2 Thess. 2; Matthew 24; Daniel 2:7ff.; Isaiah 14; Ezekiel 28; Revelation 12, 13 & 17; 1 John 1-5.
Having brought forth similar arguments by Dr. Samuel Maresius against Preterist Hugo Grotius
By Dutch Reformed Theologian, Johannes Cocceius, Professor of Biblical Philology and Theology (d. 1669)
First Ever Translation of 1641 revised Franeker Latin edition
Reclaiming the truth of illustrative places about the Antichrist
If God, the Best and Greatest, had instituted nothing but a precept of what He wills men to do, and a prohibition of the contrary, together with a promise of favor and salvation and a declaration of wrath and destruction, nothing would be lacking by which the Church might judge who belongs to the brotherhood of the holy faithful and who are alien from it, from whom one ought to beware and keep aloof. Nor would it be obscure or doubtful that those who believe and do penance will fare well; but that wrath threatens those who oppress the glory of God, who hold the truth by injustice, who do not cease from their sins, who seduce men with lies, who hate and persecute the truth. “For the divine law and ordinance are clear and enlighten the eyes; the testimony of God is sure, making wise the foolish.” Ps. 19:8–9. For this reason St. John, when he had admonished his little children about the coming of the Antichrist and had shown that the Antichrists do not belong to the assembly of the faithful, nor ever belonged; adds, “you have an anointing from the Holy One and you know all things,” i.e., you are sufficiently instructed against deception; it is natural for you to judge what each one teaches and does, from what spirit it proceeds. “I have not written to you because you do not know the truth,” etc., and the things that follow. Therefore, he who keeps what we heard from the beginning, by the Holy Spirit bearing witness of it in his heart, so as he discerns truth from falsity, likewise “knows the future,” to speak as Pindar; for he knows that “sinners will not stand in the assembly of the pious,” Psalm 1.
But indeed, when the same most merciful God had resolved to send the Son into the flesh, it was not enough for Him to promise that He would come or to show that He was present: but moreover, for the consolation of the pious amid the many trials of those who longed for His coming, and for their instruction so that they might not be deceived by any lies; and for the conviction of unbelief, He announced by his prophets in what [circumstances] and in what sort of time frame He would bestow that salvation (1 Pet. 1:11–12), that is, He signified what changes of commonwealths, what wars, what other signs would precede His coming; likewise what the condition of that time would be when he himself was to be manifested in the flesh. The Savior calls these σημεῖα καιρῶν, signs of the times (Matt. 16:3), by which the times are to be known and tested (Luke 12:56). Wherefore Christ himself and the Apostles demonstrated from the prophetic Scriptures that He Himself was that [Promised] One. By this argument nothing is more divine or more effective. Nor did the Spirit withdraw from the presence of Christ in the flesh and leave us so that we would not have the most abundant teaching in the prophecies, that by patience and the consolation of the Scriptures we might have hope; but the ancient prophets, Christ and the Apostles, in many ways foretold and described those times which were to intervene between Christ’s first presence and his final presence. You have a summary of these in Acts 3:22–23. According to which “the prophets [who came after Samuel], whosoever has spoken, also announced these days,” in which Christ will judge every soul not obedient to him (ibid. v.24). “For it was necessary that Christ remain in heaven until the times of restoration and of the presentation of all things which God spoke through the mouth of all his holy prophets from of old; that the times of refreshing come from the presence of the Lord, and that he send forth the preached Jesus” (ibid. vv.20–21). Therefore, the prophecies extend even to the final coming; and to that time “when time shall be no more” (Rev. 10:6–7), except in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall sound and the mystery of God shall be finished, as he announced to his servants the prophets. Christ himself also prophesied of the end (πεῖ τέλες) in Matthew 24:14. There he declared that false Christs and false prophets would rise up and show great signs and wonders so as even to lead astray, if possible, even the elect (v.24). The Apostles were not silent. See Acts 20:29–30; 1 Tim. 4:1–3; 2 Tim. 3:1ff. I omit others. The Apocalypse certainly unfolded prophecy from the coming of Christ in the flesh up to his presence to judge the living and the dead, a remarkable oracle of the Church.
But just as the Jews, blinded by divine judgment, touch nothing but darkness in the prophecies about Christ, and through obstinacy, while they refuse to acknowledge Christ Jesus, force the prophecies to speak mostly of other things, so much so that there were once those who dared to say that the Israelites had the Messiah in the days of Hezekiah [………..], thus are found among those called Christians men who likewise devote all their efforts to make the prophecies speak of the Antichrist and his kingdom so as to ridicule them. The Papists lead the charge in these matters. For it could not be otherwise. It was fitting that the Jews, who deny Christ, as well as the adherents of the Antichrist be struck with a similar blindness, and thus that very blindness confirm the truth of prophecy. However, to come closer to the occasion of this meditation of ours, a little book has recently appeared which offers for the learned to examine a new interpretation of certain passages that deal with or are thought to deal with the Antichrist. I do not inquire who is the author of the little book. It is clear that he possesses knowledge and intelligence: which suggests that if anyone who may not be considered learned is advised, they might appreciate the information and understand it more thoroughly. Instruction can improve understanding over time. As stated in Proverbs 9:9, “Give to the wise and he will become wiser.”
Unless, that is, a mind somewhat dazzled by the glare and mask of the kingdom of Antichrist has brought him to this thought, that he should doubt whether these passages truly speak of the Antichrist or only seem to do so. Which I do not hope for any man. For how could a wise man of keen judgment, who can see that in these passages there is said what might be spoken of the arrogance of Gaius Caligula, or the seduction of Simon Magus, or the madness of Simon bar Kokhba, or the fury of Domitian, or the cruelty of Trajan (though here far milder than most other persecutors), or the wonders of Apollonius, and yet not see that he in whom all these things, and far more ruinous ones, are found together with the profession of the Christian name (from which those men were estranged), ought to be reckoned in that place not as Gaius, Simon Magus, Simon bar Kokhba, Domitian, Trajan, Apollonius, but rather as the very Antichrist; indeed, that the things said are to be explained more truly of the Antichrist for that very reason? Nor does it follow that if any prophecy, in one or another respect, fits some example more narrowly, therefore it is not the proper and adequate fulfillment; or that a prophecy does not speak of that thing in which all the lines of prophecy, all the colors, are detected. It happens that a prophecy, treating of some one notable and adequate fulfillment, falls into various examples for diverse parts and degrees of truth. For in the kingdom of God there are similar virtues, similar trials of the faithful, similar deliverances, many figures of Christ and his kingdom, many patterns and examples of the pious; likewise in the kingdom of Satan similar vices, the same hatred against the truth, the same judgments are seen. In short, there is nothing new under the sun. Which does not prevent certain fulfillments from being, in their order, circumstances, parts and degrees of truth, proper and domestic to certain prophecies. It is, therefore, our intention at this time to show that these words which stand in Paul’s second epistle to the Thessalonians ch. 2, in John’s first epistle ch. 2 & 4 and in ch. 13 & 17 of the Revelation, contain some singular and principal foretelling and description of the Antichrist. I rejoice that the very clear and learned Doctor Samuel Maresius here did me so great a service in labor, who showed how forcibly these things are applied to Gaius and others, and how well to the Pope, and lately more diligently examined the Commentator, Hugo Grotius’ notes. Our purpose therefore, as far as we can, is to make the sense of these prophecies clearer and more certain; lest anyone, when he reads these things hereafter, think that on account of these small devilries he has nothing to consider, and may imagine that he can sleep secure from every other danger, as in a matter long ago settled. We will call three things to aid here: 1. the emphasis of words. 2. the scope of the prophecies. 3. the manifest fitness of the fulfillment.
ON THE PASSAGE OF PAUL
2 Thessalonians 2
This passage is thus explained by the recent Interpreter, Hugo Grotius: “We beg you, brothers, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ to judgment upon the Jewish nation and our assembly in him, when the elect are gathered together from all sides at the resurrection, that you not be quickly shaken from your sense, nor be terrified, etc., as if he were already present, or as if the day of the great destruction of Jerusalem were immediately at hand. Let no one deceive you in any way. For unless the apostasy and the full defection occur, and a man of wicked character be revealed, one conspicuously destined for ruin by God, who will not attack God once or by mistake but continually and with a determined purpose, who will assault God, who will even call those whom he holds gods, will not only not equal himself to God but will exalt himself above him, will take away all the cults of the gods or by his institution surpass their worship, so that he will omit nothing, showing himself by word and deed to be placed in the temple at Jerusalem as if for God. I do not say these things now for the first time, so that you would not suppose that I mention them now for the sake of gaining time. Even when we were together in Syria I said the same things. I added also what was detaining Gaius Caligula, that he might not publish what he had formed in his mind; namely, that he would not unveil his worst disposition until God should permit it. For even now that impiety is preparing itself in secret, with Helicon and other Egyptian rascals urging it on. Nor will the evil be delayed longer than until Lucius Vitellius, who now holds Syria and with it Judea, departs thence and receives a successor. And not before that happens, as I said, will the great impostor Simon Magus show himself and reveal his impiety under Claudius — no less dangerous will be that wicked man who will be intentionally evil, whom the Lord Jesus will kill at the supplication of the Apostle Peter, and will destroy by the manifestation of his coming. The operation of that Simon, by which he made himself notable, is, according to the working of Satan, with false signs and wonders, and in every seduction of wickedness among those who perish,” etc.
[To summarize Cocceius’ response: He argues the chronology of Paul’s travels and writings, especially the relationship between his journeys, the appearance of Timothy and Silvanus, and the timing of the Jerusalem visit(s) mentioned in Galatians and Acts. The author rejects an earlier dating that places Paul’s epistles to the Thessalonians at the start of Claudius’s reign, showing this would force an implausibly crowded sequence of events (Paul’s conversion, persecutions, travels through Arabia, Syria and Cilicia, two long Antioch stays, the Jerusalem trip(s), Peter’s imprisonment and Herod’s death under Claudius, and the Jerusalem Council) all within too short a span. He concludes Paul met Timothy after the 14-year visit to Jerusalem described in Galatians and that Luke’s order in Acts must be reconciled with that timeline.]
But let us proceed with the established plan. Emphases to be noted in these.
Verse1: ὑπὲρ το παρεσίας ξ Κυρίε ἡμῶν Ιησε Χρισέ, κὶ ἡμῶν ἐπισιναγωγῆς ἐπ ̓ αὐτὸν, “by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him.”
It is good that the author of the new commentary considers the resurrection of the dead at the end. For that is the means of our gathering to Christ, that we may be where He is. However, it is not good that he thinks it can be weakened so as to be understood as the free power of assembling, which fell to Christians in the time of Vespasian and Titus. For ἐπισυναγωγή [“gathering together”] simply is one thing, ἐπισυναγωγὴ ἐπ’ αὐτόν [“a gathering together to Him”] is another. [………….] It is wrong, departing from the usual and clear manner of speaking in interpretation to veer into obscurity and strangeness, so as to attenuate Scripture. It is therefore certain that the Apostle had respect to the resurrection of the dead.
Moreover, the Interpreter adds that God did not wish to make known how long the interval of time would be between the destruction of Jewish Jerusalem and the resurrection of the dead. It is true that God did not wish the χρόνος καὶ καιρὸς — “times and seasons” — to be plainly made known to us (Acts 1:7). Yet he did wish it to be known, and signified by the Apostles, that many things are to be carried out under the reign of Christ, while he reigns in the midst of his enemies, during a long course of time (a part of which is also given in numbers) before the resurrection; from whose indications, while the Church watches for the fulfillments, it may be clear to her how much of them has been fulfilled, how much remains to be fulfilled; whether time still remains, or time is almost consummated. Revelation 10. Nothing, therefore, prevents the παρousία Χριστοῦ — that coming of Christ [2 Thess. 2:1] — to be understood here: namely the one promised in 2 Thess. 1:7: ἡ δίκαια κλύψις τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ ἀπὸ οὐρανοῦ μετὰ τῶν ἀγγέλων τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ, “the righteous appearing of the Lord Jesus from heaven with the angels of his power,” which is described in verses 8, 9, 10: “Who shall render punishment, eternal destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his strength, when he shall come, to be glorified in his saints and to be marveled at in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.” The scope of his prayers shows that glory in verse 11. “We also always pray for you concerning this.” Therefore, when in this letter a discourse begins about that coming, and speaks further about it in the succeeding verse, forbidding belief that the day of Christ is at hand, unless a limiting clause were added — for no one would understand the other παρouσίᾳ otherwise. Grotius assigns a slippery frivolity to the Apostle, who he wishes sometimes to speak of the final coming from heaven, sometimes of the coming of power and might to execute judgment upon the Jewish people, sometimes (and this in the same verbal passage) of the manifestation of grace in restraining Simon Magus. These commentaries cannot advance except by artifices that empty the Scripture. What then? that παρouσία, “the presence of Christ,” is said to be nothing but twofold. 1. When God was manifested in the flesh. 2. When he will come to judgment. Meanwhile we do not deny that Christ is said to ἥκειν, “come,” where the matter is not about the final judgment. Thus Malachi 4:6: “lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.” For there the extermination of the Jews is in question. [………………]
That which the Apostle calls παρεσία (“coming”), he likewise names ἡμέραν Χριστοῦ, “the day of Christ,” v. 2. It is known that ἡμέραν Κυρίου, “the day of the Lord,” is called every distinguished and manifest act of His judgment. This is observed in Job 24:1. But the interpreter, to prove to us that the day of the destruction of Jerusalem is meant, cites Acts 2:20, where the prophecy of Joel 3:4 is repeated. Yet it may rightly be doubted whether in Joel “the great and terrible day of the Lord” signifies the day of Jerusalem’s destruction. We say, however,
1. “The day of the Lord” is sometimes said more broadly than “the day of Christ.” For although the day of Christ becomes the day of the Lord, yet “the day of Christ” expressly connotes his παρεσία, not always likewise “the day of the Lord,” unless the Lord himself is understood to be Christ. For the day of Christ is called the very παρεσία of Christ or the ἐπιφάνεια [‘epiphany’] of Christ, and whatever is connected and coherent with it. John 8:56: “Abraham saw the day of Christ,” that is, his revelation in the flesh with all things connected. Malachi 4:5: “I will send the prophet Elijah before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord,” that is, before Christ Himself, who is the Lord, revealed in the flesh, who comes to His temple and accomplishes those things that must be done by Him. In which all things are contained that pertain to the administration of the kingdom: also, judgment upon the Jews. Wherefore immediately, “coming” and preaching the Gospel and disputing with the Jews, “I will strike the earth.” For the παρεσία of Christ and the preaching are not received without the destruction of the land being asserted in faith. Mal. 3:1-2: “Behold, I send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me, and suddenly the Lord whom you seek will come to his temple. And who can endure the day of his coming?” Ezek. 21:10: “It is sharpened to make a terrible slaughter; should we then make mirth? it contemneth the rod of my son, as every tree.” Therefore, John the Baptist, before Christ taught, said, ἤδη ἡ ἀξίνη πρὸς τὸ ρίζαν τῶν δένδρων κεῖται, “now the axe is laid to the root of the trees.” Matt. 3:10.
2. But there are also other judgments which follow the preaching of the Gospel, about which the Apostle did not wish to treat here. Nor do we see the Apostle in the preceding words to have explained what manner of judgments God would exercise in the world. Only in 2 Thess. 1:7 it is said that God “will give relief to the afflicted in the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with the angels of his power,” i.e., that God will not suffer the godly to remain always in affliction; but that Christ will thus appear as judge from the heavens, prince of the angels, so that the enemies are compelled to give peace to the afflicted. This does not happen at one time. For as often as the enemies are compelled to give relief to the afflicted, so Christ is revealed from heaven with His angels of power.
But in chapter 2:2, by “the day of Christ” no other day can be understood than that of which he had determined to speak in chapter 1, verse 10: ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ (“in that day”). Would the reader trust, or would the text be unjustly treated, that having first expressly spoken of that day in which he will come to be glorified in the saints, then, without any restriction and moderation, without any limiting sense of special judgment, he would with equal loudness speak of the παρεσία τοῦ Κυρίου, of “our being gathered to him in the day of Christ,” of His ἐπιφάνεια and παρεσία, can one imagine it concerns a lesser matter than the general universal Judgment of Christ? It is certain that had the Apostle wished to speak of that final Judgement, he could not have spoken more clearly. Therefore, the Apostle teaches here that that day of the Lord is not yet near, nor immediately to occur in the near future. The interpreter rightly compares Matthew 24:6, ἀλλὰ ὅπωσ εἰς τὸ τέλος, “but not yet the end,” and verse 8, πάνα αὗτα ἡ ἀρχὴ ὠδίνων, “all these are the beginning of sorrows.” For Paul means the same thing, ἔτι οὐκ ἥκει τὸ τέλος, the end is not yet present. But the interpreter wrongly refers τὸ τέλος, “the end,” to the ruin of the Judaic polity. As if what is said in verse 14 καὶ τότε ἥξει τὸ τέλος, “and then shall come the end,” could be understood of the Jewish destruction. For that the Roman nation shortly afterwards fought with the Jewish nation was the δοχὴ ὠδίνων, “beginning of sorrows” or “of travail,” among many other things (verses 6, 7, 8), but not τὸ τέλος, the end, which is shown very clearly. Rather τὸ τέλος there is the consummation of the age, the consummation of the world: about which, equally with the destruction of the temple, the disciples had asked in verse 3.
What is the end with Daniel, אַחֲרִית הַיָּמִים “the end of days,” and ἐχάτη ὥρα “the last hour” with John (for the interpreter also touches this) we will see elsewhere. When the Interpreter repulsed us to that 24th chapter of Matthew, it must be known that it is most true that Paul here establishes an explanation and exposition of that prophecy so far as it treats of τέλος “the end.” What this matter teaches, we will attempt to show in progress. The purpose of Paul is the same as that of his teacher Christ. Paul: εἰς τὸ μὴ ταχέως σαλευθῆναι ὑμᾶς ἀπὸ τῆς νοός, “that you may not be soon shaken in mind” [2 Thess. 2:2] Christ: βλέπετε, μήτις ὑμᾶς πλανήσῃ, “Take heed that no one deceive you” [Matt. 24:4]. Paul: μήτε θροεῖσθε, “nor be troubled.” Christ: ὁρᾶτε μὴ θρεσῆσθε, “see that you are not troubled” [Matt. 24:6]. It was essential to ensure that the faithful were protected from both deception and undue fear. If they believed themselves immune to temptation—particularly concerning the anticipated day of Christ—they might have been inadequately prepared and distracted by these challenges, potentially diminishing their hope in the Lord’s return.
Of what then shall we judge the Apostle forewarns about? Was it about Gaius Caligula, Simon Magus, the small and miserable demons concerning Gaius’s proposal, when he wanted to place his statue in the temple? And if that had been done (for it was not going to be) Christians would have been allowed to worship God anywhere. Or was it about Simon Magus, of whom little is known outside the Acts of the Apostles and what little there is deserves to be believed, and concerning whom no Apostle is remembered to speak of him as a notable and feared impostor? Are these matters which are in no way connected to the end of things? Are these temptations in no wise comparable with the temptations that followed? Certainly, the Apostle wished to speak about the very temptations and signs of the Lord’s coming which Christ treats of in Matthew 24.
Verse 3: Ἐὰν μὴ ἔλθῃ ἡ ἀποστασία πρῶτον, “except there comes the defection [“apostasy”/‘falling away’] first.” Not of one man, not a single and peculiar or common σποσασία, but ἡ ἀποστασία ‘the defection,’ of which Christ and the Prophets spoke, of which the Apostle himself (1 Tim. 4:1) says: Στιςήσουσιν τινες ἀπὸ τῆς πίστεως, “some will depart from the faith.” For the definite article, as is evident, intimates knowledge of the matter in question. […………………….]
Thus it is clear of what kind the ἀποστασία [‘apostasy’] and הַפְשָׁע are to be understood in this place: namely, not of those who never knew God, who always despised God, who never gave Christ a name, but of those who, as John speaks of the Antichrists, ἐξ ἡμῶν ἐξῆλθον καὶ γεγόνασιν Ἀντίχρισοι, “went out from us and have become Antichrists.” For ἀφίσα is ‘to depart, to defect.” Therefore, when I hear ἀποστασία, I do not think only of the greatest impiety, but of one impiety against God and Christ, which ὁ ἄνημα “scorner of the law” will have acknowledged, by whose name he will have called himself and still calls himself. For when there is great impiety in him who exalts himself above every God, greater is he who, having been enlightened by the rays of truth, repudiates and denies it; greatest indeed is he who, while doing this, makes God the witness of his falsehood. And such are οἱ ψευδόχριστοι, [‘the pseudo-Christs’] οἱ Ἀντίχρισοι, [‘the Antichrist’] so much more impious than Gaius or Antiochus, though perhaps equal in deeds. He who has entered the way and seemed to draw near and progress, yet departs from the straight road, is said ἀφίσα [‘having departed/defected’]. So he who has been so enlightened as to know one God, the God of Israel, and the word of Moses and the Prophets, and Christ, “a heavenly gift,” and has been a sharer of the gifts of the Holy Spirit—those things that are for the edification of the Church—and has heard the “good word” of the Gospel, and has known the way of righteousness, namely faith in Christ, and has tasted the powers of the age to come, that is, of the time of the New Testament, in a certain joy with which he received that word: if by that word and the terms of the foundation and the law of righteousness he is not led to true faith, which works love, but proceeds to another law and another word, to other teachers, and his deeds agree with such opinions; truly ἀφίσα — he defects from faith which he once professed, abandoning it, just as the Jews were פשעים “defectors,” Isa. 1:4, who nevertheless preferring the name of Jehovah their God did not have His word abiding in them, and rejected the Christ of God. To them Isaiah adds עוֹבֵי יְהוָה “those who leave the Lord,” i.e., who withdraw from Christ to another teacher and leader and priest, and seek salvation elsewhere. One thing I add: that the defection pertains to many, that is, to all the seducers and the seduced, who believe in the lie and love it: verses 10, 11, 12. And that which follows concerns the princes and authors of the seduction.
V. 3 (cont.): Καὶ Aποκαλυφθῇ ὁ ἄνθρωπο τἁμαρτίας, “And the man of sin be revealed.” The authorized Greek translation is Τῆς ἀνομίας [“the man of lawlessness”]. Note, Ἀποκάλυψις ‘revelation’ is opposed to μυσείῳ ‘secret.’ See also verses 6, 7, 8. First, says the Apostle, there will be ἡ ἀποστασία, the defection, ἐν πάσῃ ἀπάτῃ, “in every deceit” (verse 10). The Ἀποκάλυψις, ‘revelation,’ will be a manifestation of the defection comprised of great shamelessness, by which the faithful will be convicted [of the truth of his identity]. What will follow is said in verse 2, of which more later. But he graphically describes him whose revelation is in view. “Ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἁμαρτίας, אִישׁ הַטָּאֵה” “Man of sin.” This word condemns him. No condemnation would be needed unless by ἀπάτῃ [‘deceit’] this man were taken for “most holy.” The Apostle contradicts those who err. Under the guise of religion and holiness he will lurk for a time, but he will be revealed. “Man of sin” denotes one immersed and imbued with sins, made up of sins, alien from God in mind and heart, and therefore guilty of all wrath and incapable of mercy. Moreover “man of sin” can be understood as opposed to the title “Man of God,” that is, a servant of God, prophet, apostle, teacher of the Church: to indicate the servant of Satan for every ministry of sin, for the destruction of the Church, for the eradication of faith and piety, and the sowing of falsehood, spiritual and bodily corruption, and every disgrace. At the least this word signifies those Gentiles entering the holy city and lying about Christ. The Gentiles were sinful, they always sinned. When they receive the name of Christ not in true and living faith, they remain what they are, “men of sin.” One of them is he of whom the prophecy speaks.
V. 3 (cont.): ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας, “the son of perdition.” This rendering is that of the LXX in Isaiah 57:4: וְלְדֵי פֶשַׁע (τέκνα ὁ ἀπωλέτας= “children of transagression”). If we follow this interpretation, φῶς ἀπωλείας [‘light of destruction’] is the same as φῶς ἀνομίας [“light of lawlessness”].
But now let Ἀβαδδὼν [‘Abaddon’] be the king of the locusts. Let it come from אבד [‘destruction/perish’] as in Num. 24:20,24. Indeed what is בְלִיעַל if not ἀπώλεια [‘destruction/perdition’]: so that בֶּן בְּלִיעַל could be “son of Belial.” Ἀπώλεια can mean ruin, destruction, pestilence, and by this phrase it may be attributed to this man either as author or as the subject. See 2 Pet. 2:1–3: “But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. (2) And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. (3) And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.”
In sacred writings there is not infrequent derision and scorn of the wicked: the king of the locusts is called אבדון “destruction,” who presents himself as אב־דין “father of judgment,” Ἀπολύων “the destroyer,” who by his boasting is loosening men from the guilt of sins, ‘loosening’ the subjects from the bond of obedience owed to the magistrate.
V. 3 (cont.): ὁ yὸς. “the son.” Why should I not say it alludes to false boasting? He pretends to be the son of Christ for the Church (Isa. 9:5, “a son is given to us”), as if He were seen in him; as if he were heir of God’s kingdom, sitting on its throne. He is not the Son of God, but of the Devil; not from heaven, but from hell; not an heir of the kingdom, but of destruction and of the lake that burns with sulphur. John 17:12, Judas is called ὁ υἱὸς ὁ ἀπωλείας “the son of destruction,” as one who was far from all salvation; for neither was he given to Christ nor imbued with faith or sanctified by the Spirit, but rather immersed in sins, so he was certainly destined for destruction.
ὁ “the.” Again, the definite article designates something known. For the Prophets frequently speak of it. And therefore, it cannot be unknown to the faithful.
But, because he is called ὁ ἄνθρωπος, [“the man”] do you think one man? You are mistaken. Ἀντίχρισοι πολλοί εἰσίν “There are many Antichrists” [1 John 2:18]. ὁ ἀντίχριστος [‘the Antichrist’] may be interpreted as either the one body comprised of all Antichrists or one Antichrist outstanding among many. They are not distinguished by comparing many men from only one man, but rather by various kinds of those who oppose Christ. They are not comprised of one kind, nation, brotherhood, order of men who singularly oppose Christ in a certain and notable way. Here, in 2 Thess. 2, there is also the long duration of time needed in the preparation of the mystery: the seduction of all and the concealment; and likewise, the revelation of his deeds, and by the word of God, his consumption and abolition. The Apostle testifies to the root or the beginning of this evil from his own times to the end of the world.
In addition: His name is called ‘one’ [the Antichrist] because all of that order are monarchs, “single princes.” Who does not know that a whole dynasty and all the kings of one kingdom are called one ‘king’ by Daniel? Who is ignorant that a people, nation, family, magistracy, king are always seen as the same; since successors enter the place of their predecessors and obtain the same name and right? [N. B. All U.S. Presidents have the same title and are addressed as Mr. President.] As with the series of Caesars, the Kings of France, or of Spain — Caesar, the French King or the Spanish King; so the order of the Popes in a single number is commonly called the Papacy. Now see the ‘marks’ of this monster.
Verse 4. I. ὁ ἀντικείμενος “he who opposes.” שָׂטָן is ἀντίδικος “adversary” in judgment, for the most part. More here. David complains many times of מִתְקוֹמְמִים, “those rising up.” But this has nothing in common with the Antichrist. It is מֶלֶךְ יָרֵב (Hos. 5) — βασιλεὺς ἀντικείμενος, “opposing, speaking against the true King.” “An opposing king, an adversary, making controversy and contradicting the true King.” He who makes controversy against Christ’s kingdom, the leader and standard-bearer of Christ’s enemies. Christ is set as a sign to be spoken against. Luke 2:34. ὁ ἀντικείμενος πρῶτα ἢ ἀντιλέγον τῶν: “He who opposes is first of those who contradict.” πᾶς ὁ βασιλέα καὶ μονάρχην τῆς Ἐκκλησίας ἑαυτὸν ποιῶν, ἀντιλέγει τῷ Χριστῷ. “Everyone who makes himself king and sole prince of the Church, contradicts Christ.” Thus, one may rightly say, as in John 19:12. For just as those who wanted Caesar alone to be their king rightly rejected every other earthly king, so those who acknowledge Christ alone as King in the Church can acknowledge no one else with the same power, to whom they would receive the word, fear His judgment, or submit — they [supporters of the Antichrist] will strive to admit him who is not a friend but an enemy of Christ. Learned men should also consider whether ἀντικείμενος (he who opposes) is hinted at in 1 Tim. 5:14. For when in chapter 4:3 he had spoken of demon spirits that forbid marriage, here he commands young widows to marry, etc., so that they do not give occasion to the adversary, that is, to Antichrist, enemy of marriage, for reproach and reviling against marriage. For he subjoins that already some have turned away after Satan, i.e., the threat is eminent. Some prepare the way for him. In any case, ἀντικείμενοι, “those who oppose,” are called ἀντιλέγοντες, “those who contradict.” Luke 13:17; 21:15; 1 Cor. 16:9; Phil. 1:28. The same is denoted by τὸ ἀνθίστας, “to resist.” 2 Tim. 3:8: ὃν τρόπον Ἰαννῆς καὶ Ἰαμβρῆς ἀντέξαντο Μωυσεί, ὅτως καὶ οἱ ἀνθίστανται τῇ ἀληθείᾳ — “In the way that Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, so these also resist the truth.” Therefore ἀντικείμενος (“he who opposes”) (1) opposes Christ, as Christ; (2) opposes the truth.
V. 4 (cont.): Καὶ ὑπεραιρόμθμου ἐπὶ πάντα λεγόμενον Θεὸν ἢ σέβασμα, “and exalting himself above every so-called god to be worshiped.” περαίρωμα ἐπὶ — by usurpation of authority and power. But this will be explained more fully elsewhere (Dan. 11:36). Σεβασμα is not σεβασμός, worship, but ὅ τις σεβάζεται, that which one venerates. Thus αποτέλεσμα, ποίημα, δράμα, θρέμμα, τοπάγμα, θέαμα, and likewise δικαίωμα, ὅ τις δικαιοῖ, seeks what is just. ἐδραίωμα, δέδραιται. See σεβάσματα Acts 17:23. More generally this word denotes whatever is held in veneration. The Roman emperors at that time were called Σεβαστοί and are now called Augusti. If σεβαστοί, then they were λεγόμενον σέβασμα [so-called objects of veneration] and, so long as they are called Augusti, they are said to be σέβασμα, and are esteemed venerable. If you wish, you may render it above all religion. And so the Syriac וְרַחֲלֹא. Know the last step of the degree of exaltation. ὥστε αὐτὸν εἰς ἱερὸν εἶναι ὡς θεὸν καθίστη — so that he sets himself up in the temple as God, plainly showing himself to be God. Thus, he confidently sets himself in God’s temple as God, declaring himself to be God. […….]
This is the first degree of pride. To exalt oneself above everything called God, that is, to arrogate power to oneself over all whom Scripture and the true God call gods — according to that Psalm 82:6, “I said, You are gods.” 1 Cor. 8:5, εἰσὶ λεγόμενοι θεοί [“that are called gods.”] More clearly: whatsoever persons God makes sharers of any authority, dignity, power, so that by His name they preside over others. I would have this carefully noted. Although he who exalts himself above every so-called god truly is an enemy of God, and he who exalts himself above the true God tramples His order underfoot (which may be thought of in relation to the Epistle of Hebrews), yet the Apostle in this place, characterizing ὁ ἀντικείμενος and marking the Adversary with his marks, does not seem to have wished to indicate that which results from pride and lawlessness, though that may ensue even without his intending it; but rather that which he will openly and plainly assume for himself — namely that arrogance to claim for himself ἐξουσία, ‘power and authority,’ over all whom God has adorned with any authority and eminence in political and ecclesiastical order, he whom St. Paul subjects to the sword of the civil power (Rom. 13:1): “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.” Whatever these powers are, they are ordained by God. This remark agrees with that in 2 Pet. 2:10–11: “Despisers of magistracy, presumptuous, self-willed, they fear not to speak evil of dignities; where angels, greater in strength and power, do not bring against them a railing judgment before the Lord,” a judgment by which they are detested, cursed, and given over to punishments. The same in Jude verses 8–9. Nor do I think the weak are more readily seduced in any other way – to not believe the Antichrist has already come – than by supposing this text says that Antichrist will openly and utterly deny God and Christ. “For,” says Flemish Jesuit Cornelius à Lapide, “the Roman Pontiff does not wish to be worshiped as Christ, nor does he deny Christ; indeed, he believes in Christ, worships and adores Christ.” (A great claim!) “Therefore, he is not Antichrist.” Moreover, when the Apostle distinguishes λεγόμενον θεὸν [“the so-called God”] or σέβασμα [“object of veneration”] he distinguishes the highest eminences among Jews and Gentiles. The supreme eminence among the Gentiles is called σέβασμα. The supreme among the Jews is called θεός, “god,” such as the priests and princes of the people were considered to whom the divine word consisting in judgments, was entrusted. These could not be worshiped except Jehovah. Psalm 97:7: “Worship him, all ye gods.” Only Jehovah is greater than those who “are called gods.” That “man of sin exalts himself above every so-called God,” commanding and decreeing that all men, even all Israelites, even the sons of Aaron — whoever, or whose ancestors in apostolic times were called gods — ought to be subject to and obey his laws for the sake of salvation and justice. Concerning the ‘Augusti,’ it is evident that Caesars and Kings he set under his feet, and at last brought it about that they would give their power to him.
V. 4 (cont.): His second degree of ἐπάρπασ, ‘exaltation.’ He will sit in the temple of God. It is vain to think of the Jerusalem temple. Even when it was still called the house of the Lord, it was not held in greater honor by the prophets themselves than the other palaces and citadels of Jerusalem, because of its profanation. Hos. 8:14: “Like an eagle over the house of the Lord… I will send fire into her cities, and it shall devour the palaces of Judah, and it shall consume the fortresses of Jerusalem.” But Christ, Matt. 23:38: “Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.” To those who identify the Papacy with the temple of Jerusalem, I oppose this: there is no promise in the prophets of rebuilding the third temple after the second was destroyed. To wait for a third temple is pure delusion. For if, in the place where the temple of the Lord stood, the Turks built a mosque or the Jews a synagogue, will that be called the temple of God?
Therefore, the temple of God here denotes the Church; not, I say, this or that basilica, or a particular congregation, but the whole Catholic [i.e., Universal] Church. “To sit down in the temple of God, as God,” is to arrogate to oneself the exercise of all power to govern and judge in the Church. Given the definition, it cannot be denied. Nor does Antichrist allow anything in himself to be lacking to the fulfillment of the description. He sets himself on the altar as soon as he is chosen, and there is adored where the God of the basilicas is worshiped by him. The Roman Ceremonial testifies to this, lib. 1 tit. 1 fol. 8 fac. a. ed. Rome, Valerius Doricus, A.D. 1560. Therefore, it is less (though sufficiently enormous) what Sigonius relates of the kingdom of Italy, lib. 1 at the year 593: “When the Romans learned of the coming of the Exarch, they judged that he should be received with eminent honor. Therefore, the city went out to meet the entrant with banners and an army with standards to the appointed place, and he entered and approached the Pope, who was seated in the Basilica of the Lateran, to worship him.” That Pope was Gregory I, whose ‘humility’ the age following adapted in word and rite befitting arrogance to make a deception for men. In the index concerning this act it is written thus: “Whence the custom of adoring the Supreme Pontiff?”
Ordo Romanus in the Bibliotheca Patrum vol. 8 p. 445, on the consecration of a Bishop: “He himself” (the bishop-elect), “with his head bowed goes forward in the middle until he comes before the altar. Then the chasuble is taken off, and the Pope puts the planeta [folded chasuble] on him, etc. And then he comes nearer before the altar with his head bowed. The Pope then lays his hand upon his head and says one prayer in the manner of a collect: another in that chant by which the contestation is wont to be sung: the Pope sits on his chair. He himself kisses the Pope’s foot and is received to peace, and thus his consecration is completed.” Roman Missal on the Principal Masses, 3: “If he is to celebrate before the Supreme Pontiff the priest stands on the lowest step of the altar at the corner of the Gospel before the Pontiff, where, with knee bent, he waits: when the blessing is received, he rises and standing somewhat toward the altar begins the Mass.” Thus, the honor of the Image is joined with the honor of the others who are worshiped there. When the Pontiff says Mass, the subdeacon, in that place, if I am not mistaken, kisses his feet in the place of the hands. But those to whom the matter is more appropriate should inquire into it more carefully.
His third degree of elevation: Declaring himself. He is his own witness. He comes in his own name [John 5:43]. For he who will not believe the Scriptures except the Church, that is, the Pope, declares them divine, and insofar as the Pope interprets them; and furthermore, who dictates as the principle of faith that the Pope is the absolute ruler of the Church, and that those are not true Christians who, adhering to Scripture, do not acknowledge the Pope; I ask you, whom does he have as author and witness of his own power, if not himself? Moses has testimony from God Himself, who with a mighty arm liberated and led the people, who was God’s spokesperson. All the sayings of the Prophets are resolved into the words of God promulgated through Moses: the Baptist was authenticated by the Prophets and an Angel, not without a miracle. Christ has the clearest testimony through Moses – greater than every exception – even all the other prophets, whose words He fulfilled by word and deed. The Apostles have the most explicit mission from Christ, as do the ministers of the Church also have a legitimate institution and vocation. For they are authorized by divine command to preach the praises of God, teaching the truth always, while building up neighbor, and having from God, through the Church, a place to exercise their God-given gifts while admonishing and watching over the congregation in the name of Christ. The Pope, deprived of all other signs of divine mission, can produce no word of God to defend his authority except his own interpretation.
V. 4 (cont.): “That he is God.” Two things are contained here. (1) That he assumes to himself that which belonged to those who were called gods. That is to say that he himself, and no other, becomes the λεγόµενος Θεός (so-called God). Just as God gave Aaron Moses as God, so that the declaration of God’s will should not otherwise be had than through Moses; and Aaron to Moses as prophet, that he might make public the things spoken by Moses as received from God: so the Pope sets himself up as prophet to God, in the manner of Moses, but as God to others, that they may refer his sayings and deeds to his authority, confirmation and legislation. See Exodus 4:16, 7:1. This has no place in the kingdom of Christ.
(2) The Pope arrogates to himself the dictation of articles of faith which are outside the Word of God. For one must hold what the word θεὸς (God) means from the usage in Scripture. It corresponds either to the word אל (El), which in emphasis denotes the omnipotent, or to the word אֱלֹהִים (Elohim), which in emphasis denotes the highest witness and judge, to whom faith and reverence are bound, by which a covenant is established between him and believers. Now he who teaches that he must be believed, even if there is no other clear word of God for confirmation, does he not declare himself אֱלֹהִים, a God? And this is what the Pope does when he declares Scripture is so obscure that it needs an interpreter who, like some ancient Roman magistrate, explains its mind and all its righteousness. For if this were clear in the Scriptures and could be understood without such an interpreter, the fact that such an Interpreter is required, and that he is that interpreter who holds this seat, it would be sufficiently clear that he would be charged with making obscure that which is not obscure. But he who declares himself the infallible interpreter of Scripture and yet dictates articles of faith outside Scripture, clearly professes himself the author of the articles of faith, that is, proclaims himself God. He does not indeed say that he is an infinite being, immutable, supremely good, wise, powerful, who we call God; but he assumes to himself that authority, that regard, with the honor which is due only to the eternal being, most perfect, most wise, most powerful, the Lord of all. But blind mortals do not see this. What then?
The Scripture should have been fulfilled so that they themselves should believe the lie [verse 11]. “Antichrist,” says Cornelius à Lapide from Chrysostom, “will be ἀντίθεος, someone against God, proclaiming any gods; and he will command that he himself be worshiped as God, and venerated in the temple of God—not only in Jerusalem, but also in the churches.” I omit what the ancient doctors of the Church make to be believed in this matter. Does not the Apostle say plainly τὸ μυστήριον ἐνεργεῖται, “the mystery works,” and will be revealed in its time? What then is strange if pious men have erred in this matter? For Daniel (12:4) foretells that at the end times many will search, and knowledge will be increased. But that the Antichrist will not openly deny every God and will present himself as the only true God is shown sufficiently by the Apostle who says in verse 10 that παρεσίαν αὐτοῦ ἔσται ἐν πάση ἀπάτῃ, that “his coming will be in every deception,” in guile, in circumvention, in deception, in falsehood. Therefore, impiety will not be proclaimed but will be covered with a gloss. To this guile and to this ἀπάτη, this deceit, this deception, pertains such an interpretation of the prophecies about the Antichrist, by which a certain false image of the Antichrist, painted with deceptive colors beyond the mind of Scripture, is pushed onto the stage like a specter, so that the true Antichrist is not recognized, who, as 1 Tim. 4:2 says, ὑποκρίσει ψευδολόγοι, “speaks lies in hypocrisy.” Then how will the Antichrist deny all [that is called] God when he [the Pope] worships the God of forces (Deum Maozim), as the Papists insist? But on this place of Daniel more anon.
From the words of the Apostle we have understood sufficiently that the Man of sin will first be a Christian by profession. For if he were a Jew or a Muslim, he would not be considered to belong to the temple of God, that is, to the Church. By the Church I mean the assembly professing Christ. For he does not mean walls of prayer-houses, or the many houses set aside for Christian gatherings, but people; nor a single particular congregation, as was said, but the whole Church, when he says temple of God [verse 4] as also 1 Tim. 3:15, “the house of God,” which is the Church. Secondly, that he will be the Pastor of the Church. For it is no business of any other in the Church to teach, rule, and judge, or to declare himself God, than he who professes himself Pastor. Wherefore the same Pastor is called foolish and worthless in Zechariah 11:15–17. For the same reason two horns like the horns of a lamb are given to him in Revelation 13. How, then, can these things stand with an alleged manifest, public and full-throated denial of God and Christ, as the Papists fabricate as a necessary mark of the Antichrist?
Even so, our good Fathers, when they speak of the Antichrist, uttered many things not found in the Scriptures to instill devotion in the people, things that seem composed by conjecture but spread by a deceitful Spirit which was implanted in the faith of men to veil the [true identity of the] Antichrist. Nevertheless, they could not fail to recognize that he will come with refined hypocrisy. Jesuit Blasius Viegas asserts this from Saint Ephrem the Syrian and others, p. 755. He specifically produces Saint Hippolytus speaking thus. “In his beginnings he will be merciful, calm in affection, devout, peaceful, who will pursue injustice with hatred, will detest gifts, will not permit idolatry, will love the Scriptures, will revere priests, will honor gray hair, will reject prostitution, will abominate adultery, will not heed slanders, will not receive curses, hospitable, zealous for the poor, merciful, will bring aid to widows, will protect orphans, will love all, will reconcile friendship among contending men with these words: Let not the sun set upon your anger: he will not possess gold nor love silver, he will not embrace riches. And he will do all these things with a feigned and fraudulent design, by which he will deceive all, so that they may make him king.” And from Gregory, who does not wrongly understand the “multitude of the preachers of the Antichrist” by the second Beast of the Apocalypse, he cites these things, page 744.
“Which has two horns like a lamb, because by hypocrisy of holiness it lies, implying that which the Lord truly had in Himself—singular gentleness and wisdom and life—dwells in it. But, since under the guise of a lamb it pours serpent-like poison into reprobate hearers, it is rightly added: And he spoke like a dragon. For this beast, that is, the multitude of preachers, if it spoke OPENLY like a dragon, would not appear like a lamb. But it assumes the likeness of a lamb in order to exercise the operation of a dragon.” I should not consider it worse to add here some examples of myths and fables about the Antichrist, with which, as with a veil drawn over them, he has beguiled the eyes of the simpler folk and still tries to beguile them—the crafty artificer—by the too-indulgent opinions and rhetorical amplifications of the ancient doctors of the Church; for the benefit of those who have no leisure to inquire into them. The same Hippolytus therefore says, “He will cleanse lepers, he will raise up paralytics, he will expel demons, he will foretell future things as if present, he will raise the dead, he will move mountains before the eyes of those looking on, he will walk on the sea with dry feet, he will bring fire down from heaven, he will turn day into darkness and night into day, he will drive the sun wherever he wishes, and, to say it once, by a power granted to the apparition he will show that all the elements of earth and sea obey him before those who behold.” The rest of this sort, partly boldly tied literally to the Scriptures, partly fabricated without any scriptural indication, are to be seen in Viegas, p. 762.
Verse 6: Καὶ νῦν τὸ κατέχον οἴδατε, εἰς τὸ ἀποκαλυφθῆναι αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ ἑαυτῶ καιρῷ.
Verse 7. Τὸ γὰρ μυστήριον ἤδη ενεργεῖται τῆς ἀνομίας μόνον ὁ κατέχων ἄρτι ἕως ἐκ μέσου γένηται. “And now you know what restrains, that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of lawlessness already worketh; only he who now restrains will restrain, until he be taken out of the way.” So much for his marks.
Now about the time of his coming. Paul had said that a falling away would come before the final judgment; he had said that the Man of Sin would be revealed. It was therefore necessary to show how near the time of revelation this was to occur. Paul first says that he is held back and hindered at present, so that he should not burst forth openly or proceed with free course. Thus, κατέχεν [‘suppress’], Rom. 1:18. However, he is not so hindered that he moves less secretly. Μυστήριον ἀνομίας, the Mystery of lawlessness, is the same thing as ἀποστασίας, the defection, the abandonment. This Mystery is called a secret in contradistinction to revelation. So often in sacred writers. Rom. 16:25, ἀποκάλυψιν μυστηρίου χρόνοις αἰωνίοις σεσιγημένου, ” according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began.” There is lawlessness both in secrecy and in manifestation. In secret, through the preparation of Satan forming everything toward apostasy. Meanwhile, the Church grows by the preaching of the Gospel. For Satan at the same time sows tares. Similar are 1 Tim. 5:15. ἤδη γάρ τινες ἐξετράπησαν ὀπίσω τοῦ Σατανᾶ, “now some have already turned aside after Satan.” 1 John 2:18. καὶ νῦν πολλοὶ ἀντίχριστοι γέγονεν, “and now many antichrists have arisen.” καὶ νῦν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἤδη ἐστὶν, “and now he is already in the world” [1 John 4:3]. In manifestation when, without dissimulation, the Man of Sin exalts himself against every so-called God or object of worship, and will sit in the temple of God, etc. Without dissimulation, I say. For we do not deny the Antichrist will first proceed in worse ways through clandestine schemes leading to the public acknowledgment of them all, (pious reader note this carefully), which Scripture foretold he would profess and impose on the Church. And that time is properly and especially called ἀποστασία, ἀνομία, ὁ ἄνομος, for we are told: (1) The final judgment will not come unless there comes a falling away [ἀποστασία]. (2) The apostasy will come so that the lawless one [ὁ ἄνομος] not submitting himself to the law [ἀνομία] will be revealed. (3) The lawless one is still restrained, so that he is not revealed immediately.
Two things remain to be explained. (1) Is the Antichrist to be restrained for a long time? (2) Or is the restrainer to be immediately abolished when he has been revealed? Here the Apostle, insofar as the first point is concerned, declares that nothing will hinder except what was then hindering. There is a slight turn in the Apostle’s words. The mystery works only until he who now restrains is removed from the midst. That is to say: the mystery of the defection, or the secret, acts only so long as the present impediment obstructs. Once that is taken away, the mystery will no longer work, but the manifestation of defection.
Therefore, he intimates that it must depart from the midst. I do not wish the Apostle’s phrase to be confused with the Latin one, “to be taken away from the midst.” That denotes being put away, abolished, extinguished. Syriac renders it “he will take away from the midst.” Arabic, “he will desist, or depart, or withdraw from the midst,” so that he will not be an obstacle, that he will not be a hindrance. For the reference is to τὸ κατέχον, to hinder. Colossians 2:14: ὅ ἦν ἀντίπαλον ἡμῖν, ἦρκεν ἐκ μέσου, “what was opposing us, he took away from the midst,” namely, so that it would not be opposing. It is therefore understood indeed of departure, but not necessarily of the total removal of that very thing which hinders, rather only insofar as it is an impediment and obstacle. Nearly all interpreters understand the Roman Empire to be the obstacle to the revelation of the Antichrist; and that very thing must necessarily be removed before he is revealed. Let no one persuade himself that it was necessary for the Roman Empire, insofar as it is Roman, to be eradicated and abolished before the revelation of the Antichrist; but only in such manner and to such extent was it necessary that the Roman power cease as long as it was an impediment to the Antichrist. One reason it was to cease was to make way for the Antichrist, insofar as it was an obstacle. However, it was to continue for another reason. We will undertake to prove this in due order. For from the prophecies it must be shown that which restrains is the thing that hinders the progress of impiety and defection.
I will nevertheless sketch the matter briefly. The seat from which the Antichrist was to be revealed had to be Rome, and the kingdom of the Antichrist had to be mixed with the Roman. Therefore, this could not happen as long as Rome was the seat of pagan idolatry. Thus, the Roman Empire, as a pagan power, had to reach its term before the power of the Antichrist, who was to sit in the temple of the Lord, in the Church, could be established. Then the man of sin had to exalt himself against every so-called object of worship or august honor. This could not be done unless the Caesars and Kings had taken counsel to hand over their authority to the Beast and the Harlot sitting in that place. Therefore, the Roman Empire had to in some respect remain and continue. Indeed, the great city or Empire in which the Beast rules is the same city and the same Empire in which our Lord was crucified (Revelation 11:8); that is, the Roman Empire. And both propositions, when compared with the prophecies, will, God granting, demonstrate themselves true.
So much for the restraint. The Apostle comes to the other point and teaches whether the Antichrist, once revealed, is immediately to be destroyed. Verse 8: Καὶ τότε, that is, when the one who restrains is removed from the midst, ὁ ἄνομος “the lawless one” will be revealed. Again I say, ἀποκαλυφθήσεται — “will be revealed” — has two meanings. (1) The coming or manifestation and exaltation with confidence and power. He will openly and without veil present himself against every so-called God and august one and will declare himself God; and he will impose that law which no one can accept except by renouncing the word of God and Christ. (2) The recognition of deception. The madness of them will be manifest to all. 2 Tim. 3:9. ὁ ἄνομος, “the Defector,” has been explained above.
Do not tear apart the continuous discourse with a new translation, so that verses 6, 7, and 8 do not say the same thing in the same words. Therefore, how long will the Antichrist remain revealed? If the Lord (1) consumes him with the breath of His mouth, (2) and destroys him by the brightness of His coming. Whom the Lord (1) will CONSUME by the Spirit of his mouth, (2) and will DESTROY by his illuminating coming. The difference lies between ἀναλίσκω and καταργέω, to ‘consume’ and to ‘destroy.’ And here they are distinctly distinguished. The one is to reduce gradually, the other to remove utterly. Fire, by feeding little by little on wood or on a lamp, consumes it (ἀναλίσκει). Water poured upon fire destroys it (καταργεῖ). What consumes him (ἀναλίσκει)? The Spirit of the Lord’s mouth, that is, the word of God, accompanied by the power of the Holy Spirit in converting the elect and by power in executing judgments; just as the lawless one (ὁ ἄνομος) grew in efficacy by the deceitful operation and lies of Satan, by the power of Satan’s deception. Verses 9, 10.
What will abolish him? The manifestation of the presence, that is, the illumination of the Lord’s coming. Compare 1 Tim. 6:14; 2 Tim. 4:1, 8.
In what follows, ἡ παρεσία ἐπιφανείᾳ, [“the manifestation of his coming,” v. 8] refers to the means and causes. God rightly guiding, this will be explained. Verse 10: “Because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.” The new interpreter, Grotius, notes here: “For they also could have been saved by the Gospel, God acting seriously.” In these words there is a complex nuance. A simpler person would not understand that under this stone a scorpion lies hidden. It is important in this matter of the age to speak clearly and plainly. Using figurative versus proper speech makes a great difference. If one says that God seriously acts to save dying men by the Gospel, in the sense in which we say a person seriously acts when, in order to accomplish it, he does what he can with wish and desire for the outcome, although he is not able to ensure it — as a father seriously strives and desires and prays that his sick son near death may recover — who does not see that human frailties do not suit God? Thus, because faith bears a condition-like relation to salvation, it is rightly said, “If you believe, you will be saved.” If someone attributes to God the will of human conditional salvation so that God’s will depends on the will of man and follows its determination — besides the fact that this makes faith an act of human free choice (although God works in us both to will and to do) — he also does injury to divine perfection and immutability. The Gospel offers salvation to all who believe, calling everyone to faith without distinction. Those who truly trust are saved, as the preaching of the Gospel is meant as a means for salvation. God, in His wisdom, extends these benefits to both the elect and those who perish, to demonstrate His glory and goodness. Scripture even says, anthropopathically, that God wills salvation by providing and approving the means necessary—just as Isaiah 5 describes God’s care of his vineyard being suited to yield grapes, especially among those empowered by the Spirit. Meanwhile, it must be known that, as far as the Elect are concerned, it sounds very different if one says that God seriously wills that they [all] be converted by the Gospel; see Isaiah 55:11: “So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.” From which it is clear that the mission of the word is with intention, with purpose and design, whose fruit certainly follows, and that what follows is from the divine will and efficacy; and that it is sent precisely for that which it effects and accomplishes. The rest is clear enough and has been touched on above.
So that we may be briefer, we proceed to the consequence
First of all, we warn that if any disagreement is found among the doctors of the Church in the explanation of the prophecies, this ought not to seem to anyone a reason why every such interpretation should be rejected or should no longer be established. For however much some later interpreters differ from not only those earlier but even among themselves, there is no dissension in the matter itself or in the substance, but only in the circumstances. For even if these or those have erred somewhat in correctly noting the very article of time and order of events, nevertheless they have not so erred as those who know the truth of the Gospel would call white black, black white, day night, night day; but rather they have presented various examples of the prophecies quite distinctly and aptly in different ways. For prophecy contains both hypothesis and thesis. In the hypothesis they may perhaps sometimes have slipped, in the thesis not so much. Very rightly Master Junius in Daniel 11: verse 21 distinguishes between the history, that is, the proper interpretation of some place and thing, and the common type, that is, an example applied to a common or singular matter. Therefore, he teaches that it can happen that interpreters disagree in the history (namely in applying the prophecy) who nevertheless agree in the common type. This was stated to illustrate the differences between Master Junius, who interprets parts of Daniel as referring to past events, and others who believe Daniel has already been fulfilled, with the aim of clarifying how interpretations regarding the Church may be influenced by these perspectives. The cause of that ‘wandering of the mind’, as I said, is not least the fact that prophecies ought to be revealed at their end in all things. And hence we certainly do not suppose that everything is now disclosed to anyone. So, I establish two or even three criteria of a true interpretation. (1) If the sense is brought forth from the genuine nature of the words and phrases and emphases according to the easiest and least contorted construction. (2) If that sense arises the same from other prophecies speaking of the same matter, and thus different prophecies illuminate one another. (3) If the words of the prophecy fit things evident and great in the same order which the method of the prophecies suggests — so that you cannot reasonably demand that other and better words should have been used in the prophecy to indicate the matter. Add a fourth: If that whole interpretation does not condemn what is to be condemned according to clear Scripture, nor justify what is not to be justified — so that everything is referred to the analogy and conformity of faith. Unless one claims prophecies and their interpretations are useless, it is necessary to accept interpretations that clearly relate the prophecy’s words to known facts. How shall we know Christ from prophecy, how the kingdom of Christ, if here we equivocate? Finally, how can anything be judged from Scripture if we reject this rule: that if the words of Scripture can be taken fittingly, without violence or torture, with no reasonable objection either in the prophecy itself or in all Scripture, Scripture truly speaks of that matter? How shall we prove the Gospel from Scripture if we resist this criterion and axiom? If an angel should come from heaven, must he not speak what Moses and the Prophets spoke? Did not Christ himself and the Apostles appeal to Moses and the Prophets? Therefore, it is our task to judge whether those things the Apostles preached were foretold by the Prophets — which was commended in the Bereans. But how shall we do this except by examining whether those things that Christ is said to have spoken and done and suffered, and by which He is said to have been glorified, and as they are preached were thus predicted; and whether the predictions of the Prophets and the preaching of the Apostles about Christ have the same force and signification? Let us therefore, with God’s help, proceed to the first parallel, to which both the Apostle and then the recent interpreter of the Apostle have pointed a finger.
MATTHEW 24
Verses 4-15. The Savior explains to his disciples what will precede his coming and the end of the age. He mentions two great evils: terror and seduction. Terror from wars and persecutions. Hence “the beginning of sorrows,” or even of “labor-pains.” For this is ὠδίνων. Verses 6, 7, 8. All was quiet in the time of Christ. Afterwards the Roman world was little disturbed. But those were not matters of great consequence, and little or nothing to the Jews. The first war raised in the Roman world was the Jewish war. That was under Nero. That is the beginning of sorrows. About this see verses 15 – 22. After that were other wars, and those which Christ adds in verse 7. The emphasis of that verse must not be passed over: ἐγερθήσεται γὰρ ἔθνος ἐπὶ ἔθνος, “for nation will rise against nation.” Such especially was the Jewish war, which was waged by the Jewish people against the Roman people, the treaty and peace of the peoples broken (Zach. 11:10) which had been between the Jewish people and the Romans. For two πολιτείαι [‘governments’] existed in the world. One had the throne and kingdom of God, the other of Satan. God willed that the covenant (Dan. 9:27) for the sake of the elect should prevail for a time over the iniquity of the unbelieving people and the greed of the Gentile empire. Καὶ βασιλεῖα ἔπὶ βασιλεῖαν: “and kingdom against kingdom.” At that time stood the genuine kingdom of the Romans, the Dragon’s concubine, which was to be “removed from the midst,” as an impediment and obstruction to the revelation of the ὁ ἄνομος, [‘the lawless one’/ ‘the Man of Sin’] as Paul taught us. It had to be done by another kingdom. Which kingdom the Apocalypse calls the Beast (βασιλείαν vocat θηρίον), chapter 13 [verse 1], and Daniel calls the four “beasts,” chapter 7. This kingdom permits the revelation of the Defector [aka ‘The Man of Sin’]. Thus, you see how Paul agrees with Christ.
Christ says, when “nation shall rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom, this will be the beginning of sorrows” [v. 7]. Paul says, “When the impediment is removed, the lawless one will be revealed” [2 Thess. 2:7-8]. Therefore, it is then that true pains and true childbirth will occur, when that Wicked one shall be revealed.
Verse 9: “Then,” continues the Savior, “they will hand you over to tribulation.” That is, when the pains begin through the Jewish war, ‘then,’ that is, afterwards there will be persecution by the Gentiles against Christians, (Rev. 2:11).
Rev. 2:10: “Do not fear anything of what you are about to suffer. Behold, the Devil will throw some of you into prison to be tested; and you will have tribulation ten days.” ‘Then,’ that is, afterwards, many will be scandalized, stumbling blocks will arise in the Church from the sinful doctrine of heretics and from the lives of many, and above all from the ambition and tyranny of bishops; “and many will be offended,” who will be led into destructive heresies and into various sins, “and will betray one another, and will hate one another” [Matt. 24:10]. It is very clear that this affliction and persecution is different from that of Matt. 24:9, just as external and internal war differ.
Rev. 2:14 “You have some who hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit fornication.”
You see this lawlessness (avoμίας) already breaking forth. He goes on, “And many false prophets will arise and will lead many astray” [Matt. 24:11]. The end of one degree of evil leads to many in the future. There will be many false prophets in the Church, not one. But among them the Apocalyptic false prophet, who is also the Harlot and, deservedly called ‘Jezebel,’ Rev. 2:20. Yet so far it is deception and error. Matt. 24:12 He adds, “And because lawlessness or iniquity will abound, the love of many will grow cold.” Lawlessness and unbelief will reach the highest degree. The highest degree of lawlessness is when the convicted one rebels. Indeed, lawlessness will be so widely spread that few will remain zealous of true charity. And what is the wonder? The lawless one will strive by every art and with the greatest power against the truth; the truth of the Gospel will be manifest to diminish the Wicked One, but by contests with the Wicked One about his lies, and by the separation of those who disagree about his religion, departing from the Lawless One in their opinions; and by the tribulation of the Wicked One the edification and communion of the saints will be hindered in a remarkable way, and because error will be manifold there will be inquiries and disputation everywhere, but not without the chilling of love.
“Here is the patience of the saints,” (Rev. 14:12). ὁ ἢ υπομέινας εις τέλου σωθήσεται “He who endures in patience to the end will be saved,” [Matt. 24:13]. Finally, some who have overcome and have not abandoned the word of the Lord will be delivered from those persecutions and evils (verse 13).
Verse 14: Καὶ κηρυχθήσεται τὸ τοῦτο εὐαγγέλιον τῆς βασιλείας, “And this Gospel of the Kingdom will be proclaimed” (against lawlessness and apostasy) οὐχ ὅλῃ τῇ οἰκουμένῃ εἰς μαρτύριον πᾶσι τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, “throughout the whole world as a testimony to all the nations,” etc. And thus, the Lawless One will be consumed, as Paul says [2 Thess. 2:8]. Καὶ τότε, “And then,” this having been done, “the end [τέλος] will come,” [Matt. 24:14]. The manifestation of the presence of the coming of the Lord will take away the Lawless One. From which sequence and unfolding of this prophecy it can be most clearly shown how erroneously Blasius Viegas, p. 771, attempts to prove from this passage that the preaching of the Gospel to all nations is a sign preceding the coming of the Antichrist. The whole prophecy, especially the Apocalypse, refutes that. See only Rev. 15:4.
In the sense of τέλος meaning “end” we do not dissent from the Pontiff. Nor indeed can it be otherwise explained, given the nature of the thing itself and the argument which is treated. Although elsewhere “end” is said more specifically, it is nevertheless clear from the thing itself and an added determination, as in Ezek. 7:2, 3, 6; Amos 8:2; Jer. 51:13. And thus בְעַת עֲוֹן קֵץ “in the time of wickedness, the end.” Ezek. 35:5.
Above we hinted, in the following eight verses, whose first is verse 15 and last 22, that which pertains to the Jewish war and its outcome is explained further.
Where those things pertain to deception, the Savior explains in verse 23 and the following four verses. There will be those who say, “Here is Christ, or there.” That is, of heresies and factions — each asserting Christ for his own party. Many will be scandalized by this. For there will be, as was said above, false prophets in general; here he says, false teachers and false prophets distinctly. This marks every false doctrine. That one is of those who arrogantly claim authority in heaven and on earth, and a “kingdom.” Now among many of those there will be a chief Lawless One, who is not only an adversary (as some external enemy attacking Christ), but also a false Christ, sitting in the temple of the Lord as a monarch and head. For to be Christ and to be head is one and the same. Hence the notion of the word Antichrist is clear: namely, one opposed or adversary of Christ — or the false Christ who sits in the temple of God. I add: one who makes himself equal to Christ, as Paul says, showing himself that he sits as God. As much difference as there is between other Antichrists and this one, so also there is between this false prophet and the others. There were few false prophets who did not seek some fiction from the word of God presenting it as true. The lawless false prophet does not do that.
He does much more. So that nothing of clarity and obvious instruction be lacking, the Savior expressly adds another way the head of all falsehood may be recognized, verse 26: “If they shall say to you, Behold, he is in the desert; do not go out; or behold, he is in the inner rooms; do not believe it.” About whom is this speech? About the Son of Man, (so the next verse cries out), about the Son of God, Christ born of a woman, that the Lawless One [the Man of Sin] will claim two things: (1) That Christ is in the desert. (2) That Christ is in the inner rooms, or secret places. As to the first, who are those who say that Christ is in the desert, except those who say that Christ is with the hermits? Did they not withdraw their cloisters outside the cities into deserts, into groves, into the fields? Do they not separate themselves from human commerce in the cities, and also wish to be seen there as hermits? Do they not profess the solitary life and the desert life? Well done, excellent imitators of John the Baptist! Be pleased, then, with what you concede to the desert. We, hearing Christ, tells us, “Do not go out.”
But these say that Christ is with themselves. What? that the Holy Spirit dwells in them? that they are spiritual, the others laymen? that they are the clergy, that they have the keys of the kingdom of heaven? But the matter is evident and I spare words. I say only this: in this falsehood are contained all the marks handed down by Paul.
On the second capital falsehood I note the word ταμέῖον [‘ciborium’ or ‘tabernacle’] which is very significant here, whether you regard the common use by other authors of the Greek language or the use by the LXX translators. No one is ignorant of what ταμείον is in Greek: A chest, a storeroom, a ciborium. The LXX often render חֶדֶר by ταμείον, a penitential or confessional compartment. I say that here is indicated the falsehood about the local presence of the body of Christ in the Mass. If anyone claims Christ could have made it clearer that the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is a fraud, he is deluded. I say that here Christ plainly alluded to and rested on the place of Daniel 11:38, which I will show later, God willing. But for now, see how the Savior fortifies Himself against both falsehoods.
Verse 27: (1) Do not believe that Christ is in the ταμεῖοι, he says: “For as lightning comes forth from the east and shines to the west, so will the presence [‘coming’] of the Son of Man be.” Presence (parousia) is the presence of Christ to men according to the body. Scripture knows it in two ways. One, when “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, as of the only-begotten of the Father.” The Lord foretells the other, the illustrious appearing, the future presence, when he will come to judgment; and He describes it as sudden and from heaven, as bright and with that glory which will fill the whole world, no less than lightning, when suddenly bursting forth from the clouds it flings its brightness from east to west. He alludes to Job 37:3. By establishing this parousia He denies and removes every other presence in ταμεῖοι, a presence in receptacles or little places, obscure, invisible, such as is imagined in the bread of the Mass. The prior falsehood (which is not of less importance than the other; but it is placed first so that the argument by which the other is destroyed may be immediately and properly added in the first place — a most usual chiasm of Scripture) — that falsehood, I say, that Christ is in the desert, the contrary admonition excludes. For if one must not go out into the desert, what then? Where ought the society of the faithful be assembled? This pertains not to the nearby, but to verse 26, the first clause. Two precepts are premised: two reasons are added in the manner of Scripture. Therefore, “where the carcass is, there will the eagles be gathered together.” He alludes to Job 39:30. The sense is manifest.
The faithful (1) seek the things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God, “set on the right hand of the Majesty on high” (Col. 3:1–2). They have communion with those in whom the likeness of Christ is found; which is more present in suffering than in persecution or the glory of this life. From here verses 29–31 are an explanation of verses 13–14. For He indicates: (1) that that tribulation consisting of terror and deception will at times be diminished [v. 22], and “those who have endured will be saved” [v. 13]. (2) “The Lawless One will be consumed.” Figuratively this is signified by the darkening of the moon, the fall of the stars, the motion of the hosts of heaven. Such figurative expressions are found in the Apocalypse and occur also with other Prophets. (3) “The sign of the Son of Man will be revealed in heaven, with the lamentation of all the tribes of the earth.” What else is this than that Christ, according to His word and the Prophets, will do those things which when seen cannot be doubted that He is seated in heaven at the right hand of God and is appointed by God as a standard to which those who wish to be saved may flee; and all may readily perceive His coming from heaven is approaching when He will judge the living and the dead.
The Apocalypse says in chap. 11:19 the temple of God in heaven was opened, and the ark of His covenant was seen in His temple. And many other things could be brought in here. It should also be added to these that all the tribes of the earth will bewail, which can be understood of the great plagues that cause people everywhere to assemble and cry out before God and confess that their sins have provoked the wrath of God, Matt. 24:30. (4) Finally, before He comes to judgment with His angels, he will send forth angels with trumpet and great voice (which we might call the last trumpet) to gather the elect from all the extremes of the heavens, that they be assembled into one. There can be no doubt that the unique instrument for gathering the elect into one is the preaching of the Gospel. When this is done most freely and everywhere with the greatest urgency and the clearest demonstration and conviction of the fulfillment of all prophecies, then, as appears, it has the effect of a trumpet and a great voice. The gathering of the elect is attributed to the angels, either because heralds are also called angels, or because angels also assist the preaching, resisting the devil, the enemy of souls and his snares, restraining his violence and exposing his devices. Concerning how these things will play out in the future we dare not say. For they are placed in the hand of God. Nevertheless, we think it useful that what has been said, and that which pertains to the matter, be carefully compared and weighed together. But that is not now our present purpose.
Christ and Paul, as we have seen, speak with other prophets, and even specifically refer us to Daniel. Therefore, we will first examine the prophecy of DANIEL. Having done this, we do not doubt that the part of the Apocalypse of which we are about to treat will become clearer, and our explanation more certain. But since Daniel’s prophecy is variously consulted both in the passages we have considered and in those to be considered, and because it itself acquires light from the comparison of its different parts, besides being most illustrious and as it were a kind of canon of the other prophecies, we will therefore take up a not small portion of its contemplation. We call this prophecy most illustrious because it clearly indicates beginning and end and runs through by distinct periods, marked with no obscure characters; above all, it points out the time of the first παρουσίας [‘coming’] of Christ in the flesh as if by a finger.
DANIEL 2
The first prophecy is chapter 2, the epitome and canon of the rest. Its sum is verse 29. The king had pondered what would come after those things. God revealed it. The image in the vision was a stone. That denotes the kingdom of the world, this Christ and his kingdom. The kingdom of the world is set forth as one body, appearing in the highest, namely the empires that will succeed each other in order. There can be no doubt about the beginning, for it is expressly called the Babylonian empire. And the end cannot be obscure. For every great kingdom which contends with Christ, and which is broken and crushed by Christ’s kingdom, is contained in this statue. Now that kingdom which Christ crushed is the Roman empire. For Christ was born under it and had to be born under it. The statue is divided into four parts, which signify four kingdoms. The first is the golden head, signifying the kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar and his sons. The second is the breast and arms of silver, signifying a kingdom inferior in splendor and majesty (the Prophet calls it יקָרָא) [‘esteemed’]. To it succeeded the kingdom of the Medes and Persians. Daniel 5:27; 6:1; 9:1; 11:1–2; again, chapter 6:29. The figure of two arms designates these two peoples among whom supreme power in one kingdom was successively held. The same is figured by the two‑horned ram in chapter 8:10 and 20. Of these it must be said that we shall proceed to the later times, concerning which our discourse is. The third therefore is the belly and thighs of brass. No one is ignorant that Alexander the Macedonian succeeded the Persians; of whom chap. 8 verses 5–8 and 21 speak. But do the sides or the thighs represent the same? I deny it. Without doubt they signify some division. If a division, someone will say, fourfold is required. For, as in chap. 8 verses 8 and 22, and concerning the broken horn, in place of which four arose; four kingdoms will arise from the people. True; but here account of only two is taken, which were not only more familiar to the Jewish people, but also had greater power than the others and long reigned, the Seleucids and Ptolemies. Therefore, also in chapter 11, when he has briefly and incidentally passed over the division of the Greek kingdom into four parts, he follows at greater length and more abundantly the history of the Seleucids and the Ptolemies.
We will now consider the opening words of Chapter 11 verse 2: “Behold, yet three kings stand for Persia, and the fourth shall be enriched above all with great riches, and when he has been strengthened in his riches he shall stir up all against the kingdom of the Greeks.” All history tells of this King Xerxes, who was the fourth after Cyrus. After Cyrus came Cambyses, Darius, Xerxes. Scripture elsewhere names Cyrus, and, omitting Cambyses, Darius, then Ahasuerus, who is Xerxes, afterwards who is Artaxerxes, again Darius and soon Artaxerxes, likewise again another Darius. That here three kings are called is not to be taken as if there were not more kings of the Persians; but this is said with respect to the war in which they most contended with the Greeks. For it was the fourth king who would do this; and for this war three kings stand from Cyrus. Verse 3: “And there shall arise a strong and mighty king” — of the Greeks, Alexander — “and he shall rule with great dominion and shall act according to his will. And when he arises, his kingdom shall be broken and shall be divided into four parts of the heavens.” (These are the four horns of the ram, chap. 8.) “And not to his posterity, nor according to his power, whereby he ruled. For his kingdom shall be left and given to others besides these.” By these words it is clearly signified, (1) that that kingdom is to be regarded as the same in the successors of Alexander, just as also chap. 8:8 — the four horns stand in the place where the great horn had stood, and in the same ram, that is, the kingdom of the Greeks, verse 20. Whose king is not one but the first, Alexander, verse 21. And that is with respect to the four that are to arise, verse 22. (2) That the kingdom of those who succeed will not be stable but will be such that one frequently expels another. (3) That at last it will come into the power of others besides these, such as the Parthians and Romans. Having touched briefly on the kingdom of the Greeks under Alexander and his successors, he weaves the history of the Seleucids and Ptolemies, who among the other successors are as the foremost. “And the king of the south shall be confirmed,” that is, of Egypt and Arabia (for part of this is explained in chap. 8.), Ptolemy the Lagid, and someone “from his princes,” namely Antigonus of Alexander. For to him Asia and Syria fell, which afterwards the Seleucids held. He was defeated by Ptolemy and his associates, among whom was Seleucus. [……………….]
Therefore, in ἀνδριάνι [the colossal statue] follows the fourth and most important part, namely the legs and feet. The Scripture distinctly makes the legs of iron, the feet partly of clay, partly of iron. Daniel 2:33. Which some authors do not observe. Thus, you see the fourth empire is uniform in one respect, diverse in another. It is clear from this how that Empire is one in root, diverse in form. Thus, the same thing is both abolished and yet remains. The Assyrians or Chaldeans were subdued by the Medes and Persians; the Persians were subjected by the Greeks; the Greeks were subjugated by the Romans. The Roman Empire underwent various changes from within, for it was not entirely removed nor occupied by another people. So far, then, we concede that the Roman Empire was not utterly taken away. For those who held dominion at Rome or in the Roman Empire became Romans before they were masters. But in that Empire, there were first legs, then feet, finally the toes of the feet. The legs of this Empire (that is, the Roman Empire under pagan Emperors) were in every way opposed to the revelation of the Antichrist. Hence, they are called solid iron. For they do not have the mixture of the kingdom of the Adversary. Therefore, they had to be removed, so that feet partly of iron, partly of clay would succeed. They denote that the kingdom is divided, v. 41, partly strong, partly fragile, v. 42. That division is not according to regions, but according to forms of government. There will be a twofold form of government, a twofold power: secular and spiritual — thus they call the domination of Bishops. For if it were meant to indicate the various future conditions of this kingdom, so that at times it would triumph, at times succumb, at times other kings would be cruel or strong, others humane or weak, the same could be said of the legs and of all the kingdoms. The combination of authorities without doubt understood that when the iron legs are removed, the two feet signified the Empires of East and West, and afterward the ten toes signified the ten Apocalyptic kings.
Verse 43 describes the mixture. “That which you saw was iron mixed with clay of the potter’s earth: they will be mixed with the seed of men, but they will not adhere to one another, just as iron does not mix with clay.” I know that the Seleucids and the Lagids have joined in marriage. But this happens in many kingdoms, not with a united concord of hearts. Who does not see this also in modern kingdoms? Therefore, that alone is not sufficient for fulfillment. Moreover, if one speaks of the incompatibility of the Seleucids and the Lagids, it follows that the other would be assimilated to clay. Which is absurd. The kingdom here is one by a mixture with the seed of men. The kingdom of the Seleucids and the Lagids was never one except in the sense that two parts were once of a single kingdom. Our prophet says this: This fourth kingdom, after its first period, will be joined into a dual polity, in which the same people will be made distinct by their own orders and rulers. So far, the kingdom will be divided. Thus, the Roman empire, in which the Pope rules, has a twofold polity. One in which political magistrates preside; another in which ecclesiastical magistrates preside. They are mixed with human seed. Ecclesiastical persons are born from the political, while the laity, ordinarily, I say. For spurious ones are also said to arise from the ecclesiastical. Political men are engendered by the ecclesiastical by a certain mental generation which they call spiritual, which nevertheless is a teaching of men, not of God. Nay, kings and princes are in part instituted, created, confirmed by ecclesiastical men. In one and the same people both rule. Other kingdoms are distinguished by territories, by towns; this kingdom often comes together in the same houses. One kingdom has firmness, another weakness.
Here I allow the reader to consider carefully which part has the firmness or hardness, and which the weakness and frailty. I know that the yoke of the ecclesiastics has been grievous to the monarchs themselves, and that these have been either uprooted or humbled and sent under the yoke by them. But of this in another prophecy. They will not cohere so as to cultivate friendship and peace. Let no one object that such a dual power is found in every well‑ordered commonwealth in which both the political magistrates and the legitimate rulers of the Church exercise rightful authority. Far otherwise is this intimated here, namely by declaring a kingdom of mixture. When magistrates discharge their office and the rulers of the Church discharge theirs, promoting both by lawful means, not exercising domination over the clergy or the faithful or over the magistracy itself, but by the word of God beget the people entrusted to them as children of God, the worldly kingdom is by no means divided, but rather the kingdom of God in such a worldly commonwealth is erected and enlarged — as is known from the end of this vision and chapter seven. Yet the kingdom of God and of men are not one and the same. Daniel also represents elsewhere this incompatible association of distinct worldly rule. We shall see it in chapter 7. Then in the Apocalypse, not only in chap. 13 where he brings forth a double beast, or chap. 17 where he makes the harlot sit upon the beast and shows the kings committing fornication with the Beast; but also where he proposes the figure of horsemen and distinctly mentions riders, horses, their heads, tails and again the heads of these. For the horses are the body, the people; the head the prince; the tail the false prophets who have their head and leader. The rider is the Bishop and all Prelates who have the power to govern and authority over the prince, the people and the people’s teachers who are without ruling power. To this pertains the double Beast and the Harlot sitting on the Beast: likewise, Death and Hades, Rev. 6:8. I say nothing of Gog and Magog. I omit other things. This at least is clear: that this figure represents a kingdom in which one king takes upon himself power against another, who is also ἀνόμος, [‘the Lawless One’], who exalts himself against every so-called God.
