What is the difference in the rapture and the second coming?

[Kan]

 

And in regards to the earthly setup of a kingdom, sequence is important. For example it may say that the saints reign on earth, true, but when? At the end of the thousand years when the new Jerusalem comes down from heaven or during the 1000 years that Satan has no one to tempt because they are all dead? - Someone pointed out from scripture that the wicked will be destroyed when Christ returns. 

 

Hi Kan

 

You are missing something very important!

When Christ returns he will lock Satan up for 1000 years.

 

 Revelation 20:2   And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

 

 Revelation 20:3   And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

 

 

 

Chapter 19, shows that when Christ returns that all flesh will be destroyed. There are no nations left after that event.

Besides the text that you have quoted above can be read like this "that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years" are over. He won't be tempting any nations until the resurrection of the wicked, which by the way is the second resurrection.

 

If the nations continue, and people die who are righteous, they will need to resurrected at some time, so there will be a third resurrection. but the Bible says there will only be two resurrections, a blessed one the first, and a sorry one, the second.

 

Going by the context of Revelation 18 and 19, I would say that the 1000 years are Satan bound to a desolate earth, with no one to tempt, until the second resurrection.

[Guest shiloh357]

Evidently,  littlelower is having some difficulty distinguishing the difference between a literal interpretation of Scripture and a face-value interpretation of Scripture.   When Jesus said, "if your right eye offends you pluck it out,"   we interpret it literally in that we look for the literal meaning behind the imagery.   Any grade school dunce knows that Jesus is not asking us to maim ourselves by plucking our eyes or cutting off our hands if we sin.    The literal interpretation is that we are to remove from our lives those things that serve as an impediment to our walk with the Lord.   If someone actually thinks that Jesus wants us to literally cut our hands off or something like that, isn't interpreting the Bible literally; they are employing an error-ridden, face-value approach to the text.  If I said, "it's raining cats and dogs"  the average person knows that cats and dogs are not falling out of the sky.  The Bible uses the same kinds of imagery and a literal approach to the text will tell me what is literally meant by the author.

 

Littleflower is good at cutting and pasting information about hermeneutics.   But there is a huge world of difference between cutting and pasting articles about hermeneutics and actually doing hermeneutics.   Littleflower's actual practice of hermeneutics is atrocious and proves she doesn't know what she is doing or what she is talking about.

 

The Bible is, among other things, literature and it follows the rules of literature and thus we can applies the rules of literary analysis (hermeneutics) to the Bible.   The Bible, besides containing different styles of literature also employs figurative language like metaphors, similes, allegory, symbolism, hyperbole, etc.   So when we encounter these things, we look for the literal meaning behind the figurative device employed by the author.

 

To say there is no literal approach to interpretation makes no sense.  The purpose of interpretation is to arrive at the literal meaning of the passage.  The author supplies the literal meaning.  To interpret the Bible literally means that we interpret the Bible as literature and that we interpret it in the light of the object the author has in view.

 

The Bible is very good at letting us know when symbolism is being employed.   There is nothing symbolic about the Millennial reign of Christ in Revelation 20. There is nothing symbolic about Satan being bound.   There are no internal textual indicators that we are dealing with symbolism and nothing in the text tells us, "this means that"  the way symbolism  always does.  We are not authorized to arbitrarily apply symbolism to a text that we don't want to accept as meaning exactly what it says. 

 

Jesus operates in three basic offices:  Jesus, while on earth ministered in the office of prophet (not saying Jesus was just a prophet). His ministry resembled the ministry of OT prophet.   Jesus is now operating in the office of High Priest and is, today, making intercession for us.   Jesus, at His second coming will operate in the office of Messiah/King.   He will reign from Israel on the earth for 1000 years.    He has to do this in order to fulfill all of his promises to Israel.

 

As God, Jesus is sovereign over the earth and has always reigned over the earth.   Jesus' reign didn't begin at the resurrection;  Jesus as the sovereign Creator and Master of the universe has always reigned.    But the Millennial Kingdom is part of earth's prophetic future where Jesus will come down and reign as a visible King over all of the world AFTER He has destroyed the anti-Christ, and false prophet and all of the unbelievers who took the mark.   

 

There is a distinction that must be made between Jesus' eternal reign as the sovereign king of the universe and the earthly role as King that he will prophetically fulfill as Israel's Messiah.   This is why Israel is being restored and the Jews are returning to the Land.   They are being gathered by God back to their land in unbelief according to Ezekiel 36 and 37 and they will find Jesus there in the Land.    This is the first phase of Israel's restoration.   It is during the Millennial reign of Christ that all of the promises made to Israel will finally be fulfilled and Israel will be high above the nations as God promised.  They will be the head and not the tail, above only and not beneath.   That has never been true in the past, but will come to pass in the Millennium.

[Sister]

Chapter 19, shows that when Christ returns that all flesh will be destroyed. There are no nations left after that event.

 

 

Where does it say that "all flesh will be destroyed"?

 

Revelation 19:15   And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

 

If there is no flesh left, then who is Christ going to rule over?  .....with his saints?

There has to be a population left over.  Christ work is not finished yet, only the system of "Babylon".  That old system that consisted of Satan's empires is gone, and the men he chose to do his dirty work will not be in control anymore.  This is the take-over by Christ himself with his saints, who are judged loyal to rule with him according to righteousness.

 

 Revelation 19:17   And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;

  Revelation 19:18   That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.

 

There will be a lot of death yes, especially those armies that gathered in Armageddon to war the saints.  All of them will be killed.  This is the winepress that Christ treads.  All those armies that gathered there against him.  Also men will be killed all over the earth outside that war area with hailstones and the great earthquake etc.

But not every single person will be killed, only the very wicked.  They will not share in the 1000 year peace.

 

Revelation 19:19   And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.

Revelation 19:21   And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

 

The remnant (left over) free and bond, small and great of all the nations will be destroyed (the very wicked)

 

Besides the text that you have quoted above can be read like this "that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years" are over. He won't be tempting any nations until the resurrection of the wicked, which by the way is the second resurrection.

 

 

 

It doesn't make sense what you are saying?

Are you saying that he cannot tempt the nations because there are no nations left?

and that he can only tempt them at the 2nd resurrection?

If so how does that compute?

 

 

If the nations continue, and people die who are righteous, they will need to resurrected at some time, so there will be a third resurrection. but the Bible says there will only be two resurrections, a blessed one the first, and a sorry one, the second.

 

No, that's why there is a 2nd resurrection also.

This is where the goats are separated from the sheep.

All the goats are thrown into the lake of fire (2nd death) and the sheep will be resurrected.

All those who did not know Christ will be judged according to their deeds (the books)

Some, believe it or not, will receive mercy if their deeds are not all bad.  God looks into the heart.  Many were born before Christ and did not know him, or children and babies who died young.

And those who come to Christ during the millennium will be judged differently. Jews and gentiles.  They are written in the Lambs book of life.

 

 

 

Going by the context of Revelation 18 and 19, I would say that the 1000 years are Satan bound to a desolate earth, with no one to tempt, until the second resurrection.

 

 

If we are hungry for truth, we will find that Christ's job is not finished after he destroys Babylon, but has more to do and that starts at the millennium with restoring Israel. The gentiles (survivors) will hear truth and without distraction from the enemy, and many many souls will worship the Lord of Lords and King of Kings.  Plenty more generations to come, hence the reason for the 1000 years.

 

I'm sorry but you have a lot of catching up to do brother.  Please don't take offence, but you are miles behind.  The most important thing is that you catch up.  Sorry for being so blunt, but time is short.  There's a lot of information in the OT that will make the picture complete.

[Sister]

Kan

 

Here are some scriptures for you dear brother.

 

Isaiah 14:4   That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!

(the King of Babylon is Satan.  His golden city is Babylon.  This prophecy concerns the take-over by Christ)

Isaiah 14:5   The LORD hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the sceptre of the rulers.
(The wicked are no longer ruling - Satan's men, for they are cut off)

 

Isaiah 14:6   He who smote the people in wrath with a continual stroke, he that ruled the nations in anger, is persecuted, and none hindereth.
(He = Satan.  Since the beginning he has ruled unjustly.  He is going to be persecuted now - 1000 years in prison first.  No one can stop it)

 

Isaiah 14:7   The whole earth is at rest, and is quiet: they break forth into singing.
(Finally peace for a time, the earth rejoices)

 

Isaiah 14:8   Yea, the fir trees rejoice at thee, and the cedars of Lebanon, saying, Since thou art laid down, no feller is come up against us.

(The trees symbolise people, they are not being cut down anymore.  No more wars, no oppression.)

 

Isaiah 14:9   Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.
(Hell is waiting for Satan, even the dead are being stirred for his arrival.  The 2nd judgement is waiting for him and his men.  This is the beautiful poetry God uses to describe what's going to happen to him)

 

Isaiah 14:10   All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us?

(Where is his strength now?  Satan will be judged like a man)

[ARGOSY]

Hi Kan & Shiloh357,

 

We, the Body of Christ WILL NOT be reigning ON the earth, EVER. There are NO scriptures for this & it is NOT God`s purpose for the Body of Christ.

 

Shiloh, if you would like a soap-box debate on this I would gladly discuss/debate with you. Since we are both pre-tribbers then we will not have that obstacle to deal with. I`m sure we can both learn from each other, bro.

 

Marilyn.

 

Rev 2

26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:

27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.

 

Its the sinful nations that Jesus will rule over, and faithful Christians will have power over.  Where do you think this will occur?

 

What "world" shall the saints judge in the future:

1 corinthians 6:2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?

[thereselittleflower]

I am concerned about how english words and the english language are being twisted and abused to justify a method of scripture interpretation for which there is no legitimate support.

 

The words literal and symbolic are antonyms, not synonyms.   

 

 

 

As I demonstrated before by defnition, the word Literal has to do with words, their actual meaning, not the meaning behind a figurative use of the words.

 

This is easily demonstrated by the phrase   

 

It's raining cats and dogs.

 

The literal meaning of the words "cats" and "dogs"  would be  "cats" and "dogs" and then that would mean we are saying:

 

Cats and dogs are falling from the sky like rain.

 

We all know that the phrase  "it's raining cats and dogs" is not telling us that literally cats and dogs are falling from the sky.    We all know that the phrase "its raining cats and dogs" is employing figurative language, that the words  "cats" and "dogs" are not literal "cats" and "dogs" but in this phrase simply means it's raining a lot.

 

We are not looking here for the "literal" meaning of the words "cats and dogs".  We are looking for the symbolic meaning of these words used.

 

Again, let's look at the definition of symbolic and see what meaning we are told it involves - does understanding symbolism involve determining its literal meaning or symbolic meaning?

 

sym·bol·ic

  (sĭm-bŏl′ĭk) also sym·bol·i·cal (-ĭ-kəl)

adj.

1.

a. Serving as a symbol: Roses are symbolic of love.

b. Serving as a particular instance of a broader pattern or situation; representative: The new building is symbolic of the recent changes that have taken place in the neighborhood.

2. Of, relating to, or expressed by means of symbols or a symbol: the symbolic meaning of the poem.

3. Using symbolism: symbolic art.

 

 

and again:

 

symbolism

 

noun

1.   the practice of representing things by symbols, or of investing things with a symbolic meaning or character.  

 

2.   a set or system of symbols.

 

3.   symbolic meaning or character.

 

4.   the principles and practice of symbolists in art or literature.

 

5.   (initial capital letter) a movement of the late 19th century in Frenchart and literature.

Compare symbolist (defs 3b, 4b).

 

6.    the use of any of certain special figures or marks of identification to signify a religious message or divine being, as the cross for Christ and the Christian faith.

 

The symbolic meaning tells us what the symbol means.   There is no such thing as a "literal meaning" of a symbol in any definition of symbolism, and never should we look for one.  

 

When we read symbolic language, we look for its MEANING.  Since the words are not literal, we do not look for a literal meaning.    It means we look for the symbolic meaning.  We don't look for a literal meaning because the language used is not meant to be understood in a literal fashion.

 

 

In contrast, "literal meaning" is only found when looking at a word used in its literal sense, ie when it is not being used symbolically:

 

 

Literal

 

in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical: the literal meaning of a word.

 

 

 

Here is a very basic grammar lesson for children regarding what literal meaning is and is not:

 

What Is the Definition of 'Literal Meaning'? (with Examples)

 

The term literal meaning denotes that all words are in strict accordance with their original meanings. In other words, to apply the literal meaning is to take the words in their most basic sense without metaphor or exaggeration.

 

Examples of Literal Meaning

Here are some examples of literal meaning:

• The comedian died on the stage.

•     (In the literal meaning, the comedian actually died. This contrasts with the figurative sense, which would mean that the comedian struggled to make the audience laugh.)

• I have thrown the proposal out.

•      (In the literal meaning, the proposal has actually been thrown out as opposed to just dismissed.) 

• John managed to escape the wolves.

•      (In the literal meaning, John actually succeeded in getting away from some genuine wolves as opposed to, say, avoiding a verbal bashing at a meeting from aggressive colleagues.)

http://www.grammar-monster.com/glossary/literal_meaning.htm

 

 

As we can see, looking for a so-called "literal meaning" of a symbolic word or words flies in the face of all logic and right use of reason regarding language, grammar and its proper use.    

 

This fabrication of "literal meaning" for symbolic words as a method of scripture interpretation  is nothing more than an invention by some to confuse in order to justify wrongly interpreting symbolic language literally.  It is pseudo-intellectualism and illogical to its core.   It is a gross distortion of the Biblical Literalism approach.   Biblical literalism holds to the doctrine of the Clarity of Scripture.  

 

Biblical Literalism is also know as the historical-grammatical method, a hermeneutic technique that strives to uncover the meaning of the text by taking into account not just the grammatical words, but also the syntactical aspects, the cultural and historical background, and the literary genre. 

 

The doctrine of clarity of scripture does not mean that no interpretative principles are necessary, or that there is no gap between the culture in which the Bible was written and the culture of a modern reader. Instead, exegetical and interpretative principles are utilized as part of the process of closing that cultural gap. 

 

Biblical literalists believe that, unless a passage is clearly intended as allegory, poetry, or some other genre, the Bible should be interpreted as literal statements by the author.

 

And so we see even in the approach of Biblical Literalism, which is the historical-grammatical method, it is recognized that a genre that is symbolic in nature is not treated as making literal statements by the author, and so, literal meaning would not and should not be sought from symbolic words.    There is no such thing as looking for "literal meaning" from alleogry, poetry or other genre which presents as symbolic representation of thoughts.

 

 

In the book of Revelation, we are dealing with a particular genre that uses highly symbolic language and that genre is called apocalyptic genre. 

 

The words "a thousand years" are symbollc and we should look for their symbolic meaning, not some psuedo-intellectual so-called 'literal meaning.'  As these words cannot be interpreted in their strict most basic sense, there is no 'literal meaning' to be found..   Since the phrase  "a thousand years" is symbollic, it cannot mean a literal 1000 years by definition.   There is nothing literal to take away from those words.  

 

We must look for what these word symbolize - for their symbolic meaning.  In the ancient mid east languages and cultures, this phrase "a thousand years" symbolizs a very long time and is not an exact measure of the number of years involved.

 

 

Without this "a thousand years" being a literal 1000 years, this necessary and foundational pillar of dispensational theology falls.  And this, those who are so staunchly dispensationalist, cannot allow to happen, as then their entire theology of end times and how it affects their understanding of christianity, unravels.  And so we see the mental and grammatical gymnastics we have been witness to, trying to invent a method of scripture intrepretation that does not exist, in order to justify interpreting symbolic language literally.

 

 

And here we see the very fundamental error in this statement and belief:

 

" The purpose of interpretation is to arrive at the literal meaning of the passage.  The author supplies the literal meaning."

 

The purpose of interpretation is not to arrive at a literal meaning of a passage (unless the passage is written and meant to be understood plainly and literally).

 

The purpose of interpretation is to arrive at the TRUE meaning of a passage, which may be literal or symbolic.    

 

The author supplies either a symbolic meaning or a literal meaning.  If it is symbolic, then the TRUE meaning we are to arrive at is the symbolic meaning of those words.

 

 

And thus we see the reason for Peter's warning take shape:

 

2 Peter 3:16

As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable twist, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Edited July 12, 2015 by thereselittleflower

[thereselittleflower]

The argument of where and when the body of Christ will be reigning is easy to solve when we understand that since Christ is reigning over the kings of the earth now, and the thousand years is now, then also Christ's body is reigning with him now on the earth.

 

Just because the inhabitants of earth are in rebellion to that rule, it doesn't mean Christ and the Church are not reigning now.   It means Christ's enemies are still being put under his feat while he reigns.

Edited July 12, 2015 by thereselittleflower

[Ezra]

These passages are highly symbolic.   They are found in the most symbolic book of the bible.    

Christ is reigning now over the kings of the earth just as the apostle John tells us in Rev 1:5.

Symbolic of what?  The imagery in Revelation is interwoven with actual events which will occur in the future.  Otherewise the Second Coming of Christ is simply a fantasy.  Is that what you wish to believe or have others believe?

 

"Christ is reigning now over the kings of the earth".  Is that also a "symbolic statement" or is it a statement of fact?

 

If it is indeed a statement of fact then there should not be a single war on earth, a single tyrant on earth, a single child going hungry, a single person remaining sick or diseased, a single person in abject poverty.  Indeed, Satan and his evil spirits should be locked up.  But since it is crystal clear that this world is currently a mess, and that there will be more and more evil on this earth until the Second Coming, your statement must be taken as "symbolic" only, with absolutely no foundation in reality.

 

While God is sovereign over this universe, He is allowing the earth to go further and further into sin, evil, and apostasy, therefore Christ is NOT ruling over (and over ruling) Putin, or ISIS, or Obama, or China.  The Antichrist will appear on the earth in the near future and cause THE WHOLE WORLD to worship Satan and the Beast.  I already gave you the Scriptures, but you simply ignored them.

[Ezra]

To assert that Christ is presently ruling over this earth when everything is getting more and more evil DOES NOT BRING GLORY TO GOD OR TO CHRIST.  Indeed if an unbeliever hears this, he will simply mock Christ and dismiss Christianity as fantasies of the first order.

 

No Christian should deceive himself or others by claiming that the Lord Jesus Christ is ruling over a mess (whether political, economic, or religious).  The Bible clearly reveals that when the Lord Jesus Christ truly reigns on earth, every kind of sin and evil will be abolished from this earth, and all evildoers will have been detroyed and consigned to Hell.  Those who wish to confirm this should study the Scriptures for themselves.

[Guest shiloh357]

No one is claiming that literal and symbolic are synonymous. But they are not antonyms in literature.   Symbols are representatives of a literal truth.   Symbols are a figurative literary devices that represent or stand for  a literal meaning the author is intending to convey.   Symbols are a tools to help us arrive at the literal meaning.  They are not the opposite of literalism.

 

The problem here is that you are simply dealing with words in a piece of literature like the Bible.  In dealing with the literal meaning of  verse of Scripture, for example, we have to take into account the kind of literature and the historical context that flavors the passage, as well as the literary context and over intended direction or line of thought of a given passage.  What is the subject matter at hand?  Next we look for symbolism,  or perhaps a play on words or exaggerated statements called hyperbole.   We look for similes, metaphors, etc.   This is more than just a literal meaning of a word.

 

Littleflower is good at oversimplifying what the concept of literalism applies to in literature.  It is not just the literal meanng of a word but how the word is used.   For example:  The English word "love" has a literal meaning all on its own, but it can be used in different ways.   A man says, "I love my wife" and we understand what he means, naturally.   But if the same man says, "I love the Chicago Bulls"   we do not apply the same meaning to "love"  that we did when he said, "I love my wife."   We instantly know that "love" meant one thing in regards to his wife, and a totally different thing regarding the Chicago Bulls.

 

What about when I say,  "I just love it, when people cut me off in traffic?"   Now I am using the word love to mean "hate."  So even though "love" as a literal meaning, it actually means different things depending on how it is used.   Word usage always trumps the original lexical definition of a word depending on how it is used.

 

That is true even in the Bible.  Paul uses the word "justification"  to explain our standing before God under grace.   James uses the same word to explain how our works justify our testimony of faith.     So  it is important not to employ the kind of shallow, one-dimensional use of "literal"  the way that littleflower is using it.

 

To argue that symbolism is opposite literalism is to not really understand what literalism means in the world of literary analysis.   Symbolism is a tool in literature to communicate a literal meaning.  And this is true whether you are talking about symbolism, metaphors, or similes or other figurative.

 

So when you are making a textual argument that something is symbolic, the onus is on you to point to the internal textual indicators that demand that we understand that symbols are being employed.

 

When it comes to Revelation 20, littleflower can't do that.   She cannot point to any internal textual indicators and has not done so thus far because they are not there.   There is nothing in the passage that indicates symbolism is even employed.

 

Revelation does use symbolism, but the book of Revelation always tells you  when symbolism is being employed.   The book of Revelation is NOT 100% symbolism.  You cannot arbitrarily apply symbolism to everything in the book of Revelation.   One of the main reasons the book of Revelation is hard for some to understand is because of the confusion surrounding what is symbolic and what isn't. 

 

Littleflower arbitrarily assigns symbolism to "1,000 years"  and she does so based on nothing but an assumption.  Nothing in the text says that symbolism is being used. Nothing about Satan being bound is claimed by the text to be symbolic.    When you claim that symbolism is being used, you are making a textual argument and you must provide textual evidence.   Littlelfower has none.   She assumes that since Revelation employs symbolism that she can just assign symbolism where she wants as if the entire book is nothing but symbolism and that is sloppy exegesis of the first order.

 

What littleflower hasn't learned yet is that the literal meaning IS the true meaning.   Why is that???   It is because the true meaning is the meaning the author supplies.   The reader doesn't decide what a biblical passage means.   Interpretation is about getting to the true meaning, which is the literal truth the author is trying to convey.

 

To try and argue that the literal meaning is different than the true  meaning is as silly as trying to parse the difference between "chopping down the tree"  and "cutting down the tree."    It really is ridiculous on its face.

 

The bottom line is, littleflower can talk a good game about exegesis , but she can't actually DO exegesis in that she cannot provide any internal textual indicators from Revelation 20 that the 1,000 years, or the binding of Satan are symbolic.   And she never will provide them.  Cause they don't exist.  As far as I can tell, all she can respond with is the same broken record over and over and over in each post.