article19

§13 The War in Heaven Continues on Earth (Rev. 12:13–13:18)

John’s vision of the two beasts provides a fuller commentary on the meaning of the preceding hymn in terms of both the dragon’s earthly activities and the situation of the messianic community. Having been foiled in his efforts to deny Jesus his messianic vocation, and having been exiled from heaven to earth where he can no longer influence the decisions of the Cosmocrater, the dragon turns his malicious attention to God’s people on earth. He is naturally upset over his recent demotion, and his response is to lash out at those who are associated with the one who brought him down. The reader already knows from the flashback (12:6; and repeated in 12:13–14) that the church’s desert home symbolizes its tribulation, made even more difficult by the hostilities of the dragon. Yet, the reader also realizes that God provides resources of spiritual nurture to the embattled church to transform a desert into an oasis. Revelation 12:13–13:1a echoes the Exodus tradition to make John’s point: the wilderness region is the place where Israel experiences the faithfulness of God, whose promised salvation will not go unfulfilled in spite of the best efforts of God’s enemies and Israel’s infidelities. God is always true to God’s word.

12:13–14 / These verses recapitulate 12:6. The church’s situation is interpreted as an exodus event. God’s people are quickly brought on the two wings of a great eagle out of their bondage to evil (cf. Exod. 19:4) and ushered into a place of nurture, prepared by God out of the serpent’s reach. The length of stay, time, times and half a time, alludes to Daniel’s vision of evil repression (Dan. 7:25). In Daniel and in Revelation, the theological point is the same: the Evil One will attempt to overturn the devotion of the saints, but to no avail.

12:15–17 / Like the Pharaoh of old, the serpent follows in close pursuit, intent on destruction. As before when the Reed Sea parted for Israel, the earth helped the woman again by swallowing the river that the dragon had spewed out of his mouth. The torrent of water no doubt is a metaphor for a torrent of evil which surrounds God’s people in whatever desert they live. Their experiences of oppression and powerlessness, coupled with the apparent triumph of secularism and materialism, could swallow up the testimony of God’s people even as the earth did to an earlier generation of the insolent in the wilderness at Korah (cf. Num. 16:30).

Such temptations to apostasy, while felt by all, are ineffective within the true Israel where believers are found who obey God’s commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus. However, in the rest of Israel, where devotion to God’s reign has relaxed and accommodation to the evil order has resulted, the successes of the Evil One are more notable. A caveat is therefore given to those congregations of believers, in places such as Laodicea, where a Christian witness has waned. There, it is God rather than the great dragon who will spit them out (cf. 3:16): a holy God does not drink from the dragon’s watershed!

13:1a / Those translations which follow the Greek text at this point take the first part of 13:1, And the dragon stood on the shore of the sea, and either include it with 12:17 (e.g., RSV) or form another verse, 12:18 (e.g., JB). The textual evidence for doing so is considerable, and the natural flow of the passage commends it as well. In either case, the scene is transitional: the dragon has paused after a rather unsuccessful first assault against the church (12:13–17) and looks out onto the sea, the domicile of evil and powerful beasts, to summon reinforcements for a second assault against God’s people (13:1b–10).

13:1b–2 / Chapter 13 portrays two powerful and evil beasts, together with the dragon, as an unholy trinity that rules over the anti-God kingdom. Beasley-Murray, who follows M. Rissi at this point, carries this analogy still further in noting that John’s description of the dragon is a deliberate parody of God; the first beast, whose fatal wound is healed, is a second parody of Christ (cf. Schüssler Fiorenza, Revelation, p. 55); and the second beast, the false prophet who has the authority of the first beast (cf. John 14:16) and causes fire to come from heaven (cf. Acts 2:3), is a third parody of the Holy Spirit (Beasley-Murray, Revelation, pp. 207–8). They form and empower another congregation of “believers” that practices evil and worships the unholy trinity. The Christian’s struggle against the anti-Christian impulses of the surrounding world order is not merely an internal and intellectual one; it is also a sociopolitical struggle between two communities that have been shaped and empowered either by malevolent powers for evil or by benevolent powers for good (cf. 1 Pet. 3:13–17). Thus, each portrait concludes with John’s exhortation for Christian virtue in the face of great calamity: those who remain faithful (13:10) and wise (13:18) will be numbered among the 144,000, the eschatological remnant (14:1–5).

The first beast that John sees coming out of the sea is similar to the dragon. Like the dragon, it has all the symbols of kingly authority (ten crowns on his horns; cf. 17:10; Dan. 7:7) and brute power (seven heads … and on each head a blasphemous name; cf. Ps. 74:13–14). Both form and place of origin indicate that it is an agent of the Evil One. The mythic sea, like the Abyss (cf. 11:7; 17:8), is associated with evil monsters, such as Leviathan (cf. Job 41:1–34); and in Daniel’s dream, echoed in John’s description of his own vision of beasts, four terrifying beasts come up out of the sea to boast of their greatness (Dan. 7:1–14).

