Question about the 2nd Coming as described in Rev 20

[Guest]

I disagree, but I am not going to get into this again. The idea that the scriptures which speak of the coming of Christ are referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., versus the coming of Christ as a future event, have been thoroughly threshed out in this forum. Nothing can be gained by rethreshing it. The threads are available for any who wish to rethink the matter.

Premillenialists may have difficulty with "There are some standing here... etc." But I have many more difficulties the Preterist view which necessitates the taking of so many scriptures figuratively that seem to have been meant to have been taken at face value. I have read much Preterist and Amillenialist literature. I am not convinced.

Preterism and Amillenialism are relatively recent innovations, though Amillenialism has endured for centuries. The church of the first two centuries seemed to have been universally, or almost universally, Pre-Millenialist.

[Guest]

Why would Jesus reign on the earth for 1,000 years as an Earthly King? At one point when Jesus was on the Earth in the New Testament, the crowd was going to try to annoint him as an Earthly King, but he ran away from the crowd saying my kingdom is not of this world, can't remember when it was, but I think it was after he fed the 5,000, not sure.

As a new bible scholar, it didn't take me long to realize that the dispinsationalist/left behind stuff just wasn't right in the eschatology, but thats pretty much the well known preachers teach on on AM radio, like Charles Stanley, Michael Useff, and the late Adrian Rodgers.

I found that there are really few teachers, mostly preachers. Most people that I have talked to don't want to study the Bible for all that it is worth, they only want to hear the positive stuff like, Joel Owsteen. I like to hear those upbeat preachings too, but I really like the Bible Study that is given from good teachers, on the bible. I think a lot of this is my interest in ancient history. Most people want to read the Bible and get their own message out of it, not learning to read the Bible for all that is worth. They don't want to discuss anything past, believe in Jesus and be baptized and you are saved. That's why I enjoy these forums. Thanks for all the imput.

[_Sean]

But I have many more difficulties the Preterist view which necessitates the taking of so many scriptures figuratively that seem to have been meant to have been taken at face value.

There seems to be many times when the apostles have taken OT scriptures and interpreted them symbolically as referring to the church age instead of taking them at face value. Why did they do this?

Taking things at face value, how many times will there be a future event where Christ returns, slays the wicked, raises the dead immortal and judges the world? Would it not be logical that this be a single future event? If the premil view is correct, then the resurrected glorified saints will eventually (many of them, anyway) will turn on Christ at the end of the millennium. How is this possible? If Jesus coming at the beginning of the millennium transforms our body into the likeness of His, then how do we once again rebel?

[Guest]

Why would Jesus reign on the earth for 1,000 years as an Earthly King? At one point when Jesus was on the Earth in the New Testament, the crowd was going to try to annoint him as an Earthly King, but he ran away from the crowd saying my kingdom is not of this world

Here is the context:

Pilate entered the praetorium again and called Jesus, and said to him, "Are you the King of the Jews?"

Jesus answered, "Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?"

Pilate answered, "Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have handed you over to me; what have you done?"

Jesus answered, "My kingship is not of this world; if my kingship were of this world, my servants would fight, that I might not be handed over to the Jews; but my kingship is not from the world."

Pilate said to him, "So you are a king?" Jesus answered, "You said it! I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Every one who is of the truth hears my voice." {John 18:33-37}

So Jesus was a king in the Kingdom of God right then and there. His subjects were His disciples. That is why He said on one occasion, "The Kingdom of Heaven is among you."

If He had been a worldly king, He would have ordered His disciples to fight for Him.

But the Kingdom of God has a number of stages. Jesus gave Kingdom Parables which described the Kingdom in its infancy, its growth, and its final stage, in which the wicked are separated from the righteous and cast into outer darkness.

We also read in Revelation of the day in which Christ will come and "the kingdom of the world (or "kingdoms" according to some manuscripts)" will become "the kingdom of our Lord and of his Messiah, and he shall reign for ages and ages."

