Lesson 17
Revelation 13:1-2, Continued...
And I saw a beast rising out of the sea, with ten horns
and seven heads, with ten diadems upon its horns and a
blasphemous name upon its heads. 2 And the beast that I saw
was like a leopard, its feet were like a bear’s, and its
mouth was like a lion’s mouth. And to it the dragon gave
his power and his throne and great authority.
Chapter 17, beginning in verse 7, contains a short
commentary in which an angel explains to John the meaning
of some of things that he has seen. The angel, in effect,
steps outside of the vision in order to comment upon an
explain what John is seeing.
Chapter 17 will begin by showing us a woman sitting on a
scarlet beast with seven heads and ten horns — the same
symbol we saw in Chapter 12 and the same symbol we see here
in Chapter 13. Whatever this symbol means, it s repeated
appearance indicates it must be important. As another
indication of its importance, an angel in 17:9-10 tells us
what it means:
This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads are
seven mountains on which the woman is seated; they are also
seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one is, the other
has not yet come, and when he comes he must remain only a
little while.
Those two verses are crucial in understanding this book.
That is why we have jumped ahead a few chapters to discuss
them now. In addition, to telling us what the seven heads
represent, these verses also tell us when the book of
Revelation was written.
So what are the seven heads? The angel in Chapter 17
tells us they are two things — they are seven mountains,
and they are seven kings.
The identification of the seven mountains would have
been immediately clear to a first century reader. Swete:
“No reasonable doubt can be entertained as to the meaning
of these words.”
Gentry: “Perhaps no point is more obvious in Revelation
that this one: Rome is the one city in history that has
been distinguished for and universally recognizable by its
seven hills. ... Suetonius and Plutarch record for us that
in the time of Domitian the festival of Septimontium (“the
feast of the seven hilled city”) was held annually in
December to celebrate the seven hills enclosing Rome. ...
This point is well nigh indisputably certain. Indeed,
‘there is scarce a poet that speaks of Rome but observes
it.’”
Mounce: “There is litte doubt that a first-century
reader would understand this reference in any way other
than as a reference to Rome, the city built upon seven
hills.”
Coins minted at the time this book was written depicted
the goddess Roma sitting upon the seven hills that
surrounded the city of Rome. When this book shows us a
bloodthirsty harlot sitting upon seven mountains it is
flashing a giant neon sign that reads “Rome! Rome! Rome!”
If anyone ever tells you it means something else, they need
to explain to you how a first century reader with that coin
in his pocket would have understood this image to mean
anything other than Rome.
But we are told something else about the seven heads —
they also represent seven kings: five of whom have fallen,
one is, the other has not yet come, and when he comes he
must remain only a little while. It is this verse that
tells us when this book was written — it was written during
the reign of the king who “is.”
Who are the seven kings? Before we answer that question
we should pause and ask whether we should take this “7”
literally or figuratively. Our general rule in interpreting
apocalyptic language is to take numbers (and other symbols)
figuratively unless we are forced for some reason to do
otherwise, such as for instance when an angel makes an
appearance to tell us that 7 means 7. Rome was surrounded
by 7 literal mountains, and the angel in Revelation 17 told
us that the 7 heads represented 7 mountains. The same angel
also told us that the 7 heads mean 7 kings, which the
parallelism might suggest are 7 literal kings — but I think
we will also see that even there 7 has a symbolic aspect
and that, for symbolic reason, 3 of the kings will be
ignored in the counting so that 10 literal kings become 7
literal kings and 7 symbolic kings. Thus, just because we
see a few literal 7’s does not mean that 7 has no symbolic
significance in those cases — in fact, one could argue that
the symbolic significance is increased when the symbolic 7
lines up with a literal 7.
So, who are these seven kings? Once again, before we
answer that question, we need to travel back in time from
the king who “is” about 600 years and read what Daniel had
to same about him and his fellow kings. Daniel 7 is
inextricably linked to Revelation 13 and Revelation 17.
First, consider Daniel 7:7-8 ―
After this I saw in the night visions, and behold, a
fourth beast, terrible and dreadful and exceedingly strong;
and it had great iron teeth; it devoured and broke in
pieces, and stamped the residue with its feet. It was
different from all the beasts that were before it; and it
had ten horns. I considered the horns, and behold, there
came up among them another horn, a little one, before which
three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots; and
behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and
a mouth speaking great things.
And then consider Daniel 7:19-25 ―
Then I desired to know the truth concerning the fourth
beast, which was different from all the rest, exceedingly
terrible, with its teeth of iron and claws of bronze; and
which devoured and broke in pieces, and stamped the residue
with its feet; 20 and concerning the ten horns that were on
its head, and the other horn which came up and before which
three of them fell, the horn which had eyes and a mouth
that spoke great things, and which seemed greater than its
fellows. 21 As I looked, this horn made war with the
saints, and prevailed over them, 22 until the Ancient of
Days came, and judgment was given for the saints of the
Most High, and the time came when the saints received the
kingdom. 23 “Thus he said: ‘As for the fourth beast, there
shall be a fourth kingdom on earth, which shall be
different from all the kingdoms, and it shall devour the
whole earth, and trample it down, and break it to pieces.
24 As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings
shall arise, and another shall arise after them; he shall
be different from the former ones, and shall put down three
kings. 25 He shall speak words against the Most High, and
shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and shall think
to change the times and the law; and they shall be given
into his hand for a time, two times, and half a time.
The link between Daniel and Revelation is unmistakable
and indisputable, although what the linked symbols mean is
another story.
As we have previously discussed, the fourth kingdom in
Daniel 7 is Rome. This fourth kingdom in Daniel is shown as
a beast with ten horns, and verse 24 tells us that the ten
horns are 10 kings.
So where are we? Daniel depicts Rome as a beast, as does
Revelation. Daniel focuses on the kings of Rome, as does
Revelation. Daniel depicts the kings as 10 horns, while
Revelation depicts them as 7 heads.
Why do we go from 10 horns in Daniel to 7 heads in
Revelation? The move from horns to heads is easy — we are
told in each book that they depict kings. Why doesn’t
Revelation also use horns? Well, it does. In fact, it even
uses 10 horns, just like Daniel. We will discuss those 10
horns in a moment. For now, though, we are looking at the
seven heads, and the horns in Daniel and the heads in
Revelation both depict kings.
But now that we have gone from horns to heads, the real
question is how we go from 10 to 7. Daniel had 10 horns
denoting 10 kings, while Revelation has 7 heads denoting 7
kings. We are missing 3 kings! What happened to them?
Daniel 7 answers that question in verse 8:
It was different from all the beasts that were before
it; and it had ten horns. I considered the horns, and
behold, there came up among them another horn, a little
one, before which three of the first horns were plucked up
by the roots.
What happens to the 10 horns when you pluck up 3 of
them? You are left with 7 horns, which represent 7 kings.
And, in my opinion, those 7 horns that represent 7 kings in
Daniel 7 correspond with the 7 heads that represent 7 kings
in Revelation 17. (That’s a lot of numbers, and especially
a lot of 7’s — but does that really surprise us?)
Daniel starts with 10 horns and plucks up three, leaving
7 horns. But these 7 horns are followed by another horn
which Daniel 7:8 and 7:21 tell us is a little horn who
makes war on the people of God. This little horn would be
the 11th horn. But after we subtract the 3 plucked up
horns, the little horn would be the 8th horn.
Revelation 17 speaks of 7 heads that are 7 kings in
verse 10. Is there an 8th head in Revelation? Yes, in the
very next verse. Revelation 17:11 tells us about an 8th
that belongs to the seven ―
As for the beast that was and is not, it is an eighth
but it belongs to the seven, and it goes to perdition.
So how do we fit the horns in Daniel with the heads in
Rome? Easy. The seven kings in Revelation are the seven
kings in Daniel that remain after three are uprooted. The
king represented by the little horn in Daniel is the 8th
king in Revelation 17. The three uprooted kings in Daniel
are ignored in Revelation.
So who are all of these kings? That is the million
dollar question. There are numerous possibilities, but in
my opinion there is only one possibility that fits
perfectly with all of the evidence.
First, let’s list out all of the candidates:
• Julius Caesar (49-44 BC)
• Augustus (31 BC - AD 14) — Luke 2:1
• Tiberius (14 - 37) — Luke 3:1
• Caligula (37 - 41)
• Claudius (51-54) — Acts 11:28
• Nero (54 - 68) — Acts 25:11
• Galba (68 - 69)
• Otho (69)
• Vitellius (69)
• Vespasian (69 - 79)
• Titus (79 - 81)
• Domitian (81 - 96)
Rome was still a Republic under Julius Caesar, and so he
is not generally listed among the Roman emperors (although
some disagree). Augustus is generally considered the first
Roman emperor (although, again, some disagree). The
emperors from Augustus to Nero make up the Julio-Claudian
Dynasty, while Vespasian and his two sons Titus and
Domitian make up the Flavian Dynasty. Galba, Otho, and
Vitellius reigned and died during A.D. 69, the year of the
four emperors (with Vespasian being the fourth).
Before we start looking for the dirty 7, let’s get one
objection out of the way quickly. The text talks about
kings, whereas Rome had emperors. Are we correct to be
looking for these 7 kings among the Roman emperors, or
should we be looking for people who were called kings? The
Roman emperors were called kings. What did the chief
priests shout in John 19:15? “We have no king but
Caesar.”
So now what are we looking for? We must find 5 kings who
have fallen, one king who is, one who is yet to come but
who will remain only a little while, and an eighth king who
goes to perdition.
We have two big decisions to make in locating our kings:
(1) Where do we start? With Julius Caesar or Augustus? (2)
What do we do with the three Civil War kings? Ignore them
or include them?
For the mathematicians among us, that strategy gives us
four possibilities. We start with either Julius Caesar or
Augustus, and then we count out 8 kings, either including
or ignoring the 3 Civil War kings. Here are the four lists
we get by that procedure:
| |
OPTION 1 |
OPTION 2 |
OPTION 3 |
OPTION 4 |
| 1 |
Julius Caesar |
Julius Caesar |
Augustus |
Augustus |
| 2 |
Augustus |
Augustus |
Tiberius |
Tiberius |
| 3 |
Tiberius |
Tiberius |
Caligula |
Caligula |
| 4 |
Caligula |
Caligula |
Nero |
Claudius |
| 5 |
Claudius |
Claudius |
Galba |
Nero |
| 6 |
Nero |
Nero |
Otho |
Vespasian |
| 7 |
Galba |
Vespasian |
Vitellius |
Titus |
| 8 |
Otho |
Titus |
Vespasian |
Domitian |
Row #6 is the one who is. Row #7 is the one to remain only a little while. Row #8 is the little horn. And so, our four options are:
• OPTION 1: We start with Julius Caesar and include the
three Civil War kings.
• OPTION 2: We start with Julius Caesar and omit the
three Civil War kings.
• OPTION 3: We start with Augustus and include the three
Civil War kings.
• OPTION 4: We start with Augustus and omit the three
Civil War kings.
Some argue for the additional options that arise if we
separate the eighth king from the others in time to permit
intervening kings between the 7th and the 8th. But why then
would we be told that the reign of the 7th would last only
a short time? That detail suggests to me that the 8th king
follows immediately after the 7th king.
Right from the start I think we can rule out Option 2.
Why? Because Option 2 places Vespasian in the role of the
7th king who was to reign only a short time, and Vespasian
reigned for 11 years.
What about the other three options? Galba reigned 7
months, Vitellius reigned 8 months, and Titus reigned 26
months. So we cannot rule out any of the other options on
that basis.
Options 1 and 3 have at least two problems. First, those
options push the date of the book back to the reign of Nero
or shortly thereafter, which in my opinion is much too
early. Second, those options provide poor candidates for
the eighth king, with Option 1 choosing Otho and Option 3
choosing Vespasian. Neither of these emperors fits the
descriptions of the eighth king, and Otho hardly had time
to do much of anything.
Another problem with Option 1 is that it starts with
Julius Caesar as the first emperor. Was Julius Caesar the
first emperor of Rome? Modern historians say no. If you
consult a list of Roman emperors today you will see
Augustus listed first. Why? Because Rome was a republic
under Julius Caesar, not yet an empire. But how could a
republic be ruled by a dictator? Simple — just write a
law.
The Roman republic originally entrusted the government
to two consuls so that the citizens of Rome would be
protected against the tyrannical rule of a single man. But
it was soon felt that circumstances might arise in which it
was important for the safety of the state that the
government should be vested in the hands of a single
person, who should possess absolute power for a short time,
and from whose decisions there could be no appeal to any
other body. That person was called a dictator, and Julius
Caesar held that office for five terms, eventually being
declared “Dictator in Perpetuity.” Now, there may be a fine
line between a Roman emperor and a dictator in perpetuity,
but there is a line.
And if we include Julius Caesar on the list of Roman
emperors, then why not include Crassus and Pompey? They
ruled with Julius Caesar in the First Triumvirate. And why
not include Lepidus and Marc Antony, who ruled with
Augustus in the Second Triumvirate? And why not include
Sulla, whose own dictatorship in 82 BC set the precedent
for Julius Caesar’s dictatorship, and the eventual end of
the Republic under Augustus? In short, if we open the door
for Julius Caesar, others will likely try to push through
with him. And yes, it is true that some ancient historians
include him on lists along with Augustus and his followers,
but that points more to the fame of Caesar than to his
office. Yes, it is true that Suetonius included Julius
Caesar on his list of 12 Caesars, but no one is arguing
that Julius Caesar was not a Caesar! What we are saying is
that the first Caesar was not an emperor.
But is that the only reason to start with Augustus? No.
I think a better reason to use him as the starting point is
that the New Testament treats him as such. He was the
emperor who was around to welcome the King of kings into
this world, and whether or not he saw that star in the sky,
after that date his empire would never be the same. In
addition to being the historical starting point, Augustus
is the natural starting point.
So where does that leave us? By the process of
elimination we are left with Option 4. Does Option 4 fit
the evidence? Yes, it fits it very well. In fact, it fits
so well that could likely rule out Options 1 and 3 on that
basis alone.
Who are the five kings who have fallen? They are the
first five Rome emperors: Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula,
Claudius, and Nero. These are the same five that span the
time from the birth of Christ to the death of Paul. Who is
the one king who is? After skipping over the three plucked
up Civil War kings, the king who is would be Vespasian, who
reigned from AD 69 to 79, during which time this book must
have been written. Who is the one who is yet to come but
who will remain only a little while? That would be Titus,
Vespasian’s eldest son who reigned for 26 months. And who
was the eighth king who goes to perdition? None other than
Domitian, Vespasian’s younger son, who I believe is also
the little horn of Daniel 7 and the man of perdition from
2nd Thessalonians 2.
It seems to fit like a glove, but we need to be careful
with regard to Domitian. Those who reject Option 4 argue
that Domitian was not actually a great persecutor of the
church, but was later turned into one by those who wanted
to make him fit the description of the 8th king. Is that a
fair criticism? Yes, and no.
Yes, in the sense that some commentators have overstated
the case for Domitian to perhaps make him a better fit for
their theories. One such statement describes Domitian as
“the emperor who bathed the empire in the blood of
Christians.” We have such evidence for Nero, but not for
Domitian. Is it possible he did that? Yes. Do we know that
he did that? No.
But saying that we do not know whether he bathed the
empire in the blood of the saints does not mean that we
cannot know whether he was a persecutor. I think we can,
and I think he was. And I would point to three sources of
evidence: circumstantial, Biblical, and extra-Biblical (not
listed in order of importance).
We have already examined some circumstantial evidence
for a Domitian persecution of Christians. The coins we
discussed last week showed Domitian’s son as a divine child
reaching for 7 stars and described Domitian himself as a
son of a god. How could such a person not come in conflict
with Christianity?
As for the Biblical evidence, we have looked at much of
it today. There is a reason Christians have been seeing
Domitian in the pages of Revelation for millennia. If our
interpretation is correct, then (as we will see as we
continue into Chapter 13) there was to be a revived
persecution by an “8th king” who would arise after the
death of Nero. Who else could this be but Domitian? The
Bible, in my opinion, is our best evidence on this subject,
and it, in my opinion, does just about everything in
pointing to Domitian but mention him by name. (But Nero is
never mentioned by name in the Bible, either.)
As for the extra-Biblical evidence, there is quite a bit
(but admittedly not nearly as much as we have for
Nero):
• When Pliny wrote to the Emperor Trajan in AD 111 for
advice on how to conduct trials for Christians, he said
that some Christians had defected “as much as 25 years
ago.” That would have been during the reign of Domitian.
And when Pliny says he had never been present for any such
trials, the only time in Pliny’s life when such trials
would have likely occurred is during the reign of
Domitian.
• When Melito, a bishop of the church in Sardis, wrote
an apology to the emperor Marcus Aurelius in AD 175,
Eusebius tells us he wrote, “Nero, and Domitian, alone,
stimulated by certain malicious persons, showed a
dispositon to slander our faith.”
• Tertullian was an attorney in Carthage, and in his
apology to Septimius Severus in AD 197, he wrote: “Consult
your histories. There you will find that Nero was the first
to rage with the imperial sword against this school in the
very first hour of its rise in Rome,” and “Domitian too,
who was a good deal of a Nero in cruelty, attempted it ...
soon stopped ... restored those he had banished. Such are
ever our persecutors.” Eusebius quotes Tertullian to the
effect that John returned from exile on Patmos during the
reign of Domitian and lived in Ephesus until the reign of
Trajan.
• Hegesippus, who lived between AD 117 and 189, writes
of Christians who were called before Domitian and examined
by him. Upon hearing them, “Domitian despising then, made
no reply; but treating them with contempt, as simpletons,
commanded them to be dismissed, and by a decree ordered the
persecution to cease.”
• Eusebius, who published his church history in AD 325,
describes Domitiann as “the second that raised a
persecution against us.”
Thus, the extra-Biblical evidence clearly points to a
Domitian persecution. Perhaps it was not as bad as Nero’s
and perhaps it was intermittent at times, but it could
still be very, very bad and not be as bad as what Nero did.
Domitian persecuted God’s people. To those who argue
otherwise, I would respond as did Tertullian: “Consult your
histories!”
But how can we date the book during the reign of
Vespasian when much of that same extra-Biblical evidence
dates it during the reign of Domitian? We dealt with this
issue at length during our introductory lessons, where you
will recall we suggested that John may have been exiled by
Domitian before he became emperor. Also, the book may have
been written during the reign of Vespasian, but not
circulated until John was released, perhaps during the
reign of Domitian.
Also, dating the writing of this book during the reign
of Vespasian fits with Revelation 17:8, which seems to
suggest that Revelation was written during a lull in the
persecution ―
The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is to ascend
from the bottomless pit and go to perdition; and the
dwellers on earth whose names have not been written in the
book of life from the foundation of the world, will marvel
to behold the beast, because it was and is not and is to
come.
Revelation 17:11 tells us that the “beast which was, and
is not” comes back as the eighth king (Domitian). The beast
who was would be Rome under Nero, and the beast who is to
come would be Rome under Domitian. The time when the beast
“is not” would be the time between Nero and Domitian when
the persecution against the church temporarily
subsided.
Does this all fit with history? Yes. Tertullian speaks
of Nero as “the first emperor who dyed his sword in
Christian blood, when our religion was but just arising at
Rome,” and he called Domitian “a limb of the bloody Nero.”
Eusebius writes that Domitian “finally showed himself the
successor of Nero’s campaign of hostility to God. He was
the second to promote persecution against us.” Rumors even
circulated that Domitian was Nero himself who had either
returned to life or had not actually died.
Our next question is why are the three short lived kings
ignored? They are ignored so that the kings of Rome will
fit the structure of this book, which as we know is built
around the number 7. The three plucked up kings are ignored
so that Domitian will be the 8th king rather than the
11th.
Why did God want to associate Domitian with the number
eight? The number 8 in the Bible depicts a resurrection or
new beginning. The eighth day denotes the start of a new
week. Male children were circumcised on the eighth day to
depict their new relationship with God. The year following
seven sabbatical years was the year of Jubilee when all
things were renewed (Leviticus 25). Domitian was thought to
be a resurrected Nero because he began anew the persecution
of the church.
So who are the 10 horns in verse 1? Again, Chapter 17
gives us some hints ―
• Revelation 17:12 And the ten horns that you saw are
ten kings who have not yet received royal power, but they
are to receive authority as kings for one hour, together
with the beast.
• Revelation 17:16-17 And the ten horns that you saw,
they and the beast will hate the harlot; they will make her
desolate and naked, and devour her flesh and burn her up
with fire, for God has put it into their hearts to carry
out his purpose by being of one mind and giving over their
royal power to the beast, until the words of God shall be
fulfilled.
So what then do we know about the 10 horns? We know the
horns are kings. We know that they do not presently have
royal power. We know that they will receive authority at a
time of critical importance or activity. We know that they
will play a role in the harlot’s destruction. (The beast
will also play a role. But how can the beast as Rome be
partly responsible for the destruction of the harlot, which
is also Rome? Recall that inner strife was one of the
reasons that Rome fell. We see parallels today. Who is
doing more today to harm the U.S.? Iran or North Korea or
the U.S. itself? Aren’t we our own worst enemy? Rome
certainly was.)
So in light of those clues, who are the 10 horns? They
may represent the client kingdoms and federates of Rome.
Michael Grant in his book History of Rome (page 196) gives
us the following description of the Roman client king
system ―
The client kings were tied to the service of Rome in
order to defend its frontiers and serve as listening posts
to the outside world. In return, they were supported by the
Romans against internal subversive movements and allowed a
free hand inside their own countries. Thus Rome was spared
the trouble and expense of administering these territories;
and the formula worked well.
He describes the rise of the federates in his book The
Fall of the Roman Empire (pages 8 and 125) ―
In 382 Theodosius I took the revolutionary step of
allowing whole German tribes to reside in Imperial
territory as separate, autonomous, allied or federate
units, committed to serving in the Roman army, though under
the command of their own chieftains. Thereafter the
practice continued and increased, until such federates
became a regular and widespread feature of the life of the
Empire.
The Visigoths were the first such group to receive
“federate” status and were allowed to live under their own
laws and ruled on the condition that they provide soldiers
and agricultural workers for the Romans.
Did these groups contribute to the fall of Rome? The
city of Rome itself was sacked in A.D. 410 by Alaric, a
Visigoth. It was the first time in 800 years that the city
had been taken by a foreign invader.
But why are there 10 horns? The number 10 is the number
of completeness. It implies that nothing is wanting and
that the whole cycle is complete. Thus, the 10 horns may
simply represent all of the client kingdoms and federates.
It use may also refer to the fact that they, in a sense,
drove the final nail into Rome’s coffin—they completed the
judgment that began in the first century.
That view of the 10 horns suggests that the ending point
for Rome was the fifth century fall of the western empire
rather than the first century fall of Domitian. Is there an
explanation of the 10 horns that would fit with a first
century terminus? Yes, and this possible explanation of the
10 horns would also answer another puzzling question.
As you recall, Daniel 7 also referred to 10 horns, but
we have identified those 10 horns (after 3 are plucked up)
with the 7 heads in Revelation 13. Why would Revelation
take a symbol straight from Daniel 7 and apply it to
something else?
The answer may be that the symbol is not applied to
something else. It may be that the 10 horns and the 7 heads
in Revelation 13 each depict the Roman emperors, but do so
from different perspectives. (We are about to see two
beasts that each represent Rome from a different
perspective.) Under this view, the 7 heads and the 10 horns
each represent the same kings, with the latter symbol
including the 3 plucked up kings from Daniel 7.
But how does the description of the 10 horns in
Revelation 17 fit with the Roman emperors? Recall the
clues: The horns are kings. They have not yet received a
kingdom or royal power. They will receive authority at a
time of critical importance or activity. They will play a
role in the harlot’s destruction.
Revelation 17:11 tells us that the 8th king (Domitian)
“belongs to the seven.” That is, he came from the earlier
kings and he embodied the earlier kings. Revelation sets
Domitian up as the personification of the emperors who
preceded him. Daniel 7:8 describes the little horn in
similar terms: “behold, there came up among them [the 10
horns] another horn, a little one.”
But what about the description that they have “not yet”
received royal power? If “not yet” means they never had it
prior to when they received, then this view collapses. But
“not yet” does not always mean “and never had” — and these
10 are said to be “kings” who had “not yet” received royal
power, suggesting they may be kings who had it previously
and would receive it again at some point.
As embodied in Domitian, the earlier kings (although
dead) received a kingdom and royal power when he did. That
was the time of critical importance, and indeed is a point
of focus in this book and a point of focus in Daniel.
Finally, they played a role in the destruction of the
harlot because from this perspective they are viewed as
part of Domitian, who was chiefly responsible for the
destruction of the harlot. The emperors were why Rome was
being judged!
So which is it — the client kings or the previous
emperors? It could be either, and the description perhaps
fits the client kings better than the earlier emperors. The
time frame of the book, however, might steer us away from
the client kings, who did not do their work against Rome
until the fifth century.
It could also be neither. We know that the number 10
denotes completeness and so the 10 horns, which are 10
kings, may depict all of Rome’s allied kings and conquered
kingdoms gathered together at a critical point. Later in
16:14 we will see “the kings of the earth and of the whole
world” gathered for a great battle.
Looking again at 13:1, notice that the seven heads are
said to have blasphemous names written upon them. This part
of their description refers to the deification of the Roman
emperors. Recall how Paul described the man of lawlessness
in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 ―
Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not
come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of
lawlessness is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes
and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of
worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God,
proclaiming himself to be God.
That sounds just like what history tells us about
Domitian. As we discussed in our introductory classes,
Domitian ordered that he be addressed as “Our Lord God
Domitian.” Recall the blasphemous descriptions of Domitian
on the Romans coins we looked at.
And Domitian was not alone. Every emperor called himself
divus or sebastos, which means divine. On his coins, Nero
referred to himself as The Savior of the World. The
emperors took as their title the Latin word dominus, or its
Greek equivalent kurios, which mean Lord, and which is used
in the Bible as a title for Jesus.
Verse 2 tells us that the beast “was like a leopard, its
feet were like a bear’s, and its mouth was like a lion’s
mouth.” These descriptions point us unmistakably back to
Daniel 7. The fourth kingdom in Daniel 7 is Rome, with the
first three kingdoms being Babylon (shown as a lion in
Daniel 7:4), Medo–Persia (shown as a bear in Daniel 7:5),
and Greece (shown as a leopard in Daniel 7:6). Daniel 7:12
tells us that these beasts lost their dominion but didn’t
die.
We learn about the first two kingdoms from the book of
Daniel. Babylon, the first of the four kingdoms, was the
invading power that carried Daniel and his three friends
off to exile in Babylon. The Medo-Persians, the second
kingdom, was the one that came to power after Belshazzar
saw the writing on the wall in Daniel 5. It was this second
kingdom that through Daniel into the lion’s den. The third
kingdom was Greece, which conquered Persia under Alexander
but then fell into four parts after his death. Rome was the
fourth kingdom.
The beast in Revelation 13 is pictured as being part
leopard, part bear, and part lion. Rome had the tearing
power of the lion (Babylon). Rome had the crushing force of
the bear (Medo-Persia). And Rome was swift and ferocious
like a leopard (Greece). Rome, the fourth beast in Daniel
7, embodied all of the wickedness of the first three beasts
and much more. Thus, it is described as being composed of
pieces of the previous three kingdoms.
Hailey: “This beast symbolized all the anti-God
opposition by force that could ever be brought against the
people of God.”
As a final point, we should note that as bad as Rome
was, there is nowhere in this book any hint that the
Christians were to violently resist Rome or seek to
overthrow Rome. Although the situation had worsened, the
commands in Romans 13:1 and 1 Peter 2:13-14 had not be
repealed ― “Let every person be subject to the governing
authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and
those that exist have been instituted by God,” and “Be
subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution,
whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as
sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those
who do good.” Yes, Rome had veered far away from the ideal
government described by Paul and ordained by God — but
nowhere are we told to take matters into our own hands.
When Peter commanded his readers to “honor the emperor” in
1 Peter 2:17 he was most likely referring to none other
than Nero himself!
Next Lesson
