view above taken, the church in its increase and prosperity――_as if_ a
child were born that was to rule over all nations. See Notes on ver. 2.
¶ _Who was to rule all nations._ That is, according to this view, the
church thus represented was destined to reign in all the earth, or all
the earth was to become subject to its laws. Comp. Notes on Da. vii.
13, 14. ¶ _With a rod of iron._ The language here used is derived from
Ps. ii. 9: “Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron.” The form of the
expression here used, “who was to _rule_”――ὃς μέλλει ποιμαίνειν――is
derived from the Septuagint translation of the Psalm――ποιμαίνεις――“thou
shalt _rule_ them;” to wit, as a shepherd does his flock. The
reference is to such control as a shepherd employs in relation to his
flock――protecting, guarding, and defending them, with the idea that
the flock is under his care; and, on the supposition that this refers
to the church, it means that it would yet have the ascendency or the
dominion over the earth. The meaning in the phrase, “with a rod of
iron,” is, that the dominion would be strong or irresistible――as an
iron sceptre is one that cannot be broken or resisted. The thoughts
here expressed, therefore, are, (a) that the church would become
universal――or that the principles of truth and righteousness
would prevail everywhere on the earth; (b) that the ascendency of
religion over the understandings and consciences of men would be
irresistible――as firm as a government administered under a sceptre of
iron; yet (c) that it would be rather of a character of protection than
of force or violence, like the sway which a shepherd wields over his
flock. I understand the “man child” here, therefore, to refer to the
church in its increase under the Messiah, and the idea to be, that
that church was, at the time referred to, about to be enlarged, and
that, though its increase was opposed, yet it was destined ultimately
to assert a mild sway over all the world. The _time_ here referred
to would seem to be some period in the early history of the church
when religion was likely to be rapidly propagated, and when it was
opposed and retarded by violent persecution――perhaps the last of the
persecutions under the Pagan Roman empire. ¶ _And her child was caught
up unto God._ This is evidently a symbolical representation. Some event
was to occur, or some divine interposition was to take place, _as if_
the child thus born were caught up from the earth to save it from death,
and was rendered secure by being in the presence of God, and near his
throne. It cannot be supposed that anything like this would _literally_
occur. Any divine interposition to protect the church in its increase,
or to save it from being destroyed by the dragon――the fierce Pagan
power――would be properly represented by this. Why may we not suppose
the reference to be to the time of Constantine, when the church came
under his protection; when it was effectually and finally saved from
Pagan persecution; when it was rendered safe from the enemy that waited
to destroy it? On the supposition that this refers to an increasing
but endangered church, in whose defence a civil power was raised up,
exalting Christianity to the throne, and protecting it from danger,
this would be well represented by the child caught up to heaven. This
view may derive confirmation from some well-known facts in history. The
old Pagan power was concentrated in Maximin, who was emperor from the
Nile to the Bosphorus, and who raged against the gospel and the church
“with Satanic enmity.” “Infuriate at the now imminent prospect of the
Christian body {308} attaining establishment in the empire, Maximin
renewed the persecution against Christians within the limits of his
own dominion; prohibiting their assemblies, and degrading, and even
killing their bishops.” Comp. Gibbon, i. 325, 326. The last struggle
of Pagan Rome to destroy the church by persecution, before the triumph
of Constantine, and the public establishment of the Christian religion,
might be well represented by the attempt of the dragon to destroy
the child; and the safety of the church, and its complete deliverance
from Pagan persecution, by the symbol of a child caught up to heaven,
and placed near the throne of God. The persecution under Maximin was
the last struggle of Paganism to retain the supremacy, and to crush
Christianity in the empire. “Before the decisive battle,” says Milner,
“Maximin vowed to Jupiter that, if victorious, he would abolish the
Christian name. The contest between Jehovah and Jupiter was now at its
height, and drawing to a crisis.” The result was the defeat and death
of Maximin, and the termination of the efforts of Paganism to destroy
Christianity by force. Respecting this event, Mr. Gibbon remarks, “The
defeat and death of Maximin soon delivered the church from the last and
most implacable of her enemies,” i. 326. Christianity was, after that,
rendered safe from Pagan persecution. Mr. Gibbon says, “The gratitude
of the church has exalted the virtues of the generous patron _who
seated Christianity on the throne of the Roman world_.” If, however, it
should be regarded as a forced and fanciful interpretation to suppose
that the passage before us refers to this _specific_ event, yet the
_general_ circumstances of the times would furnish a fulfilment of what
is here said. (a) The church would be well represented by the beautiful
woman. (b) The prospect of its increase and universal dominion would
be well represented by the birth of the child. (c) The furious opposing
Pagan power would be well represented by the dragon in its attempts
to destroy the child. (d) The safety of the church would be well
represented by the symbol of the child caught up to God, and placed
near his throne.
6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a
place prepared of God, that they should feed her there [381]a
thousand two hundred _and_ threescore days.
6. _And the woman._ The woman representing the church. Notes, ver. 1.
¶ _Fled._ That is, she fled in the manner, and at the time, stated in
ver. 14. John here evidently anticipates, by a summary statement, what
he relates more in detail in ver. 14‒17. He had referred (ver. 2‒5) to
what occurred to the child in its persecutions, and he here alludes,
in general, to what befell the true church as compelled to flee into
obscurity and safety. Having briefly referred to this, the writer
(ver. 7‒13) gives an account of the efforts of Satan consequent on the
removal of the child to heaven. ¶ _Into the wilderness._ On the meaning
of the word _wilderness_ in the New Testament, see Notes on Mat. iii. 1.
It means a desert place, a place where there are few or no inhabitants;
a place, therefore, where one might be concealed and unknown――remote
from the habitations and the observations of men. This would well
represent the fact, that the true church became for a time obscure and
unknown――_as if_ it had fled away from the habitations of men, and had
retired to the solitude and loneliness of a desert. Yet even there (ver.
14, 16) it would be mysteriously nourished, though seemingly driven out
into wastes and solitudes, and having its abode among the rocks and
sands of a desert. ¶ _Where she hath a place prepared of God._ A place
where she might be safe, and might be kept alive. The meaning is, that
during that time the true church, though obscure and almost unknown,
would be the object of the divine protection and care――a beautiful
representation of the church during the corruptions of the Papacy and
the darkness of the middle ages. ¶ _That they should feed her._ That
they should _nourish_ or _sustain_ her――τρέφωσιν――to wit, as specified
in ver. 14, 16. Those who were to do this, represented by the word
“_they_,” are not particularly mentioned, and the simple idea is that
she _would be_ nourished during that time. That is, stripped of the
figure, the church during that time would find true friends, and would
be kept alive. It is hardly necessary to say that this has, in fact,
occurred in the darkest periods of the history of the church. ¶ _A
thousand two hundred |and| threescore days._ That {309} is, regarding
these as prophetic days, in which a day denotes a year, twelve hundred
and sixty years. The same period evidently is referred to in ver. 14,
in the words “for a time, and times, and half a time.” And the same
period is undoubtedly referred to in Da. vii. 25: “And they shall
be given into his hand until a time, and times, and the dividing of
time.” For a full consideration of the meaning of this language, and
its application to the Papacy, see Notes on Da. vii. 25. The full
investigation there made of the meaning and application of the language
renders its consideration here unnecessary. I regard it here, as I
do there, as referring to the proper continuance of the Papal power,
during which the true church would remain in comparative obscurity, as
if driven into a desert. Comp. Notes on ch. xi. 2. The meaning here is,
that during that period the true church would not become wholly extinct.
It would have an existence upon the earth, but its final triumph would
be reserved for the time when this great enemy should be finally
overthrown. Comp. Notes on ver. 14‒17.
7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought
against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels.
7. _And there was war in heaven._ There was a state of things existing
in regard to the woman and the child――the church in the condition in
which it would then be――which would be well represented by a war in
heaven; that is, by a conflict between the powers of good and evil, of
light and darkness. Of course it is not necessary to understand this
_literally_, any more than the other symbolical representations in the
book. All that is meant is, that a vision passed before the mind of
John _as if_ there was a conflict, in regard to the church, between
the angels in heaven and Satan. There is a vision of the persecuted
church――of the woman fleeing into the desert――and the course of the
narrative is here interrupted by going back (ver. 7‒13) to describe the
conflict which led to this result, and the fact that Satan, as it were
cast out of heaven, and unable to achieve a victory there, was suffered
to vent his malice against the church on earth. The seat of this
warfare is said to be heaven. This language sometimes refers to heaven
as it appears to us――the sky――the upper regions of the atmosphere,
and some have supposed that that was the place of the contest. But
the language in ch. xi. 19, xii. 1 (see Notes on those places), would
rather lead us to refer it to heaven considered as lying beyond the sky.
This accords, too, with other representations in the Bible, where Satan
is described as appearing before God, and among the sons of God. See
Notes on Job i. 6. Of course this is not to be understood as a _real_
transaction, but as a symbolical representation of the contest between
good and evil――_as if_ there was a war waged in heaven between Satan
and the leader of the heavenly hosts. ¶ _Michael._ There have been very
various opinions as to who Michael is. Many Protestant interpreters
have supposed that Christ is meant. The reasons usually alleged
for this opinion, many of which are very fanciful, may be seen in
Hengstenberg (_Die Offenbarung des heiliges Johannes_), i. 611‒622. The
reference to _Michael_ here is probably derived from Da. x. 13; xii. 1.
In those places he is represented as the guardian angel of the people
of God; and it is in this sense, I apprehend, that the passage is to
be understood here. There is no evidence in the name itself, or in the
circumstances referred to, that Christ is intended; and if he had been,
it is inconceivable why he was not referred to by his own name, or
by some of the usual appellations which John gives him. Michael, the
archangel, is here represented as the guardian of the church, and as
contending against Satan for its protection. Comp. Notes on Da. x. 13.
This representation accords with the usual statements in the Bible
respecting the interposition of the angels in behalf of the church (see
Notes on He. i. 14), and is one which cannot be proved to be unfounded.
All the analogies which throw any light on the subject, as well as the
uniform statements of the Bible, lead us to suppose that good beings
of other worlds feel an interest in the welfare of the redeemed church
below. ¶ _And his angels._ The angels under him. Michael is represented
as the archangel, and all the statements in the Bible suppose that the
heavenly hosts are distributed into different ranks and orders. See
Notes on Jude 9; Ep. i. 21. If Satan is permitted to make war against
the church, there is no improbability in supposing that, in those
higher regions where {310} the war is carried on, and in those aspects
of it which lie beyond the power and the knowledge of man, good angels
should be employed to defeat his plans. ¶ _Fought._ See Notes on Jude 9.
¶ _Against the dragon._ Against Satan. Notes, ver. 3. ¶ _And the dragon
fought and his angels._ That is, the master-spirit――Satan, and those
under him. See Notes on Mat. iv. 1. Of the nature of this warfare
nothing is definitely stated. Its whole sphere lies beyond mortal
vision, and is carried on in a manner of which we can have little
conception. What weapons Satan may use to destroy the church, and in
what way his efforts may be counteracted by holy angels, are points
on which we can have little knowledge. It is sufficient to know
that the fact of such a struggle is not improbable, and that Satan is
successfully resisted by the leader of the heavenly host.
8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in
heaven.
8. _And prevailed not._ Satan and his angels failed in their purpose.
¶ _Neither was their place found anymore in heaven._ They were cast
out, and were seen there no more. The idea is, that they were defeated
and driven away, though for a time they were suffered to carry on the
warfare elsewhere.
9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old [382]serpent,
called the [383]Devil, and [384]Satan, which deceiveth the
whole world; he was cast out into the earth, and his angels
were cast out with him.
