Revelation; Harlot Babylon pt3 (Twinned with Rome)

Sorry, I don't believe that the city, Babylon, will be Rome, but it will be the rebuilt Babylon. The Bible says that Babylon (the Empire) sits on seven mountains and not seven hills. Mountains represent countries or nations and the countries listed in Ezekiel 38 are now said to be 7 Muslim countries.

About 30 years ago the world was 1/5 Islam, today is is 1/4 Islam. After the rapture and all the calamities on the earth, the world will be at least 1/3 Islam, if not 1/2, half way through the 7 year Tribulation Period.

reply to post by TerryPrice54

You've been reading this thread very hastily, or else you would have noticed that in my second post, the "Supplementary" post, I agree with your first sentence. I don't believe, either, that Revelation's Babylon need be literally based on the name and location of Rome.

The argument I present is that Revelation's Babylon would be like Imperial Rome in two respects;
a) Domination of the known world.
b) Hostility to God's people.

There is now an Index, covering all these Revelation threads, at this location;

Index of Revelation threads

This thread is numbered as #36 in the "order of chapters" list and Biblical reference index.

Just to clarify;
Nothing in the OP is intended to suggest any particular prophetic significance in the year 2012 or the date 21/12/2012

reply to post by DISRAELI

Isn't the fourth kingdom of Daniel 2 Rome (described but not named)
Isn't the fourth kingdom of Daniel 7 also Rome?

Isn't the identity of the fourth kingdom identified as that which follows Greece?..
...and determined by the time hach of Daniel 2:44...
"And in the days of THESE KINGS the God of heaven will SET UP a kingdom...”

What kings ruled during the period that God set up a kingdom?

I appreciate that Babylon and Rome can apply in principle but only based on the primary historical fulfillment of these prophecies.

reply to post by troubleshooter

Yes, indeed.
But if the name "Babylon" is being applied to Rome, not just in Revelation but in 2 Peter, and we know that Rome was not, in fact, Babylon in a literal geographical sense, then how literally and geographically are we meant to take the identication with Rome, when we apply the chapters as prophecy?

PS I also refer you to the last couple of paragraphs in the "Old Testament" section of the OP, where I suggest the possibility that the strict "Rome" connection is restricted to the first coming of Christ.

reply to post by DISRAELI



My response to the claims made about the year 2012 was that I could see no prophetic significance in the date.
This position seems to have been vindicated.

Here is my belief on the subject.
The identity of the harlot Babylon from Revelation chapter 17 is closely tied to the identification of the beast empire, the 4th kingdom from Daniel chapter 2 and chapter 7. The key to understanding anything in the book of Revelation lies in understanding the symbolism that is used. When trying to identify the woman or “harlot of Babylon,” we must first examine what the woman represents. Revelation 17:18 tells us this, “The woman whom you saw is the great city, which reigns over the kings of the earth.” We now know that the woman represents a city, a “great city,” not an entire kingdom. The identification of the city can be gleaned from a careful examination of the scripture.

Verse 17:1 tells us that “the great harlot … sits on many waters.” The identity of the “waters,” is revealed in verse 15; “the waters which you saw where the harlot sits, are peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues.” The fact that this city is depicted as being seated on “peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues” indicates the city’s connection to the gentile world. We will come back to this later.

Another important piece of information is found in verse 3 where John sees “(the) woman sitting on a scarlet beast, full of blasphemous names, having seven heads and ten horns.” The fact that the woman is seen riding the beast is a clue that there is an agreement or covenant between this “great city” and the beast empire of the antichrist. In verse 4 the city’s sinfulness is emphasized when the woman is pictured as “having in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and of the unclean things of her immorality.” Likewise in verse 6 the woman is “drunk with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the witnesses of Jesus.” The only references to “great (3173) city (4172)” in the Greek are in Revelation, and the first reference definitely refers to Jerusalem. Revelation 11:8 says “and their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great (3173) city (4172) which is allegorically called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified.” Jerusalem is being allegorically called “Babylon” and is being referred to as a harlot because she has left her faith in the Living God and now has a gentile identity. Additionally we know from Rev. 11:2 that the gentiles will control Jerusalem for 42 months (half of 7 years). Revelation 18:24 says of Babylon, “And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints and of all who have been slain on the earth.” This is a clear reference to Jerusalem; Jesus himself said “no prophet can die outside Jerusalem.”

According to Daniel 9:27 Israel will make a 7 year treaty with the antichrist. This is also shown with the image of the woman riding the scarlet beast. Jeremiah 2:13 mimics the character of some of God’s people during this time. “For My people have committed two evils: they have forsaken Me, the fountain of living waters, to hew for themselves cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.” However, God will preserve a remnant of Israel who will not soil themselves with the antichristian idolatry during this time.

Now we will examine the nature of the beast empire that is led by the antichrist. “Beast” in Revelation is a term that is used interchangeably between the antichrist and his empire.
Revelation 17:8 says “The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to come up out of the abyss and go to destruction.” This means that the empire of the antichrist will be an empire that has existed previously and will be revived during the last days. Revelation 17:9-10 are crucial in the interpretation of which kingdom is being revived and used by the antichrist. They state “Here is the mind which has wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits, and they are seven kings; five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; and when he comes, he must remain a little while.” Notice that the verse actually says “mountains” and not “hills” because that is what the Greek word actually means (NIV incorrectly translates as hills).
We already know that the woman is Jerusalem, but what do the mountains represent? When “mountain” is used symbolically in the scripture, it is a reference to a kingdom or empire. This is what verse 10 actually tells us. The seven kings are not human kings but are seven kingdoms, so what is pictured here is a city, Jerusalem, which is seated upon seven kingdoms that have existed sequentially throughout earth history. At the time of John’s writing “five have fallen.” These five were the Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Medo-Persian, and Greek kingdoms. The sixth kingdom was Rome, the kingdom of John’s time. The kingdom that had “not yet come” was the Islamic Caliphate. It began after Muhammad’s death in 632 AD and continued until the Ottoman Empire was abolished in 1924. Verse 10 says of the seventh king (kingdom), “when he comes, he must remain a little while.” This was certainly true of the Islamic Caliphate which existed for almost 1300 years! It is duration and not non-duration that is being stressed here.

We are given another clue about the beast empire in verse 11. It says “The beast which was and is not, is himself also an eighth and is one of the seven, and he goes to destruction.” This means that the beast empire is sequentially an eighth empire that will arrive on the world scene, and that it is also one of the seven already mentioned. One of the seven kingdoms is revived and becomes the eighth and final one. Rome was the sixth empire, and some people believe that there will be a revived Roman empire that will be the seventh empire. If that were the case then would Rome be the eighth as well? Rome cannot be the sixth, seventh, and eighth empires; it makes no sense and is not found in the Word of God. Revelation 17:16 gives us another reason that Rome cannot be the kingdom used by the antichrist. “And the ten horns which you saw, and the beast, these will hate the harlot and will make her desolate and naked, and will eat her flesh and will burn her up with fire.” If Rome is the revived beast empire, would it hate the harlot city Rome? No. But would a revived Islamic Caliphate hate the harlot city Jerusalem? You’d better believe it! Verse 16 says that the beast and his kings will make the city “desolate … and will burn her with fire.” Jesus mentioned this very event in Matthew 23:37-38. “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you … Look, your house is left to you desolate.”

reply to 9baller
Thank you for thinking the question through so carefully.
I keep saying that the identity of the Harlot is a compilcated question, which is why I devoted four or five different threads to her.

Firstly, I'm sure that the Christians of John's time were very likely to recognise in her the Jewish community of their own time, because the Jews were people who should have been on the same side, as worshippers of the same God, but they rested on their special privilege granted by the Roman authorities and collaborated in the persecution of Christians.
But that doesn't necessarily prove what "the Harlot" means looking forwards from John's time.

The great difficulty with identifying "great city which reigns over the kings of the earth" with Jerusalem is that Jerusalem has never ruled over the kings of the earth. Surely that verse looks like a clear pointer to Rome (but I don't think in terms of geographical Rome- rather whatever power in the world occupies thae same kind of place which Rome occupied in John's time).

You point out "great city where their Lord was crucified". All this means is that the phrase in ch11 is pulling in two different directions- "great city" clearly points to Rome, and "where the Lord was crucified seems to point to Jerusalem".
The solution I suggested in one of my threads is that John is doing what John Bunyan was doing when he offerred the picture of the great city "Vanity Fair" as representing the world as a whole.
In other words, "great city" is not pointing to any specific city at all, but to the power nexus, potrayed metaphorically as a city, which rules the earth, killed Christ, and will kill the witnesses.

In a couple of places I have proposed that the relation between Harlot and Beast and between the two Beasts works like this;
Harlot = Rome the city
Beast from the sea = Rome the Empire
Beast from the land = The Emperor.
That explains the relation between the two Beast. The Beast from the land "exercises the authority" of the other Beast because that is what Emperors do- they exercise the authority which belongs to the Empire.
Then the resting of the Harlot on the Beast becomes the resting of the capital on the provinces of the Empire- as illustrated by the way Rome was so dependent upon the imported food supply.
Finally the destruction of the Harlot at the end of the chapter becomes the destruction of the central power by the provinces, which is a very good description of the way it went in history

According to Daniel 9:27 Israel will make a 7 year treaty with the antichrist.

Daniel does not say that. Daniel says just that he "makes covenant with many". All this "peace-treaty with Israel" business is a piece of imaginative glossing which has become fashionable.
In my opinion, this phrase in Daniel is describing exactly the same course of events that John describes later in this chapter; "the kings give their authority into his hands". This is about the world-dominating ruler building up a network of client rulers.

Your interpretation of the "seven hills" is the weakest part of your case. You cannot say that Jerusalem has been ruling over the kingdoms you name. It hasn't.
OK, it is plausible that an Islamic Caliphate might destroy Jerusalem, explaining the second half of the chapter.
But that interpretation also requires that Jerusalem rests on the support of the Islamic Caliphate in the first half of the chapter, helping them to persecute Christians. In the first half of the chapter the Harlot (Jerusalem?) and the Beast (the Islamic Caliphate?) are working together as partners and collaborators. Is this plausible?

Yes, there is a sense in which the Harlot is an image of "unfaithful Jerusalem". I even offer you an important text where this comes out very clearly- Jeremiah ch4 v30 ; "...what do you mean that you dress in scarlet, that you deck yourself with ornaments of gold?" I was expounding this in another "Harlot" thread, the one I called "The other woman".
But the Harlot is a great deal more complicated than that.

One thing you are missing out is that the beast that the harlot rides is unique, in this case, it is different.
It is scarlet/red and that other beast isn't. So they are close but not the same. The red colored beast is only mentioned in Revelation, it actually relates to a new power, not an old power.


Revelation 17 : 3

Then the angel carried me by his power into the wilderness. I saw a woman sitting on a bright red beast covered with insulting names. It had seven heads and ten horns.

Revelation 17 : 10&11

They are also seven kings. Five of them have fallen, one is ruling now, and the other has not yet come. When he comes, he must remain for a little while. 11The beast that was and is no longer* is the eighth king. It belongs with the seven kings and goes to its destruction.

* Rev 17:8a "You saw the beast which once was, is no longer, and will come from the bottomless pit and go to its destruction."

The one that was ruling now was obviously the Roman empire, confirmed by various other prophesies as both the terrible beast of Daniel 7:7 and the iron legs of the giant image prophesy. There is pretty much no debate with Christians on this, but what comes after is.

There are seventh and eighth kings, these are different than the Roman Empire.

The reality is the eighth King is very closely related to the scarlet/red beast.

Revelation chapter 13 also talks about more beasts there is "The Beast" and "The Beast with lambs horns" and then the "Image of the Beast" these all represent different political entities, again they relate very closely to the seventh and eighth kings.

DISRAELI
reply to 9baller

The great difficulty with identifying "great city which reigns over the kings of the earth" with Jerusalem is that Jerusalem has never ruled over the kings of the earth. Surely that verse looks like a clear pointer to Rome (but I don't think in terms of geographical Rome- rather whatever power in the world occupies thae same kind of place which Rome occupied in John's time).

I agree with you that Jerusalem has never ruled over the kings of the earth, but we must remember that this is a prophecy and that most of Revelation has to do with the tribulation period. This will be fulfilled during the second half of the tribulation when the Antichrist sets himself up in the temple of God (2 Thes. 2:4) in Jerusalem (rebuilt temple) and rules from Jerusalem.

DISRAELI
reply to 9baller
You point out "great city where their Lord was crucified". All this means is that the phrase in ch11 is pulling in two different directions- "great city" clearly points to Rome, and "where the Lord was crucified seems to point to Jerusalem".
The solution I suggested in one of my threads is that John is doing what John Bunyan was doing when he offerred the picture of the great city "Vanity Fair" as representing the world as a whole.
In other words, "great city" is not pointing to any specific city at all, but to the power nexus, potrayed metaphorically as a city, which rules the earth, killed Christ, and will kill the witnesses.

The verse actually reads "And their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which mystically is called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified." There is no reference to Rome in this verse. It makes it clear that the "great city" is "where also their Lord was crucified."

DISRAELI
reply to 9baller

According to Daniel 9:27 Israel will make a 7 year treaty with the antichrist.

Daniel does not say that. Daniel says just that he "makes covenant with many". All this "peace-treaty with Israel" business is a piece of imaginative glossing which has become fashionable.
In my opinion, this phrase in Daniel is describing exactly the same course of events that John describes later in this chapter; "the kings give their authority into his hands". This is about the world-dominating ruler building up a network of client rulers.

"And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering ..." -Daniel 9:27. Yes, it says the treaty is with "the many," but it also says that he will "put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering." This is something that is an obvious reference to Israel. Israel will rebuild their Jewish Temple in Jerusalem and will reinstate sacrifice and offerings, but the antichrist will break his treaty, put an end to the sacrifices, and surround Jerusalem with his armies (Eze. ch. 38-39, Luke 21:20-24) all at the midpoint of the 7 year treaty period.

DISRAELI
reply to 9baller
Your interpretation of the "seven hills" is the weakest part of your case. You cannot say that Jerusalem has been ruling over the kingdoms you name. It hasn't.
OK, it is plausible that an Islamic Caliphate might destroy Jerusalem, explaining the second half of the chapter.
But that interpretation also requires that Jerusalem rests on the support of the Islamic Caliphate in the first half of the chapter, helping them to persecute Christians. In the first half of the chapter the Harlot (Jerusalem?) and the Beast (the Islamic Caliphate?) are working together as partners and collaborators. Is this plausible?

Jerusalem and the Islamic Caliphate will coexist peaceably during the first three and one-half years of the treaty.
"While they are saying, “Peace and safety!” then destruction will come upon them suddenly like labor pains upon a woman with child, and they will not escape." - 1 Thes. 5:3.
“They have healed the brokenness of My people superficially,
Saying, ‘Peace, peace,’
But there is no peace.
“Were they ashamed because of the abomination they have done?
They were not even ashamed at all;
They did not even know how to blush.
Therefore they shall fall among those who fall;
At the time that I punish them,
They shall be cast down,” says the LORD. - Jeremiah 6:14-15

The "abomination they have done" is making a treaty with the antichrist that compromises their belief in the Living God.

Therefore, hear the word of the LORD, O scoffers,
Who rule this people who are in Jerusalem,
Because you have said, “We have made a covenant with death,
And with Sheol we have made a pact.
The overwhelming scourge will not reach us when it passes by,
For we have made falsehood our refuge and we have concealed ourselves with deception.” -Isaiah 28:14-15
The treaty between the antichrist/his empire and Israel is not mere speculation.

And regarding your speculation that Israel would have to help persecute Christians...
"And when the dragon saw that he was thrown down to the earth, he persecuted the woman who gave birth to the male child. But the two wings of the great eagle were given to the woman, so that she could fly into the wilderness to her place, where she was nourished for a time and times and half a time, from the presence of the serpent.... So the dragon was enraged with the woman, and went off to make war with the rest of her children, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus." Rev. 12:13,14,17
This "persecut(ing) the woman" is the persecution against true Israel when the treaty is broken at the midpoint of the 7 yrs. This woman (Israel) gave birth to the male child (Jesus); Jesus was born out of the Jewish people. This shows that the persecution of Israel and Christians will only begin at the midpoint of the tribulation after the treaty is broken. Neither the antichrist or Israel will persecute or be persecuted during the first half of the seven years. It will be a time of pseudo peace.

9baller
I agree with you that Jerusalem has never ruled over the kings of the earth, but we must remember that this is a prophecy and that most of Revelation has to do with the tribulation period. This will be fulfilled during the second half of the tribulation when the Antichrist sets himself up in the temple of God (2 Thes. 2:4) in Jerusalem (rebuilt temple) and rules from Jerusalem.

As a student of history, among other things, I can assure you that Jerusalem has never been the centre of a great empire, and never will be. That's because the location is all wrong. A state based upon Jerusalem would never be able to generate enough power to dominate much of the world.
Therefore no human ruler aiming to dominate the world would base himself there. It just isn't practical politics. It would not work.

The verse actually reads "And their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which mystically is called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified." There is no reference to Rome in this verse. It makes it clear that the "great city" is "where also their Lord was crucified."

You want to interpret the ch17 reference to "great city" in the light of the ch11 reference.
I think we've got to to do it the other way round.
As far as John's time is concerned, a reference to a great city reigning over the kings of the earth can ONLY be Rome (and I've just pointed out why it can't be Jerusalem). This is a prima facie reason for giving the ch11 reference the same interpretation.
Yes, this means that the two halves of the ch11 verse are pulling in opposite directions.
I think we have to face that, and i've suggested a way of dealing with it.

says that he will "put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering." This is something that is an obvious reference to Israel. Israel will rebuild their Jewish Temple in Jerusalem and will reinstate sacrifice and offerings, but the antichrist will break his treaty, put an end to the sacrifices, and surround Jerusalem with his armies

This is all the imaginative gloss which has become fashionable, elaborating details way beyond the texts. I've done threads on this aspect of things as well.

And regarding your speculation that Israel would have to help persecute Christians

Not just helping persecute Christians, but helping the Islamic Caliphate persecute Christians.
You need to think in terms of what is practical politics- whether it is plausible that they would get to that point from this point.

DISRAELI
As a student of history, among other things, I can assure you that Jerusalem has never been the centre of a great empire, and never will be. That's because the location is all wrong. A state based upon Jerusalem would never be able to generate enough power to dominate much of the world.
Therefore no human ruler aiming to dominate the world would base himself there. It just isn't practical politics. It would not work.

As a student of the Bible I can tell you that Jerusalem will certainly be the center of a great empire, one that is ruled by Jesus Christ during the millennium. Regardless of what has occurred in history, "we have a more sure word of prophecy" (1 Pet. 1:19) that is found in the Word of God.

DISRAELI
You want to interpret the ch17 reference to "great city" in the light of the ch11 reference.
I think we've got to to do it the other way round.
As far as John's time is concerned, a reference to a great city reigning over the kings of the earth can ONLY be Rome (and I've just pointed out why it can't be Jerusalem). This is a prima facie reason for giving the ch11 reference the same interpretation.
Yes, this means that the two halves of the ch11 verse are pulling in opposite directions.
I think we have to face that, and i've suggested a way of dealing with it.

Some of the reasons I believe that the ch17 reference is to Jerusalem can be found here www.lookup.org... Check it out if you get a chance.
Also, this is not a reference to a great city of John's time; Rev. 4:1 tells us that the vision that follows concerns a later time.
“Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after these things.” Rev. 4:1

DISRAELI

And regarding your speculation that Israel would have to help persecute Christians

Not just helping persecute Christians, but helping the Islamic Caliphate persecute Christians.
You need to think in terms of what is practical politics- whether it is plausible that they would get to that point from this point.

What I am proposing is that a revived Islamic Caliphate will emerge in the middle east uniting the Islamic nations. It will then agree to a peace treaty with Israel which will seem to give peace in the middle east. However the antichrist and this empire will break the treaty and first attack Jerusalem/Jews and then attack Christians. I never said anything about Israel helping the Islamic Caliphate do anything, especially persecute Christians.

9baller
As a student of the Bible I can tell you that Jerusalem will certainly be the center of a great empire, one that is ruled by Jesus Christ during the millennium. Regardless of what has occurred in history, "we have a more sure word of prophecy" (1 Pet. 1:19) that is found in the Word of God.

The prophecy may be sure, but the interpretation of it isn't.
It is a mistake to build too much on the elaborately detailed interpretations which happen to be fashionable at the monent.

I never said anything about Israel helping the Islamic Caliphate do anything, especially persecute Christians.

You identified Jerusalem as the Harlot and the islamic caliphate as the Beast.
That necessarily leads into Jerusalem helping the Islamic Caliphate to persecute the saints, because that scenario is the whole point of the first half of chapter 17- "drunk with the blood of the saints".

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

Sorry, I was so busy replying to the other poster that I did not even realise your post was there.

I don't myself, see any reason to distinguish the Beast in ch17 from the "Beast from the sea" in ch13. Let us not "multiply entities" unnecessarily.
I have done separate threads in this series on the Beast from the sea, the Beast from the land, and the series of kings.
My theory on the two Beasts is that they relate to each other as Empire relates to Emperor.
The Beast from the land "exercises the authority of" the other Beast because that is what Emperors do; they exercise the authority which belongs to the Empire.

reply to post by DISRAELI


I will use Google sourced pictures to show the difference

The Beast From The Sea




Beast From The Earth




Image of The Beast or Scarlet colored Beast being rode by a Harlot



All of these are different political entities, and none of them are Rome because it was the power of John's day. The harlot represents all false religion from God's perspective, including elements within Christendom that the Lord will say to, "get away from me" at judgement.

Watch for this, what political force is responsible for motivating the demise of world religion in the future.

Blue_Jay33
All of these are different political entities, and none of them are Rome because it was the power of John's day. The harlot represents all false religion from God's perspective, including elements within Christendom that the Lord will say to, "get away from me" at judgement.

Watch for this, what political force is responsible for motivating the demise of world religion in the future.

An interesting aspect about this city (Rev. 17:18) is that in Revelation 18:4 a voice from heaven says "Come out of her, my people, so that you will not participate in her sins and receive of her plagues."

This is very similar to what Jesus said in Luke 21:20-22.
"When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written." (emphasis is mine)

reply to post by 9baller


The one difference is the 1st century "getting out" was physical and geographic in nature, whereas the "getting out" for our time is mostly spiritual because the whole world is involved this time, there is no fleeing to a safe physical spot at judgement. We must have already fled to a spiritually safe safe spot from God's perspective.
Just like those first century Christians that fled Jerusalem in 66 AD, they had to wait 4 years to see why, and in 70 AD, it was confirmed. 70 AD was too late to flee, so it will be in the future, by the time the masses figure out what is going on it will be too late to flee to a spiritually safe spot.
Thankfully we are in a time where people can still choose to flee to save themselves, but that time will come to an end suddenly.

Blue_Jay33
All of these are different political entities, and none of them are Rome because it was the power of John's day.

I should explain my perspective on the "Rome" question.
As I see it, John was addressing two different readerships at the same time, the church of his own century and the church of a future century.
Both churches were/will be under persecution, and so both churches need the assurance that God will not desert them when the time comes.
Where John is addressing the church of his own time, the passages which look as though they mean Rome do mean Rome, because that was the persecuting power of his own time.
But when John is addressing the future church, the references to Rome are as metaphorical as the references to Babylon.
He is not pointing to the name or geographical location of Rome; he is pointing towards some power which is equivalent in power and status to the Rome of his own time. So in that I agree with you.

So there we have, as I see it;
The Beast from the sea; a political power which dominates the world as the Roman Empire did.
The Beast from the land; the leader of the political power, who dominates the world as the Roman Emperor did.
The Harlot; resting on their support, just as the city of Rome rested on the support of the Empire, and just as the Jews of John's time rested on the indulgence of the Empire, and either way collaborating with the Empire in the persecution of the church- "drunk with the blood of the saints".

reply to post by DISRAELI

The Beast from the land; the leader of the political power, who dominates the world as the Roman Emperor did.

This breaks with how virtually every other beast is represented in the bible, which is not a single person, but a government and accompanying military force that goes with it. Besides the leaders keep changing. Perhaps you think it refers to the position that person holds while in power ?

Think about this, the first beast with it's multiple heads refers to many governments, the entire political system of the world, whereas the beast with one head is essentially the government that is leading and strongest member of the composite first beast, it also grants power to the image of the first beast a scarlet beast very similar to the first beast but slightly different, it also encompasses all the world governments. Now who fits those descriptions ?