The False Prophet

 

by

Damien F. Mackey

  

 

“There they met a Jewish sorcerer and false prophet …”.

 

Acts 13:6

 

  

 

Several times have I noticed biblical critics expressing a certain degree of frustration when a story that they have been keenly following suddenly peters out, leaving a lot of unanswered questions. This was most notably the case for me with Andrew E. Hill, about whose expressed annoyance in this regard I wrote in my article:

 

Frustration arises for critics when a gripping biblical drama can seem to end without any hoped-for resolution

 

(4) Frustration arises for critics when a gripping biblical drama can seem to end without any hoped-for resolution

 

He had embarked upon a thrilling commentary on the devious rôle of the shrewd counsellor, Jonadab, in the 2 Samuel 13 account of the rape of Tamar, only to feel being short-changed in the end.

 

In that article I wrote:

 

Andrew E. Hill had, in the course of his terrific commentary,

“A Jonadab Connection in the Absalom Conspiracy?”,

expressed a certain frustration due to what he called

“the almost annoying paucity of material

for careful analysis” regarding Jonadab.

 

Both of the two instances of biblical stories seeming to fall short due to the apparent lack of follow-up material, to be considered here (there are plenty of others), involve Tamar, the beautiful virginal sister of Absalom, son of David (2 Samuel 13:1-2).

Just when the story surrounding Jonadab, Absalom, Amnon and Tamar (2 Samuel 13:1-39), has begun to get really fascinating, Jonadab, qua Jonadab, disappears abruptly from the scene after making some Machiavellian comments to King David (vv. 32-33, 35) - these suggesting that Jonadab was more of an insider in Absalom’s plot than first thought.

And, secondly, in the same story, we take leave of Tamar in a very miserable state, shattered for having been raped by Amnon (v. 20): “And Tamar lived in her brother Absalom’s house, a desolate woman”.

 

Of course, we would love to know more.

 

And critics like Andrew E. Hill can express their frustration for not knowing more. His brilliant unfolding of the machinations of the shrewd Jonadab must come to an early halt due to the Bible’s failure to continue with the history of Jonadab, qua Jonadab, of whom he writes there is “the almost annoying paucity of material for careful analysis”.

 

We can feel with Andrew Hill, after he has done so clever a job of analysing the character of this Jonadab.

 

And female commentators in particular, full of sympathy for Tamar and her plight, would dearly love to know what became of her.

Did her later life take a turn for the better?

 

Thankfully, the Bible is more accommodating in this regard than one might have imagined. For, as we shall find, the history of Jonadab is carried through, further on in 2 Samuel, right to its bitter end. And, indeed, it is a bitter end.

And we also come to learn much about the incredible life story of Tamar after her horrible years of confinement in the house of Absalom.

 

The fact is that the drama of, now Jonadab, now Tamar, as known from 2 Samuel, is taken up and continued in the same book, or in Kings and Chronicles, in which the two protagonists are re-presented under different names. ….

 

I was able to continue that story right through, so I believe, thanks to my extension of the shrewd counsellor, Jonadab, as the mirror-image shrewd counsellor, Achitophel.

 

David L. Eastman has, for his part, “been harassed by a nagging question” regarding the New Testament figure of Simon Magus.

 

He summarises his “nagging question” in the Abstract of his article:

 

Simon the Composite Sorcerer

 

(5) Simon the Composite Sorcerer

 

“….

Yet over the years of studying the figure of Simon, I have been harassed by a nagging question: where does this narrative Simon come from? The Simon of the Acts of Peter, and certainly the Simon of the combined Peter and Paul martyrdom accounts, seems quite far from the Simon of the Acts of the Apostles”.

 

My own reaction to the brief account of Simon Magus in Acts 8:9-24 has been, considering the significance of the man, once again, to look for his extension elsewhere – this time in the New Testament.

 

Well, that is what David L. Eastman, coming from a different viewpoint, has proposed as a solution to his problem. And he even goes so far as to identify an extension:

 

“In this article I will propose that we understand the literary Simon of late antiquity as a composite character, forged in the fires of reception, refraction and memory primarily from two separate villains in the Acts of the Apostles: Simon himself and the sorcerer who opposes Paul, Elymas/Bar-Jesus”.

This appealed to me because, as in the case of the Old Testament’s Jonadab, suitably extended into Achitophel, we may now have a most suitable extension for Simon Magus of Acts 8 in this Elymas of Acts 13 - two sides of the one coin, I would suggest, rather than David L. Eastman’s composite of two separate entities.

 

He will proceed to draw the appropriate comparisons:

 

….

 

3. The Other Sorcerer

 

After many years of contemplating my questions about the apocryphal Simon, a rather simple solution occurred to me that had for some reason eluded me previously: the magus of the apocryphal acts is not just Simon; he is in some ways a combination of Simon and another magus that had an encounter with an apostle in Acts, namely Elymas or Bar-Jesus.

 

In Acts 13, Paul³⁹ and Barnabas arrive on Cyprus and come to the city of Paphos. This passage is worth quoting in its entirety:

 

When they had gone through the whole island as far as Paphos, they met a certain magician, a Jewish false prophet, named Bar-Jesus. He was with the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, an intelligent man, who summoned Barnabas and Saul and wanted to hear the word of God. But the magician Elymas (for that is the translation of his name) opposed them and tried to turn the proconsul away from the faith. But Saul, also known as Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him and said, ‘You son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and villainy, will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord? And now listen– the hand of the Lord is against you, and you will be blind for a while, unable to see the sun.’ Immediately mist and darkness came over him, and he went about groping for someone to lead him by the hand. When the proconsul saw what had happened, he believed, for he was astonished at the teaching about the Lord.⁴⁰

 

If we return to the general plot progression surrounding the narrative Simon in the apocryphal acts, we see a number of parallels.

(1) Elymas is identified as a ‘a certain magician, a Jewish false prophet’. Like the Simon of the Acts of Peter, Elymas is a ‘sorcerer’ (μάγον). He is also ‘Jewish’ (Ἰουδαῖον), although at that point he is active on Cyprus. Finally, he is a ‘false prophet’ (ψϵυδοπροwήτην) who is leading people away from the true message of Christ.⁴¹ Like Elymas, Simon uses his sorcery in the apocryphal acts to lure believers away from the teaching of first Paul, then Peter, in the Acts of Peter, and of both apostles in the joint accounts.

(2) Elymas has earned the trust, and is a close confidant of, a prominent member of the Roman government, the proconsul Sergius Paulus. The apocryphal Simon is in some texts closely attached to the emperor Nero.⁴²

(3) Elymas opposes the messengers of Christ, which leads to a meeting in the presence of that leader. In the same way, Simon denounces Peter or Peter and Paul, causing Agrippa or Nero to bring them all together for an in-person confrontation.

(4) Elymas is identified as ‘a son of the devil’ (υἱὲ διαβόλου), just as Simon is accused of doing the work of Satan or the devil. In the Acts of Peter, in Peter’s vision when he is still in Jerusalem, God tells him that Simon is undermining Paul’s preaching ‘by the power of Satan’ (energia Satanae). Similarly, Pseudo-Marcellus tells the reader that Simon ‘was raging in the service of the devil’ (diaboli ministerio bachabatur).⁴³

(5) Paul declares that Elymas is ‘full of all deceit and villainy’, and the apocryphal Simon deceives many by his sorcery and fraudulent so-called miracles, including a faked resurrection that fools Nero.

(6) Elymas is characterised as ‘making crooked the straight paths of the Lord’. This is especially true of Simon in the acts, who goes as far as claiming that he is the Christ. What could be a great perversion than enticing people to follow a false Christ?

(7) Sergius Paulus is ‘astonished’ (ἐκπλησσόμϵνος) and convinced by the words and actions of Paul. Although Nero ultimately kills Peter or Peter and Paul out of vengeance for the death of Simon, the narratives make it clear that the emperor’s confidence in Simon is severely shaken. In Pseudo-Marcellus’ Passion, Nero is ‘astounded’ (Nero his auditis obstupuit)⁴⁴ by Paul’s teaching and even concedes that they are beaten by the apostles.

(8) Paul and Barnabas’ encounter with Elymas ends with the punishment of the sorcerer for his wicked ways. By Paul’s word, the Lord moves against Elymas and strikes him blind ‘for a while’.⁴⁵ Christ also moves against the sorcerer Simon in the apocryphal acts. While the words of Peter and, in some texts, the prayer of Paul play a role in striking down Simon from the sky, Christ is the true actor. In the Acts of Peter, the apostle fears eternal consequences for the deceived believers if Simon is allowed to fly into heaven and asks Christ to intercede: ‘If you permit this man to do what he has set out to do, then now all those who have believed in you will be made to stumble, and the signs and wonders that you gave to them through me will be disbelieved. Hurry, Lord, to demonstrate your grace, and after he has fallen down, let him be manifestly broken to pieces but not die.’⁴⁶ In the Pseudo-Marcellus Latin Passion, we have already seen that Nero foresees possible divine judgement for Simon: ‘If I am not able to do anything to you, then the God who is able will do it.’⁴⁷ When the moment of Simon’s attempted flight arrives, Peter cries out to the demons carrying him: ‘I command you through God, the creator of all things, and through Jesus Christ, whom he raised from the dead on the third day, not to carry him any longer but to let him go.’⁴⁸ In the other Latin Passion (a section that does appear in Pseudo-Hegesippus), Paul tells Peter: ‘Ask the omnipotent God to show his power and thwart the craftiness of the enemy.’ In his prayer, Peter proclaims: ‘I rebuke you, you demons who are carrying him, through God the almighty Father and Jesus Christ his Son. Let go of him right now, and all will say that Christ is the Saviour of this world.’⁴⁹ Just as with Elymas in Acts 13, the punishment of Simon comes not from the apostles themselves, but from God. ⁴³

This dense cluster of comparisons between Elymas and the apocryphal Simon may lead us to conclude that the literary Simon is rooted more in Elymas than the biblical Simon. Such a conclusion would not be without merit, but I would like to propose a more complex model of development for the figure of Simon.

 

4. The Composite Sorcerer

 

The Simon of the apocryphal acts should be most accurately understood as a composite figure, a sort of pastiche of various traditions, of which Elymas and the Simon of Acts 8 are key components. ….

Nero may be quite irrelevant, anachronistic, to all of this:

 

Nero Caesar can be likened to king Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’, to the emperor Hadrian

 

(10) Nero Caesar can be likened to king Antiochus 'Epiphanes', to the emperor Hadrian

 

Conclusion

 

Simon Magus was the “false prophet” (ψευδοπροφήτην), Elymas.

 

Just as in the case of my identification of the Old Testament’s Jonadab with Achitophel, the names have changed. However, “Elymas” (Elymaean/Median) apparently means broadly the same as Magus (Acts 13:8): “But Elymas the sorcerer (for that is what his name means) …”.

He is a most reviled biblical character.

 

Saint Peter denounces him in strong terms:

 

Acts 8:20-23:

 

Peter answered: ‘May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God. Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord in the hope that he may forgive you for having such a thought in your heart. For I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin’.

 

Saint Paul even more strongly:

 

Acts 13:9-11:

 

Then Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas and said, ‘You are a child of the devil and an enemy of everything that is right! You are full of all kinds of deceit and trickery. Will you never stop perverting the right ways of the Lord? Now the hand of the Lord is against you. You are going to be blind for a time, not even able to see the light of the sun’.

 

 

Beast of an apocalyptic conundrum

 

by

 Damien F. Mackey

  

“… even now many antichrists have appeared,

from which fact we know that it is the last hour”.

 

I John 2:18

 

 

Introduction

 

The Book of Apocalypse records and foretells events - albeit apocalyptically - that took place between the departure of the risen Christ (his Ascension) and his Coming, to overthrow the old order that had gone wrong (had become a prostitute) and to replace it with the new.

 

He came as Bridegroom to marry the new Bride, the Marian Church.

 

For, in the words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (# 773):

 

In the Church this communion of men with God, in the "love [that] never ends," is the purpose which governs everything in her that is a sacramental means, tied to this passing world. "[The Church's] structure is totally ordered to the holiness of Christ's members. And holiness is measured according to the 'great mystery' in which the Bride responds with the gift of love to the gift of the Bridegroom." Mary goes before us all in the holiness that is the Church's mystery as "the bride without spot or wrinkle." (Eph 5:27). This is why the "Marian" dimension of the Church precedes the "Petrine."  

 

This is, as we have seen, the drama of the Apocalypse right up to its last chapters.

 

And that means that all that has gone before, including the “Beast” and the “two witnesses”, has belonged to this period of real time: approximately 33-70 AD.

 

The extraordinary Beast of the Apocalypse is never referred to as the Antichrist, though many like to make this association. As I have previously noted: The term “Antichrist” does not occur anywhere in the Book of Apocalypse (Revelation).

 

St. John alone refers to “antichrist” and “many antichrists” (I John 2:18, 19, 22):

 

Young children, it is the last hour, and just as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared, from which fact we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of our sort . . . Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.

 

There had already been “many antichrists” by the time of St. John’s writing (“have appeared”). And it was due to this fact that John recognised that “it is the last hour”.

 

Similarly, he wrote in the Apocalypse, warning that all these things were to happen “very soon”. For the angel had declared (Revelation 14:7): ‘Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has come …’.

 

Roman-ising the Apocalypse

 

Previously I had noted that:

 

What has exacerbated the whole exegetical problem of properly interpreting Revelation on a literal level is, I believe, the conventional opinion that St. John wrote this Apocalypse in hoary old age, in c. 95 AD, about a quarter of a century after Jerusalem had been destroyed. Hence many commentators are loath to see any relevance for Revelation in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Protestant and Catholic writers alike accept the late 95 AD date of authorship (Protestant Thomas Foster sharing this view in common with Opus Dei and Fr. Kramer).

 

Hence many like to equate the harlot “Babylon” with Rome, and not with Jerusalem.

 

Similarly, the “two witnesses” no longer die where the Apocalypse clearly has them die, in Jerusalem (11:8): “Their bodies will lie in the public square of the great city—which is figuratively called Sodom and Egypt—where also their Lord was crucified”, but elsewhere, including Rome again. (On this, I was intrigued to read in an Opus Dei commentary on Revelation the view put forward that the “two witnesses” may have been Sts. Peter and Paul).  

 

And, likewise again, the “Beast” is converted into a Gentile ruler – e.g. the emperor Nero, his name being cleverly gematria-tised into 666.

 

But see my recent article on who Nero appears to have been:

 

Nero Caesar can be likened to king Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’, to the emperor Hadrian

 

(2) Nero Caesar can be likened to king Antiochus 'Epiphanes', to the emperor Hadrian

 

I have been of the very same mind-set in the past.

But more recently I have written differently, in my article:

 

Stephen ‘Protomartyr’ is key to understanding ‘Beast’ of Revelation 13

 

https://www.academia.edu/30919177/Stephen_Protomartyr_is_key_to_understanding_Beast_of_Revelation_13

 

- an article heavily-based upon the views of others - about the enigmatic apocalyptical Beast:

 

“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”.

 

At the beginning of the New Testament’s Acts 8, immediately following the account of the testimony of Stephen, and his martyrdom, we read that “Saul [Paul] approved of their killing him”, and that (8:1-3).

 

On that day a great persecution broke out against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. Godly men buried Stephen and mourned deeply for him. But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off both men and women and put them in prison.

 

Booker, “The Beast in Jerusalem” (http://planetpreterist.com/content/beast-jerusalem), has juxtaposed this text with Rev 11:7-8:

 

When they have finished their testimony, the beast that comes up out of the abyss will make war with them, and overcome them and kill them. And their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified.

 

And he draws the conclusion that the two texts are talking about the same thing:

 

First of all, let’s compare the above text to Luke’s Acts of the Apostles. In Acts, Stephen gives testimony of Jesus Christ, for which reason the Jews stoned him. It says ...

 

“Saul was in hearty agreement with putting him to death. And on that day a great persecution began against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. Some devout men buried Stephen, and made loud proclamation over him. But Saul began ravaging the church, entering house after house, and dragging off men and women, he would put them in prison”.

 

Now read Revelation again:

 

“When they have finished their testimony [when Stephen and those who followed after him finished their testimony], the beast that comes up out of the abyss will make war with them, and overcome them and kill them [a great persecution will afterward arise, they will ravage the church, enter house after house, and drag off men and women].

And their dead bodies will lie [unless some devout men come along to bury them] in the street of the great city which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified [in Jerusalem]”.

 

Revelation also says, “The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to come up out of the abyss and go to destruction”.

 

Compare this text’s promise of destruction to 1 Thessalonians:

 

“For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you also endured the same sufferings at the hands of your own countrymen, even as they did from the Jews, who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out. They are not pleasing to God, but hostile to all men, hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved; with the result that they always fill up the measure of their sins. But wrath has come upon them to the utmost”.

1 Thess also says, “Now as to the times and the epochs, brethren, you have no need of anything to be written to you. For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night. While they are saying, “Peace and safety!” [the classic statement of the false prophets of old--Jer 6:13-14] then destruction will come upon them suddenly like labor pains upon a woman with child, and they will not escape”.

 

2 Thessalonians seems to speak of the beast and the false prophet:

The man of lawlessness is called also the “son of destruction”.

It is said that he “opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God” [compare this to the image of the beast that must be worshipped--Rev 13:4,14]

It then says, “Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of his coming” [compare to Rev 19:20, those who “were killed with the sword which came from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse ...”]

 

It goes on to describe the culprit as “the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders”. [compare to Rev 13:2 where the beast receives its authority from the serpent. Also compare with Rev 13:14; 16:14; 19:20 where the false prophet performs “signs”]

 

Who was responsible for the great persecution?

 

Paul, in his allegory, says “as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the spirit, so it is now also”.

 

Yet in his allegory he contrasts two covenants and the children of two covenants. The children of the one, born for slavery from Mount Sinai and corresponding to the “present Jerusalem” persecuted the free children born of the Jerusalem that is free. There is, of course, no mention of Rome.

 

John’s Gospel also seems to downplay Rome.

 

Jesus omits any reference to it (as a persecuting body) when he says, “They will make you outcasts from the synagogue, but an hour is coming for everyone who kills you to think that he is offering service to God. These things they will do because they have not known the Father or me. But these things I have spoken to you, so that when their hour [of destruction] comes, you may remember that I told you of them”.

 

So ... with all of this background and history, why do people still identify the beast as Roman?

[End of quotes]

 

Also at: http://www.preterist.org/articles/the_beast.asp the same conclusion has been drawn, that the “Beast” of Revelation 13 must have been Jewish, and not Roman:

 

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. ….

 

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.

 

See also my (Damien Mackey’s) article:

 

Rome surprisingly minimal in Bible

 

(9) Rome surprisingly minimal in Bible

 

The article continues:

 

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 [Mackey: Not necessarily my calculations], 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!

 

Conclusion

 

We hope someone will go from here and discover the specific identity of the Jewish Beast. Whether he is an individual or a group within the Jewish nation is a matter that will be left to future studies. John Bray has suggested the Jewish Zealot leader, John of Gischala. Others have suggested Menachem, who was a relative of Judas the Galilean who had stirred up troubles back in earlier days. He gathered a zealot band and attacked Masada, captured the fortress, seized the armaments and paraded through Jerusalem with them. Menachem put on the purple robes, proclaimed himself Messiah, and went into the Temple, but he was assassinated in the Temple and his army vaporized. There may have been rumors about his coming back to life, but I haven't read of them so far. He never reappeared as far as Josephus recorded.

[End of quote]

 

With the Beast, the persecutor of the two witnesses, thus destroyed - along with all of his followers - and now the Devil chained up, the millennium can peacefully commence.

 

But, unfortunately, it is not yet the final curtain call, for Satan gets to make another stage appearance later on (Revelation 20:7-8): “When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—and to gather them for battle”.

 

That release, I have believed, coincided approximately with the vision of Pope Leo XIII (1884).

 

According to what I have written in:

 

Church Undergoing Test of Prophet Job

 

(10) Church undergoing test of the prophet Job

 

we are still in that tumultuous period, now in a very late stage of it.