• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

The second coming of Jesus and the resurrection of the dead

Joined
May 27, 2023
Messages
662
Reaction score
273
Points
63
Jesus' second coming is supposed to occur at a rapture of dead people coming out of graves along with alive people who both fly into the sky to meet Jesus on a cloud, which then turns into a commencement of 1000 years of Jesus being a king in the temple in Jerusalem.

If that is not a correct interpretation or it isn't true then what is it?
 
Jesus' second coming is supposed to occur at a rapture of dead people coming out of graves along with alive people who both fly into the sky to meet Jesus on a cloud, which then turns into a commencement of 1000 years of Jesus being a king in the temple in Jerusalem.

If that is not a correct interpretation or it isn't true then what is it?
The reign of Jesus Christ has no end. This is stated multiple times in scripture. There is no 1,000-year limitation on His reign. The limitation of a literal thousand years was only put upon SATAN and his deception of the nations.

That literal thousand years came to an end in AD 33 with the "First resurrection" of Christ and the Matthew 27:52-53 saints: all of them called the "First-fruits".
 
Greetings "Dave_Regenerated",
Jesus' second coming is supposed to occur at a rapture of dead people coming out of graves along with alive people who both fly into the sky to meet Jesus on a cloud, which then turns into a commencement of 1000 years of Jesus being a king in the temple in Jerusalem.
Yes, I agree more or less, but I do not like the use of the word "rapture". I also consider the clouds in the sky could be figurative language. Yes I agree that Jesus will reign from Jerusalem in the Temple Throne with a significant remnant of natural Israel converted and the nations subjected and learning the ways of God for the 1000 years Isaiah 2:1-4, Micah 4:1-8, Daniel 2:35,44 ad Zechariah 14. Keep searching and learning as the present problems in the Middle East could be precursors to the events leading up to Armageddon and the establishment of the Kingdom of God Revelation 16:15.

Kind regards
Trevor
 
Greetings "Dave_Regenerated",

Yes, I agree more or less, but I do not like the use of the word "rapture". I also consider the clouds in the sky could be figurative language. Yes I agree that Jesus will reign from Jerusalem in the Temple Throne with a significant remnant of natural Israel converted and the nations subjected and learning the ways of God for the 1000 years Isaiah 2:1-4, Micah 4:1-8, Daniel 2:35,44 ad Zechariah 14. Keep searching and learning as the present problems in the Middle East could be precursors to the events leading up to Armageddon and the establishment of the Kingdom of God Revelation 16:15.

Kind regards
Trevor

Re 'do not participate in politics'. The Two Kingdoms as worked out in Lutheranism was not the two in opposition (light v darkness) but Christ's and mankinds, the latter inside the former. We are in both. It is brilliant because we can improve things without a theocracy (an express faith-based government like Islam). While we may be persecuted, we should not set precedent for it. There should be pluralism as in the US documents. That is a theme strived for by Christians since Hus, and Zyzka, through Magdeburg and the US founding.

re Zech 14. The only NT quote of the chapter is about Christ's gospel. Why do we give ourselves the authority dismiss that? And then make multiple quotes of Ezek 38,39 when the NT does not!
 
Actually, Trevor, I kind of now realize why some American D'ist denominations don't do much in political life: they have reduced concern because they think a government is coming out of Jerusalem, and they don't think the resurrection was the Davidic enthronement of Christ, which would result in telling 'rulers and authorities' to honor Christ.
 
Jesus' second coming is supposed to occur at a rapture of dead people coming out of graves along with alive people who both fly into the sky to meet Jesus on a cloud, which then turns into a commencement of 1000 years of Jesus being a king in the temple in Jerusalem.

If that is not a correct interpretation or it isn't true then what is it?
Let's see if we can agree with scripture, build some consensus, and away clear some of the eschatological doctrinal biases out of the way.

