RSS

The Seven Headed Beast of Revelation

16 Jun
The taking of Jerusalem by Herod the Great, 36...
Image via Wikipedia

The Book of Revelation is a book for the times of the first century and had to have been written very early in the apostles’ ministry. It is probably one of the first New Testament books written rather than its last. Revelation 13 tells of a seven-headed beast with ten horns upon one of its heads; also one of its heads seemed to have incurred a deadly wound but this wound was healed. What does this mean?

Notice that this beast has seven heads (Revelation 13:1), and receives its power from Satan (Revelation 13:4). According to Revelation 17:9-10 these heads are seven mountains (kingdoms) and refer to seven particular kings who ruled those kingdoms. These kings and nations have done something to God’s people, the Jews, that no other Gentile nation in history had ever done. That is, they, and they alone, have captured Jerusalem, the capital of the Jewish nation. These kings are:

Shishak – King of Egypt – who was the first to take Jerusalem after the death of Solomon. He plundered the Temple, leaving nothing precious behind. He did this without having to fight to gain access to Jerusalem (1Kings 14:25-27); compare Josephus: “Antiquities of the Jews,” Book VIII, chapter 10, paragraph 3

Neubchadnezzar – King of Babylon – who plundered and destroyed both the city and the Temple (2Chronicles 36:5-20), leveling everything to the ground in the month of Ab on the 10th day (Josephus: “Antiquities of the Jews;” Book X, chapter 8, paragraph 5).

Ptolemy I (Soter-“savior”– the Great) – took Jerusalem by deceit, pretending to desire to make a sacrifice to God. Thus, he entered in peace and plundered the Temple (the King of the South of Daniel 11:5); see Josephus: “Antiquities of the Jews;” Book XII, chapter 1, paragraph 1

Antiochus IV (Epiphanes – “god manifest”; the King of the North in Daniel 11:21-35); took Jerusalem without a fight by pretending peace, then pillaged and desecrated the Temple; Josephus: “Antiquities of the Jews;” Book XII, chapter 5, paragraph 4

Pompey the Great (representing and later the leader of the Republic of Rome) fought very little and gained access to the Temple trough treachery, plundered it and took much from the treasury. He noted the devotion of the Jews to God and set up a priesthood friendly to Rome, thus taking away its (i.e. the priesthood’s) former dignity and gave it away for a price. – Josephus; “Antiquities of the Jews;” Book XIV, chapter 4, paragraphs 1 through 5.

Herod the Great besieged Jerusalem and took it but did not allow the Temple to be plundered. Josephus; “Antiquities of the Jews;” Book XV, chapter 1, paragraphs 1 & 2; “Wars of the Jews;” Book I, chapter 18, paragraphs 1 through 3.

Titus (general and son of the Emperor of Rome) took Jerusalem and though he tried to stop it, could not keep the soldiers from destroying the Temple on the 10th day of the month of Ab, 70 AD, two days after taking the lower city.—Josephus: “Wars of the Jews;” Book VI, chapter 4, paragraphs 1 through 8; & chapter x, paragraph 1.

Jerusalem, the capital of Israel, was taken seven times in her history. These are the men who did it. They represent the seven nations of Egypt, Babylon, Grecian Egypt (King of the South), Grecian Syria (King of the North), the Republic of Rome, Edom, and the Empire of Rome.[1]

These heads or kings are Gentile powers, but their importance to Scripture is that they ruled or had great influence over God’s people, the Jews, represented in the body of the Beast. These kings are the heads or influences over the apostate Jewish nation.[2] This means that the Beast, as such, was in power or animated only as long as the Jewish nation existed. The book of Revelation shows that one of the seven heads had been given a deadly wound but that wound was healed. What this means is when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the kingdom of Judah, Jerusalem, its capital and its Temple, the Beast, in reality, no longer existed. For all intents and purposes the “Beast” as a nation was dead. It simply no longer existed! The existence of the Beast is tied to the existence of the Jewish nation. If there is no Jewish nation, there can be no Beast. The Beast is the apostate Jewish nation, and it received a deadly wound to its second head when the Jewish nation was destroyed. The deadly wound was healed when Cyrus permitted the Jews to return to their land under the leadership of Zerubbabel, the governor, and Joshua, the high priest. The Beast, through the Babylonian / Persian influence over the Jewish nation, had returned to life.

We find the same Beast in Revelation 17, and what seems significant there is, an indicator is present that points to the time that John is writing the book of Revelation. It is recorded that, concerning the seven heads, five are fallen one is and one is yet to come (Revelation 17:10). In other words, the one that “is” is alive and in power over Jerusalem at the time of John’s vision. What does this mean? If the above is correct concerning the identity of the heads of the Beast, shouldn’t six have fallen? We have the kings of Egypt, Babylon, Grecian Egypt, Grecian Syria, the Republic of Rome and Edom. That is six kings or kingdoms. Herod the Great died and with him Edom’s influence over the Jewish capital, Jerusalem. Well, this is true, but not exactly so. Three of Herod’s sons reigned over his kingdom, but Archelaus who reigned over Judea and Samaria was banished after reigning only a few years. Technically, Edom had no influence over Jerusalem after Archelaus was removed. This remained true until Herod’s grandson, King Agrippa I, was appointed king over Judea and Samaria in addition to the other lands he ruled. This made Agrippa ruler over virtually all of his grandfather’s territories. Therefore, it could be said anytime between 41-44 AD that five kings have fallen, one is (Herod / Agrippa), and one is yet to come. While it is true that in later years the descendants of Herod were placed in authority over the office of high priest, replacing them when circumstances would dictate, it seems that John wrote the Book of Revelation during the time of personal persecution (Revelation 1:9).

If my understanding is correct, wouldn’t John have written the book of Revelation during the reign of Herod Agrippa the Great over Judea and Jerusalem (41-44 AD)? John had fled to the isle of Patmos due to the persecution arising out of the execution of James, his brother, and while on Patmos John received the prophecy as recorded in the book of Revelation. John was then able to share this prophecy with the church in Palestine and throughout the world long before the Jewish war with Rome.


[1] Daniel 2 represents the fourth kingdom (Rome) with the two legs of the image. The two legs represent two different forms of government of the same nation or people. At first Rome was a republic, but it turned into an empirical state. Thus, it is represented by the two legs in Daniel 2 and two heads of the seven-headed beast of Revelation 13.

[2] I had originally written “apostate Judaism” but this is an error, which was pointed out in one of the comments below. See HERE. I should have written “the apostate Jewish nation”. That fits my understanding more accurately.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Advertisements
 
26 Comments

Posted by on June 16, 2010 in Last Days

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

26 responses to “The Seven Headed Beast of Revelation

  1. Boluwade Kujero

    March 8, 2017 at 06:06

    Hello Again Eddie.

    I hope by now you are not seeing me as being pesty and all over the place? It just so happens that a few weeks ago I decided to take it upon myself to seek understanding of the book of Revelation by prayerfully reading it continuously over and over again as well as consult the writings of other on it. Somehow, as part of my research on what others have proffered, I found your blogs on it and have since buried myself in them and assessing the merits of your interpretations against the facts as presented by the Scriptures.

    Please bear with me as I point out the holes I see in your interpretations of the symbols related to these things begin with this beast. I will do this across your many articles so they can address your claims in specific. I should however declare ahead that I do not claim to have better interpretations for everything I reject about yours, I just think I know when an interpretation falls short.

    To begin, I will first list key facts about the beast as relayed in the Scriptures applicable to affirming or refuting your claims in this article.

    From Revelation 13
    1. The beast has seven heads
    2. Each head has a blasphemous name on it
    3. One of the heads had a scar from a wound that should have been fatal but had healed
    4. The beast has 10 horns
    5. The 10 horns have a crown each on
    6. The beast is primarily a leopard in form
    7. The beast has feet like a bear’s
    8. The beast has a mouth like a lion’s
    9. The beast receives from the dragon the dragon’s power and throne
    10.The beast receives great authority from the dragon
    11. The beast’s authority was over every tribe, people, language and nation
    12. Because its authority was received from the dragon worship of the dragon was adopted by people.
    13. The beast itself was also worshipped by people.
    14. The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies.
    15. The beast was given to exercise its authority for forty-two months.
    16. The beast opened its mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven.
    17. The beast was given power to wage war against God’s holy people and to conquer them.
    Etc.

    From Revelation 17
    1. The beast is scarlet colored.
    2. The beast was covered with blasphemous names.

    Now I will list interpretations of some of the beast’s features that the Scriptures has volunteered to us and which we must be faithful to accept as final and not seek further meanings to as if they are still coded.

    1. The beast’s seven heads represent seven mountains on which the woman (Babylon) sits.
    2. The beast’s seven heads also represent, without prejudice to the interpretation above, seven kings of which five had fallen, one was present and the seventh will rise later but rule only briefly.
    3. The beast is itself a king, an eight king of the class of the seven represented by its seven heads.
    4. The beast had ruled before, was not presently ruling, but will come up again to rule later.
    5. The beast will come up from the Abyss
    6. The beast’s ten horns are ten kings not presently ruling but who will rule with the beast for one hour.
    7. The beast will go to destruction
    8. The beast will together with the 10 kings hate Babylon, destroy her and burn her with fire.
    9. The beast will receive the power and authority of the 10 kings based on their unanimous decision to use to destroy Babylon

    Now in my proving your interpretations the following are my reservations:

    1. You interpreted the seven heads as literal kings but the beast you interpret first as Jews saying they are “represented in the body of the beast,” only later to interpret the beast as “apostate Judaism.” This I find confusing, inconsistent and unjustifiable. The beast is expressly interpreted by the Scriptures as a king in the same breath as it interprets the seven heads as kings. There is no reason to look for the interpretation of the heads as literal singular kings and then flip over to look for the beast, not as a literal king, but as a composite of general persons or an abstract religious system. It just doesn’t cut it.

    2. You interpreted the heads as gentile political powers but the beast as Jews and religious apostate Judaism. This is also inconsistent to me. The beast was expressly declared by the angel to John as one of the seven, Why would you find the seven among gentiles and then locate the eight among the Jews? Should he not be a gentile king as well?

    3. You interpreted the wounding of the head with a fatal wound as the destruction of “the kingdom of Judah, Jerusalem, its capital and its Temple” by King Nebuchadnezzar. In some strange and inexplicable way, you make this somewhat the beast but at the same time not the beast, just that the beast’s existence is tied to it. This is totally inconsistent with the express information the Scriptures has volunteered as it is not the beast that it says suffered a fatal wound but one of its heads. The wounded head must be found among the seven kings not with the beast. The wound is not on the beast’s body but on a head. Since you have identified these heads as literal gentile kings then the wounding must be found with one of them. Moreover, “the kingdom of Judah, Jerusalem, its capital and its Temple” do not constitute “apostate Judaism,” which continued even in captivity. So even if the beast is to be taken as the one who suffered the fatal wound, apostate Judaism cannot be it for it never suffered a fatal wound by the destruction of Jerusalem and related.

    4. You presumptuously stated that the wounded head is the second head by no authority but yours. The Scriptures never identified the position or order of the wounded head just that it was one of the seven heads.

    5. You also interpreted the healing of the wounded head’s wound to the decree of Cyrus that allowed “Jews to return to their land,” adding that “the Beast, through the Babylonian / Persian influence over the Jewish nation, had returned to life.” Again, for you, it is the Beast that returns to life. But no where did the Scriptures ever say the Beast died, the closest stated is that “it was and is not,” and this was never connected to the fatal wounding of one of its head in anyway. The period when the beast “is not” also cannot be pushed back to match when you say apostate Judaism suffered the fatal wound to even allow considering the wounding of the head to be taken as the wounding of the beast as a whole. Moreover, I don’t think the head was ever really said to have died and then live again, rather it was said to have suffered a fatal wound that healed. In other words, it suffered a wound that should have lead to its death but which instead healed up (the head). This is however my understanding not necessarily the absolute. So I stand to be corrected.

    6. You interpretation of how “five are fallen, one is and one is yet to come” is, for me, at best, an illusion in mathematical differentiation and integration, founded on unproven assumption. Somehow 6 precise kings that had fallen compress to become 5 that have fallen, and a third generation offspring of the initial fallen 6th king now becomes the 6th head that “is” (not fallen but still ruling) but must not be counted as a 7th. So the 6th is both fallen and in power at the same time. The 6th king is now no longer a single precise king but himself and a third generation member of his dynasty. And even though your initial criterion for identifying the seven kings was that “they, and they alone, …captured Jerusalem,” thus disqualifying kings who simply inherited rule with or after these literal kings over the same kingdom even if their rule still reached to Jerusalem, this 6th one that “is” however qualifies now to be one of them just because he is of the lineage of the initial 6th even though he did not “capture” Jerusalem but was appointed. All these appears to me to be too much spin and twist just to make things that do not fit appear to fit. I do not find this amusing at all coming from you. I’ve read some parts of your interpretation and seen how you could be very meticulous, detailed and precise in matching vision elements to literal characters. Here you just seemed to be in a hurry to whitewash things and make them look like the real deal, not minding how convoluted, shady and casual the process you follow to achieve it.

    7. By your interpretation here, Herod Agrippa is the king that fulfils the interpretation of the angel for the 6th head, that as at John’s receiving of the vision, “is.” This is in addition to him being also, by your interpretation elsewhere, the little horn of Daniel 7 which comes up among the ten horns who are identical with the ten horns spread out randomly on the 7 heads of this beast. Thus he is simultaneously one head among the seven and a horn among the 10 horns on the seven heads. Where and how did you get the license to interpret him as such?

    8. Whereas the angel explains that the 10 kings have a common agenda of “agreeing” and ceding their kingdom to the beast, portraying them thereby as sovereigns who cede voluntarily in unison and at once, your interpretation makes them rather client kings appointed in succession and never meeting to agree as one and not in a position to cede since they were delegated the kingdom any way.

    Besides these, you seem to have forgotten that the beast is said to be the 8th king in order, coming after the 7th. How does the Beast, being “apostate Judaism,” come after Titus who you say is the 7th king?

    How do you reconcile this your identification of the beast with the fact that the angel said the beast “now is not”? Does that mean that Jews or apostate Judaism (the beast) was not existing during the reign of Herod Agrippa whom you have identified as the 6th king in power as at John’s vision (the “one is”)?

    How and when does the beast get destroyed if it comes after the destruction of Jerusalem which took place under Titus.

    If the beast comes after Titus and the destruction of Jerusalem, does that not make it able to exist without Jerusalem contrary to you assertion?

    How does this beast who is a king get to excercise authority for 42 months and make war with the saints after Jerusalem’s destruction? When and how does the beast do this if one of its heads already did the same as the 6th king (Agrippa). In other words, is this a 3½ years of waging war against the saints and prevailing over them different from that of the little horn (Agrippa) or the same?

    How does the beast, being the eight king in the line of the seven, spearhead actively and deliberately the destruction of Jerusalem (Babylon) when Titus, the 7th king (by your interpretation) is the one who already did?

    Lastly, you floated the idea, but with proof, that the time present when John was being communicated and explained the vision is also the period of the reign of Agrippa. How?

    The divergence of your interpretations from the facts is just too much and I could go on and on.

    In closing, I would like to leave you with my take on key facts that a credible interpretation of these things must respect in addition to those that may be gleaned from my questions above.

    1. The heads must first be interpreted as literal mountains. The angel said so. He meant mountains as interpretation not symbols that need to be further interpreted. These must be mountains existing as at John’s receiving the vision. These interpretation of the heads as mountains must be independent of the next point under.

    2. The heads must be matched to literal kings of which five must have ceased to rule as at John’s receiving of the vision, one ruling, and the last coming later but reigning briefly. This match must be without prejudice to the above. In other words, we must not look for 7 kings that were simultaneously ruling as at John’s encounter just because the heads had been initially said to represent mountains existent as at then. We must also not look for mountains of which 5 had collapsed having existed before, one is standing and one will later form just because the heads are also said to be kings with those features. We must treat each representation of the heads as independently as the angel treated them and only to the extent the angel intimated.

