D. The Beast From The Sea (13:1-10)
D. THE BEAST FROM THE SEA (13:1-10)
It is accepted throughout the New Testament that in the last days there will be a special outbreak of the powers of evil. Sometimes this is associated with an individual who may be called the antichrist (1 Jn.2:18) or ‘the man of lawlessness’ (2 Thes. 2:3). It is this figure who is behind the opening vision of this chapter. John does not name him but calls him ’the beast’. A wealth of picturesque detail brings out the horror associated with him. He is closely linked with Satan, and indeed is something like an incarnation of the evil one. Many see in the beast a reference to the Roman Empire but this seems to be too simple. We may well see in the Empire a preliminary manifestation of the evil that will one day be realized to the full in the antichrist. But there is much more to the beast than ancient Rome.
1. The dragon stands on the seashore as John sees his henchman, the beast, emerge from the sea (cf. Dn. 7:3). The ancient world often associated evil with the sea. Who could tell what existed in its mysterious depths? With its constant change and movement it well symbolized ‘the seething cauldron of national and social life, out of which the great historical movements of the world arise’ (Swete; cf. 17:15; Is. 17:12). For the beast see note on 11:7. The description reminds us of Daniel 7:2-7, but this beast is more horrible than those of Daniel; he combines in himself the horrors there distributed among the four. He has ten horns and seven heads, as does Satan (12:3). That the two have the same appearance probably means that the evil we see on earth is but a copy of the evil one.
The chapter says little about the dragon. He remains very much in the background. He does his work not openly, but through people. John is talking about a more than human evil, but it is an evil that reveals itself in human deeds. The modern world, like the ancient, furnishes us with illustrations. Hendriksen sees the beast as signifying ‘worldly government directed against the church’, and he takes the multiplicity of heads to indicate that this has various forms, as Babylon, Assyria, Rome, etc.
The beast has ten crowns on his horns, which is a curious place for them (Satan has them on the heads, 12:3). But it is a way of stressing that his dominion (diad
mata are crowns of royalty; see note on 12:3) rests on force, while leaving the heads free for the blasphemous name. It is not certain whether we should read the ‘name’ or the ’names’, the MS evidence being divided. If the former, all the heads have the same name; if the latter, they differ. Either way there is contempt for the things of God (v.6).
mata are crowns of royalty; see note on 12:3) rests on force, while leaving the heads free for the blasphemous name. It is not certain whether we should read the ‘name’ or the ’names’, the MS evidence being divided. If the former, all the heads have the same name; if the latter, they differ. Either way there is contempt for the things of God (v.6).2. The beast is likened to a leopard (or ‘panther’ as some understand pardalis). The feet are those of a bear and the mouth like that of a lion. Since the animal has seven heads the singular, mouth, is curious. We should be clear that John’s interest is in symbolism. He is not going into detail to help his readers visualize the beast. In fact it seems impossible to put together all the features John mentions to make up one animal. But that is not his intention. He is making use of a variety of the features of the animals mentioned in Daniel 7. His composite beast thus becomes indescribably horrible. He combines in one the terrible features hitherto associated with different beasts. The beasts of Daniel 7 are to be understood of the various world empires and it may well be that this is in mind with John’s beast. In that case he stands for a final empire in which will be concentrated the frightfulness of all its predecessors. But John does not see the beast as having any power of its own. The dragon gave it its power, its throne, and great authority. The combination adds up to a formidable foe. John’s readers should not think that the powers of good are opposed to a negligible enemy.
3. John says that one of the heads ... seemed to have had a fatal wound, which, however, had been healed. He does not say how the beast received its wound (in v.14 we find it was ‘by the sword’). He does not even say whether it received the wound after it came to land or how it came to be healed. His interest is in the fact that a wound that appeared to be mortal had been healed. Two points receive emphasis: the deadliness of the wound and the fact of recovery. He uses the expression h
s esphagmenn, ‘as though slain’, which he used of the Lamb in 5:6, and as the recovery of the beast is clear there may possibly be the thought of death followed by resurrection. This is one of several places in which the evil one is pictured as parodying Christianity.
s esphagmenn, ‘as though slain’, which he used of the Lamb in 5:6, and as the recovery of the beast is clear there may possibly be the thought of death followed by resurrection. This is one of several places in which the evil one is pictured as parodying Christianity.Those who see in the beast the Roman Empire think of the heads as Roman emperors and usually refer the healing of the deadly wound to the Nero redivivus myth. Nero was so evil that many could not believe that death was the end of him. The expectation arose that he would reappear in a resurrected form. Others think that Caligula is meant, for he had a dangerous illness and recovered. What is not often noticed by those who see the Empire as the meaning of the beast is that it is not said that the head died and was restored. Rather it was the beast that suffered a deadly wound, located in one of its heads, and was healed. There is no suggestion that the head was restored. We are justified in reflecting that there is an evil which comes ultimately from the dragon and which is found both in the human heart and in the communities of men. And it apparently cannot be slain. Though wounded it rises again and will do so to the end of time, to people’s amazement (the whole world was astonished).
