We are continuing steadily in our series taught by R.C. Sproul. We continue on the fun topic of the antichrist. Seriously, this is an important topic for many who are struggling with accepting the preterist interpretation of the Scriptures.
There are a lot of questions on this topic. There is also a lot of confusion over the subject. Are "the antichritst", "the man of lawlessness" and "the beast" all the same person? Today we get to take a more significant look at the beast described in Revelation.
First, I'd like to just get some grammatical exploration out of the way. It must be admitted that the language describing the beast in Revelation is fascinating. In a very literary sense it is almost beautiful and poetic. Of course what the beast does and represents is far from beautiful. But the vision of John itself is a fine piece of literature.
On a confessional side note, I agree with Sproul in disagreeing with the Westminster Confession of Faith on the "person" of the antichrist/beast. It most certainly is not the pope. However, I there is still a very strong remnant of Reformed thinkers who hold to a Historicist view on the book of Revelation who remain in agreement with the WCF.
The historical account of Nero is almost nauseating. I don't desire to make many comments other than to say, Nero truly does fit the bill for "a beast".
