The Mark of the Beast question?

[Jerusalem Blade]

Brett, back in Asia Minor in John's day, if one refused to participate in the immoral celebrations / worship services of the deities that certain trade guilds cleaved to (due to the immorality and idolatry), one was excluded from all business relating to that trade, and could neither sell one's wares nor buy necessary materials. It was considered hostility to these local deities and one would be ostracized from being part of the community life.

This occurs today in many regions of the world whose religions are not Christian – men and women are excluded from the community life if they convert to Christ, and this includes buying or selling. Many families are even driven from their homes and villages, and either wander homeless or try to live in forests or jungles. (Barnabas Aid – which ministers to the persecuted churches – documents this regularly.) It is quite possible such prohibitions could be levied against Christians in the West if anti-Christian sentiment were to become codified into local or national laws. This being excluded from the community's social and economic life has been going on for ages.

 

[Peairtach]

Good points, Steve :thumbup:

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Free Christian]

Hello Steve. Yes absolutely I agree with that, that that very thing could take place in time to come. Have often thought that myself, many times. That is if it is implemented so that all Christians cannot buy or sell. It does happen in places in predominantly non Christian countries today yes, but not as yet in a Christian one in the western parts of the world. Like I said, I have my own personal safeguards.
Richard, hello , you said in an above post, no 13, that it was for preaching and hearing of the Gospel, are you now giving the thumbs up to something different?
Not saying that sarcastically, it's just that Steve is talking about commercial buying and selling!

 

[Peairtach]

I believe in the particular context of Revelation 3:18 it is about the sharing and receiving of the Gospel, but the subtle pressures that beastly forces - unsanctifird and persecutory civil government, and worldly societies - use to achieve these ends, whether they are doing it consciously or unconsciously can be multifarious.

A ban on commercial activities by those who would not bow in allegiance to to a beastly power, civil and/or societal, is just another means by which the Evil One can put pressure on Christians, or force Christians, to curtail the buying and selling of the wine and milk of the Gospel ( Isaiah 55).

In application of this passage from Revelation to ourselves we have to ask what are the pressures, sometimes subtle, put on ourselves by an ungodly society to conceal or downplay - or even abandon - our commitment to Christ.


Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Fogetaboutit]

That is not what I interpret it as, preaching and hearing, its what I read here that someone else suggested it was. I am merely saying I don't get how that can be so.

I agree with Richard, I also believe the context of Revelation is about the spiritual battle between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan. Therefore the primary subject is the kingdom of God (which is spiritual) and how it is affected. That being said of course this translate into various earthy (physical) fulfillment, but we should not single out one of the means employed by the beast to be the only mean. When I mentioned the preaching and hearing of the Word of God I meant the propagation of the Kingdom of God. The sword of the spirit is the Word of God and this is how Satan's Kingdom is defeated, therefore whatever means is used to stop to the Word of God to be proclaimed would fall under that statement.

If you interpret the buying and selling of Rev 13 to be only referring to the persecution of those who do not have complete allegiance to the government and therefore are forbidden to participate in commercial activities this would not be limited to Christians, this would include many people from different stripes (anarchist and revolutionaries) who do not agree with the tyrannical ways of their governments. Again Revelation is about God's kingdom and its strife against the Kingdom of Satan, therefore the proper interpretation of Revelation should focus on this spiritual battle between these two parties respectively.

To properly interpret Revelation you can't jump back and forth from a literal interpretation to a symbolic interpretation. You can't interpret certain portions literally and other portions symbolically. The book of Revelation is a prophetic book from beginning to the end, not a mix of Historical literature and Prophetic literature. If you interpret certain portions literally you risk to miss some significant interpretation to the vision portrayed.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Ettiene,

You said,

“To properly interpret Revelation you can't jump back and forth from a literal interpretation to a symbolic interpretation. You can't interpret certain portions literally and other portions symbolically. The book of Revelation is a prophetic book from beginning to the end, not a mix of Historical literature and Prophetic literature. If you interpret certain portions literally you risk to miss some significant interpretation to the vision portrayed.”​

Your statement assumes that the book is written all in one genre, and must be interpreted consistent to that. However, it is written in three genres, the epistolary, prophetic, and apocalyptic.

The 7 letters of Rev 2 and 3 were written to 7 actual congregations (although their respective situations reflected conditions in other churches not specifically mentioned, and would be reflected as well in congregations all through NT church history). The problems (and commendable conditions) Jesus addressed were actual, not symbolic, although Jesus possibly used as a figurative name Jezebel (Rev 2:20), referring to an ancient seductress to idolatry – the wife of Ahab.

I would agree with you there would be others than Christians who might refuse any “mark of the beast” if such were a physical thing (and it could be – in early days a tattoo or brand, in latter days a chip), yet one must also reckon that those branded or tattooed could inwardly be a lover of God and follower of His Son. Likewise, those not having any such physical mark could inwardly be giving their allegiance and outwardly their behavior to a beast-government.

Your consistent “symbolic” interpretation is as flawed as the Dispensationalist’s consistent “literal” interpretation. A basic hermeneutical approach is that one interprets according to genre and context.

 

[Fogetaboutit]

Hello Ettiene,

You said,

“To properly interpret Revelation you can't jump back and forth from a literal interpretation to a symbolic interpretation. You can't interpret certain portions literally and other portions symbolically. The book of Revelation is a prophetic book from beginning to the end, not a mix of Historical literature and Prophetic literature. If you interpret certain portions literally you risk to miss some significant interpretation to the vision portrayed.”​

Your statement assumes that the book is written all in one genre, and must be interpreted consistent to that. However, it is written in three genres, the epistolary, prophetic, and apocalyptic.

The 7 letters of Rev 2 and 3 were written to 7 actual congregations (although their respective situations reflected conditions in other churches not specifically mentioned, and would be reflected as well in congregations all through NT church history. The problems (and commendable conditions) Jesus addressed were actual, not symbolic, although Jesus possibly used as a figurative name Jezebel (Rev 2:20), referring to an ancient seductress to idolatry – the wife of Ahab.

I would agree with you there would be others than Christians who might refuse any “mark of the beast” if such were a physical thing (and it could be – in early days a tattoo or brand, in latter days a chip), yet one must also reckon that those branded or tattooed could inwardly be a lover of God and follower of His Son. Likewise, those not having any such physical mark could inwardly be giving their allegiance and outwardly their behavior to a beast-government.

Your consistent “symbolic” interpretation is as flawed as the Dispensationalist’s consistent “literal” interpretation. A basic hermeneutical approach is that one interprets according to genre and context.

I might not be as well versed in this subject as you are, so forgive me if I missed all of the "genre" used in the book of Revelation. My point was basically to contrast the "literal" with the "symbolic". I do not believe any portion of the book of Revelation should be interpreted literally as a historical book such as the Book of Acts for examples. I have to be honest I'm not sure I know the difference between the "prophetic" and "apocalyptic" genres. As far as I understood apocalyptic is somewhat synonym with prophetic only more specific in it's definition as to "what" is being prophesied.

As far as the "epistolary" genre, I don't disagree but I would still differentiate it from the genre used in the Pauline and General Epistles since it does seem to have a lot symbolism (candlesticks, the use of the number 7 etc.).

I understood it as difference within the "prophetic" genre but maybe I'm wrong.

Your consistent “symbolic” interpretation is as flawed as the Dispensationalist’s consistent “literal” interpretation.

I'm not sure what you mean by this statement but it seem to be a premature judgment of my view. I hold to an eclectic idealist view, which I believe was pretty close to your view, my understanding might need some sharpening and I'm open to corrections but to say that my view is as misguided as the dispensational seemed a bit extreme.

The point of my post was to point out that from my understanding the "buying and selling" referred to more than commercial transaction from a secular point of view and was pointing more towards "spiritual" commercial activity (sorry for the poor term that is the only one I could come up with) meaning receiving and sharing spiritual blessing and knowledge through the means given to us in scriptures (preaching of the Word of God and influential application of biblical principles).

My understanding was that this was a reference to the apostacy of the visible church and that faithful servant within the visible church are being silenced from preaching and applying true biblical principles since it is being overrun by unbelievers. We have seen this prior to the reformation and we are seeing this happening to an extant today. Since the beast of the earth seem to be the apostate church and it's in league with the beast of the sea and is pointing people within her midst to worship the beast of the sea. This seem to go hand in hand with the vision of Revelation 17 with the harlot riding the beast, the harlot being the apostate church.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Etienne,

Sorry if I spoke too strongly to you! I very much value some of the things you post here at PB, like for instance on the Amil historicism? thread – I kept some of your sayings from there as they were so insightful!

Though the way you asserted so strongly in the brief quote of yours above I was commenting on, I felt it warranted to respond equally.

You’re right that Revelation shouldn’t be interpreted as we would a straightforward historical book, though the 7 letters are specifically to a group of historical churches; true, there is symbolism within them, but they are epistles nonetheless.

Prophetic refers to, in this case, foretelling future event and dynamics; apocalyptic refers to, in this case, heavenly and/or earthly visions given by an angelic being, who often explains their meaning, as was the case in portions of Daniel as well. In Revelation these two genres are intermingled, but may be considered as distinct genres.

To interpret Revelation exclusively as symbolic – with no historical referents at all – is what is called a “consistent idealism”, as exemplified by William Milligan. This kind of idealism is not eclectic or modified, as per GK Beale.

It is really the other side of the coin of those who interpret the book exclusively as literal; they both go too far – which the Dispensationalists do with the literal.

I know you are not of that bent, from your remarks elsewhere, which were quite astute. Nonetheless, I had to remark on what you said.

Regarding Babylon, it is more than the apostate church, as I have sought to clarify (at least for those who hold to the amil view) in this thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/f46/thoughts-babylon-great-revelation-57260/

Nor should the beast from the land be limited to the apostate church, but to all false teaching, whether religious or philosophical. Where are you getting these ideas? Do you subscribe to the 1647 WCF and Standards? They will limit these things to Rome; but the American revision of the WCF does not. This is important, for if we are blinded by limitation to past manifestations of harlot and beasts we will not see current manifestations in their true aspect. Which leads not only to error, but danger – as we will not recognize our enemies in the present.

This is a good book (the online version): The Returning King: A Guide to the Book of Revelation, Vern S. Poythress. Another one is Triumph of the Lamb, by Dennis Johnson. These are both modified or eclectic idealist / amil.

Good talking with you, Etienne!

 

[Fogetaboutit]

Hello Etienne,

Sorry if I spoke too strongly to you

Don't worry I wasn't offended, just bit confused, I understand a bit better now with your explanation, thanks.

To interpret Revelation exclusively as symbolic – with no historical referents at all – is what is called a “consistent idealism”, as exemplified by William Milligan. This kind of idealism is not eclectic or modified, as per GK Beale.

Maybe it's just my ignorance or my choice of word, but when I say symbolic I do not mean that it doesn't have any historic referent at all, but that it shouldn't be interpreted "literally" as written (ie: the "buying and selling" referred to in Revelation 13 has to mean buying food or clothing etc). The reason I say I have an eclectic view is that I do believe that even though the things depicted in some of the visions are fulfilled throughout the entire "millennial reign" I also do believe there's an intensification before Christ comes back (ie: the vision of the vials as opposed to the the vision of the trumpets).

Nor should the beast from the land be limited to the apostate church, but to all false teaching, whether religious or philosophical. Where are you getting these ideas?

The reason I believe the beast from the land is the apostate church is because she has the appearance of a "lamb" but speak like a "dragon". I see the Lamb being a depiction of Christ, but this lamb speaks like a dragon meaning she profess doctrines of devils.

Do you subscribe to the 1647 WCF and Standards? They will limit these things to Rome; but the American revision of the WCF does not. This is important, for if we are blinded by limitation to past manifestations of harlot and beasts we will not see current manifestations in their true aspect. Which leads not only to error, but danger – as we will not recognize our enemies in the present.

My church does not subscribe to the 1647 edition. Personally I'm not sure which edition is most accurate on this issue. I do not see a sharp distinction between Rome and other religious and philosophical ideology. Rome might be different than it was at the time of the reformation but she is still Rome. I do not believe, as most people today, that Rome's power and influence has diminished since the reformation. Rome tried to overtake the reformation by force and failed but she did not quit, she adjusted her tactics. Rome no longer tries to conform everybody to her specific ideology by force but adopt everybody's ideology to be more pleasing and then seduce them in accepting her. This is why you see Rome at the heart of all ecumenical movement.

Therefore when you say the beast of the earth or Babylon is not limited to Rome I would says it depends on how you view Rome today. If you view her solely as the Roman Catholic clergy then I might agree with you, but if you recognize her influence across the world in all of its shapes and forms I believe you would not have to make that sharp distinction between her and other religions and philosophies. Also remember that Rome's goal has always been to join the ecclesiastical and temporal realm, she pretty much had it at prior to the reformation and I have never heard or read that she repented from these views.

I believe these book are pretty interesting and might help you understand my reasoning. I'm not saying I view all of these as dogmatic, but I believe they have some useful information.

Ecclesiastical Megalomania: John W. Robbins: 9780940931756: Amazon.com: Books

Washington in the Lap of Rome: Forward by Christian J. Pinto (Volume 1): Justin Dewey Fulton: 9781479328161: Amazon.com: Books

The Secret History of the Jesuits: Edmund Paris: 9780937958100: Amazon.com: Books

Thanks for your feedback I have learned a lot from your posts here on PB, I will try to have a look at these book you recommended hopefully in a near future.

 

[Free Christian]

Hi all. What I have tried to say a couple of times is this. Some suggested that people today could have the mark. But if that were the case then that would also include not being able to buy and sell. There is no hindrance whatsoever to buying and selling today, wether it be commercially or in Word. Maybe to a certain degree in some non Christian countries but not all over the world and certainly not in Christian countries! So if the mark being present also goes with the ability to buy and sell, or not to be able to, then it cant be here! What I read says that those without the mark cannot buy and sell! I don't have it, in any way that one may describe it, and I can speak of Gods Word to anyone, go hear it being preached, buy whatever I have the money for and am not hindered one iota! Are some suggesting that it can be here, the mark, and yet there is not the constraint put upon anyone that the Bible says it will have? That doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Peairtach]

Hi all. What I have tried to say a couple of times is this. Some suggested that people today could have the mark. But if that were the case then that would also include not being able to buy and sell. There is no hindrance whatsoever to buying and selling today, wether it be commercially or in Word. Maybe to a certain degree in some non Christian countries but not all over the world and certainly not in Christian countries! So if the mark being present also goes with the ability to buy and sell, or not to be able to, then it cant be here! What I read says that those without the mark cannot buy and sell! I don't have it, in any way that one may describe it, and I can speak of Gods Word to anyone, go hear it being preached, buy whatever I have the money for and am not hindered one iota! Are some suggesting that it can be here, the mark, and yet there is not the constraint put upon anyone that the Bible says it will have? That doesn't make sense to me.

Be thankful for relative "postmillennial" achievements. as you know these are not enjoyed by many of our brothers and sisters in Muslim countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia, China, North Korea, etc, where the beastliness of the Beast is manifested in a more overt way.

Remember too that there can be more subtle beastly pressures in the West, and that our freedoms cannot be taken for granted, especially with the rise of "political correctness", an apparently resurgent militant atheism and secularism, and the fanatical "gay" lobby with its emperor-has-no-clothes homosexual joke-marriage.

Pray that godless beastliness will be curbed everywhere and that our brothers throughout the world will enjoy the freedom to "buy and sell" the Gospel without let or hindrance or fear of persecution or death, and that the Gospel will have free course and be glorified and flourish throughout the Earth.


Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2