The Beast: Jewish or Roman?
By Ed Stevens
(Search The Scriptures, February 1985) All Rights Reserved.
Introduction
We are dealing with the character known as "the Beast" in the book of Revelation.
Let me suggest, if you are not familiar with this subject, that you read the following
passages before going on: Rev. 11, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20; 2 Thess. 2; 1 John 2, 3, 4, 5;
and Matthew 24 (esp. vss. 23, 24).
The identity of "The Beast" has always intrigued theologians. Legions of theories have
been conjured up to excite the imagination. This article will examine some of them. It
is not our purpose here to identify specifically who the Beast is, but rather to clarify
his general nature (i.e. whether he is a Jewish Beast or a Roman one). If we can
determine that, maybe his specific identity will be easier to pinpoint. We want to show
why the Beast cannot be Roman and why it must be Jewish in character.
The whole question as to the nature of the Beast (Jewish or Roman) and his identity is
related closely to the date of the book of Revelation. This article assumes that the
book of Revelation was written before the destruction of Jerusalem (AD 70).
Past Theories
Some have identified the Beast as being an individual such as the Pope, Martin
Luther, John Calvin, William of Orange or Hitler. Others have seen the Beast more as
a group or movement of people, such as the apostate Roman Church, the Protestants,
the Roman Empire (or the Common Market), the Roman persecuting power of the
first century, or some other great world-power that will rise up to persecute
Christians. Some of the more serious attempts have been to identify the Beast as
Nero, based on the "666" number in Revelation 13. Another person (Spitta) urged a
first-century application to the Biblical character of Simon Magus (Acts 8). Zullig
interpreted the Beast as being the Herodian dynasty of rulers. J. S. Russell (in his
book, The Parousia) suggests the Roman Procurators (from AD 44-66) and Nero.
Once when walking in New York City, I was handed a sheet which stated that
Rockefeller was the Antichrist! I've heard similar rumors about Henry Kissenger!
Every famous person who was feared or hated was someone's "Beast!" This really
illustrates how fear and hate (and other emotions) can affect one's exegesis!
An Alternative
Very few have mustered the courage to suggest a Jewish fulfillment of these "beastly"
passages. Most modern interpreters (who are Amillennial) say the Beast is Rome. So,
the thesis of a Jewish Beast will probably not be easily accepted.
I want to preface our study with some comments taken from Dr. Cornelius
Vanderwaal's commentary on First John, where he deals with the antichrists: (from his
commentary set entitled, Search The Scriptures, vol. 10, pp. 60,61) --
"John, who may have been on the island of Patmos when he wrote this
letter, now declares that things have gone so far that many antichrists
have already appeared. This indicates that it is the 'last hour' (2:18).
Many false prophets have gone out in 'the world' (4:1), that is, the
apostate Jewish world. (emphasis mine, ees). John's words make it clear
that we must not think of the 'antichrist' in connection with a misty future.
When John reports the vision of the Beast in the book of Revelation, he
is not telling us about a future political antichrist with the reins of world
government in his hands; he is indicating that some beastly devil will arise
out of Israel to attack the church. 2 Thessalonians 2 follows the same
line of thought. In 3:9, John distinguishes sharply between the seed of
God and the children of the devil (see John 8:44)."
Who Were The Serpents?
The "Dragon" was the source of power and authority for the Beast. He is called "the
Serpent" and "the Devil" also. He is clearly identified as "Satan" himself (Rev. 12:9,
20:2). Were the Romans ever called "children of the devil"? The Jews were: (John
8:44; Acts 13:10; 1 John 3:10)! The Jews were also called "serpents" and "offspring
of vipers" (Matt. 23:33)! And that same verse (Matt. 23:33) condemns them to a
fiery end similar to the end of the Beast and his followers (Rev. 19:19-21)!
Two Beasts!
There are actually two "Beasts" mentioned in Revelation (ch. 13). The second of
these is later identified as the "False Prophet" (cf. Rev. 13:11-14; 16:13 and 19:20).
Throughout the Old and New Testaments the words "false prophet" are continually
used to denote Jewish characters. It would be strange indeed to speak of a Roman
Beast with such terminology. This is another indication that the Beast and those he
associates with are Jewish in character.
The Beast Revived
If the Beast is a Roman Emperor (such as Nero or Domitian), we are going to have to
deal with the lack of historical evidence for his resurrection. Rev. 13:2, 12, 14 make it
clear that the Beast was killed with the sword but came back to life. Some who favor
the idea that Nero is under consideration here recall the rumor that was circulated
after his death that he really hadn't died but that he was over in Parthia gathering an
army to come back to Rome and take over. There is, of course, historical evidence
that such a rumor was circulated in the first century, but there is not the slightest
evidence that the rumor was true, and Nero never reappeared. This theory (called the
"Nero Redivivus" theory) has pretty well been abandoned by most who consider
John's account in Revelation to be inspired. How could an inspired Apostle entertain
such speculative notions which never did materialize? Neither Nero nor Domitian nor
any other Roman emperor came back to life again. This would certainly militate
against the Beast being Roman. And it can't be the Roman persecuting power that
was revived, since the Roman persecution dragged on for several more centuries, and
whatever persecution this is, was supposed to end shortly after the book was written
(see Rev. 1:1-3; 22:6,10). This is interesting, because the Jewish persecution did
come to a screeching halt shortly after the book was written! Before its end, the
Jewish cause got a couple of extra lives: one in AD 66 when Cestius Gallus (the
Roman general) withdrew his forces and suffered a humiliating defeat at the pass of
Beth Horon. A second chance for their religion came when Yochanan Ben Zakkai
pretended dead and escaped (in a coffin) out of Jerusalem to the Romans, where he
was allowed by Titus to go to Yavneh and continue his teaching of the Law (where it
continued until the destruction of Jerusalem in Hadrian's day (AD 135).
