Revelation; Seven kings and an eighth

reply to post by kallisti36


I somehow doubt that it will be 'Peter the Roman' and more likely 'The Rock of Rome' or 'The Roman Rock', which would be Jesus, rather than Peter. Does anyone on this thread know enough Latin to clarify whether or not this is another possible interpretation?

reply to post by Maigret


That's my interpretation also. Petrus Romanus = the rock of Rome. The prophecies were originally only 111 verses, the 112th verse is supposedly an addition by the publisher that was meant to reassure readers that the roman church would stand until the day of tribulation.

If you put any faith in those prophecies, the current pope is the last in the list.

reply to post by Maigret

Since there are two Beasts in ch13, I should also have asked you for your identification of the other one. Nover mind, your reply is sufficient to show that your thoughts would be clarified by a closer examination of the text.

First point; it's fairly clear that the "Beast from the sea" of ch13 and the "scarlet Beast" of ch17 are the same Beast. This entity appears at a number of points in Revelation- as the Beast from the sea with seven heads and ten horns in ch13, as the scarlet Beast with seven heads and ten horns in ch17 v3, as the Beast with seven horns "who was and is not" in ch17 v7, and the Beast which is captured in ch19. So you've involved yourself in a contradiction, by interpreting this entity in two different ways; as a corporate body, when you identify the scarlet Beast with the Catholic faithful, but also as an individual, when you refer to the Beast from the sea as one of the descriptions of the Antichrist..

I would recommend plumping for the corporate interpretation. The Beast from the sea is evidently modelled on the beasts which arise from the sea in Daniel, and these represent kingdoms, so that Beast must also represent a corporate body

If you want to find the individual Antichrist in Revelation, I recommend shifting your attention to "the Beast from the land". This Beast exercises the authority of the first Beast and makes the people worship the first Beast. In much the same way, perhaps, that Hitler exercised the authority of the Nazi Reich, and Stalin exercised the authority of the Soviet state, causing their peoples to worship (in effect) both the state and the leader of the state. I think it would be the same kind of relationship. We're told that this Beast spoke like a dragon, so he must be the "mouth" mentioned in vv5-6 of the same chapter, and he's captured in ch19 under the label "the false prophet". So I imagine that he would resemble Hitler in that his power of leadership would be heavily dependent on his speech.

So it is necessary to distinguish clearly the difference between the first and second Beasts, and to identify them in a way which would properly account for the events at the end of ch17, when the horns and the Beast together hate and destroy the Harlot. For a good analogy, consider the relationship between Hitler and Stalin. In 1939, they set up a "Non-aggression pact", and started carving up eastern Europe between them. Yet in 1941, Hitler attacked Stalin. His "friendship" with Stalin had been insincere and treacherous. Similarly, at the beginning of ch17 the Beast is supporting the Harlot, but that support is insincere and treacherous and turns to warfare at the end of the chapter. Therefore it is evident that they represent two completely different entities.

reply to post by Maigret

For what it's worth, the Latin word PETRA is a feminine noun. The Vulgate translation of Matthew ch16 v18 ("upon this rock") says SUPER HANC PETRAM. So if the text says the masculine PETRUS, that can only be the personal name.

I don't, myself, attach much importance to non-Biblical prophecies. However, your question betrays a possible flaw in your interpretative technique. You make an assumption about what the writer ought to say, and then try to make the text fit. This is the wrong way round. It can lead you astray.

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
Petrus Romanus = the rock of Rome.

As I remarked in my reply to Maigret, "Rock" is PETRA. PETRUS has to be the personal name.

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by St Udio

 

I can't relate the "seven" to the "ten" in the way you suggest, because it seems to me that the "seven kings" and the "ten kings" are two completely different sets of kings.

On the one hand, the narrative in Revelation ch17 makes it clear that the seven kings are coming in succession. Five kings, we note, have already gone. Another one will only last a short time. This is a sequence of rulers, not an alliance of seven simultaneous rulers.

For that reason, I've been inclined to understand the seven heads of the Beast in the same way, as coming in succession. In support of that idea, I would draw attention to the way that people in ch13 do not distinguish between the wounded head of the Beast and the Beast itself. The head recovers, and they marvel at the Beast. It is as if each head of the Beast, in succession, is the current manifestation of the Beast for its own particular era.

On the other hand, the ten kings are plainly simultaneous, with each other and with the Beast. So I would regard them as two completely different groups.

sure the Rev 17 and the Rev 13 Beasts; 7 heads/kings, 10 horns are separate... but they are also intertwined


Rev 17: scarlet Beast ( upon which sits the Babylon Whore)

has a duality-> in 17:8 we are told the red beast "Once was- Is Not- yet will Ascend from the Pit" once again
( ergo; the red beast is both a past earthly manifestation of Apollyon/Abaddon who ascends from the pit for 42 months
-and manifests on Earth as the 2nd beast of Rev 13:11)


this ties in with the final King (even as an Eighth King is One-of-the-Seven) of Rev 13



Rev 17 goes on to explain that the 7 heads = They are also 7 Kings

the phrase Are Also, means that the information is primarily about the End-Times/ 70th Week of Daniel...but also has a deeper & layered significance...concerning humanities rule over the Ages from prior to Babylon up to the 10 toes and 7 rulers of the final 'beast empire'


Five of which had already fallen -
and One King is Now..... (i.e.Nero ? of Pauls' banishment time around 70-90 AD?)
and the final 7th king who is to share power with the beast for an 'hour'..
.and be immediately replaced by the 8th king ( AKA: the false prophet / beast that arises from the abyss of the Earth [2nd beast] of the AntiChrists' final empire)



the period of the 7 kings & 10 heads is both mega-history and micro-history of the final 7 years and the period of 42 months which is the Great Tribulation under the AntiChrists Empire


See, the reason for the imagery and mixed symbols and mixture of Numbers and the cross-over 'identities' of these Beasts (individuals, or sequential empires- or geo-political structures - religious/social paradigms....)
is to befuddle the left-brain & right-brain hemispheres until the End-Of-Age time period when a deliberate lack of discernment (brain fog) is put in place by the Holy Spirit, so we can not know the day or the hour.


as i said in earlier post(s) the scarlet beast/ beast from sea/beast from land, beast that is like Leopard, feet of Bear, Mouth of Lion is designed to intermingle...the thought balloon is intended to be unclear in specific terms and work in many levels or dimensions of thought...

physical & spiritual in nature:
physical in nature with the Rev 13 beast
spiritual in nature as evidenced by Rev 17 beast


thanks for your time

Response to St Udio
I accept the identity between the ch13 Beast and the ch17 Beast. Always have done. See my last response to Maigret.
What I was doing in my last reply to you was questioning your suggestion that the "7" group were included within the "10" group.

in 17:8 we are told the red beast "Once was- Is Not- yet will Ascend from the Pit" once again
( ergo; the red beast is both a past earthly manifestation of Apollyon/Abaddon who ascends from the pit for 42 months
-and manifests on Earth as the 2nd beast of Rev 13:11)

The red Beast of ch17 is not the second Beast of ch13, but the first Beast, as is evident from the descriptions (7heads, 10 horns). Yes, in ch13 it rises from the sea, and in ch17 it rises from the abyss. But I don't see this as two events. I see it as two different ways of describing the same event. They both mean, at bottom, that the Beast comes from the source of evil. They both go back to the opening scene of Genesis, where the sea is part of the abyss. "That part of the universe which God has not organised for human habitation", as I said in one of my threads, possibly this one.

I don't think Revelation is confusing at all if it is properly understood. My mission is to make sure that it is properly understood. Banish confusion. Deny ignorance.

reply to post by DISRAELI


Good point, Disraeli. However, I know that the next Pope will appear to be 'Jesus Christ' and he is the foundational rock on which 'Rome' is based, which is why I plumb for 'The Roman Rock' and asked the question to see if it would fit. It obviously doesn't, so I'm left with that query hanging in my mind.

reply to post by DISRAELI


I see your point, Disraeli, and I agree that the Body in chapter 13:1 is the same corporate Body in Chapter 17, but then the singled-out head, Rev 13:3, with the mortal wound, also referred to as a Beast is spoken of as 'him'; showing one person singular.

This can be seen in other verses, such as Revelation 19:20, where the Beast from the Sea and the Beast from the Land are described as the two, being cast into the lake of fire.

Or Rev 17:11, where the Beast that was, is not and yet shall be, is the eighth king and is of the seven.

You seem to agree when it comes to the Beast from the Land being one person, which you take to be the Antichrist, and not a corporate body? I take this Beast to be the False Prophet and at this stage I have no idea of who this person is going to be.

reply to post by DISRAELI


Disraeli said: So it is necessary to distinguish clearly the difference between the first and second Beasts, and to identify them in a way which would properly account for the events at the end of ch17, when the horns and the Beast together hate and destroy the Harlot.

My reply: With the scenario I've given, this fits in. The ten horns being leaders of the Christian countries that have been deceived by the Beast/Antichrist into giving him their power and support, and the corporate body formed by the individual believers worldwide of the Beast would both be so angered by the way they've been deceived that they will turn and destroy the only object of the Antichrist left that they can take out their anger on, which would be the Vatican City itself.

reply to post by Maigret


P.S. You can imagine how angry they must be, when destruction of the Vatican City means the loss of all of its treasures, art works, gold, ancient manuscripts, etc. which at that stage would mean nothing at all to those who have just realised they've lost their souls due to the actions of the Antichrist.

reply to post by Maigret

You are trying to ignore the fact that the Beast is taking part in this act of destruction. Read the text.

"They and the Beast will hate the Harlot; they will make her desolate and naked..." Revelation ch17 v16

This has logical consequences;

a) If the Beast is taking part, this is obviously taking place before the conquest of the Beast in v14. This invalidates your assumption that everything in the paragraph vv15-17 is taking place after the conquest of v14, which invalidates your theory that this event is the result of the conquest of v14.

b) If the Beast is taking part, this certainly invalidates your theory about the motive for the attack. The ten horns are angry at the Beast, with the result that the Beast and the ten horns combine together to attack another friend who's been relying on them? Doesn't really work, does it?

b) If the Beast is taking part, then your theory that the future Pope is the Beast has a very odd effect. The Pope is so angry that he's been deceiving the rest of the world, that he accompanies the rest of the world in destoying Vatican City? This scenario is not as plausible as you might think.

The effect of ch17 v16 is this;
If you want to identify the Harlot as Vatican City or any aspect of the Catholic Church, then you really, really, need to find some other candidate for the Beast. The Beast has to be someone who can befriend the Harlot at one stage and be an outright enemy at another stage. As Hitler befriended Stalin to suit his purposes, and attacked him to suit his purposes.

Originally posted by Maigret
but then the singled-out head, Rev 13:3, with the mortal wound, also referred to as a Beast is spoken of as 'him'; showing one person singular.

Try reading translations other than the AV. They will offer you the impersonal "its" instead of the personal "his"- actually the Greek AUTOU can be either. Nothing in this verse conflicts with the idea that the Beast from the sea is a corporate body. In fact the "healing of a mortal wound" is actually more plausible if the "wounded head" is understood to be a state, like the four heads of the leopard in Daniel.

Your understanding of the Beast from the sea still has the confusion of thought that I was observing before. You are half-accepting and trying to exploit my proposal that this Beast is a corporate body, while simultaneously trying to hang on to the idea that it is an individual. Give up this halting between two minds. The straightforward solution is that the Beast from the sea is a corporate body, while the Beast from the land is a human individual.

What if the 8 "Kings" aren't actual humans, but instead hegemonic powers. Have there been up to six hegemonic powers? Feel free to correct my list. I'm not claiming to be an expert on the subject.

1) Egypt
2) Assyria
3) Greece
4) Rome
5) UK
6) USA (When the tribulation begins)
7) potentially China for a short time?

reply to post by Ryanp5555

My first reaction is that the list isn't long enough.
Persia came before Greece, while Germany, Spain, and France were all dominant in turn before the UK.

The principle is perfectly feasible, but not easy to work out.

reply to post by DISRAELI


Again, I'm not an expert on the subject by any means, but weren't those other European powers actually in power at a time where they would not be considered hegemonic?

reply to post by Ryanp5555

Hegemony is difficult to define. Spain and France were certainly world powers, besides dominating Europe. I think the phrase "empire on which the sun never sets" was first used about Spain.

And if Revelation is looking forwards, rather than back, we can leave out the earlier ones.

I've got no problem with the basic theory. I said something similar when I was writing about the Beast from the Sea, when I suggested that the seven heads of that Beast were dominating the world in succession, as the current version of the Beast for their own time. It's just the identifying and numbering of them which is tricky.

It's almost easier to wait for the tribulation to start, and then say "Now, at least, we know we've reached the sixth king/regime." Then the sequence Tribulation-short interval-Beast would be the only part of the sequence that would concern us.

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by Maigret

 

You are trying to ignore the fact that the Beast is taking part in this act of destruction. Read the text.

"They and the Beast will hate the Harlot; they will make her desolate and naked..." Revelation ch17 v16

edit on 17-11-2011 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)

Nice try, Disraeli.
The Scarlet Beast is the body/congregation while the BEAST / Eighth Head that 'was, is not and yet shall be present' is the 'resurrected' Antichrist.
With the Antichrist/Eighth Head/Beast being captured along with the False Prophet at Armageddon in verse 14, that still leaves the Scarlet BEAST to turn on the Whore in verse 16.

So my scenario is perfectly logical.

Originally posted by Maigret
The Scarlet Beast is the body/congregation while the BEAST / Eighth Head that 'was, is not and yet shall be present' is the 'resurrected' Antichrist.

These two beasts are one and the same beast. The chapter very clearly identifies them, and the distinction between them is a false distinction.

Note how in v8 the beast that "was and is not" etc is called the beast "WHICH YOU SAW", ie the one at the beginning of the chapter, the scarlet beast.
Note how, as this introduction indicates, the whole point of the passage from v7 onwards is to explain to John the meaning of the beast WHICH YOU SAW, ie the one at the beginning of the chapter, the scarlet beast.
The scarlet beast carries the woman.
The beast being described from v7 carries the woman.
They are the same beast.
The text gives you no reason to distinguish between them, especially when the second is explictly presented as the fuller explanation of the first.
As Occam said, "do not multiply entitiies".

I've already identified the main fault in your method. You're making assumptions about what ought to be happening, and stubbornly trying to impose them on the text, instead of drawing your conclusions out of the text.
Throw all these assumptions away.
READ THE TEXT.

Originally posted by DISRAELI

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
Petrus Romanus = the rock of Rome.

As I remarked in my reply to Maigret, "Rock" is PETRA. PETRUS has to be the personal name.

Thanks, I'll take you at your word for that since you seem to know your stuff.

Any thoughts on who this Petrus might be or the importance of the prophecies?