THE “FALSE PROPHET” IN REVELATION
IS THE TWO HORNED “BEAST”
OF REVELATION 13:11-18
--A.
Ralph Johnson
A number of commentators have identified the “false prophet” of Revelation 19:20 and
16:13 with Mohammed. The scriptures
clearly identify him as being the same as the two-horned “beast” of
Revelation 13:11-18. This paper is an
evaluation of the issues.
I.
EVIDENCE
THAT THE TWO-HORNED BEAST AND FALSE PROPHET ARE THE SAME.
A.
There is a close relationship between the beast, false prophet and dragon
in chapters 19 and 20, parallel to that between the dragon, the ten-horned beast and two-horned beast of
chapters 12 and 13.
These three are introduced
and work together against God’s people in 12 and 13. In 19 and 20 their end is described. If we fail to recognize the two-horned
beast as the false prophet, we leave two questions unresolved.
1.
Where
did the false prophet come from? It is mentioned in chapters 16 and 19 but if
we fail to see it as the two-horned “beast” we have no formal
introduction. It just suddenly appears
with the dragon and one of the beasts in 16:13 with no
explanation. However, if we identify
them as being the same, it is introduced in 13.
2.
What happened to the two-horned
beast? The woman, “Babylon,”
is spoken of as having fallen but there is no description of the end of the two
beasts of chapter 13 unless they are the “beast
and false prophet” of chapter 19.
The logical explanation is that the dragon,
ten-horned beast and two-horned beast of chapters 12 and 13 are the same
as the beast, false prophet and dragon
which find their end in the lake of fire
in 20:10.
B.
The features of the two-horned
beast in Revelation 13:11-18 are such
as are very well characterized as a “false
prophet.”
1.
It had two horns
like a lamb (like one impersonating Christ).
2.
It “spoke as a
dragon.” It spoke as the devil.
3.
It made the earth and them that dwell in it to worship the first beast.
4.
It did signs in
the sight of the beast (the identical words found in 19:20 in reference to
the “false prophet”).
5.
It deceived those that dwell on the earth by the signs.
6.
It made an image of the beast and caused people to worship it.
When
we add to this, a comparisons with the “man
of sin” in II Thes. 2, the “little
horn” of Dan. 7, and the Pope who claims to be the infallible vice-regent
of Christ on earth, the identification is overwhelming.
C.
Revelation 19:20 clearly identifies the “false prophet” with the two-horned beast of Rev. 13:11-18, which did signs in the sight of the ten-horned beast.
It says, “And the beast was taken, and with him the
false prophet that wrought the signs in his sight, wherewith he deceived them
that had received the mark of the beast and them that worshiped his image”
Consider the following comparisons.
|
Rev. 19:20 |
Rev. 13 |
|
“first beast”
12 |
“beast” 1, 2, 4, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18 |
|
And
the beast was taken |
|
|
and with
him |
|
|
the false
prophet |
“another beast” 11 |
|
|
“spoke as
a dragon” 11 |
|
|
“deceived
them...saying” 14 |
|
that
wrought signs |
“he does
great signs 13 |
|
|
“signs which it was given him to do” 14 |
|
in
his sight |
“in his sight” 12 |
|
|
“in the sight
of the beast” 14 |
|
wherewith
he deceived |
“he deceives
them” 14 |
|
them that had received |
“he caused that
there be given them” 16 |
|
the mark
of the beast |
“a mark” |
|
|
“the mark,
even the name of the beast”
17 |
|
and
them that worshiped |
“worship”
15 |
|
his
image. |
“The image of
the beast” 15 |
|
|
“an image
to the beast” 14 |
II.
HOW IS IT THAT MOHAMMED
SHOULD BE CONFUSED WITH THE “FALSE
PROPHET” OF REVELATION 19?
An illustration of the problem
is in identifying the symbols in Daniel, chapter seven, and Revelation,
chapters 12 and 13. In our day an eagle represents the United States, a lion
represents England, a bear represents Russia and a serpent represents
China. It is therefore natural to draw
a connection between those symbols and the ones in Scripture. However, God used
these symbols for entirely different nations.
From our modern Christian
perspective, Mohammed is viewed as the most influential false prophet of history and as having the greatest influence in
opposition to Christianity. It is
natural to think of him when we see that term in Revelation. However, Revelation comes from God and it is
GOD’S view, not ours, that counts. What
did God reveal about those words?
In 2Thes. 2:1-12 the Bible
identifies a “man of sin, the son of
perdition” who was to exalt himself
above all that is called God, sitting in the temple of God. His coming was to be “after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
and with all deceit of unrighteousness for them that perish.” God would send a “working of error” that those who follow him would “believe a lie.” What better description of a “false prophet?” But that was not Mohammed. The text indicates it is speaking of the
Papacy.
The Papacy has throughout the
centuries professed signs to confirm its authority. It claims to speak as the infallible voice of Christ, “The Most Holy Father,” “Lord of the Church.” It has relied upon false miraculous claims
(Miracles through relics etc) to bolster its claims --even to the right to
revive the Roman Empire by crowning emperors (Charlemagne, Otho, etc.) and form
the church in the image of the Empire.
Who is more a “false prophet”
than he who claims to speak infallibly as the “vice-regent” of Christ?
Once some outstanding
“authority” promotes an idea, it tends to be regarded as credible and therefore
difficult to change. One follows
another in perpetuating the error.
Jesus struggled with the problem of the traditions of the Jews. The Catholic Church also has relied heavily
upon tradition to maintain her errors.
Paul, in both Romans and First Corinthians, warned against relying upon
the wisdom of men. Today people
repeatedly cite “the scholars” to justify every error.
There is often no amount of
evidence that will convince a person who is determined to prove his case. The issue is no longer the evidence. It is the need to preserve status. All evidence is discounted, no matter how
strong.
For example, the Bible tells
of both the ten northern tribes and the Jews in the south being taken into
captivity. However, only the tribe of
Judah is clearly described as having returned. What became of the ten “lost”
tribes has always mystified people.
When white men first
discovered the natives in America they jumped to the speculation that these
were the lost tribes of Israel. Many
books were written upon the subject playing up every similarity, real or
imagined. In fact, the whole Mormon
Religion was spawned from the idea.
Others have sought to find
them in the Saxons of England and the United States. Some have even placed them near the North Pole, or in
Russia.
Likewise, since China has such
a vast civilization, people have sought to discover some Biblical
identification. We need to be very
cautious about imposing our mental references to things we view as significant
to what God views as important.
Early Islam is adequately
represented in the fifth and sixth trumpets. Mohammed thus be the “star” that fell from heaven, opening the
smoking pit. The Arab Saracens
represent the “locusts” covering the
land.
The Turkish empire is well
represented by the loosing of the four winds at the Euphrates which brings on a
stampeding herd of horses with fire and brimstone pouring from their mouths
(Chap. 9). This fits the downfall of
the Eastern Roman Empire.
Using the literal term, “prophet” would have been contrary to the
symbolic nature of the language being employed because Mohammed actually was a false prophet.
III.
ARGUMENTS
USED IN BEHALF OF THE “FALSE PROPHET”
BEING MOHAMMED.
A.
“IF THE FALSE PROPHET IS NOT MUHAMMAD THEN GOD FAILED TO INCLUDE THE MODERN
WORLD-WIDE RESURGENCE OF ISLAM.”
ANSWER:
Not at all. The modern struggle with Islam is well
represented in the drying up of the Euphrates and the coming of the kings
from the sun rising (Rev.16:12). It
comes to an end when the kings join in the war against the one that sat upon
the white horse and are destroyed
(19:17,18,21). It does not have to also
be represented by the “beast” or the
“false prophet.”
It is conceded that the
grammar of 19:20 requires that the one doing the “signs in the sight of the beast” is the false prophet. Fred Miller
maintains, “The word which is translated in KJV and ASV versions ‘wrought’ and in
the NIV ‘performed’ is a masculine aorist participle and there is no doubt that
in the text it modifies false prophet
which is also a masculine noun.’
The text says the false prophet performed the signs.”[1] However, it is argued that, the statement
that the false prophet performed the
signs is, “part of a prepositional phrase and therefore is not, and cannot be the
subject of the sentence. This means
that the beast is the subject of the verb ‘he deceived.”’[2]
ANSWER:
This is incorrect. Both beast
and false prophet were “taken.”
Both are in the nominative case, subjects of the sentence, joined by the
conjunction, “and.” If either were objects of a preposition they
could not be nominative. Furthermore, “he deceived them” is not part of a
preposition.
The grammatical factors may be
seen more clearly by translating it, “The
beast was taken, and also the false prophet with him, who did signs in
his sight, with which he deceived those, who, received the mark.”
Rev. 19:20. “And the beast was taken,
|
Kai |
epiasthee |
to |
theerion |
|
And |
was
taken |
the |
beast |
|
2532 |
4084 |
3588 |
2342 |
|
cc/ch |
viap—3s |
dnns |
n-an-s |
|
coord conj |
verb indicative aorist passive 3person singular |
def article nom neut sing |
noun nom neuter singular |
and
with him the false prophet...
|
kai |
met |
autou
|
ho |
pseudoprofeetees |
|
and |
with |
him |
the |
false
prophet |
|
2532 |
3326 |
846 |
3588 |
5578 |
|
cc |
pg |
npgn3s |
dnms+ |
n-nm-s |
|
coord conj |
prep gen |
noun pronoun genitive neuter 3person singular |
definite article nom masc singular |
noun nominative masculine singular |
who
wrought signs in his sight
|
ho |
poieesas |
ta |
seemeia |
enoopion |
autou |
|
the
one |
who
worked |
the |
signs |
of
it |
|
|
3588 |
4160 |
3588 |
4592 |
1799 |
846 |
|
dnms+ |
vpaanm-s |
danp |
n-an-p |
pg |
npgn3s |
|
definite article nominative masculine singular |
verb participle aorist active nomnative masculine singular |
definite article accusative neuter plural |
noun accusative neuter plural |
preposition genative |
noun pronoun genative neuter 3person singular |
with
which he deceived them
|
en |
hois |
eplaneesen |
tous |
|
with |
which |
he
deceived |
them |
|
1722 |
3739 |
4105 |
3588 |
|
pd |
aprdn-p |
viaa—3s |
damp+ |
|
preposition with dative |
adjective pronoun relative dative neuter plural |
verb indicative aorist active 3pers singular |
definite article accusative masculine plural |
that
had received the mark of the beast”
|
labontas |
to |
charagma |
tou |
theeriou |
|
that
had received |
the |
mark |
of the |
beast |
|
2983 |
3588 |
5480 |
3588 |
2342 |
|
vpaaam-p |
dans |
n-an-s |
dgns |
n-gn-s |
|
verb participle aorist active accusative masculine plural |
def art acc neut sing |
noun- acc neut sing |
def art gen neut sing |
noun gen neut sing |
When it says, “with which he deceived them,” the word,
“which,” has reference to the “signs” that were done by the false prophet in the sight of the beast.
To concede that the signs were
done by the false prophet but deny
this means miracles is nonsense. In
chapter 13 the identical Greek word is twice used and the miracle specified
with regard to the two-horned beast.
It says, “And he does great signs
(semeia”[3]), that he should even make fire to come down
out of heaven upon the earth in the sight of men and he deceives them that
dwell on the earth by reason of the signs
(“semeia”[4]) which it was given him to do in the sight of
the beast...” (13:13,14). The fact that Islam has never been noted for
doing miracles is itself evidence that this does not refer to it.
There can be no doubt that the
text identifies the “false prophet”
as the one which did the signs. There can be no doubt that the false prophet is said to have done this in the sight of the beast. It can only be
referring to the two-horned beast that did signs in the sight of the ten-horned
beast in chapter 13.
The beast with two horns like a
lamb clearly fits the term, “false
prophet.” He not only does signs and deceives people but also had two
horns like a lamb (like Christ). This
fits the papacy which professes to be the “vicar
of Christ,” sitting on Christ’s earthly throne, speaking God’s truth
infallibly “ex cathedra”—sitting in
his official chair as head of the
church, claiming authority over both East and West and over both church and
state.
Think! If he claims to have infallible guidance to
speak for God, but in fact speaks “as a
dragon”--that is, falsely as the devil
(13:11), is that not a false prophet? The many professed signs of his authority
(appearances of Mary, healings in places such as Lourdes’s and miracles through
relics of the saints) are legendary.
ANSWER: Nothing whatsoever is said of the ten-horned beast having come to an end before chapter nineteen. The fact is that out of 37 times the word “beast” (#2342 “Derion”) is used in Revelation, only once is it clearly applied to the one with two horns (13:11). Every other instance from chapter eleven on simply says, “beast” with no attempt to make any distinct