Is the "numbered" beast of Revelation the Pope?

[canada]

Regarding Rev 13:18.

Most preterists and partial preterists claim it is the first beast that is numbered.

Most historicists claim it is the second beast that is numbered.
I am not concerned as to what idealists and futurists claim.

Can you point to a proof text in Revelation that establishes whether it is the first or second beast ... I cannot.

I asked this question of a learned Reformed believer and a head professor of a Reformed seminary ... one said the first and the other said the second ... neither provided a text or passage to support their opinion.

[Josh]

Interesting question!  I'll try to get back as soon as I can, although I have a lot of other topics that need to be tracked down currently.

[Josh]

I'll take a stab.  

In Rev. 13:18 we are told that the "number of the beast" is the number of a man.  We can reasonably assume (IMO) that this means it refers to an individual person. 

The "first beast" of 13:1-10, however, seems pretty clearly to describe a succession of men or rulers (heads), whether we see them as Roman emperors or Jewish zealots or whatever, and not one single individual. 

However, the "second beast" of 13:11-17 is described in terms that could apply to a single individual. 

So I think it makes sense to see 666 as a identifier of the second beast, who is, of course, part (in some sense) of the "first beast".

[canada]

Thanks for your "stab".

As an historicist, I agree that it is the second beast that is "numbered" as it is closely associated with the image and the mark, which we believe applies to a pope/papacy, and the followers of Rome which do display an identifying mark or sign on their right hand and forehead.

As a point of information, the Reformed seminary professor believed it applies to the first beast, but I think that is more of an "assumption" on his part rather than a direct scriptural passage found in Revelation.

[Josh]

Canada, would you care to start a thread about the main reasons you hold to the historicist view?

[canada]

At my age (81) my memory chip is not what it once was, but I may submit an article or two from the past.

I was a flaming futurist for ten years. My son-in-grace pastors a very conservative Reformed church in the US and they are partial preterist in interpretation, so (other than idealism, which I reject) I have been exposed to the “standard interpretations”.

Because of the evidence of some specific fulfilled prophecy in Revelation, I believe historicism fits the identifiers best.

Just as with futurists and preterists, historicists do not agree on all things, but agree in principle, that Romanism and the papacy is the false church and the Vatican hierarchy is the False Prophet.

The word “vatic” means … “prophet”.
Vatic = Prophet = Vatican = False Prophet.

As noted in Revelation, Romanism is identified by a mark or sign on their right hand and/or forehead.

This mark (charagma) is displayed by the right hand of the followers of Rome in their making of the “sign of the cross”.

This mark is placed upon the forehead of the infant followers of the beast at baptism, and is placed upon the forehead of the adult followers of the beast on Ash Wednesdays.

This mark is done by the priest placing the thumb of his right hand into the water and/or ashes and scribing the “sign” on the forehead … this is where the term … “being under the thumb” (of Rome) comes from.

What great city is “Mystery, Babylon” the city that has reigned over kings of the earth?

Preterists believe the False Prophet and Mystery Babylon is Jerusalem.

A popular belief of futurists today is that Mecca is Mystery Babylon.
I believe it to be Vatican City, and believe we will witness its destruction sooner than later.

To be realistic, I think most students of prophecy will not fully understand Revelation until that event comes to pass.

It was Sir Isaac Newton (an historicist) that said … We are not to become prophets, but to recognize the event when it comes to pass.

[Josh]

Thanks for the overview, Canada.

I consider myself a "partial preterist", having grown up a "futurist".

To be honest, I find the historicist preoccupation with the Catholic Church troubling as I consider Catholics part of Christ's body and therefor this interpretation more than the others has real (negative) import to Christian unity.

Also, I find the circumstantial kind of evidences typically presented (such as two you provided, Vatican and the sign of the cross) unconvincing and lacking the precision that the preterist understanding of Revelation, for instance, has.    

In regard to the Jerusalem/ Israel vs. Rome debate, like you say my memory chip needs to be dusted off too  .  But if I recall I was pretty satisfied with identifying both Rome and apostate, rebel Jerusalem as beastly in my interpretation of Revelation.  But that would be interesting to revisit.

