In our previous post, we assessed the cryptic references to the mortal head wound administered by a sword to one of the heads of the Sea Beast (Revelation 13:3, 12, 14). With the Scriptural data, we were able to discern not only that the head wound must have been administered to one of the seven heads but also, like the wounds of the Lamb (Revelation 5:6), the mortal head wound must have occurred prior to its rise. John uses the same Greek phrase to refer to the Lamb “as it had been slain” (Revelation 5:6), as he does for the Beast’s head, “as it were wounded” (Revelation 13:3). The mortal wound did not follow the rise of the Beast. It preceded it. The Beast is made up of the preceding empires (Revelation 13:2), and one of those heads received a mortal wound.

Our challenge is to discover which of the seven heads had been slain, for John says only one of them was wounded: either the Lion head, the Bear head, one of the four Leopard heads or the terrifying Roman head. Upon inspection, and having ruled out the Babylonian, Medo-Persian and Roman heads, we concluded that one of the four Leopard heads must have been wounded to death. Then, eliminating the Eastern, Western and Southern heads from consideration, we discovered the mortal wound administered to the Northern head. That mortal wound of the Northern Head is depicted in Daniel 11 by its  disappearance from the narrative after “he turn[ed] his face unto the isles … [but] he shall turn his face toward the fort of his own land” (Daniel 11:18-19). Here Daniel has foreseen Antiochus III’s invasion of Greece and his defeat at the hands of Rome at Magnesia in 190 BC. As a result of that loss, Antiochus was forced to evacuate the Northern Territory entirely, and to remain in the Seleucids’ original holdings in the East. The Northern Head had been eliminated altogether.

This week, we provide the political, geographic and historical data related to the defeat of the Seleucids and their exile from the Northern territory (indicating the complete disappearance of the Northern Leopard Head from the narrative for more than a century) and its remarkable recovery and reappearance at the end of Daniel 11. The return of the King of the North at the end of the chapter sets the stage for the rise of Imperial Rome to rule over earth after an apocalyptic conflict with the King of the South depicted in Daniel 11:40-45. The Beast that follows Imperial Rome is none other than Roman Catholicism, and that mortal wound administered to “one of his heads” (Revelation 13:3) — an obscure reference subject to millennia of speculation since John recorded the vision — is an indictment of the Beast, for that mortally wounded head, as we shall see, grew back from Pergamos “where Satan’s seat is: and … where Satan dwelleth” (Revelation 2:13). And the Beast receives its “power, and … seat, and great authority” from him (Revelation 13:2).

In accordance with Daniel’s prophecies, Alexander’s empire (depicted as a He-Goat in Daniel 8) was divided four ways after his death  (Daniel 7:6; 8:22), “toward the four winds of heaven” (Daniel 8:8, 11:4). The four-way division is depicted as four Leopard heads in Daniel 7 and four horns in Daniel 8. The scripture does not focus on the process of division (see Reduction of the Diadochi), but rather on the resulting wars between the smaller kingdoms after the division was complete. Some of that future history is provided in Daniel 8, but the most detailed preview of the subsequent wars comes from Daniel 11.

From the beginning, Daniel establishes an Alexandrian frame of reference: the kingdom is divided North, South, East and West (Daniel 11:4). For the rest of the chapter no mention is made of the West, but North, South and East do not change (though the commentaries almost universally assume that they do). Those cardinal directions remain fixed in a single frame of reference, “North” and “South” remaining north and south throughout.

The Four Crowns

After the four-way division, there followed a series of battles for dominance, each king thinking he could restore Alexander’s once-great empire to its former glory. Demetrius (West) became king of Macedonia in 294 BC (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius 37:2-3; Justinus, Epitome 16.1). Lysimachus (North), facing a war for control of his kingdom in Thrace, made a hasty peace with Demetrius, and in the ensuing battle was briefly imprisoned and then released with “a diadem on his head” (Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, Fragments of Book 21.12.3), ruling over Thrace in Europe as well as Asia Minor within the Taurus (see the Bounds of their Habitation). About this time Ptolemy (South) had taken back Cyprus from Demetrius (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 35.3) and maintained control of his territories in “Egypt, with the greater part of Africa, Cyprus, and Phoenicia” (Justinus, Epitome 15.1), as well as the southern coast of Asia Minor. And Seleucus (East) was firmly entrenched in the eastern provinces “from India to the Syrian Sea” (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 32.7).

