Revelation 17:11

And the beast that was, and is not, is himself also an eighth, and is of the seven; and he goeth into perdition.

As we see it, the Apostate Church, together with many harlot daughters and countless spiritual developments flowing out of it and accompanying it, is the seventh head that succeeded the pagan empire. This head will continue throughout the dispensation, but itself also will be succeeded by an eighth, which we believe to be the era of the "ten horns" (Revelation 17:12). The Harlot will finally lose her power to persecute, a development which, in the principal part, has already occurred; but she will nevertheless continue to the very end. See under Revelation 17:12. The eighth beast will be far more wicked than any of the seven preceding ones; and it may be that he should be identified with Paul's "Lawless One" (2 Thessalonians 2:8), who is apparently to be slain by the personal Advent of Christ himself.

This eighth beast will not even be able to endure Apostate Christianity, but will totally deny God, enthrone himself, demand the worship of the whole world, and will spiritually enslave all people except the elect. As this deals with events yet future, we do not dare to propose any explanation of just how all this may come about, or of how long such a condition may prevail. One thing does seem clear enough: the Apostate Christianity itself shall be hated, persecuted, and consumed by this eighth beast. Some construe the meaning of the words "of the seven" as being "of the seventh," indicating that, if this meaning is allowed, the rise of the eighth beast shall be a development from within the Apostasy itself. We believe the true meaning to be "of the seven," as in ASV, because the ten horns next mentioned are connected with the whole beast, not merely with the seventh head; and, as already noted above, the ten horns are here interpreted as that eighth beast, or eighth head of the beast.

NERO REDIVIVUS

The interpretation of these verses which relies for their explanation upon the myth of Nero Redivivus is as scandalous an interpretation of sacred Scripture as was ever offered. It is unreasonable, illogical, incorrect, unbelievable, and also absolutely contradictory of the New Testament. First, we shall try to explain what the interpretation is:

The heads of the beast mentioned in these verses are held to be the emperors in succession who ruled over the pagan empire. The mention of "one is, is not, and is to come" refers to Nero who was reigning when John wrote, who died, and came alive again (redivivus) and became the eighth emperor after the death of the seventh emperor who had succeeded to the throne after Nero's death!

See our introduction to Revelation 13, above, under "The Mortal Wound that did not Heal," for a very perceptive quotation from Albertus Pieters who declared that the acceptance of this interpretation (of Nero redivivus) denies the book of Revelation as "a genuine prophecy." If this is what John prophesied, he prophesied a lie, for it never happened. This interpretation is almost totally worthless, but some particular attention is demanded by it, because, as Pieters said, "At present it is the popular theory among those whom we may call the "Left Wing' Preterists."

An alleged myth is cited as proof that John's prophecy refers to Nero and that his resurrection was generally expected! "The beast that is" is Nero ... "and is not" refers to his suicide ... "and is te come" means he reappeared reincarnated (!) as Domitian. "John saw in Domitian the reincarnation of Nero!"[44] It is contrary, of course, to the Scriptures and to all reason, to suppose for an instant that one of the holy apostles of Jesus believed in reincarnation. In the first place, current research denies that Domitian was in any sense even similar to Nero. "His reputation (Domitian's, as being a persecutor) rests on a very modest historical foundation."[45]

This theory would make Domitian the eighth Roman emperor, an outright falsehood, no matter how the emperors are counted. Look at the "lists of emperors" various Left Wing scholars have posted in their vain efforts to support this; not a single one of them is accurate. As even Moffatt admitted, "There is certainly some awkwardness in this!"[46] Awkwardness indeed! A Jersey cow sitting in the top of a sycamore tree singing Richard Wagner's "Song to the Evening Star" from Tannhauser is pure grace compared to this Nero Redivivus hypothesis of interpretation. Here is a list of the Roman emperors during the first century and beginning from the death of Julius Caesar in 44 B.C., as compiled by Caird:[47]

JULIUS CAESAR

AUGUSTUS

TIBERIUS

GAIUS (CALIGULA)

CLAUDIUS

NERO

GALBA

OTHO

VITELLIUS

VESPASIAN

TITUS

DOMITIAN (81-96 A.D.)

Well, how does one make Nero the eighth emperor in that list? Many devices have been tried: (1) Identify Nero redivivus with Domitian; that won't do it. (2) Skip Galba and Otho; that won't work. (3) Skip Galba, Otho and Vitellius; that doesn't work either. (4) Start counting with Augustus; that doesn't get it. (5) Count only the deified emperors; this cannot be accurately determined, etc. As Ladd said, "This is a rather violent way of treating history and does not really solve the problem."[48]

The thing that amazes us the most is that the scholars adopting this view reject its most obvious corollary, that if Nero "now is" when John wrote Revelation, then it had to be written between the years 54-68 A.D., the dates usually assigned to Nero, and also that if John wrote while Nero was still reigning, then no myth regarding Nero's resurrection (an essential part of this interpretation) could possibly have appeared before he died! What kind of a contortion is needed to solve that? Here it is: John, writing forty years after Nero's death, "sets himself back in time to the period of Vespasian and gives in the form of prophecy events of history that had already happened!"[49] This, of course, is equivalent to making the whole book of Revelation a fraud, and fully justifies Pieters' comment, above, that this theory of interpretation is wholly incompatible with any believing acceptance of Revelation as genuine prophecy.[50]

This interpretation makes Domitian the sixth emperor, because (in this interpretation) five are fallen and "one is"; and it is impossible to do this. There has never been a list of emperors that would make Domitian the sixth. They have tried omitting Julius Caesar, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, either singly or in pairs, or collectively; but failure cannot be hidden. It is time that the Left Wing gave up this nonsense about Nero Redivivus. "No method of calculation satisfactorily leads to Domitian as the reigning emperor when John wrote."[51] It is also true that absolutely nothing in history identifies Domitian as "another Nero." Even if he was a vicious persecutor and tyrant, how does that make him another Nero; why not another Caligula? another Herod? The false allegation that the sacred New Testament prophesied either the resurrection or the reincarnation of Nero is as pagan an idea as was ever imported into the New Testament.

The above brief summary of some of the intricacies and inconsistencies of this mythical interpretation is only the tip of the iceberg; but enough has been given to show the prodigious labors that have been expended for one purpose alone, it seems to us. The very persistence and cleverness of those who have pushed this bastard interpretation betray their knowledge of what this chapter really teaches and their determination to have it otherwise. A wild animal carefully extricates the bait from the trap, but his clever methods show his accurate knowledge of what he wishes to avoid.

[44] William Barclay, The Revelation of John (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1976), p. 141.

[45] F. F. Bruce, A New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing Company, 1969), p. 658.

[46] James Moffatt, Expositor's Greek New Testament, Vol. V (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1967), p. 453.

[47] G. B. Caird, The Revelation of St. John the Divine (New York: Harper and Row, 1966), p. 217.

[48] George Eldon Ladd, op. cit., p. 229.

[49] Isbon T. Beckwith. op. cit., p. 705.

[50] Albertus Pieters. op. cit., p. 222.

[51] George Eldon Ladd, op. cit., p. 229.