  • Can we first establish the fact there is no specific mention of "The Second Coming" in the Bible?
  • Can we then agree the idea of "The Second Coming" is a phrase used for what most people consider another coming that is of profound significance but not limited to binding Jesus to never ever "coming" again?
  • Can we agree that the closest verse to stating anything remotely close to "The Second Coming" is Hebrews 9:28?
  • Can we agree the "second coming" of Christ in Hebrews 9:28 explicitly states it is for a salvation apart from sin?
  • Can we agree many eschatological views of the second coming are overtly couched in the existence of sin and a need for salvation from that sin so that either Hebrews 9:28 is being misused or their view of The Second Coming is in error (because it is inherently and inextricably tied to a salvation from sin)?
  • Can we agree the next closest place any specific reference to anything remotely called "The Second Coming" is Acts 1:11?
  • Can we agree that verse does not state "second coming"? Can we also agree there is no mention of a specified "second coming" anywhere else in the chapter?
  • Can we agree there is no explicit mention of Jesus physically on the earth in any of the "rapture" verses commonly used in pre-tribulational rapture views?
  • Can we agree there is no specific, explicit mention of Jesus physically on the earth in Revelation 19 or 20?


Thank you for your patience and your timely, direct, and succinct answers :).
 
Then why did John write about it and present it as a future event?
He didn't write about the millennium as a future event. There are a number of past events included in Revelation; many times to give the background setting for the prophecies which were about to take place in John's future.

In the introduction to Revelation (Rev. 1:19), John was told to "write the things which thou hast seen" (past events), "the things which are" (presently taking place in John's days), and "the things which are about to be hereafter" (soon to take place in John's days). This gives us permission to examine events in Revelation with the three options that they may be either past, present, or near future to John's days.
 
He didn't write about the millennium as a future event. There are a number of past events included in Revelation; many times to give the background setting for the prophecies which were about to take place in John's future.

In the introduction to Revelation (Rev. 1:19), John was told to "write the things which thou hast seen" (past events), "the things which are" (presently taking place in John's days), and "the things which are about to be hereafter" (soon to take place in John's days). This gives us permission to examine events in Revelation with the three options that they may be either past, present, or near future to John's days.
Amen. Many people ignore or otherwise neglect Rev. 1:19. It's bad enough the markers of Rev. 1:3 and 22:10 are re-interpreted to say something they do not state, Rev. 1:19 tells the reader some of the events were in John's past and some were in his present.
 
He didn't write about the millennium as a future event. There are a number of past events included in Revelation; many times to give the background setting for the prophecies which were about to take place in John's future.

In the introduction to Revelation (Rev. 1:19), John was told to "write the things which thou hast seen" (past events), "the things which are" (presently taking place in John's days), and "the things which are about to be hereafter" (soon to take place in John's days). This gives us permission to examine events in Revelation with the three options that they may be either past, present, or near future to John's days.
Where was John standing when hail and fire mixed with blood were hurled down upon the earth......and A third of the earth was burned up, along with a third of the trees and all the green grass......where has history show this to have happened back in John's day? Where???

Where was John standing when something like a great mountain burning with fire was thrown into the sea. A third of the sea turned to blood, ...and a third of the living creatures in the sea died, and a third of the ships were destroyed.......where has history show this to have happened back in John's day? Where???

Do you need another?

Where was John standing when a great star burning like a torch fell from heaven and landed on a third of the rivers and on the springs of water. The name of the star is Wormwood. A third of the waters turned bitter like wormwood oil, and many people died from the bitter waters......where has history show this to have happened back in John's day? Where???

Shall I go on????? Where was John standing when....
 
Let's see if we can agree with scripture, build some consensus, and away clear some of the eschatological doctrinal biases out of the way.

  • Can we first establish the fact there is no specific mention of "The Second Coming" in the Bible?
  • Can we then agree the idea of "The Second Coming" is a phrase used for what most people consider another coming that is of profound significance but not limited to binding Jesus to never ever "coming" again?
  • Can we agree that the closest verse to stating anything remotely close to "The Second Coming" is Hebrews 9:28?
  • Can we agree the "second coming" of Christ in Hebrews 9:28 explicitly states it is for a salvation apart from sin?
  • Can we agree many eschatological views of the second coming are overtly couched in the existence of sin and a need for salvation from that sin so that either Hebrews 9:28 is being misused or their view of The Second Coming is in error (because it is inherently and inextricably tied to a salvation from sin)?
  • Can we agree the next closest place any specific reference to anything remotely called "The Second Coming" is Acts 1:11?
  • Can we agree that verse does not state "second coming"? Can we also agree there is no mention of a specified "second coming" anywhere else in the chapter?
  • Can we agree there is no explicit mention of Jesus physically on the earth in any of the "rapture" verses commonly used in pre-tribulational rapture views?
  • Can we agree there is no specific. sexplicit mention of Jesus physically on the earth in Revelation 19 or 20?


Thank you for your patience and your timely, direct, and succinct answers :).
Are you sure you're reading the bible? Are you saying when Jesus stands on the Mt. of Olives...and it splits...Jesus isn't physically standing on the earth?

Three guys in history said..."I'll be back"....General MacArthur....Arnold Schwarzenegger....and Jesus Christ.
 
Let's see if we can agree with scripture, build some consensus, and away clear some of the eschatological doctrinal biases out of the way.

  • Can we first establish the fact there is no specific mention of "The Second Coming" in the Bible?
  • Can we then agree the idea of "The Second Coming" is a phrase used for what most people consider another coming that is of profound significance but not limited to binding Jesus to never ever "coming" again?
  • Can we agree that the closest verse to stating anything remotely close to "The Second Coming" is Hebrews 9:28?
  • Can we agree the "second coming" of Christ in Hebrews 9:28 explicitly states it is for a salvation apart from sin?
  • Can we agree many eschatological views of the second coming are overtly couched in the existence of sin and a need for salvation from that sin so that either Hebrews 9:28 is being misused or their view of The Second Coming is in error (because it is inherently and inextricably tied to a salvation from sin)?
  • Can we agree the next closest place any specific reference to anything remotely called "The Second Coming" is Acts 1:11?
  • Can we agree that verse does not state "second coming"? Can we also agree there is no mention of a specified "second coming" anywhere else in the chapter?
  • Can we agree there is no explicit mention of Jesus physically on the earth in any of the "rapture" verses commonly used in pre-tribulational rapture views?
  • Can we agree there is no specific. sexplicit mention of Jesus physically on the earth in Revelation 19 or 20?


Thank you for your patience and your timely, direct, and succinct answers :).
I don't have the patience to go through all that and respond point by point. It would be pointless anyway because I don't think Biblical eschatology makes much sense in any literal way.
 
Are you sure you're reading the bible? Are you saying when Jesus stands on the Mt. of Olives...and it splits...Jesus isn't physically standing on the earth?
Bear with me because I know you can understand what I am about to post. I am going to use another interpretation of another scripture as a comparison. Revelation states a third of the stars fall to earth. Most people do not read that literally and one of the reasons they do not do so is because if the verse was read literally then the earth would literally be demolished by the first star colliding with the earth. The earth would literally be pulverized into dust and there'd be nothing left for the second, third, fourth, or fifth star to fall upon. It is estimated there are 200 billion stars in the universe. A third of that is 66 billion stars colliding with the earth. The closest star is our own sun. If it began to fall toward the earth all life on the planet would be dead long before it physically impacted the earth. The next closest star is Proxima Centauri. It is 4.24 light years away (it would take four years to "fall" to the earth if it were traveling at the speed of light), and its diameter is 16 times greater than the earth's. The smallest star in the universe is the size of Saturn. So, logically, we necessarily understand that verse is not to be read literally. If it were read literally all life on earth and the planet itself would be destroyed and there'd be nothing left of the earth for the rest of prophecy to unfold. We also don't read the verse literally because "stars" are often symbols or figures of speech for light and the angelic host.

So..... assumng you understand and agree with what I just posted, let's examine the idea the Mount of Olives literally splits in two.

Zechariah 14:1-8
Behold, a day is coming for the LORD when the spoil taken from you will be divided among you. For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city will be captured, the houses plundered, the women ravished and half of the city exiled, but the rest of the people will not be cut off from the city. Then the LORD will go forth and fight against those nations, as when He fights on a day of battle. In that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which is in front of Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives will be split in its middle from east to west by a very large valley, so that half of the mountain will move toward the north and the other half toward the south. You will flee by the valley of My mountains, for the valley of the mountains will reach to Azel; yes, you will flee just as you fled before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Then the LORD, my God, will come, and all the holy ones with Him! In that day there will be no light; the luminaries will dwindle. For it will be a unique day which is known to the LORD, neither day nor night, but it will come about that at evening time there will be light. And in that day living waters will flow out of Jerusalem, half of them toward the eastern sea and the other half toward the western sea; it will be in summer as well as in winter.

