The Beast of Revelation 17: Person or Institution?
One of my favorite lines from the Lone Ranger was when people would ask, "Who was that masked man?" In the book of Revelation, chapter 17, we do not have a masked man, but a "masked" beast. Who or what is the beast? Commentators have identified the beast variously as Rome, the Antichrist, evil, successive empires, etc. Most interpretations can be categorized as either a person or an institution. This paper seeks to find an answer to this age-old question.
To determine the beast's identity I will exegete important verses in Revelation 13 and 17. In addition I will interact with the various viewpoints offered by the scholars of Revelation. While not the primary purpose of this paper, I will also explore the identity of the woman riding the beast to the extent that this is pertinent to determining the identity of the beast. My conclusion will be based on an interaction with the scholars and with the text itself, insofar as such a conclusion is possible in light of the weighty arguments advanced for both the "person" and "institution" positions.
Revelation 17 in the Context of the Book
Revelation 17 is broken up into three sections: 1. Introduction to the vision (1-2); 2. The vision (3-6); 3. An interpretation of the vision (7-18). Within the flow of the book the vision of the beast follows on the heels of the seven bowls (15-16). It seems to be an appendix to the seventh bowl, expounding on the destruction of Babylon named in the seventh bowl judgment (16:19), and aforementioned in 14:8. The time of the judgment is at the end of the tribulation period, just before the Lord's return (19:11-21). This is evidenced by the fact that the seven bowl judgments are said to be the final plagues that will complete God's wrath on the earth-dwellers (15:1), the judgment of Babylon taking place in the seventh of these final plagues.
A Comparison of Beasts
The first beast of Rev 13 has the same number of heads and horns as does the dragon in the previous chapter (Revelation 12:3; 13:1). The only difference between the dragon and the beast is the crowns. The dragon has crowns on his heads whereas the beast has crowns on his horns (Revelation 13:1). The beast cannot be the dragon, however, because the dragon is clearly distinguished from the beast. The dragon is said to give the beast his ruling authority (Revelation 13:4). For there to be one who gives ruling authority and one to receive the same requires that the dragon and beast be distinct from one another. The dragon and beast so closely resemble each other (with the same number of heads and horns) because the beast is the "reflection" of the dragon; i.e. everything the beast is and does directly flows from the ability given it by the dragon (Revelation 13:4-5, 7). Because of the satanic power operating behind the beast, the beast directly resembles the dragon, much like a glove directly resembles the hand it covers.
The first beast of Revelation 13 also has the same number of horns as does the beast of Daniel 7, although that beast is not said to have multiple heads (Daniel 7:8). Furthermore, the beast of Revelation 13 displays all the characteristics of Daniel's beasts. It is said to be like a leopard (third beast), have feet like a bear (second beast), and a mouth like a lion (first beast; compare Revelation 13:2 with Daniel 7:4-7). There is a clear affinity between Daniel's fourth beast and the beast of Revelation 13.
When we get to Revelation 17 we find a beast who is described as scarlet, having seven heads and ten horns. While there is no mention of any crowns on its heads or horns, it seems to be the same beast as that of Revelation 13. The fact that this beast is said to be scarlet, whereas the beast of Revelation 13 is not, does not appear to be of such significance to indicate that two different beasts are in view. Scarlet (kokkinon) is closely associated with red (purros), which is the color of the dragon, and symbolic of evil throughout the book (Revelation 6:4; 12:3; 17:3-4).1 While the context gives us reason to see the dragon and beast as two different characters even though they share the same number of heads and horns, we are not given any literary clues to consider the first beast of Revelation 13 and the beast of Revelation 17 as two different characters. The burden of proof rests on those who wish to make such a distinction.
Seeing that the beast of Revelation 13 and 17 is identified as the same beast, an examination of the details of the former will assist in determining the identity of the latter. The beast in Revelation 13 is said to have recovered from a deadly wound causing the world to wonder after him (13:3), received worship (13:4, 8), is unique and invincible (13:4), spoke blasphemies against God (13:5-6), had power over the nations, and had power to make war with the saints (13:7). Each of these are clues to the beast's identity.
While the beast's invincibility and power over the nations and saints could indicate that he is symbolic of some sort of political institution, the same cannot be said of speaking blasphemies against God and receiving worship. Institutions do not speak, and it makes little sense to assert that people will worship a political entity. They may worship an individual who represents such an entity, but not an abstract entity itself.
There are good arguments on both sides for the nature of the deadly wound one of the beast's heads received and subsequently recovered from. Some, such as Mounce, believe the beast is non-personal, referring to evil spiritual forces. The death-wound and recovery refers to the reestablishment of political order under Emperor Vespasian, or maybe even to emphasize the vitality of the beast. Others, such as Walvoord, see the beast as the revived Roman Empire. It is believed that the ten-toed iron and clay kingdom of Daniel 2:41-43 is a latter-day revival of the old Roman Empire. It is clear in Daniel that the iron kingdom is the fourth and final kingdom, and yet this iron kingdom is distinguished literarily from the iron and clay kingdom (see how they are treated distinctly in Daniel 2:40, 41-3). Since both are part of the fourth kingdom, sharing in the iron, it is clear that both refer to Rome. Seeing that the iron kingdom will be in existence when the Lord sets up His own everlasting kingdom (Daniel 2:44; See also 7:13-14, 21-27), it is believed that the Roman Empire must be in existence at Christ's return.2 Since the Roman Empire fell in the seventh century AD this would require a revival of that empire just before the coming of Christ.
Against such a position is the fact that the fourth kingdom will not be the only kingdom in existence when the Lord sets up His kingdom; all the kingdom-beasts will be in existence. Notice that Daniel said, "And in the days of these kings " (Daniel 2:44, italics mine). "These kings" refer to the four kingdoms of the great image. Not only would the Roman Empire have to exist at the time of Christ's return according to such interpretation, but so would the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, and Grecian Empires. The same can be said of the beasts of Daniel 7. Within the context of the Lord's return and establishment of the everlasting kingdom it is said of the four beasts: "I beheld even till the [fourth] beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame. As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time" (Daniel 7:11b-12 within the context of 7:7-27).
Not only is the revived Roman Empire view exegetically shaky, it does not fit the response of those who witnessed the resurrection of the beast. It is said that they were amazed at the beast who recovered from such a deadly wound, and such amazement prompted world-wide followership and worship of the beast (Revelation 13:3-4). The healing of the beast led them to believe that the beast was militarily invincible (and by implication, invincible to death), and unlike any other (13:4). While a revived Roman Empire would be a wonder indeed, it is difficult to see how a political re-uniting of the old Roman Empire could illicit such amazement and worship from the earth-dwellers. A recovery from a genuine death-wound to a real human being would better explain the world's amazement and worship.
The text supports the view that the death-wound and subsequent healing was received by a human, not an institution. The Greek says the beast was w`j evsfagme,non ("as if slain"). The exact same wording is used of Christ the Lamb in Revelation 5:6. If we are to argue for the reality of the physical death of Christ we must also argue for the reality of the physical death of the beast because the same construction is used of each. Furthermore, Christ's resurrection is described as e;zhsen (2:8). The same word is used of the beast's recovery from the deadly wound (13:14). Just as Christ was raised from the dead, so will the beast (Antichrist). It is the ultimate parody of the Antichrist that he would even imitate Christ's death and resurrection in his rivalry of Christ.3
The only serious objection to this view is that Satan does not have the power to raise one from the dead. It should be pointed out that the text never says who raised the beast from his deadly wound. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that it was God who caused him to raise from the dead, possibly to magnify the beast's deception of the earth-dwellers. Regardless, the issue of who raised the Antichrist from the dead is not a question of exegesis, but of theological speculation.4
In summation, while the deadly wound the beast received and recovered from could be taken in a figurative sense to refer to a non-personal entity such as evil, or a political kingdom, an exegesis of the text argues in favor of the view that it is a literal wound and recovery of a human being.
A further clue to the identity of the first beast of Revelation 13 is found in the second beast of Revelation 13. It is clear that this second beast is a human person, and not an institution. He is identified as "the false prophet" (Revelation 16:13; 19:20; 20:10), a designation clearly depicting that of a human person. He, as well as the beast, is said to be cast into the Lake of Fire at the Lord's return (19:20). Surely an institution, kingdom, or city cannot be thrown into the Lake of Fire; people are thrown into the Lake of Fire.5 This argues strongly that the beasts of Revelation 13 are specific human individuals.