The “real” identity of the first beast for John remains a matter of speculation (cf. Caird, Revelation, pp. 162–63). In my view, it is best to recognize it as a universal symbol for secular power and cultural idols, with historical counterparts in every age. Because 13:2 alludes to Daniel’s vision of four beasts/world empires (Dan. 7:4–7), the specific nature of authority envisaged by John’s first beast is nationalistic and political, as with Daniel’s beasts. Whenever the state or its civil rulers claims for itself absolute authority or demands the right to transcend the criticisms of the believing community, it discloses its blasphemous agenda (Schüssler Fiorenza, Revelation, p. 117).

13:3–4 / Several commentators seek to find a historical counterpart to the beast whose head seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed (cf. Mounce, Revelation, pp. 252–53). But surely John’s point is rather that “the monster is a parody of Christ” (Caird, Revelation, p. 164). The anti-Christian movement within history counterfeits the real power of God (cf. 2 Cor. 11:1–15), while its leaders pretend to assume the messianic throne (cf. 1 John 2:18–22). In fact, the beast’s power on earth is derived from the Evil One, who had given authority to the beast. The beast’s sociopolitical program, which pervades every political regime in any age, is inherently satanic and ultimately ends in chaos and death.

Certainly, the daily record of political abuse and social maleficence testifies to humanity’s powerlessness to reverse this established evil order: Who is like the beast? Who can make war against him? Given this hopeless situation, then, the natural response of the whole world that does not hope in God (cf. 13:8) is to ascribe to the beast what belongs only to God (cf. Exod. 15:11; Isa. 40:25); without the requisite spiritual resources to resist, the lost resign themselves to follow after the beast rather than the Lamb (cf. Rev. 14:4) and to worship the beast rather than God and God’s exalted Lamb (cf. Rev. 5:13).

13:5–8 / The beast was given two roles by the dragon to exercise his authority for forty-two months (cf. 11:2), which must be in accord with the Lord God’s ordination for the church (cf. 12:6). First, it was given a mouth (1) to utter proud words, (2) to blaspheme God, and (3) to slander God’s name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven. In order to distinguish God’s dwelling place from those who live in heaven, the NIV has decided against the Greek text which places the final phrase, those who live in heaven, in apposition (rather than in conjunction) with the phrase, his dwelling place. We agree with the Greek text in this case. The best mss omit the conjunction, and, and identify God’s dwelling place with those who live in heaven. This textual point is important because the equation of God’s domicile with God’s people underscores the importance of Revelation’s final scene where the new Jerusalem is not a place but a people (i.e., the Bride of the Lamb, 21:9–10; cf. Phil. 3:20; Eph. 2:6; Col. 3:1; Heb. 12:22–24). In this sense, “heaven” is conceived as the transformed and eternal relationship between God and God’s people.

Second, the beast’s power over every tribe, people, language and nation (cf. Rev. 5:9) takes the form not only of words that oppose God and God’s reign, but also of coercive force and military might: he is given authority to make war. The result that all inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast is inevitable, not as a matter of predestined fate, but of societal inertia. It should be pointed out that the beast’s anti-Christian rhetoric, which is much more seductive and formative as a sociopolitical force, is mentioned first and more prominently than the beast’s military and more brutal, coercive powers. Still, however, those belonging to the Lamb, whose lives are already secured by the Lamb’s death, do not worship the beast. Their discipleship to the Lamb is clearly indicated by their suffering at the hands of the beast, who wages war against the saints to conquer them.

The problematical phrase, from the creation of the world, qualifies the Lamb that was slain rather than those whose names have not been written in the book of life (cf. RSV). The theological conviction expressed by this phrase is not that God doubly predestines the elect to follow the Lamb unto life (cf. 14:4) and the non-elect to follow the beast unto destruction (cf. 13:3), but that God is faithful to the promise of salvation now fulfilled through the slain Lamb (cf. Rev. 5:9).

13:9–10 / John’s vision of the first beast concludes with an exhortation, beginning with a formula similar to that which concluded the messages to the seven congregations: He who has an ear, let him hear (cf. 2:7). The readers are reminded of those messages and of those practices commended or condemned; they are reinterpreted by this vision of the beast’s war of words against God and the beast’s brutal repression of God’s people. The citation of Jeremiah 15:2 (cf. Matt. 26:52), even though corrupted during its scribal transmission (cf. Metzger, Textual Commentary, pp. 647–48), provides the context for understanding the spiritual significance of the vision of the first beast. While the prophet Jeremiah originally intended this oracle to warn the pagan nations against compromising Israel’s life, John uses the same oracle to warn the believing community against compromising its devotion to God. Thus, while the first couplet (v. 10a) accepts the current difficulties as the reality of living out a Christian’s faith in an anti-Christian world, the second couplet (v. 10b) hopes for vindication for saints who “overcome” the beast’s rhetorical and political threats with patient endurance and faithfulness.

13:11 / John then saw another beast, coming out of the earth, completing the trinity which rules over the evil kingdom. While John perhaps recognizes this second beast as Behemoth, the evil monster who occupies the primeval desert regions according to Jewish myth (Job 40:15–24; 1 Enoch 60:7–10; 4 Ezra 6:49–53), it is not clear how or if he then intends to use particulars of that myth to interpret the evil role of this second beast. John could have utilized the Behemoth/Leviathan myth simply as an aid in recognizing the two beasts in his vision as evil and eschatological. But this does not get the interpreter very far.

In the interpretation of Daniel’s dream of the four beasts, the author refers to the beasts as “four kingdoms that will rise from the earth” (Dan. 7:17). While appearing very different, the second beast embodies the same evils of the first beast, exploiting all its authority toward political and institutional ends in order to establish an anti-Christian kingdom on earth. The second beast is not so much the “henchman of the first” (Morris, Revelation, p. 166) as the “Secretary of State” who implements or institutionalizes the dragon’s evil vision. Perhaps this institutional capacity explains why this beast is later identified in more official language as the “false prophet” (16:13). It might be helpful to think of its prophetic ministry on behalf of the anti-Christian kingdom as analogous to the apostolic ministry for God’s kingdom: its role is to champion the Evil One (cf. Jer. 20:11–12), to perform legitimizing signs on his behalf, and to establish the instruments and artifacts of worship in his name. John’s larger point is the same as before: the very historical movements which produce the institutions of the social order have their champions and their “signs and wonders” to provide them with the appropriate credentials. They have their buildings and programs, perpetuated by those who value their self-centered enterprises most of all. Yet, insofar as these disciples place their version of institutional truth over God’s gospel and their institutionalized values over God’s reign, they promote idolatry. When the interests of any cultural institution seek to corrupt the single-minded devotion of the church to God’s incarnate Word, the work of the anti-Christian kingdom, its beasts, and its dragon will have succeeded.

Much has been made of the description of the second beast: it has two horns like a lamb, appearing like the Lord Jesus, but has a satanic voice like a dragon. John’s intent is not to associate this beast as a parody of Christ; rather, this beast, the false prophet, is an exemplar of those subtle forms of evil which deceive people into embracing lies as God’s truth (cf. 13:14a). In this sense, the second beast parodies the Paraclete, who promotes the truth of God by drawing people to Christ (cf. John 14:16–27). If the task of the second beast is to lead people to the first beast, which parodies Christ (13:12), then the nature of the second beast’s deceptions is to convince people that the falsehoods and fictions of secularism are viable substitutes for Christ Jesus, who incarnates what is true and real.

The contrast here between the beast’s appearance and its actual words seems critical in this regard. Words give expression to the intentions and commitments of the speaker in a way that mere appearances can not; appearances can deceive the one given over to facile judgments. John may well be exhorting his readers to probe more deeply, to listen more carefully to what is said. What appears to have power or to give hope and meaning for human existence, whether embodied in Rome or promoted by the false teachers within the church, is exposed by the gospel as false and powerless for salvation. John’s point is this: when the believer listens intently to the “word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ,” now conveyed through the Paraclete in Christ’s absence, the false claims of Rome or of Jezebel are distinctly heard as belonging to the Evil One.

13:12–15 / The second beast’s role in the anti-Christian kingdom of the Evil One, then, is analogous to the role of the Holy Spirit under God’s rule. The dualism of John’s view of reality is made all the more clear by his parody of the Holy Trinity: not only are there two kingdoms but two trinities—one for good and the other for evil.

But there is another sense in which the authority of the second beast is similar in significance to the authoritative teaching of Christ’s first apostles. Especially according to Luke’s Acts, apostolic authority is justified by three basic credentials, each alluded to in Revelation 13:12–13: (1) the apostles were successors of the Risen Christ in both ministry and authority (cf. Acts 1:1–11; Rev. 13:12a); (2) their preaching had authority in that it was centered on the resurrection of Jesus to which they were witnesses (cf. Acts 2:22–36; Rev. 13:12b); and (3) they did miraculous “signs and wonders” (cf. Acts 2:14–21; 5:12; 15:4, 12; Rev. 13:13) as concrete manifestations of God’s reign. These apostolic credentials, which legitimize their witness to and proclamation of the Risen Christ, parallel those attributed to the second beast, whose power and influence was to extend the authority of the first beast, the parody of Christ.

Our point in making this observation is this: the “false prophet” may be not an outsider to Christian faith but an insider, a “false apostle” (cf. 2 Pet. 2:1–3; Mark 13:22; 2 Thess. 2:9). The most subtle secularism is the one promoted by those charged with the spiritual care of a congregation of believers, when the proclamation of the Christian gospel takes its primary cues from the surrounding social order rather than from “the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ.” What is actually proclaimed by the false apostle, like the false prophets in the congregations of the former Israel, is spiritually corrupting and ultimately forms a life and faith that opposes the reign of God. It is in this sense that the great and miraculous signs are used to establish idolatry (cf. Deut. 13:1) that finally deceives rather than converts the inhabitants of the earth.

13:16–17a / The meaning of the mark on the right hand or on the forehead is contested (cf. Morris, Revelation, p. 168); however, in the immediate context it is analogous to the “seal” of the Lamb, marked on the foreheads of the faithful remnant (cf. 14:1–2): that is, it is a symbol of ownership or allegiance to someone in authority. The universal scope of the anti-Christian kingdom on earth is indicated by the coupling of society’s opposites—small and great, rich and poor, free and slave—signifying everyone; and the nature of their devotion to evil is pervasive, touching even upon basic economic realities, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark of the beast.

Thus, the “seal” of the Evil One secures one’s place within the anti-Christian kingdom, including temporal, material well-being. At the same time, however, the “mark of the beast” brands one as an opponent of God’s kingdom and as destined for eternal judgment. Not only does this sort of dualism, a feature of apocalypticism, make starkly clear the trade-offs one is faced with in everyday existence, it underscores the implicit relationship between daily choices made and allegiances held. Actual choices reflect real commitments; and decisions made in resignation and even with regret to ensure one’s immediate, material well-being may well result in consequences of a tragic kind.

13:17b–18 / The mark is the number of the beast (which is 666), and this number is a man’s number. The wisdom that ciphers a name from a number would have presumed two things: (1) numerical equivalents for letters (using an ancient method of biblical interpretation called Gematria); and (2) that such equivalences have magical or prophetic importance. Such wisdom was a common feature of the mystical tradition found within both Judaism and the paganism of John’s day. Most scholars contend that John includes this element of his vision of the beasts in his composition because he felt his readers would be able to figure out the identity of the evil man. Countless speculations since have tried to calculate the number as a man’s name, only to fail the test of common sense. Most of the best interpretations contend that the number 666 refers to the man, Nero Caesar. This equation is problematical because while the letters of Nero’s name equal 666 in Hebrew they do not add up in Greek, the language of John’s audience (and of Revelation).

Other scholars argue that John intends the number to function as a cryptogram and not as a puzzle to be interpreted by the procedures of Gematria. According to this view, the cryptographic 666 falls short of the number 777, which symbolizes divine perfection, and 888, which symbolizes Christ (since 888 is Christ’s numerical equivalent). If this view stands, then 666 would symbolize the fundamental difference between falsehood, embodied in the beast, and truth, embodied in the exalted Lamb (cf. Beasley-Murray, Revelation, pp. 220–21).

The problem with this interpretation is that it seems to dismiss John’s own interest in a specific individual, which he himself indicates with the shift from metaphor, the number of the beast, to the more literal, for it is a man’s number. If John has the name of a certain man in mind, as the majority of scholars insist, then the only plausible “wisdom” derives from the computation of the number into a man’s name by using the Hebrew rather than the Greek alphabet. (Even though most in John’s audience did not know Hebrew, some no doubt did and could have explained the mystery to others. More importantly, John knew Hebrew and no doubt understood the significance of this number in his vision by Hebrew consonants rather than by Greek letters.)

Thus, we return to the consensus and agree that the only plausible name is that of “Caesar Nero.” The Hebrew consonants used in spelling Nero’s name, attested in an ancient document from Murabet, are nron qsr. The sum of each consonant’s numerical equivalent (nun = 50 + resh = 200 + waw = 6 + nun = 50 + qoph = 100 + samekh = 60 + resh = 200) is 666. Nero is the man in John’s mind.

While John and his first readers identified the evil beast with the evil Caesar, from a canonical perspective, John’s Nero is the ongoing model for all of history’s “Caesars” who rule over the anti-Christian kingdom and who repress the commitments and values of God’s kingdom. The wisdom required of current readers of Revelation is to recognize the false prophets and apostles who promote humanism as the way to eternal life; such is the politics of deception, and it is the fool who is deceived by the idols of the anti-Christian kingdom.