Rev 12:18. και ἐστάθη. The reading of the Rec. κ. ἐστάθην, in a documentary respect decidedly inferior to κ. ἐστάθη, is not utterly impossible in an exegetical respect, as De Wette says;[3210] for there is no contradiction between the ἘΣΤΆΘΗ and the ἈΠῆΛΘΕ ΠΟΛΕΜῆΣΑΙ (Revelation 12:17), but in Rev 12:18 it is directly described how the dragon, who (Revelation 12:17) turns from the fruitless persecution of the woman to begin a conflict with believers, now stations himself on the seashore, viz., by no means as a spectator,[3211] but with the purpose to call forth the beast from the sea, and to equip him with his power (Revelation 13:2), which he will use as his instrument in the conflict he has now undertaken against believers.[3212] Against Ebrard, who objects: “Is John to have the dragon standing by the sea, and, besides, see his incarnation rise from the sea? What the dragon commits to the ΘΗΡΊΟΝ are not possessions which he could have transmitted to him visibly. The dragon also no longer comes before us; it is not known whither he has gone,”—it is especially to be considered, that in Revelation 13:2 the dragon appears on the scene actually and visibly to John, communicates his power, etc., to the ΘΗΡΊΟΝ, and that this is in no way an “incarnation” of Satan, in the sense that he himself could not appear with the beast. Hence, between the ἈΠῆΛΘΕ ΠΟΛΕΜῆΣΑΙ, Κ.Τ.Λ., Revelation 12:17, and the ἜΔΩΚΕΝ, Κ.Τ.Λ., Revelation 13:2, something must interpose, which explains that the ἈΠῆΛΘΕ does not declare a complete retirement from the scene of the vision. This interposition is given with exquisite appropriateness by the ΚΑῚ ἘΣΤΆΘΗ, Κ.Τ.Λ., Revelation 13:18.

ἘΠῚ ΤῊΝ ἌΜΜΟΝ Τῆς ΘΑΛ., because the beast is to come ἘΚ Τῆς ΘΑΛΆΣΣΗς (Revelation 13:1).

[3210] Cf. also Vitr., Beng., Züll., Ewald, Bleek, Hengstenb., and Auberlen, all of whom expressly speak in favor of the Rec.

[3211] “Was the dragon the spectator, or was John?” Vitr.

[3212] Cf. Hofm.; also Volkm.

Revelation 13:1. The following hints may serve for the preliminary fixing of points amidst the complication of expositions of the details and of the whole, that cross one another:—

1. The interpretation of the beast upon the sea, Revelation 13:1-10,—which appears also in Revelation 13:11-18 as the chief beast, and whose correct interpretation is, therefore, the chief question,—is attempted in a twofold way, as in the beast there is, or is not, found a symbol of the Roman character (worldly dominion and power, the worship of idols, and superstition, etc.). The two chief species of exposition have each, again, two particular forms, which are very distinct. While many expositors in their reference to Rome refer only to pagan Rome,[3213] others have in mind Christian, i.e., papal, antichristian Rome.[3214] On the other hand, however, many expositors also, who interpreted neither the entire form of the beast, nor all his individual features, as referring to Rome, yet have assumed a reference to papal Rome by regarding the beast,[3215] as a whole, as pertaining to the description of the secular power, and have found the appearance of the secular power in the papacy symbolized, at least, by one part of the form of the beast, viz., by one of the seven heads;[3216] while, especially by Catholic interpreters,[3217] a mode of explanation is recommended, which regards the reference to Rome as distant as possible.

[3213] Victorin., Beda, Alcas, Bossuet, Hammond, Grot., Wetst., Elchh., Herd., Ewald, De Wette, Lücke, Bleek.

[3214] Coccej., Vitr., Luther, Calov, Bengel., and many others.

[3215] A. Ch. Lämmert (Babel, das Their u. der falsche Prophet, Gotha, 1863), depending on Auberlen, has wandered into arbitrary generalities.

[3216] Hengstenb., Ebrard, Auberlen.

[3217] C. a Lap., Stern; cf. also already Andr.

2. The exposition is regulated, on the one hand, by the symbol of Daniel; on the other, by the parallel descriptions in the Apoc. itself (ch. Revelation 12:3 sqq.; ch. 17). But with what freedom and independence John both has, in ch. 13, fashioned the features derived from the Danielian symbol into a new picture, and also in ch. 17 again presented them differently from ch. 8, must be shown by the explanation of the details, which has thus to seek a decision of the controversy of expositors.

ἐκ τῆς θαλάσσης. The ordinary exposition makes its work too easy by immediately allegorizing the rising of the beast from the sea: “The beast rose from the disordered life of this world which surges in an ungodly way, viz., from the sea of nations.”[3218] The proper representation of the visionary locality is so little respected by this, that even in the statement ἘΠῚ Τ. ἌΜΜΟΝ Τ. ΘΑΛ., 12:18, a symbolical designation of numberless[3219] masses of people has been found. But as, e.g., Revelation 12:1; Revelation 12:3, the ΟὐΡΑΝΌς, in which the woman and the dragon appear to the seer, signifies nothing else in a symbolical way than the expression declares, so in this passage, especially, nothing further is represented than that the first beast rises out of the sea, on whose visible shore the dragon had just placed himself, while the second beast is beheld in the vision coming from the actual earth (Revelation 13:11). But it is a further question as to whether a particular reference lies in this statement of place, which[3220] follows not so much from the symbol of Daniel 7, and from Revelation 17:1; Revelation 17:5, as rather from the parallelism of Revelation 13:11, where the ἘΚ Τῆς Γῆς has in fact an inner relation (Revelation 13:12). It results also, in general, from the mutual connection of the two beasts, and especially from the analogy of the ἘΚ Τῆς Γῆς, that the ἘΚ Τῆς ΘΑΛΆΣΣΗς must have a similar relation. De Wette, therefore, is already in error, when he conjoins the rising out of the sea, and the coming out of the abyss (Revelation 11:7, Revelation 17:8), as though the beast were designated by the ἘΚ Τ. ΘΑΛΆΣΣΗς as “a birth from the kingdom of darkness,” or even as one (Nero) returning from the realm of death.[3221] Ewald’s opinion, also, that the ἘΚ Τ. ΘΑΛ. designates the insular government of the Roman beast,[3222] is remote, and makes too much of an irrelevant point.

