What is the Mark of the Beast ?

[Josheb]

EXACTLY. That is why the Rev. 13 Sea Beast had seven heads and the Rev. 17 Scarlet Beast ALSO had seven heads, which were mountains.

These were two different Beasts. The Sea Beast was in its Roman phase, with those seven heads representing the seven hills upon which Rome was built.

The Scarlet Beast found in the wilderness also had seven heads, but these were the seven hills upon which Jerusalem was built.

What is the topic being discussed in this op?

 

[Josheb]

I didn't know this - Thanks.

If you haven't already done so, then let me encourage (and exhort) you to investigate the other more historical and more orthodox eschatologies.

I used to be a Dispensational Premillennialist. I read Chuck Smith (Calvary Chapel founder) and Hal Lindsay before I became a Christian. Converted to Christ in my mid-20s I thought ALL Christians believed that view of end times and Dispensational Premillennialism (DP) was equivalent to be a Christian. At the time Smith a Lindsay were what others call "date setters," and none of the events on any of the dates any of them set ever happened. A friend of mine, a faithful believer took me out to lunch and introduced me to two things: 1) how to really read the Bible as written, and 2) another end-times point of view. Since then I have studied end times (beginning in chronological order with the ECFs) in all five of the main categories (in the order of their development: Historic Premillennialism, Amillennialism, Postmillennialism, Idealism, and Dispensational Premillennialism). Many Dispensational Premillennialists Christians do not know they are DP. Many of them hold DPist views but consider themselves Zionists, instead (when they more accurately hold to a specific kind of Zionism taught in DPism). A more generic term for the belief system espousing prophecies will occur very soon is "modern futurism." Dispensational Premillennialism was literally invented in the 19th century. It, along with it's affiliated modern futurisms, is less than 200 years old. Something being new does not mean it is wrong, any more than something old being correct simply because it is old. The problem is Dispensationalism and Dispensational Premillennialism is that some of its doctrines (and practices) are irreconcilable with the more historical points of view that either DPism is correct, and 2000 years of Christianity has always been wrong, or historical, orthodox, mainstream Christianity is correct and it is those contradictory aspects of Dispensationalism that are incorrect. The Historic, Amil, Postmil, and Idealist povs share a lot more in common than apart and the DP pov is both the normative and the statistical outlier. We don't get taught modern Church history (many Bible colleges and seminaries don't teach it ) so many don't know this.

If you haven't already read them, then let me recommend two books of comparative views. The first is "The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views," edited by Robert Clouse, and the second is "Four Views on the Book of Revelation," edited by Stanley Gundry. You'll note (if you look under the title) both books are part of a much larger series of books of comparative theology in which noted authors describe their perspective and the other participants offer critiques. If you like, you can @ Josheb me in any thread or private message me after you've read either (or both) of those books and I will happily make some reading recommendations for each of the five main eschatological points of view. I read a lot. I read a lot, and soteriology and eschatology are my main fields of theological interest (I read things other than theology ).

Things like the seven hills aren't typically found in comparative works, or necessarily on books of eschatology. You have to read detailed commentaries to find that kind of information (or learn it on the internet and look it up to verify it ). I read six commentaries on Revelation (at least one from each end-times perspective) last year and two of them were utter dross (the one most lacking was written by an exceedingly well-known Christian teacher and broadcaster!). A lot of straw men happens with criticisms, too, so it's always best to read about any given perspective by authors holding that perspective. Get the Historicist's or the Amil's (or whoever's) views in their own words.


And thank you for the kind, humble, and thankful response.

 

[Apple Sky]

If you haven't already done so, then let me encourage (and exhort) you to investigate the other more historical and more orthodox eschatologies.

