Expositor's Bible Commentary Commentary Revelation 13

(1a) Most modern translations include v.1a as the concluding verse of ch. 12 because they adopt manuscripts that read “he [i.e., the dragon] stood” rather than KJV’s “I stood.” If “he stood” is the correct reading, the sense would be that the dragon, who has now turned his rage on the children of the woman (12:17), stands on the seashore to summon his next instrument, the beast from the sea. But if the text reads “I stood,” the sense is that John receives a new vision (cf. 10:1).

(1b–2) The beast (GK 2563) has already been described in 11:7 as rising from the “Abyss” (cf. 17:8). Thus the sea may symbolize the Abyss, the source of demonic powers that are opposed to God (cf. 9:1; 20:1–3). This view agrees with the OT images of the sea as the origin of the satanic sea monsters—the dragon, Leviathan, and Rahab (Job 26:12–13; Pss 74:1:13–14; Job 87:4; Job 89:10; Isaiah 27:1; Isaiah 51:9; cf. also Eze 32:6–8). The ancient Hebrews demythologized the seamonster myths to depict the victory of the Lord of Israel over the demonic forces of evil that had sought in several ways to destroy God’s people. Similarly, John later foresees the day of Christ’s victory when there will “no longer [be] any sea.” John describes the beast in words similar to those he used in 12:3 of the dragon, the only difference being in the matter of the crowns.

Any attempt to identify the heads or horns as separate kings, kingdoms, etc., should be resisted. It may be argued that John’s beast from the sea should be connected to Leviathan, Rahab, and the dragon in the above-cited OT texts. While these refer to political powers, such as Egypt and Assyria, that were threatening Israel, to the OT writer, these nations were inseparably identified with the archetypal reality of the satanic, idolatrous systems represented by the seven-headed monster.

Thus the beast represented, not the political power, but the system of evil that found expression in the political entity. The reason this point is so important is that it helps us see that the beast itself is not to be identified in its description with any one historical expression or with any one institutional aspect of its manifestation. It may appear now as Sodom, Egypt, Rome, or even Jerusalem, and it may manifest itself as a political power, an economic power, a religious power, or a heresy (1Jn 2:18, 22; 4:3) In John’s mind, the chief enemy is diabolical deception; his description therefore has theological overtones, not political ones.

This interpretation does not exclude the possibility that there will be a final climactic appearance of the beast in history in a person, in a political or religious economic system, or in a final totalitarian culture combining all these. The point is that the beast cannot be limited to either the past or the future. John further states that this beast had “on each head a blasphemous name” (cf. vv.5–6; 17:3). Arrogance and blasphemy also characterize the “little horn” of Daniel’s fourth beast (Daniel 7:8, 11, 20, 25) and the willful king of Da 11:36. John alludes to the vision of Daniel but completely transforms it. In keeping with the Rome hypothesis, many identified the blasphemous names with titles of the emperor (e.g., “Savior” and “Lord”). But was this in John’s mind? In 2:9 he refers to the blasphemy “of those who say they are Jews and are not,” a reference to the fact that some Jews at Smyrna had spoken against the lawful messianic claims of Jesus.

They may also have charged the Christians with disloyalty to the empire and thus sided with the pagan officials in persecuting them. Could these Jews also be part of the blasphemous names? In v.6 the blasphemies are directed against God and are further defined: “to blaspheme God, by blaspheming his name, his temple, those who dwell in heaven” (my translation). Thus the beast challenges the sovereignty and majesty of God by denying the first commandment: “You shall have no other gods before me” (Exodus 20:3). In other words, whatever person or system cooperates with Satan by exalting itself against God’s sovereignty and by setting itself up to destroy the followers of Jesus, or entices them to become followers of Satan through deception, idolatry, blasphemy, and spiritual adultery, embodies the beast of Rev 13. The description John gives of the beast from the sea does not describe a mere human political entity such as Rome. Rather, it describes in archetypal language the hideous, satanic system of deception and idolatry that may at any time express itself in human systems of various kinds.

Yet at the same time John also seems to be saying that this blasphemous, blaspheming, and blasphemyproducing reality will have a final and, for the saints, utterly devastating manifestation.

The beast has a fatal wound, but the wound is healed. This results in great, worldwide influence, acceptance, and worship of both the beast and the dragon. This verse is important and requires careful exegesis because of the widespread Nero redivivus viewpoint that is read into the wounded head .

There are a number of features of John’s description that are inconsistent with both the Nero redivivus and the Roman Empire interpretations.

(1) It should be observed that the wounded “head” of v.3 is elsewhere in the chapter a wound of the whole beast (vv.12, 14). A wound inflicted in a former and rejected emperor is not a wound inflicted on the whole empire. If the reference is to Nero, it is difficult to see how his self-inflicted wound could have hurt the whole empire or how the healing of his throat enhanced the authority of the beast or the dragon’s war against the saints.

(2) The fatal wound must be carefully examined. “Wound” (GK 4435) everywhere else in Revelation means “plague,” in fact, a divinely inflicted judgment (9:18, 20; 11:6; 15:1ff.; 16:9, 21; et al.). Elsewhere in the NT the word is used of “beatings” or official “floggings” (12:48; Acts 16:23, 33; 2 Corinthians 6:5; 2 Corinthians 11:23).

In 13:14 we find that the beast was wounded “by the sword” (GK 3479), which supposedly refers to Nero’s dagger. But elsewhere in Revelation, “sword” (a) refers symbolically to the divine judgment of the Messiah (1:16; 2:12, 16; 19:15, 21); (b) is the sword of the rider on the red horse and equals divine judgment (6:4, 8); and (c) is a sword used as a weapon against the saints of God (13:10). We are, then, nearer to John’s mind if we see the sword, not as referring to an emperor’s death, but as the symbol of God’s wrath that had struck a death blow to the authority of the beast (and the dragon), yet which had been deceptively covered up or restored (for a probable antecedent, see Isa 27:1).

(3) The correct identification, therefore, of the beast’s enemy will enable us to understand what event John had in mind in the death blow. Everywhere in the book the only sufficient conqueror of the beast and the dragon is the slain Lamb, together with his faithful saints (12:11; 19:19–21).

Moreover, what dealt this death blow to the dragon and the beast is Jesus’ life, especially the crucifixion, resurrection, and exaltation (1:5; 5:9; 12:11; cf. Lk 10:17-24; 11:14–22: Jn 12:31-33; Colossians 2:15; also Ge 3:13ff.). That event is the mortal wound of the beast. The same paradox found in ch. 12 appears here in ch. 13. While the dragon is defeated and cast out of heaven through the blood of Jesus (cf. 12:11), he still has time and ability to wage a relentless war against the people of God (12:13ff.).

Similarly, the beast has been dealt a fatal blow by the cross of Christ and still has time and ability to wage war against the saints. He appears to be alive and in full command of the scene; his blasphemies increase. What the sea beast cannot accomplish, he commissions the earth beast to do (vv.11ff.). All three—the dragon, the sea beast, and the earth beast—are in collusion to effect the same end: deception that leads the world to worship the dragon and the sea beast and the destruction of all who oppose them. (4) It is this description that leads to a final reason why identifying the beast exclusively with any one historical personage or empire is probably incorrect.

In John’s description of the beast, there are numerous parallels with Jesus that should alert us to the fact that John is seeking to establish, not a historical identification, but a theological characterization: Both wielded swords (2:12, 16; 13:10); both had followers on whose foreheads were inscribed their names (13:16–14:1); both had horns (5:6; 13:1); both were slain (5:12; 13:3, 8); both had arisen to new life and authority (1:18; 11:15–16; 13:3–4); and both were given (by different authorities) power over every nation, tribe, people, and tongue, and over the kings of the earth (1:5; 7:9; 13:7; 17:12).

The beast described here is the great theological counterpart to all that Christ represents. Therefore, it is easy to understand why many in the history of the church have identified the beast with a future, personal Antichrist. While the references in the Johannine literature may be taken as supporting the view that the Antichrist is manifested in multiple persons and was a reality present in John’s day (1Jn 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2Jn 7), Paul’s description in such personal terms of the coming “man of lawlessness” (2 Thessalonians 2:3–4, 8–9) has led the majority of ancient and modern interpreters to adopt the viewpoint that it is a personal Antichrist. It is not necessary to understand Paul’s apocalyptic language as describing a personal Antichrist. Moreover, John says that in the false teachers “the antichrist” was actually present (2Jn 7).

But the question must remain open as to whether John in the Apocalypse points to a single archenemy of the church—whether past or future—or to a transhistorical reality with many human manifestations in history.

Thus the imagery would function similarly with regard to the image of the woman of ch. 12 or the harlot of ch. 17. If such is the case, this does not mean that John would have denied the earthly historical manifestations of this satanic reality; but it would prevent us from limiting the imagery merely to the Roman Empire or to any other single future political entity.

The goal of the dragon and the beast in their conspiracy is to promote the idolatrous worship of themselves—a perversion further enhanced by the earth beast (vv.12, 15). The means of deception varies because not all humankind is deceived in the same way. People follow and worship the beast because he is apparently invincible: “Who can make war against him?” His only real enemy seems to be the saints of Jesus, whom he effectively destroys (2:10, 13; 12:11; 13:15). But little does he realize that in the death of the saints the triumph of God appears. As they die, they do so in identification with the slain Lamb who through the Cross has decisively conquered the dragon by inflicting on him a truly fatal wound. “Who is like the beast?” echoes in parody similar references to God himself (Exodus 15:11; Micah 7:18).

(See comments on v.1.) The period of the beast’s authority is given as “forty-two months,” the same period already referred to in 11:2–3; 12:6, 13 .

(See comments on v.1.) The period of the beast’s authority is given as “forty-two months,” the same period already referred to in 11:2–3; 12:6, 13 .