Joseph Mede · 50 of 69

The Mystery Of the Woman dwelling in the Wilderness. · Part 1

Of the Woman dwelling in the Wilderness.

The woman delivered of a child, when the dragon was overcome, from thenceforth dwelt in the wilderness, by which is figured the state of the Church, liberated from Pagan tyranny, to the time of the seventh trumpet, and the second Advent of Christ, by the type, not of a latent, invisible, but, as it were, an intermediate condition, like that of the lsraelitish Church journeying in the wilderness, from its departure from Egypt, to its entrance into the land of Canaan; a state, therefore, safe from the fury of that red dragon, who resembled Pharaoh, but not yet arrived at that pitch of glory, to which it should finally arrive, when the rest of her enemies should be subdued, as by the possession of Canaan. A state, indeed, which was externally better than the servitude of that heathen tyranny, (out of which, as from Egyptian slavery, the Christian people emerged by the power of Christ,) as from thenceforth endued with a power, under the auspices of Christian emperors and kings, of worshipping Christ freely, as the Israelites in the wilderness of worshipping Jehovah; with temples, likewise, as the tabernacles of Christian worship, magnificently built, with an ecclesiastical polity, constituted by kings, with sacred revenues, tithes, and oblations, but unhappy by its apostasy of various kinds, not less than Israel in the wilderness, with the calf, Baal-peor, Balaam, Korah, &c. Nor, perhaps, should that circumstance be passed over, that the forty-two months of the Christian woman’s residence in the wilderness answers to the number of resting-places of Israel in the wilderness. Vide Numbers, c. xxxiii.

The reason and tendency of the type being thus explained, let us illustrate the text particularly, and apply it to the event.

“And when the dragon saw that he was cast down to the earth, he persecuted the woman who brought forth the male child. And there was given to the woman two wings of a great eagle, that she might flee into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and a half, from the face of the serpent. And the serpent cast forth water out of his mouth after the woman, like a river, that he might cause her to be carried away by the flood.”

This was the first attempt of Satan, when he was cast down, but not yet entirely cast out, remaining, on the contrary, a short time below. That he might, if it were possible by any means to do so, overwhelm the woman, who, when her offspring was possessed of power, was departing to a station in the wilderness, before she should retreat thither wholly secure from his fury. For she did not immediately, as she began to escape, arrive in the wilderness, but after some space of time and delay had intervened; as Israel consumed some time in the journey which he had undertaken from Egypt. But the words here used are so to be understood, that they may appear in some way to be referred to what was said above of the same flight of the woman into the wilderness, either in this, or in a similar sense. “When the dragon saw that he was cast down to the earth, he persecuted the woman who had brought forth the male child.” For since (as was observed above) “there was given to the woman,” after the birth and exaltation of her offspring to the throne, (by two wings of a great eagle furnished to her, as if for flight) “to depart into the wilderness, where she was to be nourished for a time, and times, and half a time; he cast out of his mouth after her a flood of water, that he might cause her to be carried away with the flood.” So, likewise, Pharaoh persecuted the people of Israel, departing into the wilderness out of his dominion, by a flood of another kind.

The great eagle is the Roman empire. Its two wings, the two Cæsars of the now divided empire of the West and East, under whose protection and authority the church departed into its eremitical state. For it is well known, that the Roman empire, as soon as it had received the Christian faith, became bipartite, and was borne up as it were on the two wings of the Cæsars. The eagle being the ensign of the Roman empire, renders this interpretation obvious to any one. But what forbids us from confirming the interpretation of the prophetical type by an apocryphal writer? This is Esdras the prophet, for under this denomination does Clemens of Alexandria quote him, (Strom, book 3d, a little before the conclusion) according to whom, the type of an eagle signifies the fourth kingdom, the twelve feathered wings as many first Cæsars. Vide c. xi. and xii. But tell me, Reader, would you not also say, that here is a reference also to that saying of the Lord concerning the departure of Israel out. of Egypt. Exod. c. xix. v. 4. “Ye have seen,” says he, “what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles’ wings, and brought you unto myself,” that is, into the wilderness. But there is something else in this verse which requires to be expounded. Why is the time of the woman’s inhabitation in the wilderness, which was reckoned a little before by days, here changed into years, or a time, and times, and half a time? I seek no other cause of this alternation, than that it might be the key to a similar notation of time in Daniel, and might inform us that the Church was now arrived at those very times, which he described by the period of a time, times, and half a time. And, indeed, without this index, that designation of time would have been very uncertain, and inexplicable. For from what source, or by what indication, could it have been known, that time denoted a year? or if so, that times did not mean more than two years? But now, from this communication it is clear, that the period may be resolved into 1260 days, and therefore, signifies a year, two years, and a half.

