Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Clinton -- doomed & wagging, Japan collapses, Y2K bug, etc -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SOROS who wrote (828)	12/4/1998 2:40:00 PM
From: Emile Vidrine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1151

The Beast: Jewish or Roman? By Ed Stevens (Search The Scriptures, February 1985) All Rights Reserved. Introduction We are dealing with the character known as "the Beast" in the book of Revelation. Let me suggest, if you are not familiar with this subject, that you read the following passages before going on: Rev. 11, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20; 2 Thess. 2; 1 John 2, 3, 4, 5; and Matthew 24 (esp. vss. 23, 24). The identity of "The Beast" has always intrigued theologians. Legions of theories have been conjured up to excite the imagination. This article will examine some of them. It is not our purpose here to identify specifically who the Beast is, but rather to clarify his general nature (i.e. whether he is a Jewish Beast or a Roman one). If we can determine that, maybe his specific identity will be easier to pinpoint. We want to show why the Beast cannot be Roman and why it must be Jewish in character. The whole question as to the nature of the Beast (Jewish or Roman) and his identity is related closely to the date of the book of Revelation. This article assumes that the book of Revelation was written before the destruction of Jerusalem (AD 70). Past Theories Some have identified the Beast as being an individual such as the Pope, Martin Luther, John Calvin, William of Orange or Hitler. Others have seen the Beast more as a group or movement of people, such as the apostate Roman Church, the Protestants, the Roman Empire (or the Common Market), the Roman persecuting power of the first century, or some other great world-power that will rise up to persecute Christians. Some of the more serious attempts have been to identify the Beast as Nero, based on the "666" number in Revelation 13. Another person (Spitta) urged a first-century application to the Biblical character of Simon Magus (Acts 8). Zullig interpreted the Beast as being the Herodian dynasty of rulers. J. S. Russell (in his book, The Parousia) suggests the Roman Procurators (from AD 44-66) and Nero. Once when walking in New York City, I was handed a sheet which stated that Rockefeller was the Antichrist! I've heard similar rumors about Henry Kissenger! Every famous person who was feared or hated was someone's "Beast!" This really illustrates how fear and hate (and other emotions) can affect one's exegesis! An Alternative Very few have mustered the courage to suggest a Jewish fulfillment of these "beastly" passages. Most modern interpreters (who are Amillennial) say the Beast is Rome. So, the thesis of a Jewish Beast will probably not be easily accepted. I want to preface our study with some comments taken from Dr. Cornelius Vanderwaal's commentary on First John, where he deals with the antichrists: (from his commentary set entitled, Search The Scriptures, vol. 10, pp. 60,61) -- "John, who may have been on the island of Patmos when he wrote this letter, now declares that things have gone so far that many antichrists have already appeared. This indicates that it is the 'last hour' (2:18). Many false prophets have gone out in 'the world' (4:1), that is, the apostate Jewish world. (emphasis mine, ees). John's words make it clear that we must not think of the 'antichrist' in connection with a misty future. When John reports the vision of the Beast in the book of Revelation, he is not telling us about a future political antichrist with the reins of world government in his hands; he is indicating that some beastly devil will arise out of Israel to attack the church. 2 Thessalonians 2 follows the same line of thought. In 3:9, John distinguishes sharply between the seed of God and the children of the devil (see John 8:44)." Who Were The Serpents? The "Dragon" was the source of power and authority for the Beast. He is called "the Serpent" and "the Devil" also. He is clearly identified as "Satan" himself (Rev. 12:9, 20:2). Were the Romans ever called "children of the devil"? The Jews were: (John 8:44; Acts 13:10; 1 John 3:10)! The Jews were also called "serpents" and "offspring of vipers" (Matt. 23:33)! And that same verse (Matt. 23:33) condemns them to a fiery end similar to the end of the Beast and his followers (Rev. 19:19-21)! Two Beasts! There are actually two "Beasts" mentioned in Revelation (ch. 13). The second of these is later identified as the "False Prophet" (cf. Rev. 13:11-14; 16:13 and 19:20). Throughout the Old and New Testaments the words "false prophet" are continually used to denote Jewish characters. It would be strange indeed to speak of a Roman Beast with such terminology. This is another indication that the Beast and those he associates with are Jewish in character. The Beast Revived If the Beast is a Roman Emperor (such as Nero or Domitian), we are going to have to deal with the lack of historical evidence for his resurrection. Rev. 13:2, 12, 14 make it clear that the Beast was killed with the sword but came back to life. Some who favor the idea that Nero is under consideration here recall the rumor that was circulated after his death that he really hadn't died but that he was over in Parthia gathering an army to come back to Rome and take over. There is, of course, historical evidence that such a rumor was circulated in the first century, but there is not the slightest evidence that the rumor was true, and Nero never reappeared. This theory (called the "Nero Redivivus" theory) has pretty well been abandoned by most who consider John's account in Revelation to