Revelation 17:7-14. The question of the angel, διὰ τί ἐθαύμασας, introduces the intended interpretation just as the question of the elders (Revelation 7:13), only that here the angel expects no answer whatever of John, but immediately himself promises: ἐγὼ ἐρῶ σοι τὸ μυστήριον, κ.τ.λ. This announcement marks that the two chief forms, the woman and the beast, which of course are explained each by themselves,—as they symbolize subjects that are actually different, the world-city and the world-kingdom,—nevertheless belong together essentially; there is but one mystery, the mystery “of the woman and of the beast.” Although the woman and the beast are distinguished, the present description remains, therefore, in essential agreement with that of ch 13. Nevertheless, the inner connection between the woman and the beast is expressed by the fact that the woman is seated upon the beast, (τ. βασταζ αὐτ., cf. Revelation 17:3.) In perfect harmony with this is the circumstance that the beast is first (Revelation 17:8) explained, and only then, that which is more special, which is first received from that further conception, the form of the woman.

Of the beast which John saw (Revelation 17:3 sqq.), it is said: ἡν καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν καὶ μέλλει ἀναβαίνειν ἐκ τῆς ἀβύσσου, κ.τ.λ., and this is again expressed as a foundation for the astonishment of the inhabitants of the earth:[3848] ἡν καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν καὶ πάρεσται. This summary πάρεσται—which simply means “shall be,” but in which an intimation of a parousia of the beast, to be opposed to the parousia of the Lord,[3849] dare be sought the less as the expression παρουσία is lacking in the Apoc.—briefly comprehends what was previously described in such a way that also the last end of the beast again coming forth might be designated therewith (καὶ μέλλει ἀναβ.

ὑπαγει). Finally, the important point of the interpretation—which, of course, is not itself without mystery, but is given after the manner of Revelation 13:18, because of which, also, just as there, the allusion (Revelation 17:9) is justified, in that it here pertains to an understanding endowed with wisdom—recurs for the third time in Revelation 17:11, where, notwithstanding the more minute determination that the beast is to return in the person of a true king, yet the identity of the subject is unmistakably designated by the formulas ὃ ἡν καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν and καὶ εἰς ἀπώλειαν ὑπάγει. That explanation, therefore, is utterly mistaken, which understands the beast (Revelation 17:11) differently from in Revelation 17:8 (and Revelation 17:3); in no way is the distinction possible that τὸ θηρίον is at one time Satan himself, and directly afterwards antichrist.[3850] For the more accurate explanation of the subject; see on Revelation 17:10; Revelation 17:18. In phraseology, the genitive βλεπόντων in Revelation 17:8 is remarkable. Entirely similar is the construction neither of Luke 8:20,—where the absolute gen. λεγόντων is in meaning construed with the impersonal ἀπηγγέλη,—nor of Matthew 1:18,[3851] where the absolute genitive construction μνηστευθείσης τῆς μητρός precedes, and then, by a variation of construction, the subject is derived entirely from the first member (εὑρέθη ἐν γαστρὶ ἕχουσα), which is not modified by the parenthetical limitation πρὶν ἤ συνελθεἰν αὐτους. In this passage, however, the definite subject οί κατοικοῦντες precedes, and the clause βλεπ. τ. θηρ. explains what is predicated of those κατοικοῦντες (θαυμασθήσονται), so that, according to the symmetry of the construction, only the nom. βλἑποντες can be expected; but the gen. is occasioned by the gen. parenthetical clause ὡν, κ.τ.λ., even though it dare not also be said that the βλεπόντων, κ.τ.λ., is expressly construed into the relative clause.[3852] The nearest indication given within ch. 17,—which is also in harmony with ch. 13,—for the understanding of what is said concerning the beast in Revelation 17:8 (and Revelation 17:11), lies in Revelation 17:9 sq., where the seven heads of the beast are interpreted: “The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sitteth, and there are seven kings.”[3853] The seven heads, therefore, which in Revelation 12:3, Revelation 13:1 sqq.,—where they appeared adorned with crowns,—indicated royal sovereigns, receive here a twofold reference:[3854] thereby both seven mountains and seven kings are to be understood. In connection with the heads appearing here without crowns, the first reference is without difficulty; while the other to the seven kings, which indeed is not indicated here by crowns, nevertheless finds an essentially identical foundation with Revelation 13:1 sqq. in the description of the regal magnificence of the woman who sits upon the beast with seven heads. But at the same time, the reference to the seven mountains on which the woman sits serves to interpret the mystery of the woman and of the beast; for if, by the woman, the city mistress of the world (Revelation 17:8), of the Gentile empire forcing all inhabitants of the earth beneath her, be meant, and this city is designated as lying on seven hills, this significant point of the interpretation can be referred only to “the seven-hilled city,” to Rome, just as what is said (Revelation 17:8; Revelation 17:10-11) concerning the relations of the βασιλεῖς, in complete harmony with Revelation 12:3, Revelation 13:1 sqq., applies only to the Roman rulers of the world. Mysteriously, therefore, as this interpretation sounds, yet the first reference of the seven heads to the seven well-known mountains has been made prominent with the manifest intent to actually attest the interpretation promised in Revelation 17:7.