So Jesus will not reign for 1000 years as "an earthly king" but as "a heavenly king". It will be like heaven on earth for a thousand years. Isn't it amazing that people will still rebel against Him at the end of His reign and follow Satan's leading at the battle of Gog and Magog? However, Jesus and His servants will be victorius! His Kingdom will continue without end, though when all His enemies have become subject to Him, He will turn the Kingdom over to His Father that God may be all in all! Hallelujah!

[Guest]

If the premil view is correct, then the resurrected glorified saints will eventually (many of them, anyway) will turn on Christ at the end of the millennium. How is this possible? If Jesus coming at the beginning of the millennium transforms our body into the likeness of His, then how do we once again rebel?

WHERE DO YOU GET THIS?

No one to my knowledge holds the belief that "the resurrected, glorified saints will turn on Christ." The pre-millenialist belief is that most people on earth in those days will be mere mortals. It is some of them who will be deceived by Satan ---- not the saints.

Here is the description in Revelation:

When the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison and will come out to deceive the nations at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, in order to gather them for battle; they are as numerous as the sands of the sea.

They marched up over the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city. And fire came down from heaven and consumed them. {Revelation 20:7-9}

Notice that in the first paragraph, John states what will happen. It is not merely a description of what he saw in his vision. But in the second paragraph, John sees, prophetically, the soldiers marching and surrounding the camp of the saints. It is not the saints who are deceived. The saints are the hated enemies of the deceived nations.

By the way, "ethnoi" is the Greek word for "gentiles". The early Christians referred to non-Christians as "gentiles". The word probably should be so translated here rather than as "the nations". If so, then it is the non-Christian mortals coming to fight against the saints. The "saints" probably consist of both those who will have been raised immortal, as well as ordinary mortals who become disciples during the millenium.

[Guest]

I disagree, but I am not going to get into this again. The idea that the scriptures which speak of the coming of Christ are referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., versus the coming of Christ as a future event, have been thoroughly threshed out in this forum. Nothing can be gained by rethreshing it. The threads are available for any who wish to rethink the matter.

Premillenialists may have difficulty with "There are some standing here... etc." But I have many more difficulties the Preterist view which necessitates the taking of so many scriptures figuratively that seem to have been meant to have been taken at face value. I have read much Preterist and Amillenialist literature. I am not convinced.

Preterism and Amillenialism are relatively recent innovations, though Amillenialism has endured for centuries. The church of the first two centuries seemed to have been universally, or almost universally, Pre-Millenialist.

I disagree with this on the grounds that the Apostles, once fully filled with the Spirit understood who Israel truly is. Premillers would not have a leg to stand on if they viewed Israel in the way it is to be understood, that being, as the Apostles did because to be a premillennial believer one would have to believe that in the end all physical Israel will be saved. It is vital in that formula, as I understand it. However if Israel, as spoken of in the Bible concerning the end, is received as it was intended, being that Israel is made up of all believers on Christ (Jew and Gentile) then the end is only precipitated by more people coming into belief and not the anticipation of a yet 1000 year reign which leads to apostasy.

[Guest]

I realise some of you have discussed this topic before - but I haven't posted much here and as a relative newcomer am enjoying the discussions in an environment which (to my knowledge) relatively free from nastiness (which is unfortunately too common on these forums).

Without looking up all the terms (amil, premil etc) I have always had a fairly simple view of these verses.

How I see it:

We're on the brink of another Arab-Israeli war (obvious) I see that as Zechariah 12 and Psalm 83 - the nations round about Israel saying, "Lets wipe her off the map." Israel 'wins' perhaps by nuclear means (the governors of Judah like a firepan in a woodpile Zec 12:6)

This will possibly usher in a period of 'peace' for Israel. In Joel the Lord says He will restore the years the locusts (Islamic hordes according to Rev 9:1-12) and Ezekiel 38 says that Israel will be dwelling without walls. As they're building a great wall now to counter the terrorist threat this seems to me to indicate that that threat has diminished.