  • It happens in a day.
  • Jesus stands on the Mount of Olives.
  • The Mount of Olives splits in its middle.
  • The Mount of Olives splits in its middle from east to west.
  • A very large valley is formed.
  • Half the mountain moves north, and half the mountain moves south.
  • The valley formed by the splitting reaches Azel in the east.
  • Water fill flow out of Jerusalem from the eastern sea to the western sea.

The earthquake in Turkey earlier this year was 7.8 (more then 32 Hiroshima bombs in power) on the Richter scale and it created a valley 300 meters long, or about one-fifth of the valley from the Zechariah 14 valley, and 130 feet deep. That occurred at 1312 feet about sea level. The mount of Olives is twice that high.

An earthquake strong enough to divide the Mount of Olives and literally move one half to the north and one half to the south five times greater than the Turkish earthquake would destroy Jerusalem. There would be no buildings left. The city would be rubble. Literally. Jerusalem is about six kilometers or 3.75 miles from Jerusalem and its peak was about 200 feet above the roof of Jerusalem's temple. An earthquake severe enough to cause a valley five times greater than the one in Turkey in an elevation twice as high would exceed our Richter Scale. These numbers can be doubled if the valley extends as far to the west as it does to the east. Now there is a sea to the west of the Mount of Olives (the Mediterranean). The closest sea to the east would be the Persian Gulf, more than 1000 miles away from Jerusalem and the Mount of Olives. A river will run from the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf.

So.... is it logical to read the Zechariah text literally? Or do we run into the same sort of problem occurring when stars fall to the earth? Remember: an earthquake literally strong enough to divide the Mount of Olives would literally destroy Jerusalem.

If it is not reasonable to think the earthquake literally divides the mountain in two so severely a a huge valley is created and Jerusalem is destroyed, then is it reasonable to think Jesus is literally standing on the Mount when that earthquake happens? He's standing ON the mountain DURING an earthquake that literally divides the mountain on which he is standing AND he does so watching as the city of peace is destroyed.

Or is there a better way to understand the passage, after all, we know the "living waters" are not literal H20 water. We also know there was a day future to Zechariah's day when Jerusalem was surrounded by many nations. we know the city was captured and we know people fled to the mountains and caves to escape the destruction of the city. We know women (and men) were ravaged and people were cut off from the city by a multi-year siege. We also know there were at least two days when all light was cut off from the city, one during the crucifixion, and another during the siege of Jerusalem.
 
Bear with me because I know you can understand what I am about to post. I am going to use another interpretation of another scripture as a comparison. Revelation states a third of the stars fall to earth. Most people do not read that literally and one of the reasons they do not do so is because if the verse was read literally then the earth would literally be demolished by the first star colliding with the earth. The earth would literally be pulverized into dust and there'd be nothing left for the second, third, fourth, or fifth star to fall upon. It is estimated there are 200 billion stars in the universe. A third of that is 66 billion stars colliding with the earth. The closest star is our own sun. If it began to fall toward the earth all life on the planet would be dead long before it physically impacted the earth. The next closest star is Proxima Centauri. It is 4.24 light years away (it would take four years to "fall" to the earth if it were traveling at the speed of light), and its diameter is 16 times greater than the earth's. The smallest star in the universe is the size of Saturn. So, logically, we necessarily understand that verse is not to be read literally. If it were read literally all life on earth and the planet itself would be destroyed and there'd be nothing left of the earth for the rest of prophecy to unfold. We also don't read the verse literally because "stars" are often symbols or figures of speech for light and the angelic host.

So..... assumng you understand and agree with what I just posted, let's examine the idea the Mount of Olives literally splits in two.

Zechariah 14:1-8
Behold, a day is coming for the LORD when the spoil taken from you will be divided among you. For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city will be captured, the houses plundered, the women ravished and half of the city exiled, but the rest of the people will not be cut off from the city. Then the LORD will go forth and fight against those nations, as when He fights on a day of battle. In that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which is in front of Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives will be split in its middle from east to west by a very large valley, so that half of the mountain will move toward the north and the other half toward the south. You will flee by the valley of My mountains, for the valley of the mountains will reach to Azel; yes, you will flee just as you fled before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Then the LORD, my God, will come, and all the holy ones with Him! In that day there will be no light; the luminaries will dwindle. For it will be a unique day which is known to the LORD, neither day nor night, but it will come about that at evening time there will be light. And in that day living waters will flow out of Jerusalem, half of them toward the eastern sea and the other half toward the western sea; it will be in summer as well as in winter.

