Page 1 of 25 123456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 367

Thread: the wound of the beast

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,798

    the wound of the beast

    There are probably many threads on this, but I wish to briefly revisit it with my own spin. Do you think of Bible Prophecy as a kind of "crystal ball" session? Should we get all emotional about the news like some Prophecy Teachers, thinking that Antichrist is under every rock, or can be tagged on any current irreligious world leader?

    So what about the wound of the Beast? Do you think John meant for Christians in his time to read this, and then start speculating about who the Beast was, and whether he would be "wounded" in some particular way? Or, was John referring to something that was currently understandable, and perhaps even applicable?

    What would the "wound of the beast" mean to John? Would it be some future Antichrist rising up at the end of the age, and then being struck down dead, only to rise again? Though that's possible, it doesn't seem consistent to me with biblical prophecy overall. Most biblical prophecy has a current application, even if the fulfillment of the prophecy is future.

    So how could the "wound of the beast" be applied in John's day? We *know* the Antichrist would be long after John's day, and still has not come yet!

    I think John meant for Christians in his day to see applications of antichrist in their own day, in the same figure of the future Antichrist. They had to deal with persecution in their own day, and with the need to endure. They had to deal with the antichristian persecution of the Roman Empire.

    What then was the "wound of the beast?" It would be a blow struck against the current "antichrist," which was Rome. It would be a blow against the imperial power of Rome, whether something done against Rome spiritually and legally at the cross, or physically, in 476 AD, when Rome was defeated.

    In other words, seeing the wound of the Beast as a future event, with Antichrist physically struck down, does not seem to be the biblical method in prophecy. It is not about news sensationalism, or trying to pinpoint prophecies on current events, on a particular identification, on a particular act of murder, with an accompanying miracle.

    Rather, the method of biblical prophecy is to instruct Christians *in all generations.* What do you think?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Thames, New Zealand
    Posts
    1,958
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: the wound of the beast

    I read Revelation 13:3-7 as about a man who will rise to power and lead the One World Government in the last days. He will be Satanically empowered, possessed and healed of his deadly wound by Satan.
    He will make a 7 year peace treaty with the new Christian nation in all of the Holy Land, but will break it at the mid point and will conquer them. Zechariah 14:1-2, Daniel 7:23-25

    All of this can and will literally happen, it is all part of the Lord's great testing time for all of humanity.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,798

    Re: the wound of the beast

    Quote Originally Posted by Keraz View Post
    I read Revelation 13:3-7 as about a man who will rise to power and lead the One World Government in the last days. He will be Satanically empowered, possessed and healed of his deadly wound by Satan.
    He will make a 7 year peace treaty with the new Christian nation in all of the Holy Land, but will break it at the mid point and will conquer them. Zechariah 14:1-2, Daniel 7:23-25

    All of this can and will literally happen, it is all part of the Lord's great testing time for all of humanity.
    But that then renders all of the prophecy "unuseable" for Christians in the 1st century, let alone for Christians all through the ages. How then would this be useful as a "revelation" to Christians all through the ages, if all it is about is speculation for the future?

    That's my point. Something about the "wound of the beast" had to be valuable in John's day, as well as in our own day. We have to either know that the Beast can be killed, or we have to be warned that though he is killed, that can't stop him! Which is it?

    In the days of the Roman Empire the Christians had their own "beast" in imperial Rome. Caesar was their Antichrist! So what would the "wounding of the beast" mean with that particular application? "Was it about the fact that assassinating a Caesar would not stop him? Or, was it about God's guarantee that Caesar's rule would indeed be fatally wounded in the end?

    In reality, this seems to discourage the idea that Caesar, or Antichrist, can be assassinated. Or it may be a guarantee that the Roman Empire, in its day, would not ultimately prevail--it would be fatally wounded, even before the endtime Antichrist arises.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Thames, New Zealand
    Posts
    1,958
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: the wound of the beast

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    But that then renders all of the prophecy "unuseable" for Christians in the 1st century, let alone for Christians all through the ages. How then would this be useful as a "revelation" to Christians all through the ages, if all it is about is speculation for the future?