As the other beast rises from the earth, as from its own element and province, in order to corrupt the earth and those who dwell thereon, and to seduce to the worship of the first beast, so the first beast rises[3223] out of the sea, which surrounds the whole earth, in order to rule over all who dwell within the boundaries of its sphere,—over the whole earth (Revelation 13:4), and all that dwell on the earth (Revelation 13:8), over all tribes and peoples (Revelation 13:7). The sea, whereby the earth itself is surrounded, appears in like manner as a more remote province of the first beast rising from the same, as this beast himself properly rules, and the second beast only serves him. The two beasts appear throughout, not as two rulers by the side of one another, as if possibly to the first belonged only the sea without the earth, and to the second, on the other hand, the earth; but the power and dominion over the whole earth are given the first beast; while the second beast works on the earth and upon its inhabitants, only in the service of the first. This relation expresses itself also in the fact that the first beast comes forth from the sea itself surrounding the earth. The analogy of the contrasted ἐκ τ. γῆς (Revelation 13:11) forbids us to regard the ἐκ τ. θαλάσσης as the sea of nations;[3224] but this mode of exposition cannot be justified by an appeal to Revelation 17:1; Revelation 17:15, since there is no contrast in that passage between sea and earth; and, also, the sea is not once mentioned, but the ῦδατα πολλά, on which the harlot sits. The entire view there is thus different.

[3218] Victorin., Beda, Andr., C. a Lap., Coccej., Boss., Stern, Hengstenb., Ebrard, Klief., etc.; cf. also Grot.: “From the power of the empire,” so that “the public origin” of this beast is indicated in contrast with “the private origin” of the other. Beng.: “From Europe.”

[3219] Cf. Revelation 20:8. Hengstenb.

[3220] Against Hammond and Eichh., who find only some sort of visionary locality designated.

[3221] Against De Wette (cf. also Volkm., Ew. ii.), it is asserted only that the expression ἐκ τῆς θαλάσσης does not give the idea of ἐκ τῆς αβύσσου. Independent of this is the opinion also defended by De Wette, that the beast from the abyss (Revelation 11:7) is essentially identical with the beast from the sea (Revelation 13:7); for that the different turns in the representation rest upon essentially the same foundation, is shown in ch. 17.

[3222] “Transmarine Rome, or that situated on the island of Italy.”

[3223] ἀναβαῖνον, pres., as Revelation 7:2.

[3224] Hengstenb., Hofm., etc.

θηρίον

ἐχον κέρατα δέκα, κ.τ.λ. Hengstenb. properly emphasizes against Beng. the fact that the expression θηρίον has already in itself a bad secondary signification. The ζῶα[3225] could not be called θηρία. Already, in Daniel,[3226] the godless secular kingdoms appear in the forms of θηρία, and especially is the significant feature to be there[3227] observed, that just as the self-sufficient scorn of the Chaldaean king is punished by his brutalization, so, on the other hand, because of his repentance there were given to the beast, representing the Chaldaean empire, human feet and a human heart.

The more definite explanation of the θηρίον is afforded by what follows.[3228]