The second beast is also said to cause the earth dwellers to worship the first beast, and even compel them to make an image of him (13:12, 14). The second beast was able to give life to this image so that it could speak and kill (13:15). Unless this image is that of a man, it makes little sense for it to be able to speak. It seems the first beast, which the image resembles, is a man, not an institution.
The Beast of Revelation 17
While the first beast of Revelation 13 appears to be a human individual, the details of the beast in Revelation 17 are not so clear. John saw a vision of a woman sitting on a scarlet beast with seven heads and ten horns. The vision may allude to a coin minted in AD 71 in the province of Asia during Vespasian's reign (AD 69-79). The coin has a picture of Vespasian on the front and the goddess Roma sitting on the seven hills of Rome on the back.6 The goddess personified Rome to those living in these parts, although the goddess was not officially introduced to the city of Rome until the second century AD. Whether this was the backdrop of John's vision cannot be determined with certainty, but it is an interesting parallel to John's vision nonetheless.
When the angel began to interpret John's vision of the beast and woman he said the beast "was, and is not, but is about to come up from the abyss ." Johnson sees this description as reminiscent of the deadly wound and healing of the beast spoken of in Revelation 13:3, 14. The fact that he "is not" refers to his defeat by the Lamb at Calvary.7 He would come back to life again at the end time, however. David Aune agrees with Johnson that the description is reminiscent of the deadly wound and healing, but understands this in a literal sense, referring to a human person.8 He specifically connects this with the Nero Redivivus theory wherein Nero was expected to be revived from the dead. Many saw such a resurrection in Emperor Domitian.
Robert Mounce interprets the beast as the persecution of Christians by the hand of imperial government. He understands the "was, and is not, but is about to come up from the abyss" to refer to the fact that persecution had existed but had stopped for the moment. Soon, however, it would come out of the abyss once again.9 Caird, a preterist, has much the same interpretation. He says, "The fact that he [John] can say it is not is the clearest possible indication that there was no open and organized persecution at the time when he was writing."10 These interpretations fit with their overall understanding of the theme of Revelation, but do not seem to be derived from an exegesis of this particular text. There is nothing in the context that indicates the beast is persecuting anyone. The beast is only said to destroy the woman that rides him. The only mention of opposition towards the godly is the war he will make against the Lamb, a reference to the battle of Armageddon at the very end of Daniel's 70th week (17:14).
To say the beast was, and is not, and will ascend from the abyss is reminiscent of the thrice repeated statement concerning Christ as the one "who is, who was, and who is to come" (Revelation 1:4, 8; 4:8). It seems to be a parallel expression, communicating once again the ways in which the Antichrist attempts to parallel the true Christ.
I would have to agree with Aune that the description of the beast is a reference to the wounding and healing of the beast in chapter 13. The response is the same in both chapters. In both 13:3 and 17:8 the world "wondered" (qauma,zw) after the beast. If the reference is the same, and the beast is a person in Revelation 13, it would argue for a personal beast in Revelation 17.
In the interpretation of the beast's seven heads we are told that they are both seven mountains, and seven kings. This is the only place in apocalyptic literature in which one symbol is given two interpretations, making this very unique.
Johnson understands the seven mountains/kings to refer to completeness, not literally, and thus rejects the view that the beast is Rome, or seven particular Roman emperors. He points out, as do many other commentators, that if the seven kings refer to seven literal emperors we are at a loss to know which emperors John was referring to. We must ask Which emperor are we to begin with? Is it Julius Caesar? Augustus Caesar? Which emperors do we include and exclude? Those who wish to find seven emperors not only arbitrarily start with a particular emperor, but also arbitrarily exclude the short reigning emperors Galba, Otho, and Vitellius. If John wrote his apocalypse under Nero we are left with too few emperors; if under Domitian too many. No reconstruction of the identity of the seven kings is without its mark of speculation, arbitrariness, and difficulty.
Aune, along with Mounce and Caird proclaim that "seven mountains" or "seven hills" was widely used in the first century to refer to the city of Rome. John's readers would have made this connection very quickly. Johnson objected to this on the grounds that if the seven hills reference was so obvious to John's readers, why does John say, "This requires a mind that has wisdom" (17:9a)? He maintains that John made it clear that what was needed was theological discernment, not geographical knowledge.11 I believe Aune rightly points out that this statement refers to that which preceded it, not that which follows it, presenting Mark 13:14 and Revelation 13:8 as evidence.12 It does not require wisdom to discern the meaning of the seven hills, then, but to discern the beast who was, and is not, but is to come (17:8c).
Interestingly enough, as it pertains to the seven kings, Aune takes them figuratively, not referring to a numerical figure, but a complete set.13 This causes him to reject any historic interpretation of the seven kings, while still maintaining that indeed they are real kings. Mounce takes a similar position, saying the seven kings stand "for the power of the Roman Empire as a historic whole."14 Caird too understands the seven kings symbolically, representative of all Roman emperors, just like the seven churches John wrote to were not the complete number of churches, but representative of all congregations.15 The fact that five have fallen, one is, and there is yet one more to come only stresses the fact that the end is near.
Ladd and Walvoord understand the seven kings to refer to seven kingdoms who persecuted God's people: Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, and a future kingdom not yet come on the scene.16 But what about the Syria? This explanation seems to suffer from arbitrariness. Also, "kings" is never used in Revelation to refer symbolically to a kingdom. In Revelation 18:9, for example, we see the kings of the earth weeping over the destruction of Babylon. Kingdoms do not weep, kings do.
I believe Aune, Mounce, and Caird are right in insisting that the seven mountains is a reference to the city of Rome. The beast, then is Roman, whether it be a reference to the Roman Empire as a whole, or a leader of that empire. Seeing that the angel interprets the vision of the beast in two distinct ways, as both seven mountains and seven kings, indicates that both interpretations refer to something different. "Seven kings" is an obvious reference to human persons, so the reference to "seven mountains" must refer to something else, probably the city of Rome as the head of the Roman Empire. Thus it is possible that the beast refers to both a person/persons and an institution in this context.
While Johnson does not believe the beast or the woman is Rome, he recognizes that many interpreters see both the beast and the woman as Rome. In his eyes this discredits the notion that the beast is to be associated with Rome, for how can Rome ride Rome? And why would Rome or a Roman emperor destroy Rome as we see in chapter 18? Johnson's observations are worth noting and commenting on because many identify both the beast and the woman as Rome. If both the beast and the woman are Rome, we do find ourselves in a logical quandary. I believe the way out of this is to reexamine the identity of the woman.
Literarily speaking, the woman seems to be identified with Jerusalem.17 Jerusalem, "the great city" had already been called spiritually Sodom and Egypt (11:8), so it would be no surprise if she was also identified with another wicked city such as Babylon. In 16:19 we are told, "And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath." There are a few things to note. First, there can only be one "the great city." Jerusalem was said to be the great city in 11:8 so why should we expect the identity of the great city to change later in the apocalypse? The burden of proof would rest on those who wish to say the great city changed from chapter 11 to chapter 16 from Jerusalem to something else. It should also be noted that the great city is contrasted to the cities of the nations; i.e. Gentile cities. The contrast only carries force if the great city is not a city of the Gentiles. In 17:18, then, the woman who rides the beast, identified as Babylon, is called "the great city." Thus the connection between Jerusalem as the great city and Babylon is clearly made. The internal evidence of the book strongly suggests that the woman riding the beast is Jerusalem, spiritually called Babylon.
Two primary objections could be made against this interpretation. On the exegetical side some will argue that the woman must be related to Rome because the woman is said to sit on the seven mountains (17:9). This is interpreted to mean that she resides in the city on seven hills; i.e. Rome. Using this same logic, however, we must also conclude that the woman resides on many waters (17:1), which would require her to be scattered out on the face of the earth. Clearly this is not to be taken literally, for 17:15 identifies the waters as peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues. If the woman is said to sit on both the waters and on the seven mountains, more is meant that geography. The woman is pictured as sitting on the waters, beast, and seven hills (17:1, 3, 9). This is a position of one reigning in authority. The point John is trying to express is the control of the woman over others, not her geographical location.18 The woman controls the nations, the beast, and the seven mountains.
