Others argue, however, that the book of Revelation is an allegory of the battle between good and evil--in which the Beast is the personification of evil, not a historical figure or power structure.

It seems that most would-be interpreters start with what they see on the world scene and then attempt to read that into the Bible. For example, many Bible prophecy commentators in the 1950s and 60s identified the "scarlet beast" of Revelation as the Communist Soviet empire. A few years ago it was Saddam Hussein. Today, many Fundamentalist commentators identify the Beast as the "New World Order" or the United Nations. There seem to be just about as many interpretations as there are interpreters!

But remember, the Bible interprets its own symbols. Just what does Scripture reveal about the Beast? Does secular history agree?

The Beast from the Sea

Near the end of the first century A.D., the now-elderly Apostle John gazed out over the Mediterranean Sea across the sandy shore of the Isle of Patmos. As dark clouds lowered and the sea seemed to churn, a very strange creature appeared to rise up out of the water. It had the body of a leopard, the mouth of a lion and the feet of a bear. It thus embodied the strongest characteristics of the first three creatures Daniel had seen in his visionrecordedinDaniel7. However, the Beast that John saw had seven heads and ten horns (Rev. 13:1-2). We are told that the "dragon" gave this Beast its power and authority. Finally, we are told that one of the creature's heads was wounded to death. But this fatal wound was healed and the Beast continued for 42 months (vv. 2-5).

This is strikingly similar to the scenedescribedinDaniel7.In Daniel's vision, remember, four creatures--a lion, a bear, a four-headed leopard and another terrible creature with ten horns--emerge from a dark, stormy sea (vv. 1-7). These four beasts have a sum total of seven heads. The creatures that Daniel saw clearly represented the succession of empires from Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon to Media-Persia, then to Alexander's Hellenistic Empire (which split four ways after his death) and finally to the Roman Empire. It is from the fourth creature, symbolizing Rome--the seventh head--that the "ten horns" arise.

Notice the similarity of the two accounts. In each case there are seven heads. In Revelation 13, John saw one creature, not four distinct ones as Daniel did. But both prophets saw seven heads and ten horns and both saw likenesses of a lion, a bear, a leopard and a terrible creature. So with all these similarities, why are there also differences in the visions?

When Daniel received his vision, virtually all of what he saw was yet future. Babylon, symbolized by a lion, was on the scene, but the others were yet to come. When John wrote, more than 600 years later, Babylon, Persia and Greece had all been swallowed up by Rome. Where Daniel focused upon four empires, John saw one continuous system that had begun with Babylon. He saw the various empires as merely different heads of the same creature--the seven heads of prophetic "Babylon." From Daniel's vision, we know the system continues until the return of Christ, when the saints will take over and possess the kingdom (Dan. 7:18).

So just what is all this symbolism? Once again, the Bible interprets its own symbols. As we've seen, Daniel 7:23 makes plain that the seven heads among the four creatures represent kingdoms. Similarly, the seven heads of the scarlet Beast of Revelation 17 are identified as "seven mountains" or "seven kings" (vv. 9-10). And according to Daniel 7:24 and Revelation 17:12, horns too are symbolic of kings or kingdoms. In prophecy, horns are used to represent power or ruling authority. So it is clear that the heads and the horns of Revelation 13 represent kings or kingdoms. Supporting this conclusion, John saw each of these horns bearing a crown (v. 1).

The dragon, who empowers this system, is plainly identified in Revelation 12:9: "the great dragon... [is] that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan." Satan himself is symbolically pictured as a "great, fiery red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems [royal crowns] on his heads" (v. 3). Here the heads and horns of prophetic Babylon are seen as springing from the Devil himself, the real "ruler of this world" (John 12:31; 14:30). It is perhaps significant that, around the time of its greatest extent, the Roman Empire adopted the red or purple dragon as one of its main military emblems--and it eventually became the ceremonial standard of the later East Roman emperors!

What of the head John saw that was "wounded to death" and then healed? Which head was it? Remember, of the Beast's seven heads described in Revelation 13, only the final one, the Roman Empire, was still thriving in John's day. The previous six heads--Babylon, Persia and the four Hellenistic kingdoms--had already passed into history at the time of his writing. None of them had come back to life. Nor could they after the Roman Empire of John's day. Otherwise, there would be yet another humanly conceived, world-ruling empire--contrary to the succession outlined in the book of Daniel. So the Roman Empire was the head that would be fatally wounded and later come back to life for 42 prophetic "months." As we will see, this did in fact happen.

For centuries, the date used as the line of demarcation between ancient and medieval history has been A.D. 476. This date, the traditional "fall" of the Roman Empire, marks the conquest of Rome by "barbarians" from the north and the murder of the last emperor of the West, Romulus Augustulus. In the next chapter, we will examine this empire's subsequent revival--the "healing" of the deadly wound.