Could we perhaps back up just a bit and talk briefly about the details of your opinion about the relationship of Catholics to the genuine body of Christ?

[canada]

Regarding Catholicism to be within the genuine body of Christ.

I am wondering what would convince you regarding the Reformers understanding of the religion of Rome and the identifiers described in Revelation and 2 Thess 2:4 … so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

The papacy literally claims to be the “Vicar of Christ”.
Do you accept that the pope is … vicarious … that is … instead of Christ,
in place of Christ?

If not, how can you view Romanism as a genuine Christian religion?

You did not accept that the “mark” on right hand and forehead applied to that church even though it matched perfectly with the biblical description without resorting to the usual spiritualizing of that passage.

“If” a perfect match could be made regarding an image with eyes and a mouth speaking great things that dies and yet comes back to life could be identified with the religion of Rome, would that help to convince you?

How about a rider on a white horse with crown and bow matching perfectly with the papacy? Rev 6:2.

I remember how difficult it was for me to abandon my presuppositions when I was a futurist, but literal biblical visual evidence finally convinced me of my error.

I imagine it would be even harder for you, for you would have to abandon two previous belief systems.

[Josh]

The papacy literally claims to be the “Vicar of Christ”.
Do you accept that the pope is … vicarious … that is … instead of Christ,
in place of Christ?

Catholics don't think that the Pope serves as the Head of the Church instead of Christ, they see the Pope as a standing in for Christ.  This in and of itself is not a problem, in the priesthood of believers we are all "vicars" of Christ- that is, we are Christ's hands and feet, agents on earth, little Christ's, Christ acts vicariously through us*.  Yes, I think it's problematic that the Catholic church places so much authority in one fallible person and I believe they have strayed too far from a New Testament understanding of healthy roles and dynamics for the members of the family of God.    But that doesn't equate to heresy.

As for "marks" on foreheads etc.. , it is not a "mark" in and of itself that is problematic.  Those loyal to God are spoken of as receiving a mark on their forehead, arm, or heart more times in Scripture than it's negative use in Revelation (Isaiah 49:16, Ezekiel 9:4, for just a few examples)  And even in Revelation itself there is mention of the "mark of God" on foreheads (Rev. 9:4).   The point is, there are "Godly" marks and "beastly" marks.  Why should we assume that the Catholic church's motivation is beastly?

“If” a perfect match could be made regarding an image with eyes and a mouth speaking great things that dies and yet comes back to life could be identified with the religion of Rome, would that help to convince you?

I dunno.  I can think of all sorts of ways from various eschatological perspectives one could claim they have found what that passage is referring to.  I am more inclined to believe a viewpoint that has reasons other than outward appearances to support it.




*though He may bypass us if need be, it seems to be His preferred means of interaction with the world

[Josh]

How about a rider on a white horse with crown and bow matching perfectly with the papacy? Rev 6:2.

It makes more sense to equate this writer with Christ Himself (rather than the beast) Note the comparison to Christ's description in Rev. 19:

11 I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and wages war. 12 His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. 14 The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. 15 Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.” He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. 16 On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written:

king of kings and lord of lords.

17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, “Come, gather together for the great supper of God, 18 so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and the mighty, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, great and small.”

Sounds like the same person to me.  But even if not, let's say perhaps it is simply a reference to war in general, or to the Roman miliatry or Jewish rebellion, that's still a far cry from proving that Rev. 6:2 has anything to do with the Beast.

If one interprets Rev. 6:2 as referring to Christ (as apparently Catholics do), then it makes total sense that they would depict him and the church in that way.

[canada]

It is clear that your view of the papacy is not that of the Reformation saints and martyrs ... but you are not alone.
Most current Reformed and Presbyterian pastors think as you, but I believe scripture warned us that the last days are accompanied by great deception ... that if it were possible, even the very elect would be deceived.


POPE GOD ON EARTH

Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that HE AS GOD sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. II Thess 2:3-4

The Popes (literally) claim to be "God on earth”.

All powers, titles, glory and honour bestowed upon any one pope belongs to all popes.

All these claims have been incessantly and universally urged all down the centuries by the popes of Rome, and are still advanced, as boldly as ever, in official decretals, bulls, extravagants, decisions of canonists, sentences of judges, books, catechisms, sermons, and treatises of all kinds. There is no mistaking what they amount to.

The Pope claims Divine inspiration, his words are to be received as the words of God; no laws can bind him, he is supreme over all, the very Scriptures derive their authority from him.

"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty" Pope Leo XIII Encyclical Letter of June 20, 1894

"The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, he is Jesus Christ himself, hidden under the veil of flesh."
Catholic National July 1895

"The Pope is the Supreme Judge of the law of the land ... He is the viceregent of Christ, and is not only a priest forever, but also King of kings and Lord of lords". La Civilta Cattolica, March 18 1871

"The Roman Pontiff judges all men, but is judged by no one. We declare, assert, define and pronounce: To be subject to the Roman Pontiff is to every human creature altogether necessary for salvation ... That which was spoken of Christ 'thou hast subdued all things under His feet', may well seem verified in me ... I have the authority of the King of kings.

I am all and above all, so that God Himself and I, the Vicar of God, have but one consistory, and I am able to do all that God can do, what therefore, can you make of me but God." Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam

By using this title Vicar of God, that is to say he is in place of God, for that is the meaning of vicar or vicarious.

"We define that the Holy Apostolic See (Vatican) and the Roman Pontiff hold the primacy over the whole world."
A decree of the Council of Trent, quoted in Philippe Labbe and Gabriel Cossart, "The Most Holy Councils." col. 1167

"Indeed, it is not to much to say that in view of the sublimity of their offices the priests are man gods."
The Dignity Of The Priesthood by Liquori pg 36.

There are many more damning statements that could be provided, but these should be sufficient to convince anyone that they are claiming that their Pope is God on earth.

Pope Nicholas I declared: "The appellation of God had been confirmed by Constantine on the Pope, who, being God, cannot be judged by man." Labb IX dist.5 96 Can. 7, Satis evidentur,
Decret Gratian Primer.


What does our Bible have to say about this subject?

Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there comes a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.

Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. 2 Thess 2:3-4.

Students of prophecy … this does not require rocket science intellect. This clearly is what the saints and martyrs have been telling us since the Reformation. They were burnt alive at the stake declaring the errors of Rome … and yet today this is dismissed because the claim is that the False Prophet is yet future.

Martin Luther said “… … the papacy is the seat of the true and real Antichrist … “

John Knox of Scotland said the pope should be recognized as “the very antichrist”.

Regarding the papacy, John Wesley said “He is in an emphatical sense, the Man of Sin, as he increases all manner of sin above measure.”

Thomas Cranmer said … “Wherefore it followeth Rome to be the seat of antichrist, and the pope to be very antichrist himself.”

The original Westminster Confession of Faith had this to say:
There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof but is that Antichrist that Man of Sin, and Son of Perdition that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God.
Chapter 26 Article 6.

Sir Isaac Newton stated: “If the apostasy be rightly charged upon the Church of Rome, it follows that the man of sin is the pope, not meaning this or that pope in particular, but the pope in general as the chief head and supporter of this apostasy.” From Newton’s “Dissertations On The Prophecies”.

As long as the “predictions” of today’s prophecy experts are continually placed into the future, how can they be proved wrong? This is the luxury of Hal Lindsay eschatology and that system of interpretation.

Again, the Vatican hierarchy and its Pope is the … False Prophet.

************* The word “vatic” means “prophet” *********

VATIC = PROPHET = VATICAN = FALSE PROPHET

ccc

[Josh]

Firstly, there are a lot of these scurrilous supposed "quotes by popes" on the internet.  See the Catholic responses to similiar claims here: forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=258966  I am suspicious of many of their origins- especially the more overt ones.  What was your source for these quotes? Was it taken directly from Catholic-produced and printed documents in your possession or published online by Catholics? What would be more impressive would be a modern Catholic-produced document or ANY modern Catholic who would agree to those more radical statements. And I have not found one.   

Secondly, since all believers share in Christ's priesthood in some sense all of us can be said to be "Christ's representatives" and "vicarious agents" in the world, so statements in that direction may not mean as much as they seem (in other words to equate a human unequivocally with God).

Thirdly, even if some Catholics (or Popes) were to teach wrongly on this subject, that would not be that far of a cry from simliar questionable teachings among Protestants.  Yes, I think the view of Papal infallibility ex cathedra is problematic, but doesn't mean that branch of Christianity is ulimately a front from the anti-christ.

Also, a smaller point, why should we equate Rome and not Jerusalem with "God's Temple" in 2 Thess 2:4?

And as much as I appreciate the Reformers and their sacrifices for truth and purity, that does not mean I take (or should take) their eschatology as valid.  Rather, I suspect that they let the "news of their days", somewhat similar to Hal Lindsey, flavor their reading of Revelation and other eschatological texts in ways that would have made the New Testament authors chuckle.

[canada]

Thank you for my time here.

When God destroys Mystery, Babylon Jerusalem, then I can reflect upon my error.

When He destroys Vatican City then you can reflect upon yours.

Merry Christ-Mass

And they rejoiced over the killing of God's two witnesses by making merry and exchanging gifts with one another.
Rev 11:9

[Josh]

Dec 10, 2013 17:04:13 GMT -8 canada said:

Thank you for my time here.

When God destroys Mystery, Babylon Jerusalem, then I can reflect upon my error.

When He destroys Vatican City then you can reflect upon yours.

Well, I'd argue that God already did destroy the Babylonian harlot Jerusalem in 70 AD.  But I get your joke.  You see above argument as inconsistent.   I just think there are good reasons to see Jerusalem as the new Babylon.  Do you have good reasons to think 2 Thess. 2 is talking about Rome?  I'm opening to hearing.

Merry Christ-Mass

And they rejoiced over the killing of God's two witnesses by making merry and exchanging gifts with one another.
Rev 11:9

But here, I'm afraid, you've given a perfect example of reading unintended meanings into a text simply because that text has a superficial similarities to something you disagree with (the practice of Christmas, and, presumably, it's pagan/ Catholic origins).   

I'd much rather have you thoroughly vet out one topic before jumping to another one, like Christmas.  If you want to convince people who are reasonably open-minded of your viewpoint you're going to have to be a lot more thorough.  Like, for instance, taking seriously my problems with the sources you provided.

[robin]

Firstly, there are a lot of these scurrilous supposed "quotes by popes" on the internet. See the Catholic responses to similiar claims here: forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=258966 I am suspicious of many of their origins- especially the more overt ones. What was your source for these quotes? Was it taken directly from Catholic-produced and printed documents in your possession or published online by Catholics? What would be more impressive would be a modern Catholic-produced document or ANY modern Catholic who would agree to those more radical statements. And I have not found one.

Hi Josh,
I'm not quite sure I agree with your methodology in vetting these various quotes.  Why would any true skeptic of the Catholic Church run to the very organization they are questioning, for clarity?  Don't you think it's quite possible that Catholics and the institution have an interest in quieting such opposition?  Of course they will try and explain away these obvious heretical quotes.  It may be prudent to search out a secondary independent sources for some quotes, but to seek the acknowledgment by Catholics themselves seems a bit naive.  

[Josh]

Robin,

It depends on which we think is important: what Catholics have taught in the past or what Catholics believe now? You're right, if I really want to be thorough in figuring out if Popes or other Catholic leaders said such things in the past, then I would have to consider non-Catholic sources.  Still, I would want to see published material by neutral sources if possible.  I just don't have much faith in these quotes from websites.  But, I think it is instructive that modern Catholics fiercely reject the idea that the Pope is or was ever considered unequivocally equal with God.  If they don't hold that view now, should we hold it against them that some Catholics years ago might have held such views?  Should we label them unchristian because of it?  Should we hold them in deep suspicion as not really being our brothers in Christ?

[christopher]

It's not just internet, Steve also cites many of these quotes in his Revelation Four Views book.  What his sources were?  I don't know.  It's a long held historicist claim however.