Revelation; The Beast and the Temple

Would the "Beast of Revelation" also be the "king who occupies the Temple", as found in other parts of the Bible?
And if so, in what way?
That's the connection I'm going to be considering.

The "king in the Temple" theme begins in history.
The starting point is the controversial policy of the notorious Antiochus IV, who provoked the Maccabean revolt.
He's responsible for setting the pattern

"The king has a high opinion of himself".
This king announced himself on his coins as THEOS EPIPHANES- "the visible god". Enough said.
"The king takes control of the Temple".
He sent an army for that purpose in 167 B.C.
"The king seeks to suppress the religion of God's people".
Orders were given and enforced that the Jews should cease to observe the Sabbath and other holy days, that they should cease to circumcise their children , and so on.
"The king places a new worship in the Temple".
An image of Jupiter was set up in the Temple (and it's been suggested that the face resembled that of the king himself). The image became the centre of sacrifice- which therefore displaced and made impossible what the Jews would regard as true sacrifice.

The same theme is repeated in Daniel.
The events of history now become the model.
Daniel's reflecting on the Jewish experience under Antiochus, but he's also premising a future king of a similar kind.
So Daniel's king has a high opinion of himself;
"And the king shall do according to his will; he shall exalt himself and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak astonishing things against the God of gods... he shall not give heed to any other god, for he shall magnify himself above all".
He takes power in the Temple and suppresses the religion there;
Forces from him shall appear and profane the Temple and fortress and shall take away the continual burnt offering". (Daniel ch11 v31&vv36-7)
"And they shall set up the abomination that makes desolate".

This famous phrase is used in 1 Maccabees about the image of Jupiter, and later repeated by Jesus.
The word "Abomination" implies something disgusting- I suggest that this is about God's reaction. The word can be used about idolatrous images in general, which are offensive to God because they go against the basic premise of the first commandment.

The word "Desolation" is about loneliness and bereavement and a sense of having been abandoned.
The English word comes ultimately from the Latin SOLUS- "alone". (A "desolate" land is a land without inhabitants)
The Greek word used to translate it in the gospels ultimately comes from EREMOS- which, again, means "alone".
This meaning becomes relevant because the Temple had become the primary contact point between the Jewish nation and their God, and the continual sacrifice had become the primary means of contact.
Stopping the sacrifices therefore broke the contact.
It would have left them feeling alone, bereaved. In a word, it would have left them "desolated".

The word is used in Ezra (normally translated as "astonished" or "appalled") to describe Ezra in his dumbfounded state when he's learnt about the mixed marriages (Ezra ch9 v3). So perhaps "a state of emotional shock" can be added to our sense of the meaning.
Either way, the word "Desolation" seems to be mainly about the reaction of the Jews themselves

Jesus predicts an "Abomination of desolation", but doesn't explain who sets it up (Luke ch21 v24).
While Paul speaks of a man with a high opinion of himself who takes power in the temple;
"who opposes and and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the Temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God."- 2 Thessalonians ch2 v4
These two statements, taken together, add up to the New Testament version of the "king in the Temple" pattern.

The Beast in Revelation ch17 is oppressing God's people for forty-two months, which we recognise as another version of the "half-a-week of years" during which Daniel's king is doing the same thing.
For this and other reasons, the normal understanding is that Daniel and Revelation are describing the same ruler.
This implies that the Beast would be following through the "king in the Temple" theme.

But there's one serious obstacle to this assumption which needs to be overcome.
The "king in the Temple" must, by definition, be able to take control of the Temple.
On the other hand, we're told in Revelation ch11 vv1-2 that the nations would be "trampling over the holy city" and that the outer court of the Temple, at least, would be given over to them-
BUT the Temple itself is to be measured out, and reserved for God, as the one area which is NOT going to be "given over" to hostile power.
In fact the parallel in Ezekiel suggests that the purpose of measuring the Temple is to prepare it for the Lord's return (Ezekiel ch43 vv1-3).
How is this contradiction to be reconciled?

The way to clear this obstacle is to consider the meaning of "the Temple" for New Testament purposes.
One of the best explanations comes from Paul.
He's developing the metaphor that the Christian community is like a building, and then he draws attention to the fact that this "building" has a divine resident;
"Do you not know that you are God's Temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you?"- 1 Corinthians ch3 v16
(This is "you" in the plural, referring to the local community- the better-known verse about individual bodies comes later in the letter)
In the context, this is part of Paul's campaign against divisiveness. He's about to observe that anyone who breaks up Christian unity is effectively guilty of demolishing a sacred building.
But the insight has permanent value.
That the indwelling of the Spirit within the Christian community is enough to make it, as a body, the real "Temple of God".

Now the Beast, armed with political power, could undoubtedly find it possible to seize control of the outward forms of the church, such as the buildings, the structures of organisation, and the official leadership. That would give him enough control to enable him to force through the kind of policies which would fit the pattern we've already observed.

But the outward forms of the church are not the real temple. They are nothing more than the "outer court" of the Temple. That's as far as he can get.
While the real centre of the Temple would remain intact and untouchable in the faithfulness of believers, an area "measured out" for God and waiting for his return.

How might the Beast live up to the "king in the Temple" pattern?
In the first place, the common understanding is that he would be an antichrist, that he would be claiming to be the returned Christ.
That would certainly meet the point that the king would have a high opinion of himself, and would "proclaim himself to be God".
It would also justify taking control of church structures in the way that I've already suggested.
And it would lead, logically, into what strikes me as a very plausible understanding of the "Abomination of Desolation".

Surely, in the first place, he would be insisting that the churches recognise his claim, incorporating it into their doctrinal statements, their public worship, their teaching, and their public life in general. There would be no need for a statue or any other image (though he might find some symbol to replace the cross). If the Beast was being recognised as the returned Christ in the churches of God, that would be enough to constitute an Abomination.

And there is also a regular activity which he could "cause to cease".
Paul tells us that eating the Lord's Supper is a way of proclaiming his death "until he comes"- 1 Corinthians ch11 v26
How could someone claiming to be the returned Christ possibly tolerate a continuing practice based on the assumption that Christ had not yet returned?
It would be a logical necessity that the Beast would want the celebaration of the Supper, in those terms, to come to an end.

But the Supper is a primary point of contact, and primary means of contact, for the church.
Amongst other things, it's a way of expressing the unity of the church;
"We who are many are one body, because we all share in one bread"- 1 Corinthians ch10 v17
And the understanding has been that Christ is at the meal (though I'm not going to get into an interdenominational argument about the exact manner of the presence).
If Christians could not meet for the Supper- or for any other purpose- except on terms of recognising the Beast as the returned Christ, then that means of contact would be broken. The isolation resulting from that could be described as a state of "Desolation".

One final observation; if we follow this interpretation of the "king in the Temple" theme, it becomes possible to explain it without reference to a physical Temple.
In fact it becomes rather difficult to reconcile the apparent contradiction between Revelation ch11 and the other Biblical references (ie that hostile power is kept out of the Temple which the king is supposed to control) if we have to assume that a physical Temple is involved in both cases.
For that reason, I'm not convinced by the theory that "Biblical prophecy predicts the building of a third physical Temple".
Nor am I convinced that the fulfilment of Biblical prophecy would come any closer if such a Temple were built.

Your mention of the Last Supper was a coincidence! I just read an article today about the Pope wanting that room for himself!

Now,I'm more of a "connect-the-dots" sort of person,whereas you're better at filling in the blanks!

I'm with the Reformers on this subject,that the Catholic church fulfills the role of the antichrist.

..."The third issue relates to the Room of the Last Supper, which Catholics call the Cenacle. “The Catholic Church has requested private ownership of the church,” a potentially inflammatory move considering that Muslims consider the site holy and many Jews believe King David is buried in a tomb beneath the Cenacle."..

benedictinisrael.blogspot.com...

Check out some of these articles here. The Pope is everywhere on this issue of the peace treaties.

www.heisnear.com...
www.heisnear.com...


If there's any doubt that the Pope meets these requirements,...

Quotes of the popes declaring themselves 'GOD ON EARTH' (Blasphemy #1 John 10:33)

Quotes declaring POPE INFALLIBLE

TITLES OF POPE that confirm he fulfills 2Thess 2:4

Quotes of priests declaring they have POWER TO FORGIVE SIN (Blasphemy #2 Mark 2:7)

Quotes of the popes HATING THE CHRISTIANS 05-17-09

Priests have POWER OF GOD HIMSELF

Priests have MORE POWER than God Himself

Vatican claims POWER OVER ALL GOVERNMENTS

Vatican claims POWER OVER ALL CHURCHES

Vatican admits connection with CAESAR

Vatican Claims POWER TO CHANGE GOD'S LAW

Vatican boldly pushes for SUNDAY LAWS

Vatican seeks to ABOLISH CHURCH & STATE SEPARATION

Vatican openly admits BABYLONIAN CONNECTION

Quotes of the popes HATING THE BIBLE

Vatican's HATRED OF 7TH DAY SABBATH

Quotes of Popes and Prelates declaring MARY WORTHY OF WORSHIP

Popes declaring MARY CO-REDEEMER / CO-REDEMPTRIX / CO-SAVIOR

Popes declaring SALVATION ONLY FOUND IN ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

Misc quotes
Strange Jesuit quotes
OATH of the Roman Catholic priests
Vatican echoes Satan's comments in Isaiah 14

www.remnantofgod.org...
(All the above subjects,and many more that were too extensive to be included, are described in detail at the link.)

There's my 2 cents worth,and then some!

You are looking WAY too much into this all.

The Antichrist was NERO CAESAR, the END.

It happened in that "generation", when the time was "at hand", as it said in that story book that folks are OVER-ANALYZING.

Come now, LOL, the History channel was so SURE on it that they already did an episode on it describing it.

NOTHING ELSE MAKES A SHRED OF SENSE!!!

Sorry, but the mystery ended A LONG TIME AGO.

Everyones so full of fear over these stories that they are CHASING fictional bogeyman all over the place!!

Come on now, lets get with the 21st century!!







[edit on 22-8-2010 by Baloney]

reply to post by Baloney

I can't seem to be able to reply using "quote" function.
Testing this way.

reply to post by Baloney

OK, I must just observe that there are many narratives in that book which find no match at all "in that generation", so that argument does not work.
Why do you mind how we spend our time?


[edit on 22-8-2010 by DISRAELI]

reply to post by On the Edge

Thank you for all those links.
I go through them all later.
I suppose you realise that many catholics say the same about us, that the Protestant form of communion is an Abomination because it just imitates the real thing?
Perhaps both sides are wrong, and there will be a third party hostile to both of them.

the way i see it is that our body is the temple. and if we use our free will to choose not to accept christ into our temple then the anti-christ(or our way---mans kingdom or system or way of thinking...materialistic instead of spiritual) will take up house and the temple will be empty or desolate or abandoned of the holy spirit. man is the antichrist as i see it. us. ourselves. if we choose to turn away from our creator and decide that we ourselves will be king of our our life and we will make all the decisions...then we will receive the mark of the beast...(a spiritual mark that our creator gives us when when we make that choice...choosing mans/satans system (babylonian system) over the creators)

i think the final battle is that choice we make...our way(man) or our creators(spiritual). for some the battle is over quick and others its a long and brutal. but there will have to be a choice. one side of the fence or the other. there is no in-between either.

the temple is us..our mind and body and soul...who will occupy it..christ or the antichrist? christ or us...christ or man....christ or babylon....the antichrist is us....the man made system..the world we live in. without christ living in us the temple is empty....the only thing we have without christ is the world and its satanic system...we can see the antichrist system everyday everywhere we look...on tv..radio..religion..politics...work...cars..schools...technology.....the routine...everything man made....will we choose that or will we choose the creator. its up to us. do we choose to put ourselves in the place of the creator? do we choose to be "god" of our life or do we humble ourselves and recognize who we really are.




[edit on 22-8-2010 by Funkydung]

reply to post by Funkydung

Thank you for that contribution.
As usual, your comments are very thought-provoking.
OK, what about the possibility that we're both right? What you say about ourselves as individual temples is very important, and can also be derived from Paul.
Then my comments about the body of Christ as a Temple can be true at the same time. Both angles need to be considered.

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by On the Edge

 

I suppose you realise that many catholics say the same about us, that the Protestant form of communion is an Abomination because it just imitates the real thing?
Perhaps both sides are wrong, and there will be a third party hostile to both of them.

Like Walter Veith said,"If he's not the antichrist,then he just has some really bad luck!"

The Pope matches all the criteria. Who do the Protestants have to match such a description?

I guess from other prophecies,it isn't until the last Pope that things really heat up. Time will tell! But there will definetly be a Pope residing over this Peace Treaty.

P.S.
I just found the Heisnear site today. It'll be good to see what else it has to say. I like the up-to-date news part that I've seen so far,at one of those links.



[edit on 22-8-2010 by On the Edge]

reply to post by Baloney

It is funny that they assume to know the code and lets face it "NERO" is now a program and can be anyone but thats only IF they figured out the code. It would seem to me that the "code" they found is way to easy Nero would have known .

And why have we not seen in the past what we are seeing now? And where was the one world government in Nero's day? Some things just don't add up and yes i seen that show and back then i seen why to many holes.

And you forget to mention the other views of that show making your post one sided. But thats ok thats what you want because you don't believe in any of this right?

Originally posted by GunzCoty
reply to post by Baloney

 

And why have we not seen in the past what we are seeing now? And where was the one world government in Nero's day?

And you forget to mention the other views of that show making your post one sided. But thats ok thats what you want because you don't believe in any of this right?

Thank you for that comment; of course I agree with your remarks about world government.
And that particular poster has commented on my threads before; I can only concur.

Originally posted by On the Edge
I guess from other prophecies,it isn't until the last Pope that things really heat up. Time will tell! But there will definetly be a Pope residing over this Peace Treaty.

Let's see what happens about some kind of world-government, the "Beast from the sea" side of things. That ought to make the picture a lot clearer. We're definitely still waiting for that at the moment.

I kept trying to respond to your original post, but that was the time they were having trouble with the servers. Very frustrating.

Originally posted by DISRAELI

Originally posted by GunzCoty
reply to post by Baloney

 

And why have we not seen in the past what we are seeing now? And where was the one world government in Nero's day?

And you forget to mention the other views of that show making your post one sided. But thats ok thats what you want because you don't believe in any of this right?

Thank you for that comment; of course I agree with your remarks about world government.
And that particular poster has commented on my threads before; I can only concur.

do you know why they call it the new world order? because there was a time when there was another world order...the old world order if you will.....it was babylon...the king or ruler was nimrod. if i remember right nimrod was "satan" in human form.....i guess he figured since our creator messed that world order up there would have to be another one...the new world order. babylon was all about self worship...their own religion...self government...without our creators interference. same with this new one.


[edit on 22-8-2010 by Funkydung]

reply to post by Funkydung


Please understand i said "one world government" that means the world not the UK to China not Mexico to Africa but all the lands of the world under one government. As what they are perusing now.

The NWO can mean many things to many people. You can say America is the NWO it is the new world (was/is).

But what most people mean when they say NWO is one world government.

Originally posted by GunzCoty
Please understand i said "one world government" that means the world not the UK to China not Mexico to Africa but all the lands of the world under one government. As what they are perusing now.

I can't speak for Funkydung, concering his own interpretation of "one world".
But the idea I was putting forward when I talked about the "Beast from the Sea" was that it could be a fairly loose one.
The key thought was that the "ten kings" of ch17, who gave the Beast their authority, would be rulers of the world at large who would be willing to work with him. Thus he could control part of the world directly, and part of it indirectly, and thus one way or another would end up dominating most of the world. More than one empire in history, including the Roman, has worked with that combination of direct and indirect rule.

From an article titled:"Pope Endorses World Political Authority"

Sounding like Obama himself, Pope Benedict says this new international order can be accomplished through “reform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth.”

www.aim.org...



From "The Pope and the New World Order"

Ex Jesuit Priest Alberto Rivera states... "The main underlying Roman Catholic purpose is to infiltrate, and penetrate all the areas of life, were the Roman Catholic Church can have control with excess in a One World Government. ...this have been in preparation especially since the formation of the Jesuit order in 1541 to infiltrate absolutely every area of society so as to take over the world politically and religiously. The two main doctrines of Catholicism that define this are... The doctrine of the Apostolic succession, which is actually the Papacy. And the doctrine of temporal power which is secular government. The office of Pope illustrates this easily... The Pope is the head of the Church as well as the head of the State of Rome."

www.remnantofgod.org...

Just some more to think about!

Originally posted by On the Edge
I'm with the Reformers on this subject,that the Catholic church fulfills the role of the antichrist.

One thing always strikes me about that line of thought. It's also part of Protestant tradition to regard the Catholic Church as the Harlot of Babylon.
The trouble is that if you look closely at ch17, it's clear that the Harlot and the Beast are distinct. At the beginning of the chapter the Harlot rests on the Beast, but at the end of the chapter the horns of the Beast are attacking her.
So whatever understanding we have of these two has to account for this sudden change of sympathy- and in any case, it must involve treating them as separate entities.

AS far as the interpretation for John's own time is concerned, I'm coming to the view that;
The Harlot is Rome the city
The first Beast is Rome the Empire
The second Beast is the Emperor.
Applying the interpretation to a later time then involves distributing those three concepts.

My other concern is the overall interpretation of Revelation. I would still maintain both that the antichrist does not fully emerge until after the world-catastrophe events of ch6, and that the world has not yet experienced the events of ch6. E.g see the attached thread;
4 Horsemen

My suggestion in the "Beast from the sea" thread was that the Beast would rise to power on the strength of his ability to lead the world out of the effects of the world-catastrophe. It could be a Pope, following one school of thought, or an American president, following another school of thought, or someone else altogether.

Then the right way to identify the Beast would be to wait for that catastrophe to happen and then see what power was pulling the world out of it, and getting all the applause for doing so. That would be your first Beast, and I think their leader would be the second Beast.

reply to post by DISRAELI
Thanks for the invite. Just a quick note to let you know that I'm on the case. I have some ideas that your mention of "desolation" have brought up. It takes me a bit of time to assemble and organize stuff into writing. I'm working on it though.

[color=484848]Subliminal Manipulation today. Can you see it?

Originally posted by Baloney
You are looking WAY too much into this all.

The Antichrist was NERO CAESAR, the END.

sure, if you want to believe that, then why not believe the numerology of other things as well?

the Opening Poster put a lot of effort and time into this thread to share with us where they are on their own personal journey concerning this subject. The OP also reached out for what other input on this may exist.

thank you for your opinion, but it is not the only truism in existance concerning this subject, impo.

there are still many other possibilites of who or what the beast is and may be. your response was a little single minded i think.

Star & Flag OP. thanks for sharing.

help keep ats fun,
et

[edit on 23-8-2010 by Esoteric Teacher]

reply to post by pthena

I appreciate your efforts.
I look forward to seeing what you come up with.