|Q49 : Destruction of the Beast|
I have an interesting question for you. Most dispensationalists believe Daniel 7:11 and Revelation 19:20 are parallel.
Dan. 7:11 - Then I kept looking because of the sound of the boastful words which the horn was speaking; I kept looking until the beast was slain, and its body was destroyed and given to the burning fire.
Rev. 19:20 - And the beast was seized, and with him the false prophet who performed the signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image; these two were thrown alive into the lake of fire which burns with brimstone.
However, Dan. 7:11 seems to teach the Antichrist is killed ('slain,' 'destroyed') and THEN thrown into the fire, whereas Rev. 19:20 states he is alive when he is put in the fire.
|A49 : by Tony Garland |
I pondered that same question when I was writing my Revelation Commentarya. Here's what I concluded:
Although the Beast and False Prophet are cast while alive into the Lake of Fire, the process results in their death: 'I watched then because of the sound of the pompous words which the horn was speaking; I watched till the beast was slain, and its body destroyed and given to the burning flame' (Dan. 7:11). Paul told the church at Thessalonica, 'And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume (anelei) with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming' (2Th. 2:8). Consume is anelei : 'take away, do away with, destroy . . . of persons kill, murder, usually in a violent way.'
It would seem the variation between Daniel 7:11, 2Th. 2:8, and Rev. 19:20 is akin to what one sees among the synoptic gospels in places. The statements appear different on the surface, but in actuality are describing the same event: (1) the beast is captured; (2) he is cast alive into the lake of fire; (3) his body is destroyed on entry to the Lake of Fire which results in his being slain in the process.
Maybe that's overly simplistic, but it seems to me there is a danger of reading too much into the apparent differences in the passage—much like one sometimes is tempted to attribute semantics to subtle aspects of parables. (Admittedly, this is not a parable. However, there is definitely symbolic language in the description of this event: 2Th. 2:8; Rev. 19:15.)