The Prince Who is to Come.

[jesse]

I wonder how many are aware that in the near future a man will come claiming to be God. He will have a 3 and 1/2 year ministry. At the end of which he will die and be resurrected. Another man will preform great and miraculous signs on his behalf and cause the whole world to worship him with the exception of a few. No Christians will attend the worship service.

Based on Revelation Chapter 13 and Chapter 17.

[markedward]

I'm very open to people thinking the Revelation's fulfillment is 'imminent' (it's perpetually imminent, it seems), even if I think the absolute majority are wildly wrong, since that's just the way it is.

But of all the views, there are certain nuances that I am worried to see Christians advocating. Specifically...

At the end of which he will die and be resurrected.

... this part. There are two major reasons for why I find this view troubling, the first is exegetical in relationship to the full context of Revelation 13 (and 17), and the second is theological in relationship to the rest of the Scriptures.

First, exegetically. Why do some Christians claim that a certain man will 'die and be resurrected'? This is usually because John describes the sea-beast of Revelation 13 as receiving a 'mortal wound' which is then 'healed'. These fellow Christians are trying to interpret the text 'literally', but they're really not. The text of Revelation 13 (or 17) does not describe a man dying and being resurrected. It describes a sea-beast as being wounded in one of its seven heads. Those two details, a sea-beast and seven heads, has already made a 'literal' interpretation impossible. We have already entered into some depth of symbolism. Now, yes, chapter 17 does provide the explanation that the seven heads symbolize seven kings. But it also says that the seven heads simultaneously symbolize seven hills/mountains. The wound to the head could be symbolized some manner of damage to a hill/mountain, and not to one of the kings. And yet, even if the head wound is symbolizing harm upon a king... John never actually describes the head as dying. He says that it 'seemed to have a mortal wound' which then healed (13.2). He says that it 'was wounded by the sword and yet lived' (13.14). Neither the beast, nor the head, are actually said to die. There is a recovery of health/power/whatever, but it is not a resurrection from the dead.

Second, theologically. The whole of the Scriptures together reveal that God and God alone has the power of life over death. God alone is immortal, and only through God can one who is dead be resurrected to life. And, in contrast, the satan is consistently portrayed in the New Testament as having the power of sin, death, the grave. Within a Scriptural worldview, it is tantamount to blasphemy (in the literal sense of the word) to elevate a creature to a position God alone has: the power of life. On the one hand, to claim that a man or the satan (or anything other than God) can raise the dead is simply wrong. On the other hand, to claim that God will be the one to raise a blasphemous man (from the OP: 'a man will come claiming to be God') from the dead ('he will die and be resurrected') just does not make any sense.

We're left with only proper approach: any sense of 'death' or 'resurrection' in regards to the sea-beast of Revelation is purely figurative, especially in that the text never actually says it 'dies' or is 'resurrected', only that it seemed to be mortally wounded, but was 'healed' and 'yet lived'.

[jesse]

In response to your first question.

And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. He had ten horns and seven heads.. Rev 13:1

One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. Rev 13:3

The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for a little while. Rev 17: 9-10

The beast has 7 heads. One head has a fatal wound. The heads are kings. Logically, Kings are people. I see no reason to abandon that logic or to wonder "what is a king a symbol for". The symbolism has been explained for us.

I understand that Revelation has symbolism in it. However when the symbolism is explained there is no need to continue to believe it as symbolism. In general I really don't think it is as complex as people make it out to be. Most of the symbolism is interpreted for us throughout the bible in some fashion or another. Sometimes it is harder to understand than others... but this is not the case in this passage it is said plainly what the symbolism is. Don't you think?

Furthermore. It seems to indicate that the horns are men. The heads are men. And the beast itself is a man. The symbolism would really only lead one to assume that they are all apart of one goal or group. I don't see how the symbolism obscures whether or not they are men by any stretch of the imagination.

Similarly, the hills would logically indicate the domain that the king resides over. Certainly the kingdom might be destroyed and brought back... but it wouldn't be as logical a reason to worship someone as a person being dead and resurrected. Similarly, given the escapades of Jesus... it would be in keeping for it to be the king and not a kingdom that is resurrected. Although, i suppose one could believe it will be both.