    That's my point. Something about the "wound of the beast" had to be valuable in John's day, as well as in our own day. We have to either know that the Beast can be killed, or we have to be warned that though he is killed, that can't stop him! Which is it?

    In the days of the Roman Empire the Christians had their own "beast" in imperial Rome. Caesar was their Antichrist! So what would the "wounding of the beast" mean with that particular application? "Was it about the fact that assassinating a Caesar would not stop him? Or, was it about God's guarantee that Caesar's rule would indeed be fatally wounded in the end?

    In reality, this seems to discourage the idea that Caesar, or Antichrist, can be assassinated. Or it may be a guarantee that the Roman Empire, in its day, would not ultimately prevail--it would be fatally wounded, even before the endtime Antichrist arises.
    I don't have any problem with the fact that most prophecy isn't intended for the immediate hearers. Ezekiel 12:27 says that his prophesies are for a time far off.
    Some prophecy does have a dual fulfilment, or even triple; partial fulfilment at an earlier time. This does'nt preclude a final and complete fulfilment. It may be that the early Christians did apply parts of Revelation to their times. Looking forward to the glorious Return of Jesus, would have been helpful to them, as they endured persecution;

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,271
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: the wound of the beast

    Daniel had a prophecy about a temple being destroyed.
    However there wasn't a temple in existence when he had this vision.
    So the least likely is that Daniel thought it was a replay of what HAD happened.
    More likely is that Daniel would understand there would be a rebuilding of the temple and a yet further in the future reason for it to be destroyed.

    Now apply this truth to understanding Revelation.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,798

    Re: the wound of the beast

    Quote Originally Posted by Keraz View Post
    I don't have any problem with the fact that most prophecy isn't intended for the immediate hearers. Ezekiel 12:27 says that his prophesies are for a time far off.
    Some prophecy does have a dual fulfilment, or even triple; partial fulfilment at an earlier time. This does'nt preclude a final and complete fulfilment. It may be that the early Christians did apply parts of Revelation to their times. Looking forward to the glorious Return of Jesus, would have been helpful to them, as they endured persecution;
    It seems we just recently had this discussion. Your quotation is misinterpreted. In Eze 12, it is the *false prophets" and the deluded people of Israel who think that the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy is far off! In reality, Ezekiel was telling them that the fulfillment was *imminent!*

    I'm thankful that you agree with a kind of "dual application" of Revelation to both the future Antichrist and the time of suffering under Rome. I think that's what God intended. Otherwise, Revelation is pure speculation in this regard.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,798

    Re: the wound of the beast

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Daniel had a prophecy about a temple being destroyed.
    However there wasn't a temple in existence when he had this vision.
    So the least likely is that Daniel thought it was a replay of what HAD happened.
    More likely is that Daniel would understand there would be a rebuilding of the temple and a yet further in the future reason for it to be destroyed.

    Now apply this truth to understanding Revelation.
    Daniel prophesied both the restoration of the temple and its destruction following, after 70 Weeks. This prophecy had an immediate impact upon the current Hebrew remnant, because it encouraged them that they would be restored.

    At the same time it warned them that history would repeat itself. Some Hebrews would remain faithful, while others would return to their apostasies. So no restoration would be permanent--at least not until Messiah brings an eternal temple.

    There is little prophecy of a future temple to be rebuilt. But that may in fact happen because Antichrist may need an actual temple to take his seat in, proclaiming himself God.

    One thing I do know is that no future temple can be built that God will *sanction* replete with animal sacrifices and offerings made under the Old Covenant. If such a temple is built, it will undoubtedly be given over to the Man of Sin!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    6,338

    Re: the wound of the beast

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk
    Would it be some future Antichrist rising up at the end of the age, and then being struck down dead, only to rise again? Though that's possible
    Randy
    It is NOT possible.
    Anyone holding this view doesn’t understand the uniqueness of God.

    God alone, not a human, not an angel, not a demon, not an antichrist, and not Satan himself has or will ever the power or authority of resurrection, and none but YHWH Himself can give life.

    Any doctrine teaching anyone besides YHWH can raise anyone from the dead is a false, unbiblical doctrine that must be fervently refuted.

    Resurrection, creation, giving of the breath of life, is God-only business!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Pitt Meadows b.c.
    Posts
    4,389
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: the wound of the beast

    Quote Originally Posted by David Taylor View Post
    Randy
    It is NOT possible.
    Anyone holding this view doesn’t understand the uniqueness of God.

    God alone, not a human, not an angel, not a demon, not an antichrist, and not Satan himself has or will ever the power or authority of resurrection, and none but YHWH Himself can give life.

    Any doctrine teaching anyone besides YHWH can raise anyone from the dead is a false, unbiblical doctrine that must be fervently refuted.

    Resurrection, creation, giving of the breath of life, is God-only business!
    Well said Dave.................................

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Pitt Meadows b.c.
    Posts
    4,389
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: the wound of the beast

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    There are probably many threads on this, but I wish to briefly revisit it with my own spin. Do you think of Bible Prophecy as a kind of "crystal ball" session? Should we get all emotional about the news like some Prophecy Teachers, thinking that Antichrist is under every rock, or can be tagged on any current irreligious world leader?

    So what about the wound of the Beast? Do you think John meant for Christians in his time to read this, and then start speculating about who the Beast was, and whether he would be "wounded" in some particular way? Or, was John referring to something that was currently understandable, and perhaps even applicable?

    What would the "wound of the beast" mean to John? Would it be some future Antichrist rising up at the end of the age, and then being struck down dead, only to rise again? Though that's possible, it doesn't seem consistent to me with biblical prophecy overall. Most biblical prophecy has a current application, even if the fulfillment of the prophecy is future.

    So how could the "wound of the beast" be applied in John's day? We *know* the Antichrist would be long after John's day, and still has not come yet!

    I think John meant for Christians in his day to see applications of antichrist in their own day, in the same figure of the future Antichrist. They had to deal with persecution in their own day, and with the need to endure. They had to deal with the antichristian persecution of the Roman Empire.

    What then was the "wound of the beast?" It would be a blow struck against the current "antichrist," which was Rome. It would be a blow against the imperial power of Rome, whether something done against Rome spiritually and legally at the cross, or physically, in 476 AD, when Rome was defeated.

    In other words, seeing the wound of the Beast as a future event, with Antichrist physically struck down, does not seem to be the biblical method in prophecy. It is not about news sensationalism, or trying to pinpoint prophecies on current events, on a particular identification, on a particular act of murder, with an accompanying miracle.

    Rather, the method of biblical prophecy is to instruct Christians *in all generations.* What do you think?
    Well for one as Dave pointed out no one but God can raise someone or themselves from the dead. To claims that would be to give satan the same power as God remember satan is just an fallen angle.

    To understand this we have to understand who the beast is. Is he a mire human or a demon. I see the beast as satan a demon overseeing an empire and as the leaders.

    I see the fatal wound as satan in the verse below

    Genesis 3:15
    15
    And I will put enmity
    between you and the woman,
    and between your offspring[a] and hers;
    he will crush[b] your head,
    and you will strike his heel.”

    I also see the near fatal wound as the demon in the verse below

    Revelation 17:8
    8 The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and yet will come up out of the Abyss and go to its destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because it once was, now is not, and yet will come.

    How can any man be "once was and now is not and yet will come"?

    This demon is the one who comes out of the abbyss in

    Revelation 9:11
    11 They had as king over them the angel of the Abyss, whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon and in Greek is Apollyon (that is, Destroyer).

    I see the near fatal wound in the empire as Rome when Rome was almost destroyed after Nero's death in the year of four Caesars. The Roman historian Tacitus describes this season as the worst time in the history of Rome in the cavil wars between different leaders who were fighting for the throne until Vespasian took control and revived the empire from near death
    Last edited by marty fox; Feb 23rd 2018 at 04:29 AM. Reason: added sentence

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,798

    Re: the wound of the beast

    Quote Originally Posted by David Taylor View Post
    Randy
    It is NOT possible.
    Anyone holding this view doesn’t understand the uniqueness of God.

