Question #1:
Sir, what a pleasure to commensurate with a knowledgeable Bible scholar. We might be able to have a real discussion. Let's look for a moment at the Messiah's reign. There are a lot of variations as to how and when and what that will be. I will list a few that seem to be the majority opinion. It will be for 1,000 years. It will be located from and or in Jerusalem. Christians will dominate. Sinners will be given a second chance. There will be no war, death, heartache or splinters. As fore stated, there are lots of opinions. I assume one or two of these fit.
Consider the following scriptures about Christ reigning from Jerusalem.
II Kings 23:27 . . . and I will cast off Jerusalem, this city which I have chosen, and the temple of which I have said, "My name shall be there."
Jeremiah 22:30 Thus says the Lord, "Write this man down childless, A man who will not prosper in his days; for no man of his descendants will prosper sitting on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah." 'This man' is identified in verses 24 and 28 as Coniah which is the same as Jeconiah a king in Jerusalem and a descendant of David. See Matthew 1:11. He had his eyes put out just after seeing his 3 sons murdered in Babylon. He was the last descendant of David to sit on the throne in Jerusalem.
John 18:36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. "
Luke 17:20, 21 "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, Look her it is! or, There it is! For the kingdom of God is in your midst."
Mark 9:1 Truly I say to you, there are some of those standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Kingdom of God after it has come with power.
Matthew 26:29 But I say to you that I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom.
Mark 14:25 Truly I say to you, I shall never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the Kingdom of God.
Hebrews 8:1 Now the main point in what has been said is this: we have such a high priest, who has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens.
I Corinthians 15:50 ...flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.
Revelation 11:17 Thou hast taken Thy great power and hast begun to reign. (how can he reign with out a kingdom?)
John 3:3 Verily I say unto you, unless a man be born again he cannot enter the kingdom of God. (His kingdom is spiritual!)
I Corinthians 15:50 Flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom of God. (His kingdom is spiritual!)
Daniel 2:44 And in the days of these kings God will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed. (This dream by the king and interpreted by Daniel is history. The kingdom of God is spiritual and Christ is the king and he rose to power in Acts when he ascended to the right hand of God. Over 500 people witnessed his ascension. In Paul's sermon in Acts 2 Paul put Christ on the throne verse 30-36.
Ephesians 1:22 And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.
Conclusion: Christ rose to power in AD 33. Christ is on his throne now. Christ's kingdom is spiritual. Christ's reign will not be limited to 1000 years.
Response #1:
Good to make your acquaintance. As to your email, because we believers are reborn spiritually and belong to a spiritual organization, the Church of Jesus Christ, in no way can be taken to mean that there will not be a literal, bodily resurrection. Likewise, because we are part of a kingdom which at present the world cannot see can in no way be taken to mean that a literal, physical Kingdom of the Messiah will not presently be set up on earth. In each case, the two are not contradictory; nor are they mutually exclusive. In fact, they are complementary; and indeed each is impossible without the other, since each is dependent upon the other.
I do understand that many people (indeed, entire denominations such as the Roman Catholic church) wish to spiritualize away the Millennium. That, however, is not possible to do without ignoring the clear testimony of scripture.
First, I hope we can agree that there will be a second advent, a parousia? That, after all, is the blessed hope to which all Christians look. If we can agree that Christ will return, then it is fair to ask what will happen when He does. To get the answer to that question, we can only look to the eschatological portions of scripture, and all these agree on a millennial rule of Christ from Jerusalem (e.g., Is.2:4; 9:6-7; 24:3; Jer.33:15; Ezek.47:12; Dan.7:13-14; Mic.4:5; 5:2; Zech.9:10; Lk.19:14-27; Rom.8:18-24; Heb.12:9-10; etc.), and with not a few passages in Revelation even demarcating the time as a thousand years. E.g.:
NIV Rev 20:3: He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time.
NIV Rev 20:4: I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
NIV Rev 20:6: Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.
NIV Rev 20:7: When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison
Apart from the fact that these verses in the book of Revelation are very specific and admit of no alternative interpretation (they have to be ignored entirely or subjected to a hermeneutic so twisted that any verse can be made to mean anything a person wants it to mean in order to deny a literal millennial rule), it should be carefully noted that John wrote this book as the last book in the Bible, and some thirty-five years after our Lord's resurrection. So if Christ's future reign were merely spiritual and contemporaneous with John's writing at the time, this a strange time and strange way and a strange place to be so clear about the literal future return of our Lord and His literal millennial reign thereafter: for amillenialists, it cannot be explained (so it has to be explained away).
Many promises were made to Israel about a return to the land accomplished by God (not man) to a land ruled by the Messiah (not a secular democracy). None of these promises have yet been fulfilled, and there is no verse I know of which would allow those promises to be disregarded or taken in some vague spiritual sense alone.
No one would wish to deny the importance of the Church Age and the spiritual kingdom of which we believers are presently a part. But the existence of the Church, Christ's Body in what is currently enemy territory, does not conflict with or in any way rule out the literal rule of Christ upon His return. Indeed, He has promised that we will rule with Him – and that is another key promise that will be fulfilled during the thousand year reign (e.g., Lk.22:28-30; 1Cor.6:2-3; 2Tim.2:11-13; Rev.2:27; 5:10).
One of the best ways to see the truth of the divine plan for future events is to study God's seven millennial day plan for human history (please see the link). In a nutshell, the Age of the Gentiles lasted 2,000 years as did the Age of Israel; the Millennium is, by definition, 1,000 years; positing a Church Age of 2,000 years as well, we find that we are presently on the cusp of the Tribulation – and that is really the main problem with ignoring or spiritualizing away the massive amount of information the Bible gives us about eschatology, namely, running the risk of being completely unprepared for the Tribulation when it arrives (and it will arrive very soon).
These things are all spelled in great detail in the Coming Tribulation series (see the link); and I would also recommend the Satanic Rebellion series (since the latter, as its subtitle suggests, is essential reading to provide the groundwork for completing understanding the former).
I am happy to discuss the individual verses you cite (they are mostly the ones commonly appealed to by amillenialists – please note that none of them on their face actually say what that position wishes them to say), but I would ask you to have a look at some of the links provided first in the interest of a profitable discussion.
Yours in Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob Luginbill
Question #2:
Sir, It is a pleasure discussing the Bible.
