The Mouth of the Beast

24 Jul
from Google Images

from Google Images

Revelation, as we all should know, speaks in apocalyptic language, so a literal interpretation for many of the things we find in this book is by far out of the question. For example, who ever saw a wild beast with more than one head? Who ever saw an animal with 10 horns? These among other things in the Apocalypse show us that we cannot take everything we find here literally. But, if this is so, how should we understand these things without permitting our imaginations to run wild?

In order to keep its readers from placing our own individual interpretation upon the meaning of scripture, scripture, itself, often defines its own terms. For example, Daniel 7:24 defines a horn as a king or ruler, as does Revelation 17:12. So, how should we understand the ‘mouth’ of Revelation 13:5? Quoting the scripture in its context:

And there was given unto him [the Beast – v.4] a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. If any man have an ear, let him hear. 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. (Revelation 13:5-10 KJV) – brackets mine

The Beast as I claimed in The Beast with Seven Heads[1] is apostate Jerusalem. In other words, the Beast can exist only when the Jews have a nation. The deadly wound represents the time the Jews were in exile in Babylon. For all intents and purposes, the nation of the Jews was dead–it didn’t exist. Up to the time of Cyrus, this was how all warfare was conducted against rebellious and conquered nations. If the nation didn’t submit, they were removed from their lands and other loyal citizens were eventually placed there. Cyrus was the first ruler to grant a release and permit his captive subjects, the Jews, to return to their original homelands. Thus the Jews’ return under Zerubbabel and almost immediate apostasy afterward represented the healing of the Beast’s deadly wound. Just as the mouth gives expression to the body, the mouth of Revelation 13 gave expression to the beast. How are we told the beast expressed himself?

The ‘mouth’ spoke great blasphemies and authority was given him to ‘continue’ for 42 months (v.5). The word translated continue is so translated only here. It is poiesai (G4160), and means “to act, work, make.”[2] The question is to act, work or make what? The context of Revelation 13:4, 7 would seem to indicate making (war), specifically with the “saints” or Messianic Jews (Revelation 13:7). That is, the ‘mouth’ or spokesman of the beast (apostate Judaism) was given authority over all Jews no matter which “kindred” (tribe), language spoken and no matter where in the Empire they had settled. Moreover, all the Jews of the land (Palestine) would worship him. That is, they would worship the beast (apostate Judaism) by obeying the authority of the spokesman—apostate Judaism’s mouth. Only Messianic Jews—Jews who believed in Jesus as their Savior and Messiah—would not worship the beast or apostate Jerusalem. It was these Jews with whom the beast (apostate Judaism) would make war at the command of their spokesman.

So, who is this mouth? The mouth of the beast is the false prophet, the “second beast” of Revelation 13, and this works out to be Annas, the high priest who had Jesus crucified. He is the false prophet (Revelation 13:11-18; 16:13; 19:20; 20:10) and the Man of Sin (2Thessalonians 2:3) to whom the New Testament refers. I understand this is not a view held by most Christians today, but it fits, nevertheless, and, if it fits, it should be considered.

Annas made it his personal vendetta not only to crucify Jesus, but to hunt down and persecute Jewish believers in Jesus all over the Promised Land and, eventually, into all the Roman Empire. His final surge of persecution involved starving the Messianic priests who served in the Temple, killing James (the brother of the Lord) and undertaking an empire-wide effort to destroy the Church of God. This final effort incorporated a 3 ½ year period that culminated in his own death[3] and the beginning of the Jewish war with Rome. I hope this becomes clearer in future studies.


[1] This present study has been edited to reflect my present understand, which has changed from how I understood the so-called “end times” years ago. This study used to point to my study: The Seven-Headed Beast of Revelation 13, but that study no longer represents my understanding of the Apocalypse. I have left it untouched to show what I used to believe. This study will be used to support a new series of studies on the Apocalypse that I expect to begin posting in October of 2018.

[2] B (Vaticanus) reads, “to make war” (compare Revelation 13:4, 7). But A (Alexandrinus), C (Codex Bezae), Vulgate, Syriac, and ANDREAS omit “war.”

[3] See Josephus: Wars 2.17.1 through 10. The entire 17th chapter tells of the beginning of the Jew’s war with Rome. The High Priest, Ananias, spoken of there and killed in the fight is the same Annas who had Jesus crucified. Ananias is another way of spelling or pronouncing his name see Josephus: Antiquities; 20.9.1 where it tells of Ananus, the son of Ananus, killing James (the brother of Jesus). Here is another spelling of the same name, which is made even clearer in Antiquities 20.9.3.


Posted by on July 24, 2011 in Last Days


Tags: , , , , , , , ,

6 responses to “The Mouth of the Beast

  1. librarygeek

    March 12, 2016 at 23:42

    Do you also consider Annanias to be the “Antichrist ” of 1 and 2 John?

    • Eddie

      March 13, 2016 at 14:13

      Actually, Antichrist is anyone who refuses to believe Jesus is the Messiah/Christ and teaches that Jesus is not the Christ or that Jesus doesn’t come in the flesh (i.e. dwells within us). John speaks of “many” antichrists. I consider Ananias, senior, the the Man of Sin (2Thessalonians 2:3). That is Annas of the Gospel records and Ananias of Acts 24:1, the father-in-law to Caiaphas, the high priest, and father of 5 sons who were high priests, this man is the the Man of Sin that Paul wrote of in 2Thessalonians 2:3.

    • librarygeek

      March 14, 2016 at 01:05

      True, 1 John 2:22 & 4:3 & 2 John 7 say that, but doesn’t 1 John 2:18 differentiate between all those antichrists who deny Jesus as Lord and ” the antichrist?”

      • Eddie

        March 14, 2016 at 09:57

        Perhaps, but it doesn’t need to be so. I could represent many individuals as I claimed in my previous reply or it could be a general movement against Messianic Judaism, like the “Great Tribulation”, which occurred just prior to the Jewish War with Rome.

  2. mtsweat

    July 24, 2011 at 07:56

    very interesting position… and.. very plausible.. thanks

    • Ed Bromfield

      July 24, 2011 at 13:25

      Greetings, and thank you for reading and taking the time to comment. I appreciate the encouragement when it comes. Lord bless you and yours,



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: