Biblical holidays trump national ones

So far this summer there have been two national holidays which fell on the same day as Biblical holidays. The first was Father's Day, June 15, which happened to fall on Shavuot, or Pentecost, this year. The second was Independence Day, July 4, which fell on the beginning of the Sabbath. So how does that change the way we celebrate the national holiday? Can they be combined? This was the first year we had to address this question.

For us, it did not really matter that there was a national celebration; we did whatever we would normally do on a national holiday as long as it did not interfere with what we would normally do for the biblical celebration. So for Father's Day and Shavuot, Shavuot is a Sabbath of rest except that food for that day may be prepared. So we made a nice breakfast brunch for Dad, and a nice feast for later in the day for the Shavuot feast. On sabbaths of rest, we do not work, and we spend the day pursuing the Lord's interests, not our own personal interests. It is one way that we set the day apart (the meaning of keeping it holy). We had communion and did the other things we do on feast days. Resting, reading, Playing games, playing outside with the kids and grandkids, all these things are allowed on a biblical feast day.

On the 4th of July, since the feast day of Sabbath did not begin until sundown that evening, the only overlap was the evening activities. So we still went to our small town parade, grilled for lunch, and all the other things we would do during the day of the 4th. Only I did not go to the fireworks after dark, that would have interfered with my normal Sabbath activities of feast dinner, communion, worship of the Lord, and setting the time apart for the Lord's interests and not my own interests.

So that is how we handled a convergence of a national holiday with a biblical holiday so far this year. How did you do?

One of the sabbaths, part two

Previously: One of the sabbaths

To see why Mary might have gone to the tomb while it was still dark, instead of waiting even for the first rays of dawn, we have to look at first century Hebrew culture again. The Hebrew Sabbath began at sundown on Friday, and continued until sundown on Saturday. After sundown on Saturday, for the Jew, it was now the first day of the week, the 7th day being over. So the dark of Saturday evening, to a Jew, is the first day of the week. We, thinking like Romans, don't consider it the first day of the week until we get up in the morning on Sunday, but 1st century Jews did not think like Romans. They thought like Hebrews.

During the Sabbath, from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday, work was prohibited. In order to set the day apart from the rest of the week (which is what keeping the day holy means) they greeted the Sabbath on Friday evening with a special ceremony, and they bid the Sabbath farewell on Saturday evening with a special ceremony. In between the ceremonies, no work was done.

The Friday evening ceremony usually consisted of a special family meal in their homes; special prayers and blessings were said, and special food was served. Sunday dinner at Grandma's is the American equivalent in concept. Then the Jews gathered together twice on Saturdays: in the morning, in the synagogue, to hear the Torah reading, and the readings from the Psalms and the Prophets, and the teaching on the readings. The Gospels record one instance where Jesus gave the teaching on the reading from the Prophets in one synagogue meeting.

Then in the evening, as it was drawing toward sundown, the Jews gathered again, usually in homes, for a havdallah service: a special ceremony in which the Sabbath was bid goodbye. This Saturday evening meeting often lasted well into the night, as it was an opportunity for fellowship which did not occur during the rest of the week.

The meeting in Acts 20:7 was most likely a havdallah service. Paul did not preach from Sunday morning until midnight (not really humanly possible, for the preacher or the listeners); but from Saturday at sundown, at the close of the Sabbath, until midnight. Either meaning for "one of the sabbaths" could apply in Acts 20:7: the meeting began on "the first of the sabbaths" as we can see from reading the verse in its context with Acts 20:6; and it ended on "the first day of the week," as Jews considered the dark of the night Saturday night to be the first day of the week.

So back to John 20:1: it was Mary's desire to anoint the body of Yeshua with spices for His burial, but because He was taken down from the cross so close to sundown before a Sabbath, it could not be done right away. The best she could do was prepare the spices, then wait for the Sabbath to be over before she anointed the body. If I put myself in Mary's shoes, and my heart was heavy with love and grief for my Lord, and I knew that His body had been put into the tomb unanointed, I would want to anoint His body as soon as possible. It could not, however, be done on the Sabbath: at any time in between the opening and closing ceremonies. But the very next opportunity would be as soon as the closing ceremony was over, on Saturday night or Sunday morning. (We know from Jewish tradition, and Acts 20:7, that these meetings went well into the night, Saturday night and Sunday morning.) If it were me, I would have taken the spices with me to the havdallah service, so that I could go straight to the tomb when the service was over. And this is what I believe she did: she most likely took the spices with her to the havdallah service, so that, on her way home, the Sabbath being over, she could go to the tomb and anoint the body. Thus she could do the work the love in her heart for her Master was urging her to do as soon as possible, while not violating the Sabbath.

So it being yet dark, on the first day of the week to a Jew (sometime Saturday night or Sunday morning to a Roman); the Sabbath being over, she went to the tomb, and found the stone already rolled away.

Could I be wrong about this? Of course. But this understanding does not violate the meaning of the Greek; it does not violate first century Hebrew traditions and practice, and it does not contradict other places in the Scripture which portray Yeshua and His followers as obedient to God, and keepers of the Law of Moses, including the Sabbath.

One of the sabbaths

Previously: Growing in knowledge engenders more questions

There are several possibilities for the meaning of this phrase. One of them, we talked about last time: that it is referring to the special numbered sabbaths which fall between the feast of Unleavened Bread and Weeks, or Pentecost.

Another is this:

That it is a Hebraism, a Hebraic idiom. The Hebrews did not have names for the days of the week, other than the seventh day, the Sabbath. All the other days were named for their relation to the Sabbath.

So the first day of the week was referred to as one day from (or of) the Sabbath; idiomatically "mia (one) ton (of the) sabbaton (sabbath-s)." "Day" was implied; and sabbaton is not plural in this case. The day which is one day from the Sabbath, is Sunday, the first day of the week.

This is the way the phrase mia ton sabbaton is used in the Gospels when describing the discovery of Jesus risen from the dead. For example, in John 20:

"Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark, and saw the stone already taken away from the tomb." John 20:1

It is mia ton sabbaton, literally, "one of the sabbaths," or idiomatically, "one (day) from the sabbath(s);" i.e. Sunday, or the first day of the week.

But why did Mary go to the tomb while it was still dark; why not wait for the light of day? To understand a plausible explanation, which will also shed light on our Acts 20:7 passage, we have to understand 1st century Hebrew culture again.