The Song of Moses
To anyone familiar with the Law of Moses and Jewish tradition, Rev. 15:2,3 will have
meaning. It says that those martyrs "who had come off victorious from the Beast"
were singing "the Song of Moses." Deuteronomy 32:1-43 is the song that John has
reference to. The Jews were to sing this song to remind themselves of what would
befall them "in the latter days" (Deut. 31:29). the song talks about "the end" of the
Jews (Deut. 32:20), and details their destruction by a consuming fire (Deut. 32:22),
"famine" (32:24), "plague" (32:24) and "bitter destruction" (32:24). God calls them a
"perverse generation" (32:5,20), and says He will "render vengeance" upon them and
"vindicate His people" (32:41 and 32:36 respectively). Why would Christian martyrs
of the first century be singing this song about the Romans, when the song had
reference to the Jews? It wouldn't make much sense. But if it was Jews who were
killing them (like the book of Acts shows), then they had every
reason to be singing the Song of Moses! It was the Jews who were the real threat to
the Christians! No one else knew better how to attack the church than the Jews. Paul
said that his intention as a former persecutor was not just to debate the Christians and
prove they were wrong. He was out to "destroy" them (Gal. 1:13,23; 1 Tim. 1:13;
Acts 8:3; 9:21)! It was a Jewish beast who was persecuting and killing these
Christians, and these martyrs were singing the Song of Moses to remind their Jewish
persecutors of what was coming upon them! Aren't these the same martyrs who cried
out earlier, "How long, Or Lord, wilt Thou refrain from judging and avenging our
blood" (Rev. 6:10)? Who was it who had all the "blood of the righteous" martyrs
imputed against them - Jews or Romans? These Christians who had kept their faith in
Jesus in spite of the intense persecution by the Jews were the ones "who had come off
victorious from the Beast." (See Matt. 23:35 and Luke 13:33)! This passage (Rev.
15:2,3) points very clearly to a Jewish beast.
Gnawed Tongues and Wild Beasts
In Rev. 16:10,11, it says that the people in the Beast's kingdom "gnawed their
tongues because of pain." They had great sores on their bodies along with other
plagues that had been poured out on them. The question is, if this is Rome or a
Roman beast of some kind, when were they ever in such a miserable mess? John
makes it clear that these events were to happen soon after the book was written
(Rev. 1:1,3; 22:6,10). When was Nero or Domitian's kingdom thrust into such dire
straights? We know from Josephus when the Jews literally gnawed their tongues for
lack of food during the siege of AD 70! And, it is interesting that Josephus even calls
the Jewish Zealot forces a "wild beast" in several places (Wars V.1.1; IV.7.4; IV.9.8;
V.2.5)! This doesn't fit the Romans at all, but it does fit the Jews very well! This point
is emphasized even more by the fact that the whole context of the Song of Moses is
full of references to "beasts," "serpents," and "dragons" (Lev. 26; Deut. 28-32; esp.
Deut. 32:24,33).
The Beast Was Seized
The real clincher to the whole story is found in Revelation 19:11-21, where it says the
Beast was "seized and "thrown alive into the lake of fire" (vs. 20). Keep in mind that
these events were to happen soon after Revelation was written (Rev. 1:1,3; 22:6,10).
Was Nero or Domitian seized and thrown into the Lake of Fire shortly after
Revelation was written? Did Rome make war against Jesus and His angelic hosts and
get defeated shortly after the book was written (Rev. 19:19)? Did the Roman armies
get "killed with the sword" and become a feast for all the vultures, shortly after
Revelation was written (19:21)? The Roman persecution did not end shortly after the
writing of Revelation, but the Jewish one did. Whoever the Beast is, he is soundly
defeated here, his persecution against the church is crushed and his armies become
plunder for the birds of prey to eat. Rome didn't fall until the Fifth Century, and that's
a long time after Revelation was written! This sounds more like a Jewish Beast trying
to persecute and destroy the church, but finally getting itself destroyed! The Romans
were the vultures of this text (Rev. 19:21) who circled outside the Jewish walls
watching the Jewish factions kill each other, waiting until they wore themselves out
enough to become easy prey. This soon happened (in AD 70) and Jews glutted the
world slave market. The Roman armies weren't seized and "killed with the sword" in
AD 70, nor in AD 96 either. Therefore, the Beast here (Rev. 19:19-21 cannot be a
Roman one. It had to be Jewish!
|