Now concerning the other part of the vision, about the Stone. “I kept watching until a stone was cut out, not by hands, and it struck the image at its feet,” etc., verses 4–5. The explanation or rather the pointing to the explanation is in verse 44: “In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed.” The kingdom of Christ will be raised up in the days of those kings, that is, before the period of those four kingdoms is yet finished.
English theologian Hugh Broughton is greatly mistaken when he says those who take the toes of the image to signify the Roman empire are Judaizing, as if they were proving that Christ had not come. Scripture does not say that Christ would come after the image was removed, but while it stood, flourished, and prevailed. Also, from this remark the following is gathered: under whichever Empire Christ came and began to reign, that Empire is part of this statue. It is the Roman one. If the fourth empire were that of the Seleucids or Ptolemies, Christ would not have come while the image stood in the days of those kings, but after their days. [………………..]
The text says the stone was cut out from the mountain, verse 45. That mountain is the polity of the Jews. Kingdoms, republics, peoples are commonly compared to mountains: thus, soon the stone is said to become a great mountain. The mountain of Zion denotes the kingdom of Christ. The Babylonian kingdom is הַר הַמִּשְׁחִית, the mountain that destroys, Jer. 51:24. The Persian empire is a great mountain, Zech. 4:6. If you will, compare Rev. 8:8, ὄρος μέγα πυρὶ καιόμενον [‘a great mountain burning with fire], with Jer. 51:24 הַר שׂרֵפָה,[’burnt mountain’] ὄρος πυρβαιας [‘fiery mountain’]. Christ is “cut out from the mountain,” that is, removed from the midst of the people and affected by death as an impious one. The stone which the builders rejected became the cornerstone, Ps. 118:22. He was cut out from the land of the living. Isa. 53:8. He shall be cut off, Dan. 9:26.
“Without hands,” or not in hands [Dan. 2:34]. The stone moved and broke forth by its own strength, by its own force, without foreign aid. Dan. 9:26: וְאֵין לוֹ “and shall have nothing.”
“which struck the image at its feet,” that is, the kingdom of Christ clashed with the kingdoms of the world in their last part or culmination. For in that final part, which is figured by feet partly of iron, partly of clay, is ὁ ἄνομος, [the Lawless One, the Man of Sin] whom the Lord consumes by the breath of His mouth. Certainly all kingdoms that are raised up are raised by God; those that are to be removed are abolished by God, by Christ: yet worldly kingdoms are not said to be destroyed by the kingdom of Christ unless that kingdom which opposes Christ sets itself against Him, and is overcome and destroyed by the Word and Spirit of the Lord and the sword of His mouth.
Above we learned from chapter 11 that the prophet began to trace the kingdom of the Greeks into two principal offspring as it were ‘legs’ appended to the belly, when he says the King of the South is confirmed and a certain one of the leaders of Alexander, namely the King of the North. Henceforth we must follow Daniel’s thread like Ariadne’s, so that we may clearly know when the fourth Kingdom begins. I, for the sake of brevity, adding my words to the prophet’s, will recount the history together with the prophecy. [N. B. This section is omitted due to its obscure and complex nature which will not edify the average Bible student.]
ISAIAH 14: 13-14
But you said in your heart: I will ascend into heaven; above the stars of God I will exalt my throne; I will also sit on the mount of assembly in the recesses of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High.
I will not deny that these things can be attributed in an excessive way to Babylon proper, to King Nebuchadnezzar or his grandson Belshazzar, at most to indicate their pride and impotence. But just as the kingdom of Antichrist is mystically called Babylon (which is done for many grave reasons), so the pride of Antichrist ought to be set forth more distinctly in this poem, mystically typically figured. First, because this prophecy speaks of one who was to come at that time, when the Church had already begun to possess the nations. If anyone is moderately versed in the metaphors of Scripture, he will see without difficulty that the same is said by Isaiah and by Paul. The first step of pride is “to ascend into heaven.” Psalm 115:16. “The heavens are the Lord’s; but the earth he has given to the children of men.” A simple sentence. God reigns alone in the Church in Christ: to men, however of whatever nation, he has conferred the strength of their city. Psalm 73:8–9. “From on high they speak; they set forth their mouth in the heavens, and their tongue walks through the earth.” They prescribe laws as if κύριοι τῆς πίστεως, “lords of the faith,” from God’s throne, and their decrees in the Church count as preambles. They ought with “princes and those having power” to subject (ὑποτάττειν), but they κατακυριεύει κλήρων [“seize possession of the inheriance”] each one, as though in an inheritable family, or as if the things attributed to them by chance, dominate; indeed, they subject to themselves the strength of the Lord. Therefore, they are αντικείμενοι — opposing.
Second, to set his throne above the stars of God. Who does not know that the stars are called the teachers and pastors? They are called the stars of God because God gave them the office and gifts suited to it, that they might shine forth in the Church. Therefore, they have a divine vocation. He who exalts himself above all those called gods (who were the priests and elders of the Israelite people) and wishes to subject them to himself, demands that all bishops and teachers be subject to him. And conversely, he who sets himself above all those who shine in the Church, also sets himself above those so-called gods.
Third, to sit on the mount of assembly in the recesses of the north. The mount of assembly is where God placed the memorial of his name, where he promised to come and to be present to those who seek him. It is the mount of the house of the Lord. The sides of the north signify the part of the typical house which lay toward the north from the altar, which God had chosen for peculiar worship. Lev. 1:11. At the north side of the altar before the Lord. Ex. 25:30; 26:35. Ezek. 40:35, 39–41. Note also Ezek. 8:3, where the symbol provoking emulation is shown set toward the north side. This praise is fulfilled by ὁ καθίσας ἐν ναῷ Θεῷ ὡς Θεός, “he who sits in the temple of God as God,” in whatever part of power. Fourth, to ascend into the clouds. Scripture rightly compares the word of God and doctrine with rain, and therefore with clouds. Fifth, to make himself equal to the Most High. These two are fulfilled by ὁ δοδείκνυς ἑαυτὸν ὅτι ἐπὶ Θεός, “he who declares himself to be God;” that is αὐτοκράτορικῶς [‘with absolute power]— as if from his own impulse and fullness of power, interpreting Scripture; and that, by producing new sayings outside Scripture. You see the same predicates found with Paul. Therefore, do not doubt that Paul’s prophecy is broad enough not to be satisfied with Gaius Caligula alone.
EZEKIEL 28:2-3
Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God: Behold, thou art wiser than Daniel; there is no secret that they can hide from thee.
These things are said of the prince or king of Tyre, not of a single individual among them, but collectively of the kings of Tyre of that and future time. In this prophecy all the kings of Tyre are considered as one, as is clear from that long passage in which in many words it is explained what benefits he received from God and what his former state was: which pertains in part to the ancient kings in the time of David and Solomon. Ezekiel speaks of the prince of Tyre because of his ever-rising pride. The same predicates show that the Tyrian king is a type of the Antichrist. Indeed, Tyre may be understood spiritually as that great city which is the emporium and metropolis of the nations. For from other prophecies words spoken of Tyre are applied by the Apocalypse to mystical Babylon, and this passage itself agrees in many respects with the Apocalypse. Furthermore, just as Tyre was an emporium, so the spiritual Babylon is called an emporium. Psalm 45:13 signifies the Gentiles as Tyre, as a metropolis, in these words: “And, O daughter of Tyre, with gifts the rich people shall entreat thee,” that is, O nations which until now have been alienated from God, the holy envoys of God, the Apostles and other faithful ones whom he chose from the people for the proclamation of the Gospel and enriched with all spiritual gifts, come to you to entreat you to be reconciled to God, gratuitously offering you the justification of God and the life of the saints. Nor otherwise, Hosea 9:13: “I saw Tyre planted in her place,” that is, I saw chosen ones from the nations grafted into the people of God; and “Ephraim” was “to give his children up to the slaughterer,” that is, the unbelieving Jews were rejected from the kingdom of God, and thus hardened so as to plunge themselves and their children into sure destruction. But above all, because the Apostle said of the Wicked one the same thing that the Prophet had said of the prince of Tyre, I judge those things should be compared.
What Paul says, “declaring himself that he is God,” is from the Hebrew phrase, “Saying, I am God. You have said.” The Spanish Jesuit Juan Bautista Villalpandus [famed for his Commentary on Ezekiel] prefers it to be understood of desire and opinion. But nothing prevents if in the type the less subtle sense be taken in the fuller meaning. I would like to have Villalpandus read here for, among other things, this observation of his. God is that One whom the whole soul, with whole heart and mind, we ought to love and worship. Therefore, that which we love, we make God. He who refers all things to himself, to his own happiness and honor, calls himself God. This they do, who seek piety itself — whether you worship God or do not worship him, whether you worship him in one way or another — for their own sake, even more than the prince of Tyre, insofar as he turned earthly things to himself. For these men refer God himself to themselves. Ezekiel places first the word אַל, which is taken from faculty and power; then אֱלֹהִים which is from authority: to both he opposes םא “man,” which is used elsewhere; namely Psalm 82:11–12: “I said, You are gods, and all of you are sons of the Most High. Yet you shall die like men.” And thus the prince of Tyre is threatened with death in verse 8 — not therefore as if the princes of Tyre or those of whom Psalm 82 speaks wished to be regarded as immortal gods and did not know that they must die (for who was ever found so insane?), but because they used their power in that manner and with that pride, as if they were immortal gods, and thought that everything was permitted to them, that life and death were at their disposal, especially because they thought and vaunted that their kingdom and throne were eternal and unshaken.
That this is true is made clear by those occasions on which haughty pride, having taken hold, sinks down into that abyss of vanity. “You have set your seat among the seas” — that is, I have the widest empire and absolute power to give laws and to judge according to them; so that it seems God has resigned to my hand the arbiter of all things. From the greatness of the empire and the worship of all nations comes the abuse of power and confidence. It is accompanied by the persuasion of sagacity, as if by his own equity, justice, prudence, and all virtues and arts he alone was able to gather, rule, and preserve so great a dominion.
“You have set your heart as the heart of God,” that is, you have so induced your mind, as if your empire were based on your own counsels, institutions, and judgments. See verses 4-6.
This mind set of his is mocked and ridiculed. “You are wiser than Daniel,” who was called “a man of desires” and obtained the revelation of the greatest things. “Nothing hidden is unknown to you.” You know, in short, all the mysteries of wisdom and prudence. Who would doubt that these things are so carefully written that, hearing the words named for the Tyrian Duke — about whose character we know little — we should refer them to him who is read as exalting himself to the end of all pride? [I.e., The Man of Sin.] He who presumes himself placed on God’s throne as His vicar to govern the Church throughout the world; and so admires his own power as divine, though opposed to God and to truth, and does not doubt that his throne and power will remain forever. Moreover, he takes it upon himself, from the fullness of power, like God, to write laws and to judge all things; supported by that false opinion as if the Spirit of God, the spirit of wisdom and prudence, dwelt in him and made him infallible; who not only places himself in the order of the Prophets, but arrogates to himself the knowledge of all mysteries, which was granted neither to Daniel nor to any of the prophets. Finally, he boasts before the Church not only that which Daniel or Paul did, but also what Christ did while acting in the flesh.
Who would doubt, I say, seeing that Paul the Apostle and the Apocalyptist have fitted the very words of this prophecy to the ‘Wicked One,’ to the ‘Harlot,’ that the prophecies of Paul and of the Apocalypse do not pertain to Caligula or Trajan—men little like the Duke of Tyre—but rather fit the Antichrist in many greater and more explicit particulars with its type? Concerning whom it may also rightly be said, “He was in the garden of God,” etc. “A cherub” or “an anointed covering angel,” that is, an anointed one, as if a covering and veil, “placed by God on the holy mountain of God, among the stones of fire,” that is, among the holy Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, confessors, martyrs, the faithful, “he walked; he was perfect in his ways from the day that he was created, and he sinned because of the multitude of his merchandise, and he was cast out from among the stones of fire,” excluded from among the theologians and pastors of the Church, from the communion of all the saints, which things are read in verses 13–16.
REVELATION 12, 13 & 14 EXAMINED
I pass on to the Revelator from Paul and Daniel because we are still engaged in demonstrating the parallels of Scripture. Moreover, we judge the act of the Commentator [Grotius] uncivil because he excerpted the thirteenth chapter from the middle of an entire vision and applied his own concepts to it. For there is one vision from chapter 12 through chapter 15, and that is altogether the fifth, after the first of Christ walking among the lampstands, the second of the seven seals, the third of the trumpets, the fourth of the two witnesses, which is, as it were, an episode of the third. Again, I warn here, if the Interpreters disagree in application to the hypothesis, that does not prevent them from agreeing in the matter and in the thesis itself. Having relied on the criteria we proposed above, we will present a brief delineation of the fifth vision, in the judgment of the pious, concerning which we sincerely invoke God as helper.
CHAPTER 12: The War between Christ and the Dragon
Verse 1: “A great sign was seen in heaven.” Heaven, earth, sea, and desert are seen as the stage of this drama, which are to be taken figuratively. “A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars.”
Verse 2: “And being with child she cried out, travailing in birth and pained to be delivered.” The Church of the faithful of the Old Testament, surrounded by the light of God, sustained by worldly power, crowned with twelve stars as successors, judges, and teachers of the twelve Patriarchs, pregnant with the right hope of the promised Christ and panting with anxious longing for His coming. Acts 26:6–7. ἐπὶ ἐλπίδι ὁ πρὸς τοὺς πατέρας ἐπαγγελίας γλυομθύης ὑπὸ Θεοῦ ἐσῆλθεν κρίνον, εἰς ἡμῶν τὸ δωδεκάφυλον ἡμῶν εὐἐκλενεῖᾳ νύκτα καὶ ἡμέραν λατρεύειν ἐλπίζα καὶ ταντέσας. “Because of the hope of the promise made to our Fathers by God I am called to judgment. Which the TWELVE TRIBES of our nation, earnestly offering day and night worship, hope to obtain.” Hope conceived and panting for the attainment of the hoped-for is often compared to childbirth. See John 16:21–22, Isaiah 25:8 and 37:3. Compare for an explanation, Apocalypse 5:2–5.
But here in the vestibule I see those who deny that this hope of Christ coming in the flesh and other things could be part of the prophecy because they have already occurred.
[N. B. Cocceius refers to the Preterists, such as Grotius, who teach the book of Revelation concerns the first century only, and has nothing to do with the future.]
They do not see that what had happened in the kingdom of Christ ought to be referred here as to their beginnings, so that the whole matter might be represented in one form, with the future deduced from the present. Nor let them oppose to us that passage in chapter 4:1, δειξω σοι, ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι μετὰ ταῦτα — “I will show you what must happen after these things.” Let them examine Daniel 2:28: “He made known to the king what would be in the end of days.” and then v. 29. “Your thoughts came upon your bed, what would be after these things; and the revealer of mysteries declared to you what would be.” and then let them read v. 37. “You, O king, are the head of gold. After you there shall arise another kingdom.” Let them inspect Rev. 1:19: γράψον ἓν, ἅ εἶδες, καὶ ἃ εἰσιν, καὶ ἃ μέλλει γενέσθαι μετὰ ταῦτα. “Write therefore what you have seen, and WHAT ARE, and what are to be after these things.”
Verse 3: “And another sign appeared in heaven: Behold, a great red Dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads seven diadems.” The Dragon is defined below as Satan, the Devil. But he is to be understood with his body, that is, the Devil ruling and moving a great power by his force and seduction. That power is the one that was greatest at the time when Christ was to be born in the flesh: namely the Roman. For Rome was, as it were, the metropolis of the world in regard to Empire; indeed, it was also a seat of idolatry. St. John repeats the phrase of the Prophets, who often call great empires “dragons” — see Isaiah 27:1, Ezekiel 29:3. “Red,” because blood‑stained. “Seven heads”: as many beasts succeeding one another (cf. chap. 13:1). It is explained by “seven mountains on which the Beast sits” (chap. 17:9) and “seven kings.” It happens conveniently that Rome sat on seven hills; and this would be an occasion for thinking of Rome — not that city of Italy on the Tiber enclosed by walls and built with very ample houses, but the whole Roman polity, which is wherever Roman citizens dwell, namely in all the provinces or parts of the Roman Empire. And those primary seven are the ones into which the Roman world under the Caesars was most conveniently divided: 1. Italy, 2. Greece, 3. Asia Minor, 4. Palestine, 5. Africa, 6. Spain, 7. Gaul. I need hardly warn that the bordering regions and appendages of these districts are to be reckoned as parts of these principal members.
“On the seven heads seven diadems.” I do not reject the opinion about the sevenfold kind of supreme power among the Romans. Yet I wish it to be taken into consideration that it speaks not to that which was ancient but rather existing during the reign of Christ; so that, just as the Woman has twelve stars, so the Dragon might have seven heads joined at the same time. What if this indicates that those provinces were so great that each could bear the name of a kingdom by itself, or that there were kingdoms subject within them, so that this might be the Kingdom of kingdoms? Or by what right do these peoples belong to one city, so that imperial power arose from all of them? For just because the Emperor was Spanish, Cappadocian, Thracian, Syrian, Greek, the empire was not therefore another: just as when the Babylonian throne passed to Darius the Median, the Empire was transferred. And that for these reasons: 1. whensoever the Emperor came from any part of the Empire, he was a citizen; 2. by the name of the Senate and People of Rome, which existed in all parts of the empire, he ruled, having received authority from them. Who knows whether here, together with other things in which Roman greatness is extolled, it is not also hinted that, in the judgment of the renowned Justus Lipsius, “when found useful for firmly bringing peoples under one rule, they took senators from every region”? Hence in Tacitus the Senate is called “the Head of the Empire and the honor of all the provinces.” Symmachus, “the better part of mankind.” Hence Cassiodorus: “Whatever is the flower of the human race, he has in his curia.” And the Panegyric revealing the secret: “You felt, Rome, that at last you were the citadel and queen of all peoples and lands, since from all provinces your curia had pledged the foremost men, so that the dignity of the senate would be more illustrious in fact than in name, since it consisted of the flower of the whole world.” These things taken from Lipsius’ book, On the Grandeur of Rome.
Finally, “The Dragon has ten horns.” These are not to be confused with the ten kings of the Beast, nor with the heads and their diadems, as if those kings were thought to constitute the body of the Dragon, serving the Empire. The Dragon is presented as the enemy of the Woman. I therefore understand the ten horns to be the means by which he attacked the Woman — namely, the Emperors who exercised persecutions against the Church. These ten are commemorated, and thus ten persecutions: 1. Nero. 2. Domitian. 3. Trajan. 4. Hadrian. 5. Aurelius. 6. Severus. 7. Maximinus. 8. Decius. 9. Valerian. 10. Diocletian. Historian and monk, Sulpicius Severus, numbers Decius seventh and Valerian eighth as enemies of the Christians and omits Maximinus, because under him not more than certain churches were stirred, though with bitter persecution. Maximinus seems to be omitted because the principal force lay in Diocletian, who, once obeyed, raged; without him Maximinianus could have done nothing.
Verse 4: “And his tail swept a third part of the stars of heaven and cast them to the earth.” The phrase alludes to Daniel 8:10: “and it grew even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground and trampled upon them.” The same is meant here by “stars,” namely rulers of the people. “To cast to the earth” is to remove from their place, to despoil of dignity and power, to afflict, to trample down. By “tail” I understand an action done not openly but as it were through ministers. He says “a third part of the stars” not with respect to number but with respect to kinds. Three shepherds of the people are frequently found among sacred authors, that is, three orders of rulers: namely judges (to which order kings belonged), priests, and prophets or teachers. See Zechariah 11:8. Therefore, in this place it seems to me Herod is signified, the tail of the Roman Empire, by the instigation of the Devil, before Christ came in the flesh abolished the Hasmonean [Maccabean] kingdom, put King Hyrcanus to death, and either removed the Jewish Senate or stripped it of all power so that they no longer seemed to shine as in heaven, but to lie on the ground. At Christ’s time they say in John 18:31, “It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death.”
In the Gemara of the tractate Sabbath, chapter 1, we read that one hundred and eighty years (I do not insist on exact reckoning) before the destruction of the temple the kingdom of Edom (thus they call Rome) prevailed over Israel, and forty years before that time the Sanhedrin had migrated from its place into chōniyot, i.e. booths, so that it no longer sat in the place where it formerly used to judge with authority, and, at the least, the capital sentences had been taken from it. It should be added that when [the Roman senator and general] Aulus Gabinius divided the Jewish nation into five synods and established as many courts for seeking justice, he marvelously undermined the power of the judges. I say nothing of John Hyrcanus II, [Hasmonean King of Judah] who, in order to recover the pontifical dignity, brought in [Roman general] Pompey, who took the city and the temple and carried out a slaughter; from which it happened that the Jewish republic came into Roman power and jurisdiction. Thus, purchasers rejoiced over this flock, sellers congratulated themselves on the riches, and with a common voice they blessed God, Zechariah 11:5. Certainly in these ways the Dragon by his tail secretly and little by little drew these stars and at last cast them down to the earth. Nor is there any ground for objecting to the prophecy of Jacob the Patriarch (Gen. 49) as if from his statement it must in every case follow that the kingdom should remain with the tribe of Judah until Christ is born. For the prophets plainly teach otherwise concerning what will happen, and it came to pass. Jeremiah 22:30 concerning Jeconiah: “There shall not be one to prosper of his seed sitting upon the throne of David and ruling anymore in Judah.”
Of the same thing Ezekiel 19:14: “And in it was not a strong rod, a scepter to rule.” Of the crown, Ezekiel 21:31 [sic:26]: “Remove the diadem and take off the crown: this shall not be the same.” That is, this present crown is not that which was promised. “I will exalt the humble, and I will abase the high. Uprooted, uprooted I will make it,” that is, I will destroy the crown again and again. “Nor was this also.” (Or τὸ μὴδὲν ἐλλύετο — “even this crown was not.” He speaks of that which the priests once wore; and he says that it was made into something that IS NOT. Thus, לא is used, as אל in Job 24:25.) “Until he comes whose is the judgment, and to whom I will give it.” John 5:22: “The Father has given judgment to the Son.” Therefore Jacob does not say that the domestic and royal rule will necessarily remain with the tribe of Judah until Christ, but
(1) that the tribe and people (note: ‘people’ is not to be understood as persisting in that dispersion) would remain separate until Christ, who is to be ruled by a scepter—not that royal scepter, but one of any authority. That there will always be some governance. This may chiefly be opposed as consolation against the fear of the republic’s destruction in the Babylonian captivity.
(2) That royal power would not be taken from Judah in such wise as from the ten tribes; for when they migrated, it remained with Hezekiah and later, removed from David’s family, was renewed among the people called Judah, and again afflicted it had to be reestablished in Christ.
(3) Thus, until that time, even if the supreme power was not always of the scepter, nevertheless, some ruler governing the people by the law of Moses from Judah (however lacking in supreme authority) ought to remain until Christ should come. From which it follows that those חקים “decrees,” which are δικαιώματα, “decrees of worship” (for in them the power of מְחוֹקקים, “law‑givers or imposers,” prevails), would be valid in the people until then; and thus, the temple would remain with them. But when, without the hope of restoration according to the prophets, it is abolished, those laws and such a lawgiver cease. Certainly the prophecy of Jacob is to be compared with others treating the same argument; such is Jeremiah 33, in which God promises to Judah, ruined and carried into exile, first a full restoration, vv. 6–7, with the forgiveness of sins, v. 8, to his own glory, v. 9—an affair illustrated in vv. 10–13. Secondly, he promises the fulfillment of the ancient promise concerning Christ, to be granted to Israel after the return from Babylonian captivity, before any other destruction of the temple, city, and people.
For he says, “Days are coming,” that is, the time is already approaching. Likewise: “In those days and at that time,” namely, when the people shall be restored from Babylonian captivity, vv. 14–16ff. And notably v. 17 itself in the phrase alludes to Jacob’s prophecy, for it says: “There shall not be cut off from David a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel.” And v. 18: “And of the priests and of the Levites there shall not be a man to offer,” etc. By these words he signifies that the Christ promised will be the true King and Priest, and that neither the kingdom of God nor the priesthood among men will cease; furthermore he teaches that the substance and truth of the promise made to the patriarchs does not consist in there always being some reigning king actually seated from the house of David and a priest from the house of Aaron and a Levite ministering before God until Christ, but rather in the fact that neither family will be utterly cut off from the hope of the kingdom and priesthood while Christ is awaited. In verses 24–25, the author explicitly clarifies that both the kingdom and priesthood will be temporarily interrupted, which may lead the general populace to believe that God has abandoned the two chosen families. However, it is stated that the covenant of heaven is more likely to change than the possibility of “one not taking rulers from the seed of David and Abraham,” and so forth. Which was verified in Zerubbabel and other leaders of the people, and above all later in Christ. The sense, therefore, is most clear:
(1) The house of David will not be cast off from the kingdom before Christ comes — that is, since Christ will certainly come and will hold David’s throne, the kingdom of Judah and of David will by no means perish.
(2) When Christ comes, He will find some polity of the Jews, however ruled by a domestic scepter, keeping the institutions and ceremonies of Moses; and for this to be so neither the polity nor the temple will in the meantime be destroyed so as to bring about permanent dispersion, incapable of being shortly restored.
Verse 4 (cont.): “And the Dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear, so that when she bore her child he might devour it.” The Dragon transferred all power to Caesar Augustus and held the body of his Empire quiet long enough, shaken and disturbed though it was, and composed himself to devour Christ, in His infancy after He was born.
Verse 5: “And she bore a male child who is to rule all nations with an iron rod.” Who is this but Christ? The Church bore him, that is, obtained him. “He shall rule the nations,” with the dragon’s head crushed and his kingdom removed, He will reign.
“And that son was caught up to God and His throne” — that is, Christ was not slain by the Dragon so as to be swallowed up, but was seized from his jaws, raised from the dead and carried up into heaven; and sat at the right hand of the Father. John 14:30: “The prince of this world is coming, and has nothing in me.” ἡρπάθη — “was caught up.” לקח — “was taken,” Isaiah 53:8.
Some have badly interpreted this passage thus: that the mystical Christ was carried up to the Roman throne. However, we are carried up in Christ to the higher things, to the super‑celestial. The mystical Christ does not acknowledge any kingdom of this world. And the throne of God is one thing, the throne of the Dragon another. For until Constantine the Great there is no dispute that the Dragon held his throne in Rome.
Verse 6: “And the woman fled into the desert.” The Church of the faithful was scattered throughout the whole world. The desert is a figure of nations not cultivated by the word of God and unfruitful. Ezekiel 20:35. It is where God has prepared a place, that they may feed her there a thousand two hundred and sixty days. By God’s providence He directs the Church, and permits it to be dispersed, not so that it remain always scattered and tossed without consolation, but that at some time afterwards it may also obtain a place, for the sake of consolation, in which it may be gathered together and nourished and increased by the nations, with the addition of elect ones from those nations, not hindering but supplying. Psalm 107:4: “They wandered in the desert, in a barren way; they found no city to dwell in.” Verse 8: “And He led them in a straight way, that they might go to a city of habitation.” That habitation, however, with the nourishment of the nations immediately began, and ought to last for 1260 days. Concerning which see verse 14 and below. Thus far the first σύρραξις [‘attack’].
The second follows. Verse 7: “And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the Dragon, and the Dragon fought and his angels.” מי כאל Who is like God? Christ, Prince of the people of God. Dan. 10:21; 12:1. αρχάγγελος [‘archangel’], that is, “prince, ruler, leader of the angels.” Jude 9: “But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, was disputing about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a blasphemous judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you.” That is to say, “presumption” in the sense of regarding it robbery and the usurpation of another, and by no means declaring it for himself, or allowing himself to do anything unless sent in the name of the Father. Christ, after he was shown to be equal in honor to God, the God-man, son of God and sat down above every rule, sat above every principality, it was then he immediately attacked the prince of this world and his kingdom by His word, by His ambassadors and by His faithful. Compare Psalm 110:2–3; 2 Cor. 10:4–5. The devil fought back and his angels, through the Kings of Judah, the chief Priests, the Priests, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the like. For this war took place in heaven. Heaven is the seat of the Church [Phil. 3:20]. Through those whom I have just mentioned, the Dragon had a place in heaven, i.e., in the Church. For there were rulers of that age — “princes of this world” — and of its people, who were beloved because of the fathers, who had a covenant and the sacramental signs of the covenant. The elect people still carried the weight of observing ceremonies that had not yet been abolished. But those princes were converted from the angels of God into the angels of the Devil, the Dragon, because even then they not only obeyed the Romans, but also denied they had a king other than Caesar.
Verse 8: “And they prevailed not, neither was their place found any more in heaven.” The angels of the Dragon could not overcome the elect faithful, and at last the time came that, the Jewish polity having been destroyed, the veil drawn over all the nations was removed, every yoke of the elements of the world and of the princes of this age was taken away, and the obstinate Jews retained no strong or lasting part in the Church; nor could they by their power impede the course of the Gospel or bind consciences under the pretense of the law. Compare Rom. 15:30–31; 16:20; Tit. 1:10.
Verse 9: “And that great Dragon was cast down, the old Serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole inhabited world, he was cast down to the earth, and his angels were cast down with him.” The Dragon or ‘Whale’ [Balæna] from imperial power; the ancient Serpent from the seduction of the first parents, by which he brought in sin and curse, by whose force until then he held the world in power; the Slanderer of God exercising mercy in Christ; the Accuser of the faithful; the seducer of the whole world to idolatry and wickedness; he was thrown to the earth, that is, when the city and temple were taken away it was permitted him to harass the wretched Jews with his angels. These were first. The sea also, that is, the unbelieving world, they came to punish. Soon, verse 12. In this verse, “inhabiters of the earth” is to be taken properly; while in the vision, figuratively, with respect to heaven.
Verse 10: “And I heard a great voice in heaven, saying: Now is come salvation and strength and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ.” ἐπινίκιον — a victory and triumphal song of the faithful blessed in heaven. Now it is made known that salvation and strength and the kingdom belong to God, and the supreme power to Christ because “the accuser of our brethren has been cast down, who accused them day and night before our God.” For while they fought in the flesh, as long as the dividing wall and barrier remained, the separating fence, he could continue to hold those involved accountable in a similar manner in the future. Now with that inner wall removed and utterly abolished, the faithful had the most certain proof and pledge of their justification. The brevity of our work excludes wider space for declaring these things. And, as to the matter and our purpose, the words are sufficiently clear.
Verse 11: “And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, and they loved not their lives unto death.” This is the victory: that they did not love their soul or life so much that they would willingly lay it down. Which they do all the more readily when all accusation of the Law is removed. The “blood of the Lamb” made it so that they were not terrified by the blood of sacrificed victims accusing them, and that accusation was abolished. The “word” of Christ’s Gospel, to which they bore witness, made them not yield to the terrors of the Law. Compare Eph. 2:14–18; Col. 2:13–15.
Verse 12: “Therefore rejoice, you heavens, and you who dwell in them.” The faithful dwell in the heavens. Eph. 2:6; Phil. 3:20. “Rejoice: because,” as Sulpicius Severus says, “by the Lord’s ordering it was arranged that the servitude of the Law should be removed by the liberty of faith and the Church. “Woe to those who dwell on the earth and the sea:” woe to the Jews rejecting the heavenly citizenship and to the whole world: “for the Dragon has come down to you, having great wrath, knowing that he has but a short time.” By the righteous judgment of God all the wrath of Satan will be poured out upon you, whatever his power — which is now subjected to Christ’s power and because the time is short that power will be allowed to be used much as before. The joy of Christians is also in this: the wrath of Satan is also against the persecutors; however prosperous they may seem. To this “Woe” pertain all the evils which the Jews and the idolatrous Romans and the entire world afterwards brought upon themselves until the conversion of the Empire.
Verse 13: “And when the Dragon saw he was cast down to the earth he persecuted the woman who had brought forth the male child,” i.e., the persecution of the Church among the Gentiles after the city and the temple were overthrown. Domitian’s were the first persecutions in this sequence, followed by the others up to Diocletian.
Verse 14: “And to the Woman were given two great wings of an eagle, that she might fly into the desert into her place (where she was to be nourished for a time and times and half a time) from the face of the Serpent.” Exodus 19:4: “I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself,” i.e., that you might be free from the yoke of the Egyptians and I, your King, might dwell among you, whether in the desert or in the promised land. “Eagles’ wings” in prophecy denote kingdoms and empires. See Dan. 7:6. Thus, here by the two great eagle-like wings I understand two kingdoms, or two of the seven heads of the Dragon — a remarkable thing. When the persecution of the tenth horn, Diocletian, pressed on, God (it was something divine) brought about that he should take colleagues, Galerius and Constantius Chlorus. Chlorus undertook the government of Spain and Gaul. In those provinces he provided security for Christians: they were a common asylum for Christians. I think these kingdoms to be the two wings of the Roman eagle by which the Woman was aided so that, wandering as she had been, she might begin to hold her place there, where she was to be nourished by the nations. Nourishment is not just any maintenance of life, such as γλίχρα [‘meager provision’] or χορηγία [‘assistance’] meaning “sparse supply,” which is given to a captive in prison — what is called לֶחֶם צַר וּמַיִם לַחַץ, “meager bread and water,” or what is given to a traveler on the road — but δαψιλής, “liberal,” like the suckling of an infant with delight and satiety, like the indulgent and generous upbringing of the son of a household, to whom no luxuries are denied, but is given food according to his appetite. Accordingly, the nations are said to bear, sustain, build up the Church; kings are the אומנים [‘providers’] of nourishment and queens the מְנִיקוֹת nurses (Isaiah 49:22–23). Such abundance is intimated in Isaiah 33:16: his bread is given, and his water is sure. Yet do not suppose that by this τροφή (‘nourishment’) the whole prophecy is thereby fulfilled.
This term is most notable, and the passage is significant, capable of opening many knots of the Apocalypse without trouble, if I see aright. Let us place the time when Constantius Chlorus received a part of the Empire. The beginning of Diocletian’s reign is variously placed by different writers; by some in the year 284, by others three years later. I think the beginnings are doubtful, for he fought with Marcus Aurelius Carinus. Thus, others place the time of Constantius differently. There are those who assign him sixteen years in all, others who assign him eleven. I believe they have regarded full or running years in different ways. Nor do all agree about the first year of Constantine or of the Council of Nicaea. But it is enough for us to know that under Constantius Chlorus those two great wings of the were placed and provided for the Church to be carried to her place; whether Scripture considers that to have been when he was appointed to those provinces, or when he afterwards held them in peace; or whether there was some other time when he showed that he would not persecute Christians, and thus publicly summoned them, as it were, to some harbor. For historians also record that something of this sort did happen. The exact year when the Church entered its period of nourishment in the desert is unclear, as contemporary records are lacking and later sources differ. It appears that, by divine judgement, this uncertainty was allowed so the correct application of the passage would not be obvious. However, Baronius confidently dates the event to 292, during Constantius Chlorus’s patronage of the Church, and this view will stand unless stronger evidence emerges.
The times of the Church’s nourishment in the desert are “a time, times, and half a time.” This is said very broadly. For any time that can be divided into seven equal parts can be indicated in this way. For example: a time, two days; two times, four days; a half time, one day. Thus, the week is completed. It should be noted that καιρον [‘time’] is an interpretation of that which is in Daniel 7:25; hence this is taken: for which in Daniel 12:7 עִבְּן מוֹעֵר מַעֲדִים וָחֵצִי [“time, times and half a time”]— “time” is said for a period of time. Typically, a year is measured by the time it takes the Sun to complete its circuit [……….] Now a year is completed in 360 days, as the story of the Flood shows [Genesis 7:11]. Two years, 720. Half a year, 180. These collected make 1260 days, which are allotted to the nourishment of the Woman, verse 6. Whence it is clear that the same time, times, and half a time is 1260 days. Thus, John most plainly explains Daniel in Revelation. Furthermore, days are taken prophetically for solar years is shown by Ezekiel [4:6] and Daniel’s seventy weeks. [I.e., 1 day = 1 year. 1 week = 7 days = 7 years. 70 weeks = 70 X 7 years = 490 years.] That they cannot be understood as ordinary days is manifest from the fact that the nourishment of the Church is of longer duration and because a thousand years (chapter 20) are included in this period.
This can be demonstrated thus: St. John says that certain ones reigned with Christ for a thousand years (chapter 20, verse 4). Christ, however, does reign even while the world resists; His reign is more clearly seen, however, when the world does not resist, when His kingdom and word, though in hypocrisy, is carried and brought forth. This is what must have occurred when “the Church was nourished by the nations.” For what else can be meant by saying “the nations nourish the Church,” than the truth that Christ reigns over the peoples in peace and in whatever manner they are subjected, and thus, the Church reigns with Christ?
So then it could not be that “the nations nourished the Church” while Satan, the adversary of the Church, was bound — he who had hitherto seduced the nations so that they gave neither place to the Church nor nourished it [For in verses 14, 15 & 17 we are told Satan is alive and well, seeking to destroy the Woman.] From this very reasoning it is clear that the time in which the nations nourished the Woman and in which Satan is bound partially coincide because that kingdom is attributed partly to the souls of those hewn with the ax for the testimony of Jesus and the word of God, and partly to the rest, whoever did not worship the Beast or its image, nor received the mark on their forehead or on their right hand. From which it is manifest that they rule for part of the same time in which the Beast exists. That time coincides with the nourishment of the Church by the nations. Scripture, however, teaches in this place that although the whole world may worship the Beast, the kingdom of Christ does not thereby perish, and that the saints truly do reign. Fourthly, by the time during which Satan is bound and by the thousand years it makes a distinction between the dead who rose again and those who did not — that is, between the nations truly converted to the faith and those which not only remained in death but have fallen into the second death. This cannot be understood except of those who received the knowledge of the truth and then return to the pollutions of the world and by seduction are hardened in their sins; and thus, of those with respect to whom Satan was in some way bound. Compare Matthew 12:43–45. That death does not have dominion over the participants of the first resurrection — that is, over those in whom, being born again by the Spirit of God and adorned with faith, Christ lives; just as elsewhere the Prophecy says that the elect and those written in the book of the Lamb’s life are not led astray in these trials. In that very distinction lies the discrepancy between the Beast and the army of the Lamb. Fifthly, that the kingdom is attributed to the saints teaches that it follows the judgment, namely upon the nations that persecuted the Church. For first he says, “I saw thrones, and some sat upon them” (what else is this, pray, than that the faithful, after frequent struggles in which they had been scattered, had obtained peace, so that they might then confidently sit together, and that some had even occupied thrones and sat before them as teachers and rulers?). But all judgment was referred back to these, and that judgment was given to them. From which it is most manifest that the thousand years of the reign of the saints and the binding of Satan coincide with the time in which the Church is nourished by the nations and with the time of the Beast; because both times follow the destruction of the Roman gentile empire, which had persecuted the saints. That this may be still clearer, I wish that the very stages of Satan’s restraint be observed carefully up to his full binding. (I) “and cast him into the bottomless pit” [Rev. 20:3]. Rev. 12:9: “The Dragon who seduced the world was cast down to the earth,” and verse 12: “Woe to you who dwell on the earth and on the sea, for the Devil has come down to you.” (II) “And he set a seal upon him,” [Rev. 20:3]. Rev. 12:12: “he has little time.” Rev. 13:2: “he delivered his power to the Beast.” Wherefore I think it not unreasonable to assert that, after the lapse of the thousand years from those 1,260 years, that is, about the year of Christ 1300, Satan began to be loosed in the time of Boniface VIII to make Gog and Magog once again rise in battle against the saints. Of the kindling of that war, he speaks also rather distinctly at the last act in Rev. 16 in the exposition of the action of the sixth vial, vv. 13–14. If there were no such argument at all to remove doubt about these three and a half years, the application of all parts of the prophecy would prove that these years are to be received in a prophetic manner. For an ambiguous prophecy finds its interpretation in its fulfillment. Now it is certain that from the time of Constantius Chlorus the nations, in companies, granted themselves to the dominion of the Church, either in name or in fact and truth: they brought their own brethren, kinsmen sons to it. They did not hinder the preaching of the Gospel, until, as errors gradually grew strong — errors to which those who are Christians in name and in fact cling so that they oppose the truth — it finally came about that the pious men who reproved those errors and sins were declared anathema, and, despairing of restoring union, a schism by public and imperial authority confirmed the settlement. That was done in the Passau transaction in the year 1552. [N. B. The Peace of Passau was a truce that ended the Schmalkaldic War and granted Protestant princes religious freedom within the Holy Roman Empire.] For when the Synod of Trent had already pronounced an anathema on the [Protestant] Church, by that settlement the two religions were so separated that they had no further communion with one another, when the Emperor and his followers professed that the Reformed Church was not the true Church; At that time, the Church in the Empire and other kingdoms could only have been the Christian Church living under idolaters — whether rulers chose to tolerate it or, jealous of its growth, fought it openly as later happened; or whether, as in the Empire and some republics, Jews or other nonbelievers who used the name of Christ lived in peace.
Someone may ask why the Church did not earlier cease to be nourished by the anti-Christian nations when the schism had long been made and Antichrist had raged against the witnesses of the truth. I answer: The schism that had previously occurred was not caused by a public excommunication of all those who reproved the errors, nor by a public approval in council of all those grievous errors so that the pious would have cause to withdraw from the whole body on account of those errors, since they were no longer private but public. In the councils of Constance and Basel it was even defined that a council is above the Pope, that is, that the assembly of legitimate pastors and doctors can and ought, according to the word of God, judge the Pope. As long as this was held, Scripture remained the rule; and if any error were established in a council, or if anything were wrongly judged by it, this could not therefore be held as the act or decree of that Church, but of private persons. Therefore, the schism, if there was one then, was an avoidance of scandalous persons, not a cutting off of all communion with the whole flock; indeed, communion was continued through fraternal admonitions. But when the Council of Trent was constituted, in which all things contrary to the truth as they appeared to the Pope were decided by enacted law, and a people certainly gathered to him under the head Caesar, you see that the Church was commanded to hold its goods for him; and the nations formed their republic apart, by public consent. More is to be said about this term in chapter 13.
Verse 15: “And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood.”
Verse 16: “And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.”
This is the fourth struggle — more an attempt than an effect. Licinius contended with Constantine for the empire; he forbade soldiers to fight; he rejected those who refused military service. This did not reach the wounds of the Churches, says Sulpicius. But all the wars waged especially against Constantine out of hatred of the Christian name pertain to this attempt.
“Earth” — that is, the place in which the Church dwelt. Thus, are called the peoples among whom a place was given to the Church, those who for the most part professed Christianity. “Opened its mouth and swallowed.” These peoples removed the force excited by Satan — by desire and fiery attack — and swallowed it up. Verse 17: “And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” What follows concerns the wrath of Satan. Everything is related to the war with the saints, of which chapter 13, verse 7 speaks. This the Dragon waged through the Beast. The noteworthy word is ἀπῆλθε — “he departed, he went away;” i.e., ἐκ μέσας ἐξῆλθεν, “he went out from the midst.” It is not without cause that St. Paul seems to have spoken thus [2 Thess. 2:7]. […….] Ἐκ μέσου γίνεταί is said of one who departs: “He goes forth from the midst.” The Dragon that is, the Roman empire governed by the Dragon through pagan Emperors, obstructed the revelation of the Man of Sin. When he saw that by force and διωγμοί, “persecutions,” he could accomplish nothing, ἀπῆλθε — “he went away” — and so went away as to entrust all his power to the Beast by which he would “make war.” Hitherto there had been skirmishing through emperors; now truly “war” through the Beast.
“With the remnant.” Very emphatic this. Even then many of the woman’s seed (who seemed to be the offspring of the Church — see 1 John 2:19) had fallen away. How grievously Eusebius laments the corruption of the Church, see in Platina and Baronius. He wages not war with all who call themselves of the woman’s seed, but with the holy ones, with the elect — those called שׁאֲרִית and שְׁאַרִית λοιποί “the remnants” in the prophets’ continual phrase; which the Apostle likewise inculcates in Rom. 9:27 τὸ κατά λείμμα σωθήσεται, “the remnant shall be saved.” And this passage strikingly accords with Rom. 9:29: εἰ μὴ Κύριος Σαβαώθ ἐγκατέλιπεν ἡμῖν σπέρμα, “Unless the Lord of hosts had left us a seed.” Οἱ λοιποί τὸ σπέρμα are the σπέρμα τὸ ἐγκαταλελειμμένον. And chapter 11:5 λείμμα κατ’ ἐκλογὴν χάρις γεγονέναι, “at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.”
“Seed of the woman” alludes to Gen. 3:15, intimating that in this passage a former distinction was made between the λοιπὸν τὸ σπέρμα αὐτῆς, “the woman’s remaining seed” versus the seed of the Dragon. It also shows that this fight is not only external. Moreover, this word λοιπῶν, “the remaining ones,” contain another emphasis, that we should understand a preparation for war against the saints who survived the seduction, which will be waged at the end of days — of which chapter 20 treats — for which war the preparation is [for the pagan Roman Empire] to depart and make way for the Beast.
The saints are described: (1) keeping the commandment of the Lord, that is, believing the word of God contained in the Scriptures and living according to it; (2) having the testimony of Jesus Christ against Antichrist. See 1 John 2:22; 4:2–3. Thus far, we have the history of the iron legs of the Colossus statue in Daniel’s first vision, chapter 2.
Verse 18: [Rev. 13:1 in modern Bibles.] “And I stood upon the sand of the sea.” First, θεάτρον [‘the stage”] is changed. Second, it alludes to Exod. 14:30: “Israel saw the Egyptians dead on the seashore” — a deliverance from idolatrous persecutions and a transfer to the prepared place, like a crossing through the sea. See Ps. 106:9–10; Isa. 63:11–13; Hos. 2:15. Third, the state of the Church in the succeeding time is signified by the sand of the sea. It was girded and defended by the shore (though otherwise not very fruitful) against the power of the world. John bears the person of the Church. Having stood in heaven, he is set upon the shore of the sea.
CHAPTER 13
Verse 1: “And I saw a beast rising out of the sea.” Whoever has looked at chapter 12 with his eyes will easily be able to distinguish the Dragon and his persecutions under Nero, Domitian, Ulpian, Diocletian from the Beast and its war with the saints.
“And I saw.” In the manner of the prophets connecting visions with visions — that is, “Then I saw.” Thus chap. 12:3 κὶ ὤφθη, “and it appeared.” What the world has seen, sees, and will see in fact the prophets saw in spirit and in figure.
“Beast” does not signify idolatry, nor merely those who profess idolatry — unless we wish to confuse the Beast with the Dragon and his angels and ministers. The Beast signifies a kingdom.
“Rising out of the sea.” Water are the peoples, says the Interpreter, [Hugo Grotius] and the sea is power gathered from the obedience of peoples. The same would be said of chap. 12:12: οὐαὶ τοῖς καεικέσι τὴν γῆν καὶ τὴν θάλασσαν, [“Woe to the inhabitants of the earth and the sea”] — that is, those who dwell as private persons and those with imperial power. Then from the earth he [Grotius] speaks of another Beast, which has a private origin. So? Dan. 7:2: “the four winds of the heaven strove upon the great sea,” that is, the power of empire. Verse 3: “Four great beasts arose out of the sea,” that is, out of the power of empire. Verse 4: “They shall rise out of the earth,” that is, they will have a private origin. I will not weary my mind with such fanciful interpretations that readers gape at them rather than understand.
“Sea” denotes the world alienated from God, subject to the winds and agitations of the prince of this age: and the greatest power in the world in which all peoples are gathered and joined together, like rivers into the ocean. This Beast is the kingdom arising from the unbelieving world and from the realm of the Romans, which bound nearly all the peoples of the world by its rule.
“Having seven heads and ten horns.” As to the heads, the same is signified here as in Rev. 12:3. For the Beast sits on the same mountains where the Dragon had sat, as will be said shortly.
“Ten horns.” I wonder why the Interpreter refuses to say that these are those designated in Rev. 17:12. For who doubts that the Beast is the same everywhere and that horns mean the same thing — as the same Beast is also mentioned in chapters 14:9; 16:10,13; 19:19–20? — which the prophecies just cited necessarily show. We will treat these horns below in chapter 17, God willing. It is there those acts of theirs are especially explained.
At least hold this: these ten horns are to be distinguished from the ten horns of the Dragon. For in chapter 17 the prophecy expressly cautions that those ten kings have not yet received power. Nevertheless, the horns of the Dragon and of the Beast correspond.
I add also that, although the fourth beast of Daniel 7 becomes the great part of this Beast, yet in Daniel the ten horns seem to signify something different. More of this later.
“And upon the ten horns are crowns.” A crown signifies supreme power; it is received as authority when kings take power. See Rev. 17:12. But since the Beast is an adversary of Christ, that ἐξουσία [“power/authority”] is not to be understood as “a minister of God for good” (Rom. 13:4), but as hostile to Christ, along with the [second] Beast, and does not recognize him as “King of kings.” So it is that some kings assume for themselves that authority which belongs to Christ, making themselves “lords of the faith” who hold the consciences of others in their power, to bind them or to free them by an obligation of belief. But of this more below. And if you consider the matter, Rev. 12:3 by the seven diadems may also signify that the Roman people in those seven parts of the Empire set themselves up as lord of faith and religion against the one Christ the King — very different from the twenty-four elders who lay their crowns or diadems before the throne, Rev. 4:10.
Verse 13:1 (cont.): “And upon his heads the name (or names) “blasphemy.” He is a blasphemer not only who worships false gods, as in Deut. 31:20, but also who worships God through voluntary religiosity, a worship devised by his own fancy. Thus were called those who worshiped God on the high places חָרֵף [blasphemy] & גַדֵף βλασφημῶν [blaspheming] (that is, ‘bamoth’ = ‘high places’). See Ezek. 20:27-29; Isaiah 65:7. Namely, a chosen worship which is a renunciation of the true God. How much more blasphemous is he who imparts to others what belongs to God and Christ? But what kind of blasphemy is meant appears from verse 6. For the Beast blasphemes the name of God, His tabernacle, and those who dwell in heaven. It is fitting the Apocalypse should allude to prophetic diction, since heads are mountains. And mountains in the Prophets signify the very thing they do in Revelation [i.e., false worship in high places]. However, because mountains are called heads, I believe this signifies that the Beast has devoted himself to the worship of some divinity with blasphemy. For he who dedicated himself to a deity inscribed its name on himself, especially on the forehead. This the law expressly forbids. Lev. 19:28. “For they used to write the name of defilement,” that is, of a false god. The Interpreter, [Grotius], has learnedly remarked on this at verse 16. The Revelation also alludes to it in 14:1 and Galatians 6:17: ἐγὼ γὰρ τὰ στίγματα τοῦ κυρίου ἐν τῷ σώματί μου βαστάζω — “For I bear the marks of the Lord on my body.” The high priest of God wore a plate on his forehead on which was written HOLY TO THE LORD. Exod. 28:36. By this symbol the man and minister of God, consecrated to His worship, was declared. This is said because the Beast names himself after these false deities, to which he blasphemously ascribes those things that belong to God and Christ. Furthermore, this passage may also mean that he proclaims to himself titles which are against God, Christ, and the saints. More on these matters at verse 6.
Verse 2: “And the beast which I saw was like a panther, its body spotted, and its feet like those of a bear, and its mouth like a lion’s.” The first three beasts of Daniel chapter 7 — the lion, the bear, the panther — the fourth is wondrous. The Apocalypse conflates those four beasts into one because they belong to one Empire. For it is the lowest part of the image. No less the single animal of Ezekiel, which was presented with fourfold form, is by St. John distributed into four ζῷα [Greek: living creatures] animalia [Latin: living creatures], chap. 4:8, etc. Appropriately the discourse falls on animals: חיה in Hebrew is ζῷον and θηρίον, animal [living being] and beast. The Apocalypse, when it spoke of the body of the pious in whom the life of God is, called them ζῷα; when of the bodies of men savage and bestial, who lack the life of God and think carnally, he distinctly called them θηρίον, beast. Only note well that θηρίον is also spoken as ζῷα — both of the human body. This beast is a panther because it is of various religions. For there are those who are called Christians, Arians, Muslims, Papists. The bear denotes violence. The lion, because it is terrible.
Verse 2 (cont.): “And the Dragon gave to it his power, and his throne, and great authority.” The Dragon, who until now had openly and manifestly administered the Roman empire, and through it had caused himself to be worshiped, willed that his cult in that Empire be abolished, and that all the power, majesty, and authority which he and his subjects had possessed should be obtained by the Beast and his subjects; that is, that Republic or that body of men who, though they claim to be alive from the dead, are not living creatures of God but brute beasts, should remain nations (gentes) under a changed name. It should be noted that ἔθνη (nations) and θηρίον (beast) agree in the Apocalypse.
Verse 3: “And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death;” namely, of the Beast. A deadly wound (thus v. 12). A wound was inflicted on the Beast in one head, so that it seemed about to die; yet it revived, as is said in verse 14. With the Capitol [I.e., the Roman center of religion and government: Capitoline Hill] on fire, the “Dragon” would have been wounded: that does not pertain to the “Beast.” Nor would idolatry have ceased if no one had built the Capitol. For idolatry did not depend on the temple as does ceremonial worship. Let us recall how the Beast appeared, and we will understand what its wound and death and healing are. It appeared when men began to prevail who were still in the flesh yet were called ‘Christian.’ This happened under Constantine and his sons. Their chief seat was Greece. When Julian [the Apostate] was let loose, it fell away; then the Beast received a wound, and many fell away with it, and true Christians were in distress. Thus, it seemed the case regarding the Beast had Jovian not succeeded, who became the defender of the sacred rites of the Christians. That happened so unexpectedly that Jesus might rightly seem to be the author of it. It seemed to be for the progress of Christianity (and indeed it was a help to the pious Christians granted by God), but in truth it was also the consolidation of the Beast’s wound, which is hostile to the saints; for the wicked are wont to turn all God’s benefits into a snare, and the Devil to take advantage of them for opportunities to deceive and tempt. You will not find in what Julian did to impede Christianity anything concerning true Christians, whose life is hidden in Christ, but everything relates to the Beast and to peoples called Christians in name only. He called himself the Supreme Pontiff.
Thus, the new Pontiffs were wretched men. He opened the temples. This was to restore the Dragon to his throne. He took away Christian pastors’ provisions. Next, he gave them to mercenaries and to those for whom Θεὸς ἡ κοιλία, “God is their belly.” He [restored] sacred vessels and dedications. For the people were bewitched by that splendor. He joined himself to the violence of the pagans, lest any terror be lacking. He indulged all things to the Greeks, but nothing to the Christians. He sold dedicated things or sprinkled them with the blood of victims. He restored the young Bishops so that he might entrust them with their successors. He enrolled clerics as senators. He drove the better Bishops into exile, so that support for the carnal might not be lacking. He envied the crown of martyrdom for Christians, in which the power of the Spirit by which they overcame the Dragon and the Beast is most clearly seen. He improved the morals of the Greeks by using the moral standards of the Christians, such as uprightness of life, in giving alms, in holding assemblies and other things. He changed the standard of the cross into an eagle; he took care to be depicted with the gods; he offered an abundant largess with incense. The common people, says Nicephorus, as is their habit through profound ignorance or a mind less concerned with the old law, rashly approached images; then in their feasts they would name Christ as Christians. He kept those refusing to sacrifice away from honors and the court. He forbade Christian boys to be trained in Greek disciplines. A great wound. For he thought religion rested on the keen edge of discourse and on human words. Nicephorus: “Scripture hands down right life and true religion. It exhibits the faith pleasing to God. It certainly does not teach us the art of disputing; so that we might be sufficiently able, when we wish, in a pressing time, to resist vigorously those adversaries and defend them by wrestling.” We do not disapprove the study of human disciplines, but we also demand them with measure. See 1 Tim. 6:3; 2 Tim. 3:15-17; 1 Cor. 1:17 and chap. 2:1, 13. The dissensions of Bishops increased with the granted liberty of disputation: yet so that it removed the freedom of councils in which Bishops confirmed their parts. At Julian’s death the Beast appeared nearly slain. Nicephorus relates that Jovian rejected the signs of imperial power, saying that he could not rule those who had learned to be Greeks. Jovian no longer recognized the Beast. If it is as Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus reports that Julian was mourned and Jovian despised, who does not understand that the Beast worshiped his Dragon?
This is the sum. Hypocrites, enticed by prosperity are driven away from adverse things. Their kingdom is called the Beast. Born and raised under Constantine and his sons, it was overturned by Julian. It revived under Jovian: especially under Valentinian and Valens, when, upon being admitted to the share of the Empire, “Even the weakness of high fortunes was thought to need help,” says Ammianus. Thus, it seemed that the Christian religion had received a deadly wound from Julian and had recovered through Jovian; but the Holy Spirit teaches us that the kingdom of Christ suffered nothing then, but whatever was done was done in the Beast.
“And the whole earth wondered after the Beast.” Every Christian thought that through that Empire the Church had truly obtained a kingdom in the world and had been reduced to the state in which the republic of the Israelites was under David or Solomon. In short: they no longer began to seek the Church in truth and charity, but in worldly splendor, power, and authority.
Verse 4: “And they worshiped the Dragon, who gave power to the Beast.” This follows, though not directly. This is true admits the Interpreter [Grotius]. However, he speaks of the idolatrous ancient Romans, but there is a clear distinction between the Dragon, who holds power in the Roman civil empire, and the Beast, who receives and uses that power in the changed religious empire; likewise between the Dragon worshiped in his own realm and the Beast worshiped in the realm he was given.
“And they worshiped the Beast, saying, Who is like the Beast? Who can fight against it?” This is praise of the Church, that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. Hypocrites gave this praise to their kingdom. Is it not still sung? “Who is like the Roman Church? Who can fight against it?” [I.e., “O Roma nobilis.”] They claim its power is from God, not themselves. But since God did not establish the Church’s earthly kingdom, and the Dragon gave power to the Beast, the power must be ascribed to the Dragon and the Beast rather than to God. Compare Isaiah 40:18; 45:9; Psalm 113:5; Romans 9:19.
Verse 5: “And to him was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies.” Taken from Dan. 7:8. “And to him was given to act [ποιῆσαι] for forty-two months. “to act” is here something other than “to make war,” or “to remain.” It is the style of Daniel. וְעָשָׂה כִּרְצוֹנוֹ Dan. 11:3. וְעָשָׂה v.17.30.32.39. Moreover, elsewhere to יהוה עָשָׂה, absolutely, is to do all things. Ps. 22: last verse. Ps. 52:11. Isa. 44:23. Ps. 37:5. הוּא יַעֲשֶׂה He will accomplish all things.
The 42 months are 1,260 days. For a month was reckoned as 30 days. The flood story is a witness. I would indeed be surprised, if true what the Interpreter asserts, that Scripture wished to measure the time of Domitian’s persecution, which is far less severe and shorter than those of Nero and Diocletian and others. We therefore hold (may the learned expositions of others be preserved, which are neither set aside by ours nor do they set ours aside) that it is the same time during which the Beast “does all” that he wills and obtains what was given to the nations to tread underfoot the holy city. Rev. 11:1. κὶ τὼ πόλιν τἰὼ ἁγίαν πατήσει μίνας τοσαράκοντα δύο. “And they will trample the holy city for forty-two months.” Again: it is the same time during which the Woman was to be nourished in the wilderness, that is, among the nations, chap. 12:6, 14. Finally it is the same time during which the two witnesses, that is, Moses in the Old and Christ in the New Testament speaking, prophesied clothed in sackcloth, Rev. 11:3. And moreover, it is the same time during which many from the nations would see these prophets and would not allow them to be placed in tombs, so that they be removed from sight and from all memory of men. Ibid., verse 9. When this was finished, the witnesses were to receive the spirit of life. If these matters are compared with one another, it will appear, unless I err, what limit is indicated by Scripture. The true Church must be nourished by the nations, not by bread and the waters of this world, but for the growth of the body of the Lord. Therefore, the word of God must be publicly preached among the nations. Hence the nations will abandon the worship of idols and will behave as hearers of the word and as believers. Yet those nations will not be the better for it: on the contrary they will hate true piety, and, having allowed the Gentiles [i.e., unbelievers into it], their scandals and corruptions were also admitted.
Thus, among the nations the two witnesses who speak in the word of God will be dead, and, as to the letter, like corpses they will lie exposed and to the scandal of all in the market of the great city. Meanwhile, however, these will prophesy among the elect as if alive and having with them the mighty power of God, which will not allow those witnesses to be wholly removed. They will prophesy in sadness and, unless I err, clothed in the sackcloth of many foolish glosses. All this time the Beast, or the assembly of the nations having an external polity that is thought to be the Church, will use the successes of the world and will overcome the saints who oppose it: until that limit arrives when the Church will be separated from the Beast after the anathemas of the Beast, by the pact and authority of the highest Prince, and each Church will withdraw to its parts to live according to its own laws, when the witnesses will more strongly affect those nations, so that they may both see the truth and grieve, and wish that they themselves, dead and buried in the former darkness of ignorance without the feeling of conscience, had been so no longer; and they will see the word of God placed on its throne within the Church, and they will be dismayed, and the kingdom of the Beast will be diminished, and the harlot will pass more and more into oblivion for seventy years (so it seems to me Isaiah predicted, chap. 23), until fury breaks out against the Church and again begins to sing a victory-song to its idols, up to the time that God allows. Truly I do not know whether anything could be said more clearly.
Verse 6: “And he opened his mouth.” παρρησία [openly, publicly] “to blasphemy against God.” Who is βλάσφημος [the blasphemer], unless he who is exalted above others?
“To blaspheme his name.” The name of God is either God Himself and His power, insofar as He is known and proposed to be known; or His revelation. The revelation and as it were the description of God, who and what He is, as He exists in Scripture. He who blasphemes Scripture blasphemes the name of God. For he denies that God’s power, will, and glory are revealed in Scripture, and thus what Scripture reveals is denied being the name of God.
“And his tabernacle.” Christ, in whom all the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily, in whom there is conjunction: according to that, “You, Father, are in me, and I in you: that they also may be one in us,” John 17:21. For the Beast does not have Christ as head; because He is in the heavens: and it seeks a terrestrial head. It denies that we are united to God and to the saints in Christ; as typically happened in the tabernacle: because it wants them united under the Pope. It removes Christ’s merit and perfect sacrifice. It transforms Christ into bread.
“And those who dwell in heaven.” It leads down to earth the holy ones who are in heaven: it worships the saints with their dishonor, and holds them up as intercessors and mediators: it subjects the faithful saints, who by Christ have become priests and kings, to domination: it denies that those living in chaste marriage can be spiritual: it robs them of the freedom in foods and rites granted by Christ, it seizes the sacraments: it deprives preachers and pastors, who shine, as it were, of their authority, and it wants them to come to the Church in the name of men. By these marks [character] it is known to be the Beast. It is known to be βασιλεία ἁμαρτίας τῆς πίστεως, “a kingdom of those who have fallen away from the faith.”
Verse 7: “And it was given to him to make war with the saints,” by contradiction, condemnation, persecution: “and to overcome them” by darkening [the meaning of the Scriptures] and oppressing them, so that they dare not confess [the true faith], and by leading some into error by seduction. Rev. 2:20. “You suffer my saints to err” or “to seduce my servants to eat things sacrificed to idols.” Christ indeed says, [Matt. 24:24], “It is not possible that the elect be seduced”: but this is to be understood so that it is not possible they may ‘sin’ and perish. The servants of God are also deceived through hypocrisy and fraud, either because they think what is not the word of God to be the word of God, or because they do not know the depths of Satan. Yet they retain the foundation, without which they would not be the servants of God. They do not receive the mark of the Beast on the forehead and on the right hand.
“And power was given to him over every tribe and tongue and nation.” Yet so that God meanwhile has His own redeemed from the earth, chap. 14:4, “from among men,” & “from tribes and tongues and nations,” chap. 11:9. So far as the preaching of the Gospel advances among the nations that the true Church of the faithful is preserved in them, so far also does the kingdom of the Beast advance, the Devil sowing tares. The power of the Beast exists while men believe and obey the Beast. This general corruption happens throughout the whole Church.
Verse 8: “And all who dwell on the earth will worship him,” those who are contained under the name of the Church. This is a great scandal to the pious. That some could think it was not the true Church but the Beast, whose kingdom and exaltation they saw in the world, is remarkable. For, even with Christ’s blood shed, when the world seemed to have turned to Christ, it seemed incredible that the world could be deceived and be in error. Among these [deceived] was Bernard, who in letter 240 [241] to King Alfonso VII: “At the voice of one heretic” (he means Henry of Lausanne) “all prophetic and apostolic voices in the people were silent, by which the Church called together from all nations in one faith of Christ sang with one Spirit of truth. Therefore, have the divine oracles erred, and the eyes and minds of all deceived, who, when they behold when they see fulfilled what they read was predicted?” They are not deceived who, according to the prophecies, see all nations with open hands to the Gospel of Christ, when they judge Him to be truly the Son of God and head of the Church, and a stone of stumbling, and His word to be truth: but they are deceived who think that the whole that is called the Church of Christ are true Christians, and do not also notice that the enemies of Christ lie, nor do they see the tares which the enemy sows in the Lord’s field, i.e., the sons of evil mixed with the faithful, bringing evil words and morals into it. They are mistaken if they suppose that the greatest and most flourishing part, endowed with the greatest power, is, therefore, also the best. Indeed, the Apocalypse teaches us the contrary. And this is that scandal which Scripture wished us to recognize and avoid.
Not, however, will that worship extend to all, but only to those “whose names are not written in the book of the life of the Lamb slain from the foundations of the world.” In well-ordered cities there are registers that record the names of the citizens year by year. The matter is to be regarded in that way. For he compares the assembly and city of the Beast with the assembly and city of the saints. The citizens of the Beast are written on earth, in an earthly book and register, and “they have the name of the living, and the second death rules over them.” By contrast the saints are written in heaven, in the book of the Lamb, who is their head and King, and they are written unto life. There is therefore a book of the Lamb, and a book of the life of the Lamb, so that they may be made alive by the Lamb and by the Lamb slain, that, just as the Lamb died and lived again, so they through the power of his death and resurrection may die to sin and live to righteousness.
It is added, “from the foundations of the world ” which must be referred to both — the slaughter of the Lamb and the writing of His citizens. If the book was written from the foundation of the world, it must be the book of the Lamb destined to be slain. Thus, those written in it were chosen through Him even before the actual event, as if He had already been sacrificed. Now, that names were written from the foundations of the world is not to be understood as when in the city registers the second is written after the first, the third after the second, and the fourth after the third. For in that case this discourse would be about all the faithful from Adam, Enoch, Noah, and Abraham up to the revealed Beast. It would have to be said in that sense (since the saints are not ancient ones but only those with whom the Beast wages war) of whose names are not written in the book of life from the beginnings of the Beast. For to say that one will or will not worship the Beast cannot be spoken except of those who exist with the Beast. ἀπὸ καταβολῆς [“from the foundation”] is not μετὰ καταβολῆς [“after the foundation”] but ἀπὸ καταβολῆς, “from the foundation.” For it signifies a tendency both backward and forward.
Therefore, those whose names are written before the foundation of the world, and already then, when the earth was founded, and have always remained written in that book of the Lamb, these are the elect. And thus, Christ says: ὥστε, τάλαντα, εἰ δυνατόν, καὶ τὸς ἐκλεκτός, “so that, if possible, even the elect would be seduced,” [Matt. 24:24]. Rev. 17:14: κἰ οἱ μετ’ αὐτῷ κλητοὶ κὶ ἐκλεκτοί κὶ πιστοί. “And those with him, called, elect [i.e., chosen] and faithful.” Why then does the Apocalypse not say, “except for the saints” [who cannot be seduced,] or something like that? [Why does He use the term “elect”?] “The election has obtained it; the others, however, are hardened,” Rom. 11:7. They did not obtain [salvation] by their own holiness that they not be seduced; but by divine grace, that they be holy and not be seduced and worship the Beast. Eph. 1:4: ἐξελέξατο ἡμᾶς εἶναι ἁγίους. He chose us to be holy. Almost every prophecy concerning the Antichrist shows that the saints by the power of that election will be victors and immune from seduction. The Apocalypse [teaches this] here and elsewhere; the Savior in Matthew 24. Thus also St. Paul closes his prophecy concerning the Antichrist and the power of seduction with this sentence, 2 Thess. 2:13–14. “But we ought to give thanks to God for you, that God chose you from the beginning to salvation,” that is, to be saved “through the sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth. To which he called you through the Gospel,” etc. To these he adds the judgment of the Beast.
Verse 9: “If any man have an ear, let him hear.”
Verse 10: “He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.” The pious are fortified both against the appearance of prosperity and against the appearance of judgment. For both are deceitful. The Beast takes power over all nations; it makes the faithful captives and kills them. Do not be moved. They will be taken captive; they will be slain by the sword. You see Christians led captive by Saracens, by Turks; you see Christians waging war among themselves. Do not be moved. Christ’s kingdom suffers no loss. This is the Beast, and what it deserves it suffers. Are the saints involved in these things? Their patience and faith must be tested.
Verse 11: “And I saw another Beast,” not after the removal of the former, but with the former. See verse 12. “Another Beast,” that is, another kingdom. It succeeded the Dragon as a double Beast, a twofold and different kind of kingdom in one. Daniel said this, chap. 2:41, “The kingdom shall be divided.”
“Rising out of the earth.” Different in origin and place from the former. The first rose out of the sea into the land: the other rises from the land into heaven. Notice — ὑπεράνω ὑψοῦται “he who exalts himself” [2 Thess. 2:4]; Yet he is born from the Church. “The sea” had been turned into “dry land.” Ps. 66:6.
“And he had two horns like a Lamb.” These “horns” denote power. They signify a legitimate office and hypocrisy. It is the body and kingdom of men vaunting the succession of those to whom it was said; “As the Father has sent me, so I send you. Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven them: whose you retain, they are retained.” I understand the power of binding and loosing by the two horns, which are also called the keys of the kingdom of heaven. This other Beast is therefore the Kingdom of Ecclesiastics, who ought to teach the people the word of Christ, and according to His word to bind and loose — but they do not carry out their office as they ought. The Apocalypse itself testifies that I am not mistaken. For chap. 15:13 [sic: chap. 16:13] in the place of the second [Beast] is named a “false prophet.” Ἐκ στόματος δράκοντος καὶ ἐκ στόματος θηρίου καὶ ἐκ στόματος ψευδοπροφήτου: “From the mouth of the Dragon and from the mouth of the Beast and from the mouth of the False Prophet.” Likewise, chap. 19:20: τὰ θηρίον καὶ μετ’ αὐτῷ ὁ ψευδοπροφήτης ὁ ποιήσας τὰ σημεῖα ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ: “The Beast and with it the false prophet who worked signs before it,” and what follows about εἰκών and χαρακτήρ, “image and mark,” is taken from that chapter. Those Fathers testify who understand the preachers of the Antichrist by the second Beast, whom Viegas cites p. 744 (from whom above on p. 54 we recalled the words of Gregory). This note is of Primasius, Bishop of Utica: ” He attempted to adopt two horns like a lamb—two Testaments suited to a lamb—to claim for himself in the guise of a lamb. Yet he is said to speak as a dragon, because he deceived those whom he led astray by the hypocrisy of feigned truth. For he would not be like a lamb if he spoke openly as a dragon. Now he pretends to be a lamb in order to attack the lamb, that is the body of Christ.
“and he spake as a Dragon.” He ought to speak, as a little lamb, yet he spoke as a Dragon. To speak is to teach. 1 Pet. 4:11: εἴτις λαλεῖ, ὡς λόγια Θεοῦ — If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles/utterances of God. “Teaching” is claimed in Revelation 2:14, 15, 20, 24. What, I ask, does the lamb speak and teach? What does the dragon? The Lamb (John 5:30): “I can do nothing of myself. As I hear, I judge; and my judgment is just, because I do not seek my own will, but the will of the Father who sent me.” The Dragon (Luke 4:6): “To you I will give all this authority which has been given to me, and to whomsoever I will I give it.” This Beast [from the earth] likewise says that he acts from his own motion and plenitude of power, to bind or loose sins, to impose commandments or dispense from them, to make and depose kings. For clearly all that power both in heaven and on earth is given to him. The followers of the lamb have the name of the Father written on their foreheads (Rev. 14:1); they deny the faith of believers is entrusted to their power (2 Cor. 1:14). Whereas they [pseudo-Christians] speak as if from God, before God, in Christ. 2 Cor. 2:17. But these are proud; they domineer over faiths and consciences, they bring the doctrine of demons, they speak before the Beast and, inflated, they fall into pride, the judgment of the Devil, 1 Tim. 3:6.
Verse 12: “And he exercises all the power of the first Beast,” which the Dragon hands over to him and God permits, “before him.” It was already permissible to note that the power of the [first] Beast is indeed boasted to be from God, but in truth from Satan, according to the effectiveness of the seduction. The second Beast does before the [first] Beast (not before God, but so as to please the Beast) all that it can do, as they themselves say, “for the Church;” so that the thing itself urges to be called a Beast. There is constantly in these things a μύκηρισμός [‘a loud proclamation’] and an antithesis of truth and vainglory which he assumes for himself as the false prophet who has all power in spiritual matters as well in temporal ones. For the [first] Beast transfers all its right to the False Prophet [who is also the second Beast]. Primasius on those words said of the former, which he prefaced by saying “the Beast seen rising from the sea is that to whom the Devil had given his great power. He said this power was exercised by the second Beast before the [first] Beast. For in the OVERSEER which he described is all the power of the PEOPLE, as in the tails of the locusts and horses. For in the presence of the people the prelates do what advances the will of the Devil, under the cloak of hypocrisy and of the CHURCH. ‘And he makes the earth and those who dwell in it to worship the first Beast, whose deadly wound was healed.’” The false prophet, by his deceits and impostures, makes every external church and all its members worship the Roman Church, as having dominion over all Churches. We know that all are compelled to believe in the name of the Roman Church. There is opposition everywhere between the Lamb and the Beast. The Lamb, slain, revived. The Beast was wounded unto death and was healed. The Lamb, and those who are his, pass through death into life: the Beast with a slight wound only does not die. I cannot but add the words of Primasius. “He says the dragon is worshiped and the beast worshiped. I was going back to when the Dragon alone was worshiped by his own. For not as the Church has a corporal mediator between God and itself does the devil have a mediator of his own, but by the mere name of God in imitation of Christ. This beast, which he [John] speaks of, has no person of his own in whom is the devil. For it is in the single word by which they say they worship Christ, who died and rose again: in that word they worship the Devil, who finds this IMAGE for his own,” etc. […………]
Verse 13: “And he performs great signs, so that he even makes fire come down from heaven to earth before men.” Much has been well said by many about the lying signs of the Antichrist. To me this needs special consideration. A person is credited with performing a sign or miracle when it occurs at their command, even if God is the true source; alternatively, the act may simply be attributed to the speaker. Thus, false prophets can also work miracles which are true miracles, if God is the doer and the ordainer. Consider the purpose of miracles: they are false if aimed at the end and purpose of the one who proclaims them. See Deut. 13:1-2. Thus, miracles are also done by false prophets in the name of Christ. See Matt. 7:22. We know what miracles the prophets and Christ wrought, but, as Lactantius says in the chapter, On Justice, “Christ is not believed to be God because he did wonders, but because we have seen in him all the things that were announced to us by the Prophets. He did miracles, but we would have thought him a magician — if all with one spirit had not foretold that Christ would do those things. Therefore, we believe in God no more from marvelous works and deeds than from that very cross which you Gentiles lick like dogs, since that also was foretold.” Our faith rests on both: the divinity of the works and the truth of the divine word. If one of these is lacking, those signs are false by which we are tempted. Moreover, the [religious] order that boasts of its miracles is now well known. It cannot be denied that many of them are fabricated, others wonderful rather than miraculous, others the work of pious men who preached Christ among themselves before the name was clearly known — things that confirm the truth of Christianity, not their doctrine. Yet I would not contend strongly with them, even if they claim to have raised the dead. We believe Christ, in whose name these things are done; we do not believe those who do not speak of Christ.
The Revelation sets forth one particular miracle. He [the second Beast, the false prophet] makes fire fall from heaven to earth — an imitation of Elijah. See 1 Kings 18:38 and 2 Kings 1:10. For Elijah twice made fire fall from heaven, when he made the sacrifice and when he avenged his enemies. In the first instance he proved that his God, Jehovah, was the true God of Israel. In the second, that he himself was a Prophet of God. A similar testimony of God is ascribed to the witnesses in Rev. 11:5: fire proceeds from their mouths and devours their enemies. Just as this was said of them figuratively, so it must be explained figuratively of the false prophet. Jeremiah 5:14: I will put my words in your mouth like fire, and this people wood, and it will consume them. Thus, the two witnesses, and even the words of the false prophet, consumed adversaries. Add that the false prophet sets his mouth in heaven, Psalm 73:9, as if speaking from heaven. Rightly, therefore, it is said in metaphor that he makes fire fall from heaven. But the event itself was also the same as if fire had actually fallen from heaven. When his enemies are suddenly and in unheard-of ways extinguished and destroyed due to his cursing them, does it not seem that he calls fire down from heaven upon his enemies as if at his nod and command? Scripture does not stop there, but even names in how many and whom that deed occurred, if I am not mistaken, at least for the sake of an example. Compare also Dan. 7:8, 20, 24. Now let them also proclaim their felicity and fame. Others have made pertinent comments concerning this which we will relate when the need arises. I only add this: it would not be unreasonable for Primasius to explain this miracle as well. “That which causes fire to descend from heaven to the earth, that is, from the Church to earthly things, whether through the diversity of the nations, or through the deceiving cunning of the enemy, by making ministers speak in many new tongues, so that they boast as it were by this sign that they have received the gift of the Holy Spirit, which is truly read to have once enkindled Christ’s disciples with the fiery form of tongues upon each one. For the Lord also particularly commends this sign of believers, saying, ‘and these signs will follow those who believe,’”etc. He considers that ‘the Beast, who falsely takes the name of a slain and living lamb,’ also deceptively imitates Christ’s disciples in this, so that he makes the Holy Spirit and his gifts (for by ‘fire’ he understands this, as in Acts 2:3, ‘tongues as of fire’ signify the Spirit) descend upon earthly men. I see that this sense can be included under the latitude of the term, and the matter itself has a clear and notable complement. For by ‘false prophet’ the Prefect [e.g., a priest with authority over a mission field] of the hypocritical Church is understood, through whom God wished to lead to the knowledge of Christ peoples given to idols by preaching the Word of God, the Gospel and the Law; of whom many appeared adorned with various gifts of the Holy Spirit; perhaps some even famed for miracles, then indeed many, nay very many, by the deceptive appearance of religion, zeal, doctrine, and the spirit of virtue for the propagation of the kingdom of Christ, under the headship of the Pope, even to the admiration of men, became illustrious. Which are seen especially in the orders of monks. So great is this miracle that the true Church seemed not to exist, except under those teachers and rulers; for since few were altogether immune from the errors and seductions of that Beast, and if there were any, the rest were reckoned as included with those. For this reason, Christ says, Zech. 11:15: “And the Lord said to me, Take to yourself yet again the apparel of a foolish shepherd.” It was a wise and just disposition of God that the Church should for a time be ruled by a foolish shepherd under the name of Christ, not otherwise, as if Christ were that foolish shepherd.
Verse 14: “And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image [εἰκόνα] to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.” Let us briefly finish. This ‘image’ is opposed to Christ, who is εικών, the invisible ‘image of God,’ Col. 1:15. The image which the False Prophet and the Beast make is the Antichrist, the Lawless One; he, too, is of the order of the False Prophets. He calls himself ‘Vicar,’ [“substitute, deputy, one acting in the place of another”], that is, the image [i.e., “the general impression that a person presents to the public”] of God and of Christ. Scripture mocks him and calls him the image of the Beast. The same is called the REPRESENTATIVE CHURCH, but that Church which it represents is the Beast. Certainly, when the Popes use the name of ‘the Church,’ they generally mean themselves.
Verse 15: “And it was given to him” — to the cohort of false prophets — “to give spirit [‘πνεῦμα’ = breath/life/spirit] to the image of the Beast,” that is, to persuade men that that one Bishop has the Spirit of God and the infallibility of teaching and judging.
“So that the image of the Beast might speak,” like a Prophet having the Spirit of God, and teach. Therefore, what is attributed commonly to the Beast, we understand that it is exercised especially through its image. Primasius: “So, as at the beginning the woman was beguiled by the serpent’s speaking mouth, he then deceives many by a similar fraud, when by an IMAGE he causes his advisors to receive their responses [to the people] through the [mouth of the] Antichrist, to whom, as to God, they deem honor to be given, although he is the Man of Sin, the Son of Perdition.”
“and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.” Previously we saw the Beast worshipped, Callistus II. Just as Christ came to do the will of the Father, so Christians ought to do the will of the Roman Church, as of a mother. Again, that authority of the Beast is ἀνακεφαλαιούται [‘summed up’] into his image. For it is placed as its head, as God, in the temple of the Lord to be adored, that is, so that all should believe in it and suffer themselves to be judged by it. Here compare Dan. 11. He who exalts himself above all worships a “strange god,” and with him distributes rewards and punishments. The Beast refers to the Babylonian Nebuchadnezzar as the consecrator of the image; it also refers to the Dragon, who wished the image of the Chief Leader to be worshipped above all gods. See Tacitus, Annals 15:29.
“Let them be killed,” spiritually by excommunication; carnally by the sword.
Verse 16: “And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads,” that is, he forces all men calling themselves Christians into the laws of the image.
The distribution of the company that obeys the image [i.e., the Vicar of the Beast] is very emphatic. For there are (I) “small and great,” that is, children and adults. I understand this not only of age but also of knowledge. In Christ’s kingdom that distinction is according to the measure of the gift; but in the kingdom of the image of the Beast it is by the mark of that image. For to some it grants that they may teach, as to those τελέιοι [‘fully developed/perfect’] and mature in Christ; to others it commands that they learn, as to νηπίοι [infants/spiritually immature’]: although in truth those who ought to teach are children who should be forced to hear and learn, and [the so-called children] are more mature in faith and in knowledge of His mysteries than their teachers. Thus, they make outwardly void that which is the law for individuals of the New Testament: “I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh; your young men and your virgins shall see visions; They shall know me from the least to the greatest; all shall be taught by God.” For they [the Roman Church magistrates] remove the key of knowledge, and themselves do not enter, nor allow others to enter; but those whom the image names adults and teachers of the blind must obey with closed eyes. What clearer proof would one require than that they snatch the Scriptures from the hands of Christians? (II) There are “rich and poor,” not only in external things, but more so in internal things. Christ called all the faithful blessed and rich, endowed with the Spirit of God. Here it is otherwise. For the image [of the Beast; the Vicar of the Beast] calls some holy, spiritual, religious, regular, and men of greater merit; it pronounces others needy, secular, and barren as to merit. (III) There are “free and bondservants.” Although in Christ there is neither free nor servant, yet it is otherwise in the realm of the Image of the Beast. For it changes the times, and from times of light and freedom makes times of shadows and servitude. It therefore distinguishes between those who rule consciences, who can bind and loose at their own will, and those who are slaves and subject.
That very thing by which the Image of the Beast distinguishes its people is the mark [Χάραμα]: the Law of the Image. Scripture here alludes to what is written in the Old Testament Deut. 6:6–8: “These words shall be in your heart, and you shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes.” On the hand so you may observe them in your actions; on the forehead so you may profess them. Thus, the Beast acts so that the image of the Beast gives a law to all distributed in its realm in this manner, which they either dutifully observe in their deeds, or at least profess before men. Thus, all are bound to another Lord who is their God, to another law and Canon than that which was given to them by God and Christ. What then is it to receive the mark (charagma = character) of the Beast, but to follow the law in mind, or to profess it with the tongue. I do not deny these things can be explained in many ways and by various allusions. But above all this principle should be held: that which is most evident and greatest, as well as most fitting with the words. I note one thing further. This mark pertains to the first and second Beast, in addition to the Image of the Beast. Of the first, because each recipient receives it and it is received under his name. Of the second Beast, because it effects its reception. Of the Image, because it gives it.
Verse 17: “And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.” The kingdom of the Beast, which is Babylon, is a marketplace. See Rev. 18:11ff., where all things for sale are listed. In this there is a manifold mystery. And, since in Rev. 18:23 merchants are called μεγιστάνες τῆς γῆς — the great men of the earth — which is taken from Isaiah 23 where Tyre is treated (not properly, but spiritually); it is clear that because of that trafficking the same great city is compared to Tyre. Now above from Dan. 11:39 we took notice of this market. In this there is an open contrast with the house of God, which is a house of prayer, not a market; with the kingdom of grace, in which bread and wine and milk are compared by God לֹא בִמְחִיר without price (Isa. 55:1). Against this stands the kingdom of the Beast, in which Simony obtains, not grace. There men think God’s gift can be acquired with money (νομίζεσθαι τὸ δωρεὰν τοῦ Θεοῦ ὑπὸ χρημάτων κτᾶσθαι). There sins are redeemed, righteousness is bought, souls are freed from purgatory by money. Ecclesiastical offices and dignities are purchased, as well as the power of teaching, ruling, binding, and what not. I do not now judge the issue of simony which they themselves acknowledge and yet do not abolish; I mean that the grace of God itself, which is the foundation of the kingdom of Christ, is turned by the Beast into a market. The very marrow, root and polity (πολιτείας) is touched. In the kingdom of Christ righteousness is the gift of God; in the kingdom of the Beast, it is merited. In our kingdom a faith which hungers and thirsts [for righteousness] and is humble to receive, that gift is applied. In the Beast’s kingdom grace is believed to be held as something acquired by one’s works, by satisfaction, and by a price paid by man.
There remains consolation for those who are expelled from this city. Do not grieve, faithful man, if the Beast pronounces anathema against you. Does he not want to sell you anything? Come to God; He will give you everything for free.
He has a mark, or a name. If he does not have the law, let him have a name. At least he must ἐπικαλεῖσθαι τὸ ὄνομα τῆς θηρίος, [‘be called the name of the Beast] which is to be called Roman Catholic. In chapter 14:11 it is χάραγμα καὶ ὄνομα αὐτῶν [‘its mark and name’]. Thus, mark and name are resolved into the same thing.
Or the number of his name, etc. Various conjectures about this. Strange that so many true conjectures converge on the Roman Synagogue. Perhaps Scripture did not intend to limit the way this number can be calculated. For that reason, I do not think whatever is offered on this matter should be rejected. Indeed, perhaps because many have been proposed one must not desist from thinking that in the many propositions there should be one very simple thing. I therefore allow that λατεινος [‘latin man’] רומיית [‘Roman’] PAULO V. VICE Deo, are names in which the number of the Beast is not inaptly found; and those names cannot easily be refuted as belonging to the Beast. I admit that the Beast is counted no more readily than χρυσῳ [‘gold’] so that he who ought to have been named Χρισόν [‘Christ’] (Xρς written in abbreviation) does not truly name him, but χρυσον, “gold,” that thing which in the scriptures, by the reckoning of Solomon, has a certain form and number χξς [666]. For every year Solomon brought in by shipments six hundred sixty-six talents, 2 Chron. 9:13. The talent is called כְכָּר, which in the plural has כְבָּרוֹת and בְּבָּרִים, fully נִכְבָרוֹת, whose letters are worth 666. That word denotes not only talents, but also the circular spheres of the regions which the king shares with his God, as is said Dan. 11:39, as well as circular spheres of bread. It is clear then, if one believes the years numbered refer to those years following the ascension of Christ, what [historical] times this number 666 points out. However, if you think a multitude worshiping is meant, just as the multitude of the elect is numbered by 144 thousand, you will not easily reject what I say. The elect faithful are built on the foundation of the 12 Apostles and represent the twelve tribes of Israel. 12 squared is 144. But they [the elect faithful] are numbered by thousands. The number of the Lamb is the opposite of the number of the Beast. For the Lamb and the Beast fight. Thus, this number will not require they be the same. For if you divide 144,000 by 666, 144 will remain at the end. [N. B. 144,000 divided by 666 = 216. Multiply 666 X 216 = 143,856. 144,000 – 143,856 = 144.] That is, by the foundation of 12 itself they [those who have the mark, name or number of the Roman Catholic Beast] are still distinguished from the [true] Church, so that they cannot be reconciled or made to agree with it [God’s true Church]. The 144 resolve themselves into their root 12. The numeral 666 has no root. Its number six prevents it being born from or produced by twelve. But what is this senary, unless the Decretals? If I bring that forward, the authority and reasoning of the great Junius will defend me greatly. See that man in the notes and compare with our conjectures, if you please. [N. B. Coccecius refers to Boniface VIII’s Liber Sextus Decretalium.] Certainly that ‘senary’ was thus authorized by the Image of the Beast, so that, when it was completed by Boniface VIII, the world then heard “God wished the Roman Church to obtain the chief magistracy of the whole world.” According to this, “to have the number or the name of the Beast” is to be understood as something that sets a foundation with the Beast different from that which is set in the Scriptures which contain the doctrine of the twelve Apostles; or mixed, namely some from the Apostles’ 12 and some from the Antichrist’s six: especially whoever believes this not so much explicitly, as a mark, as implicitly, as resolving himself into the faith of the Beast; or whoever in any way is with the Beast outside the foundation, or even seeks and worships a multitude not in Christ, who is the foundation of the Apostles. Song 3:7: sixty strong men. Five times 12 make 60. Thus, Song 6:8-9: sixty queens, eighty concubines, one dove. The external churches, partly gathered into the Apostolic doctrine, are portrayed by 60 queens, partly departing from it by 80 concubines: the inner church of the elect faithful is called one dove. But apart from this the prophecy is clear, and whoever brings similar things from the genius of that same author to explain this riddle, in my judgment will not sin. I add one thing: it seems hinted here not only the fact that names were hidden by numbers (which the Interpreter, [Grotius], teaches from Martianus Capella) but also the fact that the Jews often interchange names with other names in interpreting Scripture when they have the same numbers: of whose crop Ba’al HaTurim [aka Jacob ben Asher] shows an example. [……………]
CHAPTER 14
Verse 1: “The Lamb standing on Mount Zion.” An antithesis to the Beast having seven heads, that is, sitting on seven hills. Mount Zion is the one Church of the saints. And with him 144 thousand (this said concerning the number of the Beast) “having the name of his Father written on their foreheads.” That is, professing God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ revealed in the Scriptures. Opposed to this mark is the Beast. They are the holy ones, and whose names are written in the Lamb’s book slain from the foundation of the world.
Verse 2: “And I heard a voice from heaven.” The Beast is opposed by a voice. A fourfold voice is mentioned before the fall of Babylon: of many waters; of great thunder; of harpists; of an angel proclaiming the Eternal Gospel. The interruption of this voice is understood from what is “the Eternal Gospel.” Which indeed is not ἄλλο, “other,” but is called αἰώνιον, “eternal,” because from the time that angel began to preach it, it does not cease. Therefore, the angel which follows the Eternal Gospel sings of the fall of Babylon. But then the three voices are paused when the Beast is said to have overcome the saints [verse 13]. I do not think it absurd to allude to the fourfold voice by “a time, times, and half a time.” For the Beast acts during the time of the voice of many waters; during the times of the voice of thunder and of the harpists; and during part of the time the Eternal Gospel is preached. It fits very plainly that the witnesses of God are said to have lived again after three days and a half and to have ascended into heaven [Rev. 12:9]. Let him who reads Hosea consider whether chapter 6: verses 1 & 2 may not be referred to the same thing, when he makes the pious struck and wounded (here one day) promise himself “revival after two days” (thus three days, or three times), finally “resurrection on the third day.”
This is the fourth [time of struggle] after the first [time of struggle], i.e., one time of struggle with the Beast has passed, and two still press on, and the Beast will prevail (for the contest will end before it is corrected or falls); but afterwards the fourth will be the time and bright day when God will give us life, so that our word may be effective, and will raise us up, not that we should fall, but that Babylon should fall. It would take too long to recall these things in their historical fulfillment, although it would not be difficult to find these times in ecclesiastical history. That one should substitute “day” for “time” will not seem strange to him who has observed that phrase elsewhere in Scripture, and who has noted that ten days, that is, ten times of the first persecutions to be exercised by the Gentiles are indicated in Rev. 2:10. Under Charles the Great chiefly, down to Lothair, for about seventy years from the end of the eighth to the decline of the ninth century the first [angel’s]voice sounded. It was in the Synod of Frankfurt where, contrary to the pope, it decreed against both the cult of images and the second Nicene council. The same at Paris. Those were reproved who went to Rome to obtain remission of sins. The doctrine concerning the Lord’s Supper [denying transubstantiation] was handed down by Bertram [Ratramnus of Corbie]. Many bishops of Italy had fallen away from the Pope. This period had Hincmar of Rheims and Luitbert of Mainz, who opposed themselves to the domination of the Pope. Louis I in the same span of time arranged the scriptures in the Saxon vernacular. This voice was silenced after Hadrian II who, in the eighth ecumenical council, restored images, establishing his primacy. What times followed under the Italian kings, history teaches. At the end of the tenth century a synod was held in Gaul against the Pope in the case of the Bishop of Orléans. The eleventh century had Henries as Emperors, and Berengar, an opponent of transubstantiation. These and others who, in the thickest darkness of the Papacy, brought in some part of the truth were like thunderclaps. I leave the reader to examine Mornay’s Mystery of Iniquity.
The Waldensian harpists followed circa the middle of the twelfth century. It is worth knowing their elogium.
Verse 3: “And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders.” They sang the word of God and by profiting in faith and spiritual joy they celebrated God for the benefits bestowed in Christ. “And no one could understand that song except the 144,000, redeemed from the earth.” The others heard but did not understand, that is, they did not feel the power of that song, namely, the consolation of the soul, and the certainty of righteousness and hope of heavenly things, in addition to contempt of earthly things, so much so that multitudes willingly accepted death for the truth. Those who admired the Beast could not understand this. Many read, but only these understood the Scriptures: not because they were wiser than others, but because they were “redeemed from the earth” and “written in the Lamb’s Book of Life.”
Verse 4: “These are those who are not defiled with women; for they are virgins.” I do not believe even a Papist would say that no one is saved or redeemed from the earth or can understand the new song except a celibate. This elogium is also for married people. Thus, the whole Church is a virgin, a maiden. 2 Corinthians 11:2. These [true Christians] were notoriously [falsely] reputed to be lustful. Of course, only those who denied the Pope were considered lustful, or who memorized the word of God, or withdrew from [lustful] men, or who fought, despite the Alpine snows, and who even ran into stakes of fire willingly. Scripture defends this. They are not defiled with women. They had a chaste marriage; they had no dealings with the Babylonian prostitute. Their clergy boasted of celibacy against the lasciviousness of the Catholic clergy. Scripture calls them ‘virgins,’ as opposed to whores.
“These are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes,” to the passion, to the cross. These “are redeemed from among men, a firstfruits to God and to the Lamb.” They belong to the Lamb and to God, redeemed by His death, so that they might be His, and by His merit made children of God. Certainly, 2 Peter 2:1 also calls false prophets those who “deny the Lord who bought them.” Hence, they themselves might seem such as well [since they opposed the teachings of the Catholic Church which were considered orthodox] — But since their obedience is so clearly stated here — who cannot easily see that just the opposite of heresy was stated? Namely, Christ for His elect, according to the will of the Father, having paid the price, which was sufficient for wiping away the sins of all, received from the Father glory and honor, so that He might be declared Lord of all, who would bring the law of faith to all nations and invite them to His worship. It is added [in 2 Peter 2:1] that He imparted to those of whom He is speaking some knowledge of the truth, liberated them somewhat from the contamination of the world and the power of Satan, and in this way joined them somewhat to His family. These and similar things are explained metaphorically by the father of the household buying servants for himself. However, the Apocalypse speaks about the expiation of sins and redemption into sacred firstfruits, into sons, into heirs, not about any purchase of either good or bad servants.
Verse 5: “And in their mouth was found no deceit. For they are blameless before the throne of God,” that is, God pronounces them just through their faith not at all feigned, which they professed with their mouths. These things are also opposed to the boast of infallibility and their own holiness, of which the fornicating Church boasts. Such elogiums do not suit all men who call Christ Lord, but only those in whom the efficacy of the truth and death of Christ is seen through faith and holiness, as well as hope of heavenly things and patience in tribulations. The fourth voice follows.
Verse 6: “And I saw another Angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the eternal Gospel to proclaim to those who dwell on the earth, and to every nation, tribe, language, and people.” The Holy Spirit endowed many teachers with power and strength, who openly testified to the evangelical doctrine; whose preaching has not ceased from that time. Their leader was Wycliffe, who, declining in the 14th century around A.D. 1360, preached. He translated the Scriptures into English. He had many disciples. Huss followed, burned in A.D. 1415, at which time a great wound was inflicted on the Beast, when it was defined at Constance that the Council is above the Pope. What times followed thereafter are known to all.
The Apocalypse proposes a summary of the Evangelical doctrine in:
Verse 7: indeed, with words which neither the enemies of truth, if you consider merely their outward sound, would deny; but which is truly opposed to the doctrine of the Antichrist. Three duties are enjoined. (I) “Fear God.” This must be understood exclusively. Do not fear men, Matthew 10:28. By this word the faithful are encouraged not to fear persecutors; the faithless are terrified so that, stripped of hypocrisy they might serve Him themselves, and, having laid aside their fury, cease from persecution of the saints. (II) “And give Him glory.” Fear Him, and out of fear yield to Him, as to one truer in word, stronger in power, more worthy in excellence. Do not oppose or add human words to His word, do not call His power into contest with your arm, do not claim His αὐχήμαζα (boasting) of men, nor set the throne of men beside His throne. The reasoning urges: “For the hour of His judgment has come.” The judgment of God presses on, who has waited a sufficiently long time for your repentance, Revelation 2:21: “I gave her time to repent, and she did not repent,” etc. (III) why glory must be given to God in particular. “And worship” not the Beast, not the image of the Beast, not the idols which the Beast worships, but “Him who made heaven and earth and sea and springs of water.” According to Jeremiah 10:11: “The gods who did not make heaven and earth shall perish under this heaven.” Therefore, the kingdom of the Beast is accused of idolatry, because “servile worship is called upon the creature rather than the Creator.” It does not distinguish between λατρείαι (worship of God) and δουλεία (worship of the creature), but sums up true worship by by one word, showing that λατρεία [latria] is due to Him alone to whom σκύησις (servitude) is due. Certainly, as witness of all thoughts and present everywhere, and possessing the dignity of grace to be deserved or the power to confer it, He who possesses this dignity and power is none other than that of a divine person.
Those who worship Christ are accused [by some] of false worship because (the accusers claim) He is not Creator of heaven and earth, that is, He is not God. For if He were not God and maker of all things, He would not even be worthy of worship. Therefore, He is not worshiped as Savior apart from being Creator. For He has all glory which those who adore Him attribute to Him. Idolatry is revealed in the great city’s citizens [of Mystery Babylon] who worship heavenly things, namely angels and holy men declared ‘saints’], and earthly things, that is, bread [i.e., the Eucharist], fruit of the earth, wood [i.e., the cross], stones, gold, and silver: who worship the image of the Beast and the False Prophet who is among the stars of the mystical heaven, as to his office; and the Beast itself, which is formed from the inhabitants of the earth; and the sea, that is worldly power, and its ruler the Dragon; and the springs of rivers, that is kings and princes of worldly power which is on earth, as if springs issuing forth, associating with the Beast.
Verse 8: “And another Angel followed, saying: Babylon has fallen, fallen, that great city.” The inconsistency of the Pontiffs in designating that city which the Spirit calls Babylon is remarkable. For now they understand Babylon as properly Jerusalem, abusing Zechariah 5:11. Soon, they assert, Jerusalem will be the seat of the Antichrist because he will sit in the temple of God, and because the witnesses of God will be killed there, where our Lord was crucified. Next, they judge that Babylon is to be named Rome. It is the same Babylon here and in chapter 16:19, and the prostitute sitting on the Beast, chapter 17:5, and the great city in chapters 17 and 18; Egypt and Sodom, chapter 11:8, where also our Lord was crucified. Let no one think that only Jerusalem is meant here. The great city in which our Lord was crucified is the dominion of the Roman Empire, which then included Jerusalem. For He suffered outside Jerusalem, but under Pontius Pilate, Procurator of the Roman Caesar. In this Babylon is also the false prophet, chapter 19:20. It is, however, easy to understand when the Prostitute and Babylon are distinguished from the [first] Beast [from the sea], that by the city [Babylon] it means the more important part which constitutes as it were the Senate, as when it is here called ‘Babylon the great city;’ then the first Beast, the seat of the Prostitute can be understood as included [in Babylon the great city]. Conversely, when only the Beast is spoken of, then the second Beast or Prostitute or false prophet sitting on it should be understood. Primasius: “The whole world is drunken with errors; it is itself a city; but it divides one by its own custom.” Therefore, concerning this Babylon it is said here that “it has fallen.”
It was said above the times that the Beast “accomplished” or brought about all that it willed. However, it ceased to do so when the faithful were freed from Babylonian captivity, when, as Cyrus formerly allowed the Jews to return home who wished to do so, restore the temple and city and worship God και τὰ πάτρια (“and their ancestral things”), so, too, the Emperor of the Reformed Church, now separated by anathemas from the Papal Synagogue, allowed him freely to have his own assembly and Church, to restore the temple of God according to the old form by administration of the word, sacraments and ecclesiastical discipline; then, I say, Babylon fell. For the people of God could not be freed unless Babylon fell.
In this case, however, it is not required that both Beasts be destroyed, but that its territory be diminished; that the authority and reputation it holds in the world be diminished and degraded; that its power over the saints vanish; that it no longer inflames the Church, nor holds the people of God captive, but becomes a dwelling place for demons, as is said below in chapter 18:2. Chapter 11:13 specifically says that a tenth part of the city fell, that is, one of the ten kingdoms collapsed. If someone applies this prophecy to Gaul, as it was after the beginnings of the Reformation, I do not know whether he is to be blamed. Why? After the king died, with domestic sedition stirred up, an uncertain successor, and disrupted order, shall we say the kingdom still stands? Moreover, the “fall of Babylon” does not indicate a complete abolition, as is also clear from the fact that the third Angel following warns people not to receive the mark “sign” of the Beast, lest they themselves be involved in its punishments. Such a warning also exists in chapter 18:4, after the ruin of Babylon had been announced to them in the same words.
In the following verses 12 and 13, the faithful are prepared to endure trials among the subsequent parts of the judgment. It is hardly necessary to say more about this here.
CHAPTERS 15 & 16
Chapter 15 is the prologue of the new vision, which also pertains to the Beast, concerning the seven Angels holding the bowls. For indeed, in verse 1, these Angels are generally noted as to their office, namely that they hold the seven last plagues in which the wrath of God is completed. We have already spoken of the time of the final wrath in Daniel 2. Verses 2, 3, and 4 are added to explain what follows the pouring out of the seven bowls. Finally, verses 5, 6, 7, and 8 and chapter 16:1 explain the mission and equipment of the seven angels and what meanwhile happens to the state of the Church while they execute God’s judgments. Then in Chapter XVI from verse 2, the seven last plagues are described, whose first subjects are men having the mark of the Beast and worshiping its image. Hence it is clear that this vision concerning the matter and time corresponds with that of chapter 13. The seventh bowl notably punishes Babylon. One of the seven angels begins to treat more thoroughly of its judgment in chapter XVII. This ought to have been considered by him who gave us such diluted and incoherent interpretations of chapters XIII and XVII of Revelation, [the Interpreter, Hugo Grotius] and above all to designate one single subject of the whole prophecy, namely one first Beast, one second, and the same Babylon or harlot, and to show in that one subject all that the prophecy says about it, among which also the fall and destruction of Babylon mentioned in chapter 18: not now introducing idolatry, now magic, now Rome and the Roman empire and applying certain things to them while meanwhile omitting many other crucial things.
CHAPTER 17
The angel in chapter 17 promises to explain the judgment of the great harlot. But he first does this by describing the nature of the place: “on or above many waters,” which is explained in verse 15. The likeness is taken from Babylon situated by the Euphrates. These represent the peoples who gather to it, whom it rules, who fortify it, and in whom judgment is also inflicted. Then “into the wilderness,” which we explained in chapter 12. Thirdly, the entire appearance: “A woman sitting on a Beast—having seven heads and ten horns,” which pertains to the preparation and title in verses 4 and 5, as well as what is said about the shedding of the blood of the saints in verse 6, which I omit. For we are not now undertaking to interpret the entire Apocalypse; it suffices that this is the subject of judgment.
The name itself must not be passed over. The name written on the forehead is that praise which the Harlot sells and under which she commends herself to fornicators. In that praise there is first something ambiguous; then something opposed to boasting. The ambiguous term is Μυστήριον (Mystery). For she calls herself [a mystery who reveals] τὸ μυςτήριον Θεός (the mystery God) and boasts in that. She names herself guardian of the truth of God, herald of the Gospel, and interpreter of the mysteries of God’s word; she says she is that Bride of Christ, whom the Spirit often promised and commended in mystery. The Spirit indeed grants her this name meaning, truly, she is a mystery, but a mystery of iniquity and apostasy working in hypocrisy. Thereafter she calls herself Harlot Jerusalem, the holy city where God dwells, mother of faith and holiness. To this boasting, by μυκληρισμὸν [a term likely meaning reproach or contradiction], truth opposes: “Babylon the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth.” I say by derision because this will be so, even if she proclaims she is otherwise. For who would believe any assembly that would damn itself by a name of its own shame seen plainly on her forehead, and by that profession could possibly seduce anyone? Therefore, [she is called in a mystery],
Babylon, that city which has rule over the kings of the earth, (1) Because dominion is claimed over human faith; and a human name, a name of blasphemy, which is proposed for the union of mankind in religion through it. Thus, old Babylon was founded for this end, to be the metropolis of the world where the seat of some council and NAME would be, from which all religion would depend so that all mankind would not cease to be “one people.” (2) Because of tyranny over consciences such as Nebuchadnezzar exercised when the image was commanded to be worshiped. (3) Because of idolatry. (4) Because of the destruction of the city and temple of God. (5) Because of the captivity of God’s people therein. (6) Because of the pride of its king. (7) Because of similarity to punishment such as the confusion of tongues. This is alluded to in Psalm 55:10.
Verse 7: He begins to explain the matter of the figure and the stages of judgment. First, concerning the judgment on the Beast up to verse 12; then concerning the judgment on the horns and waters, that is, kings and peoples, up to verse 18; thirdly, concerning the judgment on the great city itself, verse 18 and chapter 18. Chapter 19 verse 1 is added, the triumph concerning that. We follow this order as best we can, but briefly. I preface one thing: that I do not wish to prejudge anyone nor impose secondary opinions; but I only want to accept that which truly agrees with the matter itself. For that which both fact and Scripture refute, I do not wish to believe. I do, however, believe that various applications of the same prophecy in the same matter are possible without falsehood.
Verse 8: “The Beast which you saw,” both now and formerly, in chapter 13 and following, “was, and is not, and is about to ascend out of the abyss, and go into destruction.” This is a certain complex expression concerning the very nature of the Beast and its judgment. The Beast is some kingdom of this world, indeed an external profession of the Church or the people of God. Such a people separated from all peoples was carnal Israel, while under that theocracy by judges raised up by God more openly, and more obscurely by kings demanded by the people, but nevertheless chosen by God Himself, it flourished under administration. When John wrote these things [circa 96 AD], that people and kingdom had been abolished, and no other people had been substituted in its place. For the pedagogy of the old people was taken away and all things made new. Therefore, the Angel rightly says to St. John that the Beast “was and is not,” that is, such a worldly polity and government of a people who call themselves the people of God and Church; who seek their king and polity not only in heaven but on earth; who place religion in external symbols, not in the spirit; who use the administration of the Church as a political power: indeed, once it was that God chose the sons of Jacob as His people, in whom He deposited the tables of the covenant, whom He ruled through kings, judges, priests, as regards external discipline and the form of religion according to external laws by which the righteous were called zealous and the disobedient wicked; to which carnal people the sons of God were permitted to belong. But such a people ceased to exist, nor can they truly exist any longer: therefore, if any people nevertheless strive to undertake such an economy, it is not what it thinks or boasts itself to be. Clearly, it is far from being Christian, nor can it be Jewish. For under Christ there is no external government by human power, ceremonies, human laws, nor election by one’s works or even legal works; but the Church is esteemed among men according to the divine word which is according to truthful confession and diligent observation in works. To such as this one may be joined who is truly that spotless new creature of the heart who, before God, shines forth from faith into charity and patience, receiving praise not from men but from God. Indeed, the Beast which “was and is not” has this in common, as read in Isaiah 29:13: “Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honor me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men.” However, they do not agree in this, that the former indeed had the authority of Moses in certain institutions: the latter has neither Moses nor Christ. Briefly, עַם פּשעַ (the people of rebellion) was a people who defected from Christ, the Leader, and “is not,” because (as demonstrated above from Daniel 9) Christ destroyed the rebellion, for He has a people not ἄνομον (lawless), but in whose hearts the Law of God is written; and yet there is, namely, a people comprised of פשעים (transgressors), similarly called, similarly rebelling. Those who are עוֹבֵי יְהוָה (those who forsake the Lord) are said to be such, Isaiah 1:28, and associate with פּשִׁים & רַטָאִים that is, failing and sinning Jews and Gentiles. Likewise, it could be said of the great city that it was, and is not, although it is. That is, Jerusalem once was, in which our Lord taught and was condemned; and it is not, because another new one has come down from heaven; and yet it is, namely a certain fornicating city having an external vocation and confession and name that in it is the temple of God; in the midst of which Christ works and his saints act, whom it likewise, as that old one, hates, persecutes, and kills.
“It will ascend out of the abyss,” out of this Gentile world through the admission of external vocation, hypocrisy and seduction; nevertheless, such a people will exist who will seem to be the Church, just as the Jewish people was separated from the rest of the world by the law of Moses, and it [this false Church] will go into destruction. This is not that Church against which the gates of hell will not prevail, and which will remain forever, but it will perish, although it lasts a long time. The phrase is taken from Numbers 24:20,24.
“And they will marvel,” etc., above in chapter 13:38.
“Seeing that Beast which was, and is not,” although “it is.” They will marvel and worship, deceived, thinking something to be which is nothing. They marvel at what is nothing, even if it seems to be something great. Did not Bernard also marvel at this Beast when he says in the epistle to King Alfonso VII, those things which we have cited elsewhere?
From this the judgment on the Beast begins in verse 9, which he divides into seven mountains, to show by which parts the Beast gradually perishes.
Verse 9: “The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.” I do not deny that the seven hills of the city of Rome are some kinds of symbol that leads us, almost by the hand, to find the subject of the prophecy. However, let us note that the seven heads are the very Beast itself. For, as the Harlot is said to sit on the Beast, so she is said to sit on the seven heads. Therefore, what is said about the Beast must also be said about the seven heads: such as making war with the saints, opening its mouth in blasphemy, miracles being done before them by the second Beast, and the like; which, however, do not suit the Capitol Hill or the Vatican or any other hill of the Roman city. If you say that the people are meant, the inhabitants, what city will it be in which the Harlot is distinguished from the Beast? Let us pursue the lines we have begun.
The mountains, the heads of the Beast, are seven great parts of the world, from which that one kingdom is formed. I will enumerate them again: 1. Africa (in which Egypt) 2. Syria with Palestine. 3. Asia. 4. Greece with Illyricum. 5. Italy with the adjoining part of Germany. 6. Gaul with the adjacent island. 7. Spain.
Verse 10: “And there are seven kings,” or kingdoms. Thus, also above there are seven diadems on the seven heads of the Dragon. This can perhaps be explained in many ways. Let there be seven kings. The Patriarch of Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, Rome; also, the Pope, who held power in Gaul and in Spain, excluding Rome; or the primates in those kingdoms. We do not wish to say anything about the saints of those cities or parts, or the Bishops. Prophecy condemns the hierarchy not instituted by God that is scandalous to men, who wanted to dominate.
“Five are fallen.” Therefore, they ought to have stood before they fell. While they stood, each was part of the Beast; and when some had fallen, others remaining or succeeding one another constituted the Beast. Prophecy progresses from time to time, as others usually do. First, there are seven heads. Then five heads or kingdoms fall. This is the first step of judgment. They fall, that is, the polity called Christian perishes in those parts of the world, occupied by others, namely those who are neither Christians nor called so. Those five are Africa, Syria, Asia, Spain, Gaul, occupied by the Goths, Vandals, Franks, Saracens: which peoples were initially not all Christian. There is one [still standing]: Greece.
When it says, “The five have fallen, one is, the other is not come,” it is distinguishing past, present, and future. This distinction must be taken not with respect to time, as it is shown in the vision, but with respect to order in the vision itself and history. For in the vision a certain point in time is represented when five kings have fallen, one is present, another has not yet come. This implies that the Beast, regarding the preeminence or number of heads, is about to undergo a great change. This change is exhibited in one vision through various scenes, as it were. For now, as in verse 8, the Angel speaks with respect to the time when St. John was. Now, as in verse 9, explaining the vision, he indicates the first Beast’s time as present reality. Now, as in verse 10, concerning the first judgment, he speaks as present; about the second, as future. Immediately, in verse 11, about the eighth king, as present. But in verse 12, about the ten kings, as future; and so on, up to verse 16. Then, the scene changes, and the Angel announcing the fall of Babylon is introduced in chapter 18, verse 2.
“the other has not yet come.” The seventh, namely the Italian; but it does not say seventh, so that it might not be thought to be before the eighth. For the eighth preceded the seventh in some way. But what if another or a second one comes? According to Constantinople, Rome held the primacy, even then when there were two Caesars. He has not yet come. While the Empire of the Greeks stood in Greece, Italy was in such a state that it could neither be said to exist nor not to exist, and later, under the Franks, it sought the step to Empire.
“And, when he comes, he must remain for a little while.” The Italian [Roman] Empire, which began with Guy III in the year 891 AD [when he was crowned Holy Roman Emperor] then partly stood, partly struggled with the German [Roman] Empire until Otto I in the year 962 AD [when he was crowned Holy Roman Emperor]. Therefore, it did not remain long.
Verse 11: “And the Beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth” (king). Note: (1) To call it king or beast or kingdom is the same in prophecy. For the eighth is called the Beast. (2) The Beast is preserved in one head. (3) The Beast is most notable and evident in the eighth. For what had been recently said in general, “Was and is not,” is here inculcated specifically about this one, as if not so evidently verified in the others, but on account of this one it was especially said of the whole body. For here he reveals himself at last and the Lawless One [the Man of Sin] most openly.
“The eighth is” Germany. “And it is from those seven.” The Roman Empire, which also flourished for a time in Italy, finally settled in Germany. Just as Italy was considered a part of Germany, so then, with the empire transferred to the Germans, the part of Italy will be considered part of Germany, assigned to the eighth king.
“And goes to destruction.” More notably than the rest. With this, the kingdom of the Beast ends. “Awake, you who sleep, and arise from the dead, that the Lord may shine upon you” [Ephesians 5:14].
Judgment follows on the horns.
Verse 12: “And the ten horns which you saw are ten kings” (onomastically) “who have not yet received a kingdom,” namely with the eighth, “but they receive power as kings for one hour with the Beast.” Not under the Beast, nor after the Beast is destroyed, but with the Beast, that is, with this Empire, which is called the holy and Christian Empire, which, meanwhile, is an empire of this world of men who, for the most part, are animal-like. They receive power so that their power may be similar to that of the Beast: monarchic, supreme: although somewhat lesser in dignity.
“They receive;” that is, finally the Christian Empire of the world will be handed over to the Beast, or the one principal supreme kingdom, and besides this, ten other kings and monarchs. τὸ λαμβάνειν means “to receive,” it is a phrase of Daniel, קבל (qabal): and so, it is used in Daniel 7:18: “But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever, forever and ever.”
Before we say who they are, let us hear what is said about them: so that we may understand the hour in which they are.
Verse 13: “They hold one opinion,” with an intervening ruler, namely a Woman, who offers them the cup of fornication, “and they will give their power and authority to the Beast.”
Verse 14: “They will fight with the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them.” Therefore, these ten kings exist when the Lamb conquers. They are therefore these: (1) Italy, (2) Spain, (3) Gaul (France), (4) England, (5) Scotland, (6) Denmark and Norway, (7) Sweden, (8) Poland, (9) Hungary, (10) Bohemia. These resisted the Lamb greatly when the Gospel was preached, and were greatly vexed by the Lamb, so that they would give glory to Him. In this is the great judgment of the Beast.
“And those who are with Him” do so, namely because they “are called,” not only called (as many are called externally in name only—which kind of calling the Beast has), but also “chosen and faithful,” that is, through a calling by the power of election to true faith, which is not overcome but overcomes the world. For these are written in the book of the Lamb. Compare verse 8 in chapter 13, chapter 14:3-4; also, Matthew 24:24. Add Matthew 20:15: πολλοί εἰσι κλητοί, ὀλίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοί — “Many are called, but few chosen.” Therefore, not all who are called believe or are friends of Christ, but many are enemies of His cross and friends of the Beast.
The third judgment is upon the waters:
Verse 15: “And he said to me: The waters which you saw where the harlot sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues.” Chapter 13:7: “Power was given to the Beast over every tribe and people,” etc. Similar things are said about the second Beast who seduces [verse 12]. Here, the harlot is more properly attributed by sitting upon the waters, that is, the peoples. In this they suffer punishment through desolation (ἐρήμωσις), which will be brought about by the ten kings who will scourge the people one after another, first through hatred and abandonment (μισο), so that she [the whore] becomes naked; secondly through the devouring of flesh. What these things are, no one can be ignorant, except those who do not know what has been done by the desertion of the Papacy and what is still happening in the Christian world.
To these is added κατὰ πρόληψιν, an “anticipation,” that the Harlot herself shall be burned with fire: verse 16. This is confirmed by the disposition of divine providence, verse 17.
Next, about the proper judgment of the “Harlot” herself, first of all, he designates her.
Verse 18: “And the woman whom you saw is that great city, which has dominion over the kings of the earth.” Note: To sit upon the Beast is to have dominion over the kings of the earth. Above, verses 2 and 3, and chapter 14:8. Chapter 18:3 mentions the poisoned cup that alienates minds and intoxicates, leading to spiritual fornication; and that she has given drink to kings and peoples; and that they have drunk and committed fornication. Through these is indicated the energy and deceit, “the efficacy of seduction.” Here is expressly added the obedience of kings and peoples and her kingdom. For herein lies the fornication.
Let us consider what is the great City. Surely Rome was once a great city, and the Senate and people of Rome ruled over kings. There is no doubt that there is still in Rome a Senate, which presumes to dominate the kings of the earth; from which itself the arrogance of the impious is known. However, these are not the only ones who dwell in Rome, this cause of arrogance. Nevertheless, by conjunction and conspiracy in its Head, in its image, the Romans are and are called. Perhaps here the walls of the city itself come into some consideration. For Isaiah 23 signifies the city of Tyre in verses 7, 8, 9, which seems to be the mystical Babylon.
Meanwhile, the harlot is, as previously shown, the second Beast, or false prophet or order of false prophets: who, together with the [first] Beast and peoples, constitutes a city, spiritually speaking. This order of false prophets is called by excellence a polis, a city or state, because it makes a Senate, in whose hands is all power of that polity. For there would neither be a city nor polity (Ecclesiastical) in this kind without that Senate; and this Senate usually represents the whole city. But I speak of the mystical city, just as the New Jerusalem in this book is [spiritually] called the Church. And the New Jerusalem in which righteousness dwells, is opposed to this city [Mystery Babylon aka Rome & its Empire] in which the Lord was crucified and in which this same city has rule over the kings of the earth, while New Jerusalem is not of this world.
Now the judgment of this city, that is, of this court, this hierarchy, with its subjects, is set forth in order in chapter 18.
Verses 1-3 announce its fall, in the same manner as chapter 14:8. Verses 4-7 warn those who belong to God to come out from it, and by all means, they should make a holy and pious effort, no matter the difficulty. To this pertains the admonition of chapter 14, verses 9-11.
Here especially to be noted is the harlot’s boasting even after her fall: “I sit a queen and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow,” or the mourning of her children. For she does not realize she has fallen; but thinks she still reigns. Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, book 3, chapter 8: “The Papacy reigned spiritually in the Church for more than 1500 years.” [However, on the contrary to his opinion, the RCC is] not the [true] Church any longer, but has fallen into Babylon, deprived of external communion with the [true] Church. She does not care for the defection of some kings because she finds help somehow, somewhere, Isaiah 57:10. Therefore she does not fear loss or bereavement.
Rev. 18:8: The plagues themselves are proposed: death, mourning, famine, fire. Subjoined is a graphic lamentation of the kings and merchants (from which the causes why she is admired by the nations can be more fully understood) along with the exhortation of the saints to rejoice, verse 10. Finally, the destruction and its cause are announced, verse 21ff.
The destruction of Babylon here predicted hardly fits pagan Rome. [N. B. Cocceius refutes the Preterists.] For Rome, as long as it was pagan, suffered nothing of the sort. “Rome,” when “made captive by the Goths and Vandals” (here the Interpreter, Hugo Grotius, refers to Apocalypse 13:9), was Christian. This one argument also thoroughly refutes the false interpretations of the Pontiffs. When Blasius Viegas saw this, he commented as follows: “The name,” he says on page 832, “of Babylon is not to be transferred to that Rome which now professes the faith of Christ under the Roman Pontiff; but to that one which, before receiving the faith of Christ, served idols; as well as that one which will be in the time of the [future] Antichrist, which John mentions as defecting from the Supreme Pontiff and indeed from the faith.”
[N. B. The Jesuit refers to 2 Thess. 2:3, “the falling away.” He then predicts a future defection from the Pope and his teachings, at which time the Antichrist will rise. The teaching of a future Antichrist, called ‘Futurism,’ is now embraced by much of Evangelical Christianity.]
Therefore, it is remarkable in the prophecy of St. John that Rome is depicted under the figure of the Harlot sitting upon the Beast, partly pagan, partly Antichristian, so that no mention is made of the Roman Pontiff or Rome, namely “Christian Rome” [under the Pope], although its duration is quite long. Then I would like to know which part of the prophecy deals with pagan Rome and which part deals with Antichristian Rome? It was here I came across a clever interpretation of the seven heads of the Beast. Namely, that they are seven states of the world: (1) from Adam to Noah; (2) from Noah to Abraham; (3) from Abraham to Moses; (4) from Moses to David; (5) from David to Christ; (6) from Christ to Antichrist; (7) from Antichrist to the end of the world. Thus, the kingdom of Christ will be the sixth king, and the sixth head of the Beast which is under the city of Rome. This is to join a human neck to a horse’s body! Moreover, what will occur in Antichristian Rome, when there will be a defection, according to the prophecies, that is not fulfilled in Pontifical Rome after the final fall?
But we have already demonstrated above quite clearly that pagan Rome is indicated by the image of the Dragon; and that its power was taken away and transferred to the [first] Beast, and that it is [Catholic] Rome which seduces all nations and kings of the earth to fornication. However, the transfer of power to that Antichrist, who is supposedly a Jew, has not been made; though it is clear that through the Roman Pontiff the kings of the nations have been intoxicated and seduced to spiritual fornication and persecution of the saints.
Of all these things, it is not my intent to say more. It is enough to have shown briefly that it is not without reason that the Christian Church has hitherto thought that the kingdom of the Popes is that Babylonian kingdom whose destruction is threatened in Scripture. Indeed, this was done by us so that the inexperienced may have a better foundation for more thoroughly examining these prophecies which are confirmed by many others throughout the sacred page, lest by any frivolous interpretations they think the clarity and evident nature of the matter can be obscured. For this purpose, before we depart from this section of John’s prophecy, our conjecture will be proposed about the four beasts of Daniel chapter 7. This prophecy and its Interpreter, Grotius, is touched upon several times.
DANIEL CHAPTER 7
There is a clear harmony between Daniel and St. John in chapter 13. The Lion, the Bear, the Leopard, and the wondrous ten-horned beast with a growing horn, opening its mouth in blasphemy, making war with the saints, etc., sufficiently testify to this. The very words are taken from the prophecy of Daniel.
Therefore, at first, it does not seem that Daniel’s prophecy speaks of four kingdoms: Babylonian, Persian, Alexandrian, and the fourth, either his successors or the Roman.
Verse. 17: “Four kings shall arise out of the earth.” They argue, “Yet this occurs with Belshazzar, the Babylonian kingdom is not then, but soon.” However, Chapter 2 speaks differently: “You are the head of gold.”
Verse 18: “And the saints shall receive the kingdom.” They argue, “With the removal of the kingdom of the Seleucids and Ptolemies, the saints did not immediately receive the kingdom. For Christ did not come immediately; and the saints were oppressed and later persecuted by the Apocalyptic Beast for a long time.” How badly these kingdoms fit these figures needs no further explanation. But now let us propose our conjecture.
Verses 2-4: “Four winds were blowing upon the great sea, and four beasts rose up from the sea.” Through turmoil, wars, and collisions of kingdoms, these Beasts arose, emerging from the abyss of the pagan world as it were into the land of the living or the Christian world. Note, all these beasts have renounced the religion of the ancients and idolatry and in some way approached the Church, either more or less closely. Observe this in the Apocalypse. Chapter 13 presents the Beast in general. Chapter 17 as the proper seat of the Harlot. For in chapter 17 the fall of five heads and the duration of the sixth and seventh are indicated until the eighth is introduced, who is very clearly opposed to the Lamb; a distinction neglected in chapter 13.
“The first is like a Lion,” nobler, more powerful, of one color, that is, of one confession, and more sincere. Under the first Christian Emperors Christian doctrine was, for a long time, free from the great corruption which eventually entered the Church.
“And its wings were like an eagle’s:” Symbolizing the Empires of the West and the East. The eagle is the emblem of the Roman Empire.
“I saw until its wings were plucked.” Both Empires were gradually diminished by the loss of provinces and kingdoms.
“And it was lifted up from the earth, and made to stand on two feet, like a man.” Small parts remained in the East with Greece and in the West with Italy, like human remnants. The lion, with its four legs, occupies space with its body. Man’s space is inferior. “And the heart of a man was given to it,” fearful, theoretical, more devoted to rhetoric and arts than to wars.
Verse 5: “The second is like a Bear,” brownish, of the Arian confession; fierce and monstrous. The peoples are the Goths, Vandals, Huns, Lombards, etc. And it was positioned on one side, namely to the West. And it had three ribs in its mouth between its teeth. It held three great parts of the Roman world, namely Italy, Gaul, Spain. It is a great error of the great men who have changed the three ribs into three great teeth and understood them as Media, Persia and Chaldea, although Scripture always attributes the second monarchy to two peoples, the Medes and Persians. Better is the learned Mr. Const. L’Empereur, who, understanding the Persian monarchy himself also, wants to signify by the three ribs the same as in chapter 8, where the Ram is said to have moved its horns in three directions to the North, West, and South. I would happily expand on this if the first Beast represented the first monarchy and the other signs referred to Persia, as mentioned here, and that the three ribs between its teeth would clearly be seen only in that kingdom.
“And thus, it was said to it: ‘Arise, devour much flesh.’” This measure of it was described by God.
Verse 6: “Another, like a leopard:” Swift, fierce, with varied confessions; the Muslims.
“It had four wings of a bird on its back.” Its body extends beyond the Roman Empire, but from the Empire it received four wings, likewise four great parts: Syria, Africa, Asia, Greece. Observe the seven heads of the Apocalyptic Beast and their fall.
“And the Beast had four heads,” that is, it will not be one and constant power always but divided according to the lands. For there are four Muslim empires. (1) In Syria, the Caliphs of Baghdad. (2) In Africa, the Egyptian Sultans and Mamluks. (3) In Asia, the Iconian Sultans. (4) In Greece, the Ottoman Turks. “And imperial power” ἐξουσία, κράτος (note the original word Sultan) “was given to it.” How long and over whom, the Lord knows.
Verse 7: “The fourth is to be feared and very terrible and strong, having large iron teeth. It devours, crushes, and tramples what remains with its feet; different from the previous Beasts.” Of the Papal religion. This is the kingdom of the Franks and Germans, verse 23: “The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom on the earth.” Note what we said about the Apocalypse calling it “earth.” It will devour the whole earth, trample it and crush it. The Germans ruled for a time and waged wars in Greece, Asia, Syria, where they established the kingdom of Jerusalem, in Egypt.
“And it had ten horns.” These do not seem to be the Apocalyptic horns or not only those. Three of these are subdued by another horn. Apocalyptic horns are for one hour and are overcome by the Lamb and strip the Harlot naked. What are horns in the Apocalypse may perhaps here be called ‘teeth.’
[……………….]
Verse 8: “Behold, a little horn rose up among them.” This is what in the image is said, מַלְכוּ פְלִינָא תֶחֱוָא — “a divided kingdom shall be.” Another kingdom grew up among the ten kings or royal families.
Verse 24: “And another (presses after them).” Once upon a time the Popes obeyed the Emperors. The dominion of the Emperors was prior to that of the Popes. This one will be different from those previously mentioned, who were preceded by the founder of the empire, Charles, and some of his successors’ absolute dominion. It speaks very differently about Antiochus in chapters 8 and 9. From one of those came a little horn. Different in the very kind of ruling. This is what in the Apocalypse is later called the other Beast, and an image of the Beast in part, and the Harlot sitting on the Beast and the false prophet, and a great city not in its own enclosure.
Verse 8: “And three of the former horns were uprooted before it.” Verse 20: “And three fell before it.” Verse 24: “And he will humble three kings.” This is because of the great miracles of the second Beast.
[………………….]
Verse 8: “And behold, eyes like the eyes of a man are in this horn,” claiming ἐπισκοπίων (“oversight”) of the Church itself.
[N. B. The English noun “bishop’ comes from the Greek noun episkopē, which translates to ‘overseer.’ The Pope is the Bishop of Rome and Absolute Monarch of Vatican City-State.]
The Revelation calls the two horns of the second Beast “like a Lamb” [Rev. 13:11] because ἐπισκοπή (oversight) is not without ἐξουσία (authority, power). One is put for the other, or a sign of one for the sign of the other to indicate both. Thus, in the Lamb there are seven horns and seven eyes, that is, all authority and perfect oversight is placed in Him, Rev. 5:6, which are said to be the seven Spirits of God.
Daniel: “Like a man.” Apocalypse: “like a Lamb.” This little horn asserts the power of Christ in itself, as a Vicar. Man is opposed to the Beast. “Man” is εἰκών, “the image of God.” The truth of this saying is in Christ. The second Beast transfers this power into itself.
“And a mouth speaking great things.” Compare Apocalypse 13:5, 15. Through this horn the [image of the] Beast speaks. It has a confession of hypocrisy and dictates. But concerning these, see the Apocalypse.
Verse 25: “And he will speak words against the Most High.” לצד (latsad) means ‘against’ or ‘beside.’ He will speak blasphemies against God, acting as if he is God, enacting laws and judgments.
Verse 21: “I beheld, and this horn was making war with the saints and prevailing against them.” Christ said, “The gates of hell shall not prevail against my Church.” But there are different modes of prevailing, of which the Scripture now speaks. Indeed, the Beast, through its horn, will bring the saints into subjection for now, so that they may seem oppressed, so that for a time they may be silenced, allowing that horn to speak great things and cause those who call Christ Lord to err, but not to the extent that they themselves will be seduced to worship and fornicate with the Beast and perish. This we understand from the Apocalypse and Matthew 24.
Verse 25: “And he will wear out the saints of the Most High,” whose kingdom is in heaven. He will oppose the administration of the Church of the saints, attack the saints and, as much as he can, extirpate them.
“And he will think to change times and laws.” He will impose upon the saints the yoke of the old servitude, which even the Fathers could not bear, and from the time of liberty, speaking boldly, and light, he will make a time of servitude, timidity, and darkness. Just as once there was no salvation outside the Jewish Church, so here he will teach there is no salvation outside that external Roman Church. Just as once the worship of God was bound to the sanctuary and ark; so, too, he will bind the worship of God to temples (מֶעֶזִים), to the Eucharistic bread, and statues. Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice 1.3.33: “Moreover, we bind worship and invocation to statues of saints, to memories of martyrs, and other religious monuments no differently than God once bound it to the sanctuary or to the temple of Solomon.” Yet in this Christ distinguished a time of servitude from a time of liberty in John 4:21: “The hour is coming, and now is, when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father.” Now, if worship will not be in Jerusalem, and there is no other place about which God and Christ said, There I will place the remembrance of my name; there I will come to you; there you will worship me, it is most evident that whoever thus binds worship to the memories of martyrs and statues, as it was once bound to the Sanctuary, is compelled to think “to change times,” and of establishing high places (בָּמוֹת), not sanctuaries. Although this is done in another way and more subtly, while making the Saints and Angels mediators to God. There was once a Chief Priest of the sacred [Jewish] rites, who offered sacrifices daily, as did the remaining hierarchy of Aaron. Similarly, this [Catholic High Priest: the Supreme Pontiff, the Pope] has instituted such a rite, though it was not called for. Once there was a ceremonial law as a handwriting against us, testifying that our sins were not yet expiated. The Pope, however, introduced a daily expiatory sacrifice, which also proclaims that our sins are not yet expiated by the death of Christ on the cross, but that expiation must be made daily [in the Mass]. The law once said: “He who does these things shall live by them;” this legal righteousness, indeed, rather an unlawful hypocrisy observing the precepts of men, the Pope proclaims. Men under the law struggled with fear of death all their lives: this fear and timidity the Pope renews. For while he takes away consolation from the faithful when the Spirit’s dictate is that they are children of God, he always commands them to doubt their faith. Once, [in the Jewish dispensation] there was external justification through ceremonies ex opere operato [‘by virtue of the work done.’] The Pope now calls the grace of justification ex opere operato [by virtue of the Mass celebrated]. At one time, the Israelites relied on the priests for purification from pollution and sins in order to achieve external righteousness.
And it was the priest’s duty to purify or declare unclean; thus, the Pope subjects the conscience of the faithful to the judgment of his priests, so that through their declaration they may be absolved or condemned. Once, [during the Jewish dispensation] they could not offer by themselves but were compelled to go to the priest, and yet they did not know whether he was legitimate and without blemish or stain, or whether he had duly performed everything, and whether God would not reject him as wicked. Thus, the Pope desires the daily sacrifice (namely, the Mass) to be performed by a priest, but meanwhile a man is uncertain whether the priest is legitimately ordained, whether he wills to comply with the admonitions of the Church, whether he [successfully] performs the rite or not (for there can be atheist and profane priests, neither believing in God nor in the Church; who cannot have the intention of performing the Sacrament of the Church); consequently, not only is the parishioner doubtful about the grace of justification conferred through the sacrament but also with an anxious conscience, not knowing what he does, worships Christ as present under the species of bread.
Once there was a distinction of foods: this, too, the Pope introduces. There was a distinction of days: the Pope not only introduced this but multiplied it in strange ways; and lest another author should seem to have done this, he even changed the calendar, more shamefully Judaizing than ever the Judeans did. There are many such things in which he tries to change times, that is, to abolish the distinction between the Old and New Covenants.
Hence our exposition in chapter 17 of the Apocalypse is confirmed, that the Beast was and is not. It is needless to say that it changes the divine Evangelical law by its interpretation and assumptions, indeed, even loosening what Christ bound. Nor is it true, as Bellarmine or others say, that many such opinions existed in the Church before the revelation of the Pope as the Antichrist, as we assert. For those errors, from whatever time they were, pertain to the ἐνέργεια ὁ ἀπάτης — “the efficacy of deception” and the mystery of ἀνομίας (lawlessness): and they are rightly ascribed to the revealed Antichrist; because from all those opinions which were before “ἀδέσποτοι,” “without authority,” he becomes author and dictator.
From what has been said it is clear that he who thinks to change the law simultaneously thinks to change times. Which also in another way suits this horn; namely in the sense in which God is said to “change times,” Daniel 2:21, where it says: “And he changes times and seasons,” χρόνους καὶ καιρούς, determines the more general statement: “He removes kings and sets up kings.” How this [little] horn thought to do this cannot be obscure to him who has read Bellarmine on the transfer of the Empire to the Franks from the Greeks. A similar thing happened in the transfer from the Franks to the Italians, and again to the Germans: likewise, from one Emperor to another, from one family to another. Examples are not lacking in other kingdoms. From all these things it is clear that he who usurps supreme power in spiritual and temporal matters is the same who thinks to change times and laws. For “to change times” pertains to both powers, as does “to change laws.” Scripture through the thought of acts or effects designates this desire for both powers. Indeed, it cannot happen that one changes times and institutions unless he has both supreme powers; and whoever has it can change times and laws at will.
This passage simultaneously shows what it means “to show oneself as God;” namely, to claim those things which belong to God, such as “to change times and laws.”
Daniel 7:25:”And power will be given to him over the saints for a time and times and half a time,” This is also spoken of in the Apocalypse, [12:14]. But Bellarmine insists that three and a half [literal] years are meant. We, however, understand the periods of time not as a continuous 1260 [literal 24-hour days], as explained in Apocalypse 12, but as a continuous 1260 years. The foundation of this is that a day is taken for a year, and the matter at hand does not require a short time frame; and according to this [Protestant] interpretation, history agrees with prophecy. Bellarmine denies that “day” is taken for “year” anywhere. Yet he cannot deny that in Ezekiel’s prophetic vision, 390 and 40 years are represented by the same number of days [Ezekiel 4:4-6]; (Blasius Viegas is more candid, saying it is uncertain whether the 45 days in Daniel 12 are usual days as ours, or to be counted as years, as in Ezekiel 4: page 767). Likewise, in Daniel seventy weeks are seventy years, although שבוע (shavua) means week, when taken absolutely it always signifies seven days; likewise, “day” can be taken for a period of time or span of time, such as a year or a fixed cycle of years. Certainly, I cannot be persuaded that in Apocalypse 9 the time of the fifth trumpet is only five literal months. What about Daniel, when he wishes to mean days precisely, he says “evening and morning,” not “day”? [cf. Daniel 8:14 and 8:26.]
Our Interpreter, [Hugo Grotius], also objects to our explanation regarding Apocalypse 13:5, arguing that it refers to the vexation of Antiochus, which lasted three and a half years, or, as Josephus says, forty-two months. To this I respond: (1) Whatever Josephus may have written somewhere, it is certain also from Josephus Antiquities book 10 at the end, and book 12 chapter 11, and from the second book of Maccabees chapter 10 verse 5, that this three-year period ceased, and on the twenty-fifth day of the month Chislev it was restored on the same day it was taken away. See also Josephus Antiquities book 12 chapter 7, and 1 Maccabees 4:54, as well as the same book chapter 1 verses 5-9, although in verse 54 it says the profanation of the altar began on the fifteenth day. The time of affliction under Antiochus is described once by Daniel chapter 8:14 as 2300 days. Although this number is not far from being divisible into a time, times, and half a time, namely if increased by three or decreased by four; nevertheless, the parts to be followed cannot in any way be called time or circle and system of days or months. (2) It is safer and more certain to compare these with what Scripture compares. Scripture compares the times of the fourth beast of Daniel 7 with the Apocalyptic Beast and includes various events under the same term: it compares the affliction of the last times with the affliction of Antiochus in chapter 12:11 but not concerning time. Hence it is fitting to believe that those things are of one time which have the same description of time; and again, to establish different times for those which have different measures of time.
The following pertains to judgment.
Verse 9: “The Judge is the Ancient of Days,” ὁ ἂν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς ὁ ὢν καὶ ὦν καὶ ἐρχόμενος (“He who is from the beginning, who was, and is, and is to come”), whose going forth is from ancient times, from the days of eternity, Micah 5:1, or “firm days” (for עַתִּיק means “durable, firm”), Isaiah 23:18, in the form of חַכִּים / צַדִּיק / קדיש (“wise / righteous / holy”), “whose years shall have no end,” Psalm 102:25,28; Hebrews 1:8,12. Therefore, living and reigning with all ages, the Son of God needs neither successor nor vicar; “in white garments,” that is, clothed in most innocent flesh; “hair like wool,” that is, having been justified and blameless, faithfully united to the Father, who is the head of the Son. The throne is a flame of fire; its wheels are burning fire, signifying the most holy and effective governance and severe punishment of the unfaithful.
Verse 10: “A river of fire flowed and proceeded from before him.” The perpetual power of the Holy Spirit animating, vivifying, heating, purifying: which proceeds from Christ as the head and is supplied to the Church so that it never fails.
“Thousands of thousands ministered to him, and myriads of myriads stood before him;” a multitude of the faithful from all nations together with holy angels and blessed men who worship Him as their head and mediator.
We receive this about the Son of God because all judgment has been given to Him, and according to the Gospel, these things agree in the truth of the matter and in the repetition of the figure, Revelation 1:14. The same work is to judge the Beast and to deliver its body to fire and destruction, which is said to be effected by the Stone in Daniel 2:35; who is Christ.
Verse 10 (cont.): “Judgment sat, and the books were opened.”
Verse 11: “I beheld then because of the sound of the great words which the horn spoke, even until the beast was killed, and its body destroyed, and it was given to the burning fire.”
Verse 12: “And as for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away, but their lives were prolonged for a season and time.” Although this can be explained in some way from other prophecies, in reality it is quite certain that all tends toward fulfilling these things; nevertheless, mindful of our purpose, we do not add more to what has been said.
This judgment is briefly repeated in verse 13: “I saw, and behold, with the clouds of heaven came one like the Son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought him near before him.” Verse 14: “And there was given to him dominion and glory and a kingdom; and all peoples, nations, and languages served him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion which shall not pass away, and his kingdom is one which shall not be destroyed.” The explanation of these is in verses 17 and 18.
Verse 17: “Thes four beasts are four kings which shall arise out of the earth.”
Verse 18: “But the kingdom shall be given to the saints of the Most High, and they shall possess the kingdom forever and ever.”
Verse 27: “And the kingdom, and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High: his kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.” This is a simple and sure explanation. The Church, often despised and oppressed by its enemies in the world, with Christ ruling and judging the world, will gradually grow greater and greater and advance to freedom in preaching the name of Christ to obedience of faith of the elect from all peoples, even those who served the Beast, increasingly progressing until finally Christ consummates that kingdom of His with victory, glory, and eternal blessedness. For He who is shown in the vision “one like the Son of man,” or under the appearance of some man—not, as those kingdoms of the world are understood under the appearance of the Beast—are the saints, or the people of the saints. He is called “like the Son of man” in the way that Acts 9:18 states: ἀπέπεσον ὡσεὶ λεπίδες (“something like scales fell off”), Psalm 72:6: “He shall come down like rain,” i.e., something similar to rain. The same force is seen in Daniel 8:8: “the four notable ones ascended,” that is, horns, four horns. One man represents that mystical body, [i.e., a figure of speech called ‘synecdoche’]. When “man” is signified, it is not so much symbolic or significative of the external form itself (as opposed to that of beasts), but rather of man created by God in His image, uprightness, that is, holiness which is in men through regeneration by Him according to whom they were created, namely the second Adam, the true image of God, Christ.
They are called “the saints of the Most High.” Are they those sanctified by God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who are ο ὕψιστος (the Most High), or are they saints whose πολιτευμα (citizenship) is not on earth but “in the heavenly places”? Both explanations have been proposed by learned men and agree with the matter and phrase of Scripture. For (1) עליון (Elyon) means God, and Scripture often speaks of the divine persons in the plural, and it is customary to call the faithful “saints of God.” (2) Regarding the saints it is also said, הוּא מִרוֹמִים יִשְׁכֹּן (“He shall dwell on high”), Isaiah 33:16. And this is said in Psalm 15:1, “[the saints] shall dwell in the house of God and abide in his holy hill.” However, because ο ὕψιστος in this prophecy is not עֶלְיוֹן (Elyon) but עלאה (‘the Most High’), I prefer the latter explanation. Thus, here is a manifest opposition between the Israelite people and the people of the Saints. For though the Israelites were also called holy; they were קַדִּישֵׁי תַחְתּוֹנִים (“saints of lower places”). They were sanctified externally through the Sanctuary and Altar. Many had nothing more than an external form of holiness. But here the people are described as the “called, the chosen and faithful,” [Rev. 17:14]. It is they who are the saints of the Most High or supercelestial.
Therefore, this prophecy does not concern the Israelites and their afflictions and victories, but the Christian Church.
[N. B. Cocceius now refutes the erroneous Preterist POV of Grotius.]
The same end of this prophecy is found in chapter 2 in the vision of the image, and in the prediction of Christ in chapter 24 of Matthew, and in Paul’s 2 Thessalonians 2, and in the Apocalypse; and it is similarly connected with its antecedents.
From this connection with the first parts, it is clearly known that the kingdom given to the people of the Saints, after the Beast is destroyed, is not a kingdom given to Christ when He is taken up into heaven. For He, placed at the right hand of the Father, immediately began His kingdom; and with Him, the faithful always reign. But here it concerns a certain illustrious manifestation of that kingdom; about which the Apocalypse also speaks in chapter 11:17: “We give thanks to you, Lord God Almighty, who is and who was and who is to come; because you have taken your great power and have begun to reign.” For Christ reigns with the people of the saints even when the Adversary makes war. But more clearly, it pertains to the time when the Adversary is subdued and trampled under the feet of the saints, because then both the controversy of the kingdom ceases, and the word, the scepter of Christ, reigns more powerfully and broadly, so that even many rebels recognize the King. Apocalypse 15:2-4: “They who have conquered the beast and his image and his mark and the number of his name — were singing — King of the saints — all nations will come and worship you, for your judgments have been revealed.”
Christ is King by nature, and becomes king by demonstration; namely, when He is placed on the throne, when He gathers the people, when He subdues and conquers the enemies, when He is preached and believed in the world without hindrance; finally, when having triumphed over death, He glorifies His own. “For it is necessary that He reign” forever, and not only so that He defends the Church and is not overcome by enemies, but also “to that end” of glory and dominion, “that He may put all enemies under His feet.” When this indeed has been accomplished, “He will deliver up the kingdom to God the Father,” so that He may immediately manifest His glory to the Church, and “the Son Himself will subject Himself to the Father,” not so that He ceases to reign as the bridegroom and head of His Church, in whom she possesses all the riches of God the Father, but so that “God” the Father “may be all in all,” those things which He subjected to the Son, as in the Son, and as the Son in them. For whether we consider Christ’s divine nature or human nature, “to subject Himself” to God is not to be understood as if before this subjection He were insubordinate; or as if He possessed divine honor and worship by reason of divine office either in equal majesty with the Father or of inferior rank (as some imagine), which honor together with office He is about to lay down (for thus the Son of God would become less in the kingdom of the Father’s glory than He was before); but that with respect to the blessed Church together with Him as man through the vision of the Father He will not only obtain the honor of King but will also provide fellowship as brother and co-heir in the kingdom of the Father; who will not begin to reign for the first time then, but will grant to the Church on account of Christ, through Christ and with Christ, to enjoy Himself and the power of His kingdom and His house with all goods in a new and ineffable manner. For Primasius rightly observes that “subjection” does not always pertain to diminution: as the spirit of prophets was subject to the prophets. Therefore, this subjection is the consummated manifestation of the glory of God the Father in the kingdom of the Son. And this the Apostle calls τὸ τέλος, THE END, 1 Corinthians 15:24, undoubtedly referring to the phrase of Christ and Daniel.
If anyone considers the order of the prophecies of Daniel, he will be confirmed not moderately in our exposition, unless I am mistaken. The Colossus of kingdoms is first proposed, the Canon of the whole prophecy in chapter II. What is contained in chapters III, IV, and V pertains to the first kingdom. Chapter VI narrates a matter done under the second. Chapter VII, although it was presented wrongly under Belshazzar, explains the lowest part of the Colossus, namely the feet, especially that divided kingdom and the war with the saints, and the victory of the saints. Chapter VIII distinguishes the temptation to come under Antiochus from the temptation of the Antichrist: lest they think that neither before the fourth empire there would be any crisis, nor that in the first temptation there would be any fulfillment of prophecy. Chapter IX relates the coming of Christ and His kingdom to its own time and describes the state of the Jewish people before and after that coming: whence the distinction is chiefly known between the desolation of the temple by Antiochus, that by the Romans, and the desolation of the Church by the Antichrist. Chapters X, XI, and XII in order follow the succession of kingdoms and kings from the second to the third, from the third to the fourth, interspersed with afflictions of the Jewish people under them; but concerning the Church under this [last kingdom], together with the liberation and destruction of the adversary’s kingdom is distinctly recounted.
On the disputed places of the First Epistle of St. John
The division of the Epistle
The unique object of preaching is the sermon of life and the manifestation of eternal life, chapter I, verses 1, 2, 3.
The end of preaching, and indeed through Scripture, is communion with God and joy, verses 3, 4.
Communion is in the Light, verses 5, 6, 7.
Light is in the confession of sin, to which the denial of it is opposed, verses 8, 9, 10.
The recognition of the Redeemer, chapter II, verses 1, 2.
The observance of commandments: verses 3 to 8, namely:
Of brotherly love, verses 9, 10, 11 (not of the world: verses 12 to 17, in which is the Antichrist: verses 18 to 28, and because of the ignorance worthy of the children of God, verse 29; chapter III, verses 1 to 10).
The world lacks this love, verses 11, 12, 13, and remains in death, verses 14, 15. The example of love is Christ, verses 16, 17, 18. The fruit is a quiet conscience, verses 19, 20, and confidence, verses 21, 22.
II. Of faith, verse 23, which is the fruit and argument of the gift of the Holy Spirit, verse 24.
This is the Spirit of discernment of spirits whether they are from God, chapter IV, verses 1, 2; or whether it is the spirit of the Antichrist, verses 3, 4. By whom they also overcome the world and the Antichrist, verses 5, 6.
Of love (through faith, verses 7 to 16; especially verses 13 and 16; to confidence verses 17 and 18; from the singular love of God, verse 19) towards God and brothers, verses 20, 21.
This is those who believe, chapter V, verse 1; according to God’s commandments, verses 2, 3, 4; by regeneration, verse 4.
Of faith, verses 5 to 13; to confidence in obtaining what we ask; verses 14, 15, 16, 17; and not sinning unto death; verses 18, 19, 20. The glory of God in Christ is the ultimate end and the flight from idols, verse 21.
The Interpreter [Preterist Hugo Grotius] handles the treatment of this epistle quite cleverly. For:
He proposes some verses alone as if the antecedents and consequents had nothing to do with the matter; although they open the thread or mainly the meaning of these places throughout the epistle. We also noted this fault in the treatment of the Apocalypse.
He expressly cautions that no one should want to compare chapter II with the sayings of the Apostle Paul; so that it may be more easily persuaded to readers that different matters are treated in these places.
He compares this only with Matthew 24:14 but so that it leaves us almost no prophecy about the great Antichrist there because [according to his erroneous teaching] whatever is said there relates to the time of desolation of the temple and city and people [i.e., it has nothing to do with Church history after the 1st century.]
But we have already taken this effort before to show that Paul and Christ foretold the same things and that what the Savior says about “the end” pertains to συντέλειαν ὁ αἰῶνος “the consummation of the age.” But all this subtlety will easily vanish when these places are examined and considered so that they are connected with what precedes and follows them, making for the very purpose of the epistle.
1 John 1
Saint John, therefore, in the First Epistle, having opened the object of the Apostolic preaching, namely the Son of God, “the Word of life and life” or the author of eternal life, who “from the beginning,” that is, before the foundations of the world were laid, and indeed from all eternity “was with the Father,” and in time, in the last days of the world, namely, was manifested in the flesh, so that men “heard His voice with their ears,” “touched His flesh with their hands,” saw His deeds, passion and glorification in that flesh with their eyes (whence the certainty of the Apostolic testimony cannot be doubted), shows the end of this preaching, namely the communion of the faithful with the Father and His Son Jesus Christ; and immediately adds that he writes those things which are preached, and especially those contained in this Epistle, so that their joy may be full, verses 1 – 4. Therefore, the whole Epistle aims to teach how we are to have communion with God, and by what means we can be certain of that communion to full consolation in life and in death. For without that certainty no one can enjoy full joy. From this it appears that the theme of this Epistle is far broader and more exalted than to labor so much [as did Grotius] to avoid only Simon bar Kokhba, whose fury was manifest. Indeed, since the very beginning it is quite evident that there was opposition to Antichristian preaching. For Antichrist does not preach what he has heard, seen and touched, but rather he preaches an invisible and intangible Christ in the Mass bread about whom there no word of God exists; nor does he preach Christ as the Word of life, but himself; nor to joy, but to doubt and anxiety.
[N.B. The Roman Catholic Church curses those who claim to have certainty of their salvation.]
Finally, contrary to the word that is written for the fullness of joy, he [Antichrist] adds his own traditions, denies the clarity of the written word, and instead of interpretation, which should have proof, imposes upon us human commentaries commended by the outward appearance of antiquity.
But from the beginning, discussing the “communion” of the faithful with God, John demonstrates that it is in the light, because God is Light, verses 5 – 7; and those who walk in the light have this communion; and in communion with God and Christ we have remission of all sins because of the blood of Christ: teaching that because of the fullest satisfaction of Christ, sins are not imputed to us to rejection and separation from God.
When he says, “If we walk in the light, we have communion, and the blood of Christ cleanses us,” it is not to be understood as if the blood of Christ was not shed before our communion with God and our walking in the light (which is most evident. For the blood of Christ was shed at its time, and in this respect, καθαρισμός (cleansing) of sins was accomplished, Hebrews 1:3), but without communion with God no one can boast of the remission of sins; whereas whoever has communion with God can boast of it. For purification from all sins through the blood of Christ, or remission of sins because of the shed blood of Christ happens when we begin to be in Christ and have communion with God: but we begin to have communion with God when we begin to love the light, preparing ourselves to walk in the light. Only those can truly rejoice who are purified from sins, having communion with God, who walk in the light.
It is evident that only those considered faithful are purified or attain purity from their sins through the blood of Christ. Consequently, if individuals who willingly sin after having received knowledge of the truth are described in Hebrews 10:29 as being sanctified by the blood of the New Covenant, this should not be interpreted as the same purification that grants communion with God (which the Apostle also refers to as the sprinkling of the heart and the cleansing of the body with pure water, as noted in Hebrews 10:22). Rather, it pertains to the calling through which all believers are declared holy, offered this status without distinction, and freed from many external impurities and misconceptions, thereby becoming partakers through their calling and understanding of the truth. As a result, they are referred to as saints and are recognized as such both by themselves and others. This process also aligns with the scriptural account of having escaped the pollutions of the world, as found in 2 Peter 2:20.
It is also clear here that walking in the light and being purified by the blood of Christ from sins are two different things; lest the Socinians disturb us by saying that we are only raised by the death of Christ to the cultivation of new life, and not purified from sins in any other way: or the Papists who confuse justification and the creation of the new man.
Purification from all sins also denotes purification from the conscience of sin, and absolution from those sins by which under the Law no one could be justified; and thus, the necessity of producing the handwritten ordinances [Col. 2:14], and another ἱλασμᾶ (propitiation), as appears in 1 John 2:1-2.
When assigning purification to one walking in the light, he denies that justification is made by the work done.
Hence, St. John proceeds to teach the renunciation of self and the recognition of sin, into which we daily fall, and into which all fall with Adam; (whence the corruption still adheres, and it happens that we can never say that we have not sinned, even if we have done good; since at least we do not do what we will, as in Galatians 5:17.) And this so that we may bear our justification as accepted through Christ’s expiation alone, who takes away guilt and curse, and applying His merit by intercession to us, absolving our conscience from the accusation of daily weakness, but not by our own holiness and merits; for we acknowledge we are still in the body of sin, and do not deny that sin is an evil which clings to us, John 1:8-10 and chapter II, verses 1, 2. For if this is not done, “we are liars and make God a liar,” and have not experienced the word itself which is light and truth. Therefore, those who confess their sins are said in their spirit not to have deceit, Psalm 32. But deceit is opposed to truth. How, then, can there be truth in those who do not regard concupiscence against the law of God as sin? Who boast not only of perfect fulfillment of God’s law but also works of supererogation? Who do not acknowledge their natural corruption but think by their own free will they can dispose themselves to grace, merit grace, and believe in God accordingly? Or those who think man has sufficient natural strength to love God and do His will?
We do not say this beyond the scope of that passage which speaks expressly of Antichrist, but rather that in such things Antichrist is to be seen, we will see in due time.
1 John 2
Saint John, when he demonstrated Christ as the author of grace in the remission of sins, does not forget to add, “These things I write to you, that you may not sin.” For the purpose of grace and the remission of sins is not to remain in sins, but to die to them, to rise to new life with Christ, or, as Christ lives in us.
Then he adds (partly to declare the efficacy of Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice, partly to build the way to the consequent precept of love) that if anyone sins, there is no need to despair, but one must approach Christ, whom the faithful have as “advocate with God,” who is “righteous” and has become “the propitiation for our sins, and not only for ours but for the sins of the whole world,” verse 2. By this word he confirms what is said elsewhere, “There is no other name given among men by which we must be saved except that of Christ the Lord,” [Acts 4:12]. For it signifies that there is absolutely no sin in the whole world which can be expiated by any other appeasement or by any other price, whether angel or man, except by the death of Christ, or, stated another way, without the death of Christ: whether that sin be of those who hoped in Christ before, namely the Fathers, such as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; of whom it is read they were justified partly by faith in the promise, partly that they awaited the salvation of the Lord, Gen. 49:17, (also Acts 15:11) or of the posterity who were to come until the end of the world; or even of any peoples, Jews or Greeks; according to that Isaiah 49:5: “It is too little for you to be my servant to establish the tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved ones of Israel: I will also give you as a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.” And that according to the ancient covenant: “In your seed all nations shall be blessed without distinction,” [Genesis 22:18]. By which it is hinted that the enmity was destroyed through His death, and reconciliation was made in Him, so that all the faithful throughout the world have communion among themselves and with God. From which flows the precept of brotherly love.
Now how many truths are there, even in this brief passage, which openly contradict the lies of the Antichrist! First, to say that the doctrine of free justification without works is scandalous and leads people away from good works, this text clearly teaches to be a slander of the Antichrist against the doctrine of the Gospel. Secondly, that there is only one intercessor with God, neither angels nor saints intervene with propitiation for men, nor should one flee to them. Thirdly, that there is one expiatory sacrifice in the blood of Christ, not “bloodless,” which, Christ having been raised to heaven, is offered daily [in the Mass]. For He made satisfaction once for the whole world [Hebrews 10:10. Fourthly, that there are no human satisfactions; no merits of the saints imputed to others; no purgatory, no indulgences, etc. For all these and similar things clearly conflict with the words of the Apostle. Fifthly, that we and the Fathers are saved by the same faith.
The Apostle proceeds and teaches how we may be certain that we have known the Savior, and therefore that the truth, that is, light is in us, and the love of God is perfected in us, and that we are in Him, namely, if we keep His commandments. verses 3, 4, 5. These are opposed to vain persuasion by faith and chosen works. They pertain to explaining that: “These things I write to you, that you may not sin.” Then to keep the commandments of Christ above all means not to depart from the commandments of Christ, not to neglect them, and not to receive other commandments. This precept is opposite to those who impose another word and another law.
Verse 6: He confirms the same, because, “He who says he abides in Him ought to walk just as He walked.” For this is to keep His commandments. He further urges that we be attached to this commandment and strive to do it, because the commandment of Christ is both old and new, that is, what God demanded from the beginning in the covenant of grace made with the fathers and promulgated through Moses and the prophets, verse 7, and through Christ Himself confirmed in the truth of the example and obtained by the dignity of merit (compare John 13:34: “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, just as I have loved you, that you also love one another”) and sealed in the faithful through the Holy Spirit poured out in the New Testament.
He then adds a reason for the distinction between the Old and New Testament: “The darkness departs, and true light now shines,” verse 8. He says: No darkness, no bondage, no anguish and terror, no accusation of the law, no remaining obscurity exists, and the Spirit of adoption is abundantly poured out on the faithful; therefore, sincerity and truth of the love of God are in them.
Hence, that the knowledge of the Savior and the light of those strengthened is demonstrated from the observance of Christ’s commandment, proving by example, namely brotherly love. verses 9, 10, 11.
But all things are contrary in the Antichrist, who does not keep the commandments of Christ, but devises new ones; who does not imitate Christ, nor can bear those who imitate Christ; whose commandments are neither old nor new; who hates and persecutes brothers; who brings darkness into religion.
He proceeds gradually to what he intended, namely, to strengthen those made participants of God in Christ against scandal and temptation; so that they may remain in the light.
He uses a notable preface in verses 12, 13, 14. Nor is it tautology. Verses 12 and 13 signify to whom he writes these things, and why. “I write to you, little children,” that is to say, I do not write these things as profitable for all. Many will indeed read these things and neglect them, nor will they be fruitful to themselves. But to you, O children, I bind these things. To you it is given to know these things. “For your sins are forgiven you for His name’s sake.” Therefore, the fruit of this writing belongs to you, lest you be again entangled in sins. “I write to you, fathers,” who teach and rule others in Christ, “because you have known Him who is from the beginning,” that is, you have received the Eternal Son of God in the obedience of faith. “I write to you, young men,” who are growing up to the full stature of Christ; “because you have overcome the evil one.”
Verse 14: Taking serious causes and arguments from the benefit of God, he recommends that the admonition be added to them. “I write to you” and I commend this greatest commandment to you, “little children” reborn in Christ, “because you have known the Father,” because God in Christ has revealed Himself to you as Father and has forgiven your sins. Fathers, because you have known Him who is from the beginning. It is of utmost importance that the Eternal Son of God has wished to be made known to you. “Young men, because you are strong and the word of God remains in you, and through it you have overcome the evil one.” God has clothed you with strength from on high and has implanted His word into your souls, so that it may remain in you, that you might be able to overcome the Devil. This is not by your own power or will. He does not decorate the faithful with these praises without cause. For he shows that these writings are also useful for children, and that they do not need another teacher who teaches without Scripture. Furthermore, he shows it is unworthy for believers to be under tutors and to be burdened by human commandments. And by naming “fathers” those who wish to exercise nothing but tutelage (whom he does not compel) he rejects and repudiates them. [N. B. Roman Catholic priests are called, ‘Father.’ The Pope: ‘Holy Father.’]
Finally, he explains the very commandment which he writes to them. Verse 15: “Do not love the world, nor the things that are in the world.” Light and the world do not agree with each other. For the former is heavenly. No one can love the world and walk in the light. The first reason urging this is: “If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For” (verse 16) “all that is in the world is the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life; it is not from the Father but from the world.” The world signifies goods which are lovable in present things, and men who love them. Those things which are done according to the manner of this age are said to be “in the world,” such as lust and gluttony, greed, pride.
The second reason. Verse 17: “And the world passes away with its lusts; but he who does the will of God abides forever.” It is against the Antichristian axiom, which stands in Psalm 10:6: “He remains forever and ever who is not in adversity,” that is to say, whoever triumphs, who conquers, who is happy in this world, who does not have a cross. For these worldly people call this evil.
The third reason why the world should not be loved is this: “Because it is the last hour, and Antichrist is coming.” It is therefore especially dangerous to love the world at this time because if you love it, it would be most difficult to escape communion with Antichrist.
From where, then, is it clear that it is the last hour? It is because many Antichrists have already appeared. This sentence is most clearly contained in these words: “Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many Antichrists have come; from this we know that it is the last hour,” verse 18.
Although here it is expressly about not loving the world, and about the passing away of the “world,” nevertheless [our Preterist Interpreter tells us] we are meant to understand the “last hour of the Jewish people,” not of the “world.” This is similar to what the same author [Grotius] says in 2 Thessalonians 2, when the Apostle spoke about the day of Christ’s coming to universal Judgment, in which he nevertheless wanted us to believe that Paul was speaking about the immediate day of judgment concerning the Jews [in 70 AD].
But it is most evident that Saint John is speaking about the Antichrist, who will be in the last time of the world; indeed, with great power and splendor in the world; into whose communion those who love the world are liable to fall.
Therefore, it is not fitting here to think only of Simon bar Kokhba or chiefly of him; unless we would want to say that from the destruction of the Jewish people no Antichrist would come, which would be boldly false.
Furthermore, regarding the last hour of the world, we confess that, according to the use of Scripture, the destruction of the polity of the Jews also falls within it; nevertheless we concede that the last hour strictly denotes not only that time, but any time which is from Christ’s exaltation to the final day.
I am not persuaded that by the “great day of the Lord” in Acts 2:20 one should more readily understand the day of the destruction of Jerusalem than that of Revelation 6:12–17. I would have the reader inspect those passages carefully.
As to what I think about Matthew 24:14, I have already shown it: it is sufficiently clear that τὸ τέλος (“the end”) there does not denote the destruction of Jerusalem; for Christ expressly says that there will be wars and uprisings and shaking of kingdoms: but all those things will be the ἀρχὴ τῶν ὠδίνων (“the beginning of sorrows”), and not yet τὸ τέλος (“the end”), v. 6. The first war of some moment which followed was the Jewish war; and immediately the same Savior warns that when τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως (the abomination of desolation) shall stand in the holy place, then whoever can, since the destruction of the city and temple is imminent, should flee. Therefore, the end is not imminent with the rising of the first wars; those wars rising are not yet the immediate end.
It is remarkable that 1 Timothy 4:1, ὕστερος καιρός (“the latter times”) should be taken to mean the time of the destruction of Jerusalem by anyone who lives from that time to these times, in which the departure [apostasy] of the faith and doctrines of demons prevail, who also believes that Paul wrote these things not long before that destruction. The same applies to 2 Timothy 3:1.
But whatever the case may be, faithful and diligent man, do not believe that the Prophets and Apostles have written nothing about our times, so that you cease to ponder their words and apply them to your situation, and begin to be secure. It is always the same device of the devil, the world is the same as it was then, lying in evil; the nature of the kingdom of Christ and the condition of the faithful has not changed, so that through many tribulations they must necessarily enter the kingdom of heaven. Such things exist as were foretold; and concerning them it cannot be judged otherwise than as has been said and written.
Meanwhile, let us consider some prophetic saying about the end of days. Jeremiah 30, verses 18 and following: “Behold, I will restore the captivity of Jacob’s tents in full; I will have mercy on his dwellings, and the city shall be built upon its mound, and the palace shall stand according to its statute.” He speaks of the restoration of the temple destroyed by the Babylonians. “And from them shall come forth confession, and the voice of those who play; and I will multiply them, and they shall not diminish; and I will glorify them, and they shall not be small. And his sons shall be as before Jacob, and his chosen one shall stand before me, and I will visit all his oppressors, AND THERE SHALL BE A PRINCE FROM HIM AND A RULER SHALL PROCEED FROM HIM,” (namely, Christ) “and I will bring him near and he shall come to me,” that he may be a true priest and king forever.” For who among all priests has received his heart in faith or pledged himself to stand in another’s place, to come to me and make satisfaction for sins? “For I am a consuming fire.” “And you shall be to me a people in truth,” from the New Testament, “and I will be to you a God.” “Behold, the whirlwind of the Lord, cunning, has gone forth; a raging whirlwind; it will remain at the head of the wicked. The raging anger of the Lord will not return until he has done and fulfilled the thoughts of his heart. At the END OF DAYS you shall consider it.” Who will deny that those last words signify the destruction of the Jewish people? But who would think that only that their judgment is meant? Certainly, the Apostle in 1 Corinthians 10:18 declares what happened to the Israelites is written as a warning for us, ὡς ἐς τὰ τέλη τῶν αἰώνων (“unto the ends of the ages”), so that no one is promised impunity when disobedient to the revealed Christ.
Isaiah chapter 2:2 begins to speak about the last time; but how many things you see in his chapters 2, 3, and 4. Thus the time at which Christ “through His sacrifice,” that is, when He was “manifested by His sacrifice,” is called the συντέλεια τῶν αἰώνων (“the end of the ages”), Hebrews 9:26. We add no more of this kind. For it is not necessary.
Contrary to Bellarmine and others, we observe that the Antichrist will come in the last hour [verse 18], that is, not a few years before the end of the world, but in the last age of the world, which had already begun when Saint John lived. When there are Antichrists, it is the last hour. Yet in the time of John many Antichrists had already come to pass. Therefore, it is about the coming of that chief Antichrist and then his revelation. That concern is not to be deferred long. The time is now at hand. And chapter 4:3, “The spirit of the Antichrist is already in the world.”
“As you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now there are many antichrists.” This means, just as it was foretold, so it is being fulfilled at this very time. It was foretold by Christ, by the Prophets, by the Apostles, whether in speech or in letters (what difference does it make?), that the Antichrist would come. Yet many Antichrists have come to be. Therefore, it is no longer as some think that this age is stable and that there will be long peace in the world. The judgments of God will be carried out upon all the wicked and Antichrists, one after another. Therefore, do not love the world, lest you become involved in these punishments of the wicked.
It is not unlike what Saint James says in chapter 5:3, “You have laid up treasures in the last days.” That is to say, in the last days there will not be such times in which you have a promise of longevity or a privilege of long possession (such as were once the blandishments or invitations of carnal desires to boys), but when anyone who wishes to serve God must exert himself and deny all these things, then there will be such uncertainty of things that few will be able to enjoy their treasures. The greatest wickedness is to desire something you’re unsure if you should have, even just for a day, instead of using what you already have to help build up the Church through acts of charity.
Although St. John considers the Antichrist in a particular way, nevertheless, he understands that many Antichrists belong to the same kind, and that the prophecy is not precisely fulfilled in one man only, as the Pontiffs themselves imagine. John clearly indicates that he understands the Antichrist collectively because he says that, in fact, “even now there are many Antichrists,” already in the world, so that he will yet come, namely in his prime.
Moreover, we do not deny that Simon bar Kokhba and those who came to the Jews before and after him can truly be called Antichrists, that is, enemies of Christ and false Christs, and from their coming the argument of the last times can be inferred. And thus, he speaks of such a Savior, John 5:43: “If another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.” However, it is necessary that the other Antichrist, so distinctly called, be similar to Christ. For the one spoken of by Christ does not come in the name of God [claiming to be sent by God].
Therefore, Bellarmine argues badly. “The Antichrist will come to the Jews and will be received by them. The Pope does not come to the Jews,” (although he certainly imposes himself) “nor is he received by them. Therefore, he is not the Antichrist.” For there are many Antichrists, and the Jews have had and now have their own. Nor was Christ’s word deceived.
But the Interpreter [Grotius] says that Simon bar Kokhba rightly deserved to be called the Antichrist. He was certainly a notable scoundrel and impostor, and I would admit him to be the Antichrist were it not that Scripture and St. John speak of another. And concerning such Antichrist, the Savior, St. Paul, Daniel and Isaiah have spoken, we have seen above. Moreover, St. John fortifies Christians against his lies in this whole epistle, which we have already understood in good part and will understand more, with God’s help.
As for the term ‘Antichrist’ itself, it partly indicates opposition to Christ (ἐναντίωσιν τω χριστός), that is, an attack on Christ, whence it is said to be ἀντικείμενος (opposed). Yet this is not the chief meaning. For many are ἐχθροὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ (enemies of Christ) who are nevertheless not Antichrists, as Scripture understands this: such as Nero. And this is because Antichrist is also called a false Christ (ψευδόχρισις). The [prefix] ἀντί in the composition also signifies substitution; in place of. Furthermore, ὁ ̓Αντίχριστος (the Antichrist) in the highest and narrowest, more restricted sense should be understood as primarily the false Christ (ψευδόχρισος).
Now the controversy between us and the Pontiffs is whether he can be the Antichrist who confesses with words that Jesus is the Christ while saying he is only his vicar; or whether the Antichrist will openly deny that Jesus is the Christ in any way, and will affirm that he himself is the Christ, the Son of God. We say, (1) nowhere is it written that the Antichrist will openly deny Christ in all ways and assert that he himself is Christ. Indeed, we have already shown the contrary from the testimony of Paul and the Savior above. (2) It is sufficient that he asserts for himself those things which belong to Christ alone, and in effect really detracts from the glory which belongs to Christ, even though he confesses with words that Jesus is the Christ.
And this is easily proved from this very passage. St. John says, according to that prediction about the coming of the Antichrist, that many have already become Antichrists. But not all, whom he calls many Antichrists, denied that Jesus is the Christ, and openly asserted that they were Christs. For there were also other Antichrists or false Christs who tried to deceive men under the name of Christ. Therefore, it is not a necessary sign of the Antichrist to openly say that he is not the Lord Jesus Christ. What prevents the Antichrist, so called καθ’ ἐξοχήν (in the highest sense), from also confessing with words that Jesus is the Christ, yet in reality denying it?
He will say: No one can lie more shamelessly than one who says that openly — as Bar Kokhba did. Therefore, that utmost shamelessness is rightly attributed to he who is called ὁ ἀντίχρισος [the Antichrist] in the highest sense. On the other hand, I say that he lies more shamelessly who openly contradicts you and the truth which he acknowledges and confesses, than he who lies otherwise. Thus, the Antichrist lies more shamelessly when he verbally confesses that Christ is the Lord Jesus, he yet in deed claims for himself those things that belong to Christ. Moreover, that dissembling Antichrist (if there is any dissembling; of which more shortly) will falsely appropriate to himself greater things than any Jewish Antichrist, even Bar Kokhba. For that man, like all the Jews, thought Christ to be nothing other than a prince of the people sent by God to deliver them from servitude to the Kings of the world by carnal arms. Rabbi Akiba held this same opinion of Bar Kokhba, and Maimonides excuses him and others misled, who holds that, except by event, it cannot be known whether such a hero is the Christ or not. But that [scriptural] dissembling Antichrist arrogates to himself far greater things which he acknowledges to be Christ’s. The whole thread and body of St. John’s Epistle demonstrate this. We have just begun to take note of it and will further explain this truth.
Thirdly, lying which is covered by the deceit of external confession is far more pestilential and more harmful in its outcome, than that which the Interpreter insists. Fourthly, that Antichrist, around whom this controversy swirls, does not always successfully conceal himself when by his doctrine and statement he not only usurps the role of Christ, but also his name. To clarify this consider the following: Someone who insists that the visible Church needs a visible leader to perform within the Church what Christ did and could do when He was physically present; and who denies that the Lord Jesus, exalted at God’s right hand, can provide this, but instead claims to be that very leader himself – Does he not say that he is Christ on earth, thus denying Jesus is the Head of the Church when he asserts the head of the Church must be on earth. He says this openly and without dissimulation.
Now Bellarmine says (to mention a few of many), in book 1 of his De Romano Pontifice, chapter 9, in the first part: “The Church, which is corporal and visible, needs some visible supreme leader,” etc. Fifth reason: “Since Christ lived on earth, he visibly administered it as its supreme pastor and ruler; therefore, the Church must even now have an external and visible monarchical governance.” Similar things are said throughout.
But what did I say? On earth? Indeed, also in heaven! For he who interprets Scriptures, judges, binds consciences and looses them with authority, remits sins and retains them, so that what he does here concerning the fullness of power also applies in heaven. Truly, does he not usurp all power to himself in heaven and on earth? Read, then, Bellarmine’s words in his Response to the treatise and resolution concerning the value of John Gerson’s excommunication, etc., page 468 and following, in the volume of treatises about the cause of the Venetians, editor Augusta A.D. 1606. Gerson said in consideration XI: “Let us not follow the scandal of the weak, who think that the Pope is one God, who has all power in heaven and on earth.” The Cardinal [Bellarmine] replies: “Let the weak and simple hold that the Pope is some kind of God and has all power in heaven and on earth. God prefers their weakness and simplicity more than the firmness of those who want to make themselves seem wise and therefore try to suppress the authority of the Vicar of Christ, as is the custom of all our age’s sectarians. IT IS A SMALL THING for the Pope to be considered God on earth; since it is said OF ALL princes in the Psalm: “I said, you are gods.” And it is not inconvenient to say that the Pope has all power in heaven and on earth, since Christ himself said: “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven.” This is rightly and truly understood by true and LEARNED Catholics. And to sum up briefly, I believe it can be rightly said that the dignity and power of the Supreme Pontiff is so eminent that few can grasp and attain its sublimity and splendor. For he can do all that is necessary to lead souls into Paradise, as well as remove all obstacles which the world and the devil cunningly and fraudulently oppose.”
We will no longer dispute whether all Princes are called gods in the Psalm. This much is clear: he who is greater than those called gods is the true God. Christ uses this argument in John 10:34-36. The Apostle Paul calls him who exalts himself above those gods τὸν ἄνομον [the lawless one; aka the Man of Sin]. “It is a small thing for the Pope to be called God.” What then is greater than BEING GOD?
I add this, that if one acts as the King’s viceroy [Latin: Prorex] who exercises authority in the kingdom on behalf of the King when the King is absent, as Bellarmine says about the Roman Pontiff, book 1, part 2, chapter 9, then the Pope is truly the Viceroy or Vicar [‘in the place of’] of Christ the King, as can be inferred from these things. This being so, he cannot be called in Greek other than Ἀντίχρισος (Antichrist), just as Proconsul is called ἀνθύπατος, “one who acts in place of the Consul” (thus defines Isidore in Origines, book 9, chapter 39). A Propraetor is called Ἀντισράτηγος, [“one who acts for the Praetor, a high-ranking Roman magistrate”]. Therefore, he cannot deny himself to be an Antichrist. Especially because he who names himself the Vicar of Christ in the New Testament is necessarily also a ψευδόχριστος (false Christ), since no one can be such without rejecting the King Christ. For if the Israelites, when they asked for a king and monarch, are said to have rejected God so that He would not reign over them, 1 Samuel 8:7, (where nevertheless there was a polity which could be ruled by an earthly king), what will it be when such a polity is abolished, and Christ, by His Spirit, gathers the Church to Himself, ruling, uniting, and forbidding His disciples from exercising worldly rule, while the Pope arrogates to himself, not a political monarchy, but the fullness of power in spiritual and temporal matters (such as no kings in the kingdom of Israel even dreamed of) and arrogates to himself judgment and vicarship greater than any without exception, unless he constitutes himself a false Christ? But let us proceed.
Verse 19: “They went out from us.” This does not necessarily mean “to abandon the Christian religion;” but it is to be understood broadly, so that what is said in Acts 20:30 may also be understood: “From among yourselves will arise men speaking perverse things.” For τὸ ἐξελθεῖν εἰς ἢ κόσμον (“are gone into the world”) is almost as if “to arise” is said in 1 John 4:1. Compare 2 John 7: “many deceivers have entered into the world,” that is to say, men of the world have come forth with their doctrines. John 17:8: “I came out from thee,” does not signify abandonment. Therefore, the meaning of these words here is this: Those whom I say are Antichrists have indeed gone out from us, out from us, I say, who believe in God; whether they were Jews, to whom the covenant according to the external form of discipline pertained just as much as to us; or whether so-called Christians with us. They went out in such a way that with new doctrine and seduction they came into the world, whether they openly denied Christ or not. In short, it is as if they came into the world from us. “But they were not of us.” They were not true Israelites or true Christians. For if they had been of us, they would certainly have remained with us, nor would they have fallen away from our faith and doctrine and become Antichrists. For true Israelites and true faithful of Christ do not fall away. Nothing here should be understood of abandonment of assemblies. [N. B. The Roman Church accused the Protestant Churches of abandoning the true Church of Rome. Therefore, they say Protestants are the Antichrists.] For truly, they would not have become Antichrists, nor would they have come with their seductions and doctrines of demons, if they had ever been Christians [born of the Spirit] or truly Israelites [who had the faith of Abraham]. They go out from the company of the faithful and do not remain with them, for truly they come to the Church with partial knowledge of the truth, and adding falsehood to the truth depart from the Church, not remaining in the word of God and the testimony of Jesus and His precepts. For the [true orthodox] Church remains in the word of God and its foundation. Clearly, these warnings are given by St. John for this reason: so that he might more effectively withdraw disciples from the love of the world because according to the love of the world and the flesh even Antichrists themselves, before they are revealed, mingle with Christians.
He therefore adds: “But that they may be manifest, because not all are of us.” That is to say, it was by God’s special judgment that those hypocrites did not remain with us, so that they might be made manifest. For not all who are with us are of us. For heresies must be, that the approved may be made manifest, as it is written: “It is necessary that heresies come, that those who are approved may be made manifest.” 1 Corinthians 11:19. God has so judged, decreed, ordained, and foretold. Psalm 55:9: “Confuse, divide their tongue.” Since these things are so, to love anything in the world is most dangerous indeed, for false brethren easily creep in. And if you embrace them too closely with worldly love, it can easily happen that, being led astray, you may go with them into the abyss. From such God preserves His own [because He has promised them eternal life].
After this, John calls back the disciples to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, so that they do not obey the flesh and suffer themselves to be deceived. “But you have an anointing from the Holy One” [v. 20]. This is well explained by ‘but,’ so that there is an opposition between the Antichrists and the faithful. That is to say, those false Christs boast of the anointing of God, and with that boasting they try to seduce you, as if you did not have the Spirit of God; but you have the Spirit of God from Christ, who is the Holy One, outside of whom there is no holiness, although those seducers call themselves very holy. And, taught by that Spirit, “you know all things,” that is, the saving truth. But there is also a sense of interconnection in this, in that the last hour is at hand, the Antichrist comes, and you have an anointing. Therefore, do not love the world nor allow seduction by tending to the flesh and not to the Spirit; according to that saying: “Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh,” Galatians 5:16.
He adds verse 21: “I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth;” that is to say, I do not now for the first time teach you the sought-after truth, which you have both heard and recognized and believed by the teaching of the Spirit of God; nor do I write to you chiefly for that reason, but primarily because you know the truth, and it has been given to you both to believe in Christ and to suffer for His sake. Secondly, because you know that “no lie is of the truth,” that is, that falsehood does not follow from the truth, but that which follows from the truth is truth; therefore, whoever denies the consequence of truth or teaches the contrary teaches a lie; such a one is not to be believed, for he opposes the truth which follows from the truth. For as the consequence of truth is truth, so the consequence of lies is a lie; and the denial of truth which follows from truth, is the denial of the truth from which it follows. As this rule is manifest, so it must be well observed. However, this principle is opposed by the Papists who say that faith is not destroyed by whatever consequence is opposed [to it], nor are their doctrines not written in Scripture refuted by Scripture just because consequences drawn from Scripture are opposed to them.
[N. B. I cited the above statement to Voilà AI assistant asking if the statement by Cocceius was true. Here is the reply:
Is the Statement True?
Yes, the statement is true in the sense that it accurately describes the Catholic position.
Catholics do believe that their faith is not destroyed by consequences drawn from Scripture that seem to contradict their doctrines.
They do not believe that doctrines must be explicitly written in Scripture to be valid.
They do not accept that their doctrines are refuted by Scripture just because some logical consequence from Scripture appears to oppose them.
This is a core difference between Catholic and Protestant theology, especially regarding the authority of Scripture and Tradition.]
[Cocceius cont.]: Moreover, since the foundation is contained in Scripture, and its nature is that all things come from it (as implied in verse 20), whoever says, teaches, and commands that something does not come from fundamental truth teaches and commands a lie, and if he demands or places confidence in it as a foundation, he sets another foundation.
Therefore, since you know these things, St. John says, I have not written to you to learn, but to judge.
You will not be displeased with what the Commentator [Grotius] noted on these words, which I cannot restrain myself from adding. “Since you hold firmly to the precepts of the Gospel, you can easily see from this that any doctrines that are truly false are such: since the rule is both direct and indirect. Those who bring anything dissenting from the Evangelical doctrine cannot but be deceitful, and you cannot be unaware of this.” Whoever holds this truth will never become a Papist. Firstly, he rightly observes that there is one and only one rule by which all doctrines must be examined, namely the Gospel, which was revealed from the beginning to the Patriarchs, declared through Christ and the Apostles, which believers have heard from the beginning; and thus that which differs from this rule and is new is false. Therefore, Antichrist must be regarded and judged in all things that dissent from the Gospel, whether as contrary or as new and different; not only from the bare literal words of this axiom, “Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Christ is from God: but whoever denies it is Antichrist,” [v. 22]. Therefore, either the Commentator openly agrees with us that the Pope is the Antichrist because he teaches against and beyond the Gospel, or, having accepted his patronage, he must demonstrate that the doctrine of the Papacy is not dissenting from the Gospel in these ways. Not even the Pontiffs themselves dare to attempt such a thing. Then, truly, the Interpreter rightly acknowledges that this judgment about Antichrist and all the doctrines of Antichrist was given to the faithful this way by St. John, when he adds, “You cannot be unaware of this truth.” This argument suggests that the authority of the Pope is challenged if members of the faith are allowed to accept or reject doctrines based on Scripture, rather than adhering unquestioningly to the Pope’s teachings as an infallible leader and judge of the Church. You, says John, who believe in Jesus Christ through what we write to you, and hold fast His commandments, and abide in what you have received, “you have an anointing from the Holy One,” that is, you have believed and remain in that which you have learned by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and you do not obey those things which men command, nor do you accept other words and other doctrines. But the Pope blasphemes those who believe in Christ and in the Scriptures, saying they do not have divine faith, but only human faith. That is, he says they hold opinion, not πλήροφοειαν [‘complete knowledge’] ; and that they are not taught by the Spirit to believe the Scripture and understand it so as to believe in Christ. [N. B. Only the Magisterium has the authority to interpret and explain Scripture.] This is blasphemy, by which the Anointing is said not to be an Anointing. Yet Christ is anointed in His faithful by the giving of the Spirit to sons, and they themselves are anointed kings and priests of God.
“And you know all things.” For all things are contained in Scripture, the foundation, because of which successful progress must be made. Again, these things are openly contrary to the doctrines of the Pontiffs.
Then he shows the true test of truth, by which all the falsehoods of the Antichrist must be examined, both in particular and in general. In particular, the foundation of the Christian religion, that Jesus is the Christ. Verse 22: “Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the Antichrist.” He does not say, as the Pontiffs fabricate, that the Antichrist will deny Christ by expressly denying [by public confession] that Jesus is the Christ. Hence, they infer that the Pope is not the Antichrist because he [publicly] confesses that Jesus is the Christ. But this is not what John is saying. He primarily regards the power and meaning of this confession, that “Jesus is the Christ.” For that confession embraces many truths and is the foundation of all truth, which Scripture and St. John himself deliver in this Epistle, as we have already shown above. This is evident later, in verse 23: “Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also.” The same is evident in chapter 5:1: “Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.” Yet many who verbally confess the Son without hesitation are not born of God, just as the Devil who confesses and believes this (Mark 3:11; James 2:19). Therefore, both the terms “to confess and believe” and “that Jesus is the Christ” must be taken in their power and ἐμφάσ [emphasis]. For otherwise, those who confess Christ with their mouth and yet sufficiently deny Him would be born of God. From there St. John does not expressly propose the doctrine of the Antichrist but rather for the most part condemns it throughout the whole Epistle by its contrary doctrine, and in this 21st verse shows “that it [the lie] is not from truth,” that is, it does not agree with what follows from all Scripture, and especially from the highest head of Christian doctrine, [i.e., that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God], which includes all other things. This is true, and it will soon become evident in what follows.
Moreover, that this liar is the Antichrist, that is, he who teaches doctrines contrary to the Christian doctrine proposed in this Epistle, and declares himself the Vicar of Christ and the ProChrist [Vice Christ] on earth, he, I say, is such a liar, as the Holy Apostle establishes, and the matter itself cries out.
From this follows that he denies God the Father, and thus utterly overturns the whole religion with his lies. “Who denies the Son,” v. 23, “does not have the Father; but whoever confesses the Son has the Father.” Whoever detracts from the honor and glory of the Son cannot glory in God. If anyone denies the deity of the Son, he cannot be seen as a worshiper of God. For God has a Son, who is Wisdom, established before the foundations of the mountains, Proverbs 8:22. God does not want to be called God without having a Son who was with Him from the beginning, John 1:1, whose glory He seeks, John 8:50. The Jews wanted to have such a God and are said to have sacrificed not to God. Deuteronomy 32:15-18. If anyone denies the glory of the Son or alienates what belongs to the Son alone or alienates what belongs to Jehovah (Deut. 32:27), he denies the Son. For the Son is not without glory, for example, as Mediator and Priest and perfect Savior; also, Lord and King of the Church, and sole Teacher and Head. Whoever denies the glory of the Son denies the Son, denies the Father. For just as God is not known without the Son, so God is not known by the sinner without knowledge of Him as Christ and perfect Savior. On the other hand, whoever denies the Father also denies the Son. Whoever denies some virtue, such as perfect Holiness and Justice of God, even if he says Jesus is Christ, does not know Christ but denies Him. For Christ came to sanctify the Father through righteousness and judgment, to be Lord of the Church, and, indeed, to bring the Church to God and be glorified in it forever.
In general, he shows the test of truth and falsehood, the Word of God, verse 24: “Therefore, let what you have heard from the beginning remain in you. If what you have heard from the beginning remains in you, then you also will remain in the Father and the Son.” Where there is no faith in the word, or either something is added or something is taken away from it, there is no communion with the Son; and therefore, none with the Father. By what they heard “from the beginning,” what else can be understood than the Word of God announced through Moses and the Prophets, Christ and the Apostles, which undoubtedly is the Word of God? For neither the Pharisees nor other traditions can be understood here. “You remain (continue) in those things which you have learned and which have been approved to you. You have known the sacred Scriptures, which can make you wise unto salvation through faith,” 2 Timothy 3:14-15. “From the beginning,” not only the Gospel promulgated through Christ, but also promised before by the Prophets. And thus, “from the beginning,” chapter 2:7. So, we are recalled to the true antiquity of Scripture, to which the Apostles referred as a norm. Certainly, St. John here shows quite clearly that in John 16:12, the Savior says: “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now,” this is not to be taken as if after Christ’s departure to the Father some new doctrine was to be announced to them, but rather that many things were still to be explained to them which they had not yet received or understood as was fitting. These the Spirit of God would explain to them, namely through and according to the Word of God already delivered. To the same Spirit, about whom in this place the Savior speaks in John 17:13-14, St. John refers all faithful as to the instruction of an excellent teacher for the third time.
Verse 25: “And this is the promise which He promised TO YOU, eternal life.” The promise is not made outside of the Son and faith in Him. This promise is made to those who hold what they heard from the beginning. Those who change the word or say it has been changed, do not have the promise.
Verse 26: I have written to you about those who seduce you, that is, those who exert effort, as much as lies in them, to seduce you. Seducers who depart from the word deny the Son and deny the Father. God is no other, nor can He be another, than can He who was manifested in the word be the God of the sinner.
Verse 27: “And you,” as regards “the anointing which you have received from Him, remains in you.” The promise of the Holy Spirit, which was made to believers (John 7:39), pertains to all and each of you according to your measure; and God does not change; He does not take away His Spirit from those who believe in Him and fear Him. Therefore, you are fortified with multiple protection. “For you have known the truth,” through the Spirit of God; whose sum or essence is that “Jesus is the Christ:” and you have the undoubted word of God, which you heard from the beginning: and I have written these things to you, as also to other servants of God; and the Spirit of God remains in you.
“And you have no need that anyone teach you.” Taken from the prophet Jeremiah chapter 31:34, and consistent with Matthew 23:8-10. He does not say here that it is completely unnecessary for one brother to teach another, or that there should be no ministry of the word; which is useful and for διδασκαλίαν, ‘doctrine’, 2 Timothy 3:16. From which ministries are given by God whose office is διδάσκειν, to teach, Romans 12:7. ἐπὶ ὁ διδάσκων ἐν διδασκαλία, “Or he who teaches doctrine.” But John says those who believe and observe what they heard from the beginning do not need anyone to teach them beyond this, as if that other ‘teacher’ was endowed with infallibility in teaching given by the Spirit of God. For they all have the same Spirit to prove the holy will of God and to believe the truth. That truth is not something they did not hear from the beginning; nor should they wait for another teacher after Christ. Whether or not such power, judgment, and infallibility in teaching and interpreting belongs to the Pope is disputed between our Church and Pontifical doctors. St. John declares to us that the faithful do not need such a teacher. [………………..] Only in that way is the denial of the need for teaching restricted; namely, it is not necessary that a faithful person be taught otherwise than what each individual is taught by the anointing or Spirit from the word of God.
The approval of that institution is attributed to the Spirit. “And it is true, it is not a lie.” Such as: “He confessed and did not deny: they indicated, they did not hide: he will destroy and will not build up: they will increase and will not diminish.” If it is true, it is far from being a lie, or it can, as a lie, be proved to be such, either directly or through contrary doctrine. But the Spirit, however, teaches that which is true. v. 21. And this is called ἀποκάλυψις [revelation] 1 Cor. 14:30; Phil. 3:15. For after the Sacred Scripture has been delivered and the Gospel preached, what can be revealed beyond the divine word, and what follows from it, which is to be built upon as a foundation, which pertains to wisdom and prudence, which is hidden in the mystery of God and Christ, which pertains to doctrine, to reproof, to discipline, to correction, so that the man of God may be perfect, fully equipped for every good work?
Likewise, he exhorts that you remain in it. “And, as he taught you, you remain in it,” i.e., I advise you to remain and continue in it, so that you do not go to another word, so that you neither add nor take away anything.
Verse 28. “And now, little children, remain in him, so that when he appears, we may have confidence and not be ashamed,” etc.
Note here. These precepts of the Apostle pertain to that last hour which precedes τὴν παρεσίαν [the coming] of the Lord.
A new argument as to why the world should not be loved follows in verse 29. Namely, because they are children of God, and children of God ought to do righteousness, just as God Himself is righteous; and thus, to sanctify themselves, just as He Himself is holy and pure. But love for this world contradicts that purity, as is implied in verse 3 of chapter 3.
1 John 3
Meanwhile, that dignity of the children of God is exalted as a commendation of the love of God, Chapter 3, verse 1. And there also is the scandal that the world does not recognize the godly, but on the contrary recognizes, that is, honors, praises, receives, esteems the Antichrists, is removed for the same reason.
Verses 2 and 3 provide another argument from the hope of the children of God, that “they shall be like God, because they shall see God as He is.” From these things it is sufficiently clear that St. John does not do this to protect the godly for a short moment, namely for the time of Bar Kokhba, but for all time until the final judgment, [thereby refuting Preterism once more].
Moreover, the Apostle has a custom in this Epistle to provide a handle for following discussions through what has preceded, and thus to weave a certain chain as it were. So here also, when he had drawn an argument from ἁγνότητα, purity, which befits the children of God, to avoid loving the world, he proceeds from that to another point, and shows that purity is necessary for communion with God; which he calls δικαιοσκώλων ποιῶν, “doing righteousness,” and μὴ ἁμαρτάνειν που, “not sinning.”
The first argument brought forward is that every ἁμαρτία, “every sin” is ἀνομία, that is, בֶּשַׁע “a violation of the law of God,” verse 4.
The second is because God “appeared to take away our sins,” that is, by satisfying for us He expunged our guilt; lest the burden of them weigh upon us, He took it upon Himself. For this, in those places of Scripture which John alludes to, such as Isaiah 53, the words corresponding to τῷ ἄι ἄιξειν, “to take away,” signify this [“he shall bare their iniquities,” v. 12]. Therefore, we ought to give thanks to our Redeemer and Sponsor, so that we do not continue in sins, for which He endured so much in order to make atonement on our behalf.
St. John says, verse 5, ἐκεῖνος ἐφανερώθη, “He was manifested.” Who? Below in verse 8, “the Son of God;” but above in verse 2, ἐὰν φανερωθῇ, “when He appears,” it can only be referred to the nearest God, to whom what immediately follows also pertains, μοιοι αὐτῷ ἐσόμεθα “we shall be like Him.” Also, chapter 2, verse 28, ὅταν φανερωθή, “when He shall appear,” refers to Him, ἐξ ὧν γεγεννήμεθα, “of whom we were born,” [v. 29]. But He is God because immediately from there we are called τέκνα θεοῦ, ‘children of God,’ Chapter 3:1. The same is said also (as the Hebrews commonly say “that Holy One who is blessed”) and from whom we have received an unction chapter 2:20,27.
Many things should be said here. It suffices to note those who in any way deny the divinity of Christ. They, too, belong to the kingdom of the Antichrist. They are driven by one spirit, they strike against the same rock, and although divided by tongues, as in Babylon, Psalm 55:9, yet they agree in this, that they detract from Christ that which is His own. Let no one doubt to call Jesus God thereafter, and with the holy Apostle Paul, Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκὶ, “God was manifested in the flesh,” 1 Timothy 3:16, when it is proven that Saint John says the same. Concerning this see below as well.
The presence (παρεσία) of Christ calls the Advent of Christ φανέρωσιν, “a manifestation, once in the flesh,” 1 John 3, verses 5, 8; another, cὦ δόξη, in future glory, (chapters 2:28, 3:2). It is not that some fabricate several advents or presences of His flesh that are not φανερώσεις (manifestations).
The third reason is ἁγνισμός (purification); because in Him there is no sin. We are redeemed by Christ so that we might be His, and He might live in us, and we live. But in Him there is no sin. Hence 1 John 3:6 concludes: “Whoever abides in Him” —that is, has true communion with Him (this is said to be in Him and to abide in Him, chapters 2:5-6; 3:21; 4:12,13,15; The reason: whoever is truly in Him abides in Him)—”does not sin.” “Whoever sins has not seen Him nor known Him,” so far as being “in Him and abiding in Him.” The sinning here is different from that in chapter 2:1. It doesn’t denote a fall due to infirmity as we all daily fall many times, but rather to delight in sin, giving it attention with a willing mind, which is called “committing sin” in verse 8. This is reiterated frequently in such texts as Hebrews 10:26: τὸ ἑκεσίως ἁμαρτάνειν (‘sinning willfully’), and Hebrews 6:6: απίπτειν (‘fall away’). Such appearances in sacred texts have a dreadful meaning. For if those who sin have not seen or known God, how then are the faithful, just, and holy said to fall away from God?
Fourth, because the truth of justification is demonstrated by doing righteousness, that is, what is right and pleasing to God (verse 7). “Little children, let no one deceive you.” For many transfer the grace of God into licentiousness. He who does righteousness is righteous, that is, he proves and demonstrates himself truly justified and cleansed from sins by the blood of the Son of God, just as He Himself is righteous. The gift of righteousness by which we are judged righteous in the judgment of God, is not just a renovation of man into the image of God. For we are not justified so that we may remain unjust, that is, impure, filthy, depraved. Therefore, justification has companionship with sanctification, by which its truth is confirmed. For (verse 8) “he who commits sin is of the Devil” because from the beginning the Devil has sinned [John 8:44]. It must be said and declared once what that phrase “from the beginning” signifies, since no place has yet occurred to us in which it appears. It does not always denote connection with the origin or beginning in time of something. Often it signifies nothing else than precedence: or, to be more clear, it often signifies that this or that did not just first begin at this or that moment, but rather existed long before anything existed or could be thought to have existed, and thus it is said that it was from the beginning. The Hebrews say this, מִפָּרִאשׁוֹנָה מִלְפָנִים / מקום / Rabbini מֵעָקְרָא which means properly “from the root.” To which they oppose הַשְׁתָּא meaning “now,” or something similar. Therefore, this phrase must be explained as referring to the place and as well to the nature of the thing; so that when it is said that “the Word of life which was from the beginning,” which appeared in the flesh, 1 John 1:1, signifies that He did not begin then or only then when He appeared, but long before anything existed or could be thought to exist. Micah 5:1 states that “he will come out of Bethlehem” from the lineage of David during His time, while also indicating that His origins are from earlier times, described as “from the days of eternity.” This passage is interpreted to suggest that His emergence was not occurring for the first time then but had roots in a prior existence or origin. Similarly, what is said in 2 Thessalonians 2 that “God chose us from the beginning” means that God does not choose us only then when we choose or love Him, but long before we were born or had done any good or evil; namely, before the foundations of the world were laid, eternally, He chose us. Concerning the Devil when it is said he “sinned from the beginning,” it must be understood that the Devil has sinned from the most ancient time and perpetually, and from him first proceeded the example of sinning.
Fifth, because the purpose of the advent of Christ was to dissolve the works of the Devil. “For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the Devil,” verse 8. Do not confuse this reason with that which is in verse 5. The works of the Devil are sin and guilt. The Son of God took away the guilt by receiving our sins into Himself. For this benefit we owe thanks to Him. This is the reason for His advent given in verse 5. Beyond this, Christ also came to abolish sin by the power of the Spirit of sanctification.
Sixth, from the truth of regeneration, verse 9. Here is the unique source of all hatred of sin and righteous operation: regeneration – its constancy and efficacy. This is because the seed of God, that is, the word and Spirit of God, abides in the regenerated. This truth, that they are regenerated not from man but from God, and therefore, from the life-giving and powerful Father (compare John 1:13; 1 Peter 1:23), is not easily dismissed. It is well known that some saints have been taught apostasy concerning this. How they can evade this doctrine, let them determine for themselves.
Seventh, concerning the distinction between the children of God and the Devil; and this so that it descends to the specification of acts of righteousness and brotherly love, verse 10.
Hence it returns to what chapter 2:9 had established concerning the command to love the brothers. And without doubt, brotherly love includes the admonitions not to be ἐπαίρεσθαι (proud) against brothers, nor to deceive them, nor to strike them with blows, nor to persecute them. This command has been asserted from ancient times, as stated in verse 11, as well in chapter 2:7.
This is urged (1) by contrast with the example of Cain, in whom the source of brotherly hatred is also detected because he was from the evil one, and because his works were evil, but those of his brother righteous, verse 12; then there is hatred of the world against the godly, verse 13. (2) and the punishment of hatred is death, verse 14. The reason for this is given in verse 15.
After having commanded and urged charity, he also shows the manner of loving: (1) in the example of perfect love, namely Christ Himself, who, it says, looking back at the above in which he called the Son of God Θεὸν (God), so that he would not obscurely name the Son of God as God. After this example he demands our love then in particular, as to the expenditure of life (verse 16), and victory, verse 17); then in general, that love be true and in deed, verse 18. (2) John urges this based on the fruit. And in this, that we love in deed and truth, “we know that we are of the truth, and before Him we shall calm our hearts,” verse 19; that is, so that He does not condemn us. פיס or אֲפִיס among the Arameans and Rabbis denotes to calm down, compose, quiet, pacify the mind of someone. Thus, τὸ πείθειν [‘to the persuading’] here and Matthew 28:14. The reason for this is added (1) from the greatness of this fruit: “For if our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart and knows all things,” verse 20. (2) From the manner of receiving this fruit: “Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before God,” verse 21. The phrase from Job 27:6 is not misleading: “My heart will not reproach me as long as I live.” Our heart does not condemn us when we walk in good conscience and seriously, with a sincere desire to do what is pleasing to God and afflicted by displeasure at our transgressions. This is declared afterward. Thus, our heart will not condemn us; although God is greater than our heart, yet we have the certain testimony of the Holy Spirit so that we may confidently appear before Him.
It is explained what that confidence is and what it means that our heart does not condemn us. “And whatever we ask, we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do what pleases Him,” verse 22. What then does He command? To believe and to love, verse 23. Therefore, he who loves and believes also knows that he pleases God, and his heart is at peace and he has confidence; indeed, he has communion with God. For this end, as was first considered, all things are referred to, so that we may have communion with God and full joy. “And he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him.” How? Because from this very thing we know that we have the Spirit of God: “And in this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us,” verse 24.
The method of this Epistle is artful. In the manner of a chain, the mysteries and axioms of the Christian faith are connected, and it is plainly shown how they are variously linked to each other. Always the treatment which follows arises from the end of what precedes. Thus here, when He has remembered the Spirit of God given to us, and a little before the commandment of faith and charity, whose observance gives us confidence before God: seizing this occasion from the Spirit of God, who is in the children of God, He discusses it. Thus, little by little He rises to the very bond of our communion with God, of which all things are effects through which he had thus said we have communion with God.
1 John 4
Therefore, the Spirit is, according to the teaching of the Apostle, (1) the discerner by which truth is distinguished from falsehood. “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits whether they are from God. For many false prophets have gone out into the world,” verse 1, chapter 4. Above, 1 John 2:18, πολλοὶ ̓Αντίχρισι (‘many Antichrists’). The norm of truth is the testimony of the Spirit of God.
Verse 2: “In this you know the Spirit of God. Every spirit that confesses Jesus Christ who came in the flesh is from God.” It must again be said that these words should be empty if taken only concerning external confession of this axiom. Although this doctrine is true and from God and should compel men to confess it due to the light of this divine truth, nevertheless, not every spirit is from God that utters those words. For even false prophets can confess these things verbally according to the letter and can take away its power and efficacy according to its force and effect, 2 Timothy 3:5: “Having a form of godliness but denying its power.” Having and admitting the form (compare Romans 2:20) of piety but denying its power, that is, the power of piety in word and deed. Many things pertain to ἐνέργειαν (the energy, efficacy), which in the shell of words are not immediately apparent: such is in this Christian badge (tessera) itself the word Χριστός (Christ), for which is soon called ὁ Θεὸς (God), Son of God, chapter 5:5; soon called σωτὴρ τῆς κόσμου (Savior of the world), chapter 4:14, soon called ἀληθινὸς θεὸς (true God), chapter 5:20; soon called ὁ ἅγιος (the Holy One), chapter 2:20. These offices and benefits are contained in that name. And, as you may know elsewhere also what this and its efficacy (ἐνέργειαν) mean, see, if you wish, Acts 19:4. Paul teaches the disciples from Corinth, baptized into John’s baptism—that is, without doubt, into Jesus baptized by John at Jordan and having received testimony from God—who did not know whether the Holy Spirit had been given. I say he teaches that John baptized and told the people to believe in Him who was to come after him, namely, to be baptized with the Holy Spirit, that is “in Christ Jesus.” And thus, when they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus—not simply Jesus, but Him who, as Christ and Lord, was to pour out the Holy Spirit. From this outpouring of the Holy Spirit Peter demonstrates that Jesus is Christ and Lord, Acts 2:33, 36.
“In carne venisse” [“is come in the flesh”] means the same as “in carne apparuisse” [“has appeared in the flesh”] (for τὸ πεφανερωθῆναι [“having been manifested”] is used in the same sense and is opposed to τῷ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς [“who was from the beginning”] in chapter 1:1, 2). It means that He was made flesh and suffered in it all things required for our salvation and was in part put to death in it and in part exalted: and that He does not now come daily but will come on the last day.
They do absolutely nothing who interprets it as “came in humility.” For this is not the whole meaning. The words must be understood according to the context. The subject matter concerns the Word of God, who was from the beginning, who was with the Father, and was sent by the Father from heaven; whose “coming in the flesh” cannot be understood except as referring to assumed flesh. Thus, Saint Paul the Apostle in 2 Timothy 2:8, in a similar summary of faith, says, “Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, from the seed of David.” Just as this is to be understood of His birth, so in the creed of Saint John “coming in the flesh” is to be explained such that being born in the flesh is first understood under these words, but not as all are born, but specifically as He who is from the beginning the Son of God is born of flesh. And finally, these words are to be taken so that all other things preached about Jesus agree. Now according to other things preached about Him, this phrase is properly and most aptly taken for the assumption of the flesh.
Therefore, John proves that truth unless it is demonstrated that it can be otherwise understood prudently and according to the analogy of faith, there is nothing that leads or compels us to that meaning. Although the phrase is commonly employed to denote “to have come in the flesh,” meaning “to have lived humbly,” also remains unproven, this usage serves as an argument that, specifically regarding Jesus as the incarnate Son of God (ἐνσαρκωθέντι = “having been made flesh”), such a statement could only be applicable.
Moreover, here John shows that every doctrine, teaching, and interpretation of Scripture must have this measure and rule: to confirm the deity of Jesus, His humanity, His sufferings and the glory that followed these; the deity, incarnation, passions, and subsequent glory. And that the Spirit is from God, or that such doctrine and interpretation proceed from a pure heart as a divine gift (χαρίσμα). On the contrary, verse 3 says, “And every spirit which does not confess Jesus Christ who came in the flesh is not from God.” The analogy (ἀνάλογία) of faith, as well the rule of faith which is summarized in Jesus Christ, is recapitulated; it is the source of all false doctrine. But the Spirit of God ἀνακρίνει τὰ πάντα (examines all things) and teaches us to δοκιμάζειν (test or try) them for that standard.
Therefore, since by this very fact Jesus is most clearly shown to be the Christ, because He gave this Spirit, which Saint John testifies that we have, those of us who have communion with God; does he not deny Jesus is the CHRIST who denies that Christians have this Spirit of testing (δοκιμασίας), examination (ἀνακρίσεως), and discernment (διακρίσεως)? The Pope denies all these.
“And this,” (this spirit is implied) “is of the Antichrist,” that is to say, the Antichrist indeed will boast he has that Spirit which leads into all truth; but the spirit of the Antichrist is far different, namely, denying the truth.
Who, I ask, would now, after considering these things, continue to think that Saint John intended to show that Simon bar Kokhba, in particular, has that spirit? As if in that dark warning the whole sum and height of danger of false prophecy rested only on Bar Kochba. Especially since he says, “every spirit,” which cannot pertain to only one man and one lie. Rather it signifies that whoever detracts from the glory of Christ is from the spirit of the Antichrist, and though they all have the spirit of the Antichrist, yet that spirit dwells bodily (σωματικῶς) in the great Antichrist according to all its fullness.
Which is even evident from the fact that he does not assent to this most certain creed and principle of faith and proposes something else: the Pope is the vicar of Christ, implying he is God and Christ on earth.
Therefore, from this passage it can clearly be proven that there will be many Antichrists and one great Antichrist. Who the great Antichrist is, our detractors say, Saint John did not fully explain, making it easier to understand all the differences and conditions of the Antichrists.
Yes, it is rightly concluded from this passage that Bar Kochba was among the many Antichrists, but he was not the principal one. For it is by no means established in this passage that all the marks of the Αντίχριστος (Antichrist) in the highest sense were fulfilled in him. That an Antichrist of another kind than that of the Jews is not to be expected is least evident from this place.
John says, “The spirit of the Antichrist is already in the world” (v. 3). This is a notable point. The meaning is clear: hypocrites and all those nations which do not obey revealed truth have already been given, by the just judgment of God, into the power of the Devil to seduce them into errors, of which the author and head will at some time be that great Antichrist. Furthermore, false prophets have also already gone out to seduce them. This aligns with Saint Paul’s observation: τὸ μυστήριον τῆς ἀνομίας ἤδη ἐνεργεῖται (“the mystery of iniquity already works”). He employs the term already to indicate that, although the full αποκάλυψεν (revelation) remains deferred, the underlying evil has already commenced its operation.
In these verses, he most fittingly offers consolation to the faithful elect from the protection of the Holy Spirit, because through it they have overcome the deceivers, that is, they have avoided the danger of deception. Verse 4: “You are of God, little children, and have overcome them because greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world.” Observe the sole reason why some are not deceived by cunning or terror: because they are of God, that is, regenerated by God and made new men (for it is not sufficient what the Interpreter [Grotius] says, “You have divine wisdom.” The question is why they are not overcome by the deceivers, while consistently having divine wisdom) and “God is in them” and by His power preserves them.
Finally, verses 5 and 6 explain every difference between the world and the children of God; hence it happens that they feel and speak differently. “They are of the world; therefore, they speak from the world, and the world hears them. We are of God. He who knows God,” and thus, is of God, to whom God has granted to be known, “hears us. He who is not of God does not hear us.” Therefore, do not be surprised that many powerful, learned, stone-throwing people side with the Antichrist. They are of the world and delivered into the power of the Prince of Darkness, and they cannot understand anything else than what they are taught by him; nor can they hear the truth and assent to it; unless God in His mercy frees them from the bonds of Satan and admits them to the knowledge of Himself.
Verse 6 (cont.): “From this, we know the Spirit of truth and the Spirit of falsehood,” that is to say, both from other things and from this because they speak from the world and do not hear us. This is a transition. Secondly, the Spirit of God, which we have from God, is the Spirit of love. Verse 7. Therefore, he commends mutual love at the beginning (which is not to seek what is one’s own, but to have κοινόν Φρόνημα, (a common mind); to present oneself as a brother to brothers, and not to wish to subjugate brothers, but to seek the salvation of brothers, indeed, of all men) because it is from God, and thus the τεκμήριον (proof/evidence) of “those who are from God and know Him.” (For these things are interchangeable with one another and are called ἰσοδύναμα, “of equal value”, also in verse 6.) Hence, those who strive to subjugate their brothers do not have charity; but have the spirit of the Antichrist. The reason: “God is love,” verse 8. Therefore, he emphasizes the charity of God from the sending of the Son. Where (1) the greatest cost, the only begotten Son. (2) for the greatest good, which is life. (3) with the firmest purpose; that we might live. (4) for the unworthy, verse 9: “In this is love, not that we loved Him, but that He loved us and sent His Son.” We were enemies. We did not anticipate the love of God, whereby the Father sent Christ deservedly, the Spirit applying faith. (5) In a marvelous way: ἱλασμὸν, (as propitiation for our sins), so that He might satisfy the justice of God on our behalf, and turn away the wrath under which we were, with the curse removed—not only with many tangible benefits, not only external calling and offering of salvation in Christ, not only some knowledge of the truth or the tolerance of God in this age (which happens even to many who perish)—but the favor and goodwill of the Father to give faith, righteousness, sanctification, joy in patience, and eternal life were procured. From this he concludes (verse 11) that “we ought to love one another.”
It is quite clear that St. John, when describing the love of God, speaks of such a counsel of God concerning human life and salvation through Christ that it is impossible, with this taken care of, for any person not to attain salvation. Certainly, no scripture teaches such a counsel about all men whatsoever. Neither does this counsel, whether you consider the will or love of evil men, depend on any will or love of man, whether you look at the ordination and giving of the mediator, or the application of the made propitiation. This passage clearly teaches this: that no one who believes can boast that it is his own doing that he believes more than others; but must necessarily acknowledge that it is the mercy of God and the merit of Christ that brings this to him. Those who deny that Christ has satisfied, and thus leave the ἱλασμὸν (propitiation) as merely metaphorical; who indeed acknowledge this word but meanwhile diminish its efficacy in many ways and ascribe it to other causes, and wish to restore an unbloody offering daily; [i.e., the Mass] as well as those who attribute its fruit to human will and not to the gift of God—all these fight against this Christian and Apostolic doctrine.
Then in verse 12, he commends charity to the communion of God and the love with which God embraces those who love one another. “No one has ever seen God,” meaning that one can love Him according to how He Himself is good and worthy of being loved. But “if we love one another, God abides in us,” that is, we have communion with Him, we know Him and love Him, “and His love is perfected in us,” that is, God has pleasure in us, He rests in us. Thus, the Apostle gradually proceeds to teach that the Spirit of God is the Spirit of love. “For,” he says in verse 13, “in this we know that we abide in God and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit.” That is to say, mutual love testifies to the communion of God because it is from His Spirit, who is the Spirit of love. This he declares from the fact that this Spirit proceeds from the love of God.
Verse 14: This is evident in the Apostles who, after they had seen and were eyewitnesses, bear witness through the Spirit that “the Father sent His Son, the Savior of the world.” The same is evident in those who have not seen and yet believed.
Verse 15: “For whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him,” that is, God is in him through His Spirit, “and he in God,” that is, he lives in God and has communion with Him.
Verse 16: “And we,” who confess, “have known and believed the love that God has for us.” The reasoning is quite clear. Love makes us certain of the communion of God because it is from the Spirit of God. For He is the Spirit of love because He causes us to know, feel, believe, testify, confess the love of God which He exercised toward us when He sent His Son as Savior of the world. Σωτήρα τοῦ κόσμε, “Savior of the world,” verse 14, implied from the nature of joining together σωζομένε “the one who is being saved.” See here the words at chapter 2:1; chapter 4:9, 10. τὸ σώζες ‘to be saved’ is not to be taken lightly here because it concerns the attainment of eternal salvation, as in John 3:17. “That the world may be saved through Him.” For which verses 15 and 16 speak of “having eternal life.” Thus, Acts 2:47; Luke 13:23.
Moreover, “to save and to be saved” also speaks to the many positive effects of eternal salvation, as in deliverance from many bodily or temporal evils. And God is called, with distinction, “the Savior of all men, especially of believers” (1 Timothy 4:10). Indeed, God is not the destroyer of His work, but He benefits men with many blessings and delivers them from many evils; yet He wonderfully protects the faithful above others, rules and preserves them remarkably, directs all things to serve their good, judges the world severely because of them, and finally crowns their warfare with eternal and unfading joy and glory. It is indicated here that Christ did not come to establish distinctions between the great and the small, slaves and free, but that all whom He calls and incorporates into His body He makes one, and does not subject one to another, but makes all disciples of God. It is also evident in this place with how much emphasis the statement “to confess that Jesus is the Son of God” [v. 15], or the Christ; likewise the contrary, to deny that Jesus is the Christ must be understood in manifold ways: namely, so that ‘to confess’ is not only to profess with the mouth, but also with the heart and works, and indeed, not according to the shell of words only, but according to its manifestation of activity (ἐνέργειαν ), since activity (ἐνέργεια) in this faith is indicated, so that he who believes this has impressed upon his mind the love of God, which He testified by sending the Son into flesh, and the Son testified by shedding His blood to atone for sins (which love embraces many primary articles of faith), so that by this same love the believer may be powerfully moved through the Spirit of God to love God and neighbor. Therefore, to deny that Jesus is the Christ must be understood as encompassing the same manifestation of activity (ἐνέργεια). So, just as the Spirit of Christ is the Spirit of brotherly love: the Spirit of Antichrist, as the Apostle also implies, is the spirit of pride, arrogance, hatred, and persecution; and thus, the persecution of those who truly confess Jesus is the Christ, according to the Scriptures. This is the surest mark of the Spirit of Antichrist. Moreover, part of our confessing Christ is to not only endure [until the end], but to avoid, rebuke, and restrain those who do not confess Jesus Christ according to the Scriptures, who blaspheme Him instead. This, according to the duty of our office.
He finally concludes that what verse 8 had proposed, that love is a sure sign of the communion of God. But before proceeding to other matters, he further teaches two things about charity. (1) What it is that verse 12 had said, “the love of God is perfect in those who love the brothers.” In this, he says in verse 17, “love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence,” etc. This means that God loves us so perfectly and reveals and seals this love to us so that we may have confidence “in the day of judgment, because as He is, we also are in this world,” that is, because we see ourselves conformed to His image. It is an argument not from cause but from sign and connection. Saying the ‘perfect’ love of God is speaking in a human manner. For the love of God is nothing but perfect. Although God is said to love those whom He benefits in any way—especially when His kindness brings them to repentance, even if they have not yet repented—He refers to God’s “perfect love” as the special goodwill that God extends toward the chosen and faithful. Thus, although it can be stated that God, in His own manner, has shown love to the entire world—by intending its benefit, guiding it toward the knowledge of Himself through various physical and spiritual blessings, presenting a Savior in general terms, mitigating the consequences of sin during this life, frequently restraining the power and wrath of Satan, and condemning only after ingratitude has become evident—the statement in John 3:16, “For God so loved the world,” should, in its context and emphasis, be understood as referring specifically to the elect throughout the world. For these individuals, the redemptive work and merit of Christ are intended to yield their effect, according to the Father’s predestined purpose.
‘Confidence’ is declared conversely. Verse 18: “There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear,” that is, those who love God and neighbor are freed from all terror of conscience and from fear of the cross. For such charity is not of such nature as to have fear accompanying it. “For fear has torment.” But perfect love of God does not allow a man to be tormented. “But he who fears is not perfect in love,” that is, he who is terrified and fears the cross has reason to recognize his defect because he has not yet fully and perfectly known the love of God and thus has not yet reached that degree of charity which is finally perfected in the children of God; therefore, he should with unceasing sighs pray to God that He preserve him and increase faith and love in him.
Therefore, those who deny that this boldness and certainty is obtained by the faithful except from special revelation and consider it presumption and do not consider faith to be defined by confidence hold a wicked opinion of the love of God. For although weak faith and imperfect charity do not immediately remove all doubt and terror, nevertheless, true faith and charity finally overcome all temptations and advance to this certainty.
[N. B. Cocceius is referencing the Roman Catholic doctrine against the presumption of being certain of one’s salvation: Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapters 12 & 13.]
This doctrine is also opposed to that fear which the Antichrist instills in men, condemning the confidence of the children of God in faith, and demanding satisfactions and recommending humility (ταπεινοφροσύνη) as unbecoming the children of God. About this, see Colossians 2:18. (2) It confirms and declares what verse 10 had said, “that love consists not in that we have loved God, but that He has loved us.” We do not rely on our merits, nor on our resistance (τῷ ἀντεξεσίῳ) and will for righteousness, but on the grace and mercy of God. For verse 19 declares that it is by no means true that our love precedes His love. “We love Him because He first loved us.” That is, we could not love God if God did not grant us this grace out of singular love.
From this, verse 20 infers that the boasting of the love of God is vain where there is no love of the brothers; because the grace of God does not produce the love of God without the love of the brothers.
From this verse 20 infers that the boasting of the love of God is vain where there is no love of the brothers; because the grace of God does not produce the love of God without the love of the brothers.
Thus, finally verse 21 concludes the exhortation to fraternal love with a reminder of the divine commandment.
1 JOHN 5
Chapter 5:1. Therefore, as a transition to connect the following doctrine on faith with the preceding one on love, he proposes two criteria for love that do not deviate at all. (1) Defining who our brothers are. “Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God; whoever loves the parent loves also the child from him.” It is evident that the whole of St. John’s epistle reduces this creed to a symbol of truth, that Jesus is the Christ; and therefore, as we have often contended, this is to be taken not superficially but as the root which bears the entire tree. (2) Defining the manner of love. “In this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments,” [v. 2]. And we do not mix in foreign commandments which adulterate God’s commandments. Nor do we desire to judge others according to those commandments, and not according to God’s commandments.
Verse 3: “For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments.” From this exegesis it is clear and explanatory. How then can those who [claim to] have the will of God yet walk in human commandments have a good conscience regarding the love of the children of God? Let us hold this: just as the creed of the children of God is one, and from its faith depends fraternal communion, good conscience, and confidence; so, too, whatever is against it is of the Antichrist and has contrary consequences.
Furthermore, lest anyone become dull or insensitive at the mention of God’s commandments, as if it were a terrible matter, he says: “And His commandments are not burdensome,” that is, the commandments of God do not weigh heavily upon us who are born of God. Compare Matthew 11:30. He does not say it is easy for a mere human being to fulfill the law of God, or that the commandments of Christ can be kept without great struggle of the flesh, or that perfection can be easily attained, or that one can even do more than is required: by no means. But the commandments of God or Christ do not weigh heavily upon the regenerated, insofar as they are regenerated. This is apparent from the added reason: “Because whosoever is born of God overcomes the world,” that is, truly the flesh and the world oppose the commandments of Christ; but those who are born of God overcome all obstacles by His power.
Now, since the commandments of God are not burdensome, but are full of love and grace; why then, should we burden ourselves with human decrees and statutes which despise this grace? Why should we torture ourselves? Why should we impose burdens on our brethren, since God has taken away the burden and yoke from us?
Here he sets his foot firmly and now speaks of faith, about which is above in chapter 3:23. Its praise is contained in verses 4 and 5: “And this is the victory that overcomes the world—our faith.” In the hypothesis, καύχησιν [boasting] precedes us. In the thesis, however: “Who is he who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?” Why not, he who loves God and neighbor, whose works are good? Due to the fact that all these things proceed from faith, faith is imputed as righteousness. This is said below as “having eternal life,” verses 12 and 13.
To prove that he who believes Jesus to be the Son of God has overcome the world, he does two things: (1) He demonstrates that Jesus is proven to be the Christ by plain divine testimony. “This is He who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood,” [v. 6]. This means not only with perfect innocence and righteousness, but also with satisfaction for sins through blood. The words εν & δι’ [‘by’ or ‘through’] here are the same and have the same kind of force as in the Hebrew of 1 Samuel 17:43,45; Psalm 66:12.
“And the Spirit bears witness that the Spirit is truth,” that is, the testimony and judgment of the Spirit itself is truth. The Spirit is spoken of in two ways: (1) Every manifestation of the Holy Spirit in the Prophets, in Christ and the Apostles. The Prophets testify, who spoke by the Holy Spirit; the works of Christ in the Spirit testify, as well as the words of Christ and His resurrection; the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Apostles and all His gifts testify. (2) The dictation of the Holy Spirit in our hearts, whose reception is faith. The Spirit is always the same, giving testimony everywhere: in prophecy, in promise, in the words of Christ and the Apostles, in great works, and when He cries out in us, “Abba, Father,” and reveals to our conscience (which He Himself made) the truth. For all these things which are from the Spirit of God agree with one another.
Verses 7 & 8: “For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth: the spirit, the water, and the blood.” That is, (1) the Father through His Spirit in the Prophets and the power of miracles in Christ; (2) Christ by the merit of His work and His Spirit purifying the hearts of Jews and Gentiles unto faith, so that they may become partakers of righteousness; (3) the Holy Spirit not only illuminating and bending to faith but also animating to patience in the cross and to shedding blood for the glory of Christ, so that the faithful may be conformed to their head. “And these three are one.” Verse 9: “If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for this is the testimony of God which He has testified concerning His Son.”
II. That this testimony is in the believer. Verse 10: “He who believes in the Son of God has the testimony of God in himself; he who does not believe makes Him a liar, because he does not believe the testimony that God has testified concerning His Son.” Therefore, he who has this testimony has overcome the world.
“He makes Him a liar.” Thus John 3:33: “Whoever receives His testimony sets his seal to this, that God is true.” It is true that many do not believe. However, it must be carefully considered how it is they make God a liar. To suppose anything outside Scripture is not safe.
St. John explains clearly the testimony of God, in which by not believing they make God a liar. Verse 11: “And this is the testimony, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.” That He has given, that is, by grace, not by merit or our righteousness, He has decreed to give. To us, who believe. For thus, verse 13: “These things I have written to you who believe.” Indeed, the promise is general and conditional, “Whoever believes in me shall be saved; whoever comes to me I will never cast out;” but the special application is to those who believe; and thus, the decree concerns certain ones who at some point in time believe. He who does not have this testimony in himself, which the elect feel in themselves, is ignorant of salvation and life which is in the elect, and of the truth which God grants to them; and in his unbelief he lies by saying there is no salvation for them in Christ. He who does not accept the promise of God and does not apply it to himself through a true and serious desire for eternal life and remission of sins, makes God a liar, who calls all who hunger and thirst for righteousness blessed without distinction. For he denies that he will be a partaker of blessedness, even if he hungers and thirsts after righteousness. We do not mean this about those who truly hunger and thirst meanwhile anxiously and cannot yet sufficiently console themselves (for God will forgive this weakness to them, and, with His help, they will overcome it), but about those who despise salvation in Christ, not considering to what great grace they are also called to partake.
“Eternal life,” and thus faith, righteousness, sanctification, and all things which are ordained by God for obtaining eternal life. It is clear from this that all these things are understood under the name “eternal life,” because those who have faith are said to have passed from death to life and to have eternal life. To believe in Christ is to be revived from death.
“In ipso,” [‘In Him’] as the perfect author, who from eternity with the Father loved us, obtained righteousness and life for us in time, and through His Spirit gives the same, preserving it forever.
Not without reason have we proceeded thus far in this letter, where earlier we began to speak of the Antichrist. For here also the same creed is inculcated everywhere. For, “he who does not believe makes God a liar,” [v. 10], is not only to be understood as he who neglects Christ the Savior, but especially he who denies. Therefore, he who denies that Jesus is the Christ, also denies the testimony of God, that is, he denies that God has given us eternal life, and that it is in His Son; or, he who denies this, denies that Jesus is the Christ, and thus is the Antichrist. Yet he who says that we can love God first, or deserve righteousness and life, or we can atone for our sins or those of others, that Christ has not [by his passive and active obedience alone] obtained eternal life for us completely; that faith is from free will, that Christ is not the principal giver of salvation; that our faith, as a good work is to be counted for our righteousness, and not the righteousness of Christ imputed to us; and if there are other errors conflicting with this truth [of eternal life in Christ], he denies that God has given us life, and that it is in Christ Jesus. Therefore, it is clear that these things are from the lies of the Antichrist.
Verse 12: “He that has the Son has life.” Whoever believes has the Son; as is known from verse 13. Therefore, he has life. If he has life, then he does not lose the Son. Therefore, he does not fail.
Furthermore, that faith conquers the world is clear from this; because faith apprehends Christ, because Christ belongs to those who believe; that is, all His obedience, both active and passive, as they say, is given to them, and so, as members of Christ, they are loved by God, who gives them life and eternal glory in Christ. All that Christ is, has, and can do belongs to the believers.
“He who does not have the Son of God does not have life,” [v. 12].
The conclusion applies all these things to consolation and the endeavor to progress in faith. Verse 13: “I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may believe in the name of the Son of God.” Although ‘to believe someone’ is a common saying, however, to believe God and Christ, more so in God and Christ, is not to be taken commonly because we [Christians] believe in the name of God and Christ. This is nothing less than the principal witness of the true and supreme God. Thus, here, as in verse 7, Christ or λόγος (the Word) is asserted as the supreme witness with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Neither can we believe in the name of anyone nor be baptized in the name of anyone unless he is the true God. Christ alone has received the name above every name, so that every knee should bow at His name; nor is there any other name given to men by which they are saved except His, Acts 4:12. If it were otherwise, why do we not also believe and baptize in the name of Paul? 1 Corinthians 1:13,15.
In the third place, he discusses παρρησίᾳ, that is, confidence, which we have before God, chapter 3:21. Just as with charity, chapter 4:17, so also with faith. verses 14.15. “This is the confidence that we have toward him, that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. And if we know that he hears us, whatever we ask, we know that we have the petitions which we have asked from him.” Compare Job 22:27.28.
Specifically, if we pray for our neighbor, verse 16. “If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask (that is, pray), and he will give him life, for those who commit sins not leading to death. There is a sin leading to death. I do not say that he should pray for that.” There is no [alleged] papal distinction [in Scripture] between venial or non-venial sin. [N. B. Ezekiel 18:20: “The soul who sins shall die.] The sin leading to death is that concerning which Hebrews 6 & 10 [6:4-6 & 10:29] and Matthew 12:32 speak. Whether the Antichrist is exempt from this, let him see for himself.
Verse 17: “All unrighteousness is sin,” by its very nature. Therefore, no sin is venial by its nature.
“And it is a sin leading to death.” Someone might be alarmed by this admonition and wonder if they have gravely fallen and have sinned unto death; as many devout, but insufficiently instructed people, tend to be anxious about this. Therefore, he adds, verse 18: “We know that everyone born of God does not sin,” (in this sense, in the strict meaning) “but the one born of God keeps himself, and the evil one does not touch him.” Verse 19: “We know that we are of God. And the whole world lies in wickedness.” Verse 20: “But we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know the true One. And we are in that true One through faith in his Son Jesus Christ.” Therefore, our παρρησία (confident boldness) is (1) that we receive what we ask; even when we pray for a sinning brother. (2) that we know we are in Christ, and that the evil one does not touch us so that we [can never] sin unto death. That boldness neither the Spirit of the Antichrist gives, nor does it oppose.
The epilogue consists of a confession, which agrees with the beginning and admonition to the contrary. “This is the true God and eternal life. Little children, keep yourselves from idols. AMEN,” verse 21, since it is in the Father and the Son that God is to be known as true and eternal life. An idol is whatever, in any way, is put in the place of Christ. To not give God all glory is to fabricate an idol.
The summary of this entire Epistle and the doctrine concerning Christ and the Antichrist is repeated in the 2nd Epistle.
END