Greg Laurie Explains Significance of the Mark of the Beast, 666

Laurie states, "Revelation 13 talks about spiritually dark times... the man of sin, the beast… best known as the antichrist… the most evil man who's ever lived… history's vilest embodiment of sin and rebellion."

However, I only see the word antichrist four times in the new testament and none of them ever appear in the book of Revelation.

Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour. (1 John 2:18)

Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. (1 John 2:22)

and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world. (1 John 4:3)

For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. (2 John 1:7)

This Holy Spirit inspired Apostle speaks of a plurality of antichrists and a spirit of anthichrist. He also speaks of the first century as the "last hour" where many antichrists have appeared.

How does Laurie go from John's multiple antichrists in the first century teaching to one super-villain nearly 2000 years later?

Matthew2323 wrote ///How does Laurie go from John's multiple antichrists in the first century teaching to one super-villain nearly 2000 years later?///

I agree why the church is looking for a pretrib rapture or a super-villain to arise they might find themselves unpleasently suprised, It seems to me personaly that such things are speaking of movements, we should ask ourselves what movements or systems are responsable for the blood of the saints, and the blood of the martyrs of Jesus down through history.

I think Paul address that question in the second chapter of 2 Thessalonians when he talks about the mystery of iniquity that will be fully manisfested in the man of sin, the son of perdition. A sort of incarnation of Satan in the flesh.

2 Thessalonians 2
(1) Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
(2) That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
(3) Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
(4) Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
(...)

There are so many theories about the mark of the beast but in reality what does it really mean from a practical standpoint? Whenever we hear of some 'chip' some Christians want to yell MARK OF THE BEAST! without understanding what is going on with the chip.

How does the Mark of the Beast show that the world is moving toward Bible Prophecy?

Benjamin7,

Paul's letters to the Thessalonians were written in the early 50s and he speaks of the "man of sin" who "sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." Since this was written while the Temple was still standing, we should expect the 'man of sin' to be a first centruy figure.

Could we correlate the 'man of sin' who was "shewing himself that he is God" with Jesus' statement about the abomination of desolation? If so, who fits that description?

DEADn, Something to consider:

"The first readers of Revelation were told to “calculate the number of the Beast, for the number is that of a man; and his number is six hundred and sixty-six” (13:18). Since Revelation was written to a first-century audience, we should expect the first-century readers to be able to calculate the number with relative ease and understand the result... Notice that the number is “six hundred and sixty-six, not three sixes.”

"When Nero Caesar’s name is transliterated into Hebrew, which a first-century Jew would probably have done, he would have gotten Neron Kesar or simply nrwn qsr, since Hebrew has no letters to represent vowels... When we take the letters of Nero’s name and spell them in Hebrew, we get the following numeric values: n=50, r=200, w=6, n=50, q=100, s=60, r=200 = 666."

See more: http://americanvision.org/1746/mark-of-beast-or/

Btw, you almost have 666 post here at SI... :)

Hi Matthew,

I don't get the Nero's calculated name reference. After all, Nero was dead for about thirty years when John had his revelation.

Nero's name properly spelled in Hebrew transliterated from the Latin--which is how his name would have been understood in the Roman world--does not equate to 666. The way you get Nero (really it's Nero's name plus his title of Caesar) to equal 666 is to transliterate his name into Greek and then transliterate the Greek name plus his title into Hebrew and then you have to misspell it by adding a Hebrew letter in order to achieve the calculation.

Other problems with an early date (A.D. 62-64) are:

Smyrna didn't have an active church until the early to mid 80's it didn't exist in A.D.64.

The apostle John's ministry to the Ephesian and surrounding churches didn't begin until after the fall of Jerusalem when he fled to Ephesus.

The condemnation and rebuking of many of the Churches in the initial chapters of Revelation become very awkward as they had just received the praise of the apostle Paul. Also related there is not even a hint of these issues in the Asian Churches in Paul's letters to them which would have been written very close to an early date for the Revelation.

The early church fathers testimony is that John wrote the Revelation around A.D.95

Nero's persecution of Christians was extremely local and never expanded beyond the city limits of Rome and only lasted for a very brief period. It's hard to imagine him being the great persecutor of the Church and of Israel.

"We have never been closer to the end of the world than right now,"

Indeed. but any "right now," as long as it is after yesterday's "right now" is closer to the end of the world.

Paul and the other apostles used a lot of words like "shortly" and "soon" when writing to their 1st century audiences about "last days." By the way, these 1st centrury persons were real people undergoing real persecution.

Were the apostles simply mistaken?

TK

Chris,
The theory that John wrote in the 90s is modern churchian myhtology and is about as valid as the Jesus Seminar's assertion that "John" was written in 120 AD. The internal evidence is what clues us in to an early dating.

Jeremy,
It is interesting to note that some manuscripts changed 666 to 616 because of the Latin variation.

I'd be curious to know what sources you've studied for the historical assertions that you've made.

If memory serves me correctly there was only one church father that thought of the later date for the Revelation and that, like anything, is even debated. However, even if every church father thought the book had been written in 95 AD the internal evidence disagrees.

When John mentions the Temple and seeing people worship in it, how would this have made any sense to someone if it had first been written in 95? To what Temple was he referring? Was the Holy Spirit trying to confuse the first readers of the letter?

Consider John's prologue:

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John, who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near."

Clearly what follows is to be understood by those who first read the epistle. Notice that two expression of time: "must soon take place" and "the time is near." What in the context of the letter would lead a first centry believer to conclude that "soon" and "near" equate to 2000 years later and not something imminent?

Even if one rejects the calculation of the number of the beast as being Caesar Nero, this still does not lead us to the conclusion that "the things which must soon take place" should be interpreted as multi-antichrists 2000 years later.

Grace and peace,
Matthew

PS TMK - well spoken.

Hi Matthew,

My information comes from Robert Mounce, Biblical languages scholar who wrote Basics of Biblical Greek and other like works. To quote him specifically, "What is not generally stressed is that this solution asks us to calculate a Hebrew transliteration of the Greek form of a Latin name, and that with a defective spelling." This is from his commentary on the book of Revelation edited by F.F. Bruce

According to Church historians David Brady in his book, The Contribution of British Writers Between 1560 and 1830 to the Interpretation of Revelation, and William Milligan, Discussions on the Apocalypse, the attribution of the number of the name of the beast to Nero did not take place until the nineteenth century attributed to four German scholars, over 1,800 years after the writing of the book.

I believe internal evidence supports a late date of the writing of the book and is against an early date. I'll talk about Smyrna again. In Polycarp's letter to the Church at Philipi, Polycarp (the leader of the Church at Smyrna) specifically states that there was no Church in his city during the time that Paul ministered in Asia Minor. Polycarp attributes his conversion and the founding of the Smyrna Church to the ministry of the apostle John. John's ministry to the Churches surrounding Ephesus did not begin until after the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 64-68 when he fled there to escape the Roman/Jewish war. The Church at Smyrna didn't exist at the time of the fall of Jerusalem which is a key time reference for proponents of an early date for Revelation.

The Greek you mentioned "Must soon take place" is one Greek verb and the nuance cannot be adequately translated. It does not mean that it must happen in a short period of time after the warning is given. There is a way to say that in Greek and John didn't use that Greek construction. The Greek can be properly understood as the things that are going to take place will happen quickly. In other words, it won't be a drawn out process once the process begins.

Hi Matthew2323,

Chris,
The theory that John wrote in the 90s is modern churchian myhtology and is about as valid as the Jesus Seminar's assertion that "John" was written in 120 AD. The internal evidence is what clues us in to an early dating.

Upon what evidence do you base this assertion?

Everything that I have ever read from scholars has dated the Book of Revelation between 68-96 A.D. -- with the vast majority placing it ~95 A.D. The few who contend that Revelation was written earlier (DURING the life of Nero) seem to do so without offering anything tangible in terms of evidence to validate their claims.

If Nero was the "beast" mentioned in Revelation, then it seems to invalidate the notion that these things would happen "after" John saw them. After all, Nero was already on a rampage by those earlier suggested dates. Also, there are many things that were seen during the Revelation that do not seem to have happened...yet.

Perhaps you can include your reasons and evidence for dating of the Book of Revelation during the reign of Nero?

Mathew2323

Your words about nero and the number of the beast. What are we supposed to do with that? As far as I am concerned it seems as if you just proved that Nero was the Beast and the end times was then and not now. This is how I interpret what you said in your post.

This is a small reason why I don't study alot of 'end times' stuff because it leads down so many dead end roads because so many people have so many opinions and read so many things into even the Book of Revelations. It is really tiring in the end.

Numeric values really don't mean anything to me when it comes to name. It is just like someone being called a certain name because it means a certain thing. People do it today but does that name really reflect who that person is? It doesn't mean alot to me in the end.

I dont believe that all of Revelation has a past fulfillment; although I do believe that quite a bit does. I do believe that Christ will return, so I am not a full preterist- but I do not believe he will return twice (once to rapture the Church and then a second Second Coming).

I do believe that most if not all of the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in 70 AD.

Bear, onviously Revelation is written in highly symbolic and figurative language. It is apocalytic writing. You simply can't read it literally, just like a lot of Isaiah and Ezekiel cannot be interpreted literally.

So you may have a picture in your mind of the "Millenium" that may simply something you have created in your mind. Be open to the idea that your picture may not be 100% correct, because i hate to tell you that it may not be. If there is one thing I have learned when it comes to end times stuff, it is not to hold too tight to any one interpretation. There is not enough clarity in the passages to allow for such a thing.

TMK, you subscribe to the Preterist view of Revelation, do you not?

While I'm a pre-millenialist, I agree with TMK that the fall of Jerusalem in A.D.68-70 is very related to Christ's teaching on the end times.