ghtan

I take it you are saying that knowing the future is part of being God, like God is good or God is love or God is eternal, etc.. How then did Jesus not know the time of his return (Mk 13:32)? If knowing the future is part of being God and Jesus is God, then shouldn't he have known the time of his return? There is only one time in Scripture when Christ says that there is something not known to Him, but to the Father only. God the Father is “the Head” of Christ (1 Cor 11:3), and Jesus was the Servant of Jehovah while on earth (Isa 52:13-15). Thus Matthew Henry’s comment on this verse is very helpful, although he quotes Dr. Lightfoot: Dr. Lightfoot explains it thus; Christ calls himself the Son, as Messiah. Now the Messiah, as such, was the father’s servant (Isa. 42:1 ), sent and deputed by him, and as such a one he refers himself often to his Father’s will and command, and owns he did nothing of himself (Jn. 5:19 ); in like manner he might be said to know nothing of himself. At the same time we should not forget what the Gospel of John says regarding Christ’s foreknowledge and omniscience (Jn 13:19), where the Greek says “ye may believe that I AM [he added]” to prove His Deity: Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am [he]. Christ’s omniscience is also evident in that He prophesied that (a) all His apostles would forsake Him, (b) that following His resurrection He would meet them in Galilee, and also (c) that Peter would betray him before the cock had crowed twice (Mk 14:27-30). Indeed, Christ knew precisely each and every thing in His ministry before it occurred, so that prophecy upon prophecy was fulfilled (Mt 16:21). One time is one time too many. Would we believe that there could be one time that God is not good or one time that he is not loving or one time that he is not eternal? That Jesus knew many things about the future is without doubt. But Mk 13:32 indicates there were some things Jesus did not know about the future. Yet he was fully God. I think the only way to reconcile this is that knowing the future is not part of BEING God but it is what he is able to DO. And God can choose what he wants to do and what he does not want to do. It is interplay between Jesus' humanity and His divinity. Jesus gave up, temporarily, some divine prerogatives when He took on human flesh. He voluntarily took on some human limitations and Jesus said that He only did what the Father told Him to do. Jesus' in His humanity, didn't know the time of his second coming, but that was only a temporary limitation that he shed when He was raised from the dead and ascended to Heaven. For that argument to work, you need to explain how taking on human flesh limited Jesus' knowledge of the date of his return but left his knowledge of the rest of the future still intact. If knowing the future were part of being God, can that knowledge be compartmentalised as you propose? Your question assumes that he knew everything else about the future. He knew what the Father told Him. Jesus was fully human and he took on certain human limitations. It really isn't that hard to understand. Jesus was both fully human and fully God and he held both his humanity and deity in perfection without any mixture of either one. If Jesus knew only what the Father told him, that would mean he knew less than what the Father knew. How then could he be FULLY God? The less Jesus knew, the wider that disparity. I'm curious: What other divine attribute do you think Jesus lacked when he was on earth?

I take it you are saying that knowing the future is part of being God, like God is good or God is love or God is eternal, etc.. How then did Jesus not know the time of his return (Mk 13:32)? If knowing the future is part of being God and Jesus is God, then shouldn't he have known the time of his return? There is only one time in Scripture when Christ says that there is something not known to Him, but to the Father only. God the Father is “the Head” of Christ (1 Cor 11:3), and Jesus was the Servant of Jehovah while on earth (Isa 52:13-15). Thus Matthew Henry’s comment on this verse is very helpful, although he quotes Dr. Lightfoot: Dr. Lightfoot explains it thus; Christ calls himself the Son, as Messiah. Now the Messiah, as such, was the father’s servant (Isa. 42:1 ), sent and deputed by him, and as such a one he refers himself often to his Father’s will and command, and owns he did nothing of himself (Jn. 5:19 ); in like manner he might be said to know nothing of himself. At the same time we should not forget what the Gospel of John says regarding Christ’s foreknowledge and omniscience (Jn 13:19), where the Greek says “ye may believe that I AM [he added]” to prove His Deity: Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am [he]. Christ’s omniscience is also evident in that He prophesied that (a) all His apostles would forsake Him, (b) that following His resurrection He would meet them in Galilee, and also (c) that Peter would betray him before the cock had crowed twice (Mk 14:27-30). Indeed, Christ knew precisely each and every thing in His ministry before it occurred, so that prophecy upon prophecy was fulfilled (Mt 16:21). One time is one time too many. Would we believe that there could be one time that God is not good or one time that he is not loving or one time that he is not eternal? That Jesus knew many things about the future is without doubt. But Mk 13:32 indicates there were some things Jesus did not know about the future. Yet he was fully God. I think the only way to reconcile this is that knowing the future is not part of BEING God but it is what he is able to DO. And God can choose what he wants to do and what he does not want to do. It is interplay between Jesus' humanity and His divinity. Jesus gave up, temporarily, some divine prerogatives when He took on human flesh. He voluntarily took on some human limitations and Jesus said that He only did what the Father told Him to do. Jesus' in His humanity, didn't know the time of his second coming, but that was only a temporary limitation that he shed when He was raised from the dead and ascended to Heaven. For that argument to work, you need to explain how taking on human flesh limited Jesus' knowledge of the date of his return but left his knowledge of the rest of the future still intact. If knowing the future were part of being God, can that knowledge be compartmentalised as you propose?

I take it you are saying that knowing the future is part of being God, like God is good or God is love or God is eternal, etc.. How then did Jesus not know the time of his return (Mk 13:32)? If knowing the future is part of being God and Jesus is God, then shouldn't he have known the time of his return? There is only one time in Scripture when Christ says that there is something not known to Him, but to the Father only. God the Father is “the Head” of Christ (1 Cor 11:3), and Jesus was the Servant of Jehovah while on earth (Isa 52:13-15). Thus Matthew Henry’s comment on this verse is very helpful, although he quotes Dr. Lightfoot: Dr. Lightfoot explains it thus; Christ calls himself the Son, as Messiah. Now the Messiah, as such, was the father’s servant (Isa. 42:1 ), sent and deputed by him, and as such a one he refers himself often to his Father’s will and command, and owns he did nothing of himself (Jn. 5:19 ); in like manner he might be said to know nothing of himself. At the same time we should not forget what the Gospel of John says regarding Christ’s foreknowledge and omniscience (Jn 13:19), where the Greek says “ye may believe that I AM [he added]” to prove His Deity: Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am [he]. Christ’s omniscience is also evident in that He prophesied that (a) all His apostles would forsake Him, (b) that following His resurrection He would meet them in Galilee, and also (c) that Peter would betray him before the cock had crowed twice (Mk 14:27-30). Indeed, Christ knew precisely each and every thing in His ministry before it occurred, so that prophecy upon prophecy was fulfilled (Mt 16:21). One time is one time too many. Would we believe that there could be one time that God is not good or one time that he is not loving or one time that he is not eternal? That Jesus knew many things about the future is without doubt. But Mk 13:32 indicates there were some things Jesus did not know about the future. Yet he was fully God. I think the only way to reconcile this is that knowing the future is not part of BEING God but it is what he is able to DO. And God can choose what he wants to do and what he does not want to do. Question: "If Jesus was God, why did He not know when He would return?" Answer: Speaking of Jesus' Second Coming, Matthew 24:36 (and Mark 13:32) tells us, “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”When Jesus spoke these words to the disciples, even He had no knowledge of the date and time of His return. Although Jesus was fully God (John 1:1, 14), when He became a man, He voluntarily restricted the use of certain divine attributes (Philippians 2:6–8). He did not manifest them unless directed by the Father (John 4:34; 5:30; 6:38). He demonstrated His omniscience on several occasions (cf. John 2:25; 3:13), but He voluntarily restricted that omniscience to only those things God wanted Him to know during the days of His humanity (John 15:15). Such was the case regarding the knowledge of the date and time of His return. After He was resurrected, Jesus resumed His full divine knowledge (cf. Matthew 28:18; Acts 1:7).Matthew 24:36 clearly states that the Father alone knows when Jesus' return will be. Verses such as John 5:30;6:38; 8:28-29; 10:30; 12:49; 14:28, 31; and Matthew 26:39, 42 demonstrate Jesus' submission to the Father as well as their Oneness in the Godhead. Yes, they are both God. But some things Jesus had apparently chosen to "give up the rights" to be privy to during His earthly ministry (see Philippians 2:5-11). Jesus, now exalted in Heaven, surely knows all, including the timing of His Second Coming. http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-know-return.html Not that I think the author is right but doesn't "voluntarily restricted the USE of ..." show that knowing the future is something God DOES and not something part of his being? Could Jesus have voluntarily restricted his goodness or his love or his eternal nature and still be God?