That John mentions first[3229] the ten horns, then the seven heads of the beast,—otherwise than in the parallel Revelation 12:3,—could have its foundation in the fact,[3230] that at the rising of the beast the horns first became visible; but according to this consideration, it must be expected that then the further description, καὶ ἐπὶ τ. κερἁτων αὐτ. δέκα διαδ., immediately connects with the κέρατα δέκα, and it would be written καὶ κεφαλὰς ἑπτὰ καὶ ἐπὶ τ. κεφ. αὐτ. ὁνομα βλασφ. As not only the order in which the ten horns and seven heads of the beast are mentioned, is different from that in the description of the dragon, who, nevertheless, in other respects bears essentially the same insignia, but the present description has in it something peculiar, in that here the ten diadems appear on the ten horns, while there (Revelation 12:3) the seven diadems appear on the seven heads of the dragon; the entire order in the particular points of the description, which also expresses something particular with respect to the heads of the beast, depends upon a deeper foundation, lying especially in the significance of the form of the beast. If it is denied that the θηρίον designates the precise form of the antichristian secular power which this has attained in the Roman Empire,[3231] the explanation of itself indicates arbitrary guessing: the ten horns and seven heads—which are generally interpreted in reverse order—may then be understood as representations of the seven periods of the world, and of a tenfold division of the government of the world;[3232] of the seven kings before the appearance of antichrist;[3233] of the seven secular powers, viz., the Egyptian, Assyrian, Chaldaean, Medo-Persian, Greek, Roman, and the final still future power with its ten divisions;[3234] of the seven persecutions of Christians;[3235] of the seven powers hostile to Christianity, corresponding to the seven periods of N. T. history, and of the seven small powers[3236] combined with antichrist. But even the expositors who have referred the θηρίον to Rome have not always been able to give a definite and intelligible meaning to the particular features of the Apocalyptic image. This applies not only to those to whom the essential tendency of ch. 13[3237] appears to pertain to the Papacy,[3238] but also to those who properly abide by heathen Rome, as the form of the antichristian secular power contained within the horizon of the prophet. If, by a superficial comparison with Revelation 17:9, the seven heads of the beast are interpreted of the seven hills of Rome,[3239] the explanation of the ten horns by “the ten servant kings”[3240] is manifestly utterly out of place; Ewald also, who refers the seven to the Roman emperors, and the ten to the prefects of the provinces, ignores the inner connection and essential relationship which exists already, according to Revelation 13:1. His ten horns first become visible. The prophet has shifted the diadems from the heads to the horns (thereby altering their number, of necessity), since he wishes to stamp the heads (i.e., the Roman emperors, cf. Sib. Or. iii. 176; Tac. Ann. xv. 47) with the blasphemous names. Hence the ten horns (successive monarchs in the Danielic oracle) are superfluous here, except as an archaic, pictorial detail in the sketch of this polycephalous brute. Such grotesque, composite monsters were familiar figures in Persian and Babylonian mythology. The blasphemous title of divus, assumed by the emperors since Octavian (Augustus = σεβαστός) as a semi-sacred title, implied superhuman claims which shocked the pious feelings of Jews and Christians alike. So did θεός and θεοῦ υἱός which, as the inscriptions prove, were freely applied to the emperors, from Augustus onwards. The imperial system, especially with its demand for imperial worship, appeared the embodiment of irreverence and profane infatuation (Revelation 13:6). This calm usurpation of divine honours was inexplicable except on the supposition (Revelation 13:2) that the empire was a tool or agent of the devil himself. Much had happened since Paul wrote Romans 13:1-6, and even since Asiatic Christians had received the counsel of 1 Peter 2:13 f.

The Beast from the Sea. Chap. 13 Revelation 13:1-101. And I stood] We should probably read “and he [the Dragon] stood”—the clause being connected with the preceding chapter.

and [I] saw … out of the sea] Daniel 7:3.

seven heads and ten horns] Read, ten horns and seven heads. The ten horns are from Daniel 7:7. But the beast seen by Daniel seems to have only one head, Daniel 7:20 : and hence some have supposed that this beast is not the same as that, but a combination of all Daniel’s four—and that the seven heads are obtained by adding together the four heads of the leopard with the single ones of the other three beasts. But this seems far-fetched: it is better to remember (see on Revelation 4:7) that God is not obliged always to reveal the same truth under the same image. St John’s vision was like enough to Daniel’s to indicate that it applied to the same thing, but it supplied details which Daniel’s did not. For one thing, comparing this description with Revelation 12:3, we learn that this beast has a special likeness to the Devil.

the name] Read, names, as in the margin. Cf. Revelation 17:3. The reference perhaps is to the blasphemous assumption of divine honours by the Roman emperors—most markedly (at least up to St John’s time) by Gaius.

Rev 12:18. [132] ἘΣΤΆΘΗΝ[133]) Thus also Arethas: and Ribera approves, although most of the Latins have stetit, he stood, ἐστάθη; which reading in turn Doelingius de Antichr. p. 284, approves of, and Peganius, Ap. p. 212. Each reading is almost equal in point of authority from manuscripts, and suitableness to the sense. For if applied to the dragon, the sentence would thus run. He was wroth, and went away: and stood on the sand of the sea, and gave his power to the beast which arose out of the sea. But because a new part begins at the words, and stood, and at the beginning of this part the name of the dragon is not again expressed, this act of standing is better applied to John. Who indeed, though he saw such various objects, yet mentions no other going of his, except that which was done in the spirit, for instance, ch. Revelation 18:3 : but this standing also upon the sand of the sea, was done in vision. This vision is very remarkable, and hence John mentions his own standing upon the sand of the sea. On the visions at the waters, comp. Daniel 8:2; Daniel 10:4; Ezekiel 1:3; Genesis 41:1.

[132] τῶν τηρούντων τὰς ἐντολὰς τοῦ Θεοῦ, who keep the commandments of GOD) This belongs to all those who have the dragon for their adversary.—V. g.

[133] So B Memph. and Rec. Text; but ACh Vulg. Syr. have ἐστάθη.—E.

—τὴν μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ, the testimony of Jesus) that He is the Son of GOD and the Saviour of the world.—V. g.

Revelation 13:1. Ἐκ τῆς θαλασσης, out of the sea) Three woes traverse the world from the east to the west. The first was in Persia: the second proceeded from the Euphrates: the third, under the dragon, is sustained by the beast in the west. In the conclusion of my German commentary, I have enumerated more than forty laws and distinguishing marks of Apocalyptic interpretation. In these the quick unfolding of the three woes, and especially of the third woe, has no little weight.—θηρίον, κ.τ.λ., a beast, etc.) θηρίον is a diminutive in sound, but not in sense: for even elephants are called θηρία; and in Homer μάλα μέγα θηρίον is a great stag slain by Ulysses.