Must confess, I did not read all of what you suggested. I have read a bunch of this for many years. What was suggested seems to be interpretations and opinion - with little relevant scripture. John 18:36 When Jesus himself said, "My kingdom is not of this world.", what difference does it make how many thousands of men contradict him?
Jeremiah 22:30 When O. T. scripture plainly states "no man of his descendants (Jeconiah) will prosper sitting on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah." That is God speaking - what difference does it make how many thousands of men contradict him?
Please explain away these two verses.
Yours in Christ
Response #2:
I'll pass over verse #2 since I don't even see a path to what the problem might be with that one.
"And I bestow upon you a kingdom, just as My Father bestowed one upon Me, that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel."
Luke 22:29-30 NKJV
I agree with you when you say, "what difference does it make how many thousands of men contradict him?" Peter and company will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes "in My kingdom". We certainly don't see that yet, do we?
Jesus said to them, "Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."
Matthew 19:28 NIV
Indeed, Jesus Himself will be "on the throne" when this happens – we don't see that yet either.
To which of the angels did God ever say, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet"
Hebrews 1:13 NIV (cf. Ps.110:1)
Our Lord is presently at the Father's right hand, waiting for His enthronement until after the Father has made "your enemies a footstool for your feet". This happens at the second advent.
I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and wages war. His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. "He will rule them with an iron scepter." He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty.
Revelation 19:12-15
When our Lord says "my kingdom is not of this world", that is absolutely true. Question is, what does that mean? Does it mean that He will not return from heaven and set up a heavenly kingdom on this earth? It certainly cannot be taken to mean that, in my view. There is nothing in these words that prohibit such a thing. So when you say "he said it", what you mean is "this is how I take it". You are certainly free to "take it" however you will. But the great problem with the amillennial position is that while there is no logical or theological contradiction between a spiritual kingdom which becomes literal when Christ returns, claiming that the kingdom is spiritual only and will never become a tangible reality requires a person to ignore entire books of the Bible.
There is also another problem. Most amillennialists do believe in a second advent (it's only a question of when/how). But if a person does believe that Christ will return literally and physically, and that He will reign at that time, how is that substantially any different from what is being objected to? How does that "kingdom come" not run into the same objection that such would not be a mere spiritual/invisible kingdom?
Yours in the Name of the coming King, our dear Lord Jesus Christ,
Bob L.
Question #3:
Dear Bob, What a pleasure to discuss God’s word. I will address each of the scriptures in turn by using italics.
Some of these were the apostles right? What was Peter given in Matthew 16:19 when he said I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven?
How are/were the apostles to open the door to the kingdom? Acts 2:17 – 38. The first gospel sermon opened up salvation to mankind. The devil had been whipped when Jesus rose from the dead. He no longer had total control of sinful men. The doors to"Christ’s kingdom", the "Kingdom of God" was opened and some 3,000 souls were baptized and entered into salvation.
Peter and company will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes "in My kingdom". We certainly don't see that yet, do we? YES WE DO
Ephesians 1:20-23 which He brought in Christ, when He raised him from the dead, and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and power and authority and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only IN THIS WORLD BUT IN THE ONE TO COME. And He put all things under subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.
The verbs here are past tense. It has been done. There is nothing left for Christ to advance to. How do you spell finality? The church is the kingdom! He is in us and we are in Him in His Kingdom.
Christ spoke this prior to his death, burial and resurrection before he ascended to the right hand of God:
Jesus said to them, "Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when (when is future tense) the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."
Matthew 19:28 NIV
What does any judge use when judging a case? He or she always uses a set of rules or law. Are we judged today by the Old Testament? Or was there a New Testament written?
WHO WROTE THE NEW TESTAMENT? The 12 tribes of Israel (the church) is ruled and judged by the New Testament that was written by (mostly) the apostles. Adultry today is just as much a sin today as it was when the writers of the N. T. penned the words. We are judged by the Law of Jesus. His will or New Testament was put in force by his death. Romans 7:25 the law of God. . . .
Indeed, Jesus Himself will be "on the throne" when this happens -- we don't see that yet either.
YES WE DO: refer back to Ephesians 1:20-23 and Acts 2:30-36 on the throne of David
To which of the angels did God ever say, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet"Hebrews 1:13 NIV (cf. Ps.110:1)
Our Lord is presently at the Father's right hand, waiting for His enthronement until after the Father has made "your enemies a footstool for your feet". This happens at the second advent.
The Second Advent! Let me see if I can connect on a few beliefs about the Second Advent. His trip to earth, birth by Mary, 3 year ministry, betrayal and crucifixion, and resurrection doesn’t count. Right? There is to be yet another visitation in which Christ will come to earth and reign for a thousand years in and from Jerusalem. If I am correct the prophesy foretelling his second advent comes from Zechariah 14:4 And on that day His feet will stand on the mount of Olives, which is in front of Jerusalem to the east, and the Mount of Olives will be split in the middle from east to west by a very large valley, so that half of the mountain will move toward the north and the other half toward the south.
Matthew 27:51 and behold the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. And the earth shook and the rocks were split, and the tombs were opened, and many of the bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. MOUNT OF OLIVES WILL BE SPLIT
This has already happened. The last week of His life was spent walking on, sleeping on and being captured on and being crucified on THE MOUNT OF OLIVES! He also ascended to heaven from the Mount of Olives. Acts 1:12 There is no other Old Testament scripture referring to a different or later coming of Christ TO THE EARTH.
I Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ shall rise first. (Yes this is still in the future.) It says Jesus will descend – to where, to what? This verse does not say to earth. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord IN THE AIR and thus we shall always be with the Lord. This DOES tell where He will be. It tells where we shall be. It tells for how long we shall be. And forevere is not a puny 1000 years.
I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True.(Jesus) With justice he judges and wages war.
(Spiritual war – Ephesians 6:14-17, girded with truth, breastplate of righteousness, feet shod with the gospel of truth, shield of faith, helmet of salvation, Sword of salvation- NOT CARNAL WAR)
His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but He Himself. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God –
John 1:1. He was in the beginning with God, THE WORD was God.
The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword
(John 12:48 And he who rejects Me, and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him: the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day)
with which to strike down the nations. "He will rule them with an iron scepter." He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty.
Ephesians 6:12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly paces.
Romans 4:12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper
There is nothing in these words that prohibit such a thing. So when you say "he said it", what you mean is "this is how I take it".
No I do not mean ‘this is how I take it’, Jesus did say, "My kingdom is not of this world." I am not changing anything He said. Now you as well as everyone else can change the words of Jesus to fit an already predetermined script. He did say, "My kingdom is not of this world." Now if there is a kingdom outside of what Jesus designated, it is of the Devil.
the amillennial position requires a person to ignore entire books of the Bible.
I do like discussing just Bible verses. Bring me some more entire books of the Bible that speak of a Kingdom here on earth. One of them will probably be Daniel. I would like for you to teach me.
There is also another problem. Most amillennialists do believe in a second advent (it's only a question of when/how).
I do not fall under the category of ‘most’. He will come again IN THE AIR. We shall meet Him in the clouds. We shall forever be with Him there. I Thessalonians 4:16 see above.
But if a person does believe that Christ will return literally and physically, and that He will reign at that time, how is that substantially any different from what is being objected to? How does that "kingdom come" not run into the same objection that such would not be a mere spiritual/invisible kingdom?
Where is Christ coming from? Is it only a place like earth, no better than? Is there nothing for humans to look forward to that is significantly superior to earth? Did God exist prior to the creation of the earth? Is the earth god? Raise your sights.
II Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up.
I prefer not to give my opinion. The Holy Spirit did a pretty good job in writing down a clarification for any one and all of us. Let’s go by what the book says.
Your brother in Christ,
Response #3:
With all due respect, none of these verses quoted means on its face what you apparently hope it means; that is particularly true of those passages which speak literally of our Lord's return. For example, you have made repeated references to this passage in Ephesians:
. . . which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come. And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.
Ephesians 1:20-23 NKJV
No one who understands the true nature of biblical teachings about eschatology will be upset reading this verse – as if it screamed "oh no, there's no millennium after all!". Jesus has been glorified and sits at the Father's right hand awaiting the time when He will return and take up His heavenly throne (represented by the nobleman who went to a far country to receive a kingdom and then would return: Lk.19:12). Look at the world around you: this certainly isn't the Millennium! But when Christ takes up His rule, the position He has won will be fulfilled in every way. Note that the passage says "not only in this age but also in that which is to come" – but in your system there is no "age to come" (for beyond all argument eternity comes "at the end of all the ages").
It seems the only effect of this barrage of passages is to obfuscate the main point: what is the kingdom? And it only does so if one actually fails to read the scriptures you have included and focuses only on your parti pris interpretation of them. I understand why you adopt this approach: you only have one passage in all of scripture which even suggests that the kingdom is merely spiritual, and you are not sure of your ground. Since John 18:36 is your only real proof-text, could you perhaps explain what our Lord means by the second part of the verse?
Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I might not be delivered to the Jews; but as it is My kingdom is not from here (Greek: ἐντεῦθεν)".
John 18:36
The way our Lord sets the second statement up with the standard Greek phrase for rhetorical contrast (νῦν δὲ), means that we are to understand the second statement as meaning the same thing as the first, but I don't see that could be the case in your construct. Statement #2 seems to me to explain that "not of this world" means "not emanating from this world" (i.e., not "from here"), but does not mean "existing on some plane other than that of this worldly one". Our Lord's kingdom will come from heaven as He Himself returns to set it up on earth personally, rather than having an earthly origination ("from here" ἐντεῦθεν). The way I read the Greek (and the English), that is what the verse says and that is what the verse means. This straightforward interpretation also has the virtue of being consistent with the verses previously provided without recourse to seeing taking them in such a loose, hyper-spiritualizing way so as to strip them of all meaning.
Finally, when you said previously "I have read a bunch of this for many years", you certainly have not read my materials. If you were really interested in learning about the end times and what the Bible actually does say (and mean) regarding all the wonderful things to come, you could do worse than spending time in the Coming Tribulation and Satanic Rebellion series (links). Merely repeated nonsense to yourself and trying to convince others of the truth of it is no way to advance spiritually or to please our Lord.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #4:
Hi Bob,
Isaiah clearly describes the 'day of the LORD' occurring within these passages, which as we know can refer to the period of time between Christ's crucifixion to the arrival of the Lord Himself. 'Wail, for the day of the Lord is at hand!' (Isaiah 13:6). Moreover, Babylon is described, 'The burden against Babylon which Isaiah the son of Amoz saw,' which leads me to conclude that this is the same 'Babylon' that is described in Revelation.
But then I saw this: 'Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, who will not regard silver.' (Isaiah 13:17) As we know, America does not have anything to do with the Medes, who lives in northern Iraq/Iran. And there is also this piece of anthropological data that is described, 'Nor will the Arabian pitch tents there,' which is curious, because Arabians don't pitch tents in America, although they did in the Near East. Lastly, we have the biogeographical data: 'Ostriches will dwell there...the hyenas will howl in their citadels,' (Isaiah 13:21, 13:22). Neither ostriches nor hyenas are indigenous to the Americas, but they do dwell closely to the Near East.
This leads me to a dilemma (in the Greek sense of the word): If this is 'Mystery Babylon,' which you identify as America, then how come so much data point to a location that is outside North America? But if this is not 'Mystery Babylon,' then how do you explain the clear description of this occurring during the 'Day of the Lord?'
One explanation that came to mind is that the passage is talking about geographical Babylon, not spiritual Babylon, so the passage is describing some near eastern conflict that is posed to occur during the tribulation shortly before, or coinciding, with the rapture of the Church.
'A tumultuous noise of the kingdoms of nations gathered together! The Lord of hosts musters
The army for battle. They come from a far country, From the end of heaven— The Lord and His weapons of indignation, To destroy the whole land.' (Isaiah 13:4-5)
Sincerely,
Response #4:
Good to hear from you.
This is all explained at the link: "Judgment on Babylon" (in CT 5). The essential point is that this passage (and many other such passages) has dual application: 1) to the historical Babylon of Isaiah's day, and 2) to the eschatological Babylon (this is yet another example of "the Day of the Lord Paradigm"; see the link). As such, the details as pertaining to the latter have to applied with the flexibility that the double prophecy demands. For example, we should not imagine that the references to horses and shields and swords should not be "updated" to whatever military equivalents will be found during the Tribulation. Likewise, the specific parties involved will need to be adjusted as well. As it happens, we do know that the "ten kings" will be instrumental in executing judgment on Babylon (Rev.17:16-17). These are the rulers of the ten provinces of the revived Roman empire, and, as it so happens, Iran (the geographic homeland of the Medes) is most probably a part of one of the power centers of that ten-kingdom confederation (one of the three powers of the southern alliance conquered by antichrist during the Tribulation's first half; see the link: "The Ten Horns of the Beast" in CT 3B).
Secondly, my hypothetical identification is of the future US – during the Tribulation and not until – with eschatological Babylon. The distinction is important on two levels: 1) what the US will be then is not the same at all as what the US is now; the removal of Holy Spirit restraint and the explosion of the mystery of lawlessness will render the world of that time vastly different from what it is today, and in very short order; 2) my identification is hypothetical based upon the fact that the Tribulation is so very close, and thus it is difficult to imagine a geopolitical shift of the proportions necessary to advance any other candidate for mystery Babylon in the few remaining years (but strange things do happen in history). In biblical terms, there are four quadrants to the world, north, south, east and west, with Israel being at the center. We know that the north is antichrist's revived Rome and that the south consists of the three kingdoms (mostly Islamic) which were also within Rome's sphere of influence (or directly under her control). We also know that the "kings of the east" will not be involved in the struggles around Israel until the Armageddon campaign (Rev.16:12). This means that mystery Babylon will almost certainly have to centered in the otherwise eschatologically silent west.
Thirdly, when you speak of a "conflict that is posed to occur during the tribulation shortly before, or coinciding, with the rapture of the Church", it appears to me (and forgive me if I have misunderstood) that you are assuming that the resurrection of the Church will take place before the Tribulation begins (that is what most people mean when they use the word "rapture"). That is incorrect, and is a very dangerous false doctrine. On this issue, please see the links:
The Origin and the Danger of the Pre-Tribulational Rapture Theory
Yours in Jesus our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
Question #5:
Is it more correct to understand the flow of revelational events in the book of Revelation based on Rev 1:1 "...what must soon take place..."? If that be correct, I don't fully understand the 'soon' in chapter 12. Events must not go past Jesus' resurrection.
Response #5:
Revelation is essentially chronological, but in telling any complex story some amount of foreshadowing and flash-back is necessary in order to keep important pieces together. Revelation chapters 11 and 12 occur at the mid-point of the Tribulation and as such do some flash-back (i.e., the ministry of the two witnesses which had begun immediately with the Tribulation) as well as some synopsis which looks forward (i.e., the allegory of the Woman Israel which brings things up to speed symbolically from the beginning of the conflict between the devil and the Lord, giving the details of the protection of the Jewish believers saved during the two witness ministry, and foreshadowing also the second advent). So I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "events must not go past Jesus' resurrection", since our Lord was resurrected some 2,000 years ago. The "things which must soon take place" I translate as "what must take place in rapid succession", that is, not only the future from John's point of view (the Church Age covered in the seven churches and then the events of the Tribulation thereafter), but also the manner in which they will occur, especially once the Tribulation begins: very rapidly. That characteristic of the Tribulation is a major reason why it is that we cannot really predict its coming by observing contemporary events. That time could look impossibly far off today, but if it started tomorrow things would change so rapidly that nothing predicted would fail to happen merely because of lack of time.
Question #6:
Is the valley of Jehoshaphat figurative ?--- Joel 3:1-2
Response #6:
The word means "the Lord will judge", and this is a reference to the valley-system to the west of Jerusalem which is the focal point of antichrist's assault on that city during the waning days of the Tribulation. For the discussion please see the link: "The Winepress of Armageddon"
Question #7:
Jer 25:15-27. In my morning bible reading, I am on Jeremiah and came to this passage. Was this a literal or symbolic act of Jeremiah? Did he physically take this cup and went to all the nations and made them drink it? If so, how did he force them to do it?
Response #7:
I take the cup figuratively (as is often the case in prophecy; e.g., Is.51:17; 51:22; Ezek.23:33; Hab.2:16; Zech.12:2; Rev.14:10; 16:19) so that the drinking of the cup is the hearing of the prophecy – and subsequently failing to respond so as to be open to judgment with no excuse (in contrast to Assyria's response to Jonah, for example). We don't have information about Jeremiah physically traveling to all these different nations mentioned here (cf. especially v.25 NKJV: "all the kingdoms of the world which are on the face of the earth"), so it seems reasonable to infer that Jeremiah's mediation of these prophecies is what is meant. That would certainly have to be so in the case of the eschatological aspects of this and other prophecies in Jeremiah: "Also the king of Sheshach shall drink after them" (v.26 NKJV); "Sheshach" is a cryptogram for Babylon and means eschatological as well as historical Babylon. Mystery Babylon was not around in Jeremiah's day, but the truth of scripture is available to her now and to her inhabitants. That is the "cup of fury" whose draining leads to divine retribution (that is, the failure to respond to the truth of the Word of God).
Question #8:
Isa 2:2 "In the last days the mountain of the Lord’s temple will be established as the highest of the mountains; it will be exalted above the hills, and all nations will stream to it." This passage was referenced when describing the Millennium Jerusalem in CT 6. Since this is going to be the highest point in all the world, can anyone see this mountain? Meaning if I was in Africa and look East for instance, can I see the mountain and the light shining from it "i.e the Temple". The reason why i am bringing this up is because if that is the case, then everyone will have a constant visual reminder wherever they are on the planet of the Temple and of Christ in the millennium. Your thoughts?
Response #8:
Here is how I translate the verse:
At the end of days, the mountain of the temple of the Lord will be established as the chief of all mountains, and it will be raised higher than all [other] hills, and all the nations will flow to it.
Isaiah 2:2
Zion will be the "chief" mountain and "higher than all other hills" round about her. So she will have preeminence in her area, but will not necessarily be tallest on earth (that is not what the verse says exactly). Not that this impossible for the Lord to accomplish, both by exalting Zion and also by lowering other mountains (compare Rev.6:14: "every mountain and hill was moved from its place"). In any case, I think your point is well-taken that Jerusalem will be perspicuous and that her elevation is meant to enhance that glory, not obscure the sight of her.
Question #9:
Do the seven women of Isaiah 4:1 mean seven church eras or anything else?
Response #9:
It's an interesting idea, but I don't think so because this passage is speaking of the terrible situation in Jerusalem preceding the second advent (cf. the next verse) after the seven eras are over.
Question #10:
On resurrection and Jesus advent, Paul says this will take place at the blast of the last trumpet (1cor 15:52-53),and this seems to be the seventh one in Revelation11, where it's sounded and God is praised for His time of judging the dead and rewarding His servants. I'm not very clear with this prophetic chronological order because from chapters 12-19,instead, I see the woman and the Dragon, the beast out of the sea and out of earth with his 666, the sealing of the 144000,warnings of three angels, harvest of the earth, seven angels with their (last) bowls of God's wrath, the woman on the beast (Babylon), the fall of Babylon, the hallelujah praises to God for the WEDDING OF THE LAMB which is ready and then His coming as the RIDER ON THE WHITE HORSE. -My question now goes: is the trumpet simply marking the period in which all these things are happening ending in resurrection and Jesus coming, or resurrection took place right when it was blasted in Rev.11:15-18?
Response #10:
The trumpet referred to in 1Cor.15:52-53 marks the end of the Tribulation, the point of the resurrection, and the incipient commencement of Armageddon. Once that trumpet blows, all who are saved thereafter belong not to the Bride but to the Friends of the Bride (an equal complement of believers) who will not be resurrected until the end of the Millennium.
Question #11:
Hello Bob,
Are the Horns/trumpet literal in Revelations; and if not are there ensigns to their blowing?
Ever growing in Christ
Response #11:
Good to hear from you again. As to your question, yes, I take them as literal. They are covered in the Coming Tribulation series part 3A (see the links: "The Seven Archangels with the Seven Trumpets" and "The Seven Trumpet Judgments"). What the trumpet calls will sound like we cannot say at present, though we do know from our own experience that there are different calls, and we can verify from scripture that this was the case in biblical times as well (e.g., Num.10:7; 1Cor.14:8). It is clear that these will be monitory warnings, but that is all we can say, so it is certainly possible that the same "call" (i.e., sequence of notes) will be used for each of the seven.
Keep running the good race for the reward of that high upward calling in our dear Lord Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #12:
Daniel 7:24-26, Revelation 17:8, the little horn comes out from among the 10 gentile kings and this little horn must be the anti-Christ ,but I can remember reading where you deduced that the anti-Christ must come from Dan (-Israel -) clarify
Response #12:
Daniel 7:24-26 is speaking about king-doms, not kings. In Daniel 7:8, please note that the "little horn" is "another horn". This is what John means in Revelation 17:11 when he says that "the beast which was and is not, is himself also an eighth and is one of the seven": the symbolism in Daniel and Revelation speaks of both a personal beast (i.e., a human being who is none other than antichrist), and a nation-state beast (i.e., revived Rome). Antichrist is both an additional king to the seven as the ruler of the nation-state beast, revived Rome (which are the ten minus the three which are conquered; cf. Dan.7:8; Rev.17:16), and is also ruler of Babylon. The gist of it here is that there is no contradiction: antichrist is (half) Jewish, but he is also a horn (a small one = a person in this case) who conquers the gentile kingdoms of revived Rome from Babylon during the Tribulation's first half. Here on some links on this:
Question #13:
You teach that Jesus will reign His millennial Jerusalem kingdom on earth with His saints, now I always ask myself if this Jerusalem (city) will cross over to eternity at the end millennium, or it must be taken up to heaven from where it must come onto the new earth (Rev 21:2).
Response #13:
The millennial Jerusalem is not the one described in Revelation 21-22. The millennial Jerusalem will be physical and of this creation; the eternal New Jerusalem will descend from heaven after the destruction of this present world (cf. 2Pet.3:1-10), and will be part of the New Heavens and New Earth where only "righteousness dwells". That is where we shall have our eternal inheritance – and its precise location / circumstances will be determined by the reward we earn in this life in service to the Lord.
Question #14:
In the parables of the Tares (Matt 13:24-30), you mentioned it relates to the Millennium believers, which I agree but couldn't this parable have a double meaning as well for the Church age. I am somewhat confused because this explanation also makes sense:
"Even if He hadn’t specifically told us the world is the setting of the story, it would still be obvious. The landowner tells the servants not to pull up the weeds in the field, but to leave them until the end of the age. If the field were the church, this command would directly contradict Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 18, which tells us how to deal with unrepentant sinners in the church: they are to be put out of the fellowship and treated as unbelievers. Jesus never instructed us to let impenitent sinners remain in our midst until the end of the age. So, Jesus is teaching here about "the kingdom of heaven" (v. 24) in the world.
Read more:
http://www.gotquestions.org/parable-wheat-tares.html#ixzz3KTSThvNi"
Response #14:
This quote is basing its logic on an incorrect proposition; in the parable it is not the Church but the angels of God who root out the tares; the field is the whole world, not just the Church or church visible (where this person's thinking seems to have gotten itself inside out). Finally, this has to be the Millennium because at the harvest the unbelievers are immediately condemned (and we know that this does not happen until the end of history: Matt.25:31ff.; Rev.20:11-15).
Question #15:
In what language can a name be written which equals 666, and how can he be identified in case there are more than one individuals bearing the names which equal the same number in such a language?
Response #15:
Ancient Greek, Hebrew and Latin all used alpha-numeric systems for numbers, so names in any of the three major languages of the time of writing of Revelation can be representations of numbers. In the modern world where we use Arabic numerals (really from Sanskrit), we would have to transliterate a given name into one of these languages to "test it out". However, in my opinion, when we find ourselves in the midst of the Tribulation no believer worth his or her salt will be in any doubt whatsoever about who the beast is. The 666 test is just that: a test to make doubly sure about the identification once that identification already seems undeniable (based upon the fulfillment of the tribulational prophesies). This test is given to take away any excuse after the fact such as "I didn't study prophecy so I didn't realize this person was the antichrist!" Only marginal believers will be in any need of this test, but it will be a very clear one at the time. We don't know how clear because we don't have that name yet to "test" – but this is not supposed to be hard; rather, the test is more of an "idiot test" so that the least positive and most ignorant believer will still have no excuse for misidentifying antichrist . . . or taking the mark. As a result, no actual believer (that is, anyone who still believes at that point), will allow him/herself to be marked. See the links:
Antichrist: the Mark, the Number, and the Identification of the Beast
Question #16:
Dear Bob,
I hate to kick a dead horse, but ... You have said that there are no unfulfilled prophecies of events during the Church age. In Isaiah 17, I read that Damascus will be destroyed. I don't know of a time when that's happened. Are you suggesting this is to happen during the Tribulation? By extension, do all of Isaiah's burden prophecies point to the Tribulation? Is John 19:30 the basis for that?
Thanks.
Yours in Jesus Christ,
Response #16:
I take this particular passage to have been fulfilled in 732 B.C. when the Assyrians took the city by storm. What was left must have been a "mass of ruins". The passage does not call for the city to be forever depopulated thereafter. After all, if there were a similar prophecy about the destruction Berlin it might not be obvious to people 10,000 years from now that the city actually was reduced to ruins by allied bombing and Russian depredations.
But I do take your point, and, yes, I would say that the answer in most cases is that the Old Testament prophecies which have indeed not yet been fulfilled are explainable in almost every case by a coming fulfillment in the Tribulation or the Millennium.
As to why, John 19:30 is a good passage to adduce. The cross completed the plan of God for salvation and fulfilled the symbolism of the Law in its entirety. The Church Age, the calling out of the mass numbers of Christ's Body from the entire world not just Israel, was seen only very dimly until it came to pass (e.g., 1Pet.1:10-12). It is the mystery age of the calling out of the gentiles into Christ's Church. These two factors, the veiling of the Church Age and the fact that it focuses not on Israel as a nation but on all of humanity for the salvation of the nations, means that the sorts of prophecy one finds in the Old Testament are really not applicable. In any case, there clearly aren't any prophecies for the Church Age. That is very clear for those who have studied the Tribulation carefully and see as a result how the Old Testament prophecies apply to it.
Here is a link on that:
Keep on running the good race for the crowns that last forever,
In Jesus Christ our Lord.
Bob L.
Question #17:
Greetings, Sir.
So, I've read a lot of your site, I dare say nearly all of it, and I'm about to read the Coming Tribulation series again just to clear things up. But since, as you know, it's long, I figured I'd just ask ahead of time. What IS the status of resurrected believers during the millennium? I feel silly asking. Are we in our "like Christ" spiritual bodies and therefore living the ENTIRE 1000 year period serving The Lord as such? This seems the most obvious answer in that, as you've stated many times the WHOLE ekklesia is resurrected from Adam to the last to believe at the 2nd advent. But is our state "mortal" or "immortal?" I feel silly asking, but I'm already certain you'll be full of your usual grace.
And on the lake if fire. I believe it's started that it's already set for Satan and his angels. This is conjecture because I find no scriptural support, but, do you perhaps think that it's highly ironic that as a discovered actuality that there IS a massive lake of lava under Yellowstone national? And if, perhaps that IS the lake, that it is purposely IN speculative Babylon?
It's a guess, I just found it interesting that the only identifiable "giant lake of fire" in our world today. And I find no support, so the inquiry is really just to see what you might have to say.
Hope all is well, brother.
Response #17:
Good to hear from you again. I'm happy to answer your questions.
As to your questions:
1) The Church, in resurrection, will participate in Christ's administration of the world during the Millennium, just as He has promised, e.g.:
"To the one who is victorious and does my will to the end, I will give authority over the nations—that one ‘will rule them with an iron scepter and will dash them to pieces like pottery’—just as I have received authority from my Father."
Revelation 2:26-27 NIV
This is covered at the link: "Millennial Administration" (in CT 6)
2) The lake of fire does indeed seem to be part of the subterranean complex known collectively as Hades, and there is no question but that it has already "been prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matt.25:41).
This is covered at the following link: "The Lake of Fire" (in CT 6); and here is a "map" of the geography of these things from the biblical point of view: "The Waters Above and Below".
Hope this helps!
Yours in our dear Lord Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #18:
Is it true that the Jesuits are largely involved in doing Satan’s work here on earth – that is deceiving the whole world and masterminding every aspect of society in a bid to usher in a new world order whereby Satan is exalted?
Response #18:
Good to make your acquaintance.
This is the devil's world at present (e.g., Jn.14:30), and it is full of religions and religious organizations that exist to do his will. Even many organizations that style themselves as "Christian" are really very far from Christ (if He even "knows" them as His own at all). This will get worse during the coming Tribulation when Satan's world religion will coopt all organized religion, including the church-visible and organizations which may be Christian or marginally so today (see the link).
As to your question, from what I know, I don't think that the Jesuits are any better or any worse than any other not genuinely Christian religious group on this score. They are very much a part of the Roman Catholic church, which tells me all I need to know. But while that church and its appendages are very far from the truth of Jesus Christ, I think many of the popular conspiracy theories that have been amalgamated around it and also the false contention that Rome is mystery Babylon have done much to distract Christians from the truth that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one (1Jn.5:19). Focusing on one culprit to the exclusion of the strategic big picture is bound to make us vulnerable to missing everything else Satan is up to. The Coming Tribulation series addresses many of these issues in detail (please see the link).
Yours in Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob Luginbill
Question #19:
Dear Dr R.D Luginbill, thank you for the answers to my questions but I would from my first question like to know,(with any help from you) how the concept of the pre-tribulational rapture came in because I don't find its specifics in the scripture but it's widely taught. (b) "The setting up of the Abomination which causes desolation in the temple by the ant-Christ", which physical temple? If only in Jerusalem, then how is the population of believers around this planet going to that it's done, (since they'll experience the tribulation) through media? or just how? From my second question, I included the interactions of the transformed with the still mortal (from you series) ...my concern was based on the ' material necessities 'of the mortal and the 'foreverness with Christ ' of the transformed'...(b) Jesus put on the mortal to necessitate death and interact with 'us' but after resurrection, he forbade Mary to touch Him because 'I have not gone to my father yet', but later allowed Thomas to touch Him, walked around forty days and ate food. Did He really go to His father before allowing these interactions? Sorry in out if my questions can drive you mad. Zambia
Response #19:
Good to hear from you again, my friend. As to your latest questions:
1) I give a short history of the development of this false doctrine, some analysis of the reasons for its success, and also some additional bibliography at the following links:
*The Origin and the Danger of the Pre-Tribulational Rapture Theory
2) As to the abomination which causes desolation and the means of the implementation of the beast's world-wide religion in this regard, I have opined about this several places. It does seem reasonable (logistical problems taken into account) that only the most "recalcitrant" Christians will be brought to Jerusalem for martyrdom. It also seems reasonable that those who wish to ingratiate themselves to antichrist will "make pilgrimage" to the temple to honor him through making a show of obeisance to his idol. Here is the main links where that is discussed:
*The Mechanics of Martyrdom during the Great Persecution
The Abomination which causes Desolation
The Beast's Prophet and the Worldwide Anti-Christian Religion
3) On this one, our Lord's interaction with Mary after His resurrection is often misunderstood, and the "two ascension" theory you may be alluding to here, while false (not to mention counter-intuitive), is yet for all that adopted by some conservative exegetes who ought to know better. Our Lord was comporting Himself differently towards Mary because of her personal love for Him and the expectation she clearly and very naturally had that Jesus, now that He was back from the grave, would abide afterwards on earth forevermore. Instead, He would ascend to the Father in a few short weeks, and would not return again until the second advent. That is why our Lord forbade her to "keep clinging to Me". Note that the imperative is in the present stem with the result that it means "don't keep doing it" rather than "don't do it at all". He did not want her to be disappointed, and that is why He immediately explains the reason for His command: "because I go to the Father" (i.e., will not be staying as you suppose). You can find more about this at the following links:
Feel free to write me back about any of the above.
Yours in Jesus our dear Lord,
Bob L.
Question #20:
Dear Dr. Luginbill,
I recently watched ‘For Greater Glory’ a marvelous movie documenting the testing of faithful Christians versus Mexican government from 1926-1929. Please watch this and tell me your thoughts. It should open the eyes of American Christians who are putting faith in government officials of our so-called Christian nation. It is a great teaching tool for those who are preparing for The Tribulation and Coming of our Lord and Saviour. We may be called on to fight or be martyred, but whatever we do we need to do honorably and passionately for Christ our Lord and Saviour and King.
Your friend in Christ,
Response #20:
Good to hear from you. I don't any access to the movie. I did find some reviews which told a little bit about it. Generally speaking, I like to keep drama and truth separate – as the two seldom have do not have much to do with each other (and when they do, the truth inevitably suffers for the sake of the drama). Can you tell me, do these people actually take up arms and shed blood? As a former USMC officer I certainly have no qualms about that in principle, but my reading of what scripture says about the Tribulation suggests to me that at that time resisting antichrist by force will be a huge mistake. Timing is everything. Sacrificing at the temple in 50 B.C. was a requirement for anyone attempting to follow the Lord; doing so a hundred years later was "crucifying the Son of God afresh" and a fast track to apostasy. For the reasons why I believe what I do about proper Christian conduct during the Tribulation – a unique period of time in all of human history with unique conditions and, consequently, unique "rules" – please see the following links:
A Tribulational Code of Conduct
A Brief Christian "Code of Conduct" for the Great Persecution
Survivalism and the Tribulation
Yours in Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
Question #21:
Dr. Luginbill,
The movie is about the true events in Mexico during 1926-1929 -Callas was the President and he hated the Catholic church and went about killing and martyring many Believers in this time. He and the Federalies stopped communion, stopped the children's learning catechism, closed churches, rode horses in the churches and burned, pillaged, hung priests and children. I thought this story was such an eye opener for those that put faith into governments and nations, thinking this could not possibly happen in their country. I was not making a plea for taking up arms against Satan and his army, but I was thinking more about how so many were martyred for their love and belief in Christ. I am trying to make my family, especially my brothers and son, understand that during the End Times our actions should bring honor to Christ, not satisfy some vigilante type of bravery. Our family, has veterans of every war all the way back to the Revolution fighting for freedom, so it is difficult for me to convince them not defend family and home. Perhaps this is the meaning to, "live by the sword, die by the sword." Everyone will have to make that decision for themselves when we are faced with it-I am only responsible for my own actions-I know that to live for Christ is gain and to die for Christ is gain. It is a Win Win situation.
Thank you again for being here to guide us in the right direction being led by the Spirit and all knowledge of the Holy Word of God,
Response #21:
Thank you!
Very well put indeed. You are certainly right about the "bubble" we live in in this country. "It" most definitely can happen here, and much, much worse as well.
I agree with your perspective on this very much, and also with your desire to lead your family and friends to the truth. As you say, when all is said and done, we're all going to have to make our own choices. Here's to the good choices you and others are making now to learn as much of God's truth as possible while it's still safe and relatively easy to do so.
Your good words are much appreciated.
In Jesus our dear Lord and Savior,
Question #22:
Thanks, God will bless you for all the help. You may not know how helpful your site has been to me. I appreciate all in Jesus. When I was reading the Satan Rebellion and Fall. You wrote"
Thirdly Nimrod is singled out by the bible for his active hostility toward God at this time".
Now Cush became the father of Nimrod. It was [this Nimrod] who became the first "mighty-one" (i.e., famous and prominent individual) on the earth [after the flood]. In particular, he was mighty at hunting [men] in opposition to the lord. For this reason we have the proverb" [To be] like Nimrod, mighty at hunting [men] in opposition to the Lord".
Genesis 10:8-9
My questions, 1) Other bible translations does not present Nimrod as been hostile against the Lord in their translations thereby not seen The Tower of Babel being engineered by Nimrod as a sin, but instead he was seen as a mighty hunter before the Lord which also means the Lord was delighted in him. 2) In your translation I seem not to understand the [men] in relation to that bible passage; does it means that he was hunting for men that will rebel against the Lord or men for slavery as I know at that time one could only hunt for animal.
Thanks in the Lord whom I diligently seek.
Response #22:
You are most welcome, my friend. Very glad to be of help in the service of our Lord.
As to your question, I think it is true that most translations and commentaries miss this point. The word "men" in brackets is represented so because I have added it to explain what it was that Nimrod was hunting. Notice that the word "animals" is not there in the text of Genesis 10:9 either, but that is what I dare say most have understood to be the missing direct object. It is legitimate to put in the direct object that has been left out (its absence is frequent thing in ancient languages but rare and confusing in the case of modern English). Also, if one does nothing here, people may assume (as most apparently do) that it is animals Nimrod was hunting down, when it was actually men (to rope them into his scheme and so to enslave them). That is made clear enough, in my view, by the context and the story of the tower of Babel along with the other details of Nimrod's career. You seem to be reading this in part 5 of the Satanic Rebellion series where most of the details are explained (see the link for the context if I'm mistaken), so please do feel free to write back about this and anything else that you would like explained. Meanwhile, here is another link that talks about this as well:
As to the second part of your question, since this was a religious movement, the hunt for men to aid him in his revolt against God and his desire (guided by the devil) to enslave mankind are really one and the same thing. Genuine Christianity frees people; religion enslaves them – and the latter is true even when the religion has Christian paraphernalia and makes liberal use of Christian words and symbolism. After all, the beast will be an anti-Christ, proclaiming himself to be Jesus returned and his new religion to be true Christianity. But all who follow him in those dark days ahead will be led into the worst sort of slavery, a captivity that never ends in the lake of fire for all who take the mark of the beast.
In gratitude for the liberty we now possess in Jesus and in anticipation of our Lord's deliverance of us during those difficult times to come,
Question #23:
Hey Dr. Luginbill! Just wanted to let you know that your Ichthys site is great! I especially appreciate your description of the Seven "Days" of Human History and the distinction between the various grace means used throughout. For what it’s worth I, too, hold to that understanding of world history. I also appreciated your understanding of the Jewish ceremonial calendar being symbolic of God’s overall plan for human history…very interesting.
Just out of curiosity, how did you arrive at that particular date for creation? Does it have anything to do with the suggested dates of Bishop Ussher and/or the Genesis genealogies?
Hope all is well,
Response #23:
I made great use of Ussher but also recalculated everything myself. I think you are in the right file if you continue reading further. Here is the link to the place where the calculations are discussed in SR 5: "Specific Chronology of the Seven Days". Essentially, the seven days are pegged to the birth of Christ looking backward and to his crucifixion and resurrection looking forward (these are the seminal historical events from the divine point of view), then matched to the other chronological data in scripture.
Thanks so much for your kind and enthusiastic comments, my friend! They are greatly appreciated. And do feel free to write me with your other questions.
Best wishes in all your future endeavors and in your work for the Lord.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #24:
This is fascinating stuff. For a long time I’ve held a similar view of history, believing that creation was in its sixth "day" and approaching the seventh, mainly due to the significance of the number "7" in scripture and the understanding that we have only about 6,000 years of recorded/discovered civilization. This gives a lot more meat to that understanding! Great stuff!
I’m sure I’ll write again soon. This particular subject, and biblical history in general, is a passion of mine. I look forward to reading more.
Thank you, sir, and best wishes to you in His work as well!
Response #24:
You're very welcome,
You are always welcome at Ichthys and also in my classes if you ever want to sit in.
Have a great summer – and thanks much for your kind words!
In Jesus our dear Lord,
Bob L.
Question #25:
Hello, Doctor.
Question for you: The 70 years of Babylonian captivity; are those years prophesied to be anything future? What I mean is; has The Lord said if/when those years would be "made up"?(the same way in which the 7 year tribulation period was reserved to be shared with the Church) Do you perhaps think it'd be out of line to assume that's how long Satan is let out of the abyss at the end of the millennium to deceive the world again?
I'm reading the Satanic Rebellion again to see if you addressed it, but figured I'd ask you (part 5 is very long:)
Thanks for your time again, I thank Him daily for your insights. Keep it up!
Response #25:
Great to hear from you. As for the 70 years, they have to be subtracted from the Jewish Age along with the seven years of the Tribulation in order for that period to last only two millennia rather than 2063 years (i.e., 2065 - 2 B.C. = 2,000 + 70 - 7). So it's not a question of the 70 years needing to be "used up" but of whence, if from anywhere, they would then need to be subtracted from a total. If they are to be subtracted (rather than being an interpolated period along the lines of the 33 years of the first advent of Jesus Christ), they would have to be subtracted from the Age of the Gentiles or from the Millennium – because the Church Age has already run longer than the difference. Since Christ's millennial rule is prophesied to be just that, I don't think the solution should be found in a subtraction there. I have not seen fit to interpret this period as being subtracted from the Age of the Gentiles since this would result in Adam's fall taking place when he was 117, and, more problematically, would also leave only 13 years between the expulsion from Eden and the birth of Seth – leaving in turn insufficient time for the births of Cain and Abel, their growth, development, the murder of the latter by the former, and the interval between this last event and the birth of Seth (cf. Gen.4:8-25).
Yours in our dear Lord Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #26:
Hello, Doctor!
Question: Do you have the dates lined out in the bible delineating the 7 millennial days all in one diagram? You have the chronological depiction, but it doesn't include the verses stating dates and relative times. I have relatives I would LOVE to explain it to using verses, but it requires too much reading when I sit down to explain it and they have little patience.. I'll attempt to put them together myself, but I'm convinced you would do better.
Thanks again for all the amazing insight; you are a major blessing to us!
Response #26:
Good to make your acquaintance – and for your encouraging words!
From your email it seems that you probably have found where this is set out in SR 5 (at the link: "Specific Chronology of the Seven Days"). This section starts with the explanation of dating of the birth and crucifixion of our Lord, then details the dates for the Jewish and Gentile ages along with the scriptures that go with it. If you scroll down to "Days 4-3, 2-1", you will see what I have done on this (unless you've already found this of course). So, for example, that section starts with:
- The Jewish Age (2065 - 2 B.C.(78)) -
1. to 1444 B.C. (the Exodus): retrogressing 1442 years (from 2 B.C.) to the Exodus in 1444 B.C., based upon 1st Kings 6:1 which states that the 4th year of King Solomon's reign (ca. 964 B.C.) occurred 480 years after the Exodus (ca. 1444 B.C.: i.e., 964 + 480 = 1444).(79)
2. to 1874 B.C. (Jacob in Egypt): retrogressing from 1444 B.C. a further 430 years to the time of Jacob's arrival in Egypt, based upon Exodus 12:40 (which states that Israel remained in Egypt after Jacob's arrival exactly 430 years), and thus taking us to 1874 B.C.
The pertinent scriptures are all there. I do see what you mean about "making it simpler". I'm not one to "write short", however, and this subject is a bit complicated – all the details seem important to me in explaining it (even the footnotes). A chart would be great! I'm not sure how I would organize it (my artistic skills are below rudimentary on top of that). If you find a way and do create one, I'd be happy to post it to Ichthys. In the meantime, here's a link to the very basic chart I do post at the site: "The Seven Millennial Days"
Yours in Jesus our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
Question #27:
That's excellent! We'll work on it and get back to you.
Thank you again for all the hard work! I've read The Satanic rebellion, Coming Tribulation, the Bible Basics and the Peter Series and am about to start the Exodus 14 study. You are a huge blessing to us believers, ESPECIALLY those of us who still believe in Gods Word over anything, because as you've stated many times, they are sadly few.
Talk soon!
Response #27:
Thanks!
I'll be watching for it – and thanks again so much for all your good words and for your diligence in studying the Word of God.
Yours in our dear Lord Jesus,
Bob L.