I take it you are saying that knowing the future is part of being God, like God is good or God is love or God is eternal, etc.. How then did Jesus not know the time of his return (Mk 13:32)? If knowing the future is part of being God and Jesus is God, then shouldn't he have known the time of his return? There is only one time in Scripture when Christ says that there is something not known to Him, but to the Father only. God the Father is “the Head” of Christ (1 Cor 11:3), and Jesus was the Servant of Jehovah while on earth (Isa 52:13-15). Thus Matthew Henry’s comment on this verse is very helpful, although he quotes Dr. Lightfoot: Dr. Lightfoot explains it thus; Christ calls himself the Son, as Messiah. Now the Messiah, as such, was the father’s servant (Isa. 42:1 ), sent and deputed by him, and as such a one he refers himself often to his Father’s will and command, and owns he did nothing of himself (Jn. 5:19 ); in like manner he might be said to know nothing of himself. At the same time we should not forget what the Gospel of John says regarding Christ’s foreknowledge and omniscience (Jn 13:19), where the Greek says “ye may believe that I AM [he added]” to prove His Deity: Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am [he]. Christ’s omniscience is also evident in that He prophesied that (a) all His apostles would forsake Him, (b) that following His resurrection He would meet them in Galilee, and also (c) that Peter would betray him before the cock had crowed twice (Mk 14:27-30). Indeed, Christ knew precisely each and every thing in His ministry before it occurred, so that prophecy upon prophecy was fulfilled (Mt 16:21). One time is one time too many. Would we believe that there could be one time that God is not good or one time that he is not loving or one time that he is not eternal? That Jesus knew many things about the future is without doubt. But Mk 13:32 indicates there were some things Jesus did not know about the future. Yet he was fully God. I think the only way to reconcile this is that knowing the future is not part of BEING God but it is what he is able to DO. And God can choose what he wants to do and what he does not want to do.

What makes you think God did not also predetermine Acts 2:23b? How do you decide what is predetermined and what is 'foreknown'? And what do you mean by 'foreknow'? How does God actually foreknows those things? But, assuming you are right that God did not predetermine 23b but only 'foreknew' it, how does it follow that God 'foreknows' ALL future events? Are all future events important enough for God to 'foreknow'? God does not predetermine sin and evil acts. He has given men free will (or the ability to make moral choices) but God is NOT responsible for each one's evil deeds. Christ said that they come from within -- from the heart of man (Mk 7:20-23). As to Divine foreknowledge, it is a part of God's omniscience. He knows the end from the beginning (not based on importance or unimportance) based on who God is -- the all-knowing and all-seeing God (Isaiah 46:9,10). I take it you are saying that knowing the future is part of being God, like God is good or God is love or God is eternal, etc.. How then did Jesus not know the time of his return (Mk 13:32)? If knowing the future is part of being God and Jesus is God, then shouldn't he have known the time of his return?