The most ancient fathers determined that the seven heads of the beast were so many ages or kingdoms of the world, from its beginning to the end: from which interpretation that of D. Gebhard is not far removed, according to which the beast of the Apocalypse is the abuse of political power, the prop of the antichristian state: the seven heads, Pharaoh, Jeroboam, Assyrian Babel, Antiochus, the Sanhedrim of the Pharisees, then the Emperor of Rome, and the beast from the abyss. See Comm. on Twelve Prophets, pp. 508–524: comp. p. 217 and those which follow, 292. On the other hand, Victorinus took the head, or one king, to relate to Domitian, who was emperor in the time of John: the others, to refer to his five individual predecessors, and his immediate successor; and so Hammond, from Claudius to Domitian; so Bossuet refers it to Maximin and his five consorts, whom he himself survived, and Licinius, who alone survived him: which also is not far removed from the Epilysis of Raph. Eglinus. The one interpretation is too loose; the other too confined, although it is more convenient, inasmuch as it does not go beyond the seven hills [of Rome]. From either interpretation they were able to take an occasion, who with great agreement among themselves refer those seven heads to seven forms of the Roman polity, which are presented (see especially Borrhaus on this passage) by 1) Kings, 2) Consuls, 3) Decemvirs, 4) Military tribunes with consular power, 5) Dictators, 6) Emperors. We shall presently see the seventh. But, I. Seeing that Daniel, to whose antiquity it was suitable, already in his time sufficiently described the Roman affairs, what need is there to seek them in the Apocalypse, and to trace them back, not only beyond the beginnings of the third woe, but even from the beginnings of the fourth beast of Daniel, and indeed much further? for Daniel only subjoins the fourth beast to the third, as he does the third to the second, and the second to the first: but they who make the first head of the Apocalyptic beast to be the kings of Rome, ascend beyond the whole of the third beast of Daniel; whereas even the last king and the first consuls at Rome coincide with the beginnings of the second beast, that is, the Persians. II. The number seven, as applied to the heads, is itself at fault in this view; nor can consuls, decemvirs, and tribunes, be reckoned as three heads, but they must be regarded either as one, and this number of colleagues does not vary the species of rule, or as about twenty; moreover the others were often placed at intervals between the consuls; or if by this insertion the number of the forms is not increased, even kings (that you may class dictators with which division you please), together with emperors, would have to be reckoned as one head. Undoubtedly chronologists name the Roman epochs only from kings and consuls, and make other things subordinate to these, until they come to the emperors. See Com. de Sylvestris Chronol. p. 190, etc. However it be, it is not only from a difference between the heads, and from the number of the seven kings, that the beast and his last head are known; although interpreters allege that one means only: but without circumlocutions of this kind the prophecy more plainly represents both the whore, and with her the beast. III. To the seventh head alone a short space of continuance [ch. Revelation 17:10] is ascribed; but who, according to this system, will make a longer continuance to the other heads; for instance, if the decemvirs are a head, when Tacitus, in the introduction to his annals, asserts that their power did not prevail more than two years? IV. When they come to the emperors, as if it were the sixth head, their ingenuity exerts itself in a variety of ways, as to which of the emperors is to be regarded as the last in this point of view: Is it Domitian, whom foreign emperors began to succeed; or Diocletian, in whom Paganism ended; or Constantine, who ought (to accord with their theory) to have remained a “short space,” namely, at Rome; or Augustulus, conquered by Odoacer? V. In the seventh head they do not escape the difficulty of introducing a too long continuance of it, and a too great difference between it and the eighth, which is nevertheless of the seven; as when they refer to this head Constantine, who was the first to have the seat of empire in the east; or Odoacer and the Heruli, together with the Goths and Longobards; or Boniface III. or Charlemagne, with the successors of both. More things suitable for the refutation of such opinions, if it is necessary, can be taken from those things which follow.

For in this place especially my German Exegesis, and the Epicrisis of Lange, are to be compared with one another. And, first of all, it should be agreed upon what is the subject of inquiry. We both admit, I. That the beast is one person, and the whore another: II. That Babylon is Rome, and that too especially in the last part of her time: III. That some things which are spoken of the beast in the Apocalypse, are also spoken of the fourth beast in Daniel: IV. That the beast is described both as a body and as an individual: V. That the Papacy also is pointed out in the Apocalypse: VI. That the impious one, who is called antichrist, is an individual. But the chief difference consists in this, that the Divine of Halle says that the Papacy is held forth under the picture of Babylon; I maintain, that it is under the description of the beast, and this in such a manner, that its heads denote the papal succession from 11th century, and in the last time that Wicked one [2 Thessalonians 2:8], at once both wields the Papacy, inasmuch as he is of the seven, and adds new malignity from the bottomless pit, inasmuch as he himself is the eighth. Very great weight therefore is attached by us to this part of the prophecy, the event of which belongs to the present day. First of all, I will repeat the PROPOSITIONS which are laid down in that Exegesis on this passage, and which are examined in the Epicrisis, and I will partly explain them more fully, and partly vindicate them. I will act carefully and plainly: do you, Reader, if you judge that it at all concerns you (and it does greatly concern you), see that you attend to me. For it is wretched, when in an important matter there is much of words, but no profit. He who shall, word by word, weigh in turns that treatise of mine on each Proposition, and the Epicrisis of Lange, and shall compare my present explanation with both, will not repent of his labour.

PROPOSITION 1. It is one and the same beast, having ten horns and seven heads, which is described, Revelation 13, 17.—D. Lange concedes this, p. 376. But when I had prepared this Proposition with this intention only, that the demonstration about to be then deduced from ch. 13 and 17 jointly might cohere, he, before I say anything about the whore, immediately anticipates me, and says, that in Revelation 13, 17 the beast is so brought forward as to destroy [ch. Revelation 17:16] the whore OR PAPACY. He adds, or Papacy, from his own theory. That the beast is different from the whore, each of us, as I have said, equally admits: but before the question is decided respecting the texts which signify the Papacy, it is neither allowable for me to put the Papacy for the beast, nor for him to put it for the whore. A perpetual error, arising out of Homonymia (see Append.), prevails throughout the Epicrisis. Do you, Reader, bear this in mind; for I shall not inculcate this at every passage. But for my part I shall proceed distinctly.

PROP. 2. The beast is an ecclesiastico-political power opposed to the kingdom of Christ.—He concedes this also, p. 377. But when I opposed the opinion of some, who regarded the beast as a power either purely spiritual, or purely political (against the opinion of D. Lange), and when I did not as yet assume it as applying to the Papacy, he protests against my taking it of the Papacy. He ought to have waited, until, in the course of my argument, I seemed to abuse this Proposition which is agreed upon on both sides.

PROP. 3. The beast has an intimate and altogether peculiar connection with the city of Rome.—The Epicrisis, p. 377, so concedes this Proposition, as to say that it does not even need proof: and yet, p. 378, it refuses to it even probability itself, inasmuch as the beast and Rome are not therefore the same. But I do not say that they are the same, any more than he does Things connected are not the same: and I have proved the connection by reference to the 17th chapter, not because I thought that it is denied at the present day, but in order that this Proposition, together with the 4th, might more firmly support the 5th.

PROP. 4. The beast exists at the present time.—I had required that these Propositions might be examined as strictly as possible. The Divine of Halle has examined them, but, as he says, not strictly; for that it was not necessary: p. 386. It certainly was necessary in this Proposition, on account of the following Proposition; an examination of which I had particularly sought for, and that justly. I will speak with kindness and openness (for truth, which is brought into danger in this serious passage, compels me). The Epicrisis does not relate to its readers, of whom it certainly has many, on account of the celebrity of the Author, what ought especially to have been related. The whole of what he says is this: This Proposition rests upon the preceding one. But since that is entirely without foundation, namely, that the beast is the Papacy, this falls to the ground together with it: p. 377. The strong expressions, entirely, falls to the ground, and others, which the assurance of his own opinion everywhere supplies to the Venerable Author, ought not to prevent the reader from hesitating, and weighing in turn the arguments which each of us advances. There is need both of this admonition, and that it should be kept in mind. I had thus proved the Proposition: The beast has not yet passed: for Rome stands, and it is not until the destruction of this city that the beast perishes. It is not therefore altogether FUTURE: for the second woe has now long ago passed; but this having passed away, the third woe was quickly coming, and at the beginning of this woe the beast quickly arose out of the sea. Therefore the beast, whatever it is, exists at the present day. I have not, as he says, built up the 4th Proposition on the preceding one, although it satisfied the Divine of Halle and myself; much less does the 4th Proposition owe its force to this Proposition, the beast is the Papacy, which, though true of itself, he without cause makes equivalent to the preceding Proposition: for it would be an unbecoming circle, compared with the 5th Proposition: least of all does the 4th Proposition rest on that Proposition only, for the Epicrisis mentions it only. My proof holds good. 1) The beast has not yet passed: 2) it is not altogether FUTURE: 3) therefore it exists at present. The fourth point is not given: the Divine of Halle admits the first: from the first and the second the third necessarily follows: and that altogether overthrows the opinion of Lange respecting the beast, and supports mine. I proved the second point, as I was bound, by few words, but still from the whole connection of the prophecy, which cannot escape the notice of a continuous reader of the commentary brought down to that point (for it requires a reader of such a character). Do you seek for a summary of the arguments drawn from an analysis of the times? See Erkl. Offenb. p. 114. Do you prefer a summary of the arguments separated from an analysis of the times? See the same, p. 92, etc. The Epicrisis ought to have related and examined these things, rather than, in the very central point on which the controversy turns, to have attributed to me a solitary argument entirely destitute of weight, and, having easily refuted that, to have represented the matter as though quite settled in other respects.

PROP. 5. The beast is the Roman Papacy.—This in truth is the chief Proposition, respecting which the Epicrisis treats, p. 378. The 3d Proposition is beyond the reach of controversy: we have recently vindicated the 4th. This 5th Proposition, resting on those two, remains irrefutable, that is, evident and certain. The beast, I say, is intimately connected with the city Rome: and the beast exists at the present day. Therefore either another power of the present day, greater than the Pope and more intimately connected with the city Rome, must be pointed out, or the Pope must be regarded as the beast. I had spoken more at large on this very Proposition, p. 664; and the things which I had discussed, p. 659, are in agreement with this. By the consideration of the three woes, and moreover of all the things which precede and follow in the prophecy and its accomplishment, we are so shut in, that neither before nor afterwards, neither in the east nor in the west, can we think of anything else than the Papacy. Let those things be compared which are set forth at ch. Revelation 12:12; Revelation 12:14. Add the Introduction, especially § 31, 40, 42, 44, Numbers 12. All these strong points are as yet unrefuted.

A further argument, with a special reference to Daniel, has been prepared by the illustrious man, recently, with the intention of convincing me: p. 393, etc., compared with pp. 381, 384. It is a pleasing task: I will consider the subject itself.

The argument proves, 1) That the beast of the Apocalypse is viewed, first, as an entire body, afterwards as an individual: 2) That the same belongs to the Roman monarchy: pp. 393, 394, 402, 403. I reply: I concede both points, even without the circuitous reasons sought from Daniel; and this very admission shall assist in proving the interpretation of the beast as given by me. Let us see the points of importance separately.

1) Without perceiving this difference, which takes the beast first as an entire body, and afterwards as an individual, he says, that an error is at hand: p. 394. I reply: It is true that there is this difference; and even one of greater distinctness than appears to the Divine of Halle. Thence we shall see the origin of the error, in which he is involved, especially in Proposition 10.

2) He demonstrates, p. 934 (394?), etc., that there is a great conjunction between the beast, even taken as a whole, and the whore (and the Papacy). This he does excellently; if the interpretation respecting the Papacy were transferred from the whore to the beast.

3) The concentrated demonstration, as the Author calls it, by which it may be shown that the beast of the Apocalypse is not the Pope, consists of three reasons: pp. 396, 397. We will refute these.

a) He denies that I have proved my opinion by any facts. I reply: I have plainly proved it, and do prove it again and again, by this very Proposition in particular. We will afterwards examine the parts of the text separately. Nor have I deemed it necessary to interweave at any time anything contrary together with my demonstration.

b) He says, that the whole force of my demonstration, that the beast is the Pope, is taken from the kingly state and lordship of the Popes; but that the papal hierarchy is brought forward under the form of the royal whore: p. 397. I reply: That this question, whether the kingdom of the beast or of the whore is the kingdom of the Pope, is not decided by the kingly state and lordship, which each of them has. It was befitting that the kingly state and lordship of the Popes should be pointed out; because without it the Papacy would not be the beast; but that the Papacy is the beast, has been before shown by other means.

c) He repeats, that the beast is a different person from the whore: the same passage, compared with pp. 371–374. I again and repeatedly grant the truth of this; but it does not show that the Pope is the whore.

:4) The parallelism also between the prophecy of Daniel and that of the Apocalypse, subjoined by the Divine of Halle at the same place, so breaks the force of his opinion, that it corroborates mine

Revelation 13:4) The parallelism also between the prophecy of Daniel and that of the Apocalypse, subjoined by the Divine of Halle at the same place, so breaks the force of his opinion, that it corroborates mine. We will proceed distinctly, and by means of certain particular Observations we shall see this 5th Proposition resulting again afresh.

Obs. 1. The beast of the Apocalypse bears a resemblance to the fourth beast of Daniel 7:7-8.—The Epicrisis enumerates many points of resemblance, pp. 398–402. Among these the very title, the beast, which is common to both, is conspicuous: the ten horns; great power; duration even until the kingdom of Christ and the saints. Of the mouth speaking great things, of the war with the saints, of the 3½ times, we shall speak below.

Obs. 2. The dissimilarity also is remarkable.—There are some things which Daniel alone mentions: its formidable appearance, great strength, teeth of iron, difference from the former beasts, the little horn, its eyes which are those of a man, the three horns torn out, nails of brass, etc. Again there are many things in the Apocalypse which are new: seven heads (when there is only one in Daniel 7:20); a name of blasphemy; the resemblance of the beast itself, its feet and mouth to the third, the second, and the first beast in Daniel; the assistance given by the dragon; the “deadly wound” and its “healing;” the “wondering” of the earth; the “worship” of the inhabitants of the earth; the woman seated upon it; the ascent from the bottomless pit, etc. The ten horns themselves are described in one way by Daniel, in another by John.

Obs. 3. The beast is not entirely the same.—The Divine of Halle thinks that it is the same; but similar things are not always the same, dissimilar things even more rarely so; and identity is inconsistent with such a dissimilarity as here exists, as far as relates, for instance, to the heads.

Obs. 4. The beast of the Apocalypse has its rise many ages later than that of Daniel.—It is doubted, whether the fourth beast of Daniel is the Græco-Syrian kingdom, or the Roman empire. Each theory is laid down by no mean interpreters; the former, for instance, by Franc. Junius, the latter by J. Lange. Take the Roman empire, and fix its rise as late as possible, under Augustus, who gained possession of Egypt, the last kingdom of the Grecian monarchy. That was, I will not say before the birth of John, but before his vision.

Moreover vision and prophecy belong to future events: whence, although the Babylonian monarchy, in the time of the prophet Daniel, was in the midst of its flourishing state; yet in the vision its beginnings, as it were abruptly, are derived from the time then present: Daniel 2:38; Daniel 7:17. It is therefore certain that the beast of Daniel has an origin more ancient than that of the Apocalypse. But the order of John’s vision demonstrates that it arose after the departure of the second woe, namely, the Saracenic, and under the trumpet of the seventh angel, after the circumstances relating to the dragon mentioned in ch. 12, under the third woe, after the departure itself of the dragon to carry on war with the remnant of the seed of the woman. Lange, in his Germ. Comm. on the Apoc. fol. 92, observes, on ch. Revelation 9:1, that πεπτωκότα in the past, not πίπτοντα in the present, is said of the star: although we are not now inquiring respecting the time itself of the star which fell there. It is not less worthy of observation, that here θηρίον is described, on the other hand, as ἀναβαῖνον in the present, not ἀναβεβηκὸς in the perfect. The ascent of the beast out of the sea is under the third woe.

Obs. 5. The beast of the Apocalypse is the Roman Papacy. This flows by an inevitable sequence from the preceding observations. Nor do the reasons, which the Divine of Halle proposes from Daniel and the Apocalypse conjointly, present any impediment to this, whether they be drawn from the Apocalypse alone, or from Daniel also.

α) The beast, he says, is such an individual, as possesses no successors in his kingdom: inasmuch as the kingdom is destroyed together with the destruction of the beast. But the Popes have successors in their hierarchy.—Epicr. p. 403. I reply: The last individual in that succession, as we shall see in Proposition 10, has no successor.

β) The beast arises from the stock of the princes (Regenten-Stamm) of the Roman monarchy: but no Pope arose from thence: at the same place. I reply: It does not appear, whether the Epicrisis speaks of the stock of princes in a genealogical, or political sense. In a genealogical sense, the emperors themselves were of such a varied stock, that many pontiffs are with greater right considered to be of the Roman stock, than, for instance, Trajan himself. In a political sense, whatever power the Pope has, he has it from the monarchy, not from the hierarchy, of Rome.

γ) The beast is still future: the Popes have already long reigned: the same. I reply: The last Pope, a remarkable person, most wicked, is still future.

δ) The beast will obtain kingdoms with the greatest political empire: p. 404. I reply: The Popes have obtained them, and an individual Pope in his last time will obtain them much more.

ε) The beast will be cast into the lake of fire: Babylon will first be destroyed by the beast itself. Therefore Babylon is not the beast: the same. I reply: I grant this, without any injury to the Proposition. We have cleared out of the way, as I think, the more copious argument: now we return to the Propositions, the tenth of which will more fully illustrate this fifth, even as far as relates to Daniel.

PROP. 6. This Papacy, or papal kingdom, began long since.—By this Proposition I do not attempt to prove, that the Pope is the beast, as the Epicrisis relates, p. 378. That has been proved up to this point. Now, that point being settled, the progress of the legitimate demonstration demands, that it should be shown that there is found in the Papacy such a power as is ascribed in the prophecy to the beast, in preference to that which is ascribed to the whore; and that there should be an investigation, as to the particular time at which it arose. Wherefore the arguments which I had collected for this Proposition, are especially to the purpose. The beast is opposed to Christ, not with reference to His Person, but with reference to His kingdom: and here that must especially be considered, which the venerable Lange excellently teaches in the Preface to Sherlock’s Antidote against Popery, that the doctrine concerning the Person of Christ retained more soundness, on account of the Œcumenical Councils; but that the doctrine respecting the office and kingdom of Christ was most openly and flagrantly corrupted.

PROP. 7. The founder of the papal kingdom is Hildebrand, or Gregory VII.

[134]) The Epicrisis distinguishes between the commencement of the kingdom and its height: p. 379. He especially traces back the commencement of the Papacy to Boniface III., whose ecumenical name I have not passed over, p. 462, comp. pp. 445, 446, 548; although Magnif. Pfaffius shows, in a peculiar dissertation, that the affair itself was not then great.

[134] the Alexandrine MS.: in Brit. Museum: fifth century: publ. by Woide, 1786–1819: O. and N. Test. defective.

[135]) The Epicrisis does not deny the height in Hildebrand, in the same place: But the height carries with it the decision, when any kingdom, after having overcome the former one, seizes upon the first place. See Erkl. Offenb. p. 675.

[135] the Vatican MS., 1209: in Vat. libr., Rome: fourth cent.: O. and N. Test. def.

[136]) The Epicrisis remarks, that in Proposition 6, and afterwards, I do not use the term, beast, but, the Papacy: p. 380. I reply: That is done according to the law of method; for Proposition 5 showed, that the beast is the Pope: now, as the demonstration advances, the Pope, from the predicate, becomes the subject, to which further predicates are joined in the Propositions which follow. Such terms ought not to be used promiscuously, while there is any point in question; but the question being decided, the style becomes more compressed, as we have observed on Proposition 1.

[136] Ephræmi Rescriptus: Royal libr., Paris: fifth or sixth cent.: publ. by Tisch. 1843: O. and N. T. def.

[137]) In this particular passage I have commended Vitringa, having well weighed his arguments and those of Lange. The one, in other places, regards as already fulfilled many things which still remain to be fulfilled; the other regards almost all things which are already fulfilled, as still to be fulfilled: I follow the middle and true course, together with the order of the text. Where Vitringa is in error, or defends an opinion which is true by arguments which are not true, and the Divine of Halle is either opposed to him or agrees with him, whether correctly or incorrectly, I look on as one not concerned. Wherefore he is not right in comparing my system of arrangement with that of Vitringa; p. 381. The epoch of Gregory indeed maintains its place, as demonstrated by Vitringa and by me. The argument, of which mention is made in the same place, has been refuted in Proposition 5. For that some new power was added to the Roman episcopate by the aid of Gregory VII., all have admitted, even they who were then alive, as also they who afterwards defended Rome: and that very addition of power established the beast, or a certain empire. The new Dicta of Gregory proclaim it: the new Acts proclaim it. These were the Dicta, or Dictations of the man:

[137] Bezæ, or Cantabrig.: Univ. libr., Cambridge: fifth cent.: publ. by Kipling, 1793: Gospels, Acts, and some Epp. def.

Verse 1. - And I stood upon the sand of the sea. The Revised Version, agreeing with א, A, C, Vulgate, Syriac, AEthiopic, Armenian, Victorinus, reads ἐστάθη, "he stood." The Authorized Version follows the reading ἐστάθην, "I stood," which is found in B, P, Coptic, Andreas, Arethas. Fortunately, the point is not important. Whether St. John or the dragon stood on the edge of the sea is not material, since we are distinctly told that the ten-horned beast rose from the sea. Wordsworth aptly contrasts this station on the unstable sand in proximity to the sea, the clement of commotion, with the vision of the Lamb on Mount Zion (Revelation 14:1-5). The imagery which follows is founded upon the vision of Daniel 7. The phrase should probably be joined on to the preceding passage, as in the Revised Version. The new vision then opens in the customary manner with εῖδον, "I saw," as in Revelation 4, 5, 6, 7, etc. And saw a beast rise up out of the sea. Supply "I," and make this the beginning of the fresh paragraph (see above). The one beast here takes the place of the four beasts of Daniel 7, and is distinguished by the characteristics of the first three (see on ver. 2). This beast arises from the sea, the second beast from the earth (see ver. 11). They are the instruments of the woe which is denounced against the earth and the sea in Revelation 12:12. The sea, again, is the type of instability, confusion, and commotion, frequently signifying the ungovernable nations of the earth in opposition to the Church of God (cf. Revelation 17:15; Revelation 21:1). Probably this is the beast referred to in Revelation 11:7, and (more fully) in Revelation 17. It is the power of the world which is directed towards the persecution of Christians. Having seven heads and ten horns. Nearly every manuscript has, having ten horns and seven heads. The order is reversed in Revelation 12:3 and Revelation 17:3; possibly the horns are mentioned first in this passage, because they are first seen as the beast rises from the sea. The essential identity of this beast with the dragon of Revelation 12:3 is plainly shown. There Satan is described in his personal character; here he is described under the aspect of the persecuting power of the world. The symbolism is analogous to that found in Daniel 7, where we may find the key to the interpretation. First, the heads signify dominion. The head is naturally looked upon as the chief, the controlling and guiding part of the body; that part to which all the members of the body are subject. This is the idea conveyed in Daniel 7:6. The third beast there is distinguished by the possession of four heads, and (we are immediately told) "dominion was given to it." Seven, as we have repeatedly seen, is the number typical of universality (cf. Revelation 1:4; Revelation 5:1, etc.). The seven, heads, therefore, are symbolical of universal dominion. In the second place, horns are the type of power. Thus, in Daniel 7:7, the beast which is distinguished by the possession of the horns is described as being "diverse from all the beasts that were before it." It was "dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it" (cf. Deuteronomy 33:17; Psalm 132:17; Jeremiah 48:25, etc.). The number ten is the sign of completeness; not of universality or totality, but of sufficiency and abundancy for the purpose in view (cf. Genesis 18:32, the ten righteous wanting at Sodom; Exodus 27:12, the ten pillars of the tabernacle; the ten commandments; the tithe; Psalm 33:2, etc.). The ten horns, therefore, denote plenitude of power. The words of this passage thus signify that the beast should possess worldwide dominion and ample power. These are the qualities ascribed to the power which Satan now directs against the "seed of the woman." At the time of the writing of the Apocalypse, this power was evidently heathen Rome; but the meaning may be extended to embrace all the forms which this world opposition has assumed, whether Roman, Mohammedan, or Gothic, etc. It is consequently unnecessary, as it certainly seems fruitless, to attempt to interpret the heads and horns of individual nations and kings. In endeavouring to do so, many writers have imported into the description here given other details from Daniel, or deduced by themselves, for which there is no warrant in the narrative here supplied. For the same reason, it is useless to inquire into the disposition of the ten horns and seven heads; since the whole is a figure intended to convey certain ideas, and is not a description of an actual bodily form. And upon his horns ten crowns. "Ten crowns;" διαδήματα, crowns denoting sovereignty; not στέφανος, the victor's wreath. The crowns upon the horns denote the sovereign nature of the power with which the beast is invested. The nations of the world who have persecuted the Church of God have the chief rule in this world. And upon his heads the name of blasphemy. The plural ὀνόματα, "names," adopted by the Revised Version, is found in A, B, Vulgate, Coptic, Andreas, Primasius. Alford reads the singular ὄνομα, with א, C, P, Coptic, Andreas, Primasius. There is no article. Possibly each head bore a name, which was the same in each case, and which might therefore with equal propriety be described as name or names. "Upon his heads" (ἐπὶ κεφαλάς); the accusative being used (as Afford suggests) because the action of inscription carries with it a tinge of motion. In the preceding clause we have the genitive Or; ἐπὶ κεράτων, where the preposition denotes rest. We have no hint given as to what the name was; the nature only is indicated. St. John very possibly had in his mind the mitre of the high priest, upon the plate of which was inscribed, "Holiness to the Lord" (Exodus 28:36). It is a "name of blasphemy;" that is, the worldly power, typified by this beast, denies the Divinity and might of the true God, and exalts itself above him. Bede, Hengstenberg, etc., see the fulfilment in the assumption by the Roman emperors of titles which belong rightly only to Christ - King of kings, Divus, etc. But the application is wider. As partial fulfilments of that which will never be completely fulfilled until the end of the world, we may mention Pharaoh, when he said, "Who is the Lord, that I should obey his voice?" (Exodus 5:2); Sennacherib (2 Kings 18.); Herod Agrippa (Acts 12:22); as well as those since St. John's time who have blasphemed by denying the existence or omnipotence of Christ. Revelation 13:1Beast (θηρίον)

Properly rendered. See remarks on ζῶα living creatures, Revelation 4:6.

Rise up (ἀναβαῖνον)

Rev., better, coming up, thus giving the force of the participle.

Ten horns

Compare Daniel 7:7.

Crowns (διαδήματα)

Compare Revelation 12:3. See on Revelation 2:10.

The name (ὄνομα)

Read ὀνόματα names. On each head a name.

Revelation 13:1 Interlinear
Revelation 13:1 Parallel Texts


Revelation 13:1 NIV
Revelation 13:1 NLT
Revelation 13:1 ESV
Revelation 13:1 NASB
Revelation 13:1 KJV

Revelation 13:1 Bible Apps
Revelation 13:1 Parallel
Revelation 13:1 Biblia Paralela
Revelation 13:1 Chinese Bible
Revelation 13:1 French Bible
Revelation 13:1 German Bible

Bible Hub