In my own opinion I don't think logic is thrown out in the literal view. I think it is working with what we know and attempting to fill in the blanks. Which is really the only way we understand anything.


In response to your second statement... I agree. It is a hoax. To us it will look real though. Should i change the wording? I was, of course, trying to draw parallels between Christ and Anti-Christ... perhaps i went to far?

However i would say Satan can do nothing without permission from God. (That would be a topic for a different thread though if you disagree) And so even if it is real (which I doubt) God would have to allow Satan to do what he does. And similarly, God would have to allow it even if it is a forgery.

P.S. I left out the first half of Rev 17:9. If i include it I feel like i am saying "you are stupid" in an arrogant "christian" way with bible verses. If i exclude it... I feel like someone will take that into account and assume i am wrong because I neglected to have a "mind of wisdom." I saw that part of the verse... I left it out... Ok?


EDIT* You seem like you are trying to understand and view all the information so I can't be too hard on you. I would like to say though that I have personal worries about over spiritualization of scripture and also about assuming we can't understand God. (not that i am accusing you I hardly know you) I think the bible was written so we can understand God in some capacity. I don't think it was written to perpetually confuse us so we learn humility.

[DurbanDude]

In response to your first question.

And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. He had ten horns and seven heads.. Rev 13:1

One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. Rev 13:3

The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for a little while. Rev 17: 9-10

The beast has 7 heads. One head has a fatal wound. The heads are kings. Logically, Kings are people. I see no reason to abandon that logic or to wonder "what is a king a symbol for". The symbolism has been explained for us.

Its not as simple as heads = kings = people
In Daniel 7 the four heads represent the four divisions of the Greek empire, if you look at history:
7:6 ........ the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it.

In Daniel 7, kingdoms are described firstly as kings, its as if kings are a symbol of kingdoms:
7:17 These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth.
7:23 ...The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms

The formula is more like this heads = kings = kingdoms

I personally like to use the rule that horns/heads/beasts are firstly kingdoms, and we should always see them this way unless context or history make it clear that an actual person is referenced. A big clue is often when "eyes" or "mouth" like a man is mentioned.

[Raybob]

In response to your first question.

And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. He had ten horns and seven heads.. Rev 13:1

One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. Rev 13:3

The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for a little while. Rev 17: 9-10

The beast has 7 heads. One head has a fatal wound. The heads are kings. Logically, Kings are people. I see no reason to abandon that logic or to wonder "what is a king a symbol for". The symbolism has been explained for us.

I understand that Revelation has symbolism in it. However when the symbolism is explained there is no need to continue to believe it as symbolism. In general I really don't think it is as complex as people make it out to be. Most of the symbolism is interpreted for us throughout the bible in some fashion or another. Sometimes it is harder to understand than others... but this is not the case in this passage it is said plainly what the symbolism is. Don't you think? ...

I believe your 'logic' has gotten you totally off base. You show us the passage that explains the symbolism, which explains the heads are hills the woman sits on. Then you tell us that your logic says the heads are not hills but are kings, even though the interpretation you quote says they are hills. I really don't get your logic.

And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.
(Rev 13:3)

First, the word "his" in that passage, came from a Greek word that means "of it" just as much as it means "of her" or "of him". Just because KJV and other translations has "his" does NOT mean the beast is a man, after you search the original Greek.

Second, the text says "as it were wounded to death", it DOES NOT say "wounded to death". Modern translations the book sellers love will lead you to believe it says "wounded to death" but it doesn't.

[jesse]

Durban Dude

I think I agree with you for the most part.

I think it should be taken into account that I was only trying to deal with aspects i thought resembled Christ so I did not feel the hills were of importance given my own parameters.

I think it is more properly King + Hill = Head

I don't see much of a stretch with believing a king is a man or that the hill is a kingdom. Although, a hill being a kingdom is a far bigger leap than a king being a man. But still a leap I am comfortable making.

I will say that after some thought... The head having a seemingly fatal wound... and the head being both the Hill and the King would also fit in well with Christ since Christ came to cause the dry bones to live. Israel will yet again live. So it would not shock me if the King also resurrected a kingdom. Rome perhaps? However most people don't understand what Christ is doing in regards to Israel so including it in my first statement that was designed to show similarities between Christ and Anti Christ would hardly be productive.