These difficulties having been explained in this manner, let us now examine what that water was which the dragon vomited out of his mouth like a flood, that he might. overwhelm the woman while she was preparing to take her journey into the wilderness. The gushing out of water is language and doctrine according to Prov. c. xviii. v. 23. “The words of a man’s mouth are deep waters, the well-spring. of wisdom is a flowing brook.” Whence the word נָכַע, which signifies to burst forth, and gush out as a fountain, is applied to doctrine, as Ps. lxxviii. v. 2. “I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter, or pour forth, things hidden from the foundation of the world;” which is alleged of the doctrine of our Saviour, Matt. c. xiii. v. 35. So Prov. c. i. v. 23. Wisdom is said to preach in the streets; “I will pour out my Spirit upon you; I will make known my words unto you.” What, then, is the effusion from the mouth of the serpent, a venomous beast, but pestiferous doctrine, that is heresy? according to that verse of Prov. c. xv. v. 28. “The mouth of the wicked poureth forth evil things.” Now the history of this time exhibits it as proceeding like a flood from the mouth of the dragon,—I speak of Arianism and its offspring. By this his flood the dragon had nearly caused the woman to be carried away. He intended it no doubt. And, in truth, it was wonderful that the Roman emperors, who had so recently given their names to Christ, and had not fully settled the Christian establishment, offended and alienated as they were at the horrid dissension in so primary a point of doctrine among Christians (only just respiring from persecution), at such deadly party feuds, tumults, and credulity, among the brethren, even equally to that of the Pagans, should not have cast off the faith.

“But the earth succoured the woman, and the earth opened its mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.” That is, the multitude of Christians in the councils persisting in the orthodox faith, exhausted the diabolical inundation, as the earth does water, when it has long continued in a state of drought. For if water, (but of a poisonous and pestiferous nature) such as proceeds out of the serpent, represents heresy; the mode of analogy undoubtedly required that the substance which should have the effect of absorbing and removing the same, should be figured by the earth, as that whose property it is to exhaust an inundation of waters by its aridity.

Which, indeed, happens in this matter so much the more agreeably to the explanation of the subject, because elsewhere likewise in historical and simple expression, the earth is commonly used for the inhabitants of the earth. Vide Gen. c. xli. v. 37. 1 Sam. c. xiv. v. 25. Deut. c. ix. v. 28. and elsewhere at large.

Of the Ten-horned Beast blaspheming God, and of the Two-horned Beast, or False Prophet, his Founder and Hierarch.

A new scene of evils invaded the woman, as soon as she had entered the bounds of the wilderness; for she immediately encountered a double sort of beast, less formidable indeed in appearance than that of the dragon, or serpent; whose figure only she dreads, professing to be nothing but a panther, or a lamb, but being truly an agent of the dragon, who has been cast down, and in his stead prepared to bring troubles on the offspring to which she should give birth in the wilderness.

“And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and departed to make war with the rest of her seed, (viz. with those which she should produce in the wilderness,) who keep the commandments of God, and hold the testimony of Jesus Christ.”

“And he stood on the sand of the sea.” That is, when the dragon saw that he who was now expelled from the Roman empire, that he had not succeeded in overwhelming the woman, as she was hastening into the wilderness, by the inundation of Arianism, but that she nevertheless had arrived there in safety; and besides, that he should no longer be suffered to possess the sovereignty of the Roman world, as he had formerly done, in his own name, he now attempts it in another way, by tacitly substituting a kingdom dependent on himself, and for that purpose he stood on the sea shore, that he might form a new appearance of the Roman kingdom, thence to arise, subservient to him. The history of the double beast, prepared to transact the affairs of Rome, now follows; one ten-horned, and the other two-horned, connected by the strictest necessity with each other, and both reigning at the same time, and in the same part of the world. The first of which, that is, the ten-horned beast, you may call if you will secular; the other, or two-horned, ecclesiastical.

