Kings of the Earth

[TMSO]

Here it is. I looked up "kings of the earth" and have put down every verse these words show up in together. (The words are in bold.) That question is. Can anyone read these verses and state definitively that "kings of the earth" are high priests? Do note, these are all the verses that came up in the search. 32 references. Every single passage seems to make it clear that "kings of the earth", are literally that. Kings of the earth.

Here are the verses:

"

And men of all nations, from all the kings of the earth who had heard of his wisdom, came to hear the wisdom of Solomon."[I Kings 4:34]

So King Solomon surpassed all the kings of the earth in riches and wisdom. [1 Kings 10:23]

So King Solomon surpassed all the kings of the earth in riches and wisdom. [Not a repeat. 2 Chron 9:22]

And all the kings of the earth sought the presence of Solomon to hear his wisdom, which God had put in his heart. [2 Chron 9:23]

With kings and counselors of the earth, Who built ruins for themselves, [Job 3:14]

The kings of the earth set themselves, And the rulers take counsel together, Against the Lord and against His Anointed, saying, [Psalm 2:2]

Now therefore, be wise, O kings; Be instructed, you judges of the earth. [Psalm 2:10]

He shall cut off the spirit of princes; He is awesome to the kings of the earth. [Psalm 76:12]

Also I will make him My firstborn, The highest of the kings of the earth. [Psalm 89:27]

So the nations shall fear the name of the Lord, And all the kings of the earth Your glory. [Psalm 102:15]

All the kings of the earth shall praise You, O Lord, When they hear the words of Your mouth. [Psalm 138:4]

Kings of the earth and all peoples; Princes and all judges of the earth; [Psalm 148:11]

As the heavens for height and the earth for depth, So the heart of kings is unsearchable. [Proverbs 25:3]

“Hell from beneath is excited about you, To meet you at your coming; It stirs up the dead for you, All the chief ones of the earth; It has raised up from their thrones All the kings of the nations.[Isaiah 24:21]

It shall come to pass in that day That the Lord will punish on high the host of exalted ones, And on the earth the kings of the earth. [Isaiah 24:21]

Kings shall be your foster fathers, And their queens your nursing mothers; They shall bow down to you with their faces to the earth, And lick up the dust of your feet. Then you will know that I am the Lord, For they shall not be ashamed who wait for Me.” [Isaiah 49:23]

all the kings of the north, far and near, one with another; and all the kingdoms of the world which are on the face of the earth. Also the king of Sheshach shall drink after them. [Jeremiah 25:26]

“Behold, a people shall come from the north, And a great nation and many kings Shall be raised up from the ends of the earth. [Jeremiah 50:41]

The kings of the earth, And all inhabitants of the world, Would not have believed That the adversary and the enemy Could enter the gates of Jerusalem— [Lamentations 4:12]

‘When your wares went out by sea, You satisfied many people; You enriched the kings of the earth With your many luxury goods and your merchandise. [Ezekiel 27:33]

‘Those great beasts, which are four, are four kings which arise out of the earth. [Daniel 7:17]

He said, “Yes.” And when he had come into the house, Jesus anticipated him, saying, “What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take customs or taxes, from their sons or from strangers?” [Matthew 17:25]

The kings of the earth took their stand, And the rulers were gathered together Against the Lord and against His Christ.’[Acts 4:26]

and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth. To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood,[Revelation 1:5]

And the kings of the earth, the great men, the rich men, the commanders, the mighty men, every slave and every free man, hid themselves in the caves and in the rocks of the mountains, [Revelation 6:15]

For they are spirits of demons, performing signs, which go out to the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty. [Revelation 16:14]

with whom the kings of the earth committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth were made drunk with the wine of her fornication.”[Revelation 17:2]

And the woman whom you saw is that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth.”[Revelation 17:18]

For all the nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth have become rich through the abundance of her luxury.”
[Revelation 18:3]

“The kings of the earth who committed fornication and lived luxuriously with her will weep and lament for her, when they see the smoke of her burning, [Revelation 18:9]

And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army.[Revelation 19:19]

And the nations of those who are saved shall walk in its light, and the kings of the earth bring their glory and honor into it. [Revelation 21:24]

 

[TMSO]

@3 Resurrections

Here are the verses from Revelation:

and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth. To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood,[Revelation 1:5]

I understand. Jesus isn't actually the ruler over actual kings of the earth, only the high priest.

And the kings of the earth, the great men, the rich men, the commanders, the mighty men, every slave and every free man, hid themselves in the caves and in the rocks of the mountains, [Revelation 6:15]

Again, this is obviously speaking of actual kings of the earth.

For they are spirits of demons, performing signs, which go out to the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty. [Revelation 16:14]

This also speaks for itself.

with whom the kings of the earth committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth were made drunk with the wine of her fornication.”[Revelation 17:2]

This also speaks for itself.

And the woman whom you saw is that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth.”[Revelation 17:18]

So, here is where you see a city ruling over the kings of the earth. It is clearly stated in your comment that Rome rules over the [high priests] kings of the earth, which, again, means the woman is Rome. Either this, or Rome did not rule over the high priests, or the high priests are not the kings of the earth.

For all the nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth have become rich through the abundance of her luxury.”
[Revelation 18:3]
This verse also speaks for itself.

“The kings of the earth who committed fornication and lived luxuriously with her will weep and lament for her, when they see the smoke of her burning, [Revelation 18:9]

So there must be more than one high priest in the office, except that tradition is clear. There is only one high priest, and the deputy is NOT considered a high priest. It really speaks of the kings of the earth, not the high priests.

Revelation 19 19 And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army. 20 Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone. 21 And the rest were killed with the sword which proceeded from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse. And all the birds were filled with their flesh.

This verse is VERY clear who is being spoken of. Not the high priests.

Revelation 21 "22 But I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. 23 The city had no need of the sun or of the moon to shine [l]in it, for the [m]glory of God illuminated it. The Lamb is its light. 24 And the nations [n]of those who are saved shall walk in its light, and the kings of the earth bring their glory and honor [o]into it. 25 Its gates shall not be shut at all by day (there shall be no night there). 26 And they shall bring the glory and the honor of the nations into [p]it. 27 But there shall by no means enter it anything [q]that defiles, or causes an abomination or a lie, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s Book of Life."

Again, speaks for itself.

