I have written in the section on Revelation 13 about this previously, however, I thought a closer look was worthwhile, especially as the intersection of understanding prophetic language features including hyperbole, symbolic, figurative and literal uses of the text, along with less absolutist translation language. This is a short exploration of that thought in the context of Revelation 13:15-16.

This post IS NOT claiming that the traditional translations are incorrect, rather questioning whether the literal understanding is the only way they are legitimately able to be translated or understood.

Is Revelation 13:15 an example of hyperbole?

And it was given to him to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast would even speak and cause  (G4160) as many as do not worship the image of the beast to be killed (G615).

Hyperbole is exaggeration for effect. If your kids say they’ve been waiting for you to stop talking after church, “for forever”, that’s hyperbole. If you say to someone who isn’t actually trying to kill you “you’re killing me”; again, that’s hyperbole. Depending on context and purpose, you could be literal (i.e., misinterpreting their actions), hyperbolic, or metaphorical. In the case of Revelation 13:15, I have some evidence to suggest the passage is hyperbole.

Some reasons for my thinking:

1. The Beasts are symbolic: they are not actual beasts that come from the sea or earth. Thus, it should be considered whether their recorded actions are likely to be illustrative rather than literal or absolute.
2. We make the Beast in Revelation 13:14. It is not a literal empire, and it was borne out of a deception. But it is ours and fashioned in our desires wishful thinking about the Sea Beast.
3. The Beast can “speak” but is not described as being able to move or have authority.
4. It is just an image; it is doubtful that it could actually cause people to be killed by its own command. However, it can express the idea that people ought to be killed. The question is whether the Earth Beast would implement it.
5. Perhaps some governments in the past might execute people who would not worship them, but it was a minority of governments who would do that, and that is highly unlikely today. Governments today simply jail, exile, destroy their reputations, or financially strangle them, like the Canadian government did with the truckers protesting vaccine mandates, or simply impose movement or job restrictions.

Are there legitimate translation variants for Revelation 13:15-16?

If the Beast has no actual power, since it can only speak, there are two key words that the understanding of the entire verse rests on.

And it was given to him to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast would even speak and cause (G4160) as many as do not worship the image of the beast to be killed (G615).

cause (ποιήσῃ[1]):

The root is ποιέω (G4160) a reference to a generic term of action or performance. In this case, the Image Beast is speaking. Should the generic action of something speaking be to ‘tell’, ‘declare’, ‘command’, ‘say’, rather than ’cause’, ‘make’ or ‘force’? There are numerous examples where it is translated as ‘declare’ in the context of speaking (not all translations have translated it as “declare”) John 5:18; John 8:53; John 10:33; John 19:7, 12; 1 John 1:10; 1 John 5:10, and many others that could swap ‘make’ for one of the generic actions of speaking above (e.g., Matthew 12:16; Luke 5:33; Acts 5:34; 8:2; 23:12-13).

This actually makes more sense, for the Image Beast being given the power of speak and it then it declares/tells/commands something. Nowhere does Scripture say the Image Beast has the power to act or move, nor that it had temporal power or legal authority – remember, Revelation 13:14 says that we made this Image Beast.

Greek has many other words that could have been used to convey that the Image Beast ‘forced’ people to get the Mark of the Beast. In the context, I suggest that the generic verbs for the action or a Beast that has been given power to speak, would be more akin to ‘tell’, ‘declare’, ‘command’, or ‘say’, rather than any ability to force someone to do anything.

Killed (ἀποκτανθῶσιν):

One of the definitions by Strongs’ (ἀποκτείνω – G615[2]) is “to destroy, to allow to perish, whether literally or metaphorically.” Greek also has other words that convey killing, murder, etc rather than the more generic ἀποκτείνω (apokteinō).

Google translates “ἀποκτανθῶσιν “ as “get rid of” rather than “kill”. Strongs’ defines ἀπό as ‘separation, so as to put out of the way’. Perhaps it is, as Strongs’ says, it may be figuratively “to destroy” (Romans 7:11; Ephesians 2:16; 2 Corinthians 3:6) rather than literally actively kill. Likewise Mark 3:4 makes more sense in the context of ‘allowing to perish’ (also as per Strongs’) rather than actively killing, and some translations do translate it this way.

Thus the sentiment is that those who don’t take the Mark can and should be removed from society, or it is desirable that they should die/suffer, or be allowed to die. Perhaps the Media would wish death upon these people who refused the Mark, rather than mandating a lawful program to actively kill these people.

Conclusion

Just replacing these two key words with possible variants transforms the entire understanding of the passage.

Possible rendering:

And it was given to him to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast would even speak and declare as many as do not worship the image of the beast should be got rid of.

OR

And it was given to him to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast would even speak and claimed as many as do not worship the image of the beast should suffer, die and be separated from society.

This assumes that the verses can be legitimately translated this way – something I have yet to confirm. It would allow for a Beast to actually command for such people to be killed, and thus doesn’t restrict the possible actions of the Beast, while at the same time recognising the limitations of a Beast who has power to speak, but no legal authority.

I think this is a more likely scenario, even without considering hyperbole. If however, hyperbole is to be considered, it is no different than translating your child’s declaration that they’ve been waiting “forever” to “a long time”. Thus, even if the current translation is the best translation, it may still be hyperbolic and “translated” as suggested.

The real questions are whether (a) the proposed variants are possible, and/or (b) whether a hyperbolic understanding is warranted. Both stand independent.

I’m proposing that ’cause’ should be translated in a context of a speaking image with no temporal authority, and the verb should express speaking actions rather than physical actions.

If anyone has thoughts, I’d love some feedback.

---

[1] https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g4160/kjv/tr/0-1/

[2] https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g615/kjv/tr/0-1/