The angel who tells John about the Beast in chapter 17 does not leave John in the dark regarding the visions he received. The angel reveals the mystery of the woman and of the Beast that carries her.
1) The beast, whom we have identified as the historical figure named John of Gishala, is about to come up out of the abyss, and go into perdition. This leaves one confused because the chronology of Satan and his angels never has one coming out of the abyss to go into perdition. The presence of the son of perdition (2 Thess. 2) is associated with the abyss and the lake of fire as his ultimate destination of one in perdition. To give some meaning to verse 8, one must consider the last line that tells us that earth dwellers will see that the beast “was, and is not, and shall come.” He is being contrasted with He who is, and who was, and who is to come” (Rev. 1:8). Josephus explains that John used the caverns under the city as his sheol, or abyss. John’s physical presence in the city correlates to the fact that “he was.” Then, suddenly, he disappeared like a proverbial Clark Kent to put on his superman garb. Except, with him, he sneaks into the subterranean caverns (“he is not”). Consider Jospehus description: “So now the last hope which supported the tyrants, and the crew of robbers who were with them, was in the caves and caverns under ground; whither, if they could once fly, they did not expect to be searched for; but endeavored that, after the whole city should be destroyed, and the Romans gone away, they might come out again, and escape from them. This was no better than a dream of theirs, for they were not able to lie hid either from God or from the Romans (Wars, VI, vii, 3; Lk. 23:30; Rev. 6:15-17). John had learned this trick from Eleazar (Wars, V, iii, 1). Eventually, hunger forced John to come out of the abyss into which he had crawled (Wars, VI, ix, 4, cf. “shall come”). In the end, he would not elude the Romans or God. He went to his own place, for he was the son of perdition (2 Thess. 2:3, Rev. 19:20).
2. The seven heads of the red beast represent seven mountains or hills upon which the city is built. Jerusalem, like Rome, rested on seven hills. While it is difficult to assign a name to each, though Wallace attempts to do so (Wallace, 371), all one needs to do is look at a good topographical map of Jerusalem at the time of the revolt. The names associated with these hills have been changed so many times that there is so much uncertainty to make a conclusive identity of each hill. Knowing their names is irrelevant. Recognizing that there were seven hills confirms that not only Rome was built on seven hills. This knowledge does not exclude the identity of the city is Jerusalem.
3. The seven kings represent seven kings over Jerusalem. The curses in the law of Moses fell upon Israel for choosing a king that they desired to rule over them who was not their brother (cf. Deut. 17:14-15; 28:36, 47-68). One of the features of the Intertestamental Period was the ruling High Priests. They were called “kings” and we have traditionally been in search of emperors of Rome. These rulers were not from the house of David. I am convinced that all seven are from the House of Annas. The seven were: (1) Annas, son of Seth (A.D. 6-15) (2) Eleazar, son of Annas (A.D. 17), (3) Josephus Caiphas, son-in-law of Annas (A.D., 18-36), (4) Jonathan, son of Annas (A.D. 36-37), (5) Theophilus, son of Annas (A.D. 37), (6) Matthias, son of Annas (A.D. 43), (7) Ananus, so of Annas (A.D. 63; military governor A.D. 66-70). The Hasmonean high priests started around the time of Simon Maccabeeus, who was elected to be high priest, military commander, and civil governor of the Jews (cf. 1 Macc. 14:41-49). The bronze tablets posted in a conspicuous position within the precincts of the temple that conferred upon them a perpetual priesthood was likely the “abomination that makes desolate” (Matt. 24:15-ff)
When the Jews gave Simon the dual crown of king and priest, they not only violated the law of Moses (priests came from Levi and kings from Judah) but took Messianic prerogatives. They thought to set this arrangement in preparation for the Messiah whom they would move into position for His rule. Setting up this bronze tablet in the temple was an abomination, which ironically, was first erected in response to the activities of Antiochus Epiphanes (Dan. 11:31) who is often thought to have erected the abomination when desecrating the temple and offering an unholy pig. There is no indication that the tablet was in the temple during the first century as it would have undermined the position of Herod the Great and caused our Lord to have thrown out long before the moneychangers. The bronze tablet was probably removed and kept in the house of Annas. In A.D. 63, Ananus, the seventh “king” of the house of Annas, was removed from the high priesthood after serving only a few months (Antiquities, XX, ix, 1). He was cut off and left with nothing. He negotiated with Eleazar, the governor of the temple, to regain some prominence. In A.D. 67, this tablet was set up again in the temple at the same time the sacrifices for Caesar ended and Ananus assumed leadership over the nation of the Jews (Dan. 12:11; Matt. 24:15).
4 (vs. 11). The Beast that “was, and is not,” is the eighth king and is of the seven in character. He goes into perdition. Perdition is the eternal fire prepared for the Devil and his angels (Matt. 25:41). After his hour of rule, he will go to his place that is prepared for him. The beast had aligned himself with Ananus, the seventh king of the house of Annas, pretending to be an ally and reporter (Wars, IV, iii, 13). After Ananus is murdered along with Eleazar (Rev. 11), John tyrannized the city and sets himself up as monarch (Wars, IV, vii, 1).
5. The ten horns are ten kings that have received no kingdom as yet, but receive authority as kings with the beast for one hour. These refer to John’s commanders who were promised territories of rule by John (Wars, V, vi, 1). These were empty promises but believed by these kings to be fulfilled by John. But, their rule only lasted during the period of the siege. During that time, they had authority as kings. In other words, they did whatever they wanted to do as long as it did not infringe upon John (Wars, IV, ix, 10). To correlate verse 13 to the history of Josephus, consider the description of the people’s choice to accept his rule (Wars, IV, vii, 1). Josephus writes, “…it was evident he was setting up a monarchal power. Now, some submitted to him out of their fear of him, and others out of their goodwill to him; for he was a shrewd man to entice men to him, both by deluding them and putting cheats upon them…. many there were that thought they should be safer themselves if the causes of their past insolent actions should now be reduced to one head, and not to a great many.”
“They will war against the Lamb and the Lamb shall overcome them, for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings, and they also shall overcome that are with him, called and chosen and faithful” (v. 14). Remember, when Saul persecuted the called out, he was persecuting the Lord (Acts 9:1-4). When John persecuted Christians, he had declared war on Christ, too. When many had fled Jerusalem, it appeared as if John had won (cf. Rev. 13:7), but Christ and those with Him are the victors. Paul described John’s destruction in 2 Thessalonians 2:8, which describes His destruction of the lawless one when he brings him to nothing by the manifestation of His coming.” The tie is made between the Lord’s coming and the destruction of the lawless one, the man of sin.
6. The “waters” where the harlot sits are people, multitudes, and nations, and tongues (cf. Acts 2:5-11). We have already mentioned this in the earlier study of the chapter. The scattering of the Jews (the Diaspora) did not separate them from their city. To them, the universe revolved around Jerusalem (cf. Ps. 137:5-6). Not everyone shared this degree of attachment to Jerusalem. John of Gishala loved no one but himself.
7. “The ten horns and the beast will hate the harlot, and make her desolate and naked, and eat her flesh, and burn her utterly with fire.” Josephus believed that John escaping from Titus and escaping to Jerusalem was the “work of God, who therefore preserved this John, that he might bring on the destruction of Jerusalem.” (Wars, IV, ii, 1-3). Many criminals and robbers that crept into Jerusalem “were the occasion of sedition and famine therein” (Wars, IV, iii, 3). The text reads, “For God did put in their hearts to do his mind, and to come to one mind, and to give their kingdom unto the beast until the words of God should be accomplished” (Rev. 17:17). They did exactly what God had foreordained (cf. Acts 4:25-28). These were the “days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled” (Luke 21:20-22).