 

[TMSO]

@3 Resurrections

From another forum: (Theos)
"In preparation for writing this comment, I've listened to Steve's lecture on his Rev. 17:9-18 section, as well as his lecture on Matthew 17:24-27. These Matthew 17:24-27 verses are part of the proof that the phrase "kings of the earth" (appearing 9 times in Revelation, as well as other places in scripture) is referring specifically to the HIGH PRIESTS of the land of Israel. This single point has great ramifications for how one interprets Revelation's prophecies. If one doesn't understand this one definition of who these "kings of the earth" are, there are many passages where one's interpretations can go off track. This definition of "kings of the earth" as high priests can even confirm a pre-AD 70 date for Revelation as well."

The problem with this statement is that Matthew 17:24-27 offers no proof.

"24 When they had come to [h]Capernaum, those who received the [i]temple tax came to Peter and said, “Does your Teacher not pay the temple tax?”

25 He said, “Yes.”

And when he had come into the house, Jesus anticipated him, saying, “What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take customs or taxes, from their sons or from strangers?”

[What are the high priests doing taking customs? Here Jesus is clear that these kings of the earth levy both customs and taxes, so Jesus asks who these kings of the earth take customs or taxes from. This can't be the high priests, because, again, the high priests do not levy customs, and never had. Jesus speaks of actual kings of the earth who levy actual customs and taxes. The high priest does not levy taxes, God was the one who levies the tax, and instituted it in Exodus 30.

26 Peter said to Him, “From strangers.”

Jesus said to him, “Then the sons are free. 27 Nevertheless, lest we offend them, go to the sea, cast in a hook, and take the fish that comes up first. And when you have opened its mouth, you will find a [j]piece of money; take that and give it to them for Me and you.”"

[Someone made the point to say that this means that of the disciples, only Peter was over the age of 20...]

 

[3 Resurrections]

So, here is where you see a city ruling over the kings of the earth. It is clearly stated in your comment that Rome rules over the [high priests] kings of the earth, which, again, means the woman is Rome. Either this, or Rome did not rule over the high priests, or the high priests are not the kings of the earth.

No, I didn't say the woman is Rome. I said the harlot Mystery Babylon was Rome-governed Jerusalem, which had the high priesthood under its thumb in those days. The high priesthood was willingly collaborating with their Roman governors in order to "preserve our place and our nation" as Caiaphas admitted. The priesthood as the Rev. 13 Land Beast was acting in unison with the Roman Sea Beast by "exercising all the power of the first beast before it" (in its direct line of sight on the temple grounds opposite the Roman fortress of Antonia). Rome was allowing Judaism to operate as a "religio licita" - a state approved religion - with certain restrictions and provisions. The high priesthood had some autonomy, as long as they kept offering a daily sacrifice in honor of the empire and the emperor. This was the blend of both the Roman "iron" and the Israelite "clay" in Daniel's statue which never blended together very well.

And every one of the references you submitted above concerning the "kings of the earth" refers to high priesthood activity; many of them being former high priests, which still retained the title, just like Annas did when Caiaphas was the actual high priest serving at the time of Christ's crucifixion.

 

[TMSO]

No, I didn't say the woman is Rome. I said the harlot Mystery Babylon was Rome-governed Jerusalem, which had the high priesthood under its thumb in those days. The high priesthood was willingly collaborating with their Roman governors in order to "preserve our place and our nation" as Caiaphas admitted.

So He admitted that they were collaborating with Rome. Got it.

The priesthood as the Rev. 13 Land Beast was acting in unison with the Roman Sea Beast by "exercising all the power of the first beast before it" (in its direct line of sight on the temple grounds opposite the Roman fortress of Antonia). Rome was allowing Judaism to operate as a "religio licita" - a state approved religion - with certain restrictions and provisions. The high priesthood had some autonomy, as long as they kept offering a daily sacrifice in honor of the empire and the emperor. This was the blend of both the Roman "iron" and the Israelite "clay" in Daniel's statue which never blended together very well.

The thing you are not seeing is that the sea beast, scarlet beast, etc, are all amalgamations. A final satanic city, and the antichrist, the satanic ruler of the city. Consider Daniel's prophecies again:

"9 “I watched till thrones were [d]put in place,
And the Ancient of Days was seated;
His garment was white as snow,
And the hair of His head was like pure wool.
His throne was a fiery flame,
Its wheels a burning fire;
10 A fiery stream issued
And came forth from before Him.
A thousand thousands ministered to Him;
Ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him.
The [e]court was seated,
And the books were opened.
11 “I watched then because of the sound of the [f]pompous words which the horn was speaking; I watched till the beast was slain, and its body destroyed and given to the burning flame. 12 As for the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away, yet their lives were prolonged for a season and a time.

13 “I was watching in the night visions,
And behold, One like the Son of Man,
Coming with the clouds of heaven!
He came to the Ancient of Days,
And they brought Him near before Him.
14 Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom,
That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion,
Which shall not pass away,
And His kingdom the one
Which shall not be destroyed.

This clearly speaks of the end of time. Remember, the kingdom if the reflection of the ruler. Can this now truly be Jesus final kingdom? The one you say came into being in 70AD? Does Jesus rule over sin, and freely accept it forever in His Kingdom? Or is there a final day coming when Jesus Kingdom will be unveiled for all to see, after His enemies are destroyed? Notice verse 12. Their dominion was taken away, but their lives were prolonged for a season and a time. For something to come.

And every one of the references you submitted above concerning the "kings of the earth" refers to high priesthood activity; many of them being former high priests, which still retained the title, just like Annas did when Caiaphas was the actual high priest serving at the time of Christ's crucifixion.

Unfortunately... no. Perhaps you would present an argument for every reference? Even Psalm 2 did not refer to High Priests. If it did, they were part of the rulers, not the kings of the earth.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Consider Daniel's prophecies again:

"9 “I watched till thrones were [d]put in place,
And the Ancient of Days was seated;
His garment was white as snow,
And the hair of His head was like pure wool.
His throne was a fiery flame,
Its wheels a burning fire;
10 A fiery stream issued
And came forth from before Him.
A thousand thousands ministered to Him;
Ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him.
The [e]court was seated,
And the books were opened.
11 “I watched then because of the sound of the [f]pompous words which the horn was speaking; I watched till the beast was slain, and its body destroyed and given to the burning flame. 12 As for the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away, yet their lives were prolonged for a season and a time.

13 “I was watching in the night visions,
And behold, One like the Son of Man,
Coming with the clouds of heaven!
He came to the Ancient of Days,
And they brought Him near before Him.
14 Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom,
That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion,
Which shall not pass away,
And His kingdom the one
Which shall not be destroyed.

