Spurgeon's View of the MILLENNIUM

— **WELL, NO LONGER! HERE IS...**
. *Charles* Haddon Spurgeon's VIEW OF THE
MILLENNIUM
	Annotated Summary by
	MARK A. MCNEIL

There has been some considerable difference of opinion regarding the position that C. H. Spurgeon, the great Baptist preacher from the 19th century, held in the area of Eschatology — regarding the doctrine of the Millennium. Each of the three major divisions within this area of doctrine have proponents who claim Spurgeon as one of their own. Many times authors claim a different millennial view than what Spurgeon actually believed.

It is not our task to sort out the arguments for each view. Such an assignment would take a very large volume (many are available) and the issue would still not be solved for all. We would simply like to define the basic positions and then demonstrate from Spurgeon's own words which one view he held.

The first view regarding the Millennium is that of PREMILLENNIALISM. The prefix, "Pre," denotes "before." The prefix is telling us at what point in relationship to the millennium that Christ will come. This view holds that our Lord will Literally return before a 1,000-year reign of Christ begins. The millennium of Revelation 20 is taken to be literal. If not literal, it at least is speaking of an indefinite period of time following the coming of Christ during which there will be perfect peace on the earth.

Within the premillennialist camp, there have come to be two identifiable views: the "dispensationalist" position, and the "historic" position. For further information defending each of these views, one should consult Reese's The Approaching Advent of Christ [historic] and Dwight Pentecost's Things to Come [dispensational]. Though the differences between the two are important, it is not within the scope of our purpose here to delve into such matters.

The second view is called AMILLENNIALISM, or sometimes called "realized eschatology". The prefix, "A-," means "no". This would suggest that those who hold this view do not believe in a millennium. This is somewhat misleading, however. This view is the the product of a consistent Spiritual interpretation of prophetic literature. To those, the millennium is not some future physical reign, but the present reign of Christ in the hearts of believers. The "millennium" is an indefinite period of time (the present age) after which Christ will physically return. Prophecy in the Church, by Oswald Allis, is a standard work for the amillennial position.

This is the position of the Roman Catholic Church, also many other Protestant denominations. It grew out of St. Augustine's spiritualizing of these issues in his writings, and the tendency of many early Christian writers to see the Church as the "new Israel" and therefore the recipient of the promises of the Old Testament for the Jewish nation. Those who hold this view do not speak of the millennium as a future happening. It is, to them, a Present Reality.

The third, and last, major view is that of POSTMILLENNIALISM. The prefix "Post" speaks of "after." This teaching promotes the view that the physical return of Christ will Follow an actual millennium. The influence of Christianity will over-take the world for an extended period of time, then Christ will return.

This view appears to be a mixture of the principles that work to produce the first two views. It is not consistently spiritual or literal in its interpretation of the prophetic material relevant to this issue. Perhaps the foremost writing for this position today is The Millennium, by Loraine Boettner.

With basic definitions before us, then, let's look at some quotes from Spurgeon to see what his position was on the Millennium.

Spurgeon here specifically identifies the Postmillennial view with a clear DENIAL of any adherence to it! Those who attempt to claim Spurgeon for this viewpoint do not demonstrate their contention by referring to clear comparisons such as this one. They rather go to sermons not specifically dealing with both positions and pull out of them ideas that are "compatible" with Postmillennial thinking. This is a faulty way of proving a point, however* — especially when they meet squarely with a Spurgeon statement like the one above, and those below.

*NOTE: Furthur, a few postmillennialists (especially GARY NORTH), are guilty of misrepresenting Spurgeon constantly in articles and books; NORTH has repeatedly alleged that "Spurgeon was Postmillennial" — yet neither his supplied quotations "say" so, and/or he deliberately does not present a statement by Spurgeon that North will speculate "implies" a Postmillennial position. Our advice is to ignore anything North states regarding Spurgeon's views and Prophecy!

Again, consider Spurgeon's View here in light of 'Postmillennial' teaching...

Here, stress is laid upon the Literal Nature of the second coming. Also, after this literal return is stressed a reigning upon the earth.

In the quotes above, the order of events fits perfectly the PREmillennial point of view. The final end of the sinner is faced after the righteous have enjoyed a thousand years with Christ.

