Is the RAPTURE Really Next Month? The Bible’s Timeline Is Shocking

[TCC]

Yeah, I’m expecting Israel first instead of America first from the Lord’s perspective.

If we don’t frame that with the tribulation in view, do we think there’s lots of time for Israel to thrive in a more peaceful ME?

Well, we actually though don't know. Think about this though perhaps dear sister. I'm trying to be helpful here. Just to catch kind of where I am coming from. Of which you demonstrate almost like fathomless grace concerning (so very much appreciated). So check this out, if you might.

In how you express that, think, what is it you are saying? You are saying, to me, how it comes across and most certainly not how it is meant. But because we are used to certain patterns of thought, it is understandable why we might think the way you have expressed. But here is what I hear:

"Yes we should consider Israel first in relation to our putting something we see the way we do. And since the way we see it has a lot of weight, how true can it be that Israel has much more time?"

The unintended logical fallacy in that sort of syllogism would be the amount of weight and credibility we give our views upon tribulaiton meaning in the age of grace and its likely timing--AS--just as important as putting Israel 1st. Which in theory can tend to omit putting Israel 1st on par with our thoughts about context first. Which still ends us up seeing Israel as an after thought of our presumptions.

Now Hollie, I know this is not what you are doing dear sister. I am just saying this is how something like how you are thinking resonates with me in relation to just how much our preconceptions omit the organic stand alone uniqueness of what it is to put Israel 1st though. It is not: Isreal 1st according to how we the church see and understand the context. In my venacular it is seeing Israel 1st despite our views. "Because" to me it is our views that we inadvertently make 1st anyway. So it kind of tends to end up with Israel 1st occording to church view 1st. Which then does not exactly see Israel first. If that makes sense.

So what might Israel 1st in this look like in what I am saying? Like this:

Ez 38 is more potent than the churches view of Daniel/Revelation unfolding. The reason we might know this in you provided statement at least to the extent it might be viewed from a slivers of thought we can borrow as an exhibit to random sample to make this observation, I.e. your above statement...is because to put Israel 1st answers that question already. In Ez 38. God's word above and beyond our views surrounding it. If God's word says that Israel will dwell in peace and safety, putting Israel 1st in my sense would be to "start" there and have cause for us to have to deal with how we are otherwise thinking thereafter. But the opposite is usually how we might tend to process. Because what is happening around us in light of how we perceive seems extremely valid. So we go with that often as a starting point. And then somehow shoehorn in Ez 38.

So what I am saying is just reverse that. Start with God's claim in Ez 38 regarding Israel and then bring our thoughts to be evaluated in light of what is already in the word. To be fair though dear sister, it is obvious that Israel could get their peace and safety during a time beyond our being here making evaluations. Like we could rapture and then Israel gets a peace and safety. Which could occur, amen. But I would tend to go with premise of seeing 1 Thes 5 in the context of sudden destruction be fore Israel because of the woman in labor it connects to there. Putting Israel 1st there is well. If that is accurate then there is no room likely for a rapture and then peace and safety because while we are the children of light here on earth it is said, "Peace and safety." But many commentators including well meaning Tom Hughes won't permit for the context of 1 Thes 5 to be about Ez 38 because of church age notion has seemed to expanded that into it being about us. Not Israel. Even though we are not the Rev 12 woman trevaling in labor. Of course I could be wrong. But you are kindly asking. And so I want to provide you with an answer. One that will not likely settle the issue. But one that helps you understand where I would be coming from.

So, I guess please not how I have stated above and consider the following: How else might we in the ways we process be doing this all over the place? It is possible we do a lot of that. Now please understand, if I am wrong about Israel 1st, then I really don't have all that much a leg to stand on. It could be that "peace and safety" in 1 Thes 5 is about the gentile world. It could be that a woman in labor be a reference about gentiles. But can you prove that from scripture? Because although we could not say that we can without question prove the opposite, that Israel is the woman in labor in 1 Thes 5 because it is that meaning in Rev 12, but since we don't have the gentile world identifies this way, outside of the text, 1 Thes 5, in question, we are kind of exegetically stuck with Rev 12 and Isaiah + references to woman in labor. But if anyone can demonstrate the woman in labor in 1 Thes 5 is the gentile world, I am totally open. I just don't think it can be done. And that leaves us with, "We'll we know for sure it is used like that in scripture about Israel elsewhere." And maybe because we can't have it means something else, it might be best to understand its potential that it might be more about Israel with sudden destruction than some global catastrophe the moment we rapture.

