Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Revelation 13:1 - 13:1
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
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 (Rev_12:17), but in Rev 12:18 it is directly described how the dragon, who (Rev_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 (Rev_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 Rev_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 ., Rev_12:17, and the ἜΔΩΚΕΝ , Κ . Τ . Λ ., Rev_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 ., Rev_13:18.
ἘΠῚ ΤῊΝ ἌΜΜΟΝ Τῆς ΘΑΛ ., because the beast is to come ἘΚ Τῆς ΘΑΛΆΣΣΗς (Rev_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.
Rev_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, Rev_13:1-10,—which appears also in Rev_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. Rev_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., Rev_12:1; Rev_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 (Rev_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 Rev_17:1; Rev_17:5, as rather from the parallelism of Rev_13:11, where the ἘΚ Τῆς Γῆς has in fact an inner relation (Rev_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 (Rev_11:7, Rev_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 (Rev_13:4), and all that dwell on the earth (Rev_13:8), over all tribes and peoples (Rev_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 (Rev_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 Rev_17:1; Rev_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. Rev_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 (Rev_11:7) is essentially identical with the beast from the sea (Rev_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 Rev_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 Rev_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 (Rev_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 Rev_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 Rev_12:3, between the seven heads and the ten horns.
The θηρίον , i.e., the antichristian, Roman secular power, in the service of the dragon, at the same time bears both the ten horns and seven heads; after this is first declared, a further description ( καὶ ἐπὶ τ . κερ ., κ . τ . λ .) follows, which, on the one hand, is assigned to the ten horns as that mark of royal dominion which in Rev_12:3 appears on the seven heads of the dragon himself, and, on the other, so designates the heads that the blasphemous nature of the entire beast[3241] is illustrated. Yet, while in the description of the dragon, Rev_12:3, not only are the seven heads mentioned before the ten horns, but diadems also ascribed to the heads, but not to the horns, we find in this passage the opposite in both respects; for the subject here treated has respect to a signification of the concrete form of the Roman Empire, as this is proved by facts. Thus there appear, first of all, ten actual rulers; ten persons who, as the actual possessors of the government, are symbolized by the ten horns, each furnished with a diadem: (1) Augustus, (2) Tiberius, (3) Caligula, (4) Claudius, (5) Nero, (6) Galba, (7) Otho, (8) Vitellius, (9) Vespasian, (10) Titus.[3242] Yet the beast, like the dragon (Rev_12:3), has only seven heads, not as though one of these heads bore all ten horns, or the horns were distributed inequally among the various heads,[3243] but seven heads bore each a coroneted horn, because, in seven of the persons of rulers mentioned, the actual full possession of the empire was found, while the three other coroneted horns are to be regarded rather between the two heads,—and that, too, corresponding with the actual state of affairs between the fifth and sixth head,—because these three horns represent those persons whose usurped power was not so much the true possession of the government, as rather a rebellion through which the government itself was in the highest degree endangered.[3244]
καὶ ἐπὶ τὰς κεφαλάς αὐτοῦ ὅνομα βλασφημίας . The sing. ὄνομα [3245] is not to be understood as though there were upon each of the seven heads a letter of the blasphemous name, and accordingly the entire name was found upon the seven heads taken together, as Züll. thinks, since he ascribes golden frontlets to the heads, and, as the beast is the antithesis to the High-Priest, the Messiah, conjectures such an inscription as there was on the frontlet of the high-priest, viz., the designation ÷ãùÑÆ ìÄùÈèÈê , consisting of seven letters. But there is no need of such superficial determinations; the sing. is meant distributively,[3246] i.e., a name is to be regarded as on each of the seven heads, and that is always the same name of blasphemy, so that thus all the concrete embodiments of the Roman Empire, signified by the heads of the beast, appear as of the same blasphemous nature, as in Rev_17:3, also, the entire beast, symbolizing the Roman world-dominion, appears full of the names of blasphemy. But how the name of blasphemy stands on the seven heads, is neither to be asked nor to be answered. Bengel, in the sense of many expositors, calls the name “The Pope.” Hengstenb. improperly combines the names of blasphemy with the horns and crowns, as though one included the other, and thinks that the name belonging only to Christ (Rev_19:16) is usurped by the beast as a blasphemous designation of his world-dominion. But the context[3247] affords only in general the idea that divine honor is ascribed in a blasphemous way to the beast, while a more definite name referring to this is not further expressed. Serving for the explanation of the subject, in this sense, is the remark already of Beda, although he does not mention Rome: “For they call their kings gods, as well those that have died and been transferred, as it were, to heaven and the gods, as those also still on earth, by the name Augusti, which is, as they wish, the name of deity.”[3248] See Introduction, p. 00.[3249] [Note LXX., p. 386.]
[3225] Rev_4:6 sqq.
[3226] Rev_7:1 sqq.
[3227] Dan_7:4; cf. Dan_4:28 sqq.
[3228] See, in general, on Rev_13:18.
[3229] See Critical Notes.
[3230] Beng., Hengstenb.
[3231] See what follows, especially Rev_13:18.
[3232] Andr.
[3233] C. a Lap.
[3234] Rev_17:12. Hengstenb., Ebrard, Auberlen.
[3235] Alcas.
[3236] Stern.
[3237] Cf. ch. 17.
[3238] Cf. Vitr., who designates as “the ordinary exposition of our writers” the view that the seven heads are seven rulers at Rome of diverse kinds, viz., kings, consuls, decemviri, military tribunes, dictators, emperors, popes; while the ten horns designate the ten kingdoms, which, according to Rev_17:12, are still future to John, and are to serve the Pope, of France, Spain, Germany, England, Scotland, Denmark, Sweden, Hungary, Bohemia, Poland.
[3239] Victorin., Hammond, Grot., etc.
[3240] Hammond, Grot., etc.
[3241] Cf. Rev_13:4.
[3242] That the tenth, who corresponds to the seventh head, is still future, and that this one will have a successor who will actually be the last Roman ruler of the world, does not come here into discussion.
[3243] See on Rev_12:3.
[3244] Cf. Rev_13:3. Introduction, p. 48.
[3245] See Critical Notes.
[3246] De Wette; cf. Ewald, Hengstenb., etc.
[3247] Cf. Rev_13:4.
[3248] Cf. also Ewald, De Wette, Volkm., etc.
[3249] Details of various kinds also in Wieder-meister, Der Cäsarenwahnsinn, Hannover, 1875, p. 106, etc.
LXX. Rev_13:1 sqq. θηρίον ἀναβαὶνον , κ . τ . λ .