9. _And the great dragon was cast out._ See Notes on ver. 3. That there
may be an allusion in the _language_ here to what actually occurred in
some far-distant period of the past, when Satan was ejected from heaven,
there can be no reason to doubt. Our Saviour seems to refer to such an
event in the language which he uses when he says (Lu. x. 18), “I beheld
Satan as lightning fall from heaven;” and Jude, perhaps (ver. 6), may
refer to the same event. All that we know on the subject leads us to
suppose that at some time there was a revolt among the angels, and that
the rebellious part were cast out of heaven, for an allusion to this is
not unfrequent in the Scriptures. Still the event _here_ referred to is
a symbolical representation of what could occur at a later period, when
the church would be about to spread and be triumphant, and when Satan
would wage a deadly war against it. That opposition would be _as if_
he made war on Michael the archangel, and the heavenly hosts, and his
failure would be as great _as if_ he were vanquished and cast out of
heaven. ¶ _That old serpent._ This doubtless refers to the serpent that
deceived Eve (Ge. iii. 1‒11; Re. xx. 2; comp. Notes on 2 Co. xi. 3);
and this passage may be adduced as a proof that the real tempter of Eve
was the devil, who assumed the form of a serpent. The word _old_ here
refers to the fact that his appearance on earth was at an early stage
of the world’s history, and that he had long been employed in the work
which is here attributed to him――that of opposing the church. ¶ _Called
the Devil._ To whom the name _Devil_ is given. That is, this is the
same being that is elsewhere and commonly known by that name. See Notes
on Mat. iv. 1. ¶ _And Satan._ Another name given to the same being――a
name, like the other, designed to refer to something in his character.
See it explained in the Notes on Job i. 6. ¶ _Which deceiveth the whole
world._ Whose character is that of a deceiver; whose agency extends
over all the earth. See Notes on Jn. viii. 44, and 1 Jn. v. 19. ¶ _He
was cast out into the earth._ That is, he was not suffered to pursue
his designs in heaven, but was cast down to the earth, where he is
permitted for a time to carry on his warfare against the church.
According to the interpretation proposed above, this refers to the
period when there were indications that God was about to set up his
kingdom on the earth. The _language_, however, is such as would be used
on the supposition that there had been, at some period, a rebellion in
heaven, and that Satan and his followers had been cast out to return
there no more. It is difficult to explain this language except on that
supposition; and such a supposition is, in itself, no more improbable
than the apostasy and rebellion of man. ¶ _And his angels were cast out
with him._ They shared the lot of their leader. As applicable to the
state of things to which this refers, the meaning is, that _all_ were
overthrown; that no enemy of the church would remain {311} unsubdued;
that the victory would be final and complete. As applicable to the
event from which the language is supposed to have been derived――the
revolt in heaven――the meaning is, that the followers in the revolt
shared the lot of the leader, and that all who rebelled were ejected
from heaven. The first and the only revolt in heaven was quelled; and
the result furnished to the universe an impressive proof that none who
rebelled there would be forgiven――that apostasy so near the throne
could not be pardoned.
10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, [385]Now is come
salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the
power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast
down, which accused them before our God day and night.
10. _And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven._ The great enemy was
expelled; the cause of God and truth was triumphant; and the conquering
hosts united in celebrating the victory. This representation of a song,
consequent on victory, is in accordance with the usual representations
in the Bible. See the song of Moses at the Red Sea, Ex. xv.; the song
of Deborah, Ju. v.; the song of David when the Lord had delivered him
out of the hand of all his enemies, 2 Sa. xxii.; and Is. xii., xxv. On
no occasion could such a song be more appropriate than on the complete
routing and discomfiture of Satan and his rebellious hosts. Viewed
in reference to the _time_ here symbolized, this would relate to the
certain triumph of the church and of truth on the earth; in reference
to the _language_, there is an allusion to the joy and triumph of the
heavenly hosts when Satan and his apostate legions were expelled.
¶ _Now is come salvation._ That is, complete deliverance from the power
of Satan. ¶ _And strength._ That is, now is the mighty power of God
manifested in casting down and subduing the great enemy of the church.
¶ _And the kingdom of our God._ The reign of our God. See Notes on Mat.
iii. 2. That is now established among men, and God will henceforward
rule. This refers to the certain ultimate triumph of his cause in the
world. ¶ _And the power of his Christ._ His anointed; that is, the
kingdom of Christ as the Messiah, or as anointed and set apart to
rule over the world. See Notes on Mat. i. 1. ¶ _For the accuser of
our brethren is cast down._ The phrase “_our_ brethren” shows by whom
this song is celebrated. It is sung in heaven; but it is by those
who belonged to the redeemed church, and whose brethren were still
suffering persecution and trial on the earth. It shows the tenderness
of the tie which unites all the redeemed as brethren, whether on earth
or in heaven; and it shows the interest which they “who have passed the
flood” have in the trials, the sorrows, and the triumphs of those who
are still upon the earth. We have here another appellation given to the
great enemy――“accuser of the brethren.” The word here used――κατήγορος,
in later editions of the New Testament κατήγωρ――means properly _an
accuser_, one who blames another, or charges another with crime. The
word occurs in Jn. viii. 10; Ac. xxiii. 30, 35; xxiv. 8; xxv. 16, 18;
Re. xii. 10, in all which places it is rendered _accuser_ or _accusers_,
though only in the latter place applied to Satan. The verb frequently
occurs, Mat. xii. 10; xxvii. 12; Mar. iii. 2; xv. 3, _et al._ The
description of Satan as an _accuser_ accords with the opinion of the
ancient Hebrews in regard to his character. Thus he is represented
in Job i. 9‒11; ii. 4, 5; Zec. iii. 1, 2; 1 Ch. xxi. 1. The phrase
“of the brethren” refers to Christians, or to the people of God;
and the meaning here is, that one of the characteristics of Satan――a
characteristic so well known as to make it proper to designate him by
it――is that he is an _accuser_ of the righteous; that he is employed in
bringing against them charges affecting their character and destroying
their influence. The propriety of this appellation cannot be doubted.
It is, as it has always been, one of the characteristics of Satan――one
of the means by which he keeps up his influence in the world――to bring
accusations against the people of God. Thus, under his suggestions,
and by his agents, they are charged with hypocrisy; with insincerity;
with being influenced by bad motives; with pursuing sinister designs
under the cloak of religion; with secret vices and crimes. Thus it was
that the martyrs were accused; thus it is that unfounded accusations
are often brought against {312} ministers of the gospel, palsying
their power and diminishing their influence, or that when a professed
Christian falls the church is made to suffer by an effort to cast
suspicion on all who bear the Christian name. Perhaps the most skilful
thing that Satan does, and the thing by which he most contributes to
diminish the influence of the church, is in thus causing “accusations”
to be brought against the people of God. ¶ _Is cast down._ The period
here referred to was, doubtless, the time when the church was about to
be established and to flourish in the world, and when accusations would
be brought against Christians by various classes of calumniators and
informers. It is well known that in the early ages of Christianity
crimes of the most horrid nature were charged on Christians, and
that it was by these slanders that the effort was made to prevent the
extension of the Christian church. ¶ _Which accused them before our
God._ See Notes on Job i. 9, 10. The meaning is, that he accused them,
as it were, in the very presence of God. ¶ _Day and night._ He never
ceased bringing these accusations, and sought by the perseverance and
constancy with which they were urged to convince the world that there
was no sincerity in the church and no reality in religion.
11 And they [386]overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and
by the word of their testimony; and [387]they loved not their
lives unto the death.
11. _And they overcame him._ That is, he was foiled in his attempt thus
to destroy the church. The reference here, undoubtedly, is primarily
to the martyr age and to the martyr spirit; and the meaning is, that
religion had not become extinct by these accusations, as Satan hoped
it would be, but lived and triumphed. By their holy lives, by their
faithful testimony, by their patient sufferings, they showed that
all these accusations were false, and that the religion which they
professed was from God, and thus in fact gained a victory over their
accuser. Instead of being themselves subdued, Satan himself was
vanquished, and the world was constrained to acknowledge that the
persecuted religion had a heavenly origin. No design was ever more
ineffectual than that of crushing the church by persecution, no victory
was ever more signal than that which was gained when it could be said
that “the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.” ¶ _By the
blood of the Lamb._ The Lord Jesus――the Lamb of God. Notes, ch. v. 6;
comp. Notes on Jn. i. 29. The blood of Christ was that by which they
were redeemed, and it was in virtue of the efficacy of the atonement
that they were enabled to achieve the victory. Comp. Notes on Phi.
iv. 13. Christ himself achieved a victory over Satan by his death (see
Notes on Col. ii. 15; He. ii. 15), and it is in virtue of the victory
which he thus achieved that we are now able to triumph over our great
foe.
“I ask them whence their victory came.
They, with united breath,
Ascribe their conquest to the Lamb,
Their triumph to his death.”
¶ _And by the word of their testimony._ The faithful testimony which
they bore to the truth. That is, they adhered to the truth in their
sufferings, they declared their belief in it, even in the pains of
martyrdom; and it was by this that they overcame the great enemy――that
is, by this that the belief in the gospel was established and
maintained in the world. The reference here is to the effects of
persecution and to the efforts of Satan to drive religion from the
world by persecution. John says that the result as he saw it in vision
was, that the persecuted church bore a faithful testimony to the truth,
and that the great enemy was overcome. ¶ _And they loved not their
lives unto the death._ They did not so love their lives that they were
unwilling to die as martyrs. They did not shrink back when threatened
with death, but remained firm in their attachment to their Saviour, and
left their dying testimony to the truth and power of religion. It was
by these means that Christianity was established in the world, and John,
in the scene before us, saw it thus triumphant, and saw the angels
and the redeemed in heaven celebrating the triumph. The result of the
attempts to destroy the Christian religion by persecution demonstrated
that it was to triumph. No more mighty power could be employed to crush
it than was employed by the Roman emperors; and when it was seen that
Christianity could survive those efforts to crush it it was certain
{313} that it was destined to live for ever.
12 Therefore[388] rejoice, _ye_ heavens, and ye that dwell
in them. Woe[389] to the inhabiters of the earth, and of the
sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath,
because [390]he knoweth that he hath but a short time.
12. _Therefore rejoice, |ye| heavens._ It is not unusual in the
Scriptures to call on the heavens and the earth to sympathize with
the events that occur. Comp. Notes on Is. i. 2. Here the heavens are
called on to rejoice because of the signal victory which it was seen
would be achieved over the great enemy. Heaven itself was secure from
any further rebellion or invasion, and the foundation was laid for a
final victory over Satan everywhere. ¶ _And ye that dwell in them._
The angels and the redeemed. This is an instance of the sympathy of
the heavenly inhabitants――the unfallen and holy beings before the
throne――with the church on earth, and with all that may affect its
welfare. Compare Notes on 1 Pe. i. 12. ¶ _Woe to the inhabiters of the
earth._ This is not an imprecation, or a wish that woe _might_ come
upon them, but a prediction that it _would_. The meaning is this: Satan
would ultimately be entirely overcome――a fact that was symbolized by
his being cast out of heaven; but there would be still temporary war
upon the earth, as if he were permitted to roam over the world for a
time and to spread woe and sorrow there. ¶ _And of the sea._ Those who
inhabit the islands of the sea and those who are engaged in commerce.
The meaning is, that the world as such would have occasion to
mourn――the dwellers both on the land and on the sea. ¶ _For the devil
is come down unto you._ As if cast out of heaven. ¶ _Having great
wrath._ Wrath shown by the symbolical war with Michael and his angels
(ver. 7); wrath increased and inflamed because he has been discomfited;
wrath the more concentrated because he knows that his time is limited.
¶ _Because he knoweth that he hath but a short time._ That is, he knows
that the time is limited in which he will be permitted to wage war with
the saints on the earth. There is allusion elsewhere to the fact that
the time of Satan is limited, and that he is apprised of that. Thus in
Mat. viii. 29, “Art thou come hither to torment us _before the time_?”
See Notes on that passage. Within that limited space, Satan knows that
he must do all that he ever can do to destroy souls, and to spread woe
through the earth, and hence it is not unnatural that he should be
represented as excited to deeper wrath, and as rousing all his energy
to destroy the church.