To be continued ...

Growing in knowledge engenders more questions

Previously: Scriptural authority for Sunday?

I procured a Greek New Testament, and have been looking up the instances of Sabbath, and sabbaton, in it. Sabbaton, I said last time, means "Sabbath," (singular); but my new Greek lexicon says it is plural (i.e, it should read "Sabbaths"). So I looked up our text we were discussing, in Acts 20.7, and it is in the Greek New Testament, mia ton sabbaton. A little different from my Bible study dictionary. Mia is the feminine form of heis, and my BIble study dictionary in this place says it means "first." So, "the first of the Sabbaths." Well, this is a bit longer than saying, "the First Sabbath," but it still means the same thing; the first of the special numerated Sabbaths which occur between Unleavened Bread and Weeks.

So I did a search for the English word "first" in the New Testament Scriptures, cross checking them with the Greek New Testament. I expected to find forms of heis or mia, and found instead that in 99% of the cases, the Greek word for "first" is protos. Ah! So this is where we get words like "prototype" from.

But I did not expect this monkey wrench! So I did some digging, and discovered that protos is the ordinal for one, while heis, mia is the cardinal for one. In other words, in English we have words like one, two, three, four ... these are cardinal terms. We also have first, second, third, fourth ... these are ordinal terms. So my Greek lexicon is telling me that the cardinal of one, which means "one," is heis, mia; while the ordinal for one, which means "first," is protos.

I thought, Why did my Bible study dictionary tell me that heis, mia meant "first?" And as I began going through the Gospels, looking up each occurrence of "first," which turned out to be protos, I discovered that the context was talking about priority, without reference to a numerated series. So I began to think that perhaps heis, mia was used in place of protos when a numeration, a numerated series, is meant. I was happy with that theory until I came to Matthew 22:23-28:

"On that day some Sadducees (who say there is no resurrection) came to Jesus and questioned Him, asking, "Teacher, Moses said, 'IF A MAN DIES HAVING NO CHILDREN, HIS BROTHER AS NEXT OF KIN SHALL MARRY HIS WIFE, AND RAISE UP CHILDREN FOR HIS BROTHER.' Now there were seven brothers with us; and the first married and died, and having no children left his wife to his brother; so also the second, and the third, down to the seventh. Last of all, the woman died. In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had married her.""

Ah! A numerated series, first, second, third, down to the seventh! Time to test my theory! If heis, mia is to be used to mean "first" when speaking of numeration rather than priority, the word for "first" in the above passage should be a form of heis, mia. I eagerly looked it up in my Greek New Testament and ... it was protos. So I thought, Well, this is Matthew, and Luke wrote Acts. He also wrote Luke, so while we may account for the different use of protos vs. heis, mia between Matthew and Acts due to two different authors, we cannot say the same of Luke and Acts. We would expect an educated fellow like Luke to be consistent in his usage. This same incident with the Sadducees is also recorded in Luke 20:27-33, also using a numerated series. The Greek word for "first" is also protos here. Back to the drawing board.

There is no escaping the Scriptural evidence, that so far heis, mia is used for the cardinal of one, just as the Greek lexicon says it is, while protos is used for the ordinal of one, also in accordance with the Greek lexicon. In every instance! So why oh why in Acts 20.7 is heis, mia translated "first," i.e., "the first of the Sabbaths"? What I found surprised me!

To be continued ...

Scriptural authority for Sunday?

In the last post, I referenced many apologetic sources from the Roman Catholic theologians, who say that nowhere in the Scriptures can a command be found to change the day of rest from Sabbath, Saturday, to Sunday. Since this command came wholly from the Catholic church itself, and the Protestants accept it and practice the day of rest on Sunday, then they are disingenuous when they claim "Sola Scriptura!" as authority for their other doctrines and practices.

But in their documentation, the Roman Catholic theologians do cite three Scriptures, as justification for considering the Lord's Day to be Sunday. So I thought it best to look at these three. First:

"Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight." Acts 20:7

Wow, a church service that began in the morning and lasted until midnight! Is that really what is going on here? Let's look at the previous verse:

"We sailed from Philippi after the days of Unleavened Bread, and came to them at Troas within five days; and there we stayed seven days. On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to leave the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight." Acts 20:6-7

Paul, Luke, and their companions were in Philippi for the days of Unleavened Bread, or, the 14th of Nissan (Passover) through the 21st of Nissan, a High Holy Sabbath of rest (the 21st of Nissan, as the 7th and final day of Unleavened Bread, is always a High Holy Sabbath, no matter what day of the week it falls on). After the holiday, they proceeded to Troas where some believers had gone on ahead and were waiting for them. While they were there, they had an assembly of the ekklesia where Paul preached till midnight, and, reading on in this chapter in Acts, a young man, drowsing on the windowsill, fell down three stories and was killed, and Paul raised him back to life again.

In my Bible, the word "day" is in italics, which means it is not in the original Greek, but was added for clarity. That means the phrase in Acts 20:7 would have originally read, "On the first of the week." Actually, the whole phrase is in Greek, hice sabbaton. Hice is "first," and sabbaton is not "day" or "week." The Greek for "day" is hemera and for "week" it is ebdomada. What is sabbaton then?

It is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew, shabbat, or Sabbath. It does not mean "week;" the Hebrew word for "week" is shavua. There was no need to transliterate shavua into Greek if "week" is meant here; Greek already had a perfectly good word for "week." Sabbath, however, is a completely Hebraic concept, and there is no word for it in other languages, other than as a transliteration from Hebrew, as sabbaton is.

So what does hice sabbaton mean? I believe it means, "the first Sabbath," as in "On the first Sabbath, when we were gathered together to break bread ..." Okay, plausible, but why "first Sabbath?" Why not just say, "On the Sabbath, when we were gathered together ..."? This is where the information from the previous verse comes in. This meeting took place following the Unleavened Bread holiday. Jews number the Sabbaths between Unleavened Bread and Weeks, or Pentecost, because the Torah says to number for yourselves seven Sabbaths from the Feast of First Fruits (that was Resurrection Sunday) to the Feast of Weeks (that was Pentecost). This instruction is how the Feast of Weeks got its name; because it takes place seven weeks after Unleavened Bread. So every spring, following Unleavened Bread, there are a series of regular Saturday Sabbaths with special names: the First Sabbath, the Second Sabbath, the Third Sabbath, and so on until the Feast of Weeks is reached.

Luke is merely stating that on the First Sabbath, i.e., the Sabbath which was the first to occur following the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and the first of the special numbered Sabbaths in the countdown to the Feast of Weeks, they gathered together and thus and so happened. This is not an argument for the apostles' changing the day of meeting, fellowship, and preaching to Sunday.

However, someone who did not know Torah well or the practice of 1st century Jews which was founded in Torah, could easily misunderstand this passage, and this is what I believe happened. The misunderstanding took place centuries ago (perhaps at the first English translations of the Greek New Testament?) and has become entrenched. When we read it for what it says, without bringing our culture to it, but in the light of the culture in which it was written, then it is clear that this passage does not contradict other passages in Scripture which indicate the followers of Yeshua met for preaching and fellowship on the Saturday Sabbath.

To be continued ...

Sunday or Saturday Sabbath

Previously: Coming out of Babylon

Another issue with coming out of Babylon has to do with the day of rest. Any way you slice it, Sunday as a day of rest had its same origin with the Roman church wanting to distance itself from "Judaizing" believers who still kept Saturday as the day of rest, as did Jesus and the apostles. The fact that the Protestant church kept the Sunday day of worship -- which the Roman church instituted, not God, not Scripture, not Jesus, and not the apostles -- has been used by the Roman church to prove to the world that the Protestants aren't really serious about Sola Scriptura, but they inherently accept the authority of the Roman church, and are just being rebellious.

"Prove to me from the Bible alone that I am bound to keep Sunday holy. There is no such law in the Bible. It is a law of the holy Catholic Church alone. The Bible says 'Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.' The Catholic Church says, No. By my divine power I abolish the Sabbath day and command you to keep holy the first day of the week. And ho! The entire civilized world bows down in reverent obedience to the command of the Holy Catholic Church." --Priest Thomas Enright, CSSR, President of Redemptorist College, Kansas City, Mo., in a lecture at Hartford, Kansas, February 18, 1884, and printed in the Hartford Kansas Weekly Call, February 22, 1884, and the American Sentinel, a New York Roman Catholic journal in June 1893, page 173.

Well? How does one answer that argument? If we were serious about Sola Scriptura, wouldn't we be observing the feast days of the Lord instead of the feast days of the Pope? Wouldn't we be obeying all of the Ten Commandments? These are the questions I have been asking myself.

The Sabbath is the first feast day listed in Leviticus 23. It is so holy to YHVH, that in the original Hebrew which Moses wrote under the direction of the Holy Spirit, the instructions for celebrating it are also set apart (the Hebrew meaning of "holy") from the instructions concerning the rest of the feast days in Leviticus 23.  If someone were to begin keeping the Lord's feast days, keeping the Sabbath is the best starting place.

The essentials of Sabbath keeping are: set the day apart from the other days of the week, remembering YHVH our Creator on that day, and doing no work on it, since the Sabbath as a foreshadow represents the 7th millennium of rest we will enjoy under the kingship of Jesus. "Work" is also what Adam and Eve were cursed with after their fall, so by resting on the 7th day from our work as God rested from His, we are acknowledging Jesus our Redeemer, who redeemed us from the curse brought on us by sin, and our complete dependence on Him for our salvation. We desist from our works, and enter into His rest. It is a very Protestant commemoration, a day for renewing the joy of our salvation by grace through faith, not by works, lest any man should boast!

To be continued ...

Revelation 13: conclusion

Previously: Revelation 13: buying and selling
The first post in the Revelation series

We learned that the purpose of these chapters which come between the trumpet judgments and the bowl of wrath judgments is to identify the dragon, the beast, the antichrist, and Mystery Babylon, on whom the bowl of wrath judgments are poured out.

Historically, the Church has identified this enemy of God with the Romans. Even the Catholics agree. In the footnotes of the Catholic Bible, the 4th beast of Daniel 7 and Mystery Babylon of Revelation are both identified with the Roman Empire, and the Protestants agree.

But Revelation 13 includes additional description, which show the body of Christ that the Roman system, and ultimately, the Babylonian system which is at its root, continued on after the Fall of Rome, in the form of the Roman church and the Holy Roman Empire. So let's recap chapter 13 and make sure all the details confirm the Church's traditional understanding.

Verses 1-2 describe a beast which looks like the four beasts of Daniel 7, so we know that the beast from the sea is a picture of the kingdoms of this world, rooted in Babylon (which is the head kingdom in Daniel's visions), which receives its authority from the dragon, or Satan. Verses 3-4 tells us that one of the heads of the kingdoms of this world received a fatal wound - in other words, it was dead as a head of authority, which happened at the Fall of Rome - and then its wound was healed - its authority was restored, which happened when the Holy Roman Empire was established - which made all the citizens of this earth (as opposed to those whose citizenship was in heaven) follow the beast and worship it as god.

Well, all the world (which in Revelation, we established meant all the Roman world) did follow the beast after its authority was restored in the form of the Holy Roman Empire, and worship it as god, if the beast is indeed Roman. The Roman church changed the gospel, changed the Lord's holidays and law, and established multiple idols in the pattern of Babylonianism -- the mother of Jesus and the saints -- which were venerated in place of YHVH.

Verses 5-8 describe the blasphemy of the beast and its war against those whose citizenship is in heaven instead of in the earth. We documented the blasphemy of the head of the Roman church, and the war the Roman church waged against those who opposed it is well known. About the forty-two months of authority, or 42 x 30 = 1260 years, most historicists believe the period began with the decree of Justinian in 533, which established the authority of the bishop of Rome as the head of the Christian church, and ended 1260 years later, in 1793, with the French Revolution and the dawn of the Age of Enlightenment, which repudiated the authority of the Roman church.

To be continued ...

Revelation 13: buying and selling

Previously: Revelation 13: the name of the beast, and his number
The first post in the Revelation series

"He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name." Revelation 13.16-17

If, as we saw last time, the name of the beast is "Roman," and the beast itself is an empire, then those who are marked as belonging to a form, or continuation of, the Roman empire, may buy and sell, or participate in the economy. But those who are not so marked, may not.

During the days of the this beast's power; i.e. the Roman church exercising temporal power in conjunction with the Holy Roman Empire, that is exactly what happened. In Europe during the days of the Dark and Middle Ages, the days of the power of Holy Roman Empire, every person who was born was born into the Roman church. No one could be a member of a town, province, or country, without also being a member of the church.

Membership was not voluntary as it is today; it usually never entered into a person's head not to be a member of the Roman church. There was no other church to be a member of, nor any other religion. They were baptized into the church as infants, raised in all the church rites and holidays, married in the church, and died in the church. Those who were outside needed to be converted, and many were so, forceably. Those who started inside but left were heretics, and were punished as such.

Those who defied rule of church or pope were excommunicated, or forced to live outside the church. The problem with excommunication was that there was no life outside the church; this is why it was so feared, and such a powerful weapon of coercion. The excommunicate was like a leper of ancient days; shunned by all. Even the plates the excommunicate ate from were broken or burned. He could not employ or be employed; no shopkeeper would sell to him, and if he was a shopkeeper, no one would buy from him.

The church was the legal body which enacted and validated all contracts: personal and business. The excommunicate did not have access to law, and contracts which were previously enacted on his behalf became invalid. The excommunicate, like the heretic, had no civil rights.

So we see that small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, were alike marked with the name of the beast, Roman, on their hand, the agent of action, and on their forehead, the agent of thought. They did what the church instructed them to do, and thought as the church taught them to think. No other authority existed; Bibles were very scarce and were hardly ever read. Those who, because of tradition or knowledge, did or thought contrarily were severely punished, as the Irish and Welsh discovered, and as the Waldenses discovered, and as the Reformers discovered.

To be continued ...

***
Update: continued in Revelation 13: conclusion

Revelation 13: the name of the beast, and his number

Previously: Revelation 13: marked on the hand and forehead, concluded
The first post in the Revelation series

"He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man: His number is 666." Revelation 13:16-18

What is the name of the beast, and the number of his name? Why does his name also have a number? Ancient languages often did not use separate symbols to denote numerical value, but the same symbols used for phonetic values doubled for numerical values also. Most of us are familiar with Roman numerals. They are an example of this:

I = 1; II = 2; III = 3; IV = 4; V = 5, and so on.

Hebrew and Greek also used their regular alphabet to denote numerical value (although not in the same way the Romans used the Latin alphabet). Now this is not original with me - it has been known for centuries what the name of the beast is. It was known in the time of the apostles. Many times in the New Testament, the writers appear to be referring to something which is known, which they strive to keep cryptic in the letters. This place in Revelation 13 is one, where a name, instead of being told outright, is referred to in code, by the number of the name rather than the name itself.

Another place of mysterious reference is in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-6:

"Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God. Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things? And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed."

He does not say the name of the man of lawlessness outright in the letter, but reminds them to think of what he explained to them while he was with them in person.

Another instance is here:

"“Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (whoever reads, let him understand)," Matthew 24:15

Why add the cryptic note to the reader, inserted among Jesus' words? It simply means, let the reader understand what has been spoken to him in person, which we dare not repeat in writing! Now all of these cryptic references have one thing in common: they all appear in passages discussing the end times and the antichrist!

I mentioned that this name has been known for centuries. It is:

The believers who have recorded this name, and shown that its number was 666, include Ireneus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Isaac Newton, and a host of 18th and 19th century theologians and biblical scholars.

The word 'roman' in Greek is 'lateinos;' when this word is written in the Greek alphabet, and the numerical values of its Greek letters are determined and calculated, it equals 666.

The word 'roman' in Hebrew, interestingly enough, is 'romiith' (feminine form when modifying an empire or a beast); when this word is written in the Hebrew alphabet, and the numerical values of its Hebrew letters are determined and calculated, it also equals 666.

I suppose there are a great many names which could equal 666 when added up. But how many share the same number when the name is applied in both biblical languages, Greek and Hebrew? It narrows the field considerably. In fact, I know of no other name in which its value remains true to the Scriptural account in Hebrew as well as in Greek, the language of the New Testament.

It becomes clear why the New Testament writers used cryptic language and coded words, rather than clearly naming the beast and the antichrist as "Roman." If their letters fell into the hands of the Roman authorities, it would have caused a great deal of trouble for the Church.

To be continued ...

***
Update: continued in Revelation 13: buying and selling

Revelation 13: marked on the hand and forehead, concluded

Previously: Revelation 13: marked on the hand and forehead
The first post in the Revelation series

We saw last time that the beast causes all to be marked on their right hands and foreheads, and that this mark is the name of the beast. This is consistent with what we saw previously in Scripture: the Lord calls His chosen people marked on their hands and foreheads by certain things which He commands them to DO and REMEMBER. Doing involves the action of the hand, and remembering, thinking about, involves the action of the forehead, or mind.

Now one of the Ten Commandments says not to profane the NAME of the Lord. Later in Scripture it is revealed that the Lord's name became profaned among the unbelievers by the unrighteousness of His people. In other words, the Lord's people are also marked on the right hand and forehead by His name, and this is why walking in rebellion to His ways profanes His name. When we DO (right hand) and REMEMBER (forehead) according to that which He instructs us, His NAME is honored among the unbelievers, because His people are marked with His name on their right hands and foreheads.

And so it is with the beast. His people are also marked on their right hands and foreheads with his name. I do not believe that there will be a forced round-up of people in the last days, and forced tattoos or implantations of microchips which will mark them against their will as belonging to the beast.

Everyone on this earth is today bearing a mark on their right hand and forehead. They are either marked with the name of the Lord, or the name of the beast. We the people choose which mark we will bear, by the actions of our hands, that which we habitually do, how we live our lives; and by the thoughts of our minds, that which we habitually think about, and speak of in our daily lives.

Are we walking as if we were citizens of the kingdom of heaven, or the kingdom of Babylon, which is the kingdoms of this world? What are we filling our minds with, and what is coming out of our mouths? Is it the word of God, or man?

"Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life."  Galatians 6:7-8

To be continued ...

***
Update: continued in Revelation 13: the name of the beast, and his number

Resting on the Sabbath

Previously: The Sabbath, part nine

Just a quick note this morning: World Net Daily has been commenting on the Sabbath, is it Saturday or Sunday? issue lately. They have two articles up right now:

Deception: Christians war over worship day; centuries- old clash continues over disputed commandment

and

Anti- Judaism at root of Sunday Sabbath?

I do believe that there was a definite attempt made to completely separate anything having to do with Judaism from anything having to do with Christianity, which was codified in the 4th century. Even though by reading the New Testament, it is clear the Christians (I am sure they merely considered themselves Yeshua- following Jews, and not a separate religion) continued in the Temple and synagogues, and continued celebrating the biblical feast days, after a time they of necessity separated. The Jews rejected Yeshua- following believers and eventually even passed laws to forbid them entrance into the synagogues. So what were the followers of Yeshua to do?

I believe that although the separation did take place, this separation was in a way ordained by God. It served a purpose. If there are two witnesses, the Jews and the Christians, each witness served to preserve their witness of God through the centuries while the Devil was trying to silence and kill them. The Jews preserved the Torah and the obedience of God and walking in His ways, and the Christians preserved the knowledge of the Messiah, the gospels, and the apostolic writings. In a way, the Jews preserved the written Torah, and the Christians preserved the living Torah (John 1:1, 14).

But now that we are in the last days, the purpose served for the separation has come to an end. The Jews are adding to their witness of the written Torah, the Messiah (the living Torah), just as it was prophesied they would. The Christians are adding to their witness of the Messiah (the living Torah ), the written Torah, just as it was prophesied they would. The written Word and the living Word are not at odds with each other! Neither contradicts the other! They each illuminate the other.

So when I realized that God never ordained the Sabbath change, but that it was prophesied that the man of lawlessness (or, Torah- lessness) would do so, then, for me, the decision to repent of breaking the 4th commandment and to begin to walk in obedience to YHVH's ways, starting with resting on the 7th day, or Saturday, was made much easier.

Revelation 13: marked on the hand and forehead

Previously: Revelation 13: fire from heaven, part two
The first post in the Revelation series

"He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man: His number is 666." Revelation 13:16-18

Now at last the beast from the sea, who looks like a lamb, like Jesus, but who speaks like the Devil, causes all to be marked on their hands and foreheads. The mark, verse 17 tells us, is the name of the beast (the "or" is not in the Greek) or the number of the name of the beast.

Before we see what the name and the number of the name is, let's remember what it means in Scripture to be marked on the hand or forehead. A mark in Scripture is a sign, evidence, something that distinguishes us as belonging to a certain class or position. God uses different marks throughout Scripture as identifying signs that we are partakers in the covenants He has established with men, just as a wedding ring is a sign to others that we are partakers of a marriage covenant, that we belong to our spouse.

Then what we habitually do, we saw, how we act, marks us on the right hand, the agent of action; and what we habitually think about, what we talk about, marks us on the forehead, the agent of thought.

Every other place in Scripture that being marked on the right hand and forehead is spoken of, it is in reference to the evidence of actions and thoughts that distinguish us as belonging to the Lord.

So I began to think that in this case, those who are being marked on the right hand and forehead, are being marked with the name of the beast, by being identified as belonging to the anti-Christ, not to the Lord. Their identifying mark on their right hand, the agent of action, and on their forehead, the agent of thought, is what they do and what they think about and say. What they habitually do and what they say serves to mark them as belonging to the beast, and not the Lord.

The mark is not a tattoo or a microchip at all! It is the evidence of our lives that signals to everyone around us to whom we belong.

So what is the name of the beast, what about the number, and what about the buying and selling?

To be continued ...

***
Update: continued in Revelation 13: marked on the hand and forehead, concluded

Revelation 13: fire from heaven, part two

Previously: Revelation 13: lying signs, false wonders, and fire from heaven
The first post in the Revelation series

"He [the beast from the land] performs great signs, so that he even makes fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men. And he deceives those who dwell on the earth by those signs which he was granted to do in the sight of the beast, telling those who dwell on the earth to make an image to the beast who was wounded by the sword and lived." Revelation 13:13-14

The fire from heaven, the Scriptures have already shown us, is the wrath of God against men. Fire from heaven destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, and Jesus' disciples wished to call down fire from heaven, so that the wrath of God might consume the rejecters of Jesus. Jesus, however, rebuked His disciples, saying, "You do not know what manner of spirit you are of." The implication is that neither this desire nor this power at this point in history was of the Holy Spirit. Why? Jesus Himself explains it in the same passage: "For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives but to save them," (Luke 9:56). Since the advent of Jesus and the completion of His work on the cross, God has been extending grace toward men, not wrath! The door to heaven is standing open! Jesus came, not to condemn the world, but so that the world might be saved through Him!

There is a time for the wrath of God, but it is not until the day of wrath and the revelation of the righteous judgment of God. As we see with our own eyes every day in the newspaper headlines, it is not now, nor has it been at any time during the past 2000 years, during the age of grace!

However, the beast from the land has not hesitated to take up the terror of the wrath of God, and wield it for the solidification of his own power and the advancement of his own purposes, all in the name of Jesus. The beast from the land, we saw, looks like Jesus but speaks the words of the Devil. This beast is the office of the papacy, and in no way has it more effectively exercised a usurped claim to the wrath of God than in the papal power of excommunication. It means little to us today, but in the days of the Holy Roman Empire (the image of the beast from the sea), the time period about which this chapter in Revelation is prophesying, excommunication resulted in the actual cursing of life in this world and (as everyone believed) the one to come:

"The prophecy found a striking fulfilment in the papal interdicts and excommunications so frequent in the Middle Ages, and not unknown in even our own day. These ebullitions of pontifical vengeance, it was pretended, were fire out of heaven: the fire of the wrath of God which the Pope had power to evoke, therewith to burn up his enemies. The blinded nations believed that in the voice of the Pope they heard the voice of God, and that the fulminations of the Vatican were the thunderings and lightnings of Divine wrath. A papal excommunication was more dreadful than the invasion of thousands of armed men. When launched against a kingdom what dismay, misery, and wailing overspread it. The whole course of life was instantly stopped. The lights were extinguished at the altar; the church doors were closed; the bells would not be tolled; marriages were celebrated in the graveyard; and the dead were buried in ditches. Men dared not make merry, for a sense of doom weighed upon their spirits. These terrible edicts pursued men into the other world, and souls arriving from the unhappy realm overhung by the papal curse found the gates of paradise shut, and had to wander forlorn till it should please the divinity of the Seven hills to lift off his sentence. Thus did the Papacy cause "fire" to come down from God out of heaven, and men, believing it to be real fire, were scorched by it."

"To the mightiest sovereign even the papal excommunication was a dreadful affair. He shook and trembled on his throne for his army could give him no protection; it was well, indeed, if both soldiers and subjects did not unite in carrying out the papal behest by driving him from his kingdom, if some fanatic monk, by the more quick despatch of the dagger, did not save them the trouble. European history furnishes a list of more than sixty-four emperors and kings deposed by the Popes. In the number is Henry II. of England, deposed by Alexander III.; King John, by Innocent III.; Richard and Edward, by Boniface IX., Henry VIII., by Clement VII., and again by Paul III.; Elizabeth, by Pius V. ... Almost all the bulls against crowned heads have contained clauses stripping them of their territories, and empowering their neighbour kings to invade and seize them; and influenced partly by a desire to serve the Pope, and partly by the greed of what was not their own, they have not been slow to act on the papal permission."

"The Romanists themselves have chosen the very figure of the Apocalypse, "fire from heaven," to designate the Papal excommunications and anathemas. Thus Gregory VII. spoke of the Emperor Henry IV. when excommunicated as "struck with thunder." (Afflatum fulmino -Danburg, 587. ) To the same effect is the account of the excommunication of the Emperor Frederick by Pope Innocent at the first Council of Lyons. "These words of excommunication, uttered in the midst of the Council, struck the hearers with terror as might the flashing thunderbolts. When with candles lighted and flung down, the Lord Pope and his assistant prelates flashed their lightning-fire terribly against the Emperor Frederick, now no longer to be called emperor, his procurators and friends burst into a bitter wailing and struck the thigh or breast on that day of wrath, of calamity, and of woe!( & Harduin, vii. 401.)

The Papacy is the Anti-Christ: A Demonstration by Rev. J. A. Wylie, LL.D., 1888; pages 33-35.

To be continued ...

***
Update: continued in Revelation 13: marked on the hand and forehead

Revelation 13: lying signs, false wonders, and fire from heaven

Previously: Revelation 13: the beast from the land is the antichrist
The first post in the Revelation series

"He [the beast from the land] performs great signs, so that he even makes fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men. And he deceives those who dwell on the earth by those signs which he was granted to do in the sight of the beast, telling those who dwell on the earth to make an image to the beast who was wounded by the sword and lived." Revelation 13:13-14

It is well- known that within catholicism, "miracles" have often taken place: appearances of Mary, stigmata, miraculous cures, and the like. A recent example which has been officially sanctioned by the Roman church, is the Zeitun Church apparitions of Mary, which took place in Zeitun, Egypt, in 1968, witnessed by thousands over the course of three years, accompanied by miraculous healings.

This is only one example in a long list. Such a record does not exist with any other organized religion. When we consider that the result of these miracles is that people remain firm in their faith that the holder of the office of the papacy is in fact the Vicar of Christ on the earth, then we see the prophecy in Revelation fulfilled:

"And he deceives those who dwell on the earth by those signs which he was granted to do in the sight of the beast, telling those who dwell on the earth to make an image to the beast who was wounded by the sword and lived." Revelation 13:14

What about the fire from heaven? In order to understand this aspect, we should go back and look at Revelation 11:5, where it is said of the two witnesses that fire proceeds from their mouth and devours their enemies. What is this fire?

I do not believe it is literal fire, like we think of when we think of fire- breathing dragons, for example. When a town in Samaria did not receive Jesus, and the disciples suggested that they call fire down from heaven to devour the town, Jesus rebuked them and corrected them. He and his witnesses did not use literal fire to devour their enemies.

But they were baptized with fire, i.e., with the Holy Spirit and with power; and when words inspired by the Holy Spirit, by that holy fire, proceeded from their mouths, their enemies were devoured, in this way: citizens of earth had their eyes opened to the truth of the gospel, they died to their earthly citizenship and were raised in new life to their heavenly citizenship. They were no longer enemies, but brethren, and this was accomplished by the fire, the spoken witness under the unction of the Holy Spirit, which proceeded from the mouth of the witnesses.

I believe the fire which the beast from the land wields in Revelation 13 is in the same vein, in other words, it is not a literal fireball which comes down from heaven a la the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. So what is it?

To be continued ...

***
Update: continued in Revelation 13: fire from heaven, part two

Revelation 13: the beast from the land is the antichrist

Previously: Revelation 13: the beast from the land, part three
The first post in the Revelation series

"He performs great signs, so that he even makes fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men. And he deceives those who dwell on the earth—by those signs which he was granted to do in the sight of the beast ..." Revelation 13:13-14

This is not the first place in Scripture that a warning is given about deceiving false signs and wonders:

"Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God. Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things? And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way. Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming; that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders, and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved." 2 Thessalonians 2:1-10

In John's vision, the beast from the land deceives those who dwell on the earth -- i.e., those whose citizenship is of the world, and not of the kingdom of heaven -- by signs and wonders; and Paul also speaks of a coming lawless one, who works by the power of Satan, also deceiving those who perish -- i.e., those whose citizenship is of the world, and not of the kingdom of heaven -- by signs and false wonders. The beast from the land and the lawless one are one and the same.

Jesus also foretells the coming of those who will deceive many:

And Jesus answered and said to them: “Take heed that no one deceives you. For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many. ... Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. ... Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There!’ do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect." Matthew 24:4-5, 11-12, 23-24

Notice that the descriptive characteristics of John's vision, Paul's warning, and Jesus' prophecy are all the same: deception by great signs and false wonders; lawlessness; receiving the worship of men; claiming to be God or the Lamb of God. They are all describing the antichrist!

The first thing we have to realize, though, is that the antichrist is not embodied in one man!

"Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us." 1 John 2:18-19

If even in John's day many antichrists had already come, then we can see that the spirit of antichrist has been at work from that day to this. No one single man lives for 2000 years, but in every generation, antichrists arise to deceive even the elect, if possible. And Jesus said that many false christs would come. A false christ is an antichrist, one claiming to be Messiah who is not. Notice also that John confirms that the antichrist has the appearance of a follower of Jesus - "they went out from us;" in other words, the antichrists come from the church!

To be continued ...

***
Update: continued in Revelation 13: lying signs, false wonders, and fire from heaven

Revelation 13: the beast from the land, part three

Previously: Revelation 13: the beast from the land, part two
The first post in the Revelation series

It was also given to him [the beast from the sea] to make war with the saints and to overcome them, and authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation was given to him. ... And it was given to him [the beast from the land] to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast would even speak and cause as many as do not worship the image of the beast to be killed. Revelation 13:7, 15

One of the other characteristics of both the beast from the sea and the land, is that they are opposed to the true ekklesia of God, and they work together to make war with the saints, to overcome the saints, and to kill all those (including the saints) who do not worship the beast in all its incarnations of the Roman Empire, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Holy Roman Empire.

In fact, the Roman Empire, before the formation of the Roman Catholic Church, killed those who would not worship it, or Caesar its representative. Millions of Jews and Christians both were killed, tortured, enslaved, and driven far off, because they would not worship at Rome's feet. The Holy Roman Empire and the Roman papacy continued the practice; below is just a partial list of those who were killed because they were not Roman or would not consent to become Roman:

613 England: Welsh bishops who did not submit to Augustine, 1000
1202-1204 Constantinople: Greek Orthodox Christians, 1000s (exact number unknown)
1209-1229 France: Albigensians or Cathars, 1,000,000
1230s and on, France: Waldensians, 2,000,000
1518-1548 Europe: Protestants, millions (exact number unknown, by war and Inquisition)
1527 and on, Europe: Anabaptists and others, 1000s (exact number unknown)
1572 France: St. Batholomew's Day Massacre, 100,000

Concerning the sack of Constantinople by Crusaders in 1204:

"The Latin soldiery subjected the greatest city in Europe to an indescribable sack. For three days they murdered, raped, looted and destroyed on a scale which even the ancient Vandals and Goths would have found unbelievable. Constantinople had become a veritable museum of ancient and Byzantine art, an emporium of such incredible wealth that the Latins were astounded at the riches they found. Though the Venetians had an appreciation for the art which they discovered (they were themselves semi-Byzantines) and saved much of it, the French and others destroyed indiscriminately, halting to refresh themselves with wine, violation of nuns, and murder of Orthodox clerics. The Crusaders vented their hatred for the Greeks most spectacularly in the desecration of the greatest Church in Christendom. They smashed the silver iconostasis, the icons and the holy books of Hagia Sophia, and seated upon the patriarchal throne a [woman of ill repute] who sang coarse songs as they drank wine from the Church's holy vessels. The estrangement of East and West, which had proceeded over the centuries, culminated in the horrible massacre that accompanied the conquest of Constantinople. The Greeks were convinced that even the Turks, had they taken the city, would not have been as cruel as the Latin Christians. The defeat of Byzantium, already in a state of decline, accelerated political degeneration so that the Byzantines eventually became an easy prey to the Turks. The Crusading movement thus resulted, ultimately, in the victory of Islam, a result which was of course the exact opposite of its original intention." -Speros Vryonis, Byzantium and Europe, p.152.

It must be said that the pope at the time deplored this abuse; however, the clergy who were with the army in Constantinople did not restrain it; and the union of spiritual and temporal power -- the two beasts of Revelation 13 -- resulted in this instance, as in many others, of the fulfillment of the prophecy.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, in the article on Christian Persecution, states:

"Instances of compulsory conversions such as have occurred at different periods of the Church's history must be ascribed to the misplaced zeal of autocratic individuals. But the Church does claim the right to coerce her own subjects. Here again, however, a distinction must be made. The non-Catholic Christians of our day are, strictly speaking, her subjects; but in her legislation she treats them as if they were not her subjects. The "Ne temere", e.g., of Pius X (1907), recognizes the marriages of Protestants as valid, though not contracted according to Catholic conditions: and the laws of abstinence are not considered to be binding on Protestants. So, with regard to her right to use coercion, the Church only exercises her authority over those whom she considers personally and formally apostates. A modern Protestant is not in the same category with the Albigenses or Wyclifites. These were held to be personally responsible for their apostasy; and the Church enforced her authority over them: It is true that in many cases the heretics were rebels against the State also; but the Church's claim to exercise coercion is not confined to such cases of social disorder. And what is more, her purpose was not only to protect the faith of the orthodox, but also to punish the apostates. Formal apostasy was then looked upon as treason against God — a much more heinous crime than treason against a civil ruler, which, until recent times, was punished with great severity. (See APOSTASY; HERESY.) It was a poisoning of the life of the soul in others (St. Thomas Aquinas, II-II, Q. xi, articles 3, 4.)" (Emphasis added.)

The Roman Church justifies the harsh measures it used against those who would not fall in line by saying, "Every corporation lawfully constituted has the right to coerce its subjects within due limits. And though the Church exercises that right for the most part by spiritual sanctions, she has never relinquished the right to use other means." The article explains that the Roman Church has abandoned physical coercion and punishment of heretics because of the times we live in; but back in those days, it was considered just and reasonable. Let the kingdoms of this world again make an alliance with the Roman Church, and let physical coercion and punishment again be considered just and reasonable. The Roman Church still today has in place all the argumentation it needs to consider non- Catholics her subjects (a temporal power word and idea) and therefore, subject to be disciplined by her.

To be continued ...

***
Update: continued in Revelation 13: The beast from the land is the antichrist

Revelation 13: the beast from the land, part two

Previously: Revelation 13: the beast from the land
The first post in the Revelation series

If the beast from the land is represented by the papal office, as we mentioned last time, then history will bear us out.

Descriptions of the beast from the land:

"He exercises all the authority of the first beast in his presence," (Rev 13:12).

The first beast represents the kingdoms of this world. In history we would expect to see the second beast exercising all the authority of a temporal kingdom in the presence of the first beast, the revived Roman Empire. It was the Holy Roman emperors, beginning with Charlemagne and his fathers, who first gave the papacy territories from their possessions, so that the pope became not only the head of the church, but a head of state also.

The structure of the Roman Catholic Church, furthermore, is exactly identical to the political structure of the old Roman Empire. There are 70 cardinals dressed in red, because there were 70 senators wearing the red cloak reserved for senators in ancient Rome. The church territories are divided into dioceses, because Diocletian first divided the Roman empire into dioceses, and the church retained his political divisions and hierarchy of authority.

Next: "He causes the earth and those who dwell in it to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed," (Rev 13:12).

"Worship: That is, to respect, to reverence, to honour. The word worship here refers to civil respect, and not to religious adoration. The meaning here, according to the interpretation proposed all along in this chapter, is, that the Papacy, considered in its religious influence, or as a spiritual power—represented by the second beast—secured for the civil or secular power—represented by the first beast—the homage of the world. It was the means of keeping up that dominion, and of giving it its ascendency among the nations of the earth. The truth of this, as an historical fact, is well known. The Roman civil power would have long ago lost all its influence and been unknown, if it had not been for the Papacy; and, in fact, all the influence which it has had since the irruption of the Northern barbarians, and the changes which their invasion produced, can be traced to that new power which arose in the form of the Papacy—represented in Daniel (Da 7:8) by the "little horn." That new power gave life and energy to the declining influence of Rome, and brought the world again to respect and honour its authority." -- Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, Revelation 13:12.

Next: "He makes an image to the beast who had the mortal wound of the sword and had come to life; and it was given to him to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast would even speak and cause as many as do not worship the image of the beast to be killed," (Rev 13:14-15).

It was the papacy which gave breath, or life, to the image of the beast, in 800 AD with the crowning of Charlemagne as the sixty- eighth emperor of Rome. The Holy Roman Empire, the entity thus created on that day, was made in the image of the Roman Empire, the world- dominating 4th beast of Daniel's vision. This is another way of reiterating that what was dead had been brought back to life again, and yet in this passage of Scripture, we are given further identifying information that in its second incarnation, it remained a distinct entity from the first, upheld by the beast from the land -- the papal office. There are, therefore, two connecting threads between the beast from the sea -- the Roman Empire, as a kingdom of this world; and the beast from the land -- the Roman Catholic Church, also historically a kingdom exercising temporal power; and the image of the beast -- the Holy Roman Empire. That is, they are all Roman, and they are interconnected and derive their power from the dragon.

What about killing those who do not worship the image, and making war with the saints of God and overcoming them (Rev 13:7)?

To be continued ...

***
Update: continued in Revelation 13: the beast from the land, part three

Revelation 13: the beast from the land

Previously: Revelation 13: the beast from the sea, part two
The first post in the Revelation series

Before we continue with the rest of the description of the beast of the sea found in Revelation 13:5-10, let's skip ahead a little bit to the beast of the land. This is because the beast of the land plays a significant part in the events involving the beast of the sea, and if we can identify it, then it will help us in deciphering the rest of the description of the beast of the sea.

Then I saw another beast coming up out of the earth, and he had two horns like a lamb and spoke like a dragon. And he exercises all the authority of the first beast in his presence, and causes the earth and those who dwell in it to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. He performs great signs, so that he even makes fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men. And he deceives those who dwell on the earth—by those signs which he was granted to do in the sight of the beast, telling those who dwell on the earth to make an image to the beast who was wounded by the sword and lived. He was granted power to give breath to the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak and cause as many as would not worship the image of the beast to be killed. Revelation 13:11-15

This beast from the land, first, we know is an empire, or world- dominating authority of some kind, because it is described as a beast. He looked like a lamb but spoke like a dragon. Well, a dragon has already appeared in Revelation, and has been identified for us. The dragon is the Devil and Satan. So this passage is telling us that the beast from the land will speak the words of the Devil. But what of the lamb? The lamb has already appeared in Revelation as well:

And I looked, and behold, in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as though it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent out into all the earth. Revelation 5:6

Then I looked, and I heard the voice of many angels around the throne, the living creatures, and the elders; and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice: "Worthy is the Lamb who was slain To receive power and riches and wisdom, And strength and honor and glory and blessing!" Revelation 5:11-12

Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, "Who are these arrayed in white robes, and where did they come from?" And I said to him, "Sir, you know." So he said to me, "These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." Revelation 7:13-14

"They shall neither hunger anymore nor thirst anymore; the sun shall not strike them, nor any heat; for the Lamb who is in the midst of the throne will shepherd them and lead them to living fountains of waters. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes." Revelation 7:16-17

Then I looked, and behold, a Lamb standing on Mount Zion, and with Him one hundred and forty-four thousand, having His Father's name written on their foreheads. Revelation 14:1

"These will make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, for He is Lord of lords and King of kings; and those who are with Him are called, chosen, and faithful." Revelation 17:14

"Let us be glad and rejoice and give Him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready." Revelation 19:7

Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. Revelation 21:14

And so on throughout Revelation. There can be no doubt who He is, who was slain from the foundation of the world, who is worshiped in heaven, who is full of the Spirit of God, by whose blood the robes of the saints have been washed white, who is the shepherd of the ekklesia, who leads His flock to living water, who will return in glory to Mount Zion, whose Father is God, who is King of kings and Lord of lords, who is betrothed to His wife, the New Jerusalem, on whose foundations are etched the names of His twelve apostles. The Lamb is Jesus Christ, Yeshua Messiah!

The beast from the land is not this Lamb, our Lord Jesus Christ; the prophecy makes that clear. However, this beast just has the appearance of the Lamb, although when it opens its mouth it speaks the words of the Devil. This beast looks like Jesus to the world, but talks like Satan. It exercises the authority of the first beast, that is, it exercises the authority granted to the kingdoms of this world: temporal and political power. So, it exercises authority to make laws, to enforce those laws through threat of punishment, to collect taxes for its support, to rule the lives of men, to command armies and to wage war.

Let me suggest that this beast represents the office of the papacy. It is not any one individual man; we saw that beasts are world- dominating empires. But this beast exercises the authority of the world- dominating Roman empire, in its incarnation of the Holy Roman Empire and the Roman Catholic Church. The papal office has the appearance of Jesus to this world; the papal office calls itself, in fact, the Vicar of Christ. According to Webster's, the most general meaning of the word "vicar" is "one serving as a substitute for." Now we are beginning to see the blasphemy spoken of in Revelation 13:5-6. The holder of the papal office is also called, "The Holy Father." This is in spite of the fact that Jesus said, "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven."

In fact, the identification of the beast of the land with the papal office has been the understanding of the Protestant theologians since the Reformation. There is quite a bit of descriptive information in Revelation 13 as to the character and work of this beast; if it is correct that it is represented by the papal office, then history will bear us out in every instance that the holders of the papal office fulfilled its description.

To be continued ...

***
Update: continued in: Revelation 13: the beast from the land, part two