Of the Ten-horned Beast.

The ten-horned, or secular beast, is that university of ten kingdoms, more or less, (into which the empire of the Cæsars, after the expulsion of the dragon, had settled after the Barbaric plague,) coalescing at length into one Roman republic, through the renewed impiety of the dragon.

“I saw,” said he, “a beast ascending out of the sea, having seven heads, and ten horns, and upon his horns ten diadems, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.” The same beast is here described as that which afterwards, c. xvii. carries the harlot; the seven-headed Roman beast, under the state of its last head. “I saw,” says St. John, “the type of that last state of the Roman kingdom, in which, acting under its seventh head, it was divided into ten kingdoms; and yet in the same manner, as it had done under its former heads, he blasphemed the great God Almighty by the worship of idols.” For the number of seven heads is a particular mark of the Roman kingdoms, as well as the furniture of ten horns. The name of blasphemy is the mark of idolatry. The diadems, or crowns, placed on the horns, (which are on the last head only,) point out that the kingdom is exhibited under the government of its last head, which will be amply confirmed by the remaining description of the beast.

“And the beast which I saw was like a leopard, and his feet as those of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion.” That is, this kingdom, partly in respect of its regimen, and its state, partly in respect of its disposition, was so composed, that it represented the three monarchies, anciently pourtrayed by these beasts in Daniel, in a certain blended association. Since it was Greek in the remaining appearance of the body, it stood on feet in their march and action, like the Persian kingdom; with its mouth, like that of Babylon, it issued its edicts to be performed. For the leopard is the type of the kingdom of the Greeks, the bear of the Persians, the lion of the Babylonians. First, then, that kingdom was plainly like the Grecian in its body, for instance, a kingdom like that divided into many parts, Dan. c. vii. v. 6. and c. viii. v. 8. 22. For the Greek was divided into four parts; this last Roman kingdom was separated into ten kingdoms, to which type is referred the bearing ten horns on the last head of the beast, which the angel afterwards interprets, c. xvii. are ten kings, or kingdoms, into which the Roman empire of the sixth head, having been dilacerated, coalesced into a new kingdom, under the seventh, for the purpose of carrying the harlot. That the ten horns were upon the last head only, that is, the seventh, and not, as commonly supposed, promiscuously on all, I thus demonstrate. While the head flourishes, the horns flourish, and when it falls, the horns also arising from it must necessarily fall. On the first five heads, then, there could not be horns, because those five heads, as the angel says in c. xvii. were already fallen; neither could there be on the sixth, because while that was reigning in the age of John, (as the angel expressly affirms,) the time of horns was not yet come, for says he, “The ten horns are ten kings, which have not yet received their kingdom.” They are reserved, therefore, for the last head. Away, then, with such painters as distribute the ten horns according to their fancy, on seven heads, giving single ones to some, and two to others, out of their liberality, which, how inconsistent it is, and remote from the groundwork of the text, yea, and plainly repugnant to the interpretation of the angel, there is no one, who, having been already informed on the subject, shall seriously weigh it in his mind, that will not be induced to confess. Therefore, it is to be taken as true and certain, that the seventh head alone in the scale of heads, raising themselves one after another, towered over the rest, the highest in situation, the last in place.

Now then I proceed to explain the remaining appearance of this last beast. By the feet on which the body rests, and on which it is moved, and walks, and of which those before answer the purpose of hands and arms to beasts, in holding, seizing, and fighting; by the feet, I say, it alludes closely to the Persian empire; since, as they relied on the councils of their Magi in the management of their affairs, so the Roman kingdom in its last state is governed by the authority of idolatrous monks and clergy, like those Magi. To which that future saying refers of the other falsely prophetic beast, “that it exercises all the power of the ten-horned beast before him.” For the feet are to be considered here, not as the lowest and most dishonourable parts of the body, but of the same kind as they are in beasts; not merely the instruments of walking, but also of fighting, and seizing their prey, in which, and in bears especially (I speak of the fore feet), the chief strength of the body consists. Nor are the feet to be here understood as that part only which makes an impression on the ground, but that which comprehends the thighs also, and arms, as well as the smaller part commonly called the foot.

Lastly, the ten-horned beast issues edicts to be observed with a Babylonian mouth, by commanding the worship of deities and idols, with pain of death, and burning alive, denounced against those who refuse it, in the same manner as Nebuchadnezzar did to those Jews, who would not adore the golden image which he had set up, sixty cubits high, to his god Bel. Dan. c. iii. At the same time, I do not wish, by this interpretation of mine, to excite a prejudice against that of others; namely, of those who may think that regard should be had rather to the natural disposition of those beasts, whose qualities or fierceness the ten-horned beast might express. Let every one judge for himself. “And the dragon (who had been cast down, and stood on the sea-shore,) gave him his power, (that is, his strength or forces,) and his throne, and great authority.”

Power, Δύναμις, signifies, with the Hellenists, forces or army, according to the use, as it appears to me, of the Hebrew חֵיל, by which is denoted both strength and bravery, and an army likewise. The Seventy say, in Exod. c. xiv. v. 28. of the army of Pharaoh overwhelmed in the sea, “The waters covered, πᾶσαν τὴν δύναμιν, all the host of Pharaoh,” and c. xv. v. 4, “he hath cast, τὴν δύναμιν αὐτοῦ, his host into the sea.” And so in various passages, not only in these, but in profane writers. From this notion spring those expressions, Κύριος δυνάμεων, the Lord of hosts, and Matt. c. xxiv. v. 29. δυνάμεις τῶν οὐρανῶν, the powers of the heavens, or the celestial hosts, shall be shaken. So, in the next verse, the Son of man is said to be about to come in the clouds of heaven, μετὰ δυνάμεως καὶ δόξης πολλῆς, with power and great glory, which is explained in the following chapter, us “coming in his glory, and all the holy angels with him.” So in this place, the dragon or Satan delivered to the ten-horned beast, τὴν δύναμιν αὐτοῦ, that is, his forces, or his army. But the forces of Satan are his angels or demons, and idols, the receptacles of demons. These forces he delivered over to this last beast, to be worshipped and reverenced, together with his throne, and great authority; that is, in one word, all that power from which he had lately fallen, when conquered and overthrown by Michael, and the holy martyrs and confessors of Christ. So that, indeed, the dragon, or Satan, in this beast of the last state of the empire, recovered in some measure the ancient dominion which he had exercised in the red one; but in a form so dissimilar from the former one, that the seed of the woman in the wilderness did not immediately perceive it. For the dragon did not now make his advances as before, in the form of a dragon, that is, did not profess himself to be what he was, the sworn enemy of the Christian name. For if he had done this, the seed of the woman would have known him immediately, and been upon his guard against him, as his deadliest foe, from that innate antipathy which God had denounced from the beginning of the world should subsist between them. “I will put enmity between thy seed and her seed.” But, in truth, when he had assumed the form of another beast, having no affinity with the serpent, it was not so difficult for him to impose upon the seed of the woman, that is, the Christian Church, rejoicing in its late victory, and now secure from the dragon, and to allure it to adopt his customs. Which, indeed, the arch impostor so covertly and deceitfully did, under the mask of a beast not friendly to him, that the Church did not acknowledge till late, that she had been deceived by her ancient enemy, and led to venerate the dragon under this mask. For who would have suspected that the dragon lay hid under the figure of a leopard, or (what is the same) of a panther, that is, under the appearance of an animal, which, while other beasts, attracted either by the beauty of his skin, or the sweetness of his smell, love to approach and behold, the dragon alone is said to abhor and avoid? Or, to explain the matter a little more clearly, who would have supposed, that under the empire of the Christian religion, the destroyer of idols assuming worship for herself, heinous idolatry, and long since exploded heathenism, would be restored with the utmost labour, and promoted by laws and edicts?

“And I saw one of its heads, (namely, the sixth,) as it were, wounded to death, (which was done in the battle with Michael and the holy martyrs,) and his deadly wound was healed,” by the medicine of this vicarious power. That this seven-headed dragon, (or the Roman empire, possessed by the ancient serpent, that is, the heathen empire,) was the beast with the sixth head, may be shown by what is afterwards said of these heads. Five in the age of John had fallen, one (which is the sixth) then ruled the Roman states, and chiefly because this beast of the last dynasty immediately succeeded the fifth, on the same throne. The dragon, I assert, is here said to have given up his throne to the beast of the last dynasty, or the seventh head. Therefore he was the immediate successor, or the beast of the last head. Nor let any one be disturbed, that during the continuance of the sixth head, it appears seven-headed in the vision. For though the heads performed their parts, not at the same time, but in order, and successively, yet the beast is exhibited with all its apparatus of heads and horns, under every state, that it may every where designate the same Roman kingdom, though under different successions of dynasties.

But to return to the text, in which, in the Complutensian edition, according to the testimony of Irenæus, Aretas, the Syrian paraphrast lately published, and among the Latin authors, Primasius does not acknowledge the words “I saw,” but joins the words, “one of the heads,” with the word “gave,” as in this sentence, “The dragon delivered unto him his power and throne and great authority, and one of its heads mortally wounded, that it might be cured.” I suspect also that the Latin Vulgate read it so formerly, on account of the words “de capitibus suis,” instead of “ejus.” But whether this reading is to be preferred to the other, I will not hastily affirm, but only that it appears to be very ancient, so that I wonder it was not noticed by R. Stephen. But whichever it may be, the received reading, if rightly interpreted, and as the subject actually requires we should interpret it, evidently gives the same sense. “I saw (says he) one of the heads, as it had been wounded to death ,” namely, not at the time the apostle saw it, but before it emerged in this form from the sea, ὑπερσυντελικῶς, or in the

preter-pluperfect tense, as in ch. v. ver. 6, he had said, he “saw in the midst of the elders and of the animals a Lamb standing, as if it had been slain,” not slain at the time he saw it. What is added, however, about the healing of the wound, that he saw done, either while the beast was just emerging from the sea, or as soon as it had arisen from thence? For that healing was not, (as is still believed by many,) some subsequent fate, but the very nativity of the last beast. From each of the remaining heads, it had passed to the turn of the successor without a wound; but in the transition from the sixth to the last, the beast sunk under a deadly wound; from the cure of which I say, and not before or sooner, the ten-horned beast, or that of the last state, took its beginning, and did not deduce its origin any higher. That this is the case, the whole series of the following narration evinces. For whatever evil the beast is related to have perpetrated, whatever worship and adoration was paid to him by the inhabitants of the earth, all is said to have been done after the cure of his wound. “I saw (says he) one of his heads as if it had been wounded to death, and the wound of death, or the deadly wound, was healed, and all the world followed, wondering after the beast,”—namely, that just healed,” and they worshipped the dragon,” &c. Then likewise “was given to him a mouth speaking great things, and blasphemies,” &c. And “he opened his mouth against God,” &c. All those things were done after his cure; but before that, no evil deeds are predicated of the beast, no mention of subjection or honour paid to him by the nations. Whatever is commemorated before, partly relates to the form of the beast, partly to the occasion and manner of his rise. And why, I beseech you, should we represent to ourselves an antichristian beast, of whom for some time, no facts are related, no persecution recorded? Nay, if we follow the reading of Irenæus and the Complutensian version, by expunging “I saw,” there will be no longer a place for such an interpretation. “And all the earth wondered after the beast;” that is, with the utmost approbation and consent, they went over to the party of the beast. “And they worshipped the dragon, which gave power to the beast, and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?” That is, they did not simply worship the beast as a beast, but also as a vicegerent of the dragon. Therefore they did not venerate the beast alone, but the dragon himself likewise, under the mask of the beast. For to worship the beast, unless so far as idolatry discharged the functions of the dragon, in the sense in which it is here used, would not have been more impious than to obey any kind of mundane power.

The beast, in truth, denotes a kingdom. To adore the beast, then, according to the usage of the Hebrew and Oriental languages, is the same thing as to be subject to him, which the explanation subjoined to the word worship, not obscurely points out. “They adored (says he) the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is capable of contending with him?” As if he had said, They devoted themselves willingly to the obedience of the beast, as to one who so far excelled others in power, that there was no one that would resist or make war with him. In which also, ver. 12, the earth itself, not merely its inhabitants, is said to have worshipped the beast; that is, to have yielded to his dominion. “And he caused (says he) the earth, and those that dwell therein, to worship,” &c. So in the benediction of Jacob, Gen. c. xxvii. v. 29, “Let the people serve thee, and nations worship (or bow down to) thee. Be lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother’s sons bow down to thee.” For this meaning of the words τοῦ προσκυνεῖν, vide Gen. c. xxxvii. v. 7, and c. xlix. v. 8, in the benediction of Judah; so also Isa. c. xlv. v. 11. But to be subject to the beast according to his religious constitution, as it refers to the seven-headed dragon, is blasphemous, and impious towards God. Whence, they who so adore the beast, are said to adore the dragon in adoring the beast.

“And there was given to him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and there was given him power to continue forty-two months.”

Hitherto of the constitution and state of the beast. It is afterwards explained in what things he exercised the power committed to him by the dragon; viz. in two,—in blasphemy towards God, and the persecution of the saints. The whole description is taken from the prophecy of Daniel, ch. vii. where he treats of the same subject, as here, that is, the Roman beast in the last state. But the circumstances which are there related to Daniel by the angel, rather succinctly, are here more diffusively laid open, as in an interjected explanation.

“There was given to him (says be) a mouth speaking great things.” The mouth speaking great things is Daniel’s; but here the great words are explained by “blasphemies;” under which name, it will presently be asserted, idolatrous worship was designated, as a matter of the highest affront to God.

Moreover, he says, that the beast should so blaspheme for forty-two months; that is, of years, throughout the same space of time, as the Gentiles should trample down the outer court of the temple, or the holy city. And not undeservedly, since that profanation of the Gentiles runs in a parallel line with the same impiety as this blasphemy of the beast, and both point out a subject of the power of darkness and of night, and therefore to be measured, not by years or days, but months, according to that of the moon, which presides over the night. And, indeed, unless the Holy Spirit had intended the designation of time to be referred to the blasphemy, why has he inserted it in this place, immediately after the mention of blasphemy? The months are not to be reckoned from the beginning of his cruelty, or warfare with the saints, but of his blasphemy. As if the word ποιῆσαι signified some certain act, or state of the power of the beast, (of which kind some suppose that to be, which is here called the power of acting or doing.) it must then altogether be referred to the act of blasphemy. But τὸ ποιῆσαι seems rather to be applied in the senses of lasting or remaining, as it is elsewhere used with words of time. For thus, Acts, ch. xv. v. 33, ποιήσαντες δὲ χρόνον τινὰ, “when he had spent some time;” and ch. xx. v. 3, ποιήσας τε μῆνας τρεῖς, “and there abode three months.” 2 Cor. ch. xi. v. 25, νυχθήμερον ἐν τῷ βυθῷ πεποίηκα, “a night and a day I have been in the deep.” Add James, ch. iv. 13, “to-day or to-morrow we will go into such a city,” καὶ ποιήσομεν ἐκεῖ ἐνιαυτὸν ἕνα, “and continue there a year.” Drusius remarks that עשֹה is thus used, Eccles. ch. vi. v. 13, and “facere” in Latin, Seneca, Epist. lxvii. “Quamvis paucissimos unà fecerimus dies.”— “Though we have passed very few days together.” In the marble tablet, “cum qua fecit annos ix.” “Where, when he had continued nine days.” In Alfenus, i. e. “Is servus fugerat et annum in fugâ fecerat.” “That slave had fled, and passed a year in flight;” that is, spent, continued, finished, transacted.