You are hereThe Antichrist Chronicles, vol. one: The Connections between the Little Horn of Daniel 7 and the Individual Beast of Revelation

The Antichrist Chronicles, vol. one: The Connections between the Little Horn of Daniel 7 and the Individual Beast of Revelation

  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 842.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_argument::init() should be compatible with views_handler::init(&$view, $options) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_argument.inc on line 745.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_validate() should be compatible with views_handler::options_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_submit() should be compatible with views_handler::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter_boolean_operator::value_validate() should be compatible with views_handler_filter::value_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter_boolean_operator.inc on line 149.

By Duncan - Posted on 02 October 2005

by Duncan McKenzie
In the following article I will give a brief overview of the individual and corporate aspects of the beast of Revelation. If you don’t know what the heck I am talking about, continue reading and you will find out! I will also show a number of the connections between the little horn of Daniel 7 and the individual beast of Revelation. These connections support the proposition that there was indeed an Antichrist.In the following article I will give a brief overview of the individual and corporate aspects of the beast of Revelation. If you don’t know what the heck I am talking about, continue reading and you will find out! I will also show a number of the connections between the little horn of Daniel 7 and the individual beast of Revelation. These connections support the proposition that there was indeed an Antichrist.The Antichrist Chronicles, vol. one: The Connections between the Little Horn of Daniel 7 and the Individual Beast of Revelation.

In the following article I will give a brief overview of the individual and corporate aspects of the beast of Revelation. If you don’t know what the heck I am talking about, continue reading and you will find out! I will also show a number of the connections between the little horn of Daniel 7 and the individual beast of Revelation. These connections support the proposition that there was indeed an Antichrist. The idea of an individual Antichrist is something that preterists have resisted for some time. To be honest this resistance has mainly come from the fact that preterists were not able to come up with a single historical Antichrist figure that unifies the scriptures related to Antichrist. With the publication of my book I hope to change that. I will not be naming the Antichrist here; I am saving that for my book (Which is up to 700 pages double spaced). Again, in this article I will be showing the connections between Daniel 7’s little horn and the individual beast of Revelation. The little horn/individual beast is the Antichrist. He was the opponent of God and the saints that appeared at the last hour of the old covenant age (1 John 2:18) and was destroyed by the Second Coming in AD 70 (Dan. 7:21-22; 2 Thess. 2:8; Rev. 19:11-21).

In understanding the beast of Revelation there is a complicated but important concept that one needs to be aware of. Sometimes the beast is representing a confederation of (eight) rulers and other times the beast is referring to a very powerful individual eighth ruler of that confederation (the individual beast, Rev. 11:7; 17:8). This dual reference to the beast can be seen in Revelation 17:7-11 where the beast is said to be both a confederation of eight kings and also the eighth of those kings.

Rev. 17:7-11
But the angel said to me, “Why did you marvel? I will tell you the mystery of the woman and of the beast that carries her, which has the seven heads and ten horns. The beast that you saw was, and is not, and will ascend out of the bottomless pit and go to perdition. And those who dwell on the earth will marvel, whose names are not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they see the beast that was, and is not, and yet is. Here is the mind which has wisdom: The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits. There are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, and the other has not yet come. And when he comes, he must continue a short time. The beast that was, and is not, is himself also the eighth, and is of the seven, and is going to perdition. emphasis mine

Again, the beast in Revelation is sometimes referring to the confederation of eight rulers and other times referring to the eighth of these rulers. Ken Gentry said the following on this. “Most commentators agree that the beast imagery in Revelation shifts between the generic and the specific. That is, sometimes the beast pictures a kingdom, sometimes an individual leader of that kingdom….This feature, as frustrating as it may be, is recognized by commentators of all schools of interpretation.” [ Kenneth Gentry, Perilous Times: A Study in Eschatological Evil, (Texarkana AR: Covenant Media Press, 1999), 126-127]. What Gentry refers to as the “generic” aspects of the beast I call the “corporate beast” (the beast as a confederation of eight rulers); what he refers as the “specific” aspects of the beast I refer to as the “individual beast” (the especially powerful eighth ruler). I will usually give the qualifier of either “individual” or “corporate” when referring to the beast to make it clearer which aspects I think are being highlighted. It is the individual beast, the eighth king of the corporate beast that is the Antichrist.

Allow me to give a couple of examples of how Revelation’s imagery of the beast can quickly shift from a corporate emphasis to an individual emphasis. In Revelation 13:3 one of the heads of the (corporate) beast is said to suffer a mortal wound. While the wounded head is referring to a specific ruler (Nero), it is also making reference to how this ruler’s fall (cf. Rev. 17:10) had a disastrous effect on the beast as a collection of rulers (the corporate beast). In Revelation 13:4-8 the focus quickly shifts from the (corporate) beast to the specific ruler (the individual beast) who blasphemes God and overcomes the saints. Beasley-Murray noted the following on this, “The beast [in Rev. 13:1] stands primarily for the empire, yet the transition is speedily made to the empire as represented in its ruler. [G. R. Beasley-Murray, The Book of Revelation, The New Century Bible Commentary, Ronald Clements and Matthew Black eds. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), 1978, 209 brackets mine].

Another example of a rapid shift between the corporate and individual aspects of the beast of Revelation can be seen in Revelation 17:7-11 (which I touched on above). When John wrote Revelation, the sixth king (Nero) of the (corporate) beast was currently ruling. The (individual) beast, the eighth king of the (corporate) beast had not come yet. The corporate beast (the confederation of demonic rulers) was currently in existence when John wrote even though the individual beast (the eighth of these rulers) had not come yet. Again, the individual beast is the Antichrist; he was the eighth ruler of the corporate beast.

The first place in Revelation that we are told of the beast is in Revelation 11:7 where he is abruptly introduced as if the first century readers would be aware of him. Revelation 11:7 (see below) is a reference to the individual beast. Indeed the readers of Revelation would have been aware of him because the description of his actions corresponds to the little horn of Daniel’s fourth beast. The little horn was to make war on the saints and overcome them right before the Second Coming. This was Antichrist and the people of God knew about him! They had heard of his coming from the reading of Scripture (cf. 1 John 2:18). Consider the connections between the little horn of Daniel 7 and the (individual) beast in the following verses.

Dan. 7:21-22 I was watching and the same [little] horn was making war against the saints, and prevailing against them, until the Ancient of Days came, and a judgment was made in favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came for the saints to possess the kingdom.

Revelation 11:7 when they [the two witnesses] finish their testimony, the beast that ascends out of the bottomless pit will make war against them, overcome them and kill them.

Revelation 13:7 “It was granted to him [the individual beast] to make war with the saints and to overcome them.

The little horn/individual beast was the one who would overcome the saints in the time right before the Second Coming in AD 70.

Below are some of the connections between the little horn of Daniel 7’s fourth beast and the individual beast of Revelation. Again the little horn/individual beast is the Antichrist.

1. The little horn/individual beast is an eighth ruler (Dan. 7:8; Rev. 17:11).

The little horn of Daniel 7 starts out as an eleventh ruler but becomes an eighth when three horns (rulers) are removed before him (11-3=8). The individual beast is an eighth king.

Daniel 7:7-8
After this I saw in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, exceedingly strong. It had huge iron teeth; it was devouring, breaking in pieces, and trampling the residue with its feet. It was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns. I was considering the horns, and there was another horn, a little one, coming up among them, before whom three of the first horns were plucked out by the roots. And there, in this horn, were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking pompous words.

Revelation 17:11
The beast that was, and is not, is himself also the eighth, and is of the seven, and is going to perdition.

2. The little horn/individual beast speaks great blasphemies against God (Dan. 7:8, 11, 20, 25; Rev. 13:5-6).

Daniel 7:20
…that [little] horn which had eyes and a mouth which spoke pompous words [lit. great things], whose appearance was greater than his fellows.

Daniel 7:25
He shall speak pompous words against the Most High…

Revelation 13:5-6
And he was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies…Then he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name, His tabernacle, and those who dwell in heaven.

Ladd said the following on the blasphemous words of the (individual) beast in Revelation 13:5 and how it is a direct reference to the little horn of Daniel 7, “This [Rev. 13:5-6] is based directly on Dan. 7:8, 20, 25. The little horn had a mouth ‘speaking great things’ and spoke ‘words against the Most High.’” [ Ladd, Revelation, 179 brackets mine]

3. The little horn/individual beast wages war against the saints and overcomes them (Dan. 7:21; Rev. 13:7).

Daniel 7:21
I was watching; and the same horn was making war against the saints, and prevailing against them...

Revelation 13:7 It was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them.

The saints would have been understood by Daniel as the Jews. While the reference to saints is expanded in the NT and Revelation to include believing Gentiles (cf. Rom. 2:28-29; Rev. 3:9), the focus of the Antichrist is on the Jews and their Temple (cf. Dan. 11:40-12:1; 2Thess. 2:4). While the great tribulation would come on the whole world it would focus on the dwellers on the land, the Jews (Rev. 3:10).

4. The little horn/individual beast has a three and a half year reign of terror (Dan. 7:25; Rev. 13:5).

The phrase “a time and times and half a time” of Daniel 7:25 is a period of three and a half. It is usually taken to be three and a half years or forty-two months, which is the form it takes in Revelation 13:5. This three and a half year reign of terror of the little horn/individual beast is the last half of Daniel’s seventieth week. This last half of Daniel’s seventieth week would end with the destruction of the Jewish nation (Dan. 12:7). It should be noted that it took the Romans 42 months, three and a half years, to destroy the Jewish nation, from around March of AD 67 to the end of August of AD 70.

Daniel 7:25
…Then the saints shall be given into his hand for a time and times and half a time.

Revelation 13:5
… and he was given authority to continue for forty-two months.

5. The little horn/individual beast is defeated by the Second Coming (Dan. 7:21-22: Rev. 19:11-13, 19-20).

In Daniel this is shown in the form of the coming of the Ancient of Days. In Revelation the Son of Man is shown as having the characteristics of the Ancient of Days (the white hair, Rev. 1:13-14) The Son of Man having white hair is symbolic of the great age, the eternality, of Jesus, the Word of God (cf. John 1:1). The fact that Revelation shows the Son of Man as also having the characteristics of the Ancient of Days is symbolic of the fact that Jesus is both God and Man. Revelation thus shows Daniel 7’s coming of God to defeat the little horn in the form of the coming of the Word of God to defeat the individual beast. (Dan. 7:21-22; Rev. 19:11-21).

Daniel 7:21-22
I was watching; and the same horn was making war against the saints, and prevailing against them, until the Ancient of Days came, and a judgment was made in favor of the saints…

Revelation 19:11-13, 19-20
11 Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He had a name written that no one knew except Himself. He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God…19 And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army. Then the beast was captured…

6. The little horn/individual beast is thrown into the lake of fire at the time of the Second Coming (Dan. 7:11; Rev. 19:19-20).

Daniel 7:11
I watched till the beast was slain, and its body destroyed and given to the burning flame.

Revelation 19:20
Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence…These two were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone.

7. Right after the AD 70 defeat of the little horn/individual beast, thrones are put in place as the millennium starts (Dan. 7:8-9, 11; Rev. 19:20-20:4).

I debated whether to include this point or not; to be honest, it ruffles feathers. I decided to include it for those who have ears to hear. The goal of preterism should be the pursuit of God’s truth, not merely the defense of the status quo.

Daniel 7:8-9, 11

I was considering the horns [of the fourth beast] and there was another horn, a little one, coming up among them, before whom three of the first horns were plucked out by the roots. And there, in this horn, were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking pompous words. I watched till thrones were put in place, And the Ancient of Days was seated;… I watched then because of the sound of the pompous words which the horn was speaking; I watched till the beast was slain, and its body destroyed and given to the burning flame.

Revelation 19:19-20:4

And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army. Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone. And the rest were killed with the sword which proceeded from the mouth of Him who sat on the thrown. And all the birds were filled with their flesh. Then I saw an angel coming down form heaven, having the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. But after these things he must be released for a little while. And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshipped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

Notice the sequence in Revelation19:19-20:4; it is clearer when the chapter separation between 19 and 20 (which was not in the original manuscript) is left out. The individual beast is captured at the AD 70 coming of the Word of God and then the saints that were killed by the beast for refusing his mark are resurrected to share in the millennial reign of Jesus. This sequence is similarly shown in Daniel 7:21-22.

I was watching and the same horn was making war against the saints, and prevailing against them, until the Ancient of Days came, and a judgment was made in favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came for the saints to possess the kingdom.

The resurrection in Revelations 20:4 is not an AD 30 spiritual one.

Revelation 20:4

And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshipped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

The believers killed by the (individual) beast that come alive at the beginning of the millennium were already spiritually alive. They were the saints that the beast overcame in his forty-two month reign of terror (Rev. 13:5-7) just before the Second Coming (cf. Dan. 7:21-22, 25). Revelation 20:4 is showing the AD 70 resurrection of these saints that were killed by the beast during the great tribulation of AD 67-70 (cf. Dan. 12:1-2). These believers were physically dead (cf. Rev. 6:9-11). Since preterists acknowledge that the timing of the coming of Jesus to defeat the individual beast in Revelation 19:11-21 is the time around AD 70, how could Revelation 20:4 and its vision of dead victims of the beast being resurrected be a recapitulation back to AD 30? Again, the martyrs of the beast that come alive for the millennium are physically dead believers (they were already spiritually alive) being resurrected at the AD 70 resurrection (cf. Rev. 6:9-11).

The dead believers that come alive for the millennium were killed in the beast’s 42 month reign of terror just prior to the Second Coming (Rev. 13:7), not in the time just prior to AD 30 (as would have to be true if the millennium began at AD 30). Notice that the mark and worship of the beast is mentioned both in Revelation 19:20 and 20:4. There is no recapitulation back to AD 30 at chapter 20; Revelation 20 is a continuation of the AD 70 events of Revelation 19. The two chapters are showing the AD 70 defeat of the individual beast and the resulting victory of the saints he had killed (cf. Rev. 15:1-4).

Revelation 20 is a continuation of the AD 70 Second Coming and the defeat of the beast that is shown in Revelation 19; it is not a recapitulation back to AD 30. Revelation 20:4 contains a direct reference to the mark of the beast that is discussed in Revelation 13:11-18. This was to happen during the 42 months just prior to the Second Coming; the time of the great tribulation, when the beast was to overcome the saints (13:5-7; cf. Dan. 7:25; 12:1-2, 7). It is the Second Coming at AD 70 that defeats the little horn/individual beast (Dan. 7:21-22); this is when thrones are put in place as the millennium begins (Dan. 7:8-12). This is when the saints killed by the (individual) beast were resurrected, at the AD 70 beginning of the millennium. This was the time of the resurrection of the physical dead, an AD 70 event, not an AD 30 event.

It makes absolutely no sense to say that physically dead believers killed by the (individual) beast were resurrected in AD 30 before they were even killed by him in the time right before the Second Coming! The great tribulation would reach its zenith with the Antichrist’s attack on the Temple (cf. 2 Thess. 2:4). This time of trouble would result in the death of many believers (cf. Rev. 7:9-17; 7:1-10; 15:1-4) who are then resurrected at AD 70 to join with living believers in sitting on thrones (symbolic of the saints inheriting the kingdom of God, cf. Matt 19:28). Again, Daniel 7:21-22 shows the little horn/ beast overcoming the saints, being defeated by the coming of God and then the saints inherit the kingdom.

Daniel 7:21-22
I was watching and the same horn was making war against the saints, and prevailing against them, until the Ancient of Days came, and a judgment was made in favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came for the saints to possess the kingdom.