I used to be a Dispensational Premillennialist. I read Chuck Smith (Calvary Chapel founder) and Hal Lindsay before I became a Christian. Converted to Christ in my mid-20s I thought ALL Christians believed that view of end times and Dispensational Premillennialism (DP) was equivalent to be a Christian. At the time Smith a Lindsay were what others call "date setters," and none of the events on any of the dates any of them set ever happened. A friend of mine, a faithful believer took me out to lunch and introduced me to two things: 1) how to really read the Bible as written, and 2) another end-times point of view. Since then I have studied end times (beginning in chronological order with the ECFs) in all five of the main categories (in the order of their development: Historic Premillennialism, Amillennialism, Postmillennialism, Idealism, and Dispensational Premillennialism). Many Dispensational Premillennialists Christians do not know they are DP. Many of them hold DPist views but consider themselves Zionists, instead (when they more accurately hold to a specific kind of Zionism taught in DPism). A more generic term for the belief system espousing prophecies will occur very soon is "modern futurism." Dispensational Premillennialism was literally invented in the 19th century. It, along with it's affiliated modern futurisms, is less than 200 years old. Something being new does not mean it is wrong, any more than something old being correct simply because it is old. The problem is Dispensationalism and Dispensational Premillennialism is that some of its doctrines (and practices) are irreconcilable with the more historical points of view that either DPism is correct, and 2000 years of Christianity has always been wrong, or historical, orthodox, mainstream Christianity is correct and it is those contradictory aspects of Dispensationalism that are incorrect. The Historic, Amil, Postmil, and Idealist povs share a lot more in common than apart and the DP pov is both the normative and the statistical outlier. We don't get taught modern Church history (many Bible colleges and seminaries don't teach it ) so many don't know this.

If you haven't already read them, then let me recommend two books of comparative views. The first is "The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views," edited by Robert Clouse, and the second is "Four Views on the Book of Revelation," edited by Stanley Gundry. You'll note (if you look under the title) both books are part of a much larger series of books of comparative theology in which noted authors describe their perspective and the other participants offer critiques. If you like, you can @ Josheb me in any thread or private message me after you've read either (or both) of those books and I will happily make some reading recommendations for each of the five main eschatological points of view. I read a lot. I read a lot, and soteriology and eschatology are my main fields of theological interest (I read things other than theology ).

Things like the seven hills aren't typically found in comparative works, or necessarily on books of eschatology. You have to read detailed commentaries to find that kind of information (or learn it on the internet and look it up to verify it ). I read six commentaries on Revelation (at least one from each end-times perspective) last year and two of them were utter dross (the one most lacking was written by an exceedingly well-known Christian teacher and broadcaster!). A lot of straw men happens with criticisms, too, so it's always best to read about any given perspective by authors holding that perspective. Get the Historicist's or the Amil's (or whoever's) views in their own words.


And thank you for the kind, humble, and thankful response.

Thank you for your post.
Although I have looked up Dispensationalism, I still haven't a clue what it's all about ??

I was intrigued by the fact that Jerusalem sits on seven hills as this has shed light onto this verse.

“This calls for a mind with understanding: The seven heads of the beast represent the seven hills where the woman rules. They also represent seven kings. Rev 17:9

I always thought this verse related to Rome.

 

[Bob Crowley]

Seven Hills of Rome - Rome on Foot

The Eternal City of Rome, long celebrated for its unforgettable imprints on art, architecture, culture, law, and global politics, boasts an intriguing topography featuring seven prominent hills. These hillsides, steeped in history and fables, shaped one of the world's most influential...

www.romeonfoot.com

The Vatican and the Seven Hills​

Contrary to common misconceptions, The Vatican, the center of the Catholic Church, does not sit on the seven hills of Rome, although it is located within the city’s borders. It rests on the Vatican Hill, a site unmentioned in the traditional list of Rome’s seven hills.

Secondly the centre of the ancient Roman Empire moved from Rome to Constantinople for centuries. In the period from Constantine to the final Ottoman invasion of Constantinople, Rome was sacked about 23 times.

Constantinople was sacked just twice, once in the fourth Crusade in 1204 AD and agan when the Ottomans took over in 1453AD.

As a Catholic it gets irritating to hear echoes of the garbage that the Vatican sits on seven hills and it will rule over the earth.

Apparently they'll use the 135 troops of the Swiss Guard to enforce thier imperial rule when the USA and Russia have thousands of nuclear weapons between them, while the Chinese have 5.8 million military personnel and the Indians have 5.1 million.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Matthew 24:15 does not say surrounded by armies, but when the abomination of desolation is standing in the holy place.

15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand : )

Luke 21:20 interprets this "abomination of desolation" phrase for us from Matt. 24:14. Luke plainly interpreted this same quote about the "abomination of desolation" as being "Jerusalem surrounded by armies". But the same context is in place concerning a coming threat for both Judea and Jerusalem, which the disciples were warned to flee from, in order to avoid those approaching disasters of the "Great Tribulation" with its "great distress in the land and wrath upon THIS people" - the Israelites in Judea and Jerusalem, who would end up being taken captive into all the other nations.

The abomination of desolation is in Daniel 12:11-12. Daniel 12 is time of the end.

It surely was - the end of the ethnic people of Israel, when God "had shattered the power of the holy people" (Dan. 12:7). It was the same "end of all things" which 1 Peter 4:7 told his first-century audience was then "at hand" for them.

No, Satan's release from the bottomless pit prison in Revelation 20 is over a thousand years from now.

Satan was to be released for a "little season" when the millennium had expired and was finished (Rev. 20:3 & 7). John wrote that Satan in great wrath at that present time had come down to harass the inhabitants of the earth and sea. Satan's great wrath was because he knew he had only that "short time" left to operate (Rev. 12:12). That means the millennium had already expired before John wrote Revelation, since the "short time" / the "little season" of time was already in progress by then when the millennium had already ended.

You are misunderstanding Revelation 11:14. Revelation 11:13, and the 7000 who die in the earthquake finished up the episode regarding the two witnesses. Revelation 11:14 begins the next experience John has in heaven.

No, you yourself are missing the point that the entire 6th trumpet (2nd woe) started in Rev. 9 13 and was pronounced finished in Rev. 11:14. The four messengers who slew "the third part of men" accomplished that slaughter in the city of Jerusalem itself, in the same time frame as the earthquake when 7,000 men were slain along with the 2 witnesses. That means "the third of men" is quantified as being 7,002 men total who were slain in the city of Jerusalem - not all over the globe.

 

[3 Resurrections]

What is the topic being discussed in this op?

There is confusion which persists as to which Beast that mark was connected with. The Rev. 13 Sea Beast was not the same as the Rev. 17 Scarlet Beast found in the wilderness. This Scarlet Beast was a Judean Beast with seven heads which represented the seven mountains that the city of Jerusalem was situated upon.

The mark giving homage to the Rev. 13 Sea Beast had a totally different identity. The Sea Beast with its combined features of lion, bear, and leopard in Rev. 13:2 was in its last Roman phase, which is why it is also pictured with 7 heads - with these 7 heads being a match for the seven hills which the city of Rome sat upon.

 

[Douggg]

No, you yourself are missing the point that the entire 6th trumpet (2nd woe) started in Rev. 9 13 and was pronounced finished in Rev. 11:14. The four messengers who slew "the third part of men" accomplished that slaughter in the city of Jerusalem itself, in the same time frame as the earthquake when 7,000 men were slain along with the 2 witnesses. That means "the third of men" is quantified as being 7,002 men total who were slain in the city of Jerusalem - not all over the globe.

The 7000 in Revelation 11:13 die because of an earthquake.

Differently, the army of 200,000,000 in the second woe will slay a third of mankind.

 

[3 Resurrections]

The 7000 in Revelation 11:13 die because of an earthquake.

Differently, the army of 200,000,000 in the second woe will slay a third of mankind.

You've got the wrong word. Those 7,000 don't just "die" because of an earthquake. Rev. 11:13 tells us they are "SLAIN" - meaning put to death by human means - not by a natural disaster. They are "SLAIN" in Jerusalem by their enemies at the very same time that an earthquake is taking place in Jerusalem.

And by the way, this whole prophecy of the sixth trumpet (second woe) judgment has already happened during the Idumean attack on Jerusalem back in AD 67 / 68. A notable nighttime earthquake and storm recorded by Josephus occurred at the same time back then. Josephus recorded 8,500 that were slain during this attack and the storm (similar to Rev. 11:13's number of 7,000 men being slain that day). This "third of men" numbering 7,000 were slain by the group of 20,000 Idumean horsemen led by four generals (the "two myriads of myriads" and the "four messengers"). And the two witnesses who were also slain that day were Ananus ben Annas and Joshua ben Gamaliel (both former high priests). Up until then, these two former high priests had been restraining the two competing Zealot factions from taking full control of Jerusalem and waging civil war upon their own citizens within the city.

The Zealots and Idumeans rejoiced and made jokes at the murder of the two former high priests, and left their naked bodies unburied in the city of Jerusalem. Ananas ben Annas as the governor leading the third faction had been preventing the other two Zealot leaders in Jerusalem (Eleazar and John of Gischala) from gaining full control of the city. Once Ananas was murdered, that reduced those three competing factions into just two Zealot factions who were battling it out for control of Jerusalem. One third of men was killed in this manner within the city.

This prophecy has been fulfilled already, long ago.

 

[Douggg]

This "third of men" numbering 7,000 were slain by the group of 20,000 Idumean horsemen led by four generals (the "two myriads of myriads" and the "4 messengers").

Where in Revelation 9:16 that the number of the horsemen as being 20,000 ? It is 200,000,0000. Two hundred million.

16 And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand: and I heard the number of them.

 

[Laodicean60]

The only way I can see a future where we can not buy or sell would be digital. I'll start looking really hard when we go cashless. Any commodity would be cut off with CBDC.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Where in Revelation 9:16 that the number of the horsemen as being 20,000 ? It is 200,000,0000. Two hundred million.

16 And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand: and I heard the number of them.

A "myriad" is 10,000. TWO myriads is twenty thousand total. The Idumean horsemen which came to attack Jerusalem in AD 67 / 68 Josephus numbered at 20,000 led by four generals, which he named for us.

The scripture in the original Greek is "two myriads of myriads". These terms have mistakenly been multiplied and grossly exaggerated in the translations into 200 million horsemen. This is patently ridiculous, since worldwide, there are only some estimated 60 million horses around today. 200 million horses and their riders would not fit within the confines of Jerusalem - either today or in ancient times. Let alone the feed needed to sustain 200 million horses. Let alone managing the horse excrement produced all in one location.

It is also ridiculous to think that it would take 200 million horsemen to conquer those one-third of men numbering 7,002 in Jerusalem. That would mean it would take some 28,500-plus horsemen to slay just one single individual. That doesn't really say much about the supposed battle strength of those supposed 200 million horsemen if each of those 7,002 men could do battle with about 28,500 horsemen per man.

But with the past historical record of 20,000 Idumean horsemen slaying 7,0002 men (one third of the men in Jerusalem) in that single attack on the city in AD 67 / 68 - the battle odds are entirely reasonable in this case.

 

[Josheb]

Thank you for your post.
Although I have looked up Dispensationalism, I still haven't a clue what it's all about ??

Ooooo....

This is important. Dispensational Premillennialism, or Dispensationalism in general, is very popular nowadays. It was invented in the early-1800s and its invention is generally attributed to one man, John Nelson Darby, but he did not do it single-handedly. Darby's views were specifically Dispensational and Premillennial but the more generic "modern futurism" has variations (pre-trib, mid-trib, post-trib, etc.) and while most are Zionist, they do not all subscribe to "dispensations" the way Dispensationalism does. This is why I often use the phrase "modern futurism."

Dispensationalism arose during the time in modern Christian history we now call the "Restoration Movement." Following the earlier revivals of the 18th century Christianity had moved away from creedalism to experientialism (knowing one was a Christian because of a conversion experience, not due to consciously subscribing to formal Christian beliefs). The sects of restoration movement varied in doctrine and practice but they all shared two common themes: 1) the Church is corrupt (and therefore in need of restoration), and 2) apocalypse is soon pending (so repent and come join us because we're trying to restore the Church correctly). These sects each had their own views on what qualified or constituted "restoration," or what the NT-era Church looked like. Some of these sects can be said to fall within the pale of orthodoxy, others were outright cults. Among these sects were the Campbellites, the Millerites, the SDA, CoC, Brethren, JWs, LDSes, Christadelphians, and others. Darby was Anglican but he left the Anglican Church to affiliate with the Plymouth Brethren. His views were so controversial and his practices so legalistic and unyielding that he left the Plymouth Brethren and started his own sect. He called it "Extreme Brethren."

Two of the most significant events that followed Darby and legitimized and institutionalized Dispensationalism and Dispensational Premillennialism (to be the former is to be the latter) were the publication of Cyrus Scofield's Study Bible and Lewis Sperry Chafer forming Evangelical Theological College, which we all know today as Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS). DTS teaches Dispensationalism. Scofield's Bible was among the first commentary Bibles, and it sold hundreds of thousands of copies and everyone who read it learned Dispensationalism through its commentary because Scofield was deliberately including Dispensational views of scripture in his "study". Keep in mind that until the late 1800s and early 1900s most people 1) could not read, and 2) did not own Bibles. With the rise of public education, modern improvements in the printing press and the eventual development of the assembly line Bibles and reading grew. Combined with the move toward experientialism, this mean every person was their own interpreter of scripture.

I have read some of the influences on Darby and (most) everything Darby, Scofield, Chafer, Pentecost, Moody, Ryrie, Walvoord, Ice, Vlach, and other prominent dispies have written. If you're interested in learning Dispensationalism from the Dispensationalists then I recommend Chafer's book titled, simply, "Dispensationalism." Charles Caldwell Ryrie, another former president of DTS also wrote a book with the exact same title and it is also very good for the purpose of learning Dispensationalism.

After you've read the comparative titles I recommended previously .

Everything I just posted (except my claim of reading ) can be objectively verified by anyone. Those statements are not personal opinions.

I was intrigued by the fact that Jerusalem sits on seven hills as this has shed light onto this verse.

“This calls for a mind with understanding: The seven heads of the beast represent the seven hills where the woman rules. They also represent seven kings. Rev 17:9

I always thought this verse related to Rome.

Yes, and most of Christianity has long thought that is the case. You may have observed other posters appealing to other commentaries as if the commentary is a more correct and authoritative source than either scripture itself or the facts of history and geography.

The larger truth is that no one today knows for sure what's what and who's who in Bible prophecy. Most of eschatology is rank speculation, especially among modern futurists. It's not supposed to be that way. I, personally, believe many of the problems - but not all - are solved by reading scripture exactly as written and applying basic rules of exegesis. That's why I posted about the understanding of the original writer and his original audience. THE most basic rule for understanding scripture is to first read the text exactly as written with its normal meaning of the words in their ordinary usage unless the text itself provides reason for not doing so and then understand the text as the original audience would have understood it. This op fails at both.

As far as the Rome v Jerusalem question goes, this comes up in a number of places, depending on which eschatology a person holds. For example, the "lawless man," of Thessalonians could be anyone who has disobeyed God. All sinners are lawless people simply because sin is lawlessness. The lawless man could be a Gentile but that begs the question why the early Church would be concerned with a non-believer, why they would measure him by the Law, and why he would be in the temple. Of course, there's plenty of real historical precedent for that view because at least two Roman generals entered the stone temple, and many of the Caesars self-deified (in the Roman sense of the word, not the biblical definition). On the other hand, if the law in question, the law by which the lawless man is measured is the Law of Moses, then that lawless guy is most likely a Jew, not a Gentile. This, like the seven hills, escapes most Christian's understanding because they're not familiar with the rules of exegesis OR the facts of the Zealots taking over Jerusalem, the event that led to Jerusalem's siege. There were at least three prominent Zealots who violated the temple. The Zealots mocked the Levitical priesthood and the theocracy, as well as the rule of Imperial Rome. They were ancient equivalences of Islamic fundamentalist jihadists of today. They literally killed anyone who disagreed with them, performing human sacrifices in the temple (in the holy of holies on the bema seat) and according to Josephus (a somewhat questionable source) they murdered so many people that the blood was thigh-high on the temple's walls and the blood so thick in the heat that anyone who trod the floor risked losing their sandals due to their being stuck in the congealed blood. That is pretty lawless. Those views are also much more consistent with another basic rule of exegesis: let scripture interpret scripture and look to scripture first before looking elsewhere. We should look first to scripture to understand the identity of the lawless man, not Josephus, or Tacitus, nor Darby, nor Lindsay, nor folks like David Jeremiah or John MacArthur.

Notice also the Thessalonians text is conditional. It states, "For it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed." To what is the "it" in that referring? According to the previous verse that "it" refers to "the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to him"!!! but if that's pointed out to most modern futurists they lose their minds and ad hominem will ensue. According to the 2 Thessalonians text itself, that particular coming of Jesus and our being gathered to him is predicated upon an apostacy that, again, according to the 2 Thessalonians text itself may or may not actually occur. And then there is the problem with conflating the lawless man with the abomination of desolation (who some think is a person), and the antichrist when scripture NEVER says those three are the same person. Could be Nero. Could be Titus. Could be Giscala (A Jewish Zealot who most have never heard of). Could be some guy in the far distant future multiple millennia from now so we don't need to worry about him and can get on with the business of spreading the gospel as Jesus commanded in the Great Commission (instead of dreading whether or not this guy or that is going to be the bad guy and whether or not we're going to get raptured off the planet as God lets His earth slide into depravity because the Church is increasingly impotent.

I'm ranting on purpose.

Zealotry comes in many eschatological forms .

They do NOT come with signs on their foreheads announcing their inanity. We're supposed to know scripture, and know it well enough (exegetically), to recognize falsehood when we read/hear it. For the last 180+ years Dispensationalist Premillennialists have been making predictions and not a single one of their predictions, not a single DP teacher has ever been correct. Not one. They may teach good Christology, or good soteriology, but they do NOT teach good eschatology and we KNOW this because no prognostication has ever been correct. They ALL have a 100% fail rate. We can ALL hear it any given day on Christian radio/television/cable (because DPers heavily populate those mediums). David Jeremiah, for example, can often be said to say he believes Jesus will return in his lifetime. I've been hearing him say that for 20+ years. That is a great hope to have, but Dr. Jeremiah is 83 years old. If he lives to be 100 then he is implicitly saying Jesus will return in the next 17 years. There is no escape from that logically necessary conclusion. Since he's a Dispensational Premillennialists it ALSO means he is saying Israel will regain all the original promised land, reconstitute a monarchy (and a theocracy), rebuild the temple and reinstitute animal sacrifices, and the rapture will occur ALL within the next 17 years.


It might happen.


But if that man dies and none of it has happened then his death proves him a liar.

And otherwise, earnest, devout, and intelligent Christians don't consider these things when it comes to end-times teachers. Dr. has made millions off his teachings and not one prognostication of his has ever been correct. It's his followers that think Revelation 13's "mark" might be a computer chip, cell number, or DNA change, and it's nearly impossible to have an intelligent conversation about this because most modern futurists are ideologues first.

Whatever the mark was, is, or may yet be.... the mark will have to meet the requirement of original understanding by the original reader of the first century. It was/is/could be a tattoo, scar, or other mark, but it is NOT any of the three options listed in this op.

 

[LizaMarie]

I'm not a pretribulationist but I do believe in a literal Antichrist and I think the Mark will be something pledging allegience to him and will also deny Jesus as Lord so people when they take it will know what they are doing.

 

[Josheb]

There is confusion which persists as to which Beast that mark was connected with.

Yep.

Whoever or whatever the beast was/is/may be...... that "mark" has to be something that would have been understandable byu the original first century reader. The identity of the "beast" is peripheral to that necessity.

The Rev. 13 Sea Beast was not....

....and I am not going to collaborate with that digression. If the beast was Nero, or John of Giscala, or the Pope, or Ronald Reagan, or Vladimir Putin or some alien from the future does not change the fact the mark in question must be something understandable by the first century reader. Computer chips, cell numbers, and DNA changes do not qualify.

Every thread on eschatology is not a license to hijack another's op and make it all about our entire eschatology. It's bad enough that Dispensationalists can't stay on topic and do that to others. Don't be like them. Go find the thread(s) on the beast and make the case there..... or at least don't think I'm going to collaborate with that here in this thread. Just leave me out of that conversation, please.

 

[Apple Sky]

I'm not a pretribulationist but I do believe in a literal Antichrist and I think the Mark will be something pledging allegience to him and will also deny Jesus as Lord so people when they take it will know what they are doing.

Most of the world leaders & the masses pledged alliance to King Charles at his Coronation

 

[Apple Sky]

If the beast was Nero, or John of Giscala, or the Pope, or Ronald Reagan, or Vladimir Putin or some alien from the future does not change the fact the mark in question must be something understandable by the first century reader. Computer chips, cell numbers, and DNA changes do not qualify.

Why would these not qualify ? If John at Patmos was taken up to heaven, God would have shown him what's to come. And lets not forget God knows the past, present & the future.
John only wrote down what he saw & okay John may not have understood it at the time of writing Revelation, but God knew.

King James Bible
After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.

 

[Douggg]

The scripture in the original Greek is "two myriads of myriads". These terms have mistakenly been multiplied and grossly exaggerated in the translations into 200 million horsemen. This is patently ridiculous, since worldwide, there are only some estimated 60 million horses around today. 200 million horses and their riders would not fit within the confines of Jerusalem - either today or in ancient times. Let alone the feed needed to sustain 200 million horses. Let alone managing the horse excrement produced all in one location.

The size of the army will be 200,000,000 and are not actual horsemen, but make up a modern army of tanks, mechanized weapons, that there were not words in John's vocabulary for such. And thus were described in verses 17-19 using words in John's vocabulary. You are not going to be able to fit John's description into a first century setting cavalry.

17 And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone.

18 By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths.

19 For their power is in their mouth, and in their tails: for their tails were like unto serpents, and had heads, and with them they do hurt.

The army being talked about are the kings of the east - i.e. the Chinese and their Asian allies. They are going to sweep through India, Pakistan, Afghanistan destroying a third of the population of the world in doing so.

 

[Josheb]

Why would these not qualify? If John at Patmos was taken up to heaven, God would have shown him what's to come. And lets not forget God knows the past, present & the future.

One of the possibilities living in the first century did qualify.

I want you to know I will entertain this digression only for a time because it's all off topic from the op and I don't like derail any thread. I allow you some leeway because this is your op. I do not want or like anyone hijacking another's op.

First, there is the matter of original meaning. The revelation of Revelation was intended to reveal what God wanted His people among the original recipients to understand. He was not "revealing" obtuseness. The opening statements of the books plainly state the revelation was provided, "...to show to His bondservants, the things which must quickly take place," and so they would, "heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near." That is what is explicitly stated. What are the normal meaning of those words in their ordinary usage? How would the original readers have understood those words? Where in the Bible would we find God using the word "near" or "at hand (Gk. = en gys - at hand) to mean anything other than near in either time or space/place? When we look to other scripture, we ALWAYS find the word "near" to mean near in terms of time or geography, and NEVER to mean, "two or more millennia later." How many beasts are there in Rev. 13? There are surely many "beasts" in the history of scripture and many more in human history but the beast whose mark is mentioned in Revelation 13 is a singular entity, not a bunch of people. The "another beast" of verse 11 become "the beast" throughout the rest of the passage and the first person singular pronoun is used when speaking of him. However, the figurative and symbolic nature of the beast cannot be denied because the beast has two horns (not to be confused or conflated with the beast that has multiple heads). This cannot be the Pope or the Papal system because the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) did not exist in the first century (despite RC's protests to the contrary). The same holds true of Reagan or Putin. There is simply no way in heaven or earth that the first century reader would have read Revelation 13:11-18 and thought, "Oh! We're reading about a guy who will be president of a country on the other side of the globe that has yet to be discovered by us folks, and his name in English will be Ronald Wilson Reagan or Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin.

We would have to ignore the temporal and audience affiliations inherent in the text to conclude far-distant people or institutions were the reference. We'd have to assume some kind of NOT-STATED revelation from somewhere informed the first century reader of the identity of whatever far-distant reality that might be and that can't happen because the book of Revelation explicitly tells us NOT to add anything to the book. The mark was something that was going to happen in their future. What was future for them may well be in the long-distant past for us. The Messiah was a future event for the Jews of Tanakh. He was a present reality for those in the first century. For those of us living two millennia after he was revealed to those in the last days, those prophecies are all in the past. The same concept may hold true for the "mark." What was future for the first century reader may well have long ago occurred for us. If it both in their future AND ours, then the mark must still be something the original readers would have understood.

John only wrote down what he saw & okay John may not have understood it at the time of writing Revelation, but God knew.

What in the text itself leads you to conclude John did not understand what he was writing?

King James Bible
After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.

That's correct. He was shown what would happen "hereafter." That sentence does NOT state, "I will show you the meaning of what must be hereafter." Do you see how easy it is to unwittingly add things to the text because of what you've heard taught elsewhere? Revelation 4:1 cannot and should not be read in any way that would conflict with Revelation 1:1-3 or Revelation 1:19. John is show a LOT of very weird stuff, or at least it may seem weird to those of us who read the book two millennia later. Some of it is explained in Revelation itself (such as the lampstands being the churches of Rev. 1:20). We have the rest of the entire Bible to use to inform us about the figures of speech, symbols, and allegories of Revelation. John is the most "Jewish" of the NT writers and there are more than 340 Old Testament references in the book of Revelation! How many commentaries have you read that go through all those references? I've read at least 2o different commentaries on that book and not one of them cover ALL the OT references. The one or two that make an effort to go back and forth Old to New are so laden with detail they become nearly unreadable. For us, the Bible is not going anywhere and we live in a day where we have computers that can do near-instant word searches. We have near-instant access to the Hebrew and Greek and cultural and historical studies that inform us about the cultural idioms and practices alluded to in the text - ones that would have been immediately familiar with the original readers but are lost to us through the passage of history.

For example, John's gospel is a near-constant repudiation of Hellenistic Judaism. His bluntness is self-evident to the reader but the reasons are not. John's gospel is very different from the other three. It opens with what is likely a reference to something the Jewish philosopher Philo wrote about Alexander the Great. Alexander was said to be a mediator between the gods and humans, a person especially endowed with the logos of the gods. John vomited on that premise and unequivocally declared Jesus is not just a person especially endowed with logos; he IS the logos of God. He is the logos of God that is God! That context is lost on those of us who haven't studied the culture, the philosophies, the other contexts of the New Testament. John is in-your-face with the divinity of Christ. He'd have been stoned as a heretic were he ever captured by the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem.

John 21:25
But there are also many other things which Jesus did, which, if they were written in detail, I expect that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.

John knew and understood a lot more than he reported. Paul was the greatest theologian to have ever lived and yet it's doubtful he ever got all he knew written down. Every Christian theologian is working from Romans (and his other writings) and were we able to go back in time and ask him some of the questions we have he would undoubtedly be able to answer them all - decisively.

No, the idea John did not understand what he was writing must be proven first, not accepted baselessly as a given.


Keep in mind what Revelation 1:19 tells us.

Revelation 1:19
Therefore write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after these things.

If read exactly as written then some of what is in the book of Revelation had already transpired (the things which John had seen), and some of it was about conditions existing at the time of his writing the book (the things which are), and then a small portion of it was about the future (things which will take place after these things). The "these things" of verse 19 are the things he'd seen and the things which are. John hadn't yet entered the revelation of revelation when he was instructed write verse 19!!!


When you get around to reading commentaries specifically on the book of Revelation pay attention to what they say about Rev. 1:1-3 and 1:19. Many commentaries ignore those verses. I'm serious. Complete, utter silence. Most of the ones that do attend to them make them say things the verses themselves do not state. The Dispensationalist commentators say the "near" refers to those living when the time is near. That is NOT what the text states, and it cannot be made to say that when the words are read as written with the normal meaning of the words in their ordinary usage. It's most certainly not how the original readers would have read those words. And, as I have already posted, the word "near" is never used by God to mean anything other than near. You will find modern futurists appeal to 2 Peter 3:8 but that verse does not contain the word "near" and it is Peter referencing Psalm 90:4, telling his audience the prophetic significance of the psalm was coming to bear upon them to whom Jesus had been revealed.

1 Peter 1:20-21
For he was foreknown before the foundation of the world but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.

Jesus was foreknown before the foundation of the world. He appeared in those last times. The book of Revelation is his revelation to his bondservants of what would happen quickly because the time was near, and some of what John wrote were things John had already seen, some of what he wrote were things that were at the time of his writing, and the rest was what would come afterwards.

John was not ignorant of what he was writing.

.............God would have shown him what's to come.................. John may not have understood it at the time...........

Well, which is it? Did God show him or not? Did John understand what God showed him or not? How is it God would show John something John did not understand and then call it revelation and leave John unknowing? The book of Revelation is a revealing, not a hiding. Much of the New Testament is about making clear what had previously been foreshadowed, veiled, and hidden. Revelation is (Biblical) apocalyptic literature, which is always laden with figures of speech, symbols, and allegory. Revelation is also revealing.

But modern futurists have it all figured out and they will gladly tell you what everything means because it is going to happen real soon because the time was NOT near in the first century, but it is near now. Be vigilant because any day now we're all going to have computer chips implanted in our hands or foreheads and that's how you'll know Jesus is coming. And if we go by Dr. Jeremiah's timeline then it's all going to happen within the next 17 years (assuming he lives to be 1000 years old).

Am I making sense?

 

[Josheb]

I'm not a pretribulationist but I do believe in a literal Antichrist and I think the Mark will be something pledging allegience to him and will also deny Jesus as Lord so people when they take it will know what they are doing.

What does that have to do with the "mark"?

 

[Josheb]

The size of the army will be 200,000,000 and are not actual horsemen, but make up a modern army of tanks, mechanized weapons, that there were not words in John's vocabulary for such. And thus were described in verses 17-19 using words in John's vocabulary. You are not going to be able to fit John's description into a first century setting cavalry.

17 And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone.

18 By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths.

19 For their power is in their mouth, and in their tails: for their tails were like unto serpents, and had heads, and with them they do hurt.

The army being talked about are the kings of the east - i.e. the Chinese and their Asian allies. They are going to sweep through India, Pakistan, Afghanistan destroying a third of the population of the world in doing so.

What does that have to do with the "mark"?