What does the book of Revelation “reveal” ?

[DavidPT]

You’re absolutely correct in that believers have been martyred since 70AD and I will admit I don’t completely understand why it says all the righteous blood shed is charged to apostate Israel.

In Matthew 27:25 the people answered and said His blood be on us and our children. Believers (the righteous) are the body of Christ and since we died and were raised with Him, I think this is at least part of the reason why all the righteous blood shed comes on them.

I think another possibility is that apostate Israel is the scapegoat.

What's interesting about that, though those at the time who said that, that they apparently took that to not be a good thing that His blood be on them and their children, this is really a blessing in disguise if that were to happen to them. Because, unless His blood be on them, His blood doesn't cover them. IOW, for His blood to be on someone means salvation to them. I would think everyone should already know that, for His blood to be on you is a good thing not a bad thing. It means His blood covers your sins.

To apply Matthew 27:25 the way you are trying to, assuming I'm understanding you correctly, I have to totally disagree with that. But that doesn't mean automatic salvation for them and their children. It just means His blood covers them and their children as well, meaning the ones that accept His salvation the same way everyone else does who accepts His salvation. It also means that the Father granted Jesus' request when He asked this of Him---Luke 23:34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots. Meaning in regards to any that would repent and accept Jesus as their Saviour. Apparently, the Jews that lost their lives during the 70 AD seige never did any of that, otherwise they would have fled the city when the Christians did.

 

[DavidPT]

Who do you think all the righteous blood comes on?

Revelation 18:20 Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.
21 And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.
22 And the voice of harpers, and musicians, and of pipers, and trumpeters, shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more in thee; and the sound of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee;
23 And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived.
24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.

According to this passage, it's connected with that great city Babylon. Which seems to mean that those who Jesus said in Matthew 23 would come upon, they too were connected with this great city, obviously meaning spiritually and not meaning a literal city is involved. But that wasn't the fulfillment of this passage since verse 21 was not fulfilled 2000 years ago if this great city Babylon is still causing righteous blood to be shed throughout the earth post 70 AD. Look at verse 24, that is meaning at the end of it all, and so is verse 21. The end of it all was not 2000 years ago. We haven't even reached the end of it all yet, since there are still saints being slain in our day and time.

How is it reasonable that that great city Babylon is not held accountable by God for any martyrdom post 70 AD, but is only held accountable by God for any martyrdom from the beginning of time to that of 70 AD?

 

[claninja]

How is it reasonable that that great city Babylon is not held accountable by God for any martyrdom post 70 AD, but is only held accountable by God for any martyrdom from the beginning of time to that of 70 AD?

You would have to first claim that Christ only charging first century apostate Israel with all the righteous blood shed from the foundation of the world is unreasonable, before ever claiming that Babylon only being held accountable for the righteous bloodshed from the foundation of the world to the first century is unreasonable.

Then you would have to address why it’s reasonable that ONLY Babylon is charged with all the righteous blood shed (revelation 18), and God’s servants are deemed avenged when the beast destroys Babylon (revelation 19), DESPITE the beast also persecuting the saints.

 

[DavidPT]

You would have to first claim that Christ only charging first century apostate Israel with all the righteous blood shed from the foundation of the world is unreasonable, before ever claiming that Babylon only being held accountable for the righteous bloodshed from the foundation of the world to the first century is unreasonable.

Then you would have to address why it’s reasonable that ONLY Babylon is charged with all the righteous blood shed (revelation 18), and God’s servants are deemed avenged when the beast destroys Babylon (revelation 19), DESPITE the beast also persecuting the saints.

All I know is, the text indicates that Babylon that great city is no more once Revelation 18:21 is fulfilled. And then in verse 24 we are told---And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth. How is it reasonable that any saints slain post 70 AD are not also found in her? And if it is including slain saints post 70 AD, it is not reasonable to conclude that Revelation 18:21 was fulfilled 2000 years ago since this would contradict verse 24 if that is also including saints slain post 70 AD.

What one needs to do that disagrees, they need to show how any saints slain post 70 AD would not also be found in her. Why would slain saints be found in her throughout most of human history, then when we get down to the final 2000 years of human history, assuming Jesus returns sometime in the near future, slain saints post 70 AD are not also found in her because Revelation 18:21 was allegedly fulfilled 2000 years ago, meaning that this great city Babylon no longer exists, in any sense? If that is true, why are saints still being martyred post 70 AD?

Apparently, you must be taking Babylon that great city to be meaning a literal city, but I'm not. Even if it's meaning Jerusalem, and maybe it is, even Jerusalem is not always understood to be meaning in a literal sense every time, that it is meaning the literal city in the Middle East.