. . . . .

So at the end of the day, I reckon, putting Israel 1st will likely interfere with how the church is thinking about the age of grace approaching the tribulation. For the simple reason that it would seem we are the spirit filled body on earth at the time. Who else? Right? Yes. I would say we do see quite a bit. But where scripture and God's intent override our views, I would just see it is good practice to consider how that might look.

So to answer your question in light of the above, here is how I would say that: Not a only is there enough time, but it is likely the only way Israel goes. That might sound too bold. But if we think like that, does it not call into question a lot of other ways we are tracking? To the extent that permitting time for Israel to be about peace and safety just seems maybe a bit far fetched. Not saying you are saying that. Nor I am taking it defensively at all. For it makes perfect sense from a church first paradigm to ask that. I mean that statement somewhat tongue-in-cheek. But what I am saying is that question if there is enough time, to me, comes from a mindset where we percieve a whole host of ways we the church are thinking about themes here are accurate enough to pose such a question. It is totally not unreasonable at all to ask that dear sister. The answer in this I don't like is, wow, like how much more time are we talking here? lol. Because I don't like that either. I concur with your concern there. Because it would infer quite a number of years yet to go...and we are ready to go like yesterday. That is not to say that the rapture may not happen this month or soon anyway. If so, then I have a lot of explaining to do for the rest of eternity lol. I get that. But I guess the greatest take away to offer in light of this context is: I believe Ez 38 is for our age. And since clear scripture that is for our age exists, it would make sense to see that as setting all the ground rules for however else we might think. But this is not generally occuring. Instead what is is our focus on how into things we otherwise see. Taking a bit too much focus off the companion section of scripture that shares our very social moment. And see that about our situation I believe is a healthy way to head scratch though. And be all like, "Wait. So Ez 38 is more a reburic for the age of grace than the entire book of Revlation?" It might sound fairly off, but I would say so. You don't have to agree. Just putting it out there in a context where at least in how I am thinking about it, it makes sense. Hopefully.

Wow, thank you so much for your extremely blessed heart in care toward me and this forum as you have most precious dear sister. Really. If you did not engage as much as you do, this perhaps sideline concerns I come along with would probably not see much of the light of day at times. So your inquistive nature is gorgeous. I mean it Blessings.

 

[Hol]

Teren, you should stay engaged here!

Your thoughts have several layers, but you may get more people engaged if you try to shorten your posts. Given the limits of communications when we type out our feelings and thoughts, shorter responses would be welcome.

You read some ideas into my comment that I don’t hold.

I think it’s Biblical to view Israel is now taking center stage. I think of it as the stage was set in Israel when John the Baptist arrived. We can’t suggest it will be a short or long time.

Now please understand, if I am wrong about Israel 1st, then I really don't have all that much a leg to stand on. It could be that "peace and safety" in 1 Thes 5 is about the gentile world. It could be that a woman in labor be a reference about gentiles. But can you prove that from scripture?

First, the woman in Revelation 12 is Isreal. “A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; and she was with child; and she cried out, being in labor and in pain to give birth.” (Revelation 12:1-2, NASB)

Regarding “peace and safety” I think that’s Israel living in unwalled villages, yet worldwide the sudden destruction will affect us all.

Ezek 38:10-13

10 “‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: On that day thoughts will come into your mind and you will devise an evil scheme. 11 You will say, “I will invade a land of unwalled villages; I will attack a peaceful and unsuspecting people—all of them living without walls and without gates and bars. 12 I will plunder and loot and turn my hand against the resettled ruins and the people gathered from the nations, rich in livestock and goods, living at the center of the land.