However the antisemitic Spirit is ever present. Satan still wants to thwart God's plan. The present European policy of opening her doors to Muslim migrants will ensure anti-Israel attitude will continue to fester there. Antisemitism is at its hightest level now since before World War 2. (I see the evil Spirits that unite the world to Armageddon as being antisemitism)

There is a growing witness amongst Jews that Yeshua is their Messiah - this will increase. However there is also a zealous faction of Orthodox Jews who are quite militant against Christian witness. Whether this militant faction comes to accept Christ or not I don't know - but they are at present not averse to firebombing houses of Messianic Jews - which brings me to Zechariah 13. Verses 2-4 seems to indicate that so-called Christianity is going to take a pounding in Israel - Islam doesn't have idols apart from the Kaaba nor do the Jews. But the land is full of Catholic and Orthodox images and shrines. May I speculate a little here - what if the Jews bulldoze them? And what if Zechariah 13:3 means they execute/assassinate Greek Orthodox and Catholic priests? (this is a what if) How would Europe react? Would the U.S. still support Israel? Would anyone? It sets the stage for Armageddon - ALL nations gathering to attack Jerusalem (Zechariah 14) and Gog and Magog (anti-Christ/ antisemitic forces) come in for the spoil - Sheba and Dedan are descendents of Cush - Sheba is linked with Yemen - maybe the spoil is Arab oil. In any event they are in the land.

This is the time the remnant of Israel is really crying out for their messiah to save them. Then with Magog in the land of Israel God's fury rises - (Ezekiel 38:18 ) His judgement falls - A great earthquake. Zechariah 14 talks about a great earthquake when Jesus stand on the Mount of Olives. Rev 16 17-21 The seventh bowl - judgement and a huge earthquake when the cities of the nations fall - also the seventh trumpet - the last trumpet of 1 Cor 15:52 - the trumpet shall sound, the dead shall be raised. 2 Peter 3:10 The elements will melt and the works in the earth will be burned.

Putting it all together: Daniel 2 speaks of the stone cut out without hands which strikes the image on its feet. The stone represents Christ. What if His coming has the same impact on the earth as a meteor or asteroid hit might? The brightness and suddenness of his coming - I believe the church will be caught up at the same precise moment as Christ returns - the dead saints first and then those that are still alive - and that the armies with Christ are His glorified church. (I'm a Historicist so don't subscribe to a 7 year trib)

Again my opinion: Satan will be bound at Christ's return. Then there'll be
a thousand year reign of Christ's kingdom. There will be survivors among the nations that attacked Israel according to Zechariah 14:16-19. People will know peace. Then satan is released as a test on them - not the saints - the saints rule with Christ for the millenium - their test is now. Satan is roaring around now - seeking whom he may devour. He has deceived the nations. But while he is boiund the nations won't be deceived. then Satan is let out for a season and the people of the earth are deceived by him again and try and attack Christ and the saints - then fire falls from heaven. After that is the great white throne judgement.

Beyond that eternity - which is beyond my comprehension. I'm still battling my frail flesh now. It's a bit scary contemplating being ready for the first resurrection.

[_Sean]

WHERE DO YOU GET THIS?

No one to my knowledge holds the belief that "the resurrected, glorified saints will turn on Christ." The pre-millenialist belief is that most people on earth in those days will be mere mortals. It is some of them who will be deceived by Satan ---- not the saints.

If my memory serves me correctly, John MacArthur is premil and believes (as do I) that all unbelievers are to be killed at the second coming of Christ. John, however (being premil), believes that the redeemed will have mortal children during the millennium who then go on to rebel.

I do understand your point, that the saints are the victims in Rev 20, not the deceived. The reason I stated the point the way I did is because I don't believe any mortal men could enter the 1000 year millennium because of other passages of scripture.

The crux of who these people are and where they come from come by our presuppositions about the millennium itself. Where I have a hard time accepting a historic premil view is that (what I consider to be) the clearer passages of scripture seem to suggest is no one survives the second coming. The wicked are killed, the saints are given glorified bodies. Either way, no flesh enter the kingdom of God. And there are no other groups of people than these two.

So where I have my difference with you Paidion, is that you seek a more literal fulfillment of the millennium (a period of time mentioned in a symbolic writing), yet passages from the epistles about the second coming seem to strongly suggest no mortal flesh survives this event:


1Th 5:1 Now concerning the times and the seasons, brothers, you have no need to have anything written to you.
1Th 5:2 For you yourselves are fully aware that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.
1Th 5:3 While people are saying, "There is peace and security," then sudden destruction will come upon them as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.
1Th 5:4 But you are not in darkness, brothers, for that day to surprise you like a thief.


This seems to refer to a future, literal event where the non-Christians are killed. It seems to be in the direct context of chapter 4 where the coming of Christ and the resurrection of the dead occur. The same event also seems to be mentioned here:

2Th 1:6 since indeed God considers it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you,
2Th 1:7 and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels
2Th 1:8 in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.
2Th 1:9 They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might,
2Th 1:10 when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed.


the way I read this, it says that on the day Jesus is glorified in his saints, the unbelievers and disobedient will be killed. That would seem to take all people into account. There doesn't seem to be room for unbelievers entering into a future millennium because they will have already been killed.

This also seems to be the case in Revelation 19:20
And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur.
Rev 19:21 And the rest were slain by the sword that came from the mouth of him who was sitting on the horse, and all the birds were gorged with their flesh.

It seems that everyone either received the mark or were killed (or were saints). All those who received the mark followed the beast and were slain by the sword that came from the mouth of Jesus. If we take this literal, all motals die, leaving none to enter the millennium.

Unless...Jesus raises the dead and gives the lost another chance with Satan bound. This could be a possible view. Not a universalist view but more of a "second chance" view. Where the unbelievers are raised mortal and are reigned over by the saints. They would live on an earth where the knowledge of the Lord would cover the earth, and everyone could hear what Jesus has done to redeem them. Then Satan is released and tests the mortals one last time. This would answer the question raised against the Amillennialist about what cities are the saints going to rule over? (from Luke 19:17-19 & Matt 19:28). I've never heard of such a view before, till now.

[Guest]

Sean,

If my memory serves me correctly, John MacArthur is premil and believes (as do I) that all unbelievers are to be killed at the second coming of Christ.

If this is the case then how do these verses from Zechariah fit? Noting that Christ returns in verse 3 and 4.
Zechariah 14:16-18

And it shall come to pass, [that] every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.

And it shall be, [that] whoso will not come up of [all] the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.

And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that [have] no [rain]; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.

This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.

[_Sean]

Sean,

If my memory serves me correctly, John MacArthur is premil and believes (as do I) that all unbelievers are to be killed at the second coming of Christ.

If this is the case then how do these verses from Zechariah fit? Noting that Christ returns in verse 3 and 4.
Zechariah 14:16-18

And it shall come to pass, [that] every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.

And it shall be, [that] whoso will not come up of [all] the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.

And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that [have] no [rain]; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.

This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.

I don't believe Zechariah 14 is about out the second coming. It's commonly taught to be about the second coming, but if it were it would contradict the new testament apostles statements (like the ones I quoted above) as well as Jesus when he said:

Joh 4:20 Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you say that in Jerusalem is the place where people ought to worship."
Joh 4:21 Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father.
Joh 4:22 You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.
Joh 4:23 But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him.
Joh 4:24 God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."

For Zechariah to be about a time future to us, Jesus words would have to pass away (which He said would never happen) about the worship no longer being in earthy Jerusalem but rather in Spirit and truth.

Paul said the OT rituals were a shadow of the reality found in Christ (Col 2:17). If we now have Christ, why would we go back to type and shadow? If you were talking to me in person, would you talk to my shadow, or speak to me. Jesus made a way for us to come to the Father, I don't think that way is going to change back to a type and shadow approach, and contradict new testament revelation.

I take Zech 14 to be about an event in the past spoken in symbolic language.

You can listen to Steve Gregg's interpretation of this in his verse-by-verse treatment of Zechariah.