    God alone, not a human, not an angel, not a demon, not an antichrist, and not Satan himself has or will ever the power or authority of resurrection, and none but YHWH Himself can give life.

    Any doctrine teaching anyone besides YHWH can raise anyone from the dead is a false, unbiblical doctrine that must be fervently refuted.

    Resurrection, creation, giving of the breath of life, is God-only business!
    Not saying I believe that will happen. Some people believe that the Antichrist will receive some kind of fatal wound, only to recover--not necessarily be raised from the dead. I don't personally know the limits of Satan's power. But what you say makes sense to me that it isn't *likely* God would give this power to angels. Thanks.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,798

    Re: the wound of the beast

    Quote Originally Posted by marty fox View Post
    Well for one as Dave pointed out no one but God can raise someone or themselves from the dead. To claims that would be to give satan the same power as God remember satan is just an fallen angle.

    To understand this we have to understand who the beast is. Is he a mire human or a demon. I see the beast as satan a demon overseeing an empire and as the leaders.

    I see the fatal wound as satan in the verse below

    Genesis 3:15
    15
    And I will put enmity
    between you and the woman,
    and between your offspring[a] and hers;
    he will crush[b] your head,
    and you will strike his heel.”

    I also see the near fatal wound as the demon in the verse below

    Revelation 17:8
    8 The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and yet will come up out of the Abyss and go to its destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because it once was, now is not, and yet will come.

    How can any man be "once was and now is not and yet will come"?

    This demon is the one who comes out of the abbyss in

    Revelation 9:11
    11 They had as king over them the angel of the Abyss, whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon and in Greek is Apollyon (that is, Destroyer).

    I see the near fatal wound in the empire as Rome when Rome was almost destroyed after Nero's death in the year of four Caesars. The Roman historian Tacitus describes this season as the worst time in the history of Rome in the cavil wars between different leaders who were fighting for the throne until Vespasian took control and revived the empire from near death
    Yep, I've heard that one before. It's a difficult prophecy!

  13. #13

    Re: the wound of the beast

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    There are probably many threads on this, but I wish to briefly revisit it with my own spin. Do you think of Bible Prophecy as a kind of "crystal ball" session? Should we get all emotional about the news like some Prophecy Teachers, thinking that Antichrist is under every rock, or can be tagged on any current irreligious world leader?

    So what about the wound of the Beast? Do you think John meant for Christians in his time to read this, and then start speculating about who the Beast was, and whether he would be "wounded" in some particular way? Or, was John referring to something that was currently understandable, and perhaps even applicable?

    What would the "wound of the beast" mean to John? Would it be some future Antichrist rising up at the end of the age, and then being struck down dead, only to rise again? Though that's possible, it doesn't seem consistent to me with biblical prophecy overall. Most biblical prophecy has a current application, even if the fulfillment of the prophecy is future.

    So how could the "wound of the beast" be applied in John's day? We *know* the Antichrist would be long after John's day, and still has not come yet!

    I think John meant for Christians in his day to see applications of antichrist in their own day, in the same figure of the future Antichrist. They had to deal with persecution in their own day, and with the need to endure. They had to deal with the antichristian persecution of the Roman Empire.

    What then was the "wound of the beast?" It would be a blow struck against the current "antichrist," which was Rome. It would be a blow against the imperial power of Rome, whether something done against Rome spiritually and legally at the cross, or physically, in 476 AD, when Rome was defeated.

    In other words, seeing the wound of the Beast as a future event, with Antichrist physically struck down, does not seem to be the biblical method in prophecy. It is not about news sensationalism, or trying to pinpoint prophecies on current events, on a particular identification, on a particular act of murder, with an accompanying miracle.

    Rather, the method of biblical prophecy is to instruct Christians *in all generations.* What do you think?
    The "wound" meant to John what it continues to mean today. A " wound" is figurative of the great tribulation. A great tribulation is made up of great famines and pestilences.

    An ungodly kingdom is wounded to death by the great tribulation she must go through. So, the beast (kingdom) that is wounded to death undergoes the great tribulation, but is healed because her great tribulation does not shortly lead to death. She is healed for as long as she remains in the great tribulation.

    The beast (kingdom) that is wounded to death is the third beast who is greater than the second who is more deceitful than the first beast.

    While the Antichrist is the first level beast who denies that God has come in flesh, the second beast is the false prophet. In other words, the Antichrist < False Prophet < the wounded Beast.
    Grace and peace unto you from God the Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ!

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Thames, New Zealand
    Posts
    1,958
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: the wound of the beast

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    It seems we just recently had this discussion. Your quotation is misinterpreted. In Eze 12, it is the *false prophets" and the deluded people of Israel who think that the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy is far off! In reality, Ezekiel was telling them that the fulfillment was *imminent!*
    I disagreed with you then and I do again now. Many prophesies specify the 'latter days', the end of the age', etc.
    Obviously, most of what Ezekiel and all the prophets said, remains to be fulfilled. Otherwise; do we not have any hope for the future?

    We have the benefit of hindsight and with good access to the historical record, we know that most Bible prophecy is yet to be fulfilled.
    And rather than be worried about what will happen, we should be happy to be alive now, it is our privilege to experience the fruition of God's great Plan for mankind.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    7,490

    Re: the wound of the beast

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    There are probably many threads on this, but I wish to briefly revisit it with my own spin. Do you think of Bible Prophecy as a kind of "crystal ball" session? Should we get all emotional about the news like some Prophecy Teachers, thinking that Antichrist is under every rock, or can be tagged on any current irreligious world leader?

    So what about the wound of the Beast? Do you think John meant for Christians in his time to read this, and then start speculating about who the Beast was, and whether he would be "wounded" in some particular way? Or, was John referring to something that was currently understandable, and perhaps even applicable?

    What would the "wound of the beast" mean to John? Would it be some future Antichrist rising up at the end of the age, and then being struck down dead, only to rise again? Though that's possible, it doesn't seem consistent to me with biblical prophecy overall. Most biblical prophecy has a current application, even if the fulfillment of the prophecy is future.
    Just like now we can understand future prophecy, back then they also had the skills to understand future prophecy. This in no way implies the fulfilment is in any way current or past. Prophecy concerns the future.

    Sure they would have identified Rome in the prophecy. Back then just like now, it was possible to see the apparent contradiction in the 7 heads compared to the fourth kingdom of Dan 2 and Dan 7. They knew from Daniel that they were living in the final kingdom, Rome, why then the seven heads, five were , one IS , ROME, and one to come. The beast itself is the 8th kingdom, not the 7th. That's TWO MORE kingdoms after Rome yet Daniel says Rome is the final Empire

    This is the big contradiction we have to deal with, the answer is that ALL three , the 6th 7th and 8th are all Rome. Which of these current/future Rome's is wounded? Is it the 6th, the powerful iron empire of Rome. It's not the 8th because Rev 13 is clear it's ONE OF THE SEVEN HEADS that is wounded.

    Daniel 2 clarifies the 3 stages of Rome:
    Iron legs
    Divided Rome of two feet
    Ten toes (Horns) Rome

    From that we can be clear that the 6th empire, iron Rome, was wounded. Divided Rome (Rome/Istanbul) is currently the wounded empire. It will heal when Rome and Istanbul unify the religions of the world to support the rise of the Antichrist in a new location for the capital of the Roman Empire, Jerusalem.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Finger wound
    By Crosstalk in forum Prayer
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Jul 13th 2016, 12:03 AM
  2. Replies: 28
    Last Post: Nov 12th 2014, 02:43 PM
  3. WOUND
    By verseode in forum Poetry
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Jun 2nd 2011, 04:56 PM
  4. Head Wound
    By ross3421 in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: May 11th 2010, 11:40 AM
  5. the first beast's fatal head wound
    By Nihil Obstat in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: Mar 28th 2009, 09:16 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •