Prophecy - The End Times

[Nell]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

...This is just FOOD FOR THOUGHT! I am following a Bible study on Revelation. I have had a lot of questions on the book..still do but one thing I am truly convinced now, is Revelation is not written in chronological order, that is from left to right.
Carol

Well, Carol, in this point--at least for Rev. 16, Matt agrees with you! See Matt's Post #164 . I've also read other authors who note the same thing in an outline of Revelation with "parenthetical" chapters.

Originally Posted by Matt Anderson

...The challenge with the seven bowls in Revelation 16 is that this chapter is not set in sequential order in the Book of Revelation.

I believe Revelation is structured as follows:
Chapter 1-3 - Introduction & Seven Churches
Chapter 4-11 - Main sequential narrative starting before the Great Tribulation (3.5 years) all the way to the end of the Great Tribulation, God's Wrath. I believe the change over to the Millenial Kingdom is minimally referenced at the end of Chapter 11.
Chapter 12-19 - Expanded Descriptions (or Appendices) which elaborate on the main characters and events of the sequential narrative from Chapter 4-11
Chapter 20-22 - Continuance of Main sequential narrative including Satan's imprisonmnent, the Millenial Kingdom through to the New Heaven/Earth, New Jerusalem, etc.

Nell

[Matt Anderson]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

Next:
Matthew 27:52-53
And the graves were opened. Then many bodies of the saints that slept arose. They came out of the graves after His resurrection and went into the city and appeared to many.

The scriptures don’t say what became of the risen saints but I personally believe when Jesus ascended, they did too. Otherwise how could these people who saw them and most likely spoke with them, truly believe in the resurrection of Jesus had they died again? Not everyone saw Jesus ascend after all.

I think these verses are often overlooked when thinking about rapture. I think they do set some context, but I don't think they specifically address rapture. I have felt that they are part of the fulfillment of the "feasts of the Lord". The connection between Christ's 1st and 2nd coming and the "feasts of the Lord" was something I read from someone years ago. I think there is a strong connection. The OT presents 7 feasts. Four feasts in the spring time. Three feasts in the fall.

Based on the New Testament authors, the 4 spring feasts appear to be exactly fulfilled by the events of Jesus' death, resurrection and giving of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost. I think the three fall feasts (trumpets, day of atonement, tabernacles/booths) foreshadow things about Jesus' second coming. In the spring, the 3rd feast is the "feast of firstfruits". I think that Jesus was the firstfruit (being resurrected from the dead first) and I think these ones seen in Jerusalem were also firstfruits. (I think it is important to note that the dead seen in Jerusalem were from the Old Testament age and yet they were resurrected in some fashion either temporarily or for transport to a new location).

I also agree with you that it is seems they probably ascended with Jesus to heaven. I am guessing that the good part of "paradise" moved from the heart of the earth to somewhere in heaven until the time of Jesus' second coming. This is my conjecture, but it is what I have come to lean towards in my thinking.

For several of your other verse references, I will be bringing them in my next post(s) and sharing my thoughts on them.

Matt

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Matt Anderson

I also agree with you that it is seems they probably ascended with Jesus to heaven. I am guessing that the good part of "paradise" moved from the heart of the earth to somewhere in heaven until the time of Jesus' second coming. This is my conjecture, but it is what I have come to lean towards in my thinking.

I also agree.

Years ago when Dr. Phil Comfort ministered in Columbus, I asked him about this. Remember that PC was basically humiliated and expelled by TC for being a "pure wordist," and "too independent, too theoretical, void of reality," rather than the typical ministry lackey. None of us in the church thought so, but who were we to oppose the "apostle" in Cleveland.

Phil's comment was, "the weight of Christian authorship supports this view." Of course, that view was contradictory to WL's teaching, hence suspect. Comfort used Ephesians 4.8 (quoting Psalms 68) as support.