Have The Prophecies In Revelation 17-18 About Babylon Been Fulfilled? Part 4

By Andrew M. Woods

[Andrew M. Woods is Associate Professor of Bible and Theology, The College of Biblical Sudies, Houston, Texas, and Senior Pastor, Sugar Land Bible Church, Sugar Land, Texas.]

The previous three articles in this series discussed the fact that the textual arguments preterists rely on do not identify Babylon of Revelation 17-18 as first-century Jerusalem. Among the arguments discussed were Babylon’s harlotry, alliance, adornment, title, persecution, influence, sins, and wealth. This article continues this analysis by focusing on Babylon’s geography, incurred justice, and destruction.

Babylon’s Geographic Locale (Rev. 17:1, 3; 18:17-19)

John’s description of Babylon includes two geographic details that do not easily fit a first-century Jerusalem identification: Babylon’s location in the wilderness (17:3) and by water (17:1; 18:17-19).

Wilderness (Rev. 17:3)

Commentators differ on whether John’s depiction of the woman in the wilderness (17:3) pertains to John’s location in the valley of the vision or Babylon’s location in the wilderness.[1] Two reasons make the latter option more attractive.[2] First, the vision in Revelation 17-18 concerns Babylon, which was located in a wilderness, according to the Old Testament (Isa. 21:1, 9). Second, the only other uses of the word “wilderness” or “desert” (ἔρημον) in the Apocalypse are in 12:6, 14. Preterists understand this wilderness as a literal place called Pella, where the early church fled during the Jewish War.[3] Some futurists understand this wilderness as a literal place called Petra, to which the nation Israel will escape during the Tribulation in fleeing from the wrath of Satan and the Antichrist.[4] Thus a literal understanding of the wilderness in chapter 12 may also indicate a literal understanding of the same word in chapter 17. This point is strengthened when it is remembered that the woman in chapter 12 and the woman in chapter 17 are parallel.[5]

If this interpretation is correct, then the preterist Jerusalem view is weakened because the Scriptures frequently distinguish that city and the land of Israel from the wilderness. For example Ezekiel 20 distinguishes the desert from Canaan in describing Israel’s journey from the desert to the land flowing with milk and honey. Verse 15 clearly distinguishes the two: “Also I swore to them in the wilderness that I would bring them into the land which I had given them, flowing with milk and honey, which is the glory of all lands” (italics added). Also verses 35 and 38 draw the same distinction. The fact that Ezekiel distinguished the wilderness from the land of Israel is especially problematic for the preterist interpretation, since preterists see the book of Ezekiel, especially chapters 16 and 23, as the backdrop not only for Revelation 17-18 but also for the entire book of Revelation.[6]

Moreover, the portrayal of Christ’s temptations distinguishes Jerusalem from the wilderness since it records the first temptation as transpiring in the wilderness (Matt. 4:1; Luke 4:1) and the second as taking place in Jerusalem (Matt. 4:5; Luke 4:9). In addition, assuming that Matthew 24:15-20 and Revelation 12:6-17 depict the same event, Jerusalem cannot be associated with the wilderness; these chapters describe the woman or Israel fleeing from Jerusalem (Matt. 24:15-16) into the wilderness (Rev. 12:6, 14).

Preterist Chilton associates the wilderness of Revelation 17:3 with the flight of the scapegoat in Leviticus 16:10.[7] However, the scapegoat was sent away from the camp into the wilderness. So the flight of the scapegoat into the wilderness actually distinguishes Jerusalem from the wilderness rather than equating the two.

Chilton also attempts to connect Jerusalem with the wilderness by referring to the nation’s wilderness experience recorded in Numbers 13-14.[8] However, it should be observed that in order to suggest this connection, Chilton has to go all the way to the pre-Conquest era, before the nation was in the land, and long before the nation had ever taken Jerusalem as her capital. Bass also attempts to associate Jerusalem with the wilderness by referring to Hosea’s prophecy that God would one day judge Jerusalem and make her “like a wilderness” (Hos. 2:2-3).[9] However, it should be noted that Hosea’s prohecies were focused more on the northern kingdom than on Jerusalem in the southern kingdom. Also while Hosea’s prophecies pertain to how God will ultimately judge Israel, John’s emphasis is on Babylon before judgment.[10]

Waters (Rev. 17:1; 18:17-19)

Advocates of the view that Babylon in Revelation 17-18 is Jerusalem must also explain how their view harmonizes with John’s description of Babylon as a maritime, seafaring city. John said the city “sits by many waters” (17:1), and in 18:17 he used terms involving sea travel in describing those engaged commercially with Babylon. They include helmsmen (κυβερνήτης),[11] passengers (πᾶς ὁ ἐπὶ τόπον πλέων), sailors (ναῦται), and those who work the sea (τὴν θάλασσαν ἐργάζονται).[12] Thus Hitchcock concludes, “Jerusalem does not sit on many waters (Rev. 17:15)” as demanded by the nautical imagery of the passage.[13]

Carrington seeks to alleviate this tension by noting that the waters (17:1) are later defined as peoples (v. 15). He observes, “She is seated upon Many Waters. Geographically this is more untrue of Jerusalem even than of Rome . . . later on he [John] explains it: the Waters are Peoples and Multitudes and Nations and Tongues.”[14]

However, although the waters are later defined as people, literal waters may be in view in 17:1 in order to connect John’s vision of Babylon (v. 5) with the geography associated with Old Testament Babylon (Ps. 137:1; Jer. 51:13). In other words the waters may have a double referent, referring to both the people of ancient Babylon and the geography of that city. After noting that the waters represent people, Mounce observes that “the imagery of the waters comes from Jer 51:13 where Babylon is pictured as dwelling by many waters.”[15] Even if the waters refer only to people, as Carrington contends, the problem is not solved for preterists because the nautical terms in Revelation 18:17 also depict Babylon’s location by the water. Bass tries to harmonize the water imagery with first-century Jerusalem in the following way.

Tens of thousands of visitors came to Jerusalem every year for its various feasts. A large portion of these would come by ship. In addition, the trading in Israel by way of the sea would by no means be small. Added to this were the economics of fishing in the Sea of Galilee and also the fact that many men were employed in the brisk trade involving the salt industry in Qumran in the Dead Sea area. In short, shipmasters, passengers, and sailors from three different but large bodies of water would be hit hard by the destruction of Jerusalem.[16]

While this view is possible, the question is how it compares with competing views. Even Jerusalem-advocate Beagley remarks, “Josephine Ford wishes, improbably, to include here ‘sailors from the Sea of Galilee and men employed in the brisk trade involving the salt industry at Qumran in the Dead Sea area.’ “[17] This improbability about the maritime details of Revelation 17-18 is related to Jerusalem’s landlocked status. In contrast to John’s vision Jerusalem is situated fourteen miles west of the Dead Sea, thirty-three miles east of the Mediterranean, and sixty miles south of the Sea of Galilee.[18] Therefore “unlike many other ancient cities, Jerusalem is neither a harbor city nor a city situated on trade routes.”[19]

Many writers argue that Tyre furnishes the background for much of John’s discussion of Babylon in Revelation 17-18.[20] Perhaps Tyre is used in this way since she, like Babylon in chapters 17-18, was situated by waters. Ezekiel 27:3 refers to Tyre dwelling “at the entrance to the sea.” When Tyre is overthrown, she “will fall into the heart of the seas” (v. 21) By contrast, Scripture does not depict Jerusalem as next to the sea. Rather it portrays her as dwelling “between the seas” (Dan. 11:45). Regarding Jerusalem’s topography, Fruchtenbaum notes, “The word for tent refers to a military tent of a general, and the word for palace to a royal tent. It is a royal tent of a military general (the Antichrist) that is set up. It is set up between the seas, meaning between the Mediterranean Sea and the Dead Sea. Furthermore, it is at the glorious holy mountain, meaning the Temple Mount, or Mount Moriah or Mount Zion.”[21]

Constable also affirms, “He [the Antichrist] will also return to Palestine. His headquarters there will evidently be in Jerusalem. The city stands between the Mediterranean and Dead seas. The NIV translation ‘at the beautiful holy mountain’ confirms this location since Jerusalem stands on Mount Moriah.”[22] This description in Daniel 11:45 should carry substantial weight in interpreting Revelation 17-18, since commentators of all persuasions readily acknowledge John’s literary dependence on Daniel.

The other views competing with the Jerusalem view seem to fit better at this juncture, since both Rome and Babylon were located on or near water. For example the Tiber River irrigated Rome.[23] Also the Sibylline Oracles routinely associate Rome with the Tiber.[24] Even preterists sometimes refer to Rome as “the great city of the Tiber.”[25] The Scriptures refer to ancient Babylon dwelling “by many waters” (Jer. 51:13) and to “the rivers of Babylon” (Ps. 137:1). The Old Testament prophets associated Babylon with nearby water through their allusion to the fishing industry (Hab. 1:15-16) and ships (Isa. 43:14) of the Chaldeans. John’s water imagery fits ancient Babylon well, since it was “crossed by the Euphrates and crisscrossed by numerous canals.”[26]

Extrabiblical sources also mention Babylon’s strategic position on the Euphrates River. According to Herodotus’ description of Babylon, “There are two divisions of the city; for a river whose name is Euphrates parts it in the middle.”[27] In his notes on Herodotus, Rawlinson indicates that the Euphrates from Samosata “is navigable without any serious interruption for nearly 1,200 miles to the sea,” that the river is thirty feet deep and 1,200 yards wide from Bursah to the sea, and that it is fifteen feet deep and two hundred yards wide at Babylon.[28] Wiseman explains how the nearby Euphrates River likely gave ancient Babylon access to the Persian Gulf.[29] Further evidence of Babylon’s maritime location can be seen when Alexander the Great arrived at Babylon after conquering the then-known world. In that time “it is said that Alexander dug a harbour at Babylon, large enough to be a roadstead for a thousand ships of war, and dockyards on the harbour.”[30] So in comparison with the competing Rome and Babylon views, the preterist Jerusalem position fails to satisfy the geographic requirements of Revelation 17-18. Unlikely is the view that first-century Jerusalem can be equated to a wilderness (17:3) or situated by many waters (17:1; 18:17-19).

Babylon’s Incurred Justice (Rev. 18:6-7)

These verses, which describe Babylon’s long-awaited justice, include two clues that preterists believe identify Babylon as first-century Jerusalem. First, preterists contend that the double-recompense language of 18:6—the notion that Babylon is to be paid back double for her sin—is scripturally applicable only to Israel (Exod. 22:4, 7, 9; Isa. 40:2; 61:7; Jer. 16:18; 17:18; Hos. 10:10; Zech. 9:12).[31] Second, preterists maintain that the “cup” of judgment that Babylon will experience (Rev. 18:6) identifies Jerusalem (Jer. 25:15-18). Beagley explains, “Again, the idea of punishment as being given a cup to drink occurs in the Old Testament in connection with Jerusalem; Jeremiah is being given a cup of wine of wrath and sent to make various nations drink of it; but Jerusalem is the first place named; later it is said that all nations are to drink from this cup and Yahweh begins to work evil ‘at the city called by [his] name’ (25:28).”[32]

However, both of these arguments are answerable. Several points can be made regarding the double-recompense language. First, some of the verses cited by preterists are unconvincing because they concern only double recompense on individuals rather than on national Israel (Exod. 22:4, 7, 9). Second, John was possibly applying double recompense language used of Old Testament Israel to a new situation in order to depict the severity of Babylon’s sins. Vos acknowledged, “This idea of double retribution does not occur . . . in any of the Old Testament prophecies concerning Babylon.” He then adds that the existence of the double-recompense concept in Revelation 18:6 merely “indicates the freedom with which the Old Testament passages were employed.”[33]

Third, though not using double-recompense language, the Old Testament has similar phrases that indicate that the judgment of literal Babylon is long overdue. Examples include the ideas of Babylon being repaid according to her deeds (Jer. 50:29), Babylon having done to her what she had done to others (Ps. 137:8), Babylon falling on account of the slain of Israel and the earth (Jer. 51:49), God exacting full vengeance on Babylon (Jer. 51:36), and God repaying Babylon according to what she deserved (Jer. 51:6).

Fourth, Keil explains why John’s double-recompense language might be just as appropriate for Babylon as for Jerusalem. In Jeremiah 50:21 the prophet called Babylon מְרָתַיִם, which means “double rebellion.” He notes, “This word, which is formed by the prophet in a manner analogous to Mizraim, and perhaps also Aram Naharaim, means ‘double rebellion’ or ‘double obstinacy.’ It comes from the root מָרָה, ‘to be rebellious’ against Jehovah and His commandments.”[34]

Several points can also be made regarding the cup of retribution mentioned in Revelation 18:6. First, unlike dispensationalists who debate whether chapters 17 and 18 describe different scenes or the same event, preterists see both chapters as transpiring simultaneously.[35] As Terry states, “The eighteenth chapter introduces no new subject, but is a continuous part of the apocalyptic portraiture of the fall of the harlot city.”[36] If these two chapters are speaking of the same event, then the cup in 18:6 is related to the cup mentioned in the previous chapter (17:4). Regarding the cup in 18:6, Bullinger notes, “The mingled cup refers us back to xvii. 4, and further identifies the two chapters. Babylon is now to drink another cup, herself.”[37] In other words Babylon will drink from the very cup she proffered to others. If the two cups are related in this way, a further problem exists for the preterist interpretation. As explained in a previous article, the cup of Revelation 17:4 is a golden cup that fits only an Old Testament description of Babylon (Jer. 51:7).[38] None of the examples given by preterists that associate Jerusalem with a cup mention a “golden cup” (Isa. 51:17-23; Ezek. 23:31-35; Zech. 12:2; Matt. 23:28, 35; 1 Thess. 2:16).

Second, the cup in Revelation 18:6 need not identify Jerusalem since the cup of judgment motif is also applicable to all the wicked (Ps. 75:8), such as Edom and Bozrah (Jer. 49:12-13). Third, while Beagley is correct in noting that Jerusalem is the first of the nations to drink after Jeremiah had been given the cup of divine wrath, it should be noted that Babylon represents the last of the nations to drink. Commenting on Revelation 18:6, Bullinger remarks, “Compare Jer. li. 7, and especially chap. xxv., where the cup of God’s wrath is sent to the nations (vv. 15, 16), and Babylon drinks last (v. 26).”[39] Both the first and last names mentioned in ancient Near Eastern lists are important. Preterists have chosen the first name on Jeremiah’s list in 25:18-26 when interpreting Revelation 18:6. However, it seems more consistent to follow Bullinger’s approach and select the last name mentioned, since John used the name Babylon rather than Jerusalem in Revelation 17-18. Associating the cup of punishment motif with Babylon is not unusual; Habakkuk followed the same practice (Hab. 2:16).

The above suggestions that the double recompense and cup of judgment in Revelation 18:6 more consistently refer to Babylon than Jerusalem is buttressed by 18:7, which quotes Isaiah 47:7-9, in Isaiah’s oracle against Babylon.[40] Even preterists acknowledge the source of this citation. According to Currie, “This passage is lifted almost verbatim from Isaiah’s description of the original Babylon before her destruction (47:7-9).”[41] The arrogance associated with Babylon’s declaration that she will sit as queen forever and never see widowhood or mourning (18:7) is consistent with what the rest of Scripture (Gen. 11:4; Isa. 13:19; Jer. 50:31; Dan. 4:30) and even extrabiblical sources reveal about Babylon’s pride.[42] Such arrogance is even evidenced in Babylon’s name, which means “gate of God.”[43] In conclusion the double recompense and cup of judgment concepts found in Revelation 18:6 do not refer to first-century Jerusalem. Especially when noting the surrounding context of the next verse (v. 7), these concepts are more consistent with a Babylonian interpretation than a Jerusalem interpretation.

Babylon’s Destruction (Rev. 18:2, 8, 10, 21-23; 19:1-6)

Revelation 18:2

Preterists contend that the notion of Babylon becoming a habitation of demons represents the fulfillment of Christ’s prediction that Christ-rejecting Jerusalem would ultimately be overrun by numerous, more wicked spirits who would make the city’s final condition even worse than her initial state (Matt. 12:43-45).[44] However, the problem with this view is that it treats Jesus’ illustration in an overly literal manner. Rather than communicating realities about demons, Christ’s statement is illustrative of the awful fate that awaited unbelieving national Israel in AD 70. As Toussaint observes, “The Lord uses the illustration of a demon who left his home and returned to find it empty, swept, and adorned.”[45] The illustrative nature of Christ’s words seems evident from the way He equated the house’s original, clean state with the moral reformation Israel had experienced under the preaching of John the Baptist. Glasscock warns, “As fascinating as these tidbits of information about the world of demons may be, the Lord’s intention was not to teach a demonology, and one must be careful not to become infatuated with the issue and miss His point.”[46]

Furthermore the heavy demonic influence communicated in Revelation 18:2 more naturally identifies Babylon. After all, between the Euphrates and Tigris rivers (Gen. 2:14) Satan initially caused the first human apostasy (Gen. 3). Also in the conquest of the Neo-Babylonian Empire (Dan. 7:12), demonic activity was so severe that it even prevented an angel from successfully dispatching a message to Daniel for a period of three weeks (Dan. 10). In their oracles against Babylon both Isaiah and Jeremiah used terms that are synonyms for demonic entities.[47] For example Isaiah 13:21 uses the term שְׂעִירִים, which may refer to “demons.”[48] Similarly Isaiah 13:21 and Jeremiah 50:39 use the term צִיִּים, which also can refer to “demons.”[49] The fact that Revelation 18:2 seems to be describing demonic activity in Babylon rather than in Jerusalem is strengthened by the phrase “Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great,” which is taken from Isaiah’s oracle against Babylon (Isa. 21:9). In conclusion the reference to demonic habitation (Rev. 18:2) does not identify Babylon as first-century Jerusalem; instead it harmonizes well with the literal Babylon view.

Revelation 18:8, 10

Jerusalem has not experienced the instantaneous destruction spoken of in 18:8, 10. Vanderwaal maintains, “Now, Rome was never destroyed in the same way that ‘Babylon’ . . . is destroyed in the visions of John.”[50] The same charge could be leveled against the preterist position, since Jerusalem’s fall was part of an elongated process spanning several years, whereas John stated that Babylon will fall in a single day (v. 8) or hour (v. 10). That the fall of Jerusalem was part of a long process is apparent from the way scholars typically refer to “Rome’s prolonged siege and destruction of Jerusalem from the late 60’s to the 70’s.”[51] Preterists also refer to the Jewish War of AD 66-70.[52] Luke used the plural noun ἡμέραι (“days”) in recording Christ’s description of the coming fall of Jerusalem (Luke 21:22).[53] Although a preterist might point to Jerusalem’s final fall as taking place more rapidly than the prolonged war of AD 66-70, certainly no one would contend that the city’s fall took place within an hour or day as depicted in the Apocalypse.

Hanegraaff seeks to escape this tension by pointing out that the temple was destroyed in a single day in fulfillment of Revelation 18:8.[54] However, this view alters the preterist position, which equates Babylon’s fall with Jerusalem’s fall rather than merely the temple’s fall. Almost all other preterists seek to escape this tension between the prolonged events of Jerusalem’s fall and John’s seemingly instantaneous depiction of Babylon’s fall by contending that the terms “day” or “hour” in 18:8, 10 do not convey a literal twenty-four hours or sixty minutes. Bass explains, “The phrase, one day (18:8), is not meant to identify a specific 24-hour period of judgment. Such literalism is foreign to Revelation; it is meant to identify the suddenness of judgment.”[55] Preterists are correct in their assessment that these terms are often used to connote extended periods of time. This is true not only with respect to the term “day” (Gen. 2:4; 1 Thess. 5:2; 2 Thess. 2:2) but also regarding the term “hour” (ὥρᾳ), especially in Johannine literature (John 2:4; 4:21, 23; 5:35; 7:30; 8:20; 12:23, 27; 13:1; 16:25, 32, 42; 17:1; 19:27; 1 John 2:18; Rev. 3:10; 14:7). The term “hour” is even used in this extended sense in reference to Babylon in Revelation 17:12.

However, four reasons make it more likely that the terms “day” and “hour” in 18:8, 10 should be understood in a limited or rapid sense. First, the terms are used together. While a case can be made that one of these terms standing alone can refer to an extended period of time, this argument is more difficult to make when both terms “day” (v. 8) and “hour” (vv. 10, 17, 19) are used in the same context.

Second, the likely background of Babylon’s fall in chapter 18 is the historic fall of Neo-Babylonia, which occurred in 539 BC (Dan. 5). Since that empire fell to the Persians in a single night (Dan. 5:30-31), there is no reason why the Babylon of Revelation 17-18 could not fall in the same short duration.[56]

Third, John compared Babylon’s fall to that of a millstone sinking into the Euphrates River (Rev. 18:21). The time necessary for a stone to sink is short rather than transpiring over an extended period of time. This is especially true, given the heaviness of millstones as described in this passage. It was like a great millstone (λίθον ὡς μύλινον μέγαν), and it took a strong angel (ἄγγελος ἰσχυρὸς) to lift it.[57]

Fourth, the destruction of the city will be sudden and violent. As Mounce observes: “The word translated ‘with such violence’ appears in its cognate verb form in Mark 5:13 to describe the herd of swine that rushed down the steep bank into the lake, and in Acts 19:29 of the crowd of people who rushed into the theatre in Ephesus. The huge millstone does not fall but is violently hurled into the sea. This stresses how suddenly and spectacularly the judgment of God will be executed not only upon an ancient city but ultimately upon the entire antichristian world in its opposition to God.”[58] “This suddenness and completeness of Babylon’s judgment and disappearance from the face of the earth is one of the prominent features of this prophecy: and it effectually proves that it has not yet taken place”[59] especially in the prolonged events of Jerusalem’s fall.

Revelation 18:21-23

John’s prediction in 18:21-23 that Babylon will not be rebuilt again after she is destroyed is incompatible with what is known of the fall of first-century Jerusalem. John conveyed the permanency of Babylon’s fall in several ways. The analogy of Babylon’s fall to that of a millstone indicates that when the city falls she will never rise again. Moreover, the phrase “not found any longer” and similar expressions are repeated six times in verses 21-23. In addition this section is replete with οὐ μή double negations (vv. 14, 21-23),[60] the strongest negative in Greek.[61] While preterists are confident that these prophecies of irreversible destruction were fulfilled with Jerusalem’s fall in AD 70,[62] the position faces several obstacles.

For one thing these prophecies could not have been fulfilled in the fall of first-century Jerusalem, since this Jewish city has been politically reborn in modern times.[63] Preterists seek to escape this tension by postulating that John predicted only the spiritual rather than the physical irretrievability of Jerusalem. Bass explains, “It is as the city of God that she has fallen, it is as the dwelling place of Jehovah that she is ‘found no more at all.’ “[64] Chilton contends that John’s prediction of Babylon’s destruction merely represents “evocative language” and the prophecy was fulfilled “in terms of its actual meaning and intent.”[65]

The problem with this view is that the items mentioned in verses 22-23, such as musicians, craftsmen, mills, lamps, marital partners, and merchants, are literal, physical items of commerce and social activity that are not meant to be understood as conveying only spiritual realities about Israel.[66] Interestingly even Ford uses the word “secular” to describe these items.[67] Balyeat seeks to attach a Jewish significance to these items by spiritualizing them. For example he says the bride and bridegroom represent Israel’s forsaken relationship with Christ, the millstone represents Israel’s commercial blessing under the Mosaic covenant (Deut. 28), and the lamp represents the light of God’s Word (Ps. 119:105).[68] However, the spiritualizing method of interpretation is fraught with so many difficulties that many scholars have rejected its practice.[69]

In addition, as explained earlier, preterists approach some sections of the Apocalypse literally.[70] However, they have opted not to do so regarding the items mentioned in Revelation 18:22-23. Moreover, according to Spargimino, preterists are four decades too late in suggesting AD 70 as the date when Jerusalem lost her special status before God. That forfeiture of blessing transpired when Christ was crucified, the temple veil was torn asunder (Matt. 27:50-51), and the Holy Spirit was given to the church. Although Jerusalem and the temple continued to exist for several decades after the crucifixion, the city represented a mere husk or outer shell of a Christless religion that had already fallen out of favor with God.[71]

Ogden seeks to avoid the tension between the prophecies on Babylon’s permanent fall and the reality of Jerusalem’s present, political existence by arguing that the items mentioned in Revelation 18:22-23 pertain only to the Jewish temple.[72] According to this view, Jerusalem will never again have a temple, and so the prophecy in those two verses has been fulfilled despite Jerusalem’s current existence. However, as explained earlier, chapter 18 is not referring to the temple because the word ναός never appears in this chapter, in contrast to its frequent use elsewhere in Revelation.[73] Ogden’s view also contradicts biblical texts that predict the existence of a coming temple in Jerusalem.[74]

Preterists also have difficulty correlating their view with prophecies of Jerusalem’s return to prominence (Isa. 2:2-3; Zech. 14:16-19). This issue is especially problematic for the partial preterist interpretation of Revelation 20:9. Although not identified by name, it is apparent that Jerusalem is in view in this verse since the term “beloved” city or an equivalent statement is used repeatedly in the psalms to depict Jerusalem (Pss. 78:68; 87:2).[75] Even Ladd and Simcox, while arguing against a literal fulfillment of the temple and sacrifices mentioned in Ezekiel 40-48, indicate that Jerusalem is clearly in view in Revelation 20:9.[76] This verse assumes Jerusalem’s existence and states that she will be surrounded by enemy forces (vv. 7-9). These facts point to her return to prominence. “At the end of the Millennium that city will be Satan’s prime objective with his rebel army, because Israel will be leader among the nations.”[77]

This notion of Jerusalem’s return to prominence in 20:9 is problematic for the partial preterist interpretation, since this verse is part of the futuristic section, according to Gentry’s system.[78] How can the prophecies of Babylon’s permanent fall (18:22-23) be speaking of Jerusalem when the partial preterist system also predicts a return of Jerusalem (20:9)? Preterists respond by arguing that the city in 20:9 is not meant to be interpreted literally.[79] Yet if preterists take the word “city” (πόλις) literally in contexts dealing with Babylon (16:19; 17:18; 18:10, 16, 18, 19, 21), why does that word in 20:9 not deserve the same literal interpretation?

Preterists cannot harmonize Revelation’s prophecies of Babylon’s permanent fall (18:21-23) with the present existence of Jerusalem and 20:9 or with the aftermath of AD 70. Contrary to preterist presuppositions, AD 70 did not result in Israel or Jerusalem’s permanent collapse. According to Safrai, “The Jewish people in the land of Israel were not reduced to total devastation. Not only was it able to wage war only one generation after the great destruction, but the population to a remarkable degree had recovered its numeric and economic strength by the end of the first century. . . . As a matter of fact, there is evidence to show that both during and after the war many Jewish farmers stayed on the land and cultivated it, and even owned it.”[80]

Also Jerusalem was not completely uninhabitable in AD 70, since a Roman legion was headquartered in Jerusalem after the war.[81] “Jerusalem was turned into a colony of Rome with a new legal foundation and a new temple and a new name–Aelia Capitolina (thus destroying the old shekel-based Jewish economy), and Jews were forbidden on pain of death to come even within eyesight of their former capital city.”[82] In fact “another revolt in AD 132 led to the rebuilding of Jerusalem (on a much smaller scale) as a pagan city, dedicated to Jupiter Capitolinus, from which all Jews were excluded.”[83] Appian similarly indicated, “Pompey . . . destroyed . . . Jerusalem . . . it was afterward rebuilt and Vespasian destroyed it again, and Hadrian did the same in our time.”[84] While it is difficult to harmonize the prophecies of Babylon’s permanent destruction with the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, it should be noted that such predictions correspond with what the Old Testament reveals about literal Babylon’s final state (Isa. 13:20; Jer. 50:3, 39; 51:37).

Revelation 19:1-6

Four issues related to the heavenly reaction to Babylon’s fall in 19:1-6 make it difficult to harmonize this section with the fall of first-century Jerusalem. First, why would the heavenly chorus rejoice at Jerusalem’s demise, when Jeremiah wept when Jerusalem fell in 586 BC (Lam. 2:11) and Christ wept at the prospect of Jerusalem’s fall in AD 70 (Luke 19:41)? This point becomes even more salient if the twenty-four elders (Rev. 19:4) represent the church.[85]

Vanderwaal notes that at this juncture, “the church gives thanks for the judgment on Jerusalem.”[86] However, such rejoicing would be out of place for the early church. Paul had earlier warned believers not to feel superior to the natural branches (Israel) that had been cut off (Rom. 11:18) because God was able to regraft them. If Israel’s rejection of Christ meant reconciliation for the world, how much more would her return to God bless the world (v. 12)? This instruction makes the whole idea of the church rejoicing over Jerusalem’s fall seem inappropriate.

Further, “‘Hallelujah’ means ‘Praise the Lord.’ Its only four occurrences in the New Testament are in this pericope (vv. 1, 3, 4, 6), though it occurs frequently in the Psalms.”[87] This expression is found in the liturgy of both Israel and the church.[88] If Israel longed for Jerusalem’s restoration and the church was instructed not to be arrogant over the excised natural branches, why would both Judaism and the church include the expression “Hallelujah” in their liturgical activity if it were synonymous with Jerusalem’s fall? Rejoicing (19:1, 4) is an unnatural fit for the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. But the concept harmonizes well with the fall of Babylon. Jeremiah 51:48 says, “Heaven and earth and all that is in them will shout for joy over Babylon, for the destroyers will come to her from the north.”

Second, in what sense did first-century Jerusalem burn forever (Rev. 19:3)? The perpetual burning of Babylon is communicated through the present tense “rises” (ἀναβαίνει) as well as the repetition of the noun “forever” (αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων). Chilton answers, “It is used here to communicate the permanent nature of Babylon’s fall. . . . The phrase thus cannot be pressed into service as a literal description of the eternal state of the wicked in general. The actual flames that consumed ‘Babylon’ burned out long ago; but her punishment was eternal. She will never be resurrected.”[89]

However, as has been pointed out several times in these articles, this instance represents yet another case of selective nonliteral interpretation, since preterists interpret many other aspects of the Apocalypse literally.[90] Also preterists give no indication that interpreting the nearly identical expression ὁ καπνὸς τοῦ βασανισμοῦ αὐτῶν εἰς αἰῶνας αἰώνων ἀναβαίνει in 14:11 communicates anything other than a perpetual burning.[91] Why should not the almost-identical phrase in 19:3 be viewed the same way?

Third, the merism οἱ μικροὶ καὶ οἱ μεγάλοι (“the small and the great”) in 19:5 is found many times throughout Revelation (11:18; 13:16; 19:5, 18; 20:12).[92] The problem for the partial preterist interpretation is that the merism is also found in 20:12, which is in the futuristic section according to Gentry.[93] As explained earlier, Gentry interprets 20:7-15 futuristically while placing most of the rest of the book in the past.[94] Why should this merism be given a universal interpretation in 20:12 but a localized interpretation in 19:5 and in all the other appearances of this merism throughout the book?

Fourth, preterists say the expression “For the Lord our God, the Almighty, reigns” (19:6) refers to the realization of the kingdom. According to Bass, “The full establishment of Christ’s Kingdom as expressed in His Church is publicly secured and instituted at this point in the destruction of the church’s first great enemy and Christ’s unfaithful wife, Judaism, with these words: For the Lord our God, the Almighty, reigns (19:6).”[95] Rather than understanding 20:1-10 as describing the one-thousand-year earthly reign of Christ following His bodily return (premillennialism), Gentry says these verses speak of a spiritual kingdom that began in the earthly ministry of Christ, was proved in the destruction of Jerusalem,[96] and progresses all the way until the second advent that is said to occur in 20:9 (postmillennialism).[97]

While Gentry cites several passages as proof that the kingdom has begun (Eph. 1:3; 2:6; Col. 3:1-4),[98] Revelation is clear that the kingdom will yet take place “upon the earth” (καὶ βασιλεύσουσιν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, Rev. 5:10). Revelation nowhere portrays Christ as presently ruling from David’s throne. Instead it portrays Christ’s present position as related to the Father’s throne (12:5). In fact decades after His ascension[99] Christ in 3:21 drew a sharp distinction between His present position at His Father’s celestial throne and His future, terrestrial Davidic throne.[100] “Christ is here saying that, those who are spiritually victorious, will be rewarded (future tense of δίδωμι) by joining Him in His earthly Messianic reign, just as He overcame (aorist tense) and sat down (aorist tense) with His Father on His throne.”[101]

Four issues raised in 19:1-6 make identification of Babylon as first-century Jerusalem problematic. They include the unlikelihood of heavenly rejoicing over Jerusalem’s fall, the improbability of first-century Jerusalem burning forever, an inconsistent interpretation of the merism “the great and the small,” and the unlikelihood that Christ’s reign began in the first century. The textual details concerning Babylon’s demise (18:2, 8, 10, 21-23; 19:1-6) are incompatible with a first-century Jerusalem identification.

Notes

1. Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 8-22: An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1995), 285.
2. James Moffatt, “The Revelation of St. John the Divine,” in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1910; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 5:451; and Archibald Thomas Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, rev. ed. (Nashville: Broadman, 1933; reprint, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2004), 6:429.
3. David Chilton, The Days of Vengeance: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation (Tyler, TX: Dominion, 1987), 309.
4. For a defense of Petra as the place of refuge described in Revelation 12:6, 14 see Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology, rev. ed. (Tustin, CA: Ariel, 1994), 775-77.
5. This issue was discussed under the heading “Babylon’s Title” in the previous article (“Have the Prophecies in Revelation 17-18 about Babylon Been Fulfilled? Part 2,” Bibliotheca Sacra 169 [April–June 2012]: 223-40).
6. Phil Carrington even says that “the Revelation is a Christian re-writing of Ezekiel” (The Meaning of Revelation [London: S.P.C.K., 1931], 65; see also 273, 276); and Alan James Beagley, The “Sitz im Leben” of the Apocalypse with Particular Reference to the Role of the Church’s Enemies, Beiheft zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1987), 93.
7. Chilton, The Days of Vengeance, 446-47.
8. Ibid., 428.
9. Ralph E. Bass, Back to the Future: A Study in the Book of Revelation (Greenville, SC: Living Hope, 2004), 379.
10. As mentioned in a previous article under the heading “Babylon’s Alliance,” only two verses in all of Revelation 17—verses 16 and 17—deal with the harlot’s destruction (“Have the Prophecies in Revelation 17-18 about Babylon Been Fulfilled? Part 1,” Bibliotheca Sacra 169 [January–March 2012]: 89-91). Chilton observes that the word ἔρημον (“desert”) in 17:3a is related to the word ἠρημωμένην (“desolation”) in verse 16 (Chilton, The Days of Vengeance, 446). However, this relationship does not change the chapter’s emphasis on depicting Babylon before judgment, since Babylon’s destruction is not introduced until verses 16-17.
11. This same word is used in Acts 27:11 to depict a pilot of a ship.
12. Thomas, Revelation 8-22: An Exegetical Commentary, 339.
13. Mark Hitchcock, “A Defense of the Domitianic Date of the Book of Revelation” (Ph.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 2005), 175 n. 3.
14. Carrington, The Meaning of Revelation, 277.
15. Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, rev. ed., New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 320.
16. Bass, Back to the Future: A Study in the Book of Revelation, 407. See also J. Massyngberde Ford, Revelation, Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975), 306; and Arthur M. Ogden, The Avenging of the Apostles and Prophets: Commentary on Revelation, 3rd ed. (Pinson, AL: Ogden, 2006), 340.
17. Beagley, The “Sitz im Leben” of the Apocalypse, 109 (italics added).
18. Merrill F. Unger, Unger’s Bible Dictionary, 3rd and rev. ed. (Chicago: Moody, 1971), 387, 576.
19. Ronald F. Youngblood, F. F. Bruce, and R. K. Harrison, eds., Nelson's New Illustrated Bible Dictionary, rev. ed. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1995), 655.
20. This issue will be discussed in more detail in the next article in this series.
21. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Footsteps of the Messiah, rev. ed. (Tustin, CA: Ariel, 2003), 245.
22. Thomas L. Constable, “Notes on Daniel,” online: www.soniclight.com, 132 (accessed November 20, 2008).
23. Pierre Prigent, Commentary on the Apocalypse of St. John, trans. Wendy Pradels (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 486.
24. Sibylline Oracles 5.170; 8.60-64.
25. For example Milton S. Terry, Biblical Apocalyptics: A Study of the Most Notable Revelations of God and of Christ (New York: Eaton & Mains, 1898; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 430.
26. Alan F. Johnson, “Revelation,” in TheExpositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), 555; Prigent, Commentary on the Apocalypse of St. John, 486; and Thomas, Revelation 8-22: An Exegetical Commentary, 283, 289.
27. Herodotus, TheHistories 1.180.
28. George Rawlinson, The History of Herodotus: A New English Version, Edited with Copious Notes and Appendices, Illustrating the History and Geography of Herodotus, from the Most Recent Sources of Information; and Embodying the Chief Results, Historical and Ethnographical, Which Have Been Obtained in the Progress of Cuneiform and Hieroglyphical Discovery (New York: Appleton, 1889), 1:446-47 and n. 5.
29. “[Prisoners of war] listed in texts c. 572 B.C. found in the ‘vaulted building’ of the Southern citadel. . . . included. . . . one hundred and twenty-six men from Tyre who were shipwrights or mariners . . . were granted rations of 1/2 sila of (sesame) oil, that is the same as given to three mariners from Ashkelon and the royal princes from Judah held in Babylon. This may show that, though not personally named, they were engaged in directing the construction of a fleet of ships to counter Necho II’s Red Sea navy. These vessels, according to Herodotus, were to be floated down the R. Euphrates to a new port Nebuchadnezzar established at Teredon. In a similar manner Sennacherib had built ships in Nineveh which, when manned by men from Tyre, Sidon and Cyprus, were dragged overland from the R. Tigris to R. Euphrates at Opis and then floated down to the Persian Gulf. Egyptians given rations while on watch at the boat house (bīt sapānātu) . . . may have been involved in this also. The use of sapānātu implies a decked ocean going vessel” (D. J. Wiseman, Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon [London: Oxford University Press, 1985], 77-78).
30. Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander 7.19.4.
31. Beagley, The “Sitz im Leben” of the Apocalypse, 98. See also Iain Provan, “Foul Spirits, Fornication and Finance: Revelation 18 from an Old Testament Perspective,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 64 (December 1996): 94; Bass, Back to the Future, 402-3; Ogden, The Avenging of the Apostles and Prophets, 338; Chilton, The Days of Vengeance, 450; D. Ragan Ewing, “The Identification of Babylon the Harlot in the Book of Revelation” (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 2002), 76.
32. Beagley, The “Sitz im Leben” of the Apocalypse, 98.
33. Louis A. Vos, The Synoptic Traditions in the Apocalypse (Kampen: Kok, 1965), 33.
34. C. F. Keil, The Prophecies of Jeremiah,The Lamentations of Jeremiah, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, by C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, trans. David Patrick and James Kennedy (Edinburgh: Clark, 1866; reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2001), 430.
35. For discussion on this debate within the dispensational camp see Charles H. Dyer, “The Identity of Babylon in Revelation 17-18 (Part 1),” Bibliotheca Sacra 144 (July–September 1987): 305-13; and John F. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ: A Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1966), 257, 263.
36. Terry, Biblical Apocalyptics, 436. See also Foy E. Wallace, The Book of Revelation Consisting of a Commentary on the Apocalypse of the New Testament (Nashville: Wallace, 1966), 364.
37. E. W. Bullinger, The Apocalypse or “The Day of the Lord” (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1909; reprint, London: Samuel Bagster & Sons, 1972), 564.
38. This issue was discussed under the heading “Babylon’s Adornment” in the second article in this series (“Have the Prophecies in Revelation 17-18 about Babylon Been Fulfilled? Part 2,” Bibliotheca Sacra 169 [April–June 2012]: 219-40).
39. Bullinger, The Apocalypse or “The Day of the Lord,” 564. Sheshach (Jer. 25:26) is a cryptogram for Babylon (51:41).
40. Mark Hitchcock and Thomas Ice, Breaking the Apocalypse Code (Costa Mesa, CA: Word for Today, 2007), 172.
41. David B. Currie, Rapture: The End-Times Error That Leaves the Bible Behind (Manchester, NH: Sophia, 2003), 329.
42. See the Babylonian inscriptions depicting Nebuchadnezzar’s arrogance in Robert Koldewey, The Excavations at Babylon (London: Macmillan, 1914), 11-12, 168.
43. Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, eds., A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament: With an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic (Oxford: Clarendon, 1907), 93; and Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, trans. M. E. J. Richardson, rev. ed. (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 1:107.
44. Steve Gregg, ed., Revelation: Four Views: A Parallel Commentary (Nashville: Nelson, 1997), 424; Terry, Biblical Apocalyptics, 352, 437; Don Preston, Who Is This Babylon? rev. ed. (Ardmore, OK: JaDon, 2006), 118-19; Chilton, The Days of Ven-geance, 446-47; and idem, Paradise Restored (Tyler, TX: Reconstruction, 1985), 190.
45. Stanley D. Toussaint, Behold the King: A Study of Matthew (Portland, OR: Multnomah, 1980; reprint, Grand Rapids, Kregel, 2005), 167 (italics added).
46. Ed Glasscock, Matthew, Moody Gospel Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1997), 276.
47. Tony Garland, A Testimony of Jesus Christ: A Commentary on the Book of Revelation (Camano Island, WA: Spirit and Truth, 2004), 2:63.
48. Brown, Driver, and Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, 972; and Koehler and Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 2:1341.
49. Koehler and Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 2:1020; and Charles Cutler Torrey, The Second Isaiah: A New Interpretation (New York: Scribner, 1928), 289.
50. Cornelis Vanderwaal, Hebrews–Revelation, Search the Scriptures (Saint Catharines, ON: Paideia, 1979), 10:80.
51. Robert L. Thomas, Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New versus the Old (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2002), 458. See also J. Randall Price, “Historical Problems with a First-Century Fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse,” in TheEnd Times Controversy, ed. Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice (Eugene, OR: Harvest, 2003), 394-95.
52. Kenneth J. Davies, Babylon the Harlot City (Bradford, PA: International, 2000), 9, 14, 36-37; Joseph Balyeat, Babylon, the Great City of Revelation (Servierville, TN: Onward, 1991), 123; and Kenneth L. Gentry, “A Preterist View of Revelation,” in Four Views on the Book of Revelation, ed. C. Marvin Pate (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 66; and Currie, Rapture, 330.
53. Ironically the expression “days of vengeance” (Luke 21:22) is the basis for the title of Chilton’s preterist Revelation commentary.
54. Hank Hanegraaff, The Apocalypse Code (Nashville: Nelson, 2007), 151. See also Davies, Babylon the Harlot City, 30-31. For extrabiblical sources referring to the fall of the temple in AD 70 on the same day as its fall in 586 BC, see m. Taanit 4.6; and Josephus, The JewishWar 6.4.5.
55. Bass, Back to the Future, 403-4. See also Chilton, The Days of Vengeance, 451, 457; Ford, Revelation, 298; and Gregg, Revelation, 430.
56. Charles C. Ryrie, The Ryrie Study Bible: New American Standard Bible (Chicago: Moody, 1995), 2038.
57. Thomas, Revelation 8-22: An Exegetical Commentary, 343.
58. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, 337-38.
59. Bullinger, The Apocalypse or “The Day of the Lord,” 565, see also 575.
60. Interestingly the first double negation represents Babylon’s arrogant declaration that she will never see mourning (18:7). The subsequent double negations represent God’s countering Babylon’s arrogance by predicting her permanent fall (vv. 14, 21-23).
61. Such negation is particularly strong in 18:14 where οὐ μή is combined with οὐκέτι (“no longer”). Regarding the double negations in verses 21-23 Mounce observes, “The double negative οὐ μή with the aorist subjunctive expresses emphatic denial of the future. . . . The addition of ἔτι in each case strengthens the negative affirmation” (Mounce, The Book of Revelation, 337 n. 60).
62. Balyeat, Babylon, the Great City of Revelation, 119; Ogden, The Avenging of the Apostles and Prophets, 341; Davies, Babylon the Harlot City, 13; Chilton, The Days of Vengeance, 451 n. 6; and Carrington, The Meaning of Revelation, 289, 294. See also Josephus, The Jewish War 7.1.1.
63. Although what has been predicted regarding the city’s spiritual and physical rebirth has not been completely fulfilled, some dispensationalists still regard the current state of Israel as part of God’s end-time program (e.g., John F. Walvoord, Israel in Prophecy [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1962], 26).
64. Bass, Back to the Future, 408. See also Chilton, Paradise Restored, 190-91; idem, The Days of Vengeance, 463; and Davies, Babylon the Harlot City, 12-14.
65. Chilton, The Days of Vengeance, 461.
66. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, 338; and Prigent, Commentary on the Apocalypse of St. John, 513.
67. Ford, Revelation, 306.
68. Balyeat, Babylon, the Great City of Revelation, 106-7.
69. For an articulation of the dangers inherent in the allegorical approach see J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come: A Study in Biblical Eschatology (Findlay, OH: Dunham, 1958; reprint, Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1964), 5-6.
70. This issue was discussed under the heading entitled “Babylon’s Influence” in the previous article (“Have the Prophecies in Revelation 17-18 about Babylon Been Fulfilled? Part 3,” Bibliotheca Sacra 169 [July–September 2012]: 346-53).
71. Larry Spargimino, The Anti-Prophets: End-Time Prophecy and the Challenge of Preterism (Oklahoma City: Hearthstone, 2000), 150-51.
72. Ogden, The Avenging of the Apostles and Prophets, 340-41.
73. This issue was discussed more fully under the heading “Babylon’s Wealth” in the previous article (“Have the Prophecies in Revelation 17-18 about Babylon Been Fulfilled? Part 3,” Bibliotheca Sacra 169 [July–September 2012]: 357-61).
74. Dispensationalists note that these verses refer to a coming Tribulation temple: Daniel 9:27; Matthew 24:15; 2 Thessalonians 2:4; Revelation 11:1-2. The text that futurists most frequently point to that predicts a coming millennial temple is Ezekiel 40-48. For works predicting a future Jerusalem temple see Thomas S. McCall and Zola Levitt, Satan in the Sanctuary (Moody: Chicago, 1973); Don Stewart and Chuck Missler, The Coming Temple (Orange, CA: Dart, 1991); Thomas Ice and J. Randall Price, Ready to Rebuild (Eugene, OR: Harvest, 1992); J. Randall Price, The Temple and Bible Prophecy (Eugene, OR: Harvest, 2005); and John W. Schmidt and J. Carl Laney, Messiah’s Coming Temple (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1997).
75. Thomas, Revelation 8-22: An Exegetical Commentary, 425.
76. George Eldon Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 270; and William Henry Simcox, The Revelation of S. John the Divine with Notes and Introductions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1893), 185.
77. Robert L. Thomas, “A Classical Dispensationalist View of Revelation,” in Four Views on the Book of Revelation, ed. C. Marvin Pate (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 207.
78. Gentry, “A Preterist View of Revelation,” 46 n. 25; 86.
79. Bass, Back to the Future, 450-51; and Wallace, The Book of Revelation Consisting of a Commentary on the Apocalypse of the New Testament, 418.
80. S. Safrai, “The Jews in the Land of Israel (70-335 CE),” in A History of the Jewish People, ed. H. H. Ben-Sasson (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1976), 314-15.
81. Peter Schäfer, The History of the Jews in the Greco Roman World, rev. ed. (London: Routledge, 2003), 131.
82. David Laird Dungan, A History of the Synoptic Problem: The Canon, the Text, the Composition, and the Interpretation of the Gospels, Anchor Bible Reference Library (New York: Doubleday, 1999), 47.
83. D. F. Payne, “Jerusalem,” in New Bible Dictionary, 3rd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1996), 561. See also Unger, Unger’s Bible Dictionary, 578.
84. Appian, Syrian Wars 50.
85. The identification of the twenty-four elders has generated much debate. Some say they represent the Tribulation martyrs. However, this identification seems unlikely, since these martyrs will not be resurrected until later (Rev. 20:4) and are distinguished from the twenty-four elders (7:13-14). Others say they represent Israel. However, this identification seems unlikely, since Israel will not be resurrected until later (Dan. 12:2; Rev. 20:4). Moreover, Israel seems to be fulfilling an earthly role during the Tribulation period (Rev. 7; 12). Others say they represent the redeemed of all ages. Again this seems unlikely, since those from nonchurch age dispensations will receive their resurrected bodies at a later time (Dan. 12:2; Rev. 20:4). Still others say the twenty-four elders are angels. However, this identification seems unlikely, since John elsewhere distinguishes the twenty-four elders from the angels (5:11). The best view is that the twenty-four elders represent the church. John described the twenty-four elders the same way he described members of the church. For example he noted that they are crowned (2:10; 4:10), enthroned (3:21; 4:4), and clothed in white (3:4; 7:13). He also said they are redeemed (5:8-10). The New Testament typically uses the designation “elders” to depict church leaders (Acts 15:6; 20:17, 28; 1 Pet. 5:1, 5). The number twenty-four is used because that is how the Old Testament priesthood was organized (1 Chron. 24). The church is similar to (although not identical to) Israel in that the church is a priesthood (Rev. 1:6). Thus the number twenty-four is reminiscent of the church’s priestly function (J. Carl Laney, Answers to Tough Questions: A Survey of Problem Passages and Issues from Every Book of the Bible [Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1997], 333-34).
86. Vanderwaal, Hebrews–Revelation, 90.
87. Constable, “Notes on Revelation,” 163.
88. Johnson, “Revelation,” 569-70; and Prigent, Commentary on the Apocalypse of St. John, 519-20.
89. Chilton, The Days of Vengeance, 472 and n. 2. See also Bass, Back to the Future, 413.
90. This issue was dealt with under the heading entitled “Babylon’s Influence” in the previous article (“Have the Prophecies in Revelation 17-18 about Babylon Been Fulfilled? Part 3,” Bibliotheca Sacra 169 [July–September 2012]: 346-53).
91. Bass, Back to the Future, 329-30; and Chilton, The Days of Vengeance, 365-66.
92. Sometimes the order is inverted.
93. Gentry, “A Preterist View of Revelation,” 46 n. 25; 86.
94. Gentry understands both the thousand years (Rev. 20:1-6) and the eternal state (Rev. 21-22) as present realities. So by his own admission he mixes preterism and idealism at this point (ibid., 86). See also idem, He Shall Have Dominion: A Postmillennial Eschatology, 2nd and rev. ed. (Tyler: TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1997), 426.
95. Bass, Back to the Future, 413.
96. Gentry, “A Preterist View of Revelation,” 84. See also Balyeat, Babylon, the Great City of Revelation, 155, 226.
97. Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, 431.
98. Gentry, “A Preterist View of Revelation,” 85.
99. Even if the preterist early-dating scenario is correct, Christ uttered these words over three decades after His ascension. If the late date scenario is correct, then Christ made this statement six decades after His ascension.
100. Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 1-7: An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1992), 325; Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ, 99; and Bullinger, The Apocalypse or “The Day of the Lord,” 209-10.
101. Mal Couch, “Progressive Dispensationalism: Is Christ Now on the Throne of David? (Part I),” Conservative Theological Journal 2 (March 1998): 43.