  • It happens in a day.
  • Jesus stands on the Mount of Olives.
  • The Mount of Olives splits in its middle.
  • The Mount of Olives splits in its middle from east to west.
  • A very large valley is formed.
  • Half the mountain moves north, and half the mountain moves south.
  • The valley formed by the splitting reaches Azel in the east.
  • Water fill flow out of Jerusalem from the eastern sea to the western sea.

The earthquake in Turkey earlier this year was 7.8 (more then 32 Hiroshima bombs in power) on the Richter scale and it created a valley 300 meters long, or about one-fifth of the valley from the Zechariah 14 valley, and 130 feet deep. That occurred at 1312 feet about sea level. The mount of Olives is twice that high.

An earthquake strong enough to divide the Mount of Olives and literally move one half to the north and one half to the south five times greater than the Turkish earthquake would destroy Jerusalem. There would be no buildings left. The city would be rubble. Literally. Jerusalem is about six kilometers or 3.75 miles from Jerusalem and its peak was about 200 feet above the roof of Jerusalem's temple. An earthquake severe enough to cause a valley five times greater than the one in Turkey in an elevation twice as high would exceed our Richter Scale. These numbers can be doubled if the valley extends as far to the west as it does to the east. Now there is a sea to the west of the Mount of Olives (the Mediterranean). The closest sea to the east would be the Persian Gulf, more than 1000 miles away from Jerusalem and the Mount of Olives. A river will run from the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf.

So.... is it logical to read the Zechariah text literally? Or do we run into the same sort of problem occurring when stars fall to the earth? Remember: an earthquake literally strong enough to divide the Mount of Olives would literally destroy Jerusalem.

If it is not reasonable to think the earthquake literally divides the mountain in two so severely a a huge valley is created and Jerusalem is destroyed, then is it reasonable to think Jesus is literally standing on the Mount when that earthquake happens? He's standing ON the mountain DURING an earthquake that literally divides the mountain on which he is standing AND he does so watching as the city of peace is destroyed.

Or is there a better way to understand the passage, after all, we know the "living waters" are not literal H20 water. We also know there was a day future to Zechariah's day when Jerusalem was surrounded by many nations. we know the city was captured and we know people fled to the mountains and caves to escape the destruction of the city. We know women (and men) were ravaged and people were cut off from the city by a multi-year siege. We also know there were at least two days when all light was cut off from the city, one during the crucifixion, and another during the siege of Jerusalem.
You're right...the stars that fall arn't actually star, stars....But, there are several possibilities...one could be they are angels as angels have been called stars. OR, John could have written about a whole ton of meteors...OR...it could have been John describing satellites falling to the earth......SO, for you to say the event can't be literal...is Bogus.

So, that brings us to the Mt. of Olives....splitting...you kinda used numbers from some other event...then cut and pasted them into what you visualized a literal splitting of the Mt. of Olives would look like....then deemed it impossible.

Weird stuff happens...
In Numbers 16:31 we read....As soon as Moses had finished saying all this, the ground beneath them split open, 32 and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them and their households—all Korah’s men and all their possessions. 33 They went down alive into Sheol with all they owned. The earth closed over them, and they vanished from the assembly.....YIKES!!!!

But then again you say....both the stars falling as well as the Mt. of Olives splitting can't be literal. You didn't make a very good case.

OK...I beared with you....when are you going to make your point Jesus didn't say He won't be back?
 
You're right...the stars that fall aren't actually star, stars.... But, there are several possibilities...one could be they are angels as angels have been called stars.
The point is the text should not be read literally. Neither should Zech 14:4.
OK...I beared with you....when are you going to make your point Jesus didn't say He won't be back?
1) Not so fast. First acknowledge there is a basis for NOT reading Zech 14:4 literally. I was asked a question and I answered it and now the matter is being ignored. Nothing in Revelation states Jesus is physically on earth until the new Jerusalem descends. Zech. 14:4 does not change that fact.

