"Friendship with the world"

by Schizm 108 Replies latest jw friends

Schizm

Neon,
First of all, I apologize for not having gotten back with you sooner with a reply.
I personally have no difficulty in seeing that the world's governments rule solely by God's permission, and THAT is how they stand "placed" in their positions by God.
I can understand why you would feel that way, but I have to stick to what the Scriptures actually say.
You imply that my impression of what Romans 13 says is NOT what the text "actually" says. In my opinion, however, the scripture actually does say that.
There is nothing in the language of the text that implies the idea of permission.
I disagree, for the reason that I've already explained. The idea of permission is inferred at Romans 13.
Now, having said that, I would add that my belief [that God puts governments into place] does not imply that everything any government does is necessarily in accord with God's will.
I don't believe that you're being logical here. You believe that God put Hitler into power, yet Hitler was free to rule in any way that he pleased? I can't see the logic in such an idea myself.
Then you quote the following scripture:
Rom 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH."
And then say:
In the above cited text from Romans, it is also acknowledged that it was God who raised up (it doesn't say "permitted") a human leader (Pharoah) in fulfillment of His greater purpose.
The question is, though, Is the translation you took Romans 9:17 from and accurate translation?
Consider the way the NWT reads, and in particular the footnote to that verse:
*** Rbi8 Romans 9:17 ***

17 For the Scripture says to Phar'aoh: "For this very cause I have let you remain, that in connection with you I may show my power, and that my name may be declared in all the earth."

*** Rbi8 Exodus 9:16 ***

16 But, in fact, for this cause I have kept you in existence, for the sake of showing you my power and in order to have my name declared in all the earth.
*** Romans 9:17
(ftn) ***
" I have let you remain ," J 17, 18, 22 ; ! AB, " I have raised you up "; Ex 9:16 in LXX, which Paul here quotes, "you have been preserved."
In view of the above, how can you be so sure that the translation you're quoting from is accurate?
Perhaps you would like to explain the reason why you think Daniel 4 disproves my take on Revelation 13.--Schizm.
I quoted above Nebuchadnezzar's words that " the Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind and bestows it on whomever He wishes." (Daniel 4:32) This is yet another explicit statement that God grants human authority. As in Romans 13, nothing in the context carries the idea of permitting. That is a thought that must be inserted by the interpreter if it is to be seen there at all.--Neon.
All that THAT means, is that God is in ultimate control of everything. The fact that the nations have received their authority from the dragon (Re 13) doesn't mean that God himself can't intervene. After all, he is the "Most High". The whole point of the account that you've referred to is as Nebuchadnezzar himself finally acknowledged: "B ecause those who are walking in pride he is able to humiliate." Because of Neb's pride God brought him down to his knees by interfering with his rule. After Neb had learned his lesson then God allowed him to rule again by giving his kingdom back to him.
In my opinion, you've put a completely wrong twist on the account of Daniel 4!
I wonder how it's possible for anyone who is acquainted with the 7th chapter of Daniel to fail to associate the 4 beasts there with the beast of Revelation 13. The connection is undeniable, and that the wild beast of Revelation 13 is a political entity can't be disproved.--Schizm.
Well, first, I never said that the beast wasn't a political entity. There's a difference between saying that the beast is a political entity and saying that it is the entire system of human governments throughout history.--Neon.
So we do agree that the beast is a political entity. What we don't agree on is whether or not the beast represents the governments that have exercised Universal Rule throughout history. I would contend that the fact that the Revelation 13 beast bears the very same markings as the 4 beasts of Daniel 7, in addition to also having 10 horns, suggests that the kingdoms represented by the 4 beasts find representation in the heads of the Revelation 13 beast. If such is the case, and I believe that it is, it would mean that the 4 beasts (kingdoms) of Daniel 7 got their authority from the dragon. Also, the 17th chapter of Revelation appears to help out in the interpretation by telling us that the heads of the beast represent 7 kingdoms, 5 of which had passed into history by the time that John received the Revelation, another one which was ruling at the time that John lived, and the 7th one that was yet to make the scene. Of course all of this flies in the face of your thinking that those same governments were put on their thrones by God.
As far as Daniel 7, most Christian commentators identify the "little horn" mentioned in Daniel 7:8 with the beast of Revelation 13, not the entire sequence of beasts. This is usually seen as the Antichrist, an individual or political power (interpretations vary) that will arise shortly before the return of Christ. As far as I know, only Jehovah's Witnesses identify the entire sequence of beasts with the wild beast of Revelation 13.
While it's correct to say that the "little horn" equals the 8th king that the Revelation account speaks of (which the WTS would do well to understand), one would be wise to see that the beast of Revelation 13 is first of all (starts off being) that which I've described above. It's only after the beast experiences the "death-stroke" and revives that it changes into being the 8th king = "little horn". That happens as the result of the horns giving up their diadems (authority) in favor of a World Government. The beast has changed into a diademless, scarlet-colored 8th king by verse 3, and is pictured in all its glory in the 17 chapter.
.
NeonMadman

First of all, I apologize for not having gotten back with you immediately with a reply.
No pressure here. I understand a busy schedule.
You imply that my impression of what Romans 13 says is NOT what the text "actually" says.
That's because it is not. What the text of Romans 13:1 actually says (according to the NASB, which in my estimation is a far more accurate translation than the NWT) is:
Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.
If you prefer the NWT, then it reads:
Let every soul be in subjection to the superior authorities, for there is no authority except by God; the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God.
If, while I am away from home, my wife decides to decorate and places a number of knick-knacks on the mantel in a certain position, she can be said to have "placed them in their relative position." If I, upon my return home, decide to allow them to stay there and not move them somewhere else, then I am permitting them to remain, and it cannot be said of me that I have "placed them in their relative position." Under the interpretation you propose, it is Satan, not God, who has placed the existing authorities in their relative positions. God merely allows them to remain. You admit that your belief is not what the text actually says when you say:
The idea of permission is inferred at Romans 13.
The idea of permission is definitely being inferred by you and the Watchtower Society, but it is in no way implied by the text.
You believe that God put Hitler into power, yet Hitler was free to rule in any way that he pleased? I can't see the logic in such an idea myself.
But you think it logical that God was able to stop Hitler's rise to power but failed to do so? Or do you believe that God was somehow unable to prevent Hitler from doing what he did? As I said in my previous post, God doesn't get "off the hook" if He only permits evil rulers to arise as opposed to putting them in their places. When one is both omnipotent and omniscient, it really boils down to a semantic difference as to what one permits and what one causes. God was fully aware in advance of what Hitler would do, He had the power to stop it, but chose not to. Whether Hitler was placed in the leadership of Germany by God or allowed to assume it is virtually a moot point. We cannot know God's purpose in doing so, but we can be assured that the result will ultimately be good for those who love God.
In view of the above, how can you be so sure that the translation you're quoting from is accurate?
Well, I can't, since I am trained in neither Greek nor Hebrew (yet). One thing I do know, though, is that the NWT is an unscholarly, dishonest translation, produced for the exclusive purpose of supporting the aberrant doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses. Search around this board on the NWT and I'm sure you'll find dozens of cases where words or phrases have been inserted without linguistic justification in order to support their doctrines. I'll take an acclaimed work like the NASB over that any day of the week.
That being said, however, it is possible that both the meaning of permission or establishment are carried by the Greek word in Romans 9:17. But I don't think so. Strong's concordance defines the word in this way:
ex-eg-i'-ro
From G1537 and G1453; to rouse fully, that is, (figuratively) to resuscitate (from death), release (from infliction): - raise up.
That certainly sounds a lot more like raising up than permitting to me. Additionally, to harmonize the text with what other texts such as Romans 13:1 actually say (as opposed to what you infer from them) would require the idea of raising up rather than permitting.
All that THAT means, is that God is in ultimate control of everything. The fact that the nations have received their authority from the dragon (Re 13) doesn't mean that God himself can't intervene.
Again, you are allowing your subjective interpretation of a symbolic prophecy to influence your interpretation of plain statements of Scripture. If you stop and think for a minute, you should quickly realize that if one does not interpret the beast of Revelation 13 as meaning all political governments throughout history, there is no need to "infer" that Romans 13 and Daniel 4 mean anything other than what they actually say. But your reading of Revelation 13 requires that human governments receive their authority from Satan, therefore you must somehow interpret your way around the several plain statements in scripture that it is God Who gives them their authority.
Another factor that weighs against such an interpretation is John's introduction at Revelation 1:1:
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it
by His angel to His bond-servant John,
This statement clearly implies that the events discussed in Revelation are yet future in John's time. But under your interpretation, the "beast" of Revelation 13 had been in existence for thousands of years by then. According to Watchtower teaching, the rising of the wild beast out of the sea of mankind would date all the way back to the Tower of Babel and Nimrod. How could it then be a prophecy of the future in the time of John?
Beyond that, I'm not looking to get into the specifics of the prophecies of Revelation, simply because they are open to such a wide range of interpretation. That's why I think we must accept the plain meanings of clear statements like Romans 13:1 and Daniel 4:32 as meaning what they say, and not infer meanings from them that are not stated in the text, but which are necessary in order to support speculative interpretations of symbolic prophecies.
City Fan