13 Sheba and Dedan and the merchants of Tarshish and all her villages will say to you, “Have you come to plunder? Have you gathered your hordes to loot, to carry off silver and gold, to take away livestock and goods and to seize much plunder?”’

(Bonus—Margery’s interesting post on this topic from another thread:
Post in thread 'Netanyahu tells Trump he has nominated him for Nobel Peace Prize'
https://christiancommunityforum.com...d-him-for-nobel-peace-prize.11157/post-160158 )

I am curious if you think there is a conflict with my Israel first view and your various views about God’s providence, or our current age of grace?

 

[TCC]

Teren, you should stay engaged here!

Your thoughts have several layers, but you may get more people engaged if you try to shorten your posts. Given the limits of communications when we type out our feelings and thoughts, shorter responses would be welcome.

You read some ideas into my comment that I don’t hold.

I think it’s Biblical to view Israel is now taking center stage. I think of it as the stage was set in Israel when John the Baptist arrived. We can’t suggest it will be a short or long time.


First, the woman in Revelation 12 is Isreal. “A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; and she was with child; and she cried out, being in labor and in pain to give birth.” (Revelation 12:1-2, NASB)

Regarding “peace and safety” I think that’s Israel living in unwalled villages, yet worldwide the sudden destruction will affect us all.

Ezek 38:10-13

10 “‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: On that day thoughts will come into your mind and you will devise an evil scheme. 11 You will say, “I will invade a land of unwalled villages; I will attack a peaceful and unsuspecting people—all of them living without walls and without gates and bars. 12 I will plunder and loot and turn my hand against the resettled ruins and the people gathered from the nations, rich in livestock and goods, living at the center of the land.

13 Sheba and Dedan and the merchants of Tarshish and all her villages will say to you, “Have you come to plunder? Have you gathered your hordes to loot, to carry off silver and gold, to take away livestock and goods and to seize much plunder?”’

(Bonus—Margery’s interesting post on this topic from another thread:
Post in thread 'Netanyahu tells Trump he has nominated him for Nobel Peace Prize'
https://christiancommunityforum.com...d-him-for-nobel-peace-prize.11157/post-160158 )

I am curious if you think there is a conflict with my Israel first view and your various views about God’s providence, or our current age of grace?

Thank Hol. My apologies if I am reading into how you are thinking. I didn't mean to, and really try to stay far away from that sort of thing. My approach was hyperbole for effect. I laid it out that way to more so display what I am saying. Like trying to find a way to sound perhaps even over the top to demonstrated by contrast. So it was really just meant actually to read more into my thoughts meant than yours. To almost be an exaggerated version of my view. I used many words to try to convey that somehow. But again sorry if it felt the other way around. Really just shooting for divergence in nuance.

I don't exactly think your view of Israel first is in conflict. I would not mean that. I guess what i am trying to highlight is comparing it to generic evangelical approaches on what is meant. I would no say conflict is an appropriate sense really. Because I mean sure seeing Israel in a context approaching the tribulation dear sister is I believe necessary to relate to how we are thinking about them. So I'm not saying you are not looking at things as an Israel first context. Or that you don't put Israel first and I do. What I just mean is, and perhaps a better way to express the idea, I would likely see Israel in these kinds of hermeneutical ways:

• The primary way to interpret middle east events
• The primary way to understand what is happening in America
• The primary scripture using magnet (this one i will elaborate)
• Even, the primary bang zone of the rapture

I'd say you would agree with the first two I believe. But the second two I'm not so sure. Maybe you can help me understand if or where there is a difference. Scripture magnet. You use 1 Thes 5 to suggest sudden destruction will effect us all. Now Hol, of course you may be correct. But how do you know? What event causes the world sudden destruction? The first seal? If that is the first to roll out, how is that destruction? I've heard the view that if the first seal is the AC, then how does the world follow a man like that if what he brings is seals 2-4? I think we would both agree that the sudden destruction clause describes what happens after the rapture. But in the conventional evangelical view, that would be the first seal. Its focus though is conquer not destruction. But is that what you might see implied though? I mean i suppose it can fit if we stretch conquer to equate to destruction. If the tribulation started at seal 4 then I'd say i have no point. But see how distinct the element there is different than the nuance of the 1st seal? I mean i could understand how it could be. But I don't see a destruction event at the beginning of the tribulation. We are not told that there is though, correct? So where in Israel first we may differ is in sudden destruction you see the world. To see that without referent, I believe, is to not see the significance of Israel being in that. I would see that like viewing things from a non-Israel 1st lens. In first, I mean the primary hermeneutic in understanding scriptural meaning. I don't think it is in conflict, I would just see that as somewhat eisegetical. Granted, by the same notion dear sister, you could say the exact same think with my take too. There would be a difference by what we mean by Israel first. I would also venture to see that that is kind of on purpose.

Not that God would want the church not to see that. But on purpose as to how we might understand how surrounding events fit into the general narrative. Last point here, I am shooting for shorter...lol. I believe where we locate the rapture season is by watching Ez 38 timing. Like instead of 9-23-25 because of the interesting math and perhaps church notice of that, or dates that line up with this or that, instead perhaps just watch Ez 38 forming and as we get super close we might have an idea. So in that one, non-Israel 1st would be to calculate the rapture timing from our own understanding instead of its potential proximity to Israeli events. In that way, perhaps another way in which we would differ about Israel 1st is that I would see ironically the rapture to be tethered to Israel.

Does that conflict? I don't see it as a competition or that the staple evangelical view is in error. It sees what it does and much of its scope would enter a correct observation of prophetic events. I would just see it doing it off like a field trip? lol. That sounded funny. But i do kind of mean that. Not in a mean way. For sure certain things would be seen that otherwise would not. God using that in His mercy. The conflict with your view of Israel 1st would not be with a view I hold, since we are both rather close in proximity having good proverbial principles guiding. But i don't believe an ear to the ground comprehension of the nature and implications of the events stemming from age of grace end times would be proximally understand Best aside from a strict Israel 1st absolutist view like mine. If that sounds arrogant I don't mean it to be. I am just trying to paint a flamboyant portrait by with to see just where the differences in our two views might be. Starting points of differences. But Hollie, you what this discussion have moved me to consider? Like, maybe there is a good reason for the contrast, conflict what have we. It could be that there are things on the evangelical spectrum in this that might be helpful whereas otherwise missed if not held like this. Perhaps it is by divine providence that we have an evangelical approach and an Israel 1st absolutist approach. Although me, myself, and I don't exactly constitution the concept of a school of thought on the matter. So you do see our difference though, yes? It is worth an essay though to perhaps note a good reason why Israel 1st absolutism is not really a thing. I believe that is worth consideration. So, thanks, lol, i reckon?

 

[TCC]

A short augment to hopefully make up the difference...lol. Great post by Margery. Mostly agree. I don't see Psalm 83. But the majority of her post is awesome. So Hollie you would see sudden destruction as Ez 38 too but include the world in its ripple effect regarding commerce maybe? Do you know of any scholars or theologians that believe Ez 38 is sudden destruction? I've never seen that though. I would say the majority of evangelicalism sees that as the whole world trapped under God's thumb like though.

If we ask google: Are the Golan Heights considered the mountain region of Israel. It will tell you yes. If we ask are there Israelis living their, 20k. Not many but they are there now. But please check out this link if you might have time.

Ezekiel 38:8 Commentaries: "After many days you will be summoned; in the latter years you will come into the land that is restored from the sword, whose inhabitants have been gathered from many nations to the mountains of Israel which had been a cont

See how Ez 38:8 is expressed. It is more the feeling of Gog in reference to his attack against the mountains more than the dwelling in the mountains. Or more commonly seen as Israel living against the mountains not necessarily in the mountains. I thought this to be important to point out because the focus seems to be much more in line with what we already see today.

So you would say sudden destruction is Israel in Ez 38? If so, I don't think the aftermath is as much in site in how we are speaking though upon this because it would seem to effect the age of grace prior differently than how it affects the nations and how they respond afterward. Because if our focus is more like Tom Hughes that that is not Ez 38, we are looking out issues all over the globe. And so Tom's view has 0 connection to the use of Ez 38 in rapture timing. Which is my trope not his I realize. But I am just after seeing how looking at this differs. If we go with Tom's take Ez 38 has little to do with possibly how the age of grace takes shape approaching the tribulation and leaves far more room for beast system, how to see America. How to see Christian Nationalism. How to see the UN. How to see what the Abraham Accords and the Abrahamic covenant with Israel mean, as though those things were the blue print and road map and become the hermeneutic. I am just saying that is dismissive as to why Israel 1st and center thinking matters. I think it matter because it explains America. The middle east, and the rapture. AND the character of God. Whereas leading too far into the beast system view looks more for spectacular evil and deception as hermeneutics. Where we differ (me and evangelicalism) is focusing on the sensational is great and exciting fast food. But keeping Israel as the kaleidoscope = having a wine tasters pallet making sense of all else around it. If that helps? I don't mean for that to sound snobbish. Because to me it does...lol. I just mean the labels we can tend to put on themes and events are wild today. And outside of Israel being the epicentric hermeneutic by which all other events get their meaning, Otherwise we have great screenplays, I believe, selling as prophecy distinctives. And those looks very different to me. Like seeming just a tad off, the golf ball driving a micro off tees 300 years different when landing kind of thing. If that makes sense in this way a bit more i am hopeful perhaps? Blessings.

 

[Hol]

Because if our focus is more like Tom Hughes that that is not Ez 38, we are looking out issues all over the globe. And so Tom's view has 0 connection to the use of Ez 38 in rapture timing. Which is my trope not his I realize. But I am just after seeing how looking at this differs. If we go with Tom's take Ez 38 has little to do with possibly how the age of grace takes shape approaching the tribulation and leaves far more room for beast system, how to see America. How to see Christian Nationalism. How to see the UN. How to see what the Abraham Accords and the Abrahamic covenant with Israel mean, as though those things were the blue print and road map and become the hermeneutic. I am just saying that is dismissive as to why Israel 1st and center thinking matters. I think it matter because it explains America. The middle east, and the rapture. AND the character of God.

Thanks brother, I may be catching on to how your view differs from mine. I seldom listen to Tom Hughes so I can’t relate to his view, but you touched on something.

When I put Israel first over America first, it doesn’t mean Israel is my primary focus. If we step up our view of God’s plan and elevate the Bible we begin to understand that God will be glorified. That’s the plan. He is willing to endure many unfathomable troubles and difficulties as He patiently makes His enemies His footstool. (I’m sure you already know this.) It’s something I need to understand better!

What you touched on is that the beast system may be very distant, eventually triggered by Ez 38 —and that’s where we differ. The Church will be perfected by Christ, but right now we’re not doing super job of overcoming evil with good. We are salt of the earth trending toward losing our savor. Today’s world is disrespectful towards God and life in ways none of us have ever witnessed. It seems that we are all in Romans 1 where God gives us over to corruption (with exception to Christ’s Bride.) Like Tom Hughes, I see the beast system taking shape. You may frame things in an optimistic way that God in His grace is able to pull the world back from the brink.

So in that one, non-Israel 1st would be to calculate the rapture timing from our own understanding instead of its potential proximity to Israeli events. In that way, perhaps another way in which we would differ about Israel 1st is that I would see ironically the rapture to be tethered to Israel.

Maybe this is our bigger difference. The rapture is not going to happen until that last lost sheep is found (fullness of the gentiles). When that moment comes is not connected to Israel.

You use 1 Thes 5 to suggest sudden destruction will effect us all. Now Hol, of course you may be correct. But how do you know? What event causes the world sudden destruction? The first seal? If that is the first to roll out, how is that destruction? I've heard the view that if the first seal is the AC, then how does the world follow a man like that if what he brings is seals 2-4?