The second objection is more practical. The woman is described as reigning over the kings of the earth (17:18), a whore (18:3), and having abundant wealth (18:7, 12-13, 15-19). The whole world mourns her destruction, including the merchants and kings who made their wealth from her (18:9-11). How could such a description fit Jerusalem? Jerusalem, while a highly visible city in the world, is not a very important city economically speaking. It would seem strange for Jerusalem to be described as having such wealth and being the center of a global economy. To argue that this makes the view that Jerusalem is Babylon untenable is flawed, however, because it assumes that Babylon, as it is described in Revelation 18, must exist and be visible to us in the present day. This is the common error of modern premillennialists who are always looking for the fulfillment of prophecy in our current political milieu. While it is possible that Babylon is thriving today, it is also possible that Babylon will not come to the prominence described in Revelation until a future time. While we should be looking for the return of Christ, and by implication the prophecies surrounding the time of the end, we must not be too quick to ignore an exegesis of the text because the conclusion would point to something that we do not see as "fulfillable" in our present day. Restricting our interpretation of prophecy to that which CNN would allow is a mistake, for we do not know exactly when and how many of the prophecies will be fulfilled.
It has been common to identify the 7+1 kings as Roman emperors. Johnson rejects this view on the basis that "John's purpose is theological, not political."19 He argues that if we understand the seven heads qualitatively, indicating completeness, rather than quantitatively we will understand John to be referring to the fullness of evil power residing in the beast. The fact that five kings have fallen indicates a significant victory over the beast, and the final victory as right around the corner.20
Aune, who understands the kings as Roman emperors, understands "one who is" to refer to the emperor alive at the time of John's writing.21 The eighth king who is of the seven he believes refers to the Nero Redivivus theory, and might have been referring to Domitian.
Johnson says the eighth king is part of the seven qualitatively, not quantitatively.22 Just like they were defeated, so will he. Mounce goes so far as to identify the eighth king as the Antichrist, not simply another Roman emperor. He maintains "he is of the seven-not one of the seven-in that he plays the same sort of role as his earthly predecessors."23 While I agree with his overall thrust, to make a distinction between the eighth being of the seven and one of the seven is not an exegetically derived statement. Notwithstanding, it is best to understand the seven kings to refer to the totality of Roman emperors. The five fallen kings represent the past emperors, the one "who is" represents the present emperor, and the one who was yet to come represents the emperor(s) who was to follow him. The eighth who is of the seven is a reference back to Daniel 7:8 when a little horn "came up among" the other ten horns, subduing three of them. The eighth king is the Antichrist, the dreadful ruler over the fourth beast of Daniel. He is not a resurrected emperor as the Nero redivivus theory suggests, being of the seven quantitatively, but of the seven qualitatively, as suggested by Johnson.
The ten kings who receive power with the beast for one hour alludes to Daniel 7:7-8, 20, 24. Daniel's fourth beast had ten horns, symbolic of kings. The only difficulty with associating the ten kings of Revelation with the ten kings of Daniel 7:7-8 is the fact that Daniel specifically says that the "little horn" (Antichrist) subdues three kings, while Revelation always speaks of the ten kings as ten kings, not seven. Of course this could be due to a lack of detail on John's part. The similarity between Revelation and Daniel cannot be ignored no matter how we understand this difference.
Johnson understands "ten" to refer to an indefinite number of kings, suggesting that many kings will give their power to the beast.24 These kings reign "one hour," indicating a short time. That they are said to have no kingdom yet indicates that they were future kings from John's perspective. While this is a possibility considering the symbolic nature of numbers in John's apocalypse, it is by no means certain.
Person and Institution?
We have seen the mixed evidence for the identity of the beast of Revelation 17. The fact that the beast was, is not, and is to come, whom the world will be astonished over (17:8) is an allusion back to the first beast of Revelation 13, whom we have already concluded is a reference to a human being. This detail, then, suggests that the beast of Revelation 17 is a person. The seven heads of the beast are also identified as seven kings, and kings are used in Revelation to refer to literal persons.
On the other hand, the beast's seven heads are also said to be seven mountains. Whether we understand this to be a reference to seven kingdoms or the city of Rome, both are non-personal political entities. In the description of the same beast, then, we have descriptions which indicate both a person and an institution. Which is it? Can it be both? We may be aided in our solution by an examination of other apocalyptic literature, namely Daniel.
The beasts of Daniel's vision are said to represent "four kings" (Daniel 7:17). The Aramaic word, malkin, from melek, specifically refers to a human person, not an institution, nor a kingdom per se. Malkou is the Aramaic word for kingdom. This word is used in Daniel 7:23, however, which refers to the fourth beast as a fourth "kingdom." In the same prophetic description we find the beast being identified as both a king and a kingdom. These two labels for the beast are not antithetical, but synthetic. Naming the beast as a king presupposes that there is a kingdom the king reigns over. To refer to the king is to refer to the kingdom, and vice-versa.
The same sort of phenomenon occurs in Daniel 2. When Daniel interpreted King Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the great image he indicated that Nebuchadnezzar was the head of gold (Daniel 2:38). Then he said, "And after you another kingdom inferior to you will arise " (Daniel 39a). Clearly the image represented four kingdoms (Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome), yet Daniel equated the king with the kingdom (as he also does in Daniel 2:44).
Returning to Daniel 7, we do not have to choose between which epithet is the true identity of the beast, for both are. Daniel further describes the ten horns of the beast as "ten kings" that "will arise from that [fourth] kingdom" (Daniel 7:24 NET). In this context the beast is seen particularly as the political kingdom, whereas the horns represent the rulers in the kingdom. If Daniel's fourth beast can be said to be both a king (person) and a kingdom (institution) without running into contradiction, could it not also be within the realm of proper hermeneutics to understand the beast of Revelation 17 to refer both to an institution and a person? I would say we are fully justified in saying Yes! To be forced to say the beast is a person or an institution is to create a dichotomy not found in apocalyptic literature, and to force ourselves to ignore or do fanciful interpretation on the details that seem to indicate one or the other.
Who is the beast? It seems that this depends on the context. The details of the beast in Revelation 13 are most naturally understood to be descriptions of a human being, namely the Antichrist, not an institution. This same individual appears to be described as the eighth king in Revelation 17. That the two beasts are the same is evident from the fact that each have seven heads and ten horns. While the beasts of Revelation 13 and 17 may be referring to the same beast, each passage emphasizes different aspects of the beast. Revelation 13 hones in on one person, while the beast of Revelation 17 refers both to the political kingdom as a whole, the human rulers of that kingdom, and then ultimately on the last ruler of the kingdom, the Antichrist. Such an interplay of person and institution is not a compromise position, but is justified from examples of the same in Daniel, and from the details of the text in Revelation 17. While the many details of the beast given us in Revelation 13 and 17 may not be entirely understood, we can say with a fair level of certainty that we need not choose between person or institution for the beast's identity, for he is both in John's apocalypse.
1. White, in contrast, is used of righteousness (1:14; 2:17; 3:4-5, 18; 4:4; 6:2, 11; 7:9, 13; 14:14; 19:11, 14; 20:11).
2. Against such a position is the fact that not only will the fourth kingdom be in existence when the Lord sets up His kingdom, but so will all the beasts. Notice that Daniel said, "And in the days of these kings " (Daniel 2:44, italics mine). "These kings" refer to the four kingdoms of the great image. Not only would the Roman Empire have to exist at the time of Christ's return according to such interpretation, but so would the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, and Grecian Empires.
3. Gregory H. Harris, "The Wound of the Beast in the Tribulation," Bibliotheca Sacra 156:624 (Oct 1999): 466, quoting an uncited quote by Leon Morris.
4. Ibid., 467.
6. David E. Aune, Word Biblical Commentary: Revelation. Vol. 52c. David Hubbard, Glenn Barker, John Watts, eds. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998), 920.
7. Alan F. Johnson, The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Hebrews-Revelation. Vol. 12. Frank Gaebelein, ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), 557.
8. Aune, 940.
9.Robert H. Mounce, "Revelation" In The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Gordon Fee, ed. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977), 312-3.
10. G.B. Caird, The Revelation of Saint John (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1966), 216.
11. Johnson, 558.
12. Aune, 941.
13. Ibid. 948.
14. Mounce, 315.
15. Caird, 218-9.
16. Johnson, 559.
17. The following argument is derived from Dr. Gary Tuck's lectures on Revelation, given in the spring 2002 semester at Western Seminary, Los Gatos, California.
18. Charles H. Dyer, "The Identification of Babylon in Revelation 17-18, part II," Bibliotheca Sacra 144:576 (Oct 1987): 437.
19. Johnson, 557.
20. Ibid., 560.
21. Aune, 949.
22. Johnson, 561.
23. Mounce, 316.
24. Johnson, 561.
IBS | Statement of Faith | Home
| Browse by Author | Q
Links | Virtual Classroom | Copyright | Submitting Articles | Search