death. But in permanent incorruptible physical bodies of the first resurrection.

"Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years."

This does not mean they stop reigning at the end of the 1,000 years. At the end, Jesus hands back creation to God per:

"And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all."

This is when current creation stops being to allow for the NHNE of Revelation 21. Christ did not hand back creation on the Cross when he was made subject to death, for the Atonement. The physical resurrection of Jesus placed Him in position to rule, but that rule was not on earth until after the fulness of the Gentiles would be called complete. The authority of Jesus was not put on hold, like Amil pretend to think about premil belief. The physical rule of Israel, as the camp of the saints, was put on hold until the Second Coming.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I provided my reasoning for this, did I not?

Don't try to tell Amils what we believe. I've told you this many times. Yet, you continue to do that. We are not obligated to see things the same way you do.

Or do you disagree, that per Revelation 19, the armies seen descending with Christ, they are not immortal yet? Which would mean the rapture doesn't occur during the 2nd coming after all, if the armies seen coming with Christ in Revelation 19 are not even immortal yet, when confronting the beast and it's armies. And that if Revelation 20:7-9 is supposed to be paralleling some of Revelation 19, how can in one account the saints are immortal, but in the other account, they are not?

That is YOUR understanding of what is being portrayed, not MINE. In MY view the battle is already occurring during Satan's little season before Christ descends from heaven and it's between mortal unbelievers who are opposing the church throughout the world. Revelation 19:11-21 is not describing that battle while it's ongoing, it's describing Christ putting an end to the battle while bringing His angels and the souls of the dead in Christ with Him from heaven. That does not contradict anything portrayed in Revelation 20:7-9.

In Revelation 20:7-9, is not, when those that are coming against the camp of saints, this is when God devours them with fire from heaven? What are you applying that to in Revelation 19, meaning in regards to being devoured by fire? Would it not be verse 21? And if yes, how can there be any mortal saints still on the planet being surrounded in any sense by the enemy, if the saints are seen descending with Christ from the sky?

You are talking about the moment when Christ actually descends from heaven. The battle is going on throughout the time period we call Satan's little season which Amils like myself believe occurs before Christ returns. Why are you acting as if the battle doesn't even begin until Christ descends from heaven?

Per Revelation 19, when Christ and His armies are confronting the beast and it's armies, how does that not equal immortals vs mortals?

It is at that point! But, what about before that? Who are the beast and it's armies going against before that? The church, right? You have such a narrow focus on just the time when Christ actually returns, but what about the time just before that? To me, that time is Satan's little season during which MORTAL unbelievers actively oppose the church with the desire to destroy it. What is portrayed in Revelation 19:11-21 would coincide with the timing of Revelation 20:9 when the fire comes down from heaven to destroy His enemies.

How can Christ's armies still be mortals if the dead in Christ rise first, and that those alive and remaining, are caught up to them in the air, before they even confront the beast and it's armies on the earth below?

LOL! I'm not saying that. I'm talking about the time period BEFORE that. You have such a narrow focus on just the actual day Christ returns. Why? I'm talking about more than just that day.

When Revelation 19:19-21 is being fulfilled, do you think saints are still on the earth in mortal bodies rather than having already been changed into immortal bodies at this point?

No, of course not! You know that I believe fire comes down on the entire earth at that point, right? So, it would be ludicrous for me to believe that believers would still be mortal at that point.

Thus 1 Thessalonians 4:13 -17 precedes Revelation 19:19-21.

Of course. Everyone knows that.

Which BTW, has zero to do with me implying Pretrib here.

All I'm saying is, the fact the armies with Christ in Revelation 19 are descending with Him from the sky, this indicates that before they even confront the beast and it;s armies below, the dead in Christ have already risen, and that the rapture has already taken place.

Yes, of course. I didn't say otherwise. You are clearly just not getting what I'm saying at all.

Thus no mortal saints still on the earth at this point.

Yes, no kidding. That is obvious.

Yet, per Revelation 20:7-9, saints are being surrounded on the earth. In Revelation 19, saints are not being surrounded on the earth, in any sense, if they are instead seen descending with Christ from the sky.