be inspired. How could an inspired Apostle entertain such speculative notions which never did materialize? Neither Nero nor Domitian nor any other Roman emperor came back to life again. This would certainly militate against the Beast being Roman. And it can't be the Roman persecuting power that was revived, since the Roman persecution dragged on for several more centuries, and whatever persecution this is, was supposed to end shortly after the book was written (see Rev. 1:1-3; 22:6,10). This is interesting, because the Jewish persecution did come to a screeching halt shortly after the book was written! Before its end, the Jewish cause got a couple of extra lives: one in AD 66 when Cestius Gallus (the Roman general) withdrew his forces and suffered a humiliating defeat at the pass of Beth Horon. A second chance for their religion came when Yochanan Ben Zakkai pretended dead and escaped (in a coffin) out of Jerusalem to the Romans, where he was allowed by Titus to go to Yavneh and continue his teaching of the Law (where it continued until the destruction of Jerusalem in Hadrian's day (AD 135). The Song of Moses To anyone familiar with the Law of Moses and Jewish tradition, Rev. 15:2,3 will have meaning. It says that those martyrs "who had come off victorious from the Beast" were singing "the Song of Moses." Deuteronomy 32:1-43 is the song that John has reference to. The Jews were to sing this song to remind themselves of what would befall them "in the latter days" (Deut. 31:29). the song talks about "the end" of the Jews (Deut. 32:20), and details their destruction by a consuming fire (Deut. 32:22), "famine" (32:24), "plague" (32:24) and "bitter destruction" (32:24). God calls them a "perverse generation" (32:5,20), and says He will "render vengeance" upon them and "vindicate His people" (32:41 and 32:36 respectively). Why would Christian martyrs of the first century be singing this song about the Romans, when the song had reference to the Jews? It wouldn't make much sense. But if it was Jews who were killing them (like the book of Acts shows), then they had every reason to be singing the Song of Moses! It was the Jews who were the real threat to the Christians! No one else knew better how to attack the church than the Jews. Paul said that his intention as a former persecutor was not just to debate the Christians and prove they were wrong. He was out to "destroy" them (Gal. 1:13,23; 1 Tim. 1:13; Acts 8:3; 9:21)! It was a Jewish beast who was persecuting and killing these Christians, and these martyrs were singing the Song of Moses to remind their Jewish persecutors of what was coming upon them! Aren't these the same martyrs who cried out earlier, "How long, Or Lord, wilt Thou refrain from judging and avenging our blood" (Rev. 6:10)? Who was it who had all the "blood of the righteous" martyrs imputed against them - Jews or Romans? These Christians who had kept their faith in Jesus in spite of the intense persecution by the Jews were the ones "who had come off victorious from the Beast." (See Matt. 23:35 and Luke 13:33)! This passage (Rev. 15:2,3) points very clearly to a Jewish beast. Gnawed Tongues and Wild Beasts In Rev. 16:10,11, it says that the people in the Beast's kingdom "gnawed their tongues because of pain." They had great sores on their bodies along with other plagues that had been poured out on them. The question is, if this is Rome or a Roman beast of some kind, when were they ever in such a miserable mess? John makes it clear that these events were to happen soon after the book was written (Rev. 1:1,3; 22:6,10). When was Nero or Domitian's kingdom thrust into such dire straights? We know from Josephus when the Jews literally gnawed their tongues for lack of food during the siege of AD 70! And, it is interesting that Josephus even calls the Jewish Zealot forces a "wild beast" in several places (Wars V.1.1; IV.7.4; IV.9.8; V.2.5)! This doesn't fit the Romans at all, but it does fit the Jews very well! This point is emphasized even more by the fact that the whole context of the Song of Moses is full of references to "beasts," "serpents," and "dragons" (Lev. 26; Deut. 28-32; esp. Deut. 32:24,33). The Beast Was Seized The real clincher to the whole story is found in Revelation 19:11-21, where it says the Beast was "seized and "thrown alive into the lake of fire" (vs. 20). Keep in mind that these events were to happen soon after Revelation was written (Rev. 1:1,3; 22:6,10). Was Nero or Domitian seized and thrown into the Lake of Fire shortly after Revelation was written? Did Rome make war against Jesus and His angelic hosts and get defeated shortly after the book was written (Rev. 19:19)? Did the Roman armies get "killed with the sword" and become a feast for all the vultures, shortly after Revelation was written (19:21)? The Roman persecution did not end shortly after the writing of Revelation, but the Jewish one did. Whoever the Beast is, he is soundly defeated here, his persecution against the church is crushed and his armies become plunder for the birds of prey to eat. Rome didn't fall until the Fifth Century, and that's a long time after Revelation was written! This sounds more like a Jewish Beast trying to persecute and destroy the church, but finally getting itself destroyed! The Romans were the vultures of this text (Rev. 19:21) who circled outside the Jewish walls watching the Jewish factions kill each other, waiting until they wore themselves out enough to become easy prey. This soon happened (in AD 70) and Jews glutted the world slave market. The Roman armies weren't seized and "killed with the sword" in AD 70, nor in AD 96 either. Therefore, the Beast here (Rev. 19:19-21 cannot be a Roman one. It had to be Jewish!

