Thank you for your response. I think one main point of difference between us
you accept a date of 62 for Revelation, I go with the mid to late 90s.
You make a good point when you say:
"I am simply suggesting that that multilayered aspect also has to do with
This makes sense to me.
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 6:36 PM
Subject: [revelation-list] Re: Question
<<<If we say, as so many do, that the beast with the seven
heads is Nero then what would be the significance? Of what
value is such a conclusion? This has long puzzled me. I do not
see that Nero as a solution would have had any real value to first
century readers or to readers of any other era for that matter. >>>
If the Revelation was for a single age only and if it was given
following Nero's death - or, perhaps, even during the
persecutions - it would be, as you say, of little or no value in
identifying that emperor with the Beast.
If, however, the Revelation was given before the Persecutions
began (assuming it was a vision given to John rather than an
apocalyptic construction of his own), then to know the specific
king through whom they were to suffer enabled the Church to act
with increased wisdom at that time. It also confirmed that,
despite the hardships they were to endure, God was very much
in control. Considering that those who first received the
Revelation (e.g. the apostles) would have believed that Christ
was about to return, it would have made enduring the sufferings
a little less difficult. I hold that the Revelation was given in 62,
over two years before the outbreak of Nero's persecutions and
so allowing a reasonable period for the Church to prepare itself.
If the Revelation was not given at a time when it could receive
apostolic witness and acceptance, we would treat it like most
probably do the writings of Nostra Damus.
Again, if the Revelation was multilayered - or at least dual
layered - in its fulfillment, then the Beast it is identifying, i.e. the
Beast who will precede the parousia, is yet to come. In the
immediate context of its giving, Nero was the beast who would
oppose the Church, but the details God gave in that context may
well identify the Beast who is yet to come, one who will only be
recognized by that generation which will have to face him. This
does not mean that the Revelation has no significance for the
period between the first and the last beast, but it must have a
particular value for those who have had to or will have to face
either of them. You accept a multilayered understanding of some
terms, I am simply suggesting that that multilayered aspect also
has to do with time.
<<< Though I suppose I should also ask, by Nero do some
understand a literal
Nero back from the dead? Or an evil Nero like character? >>>
Again, this is not an issue if the Revelation was given before
Nero's persecutions. Nero was the Beast of that time. I think "an
evil Nero-like character", only far worse and truly global in his
influence, is yet to be unveiled.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/