Schizm
While it's correct to say that the "little horn" equals the 8th king that the Revelation account speaks of
How would you explain Daniel chapter 8 that says that the 'little horn' would come out of Greece? Or more specifically the divided Greek Empire after the death of Alexander the Great.
Schizm

Neon,
With reference to Romans 9:17, even if one supposes the expression "I raised you up" is more accruate than "I have let you remain," it can simply mean that God had "given" Pharaoh the kingdom of Egypt by reason of allowance.
17 Pharaoh, king of Egypt, was an example of this fact. For God told him he had given him the kingdom of Egypt for the very purpose of displaying the awesome power of God against him, so that all the world would hear about God's glorious name. ¾ The Living Bible.
17 For the holy Writings say to Pharaoh, For this same purpose did I put you on high, so that I might make my power seen in you, and that there might be knowledge of my name through all the earth. ¾ Cambridge Basic English.
Those are two other translations that you, obviously, would claim supports your position that Romans 13 teaches that the governments throughout history were chosen by God himself, and that He put them into place. You refuse to acknowledge any other way of understanding Romans 13 other than your own preferred way. I can't say "that's fine" because I don't believe that it is. I will say, "Well, that's the way we'll have to leave it then but I don't believe a word that you've said."
You believe that God put Hitler into power, yet Hitler was free to rule in any way that he pleased? I can't see the logic in such an idea myself.--Schizm.
But you think it logical that God was able to stop Hitler's rise to power but failed to do so?--Neon.
I STILL can't see the "logic" of your reasoning. What does whether or not I think 'God was able to stop Hitler's rise to power but failing to do so' have to do with my question to you? BTW, "chose not to do so" more accurately represents my thinking on the matter.
As I said in my previous post, God doesn't get "off the hook" if He only permits evil rulers to arise as opposed to putting them in their places.
"Off the hook" ... I suppose you mean not free from blame by what governments do. Well, I'll have to disagree with you on that point too. It was man's choice to govern themselves. God has simply allowed man to govern himself in accordance with man's wish. Adam and Eve insisted on self-rule, did they not? How can you claim that God is to blame for what governments do when God is merely accommodating man's wish of ruling himself?
Well, I can't, since I am trained in neither Greek nor Hebrew (yet). One thing I do know, though, is that the NWT is an unscholarly, dishonest translation, produced for the exclusive purpose of supporting the aberrant doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses.
I too am aware of a few places where the NWT could be improved. I also know of many places where it's a superior translation to most others. I don't buy the part of your statement I've highlighted in yellow.
All that THAT ["bestows it on whomever He wishes"; Da 4:32] means, is that God is in ultimate control of everything. The fact that the nations have received their authority from the dragon (Re 13) doesn't mean that God himself can't intervene.
Again, you are allowing your subjective interpretation of a symbolic prophecy to influence your interpretation of plain statements of Scripture.
No, that's not true. It appears that you're unable to see the point due to your biased way of looking at the matter. I stand by what I said, that the text of Daniel 4:32 merely demonstrates that God is in ULTIMATE control of what goes on in heaven and earth, and especially is that true when it comes to governance of the earth.
If you stop and think for a minute, you should quickly realize that if one does not interpret the beast of Revelation 13 as meaning all political governments throughout history, there is no need to "infer" that Romans 13 and Daniel 4 mean anything other than what they actually say. But your reading of Revelation 13 requires that human governments receive their authority from Satan, therefore you must somehow interpret your way around the several plain statements in scripture that it is God Who gives them their authority.
"Actually say" ... *LOL* Shall I repeat myself as many times as you do? *LOL* Will that prove anything if I do? No, not any more that you do by repeating yourself.
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John,