.
	"Our Hope is the Personal PRE-MILLENNIAL RETURN of the Lord Jesus Christ in Glory."
	— August 1891, age 58

Of the various articles and writings by those who deny the conclusion that we feel is obvious, none that I have found bases itself on the same type of quotes we have produced (many others could have been given — see those that follow). To the contrary, their's are based on "interpreting" Spurgeon's statements apart from such quotes that we have given.

From the Summer 1990 issue of this magazine, C. W. H. Griffiths states Spurgeon "was a valued standard bearer for historic Pre-millennialism," and then presents an excellent article defending his Pre-millennial position.

"I agree with you that when the Mark of the Beast is received the people receiving it will know exactly what it is and who they are pledging their allegiance to. The Mark won't be something that we can get and say, "Oops! I didn't mean to do that, how did that happen?"

Is everyone soon to receive a bar code on his forehead and/or right hand in order to buy and sell goods? Is the government going to force people to have a computer chip inserted in their right hand for identification purposes? While these things are possible, they have absolutely nothing to do with the mark of the beast spoken of in Revelation.

In the Old Testament God spoke of total allegiance to Him and His law as a putting of the law on the forehead and on the hands: “You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes” (Dt. 6:8).

In Revelation, those who are faithful to Christ, “the ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes” (Rev. 14:4), are said to have “His [the Lamb’s] Father’s name written on their foreheads” (Rev. 14:1).

John also refers to it as a seal: “Do not harm the earth, the sea, or the trees till we have sealed the servants of our God on their foreheads” (Rev. 7:3).

The Lord tells the church at Sardis: “He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more. And I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God, the New Jerusalem...” (Rev. 3:12).

Even after the second coming John says, “His name shall be on their foreheads” (Rev. 22:4).

In the old covenant “Aaron bore on his forehead the name of the Lord inscribed on the crown on the front of the priestly mitre.” [Meredith G. Kline, Images of the Spirit, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980), p. 54.]

It is obvious that having the name of Christ (or God the Father, Rev. 14:1) on the forehead is not meant to be taken literally but is representative of allegiance to God, ownership by God, and even the presence of God the Holy Spirit.

Therefore, the mark of the beast should be viewed as “the Satanic parody of the ‘seal of God’ on the foreheads and hands of the righteous....

Israel has rejected Christ, and is ‘marked’ with the seal of Rome’s total lordship; she has given her allegiance to Caesar, and is obedient to his rule and law. Israel chose to be saved by the pagan state, and persecuted those who sought salvation in Christ.” [Chilton, p. 342]

The mark of the beast is a counterfeit of God’s seal on His people. Those who give their allegiance to Caesar and the Roman state have social respectability and the benefits that go with it (economic, political, religious, etc.).

The Roman state demanded total allegiance to Caesar; everyone was required to make an offering of incense unto Caesar as God. “All who dwell on the earth will worship him [the beast], whose names have not been written in the Book of Life...” (Rev. 13:8).

But Christians refused to worship the beast and thus were persecuted unto death and became economic and social outcasts. The mark of the beast reflects a wicked heart that worships and serves Caesar.

“The imagery no doubt comes from the practice of branding slaves with the mark of their master.” [Philip Edgecumbe Hughes, The Book of the Revelation, pp. 153-54.]

Christians are slaves of Christ; all others are slaves of Satan.

Revelation 13 focuses on the Roman empire and the beast—Nero Caesar.

Things look very bleak for the church in chapter 13, but in chapter 14 the prophet focuses his attention upon Christ and His people.

Those who persecute the church, who worship the beast, will receive their due:

“If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation.

He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever” (Rev. 14:9-11).

But Christians are blessed: “‘Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.’ ‘Yes,’ says the Spirit, ‘that they may rest from their labors, and their works follow them’” (v. 13).

Although these words should comfort Christians of all ages, they were written specifically to comfort believers suffering the persecution of Nero—the Beast.

This truth is confirmed when the many time indicators within Revelation are considered.

John wrote, “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants things which must shortly take place.... Blessed is he who reads...for the time is near.... The Lord God...sent His angel to show His servants the things which must shortly take place” (Rev. 1:1-3; 22:6).

Five times Jesus Christ declared, “I am coming quickly” (2:16; 3:11; 22:7, 12, 20); He was referring to His coming to judge apostate Israel and their Roman accomplices in the persecution of the church (this judgment occurred in A.D. 67-70).

But He promised to spare a faithful first-century church from the coming conflagration: “Because you have kept My command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world” (3:10).

The purpose of the references to the millennium, the second coming, the final judgment and the eternal state is to give persecuted first-century Christians a glimpse of the church’s glorious future.

The significance of the book of Revelation to its first-century audience must no longer be ignored. ~~~ Brian Schwertley

"I've gone as far as can be without speculation, and some of that even crept into my analysis."

A greatly misunderstood figure from the Bible is the beast of Revelation. The beast, unlike the antichrist, is at least a real political leader. The problem with most modern interpretations seeking to identity the beast is that the many textual indicators given by John to identify the beast are ignored in favor of the futurist, revived Roman emperor idea.

In the book of Revelation the beast is identified as both an empire and as a leader of an empire.

The empire is without question the Roman empire of John’s own day.

In Revelation 13 John is standing on the sand of the sea and observing a beast rising up out of the sea. The beast has “seven heads and ten horns, and on his horns ten crowns, and on his heads a blasphemous name. Now the beast which I saw was like a leopard, his feet were like the feet of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion. The dragon gave him his power, his throne, and great authority” (Rev. 13:1-2).

John describes the very same animals alluded to by the prophet Daniel to describe three of the four great world empires: Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Greece (Dan. 7:1-6). The fourth empire, which has all the beast-like features of the other empires (only much worse), is none other than the Roman empire (Dan. 7:7).

In Revelation 17:12 John declares that the ten horns are ten kings; they are the leaders or governors of the ten imperial provinces.

In Revelation 17:9-10, John identifies the seven heads as both seven hills (a place) and seven kings (individuals). In the ancient world Rome was known as the city of seven mountains.

John, standing on the edge of the Mediterranean sea, looks in the direction of Rome and sees a beast coming out of the sea. Rome was a world empire that had authority over all peoples and nations (Rev. 13:7); that was the culmination of the four empires in Daniel, an empire that was satanic to the core (v. 2); and that existed on seven mountains (v. 9).

Following are some other features about the beast.

1. The beast was not only an empire but was also a man (Rev. 13:18).

John says that the beast had a blasphemous name on its heads (v. 1).

The Roman Caesars were worshiped as gods. Roman emperors were referred to as: Sebastos (one to be worshiped), divus (god) and even Deus and Theos (God). [David Chilton, The Days of Vengeance, An Exposition of the Book of Revelation (Fort Worth, TX: Dominion, 1987) p. 328]

Nero’s coins said “Savior of the world,” and Domitian was referred to as “our Lord and our God.”

John gives a number of specific indicators that identify the beast, all of which point not to someone over 2,000 years in the future, but to an emperor still living in John’s own day: Nero.

Revelation 17:10 says, “There are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, and the other has not yet come. And when he comes, he must continue a short time.”

John specifically says that the sixth king is presently ruling. Who is the sixth king? None other than Nero, the first great persecutor of Christians.

Following is a list of the Roman Caesars: 1. Julius (49-44 B.C.), 2. Augustus (31 B.C.-A.D. 14), 3. Tiberius (A.D. 14-37), 4. Gaius (Caligula, A.D. 37-41), 5. Claudius (A.D. 41-54), 6. Nero (A.D. 54-68), 7. Galba (A.D. 68).

John said that the sixth king was ruling when he wrote; this king would be followed by a seventh who would rule for only “a short time” (Rev. 17:10).

This was fulfilled to the letter: Nero was followed by Galba who ruled for only three months before he was assassinated.

2. John gives another identifier of the beast: a number.

“Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man: His number is 666” (Rev. 13:18).

Why does not John just say who the beast is? Why does he speak cryptically?

John was writing from Patmos where he was exiled by the Romans. The church was being persecuted systematically by the Roman state under Nero.

John identifies the Roman emperor but he does it in such a way so that he protects the church from reprisal if the letter is intercepted by the Roman authorities.

Almost every church in the Roman empire contained both Jews and Gentiles. The Jews living in John’s day used their alphabet for both sound symbols (phonetics) and numerical values. Each letter of the Hebrew alphabet had a numerical value.

A Hebrew spelling of Nero’s name found in documents contemporary with the writing of Revelation is Nrwn Qsr, which equals exactly 666.

[The number 666 in some ancient manuscripts of Scripture is actually changed to 616. The difference surely is no accident of sight made by an early copyist. The numbers 666 and 616 are not similar in appearance in the original Greek—whether spelled out in words or written out as numerals

Textual scholars agree: it must be intentional. Although we cannot be absolutely certain, a strong and most reasonable case may be made for the following conjecture.

John, a Jew, used a Hebrew spelling of Nero’s name in order to arrive at the figure 666. But when Revelation began circulating among those less acquainted with Hebrew, a well-meaning copyist who knew the meaning of 666 might have intended to make its deciphering easier by altering it to 616. It surely is no mere coincidence that 616 is the numerical value of ‘Nero Caesar,’ when spelled in Hebrew by transliterating it from its more common Latin spelling” (Gentry, pp. 376-77)] ~~~ Brian Schwertley

Most Christians today are taught that the antichrist is alive right now, and that he is about to break forth onto the world scene as a brilliant yet wicked world leader.

Although the antichrist is perhaps the most popular figure in the current prophecy scene, he is also the most misunderstood.

The problem is that premillennial authors focus their attention on Daniel’s little horn, Paul’s man of sin, and the beast in Revelation, yet ignore the passages of Scripture which actually discuss antichrist.

There are only four passages of Scripture which expressly mention “antichrist,” all in the epistles of John (1 Jn. 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 Jn. 7).

John corrects the false notion of antichrist that had arisen among Christians in his own day; he declares that antichrist is not something far off in the future but a present reality.

Second, he says that antichrist is not a single individual but a large group of people.

Third, he defines antichrist not as a person (a coming world leader) but as a current movement: “Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour” (1 Jn. 2:18).

Many Christians in John’s day had heard that antichrist (singular) was coming. John responded by saying that even now many antichrists (plural) had arisen. The verb “have arisen” or “have come” (gegonasin) indicates that these antichrists arose in the past and were still present.

The presence of these antichrists proves that “it is (present tense) the last hour” (2:18).

Thus it is evident that John (who wrote the book of Revelation) rejected the idea of a future, singular antichrist; instead, he warned Christians of a heretical movement (or movements).

There are many antichrists. “For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist” (2 Jn. 7). “Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son” (1 Jn. 2:22). “‘These antichrists who have arisen,’ says John, ‘belonged to us, but they were not of us.’

In other words, they took up the Christian position, they claimed they were Christian, they professed to be teachers of the Christian Church, and yet they have been separated from the Christians in order that it would be clear to all that they were not of them.

In other words, they claimed to delight in the true religion and yet they destroyed it.” [Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Walking with God: Studies in I John (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1993), p. 100.]

John focused the attention of his readers upon one, or perhaps two, heretical movements.

The first, probably Gnostic in origin, denied the real humanity of Jesus Christ (2 Jn. 7).

The second, probably Jewish in origin, denied that Jesus was the Messiah (1 Jn. 2:22).

“John clearly applies the conception of the one antichrist (ho antichristos) to the generic tendency to promote lies about the identity of Christ.” [Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., He Shall Have Dominion (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1992), p. 373]

“Every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world” (1 Jn. 4:3).

“Antichrist is not an individual, malevolent ruler looming in our future. Rather, Antichrist was a contemporary heretical tendency regarding the person of Christ that was current among many in John’s day.” [Gentry, p. 374] ~~~ Brian Schwertley

Seems the FULL Preterist heretics agree with you Mat

This reads just like what I learned in an RC college on the book of Revelations.. So you are keepong interesting company

    The Beast Out of the Sea

    Nero and Nero alone fits the bill as the specific or personal expression of the Beast. This vile character fulfills all the requirements of the principles derived from the very text of Revelation itself. Those principles are particularly abundant in Revelation 13. Notice:

         First, in Revelation 13:18 the number of the Beast is the number of "a man" and that number is "666." Now the usefulness of this number lies in the fact that in ancient days alphabets served a two-fold purpose. Letters functioned, of course, as phonetic symbols. As such, they functioned just as our modern alphabet. But in ancient times letters also served as numerals, in that the Arabic numbering system was a later development of history.

    A Hebrew spelling of Nero Caesar's name was Nrwn Qsr n, e,r, o, n; q, s, r. It has been documented by archaeological finds that a first century Hebrew spelling of Nero's name provides us with precisely the value of 666. Is it not remarkable that this most relevant emperor has a name that fits precisely the required sum? Is this sheer historical accident? But there is more.

    Second, the textual variant. If you consult a Bible with marginal references you may notice something of interest regarding Revelation 13:18. Your reference may say something to the effect: "Some manuscripts read 616." The fact is that the number 666 in some ancient manuscripts of Scripture is actually changed to 616. But why? Was it changed accidentally, or on purpose?

    The difference surely is no accident of sight made by an early copiest. The numbers 666 and 616 are not even similar in appearance in the original Greek--whether spelled out in words or written out as numerals. As textual scholars agree, it must be intentional.

    A strong and most reasonable case may be made for the following probability. John, a Jew, used a Hebrew spelling of Nero's name in order to arrive at the figure 666. But when Revelation began circulating among those less acquainted with Hebrew, a well-meaning copiest who knew the meaning of 666 might have intended to make its deciphering easier by altering it to 616. It surely is no mere coincidence that 616 is the numerical value of "Nero Caesar," when spelled in Hebrew by transliterating it from its more widely familiar Latin spelling.

    Such a conjecture would satisfactorily explain the rationale for the divergence: so that the non-Hebrew mind might more readily discern the identity of the Beast. Such a possibility offers are markable confirmation of the designation of Nero.

    Third, the beastly image. In Revelation 13 the one behind the 666 riddle is specifically designated a "Beast." The Greek word for"beast" is often used of the wild, carnivorous animals employed in the cruel Roman arenas. Because of its natural association, the term is often quite aptly used figuratively of persons with "a 'bestial' nature, beast, monster."

    Not only is the word "Beast" employed by John in this passage,but he even symbolically represents this fearsome being with horrible, beastly imagery. This Beast is a compound of such feared and destructive carnivores such as the leopard, bear, and lion.

    Now it is almost universally agreed that Nero was one who was possessed of a "bestial nature." Nero was even feared and hated by his own countrymen. His bestial cruelty is evidenced in the writings of the Roman historian Suetonius (A.D. 70-160), who speaks of Nero's "cruelty of disposition" evidencing itself at an early age. He documents Nero's evil and states: "neither discriminationn or moderation [were employed] in putting to death whosoever he pleased on any pretext whatever." Suetonius notes that Nero"compelled four hundred senators and six hundred Roman knights, some of whom were well to do and of unblemished reputation, to fight in the arena." He enjoyed homosexual rape and torture. He ruthlessly killed his parents, brother, wife, aunt, and many others close to him and of high station in Rome.

    Roman historian Tacitus (A.D. 56-117) spoke of Nero's "cruel nature" that "put to death so many innocent men." Roman naturalist Pliny the Elder (A.D. 23-79) described Nero as "the destroyer of the human race" and "the poison of the world." Roman satirist Juvenal (A.D. 60-140) speaks of "Nero's cruel and bloody tyranny."Elsewhere he calls Nero a "cruel tyrant."

         Nero so affected the imagination that the pagan writer Apollinius of Tyana, a contemporary of Nero, specifically mentions that Nero was called a "beast": "In my travels, which have been wider than ever man yet accomplished, I have seen many, many wild beasts of Arabia and India; but this beast, that is commonly called a Tyrant, I know not how many heads it has, nor if it be crooked of claw, and armed with horrible fangs. . . . And of wild beasts you cannot say that they were ever known to eat their own mother, but Nero has gorged himself on this diet."

    Fourth, the war with the saints. The Beast is said to "make war with the saints and to overcome them" (Rev. 13:7). In fact, he is said to conduct such blasphemous warfare for a specific period of time: 42 months (Rev. 13:5).

    The Neronic persecution, which was initiated by Nero in A.D.64, was the first ever Roman assault on Christianity. Two of his most famous victims are the apostles Peter and Paul.

    As Church father Eusebius notes: "Nero was the first of the emperors who showed himself an enemy of the divine religion."Sulpicius Severus concurs: "He first attempted to abolish the name of Christian." In his Annals Roman historian Tacitus points to those who were persecuted as "those who . . . were vulgarly called Christians."

    Roman historian Suetonius concurs, for in a list of the few "positive" contributions of Nero as emperor, he includes the fact that Nero persecuted Christians: "During his reign many abuses were severely punished and put down, and no fewer new laws were made:. . . . Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition."

    Noted church historian J. L. von Mosheim wrote of Nero's persecution:

    "Foremost in the rank of those emperors, on whom the church looks back with horror as her persecutors, stands Nero, a prince whose conduct towards the Christians admits of no palliation, but was to the last degree unprincipled and inhuman. The dreadful persecution which took place by order of this tyrant, commenced at Rome about the middle of November, in the year of our Lord 64. . . . This dreadful persecution ceased but with the death of Nero. The empire, it is well known, was not delivered from the tyranny of this monster until the year 68, when he put an end to his own life." (L. von Mosheim, Historical Commentaries, I:138,139).

         Nero died on June 8, A.D. 68, 42 months later, but for a few days. It was only then that the Neronic persecution formally ended, as Rome's attention was turned to the eruption of its own civil war.

    Fifth, the death of the Beast. Nero Caesar fits the entire bill for the personal manifestation of the Beast in Revelation. The Beast not only slays by the sword, but ultimately is to die of a sword wound: "He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints" (Rev.13:10).

    That Nero did in fact kill by the sword is well-attested fact.Paul, for example, is said to have died under Nero by decapitation by means of the sword. Tertullian credits "Nero's cruel sword" as providing the martyr's blood as seed for the church. He urges his Roman readers to "Consult your histories; you will there find that Nero was the first who assailed with the imperial sword the Christian sect."

    Likewise, history records for us that Nero took his own life by sword. Roman historian Suetonius writes in Nero (ch. 49): "Then with the help of his secretary, Epaphroditus, he stabbed himself in the throat."

         The evidence is strong and well-grounded in historical fact: Nero Caesar was the personal expression of the Beast of Revelation. But one important question remains: what about the Beast's death-wound and his subsequent resurrection? Let us now consider John's revelation of:

    The Beast Arising from the Dead

    We read in Revelation 13:3 "And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast." As I set forth the proper interpretation, it will be necessary to remember that John allows some shifting in his imagery of the Beast. The Beast is generically portrayed as a kingdom and specifically designated as one of the kings of that kingdom.

    We should note that it is one of the heads which received a death blow: "And I saw one of his heads as if it had been slain, and his fatal wound was healed" (Rev. 13:3). We saw earlier that Nero Caesar is the "head" which is in view here.

    Understanding the matters we have discussed up until now takes us a long way toward resolving the interpretive issue before us.The mortal sword wound to one of the heads is a wound that should have been fatal to the Beast, generically considered. This explains why that after the wound was healed and the Beast continued alive "the whole earth was amazed and followed after the beast" (Rev.13:3b). The seven-headed Beast seems indestructible, for the cry goes up: "Who is like the beast, and who is able to wage war with him? (Rev. 13:4b).

    Now how does all of this imagery have anything to do with Rome and Nero Caesar?

    At this point we need to reflect upon a most significant series of historical events of the A.D. 60s. A perfectly reasonable and historical explanation of the revived Beast lies before the interpreter. Here is where so many faddish interpretations of Revelation go wrong. They forget the original audience relevance factor and, consequently, overlook the history of the era.

    When Nero committed suicide on June 8, A.D. 68, two majorinter-related historical situations presented themselves to the world. Both carried with them catastrophic consequences.

    First, with the death of Nero, the Julio-Claudian line of emperors perished from the earth. In other words, the Roman Empire's founding family vanished from rule. The blood line that had given birth to, extended, stabilized, brought prosperity to, and had received worship from the Roman Empire was suddenly cut off forever. In superstitious, pagan fashion Suetonius notes that "many portents" foreshadowed the tragedy that was to be, i.e. that "the race of the Caesars ended with Nero." This was a grave and serious matter to the Roman Empire.

    Second, catastrophe upon catastrophe followed the death of Nero and the extinction of the Julian line. Immediately, the Roman Empire was hurled into civil wars of horrible ferocity and dramatic proportions. In fact, the civil wars almost destroyed the empire, seriously threatening to reduce "eternal Rome" to rubble.

    The peril Rome faced and the upheaval that shook the empire were well-known in that era. As Josephus notes of these Roman civil wars: "I have omitted to give an exact account of them, because they are well known by all, and they are described by a great number of Greek and Roman authors."