    3. The beast must be matched to a literal political king that was not in power as at John’s receiving of the vision but who comes or is still yet to come after the seventh king, whoever that may be. No where is the beast explained as a kingdom. Let us therefore not read into it more than is there even if such was permitted in the case of the visions in Daniel 7.

    4. The beast should be matched to a king with perhaps substantial ancestral linkage to the fallen Greecian Kingdom (beast like a leopard), the will and enforcement orientation of the fallen Medo-Persian Kingdom (feet like bear’s) and the pompous oratory powers of the Babylonian kingdom (mouth like a lion’s). I believe the allusion of these features to Daniel’s vision beast elements in Daniel 7 is divinely instructive for drawing parallels and taking cues for interpreting the beast.

    5. The beast must be matched to a king who building upon point 3 above ruled or rules concurrently with 10 kings and receives their sovereign support by a unanimous conscious agreement of the 10 of them to use with his own sovereignty to make war with saints.

    6. The beast should be matched to a king overtly and actively blaspheming God and everything related to him.

    7. The beast must be matched to a king with great global spiritual status as much as great global political powers (dragon gave him his power and throne as well as great authority)

    8. The beast must be matched to a king who considers himself worthy and actually received/receives or will receive (depending on his being a past, present or future personality) spiritual and physical worship globally.

    I think I should stop here. The foregoing should give you a good window into how I believe the other facts of him that I have not listed should be matched.

    More grace to you dearly beloved.

    I will post further comments on another related article soon.

     
    • Eddie

      March 9, 2017 at 08:56

      Hello again to you Boluwade, and welcome. It is good for me to see how someone else reads what I say. The sense of the words I choose to explain myself, viewed in the eyes of another, is often surprising for me. I will have to rethink some of the wording I used in this post and change it, in order to make it a more correct representation of what I intended to say. I appreciate the mirror you provide for me to look into.

      So, you have embarked on an all-out-study of the book of Revelation. Such a study was my first and it led me to fall in love, not only with God’s word, but also with Jesus. There are many interpretations of the book’s symbols, and for awhile I agreed with one or another of those set in print, but after many years, I’ve settled into what I can really call my own understanding, as (I hope) has been guided by God’s Spirit.

      I read over your “key facts” and the “interpretations” you cited that come from the Scriptures themselves. If I may caution you, the book of Revelation is probably the most “symbolic” book in the Bible. There is probably very little in it that can be taken literally. I don’t mean to say that everything is guesswork or that the symbols we find there are still coded, but, rather its “codes” are understood through Scriptures found elsewhere in the book of Revelation or in other books of the Bible. I don’t mean to imply that I know the interpretation of all its symbols, but I am certain the interpretation of all its symbols are unveiled in God’s word. I’m just not familiar with everything, only some things.

      I shall now begin my reply to your concerns. I may, however, do this in several replies in order to keep my replies from being too long. I will answer everything you bring out, but if I miss anything, just let me know, and I address it in my next series. Please be aware that I haven’t studied the book of Revelation in quite awhile, so my argument may be incomplete until challenged, so it may take several replies to get the whole picture.

      1. You interpreted the seven heads as literal kings but the beast you interpret first as Jews saying they are “represented in the body of the beast,” only later to interpret the beast as “apostate Judaism.” This I find confusing, inconsistent and unjustifiable. The beast is expressly interpreted by the Scriptures as a king in the same breath as it interprets the seven heads as kings. There is no reason to look for the interpretation of the heads as literal singular kings and then flip over to look for the beast, not as a literal king, but as a composite of general persons or an abstract religious system. It just doesn’t cut it.

      This is one of those matters I referred to above. You are correct. My wording is inconsistent. Rather than “Judaism” which is a religion, I should have said apostate or rebellious Israel—referring to the nation. This is not to be confused with the Jews under David who followed the Lord. Rather, it refers to the rebellious nation, which the Lord placed under a gentile power as a client nation. They may have had a king, but their king served a gentile power. The “head” of the beast in the book of Revelation represents the gentile power who first began to influence the Jews according to their specific worldview (Egypt, Babylon etc.). Each gentile kingdom continued to influence apostate Israel, until the next head / king conquered Jerusalem.

      The beast, according to my understanding is the apostate nation of the Jews, but its ultimate leader is a gentile king or kingdom. The first king of that gentile kingdom is represented in specific head of the beast, but, as I said above, the kingdom continues to influence the Jews until the next head / king conquers Jerusalem.

      2. You interpreted the heads as gentile political powers but the beast as Jews and religious apostate Judaism. This is also inconsistent to me. The beast was expressly declared by the angel to John as one of the seven, Why would you find the seven among gentiles and then locate the eight among the Jews? Should he not be a gentile king as well?

      The Jews were supposed to be a separate people—separate from the gentile kingdoms, but they were separate in name only. They often acted just like their gentile neighbors. The heads of the beast express the influence of seven gentile kingdoms upon their client kingdom, the Jewish nation. If the Jews acted like gentiles, they were **of** the seven. They certainly didn’t act like the Kingdom of God, which seeks to influence the nations to look to the God of the Bible and receive him as their own God. Nevertheless, I am not comfortable with my thoughts about the ‘eighth’ king. Some things point to him being apostate Israel, but not all. I even thought he might be Bar Kokhba, who led a Jewish revolt against Rome in 132-135 AD . Nevertheless, and, although he is an interesting prospect, I cannot say that I understand this Scripture as well as I would like. Certainly, nothing here can be set in concrete.

      3. You interpreted the wounding of the head with a fatal wound as the destruction of “the kingdom of Judah, Jerusalem, its capital and its Temple” by King Nebuchadnezzar. In some strange and inexplicable way, you make this somewhat the beast but at the same time not the beast, just that the beast’s existence is tied to it. This is totally inconsistent with the express information the Scriptures has volunteered as it is not the beast that it says suffered a fatal wound but one of its heads. The wounded head must be found among the seven kings not with the beast. The wound is not on the beast’s body but on a head. Since you have identified these heads as literal gentile kings then the wounding must be found with one of them. Moreover, “the kingdom of Judah, Jerusalem, its capital and its Temple” do not constitute “apostate Judaism,” which continued even in captivity. So even if the beast is to be taken as the one who suffered the fatal wound, apostate Judaism cannot be it for it never suffered a fatal wound by the destruction of Jerusalem and related.

      I am sorry about the confusion that stems from “apostate Judaism”. You are correct that it is a religion, not the nation. I should have worded my study as “the apostate nation” or “apostate Israel” or using a similar identification. I will make the necessary changes after our discussion is concluded But, concerning your opinion about the deadly wound. A deadly wound to the head of a body would kill the body as quickly as a deadly wound to the body would take away the life from its the head. As I understand this, the deadly wound to the head would have affected the life of the body in some way. Certainly, the body couldn’t carry on normal activity as long as the head’s wound was critical. Remember, the head (at least according to my interpretation) represents that king’s /kingdom’s influence over the rebellious Jewish nation. The Jewish nation no longer existed after Nebuchadnezzar conquered them and destroyed their capital and their Temple. The people did exist in captivity, but not as a nation. Once Cyrus permitted the Jews to return to Jerusalem and rebuild, the nation came back to life, so to speak—and the deadly would was healed.

      If my interpretation is in error, that is one thing. However, it isn’t inconsistent. I begin with the gentile influence over the rebellious Jewish nation, and I end with it. The deadly wound that was healed is consistent with the 70 year exile, and its final destruction in 70 AD, and this fits well with my interpretation. If I am in error, I am in error for reasons other than inconsistency.

      4. You presumptuously stated that the wounded head is the second head by no authority but yours. The Scriptures never identified the position or order of the wounded head just that it was one of the seven heads.

      The symbols in the book of Revelation are like “keys” that unlock its meaning. Once one is able to see how these things fit in history, one is able to see how the “keys” fit into the details of history. Jerusalem was conquered only seven times. Is this significant? Does it have anything to do with the seven heads of the beast? We don’t know, until we overlay the book of Revelation with the historical record. We find some of that record is also recorded in the Bible, and, in as much as I am able to tell, everything fits, at least in a provisional manner. As for me, the closer I looked the better I felt with the idea that the seven heads of Revelation 13 & 17 represent these seven gentile powers that influenced apostate Israel.