This verse is what I see on the world’s horizon: “Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem.” Zech 12:2 and I think that will ripple out worldwide.

I don’t time these things with the seals or the Ezekiel invasion because God’s glory is coming and His sovereignty has determined these things.

I know you have other views about the white horse who rides to conquer, but here’s my view:

The first seal. The first seal introduces the Antichrist (Revelation 6:1–2). From the biblical description, we gather several details: he rides a white horse, which speaks of peace; at the beginning of the tribulation, the Antichrist will come under the pretense of bringing peace to the world (cf. Daniel 9:27). He is given a crown, which indicates that the Antichrist will exercise great authority (cf. Daniel 7:24–25). He holds a bow, which shows his true intentions, and he advances “as a conqueror bent on conquest” (Revelation 6:2).
From: What are the seven seals of Revelation? | GotQuestions.org​

The world follows the AC because they are deceived.

Re: the sudden destruction, I don’t see that as all the world’s cities are suddenly rubble or anything thing. I take that verse to primarily show us that the sense of peace and safety is false unless it comes from trusting in God

 

[TCC]

Thanks brother, I may be catching on to how your view differs from mine. I seldom listen to Tom Hughes so I can’t relate to his view, but you touched on something.

When I put Israel first over America first, it doesn’t mean Israel is my primary focus. If we step up our view of God’s plan and elevate the Bible we begin to understand that God will be glorified. That’s the plan. He is willing to endure many unfathomable troubles and difficulties as He patiently makes His enemies His footstool. (I’m sure you already know this.) It’s something I need to understand better!

What you touched on is that the beast system may be very distant, eventually triggered by Ez 38 —and that’s where we differ. The Church will be perfected by Christ, but right now we’re not doing super job of overcoming evil with good. We are salt of the earth trending toward losing our savor. Today’s world is disrespectful towards God and life in ways none of us have ever witnessed. It seems that we are all in Romans 1 where God gives us over to corruption (with exception to Christ’s Bride.) Like Tom Hughes, I see the beast system taking shape. You may frame things in an optimistic way that God in His grace is able to pull the world back from the brink.


Maybe this is our bigger difference. The rapture is not going to happen until that last lost sheep is found (fullness of the gentiles). When that moment comes is not connected to Israel.


This verse is what I see on the world’s horizon: “Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem.” Zech 12:2 and I think that will ripple out worldwide.

I don’t time these things with the seals or the Ezekiel invasion because God’s glory is coming and His sovereignty has determined these things.

I know you have other views about the white horse who rides to conquer, but here’s my view:

The first seal. The first seal introduces the Antichrist (Revelation 6:1–2). From the biblical description, we gather several details: he rides a white horse, which speaks of peace; at the beginning of the tribulation, the Antichrist will come under the pretense of bringing peace to the world (cf. Daniel 9:27). He is given a crown, which indicates that the Antichrist will exercise great authority (cf. Daniel 7:24–25). He holds a bow, which shows his true intentions, and he advances “as a conqueror bent on conquest” (Revelation 6:2).
From: What are the seven seals of Revelation? | GotQuestions.org​

The world follows the AC because they are deceived.

Re: the sudden destruction, I don’t see that as all the world’s cities are suddenly rubble or anything thing. I take that verse to primarily show us that the sense of peace and safety is false unless it comes from trusting in God

Awesome. I appreciate Hollie you seeing the differences. It helps probably down the road as other events arise. We can of course respectfully disagree. And as long as this forum sees it differently i feel safe here. Because if everyone here was thinking like me or agreeing, I would be too freaked out and think something is wrong...lol.

As for your seeing Israel over America first but yet still under a greater rubric, God's sovereign plan, I understand. My contrast of concern in that well thinking view is that even though it makes "God's plan" supersede even Israel 1st (which sounds sound and holistic) it is in "our understanding" of God's plan that might tend to compete with Israel 1st as a potentially cleaner rendering of God's plan. And in the end perhaps see two different meanings to events occurring as a result of those differences .

As for the rapture can't the last gentile saved in the age of grace and Ez 38 timing be complimentary to each other, though? I would not think it has to be one or the other. But on this note where i would interject that Ez 38 is likely in tandem with that last gentile being saved an echo like take from Romans 11 like thinking:

9 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; 21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.

On its surface we are just merely told that God does not want the church to become arrogant in thinking how things work relating to how God's plan goes. The plain interpretation is just don't be arrogant. And it has no exegetical value eschatologically relating. But to me it does show how God is looking at the general tree and branches (organic and other). And that suggest mood and modes by which nuances of thinking the church over or in contrast to performative special care of God toward Israel is in His sovereign sensibilities and enters motifs likely of active play now that Israel is back on the scene. And that would potentially mean that this tension re-exist during our day perhaps in special ways and perhaps beyond generic end time church thought. Since Israel is literally back, we might expect some measure of dance related to how God might permit nuances of this principle to play out in a world where Israel and the gentile world co-exist uniquely in our small span of under 1 century. Since this has some merit in how we were told then how to think upon this, it would just seem that now that they are "again" now here back, that special consideration of how this principle might be in His majesty considered, is all.

As for Zech 12, Thanks Hol for sharing you views. You know, though, I have never ever heard any eschatological view on that that to me ias helpfully insightful though. Like how it neatly fits. Have you? To me it seems like a joker playing card that sometimes means an Ace, and sometimes a 3 depending on the need of how we are looking at eschatology. But never once is it understood how it fastens in our day or near future that makes holistic sense of flow we understand. So for now, to me, i just see it as metaphor for their being back in general. We have seen this development for almost a century concerning them. So, maybe it is a general over decades in general we have seen. Although later in the chapter it seems to link up with the 1,000 year reign. Maybe a snapshot of Israel on either side of the tribulation omitting the 70th week, perhaps? But most scholars place that in the tribulation. If so, perhaps Israel's return to Jerusalem maybe during Bowl 5 +?

As for the AC as the 1st seal, thanks for stating your view more specifically. I am not interesting that people hold or even contemplate my specific views on that. But it might be somewhat helpful to see just in general where, as far as 6:2 as AC view goes, that I might consider its strengths and weaknesses in general. Again in some way to emphasis the helpful ear to the ground level distinctives of my Israel 1st approach in general. For me the 1st seal has a huge a mount to do with Israel. But i understand if it is the AC, it would for you organically as well. Amen.

So like I would agree that they would follow because they are deceived. But deceived to the point that he comes to rule, then WW3, famine, then pestilence...and after all that think he is worthy to be followed? I don't mean for that to sound trite. I got that argument from Zak/Prophesy Misfits Youtube channel. I think that argument is strong enough to suggest that it is good to asked those texts those kinds of questions. In general i think we tend to like AC as a first seal choice because it fits tribulation timing. And connect the AC potentially with one main event...the covenant. But the greater reason I don't think it stands the exegetical test (regardless of my views) is that what the bible says is he rules for 3.5 years...not 7. And making him the first seal often has him ruling for 7. Its the 70th week for Israel though. Not Satan's week. That coupled with Zaks argument sounds exegetically sound enough reason to consider that view (at least in exegetical terms) at least reasonable in some ways.

Hollie, please do not consider in this way i am meaning to pick on you...lol. You as a saint in the Lord are entitled to have your view...amen. And that is fine that we differ. I highlight this though because I have interest to challenge my own self as well as in general others but hopefully in a caring, loving and respectful way. So in that dear sister i would ask: What is Got Questions exegetical evidence that the 1st seal is AC that rules for 7 years? Where is that in the bible? It's a good and hopefully helpful question. I would be interested to know though if their is a view on that. I have never really heard one. But it seems often to be assumed even though scripture directly implies otherwise potentially.

On the final point about sudden destruction, this is where i can hopefully helpfully further interject perhaps how non-Israel 1st eschatological thinking can tend to (in my estimation) blur senses. Again, totally dear sister this is not meant to pick on you at all. It is just finding helpful ways you are seeing things as expressed and me just trying to by contrast how demonstrate helpfully how i would see that not as a rival view, but in general perhaps a thought about that. The effects, to me (just saying) that a non-Israeli 1st view to me is like the difference between Europe and the USA. Europe tends to (being without the US constitution) be more impressed by CRT (critical race theory-"critical" as in exegetical buzz word sense similar). And elements of CRT restructure their entire way a life. So in that similar way, I would not think of a semi Israeli first view to be of rival thought to mine, but i would more compare it to a country or group of countries that are far more subject to influence by the EU than what might generically otherwise be best for their own nation. So in this sense i would just say that a non-Israeli 1st stance to me is too prone to let the appearance of majesty in other arguments grab deeper footholds on our thinking than perhaps they have potential merit to belong.

So please let me explain in this hopefully helpful case of "sudden destruction" and "false peace." By looking at 1 Thes 5 in any sense of potentially tipping the hat to sudden destruction relating to the world at large in some sense, we might permit a somewhat potentially stray concept color meanings for us there perhaps somewhat. So in syllogism form what to me it sounds like you are saying is the following (not trying to put words in your mouth...just trying to show perhaps by even hyperbole how different this approach looks to me) and even in that, I might not be accurate in my view too, amen:

The reason to hold to a view that sudden destruction is not uniquely aligned to Ez 38 or Israel is the following:

• False peace is something we hear a lot about as related to the tribulation era and the AC
• Since sudden destruction would have to mean to some degree the world outside of Israel, It must mean the world too
• Destruction in the world at large does not mean they are destroyed but that they are deceived to have thought that peace could be kept
• But are not necessarily affected by war at the time of sudden destruction
• But that since false peace means they won't have it for long sudden destruction means delayed destruction over 7 years yet coming to the world
• Therefore sudden destruction does not really mean sudden it means time released over 7 years because peace in that era is false

Again i am not trying to put words in your mouth at all. I am merely saying this is how what you just said sounds to me. And i get to an extent why. Because we are an age big on "false peace" consideration and where to place it. To me the Got Questions view of he 1st seal implies that sudden destruction is the AC conquering. On one level granted that could make sense. But "going out to conquer" i guess could be sudden. But in general exegesis, which is the asking questions about the text, it could also have nothing at all to do with sudden destruction. "Could." And where the science of eschatology helps to refine stray thoughts it is good. But we live in a generational age where exegesis can be synonymous with systematizing a theology. Or cross pollinating concepts strung out amongst several text so as to tie them in together. But that approach to me is more telling the text what it means in relation to other texts rather than exegesis which asks questions of the text. If that makes sense?

I think it is great that you are interesting in the discovery of how things might apply. But doesn't just in simple grammar sudden destruction fit much closer to Ez 38 than Rev 6:2? In some ways looking at it that way, Rev 6:2 does not even ask that question about destruction. The other note about false peace to me is that should be something we see clearly to apply. Generally. So in Rev 6:2 we have:

a) Sudden Destruction
b) False peace
...and lets add...
c) Rules for 7 years (which the bible not only does not say, but states 3.5 instead)

Three things Rev 6:2 does not say. In addition we have 1800 years of church commentary only seeing Rev 6:2 as positive. Not the AC. That does not make it right (1800 years of looking at it wrongly does not make it right, amen). But I'm just trying to demonstrate hopefully why it might seem a bit forced and kind of the opposite of exegesis potentially. Now after all that you might prefer a view held by most. And that is fine. But would it make sense though where although I might not see reading other passages into Rev 6:2 serve comfortably as exegesis? And if so, might that have a reasonable seat perhaps at the table?

The one thing i will say we definitely share about Rev 6:2 is that we both are looking at it as it relates to Israel. So even if Rev 6:2 is not the AC, those things will happen to Israel as it relates to the AC. And for now I take that as Israeli 1st thinking

This has kind of been a master class of sorts of dances in eschatology proper. lol. With a class clown, me. And a very lovely hearted saint, Hollie.