Correct. Faith is founded squarely on Divine revelation. While God know all future events (omniscience and foreknowledge), God DOES NOT predetermine all events and all decisions by all men. He predetermines some things only, but brings about His plans and purposes while taking all things into account. If God predetermines only some things, and given that you say God knows ALL future events, how does he know ahead of time the future events that he does not predetermine? God's foreknowledge provides Him with the knowledge of all future events. That is already included in His omniscience (knowledge of all things). God predetermined the crucifixion of Christ (Acts 2:23a). But the wickedness of those who condemned Him was foreknown (Acts 2:23b). Hence we have Psalm 22. What makes you think God did not also predetermine Acts 2:23b? How do you decide what is predetermined and what is 'foreknown'? And what do you mean by 'foreknow'? How does God actually foreknows those things? But, assuming you are right that God did not predetermine 23b but only 'foreknew' it, how does it follow that God 'foreknows' ALL future events? Are all future events important enough for God to 'foreknow'?

Correct. Faith is founded squarely on Divine revelation. While God know all future events (omniscience and foreknowledge), God DOES NOT predetermine all events and all decisions by all men. He predetermines some things only, but brings about His plans and purposes while taking all things into account. If God predetermines only some things, and given that you say God knows ALL future events, how does he know ahead of time the future events that he does not predetermine?

Faith is not meant to be blind.

It seems to me that there is a bit of contradiction in the article. I have underlined the statements involved. First, it claims that God lives outside time and therefore can SEE the future and presumably that is how he knows the future. But then it goes on to say that God uses his power to cause things to happen, i.e. he DETERMINES what happens and presumably that is how he knows the future. So which is it? If he determines the future, why does he need to see it? Surely he does not forget what he has earlier determined. And surely he does not determine based on what he sees of the future for that would be unnecessary.

From what I see, the above verses do not say anything about whether a person would or would not be saved in the end - some do not even talk about personal salvation - except perhaps for Rev 13:8 but that has to be read in context and and in conjunction with Rev 3:5 which implies the opposite. But you are right that this is probably not the thread to talk about this topic. I just wanted to know what scripture you depended on for your view. We are all entitled to our opinions and beliefs. You said, "I just wanted to know what scripture you depended on for your view." But more than asking me how I arrived at my belief / opinion, you then critiqued it. Putting me and my opinion / belief on trial. Then you offer your opinion / belief to the contrary: "From what I see, the above verses do not say anything about whether a person would or would not be saved in the end - some do not even talk about personal salvation - except perhaps for Rev 13:8 but that has to be read in context and and in conjunction with Rev 3:5 which implies the opposite." ...which you offered without qualification of any sort. The first two verses I quoted alone should have answered your inquiry in full. Well, since you did take the trouble to list those verses, I thought they deserve a brief comment. But no more than that, because you do not explain how they support your view. ESPECIALLY the first two. What do they have to do with whether a person becomes a believer? It is far from obvious.

From what I see, the above verses do not say anything about whether a person would or would not be saved in the end - some do not even talk about personal salvation - except perhaps for Rev 13:8 but that has to be read in context and and in conjunction with Rev 3:5 which implies the opposite. But you are right that this is probably not the thread to talk about this topic. I just wanted to know what scripture you depended on for your view.

Hi John. Which passage(s) of scripture are you referring to? How does God KNOW who would believe and who would not?

I agree that Paul had in mind Numbers 10 or its equivalent. Trumpets were used to call the encamped Israelites to assemble and move out. Rapture is like moving out. I don't think we should confuse it with John's trumpet plagues that are trumpets of judgment instead. There is no sense of judgment in the context of 1 Cor 15:52. Regarding the passage in Zech 9, the word is shofar: a ram's horn. But in Numbers 10, the word is chatsotsĕrah, and this is specifically prescribed to be made out of silver. So, two different types of horns, blown for different reasons. According to the Hebraic tradition I mentioned in my post of 10/20 @ 1:36 PM, the Last Trumpet is a shofar. Likewise, the horn blown on Rosh Hashanah is a shofar; and some Jews hold the tradition that on a future R.H., the heavenly shofar will be blown to announce the resurrection of the dead. I think the Greek OT does not distinguish between the Num 10 silver trumpet and the Zech 9 shofar but uses the same word for both. Therefore, word usage alone does not tell us what Paul was referring to. I think what is particularly significant is that there is no clue of the Rapture when the 7th trumpet is blown. Given that John is quite prepared to hint at the rapture elsewhere - e.g. son of man, cloud, harvest, etc. in Rev 14 (even pre-trib has the ascension of John to point to) - why does he not do so under the 7th trumpet? The answer is simple: because the Rapture does not occur at this point.