      I make no apologies for what I’ve done, but I have to ask, how you would find out who or what the seven heads are. Where would you look in history or in the present or the future to see them? How would you know that what you saw was what the Bible reveals as true? At some point one must look up from the Bible and out into the world to see what the Bible has revealed. How would you do that, and where would you look?

      CONTINUED IN THE NEXT REPLY:

       
    • Eddie

      March 9, 2017 at 08:58

      CONTINUED FROM ABOVE:

      5. You also interpreted the healing of the wounded head’s wound to the decree of Cyrus that allowed “Jews to return to their land,” adding that “the Beast, through the Babylonian / Persian influence over the Jewish nation, had returned to life.” Again, for you, it is the Beast that returns to life. But no where did the Scriptures ever say the Beast died, the closest stated is that “it was and is not,” and this was never connected to the fatal wounding of one of its head in anyway. The period when the beast “is not” also cannot be pushed back to match when you say apostate Judaism suffered the fatal wound to even allow considering the wounding of the head to be taken as the wounding of the beast as a whole. Moreover, I don’t think the head was ever really said to have died and then live again, rather it was said to have suffered a fatal wound that healed. In other words, it suffered a wound that should have lead to its death but which instead healed up (the head). This is however my understanding not necessarily the absolute. So I stand to be corrected.

      Whether it should be stated “returned to life” or “was healed from its deadly wound” is a matter of how one views the word wounded (G4969). Thayer’s Greek Lexicon defines it as: “1) to slay, slaughter, butcher; 2) to put to death by violence; 3) mortally wounded” (Revelation 13:3). Given the false wonders that were done (cf. Revelation 13:13, 15) and the fact that there really was no Jewish nation between the time Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the city and the Temple, and when Cyrus allowed the Jews to return to their homeland, I didn’t think it was that big a deal. Nevertheless, if the Jews are without a government, without Jerusalem etc., the beast cannot exist, according to my understanding of the Scriptures in Revelation 13.

      6. You interpretation of how “five are fallen, one is and one is yet to come” is, for me, at best, an illusion in mathematical differentiation and integration, founded on unproven assumption. Somehow 6 precise kings that had fallen compress to become 5 that have fallen, and a third generation offspring of the initial fallen 6th king now becomes the 6th head that “is” (not fallen but still ruling) but must not be counted as a 7th. So the 6th is both fallen and in power at the same time. The 6th king is now no longer a single precise king but himself and a third generation member of his dynasty. And even though your initial criterion for identifying the seven kings was that “they, and they alone, …captured Jerusalem,” thus disqualifying kings who simply inherited rule with or after these literal kings over the same kingdom even if their rule still reached to Jerusalem, this 6th one that “is” however qualifies now to be one of them just because he is of the lineage of the initial 6th even though he did not “capture” Jerusalem but was appointed. All these appears to me to be too much spin and twist just to make things that do not fit appear to fit. I do not find this amusing at all coming from you. I’ve read some parts of your interpretation and seen how you could be very meticulous, detailed and precise in matching vision elements to literal characters. Here you just seemed to be in a hurry to whitewash things and make them look like the real deal, not minding how convoluted, shady and casual the process you follow to achieve it.

      I believe you have misunderstood my point. Each head of the beast represents the first king in the kingdom that influenced the Jewish nation. That influence continues until the next head has removed the influence of the prior king and begins to influence the Jews from a different perspective. In my study of the Seven Headed Beast of Revelation I asked the question, since Herod the Great died, shouldn’t six heads have fallen, but Edom’s influence continued through Herod’s sons and then his grandson. The sixth king is Herod the Great, not Herod Agrippa. Five kings / kingdoms have fallen—Edom, represented in its first king, Herod the Great, still **is**, according to my understanding of Revelation 17:10. That is, the kingdom of Herod (Edom), in the person of Agrippa, was still in existence and influencing the Jews.

      Concerning “All these appears to me to be too much spin and twist just to make things that do not fit appear to fit,” we all have to choose what we believe about what we read, Boluwade, I don’t see the inconsistency in my study that you claim is there.

      7. By your interpretation here, Herod Agrippa is the king that fulfils the interpretation of the angel for the 6th head, that as at John’s receiving of the vision, “is.” This is in addition to him being also, by your interpretation elsewhere, the little horn of Daniel 7 which comes up among the ten horns who are identical with the ten horns spread out randomly on the 7 heads of this beast. Thus he is simultaneously one head among the seven and a horn among the 10 horns on the seven heads. Where and how did you get the license to interpret him as such?

      I never claimed Herod Agrippa was the sixth head, his grandfather, Herod the Great is the sixth head of the beast. Agrippa is the little horn of Daniel, and he represents the high water mark of Edom’s influence of the Jews, which was begun by the sixth head, Herod the Great.

      8. Whereas the angel explains that the 10 kings have a common agenda of “agreeing” and ceding their kingdom to the beast, portraying them thereby as sovereigns who cede voluntarily in unison and at once, your interpretation makes them rather client kings appointed in succession and never meeting to agree as one and not in a position to cede since they were delegated the kingdom any way.

      They are, indeed, “client kings” of Rome, called procurators or prefects. The text doesn’t claim that they sat at a table and agreed with one another. Rather they have ‘one mind’ (Revelation 17:13), and this is because God has put it in their hearts to carry out his will (Revelation 17:17).

      Besides these, you seem to have forgotten that the beast is said to be the 8th king in order, coming after the 7th. How does the Beast, being “apostate Judaism,” come after Titus who you say is the 7th king?

      As I claimed above, I am not comfortable with all of my thoughts about the ‘eighth king’ (Revelation 17:11). Bar Kokhba is an interesting prospect, but I am not very comfortable with him at this time. I need to study this further.

      How do you reconcile this your identification of the beast with the fact that the angel said the beast “now is not”? Does that mean that Jews or apostate Judaism (the beast) was not existing during the reign of Herod Agrippa whom you have identified as the 6th king in power as at John’s vision (the “one is”)?

      Again, I am not comfortable with any of the conclusions I have about this verse (Revelation 17:8). We are told first that the beast “was and is not” and then we are told the beast “was and is not and yet is.” Moreover, anyone who tries to interpret this seems to have trouble, because in Revelation 17:10 claims the beast has 7 heads; 5 are fallen, 1 is and 1 is yet to come. If one of the kings **is** then the beast also **is** (no matter who we interpret him to be).

      Your next four paragraphs are confusing. I have no idea what Scripture you are using to base you argument upon. My best **guess** is Revelation 17:11, whereby you claim the 8th king must follow the 7th in chronology. That is not necessarily so. The coming of Titus, according to my understanding, effectively ends the existence of the beast. The fact that the Jews revolted in the 2nd century under Bar Kokhba for 3 to 3 ½ years might answer this question, but I am hung up on the idea that Jesus told the high priest in Matthew 26:64 that he would return to judge Jerusalem and the Temple. He did that in 70 AD. If the Jews were judged in 70 AD, I’m uncertain how another revolt in the 2nd century fits into the context of Jesus’ judgment upon the nation.

      The fact that the Scriptures call the beast **an** eighth king does not necessarily mean he follows the chronology of the seven kings / horns. He has a relationship with them, but he is not one of them. They have a chronology; he does not. If he did, the beast would have 8 horns, and my understanding would be wrong. Since the beast does not have 8 horns, but 7, and the 7 follow a chronology, there must be something different about the 8th, because he is **not** one of the 7. For example, we might have 7 rulers of a country each succeeding the other. We also have a governor who is also a ruler, and he is an 8th ruler. Where do we place him as far as time is concerned? After the 7, before the 7 or somewhere in between the 7? Suppose I mentioned 7 emperors and one king. The emperors succeeded one another, does this mean the king **must** succeed the 7th emperor? I believe we are talking apples and oranges here. They are both fruit, but we cannot say the same things about them in every respect.

      Lastly, you floated the idea, but with proof, that the time present when John was being communicated and explained the vision is also the period of the reign of Agrippa. How?

      Since we know John wrote the book of Revelation (Revelation 1:9-10), and John claimed that at the time the meaning of the symbols were explained to him (Revelation 17:10) one of the beast’s heads (the sixth) was in existence – the head being either a king or a kingdom (kingdom is the meaning of the word mountain). I have interpreted the sixth head to be Herod the Great, and his kingdom was still influencing the Jews in the person of King Herod Agrippa of Acts 12. This is my interpretation. What’s yours? Obviously, if John wrote the book of Revelation, and one of the seven kingdoms (one of the 7 horns of the beast) was still influencing the Jews – or at least in existence (if you wish to interpret his presence differently), then we should be able to identify the 6th king / kingdom from history. We have John’s lifetime as our limitation. Who is that king / kingdom?

      I have some disagreement with your final eight ‘key facts’, but I’ll address them in another comment, since this one is already quite lengthy.

      CONTINUED BELOW…

       
    • Eddie

      March 9, 2017 at 08:59

      CONTINUED FROM ABOVE:

      1. The heads must first be interpreted as literal mountains. The angel said so. He meant mountains as interpretation not symbols that need to be further interpreted. These must be mountains existing as at John’s receiving the vision. These interpretation of the heads as mountains must be independent of the next point under.

      There are few things in the book of Revelation that can be taken literally. How have you determined that ‘mountains’ **must** be taken literally? The angel said the seven heads are ‘mountains’ (Revelation 17:9), and Jesus told the high priest he would see Jesus coming in the clouds and seated at the right hand of power (Matthew 26:64). Did the high priest literally see Jesus coming in the clouds and seated at the right hand of power? Jesus said he would, just as the angel said the horns are mountains. The Scriptures tell us (among other things) that mountains are symbols for kings or kingdoms. Since Revelation 17 is speaking about kings, we can probably safely assume the mountains upon which the harlot sits are kingdoms. Kingdoms rise and fall, literal mountains rarely cease to exist or come suddenly into existence.

      2. The heads must be matched to literal kings of which five must have ceased to rule as at John’s receiving of the vision, one ruling, and the last coming later but reigning briefly. This match must be without prejudice to the above. In other words, we must not look for 7 kings that were simultaneously ruling as at John’s encounter just because the heads had been initially said to represent mountains existent as at then. We must also not look for mountains of which 5 had collapsed having existed before, one is standing and one will later form just because the heads are also said to be kings with those features. We must treat each representation of the heads as independently as the angel treated them and only to the extent the angel intimated.

      My interpretation would fit your criterion above, except for the literal mountain idea. I have mentioned the five kings that ceased to exist and a sixth kingdom (begun by the 6th king) was still in existence and ruling the Jews.

      3. The beast must be matched to a literal political king that was not in power as at John’s receiving of the vision but who comes or is still yet to come after the seventh king, whoever that may be. No where is the beast explained as a kingdom. Let us therefore not read into it more than is there even if such was permitted in the case of the visions in Daniel 7.

      I do not accept your method of interpretation above. I find meaning for Biblical symbols within Scripture. I interpret Scripture with Scripture first and then look to history for a final identification of matters recorded. Daniel 7 tells us the beasts can be either kings or kingdoms.

      4. The beast should be matched to a king with perhaps substantial ancestral linkage to the fallen Greecian Kingdom (beast like a leopard), the will and enforcement orientation of the fallen Medo-Persian Kingdom (feet like bear’s) and the pompous oratory powers of the Babylonian kingdom (mouth like a lion’s). I believe the allusion of these features to Daniel’s vision beast elements in Daniel 7 is divinely instructive for drawing parallels and taking cues for interpreting the beast.

      You just called the beast a king and compared him with three kingdoms. Who in history fits your description? The “beast” of Revelation 13 and 17 has existed for centuries. Can you identify him?

      5. The beast must be matched to a king who building upon point 3 above ruled or rules concurrently with 10 kings and receives their sovereign support by a unanimous conscious agreement of the 10 of them to use with his own sovereignty to make war with saints.

      I don’t agree, but who do you believe this king is?

      6. The beast should be matched to a king overtly and actively blaspheming God and everything related to him.

      All of the kings I mentioned in my study have claimed to be God, manifest in flesh. All of them have made war with God’s people, so my interpretation fits your criterion above.

      7. The beast must be matched to a king with great global spiritual status as much as great global political powers (dragon gave him his power and throne as well as great authority)

      Not necessarily. The Bible is interested only in God’s people and is a record or history of God’s people. Gentiles are mentioned only in so far as they affect God’s people. Any “beast” mentioned in the Bible doesn’t have to rule the world, he may be a world power—lead an empire, but his only importance is his effect upon God’s people, who can be either the Jews or Christians. Usually, however, the Biblical context refers to the Jews, unless the Jews are the ones persecuting God’s people.

      8. The beast must be matched to a king who considers himself worthy and actually received/receives or will receive (depending on his being a past, present or future personality) spiritual and physical worship globally.

      Again, global worship isn’t a necessary criterion. The Bible uses hyperbole to express some of its ideas. For example, “all Judea” went into the wilderness to hear John preach (Matthew 3:5). The Pharisees claimed the ‘world’ had gone after Jesus (John 12:19). It would be a mistake to take the mention of ‘all’ literally (cf. Revelation 13:8).

      As I said earlier, I haven’t studied either Daniel or Revelation in quite some time, except to reply to comments. Your questions, more than others, have caused me to go deeper into those studies than I normally would have had to do. So, if I’ve missed something, or if I didn’t explain myself enough to your satisfaction, don’t hesitate to ask for clarity etc.

      Lord bless you Boluwade, and all you do in his name.

       
  2. Robert

    July 30, 2016 at 15:02

    Thanks for your comments. You seem to be holding tightly to some beliefs about Revelation, even thought there are some areas that are ambiguous. If you are truly open to another interpretation, then contact me offline. I have interpreted all of the images and visions in the book via the Bible itself. At the end of the day I think we both are only after the truth behind Revelation. Be blessed.

     
    • Eddie

      July 30, 2016 at 15:37

      I always hold tightly until I see something better to hold to. I don’t mean that to be taken against you in any way, but as I said in one of my previous replies, I simply don’t have eyes to see my error. We are commanded to hold fast to the truth. If I hold onto error as though it were true, even in my ignorance I’m seeking to be obedient to the command. While there may be consequences to holing to error, certainly God looks upon the heart and sees one willing to obey–he is simply ignorant about what is true. A good education can solve ignorance, but a rebellious heart is another matter entirely. We agree on this–at the end of the day “we both are only after the truth…”

      Lord bless you, Robert.

       
  3. Robert

    July 27, 2016 at 00:16

    Eddie, my mistake I thought you stated the sixth and seventh heads. In John’s writings he says, that five heads have fallen, one is and the other is yet to come. This is as of his writings. John lived during the time of the Roman Empire. Therefore, the sixth head would have to correspond to Rome. I agree The empire does show up twice, but I believe that is the eighth head. The heads are not kings literally, but kingdoms. Today, we would call them empires. These seven kingdoms ruled over Israel.

    7 Heads of the Beast
    1. Egyptian Kingdom (past)
    2. Assyrian Kingdom (past)
    3. Babylonian Kingdom (past)
    4. Persian/Medes Kingdom (past)
    5. Grecian Kingdom (past)
    6. Roman Kingdom (current)
    7. Visigoth Kingdom (future)

    Jerusalem never ruled over any of these kingdoms. The does not mean they did not have any influence. African Americans heavily influence the U.S., but they in no way rule over the country. Everything you and I say about Revelation is our solely our interpretation. You seem to imply everything contrary to what you believe about this subject is merely the opinion of man. All scripture must be interpreted and that is what causes the myriad of views. I have studied Revelation and written a book on it, but I am always interested in other points of view. I am human and could have always missed something or maybe I just didn’t grasp the fullest of a certain symbol. May the Lord continue to bless you in your studies. Peace.

     
    • Eddie

      July 27, 2016 at 09:43

      Greetings once again Robert, and thank you for reading and your cordial reply.

      Eddie, my mistake I thought you stated the sixth and seventh heads. In John’s writings he says, that five heads have fallen, one is and the other is yet to come. This is as of his writings. John lived during the time of the Roman Empire. Therefore, the sixth head would have to correspond to Rome. I agree The empire does show up twice, but I believe that is the eighth head. The heads are not kings literally, but kingdoms. Today, we would call them empires. These seven kingdoms ruled over Israel.
      7 Heads of the Beast
      1. Egyptian Kingdom (past)
      2. Assyrian Kingdom (past)
      3. Babylonian Kingdom (past)
      4. Persian/Medes Kingdom (past)
      5. Grecian Kingdom (past)
      6. Roman Kingdom (current)
      7. Visigoth Kingdom (future)

      I have a different interpretation of the seven heads:

      1. Shishak – King of Egypt
      2. Neubchadnezzar – King of Babylon
      3. Ptolemy I (Soter-“savior”) the Great
      4. Antiochus IV (Epiphanes – “god manifest”)
      5. Pompey the Great (Republic of Rome)
      6. Herod the Great
      7. Titus (Roman Empire)

      These were the only gentile kings who conquered Jerusalem. They are the kings, but I agree with you that they also represent the kingdoms which they rule.

      Concerning the time of John’s writing, I receive the testimony of Clement of Alexandria that all of the books of the New Testament (including Revelation) were written between the reigns of Tiberius and Nero. Therefore, as I understand how we received the New Testament, we need to find a logical timeframe for John writing the book of Revelation before the Jewish war with Rome.

      Jerusalem never ruled over any of these kingdoms. The does not mean they did not have any influence. African Americans heavily influence the U.S., but they in no way rule over the country. Everything you and I say about Revelation is our solely our interpretation. You seem to imply everything contrary to what you believe about this subject is merely the opinion of man. All scripture must be interpreted and that is what causes the myriad of views. I have studied Revelation and written a book on it, but I am always interested in other points of view. I am human and could have always missed something or maybe I just didn’t grasp the fullest of a certain symbol. May the Lord continue to bless you in your studies. Peace.

      I don’t claim that Jerusalem ruled over these gentile kingdoms, but I do claim Jerusalem was “higher” than the kingdoms of the earth. The kingdom of Israel (Jerusalem being the capital) was considered God’s firstborn (Jeremiah 31:9). The firstborn of God is considered higher than the kings (or kingdoms) of the earth (Psalm 89:27). Now we will agree that Psalm 89:27 is speaking about Jesus, but the point is made there that the firstborn of God is higher than the kings of the world. Israel, the nation, is God’s firstborn among the kingdoms of the world. Revelation 17:18 is the only Scripture that says Jerusalem “reigns” over the kings of the earth, and I believe it is a mistranslation. The word translated “reigns” is not a verb but a noun. It is always translated into “kingdom” or “kingdoms” except in Revelation 17:18 where the noun is changed into a verb by the translator, probably because of the preposition “over” in the same verse. What it means is the city (Jerusalem) has a “kingdom” over the kings of the earth. This is not in the sense of ruling over, but in the sense of being the leader, first in the eyes of God.

      Concerning Jerusalem being the woman or harlot of Revelation 17, the woman is that “great city” according to Revelation 17:18. The term “great city” is found elsewhere in Revelation at: 14:8; 16:19; 18:10, 16, 18, 19, 21. It is identified as the place where Jesus died in Revelation 11:8 and later as the New Jerusalem which comes down from heaven to the earth in Revelation 21:10. If you choose to make it mean a different city, like the Vatican, for example, you would need to show just cause. The Bible clearly shows that the “great city” or the harlot of Revelation 17 is rebellious Jerusalem, drunk with the blood of the saints. The Jewish authorities at Jerusalem were the only persecutors of believers before the Jewish war with Rome (except for Nero, and his persecution might have been conducted through Jewish influence). But, even if not, the Jewish authorities were the only persecutors of believers who conducted their persecution worldwide. Nero’s was conducted only in the city of Rome.

      Concerning “You seem to imply everything contrary to what you believe about this subject is merely the opinion of man,” not really, but I understand why you may think that. I have said above that Jerusalem is the harlot of Revelation 17 because the Bible defines the phrase “great city”. I simply accept the Biblical definition as true. What I interpret **about** what the Bible claims may be wrong, but the Bible still claims the “great city” is Jerusalem. I don’t believe that can be denied without contradicting Scripture. I used to believe the woman was the Vatican. I had to change my understanding after I saw how the Bible defined that “great city”. You may not place such a great emphasis on the definition of that “great city,” but that is between you and God. You may believe whatever you wish. You and I may agree on many things, perhaps most things, but we won’t agree on this thing, unless you can show just cause why Jerusalem is not that “great city.”

      Lord bless you, Robert, in all you do for him.

       
    • Robert

      July 28, 2016 at 21:19

      Eddie, as far as the seven heads are concerned who do you believe is the 8th head?

      Concerning the Woman, I state in my book that it is either Jerusalem or Rome (not the Vatican per se). I must say I went back and forth until I came to a final decision. Here’s some things to consider. You stated, Revelation 17:18 is the only Scripture that says Jerusalem “reigns” over the kings of the earth, and you believe it is a mis-translation. However, in Revelation 18:7 the Woman calls herself a queen, add to this she is arrayed in purple and scarlet with precious stones and a golden cup. All of these are signs of royalty. This Woman definitely reigns over the Beast. In addition, the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.
      Rev 18:3 (KJV) These same merchants wept when she was destroyed, because this great city bought all of their merchandise. At the time of the sixth head, Jerusalem did not buy the things in this extended list (Revelation 18:12,13), but Rome certainly did.

      As far as the Great City is concerned the Bible names more than Jerusalem.
      Resen – Gen 10:12 (KJV)
      Gibeon – Josh 10:2 (KJV)
      Nineveh – Jonah 1:2 (KJV)

      Jerusalem was considered a Great City because that was where God dwelt among His people. But, because of the rejection of Christ the land became desolate and the temple was destroyed. Did God disappear with the temple? Of course not, He turned to the Gentiles.

      42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? 43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
      Matt 21:42-43 (KJV)

      For brevity sake I will not go into all of the details. Jerusalem was the headquarters of the Church, but after its destruction, Rome eventually became the new headquarters. This transfer of locale correlates to the kingdom of God being given to another nation. The city’s replacement as the headquarters of the Church makes it the physical mother of the Church. Rome’s new Christian identity means that God has entrusted her with propagating His glorious Gospel to the world, this is a great honor. Consequently, the responsibility of this city is considerable due to the high privilege that has been bestowed upon her. Unfortunately, like Jerusalem she did not stay pure and true to her husband (God). Thus, she is considered the great whore or harlot.

       
      • Eddie

        July 29, 2016 at 08:05

        Concerning the eighth head, I don’t know! I used to toy with it, but at the end of the day nothing seemed to fit. If the 7 heads are mountains upon which the great city sits (lots of ancients liked to build their important cities upon seven hills or mountains), what actually is an eighth, and how would that appear if there were only seven to begin with? Does the city expand to include an eighth hill? How is the eighth **of** the seven, was Rome **of** Egypt or visa versa? Was Babylon **of** Greece or either **of** the other two? I think we may be looking in the wrong place for the eighth. At any rate, I don’t understand what that means.

        Concerning “that great city”, you cannot be arguing for Resen, Gibeon or Nineveh, so what’s your point? How would you determine which city today is “that great city” in the eyes of this prophecy? I was aware of these cities, but their being called ‘great’ does not negate the context of Revelation. John uses the term “great city” ten times, and the only cities mentioned are Babylon and Jerusalem. John tells us that ‘Babylon’ is a mystery or secret name for the harlot in Revelation 17 and seems to show all reference point to Jerusalem. No other city within Revelation can make that claim.

        Concerning the description of the woman, her clothing is the same colors of the high priest (Exodus 28:1-5), next to the Davidic kings, the high priests were considered royalty and even ruled over the nation in the times of the Maccabees. Certainly, during the first century AD the high priest was considered the human head of the nation. As for them **reigning** over the gentiles, I stand by my previous statement that Revelation 17:18 is mistranslated. The word is a noun and used as a verb. It is used in the New Testament about 164 times and always translated either ‘kingdom’ or ‘kingdoms’ except for Revelation 17:18. For what possible reason would you want to defend the translators for such an obvious blunder on their part?

        Concerning the commercial value of ‘that great city’, normally, Jerusalem had perhaps 30,000 residents give or take, but for three times a year for a considerable portion of three months, upwards of about a million pilgrims would pack the synagogues / inns, need to buy sacrifices, need to eat, perhaps buy something to remind them of their pilgrimage (small enough to carry, like jewelry), etc. The Temple was the ANE’s answer to modern big business. They had three Black Fridays a year, not to mention two minor feasts in the early and late winter season when folks closer by, like Galilee and Alexandria, might make additional visits.

        Concerning Jerusalem being the headquarters church, I agree, but for what purpose? Was it the leading church, making decisions for all the others? I hardly think so. In the beginning the Apostles were there. They made missions elsewhere, but came back to Jerusalem until they were banished in Acts 12. Then they returned at the risk of their lives, just as Jesus’ visits to Jerusalem were. Jerusalem was the most important church in the world for a reason, and neither Rome nor any other city could ever replace Jerusalem. The Apostles could stay in Jerusalem and preach to millions of people three times a year. That’s how the Gospel spread so quickly throughout the ANE world. The people came to the Apostles and heard the Gospel as long as Jerusalem and the Temple weren’t destroyed. There was never another city like that ‘great city’!

        Concerning Rome replacing Jerusalem, I’m not buying that idea. No city could replace her for the Gospel sake. Whether or not Rome (the Vatican or any other city) can be considered for a **future** harlot, I don’t know, and I don’t entertain such ideas anymore for obvious reasons–everyone, no matter who he is / was has **always** been wrong in his determination. I simply don’t see the value in using Revelation as a book for prophecy in our modern age.

        Nevertheless, I could be wrong, so I don’t judge those who think otherwise. From time to time I check out what others say about Revelation, but I haven’t read anything yet that could change my pov.

        Lord bless you, Robert, in all your work for him.

        ADDENDUM: I could entertain a proposal that has either Sosius or Quirnius as the 7th head of the Beast. Sosius was the Roman general who helped Herod conquer Jerusalem, and, of course, Quirnius deposed Archelaus in 6 AD, making Rome the ruler of Jerusalem. Moreover, Revelation 17:11 would need to be translated “is of the seventh” instead of “is of the seven,” but I’m uncertain if that is possible. However, if it could be translated that way, Titus would be the eighth. Other than this, I can’t say who the eighth might be.

         
  4. Robert

    July 25, 2016 at 21:07

    Eddie I think it great you dedicate all of this time to researching the book of Revelation. I love studying Revelation. Kudos! I do have a question. How can Rome be the sixth and seventh head of the beast and the Woman who rides upon the beast represent Jerusalem? This allusion, would mean the woman is controlling the beast (Rome). However, Jerusalem never controlled Rome or any other country. Therefore, Jerusalem could never qualify as the Woman (Harlot) of Revelation 17, 18.

    I think to make it clearer the beast is not Rome the city, but the Roman Empire. So, the Woman is ruling the empire. There can only be one city on seven hills that ruled the Roman empire and it is not Jerusalem. The fact that this Woman ruled the empire is why John was astonished when he saw her.

    At any rate let me know what you think.

     
    • Eddie

      July 26, 2016 at 07:01

      Greetings Robert and thanks for reading and for taking the time to leave a comment / question.

      In my post I claimed that Rome was the fifth and seventh heads of the beast, you misread or remembered wrong. The point is that it was two entirely different governments, and both governments conquered Jerusalem. In Biblical history Jerusalem was conquered by a foreign power seven times. This is significant and each time represents a judgment from God upon his people.

      The woman (the Great Harlot) who rides the Beast is Jerusalem, because the Bible claims she is Jerusalem (see my study “Mystery Babylon the Great”). So any interpretation of “ruling the empire” must come out of that context. The Bible almost always interprets itself. We go wrong when, instead of accepting what Scripture defines, we apply our own interpretations.

      Concerning the Jews (or Jerusalem) ruling the empire, have you ever read what Seneca (Nero’s teacher) said about the Jews? Consider: “Yet the customs of this most base people have so prevailed that they are adopted in all the world, and the conquered have given their laws to the conquerors.” There are ways of conquering lands using means other than military action. The Jews evangelized the Roman Empire.

      Obviously, you have another interpretation of Revelation 13 and 17. You are welcome to believe as you wish. As for me, the Bible defines the Harlot as “that great city” and further shows that city is Jerusalem. I believe it, and base my claims upon what the Bible has already said. Furthermore, the Bible shows itself to be a history of the Jewish people. They have been conquered seven times. The book of Revelation speaks of a national power with 7 heads. The obvious conclusion is those heads represent the seven kings / governments (or foreign powers) who conquered Jerusalem.

      Everything I’ve read to the contrary is based solely upon what men **think** this or that means in Revelation. None are able to support their interpretations with Scripture. I can, and, as far as I am concerned, that’s enough for me to embrace that manner of thinking.

      Lord bless you in your studies about him.

       
  5. librarygeek

    April 4, 2016 at 23:44

    I wonder what the significance is of the Dragon’s 7 heads, 10 horns, and 7 crowns on his heads vs. The beast’s 7 heads, and 10 horns, and 10 crowns on his horns.

    Any ideas about the symbolism of the Dragon’s heads, horns and crowns?

     
    • Eddie

      April 5, 2016 at 10:52

      I am not certain what you want to know.

      The Dragon of Revelation 12 and the Beast of Revelation 13 represent the same historical figures. The main differences seems to be the 7 crowns on the heads (dragon) and the 10 crowns upon the horns (beast). Perhaps the text is emphasizing two different perspectives. The crowns upon the heads are the rulers who bring us to Christ, while the crowns upon the horns are the lesser rulers who bring us from Christ to his crowning as Messiah and inheritor of the kingdoms of this world (Revelation 11:14-15) and his judgment upon the beast, cir. 66-70 AD (Revelation 17:1, 8).

       
    • librarygeek

      April 6, 2016 at 00:08

      In other words, though the Dragon is Satan and the first Beast is apostate Judaism under the influence of the Kingdoms of this world who conquered it, the heads and horns represent the same kingdoms or rulers in both the Dragon and beast?

       
      • Eddie

        April 6, 2016 at 07:33

        We need to remember that this is a particular picture of Satan or the Dragon. It is of him who opposes the purpose of God. Also Revelation draws upon the stars of different constellations in Revelation 12, so he limits himself to what he can point to as Satan. Nevertheless, the beast of Revelation 13 is formed into the image of him who created him.

         
    • librarygeek

      April 9, 2016 at 00:14

      I’m afraid you lost me here:

      “Also Revelation draws upon the stars of different constellations in Revelation 12, so he limits himself to what he can point to as Satan.”

       
      • Eddie

        April 9, 2016 at 08:15

        The woman of Revelation 12 is Virgo the virgin, the Dragon is Draco the constellation that runs through all the signs of the Zodiac. The sun and the moon are in Virgo, so they can’t be in any other sign of the Zodiac. The mother and the babe are the ancient constellation of Coma (does not appear in modern maps of the Zodiac.

        Revelation pointed to actual constellations and told a story about salvation that was fixed in the heavens for all to see from the very beginning. The Hebrews had names for these signs and many of the stars that made but each constellation–as did most (if not all) nations. Although some things have become falsified, the original story of salvation is still there for all to know–all over the world. If you have an opportunity, pick up E.W. Bullinger’s book “The Witness of the Stars.” I think you’ll be pleased you did.

        Lord bless you Shari.

         
  6. librarygeek

    March 10, 2016 at 03:24

    I never noticed Rev 17: 11 before :The beast that was, and is not, is himself an eighth king and yet is one of the seven, and is going to destruction. – What do you think that means?

