Revelation; Seven kings and an eighth

I want to offer some thoughts on the "seven kings" described in Revelation ch17.
And on the ""eighth one" who succeeds them.

I'm going to be asking the question; where do these kings belong in the story of Revelation?

In themselves

The seven kings make their appearance in Revelation ch17 v10, as one of the explanations of the seven heads of the Beast.
The number "seven", in Revelation, is a number which points us towards the action of God.
The implication is that God is controlling the limits of the sequence- that's the number that he's willing to allow.
We know nothing about the first five, except that they have "fallen".
There's a king in the present, the one who "is".
And there's a king in the future, who remains "only a little while".

Then we're told that the Beast, "who was and is not", is an eighth and "out of" (EK) the seven. "One of their number" is the usual interpretation. Or, just possibly, "following on from them".

That word "Eighth" also has associations with Christ.
1 Peter ch3 v20 observes that eight persons were saved on the Ark, which is a symbol of the salvation made possible through Christ.
2 Peter ch2 v5, making exactly the same point, describes how Noah was saved from the Flood "as an eighth man" (OGDOON). However, that particular detail of number symbolism is invisible to the readers of most modern translations, which tend to give a rendering like "saved along with seven others". (This is one of my favourite examples of the drawbacks of paraphrase translation; if the writer of the paraphrase misses the point, he also makes it impossible for his readers to find it for themselves)

In addition to that, some of the early Fathers liked to observe that Christ was raised from the dead on what was effectively "the eighth day of the week", because it was the day following the seventh. So the event could be described as "the eighth day of Creation", because it completed and perfected the work of the original seven.
"Wherefore also we keep the eighth day for rejoicing, in the which our Lord Jesus rose from the dead, and having been manifested ascended into heaven"- "Epistle of Barnabas"- 15 v9

If the Beast is taking a number which is associated with Christ, that may be an additional indication that it presents itself as an imitation of Christ

In the timeline of Revelation

Part of the sequence of kings can be correlated with events in the other chapters of Revelation.
Presumably the sixth king, the one who "is", belongs to the time when John is receiving these visions.
That puts him in the first chapter of this book, which appears to be a time of tribulation for the church.
(in which case, the first five kings don't enter into the picture at all)
We know that the "eighth" is the Beast.
This means that the "seventh king" occupies the period between those two points.
That period includes the events of ch6, which come just before the rise of the Beast.
I think, then. we have just discovered why the seventh king remains "only a little while". His reign must be the one that is interrupted and cut short by the catastrophic events of the "Four Horsemen".
That gives us a rough timescale for these events.
The tribulation implied in ch1, and God's response to it in ch6, must be separated by the kind of interval which would place them under successive kings (or regimes?).

In the Beast

These kings relate to the Beast in two different ways- the seven are "the heads of the Beast", and the eighth is "the Beast itself".

The first appearance of the Beast with seven heads and ten horns comes at the beginning of ch13;
(My previous discussion of it can be found here; The Beast from the sea)
The Beast was rising out of the sea, like the various beasts of the vision of Daniel ch7.
Since the beasts of Daniel's vision represent kingdoms, that's the most natural way of understanding the Beast of ch13.
Following the analogy of the "four-headed leopard" in Daniel's vision, I suggested that the seven heads represented subordinate kingdoms, probably coming in sequence, and that the "Beast which recovered from a mortal wound" would be a revived version of one of them.

The Beast which appears in ch17 seems to be exactly the same Beast, though the place of origin is now given as "the bottomless pit".
I'm inclined to think that "the sea" and "the bottomless pit" are the same place, for symbolic purposes.
They both have their roots in the "deep" (ABYSSOS), from which God organised the universe at the beginning of Genesis.
In that story, the sea is part of "the deep"; it is the lower portion of the great waters, the portion that remains "below the firmament".
While the fact that the pit is "bottomless" (ABYSSOS) is a pointer in the same direction.
They both represent, in slightly different metaphors, "that part of the universe which God has not organised for human habitation".
This makes them suitable symbols in Revelation for the source of evil.

We're told that the Beast "was and is not and is to come".
This needs to be set against the way that ch1 describes the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come".
Clearly the difference between them is the opposition between those two central statements, "IS", and "IS NOT".
That is as far apart as it is possible for two statements to get, which makes the Beast the polar opposite of God.
This definition of the Beast is echoed in the "was and is not" of v11.
That seems to force the conclusion that the "eighth" of v11 is not any individual king, but the world dominating state (the Beast from the sea) itself.

In ancient Rome

This chapter offers two interpretations of the seven heads, and they're both pointing towards Rome.

They are "the seven mountains" on which the woman sits.
These are normally identified with the hills of Rome.
The objection is sometimes raised that classical Rome was renowned for nine hills.
However, there was an ancient celebration, the Septimontium ("Seven-hills festival") which came down from an earlier phase in the city's history.

And, of course, they are the "seven kings".
Any Roman citizen who saw this phrase would have been reminded of the seven legendary kings of ancient Rome, from Romulus to Tarquin the Proud.
The sixth king in that sequence was Sextus Tullius, who was murdered by Tarquin.
Later Tarquin himself was expelled, so that he did not reign for the full extent of his life. He remained "only a little while".
The seven kings were then followed by the Roman republic- which, in this context, must count as "the eighth".

In John's Rome

Since John was writing, in the first instance, for the church of his own time, the obvious possibility is that these kings can also be matched against the rulers of the day.
Part of the problem is knowing where to begin counting, because the Roman state slipped only gradually from republic to monarchy.
The rulers could not call themselves "kings", because the term was abhorrent in Rome.
They sometimes called themselves IMPERATOR, but this was really a military honour, older than the Caesars, and they might assume the title more than once.
In a sense, the "monarchs" of Rome began with Augustus, who started calling himself PRINCEPS ("Number One")
Or else we might count the members of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, which provides the sequence;
1. Julius Caesar
2. Augustus
3. Tiberius
4. Caligula
5. Claudius
6. Nero
Since the sixth king in the sequence is supposed to be associated with a time of tribulation, that would seem to be the best solution.

If we try to extend the count beyond Nero, it becomes a little problematic.
There's a theory that Domitian was regarded as "the eighth", perhaps as a revivified Nero.
This gets a little support from some of the early Christian writers, who say that John was exiled in his reign.
But fitting him into the sequence requires a little juggling; Nero must be counted as the fifth (on the PRINCEPS theory), and the rulers of the turbulent year following his death must be ignored, so that Vespasian and Titus can be counted as sixth and seventh.
It also involves refusing to take at face value the statement that the sixth king is the one who "is" at the time of writing.

If John's own standpoint really is the reign of the sixth king, then his comments on the seventh and eighth would be looking forward from his own time.
His fellow-Christians would have been experiencing a time of tribulation, and they would be looking for some response from God.
The sequence of kings has a message for them; tribulation comes in the time of the sixth king, but the seventh king is the one who remains "only a little while"- swept away, apparently, by the events of ch6.
In other words, God's response comes- not quite immediately, but after a comparatively short interval. In the context of the Neronian persecution, a fulfilment of this might be seen in the turbulent year which followed his death.
But the rise of the "eighth" points to the fact that this immediate vindication would not be the end of the story. There would be at least one more hostile ruler and one more persecution (and this warning found fulfilment even in the later history of the Roman empire)

In a later time

On the assumption that John was also writing for the church of later times, people sometimes try to match these kings against more modern monarchs. But this, too, is problematic, since we don't have any firm grounds for choosing one particular line, or even for making the assumption that the sequence has already started.

One fairly popular theory points towards Charles, Prince of Wales. There were seven Holy Roman Emperors called Charles, says the theory, and a future leadership of the European Union would make him effectively the eighth.
But he's too late, it's already been done. The nineteenth century "Austrian Empire" was a "continuation" of the Holy Roman Empire in a much more real and conscious sense than anything the European Union is likely to come up with, and it concluded with the Emperor Karl (1916-1918). This man was the real "eighth" member of that particular sequence.

Perhaps a better way to employ the sequence of kings for future prophecy is to find the same message in it that John's church would have found, starting with the sixth king.
The sixth king represents a time of tribulation, of persecution.
The distance between the sixth king and the seventh king represents the comparatively short interval that would elapse between the time of tribulation and God's response (the great world-crisis of the Four Horsemen).
The "eighth" is a reminder that the Four Horsemen would not be the end of the story.
Because the rise of the Beast would follow thereafter.

NB Comparing the seven kings of ancient Rome and the list of Caesars;
For what it's worth, the sixth king of the legendary sequence and the sixth ruler of the dynasty of Caesars both suffered violent deaths.
Sextus Tullius being murdered by Tarquin
Nero dying by his own hand.
Another indicator that the sequences match?

Pedants' note re Emperor Karl, mentioned in the OP.
Wikipedia and other internet sources tend to refer to him as "Karl I"
Technically, this incorrect.
The "I" is redundant, because he had no successors of the same name from whom it is necssary to distinguish him.
For the same reason, Richard the Lionheart's brother is known in history as King John,not as King John1.
And Elizabeth I of England was just plain Queen Elizabeth, in history, until she had a successor of the same name in 1952.
Karl's dynasty was known as the house of Habsburg-Lorraine. The last of the true Habsburgs, Maria-Theresa, had married into the house of Lorraine. By all the normal customs of naming dynasties, her descandants would have been the house of Lorraine. But the Habsburg "brand-name" was obviously too valuable to give up altogether.

Revelation 13:1
And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

Revelation 17:9
And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth
10And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

Terms
sea: world consciousness, water/spirit realm
head: mountain/world government
horns: leaders
crowned horns: kings
kings: high priests/rulers
beast from the sea: leviathan, water/spiritual rulers in high places
beast from the earth: behemoth, earth/physical government
image of beast: man-god

Seven heads
Egypt
Assyria
Babylon
Medes-Persia
Greece
Rome
(______)

Revelation 1:4
John to the seven churches which are in ASIA:Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;

Revelation 17:10
And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

The seven kings were the ones God had appointed to lead his people during each gentile rule. They lead both kingdoms. The five have something in common that made them 'fallen'. They all crossed the line between Man and God.

Egypt - Moses
Assyria - Ahaz
Babylon - Nebuchadnezzar
Medes-Persia - Cyrus
Greece - Alexander

For each of these kings you will find reference in the bible the passage in which these men forgot where their power came from and became fallen.

The one king who IS is Jesus! He was, he is and is to come! Rome IS currently the head but Jesus is the king appointed to lead the people during this time.

The one to come and continue a short space is the antichrist leader God appointed for the tribulation period.
And now that we know Asia is the next 'head', the person who is playing the Maitreya character makes a lot sense.

From Rome we transition to Asia and Mithra becomes Maitreya.

reply to post by iamnot

Thank you for those comments. An interesting take on things.
So you see the seventh king as a kind of antichrist figure in his own right, previous to the Beast itself?
As distinct from my line that he's nobody in particular, just the king who gets swept away by the retribution that was earned by his predecessor.
I can't think of any immediate reason why this should not be the case, but I may think of one later.

One of the side-effects of your theory is that the "Maitreya" cannot take charge until the "seventh king" version of antichrist has had his own turn. Are you expecting Maitreya to arrive any time soon? And if so, do you have any figure in mind for his predecessor, who must come first?

Incidentally, I need to point out that "Asia" in the ancient world means the western coast of Turkey. The reference in Revelation ch1 relates to the Roman province of Asia, which is the central portion of that coastline.
When the ancient Greeks referred to "Europe" and "Asia", they were talking about the two opposite sides of the Aegean Sea. Arnold Toynbee devotes a whole Annex in "The Study of History" to the way that the rivalry between these two coasts, which Herodotus makes the running theme of his history, has imposed itself on modern geography. With the result that the Eurasian landmass is divided artificially into the two "continents" of Europe and Asia, which have no real dividing line north of the Black Sea..

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by iamnot

 

Thank you for those comments. An interesting take on things.
So you see the seventh king as a kind of antichrist figure in his own right, previous to the Beast itself?

Yes. The seventh king is flesh and blood just as the rest were including Jesus Christ! The only difference is that Jesus overcame while in flesh, that is why he is the one who is worthy. He is not fallen, he IS! The seventh is destined to fall as well. The seventh king is the false prophet and the beast is the last kingdom/government. They all are one in the spirit of the beast from the sea, the serpent.

One of the side-effects of your theory is that the "Maitreya" cannot take charge until the "seventh king" version of antichrist has had his own turn. Are you expecting Maitreya to arrive any time soon? And if so, do you have any figure in mind for his predecessor, who must come first?

My thoughts were that Maitreya is the seventh king. There is no separate king that comes before him. They are one in the same. The difference is between the man in the flesh and the angel in charge of that man. For instance, when Jesus was here in the flesh, Michael the Archangel was behind the scenes in the spirit but they were here together.

In that sense the next seventh king is the false prophet to come or is already here, and Maitreya is the angel behind the scenes working hand in hand together with him.

Michael was called the Prince of Daniels people and Jesus King of Kings. So in that case perhaps I should say that Maitreya would be the Prince of the people to come and the false prophet, whoever that is, the king.

Incidentally, I need to point out that "Asia" in the ancient world means the western coast of Turkey. The reference in Revelation ch1 relates to the Roman province of Asia, which is the central portion of that coastline.
When the ancient Greeks referred to "Europe" and "Asia", they were talking about the two opposite sides of the Aegean Sea. Arnold Toynbee devotes a whole Annex in "The Study of History" to the way that the rivalry between these two coasts, which Herodotus makes the running theme of his history, has imposed itself on modern geography. With the result that the Eurasian landmass is divided artificially into the two "continents" of Europe and Asia, which have no real dividing line north of the Black Sea..

Yes of course, but just as Rome has extended to include America, Asia also must be broadened in a sense and include more than Turkey. The main issue here is the recurring theme of a central religious and political power and the one that is dominating Asia today will dominate Jerusalem for a short time.

See this thread here for the plans to syncretise the worlds religions, all leading back to the neo-Babylonian empire. Mysticism especially is dominant.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by iamnot
See this thread here for the plans to syncretise the worlds religions, all leading back to the neo-Babylonian empire. Mysticism especially is dominant.

Yes, a very interesting post.
There's no doubt that the syncretising tendancy will be a great menace.
I was trying to puzzle out how it might happen in practice in the "Supplement" post of the "Mother of Abominations" thread. Did you see that post?
I suggested that the personification of Gaia could have a large role for various reasons; appealing to environmentalism (perhaps, in the future, a panic-stricken environmentalism), not so attached to a traditional religion to be offensive to others, and so on.

Originally posted by DISRAELI
I suggested that the personification of Gaia could have a large role for various reasons; appealing to environmentalism (perhaps, in the future, a panic-stricken environmentalism), not so attached to a traditional religion to be offensive to others, and so on.

The following introduction from the jpa webpage is definitely an appeal to environmentalism.

www.jerusalem-academy.org...

The Jerusalem Peace Academy - Center for Education, Personal Development and Peace

I. Introduction: Planetary Awareness in the Scope of Jerusalem

There is an undoubted awareness in the world today that despite of the tremendous progress humanity has made in the fields of science and technology, this planet is presently passing through a crises unprecedented in history. It has become obvious that science and technology alone cannot save us from destructiveness and moral decline unless we turn to the very roots of our human existence and to a much higher consciousness of cosmic moral values and principles, which are the basis of our collective existence and human civilization. Countless national and international associations, like the Club of Rome, the Club of Budapest or the World Wisdom Council have not only analyzed the roots and manifestations of these crisis’, but have also presented proposals and solutions drawn from a higher source of wisdom, about how to manage and overcome them by ways of taking a decisive turn in our human consciousness. They all have urged mankind to reflect the more true meaning and purpose of life and to rise from the ordinary outdated view of life to a much higher aspiration and vision for it.

I think also that Gaia is just another name for the 'queen of heaven' also known as Isis, Astarte, Ishtar etc.

www.a-voice.org...

And now she is also known as the 'maid of heaven' by Bahai's. Bahaullah ironically was chained in the infamous 'black pit' of tehran Iran when he had this vision.

"While engulfed in tribulations I heard a most wondrous, a most sweet voice, calling above My head. Turning My face, I beheld a Maiden - the embodiment of the remembrance of the name of My Lord - suspended in the air before Me. So rejoiced was she in her very soul that her countenance shone with the ornament of the good-pleasure of God, and her cheeks glowed with the brightness of the All-Merciful. Betwixt Earth and Heaven she was raising a call which captivated the hearts and minds of men. She was imparting to both My inward and outer being tidings which rejoiced My soul, and the souls of God's honoured servants. Pointing with her finger unto My head, she addressed all who are in Heaven and all who are on Earth saying: "By God! This is the best beloved of the worlds, and yet ye comprehend not. This is the Beauty of God amongst you, and the power of His sovereignty within you, could ye but understand."

Shoghi Effendi has identified this vision of a feminine spirit with the Holy Spirit. Is this not blasphemous? Given the situation that Bahuallah was in, I wonder more if his meeting was more likely in comparison to the one Jesus had with Satan after he fasted for 40 days and was starved.

reply to post by iamnot

Thank you for all that information, which is very suggestive.
Various trends seem to be pointing in a similar direction.

reply to post by iamnot


You're very welcome.

I just noticed also that a prophesy of Revelation 13 was fulfilled in the vision that Baha had with the 'maiden'

Pointing with her finger unto My head, she addressed all who are in Heaven and all who are on Earth saying: "By God! This is the best beloved of the worlds, and yet ye comprehend not. This is the Beauty of God amongst you, and the power of His sovereignty within you, could ye but understand."

Revelation13:6And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.

reply to post by iamnot

That's a very interesting quotation indeed.
However, I don't know that it is necessarily very conclusive in itself, in terms of identifying that group as the "final" enemy of God.
The same sort of blasphemy can be done by other people only too easily, and may well be repeated at different times.

reply to post by DISRAELI


You're right. The verse in context also is during the time period of the 42 months so it can't be pointing to that time specifically. I think the message gives us a glimpse in what the false prophet will be saying during that 42 month time period however.

as usual, this is great reading...and the most pertinent subject
rome is the church, london is the bank and washington is the military...so i see rome as the mad false profit and my mind ties in the kings as the pope....however after reading you're posts, i see new possibilities...could rome and the church be the kings somehow? that pope that lasts only a short while...before the last one....hmmmm.
it's important to research there are hints for us, the Holy Spirit will lead us i'm sure....you see, i'm john wayne like here in texas....and the chopping blocks are showing up more these days....we all need to know how to act and where to situate. so we need to learn this word

Really nice post.

I found something that you may enjoy. It might shed some light on the theories presented here.

Go towards the second half of the film to be more direct on the antichrist and the kings. The first part is simply about the mark of the beast and the beast itself, as well as the harlot who rides it. Interesting stuff.


Mark/Beast/Kings

reply to post by theRhenn

Thank you for that link, which looks interesting.
I think people's ideas about the Beast, the mark of the Beast, and the Harlot, tend to hang together. That is to say, the way they view one of these things tends to affect the way they view the others.
So my own ideas about the nature of the kings and the Harlot connect with my own view about the nature of the Beast(s), which I was putting across in these two threads;
Beast from the sea- a world-state
Beast from the land- great ruler and antichrist

reply to post by DISRAELI



You've put alot of time in this, I see. very informative and pleasing to the senses Keep it up, I would definatly like to read more. This is what makes my nights interesting!

reply to post by theRhenn

Thank you for those comments.
if you want to read more, this is part of a series which has already covered about two-thirds of Revelation, and the project will probably be completed in the spring.
After that, I must find a way of indexing the threads, so that people can find their way around them.

reply to post by GBP/JPY

Thank you for those comments.
I'm currently trying to put something together on the subject of the Harlot and Rome.
It isn't easy, becasue I'm not really comfortable with the popular interpretations.

reply to post by DISRAELI
DISRAELI,

I would like to add about the observation of the heads being Kings that first we should realize what the heads are. We can easily determine that by what was the head that was wounded. It was the Papacy and is a religious system and so then is the rest. These heads had the crowns in Rev. 13:2 until the deadly wound to the sixth head, being the one after the five are fallen, proven false, no Redeemer. But we see the crowns are now on the horns when the wound is being healed. Rev. 13:1 Now the heads are not Kings. The heads had the rule "as" kings but now after 1798 the date of the wound the horns now then have the rule as Kings. The change of the crowns are significant. If we don't use that part of the explanation we will not come to the right answer, like in a math thought problem. Also that puts this in a time frame and that is very important. I always look for a time frame as this helps to unravel the true meaning. 1798 is a very important year. A year of new beginnings.

For now that is my consideration.

Truthiron.