This clearly speaks of the end of time.

No, this passage clearly speaks of the occasion of the ascension of Christ on His resurrection day when He was given dominion, and glory, and a kingdom of the High Priesthood in heaven. Even before Christ left his disciples for a final time at the end of the forty days, He announced to them that He had already been given this power of a kingdom by His Father. "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore and teach all nations..."

Jesus is presently ruling "in the midst of His enemies", as was foretold of Him. In large part, this is done by the indwelling Holy Spirit in every single believer as an ambassador who takes that reign of Christ everywhere they go in this world. One day He will return yet again for a final judgment to purge this plant of the presence of any human evil remaining in it.

Notice verse 12. Their dominion was taken away, but their lives were prolonged for a season and a time. For something to come.

This is all long past. The empires of Babylon, Medo-Persian, Greece, and Roman all had their time of dominion prolonged for a certain season and time. However, these have all passed away with the destruction of Daniel's entire image by Christ the stone kingdom, which is currently growing into a great mountain that will fill the whole world with its effects by the close of human history.

Unfortunately... no. Perhaps you would present an argument for every reference? Even Psalm 2 did not refer to High Priests. If it did, they were part of the rulers, not the kings of the earth.

Don't really have a bunch of time to devote to that today, but for certain, Psalms 2:2 was referring to the high priests (Annas and Caiaphas) who conspired together with the other rulers of the Sanhedrin to put God's Anointed One Christ Jesus to death.

 

[TMSO]

No, this passage clearly speaks of the occasion of the ascension of Christ on His resurrection day when He was given dominion, and glory, and a kingdom of the High Priesthood in heaven. Even before Christ left his disciples for a final time at the end of the forty days, He announced to them that He had already been given this power of a kingdom by His Father. "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore and teach all nations..."

Jesus is presently ruling "in the midst of His enemies", as was foretold of Him. In large part, this is done by the indwelling Holy Spirit in every single believer as an ambassador who takes that reign of Christ everywhere they go in this world. One day He will return yet again for a final judgment to purge this plant of the presence of any human evil remaining in it.

If He is ruling now, then the millennium did not end in 33 AD. The millennium is the time of HIs rule before He turns the kingdom over to His Father, as Paul says in I Corinthians.

This is all long past. The empires of Babylon, Medo-Persian, Greece, and Roman all had their time of dominion prolonged for a certain season and time. However, these have all passed away with the destruction of Daniel's entire image by Christ the stone kingdom, which is currently growing into a great mountain that will fill the whole world with its effects by the close of human history.

Human history closes at the end of the millennium, which you say was 33 AD. We are still here, therefore this did not happen. Why? The millennium had not yet happened.

Don't really have a bunch of time to devote to that today, but for certain, Psalms 2:2 was referring to the high priests (Annas and Caiaphas) who conspired together with the other rulers of the Sanhedrin to put God's Anointed One Christ Jesus to death.

Would you not agree that it would be those fulfilling the prophecy who would ensure that Jesus was labeled "King of the Jews"? The religious leaders (high priest, and others) refused to allow this. The Romans were the one who ensured all would see that Jesus was the King of the Jews. And the Jewish leaders and Romans were in counsel together to make it happen. The Romans were the kings of earth in this case.

 

[3 Resurrections]

If He is ruling now, then the millennium did not end in 33 AD. The millennium is the time of HIs rule before He turns the kingdom over to His Father, as Paul says in I Corinthians.

There is no time limit to Christ's rule, which scripture says is to endure forever. The time limitation of a thousand years is only put upon SATAN'S ability to deceive the nations during that period. Christ never relinquishes control of the kingdom. When it says in 1 Cor. 15:24 that when the end comes, Christ "delivers up the kingdom to the Father", this is the resurrected children of the kingdom which are "presented faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy." (Jude 24). This is a fulfillment of Christ saying, "Behold, I and the children whom thou hast given me." The Rev. 20 millennium was going to be finished when the "First resurrection" had taken place (which was in AD 33 with Christ and the resurrected "remnant of the dead" which lived again at the end of that millennium - namely, the Matthew 27:52-53 saints).

Human history closes at the end of the millennium, which you say was 33 AD. We are still here, therefore this did not happen. Why? The millennium had not yet happened.

Scripture never says that human history ends at the close of the Revelation 20 millennium. This is a presumption.

Would you not agree that it would be those fulfilling the prophecy who would ensure that Jesus was labeled "King of the Jews"? The religious leaders (high priest, and others) refused to allow this. The Romans were the one who ensured all would see that Jesus was the King of the Jews. And the Jewish leaders and Romans were in counsel together to make it happen. The Romans were the kings of earth in this case.

No, the Romans were not the "kings of the earth" that were "taking counsel together against the Lord and against His Anointed" in order to "cast away their cords from us". God never had Rome in a covenant relationship of those "cords of love" which He bound His people to Him under the OC. Pilate earnestly labored to free Christ - and was only persuaded to capitulate to the high priest "kings of the earth" and religious rulers' demands when he saw that a riot was going to ensue. It was his job as governor to preserve peace in Jerusalem, which is why he reluctantly agreed to the crucifixion demanded by the high priests and religious rulers of the Jews. Pilate never conspired together with the "kings of the earth" and the religious rulers to achieve Christ's death. The "heathen rage" going on in Psalms 2:1 was the Romans soldiers mocking Christ at His trial.

And Pilate insisting that Christ have the title "King of the Jews" was acknowledging Christ's own statement to Pilate's question, "Are you a king, then?" Christ said that He was, with a kingdom not of this world, and Pilate only acknowledged that truth by putting it in writing for all to see.

 

[Hobie]

Here it is. I looked up "kings of the earth" and have put down every verse these words show up in together. (The words are in bold.) That question is. Can anyone read these verses and state definitively that "kings of the earth" are high priests? Do note, these are all the verses that came up in the search. 32 references. Every single passage seems to make it clear that "kings of the earth", are literally that. Kings of the earth.