But first, let's notice another matter about the Beast's seven heads, described in both Daniel 7 and Revelation 13. Daniel explains that the ten horns (i.e. kings or kingdoms, 7:24) spring from the last head--Rome. So ten kings or kingdoms were to come from the Roman Empire. But would they be contemporaneous or sequential?

Daniel tells us that "there was another horn, a little one, coming up among [the ten horns], before whom three of the first horns were plucked out by the roots" (v. 8)--i.e. the first three kingdoms "fell" before the little horn, "whose appearance was greater than his fellows" (v. 20). Verse 24 says he would be "different" from the other kings and would "subdue three kings." What does this mean? Apparently the ten horns are successive kingdoms that come from the Roman system, the first three of which are removed at the behest of a comparatively smaller, yet in some ways greater, power structure emerging from Rome. Let's look at Roman history to see the fulfillment of this prophecy!

The Story of the First Three Horns

In A.D. 286, Emperor Diocletian divided the Roman Empire into West and East for administrative purposes. The Western Empire retained Rome as capital while the Eastern Empire would come to be headquartered at the city of Byzantium. Emperor Constantine the Great dedicated it in 326 as New Rome, but those after him called it Constantinople. It is today the city of Istanbul, Turkey. The two divisions, usually having separate emperors, were symbolized by the two "legs" described in Daniel 2. At times, a single emperor would reign over both until 395, when the separation became permanent. After this, serious trouble lay ahead for the Western leg. By the 400s, the Empire in the West was in its death throes. There had been barbarian incursions on the frontiers for years, until finally Rome itself was sacked and looted for the first time in eight centuries! This was accomplished by the Visigoths under Alaric in 409.

As the Roman Empire in the West collapsed, the leaders of three groups of barbarian invaders--the Vandals, the Heruli and the Ostrogoths--sought to succeed the Western emperors. As we shall see, each barbarian group sought and received official recognition of its kingdom from the emperor in the East as a continuation of legitimate Roman government in the West. There was another emerging ruler in the West, however, who eventually effected their overthrow and ouster.

This leading figure was the bishop of Rome--known now as the pope. (This title of papa, meaning "father," had been held by many bishops, though, and would not exclusively apply to the bishop of Rome until the 800s.) While the Western emperors grew weaker, he conversely emerged with increased power and stature. This involved not only greater religious power over the professing Christian community, but increased civil and political power as well. But how did a "Christian" leader come to dominate a pagan empire?

Since the days of the first Caesars, the state pagan religion was no longer focused on the worship of Jupiter and the old Roman gods. It centered, instead, on worship of the emperor as a god on earth. The title of the high priest of Jupiter, Pontifex Maximus ("supreme bridge builder" between men and the gods), was conferred on Julius Caesar and later Augustus--from which point it was borne by the Roman emperors. Conquered societies were allowed to practice their own religions as long as they also worshipped the emperor. This naturally posed a problem for adherents of Judaism and Christianity, who recognized only the one Creator God.

Consequently, the Jewish state was destroyed by the Romans (A.D. 66-70). And for 250 years, all who were called Christians faced severe persecution. Yet despite that, their religion continued to grow.

Finally Constantine the Great became the first emperor to profess Christianity in 312. The next year, he issued the Edict of Milan, granting freedom of religion to Christians. Paganism was still tolerated, but Constantine encouraged everyone to become Christian. The emperor gave Rome's pope the lavish Lateran Palace and had him clad in imperial raiment and crowned as an earthly ruler. Government offices were filled with Christians, and the church grew in power--allied with the Empire!

Constantine saw the growing religion of Christianity as a way to unify the various peoples of the Empire. But this first required unity within the various sects of nominal Christianity itself. In 321, he upheld the Roman Church's idea of keeping "the venerable day of the sun" (Sunday) instead of the seventh-day Sabbath that Christ and the original apostles had kept (more on this later). In 324, Constantine declared Christianity the official religion of the Empire. The next year, he convened the famous Council of Nicea to settle some raging doctrinal controversies.

One dispute concerned when to keep the Christian Passover--either the specific Jewish date that Christ and the apostles had observed or the day the Roman Church kept, later called Easter Sunday. The Council ruled in favor of Easter--those who persisted in the original practice were subsequently executed (as seventh-day Sabbath keepers would also be later). Thus the formerly persecuted had now become the persecutors!

Another dispute, the Arian controversy, was about the nature of God. Arius, a priest in Egypt, had been teaching that Christ was a created being, subordinate to the Father. Roman Catholicism favored the Trinity--the idea of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as three coeternal and coequal Persons in one God. (For the amazing truth on this subject, write for our free booklet, The God You Can Know!) The Trinity was adopted as official "orthodox" doctrine by the Council. Yet Arianism, though now outlawed, persisted in many regions. In fact, when invading barbarians would convert to Christianity, it was often to Arianism.

In 337, Constantine himself finally received a deathbed baptism. Despite a short-lived attempt to return to paganism by his nephew Julian, Christianity grew in power until, during the reign of Theodosius the Great, paganism was outlawed and conversion to Christianity became mandatory. Moreover, Theodosius made Roman Catholicism the official religion of the entire Empire. In fact, prior to his ruling a united Empire--when he was emperor of only the East--he and Gratian, his co-emperor in the West, both rejected their pagan priestly title of Pontifex Maximus. They did so in deference to the Catholic Church, whose bishop of Rome now went by that same title! This is why the pope, even today, is called the pontiff.

Of course, the fall of Rome in the West was a severe blow to the power of the papacy. The invading Vandals, Heruli and Ostrogoths professed Christianity, but it was the Arian form. Their "unorthodoxy" was viewed by Roman Catholics as a threat to the religious unity of the West under the bishop of Rome.

Kingdom of the Vandals

The Vandals invaded North Africa in 429, and several years of fighting with Rome ensued. But through a treaty in 435, these barbarians were "recognized" by the Romans as the legitimate continuation of the Empire in North Africa (cf. Langer, p. 135). Still not satisfied, the Vandals sought to expand their power as Roman successors. In 455 they even pillaged the city of Rome itself--so thoroughly that, to this day, the term "vandal" describes anyone who maliciously defaces the property of others. The Vandals left Rome with the Western emperor still on the throne--but they continued to exercise power throughout Roman North Africa. Ultimately, however, they were uprooted. "In Africa the Vandals were hated as Arians [by the Catholics]... but their power was not broken until the 533-548 Vandalic Wars of [East Roman Emperor] Justinian" (p. 159). In 533, Justinian would dispatch his brilliant general, Belisarius, with 500 transport ships and 92 warships to rid Africa of the Vandals. But first, two more kingdoms would be established in Italy.

Herulian Kingdom of Italy Under Odoacer

In 476, about 20 years after the Vandals sacked Rome, the Heruli under Odoacer (or Odovacar) deposed the last West Roman emperor, Romulus Augustulus. This official end of the Western imperial monarchy--the end of the West Roman Empire--was Rome's "deadly wound." Odoacer was "recognized" by Eastern Emperor Zeno in Constantinople as the legitimate continuation of Roman government in Italy (cf. p. 135). But he too was an Arian--a fact greatly resented by the Roman pope, who appealed to Zeno. So Zeno sent Theodoric, the leader of the barbarian Ostrogoths, as his "agent" to drive out the Heruli in 488 (p. 135). "The orthodox bishops of Italy, disliking Odoacer's Arianism, supported the Arian invader [Theodoric] as representing an almost orthodox emperor. With their help Theodoric broke Odoacer's sturdy resistance in five years of war, and persuaded him to a compromise peace [in 493]. He invited Odoacer and his son to dine with him in Ravenna, fed them generously, and slew them with his own hand" (Will Durant, The Story of Civilization, vol. 4, pp. 97-98). Thus, the Heruli were uprooted.

Kingdom of the Ostrogoths

Ostrogothic rule of Italy was accepted for a while as a necessary evil in getting rid of the Heruli. For Theodoric "maintained a formal subordination to Byzantium.... He accepted the laws and institutions of the Late Western Empire.... [And] though an Arian, [he] protected the orthodox Church in her property and worship" (p. 98). But over time, the Arian Ostrogoths became increasingly unpopular with Rome's pope and the Catholic population. "The catholics were attached to [East Emperor Justinian], who... trod the narrow path of inflexible and intolerant orthodoxy" (Edward Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. 2, p. 477). And in 535, during Justinian's Vandalic Wars (already mentioned), the Byzantine forces led by Belisarius arrived in Italy to drive out the Ostrogoths. The Roman population "hailed Belisarius as a liberator, the clergy welcomed him as a Trinitarian" (Durant, p. 109). This began the Gothic Wars, which ended 18 years later when Justinian's troops finally expelled the remaining Ostrogoths from Italy.

Thus ended the "transition age," as it's called by historian Philip Van Ness Myers (Ancient History, 1904, p. 571). The first three "horns" had been plucked up by Roman Catholic sanction. So the bishop of Rome and the universal church he heads stand clearly identified as the little horn with "eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking pompous words" (Dan. 7:8). But consider what this means. Daniel saw the little horn "making war against the saints [true Christians], and prevailing against them" (v. 21). And the prophet was told in his dream, concerning this horn, "He shall speak pompous words against the Most High, shall persecute the saints of the Most High, and shall intend to change times and law" (v. 25).

But how can this be? Isn't the Roman Catholic Church the "mother church" of Christianity? Why is the papacy portrayed as acting against God, His people and His "times and law"? These questions will be answered in due course. Suffice it to say for now, the Roman Church has done these things--as we will see.

Now with the three Arian kingdoms uprooted, the stage was set for the first true revival of the Roman Empire in the West in 554. Unlike the first three of the ten horns, the last seven horns or Roman revivals would all involve the blessing of the Roman pope--just as in the Late Roman Empire itself. He would be an intimate player in the various continuations of the empire of ancient Rome in the West.

Copyright ©2000 Living Church of God ®All Rights Reserved.
.