Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Revelation 17:7 - 17:14
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Rev_17:7-14. The question of the angel, διὰ τί ἐθαύμασας , introduces the intended interpretation just as the question of the elders (Rev_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. Rev_17:3.) In perfect harmony with this is the circumstance that the beast is first (Rev_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 (Rev_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 Rev_13:18, because of which, also, just as there, the allusion (Rev_17:9) is justified, in that it here pertains to an understanding endowed with wisdom—recurs for the third time in Rev_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 (Rev_17:11) differently from in Rev_17:8 (and Rev_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 Rev_17:10; Rev_17:18. In phraseology, the genitive βλεπόντων in Rev_17:8 is remarkable. Entirely similar is the construction neither of Luk_8:20,—where the absolute gen. λεγόντων is in meaning construed with the impersonal ἀπηγγέλη ,—nor of Mat_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 Rev_17:8 (and Rev_17:11), lies in Rev_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 Rev_12:3, Rev_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 Rev_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 (Rev_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 (Rev_17:8; Rev_17:10-11) concerning the relations of the βασιλεῖς , in complete harmony with Rev_12:3, Rev_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 Rev_17:7.
Accordingly the seven hills are not themselves taken into further consideration; the interpretation stops (Rev_17:10 sq.) with the seven kings. The transferal, already mentioned on Rev_12:3 and Rev_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 Rev_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 Rev_17:12; Rev_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, Rev_17:10 ( οἱ πέντε
ὁ εἶς
ὁ ἄλλος ), and most of all from Rev_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 (Rev_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 Rev_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 Rev_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 Rev_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 Rev_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 Rom_9:10; Mat_1:3; Mat_1:5-6; Luk_1:27 : “The son of one of them.” It is noticeable also that Andr. was led by his cultivated Greek taste to what is at least in a formal respect a similar explanation: ὡς ἐκ μιᾶς αὐτῶν βλαστάνων . Yet both explanations attempt too much by presupposing a text which must read: ἐξ ἑνὸς τῶν ἑπτά ἐστιν . All that is correct is the acknowledgment that the formula ἐκ τῶν ἑπτά ἐστιν expresses “descent from the seven.” John does not lay emphasis upon the circumstance that the eighth arose from one of the seven,—although this is in fact correct,—but that he who to a certain extent, as the personification of the entire beast, corresponds to all seven, has himself his human-personal origin from these seven. The seven in their entirety are therefore contrasted with the eighth, which is the embodiment of the entire beast.[3868]
[3848] Cf. Rev_13:3; Rev_13:8; Rev_13:12.
[3849] Beng.
[3850] Against Beda, Andr., etc.
[3851] Cf. Winer, p. 195.
[3852] Cf. De Wette.
[3853] On the Hebraistic combination of the relative ὅπου with the demonstrative ἐπʼ αὐτῶν , cf. Rev_12:6; Rev_12:14.
[3854] Incorrectly, Hengstenb.: “The mountains are here, as everywhere in the Apoc., meant symbolically, as a designation of kingdoms or reigns; so that consequently, by the one symbol, that of the heads, only another symbol, that of the mountains, is symbolized, and so that what is properly meant, viz., βασιλεῖς ἑπτά , should be designated.
[3855] Hofm. and Ebrard enumerate Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Macedonia, Antiochus Epiph., as the five fallen, the Roman as the present sixth kingdom. Hengstenb. and Auberlen enumerate as fallen, Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece; they also regard the present sixth kingdom as the Roman. At all events, in order to correspond somewhat better with the text (Luthardt), besides the first five kingdoms, their representative sovereigns may also be named (Sennacherib, Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Alexander the Great, Antiochus Epiphanes). But already in the sixth place, Luth. does not mention a definite person, but only “the Roman emperor,” and then in the seventh period necessarily finds prefigured “the present period of the European system of governments.”—Klief. explains upon the basis of Auberlen and Hengstenb., interpreting according to Daniel, the seven reigns as the kingdom of ten, with antichrist arising therefrom. This is the Germano-Christian kingdom of ten, by which the Roman Empire, wounded to death, is dissolved, from whose dismemberment then antichrist develops.