This statement clearly implies that the events discussed in Revelation are yet future in John's time. But under your interpretation, the "beast" of Revelation 13 had been in existence for thousands of years by then. According to Watchtower teaching, the rising of the wild beast out of the sea of mankind would date all the way back to the Tower of Babel and Nimrod. How could it then be a prophecy of the future in the time of John?
Now you're grabbing at straws. John "saw" the 10-horned 7th head ruling, by reason of the horns having diadems. Thus John saw the beast at a time which WAS future of his day. He himself informs us that the other heads (except the 6th) were long gone.
Beyond that, I'm not looking to get into the specifics of the prophecies of Revelation, simply because they are open to such a wide range of interpretation.
Translation: "I wouldn't dare try to figure out the meaning of the symbols of Revelation".
Well, all I can say is that I feel sorry for you. You're afraid to step in and get your feet wet it seems. True, a lot of people have tried and a lot of people have been a thousand miles off in their interpretations, but to not consider what all the Bible has to say can result in not having as good of an understanding as one might otherwise have. Without wanting to sound boastful, I consider myself to be either a scholar or at least almost a scholar when it comes to the 4 beasts of Daniel 7 and the Beasts of Revelation 13 & 17. I'm therefore confident that I know what I'm talking about with regards to Romans 13, but not only on the grounds of my knowledge of the beasts and from where they've derived their authority. (Can a person think of themselves as being a scholar and say so without sounding boastful? Wow, I can even point out the WTS's errors relevant to what we've talked about here.)
That's why I think we must accept the plain meanings of clear statements like Romans 13:1 and Daniel 4:32 as meaning what they [ actually] say, and not infer meanings from them that are not stated in the text, but which are necessary in order to support speculative interpretations of symbolic prophecies.
You forgot to use the word "actually" in your statement above, so I added it for you. *LOL*
Well, okay, I see your point of view ... but I'm not convinced.
.
Schizm

City,
While it's correct to say that the "little horn" [atop 4th beast of Da 4] equals the 8th king that the Revelation account speaks of
How would you explain Daniel chapter 8 that says that the 'little horn' would come out of Greece? Or more specifically the divided Greek Empire after the death of Alexander the Great.
They are not the same "little horn". The one spoken of in Daniel 8 refers to the next power that was to arise after Greece, namely Rome.
*** Rbi8 Daniel 8:8-11 ***

8 And the male of the goats, for its part, put on great airs to an extreme; but as soon as it became mighty, the great horn was broken, and there proceeded to come up conspicuously four instead of it, toward the four winds of the heavens.
9
And out of one of them there came forth another horn, a small one [Rome], and it kept getting very much greater toward the south and toward the sunrising and toward the Decoration. 10 And it kept getting greater all the way to the army of the heavens, so that it caused some of the army and some of the stars to fall to the earth, and it went trampling them down. 11 And all the way to the Prince of the army it put on great airs, and from him the constant [feature] was taken away, and the established place of his sanctuary was thrown down.
Most people know what Rome did to Jerusalem and its temple in 70.
.
Schizm

City again,
The little horn of Daniel 8 arises after Greece (and proves to be Rome); whereas the little horn of Daniel 7 arises after Rome has ruled, and to be even more specific, after the 10 horns have ruled (and proves to be the 8th king). Hope this makes it a little more clear, if needed.
.
City Fan

Schizm,
Surely the 'little horn' of Daniel 7 must be the same as the 'little horn' of Daniel 8?
And out of one of them there came forth another horn, a small one [Rome]
This horn comes out of one of the four horns on the Greek male goat. These four horns were the Empires set up after the death of Alexander, including the Seleucid and Ptolemaic Empires. The 'little horn' cannot be Rome simply because Rome did not come out of the Greek Empire and can hardly be described as 'small'.
whereas the little horn of Daniel 7 arises after Rome has ruled
A common mistake is to think Daniel says anything about Rome at all. What is the last Empire actually named in the book of Daniel? It's Greece. (Daniel 11). The 'king of the north' and 'king of the south' also come out of this divided Greek Empire.
Most people know what Rome did to Jerusalem and its temple in 70.
It's a shame not as many people know what Seleucid King Antiochus IV Epiphanes did to the temple in 167 BC.(1 Maccabees 1:57)
CF.
NeonMadman

You refuse to acknowledge any other way of understanding Romans 13 other than your own preferred way. I can't say "that's fine" because I don't believe that it is.

Thats because my preferred way is to read and believe what the Bible says. I think you are much more guilty of what you accuse here than I am. I am letting the Bible speak for itself. None of the texts we have been discussing imply in the slightest that God permits human rulership, all of them explicitly state that He establishes them. You find it necessary to infer a meaning that is not there because of your subjective interpretation of Daniel and Revelation. Well, that's your right, but I just can't buy it.
God has simply allowed man to govern himself in accordance with man's wish. Adam and Eve insisted on self-rule, did they not? How can you claim that God is to blame for what governments do when God is merely accommodating man's wish of ruling himself?
I trust that you realize that what you are saying here is simply parroting Watchtower theology, and is not Biblical? God is Sovereign, and is fully in control of all man's affairs. He foreknew that Adam and Eve would sin and what the consequences would be. Nonetheless, He put the whole shebang in motion anyway. He is working out a purpose that will ultimately produce a greater good, even though there is much human suffering along the way. This business of Satan posing a serious challenge to God's sovereignty is merely another expression of the open theism and finite godism that charactertizes Watchtower theology. Adam and Eve did not "insist on self-rule," except in the vague sense that they disobeyed. If a five-year-old does something he isn't supposed to, do you characterize that as "insisting on self-rule," or do you just call it disobedience? You are making it sound as if they had a philosophical discussion with God and decided to try it on their own.
I stand by what I said, that the text of Daniel 4:32 merely demonstrates that God is in ULTIMATE control of what goes on in heaven and earth, and especially is that true when it comes to governance of the earth.
So, then, God is every bit as responsible for all the evils of the world as if He had perpetrated them Himself, according to your logic. You find it illogical that God would place Hitler in his position and then allow him to rule any way he wishes, yet find it believable that God would place (or allow, if you prefer) Satan in a position of rulership over the earth and allow him to rule in any way he wishes? Sounds like two sides of the same coin to me, except that the case in which you do implicate God has far worse consequences. If a business owner allows a manager under his authority to operate in any way he pleases, the owner is fully responsible for whatever the manager does. How can you think that God somehow escapes such responsibility because you choose to believe that He merely "allows" Satan to operate freely?
"Actually say" ... *LOL* Shall I repeat myself as many times as you do? *LOL* Will that prove anything if I do? No, not any more that you do by repeating yourself.
Frankly, my repetition is deliberate. Call it "repetition for emphasis" if you want. The simple fact is that you seem to keep missing the point. You insist on inserting a meaning into your understanding of scripture that is in no way stated or implied in the text. If you're allowed to do that, you can prove anything using the Bible.
Translation: "I wouldn't dare try to figure out the meaning of the symbols of Revelation". Well, all I can say is that I feel sorry for you. You're afraid to step in and get your feet wet it seems.
Well, no, that's not an accurate translation. I have my opinions about what Revelation means, but I don't think they are particularly germane to this discussion, since I don't interpret the rest of the Bible on the basis of my personal opinions about Revelation. Also, I think that arguing about them would be largely unproductive. We can't even seem to agree about the meaning of plain statements of scripture, I can only imagine how we'd differ on matters of vague symbolism. And I do have a life apart from this board...
Without wanting to sound boastful, I consider myself to be either a scholar or at least almost a scholar when it comes to the 4 beasts of Daniel 7 and the Beasts of Revelation 13 & 17. I'm therefore confident that I know what I'm talking about with regards to Romans 13, but not only on the grounds of my knowledge of the beasts and from where they've derived their authority.
I guess you can consider yourself whatever you want, but being a "scholar" usually implies having some academic credentials. And having read all the way through Babylon the Great Has Fallen - God's Kingdom Rules! doesn't count. The thing that worries me the most is that you seem to parrot Watchtower theology to such a great degree. The WT organization fits the Biblical definition of a false prophet to a "T", and Jesus said of false prophets, "A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit." Rejecting a false prophet (and I'm assuming here that you have) and then continuing to accept its teachings is dangerous business. Once we move on, it is necessary to start from scratch and "prove all things."
Darn, can't seem to get rid of the red now...
Schizm