Do you understand that Revelation 19:11-21 is only focused on the day Christ returns and not what happens before that? So, in my view, it coincides with Revelation 20:9 and not with Revelation 20:7-8. So, you can't say that Revelation 19:11-21 can't be the same event as Revelation 20:7-9 when Revelation 19:11-21 doesn't say anything one way or another about the time just before He returns the way Revelation 20:7-9 does (from the Amil perspective, at least).

Therefore, in my mind, regardless how Amils are reasoning Revelation 20:7-9, Revelation 19 proves there is no parallel between these accounts.

Yes, there is! Revelation 19:11-21 is about the destruction that will happen on the day Christ returns, is it not? In the Amil view, that is parallel to the destruction described in Revelation 20:9. Amils do not try to say that Satan's little season (Rev 20:7-8) is described specifically in Revelation 19:11-21. Only the actual day that Christ returns is described there. So, you can't say that there can't be parallels between Revelation 19 and Revelation 20:7-9 just because Revelation 19:11-21 doesn't at all describe what is described in Revelation 20:7-8. Instead, it describes the destruction that will occur on the day He returns, which, again, Amils see described in Revelation 20:9 in particular.

Thus Revelation 19 debunks Amil's interpretation of Revelation 20:7-9, being the point.

You have no point because you're once again not understanding Amil properly.

BTW, maybe in this particular case I did inadvertantly misrepresent Amil by insisting that if Amils are correct about Revelation 20:7-9, this then equals immortals vs mortals.

Not maybe. You did. Again, what you're missing here is that Amils don't see Revelation 19:11-21 as a whole being parallel to Revelation 20:7-9 as a whole. Instead, we see Revelation 19:11-21 as being parallel to Revelation 20:9. Do you understand that now?

Why might I assume that to begin with, though? Because, if Amils are seeing these events paralleling some of Revelation 19, Reveletion 19 is undeniably invoving immortals vs mortals, the fact the armies with Christ would be immortals at this point, while the beast's armies would be mortals.

At that point, which from the Amil view would be at the very end of Satan's little season, that is the case, but it says nothing about what had occurred just prior to that during Satan's little season regarding MORTAL unbelievers opposing MORTAL believers.

Therefore, if I did misrepresent Amil in this case, I apparently wrongly assumed Amils agreed that the saints seen coming with Christ in Revelation 19, that they are in immortal bodies at this point, thus no saints still on the earth in mortal bodies.

AT THAT POINT when Christ returns, yes, of course, they would be changed and be immortal. But, not until then. You are saying nothing about anything that would have occurred before that.

Therefore, at the time, I didn't see myself misrepresenting Amil in this case, even if I did misrepresent Amils here.

You have misrepresented Amil MANY times because you just continue to not fully understand what we believe. Why that is the case, I don't know, but it obviously has always been the case and, apparently, will always continue to be the case for whatever reason.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

They are not mortal believers though. That is not a proper interpretation of Scripture. These people have been resurrected into permanent incorruptible physical bodies. They are not mortals at all.

LOL. So, it's your view that mortal unbelievers will think that they can somehow destroy incorruptible/immortal believers? And you think this makes sense? Okay then.

That is your private interpretation of Scripture based on your Amil bias.

You need to learn what words mean. A private interpretation is one that someone has all to himself or herself, not one that is shared by millions of other people.

There are no mortals mentioned in Revelation 20. Even those deceived by Satan are not mortals.

LOL. How can fire come down from heaven and destroy them if they are not mortal? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Revelation 20:9 They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God’s people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them.

Your supposition is based on an "if". If Revelation is the here and now. If Revelation 20 is not chronologically after 19.

And your supposition is based on if what is described in Revelation 20 is meant to be understood to occur chronologically after what is described in Revelation 19. I'm glad we can establish what our suppositions are. That's really helpful.

But Scripture reads that Revelation 20 is chronologically after Revelation 19.

No, it does not. Even you understand that not all of Revelation is chronological. Otherwise, Christ's birth and ascension described in Revelation 12 would have occurred after the seventh trumpet sounded, as described at the end of Revelation 11. So, there is no basis for assuming that what is described in Revelation 20 has to follow what is described in Revelation 19 chronologically.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I agree with everything you say except of course mortals in the millennium as you pointed out.

I've never seen the point you made above, which is how Amillennialists can imagine that the beloved city, the camp of the saints (which is New Jerusalem, not the physical Jerusalem on earth) could be surrounded by mortals on earth if it were in heaven and had not even come down from God out of heaven yet.

Very good point.

Allow me to explain that then. Scripture teaches that even now we (believers) have come spiritually unto the heavenly Jerusalem, which is the new Jerusalem.

Hebrews 12:22 But you have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, 23 to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the Judge of all, to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24 to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.

So, the New Jerusalem (heavenly Jerusalem) is simply a figurative reference to the church. That is why it is referred to as the Lamb's bride in Revelation 21 (verses 2 and 9). So, when it talks about the beloved city being surrounded, it's figuratively talking about the church on earth being opposed throughout the world.

 

[Timtofly]

You need to learn what words mean. A private interpretation is one that someone has all to himself or herself, not one that is shared by millions of other people.

So Islam is correct, because it was not a private interpretation, but literal Scripture from God?

Every belief starts out as a private interpretation. Amil did not just instantly pop into the heads of hundreds of humans. It started at a particular point in time by a particular person with a private interpretation of Scripture.

You may be thinking of a personal belief. If it is not of the Holy Spirit it is a private interpretation of a man.

You laugh because God cannot kill a son of God? Tell that to all the sons of God who drowned in the Flood of Noah, and convince them they did not die.

Your so called immortals can be killed by God if that is God's will.

"Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,"

"And said, Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither: the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord."

The point is they cannot die, until they disobey God. Yet you refuse to state what these consumed by fire did to disobey God. God can prevent harm and proactively kill these people with fire before they can act. Why do you limit God?

No, it does not. Even you understand that not all of Revelation is chronological. Otherwise, Christ's birth and ascension described in Revelation 12 would have occurred after the seventh trumpet sounded, as described at the end of Revelation 11. So, there is no basis for assuming that what is described in Revelation 20 has to follow what is described in Revelation 19 chronologically.

Yes it does. Satan and company fight in Revelation 19. Satan is defeated and bound in 20.

What does chapter 12 have to do with 19 and 20? Are you saying it should go 19, 12, and then 20, and John was confused?

 

[Timtofly]

Allow me to explain that then. Scripture teaches that even now we (believers) have come spiritually unto the heavenly Jerusalem, which is the new Jerusalem.

Hebrews 12:22 But you have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, 23 to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the Judge of all, to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24 to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.

So, the New Jerusalem (heavenly Jerusalem) is simply a figurative reference to the church. That is why it is referred to as the Lamb's bride in Revelation 21 (verses 2 and 9). So, when it talks about the beloved city being surrounded, it's figuratively talking about the church on earth being opposed throughout the world.

Right now it is called Paradise. That heavenly "city" is not called Jerusalem. It is just the heavenly city in opposition to the earthly city. Jesus called it His father's mansion (house) with many rooms.

The New Jerusalem will be in the next creation. It will replace both Paradise and the city on earth that was Jerusalem.

And all the church in heaven is currently enjoying that city in permanent incorruptible physical bodies. They are not souls thinking they are in a physical city. Your spirit is there enjoying God's presence. Your soul has to wait until your current body is destroyed.

"For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens."

 

[Zao is life]

Allow me to explain that then. Scripture teaches that even now we (believers) have come spiritually unto the heavenly Jerusalem, which is the new Jerusalem.​

Hebrews 12:22 But you have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, 23 to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the Judge of all, to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24 to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.

So, the New Jerusalem (heavenly Jerusalem) is simply a figurative reference to the church. That is why it is referred to as the Lamb's bride in Revelation 21 (verses 2 and 9). So, when it talks about the beloved city being surrounded, it's figuratively talking about the church on earth being opposed throughout the world.

I agree with New Jerusalem being = a spiritual city populated by those who are in Christ, whether on earth or in heaven. But we obviously disagree about at what point it becomes surrounded by the armies of Gog/Magog, i.e before or after it came down from God out of heaven (Revelation 21:2; Revelation 21:10), i.e before or after the return of Christ.

I don't see any scripture saying that it's before the martyrdom of those who John saw as beheaded for their testimony to Christ and refusal to worship the beast or his image or receive his mark or the number of his name, who are living and reigning with Christ a thousand years before the armies of Gog/Magog attack the camp of the saints and the beloved city.
​

I also don't see any scripture saying those who are martyred for the above reasons (given in Revelation 20:4-6) are beheaded after the thousand years during which they are living and reigning with Christ.

 

[Happygolucky?]

Isaiah 2:2-4 is latter of the 2 events.

Joel 3:9-11

9Proclaim this among the nations:
Prepare for holy war; stir up the warriors!
Have all the soldiers come forward, have them come up!
10Beat your plowshares into swords,
And your pruning hooks into spears;
Let the weak man say, “I am a warrior.”
11[f]Hurry and come, all you surrounding nations,
And gather yourselves there.
Bring down, LORD, Your warriors.


Interesting that At the day of the Lord, it says beat your plowshares into swords, then in Isaiah 2:2-4 it says, turn the swords back to plowshares.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I agree with New Jerusalem being = a spiritual city populated by those who are in Christ, whether on earth or in heaven. But we obviously disagree about at what point it becomes surrounded by the armies of Gog/Magog, i.e before or after it came down from God out of heaven (Revelation 21:2; Revelation 21:10), i.e before or after the return of Christ.

I don't see any scripture saying that it's before the martyrdom of those who John saw as beheaded for their testimony to Christ and refusal to worship the beast or his image or receive his mark or the number of his name, who are living and reigning with Christ a thousand years before the armies of Gog/Magog attack the camp of the saints and the beloved city.​

Can you elaborate on what you said here? I read it multiple times and I just can't make sense of it. When you say you "don't see any scripture saying that it's before the martyrdom of those who John saw as beheaded for their testimony to Christ", etc. what is "it" that you're referring to there?

Can you tell me your understanding of the identity of the beast and the image and mark of the beast? Maybe that would help me see what you're trying to say. I'm sure we probably differ on that.

I also don't see any scripture saying those who are martyred for the above reasons (given in Revelation 20:4-6) are beheaded after the thousand years during which they are living and reigning with Christ.

Again, I'm not seeing the point. There also isn't any scripture specifically saying that Christ will continue to reign after the thousand years ends, but we know He will, right? So, if that's the case then can't it also be the case that people can be martyred by the beast even after the thousand years ends? Just because it doesn't spell that out for us doesn't mean it can't be so just like how it doesn't specifically tell us that Christ will continue to reign after the thousand years ends, but none of us think that He will stop reigning at that point.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

So Islam is correct, because it was not a private interpretation, but literal Scripture from God?

Are you for real or do you purposely talk nonsense to see how people will react? Everyone else but you can see what my point was. Why is that? Why are you the only one who can't understand what others are saying? Please explain that.

Clearly, I said nothing that would indicate that Islam could possibly be correct. Yet, here you are asking me that ridiculous question? It's clearly futile to get you to understand what certain terms mean, so I'm not going to waste any more time on this.

 

[Zao is life]

Can you elaborate on what you said here? I read it multiple times and I just can't make sense of it. When you say you "don't see any scripture saying that it's before the martyrdom of those who John saw as beheaded for their testimony to Christ", etc. what is "it" that you're referring to there?

Before we talk about the beast, I don't understand what it is you don't understand, i.e whether you don't understand that in Revelation 20, the martyrdom of those beheaded for their testimony to Christ and their reigning with Christ a thousand years, is written in the passage as occurring before the gathering of the armies of Gog-Magog against the camp of the saints,

or whether you don't understand that the gathering of the armies of Gog-Magog is written in Revelation 20 as occurring after the martyrdom of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Christ, who reigned with Christ a thousand years?

Can you elaborate?

 

[anetazo]

Isaiah chapter 2:4. Is future. It's the millennium of revelation chapter 20 and Ezekiel chapter 40 to 48. Jesus kingdom will be peace, no more wars or corruption. Matthew 24:6, 7, is end times prophecy, were in the flesh age. Covid-19 is pestilence. Russia invaded Ukraine last year. We had major 7.9 earthquake in Turkey and Syria. Unless person has blinders on, were seeing bible prophecy unfold before our eyes. Zechariah chapter 6, two mountains of brass and four chariots coming from between two mountains of brass. This is Russia and America. The black and white chariots went north to Russia, its satanic. The grisled chariots went south to middle east. This aligns with wars and rumors of wars. Get the picture. Do your homework before you teach. PEACE.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Before we talk about the beast, I don't understand what it is you don't understand, i.e whether you don't understand that in Revelation 20, the martyrdom of those beheaded for their testimony to Christ and their reigning with Christ a thousand years, is written in the passage as occurring before the gathering of the armies of Gog-Magog against the camp of the saints,

It's obvious that what is written in Revelation 20:7-9 occurs after the thousand years end. But, I don't believe Christ stops reigning at that point. And I believe the beast becomes unrestrained at that point in conjunction with the loosing of Satan. I see the beast as being active the entire time, but restrained (rather than completely incapacitated) during the thousand years, just like Satan.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Isaiah chapter 2:4. Is future. It's the millennium of revelation chapter 20 and Ezekiel chapter 40 to 48. Jesus kingdom will be peace, no more wars or corruption. Matthew 24:6, 7, is end times prophecy, were in the flesh age. Covid-19 is pestilence. Russia invaded Ukraine last year. We had major 7.9 earthquake in Turkey and Syria. Unless person has blinders on, were seeing bible prophecy unfold before our eyes. Zechariah chapter 6, two mountains of brass and four chariots coming from between two mountains of brass. This is Russia and America. The black and white chariots went north to Russia, its satanic. The grisled chariots went south to middle east. This aligns with wars and rumors of wars. Get the picture. Do your homework before you teach. PEACE.

Do you believe that Isaiah 2:4 has to do with the last days?

Isaiah 2:2 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. 3 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. 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.

Are you aware that New Testament scripture speaks of the last days in relation to the New Testament time period? Peter indicated in Acts 2:16-21 that the last days had begun already on the day of Pentecost. And then in 2 Peter 3:3-4 he indicated that in the last days scoffers would scoff at the promise of Christ's second coming. So, the last days had already begun on the day of Pentecost and they lead up to the day Christ returns. So, with that in mind, why do you relate Isaiah 2:4 to a future millennium?

 

[Zao is life]

I don't believe Christ stops reigning at that point.

We agree. I believe the Son of man now rules as God intended Adam to rule (Genesis 1:26-28 - Psalm 8:4-8 - Isaiah 9:6 - Matthew 28:18). When He has returned the Son of man will hand the Kingdom back to God the Father (1 Corinthians 15:24-28).

But the Son of God will reign forever:

βασιλεύσει (He will reign) forever and ever: Revelation 11:15 (Christ).
βασιλεύσουσιν (they will reign) forever and ever: Revelation 22:5 (those who are Christ's).

And the Son of man and the Son of God is One. And those who are in Him are One. And God will be all in all (1 Corinthians 15:28).

Do you believe that the reference to the "forever and ever" reign of Christ's servants in Revelation 22:3-5 is the same as the reference to the thousand year reign of His servants in Revelation 20:4-6, or is the first referring to a limited period of time, and the second not?

It's obvious that what is written in Revelation 20:7-9 occurs after the thousand years end.

Do you believe that it's obvious from Revelation 20:4-6 that those who were beheaded for their testimony to Jesus, for the Word of God, and for their refusal to worship the beast do not reign with Christ for a thousand years only from when the thousand years ends?

And I believe the beast becomes unrestrained at that point in conjunction with the loosing of Satan. I see the beast as being active the entire time, but restrained (rather than completely incapacitated) during the thousand years, just like Satan.

Do you believe that the above beast becomes unrestrained in conjunction with the loosing of Satan in the final days of the last days which will lead to the return of Christ?

If so, do you believe that those who are said to be beheaded by the above beast are beheaded before he is unrestrained in conjunction with the loosing of Satan, or after?

I ask this because quite obviously, if you believe it is after the beast becomes unrestrained that those who refused to worship him / it are beheaded, then the deduction you are making regarding when the thousand years commences is a 2+2=5 solution, because unless they were beheaded a thousand years before the close of the thousand years, they could not have reigned with Christ a thousand years.

 

[DavidPT]

I see the beast as being active the entire time, but restrained (rather than completely incapacitated) during the thousand years, just like Satan.

2 Thessalonians 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.


Is it possible that this verse can be understood like such?

For the mystery of iniquity doth already work---this represents being active still, even while restrained

only he who now letteth will let---this represents the thousand year binding

until he be taken out of the way---this represents the loosing after the thousand years

Maybe, maybe not. Yet, I can see the logic in this, regardless, if I'm going to be honest about it. I don't know if Amils might understand that verse like that, so I'm not suggesting they do, in the event they don't. But if Amils do understand that verse like that, there is some logic to it, I can at least admit that.