Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re:Lamblike Beast

Expand Messages
  • ksmith@standrews.sa.edu.au
    ... interpretation on the identity of the lamblike beast in Rev. 13. Any help will be greatly appreciated. Dear Hyunsok Doh, Chapters 12 and 13 of the
    Message 1 of 15 , Oct 28, 2001
      --- In revelation-list@y..., "Hyunsok Doh" <hdoh@a...> wrote:
      > I am wondering if there is anyone who has done a history of
      interpretation on the identity of the lamblike beast in Rev. 13. Any
      help will be greatly appreciated.>>>

      Dear Hyunsok Doh,

      Chapters 12 and 13 of the Revelation reveal an unholy and
      counterfeit trinity. In his determination to usurp God, Satan sets
      up his own triune 'godhead'. Chapter 12 reveals the Dragon, it is
      Satan himself who would be the 'father' of this evil, sham 'trinity'.

      The beast of 13:1-10 which recovers from a mortal wound (v. 3) -
      a counterfiet resurrection - and to which the Dragon gives its
      authority (v. 2) is the 'son'.

      As Satan is incapable of producing a 'spirit', as such, the
      lamb-like beast of 13:11-18 is the third member of the terrible
      trinity. It exercises the authority of the first beast (i.e. the 'son' - v.
      12: cf. John 16:12-15), it gives breath to the image of the (first)
      beast (v. 15: cf. Gen 2:7), it causes fire to come down from
      heaven (v. 13: Cf. Acts 2:3) and it marks those who follow the first
      beast (v. 16: cf Eph 1:13).

      Like the first beast, this second beast most likely is/will be a
      person, but one to whom Satan gives power to perform great
      and deceiving signs. To him, also, much worldly authority will be
      given so as to enforce obedience to the first beast and the
      persecution of those who refuse.

      Perhaps the world will eventually get to such a state of conflict
      and desperation that it will welcome such charismatic figures as
      the first and second beasts to bring it to some state of cohesion
      and (counterfiet) peace.

      I hope these thoughts are useful.

      Kym Smith
      Adelaide
      South Australia
      khs@...
    • Ed Garcia
      Kym, I am wondering, in your response you say the first beast, this second beast most likely is/will be a person . I agree. But what leads you to that
      Message 2 of 15 , Oct 29, 2001
        Kym,

        I am wondering, in your response you say "the first beast, this second beast
        most likely is/will be a
        person". I agree. But what leads you to that conclusion? I have read others
        who say that we should not think of the beasts in terms of individuals but
        as a system ( I disagree with such an understanding). What leads you to the
        conclusion that in the beasts we are dealing with individuals. Thank you.

        -Ed Garcia

        -----Original Message-----
        From: ksmith@... [mailto:ksmith@...]
        Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2001 5:25 PM
        To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [revelation-list] Re:Lamblike Beast


        --- In revelation-list@y..., "Hyunsok Doh" <hdoh@a...> wrote:
        > I am wondering if there is anyone who has done a history of
        interpretation on the identity of the lamblike beast in Rev. 13. Any
        help will be greatly appreciated.>>>

        Dear Hyunsok Doh,

        Chapters 12 and 13 of the Revelation reveal an unholy and
        counterfeit trinity. In his determination to usurp God, Satan sets
        up his own triune 'godhead'. Chapter 12 reveals the Dragon, it is
        Satan himself who would be the 'father' of this evil, sham 'trinity'.

        The beast of 13:1-10 which recovers from a mortal wound (v. 3) -
        a counterfiet resurrection - and to which the Dragon gives its
        authority (v. 2) is the 'son'.

        As Satan is incapable of producing a 'spirit', as such, the
        lamb-like beast of 13:11-18 is the third member of the terrible
        trinity. It exercises the authority of the first beast (i.e. the 'son' - v.
        12: cf. John 16:12-15), it gives breath to the image of the (first)
        beast (v. 15: cf. Gen 2:7), it causes fire to come down from
        heaven (v. 13: Cf. Acts 2:3) and it marks those who follow the first
        beast (v. 16: cf Eph 1:13).

        Like the first beast, this second beast most likely is/will be a
        person, but one to whom Satan gives power to perform great
        and deceiving signs. To him, also, much worldly authority will be
        given so as to enforce obedience to the first beast and the
        persecution of those who refuse.

        Perhaps the world will eventually get to such a state of conflict
        and desperation that it will welcome such charismatic figures as
        the first and second beasts to bring it to some state of cohesion
        and (counterfiet) peace.

        I hope these thoughts are useful.

        Kym Smith
        Adelaide
        South Australia
        khs@...




        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        revelation-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      • ksmith@standrews.sa.edu.au
        ... second beast most likely is/will be a person . I agree. But what leads you to that conclusion? I have read others who say that we should not think of
        Message 3 of 15 , Oct 29, 2001
          --- In revelation-list@y..., Ed Garcia <Ed.Garcia@f...> wrote:
          > Kym,
          >
          > I am wondering, in your response you say "the first beast, this
          second beast > most likely is/will be a > person". I agree. But
          what leads you to that conclusion? I have read others > who say
          that we should not think of the beasts in terms of individuals but
          > as a system ( I disagree with such an understanding). What
          leads you to the > conclusion that in the beasts we are dealing
          with individuals. >>>


          Dear Ed,

          My interest in the Revelation has been primarily in its date and
          relationship to the other New Testament books so I have not
          thought too much about the rest of its contents. Clearly, this will
          have to change. Hopefully the following will be of some use.

          Perhaps it would be best to see a combination of persons and
          systems here. While there is undoubtedly a world system behind
          which stands the Dragon, Satan, and through which he seeks to
          seduce the world, there seem to be real persons as well.

          If Satan sets up a counterfeit trinity, then, like the true trinity, it
          must be personal. While people do worship systems, especially
          in the sense of becoming slaves to them, it will take a person to
          direct that worship to the one who covets it, i.e. Satan. If the
          Father's Son became human, we can be sure that the devil will
          want a human `son' to do his bidding as well. So the first beast,
          it seems to me, is clearly a person and will, undoubtedly, be a
          man, otherwise known as the antichrist (1 Jn 2:18), `man of
          lawlessness' and `son of perdition' (2 Thess 2:3) or the
          `desolating sacrilege' (Matt 24:15; cf. Dan 9:27).

          Concerning the second beast, the picture given in Rev 13 seems
          to relate to a person and to a system that that person sets up
          and maintains. Of course there is a difficulty with what language
          in the Revelation should be taken literally and what should be
          taken figuratively/allegorically/metaphorically and so on. My
          hunch is that it probably moves from one to another. In the case
          of the second beast I am quite happy to accept that the signs
          given to it, like calling fire from heaven (13:13-14) will be literal
          signs observed by and deceiving humanity. I do not think that a
          world system will or can do such signs, but a person
          supernaturally empowered by the prince of darkness – even if he
          does not understand the actual source of his abilities – can. It is
          this beast, the second, who stirs up the world to follow the first
          beast and who will set up a system – clearly a political and
          financial one – by which those who refuse to worship the first
          beast will be cut off from `normal' society. In our modern
          technological day of plastic money, electronic finances, etc, it is
          not hard to imagine how this could be done.

          That's how I see it anyway.

          Kym Smith
          Adelaide
          South Australia
          khs@...
        • Ian Paul
          Dear Kym ... It feels as though this is moving some way from the text itself to appeal to other realms of logic. In discerning whether the text (or its writer)
          Message 4 of 15 , Oct 30, 2001
            Dear Kym

            >Perhaps it would be best to see a combination of persons and
            >systems here. While there is undoubtedly a world system behind
            >which stands the Dragon, Satan, and through which he seeks to
            >seduce the world, there seem to be real persons as well.
            >
            >If Satan sets up a counterfeit trinity, then, like the true trinity, it
            >must be personal. While people do worship systems, especially
            >in the sense of becoming slaves to them, it will take a person to
            >direct that worship to the one who covets it, i.e. Satan.

            It feels as though this is moving some way from the text itself to appeal to
            other realms of logic. In discerning whether the text (or its writer) is
            envisaging a person or a system, surely we have to look at the text itself,
            and the sources of its imagery?

            Revelation is making particular use of the animal images in Daniel, all of
            which appear to refer to empires. Revelation does re-use images in a way
            distinct from their OT context, but I think I would need some other evidence
            from Revelation itself before saying that the beasts refer to persons rather
            than systems/empires.

            And your discussion assumes that the primary referent is future (to the
            first century) which as you know I am not persuaded is correct.

            Ian Paul
          • RSBrenchley@aol.com
            ... to ... A reference to the Trinity here seems anachronistic, unless you re dating Revelation really late; the first clear extant reference to the Trinity
            Message 5 of 15 , Oct 30, 2001
              Kym writes:

              > >If Satan sets up a counterfeit trinity, then, like the true trinity, it
              > >must be personal. While people do worship systems, especially
              > >in the sense of becoming slaves to them, it will take a person to
              > >direct that worship to the one who covets it, i.e. Satan.
              >
              Ian replies:

              > It feels as though this is moving some way from the text itself to appeal
              to
              > other realms of logic. In discerning whether the text (or its writer) is
              > envisaging a person or a system, surely we have to look at the text itself,
              > and the sources of its imagery?
              >
              A reference to the Trinity here seems anachronistic, unless you're dating
              Revelation really late; the first clear extant reference to the Trinity being
              in Theophilus of Antioch, around the 160's AD.

              Regards,

              Robert Brenchley,
              Birmingham, UK.

              RSBrenchley@...
            • Ed Garcia
              Contrary to Mr. Paul, I agree with Kym, I believe that the beasts of Revelation refer to both individuals as well as empires/systems/groups of people. This is
              Message 6 of 15 , Oct 30, 2001
                Contrary to Mr. Paul, I agree with Kym,

                I believe that the beasts of Revelation refer to both individuals as well as
                empires/systems/groups of people. This is the only conclusion that makes
                sense. For one thing you can't have an empire with out an emperor or an
                emperor without an empire; you can't have a kingdom without a king or a king
                without a kingdom (though we should also include queens too). If we consider
                the book of Exodus we see that God is not only punishing Pharaoh but Egypt
                as well. The two are practically interchangeable. In Revelation we can think
                of the woman giving birth to the male child. True the woman can represent a
                group, or body of people, a nation perhaps. But it is also true that the
                child spoken of is Jesus and would have been born of a human mother, an
                individual, Mary. Thus the woman represents a group of people, a nation and
                an individual. In Revelation 19:20 the Beast as well as the False Prophet
                are thrown into the lake of fire. Can a system be thrown into a lake of
                fire? Besides, in 19:20 the Beast and False Prophet are referred to as third
                person singular, not third person plural. Thus, I believe that with some
                symbols Revelation means both individuals and groups or maybe systems.

                -Ed Garcia
                Kansas
              • Ian Paul
                ... as ... Maybe to you or me, but again, the fundamental question is surely what makes sense for John? In personifying the four empires, Daniel appears to
                Message 7 of 15 , Oct 30, 2001
                  Ed Garcia writes:

                  >I believe that the beasts of Revelation refer to both individuals as well
                  as
                  >empires/systems/groups of people. This is the only conclusion that makes
                  >sense.

                  Maybe to you or me, but again, the fundamental question is surely what makes
                  sense for John? In personifying the four empires, Daniel appears to have no
                  need for the individual leaders, and John uses similar language. Again, his
                  use of Is 26 and Micah 4 in depicting God's expectant people as a pregnant
                  women gives no prominence to the actual mother.

                  > Can a system be thrown into a lake of
                  >fire?

                  If systems can be demonic, why cannot they be judged?

                  > Besides, in 19:20 the Beast and False Prophet are referred to as third
                  >person singular, not third person plural.

                  Hmmm...I think there is a fundemental question here about use of language
                  and the way metaphor works. When 'England beats Australia at cricket' there
                  is more than one person involved even if the verb is singular.

                  Ian Paul
                • Ed Garcia
                  Ian Paul writes: In personifying the four empires, Daniel appears to have no need for the individual leaders Whether this is the case or not I cannot say.
                  Message 8 of 15 , Oct 30, 2001
                    Ian Paul writes:

                    "In personifying the four empires, Daniel appears to have no
                    need for the individual leaders" Whether this is the case or not I cannot
                    say. But still, with a nation, a kingdom or an empire you have a leader
                    whether it be an emperor, a president, a king, a dictator, a premier or a
                    general. If you have an empire, you have a leader. And at times, even in
                    scripture, the leader personifies the whole. Consider Jesus and his church
                    which is his Body. can we think of the Christ's kingdom without Christ?

                    " Again, his use of Is 26 and Micah 4 in depicting God's expectant people as
                    a pregnant women gives no prominence to the actual mother."

                    That may be true but we are discussing the woman in Revelation and in that
                    passage both Mary and whatever/whoever the Woman giving birth represents are
                    clearly represented.

                    "If systems can be demonic, why cannot they be judged?"

                    Systems can be judged but how do you throw a system into a lake of fire?
                    Individuals, however, can be thrown into a lake of fire.

                    -Ed Garcia
                    Kansas


                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: Ian Paul [mailto:ian.b.paul@...]
                    Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 4:18 PM
                    To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: RE: [revelation-list] Re:Lamblike Beast



                    Ed Garcia writes:

                    >I believe that the beasts of Revelation refer to both individuals as well
                    as
                    >empires/systems/groups of people. This is the only conclusion that makes
                    >sense.

                    Maybe to you or me, but again, the fundamental question is surely what makes
                    sense for John? In personifying the four empires, Daniel appears to have no
                    need for the individual leaders, and John uses similar language. Again, his
                    use of Is 26 and Micah 4 in depicting God's expectant people as a pregnant
                    women gives no prominence to the actual mother.

                    > Can a system be thrown into a lake of
                    >fire?

                    If systems can be demonic, why cannot they be judged?

                    > Besides, in 19:20 the Beast and False Prophet are referred to as third
                    >person singular, not third person plural.

                    Hmmm...I think there is a fundemental question here about use of language
                    and the way metaphor works. When 'England beats Australia at cricket' there
                    is more than one person involved even if the verb is singular.

                    Ian Paul


                    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                    revelation-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  • ksmith@standrews.sa.edu.au
                    ... you re dating Revelation really late; the first clear extant reference to the Trinity being in Theophilus of Antioch, around the 160 s AD. Dear
                    Message 9 of 15 , Oct 30, 2001
                      --- In revelation-list@y..., RSBrenchley@a... wrote:
                      >>> A reference to the Trinity here seems anachronistic, unless
                      you're dating > Revelation really late; the first clear extant
                      reference to the Trinity being in Theophilus of Antioch, around the
                      160's AD. >>>

                      Dear Robert,

                      As you probably know, I date the Revelation in 62 and before
                      most of the New testament books were written. If the Revelation
                      used the term, 'trinity', then you might be right. However, it does
                      not. We can speak of the NT's allusions to the trinity (e.g. in Matt
                      18:19) without demanding that the NT or any of its parts were
                      post 160AD. It is the reality of the trinity, not the term, that Satan
                      attempts to emulate, and the reality is well known to Satan.

                      Sincerely,

                      Kym Smith
                      Adelaide
                      South Australia
                      khs@...
                    • ksmith@standrews.sa.edu.au
                      Dear Ian, In reference to my post #120, you said, ... itself to appeal to other realms of logic. In discerning whether the text (or its writer) is envisaging a
                      Message 10 of 15 , Oct 30, 2001
                        Dear Ian,

                        In reference to my post #120, you said,

                        >>> "It feels as though this is moving some way from the text
                        itself to appeal to other realms of logic. In discerning whether the
                        text (or its writer) is envisaging a person or a system, surely we
                        have to look at the text itself, and the sources of its imagery?>>>

                        I don't think that I moved from the text at all. It may be true that my
                        approach to the text is not as narrow as you may think that it
                        should be, but surely we would miss much of what Scripture has
                        for us if we did not come to its individual parts with a broader
                        theological and/or scriptural framework. Can we do otherwise?
                        In what you quoted of my post (added below), there seem to be
                        two main issues. The counterfeit trinity and the combination of
                        persons and systems in relation to the second beast.

                        The former, the idea of the counterfeit trinity, is only an
                        observation of chapters 12 and 13 where we have the Dragon,
                        the first beast who recovers from a mortal wound and to whom
                        the Dragon gives his authority, and the second beast which
                        seeks to bring the world into subservience to the first beast –
                        and through him to the Dragon – and who marks those who do
                        submit. If one cannot accept that individual persons are primarily
                        meant by the beasts then I can understand that this idea would
                        be harder to allow as a legitimate option.

                        The second idea, that the beasts may relate to both persons and
                        systems, is probably dependant, to some degree, on how much
                        one a. allows the text to contain both literal and metaphorical
                        language and b. accepts that other NT writers are referring to the
                        same entities using other terms.

                        Taking the latter idea first, if the first beast is Paul's `man of
                        lawlessness' and son of perdition, the lawless one who comes
                        `by the activity of Satan' (2 Thess 2:3-9), then we are clearly
                        dealing with an individual. The same may be said of John's
                        antichrist (1 Jn 2:18). I think these connections are there to be
                        made.

                        That the text may contain both literal and metaphorical ideas is
                        more open to subjective assessment and also, therefore, more
                        open to error. This does not mean that both are not there,
                        however. Clearly the beast with two horns like a lamb and a
                        voice like a dragon is metaphorical, though some real entity, be it
                        person or system, is obviously intended. That this beast will be
                        allowed to do great, deceitful signs, including calling fire down
                        form heaven, may be only metaphorical, but I think not – even if
                        the fire itself is merely metaphorical (something I also doubt).

                        Now it is clear, especially with the second beast, that a system is
                        involved. That, however, does not exclude a prominent
                        personage who heads it up and whose charisma and `signs'
                        add weight to the authority of the system. That system appears to
                        be both political and financial and one that is imposed on the
                        whole earth. Given a crisis of sufficient proportions, it is not
                        impossible to imagine the nations of the world uniting to resolve
                        it. We saw the possibilities recently with the global coalition
                        against terrorism. Perhaps, in reference to the counterfeit trinity,
                        a system is the only was for the counterfeit third person to be
                        all-present.

                        >>>Revelation is making particular use of the animal images in
                        Daniel, all of which appear to refer to empires. Revelation does
                        re-use images in a way distinct from their OT context, but I think I
                        would need some other evidence from Revelation itself before
                        saying that the beasts refer to persons rather than
                        systems/empires.>>>

                        Your own admission that the Revelation "does re-use (OT)
                        images in a way distinct" must open some possibilities. You
                        may insist that the lamb-like beast of 13:11 is a system, but you
                        are unlikely, I daresay, to consider the Lamb of 14:1 to be a
                        system and not an individual. I think I should be careful here to
                        remember my limitations. As I have said, my interest – until now
                        – has been primarily in the date of the Revelation and its
                        relationship to the other NT books. I have not given sufficient
                        consideration to the contents of the book to enter too deeply into
                        the current debate, though I do not back off from what I have said
                        so far. Nor does that mean that I will not attempt to take it further,
                        I just know that that is going to take some effort.

                        >>>And your discussion assumes that the primary referent is
                        future (to the first century) which as you know I am not persuaded
                        is correct.>>>

                        My position, as you probably know, is that the Revelation has (at
                        least – and probably only) two periods primarily in view. That
                        does not mean that it has not been incredibly useful in between,
                        it has. I think it was first given in anticipation of Nero's
                        persecutions. The apostles always believed that Christ would
                        come in their lifetimes and they say as much in their earliest
                        correspondences (e.g. 1 Thess 5; 2 Thess 2; 1 Cor 7:25-30).
                        With the giving of the Revelation, however, their expectation was
                        heightened, resulting in epistles like 1 John, Eph and 1 Pet and
                        James and, as a second wave, 2 Pet, and Jude. The apostles
                        had no doubt that Nero's demise would come about with the
                        return of Christ. When this did not happen, they had to come to
                        grips with the double layered intention of the Revelation. While
                        significant things had happened in their own time which, it
                        seemed, the Revelation had warned them about (the
                        persecutions in Rome and in Asia, for example), some major
                        portions of John's vision had not been fulfilled. These awaited a
                        second and final fulfilment which they may or may not see. It was
                        necessary for them, however, to provide for a Church which
                        might outlast them and the gospels of John, Luke and Matthew
                        were produced, as well as the Acts of the Apostles for this
                        purpose. I suspect that John still considered that he would be
                        around if not to see the actual end, at least to identify the main
                        players, hence the inclusion of John 21:20-23.
                        Much prophecy in both OT and NT is double layered. It has an
                        immediate context but looks forward to something other as well.
                        A small example is Isaiah 7:14. What has happened with the
                        Revelation is that God has provided for his Church which and
                        when it will face the last things. He `fostered' a situation in the
                        first century about which he gave some preview and warning and
                        to which the apostles responded. The veiled nature of the
                        preview – i.e. the Revelation – was such that it was not possible
                        for the apostles to distinguish between the immediate and the
                        final fulfilments. Indeed, at the time they had no thought other
                        than that it was all about to happen.
                        Why has God done this? He has done it, I suspect, so that the
                        Revelation would be recorded by an apostolic writer and would
                        be received and kept as part of Scripture. Not to have done this
                        would mean that, if he gave it at all, he would have to give the
                        vision to some later writer who would be unlikely – humanly
                        speaking – to have any more credibility that some one like
                        Nostradamus.
                        So yes, I do think that the "primary referent" of the Revelation is
                        future - in both of its `layers'.

