Rev 13:2-4 | Barnes | STEP | Verse 2. And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard . For a description of the leopard, . It is distinguished for bloodthirstiness and cruelty, and thus becomes all emblem of a fierce, tyrannical power. In its general character it resembles a lion, and the lion and the leopard are often referred to together. In this description, it is observable that John has combined in one animal or monster, all those which Daniel brought successively on the scene of action as representing different empires. Thus in Daniel ( ) the lion is introduced as the symbol of the Babylonian power; the bear, as the symbol of the Medo-Persian; the leopard, as the symbol of the Macedonian; and a nondescript animal, fierce, cruel, and mighty, with two horns, as the symbol of the Roman. . In John there is one animal representing the Roman power, as if it were made up of all these: a leopard with the feet of a bear , and the mouth of a lion , with two horns, and with the general description of a fierce monster. There was an obvious propriety in this, in speaking of the Roman power, for it was, in fact, made up of the empires represented by the other symbols in Daniel, and "combined in itself all the elements of the terrible and the oppressive, which had existed in the aggregate in the other great empires that preceded it." At the same time, there was an obvious propriety in the symbol itself; for the bloodthirstiness and cruelty of the leopard would well represent the ferocity and cruelty of the Roman power, especially as John saw it here as the great antagonistic power of the true church, sustaining the Papal claim, and thirsting for blood. And his feet were as the feet of a bear . . The idea here seems to be that of strength , as the strength of the bear resides much in its feet and claws. At the same time, there is the idea of a combination of fierce qualities-- as if the bloodthirstiness, the cruelty, and the agility of the leopard were united with the strength of the bear. And his mouth as the mouth of a lion . . The mouth of the lion is made to seize and hold its prey, and is indicative of the character of the animal as a beast of prey. John has thus brought together the qualities of activity, bloodthirstiness, strength, ferocity, all as symbolical of the power that was intended to be represented. It is hardly necessary to say that this description is one that would apply well, in all respects, to Rome; nor is it necessary to say, that if it be supposed that he meant to refer to Rome, this is such a description as he would have adopted. And the dragon . . Gave him his power . Satan claimed, in the time of the Saviour, all power over the kingdoms of the world, and asserted that he could give them to whomsoever he pleased. . How far the power of Satan in this respect may extend, it may not be possible to determine; but it cannot be doubted that the Roman power seemed to have such an origin, and that in the main it was such as, on that supposition, it would be. In its arrogance and haughtiness--in its thirst for dominion--in its persecutions--it had such characteristics as we may suppose Satan would originate. If, therefore, as the whole connexion leads us to suppose this refers to the Roman secular power, considered as the support of the Papacy, there is the most evident propriety in the representation. And the seat . θρονον. Hence our word throne . The word properly means a seat; then a high seat; then a throne , as that on which a king sits. Here it refers to this power as exercising dominion on the earth. And great authority . The authority was great. It extended over a large part of the earth, and alike in its extent and character, it was such as we may suppose Satan would set up in the world. (c) "was like unto" (d) "dragon" (e) "seat"

Revelation of John 13:2-4

Verse 2. And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard. For a description of the leopard, Dan 7:6. It is distinguished for bloodthirstiness and cruelty, and thus becomes all emblem of a fierce, tyrannical power. In its general character it resembles a lion, and the lion and the leopard are often referred to together. In this description, it is observable that John has combined in one animal or monster, all those which Daniel brought successively on the scene of action as representing different empires. Thus in Daniel (Dan 7:2-7) the lion is introduced as the symbol of the Babylonian power; the bear, as the symbol of the Medo-Persian; the leopard, as the symbol of the Macedonian; and a nondescript animal, fierce, cruel, and mighty, with two horns, as the symbol of the Roman. Dan 7:2-7. In John there is one animal representing the Roman power, as if it were made up of all these: a leopard with the feet of a bear, and the mouth of a lion, with two horns, and with the general description of a fierce monster. There was an obvious propriety in this, in speaking of the Roman power, for it was, in fact, made up of the empires represented by the other symbols in Daniel, and "combined in itself all the elements of the terrible and the oppressive, which had existed in the aggregate in the other great empires that preceded it." At the same time, there was an obvious propriety in the symbol itself; for the bloodthirstiness and cruelty of the leopard would well represent the ferocity and cruelty of the Roman power, especially as John saw it here as the great antagonistic power of the true church, sustaining the Papal claim, and thirsting for blood.

And his feet were as the feet of a bear. Dan 7:5. The idea here seems to be that of strength, as the strength of the bear resides much in its feet and claws. At the same time, there is the idea of a combination of fierce qualities--as if the bloodthirstiness, the cruelty, and the agility of the leopard were united with the strength of the bear.

And his mouth as the mouth of a lion. Dan 7:4. The mouth of the lion is made to seize and hold its prey, and is indicative of the character of the animal as a beast of prey. John has thus brought together the qualities of activity, bloodthirstiness, strength, ferocity, all as symbolical of the power that was intended to be represented. It is hardly necessary to say that this description is one that would apply well, in all respects, to Rome; nor is it necessary to say, that if it be supposed that he meant to refer to Rome, this is such a description as he would have adopted.

And the dragon. Rev 12:3.

Gave him his power. Satan claimed, in the time of the Saviour, all power over the kingdoms of the world, and asserted that he could give them to whomsoever he pleased. Mt 4:8-9. How far the power of Satan in this respect may extend, it may not be possible to determine; but it cannot be doubted that the Roman power seemed to have such an origin, and that in the main it was such as, on that supposition, it would be. In its arrogance and haughtiness--in its thirst for dominion--in its persecutions--it had such characteristics as we may suppose Satan would originate. If, therefore, as the whole connexion leads us to suppose this refers to the Roman secular power, considered as the support of the Papacy, there is the most evident propriety in the representation.

And the seat. θρονον. Hence our word throne. The word properly means a seat; then a high seat; then a throne, as that on which a king sits. Here it refers to this power as exercising dominion on the earth.

And great authority. The authority was great. It extended over a large part of the earth, and alike in its extent and character, it was such as we may suppose Satan would set up in the world.

(c) "was like unto" Dan 7:4-7 (d) "dragon" Rev 12:9 (e) "seat" Rev 16:10 Verse 3. And I saw one of his heads, as it were wounded to death. The phrase "wounded to death" means properly that it received a mortal wound; that is, that the wound would have been mortal if it had not been healed. A blow was struck that would be naturally fatal, but there was something that prevented the fatal result. John does not say, however, by whom the wound was inflicted, nor does he describe farther the nature of the wound. He says that "one of the heads" --that is, one of the seven heads--was thus wounded. In Rev 17:9, he says that "the seven heads are seven mountains in which the woman sitteth." In Rev 17:10, he says, "there are seven kings." And this would lead us to suppose that there were "seven" administrations, or forms of dominion, or dynasties, that were presented to the eye of John; and that while the number "seven," as applied to to the "heads," so far identified the power as to fix its location on the seven "hills," (Rev 17:9) in another respect also the number "seven" suggested forms of administration or dynasties, Rev 17:10. What is meant by saying that one of these heads was wounded to death has been among the most perplexing of all the inquiries pertaining to the book of Revelation. The use of the word seven, and the explanation in Rev 17:9, make it morally certain that Rome, in some form of its administration, is referred to. Of this there can be no doubt, and in this all are agreed. It is not, however, the Papal power as such that is here referred to; for

(a) the Papal power is designated under the image of the second beast;

(b) the descriptions pertaining to the first beast are all applicable to a secular power; and

(c) there was no form of the Papal spiritual dominion which would properly correspond with what is said in Rev 17:10. The reference in this place is, therefore, to Rome considered as a civil or secular power, yet Rome regarded as giving support to the second beast--the Papal power. The general idea here is, that a state of things would exist in regard to that power, at the time referred to, as if one of the seven heads of the monster should receive a wound which would be fatal, if it were not healed in some way. That is, its power would be weakened; its dominion would be curtailed, and that portion of its power would have come to an end, if there had not been something which would, as it were, restore it, and save it from the wrath that was impending, The great point of difficulty relates to the particular application of this; to the facts in history that would correspond with the symbol. On this there have been almost as many opinions as there have been interpreters of the Apocalypse, and there is no impropriety in saying that none of the solutions are wholly free from objection. The main difficulty, so far as the interpretation proposed above is concerned, is, in the fact that "one" of the seven heads is referred to as wounded unto death; as if one-seventh part of the power was endangered. I confess I am not able wholly to solve this difficulty; but, after all, is it certain that the meaning is that just one-seventh part of the power was in peril; that the blow affected just such a portion that it might be described as the one-seventh part? Is not the number seven so used in the Scriptures as to denote a considerable portion--a portion quite material and important? And may not all that is intended here be that John saw a wound inflicted on that mighty power which would have been fatal if it had not been marvellously healed? And was it not true that the Roman civil and secular power was so waning and decaying that it might properly be represented as if one of the seven heads of the monster had received a fatal wound, until its power was restored by the influence of the spiritual domination of the church of Rome? If this be the correct exposition, then what is implied here may be thus stated:

(a) The general subject of the representation is the Roman power, as seen at first in its rigour and strength;

(b) then that power is said to be greatly weakened, as if one of its heads were smitten with a deadly wound;

(c) then the wound was healed--this power was restored--by being brought into alliance with the Papacy; that is, the whole Roman power over the world would have died away, if it had not been restored and perpetuated by means of this new and mighty influence, Rev 13:12. Under this new form, Rome had all the power which it had ever had, and was guilty of all the atrocities of which it had ever been guilty: it was Rome still. Every wound that was inflicted on that power by the incursion of barbarians, and by the dividing off of parts of the empire, was healed by the Papacy, and under this form its dominion became as wide and as formidable as under its ancient mode of administration. If a more particular application of this is sought for, I see no reason to doubt that it may be found in the quite common interpretation of the passage given by Protestants, that the reference is to the forms of administration under which this power appeared in the world. The number of distinct forms of government which the Roman power assumed from first to last was the following: kings, consuls, dictators, deceivers, military tribunes, emperors. These seven forms of administration were, at least, sufficiently prominent and marked to be represented by this symbol, or to attract the attention of one contemplating this formidable power--for it was under these forms that its conquests had been achieved, and its dominion set up over the earth. In the time of John, and the time contemplated in this vision, all these had passed away but the imperial. That, too, was soon to be smitten with a deadly wound by the invasion of the Northern hordes; and that would have wholly and for ever ceased if it had not been restored-- the deadly wound being healed--by the influence of the Papal power, giving Rome its former ascendency. Rev 13:15.

And his deadly wound was healed. That is, as explained above, the waning Roman secular power was restored by its connexion with the spiritual power--the Papacy. This was

(a) a simple matter of fact, that the waning secular power of Rome was thus restored by connecting itself with the spiritual or ecclesiastical power, thus prolonging what might properly be called the Roman domination far beyond what it would otherwise have been; and

(b) this would be properly represented by just the symbol employed here--the fatal wound inflicted on the head, and the healing of that wound, or preventing what would naturally be the effects. On the fulfilment of this, Rev 13:15, at the close.

And all the world wondered after the beast. The word here used-- θαυμαζω--means, properly, to be astonished; to be amazed; then to wonder at; then to admire and follow.--Rob. Lex. In Rev 13:4, it is said that the world "worshipped" the beast; and the general idea is, that the beast received such a universal reverence, or inspired such universal awe, as to be properly called worship or adoration. There can be no doubt of the propriety of this, considered as applicable to that secular Roman power which sustained the Papacy. The homage was as wide as the limits of the Roman empire had ever been, and might be said to embrace "all the world."

(1) "wounded" "slain" (a) "wondered" Rev 17:8 Verse 4. And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast. Rev 12:3; Rev 13:2. That is, they in fact worshipped him. The word worship--τροσκυνεω--is not always, however, used in a religious sense. It means, properly, to kiss; to kiss towards any one; that is, to kiss his own hand and to extend it towards a person, in token of respect and homage.-- Rob. Lex. Compare Job 31:27. Then it means to show respect to one who is our superior; to kings and princes; to parents; and pre-eminently to God. Mt 2:2. The word may be used here to mean that homage or reverence, as to a higher power, was rendered to the "dragon;" not strictly that he was openly worshipped in a religious sense as God. Can any one doubt that this was the case under Papal Rome; that the power which was set up under that entire domination, civil and ecclesiastical, was such as Satan approved, and such as he sought to have established on the earth? And can any one doubt that the homage thus rendered, so contrary to the law of God, and so much in derogation of his claims, was in fact homage rendered to this presiding spirit of evil?

And they worshipped the beast. That is, they did it, as is immediately specified, by saying that he was incomparable and invincible; in other words, that he was superior to all others, and that he was almighty. For the fulfilment of this, 2Thes 2:4.

Who is like unto the beast? That is, he is to be regarded as unequalled and as supreme. This was, in fact, ascribing honours to him which belonged only to God; and this was the manner in which that civil and secular power was regarded in the period here supposed to be referred to. It was the policy of rulers and princes in those times to augment in every way possible the respect in which they were held; to maintain that they were the vicegerents of heaven; to claim for themselves sacredness of character and of person; and to secure from the people a degree of reverence which was in fact idolatrous. Never was this more marked than in the times when the Papacy had the ascendency, for it was its policy to promote reverence for the power that sustained itself, and to secure for itself the idolatrous veneration of the people.

Who is able to make war with him? That is, he is invincible. They thus attributed to him omnipotence--an attribute belonging only to God. This found a fulfilment in the honour shown to the civil authority which sustained the Papacy; for the policy was to impress the public mind with the belief that that power was invincible. In fact, it was so regarded. Nothing was able to resist that absolute despotism; and the authority of princes and rulers that were allied with the Papal rule was of the most absolute kind, and the subjugation of the world was complete. There was no civil, as there was no-religious liberty; and the whole arrangement was so ordered as to subdue the world to an absolute and uncontrollable power.

(b) "who is able" Rev 17:14