City,
Surely the 'little horn' of Daniel 7 must be the same as the 'little horn' of Daniel 8?
You’re certainly not all by yourself in having thought so. There’s been many who have thought that, and if I’m not mistaken, I think that’s the way the WTS thinks as well. But I’m afraid you’re ALL mistaken.
And out of one of them there came forth another horn, a small one [Rome]
This horn comes out of one of the four horns on the Greek male goat. These four horns were the Empires set up after the death of Alexander, including the Seleucid and Ptolemaic Empires. The 'little horn' cannot be Rome simply because Rome did not come out of the Greek Empire and can hardly be described as 'small'.
Neither does the 8 th king "come out of" the Roman Empire, but yet the little horn that represents it is shown as having arisen out of the head of the beast that symbolizes Rome, namely the 4 th beast. In the cases of both the "little horn" and the "ten horns" (11 horns) they all sit atop the 4 th beast (Rome) and yet they have nothing whatsoever to do with Rome other than the fact that the Universal Rule that Rome exercised would eventually become THEIR possession. After the fall of Rome the "ten horns" together began to exercise Universal Rule as 7 th king (the king that’s currently reigning). Then, there will come a time during their reign that they’ll all relinquish their individual sovereignties for the purpose of creating a one-world government ¾ an 8 th king that will ALSO exercise Universal Rule.
Insofar as the little horn that arose out of one of those 4 horns which together inherited Universal Rule after Alexander died, what that shows is that Universal Rule would be passed on to yet another gentile power. Yes, when THAT little horn arose, Greece would lose possession of Universal Rule. Of course even secular history shows that Rome followed Greece in having exercised Universal Rule.
The thing that needs to be appreciated is WHAT each of the beasts and their horns represent. Whether its the 4 beasts of Daniel 7, the 2 beasts of Daniel 8, the beast of Revelation 13, or the beast of Revelation 17--the thing they all have in common is that they each exercise Universal Rule. Herein lies the key to having a proper understanding ¾ realizing that Universal Rule is the principle concern. Thus, the purpose in the 4 beasts is to show the procession of the exercisers of Universal Rule, how that Universal Rule would be passed from one to the next until finally it becomes the possession of the holy ones who are to exercise Universal Rule alongside Jesus Christ.
I might remind you that the 2 horns of the Ram exercised Universal Rule. So did the original horn of the Goat. So did the 4 horns of the Goat, even as did the "little horn" that came up out of one of those 4. Likewise, the 10 horns that arose up out of the 4 th beast is presently exercising Universal Rule. And, eventually, the final "little horn" (the one that knocks 3 down when it comes up) will exercise Universal Rule.
So, yeah, you and all those other would-be Bible interpreters (*LOL*) are clearly wrong in the identity you give to the little horn of Daniel 8 … and many of you are wrong also in the identity you give the little horn of Daniel 7.
.
City Fan

Schizm,
I think we'll have to agree to disagree about the identities of the beasts/heads/horns of Daniel and Revelation. The first thing I researched after leaving the JWs was what these books were actually about and whether they had any meaning for us today. I came to the conclusion that the books of Daniel and Revelation were simply apocalyptic denunciations of the Greek Seleucid persecutions of 167/164 BC and the Roman persecution of 93-96 AD respectively.
I have discarded the Watchtower-esque view that the fourth beast of Daniel 7 is Rome. That beast is Greece. In fact every prophecy in Daniel is aimed specifically at one person, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the Greek Seleucid king who persecuted the Jews. He is the ?little horn? that appears out of the Greek he-goat in chapter 8. He is the horn from the fourth beast in chapter 7 that makes war with the saints. He is the King of the North who ?takes away the continual burnt offering? in chapter 11. (see 1 Maccabees 1:57 which says: ?On the fifteenth day of the month Casleu, in the hundred and forty-fifth year, king Antiochus set up the abominable idol of desolation upon the altar of God?).
The amount of detail about the Syrian wars given by Daniel in chapter 11 shows that the book itself was written sometime between the desolation of the temple by Antiochus Epiphanes in December 167BC and his death in 164BC. The book does not predict the Roman Empire and has nothing to do with our modern era. It is an apocalyptic written during the Seleucid persecution and the Maccabean uprising.
As for the eighth king in Revelation, that would be Emperor Domitian (81-96 AD). The author makes it seem as thought the book was written during the reign of Vespasian (69-79 AD) although it was written later. This was a common literary technique in apocalyptic works of the time. Revelation draws heavily on the imagery of Daniel. The five kings who have fallen would be Augustus, Tiberius, Gaius Calligula, Claudius and Nero, the one 'who is' would be Vespasian, and the one who was to appear for a little while was Titus who ruled for only 2 years.
The eighth king was Domitian who not only persecuted Christians in Rome as Nero had but also throughout the empire. Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History III.17 writes: "Domitian showed himself the successor of Nero in enmity and hostility to God. He was the second to organise persecution against us, though his father Vespasian had had no mischievous designs against us."
So the beast that 'was' (Nero) 'wasn't' when Vespasian ruled, but 'will be' again during the rule of Domitian. The author here was borrowing from the legend of 'Nero Redivivus' to further denounce Domitian. The legend said that Nero had not in fact killed himself but had gone East to join the Parthians and would one day return. The author of Revelation links the return of the beast to the second persecution under Emperor Domitian.
So I don't really worry now who the 'eighth king' is, or who the 'little horn' is, or who the 'king of the north' is etc, because they all died about 2000 years ago!
CF.

"Friendship with the world"

Share this