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

Re: [revelation-list] Re:Lamblike Beast

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 15 , Oct 30, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 15 , Oct 30, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 15 , Oct 30, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 15 , Oct 30, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 15 , Oct 30, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              --- 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 6 of 15 , Oct 30, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                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 7 of 15 , Oct 31, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  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 8 of 15 , Oct 31, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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 9 of 15 , Nov 1, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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 10 of 15 , Nov 1, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        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.