I agree that Paul had in mind Numbers 10 or its equivalent. Trumpets were used to call the encamped Israelites to assemble and move out. Rapture is like moving out. I don't think we should confuse it with John's trumpet plagues that are trumpets of judgment instead. There is no sense of judgment in the context of 1 Cor 15:52.

Hi Sister, where do you fit the battle of Armageddon into the above sequence? What is curious though is v 3. If it were referring to the Second Coming, and we know that the armies of the world will be gathered at Armageddon to make WAR against Jesus (Rev 19:19), why on earth would they be shouting "Peace and Safety" of all things?! ghtan Revelation 11:3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth. Revelation 11:5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed. Revelation 11:6 These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will. Revelation 11:7 And when they shall ***have finished their testimony****, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and ***kill them****. Revelation 11:8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified. Revelation 11:9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations ***shall see their dead bodies three days and an half****, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves. Revelation 11:10 And they that dwell upon the earth ****shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another****; because ***these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth***. Revelation 11:11 And after three days and an half the Spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them. Revelation 11:12 And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them. Revelation 11:13 And ***the same hour*** was there a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell, and in the earthquake were slain of men seven thousand: and the remnant were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of heaven. Jeremiah 51:39 In ***their heat*** I will make ***their feasts***, and I will make them drunken, ***that they may rejoice****, and sleep a perpetual sleep, and not wake, saith the LORD. Hi Sister, where do you fit the battle of Armageddon into the above sequence? Hi ghtan The armies only gather at Armageddon because of the 3 frog like expressions coming out of the mouth of the Dragon, the Beast, and the False Prophet. They will tell lies and make the armies come together to fight something big. Christ comes on the 3rd Woe, so before this, the second woe consists of; (1) this gathering at Armageddon (2) the two witnesses killed, (3) the earthquake killing 7 thousand men in Jerusalem, and the remnant being frightened giving glory to God. Why? because Jerusalem has been split by the earthquake, and this makes a route for them to escape. So to recap, ...whilst the armies are assembled, all united now, getting ready to make war with whoever they've been told, ...they kill the 2 witnesses and they could very well be assembled there for this very purpose, because of them, I'm not sure what they've been told?, ...so they rejoice over their deaths and make merry for a few days (3 1/2 days) becoming complacent, celebrating with the world, sending gifts, calling loved ones, because they probably blamed all the plagues on these two, ...now their ordeal is over...war finished, two trouble makers gone, about to pack up, and then bang, the earthquake comes, the Jews flee out Jerusalem, and then comes the 3rd woe, Christ who treads the winepress whilst they are still there gathered, unaware, with no where to escape, trapped in a very big valley. This is how I can see it for now, unless I've got something wrong with that order. I've been going over and over it, and it's only an educated guess. Hi Sister, I think you have a good case given that the period of joy of Rev 11:10 is there in the text. However, I wonder whether you would follow through with the implication of your view. Paul was relating the "peace and safety" cry of 1 Th 5:3 to the "times and dates" (5:1) of the rapture he had been discussing in ch 4. Therefore, if that cry rings out during those 3 1/2 days of Rev 11:10, it should also follow that the subsequent rapture of the two witnesses symbolises the rapture of the church. Is that what you have in mind?

7. Okay, that one made me laugh, especially the "so that none are confused" part. There is enough detail there, if you're willing to set aside your bias, to see that it is the reaping of the righteous by Jesus, the resurrection / rapture.On the above point, the raptured church is pictured in the very next passage, in 15:2-4. Actually Revelation 15:2 is a reference to the Tribulation Saints, not the Church. Those saints gained the victory over the Beast by becoming martyrs, and all of them were beheaded (Rev 20:4). Sorry but one has to really stretch things to imagine that the Church is being referred to in chapters 14 and 15. Many if not most non-futurist bible scholars read the first harvest as that of the righteous. Their observation is important because they have no bias over the timing of the rapture. For futurists, it is then no stretch of the imagination to see this as the rapture, and a few non-pretrib scholars actually do so. Since 15:2 does not limit the group to martyrs, why do you do so? When John wants to limit the group, as in 20:4, he actually says so. Why bother to specify martyrs in 20:4 if that can already be assumed from 15:2? More likely, 20:4 denotes a subset of the larger group in 15:2.

7. Okay, that one made me laugh, especially the "so that none are confused" part. There is enough detail there, if you're willing to set aside your bias, to see that it is the reaping of the righteous by Jesus, the resurrection / rapture.On the above point, the raptured church is pictured in the very next passage, in 15:2-4.

I'm not sure how you separate the resurrection from the second coming by any appreciable length of time. The resurrection is one facet of of the second coming, all of which happens on the same day, the day of the Lord. It's quite easy. I just come to the text without assuming that the rapture and the Second Coming must coincide since nothing demands it. With that, 1 Th 5:3 poses no difficulty. I know most here are entrenched in our own views but I wanted to point the verse out anyway for everyone to consider.

1. I believe we can concede that Rev 14:14-16 and Rev 14:17-20 can be treated as separate judgments. 2. We should note that on one hand we have "the harvest of the earth" (v 15) and on the other hand we have "the vine of the earth" (v 19). The connection is "of the earth". 3. We have almost 80 mentions of "the earth" in Revelation, and they are all invariably connected with the judgments. On the other hand, the Church is even now seated "in the heavenly places" (or "the heavenlies") with Christ Jesus, and will be in Heaven after the Rapture. Scripture says that "Our citizenship [KJV conversation] is in Heaven, from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ" (Phil 3:20), which corresponds to "looking for that Blessed Hope" (Tit 2:13) of the Rapture. 4. There is a harvest of tares mentioned in the Gospels (Mt 13:30), and "the harvest of the earth" corresponds to the harvest of those who are not truly saved. They will be ultimately cast into the Lake of Fire, hence they are gathered up "to bind them in bundles and burn them". 5. At the same time "the vine of the earth" is a metaphor for the armies of the Beast gathered at the battle of Armageddon (from which flows a river of blood), and this is clear from the fact that "the winepress was trodden without [outside] the city". That city is none other than Jerusalem. 6. So for all intents and purposes, this passage has nothing to do with the Rapture, but everything to do with God's judgements on "the inhabiters of the earth" (Rev 12:12), upon whom many woes are pronounced. 7. Had a portion of this passage been connected with the Resurrection/Rapture, surely there would have been some mention of "the saints" and where they go after the harvest. There would also have been some mention of the graves being opened, so that none are confused. Here I am in agreement with Last Daze that it is Jesus that conducts the first harvest and thus it likely represents the rapture. There are more differences between the first and second harvests than there are similarities. Even with "the earth," the first harvest reads ON the earth (KJV) whereas the second INTO the earth. More importantly, it would be redundant for there to be two harvests of sinners. I don't see anything achieved by differentiating between common sinners and military sinners.

The scenario that I see is that the two witnesses have been killed and raised and the oppressive plagues have subsided. This is at the end of the second woe (sixth trumpet / bowl). The conditions allow for the gathering of the armies. Why gather the armies into one place? We know that it is for the battle of Armageddon. The armies that gather likely do so in an effort to defend against any retaliation for killing the two witnesses or for some defensive purpose. I see approximately 45 days between the second woe and the third woe while the armies gather. The lack of immediate retaliation from above gets people saying "peace and safety". Thinking that the false prophet has gained victory over the "evil plague bringers", life returns to normal....people marry, eat, drink, as in the days of Noah totally oblivious to the sudden destruction on its way. It's during this time that Jesus says in Rev 16:15 that He is coming like thief. It's also a time of testing. The armies were already gathered under the sixth plague (16:16) which as you imply terminates together with the second woe; why is there need for another 45 days to regather them? Furthermore, the thief saying in 16:15 is also under the sixth plague, which means it comes BEFORE those 45 days and hence cannot coincide with the "peace and safety" cries. Lastly, 19:19 says the armies gather to MAKE WAR against Jesus; sounds much more like an offensive move. I just don't see anything in Rev that supports the scenario you propose. The sixth bowl is poured out to prepare the way for the kings of the east while spirits of demons from the dragon, beast, and false prophet gather the rest. All that Rev 16:16 indicates is that they were gathered before the seventh plague. The gathering starts at the sixth bowl. As I see it, the 45 days begins with the shattering of the power of the holy people (death of the two witnesses) Daniel 12:7. Until the oppressive conditions of the plagues are lifted, the armies can't gather. After the 3.5 days, when the two are raised, is when I see the sixth bowl poured out and the armies gathering together. This gathering is during the 45 days, not before the 45 days. The raising of the two witnesses likely underpins the deception used to gather the armies. Jesus' statement that He is coming like a thief happens while the armies gather. The false prophet appears victorious and it's a time of testing of where people's allegiances lie. Yes, the armies gather to make war. How do you see that as an offensive move? Are they then going to fly into heaven after everyone has showed up? No, its defensive, as they wait for the retaliation. They have no choice but to wait. And its this time of waiting, with no retaliation, that leads people to say "peace and safety". While I'm not adamant about this scenario, it's completely plausible and what makes sense to me, as I understand prophecy. It is hard for me to comment on your sequence without knowing how you read the 3 1/2 year periods in Rev 12 and 13. But as for the purpose of the army of Rev 19:19, I think the words "make war" implies the subject initiates the action. Furthermore, moving armies into a foreign country is usually an offensive move. One normally defends one's own borders. If they are on the defensive, who are they defending? The land of Israel? Why would nations, esp. the Arabs, want to do that? You suggest the mood of the people changes from anxiety to relief - hence "peace and safety" - when no attack is forthcoming from heaven. As you say, this is not impossible but it is also nowhere implied in the text, including Revelation. We risk moving from interpreting the text to adding to it. I think there is a simple solution and it is that 1 Th 5:3 does not refer to the second coming but to the rapture. It is easy to see how that could happen outside the context of war.

The scenario that I see is that the two witnesses have been killed and raised and the oppressive plagues have subsided. This is at the end of the second woe (sixth trumpet / bowl). The conditions allow for the gathering of the armies. Why gather the armies into one place? We know that it is for the battle of Armageddon. The armies that gather likely do so in an effort to defend against any retaliation for killing the two witnesses or for some defensive purpose. I see approximately 45 days between the second woe and the third woe while the armies gather. The lack of immediate retaliation from above gets people saying "peace and safety". Thinking that the false prophet has gained victory over the "evil plague bringers", life returns to normal....people marry, eat, drink, as in the days of Noah totally oblivious to the sudden destruction on its way. It's during this time that Jesus says in Rev 16:15 that He is coming like thief. It's also a time of testing. The armies were already gathered under the sixth plague (16:16) which as you imply terminates together with the second woe; why is there need for another 45 days to regather them? Furthermore, the thief saying in 16:15 is also under the sixth plague, which means it comes BEFORE those 45 days and hence cannot coincide with the "peace and safety" cries. Lastly, 19:19 says the armies gather to MAKE WAR against Jesus; sounds much more like an offensive move. I just don't see anything in Rev that supports the scenario you propose.

What is curious though is v 3. If it were referring to the Second Coming, and we know that the armies of the world will be gathered at Armageddon to make WAR against Jesus (Rev 19:19), why on earth would they be shouting "Peace and Safety" of all things?! ghtan Revelation 11:3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth. Revelation 11:5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed. Revelation 11:6 These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will. Revelation 11:7 And when they shall ***have finished their testimony****, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and ***kill them****. Revelation 11:8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified. Revelation 11:9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations ***shall see their dead bodies three days and an half****, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves. Revelation 11:10 And they that dwell upon the earth ****shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another****; because ***these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth***. Revelation 11:11 And after three days and an half the Spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them. Revelation 11:12 And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them. Revelation 11:13 And ***the same hour*** was there a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell, and in the earthquake were slain of men seven thousand: and the remnant were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of heaven. Jeremiah 51:39 In ***their heat*** I will make ***their feasts***, and I will make them drunken, ***that they may rejoice****, and sleep a perpetual sleep, and not wake, saith the LORD. Hi Sister, where do you fit the battle of Armageddon into the above sequence?

Any scriptural backing for this one? I seem to remember that the 'thief in the night' sayings were all directed at believers. Oh, how about this?: 1Now as to the times and the epochs, brethren, you have no need of anything to be written to you. 2For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night. 3While they are saying, “Peace and safety!” then destruction will come upon them suddenly like labor pains upon a woman with child, and they will not escape. 4But you, brethren, are not in darkness, that the day would overtake you like a thief; 5for you are all sons of light and sons of day. We are not of night nor of darkness; 6so then let us not sleep as others do, but let us be alert and sober. I take it you refer to v 4. However, there is no indication there that believers will be given any sense of timing. Instead, what Paul means is for us to be ALWAYS ready - hence alert and sober in v 6 - and the day will not overtake us like a thief. That is in line with Jesus' clear teaching in Mk 13:33 "Be on guard! Be alert! You DO NOT know when that time will come." What is curious though is v 3. If it were referring to the Second Coming, and we know that the armies of the world will be gathered at Armageddon to make WAR against Jesus (Rev 19:19), why on earth would they be shouting "Peace and Safety" of all things?!

Any scriptural backing for this one? I seem to remember that the 'thief in the night' sayings were all directed at believers.

I think whether he could have is very relevant. Are you asking me to find something in Revelation where Jesus tells John, "Oh, and by the way, I'm still in heaven in case you were wondering."? What I do know is that Jesus is God and God is omnipresent and those two facts are relevant. I don't need an explicit statement from the text when those two facts support the possibility. John says that he was "in the Spirit on the Lord's day" at the time of the revelation. Doesn't that give it a spiritual context to start with? When I put on immortality and understand fully then I'll be in a better position to answer your question. Until then, there's no point in debating something we're incapable of completely understanding (the trinity, election / free will, etc.). Jesus' staying in heaven until the restoration speaks to a specific purpose. I see it as pertaining to this, at least for starters: So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, “Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” Acts 1:6 Jesus ascended and the seven spirits of God have been active around the world since, convincing people of sin, as the gospel is preached in every nation. The Holy Spirit continues convincing the world of sin until the point of demarcation, the seventh trumpet, when Jesus takes over governance of the earth and restores the kingdom to Israel. Eventually Jesus hands the kingdom back to the Father and God becomes all in all. That's what I see as the restoration of all things. It begins at the seventh trumpet. Thanks for confirming that you cannot find anything in Rev 1 to indicate that Jesus was still in heaven when he appeared to John on earth, but that you base your view on the omnipresence of God. I thought I had missed out something in the text and hence it is important for me to know that I have not. I find it more fruitful to let Revelation speak for itself without imposing anything from outside. Take care. Whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time. Acts 3:21 If Jesus left heaven to visit John, then what exactly was the "restoration of all things"? It's obviously already happened, according to you, because of the "fruitful" way you look at Revelation. Please include quotes from the holy prophets. the restoration is at the Second Coming which, as I said previously, will be visible to ALL hence it does not stop Jesus from making less conspicuous visits earlier e.g. to John. Your Jesus seems to be under travel restrictions and a prisoner in his own home. Mine isn't.