• Table of Contents

---

• About the Author

---

• Preface to the Book

---

• The Last Words in Old Testament Prophecy

---

• PART I. - The Parousia in the Gospels

---

• Parousia in the Synoptical Gospels

---

• Prophetic Intimations of the approaching Consummation of the Kingdom of God:

---

• The Prophecy on the Mount examined:

---

• Our Lord's declaration before the High Priest

---

• Prediction of the Woes coming on Jerusalem

---

• Prayer of the Penitent Thief

---

• Apostolic Commission, the

---

• The Parousia in the Gospel of St.John.

---

• Appendix to Part I

---

• PART II. The Parousia in the Acts and the Epistles.
  • In the Acts of the Apostles.

  ---

  • In the First Epistle to the Thessalonians

  ---

  • In the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians

  ---

  • In the First Epistle to the Corinthians

  ---

  • In the Second Epistle to the Corinthians

  ---

  • In the Epistle to the Galatians

  ---

  • In the Epistle to the Romans

  ---

  • In the Epistle to the Colossians

  ---

  • In the First Epistle to Timothy

  ---

  • In the Second Epistle of Timothy

  ---

  • In the Epistle to Titus

  ---

  • In the Epistle to the Hebrews

  ---

  • In the Epistle of St. James

  ---

  • In the First Epistle of St. Peter

  ---

  • In the Second Epistle of St. Peter

  ---

  • In the First Epistle of St. John

  ---

  • In the Epistle of St. Jude

  ---

• Appendix to Part II

---

• Part III. The Parousia in the Apocalypse.
  • The First Vision.

  ---

  • The Second Vision..

  ---

  • The Third Vision.

  ---

  • The Fourth Vision.

  ---

  • The Fifth Vision.

  ---

  • The Sixth Vision.

  ---

  • The Seventh Vision.

  ---

• Summary and Conclusion

---

• Appendix to Part III.

---

• Afterword by Russell

---

• All the Comparative Scripture Charts Combined

THE PAROUSIA

Grk/Heb Fonts

PDF

by James Stuart Russell

THE MYSTERY OF THE SCARLET BEAST

Rev. 17:3, 7-11—‘And I saw a woman sitting upon a scarlet beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns... I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and the ten horns. The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and is about to ascend out of the abyss, and goeth into perdition: and they that dwell upon the land shall wonder, whose name is not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and shall come. Here is the mind that hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. And there [they] are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come: and when he cometh, he must continue a short space. And the beast that was and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.’

There can be no reasonable doubt that the beast [yhrion] here described is identical with that in Rev. 13. The name, the description, and the attributes of the monster plainly point to the same individual. There are, however, additional particulars in this second description which at first seem rather to obscure than elucidate the meaning. The scarlet colour, indeed, may easily be recognised as the symbol of Imperial dignity; but what can be said of the apparent paradoxes, ‘he was, and is not, and shall come again’? and ‘he is the eighth [king], and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition’?

We have already been led to the conclusion that the wild beast (Rev. 13) signifies Nero. The paradox or enigma which represents him as ‘the beast which was, and is not, and shall appear,’ is a puzzle which at first sight seems inexplicable. It is evidently a contradiction in terms, and can only be true in some peculiar sense. That it should actually be true, in any sense of Nero, is one of the most extraordinary facts in history, and brings home to him this symbolic description with all the force of demonstration. It seems established by the clearest evidence that at the death of Nero there was a popular and wide-spread belief that the tyrant was still alive, and would shortly reappear. We have the express testimony of Tacitus, Suetonius, and other historians to the existence of such a persuasion. It has been objected that this explanation of the paradox virtually imputes equivocation to the Scriptures. What can be more frivolous than such an argument? Any explanation of what is a contradiction in terms must be in some degree unnatural and equivocal; but it is absurd in dealing with a book of symbols to demand literal truth. Must it be shown that Nero had ten horns?

It was surely competent for the prophet-seer to indicate a person, whom he dared not name, by any symbolic representation which would lead to his recognition. What could be more distinctive of the particular person intended than this very fact of his expected reappearance after death? Of how few persons in the world could such an opinion be entertained? That it should be historically true that such a popular delusion prevailed respecting Nero we regard as a singular and conclusive proof that he is the individual denoted by the symbol.