    In introducing the months following upon the death of Nero, Tacitus wrote:

    The history on which I am entering is that of a period rich in disasters, terrible with battles, torn by civil struggles, horrible even in peace. Four emperors failed by the sword; there were three civil wars, more foreign wars and often both at the same time. There was success in the East, misfortune in the West. Illyricum was disturbed, the Gallic provinces wavering, Britain subdued and immediately let go. The Sarmatae and Suebi rose against us; the Dacians won fame by defeats inflicted and suffered; even the Parthians were almost roused to arms through the trickery of a pretended Nero. Moreover, Italy was distressed by disasters unknown before or returning after the lapse of ages.... In Rome there was more awful cruelty. . . . Besides the manifold misfortunes that befell mankind, there were prodigies in the sky and on the earth, warnings given by thunderbolts, and prophecies of the future, both joyful and gloomy, uncertain and clear. For never was it more fully proved by awful disasters of the Roman people or by indubitable signs that gods care not for our safety, but for our punishment.

    Tacitus's detailed account of the ruin wreaked upon Rome almost equals in psychological horror, cultural devastation, and human carnage that which befell Jerusalem during the Jewish War, as recorded by Josephus and Tactius. The Roman civil wars were the first fruits of Nero's death.

    These civil wars would, to all appearance, strike the citizens, subjects, neighbors, and enemies of the vast empire--Christian and pagan alike--as being the very death throes of Rome,the Beast generically considered. Indeed, in Tacitus's estimationit very nearly was so: "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."

    Before the world's startled eyes, the seven-headed Beast (Rome) was toppling to its death as its sixth head (Nero) was mortally wounded with the sword. As Suetonius viewed the long months immediately following Nero's death, the empire "for a longtime had been unsettled, and as it were, drifting, through the usurpation and violent death of three emperors."

    JOSEPHUS RECORDS THE MATTER AS PERCEIVED BY THE ROMAN GENERALS VESPASIAN AND TITUS, WHILE THEY WERE ENGAGED IN THE JEWISH WAR INA.D. 69: "And now they were both in suspense about the public affairs, the Roman empire being then in a fluctuating condition, and did not go on with their expedition against the Jews, but thought that to make any attack upon foreigners was now unseasonable, on account of the solicitude they were in for their own country." THE REPORTS OF THE DESTRUCTION AND RAPINE WERE SO HORRIBLE THAT IT IS REPORTED OF GENERAL VESPASIAN: "And as this sorrow of his was violent, he was not able to support the torment she was under, nor to apply himself further in other wars when his native country was laid waste."

    According to 4 Ezra 12:16-19, written around A.D. 100, the Empire was "in danger of falling": "In the midst of the time of that kingdom great struggles shall arise, and it shall be in dangerof falling; nevertheless it shall not fall then, but shall regain its former power."

    Josephus agrees that during this time Rome was brought near to utter "ruin." He notes that "about this time it was that heavy calamities came about Rome on all sides." Josephus writes elsewhere that "the Roman government [was] in a great internal disorder, by the continual changes of its rulers, and [the Germans] understood that every part of the habitable earth under them was in an unsettled and tottering condition." Men everywhere understood that "the state of the Romans was so ill."

    But what eventually occurred at the end of these death throes? The rest of Suetonius's quotation begun above informs us that: "The empire, which for a long time had been unsettled and, as it were,drifting through the usurpation and violent death of three emperors, was at last taken in hand given stability by the Flavian family." Josephus sets forth this view of things when he writes: "So upon this confirmation of Vespasian's entire government, which was now settled, and upon the unexpected deliverance of the public affairs of the Romans from ruin, Vespasian turned his thoughts to what remained unsubdued in Judea." Thus, after a time of grievous civil wars, the Empire was revived by the ascending of Vespasian to the purple.

    The relevant verses in Revelation regarding the death and revivification of the Beast may properly be understood as prophesying the earth-shaking historical events of the late A.D.60s era. Rome died, as it were, and returned again to life. In light of John's original audience (Rev. 1:4,11), his call for their careful consideration (Rev. 1:3; 13:9), and his contemporary expectation (Rev. 1:1,3), we must wonder why commentators project themselves into the distant future seeking some other fulfillment of these events. All the evidence heretofore dovetails nicely with this revivification factor.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.