                        Sincerely,

                        Kym Smith
                        Adelaide
                        South Australia
                        Khs@...

                        >Perhaps it would be best to see a combination of persons and
                        >systems here. While there is undoubtedly a world system
                        behind >which stands the Dragon, Satan, and through which he
                        seeks to >seduce the world, there seem to be real persons as
                        well.
                        >
                        >If Satan sets up a counterfeit trinity, then, like the true trinity, it
                        >must be personal. While people do worship systems,
                        especially >in the sense of becoming slaves to them, it will take
                        a person to
                        >direct that worship to the one who covets it, i.e. Satan.
                      • Otto Erlend Nordgreen
                        Dear Ian, in your discussion with Kym and Ed, you wrote: Revelation is making particular use of the animal images in Daniel, all of which appear to refer to
                        Message 11 of 15 , Oct 31, 2001
                          Dear Ian,

                          in your discussion with Kym and Ed, you wrote:

                          "Revelation is making particular use of the animal images in Daniel, all of
                          which appear to refer to empires. Revelation does re-use images in a way
                          distinct from their OT context, but I think I would need some other evidence
                          from Revelation itself before saying that the beasts refer to persons rather
                          than systems/empires."

                          What do you make of Dan 8:9? I find it interesting to observe that after the fall of Alexander's Greece, a 'little horn' is said to grew from one of the four diadochi, viz. Syria, and that in relation to the fourth beast, Daniel also mentions a 'little horn' (Dan 7). Most commentators seem to accept that the 'little horn' of Dan 8 is the Syrian king of Antiochus IV, Epiphanes.

                          The most 'natural' reading of Daniel, I would like to argue, should lead us to accept the same identity for the 'little horn' in Dan 7 and 8. Thus, following the Greek View, we should relate the fourth empire of Dan 2 and 7 to the historical person of Antiochus IV.

                          It is true that the 'little horn' of Dan 8:9 is said to grew from one of the parts of the fallen Greek empire of Alexander. But we should not let this disturb the interpretation that identifies this 'little horn' with that of the fourth empire in Dan 7. Why? By recognising that Daniel actually tells us that the Greek empire already had fallen when the 'little horn' grew from one of its parts (cf. Dan 8:9,22; 11:4). Furthermore, it is quite possible that Daniel is using the 'little horn' to symbolise the fourth empire as such. Thus, like John the Seer uses one of the heads of the beast (from the sea) also to represent the beast as such, this could also be the fact of Daniel's portray of the fourth secular power.

                          For my identification of the four 'kingdoms' in the Book of Daniel, see my essay "The Four Kingdoms in the Book of Daniel Reconsidered", as published at

                          http://folk.uio.no/otton/Daniel1.htm

                          Just some thoughts...

                          Best wishes!

                                   ________________________________________         
                                   Otto Erlend Nordgreen                               
                                                          
                                   Student at Department of Germanic
                                   Studies, University of Oslo, Norway
                                   E-mail: otton@...
                                   Website: http://www.uio.no/~otton/English1.htm
                                   ________________________________________

                        • Dave Mathewson
                          Ed Garcia writes: Systems can be judged but how do you throw a system into the lake of fire? Individuals, however, can be thrown into the lake of fire. But
                          Message 12 of 15 , Oct 31, 2001
                            Ed Garcia writes: "Systems can be judged but how do you throw a system into
                            the lake of fire? Individuals, however, can be thrown into the lake of
                            fire."

                            But is this perhaps not too subtle of an approach to Rev's metaphorical
                            language? At a literal level, this would be a difficulty, but at a
                            metaphorical level, no more a difficulty that having a woman who gives birth
                            to a son representing (at least in part) a nation, or the Christ being both
                            a Lion and a Lamb.

                            Dave Mathewson

                            _________________________________________________________________
                            Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
                          • Stettler Alliance Church
                            please take me off the mailing list thank you ... into ... birth ... both ... http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
                            Message 13 of 15 , Nov 1, 2001
                              please take me off the mailing list

                              thank you

                              ----------
                              > From: Dave Mathewson <d_mathewson@...>
                              > To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
                              > Subject: [revelation-list] Lamblike Beast
                              > Date: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 12:35 PM
                              >
                              > Ed Garcia writes: "Systems can be judged but how do you throw a system
                              into
                              > the lake of fire? Individuals, however, can be thrown into the lake of
                              > fire."
                              >
                              > But is this perhaps not too subtle of an approach to Rev's metaphorical
                              > language? At a literal level, this would be a difficulty, but at a
                              > metaphorical level, no more a difficulty that having a woman who gives
                              birth
                              > to a son representing (at least in part) a nation, or the Christ being
                              both
                              > a Lion and a Lamb.
                              >
                              > Dave Mathewson
                              >
                              > _________________________________________________________________
                              > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
                              http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                              > revelation-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

                              >
                              >
                            • Ed Garcia
                              Revelation is indeed filled with metaphor and symbols and one could possibly even argue symbols of symbols. I do understand that. But don t get me wrong, I am
                              Message 14 of 15 , Nov 1, 2001
                                Revelation is indeed filled with metaphor and symbols and one could possibly
                                even argue symbols of symbols. I do understand that. But don't get me wrong,
                                I am not saying that the beast, false prophet, the woman giving birth or
                                whoever must be understood as individuals only. There is also a corporate
                                quality to these characters. I believe that characters such as the beast and
                                false prophet point not only to individuals but, as I termed it above, to
                                corporate entities as well. As I said systems can be punished but not thrown
                                into a lake of fire, individuals can be thrown into a lake of fire. Nations,
                                organizations, political movements and whatever cannot be punished in an
                                after life so they are punished (plagued) here on earth, in this life. Lost
                                individuals who foment, or otherwise follow whole-heartedly doomed movements
                                can be punished in an after life - and will be. Thus in Revelation we have
                                bowls and trumpets raining punishments down on the wicked and in the end we
                                have the Beast and false Prophet, as well as Satan being thrown into the
                                lake of fire.

                                The idea that a leader can stand for a group is, I believe, biblical.

                                I also believe that nations and groups of people cannot be punished in the
                                world to come and so are punished in this world and that errant individuals
                                will be punished in the life to come. I believe this too to be biblical.

                                As I said above, I am not saying that the Beast and others are to be
                                understood solely as individuals. I am saying that they should be understood
                                as symbols of both individuals and groups. My original posting was to
                                explain my disagreement with Rev. Paul who in an e-mail dated 10/30 says

                                "I think I would need some other evidence from Revelation itself before
                                saying that the beasts refer to persons rather than systems/empires."

                                Ian's statement suggests that he does not see the Beast and other characters
                                as representing individuals but only movements or corporate bodies. I
                                disagree with this, I understand such symbols to symbolize both individual
                                and corporate entities, this would in turn demand the existence of a
                                movement of some sort as well. I hope this helps to clarify my ideas.
                                Thanks.

                                -Ed Garcia
                                Kansas



                                -----Original Message-----
                                From: Dave Mathewson [mailto:d_mathewson@...]
                                Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 1:35 PM
                                To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
                                Subject: [revelation-list] Lamblike Beast


                                Ed Garcia writes: "Systems can be judged but how do you throw a system into

                                the lake of fire? Individuals, however, can be thrown into the lake of
                                fire."

                                But is this perhaps not too subtle of an approach to Rev's metaphorical
                                language? At a literal level, this would be a difficulty, but at a
                                metaphorical level, no more a difficulty that having a woman who gives birth

                                to a son representing (at least in part) a nation, or the Christ being both
                                a Lion and a Lamb.

                                Dave Mathewson

                                _________________________________________________________________
                                Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp



                                To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                revelation-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.