Attempting to Understand 666 in its Context Part IV

So far in this series we’ve looked at the general context of the book of Revelation, we’ve looked at the beast from the sea, and we’ve looked at the beast from the land. In this post we will look at the wounding and healing of the first beast. In order to understand what this could possibly mean, we need to keep a few things previously discussed at the forefront of our mind. Let us remember that the context of Revelation is that John is writing to a first century audience so that they may understand what is about to happen. He is writing a “revelation” (a revealing) so he can “show” his audience things which must shortly take place (Revelation 1.1). Thus, John intends Revelation 13 to be understood by his audience, including the this particular section on the wounding of the first beast and its healing. We must also remember that we identified the first beast (from the sea) in a general way and a particular way; the general understanding of this beast is the Roman Empire, and the particular understanding is Nero, who was Caesar. Somehow John’s comment about the wound suffered by the first beast must be understood also in this context. Here are the verses in question:

“One of its heads seemed to have a mortal wound, but its mortal wound was healed, and the whole earth marveled as they followed the beast.”
Revelation 13.3

“¹¹Then I saw another beast rising out of the earth. It had two horns like a lamb and it spoke like a dragon. ¹²It exercises all the authority of the first beast in its presence, and makes the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose mortal wound was healed.”
Revelation 13.11,12

So one of the heads of the beast (generically considered, the Roman Empire) has received a wound which is deadly. Let us recall from Revelation 17 that the heads are representative of both the hills upon which Rome set, and also the kings of Rome.

“⁹This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated; ¹⁰they are also seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come, and when he does come he must remain only a little while.”
Revelation 17.9,10

We’ve also seen from Scripture that the Caesers were known as Kings, and from contemporary historians of John that lists of Caeser’s place Nero as the 6th King (whom John identifies as “one is,” the currectly reigning Caesar). Therefore, assuming that a hill cannot receive a mortal wound, the most likely candidate was is the beast in particular, Nero. Certainly, Nero suffered a mortal wound in 68 A.D. when he committed suicide. Of course it was not only Nero who had this “death wound,” but also the Roman Empire, the beast generically considered. You may be asking in what way?

Ken Gentry (who has been the primary resource for this series) points out a huge effect of the death of Nero over the Empire. The death of Nero brought also to an end the lineage of Caesars that had been ruling over the Roman Empire, the Julio-Claudian line. As Gentry points out “[t]he 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.” Soon thereafter Rome fell into civil wars that continued ripping the empire apart. Contemporary historians such as Tacitus and Josephus note the graveness of the (then) present time. Nero was dead and the Roman Empire was dying.

The verses above, however, point to a healing of the deadly wound. Certainly, Nero did not heal, but there was a rumor that started circulating about his resurrection. This is known as the Nero redivivus myth. Many capable theologians point out that this myth was not held until later, and since we see strands of it in John’s Apocalypse show that he was writing not prior to Nero’s death, but well after. At first glance, this seems to be a weighty argument, but not necessarily so. In his book, Before Jerusalem Fell, Kenneth Gentry ably argues against this idea that the myth may have started much earlier, whith “seeds” being planted during his reign by soothsayers. I will leave that particular discussion to him. It is his conclusion at the end of the discussion that I find most-likely to be correct, and it doesn’t have to do with the Nero redivivus myth per se.

Interesting to note in Revelation 13 and the healing of the wound, is that John switches imagery between the head and the beast. As we saw above, the heads are representative of the kings, and in particular Nero. Nero receives a mortal wound, as does the Empire in his death. But then the wound is “healed” and the beast continues to live (13.3b, 12,14). What if John was not considering Nero here, but has switched from the particular (the head) to the generic (the beast). Certainly, the death of Nero seemed to be the end of the empire, as mentioned above. It was the end of the Julio-Claudian lineage and the beginning of the Roman civil war. Seemingly, with the death of its head, the beast was also dying. It was not Nero who was to be revived, but the Roman Empire. So what happened?

Suetonius records thus: “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.” Though it seemed to be in it’s death throes, and after a civil war which seemed to rip what was left of the empire apart, leaving a destabilized structure, the beast was healed and revived under the Flavian family, beginning with Emperor Vespasian.

Next: 666/616