Raybob,

I believe your 'logic' has gotten you totally off base. You show us the passage that explains the symbolism, which explains the heads are hills the woman sits on. Then you tell us that your logic says the heads are not hills but are kings, even though the interpretation you quote says they are hills. I really don't get your logic.

The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. They are also seven kings. Rev 17:9

The bible says that the heads are both hills and kings. My logic had not entered into the equation until I said the kings were people and the Hills were Kingdoms.

First, the word "his" in that passage, came from a Greek word that means "of it" just as much as it means "of her" or "of him". Just because KJV and other translations has "his" does NOT mean the beast is a man, after you search the original Greek.

That doesn't change the interpretation one way or the other although i see what you are getting at. It is simply showing possession, I know.

Second, the text says "as it were wounded to death", it DOES NOT say "wounded to death". Modern translations the book sellers love will lead you to believe it says "wounded to death" but it doesn't.

It will be a hoax. Agreed.

[DurbanDude]

Durban Dude

I think I agree with you for the most part.

I think it should be taken into account that I was only trying to deal with aspects i thought resembled Christ so I did not feel the hills were of importance given my own parameters.

I think it is more properly King + Hill = Head

I don't see much of a stretch with believing a king is a man or that the hill is a kingdom. Although, a hill being a kingdom is a far bigger leap than a king being a man. But still a leap I am comfortable making.

I will say that after some thought... The head having a seemingly fatal wound... and the head being both the Hill and the King would also fit in well with Christ since Christ came to cause the dry bones to live. Israel will yet again live. So it would not shock me if the King also resurrected a kingdom. Rome perhaps? However most people don't understand what Christ is doing in regards to Israel so including it in my first statement that was designed to show similarities between Christ and Anti Christ would hardly be productive.

Well that "king" is fundamentally evil. I believe Rev 13 is referring to seven consecutive kingdoms, because there are no really satisfying sets of seven consecutive kings.

Read with Rev 17, we see those seven are consecutive, unlike the ten horns that are simultaneous.
5 kingdoms were, one is, and one is to come; this hints at consecutiveness, yet the beast itself is the eighth kingdom (refer to Rev 17:
And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space. And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven

If the beast itself is the 8th one, and ONE OF THE SEVEN HEADS is wounded, this means its NOT the beast that was wounded, but a previous empire colsely related to the beast.

I believe the seven heads are as follows:
Egypt
Assyria
Babylon
Persia
Greece
Rome (5 were and 1 is, Rome dominated when that was written)
Divided Rome (this is the wounded empire, Europe in the west, Turkey in the east)
Future Middle Eastern Empire (the wound is healed, an alliance empire between Europe, Turkey and Israel is set up)

[Raybob]

..Raybob,




The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. They are also seven kings. Rev 17:9

The bible says that the heads are both hills and kings. My logic had not entered into the equation until I said the kings were people and the Hills were Kingdoms.

...

Your bible is twisted from the one on the internet. KJV says:
Rev 17:9-11 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. (10) And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space. (11) And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.


"And there are kings" does NOT mean "They (mountains) are kings". The seven heads / mountains are spoken of in vs. 9. Vs. 10 tells us about 7 kings of which 5 are fallen. Different subjects and predicate. 7 heads/mountains of the beast are not referring to the 8 kings mentioned in the next verse.

[alishaba]

Additional thoughts on Revelation 17.

This chapter describes "Mystery Babylon," which will be the capital city of the future kingdom of the Antichrist. It also describes the Antichrist's kingdom.

In Rev 17:8, this "beast":
- "once was" - it existed in past history
- "now is not" - did not exist at the time when John wrote Revelation
- "will come up out of the Abyss" - it will be resurrected in the End Times
We find from this that the kingdom of the Antichrist will be a resurrected kingdom, but not a resurrected form of the Roman Empire. It will be a resurrected form of a kingdom that no longer existed when John wrote Revelation.

Now to identify the kingdom that it will be resurrected from, let's identify the characteristics of this kingdom:
1. It will rule over all of mankind (see Rev 13:3-4 & Daniel 7:23)
2. It's capital city will be "Mystery Babylon"

Turning back to Genesis 11:1-9, we find the kingdom of Babel. This kingdom:
1. Ruled over all of mankind
2. Had a capital city named Babylon (Babel is the Hebrew spelling for Babylon; Babylon is the Greek spelling for the same city)

So what we find is that the kingdom of the Antichrist will not be resurrected from the Roman Empire. It will be resurrected from the Kingdom of Babel.

Now, to identify the seven kingdoms of Rev 17:9-10, we need to identify 5 fallen kingdoms, a present kingdom, and a future kingdom.
- Daniel 7 provides a four kingdom view of prophecy. It identifies Babylon, Persia, Greece, and the future kingdom of the Antichrist.
- Along with Babel, this gives us 4 of the five fallen kingdoms
- A good candidate for the fifth is Assyria (or maybe Egypt)
- The Roman Empire is the present kingdom of Revelation

Putting this together we get:
1. Kingdom of Babel
2. Assyria
3. Babylon
4. Persia
5. Greece
6. The Roman Empire
7. The future kingdom of the Antichrist

In Rev 17:11, the Antichrist is the eighth king "that belongs to the seven"
- In Daniel 7:7, the kingdom with ten horns appears. This is kingdom seven above.
- After it appears, the little horn (Dan 7:8) uproots three horns and takes control over this kingdom (see also Dan 7:24-25). He has power over this kingdom for 3.5 years.

My conclusion on this is:
- The kingdom of the Antichrist (kingdom with ten horns) will appear at the beginning of the Tribulation.
- Half way through the tribulation, the Antichrist will take control of this kingdom and rule it for the final 3.5 years of the Tribulation.
(This is why I disagree on your view about Daniel's "70th Week." The kingdom of the Antichrist must exist before he can take control over it.)

Now let's describe the symbolism of the 7 heads and 10 horns. This phrase “seven heads and ten horns” describing this kingdom is the same phrase used to describe Satan in Revelation 12:3.
- The numbers seven and ten are both numbers that represent completeness in Biblical prophecy.
- When studying these points, remember that these details describe the Antichrist’s kingdom, and at the same time, they also describe Satan himself.

The seven heads described the historic framework of human history.
- The number seven represents completeness of time. This means that Satan has had control over the kingdoms of the world for the entirety of world history.

The ten heads describe ten future kings that will rule over the entire world (see Rev 17:12).
- The number ten represents completeness of geography. This means that Satan has control over all of the kingdoms of the world.

[Raybob]

Additional thoughts on Revelation 17.

This chapter describes "Mystery Babylon," which will be the capital city of the future kingdom of the Antichrist. It also describes the Antichrist's kingdom.
...

I wonder where you get this information. It most certainly isn't in the bible, at least not anywhere antichrist is mentioned.

[jesse]

Well that "king" is fundamentally evil. I believe Rev 13 is referring to seven consecutive kingdoms, because there are no really satisfying sets of seven consecutive kings.

Read with Rev 17, we see those seven are consecutive, unlike the ten horns that are simultaneous.
5 kingdoms were, one is, and one is to come; this hints at consecutiveness, yet the beast itself is the eighth kingdom (refer to Rev 17:
And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space. And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven

If the beast itself is the 8th one, and ONE OF THE SEVEN HEADS is wounded, this means its NOT the beast that was wounded, but a previous empire colsely related to the beast.

I believe the seven heads are as follows:
Egypt
Assyria
Babylon
Persia
Greece
Rome (5 were and 1 is, Rome dominated when that was written)
Divided Rome (this is the wounded empire, Europe in the west, Turkey in the east)
Future Middle Eastern Empire (the wound is healed, an alliance empire between Europe, Turkey and Israel is set up)

So I am not sure what you are saying... but Yet again I think I agree for the most part.

You believe that the "kings" are not kings at all but only empires? or am i wrong?

My main points are these:

1.The kingdoms include kings.

2.The Kings are people

3.The two beasts are kings.

Try to bear these 3 points in mind as you read so that you see what I am trying to point out about the verses.

And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings. And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. Daniel 7 24-25

Ten horns out of the kingdom are ten kings. Then shall another arise. Another king that is. Three and a half years that king will do his thing.

And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him? And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. Rev 3:4-5

The beast seems to be used interchangeably with the king also doing his thing for three and a half years.

And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. Rev 13:11-12

I think these two verses from revelations are indicating that the reason he is given power for three and a half years is because at that point... he dies and comes back to life (seemingly) and is replaced by the final beast. Note that these two beasts are spoken of as kings in Rev 17:10-11 as the 7th and 8th kings.

And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space. And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition. Rev 17:10-11

Five are fallen. The first of which being Nebuchadnezzar. "And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth"

Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory. And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold. Daniel 2:37

"Thou are this head of gold." Not just the kingdom... the king is the head of Gold. No doubt it is the kingdom of Babylon as well... "for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom" but it is also (and perhaps mainly) the king.

That is why we see in Rev 17 seven mountains and seven kings.

EDIT* I think it makes more sense overall that the 5 kings/kingdoms spoken of in Daniel 2 within the framework of the statue are probably the 5 kings which had fallen in John's day spoken of in Rev 17:10. "five are fallen". My reason for this is that the rock which smashed the statue is said to be an everlasting kingdom... now you probably won't follow me here but... The Kingdom of God is an everlasting kingdom and was in effect when Christ died and will be forever. The kingdom of Heaven which will last for 1000 years is what will take place in the days following the 7th and 8th kings. So... I think that the rock from the sky denotes Christs death and Resurrection. Which fits in with both the 5 kings having fallen already in John's day... and also fits in with there being a need to show the 5 kings/kingdoms seperately from the 8.

Oh and I would like to say... that the 10 toes of the statue are not really mentioned specifically enough to bother linking them to the 10 horns. It simply says "And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay". I think drawing a link there only confuses things personally.

[alishaba]

Raybob,

You are right that the name Antichrist never appears in Revelation. The only place Antichrist appears in the Bible is in I John and II John.

Other names used to describe the Antichrist are:
- "The Little Horn" in Daniel 7
- "The man of lawlessness" in II Thessalonians 2
- "The Beast" in Revelation 13-19

[Raybob]

Raybob,

You are right that the name Antichrist never appears in Revelation. The only place Antichrist appears in the Bible is in I John and II John.

Other names used to describe the Antichrist are:
- "The Little Horn" in Daniel 7
- "The man of lawlessness" in II Thessalonians 2
- "The Beast" in Revelation 13-19

I used to believe that too, until I studied the matter. I found that the little horn is history. I found "the man of lawlessness" is not that but simply "man of lawlessness", not "THE" man. I found "the beast" or the second "beast" are not men but things that devour, not a man.

[alishaba]

Raybob,

I am curious about your thoughts on a few verses.

Daniel 7:8 describes a little horn that uproots three of the first horns. Daniel 7:24 says that this horn is a king.
- How would a king be history? (It seems that a king would be a person)

II Thes 2:3-4 describes a "man of lawlessness" who declares himself to be God.
- Who or what is this "man of lawlessness?"

In Revelation 19:20, the beast is thrown alive into the lake of fire?
- What is this beast?

[Raybob]

Raybob,

I am curious about your thoughts on a few verses.

Daniel 7:8 describes a little horn that uproots three of the first horns. Daniel 7:24 says that this horn is a king.
- How would a king be history? (It seems that a king would be a person)

Some say the 4th kingdom was Seleucidae and the little horn was Antiochus during Macabees, other say fourth kingdom was is the Romans and Julius Caesar is the little horn.

II Thes 2:3-4 describes a "man of lawlessness" who declares himself to be God.
- Who or what is this "man of lawlessness?"

Re-read the text. It isn't "a" man, it is simply "man of sin". I believe "man of sin" is already seated in the temple. Of course, I hope you understand the church is the temple.



In Revelation 19:20, the beast is thrown alive into the lake of fire?
- What is this beast?[/QUOTE]

Do you mean the "beast AND the false prophet"? Certainly two things, the 'beast', probably a system, and the "false prophet", obviously a man possessed by the devil.