13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he
persecuted the woman which brought forth the man _child_.
13. _And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth._ That
is, when Satan saw that he was doomed to discomfiture and overthrow,
_as if_ he had been cast out of heaven; when he saw that his efforts
must be confined to the earth, and that only for a limited time,
he “persecuted the woman,” and was more violently enraged against
the church on earth. ¶ _He persecuted the woman which brought forth
the man |child|._ See Notes on ver. 5. The child is represented as
safe; that is, the ultimate progress and extension of the church was
certain. But Satan was permitted still to wage a warfare against the
church――represented here by his wrath against the woman, and by her
being constrained to flee into the wilderness. It is unnecessary to
say that, after the _Pagan_ persecutions ceased, and Christianity
was firmly established in the empire; after Satan saw that all hope
of destroying the church in that manner was at an end, his enmity
was vented in another form――in the rise of the Papacy, and in the
persecutions under that――an opposition to spiritual religion no less
determined and deadly than that which had been waged by Paganism.
14 And to the woman were given two [391]wings of a great eagle,
that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where
she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from
the face of the serpent.
14. _And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle._ The
most powerful of birds, and among the most rapid in flight. See
Notes on ch. iv. 7. The meaning here is, that the {314} woman is
represented as prepared for a rapid flight; so prepared as to be able
to outstrip her pursuer, and to reach a place of safety. Divested of
the figure, the sense is, that the church, when exposed to this form
of persecution, would be protected _as if_ miraculously supplied with
wings. ¶ _That she might fly into the wilderness._ There is here a
more full description of what is briefly stated in ver. 6. A wilderness
or desert is often represented as a place of safety from pursuers.
Thus David (1 Sa. xxiii. 14, 15) is represented as fleeing into the
wilderness from the persecutions of Saul. So Elijah (1 Ki. xix. 4) fled
into the wilderness from the persecutions of Jezebel. The simple idea
here is, that the church, in the opposition which would come upon it,
would find a refuge. ¶ _Into her place._ A place appointed for her;
that is, a place where she could be safe. ¶ _Where she is nourished._
The word here rendered _nourished_ is the same――τρέφω――which occurs in
ver. 6, and which is there rendered _feed_. It means to feed, nurse,
or nourish, as the young of animals (Mat. vi. 26; xxv. 37; Lu. xii. 24;
Ac. xii. 20); that is, to sustain by proper food. The meaning here is,
that the church would be kept alive. It is not indeed mentioned by whom
this would be done, but it is evidently implied that it would be by God.
During this long period in which the church would be in obscurity, it
would not be suffered to become extinct. Comp. 1 Ki. xvii. 3‒6. ¶ _For
a time, and times, and half a time._ A year, two years, and half a
year; that is, forty-two months (see Notes on ch. xi. 2); or, reckoning
the month at thirty days, twelve hundred and sixty days; and regarding
these as prophetic days, in which a day stands for a year, twelve
hundred and sixty years. For a full discussion of the meaning of this
language, see Notes on Da. vii. 25; and Editor’s Pref. For the evidence,
also, that the time thus specified refers to the Papacy, and to the
period of its continuance, see the Notes on that place. The full
consideration given to the subject there renders it unnecessary to
discuss it here. For it is manifest that there is an allusion here to
the passage in Daniel; that the twelve hundred and sixty days refer to
the same thing; and that the true explanation must be made in the same
way. The main difficulty, as is remarked on the Notes on that passage,
is in determining the time when the Papacy properly commenced. If
that could be ascertained with certainty, there would be no difficulty
in determining when it would come to an end. But though there is
considerable uncertainty as to the exact time when it arose, and though
different opinions have been entertained on that point, yet it is
true that all the periods assigned for the rise of that power lead
to the conclusion that the time of its downfall cannot be remote. The
meaning in the passage before us is, that during all the time of the
continuance of that formidable, persecuting power, the true church
would not in fact become extinct. It would be obscure and comparatively
unknown, but it would still live. The fulfilment of this is found in
the fact, that during all the time here referred to, there has been a
true church on the earth. Pure, spiritual religion――the religion of
the New Testament――has never been wholly extinct. In the history of the
Waldenses, and Albigenses, the Bohemian brethren, and kindred people;
in deserts and places of obscurity; among individuals and among small
and persecuted sects; here and there in the cases of individuals in
monasteries,[392] the true religion has been kept up in the world, as
in the days of Elijah God reserved seven thousand men who had not bowed
the knee to Baal: and it is possible now for us, with a good degree of
certainty, to show, even during the darkest ages, and when Rome seemed
to have entirely the ascendency, where the true church was. To find out
this, was the great design of the Ecclesiastical History of Milner;
it has been done, also, with great learning and skill, by Neander.
¶ _From the face of the serpent._ The dragon――or Satan represented
by the dragon. Notes, ver. 3. The reference here is {315} to the
opposition which Satan makes to the true church under the persecutions
and corruptions of the Papacy.
15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a [393]flood,
after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of
the flood.
15. _And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood._ This is
peculiar and uncommon imagery, and it is not necessary to suppose that
anything like this literally occurs in nature. Some serpents are indeed
said to eject from their mouths poisonous bile when they are enraged,
in order to annoy their pursuers; and some sea-monsters, it is known,
spout forth large quantities of water; but the representation here does
not seem to be taken from either of those cases. It is the mere product
of the imagination, but the sense is clear. The woman is represented as
having wings, and as being able thus to escape from the serpent. But,
as an expression of his wrath, and as if with the hope of destroying
her in her flight by a deluge of water, he is represented as pouring a
flood from his mouth, that he might, if possible, sweep her away. The
figure here would well represent the continued malice of the Papal
body against the true church, in those dark ages when it was sunk in
obscurity, and, as it were, driven out into the desert. That malice
never slumbered, but was continually manifesting itself in some new
form, as if it were the purpose of Papal Rome to sweep it entirely
away. ¶ _That he might cause her to be carried away of the flood._
Might cause the church wholly to be destroyed. The truth taught is,
that Satan leaves no effort untried to destroy the church.
16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her
mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of
his mouth.
16. _And the earth helped the woman._ The earth _seemed_ to sympathize
with the woman in her persecutions, and to interpose to save her. The
meaning is, that a state of things would exist in regard to the church
thus driven into obscurity, which would be well represented by what
is here said to occur. It was cut off from human aid. It was still
in danger; still persecuted. In this state it was nourished from some
unseen source. It was enabled to avoid the direct attacks of the enemy,
and when he attacked it in a new form, a new mode of intervention in
its behalf was granted, _as if_ the earth should open and swallow up
a flood of water. We are not, therefore, to look for any _literal_
fulfilment of this, as if the earth interposed in some marvellous way
to aid the church. The sense is, that, _in_ that state of obscurity
and solitude, the divine interposition was manifested, in an unexpected
manner, _as if_, when an impetuous stream was rolling along that
threatened to sweep everything away, a chasm should suddenly open in
the earth and absorb it. During the dark ages many such interventions
occurred, saving the church from utter destruction. Overflowing waters
are often in the Scriptures an emblem of mighty enemies. Ps. cxxiv. 2‒5,
“If it had not been the Lord who was on our side, when men rose up
against us; then they had swallowed us up quick, when their wrath was
kindled against us: then the waters had overwhelmed us, the stream
had gone over our soul: then the proud waters had gone over our soul.”
Ps. xviii. 16, “He sent from above, he took me, he drew me out of many
waters.” Je. xlvii. 2, “Behold, waters rise up out of the north, and
shall be an overflowing flood, and shall overflow the land,” &c. Comp.
Je. xlvi. 7, 8, and Notes on Is. viii. 7, 8. ¶ _And the earth opened
her mouth._ A chasm was made sufficient to absorb the waters. That is,
John saw that the church was safe from this attack, and that, in order
to preserve it, there was an interposition as marked and wonderful as
if the earth should suddenly open and swallow up a mighty flood.
17 And [394]the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went
to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the
commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
17. _And the dragon was wroth with the woman._ This wrath had been
vented by his persecuting her (ver. 13); by his pursuing her; and by
his pouring out the flood of water to sweep her away (ver. 15); and the
same wrath was now vented against her children. As he could not reach
and destroy the woman {316} herself, he turned his indignation against
all who were allied to her. Stripped of the imagery, the meaning is,
that as he could not destroy the church as such, he vented his malice
against all who were the friends of the church, and endeavoured to
destroy them. “The church, as such, he could not destroy; therefore
he turned his wrath against individual Christians, to bring as many of
them as possible to death” (De Wette). ¶ _And went to make war with the
remnant of her seed._ No mention is made before of his persecuting the
children of the woman, except his opposition to the “man child” which
she bore, ver. 1‒4. The “woman” represents the church, and the phrase
“the remnant of her seed” must refer to her scattered children, that is,
to the scattered members of the church, wherever they could be found.
The reference here is to persecutions against individuals, rather than
a general persecution against the church itself, and all that is here
said would find an ample fulfilment in the vexations and troubles of
individuals in the Roman communion in the dark ages, when they evinced
the spirit of pure evangelical piety; in the cruelties practised in
the Inquisition on individual Christians under the plea that they were
heretics; and in the persecutions of such men as Wycliffe, John Huss,
and Jerome of Prague. This warfare against individual Christians was
continued long in the Papal church, and tens of thousands of true
friends of the Saviour suffered every form of cruelty and wrong as
the result. ¶ _Which keep the commandments of God._ Who were true
Christians. This phrase characterizes correctly those who, in the dark
ages, were the friends of God, in the midst of abounding corruption.
¶ _And have the testimony of Jesus Christ._ That is, they bore a
faithful testimony to his truth, or were real _martyrs_. See ch. ii. 13.
The scene, then, in this chapter is this: John saw a most beautiful
woman, suitably adorned, representing the church as about to be
enlarged, and to become triumphant in the earth. Then he saw a great
red monster, representing Satan, about to destroy the church: the
Pagan power, infuriated, and putting forth its utmost energy for its
destruction. He then saw the child caught up into heaven, denoting
that the church would be ultimately safe, and would reign over all the
world. Another vision appears. It is that of a contest between Michael,
the protecting angel of the people of God, and the great foe, in
which victory declares in favour of the former, and Satan suffers a
discomfiture, _as if_ he were cast from heaven to earth. Still, however,
he is permitted for a time to carry on a warfare against the church,
though certain that he would be ultimately defeated. He puts forth
his power, and manifests his hostility, in another form――that of the
Papacy――and commences a new opposition against the spiritual church
of Christ. The church is, however, safe from _that_ attempt to destroy
it, for the woman is represented as fleeing to the wilderness beyond
the power of the enemy, and is there kept alive. Still filled with
rage, though incapable of destroying the true church itself, he turns
his wrath, under the form of Papal persecutions, against individual
Christians, and endeavours to cut them off in detail.
This is the _general_ representation in this chapter, and on the
supposition that it was _designed_ to represent the various forms
of opposition which Satan would make to the church of Christ, under
Paganism and the Papacy, it must be admitted, I think, that no
more expressive or appropriate symbols could have been chosen.
This fact should be allowed to have due influence in confirming the
interpretation suggested above; and _if_ it be admitted to be a correct
interpretation, it is conclusive evidence of the inspiration of the
book. Further _details_ of this opposition of Satan to the church under
the _Papal_ form of persecution are made in the subsequent chapters.
CHAPTER XIII.
ANALYSIS OF THE CHAPTER.
This chapter is closely connected with ch. xii., which is properly
introductory to this and to the subsequent portions of the book to
ch. xx. See the Analysis of the Book. The vision in this chapter is of
two distinct “beasts,” each with peculiar characteristics, yet closely
related, deriving their power from a common source; aiding each other
in the accomplishment of the same object, and manifestly relating
to the same _power_ under different forms. To see the design of the
chapter, it will be necessary to exhibit the peculiar characteristics
of the two “beasts,” and {317} the points in which they resemble each
other, and sustain each other.
I. THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BEASTS.
A. _The characteristics of the first beast_, ver. 1‒10.
(a) It comes up out of the sea (ver. 1)――out of the commotion, the
agitation of nations――a new power that springs up from those disturbed
elements.
(b) It has seven heads and ten horns, and upon its horns ten crowns or
diadems, ver. 1.
(c) In its general form it resembles a leopard; its feet are like those
of a bear; its mouth like that of a lion. Its connection with the great
“dragon”――with Satan――is indicated by the statement that it derives its
“power, and its seat, and its authority” from him (ver. 2)――a striking
representation of the fact that the civil or secular Roman power
which supported the church of Rome through all its corrupt and bloody
progress was the putting forth of the power of Satan on the earth.
(d) One of the heads of this beast is “wounded to death”――that is,
with a wound that is in itself mortal. This wound is, however, in some
way as yet unexplained, so healed that the vitality yet remains, and
all the world pays homage to the beast, ver. 3. A blow is aimed at
this authority which seems to be fatal; and there is some healing or
restorative process by which its power is recovered, and by which the
universality of its dominion and influence is again restored.
(e) The effect of this is, that the world renders homage really to the
“dragon,” the source of this power, though _in the form_ of adoration
of the “beast,” ver. 4. That is, while the outward homage is rendered
to the “beast,” the real worship is that of the “dragon,” or Satan.
This beast is regarded as (1) _incomparable_――“Who is like unto the
‘beast?’” and (2) _invincible_――“Who is able to war with him?”
(f) In this form the beast is endowed with a mouth that “speaks great
things and blasphemies,” ver. 5――that is, the power here referred to is
arrogant, and reviles the God of heaven.
(g) The time during which he is to continue is “forty and two
months”――that is, twelve hundred and sixty days, or twelve hundred and
sixty years. See Notes on ch. xi. 2.
(h) The characteristics of this beast, and of his dominion, are
these:――(1) He opens his mouth in blasphemy against God, and his
church, and all holy beings, ver. 6. (2) He makes war with the saints
and overcomes them, ver. 7. (3) He asserts his power over all nations,
ver. 7. (4) He is worshipped by all that dwell on the earth, whose
names are not in the book of life, ver. 8.
(i) All are called on to hear――as if the announcement were important
for the church, ver. 9.
(j) The result or issue of the power represented by this monster, ver.
10. It had led others into captivity, it would itself be made captive;
it had been distinguished for slaying others, it would itself feel the
power of the sword. Until this is accomplished the patience and faith
of the saints must be sorely tried, ver. 10.
B. _The characteristics of the second beast_, ver. 11‒18.
(a) It comes out of the earth (ver. 11)――having a different origin
from the former; not springing from troubled elements, as of nations
at strife, but from that which is firm and established――like the solid
earth.
(b) It has two horns like a lamb, but it speaks as a dragon (ver. 11).
It is apparently mild, gentle, lamb-like, and inoffensive; but it is,
in fact, arrogant, haughty, and imperative.
(c) Its dominion is coextensive with that of the first beast, and the
effect of its influence is to induce the world to do homage to the
first beast, ver. 12.
(d) It has the power of performing great wonders, and particularly of
deceiving the world by the “miracles” which it performs. This power
is particularly manifested in restoring what might be regarded as an
“image” of the beast which was wounded, though not put to death, and
by giving life to that image, and causing those to be put to death who
will not worship it, ver. 13‒15.
(e) This beast causes a certain mark to be affixed to all, small and
great, and attempts a jurisdiction over all persons, so that none may
buy or sell, or engage in any business, who have not the mark affixed
to them――that is, the power represented attempts to set up a control
over the commerce of the world, ver. 16, 17.
(f) The way by which the power here referred to may be known is by
some {318} proper application of the number 666. This is stated in an
enigmatical form, and yet with such clearness that it is supposed that
it would be sufficient to indicate the power here referred to.
II. POINTS IN WHICH THE TWO BEASTS RESEMBLE OR SUSTAIN EACH OTHER.
It is manifest, on the slightest inspection of the characteristics
of the “beasts” referred to in this chapter, that they have a close
relation to each other; that, in important respects, the one is
designed to sustain the other, and that both are manifestations or
embodiments of that one and the same power represented by the “dragon,”
ver. 4. He is the great original source of power to both, and both are
engaged in accomplishing his purposes, and are combined to keep up his
dominion over the earth. The points of resemblance which it is very
important to notice are the following:――
(1) They have the same origin――that is, they both owe their power
to the “dragon,” and are designed to keep up his ascendency in human
affairs, ch. xii. 3; xiii. 2, 4, 12.
(2) They have the same extent of power and dominion.
FIRST BEAST.
The world wonders after the beast, ver. 3. They worship the
dragon and the beast, ver. 4; and all that dwell upon the
earth shall worship him, ver. 8.
SECOND BEAST.
He exercises all the power of the first beast, ver. 12.
He causes the earth and them which dwell therein to worship
the first beast, ver. 12. He has power to give life unto the
image of the beast, ver. 15. He sets up jurisdiction over the
commerce of the world, ver. 16, 17.
(3) They do the same things.
FIRST BEAST.
The dragon gives power to the beast, ver. 4. There is given
unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, ver. 5.
He opens his mouth in blasphemy against God, ver. 6. It is
given him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them,
ver. 7.
SECOND BEAST.
He exercises all the power of the first beast, ver. 12. He
does great wonders, ver. 13. He makes fire come down from
heaven in the sight of men, ver. 13. He performs miracles,
ver. 14. He causes that as many as would not worship the first
beast should be killed, ver. 15. He claims dominion over all,
ver. 16, 17.
(4) The one is the means of healing the wounded head of the other, and
of restoring its authority.
FIRST BEAST.
One of his heads is, as it were, wounded to death: a wound
that would be mortal if it were not healed, ver. 3.
SECOND BEAST.
Has power to heal the wound of the first beast, ver. 12; for
it is manifest that the _healing_ comes from some influence of
the second beast.
(5) The one restores life to the other when dying.
FIRST BEAST.
Is wounded, ver. 3, and his power manifestly becomes exhausted.
SECOND BEAST.
Causes an “image” of the first beast――something that should
resemble that, or be the same power revived, to be made, and
to be worshipped, ver. 15.
(6) They have the same general characteristics.
FIRST BEAST.
Has a mouth given him to speak great things and blasphemies,
ver. 5; opens his mouth in blasphemy, ver. 6; blasphemes the
name of God, and his tabernacle, and his people, ver. 6; makes
war with the saints and overcomes them, ver. 7.
SECOND BEAST.
Speaks like a dragon, ver. 11; deceives those that dwell upon
the earth, ver. 14; is a persecuting power――causing those who
would not worship the image of the first beast to be killed,
ver. 15.
From this comparison of the two beasts, the following things are
plain:――(1) That the same _general_ power is referred to, or that they
are both modifications of one general dominion on the earth; having the
same origin, having the same locality, and aiming at the same result.
(2) It is the same general domination _prolonged_――that is, the one
is, in another form, but the _continuation_ of the other. (3) The one
becomes weak, or is in some way likely to lose its authority and power,
and is _revived_ by the other――that is, the other restores its waning
authority, and sets up substantially the same dominion again over the
earth, and causes the same great power to be acknowledged on the earth.
(4) The one _runs into_ the other; that is, one naturally produces,
or is followed by the other. (5) One _sustains_ the other. (6) They,
therefore, have a very close relation to each other: having the same
object; possessing the same general characteristics; and accomplishing
substantially the same thing on the earth. What this was, will be
better seen after the exposition of the chapter shall have been made.
It may be sufficient here to remark, that, on the very face of this
statement, it is impossible not to have {319} the Roman power suggested
to the mind, as a mighty persecuting power, in the two forms of the
civil and ecclesiastical authority, both having the same origin; aiming
at the same object; the one sustaining the other; and both combined to
keep up the dominion of the great enemy of God and man upon the earth.
It is impossible, also, not to be struck with the resemblance, in many
particulars, between this vision and that of Daniel (ch. vii.), and to
be impressed with the conviction that they are intended to refer to the
same kingdom in general, and to the same events. But this will be made
more manifest in the exposition of the chapter.
CHAPTER XIII.
AND I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a [395]beast
rise up out of the sea, [396]having seven heads and ten
horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the
[397]name of blasphemy.
1. _And I stood upon the sand of the sea._ The sand upon the shore of
the sea. That is, he seemed to stand there, and then had a vision of
a beast rising out of the waters. The _reason_ of this representation
may, perhaps, have been that among the ancients the sea was regarded
as the appropriate place for the origin of huge and terrible monsters
(Professor Stuart, _in loco_). This vision strongly resembles that
in Da. vii. 2, seq., where the prophet saw four beasts coming up in
succession from the sea. See Notes on that place. In Daniel, the four
winds of heaven are described as striving upon the great sea (ver. 2),
and the agitated ocean represents the nations in commotion, or in
a state of disorder and anarchy, and the four beasts represent four
successive kingdoms that would spring up. See Notes on Da. vii. 2.
In the passage before us, John indeed describes no storm or tempest;
but the sea itself, as compared with the land (see Notes on ver. 11),
represents an agitated or unsettled state of things, and we should
naturally look for that in the rise of the power here referred to. If
the reference be to the civil or secular Roman power that has always
appeared in connection with the Papacy, and that has always followed
its designs, then it is true that it rose amidst the agitations of the
world, and from a state of commotion that might well be represented by
the restless ocean. The sea in either case naturally describes a nation
or people, for this image is frequently so employed in the Scriptures.
Comp., as above, Da. vii. 2, and Ps. lxv. 7; Je. li. 42; Is. lx. 5;
Re. x. 2. The natural idea, therefore, in this passage, would be that
the power that was represented by the “beast” would spring up among
the nations, when restless or unsettled, like the waves of the ocean.
¶ _And saw a beast._ Daniel saw four in succession (ch. vii. 3‒7), all
different, yet succeeding each other; John saw two in succession, yet
strongly resembling each other, ver. 1, 11. On the general meaning of
the word _beast_――θηρίον――see Notes on ch. xi. 7. The beast here is
evidently a symbol of some power or kingdom that would arise in future
times. See Notes on Da. vii. 3. ¶ _Having seven heads._ So also the
dragon is represented in ch. xii. 3. See Notes on that passage. The
representation there is of Satan, as the source of all the power lodged
in the two beasts that John subsequently saw. In ch. xvii. 9, referring
substantially to the same vision, it is said that “the seven heads
are seven mountains;” and there can be no difficulty, therefore, in
referring this to the seven hills on which the city of Rome was built
(comp. Notes on ch. xii. 3), and consequently this must be regarded
as designed, in some way, to be a representation of Rome. ¶ _And ten
horns._ See this also explained in the Notes on ch. xii. 3; comp. also
the more extended illustration in the Notes on Da. vii. 25, seq. The
reference here is to Rome, or the one Roman power, contemplated as
made up of ten subordinate kingdoms, and therefore subsequently to the
invasion of the Northern hordes, and to the time when the Papacy was
about to rise. Comp. Re. xvii. 12: “And the ten horns which thou sawest
are ten kings [marg. _kingdoms_], which have received no kingdom as yet,
but receive power as kings with the beast.” For a full illustration
of this, see the copious Notes at the close of the seventh chapter of
Daniel. ¶ _And upon his horns ten crowns._ Greek, _ten diadems_. See
Notes on ch. xii. 3. These indicated dominion or authority. In ch.
xii. 3, the “dragon is represented as having _seven_ diadems on his
head;” {320} here, the beast is represented as having _ten_. The dragon
there represents the Roman domination, _as such_, the _seven-hilled_,
or _seven-headed_ power, and, therefore, properly described as having
_seven_ diadems; the beast here represents the Roman power, as now
broken up into the ten dominations which sprung up (see Notes on
Daniel as above) from the one original Roman power, and that became
henceforward the supporters of the Papacy, and, therefore, properly
represented here as having _ten_ diadems. ¶ _And upon his heads the
name of blasphemy._ That is, the whole power was blasphemous in its
claims and pretensions. The word _blasphemy_ here seems to be used in
the sense that titles and attributes were claimed by it which belonged
only to God. On the meaning of the word _blasphemy_, see Notes on Mat.
ix. 3; xxvi. 65. The meaning here is, that each one of these heads
appeared to have a frontlet, with an inscription that was blasphemous,
or that ascribed some attribute to this power that properly belonged
to God; and that the whole power thus assumed was in derogation of
the attributes and claims of God. In regard to the propriety of this
description considered as applicable to the Papacy, see Notes on
2 Th. ii. 4.
2 And the beast which I saw was [398]like unto a leopard, and
his feet were as _the feet_ of a bear, and his mouth as the
mouth of a lion: and [399]the dragon gave him his power, and
[400]his seat, and great authority.
2. _And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard._ For
a description of the leopard, see Notes on Da. vii. 6. It is
distinguished for bloodthirstiness and cruelty, and thus becomes an
emblem of a fierce, tyrannical power. In its general character it
resembles a lion, and the lion and the leopard are often referred
to together. In this description, it is observable that John has
combined in _one_ animal or monster, all those which Daniel brought
_successively_ on the scene of action as representing different empires.
Thus in Daniel (vii. 2‒7) the _lion_ is introduced as the symbol of the
Babylonian power; the bear, as the symbol of the Medo-Persian; the
leopard, as the symbol of the Macedonian; and a nondescript animal,
fierce, cruel, and mighty, with two horns, as the symbol of the Roman.
See Notes on that passage. In John there is one animal representing
the Roman power, as if it were made up of all these: a _leopard_ with
the feet of a _bear_, and the mouth of a _lion_, with two horns, and
with the general description of a fierce monster. There was an obvious
propriety in this, in speaking of the Roman power, for it was, in fact,
made up of the empires represented by the other symbols in Daniel, and
“combined in itself all the elements of the terrible and the oppressive,
which had existed in the aggregate in the other great empires that
preceded it.” At the same time there was an obvious propriety in the
symbol itself; for the bloodthirstiness and cruelty of the leopard
would well represent the ferocity and cruelty of the Roman power,
_especially_ as John saw it here as the great antagonistic power of
the true church, sustaining the Papal claim, and thirsting for blood.
¶ _And his feet mere as |the feet| of a bear._ See Notes on Da. vii. 5.
The idea here seems to be that of _strength_, as the strength of the
bear resides much in its feet and claws. At the same time, there is the
idea of a combination of fierce qualities――_as if_ the bloodthirstiness,
the cruelty, and the agility of the leopard were united with the
strength of the bear. ¶ _And his mouth as the mouth of a lion._ See
Notes on Da. vii. 4. The mouth of the lion is made to seize and hold
its prey, and is indicative of the character of the animal as a beast
of prey. John has thus brought together the qualities of activity,
bloodthirstiness, strength, ferocity, all as symbolical of the power
that was intended to be represented. It is hardly necessary to say that
this description is one that would apply well, in all respects, to Rome;
nor is it necessary to say, that if it be supposed that he _meant_ to
refer to Rome, this is such a description as he would have adopted.
¶ _And the dragon._ See Notes on ch. xii. 3. ¶ _Gave him his power._
Satan claimed, in the time of the Saviour, all power over the kingdoms
of the world, and asserted that he could give them to whomsoever he
pleased. See Notes on Mat. iv. 8, 9. How far the power of Satan in this
respect may extend, it may not be possible to determine; but it cannot
be doubted that the Roman power _seemed_ to have such an {321} origin,
and that in the main it was such as, on that supposition, it would be.
In its arrogance and haughtiness――in its thirst for dominion――in its
persecutions――it had such characteristics as we may suppose Satan would
originate. If, therefore, as the whole connection leads us to suppose,
this refers to the Roman secular power, considered as the support of
the Papacy, there is the most evident propriety in the representation.
¶ _And the seat_――θρόνον. Hence our word _throne_. The word properly
means a seat; then a high seat; then a _throne_, as that on which a
king sits. Here it refers to this power as exercising dominion on the
earth. ¶ _And great authority._ The authority _was_ great. It extended
over a large part of the earth, and, alike in its extent and character,
it was such as we may suppose Satan would set up in the world.
3 And I saw one of his heads, as it were [401]wounded to
death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all [402]the world
wondered after the beast.
3. _And I saw one of his heads, as it were wounded to death._ The
phrase “wounded to death” means properly that it received a mortal
wound, that is, the wound would have been mortal if it had not been
healed. A blow was struck that would be naturally fatal, but there was
something that prevented the fatal result. John does not say, however,
by whom the wound was inflicted, nor does he describe farther the
nature of the wound. He says that “_one_ of the heads”――that is, one
of the seven heads――was thus wounded. In ch. xvii. 9, he says that “the
seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sitteth.” In ch.
xvii. 10, he says, “there are seven kings.” And this would lead us to
suppose that there were “seven” administrations, or forms of dominion,
or dynasties, that were presented to the eye of John; and that while
the number “seven,” as applied to the “heads,” so far identified
the power as to fix its location on the seven “hills” (ch. xvii. 9),
in another respect also the number “seven” suggested forms of
administration of dynasties, ch. xvii. 10. What is meant by saying
that one of these heads was wounded to death has been among the most
perplexing of all the inquiries pertaining to the book of Revelation.
The use of the word _seven_, and the explanation in ch. xvii. 9, make
it morally certain that _Rome_, in some form of its administration, is
referred to. Of this there can be no doubt, and in this all are agreed.
It is not, however, the _Papal_ power as such that is here referred
to; for (a) the Papal power is designated under the image of the second
beast; (b) the descriptions pertaining to the first beast are all
applicable to a secular power; and (c) there was no form of the Papal
spiritual dominion which would properly correspond with what is said
in ch. xvii. 10. The reference in this place is, therefore, to Rome
considered as a civil or secular power, yet Rome regarded as giving
support to the second beast――the Papal power. The _general_ idea here
is, that a state of things would exist in regard to that power, at the
time referred to, _as if_ one of the seven heads of the monster should
receive a wound which would be fatal, if it were not healed in some way.
That is, its power would be weakened; its dominion would be curtailed,
and that portion of its power would have come to an end, if there
had not been something which would, as it were, restore it, and save
it from the wrath that was impending. The great point of difficulty
relates to the _particular_ application of this; to the facts in
history that would correspond with the symbol. On this there have
been almost as many opinions as there have been interpreters of the
Apocalypse, and there is no impropriety in saying that none of the
solutions are wholly free from objection. The _main_ difficulty, so far
as the interpretation proposed above is concerned, is, in the fact that
“_one_” of the seven heads is referred to as wounded unto death; as if
_one-seventh part_ of the power was endangered. I confess I am not able
wholly to solve this difficulty; but, after all, is it certain that the
meaning is that just _one-seventh part_ of the power was in peril; that
the blow affected just such a portion that it might be described as the
one-seventh part? Is not the number _seven_ so used in the Scriptures
as to denote a considerable portion――a portion quite material and
important? And may not all that is intended here be, that John saw a
wound inflicted on that mighty power which would have been fatal if
it had not been marvellously healed? And was it not true {322} that
the Roman civil and secular power was _so_ waning and decaying, that
it might properly be represented _as if_ one of the seven heads of the
monster had received a fatal wound, until its power was restored by the
influence of the spiritual domination of the church of Rome? If this be
the correct exposition, then what is implied here may be thus stated:
(a) The general subject of the representation is the Roman power,
as seen at first in its vigour and strength; (b) then that power
is said to be greatly weakened, as if one of its heads were smitten
with a deadly wound; (c) then the wound was healed――this power was
restored――by being brought into alliance with the Papacy; that is, the
whole Roman power over the world would have died away, if it had not
been restored and perpetuated by means of this new and mighty influence,
ver. 12. Under this new form, Rome had all the power which it had ever
had, and was guilty of all the atrocities of which it had ever been
guilty: _it was Rome still_. Every wound that was inflicted on that
power by the incursion of barbarians, and by the dividing off of
parts of the empire, was healed by the Papacy, and under this form its
dominion became as wide and as formidable as under its ancient mode of
administration. If a more _particular_ application of this is sought
for, I see no reason to doubt that it may be found in the quite common
interpretation of the passage given by Protestants, that the reference
is to the _forms_ of administration under which this power appeared in
the world. The number of distinct forms of government which the Roman
power assumed from first to last was the following:――kings, consuls,
dictators, decemvirs, military, tribunes, emperors. These _seven_ forms
of administration were, at least, sufficiently prominent and marked to
be represented by this symbol, or to attract the attention of one
contemplating this formidable power――for it was under these forms
that its conquests had been achieved, and its dominion set up over the
earth. In the time of John, and the time contemplated in this vision,
all these had passed away but the _imperial_. That, too, was soon to
be smitten with a deadly wound by the invasion of the Northern hordes;
and that would have wholly and for ever ceased if it had not been
restored――the deadly wound being healed――by the influence of the Papal
power, giving Rome its former ascendency. See Notes at the close of ver.
15. ¶ _And his deadly wound was healed._ That is, as explained above,
the waning Roman secular power was restored by its connection with the
spiritual power――the Papacy. This was (a) a simple matter of fact, that
the waning secular power of Rome was thus restored by connecting itself
with the spiritual or ecclesiastical power, thus prolonging what might
properly be called the _Roman_ domination far beyond what it would
otherwise have been; and (b) this would be _properly_ represented by
just the symbol employed here――the fatal wound inflicted on the head,
and the healing of that wound, or preventing what would naturally be
the effects. On the fulfilment of this, see Notes on ver. 15, at the
close. ¶ _And all the world wondered after the beast._ The word here
used――θαυμάζω――means, properly, to be astonished; to be amazed; then to
wonder at; then to admire and follow (Rob. _Lex._). In ver. 4, it is
said that the world “_worshipped_” the beast; and the general idea
is, that the beast received such universal reverence, or inspired such
universal awe, as to be properly called worship or adoration. There can
be no doubt of the propriety of this, considered as applicable to that
secular Roman power which sustained the Papacy. The homage was as wide
as the limits of the Roman empire had ever been, and might be said to
embrace “all the world.”
4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the
beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who _is_ like
unto the beast? [403]who is able to make war with him?
4. _And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast._
Notes, chap. xii. 3; xiii. 2. That is, they _in fact_ worshipped him.
The word _worship_――προσκυνέω――is not always, however, used in a
_religious_ sense. It means, properly, _to kiss_; to kiss towards
anyone; that is, to kiss his own hand and to extend it towards a person,
in token of respect and homage (Rob. _Lex._). Comp. Job xxxi. 27.
Then it means to show respect to one who is our superior; to kings and
princes; to parents; and pre-eminently to God. See Notes on Mat. ii. 2.
The word may be used here to mean that homage or reverence, {323} as to
a higher power, was rendered to the “dragon;” not strictly that he was
openly _worshipped_ in a religious sense as God. Can anyone doubt that
this was the case under Papal Rome; that the power which was set up
under that entire domination, civil and ecclesiastical, was such as
Satan approved, and such as he sought to have established on the earth?
And can anyone doubt that the homage thus rendered, so contrary to the
law of God, and so much in derogation of his claims, was in fact homage
rendered to this presiding spirit of evil? ¶ _And they worshipped the
beast._ That is, they did it, as is immediately specified, by saying
that he was _incomparable_ and _invincible_; in other words, that
he was superior to all others, and that he was almighty. For the
fulfilment of this, see Notes on 2 Th. ii. 4. ¶ _Who is like unto the
beast?_ That is, he is to be regarded as unequalled and as supreme.
This was, in fact, ascribing honours to him which belonged only to
God; and this was the manner in which that civil and secular power
was regarded in the period here supposed to be referred to. It was the
policy of rulers and princes in those times to augment in every way
possible the respect in which they were held; to maintain that they
were the viceregents of heaven; to claim for themselves sacredness of
character and of person; and to secure from the people a degree of
reverence which was in fact idolatrous. Never was this more marked than
in the times when the Papacy had the ascendency, for it was its policy
to promote reverence for the power that sustained itself, and to secure
for itself the idolatrous veneration of the people. ¶ _Who is able to
make war with him?_ That is, he is invincible. They thus attributed
to him omnipotence――an attribute belonging only to God. This found a
fulfilment in the honour shown to the civil authority which sustained
the Papacy; for the policy was to impress the public mind with the
belief that that power was invincible. In fact, it was so regarded.
Nothing was able to resist that absolute despotism; and the authority
of princes and rulers that were allied with the Papal rule was of the
most absolute kind, and the subjugation of the world was complete.
There was no civil, as there was no religious liberty; and the whole
arrangement was so ordered as to subdue the world to an absolute and
uncontrollable power.
5 And there was given unto him a[404] mouth speaking great
things and blasphemies: and power was given unto him to
[405]continue [406]forty _and_two months.
5. _And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things._ John
does not say _by whom_ this was given; but we may suppose that it was
by the “dragon,” who is said (ver. 2) to have given him his power,
and seat, and authority. The fulfilment of this is found in the claims
set up by the princes and rulers here referred to――that mighty secular
power that sustained the Papacy, and that was, in some sort, a part of
the Papacy itself. These arrogant claims consisted in the assertion of
a divine right; in the power assumed over the liberty, the property,
and the consciences of the people; in the arbitrary commands that were
issued; and in the right asserted of giving absolute law. The language
here used is the same as that which is found in Daniel (vii. 8) when
speaking of the “little horn:” “In this horn were eyes like the eyes
of a man, and a mouth speaking great things.” For an illustration of
the meaning of this, see Notes on that passage. Comp. Notes on Da.
vii. 25. ¶ _And blasphemies._ That is, the whole power represented by
the “beast” will be blasphemous. See Notes on ver. 1. Comp. Notes on
Da. vii. 25. ¶ _And power was given unto him to continue forty and two
months._ Three years and a half, reckoned as months; or twelve hundred
and sixty days, reckoning thirty days for a month; or twelve hundred
and sixty years, regarding the days as prophetic days. For the evidence
that this is to be so regarded, see Notes on Da. vii. 25. This is the
same period that we meet with in chap. xi. 2, and in chap. xii. 6. See
Notes on those places. This fact proves that the same power is referred
to in these places and in Daniel; and this fact may be regarded as
a confirmation of the views here taken, that the power here referred
to is designed to have a connection in some form with the Papacy. The
duration of the existence of this power is the same as that which is
everywhere ascribed to the Papacy, in the passages which refer to it;
and {324} all the circumstances, as before remarked, show that the same
_general_ power is referred to by the two “beasts” which are described
in this chapter. If so, the continuance or duration may be supposed to
be the same; and this is indicated in the passage before us, where it
is said that it would be twelve hundred and sixty years. In regard to
the application of this to the Papal power, and the manner in which the
calculation is to be made of the duration of that power, see the Notes
on Da. vii. 25, and the remarks at the end of that chapter. The meaning
in the passage before us I take to be, that the Papal power, considered
as a civil or secular institution, will have, from the time when that
properly commenced, a duration of twelve hundred and sixty years. In
the Scriptures there is nothing more definite in regard to any future
event than this.
6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to
blaspheme his name, and [407]his tabernacle, and [408]them
that dwell in heaven.
6. _And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his
name._ By his own arrogant claims; by his assumed authority in matters
of conscience; by setting aside the divine authority; and by impious
declarations in derogation of the divine claims. See Notes on ver. 1.
¶ _And his tabernacle._ Literally, his “_tent_”――σκηνὴν. This is the
word which is commonly applied to the sacred tent or tabernacle among
the Hebrews, in which the ark was kept, and which was the seat of the
Jewish worship before the building of the temple. It is thus used to
denote a place of worship, considered as the dwelling-place of God,
and is in this sense applied to heaven, He. viii. 2; ix. 11; Re.
xv. 5. It seems to be used here in a general sense to denote the place
where God was worshipped; and the meaning is, that there would be a
course of conduct in regard to the true church――the dwelling-place of
God on the earth――which could properly be regarded as blasphemy. Let
anyone remember the anathemas and excommunications uttered against the
Waldenses and Albigenses, and those of kindred spirit that appeared
in the long period of the Papal rule, and he will find no difficulty
in perceiving a complete fulfilment of all that is here said. ¶ _And
them that dwell in heaven._ The true worshippers; the members of
the true church, represented as dwelling in this holy tabernacle. No
one acquainted with the reproaches cast on the devoted and sincere
followers of the Saviour during the dark periods of the Papal rule can
fail to see that there was in that a complete fulfilment of all that is
here predicted.
7 And it was given unto him [409]to make war with the saints,
and to overcome them: and [410]power was given him over all
kindreds, and tongues, and nations.
7. _And it was given unto him._ By the same power that taught him to
blaspheme God and his church. Notes on ver. 2, 5. ¶ _To make war with
the saints._ See this fully illustrated in the Notes on the parallel
passage in Da. vii. 21, and at the end of that chapter, (f). ¶ _And
to overcome them._ In those wars. This was abundantly fulfilled in
the wars with the Waldenses, the Albigenses, and the other sincere
followers of the Saviour in the time of the Papal persecutions. The
language here used is the same as that which is found in Da. vii. 21:
“The same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them.”
See Notes on that passage. ¶ _And power was given him._ See Notes
on ver. 2. ¶ _Over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations._ For the
meaning of these words see Notes on ch. vii. 9. The meaning here is,
that this dominion was set up over the world. Comp. Da. vii. 25. The
fact that so large a portion of the kingdoms of the earth was under the
influence of the Papacy, and sustained it, and the claim which it set
up to universal dominion, and to the right of deposing kings and giving
away kingdoms, corresponds entirely with the language here used.
8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose
names are not written in [411]the book of life of the Lamb
slain [412]from the foundation of the world.
8. _And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him._ That is, as
immediately stated, all whose names are not in the book of life. On
the word _worship_, see Notes on ver. 4. ¶ _Whose {325} names are
not written in the book of life of the Lamb._ That is, of the Lord
Jesus――the Lamb of God. See Notes on Phi. iv. 3. Comp. Notes on Jn.
i. 29. The representation here is, that the Lord Jesus keeps a book
or register, in which are recorded the names of all who shall obtain
everlasting life. ¶ _Slain from the foundation of the world._ See Notes
on ch. v. 6. Comp. Notes on ch. iii. 5. The meaning here is, not that
he was actually put to death “from the foundation of the world,” but
that the intention to give him for a sacrifice was formed then, and
that it was so _certain_ that it might be spoken of as actually then
occurring. See Ro. iv. 17. The purpose was so certain, it was so
constantly represented by bloody sacrifices from the earliest ages, all
typifying the future Saviour, that it might be said that he was “slain
from the foundation of the world.” Professor Stuart, however (_Com._
_in loco_), supposes that this phrase should be connected with the
former member of the sentence, “whose names are not written, from the
foundation of the world, in the life-book of the Lamb, which was slain.
” Either construction makes good sense; but it seems to me that that
which is found in our common version is the most simple and natural.
9 If any man have an ear, let him hear.
9. _If any man have an ear, let him hear._ See Notes on ch. ii. 7. The
idea here is, that what was here said respecting the “beast” was worthy
of special attention, as it pertained to most important events in the
history of the church.
10 He[413] that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity:
[414]he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the
sword. Here is the [415]patience and the faith of the saints.
10. _He that leadeth into captivity._ This is clearly intended to refer
to the power or government which is denoted by the beast. The form of
expression here in the Greek is peculiar――“If any one leadeth into
captivity,” &c.――Εἴ τις αἰχμαλωσίαν συνάγει. The statement is _general_,
and is intended to make use of a general or prevalent truth with
reference to this particular case. The general truth is, that men will,
in the course of things, be dealt with according to their character
and their treatment of others; that nations characterized by war and
conquests will be subject to the evils of war and conquest――or that
they may expect to share the same lot which they have brought on others.
This general statement accords with what the Saviour says in Mat.
xxvi. 52: “All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.”
This has been abundantly illustrated in the world; and it is a very
important admonition to nations not to indulge in the purposes of
conquest and to individuals not to engage in strife and litigation. The
particular idea here is, that it would be a characteristic of the power
here referred to that it would “lead others into captivity.” This would
be fulfilled if it was the characteristic of this power to invade other
countries and to make their inhabitants prisoners of war; if it made
slaves of other people; if it set up an unjust dominion over other
people; or if it was distinguished for persecuting and imprisoning the
innocent, or for depriving the nations of liberty. It is unnecessary to
say that this is strikingly descriptive of Rome, considered in any and
every point of view, whether under the republic or the empire, whether
secular or ecclesiastical, whether Pagan or Papal. In the following
forms there has been a complete fulfilment under that mighty power of
what is here said: (a) In the desire of conquest or of extending its
dominion, and, of course, leading others captive as prisoners of war or
subjecting them to slavery. (b) In its persecutions of true Christians,
alike pursued under the Pagan and the Papal form of the administration.
(c) Especially in the imprisonments practised under the Inquisition,
where tens of thousands have been reduced to the worst kind of
captivity. In every way this description is applicable to Rome,
as seeking to lead the world _captive_ or to subject it to its own
absolute sway. ¶ _Shall go into captivity._ As a just recompense for
subjecting others to bondage, and as an illustration of a general
principle of the divine administration. This is yet, in a great measure,
to be fulfilled; and, as I understand it, it discloses the manner in
which the Papal secular power will come to an end. It will be by being
subdued, so that it might _seem_ to be made captive and led off by some
victorious host. Rome now is practically held in subjection by foreign
arms, {326} and has no true independence; perhaps this will be more and
more so as its ultimate fall approaches. ¶ _He that killeth with the
sword._ See Notes, as above, on Mat. xxvi. 52. There can be no doubt
that this is applicable to Rome in all the forms of its administration
considered as a Pagan power; or considered as a nominally Christian
power, either with reference to its secular or its spiritual dominion.
Compute the numbers of human beings that have been put to death by
that Roman power, and no better language could have been chosen to
characterize it than that which is here used――“killed with the sword.”
Comp. Notes on Da. vii. 24‒28, II. (3), (g). ¶ _Must be killed with the
sword._ This domination must be brought to an end by war and slaughter.
Nothing is more probable than this in itself; nothing could be more
in accordance with the principles of the divine dealings in the world.
Such a power as that of Rome will not be likely to be overcome but by
the force of arms; and the probability is that it will ultimately be
overthrown in a bloody revolution, or by foreign conquest. Indeed,
there are not a few intimations now that this result is hastening on.
Italy is becoming impatient of the secular power swayed in connection
with the Papacy, and sighs for freedom; and it is every way probable
that that land would have been free, and that the secular power of
the Papacy, if not every form of the Papacy itself, would have come
to an end in the late convulsion (1848), if it had not been for the
intervention of France and Austria. The period designated by prophecy
for the final overthrow of that power had not arrived; but nothing can
secure its continuance for any very considerable period longer. ¶ _Here
is the patience and the faith of the saints._ That is, the trial of
their patience and of their faith. Nowhere on earth have the patience
and the faith of the saints been put to a severer test than under the
Roman persecutions. The same idea occurs in ch. xiv. 12.
11 And I beheld [416]another beast coming up out of the earth;
and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.
11. _And I beheld another beast._ Comp. Notes on ver. 1. This was so
distinct from the first that its characteristics could be described,
though, as shown in the Analysis of the Chapter, there was in many
points a strong resemblance between them. The relations between the
two will be more fully indicated in the Notes. ¶ _Coming up out of the
earth._ Professor Stuart renders this, “ascending from the land.” The
former was represented as rising up out of the sea (ver. 1); indicating
that the power was to rise from a perturbed or unsettled state of
affairs――like the ocean. This, from that which was more settled
and stable――as the land is more firm than the waters. It may not be
necessary to carry out this image; but the _natural_ idea, as applied
to the two forms of the Roman power supposed to be here referred
to, would be that the former――the secular power that sustained the
Papacy――rose out of the agitated state of the nations in the invasions
of the northern hordes, and the convulsions and revolutions of the
falling empire of Rome; and that the latter, the spiritual power
itself――represented by the beast coming up from the land――grew up
under the more settled and stable order of things. It was comparatively
calm in its origin, and had less the appearance of a frightful monster
rising up from the agitated ocean. Comp. Notes on ver. 1. ¶ _And he
had two horns like a lamb._ In some respects he resembled a lamb; that
is, he seemed to be a mild, gentle, inoffensive animal. It is hardly
necessary to say that this is a most striking representation of the
actual manner in which the power of the Papacy has always been put
forth――putting on the apparent gentleness of the lamb; or laying claim
to great meekness and humility, even when deposing kings, and giving
away crowns, and driving thousands to the stake, or throwing them into
the dungeons of the Inquisition. ¶ _And he spake as a dragon._ See
Notes on ch. xii. 3. The meaning here is, that he spoke in a harsh,
haughty, proud, arrogant tone――as we should suppose a dragon would
if he had the power of utterance. The general sense is, that while
this “beast” had, in one respect――in its resemblance to a lamb――the
appearance of great gentleness, meekness, and kindness, it had,
in another respect, a haughty, imperious, and arrogant spirit. How
appropriate this is, as a symbol, to represent the Papacy, considered
as a spiritual power, it is unnecessary to say. It will be admitted,
whatever may be thought {327} of the design of this symbol, that if it
was in fact _intended_ to refer to the Papacy, a more appropriate one
could not have been chosen.
12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before
him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to
worship the first beast, [417]whose deadly wound was healed.
12. _And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before
him._ The same amount of power; the same kind of power. This shows
a remarkable _relationship_ between these two beasts; and proves
that it was intended to refer to the same power substantially, though
manifested in a different form. In the fulfilment of this, we should
naturally look for some government whose authority extended far, and
which was absolute and arrogant in its character, for this is the power
attributed to the first beast. See Notes on ver. 2, 3, 4, 7, 8. This
description had a remarkable fulfilment in the Papacy, considered as a
spiritual dominion. The relation to the secular power is the same as
would be indicated by these two beasts; the dominion was as wide-spread;
the authority was as absolute and arrogant. In fact, on these points
they have been identical. The one has sustained the other; either one
would long since have fallen if it had not been upheld by the other.
The Papacy, considered as a spiritual domination, was in fact a new
power starting up in the same place as the old Roman dominion, to give
life to that as it was tending to decay, and to continue its ascendency
over the world. These two things, the secular and the spiritual power,
constituting _the Papacy_ in the proper sense of the term, are in fact
but the continuance or the prolongation of the old Roman dominion――the
fourth kingdom of Daniel――united so as to constitute in reality
but one kingdom, and yet so distinct in their origin, and in their
manifestations, as to be capable of separate contemplation and
description, and thus properly represented by the two “beasts” that
were shown in vision to John. ¶ _And causeth the earth and them which
dwell therein to worship the first beast._ That is, to respect, to
reverence, to honour. The word _worship_ here refers to _civil_ respect,
and not to _religious_ adoration. See Notes on ver. 4. The meaning here,
according to the interpretation proposed all along in this chapter,
is, that the Papacy, considered in its religious influence, or as a
spiritual power――represented by the second beast――secured for the civil
or secular power――represented by the first beast――the homage of the
world. It was the means of keeping up that dominion, and of giving it
its ascendency among the nations of the earth. The _truth_ of this,
as an historical fact, is well known. The Roman civil power would have
long ago lost all its influence and been unknown, if it had not been
for the Papacy; and, in fact, all the influence which it has had since
the irruption of the northern barbarians, and the changes which their
invasion produced, can be traced to that new power which arose in the
form of the Papacy――represented in Daniel (ch. vii. 8) by the “little
horn.” That new power gave life and energy to the declining influence
of Rome, and brought the world again to respect and honour its
authority. ¶ _Whose deadly wound was healed._ See Notes on ver. 3. That
is, was healed by the influence of this new power represented by the
second beast. A state of things occurred, on the rise of that new power,
_as if_ a wound in the head, otherwise fatal, was healed. The striking
applicability of this to the decaying Roman power――smitten as with
a deadly wound by the blows inflicted by the northern hordes, and
by internal dissensions――will occur to every one. It was as if a
healing process had been imparted by some life-giving power, and, as
a consequence, the Roman dominion――the prolongation of Daniel’s fourth
kingdom――has continued to the present time. Other kingdoms passed
away――the Assyrian, the Babylonian, the Medo-Persian, the Macedonian;
Rome alone, of all the ancient empires, has prolonged its power over
men. In all changes elsewhere, an influence has gone forth from the
seven-hilled city as wide and as fearful as it was in the brightest
days of the republic, the triumvirate, or the empire, and a large part
of the world still listens reverently to the mandates which issue from
the seat which so long gave law to mankind. The fact that it _is_ so is
to be traced solely to the influence of that power represented here by
the second beast that appeared in vision to John――the Papacy.
13 And he doeth [418]great wonders, so that he maketh fire
come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,
{328} 13. _And he doeth great wonders._ _Signs_――σημεῖα――the word
commonly employed to denote _miracles_ (comp. Notes on Ac. ii. 19); and
the representation here is, that the power referred to by the second
beast would found its claim on pretended miracles, and would accomplish
an effect on the world _as if_ it actually did work miracles. The
applicability of this to Papal Rome no one can doubt. See Notes on
2 Th. ii. 9. Comp. ver. 14. ¶ _That he maketh fire come down from
heaven on the earth in the sight of men._ That is, he pretends this;
he accomplishes an effect _as if_ he did it. It is not necessary to
suppose that he actually did this, any more than it is to suppose that
he actually performed the other pretended miracles referred to in other
places. John describes him as he saw him in the vision; and he saw him
laying claim to this power, and actually producing an effect _as if_ by
a miracle he actually made fire to descend from heaven upon the earth.
This is to be understood as included in what the apostle Paul (2 Th.
ii. 9) calls “signs and lying wonders,” as among the things by which
the “man of sin and the son of perdition” would be characterized, and
by which he would be sustained. See Notes on that passage. Why this
particular pretended miracle is specified here is not certain. It may
be because this would be among the most striking and impressive of the
pretended miracles wrought――as if lying beyond all human power――as
Elijah made fire come down from heaven to consume the sacrifice (1 Ki.
xviii. 37, 38), and as the apostles proposed to do on the Samaritans
(Lu. ix. 54), _as if_ fire were called down on them from heaven. The
phrase “in the sight of men” implies that this would be done publicly,
and is such language as would be used of pretended miracles designed
for purposes of ostentation. Amidst the multitudes of pretended
miracles of the Papacy, it would probably not be difficult to find
instances in which the very thing here described was attempted, in
which various devices of pyrotechnics were shown off as miracles. For
an illustration of the wonders produced in the dark ages in reference
to fire, having all the appearance of miracles, and regarded _as_
miracles by the masses of men, the reader is referred to Dr. Brewster’s
_Letters on Natural Magic_, particularly Letter xii.
14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by _the means
of_ those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of
the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they
should make an image to the beast, which had the [419]wound by
a sword, and did live.
14. _And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by |the means of|
those miracles._ Nothing could possibly be more descriptive of the
Papacy than this. It has been kept up by deception and delusion, and
its pretended miracles have been, and are to this day, the means by
which this is done. Anyone in the slightest degree acquainted with the
pretended miracles practised at Rome, will see the propriety of this
description as applied to the Papacy. The main fact here stated, that
the Papacy would endeavour to sustain itself by pretended miracles,
is confirmed by an incidental remark of Mr. Gibbon, when speaking
of the pontificate of Gregory the Great; he says: “The credulity or
the prudence of Gregory was always disposed to confirm the truths of
religion by the evidence of ghosts, _miracles_, and resurrections”
(_Decline and Fall_, iii. 210). Even within a month of the time that
I am writing (October 5, 1850), intelligence has been received in
this country of extraordinary privileges conferred on some city in
Italy, because the eyes of a picture of the Virgin in that city have
miraculously moved――greatly to the “confirmation of the faithful.” Such
things are constantly occurring; and it is by these that the supremacy
of the Papacy has been and is sustained. The _Breviary_ teems with
examples of miracles wrought by the saints. For instance: St. Francis
Xavier turned a sufficient quantity of salt water into fresh to save
the lives of five hundred travellers who were dying of thirst, enough
being left to allow a large exportation to different parts of the world,
where it wrought astonishing cures. St. Raymond de Pennafort laid his
cloak on the sea, and sailed from Majorca to Barcelona, a distance of
a hundred and {329} sixty miles, in six hours. St. Juliana lay on her
death-bed; her stomach rejected all solid food, and in consequence
she was prevented from receiving the Eucharist. In compliance with her
earnest solicitations, the consecrated wafer was laid on her breast;
the priest prayed; the wafer vanished, and Juliana expired. Many pages
might be filled with accounts of modern miracles of the most ridiculous
description, yet believed by Roman Catholics――the undoubted means by
which Papal Rome “deceives the world,” and keeps up its ascendency
in this age. See Forsyth’s _Italy_, ii. pp. 154‒157; _Rome in the
Nineteenth Century_, i. p. 40, 86, ii. p. 356, iii. pp. 193‒201; Lady
Morgan’s _Italy_, ii. p. 306, iii. p. 189; Graham’s _Three Months’
Residence_, &c. p. 241. ¶ _Saying to them that dwell on the earth._
That is, as far as its influence would extend. This implies that there
would be _authority_, and that this authority would be exercised to
secure this object. ¶ _That they should make an image to the beast._
That is, something that would _represent_ the beast, and that might
be an object of worship. The word rendered _image_――εἰκών――means
properly, (a) an image, effigy, figure, as an _idol_, image, or figure;
(b) a likeness, resemblance, similitude. Here the meaning would seem to
be, that, in order to secure the acknowledgment of the beast, and the
homage to be rendered to him, there was something like a statue made,
or that John saw in vision such a representation――that is, that a
state of things existed _as if_ such a statue were made, and men were
constrained to acknowledge this. All that is stated here would be
fulfilled if the old Roman civil power should become to a large extent
dead, or cease to exert its influence over men, and if then the Papal
spiritual power should cause a form of domination to exist, _strongly
resembling_ the former in its general character and extent, and if it
should secure this result――that the world would acknowledge its sway
or render it homage as it did to the old Roman government. This would
receive its fulfilment if it be supposed that the first “beast”
represented the ancient Roman civil power as such; that this died
away――as if the head had received a fatal wound; that it was again
revived under the influence of the Papacy; and that, under that
influence, a civil government, _strongly resembling_ the old Roman
dominion, was caused to exist, depending for its vital energy on
the Papacy, and, in its turn, lending its aid to support the Papacy.
All this _in fact_ occurred in the decline of the Roman power after
the time of Constantine, and its final apparent extinction, as if
“wounded to death,” in the exile of the last of the emperors, the son
of Orestes, who assumed the names of Romulus and Augustus, names which
were corrupted, the former by the Greeks into _Momyllus_, and the
latter by the Latins “into the contemptible diminutive _Augustulus_.”
See Gibbon ii. 381. Under him the empire ceased, until it was revived
in the days of Charlemagne. In the empire which then sprung up, and
which owed much of its influence to the sustaining aid of the Papacy,
we discern the “image” of the former Roman power; the prolongation of
the Roman ascendency over the world. On the exile of the feeble son of
Orestes (A.D. 476), the government passed into the hands of Odoacer,
“the first barbarian who reigned in Italy” (Gibbon); and then the
authority was divided among the sovereignties which sprang up after
the conquests of the barbarians, until the “empire” was again restored
in the time and the person of Charlemagne. See Gibbon, iii. 344, seq.
¶ _Which had the wound by a sword, and did live._ Which had a wound
that was naturally fatal, but whose fatal consequences were prevented
by the intervention of another power. See Notes on ver. 3. That is,
according to the explanation given above, the Roman imperial power
was “wounded with a fatal wound” by the invasions of the northern
hordes――the sword of the conquerors. Its power, however, was restored
by the Papacy, giving life to that which _resembled_ essentially the
Roman civil jurisdiction――the “image” of the former beast; and that
power, thus restored, asserted its dominion again, as the prolonged
Roman dominion――the fourth kingdom of Daniel (see Notes on Dan.
vii. 19, seq.)――over the world.
15 And he had power to give life[420] unto the image of the
beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and
cause that as many as would not [421]worship the image of the
beast should be killed.
{330} 15. _And he had power to give life unto the image of the
beast._ That is, that image of the beast would be naturally powerless,
or would have no life in itself. The second beast, however, had power
to impart life to it, so that it would be invested with authority, and
would exercise that authority in the manner specified. If this refers,
as is supposed, to the Roman civil power――the power of the empire
restored――it would find a fulfilment in some act of the Papacy by which
the empire that resembled in the extent of its jurisdiction, and in its
general character, the former Roman empire, received some vivifying
impulse, or was invested with new power. That is, it would have power
conferred on it through the Papacy which it would not have in itself,
and which would confirm its jurisdiction. How far events actually
occurred corresponding with this, will be considered in the Notes at
the close of this verse. ¶ _That the image of the beast should both
speak._ Should give signs of life; should issue authoritative commands.
The _speaking_ here referred to pertains to that which is immediately
specified, in issuing a command that they who “would not worship the
image of the beast should be killed.” ¶ _And cause that as many as
would not worship the image of the beast._ Would not honour it, or
acknowledge its authority. The “worship” here referred to is _civil_,
not _religious_ homage. See Notes on ver. 4. The meaning is, that what
is here called the “image of the beast” had power given it, by its
connection with the second “beast,” to set up its jurisdiction over
men, and to secure their allegiance on pain of death. The power by
which this was done was derived from the second beast; the obedience
and homage demanded was of the most entire and submissive character;
the nature of the government was in a high degree arbitrary; and the
penalty enforced for refusing this homage was death. The _facts_ that
we are to look for in the fulfilment of this are, (1) that the Roman
imperial power was about to expire――as if wounded to death by the sword;
(2) that this was revived in the form of what is here called the “image
of the beast”――that is, in a form closely resembling the former power;
(3) that this was done by the agency of the Papal power, represented
by the second beast; (4) that the effect of this was to set up over
men a wide-extended secular jurisdiction, of a most arbitrary and
absolute kind, where the penalty of disobedience to its laws was death,
and where the infliction of this was, in fact, to be traced to the
influence of the second beast――that is, the Papal spiritual power. The
question now is, whether _facts_ occurred that corresponded with this
emblematic representation. Now, as to the leading fact, the decline
of the Roman imperial power――the fatal wound inflicted on that by the
“sword”――there can be no doubt. In the time of “Augustulus,” as above
stated, it had become practically extinct――“wounded as it were to
death,” and _so_ wounded that it would never have been revived again
had it not been for some foreign influence. It is true also, that, when
the Papacy arose, the necessity was felt of allying itself with some
wide-extended civil or secular dominion, that might be under its own
control, and that would maintain its spiritual authority. It is true,
also, that the empire was revived――the very “image” or copy, so far
as it could be, of the former Roman power, in the time of Charlemagne,
and that the power which was wielded in what was called the “empire,”
was that which was, in a great measure, derived from the Papacy, and
was designed to sustain the Papacy, and was actually employed for that
purpose. These are the main facts, I suppose, which are here referred
to, and a few extracts from Mr. Gibbon will show with what propriety
and accuracy the symbols were employed were used, on the supposition
that this was the designed reference. (a) The rise, or restoration
of this imperial power in the time and the person of Charlemagne.
Mr. Gibbon says (iii. 342), “It was after the Nicene synod, and under
the reign of the pious Irene, that the popes consummated the separation
of Rome and Italy [from the Eastern empire] _by the translation of the
empire_ to the less orthodox Charlemagne. They were compelled to choose
between the rival nations; religion was not the sole motive of their
choice; and while they dissembled the failings of their friends, they
beheld with reluctance and suspicion the Catholic virtues of their
foes. The difference of language and manners had perpetuated the enmity
of the two capitals [Rome and Constantinople]; and they were alienated
from each other by the hostile opposition of seventy {331} years.
In that schism the Romans had tasted of freedom, and the popes of
sovereignty; their submission would have exposed them to the revenge of
a jealous tyrant, and the revolution of Italy had betrayed the impotence
as well as the tyranny of the Byzantine court.” Mr. Gibbon then proceeds
to state reasons why _Charlemagne_ was selected as the one who was to
be placed at the head of the revived imperial power, and then adds
(p. 343), “The title of patrician was below the merit and greatness of
Charlemagne; and _it was only by reviving the Western empire_ that they
could pay their obligations, or secure their establishment. By this
decisive measure they would finally eradicate the claims of the Greeks;
from the debasement of a provincial town the majesty of Rome would be
restored; the Latin Christians would be united, under a supreme head,
in their ancient metropolis; _and the conquerors of the West would
receive their crown from the successors of St. Peter. The Roman church
would acquire a zealous and respectable advocate_; and under the shadow
of the Carlovingian power, the bishop might exercise, with honour and
safety, the government of the city.” All this seems as if it were a
_designed_ commentary on such expressions as these: “And he exerciseth
all the power of the first beast, and causeth the earth and them
which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was
healed,” “saying to them that dwell on the earth that they should make
an image to the beast which had the wound by a sword, and did live; and
he had power to give life unto the image of the beast,” &c. (b) Its
extent. It is said (ver. 12), “And he exerciseth all the power of the
first beast, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to
worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.” Comp. ver.
14, 15. That is, the _extent_ of the jurisdiction of the revived power,
or the restored empire, would be as great as it was before the wound
was inflicted. Of the _extent_ of the restored empire under Charlemagne,
Mr. Gibbon has given a full account, iii. pp. 546‒549. The passage is
too long to be copied here in full, and a summary of it only can be
given. He says, “The empire was not unworthy of its title; and some
of the fairest kingdoms of Europe were the patrimony or conquest of a
prince who reigned at the same time in France, Spain, Italy, Germany,
and Hungary. I. The Roman province of Gaul had been transformed into
the name and monarchy of FRANCE, &c. II. The Saracens had been expelled
from France by the grandfather and father of Charlemagne, but they
still possessed the greatest part of Spain, from the rock of Gibraltar
to the Pyrenees. Amidst their civil divisions, an Arabian emir of
Saragossa implored his protection in the diet of Paderborn. Charlemagne
undertook the expedition, restored the emir, and, without distinction
of faith, impartially crushed the resistance of the Christians, and
rewarded the obedience and service of the Mohammedans. In his absence
he instituted the _Spanish March_, which extended from the Pyrenees to
the river Ebro: Barcelona was the residence of the French governor; he
possessed the counties of _Rousillon_ and _Catalonia_; and the infant
kingdoms of _Navarre_ and _Aragon_ were subject to his jurisdiction.
III. As king of the Lombards, and patrician of Rome, he reigned over
the greatest part of ITALY, a tract of a thousand miles from the
Alps to the borders of Calabria, &c. IV. Charlemagne was the first
who united GERMANY under the same sceptre, &c. V. He retaliated on
the Avars, or Huns of Pannonia, the same calamities which they had
inflicted on the nations: the royal residence of the Chagan was left
desolate and unknown; and the treasures, the rapine of two hundred and
fifty years, enriched the victorious troops, or decorated the churches
of Italy and Gaul.” “If we retrace the outlines of the geographical
picture,” continues Mr. Gibbon, “it will be seen that the empire of
the Franks extended, between east and west, from the Ebro to the Elbe
or Vistula; between the north and south, from the duchy of Beneventum
to the river Eyder, the perpetual boundary of Germany and Denmark.
Two-thirds of the Western empire of Rome were subject to Charlemagne,
and the deficiency was amply supplied by his command of the
inaccessible or invincible nations of Germany.” (c) The dependence of
this civil or revived secular power on the Papacy. “His deadly wound
was healed.” “And caused the earth to worship the first beast.” “Saying
to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the
beast.” “He had power to give life unto the image of the beast.” Thus
Mr. Gibbon {332} (iii. 343) says, “From the debasement of a provincial
town, the majesty of Rome would be restored; the Latin Christians would
be united, under a supreme head, in their ancient metropolis; _and the
conquerors of the West would receive their crown from the successors
of St. Peter_.” And again (iii. 344) he says, “On the festival of
Christmas, the last year of the eighth century, Charlemagne appeared
in the church of St. Peter; and, to gratify the vanity of Rome, he
had exchanged the simple dress of his country for the habit of a
patrician. After the celebration of the holy mysteries, Leo _suddenly
placed a precious crown on his head_, and the dome resounded with the
acclamations of the people, ‘Long life and victory to Charles, the most
pious Augustus, _crowned by God the great and pacific emperor of the
Romans_!’ The head and body of Charlemagne were consecrated by the
royal unction; his coronation oath represents a promise to maintain
the faith and privileges of the church; and the first-fruits are
paid in rich offerings to the shrine of the apostle. In his familiar
conversation the emperor protested his ignorance of the intentions of
Leo, which he would have disappointed by his absence on that memorable
day. But the preparations of the ceremony must have disclosed the
secret; and the journey of Charlemagne reveals his knowledge and
expectation; he had acknowledged that the imperial title was the object
of his ambition, and a Roman senate had pronounced that it was the
only adequate reward of his merit and services.” So again (iii. 350),
Mr. Gibbon, speaking of the conquests of Otho (A.D. 962), and of his
victorious march over the Alps, and his subjugation of Italy, says,
“From that memorable era, two maxims of public jurisprudence were
introduced by force and ratified by time. I. That the prince who was
elected in the German diet, acquired from that instant the subject
kingdoms of Italy and Rome. II. But that he might not legally assume
the titles of emperor and Augustus, _till he had received the crown
from the hands of the Roman Pontiff_.” In connection with these
quotations from Mr. Gibbon, we may add, from Sigonius, the oath which
the emperor took on the occasion of his coronation: “I, the Emperor, do
engage and promise, in the name of Christ, before God and the blessed
apostle Peter, that I will be a protector and defender of this holy
church of Rome, in all things wherein I can be useful to it, so far as
divine assistance shall enable me, and so far as my knowledge and power
can reach” (quoted by Professor Bush, _Hieroph._ Nov. 1842, p. 141). We
learn, also, from the biographers of Charlemagne that a commemorative
coin was struck at Rome under his reign, bearing this inscription:
“Renovatio Imperii Romani”――“_Revival of the Roman Empire_” (_Ibid._).
These quotations, whose authority will not be questioned, and whose
authors will not be suspected of having had any design to illustrate
these passages in the Apocalypse, will serve to confirm what is said
in the Notes of the decline and restoration of the Roman secular power;
of its dependence on the Papacy to give it life and vigour; and of
the fact that it was designed to sustain the Papacy, and to perpetuate
the power of Rome. It needs only to be added, that down to the time
of Charles the Fifth――the period of the Reformation――nothing was more
remarkable in history than the readiness of this restored secular
power to sustain the Papacy and to carry out its designs; or than the
readiness of the Papacy to sustain an absolute civil despotism, and to
make the world subject to it by suppressing all attempts in favour of
civil liberty.
16 And he caused all, both small and great, rich and poor,
free and bond, to [422]receive a mark in their right hand, or
in their foreheads: