Reign of the Beast -genuinely Global or just the Mid-East?

[Bold Believer]

*** edited insult poster is referring to so removing this also ***

As far as nero being the anti-Christ, I hold that is a false teaching, Nero was not the anti-Christ. While he did make people worship him, that much is true, he was not in control of the whole world. He was in control of the world known to him-but not in control of the whole world, the wold world could not have worshiped him, because they couldn't the whole world could not have known him. If you look at the original greek, in revelations 13:2-10, the greek word means entiretly-to say that it was just the "known world" is putting our own interpretation into it.

There is one more thing, that disqualified Nero, and any other emperor, or leader, known to man, from being the anti-Christ. Look at Revelations 13:2:3 "and I saw one of his heads as if it had been mortally wounded, and his deadly wound was healed. And all the world marveled and followed the Beast."

Nero, suffered no mortal wounds-and was miraculously healed. Nor did any other Roman commander. Or US president, for that matter. Neither, did all the world worship Nero either. Scripturally, the Anti-Christ has not risen yet-and when he does, it will, indeed, affect the entire world.

Nero suffered no mortal wounds? I'd say a sword to the throat was pretty mortal. He even botched the job to the extent that his servant had to finish him off. But...Nero was only one head of the beast. (Yes, the early church of that time called Nero 'the beast', and he is the personification of the Empire for this passage, but the whole of the passage is referring to the nation of Rome itself.) Nero was seen by John having been 'slaughtered to death'. A sacrifice had its throat cut, and this is how Nero tried to do himself in. It is however the events AFTER this which are being considered. After the death of Nero, the Empire went into chaos. Nero had no appointed successor. Suddenly, there were four men claiming the throne of Caesar. These four emperors were Galba, Otho, Vitellius, and Vespasian. For a time, it appeared as though the Empire would collapse under the weight of civil war. This would be the equivalent of a civil war between four US contenders to the Presidency. People would be saying things like: "Can America survive this?" And so it was with the conditions of the Roman Empire at the time. The Empire was in a civil war for its very existence, plus, the Jewish Rebellion was going on as well. Understandably, people were wondering if Rome would survive.

and when did this happen? and did he survive from it? from your own words, if the servant had to finish him off. Which means he did not recover. If nero was the anti-christ not only would he have recovered, he wouldnt have been finished off, and everyone would have marveled. And your still ignoring the fact, the verse that says all the world literally means all the world-not just the roman empire. he was not even a head of the beast, he was not part of the beast at all, nor where any of the other roman emperors, they were just evil men doing evil things.

Nero killed himself on June 9, 68 AD. No, which is what I wrote. He DIDN'T survive. He was the head of the Beast who had a fatal wound, the Beast being Rome proper and Nero secondarily. And who said Nero was the antichrist? I certainly didn't. Revelation doesn't even mention 'antichrist'. In fact, the term is never used in Revelation or any other book of Scripture but the first two letters of John. It is conspicuous by its absence. NERO IS NOT 'THE ANTICHRIST'. THERE IS NO SINGULAR ANTICHRIST. ANTICHRISTS ARE REFERRED TO AS PLURAL BY JOHN IN EVERY CASE EXCEPT ONE, AND THAT IS A NEGATIVE CONNOTATION.

Finally, the whole world WAS TO THE READERS the Roman Empire. The term eikoumene refers to the KNOWN WORLD OF ITS TIME, not the entire planet. It means nothing to us, because it was not meant for us. It was meant for its original readers. Only Chapters 20-21 have meaning to us, or if Christ remains in heaven, to our descendants.

[MorningGlory]

Nevertheless, it's not Nero who came back to life, but the EMPIRE. Nero's death nearly tore the Empire apart, but it survived. So then, it is not necessary for Nero to have died and then come back to life.

That's really your own interpretation then? I don't get it at all.

[The_Patriot21]

it is his own interpretation, and not one that matches up with scripture morning. The problem with Rome being the "beast" is twofold, first off, it wasnt in control of the whole world-secondly, not all roman emperors were bad. There was at least one christian among the bunch. And scripture says that the beast will be mortally wounded-and come back. Bold is saying nero was the beast that was mortally wounded, but the beast that came back was Rome. Problem is, the logic doesnt fit-the scripture says the same beast that was mortally wounded will come back, and the whole world was astounded-when Nero died, he died. period. Rome, was not hurt by his death. No one was astounded that rome kept on going. Because Rome was Rome. It doesn't fit scripturally.

[Bold Believer]

What I wrote is that Nero is the head of the Beast referred to in Rev 13. I also wrote (and this is a historical fact) that early Believers called Nero 'the Beast'.

Rather than conjecture, how about a few facts:

1. This interpretation is based upon the Angel's explanation of the beast in Revelation 17:7, that the beast's seven heads are seven kings (Rev. 17:10) and that Nero, is the sixth king "who is", who was possibly alive and the emperor reigning at the time John was writing the book.[23] The five kings who have fallen are seen as Julius, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula and Claudius, and Galba is the one who "has not yet come, but when he does come, he must remain for a little while". (Rev. 17:10). Moreover, Rome was known in antiquity as the city of seven hills (Rev. 17:9) and Revelation was a warning about events that were "shortly" to take place (Rev. 1:1).

2. In Rev. 13:5-8, the Beast was given a mouth speaking in blasphemies against God and His Name. Inscriptions have been found in Ephesus in which Nero is called "Almighty God" and "Savior". In verse 4, the Beast is worshiped by the world alongside the Dragon that gave it authority. Nero and Caligula "abandoned all reserve" in promoting emperor worship – they were the only two who demanded divine honors while still alive. Nero claimed to be the sun-god Apollo.

3. Revelation 13:7 speaks of the power given to the beast to make war with the saints. Nero was the first of the imperial authorities to persecute Christianity. Tacitus records the scene in Rome when the persecution of Christians broke out: "And their death was aggravated with mockeries, insomuch that, wrapped in the hides of wild beasts, they were torn to pieces by dogs, or fastened to crosses to be set on fire, that when the darkness fell they might be burned to illuminate the night". (This is even mentioned in the Book of Hebrews.)

4. Revelation 13:5 says the beast would continue for 42 months. The Neronic persecution was instituted in 64 AD and lasted until his death in June 68 AD, which is three and a half years, or 42 months. Nero was even called the Beast. Apollonius of Tyana specifically states that Nero was called a 'beast': "In my travels, which have been wider than ever man yet accomplished, I have seen man, many wild beasts of Arabia and India; but this beast, that is commonly called a Tyrant, I know not how many heads it has, nor if it be crooked of claw, and armed with horrible fangs. ... And of wild beasts you cannot say that they were ever known to eat their own mother, but Nero has gorged himself on this diet".

5. The manner of Nero’s death corresponds with the prophecy of Revelation 13:10: "If anyone is destined for captivity, to captivity he goes; if any one kills with the sword, with the sword he must be killed". According to Tertullian, Nero was the first to assail the Christian sect with the imperial sword. He committed suicide by the sword at the age of 30.

6. After Nero's death in 68 AD, Rome saw a succession of short-lived emperors (Galba, Otho and Vitellius) and a year of civil wars until Vespasian eventually took control in 69 AD. The Roman Empire destabilized so greatly that Tacitus reported: "Many believed the end of the empire was at hand" (Histories 4:5:4) According to Suetonius, to the surprise of the world, "the empire which for a long time had been unsettled and, as it were, drifting through the usurpation and violent death of three emperors, was at last taken in and given stability by the Flavian family" (Vespasian 1: 1). This may be a reference to the mortal wound on one of the heads of the Beast "inflicted by the sword" which was later healed (Rev. 13:3, Rev. 13: 14). Scholar Daniel K. Wong wrote that the "healing of the wound" alludes to the so-called Nero Redivivus Legend or the "revival of Nero” myth. A rumor that Nero had just disappeared to Parthia and would one day reappear. (I disagree.)

7. Finally, the readers of Revelation were told to "calculate the number of the Beast, for the number is that of a man; and his number is six hundred and sixty-six" (Rev. 13:18). John did not expect that his readers "who had understanding" to have any difficulty identifying the beast, since they could simply calculate the meaning of this number. "Neron Kaisar" (the Greek rendering, documented by archaeological finds), when transliterated into Hebrew נרון קסר (Nrwn Qsr) had a number of 666. The variant number 616 found in some manuscripts of the Greek text of Revelation may represent the alternative Hebrew spelling נרו קסר (Nrw Qsr) based on the Latin form "Nero Caesar". The variant probably existed to keep consistent the meaning of Nero as the Beast.

The Greek spelling, "Nerōn Kaisar", transliterates into Hebrew as נרון קסר or "nrvn qsr".

Personally, this understanding makes far more sense that the seemingly endless guessing game played by Believers today. I am not the only Believer who understands Nero to be the 666 of Revelation 13, and Rome to be the Beast-nation/Daniel's Fourth Beast.

I'm also not the only Believer who understands that there is no one single antichrist figure.

Robert Yarbrough 1-3 John Page 344 2008 "The articles in front of “deceiver” (ὁ πλάνος, ho planos) and “antichrist” (ὁ ἀντίχριστος, ho antichristos) should be seen as marking out a certain category of persons (Wallace 1996: 227–30). This is a common Johannine usage (1 John 2:23; ")

The only one of the late 1st/early 2nd Century Apostolic Fathers to use the term is Polycarp (ca. 69 – ca. 155) who warned the Philippians that everyone who preached false doctrine was an antichrist. His use of the term Antichrist follows that of the New Testament in not identifying a single personal Antichrist, but a class of people.

I find it important that Polycarp was a disciple of John himself while John was still living. I further find it important that John's letters were all written AFTER he wrote Revelation. So then, much adieu is being made about a term that John didn't even use until years after he wrote Revelation, possibly as much as 30 years! Since Polycarp was closest to John, I'd personally put my money on his understanding more than anyone who came later.

The idea of a singular antichrist appears to have begun in the 2nd century and views vary. Some I've read, sound like those of futurists, others like anti-Catholic rhetoric and still others like anti-Protestant rhetoric.

My interpretation indeed.

[The_Patriot21]

Your still ignoring the fact, that the beast had to recover from the wound. . . in fact, the only way your theory could work, is if you were to ignore that fact. . .just saying.

[missmuffet]

Their will be different opinions on this since their are different views on the board of the End Times.

http://www.gotquesti...antichrist.html

[Bold Believer]

Your still ignoring the fact, that the beast had to recover from the wound. . . in fact, the only way your theory could work, is if you were to ignore that fact. . .just saying.

I thank God I have so much hair, because it makes pulling it out easier. I JUST WROTE THAT THE BEAST DID RECOVER. ROME RECOVERED AFTER A YEAR OF CIVIL WAR. Apparently some people are incapable of reading OR just don't want their personal bubble broken.

Daniel, while man of sin and man of perdition are terms used in MODERN FUTURIST theology to describe an alleged future antichrist figure, they were never used by the writers in that context. The man of sin is one of two things: Nero as emperor, declaring himself 'god' or a future category of people. I tend to believe the latter, but other scholars prefer the former.

[The_Patriot21]

so, which is the beast? Rome, or Nero, Because your initial assertation was that it was Nero. And even so, it still does not fit. Rome, did not suffer a fatal wound, Nero did. In fact, Nero dying, was not a wound, so much as a blessing, for Rome, so if Rome was the "beast" then Rome did not suffer a fatal wound to recover from. So, Rome, did not fulfill the prophecy. And as already stated, Nero, didn't recover, so Nero was not the beast. The Bible is clear-the beast that suffered the fatal wound, is the beast that recovers from it-nero suffered a fatal wound and DID NOT recover it, Rome, as in a country, not only did NOT suffer a fatal wound, and did not recover from a wound it did not get, it also could not be the beast.

furthermore, Rome, was the name of the empire, it was not a "beast" or living thing, but more of a large collection of people. The beast, is a entity, not a country. The beast, or anti-christ, has to be something or someone that can think, and act on its own, a "country" is not a living thing and cannot be one, and cannot, be the beast, anti-christ, or anything else. The only possibility was whether the leaders, were "anti-christs" or not. And as I have already proven, they were not.

[Bold Believer]

An easier question than one might think, Patriot. Rome is the beast from Daniel, the fourth one. Nero was the head (leader) of the beast which specifically suffered the head wound. A nation acts upon the whim and will of its leadership, which at the time, was Nero. A leader personifies (whether for good or evil) the nation he or she leads. So was Nero the beast? Yes, he's its personification. He's its head, or more precisely one of them. Even the Romans had a saying in the days of the emperor: The Emperor IS the Empire.

You're right, the Roman leaders at the time of Revelation were not antichrists, because antichrists wouldn't come along for another 30 or so years.

[nebula]

Going back to he OP:

I've been thinking about this for some time. Will this directly affect everyone alive or just indirectly?

Not being allowed to buy and sell unless you have the mark, how can this apllied to every single nation and every single person on Earth? Will there be pockets of resistance or pockets of self-sustenance?

I'll give you an example of what I mean:

World War 2 was called World War 2 because it affected the entire World and was a war that spanned the globe. Not every nation was involved however, in fact most were not, but every nation was affected by it in some way or another, either at the time or shortly afterwards. Some nations were hardly affected at all, but nevertheless were acutely aware of what was going on.

Will the reign of the anti-christ be the same? I mean, if it literally does involve submission on the part of every single person on the planet, then who will be there to resist this submission and tell others to resist too? There has to be a resistance movement or free areas that try to fight back.

If the entire World is under submission then how can there be a Mystery Babylon? How can sailors watch her burn from afar (Rev 18:17) and mourn for her? Would the beast allow these sailors to be freely sailing in ships?

Yeah, confusing, isn't it?

I've been through so many interpretations of what the symbols represent, or "who" they are, and so many misinterpretations, that I've come to the conclusion that trying to figure out such is a distraction from the heart of the Gospel.

The best study on Revelation I've listened to is the one that asks: "What is God saying to us through this?" without worrying over which empire is which beast and all of that.

I think of Jesus telling Peter regarding a question of the future: "...what is that to you? You follow Me."

Whether Mystery Babylon is the Catholic Church or a "spirit" that permeates societies (i.e. Hollywood / the entertainment industry and the fashion world) or an actual nation, will that change anything for you to understand? Is it not enough to recognize sin and evil for what it is and avoid it accordingly?

Granted, I appreciate the curiosity, and things like this are "fun" to muse over.

But it's not worth throttling each other over, nor getting angry at how others interpret things or not.