    And v. 8 The beast you saw was, and is not, but is about to come up from the abyss and then go to destruction. The inhabitants of the earth—all those whose names have not been written in the book of life since the foundation of the world—will be astounded when they see that the beast was, and is not, but is to come. 9 (This requires a mind that has wisdom.)

    How does an eighth king fit into the scheme of things? And why would it say that the Beast is not now if Revelations was written before the destruction of Jerusalem?

     
    • Eddie

      March 10, 2016 at 08:10

      As the Scripture says, the interpretation of this requires wisdom. I have always had trouble with the meaning of these verses, and i still am not satisfied with how I understand it, but, for what it is worth, I’ll give you what I **think** it **might** mean.

      While under the rule of the Herod of Acts 12–Herod Agrippa the Great, grandson of Herod the Great–the Jews enjoyed an element of self rule. Herod was part Hasmonean (of Jewish heritage) and partly and Edomite. So in the sense that he was Jewish, the Beast, didn’t exist at that time. The Jews were under self-rule. Therefore, “the beast was and is not, but shall arise out of the abyss and go into destruction.”

      The Beast that was and is not (i.e. apostate Jerusalem/Judaism) is a kind of king or ruler itself and is of (or like, i.e. takes on the characteristics of) the 7 kings who conquered/rule her. Of the seven kings, 5 have fallen: [1] Shishak (Egypt), [2] Nebuchadnezzar (Babylon), [3] Ptolemy the Great (Grecian Egypt), [4] Antiochus Epiphanes (Grecian Syria), [5] Pompey the Great (Republic of Rome). one is: [6] Herod the Great/Herod Agrippa, and one is yet to come [7] Vespasian/Titus (Empire of Rome).

       
    • librarygeek

      April 9, 2016 at 00:09

      Yes, I can see that and also why you might not be entirely satisfied with that idea. Herod as a part Jew means the beast as representative of foreign rulers was dead, but would arise out of the abyss/ death after Herod died and Rome took over direct rule again. Yet Herod as a part Edomite also represents one of the Seven foreign rulers and heads of the beast “who now is”. A little confusing, but Rev 17:11 does say the 8th king represented by the beast “belongs to the seven”. So it seems the Lord is trying to depict a lot of things all in this one beast.

      And if Daniel’s 10 horned beast of Dan 7:7-8 is the same as the 10 horned beast of Rev 13 and 17, then that supports Herod Agrippa I being both one of horns of the beast and the beast himself. In Rev 13, the beast is given a mouth to speak proud words and blasphemies, and in Dan, he is the little horn who spoke boastfully.

      Did I understand you right?

       
      • Eddie

        April 9, 2016 at 08:00

        Yes, that is what I’m saying, but remember, although I am sure of things in my own mind. I still may be wrong about some things. Both Daniel and the book of Revelation are very obscure at times, times (?) often. I could be wrong, no matter how careful I try to be. Sometimes I find myself trying to prove **my** understanding rather than the word of God. That’s dangerous. When studying God’s word, we need to keep **him** before us at all times. Just saying. :-)

         
  7. librarygeek

    February 20, 2016 at 00:03

    Wouldn’t the existence of the state of Israel since 1947 imply a 2nd resurrection of the Beast, if your theory is correct? It seems odd to me that the Beast should rise out of the sea (the gentile nations) and yet be apostate Judaism, even granting that it’s leadership are foreign kings. The other statements about the Beast don’t seem to point that way: v 2 the Dragon gave the Beast his power, v 3 yes the whole world was likely astonished when Cyrus allowed the Jews to return, just as we are amazed by the return of Israel in this past century, but when did the whole world follow and worship Judaism? And although people may have been amazed by the power of all of the kingdoms that conquered Israel, when did anyone say, who can make war against Israel v 4?

    I think you are mostly right, but I don’t see how the first beast can be Judaism or Israel. Maybe the Beast can only exist as long a nation exists, but I don’t think this means it must be the nation or apostate Judaism.

     
    • Eddie

      February 20, 2016 at 10:10

      Greetings Shari, and thank you for your comment.

      I don’t consider the existence of the state of Israel in 1947 applicable to Revelation. As I stated in my post, the book seems to concern itself with events in the 1st century AD and a bit of Israel’s history that brought us to that point. Something occurring nearly 2000 years later is not the concern of the writer (at least not the first 19 chapters).

      “It seems odd to me that the Beast should rise out of the sea (the gentile nations) and yet be apostate Judaism, even granting that it’s leadership are foreign kings.”

      I don’t see another way to put it. Do you? After all, if the head of the beast was wounded to death, the gentile nations didn’t cease to exist, the Jewish nation no longer existed. These gentile kings are tied to the Jewish nation in a manner that I mentioned in my blog. They are the “heads” but the body seems to be the apostate Jewish nation.

      “The other statements about the Beast don’t seem to point that way: v 2 the Dragon gave the Beast his power,”

      What are you saying–that the dragon gave his power to the gentile nation(s)?

      “v 3 yes the whole world was likely astonished when Cyrus allowed the Jews to return, just as we are amazed by the return of Israel in this past century”

      This may or may not be true of the world. The fact is the Greek word (G1093) is translated “world” only here. It is usually translated “earth” which can mean the whole globe or simply a nation. In Matthew 23:35 it refers to Israel (or Jerusalem, the seat of the Jewish governing body).

      “but when did the whole world follow and worship Judaism? And although people may have been amazed by the power of all of the kingdoms that conquered Israel, when did anyone say, who can make war against Israel v 4?”

      Which is exactly the point of “earth” in v.3 being the Jewish nation. The Jewish nation was amazed with its governing power, whichever head that might have been during its apostate history. They wondered: “Who is able to make war with it?” (cf. John 11:48). In fact, this very fear was probably the main reason behind the Jewish persecution of Messianic believers during the first century AD. They were afraid Rome would take away both their nation and their Temple, if it thought Jesus, the Messiah, was a threat to Rome. Therefore, the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem sought to silence Paul and the other apostles as their testimonies were believed by Jews throughout the first century world.

      “I don’t see how the first beast can be Judaism or Israel. Maybe the Beast can only exist as long a nation exists, but I don’t think this means it must be the nation or apostate Judaism.”

      If it ceases to exist at all, it cannot be the gentile kingdoms. That would mean only Jews exist in the world. The “deadly would” seems, at least to me, to point to apostate Judaism. As long as the gentile kings who conquered the Jews permitted it, the nation existed. Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the nation, but Cyrus made them a nation once more. Finally, Titus destroyed the nation again (with the Temple) in 70 AD. They were never a nation again until modern times (nearly 1900 years). Yet, even today (nearly 2000 years later), they still don’t have a Temple. The power of apostate Judaism is the gentile power, and that was given them by the dragon. They “worshiped” both the power of the gentile nations and the power of the dragon that brought them under their power. According to John 11:48 they had no faith that God would preserve them.

      If the “Beast” can exist only as long as the Jewish nation exists, and it is **not** apostate Judaism, what is it? What entity was worshiped by the Jews (or the world in your view)? If worship occurred by either, a real entity had to have existed that one could see, hear and touch. What was that entity, if not apostate Judaism?

       
  8. librarygeekshari

    December 16, 2013 at 00:53

    Interesting! Do you then believe that the letters to the 7 Churches were prophetic in nature, to churches that didn’t yet exist? Or do you believe these churches were founded already by 41-44 CE?

     
    • Eddie

      December 16, 2013 at 09:26

      Greeting once again, Shari (library geek), I toy with the idea that they existed in the same sense that the church at Rome existed before Paul arrived. There is a compelling reason that Paul wanted to evangelize the province of Asia simply because there were already many Messianic Jews there who had responded to the Gospel, while on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. There they would have heard the Gospel from Peter or one of the other Apostles. They were not established (cp. Romans 1:11), but they were churches of Christ, nonetheless. So, “founded” may be misleading. I take that to mean the same as ‘established’ in Romans 1:11. Clearly the church existed in Rome before Paul arrived, before any evangelist or Apostle arrived. They were among the pilgrims who believed the Gospel at Jerusalem and returned home. So too, the ‘churches’ of Christ in Asia. Hope this helps. :-)

       

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: