Premillennialism ignores the tenses in the original Greek in order to sustain its teaching

[DavidPT]

Revelation 12:17 has the dragon making war prior to the beast in Revelation 13.

I disagree. I see this as a parallel, not something that precedes something else. I see that involving the 42 month reign of the beast recorded in Revelation 13.

Where would you place 1 Thessalonians 5:3, option A, B, or C? I would say no one has said “peace and safety” in the literal sense as of yet and 1 Thessalonians 5:3 is speaking of the day of the Lord coming as a thief in the night.

I would place that during the time of C), maybe per this in Revelation 11:10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.

I can see them saying peace and safety at this point. And the fact the 7th trumpet soon follows, I can see that explaining the sudden destruction, and that they shall not escape. And notice, Revelation 11:10 is meaning after the beast had ascended out of the pit and waged war against them.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

wow, ok, so your just going to zip past and not acknowledge the part about you being incorrect about mikron/mikros, which demonstrates your inconsistencies about Christ coming in a “little” while without delay and Satan having a “little” season….

its contradicting that the millennium should be interpreted as thousand a of years prior to Christ’s coming, per Amil, if the disciples believed Christ would come “in a little while, without delay”.

You know what, dude, I've had it with your condescending attitude. I have asked you multiple times now what you believe happens to a person when they die and you won't answer it. So, you have no room to complain about me not answering your questions or addressing your points.

You apparently don't want to acknowledge that you believe in soul sleep. Or you think people are immediately bodily resurrected upon death, which would contradict a lot of scripture.

Christ clearly has not come yet and is coming in the future. If you can't understand that, then you are just completely lacking in discernment and you can't be helped. So, just keep believing in your nonsensical beliefs such as your belief that the thousand years is an allusion to the time between David and Christ if you want. I'm done trying to talk sense into you.

 

[grafted branch]

I disagree. I see this as a parallel, not something that precedes something else. I see that involving the 42 month reign of the beast recorded in Revelation 13.







I would place that during the time of C), maybe per this in Revelation 11:10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.

I can see them saying peace and safety at this point. And the fact the 7th trumpet soon follows, I can see that explaining the sudden destruction, and that they shall not escape. And notice, Revelation 11:10 is meaning after the beast had ascended out of the pit and waged war against them.

Revelation 9:15 shows 1/3 of men being slain at the 6th trumpet. The 2 witnesses are then killed and everyone says peace and safety before the 7th trumpet? If this is true then the unsaved would have to be thinking that the 2 witnesses are responsible for the prior 6 trumpets.

I’m not sure that adds up but let me think about this from the premil point of view.

 

[Zao is life]

Revelation 17:8 states, “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.”

This passage strongly shows that the beast existed prior to the day of John, stating, “the beast that was.” Notwithstanding, the terminology that follows appears slightly contradictory – “is not, and yet is.” One could be tempted to reason: it either is or else it isn’t, notwithstanding, this reading plainly says that it both “is” and “is not.” The import of the reading appears to demonstrate that the beast did exist in John’s day, and in fact, before John’s day, but that it had not fully developed into what it would eventually become. There is a saying in Northern Ireland that appears to explain this reading – ‘He is a big fellow, but a wee jacket fits him’ i.e. ‘he is not as big as he thinks he is’. This appears to be the meaning.

Revelation 17:11-13 further enlarges, “the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition. 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. These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.”

A plain reading of these passages proves that, whatever the beast truly represents, he/it was expressly in existence before the time that John received this symbolic revelation. The beast cannot therefore merely be a last few years end-time phenomenon, as some would have us believe. After all, he existed before John wrote Revelation. We learn through the apostle’s first century testimony that the beast expressly “was” (past tense). In fact, the passage mentions this fact three times (twice in verse 8, and once in verse 11). Therefore, he existed before John. He also existed at the time of John – who said of his day, the beast “is” (present tense). John then explained that the beast would continue after his day, saying it “shall” be (future tense). In fact, Scripture tells us that the beast, and the false prophet, will only finally be destroyed at the all-consummating second coming of the Lord, where they will be “cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone” (Revelation 19:20). Why would this world system be destroyed at Christ’s coming and then re-emerge in a future millennium as the sand of the sea?

Having said all this, the terminology that follows is strange and appears contradictory, saying, “is not, and yet is.” One could naturally be tempted to reason: the beast either is or else it isn’t, although, this reading plainly says that the beast both “is” and “is not” at the same time. Whilst the import of the reading indicates that the beast existed in John’s day, it would seem to suggest that it did so in a restrained or restricted manner. How else can we marry the two facts that the beast “is” and “is not” at the same time. The system represented by the beast must have been around in John’s day, albeit in a curtailed manner – a bit like a prisoner that has full movement within a prison, although, he is restricted to particular areas at given times and must continually abide by the careful rules and guidelines that govern his movements within the penitentiary. He has freedom – to a degree, but in another hand he is not free to do as he wishes. The bottom line is: the prisoner would be viewed by every sane observer as bound.

The beast “was” because Satan and his kingdom operated long before Christ ever invaded his territory at the first Advent. He is deemed “is not” because, through Christ's successful completion of His Father’s assignment on earth He roundly defeated Satan in his own backyard and spiritually spoiled his goods and influence. Christ instigated the great triumphant global advance upon the kingdom of darkness. This has inflicted great injury and damage upon the antichrist spirit for near 2,000 years. Christ went forth conquering and to conquer through the successful spread of the Gospel to the nations. The fact is the gates of hell can never prevail against the Church of Jesus Christ.

The beast “is not” because Satan no longer exercises complete unchallenged control over the nations as he once did before the cross. Revelation 13:1-4 shows that at some stage in history one of the beast’s heads were “wounded” thus incapacitating this evil ogre. This can only refer to the cross and Christ’s great victory over the kingdom of darkness. This transaction placed chains upon the rebellious principalities and powers which remain until Satan’s little season.

The beast “is” (at the time of John's writing) because even though Christ spiritual bound him at the cross, he was allowed to continue to operate for a prescribed period, albeit under very definite limits which God has divinely set. These cannot be penetrated.

Thanks.

I've read carefully what you wrote, but in my mind what you say doesn't add up to what is written, because (firstly) John was told that the 10 kings had not received a kingdom yet (at the time John wrote).i.e the 10 kings who would hand over their power and authority to the beast that "was, and is not", and would (or was about to) ascend out of the abyss.

Also, John is talking about the reaction of those who would see the same beast when it rises out of the abyss when he speaks about them seeing the beast as existing, i.e it is they who would marvel that the beast that "was and is not", yet still is:

" .. And those dwelling on the earth will marvel, those 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."

The verse and the passage makes it clear that it was not John who got to see the beast that in John's day "was, and is not", as being "yet is" - John saw the beast only as "was, and is not". If what you say about the beast being "yet is" even in John's day is true, then the verse would say so (but it does not say so):

Young's Literal Translation
8 `The beast that thou didst see: it was, and it is not; and it is about to come up out of the abyss, and to go away to destruction, and wonder shall those dwelling upon the earth, whose names have not been written upon the scroll of the life from the foundation of the world, beholding the beast that was, and is not, although it is.

ALSO, the passage clearly states that 5 "kings" had come and gone by the time John received the Revelation, the 6th one existed when John wrote, but the 7th was yet to come - and the beast that would be seen to exist again, would itself/himself be the 8th "king".

In my mind none of the above adds up to what you are saying about it.

What I find interesting and plausible though (although I will still have to think a lot more about it) is the link you (seem to?) have made between the beast's deadly wound to one of its heads which would become healed, and Genesis 3:15 "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Let me ask you this. Assuming that the beast in question ascends out of the pit prior to the finishing of the thousand years, rather than after, regardless whether you believe that can happen or not, can that still work with Amil? I'm not seeing how it can myself. But maybe you can? I just don't see it remotely being reasonable that the saints recorded in Revelation 20:4 who did not worship the beast, that they are martyred before the beast even ascends out of the pit first.

Unfortunately, every time we try and discuss this we can't seem to get on the same page. In my mind, though there are martyrs throughout the entire church age, this doesn't mean they are all martyred because they didn't worship the beast, neither his image.

So, for anyone to take you seriously on this, you need to identify who or what you think the beast is. Can you do that? If not, what reason do we have to believe you that those who are martyred by the beast aren't martyred by the beast until after it/he ascends from the bottomless pit? If you can't even explain who or what the beast is, then why should we believe anything you say in relation to the beast?

That martyrdom is not even possible until the beast ascends out of the pit first.

Why is that?

Take Stephen, for example. Does that account indicate he was martyred because he refused to worship the beast? No.

How do you know that? Do you know who or what the beast is? If not, then how can you know whether or not Stephen refused to worship the beast?

And besides, didn't John indicate that the beast 'is not' when he received the visions? Wouldn't it be true that the beast was 'is not' when Stephen was martyred?

The "is not" means the beast was in the bottomless pit. What does it mean to be in the bottomless pit? Does that render someone or something completely powerless or does it instead have to do with restraint and limited power? Amils and Premils disagree on that.

One last point for now. If anyone has already been worshiping the beast, say in the times of the apostles, why didn't any of the vials of wrath get poured out on them? Doesn't Revelation 16 indicate that the vials of wrath get poured out on those worshiping the beast? This further proves that when the saints recorded in Revelation 20:4 for not worshiping the beast, they are martyred after the beast has ascended out of the pit, and not while it is still in the pit instead. Otherwise the vials of wrath would be being poured out on those worshiping the beast. Clearly, everyone has to be alive at the same time and living in the same era of time in order to worship or not worship the beast once it ascends out of the pit. To argue otherwise is not reasonable since it would mean some get to worship the beast but not have to endure the vials of wrath, while others do.

I don't find this to be a valid argument. You think the beast only will do its thing for a literal time period of 42 months in the future, right? Will no one who worships the beast during that time die during that time? Of course they will, right? From cancer and other diseases, car accidents and other things. Those people would not have to endure the vials of wrath then since they would have died before the vials of wrath are poured out, right? So, can you see how your argument is invalid since there is no requirement that all who ever worship the beast must be alive and have at least one of the vials of wrath poured out on them?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Some posts I may not have even read yet, especially if I never bothered trying to respond to them at the time. Sometimes I don't even want to read some of these posts by some of you since some of you seem to make it personal at times, as if I'm the biggest idiot that ever walked the planet and you don't mind pointing it out. As to someone such as claninja, though I don't always agree with him either, I never dread having to read his posts, though. He has never made me feel like the biggest idiot on the planet regardless that he couldn't agree with me about something.

I don't share your feelings towards him. He seems to go out of his way to try to get under the skin of Amils in particular, for whatever reason. Even though he also disagrees with Premils.

IOW, there is no drama involved when discussing debating with him.

I have not shared that experience when talking to him.

Some of you, especially you, seem to thrive on drama, especially in regards to what I post.

I can't imagine that you had never read any of the posts where I told you that we don't believe the GWTJ takes place within 24 hours, so that's why I express frustration when you yet again try to claim that's what we believe. It seems like you're not willing to let us tell you what we believe and you want to tell us what we believe instead.

As for your claim about me thriving on drama, that is ridiculous. I certainly do not like it when you misrepresent Amil and I will point it out every time you do it. If you want to call that drama, so be it. I'm not going to accept it when my view is being misrepresented. I'm sure you don't like it if someone misrepresents your view, either. No one likes their view to be misrepresented. Especially when someone does it even after being corrected several times.

I'm not trying to make you feel like an idiot. But, if you misrepresent what Amils believe then I'm going to point that out every time. I think you're being overly sensitive. You don't need to take it personally. I've never called you a name or anything like that.

 

[Timtofly]

Why would God create a restored earth and then allow the unrestored to dwell on it?
Makes more sense that God restores all things after the wicked have been judged.
He prepares a place for us that is eternally separate from those who did not love the truth and so be saved in this age.

Peter saw the NHNE as being a place where righteousness dwells. not unrighteousness and righteousness dwelling in Gods perfect restoration.

Are you asking why God does things contrary to your own common sense? People then think that is the winning post?

Why allow sin to begin with, if your logic concludes God should do things your way?

Some think sin entered 24 hours after Adam was created? What if there was a period of perfection for 1000 years? What difference would it make the length of time between when all was perfect and then it got messed up?

Amil think the only way there can be perfection is to let people sin anyway, just punish them with a horrible afterlife. That is basically their excuse why there cannot be a perfect time on earth when Jesus Christ Himself is the chief ruler or prince.

No where in Scripture does it claim the unrighteous live at all in the 1000 year reign. That is Amil's made up reason why there cannot be a millennium. And just bad imagination of some pre-mill who declare the gospel message still has to persist. Post mill is the only logical reason for there to be sin and redemption, because they are totally wrong about the Second Coming to begin with. Amil try to fix post mill, and just claim the Millennium is pre-trib. Amil's pre-trib millennium is just as erroneous as the pre-trib rapture or the post trib/mill Second Coming.

BTW, the earth is restored after all wickedness is eradicated. No where in Isaiah 65 nor Revelation 20 does it ever claim sin takes over and the earth is effected and groans under the burden of sin. In fact it says a human dies, then is considered a sinner, and cursed post fact.

"There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed."

Some interpret "the child shall die an hundred years old" as just an euphemism for eternal life, not that there is even birth or long life where puberty starts after 150. Obviously no one is born at some point, according to Amil. But why not just declare "eternal life", instead of birth, childhood, or even "old age"? From what life as an angel is like there is no aging at all. All have the same age probably around 30 years and never change physically at all. That is eternal life. Yet Isaiah 65 points out birth and expansion.

The other part about a sinner is not about the living, but a dead person. "The sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed." If those words are read as literal, it would point out a sinner that makes it to 100 is accursed. Some would say that has to mean sinners live and when they reach 100 they are cursed. That is not the point. The point is about one who is found dead. It is in contradiction to living to 100, from the usage of the word, "but".

All this verse literally says is that any one under 100 is still considered a child. All who rebel do so as a child and are dead before 100. Their disobedience is considered a curse. They do not rebel because they are sinners. They, as children, test the waters, rebel and are killed, just like the Law of Moses demanded. They are viewed as cursed, or in human understanding an aberration or not normal. When death is the outcome of rebellion, it is not normal to go out and break the law, as that would be suicide, for lack of a better example. As sinners it would be like a disturbed person who causes a cop to shoot and kill them. In the Millennium with no sin or sinners, it would not be normal to break the law, as that would be instant death. Upon death one is pronounced a sinner and a cursed individual.

 

[DavidPT]

Revelation 9:15 shows 1/3 of men being slain at the 6th trumpet. The 2 witnesses are then killed and everyone says peace and safety before the 7th trumpet? If this is true then the unsaved would have to be thinking that the 2 witnesses are responsible for the prior 6 trumpets.

I’m not sure that adds up but let me think about this from the premil point of view.

The Premil view is irrelevant at this point. The Premil view only matters after the 2nd coming has taken place.

Revelation 11:6 These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will.


Does not this verse indicate they have power to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will? Don't any of the trumpets involve plagues? This verse also says---and have power over waters to turn them to blood. Compare with the following, for example.

Revelation 8:8 And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood;


I don't think you realize but you have pretty much hit the nail on the head though you weren't intending to. I have already been thinking for quite some time now that what you indicated this might mean, that it likely means that. That the 2Ws are connected with some of the events involving some of the trumpets.

 

[Bob_1000]

Explain how a thousand years cannot mean a literal thousand years to God, since I'm assuming that is what you are meaning by God's time system. Isn't God the one who made years possible in the beginning to begin with? Before the beginning were years already possible?

2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

"Thousand" in the bible usually denotes God's domain or dominion or God's working.
God owns the cattle on a THOUSAND hills.
God reserved 7 THOUSAND men, who had not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
Jesus fed 4 THOUSAND.
144 THOUSAND Jews were sealed.
12 THOUSAND were sealed from each tribe.
Jesus comes with 10 THOUSAND'S of his saints.

It could be that the thousand years was the time from when many were raised with Christ at his resurrection until the ascension at Pentecost. I lean to that view right now but I'm hoping something will come up in this thread to either clarify that or prove it wrong.

 

[grafted branch]

The Premil view is irrelevant at this point. The Premil view only matters after the 2nd coming has taken place.

Revelation 11:6 These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will.


Does not this verse indicate they have power to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will? Don't any of the trumpets involve plagues? This verse also says---and have power over waters to turn them to blood. Compare with the following, for example.

Revelation 8:8 And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood;


I don't think you realize but you have pretty much hit the nail on the head though you weren't intending to. I have already been thinking for quite some time now that what you indicated this might mean, that it likely means that. That the 2Ws are connected with some of the events involving some of the trumpets.

The reason I think this may be a problem for Premil has to do with “this generation”. Matthew 16:4 says a wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign, and no sign shall be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. If the 2 witnesses are giving physical signs then the generation in Matthew 16:4 has to be talking about those who were wicked and adulterous in the first century only.

Most Premils argue against the phrase “this generation” meaning those in the first century.

 

[jeffweedaman]

Some think sin entered 24 hours after Adam was created?

Probably less.


[What if there was a period of perfection for 1000 years?]
Ha
If there was , then those offspring produced in that time would still be alive and have no need of Jesus sacrifice.

God did say ..go forth and multiply and fill the earth on day 6. Safely say they were keen to obey this commandment without delay.

 

[Guojing]

The reason I think this may be a problem for Premil has to do with “this generation”. Matthew 16:4 says a wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign, and no sign shall be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. If the 2 witnesses are giving physical signs then the generation in Matthew 16:4 has to be talking about those who were wicked and adulterous in the first century only.

Most Premils argue against the phrase “this generation” meaning those in the first century.

People overemphasize on Matthew 16:4 sometimes.

If it really meant what you think it means, than when the disciples of John the Baptist approached Jesus to ask for proof that he was indeed the Messiah that was to come, in Luke 7:18, Jesus would not have bothered performing all the required signs in Isaiah 35:3-6, and informed them to report to John what they have "seen and heard".

 

[sovereigngrace]

Thanks.

I've read carefully what you wrote, but in my mind what you say doesn't add up to what is written, because (firstly) John was told that the 10 kings had not received a kingdom yet (at the time John wrote).i.e the 10 kings who would hand over their power and authority to the beast that "was, and is not", and would (or was about to) ascend out of the abyss.

Also, John is talking about the reaction of those who would see the same beast when it rises out of the abyss when he speaks about them seeing the beast as existing, i.e it is they who would marvel that the beast that "was and is not", yet still is:

" .. And those dwelling on the earth will marvel, those 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."

The verse and the passage makes it clear that it was not John who got to see the beast that in John's day "was, and is not", as being "yet is" - John saw the beast only as "was, and is not". If what you say about the beast being "yet is" even in John's day is true, then the verse would say so (but it does not say so):

Young's Literal Translation
8 `The beast that thou didst see: it was, and it is not; and it is about to come up out of the abyss, and to go away to destruction, and wonder shall those dwelling upon the earth, whose names have not been written upon the scroll of the life from the foundation of the world, beholding the beast that was, and is not, although it is.

ALSO, the passage clearly states that 5 "kings" had come and gone by the time John received the Revelation, the 6th one existed when John wrote, but the 7th was yet to come - and the beast that would be seen to exist again, would itself/himself be the 8th "king".

In my mind none of the above adds up to what you are saying about it.

What I find interesting and plausible though (although I will still have to think a lot more about it) is the link you (seem to?) have made between the beast's deadly wound to one of its heads which would become healed, and Genesis 3:15 "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."

Ok. Before we go any further:

Who or what is the beast?
When did he begin?
When is he obliterated?
What is the bottomless pit?

 

[grafted branch]

People overemphasize on Matthew 16:4 sometimes.

If it really meant what you think it means, than when the disciples of John the Baptist approached Jesus to ask for proof that he was indeed the Messiah that was to come, in Luke 7:18, Jesus would not have bothered performing all the required signs in Isaiah 35:3-6, and informed them to report to John what they have "seen and heard".

Or the signs are only given to those who believe and no signs are given to the wicked, adulterous generation.

If the 2 witnesses perform physical signs in the future, it would appear they are given to the wicked.

 

[Guojing]

Or the signs are only given to those who believe and no signs are given to the wicked, adulterous generation.

If the 2 witnesses perform physical signs in the future, it would appear they are given to the wicked.

Israel the nation was brought up by God to expect signs whenever someone claims he is sent by God to them.

It started in Exodus 4.

So, during the Tribulation, when Israel regains the status of God's favored nation, signs and wonders will be making a comeback, as the 2 witnesses will show.

 

[grafted branch]

Israel the nation was brought up by God to expect signs whenever someone claims he is sent by God to them.

It started in Exodus 4.

So, during the Tribulation, when Israel regains the status of God's favored nation, signs and wonders will be making a comeback, as the 2 witnesses will show.

I don’t believe in reconstitution theology for a number of reasons but I do see your point, so I will concede that it could work for the premil view. However I’m going to take a closer look at this from the premil point of view.

 

[Guojing]

I don’t believe in reconstitution theology for a number of reasons but I do see your point, so I will concede that it could work for the premil view. However I’m going to take a closer look at this from the premil point of view.

Interesting, I have never heard of that theology until now. Tried to google but the links made no sense.

Would you provide me a link to that theology so that I could understand better what you are saying?

 

[Zao is life]

Ok. Before we go any further:

Who or what is the beast?
When did he begin?
When is he obliterated?
What is the bottomless pit?

@sovereigngrace
Final edit after first reply:

I don't believe this idea that the beast is anything other than a human kingdom with a human ruler or rulers. I don't believe horns are anything other than kings or military leaders or some sort of powerful leader/s.

I stick to the Bible's own symbolism because the Bible does not give us any hint whatsoever to interpret a beast as anything other than what Daniel was told a beast represents, in Daniel 7.

The Revelation also makes a very clear distinction between the beast of Revelation 13 and the power behind it (Satan). The Revelation makes it clear that the two are not the same.

Conflating the two or amalgamating the two into one and the same thing when the Revelation makes a very clear distinction between the beast and the power behind it/him, and when Daniel 7 tells us plainly what a "beast" represents, is a theory I cannot adhere to. Sola Scriptura.

The bottomless pit is a spiritual place. The origin of the belief in a bottomless pit is partly hebraic and partly from Greek mythology. It's the lowest depths of hades where the angels mentioned in 2 Peter 2:4 and the spiritual forces of the worst wickedness are currently bound. It's also called tartaroo or tartarus.

Also What the Bible says about Tartarus
Topical Bible: Tartarus

I don't believe any theory that goes outside the Bible and known historical Christian understanding of more difficult phrases like ἄβυσσος ábyssos (the abyss, or "bottomless pit").

So the beast was a kingdom that existed before John wrote the Revelation, did not exist when John received the Revelation, but would once again ascend out of the abyss:

ἄβυσσος ábyssos

Revelation 9
1 And the fifth angel sounded. And I saw a star fall from the heaven to the earth, and it was given the key to the bottomless pit.
2 And it opened the bottomless pit. And there arose a smoke out of the pit, like the smoke of a great furnace. And the sun and air were darkened because of the smoke of the pit.
3 And out of the smoke came forth locusts onto the earth. And authority was given to them, as the scorpions of the earth have authority.

The demonic forces with Satan as their ruler will give the beast (the human kingdom) of Revelation 13 its/his seat, power and great authority. We are told this. Sola scriptura.

Who says the beast did not come out of the League of Nations and the United Nations? Who says God does not regard its citizens, who reject Christ, as Gentiles, and who says they would not come out of the nations (the sea)?

Isaiah 7
8 For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within sixty-five years Ephraim shall be broken so that it shall not be a people.
9 And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is Remaliah's son. If you will not believe, surely you shall not be established.

If the head of Syria was Damascus and the head of Ephraim (the northern kingdom of Israel) was Samaria, then the head of Judea was Jerusalem, which was destroyed by the time John received the Revelation, and had ceased being a kingdom. It had "received a mortal wound to its head".

Who says the beast that will open its/his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name, His tabernacle and those dwelling in heaven, did not come out of the nations in a mass migration from out of the nations, when first the League of Nations, and then the United Nations gave it power to ascend?

Whether or not that is the kingdom that had received a mortal wound to its "head", that kingdom remains a very good example of a beast rising from the ashes of its own history to "live" again, causing many to marvel saying, "Look what God is doing!"

I'm not identifying the beast as what I wrote above as an example, and I'm not identifying the beast at all, aside from identifying it as a human kingdom. And just as the man of sin will be revealed in his time, so the beast will be revealed (at least those who are in Christ will know) in its time.

But I'm not following any fanciful un-biblical theories about demonic forces = "the beast" .

Sola Scriptura.

 

[sovereigngrace]

@sovereigngrace
Final edit after first reply:

I don't believe this idea that the beast is anything other than a human kingdom with a human ruler or rulers. I don't believe horns are anything other than kings or military leaders or some sort of powerful leader/s.

I stick to the Bible's own symbolism because the Bible does not give us any hint whatsoever to interpret a beast as anything other than what Daniel was told a beast represents, in Daniel 7.

The Revelation also makes a very clear distinction between the beast of Revelation 13 and the power behind it (Satan). The Revelation makes it clear that the two are not the same.

Conflating the two or amalgamating the two into one and the same thing when the Revelation makes a very clear distinction between the beast and the power behind it/him, and when Daniel 7 tells us plainly what a "beast" represents, is a theory I cannot adhere to. Sola Scriptura.

The bottomless pit is a spiritual place. The origin of the belief in a bottomless pit is partly hebraic and partly from Greek mythology. It's the lowest depths of hades where the angels mentioned in 2 Peter 2:4 and the spiritual forces of the worst wickedness are currently bound. It's also called tartaroo or tartarus.

Also What the Bible says about Tartarus
Topical Bible: Tartarus

I don't believe any theory that goes outside the Bible and known historical Christian understanding of more difficult phrases like ἄβυσσος ábyssos (the abyss, or "bottomless pit").

So the beast was a kingdom that existed before John wrote the Revelation, did not exist when John received the Revelation, but would once again ascend out of the abyss:

ἄβυσσος ábyssos

Revelation 9
1 And the fifth angel sounded. And I saw a star fall from the heaven to the earth, and it was given the key to the bottomless pit.
2 And it opened the bottomless pit. And there arose a smoke out of the pit, like the smoke of a great furnace. And the sun and air were darkened because of the smoke of the pit.
3 And out of the smoke came forth locusts onto the earth. And authority was given to them, as the scorpions of the earth have authority.

The demonic forces with Satan as their ruler will give the beast (the human kingdom) of Revelation 13 its/his seat, power and great authority. We are told this. Sola scriptura.

Who says the beast did not come out of the League of Nations and the United Nations? Who says God does not regard its citizens, who reject Christ, as Gentiles, and who says they would not come out of the nations (the sea)?

Isaiah 7
8 For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within sixty-five years Ephraim shall be broken so that it shall not be a people.
9 And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is Remaliah's son. If you will not believe, surely you shall not be established.

If the head of Syria was Damascus and the head of Ephraim (the northern kingdom of Israel) was Samaria, then the head of Judea was Jerusalem, which was destroyed by the time John received the Revelation, and had ceased being a kingdom. It had "received a mortal wound to its head".

Who says the beast that will open its/his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name, His tabernacle and those dwelling in heaven, did not come out of the nations in a mass migration from out of the nations, when first the League of Nations, and then the United Nations gave it power to ascend?

Whether or not that is the kingdom that had received a mortal wound to its "head", that kingdom remains a very good example of a beast rising from the ashes of its own history to "live" again, causing many to marvel saying, "Look what God is doing!"

I'm not identifying the beast as what I wrote above as an example, and I'm not identifying the beast at all, aside from identifying it as a human kingdom. And just as the man of sin will be revealed in his time, so the beast will be revealed (at least those who are in Christ will know) in its time.

But I'm not following any fanciful un-biblical theories about demonic forces = "the beast" .

Sola Scriptura.

Thanks again for your detailed response. I was totally with you until your interpretation and application of Isaiah 7 and Revelation 9 and the mortal wound of the beast.

First, you spend your introduction rebutting something I have not argued. Not sure why. You said: “The Revelation also makes a very clear distinction between the beast of Revelation 13 and the power behind it (Satan). The Revelation makes it clear that the two are not the same. Conflating the two or amalgamating the two into one and the same thing when the Revelation makes a very clear distinction between the beast and the power behind it/him, and when Daniel 7 tells us plainly what a "beast" represents, is a theory I cannot adhere to. Sola Scriptura." I agree. When did I say otherwise?

Second, the beast is not even mentioned in Isaiah 7 and Revelation 9. You seem to be forcing something on these to prove your presumption. This is dangerous at the best of times, but, muddies the waters in such a challenging matter.

Thirdly, your statement: "the beast was a kingdom that existed before John wrote the Revelation, did not exist when John received the Revelation" is also wrong.

Revelation 17:8 states, “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.”

Revelation 17:11-13 further enlarges, “the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition. 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. These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.”

The beast did exist in John's day. He did not die. He does not die. In both Revelation 17:8 and Revelation 17:11-13 John testified: "he is." He is the spirit behind the evil empire of the world. In the context of Scripture, he seems to represent empires that ruled over natural Israel. Of course, this is symbolism.

When it says "is not, even he is" it means he did not have the power, influence and freedom that he previous had.

Fourthly, there are layers to the symbolism of Revelation. The seven heads represent seven mountains, but the next level of interpretation seems to render the seven mountains seven kingdoms which seven kings reign over. After describing the seven mountains, we learn: “And there are seven kings.” Kings reign over kingdoms, not over physical mountains. The fact is: throughout Scripture, mountains represent kingdoms that kings reign over.

The symbolism is very deliberate. Jerusalem is built on seven mountains, so is Rome. The writer takes these and broadens them out to describe global realties. He may well have lent the idea of the Roman empire to impress the wider influence of godless power through the generations by using the symbolism of seven mountains to depict the completeness of the wickedness of this world.

Mountains in Scripture are often identified with kingdoms. The mountain of the house of God is clearly the kingdom of God. Mountains are identified with carnal kingdoms while hills are associated with smaller worldly nations. The seven heads, which are mountains, represent seven carnal kingdoms that have been arrayed against God’s people in Scripture. Of these seven kingdoms, five are prior to John’s prophecy, one present to him and one is yet future. Moreover, the seventh kingdom is predicted to manifest for “a short space.” Interestingly, there is an eighth kingdom. This is the beast himself, obviously rising up in his own right rather than in a delegated sense (through other evil earthly empires) like before.

The woman sitting upon the beast represents the religious harlot sitting upon “seven” secular “mountains” (or kingdoms) ruled by “seven kings.” The seven heads expressly symbolize seven kingdoms before, during and after John’s day. Each has a distinct individual ruler.

The beast is said to be integral to the other seven previous kingdoms; this beast “was” before John – obviously manifesting through the five tributary kingdoms before John, he “is” to John in the form of the one kingdom in existence at the time of John, and one is still future to John as it has “not yet come.” Additional to this we learn, “the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.” The seven kingdoms are seven heads on the beast – thus the beast is described as being “of the seven.” The seven heads are part of this being. The number seven is significant as it normally represents completeness in Scripture. This book places the beast within the complete scheme of this dark antichrist reign.

This beast obviously represents the overall influence of Satan from which all the other individual kingdoms emanate throughout time. The beast system is that demonic spirit/influence/empire overseeing every wicked kingdom upon earth from the beginning. This worldly beast embodies the wickedness that controls the kingdoms of this world. It seems to influence the overall system that is energized by the spirit of this world.

At the cross the beast went “into perdition” being curtailed in his wholesale deluding of the Gentile people. Notwithstanding, the beast is associated with the reign of evil on this earth throughout this intra-Advent period, although restrained from what the beast would have desired through the Gospel influence. Prior to the end this beast is released from his spiritual restraints and moves to the fore. This is his time to finally flex his muscles. This is his final throw.

As he starts to perpetrate his antichrist agenda, the beast establishes “ten kings” to do his dirty work. These operate from within the beast kingdom. They are described as the beast’s “ten horns.” This reign of havoc only seems to be short: they are said to “receive power as kings one hour with the beast.” There is unity amongst these kings, “These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.” These emissaries of the devil's kingdom promote and enforce the devil's antichrist system.

We need to piece together this symbolism and align it with history in order to establish its full meaning. Firstly, Rome was one of the four kingdoms Daniel saw. It was also the existing kingdom when John received this prophesy here. John sees five great kingdoms before the one existing in his day (Rome). Three of the five former kingdoms probably refer to Daniel’s kingdoms: Babylon, Media and Persia and Grecia. This leaves two more – obviously subsequent to them. I believe these refer to the Egyptian Dynasty and the Assyria rule.

1. Egyptian empire
2. Assyrian empire
3. Babylonian empire
4. Media and Persia empire
5. Greek empire (five were)
6. Roman empire (one is existing at the time of the writing of Revelation)
7. One further evil empire (between Rome and the beast at the end)
8. The beast.

Simon Kistermaker suggests a slight modification:

1. Assyrian empire
2. Babylonian empire
3. Neo-Babylonian empire
4. Media and Persia empire
5. Greek empire (five were)
6. Roman empire (one is existing at the time of the writing of Revelation)
7. One further evil empire (between Rome and the beast at the end)
8. The beast.

Many commentators see these kingdoms as those who stood against God’s people but also invaded and subjugated natural Israel.

If we are seeing this right then that still leaves two other significant wicked empires after Rome. Whilst we know the last empire is the beast (after his release from the abyss), that still leaves us with the seventh kingdom which appears before end. With the aid of history, we could certainly speculate what the penultimate wicked kingdom is in-between the Roman Empire (in Bible times) and the last wicked unrestrained manifestation of the beast at the end. A popular view that many Bible students and historians hold is that it is the Ottoman Empire. This was certainly one of the greatest empires in history. Moreover, it actually spanned three continents. This in essence was an Islamic Empire? Whilst there have been other evil systems like Fascism and Communism that have arisen in this past hundred years, the only empire to be a direct threat to Christianity since the Roman Empire of the first century has been the Ottoman Empire. This also totally overrun natural Israel.

1. Egyptian empire
2. Assyrian empire
3. Babylonian empire
4. Media and Persian empire
5. Greek empire
6. Roman empire
7. Ottoman empire (???)
8. The beast empire

It could be argued that Christianity significantly wounded the Ottoman Empire. But today it is returning. The Ottoman empire was of course, Muslim. And we see Islam rising again, and with the same goals of a global Islamic Caliphate. It is today, once again, a direct threat to Christianity (and everybody else for that matter).

Could the revived kingdom be Mystery Babylon – a wicked global manifestation of all that opposes God, and a reflection of the evil character of ancient Babylon. Could it be a revitalized Rome, in the shape of the Roman Catholic Church?

The fact that the beast possesses seven obnoxious heads representing seven evil kingdoms throughout time, five of which were already destroyed before John, the sixth was the Roman Empire existing when he lived, the seventh was to appear somewhere between the Roman Empire, and the second coming of the Lord shows the absurdity of the contention that the beast is a man. What human being in history survived submerged below the sea for more than a few minutes? The next thing the literalist will be telling us is that babies really do come from under cabbage plants!

 

[grafted branch]

Interesting, I have never heard of that theology until now. Tried to google but the links made no sense.

Would you provide me a link to that theology so that I could understand better what you are saying?

I heard someone use the term “reconstitution theology” to describe those who think Old Testament Israel will be reconstituted by God. I don’t think it’s a widely used term but there are quite a few people who believe Israel was reconstituted in 1948.

Personally I think Israel will never again be considered a nation before God.