Here are the verses:

"

And men of all nations, from all the kings of the earth who had heard of his wisdom, came to hear the wisdom of Solomon."[I Kings 4:34]

So King Solomon surpassed all the kings of the earth in riches and wisdom. [1 Kings 10:23]

So King Solomon surpassed all the kings of the earth in riches and wisdom. [Not a repeat. 2 Chron 9:22]

And all the kings of the earth sought the presence of Solomon to hear his wisdom, which God had put in his heart. [2 Chron 9:23]

With kings and counselors of the earth, Who built ruins for themselves, [Job 3:14]

The kings of the earth set themselves, And the rulers take counsel together, Against the Lord and against His Anointed, saying, [Psalm 2:2]

Now therefore, be wise, O kings; Be instructed, you judges of the earth. [Psalm 2:10]

He shall cut off the spirit of princes; He is awesome to the kings of the earth. [Psalm 76:12]

Also I will make him My firstborn, The highest of the kings of the earth. [Psalm 89:27]

So the nations shall fear the name of the Lord, And all the kings of the earth Your glory. [Psalm 102:15]

All the kings of the earth shall praise You, O Lord, When they hear the words of Your mouth. [Psalm 138:4]

Kings of the earth and all peoples; Princes and all judges of the earth; [Psalm 148:11]

As the heavens for height and the earth for depth, So the heart of kings is unsearchable. [Proverbs 25:3]

“Hell from beneath is excited about you, To meet you at your coming; It stirs up the dead for you, All the chief ones of the earth; It has raised up from their thrones All the kings of the nations.[Isaiah 24:21]

It shall come to pass in that day That the Lord will punish on high the host of exalted ones, And on the earth the kings of the earth. [Isaiah 24:21]

Kings shall be your foster fathers, And their queens your nursing mothers; They shall bow down to you with their faces to the earth, And lick up the dust of your feet. Then you will know that I am the Lord, For they shall not be ashamed who wait for Me.” [Isaiah 49:23]

all the kings of the north, far and near, one with another; and all the kingdoms of the world which are on the face of the earth. Also the king of Sheshach shall drink after them. [Jeremiah 25:26]

“Behold, a people shall come from the north, And a great nation and many kings Shall be raised up from the ends of the earth. [Jeremiah 50:41]

The kings of the earth, And all inhabitants of the world, Would not have believed That the adversary and the enemy Could enter the gates of Jerusalem— [Lamentations 4:12]

‘When your wares went out by sea, You satisfied many people; You enriched the kings of the earth With your many luxury goods and your merchandise. [Ezekiel 27:33]

‘Those great beasts, which are four, are four kings which arise out of the earth. [Daniel 7:17]

He said, “Yes.” And when he had come into the house, Jesus anticipated him, saying, “What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take customs or taxes, from their sons or from strangers?” [Matthew 17:25]

The kings of the earth took their stand, And the rulers were gathered together Against the Lord and against His Christ.’[Acts 4:26]

and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth. To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood,[Revelation 1:5]

And the kings of the earth, the great men, the rich men, the commanders, the mighty men, every slave and every free man, hid themselves in the caves and in the rocks of the mountains, [Revelation 6:15]

For they are spirits of demons, performing signs, which go out to the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty. [Revelation 16:14]

with whom the kings of the earth committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth were made drunk with the wine of her fornication.”[Revelation 17:2]

And the woman whom you saw is that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth.”[Revelation 17:18]

For all the nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth have become rich through the abundance of her luxury.”
[Revelation 18:3]

“The kings of the earth who committed fornication and lived luxuriously with her will weep and lament for her, when they see the smoke of her burning, [Revelation 18:9]

And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army.[Revelation 19:19]

And the nations of those who are saved shall walk in its light, and the kings of the earth bring their glory and honor into it. [Revelation 21:24]

No, they are the leaders of the nations, plain and simple.

 

[3 Resurrections]

No, they are the leaders of the nations, plain and simple.

Not in the typical way they are spoken of in scripture, as high priests of Israel, which no longer exist.

 

[TMSO]

There is no time limit to Christ's rule, which scripture says is to endure forever. The time limitation of a thousand years is only put upon SATAN'S ability to deceive the nations during that period. Christ never relinquishes control of the kingdom. When it says in 1 Cor. 15:24 that when the end comes, Christ "delivers up the kingdom to the Father", this is the resurrected children of the kingdom which are "presented faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy." (Jude 24).

That is not what Paul says.
"4 And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for [a]a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years."

Why does everything the Bible says sound completely opposite to what you are saying? I mean, Ezekiel even tells us who Gog is, and you say no, that is not who Gog is. That is prophecy, which usually starts with "Thus sayeth the Lord." Why? It is the prophet repeating the words coming from God's own mouth. So when you say that Ezekiel is wrong in saying who Gog is, you are saying God is wrong.

"Now the word of the Lord came to me, saying, 2 “Son of man, set your face against Gog, of the land of Magog, [a]the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal, and prophesy against him," Those cities existed, and, again, in what we now know as Russia.

This is a fulfillment of Christ saying, "Behold, I and the children whom thou hast given me." The Rev. 20 millennium was going to be finished when the "First resurrection" had taken place (which was in AD 33 with Christ and the resurrected "remnant of the dead" which lived again at the end of that millennium - namely, the Matthew 27:52-53 saints).

The first resurrection was at the beginning of the millennium in 967 BC. (I'm using your belief.)

Scripture never says that human history ends at the close of the Revelation 20 millennium. This is a presumption.

What follows the millennium? Chapter 21. What did John see after the judgement? Such as the first words of 21? Now I saw. (NOW)

No, the Romans were not the "kings of the earth" that were "taking counsel together against the Lord and against His Anointed" in order to "cast away their cords from us". God never had Rome in a covenant relationship of those "cords of love" which He bound His people to Him under the OC. Pilate earnestly labored to free Christ - and was only persuaded to capitulate to the high priest "kings of the earth" and religious rulers' demands when he saw that a riot was going to ensue. It was his job as governor to preserve peace in Jerusalem, which is why he reluctantly agreed to the crucifixion demanded by the high priests and religious rulers of the Jews. Pilate never conspired together with the "kings of the earth" and the religious rulers to achieve Christ's death. The "heathen rage" going on in Psalms 2:1 was the Romans soldiers mocking Christ at His trial.

Yes, yes they were. (I can do this all day.) He took counsel, and is the reason why everyone who saw Him die knew Him as the king of the Jews.

And Pilate insisting that Christ have the title "King of the Jews" was acknowledging Christ's own statement to Pilate's question, "Are you a king, then?" Christ said that He was, with a kingdom not of this world, and Pilate only acknowledged that truth by putting it in writing for all to see.

The religious leaders said no. However, that action is required in order for David's prophecy to mean anything.

 

[TMSO]

No, they are the leaders of the nations, plain and simple.

I apologize for having you walk into that other response...

 

[3 Resurrections]

Why does everything the Bible says sound completely opposite to what you are saying? I mean, Ezekiel even tells us who Gog is, and you say no, that is not who Gog is. That is prophecy, which usually starts with "Thus sayeth the Lord." Why? It is the prophet repeating the words coming from God's own mouth. So when you say that Ezekiel is wrong in saying who Gog is, you are saying God is wrong.

"Now the word of the Lord came to me, saying, 2 “Son of man, set your face against Gog, of the land of Magog, [a]the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal, and prophesy against him," Those cities existed, and, again, in what we now know as Russia.

I oppose the usual premil-disp. understanding of what they think Ezekiel meant. My view is not in opposition to Ezekiel. The battle of Gog was going to be an ancient one with horses and horsemen, and its members clad in bucklers and helmets and carrying shields, and all of them handling swords (Ezekiel 38:4-6) . There is no way to turn this into a modern day warfare. The short sicca sword was the usual weapon which the Zealot warriors were known to carry and use with deadly effect back in the first century, which is when the battle involving Gog took place.

The first resurrection was at the beginning of the millennium in 967 BC. (I'm using your belief.)

That is misreading my comments. Revelation 20 tells us that the "first resurrection" in AD 33 was the ending point of the Revelation 20 millennium. That was the point when a "remnant of the dead" came to life again at the end of the millennium. That "remnant of the dead" was the Matthew 27:52-53 saints coming to life again on the day of Christ's resurrection.

What follows the millennium? Chapter 21. What did John see after the judgement? Such as the first words of 21? Now I saw. (NOW)

The NHNE was manifested in AD 70 after the Rev. 20 millennium had already expired in AD 33. We are presently living under those NHNE conditions which Isaiah 65 predicted for this reality. According to Isaiah 65, the presence of sinners is still around, and death still occurs, and the birth of offspring still happens, and prayers to God are still ascending. This NHNE is not the ultimate eternal state being written about.

"4 And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them.

This was the 12 disciples being set upon those twelve thrones over the twelve tribes of Israel in the early church of Acts. Christ had promised this to them back in Matthew19:28. "And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Judgment was committed to the twelve disciples by Christ having authorized them to sit on those thrones. Revelation 20:4 is written about a first-century fulfillment immediately after Christ's resurrection (His regeneration) and ascension.

The religious leaders said no. However, that action is required in order for David's prophecy to mean anything.

This objection of the religious leaders to Pilate's order writing that Jesus was the King of the Jews has no bearing on way or another on identifying who the "kings of the earth" were.

 

[TMSO]

I oppose the usual premil-disp. understanding of what they think Ezekiel meant.

Ezekiel is very clear. Gog was a person. Ezekiel makes this VERY clear. I mean, God defined him for you. From the land of Magog, and the prince of these three cities. It is VERY clear. God also tells Ezekiel to turn his face away from Israel and towards the north, that is towards Magog.

My view is not in opposition to Ezekiel. The battle of Gog was going to be an ancient one with horses and horsemen, and its members clad in bucklers and helmets and carrying shields, and all of them handling swords (Ezekiel 38:4-6) . There is no way to turn this into a modern day warfare. The short sicca sword was the usual weapon which the Zealot warriors were known to carry and use with deadly effect back in the first century, which is when the battle involving Gog took place.

This is not speaking of the future war. Again, this is an event that occurred then, however, it also speaks to an event in the future. Just as "Out of Egypt I called My Son" relates to Israel coming out of Egypt, but it also relates to their Messiah coming out of Egypt millennia later. The argument here is that Gog is NOT Israel. Ezekiel is clear. Gog was an actual person (they know), and Magog an actual country that existed in antiquity. The area included Russia. Hence it is believed that the use of these names in Revelation is just pointing out a location, which for today would be Russia.

That is misreading my comments. Revelation 20 tells us that the "first resurrection" in AD 33 was the ending point of the Revelation 20 millennium.

That is NOT what Revelation is telling us. You keep ignoring Paul. Revelation 20 puts the first resurrection at the beginning of the millennium, and the second resurrection at the end of the millennium. On Jesus second coming, consider the end of Matthew 23:
"37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! 38 See! Your house is left to you desolate; 39 for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’ ”"

Why desolate? They won't see Jesus again until Israel accepts Him as Messiah. We DO NOT see that in 70AD. We still don't see that today. They still have not accepted Jesus as Messiah, and "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord" is a Messianic title.

That was the point when a "remnant of the dead" came to life again at the end of the millennium. That "remnant of the dead" was the Matthew 27:52-53 saints coming to life again on the day of Christ's resurrection.

The NHNE was manifested in AD 70 after the Rev. 20 millennium had already expired in AD 33. We are presently living under those NHNE conditions which Isaiah 65 predicted for this reality. According to Isaiah 65, the presence of sinners is still around, and death still occurs, and the birth of offspring still happens, and prayers to God are still ascending. This NHNE is not the ultimate eternal state being written about.

This was the 12 disciples being set upon those twelve thrones over the twelve tribes of Israel in the early church of Acts. Christ had promised this to them back in Matthew19:28. "And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Judgment was committed to the twelve disciples by Christ having authorized them to sit on those thrones. Revelation 20:4 is written about a first-century fulfillment immediately after Christ's resurrection (His regeneration) and ascension.

This objection of the religious leaders to Pilate's order writing that Jesus was the King of the Jews has no bearing on way or another on identifying who the "kings of the earth" were.

I'm going to leave this from John MacArthur on the disciples questions in the Olivet Discourse. It will show how off center your arguments are.
"(1) About the Lord's coming

The word coming in Matthew 24:3 is translated from the Greek word parousia. It means "to be around" or "to be present." The best way to translate the verse might be, "What shall be the sign of Your full presence?" The disciples were referring more to the Lord's permanent presence, not His coming. Parousia was also used in verses 27, 37, and 39. Because the Lord used it frequently to refer to His return, the New Testament writers did the same (James 5:8, 2 Peter 3:4, 1 John 2:28). Parousia became synonymous with Christ's arrival to set up His kingdom. However, when the disciples asked about the Lord's coming in Matthew 24:3, they were saying, "When are You going to arrive in Your full Messianic revelation? When will You become all that we anticipate You to be?" They didn't think in terms of His leaving and returning; they simply thought the Lord would soon make a transition to setting up His kingdom.

(2) About the end of the age

At the end of Matthew 24:3 the disciples asked the Lord, "What shall be the sign ... of the end of the age?" The phrase "the end of the age" is translated from the Greek phrase sunteleias tou aionos. It appears five times in Matthew's gospel. Sunteleias means "the complete end." So the disciples were asking, "When is the final end of man's age?"

In Matthew 28:20 Jesus said to the disciples, "Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the age." He will be with us until the final end. In the parable of the wheat and the tares Jesus said, "The harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are the angels. As, therefore, the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so shall it be in the end of this age" (Matt. 13:39-40). The phrase is used twice in those verses. The end of the age is when God separates the wheat from the tares and sends the tares to hell. Verses 42-43 say He "shall cast them into a furnace of fire; there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father." The phrase is used again in Matthew 13:49-50: "So shall it be at the end of the age; the angels shall come forth, and separate the wicked from among the righteous, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire; there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." "The end of the age" then refers to the time when God comes in ultimate, final judgment and sends unbelievers to hell and takes believers into His presence.

What sign were the disciples to look for that would indicate the end of the age? When would they know that ultimate judgment was about to take place? When will that happen? Those questions prompted the Lord's sermon in Matthew 24--25.

The Lord's answer begins in verse 4. He answered the question the disciples asked, but said nothing more about the destruction of Jerusalem. That's because He knew the destruction would have nothing to do with His return. The judgment enacted on Israel in A.D. 70 was for the unregenerate, Christ-rejecting Jews of that time. It was only a small taste of the judgment to come at the end of the age when the Messiah returns in full glory. That is the theme of the sermon known as the Olivet Discourse. The Lord took His disciples from their moment in history all the way into the far future, when He returns to set up His kingdom in glory."
------------------------------------------
Consider this in light of Acts 1.
"4 And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, “which,” He said, “you have heard from Me; 5 for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” 6 Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7 And He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority. 8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be [c]witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”"

But, but, but, you say they knew it would be in the time of their season, in the time of their generation. Apparently, Jesus was talking about something different then you believe.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Ezekiel is very clear. Gog was a person. Ezekiel makes this VERY clear. I mean, God defined him for you. From the land of Magog, and the prince of these three cities. It is VERY clear.

No, Ezekiel never said that Gog was the prince over three cities. He only wrote that Gog was "OF" those cities, meaning Gog had originated from those locations. Gog the chief prince I agree was a person - a Prince which represented Israel in the AD 70 battle at Jerusalem. This individual was the Zealot leader Simon bar Giora who postured as the King of the Jews, and whom the Romans considered as such when they captured him finally in Jerusalem in AD 70 and reserved him for the Roman Triumph procession.

Simon bar Giora had the largest army of all the Zealot contenders. In AD 69, he brought that army of 40,000 to Jerusalem and became its tyrannical leader until the end in AD 70 when his army was destroyed on the mountains of Israel in Jerusalem. This battle of Gog with its ancient weaponry will not be repeated in our future. Scripture never tells us that - it is pure fabrication to concoct another event in our future that duplicates the destruction of the nation of Israel in those "days of vengeance" God brought upon them for that particular generation's misdeeds. This "great tribulation" will neve be duplicated again, as Christ promised in Matthew 24:21.

Why desolate? They won't see Jesus again until Israel accepts Him as Messiah. We DO NOT see that in 70AD. We still don't see that today. They still have not accepted Jesus as Messiah, and "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord" is a Messianic title.

This proclamation was made at Christ's entrance into Jerusalem while riding on an ass, in fulfillment of prophecy. Those in Israel uttered those same words when they saw Him. This is not a prediction of our future.

I'm going to leave this from John MacArthur on the disciples questions in the Olivet Discourse. It will show how off center your arguments are.
"(1) About the Lord's coming

Of course John MacArthur will write something different than I am. He is including classic premil-disp teaching which I was also taught back in the day at the same Bob Jones University he attended, and have since recognized its errors. John MacArthur is not inspired. You would be better off basing your arguments on scripture than John MacArthur, since we are not to be "respecters of persons".

Consider this in light of Acts 1.
"4 And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, “which,” He said, “you have heard from Me; 5 for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” 6 Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7 And He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority. 8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be [c]witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”"

But, but, but, you say they knew it would be in the time of their season, in the time of their generation. Apparently, Jesus was talking about something different then you believe.

When Christ spoke of "times or seasons" in regard to the kingdom, He was speaking in the same terms as Paul did in Acts 17:26. "And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;" This was speaking of the duration of nations existing, and the limits of their boundaries determined by God for certain times.

Daniel also spoke of God's control of the same "times and seasons" in Daniel 2:21. "And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding..." This change in the times and seasons was not speaking of Christ's return, but of the duration of the power of kings.

The disciples were hoping that the independence which the Maccabean victories had brought to their nation for almost 80 years would be restored again as the kingdom of Israel, but this was not information which they needed to know at the time. The gift of the Holy Spirit's surge of power for them at Pentecost was coming and would take priority over their lives. The Holy Spirit would "show you things to come" soon enough, just as Christ promised in John 16:13.

 

[TMSO]

No, Ezekiel never said that Gog was the prince over three cities. He only wrote that Gog was "OF" those cities, meaning Gog had originated from those locations.

Wait a minute. Is english your first language? Have you heard the title, "Prince OF Wales?" How about "Queen OF England"? Does this simply mean that King Charles was a commoner from Wales? or a prince of Wales sometime in the past, but now it just means he originated from Wales? Queen Elizabeth wasn't actually the Queen of England, but only originated from there? Are you kidding me? These are the words of God. "Thus says the Lord God". This is God speaking, and you are trying to tell God that He didn't say what He said, all because of your beliefs.

" 2 “Son of man, set your face against Gog, of the land of Magog, [a]the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal, and prophesy against him, 3 and say, ‘Thus says the Lord God: “Behold, I am against you, O Gog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal."

Please tell me how you will explain to God how He got it wrong. There is nothing in this chapter that shows Gog to be Israel. God clearly states that God is the prince of Rosh, Meschech, and Tubal. I am sure if you look up the hebrew word for prince, it will mean prince. I already looked it up, and didn't remove this, so what did I find?

Gog the chief prince I agree was a person - a Prince which represented Israel in the AD 70 battle at Jerusalem.

Um.. no. This goes against your arugment that the at hand prophecies are at hand and will not be postponed any longer.

This individual was the Zealot leader Simon bar Giora who postured as the King of the Jews, and whom the Romans considered as such when they captured him finally in Jerusalem in AD 70 and reserved him for the Roman Triumph procession.

Simon bar Giora had the largest army of all the Zealot contenders. In AD 69, he brought that army of 40,000 to Jerusalem and became its tyrannical leader until the end in AD 70 when his army was destroyed on the mountains of Israel in Jerusalem. This battle of Gog with its ancient weaponry will not be repeated in our future. Scripture never tells us that - it is pure fabrication to concoct another event in our future that duplicates the destruction of the nation of Israel in those "days of vengeance" God brought upon them for that particular generation's misdeeds. This "great tribulation" will neve be duplicated again, as Christ promised in Matthew 24:21.

And it would not be topped. The Holocaust was worse than anything that happened in 70AD. Also, to this comment I say, nope. No evidence, no argument.

This proclamation was made at Christ's entrance into Jerusalem while riding on an ass, in fulfillment of prophecy.

That was Matthew 21. When did Jesus say that Jerusalem would not see Him again until they say these words, which means, when they accept Him as Messiah? Matthew 23. After they rejected Him. If you read what happens after Matthew 21, you will find that Jerusalem rejected Him. So...

Those in Israel uttered those same words when they saw Him. This is not a prediction of our future.

It has to be a prediction of the future. Jesus was rejected while in Jerusalem after the triumphal entry, and said these words just before He left. You really need to work on your exegesis.

Of course John MacArthur will write something different than I am. He is including classic premil-disp teaching which I was also taught back in the day at the same Bob Jones University he attended, and have since recognized its errors. John MacArthur is not inspired. You would be better off basing your arguments on scripture than John MacArthur, since we are not to be "respecters of persons".

Is there a reason why you can't deal with what was posted, but have to attack MacArthur instead? Did he fail to use scripture? I mean, he actually quoted the scriptures, where some would usually just leave the reference. (not in every case, but at important points.) You aren't even trying to show how what MacArthur is saying is wrong. You are just saying, he is wrong. Try proving it. Show that he mistranslated the words, and that they don't mean what he said they mean. If you can't, then you can't, like you do, change the disciples questions, and change Jesus answers to their questions. I mean, you couldn't even get the title "prince of" right at the beginning of your comment. That is a TITLE. He was the prince/chief of three cities, which would mean those cities fell beneath his domain. Two of those cities were Israelite cities, and one was a foreign country. That country is in the area of modern day Russia.

"37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! 38 See! Your house is left to you desolate; 39 for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’ ”"

Why does verse 37 say what it does? Because He just spent the rest of the chapter speaking woe to the leaders. They rejected Him, so He rejected them, until the day that they accept Him as Messiah.

When Christ spoke of "times or seasons" in regard to the kingdom, He was speaking in the same terms as Paul did in Acts 17:26. "And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;" This was speaking of the duration of nations existing, and the limits of their boundaries determined by God for certain times.

Daniel also spoke of God's control of the same "times and seasons" in Daniel 2:21. "And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding..." This change in the times and seasons was not speaking of Christ's return, but of the duration of the power of kings.

The disciples were hoping that the independence which the Maccabean victories had brought to their nation for almost 80 years would be restored again as the kingdom of Israel, but this was not information which they needed to know at the time. The gift of the Holy Spirit's surge of power for them at Pentecost was coming and would take priority over their lives. The Holy Spirit would "show you things to come" soon enough, just as Christ promised in John 16:13.

No, the disciples were hoping that Jesus would be fully revealed as the Messiah, and would establish the kingdom. They asked again in Acts 1. Will you at this time restore the kingdom?

 

[3 Resurrections]

, [a]the prince of Rosh,

There is no such thing as the "Prince of Rosh". There is the "chief Prince". The word is "ros", meaning "chief", which is to be used as an adjective describing the Prince, not a proper noun for a city. The modern-day Russia term has nothing to do with the word "Ros".

Um.. no. This goes against your arugment that the at hand prophecies are at hand and will not be postponed any longer.

How does this possibly go against John's prediction of Revelation's prophecies of the imminent future events being "at hand"? Gog the chief Prince as Simon bar Giora the Zealot leader would arise to power in Jerusalem during the AD 66-70 period, and be destroyed by the end of it. John wrote including the fulfillment of Gog's battle to also be "at hand" in his own days. The ancient prophecy which Ezekiel wrote about had been "from old time" was "about to b" fulfilled and was described as being "at hand" in John's time.

And it would not be topped. The Holocaust was worse than anything that happened in 70AD

Scripture never said the Great Tribulation would be "worse" than anything ever before or since. Christ said there would never be another "SUCH AS", meaning a particular kind of tribulation that had never occurred before or would ever occur afterward.

Is there a reason why you can't deal with what was posted, but have to attack MacArthur instead? Did he fail to use scripture? I mean, he actually quoted the scriptures, where some would usually just leave the reference. (not in every case, but at important points.) You aren't even trying to show how what MacArthur is saying is wrong. You are just saying, he is wrong. Try proving it.

John MacArthur is not posting here. You are. Speak for yourself, and we can compare scripture between us.

No, the disciples were hoping that Jesus would be fully revealed as the Messiah, and would establish the kingdom. They asked again in Acts 1. Will you at this time restore the kingdom?

The disciples were still laboring under the mistaken impression that the Messiah was going to be a military-type ruler who would conquer Rome and establish a literal kingdom of Israel again, like the independent nation of Israel which the Maccabean victories had achieved for almost 80 years, until that kingdom of Israel was lost again in 63 BC.

 

[TMSO]

There is no such thing as the "Prince of Rosh". There is the "chief Prince". The word is "ros", meaning "chief", which is to be used as an adjective describing the Prince, not a proper noun for a city. The modern-day Russia term has nothing to do with the word "Ros".

Rosh was a foreign city. Gog was the prince of those three cities.

"The name Rosh, because of a translator's preference, does not appear in the KJV, but does appear in numerous other versions including the ASV which reads, “Son of man, set your face toward Gog of the land of Magog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal, and prophesy against him” (Ezekiel 38:2). William Kelly said that while the name Rosh can be taken as a title meaning “head” or “chief,” such a rendering here introduces unnecessary confusion. He insisted that in Ezekiel 38-39 Rosh must be taken as a proper name, the name of a race. This rendering is strengthened by the namesMeshech and Tubal, which precede and follow the word Rosh. Since these are names, then Rosh must be taken as a name, rather than a title. which gradually became “Rash,” then “Russ,” and today is known as “Russia.”"

