Rome and Antichrist
- Thread starter St. Joseph
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Johann, I am probably the same vintage as the author of this article.
I would not endorse the author's understanding of Revelation 17. The seven hills in this chapter represent seven religions that the Dragon is draped over. It would seem that the author did not see the metaphorical connections between "hills" and religion, as described in Daniel 2
This passage tells us the following: -
34 As you watched, a stone was cut out, but not by human hands. It struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay, and crushed them. 35 Then the iron, clay, bronze, silver, and gold were shattered and became like chaff on the threshing floor in summer. The wind carried them away, and not a trace of them could be found. But the stone that had struck the statue became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.
And this passage tells us the following: -
44 In the days of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will shatter all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, but will itself stand forever. 45 And just as you saw a stone being cut out of the mountain without human hands, and it shattered the iron, bronze, clay, silver, and gold, so the great God has told the king what will happen in the future.
It is my view that the author firmly held on to the Reformation generated understanding that the Roman Empire was the fourth kingdom mentioned in the Daniel 2 Statue Prophecy and will return as the revived Roman Empire in our distant future.
Sadly Jeremaih 50 presents a very different picture and tells us that Babylon would be devastated and desolated by the Greek Empire having dominion over Babylon around the year 120 BC around 60 years before the Roman Empire became a dominate force on the world stage for around two ages which began around 60 BC. Revelation 16:17-21 tells us that Babylon would be remembered once more were we are told "And great Babylon was remembered before God, to give her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of His wrath." This occurred in 1926 AD. As such the fourth segment of the Daniel 2 Statue prophecy is Iraq, and the fifth segment of the statue prophecy is the Coalition of the Willing which was led by the king, i.e., the president, of the USA when many nations from around the world entered Iraq to heal the land instead of being the instruments of Iraq's destruction.
But this understanding is so far out of left field for many students of the Scriptures that they will reject what God has plainly revealed within the End Time Prophecies.
What do I think? I would not recommend the site from which this article came from.
Shalom
Last edited:
No problem @Jay Ross-I would take Utley's advice anytime-
It must be said that the different schools of modern eschatological interpretation all contain half truths.
They explain and interpret well some texts. The problem lies in consistency and balance. Often there is a set of presuppositions which use the biblical text to fill in the pre-set theological skeleton.
The Bible does not reveal a logical, chronological, systematic eschatology. It is like a family album. The pictures are true, but not always in order, in context, in a logical sequence. Some of the pictures have fallen out of the album and later generations of family members do not know exactly how to put them back.
The key to proper interpretation of Revelation is the intent of the original author as revealed in his choice of literary genre.
Most interpreters try to carry their exegetical tools and procedures from other genres of the NT into their interpretations of Revelation. They focus on the OT instead of allowing the teachings of Jesus and Paul to set the theological structure and let Revelation act as illustrative. See Fee and Stuart, How To Read the Bible for All Its Worth, pp. 249-264.
I must admit that I approach my commentary on the Revelation with some fear and trepidation, not because of the curse of Rev. 22:18-19, but because of the level of controversy the interpretation of this book has caused and continues to cause among God's people.
See here @Jay Ross? Man, I love Utley's transparency! I mean, most here are "scholars" on the book of Revelation-
I love God's revelation. It is true when all men are liars.
Please use my exegetical commentary as an attempt to be thought provoking and not definitive, as a sign post and not a road map, as a "what if," not a "thus says the Lord."
Another piece of sound advice from Utley-
I have come face to face with my own inadequacies, biases, and theological agenda. I have also seen those of other interpreters (see Four Views on the Book of Revelation, 1998, and The Meaning of the Millennium, several authors, 1977).
Did you read the Four Views?
It almost seems that people find in Revelation what they expect to find. The genre lends itself to abuse!
Another piece of sound advise from Utley.
However, it is in the Bible for a purpose. Its placement as the concluding "word" is not by accident. It has a message from God to His children of each and every generation. God wants us to understand! Let us join hands, not form camps; let us affirm what is clear and central, not all that may be, might be, could be true. God help us all!
No offence brother @Jay Ross I will stick to the sound advice from Dr. Utley.
Shalom
Johann.
Last edited by a moderator:
I found this paragraph in the link you provided, a little disturbing.
I pointed out in my reading of the information that you had provided a link to, an obvious error.
If you want to accept his advice, then do so with caution.
Shalom
However, even within the NT there is tension. There is no clear systemization of eschatological events. In many ways the book of Revelation surprisingly uses OT allusions in describing the end instead of using the teachings of Jesus (cf. Matthew 24; Mark 13)! It follows the literary genre initiated by Ezekiel, Daniel, and Zechariah, but developed during the intertestamental period (Jewish apocalyptic literature). This may have been John's way of linking the Old and New Covenants. It shows the age-old pattern of human rebellion and God's commitment to redemption! But it must be noted that although Revelation uses OT language, persons, and events, it reinterprets them in light of first century Rome (cf. Revelation 17).
If you believe that the understanding Dr Utley is worth following, then why did Utley criticise John from following Jesus' pattern of teaching when Jesus Himself referenced many OT passages and illustrations to present the Gospel.I pointed out in my reading of the information that you had provided a link to, an obvious error.
If you want to accept his advice, then do so with caution.
Shalom
I appreciate your concern brother-Dr. Bob Utley, a professor in hermeneutics. unheard of by most-would never criticize John from following Jesus pattern of teachings Jay.
(see Four Views on the Book of Revelation, 1998, and The Meaning of the Millennium, several authors, 1977).
Most interpreters try to carry their exegetical tools and procedures from other genres of the NT into their interpretations of Revelation. They focus on the OT instead of allowing the teachings of Jesus and Paul to set the theological structure and let Revelation act as illustrative.
See Fee and Stuart, How To Read the Bible for All Its Worth, pp. 249-264.
May seem like a contradiction from Utley but it is not-and I wonder if you have ever read the Four Views on the Book of Revelation?
I am always open for correction brother and hungry to learn, rightly cutting straight the Scriptures, and appreciate your input and directives as to Dr. Utley.
As to error, I think we all can make a mistake, not intentionally, that's why we need each other.
Shalom
Johann.
Davy
Well-Known Member
Brethren in Christ, BEWARE of those who try... to sound like they are learned doctors of wisdom and only categorize, classify, compartmentalize, systematize, and pigeonhole prophecy in God's Word as if they have unraveled all its 'supposed' secrets.
The only way of proper interpretation of a prophecy in God's Word is by allowing God's Word to do the interpreting. That means we cannot... rely on men's philosophy and systems in order to properly understand it.
Intellectualism is NOT God's Way. Confirming WITHIN God's Word with at least two or more Scripture witnesses, and then a 'revealing' by The Holy Spirit giving understanding, IS... God's Way. Intellectualism comes from man; a revealing comes from God by The Holy Spirit.
The only way of proper interpretation of a prophecy in God's Word is by allowing God's Word to do the interpreting. That means we cannot... rely on men's philosophy and systems in order to properly understand it.
Intellectualism is NOT God's Way. Confirming WITHIN God's Word with at least two or more Scripture witnesses, and then a 'revealing' by The Holy Spirit giving understanding, IS... God's Way. Intellectualism comes from man; a revealing comes from God by The Holy Spirit.
Similar threads
