Attempting to Understand 666 in its Context Part III

We started this series by looking at the context and purpose of the book of Revelation, and saw that John was writing to a first century audience, to be understood, because he was talking of things which ‘must soon take place.’ He was also writing at a time of persecution, most likely according to Rev. 17 the Neronic Persecution, and thus also wanted to give his readers hope. We then shifted our attention to the greater context of Revelation 13, and saw that the first beast mentioned had both a general and particular quality, generally it was argued that the first beast was the Roman Empire, and particularly Nero, though we will be continuing and building that thought later on.

In this post, we will take a quick look at the the second beast of Revelation 13. The second beast is introduced as as coming out of the earth (Rev 13.11, ESV). This is set against the first beast which comes out of the sea. The word for earth here is γη (ge) which takes a variety of meanings including the earth or land. John uses the term for both in the book of Revelation, sometimes very close together. Because the earth here is set against the appearance of the first beast from the sea, it is probably best to take this term as meaning land in the sense of a region. Elsewhere in Revelation, John tells us that the second beast is a false prophet, and in Revelation 13, the beast from the land/earth performs many signs and wonders (verse 13). The implication is pretty clear that this beast functions in a religious role where the first beast is political. At this point, I want to note that even most futurists see this distinction between the first and second beast.

Remember, we must keep our context before us, or else we’ll be opened up to all sorts of speculation. John is writing so that his original audience can understand, so this false prophet from the land should be something that could be understood by his audience. Was there a religious entity in bed with Rome during the first century? John’s Gospel is very telling.

“¹⁵They cried out, “Away with him, away with him, crucify him!” Pilate said to them, “Shall I crucify your King?” The chief priests answered, “We have no king but Caesar.” ¹⁶So he delivered him over to them to be crucified.

So they took Jesus, ¹⁷and he went out, bearing his own cross, to the place called The Place of a Skull, which in Aramaic is called Golgotha. ¹⁸ There they crucified him, and with him two others, one on either side, and Jesus between them. ¹⁹Pilate also wrote an inscription and put it on the cross. It read, “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.” ²⁰Many of the Jews read this inscription, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and it was written in Aramaic, in Latin, and in Greek. ²¹So the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate, “Do not write, ‘The King of the Jews,’ but rather, ‘This man said, I am King of the Jews.’” ²²Pilate answered, “What I have written I have written.”
John 19.15-22

Not only did the religious leaders reject their true King, they also pledged their allegiance to Rome. The book of Acts also tells of both Jewish false prophet who performed signs and wonders (cf. Simon the Magician, Acts 8:9-24) through magic and of the allegiance between Rome and Jewish false prophets and leaders. Both of these come together in Acts 13.16-11, where a false prophet and magician named Bar-Jesus is with the Roman proconsul Sergius Paulus, as well as Elymas the Magician. The role of the second beast was to point back to the first beast, working with the first beast against the Church. This is exactly what we see apostate Jewish leaders doing throughout the Gospels, and Acts. By the time of the Neronic persecution, this only intensified. So, just as the Roman Empire, under the rule of Nero, fits the description of the first beast, the apostate Jewish leaders who point away from the true King towards Rome and the Caesar fit into the description of the second beast. They were certainly “from the land,” worked in accordance with the Roman Empire, pledging allegiance to their “king,” and opposed the church. They also performed signs and wonders and were considered false prophets, just as the second beast is called throughout Revelation. Furthermore, it would be understandable to John’s original audience whom the second beast signifies.

Next: The Resurrection of the first beast.
Note: There is another view that I did not interact with here, which was held by J. Stuart Russell (a full preterist). He held that the beast from the land was the Roman governor in Jerusalem. While this makes sense of the authority practiced by the second beast in accordance with the first, and also that the second beast is from the “land,” I do not think it does justice to the religious aspect that is given to the beast. You can read more about his view in his book “Th Paraousia” but I deny his hyper-preterist beliefs.