To: SOROS who wrote (828)	12/7/1998 9:56:00 PM
From: SOROS	Respond to of 1151

The Economist Magazine - 11/14-20/98 “I'M FOREVER blowing bubbles, pretty bubbles in the air. They fly so high, nearly reach the sky, then like my dreams they fade and die . . . ” American investors and consumers would be wise to heed the old song: the stockmarket bubble that has lifted the prosperity of many Americans beyond their wildest dreams is, sooner or later, going to end. In the past four years, soaring share prices and easy credit have sent consumers and businesses on a spending binge. Their excesses now leave America's economy vulnerable to a sharp slowdown—and maybe even to a recession. Regular readers will recall that this is not the first time The Economist has fretted about America's bubble economy. In April we suggested that there were worrying signs of an asset-price bubble in the United States: soaring share prices, a frothy property market and excessive monetary growth. Some air was let out of Wall Street when share prices tumbled during the summer. Yet the market has since bounced back by almost a fifth, taking it to within 5% of its peak in July. This is proof, say some analysts, that the market was not overvalued after all. Well, maybe. More likely, it makes the American stockmarket a very risky place indeed. Barely a month ago the world, it was claimed, faced its worst financial crisis for more than 50 years, with emerging economies collapsing like dominoes and a credit crunch looming in America. Was it all just a nasty dream? It is true that global prospects now look a bit brighter. Asia's financial—if not its economic—crisis seems to be over, for now; the IMF's coffers have been topped up, paving the way for a rescue package for Brazil; America's credit markets are functioning fairly freely again. Perhaps best of all, Alan Greenspan has cut interest rates twice and is expected to cut again next week. Mr Greenspan, having delivered more than seven years of inflation-free growth, is again revered by financial markets. Once again, he seems to have worked a miracle. The trouble with bubbles The weaknesses of emerging economies do indeed look less of a threat than they did. Yet the biggest worry lies not in Asia or Latin America, but in the United States. It is often believed that America's expansion can continue without recession because inflation is not a worry. Previous expansions have come to an end because the Fed was forced to raise interest rates to check inflation. In contrast, it is argued, there is now plenty of room to cut interest rates if necessary. So if the Fed plays its cards right, the American expansion can continue, albeit with a period of more moderate growth. This is wishful thinking, based on excessive faith in the powers of central banks in general, and of Mr Greenspan in particular (see article). Even in a low-inflation world, private-sector behaviour can produce boom-and-bust cycles that central bankers are unable to control, as Japan discovered in the late 1980s and emerging Asia did in the first half of the 1990s. And even though America's inflation rate is low, the economy shows clear signs of cyclical excess. Share-price gains and easy credit have allowed too many consumers to dream too easily of a Ferrari—or at least of a new Ford Taurus—in their garage. Consumer spending has risen almost twice as fast as income over the past four years, as capital gains have encouraged consumers to run down past savings and to expand their borrowings. Consumer credit is at a record level as a percentage of disposable income. The most striking evidence of why this cannot last is that total household saving turned negative in September for the first time in 60 years. Companies have also been borrowing heavily to finance capital investment. As a result, the combined private saving rate (the gap between total private income and spending) has fallen to levels well below anything ever seen before in America (see article). Clearly, spending cannot exceed income for ever. The share-price gains which have been driving growth must, eventually, come to an end. And, at some point, people will decide that it might after all be better if they were to spend a bit less than their income rather than a bit more. The only questions are when and how. Corporate investment is already sagging in response to weaker profits, and consumer spending has slowed slightly, though it is still rising faster than income. The end—ie, the readjustment of this imbalance—need not come soon. But it would be better, for America at least, if it did. The lower the saving rate falls the harder it will be for the Fed to stave off, or moderate, a recession. The turnaround does not necessarily have to happen with a crash. Consumer spending might merely slow, allowing a “normal” saving rate to be restored gradually over a period of years. That would mean several years of slower growth than Americans have grown accustomed to, but no recession, or at least not a severe or prolonged one. Even so, it is as well to be aware of the risks: history suggests that blow-outs more often end with a bang than a whimper. No time to cut Optimists insist that growth can still be sustained, so long as the Fed continues to cut interest rates. In a typical downturn, consumer spending and investment are squeezed by a rise in interest rates in response to rising inflation; and, when rates are then cut, spending rebounds. This time, however, the initial brake on the economy is coming from a deteriorating balance of trade. Meanwhile, the sectors that are most sensitive to interest-rate cuts—housing, consumer durables and capital spending—are already over-extended. Lower interest rates, intended to offset the effect of slowing exports, may therefore do little to encourage consumers to spend and borrow more. A more pertinent question is whether a rate cut is now appropriate at all. The risk is that it could simply inflate the bubble even more, leading to an even louder bang later. Instead, the Fed should probably try to nudge a turnaround into happening sooner rather than later. The only means at its disposal is a decision to confound markets' expectations and leave rates where they are. The big lesson of the past few months is that central bankers are not, after all, infallible. Even Mr Greenspan's ability to control the economy is more limited than widely believed. It is conceivable that he may yet keep America growing. But the risks are now high that the economy will tip into some sort of a recession—and that fickle investors and consumers will suddenly see Mr Greenspan in a rather less favourable light. That will be a shame: dealing with bubbles is far from easy.