05-02-2009, 12:55 PM
Hi Folks
Can we conclusively prove the identity of the two wild beasts in Revelation? I believe we can, but it does mean letting go of certain assumptions.
Accepting The Angel's Explanation
The symbols used in Revelation are often explained to us. For example, in chapter 1 John sees seven lampstands. Jesus later tells us:
"As for the mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand, and the seven golden lampstands, the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches." (1:20)
This is a pattern we should follow for the rest of Revelation. It is the pattern Jesus sets. The "seven lampstands" are the symbol (not to be taken literally), the "seven churches" are the meaning of the symbol, to be taken literally. In this case, we know which 7 churches are being referred to: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea... literal congregations.
So when we are given this in Revelation, i.e X means (or is) Y, then we should follow the pattern set here by Jesus, namely X is the non-literal symbol, and Y is its literal meaning, i.e. what the symbol stands for.
Time And Context
Second, the Revelation speaks of events that have already happened, are in existence at present, or have not yet happened, but we must ask an important question - from whose viewpoint?
For example, in reference to the wild beast, John is told that five kings have fallen, one is, the other has not yet arrived.
Clearly, in order to make any sense of this, we need to put these time references from John's point of view.
This is the big mistake Nathan Knorr (of the WTS) made, when coming up with his interpretation for the United Nations. The wild beast's "was, but is not, and yet is about to ascend" was seen from the viewpoint of World War II... but why would the angel be talking about the time period Nathan Knorr happened to be living through, and not John's time?
To be consisent, we need to look at all time perspectives in the prophetic part of the narrative from John's point of view who received the Revelation - not ours, or Nathan Knorrs or anybody else's.
Symbols Used In Similar Prior Prophecies
Third, we should bear in mind that the symbols in Revelation do not occur in a vacuum, but occur in the context of the rest of the Bible.
In fact, Daniel had a vision very similar to John's, in which he saw four wild beasts coming up out of the sea. We should therefore not discard the symbology used by these previous prophets, since they were ultimately are inspired by the same Source.
In fact, I would even go so far as to say that Daniel's vision holds one of the keys to understanding John's wild beasts, as we'll discuss.
An Unsealed Book
Lastly, we should remember that Daniel's final vision (the one in Daniel 11, 12) was sealed, because it was a vision that would not be unlocked until "the time of the end", which was many days in Daniel's future. Hence, "the words are made secret and sealed up until the time of the end."
However, Revelation was an unsealed scroll. The angel tells John: "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this scroll, for the appointed time is near." (Rev 22:10)
Clearly then, Revelation was meant to be understood and acted upon by his immediate audience, unlike Daniel's final vision. It is an unsealed book, despite using symbols. This is important to keep in mind.
Examining The First Wild Beast In Chapter 13
Chapter 13 open in a manner very similar to the Daniel 7 vision, in that John sees a wild beast arising from the sea.
John also borrows from the symbology of Daniel 7 for this wild beast - it has "ten horns", it is "like a leopard", it's feet were like a bear's, and it's mouth was like a lion. What is different is that this beast has "seven heads" with blasphemous names.
Given that there is so much similarity with Daniel 7, perhaps it would be a good idea to understand what is written there.
Most commentators agree that Daniel's first lion beast was Babylon, the second bear beast was Medo-Persia, the third leopard beast was Greece, and the fourth beast with "ten horns" was the Roman empire.
So given that John's beast also has "ten horns", could it also symbolize the Roman empire? If so, why does it also bear resemblance to the prior beasts, ie. lion, bear and leopard?
Perhaps the explanation is that the Roman empire shared the characteristics of each of the prior empires - it shared the devouring lionlike ability of Babylon, the jurisdictional reach and power of Medo-Persia, and the swiftness of Greece. Plus, much of the territory of these former powers were now part of, or subject to, the Roman empire - for example, Alexandria, the capital of the Greek empire, was under Roman jurisdiction.
But apart from the connection with the "ten horns" of Daniel, is there any other evidence that the 1st wild beast was the Roman empire?
We are told by Daniel that his fourth beast, the ten-horned Roman empire, would "devour the whole earth, and trample it down, and break it to pieces." (Daniel 7:23)
This is similar to the language John uses about his wild beast. "The whole earth marveled as they followed the beast. And they worshiped the dragon..."
Many people reason that, since no wild beast has yet ruled "the whole earth", this prophecy in Revelation cannot yet have been fulfilled. However, this neglects Daniel's own use of the term "the whole earth" to describe the Roman empire, or the description of the Greek (bronze) empire in Daniel 2:39 that would "rule over all the earth".
Clearly, Biblical writers used this as an expression of the immense power of these empires, not to be taken hyper-literally - just as Paul said that the good news had "been proclaimed in all creation under heaven" (Colossians 1:23), or that "that all the world should be registered" in the days of Augustus' census (Luke 2:1).
So then, in the same sense that Daniel used the phrase "the whole world" to describe the rule of his 4th beast the Roman empire, John does the same.
However, John gives us the extra detail that "they worshiped the dragon... and the beast."
This is exactly the kind of setup of the Roman empire! It was (with the exception of the Jews and Christians) an entirely pagan empire, and its heads were worshiped as gods!
This is precisely why many Christians died under Roman rule, because they refused to offer incense to Caesar, who was a god on earth. So in this detail, the Roman empire also fits. They worshiped Satan the dragon, in the form of idols - and they worshiped the beast itself.
According to John, "one of its heads seemed to have a mortal wound, but its mortal wound was healed."
Did the Roman empire suffer a "mortal wound"? Yes, it did! In 66AD in the east, Judea rebelled from the Roman empire, and Gaul (now France) in the north in 68AD.
These reports from the east and north disturbed Nero greatly (as foretold in Daniel 11:44), who was already growing very unpopular at home, and while Vespasian was sent to finish the Jewish war, Nero himself committed suicide, plunging the Roman empire into its darkest period of tribulation.
In fact, 68-69AD is called by historians "the year of the four emperors", when several rival emperors emerged and ruled for just months, before being deposed by another. Galba is assassinated, and Rome is plunged into civil war. Otho rules for just 3 months, before being replaced by Vitellius, who was mobbed and had his head cut off in the midst of Rome!
Here is what Roman historian Tacitus says of this period: "This was the condition of the Roman state when Serius Galba, chosen consul for the second time, and his colleague Titus Vinius entered upon the year that was to be for Galba his last and for the state almost the end."
So the Roman empire did receive a "mortal wound" in one of its heads, and as Tacitus reports, this was nearly the end for the Roman state!
However, the Roman general Vespasian, who had been sent by Nero to finish the war with the Jews, is appointed emperor by his troops, and very quickly the rest of the empire hail him as Caesar. He returns to Rome in 69AD, leaving his son Titus to finish the war, and quickly restores the Roman empire to health, with Titus defeating the Jews in 70AD.
So the rebellion of the north and east, the death of Nero (the ending of the original line of Caesars), the plunging of Rome into civil war, and several emperors in a short space of time, including the last who literally had his head cut off, was definitely a time when the mighty wild beast received a "mortal wound", that was only miraculously revived by Vespasian.
So what does it mean when it says, "the beast was given a mouth uttering haughty and blasphemous words, and it was allowed to exercise authority for forty-two months"?
This period in which it was "allowed to exercise authority" could only have been referring to the period in which God allowed the Romans to destroy Jerusalem and its Temple, which could not have happened without divine permission. It was the appointed time of the nations for Jerusalem to be trampled, as spoken of by Jesus, which took place in 70AD, and finished when the last Jewish rebels committed suicide at Masada in 73AD.
It was blasphemous in that, the Roman state would have seen this as a victory of their gods over the God of Heaven. In fact, the ending of the Jewish war resulted in festivities and gifts in Rome, and at Vespasian's return they "styled him their Benefactor and Savior, and the only person who was worthy to be ruler of the city of Rome; and now the city was like a temple, full of garlands and sweet odors", according to Josephus.
And along with a pageant of gifts and displays, they paraded the spoils of the Temple, the golden table, candlestick and the Law through the city and to the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus. They were later deposited in the temple to Peace.
So then, "it was allowed to make war on the saints and to conquer them." Not only were the Jews conquered, but also the Christians suffered persecution at the hands of Roman authorities.
Finally, we are told:
"And authority was given it over every tribe and people and language and nation, and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slain."
This is really the point. Since the Roman system was pagan and idolatrous in its Caesar worship, all of the inhabitants who worship it were those "whose name has not been written... in the book of life".
So then, with the Roman empire we have an empire that fits John's description of the first wild beast in Revelation 13 in every way.
But what about the extra details given to us in Revelation 17?
The Mystery Of The Woman And Beast
In this chapter, the angel tells John the mystery of the woman who rides the 7 headed wild beast, and of the beast itself.
We are told by the angel: "This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated; they are also seven kings, five of whom have fallen..." (17:9,10)
Now, this is where we need to employ the rule that was established by Jesus in chapter 1 - that when we are told X is (or means) Y, that X is the symbol (not to be taken literally), and Y is the meaning of the symbol, which is to be taken literally.
So the angel tells us the seven heads are seven mountains, and seven kings - these are the two meanings of the seven heads, and we are to take these meanings literally.
We are also told that "the woman that you saw is the great city that has dominion over the kings of the earth." (vs 18)
Again, we have X is Y, so we are to take the meaning literally, not the symbol.
So if we strictly follow the meaning given to us by the angel, John is looking for a city, sitting upon seven mountains, and with seven kings, five of whom had fallen.
We do not need, as the WT does, to re-interpret any of this stuff, i.e. mountains then mean governments. We already have the angel's word.
If they meant governments or world powers, they angel would have told us: "The seven heads are seven governments". As it is, we are told "the seven heads are seven mountains".
For the head of the Roman empire in John's day (perspective, remember!) was the city of Rome - the great city with dominion over the kings of the earth, that was founded upon seven hills and known as "the city of the seven hills", and had five founding Caesars - namely Julius, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula and Claudius.
So we have a meaning that fits perfectly with the earlier description of the wild beast. The woman is Rome, and she (the city) rides the wild beast, which is the empire.
In Revelation 18:24, we are told of this woman:
"And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints, and of all who have been slain on earth."
How could one city be responsible for "all who have been slain on earth"? Actually, this is a well-established principle in scripture.
Although ancient Babylon was not to blame for all deaths on earth, it was charged with them: "Not only was Babylon the cause for the slain ones of Israel to fall, but also at Babylon the slain ones of all the earth have fallen." (Jeremiah 51:49)
Similarly, the generation of Jews to which Jesus preached was not responsible for the death of the prior prophets or of Abel, but were charged with their blood: "So that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, [fn] whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation." (Mathew 23:35,36)
So too, Rome would be charged with "all who have been slain on earth".
Revelation 18:20 says: "Rejoice over her, O heaven, and you saints and apostles and prophets, for God has given judgment for you against her!"
While some Preterists argue that only Jerusalem fulfills this criteria, Jerusalem paid for her sins in 70AD.
However, Rome continued to shed the blood of the holy ones. And it is famously the city where Peter and Paul were killed.
Clearly then, Rome fulfills the qualification of the "woman" in every way, being the city over the Roman empire, the city over the kings of the earth, and shedding the blood of apostles, prophets and holy ones.
Of course, at this point I know the objections that might arise...
(1) The account says mountains, whereas the seven hills of Rome are hills.
Sure, but we have to bear in mind that many of the prominent "mountains" in the Bible were not like Mount Everest. Jesus taught on the mount of olives, and the Temple was built on a mountain, which many people visited. People would stream to the "mountain of the house of Jehovah", and Nero would place his tents "between the grand sea and the holy mountain of Decoration" according to Daniel 11:45, which occurred immediately prior to his suicide in 68AD.
So the "seven hills of Rome" were mountains in the Blblical sense - they were just called hills by the Romans.
(2) If the five that had fallen were Julius, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula and Claudius... doesn't that make Nero the one that "is", putting the writing of Revelation many years before its writing in the 90's of the 1st century?
The short answer is Yes. This would imply it was written during Nero's reign, and if the "mortal wound" is referring to the period from when the Jews rebelled against Rome until Vespasian becoming emperor, that would imply it was written somewhere between 66 and 68AD.
Of course, I realize that goes against the claims of the early church fathers such as Irenaeus, who suggests Revelation was seen in the time of Domitian in the 90's.
However, while I cannot conclusively prove it was written earlier, I would suggest that the internal evidence suggests this. For example, in Revelation 11:1,2 we have an allusion to the physical Temple, and the trampling of the holy city as still future from John's perspective:
"Then I was given a measuring rod like a staff, and I was told, "Rise and measure the temple of God and the altar and those who worship there, but do not measure the court outside the temple; leave that out, for it is given over to the nations, and they will trample the holy city for forty-two months."
While I appreciate this is a vision, and contains many symbolic elements, the vision would not really make sense unless the temple, altar, court, and holy city Jerusalem were still standing physically - which would be the case if it was written prior to 70AD.
Plus, this chapter ends with the opening of the Temple in heaven, suggesting that the earlier Temple was not the heavenly one:
"Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail." (11:19)
I would suggest then, that the whole chapter is alluding to the period of the destruction of the earthly Temple in 70AD and the trampling by the nations of the "holy city" (which was always equated with Jerusalem) in 70, and the three and a half years that followed it - after which, the blessings from the physical Temple were transferred to the heavenly Temple, since the physical no longer existed.
Also, at the end of chapter 10, John is given an opened scroll and told, "You must again prophesy about many peoples and nations and languages and kings."
We might ask, what happened in the 90's that would make John have an "opened scroll" to prophecy "again"?
I can't think of anything, but if the vision were received in the 60's then I can definitely see what would cause this change - the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple and its trampling by the Romans, in fulfillment of the 70 weeks of years prophecy (Daniel 9), the disgusting thing causing desolation (Daniel 11) and the time of distress until the dashing of the power of the holy people (Daniel 12)!
Daniel's prophecies were now, for the most part, unsealed. All of these would have served as witnesses to the power of God's prophecy, and the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem was the end of an age, which would explain why John would now need to prophecy "again", after this period.
All of this, namely...
(a) the beast was, is not, yet will be present (with the Roman empire being "abyssed" between 66 and 69 with its civil war and near collapse,
(b) five have fallen, one is being the first five Caesars followed by Nero who "is",
© the temple, altar and courtyard and Jerusalem still standing in order for Rev 11:1,2 to make sense even as a symbolic drama,
(d) John given an opened scroll to eat, and to "again prophecy about many peoples and nations and languages and kings",
... implies that it was written prior to 70, probably during the latter part of Nero's reign, between 66 and 68AD.
But how could Irenaeus be mistaken? Wasn't he a student of Polycarp, who was taught by John himself? Yes, but Irenaeus' writings were not those of a historian, but of a theologian. His main existing work is called "Against Heresies", where he refuted the heresies of the Gnostic groups that were around at the time - a theological work.
Irenaeus mentions elsewhere that Jesus was 50 years of age when he died. So, unless we are willing to accept this major inacurracy as fact, we simply have to acknowledge that it's possible Irenaeus was simply mistaken about when John received the vision. After all, John may have been alive in Domitian's time, so it's easy to see how Irenaeus could assume that's when it was written, but it doesn't have to be so.
Irenaeus was also the bishop of Lyon, France - so it's also possible that Revelation didn't become widely known outside of the initial 7 congregations in Asia to which it was written, until later on, perhaps accounting for the assumption of a later date.
Later fathers, such as Eusebius, accepted Irenaeus' account, but were writing even further from the time.
Anyway, I would suggest that there is abundant evidence to point to the identity of the first wild beast as the Roman empire.
The second beast is a little more difficult, and I'll tackle that in a post to follow.
Can we conclusively prove the identity of the two wild beasts in Revelation? I believe we can, but it does mean letting go of certain assumptions.
Accepting The Angel's Explanation
The symbols used in Revelation are often explained to us. For example, in chapter 1 John sees seven lampstands. Jesus later tells us:
"As for the mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand, and the seven golden lampstands, the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches." (1:20)
This is a pattern we should follow for the rest of Revelation. It is the pattern Jesus sets. The "seven lampstands" are the symbol (not to be taken literally), the "seven churches" are the meaning of the symbol, to be taken literally. In this case, we know which 7 churches are being referred to: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea... literal congregations.
So when we are given this in Revelation, i.e X means (or is) Y, then we should follow the pattern set here by Jesus, namely X is the non-literal symbol, and Y is its literal meaning, i.e. what the symbol stands for.
Time And Context
Second, the Revelation speaks of events that have already happened, are in existence at present, or have not yet happened, but we must ask an important question - from whose viewpoint?
For example, in reference to the wild beast, John is told that five kings have fallen, one is, the other has not yet arrived.
Clearly, in order to make any sense of this, we need to put these time references from John's point of view.
This is the big mistake Nathan Knorr (of the WTS) made, when coming up with his interpretation for the United Nations. The wild beast's "was, but is not, and yet is about to ascend" was seen from the viewpoint of World War II... but why would the angel be talking about the time period Nathan Knorr happened to be living through, and not John's time?
To be consisent, we need to look at all time perspectives in the prophetic part of the narrative from John's point of view who received the Revelation - not ours, or Nathan Knorrs or anybody else's.
Symbols Used In Similar Prior Prophecies
Third, we should bear in mind that the symbols in Revelation do not occur in a vacuum, but occur in the context of the rest of the Bible.
In fact, Daniel had a vision very similar to John's, in which he saw four wild beasts coming up out of the sea. We should therefore not discard the symbology used by these previous prophets, since they were ultimately are inspired by the same Source.
In fact, I would even go so far as to say that Daniel's vision holds one of the keys to understanding John's wild beasts, as we'll discuss.
An Unsealed Book
Lastly, we should remember that Daniel's final vision (the one in Daniel 11, 12) was sealed, because it was a vision that would not be unlocked until "the time of the end", which was many days in Daniel's future. Hence, "the words are made secret and sealed up until the time of the end."
However, Revelation was an unsealed scroll. The angel tells John: "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this scroll, for the appointed time is near." (Rev 22:10)
Clearly then, Revelation was meant to be understood and acted upon by his immediate audience, unlike Daniel's final vision. It is an unsealed book, despite using symbols. This is important to keep in mind.
Examining The First Wild Beast In Chapter 13
Chapter 13 open in a manner very similar to the Daniel 7 vision, in that John sees a wild beast arising from the sea.
John also borrows from the symbology of Daniel 7 for this wild beast - it has "ten horns", it is "like a leopard", it's feet were like a bear's, and it's mouth was like a lion. What is different is that this beast has "seven heads" with blasphemous names.
Given that there is so much similarity with Daniel 7, perhaps it would be a good idea to understand what is written there.
Most commentators agree that Daniel's first lion beast was Babylon, the second bear beast was Medo-Persia, the third leopard beast was Greece, and the fourth beast with "ten horns" was the Roman empire.
So given that John's beast also has "ten horns", could it also symbolize the Roman empire? If so, why does it also bear resemblance to the prior beasts, ie. lion, bear and leopard?
Perhaps the explanation is that the Roman empire shared the characteristics of each of the prior empires - it shared the devouring lionlike ability of Babylon, the jurisdictional reach and power of Medo-Persia, and the swiftness of Greece. Plus, much of the territory of these former powers were now part of, or subject to, the Roman empire - for example, Alexandria, the capital of the Greek empire, was under Roman jurisdiction.
But apart from the connection with the "ten horns" of Daniel, is there any other evidence that the 1st wild beast was the Roman empire?
We are told by Daniel that his fourth beast, the ten-horned Roman empire, would "devour the whole earth, and trample it down, and break it to pieces." (Daniel 7:23)
This is similar to the language John uses about his wild beast. "The whole earth marveled as they followed the beast. And they worshiped the dragon..."
Many people reason that, since no wild beast has yet ruled "the whole earth", this prophecy in Revelation cannot yet have been fulfilled. However, this neglects Daniel's own use of the term "the whole earth" to describe the Roman empire, or the description of the Greek (bronze) empire in Daniel 2:39 that would "rule over all the earth".
Clearly, Biblical writers used this as an expression of the immense power of these empires, not to be taken hyper-literally - just as Paul said that the good news had "been proclaimed in all creation under heaven" (Colossians 1:23), or that "that all the world should be registered" in the days of Augustus' census (Luke 2:1).
So then, in the same sense that Daniel used the phrase "the whole world" to describe the rule of his 4th beast the Roman empire, John does the same.
However, John gives us the extra detail that "they worshiped the dragon... and the beast."
This is exactly the kind of setup of the Roman empire! It was (with the exception of the Jews and Christians) an entirely pagan empire, and its heads were worshiped as gods!
This is precisely why many Christians died under Roman rule, because they refused to offer incense to Caesar, who was a god on earth. So in this detail, the Roman empire also fits. They worshiped Satan the dragon, in the form of idols - and they worshiped the beast itself.
According to John, "one of its heads seemed to have a mortal wound, but its mortal wound was healed."
Did the Roman empire suffer a "mortal wound"? Yes, it did! In 66AD in the east, Judea rebelled from the Roman empire, and Gaul (now France) in the north in 68AD.
These reports from the east and north disturbed Nero greatly (as foretold in Daniel 11:44), who was already growing very unpopular at home, and while Vespasian was sent to finish the Jewish war, Nero himself committed suicide, plunging the Roman empire into its darkest period of tribulation.
In fact, 68-69AD is called by historians "the year of the four emperors", when several rival emperors emerged and ruled for just months, before being deposed by another. Galba is assassinated, and Rome is plunged into civil war. Otho rules for just 3 months, before being replaced by Vitellius, who was mobbed and had his head cut off in the midst of Rome!
Here is what Roman historian Tacitus says of this period: "This was the condition of the Roman state when Serius Galba, chosen consul for the second time, and his colleague Titus Vinius entered upon the year that was to be for Galba his last and for the state almost the end."
So the Roman empire did receive a "mortal wound" in one of its heads, and as Tacitus reports, this was nearly the end for the Roman state!
However, the Roman general Vespasian, who had been sent by Nero to finish the war with the Jews, is appointed emperor by his troops, and very quickly the rest of the empire hail him as Caesar. He returns to Rome in 69AD, leaving his son Titus to finish the war, and quickly restores the Roman empire to health, with Titus defeating the Jews in 70AD.
So the rebellion of the north and east, the death of Nero (the ending of the original line of Caesars), the plunging of Rome into civil war, and several emperors in a short space of time, including the last who literally had his head cut off, was definitely a time when the mighty wild beast received a "mortal wound", that was only miraculously revived by Vespasian.
So what does it mean when it says, "the beast was given a mouth uttering haughty and blasphemous words, and it was allowed to exercise authority for forty-two months"?
This period in which it was "allowed to exercise authority" could only have been referring to the period in which God allowed the Romans to destroy Jerusalem and its Temple, which could not have happened without divine permission. It was the appointed time of the nations for Jerusalem to be trampled, as spoken of by Jesus, which took place in 70AD, and finished when the last Jewish rebels committed suicide at Masada in 73AD.
It was blasphemous in that, the Roman state would have seen this as a victory of their gods over the God of Heaven. In fact, the ending of the Jewish war resulted in festivities and gifts in Rome, and at Vespasian's return they "styled him their Benefactor and Savior, and the only person who was worthy to be ruler of the city of Rome; and now the city was like a temple, full of garlands and sweet odors", according to Josephus.
And along with a pageant of gifts and displays, they paraded the spoils of the Temple, the golden table, candlestick and the Law through the city and to the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus. They were later deposited in the temple to Peace.
So then, "it was allowed to make war on the saints and to conquer them." Not only were the Jews conquered, but also the Christians suffered persecution at the hands of Roman authorities.
Finally, we are told:
"And authority was given it over every tribe and people and language and nation, and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slain."
This is really the point. Since the Roman system was pagan and idolatrous in its Caesar worship, all of the inhabitants who worship it were those "whose name has not been written... in the book of life".
So then, with the Roman empire we have an empire that fits John's description of the first wild beast in Revelation 13 in every way.
But what about the extra details given to us in Revelation 17?
The Mystery Of The Woman And Beast
In this chapter, the angel tells John the mystery of the woman who rides the 7 headed wild beast, and of the beast itself.
We are told by the angel: "This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated; they are also seven kings, five of whom have fallen..." (17:9,10)
Now, this is where we need to employ the rule that was established by Jesus in chapter 1 - that when we are told X is (or means) Y, that X is the symbol (not to be taken literally), and Y is the meaning of the symbol, which is to be taken literally.
So the angel tells us the seven heads are seven mountains, and seven kings - these are the two meanings of the seven heads, and we are to take these meanings literally.
We are also told that "the woman that you saw is the great city that has dominion over the kings of the earth." (vs 18)
Again, we have X is Y, so we are to take the meaning literally, not the symbol.
So if we strictly follow the meaning given to us by the angel, John is looking for a city, sitting upon seven mountains, and with seven kings, five of whom had fallen.
We do not need, as the WT does, to re-interpret any of this stuff, i.e. mountains then mean governments. We already have the angel's word.
If they meant governments or world powers, they angel would have told us: "The seven heads are seven governments". As it is, we are told "the seven heads are seven mountains".
For the head of the Roman empire in John's day (perspective, remember!) was the city of Rome - the great city with dominion over the kings of the earth, that was founded upon seven hills and known as "the city of the seven hills", and had five founding Caesars - namely Julius, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula and Claudius.
So we have a meaning that fits perfectly with the earlier description of the wild beast. The woman is Rome, and she (the city) rides the wild beast, which is the empire.
In Revelation 18:24, we are told of this woman:
"And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints, and of all who have been slain on earth."
How could one city be responsible for "all who have been slain on earth"? Actually, this is a well-established principle in scripture.
Although ancient Babylon was not to blame for all deaths on earth, it was charged with them: "Not only was Babylon the cause for the slain ones of Israel to fall, but also at Babylon the slain ones of all the earth have fallen." (Jeremiah 51:49)
Similarly, the generation of Jews to which Jesus preached was not responsible for the death of the prior prophets or of Abel, but were charged with their blood: "So that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, [fn] whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation." (Mathew 23:35,36)
So too, Rome would be charged with "all who have been slain on earth".
Revelation 18:20 says: "Rejoice over her, O heaven, and you saints and apostles and prophets, for God has given judgment for you against her!"
While some Preterists argue that only Jerusalem fulfills this criteria, Jerusalem paid for her sins in 70AD.
However, Rome continued to shed the blood of the holy ones. And it is famously the city where Peter and Paul were killed.
Clearly then, Rome fulfills the qualification of the "woman" in every way, being the city over the Roman empire, the city over the kings of the earth, and shedding the blood of apostles, prophets and holy ones.
Of course, at this point I know the objections that might arise...
(1) The account says mountains, whereas the seven hills of Rome are hills.
Sure, but we have to bear in mind that many of the prominent "mountains" in the Bible were not like Mount Everest. Jesus taught on the mount of olives, and the Temple was built on a mountain, which many people visited. People would stream to the "mountain of the house of Jehovah", and Nero would place his tents "between the grand sea and the holy mountain of Decoration" according to Daniel 11:45, which occurred immediately prior to his suicide in 68AD.
So the "seven hills of Rome" were mountains in the Blblical sense - they were just called hills by the Romans.
(2) If the five that had fallen were Julius, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula and Claudius... doesn't that make Nero the one that "is", putting the writing of Revelation many years before its writing in the 90's of the 1st century?
The short answer is Yes. This would imply it was written during Nero's reign, and if the "mortal wound" is referring to the period from when the Jews rebelled against Rome until Vespasian becoming emperor, that would imply it was written somewhere between 66 and 68AD.
Of course, I realize that goes against the claims of the early church fathers such as Irenaeus, who suggests Revelation was seen in the time of Domitian in the 90's.
However, while I cannot conclusively prove it was written earlier, I would suggest that the internal evidence suggests this. For example, in Revelation 11:1,2 we have an allusion to the physical Temple, and the trampling of the holy city as still future from John's perspective:
"Then I was given a measuring rod like a staff, and I was told, "Rise and measure the temple of God and the altar and those who worship there, but do not measure the court outside the temple; leave that out, for it is given over to the nations, and they will trample the holy city for forty-two months."
While I appreciate this is a vision, and contains many symbolic elements, the vision would not really make sense unless the temple, altar, court, and holy city Jerusalem were still standing physically - which would be the case if it was written prior to 70AD.
Plus, this chapter ends with the opening of the Temple in heaven, suggesting that the earlier Temple was not the heavenly one:
"Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail." (11:19)
I would suggest then, that the whole chapter is alluding to the period of the destruction of the earthly Temple in 70AD and the trampling by the nations of the "holy city" (which was always equated with Jerusalem) in 70, and the three and a half years that followed it - after which, the blessings from the physical Temple were transferred to the heavenly Temple, since the physical no longer existed.
Also, at the end of chapter 10, John is given an opened scroll and told, "You must again prophesy about many peoples and nations and languages and kings."
We might ask, what happened in the 90's that would make John have an "opened scroll" to prophecy "again"?
I can't think of anything, but if the vision were received in the 60's then I can definitely see what would cause this change - the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple and its trampling by the Romans, in fulfillment of the 70 weeks of years prophecy (Daniel 9), the disgusting thing causing desolation (Daniel 11) and the time of distress until the dashing of the power of the holy people (Daniel 12)!
Daniel's prophecies were now, for the most part, unsealed. All of these would have served as witnesses to the power of God's prophecy, and the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem was the end of an age, which would explain why John would now need to prophecy "again", after this period.
All of this, namely...
(a) the beast was, is not, yet will be present (with the Roman empire being "abyssed" between 66 and 69 with its civil war and near collapse,
(b) five have fallen, one is being the first five Caesars followed by Nero who "is",
© the temple, altar and courtyard and Jerusalem still standing in order for Rev 11:1,2 to make sense even as a symbolic drama,
(d) John given an opened scroll to eat, and to "again prophecy about many peoples and nations and languages and kings",
... implies that it was written prior to 70, probably during the latter part of Nero's reign, between 66 and 68AD.
But how could Irenaeus be mistaken? Wasn't he a student of Polycarp, who was taught by John himself? Yes, but Irenaeus' writings were not those of a historian, but of a theologian. His main existing work is called "Against Heresies", where he refuted the heresies of the Gnostic groups that were around at the time - a theological work.
Irenaeus mentions elsewhere that Jesus was 50 years of age when he died. So, unless we are willing to accept this major inacurracy as fact, we simply have to acknowledge that it's possible Irenaeus was simply mistaken about when John received the vision. After all, John may have been alive in Domitian's time, so it's easy to see how Irenaeus could assume that's when it was written, but it doesn't have to be so.
Irenaeus was also the bishop of Lyon, France - so it's also possible that Revelation didn't become widely known outside of the initial 7 congregations in Asia to which it was written, until later on, perhaps accounting for the assumption of a later date.
Later fathers, such as Eusebius, accepted Irenaeus' account, but were writing even further from the time.
Anyway, I would suggest that there is abundant evidence to point to the identity of the first wild beast as the Roman empire.
The second beast is a little more difficult, and I'll tackle that in a post to follow.