Notes on the New Testament, Explanatory and Practical: Revelation

by Albert Barnes

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 anorigin, 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 truethat 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,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 andtwo 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; andall 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.