The Double Crown

So firmly entrenched in the minds of both kings and historians was this four-way division that if one king invaded the territory of another, he was not said to be expanding one kingdom. Rather he was seeking to wear “two crowns” and reign over “both kingdoms“:

Then Ptolemy entered Antioch and put on the crown of Asia. Thus he put two crowns on his head, the crown of Egypt and that of Asia. (1 Maccabees 11:13)

When Antiochus saw that his kingdom was established, he determined to become king of the land of Egypt, in order that he might reign over both kingdoms. (1 Maccabees 1:16)

To conquer a neighboring province was to take on the responsibility, and (as we have seen) the fulfillment, of the second crown.

The Seleucid Occupation of the North

Among the many fascinating aspects of Daniel’s foretelling of post-Alexandrian Hellenism is that while the four-way division is constantly in view, Daniel does not start the narrative until after Seleucus has invaded Asia Minor at the battle of Corupedium (281 BC), and taken the northern crown away from Lysimachus. After Corupedium, the descendants of the Seleucid line made their home in Asia Minor and Thrace, while continuing to rule over the eastern territories. Only then does Daniel begin his north-south narrative.

In Daniel 11:5, when “the king’s daughter of the south shall come to the king of the north to make an agreement,” the “king’s daughter of the south” is Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy II, king of Egypt, and the “king of the north” is Antiochus II, the third generation of Seleucid kings to claim the northern territory in Asia Minor. When he is approached by Ptolemy II, it is an opportunity that Antiochus II, though married, cannot refuse. And thus, he “had two wives, Laodice [in Ephesus] and Berenice [in Antioch], the former a love-match, the latter a daughter pledged to him by Ptolemy [II]” (Appian, History of Rome, The Syrian Wars, 65), both holding court in their respective kingdoms, North and East.

After Antiochus III ascended the throne, he entrusted “the government of Asia on this side of Taurus [Asia Minor] to Achæus and that of the upper provinces [East of the Taurus mountains] to Molon and his brother Alexander, Molon being satrap of Media and Alexander of Persia” (Polybius, The Histories, Book 5.40.6). Thus, for generations the Seleucid line effectively wore both the Northern and Eastern crowns, in fact preferring the Northern to the Eastern. “Asia Minor was in fact considered the real home of the earlier Seleucids” (Bevan, The House of Seleucus, vol 1, London: Edward Arnold (1902) 151n). So the Seleucids were not only “kings of Syria” in a real sense, but after Corupedium also lived as if Asia Minor and Thrace were “the chief sphere of Seleucid activity” (Bevan, Edwyn Robert, The House of Seleucus, vol 1, London: Edward Arnold (1902) p. 151).

Thus did the Seleucids, in addition to the east, also occupy the north, and thus did the ensuing conflicts begin to unfold between the kings of the north (the Seleucids) and the south (the Ptolemies) (Daniel 11:6-17). Notably — and this is a very important point — the Seleucids and Ptolemies fulfilled the prophecies of that north-south conflict not because Daniel’s frame of reference had changed to Jerusalem (with Syria to the north, and Egypt to the south) but rather because the Seleucids had acquired the northern territories and were ruling there. The titles “king of the north” and “king of the south” did not follow the individual dynasties, but rather followed the territories. The Ptolemies had always been “king of the south,” and so long as the Seleucids occupied the northern territory, Daniel calls them “king of the north,” and the two kingdoms continued to be referred by their respective titles. But suddenly, in verse 18, the Seleucids are evicted from the North. Remarkably, while Daniel continues to refer to the Seleucid kingdom in conflict with the Ptolemies to the South, he simply stops calling the Seleucids “King of the North.”

The Eviction

In his overconfidence, Antiochus III provoked the rising republic of Rome by invading Greece. His recovery of Thrace had earned their attention, and Rome could not believe he would mobilize such great resources “unless these are the preparations for another war” (Appian, The Syrian Wars 1.3). Rome’s fears were realized as he pressed into Greece, and having observed the conflict from afar, Rome began to see the threat for what it was and declared war on Antiochus (Livius, History of Rome, 36.2).

Facing early catastrophic losses, Antiochus sued for peace, offering to return a few territories to Rome and to pay for half the cost of the war.  Rome scoffed, insisting that he would have to pay for the whole war and surrender all territories in Europe and all territory “within the Taurus” in Asia Minor (Appian, The Syrians Wars 6.29). Diplomacy failed, and the score was settled on the battlefield in Magnesia (190 BC). Humiliated in defeat, Antiochus again resorted to negotiations (Livius, History of Rome 37.34), but Rome restated the previous terms, insisting that Antiochus must dismantle his war machine and abandon any further military activity west of Syria (Appian, the Syrian Wars 8.38).

The terms were unconditional: “Keep clear of Europe [and] evacuate the whole of that part of Asia which lies on this side the Taurus.”  (Livius, History of Rome 37.45). The Seleucid western “boundaries” were “fixed hereafter” by the Taurus mountains in Syria (Appian, the Syrian Wars 8.38). The Seleucids had been permanently evicted from the northern territory, and thenceforth ruled the East alone.

The Death of the Northern Head

The significance of the northern decapitation is seen best when contrasted with the demise of the other three Leopard heads. The Western, Eastern and Southern heads were gradually subsumed under the Republic of Rome (with the sole exception of a tiny autonomous Pamphylian crescent on the southern coast of Asia Minor).

The Western territory had remained in Antigonid hands until Macedonia finally capitulated to Rome in 168 BC (Eusebius, Chronicle (p. 239)). In the East, Tigranes and Antiochus XIII (64 BC) had tussled for control of Syria, but Pompey suffered neither of them, simply claiming the whole of the East as a Roman province. After all, Tigranes of Armenia had conquered Syria, but Pompey had conquered Tigranes. “In this way the Romans, without fighting, came into possession of … all the … countries bearing the Syrian name” (Appian, History of Rome, the Syrian Wars, 49-50). In the South, the Ptolemaic dynasty had been reduced to a Roman protectorate since the 150s BC when Ptolemy VIII bequeathed “the kingship which belongs to me to the Romans” (Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum (SEG) IX 7). By the early 60s BC, there was only one sovereign, independent autocracy left that could legitimately be called “King of the South,” and that sovereign power was terrorizing the high seas from its home base in the former Ptolemaic stronghold of Coracesium in Pamphylia Bay. The pirate nation of Pamphylia had become the “King of the South,” positioned for the final conflict depicted in Daniel 11:40-45.

Thus, in the West and East, the Leopard heads had either been subsumed under Rome (the Republic) by capitulation (West) or by conquest (East), never to be restored again either to the Antigonids or the Seleucids. And in the South, Egypt had been bequeathed to Rome since the 150s BC, and continued on as a Roman protectorate.

The Decapitation

But it had been different for the Northern head. In 190 BC, Rome had not come as a conquering empire but had rather engaged in a police action, seeking only to keep the Seleucid threat safely to the east of the Taurus mountain chain in Syria. Without taking over his former territories, Rome had simply evicted Antiochus III from Europe (Thrace) and Asia Minor (within the Taurus Mountains). Those were the Northern territories originally held by Lysimachus after Alexander, and by the Seleucids after Corupedium. Cut off from the North, and facing a burdensome annual tribute to Rome, Antiochus III turned East. His last known location was Elam, beyond Babylon, where he came to his end raiding the temple of Bel, attempting to appropriate sufficient funds to satisfy the Romans (Babylonian King List [Rev. 7], Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, Book 28.3, Book 29.15).

Thus was fulfilled Daniel’s prophecy:

“After this shall he turn his face unto the isles [Greece], and shall take many: but … he shall turn his face toward the fort of his own land [the East]: but he shall stumble and fall, and not be found.” (Daniel 11:18-19)

After challenging the Roman Republic in the Greek Isles, and losing prodigiously at Magnesia, the Seleucids were forced to evacuate their holdings in Asia Minor and Thrace, leaving no one in charge of the Northern Territory. The Northern crown had not been transferred to another. The Northern crown had neither endured by succession, transfer or conquest. It had simply been removed altogether.

The Aftermath

At the time of Antiochus III, Rome’s interest in the Northern Territory had been only defensive. The objective was to neutralize the sprawling imperial ambitions of Antiochus III. Once this was accomplished at Magnesia (190 BC), Rome left the Northern territory to itself, and quite notably, without a king. Nobody was in charge. This was uncharted territory for the remaining fiefdoms and scattered cities and kingdoms in the region. One by one they approached the Senate to implore the Romans to decide the matter, as abundantly attested in the historical record:

“After the defeat of Antiochus envoys presented themselves from all the cities and principalities of Asia [Minor], some suing for independence, others for a return for their good services to Rome in the common struggle against Antiochus. ” (Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, Fragments of Book 29.11.1)

“The cities that were taken [from Antiochus] they divided among their allies, deeming that glory was more desirable for the Romans than dominions merely for pleasure; and that the honour of victory was worthy of being attached to the Roman name, but that the luxuries of wealth might be left to their adherents.” (Justinus, Epitome of Pompeius Trogus’ Philippic Histories, 31.8)

Chaos predictably ensued. Philip of Macedon invaded Thrace. The Galatians refused to give up eastern Asia Minor, the Smyrnæans wanted autonomy, the Lycians wanted their freedom and the Rhodians wanted Lycia. Envoy after envoy approached the Senate asking for resolution, and most importantly, a decision.

Eumenes of Pergamon

Eumenes of Pergamon approached the Senators to obtain from them a “decision about himself and his brothers,” expressing no preference, but leaving the outcome entirely in their hands (Polybius, Histories 21.18.6-9). The Senate summoned him a second  time, pressing him this time to ask what he wished, and again, he assured them that he had no preference, “giving the senate complete authority to decide.” He only hoped Rome would be cautious of Rhodes, for if the Senate were overly deferential to them, “their own power in Asia [Minor] will be immensely increased, and mine will be more or less destroyed” (Polybius, Histories 21.19.1).

When further pressed to express his preferences clearly, Eumenes stated that he wished Rome would occupy the territory, believing Pergamon would fare best if they would: “If you decide to remain in occupation of certain parts of Asia on this side Taurus which were formerly subject to Antiochus [III], I should be exceedingly gratified to see that happen.” Barring that, Eumenes hoped that Pergamon would be considered a viable candidate to rule over the abandoned territories (Polybius, Histories 21.21.7-9).

The Smyrnæan Delegation

Next to appear before the Senate were the Smyrnæans, and “of all the autonomous states of Asia [Minor]” they were most esteemed by the Senate. Polybius does not record the content of the Smyrnæans’ request, but they likely preferred to maintain the status quo, and their own autonomy with it (Polybius, Histories 21.22.4).

The Delegation from Rhodes

The Rhodian delegation arrived, acknowledging that all of Antiochus’ former territories “are at your disposal to give to whom you will.” There was plenty of wealth to spread around, so there was no need to squander it on one kingdom: “Just as at a sumptuous banquet, there is surely enough and more than enough of everything for all. … Any one of these [abandoned territories], if added to the kingdom of Eumenes, would make it ten times as big as it is now”  (Polybius, Histories 21.22.13-15). Thus did the Rhodians plead that Pergamon’s spoils be minimized, and the majority of the territories be assigned to Rhodes.

The Ten Legates

One by one, the other minor players of Asia Minor approached the Senate with various requests for consideration, either of their fealty or their autonomy, asking similarly that Rome simply make a decision. After the Rhodian delegation departed, “the other envoys from Asia were introduced, and the Senate, having given them a short hearing, returned to all the same answer. This was that they would send ten legates [to Asia Minor] to pronounce on all disputes between the towns,” joining Proconsul Gnæus Manlius Vulso who was already there (Polybius, Histories 21.24.4-9).

Additional Disputes over Thrace and Asia Minor

While the ten legates were deliberating, another envoy arrived asking that “the offences of the Lycians might be pardoned,” and that the Lycians should be a free people. In the end the Lycians simply had to resign themselves to the fact that both “Lycia and Caria, south of the Meander, had been given to Rhodes” (Polybius, Histories 22.5.4-7). Meanwhile, Eumenes, who had been granted Thrace as part of the spoils of Magnesia (Polybius, Histories, 21.45.9), sailed to Rome complaining that King Philip of Macedon “had appropriated the Thracian cities.” Others came arguing “that they should get back the towns of which [King] Philip had despoiled them in the war with Antiochus. [King] Philip also sent envoys to defend himself against all these accusations” (Polybius, Histories 22.6.1-7). The Senate thus assigned  additional legates to sort out the Thracian affairs (Polybius, Histories 22.12.4).

The Pacification of Galatia

Meanwhile, Gnæus Manlius Vulso turned his attention to central and eastern Asia Minor, imploring his troops to finish their work and subdue the Galatians, who had sided with Antiochus: “This nation [the Gauls] had gone to the assistance of Antiochus, and so intractable was their temper that the removal of Antiochus beyond the Taurus would be useless unless the power of the Gauls was broken.” Because Eumenes was engaged in Rome, Vulso summoned his brother Attalus, “who was at Pergamum, and pressed him to take his part in the war” (Livius, History of Rome, 38.12). The Gauls were overwhelmed, and after a lopsided and costly defeat, sued for peace, and Vulso evacuated them to Ephesus for processing (Livius, History of Rome, 38.27).

Thus were the northern territories, after the eviction of Antiochus, in utter disarray. Nobody was in charge, leaving the squabbling factions either to sort things out on their own, or to beg Rome to assist in their appropriation of the remnants of the Seleucid’s former holdings. Contrary to the practice of Alexander’s successors, Rome simply had no interest in taking over Antiochus’ kingdom.

The Healing

But gradually, Pergamon prevailed in aggregating the abandoned territories. Philip of course was commanded to cease all further action on the Thracian peninsula, and thenceforth “to quit all forts, places, and cities on the sea coast of Thrace” (Polybius, Histories 22.11.4), for Eumenes had been granted “the Chersonese, Lysimachia and the adjacent forts and territory” in Europe (Polybius, Histories, 21.45.9). With much grumbling, Philip eventually did so: “Philip entirely evacuated the Greek towns in Thrace, withdrawing his garrisons, but he relinquished them [to Eumenes] in a sullen and grumbling spirit and with many sighs” (Polybius, Histories 23.8.1). As for the Galatian territories within the Taurus, when the Gauls asked Vulso for terms of surrender, he deferred to Pergamon: the Gauls “would have the conditions of peace given to them” when King Eumenes of Pergamon returned from Rome (Livius, History of Rome, 38.37). As for the Rhodian claim on Lycia and Caria south of the Meander, the Romans eventually evicted them as well, at long last alleviating Eumenes’ concern that a Rhodian presence in Asia Minor would destabilize Pergamese holdings: “the senate issued a consultum setting free all the parts of Caria and Lycia which they had assigned to Rhodes at the time of the war with Antiochus” (Polybius, Histories, 30.5.12).

The Rise of Pergamos

Thus, while the Roman empire evicted Antiochus III from Thrace and from Asia Minor within the Taurus Mountains, it was Pergamos rather than Rome that eventually became the beneficiary of that police action. At the time of its founding, Pergamos had been merely “a famous city … a treasure-hold of Lysimachus” since the four way division of Alexander’s empire, and had been “entrusted to Philetærus” by Lysimachus (Strabo, Geography, Book 13.4.1). Philatærus was succeeded by his son, Eumenes (Strabo, Geography, Book 13.4.2), who’s son Eumenes II ended up assisting Rome against Antiochus III while his own kingdom was still but a tiny city.

At the conclusion of the war with Antiochus, the “kingdom” of Pergamum was barely 52 acres. As the Rhodian delegation surmised, the smallest of Antiochus’ former holdings were ten times bigger than Pergamon (Polybius, Histories 21.22.13-15), and as Strabo observed, before the war, “the territory of Pergamum” itself a coastal city “did not include many places that extended as far as the sea at the Elaïtic and Adramyttene Gulfs” (Strabo, Geography, Book XIII.4.2). At the conclusion of the Roman conflict with Antiochus, Pergamon was the tiniest of the Asiatic kingdoms, and barely even a kingdom at that, for at the peak of the war, Antiochus III had forced the remnants of the Pergamese army to retire within their walls under seige (Appian, The Syrian Wars 6.26; Livius, History or Rome 37.18).

It is from that minuscule and pitiful estate that the city of Pergamon was about to expand beyond Philetærus’ wildest ambitions. It would eventually overtake the entire territory originally claimed by Lysimachus after Alexander’s death. What had essentially been Lysimachus’ local bank branch, ended up ruling the entire northern territory. As R. Malcom Errington observes in his History of the Hellenistic World, Pergamon had been only a tiny metropolis to begin with, but it became a “Great Power” after Magnesia:

“The most spectacular manifestation of Pergamon’s having reached Great Power status after 188 [BC] was the massive extension and reconstruction of the city of Pergamon itself. Until 188 [BC] the city had largely retained the structure it had under Philetairos, as a small town with a defensive ring wall and buildings erected ad hoc in an intramural area of ca. 21 hectares” (Errington, R. Malcom, A History of the Hellenistic World: 323 – 30 BC).

Indeed, it is through the eviction of Antiochus III after Magnesia that the Northern Leopard head received its “wound by a sword,” and it is through Pergamon that it was healed of that wound “and did live” (Revelation 13:14). After the fatal wound administered by Rome at Magnesia, the northern territories formerly held by the Seleucids were left without a king, but were eventually and gradually reclaimed by Pergamon. That mortally wounded head had completely recovered, growing back from none other than the city “where Satan’s seat is: and … where Satan dwelleth” (Revelation 2:13).

The Bequest

As evidence of the complete recovery of the wounded head we need only read the historical accounts of King Attalus’ bequest to Rome. Having no heir, King Attalus of Pergamon left all of his domains to the Republic of Rome (c. 133 BC). Valerius Maximus recorded that Rome had given all of Antiochus’ territories to Pergamos, and Pergamos “returned it to them all back again” (Valerius Maximus, Book 5.2.e3). Florus records how the entire province came into Rome’s possession: “the Roman people took possession of a province not by war or force of arms but, what is more equitable, by the right conferred by a will” (Florus, The Epitome of Roman History, Book 1.20.1-3).  And Pliny writes that Rome had received his former holdings “as a gift …. that came to us on the death of king Attalus” (Pliny Natural History, Book 33.148). Thus, while largely concealed in the obscurity of fragmented historical documents, what is clear is that Rome evicted Antiochus III from Thrace and Asia Minor within the Taurus, leaving no one in charge. And Pergamos, though it had been a tiny walled city-state at the time, ended up aggregating to itself the entire northern territory, and then at the end of the Attalid line, bequeathed it all to Rome.

The Return of the King of the North

The next time Daniel mentions the King of the North in chapter 11, it is when the Pamphylian Pirates, occupying the small crescent of land at Coracesium on the southern coast of Asia Minor, south of the Taurus mountains, began to terrorize Rome. Under Lex Gabinia (67 BC), Pompey had been invested with almost universal power over land, sea, and treasure within the Mediterranean Basin. With Rome now in possession of the Northern Territory after the bequest of Attalus, and the Pirates of Pamphylia operating from Coracesium which had been part of the the Southern Territory under Ptolemy, Daniel 11:40-45 played out in clear and apocalyptic detail, as we demonstrated in Pirates in the Bay.

The Pirates of Pamphylia had provoked Rome who now possessed the Northern Territory, and General Pompey was authorized to respond with swift and decisive force against the Pirates (Daniel 11:40-43). No sooner had he mopped up the Pirate Menace than he heard that “two kings are threatening all Asia” (Cicero, On the Command of Pompey, 5.12). Those “two kings” were Mithridates from within the Taurus mountains (North), allied with Tigranes (East), in fulfillment of Daniel 11:44a “But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy…”.

Just as important as the literal fulfillment of Daniel 11:40-45 is the Scriptural evidence that the Northern Leopard is the wounded head of Revelation 13. Decapitated in Daniel 11:18 at the battle of Magnesia (190 BC), it is resurrected from Pergamon, the seat and dwelling place of Satan (Revelation 2:13), then bequeathed to Rome (133 BC) who, in the resurrected Northern head (Daniel 11:40), then ascends to the cusp of Empire (67 BC), arising as the fourth Beast of Daniel 7. And almost as if on cue, Roman Catholics now boast that the entirety of the Roman Empire was then bequeathed to Roman Catholicism (a fact we most emphatically affirm (Revelation 17:13)).

And thus, while John observes the rise of the Satanic power of the Beast of Revelation 13, which itself received its power, seat and great authority from Satan, he pauses momentarily to take note that one of its heads had been wounded to death, and then, to his surprise, that it had been healed. The terrifying truth that astonished John was that the people of the earth who wondered after the Beast thinking they had found Christ’s apostolic religion had in truth actually joined a religion of Satan worship:

“And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast. And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast … ” (Revelation 13:3-4a)

By an act of war, the rising Roman republic had neutralized the threat of the Northern head, and exiled him from the Northern territory. In a remarkable turn for that era, Rome simply expelled him and left no one in charge of his former dominions. A long line of northern antagonists had simply ended. But that head eventually grew back, starting from, of all places, the tiny city-state of Pergamos “where Satan’s seat is: and … where Satan dwelleth” (Revelation 2:13). According to Revelation 13, that head wound bears momentous and Satanic implications, and we are bidden to take note of it, as John did.

Jesus once said, “He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me” (John 12:44) and “the Father seeketh such to worship him” (John 4:23). To believe on the Messenger is to believe on the One Who sent Him. To follow the Son is to worship the Father.

These same principles apply to Roman Catholicism. Whoever trusts in the religion of Rome, trusts not in her but in him who sent her. And similarly, those who “worshipped the beast” in fact “worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast.” To follow the Beast is to worship Satan. And that awful, mortal head wound is what John notices every time he reminds us of that cold, hard truth.