ghtan

I think that it is more natural for the image to resemble a person if it is made to talk. It is also more normal for people to worship an image that resembles a person (or possibly a creature) but I have not come across people worshipping codes. Is there an example in the bible? Off hand, I cannot think of one. And if there is none, should we not prefer an interpretation that is more natural? Am I missing something or is there some part of the text that is easier to explain if the image is a code rather than what we would normally imagine as an image?

I posted this earlier but it did not appear. Maybe I forgot to sign in, but apologies if it appears twice. The beast is likely a person, and so his image is probably human-looking otherwise it is difficult to see how it qualifies as an image. Besides, the false prophet will make the image "speak." The closest OT parallel is probably Nebuchanezzar's image in Dan 3, though that one did not talk. Significantly, it was placed on the plain of Dura, not in a temple.

This is where I think there could be much disappointment. On the basis of this verse in particular, many expect the Jerusalem temple to be rebuilt. However, what if this does not refer to the Jerusalem temple? And there are several factors against it: First, word usage. The word 'temple' appears about 15x in Revelation. Twice, in ch 21, it does not refer to any particular temple. The remaining 12 other times refer to the temple in heaven. If this is the only reference to the Jerusalem temple, one would expect John to say so, given that it would be an exception rather than the rule. But he does not. Consistency of word usage favours this to also be the temple in heaven. Second, counting of worshippers. The word used for temple in 11:1 is the sanctuary itself, i.e. the holy place, not the whole temple precinct. Only priests enter the holy place to perform their duties and even then I think only at set times, e.g. Zechariah in Luke 1:9. The common Jew worships in the courtyard outside. Unless the rules change for the end time temple - and there is no reason to expect change - there would hardly be anyone in the sanctuary of such an end-time temple for John to count. On the other hand, all believers are allowed to worship in the temple sanctuary in heaven, and so there would be people there for John to count. Third, the way it is introduced. If this is an end-time Jerusalem temple, it must be a vision because the temple had already been destroyed by the time John wrote. John often, though not always, introduces a new vision by "And I saw," e.g. most recently in 10:1. However, the way this temple is introduced in 11:1 is as if John finds himself in the vicinity of the temple. And by the end of the chapter, in vs 19, John is looking at the ark inside the temple in heaven. Would it not be more natural to think that what he measured in vs 1 was what he was looking inside later in vs 19? I am not saying that the Jerusalem temple will not be rebuilt. Man is able to do many things but they need not be part of biblical prophecy. However, if 11:1 does not refer to the Jerusalem temple, there is nothing that requires the temple to be rebuilt. Then the risk is that the end could come unexpectedly if we rely on such signs to prepare ourselves for the end time.

The popular idea that the beast will rule over Israel during a final 42 months and that he will put his image in the Jerusalem temple in fulfilment of the abomination-of-desolation passages in Daniel, is not actually found in Revelation. Note that the word 'temple' is nowhere mentioned in ch 13 which majors on the beast. One would have thought that if such an important prophecy - mentioned three times in Daniel - were to be fulfilled by the beast, John would at least hint of it e.g. by mentioning the temple. But he does not, and the silence is deafening. It supports the view of many scholars that that particular prophecy has already been fulfilled in history, particularly by the Greek king Antiochus who set up an image of Zeus in the Jerusalem temple in 165BC. Jesus also mentioned that prophecy in Mk 13:14 but he was likely referring to the fall of Jerusalem in AD70, though there are those who claim that it refers to the end time. My point is that if we allow such a disputed OT prophecy to dictate our understanding of Revelation when John himself does not mention it, we may be of setting ourselves up for disappointment.

Sorry, the 11:17 should read as 11:7.

If the beast invades Israel in Rev 13, why does 11:7 tell us that he will kill the two witnesses, who presumably live in Israel given that the next verse indicates their bodies will lay on the streets of Jerusalem? Does the beast kill them before he invades Israel? But wouldn't killing them show that he is already in charge in Israel in 11:17? So why does he have to invade Israel in ch 13?

Sorry, I'm on the other side of the world and so I did not get to read all these until this morning. I think that even though a 7 year period is not directly mentioned, the repeated mention of 3 1/2 year periods in Revelation does suggest that the end time tribulation period will be some multiple of that number and so a 7 year period would fall in line with it. However, as with many of the lengths of time in Revelation, e.g. the ten days for Smyrna, these numbers are symbolic rather than literal. 3 1/2 years is symbolic of suffering and so the actual length of the tribulation period may not be so important. As pointed out, the day of the Lord is used in a variety of ways and that in Malachi 4:5 most likely refer to Jesus' first coming given that the next verse is quoted in Luke 1:17. Therefore, it is the context that should decide whether the reference is to the end time. Unfortunately, scholars regularly argue over those 'day of the Lord' passages and there is no agreement over whether which if any actually refers to the end time. I won't be surprised if readers in the first century also disagreed over the meanings of those passages. It seems unwise to me to give priority to debatable OT passages in our search for answers to the end time. Would it not be fair then to believe that God left us in his latest Revelation his definitive word on the end time so that we should be able to understand what will happen without much if any reference to OT prophecies? That of course does not mean OT prophecies are no longer relevant but Revelation should guide us to understand those prophecies and not the other way around. That is why I started reading Revelation on its own terms without trying to fit it into OT prophetic timelines. The book made a lot more sense then. It led me to ask different questions e.g. the different expressions for 3 1/2 years as I mentioned earlier. Surely there must be some reason for that. And it also led me to a mid-tribulation rapture position, because if the book indicates the timing of the rapture - and one would expect such an important doctrine to be included - the most likely place is in the first harvest of chapter 14. The swinging of the sickle would be sudden enough to qualify as 'snatching', and it is supported by the (sudden) appearance of the company of worshippers in heaven in chapter 15. I don't think these are matyrs because their joy contrasts with the anguish of the martyrs of the fifth seal. That leaves only one other way that they got to heaven.

Hi there! I am new to this forum. I am a mid-tribber myself. I see that most people think the various references to 3 1/2 years in Revelation apply to the same period, but isn't it strange for John to use different expressions for the same period? Does it not suggest that he may have different 3 1/2 year periods in mind? After all, the final 7 years is divided into two 3 1/2 year periods. And if indeed the antichrist desolates the temple in the middle of the 7 years, as many think, why does he choose this point to do so? What prompts him? As a mid-tribber, I believe the rapture is the cause of the antichrist turning against Israel; it certainly should change his view of how much time he has left.