[3856] Cf. Introduction, p. 32 sqq.
[3857] Cf. Grot., etc.
[3858] Cf. also Rev_17:12 sqq.: δέκα βασιλεῖς .
[3859] ὅταν ; cf. Rev_12:4.
[3860] On the δεῖ , cf. Rev_1:1.
[3861] Against Vitr., who maintains that there is a true head of a beast, and against Hengstenb., who (as also Klief., p. 218) in the seventh head finds at the same time the eighth.
[3862] Cf. Rev_11:7.
[3863] Primas: “Lest you regard him of another class, it has been added, ‘He is of the seven.’ ” Beng. Cf. also Vitr., etc.
[3864] Cf. Hofm., who refers it to the return of Antiochus Epiphanes; also Luthardt and Ebrard, who, abandoning the idea of any express personality, substitute the restoration of the dynasty of the Seleucidae.
[3865] Cf. Rev_13:3.
[3866] Cf. Rev_5:5, Rev_6:1, Rev_7:13, Rev_13:3, Rev_17:1, Rev_21:9. Cf. also Joh_11:49; Joh_13:21.
[3867] Cf. also Hammond.
[3868] Also against Hilgenf.
The historical illustration of Rev_17:8-11 depends upon the presumption undoubtedly given by the context from ch. 13, ay, already from ch. 12, that the beast is a symbol of the heathen-Roman secular power, and that the βασιλεῖς symbolized by the heads of the beast are not kingdoms, but royal persons, viz., Roman emperors. How these are to be reckoned, is shown from Rev_17:8 and Rev_17:10, with a comparison of Rev_13:3. Ch. 17 (Rev_17:3; Rev_17:7) also recalls the significant distinction between the numbers seven of the heads and ten of the horns, even though a new application be made here of the ten horns. Ch. 17, however, perfectly harmonizes with ch. 13 in the description of the seven heads in themselves, and their relation to the beast. That the beast “that was,” at present “is not,”[3869] and yet is, in so far as at present one of his heads, i.e., the sixth βασιλεύς , “is,” after the five βασιλεῖς “are fallen,” harmonizes with what is said in Rev_13:3, that one of the heads was wounded to death, but was again healed. But hereby we reach the standpoint from which, looking backward, we enumerate the five fallen rulers with certainty, and at the same time, looking forward, can recognize the seventh and eighth rulers. The enumerations of Hammond and Grotius,[3870] of Wetst.,[3871] and of Rinck,[3872] are, apart from other reasons, incorrect, partly because the subject considered is, in no way, under what individual emperor the Roman secular power shall for the first time be hostilely opposed to the Christians,[3873] and partly because among the seven heads, the three usurpers, Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, indicated by horns,[3874] dare not be reckoned
The enumeration of Roman secular rulers, intended by the writer of the Apocalypse, is not to be determined from the first,—so that it could be doubtful whether the series is to be begun with Caesar[3875] or with Augustus,[3876]—but from the fifth and sixth, i.e., from the point of time designated as present, in which the mortal wound of one head (viz., the fifth) appears healed, or in which, after five sovereigns have fallen, the sixth is now there. But this description[3877] corresponds with the situation in which the Roman Empire was when Vespasian undertook its control, although he was not yet in indisputable possession of it. Vespasian is therefore the sixth sovereign; before him five have fallen,
Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero; Titus follows as the seventh; the eighth, in whom the beast himself is embodied, is Domitian.
[3869] Incorrect are all interpretations whereby the concrete historical references to the relations of the Roman Empire are avoided; as, e.g., Andr., who by the θηρίον (Rev_17:8) understands Satan, and explains: by the manifestation, especially by the death, of Christ, the beast is annihilaied. Cf. Beda, C. a Lap., Zeger, etc.—Marlorat. and other Protestants interpret: “Heathen Rome is gone; Papal Rome is here, but its secular dominion is in itself nothing” ( οὐκ ἔστιν ). Cf. Luther’s gloss: “The Roman Empire is, and yet is not; for it is not the whole, but, since its fall, has been reproduced by the Pope.” He interprets the “one” (Rev_17:10) as referring to Germany; the “short space,” to Spain; the beast (Rev_17:11), to Rome; and the ten kings (Rev_17:12), to Hungary, etc. In violation of the context, Weiss, p. 44, explains the idea of the being, with respect to the not being, by the designation of the antichristian nature and power, whence then what is erroneous is inferred.”
[3870] 1. Claudius. 2. Nero. 3. Galba. 4. Otho. 5. Vitellius. 6. Vespasian. 7. Titus. 8. Domitian.
[3871] 1. Caesar. 2. Augustus. 3. Tiberius. 4. Caligula. 5. Claudius. 6. Nero. 7. Galba. 8. Otho.
[3872] 1. Caligula. 2. Claudius. 3. Nero. 4. Vespasian. 5. Titus. 6. Domitian. 7. Nero. “And this applies likewise as a prophetic indefinite ‘one’ to the succeeding emperors until the downfall of the Roman Empire.”
[3873] Against Hamm., Grot., Rinck.
[3874] Cf. Rev_12:3, Rev_13:1.
[3875] Cf. Sueton., Vitae XII. Caesarum.
[3876] Cf. Tacit., Ann., I. i.; Hist., I. i. Lücke, p. 839.
[3877] Cf. on Rev_13:3.
There is presented, therefore, in Rev_17:10 sqq. a prediction, which definitely announces beforehand certain historical circumstances. For its understanding,[3878] it is to be remarked: 1. The chief points of the prediction—viz., that Vespasian should be succeeded by his two sons, Titus as the seventh, Domitian as the eighth ruler; that Titus will remain for a short time; and that Domitian will come forth as a personification of the entire beast—have developed upon the basis of temporal relations present in the prophet in such a way that the prophecy directed to special facts has yet nothing magical or mantic, but remains of an ethical nature. The natural presupposition and accommodation for the ethical genesis of the prophecy was in John the same as in Josephus, as the latter promised the government to Vespasian and his son Tiberius, even before Vespasian had decided to assume the empire.[3879] How extraordinarily Vespasian, and the sons of such men like Otho and Vitellius, were esteemed in every respect, was manifest already ever since the expedition to Britain:[3880] the Syrian expedition had still further increased the reputation and authority of the Flavians. But for the points of the prophecy that Titus, as successor of his father, would reign but for a short time, and that Domitian, proceeding from the seven,—a son of Vespasian,—would come forth from the abyss as an incarnation of the beast, the natural foundation was already present. Domitian’s insolent, barbarous, and imperious disposition manifested itself already during the Vitellian war:[3881] it was naturally to be expected that he would be just such a sovereign as he actually afterwards showed himself to be.[3882] John, in prophesying a short reign for Titus, possibly expected what was always impending during his reign;[3883] viz., that Domitian would soon dethrone his brother Titus, and assume the government himself.—2. John erred in the expectation, that, with Domitian, the Roman Empire would perish. The singular error proves, of course, a certain imperfection of prophetic character in the writer of the Apocalypse, yet by no means entirely annihilates it. [See Note LXX., p. 386, on ch. Rev_13:2.]
[3878] Cf. Introduction, p. 33 sqq., 39 sqq.
[3879] Josephus, Jewish War, iii. 8.
[3880] Cf. Dio Cassius, Hist. Rom., ed. Jo. Leunclav., p. 736.
[3881] Cf. Sueton., Domit., I.: “But he exercised the entire power of his dominion so licentiously, as then already to show what he was to be.”
[3882] “A pernicions tyrant,” Eutrop., II. Rom., VIII. 1; “A portion of Nero as to cruelty,” Tertullian, Apolog., 5.
[3883] Sueton., Tit., 9: “His brother, i.e., Domitian, not ceasing to lay plots for him, but almost avowedly inciting the army, he did venture meditating flight, either to slay or to banish, or to have even in less honor, but, as from the first day of his reign, continued to attest that he was his associate and successor, sometimes beseeching him secretly with tears and prayers, that he at length wished to live in mutual affection with him.”