4. The effect was to convince the world of the futility of resisting the beast. So people worshipped the dragon, the ultimate source of the beast’s power, and the beast as well. The connection between the two is obviously close. Swete, who sees a reference to the Roman Empire, comments, ‘It was not moral greatness but brute force which commanded the homage of the provinces. The invincible power of Rome won Divine honours for the worst and meanest of men.’ Without confining ourselves to the Roman empire, such a comment shows the sort of thing that is in mind. Who is like the beast? may be meant as a parody of a similar Old Testament expression (Ex. 15:11; Ps. 35:10). And in view of the activities of the angel Michael it is possible that we should also detect a reference to the meaning of his name, ‘Who is like God?’
5. The verb was given shows that the beast’s power is derived; he has no power of his own. It is given him by his master, the dragon. But John’s readers will reflect that ultimately it is God who determines the limits within which he operates, a point brought out by the use of was given four times in verses 5-7 (NIV omits it before authority in verse 5). It is further emphasized by the limit of his authority to forty-two months (for this period see on 11:2). Even the horrible and irresistible beast can exercise authority only during the time that God permits. The saints are encouraged by the thought that the duration of their suffering has already been determined by God. It is not the beast who decides this point. His power is limited though he speaks proud words and blasphemies.
6. The blasphemies are particularized. To blaspheme the name of God is much the same as to blaspheme God (slander translates blasphmsai), for the name sums up the whole person (see note on 2:3). If we read and after dwelling place (it is omitted in many good MSS) the blasphemy is against God, against heaven and against all who are in heaven. If we omit it (as seems the best reading) God’s dwelling is equated with God’s people. The blasphemy is then directed against God and those in whom God dwells. To regard the state as supreme (and offer divine honours to the emperor as was demanded in the first century) was not a permissible opinion but the supreme blasphemy. John’s word must have come to his readers with tremendous force.
msai), for the name sums up the whole person (see note on 2:3). If we read and after dwelling place (it is omitted in many good MSS) the blasphemy is against God, against heaven and against all who are in heaven. If we omit it (as seems the best reading) God’s dwelling is equated with God’s people. The blasphemy is then directed against God and those in whom God dwells. To regard the state as supreme (and offer divine honours to the emperor as was demanded in the first century) was not a permissible opinion but the supreme blasphemy. John’s word must have come to his readers with tremendous force.7. Once again the verb was given stresses the beast’s subordinate position. It is important to see that even the antichrist can function only by divine permission. This is all the more significant as it comes in a passage telling of divine honours accorded the beast. Divine honours for one who can do only what the God whom the little Christian church worships allows him to do! On this occasion authority is given for him to make war with the saints (cf. Dn. 7:21). These words are lacking in some MSS but should be read (see note in GNT). As a result of this war he obtains authority over every tribe, people, language and nation (see note on 5:9). Incidentally this shows that something more than the Neronic persecution is in mind, for that was not world-wide.
8. With a change to the future tense John looks to the time when full divine honours will be paid to the beast (cf .2 Thes. 2:4) by all on earth (for the inhabitants of the earth see note on 6:10). This is a phenomenon that recurs. ‘Again and again there emerge bestial forces out of the filmy depths of the nations that fascinate and mesmerize humanity until all the world wonders after and worships the beast, except those whose names are written in the book of life of the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world’ (Torrance).
This last point is important. It is true that these people have set themselves in opposition to God. It is true that they are willing worshippers of the beast. But the significant thing is that their names have not been written in the book of life (cf. 3:5; 21:27). John wants his little handful of persecuted Christians to see that the thing that matters is the sovereignty of God, not the power of evil. When a man’s name is written in the book of life he will not be forgotten. His place is secure.
The book of life is connected with the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world. It is as the slain Lamb that Christ brings salvation. There are the two thoughts that it is the atoning death of Christ that is significant and that the salvation he brings is no afterthought. From the creation of the world should be taken with slain (cf. 1 Pet. 1:19-20) rather than with written (as mg.; this refers it to election as Eph. 1:4). Either way God’s eternal purpose is in view and is contrasted with the fleeting might of the powers of evil.
9. John counsels attention in a phrase reminiscent of the Synoptic Gospels and of 2:7 (where see note). It may refer to what follows rather than to what precedes.
10. There are textual difficulties here. NIV follows a text which takes both couplets to refer to the persecuted, while AV refers both to the persecutors. Better is RSV, ‘If any one is to be taken captive, to captivity he goes; if any one slays with the sword, with the sword must he be slain.’ The first couplet teaches an acceptance of the realities of life. If it is in the providence of God that the Christian is for captivity, then to captivity he will surely go (cf. Je. 15:2). But the second has to do with requital. Anyone who kills with the sword will be killed as he has killed (cf. Mt. 26:52). If the Christian takes the sword he will not establish the faith, for the truth of Christ cannot be defended by violence. He will simply perish by the sword. But the persecuted can know that the last word is not with the persecutors. This is not fatalism, but the conviction that God is sovereign and works out his good and perfect will. In the days of persecution this is a strong consolation. AV is closer to the Greek than NIV with ‘Here is the patience (better, “steadfastness”; see note on 2:2) and the faith of the saints’. The saints trust a God who works in the way just outlined.