the wound of the beast

[randyk]

I haven't thought about it because I'm apparently not grasping what you are getting at. I have no idea what you mean here. Take prophecies in the OT about Christ, for example. Clearly Christ wouldn't even be here physically until well beyond their day and time. Using an example like this, can you show me how that would have been significant for those who wouldn't even be alive to witness the first coming, let alone the 2nd coming?

Yes, this is a very big subject with me, the idea that prophecies are given to the present generation *for* the present generation.

You might argue, however, that future prophecies, by their very nature, are *not* for the then-current generation, but rather for future generations! This idea is expressed in 1 Peter:

1 Peter 1.10 Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, 11 trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow. 12 It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things.

But many of the Messianic prophecies did have value for the then current generation in which these prophecies were given, even if the whole picture was not yet clear.

For example, there is this:

1 Cor 10.11 These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the culmination of the ages has come.

Here we have Israel going through the Wilderness as an example for *us!* But wasn't it for the then-current generation, as well?

It's clear to me that what happened in the above passage was not *just for us* in the latter times, but also had application in the time in which they took place.

And this is how I see much of OT Prophecy, as an actual historical application, as well as a future fulfillment. As such, there were Messianic Prophecies that had value in the time they were given, even if the details of Jesus' birth, life, and death were not yet disclosed.

Sometimes, when you read prophecies in the OT Scriptures of Jesus' Coming, it's difficult to tell if it's about the 1st Coming or the 2nd Coming? Sometimes they are mixed together. And that's because these prophecies are not an attempt to give the historical description itself, but only the spiritual lesson, with very few historical details.

As to the deadly wound in Revelation 13, how could that possibly be applicable to anyone 2000 years ago if this deadly wound is still yet to be healed?

If the beast that was, and is not, and yet is, is meaning the Roman empire, that would have to mean when John received and wrote the visions, at that present time the Roman empire was in the past but not in the present, and will be revived in the future. Marty's view is that Revelation was written prior to 70 AD. For the sake of argument, let's say we agree with that conclusion. That conclusion can't fit the text then, because in John's day, who or whatever is meant by the beast, it's not existing in the present, but instead is in the bottomless pit, apparently.

Yes, this is one of the most difficult prophecies in Scriptures! And I don't claim to have it down. I'm just saying that there is this general principle in Biblical Prophecy in which future prophecy has to have a current relevance. Otherwise, it is just sensationalistic-style speculation.

Much of what we do here on Endtimes is this kind of future speculation, without much of an emphasis on current spiritual values. The Scriptures did not do this when giving Prophecy. Instead, it provided current relevance, as well as future relevance. The current relevance largely consisted of present spiritual applications.

To illustrate this in depth would require a much longer post, and I don't wish to bore anybody. Let me just apply this briefly in the current example. We both agree there will be a future Antichrist. But in talking about a future Antichrist the Apostle John said that this prophecy has current spiritual value because *there are already many antichrists active in our world!* In other words, prophecy of a future Antichrist is designed to help us now, with current antichrists. This is not just speculation about a future Antichrist which has absolutely no value in the current generation!

When John spoke of a great persecution that comes at the hands of Antichrist he was aware that Christians were already suffering under imperial Rome. There was relevance to the current Church in the sense that they were being encouraged to endure, just as a future generation of Christians would have to endure the Antichrist. I trust you understand?

[ForHisglory]

Yes, this is one of the most difficult prophecies in Scriptures! And I don't claim to have it down. I'm just saying that there is this general principle in Biblical Prophecy in which future prophecy has to have a current relevance. Otherwise, it is just sensationalistic-style speculation.

Sorry, but this is where you are plainly wrong.
The general principle of Bible prophecy is that WITHIN the prophecy there is cohesion.
Sensationalistic-style speculation is usually created by linking passages which may or may not have any connection at all.

The hardest prophecy I have ever encountered is one that is explained in Matthew 1:22 & 23 which is quoting from Isaiah 7:14.
All this took place to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:
“Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us).

From Isaiah 7:10 - 17
10 Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz, 11 “Ask a sign of the Lord your[f] God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven.” 12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask, and I will not put the Lord to the test.” 13 And he[g] said, “Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.[h] 15 He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16 For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted. 17 The Lord will bring upon you and upon your people and upon your father's house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria.”

Contextually there is nothing in this passage which speaks of a coming Messiah, except within the name Immanuel. For Isaiah and Ahaz it was about the coming destruction of Israel.
I personally can't find a Biblical principal which would cause me to see this passage as being a prophecy of the Messiah.
However Matthew has that it is about this thing.
Perhaps it is not as a prophecy, though Matthew's wording does suggest this.

Most other prophecies actually DO have a meaning which is ONLY found in the future and for the present hearers was beyond understanding as to what is meant.
For example Daniel 7 was basically meaningless. It speaks of the next kingdoms UNTIL the Messiah's kingdom is established and given to the saints.
Possibly they would get the first kingdom as the Persians under Cyrus, however after that...

It is because Biblical prophecy is NOT about the present generation alone, or even mainly about the present generation, that it is worth understanding, but requires maturity.
When Jesus spoke about the temple being destroyed, many of the disciples were dead. Those who had heard Him preach in the temple were dead. It was for a future generation.
It made sense, but only in a limited way.
Those however who were to live through it, saw and understood.

This was true of the prophecies of the time when the Messiah Jesus was to come. Many did not get it, and even living through it were not sure.

[ewq1938]

In John's day God received a mortal head wound.......... Jesus.

No, Jesus never received a deadly wound to the head which he healed from.

[randyk]

Sorry, but this is where you are plainly wrong.
The general principle of Bible prophecy is that WITHIN the prophecy there is cohesion.
Sensationalistic-style speculation is usually created by linking passages which may or may not have any connection at all.

The hardest prophecy I have ever encountered is one that is explained in Matthew 1:22 & 23 which is quoting from Isaiah 7:14.
All this took place to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:
“Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us).

From Isaiah 7:10 - 17
10 Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz, 11 “Ask a sign of the Lord your[f] God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven.” 12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask, and I will not put the Lord to the test.” 13 And he[g] said, “Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.[h] 15 He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16 For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted. 17 The Lord will bring upon you and upon your people and upon your father's house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria.”

Contextually there is nothing in this passage which speaks of a coming Messiah, except within the name Immanuel. For Isaiah and Ahaz it was about the coming destruction of Israel.
I personally can't find a Biblical principal which would cause me to see this passage as being a prophecy of the Messiah.
However Matthew has that it is about this thing.
Perhaps it is not as a prophecy, though Matthew's wording does suggest this.

Most other prophecies actually DO have a meaning which is ONLY found in the future and for the present hearers was beyond understanding as to what is meant.
For example Daniel 7 was basically meaningless. It speaks of the next kingdoms UNTIL the Messiah's kingdom is established and given to the saints.
Possibly they would get the first kingdom as the Persians under Cyrus, however after that...

It is because Biblical prophecy is NOT about the present generation alone, or even mainly about the present generation, that it is worth understanding, but requires maturity.
When Jesus spoke about the temple being destroyed, many of the disciples were dead. Those who had heard Him preach in the temple were dead. It was for a future generation.
It made sense, but only in a limited way.
Those however who were to live through it, saw and understood.

This was true of the prophecies of the time when the Messiah Jesus was to come. Many did not get it, and even living through it were not sure.

The point of the prophecy, in the Olivet Discourse, was not that *every last soul* would still be alive when Jerusalem was destroyed. Rather, it was that *some* would still be alive, because this was a judgment upon *that generation.* It was the society that had gone apostate and which had destroyed their Christ that would receive God's sign of great displeasure. They would see the destruction of all that their religion represented--final judgment. Judaism, for all intents and purposes, was dead as an acceptable religion before God.

Judaism would, of course, continue. But it would never again obtain God's good pleasure. Regardless, the purpose for which it had been born was fulfilled. Messiah came and became a greater sacrifice, beyond the Law of Moses, doing what the Law itself could not do and what it indicated had to be done through another law.

I don't have a huge issue with the prophecy of the virgin. Some say the original word was "virgin," and some say it is just "young girl," as some versions have. All we know is that this birth from a young girl is somehow connected to both the judgment and deliverance of Israel, and that's what makes this a "sign."

In other words, it is not so much that this birth is from a virgin as it will become identified with Israel's judgment and deliverance. Not only so, but this birth would not be believed in, just as Ahaz himself refused to accept a sign of Israel's judgment and deliverance.

I believe that much of prophecy in Scriptures is typological, or symbolic. Much that took place, by divine guidance, formed an historical portrait of Jesus and what he would accomplish. The word of God guided the saints of old to live in such a way that they depicted the coming Messiah, who was, in fact, the Word of God.

So, the way all of the saints lived, whether Joseph or David, exhibited the traits and future history of Jesus in some way. This is prophecy. And even details, like giving birth to a son through a young woman, indicates, through the prophet, that Jesus would be born of a young woman, in the peculiar circumstances surrounding Israel's judgment and the irreligiosity of Jewish leadership.

But again, if you read throughout the Prophets, future prophecies were often couched in then-current realities. Any time you see the Messiah appear in prophecy, there is a reflection back to the time in which the prophet lived. Even prophecies of the far distant future were given in the technology of the time, and in the covenant of the time, which was the Law. It never meant that the future realities would have to stick to either that covenant or that technology.

If you look at the Olivet Discourse Jesus' burden is on the then-current generation, which would see great judgment from God against the Jewish People. The disciples' mission was to warn the Jewish People, to hopefullly get them to repent. The purpose of this prophecy, therefore, was not to speculate about when Christ would come again, as we do today. Rather, it was to get men to repent of sins that were bringing about this imminent destruction. Prophecy was not a game. It was an urgent need!

[DurbanDude]

Let's also not forget the only ONE of the heads was wounded. The beast himself was not killed.

Exactly. But the wording also implies the beast itself is wounded, not just one of the seven. What is the beast? The Bible variously describes the beast as:
The fourth kingdom Rome
The final ten horns stage of the fourth kingdom
The Antichrist/little horn at the end

Because the last two are associated with the 8th kingdom , NOT the seven heads, we are left with only two heads left that can associate with Rome:
5 were and one is, and one to come. Who are these two heads?

Daniel 2 describes Rome in three stages:
Legs of iron (Roman Empire)
Two feet iron/clay - divided Rome
Ten toes (ten horns)

So it is pretty obvious that it is the 6th empire, the Roman Empire that is wounded, when it is split into two. The 7th empire is wounded/split Rome

[DurbanDude]

I haven't thought about it because I'm apparently not grasping what you are getting at. I have no idea what you mean here. Take prophecies in the OT about Christ, for example. Clearly Christ wouldn't even be here physically until well beyond their day and time. Using an example like this, can you show me how that would have been significant for those who wouldn't even be alive to witness the first coming, let alone the 2nd coming?

As to the deadly wound in Revelation 13, how could that possibly be applicable to anyone 2000 years ago if this deadly wound is still yet to be healed?

If the beast that was, and is not, and yet is, is meaning the Roman empire, that would have to mean when John received and wrote the visions, at that present time the Roman empire was in the past but not in the present, and will be revived in the future. Marty's view is that Revelation was written prior to 70 AD. For the sake of argument, let's say we agree with that conclusion. That conclusion can't fit the text then, because in John's day, who or whatever is meant by the beast, it's not existing in the present, but instead is in the bottomless pit, apparently.

That is why Israel fits. Sure Rome is the beast, but Rome has three stages as per Daniel 2:

Iron
Two feet- divided Rome (we are in this stage)
Unified ten toes Rome with the new Roman leader - Antichrist coming to power in a new location.... Jerusalem

Thus Israel and the ten horns is the final stage of Rome. Where Roman power manifests in a huge display in Jerusalem supported by the two cities of Rome, Istanbul (Islam) and Rome (false Christianity)

[ross3421]

Exactly. But the wording also implies the beast itself is wounded, not just one of the seven. What is the beast? The Bible variously describes the beast as:
The fourth kingdom Rome
The final ten horns stage of the fourth kingdom
The Antichrist/little horn at the end

Because the last two are associated with the 8th kingdom , NOT the seven heads, we are left with only two heads left that can associate with Rome:
5 were and one is, and one to come. Who are these two heads?

Daniel 2 describes Rome in three stages:
Legs of iron (Roman Empire)
Two feet iron/clay - divided Rome
Ten toes (ten horns)

So it is pretty obvious that it is the 6th empire, the Roman Empire that is wounded, when it is split into two. The 7th empire is wounded/split Rome

The Beast is Satan and his kingdom. No earthly kingdoms previously on the world.

3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

13 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

[ross3421]

No, Jesus never received a deadly wound to the head which he healed from.

Jesus did die. Could not the resurrection be the "healing"

[ForHisglory]

The point of the prophecy, in the Olivet Discourse, was not that *every last soul* would still be alive when Jerusalem was destroyed. Rather, it was that *some* would still be alive, because this was a judgment upon *that generation.* It was the society that had gone apostate and which had destroyed their Christ that would receive God's sign of great displeasure. They would see the destruction of all that their religion represented--final judgment. Judaism, for all intents and purposes, was dead as an acceptable religion before God.

Nope, it wasn't even that any of the people alive at that time would be alive when it happened.
The KEY point, which you are dodging is that the listeners, who heard what Jesus said were NOT alive.
Therefore it means your claim that Biblical prophecy is for those who are alive at the time is WRONG.

This is true for many prophecies.

I don't have a huge issue with the prophecy of the virgin. Some say the original word was "virgin," and some say it is just "young girl," as some versions have. All we know is that this birth from a young girl is connected to the element of God judging Israel, that makes this a "sign." And that means it is Messianic. So when Jesus was born from a virgin, that indicated it was the fulfillment of this prophetic design in Isaiah, indicating Israel would be judged. And just as Ahaz refused the sign, so Israel rejected the sign of Jesus' virgin birth.

So because it is a sign and because it involves judgement so it is Messianic? Weird tortuous connection.
Ahaz refused to ask for a sign, so God said you would be given one, which included in it the fact it would occur while Ahaz was alive.

[Revelation Man]

The point of the prophecy,

The point of prophecy at all times is edification. Firstly it was to build Israel's faith. Now it serves to build up the Church's faith.

1 Cor. 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. 3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort. 4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.

Each in turn furthers and glorifies the name of God and edifies Him in the end.

Moses prophesied each plague that came upon Egypt. God could have just caused all Egyptians to die if He had wanted to, but by Moses prophesying each event it was supposed to edify Moses and show him to be a Man of God, and hopefully they would thus respect Moses position and Honor God by obeying Him. But of course men's eyes are always on worldly things and they instead worshiped the Golden Calf.

[randyk]

Nope, it wasn't even that any of the people alive at that time would be alive when it happened.
The KEY point, which you are dodging is that the listeners, who heard what Jesus said were NOT alive.
Therefore it means your claim that Biblical prophecy is for those who are alive at the time is WRONG.

I'm not dodging anything. As I said, people *were* still alive in 70 AD! The 70 AD judgment took place in the *very generation* that rejected Jesus! How on earth you can think I'm dodging something when this is the truth is beyond me?

The very families alive when Jesus pronounced judgment were *still alive* when 70 AD took place! I don't care if they were 80 years old, or 40 years old--these were the very families that were alive when Jesus pronounced judgment against them. This was judgment directly against those who had rejected him as Messiah!

40 years after Jesus died people were still alive! Please recall who was alive 40 years after the generation perished in the wilderness of Sinai! Caleb and Joshua were still alive! They entered into the Promised Land. This is the reverse of that. Those still surviving after 40 years either died or fled!

Keep in mind this prophecy of Jesus is not that *all will be alive* who is alive at the time he made this prophecy! Rather, it is that not all will be dead before this prophecy is fulfilled! In other words, this is likely at the end of the period of this particular generation, rather than at the beginning.

"This generation will not *pass away* before this takes place." In other words, some of this generation will already be passed away. But some will remain and cannot all die before this happens. It will kind of stamp the end of that generation with "failure." It will become the end legacy of that particular generation, just before it is finished. Jewish religion, and the temple itself, will be finished.

This is true for many prophecies.


So because it is a sign and because it involves judgement so it is Messianic? Weird tortuous connection.
Ahaz refused to ask for a sign, so God said you would be given one, which included in it the fact it would occur while Ahaz was alive.

No, I kind of made my argument poorly. Let me try again. I'm saying that the young woman giving birth is not clearly indicated to be a virgin birth--just that it will somehow be a sign. The fact it was a virgin birth was made manifest only when the actual event took place, ie when Jesus was actually born of a virgin.

So what Isaiah predicted was not so much a *virgin birth* as a noteworthy birth that would somehow be connected both with Israel's judgment and Israel's deliverance. The Southern Kingdom of Judah was delivered, and the Northern Kingdom of Israel was judged.

In the same way, the Messiah would come and deliver sinful Israel through this Messiah in some way. How this would be is not made clear by Isaiah. We only know after the fact, when Matthew declares it, that the Messiah would deliver Israel by "saving them from their sins!"

I rewrote what I said in the previous post to make it more clear. I said:

"I don't have a huge issue with the prophecy of the virgin. Some say the original word was "virgin," and some say it is just "young girl," as some versions have. All we know is that this birth from a young girl is somehow connected to both the judgment and deliverance of Israel, and that's what makes this a "sign."

In other words, it is not so much that this birth is from a virgin as it will become identified with Israel's judgment and deliverance. Not only so, but this birth would not be believed in, just as Ahaz himself refused to accept a sign of Israel's judgment and deliverance."

It may be not so much that it was predicted Jesus would be born of a virgin, but that Jesus would be associated with the judgment and deliverance of Israel, accompanied by Jewish disbelief. The miraculous virgin birth may not be the factor that is being predicted, but that it will somehow be a sign that is not wanted and yet brings about the deliverance of Israel from their sins.

[ewq1938]

Jesus did die.

From a head wound ?

[ross3421]

From a head wound ?

C'mon.......think.

The wound was to one of it's heads does not mean it is a "head" on your shoulders wound. Each head represents an entity. in which one of the seven had a mortal wound.

Now to go deeper which I always do but few understand if any........so which head is it?

First you need to understand the 7 heads are NOT some previous earthly king or kingdom. They are part of the beast himself. The four beast which are also part of the beast kingdom contains 7 heads. The first head of the 7 (Lion) receives this mortal wound but comes back as the 8th head.

Lion = head 1
bear = head 2
Leopard = head 3,4,5,6,
Beast = head 7

little horn - head 8

Dan 2
4 The first was like a lion, and had eagle's wings: I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a man, and a man's heart was given to it.

The lion (1 of the 7 heads) eagles wings plucked represents the wound and then we see it returns note from the earth to be a man (little horn)

Rev 13
2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.

Notice the Lion is now mentioned last and it has a mouth ie a man . The mouth of the man is the second beast from "earth" ie a man.

So this little horn now the 8th head "yet is" will be on the earth for 3.5 years. After he conquers the enemy saints (note to the world they are unbelievers) and the 1260 days he commits AOD and then God's wrath pursues until day 1335.

[ewq1938]

Each head represents an entity.

If were going to start thinking then Rev 17 says the heads are mountains not entities as you claim. That makes you wrong already not to mention you think the first beast wounded in one head is somehow Jesus. That's easily an unscriptural exegesis.

[ross3421]

If were going to start thinking then Rev 17 says the heads are mountains not entities as you claim. That makes you wrong already not to mention you think the first beast wounded in one head is somehow Jesus. That's easily an unscriptural exegesis.

Where do I say the first head above is Jesus? Note like Jesus, Satan will appear as a Lion then return as a Lamb (Rev 13).

Yes there 7 mountains but also next verse 7 kings. So each mountain one king. How could a mountain receive a mortal wound?

Deeper again. Think. What do the 7 mountains represent?

Well what other 7 have we seen in revelation? How about 7 churches????

Thus we see Babylon built upon 7 churches (mountains). The congregation of these churches represent all those who did not overcome and have the mark of the beast. Assigned to each church is a king in power. We see 5 of the seven have fallen (loss power) and at the time John is seeing the sixth but shortly we see the 8th which is of the seven and will hold power.