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

Re: The early church and "666"

Expand Messages
  • drjenney2
    My own reconstruction places the writing of the Apocalypse after the death of Nero [the fifth ] and during the reign of the sixth [Galba?], waiting for
    Message 1 of 10 , Dec 10, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      My own reconstruction places the writing of the Apocalypse after the
      death of Nero [the "fifth"] and during the reign of the "sixth"
      [Galba?], waiting for Vespasian [the "seventh"] to arrive in Rome.
      Currently, Vespasian has lifted the seige on Jerusalem and left Titus
      in charge, while he makes his way back to Rome with enough soldiers to
      demonstrate his proper claim to the throne. The "eighth" is Nero
      "resurrected," who is also one of the five that have fallen. The
      author expects his immanent return [to the throne] and the final
      battle with the Messiah [now long resurrected].

      666 refers not only to Nero and "the beast," but to the solution of
      the three seven-fold liturgical rites: the author finds himself living
      at the time of the sixth seal, sixth vial and sixth trumpet = 666 the
      age of man, when human society is ruled by beast(s).

      I should add that standard exegetical technique for apocalyptic
      eschatology is that the vision becomes longer and more detailed as the
      author approaches his present. Note that the sixth of each of the
      seven-fold series is clearly the longest. The sixth of each is also
      separated from the seventh by non-liturgical materials [ranging in
      size from several chapters to a single verse].

      Dr. Timothy P. Jenney
      Adjunct, Regent University & Asbury Theological Seminary
      Moderator


      --- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com, "Ian R. Brown" <irbrown@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > To all,
      >
      > This is how I think the text has to be read and any interpretation about
      > Roman emperors or otherwise ought to conform to the restrictions of the
      > text.
      >
      > You have the sequence of seven kings:
      > *Five have fallen (past)
      > *One is (present)
      > *The other has not yet come (future)
      >
      > As for the beast, one learns that
      > *Was (past)
      > *Is not (present)
      > *Will rise (future)
      > *Going to be destroyed (future)
      >
      > And
      > *Was (past)
      > *Is not (present)
      > *An eighth (future)
      > <<That it is future is shown by the above sequence of seven and by
      > the need for a future appearance of the beast ("will rise"); one
      could put
      > the eighth before the five fallen, but then what lines up with the
      future
      > "will rise"?>>
      > *One of the seven (past -- of the five fallen)
      > <<This link is perhaps the most difficult, but it is the only one
      > that matches all the rest of the data; one cannot say it is the sixth,
      > because during the present the beast/king is not; one might suggest the
      > seventh future king, but then there is no accounting for the fact
      that the
      > beast/king was; therefore only by seeing the beast/king as synonymous in
      > some way with one of the five fallen kings can one have it be that
      the beast
      > was (past) and is not (present)>>
      > *Going to be destroyed (future)
      >
      >
      > Perhaps as Kenneth Gentry suggests, "was and is not (and will rise)" is
      > simply there to recall the beast and not as explanation per se.
      > Nevertheless, it lines up with what is apparently explanation,
      namely, the
      > beast is an eighth king and one of the seven and has a future
      destruction.
      > As an eighth king, the beast again clearly must be in the future.
      As one of
      > the seven, the beast must be in the past; otherwise, what sense is
      there in
      > saying that the beast "was" at some time.
      >
      > Of course, I have not suggested at this point any specific
      definition of the
      > period of the "present" (the time of the sixth king, when the beast
      is not).
      > That is a much trickier issue. To me it would seem to point to the
      time of
      > John (supposedly) receiving the vision. Ah, but there is the rub.
      How do I
      > know when John (supposedly) had the vision? Even if we assume that
      it must
      > be close to the time of composition, we are still left with the
      conundrum of
      > trying to find out when the book was composed.
      >
      > Ian R. Brown
      > Ph.D. in Religion Candidate
      > Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary
      >
      >
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
      > [mailto:revelation-list@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of ottoerlend
      > Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 12:34 PM
      > To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [revelation-list] Re: The early church and "666"
      >
      > Dear Kenneth L. Gentry,
      >
      > You wrote:
      >
      > << The problem Otto is having with my argument is apparently due to
      > his not accepting the fluid nature of the "beast" image in Revelation.
      > Virtually every commentator that I have read agrees that the concept
      > of the "beast" shifts between the specific (a particular king) and the
      > generic (the king's empire). >>
      >
      > Like you, I think that the beast imagery has a dual focus: (a) the
      > Roman Empire as such a n d a particular emperor. I am, however, not
      > able to see how you can argue that Rev 17:8a does not indicate that
      > the beast (if understood as Nero; cf. Rev 13:18) is already dead: "The
      > Beast that you saw was, and is not [...]"). It seems to me that Rev
      > 17:8 is parallel to Rev 17:10f. Thus, the beast "that (...) is not"
      > (Rev 17:8) cannot be the same as the "one living" (Rev 17:10); he has
      > to be one of the five kings already fallen. I F your argument that
      > Rev 17:8 does not demand that Nero is already dead, is correct, why
      > should we conclude that Rev 17:10 "recount this vision in a strict
      > chronological sequence" (contra Koester, "End of All Things, p. 162),
      > indicating that John wrote during the time of emperor # 6?
      >
      >
      > Best regards
      >
      > Otto E. Nordgreen
      > Oslo, Norway
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.