What does a beast in revelation 17 signify?

Many people around the world wonder what or who is this beast? One of my favorite lines from the Lone Ranger was when people would ask, "Who was that masked man?" In the book of Revelation, chapter 17, we do not have a masked man, but a "masked" beast. Who or what is the beast? Commentators have identified the beast variously as Rome, the Antichrist, evil, successive empires, etc. Most interpretations can be categorized as either a person or an institution. This paper seeks to find an answer to this age-old question. To determine the beast's identity I will exegete important verses in Revelation 13 and 17. In addition I will interact with the various viewpoints offered by the scholars of Revelation. While not the primary purpose of this paper, I will also explore the identity of the woman riding the beast to the extent that this is pertinent to determining the identity of the beast. My conclusion will be based on an interaction with the scholars and with the text itself, insofar as such a conclusion is possible in light of the weighty arguments advanced for both the "person" and "institution" positions. Revelation 17 in the Context of the Book Revelation 17 is broken up into three sections: 1. Introduction to the vision (1-2); 2. The vision (3-6); 3. An interpretation of the vision (7-18). Within the flow of the book the vision of the beast follows on the heels of the seven bowls (15-16). It seems to be an appendix to the seventh bowl, expounding on the destruction of Babylon named in the seventh bowl judgment (16:19), and aforementioned in 14:8. The time of the judgment is at the end of the tribulation period, just before the Lord's return (19:11-21). This is evidenced by the fact that the seven bowl judgments are said to be the final plagues that will complete God's wrath on the earth-dwellers (15:1), the judgment of Babylon taking place in the seventh of these final plagues. A Comparison of Beasts The Dragon The first beast of Rev 13 has the same number of heads and horns as does the dragon in the previous chapter (Revelation 12:3; 13:1). The only difference between the dragon and the beast is the crowns. The dragon has crowns on his heads whereas the beast has crowns on his horns (Revelation 13:1). The beast cannot be the dragon, however, because the dragon is clearly distinguished from the beast. The dragon is said to give the beast his ruling authority (Revelation 13:4). For there to be one who gives ruling authority and one to receive the same requires that the dragon and beast be distinct from one another. The dragon and beast so closely resemble each other (with the same number of heads and horns) because the beast is the "reflection" of the dragon; i.e. everything the beast is and does directly flows from the ability given it by the dragon (Revelation 13:4-5, 7). Because of the satanic power operating behind the beast, the beast directly resembles the dragon, much like a glove directly resembles the hand it covers. Daniel 7 The first beast of Revelation 13 also has the same number of horns as does the beast of Daniel 7, although that beast is not said to have multiple heads (Daniel 7:8). Furthermore, the beast of Revelation 13 displays all the characteristics of Daniel's beasts. It is said to be like a leopard (third beast), have feet like a bear (second beast), and a mouth like a lion (first beast; compare Revelation 13:2 with Daniel 7:4-7). There is a clear affinity between Daniel's fourth beast and the beast of Revelation 13. Revelation 13 First Beast When we get to Revelation 17 we find a beast who is described as scarlet, having seven heads and ten horns. While there is no mention of any crowns on its heads or horns, it seems to be the same beast as that of Revelation 13. The fact that this beast is said to be scarlet, whereas the beast of Revelation 13 is not, does not appear to be of such significance to indicate that two different beasts are in view. Scarlet (kokkinon) is closely associated with red (purros), which is the color of the dragon, and symbolic of evil throughout the book (Revelation 6:4; 12:3; 17:3-4).1 While the context gives us reason to see the dragon and beast as two different characters even though they share the same number of heads and horns, we are not given any literary clues to consider the first beast of Revelation 13 and the beast of Revelation 17 as two different characters. The burden of proof rests on those who wish to make such a distinction. Seeing that the beast of Revelation 13 and 17 is identified as the same beast, an examination of the details of the former will assist in determining the identity of the latter. The beast in Revelation 13 is said to have recovered from a deadly wound causing the world to wonder after him (13:3), received worship (13:4, 8), is unique and invincible (13:4), spoke blasphemies against God (13:5-6), had power over the nations, and had power to make war with the saints (13:7). Each of these are clues to the beast's identity. While the beast's invincibility and power over the nations and saints could indicate that he is symbolic of some sort of political institution, the same cannot be said of speaking blasphemies against God and receiving worship. Institutions do not speak, and it makes little sense to assert that people will worship a political entity. They may worship an individual who represents such an entity, but not an abstract entity itself. There are good arguments on both sides for the nature of the deadly wound one of the beast's heads received and subsequently recovered from. Some, such as Mounce, believe the beast is non-personal, referring to evil spiritual forces. The death-wound and recovery refers to the reestablishment of political order under Emperor Vespasian, or maybe even to emphasize the vitality of the beast. Others, such as Walvoord, see the beast as the revived Roman Empire. It is believed that the ten-toed iron and clay kingdom of Daniel 2:41-43 is a latter-day revival of the old Roman Empire. It is clear in Daniel that the iron kingdom is the fourth and final kingdom, and yet this iron kingdom is distinguished literarily from the iron and clay kingdom (see how they are treated distinctly in Daniel 2:40, 41-3). Since both are part of the fourth kingdom, sharing in the iron, it is clear that both refer to Rome. Seeing that the iron kingdom will be in existence when the Lord sets up His own everlasting kingdom (Daniel 2:44; See also 7:13-14, 21-27), it is believed that the Roman Empire must be in existence at Christ's return.2 Since the Roman Empire fell in the seventh century AD this would require a revival of that empire just before the coming of Christ. Against such a position is the fact that the fourth kingdom will not be the only kingdom in existence when the Lord sets up His kingdom; all the kingdom-beasts will be in existence. Notice that Daniel said, "And in the days of these kings…" (Daniel 2:44, italics mine). "These kings" refer to the four kingdoms of the great image. Not only would the Roman Empire have to exist at the time of Christ's return according to such interpretation, but so would the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, and Grecian Empires. The same can be said of the beasts of Daniel 7. Within the context of the Lord's return and establishment of the everlasting kingdom it is said of the four beasts: "I beheld even till the [fourth] beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame. As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time" (Daniel 7:11b-12 within the context of 7:7-27). Not only is the revived Roman Empire view exegetically shaky, it does not fit the response of those who witnessed the resurrection of the beast. It is said that they were amazed at the beast who recovered from such a deadly wound, and such amazement prompted world-wide followership and worship of the beast (Revelation 13:3-4). The healing of the beast led them to believe that the beast was militarily invincible (and by implication, invincible to death), and unlike any other (13:4). While a revived Roman Empire would be a wonder indeed, it is difficult to see how a political re-uniting of the old Roman Empire could illicit such amazement and worship from the earth-dwellers. A recovery from a genuine death-wound to a real human being would better explain the world's amazement and worship. The text supports the view that the death-wound and subsequent healing was received by a human, not an institution. The Greek says the beast was w`j evsfagme,non ("as if slain"). The exact same wording is used of Christ the Lamb in Revelation 5:6. If we are to argue for the reality of the physical death of Christ we must also argue for the reality of the physical death of the beast because the same construction is used of each. Furthermore, Christ's resurrection is described as e;zhsen (2:8). The same word is used of the beast's recovery from the deadly wound (13:14). Just as Christ was raised from the dead, so will the beast (Antichrist). It is the ultimate parody of the Antichrist that he would even imitate Christ's death and resurrection in his rivalry of Christ.3 The only serious objection to this view is that Satan does not have the power to raise one from the dead. It should be pointed out that the text never says who raised the beast from his deadly wound. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that it was God who caused him to raise from the dead, possibly to magnify the beast's deception of the earth-dwellers. Regardless, the issue of who raised the Antichrist from the dead is not a question of exegesis, but of theological speculation.4 In summation, while the deadly wound the beast received and recovered from could be taken in a figurative sense to refer to a non-personal entity such as evil, or a political kingdom, an exegesis of the text argues in favor of the view that it is a literal wound and recovery of a human being. Second Beast A further clue to the identity of the first beast of Revelation 13 is found in the second beast of Revelation 13. It is clear that this second beast is a human person, and not an institution. He is identified as "the false prophet" (Revelation 16:13; 19:20; 20:10), a designation clearly depicting that of a human person. He, as well as the beast, is said to be cast into the Lake of Fire at the Lord's return (19:20). Surely an institution, kingdom, or city cannot be thrown into the Lake of Fire; people are thrown into the Lake of Fire.5 This argues strongly that the beasts of Revelation 13 are specific human individuals. The second beast is also said to cause the earth dwellers to worship the first beast, and even compel them to make an image of him (13:12, 14). The second beast was able to give life to this image so that it could speak and kill (13:15). Unless this image is that of a man, it makes little sense for it to be able to speak. It seems the first beast, which the image resembles, is a man, not an institution. The Beast of Revelation 17 While the first beast of Revelation 13 appears to be a human individual, the details of the beast in Revelation 17 are not so clear. John saw a vision of a woman sitting on a scarlet beast with seven heads and ten horns. The vision may allude to a coin minted in AD 71 in the province of Asia during Vespasian's reign (AD 69-79). The coin has a picture of Vespasian on the front and the goddess Roma sitting on the seven hills of Rome on the back.6 The goddess personified Rome to those living in these parts, although the goddess was not officially introduced to the city of Rome until the second century AD. Whether this was the backdrop of John's vision cannot be determined with certainty, but it is an interesting parallel to John's vision nonetheless. 17:8 When the angel began to interpret John's vision of the beast and woman he said the beast "was, and is not, but is about to come up from the abyss…." Johnson sees this description as reminiscent of the deadly wound and healing of the beast spoken of in Revelation 13:3, 14. The fact that he "is not" refers to his defeat by the Lamb at Calvary.7 He would come back to life again at the end time, however. David Aune agrees with Johnson that the description is reminiscent of the deadly wound and healing, but understands this in a literal sense, referring to a human person.8 He specifically connects this with the Nero Redivivus theory wherein Nero was expected to be revived from the dead. Many saw such a resurrection in Emperor Domitian. Robert Mounce interprets the beast as the persecution of Christians by the hand of imperial government. He understands the "was, and is not, but is about to come up from the abyss" to refer to the fact that persecution had existed but had stopped for the moment. Soon, however, it would come out of the abyss once again.9 Caird, a preterist, has much the same interpretation. He says, "The fact that he [John] can say it is not is the clearest possible indication that there was no open and organized persecution at the time when he was writing."10 These interpretations fit with their overall understanding of the theme of Revelation, but do not seem to be derived from an exegesis of this particular text. There is nothing in the context that indicates the beast is persecuting anyone. The beast is only said to destroy the woman that rides him. The only mention of opposition towards the godly is the war he will make against the Lamb, a reference to the battle of Armageddon at the very end of Daniel's 70th week (17:14). To say the beast was, and is not, and will ascend from the abyss is reminiscent of the thrice repeated statement concerning Christ as the one "who is, who was, and who is to come" (Revelation 1:4, 8; 4:8). It seems to be a parallel expression, communicating once again the ways in which the Antichrist attempts to parallel the true Christ. I would have to agree with Aune that the description of the beast is a reference to the wounding and healing of the beast in chapter 13. The response is the same in both chapters. In both 13:3 and 17:8 the world "wondered" (qauma,zw) after the beast. If the reference is the same, and the beast is a person in Revelation 13, it would argue for a personal beast in Revelation 17. 17:9 In the interpretation of the beast's seven heads we are told that they are both seven mountains, and seven kings. This is the only place in apocalyptic literature in which one symbol is given two interpretations, making this very unique. Johnson understands the seven mountains/kings to refer to completeness, not literally, and thus rejects the view that the beast is Rome, or seven particular Roman emperors. He points out, as do many other commentators, that if the seven kings refer to seven literal emperors we are at a loss to know which emperors John was referring to. We must ask Which emperor are we to begin with? Is it Julius Caesar? Augustus Caesar? Which emperors do we include and exclude? Those who wish to find seven emperors not only arbitrarily start with a particular emperor, but also arbitrarily exclude the short reigning emperors Galba, Otho, and Vitellius. If John wrote his apocalypse under Nero we are left with too few emperors; if under Domitian too many. No reconstruction of the identity of the seven kings is without its mark of speculation, arbitrariness, and difficulty. Writter: Nzayisenga Adrien