The sequence is the same in Revelation. The individual beast overcomes the saints during the three and a half year of the great tribulation (Rev. 13:5-7 cf. Dan. 7:25). He is defeated by the Second Coming (Rev. 19:19-20) and then those killed by him come to life to rule with Jesus at the AD 70 beginning of the millennium as the resurrection happens (Rev. 20:4; cf. 11:7-19; Matt 19:28; Rev. 2:26-27; 3:20-21).

The implications of what I have written here are of course far reaching. My studies on Daniel and Revelation have convinced me that James Stuart Russell was right when he maintained that the millennium began (not ended) at the Second Coming in AD 70. I have heard the arguments against this position and they can be answered (I have an 80+ page chapter dedicated to the millennium in my book). It is time for my preterist brethren to quit ignoring Russell’s position on the millennium just because it doesn’t neatly fit everything in before AD 70.

To summarize, the idea of those who were killed by the individual beast being resurrected at the beginning of a supposed AD 30 millennium does not make sense. Revelation 13:11-18 is showing a very specific time period and situation, the time when the beast from the land (later referred to as the false prophet, Rev. 19:20) makes those who dwell on the land take the mark of the individual beast. Those who hold to an AD 30 beginning of the millennium will have to show a pre-AD 30 fulfillment of Revelation 13:11-18 and the mark of the beast. This is impossible; Revelation 13 is talking about the 42 months just prior to the Second Coming (Rev. 13:5-7); it can not legitimately be made to fit a pre AD 30 timeframe (as is necessary if those killed by the individual beast were to be resurrected for an AD 30 beginning of the millennium).

Duncan

NB9M's picture

I'll come clean. I've ALWAYS had a problem with a 40-year millineum. I was (still am, I think) a "full" preterist, but that millineum think continued (and the current state of the Kingdom) continued to nag at me.

In Rev 20, we're told of TWO resurrections. The first one seems to HAVE to have been the "great hope" and the "resurrection of the saints." One commenter pointed out that the 2nd could be our baptism. That sounds great - except that we're told that the 2nd resurrection isn't as desirable as the first (the first requiring sleep in Sheol, the second in a warm baptistry.)

Or, it can be some future event which may or may not be like the first one (with the adversary being loosed for a short time either in the future or now - THAT answers alot of questions about 1948 Israel in my mind.)

In either case, we will have forced the final Judgement into the future, and the adversary has not been thrown into the lake of fire with the beast, etc., but is either in or out of the pit. And, maybe, it messes up the "serpent's head" being crushed.

Dang - now we're back to a compressed millineum between 30 and 70AD.

\

Seeker's picture

The first resurrection was only for those who were killed in the tribulation for Jesus' sake. It was probably spiritual in nature. The second resurrection (and this is a new idea to me) is probably still future and may be physical.

There are two deaths. Those in the first resurrection are never in danger of the second death, but those in the second resurrection are in danger (they must go through a judgement).

The first death we all know is physical

The second death is spiritual (destruction of the soul).

The resurrections are just the opposite.

The first resurrection is spiritual (already happened).

The second resurrection is physical (maybe).

Satan is probably out of the pit. Revelation says Satan was cast out of Heaven (not in the past - the talk of that in the OT was simply a prophecy. He obviously still had access to God in Job) in 30 AD (or there abouts). Being cast out and being bound are two different things. He was bound and put in the pit around 70 AD. He was held there and is either still there or has recently been let out (i.e 1948, 1967, etc.). He's let out for a short time and then is destroyed and the FINAL judgement occurrs.

There's nothing that says he has to be crushed within a certain period of time. For Christ must reign until all his enemies are put under his feet.

Just another theory.

Seeker

Seeker

CapedCrusader's picture

Hi Seeker,

"There's nothing that says he has to be crushed within a certain period of time."

Romans 16:20 Paul says that the serpent was "about to be" crushed under the feet of the first century Romans. Was he? If he wasn't, then Paul is not an inspired apostle. If he was crushed, then the millennium is a past event.

--Batman

Seeker's picture

No, it does not necessarily make the millenium a past event (althought I think the Millennium is a past event - I just believe it started at 70 AD as do all traditional preterists).

It depends on what you mean by crushed. As you probably believe that he was "bound" from ~ 30 ad to 70 ad, he was clearly still at work during that time even though you believe he was bound (probably more so than any other time). He has been crushed by being cast out of heaven, and then bound; he is either out now or will be someday for a short time and will ultimately be destroyed.

Seeker

Seeker

CapedCrusader's picture

Hi Seeker,

You said, "It depends on what you mean by crushed."

I wonder what a serpent thinks when his head is "crushed"? Romans 16:20 was to be the fulfillment of Genesis 3:15.

Respectfully, I laughed when I read this. It reminded me of the futurist saying, "It depends what you mean by soon".;-)

"As you probably believe that he was "bound" from ~ 30 ad to 70 ad, he was clearly still at work during that time even though you believe he was bound (probably more so than any other time)."

Please don't assume my position.

The devil was being bound by Christ during his earthly ministry according to Jesus himself (Matthew 3:27). To say otherwise is to go against Jesus own words.

If Jesus did not defeat death, which by-the-way was the FINAL enemy, then he failed his mission according to Hebrews 2:14-15 and 1 John 3:8.

The devil was thrown into the Lake of Fire after "the thousand years were over" and before heaven and earth fled away according to Revelation 20:7-11.

Yet, you said, "although I think the Millennium is a past event" and "he is either out now or will be someday for a short time and will ultimately be destroyed." Question: Why does it take 2000 years or more for Jesus to accomplish this, and more importantly, for what reason?

Your position is forced to have another coming sometime in the future and goes against 2 Thes 2:8. It is very important to remember that the Bible and it's message is about the plan of redemption. Redemption came at his Parousia in A.D. 70. By having the devil out today, or being released somtime in the future, brings up the question in my mind, "for what purpose?". This totally goes against the plan of redemption and it's biblical timetable. John said, that these things were to shortly take place because the time was near. Revelation 1:1-3.

It is my personal opinion that your position is forced by a 20th century mindset. There is clear first century evidence by Rabbis' themselves of that time period equating the "thousand years" to a forty year period.

Again, I argue this respectfully and by no means desire to bring about ill-will. I just see your position as inconsistent, and I call them as I see them. ;-)

--Batman

Seeker's picture

What do you mean "Don't assume my position"? Is that your position or not?

My idea of him being crushed is not quite as silly as your idea of him being bound. The word for "crushed" is bruised in the OT. It is the same word for what the serpent would do to His heel.

The word in the Romans 16:20 is clearly bruised from where the same word is used in Mat. 12:20

I think you meant Mar. 3:27 (there is not Mat. 3:27). Christ clearly did not come to bind Satan while He was on earth. That is not what the text says.

He was first cast out (whether you believe that was when he sent the 70 out or at Christ's resurrection). He was not bound until 70 ad. He was cast out and he knew his time was short - read Revelation for Heaven's sake. He was then bound at Christ's second coming. The Beast and False Prophet were thrown into the lake of Fire, but Satan is not thrown in until much later.

Why do you keep pointing to what the Jews thought about the Millennium? Read the NT - the Jews got alot of things wrong!

You keep asking "why" and "for what purpose". I don't know that that's for you to know. Why does God's purpose in doing something have to make sense to you?

But, nevertheless, you have made me rethink one thing. As I said, it is just a working theory. If it doesn't work I scrap it and start again. That's how I learn.

Seeker

Seeker

Batman's picture

Hi Seeker,

"What do you mean "Don't assume my position"? Is that your position or not?"

For the record, this is NOT my position. I believe that Satan was being bound within Christ's earthly ministry from A.D. 26 to the cross where he was prevented from the purpose of allowing the gospel to reach the world. Satan was released a few years prior to the Jewish wars with the Romans where he would have one last attempt at destroying the people of God. This is seen throughout the New Testament toward the end of the last days of the Mosaic covenant.

You're right! I meant to quote Matthew 12:29. I was at work and in a hurry when I responded to your message.;-)

"Or how can one enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house."

Jesus was claming to bind the strong man in order to plunder his house. This is very clear!

You said, "Why do you keep pointing to what the Jews thought about the Millennium? Read the NT - the Jews got alot of things wrong!"

All I'm pointing too, is that the concept existed in the first century that 40 years was a concept of a millennium. This gives me cause to posit this as a viable theory based on their own cultural debates and concepts. This is a foreign concept to a 20th century American, but not to a first century Jew.

As Sam Frost so brilliantly points out:

"In 2nd Peter, they were looking forward not to the Millennium, but to the “new heavens and new earth.” This ASSUMES that they were already in the Millennium, if John’s ORDER is followed. Jay Adams made the same observation in "Time Is At Hand".

Second, the Greek text in I Corinthians 15 “for he must reign” is a present infinitive verb, denoting that action is occurring during the time of Paul’s writing....one could say, “for it behooves him to keep reigning until....” This assumes that the “reign” of Christ was a reality, at least from Paul’s perspective, and was not a future reign that was anticipated.

Third, the Greek here is revealing. In Revelation 11:7, the “beast” is described using a present participle: “the beast, the one which is coming up out of the abyss” (literal), will overtake the witnesses and kill them in the “holy city” (11:2). At the END of the Millennium, we find Satan “coming up out of the abyss” and attacking the “beloved city.” Are there two “coming up out of the Abyss’”? Or just one? If the beast is described as the one coming out of abyss, then it is assumed that he is, currently, at the time of John’s writing, IN THE ABYSS! This is the Millennial period. The parallel is Revelation 9 (out of the abyss), Rev. 11 (out of the abyss), and Rev. 20 the end of the millennium (out of the abyss). There is only ONE coming out of the abyss. This would be when all hell broke loose for a “time, times, and half a times.”

In this same vein, Revelation 17 is most descriptive, assuming this thesis to be correct. The beast is again descibed as “was” and “is not” (present verb “estin”) and “is ABOUT to come up out of the abyss!” (literal - kai MELLEI anabainein ek tes abussou). The Greek word MELLO (about to) is used! The beast, in the time of John, “was” because he reigned, but “now is not” because he is in the abyss, but he is ABOUT TO COME UP from the abyss (Revelation 20) and wreak havoc on “the great city.” This PROVES that John was writing during the Millennium! Take that with the dating issue, the Babylon/Jerusalem issue, and the Revelation 11 destruction, and you get the millennium between the ministry of Christ, John’s present AD 70 position, and the destruction of the “Great City” by the beast from the abyss relating to Jerusalem.

John is quite explicit in the fact that he is in the Millennium awaiting the beast to come up out of the abyss, and is looking forward to, as 2nd Peter, the next event is the new heavens and new earth."

This is absolutely devasting evidence to a future "Millennium"!

--Batman

--Batman

NB9M's picture

Well-said, Batman - great points. I'm still wavering here; all because of my inability to accept a "compressed millineum." Like Seeker, I have no great love for the words of the rabbi - however, what proofs do they have to offer that 1000 years meant 40 years to the first-century "Jew" (I prefer "Israelite" because "Jew" was specific to the House of Judah)?

One apparent problem with the idea that the 1st resurrection was the resurrection of the saints, and that a future resurrection will occur after a present-day millineum:

Revelation 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

But, this passage can be read two ways: it can refer to the previous verse (thus forcing the 1st resurrection as being premillineal) or verse 5 (thus placing it afterward.)

For His Kingdom,Brad

\

Seeker's picture

I don't have time to respond right now, but just let me say, you keep speaking of a future millennium. I don't believe in a future millennium.

Seeker

Seeker

Batman's picture

Cool!

--Batman

NB9M's picture

Seeker: these are exactly the same thoughts going through MY mind (and, based on the buzz in the preterist movement, we're not alone.) Thanks very much for taking the time to share it.

Of course, the implications of this are mind-boggling. If Satan is out of the pit, and His people are being deceived, then WHO are His people today, and WHO are the deceivers... I look at today's "Israelites" and the "believers" feeding their Zionist system - better stop there.

For His Kingdom,
-Brad

\

Duncan's picture

Hey Brad,

I wasn't going to comment on this article becuase it takes a lot of time. Let me just make a quick comment however. Starting the millennium at AD 70 does not push the final judgment into the future. Read James Stuart Russell (the Parousia) on this. His position is that the seeming two throne scenes judgments in Rev. 20:4 and 11-15 are really one (AD 70) throne scene and judgment with a parentetical statement (Rev. 20:7-10) inbteween (of what happens to Satan at the end of the millennium). I have an article on this that I may get around to posting one of these days. Anyway check Russell out on this.

Duncan

Seeker's picture

Duncan,

The only problem I see with it being one judgement is the rest of the dead were not raised until after the millenium. The first resurrection was for those tribulation saints - that has already occurred. The second resurrection is not just for unsaved or unjust people; it is for everyone else that was not a tribulation saint. That includes all people, good and bad. That's why there is a judgement.

Actually I'm not sure there needed to be a judgement for the first resurrection. They were declared righteous because they were killed for their testimony to Jesus. So there could only be one judgement, but it has to be at the second resurrection.

Seeker

Seeker

NB9M's picture

I have to agree with you on this. Revelation 20 is clear enough on the Judgment of the living and dead. Those of the first resurrection need not face the judgment.

Question: were those alive, and in Christ, "changed" then into the same kind of body as those who were resurrected?

\

Seeker's picture

That's a good question. I'm just now trying to put all this together, so I'm not sure. I suppose this would mean one would have to believe in a rapture. When I read Ed Stevens paper on the subject, I kept thinking maybe they were raptured and their bodies just fell dead. There was alot of that going on, so it would seem as strange al many people disappearing.

OR

Does this rapture/changeing of our bodies occur at the end of the 1000 years (figurative for a long time) at the FINAL judgement? This might explain why Paul says He returns WITH some of the saints. Could these be the Saints that were resurrected in 70 AD? Will we meet them in the clouds.

If this is the case then I guess it makes me a partial preterist - the second coming, the first resurrection, and the millenium all happened in 70 AD. The FINAL judgement, the second resurrection, and the destruction of Satan might occur any day now.

I don't care about labels - whether I'm a Partial/traditional Preterist or a full/hyper Preterist. I just want to know the truth.

Seeker

Seeker

NB9M's picture

Amen. Our love of Truth has gotten us this far.

\

Barry's picture

I have not yet (nor perhaps any time soon will), studied extensively all of the details of this topic. As of yet it has not been a priority. So don’t ask me too get into too many details right now, LOL.
In any case allow me to express a concept that you may or may not consider.

Most of the problems of interpretation can be consistently traced down to a single source, which is, “It was meant to be seen in and through its covenantal implications”.

2 questions then come to bear.
1) Is Rome on some level a part of what is happening in Revelation?
2) Was Rome in some way destroyed in AD 70?

The answer in my mind to both of these questions is yes.
John 19:15
“The chief priests answered, WE HAVE NO KING BUT CAESAR”
This is how they got Christ crucified and it is how they are going to get the Christians persecuted.
They have covenantally made Caesar their king. He has been attached to that which is “made with hands”.

Jesus being the king of Israel is also shown to be king of kings, which is manifested covenantally in AD 70. Rome had become attached to apostate Israel in the outworking of covenant eschatology.
All things are fulfilled in AD 70. Whatever kings that Rome could produce would never stand in the same covenantal position as or covenantal standing for there would be no more Israel after the flesh to covenantally form this “idol” made with hands.
All Nebuchadnezzars are destroyed in AD 70. We are in God’s new age since then.

Admittedly, this concept needs further development.

Peace Barry

we are all in this together

ThomasS's picture

Duncan,

I really don't see why you insist on identifying the fourth beast in Dan 7 with the beast from the sea in Rev 13. I will, however, thank you for pointing out that the "little horn" is an eighth ruler. That is, indeed, very interesting.

Now, let me again play the role of the devil's advocate -- please consider the following:

(1) Why is it that the author of 1 John speaks of several antichrists, not only one?

(2) If the idea of "THE antichrist" is Biblical, where is it clearly thought in Scripture?

(3) Why is a reference to a "little horn" lacking in the Book of Revelation?

I think it can be demonstrated that the fourth beast in Dan 7 cannot be identified with the beast from the sea in Rev 13 (as pointed out by scholars like R.T. Beckwith) – so, in order to make a case for your interpretation I will advise you to provide us with answers to at least the most common objection to any identification of the fourth beast in Dan 7 with John's sea beast. But if your book has 700 pages, you probably have done that already. By the way, I think I have figured out your candidate for "THE antichrist" -- but I will keep my mouth sealed! :)

I am looking forward to reading part 2 of your essay.

Best wishes

Thomas S.

RevelationMan's picture

Duncan,

In my book, A Personal Revelation, I address some of these issues. I believe the little horn is Nero. In Daniel 7:8, he removes or demotes 3 of the ten horns. Nero removed Azizas and replaced him with Soemus, Aristobulus the son of Herod was entrusted with Lesser Armenia, and Agrippa was given parts of Galilee, Tiberias, Tarichae, and Julias. Nero also persecuted Christians for 3 1/2 years.

If I understand Revelation 17 correctly, Rome persecutes Jesus' followers for the time period I mentioned above, then they turn their attention to the prostitute/harlot and go after her. This is a reference to Rome and her provinces going after Jerusalem.

As I have stated in many articles elsewhere, I believe the Second Coming of Jesus was the 3 1/2 year period beginning sometime around March of 67 and culminating with the destruction of Jerusalem in August/September of 70.

I believe that the first death, burial, & resurrection refer to becoming a Christian in baptism. That is why the second death has no power over them. Like you, I believe that "The Resurrection" occurred in 70, and I think it happened on The Feast of Trumpets. Just my opinion.

Eric Fugett

Eric Fugett

ThomasS's picture

Eric Fugett,

It would seem to me that you identify the fourth kingdom in the Book of Daniel with the Roman Empire. Now, do you think that the fourth kingdom was destroyed in the first century CE?

Best wishes

Thomas S.

RevelationMan's picture

I believe there are two beasts in Revelation. The beast of the sea refers to the Roman Empire, while the beast of the earth refers to Israel. Perhaps this is why Daniel 2 says that the last kingdom in the statue is partly of iron (Rome) & partly of clay or earth (Israel).

Eric Fugett

ThomasS's picture

RevelationMan,

Please consider the following facts:

(1) According to Daniel (ch. 2) the fourth part of the statue (= the fourth kingdom) was destroyed when the stone arrived. Would you say this happen in the first century CE?

(2) According to Daniel 2, the fourth kingdom would be a divided kingdom. In Dan 7, one single beast symbolises the fourth kingdom. Why would John contradict Dan 7?

Best wishes

Thomas S.

RevelationMan's picture

Hi Thomas,

I guess my question is, who do you see the 4th beast as being? Who were the other 3 kingdoms for that matter? Was there an 11th horn or did the other rise up from among the 10? Who were the kings of Revelation 17:9-11? Why were there 10 kings (Rev. 17:12-13) who would only rule for one hour & who were they? If I understand where you are coming from then perhaps I can understand what you are trying to get me to see.

Thanks,
Eric Fugett

Eric Fugett

ThomasS's picture

Eric Fuget,

I see you refuse to answer my questions. Fine! I have no problems answering yours:

(1) The fourth kingdom in the Book of Daniel should be related to the Syrian king Antiochus IV; he is the "little horn". As to the rest of the kingdoms, I advocate the same sequence as e.g. J.-M. Lagrange, M. Stuart, O. Zöckler, G. Rinaldi etc.

(2) Yes, there was an 11th horn (= Antiochus IV). According to Daniel, the fourth beast had 10 horns. The 11th, little, horn came later.

(3) The kings of Rev 17:9-11 were probably important Roman Emperors (see M. Baker's commentary).

(4) John got the number 10 from Dan 7 (we have to remember that the beast in Rev 13:1f. and Rev 17 is a composition of all the four beasts in Dan 7). The 10 horns could be identified with Roman Emperors (pace P. Prigent, J. H. Ulrichsen). For the relationship between the 10 horns and the 7 heads, see D. Aune's big commentary. There you will also find a reference to J. H. Ulrichsen's article.

Now, perhaps you will address the following problem: When was, according to you, the fourth beast destroyed?

Best wishes

Thomas S.

Islamaphobe's picture

Thomas,

Re point (1) above, I shall deal with your argument as soon as I can find the time to do so properly in an article, perhaps in a month. Re point (2), the 11th horn is obviously contemporaneous with at least three of the ten since no. 11 uproots three of the ten. Re point (4), I do agree that the ten horns of Rev 17 could be Roman emperors. I am not convinced by the arguments presented by Chilton and Simmons that the ten horns are contemporaneous with the seven heads and should be regarded as the regional rulers of the ten Roman provinces in the first century AD. I have great respect for both of these authors but am not convinced on this point.

Consider Rev 17:12 (NIV): "The ten horns you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but who for one hour will receive authority as kings along with the beast." That to me does not rule out the possibility that the ten could be later Roman imperial rulers than the seven. The seven, incidentally, are actually ten if you understand, as I do, that "an eighth king" in Rev 17:11 is Vespasian. I would like to see a full citation to the work by D. Aune, and thanks for dropping the name. I shall look it up. The ten of 17:12 need not be a literal ten but could refer to ten meaning "many."

I think you are correct in detecting a problem with arguments made by those, including myself, who believe that the fourth kingdom of Daniel is Rome with regard to how they deal with the end of the fourth kingdom. In my view, a plausible argument can be made with the preterist system that both Dan 2 and 7 allow for the interpretation that the fourth empire is not fully destroyed politically in the first century AD. I am not going to spell out that argument here since this is only a comment. I'll be glad to argue about it with you via email.

John S. Evans

ThomasS's picture

John S. Evans,

Ad (1): I am looking forward to your take on Daniel 8; especially the Hebrew syntax of v. 9. I trust that the article will be published here (at "Planet Preterist").

Ad (2): According to Daniel 7:7b, the fourth beast had 10 horns. Later, we are told that there was an 11th horn as well. But as you have said, the 11th horn seems to be contemporaneous with 3 of the 10 horns. Obviously, other interpretations are possible. But as I think the 11th horn is Antiochus IV, I tend to agree with you here.

Ad (4): Nice to see that we agree on one thing! However, why do you identify the ten horns in Dan 7 differently from the way you identify them in Rev 13 and 17. As you insist on identifying the beast "from the sea" in Rev 13 (cf. Rev 17) with the fourth kingdom in Dan 7, that seems somewhat inconsistent -- at least to me.

I am not able to see how "[t]he seven, incidentally, are actually ten". And I see absolutely no reason to identify Vespasian as "an eight king".

David E. Aune: Revelation 17-22. (WBC 52 C) Waco: Word Books, 1998.

I am not arguing against the preterist system per se; it's the one system with the Roman Empire as the fourth beast in the Book of Daniel that does not make any sense (to me). There is nothing in the Book of Daniel suggesting that the fourth kingdom would rise even stronger after the coming of the Messiah. Rome reached the zenith of its power long after 70 CE.

There are, of course, many other reasons for rejecting an identification of the fourth kingdom with the Roman Empire, but that is a subject for a whole monograph!

Best regards

Thomas S.

RevelationMan's picture

Thomas,

I did not mean to be antagonistic. I simply wanted to understand where you were coming from.
And you are right, I did avoid answering your question until I understood where you were coming from.

In my opinion, the third beast of Daniel 7 represents Alexander & Greece. If so, then don’t the four heads represent the four divisions that the empire was divided into after his death? And if I’m not mistaken, didn’t Antiochus come out of that? Isn’t that what chapter 8 is elaborating on?

As for my take on the rock that struck the statue, I see that as the establishment of the church beginning at Pentecost & coming to full fruition as the sole kingdom of God after the destruction in 70. Christianity spread & filled the whole earth from that point in time, including those former empires. And as predicted, those empires have dissipated & been blown away.

So if, Syria is the 4th kingdom, then what is the stone?

Eric Fugett

ThomasS's picture

Eric Fugett,

I am not able to see why you could not answer my question before you 'understood where I was coming from'. Not answering my question was, however, your prerogative.

You wrote:

>

You may very well identify the third beast in Daniel 7 with Alexander's Greek empire. I am, however, not able to see any reason to identify the four heads with the four divisions of the Macedonian empire. According to the book of Daniel, Alexander's Greek empire was succeeded by four new kingdoms.

You wrote:

>

If you look closely at the Hebrew syntax of Dan 8, especially v. 9, you will see that Daniel, in fact, dislocates the "little horn" from the he-goat. Now, if you agree that the little horn in Dan 8 is Antiochus IV, why all the fuss about Rome being the fourth beast? Obviously, Daniel has provided us with the key to the identity of the fourth kingdom: the identity of the little horn!

You also wrote

>

The problem with this interpretation is, of course, that the fourth kingdom was destroyed *before* the arrival of one like the son of a man/the stone kingdom.

Finally, you ask:

>

From a Christian perspective, the stone could be identified with the Messiah (Jesus).

Hope this helps!

Regards

Thomas S.

RevelationMan's picture

You wrote:

Eric Fugett,

I am not able to see why you could not answer my question before you 'understood where I was coming from'. Not answering my question was, however, your prerogative.

My answer: As I stated, I just wanted to know where you were coming from so that I could answer your questions to the best of my ability.

You wrote:

>

You may very well identify the third beast in Daniel 7 with Alexander's Greek empire. I am, however, not able to see any reason to identify the four heads with the four divisions of the Macedonian empire. According to the book of Daniel, Alexander's Greek empire was succeeded by four new kingdoms.

My answer: From the way I read both chapters 7 & 8, Alexander is the prominent one of the Greek Empire, but the other 4 that come after him are still a part of the Greek Empire. Therefore Antiochus is still associated with the Greek Empire.

You wrote:

>

If you look closely at the Hebrew syntax of Dan 8, especially v. 9, you will see that Daniel, in fact, dislocates the "little horn" from the he-goat. Now, if you agree that the little horn in Dan 8 is Antiochus IV, why all the fuss about Rome being the fourth beast? Obviously, Daniel has provided us with the key to the identity of the fourth kingdom: the identity of the little horn!

My answer: Again, if we agree that chapter 7 & chapter 8 are talking about the Greek Empire, then the four come after Alexander are still a part of the Greek Empire. In chapter 8, Alexander is simply the prominent horn of that empire. Therefore, as I stated above, Antiochus is still apart of that empire. Thus the 4th kingdom is Rome.

You also wrote

>

The problem with this interpretation is, of course, that the fourth kingdom was destroyed *before* the arrival of one like the son of a man/the stone kingdom.

My answer: Was the 4th kingdom destroyed or the individual (Nero) destroyed with the 2nd Coming of Jesus? If Jesus first came in 67 AD/CE as I proposed then Nero’s death comes shortly after that.

Finally, you ask:

>

From a Christian perspective, the stone could be identified with the Messiah (Jesus).

Hope this helps!

My answer: From a Christian perspective, the Stone was the establishment of another kingdom. That would definitely be the Church.

Eric

Eric Fugett

ThomasS's picture

Eric Fugett,

You wrote:

>

Your interpretation lacks support from the texts in question:

First, the third beast is said to have four heads, nor four (or, indeed, five) horns. Still, you argue for an identification of the four heads in Dan 7 with the four horns in Dan 8. On the other hand, you refuse to identify the little horn in Dan 7 with the little horn in Dan 8. So much for consistency!

Second, a careful reading of the Hebrew syntax in Dan 8:9 demonstrates that the little horn is dislocated from the Greek he-goat, which, again, indicates that in Dan 8, the little horn represents a fourth secular power. The "little horn" is Antiochus IV.

According to the explanation given in Dan 8:22, the four horns represent "four [new] kingdoms". They originated after the death of Alexander the Great, after the fall of his empire:

"Then a warrior king [= Alexander the Great] shall arise, who shall rule with great dominion and take action as he pleases. And while still rising in power, his kingdom [= the Greek empire of Alexander the Great] shall be broken [!] and divided toward the four winds of heaven, but not to his posterity, nor according to the dominion with which he ruled; for his kingdom [= the Greek empire of Alexander the Great] shall be uprooted [!] and go to others [= the 'diadochoi'] besides these." (Dan 11:3-4, NRSV)

You wrote:

>

You are in error. The Hebrew of Dan 8:9 makes it clear that the little horn is dislocated from the Greek empire. This is confirmed by Dan 11:3-4; it is also confirmed by the fact that the time of the 'diadochoi' was considered an era (cf. 1 and 2 Macc).

You also wrote:

>

First, the very idea of a second coming of Christ is alien to the Book of Daniel. Second, according to Dan 7, the fourth beast was destroyed before the coming of one like the son of a man before the Ancient One. Obviously, the Roman Empire was not destroyed before 70 CE. In fact, it grew more powerful *after* 70 CE.

Finally, you wrote:

>

I can, of course, accept an identification of the Stone with the Church of Christ. In Dan 2, we do not have a distinction between "king" and "empire"; the two terms are obviously closely related. However, the Roman Empire was not destroyed before the Church was established. So, again, your idea of Rome as the fourth kingdom fails to convince.

Regards

Thomas S.

Islamaphobe's picture

I know very little about Hebrew (or Aramaic, for that matter), but I do know that plenty of people who do know Hebrew dispute your understanding of Daniel 8:9, and I shall deal with that matter--which you have mentioned about half a dozen times on this site--in my next article posted here. Relevant to the understanding of this verse is whether or not your understanding of it makes contextual sense, and I insist that it does not. I shall limit my comments on the matter at this time to the following point. You insist that the fourth "kingdom" of Daniel comes out of the third; i.e. Alexander's "Greece" in your scheme. Alexander's "Greece" came to an end with his death in 323 BC. Both Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 indicate that the first three kingdoms of the sequence survive in some sense into the time of the fourth. That point is made explicitly in 7:12, and I believe it is implied by the fact that when the statue is destroyed in Daniel 2, the top three portions of it are still intact. On this point, see my book, pp. 113-16. Even in your understanding of Daniel 7, which has Antiochus IV as the little horn, the kingdom of Alexander, which is your third kingdom, is gone by the time of Antiochus. That interpretation conflicts with the idea of the survival of the third kingdom until the time of the destruction of the fourth.

I've got to leave it at this for the time being. Thanks for posting your ideas on this site, Thomas. They help to keep me on my toes.

John S. Evans

ThomasS's picture

Dear John S. Evans,

As a linguist I am very much interested in your take on Dan 8:9 from a linguistic point of view. It is my understanding that the text here is rather complicated.

I have no problems with the first three kingdoms surviving "in some sense" (!) until they all (including the fourth) are destroyed. The major point is that all four kingdoms were destroyed before the coming of the Messiah and that they were destroyed because of His coming.

I am not able to see how you have a better explanation for this than what is offered in various commentaries on the Book of Daniel. Basically, you are attributing an understanding that I do not advocate. Therefore your argument has no bearing on me. (I have never argued that Alexander's Greek empire lasted until the end of the fourth empire. His empire ended with his death, as pointed out in the Book of Daniel.) However, that does not mean that his kingdom was destroyed. Culturally, it did continue. In fact, almost all parts of European (and therefore most parts of American) civilisation are influenced by the ancient Greek culture.

I think the key to an understanding of why all part of the statue are destroyed at the same time, is to be found in Dan 2 and that the explanation is theological, rather than historical.

I am, of course, still looking forward to the second part of your article on Dan 7 and 8.

Best wishes

Thomas S.

Islamaphobe's picture

When do you sleep? My problem with your response is that while I certainly agreee that the first three kingdoms continue "in some sense;" i.e. cultural, possibly political in some minor way, I do not see how you can have BOTH the kingdom of Alexander and the kingdoms that succeeded Alexander continuing in that sense without having them be the SAME kingdom. As for your statement that the four kingdoms are destroyed BEFORE the coming of the Messiah, I flatly disagree.

I look forward to more exchanges in the future. This is my last post to Duncan's article.

J. Evans

ThomasS's picture

I never sleep :)

According to Jewish thought, the era of the diadochoi was different from the era of Alexander the Great. According to the Book of Daniel, the diadochoi were new kingdoms.

I am sure we'll meet again!

Thomas S.

RevelationMan's picture

Thomas,

For whatever reason, what you are responding to does not show up? At any rate, I gave you my explanation of how the stone broke up the other kingdoms in one of the prior responses. Your interpretation does not explain how the stone strikes at the time of the 4th empire. Your "empire" occurred a couple of hundred years before that happens.

Also, the way that Daniel 8:8 reads, It is not the goat (Greece) that is broken off, but its prominent horn (Alexander). He is replaced with 4 prominent horns from one of which comes Antiochus(vs 9). Thus, as I have stated before, Antiochus springs from the third, not the fourth empire.

Eric Fugett

ThomasS's picture

Eric,

Dan 2 does not indicate that the stone arrives at the time of the fourth kingdom *per se*. According to Daniel, this would happen in the days of "these kings" = "these [four] kingdoms" (= all four kingdoms). Thus, the coming of the stone does not influence the fourth part more than the first three parts of the statue. Obviously, the meaning here is theological, not chronological (although a chronology might be adduced).

According to Dan 7, however, the coming of one like the son of a man happens after the fall of the fourth kingdom. Dan 7 does not say that the fourth kingdom would be even more powerful and continue for centuries after the killing of the little horn. Dan 7 does not even suggest that the fourth kingdom would continue to exist after the "kingdom" was given to the holy ones of the Most High. All of this happens after the fall of the fourth kingdom. True, it is not said when (how long after the fall of the fourth kingdom) it would happen. Nevertheless, the chronological order is clear: first end of fourth kingdom, then coming of one like the son of a man with the holy ones inheriting the kingdom.

There seems to be a problem with your reading of Dan 8:9. An English translation will not help you, as you do not have grammatical gender in English. In Hebrew, however, "them" (in "out of them") does not correspond to "horns", but to "winds" (= four cardinal points of the compass)... See my point?

The parallelism between Daniel 2, 7, and 8 clearly shows that the little horn represents a new power, viz. the fourth power of the previous visions.

Best wishes

Thomas S.

RevelationMan's picture

Thomas,
We obviously disagree on many points. The stone struck the statue in the feet of IRON & CLAY. That is the 4th kingdom that it struck.

Secondly, I have an Aramaic Peshitta version, and the Zondervan Bible Study Library 5.0 Scholar's Edition (software for EASY searching of the Greek or Hebrew) and I don't see anything different from what I've already said. I also do not see what you keep claiming is there about the four that break off from Alexander starting the next kingdom.

So let me repeat this one last time. The way that Daniel 8:8 reads, It is not the goat (Greece) that is broken off, but its prominent horn (Alexander). He is replaced with 4 prominent horns from one of which comes Antiochus(vs 9). Thus, as I have stated before, Antiochus springs from the third, not the fourth empire. Perhaps the problem is with your version of Daniel.

As I have also stated above, the Church is the Stone or kingdom that fills the whole earth. This happened over time. With Jesus' 2nd Coming & the Church being pronounced as the sole kingdom of God, Nero & the Flavian reign ended & over time so did Rome. All of the empires were allowed to continue on for a time (Daniel 7:12), but it is eventually the Church that remains while the others are swept away Daniel 2:34-35.

By the way, the Aramaic Peshitta says in verse 45 that these things will come to pass in the latter (last) days. I think Preterists tend to agree on when the last days were.

Always seeking the truth,
Eric

Eric Fugett

ThomasS's picture

Unfortunately, parts of my last message has disappeared. I really don't know. Perhaps it is due to the use of ">".

Let me try again:

-----------------------

Eric

You wrote:

"The stone struck the statue in the feet of IRON & CLAY. That is the 4th kingdom that it struck."

Now, this literal reading does not help your identification of the fourth kingdom very much, does it? You have to remember that Roman Empire was not destroyed in the first century CE, not by a long shot! In fact, it grew more and more powerful and lasted for several centuries after 70 CE.

Second, according to the explanation of the dream (which necessarily would be in harmony with the vision), the stone kingdom was established "in the days of these kings", meaning in the days of all the four empires. The implication of this is that all kingdoms were equally destroyed by the stone kingdom; corresponding to the fact that all parts of the statue were crushed simultaneously (according to the Aramaic of Dan 2:35, cf. v. 45). What we have in Dan 2, is a classic example of so-called apocalyptic chronography. The meaning is theological (cf. Dan 2:21): The sequence of the four gentile kingdoms will be broken before the Messianic kingdom will be established; and in this way the Messianic kingdom (the stone kingdom) is the reason for their downfall. This is why all parts of the statue is destroyed at the same time.

Again, your interpretation seems to be in conflict with Dan 2 (and, of course, the rest of the Book of Daniel).

You wrote:

"I have an Aramaic Peshitta version, and the Zondervan Bible Study Library 5.0 Scholar's Edition (software for EASY searching of the Greek or Hebrew) and I don't see anything different from what I've already said. I also do not see what you keep claiming is there about the four that break off from Alexander starting the next kingdom."

First, Dan 8 (MT) is written in Hebrew. The Peshitta version will not help you here, although this translation (for other reasons), much like the LXX, Aquila, or the Th, could be very interesting. Unfortunately, I don't have access to this Bible tool, but perhaps you can make the Syriac text of Daniel 8 available to us? Either way, I will take a look at R. A. Taylor's study of "the Peshitta of Daniel". I do, however, not think the Peshitta will be very useful here. It's only a translation, and it's younger than e.g. the LXX/OG and Th.

Second, I don't know if you have any formal training in reading/studying Biblical Hebrew. But if you are able to read some Hebrew, you should be able to see my point regarding the syntax of Dan 8:9.

You wrote:

"The way that Daniel 8:8 reads, It is not the goat (Greece) that is broken off, but its prominent horn (Alexander). He is replaced with 4 prominent horns from one of which comes Antiochus (vs 9). Thus, as I have stated before, Antiochus springs from the third, not the fourth empire. Perhaps the problem is with your version of Daniel."

I would like you to notice the following facts:

(1) I have never said that the he-goat is broken off.

(2) You simply are wrong when you argue that Antiochus IV (= the little horn) comes from one of the four "prominent horns". Where did you get that idea?

As to my point # (2), I have asked you to take a look at the Hebrew syntax in v. 9. Have you done that? If you had done that, I would have expected you to see the following 'problem':

Out of one [Hebrew "umin-ha'ahat " = a feminine form] of them [Hebrew " mehem " = a masculine form] came another horn, a little one, which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the beautiful land. (Dan 8:9, NRSV)

The Hebrew word for 'horn' ("qrn") is feminine. Thus "of them" (= of + a masculine form) cannot be indicating "of the four horns" (= of + a feminine form). If you are arguing against this, you will have to be able to account for the lack of gender congruence. If we, however, just stick to the text, we have two possibilities (which, basically, have the same implication):

"them" (in "of them") = "the [four] winds" or "the heavens" (in v. 8).

The main point here is that, grammatically, the antecedent of "them" cannot be "horns". And there goes your interpretation…

As the "one" (in "Out of one") could be referring to the winds (winds is feminine), we have the following possible outline of the syntax of Dan 8:9:

Out of one [= wind] of them [= heavens] came another horn.

Thus, according to the Hebrew in v. 9, the little horn originates from one of the four directions of the compass (literal: "one wind of the heavens), not from one of the divisions of the Greek Empire (one of the four horns), suggesting that it is another empire. In this way, Daniel has dislocated Antiochus IV form Alexander's kingdom!

You wrote:

"As I have also stated above, the Church is the Stone or kingdom that fills the whole earth. This happened over time. With Jesus' 2nd Coming & the Church being pronounced as the sole kingdom of God, Nero & the Flavian reign ended & over time so did Rome. All of the empires were allowed to continue on for a time (Daniel 7:12), but it is eventually the Church that remains while the others are swept away Daniel 2:34-35."

Not so according to Daniel!

(1) The fourth kingdom was destroyed before the coming of one like the son of man (cf. Dan 7:9-11, 13-14).

(2) Nowhere does Daniel indicate that the fourth kingdom would stay alive after the coming of one like the son of man. The text in Dan 7:11-12 indicates that the fourth kingdom was stripped for authority and killed at the same time! Nowhere does Daniel argue that the first three kingdoms would continue to live after the fall of the fourth kingdom. It is only said that they were not killed at once; corresponding to all parts of the statue of Dan 2 being crushed at the same time

(3) According to Daniel, the stone crushes the whole statue at the same time. The destruction is total (Dan 2:35). Afterwards, the stone becomes a mountain filling the earth.

If you are correct, then one should expect the stone and the parts of the statue to co-exist for a long time. We should expect that it was the change from stone to mountain that destroyed the statue. But Daniel does not say that. We should also expect the fourth beast to continue and become stronger after the judgement scene in Dan 7:9-11. But that is not what Daniel tells us, is it?

Finally, you wrote:

"By the way, the Aramaic Peshitta says in verse 45 that these things will come to pass in the latter (last) days. I think Preterists tend to agree on when the last days were."

According to classic preterists like Moses Stuart, the "end time" and "the latter days" in the Book of Daniel, are referring to the end of the tyranny implemented by Antiochus IV. As any serious Hebrew-Aramaic lexicon of the OT will tell you, terms like "latter days" and "end time" can have different meanings depending on the context.

Regards

Thomas S.

ThomasS's picture

Eric

You wrote:

>

Now, this literal reading does not help your identification of the fourth kingdom very much, does it? You have to remember that the Roman Empire was not destroyed in the first century CE, not by a long shot! In fact, it grew more and more powerful and lasted for several centuries after 70 CE.

Second, according to the explanation of the dream (which necessarily would be in harmony with the vision), the stone kingdom was established "in the days of these kings", meaning in the days of all the four empires. The implication of this is that all kingdoms were equally destroyed by the stone kingdom; corresponding to the fact that all parts of the statue were crushed simultaneously (according to the Aramaic of Dan 2:35, cf. v. 45). What we have in Dan 2, is a classic example of so-called apocalyptic chronography. The meaning is theological (cf. Dan 2:21): The sequence of the four gentile kingdoms will be broken before the Messianic kingdom will be established; and in this way the Messianic kingdom (the stone kingdom) is the reason for their downfall. This is why all parts of the statue is destroyed at the same time.

Again, your interpretation seems to be in conflict with Dan 2 (and, of course, the rest of the Book of Daniel).

You wrote:

>

First, Dan 8 (MT) is written in Hebrew. The Peshitta version will not help you here, although this translation (for other reasons), much like the LXX, Aquila, or the Th, could be very interesting. Unfortunately, I don't have access to this Bible tool, but perhaps you can make the Syriac text of Daniel 8 available to us? Either way, I will take a look at R. A. Taylor's study of "the Peshitta of Daniel". I do, however, not think the Peshitta will be very useful here. It's only a translation, and it's younger than e.g. the LXX/OG and Th.

Second, I don't know if you have any formal training in reading/studying Biblical Hebrew. But if you are able to read some Hebrew, you should be able to see my point regarding the syntax of Dan 8:9.

You wrote:

>

I would like you to notice the following facts:

(1) I have never said that the he-goat is broken off.

(2) You simply are wrong when you argue that Antiochus IV (= the little horn) comes from one of the four "prominent horns". Where did you get that idea?

As to my point # (2), I have asked you to take a look at the Hebrew syntax in v. 9. Have you done that? If you had done that, I would have expected you to see the following 'problem':

Out of one [Hebrew "umin-ha'ahat " = a feminine form] of them [Hebrew " mehem " = a masculine form] came another horn, a little one, which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the beautiful land. (Dan 8:9, NRSV)

The Hebrew word for 'horn' ("qrn") is feminine. Thus "of them" (= of + a masculine form) cannot be indicating "of the four horns" (= of + a feminine form). If you are arguing against this, you will have to be able to account for the lack of gender congruence. If we, however, just stick to the text, we have two possibilities (which, basically, have the same implication):

"them" (in "of them") = "the [four] winds" or "the heavens" (in v. 8).

The main point here is that, grammatically, the antecedent of "them" cannot be "horns". And there goes your interpretation…

As the "one" (in "Out of one") could be referring to the winds (winds is feminine), we have the following possible outline of the syntax of Dan 8:9:

Out of one [= wind] of them [= heavens] came another horn.

Thus, according to the Hebrew in v. 9, the little horn originates from one of the four directions of the compass (literal: "one wind of the heavens), not from one of the divisions of the Greek Empire (one of the four horns), suggesting that it is another empire. In this way, Daniel has dislocated Antiochus IV form Alexander's kingdom!

You wrote:

>

Not so according to Daniel!

(1) The fourth kingdom was destroyed before the coming of one like the son of man (cf. Dan 7:9-11, 13-14).

(2) Nowhere does Daniel indicate that the fourth kingdom would stay alive after the coming of one like the son of man. The text in Dan 7:11-12 indicates that the fourth kingdom was stripped for authority and killed at the same time! Nowhere does Daniel argue that the first three kingdoms would continue to live after the fall of the fourth kingdom. It is only said that they were not killed at once; corresponding to all parts of the statue of Dan 2 being crushed at the same time

(3) According to Daniel, the stone crushes the whole statue at the same time. The destruction is total (Dan 2:35). Afterwards, the stone becomes a mountain filling the earth.

If you are correct, then one should expect the stone and the parts of the statue to co-exist for a long time. We should expect that it was the change from stone to mountain that destroyed the statue. But Daniel does not say that. We should also expect the fourth beast to continue and become stronger after the judgement scene in Dan 7:9-11. But that is not what Daniel tells us, is it?

Finally, you wrote:

>

According to classic preterists like Moses Stuart, the "end time" and "the latter days" in the Book of Daniel, are referring to the end of the tyranny implemented by Antiochus IV. As any serious Hebrew-Aramaic lexicon of the OT will tell you, terms like "latter days" and "end time" can have different meanings depending on the context.

Regards

Thomas S.

chrisliv's picture

Yeah,

The article follows along well.

I've always thought of Christ's fully-established Kingdom/Millennium as formally commencing with the destruction of old Jerusalem, or possible as early as Christ's appointing of the Twelve, or the sending out of the Seventy, and to signify far more than a literal 1000 year period.

Either way, I've always thought it strange when some Preterists suggested that Christ's Kingdom/Millennium was compressed between 30-70 AD.

We know from the text of only one Gospel account (Matthew 27:53) that there was a limited resurrection of some recently departed (not necessarily marytred) saints who appeared after Christ's own crucifixion and resurrection, which had some sort of "sign value," as they bodily went into Jerusalem and they presumable lived for some while before dying again of natural causes.

Your suggestion about a 70 AD resurrection seems fitting enough, from the text. But the scripture gives no past tense reference to it, like at Mat. 27:53, i.e., approx number and location of those resurrected or names even. So it may be difficult to confirm as much if you're talking about a bodily resurrection, much like those few Preterists who propose a 70 AD Rapture, unless there is some historical or extra-biblical reference to it.

I'd be interested to hear more along this line if you plan to share another segment on this topic, because it does seem fitting enough.

Peace to you,
C. Livingstone

Recent comments

Poll

Should we allow Anonymous users to comment on Planet Preterist articles?
Yes absolutely
23%
No only registered users should comment
77%
What are you talking about?
0%
Total votes: 43