CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE 

REVELATION 17 DEPICTS THE LAST CONFLICT IN THE LONG CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE FORCES OF GOOD AND EVIL, THE BEAST AND THE 7 HEADS ARE NOT SYMBOLS DEPICTING ONLY ROMAN POWER. 

The symbols employed in Rev. 17 cannot be limited to the power and circumstances associated with Rome. Undoubtedly the things of papal Rome loom large in this chapter, but it has been a mistake for commentators to arbitrarily confine their application to the things of Rome–and a colossal blunder when applied in relation to the literal city of Rome. The dragon of Rev. 12 symbolizes more than pagan Rome. The seven heads and ten horns on the symbolic beasts of Rev. 12, 13, 17 are thus presented to express the continuity of the evil powers depicted; so that a connection will be observed between these three powers. Undoubtedly the seven heads denote the enemies of the people of God and are not intended to refer to merely different forms of Roman government. The dragon existed before pagan Rome, though it certainly continued in Rome. In this connection observe the following extract from Ellicott's Commentary, notes on Revelation, p. 157: 

The dragon is the emblem of the evil spirit;  he devil, the persecutor of the Church in all ages,(compare Ps. 74:1): just as the dragon is sometimes employed to represent the Egyptian power, the ancient foe of Israel (Isa. 51:9; Ezek. 29:3). 

"The serpent was used as an emblem of the evil principle (compare Gen. 3:1). But the head of the ancient foe of man is now bruised: he is the devil" (ibid. p. 161, notes on Rev. 12:9). 

The dragon, or serpent, is not here introduced as something new in the realm of Bible symbolism–such have already been employed in the Scriptures as symbols of the enemies of God and His church. Thus this dragon, of Rev. 12 cannot be confined to Rome. The Apocalypse does not labour to present details concerning the internal forms of merely the Roman government. To the contrary, John takes the many details which are given in the Old Testament and concentrates them when giving his pictures. From Ellicott's Commentary on Revelation, p. 266, I quote: 

"It seems to the present writer that the genius of the Apocalypse is concentration; that which to earlier prophets was seen in detail is to the Christian seer grouped. Daniel saw four beasts, uniting in himself all the early, present, and future manifestations of that world-empire which has ever been hostile to the spiritual kingdom." 

180 

The 7 heads of the dragon (Rev. 12), the beast (Rev. 13), and the scarlet coloured beast of Rev. 17, have been interpreted as referring to the 7 different forms of Roman government–the Kingly, Consular, Decemvirate, Dictatorial, Triumvirate, Imperial, (Exarch of Ravenna–the one which was to "continue a short space", Rev. 17:10), and the Papal. 

One objection to the belief that 7 heads represent 7 different forms of Roman government is that there is a difference made between the kingly and the imperial forms of government. But the Scriptures do not distinguish between kingly and imperial governments. The king of Persia, for example, was called king, while his kingdom was termed an empire, see Esther 1:20. Then among the Jews the emperor of Rome was styled "king" (John 19:15; 1 Pet. 2:17). As therefore the kingly and imperial forms of government are one and the same in the Scriptures, no cognizance would be taken of them in the prophetic symbolism. There would not be two heads representing what other parts of the Scripture present as belonging to the same type of government. 

Also it is most unlikely that such insignificant changes in an earthly government as those, for example, from the government of triumvirs to that of decemvirs would be brought to view in such a book as Revelation, which takes the whole world–the mighty events–into its compass. This view is further supported by the fact that no such insignificant change of government is noted in any prophetic symbolism. The Revelator, instead of going into details, rather takes the details given in the Old Testament and concentrates them in groups to form his imagery. Many texts from the Old Testament are used in forming one of his pictures. 

Then, again, the angel interprets the 7 heads as 7 "kings", and this word is used in Daniel (which is the basis of the Apocalyptic references to the Roman beast with the ten horns) in respect to different kingdoms, embracing other territories, and other subjects. To apply the "kings" to refer to governmental adjustments of the same nation seems untenable in the light of other Scriptures. The necessity, according to the teaching that makes the 7 heads refer to different forms of Roman Government, of introducing the Exarch of Ravenna, which "for about the space of sixty years governed Rome" (Daniel and the Revelation, p. 727, old edition), as the 7th head, and not counting it because of its brevity, is to directly contradict the prophecy itself, for the prophecy says concerning the 7th head: "And when he cometh, he must continue a short space", or "a little while" (R.V.). Thus the 

181 

7th head is there, it is counted, and is the one head among all the others which comes in for special mention. More is said of it than all the others combined. Instead of being passed over as if unimportant, it is particularly selected because of the great part it will play in the closing scenes. A scheme of interpretation which has to drop out altogether one of the heads, especially that 7th head which is particularly pointed out, and which we know from the use of the number seven (7) in the prophecies of the Revelation will continue until the time of the second advent, is not in accordance with correct exegesis of the Book of Truth. 

If the Exarch of Ravenna was depicted in the prophecy as the 7th form of Roman government, then the Exarch of Ravenna was the 7th head of the persecuting beast. And if that were so then the 8th head would be a revival of the Exarch of Ravenna–and no one is likely to advance that idea. If the Exarch of Ravenna is the 7th head, then the Papacy should be left out, for the beast has only 7 heads. Either the Exarch of Ravenna is one of the heads–the 7th according to the theory under review–or it is not. 

Concerning the 7th head we read: "And when he cometh he must continue a short space", or "a little while" (R.V.). It would seem a remarkable thing that this is the only one of the heads about which anything is said with respect to its duration. This is an important feature in this prophecy, not only because of its uniqueness in contrast to the silence of this feature regarding the other heads, but also because it has a bearing upon the statement made regarding the ten horns, or the ten kings, that "receive power as kings one hour with the beast" (v. 12). Thus the "short space", or "little while" finds a parallel in the time the ten kings enjoy power with this resurrected beast for "one hour". Now to wave this important feature aside as of no importance reveals a failure to grasp the import of much of this prophecy. 

It is certainly most incongruous to reason in reference to the "short space", or "little while" which is specifically and uniquely mentioned as the duration of the 7th head, that it refers to the Exarch of Ravenna, whose rule "for about the space of sixty years" was of short duration in comparison with that of the Imperial or of the Papal There is no intimation that this comparison is to be made with only two of the heads (if Rome pagan and papal may be represented by two heads–respecting this, see a later chapter) to the exclusion of the others. Those who make the comparison between the rule of the Exarch of Ravenna and that of the Imperial and Papal forms of Roman government conveniently omit making a similar comparison with all the forms of Roman government which they have thought represented by the heads. The following extract from Tacitus, which is quoted in the Commentary on the Book of Revelation, by Albert Barnes, will no doubt be helpful to the reader: 

182 

"’In the beginning, Rome was governed by Kings. Then L. Brutus gave her liberty and the Consulship. A temporary power was conferred on the Dictators. The authority of the Decenivirs did not continue beyond the space of two years: neither was the consular power of the Military Tribunes of long duration. The rule of Cinna and Sylla was brief, and the power of Pompey and Crassus passed into the hands of Caesar, and the arms of Lepidus and Antony were surrendered to Augustus, who united all things broken by civil discord, under the name of Prince in the Imperial government'. Here Tacitus distinctly mentions the six forms of administration that had prevailed in Rome, the last of which was the Imperial." 

Commenting upon what he thought might be the 7th head–"some form of administration lying between the decline of the Imperial and the rise of the Papal power", Barnes says: 

"Now, there can be no difficulty, I think, in referring this to that form of administration over Rome–that 'dukedom' under the exarchate of Ravenna, which succeeded the decline of the Imperial power, and which preceded the rise of the Papal power; between the year 566 or 568, when Rome was reduced to a dukedom, under exarchate of Ravenna, and the time when the city revolted from this authority and became subject to the Pope, about the year 727. This period continued, according to Mr. Gibbon, about two hundred years. He says: `During a period of two hundred years, Italy was unequally divided between the kingdom of the Lombards and the exarchate of Ravenna. –Dec. and Fall, III, 202.... 

"This was to `continue for a short space'–for a little time. If this refers to the power to which in the remarks above it is supposed to refer, it is easy to see the propriety of this statement. Compared with the previous form of administration–the Imperial–it was of short duration; absolutely considered, it was brief. Mr. Gibbon (III. 202) has marked it as extending through `a period of two hundred years'; and if this is compared with the form of administration which preceded it, extending to more than five hundred years, and more especially with that which followed–the Papal form–which has extended now some twelve hundred years, it will be seen with what propriety this is spoken of as continuing for 'a short space.' " 

Godly men who wrote their commentaries a century ago presented such thoughts in the fear of God, and we who live in these later years owe such men a debt of gratitude for their guidance in the understanding of the Scriptures. When, through the increasing light the Lord has shone upon our pathway to meet the coming storm, we observe a weakness in an argument employed by men who wrote so long ago, we undertake to point out that weakness with due deference to the nobility of the men whose thoughts we review. In the interest of truth alone we point out that nowhere are we directed to make comparison of the "short space" of time of the reign of the 7th head with the 6th, or even with the supposed eighth head. Comparing the "two hundred years" quoted by Barnes from Gibbon, or even "for the space of sixty years" stated by Uriah Smith, with that of the length of time during which the Decemvirs exercised authority, which "did not continue beyond the space of two years", such a line of reasoning is revealed as being incongruous. To quote 200 years or 60 years as fulfilling the prescribed "short space", or "little while" of the 7th head because the one before it and the one after it were longer is to advance a human argument that overlooks the fact that 

183 

in comparison with the two years of the Decemvirs it was a very long period. Surely the Lord would have made it clear that He meant the comparison of the duration of time to be occupied by the 7th head to be only with the Imperial and Papal heads to the exclusion of any heads occupying a shorter space of time! 

Restricting the application of the persecuting beast to Rome, Uriah Smith interpreted the 7 heads to different forms of Roman government. The three phases of the beast "was, and is not, and shall ascend"–he also interpreted as referring to (1) "Thus Rome in its pagan form was a persecuting power in its relation to the people of God, during which time it constituted the beast that was"; (2) during the transition from pagan to Papal Rome "it lost its ferocious and persecuting character, and then it could be said of the beast that it was not"; (3) during the period of Papal persecution-"then it constituted the beast that 'yet is', or in John's day was to be". 

This line of reasoning fails in two respects: (1) In John's day it could not be said that the beast “was", a thing of the past, for John himself was suffering persecution at that very time from imperial, pagan Rome; (2) the woman is pictured as sitting upon the beast during the period of the 7 heads, and if the woman and the beast are taken to represent the Roman church and the 7 different forms of Roman government, this would present the woman as representing the Roman church, which arose after the different forms of pagan Roman government had passed away, sitting upon those various governments! This of course is impossible, for a woman coming into being centuries afterwards cannot sit upon different forms of government which existed centuries before her. 

It was natural for Uriah Smith to limit the things of Rev. 17 to the things of pagan and papal Rome, because he had not a clear understanding of the final conflict pictured in Rev. 16. Believing that the Papacy had passed the peak of its power and was on the way out, as it looked at the time he wrote, he interpreted the main features of this prophetic delineation as a portrayal of past papal power; whereas the main features of this prophecy have been given to outline the fierceness of the final conflict brought about by the resurrection of papal power, combined with the power of apostate Protestantism using the power of the State for the enforcement of the Papal Sunday. 

Borrowing thoughts from Protestant commentators (who did not understand that apostate Protestantism shares Heaven's condemnation as being a part of the Babylonian system), brother Smith applied the 7 heads of the beast to "the seven forms of government that have existed in the Roman Empire". However, the committee appointed to revise "Daniel and the Revelation" 

184 

were apparently unanimous that this exposition should be deleted from the revised edition, and so, accordingly, it does not appear in the revised edition. Such an application as given in the previous editions of U. Smith's commentary cannot be made to fit in with the facts of history. As the revisers of "Daniel and the Revelation" have shown by their deletion of this application from the revised edition that they have rejected that application, we need not continue to point out the incongruities of that old Protestant belief.  

Undiscerning Protestants who interpreted "that great city which reigneth over the kings of the earth" (Rev. 17:18) to mean the literal city of Rome could not help but fail to grasp the magnitude of the events depicted in this majestic prophecy. The angel specifically informed John that "the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth". By that incongruous interpretation of attempting to make it all fit in with the literal city of Rome, this woman is thus interpreted to mean the city of Rome. If that were the interpretation intended, then when that woman is to be burned with fire, that would mean the burning of the literal city of Rome! As the ten horns or ten kings are to "hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire" (v. 16), that would then mean that such a fate is to befall the literal city of Rome!! That, of course, throws the significance of this prophecy completely out of balance. This woman is said in v. 1 to sit upon many waters, and those many waters are distinctly stated in v. 15 to mean "peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues"–the same people to whom the three-fold message of Rev. 14:6-12 is heralded. Thus an application of that woman and city to the city of Rome would mean that the third angel's message is merely a message to be proclaimed in the city of Rome!! That woman in v. 5 is designated "Babylon the great, the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth". Have apostate Protestant bodies come from the literal city of Rome or are they the offspring of Satan's principles of rebellion which he fostered in ancient Babylon, and which have spread to the world? God's people are called out of Babylon–does that mean that they are called out of the literal city of Rome? The wine of Babylon, and the fall of Babylon–are they limited to the literal city of Rome? The burning of Babylon described in Rev. 18. that Babylon that receives the wrath of Almighty God, is it the literal city of Rome? 

"That great city" is employed in the Apocalypse to designate the false Babylonian system of worship. In his pride, Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, boasted of the "great Babylon" he had built–see Dan. 4:30. The Revelator builds up his prophetic imagery depicting the work and doom of modern Babylon by 

185 

quotations from the Old Testament concerning the work and overthrow of ancient Babylon. Thus he refers back to Daniel's account concerning the pride of the ancient king of Babylon when he repeatedly employs that word "great" when describing modern Babylon. By that simple word alone, and there are many such connecting links employed throughout the Apocalypse, we understand that the word Babylon, "that great city", does not in any sense refer to the literal city of Rome, but to Satan's counterfeiting system of worship. Notice the following texts in which the emphasis is upon the word "great" coupled with "Babylon": "Babylon . . . that great city" (Rev. 14:8); "great Babylon" (Rev. 16:19); "Babylon the Great" (Rev. 17:5); "the woman ... that great city" (v. 18); "Babylon the great" (Rev. 18:2); "that great city Babylon, that mighty city" (v. 10); "this great city" (v. 18); "that great city Babylon" (v. 21); "the great whore" (Rev. 19:2). By that one word "great" we know that the literal city of Rome is not intended in Rev. 17:18, but is a designation employed in the Apocalypse referring to Satan's world-wide false system of worship which is contrasted with the world-wide Jerusalem, the church of the Lord Jesus Christ. 

That woman labeled "Babylon the Great" is a symbol of Satan's false system of religion which goes back to ancient Babylon. This was the very first feature brought to view in the description of the beast in Rev. 13. In his description of the beast which arose out of the sea, John traces the power of the papacy back to ancient Babylon. He refers back to the vision of Daniel 7 where the four beasts represented the four world powers: Babylon (the lion), Medo-Persia (the bear), Grecia (the leopard), and Rome (the nondescript beast). It will be observed in Rev. 13:2 that the beast John describes "was like a leopard 

[Grecia], and his feet were as the feet of a bear [Medo-Persia], and his mouth as the mouth of a lion [Babylon]". Thus it will be seen that in the very first description of this beast, not only are we led back to ancient Babylon, but we are distinctly informed that the part of the Papal power which speaks–its mouth–is that of the lion's or Babylon's. 

Two cities are brought prominently to view in the prophetic symbols of the Apocalypse: Jerusalem and Babylon. Now it is perfectly obvious that any attempt to literalize the Revelator's references to Babylon and make them apply in a limited sense to the literal city of Rome, requires that Jerusalem also be limited to some such literal city. But we know that such an application would bring about hopeless confusion in the understanding of the Apocalypse. In Rev. 11:2 "the holy city" undoubtedly means "the true church", which is the interpretation given by the Spirit of Prophecy–see GC. 266. Thus as Jerusalem in the symbolism of the Apocalypse means "the true church", so "Babylon" in the 186 

Apocalypse can be employed only as a symbol of "the untrue church, the apostate church"–see GC. 383, 603, 606; TM. 61; also my previous publication "The Fall of Babylon in Type and Antitype". 

The woman in the symbolism of Rev. 12 refers to more than the Christian Church, or the church subsequent to the ascension of Jesus to the heavenly courts to plead His precious blood on our behalf, for this woman is introduced as wearing "a crown of twelve stars"–the number of the 12 tribes of Israel. She thus symbolizes the faithful of Old Testament times as well as those who are of the church with 12 apostles. This view is further maintained when it is observed that this woman has an existence before the birth of her baby, which all will agree is Jesus our Lord. The faithful of the Old Testament times did cry for the coming of the promised seed–the seed of the woman–which was promised in Eden to our first parents (see Gen. 3:15). While thus taking our minds back to the very first promise of the coming of the world's Redeemer, given immediately after the fall of Adam and Eve in Eden, the Revelator at the same time also directs our minds back to the commencement of Satan's evil machinations against the government of God (vs. 3, 4, 7-9). Thus the Revelator traces the mighty conflict between the forces of good and evil from its inception up in the courts of glory, through the initial stages of sin in this world and down through the ages until the birth of Christ. Then he proceeds to unfold the development of that conflict as a professing Christian church takes up its fight against the people of God, until the remnant of that woman's seed face the roaring dragon in the final conflict over the Law of God. It is the same woman down through all those ages, and it is the same dragon. As Rev. 17 depicts the same controversy with special emphasis and enlargement upon the final conflict, which is intimated in Rev. 12:17, its symbols must also be interpreted in the light of the age-long, world-wide controversy between the forces of good and evil. Thus the woman of Rev. 17, like the woman of Rev. 12, must be understood as symbolizing the false system of salvation which Satan has employed down through the ages to deceive people and to employ them as the persecutors of the people of God. Thus, because they have considered the broader aspects of this prophecy, our present Bible teachers repudiate the application of the 7 heads to different forms of Roman government, but, instead, apply those 7 heads as a symbol of different forms of government that have opposed God's people down the ages commencing with Egypt. As stated in "Bible Readings", p. 265: "The seven heads of the dragon are interpreted . . . more broadly to the seven great monarchies which have oppressed the people of God: namely Egypt, Assyria, Chaldea, Persia, Greece, pagan Rome, and papal Rome." 

187 

On page 269 we read: 

"Allowing a very broad meaning to the symbol, the Duoay or Catholic Bible, in a note on Rev. 13:1, explains the seven heads of this beast [i.e., the beast of Rev. 13] as follows: `The seven heads are seven kings, that is, seven principal kingdoms or empires, which have exercised, or shall exercise, tyrannical power over the people of God: of these, five were then fallen, viz., the Egyptian, Assyrian, Chaldean, Persian, and Grecian monarchies; one was present, viz., the empire of Rome; and the seventh and chiefest was to come, viz., the great anti-Christ and his empire."' 

The present writer is of the opinion that the number seven (7) is employed in reference to the heads in a symbolical sense and that it is not incumbent to find an exact number of 7 enemies of the people of God. The number seven (7) is employed in the Apocalypse in a symbolic sense for perfection or completeness. The Lord's servant says: "The number seven indicates completeness, and is symbolic of the fact that the messages extend to the end o time"' (AA. 585). Thus the 7 heads symbolize all the enemies of God's people throughout all time until "the end of time". By this fact alone, and there are other reasons which support it, we understand that the 7th head of the beast continues "to the end of time", and by that fact it shows that there is not actually any eighth head, but the 7th head is numbered 8 because that is the Bible symbol number for the resurrection.

Luke 21:8

Christian, Be Not Deceived!