 

[grafted branch]

All I know is, the text indicates that Babylon that great city is no more once Revelation 18:21 is fulfilled. And then in verse 24 we are told---And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth. How is it reasonable that any saints slain post 70 AD are not also found in her? And if it is including slain saints post 70 AD, it is not reasonable to conclude that Revelation 18:21 was fulfilled 2000 years ago since this would contradict verse 24 if that is also including saints slain post 70 AD.

What one needs to do that disagrees, they need to show how any saints slain post 70 AD would not also be found in her. Why would slain saints be found in her throughout most of human history, then when we get down to the final 2000 years of human history, assuming Jesus returns sometime in the near future, slain saints post 70 AD are not also found in her because Revelation 18:21 was allegedly fulfilled 2000 years ago, meaning that this great city Babylon no longer exists, in any sense? If that is true, why are saints still being martyred post 70 AD?

Apparently, you must be taking Babylon that great city to be meaning a literal city, but I'm not. Even if it's meaning Jerusalem, and maybe it is, even Jerusalem is not always understood to be meaning in a literal sense every time, that it is meaning the literal city in the Middle East.

In Revelation 14:6-13 we have the three angels that are said to be first, second, and third, which shows chronological order.

The first angel has the eternal gospel to proclaim to those who dwell on the earth.
The second angel says fallen fallen is Babylon the great.
The third angel gives a warning about worshiping the beast.

Based on this Babylon doesn’t fall until after the gospel has been proclaimed. Revelation 18:2 shows the fall of Babylon to be when it becomes the habitation of devils and cage of every unclean spirit.

Has Babylon fallen yet, is it currently devoid of evil spirits? Did Babylon fall prior to Cain killing Abel?

We all know that Christ paid for the sins of every believer at the cross, from the beginning of time to the end. I think it’s possible that the blood of all the martyrs was put on apostate Israel, from the beginning of time to the end. If they became the scapegoat this would fit.

The scapegoat is released into the wilderness on the day of atonement, this would fit with apostate Israel going into the wilderness after the cross. There are several other interesting things that keep this a possibility for me, like when the Son of man separates the sheep from the goats.

Ok, this is a possibility that I think could work for the martyrs after 70AD. A question for you, when did or does Babylon fall?

 

[Timtofly]

I think where we differ is you’re interpreting those in Revelation 6:9-11 as martyrs without any other conditions applied. In verse 10 they are asking for their blood to be avenged on them that dwell <2730> on the earth. I did a quick search on this and it doesn’t appear that dead people are referred to as dwelling on the earth.

Scripture does support the idea that all the righteous blood shed will come upon Jerusalem. It would be difficult, due to lack of scriptural support, to accept that righteous blood is being avenged on only those who are left alive at some future date when the bowls of wrath begin to be poured out.

Again, if the question asked in Revelation 6:10 is by those who are martyred after a future beast has come, why is it they have to ask the question to begin with? All the martyrs would know the answer, are they forced to ask the question, is there no free will, did they forget what Revelation 6:10 says, do they think God Will change his mind and give some other answer than the one in Revelation 6:10?

I would say once a person reads Revelation 6:9-11, it becomes impossible for it to be a future event for that person. Since those killed in Revelation 6:9-11 are believers and are killed because of their testimony and the word of God, it’s impossible for it to be too far future of the date Revelation was written.

Except people today are still being martyred. The little season did not start in the first century. We still have martyrs who keep adding their voices to those John has seen. Except John sees all of them, not just the first century martyred. The little season is after the Second Coming happens.

 

[Douggg]

Yet, what is recorded in Ezekiel 39 involves only one battle not 2 different battles at different times. But, to debate that in here would be getting way off topic, IMO. Therefore, I'm not mentioning it in order to debate it in here, I'm mentioning it because it debunks some of what you are arguing if I am correct that ch 39 involves only one battle, not two or more instead.

Go here. I created a thread.

Ezekiel 39, the two events Gog/Magog and Armageddon

In Ezekiel 39 there are two major end times events. 1. Gog/Magog, which takes place when Israel is at peace. This is noted in Ezekiel 38, in the latter days, latter years. Ezekiel 39:1-6 is the destruction of Gog's army. Then the cleanup of the land ending in verse 16. 2...

www.christianforums.com

 

[DavidPT]

The little season is after the Second Coming happens.

Everything you said prior to this, I fully agreed with you about.

It seems to me that the martyring of Christians never became an issue until after Jesus ascended back into heaven. If so, why would it still continue to be an issue after He has returned? His return is after there are no more martyrs. It makes zero sense that He returns and that saints are still being martyred. You have to maybe be the only person on the planet that believes that since I'm not aware of anyone else also believing that. If so, what are the odds that you alone are the only person on the planet that has this correct and that everyone else is wrong? I would say the chances are zero.

 

[Timtofly]

Everything you said prior to this, I fully agreed with you about.

It seems to me that the martyring of Christians never became a thing until after Jesus ascended back into heaven. If so, why would it still continue to be a thing after He has returned? His return is after there are no more martyrs. It makes zero sense that He returns and that saints are still being martyred. You have to maybe be the only person on the planet that believes that since I'm not aware of anyone else also believing that. If so, what are the chances that you alone are the only person on the planet that has this correct and that everyone else is wrong? I would say the chances are zero.

Being a martyr is a loose term in Revelation 6. Killed as they were, means what to you?

The last humans killed for their testimony are those beheaded in the last 42 months, between the 7th Trumpet and Armageddon. This is the 42 months of AoD. Jesus was present on the earth between the 6th Seal and the 7th Trumpet. Jesus has not yet avenged these deaths, as Armageddon is after the 42 months, not before the 42 months even starts.

The problem is that no one will take Jesus seriously when He says He comes to earth with His angels for the final harvest. Matthew 13, Matthew 25, and Revelation 6. Revelation 19 is not coming for the final harvest. Revelation 19 is when those martyred are avenged, and the last of Adam's dead corruptible flesh are destroyed.

BTW, Matthew 23 is about 70AD. Revelation 6 is not about 70AD. 70AD may have been for the OT martyred. It certainly was not for all future martyrs of a Babylonian empire. Besides the 5th beast Rome was still in power for a few hundred years later. Revelation 17 and 18 is not about the 5th beast. Not even the 6th beast, the 10 toes. The ten toes has been called the dark ages. As if no beast existed at all. This Jerusalem in Revelation is about the 7th and 8th beast. Satan is in charge those 42 months, and that is this 7th and 8th beast scenario that is destroyed, not a literal city

 

[grafted branch]

Except people today are still being martyred. The little season did not start in the first century. We still have martyrs who keep adding their voices to those John has seen. Except John sees all of them, not just the first century martyred. The little season is after the Second Coming happens.

You read my post, so how do you explain why those in Revelation 6:9-11 ask a question that they obviously already know the answer to?

 

[DavidPT]

Killed as they were, means what to you?

Haven't really thought about it before, so, off the top of my head I'm assuming it maybe means this---that should be killed as they were---the 'they' meaning the martyrs under the altar. Therefore, meaning these will be killed just like these under the altar were killed, as in, martyrdom is their fate. Thus, though everyone dies eventually, well except for anyone raptured, yet that is beside the point, their brethren during the little season don't die of natural causes or even from accidents like most typically do, they die via being martyred, the same way those under the altar died.

 

[DavidPT]

You read my post, so how do you explain why those in Revelation 6:9-11 ask a question that they obviously already know the answer to?

You have to maybe try and look at it from their POV. One of them gets martyred, then another one is martyred, and that this continues for a long time, and eventually they want to know when this is going to end, why is God not avenging them yet, haven't enough of us been martyred already. Then they are told that they need to rest yet a little season, then this martyrdom will be finished once and for all, then God will avenge them all. Which is another reason this little season meant can't be meaning something that was already fulfilled in the first century. It doesn't take into account anyone martyred after this little season if this little season is involving the first century. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to apply this little season to the first century. Which means when they ask this in real-time they are asking this in the closing days of this age, not 2000 years ago instead. The little season is meaning the 42 month reign of the beast, thus it has ascended out of the pit at this point.

 

[grafted branch]

You have to maybe try and look at it from their POV. One of them gets martyred, then another one is martyred, and that this continues for a long time, and eventually they want to know when this is going to end, why is God not avenging them yet, haven't enough of us been martyred already. Then they are told that they need to rest yet a little season, then this martyrdom will be finished once and for all, then God will avenge them all. Which is another reason this little season meant can't be meaning something that was already fulfilled in the first century. It doesn't take into account anyone martyred after this little season if this little season is involving the first century. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to apply this little season to the first century. Which means when they ask this in real-time they are asking this in the closing days of this age, not 2000 years ago instead. The little season is meaning the 42 month reign of the beast, thus it has ascended out of the pit at this point.

On the one hand you’re insisting that the martyrs have to include every single martyr through out time and on the other hand you see that the question is asked prior to all the martyrs being killed.

If the question is asked in the first century then the little season lasts for 2,000 years or more. Well, getting back to the OP we know that these things must quickly take place and the time was near. Why shouldn’t we interpret the little season by the same method we use to interpret the time that was near in Revelation 1:3?

 

[Timtofly]

You read my post, so how do you explain why those in Revelation 6:9-11 ask a question that they obviously already know the answer to?

The 5th Seal is not about tribulation, being martyred, nor vengeance. That is just the symbolic rhetoric pointing to a time stamp.

All the redeemed are covered by the Atonement, not just those martyred.

The 5th Seal is the glorification of the entire church body. Putting on those white robes are what Paul claims mortal putting on immortality. Death putting on the full image of God. This is when the church as one is presented to God completely restored: soul, body, and spirit.


Now the glorified church has to wait until the final harvest is over, while the rest of humanity are separated, the sheep from the goats, the wheat from the tares. Those in Paradise have to wait until the final harvest is over, the Trumpets and Thunders.

All humanity has to be removed from Adam's dead corruptible flesh.

 

[grafted branch]

The 5th Seal is not about tribulation, being martyred, nor vengeance. That is just the symbolic rhetoric pointing to a time stamp.

All the redeemed are covered by the Atonement, not just those martyred.

The 5th Seal is the glorification of the entire church body. Putting on those white robes are what Paul claims mortal putting on immortality. Death putting on the full image of God. This is when the church as one is presented to God completely restored: soul, body, and spirit.


Now the glorified church has to wait until the final harvest is over, while the rest of humanity are separated, the sheep from the goats, the wheat from the tares. Those in Paradise have to wait until the final harvest is over, the Trumpets and Thunders.

All humanity has to be removed from Adam's dead corruptible flesh.

Ok, since the 5th seal is about the church, you are going to be one of the souls there.

Why will you ask the question of how long? I know you already know the answer to that question because you have read and studied Revelation 6. Are you going to ask the question just to see if you get the same answer given in Revelation 6:11?

 

[oikonomia]

Yes and it was to remain a movement of the Kingdom, not become yet another institution, like everything else man creates built upon our own image rather than God's.

I've learned not to be too quick to think - "If I am not thus and such around here it must be a another institution. Surely in any Kingdom there is no losing my soul-life."

Others think "As long as I do not have to deny myself, it is of the Holy Spirit and the Kingdom. If I feel like I have to play "second fiddle" to some other brother, it is probably a man-made institutional thing."

You can leave Babylon with the Lord. But Babylon will not so easily leave us. Its in our flesh. The cross is the only deliverance and recovery.

 

[timothyu]

ou can leave Babylon with the Lord. But Babylon will not so easily leave us. Its in our flesh. The cross is the only deliverance and recovery.

Yes, Jesus did what was required of Him to bring the Kingdom to fruition, but it is up to each of us in order to gain access to believe God's will is superior to ours. and repent accordingly.

 

[DavidPT]

On the one hand you’re insisting that the martyrs have to include every single martyr through out time and on the other hand you see that the question is asked prior to all the martyrs being killed.

Apparently then, I don't have everything quite figured out yet, which I have no problem admitting. But what I do have figured out is that Revelation 6 and the 5th seal is not revealing that Revelation 18:21 and verse 24 were fulfilled in the first century.

If the question is asked in the first century then the little season lasts for 2,000 years or more.

In what way, via man's perspective of time would 2000 years be describing a little season? That would be like thinking, after the thousand years are finished, regardless when that is meaning or how long it is meaning, satan's little season consists of thousands of years as well. Why would anyone think satan's little season might be involving thousands of years? If the little season meant in Revelation 6 can involve thousands of years, then the same should be true of the little season recorded in Revelation 20, in the event you argue that the latter involves a short period of time not a long period of time. Or maybe you even think that both little seasons are one and the same? And if so, this would still mean that the thousand years have to precede that, which then places some of the thousand years prior to Christ's birth. Which then makes even less sense, at least to most of us, and not just Premils, to some Amils as well.

 

[Timtofly]

Haven't really thought about it before, so, off the top of my head I'm assuming it maybe means this---that should be killed as they were---the 'they' meaning the martyrs under the altar. Therefore, meaning these will be killed just like these under the altar were killed, as in, martyrdom is their fate. Thus, though everyone dies eventually, well except for anyone raptured, yet that is beside the point, their brethren during the little season don't die of natural causes or even from accidents like most typically do, they die via being martyred, the same way those under the altar died.

Under the alter, is symbolic for being covered by the Atonement Covenant of the Cross. There are not any literal souls under this alter. All souls, all humans in Paradise are under the Atonement.

Even you and I are souls under the alter. Could it not just mean to shed this Adamic dead corruptible flesh. Paul claims we should crucify the flesh daily. At physical death, the soul sheds this dead corruptible flesh.

 

[Timtofly]

Ok, since the 5th seal is about the church, you are going to be one of the souls there.

Why will you ask the question of how long? I know you already know the answer to that question because you have read and studied Revelation 6. Are you going to ask the question just to see if you get the same answer given in Revelation 6:11?

Are you not covered by the Atonement? Is that not a question you should ask every day of your life?