Accordingly the seven hills are not themselves taken into further consideration; the interpretation stops (Revelation 17:10 sq.) with the seven kings. The transferal, already mentioned on Revelation 12:3 and Revelation 13:1 sqq., of the textual idea of seven ΒΑΣΙΛΕῖς, i.e., of seven persons who possess a kingdom, and that, too, the dominion of the world, to that of seven kingdoms or phases of the dominion of the world, depends, in Andr. and Beda, as well as in Hofmann, Ebrard, Hengstenb., and Auberlen,[3855] upon the presumption that the “temporal-historical” explanation of Hammond, Grot., Wetstein, Eichhorn, Ewald, Lücke, De Wette, Bleek, etc., removes the biblical conception of Apocalyptic prophecy.[3856] That this opposition is justified in one chief point, has been already referred to on Revelation 13:3; but exegetically incorrect, and without foundation in a further theological respect to the idea of prophetical inspiration, is the opposition to the acknowledgment of the fact that the entire force of the context allows the βασιλείς to be regarded only as concrete personalities, and then, that the form in general of the antichristian world-power hovering before the prophetic gaze is that of the heathen-Roman Empire. The first has been correctly understood, e.g., by Coccejus, whom Auberlen certainly will not accuse of the “temporal-historical” exposition of the Apoc., and has turned it to the advantage of his “ecclesiastical-historical” exposition: “The seven kings,” says Coccejus, “are the primates of the churches of Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, Rome, France, and Spain.” On the other hand, however, many “temporal-historical” expositors cross over into the sphere of the “ecclesiastical-historical,” by finding, especially in Revelation 17:12; Revelation 17:16, predictions concerning the incursions of the Goths, etc.[3857] That the ΒΑΣΙΛΕῖς ἙΠΤΆ are actually, as the expression declares,[3858] seven persons invested with the βασιλεία, results especially from the description, Revelation 17:10 (οἱ πέντε

ὁ εἶς

ὁ ἄλλος), and most of all from Revelation 17:11, since here the entire sense depends upon the fact that the still future eight kings are contemplated as the human-personal manifestation of the whole beast.

Five of the seven kings “are fallen,” i.e., dead; “the one,” therefore the sixth in the series, “is,” i.e., he at present possesses the βασιλεία, “the other,” therefore the last of the seven, “is not yet come,” he is not yet in possession of the βασιλεία, he has not yet made his appearance as βασιλεύς: but he shall come as the seventh, “and when he cometh,[3859] he must continue a short space;” i.e., his dominion shall soon come to an end.[3860] But the seventh is followed by yet another, the eighth (Revelation 17:11), who cannot be symbolized by a particular head on the beast,[3861] because, although connected with the seven (ἐκ τῶν ἑπτά ὲστιν), yet he has a different position from all those; he is not as one in their series, but in his person is the embodiment of the beast himself; he himself is the one in whom the beast rising out of the abyss,[3862] which now “is not,” shall again appear, of which also it shall then be said, just as Revelation 17:8 of the beast as such: εἰς ἀπώλειαν ὑπάγει, i.e., by the judgment at the Lord’s coming, he shall be delivered to everlasting destruction, and thus with him, then, the beast himself shall perish.

Before the expressions made in Revelation 17:8-11 concerning the beast and the seven (eight) kings are explained by their combination with one another, and with what is contained in Revelation 13:1 sqq., the meaning of the phrase καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἑπτά ἐστιν must be established. Hengstenb.’s explanation is incorrect: “His fate is that of the seven, viz., he must fall, he goes to ruin.” Too general is the explanation that the eighth—the eighth kingdom, as it is said—is to be of the same nature as the seven.[3863] But, on the other hand, the explanation which forms a decisive point in Ewald, De Wette, Volkm., Hilgenf., and the other expositors, who in the eighth king recognize the returned Nero,[3864] is not compatible with the words of the text. The formula ἐκ τῶν ἑπτά ἐστιν is supposed to declare: “He is one of the seven.” He has thus, and that, too, as one of the five fallen, already once existed, and shall return as a true king.[3865] But the more peculiar the idea, the more necessary would its unambiguous expression have been; and this would have been very easy to John; he would have written, according to the linguistic usage altogether customary with him,[3866] καὶ εἶς ἐκ τῶν ἑπτά ἐστιν. The fable of the return of Nero, which, in its actual foundations, must be regarded as far removed from Revelation 13:3, is also here unjustified in a simply exegetical respect. Grot., has shown the correct way,[3867] by explaining the ἐκ τῶν ἑπτά ἐστιν with a comparison of Romans 9:10; Matthew 1:3; Revelation 17:7-18. An explanation of the vision, cautiously but clearly outlining the Nero-saga.

The Interpretation of the Mystery, Revelation 17:7-187. Wherefore didst thou marvel?] Again the word should be wonder. For the angel’s surprise at the seer not comprehending at once, see on Revelation 7:14.

I will tell thee] The “I” is emphatic: “I will tell thee, since thou findest it so strange.”

the mystery] i.e. the mystical meaning: see on Revelation 17:5.

of the woman, and of the beast] The latter is explained first, Revelation 17:8-14 : the Woman is not clearly defined till Revelation 17:18.

Revelation 17:7. Τῆς γυναικὸς—τοῦ θηρίου, of the woman—of the beast) There follows, by Chiasmus, a discussion concerning the beast, Revelation 17:8-14; and, with a repetition of the short preface, and he saith to me, a discussion concerning the woman, Revelation 17:15-18.

Verse 7. - And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? did thou wonder? — the same word as in ver. 6. Though the seer cannot fully comprehend the terrible significance of the sign he sees, viz. that a portion of the Church is one with the hostile world (see on ver. 6), yet there are sufficient marks wherewith to identify it. The woman, the wilderness, the reliance upon the world power, the inscription, the similar description of Judah in Jeremiah 2 and 3. (see on ver. 6), might have made the interpretation plain. I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns; the ten horns (cf. ver. 5, which declares that this essential unity is a mystery). Observe, too, that the "mystery of the woman and of the beast" is all one. (On the "beast," "the seven heads," and "the ten horns." see on previous verses, especially Revelation 13:1.) In ver. 1 the harlot is said to sit on the waters; here the beast carries her. The two statements are really identical; both the beast and the waters represent the worldly power found among "peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues" (ver. 14). Revelation 17:7Revelation 17:7 Interlinear
Revelation 17:7 Parallel Texts


Revelation 17:7 NIV
Revelation 17:7 NLT
Revelation 17:7 ESV
Revelation 17:7 NASB
Revelation 17:7 KJV

Revelation 17:7 Bible Apps
Revelation 17:7 Parallel
Revelation 17:7 Biblia Paralela
Revelation 17:7 Chinese Bible
Revelation 17:7 French Bible
Revelation 17:7 German Bible

Bible Hub