The Evangelical Universalist Forum

The beast = zealots?

#1

Well, I have to say my mind was blown listening to this lecture. https://adammaarschalk.com/2017/04/09/who-was-the-beast-five-clues-long-island-conference-presentation/ Pretty much since I became a preterist I have thought the beast was Rome. Now I’m leaning towards it being the zealots.

1 Like

#2

Anything that considers the Jewish hierarchy or Zealots / Sicarii in such rolls is worth contemplating IMO.

0 Likes

#3

qaz, I’d say the Leviathan(beast) they were referring to at the time was the Levitical priesthood, because they changed the teachings of Abraham and Moses.

0 Likes

#4

@davo Micah Stephens on p 72 of HTETE writes that Zechariah 14:2-3 describes the following: the “nations” fighting against Jerusalem were the 10 northern tribes; the “Lord” fighting against the tribes was the Romans. He thinks Zechariah 13 establishes that the “nations” = Israel. Thoughts?

0 Likes

#5

I’d probably need to read the book to get a better feel of the argument, though I do have sympathies towards certain places where ‘nations’ may well be indicative of the regathered northern tribes/nations (Mt 24:30; 25:32), though balk at all “nations” passages automatically being “Israel” carte blanch — which is the position of some vocal prêterists.

0 Likes

#6

Can you recommend any preterist books or articles that show the “nations” there are the tribes of Israel?

0 Likes

#7

You may have to follow through with your source from above, though I do share some thoughts HERE.

0 Likes

#8

qaz, I think that this guy has a good point. Struggle over the inheritance of Israel had been going on since Abraham’s day. Those who were physical descendants considered themselves to be rightful heirs. However, this was not the case. Abraham’s children/ descendants refers to those who followed the same God or in other words, those who were “born of the Spirit”

0 Likes

#9

A couple of the texts you cite from Genesis could be referring to the inclusion of gentiles that began in the first century, no? Why do you think it refers to nations pre-Acts?

0 Likes

#10

No, my point is… those texts just demonstrate “nations” can, but not demand, a meaning closer to Israel than typically assumed.

0 Likes

#11

:+1:

0 Likes