2) I never said, "Jesus did not say he would not be back." If you think that is what I have been saying then a) you've been reading things into my posts I never wrote, b) need to re-read the posts without that erroneous bias, and c) I do not appreciate putting words into my posts I did not write.
 
The point is the text should not be read literally. Neither should Zech 14:4.
Your point is not valid. Sheeze, anything that doesn't fit your narrative becomes....not literal.
1) Not so fast. First acknowledge there is a basis for NOT reading Zech 14:4 literally. I was asked a question and I answered it and now the matter is being ignored. Nothing in Revelation states Jesus is physically on earth until the new Jerusalem descends. Zech. 14:4 does not change that fact.
Rev 19:11-21....Jesus is on the earth. Riding a white horse....striking down the nations.....I'm sorry if that was to fast for you.
2) I never said, "Jesus did not say he would not be back." If you think that is what I have been saying then a) you've been reading things into my posts I never wrote, b) need to re-read the posts without that erroneous bias, and c) I do not appreciate putting words into my posts I did not write.
Back peddling? OK, whatever.
 
You're right...the stars that fall arn't actually star, stars....But, there are several possibilities...one could be they are angels as angels have been called stars
Yep, "stars" are fallen angels in this Revelation 12:4 case which were cast out of heaven along with Satan in Revelation 12:9 (which was on Christ's resurrection-day ascension).

There is a blend of the literal and symbolic in Revelation, which is what gives rise to much of the disagreement as to which of these is applying to what. On my part, I've no disagreement with Christ literally standing on the Mount of Olives in Zechariah 14:4-5 at His return. Christ has always retained in heaven His glorified, resurrected body as our Divine / human intercessor, and any return He performs is done while in that same tangible form. I also have no disagreement with the Mount of Olives being literally, physically altered by the earthquake at that Zechariah 14:4-5 point. After all, this is a prime seismic zone with a fault line running up the Jordan Valley.

But the Zechariah 14:4-5 passage in the LXX and some other translations read differently than having a valley through the mountain being created by this earthquake. After that earthquake and the mountain leaning in all directions, it reads that the valley will be "blocked up" as far as Azal. That is speaking of literal landslide rubble coming from the top of the mountain breaking apart in all directions and rolling downhill which would "block up" the Kidron Valley below. In the LXX translation, nobody "flees" to Azal through a valley. The valley is "blocked up" as far as Azal. The variations in translations on this point are due (if I remember correctly) to a single verb being mistranslated.
 
Where was John standing when hail and fire mixed with blood were hurled down upon the earth......and A third of the earth was burned up, along with a third of the trees and all the green grass......where has history show this to have happened back in John's day? Where???

Where was John standing when something like a great mountain burning with fire was thrown into the sea. A third of the sea turned to blood, ...and a third of the living creatures in the sea died, and a third of the ships were destroyed.......where has history show this to have happened back in John's day? Where???

Do you need another?

Where was John standing when a great star burning like a torch fell from heaven and landed on a third of the rivers and on the springs of water. The name of the star is Wormwood. A third of the waters turned bitter like wormwood oil, and many people died from the bitter waters......where has history show this to have happened back in John's day? Where???

Shall I go on????? Where was John standing when....
I can answer all of these from historical record of first-century times (lots of literal events, and some symbolic), but it would detract from the OP.

Much of the problem with thinking these cannot be fulfilled yet is applying the term for "the earth" (tes ges) to the entire habitable globe (oukoumene) instead, when these judgments were more specific to "the land" (tes ges) of Israel and its surrounding nations. God was exercising His "days of vengeance" upon them in particular for their betrayal and murder of His Son, which blood guilt was self-imposed by the Jewish religious leaders of that generation upon themselves and their children.
 
I can answer all of these from historical record of first-century times (lots of literal events, and some symbolic), but it would detract from the OP.

Much of the problem with thinking these cannot be fulfilled yet is applying the term for "the earth" (tes ges) to the entire habitable globe (oukoumene) instead, when these judgments were more specific to "the land" (tes ges) of Israel and its surrounding nations. God was exercising His "days of vengeance" upon them in particular for their betrayal and murder of His Son, which blood guilt was self-imposed by the Jewish religious leaders of that generation upon themselves and their children.
The bible isn't that complicated...where you need to be a history major to understand it and a secret decoder ring.
 
Back
Top