Deathisdefeated

O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

Six Zealot Leaders and Four Edomite Leaders

Six Zealot Leaders and Four Edomite Leaders

Revelation 17

12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.

13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.

14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.

15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.

Six Zealot Commanders :
1 Simon bar Giora
2 Menahem ben Judah
3 John of Giscala
4 Eleazar ben Hanania
5 Eleazar ben Simon
6 Eleazar ben Yair

Four Edomite Commanders:
7 John
8 Jacob ben Sosa
9 Simon ben Cathlas
10 Phineas ben Clusothus

16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.

17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.

Despite early successes in repelling the Roman sieges, the Zealots fought amongst themselves, and they lacked proper leadership, resulting in poor discipline, training, and preparation for the battles that were to follow. At one point they destroyed the food stocks in the city, a drastic measure thought to have been undertaken perhaps in order to enlist a merciful God's intervention on behalf of the besieged Jews.

The Jewish defenders were split into factions: John of Gischala's group murdered another faction leader, Eleazar ben Simon, whose men were entrenched in the forecourts of the Temple. The enmities between John of Gischala and Simon bar Giora were papered over only when the Roman siege engineers began to erect ramparts.

The account of Josephus described Titus as moderate in his approach and, after conferring with others, ordering that the 500-year-old Temple be spared. According to Josephus, it was the Jews who first used fire in the Northwest approach to the Temple to try and stop Roman advances. Only then did Roman soldiers set fire to an apartment adjacent to the Temple, a conflagration which the Jews subsequently made worse.

18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

Earth = Judea.
Kings of the Earth = The chief priests and the elders.

Source :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(AD_70)

Views: 260

Comment by Internet_Troll on August 4, 2017 at 9:18am
Patricia how do you understand the seven head's and the eight one
Comment by Patricia Watkins on August 4, 2017 at 1:12pm

Hi Internet Troll,

I just scribbled a pretty thorough response to your question, but will have to type it out later after workroom deadline is met today.  :-)

Comment by Patricia Watkins on August 5, 2017 at 4:03am

Hi again Internet Troll,

Even though a year or so has passed since I first pinned down, to my own satisfaction, the actual names of these "kings" on the Scarlet Wilderness Beast of Revelation 17,  my certainty on this view has only increased with further study.  There's no doubt in my mind that Revelation 17's group of 7 "kings" and that 8th one are composed of the 7 high priests of the family of Annas / Ananus, with the 8th one being the grandson of Annas.  He was the last one of that family appointed to the high priesthood in AD 65.   This family monopolized the position of high priest for a majority of the time between AD 6 through AD 66, when the last one was murdered in Jerusalem.  Their names and dates of service are as follows:

#1) Annas ben Seth, (patriarch of the family) AD 6-15

#2) Eleazar ben Ananus (son of Annas) AD 16-17

#3) Joseph Caiaphas (son-in-law of Annas) AD 18-36

#4) Jonathan ben Ananus (son of Annas) AD 36-37

#5) Theophilus ben Ananus (son of Annas) AD 37-41

#6) Matthias ben Ananus (son of Annas) AD 43

#7) Ananus ben Ananus (son of Annas) AD 62

#8) Mattathias ben Theophilus (grandson of Annas) AD 65-66

If one does not understand how the term "king" was associated with the high priesthood in ancient Jewish thought, nothing of what I write here will make any sense.  To save a little time and space here in proving this "king = high priest" connection, you may want to check out a response I wrote to someone's post entitled "LITTLE KNOWN BIBLE FACTS" on the Theology forum for gracecentered.com  Another post that might be helpful on that site is one I wrote for their Preterist forum called "The Sea Beast....The Land Beast....and The Scarlet Beast".  (The only thing I have changed my view on slightly since that post is the identity of the 10 horns on the Scarlet Beast.)

The very reason the high priest wore a crown with "Holiness to the LORD" engraved on it was to signify his office of representative of the people - a "king" in other words.  When the Israelites came to Samuel and demanded a king for themselves like those nations around them, it shows that they were rejecting the type of king they already had (i.e., the high priest).  This is why God told Samuel that, in reality, Israel had not rejected him but had rejected God Himself, whose representative "ruler of the people" was the high priest. 

The New Testament text that I covered in that "Little Known Bible Facts" post absolutely confirms the identification of the "kings of the earth" as the high priests of Israel.  It is found in Matthew 17:25 (ESV) with Christ's question to Peter, "...From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tax? From their sons, or from others?"  If you look carefully at the Greek term for the coin that Peter later retrieved from the fish's mouth to pay the tax, it was a "stater", which was a peculiar one used to pay the annual temple tax.  From the time this tax was first set up in the OT ((Exodus 30:11-16),  the high priests and their sons were exempt from paying this tax, since they were the recipients of the benefit - they were "free" from that obligation of a temple tax payment that the other males from 20 years of age and older in Israel were expected to pay.  So, the "kings of the earth" and their sons were the high priests Christ was talking about.

Once this idea of "king = high priest" is firmly in place, one needs to interpret every mention of the "kings of the earth" in Revelation as speaking about "the high priests of the land of Israel".  It truly does help to nail down A LOT of interpretation, such as:

#1) the date of Revelation's writing (while Jerusalem still had kings of the earth / high priests in existence that she was reigning over - Rev. 17:18). 

#2) the identity of Gog (which is Israel, according to Numbers 24:5-9 LXX - whose kings of the earth were deceived by the 3 unclean spirits in Rev. 16:13-16 compared to 20:8)

#3) the identity of Rev. 17's group of 7 kings and the 8th one, as you have asked about

#4) how some of these kings of the earth (a few former high priests who managed to flee to the Romans for protection) could be far outside Jerusalem, mourning over her fall in Rev. 18:9

#5) how others of these kings of the earth could be cast ALIVE into the Lake of Fire (which needs to have its mistaken definition revised from the popular opinion of the Lake of Fire as an eternal torture chamber).

The following is how that curiously-phrased passage in Revelation 17 reads (with my commentary inserted in between) when you refer to a list of the first-century high priest "kings" (especially those of the House of Annas) and the dates that they held office.  Put this list of high priests side by side with the language of Revelation 17, and the results are a perfect match between the two, as follows:

Revelation 17:8 - "The (scarlet) beast that thou sawest WAS (in a position of power headed by the House of Annas from AD 6-44), "and IS NOT" (the House of Annas temporarily lost power after AD 44, which means Revelation has to have been written some time after AD 44) "and IS ABOUT TO ASCEND OUT OF THE BOTTOMLESS PIT" (the abyss being the equivalent of a state of death, as it is compared to in Romans 10:7 - by this we can see that the 7th king, Ananus ben Ananus, was about to reinstate the power of the House of Annas when he came into office in AD 62) "and go into destruction" (since Ananus son of Annas would die in the Idumean-led attack on Jerusalem in late AD 67 or early AD 68).

Revelation 17:10 - "and there are 7 kings: five are fallen" (the first 5 high priests of the House of Annas would have died as of John's writing - we know Jonathan son of Annas was murdered by the Sicarii around AD 55/56) "and ONE IS" (still living - which would probably be Matthias ben Annas, the youngest son), "and the other IS NOT YET COME;" (into office), "and WHEN HE COMETH" (Ananus ben Ananus was appointed as high priest in AD 62) "he must continue a SHORT SPACE" (because he was deposed after serving a brief 3 months.  His offense was in overstepping the bounds of his office's authority by executing James the Just, Christ's half brother.)  "And the beast that WAS" (the House of Annas that was in power almost continuously from AD 6-44) "and IS NOT" (is not in power from AD 44-62 - which means John was writing Revelation at a time prior to AD 62 at the very latest) "even he is AN EIGHTH" (because the high priesthood of the 7-member House of Annas briefly revived in AD 65 through the  grandson of Annas - the high priest Mattathias ben Theophilus) "and is OF THE SEVEN" (Mattathias was in the genetic line of the House of Annas) "and goes into destruction" (because this Mattathias was also murdered during the Zealot's temple siege in AD 66).

I believe this commentary above is a much better fit than the more common interpretation of using Roman emperors and their regnal dates as the "kings" in this Rev. 17 group.  The Roman emperors are an awkward fit, because the harlot, (Mystery Babylon which we know was Jerusalem), did not really sit in a dominant position over the Roman emperors.  Also, the 8th "king" who "was and is not" doesn't work very well as Otho, the eighth in line on the list of emperors.  As for the rest of the emperors list, somehow they just fizzle into obscurity, and are not even touched on with this Rev 17 prophecy.

The Herodian list of kings I also looked into to see if there was a connection with Rev. 17, but in the end, I had to reject them as a match because the language of Revelation 17 just did not line up with the Herodian kings' actions or regnal dates.  Plus the fact that there was no 8th king of the Herodian dynasty that I could tell.

I also considered Adam Maarschalk's proposal on his "Pursuing Truth" site that the Revelation 17 "kings" were the main Zealot leaders of the family dynasty of Hezekiah and Judas the Galilean.  However, it was difficult to see how the label of "king" could be scripturally assigned to these Zealot leaders - these men of "Lawlessness", which is how scripture in Isaiah 53:12 described the two Zealot thieves crucified beside Jesus. 

Well, Internet Troll, all this above is a bit tedious and disjointed, but perhaps you will find some value in it.  I'd be interested in your critique, whether pro or con, since I have no church family to bounce these things off of. 

Comment by Internet_Troll on August 7, 2017 at 1:57pm

Thanks Patricia

I find your explanation excellent.

By the way, Jerel Kratt is the one who called me an internet troll, and I guess that is the place I roam about when thinking about eschatology, so its a good fit. It is indeed great to have someone to bounce these things off and like yourself I can't bounce these things at people at church (still trying to understand why folks are so intolerant to alternative views).

I cant find any cons, all pros.

Will check out the references you gave but why do you consider the scarlet beast different from the sea beast (at least I think you find them different).

Comment by Patricia Watkins on August 7, 2017 at 8:38pm

Hi Internet Troll,

(You know, that's such a negative-sounding greeting, maybe I'll abbreviate it to "I.T. Guy" instead.  Yeah, let me try that again.)

Hi I.T. Guy,

You asked about my reasons for making a difference between the scarlet beast and the sea beast.  For one thing, I find it rather symbolically symmetrical that there are 4 righteous beasts in heaven crying "Holy, holy, holy" both day and night in praise of the Lord God Almighty, as well as their counterpart  of 4 unrighteous beasts operating on the earth at that time:  (#1, the Dragon / Satan, #2, the Sea Beast, #3, the Land Beast / False Prophet, and finally #4, the Scarlet beast in the wilderness.) 

I know that the "sea" is usually meant throughout scripture to represent the Gentile world, and the "land" is usually meant to represent Israel and the promised land of Canaan.  John continues this same segregation of the two in his writing, until he reaches the point in Revelation 21:1 where this segregation was forever abolished and "there was no more sea" in our New Heavens and New Earth reality.   Until that NHNE reality set in, however, there was still a distinction being made between the two.  Having 3 different Beasts brings out that same segregation between "sea" and "land". 

You might ask, "why is it even necessary that there be 2 beasts that both feature Israel and its concerns (i.e. the Land Beast and the Scarlet Beast of the Wilderness)? "  This set of 2 beasts that both identified with Israel and the land of Israel were meant to picture a wicked parody of the True Prophet and the True Messiah that were prophesied to come.  The Land Beast (a.k.a the False Prophet) was Israel's counterfeit substitute for the True Prophet, John the Baptist, who was ultimately rejected by Israel's leadership, since he pointed to Jesus Christ as the True Messiah. 

The Scarlet Beast in the Wilderness, (with its 7 and an 8th "kings"/ high priests of the House of Annas), provided the counterfeit substitute for the True Messiah, Jesus Christ, who was also rejected and murdered by Jerusalem's leadership.

Yet once they rejected the manifestation of both John the Baptist and Jesus Christ, they desperately wanted to concoct some kind of artificial fulfillment for Daniel's prophecy that predicted the exact year when the Messiah would begin His public ministry (AD 30).  This resulted in all those pseudo-christs that stepped forward, claiming to be that Messiah in fulfillment of the prophesied year - a year which they had to keep artificially adjusting, once they had rejected both John and Jesus who showed up on the exact year as prophesied.  Anti-christs abounded, as I John 2:18 said.  False prophets also abounded, as I John 4:1 also said.  None of them would admit that Jesus Christ was the Messiah who had come in the flesh in fulfillment of the exact year Daniel's 70 week prophesy predicted.

To illustrate the separation between all 3 beasts, there is one brief passage found in Revelation 19:19-20 where Beasts # 2, #3, and #4 are all concentrated in one location - at Jerusalem, which had turned into that Lake of Fire.  This verse only makes sense if there is a difference between the Sea Beast, the Land Beast, and the Scarlet Beast as separate entities.   Here it is with more of my italicized commentary in between to show you where my thoughts are going:

"And I saw the beast" (the scarlet, wilderness beast) "and the kings of the earth" (a batch of former high priests) "and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army" (the Roman Sea Beast army that was a tool in God's hands, just as Christ called them "His armies" in the Matthew 22:7 parable that burned up the city of the murderous ones).  "And the beast was taken," (the Scarlet Beast), "and with him the false prophet" (the Land Beast)  "that wrought miracles before him, with which he" (the Land Beast) "deceived them that had received the mark of the beast," (the Sea Beast)  "and them that worshipped his image.  These both" (the Land Beast and the Scarlet Beast)  "were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone" (into Jerusalem, the "furnace of fire" that it became during the years of civil war which included the Land Beast and the Scarlet Beast, and the final siege of Jerusalem by God's army, the Roman Sea Beast, in AD 70.)

Not mentioned in the two verses above, but later on in Revelation 20:10, is the 4th Beast, Satan / the Dragon/ That Old Serpent, which joined the Land Beast and the Scarlet Beast.   According to Rev. 18:2,  Satan and every unclean spirit were imprisoned in Jerusalem (the Lake of Fire) for the duration of the AD 67-70 conflict.

Some claim that the 10 horns and 7 heads on both the Sea Beast and the Scarlet Beast mean that they are to be understood as being the same entity.  Despite the fact that the Scarlet Beast of Revelation 17:3 is described as having 7 heads and 10 horns, just as the Sea Beast does, THIS DOES NOT MAKE THEM ONE AND THE SAME.  They are counterparts of each other - mirror images.  The following are a few points that illustrate those differences:

#1)  Their origins are different - one came from the sea, (picturing the Gentile world), the other appears in the wilderness (typically picturing the landscape setting of geographical Israel, and symbolically describing their ancient wilderness wanderings with Moses).

#2)  The Sea Beast is presented as an unchallenged foe who wages war against the saints and overcomes them (Rev. 13:7) - whereas the 10 horns on the Scarlet Beast wage war against the Lamb, but are overcome by Him (Rev. 17:14).  Opposite outcomes.

#3)  The 10 horns on the Sea Beast all have crowns - the Scarlet Beast's 10 horns have none.  And even when these did gain power  as if they were kings,  (not that they actually were kings / high priests), it is only for ONE HOUR simultaneously - not successively as the 10 emperor horns on the Sea Beast.  Just how long was this "hour"?  As long as the "hour" that it took to crush Jerusalem in AD 70 (Rev. 18:10, 17, 19).  Perhaps as long as the length of the 10 toes on Daniel 2's prophetic image.  In other words, about 3 1/2 years, from AD 67-70.

#4)  The Sea Beast had no harlot (Jerusalem) riding in a dominant position on its back - the Scarlet Beast does.  This harlot REIGNED OVER the kings of the earth (including the 7 kings / high priests) which were part of the beast upon which she rode.  If this woman represented Jerusalem, the faithless harlot, she was most definitely at that time reigning over the kings / high priests of the earth (ge - the land of Israel).  The Roman-backed client king or the Roman governance over Jerusalem were the ones who appointed the high priest in those days.  Josephus tells us that even the high priest's holy garments which were once stored in the temple itself had passed into Roman hands and were stored in the Roman Antonia fortress until required for festival times.  This was an upside-down state of affairs, since the kings / high priests were supposed to be ruling over Jerusalem in judgment according to God's original design in Deut. 17:8-13 and Ps. 122:3-5, not the other way around.  The two horns on the Land Beast (the Pharisee and Sadducee parties - Rev. 13:11) saw to it that Israel continued to give its allegiance to the Romans in order to preserve "their place and their nation" as the council of Pharisees and Caiaphas fervently wished for in John 11:48.

These were NOT "kings of the whole habitable world" being ruled over (as in Rev. 16:14).  It was the "kings of the earth" (ge - land of Israel - as in the very same Rev. 16:14 verse).  This verse separates the kings of the earth and the kings of the whole habitable world into 2 different classifications.  The first were Israel's "kings"; the other were Gentile kings.  And as I described Israel's "kings" above, they were the high priests, just as Christ defined them in Matthew 17:25.

#5)  One of the 7 heads/mountains of this Scarlet Beast received a deadly wound, and was then healed of this wound.  My take on the 7 heads of this Sea Beast is that they represent the 7 geographical mountains of the city of Rome.  One of these mountains of Rome received this "deadly wound" by the disastrous fire at Rome in AD 64.  It's a wound to one of the heads (physical mountains), NOT a wound to one of the horns (emperors) - which, at that time of John's writing, would have been the emperor Nero.  Rome's deadly wound by the fire was healed when Nero launched a massive, expensive rebuilding program for the capitol city, including his fabulous "Golden House" with its Colossus of Nero image over 100 ft. tall. 

In contrast to this healing of the Sea Beast's one head/mountain - all the Scarlet Beast's 7 heads as "kings" / high priests have either already fallen, or will be going into destruction (perdition), and its 7 heads as mountains have all been leveled with the ground and "are not found" (Rev. 16:20).

#6)  There is also a difference in the level of blasphemy performed by the Sea Beast and the Scarlet Beast as well.  Rev. 13:1's account of the Sea Beast only has "the name (singular) of blasphemy" on its heads.  On the other hand, the Scarlet Beast is "full of names (plural) of blasphemy" (Rev. 17:3).  Israel's guilt exceeded Rome's guilt, because Israel sinned against her own Messiah who walked her streets.  It was just as Christ told Pilate in John 19:11 before His crucifixion, "...he that delivered me" (the chief priests and the scribes - Mark 10:33) "unto thee hath the greater sin."

I'm not sure that this list above will answer the question of the difference between the Beasts to your satisfaction, I.T. Guy, but I continue to study the topic to see if I have gone off-track or not.  Let me know if you detect some serious weirdness going on here that needs correction.

Comment by Internet_Troll on August 8, 2017 at 12:14pm

I am no longer so open to scripture speaking of other than Israel, thus have some reservations of identifying Rome as the sea beast. I will need time to properly critic your thoughts.

But as for the name, seems I have a liking for derogatory comments made towards me and I just have to own them, like hyper complex heaps of mind numbing spaghetti

I guess its my way of saying "no hard feelings" to who ever would have made it.

Comment by Patricia Watkins on August 9, 2017 at 12:57am

Hi I.T. Guy,

I understand your objection to having Rome linked with every evil character listed in Revelation.  Many Preterists do tend to pile all the evil onto the Roman empire and onto Nero, who they often identify as the "sixth king", as well as the "Man of Sin" or the Anti-Christ.  None of those labels match Nero.  The "Man of Sin" was the Zealot Menahem, and the sixth "king" of Revelation 17 was the 6th high priest from the House of Annas (Matthias ben Ananus).  So, I do believe that more emphasis should be placed on the role Israel itself filled in the conflict of those last days before AD 70's end.  The significance of the Zealot and the Sicarii faction have also been grossly underestimated for the positions they filled in prophecy.

All of this does not need to eliminate the place that the Gentile world of Rome played in this end-of-the-age drama.  Here is one example of how Revelation's prophecies included Rome that you may not have encountered before.  Do you remember how Rev. 13:2 said that the Dragon gave to the Sea Beast his own power, and HIS SEAT, and great authority"?  By the law of first mention when we are studying scripture, that SEAT or THRONE that Satan gave to the Sea Beast was first identified for us in Rev. 2:13.  That seat of Satan was at Pergamos, where Satan was said to dwell.

While checking through the history of the city of Pergamos, I ran across the story of the kingdom of Pergamum, which was given as a gift to Rome by its king, Attalus III.  Apparently, Attalus III was dying without an heir to pass his kingdom to, and he did not want the kingdom torn apart by warring factions disputing over the succession.  To prevent that from happening, he knew that if he handed the kingdom over to the powerful Romans, (which he did in 132 BC),  that the succession would be assured of being a peaceful process.

So, the Sea Beast of Revelation 13, which was given the "throne of Satan" at Pergamos, had to be a ROMAN beast, not Judean.  That very seat or throne of Satan I believe to be the famous alter of the temple of Zeus in Pergamos.  It is currently sitting in a museum built to house it in Berlin, where it was moved after being taken part in 1930 and reassembled.  Go take a look at it on Google pictures, and tell me what you think.  It's an impressive sight - even for a pagan alter.

Oh, and I noticed that I goofed on point #5) in my earlier comment above by calling the wounded head / mountain a part of the Scarlet Beast, when it's not - it's the Sea Beast who had the wounded head / mountain.  My bad.

Comment by Internet_Troll on August 10, 2017 at 1:03pm

Let me try and say why I do not believe the Sea beast is Rome.

Firstly I take Revelation to speak the same as Daniel and if there are any similarities between them I would consider that it the same thing they are talking about.

Consider the 4th Beast of Daniel and compare it with the Sea Beast

Dan 7: After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns.

Rev 13:1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

 

Dan 7:8 I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.

Rev 13:6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.

 

Dan 7:21 I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them

Rev 13:7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

 

I think it becomes very difficult to say the beast of Rev 13 is not the same beast as that of Daniel 7.

 

Lets compare the fate of Daniel’s beast and of the Scarlet beast

Dan 7:11 I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame.

Rev 18: 20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

 

I am not sure in your understanding what you find the fate of the Sea beast to be since it is the Scarlet beast that is cast into the fire.

To me what Daniel saw in one beast is expressed in multiple beasts in Revelation but speaking of one entity nonetheless. The similarities between what the beast does (war against the saints) and its fate (fire) make it hard for me to see two separate kingdoms in Revelation yet it was only one beast in Daniel.

 

"And I saw the beast" (the scarlet, wilderness beast) "and the kings of the earth" (a batch of former high priests) "and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army" (the Roman Sea Beast army that was a tool in God's hands, just as Christ called them "His armies"

 

I find it hard to find a beast that was spoke against God in Rev 13, then being called the armies of heaven in Rev 19

 

#2)  The Sea Beast is presented as an unchallenged foe who wages war against the saints and overcomes them (Rev. 13:7) - whereas the 10 horns on the Scarlet Beast wage war against the Lamb, but are overcome by Him (Rev. 17:14).  Opposite outcomes.

 

I believe the Scarlet beast is first mentioned in Rev 11:And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.

Rev 17: The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

 

In Rev 11 it is said he shall overcome the saint and indeed this is what the Sea Beast does together with Daniel’s beast. I think the victory of the Lamb is the final outcome but the overcoming of the saints is in the progressive battle among the two entities. I would also like to know if there is any historical evidence of how the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall made war against saints, and shall overcame them assuming your timeline of when the beast that was not in Rev 17 became (i.e. after Ananus ben Ananus was appointed as high priest in AD 62)

 

Now I am uncomfortable about certain implications of having the Sea Beast being Rome:

1)      In Revelation, the beasts are never clearly pictured in conflict as Rome was with Jerusalem

2)      The whole cooperation between the Sea Beast, the Land Beast and the image of the beast. I cannot see Rome being Biblically guilty of such intricate involvement as to be receiving worship in cohorts with the false prophet and the image of the beast

3)      Again, the image is the image of the beast not the false prophet. Im not sure how you understand the image of the beast but I cannot see an image of Rome

4)      In Rev 14:9-10 and Rev 16:2 the beast is the subject of God’s wrath, and I cannot see Rome partaking of covenant wrath.

5)      In Rev 15 those who are celebrated are celebrated for overcoming the Sea Beast and his mark. Again, I cannot see how this ties into the Biblical narrative. Why should they overcome Rome, but I can see why they had to overcome apostate Israel and why that would be a cause for Biblical celebration

6)      The reason for the wrath of God was the blood of the martyrs Rev 16:6, again I don’t see Rome qualifying there.

7)      I link the seat of satan in Rev 2:13 to the Jews, so again in Rev 13 it would be the Israel rather than Rome. As far as I know, only Jews are referred to as satan in th New Testament, it would thus be out of sync to have satan refer to something else in the apocalypse.

So, thats my critic and am ready to learn.

 

BTW I don’t have alternative interpretation e.g. why one beast’s horns don’t have crowns etc but this is how Im processing the information currently.

 

 

Comment by Stairway To Heaven on August 11, 2017 at 10:37am

Chapter 8, 9

Tribulation before the First Coming of Christ

Siege of Jerusalem (63 BC) by Pompey the Great, intervening in the Hasmonean civil war on behalf of the Roman Republic.

Chapters 10, 11

Siege of Jerusalem (37 BC) by Herod the Great, ending Hasmonean rule over Judea.

Chapters 12

First Coming of Christ (AD 0)

Chapter 13

Death of Christ by Annas, Caiaphas and Sanhedrin (AD 30)

Chapter 16

Tribulation before the Second Coming of Christ

Jerusalem riots of 66 refer to the massive unrest in the center of Roman Judea, which became the catalyst of the Great Revolt in Judea.

Chapter 19

Second Coming of Christ

Death of Annas and Caiaphas, and the destruction of Sanhedrin. The Zealot Temple Siege (68 AD) was a short siege of the Temple in Jerusalem fought between Jewish factions during the Great Jewish Revolt against the Roman Empire (66–70 AD).

Chapter 20

Tribulation after the Second Coming of Christ

Bar Kokhba Revolt (AD 132 - AD 136) was a rebellion of the Jews of the Roman province of Judea, led by Simon bar Kokhba, against the Roman Empire.

Revelation 13

1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

Sea = Chaos.
The imagery of the revelation of Daniel and John comes ultimately from the Canaanite myth of Baʿal's battle with Yamm (lit. "Sea"), symbolic of chaos. The sea beast (Annas) is a chaotic beast. He was appointed in the chaotic time and situation.

Annas was appointed by the Roman legate Quirinius as the first High Priest of the newly formed Roman province of Iudaea in 6 CE; just after the Romans had deposed Archelaus, Ethnarch of Judaea, thereby putting Judaea directly under Roman rule.

Sea = Gentile.
Annas was appointed by the Roman legate Quirinius (Sea = Gentile).

Comment by Internet_Troll on Tuesday

STH

I must thank you, you really open the understanding of the beast for me in a way I truly appreciate. If it wasn't for you, I would most likely still be battling whether the beast was Rome.

How do you understand Daniel 7, regarding the little horn which uprooted 3 others, how was that fulfilled?

Also how do you understand the differences in the beast in Revelation i.e. the dragon of chapter 12, the sea beast of 13 and the scarlet beast of 17. Are you able to explain  the slight variations in the colour, the presence vs absence of crowns on heads/horns etc.

These minute details always help in solidifying a case.

Thanks

Comment

You need to be a member of Deathisdefeated to add comments!

Join Deathisdefeated

Events

Forum

Adam as Israel

Started by Internet_Troll in Eschatology. Last reply by Internet_Troll May 26. 6 Replies

The parousia and judgment of nations

Started by Internet_Troll in Eschatology. Last reply by Joseph Rehby Jul 6. 16 Replies

Preterist Networking

Started by Judy Peterson in Prayer Requests. Last reply by John Aug 8, 2016. 17 Replies

The 10 Tribes of Israel

Started by Internet_Troll in Questions and Best Answers We Can Give!. Last reply by Internet_Troll May 22, 2016. 9 Replies

Online Teaching Elders

Started by Eohn Rhodes in Eschatology. Last reply by Doug Dec 22, 2015. 4 Replies

Who is the abomination of desolation ?

Started by Stairway To Heaven in Eschatology. Last reply by Brother Les Dec 11, 2015. 3 Replies

Divine council

Started by Sharon Q in Eschatology. Last reply by Sharon Q Oct 3, 2015. 5 Replies

Marriage and Divorce Motif Between God and Israel

Started by Andrew Reish in Eschatology. Last reply by Brother Les Jul 5, 2015. 5 Replies

Millennium

Started by Mark Baker in Eschatology. Last reply by Internet_Troll May 4, 2015. 48 Replies

Fulfilled prophecies of Jesus

Started by joy sung in Eschatology Mar 22, 2015. 0 Replies

The End of the Old Covenat

Started by Internet_Troll in Eschatology. Last reply by Internet_Troll Jan 21, 2015. 60 Replies

© 2017   Created by Tim Martin.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service