Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Originally posted by CalvinandHodges
Greetings:
The WCF has it correct. Though the Bible clearly teaches that there are many antichrists, 1 John 2:18,19, there will be a manifestation of one who embodies all of the antichristian traits - the pope of Rome.
The idea that Nero is the antichrist does not fit the Biblical criteria found in Rev. 13. There is no indication that Nero did any of the following things:
1) Caused the earth to worship the First Beast.
2) Made fire to come down from Heaven.
3) Deceptions through miracles.
4) Give life to the Image of the First Beast.
5) Caused all both small and great to receive a mark on their hand or forehead.
6) Forbade those who did not have the mark to buy and sell.
Most important of all the number 666 does not fit with Nero:
First, because John is writing in Greek to the Greek churches. Thus, to say that one has to figure the number in Hebrew gematria would not make sense to Greek speaking people.
Second, in order to fit the name of Nero into 666 one has to add an "n" at the end of his name: "Neron Caesar" is how the number is calculated from the name. The second "n" though is called a "final n" which is calculated as 700. Thus, "Neron Casear" is calculated in Hebrew as 1316 - not 666. (Those who say that the 5 finals in Hebrew came at a later time cannot answer the question as to how the Hebrews calculated 700, 800, 900 etc before then).
The Bible gives us no indication that Hebrew gematria should be used in calculating the name. The idea that Nero was the antichrist was a ruse used by the Jesuits in order to deflect attention from the Pope.
Grace and Peace,
-CH
Originally posted by Mudandstars
I know the Reformed tradition sees the papacy as the fulfillment of 2 Thess. 2. Is "the beast" figure in Revelation also equated with the same personage? At least historically?
And this is purely a fanciful thought to which I am attaching exactly " 0 " significance (since it came from my head), but: Is there a "consensus" among historic Reformed divines as to the nature of the "head wound"? Have any ever taken that to refer to the Reformation?
Also, what are the best full-length books on the subject, if any, from this perspective?
Originally posted by rjlynam
Wasn't the Book of Revelation written to contemporaries (Rev 1:4)?
If so, would not the message have been contemporary (relevant to the hearing audience) in nature?
John starts the letter by saying "the things which must shortly take place" (1:1) and "the time is near" (1:3) and finally wraps up the letter with "to show his bond-servants the things which must shortly take place" (22:6).
What good would a letter be that wouldn't even be applicable for hundreds of years?
NERO gets my vote, until I can be otherwise convinced.
Originally posted by Peter
The book was written to the whole church throughout the entire NT era. which is why it is in the canon of scripture. One might ask, why has God put this book in the bible if it is only for first century christians?
Historicists do believe that the prophecies of Revelation will shortly come to pass, or, that is, the fulfilment of the earliest prophecies in the apocolyptic chronology will begin shortly after it was written. Which is why many Historicists believe the wars of Trajan and Adrian are prophecied or even sometimes earlier events. But because the prophecy will begin shortly that does not mean it will end shortly. Everyone short of hyper-preterists believes this. If all of Revelation ended shortly after it was written Christ must have already come.
Is the "thousand" spoken of in Rev 20:6 to be taken literally?
Is so, then consider Psalm 50:10. Who owns the cattle on hill 1001?
Is it safe to assume "literally" one thousand years in a Book so filled with symbolism?