"There are 2 substantial reasons for identifying ancient Rosh with Russia: (1) Wilhelm Gesenius, considered by Hebrew scholars as one of the greatest scholars of the Hebrew language, unquestionably believed that Rosh in Ezekiel was a proper noun identifying Russia. In his ancient Hebrew lexicon, he said that “Rosh was a designation for the tribes then north of the Taurus Mountains, dwelling in the neighbourhood of the Volga”; also that Rosh in Ezekiel 38-39 is a: “northern nation, mentioned with Meshech and Tubal; undoubtedly the Russians, who are mentioned by the Byzantine writers of the tenth century, under the name the Ros, dwelling to the north of Taurus, as dwelling on the river Rha (Wolga).” This identification by Gesenius cannot be passed off lightly. He had no eschatological axe to grind. Yet objectively he says without hesitation that Rosh in Ezekiel 38-39 is Russia. He concluded that in this name and tribe we have the first historical trace of the Russ or Russian nation. In his original Latin version of the Lexicon titled Thesaurus Linguae

(2) There is considerable historical evidence that a place known as Rosh was very familiar in the ancient world.While the word has a variety of forms and spellings, it is clear that the same people are in view.

In Egyptian inscriptions, Rosh (Rash) is identified as a place that existed as early as 2,600 BC. There is a later Egyptian inscription from about 1,500 BC that refers to a land called Reshu that was located to the north of Egypt. The place name Rosh (or its equivalent in the respective languages) is found at least 20 times in other ancient documents. It is found 3 times in the Septuagint, 10 times in Sargon's inscriptions, once in Assurbanipal's cylinder, once in Sennacherib's annals, and 5 times in Ugaritic tablets. Clearly Rosh was a well known place in Ezekiel's day. In the 6th century BC, when he wrote his prophecy, several bands of the Rosh people lived in an area to the north of the Black Sea. Many scholars have traced a direct connection between these people and the people from which Russia derives its name.

How does this possibly go against John's prediction of Revelation's prophecies of the imminent future events being "at hand"? Gog the chief Prince as Simon bar Giora the Zealot leader would arise to power in Jerusalem during the AD 66-70 period, and be destroyed by the end of it. John wrote including the fulfillment of Gog's battle to also be "at hand" in his own days. The ancient prophecy which Ezekiel wrote about had been "from old time" was "about to b" fulfilled and was described as being "at hand" in John's time.

Well, considering it makes you wrong in your determination of who Gog is, it means a lot.

Scripture never said the Great Tribulation would be "worse" than anything ever before or since. Christ said there would never be another "SUCH AS", meaning a particular kind of tribulation that had never occurred before or would ever occur afterward.

Such as is an idiom:
"1—used to introduce an example or series of examples
You will need some form of identification, such as a driver's license.
"I have my reasons for not wanting to go." "Such as?"


2: of the specified kind
In cases such asthis (one), it's best to be cautious.

Questions such as the one you've asked are difficult to answer."

" for there shall be then great tribulation, such as was not from the beginning of the world till now, no, nor may be."
So there will be a tribulation. What is the specified kind? "GREAT". Which means what? A great tribulation. So, what is the specified kind? Great. So there will be a great tribulation, such as was not (has not been) from the beginning the world till now, no, nor may be.

What is Jesus saying. There has never been from the beginning of the world till now, nor will be a tribulation as great as this one. And let me tell you, the holocaust tops AD 70 by a lot.

John MacArthur is not posting here. You are. Speak for yourself, and we can compare scripture between us.

I did. I presented his scriptures, which, I understand you don't have a response for, since he made it so clear.

The disciples were still laboring under the mistaken impression that the Messiah was going to be a military-type ruler who would conquer Rome and establish a literal kingdom of Israel again, like the independent nation of Israel which the Maccabean victories had achieved for almost 80 years, until that kingdom of Israel was lost again in 63 BC.

Where did they say they believed that the Messiah was a military-type ruler? I don't remember saying that. The only clear thing I remember is them asking when He would be revealed in all His Messianic glory and establish His kingdom, and, they asked before He left, if He would restore the kingdom to Israel at that time. His answer was no. However, it was more than that. He said it isn't even for the disciples to know the timeline of the Father which the Father established. They are to be busy about the business of being Christ's witnesses.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Rosh was a foreign city. Gog was the prince of those three cities.

No, Ros was not a foreign city. If you think "Ros" is a proper noun, you should try reading the account of King David escaping the city of Jerusalem back in 2 Samuel 15:30-32 and 2 Samuel 16:1 when Absalom was approaching the city with his army. King David and those with him "went up by the ascent of the Mount of Olives, ascending and weeping..." "And David came as far as ROS, where he worshipped God..." "And David passed on a little way from ROS; and behold, Ziba the servant of Mephibosheth came to meet him..." Try reading this in the LXX, which will appear as 2 Kings 15 and 16.

This "ROS" location was the crest of the Mount of Olives: the top of the hill, or the head of the Mount of Olives. It is not a foreign city, and God the "chief Prince" did not reign over anything by that name.

What is Jesus saying. There has never been from the beginning of the world till now, nor will be a tribulation as great as this one. And let me tell you, the holocaust tops AD 70 by a lot.

The Holocaust was not equal to having every member of the Satanic realm confined in the single city of Jerusalem for the duration of the AD 66-70 siege. This oppression which Christ predicted for His own "wicked generation" in Matthew 12:43-45 came true in Israel's "last state" as a nation in those final years. This kind of great tribulation has never and will never be duplicated again.

Where did they say they believed that the Messiah was a military-type ruler? I don't remember saying that. The only clear thing I remember is them asking when He would be revealed in all His Messianic glory and establish His kingdom, and, they asked before He left, if He would restore the kingdom to Israel at that time. His answer was no. However, it was more than that. He said it isn't even for the disciples to know the timeline of the Father which the Father established. They are to be busy about the business of being Christ's witnesses.

The disciples were well aware of the Zealot cause operating in their days, because they had a former Zealot included in the number of the disciples (Simon Zelotes). The common expectation in Israel in those days was that the promised restoration of the former kingdom coming to the daughter of Jerusalem (as promised in Micah 4:8) would involve that restored kingdom casting off the Roman governance over Israel. This was the question the disciples were asking Christ in Acts 1:6.