Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadJohn Bengel Commentary - Revelation 13:1 - 13:1
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
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. Rev 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. Dan 8:2; Dan 10:4; Eze 1:3; Gen 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.
Rev 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. Rev 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 [2Th 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. Rev 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. Rev 12:12; Rev 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
Rev 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 Dan 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 Dan 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: Dan 2:38; Dan 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. Rev 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.