Paradise Cafe Discussions - A Place For Bible Research And Christian Encouragement

Hi TD

As I said though, you are re-interpreting the angel's words.

The angel says: "And the woman that you saw is the great city which has dominion over the kings of the earth." (17:18)

When the angel says that, isn't he telling us the meaning of the "woman" symbology? He doesn't also add, "... and in turn the city means the apostles and the seven congregations".

Why not just go with the angel's interpretations, which you correctly identified before you added that extra layer of interpretation?

seven heads = seven hills
seven heads = seven kings
ten horns = kings who have not yet received kingdoms
waters = peoples, crowds, nations, tongues
woman = great city that has dominion over kings of the earth

Why do we need to go any further than the above? With the above formula, the angel is telling John the meaning of the vision.

To identify the "woman", John simply needs to look for a city, that has dominion over the kings of the earth, that sits on 7 hills, rules over peoples, crowds, nations and tongues, and that sits on top of a "beast" (which we both agree represents a powerful kingdom) that has 7 kings, 5 of whom had fallen in John's day.

I'm convinced John wouldn't have had to look very far... :)

I think one of the difficulties you may be having is in not realizing how things like these played out in the Old Testament.

It's really important, for instance, to see how God describes harlot Ninevah in Nahum chapter 2. Here God is calling a completely pagan city, that was never married to him, a prostitute.

So the harlot of Rev 17 does not need to be married to God. The vision is simply describing the "woman" in similar language to Ninevah.

Again, I think you're mixing up the two symbolic women. The first woman (in Rev 12) is persecuted by the dragon!

The second woman fornicates with the kings of the earth. She is similar to ancient Ninevah in that respect, but this time I think it's talking about Rome, which was drunk the blood of the holy ones.

Yes, but I'd say the primary vehicle Satan used was Rome. As you pointed out, the Roman Church essentially took all the pagan stuff, put a "Christian" label on it, and said it was the only way to God, possessing the keys of the kingdom.

That was a stroke of genius on Satan's part :) All of that originated and was controlled from Rome.

Hi Brendan

No problem... I can see why you and others would see it as having a short lifespan because "it goes off into destruction" (or "perdition"), but I think it's just telling us the ultimate outcome of that beast, not giving us a timescale as such.

In other words, unlike other world powers that are usually conquered by others, this beast's outcome is destruction.

It would be convenient if it was, but I don't think it could be, because all of the description in Rev 17:8-15 seems to match the 1st beast.

I'd say only in this instance, when we are told the (1st) wild beast is also itself the 8th king.

It might sound confusing, but I suspect the vision is trying to do several things at once.

It's trying to point us back to Daniel - specifically the image in Nebuchadnezzar's dream, and the four beasts in Daniel 7. That's why John sees the 1st beast having elements ("leopard", "bear", "lion", "ten horns") that were in the Daniel 7 beasts.

The image in Nebuchadnezzar's dream gives us the broad outline of history, telling us that the "iron" kingdom (of Rome) would eventually be divided, and become weakened by "clay". The statue ends in 10 toes, and a stone crushing it out of existence.

The Daniel 7 vision gives us more details, especially about the 4th kingdom, with "ten horns", and then a "little horn" emerging and subduing three of those kingdoms.

I think John's vision is simply an extension of Daniel's visions, but this time highlighting the things that are relevant to Christians.

So the 1st beast in Revelation is the Roman Empire (which was the ten horned beast of Daniel 7), but...

... with a specific time focus on Nero (the king who "is") and the things that would shortly happen in Rome, such as the civil war in 69AD when the beast itself (the empire) would be "abyssed" temporarily, Galba, Otto and Vitellius would vie for rulership, with Vitellius even having his head cut off (possibly alluded to in "one of its heads as though slaughtered to death", Rev 13:3).

The reason this event is important is because the main focus is on 70AD, when Jerusalem was destroyed, and the civil war in Rome had ended, with Vespasian as emperor.

This is when the Roman State really starts to serve Satan's purpose, in continually warring with Christians, whereas before (except under the last years of Nero) the State was not at war with Christians.

(Christ's death, for instance, was not something Roman governor Pilate particularly desired, but he did it to please the mob.)

However, the 2nd beast is probably the "little horn" of Daniel 7, which in Daniel's vision emerges as part of the 4th beast, but is an 11th horn, as it were, which gets its own mouthpiece.

I'd suggest John's vision is simply elaborating on Daniel's vision!

Both the "little horn" of Daniel 7, and the 2nd wild beast, fit the Papacy. The "little horn" defeats three of the other 10 horns, which is historically what the Papacy did, to acquire the Papal kingdoms.

Yes, that's pretty similar to what I'm saying... although I'd suggest more specifically that the 2nd beast is the Papacy, and the "image" of the 1st wild beast that it creates, is the Holy Roman Empire.

The Holy Roman Empire was just a political vehicle used by the Pope to control the kingdoms that were formerly part of the Roman Empire. It was the Pope that granted it "breath".

This is why the Papacy can be described as a beast - because it chose to be political, with the Holy Roman Empire, the Papal Kingdoms, and Vatican City (which even today has observer status at the UN).

Hi interpretum,

I’ve never tried to understand Daniel’s beasts with the two beasts in Revelation in mind. I hear what you’re saying about Daniel’s prophesy being more general and John’s aimed particularly at Christians. I will have to re-read these scriptures to see how the pieces fit with this in mind.

For the moment, is this a reasonable summation of your understanding of the Revelation beasts:

The eight king is the one that was, is not at time of John’s writing, and will be after the empire is resurrected as a religio-political empire. Although this is a second beast, it is not completely distinct from the first beast. Can we say it is simply the first beast in a new manifestation (image)? In other words, should we simply understand the two beasts to be two manifestations of the same beast?

So, if Daniel is giving us the four different elements that make up one entity, is John also talking about the elements of one entity, in this case a beast with two elements to it?

Regards,
Brendan.

Hi interpretum,

Here is a separate problem, one that Frank raised earlier in the thread. I think ‘the beast that was, is not now, yet will be’ would place the time of writing at a time when the beast was not alive. If John is talking about this beast as Rome and we are in the time of Nero, it seems to make no sense. Even placing the time of John’s writing to the traditionally-set 90 CE still places us in the time of the original empire, if not the Julio-Claudian dynasty, and probably under the rule of Domitian. If John is not referring to Rome but to the other beast as not existing at the time of writing, what was its earlier manifestation, where was it at the time of writing, and what might it be in the future?

This is Wikipedia’s take on the end of Vitallius and the Julio-Claudian dynasty by the Flavian dynasty:

Vitellius ‘was a Roman Emperor who reigned from 2 January 69 to 22 December of the same year… His claim to the throne was soon challenged by legions stationed in the Eastern provinces, who proclaimed their commander Vespasian emperor in his place. War ensued, leading to a crushing defeat for Vitellius at the Second Battle of Bedriacum. When he realised his support was wavering, Vitellius prepared to abdicate in favour of Vespasian, but was executed in Rome by Flavian forces on December 22 of 69.

For me, I can’t see how this is significant enough to fulfil this scripture:

The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is. - Rev 17:8.

To put meat on the bones of scripture, it might look like this:

The beast that thou sawest was (Julio-Claudian Rome), and is not (in the brief space of change from the old dynasty to the Flavian); and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit (a bit deep for such a brief interlude), and go into perdition (heading for destruction by the forces of the Lord in his day): and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is. - Rev 17:8.

Even if we go back a year to the end of Nero’s reign, the change to the new dynasty is very quick, and I can’t figure out who might be ‘wondering’ about the change of dynasty or why they might find it so ‘wonder’-ful.

Regards,
Brendan.

Hi INT,

As usuall thanks for all the thoughts, FYI on my last post as I said in my original post I am still struggleing to figure out certain parts.
So my last post to you wtih the title to read the one before.

Is my attempt to show you how I look at revelation. I persoanlly feel that the "replacement" must fit thruought the book of revelation.
hence why i places the "woman" harlot where I did.
"like Brendan gave an eg.." I also put my thought into the scriptures to see if when I read it it flows right.

I might have to take a breather on this as per the usuall things, evry day we have badness to deal with. so goes life.
And besides I am still learning to "Debate" so to speak.. well with any coherence that is..:funnyface:


I'll be baaaaaaachhhhhhk

maybe in the early part of next week.

oh Just remembered why the twig reference doesn't actually match to the way the revelation of the beast was done.

the dream interpretation was vision"twig" to literal actuall "Day"
it was an interpretation of a vision

it is not done like that in rev.

Otherwise it would be the seven heads are "ceasar,1,2,3,4,5,6"
Glad that came to me..
this is a clue to a prophecy.

So it is not apples to appples..
so you haveing to look for anything becomes and interpretation initself.

Sorry to be a pain.

Hi Brendan

You raise a good point about the "was, but is not, and yet will be present" scripture, which gave me quite a bit of pause for thought. I don't think I really explained this scripture in by chapter by chapter thread on Revelation.

Let me put this all into some context. I think John was receiving the vision during the latter part of Nero's reign, possibly as late in his reign as 67 or 68AD. (This would explain why John was in exile. The Christians in Rome were being burned alive in Nero's Vatican gardens at the time, and I imagine Christians in the rest of the empire weren't faring too well either.)

However, the Roman Empire, as a "beast", wasn't faring very well. Nero was being troubled by reports from the north and the east. (See also Daniel 11:44) As you know, Judea rebelled from Rome in 66AD, and Gaul rebelled in 68AD.

So the Roman Empire was losing its power as early as 66AD. The fact that the Jewish rebellion was not immediately quelled, but Cestius was actually defeated by the Jews, was a humiliation for Rome, the world power that couldn't even hold on to a small province like Judea!

Then with the rebellion of Gaul in the north, the death of Nero, and the civil war, it looked likely that the Roman Empire was coming to an end.

This is what the Roman historian Tacitus said, in describing those perilous times: "This was the condition of the Roman state when Serius Galba, chosen consul for the second time, and his colleague Titus Vinius entered upon the year that was to be for Galba his last and for the state almost the end."

I don't think we can quite comprehend what it must have felt like to live during those times.

It would be like living in America now, and seeing three or four states break away, three Presidents arise and get quickly killed, and civil war break out - all in the space of three or four years. You'd probably conclude it was the end of America.

So I'd suggest the Roman Empire is described as being in the "abyss" during that time, because from 66-69AD it was so focused on its own internal turmoil that it wasn't operating like the mighty "beast" it was.

However, by 70AD the condition was swiftly reversed, and Josephus reports that the people happily welcomed and accepted Vespasian, and there were large victory parades in Rome for both Titus and Vespasian, involving all the people and the soldiers, as you can read about in Wars Of The Jews (Book 7, Chapters 4 and 5).

If you read the account, you'll see how people did indeed "wonder admiringly". This was an Empire that, a few short years before, was on the verge of falling apart!

According to Josephus, Vespasian became emperor by divine providence. To me, that makes sense, because a lot of the things going on in that period (66-73AD) were by divine providence, such as the great tribulation, and the destruction of Jerusalem.

So the "was, but is not, and yet will be present" statement is, I think, a reference to the power of the "beast", the Roman Empire. Before the Jewish rebellion, it's power was... but is not during the rebellions and civil war from 66 onwards... but then "will be present" from 70AD onwards.

Remember, that abyssing does not mean it's dead. Satan is to be abyssed for 1,000 years, which is viewed as a "prison". He can no longer do what he does during that time.

The same was true of the Roman Empire between 66 and 69AD. With the revolts and civil wars, the Empire no longer functioned properly.

I hope that makes sense!

Hi TD

Ah, sorry. I did read the message but I thought you meant something else.

Aha. I see. Now I see where you're coming from. (I don't know whether that's a good idea, though.)

I'd agree with you and say that the woman of Revelation 12 might be the same woman as Revelation 17, but if so, something has dramatically changed!

Why has she gone from giving birth to "a son... who is to shepherd all the nations with an iron rod", and being persecuted to Satan, to riding Satan's wild beast?

Did she start drinking? ;)

Actually, I do think the two women are connected. The first woman is Israel, who is carried over into the Israel (the Jewish Christians) that flee into the wilderness in 66.

However, later on, Christians get into bed with the State (starting with Constantine).

The Roman Church claims to possess the keys of the kingdom, while riding the beast.

So in this sense, I guess the two women are connected. The second woman claims to be the "bride of Christ", while she actually drinks the blood of the holy ones.

I just can't see how you could describe the woman in Rev 12 as a harlot.

I understand... there's only so much discussion about harlots and beasts, before my head starts going mushy :)

Well, you're doing quite well. I also have to learn to understand where other people are "coming from" on various issues, so as long as it doesn't break out into a slanging match, we should be fine :drinking:

OK Arnie :P ... see you soon.

Hi Brendan

Well, not entirely :)

Bear in mind that Revelation 17 is really just an explanation of Revelation 13 along with Babylon the Great and how she ends.

People's understanding of it can get mucked up if they don't see the context in which these beasts appear.

In the previous chapters (11 and 12), we saw the "woman" fleeing to the wilderness for 1,260 days, and the trampling of the "holy city" Jerusalem for 42 months. This is the last "week" of Daniel's 70 weeks of years, which I suggest happened in 66-73AD.

Satan was furiously attempting to wipe out the woman's seed, and his window of opportunity was this short period of time, when God authorized the Romans to destroy Jerusalem and the Temple.

Since Satan failed to wipe out the woman's seed during this time, he "went off to wage war with the remaining ones of her seed, who observe the commandments of God and have the work of bearing witness to Jesus." (12:17)

So behind the scenes, Satan was refashioning the Roman Empire in his image, in order to war with Christians.

So I think the "seven heads" and "ten horns" is just a convenient device to enable John to easily identify the beast.

The "ten horns" harks straight back to Daniel 7 (and even the "toes" of the image in Daniel 2, of which there would be ten).

The "seven heads" are 7 hills and also 7 kings, with an 8th king being the beast itself. The 8th king would presumably then be the beast revived from its death-stroke.

But it's still the first beast.

So, I don't think the 8th king is the 2nd beast. I think it's the 1st beast, revived.

If we put ourselves into the shoes of someone living in, say, 67AD... then the Roman world was a scary place. The Christians had fled Jerusalem, Judea was in outright revolt against Rome, Jews were being slaughtered in provinces across the empire, and Christians in Rome were being fed to dogs and being used to light up Nero's Vatican gardens.

Within a year or two, another province (Gaul) was to rebel, Nero was to commit suicide, and civil war would break out. It may have seemed to those Christians like the "end of the world" was about to happen, because Rome was the last kingdom in Daniel!

(If you don't believe that, look at how some people here respond when a major calamity such as 9/11 or an economic collapse happens - they're often perceived as signs that the world is about to end any day now!)

John's vision was just what Christians needed at the time. It showed them that Roman Empire was not about to come to an end, but was about to ascend from its temporary "abyss", and then would "war with the holy ones", which required "endurance".

So John's vision of the first wild beast is painting a broad picture of the revived Roman Empire from 70AD.

We know this because it has "authority to act forty-two months" (13:5), which is the time of trampling of the "holy city" in 11:2, which was done by the Romans between 70 and 73AD (with the fall of Masada).

The 7, even 8, pattern possibly implies a cyclical nature, just like the 7 days of the week. The 8th day is also the 1st.

The Julio-Claudian line may not have contained exactly 7 rulers (I don't know whether any of Galba, Otto or Vitellius were in the line), but the criteria may not specifically be the bloodline. It could be the title of Caesar. For instance, Vitellius apparently didn't take the title of Caesar. Or it could be where they were ruling from. Or the vision could be bunching all these three into one, because their reigns were so short - a matter of months.

I don't think it mattered too much to the 1st century Christians, whose blood was being shed in vast quantities by the wild beast. They already knew who that wild beast was, because it was killing them off.

Hi interpretum,
Thanks for the work on making that part of the interpretation more real for me. If you have the link to the chapter by chapter work, can I have it? Every time I change a computer, I lose stuff. Maybe you’ll put it on your blog!

Regards,
Brendan.

Hi Brendan

Here is the direct link:

"Revelation, chapter by chapter"
http://www.paradisecafediscussions.net/s...p?tid=2243

Here is where Rev 13 starts:
http://www.paradisecafediscussions.net/s...243&page=7

You can also find this thread under the "Revelation Research" section.

Hi interpretum,

Thanks very much for posting those links!

Brendan.

Hey brother INT, u asked

“Why has she gone from giving birth to "a son... who is to shepherd all the nations with an iron rod", and being persecuted to Satan, to riding Satan's wild beast?”
“I just can't see how you could describe the woman in Rev 12 as a harlot.”

Well in one word, SIN I think she started out ok. And then got drunk. Also she gives birth to a son. It is the son that rules. She served her purpose by giving birth she wasn’t shown to stay pure. Also IF the stars depict the apostles it seems just to be a word picture if their is such a thing.

I think just as I believe with Babylon and also the beast, eg… it is an entity with different faces thru history. I Believe this woman has done the same thing she has been around but has changed faces as new times pass. Then the all important thing “Jesus” the son. Is whom I take that script is pointing at.

This is part the reason I don’t see Rome as fulfilling roles as beasts/ kings and also the wild beast. Correct me if I am wrong but that is what you are putting forth here..


Also have you noted the dates of when this Revelation came? Who was king? What is the revelation for at this point? Christians already believed in our Lord did they not? If it was a revelation after the fact in total what was or is it’s purpose? Again what you surmise seems to put us into the millennium. Again correct me if it is wrong.

PS Being ignorant like I am I have no ability for history. So to me God's book has to teach me something. if I can learn nothing from God by just reading I am lost before I start.

====================================================
Steam says:
Revelation 17:8- "The beast that thou sawest was, and is not, and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition; and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is."

The beast (Pagan Rome) that we saw the woman sit upon, was, that is it did exist, but now is not, no longer in existence. And shall ascend out of the abyss or bottomless pit; but later goe into perdition or destruction. This beast (Pagan Rome) is going to return, it comes out of the bottomless pit or abyss; mankind is a bottomless pit condition. Pictured in the pit below the Great Pyramid in Egypt.
Out of this bottomles pit of humanity in Europe, this beast (Pagan Roman Empire) is to come once again but he will at some point be destroyed by the Lamb. Verse 14.

We see this beast returning in thenew European Union now. Europe is pagan, no longer Christian.

The Gentile Beast has seven heads.
1-Babylon
2-Medo-Persia
3-Greece
4-Pagan Rome
5-Papal Rome
6-England
7-USA
8-EU as Pagan Rome returned.

Papacy only sat upon one head of the Gentile Beast, Pagan Rome.
The Revelator allows us to picture the Gentile Beast as having seven heads or as being seven beasts. Take your pick.
====================================================

The question is why those who are perishing will wonder when they see the beast get a resurection so to speak? that leads me to conclude that the rest will recognize this beast that is making a come back. (Revelation 17:8)

Your conclusion may be correct.
But it may be this is a chronological sign for us. When we see the beast return as we do now, we shall wonder about the High Calling; is it over? What are our hopes in Christ? We see the beast being set up as the eighth head now, are we to decide our efforts of running in the race are useless?

I have a scripture and and my own interpretation of it; Revelation 21:17- "And he measured the wall thereof, an hundred and forty and four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of the angel."

The angel is measuring the wall of the new Jerusalem, Jesus is building the wall. Some translators have added words to say length, height, or width; but the KJV doe not say what is being measured per say.
I believe the word "cubits" is symbolic and means "years" literally.
Jesus has 144 years to build the wall. The First resurrection began in 1878 with the raising of the "sleeping saints". Plus 144 years would reach 2022AD. Springtime. That is when I believe the High Calling ends, 2022AD.

That would be the time that we would be wondering if our opportunity in Christ was gone because we see the return of Pagan rome the 8th head or Beast.

just my thoughts!