The two Beasts of Revelation 13 Identified

[DanielConway]

Hello all.  This is my first post here in the eschatology forum.  I can't put the full text of my ideas here, to lengthy, but I can point you to a paper over on scribd that you should take a look at for a partial preterist interpretation of Revelatation 13.  Please read and comment.

Edited September 18, 2019 by Steve_S
Removed external link.

[other one]

can people who are not scribd members see that article??       And it is really long...

[DanielConway]

You know, I don't know if non scribd members can see that paper.  I might have egg on my face.  No apologies for the length of the paper, however.  The concepts are subtle and involved and deeply embedded in the history of the early church, a history that not every Christian is familiar with and requires some description to carry the arguement.

[dhchristian]

3 hours ago, DanielConway said:

Hello all.  This is my first post here in the eschatology forum.  I can't put the full text of my ideas here, to lengthy, but I can point you to a paper over on scribd that you should take a look at for a partial preterist interpretation of Revelatation 13.  Please read and comment. The two Beasts of Revelation 13 Identified

Hi Daniel,

Welcome to the site. Finally a preterist is here. My mom was a preterist in a sense, but not like most, she was still a dispensationalist and saw the beast and the false prophet as yet to come. I do not want to get into that right now, but will offer a critique of your writings... I did open the link and read all 10 pages of it, so no problems there.  

If I were to give you one word that would prove you're theory wrong of Early Rome and Late Rome, would you receive what I am saying? That one word is "before". In English this word has two meanings, One is to prescribe an order to events, such as: "Julius Caesar Ruled before Constantine". This is the way most preterists read into this verse. But there is also another meaning of "before" which is to say that someone is in sight of another. So for example: "the General appeared before the king." The thing is, In the Greek, there are two distinct words for these two definitions of before. One is Proago, which means preceding one prior to in time. (G4254) The other is Enopion Which means in the presence of, or in the sight of. (G1799) The Word that is used in Rev. 13:12 is not Proago, but Enopion, Which means that how this verse is read by most preterists, and even by most dispensationalists is wrong. They are not two consecutive beasts, but two simultaneous beasts That rule at the same time, one in the presence of the other. The verses that speak of the "first beast" Just point to the Order in which they were presented, not in the order they ruled in. 

And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. (Rev. 13:12)

Like I said, many have made this grammatical assumption, So Don't feel bad. This error is made by both the futurist and the Preterist. What this means for your theory is that dividing the Roman empire into the Late and early is not a viable option here. As for Daniel's statue, that is a whole different concept. Indeed the feet were of Iron mixed with clay, and your interpretation does work there in a sense. But to extend this prophecy to the beasts of Revelation is a mistake. In a sense we have had that Kingdom of Iron Mixed with clay up to this day, with the church and the state in union with one another, but this is not the Beast of Revelation 13, nor the false Prophet. They are yet to come. I Encourage you to explore this further.  

 

[Steve_S]

3 hours ago, DanielConway said:

You know, I don't know if non scribd members can see that paper.  I might have egg on my face.  No apologies for the length of the paper, however.  The concepts are subtle and involved and deeply embedded in the history of the early church, a history that not every Christian is familiar with and requires some description to carry the arguement.

I removed the link to the external site. It may be best to present the ideas here or in other threads in a fashion more appropriate for a forum format.

[Dennis1209]

2 hours ago, dhchristian said:

Hi Daniel,

Welcome to the site. Finally a preterist is here. My mom was a preterist in a sense, but not like most, she was still a dispensationalist and saw the beast and the false prophet as yet to come. I do not want to get into that right now, but will offer a critique of your writings... I did open the link and read all 10 pages of it, so no problems there.  

If I were to give you one word that would prove you're theory wrong of Early Rome and Late Rome, would you receive what I am saying? That one word is "before". In English this word has two meanings, One is to prescribe an order to events, such as: "Julius Caesar Ruled before Constantine". This is the way most preterists read into this verse. But there is also another meaning of "before" which is to say that someone is in sight of another. So for example: "the General appeared before the king." The thing is, In the Greek, there are two distinct words for these two definitions of before. One is Proago, which means preceding one prior to in time. (G4254) The other is Enopion Which means in the presence of, or in the sight of. (G1799) The Word that is used in Rev. 13:12 is not Proago, but Enopion, Which means that how this verse is read by most preterists, and even by most dispensationalists is wrong. They are not two consecutive beasts, but two simultaneous beasts That rule at the same time, one in the presence of the other. The verses that speak of the "first beast" Just point to the Order in which they were presented, not in the order they ruled in. 

And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. (Rev. 13:12)

Like I said, many have made this grammatical assumption, So Don't feel bad. This error is made by both the futurist and the Preterist. What this means for your theory is that dividing the Roman empire into the Late and early is not a viable option here. As for Daniel's statue, that is a whole different concept. Indeed the feet were of Iron mixed with clay, and your interpretation does work there in a sense. But to extend this prophecy to the beasts of Revelation is a mistake. In a sense we have had that Kingdom of Iron Mixed with clay up to this day, with the church and the state in union with one another, but this is not the Beast of Revelation 13, nor the false Prophet. They are yet to come. I Encourage you to explore this further.  

 

You're exactly correct dhchristian. The easiest and most simple example to refute a preterist view is what Jesus said to John in his day at that specific time period John was told to write.

Revelation 1:19 (KJV) Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter; [past-present-future]

It's pretty clear Revelation Chapter 1: are things John had seen (past - history). Chapters 2: & 3: is the things that are in John's day [present]. Chapters 4: through 22: is the chronological order of events [with parenthetical chapters inserted], that will take place in the future, that have not occurred as of yet. There are so many things outlined in Revelation that have never occurred before. Many relate Antiochus Epiphanes to have been the Antichrist, but he was just a shadow / type of the one to come and shares many of the traits of the yet future one. 

This could turn into a lot of cyber ink   I best get me a spare cyber ink cartridge...

Edited September 18, 2019 by Dennis1209

[dhchristian]

3 minutes ago, Dennis1209 said:

This could turn into a lot of cyber ink   I best get me a spare cyber ink cartridge...

Cyber ink is better than the mimeographed copy that was posted on Scribd. 

[DanielConway]

19 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

You're exactly correct dhchristian. The easiest and most simple example to refute a preterist view is what Jesus said to John in his day at that specific time period John was told to write.

Revelation 1:19 (KJV) Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter; [past-present-future]

It's pretty clear Revelation Chapter 1: are things John had seen (past - history). Chapters 2: & 3: is the things that are in John's day [present]. Chapters 4: through 22: is the chronological order of events [with parenthetical chapters inserted], that will take place in the future, that have not occurred as of yet. There are so many things outlined in Revelation that have never occurred before. Many relate Antiochus Epiphanes to have been the Antichrist, but he was just a shadow / type of the one to come and shares many of the traits of the yet future one. 

This could turn into a lot of cyber ink   I best get me a spare cyber ink cartridge...

Let me address both your objections.  The Pagan empire was before the later Empire in both senses.  Consider what the paper says. Both Diocletian and Constantine knew quite well that their reconstituted empire was a palpably weaker break from the past.  In fact in order to foster alliagence to it they cultivated an attitude of worship of the old empire.  In this sense Pagan Rome came before Constantinian Rome.  I argue for chronological precedence as well by citing the example of Daniel.  Everyone here acknowledges that the successively appearing beasts of Daniel's vision correspond to successively arising kingdoms.  I argue biblical consistancy, what applies to Daniel applies to Revelation.

As far as the past-present-future objection is concerned, there is no inconsistency in mapping the second beast onto the later empire, as the later empire arose about 200 years after the time of John.  Please note that a 200 year time frame for prophetic fullfillment is far more consistent with christ's assertion that these things must happen soon the a 2000 year time gap that the dispensationalists assert.

[DanielConway]

It has come to my attention that outside links are not allowed on this site.  My apologies to the web masters.  If you wish to look at my work enter "the two beasts of Revelation 13 identified scribd" on the Google search bar and look for the paper authored by Daniel Conway.

I queried the webmasters about this and it turns out they are pretty flexible.  As soon as I attain unto advanced user status I can start attaching work to my posts.  "love is patient".

Edited September 19, 2019 by DanielConway

[unworthyservant]

21 hours ago, dhchristian said:

 That one word is "before". In English this word has two meanings, One is to prescribe an order to events, such as: "Julius Caesar Ruled before Constantine". This is the way most preterists read into this verse. But there is also another meaning of "before" which is to say that someone is in sight of another. So for example: "the General appeared before the king." The thing is, In the Greek, there are two distinct words for these two definitions of before. One is Proago, which means preceding one prior to in time. (G4254) The other is Enopion Which means in the presence of, or in the sight of. (G1799) The Word that is used in Rev. 13:12 is not Proago, but Enopion, Which means that how this verse is read by most preterists, and even by most dispensationalists is wrong.

Good point and analogy! It's uncanny how translation issues form so many of our opinions. So, with that said, I have to question why it should even be an issue. Why can't folks just agree to disagree or better yet not take such definitive sides on such an issue. Definitive views on such subjects are the cause of much controversy and while some things require such a definitive stand this isn't one, since it's something that will only be evident when it happens. Until then wouldn't our time be better spent on doing the things we can agree on like spreading the Gospel and helping those in need instead of worrying about who is right and wrong about the Revelation of John.

And it's not just this issue. I've been slowly but surely reading a series of topics started some years ago by @George concerning the Rapture theories (and I'll be starting a new one on that soon). Together they have over 200,000 views and 3000 replies and I wonder how few views were changed through all that. It is also of note that the topics on the teachings of Christ that I have seen don't have nearly so much activity. What does that say about our priorities? There are just some things that have so little relevance to our daily walk with God that I don't even take a definitive stand on them and this is a classic example of such an issue. I just feel that arguing such issues is not only needlessly rocking the boat but when involved in such discussions sometimes we're wasting good rowing time. "The harvest is great and the laborers few" so why don't we all just work on the harvest at hand instead of discussing next years crop while the current one rots in the field? Thanks again and God Bless