Is the 6th seal about the destruction of Jerusalem?

[claninja]

IMO the following is the timing of the 6th seal.

Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

Luke 21:25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;
26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.


Matthew 24:29 places the events of the 6th seal immediately after the tribulation of those days.


Revelation 6:12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;
13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.
14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.
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?


Luke 21:26 indicates----Men's hearts failing them for fear----while Revelation 6:15-16 depicts them hiding themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains. Ask yourself this. Who would likely be hiding themselves like that? One in fear of his or her life? Or one that is not in fear of anything? The former of course---thus---it matches with Men's hearts failing them for fear.

If I am correct that the 6th seal events are meaning Luke 21:25-26, for one, according to Matthew 24:29 then, Jesus claimed these events occur immediately after the tribulation of those days. Maybe you might want to call Jesus a liar for claiming that, but I sure don't want to. I can read what He said per the text---He clearly claimed these things occur, not before nor during the trib of those days, but immediately after the tribulation of those days instead.

Matthew 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Obviously then, that places the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory, AFTER the trib of those days, and AFTER the events recorded in Luke 21:25-26, IOW AFTER the 6th seal events. Or maybe better yet, sometime during those events. IOW, it is ludicrous to apply Matthew 24:30 to the time of the trib of those days. Verse 29 proves verse 30 has to be applied to a time post the trib of those days.

I definitely agree with this. We just disagree with the timing of this whole event.

 

[DavidPT]

I definitely agree with this. We just disagree with the timing of this whole event.

Let's start here then. You will likely never change your mind about some of these things, yet I still find you to be a reasonable person, regardless.

If you take the trib of those days to be meaning the events leading up to 70 AD, and the fact the coming in Matthew 24:30 has to be meaning a time when the trib of those days are already in the past, and has to mean a time during/after the stars fall from heaven, etc, what are you then applying the coming in verse 30 to?

 

[Douggg]

I haven't been arguing it is the end of the age. I have been arguing that the time meant is some time soon after the ascension back into heaven in the first century. Only in regards to the part about coming with the clouds of heaven, then being brought before the Father, and then given a kingdom, etc.

Daniel 7:13-14 is the heaven side continuation of Jesus having left this world in Acts 1.

analogy:
It is as if your daughter got into the car to go to your dad's house; she drove away from your house as you waived good bye..... and your dad, living down the street, waived to her as she drove up the driveway.

She left in the car and arrived in the car.

 

[seventysevens]

I mean it will take awhile and a lot of posts, but we can go through each of the seals, trumpets, and bowls and show how they line up nicely with olivet discourse as well as the history of Jewish Roman war. But I have a feeling you won't really care.


and we can go through all the scriptures that show Christ is currently reigning over the heavens and the earth now, but I have a feeling you'll just dismiss it.

If you want to waste your time doing that , go ahead , but I see no reason to spend time discussing things that have not yet happened as if they have -
I could but will not spend the time gathering the many scriptures that speak of what will happen in the future - hailstones of fire weighing 110+ lbs each , demon locusts that are released from the abyss that torment men for 5 months , the descriptive events of destruction that Literally change the surface of the planet earth - that have not happened , if those things had happened there would be physical evidence - there is none

When we say that Jesus will PHYSICALLY Return to earth - it is LITERALLY going to happen just as literally as Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of his first coming
Jesus will return to this planet and walk on it ,, we will sit at the same table and eat together with him , we will be with him on this earth -with him the same way people did the first time Jesus PHYSICALLY came to earth

The difference will be that we will have a sinless body and never leave Jesus again ,
Trying to find scripture to say that Jesus has physically returned to earth is futile as there is none

Scripture makes it abundantly clear that when Jesus returns he casts satan into the abyss so that satan cannot deceive the people of earth for 1000 years
There is no scripture that says that has happened -it has not yet happened
Jesus returns to earth , - it seems that you do not believe that - and since you don't believe that there really is no reason to continue

 

[DavidPT]

Daniel 7:13-14 is the heaven side continuation of Jesus having left this world in Acts 1.

analogy:
It is as if your daughter got into the car to go to your dad's house; she drove away from your house as you waived good bye..... and your dad, living down the street, waived to her as she drove up the driveway.

She left in the car and arrived in the car.

Even per your analogy that equals a coming then. I don't understand what it is about my proposed position that you are disputing? All I initially said was, that there appeared to be 3 comings embedded in Dan 7:13-14. Two of those comings would involve coming to the earth. One would involve returning to heaven. That's not the same as saying, if there are 3 comings, that must mean Jesus comes to the earth 3 times. Yet, obviously that is not what I am saying nor implying. Only two of those comings involve coming to the earth. The other one involves leaving the earth and coming to heaven. How could that possibly be incorrect, that that involves 3 physical comings of Jesus, where He was initially one place, then left, then arrived at another entirely different place?

 

[claninja]

Let's start here then. You will likely never change your mind about some of these things, yet I still find you to be a reasonable person, regardless.

Thank for the kind words. Same to you. I do always appreciate your input, even if we don’t always agree.

If you take the trib of those days to be meaning the events leading up to 70 AD, and the fact the coming in Matthew 24:30 has to be meaning a time when the trib of those days are already in the past, and has to mean a time during/after the stars fall from heaven, etc, what are you then applying the coming in verse 30 to?

1st, judgement at Gods coming through the tribulation and destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. 2nd the understanding by those who mourn that God has come in judgement and slaughtered those who didn’t want him to be king (Luke 19)


So it states that immediately after the tribulation the sun darkens, the stars fall, the moon does not give light, the heavens shake....We can see Jesus is drawing off the OT language, specifically Isaiah 13, where Babylon is judged. I would argue that Jesus is using this same language against Jerusalem, in that it’s being judged. Side note this would make sense, since the prostitute in revelation is also called Babylon the great and is also judged for shedding the blood of prophets and saints, just like Jesus accused Jerusalem in Matthew 23.

Then with they will see the SIGN of the son of man. They will mourn when they see him coming in the clouds with power. What does that mean? It means Jesus is calling himself God. In the OT, The ‘coming’ of God was associated with judgement, whether it was against enemies, like in 2 Samuel 22 or using nations to judge nations, like in Isaiah 19 or Micah 1.


This lines up with coming of the vineyard owner to destroy the wretches who killed the vineyard owners son in Matthew 21. And the king returning to slaughter those who didn’t want him to be king in the first place luke 19.

 

[Douggg]

Even per your analogy that equals a coming then. I don't understand what it is about my proposed position that you are disputing?

I am disputing your terminology - as Daniel 7:13-14 as being "a" coming of Jesus.... without being specific when calling it "a" coming.

Specifically, Daniel 7:13-14 is Jesus coming into his kingdom - that Jesus said to the disciples, some of them would see, which they did as he ascended in Acts..

When you say "a" coming, saying it is one three comings, it equates Daniel 7:13-14 with Jesus's first coming and his coming a second time. Which it is not similar, because it is not taking place on earth, like the first and second coming.

If you were specific and said that Daniel 7:13-14 is Jesus foretold coming in to his Kingdom, heaven side, as the disciples saw him leave earth side - you would not hear any dispute from me.

_______________________________________________________________

If the bible uses the term "three comings", then all of Christianity would be using that term likewise. But there is no reason to create confusion with new non-biblical terms - when all of Christianity and the world for that matter are generally in concensus of the Second Coming, what it means generally speaking.

 

[parousia70]

So Rome was destroyed ...

No, Rome was overcome by the spread of the Gospel.
But yes the Fall of the Roman Empire can be dated as having begun at the time of the Destruction of Jerusalem... That event for sure sealed their fate.

 

[shilohsfoal]

No, Rome was overcome by the spread of the Gospel.
But yes the Fall of the Roman Empire can be dated as having begun at the time of the Destruction of Jerusalem... That event for sure sealed their fate.

So the Romans who came against Jerusalem,didnt really suffer this fate.

Zechariah 14:12 And this will be the plague with which the LORD strikes all the peoples who have warred against Jerusalem: Their flesh will rot while they stand on their feet, their eyes will rot in their sockets, and their tongues will rot in their mouths.

Of the 20,000 or so citizens of pompeii,only 2000 died.There were no legions stationed in the area.Very few military died there.Just navy men who attempted to save as many citizens as possible.

The legions who came against Jerusalem never suffered the plague mentionedin zech14:12.
Hmmm.Zech 14:12 must be talking about some other army.

 

[parousia70]

So the Romans who came against Jerusalem,didnt really suffer this fate.

Zechariah 14:12 And this will be the plague with which the LORD strikes all the peoples who have warred against Jerusalem: Their flesh will rot while they stand on their feet, their eyes will rot in their sockets, and their tongues will rot in their mouths.

Of the 20,000 or so citizens of pompeii,only 2000 died.There were no legions stationed in the area.Very few military died there.Just navy men who attempted to save as many citizens as possible.

The legions who came against Jerusalem never suffered the plague mentionedin zech14:12.
Hmmm.Zech 14:12 must be talking about some other army.

Please specifically define "all the peoples who have warred against Jerusalem" for us.

I want to make sure we are on the same page.

 

[shilohsfoal]

Please specifically define "all the peoples who have warred against Jerusalem" for us.

I want to make sure we are on the same page.

The actual army who burned the temple.The same men who killed the Jews,took them captive ,or nailed them to walls.The actual men who came against Jerusalem in 70 ad .
The actual men who came against Jerusalem.
Zechariah 14:12 And this will be the plague with which the LORD strikes all the peoples who have warred against Jerusalem: Their flesh will rot while they stand on their feet, their eyes will rot in their sockets, and their tongues will rot in their mouths.

 

[parousia70]

The actual army who burned the temple.The same men who killed the Jews,took them captive ,or nailed them to walls.The actual men who came against Jerusalem in 70 ad .
The actual men who came against Jerusalem.
Zechariah 14:12 And this will be the plague with which the LORD strikes all the peoples who have warred against Jerusalem: Their flesh will rot while they stand on their feet, their eyes will rot in their sockets, and their tongues will rot in their mouths.

What exactly about that verse provided leads you to this specific conclusion?

Could we not insist that "all peoples who have warred against Jerusalem" mean ALL peoples of ALL generations who have ever warred against Jerusalem?

And where does this verse say that the Political powers behind the war are to be excluded?
Or the citizens of the Nations who sent the armies? where does this scripture teach they are to be excluded?

As a citizen of the united states, who has funded, through my tax dollars, more than a few wars against more than a few nations in my short 52 years of life, even though I have never strapped on body armor and an AR 15 and shot up villages personally, I most certainly have participated in "warring" against those nations, have I not?

Where does this passage teach it's only one group as you seem to be implying?

The Passage says all peoples... you say, well, only a specific group.

Who should I believe? the passage or you?

Conversely, if you admit that "all peoples who have warred against Jerusalem" does not literally mean "ALL" peoples who have warred against Jerusalem, and instead means only a specific group... where does scripture teach you what group? or what subsection of what group?

And If it can be shown that a group of people who can be rightfully identified as citizens of the peoples that warred against Jerusalem did indeed suffer such a fate, and you have agreed that ALL does not mean ALL, then I'm not sure what evidence your objection to my hypothesis rests on?

 

[shilohsfoal]

What exactly about that verse provided leads you to this specific conclusion?

Could we not insist that "all peoples who have warred against Jerusalem" mean ALL peoples of ALL generations who have ever warred against Jerusalem?

And where does this verse say that the Political powers behind the war are to be excluded?
Or the citizens of the Nations who sent the armies? where does this scripture teach they are to be excluded?

As a citizen of the united states, who has funded, through my tax dollars, more than a few wars against more than a few nations in my short 52 years of life, even though I have never strapped on body armor and an AR 15 and shot up villages personally, I most certainly have participated in "warring" against those nations, have I not?

Where does this passage teach it's only one group as you seem to be implying?

The Passage says all peoples... you say, well, only a specific group.

Who should I believe? the passage or you?

Conversely, if you admit that "all peoples who have warred against Jerusalem" does not literally mean "ALL" peoples who have warred against Jerusalem, and instead means only a specific group... where does scripture teach you what group? or what subsection of what group?

And If it can be shown that a group of people who can be rightfully identified as citizens of the peoples that warred against Jerusalem did indeed suffer such a fate, and you have agreed that ALL does not mean ALL, then I'm not sure what evidence your objection to my hypothesis rests on?

The scripture says all peoples who have warred against Jerusalem.
I would think those who went into Jerusalem and killed the occupants and burned the temple would have been included in those who had warred against Jerusalem.
But if you insist that the elderly people and the children of the city of pompeii are the ones who went to war against Jerusalem,then I recon Thats how you see it.
I personally dont believe zech 14:12 is talking about those people.

 

[iamlamad]

Jesus prophecied destruction coming on Jerusalem because they did not recognize the timing of his coming. It’s interesting to note Jesus mentions children being torn down.
43 For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side 44 and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation.”
Luke 19:43-44 - Bible Gateway passage: Luke 19:43-44 - English Standard Version
Jesus mentioned, during the olivet discourse, the distress that pregnant and nursing women will have when Jerusalem is seiged:
23 Alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! For there will be great distress upon the earth and wrath against this people.
Luke 21:23 - Bible Gateway passage: Luke 21:23 - English Standard Version
When Jesus was carrying his cross, he prophesied to the women not to weep for him, but for themselves, because destruction would be coming. He even goes further to say blessed are those who are barren. Jesus quoted Hosea 10:8 in regards to this destruction.
But turning to them Jesus said, “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. 29 For behold, the days are coming when they will say, ‘Blessed are the barren and the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!’ 30 Then they will begin to say to the mountains, ‘Fall on us,’ and to the hills, ‘Cover us.’ 31 For if they do these things when the wood is green, what will happen when it is dry?”
Luke 23:28-31 - Bible Gateway passage: Luke 23:28-31 - English Standard Version

All of this seems to be pointing toward the coming destruction that Jews would soon face.

It’s also interesting to note that the 6th seal in revelation mentions Hosea 10:8
calling to the mountains and rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who is seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb, for the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?”
Revelation 6:16-17 - Bible Gateway passage: Revelation 6:16-17 - English Standard Version

Based on this information it appears that the the seals, at least the 6th seal, have to do with the destruction of Jerusalem. More specifically, associated with the destruction of Jerusalem during the generation of Jesus’ audience.

The 6th seal will be the opening salvo of the Day of the Lord. It will be triggered by Paul's rapture. It will, without much doubt, be a world wide earthquake.