THE SEVEN KINGS.

It is more difficult to unriddle the enigma of the seven kings, of whom the beast is one, and yet the eighth. The seven heads of the monster seem to be emblematic, not only of the seven hills upon which the woman sits, but also of seven kings who have a twofold relation, viz. to the woman and to the beast. The antitype of the symbol ought, therefore, to sustain this double relation, though one would expect, as being connatural with the monster, that their relation to him would be the most intimate. Of these seven kings, ‘five,’ it is stated, ‘are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space; and the beast that was, and is now, he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.’

We have already seen that in general, the number seven being a symbolic number, is not to be taken as standing for so many units, but as indicating perfectness or totality. There are occasions, however, when it seems necessary to take it in an arithmetical sense, as, for example, when it stands in close connection with other numbers. In the instance before us, where we read of seven kings, five of whom are fallen, and one is, and the seventh is not yet come, while a mysterious eighth is hinted at, it is difficult to understand the number seven in any other than the literal numerical sense.

Where, then, are we to look for these seven kings or heads? It is presumable that they also are where the mountains are, in the place where the scene is laid. If the harlot means Jerusalem we should expect to find the kings there also. Where, then, are seven kings, and a mysterious eighth, to be found in Jerusalem? The kings of the Herodian line have been suggested, viz. 1. Herod the Great; 2. Archelaus; 3. Philip; 4. Herod Antipas; 5. Agrippa I.; 6. Herod of Chalcis; 7. Agrippa II. This is the suggestion of Dr. Zuellig, and deserves the praise of ingenuity; but there are two fatal objections to it: first, they cannot all be said to have been kings or rulers in Jerusalem, or even in Judea; and, secondly, they do not all belong to the apocalyptic period, the close of the Jewish age, or the last days of Jerusalem, which is an indispensable condition.

We venture to propose another solution, which we think will be found to answer in every particular the requirements of the problem. Bearing in mind what has already been proved, that the title ‘kings’ is often used as synonymous with rulers or governors, we submit that the basileiv here alluded to are no other than the Roman procurators of Judea under Claudius and Nero. It was in the reign of Claudius that Judea became for the second time a Roman province. This fact is expressly stated by Josephus, and also the reason why the change was made. On the death of Herod Agrippa I., on whom Caligula had conferred the sovereignty of the entire kingdom, his son Agrippa II. was considered by Claudius too young to fill his father’s throne. Judea was therefore reduced to the form of a province.¹ Cuspius Fadus was sent into Judea as the first of this second series of procurators.

These procurators were really viceroys, and answer well to the title basileiv in the vision.² Their number also exactly tallies with that given in the Apocalypse. From the appointment of Cuspius Fadus to the outbreak of the Jewish war, there were seven governors who bore supreme rule in Jerusalem and Judea. These were:

• Cuspius Fadus;
• Tiberius Alexander;
• Ventidius Cumanus;
• Antonius Felix;
• Portius Festus;
• Albinus;
• Gessius Florus.

Here, then, we have a well-defined period, falling within the apocalyptic limits as to time, occupying apocalyptic ground as to place, and corresponding with the apocalyptic symbol as to the number, character, and title. These viceroys sustain the double relation required by the symbol; they were related to the beast as Romans and as deputies; and they are related to the woman as governing powers.

It is now easy to see how Nero himself, the beast from the sea, or foreign tyrant, may be said to be the eighth, and yet of the seven. He was the supreme head, and these procurators were his deputies, the representatives of the emperor in Judea and Jerusalem. Thus he might be said to be of them, and yet distinct from them, —the eighth, and yet of the seven. This gives a natural and fitting propriety to the apparently enigmatical and paradoxical language of the symbolic representation, and solves the riddle without violent torture or dexterous manipulation.

THE TEN HORNS OF THE BEAST.

There is much obscurity also in the next symbol in Rev. 17:12:—

‘And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but they receive authority as kings one hour [or at one hour, —contemporaneously] with the beast.’

It will be observed that these ‘ten kings’ have the following characteristics:—

• They are satellites or tributaries of the beast, i.e. subject to Rome.

• They are confederate with the beast against Jerusalem.
• They are hostile to Christianity.
• They are hostile to the harlot, and active agents in her destruction.
• When the apostle wrote these kings were not yet invested with power.
• Their power was to be contemporaneous with that of the beast.

On the whole, we conclude that this symbol signifies the auxiliary princes and chiefs who were allies of Rome and received commands in the Roman army during the Jewish war. We know from Tacitus and Josephus that several kings of neighbouring nations followed Vespasian and Titus to the war. Allusion has already been made to some of these auxiliaries: Antiochus, Sohemus, Agrippa, and Malchus. There were no doubt others, but it is not incumbent to produce the exact number of ten, which, like seven, appears to be a mystic or symbolic number. They are represented as animated by a bitter hostility to Jerusalem, the harlot city: ‘These shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. For God hath put into their heart to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled’. (Rev. 17:16, 17) Tacitus speaks of the bitter animosity with which the Arab auxiliaries of Titus were filled against the Jews, ³ and we have a fearful proof of the intense hatred felt towards the Jews by the neighbouring nations in the wholesale massacres of that unhappy people perpetrated in may great cities just before the outbreak of the war. The whole Jewish population of Caesarea were massacred in one day. In Syria every city was divided into two camps, Jews and Syrians. In Scythopolis upwards of thirteen thousand Jews were butchered; in Ascalon, Ptolemais, and Tyre, similar atrocities took place. But in Alexandria the carnage of the Jewish inhabitants exceeded all the other massacres. The whole Jewish quarter was deluged with blood, and fifty thousand corpses lay in ghastly heaps in the streets.⁴ This is a terrible commentary on the words of the angel-interpreter: ‘The ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore,’ etc.

It only remains to notice one other feature in the vision. The woman is represented as ‘sitting upon many waters,’ and in Rev. 17:15 these waters are said to signify ‘peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.’ The mystical Babylon, like her prototype the literal Babylon, is said to ‘sit upon many waters.’ The prophet Jeremiah thus addresses ancient Babylon: ‘O thou that dwellest upon many waters’, (Jer. 51:13) and this description appears to be equally appropriate to Jerusalem.

The influence exercised by the Jewish race in all parts of the Roman Empire previous to the destruction of Jerusalem was immense; their synagogues were to be found in every city, and their colonies took root in every land. We see in Acts 2 the marvellous ramifications of the Hebrew race in foreign countries, from the enumeration of the different nations which were represented in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost: ‘There were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven, ... Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians.’ Jerusalem might truly be said to ‘sit upon many waters,’ that is, to exercise a mighty influence upon ‘peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.’

Such is the vision of ‘the harlot city,’ the fate of which is the great theme of our Lord’s prophecy on Olivet as well as of the Apocalypse. That it is Jerusalem, and Jerusalem alone, which is here portrayed must, we think be abundantly clear to every unbiased and candid mind; and any other subject would be utterly foreign to the whole purpose and end of the Apocalypse.

NOTE ON REV 17.

IDENTITY OF THE BEAST OF THE APOCALYPSE WITH THE MAN OF SIN IN 2 THESSALONIANS 2.

Before quitting this chapter it will be proper to point out the remarkable correspondence between the ‘man of sin’ delineated by St. Paul in 2 Thess. 2. and the wild beast described by St. John in Rev. 13 and Rev. 17. It will be observed that neither of the apostles names the formidable personage at whom he points; and doubtless for the same reason. This circumstance alone might suffice to suggest who is intended. There could be very few persons whose name it would not be safe to utter, probably not more than one, and that one the mightiest in the land. We cannot suppose that the name is suppressed merely for the sake of mystification: there must have been an adequate motive; that motive must have been a prudential one; and if prudential, then, no doubt, political, viz. to avoid incurring the suspicion of disaffection towards the government.

In addition to this there is a correspondence so minute and so manifold between ‘the man of sin’ of St. Paul and ‘the beast’ of St. John as to render it all but certain that they both refer to the same individual. We have already, on independent grounds and treating each subject separately, arrived at the conclusion that the Emperor Nero is intended by both apostles, and when we come to the place the two portraitures side by side this conclusion is decisively established. It is only necessary to glance at the parallel descriptions in order to be convinced that they depict the same individual, and that individual the monster Nero: